A computer model has been developed for the purpose of allocating funds, by department, within a university. This model categorizes each class as one of three types -- lecture, problem solving, or laboratory. A standard class size is assigned to each type -- 40, 25, and 10 respectively. Combining the previous years head count for each class with the credit-hour value of each class, a faculty position count for every department is generated. Administrative positions, staff positions, operating expense, and operating capital funds are calculated using various combinations of factors involving student credit hours, faculty positions, and class type. Factors used by the model were derived from historical averages as reported in the requisite literature. These factors are generally alterable by user input to meet the general requirements of the institution. Faculty salary figures were taken from the Oklahoma Salary Survey for 1984, and staff salary figures from the Career Service Salary Plan used in the State of Florida. A frequently used computer program, Lotus 1-2-3, was used to implement the model. This software package is a spreadsheet that offers limited programming capability through a facility called "keyboard macros." This function allows a transparent operation for the user; he/she simply responds to program prompts and receives a printout of model outputs. The model was verified by testing it against an actual allocation involving the College of Arts and Sciences at the University of Central Florida. The pilot study was used as a means of verifying the model's reasonableness as a budgetary tool. The model-generated allocation mix was used to apportion the actual allocation for 20 departments within a college. A study was undertaken to compare and analyze differences between actual and model-generated figures. Where large variations existed, an analysis was performed to determine the cause. This model represents a step toward incorporation the concepts of fixed and variable costs into the internal allocation process and encourages the use of personal computers to assist in budgetary planning.

Forty-seven of the fifty states had some form of state-level board for higher education in 1981. Critics have expressed concern that the level of those boards' involvement in institutional affairs has steadily increased, while others have observed that administrative costs at the institutional level have gradually risen. It is not known if there is a relationship between the cost of operation of state-level boards and their level of involvement in the affairs of the institutions under their purview; nor, is it known if there is a relationship between the cost of operation of state-level boards and the cost of administration at the institutional level. The purpose of this study was to investigate these relationships. The population for the study consisted of twenty state-level boards for higher education, eleven governing boards and nine coordinating boards. The population further consisted of 216 public, four-year bachelor degree and higher degree granting institutions located in twenty-three states, including Delaware, Vermont, and Wyoming which had no state-level board for higher education in 1980-1981. Seven variables were hypothesized as factors either influencing the cost of administration in public, four-year institutions, the cost of operation of state-level boards for higher education, or the relationship between the two. These variables were formulated with data obtained from a survey of State Higher Education Executive Officers (SHEEO) member agencies and from Higher Education General Information Survey (HEGIS) financial and enrollment tapes. Pearson product-moment correlation and one-way analysis of variance were used to test for significance of relationships between pairs of variables. An analysis of each of the research questions was presented in textural and tabular form. / Ed. D.