California currently funds its public colleges on the basis of enrollment, a process that reinforces their commitment to college accessibility and ensures a relatively equitable distribution of per-student spending across institutions. A sluggish economy and state budget pressures, in addition to a national drive for market-driven education reform, has accelerated the discussion about the merits of performance-based funding (PBF), an alternative funding strategy, for public higher education. This qualitative study examined how 26 stakeholders of California Community Colleges, specifically administrators, and full-time faculty in leadership positions located within the San Diego and Imperial Counties, perceive the performance-based funding strategy. The results of the findings indicate that the stakeholders' perception of PBF have been affected by their experience with two particular quasi-PBF models, California's Partnership for Excellence and Student Success Initiatives. Their concerns of PBF involved having no control over variables; lowering of academic standards and gaming the system; and limiting access. Research participants provided recommendations to effectively overcome the obstacles encountered and minimize the unintended impacts produced by performance-based funding. This study contributes significantly to the existing literature and to policy since there are few studies done with regard to California Community Colleges and PBF. Findings of the study will assist policymakers in understanding the various ways that performance-based funding is being framed and provide an intelligent basis for discussion and judging conflicting ideas, proposals, and outcomes with regard to accountability in higher education.