Search

This publication provides governmental and higher education decision-makers a statewide perspective of Arkansas public higher education finance for the 2021-23 biennium, as well as trends for the past several years. It also contains a detailed financial profile of each institution and presents a basis for comparative assessments of revenue sources and expenditure patterns. The Fact Book contains seven sections: (1) the Arkansas Higher Education Coordinating Board recommendations for appropriations for the 2021-23 biennium; (2) 2021-23 legislative appropriations; (3) funding history of Arkansas higher education; (4) history of current fund revenues and expenditures; (5) history of unrestricted educational and general and auxiliary revenues and expenditures; (6) history of athletic revenues and expenditures; and (7) miscellaneous supplemental information. The Financial Profiles section of the 2021 Fact Book relies on Series 17 information submitted by institutions of higher education for revenue and expenditure breakouts. Also, in an effort to assist the reader in analyzing specific trends, Section 5 focuses on individual institutions with profile sections that contain five years of data. [For the 2019 Fact Book, see ED602459.]

This publication provides governmental and higher education decision-makers a statewide perspective of Arkansas public higher education finance for the 2019-21 biennium, as well as trends for the past several years. It also contains a detailed financial profile of each institution and presents a basis for comparative assessments of revenue sources and expenditure patterns. The Fact Book contains seven sections: (1) the Arkansas Higher Education Coordinating Board recommendations for appropriations for the 2019-21 biennium; (2) 2019-21 legislative appropriations; (3) funding history of Arkansas higher education; (4) history of current fund revenues and expenditures; (5) history of unrestricted educational and general and auxiliary revenues and expenditures; (6) history of athletic revenues and expenditures; and (7) miscellaneous supplemental information. The Financial Profiles section of the 2019 Fact Book relies on Series 17 information submitted by institutions of higher education for revenue and expenditure breakouts. Also, in an effort to assist the reader in analyzing specific trends, Section 5 focuses on individual institutions with profile sections that contain five years of data. [For the 2017 Fact Book, see ED596327.]

The State Higher Education Finance (SHEF) report is produced annually by the State Higher Education Executive Officers Association (SHEEO) to broaden understanding of the context and consequences of multiple public policy decisions in each state. These decisions contribute to public higher education funding levels and funding distributions across states and nationally. Although the cost of college has been rising for students and families, so has the potential economic benefit of earning a postsecondary credential or degree. Greater attention to both the costs and benefits of higher education influences the environment in which political leaders, policymakers, and educators make decisions. No single report can provide definitive answers to the broad and fundamental questions of state higher education finance policy, but the SHEF report supplies important context and trend analysis to help inform policy decisions. SHEF provides the earliest possible review of state and local support, tuition revenue, and enrollment trends for the most recently completed fiscal year. The report includes: (1) An explanation of the measures and methods used in the SHEF metrics for analysis; (2) A description of the revenue sources and uses for higher education; (3) An analysis of national trends in enrollment and revenue; (4) Comparisons of the SHEF metrics across states and over time; (5) Indicators of state wealth, tax effort, and relative allocations for higher education; and (6) A series of case studies that add important context and understanding to the data presented in the report. This year, the report highlights case studies on our ongoing data improvement project as well as outcomes-based funding and the importance of evaluating state wealth when considering state support for higher education. [For "State Higher Education Finance FY 2016," see ED593738.]

With recent research from the Institute for Higher Education Policy showing that college is unaffordable for as many as 70% of working- and middle-class students, concerns about college costs are mounting. The cost of operating an institution of higher education, with very few exceptions, is reflected in the price of attendance that students, their families, and taxpayers face. While Americans make untold personal and financial sacrifices in order to access the value of a college credential, administrative expenses and overhead continue to rise on campuses. This new guide from American Council of Trustees and Alumni's (ACTA's) Institute for Effective Governance takes a deeper look at the way that administrative costs are reported and the challenge that trustees face in balancing the cost of administration with their core mission--teaching and learning. The guide provides trustees with at-a-glance, national benchmarks for median levels of administrative spending, while issuing an action plan for trustees who are ready to take on the challenge of controlling costs and achieving greater financial efficiency and transparency.

The State Higher Education Finance (SHEF) report is produced annually by the State Higher Education Executive Officers Association (SHEEO) to broaden understanding of the context and consequences of multiple public policy decisions in each state. Although the cost of college has been rising for students and families, so has the potential economic benefit of earning a postsecondary credential or degree. Greater attention to both the costs and benefits of higher education influences the environment in which political leaders, policymakers, and educators make decisions. No single report can provide definitive answers to the broad and fundamental questions of state higher education policy, but the SHEF report brings important context and trend analysis to help inform policy decisions. SHEF provides the earliest possible review of state and local support, tuition revenue, and enrollment trends for the most recently completed fiscal year. The report includes: (1) An explanation of the measures and methods used in this report; (2) A description of the revenue sources and uses for higher education; (3) An analysis of national trends in enrollment and revenue; (4) Comparisons of the SHEF measures across states and over time; (5) Indicators of state wealth, tax effort, and relative allocations for higher education; and (6) A series of short callouts and case studies that add important context and understanding to the data presented in the report. [For "State Higher Education Finance FY 2015," see ED593737.]

At its April 27, 2014 meeting, the Arkansas Higher Education Coordinating Board approved the funding models for the two-year colleges, universities, and the technical centers (former technical institutes merged with universities). These models had been developed in conjunction with presidents and chancellors after meetings and revisions. The funding models were used to develop the comparative needs of Arkansas institutions of higher education in terms of the average funding levels of schools in the Southern Regional Education Board (SREB) region. Arkansas Department of Higher Education staff also reviewed new justification requests submitted by the non-formula group and prepared funding recommendations for Fiscal Year 2016-17 based upon those requests. The difference between the funding model determined needs of the entities compared to the Fiscal Year 2016 appropriations was $346,435,271. The funding gap (the difference between the formula determined need and the current fiscal year appropriation) is part of a phenomenon that occurs when there is an extended economic downturn which is invariably accompanied by enrollment increases, declining state support and tuition increases (to replace a part of the lost state support). The funding needs of the institutions are the funds needed to bring Arkansas higher education to the average funding level of the SREB region. The funding gap took a number of years to reach its current level and may never be completely erased. Each funding formula was developed to provide an equitable basis for the distribution of any funding available. Since it is not anticipated that the models will be fully funded in the near future, funding recommendations for 2016-17 are: (1) For the four-year institutions, a 2.1% increase for all institutions based on the Higher Education Price Index (HEPI) which totals $7,623,006 and further recommending that those institutions below 75% of the model be brought to that level which is an additional $117,346,720 for a total four-year recommendation of $124,969,726 in new revenue; (2) For the two-year institutions, a 2.1% increase for all institutions based on the HEPI which totals $2,682,367 and further recommending that those institutions below 75% of the model be brought to that level which is an additional $6,582,313 for a total two-year recommendation of $9,264,680 in new revenue; (3) For the technical centers, a 2.1% increase for all technical centers based on the HEPI which totals $110,729 and further recommending that those technical centers below 75% of the model be brought to that level which is an additional $2,852,711 for a total two-year recommendation of $2,963,440 million in new revenue; and (4) For the non-formula entities the recommendation is for a 2.1% increase based on the HEPI index which is $3,974,407 and a recommendation of full funding which would require an additional $32,852,646, of which $10,004,108 would be for the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences (UAMS).

The State Higher Education Finance (SHEF) report is produced annually by the State Higher Education Executive Officers Association (SHEEO) to broaden understanding of the context and consequences of multiple decisions made every year in every state in each of these areas. No single report can provide definitive answers to these broad and fundamental questions of public policy, but the SHEF report provides important context, trend analysis, and information to help inform such decisions. The report includes: (1) An Overview and Highlights of national trends and the current status of state funding for higher education; (2) An explanation of the Measures, Methods, and Analytical Tools used in this report; (3) A description of the Revenue Sources and Uses for higher education, including state tax and nontax revenues, local tax support, tuition revenue, and the proportion of this funding available for general educational support; (4) An analysis of National Trends in Enrollment and Revenue; in particular, changes over time in the public resources available for general operating support; (5) Interstate Comparisons--Making Sense of Many Variables, using tables, charts, and graphs to compare data among states and over time; (6) Indicators of relative State Wealth, Tax Effort, and Allocations for Higher Education, along with ways to take these factors into account when making interstate comparisons; and (7) A series of Case Studies that adds important context and understanding to the data presented in the report. The SHEF report provides the earliest possible review of state and local support, tuition revenue, and enrollment trends for the most recently completed fiscal year. [For "State Higher Education Finance FY 2014," see ED562021.]

This report examines college and university finances during one of the most turbulent economic periods in decades. The financial ramifications of the 2008 recession were vast, affecting students' ability to pay for college, lawmakers' prioritization of public resources, and the budgetary environment facing higher education leaders. The challenges brought by the fiscal crisis also provided colleges and universities with an opportunity to reevaluate how they allocated resources and rethink how to manage costs and improve student outcomes. Like previous Trends in College Spending reports, this update is meant to aid readers in developing a deeper understanding of how colleges collect and spend money and the outcomes they produce. Financial and performance trends during the 2003-2013 decade suggest that, five years after the onset of the recession, higher education finally began to show signs of a fiscal recovery. Spending increases were widespread in 2013, with all types of public and private institutions spending, on average, more per student than the year before. Public and private research and master's institutions experienced the strongest resurgence, as educational spending per student returned near the peak levels observed before the recession. Highlights from this 2016 "Trends in College Spending" report are: (1) Spending increased across all types of public and private institutions from 2012 to 2013; (2) The financial position of community colleges showed significant improvement in 2013 as enrollment continued to decline; (3) After four years of significant declines, sharp cuts in state and local appropriations subsided in 2013; (4) Colleges and universities no longer shifted additional operating costs onto students in 2013, but tuition revenue still financed a majority of education-related spending at public and private four-year institutions; and (5) Degree and certificate production grew throughout the decade amid steadily declining costs in the recession's aftermath; in 2013, however, a reversal occurred at some types of institutions. . [For "Trends in College Spending: 2001-2011. A Delta Data Update," see ED558474.]

This "Trends in College Spending" update presents national-level estimates for the "Delta Cost Project" data metrics during the period 2001-11. To accelerate the release of more current trend data, however, this update includes only a brief summary of the financial patterns and trends observed during the decade 2001-11, with greatest attention given to recent changes between fiscal year (FY) 2010 and FY 2011. A summary of findings indicates: (1) Four years after the Great Recession began, higher education appeared to have weathered the worst of the financial storm. By 2011, the free-fall in state funding per student had eased at public colleges and universities, and average revenues per student were steady or increasing at both public and private four-year institutions; (2) Spending declines had also more or less stabilized. Yet public and private research universities still showed cutbacks in education-related spending during 2011, despite posting larger revenue increases than other types of institutions. Institutional support spending was reigned in as four-year institutions continued to invest in non-instructional student services--although sometimes at the expense of instructional spending. Community colleges continued to show the greatest financial strain across higher education (even amid slower enrollment growth), with declines in revenue per student accompanied by widespread spending cuts; and (3) As in years past, students paid an ever-larger share of the costs institutions incur to provide a college education--particularly students enrolled at public colleges and universities--as cuts in institutional subsidies persisted across most types of institutions. However, degree productivity began to rise again at public institutions in 2011, accompanied by progress in lowering overall production costs per degree. Private institutions were less successful in boosting degree productivity and controlling costs per degree in 2011 but made longer-term gains in degree productivity, if not costs, over the decade. [See earlier "Trends in College Spending" reports: 1998-2008 at ED539421 and 1999-2009 at ED539420.]

The State Higher Education Finance (SHEF) report is produced annually by the State Higher Education Executive Officers association (SHEEO) to broaden understanding of the context and consequences of multiple decisions made every year in every state in each of these areas. No single report can provide definitive answers to these broad and fundamental questions of public policy, but the SHEF report provides important context and information to help inform such decisions. The report includes: (1) An Overview and Highlights of national trends and the current status of state funding for higher education; (2) An explanation of the Measures, Methods, and Analytical Tools used in this report; (3) A description of the Revenue Sources and Uses for higher education, including state tax and nontax revenues, local tax support, tuition revenue, and the proportion of this funding available for general educational support; (4) An analysis of National Trends in Enrollment and Revenue, in particular, changes over time in the public resources available for general operating support; (5) Interstate Comparisons--Making Sense of Many Variables, using tables, charts, and graphs to compare data across states and over time; and (6) Indicators of relative State Wealth, Tax Effort, and Allocations for Higher Education, along with ways to take these factors into account when making interstate comparisons. The SHEF report provides the earliest possible review of state and local support, tuition revenue, and enrollment trends for the most recent completed fiscal year.

This report presents data from the School District Finance Survey (F-33) of the Common Core of Data (CCD) survey system for school year (SY) 2010-11, fiscal year 2011 (FY 11). The F-33 survey is a school district-level financial survey that consists of data submitted annually to the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) and the Governments Division of the U.S. Census Bureau (Census Bureau) by state education agencies (SEAs) in the 50 states and the District of Columbia. The purpose of this report is to introduce new data through the presentation of tables containing descriptive information; therefore, the selected findings chosen for this report demonstrate the range of information available when using the F-33 component of CCD. The selected findings do not represent a complete review of all observed differences in the data and are not meant to emphasize any particular issue. This First Look report presents findings on public elementary and secondary (PK-12) education revenues and expenditures at the local education agency (LEA) level using FY 11 provisional data from the F-33 survey of the CCD survey system. This report provides users with an opportunity to access provisional F-33 data that have been reviewed, edited, and imputed. Final data, including revisions to the provisional data submitted by the SEAs after the close of data collection, will be available during the following collection year.The following are appended: (1) Methodology and Technical Notes; (2) Common Core of Data Glossary; and (3) Reference Tables. Data files for all CCD surveys used in this report may be found on the data file pages of the CCD website at http://nces.ed.gov/ccd/ccddata.asp. (Contains 9 tables, 3 figures, and 5 footnotes.) [This report was prepared in collaboration with the U.S. Census Bureau.]

The Common Core of Data (CCD) is an annual collection of public elementary and secondary education data by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) in the Institute of Education Sciences of the U.S. Department of Education. The purpose of this report is to introduce new data through the presentation of tables containing descriptive information; therefore, the selected findings chosen for this report demonstrate the range of information available when using the National Public Education Financial Survey (NPEFS) component of CCD. This report presents findings on public education revenues and expenditures using fiscal year 2011 (FY 11) data from the preliminary (version 1a) NPEFS file of the CCD survey system. Programs covered in NPEFS include regular, special, and vocational education; charter schools; and state-run education programs (such as special education centers or education programs for incarcerated youth). This First Look report provides users with an opportunity to access preliminary NPEFS data that were subject to one round of data review and editing. The following are appended: (1) Methodology and Technical Notes; (2) Common Core of Data Glossary; and (3) Revised Fiscal Year 2010 Tables. Data files for all CCD surveys used in this report may be found on the CCD data page of the CCD website at http://nces.ed.gov/ccd/ccddata.asp. (Contains 17 tables, 4 figures, and 1 footnote.) [This report was prepared in collaboration with the United States Census Bureau.]

The State Higher Education Finance (SHEF) report is produced annually by the State Higher Education Executive Officers (SHEEO) to broaden understanding of the context and consequences of multiple decisions made every year in each of these areas. No single report can provide definitive answers to such broad and fundamental questions of public policy, but the SHEF report provides information to help inform such decisions. The report includes: (1) An Overview and Highlights of national trends and the current status of state funding for higher education; (2) An explanation of the Measures, Methods, and Analytical Tools used in the report; (3) A description of the Revenue Sources and Uses for higher education, including state tax and non-tax revenues, local tax support, tuition revenue, and the proportion of this funding available for general educational support; (4) An analysis of National Trends in Enrollment and Revenue, in particular, changes over time in the public resources available for general operating support; (5) Interstate Comparisons--Making Sense of Many Variables, using tables, charts, and graphs to compare data among states and over time; and (6) Indicators of Relative State Wealth, Tax Effort, and Allocations for Higher Education, along with ways to take these factors into account when making interstate comparisons. The SHEF report provides the earliest possible review of state and local support, tuition revenue, and enrollment trends for the most recent fiscal year. Appended are: (1) Grapevine Media Tables; (2) Glossary of Terms; (3) State Data Providers; and (4) SSDB Collection Instructions. (Contains 12 figures, 13 tables, and 13 footnotes.) [For "State Higher Education Finance FY 2011," see ED530332.]

This Analysis Brief shows how per-pupil spending varies with student poverty (as measured by the percent of students eligible for free or reduced price lunch) across elementary, middle, and high schools in Pasadena Unified School District (PUSD). The authors have carried out separate analyses that make use of the California Standardized Account Code Structure (SACS) to identify expenditure along the following three dimensions: (1) Expenditure by Revenue Source. The first analysis investigates unrestricted versus restricted (categorical) resources with an emphasis on how dollars break out according to the targeted student populations the latter are intended to support (students eligible for free or reduced price lunch, designated as English language learners, receiving special education services, low performers, etc.); (2) Expenditure by Object. The second analysis shows how per-pupil expenditures in the five following object categories varies across schools: salaries, benefits, books and supplies, and other (services, capital outlay and other outgoing); and (3) Expenditure by Function. The last analysis documents the variation across schools in per-pupil expenditures by four function categories: administration, instruction, pupil support, and miscellaneous (ancillary services, community services, plant services, and other outgoing). The majority of the demographics data (all but special education) were obtained from the California Basic Education System maintained by the California Department of Education (CDE). The special education figures and fiscal data used in these analyses were provided by the PUSD central office, the latter of which includes expenditures at the school level identified according to SACS. All analyses have been run separately at the elementary, middle and high school levels, respectively. (Contains 13 exhibits.)

Since its establishment in the 1860s, Washington's higher education system has evolved rapidly to meet a myriad of state needs in fields as diverse as agriculture, bioscience, chemistry, environmental sciences, engineering, medicine, law, business, computer science, and architecture. Today, higher education, like other vital state functions, faces an uncertain future due to the lingering effects of the national recession. In the current biennium, public colleges and universities implemented significant budget cuts and raised tuition. Washington's higher education system represents substantial public investment that is shared by the state and by students who directly benefit. Finding a proper balance between public investments and the tuition paid by students and their families is a major challenge facing the state. "Key Facts about Higher Education in Washington" provides vital data to chart higher education's progress and challenges. First published in 2002 by the Washington Higher Education Coordinating Board (HECB), this annual report highlights Key Facts about Washington's postsecondary institutions, including faculty, students, budgets, and financial aid. In a time of significant fiscal challenges, the final chapter suggests efforts to continue progress on the state's long term higher education goals. A glossary is included (Individual chapters contain tables, graphs, and footnotes.)

"Trends in College Spending, 1999-2009: Where does the money come from? Where does it go? What does it buy?" is the fourth in a series of reports on college and university spending from the Delta Cost Project on Postsecondary Education Costs, Productivity, and Accountability. The mission of the Delta Cost Project is to improve public accountability for spending in higher education through the presentation of measures that put financial information into context, showing how money is spent and how that spending relates to institutional performance. The findings presented in this report concentrate on the 1999 to 2009 academic years; 2009 is the last year for which spending data are available and the first year of the "Great Recession," whose effects are still reverberating through higher education. Readers should be cautioned against viewing 2009 spending levels as emblematic of the fiscal situation facing institutions today. Consequences of this deep recession are only beginning to show up in the data in this report. Although the recession technically was declared over in mid-2009, sustained economic growth has yet to return, and the negative consequences on state budgets in particular won't play out until 2012 or 2013 when the state fiscal troughs will be at their lowest levels, and the federal stimulus funds will have been spent. Additional data details are appended. (Contains 28 figures and 10 footnotes.) [For previous report, "Trends in College Spending 1998-2008: Where Does the Money Come from? Where Does It Go? What Does It Buy? A Report of the Delta Cost Project," see ED539421.]

The State Higher Education Finance (SHEF) report is produced annually by the State Higher Education Executive Officers (SHEEO) to broaden understanding of the context and consequences of multiple decisions made every year in each of these areas. No single report can provide definitive answers to such broad and fundamental questions of public policy, but the SHEF report provides information to help inform such decisions. This report includes: (1) An Overview and Highlights of national trends and the current status of state funding for higher education; (2) An explanation of the Measures, Methods, and Analytical Tools used in the report; (3) A description of the Revenue Sources and Uses for Higher Education, including state tax and non-tax revenue, local tax support, tuition revenue, and the proportion of this funding available for general educational support; (4) An analysis of National Trends in Enrollment and Revenue, in particular, changes over time in the public resources available for general operating support; (5) Interstate Comparisons--Making Sense of Many Variables, using tables, graphs, and two-dimensional displays to locate and compare states; and (6) Indicators of Relative State Wealth, Tax Effort, and Allocations for Higher Education, along with ways to take these factors into account in making interstate comparisons. The SHEF report provides the earliest possible review of state and local support, tuition revenue, and enrollment trends for the most recent fiscal year. Appended are: (1) Grapevine Tables 1 and 2; (2) Glossary of Terms; and (3) State Data Providers. (Contains 13 tables, 12 figures and 13 footnotes.) [For "State Higher Education Finance FY 2009", see ED517205.]

Using fiscal data provided by the finance office of the school district, and personnel data obtained from the California Basic Education Data System maintained by the California Department of Education (CDE), the authors present analyses to provide a foundation for local policymakers that may be used to assess whether there are inequities in the way fiscal and personnel resources are distributed across schools. They begin their analysis with an examination of school level performance data obtained from the CDE. This is followed by an analysis of the relationship between school resource allocation (spending and staffing) and student needs. They find that: (1) Schools with the highest percentage of students from low-income families exhibit the lowest performance on the California Academic Performance Index (API); (2) The highest need schools (those serving the higher percentages of students eligible for free or reduced price lunch) generally spend somewhat more overall than the lowest need schools and most of this difference is driven by categorical or restricted funding; (3) In some cases, spending from unrestricted funding tends to be lower in the highest need schools, and these differences work against the additional spending that occurs out of restricted funding; (4) Elementary schools tend to outspend their middle and high school counterparts; (5) Schools with the highest percentages of low-income students have more FTE teachers per 100 students; and (6) Schools with the highest percentages of low-income students have on average less experienced, and hence lower paid, teachers and more teaching out-of-field. (Contains 24 exhibits and 11 footnotes.)

First published in 2002, "Key Facts about Higher Education in Washington" provides valuable information on the ways higher education serves the state and its people. The most current data and information available is presented throughout this report to highlight the "Key Facts" about Washington's postsecondary institutions, including faculty, students, budgets, and financial aid. The final chapter reflects major recommendations from the 2009 System Design Plan, which provides guidance to state lawmakers on policy decisions related to raising the educational attainment levels of Washington's citizens. A glossary of acronyms and terms is provided. (Individual chapters contain tables, graphs, and notes.)

"Trends in College Spending, 1998-2008: Where does the money come from? Where does it go? What does it buy?" is the third in a series of reports on college and university spending from the Delta Cost Project. The findings presented in this report concentrate on the 1998 to 2008 time period--the last academic year for which spending data are available, and what in retrospect may turn out to be a high point in funding for higher education. The Great Recession that began in the middle of the 2008 academic year falls outside of the time period covered in this report. We know that funding has fallen since then, leading to budget cuts that are reported to be heaviest in the public sector and in those private institutions that had come to be dependent on investment earnings for operating funds. Unlike earlier recessions, when revenues were expected to rebound within a few years, the consensus now is that the "new normal" means that higher education has seen a permanent reduction of roughly 10 percent of its revenue base--more in some areas of the country, less in others--money that won't be coming back, and can't realistically be made up in tuition increases. The data in this report also help to remind us that the funding cuts that came in 2009 and 2010 occurred on a base that, in many institutions, were at historic highs. As we collectively try to find our way to the "new normal," we need to recognize that a return to the pre-recession levels of spending is neither realistic, nor for the most part necessary to ensure adequate funding. The question ahead is how to best allocate available resources to accomplish public goals for higher education. That will require more attention from policy makers and institutional leaders to spending, and to the regular use of data to guide decisions about where funds are spent. The authors hope that the metrics presented in this report are useful tools to help support this necessary new focus. Definitions of variables included in aggregate spending measures and additional data details are appended. (Contains 22 figures and 4 footnotes.)

The State Higher Education Finance (SHEF) report is produced annually by the State Higher Education Executive Officers (SHEEO) to broaden understanding of the context and consequences of multiple decisions made every year in each of these areas. No single report can provide definitive answers to such broad and fundamental questions of public policy, but the SHEF report provides information to help inform such decisions. This report includes: (1) An Overview and Highlights of national trends and the current status of state funding for higher education; (2) An explanation of the Measures, Methods, and Analytical Tools used in the report; (3) A description of the Revenue Sources and Uses for Higher Education, including state tax and non-tax revenue, local tax support, tuition revenue, and the proportion of this funding available for general educational support; (4) An analysis of National Trends in Enrollment and Revenue, in particular, changes over time in the public resources available for general operating support; (5) Interstate Comparisons--Making Sense of Many Variables, using tables, graphs, and two-dimensional displays to locate and compare states; and (6) Indicators of Relative State Wealth, Tax Effort, and Allocations for Higher Education, along with ways to take these factors into account in making interstate comparisons. The SHEF report provides the earliest possible review of state and local support, tuition revenue, and enrollment trends for the most recent fiscal year. While the main body of the SHEF report reviews financial and enrollment trends in American higher education without editorial commentary, the data clearly indicate the adverse effects of the most recent two recessions. Following the conclusion of the main study, State Higher Education Finance, FY 2009 includes appropriations data for FY 2010 from "Grapevine" and an essay, "What Next?" which considers the implications of these enrollment and financial trends for the United States. Each technical paper includes footnotes. Appended are: (1) Glossary of Terms; (2) Data Collection Form; and (3) List of State Data Providers. (Contains 12 figures, 15 tables and 6 footnotes.) [For "State Higher Education Finance FY 2008", see ED506259.]

Financing higher education requires political leaders, policymakers, and educators to address broad public policy questions, including ascertaining: the levels of state funding to colleges and universities that are necessary to maintain the economic and social well-being of the American people; the tuition levels that are appropriate given the costs of higher education, its benefits to individuals, and the desirability of encouraging participation; the student financial assistance that is necessary to provide meaningful educational opportunities to students from low- and moderate-income families; and how colleges and universities might use available resources to increase productivity without impairing the quality of services to students. The State Higher Education Finance (SHEF) report is produced annually by the State Higher Education Executive Officers (SHEEO) to broaden understanding of the context and consequences of multiple decisions made every year in each of these areas. No single report can provide definitive answers to such broad and fundamental questions of public policy. What the SHEF report does provide, however, is information to help inform decisions in these areas. Toward that end, this report includes: (1) An Overview and Highlights of national trends and the current status of state funding for higher education; (2) An explanation of the Analytical Tools and Measures used in the report; (3) An analysis of National Trends in Higher Education Revenue and Enrollment, in particular, changes over time in the public resources available for general operating support; (4) A description of the Sources and Uses of State-Level Funding for Higher Education, including state tax and non-tax revenue, local tax support, tuition revenue, and the proportion of this funding available for general educational support; (5) Interstate Comparisons--Making Sense of Many Variables, using tables, graphs, and two-dimensional displays to locate and compare states; and (6) Indicators of Relative State Wealth, Tax Effort, and Allocations for Higher Education, along with ways to take these factors into account in making interstate comparisons. Appended to this report are: (1) Glossary of Terms; (2) Data Collection Form and Instructions; and (3) List of State Data Providers. (Contains 12 figures and 13 tables.)

This publication brings together much of the information one might need to develop a broad understanding of how public and private higher education institutions serve the people of Washington and about the important role higher education plays in developing the state's society, economy, and future. The most often-asked questions about institutions, faculty, students, costs, budgets, financial aid, and other topics are highlighted. Also provided are links to helpful Web sites throughout for those who want to examine specific issues in greater detail. A glossary of terms and acronyms is provided. (Individual chapters contain tables, graphs, and notes.)

The State Higher Education Finance (SHEF) report is a tool to help policy makers and educators address broad public policy questions. SHEF seeks to inform policy deliberations with information and perspective on financial issues and national trends. The fiscal 2006 SHEF study builds on the work of Kent Halstead, who conceptualized and implemented a report on state finance for higher education and created a file of state financial data that extends back to 1972. The report also draws on surveys and analytical tools established in 1962 by M.M. Chambers and maintained by his successors; their work provides reference points for cross-validation. Three technical papers are included: (1) The Higher Education Cost Adjustment: A Proposed Tool for Assessing Inflation in Higher Education Costs; (2) Adjusting for Interstate Differences in Cost of Living and Enrollment Mix; and (3) Diverse Perspectives on State Higher Education Finance Data. Appendixes include a glossary of terms, data collection instrument, and list of data providers. (Contains 12 figures and 13 tables.) [Report contributors include Kelli Parmley, Natalie Mischler, Charlie Lenth, Gloria Auer, Allison Bell, Susan Winter and Hans L'Orange. For the 2006 report, see ED502192.]

This document supports the Cost Allocation Plan for state costs incurred on behalf of, and in benefit to, the public higher education institutions of Ohio. Tables report a summary of recalled/refunded debt and initial adjustment of Fiscal Year 2006 interest payments fore refunded debt. Attached schedules calculate the allocable interest for each institution. (Contains 1 footnote and 2 tables.) [For 2005 report, see ED500695.]