AN HISTORICAL ANALYSIS OF NATIONAL BUDGETARY TRENDS, CIRCA 1920 TO 1970, WITH MAJOR EMPHASIS ON BUDGETING TRENDS FOR HIGHER EDUCATION, STATE OF MICHIGAN, 1970 TO 1977

Problem. The purpose of the study was three fold: (1) To provide historical perspective to national budgetary trends since 1920; (2) To provide an indepth examination of higher education budgeting in the State of Michigan, 1970 to 1977; (3) To determine whether the Owen-Huffman Higher Education Investment Needs Model incorporates adequate and acceptable funding techniques. Participating in the study were 50 randomly selected chief financial officers from public four year higher education institutions across the United States.;Conclusions. The Owen-Huffman Higher Education Investment Needs Model incorporates the majority viewpoint in its funding for instructional support, academic support, public service, student services, and institutional support. The financial aid and research formulas partially includes the majority view.;The Michigan formula deviates from the majority viewpoint in its funding of instructional dollars. The basis utilized is an average student/faculty ratio by student level and department.;When the Michigan formula was evaluated by the criteria set by J. D. Miller, it was found to include six areas and to exclude two. When measured against Frances M. Gross' criteria for formulas, the Owen-Huffman model agreed on six counts, but failed to include, or could not be measured, on four criteria.;Findings. Utilizing the HEGIS taxonomy, funding techniques from various formulas presently in use were diagnosed and categorized. Respondents indicated the following funding preferences: (1) Instructional funding should be on the basis of student credit hours, at an average cost per hour depending on student level and department; (2) Instructional support dollars should be funded as a fixed dollar or percent of the instructional appropriation; (3) Research should be funded on a project by project basis; (4) Academic support should be funded as a percent of the instructional allocation, with the percentage fluctuating based upon the location, size, age, and complexity of the institution; (5) Public service should be funded at various percentage levels reflecting each institution's continuing educational services offered, various broadcasting services available, past performance, service area, and ability to deliver services; (6) Student services should be funded, in part, on a headcount basis as well as on a student credit hour (SCH) basis; (7) Financial aid should be based upon an institution's headcount and on the number of financial aid forms processed; (8) Institutional support should be funded by category of institution, based upon faculty and staff man years, assignable square feet, and current expenditures for research and public service. Utilities should be funded on a projected cost basis.;Recommendations. Recommendations include continued monitoring of the present system to determine: (1) Whether actual levels of funding increase, decrease, or remain constant in "real" and new dollar terms; (2) Whether the formula effects institutional efficiency and economy; (3) Reduces institutional reliance on "politics" and; (4) Does it reduce State data requests.