Assumptions underlying performance-based budgeting

Tertiary Education and Management

Volumn 5, Issue 2, 1999, Pages 159-174

  Schmidtlein, Frank A ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0001732488     PISSN: 13583883     EISSN: 15731936     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/13583883.1999.9966988     Document Type: Article

References (23)

1. Anderson, D., Johnson, R. & Milligan, B. (1996). Performance-Based Funding of Universities. Commissioned Report No. 51, Higher Education Council of the National Board of Employment, Education and Training, Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service.
2. Ashworth, K. H. (1994). Performance-Based Funding in Higher Education: The Texas Case Study, Change 26(6), 8-15.
3. Berdahl, R. O. & Holland, B. (eds.) (1990). Developing State Fiscal Incentives to Improve Higher Education. Proceedings from a National Invitational Conference. Denver, CO, November 1989. College Park, MD: National Center for Postsecondary Governance and Finance.
4. Bimbaum, R. (1991). American and Dutch Higher Education: The Myths and Realities of Steering, Leadership, and Autonomy. College Park, MD: The Department of Education Policy, Planning and Administration, University of Maryland.
5. Burke, J. C. & Serban, A. M. (1997). Performance Funding and Budgeting for Public Higher Education: Current Status and Future Prospects. State University of New York, Albany, New York: The Nelson A. Rockefeller Institute of Government.
6. Burke, J. C. & Serban, A. M. (1998a). Current Status and Future Prospects of Performance Funding and Performance Budgeting for Public Higher Education: The Second Survey. State University of New York, Albany, New York: The Nelson A. Rockefeller Institute of Government.
7. Burke, J. C. & Serban, A. M. (eds.) (1998b). Performance Funding for Public Higher Education: Fad or Trend?. New Directions for Institutional Research, No. 97, Spring 1998. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers, 108.
8. Camevale, A. P., Johnson, N. C. & Edwards, A. R. (1998). Performance-Based Appropriations: Fad or Wave of the Future? The Chronicle of Higher Education, April, 10, 1998, B6-B7.
9. Christal, M. E. (1998). State Survey on Performance Measures: 1996-1997. Denver, CO: State Higher Education Executive Officers, April 1988, 35.
10. Etzioni, A. (1964). Administrative and Professional Authority, Modem Organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 75-84.
11. Jones, D. (1995). The Time for Strategic Budgeting Has Come. NCHEM.S. News. Boulder, CO: National Center for Higher Education Management SysteM.S., October 1995.
12. Jongbloed, B. & Koelman, J. (1996). Funding MechanisM.S. for Higher Education: A Five-Country Based Survey With Special Reference to Performance Based Funding Approaches. CHEPS working paper for Higher Education Council, National Board of Employment, Education and Training (NBEET), Canberra, Australia. Enschede, The Netherlands: Center for Higher Education Policy Studies, University of Twente.
13. Kells, H. R. (1992). An Analysis of the Nature and Recent Development of Performance Indicators in Higher Education, Higher Education Management 4(2), 131-138.
14. Minnesota Higher Education Coordinating Board (1992). State Funding and State Goals: Linking Post-Secondary system Appropriations to Outcomes. Minneapolis, MN: Minnesota Higher Education Coordinating Board.
15. Piper, D. W. & Isaacs, G. (1992). Approaches to Performance Related Funding for Higher Education in Europe and North America. A Report for the Commonwealth Department of Employment, Education and Training. The Tertiary Education Institute, The University of Queensland, October 1992.
16. Ramo, Keetjie (1998). Assessing the Faculty’s Role in Shared Governance. Washington, DC: American Association of University Professors.
17. Schmidtlein, Frank A. (1990). Why Linking Budgets to Plans Has Proven Difficult in Higher Education. Planning for Higher Education 18(2), 9-23.
18. Volkwein, J. F. (1984). State Financial Control Practices and Public Universities: Results of a National Study. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association for the Study of Higher Education, March, Chicago, IL.
19. Volkwein, J. F. (1986a). Campus Autonomy and Its Relationship to Measures of University Quality, Journal of Higher Education 57(5), 510-528.
20. Volkwein, J. F. (1986b). State Financial Control of Public Universities and its Relationship to Campus Administrative Elaborateness and Cost: Results of a national Study. Review of Higher Education 9(3), 267-286.
21. Volkwein, J. F. (1987). State Regulation and Campus Autonomy. In J.C. Smart (ed.), Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research, Vol. 3. New York: Agathon Press.
22. WilliaM.S., G. (1994). ReforM.S. and Potential ReforM.S. in Higher Education Finance in Europe. Paper prepared for the Symposium “University and Society: International Perspectives on Public Policy and Institutional Reform”, Wirtschaftsuniversitat, Wien, June 9-10,1994.
23. Yorke, M. (1995) Taking the Odds-On Chance: Using Performance Indicators in Managing for the Improvement of Quality in Higher Education. Tertiary Education and Management 1(1), pp. 49-57.