How the Sausage is Made: An Examination of a State Funding Model Design Process

Abstract

Extant research neglects to examine how policymakers make decisions regarding funding allocations to higher education institutions. This case study analyzed the policy process surrounding the development of one model for funding higher education in Colorado. The study is anchored in a theory of policy design, which considers how groups targeted by a policy are socially constructed, as well as their levels of political power. Drawing on interviews with 19 policy actors involved in funding-model development and 144 documents, findings reveal that institutions‘ levels of political power are critical, but not deterministic, in explaining allocations under the new model. Access institutions benefited most from the state’s new funding model, primarily due to one policy entrepreneur’s interest in linking funding more tightly to higher education institutions‘ enrollments. Research institutions used their political power to repel burdens that would have been imposed through the funding-model bill. Finally, racial/ethnic minority students were ultimately denied explicit funding benefits. This outcome resulted from legislators’ overt efforts to avoid addressing race in this policy process. This study contributes to literature on higher education finance, policy, and politics by illuminating how target groups’ political power and social constructions influence decisions surrounding state funding for public colleges and universities.