Page 16 |
Save page Remove page | Previous | 16 of 137 | Next |
|
small (250x250 max)
medium (500x500 max)
Large (1000x1000 max)
Extra Large
large ( > 500x500)
Full Resolution
All (PDF)
|
This page
All
|
8
this study also clarifies the complex funding mechanisms of the community college
and articulate the formulas used to determine the funding level of the individual
districts.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this quantitative study is to create new knowledge based on
existing data that can be used to help CCC administrators improve campus fiscal
performance in terms of efficiency and effectiveness. The aim of this study is ordered
chronologically.
1. The CCC funding mechanism and the accounting and budgeting system is
elucidated.
2. Fiscal data compiled by the California Community College Chancellor’s
Office was collected for all 72 community college districts. The data spans
multiple consecutive years. Data includes fiscal years 2005-2006, 2006-2007,
and 2007-2008. While the data are relatively recent, the latest years data, 2008-
2009 and 2009-2010, is excluded due to the extraordinary economic condition
of the state as well as the subsequent impact on community college budgets.
These latter fiscal years represent an anomaly in the overall financial picture of
higher education in the state and can subsequently skew analysis or benchmark
development. Three fiscal years were used to account for any unexpected
anomalies within any single year, which has been done in previous studies
presented in the literature review. Various data sources include the Chancellors
Object Description
| Title | Finance in the California community college: Comparative analysis and benchmarking of instructional expenditures |
| Author | Karamian, Martin |
| Author email | martinsfsu@netzero.com; karamim@piercecollege.edu |
| Degree | Doctor of Education |
| Document type | Dissertation |
| Degree program | Education (Leadership) |
| School | Rossier School of Education |
| Date defended/completed | 2011-03-17 |
| Date submitted | 2011 |
| Restricted until | Unrestricted |
| Date published | 2011-04-26 |
| Advisor (committee chair) | Picus, Lawrence O. |
| Advisor (committee member) |
Melguizo, Tatiana Vega, William |
| Abstract | The goals of this empirical study of community colleges are to 1) create a benchmark for per student instructional expenditures; and 2) account for variations in instructional expenditures among a peer group of community colleges in Southern California. The peer group sample included 22 single campus community college districts in the Los Angeles area. Using data for three fiscal years a refined mean benchmark value for instructional expenditures of $2,676.71 per full-time equivalent student (FTES) was estimated with a standard deviation of $326.54. Using Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient, 11 variables were correlated with instructional costs per FTES. The largest and only statistically significant determinant included the number of part-time instructors (-0.424). While other variables were correlated, none were statistically significant at the 95% confidence interval. The results from the sample suggest that larger colleges have lower instructional costs per FTES despite higher faculty pay. Expanding credit student enrollment within the funding growth limits set by the State, along with additional part-time instruction within the limits set by the State will likely result in lower instructional costs per FTES and an economy of scale effect. The effect of increased institutional size on quality of education was not assessed. |
| Keyword | finance; California; community college; comparative analysis; benchmarking; instructional expenditures; economics; higher education; spending; instruction; education; economy of scale |
| Geographic subject (state) | California |
| Geographic subject (country) | USA |
| Coverage date | 1990/2010 |
| Language | English |
| Part of collection | University of Southern California dissertations and theses |
| Publisher (of the original version) | University of Southern California |
| Place of publication (of the original version) | Los Angeles, California |
| Publisher (of the digital version) | University of Southern California. Libraries |
| Provenance | Electronically uploaded by the author |
| Type | texts |
| Legacy record ID | usctheses-m3775 |
| Contributing entity | University of Southern California |
| Rights | Karamian, Martin |
| Repository name | Libraries, University of Southern California |
| Repository address | Los Angeles, California |
| Repository email | cisadmin@lib.usc.edu |
| Filename | etd-Karamian-4454 |
| Archival file | uscthesesreloadpub_Volume23/etd-Karamian-4454.pdf |
Description
| Title | Page 16 |
| Contributing entity | University of Southern California |
| Repository email | cisadmin@lib.usc.edu |
| Full text | 8 this study also clarifies the complex funding mechanisms of the community college and articulate the formulas used to determine the funding level of the individual districts. Purpose of the Study The purpose of this quantitative study is to create new knowledge based on existing data that can be used to help CCC administrators improve campus fiscal performance in terms of efficiency and effectiveness. The aim of this study is ordered chronologically. 1. The CCC funding mechanism and the accounting and budgeting system is elucidated. 2. Fiscal data compiled by the California Community College Chancellor’s Office was collected for all 72 community college districts. The data spans multiple consecutive years. Data includes fiscal years 2005-2006, 2006-2007, and 2007-2008. While the data are relatively recent, the latest years data, 2008- 2009 and 2009-2010, is excluded due to the extraordinary economic condition of the state as well as the subsequent impact on community college budgets. These latter fiscal years represent an anomaly in the overall financial picture of higher education in the state and can subsequently skew analysis or benchmark development. Three fiscal years were used to account for any unexpected anomalies within any single year, which has been done in previous studies presented in the literature review. Various data sources include the Chancellors |
