National Study of Community College Finance, 1980-2001

1. 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

2. What We’ll Cover Today • Revenue trends for public community colleges from 1980 - 2001 • What it all might mean

3. 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).

4. 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).

5. 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).

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

7. Community College Revenues as Percent of Total for Rural Serving Colleges, FY 1981 - 2001

8. Community College Revenues as Percent of Total for Suburban Serving Colleges, FY 1981 - 2001

9. Community College Revenues as Percent of Total for Urban Serving Colleges, FY 1981 - 2001

10. 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)

11. 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%

12. 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)

13. 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

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

15. Public Community College Revenues as Percent of Total - Nationally vs. Texas, FY 1981 - 2001

16. The data show us… Geography, Governance, and Funded Missions MATTER!

17. 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

18. 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!

19. 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.

20. 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?

21. 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.

22. 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.)

23. Anticipating FY 2006 Results • Impact from economic slump • Tuition deregulation at some 4-yr institutions • Tuition continues to increase • Federal Pell Grant remains flat

24. QUESTIONS FEEDBACK