Financial Aspects/Budget Processes

This article presents a general overview of higher education financing in the United States. Nationally there has been a growing debate over higher education financing. Specifically, some are concerned that college costs are increasing to the extent that affordability, and in turn, accessibility, of a college or university education is threatened. As a result, there have been calls to increase efficiency and productivity in higher education. This article reviews both sides of the debate on college and university financing and also provides the reader with technical knowledge about higher education financing and budgeting to frame the discussion.

Keywords Accessibility; Affordability; Budgeting; College Costs; Expenses; Financing; Grants; Higher Education; Productivity; Tuition

Higher Education > Financial Aspects / Budget Processes

Overview

Importance of the Financing of Higher Education

There is growing concern nationally about affordability, and related, accessibility in higher education (MacDowell, 2007). Related, there is an ongoing tension regarding the financing of higher education (Johnstone, 2001). While parents, politicians, and others have often voiced concern that the costs of college are too high, administrators and faculty at many higher education institutions feel that a great deal has been done to control costs even to the point of sacrificing academic quality (e.g., via the loss of full-time faculty, program cuts, and downsizing) (Johnstone, 2001). Some have called for a new policy framework to ensure that higher education is affordable to students and their families (Finney & Kelly, 2004). According to researchers, affordability is important to ensuring a highly educated population that will be able to manage "the needs of a globally competitive economy and a democracy that faces increasing complexity on many domestic issues" (Finney & Kelly, 2004, p 6). Likewise, in talking about the origins of American higher education Rudolph (1990) clarified, "The college was not to be an institution of narrow privilege. Society required the use of all its best talents," (p. 178).

Historical Dimensions of Higher Education Financing

The early American higher education institutions, or colonial colleges, were not state universities. While they accepted state support, they considered themselves private foundations and did not surrender control over policy formation (Brubacher & Rudy, 1997). While some American colleges, such as Stanford and Wellesley, burgeoned under generous gifts from wealthy benefactors, others had to find different means of financial support and state aid was actually quite important to the survival of many of the colonial colleges (Rudolph, 1990). Favorite forms of state assistance were the permission of colleges to operate lotteries and grants of lands to the colleges from the state (Rudolph, 1990). For instance, Princeton was allowed to operate lotteries in New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Connecticut (Rudolph, 1990). All of the colonial colleges in New England were also supported by lottery funds (Rudolph, 1990). Meanwhile, colleges like Dartmouth received grants of lands (Rudolph, 1990). Several other colleges also were recipients of state gifts of funds and might not have survived without them. In fact, Harvard, Yale, and Columbia could not have survived the colonial period without the support they received from the state (Rudolph, 1990). Another form of state support of the colonial colleges was tax exemption (Brubacher & Rudy, 1997). Additionally, some colleges received rather unique forms of public assistance. For example, Massachusetts even granted Harvard the income from the ferry across the Charles River and, when a bridge later replaced the ferry, toll income (Brubacher & Rudy, 1997).

Regardless of the various forms of state assistance available to the colonial colleges, the colleges' need for funds was not fully satisfied by public assistance (Brubacher & Rudy, 1997). As a result, they also sought solicitations or subscriptions (Brubacher & Rudy, 1997). However, those who made pledges to the colleges, while supporting the idea behind them, were often not particularly wealthy and could not fulfill their pledges (Rudolph, 1990). Revenue from tuition fees was also a good source of funds for the colonial colleges (Brubacher & Rudy, 1997). Yet, tuition fee revenue was unpredictable as well. Sometimes tuition was not paid in currency but rather in kind with certain goods, such as grain or cotton (Brubacher & Rudy, 1997). Some students also paid in promissory notes, which Brubacher and Rudy (1997) offered essentially acted as a student loan fund long before any formal such system was in place.

The precarious revenue situation of the colonial colleges affected the colleges' management of their funds. For example, the main expense of the early colleges was faculty salaries (Brubacher & Rudy, 1997). However, likely due to the continual financial straits of the colonial colleges, faculty salaries were quite low (Brubacher & Rudy, 1997). As a result, it was hard for the colleges to recruit those capable for college teaching (Brubacher & Rudy, 1997). With the need to spend whatever income they acquired on current expenses, the colonial colleges also were not able to form much in the way of permanent endowments (Brubacher & Rudy, 1997).

As the colonial period drew to a close, several factors changed the nature of state support of the colleges toward the end of that time and in the years after the Civil War. First was the absolute increase in the number of colleges because state governments could not offer support to them all (Rudolph, 1990). A growing number of colleges also chose to align themselves with certain religious denominations and lost favor as institutions to receive public support (Rudolph, 1990). Additionally, as colleges moved to recruit students on a national rather than a state-basis they also lost public support (Rudolph, 1990). In general, states abandoned support of "private" colleges in favor of state universities and agricultural and mechanical colleges (Rudolph, 1990). Private colleges turned to their alumni as well as wealthy benefactors to support themselves (Rudolph, 1990). The period of college expansion towards the end of the 19th century also meant that a college president alone could no longer run an institution (Duryea, 2000). Yet, the move to more complex administrative structures was in part fueled by the need of higher education institutions to secure financial support from both public and private sources (Duryea, 2000).

The history of American higher education institutions and their financing can be observed in the current system today. Specifically, there are several aspects that are unique to the financing of contemporary American higher education (Johnstone, 1999). One is the vast size of the higher education system – something which also underlies its accessibility. Another unique aspect is the multitude of private institutions in the system. Finally, the reliance of institutions in the system on nongovernmental revenue (e.g., tuition, private gifts, and endowment earnings) is also a novel aspect.

Further Insights

General Management of Higher Education Finances

While the sector of for-profit higher education has received increased attention, traditional colleges and universities today operate as not-for-profit entities (Massy, 2003). Essentially, unlike for-profits, nonprofits can not distribute profits to shareholders. Rather, when surpluses accumulate they are saved and reinvested in the work of the institution (Massy, 2003).

Higher education has multiple sources of revenue and multiple outputs (Johnstone, 1999). Additionally, revenue and expenditure patterns in higher education vary substantially by the type of institution (e.g., community college or research university), institutional control (i.e., public or private) and the state in which institutions are located (Johnstone, 1999). In terms of the management of revenues and expenditures, there has been a long tradition of fund accounting in higher education institutions (Massy, 2003). In fund accounting, donor and other special purpose accounts must legally be separated out in the institution's financial statements (Massy, 2003).

Institutional Revenues, Expenditures & Costs

Revenues and expenditures at higher education institutions reflect both fixed (i.e., fixed revenues and fixed costs) and variable (i.e., variable revenues and variable costs) components (Massy, 2003). Fixed components do not vary greatly. The many types and sources of college and university revenues include the following (Walton & Bell, 2003):

• Tuition from students and families

• Appropriations, grants, and student financial aid from state and local governments

• Research and other grants from the federal government

• Donations and gifts from private benefactors

As such, revenue for higher education institutions is essentially provided by four groups of individuals: parents, students, taxpayers, and philanthropists (Johnstone, 1999). Parents take on debt or use current income and savings to pay for their children's higher education. Students themselves may also take on debt or use earnings or savings to pay for their education. Meanwhile, local, state, and federal taxpayers help to finance higher education from the taxes they pay on income, sales, property, and assets, for example. Finally, philanthropists contribute to higher education through endowments or gifts. In general, when the revenue burden is lessened on one group it must be reassigned to another group. For instance, reductions in contributions from taxpayers have tended to be replaced by higher tuition costs for students and parents. Cross subsidies are also common occurrences in colleges and universities (Massy, 2003). For instance, revenue generated from one particular academic program may be used to subsidize the costs associated with administering a different academic program.

Regarding higher education expenditures, the efficiency and productivity of higher education institutions are generally viewed in terms of the cost per full-time equivalent student (Johnstone, 1999). Cost per student varies greatly across institutions and the assumption is that such cost will be higher at research universities than undergraduate colleges because of factors like higher salaries and additional academic support costs (e.g., for libraries and lab facilities) (Johnstone, 1999). At similar types of higher education institutions the cost per student can also vary and this is most often due to differences in the amenities and services provided to students or faculty costs (Johnstone, 1999).

In general, four different types of college costs have been differentiated (Johnstone, 2001). These include production costs, tuition, total expenses, and net costs. According to Johnstone (2001), production costs are the type of college costs that drive all other costs. Per-student production costs vary widely across higher education institutions and largely differ according to the type of institution (e.g., two-year college, liberal arts college, research university) as well as the type or level of instruction (e.g., undergraduate or graduate) and the discipline (e.g., humanities or sciences) (Johnstone, 2001). Regardless of the variance in per-student costs, data seem to indicate that there have not been any out-of-control increases in production costs but rather increases that are approximately in step with inflation (Johnstone, 2001). However, increases in tuition costs tend to receive the most attention and are those that have probably been identified the most as out-of-control (Johnstone, 2001). Yet, with some exceptions, data do not support the notion of excessive tuition increases either (Johnstone, 2001). Johnstone (2001) stated that non-tuition costs, such as those related to room and board, that are part of total expenses are actually the costs that "drive student indebtedness" (p. 155) though much of these costs are neither within the control of institutions nor state and federal government. At the same time, at least for public and private four-year colleges, the availability of financial aid has helped to ease the burden of total expenses for students and families (Johnstone, 2001).

State Financing of Higher Education Institutions

Approximately 8 to 15 percent of state budgets are dedicated to higher education funding, which constitutes the third largest category of funding in state budgets after primary and secondary education and Medicaid (Walton & Bell, 2003). For public institutions a unique financial aspect is that during economic boom times, states tend to spend generously on higher education and dedicate funds, for instance, towards new programs and expanded academic services (Cavanagh, 2002). However, the cost burden of such initiatives tends to be shifted to students and families in the form of higher tuitions when an economic downturn takes place and state support declines (Cavanagh, 2002). In general, the share of college and university revenue provided by the state over recent years has declined (Walton & Bell, 2003). For example, state appropriations for higher education declined from 45 percent of institutional revenues to 36 percent of institutional revenues between 1980 and 1997 (Walton & Bell, 2003).

While the budget situation in the majority of states today is actually healthy, some state leaders are pursuing innovative approaches to funding higher education in their states (Fischer, 2007). Leaders are reportedly turning to these approaches in the face of opposition to raising taxes in support of higher education as well as increased costs in other major areas of state budgets like corrections and healthcare (Fischer, 2007). As in the days of the colonial colleges, some state leaders, for example, are seeking to leverage public assets. The governor of Indiana, for instance, proposed a plan to lease the state lottery to a private contractor and use the funds for a new scholarship program as well as researcher salaries and start-up costs (Fischer, 2007).

Budget Processes

University budgeting tends to be incremental (Chabotar, 1999). In general, the budget process is a collaborative one involving administrators, faculty and staff associations, legislators, and trustees. These individuals and groups help to define various budget drivers, such as salary savings targets and enrollment ceilings. An institution's strategic plan is also critically linked to the budget process in that the budget provides cost estimates for identified goals and objectives. For public institutions an additional budget driver is state requirements. State appropriations may be formula-driven, for instance, by the numbers of faculty and students at an institution.

Chabotar (1999) specifically identified four different approaches to budget development. In a top-down approach, the administration and board prepare the budget without the involvement of faculty, staff, and students. Contrastingly, an informational approach to budget development keeps faculty and staff informed about the budget process as it unfolds but does not collect feedback from them. In a consultative approach, faculty, staff, and students are not only informed about the budget process but are also encouraged to provide feedback, which may sometimes alter budget decisions. Finally, the participative approach to budgeting is essentially the opposite of the top-down approach in that faculty, staff, and sometimes students draft the budget and then recommend it to the president and trustees for approval.

Three types of college budgets are object budgets, program budgets, and responsibility center budgets (Chabotar, 1999). Object budgets are centered on the goods or services being bought. Like object budgets, program budgets are focused on goods and services but additionally organize budget detail by function or program (e.g., instruction, research, student services) as well as department. Finally, responsibility center budgets reflect a decentralized approach to budgeting in which schools and departments are responsible for their own budget allocations and the subsequent management of revenues and expenditures.

According to Chabotar (1999), one of the best ways to develop a college or university budget is to separate the base budget and present it separately from any increases or decreases to it that will build the forthcoming budget. Increases may pertain to adjustments to salaries and benefits, for instance, while decreases may result if positions or operating expenses need to be cut. College and university budgets also should distinguish operating from capital expenses (Chabotar, 1999). Expenses can be additionally grouped by function (e.g., instruction, research) and by object (e.g., salaries, benefits) (Chabotar, 1999). Budget functions that deal with the educational mission of a college or university tend to be further grouped as educational and general (E&G) while those that do not directly relate to the educational mission yet support it (e.g., dining services, residential life, health services) are grouped as auxiliary enterprises. Additionally, revenues are either classified as restricted or unrestricted (Chabotar, 1999). Restricted revenues are generally those gifted to the institution by a donor for a specific purpose and, as such, they must be expended according to the donor's wishes. Comparatively, unrestricted revenues, which may also be gifted from donors but come from other sources as well like the tuition paid by students and families, are not so limited. However, unrestricted revenues can be set aside and designated for specific purposes by the board of an institution (Chabotar, 1999).

Financial planning models are also utilized in the budget process in order to help determine the impact of the current budget over the long-term and determine the best way to allocate resources (Chabotar, 1999). These models must take into account a number of factors, such as inflation, annual fund drive and capital campaign gift revenue, and (for public institutions) state appropriations and formula funding (Chabotar, 1999).

Current Issues

As previously noted, there is an ongoing tension regarding the financing of higher education (Johnstone, 2001). While many researchers, decision-makers, and leaders seem to believe that more needs to be done to control costs, others appear to believe that there is no cost crisis in higher education. The Secretary of Education's Commission on the Future of Higher Education, which was formed in the fall of 2005 to develop a national strategy for higher education in America, has been one group to emphasize that colleges and universities must strive to control costs in order to help make higher education more accessible (U.S. Department of Education, n.d.; Wilson, 2007). Finding new avenues by which to encourage cost management, productivity, and efficiency in order to control costs was particularly stressed by the Commission (Wilson, 2007). The Commission also recommended that colleges and universities become more transparent about cost and price (Wilson, 2007).

According to data from the Higher Education Research Institute (HERI) at UCLA, about a third of the student respondents to HERI's 2006 freshman survey that indicated they had been accepted into their first-choice school but chose not to enroll cited affordability as a reason (Pope, 2007). Massy (2003) indicated that colleges and universities set their prices up to the limits that markets, regulators, and the public will accept. Massy (2003) further stated that higher education institutions justify price hikes by pointing to factors beyond their control and the necessity to keep up with the cost of excellence. However, he also argued that "the impetus for price hikes stems from the university's own choices – in particular, from the way it defines 'excellence'" (Massy, 2003, p. 39). According to Massy (2003), universities "define 'excellence' as producing as much value as they can" (p. 40) and, as such, they will increase prices in order to maximize revenue and provide more value fulfillment. Pope (2006) likewise noted that the Commission on the Future of Higher Education determined that there is little incentive for colleges and universities to lower their spending because doing so threatens their prestige.

Hood (1996) came down on the side of applying business principles to promote productivity in higher education and "focus scarce resources on core responsibilities" (p 5). According to Hood (1996), there has been a cost explosion in higher education where spending growth has greatly exceeded inflation as well as student enrollment growth. Further, there has been a shift in spending priorities as well. For example, spending on instruction and research (i.e., the core function of colleges and universities) decreased from 51 percent to 40 percent during a recent thirty-year period (Hood, 1996).

Johnstone (1999) proposed that "the long-expected price resistance" in higher education is happening. He indicated that non-need-based price discounting would be one of the mechanisms used to confront such resistance. At the same time, Johnstone (2001) offered that "the charge that higher educational costs are out of control or that tuitions do not reflect value received is overwrought and mainly wrong," (p. 161). According to Johnstone (2001), however, some things can contribute to the belief that costs are out of control. For instance, state finance laws that indicate that any unspent balances in college and university accounts must be returned to the state treasury at the end of a fiscal year encourage public institutions not to save lest they be viewed as overfunded (Johnstone, 2001).

Addy (2007) implied that the Commission's business-like stance on increasing productivity to control costs was perhaps not the best way to solve problems of access and affordability in higher education because it would not work without the cooperation of faculty, who would resist such an approach. She indicated instead that faculty would need to be included in discussions of how to enhance productivity if efforts are to be successful (Addy, 2007).

Terms & Concepts

Base Budget: The current year's budget less any contractual or legal obligations, such as collective bargaining agreements.

Budget: A one-year spending plan detailing the source of funds and how those funds will be used.

Capital Expenses: Deal with the funding of building and grounds projects (e.g., new construction or extensive maintenance) over the long-term (i.e., four to five years).

Cross Subsidies: Occur when revenue from one kind of activity's outputs are used to pay for activities that produce something else.

Fixed Costs: Relate to central administration, library collections, and maintenance of plant or facilities.

Fixed Revenues: Reflect income from unrestricted gifts and endowments and, for public institutions, state appropriations that are distributed by lump sum (instead of an enrollment formula).

Incremental Budgeting: Budget process where the forthcoming fiscal year's budget is built on the basis of the current year's budget.

Net Costs: Reflect total expenses less financial assistance; indicative of the real financial impact on students and families.

Operating Expenses: Deal with the funding of day-to-day activities over one or even two years; the operating budget is generally sourced from student fees and endowment earnings (as well as state appropriations for publics).

Production Costs: The underlying costs of instruction, which reflect such costs as average salaries and benefits and operating and capital costs related to undergraduate instruction.

Restricted Funds: Use of funds is limited by donor intent (e.g., to fund scholarships or faculty positions).

Total Expenses: In addition to tuition, include all related fees and costs, such as housing, food, books, and transportation, incurred by students and families.

Tuition: The portion of production costs that are passed on the students and families as the sticker or nominal price of attendance; affected by available non-tuition revenue (e.g., state support for public institutions and endowment earnings for private institutions).

Unrestricted Funds: Refers to the fact that the use of funds is not limited.

Variable Costs: Equate to all other costs besides fixed costs such as the direct costs of teaching and library services.

Variable Revenues: Encompass tuition, student fees, enrollment-driven state appropriations (for public institutions), sales of services income, and income for facilities and administrative expenses tied to the administration of grants and contracts (i.e., indirect cost recovery).

Bibliography

Addy, C. (2007). Test the Spellings Commission's assumptions. Connection: The Journal of the New England Board of Higher Education, 21 , 24-25. Retrieved May 02, 2007, from EBSCO online database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=24121633&site=ehost-live

Brubacher, J. S., & Rudy, W. (1997). Higher education in transition (4th ed). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.

Cavanagh, S. (2002). College students strain to cover rising tuition at public institutions. Education Week, 21 , 6. Retrieved May 02, 2007, from EBSCO online database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=6762775&site=ehost-live

Chabotar, K. (1999). How to develop an effective budget process. In L. Lapovsky & M. P. McKeown-Moak (Eds.), New Directions for Higher Education: No. 107 (pp. 17-28). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Retrieved May 02, 2007, from EBSCO online database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=9179895&site=ehost-live

Doyle, W. R. (2013). Playing the numbers: State funding for higher education: Situation normal?. Change, 45, 58-61. Retrieved December 15, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=92049523&site=ehost-live

Duryea, E. D. (2000). Evolution of university organization. In J. L. Ratcliffe (Series Ed.) & M. C. Brown II (Vol. Ed.), ASHE reader series: Organization and governance in higher education (5th ed., pp. 3-15). Boston, MA: Pearson Custom Publishing.

Ehrenberg, R. G. (2013). Is the golden age of the private research university over?. Change, 45, 16-23. Retrieved December 15, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=87820955&site=ehost-live

Fischer, K. (2007). Looking for dollars in unusual places. Chronicle of Higher Education, 53 , A22-A23. Retrieved May 02, 2007, from EBSCO online database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=24281099&site=ehost-live

Finney, J., & Kelly, P. (2004). Affordability. Change, 36 , 54-59. Retrieved May 02, 2007, from EBSCO online database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=13866933&site=ehost-live

Hood, J. (1996). The new austerity: University budgets in the 1990s. Academic Questions, 9 , 82. Retrieved May 02, 2007, from EBSCO online database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=9605305711&site=ehost-live

Johnstone, D. B. (1999). Financing higher education: Who should pay? In P. G. Altbach, R. O. Berdahl, & P. J. Gumport (Eds.), American higher education in the twenty-first century (pp. 347-369). Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press.

Johnstone, D. B. (2001). Higher education and those "out-of-control costs." In P. G. Altbach, P. J. Gumport, & D. B. Johnstone (Eds.), In defense of American higher education (pp. 144-178). Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press.

MacDowell, M. (2007). The new 'A's' of higher education. University Business, 10 , 80. Retrieved May 02, 2007, from EBSCO online database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=24699912&site=ehost-live

Massy, W. F. (2003). Honoring the trust: Quality and cost containment in higher education. Boston, MA: Anker Publishing Company, Inc.

Ness, E. C., & Tandberg, D. A. (2013). The determinants of state spending on higher education: How capital project funding differs from general fund appropriations. Journal of Higher Education, 84, 329-362. Retrieved December 15, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=86940418&site=ehost-live

Pope, J. (2006). College costs beat inflation again, but 2-Year colleges remain a tremendous bargain, new report finds. Community College Week, 19 , 3. Retrieved May 02, 2007, from EBSCO online database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=23155285&site=ehost-live

Pope, J. (2007). Soaring costs sending more students to second-choice colleges. Community College Week, 19 , 10. Retrieved May 02, 2007, from EBSCO online database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=24305772&site=ehost-live

Rudolph, F. (1990). The American college & university. Athens, GA: The University of Georgia Press.

U.S. Department of Education. (n.d.). Secretary Spellings announces new Commission on the Future of Higher Education. Retrieved May 4, 2007, from http://www.ed.gov/news/pressreleases/2005/09/09192005.html

Walton, C., & Bell, J. (2003). New ways to fund higher ed. State Legislatures, 29 , 28-31. Retrieved May 02, 2007, from EBSCO online database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=11583668&site=ehost-live

Wilson, B. (2007). Commission report should prompt a re-examination of New England higher education. Connection: The Journal of the New England Board of Higher Education, 21 , 19-20. Retrieved May 02, 2007, from EBSCO online database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=24121630&site=ehost-live

Suggested Reading

Bowen, W. G., Kurzweil, M. A., Tobin, E. M., & Pichler, S. C. (2005). Equity and excellence in American higher education. Charlottesville, VA: University of Virginia Press. Retrieved May 02, 2007, from EBSCO online database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=24274872&site=ehost-live

Facione, P. (2002). The philosophy and psychology of effective institutional budgeting. Academe, 88 , 45-48. Retrieved May 02, 2007, from EBSCO online database, Education Research Complete http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=8727861&site=ehost-live

Pekow, C. (2007). Congress moves to fulfill promises on higher education. Community College Week, 19 , 12-13. Retrieved May 02, 2007, from EBSCO online database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=24305774&site=ehost-live

Pratt, L. (2003). Will budget troubles restructure higher education. Academe, 89 , 33-37. Retrieved May 02, 2007, from EBSCO online database, Education Research Complete http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=9091581&site=ehost-live

Spellings, M. (2007). Time for action to bolster future of higher education. Connection: The Journal of the New England Board of Higher Education, 21 , 15-16. Retrieved May 02, 2007, from EBSCO online database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=24121628&site=ehost-live

Winston, G. (2000). A guide to measuring college costs. In M. F. Middaugh (Ed.), New Directions for Institutional Research: No. 106 (pp. 31-46). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Retrieved May 02, 2007, from EBSCO online database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=9182148&site=ehost-live