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*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*-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