Reporting indicators: What do they indicate

The indicators selected for performance reporting reflectthe attitudes of state policymakers on the goals, values,and models for excellence for public colleges anduniversities.

NEW DIRECTIONS FOR INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCH, no. 116, Winter 2002 © Wiley Periodicals, Inc. 33

3

Reporting Indicators: What Do They Indicate?

Performance reporting for higher education adds to the adage that what getsmeasured is what gets valued. Measuring results may increase what is val-ued, but publicizing the findings is more likely to improve performance.Banta and Borden claim that performance indicators “can be defined as thegeneration of judgments about performance”(1994, p. 18). The indicatorspicked for reporting provide clues about what state policymakers want fromhigher education and offer insights into their attitudes toward public col-leges and universities. All programs of reporting, including those not man-dated in legislation, respond mostly to issues raised in external demandsfrom governors, legislators, and business leaders. Although coordinating or system officials in consultation with campus leaders may have picked orproposed the indicators, they knew that governors and legislators werelooking over their shoulders.

The underlying question is, what do the reporting indicators reallyindicate? The goal in this chapter is not just to describe and define the indi-cators but also to probe for their implication and intent. The answers canassist state and campus policymakers in devising reporting systems that canbetter attain the major purposes of demonstrating accountability, improv-ing performance, and responding to state needs. They might even add to thecredibility of public higher education in ways that could contribute toincreased state funding.

In this chapter, we seek answers to a series of questions. What types ofindicators are preferred in performance reporting—inputs, processes, out-puts, or outcomes? Do they reflect more the external concerns of state offi-cials or the internal concerns of the academic community? To what extent

34 REPORTING HIGHER EDUCATION RESULTS

do the indicators express the classic policy values of efficiency, quality,equity, and choice? What do the reporting indicators imply about the mod-els of excellence for public colleges and universities desired by state poli-cymakers? How do the answers to these questions about performancereporting compare with those reached for performance funding? Finally, towhat extent do the indicator types, concerns, values, and models of excel-lence differ between two- and four-year colleges and universities, and whatdoes this answer tell us about the attitudes of state policymakers towardthese two types of institutions?

Methods

Comparing the indicators in the twenty-nine study reports proved chal-lenging because the measures varied widely in number, content, and word-ing. Some programs link different objectives in a single indicator whereasothers list them separately. We constructed a common core of 158 genericindicators by combining measures with similar intent but different namesand by separating those with different purposes into distinct measures. Staffthen categorized each indicator by type, concern, policy value, and modelof excellence (see Appendix at end of chapter).

The analysis examines the implication and intent of the performanceindicators in two ways. The first uses the total number of generic indicatorsfor both performance reporting (158) and for performance funding (66) toidentify the percentages each program allocates to indicator types, concerns,values, and models of excellence (Burke and Serban, 1998; also see thischapter’s Appendix). The second makes the same calculations for the eightmost used indicators in performance reporting and performance funding,as shown in Table 3.1.

Common Indicators

Both programs exhibit a limited number of widely used indicators, but theperformance reports share more common measures than those for perfor-mance funding. In Table 3.1, the top eight indicators for both programs are

Table 3.1. Rank of Top Eight Indicators by Use

Performance Reports, Total Number � 29 Performance Funding, Total Number � 11

Graduation or retention 24 Graduation or retention 10Enrollment or race 21 Job placement 8Research, sponsored 20 Student transfers 6Student transfers 19 Faculty workload 5Tuition and fees 18 Institutional choice 5Financial aid 17 Licensure test scores 4Degrees awarded 16 Time to degree 4Licensure test scores 16 Workforce and economic development 4

REPORTING INDICATORS: WHAT DO THEY INDICATE? 35

ranked according to their usage. The items in bold type are the measuresshared by performance reporting and funding, which includes only threeindicators. The top eight indicators for performance reporting are used inat least sixteen of the twenty-nine study reports. Conversely, the top eightmeasures in the eleven cases of performance funding include indicatorsused by four or more programs. In other words, more than half of the per-formance reports use their top eight measures, but less than 40 percent ofthe funding programs apply their top eight indicators. Although analyzingall of the generic indicators gives some sense of their overall usage, focus-ing on the most popular indicators gives a better reading of the intent ofpolicymakers on the indicator types, concerns, values, and models of excel-lence where it matters most—on the most used measures.

Comparison with Performance Funding Indicators

Although Table 3.1 shows that both programs adopted few common indi-cators, more performance reports than funding programs used their mostpopular indicators. Performance reporting and performance funding stresssome of the same indicators, such as graduation, transfer, job placementrates, and licensure test scores (Burke and others, 2002; Burke and Serban,1998). Despite these similarities, performance reporting reveals increasedemphasis on total enrollments, student diversity, tuition and fees, and finan-cial aid. Apparently the issues of access, diversity, and affordability seemmore crucial to policymakers in performance reporting than in performancefunding. Conversely, funding programs paid more attention to efficiencymeasures such as faculty workload and time to degree. Clearly, performancereporting stressed more the inputs of enrollments, student diversity, tuitionand fees, and financial aid, whereas performance funding emphasized morethe outputs of graduation, transfer, and job placement. Performance fund-ing would naturally not reward increased access because state budgets forpublic colleges and universities already funded enrollments in campus bud-gets. In addition, this funding program would not add allocations forincreased financial aid because states fund the lion’s share of these programsfor public colleges and universities. The most common measures in perfor-mance funding favor the output category of efficiency and productivity, andthose from performance reporting emphasize the input category of accessand equity.

Two-and Four-Year Reporting Indicators

Although studies criticize performance funding for not including more mea-sures that encourage the special missions of community colleges, fundingprograms seem more sensitive than performance reporting to the differencesbetween the two types of institutions (Burke, 1997; Burke and others, 2002;Burke and Serban, 1998). Reporting programs use nearly identical indicators


for two- and four-year campuses. In contrast, performance funding inFlorida, Missouri, Ohio, and Tennessee have both shared and different indi-cators for their baccalaureate and associate institutions. Recent changes inSouth Carolina also apply the same approach. The use of identical indicatorsin performance funding in Arkansas for community colleges and baccalau-reate campuses has had dire effects, having contributed to the demise of thefirst effort at performance funding in that state (Burke and others, 2002;Burke and Serban, 1998).

Two- and four-year colleges should share some of the same measuresthat stress their common goals in providing general and specialized educa-tion. However, they should also have different indicators that reflect theirdiverse missions. Many four-year campuses have special missions inresearch and graduate studies whereas two-year colleges have distinct man-dates in workforce training and adult education. Failure to include moreindicators that differentiate the distinct missions of two- and four-year col-leges lends some credence to complaints that performance reporting repre-sents a one-size-fits-all indicator system, at least as applies to two- andfour-year colleges and universities.

Indicator Types. Whether used for reporting or funding, perfor-mance indicators fall into four types (Carter, Klein, and Day, 1992; Cave,Hanney, and Kogan, 1991; Richardson, 1994). Inputs involve the human,financial, and physical resources received to support programs, activitiesand services, such as funding, enrollments, and staffing indicators.Processes include the means used to deliver programs, activities, and ser-vices. Assessment of student learning, use of technology, and teacher train-ing constitute process measures. Outputs reflect the quantity of productsactually produced—degrees awarded, retention or graduation rates, andsponsored research funding. Outcomes cover the quality of programs, activ-ities, and services or their benefits to students, states, and society. Testscores, job placements, and satisfaction surveys results of students, alumni,and employers represent common outcomes measures. Some writers stopwith outputs and include the concept of outcomes within that designation(Cave, Hanney, and Kogan, 1991). We see outputs and outcomes as dif-ferent enough that they require separate designations because outputs con-note quantity and outcomes quality.

The four indicator types have different characteristics and objectives, butoperationally they are related. Successful indicator systems—whether at the state, system, or campus levels—should link all four types in an input-process-output-outcome model (Borden and Bottrill, 1994) or Astin’s input-environment-outcome concept (1991). For example, at the campuslevel, the input of the academic preparation of students requires different pro-cesses of teaching and learning to produce the output of graduation and thedesired outcomes in life and careers. In other words, the processes shouldmatch the inputs to produce desired outputs and outcomes. Unfortunately,none of the programs studied in performance reporting or funding follow this

NEW ACCOUNTABILITY: FROM REGULATION TO RESULTS 37

prescription, although the state university system in Florida initially proposedsuch an approach in a performance budgeting proposal. All too often, stateand campus policymakers consider performance indicators as isolated ratherthan related items that should reinforce each other. The advocates ofperformance-based management and programs forget this connection whenthey belittle inputs and processes and laud outputs and outcomes. Both per-formance reporting and funding may include too many input and processindicators and too few output and outcome indicators, but all performanceprograms should recognize the interaction of all four types of perfor-mance measures.

Designing the four types of indicators involves different levels of dif-ficulty and controversy. Inputs and outputs with their emphasis on quan-tity are easy to count and, at least on the surface, to assess. Consequently,they are less controversial than the other types, although outputs such asretention and graduation rates stir opposition, especially from communitycolleges, because of their part-time and nontraditional students. Outcomespresent by far the greatest difficulty and arouse the most controversy. Theyattempt to capture the elusive characteristics of quality in undergraduateeducation and its benefits to external society. Judgments on these charac-teristics are always subjective and never self-evident. Quality and benefitvary with the eye of the beholder. The multiple stakeholders of students,parents, governors, legislators, business leaders, and the general publicdefine quality differently depending on their interests. Processes are alsodifficult to measure but are far less controversial on campus than outcomesor even outputs. Colleges and universities divided by their disciplines anddepartment focus more on processes than products, whether outputs oroutcomes. Conversely, governors and legislators often see input indicatorsas pleas for additional resources and view processes as vague measures ofquality that lack the comparability required to assess statewide or institu-tional performance.

Figure 3.1 shows the percentages by indicator types for the total num-ber of indicators for performance reporting and performance funding.Performance reporting has more than twice the percentage of input indica-tors than performance funding. In contrast, funding programs rely on morethan double the percentage of process measures than reporting initiatives.The increased emphasis on inputs in the performance reports stems fromtheir stress on access, affordability, and diversity. Reporting also showssomewhat higher percentages of outputs and outcomes indicators than per-formance funding. The heavy use of process measures in performance fund-ing is surprising because the rationale for most of these programs extolledshifting funding from process and inputs to outcomes and outputs.

The reliance of performance funding on process indicators may arisein part from the lack of acceptance in the academic community of stan-dardized testing. Only three of the eleven programs in one study includedstandardized tests in general education and academic majors. Instead, they


relied on process measures such as course availability, class size, student-faculty ratios, and program review. In addition, process indicators provedless controversial to administrators and faculty than outcome indicators(Burke and others, 2002; Burke and Serban, 1998).

Indicator Types and the Most Popular Measures. Comparing theeight most popular indicators rather than their total number reveals somedifferences in emphasis between the two programs of reporting and fund-ing. The reporting indicators have 37 percent inputs, 37 percent outputs,and 13 percent outcome measures. The student transfer (13 percent) is amixed type—an input for baccalaureate campuses but an output for two-year colleges. The absence of process measures and the increased stress onoutputs represents the most significant change for the top eight indicatorsof performance reporting. Those for performance funding show 25 percentinput, 37 percent process, 25 percent outcomes, the mixed input-outputmeasure of student transfers (13 percent), and no output measures. Themajor change in the most popular indicators for performance fundingcomes in the elimination of output, a diminished emphasis on process, andincreased interest in outcomes measures.

Indicator Types and Two- and Four-Year Institutions. Both two-and four-year institutions use indicator types for performance reporting thatshow only small differences (Figure 3.2). Baccalaureate colleges and uni-versities have slightly more input and outcome indicators whereas com-munity and technical colleges have more process and output measures.Much of the difference of inputs and outputs for these two types arises fromtransfers, an output from two-year colleges and an input for four-year insti-tutions. Given the differences of missions between two- and four-year col-leges and universities, more differences in the types of indicators would beanticipated. With the community colleges’ focus on the dual goals of pro-ducing graduates for the workforce and baccalaureate transfer, more empha-sis on output measures would be expected. A partial explanation for thisless-than-expected emphasis is that several reports do not apply graduationrates—by far the most important output measure—to two-year collegesbecause of their large enrollments of part-time and nontraditional studentswho may not wish to complete a degree.

3%

18%23%

20%

36%

6%12%

19%

48%

15%

Inputs Process Outputs Outcomes Mixed

Performance Reporting IndicatorsPerformance Funding Indicators

Figure 3.1. Performance Reporting and Funding Indicators by Type


External or Internal Concerns

An important policy question is whether the selected indicators express theexternal concerns of states and society or the internal concerns of the aca-demic community. External concerns clearly dominate performance report-ing. Over two-thirds of the total reporting indicators reflect externalconcerns, only a fifth internal concerns, and the rest a mixture of both con-cerns (Figure 3.3). In performance funding, external concerns also over-whelm internal interests. When the top eight indicators used forperformance reporting are analyzed, the predominance of external concernsincreases. No less than six of eight indicators for reporting suggest externalconcerns, and two a combination of external and internal. Using the topeight indicators for performance funding shows that external concerns gen-erate seven measures, with only one coming from internal concerns.

External Focus and Program Initiation. The heavy external empha-sis on performance reporting is especially surprising. A natural assumptionis that the method of initiation would affect indicator selection, especiallytheir reflection of external and internal concerns. External concerns wouldbe expected to dominate in mandated-prescribed programs, where legisla-tion dictated the indicators. Yet, this method initiated only 28 percent of the

4%

15%

23%25%

33%

3%

20%20%20%

37%

Input Process Ouptut Outcome Mixed

Two-year InstitutionsFour-year Institutions

Figure 3.2. Type of Indicators by Two- and Four-Year Institutions

13%20%

67%

15%21%

64%

External Internal Mixed

Performance Reporting Indicators Performance Funding Indicators

Figure 3.3. Performance Reporting and Funding Indicators by Concerns


twenty-nine study reports. In contrast, coordinating or system boards, inconsultation with campus representatives, launched the reports without leg-islation in 38 percent of the reports. They also proposed the indicators inmandated-not-prescribed programs, which constitute 34 percent of the pro-grams. The last two methods allow ample opportunity for expressing inter-nal concerns because coordinating officials in consultation adopted or atleast proposed the performance indicators. As a result, 72 percent of the per-formance reporting programs allowed educators to propose the indicators.Clearly, even in not-mandated programs of performance reporting, coordi-nating or system boards with their campus collaborators choose indicatorsdesired by governors and legislators to avoid a mandate.

The method of initiation affected substantially the indicators selectedin performance funding (Burke and Serban, 1998). In contrast to perfor-mance reporting, 64 percent of the funding programs in an initial eleven-state study came from mandate and prescription, but just 9 percentoriginated as mandated-not-prescribed and only 27 percent as not-mandatedprograms. Clearly, the initiation method explains the dominance of exter-nal concerns in the earlier performance funding programs, which over-whelmingly originated as mandated-prescribed programs. Recent trends inperformance funding have shifted the method of initiation to not-mandatedand mandated-not-prescribed initiatives (Burke and Minassians, 2001).

Previous studies show that the initiation method affected the choice of indicators in performance funding and had considerable effect on notonly indicator concerns but also the policy values and models of excellencefor public campuses reflected in the measures selected (Burke and others,2002; Burke and Serban, 1998). Our analysis suggests that this effect didnot occur in performance reporting on indicator concerns, values, or mod-els. The reasons for this result are unclear and require further study. Wecould speculate that coordinating officials and campus representativesseemed willing in mandated-not-prescribed and not-mandated programs toaccept the concerns, values, and models of governors and legislators forreporting, but not for funding. They appeared to accept reporting indica-tors desired by outsiders as the price of credibility in state capitols but optedfor funding measures more favored by academics. For performance report-ing, the price was right; for performance funding, the stake was too high toadopt indicators favored by governors, legislators, and business leaders.

Two- and Four-Year Institutions. As noted before, the performancereports failed to provide a sufficient number of distinctive indicators thatreflected the different mission of two-year colleges, especially for workforcetraining, older part-time students, and contract courses and services forbusiness and industry. This failure explains the small differences betweentwo- and four-year campuses on indicators reflecting internal and externalconcerns (Figure 3.4). Two-year colleges show slightly more external con-cerns—but not nearly as much as expected because community colleges bytheir charter and character are closely connected to community needs.


Conversely, four-year colleges and universities are usually thought torespond more to the internal concerns of their faculty. Obviously, the indi-cators used by both types of institutions in performance reporting respondoverwhelmingly to external concerns.

Policy Values

Public policies, including those on higher education, reflect the core socialvalues of quality, efficiency, equity, and choice (Richardson, 1994). Qualityconsists of achieving or exceeding high standards of performance. Ofcourse, quality is the most elusive of all the values, especially in higher edu-cation. It can be real or perceived. It can be an input (SAT or ACT scores),a process (assessment of student learning), or an outcome (licensure testscores). It is traditionally not an output, which suggests quantity. Efficiencycovers the calculation of the resources received in relation to the resultsachieved—or a cost-benefit analysis. It includes indicators such as gradua-tion or retention rates and time to degree. Choice constitutes the ability toselect from a range of options. An obvious example is campus-specific indi-cators left to institutional choice. Equity represents the response to the dis-parities in needs and the diversity among different groups. In the case ofhigher education, equity often relates to students admitted and staffemployed, as expressed in indicators on enrollment race and gender ordiversity of faculty and staff (Burke and others, 2002; Burke and Serban,1998). Of course, ascribing a value to a particular indicator is challengingand represents judgment calls.

Efficiency and quality indicators have nearly equal percentages in per-formance reporting (Figure 3.5). Reporting shows a lower percentage of effi-ciency indicators than performance funding, a significantly higherpercentage of quality measures, and much less interest in the combined effi-ciency and quality as a policy value. The surprise is the stress on equityitems in reporting as opposed to funding. Choice has few indicators ineither program. The striking trait in performance funding is the consider-able support for indicators that combine the characteristics of both quality

17%13%

70%

17%17%

67%

External Internal Mixed

Two-year Institutions

Four-year Institutions

Figure 3.4. Concerns by Two- and Four-Year Institutions


and efficiency. Funding programs devote much less attention to equity mea-sures than those for reporting.

The reasons for these differences require more study at the state level.One possible explanation of the differing emphasis on indicators that com-bined quality and efficiency is that for performance funding, more of its mea-sures have dual roles because the link to funding forces the inclusion offewer measures than performance reporting. Perhaps the different timing of the studies of performance indicators for funding and then reportingexplain the differences. The analysis of performance funding measureslooked at the ones in place in 1996–97 (Burke and Serban, 1998). The oneon performance reporting examined the indicators in place in 2000–01. Thefirst analysis occurred in the heat of the assaults on affirmative action. The second appeared in a period of growing concern that legal prohibitionswould devastate minority enrollment, especially in states where AfricanAmericans and Hispanics were becoming an increasing proportion of thetraditional college-aged students.

The balanced support for efficiency and quality indicators in both pro-grams and the combination of the two values in performance funding sug-gest a new concept of quality and efficiency in state capitols but not oncollege campuses. State policymakers view quality and efficiency differentlythan campus leaders. Governors, legislators, and business leaders increas-ingly see efficiency and quality as complementary values, whereas adminis-trators and professors traditionally view them as conflicting. Externalgroups think of quality in the external context of effectiveness, whichincludes both efficiency and quality. This combination reflects the newmanagement maxim that business, government, and educational organiza-tions not only can but also must improve both quality and efficiency.

Policy Values and the Most Popular Measures. Although using thetotal number of indicators for performance reporting and funding reveals abalance between quality and efficiency, looking at the values implied in theeight most used indicators for each tells a different tale. Three of the report-ing indicators represent efficiency, and not one implies quality, although

32 31

22

4 3

8

37

25

13

2

20

3

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Efficiency Quality Equity Choice Quality-Efficiency Mixed

Performance Reporting Indicators

Performance Funding Indicators

Figure 3.5. Performance Reporting and Funding Indicators by Value


two of them suggest the combination of quality and efficiency. One indica-tor reflects equity and another its combination with choice. The top eightmeasures for performance funding present a radically different array of pol-icy values. Fully six of the measures suggest efficiency, and none implyquality. One measure suggests quality and efficiency, and another choice.When it came to the most used indicators, quality clearly lost out to effi-ciency in both programs, more so in performance funding than in perfor-mance reporting.

One possible conclusion is that quality does fairly well when all of thereporting indicators are included because it has many possible measures: 31percent of the total. On the other hand, it lacks two or three generallyaccepted indicators that can compete with graduation, transfer, and jobplacement rates and can win admission into the top measures of perfor-mance reporting or funding. Clearly, more measures are no defense of qual-ity in indicator systems for higher education. The lack of emphasis on a fewquality measures may well reflect the reluctance of the academy to definemore clearly the critical elements of quality in undergraduate education.The solution is not to press for even more measures of quality, as campusrepresentatives are wont to do. These results suggest that the academic com-munity has failed to develop a few good indicators of educational qualitycapable of attracting internal and external support.

The difficulty of devising acceptable indicators of undergraduate learn-ing plagues both reporting and funding. Both programs show the reluc-tance of the higher education community to accept standardized tests as ameasure of educational quality, except in professional licensure examina-tions. Only two performance reports use standardized tests to evaluatequality in general education and the same number in academic majors.Three programs in performance funding adopt standardized tests in bothareas. On the other hand, 55 percent of the performance reports and 36percent of the funding programs include licensure test scores. Apparently,academics accept licensure examinations required by external organiza-tions for professional practice, but not standardized tests that evaluate thegeneral and specialized knowledge and skills acquired by their graduatesin the arts and sciences.

Given this resistance to standardized testing, more use would beexpected in performance reporting of satisfaction surveys of students(nine reports) and alumni (eight reports) as evidence of the quality ofundergraduate education. Results from student satisfaction surveys mayincrease as more colleges and universities adopt new designs, such as theNational Survey of Student Engagement, which is largely a process assess-ment (Indiana University Center for Postsecondary Research andPlanning, 2001). A limitation of that survey is that the publication of insti-tutional results is voluntary among participating campuses. To date, manyparticipants have not authorized publication. Surveys of employers (sevenreports) are becoming more common but require considerable effort and


costs. Reporting also relied on indirect measures, such as assessment ofstudent learning (seven reports), where five of the reports merely notedthat campuses had plans in place for assessing student learning. The othertwo were Missouri and Tennessee, which assessed student learningthrough testing.

Performance reporting reveals some continuing allegiance to the tra-ditional input-and-process measures of quality found in U.S. News & World Report. They use input indicators of SAT and ACT scores (ninereports), high school average (three reports), and faculty credentials (fourreports). The reports also assess quality through the old and inadequateprocess measures of student-faculty ratios (eight reports), class size (fourreports), and faculty teaching in lower division courses (nine reports).Frankly, even these inadequate indicators of quality, with the possibleexception of SAT and ACT scores, appear in only a small proportion of thetwenty-nine reports in this study. The decision of Measuring Up 2000,the state-by-state report card, to give an incomplete grade on the quality ofstudent learning (National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education,2000), should spur efforts to develop better measures of educational qual-ity. It will not be easy, but it is clearly necessary.

The reason performance reporting stresses equity indicators more thanperformance funding is unclear. Perhaps the different time periods of thestudies for funding and reporting, noted earlier, explain the differences.

Policy Values and Two- and Four-Year Institutions. Reporting indi-cators for two- and four-year institutions show only slight variations in thepolicy values of efficiency, quality, equity, and choice (Figure 3.6).Community and technical colleges have a higher percentage of efficiencyand a lower percentage of quality indicators than baccalaureate colleges anduniversities. However, neither of these differences is as large as would beexpected from their diversity of missions and goals. Again, the reason is thatmost reports used nearly all of the same indicators for two- and four-yearinstitutions. The percentages for the other values of equity, choice, and themixed values are almost identical.

33%29%

24%

4%7%

3%

30%33%

23%

5%7%

2%

Efficiency Quality Equity Choice Quality-Efficiency Mixed

Two-year InstitutionsFour-year Institutions

Figure 3.6. Policy Value by Two- and Four-Year Institutions

Models of Excellence

The indicators selected for reporting and funding suggest—consciously orunconsciously—models of excellence for public colleges and universitiesbecause they signify the characteristics that policymakers desire in suc-cessful higher education systems and public colleges and universities. Thediverse stakeholders of higher education mean multiple models of excel-lence. Astin (1991), Ewell (1994), and Richardson (1994) have developedmodels for public colleges and universities that reflect the interests and con-cerns of the stakeholders. Drawing on some of their concepts, this study andprevious ones on performance funding use three models of excellence forhigher education: resource and reputation, strategic investment, and clientcentered (Burke, 1997; Burke and others, 2002; Burke and Serban, 1998).

The resource-and-reputation model is the traditional faculty-orientedmodel. It combines Astin’s two models of resource and reputation into onebecause, as he concedes (1985), both produce similar results or ratings. Thismodel is provider driven because it reflects internal concerns of the aca-demic community rather than external needs of states and society. Theresource-and-reputation model relies heavily on input and process indica-tors to represent the resources and reputations of colleges and universities.It uses performance indicators such as SAT and ACT scores of new students,faculty credentials, faculty compensation, graduate education, and programreview. Professors tend to favor these measures as marks of quality collegesand universities.

The strategic investment model reflects a state-oriented model. It usesEwell’s concept of strategic investment that stresses the state’s interest inseeing its funding of public higher education from a cost-benefit point ofview (Ewell and Jones, 1994). Richardson (1994) also presents a cost-benefit model. This concept rests on the interests of state governments inderiving the most benefit from public colleges and universities for the leastcost. It stresses efficiency and productivity measures, such as graduationrates, time to degree, degrees awarded, and expenditures per student.

The client-centered model is primarily student oriented. It follows thecustomer- or client-centered focus of the quality movement and, to a lesserextent, the “good educational practices” model advocated by the NationalCenter for Higher Education Management System (1994). Supporting indi-cators include enrollment by race, gender, and age; tuition and fees; facultyavailability to students; and satisfaction survey results of students, alumni,and employers. The last measure suggests the expansion of this model toinclude other clients, such as businesses.

Analyzing all of the 158 generic measures shows that performance report-ing spreads its indicators fairly evenly across the strategic investment, client-centered, and a combination of these two models into a strategicinvestment–client-centered category (Figure 3.7). The resource-and-reputation

NEW ACCOUNTABILITY: FROM REGULATION TO RESULTSS 45

model generates much less interest. The percentage of indicators in perfor-mance reporting reflecting the client-centered model is two-and-a-half timesthat in performance funding but just half of the latter’s combination of thestrategic investment and client-centered type. Performance reporting seems tofavor the pure models of client-centered or strategic investment rather than themodel that combines the two. Both policies show considerable attention tomeasures implying strategic investment and slight support for resource andreputation. The combination of strategic investment and client-centered modelinvolves indicators that join cost benefit with customer service, like gradua-tion and job placement rates, workforce and economic development, andteacher training and K–16 collaboration.

Models and the Most Popular Measures. Looking at the eight mostpopular indicators, the emphasis in performance reporting tilts heavilytoward the combination of strategic investment and client centered and tothe pure client-centered models. Indeed, the other models do not attracteven a single indicator. The combination of strategic investment and client-centered model covers five indicators and the client centered three. Thecombination of strategic investment and client-centered model is even moredominant in performance funding. It garners six of the eight indicators,leaving strategic investment and resource-and-reputation models each withone measure. This dominance suggests the linkage between efficiency andproductivity in strategic investment combined with the responsiveness toclients that now includes students, states, and society. The client-centeredportion of this combination expands the notion of customers far beyondstudents to nearly every group in the state or society. Clients now coveredcommunities, businesses, schools, and nonprofit organizations. State gov-ernments—typically seen as the primary financiers of public higher educa-tion—became increasingly a critical customer, balancing the cost of theenterprise against the benefits to society.

These shifts in top indicators for both programs suggest a new defini-tion of effectiveness for public higher education and its colleges and


29

23

13

27

8

24

9

16

46

5

05

101520253035404550

StrategicInvestment

ClientCentered

Resource-Reputation

Strategic Investment–Client Centered

Mixed

Performance ReportingIndicators

Performance FundingIndicators

Figure 3.7. Performance Reporting and Funding Indicated by Model

universities. The traditional resource-and-reputation model focused in-ternally on the inputs of students, budgets, and faculty. In contrast, thestrategic investment–client-centered model focuses externally; combinesefficiency, productivity, and quality; and suggests an input-process-output–outcome model. The best institutions are the ones that make themost of the inputs of students, faculty, and resources through productivityand responsiveness in outputs and outcomes to the needs of students, states,and society.

Models and Two- and Four-Year Institutions The use of mostly thesame indicators for two- and four-year colleges and universities againdiminished the differences in preferred models by institutional type.Baccalaureate campuses exhibit more interest in indicators that reflect theresource-and-reputation model, but not nearly as much as anticipated.Conversely, community and technical colleges give more attention to thecombination of strategic investment and client-centered model. The twotypes of campuses show similar ratings of the models in performance fund-ing (Burke and Serban, 1998). The major difference is that both recordhigher percentages for the combined strategic investment–client-centeredmodel. Two-year colleges devote 56 percent and four-year campuses 52 per-cent of their indicators to this combined model.

If the baccalaureate campus—especially the research university—rep-resents the ideal of the resource-and-reputation model of excellence, thecommunity college embodies the exemplar of the combined strategic invest-ment and client-centered type. Traditional excellence for the baccalaureatecampus derives from the quality of the students admitted, the size of itsresources, and the reputation of its faculty for research. The community col-lege follows the new model. It is certainly client centered and offers big ben-efits for low costs. It focuses externally on community customers, admitsnearly all applicants, responds productively to their many needs, and con-strains costs. These are the characteristics of the strategic investment–client-centered model of excellence. Despite these decided differences, Figure 3.8shows only minor variations between the two types of institutions in themodels of excellence suggested by their reporting indicators. The only realdifferences show that the indicators for four-year campuses favor theresource-and-reputation model slightly more than those for two-year col-leges and that the reverse is true for the combination of the strategic invest-ment and client-centered models.

Findings

This study of reporting indicators suggests the following findings:

Two- and four-year campuses largely share the same reporting indicators.Performance reporting stresses the inputs of access and equity whereas per-

formance funding relies surprisingly on processes.


The indicators used in both programs stem from the external concerns ofstates and society rather than the internal concerns of the academic com-munity.

The most common reporting indicators show a strong shift to inputs, exter-nal concerns, efficiency, and the joint strategic investment–client-centeredmodel of excellence.

Unlike performance funding, the method of initiating performancereporting—mandated-prescribed, mandated-not prescribed, and not man-dated—seems to have little or no influence on indicator types, concerns,values, and models.

Coordinating and system boards and campus representatives accept report-ing indicators desired by outsiders as the price of credibility in state capi-tols but opt for funding measures more favored by academics.

Quality has a large number of indicators in the total generic measures butlacks a few accepted and robust measures that can compete with effi-ciency measures like graduation and job placement rates.

Governors, legislators, and business leaders view quality and efficiency ascomplementary goals whereas campus leaders see them as conflicting val-ues.

We have the following recommendations:

Two- and four-year colleges and universities should have some commonindicators to reflect their shared goals but different measures to encour-age their different missions.

Reporting programs should allow each public college or university tochoose a few indicators that reflect their special goals or missions.

State policymakers should carefully consider the desired indicator types,concerns, values, and models in designing the details of those programs.

They should link indicators in an input-process-output-outcome modelrather than add them as desirable separate items.


2623

10

32

9

2622

14

28

10

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

StrategicInvestment

ClientCentered

Resource-Reputation

StrategicInvestment–

Client Centered

Mixed

Two-year Institutions

Four-year Institutions

Figure 3.8. Model of Excellence by Two- and Four-year Institutions

The academic community should quit quarreling about inadequate indica-tors of student learning and devise collectively a few valid and reliable mea-sures that can win acceptance on college campuses and in state capitols.

Conclusion

Surveys show that both state and campus policymakers believe that select-ing indicators is the most difficult task in designing performance plans(Burke and others, 2002; Burke and Serban, 1998). On the other hand, alltoo often they adopt or accept performance measures without carefully con-sidering critical issues such as their types, concerns, policy values, or mod-els of excellence. The choice of indicator type causes conflict between stateand campus policymakers. The former opt for outputs and outcomes, andthe latter push for inputs and processes. Accepting the inputs-processes-outputs-outcomes approach aligns inputs with processes in ways that canproduce the best possible outputs and outcomes. This throughput modelensures that campuses tailor their internal process to suit their studentinputs, which encourages a diversity of missions of public colleges and uni-versities. The indicators used in performance reporting and funding stressexternal rather than internal concerns. Public colleges and universitiesneeded the external push to make them more responsive to the needs ofstates and society. On the other hand, successful reporting indicators shouldbalance the legitimate needs of external society and internal concerns of theacademic community. Colleges and universities should respond to the long-term educational needs but not the momentary wants of states and society.

Performance indicators should reflect all of the policy values of qual-ity, efficiency, equity, and choice. Like the indicator types, they are com-plementary, not conflicting. The changing attitudes toward equity anddiversity in admissions demonstrate the difference between the long-termfocus of higher education and the short-term interest of states and society.Whatever the attitudes of states and society, colleges and universities shouldinsist that equity and diversity are enduring values that are always worthyof their support. Finally, the models of excellence desired for public highereducation should direct the choice of indicators. The combined strategicinvestment–client-centered model reflects a new notion of effectiveness thatcombines quality, efficiency, and productivity in service to states, students,and society. This new model surely suits the mandated mission of publiccolleges and universities.


Ap

pen

dix

toC

hap

ter

3.

Rep

orti

ng

Ind

icat

ors

wit

hIn

dic

ator

Typ

es,

Pol

icy

Val

ues

,C

once

rns,

and

Mod

els

Indi

cato

rsN

o.of

Stat

esTy

pePo

licy

Valu

eC

once

rns

Mod

els

Aca

dem

icpr

ogra

mcu

ts1

Pro

cess

Qu

alit

y,ef

fici

ency

Ext

ern

alSt

rate

gic

inve

stm

ent

Acc

epta

nce

rate

4In

put

Qu

alit

y,ch

oice

,equ

ity

Inte

rnal

/Ext

ern

alSt

rate

gic

inve

stm

ent/

Cli

ent

cen

tere

d/R

esou

rce-

repu

tati

onA

ccre

dite

dpr

ogra

ms

3O

utc

ome

Qu

alit

yIn

tern

alR

esou

rce-

repu

tati

onA

dmin

istr

ativ

e,ac

adem

icco

sts,

staf

f10

Pro

cess

Effi

cien

cyIn

tern

al/E

xter

nal

Stra

tegi

cin

vest

men

t/R

esou

rce-

repu

tati

onA

dult

basi

ced

uca

tion

1P

roce

ssE

quit

yE

xter

nal

Stra

tegi

cin

vest

men

t/C

lien

tce

nte

red

Ass

essm

ent

stu

den

tle

arn

ing

7P

roce

ssQ

ual

ity

Ext

ern

alSt

rate

gic

inve

stm

ent

Bes

tm

anag

emen

tpr

acti

ces

1P

roce

ssE

ffici

ency

Ext

ern

alSt

rate

gic

inve

stm

ent

Bu

sin

ess

serv

ices

1O

utp

ut

Effi

cien

cyE

xter

nal

Stra

tegi

cin

vest

men

tC

ampu

sch

oice

ofm

issi

on-s

peci

fic

indi

cato

rs4

Pro

cess

Ch

oice

Inte

rnal

Res

ourc

e-re

puta

tion

Cla

sssi

ze4

Pro

cess

Qu

alit

yE

xter

nal

Stra

tegi

cin

vest

men

t/C

lien

tce

nte

red

Col

labo

rati

onam

ong

cam

puse

s4

Pro

cess

Effi

cien

cyE

xter

nal

Stra

tegi

cin

vest

men

tC

olla

bora

tive

purc

has

ing

1P

roce

ssE

ffici

ency

Ext

ern

alSt

rate

gic

inve

stm

ent

Col

lege

goin

gra

te2

Inpu

tE

quit

yE

xter

nal

Stra

tegi

cin

vest

men

t/C

lien

tce

nte

red

Col

lege

goin

gra

te,r

ace

2In

put

Equ

ity

Ext

ern

alSt

rate

gic

inve

stm

ent/

Cli

ent

cen

tere

dC

olle

gepa

rtic

ipat

ion

rate

14In

put

Equ

ity

Ext

ern

alSt

rate

gic

inve

stm

ent/

Cli

ent

cen

tere

dC

olle

gepa

rtic

ipat

ion

rate

,low

-in

com

efa

mil

ies

1In

put

Equ

ity

Ext

ern

alSt

rate

gic

inve

stm

ent/

Cli

ent

cen

tere

d

Coo

pera

tive

edu

cati

on,i

nte

rnsh

ips

3P

roce

ssC

hoi

ceE

xter

nal

Stra

tegi

cin

vest

men

t/C

lien

tce

nte

red

Cos

tof

degr

eepe

rst

ude

nt

1In

put

Effi

cien

cyE

xter

nal

Stra

tegi

cin

vest

men

tC

oun

type

rcen

tage

popu

lati

onse

rved

1O

utp

ut

Effi

cien

cyE

xter

nal

Stra

tegi

cin

vest

men

t/C

lien

tce

nte

red

Cou

rse

avai

labi

lity

2P

roce

ssQ

ual

ity,

effi

cien

cyE

xter

nal

Stra

tegi

cin

vest

men

t/C

lien

tce

nte

red

Cou

rse

com

plet

ion

s3

Ou

tpu

tE

ffici

ency

Ext

ern

alSt

rate

gic

inve

stm

ent

Deg

ree

atta

inm

ent

6O

utc

omes

Effi

cien

cyE

xter

nal

Stra

tegi

cin

vest

men

t/C

lien

tce

nte

red

Ap

pen

dix

toC

hap

ter

3.

Rep

orti

ng

Ind

icat

ors

wit

hIn

dic

ator

Typ

es,

Pol

icy

Val

ues

,C

once

rns,

and

Mod

els

(con

tin

ued

)

Indi

cato

rsN

o.of

Stat

esTy

pePo

licy

Valu

eC

once

rns

Mod

els

Deg

ree

atta

inm

ent,

ann

ual

earn

ing

2O

utc

ome

Effi

cien

cyE

xter

nal

Stra

tegi

cin

vest

men

tD

egre

eat

tain

men

t,em

ploy

men

tra

tes

1O

utc

ome

Effi

cien

cyE

xter

nal

Stra

tegi

cin

vest

men

tD

egre

esaw

arde

d,ag

e3

Ou

tpu

tE

quit

yE

xter

nal

Cli

ent

cen

tere

dD

egre

esaw

arde

d,fi

elds

10O

utp

ut

Effi

cien

cyE

xter

nal

Stra

tegi

cin

vest

men

tD

egre

esaw

arde

d,ge

nde

r4

Ou

tpu

tE

quit

yE

xter

nal

Cli

ent

cen

tere

dD

egre

esaw

arde

d,le

vel

nu

mbe

r16

Ou

tpu

tE

ffici

ency

Ext

ern

alSt

rate

gic

inve

stm

ent/

Cli

ent

cen

tere

dD

egre

esaw

arde

d,ra

ce5

Ou

tpu

tE

quit

yE

xter

nal

Cli

ent

cen

tere

dD

egre

escr

itic

alfi

elds

7O

utp

ut

Effi

cien

cyE

xter

nal

Stra

tegi

cin

vest

men

tD

egre

escr

itic

alfi

elds

,tea

cher

edu

cati

on1

Ou

tpu

tE

ffici

ency

Ext

ern

alSt

rate

gic

inve

stm

ent

Div

ersi

tyfa

cult

yst

aff

10In

put

Equ

ity

Inte

rnal

Cli

ent

cen

tere

dE

con

omic

impa

ct1

Ou

tcom

eE

ffici

ency

Ext

ern

alSt

rate

gic

inve

stm

ent

En

roll

men

tag

e11

Inpu

tE

quit

yE

xter

nal

Cli

ent

cen

tere

dE

nro

llm

ent

bycr

itic

alfi

elds

2In

put

Effi

cien

cyE

xter

nal

Stra

tegi

cin

vest

men

tE

nro

llm

ent

byfi

elds

5In

put

Effi

cien

cyE

xter

nal

Stra

tegi

cin

vest

men

tE

nro

llm

ent

degr

eele

vel

14In

put

Effi

cien

cyE

xter

nal

Stra

tegi

cin

vest

men

t/R

esou

rce-

repu

tati

onE

nro

llm

ent

fres

hm

en1

Inpu

tQ

ual

ity,

effi

cien

cyIn

tern

al/E

xter

nal

Stra

tegi

cin

vest

men

t/R

esou

rce-

repu

tati

onE

nro

llm

ent

fres

hm

enm

inor

ity

1In

put

Equ

ity

Ext

ern

alSt

rate

gic

inve

stm

ent/

Cli

ent

cen

tere

dE

nro

llm

ent

gen

der

10In

put

Equ

ity

Inte

rnal

/Ext

ern

alC

lien

tce

nte

red

En

roll

men

tn

oncr

edit

5In

put

Effi

cien

cyE

xter

nal

Stra

tegi

cin

vest

men

t/C

lien

tce

nte

red

En

roll

men

tn

ontr

adit

ion

al1

Inpu

tE

quit

yE

xter

nal

Cli

ent

cen

tere

dE

nro

llm

ent

off

cam

pus

1In

put

Ch

oice

Ext

ern

alC

lien

tce

nte

red

En

roll

men

tra

ce21

Inpu

tE

quit

yE

xter

nal

Cli

ent

cen

tere

dE

nro

llm

ent

resi

den

ce12

Inpu

tE

quit

yE

xter

nal

Stra

tegi

cin

vest

men

t/C

lien

tce

nte

red

En

roll

men

tst

atu

s8

Inpu

tC

hoi

ceE

xter

nal

Stra

tegi

cin

vest

men

t/C

lien

tce

nte

red

En

roll

men

tto

pst

ude

nts

6In

put

Qu

alit

yIn

tern

alR

esou

rce-

repu

tati

on

En

roll

men

ttr

ends

13In

put

Effi

cien

cyE

xter

nal

Stra

tegi

cin

vest

men

tE

xpen

ditu

repe

rst

ude

nt

5In

put

Effi

cien

cyE

xter

nal

Stra

tegi

cin

vest

men

tF

acil

itie

s,gr

oun

ds9

Pro

cess

Effi

cien

cyE

xter

nal

Stra

tegi

cin

vest

men

tF

acu

lty

age

1In

put

Equ

ity

Inte

rnal

Res

ourc

e-re

puta

tion

Fac

ult

yav

aila

bili

ty1

Pro

cess

Qu

alit

yE

xter

nal

Cli

ent

cen

tere

dF

acu

lty

com

pen

sati

on11

Inpu

tQ

ual

ity

Inte

rnal

/Ext

ern

alSt

rate

gic

inve

stm

ent/

Res

ourc

e-re

puta

tion

Fac

ult

yco

mpe

nsa

tion

,gen

der

3In

put

Equ

ity

Ext

ern

alC

lien

tce

nte

red

Fac

ult

ycr

eden

tial

s4

Inpu

tQ

ual

ity

Inte

rnal

Res

ourc

e-re

puta

tion

Fac

ult

yev

alu

atio

n,t

enu

red

facu

lty

1P

roce

ssQ

ual

ity

Ext

ern

alSt

rate

gic

inve

stm

ent/

Cli

ent

cen

tere

dF

acu

lty

eval

uat

ion

s1

Pro

cess

Qu

alit

yE

xter

nal

Stra

tegi

cin

vest

men

t/C

lien

tce

nte

red

Fac

ult

yge

nde

r,ra

ce6

Inpu

tE

quit

yIn

tern

al/E

xter

nal

Cli

ent

cen

tere

dF

acu

lty

mor

ale

1O

utc

ome

Qu

alit

yIn

tern

alR

esou

rce-

repu

tati

onF

acu

lty

nat

ion

alaw

ards

1O

utc

ome

Qu

alit

yIn

tern

alR

esou

rce-

repu

tati

onF

acu

lty

publ

icat

ion

s4

Ou

tpu

tQ

ual

ity

Inte

rnal

Res

ourc

e-re

puta

tion

Fac

ult

yra

nk

3In

put

Qu

alit

yIn

tern

alR

esou

rce-

repu

tati

onF

acu

lty

resi

gnat

ion

s1

Ou

tcom

eQ

ual

ity

Inte

rnal

/Ext

ern

alSt

rate

gic

inve

stm

ent/

Res

ourc

e-re

puta

tion

Fac

ult

y,st

ude

nt

eval

uat

ion

s2

Pro

cess

Qu

alit

yE

xter

nal

Cli

ent

cen

tere

dF

acu

lty

teac

hin

g,lo

wer

divi

sion

cou

rses

9P

roce

ssQ

ual

ity

Ext

ern

alSt

rate

gic

inve

stm

ent/

Cli

ent

cen

tere

d

Fac

ult

yte

nu

re3

Pro

cess

Qu

alit

yIn

tern

alR

esou

rce-

repu

tati

onF

acu

lty

ten

ure

,ge

nde

ran

dra

nk

3In

put

Equ

ity

Inte

rnal

/Ext

ern

alC

lien

tce

nte

red

Fac

ult

yte

nu

retr

ack,

race

3In

put

Equ

ity

Inte

rnal

/Ext

ern

alC

lien

tce

nte

red

Fac

ult

yw

orkl

oad

9P

roce

ssE

ffici

ency

Ext

ern

alSt

rate

gic

inve

stm

ent/

Cli

ent

cen

tere

dF

inan

cial

aid

17In

put

Ch

oice

,equ

ity

Inte

rnal

/Equ

ity

Cli

ent

cen

tere

dF

inan

cial

aid,

loan

s1

Inpu

tC

hoi

ce,e

quit

yE

xter

nal

Stra

tegi

cin

vest

men

t/C

lien

tce

nte

red

Fin

anci

alai

d,m

erit

4In

put

Qu

alit

yIn

tern

al/E

xter

nal

Stra

tegi

cin

vest

men

t/R

esou

rce-

repu

tati

onF

orei

gnin

vest

men

t1

Inpu

tE

ffici

ency

Ext

ern

alSt

rate

gic

inve

stm

ent

Fu

nd

bala

nce

s1

Ou

tpu

tE

ffici

ency

Ext

ern

alSt

rate

gic

inve

stm

ent

GE

Dpa

ssra

te1

Ou

tpu

tE

ffici

ency

Ext

ern

alSt

rate

gic

inve

stm

ent

Ap

pen

dix

toC

hap

ter

3.

Rep

orti

ng

Ind

icat

ors

wit

hIn

dic

ator

Typ

es,

Pol

icy

Val

ues

,C

once

rns,

and

Mod

els

(con

tin

ued

)

Indi

cato

rsN

o.of

Stat

esTy

pePo

licy

Valu

eC

once

rns

Mod

els

Gen

eral

edu

cati

ongr

adu

ate

sati

sfac

tion

1O

utc

ome

Qu

alit

yE

xter

nal

Cli

ent

cen

tere

dG

rade

aver

age

ofco

mm

un

ity

coll

ege

AA

tran

sfer

stu

den

ts2

Ou

tcom

eQ

ual

ity

Ext

ern

alSt

rate

gic

inve

stm

ent

Gra

duat

est

ude

nt

qual

ity

1In

put

Qu

alit

yIn

tern

alR

esou

rce-

repu

tati

onG

radu

ate

stu

den

tsu

ppor

t1

Inpu

tQ

ual

ity

Inte

rnal

Res

ourc

e-re

puta

tion

Gra

duat

est

ude

nts

wit

hu

nde

rgra

duat

ede

gree

s1

Inpu

tE

quit

yE

xter

nal

Stra

tegi

cin

vest

men

t/C

lien

tce

nte

red

Gra

duat

esba

ccal

aure

ate,

firs

tge

ner

atio

nco

lleg

e1

Ou

tpu

tE

quit

yE

xter

nal

Stra

tegi

cin

vest

men

t/C

lien

tce

nte

red

Gra

duat

esqu

anti

tati

vean

dw

riti

ng

skil

ls1

Ou

tcom

eQ

ual

ity

Ext

ern

alSt

rate

gic

inve

stm

ent

Gra

duat

esto

adva

nce

dde

gree

s5

Ou

tcom

eQ

ual

ity

Inte

rnal

Res

ourc

e-re

puta

tion

Gra

duat

esw

ho

part

icip

ated

inco

mm

un

ity

serv

ice

1O

utc

ome

Ch

oice

Ext

ern

alC

lien

tce

nte

red

Gra

duat

ion

rate

,3ye

ars

5O

utp

ut

Effi

cien

cyE

xter

nal

Stra

tegi

cin

vest

men

tG

radu

atio

nra

te,4

year

s5

Ou

tpu

tE

ffici

ency

Ext

ern

alSt

rate

gic

inve

stm

ent

Gra

duat

ion

rate

,5ye

ars

6O

utp

ut

Effi

cien

cyE

xter

nal

Stra

tegi

cin

vest

men

tG

radu

atio

nra

te,6

year

s17

Ou

tpu

tE

ffici

ency

Ext

ern

alSt

rate

gic

inve

stm

ent

Gra

duat

ion

rate

,7to

10ye

ars

3O

utp

ut

Equ

ity

Inte

rnal

Cli

ent

cen

tere

dG

radu

atio

nra

te,g

radu

ate

prog

ram

s1

Ou

tpu

tE

ffici

ency

Ext

ern

alSt

rate

gic

inve

stm

ent

Gra

duat

ion

rate

,tra

nsf

erst

ude

nts

7O

utp

ut

Effi

cien

cyE

xter

nal

Stra

tegi

cin

vest

men

t/C

lien

tce

nte

red

Gra

duat

ion

/ret

enti

onra

tes

24O

utp

ut

Effi

cien

cyE

xter

nal

Stra

tegi

cin

vest

men

t/C

lien

tce

nte

red

Gra

duat

ion

rete

nti

onge

nde

r1

Ou

tpu

tE

quit

yE

xter

nal

Cli

ent

cen

tere

dG

radu

atio

nre

ten

tion

,m

inor

itie

s9

Ou

tpu

tE

quit

yE

quit

yC

lien

tce

nte

red

Hig

hsc

hoo

l-co

lleg

ear

ticu

lati

on1

Pro

cess

Qu

alit

y,ef

fici

ency

Ext

ern

alSt

rate

gic

inve

stm

ent/

Cli

ent

cen

tere

d

Hig

hsc

hoo

lco

urs

e,du

alcr

edit

1In

put

Qu

alit

yE

xter

nal

Stra

tegi

cin

vest

men

t/C

lien

tce

nte

red

Hig

hsc

hoo

lco

urs

eta

kin

g2

Inpu

tQ

ual

ity,

effi

cien

cyE

xter

nal

Stra

tegi

cin

vest

men

t/R

esou

rce-

repu

tati

onH

igh

sch

ool

cou

rses

,adv

ance

dpl

acem

ent

2In

put

Qu

alit

yIn

tern

alC

lien

tce

nte

red/

Res

ourc

e-re

puta

tion

Hig

hsc

hoo

lex

ams,

adva

nce

dpl

acem

ent

3In

put

Qu

alit

yIn

tern

alR

esou

rce-

repu

tati

on

Hig

hsc

hoo

lgr

ade

poin

tav

erag

e3

Inpu

tQ

ual

ity

Inte

rnal

Res

ourc

e-re

puta

tion

Inst

itu

tion

alin

crea

se1

Inpu

tQ

ual

ity

Ext

ern

alSt

rate

gic

inve

stm

ent

Job

plac

emen

t13

Ou

tcom

eE

ffici

ency

Ext

ern

alSt

rate

gic

inve

stm

ent/

Cli

ent

cen

tere

dJo

bpl

acem

ents

,sal

arie

san

dw

ages

3O

utc

ome

Effi

cien

cyE

xter

nal

Stra

tegi

cin

vest

men

t/C

lien

tce

nte

red

Job

plac

emen

ts,s

alar

ies

byfi

eld

1O

utc

ome

Effi

cien

cyE

xter

nal

Stra

tegi

cin

vest

men

t/C

lien

tce

nte

red

Job

trai

nin

gco

ntr

acts

1O

utp

ut

Effi

cien

cyE

xter

nal

Stra

tegi

cin

vest

men

t/C

lien

tce

nte

red

K–

16co

llab

orat

ion

7P

roce

ssQ

ual

ity,

effi

cien

cyE

xter

nal

Stra

tegi

cin

vest

men

t/C

lien

tce

nte

red

Lib

rary

expe

ndi

ture

3In

put

Qu

alit

yIn

tern

alR

esou

rce-

repu

tati

onL

icen

seex

ams,

pass

rate

s16

Ou

tcom

eQ

ual

ity,

effi

cien

cyE

xter

nal

Stra

tegi

cin

vest

men

t/C

lien

tce

nte

red

Mis

sion

focu

s1

Pro

cess

Effi

cien

cyE

xter

nal

Stra

tegi

cin

vest

men

t/C

lien

tce

nte

red

Non

-gen

eral

fun

dop

erat

ing

supp

ort

1In

put

Qu

alit

y,ef

fici

ency

Inte

rnal

/Ext

ern

alSt

rate

gic

inve

stm

ent

Par

tici

pati

onpr

e-co

lleg

epr

ogra

mof

disa

dvan

tage

dst

ude

nts

1In

put

Equ

ity

Ext

ern

alC

lien

tce

nte

red

Pat

ents

,lic

ense

sdi

sclo

sure

s3

Ou

tpu

tQ

ual

ity

Inte

rnal

/Ext

ern

alSt

rate

gic

inve

stm

ent/

Res

ourc

e-re

puta

tion

Pre

para

tion

ofn

ewst

ude

nts

1In

put

Qu

alit

yIn

tern

al/E

xter

nal

Stra

tegi

cin

vest

men

t/R

esou

rce-

repu

tati

onP

riva

tefu

nd

rais

ing

5O

utp

ut

Qu

alit

yIn

tern

al/E

xter

nal

Stra

tegi

cin

vest

men

t/R

esou

rce-

repu

tati

onP

riva

tiza

tion

offu

nct

ion

s1

Pro

cess

Effi

cien

cyE

xter

nal

Stra

tegi

cin

vest

men

tP

rogr

amap

prov

al1

Pro

cess

Qu

alit

yE

xter

nal

Stra

tegi

cin

vest

men

tP

rogr

amre

view

1P

roce

ssQ

ual

ity

Inpu

tR

esou

rce-

repu

tati

onP

ubl

icse

rvic

e6

Ou

tpu

tE

ffici

ency

Ext

ern

alSt

rate

gic

inve

stm

ent/

Cli

ent

cen

tere

dR

emed

ial

acti

vity

effe

ctiv

enes

s14

Ou

tpu

t/P

roce

ssE

ffici

ency

Ext

ern

alSt

rate

gic

inve

stm

ent/

Cli

ent

cen

tere

dR

esea

rch

,ec

onom

icde

velo

pmen

t2

Ou

tcom

eE

ffici

ency

Ext

ern

alSt

rate

gic

inve

stm

ent/

Cli

ent

cen

tere

dR

esea

rch

spon

sore

d20

Ou

tpu

tQ

ual

ity

Inpu

t/E

xter

nal

Stra

tegi

cin

vest

men

t/R

esou

rce-

repu

tati

on

Ap

pen

dix

toC

hap

ter

3.

Rep

orti

ng

Ind

icat

ors

wit

hIn

dic

ator

Typ

es,

Pol

icy

Val

ues

,C

once

rns,

and

Mod

els

(con

tin

ued

)

Indi

cato

rsN

o.of

Stat

esTy

pePo

licy

Valu

eC

once

rns

Mod

els

Res

earc

h,

teac

hin

gan

dle

arn

ing

1O

utc

ome

Qu

alit

yE

xter

nal

Stra

tegi

cin

vest

men

t/C

lien

tce

nte

red

SAT

/AC

Tsc

ores

9In

put

Qu

alit

yIn

tern

al/

Ext

ern

alSt

rate

gic

inve

stm

ent/

Res

ourc

e-re

puta

tion

Sati

sfac

tion

,alu

mn

i8

Ou

tcom

eQ

ual

ity

Ext

ern

alC

lien

tce

nte

red

Sati

sfac

tion

,em

ploy

ers

7O

utc

ome

Qu

alit

yE

xter

nal

Stra

tegi

cin

vest

men

t/C

lien

tce

nte

red

Sati

sfac

tion

,fac

ult

y1

Ou

tcom

eQ

ual

ity

Inte

rnal

Res

ourc

e-re

puta

tion

Sati

sfac

tion

,stu

den

ts9

Ou

tcom

eQ

ual

ity

Ext

ern

alC

lien

tce

nte

red

Spac

eu

tili

zati

on1

Pro

cess

Effi

cien

cyE

xter

nal

Stra

tegi

cin

vest

men

tSt

aff

exec

uti

vem

anag

emen

t,ge

nde

r1

Inpu

tE

quit

yIn

tern

alC

lien

tce

nte

red

Staf

fex

ecu

tive

man

agem

ent,

race

2In

put

Equ

ity

Inte

rnal

/E

xter

nal

Cli

ent

cen

tere

d

Staf

fge

nde

r,ra

ce1

Inpu

tE

quit

yIn

tern

al/

Ext

ern

alC

lien

tce

nte

red

Stan

dard

ized

adm

issi

ons

test

scor

es2

Inpu

tQ

ual

ity

Inte

rnal

Res

ourc

e-re

puta

tion

Stan

dard

ized

gen

eral

edu

cati

onex

amsc

ores

3O

utc

ome

Qu

alit

yE

xter

nal

Stra

tegi

cin

vest

men

t

Stan

dard

ized

test

scor

es,

stu

den

tm

ajor

s1

Ou

tcom

eQ

ual

ity

Ext

ern

alSt

rate

gic

inve

stm

ent

Stat

eca

pita

lsp

endi

ng

1In

put

Qu

alit

y,ef

fici

ency

Inte

rnal

/E

xter

nal

Stra

tegi

cin

vest

men

t

Stat

eop

erat

ing

fun

din

g14

Inpu

tQ

ual

ity,

effi

cien

cyIn

tern

al/

Ext

ern

alSt

rate

gic

inve

stm

ent

Stu

den

tad

vise

men

t2

Pro

cess

Qu

alit

y,ef

fici

ency

Ext

ern

alSt

rate

gic

inve

stm

ent/

Cli

ent

cen

tere

d

Stu

den

t-fa

cult

yra

tio

8In

put

Qu

alit

yIn

tern

alR

esou

rce-

repu

tati

onSt

ude

nt

tran

sfer

19O

utp

ut/

Inpu

tE

ffici

ency

/E

quit

yE

xter

nal

Stra

tegi

cin

vest

men

t/C

lien

tce

nte

red

Stu

den

ttr

ansf

er,

gen

der

1O

utp

ut/

Inpu

tE

quit

yIn

tern

al/E

xter

nal

Stra

tegi

cin

vest

men

t/C

lien

tce

nte

red

Stu

den

ttr

ansf

er,

race

3O

utp

ut/

Inpu

tE

quit

yIn

tern

al/E

xter

nal

Cli

ent

cen

tere

dSt

ude

nt

tran

sfer

,u

pper

divi

sion

grad

eav

erag

e5

Ou

tcom

eQ

ual

ity

Ext

ern

alSt

rate

gic

inve

stm

ent

Stu

den

ttr

ansf

er,

cred

itac

cept

ance

1P

roce

ssE

ffici

ency

Ext

ern

alSt

rate

gic

inve

stm

ent/

Cli

ent

cen

tere

dSt

ude

nts

part

icip

atin

gin

rese

arch

3O

utc

ome

Qu

alit

yIn

tern

alR

esou

rce-

repu

tati

onSt

udy

abro

ad1

Pro

cess

Ch

oice

Ext

ern

alC

lien

tce

nte

red

Teac

her

aver

age

sala

ry2

Ou

tcom

eE

ffici

ency

Ext

ern

alSt

rate

gic

inve

stm

ent

Teac

her

empl

oym

ent

1O

utc

ome

Effi

cien

cyE

xter

nal

Stra

tegi

cin

vest

men

t/C

lien

tce

nte

red

Teac

her

exam

pass

rate

,rac

e2

Ou

tcom

eE

quit

yE

xter

nal

Stra

tegi

cin

vest

men

t/C

lien

tce

nte

red

Teac

her

trai

nin

g9

Pro

cess

Qu

alit

yE

xter

nal

Stra

tegi

cin

vest

men

tTe

ach

ertr

ain

ing,

race

2P

roce

ssE

quit

yE

xter

nal

Stra

tegi

cin

vest

men

t/C

lien

tce

nte

red

Tech

nol

ogy

dist

ance

lear

nin

g13

Pro

cess

Effi

cien

cyE

xter

nal

Stra

tegi

cin

vest

men

t/C

lien

tce

nte

red

Tim

eto

degr

ee,

cred

its

ongr

adu

atio

n10

Ou

tpu

tE

ffici

ency

Ext

ern

alSt

rate

gic

inve

stm

ent

Tim

eto

degr

ee,

cred

its

ongr

adu

atio

n,t

ran

sfer

s3

Ou

tpu

tE

ffici

ency

Ext

ern

alSt

rate

gic

inve

stm

ent

Trai

nin

g,em

ploy

edsu

peri

nte

nde

nts

and

prin

cipa

ls2

Ou

tpu

tE

ffici

ency

Ext

ern

alSt

rate

gic

inve

stm

ent/

Cli

ent

cen

tere

d

Tuit

ion

and

fees

18In

put

Equ

ity

Ext

ern

alC

lien

tce

nte

red

Tuit

ion

and

fees

,per

cen

tof

fam

ily

inco

me

2O

utc

ome

Equ

ity

Ext

ern

alC

lien

tce

nte

red

Un

derg

radu

ate

acce

ss2

Inpu

tE

quit

yE

xter

nal

Stra

tegi

cin

vest

men

t/C

lien

tce

nte

red

Wor

kfor

cetr

ain

ing

8O

utp

ut

Effi

cien

cyE

xter

nal

Stra

tegi

cin

vest

men

t/C

lien

tce

nte

red

Reporting indicators: What do they indicate

Documents

Transcript of Reporting indicators: What do they indicate