The review reports should be made public. Using them effectively requires wide dissemination to faculty and other stakeholders, which is tantamount to publication. The review methodology does not depend on respondents self-reporting of weaknesses, so dissemination will not undermine validity. Public disclosure would represent an important improvement on current practice. State higher education coordinating boards could hold public institutions accountable for education quality work and effective cost-benefit analysis.
Experience abroad shows that effective accountability requires reviews that are linked to funding.
Reviews of quality and management systems can provide the needed oversight without heavy bureaucratic burdens, micromanagement, or infringement on institutional autonomy. States with performance funding could make such reviews a key element of the system. State-level reviews might be coordinated with the aforementioned regional accreditation reviews. Like accreditation reports, the state reports should be made public. The federal government could help improve market information and stimulate change.