The College Opportunity Fund (COF), Colorado’s policy of financing higher education through vouchers rather than direct appropriations, is not achieving its original goals of improving access and institutional efficiency, a recent evaluation has determined.

In enacting COF in 2004, the state legislature required that it be formally evaluated within five years. An Evaluation of Colorado’s College Opportunity Fund and Related Policies, commissioned by the Colorado Department of Higher Education and conducted by the Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education (WICHE), was presented to the Colorado Commission on Higher Education on May 5.

The 53-page study noted that COF represents “the first and, to date, only attempt in the United States to experiment with a voucher-based system for financing higher education statewide.”

According to the study, the original intent of the legislation was threefold: (1) to enable funding of higher education to be exempt from the revenue and expenditure limitations imposed by the Taxpayers Bill of Rights (TABOR); (2) to achieve greater efficiency at colleges through the use of market forces; and (3) to promote access to college by underrepresented racial/ethnic and low-income populations.

TABOR circumvented, but access and efficiency remain elusive
The study concludes that “the evidence suggests that COF has not succeeded in reaching these aims, other than providing for higher education to be exempted from TABOR’s revenue and spending limitations.” Enrollment of target populations has in fact declined since COF went into effect. While enrollment overall in Colorado has decreased, declines in enrollment at two-year colleges have been even larger than at four-year institutions. The study states that COF can’t conclusively be blamed for the decline, but that it certainly didn’t succeed in ensuring better access.

One of the study’s principal findings is that COF’s “implementation compromised its original intent” and that it has had “a negligible effect on institutional decision making.” Because of how COF’s stipends and fee-for-service are determined, institutions are not incentivized to enroll more targeted students or meet other identified state needs, according to the study. Two-year colleges in particular have faced difficulties in authorizing and determining eligibility for COF.

What’s next
The report concludes with three sets of options: to continue with COF as it is, to abandon COF altogether, or to amend COF in a number of ways, including specific changes to the stipend’s value, limitations and marketing; tying fee-for-service funding to successfully serving target populations; reforming performance contracts to reflect outcomes; and streamlining the administration of COF. The study concludes that the third option holds the best prospect for change.

At its meeting Tuesday, the CCHE voted to submit the report to the General Assembly.

To read the study in its entirety, go to http://highered.colorado.gov/Publications/Reports/Legislative/COF/COFEvalReport_20090505.pdf.