National Study of Community College Finance, 1980-2001

							National Study of Community
College Finance, 1980-2001
        BILLY C. ROESSLER, PH.D.
  Assoc. Dir. of Admissions and Records,
     Tarrant County College District
             Fort Worth, Texas

Education Writers Association Regional Seminar
              February 17, 2006
     What We’ll Cover Today
   Revenue trends for public community
    colleges from 1980 - 2001
   What it all might mean




                                          2
    Katsinas, Lacey, and Hardy
    Classification Overview

   Developed initially by Katsinas and Lacey in mid-
    1990s, updated in 2005 by David Hardy
   KLH uses 2000 U.S. Census Data
   KLH uses 2000-01 & 2001-02 NCES IPEDS Data
   Katsinas, Lacey & Hardy’s work is the basis of the
    Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of
    Teaching’s first-ever classification of all two-year
    colleges (released in February, 2006).



                                                       3
Important Details to Understand as
We Look at the Findings
   Applied the 2005 Katsinas et al. Classification
    Schema retroactively over the 20-year time
    period
   Only studied rural, suburban, and urban public
    community colleges
   Used IPEDS and HEGIS publicly accessible data
   Any comparisons between enrollment and
    finance data should be done with the
    understanding that finance data represent one
    full year while enrollment data cover only one
    semester (fall).
                                                  4
Important Details to Understand as
We Look at the Findings (cont.)
   Criteria for inclusion in study
       Report both finance and enrollment data for each
        of the Fiscal Years 1981, 1986, 1991, 1996, &
        2001
       Imputed data are included
       AL, HI, KY, LA & SD had no colleges meeting
        criteria
   Data for some states may be affected by the
    percentage meeting the criteria; in general,
    about 70% of all colleges reported data for all
    time periods (good sample).

                                                      5
Community College Revenues as Percent of
Total for All Public Community Colleges,
FY 1981 - 2001

              50
              45
              40
              35
                                                                         1981
    Percent




              30
              25                                                         1991
              20                                                         2001
              15
              10
               5
               0
                   Tuition and    State     Local    Workforce   Other
                      Fees       Approp.   Approp.     Dev.
                                       Revenue Type
Community College Revenues as Percent of
Total for Rural Serving Colleges,
FY 1981 - 2001

              50
              45
              40
              35
              30                                                         1981
    Percent




              25                                                         1991
              20                                                         2001
              15
              10
               5
               0
                    Tuition    State        Local    Workforce   Other
                   and Fees   Approp.      Approp.     Dev.
                                        Revenue type
Community College Revenues as Percent of
Total for Suburban Serving Colleges, FY 1981 -
2001

           50
           45
           40
           35
                                                                           1981
 Percent




           30
           25                                                              1991
           20                                                              2001
           15
           10
            5
            0
                Tuition and    State        Local      Workforce   Other
                   Fees       Approp.      Approp.       Dev.
                                        Revenue Type
Community College Revenues as Percent of
Total for Urban Serving Colleges, FY 1981 -
2001

            50
            45
            40
            35
                                                                          1981
  Percent




            30
            25                                                            1996
            20                                                            2001
            15
            10
             5
             0
                 Tuition and    State        Local    Workforce   Other
                    Fees       Approp.      Approp.     Dev.
                                         Revenue Type
STATE APPROPRIATIONS declined
for community colleges, FY81 – FY01
   FY 1981 – 47.1%
       16 states above 60% (AL, CA, CT, DE, FL, MA,
        ME, NC, NH, NV, OK, RI, TN, VA, WA, WV)
   FY 1991 – 39.4%
       4 states above 60% (CT, DE, NC, NV)
   FY 2001 – 34.0%
       0 states above 60%
       7 states above 50% (AR, CT, DE, GA, MA, NV, VA)
       5 states below 20% (AZ, IL, NJ, VT, WI)

                                                       10
LOCAL Appropriations have
decreased slightly for community
colleges, FY81 – FY01

   20 states with 0 or < 1% of total
    revenues from local appropriations
   FY 1981 – 17.4%
   FY 1991 – 16.6%
   FY 2001 – 14.7%



                                         11
TUITION and FEES as a percentage
of total revenue have increased for
community colleges
   FY 1981 – 15.6%
       2 states > 30% (IN, PA)
       8 states < 10% (CA, DE, MT, NC, NM, WI, WV, WY)
   FY 1991 – 17.9%
       4 states > 30% (MA, NH, PA, VT)
       4 states < 10% (CA, NC, NM, WY)
   FY 2001 – 19.2%
       5 states > 30% (MN, NH, NJ, PA, VT)
       2 states < 10% (CA, NM)


                                                      12
Workforce development dollars have
increased, FY81 – FY01
   Workforce development includes the federal,
    state, local, and private grants and contracts
    revenue categories.
   FY 1981 – 8.7%
       5.7% Federal, 2.5% State
   FY 1991 – 15.9%
       10.0% Federal, 4.2% State
   FY 2001 – 22.3%
       12.4% Federal, 5.9% State


                                                13
    Community college Fall FTE
    enrollments have dramatically
    increased, Fall 1980 – Fall 2000


           Fall 1980   Fall 1990   Fall 2000   20-yr % Change
Rural
Serving     744,931     963,618     973,150           30.60%
Suburban
Serving     570,250     627,000     706,708           23.90%
Urban
Serving      660,914     748,125     848,335          28.40%
All        1,976,095   2,338,743   2,528,193          27.90%
Public Community College Revenues as Percent
of Total - Nationally vs. Texas, FY 1981 - 2001


            60
            50
                                                                          1981-US
            40
  Percent




                                                                          1981-TX
            30
                                                                          2001-US
            20
                                                                          2001-TX
            10
            0
                 Tuition and    State        Local    Workforce   Other
                    Fees       Approp.      Approp.     Dev.
                                         Revenue Type



                                                                               15
 The data show us…
    Geography,
    Governance,
and Funded Missions
     MATTER!
                      16
If overall state dollars are increasing,
how is there slippage?
   Yes, state appropriations have
    increased in total dollars.
   HOWEVER…
       Enrollment increased
       Expenditures are increasing
       Percent of tuition increases greatly out-
        pace increases of state dollars


                                                    17
To come even close to injecting needed funding to
supplant steep decline in state investments required
tuition increases far above inflation. Thus, tuition rose..

   As a percent of total revenues
   As a percent increase of $$ over 20 yrs
   As measured by dollars per fall FTE
   In constant 2001 dollars, the increase in
    revenue dollars from tuition and fees
    revenue category was almost equal to
    that of state appropriations!

                                                        18
What about the dramatic increases in
workforce development revenues?
   They did not counter the combined decreases
    in state and local appropriations.
   Most of increase was in the federal category
   These funds are often for specific purposes
    (workforce training) at a time when transfer
    function needs investment (Tidal Wave II).
   Institutional resources are used to write
    grants to obtain and maintain these funds.

                                             19
What could the increased tuition
mean for students?
   Increased financial burden for students
    and their families
   Could the tuition increases…
       Be a factor contributing to the increased
        part-time enrollment?
       Negatively impact access?
       Lead to increased debt upon graduation?
            What about those who do not complete the
             degree?

                                                        20
Let’s look at Minnesota to see
impact of high tuition policy
   Minnesota students pay $4,600 per year
    in community college tuition.
   Minnesota ranked #1 among states in
    % of HS graduates continuing in college
    in 1989.
   Minnesota ranked #17 among states in
    % of HS graduates continuing in college
    in 2003.

                                        21
What about at the colleges?
   They likely working harder to simply
    maintain their relative budget positions
   They must commit significant human
    resource investment to obtain…
       Increased local appropriations
       Increased tuition and fees
       Workforce training grants (writing,
        evaluating, etc.)
                                              22
Anticipating FY 2006 Results
   Impact from economic slump
   Tuition deregulation at some 4-yr
    institutions
   Tuition continues to increase
   Federal Pell Grant remains flat



                                        23
QUESTIONS
FEEDBACK