Source of funds analysis and projection for public higher education institutions in Georgia [Dec. 1971]

GEORGIA HIGHER EDUCATION FACILITIES COMMISSION
FACILITIES INVENTORY AND ENROLLMENT STUDY FALL, 1970
REPORT NO.3: Source of Funds Analysis and Projection for Public Higher Education Institutions in Georgia
Prepared under A Fiscal Year 1970 Grant Under the Comprehensive Planning Grant Program of
the Higher Education Facilities Act of 1963, as amended December, 1971

Dr. Harmon W. Caldwell, Chairman

Members:
James A. Dunlap Dr. Rufus C. Harris Dr. Waights G. Henry, Jr. Dr. Benjamin Mays

Gainesville, Georgia Macon, Georgia LaGrange, Georgia Atlanta, Georgia

Officers: Alex Crumbley, Legal Counsel Shealy E. McCoy, Treasurer William E. Hudson, Executive Secretary Parks A. Dodd, Jr., Associate Executive Secretary
Prepared by:
C. L. Hohenstein and Associates
1175 Peachtree Street, N.E. Atlanta, Georgia 30309

SOURCE OF FUNDS ANALYSIS AND PROJECTION FOR PUBLIC HIGHER EDUCATION INSTITUTIONS
IN GEORGIA
GEORGIA HIGHER EDUCATION FACILITIES COMMISSION 805 Candler Building Atlanta, Georgia 30303 December, 1971

FOREWARD
The Georgia Higher Education Facilities Commission, through a series of yearly comprehensive planning grants from the Office of Education, has conducted studies of college and university physical facilities in Georgia. These studies have focused both on an analysis of facilities in use ar.d on facilities needs to 1980. Facilities needs are based on the assumptions that ~n the aggregate, existing facilities can be utilized at reasonable rates and that additional space needs are induced by increasing enrollments.
This study, prepared for the Commission by C. L. Hohenstein & Associates, is the first of a series of reports on the ability of 'Georgia colleges to generate sufficient plant funds to undertake the construction of needed facilities. This initial report is a projection of historical trends. The projections give a picture of the future revenue situation if past funding patterns continue. Of course, these existing funding patterns may well shift during the c~urse of the 1970's. Most notably, we have seen a decline in direct federal grant assistance for the construction of college facilities. Federal aid in the 1970's will probably be below the average for the period of 1965-70. The purpose of
-i-

future reports In this series will be to analyze the revenue impact of alternative assumptions for the rate of growth of the various sources of plant revenue for Georgia colleges.
Private colleges in Georgia are not included In this initial report. An examination of plant revenue for these schools during the 1960's disclosed no historical trend in funding. Also, private college needs tend to be more selective for individual schools and the aggregate needs for all such colleges are difficult to trace since overall private college enrollments have actually decreased in some recent years and little enrollment growth, if any, is foreseen over the 1970's. The second report in this series will focus more on the needs of individual colleges and their resulting facilities needs due not only to increasing enrollments but to selective program requirements.
The data for this report were supplied by the Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia. We wish to expressly thank Mr. Gordon Funk of the Regents' staff for his kind assistance in interpreting and utilizing the annual financial reports of the System.
-ii-

CONTENTS
List 0 f Tab1e s. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i v
List of Figures .......................... vii
1.0 presentation and Analysis of Projections..... 1
1.1 Introduction, Background and Organization ................... 1
1.2 Organization and Order of Presentation.. 2 1.3 Presentation and Analysis ......... 3 1.4 SuItUnary...... . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . .. 12
2.0 Technical Analysis of Data .......... 16
2. 1 General...... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . .. 16 2.2 Current Funds Analysis ........... 18 2.3 Plant Funds Analys is. . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Appendix A: Enrollment Projection Data ....... 31 Appendix B: Historical Revenue by Source of Funds. 33 Appendix C: Intermediate Revenue Computations ... 44 Appendix D: Listing of Computer Programs ...... 60 Appendix E: Listing of Input Data Files ........ 75 Appendix F: Sample Output ............... 81

-ii i-

C. L. HOHENSTEIN AND ASSOCIATES

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1-1

Projection of Current Funds Revenues

1

for Public Universities in Dollars

Adjusted to September 1971 Value

Table 1-2

Projection of Current Funds Revenues

5

for Four-Year and Masters Institutions

in Dollars Adjusted to September 1971

Value

Table 1-3

Projection of Current Funds Revenues

6

for Two-Year Public Institutions in

Dollars Adjusted to September 1971

Value

Table 1-4

Projection of Plant Funds Revenues

8

for Public Universities in Dollars

Adjusted to September 1971 Value

Table 1-5

Projection of Plant Funds Revenues

10

for Public Four-Year and Masters

Institutions in Dollars Adjusted to

September 1971 Value

Table 1-6

Projection of Plant Funds Revenues

11

for Two-Year Public Institutions in

Dollars Adjusted to September 1971

Value

Table 1-7

Projection of Current Funds Revenues

13

for Public Institutions in Dollars

Adjusted to September 1971 Value

Table 1-8

Projection of Plant Funds Revenues

14

for Public Institutions in Dollars

Adjusted to September 1971 Value

---

-~v-

C. L. HOHBN8TBIN AND ASSOCIATES _ _

Table 1-9 Table A-I Table B-1 Table B-2 Table B-3 Table B-4 Table B-5 Table B-6 Table c-l Table C-2 Table C-3 Table C-4

LIST OF TABLES (Continued)

Projection of Federal Revenues for

15

Public Institutions in Dollars

Adjusted to September 1971 Value

Projection of Headcount Fall Enroll-

32

ment in Georgia Public Institutions

Historical Current Funds Revenues for

38

Public Universities

Historical Current Funds Revenues for

39

Public Four-Year and Masters Institutions

Historical Current Funds Revenues for

40

Public Two-Year Institutions

Historical Plant Funds Revenues for

41

Public Universities

Historical Plant Funds Revenues for

42

Public Four-Year and Masters Institu-

tions

Historical Plant Funds Revenues for

43

Public Two-Year Institutions

Historical Headcount Enrollment in

47

Georgia Public Higher Education

Institutions

Intermediate Revenue Computations

48

Current Funds Revenues for Public

Universities

Intermediate Revenue Computations

50

Current Funds Revenues for Public

Four-Year and Masters Institutions

Intermediate Revenue Computations

52

Current Funds Revenues for Public

Two-Year Institutions

-v-

---

C. L. HOHBNSTBIN AND ASSOCIATBS

LIST OF TABLES (Continued)

Table C-5

Intermediate Revenue Computations

54

Plant Funds Revenues for Public

Universities

Table C-6

Intermediate Revenue Computations

56

Plant Funds Revenues for Public

Four-Year and Masters Institutions

Table C-7

Intermediate Revenue Computations

58

Plant Funds Revenues for Two-Year

Public Institutions

Table D-l

Program Files

62

Table D-2

Data Files

63

-vi-

- - . - J C.:. L. HOHBNSTEIN AND ASSOCIATBS

f

I

LIST OF FIGURES

I

Page

Figure D-l

Listing of DATAP

64

Figure D-2

Listing of CUPUP

65

Figure D-3

Listing of PLPUD

67

Figure D-4

Listing of GHEFI

69

Figure D-5

Listing of GHEF2

71

Figure D-6

Listing of GHEF3

73

Figure E-l

Listing of CUPUD

78

Figure E-2

Listing of PLPUD

79

Figure E-3

Listing of PROJD

80

Figure F-l

Sample Output from CURFIT

83

Figure F-2

Sample Output from GHEF3

84

---

-vii-

C. L. HollBNSTEIN AND ASSOCIATES

SOURCE OF FUNDS ANALYSIS AND PROJECTION FOR PUBLIC HIGHER EDUCATION INSTITUTIONS
IN GEORGIA

1.0 Presentation and Analysis of Projections.
1.1 Introduction, Background and Organization. This document is a part of a series of efforts instituted by the Georgia Higher Education Facilities Commission (GHEFC) to determine future higher education needs in the State of Georgia. The overall program originated from a 1966 request of the Congress of the United States for a careful study within each state to determine the amount and kind of buildings needed, the indicated cost, and probable future sources of funds.
This study presents the anticipated sources and amounts of current and plant funds revenues for public institutions in Georgia over the next tenyear period. It is Project No. 4.5 of the Source of Funds Program of the GHEFC Master Plan for the Determination of Construction Needs. This project precedes the identification of individual institution funds needs based on both the aggregate funds requirement projections made herein; and institutional enrollment projections.
Projections are based on historical revenue sources and patterns of growth. The historical revenues are analyzed statistically to determine if significant trends are evidenced. Based on these trends, and also on prior projections of enrollment, the expected revenues by source are developed. The requirements for statistical significance and the systematic analytical method employed are intended to give confidence to this analysis and projection.

-1-

J
' . ' .. HHHOH"",H AHO . .o o " m .

It should be recognized at this point that the analyses are made on the basis of historical data. The projections are founded on the concept of a continuation of past trends. This study will be further enhanced and confirmed after the role and scope of each institution in the system is determined and the resulting information is merged with that appearing in this document. Additional confirmation will be obtained by soliciting the subjective input of the decision makers who are responsible for formulating the higher education policy in the state of Georgia, and those who are responsible for the allocation of funds to higher education. certainly, this investigation is an adequate basis from which to proceed to these additional planned studies.
1.2 Organization and Order of Presentation. The document is organized in the following sequential manner:
1. A presentation of the results with an analysis and explanation of the findings.
2. A presentation of the methodology and rationale used in deriving the results.
3. A presentation of the historical data on ~hich the projections are made.
4. A presentation of computer programs, data files, and sample outputs that were developed and used specifically for this investigation.
The technicality of the information presented progresses with each report section. The reader who has an interest only in the results and some aspects of the procedure by which they were derived is encouraged to read all of Sect ion 1.0, the general material in Section 2,1, and Appendices A, B, and c.
-2-
C. I.. HOHRNSTEIS AND ASSOCIATES _

The reader who is also interested in the technical rationale should, in addition, read the balance of Section 2.0. Finally, the reader who is interested in the methodology by which this investigation was performed should read the complete document.

The technical aspects of the study are presented for several reasons. First, the presentation of these aspects is necessary for completeness. It eliminates any aura of mystery in the generation of the projections. Second, it enables the duplication of the results by any interested party. This is one of the elements of scientific deduction. Third, it enables the transferability of the methodology by organizations similar to the GHEFC, which exist in other states.

1.3 Presentation and Analysis.

1.3.1

General. Tables 1-1, 1-2, and 1-3 present the historical current funds revenues from 1965 through 1970 and the projections from 1971 through 1980. The data in the tables of Sections 1.3 and 1.4 are in September 1971 dollars. An attempt to predict revenues compounded by inflation increases the chance of error, since the inflationary trend must also be predicted. The value of the Consumer Price Index for urban wage earners and clerical workers in September 1971 was 142.3. The reader who wishes to determine the actual dollars required in some future time period would need to estimate the Consumer Price Index, then multiply that value by the tabular entry and divide the result by 142.3. The total (1971-1980) appearing at the bottom of each table indicates that the entry is for the projected revenue for the period 1971-1980, only.

1.3.2 Current Funds Revenues. Table 1-1 contains historic current funds revenues, with projections of future revenues, all in

------

-3-

C. L. HOHBN8TEtN AND ASSOCIATES

Table 1-1
PROJECTION OF CURRENT FUNDS REVENUES FOR PUBLIC UNIVERSITIES
IN DOLLARS ADJUSTED TO SEPTEMBER 1971 VALUE

Revenue Source

Year Federal

=.!..::-

-.;::;2_-

State and Local
-.:::,3_-

Tuition Remaining and Fees

-....;;.4_-_ _

-5-

Total -6-

---------------------------Actua1 Revenues--------------------------- I

1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970

7,408,900 7,557,900 20,236,500 22,451,000 24,420,600 24,411,000

39,682,100 45,050,300 53,514,800 77,859,900 84,628,900 88,154,400

12,651,600 14,568,500 18,298,300 18,712,700 19,037,200 23,622,600

21,690,700 27,708,900 15,493,900 13,711,100 14,654,600 15,811,900

31,433,300 94,885,600 107,543,500 132,734,700 142,741,300 151,999,900

-------------------------Projected Revenues--------------------------

1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980

33,940,637 39,491,441 45,331,312 51,448,533 57,832,008 64,471,228 71,356,229 78,477,557 85,826,239 93,393,748

],.08,907,180 123,853,321 139,495,921 155, 06,745 172,759,064 190,327,556 208,488,215 227,218,266 246,496,081 266,301,125

25,691,329 28,299,191 30,997,309 33,782,023 36,649,869 39,597,565 42,622,001 45,720,226 48,889,436 52,126,970

12,409,955 11,261,599 10,210,428
9,251,434 8,378,851 7,586,556 6,868,345 6,218,124 5,630,034 5,098,526

180,949,101 202,904,552 226,034,970 250,288,735 275,619,792 301,982,905 329,334,790 . 357,634,173 386,841,790 416,920,369

ota1621,568,9321,839,653,470 (1971980)
'--

384,375,918 -4-

82,913,852 2,928,512,177
J
._ _ o. '. . ." ,". . . .0 0.'. . . .

..
.
Table 1-2

PROJECTION OF CURRENT FUNDS REVENUES

FOUR-YEAR AND MASTERS INSTITUTIONS

..

IN DOLLARS ADJUSTED TO SEPTEMBER 1971 VALUE

Revenue Source

J
1 Year Federal

"1-1- __ I -.....;:2;0....-

_

State and Local
-3-

Tuition and Fees
-4-

Remaining -5-

Total -6-

I ~I ----------------------------Actual Revenues--------------------------

I
.,11965 1966 1967
.. 1968 1969 1970

475,200 494,500 896,900 1,265,700 1,737,200 1,942,900

9,648,800 11,655,800 13 J 372,300 19,316,200 23,709,600 25,442,400

3,534,800 4,300,500 6,331,900 7 J 889,900 8)846,700 12,011,300

446,700 549,800 602,000 577,700 557,200 1,002,000

14,105,600 17,000,600 21,203,100 29,049,500 34,850,700 40,398,600

---------------------------Projected Revenues------------------------

..

1971 2,401,558 28,185,801 12,878,321 1,160,275 44,625,961

1972 2,866,417 31,354,589 14,808,158 1,308,787 50,337,951

.. 1973 3,372,371 34,575,396 16,864,076 1,463,150 56,274,993

1974 3,919,420 37,839,343 19,046,074 1,623,127 62,427,964

.. 1975 4,507,564
1976 5,136,804

41,148,015 44,463,442

21,354,153 23,788)313

1,788)494 1,959,038

68,788,226 75,347,597

1977 5,807,138 47,808,071 26,348,554 2,134,556 82,098,319

1978 6,465,727 50,749,978 28)799,512 2,296,094 88,311,311

1979 7,271,093
.. 1980 8,064,712

54,526,616 57,887,265

31,847,278 34,785,761

2,499 J 764 96,144,751 2,6 9,098 103,426,336

otal 49,812,804 ~ (1971-
1980)

428,538,521

230,510,200 -5-

18,922,382 727,783,907
J o. ,..0.".""'. ".n "."oo,mo

Table 1-3
PROJECTION OF CURRENT FUNDS REVENUES FOR TWO-YEAR PUBLIC INSTITUTIONS
IN DOLLARS ADJUSTED TO SEPTEMBER 1971 VALUE

Revenue Source

Year
-1-

Federal -2-

State and Local -3-

Tuition and Fees
-4-

Remaining -5-

Total -6-

--------------------------- Actual Revenues---------------------------

1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970

10,400 27,700 214,100 497,800 844,700 838,900

3,870,200 5,621,500 8,100,000 9,874,100 11,417,400 11,486,100

1,584,900 2,453,400 4,337,500 4,325,400 4,221,100 4,440,600

75,100 431,600 1,139,100 1,093,100 479,200 685,200

5,540,600 8,534,200 13,790,700 15,790,400 16,962,400 17,450,800

--------------------------Projected Revenues-------------------------

971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980

1,352,421 1,757,460 2,213,353 2,720,100 3,277,701 3,886,156 4,545,465 5,255,628 6,016,644 6,828,515

13,922,059 15,383,476 16,804,854 18,187,817 19,553,900 20,844,561 22,121,178 23,365,062 24,577,454 25,759,537

5,517,616 6,076,774 6,635,931 7,195,089 7,754,247 8,313,405 8,872,563 9,431,721 9,990,879 10,550,037

902,293 957,580 1,002,053 1,034,086 1,052,145 1,054,772 1,040,589 1,008,284 956,619 884,408

21,694,389 24,175,290 26,656,191 29,137,092 31,617,993 34,098,894 36,579,795 39,060,695 41,541,596 44,022,497

otal 37,853,443 (l9711980)

200,499,898 80,338,262

9,892,829 328,584,432

-6-

I
~ c. L. HOHENSTEIN AND ASSOCIATES

September 1971 dollars, for public universities in Georgia.

Over the ten-year period, federal revenue is expected to almost triple. State and local revenue is anticipated to swell by 2~ times its current value. Revenue from tuition and fees is expected to double. The remaining revenues will decrease substantially. However, the proportion of "Remaining Revenue" sources to the total revenue appears to be insignificant. In summary, the anticipated total current funds revenue will more than double by 1980.

Table 1-2 concerns the current funds analysis for public four-year and masters institutions. Over the ten-year period, federal revenue is expected to more than triple. It is anticipated that state and local revenue will double. Revenue from tuition and fees is expected to increase by over 2~ times the 1971 amount. The remaining revenue will increase, although the proportion of total revenue is slight. In summary, the anticipated total revenue will more than double.

Table 1-3 concerns the current funds analysis for public two-year institutions. Over the ten-year period, federal revenue is expected to increase by approximately fivefold. State and local revenue will approximately double as will revenue from tuition and fees. The remaining revenue will be at a nearly constant value. In summary, the anticipated total revenue will double.

1.3.3

Plant Funds Revenues. Table 1-4 concerns the plant funds analysis for public universities. Over the ten-year period, rehabilitation revenue will increase, although the proportion of it to total revenue is insignificant.

-7-

C. L. HOHENSTEIN AND ASSOCIATES

Table 1-4
PROJECTION OF PLANT FUNDS REVENUES FOR PUBLIC UNIVERSITIES
IN DOLLARS ADJUSTED TO SEPTEMBER 1971 VALUE

Revenue Source

Year
-1-

Federal -2-

state and Local -3-

Tuition and Fees
-4-

Remaining -5-

Total -6-

--------------------------Actua1 Revenues-----------------------------II

1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970

986,600 523,400 3,079,700 2,464,400
59,100 133,700

13,906,300 23,904,100 25,994,500 35,199,300 31,170,100 35,573,900

1,300,000 2,382,500 18,575,400 I

2,376,700 3,266,900

3,244,800 2,954,900

30,049,000 35,049,000

I
I

4,422,800 2,143,900 44,230,400

4,742,600 3,166,900 39,138,700

7,470,700 2,758,600 45,936,900

------------------------Projected Revenues----------------------------

1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980

1,827,146 1,933,035 2,038,923 2,144,811 2,250,699 2,356,588 2,462,476 2,568,364 2,674,252 2,780,141

40,556,132

I 6,470,007 3,443,468 52,296,753

43,992,789

7,159,439 3,643,027 56,728,290

47,335,291 7,821,616 3,842,585 61,038,415

50,587,455 8,097,641 4,402,144 65,232,051

53,752,895

9,068,559 4,241,703 69,313,856

56,835,034

9,655,362 4,441,261 73,288,245

59,837,117 10,218,990 4,640,820 77,159,403

62,762,224 10,760,334 4,840,379 80,931,301

65,613,277 11,280,241 5,039,937 84,607,707

68,393,054 11,779,513 5,239,496 88,192,204

Tota123,036,435 (19711980)

549,665,268

92,311,702 43,774,820 708,788,225

-8-

L..-

c. L. HOHENSTEIN AND ASSOCIATES

The state bond revenue will increase by a factor of 1.7. The revenue from state bonded indebtedness (or state bond revenue) is a forced equivalence necessary to approximate the revenue generated for higher education facilities through the unique fund generation system used by the state. The reader is referred to Appendix B for a more complete presentation of the methodology used to obtain this approximating value.
Federal revenue is expected to nearly double. The remaining revenue will increase moderately, but again, it is not a vast contribution to the total. In summary, total revenue will increase by a factor of 1.6.
Table 1-5 concerns the plant funds analysis for public four-year and masters institutions. Over the ten-year projection period, rehabilitation revenue will increase, although the proportion of it to total revenue is small. The state bond revenue will increase by a factor of 1.4. It is anticipated that federal revenue will more than triple. The remaining revenue will increase, but the amount represented is an insignificant proportion of total revenue. In summary, the total revenue is expected to increase by a factor of approximately 1.7.
Table 1-6 concerns the plant funds analysis for public two-year institutions. Over the ten-year period, rehabilitation revenue is anticipated to more than double, but it is an insignificant proportion of the total revenue. state bond and local revenues have been combined in this analysis due to unusually high values of local revenue in the historic data which would force revenue

-9-

-------------------

.

!
I
I C. L. HOHENSTEIN AND ASSOCIATES _ _

Table 1-5
PROJECTION OF CURRENT FUNDS REVENUES FOR PUBLIC FOUR-YEAR AND MASTERS INSTITUTIONS IN DOLLARS ADJUSTED TO SEPTEMBER 1971 VALUE

Revenue Source

Year -1-

Rehab -2-

State Bond -3-

Federal -4-

Remaining -5-

Total -6-

--------------------------Actual Revenues----------------------------

1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970

1,609,500 195,000 680,300
1,273,900 480,300 361,000

8,996,400
15 . 966,300
12,322,500 11,408,700 17,127,300 17,302,300

309,500 704,600 717,000 774,900 1,630,300 1,847,200

200,700 195,000 146,800 287,700 351,000 1,658,800

11,116,100 17,060,900 13,866,600 13,745,200 19,588,900 21,169,300

--------------------------Projected Revenues-------------------------

1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980

1,239,655 1,333,168 1,426,680 1,520,193 1,613,706 1,707,219 1,800,732 1,894,245 1,987,758 2,081,271

17,857,239 18,918,781 19,940,270 20,921,705 21,863,086 22,764,414 23,625,689 24,446,910 25,228,077 25,969,191

2,193,684 2,644,675 3,135,720 3,666,819 4,237,971 4,849,177 5,500,436 6,191,748 6,923,115 7,694,534

572,821 616,032 659,242 702,453 745,663 788,874 832,084 875,295 918,505 961,716

21,863,399 23,512,656 25,161,912 26,811,170 28,460,426 30,109,684 31, 758, 941 33,408,198 35,057,455 36,706,712

Total 16,604,626 (19711980)

221,535,362

292,850,553

-10-

1---

c. L. HOHENSTEIN AND ASSOCIATES _ _

Table 1-6
PROJECTION OF PLANT FUNDS REVENUES FOR TWO-YEAR PUBLIC INSTITUTIONS IN DOLLARS ADJUSTED TO SEPTEMBER 1971 VALUE

Revenue Source

Year -1-

Rehab -2-

State Bond -3-

Federal -4-

Remaining -5-

Total -6-

---------------------------Actual Revenues---------------------------I

I

1965 1966 1967

2,022,500 57,900
245,500

7,304,700

3,764,900

5,500,400 2,482,400
756,200

7,522,900 2,540,300 12,071,300

1968 1969

371,000 7,146,700 217,300 12,168,500

1,511,100 1,212,800 10,241, 600

(377,000

480,300 13,743,100

1970

347,300 15,804,600

188,400

648,300 16,988,600

--------------------------Projected Revenues-------------------------

1971
1972 1973 1974
1975 1976 1977 1978 1979
1980

334,754 366,781 401,873 440,322 482,449 528,608 579,182 634,595 695,310 761,833

14,228,401 15,676,942 17,246,672 18,966,160 20,860,295 22,952,400 25,265,601 27,823,709 30,651,858 33,776,985

2,698,008 2,995,913 3,293,818 3,591,723 3,889,628 4,187,533 4,485,438 4,783,343 5,081,248 5,379,153

282,095 182,068 118,371
77,507 51,101 33,920 22,663 15,239 10,311
7,018

17,543,258 19,221,704 21,(50,734 23,075,712 25,283,473 27,702,461 30,352,884 33,256,886 36,438,727 39,924,990

Total 5,225,707 227,449,023 (19711980)

40,385,807

800,294 273,860,829

---

-11-

- - - . JI C. T~. HOHENSTEIN AND ASSOCIATES

.
L....-

from state bond indebtedness to be negative at a certain point. This situation is explained further in Appendix B. The revenue under the heading "State Bond and Local" is expected to more than double over the projection period. Federal revenue is also expected to double. The remaining revenue is expected to dwindle to near zero. In summary, the total revenue is expected to increase by a factor of 2.3.

1.4 Summary. Table 1-7 concerns the projection of current funds for all types of public institutions over the next ten-year period. It is anticipated that federal revenue will nearly triple. State and local revenue is projected to more than double as is expected revenue from tuition and fees. The remaining revenue is expected to decrease. However, this is only a small proportion of total revenue. In summary, the total revenue is expected to more than double

Table 1-8 concerns the projection of plant funds for all types of public institutions. It is anticipated that rehabilitation revenue will increase, although this represents only a small proportion of the total revenue. State bond revenue is expected to increase by approximately 1.75 its 1971 level. Federal revenue is expected to increase although it is only a small proportion of the total revenue. In summary, the total revenue is expected to increase by a factor of approximately 1.8.

Table 1-9 concerns the projection of federal revenue for all types of public institutions. The bulk of federal revenue is associated with current funds. The proportion is approximately 80% of the total revenue over the study period. Federal revenue associated with current funds is expected to nearly triple, while that associated with plant funds will approximately double.

-12-

c. 1.. HOHENSTEIN AND ASSOCIATES _ _

Table 1-7

..

PROJECTION OF CURRENT FUNDS REVENUES

FOR PUBLIC INSTITUTIONS

IN DOLLARS ADJUSTED TO SEPTEMBER 1971 VALUE

Revenue Source

Year
--1-

Federal -2-

State and Local -3-

Tuition and Fees
-4-

Remaining -5-

Total -6-

---------------------------Actua1 Revenues---------------------------

1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970

7,894,500 8,080,100 21,347,500 24,214,500 27,002,500 27,192,800

53,201,200 62,327,600 74,987,100 107,050,200 119, ,900 125,082,900

17,771,300 21,322,400 28,967,100 30,928,000 32,105,000 40,074,500

22,212,500 28,690,300 17,235,000 15,381,900 15,691,000 17,499,100

101,079,500 120,420,400 142,537,300 177,574,600 194,554,400 209,849,300

.. ---------------------------Projected Revenues------------------------

1971 37,694,616

.. 1972 44,115,318

1973 50,917,036

..

1974 1975

58,088,053 65,617,273

1976 73,494,188

. 1977 81,708,832 1978 90,198,912

1979 99,113,976
1980 108,286,975

151,015,046 170,591,386 190,876,171 211,833,905 233,440,979 255,635,559 278,417,464 301,333,306 325,600,151 349,947,927

44,087,266 49,184,123 54,497,316 60, 023, 186. 65,748,269 71,699,283 77,843,118 83,951,459 90,727,593 97,462,768

14,472,523 13,527,966 12,675,631 11,908,647 11,219,490 10,600,366 10,043,490
9,522,502 9,086,417 8,672,032

247,269,451 277,418,793 308,966,154 341,853,791 376,026,011 411,429,396 448,012,904 485,006,179 524,528,137 564,369,702

~ Total 709,235,179 2,468,691,894 (1971-
1980)
.

695,224,381 111,729,064 3,984,880,518

l.


-13-

C. L. HOHENSTEIN AND ASSOCIATES

Table 1-8
PROJECTION OF PLANT FUNDS REVENUES FOR PUBLIC INSTITUTIONS
IN DOLLARS ADJUSTED TO SEPTEMBER 1971 VALUE

Revenue Source

Year -1-

Rehab -2-

state Bond -3-

Federal -4-

Remaining -5-

Total -6-

--------------------------Actua1 Revenues---------------------------

1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970

4,618,600 . 776,300
4,005,500 4,109,300
756 Q 700 842,000

22,902,700 39,870,400 45,621,700 53,754,700 60,465,900 68,680,800

1,609,500 3,081,300 1,748,800 6,708,800 7,249,900 9,506,300

8,083,600 5,922,200 3,857,900 3,644,400 3,998,200 5,065,700

37,214,400 49,650,200 61,233,900 68,217,200 72,470,700 84,094,800

--------------------------Projected Revenues------------------------

1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980

3,401,555 3,632,984 3,867,476 4,105,326 4,346,854 4,592,415 4,842,390 5,097,204 5,357,320 5,623,245

72,641,722 78,588,512 84,522,233 90,475,320 96,476,276 102,551,848 108,728,407 115,032,843 121,493,212 128,139,230

11,361,699 12,800,027 14,251,154 15,356,183 17,196,158 18,692,072 20,204,864 21,735,425 23,284,604 24,853,200

4,298,384 4,441,127 4,620,198 5,182,104 5,038,467 5,264,055 5,495,567 5,730,913 5,968,753 6,208,231

91,703,410 99,462,650 107,261,061 115,118,933 123,057,755 131,100,390 139,271,228 147,596,385 156,103,889
164,823,906

Tota144,866,769 998,649,653 179,735,386 52,247,799 1,275,499,607 (19711980)

-14-

'---

c. L. HOHENSTEIN AND ASSOCIATES _

r
Table 1-9
PROJECTION OF FEDERAL REVENUES FOR PUBLIC INSTITUTIONS
IN DOLLARS ADJUSTED TO SEPTEMBER 1971 VALUE

Year -1-

Current Funds -2-

Plant Funds -3-

Total -4-

---------------------------Actual Revenues---------------------------

1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970

7,894,500 8,080,100 21,347,500 24,214,500 27,002,500 27,192,800

1,609,500 3,081,300 7,748,800 6,708,800 7,249,900 9,506,300

9,504,000 11,161,400 29,096,300 30,923,300 34,252,400 36,699,100

------------------------ Projected Revenues--------------------------

1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980

37,694,616 44,115,318 50,917,036 58,088,053 69,617,278 73,494,188 81,708,832 90,198,912 99,113,976 108,286,975

11,361,699 12,800,027 14,251,154 15,336,183 17,196,158 18,692,072 20,204,864 21,735,425 23,284,604 24,853,200

49,056,315 56,915,345 65,168,190 73,424,236 86,813,436 92,186,260 101,913,696 111,934,337 122,398,580 133,140,175

Total (19711980)

713,235,184

179,715,386

892,950,570

~--

-15-

,
J c. ,. a.a.,m" .,....00.....

Total federal revenue is expected to increase by a factor of 2.7.
2.0 Technical Analysis of Data.
2.1 General. The purpose of this section is to present the methodology and rationale by which the data shown in Section 1.0 and Appendices A, B, and C were analyzed and projected.
The stages in the analysis of the Source of Funds data followed the hierarchy shown below:
(1) Examine the deflated revenue per enrollee for each type of revenue source and determine if any sufficient relationships exist.
(2) Examine the total deflated revenue per enrollee and determine if any sufficient relationships exist.
(3) Examine the deflated revenue for each type of revenue source and determine if any sufficient relationships exist.
(4) Examine the total deflated revenue and determine if any sufficient relationships exist.
(5) Examine the proportion of total revenue associated with each type of revenue to determine if a sufficient relationship exists. The relationship may be static or dynamic. A static relationship indicates that the proportion over the study period has not changed significantly. A dynamic relationship indicates that the proportion is changing in a statistically predictable manner.
If the data fail the Stage 1 test, they are analyzed at the Stage 2 test, similarly, the third, fourth, and fifth stages are reached. If data concerning
-16-
c. T.. HOHENSTEIN AND AS80CIATES ___

--

the types of revenue fail all of the stage tests, then the average proportion of total deflated revenue over the study period is used as an estimate.

The data were examined by using the least-squares curve fitting technique, where the estimating equations attempted were as follows:

~
1. 2. 3.

Eguation
y = A + BX y AeBX y AXB

4.

y = A + (B/X)

5.

y = l/(A + BX)

6.

y = X/ (AX + B)

For each equation the Correlation Index and constants A and B were determined. The Correlation Index is the proportion of the total variation explained by the regression curve, while A and B are the constants necessary to describe the relationship. In each case, the dependent variable, X, is the year of analysis, minus 1900. Thus X for 1972 is simply 72.

Correlation Indexes were used as a prime factor in selecting a regression curve. Only curves with a Correlation Index greater than or equal to 0.64 were considered. This corresponds to Regression Coefficients of 0.80 or higher. Regression Coeffici2nts of 0.80 are generally recognized as sufficient in most analyses of the type presented in this document.

-17-

C. L. HOHENSTEIN AND ASS( :IATES

The curves with the highest Correlation Indexes were investigated in greater detail. projections of revenue were made using each candidate relationship. If the relationship proved explosive, it was rejected. An explosive situation arises when the projections grow so rapidly that the values are inconceivably large. This situation is particularly true when using the exponential curve (Type 2) as an estimating equation. However, the phenomenon is not limited to the exponential curve.
In almost every case, the estimator that resulted in the lowest projection of total revenue was selected. This procedure was selected based on the subjective concern of the investigators that the latter 1960's was an unusually dynamic era for higher education in Georgia. Given alternative projections, the investigators have utilized their bias in selecting the most conservative estimates.
The data supporting the projections are shown in Section 1.0 and Appendices A, B, C, D, and E. Appendix A is the enrollment projection data obtained from "Interim Projections of Enrollment in Georgia Higher Education Institutions" (GHEFC Document Reference No. 23, dated March 31, 1971). Appendix B is a statement of historical revenue by source of funds. Appendix C is a collection of intermediate revenue computations. Appendix D is a listing of computer programs that were prepared specifically for this analysis. Additional standard library computer scientific programs were used to fit curves and perform Chi-Square tests. Appendix E is a listing of data files that were generated for this investigation. Finally, Appendix F contains sample outputs.
2.2 Current Funds Analvsis. In each section below, the projection methodology for the various revenue
-18-
c. L. HOHENSTEIN AND ASSOCIATES _ _ _

classifications along with the total revenue are presented. The current funds analysis was performed for pUblic institutions stratified as universities, four-year and masters institutions and two-year institutions.
2.2.1 Public Universities
. 1 Federal Revenue. The deflated revenue per enrollee was described adequately by both the Type 4 and Type 1 curves with Correlation Indexes of 0.739855 and 0.727822, respectively. The Type 4 curve projecf7d a value in 1980 of
$93,393,748 11 , whereas, the Type 1
curve projected a value of $103,944,543. The Type 4 curve was selected for the reasons mentioned in the previous section. The values of A and B were
3953.6611 and -246419.0, respectively
2 state and Local Revenue. The deflated state and local revenue per enrollee was described adequately by both the Type 4 and Type 1 curves with Correlation Indexes of 0.89634 and 0.89484, respectively. The Type 4 curve projected a 1980 value of $266,301,125, whereas, the Type 1 curve projected a 1980 value of $295,895,723. The Type 4 curve was selected. The values of A and B were 9911.76 and -593704.0, respectively.

Note 11 All entries in Sections 2.2 and 2.3 in
September, 1971 dollars unless otherwise stated.

Note l/

The input data was truncated so as to deal in thousands of dollars for ease d computation. For example, $3,462,153 would be treated as $3,462. In this and the next section, the values of Y obtained using A and B require multiplication by 1,000 except for projection of proportions.
c. L. HOHENSTEIN AND ASSOCIATES
-19-

.3 Tuition and Fees. The deflated tuition and fees per enrollee was described adequately by both the Type 4 and Type 1 curves with Correlation Indexes of 0.685111 and 0.685527, respectively. The Type 4 curve projected a value in 1980 of $52,126,970, whereas, the Type 1 curve projected a value of $55,613,079. The Type 4 curve was selected. The values of A and B were 1449.23 and -76938.9, respectively
4 Remaining Revenue. The deflated remaining revenue per enrollee was described adequately by both the Type 3 and Type 1 curves with Correlation Indexes of 0.678577 and 0.648421, respectively. The Type 1 curve projected that this source of revenue would disappear in 1974 and thereafter. The Type 3 curve indicated a continued decrease in remaining revenue and was selected as the most appropriate es-
timator with A and B of 3.599l5E22 11
and -10.9705, respectively .
5 Total Revenue. The total revenue was obtained by summing the individual values.

Note !I

E notation indicates the number of zeros that precede the decimal point for minus values and the number of zeros that follow the decimal point for positive E values. For example, 1.OE-l is equal to 0.1 and 1.OEl is equal to 10.0 where the positive value is understood.

-20-

C. L. HOHENSTEIN' AND ASSOCIATES _ _

..

2.2.2 Four-Year and Masters Public Institutions
. 1 Federal Revenue. The deflated federal revenue per enrollee was described adequately by a Type 1 curve with Correlation Index of 0.911067. The values of A and B were -253.333 and 4.2, respectively. Several other curve types yielded sufficiently high Indexes. The total revenue was predicted using a Type 4 curve as discussed below. The state and local revenue projection was obtained for each year using the relationship:
State and Local = Total - Federal - Tuition
- Remaining
Curve 1 has the least investigator bias in deriving the projection for state and local revenue, provided the Correlation Index is sufficiently high. This rationale was also adopted in the selection of a curve describing revenue from tuition
2 State and Local Revenue. The state and local revenue was determined by taking the difference in the total revenue and the other sources as discussed in the previous paragraph
3 Tuition and Fees. The deflated tuition and fees per enrollee was described adequately by a Type 1 curve with a Correlation Index of 0.838473. The values of A and B were -672.286 and 12.8857, respectively. Several other curve types yielded sufficiently high indexes. The rationale for selecting

-21-

C. L. HOHENSTEIN AND ASSOCIATES

the Type 1 curve in this situation was presented above
. 4 Remaininq. The remaining revenue was estimated using the average proportion of remaining revenue to total revenue over the six-year study period. The average proportion was 0.026. The proportion values ranged from 0.016 to 0.032 and were not described adequately by any curve type. The average proportion was multiplied by the projected total revenue for each year to determine the projection of remaining revenue
5 Total Revenue. The deflated total revenue per enrollee was described adequately by both the Type 4 and Type 1 curves with Indexes of 0.871308 and 0.875574, respectively. The Type 4 curve projected a value in 1980 of $103,426,836, whereas, the Type 1 curve projected a value of $109,416,178. The Type 4 curve was selected. The values of A and B were 2846.61 and -142915, respectively.
2.2.3 Two-Year Public Institutions
. 1 Federal Revenue. The deflated federal revenue per enrollee was described adequately by both the Type 1 and Type 4 curves with Correlation Indexes of 0.872431 and 0.876148, respectively. The Type 1 curve projected a value in 1980 of $6,828,515. The Type 4 curve projected a value in 1980 of $5,955,438. In this instance, and in projecting the revenue for tuition below, the Type 1 curve was selected. For federal revenues, A and
-22-
C. J.. HOHENSTEIN AND ASSOCIATES

and Bare -439.143 and 6.74286, respectively. This selection maintains the remaining revenue at a reasonable value while allowing the federal revenue to continue its anticipated increase. It should be noted that the remaining revenue was determined from the relationship:
Remaining = Total - Federal - state and Local
- Tuition and Fees
.2 state and Local. The deflated state and local revenue was described adequately by both the Type 4 and Type 1 curves with Correlation Indexes of 0.960218 and 0.952743, respectively. The Type 4 curve projected a 1980 value of $25,795,537, whereas the Type 1 curve projected a value of $28,833,233. The Type 4 curve was selected. The values of A and B were 83727.4 and -5.25001E6, respectively
3 Tuition and Fees. The deflated tuition and fees was described adequately by both the Type 1 and Type 4 curves with Indexes of 0.726784 and 0.742995. The Type 1 curve projected a value in 1980 of $9,539,756. The Type 4 curve projected a value in 1980 of $10,550,037. However, the Type 1 curve was selected in accordance with the rationale presented in the discussion of federal revenue in this section. The values of A and B were -24021.5 and 392.943, respectively
4 Remaininq Revenue. The remaining revenue was determined as the difference between total revenue and the other types as indicated in the relationship presented in the discussion of federal revenue in this section.
-23-
c. L. HOHBNSTBIN AND ASSOCIATBS

.5 Total Revenue. The deflated total revenue was described adequately by both the Type 1 and Type 3 curves with Correlation Indexes of 0.901348 and 0.912758, respectively. The Type 1 curve projected a 1980 value of $44,022,497. The Type 4 curve projected a value of $39,414,254. In this instance, the Type 1 curve was selected, thus enabling the anticipated increase of federal revenue, and a maintenance of remaining revenue. The values of A and B were 108538 and 1743.43, respectively.
2.3 Plant Funds Analysis. In each section below, the projection methodology for the various revenue classifications along with the total revenue are presented. The plant funds analysis was performed for public institutions stratified as universities, four-year and masters institutions and two-year institutions.
2.3.1 Public Universities
1 Rehabilitation Revenue. Rehabilitation (rehab) revenue was determined using the average value of deflated rehab per enrollee over the study period. The average value was $26 per enrollee with a range from $1 per enrollee to $55 per enrollee over the study period. The data were not described adequately by any of the curve types. The average value of $26 per enrollee was multiplied by the projected annual enrollment to determine the projection of rehab revenue
2 State Bond Revenue. Revenue from state bonded indebtedness was determined by
-24-
C. I.. HOHENSTEIN AND ASSOCIATES _

using the average proportion of total revenue over the last four years of the study period. The average proportion was 0.7755. Only the past four years were considered since the revenue from this source in 1965 and 1967 was estimated as discussed in Appendix B. The Chi-Square value associated with the proportions over the study period is 428.988 whicb corresponds to 27.0552 standardized normal deviations from
the mean (Z = 27.0552). The probability
of exceeding this value of Chi-Square by chance alone is zero. Thus, it can be said that the values come from the same population.
3 Federal Revenue The federal revenue is determined by the following relationship:
Federal = Total - Rehab - State Bond -
Remaining
.4 Remaininq Revenue. The remaining revenue was determined using the average value of deflated remaining revenue per enrollee over the study period. The average value was $49 per enrollee with a range from $36 per enrollee to $62 per enrollee over the study period. The data were not described adequately by any of the curve types. The average value of $49 per enrollee was multiplied by the projected annual enrollment to determine the projection of remaining revenue .
. 5 Total Revenue. The deflated total revenue per enrollee was described adequately by both the Type 4 and Type 1 curves with
-25-
c. 1-. HOHENSTEIN AND ASSOCIATES

Correlation Indexes of 0.843007 and 0.830976, respectively. The Type 4 curve projected a value in 1980 of $83,192,204, whereas, the Type 1 curve projected a value of $97,325,800. The Type 4 curve was selected. The values of A and B were 0.260975 and -1.59l99E7, respectively.
2.3.2 Four-Year and Masters Institutions
. 1 Rehab Revenue. Rehab revenue was determined by using the average proportion of rehab revenue over the study period. The average proportion was 0.0567. The proportion values ranged from 0.011 to 0.145 and were not described adequately by any curve type. The average proportion was multiplied by the projected total revenue for each year to determine the projection of rehab revenue
2 State Bond Revenue. State bond revenue was determined by computing the proportion of total revenue projected over the next ten-year period using the relationship:
Proportion State Bond = 1 - Propor-
tion Rehab - Proportion Remaining Proportion Federal
= 1 - 0.567 -
0.262 - Proportion Federal
The proportion federal was determined from the following relationship:

Proportion = -0.76181 + (1.2l429E-2) (X)
Federal

where X ~s the year of interest minus 1900.

-26-

'--

C. I.. HOHENSTEIN AND ASSOCIATES _ _

Thus, the proportion of state bond revenue is given by

Proportion state Bond Revenue

= 1 - O. 82 9 - [-0 7618 +
(1. 2142 9E-2) (X)]

The resulting proportions were then multiplied by the projected total revenue for each year to determine the projected revenue from state bonded indebtedness

3 Federal Revenue. The proportion of federal revenue to total revenue was described adequately by a Type 1 curve with a Correlation Index of 0.95752 where A and B are given by -0.76181 and 1.21429E-2, respectively. The resulting proportions were then multiplied by the projected total revenue for each year to determine the projected federal revenue

4 Remaining Revenue. The remaining revenue was determined by using the average proportion of remaining revenue to total revenue over the study period. The average proportion was 0.0262. The proportion values ranged from 0.011 to 0.078 and were not described adequately by any curve type. The average proportion was multiplied by the projected total revenue for each year to determine the projection of remaining revenue

5 Total Revenue. The deflated revenue was described adequately by curve Types I, 2, 5 and 6. The highest Correlation Indexes were associated

-27-

c. r.. HOHENSTEIN AND ASSQCIATE8

with the latter three curves, but their use resulted in an explosive situation. Thus, the Type 1 curve was selected with a Correlation Index of 0.641923 and A and B of -66924.7 and 1159, respectively.

2.3.3 Two-Year Public Institutions

. 1 Rehabilitation Revenue. The average value of the proportion (p) of rehabilitation revenue to total revenue over the past five years was 0.0199. The value of p in 1965 was 0.214 which was six times the value of the next highest value of p. The 1965 value was excluded from the computation of the average as it was considered to be either in error or atypical. The average value of p was multiplied by the projected revenue for each year to develop a projection of rehab revenue

2 state Bond and Local Revenue. state bond and local revenue was determined using the following relationship:

State Bond and Local

=

Total

-

Rehab

-

Total

-

Remaining

.3 Federal Revenue. The deflated federal revenue over the past four years was described adequately by a Type 2 curve with a Correlation Index of 0.973674. The associated values of A and B were 1.646l5E3l, and -0.953867, respectively. Examination of the projection using this curve indicated that the federal revenue would decrease to nearly zero over the next ten years. This seem unlikely. The most likely occurrence will be a

L.-..

-28-

c. 1.. HOHENSTEIN AND ASSOCIATES _ _

continuation of the historic overall level of funding. The deflated average federal revenue per enrollee over the past four years was $79. This value was multiplied by the projected enrollment to obtain a more reasonable projection
4 Remaining Revenue. The proportion of remaining revenue to total revenue was described adequately by a Type 3 curve with a correlation Index of 0.896268. The corresponding values of A and B were 1.8063E68 and -37.8384 respectively. The resulting proportions were multiplied by the projected total revenue to determine the projection of remaining revenue
5 Total Revenue. Curves 5 and 6 had the highest Correlation Indexes in describing deflated revenue. However, both led to an explosive situation. Curves 1 and 3 adequately described deflated total revenue with Correlation Indexes of 0.756527 and 0.792656, respectively. Curve Type 1 yielded a 1980 projected value of total revenue of $30,762,414. The corresponding value for curve Type 3 was $48,168,717. The difference between the two estimating equations was too excessive to choose one over the other. The deflated total revenue per enrollee over the past six years had a very low Correlation Index for all curve types, which would indicate that the data is nearly random. The average value of deflated revenue per enrollee over the past six years is $538 which yields a 1980 projection
-29-
~ C. L. HOHENSTEIN AND ASSOCIATES

for total revenue of approximately $36.6 million. It was decided to utilize one-half the estimate of curve Type 1 and one-half the estimate of curve Type 3 to estimate total revenue. The new projection data was described by a Type 3 curve with a Correlation Index of 0.999826. The corresponding values of A and B were 2.ll326E-9 and 6.89406, respectively. This new curve was then used for projecting total revenue.

-30-

C. L. HOHENSTEIN AND ASSOCIATES _

Appendix A ENROLLMENT PROJECTION DATA

-31-

c. L. HOHENSTEIN AND ASSOCIATES

Table A-I
PROJECTION OF HEADCOUNT FALL ENROLLMENT IN GEORGIA PUBLIC INSTITUTIONS

Year
-1-
1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980

Public Universities Public Four-Year Public

and Masters

Two-Year

-2-

-3-

-4-

49,385 52,247 55,109 57,971 60,833 63,695 66,557 69,419 72,281 75,143

37,615 41,053 44,491 47, 928 51,367 54,805 58,243 61,681 65,119 68,557

24,000 26,650 29,300 31,950 34,600 37,250 39,900 42,550 45,200 47,850

Source: "Interim Projections of Enrollment in Georgia Higher Education Institutions," March 31, 1971, Document Reference No. 23, prepared for the Georgia Higher Education Facilities Commission by C. L. Hohenstein and Associates.

-32-
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _.

C. 1.. HOHENSTEIN AND ASSOCIATES

Appendix B HISTORICAL REVENUE BY SOURCE OF FUNDS

-33-

c. I.. HOHENSTEIN

AND ASSOCIATE"

I
~

Appendix B HISTORICAL REVENUE BY SOURCE OF FUNDS

Tables B-1, B-2, and B-3 pertain to historical current funds revenues obtained by public institutions in Georgia. Entries in the tables of Appendix B are in thousands of dollars. The order of presentation follows the sequence public universities, public four-year and masters institutions, and public two-year institutions. The source of data from which the tables in Appendix B were constructed was the "Annual Financial Report, University System of Georgia," prepared by the Regents of the University System of Georgia. Revenues are classified by type as follow:

Type 1 - Federal Revenue Type 2 - State and Local Revenue Type 3 - Tuition and Fees Type 4 - Remaining Revenue

The revenues are further classified as actual or deflated. The actual revenues are not designated as actual. The deflated entries are deflated by the Consumer Price Index for urban wage earners and clerical workers with 1957-1959 as a base with value 100, and are designated in the tables as deflated.
Tables B-4, B-5, and B-6 pertain to historical plant funds revenues received by public institutions in Georgia. The order of presentation follows the same sequence as that above. However, the classifications by type are different than those for current funds. In Tables B-4 and B-5 the classification scheme is as follows:

Type 1 - Rehabilitation Revenue Type 2 - State Bond Revenue Type 3 - Federal Revenue Type 4 - Remaining Revenue

-34-

C. I.. HOHENSTEIN AND ASSOCIATES

state bond revenue for 1967-70 is a derived or forced value. It was obtained using the relationship:

state Bond Revenue

= Additions

to Plant -

Rehab

-

Federal

-

Other

The rehab revenue is a state appropriation. The federal revenue includes both gifts and grants which flow through the Regents of the University System of Georgia and also HEFA grants. Other revenue consists of private gifts and grants, other gifts and grants, interest on temporary investments, and other unclassified revenues. The value for state bond revenue is an approximation of the state contribution which is a function of the unique manner in which plant funds are provided by the state.

In Tables B-4 and B-5, the state bond revenue and federal revenue for 1965 and 1966 are estimated values. Estimation was required since the source documents did not differentiate between these two revenues in these years. The estimation procedure is discussed further below.

B-1 Estimation of Federal Revenue for Public Universit~es. The proportion of federal revenue to total revenue for 1967-70 was described adequately by a curve of the form
Proportion = l/(A + BX)

where X is the year of interest minus 1900, and A and B are constants of 115,571 and -1.55887, respectively. The Correlation Index for this curve was 0.964188. The result was an estimated proportion of total revenue of 0.070 in 1965 and 0.079 in 1966. These proportions were then multiplied by total revenue to estimate federal revenue in the two years.

1--

-35-

c. L. HOHENSTEIN AND ASSOCIATES _

B-2 Estimation of State Bond Revenue for Public Universities. The proportion of state bond plant revenue for 1965 and 1966 was obtained from the relationship:

Proportion state Bond

= 1.0

-

Proportion Rehab

Revenue

Proportion Federal

Proportion Remaining

The resulting proportions for 1965 and 1966 were then multiplied by the total revenue to estimate state bond revenue in the two years.

B-3 Estimation of Federal Revenue for Four-Year and Masters Institutions. The federal revenue for 1967-70 was described adequately by a curve of the form
Federal Revenue = AeBX

where X is the year of interest minus 1970 and A and B are constants given by 6.94375E-10 and 0.408672, respectively. The Correlation Index for the curve was 0.91.

B-4 Estimation of State Bond Revenue for Four-Year and Masters Institutions. The state bond revenue was determined from the relationship

state Bond Revenue = Total - Rehab - Federal - Other

In Table B-6, the classification scheme is slightly different, as follows:

Type 1 - Rehabilitation Revenue Type 2 - state Bond and Local Revenue Type 3 - Federal Revenue Type 4 - Remaining Revenue

-36-

-

C. 1.. HOHENSTEIN AND ASSOCIATES

The entries for state bond and local revenue as well as federal revenue in 1965 and 1966 have been deleted. This was required. since it was not possible to separate the revenue sources after state bond revenue and local revenue were merged. Merging of these two revenue sources was necessary to eliminate a negative entry for state bond revenue in 1967. This negative entry was the result of an atypically high level of local revenues in 1967 and the method of determining state bond revenue.
-37L--_____________________________________________________________________________________ c. L. HOHBNSTEIN AND ASSOCIATBS ___

YEAR 1965 1966 1967 1968 "1969 1978

Table B-1
HISTORICAL CURRENT FUNDS REVENUES FOR PUBLIC UNIVERSITIES

TYPE I 5722.0 60f11t7.0 16539.1 19122.1 21915.1 23193.flJ

TYPE 2 38647.8 35806.0 1&3737.8 66315.8 7591&6.1 83756.9

TYPE 3 9771.0 I 1579.0 11&955.8 15938.0 17084.0 22444.0

"
TYPE 1& 16752.fJ 22023.8 12663." 1 1678. fJ 13151.1 15023.(4

YEAR 1965 1966 1967" 1968 1969 1979

DEFLAT!:D TYPE 1 5286.6 5311.2 14221.0 15777.2 17161.3 17154.6

DEFLATED TYPE 2
27886.3 31658.7 37607.1 51&715.3 59472.2 61949.7

DEFLATED TYPE 3
8890.8
UJ237.8
.
12859.0
13150.2
13378.2
16600.6

DEFLATED TYPE 1&
1521&2.9 19472.1 .9888.2
9635.3 19298.1& 11111.7

-38-

J

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ C. 1.. HOHENSTEIN AND ASSOCIATES

Table B-2
HISTORICAL CURRENT FUNDS REVENUES FOR PUBLIC FOUR-YEAR AND MASTERS INSTITUTIONS

YEAR
1965
1966
..
1967
1968
1969
197.

TYPE 1 367.11 393." 733.8
1178.0 1'559.0 1846

TYPE 2 7452." 9264.0 10929.0 16452.8 21277.0 24173.1

TYPE 3 2730.8 3"18.0 5175.0 6720.0 7939.0 11412.0

TYPE 4 345.8 "37.8 "92.8 492. " 501." 952.0

YEAR 1965 1966
..
1967 1968 1969 1978
L-

DEFLATED TYPE 1 333.9 347.5 638.3 889.4 122fJ.8 1365.4

DEFLATED TYPE 2 6780.7 8191.0 9397.2
13574.3 16661.7 17879.4
-39-

DEPl.,ATED TYPE 3 2484.1 3022.1 4449.7 5544.6 6216.9 8440.8

DEF~ATED
TYPE 4 313.9 386.4 423.0 405.9 391.5 704.1

c. 1.. HOHENSTEIN AND ASSOCIATES ~

..
,.
,YEAR 1965
.
196()
~
1967
.. 1968
1969
~
1978
..

Table B-3
HISTORICAL CURRENT FUNDS REVENUES FOR PUBLIC TWO-YEAR INSTITUTIONS

TYPE 1 8.0
22.8 175.' 424.0 758.8 797.8

TYPE 2 2989.8 4468.8 6620.8 8410.8 18246.8 10913.8

TYPE 3 1224.1 1958.0 3545.0 3684.0 3788.0 4219.0

TYPE 4 58.0
343.0 931. I I 931.8 430.0 651.0

..
YEAR
~ 1965
1966
~
1967
~
1968
. 1969
197.
~

DEJiLATED TYPE I 7.3 19.5 158.5 349.8 593.6 589.5

----

DEFLATED TYPE 2 2719.7 3950.5 5692.2 6938.9 8023.5 8071.7
-40-

DEFLATED TYPE 3 1113.7 1724.1 3048.2 3139.6 2966.3 3120.6

DEFLATED TYPE 4 52.8 303.3 801.5 768.2 336.7 481.5

C. L. HOHENSTEIN AND ASSOCIATES

YEAR
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969 .. 1978

Table B-4
HISTORICAL PLANT FUNDS REVENUES FOR PUBLIC UNIVERSITIES

TYPE 1 762.0 416.0
2517.0 2099.0
53.0 127.0

TYPE ~ 10740.0 18999.0 21245.0 29980.0 27972.0 33799.0

TYPE 3 1004.A 1889.0 2670.0 3767.0 4256.0 7098.0

TYPE 4 1840.0
~579.0
2415.0 1826.0 2842. " 2621.0

YEAR 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1978

DEf'LAT!:P TYPE I 693.4 367.8 !164.2 1731.8 41.5 93.9

DEFLATED TYPE 2
9772.5
.
16798.4
18267.4
24736.0
21904.5
24999.3

DEFLATED TYPE 3 913.6 1670.2 2295.8 3108.1 3332.8 5250.0

DEFLATED TYPE 4 1674.2 2280.3 2076.5 , 1506.6 2225.5 1938.6

-41-

__________ c. L. HOHRSSTE1N AND ASSOCl.,TES _ _

..
YEAR 1965
.
1966 1967 1968 1969
.-
19711

Table B-5
HISTORICAL PLANT FUNDS REVENUES FOR PUBLIC FOUR-YEAR AND MASTERS INSTITUTIONS

TYPE I
--
1243.8 155.8 556.8
19S5.0 431.0 343.8

TYPE 2 6948.8 12690." 10071.0 9717.0 15370.8 16439."

TYPE 3 239.0 569.' 586.0 660.0
1463.0 1755.0

TYPE 4 155.8 155.0 120.0 245.0 315.0
1576.0

~ YEAR
1965
~
1966
~ 1967
~ 1968 1969
~
197.
I>

DEFLATED TYPE 1 1131.0 137.8 il78.1 895.2 337.5 253.7

DEFLATED TYPE 2 6322.1
11229.2 8659.5 8017.3 12036.9 12159.0

DEFl.,ATED TYPE 3 217.5 495.1 503.9 544.6 1145.7 1298. 1

DE~ATED
TYPE LI 141.0 137.9 193.2 202.1 246.7
1165.7

-42-
- - - l _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ C. L. HOHENSTEIN AND ASSOCIATES

Table B-6
HISTORICAL PLANT FUNDS REVENUES FOR PUBLIC TWO-YEAR INSTITUTIONS

YEAR 1965
0
1966 1967 1968 1969 1978

TYPE 1 1562."
46.C1J 199.C1J 316.8 195.0 330.0

TYPE 2 1488.0 4295.9 5970.0 6087.0 10920.0 15016.0

TYPE 3 Ci!.C1J 0.0
3077.0 1287.0
787.0 179. fI

TYPE 4 4248.0, 1973.0
618.0 1C1J33. 9,
431.0 616.0

YEAR
1965
1966
1967
1968 . 1969
1970

DEFLftTED TYPE 1 1421.3 40.7 171.1 260.7 152.7 244.1

DEFLATED TYPE 2 1354.0 3797.5 5133.3 5022.3 8551.3
11106.5

DEFLATED TYPE 3
"'.0
0.0
2645.7
1061.9
616.3
132.4

DEFLATED, TYPE 1& 3865.3. 1744.5 531.4 852.3' 337.5 455.6

-43-

_ _ _ _ ,,

C. T HOHENRTEIN AND ASSOCIATES ~

Appendix C INTERMEDIATE REVENUE COMPUTATIONS

-44-

C. L. HOHENSTEIN AND ASSOCIATES

Appendix C INTERMEDIATE REVENUE COMPUTATIONS

Tables C-2, C-3, and C-4 pertain to current funds revenues for public institutions. Tables C-5, C-6, and C-7 pertain to plant funds revenues. All entries are in thousands of dollars except the section of each table which is designated as a proportion of some revenue source. The entries, except for total revenue and total expenditures, are derived from the historical enrollment data shown in Table C-l and the Tables of Appendix B. The total revenue and total expenditures columns are from the "Annual Financial Report, University System of Georgia," prepared by the Regents of the University System of Georgia.

Column headings in the computer generated Tables C-2, C-3, C-4, C-5, C-6 and C-7 are necessarily abbreviated. Listed below are the full headings and corresponding abbreviations used.

Abbreviation
Total Rev Defl Rev Total Exp Defl Exp Rev/Enrollee Defl Rev/ Exp/Enrollee Defl Exp/ Fed Rev/ State and Local/
Tuition/
Remaining/ Deflated Fed Rev/
Deflated st + Local/

Full Headings
Total Revenue Deflated Revenue Total Expenditures Deflated Expenditures Revenue per Enrollee Deflated Revenue per Enrollee Expenditures per Enrollee Deflated Expenditures per Enrollee Federal Revenue per Enrollee State and Local Revenue per
Enrollee Tuition and Fees Revenue per
Enrollee Remaining Revenue per Enrollee Deflated Federal Revenue per
Enrollee Deflated State and Local Revenue
Per Enrollee

-45-

C. L.

HOHBNSTBIN ANO

ASSOCIATBS

~

------------

Deflated Tuition/

Deflated Tuition and Fees

Revenue per Enrollee

Deflated Remaining/ Deflated Remaining Revenue

per Enrollee

Proportion Fed Rev Proportion Federal Revenue

Proportion st + Local Proportion State and Local

Revenue

Proportion Tuition

Proportion Tuition and Fees

Revenue

Proportion Remaining Proportion Remaining Revenue

-46-

C. T.. HOHENSTEIN AND ASSOCIATES _ _

Table C-l

HISTORIC HEADCOUNT ENROLLMENT IN GEORGIA PUBLIC HIGHER EDUCATION INSTITUTIONS

Year
-1-
1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970

Public Universities
-2-
34,054 36,612 39,412 41,641 44,689 44,896

Four-Year and

Two-Year

Masters Institutions Institutions

-3-

-4-

15,097 17,232 22,268 26,741 31,443 35,191

10,944 13,447 12,551 16,129 17,979 21,738

Source:

Data for 1969 from Georgia Higher Education Facilities Commission Survey; all other data from Opening Fall Enrollments, National Center for Educational Statsitics, Office of Education, Department of Health, Education and Welfare.

--

-47-

C. T.. HOHENSTEIN AND ASSOCIATES

Table C-2
INTERMEDIATE REVENUE COMPUTATIONS CURRENT FUNDS REVENUES FOR PUBLIC UNIVERSITIES
IN THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS

YEAR 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 197.

TOTAL REV 62892. 75415. 87894.
113153. 128096. 144416.

DEFL REV 57227. 66680. 75575. 93278.
100310. 106817.

TOTAL EX? 62217. 72236. 85177.
114495. 128"'43. 144530.

DEFL EX? 56612. 63869. 73239. 94468.
100269. 106901

YEAR 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1978

REV/ENROLLEE 1.847 2.96ftJ 2.230 2.715 2.866 3.217

.,
OEFL REV/ 1.680 1.821 1.918
2.24~
2.245 2.379

EXP/ENlWLLEE 1.827 1.973 2. 161 2.750 2.865 3.219

DEFL EX?/ 1.662 1.744 1.858 2.269 2.244 2.381

-48-

. _ _ _ _ _ C. I.. HOHENSTEIS AND ASSOCIATES ~

YEAR
1965 1966 1967 1968 .1969 1970
YEAR
1965 .. 1966 1967 1968 1969 197.

no REV.!
..
0.168
9.164
0.420
121.459
0.498
9.517

Table C-2 Continued
ST+LOCAL.!
0.900 8.978 1.1 If} 1.593 1.699 1.866

TUITION.!
"J. 287
0.316 0.379 0.383 0.382 0.500

DEFLATED FED REV.!
0.153 8.145 0.361 C1J.379 0.384 0.382

DEFLATED ST+LOCAL.!
0.819 0.865 8.954 1.314 1.331 1.388

DEFLATED TUITION.!
0.261 0.280 0.326 0.316 0.299 0.379

REMAININGI
8.492 8.602 8.321 8.288 8.294
1.33~
DEFLATED REMAININGI
8.448 8.532 8.276 0.231 0.230 0.247

YEAR
1965
..
1966
1967
1968
1969
1978

Table C-3
INTERMEDIATE REVENUE COMPUTATIONS CURRENT FUNDS REVENUES FOR
PUBLIC FOUR-YEAR AND MASTERS INSTITU'I'IONS IN THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS

TOTAL REV 10894. 13512. 17329. 24742. 31275. 38383.

DEFL REV 9913. 11947. 14900.
20414. 24491. 28390.

TOTAL EXP 10436 12716. 16532. 24812. 31563. 58346.

DEFL EXP 9496. 1t 243. 14215.
20472. 24717. 43155.

YEAR 1965 1966 1967 1968
1
i
1969 1970
L

REV/ENROLLEE 0.722 0.784 0.778 0.925 0.995 1.091

DEFL REVI 0.657 0.693 0.669 0.763 0.779 0.807

-50-

EXP/ENROLLEE 0.691 0.738 0.742 0.928 1.004 1.658

DEFL EX?/
0.629
0.652
0.638
0.766 0.786
-.
1.226

c. I.. HOHENSTEIN AND ASSOCIATES

~
YEAR

~ 1965

1966
"
1967
~ 1968

1969
~

1970

-_ I.

....... "'.....

YEAR

~

" 1965
1966
" 1967

"

1968 .

.1969

" 197

. rEAR

. ~196S ~ 1966

~ 1967
1968 \
~
1969
. 1978

Table C-3 Continued

FED REVI 0.024 0.023 0.033 9.041 8.050 0.052
DEFLATED FED REVI
0.022 0.020 0.@28 0.033 0.039 0.039
PROPORTION FED REV 0.034 C1l.029 0.042 0.044 0.050 0.048

ST+LOCALI 0.494 0.538 0.491 0.615 8.677 0.687
DEFLATED ST+LOCALI
0.1.&49 '.1.&75 8.1.&22 0.598 '11.530 '11.508
PROPORTION ST+LOCAL 0.684 0.686 0.631 0.665 0.680 0.630 -51-

-
TUITIONI 0.181 0.198 0.232 9.251 0.252 0.324
DEFLATED TUITIONI
0.165
"
0.175 0.200 0.207 0.198 C1l.249

REMAINING 11I.023 8.825 0.822 8.818 8.016 8.027
DEFLATED REMAININGI
fJ.fJ21 e.f1122 0.019 fII .,15 0.912
fJ."l29

PROPORTION

PROPORTION

TUITION

REMAINING

0.251

fJ.flJ32

0.253

'11.032

0.299

0.C1l28

0.272

0.020

0.254

0.016

0.297

0.025

I
- . . - - J c. J.. HOHENSTEIN AND ASSOCIATES

YEAR
1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1978

Table C-4

INTERMEDIATE REVENUE COMPUTATIONS CURRENT FUNDS REVENUES FOR PUBLIC TWO-YEAR INSTITUTIONS IN THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS

TOTAL REV
4279.
6783.
11271.
13449.
15222.
..
16580.

OEFL REV
3894.
5997.
..
9691.
11097.
t 1920.
12263.

TOTAL EXP 4006. 6251. 9685.
19545. 13079. 15979.

DEFL EXP 3645. 5527 8328. 87(!J0.
10242 11819.

'YEAR
i 1965 ,1966 1967 .. 1968 1969 1970
L

REV/ENROLLEE 0.391 0.504 0.898 0.834 0.847 0.763

DEFL REV/ 0.356 0.446 fl.772 9.688 0.663
0.564

-52-

EXP/ENROLLEE 0.366 0.465 0.772 0.654 8.727 fl.735

DEFL EXPJ 0.333 0.411 0.664 0.539 0.578 C'l.544

c. L. HOHENSTEIS AND ASSOCIATES - -

YEAR
1965
-
1966
.
1967
.
1968
.-
1969 . 1971
YEAR
1965 1966
..
1961
.. ..
1968 1969 ; 191.
YEAR
1965 1966 1967 1968
,.
t969 1911
L
It,

DEFLATED FED REV/
0.001 -.
0.001 9.012 9.022 9.033 8.827

Table C-4 continued

DEFLATED
..
ST+LOCAL/
0.249
8.294
1.454
fJ. 438
8.446 0.371

DEFLATED TUITIONI
0.102 0.128 0.243 9.188
0.165 0.144

DEFLATED ~I
REMAINING
8.005 I
i
8.023
8.064
8.848 .-
8.819
0.122

FED REV/ 8.88. 02 .. 0.814 8.826 0.042 0.837
P~OPORTI0N
FED REV 0.002 (lJ.003 0.016 8.032 8.850 0.048

ST+LOCALI 8.273 0.332 8.527 8.521 0.570 9.502
PROPORTION
,
ST+LOCAL 8.699 0.659 0.587 0.625 8.673 0.658 -53-

TUITIONI
fJ. I 12
..
0.145
0.282
0.228
8.211
0.194

REMAININGI 1.885 8.826 i 0.074 8.858 0.024 8.030

PROPORTION

PROPORTION

TUITION

REMAINING

0.286

0.014

8.287

8.051

0.315

8.083

0.274

C1J.069

0.249

fJ.0?8

0.254

8."39

I
I
I c. t HOHENSTEIN AND ASSOCIATES - - - - l

YEAR
1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 19.,,,

Table C-5
INTERMEDIATE REVENUE COMPUTATIONS PLANT FUNDS REVENUES FOR PUBLIC UNIVERSITIES IN THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS

TOTAL REV
14346. 23883. 28847. 37672. 35123. 43645.

DEFL REV
13054. 21117. 24804. 31083. 27504. 32282.

TOTAL EXP
12674.
235~6.
28245. 36471. 33677. 40254.

DEFL EXP
11532.
2~783.
24286. 3(i1(i1q? 26372. 29774.

YEAR
-"
1965 1966 1961 1968 1969 1970
L-

REV/ENROLLEE
0.421 0.652 0.732 0.905 0.786 0.972

DEFL REV/
0.383 0.577 0.629 0.746 fj.615 0.719

-54-
"

EXP/ENROLLEE
0.372 0.642 0.717 0.876 0.754 0.897

DEFL EXPI 0.339 0.568 0.616 0.723 0.590 0.663

c. L. HOHENSTEIN AND ASSOCIATES

~ YEAR 1965 1966 "1967 1968 1969
.
1970
. YEAR

1965
. 1966
1967

1968

,

..
1969

197.,

YEAR
.
1965
1966
1967 1968
1969
1970

Table C-5 Continued

REHABI 0.022 0.011 0.064 8.050 8.0'" 0.""3
DEFLATED REHABI
0.020 0.0lil 0.055 0.042
.. 0. ''''I 0.002
PROPORTION REHAB
1'.053 9.017 0.087 0.056 0.002 0.003

ST BONDEDI {1Ye315 0.519 0.539 fh720 0.626 0.753
DEFLATED ST BONDEDI
0.287 0.459 0.463 8.594 8.490 0.557
PROPORTION ST BONDED
0.7La9
0.796 0.736 0.796 0.796 0.774 -55-

FEDERALI 8.029 9.952 9.068 0.990 0.095 0.158
DEFLATED FEDERAL I 0.027 0.046 0.058 8.075 0.875
""
0.117

REMNGI 9.054 0.870 0.861 9.044 8.064 0.058
DEFLATED REMNGI 8.049 0.062 0.853 8.036 0.85" 8.043

PROPORTION FEDERAL 0.1'70 0.079 0.093 0.100 0. 121 0.163

PROPORTION REMNG
..
0.128
8.108 0.084
8.048
0.@l81
0.060

I (:. L. HOHENSTEIN AND ASSOCIATES _ _

YEAR 1965 1966 1961 1968 1969 1918

Table C-6
INTERMEDIATE REVENUE COMPUTATIONS PLANT FUNDS REVENUES FOR PUBLIC
FOUR-YEAR AND MASTERS INSTITUTIONS IN THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS

TOTAL REV
8585.
13569.
11333.
11701.
17579.
.-
20113.

DEFL REV 7812.
11989. 9745. 9659. 13766. 14876.

TOTAL EXP 7234.
13278. 11189. 12166. 17391. 19882.

DEFL EXP 6582.
11740. 9621. 10038. 13619 14706.

YEAR .. 1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970

REV/ENROLLEE 0.569 0.787 0.509 0.438 rilJ.559 0.572

DEFL REVI 0.517 0.696 0.438 0.361 0.438 0.423

-56-

EXP/ENROLLEE '?I.479 rilJ.771 0.502 0.455 0.553 0.565

DEFL EXPI 0.436 0.681 ClJ.432 0.375 0.433 0.418

I
J
c. c. KoK""","," ,"0 o",oc'''""

YEAR 1965 .. 1966 1967 1968 .. 1969
..
1970
YEAR
1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970
YEAR
1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1979

Table C-6 Continued

REHABI 0.062 e.l09 0.025 9.041 0.011& 0.010
DEFLATED REHABI
0.075 9.908 0.021 0.033 0.011 0.007
PROPORTION REHAB
0.11&5 0.11,. 1 0.049 0.093 0.025 0.017

ST BONDEDI 0.1&60 0.736 0.452 0.363 0.469
0.l&67
DEFLATED ST BONDEDI
0.419 0.651 0.389 0.300 0.383 0.346
PROPORTION ST BONDED
0.899 0.936 9.889 0.830 0.874 &!l.817
-57-

FEDERALI 0.016
0.0~2
0.026 0.025 0.047 0.050

REMNGI 9.010 0.009 0.005 0.009 0.0UI 0.045

DEFLATED FEDERALI 0.014 0.029 0.023 0.020
0.A~6
0.037

DEFLATED REMNGI 0.009 0.008 0.005 0.006 0.008 0.033

PROPORTION

PROPORTION

FEDERAL

REMNG

0.928

0.018

A.941

0.011

0.052

0.01 1

Ch056

0.821

A.083

0.018

0.087

0.078

c. L. HOHENSTEIN AND ASSOCIATBS

--------------------,

YEAR 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1978
YEAR 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1978

Table C-7

INTERMEDIATE REVENUE COMPUTATIONS PLANT FUNDS REVENUES FOR
TWO-YEAR PUBLIC INSTITUTIONS IN THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS

TOTAL REV 7298. 6314. 9864. 8723.
12333. 16141.

DEFL REV 6641. 5583. 8482. 7197. 9658.
11939.

TOTAL EXP 7234. 4944. 8764. 8673.
13436. 16368.

REV/ENROLLEE 0.667 121.47121 0.786 0.541 0.686 121.743

DEFL REV/ 121.607 0.415 0.676 0.446 0.537 0.549

EXP/ENROLLEE 0.661 0.366 0.698 121.536
9.1.747
0.754

I
DEFL EX?!
I I
6582.

4371.

I
I

I
7536. I

I

7156. I
I

10522.
I

12121. I

i i
I
I
I

I
I

DEFL EX?/I I I 0.601 I
0. 325 1 0.600 i

0.444

0.565

0.558

-58-

I

I

I

. - - - J c. T HOHENSTEl~ AND ASSOCIATES

~

,..
YEAR
...
1965
-.
~ 1966
1967
-.
1968 .. 1969
--
197f11
.~
YEAR
,..

. 1965
1966

~ 1967

1968

I'

'.

1969

,. 197.

"" YEAR
...
1965 1966
. 1967
1968 1969 1978
~



Table C-7 Continued

REHABI 9.143 0.003 0.016 0.021 0.011 0.015
DEFLATED REHABI
0.130 0.003 0.014 1.016 0.888 0.811
PROPORTION REHAB
8.214 0.007 0.020 0.836 0.916 0.frll20

ST BONDEDI
0.476 0.377 0.607 0.691 DEFLATED
-
ST BONDEDI
0.1&"9 0.311 0.1&76
..
0.511 PROPORTION ST BONDED
0.605 0.698 0.885 0.93f1 -59-

FEDERALI
".21&5 9.980 0.01&1& 0.988 DEFLATED FEDERALI
0.211 9.866 0.034 0.006 PROPORTION P"EDERAL
0.312
0.11&8
0.064 0.011

REMNGI 9.388 0.147 0.01&9 8.161& f1I.024 0.028
DEFLATED REMNGI 1.353 1.131 9.042 0.053 8.019 fJ.021
PROPORTION REMNG 0.582 9.312 0.863 9. I 18 0.035 0.038

c. L. HOHBNSTEIN AND ASSOCIATES

Appendix D LISTING OF COMPUTER PROGRAMS

-60-

c. L. HOHENSTEIN AND ASSOCIATES

Appendix D
LISTING OF COMPUTER PROGRAMS
Six maj?r computer programs were developed to complete the analysis of the input data in an efficient and complete manner. The programs are interactive. That is, as execution takes place, they ask for certain input information. A summary of the program files is shewn in Table D-l. The program names are acronyms whose meaning is explained in Table D-l. Table D-2 is a summary of the data files used in conjunction with the program files. A more complete explanation of the data files is given in Appendix E. A listing of each program file appears in Figures D-l through D-6 following Table D-2.

-61-

C.

T

HOHENSTEIN AND ASSOCIATES

~

Table D-l

Program ~il~l~ame

Acron~2:ource

I
! DATAP

DATA Generation ~rogram

PROGRAM FILES

Program File Use -3-

Input Requirements -4-

Generates historical revenue CUPUD or PLPUD tables of Appendix B

CUPUP

CUrrent Funds, Plfulic, Program

Generates intermediate current funds revenues Tables C-2, C-3 and C-4

CUPUD

PLPUP

PLant Funds, PL~lic, Program

I 0'

GHEFl

GHEFC Program 1

N

I

Generates intermediate plant PLPUD

funds revenues Tables C-5,

C-6 and C-7

I

I

Projects revenue where the

PROJD, : Inst~ tution Type,

input data of the form de-

Curve TY_Ipe, A, B,

flated revenue per enrollee

is described adequately by

one of the curve types

GHEF2 GIIEFC Program 2

:: c ::
z~
00 ~ ~
i
>z GHEF3
">
00 00
Cn
>.,
"00
s-

GHEF Program 3

Projects revenue where the input data of the form proportion of total revenue is described adequately by one of the curve types
Projects revenue \~lere the input data of the form "deflated revenue" is described adequately by one of the curve types

Curve Type (for Total Revenue),

A(for Total Revenue), B(for I

Total Revenu.e), Curve Type (for propnrt~on), A(for pro-

I
;[

portion), B(for propurtion) I

I

Curve Type, A, B

I

Table D-2 DATA FILES

Data File Name

Acronym Source -2-

CUPUD

CUrrent Funds, PUblic, Data

I 0'>
w
I

PLPUD

PLant Funds, PUblic, Data

PROJD

PROJect im Data

~
o
~ ~
2..:
~
~ > o2:
>
IoII
n
.>
~ III

Primary Contents

Data File Use

-3-

-4-

Current Funds Revenues by Year by Type of Institution

Input to DATAP and CUPUP

Plant Funds Revenues by Year by Type of Institution

Input to DATAP and PLPUD

Historic Enrollment by Type of Institution and Year

Input to (~HEFI

Format -5-
Free
Free
Free

- -----_.._--------_._-- ------------------------------,

Figure D-l LISTING OF DATAP

DATAP

15116 SY~~ 92/21/72 MONDAY

199 DIMENSION A(33~9)~DFLR(33)"DREV(33~4)

110 DATA A/297*0.01

120 IN-I

.130 I P= I

149 PRINT" --INPUT FILE",,' *

150 READ 145"PUCU

160 145FORMAT(A6)

170 CALL OPENF(2"PUCU)

180 READ (2,,)LINES

190 READ(2""ERR=63~)ACI~J)"J=I~Q)"I=J"LINE~)

200 DO 45 ITIMES=I,,3

210 DO 30 IL=IN"LINES,,3

220 DFLR(IL)=100./A(IL~8)

230 00 20 JX- I ~ 4

249 JY=JX+3

250 DREV(IL"JX)=ACIL"JY)*DFLRCIL)

260 20 CONTINUE

270 39 CONTINUE

280 IN-IN+I

299 45 CONTINUE

388 DO 250 IPRIN=I,,3

318 PRINTU0

320 PRINT 117

338 DO 158 IL=I P"LINES" 3

348 PRINT 100"ACIL"1)"ACIL"4)"ACIL"S),,ACIL,,6),,A(IL,,7)

358 150 CONTINUE

360 PRINT 110

370 PRINT 114

380 PRINT 117

390 DO 160 IL=IP~LINES,,3

400 PRINT 100"A(ILll)"DREVCIL"I)IDREV(IL~2)"DREV(IL,,3)~DREVCIL,,4)

410 160 CONTINUE \ 420 IP=IP+1

- 430 250 CONTINUE

\ 440 5('1 STOP

450 630 READCI02;)LINE
I\ 460 PRINT"LINE 470 100 FORMAT(2X"I4"4(8X,,F8.1

480 110 FORMAT(III/I)

\I 490 114 FORMATC"

DEFLATED

DEFLATED

500&DEFLATED

DEFLATED")

51'" 117 FORMATe" YEAR

TYPE I

TYPE 2

529& TYPE 3
i 53@) END

TYPE 4 ")

L

_ _ _ .

0

_ _ c. J HOHRNSTJ-:J:-." A.NT> A4.0Sl.iCIATEH - -

-64-

Figure D-2 LISTING OF CUPUP

CUPUP

15s19 SYS2 82/21/72 MONDAY

180 DIMENSION A(33"9)ITREV(33)IDFLR(33)IDTREU(33)IDEXP(33)"RPE(33),, 118& DRPE(33)IEPEC33)IDEPEC33)"BREUE(33"4)"DBRE(33,,4),,PROP(33,,4) 128 DATA A/297*8.1/ 131 IN-I 141 IP-I 150 PRINT" "I NPt)T .FILE""t* 160 READ 145"PUCU 171 145FORMAT(A6) 188 CALL OPENF(2"PUCU) 19m READ C2,,)LINES
200 READ(2""ERR-630)CCACIIJ)"J=I"9),,I=IILINES) 218 DO .os ITIMES=I,,3 220 DO 38 IL=IN"LINES,,3 238 TREVCIL)-A(IL"4)+ACIL,,S)+A(IL,,6)+ACIL,,7) 240 DFLR(fL)=101./ACIL,,8) 250 DTREVCIL)=TREVCIL)*DFLRCIL) 260 DEXP(IL)-A(IL,,9>.OFLRCIL) 270 RPECIL)=TREVCIL)/ACILI3) 280 DRPECIL)=RPECIL)*OFLRCIL) 290 EPECIL)=ACIL,,9)/ACILI3) 301 OEPECIL)-!PECIL).DFLRCIL)
311 DO 20 JX-l" 4 328 JY=JX+3 330 BREUECIL,JX)=ACIL"JY)/ACIL,3) 340 OBRE(IL"JX)=BREVECIL,JX)*DFLRCIL) 350 PROPCIL"JX)=ACIL"JY)/TREVCIL) 360 20 CONTINUE 378 30 CONTINUE 380 IN=IN+ 1 390 45 CONTINUE 430 DO 250 IPRIN=I,,3 435 PRINT 110 436 PRINT III 44'1' DO 140 IL=IPILINESI3 450 pRINT 1001(ACILll)"TREVCIL)"DTREUCIL)IA<IL,,9)IDEXP<IL 460 140 CONTINUE 465 PRINT 110 466 PRINT 112 470 DO 150 IL=IP"LINES,,3

-65-

C. 1.. HOHENSTEIN AND ASSOCIATES - -

Figure D-2 Continued

LISTING OF CUPUP

48e PRINT 105"(A(IL"I)"RPECIL)"DRPECIL)~EPECIL),,DEPECIL

498 159 CONTINUE

495 PRINT I H'

496 PRINT 113

580 DO 160.IL=IP"LINES,,3

518 PRINT 105,,~CIL,I),(BREU!CIL,JX),JX.I,4)

528 16" CONTINUE

525 PRINT 110

526 PRINT 114

527 PRINT 115

538 DO 179.IL-IP,LINES,3

548 PRINT 105,A(IL,I),CDBRECIL~JX)"JX.I,4)

558 17" CONTINUE

555 PRINT 110

556 PRINT 116

557 PRINT 117

568 DO 180 IL-IP,LINES,,3

,

579 PRINT 105,ACIL"I),,(PROPCIL,JX),JX=I,4)

588 18" CONTINUE

6"" I pel P+ 1

61" 250 CONTINUE

628 58 STOP

638 630 READC192J)LINE

648 PRINT, LIN!

65" 100 FORMATC2X,I4,4C8X,F8.0

660 105 FORMATC2X"14,4C8X,,F8.3

665110 FORMAT(IIIII)

670 111 FORMATC" YEAR

TOTAL REV

DEFL REV

671"TllTAL EX?

DEFL EXP")

688 112 FORMAT(" YEAR

REV/ENROLLEE

DEFL REVI

681 "EXP/E;NROLLEE DEFL EXP/")

690 113 FORMATe" YEAR

FED REV/

ST+LOCALI

691&TUITIONI

REMAINING/")

780 114 FORMAT(" YEAR

DEFLATED

DEFLATED

701 "DEFLATED

DEFLATED")

71" 115 FORMATC"

YEO REVI

ST+LOCALI

711&TUITIONI

REMAINING/")

72CIJ 116 FORMATC" YEAR

PROPORTION

POOPORTION

721 &PROPORTION

PROPORTION")

730 117 FORMAT("

FED REV

ST+LOCAL

731&TUITION

REMAINING")

740 END

---

-66-

C. L. HOHBNSTEIN AND ASSOCIATB8

Figure D-3

LISTING OF PLPUD

PLPUP

15123 SYS2 12/21/72 MONDAY

180 DIMENSION A(33~9)~TREV(33)6DFLR(33)#DTREV(33)#DEXP(33),RPE(33),

118& DRPE(33)~EPE(33),DEPE(33),BREVE(33#4),DBRE(33,4),PROP(33,4)

121 DATA A/297*0.11

138 IN=.I

.141 Ip1.1

15fJ PfUNT,INPUT FILE,t*

168 READ 145, PUCU

I'" .45FORMAT(A6) . .

180 CALL OPENFC2,~CU)

190 READ C2,)LINES

29. READ(2"ERR=630)(CACI#J),Jl,9)~I=I~LINES)

21fJ DO 45 ITIMES=I,3

220 DO 30 IL=IN,LINES,3

230 TREVCIL)=A(IL~4)+ACIL~5)+ACIL~6)+A(IL,7)

241 DFLRCIL)100./ACIL~8)

258 DTREVCIL)=TREVCIL)*DFLRCIL)

268 DEXPCIL)=ACIL~9)*DFLRCIL)

278 RPECIL)TREV(IL)/ACIL~3)

288 DRPECIL)=RPECIL)*DFLRCIL)

298 EPECIL)-ACIL,9)/ACIL,3)

3el DEPECIL)-EPE(IL>*DFLRCIL)

311 DO 2Cl1 JX-I,4

3~ClI JY-JX+3

331 BREVECIL,JX)-ACIL,JY)/ACIL,3)

340 DBRECIL,JX)-BREVECIL,JX)*OFLRCIL)

358 PROPCIL,JX)-ACIL,JY)/TREVCIL)

360 20 CONTINUE

370 38 CONTINUE

388 IN-IN+I

390 45 CONTINUE

430 DO 258 IPRIN=I,3

435 PRINT 110

436 PRINT IIJ

440 DO 140 IL=IP,LINES,3

458 PRINT 100,CACILII>~TREU(IL),DTREVCIL),A(IL,9),DEXP(IL

460 140 CONTINUE

465 PRINT 110

466 PRINT 112

_

470 00 150 lL-lP"LINES,,3

L-

-67-

c. I.. HOHENSTEIN AND ASSOCIATES -

Figure D-3 continued

LISTING OF PLPUD

488 PRINT 195.(ACIL,I),RPECIL),DRPECIL),EPECIL),DEPECIL

49. 159 CONTINUE

495 PRINT .U9

496 PRINT 113

51e DO 169 IL-IP,LINES,3

51. PRINT 115,A(IL,I),(8REVECIL,JX),JX-I,4)

520 168 CONTINUE

525 PRINT 118

526 PRINT .114

527 PRINT 115

53. DO 170 IL=l P,LINES.3

541 PRINT 195,~CIL.l).CDBRE(IL,JX),JX=I,4)

558 178 CONTINUE

555 PRINT 119

556 PRINT 116

557 PRINT 117

561 DO 188 IL-IP,LINES,3

51. PRINT 18S,ACIL,I),(PROPCIL,JX),JX-I,4)

58. 188 CONTINUE

6'" I P. I P+ 1

618 25. CONTINUE

628 5. STOP

638 638 READCI821)LINE

648 PRINT, LINE
65810e FORMATC 2X, 14, 4C ex, F8. 8

668 185 FORMAT(2XI14,4(8X.F8.3

665 11' FORMAT(IIIII)

618 111 FORMAT(" YEAR

TOTAL REV

DEFL REV

611&TOTAL EXP

DEFL EXP")

688 112 FORMATe" YEAR

REV/ENROLLEE

DEP'L REVI

681&EXP/ENROLLEE

DEFL EXP/")

698 113 FORMAT ( YEAR

REHABI

ST BONDEDI

691& FEDERAL I

REMNG/")

, . , 114 FORMAT(" YEAR

DEFLATED

DEFLATED

781&DEFLATED

DEFLATED")

7.1' 115 FORMATe

REHABI

ST BONDEDI

111&.. FEDERALI

REMNGI )

128 116 FORMAT(" YEAR

PROPORTION

PROPORTION

121&PROPORTION

PROPORTION)

738 117 FORMATC

REHAB

ST BONDED

131& FEDERAL

REMNG tI)

~ 148 END

-68-
'-------------------------

o.

c.

'.HOH."'_ AH.....mA""

Figure D-4
LISTING OF GHEFl

GHE.. 1

15129 SYS2 92/21/72 MONDAY

JI9 DIMENSION D(6.. 11) .. DPROJ(10) .. PROJI(10) .. PDVAL(10) .. PIVAL(10) 128 DATA D/69*0./ 122 DPR-9.8 124 PRI-e.0 _ _131 PRINT,,'INPUT FILE"
148 READ 159.. PROJ 158 158 FORMAT(A6) 168 CALL OPENF(2.. PROJ) .178 READ(2,,) D(I .. J)"J=I .. 10),,1=1,,6) 172 PRINT,"FOR DATA OF THE TYPE----DEFL REV/ENROLLEE" 173 PRINT 185 175 CPI-I.423 176 176 PRINT,,"lNSTITUTION TYPE-l .. 2,,3,4,,5,,6tt
J77 READ 178"IN51 178 J78 FORMAT(Il) 185 185 FORMAT(//) 186 PRINT 185. 210 218 FORMAT(6X.. 12,,/) _ 212 PRINT,,"ENTER CURVE----l,,2.. 3,4,,5,6" 2J4 R!AD 216, .ICRVE 216 216 FORMAT(II) 221 PRINT,"ENTER VALUE OF A"
238 READ"A 250 PRINT , "ENTER VALUE OF Bft 255 READ,S 265 265 PRINT 267 267 267 FORMAT( .. YEAR DEFLATED PROJECTION INFLATED PROJ 268&ECTION) 38" 300 DO 46C1J IYR=1971,1980 319 XYR=IYR-1900 . 328 IF(ICRVE.EQ.l) PVAL -A+B*XYR 330 IF(ICRVE.EQ.2) PVAL -A*EXP(B*XYR) 340 IF(ICRVE.EQ.3) PVAL =A*<XYRtB)

L--

-69-

c. L. HOHENSTEIN AND ASSOCIATES -

Figure D-4 Continued LISTING OF GHEFI

358 IF CICRVE.EQ.4) PVAL-A+eB/XYR)

368 JFCICRVE.EQ.5) PVAL -l/CA+B*XYR)

378 IF CICRVE.EQ.6) PVAL-XYR/CA*XYR+B)

398 398 d-JYR-1978

4 DPROdCJ>-OCINST,J>*PVAL

415 JFCDPROJeJ).LT.0.> OPROJCJ)-0.

4.11 PROJI CJ)-OPROJCJ >*CPI

417 417 DPR-DPR+DPROJCd)

418 PRJ -PRI+PROJICJ)

428 421 PRINT 430" IYR,DPAOJCJ),PROJICJ)

43. 431 FORMAT(2X"J4"6X,,FII.I,11X,Fle.8)

Al61 46. CONTINUE

462 PRINT 465" DP!l" PRI

..

Al6!5 46!5 JrORMATe2X""TOTAL""4X,,FII.e,, 18X"FII.")

PIU-"." Al66 DPR fJ
Al6'7 AI'7' PRINT 185

5.8 PRINT" "STOP - I I MORE - 2"

51. READ , INSjR.

528 IFCINSTR.EO.I) GO TO 97.

538 GO TO 176

978 970 STOP

980 END

-70-

-

c. L. HOHBNSTBIN AND A,880CIA.TBa

Figure D-5 LISTING OF GHEF2

GHEF2

12:06 SYS2 A2/27/72 SAT-SUN

J.8 DIMENSION DC6~10)~DPROJ(10),PROJI(10)~PDVALCI0),PIVALCI0)

122 DPR-flJ.0

.124 P!U-e.g

1.12 PRIN!.. "FOR DATA OF THE TYPE ---- PROPORTION"

115 CPI=I.423 _

116 176 CONTINUE.

178 .118 FORMATC II )

185 185 FORMATCII)

186 PRINT 185

2HJ 21fi1J FORMATC 6X, 12" I)

'212 PRINT,~'ENTER CURVE-l,,2,,3,,4,,5,,6 CFOR TOTAL)"

214 READ 216" ICRVE

216 216 FORMATCII) _

228 PRINT,,"ENTER VALUE OF A (FOR TOTAL)"

225 READ"A

.

231 PRINT,,"ENTER VALUE OF B (FOR TOTAL'"

235 READ"B

.

236 PRINT,,"ENTER CURVE (FOR PROPORTION)"

237 READ~JCRVE

_

241 PRINT,. "ENTER VALUE OF A CFOR PROPORTION)"

242 READ,AP

_

244 PRINT,"ENTER VALUE OF B CFOR PROPORTION)"

246 READ"BP

256 PRINT,,"DEFL REV-I" REV-2"

257 READ"IREV

258 GO TO 265

265 265 PRINT 267

267 267 FORMAT( "YEAR DEFLATED PROJECTION INFLATED PROJ

268&ECTION")

30e 30e DO 4~9 IYR-1971,1980

310 XYR-IYR-1980.

320 IFCICRVE.EQ.l) PVAL -A+B*XYR

325 IFCJCRVE.EQ.I) PROP=AP+BP*XYR

338 IFCICRVE.EQ.2) PVAL -A*EXPCB*XYR)

335 IFCJCRVE.EQ.2) PROP-AP*EXP(BP*XYR)

348 IFCICRVE.EQ.3) PVAL -A*CXYRtB)

-71-

~

C. L. HOHENSTEIN AND ASSOCIATES

Figure D-5 continued LISTING OF GHEF2

a45 IFCJCRVE.EQ.3) PROPaAP*CXYRtBP)

351 IF CICRVE.EQ.4) PVAL-A+(B/XYR)

355 IF(JCRVE.EQ.4) PROP-AP+CBP/XYR)

361 IFCICRVE.EQ.S) PVAL -I/CA+B*XYR)

365 IF CJCRVE.EQ.5) PROpal/(AP+B~XVR)

371 IFCICRVE.EQ.6) PVAL - XYR/CA*XYR+B)

375 IFeJCRVE.EQ.6) PROP - XYR/CAP*XYR+BP)

391 391 J-IYR-1978

395 tFeIREV.NE.I) GO TO 412

41. DPROJeJ)PVAL*PROP*II.e.

4.5 tF(DPROJeJ).LT.I.) DPROJCJ)-I.

41' PROd I eJ)-DPROJCd)*CPI

411 GO TO 417

412 412 PROJICJ).PVAL*PROP*lell.

413 IFCPROJICJ).LT.8.1) PROJICJ)-e

4J4 DPROJCJ)-PROJICJ)/CPI

41 7. 41 7 DPR-DPR+ DPROJ CJ )

418 PRI -PRI+PROJICJ)

428 428 PRINT 438"IYR,DPROJCJ)"PROdJCJ)

438 438 FORMAT(2X,llb6X,FI8.1"IIX"FI8.1)

461 46. CONTINUE

462 PRINT 465" DPR" PRI

..

465 465 FORMATC2X,"TOTAL""4X"FII.I,I'X,,FI1.8)

466 DPR- 8

467 PRI-I.,

471 PRINT 18~

5.1 PRINT, "STOP - I J MORE - 2"

518 READ, INSTR.

528 tFCINSTR.EQ.I) GO TO 970

53. GO TO 176

971 978 STOP

981 END

-72-
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ c. L. HOHBH8TEIN AND A.SSOCIATES

Figure D-6 LISTING OF GHEF3

GHEF3

15:32 SYS2 02/21/72 MONDAY

100 DIMENSION DC61 10)IDPROJC 10)IPROJIC 10) 1 PDVALC 10)IPJVALC 10)
122 DPR=0.0 124 PRI =,,.,, 172 PRINT, "FOR DATA OF THE TYPE----DEFLATED REVENUE" 173 PRINT 185 .75 CPI=I.423 176 J76 CONTINUE 185 185 FORMATC/I) 186 PRINT 185 210 21" FORMATC6XI121/) 21,2 PRI NTI "ENTER CURVE-II 21 31 .i1l 5, 6" 214 READ, ICRV!: 216 216 FORMATCII) 228 PRINT,"ENTER VALUE OF AN 238 READ,A 258 PRINT I "ENTER VALUE OF B" 255 READIB 265 265 PRINT 267 267 267 FORMATC .. YEAR DEFLATED PROJECTION INFLATED PROJ
268&ECTION") 3"0 3." DO 46" IYR=1971,1980 318 XYR-IYR-1900 320 IFCICRVE.EQ.I) PVAL -A+B*XV'R 330 IF(ICRVE.EQ.2) PVAL =A*EXPCB*XYR) 340 IFCICRVE.EQ.3> PVAL =A*CXYRtB) 350 IF CICRVE.EQ.4) PVAL-A+CB/XYR) 360 IFCICRVE.EQ.5> PVAL =I/CA+B*XYR) 370 IFCICRVE.EQ.6) PVAL=XYR/CA*XYR+B) 390 390 J=IYR-1970 40" DPROJCJ)-PVAL*le00. 405 IFCDPROJCJ).LT.0.) DPROJCJ)=0.

'--

-73-

C. I.. HOHENSTEIN AND ASSOCIATEY - -

Figure D-6 Continued LISTING OF GHEF3

41. PROJl(J)-DPROJ(J)*CPJ

4J7 417 DPR-OPR+DPROJ(J)

418 PRI -PRI+PROJI(J)

42. 42. PRINT 43e.lYR,DPROJ<J),PROJl<J)

438 438 FORMAT(2X.I4.6X,FI8.0.1IX,FI8.8)

461 461 CONTINUE

462 PRINT 465,DPR,PRI

.

465 465 FORMAT(2X,"TOTAL",4X,FII.8.lfJX,FII.8)

466 DPR-".I

467 PRI-"."

47. PRINT 185

5.8 PRINT, "STOP - I J MORE - 2"

518 READ, INSTR

528 IF(INS1R.EQ.I) GO TO 978

538 00 TQ 176

978 978 STOP

981 END

---

-74-

----.J c. L. HOHBNSTEIN AND ASSOCIATBS

Appendix E LISTING OF INPUT DATA FILES

-75-

C. L. HOHENSTEIN AND ASSOCIATES ~

Appendix E LISTING OF INPUT DATA FILES

There are three files used in executing the programs shown in Table D-l. These files and their uses were presented in Table D-2. This appendix describes the files in greater detail and also contains a listing of each. All files are in free format; decimal points may be omitted or entered. The files CUPUD and PLPUD are listed as Figures E-l and E-2. The format for CUPUD is as follows:

Line Type

Line Contents and Order of Elements

Information Line Number of Data Lines

Data Line

Year, Type, Enrollment, Federal, Revenue, State and Local Revenue, Tuition and Fees, Remaining Revenue, Consumer Price Index, Expenditures

It is noted that each line in the files discussed in this Appendix are preceded by a line number.

The information line appears first. The data lines follow with the requirement that their line numbers all be greater than that of the information line. The entry "Type" refers to the classification of school as follows:

Type 1 Type 2 -
Type 3 -

Public Universities Public Four-Year and Masters
Institutions Public Two-Year Institutions

All dollar entries in the input file are in thousands.

-76-
_____________________________

I
- . - JI C. I... HOHENSTEIN AND ASSOCIATES

The format for PLPUD is as follows:

Line Type

Line Contents and Order of Elements

Information Line Number of Data Lines

Data Line

Year, Type, Enrollment, Rehab Revenue, state Bond Revenue, Federal Revenue, Remaining Revenue, Consumer Price Index, Expenditures

The format for PROJD is as follows:

Line Type

Line Contents and Order of Elements

Data Line

1971 Enrollment Projection, 1972

Enrollment Projection,

,

1980 Enrollment Projection

Line 1 corresponds to Type 1 schools (public universities) as mentioned above. Lines 4, 5, and 6 correspond to private institutions as this data may be used in a later analysis.

L-

-77-

<.:. 14. HOHENSTEIN AND ASSOCIATES . - -

Figure E-l LISTING OF CUPUD

-
CUPUD

15139 SYS2 02/21/72 MONDAY

61118

6511965,1,34054.., 5722., 31647..,9771., 167:52., UJ9 .9" 62217.,

652 J965, 2, .15197., 367 u 7452.., 2731., 345., tf/J9. 9, 11.1436.,

653 1965 3 18944.,8.,,2989 .... 1224. ,58., 109.9... 40",.6.,.

661 J966 1 36612.~68.7.,,358fJ6.,11579.,,22123.,,113.1,72236 ....

662 1966 2,.17232 .... 393..,9264 ..... 3418 ...... 37 . ,113.1,12716."

663 .1966,,3, 134~7.,22.,4468.,195. ,343 . . 113.1 ... 6251." .

611 .1967 1,39412., 16539 .... 43731.,14955., 12663.,IJ6.3,,85171 ....

672 1967 2, 2226$ .... 133 18929.., 5175.,492., 116. 3, 16532 ..

at., 673 1967 3" 12551., .175 662i1., 3545 .. 931 .....116.3" 9685 ......

681 1968.. 1 4164.1., .191

6631 5 .... 15938." 11678 .... ISH .2,.114495.,

68t J968 ... 2 26741 1.78 16452.,6728.,,~92~,J21.2,24812.,

683 1968,3,16129 4a4~ 8418.,3684 .... 931.,121~2 ... Je545.,

691 1969, I, 4~689.,21915 15946.... 17884." 13151.,127. 7...! 128843."

692 1969... 2 ... 31443 .... 1559 21217.,7939.,588.,127.7... 31563....

693 1969,3,,17979.,758 18246.,3788.,43"~,127.7,13"'9~,

7.1 1970... 1... 44896 .... 23193.,83756.,22A44.~15.23.,135.2 ... 14453 ,

7.2 J970,2.35191 1846.,24173 .... 11412 952~.135.2.58346....

7.3 1978... 3,21738.,797.,10913 4219.,651 .... 135.2... 15979.

-78-

- - . J _ _ _ C. 1.. HOHENSTEIN AND ASSOCIATES

Figure E-2 LISTING OF PLPUD

PLPUD

ISI41 SYS2 e2/21/72 MONDAY

600 J8

.

651 1965~1~340S4.~162.~10749.~1004.,1840~~109.9~12674.~

652 1965~2,15097.~1243.,6948.,239.,155.,109.9,7234.~

653 1965~ 3~ 10944., 1562., 1488., 8., 4248., U'9.9, 7234.,

661 J966,1,36612.,416.~18999.~1889.,2S79~,113.1,23S06.,

662 1966,2~ 17232., ISS., H~690.,560.,15S., 113. 1,13278.,

663 1966,3,134~7.#46.#4295.~0.,1973.,113.1,4944.~

6711967~ 1,394 I 2., 2517., 21245., 2670.,2415., 116. 3~ 2824S.-

672 1967,2~22268.,556.~10871.~S86.,120.,116.3~11189.,

673 1967~3~1255J.,199.~5978.~3077.,618.~116.3,8764.~

681 1968, 1 1,4164.1.~2099.,29980.,3767., 826.,121.2,36471.,

682 1968,2,26741.,le85.~9717.,660.~245.~121.2,12166.,

683 .1 9 68 ~ 3 ~ 161 ,29 ~ 31 6. ~ 60S 7 ~ 1287., I 033 ., J 21 2, 8 673 .,

691 1969,1,44689.,53.,27972.. 4256.,2842 .. 127.7,33677.,

6921969, 2, 31443 .. 431.~ 15370.1 ... 1463 ... 315.~ 127.7, t 7391 ..

693 1969~3,17979.,195.,10920.,7S7.,431.,127.7~13436.,

711 J970,1~44896.,127.,33799.,7098.~2621.,135.2,40254.,

702 1979~2,35191.~343.~J6439.~1755.,1576.,135.2~19882.~

703 1970,3,21738.~330.~15016.~179.,616.~135.2,16388.

-79-

C. I.. HOHENSTEIS AND ARSOCIATBS -

Figure E-3 LISTING OF PROJD

PROdD

15143 SYS2 82/21/72 MONDAY

... 11 ...9365"52247.55189,, 57971"6,,833.63695,, 665'57" 69"<19" 7228<1. 751 ...3" ...2. 37615.418~3""''''491,,47929.51367,,5'''885.58243,,61181,,65119,,68557" 431 24881.2665'"29388.31958,,34600.37258.399'8,,42558.4528',,47851" 4.... 6189,627... "6359,, 644!1" 6529, 6614.6699" 6781.1 6869" 6954" 45. 14311,,14226~1"'141,14856,,1397I.13886,13881,13716,,13546. 46. 38,3051,,3188,,3158.328',,3258,3380,,335',,3400,,3458
READY

-80-
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ C. I.. HOHENSTEIN AND ASSOCIATES

Appendix F SAMPLE OUTPUT

-81-:-

C.

L.

HOHENSTEIN

AND

ASSOCIATES

~

Appendix F
SAMPLE OUTPUT
A sample output, using the library routine CURFIT, is shown in Figure F-l. This interactive program provides a least squares curve fit for the six curve types shown in the example. The example pertains to deflated state and local current funds revenue for public universities. The user supplied inputs are underlined. The input data appears in lines 100 and 200. The number of dependent and independent variables appears next. Further information about curve Type 4 was obtained via the next input. The last input, an S, indicates that a "Stop" is desired.
A second sample output, using program GHEFl, is shown in Figure F-2. This interactive program is similar to GHEF3 and GHEF 6, all of which are used to project revenue over the period 1971-1980. The example pertains to the projection of state and local current funds revenue for public universities and relies on the output shown in Figure F-l. The user supplied inputs are underlined. The first user supplied input is the input file PRJD. The next input is the institution type, where 1 corresponds to public universities. The next input is the curve type. In this case a Type 4 curve is being used. The value of A is entered next followed by the value of B. After the projection is made the user has the option to use the program again by keying 1. This eliminates the recompilation of the program.
The output is given by year with headings "Deflated Projection" and "Inflated Projection". Deflated projection is on the base 100 which is translatable to 1957-59 dollars. Inflated projection is on the base 142.3 which is translatable to September, 1971 dollars.

-82-

____________________________

c. L. HOHENSTEIN AND ASSOCIATES

~

Figure F-l SAMPLE OUTPUT FROM CURFIT
J 0~.. DA~__ ! 819 ... 8 6~ ... 954".1.31.4" 1 .331" 1.3~~
R2EUJNfJ DAT.A 65" 66" 6.7.1. 68..1.._~~~?~_.

".
CURFIT

16.43 SYS2 02/21/72 MONDAY

N , OF DEPENDENT VARIABLES

M - , OF INDEPENDENT VARIABLES

-

D = 1 FOR INCREASING OUTPUT.. 0 FOR DECREASING OUTPUT

ENTER N.. M.. D

? 6.. 6" 1

- L E A S T S Q U ARE 5

-
CURVE TYPE

INDEX

CURVE F I T

A

B

1. Y-A+(B*X)

.89484

2. Y-A*EXP(B*X) .876587

3. YaA*(XtB)

.880079

4. Y=A+(B/X)

.89634

5. Y=I/(A+B*X) .825531

6. Y=X/(A*X+B) .839811

-7.68957 3.15765E-4 1.3.6441E-15 9.91176 8.62572
-6.75256

..130371 .120623 8.14685
-593.794 - el1388B
519.166

..

.~

-

FOR WHICH CURVE ARE DETAILS DESIRED (GIVE NUMBER) 14

4. Y-A+(B/X)

_

IS A HYPERBOLIC ~UNCTION.

OF A LEAST-SQUARES FIT OF ITS LINEAR TRAN~FORM

<SORTED IN ORDER OF ASCENDING VALUES OF X)

ARE AS FOLLOWS.

-
X-ACTUAL

Y-ACTUAL

V-CALC

PCT DIFFER

THE RESUL1

65

819

.7778411

5.2

66

.865

.916236

-5.5

67

.954

1.0505

-9.1

68

1.314

1.18081

11.2

69

,1.331

1.30735

1. B

78

1.38

1.43027

-3.5

FOR WHICH CURVE ARE DETAILS DESIRED <GIVE NUMBER) 15

1--

-83-

c. L. HOHENSTEIN AND ASSOCIATES ---

GHEFI

Figure F-2 SAMPLE OUTPUT FROM GHEF3 17:89 SYS2 02/21/72 MONDAY

INPUT FILE INPUT: 00149
~PROJO
FOR DATA OF THE TYPE----OEFL REV/ENROLLEE

INSTITUTION TYPE-II2131415,6
INPUT'S"I?? ?1

-
ENTER CURVE----II21314,516 INPUTt"0214 14

ENTER VALUE OF A INPUTUUJ239 19.91176
ENT!:R VALUE OF B INPUT'00255
1 -593. 704

YEAR
197 J 1972 .1973 .1974 1975 1976 .1977 .1978 1979 1980 TOTAL

DEFLATED PROJECTION
'6534. 87037. 98929 109492 121495. 133751. .146513 159676173223. 187141. 1292799.

INFLATED PROJECTION 198907. 123853. .139496. 155807. 172759. 190328. 208488 227218. 246496. 266301.
1839653.

= = STOP I ; MORE 2

INPUTt0051C!l

L

11

_ _ _ {;. J_. HOHENSTEIN AND ASSOCIATES _ _

-84-