{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.019629225736095966, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0021810250817884407, 'mean_word_length': 5.8, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Evaluating the Impact of Performance Funding in Ohio and Tennessee

Today, 35 states use performance-based funding models tying appropriations directly to educational outcomes. Financial incentives should induce colleges to improve performance, but there are several well-documented reasons why this is unlikely to occur. We examine how two of the most robust performance funding states—Tennessee and Ohio—responded to the policy. Using a difference-in-differences design, findings point to null and negative effects where colleges responded by producing fewer associate’s degrees or not increasing bachelor’s degree productivity. The only positive and robust effects were found among Tennessee community colleges that responded by producing significantly more certificates. Findings are consistent with performance management literature, where policy impacts are often muted or limited to a narrow range of outcomes.