Funding the University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa January 17, 2006

Office of the Chancellor University of Hawai‘i at Ma noa

Funding the University of Hawai‘i at Manoa

By Sang-Hyop Lee and Carl Bonham

Research assistance by Archimedes Gatchalian

January 17, 2006

University of Hawai‘i

Economic Research Organization

2424 Maile Way, Room 542

Honolulu, Hawai‘i 96822

www.uhero.hawaii.edu

1

1. Introduction

The composition of funding at the University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa (UHM) has

changed markedly over the past decade. While experiencing tremendous growth in funded

research activities, and modest growth in tuition revenues, state appropriations have

grown relatively little. As a result, the share of total funding coming from state appropria-

tions has declined significantly.

Recent research by the University of Hawaii Economic Research Organization

(UHERO) sheds light on the determinants of changing funding at Doctoral/Research-

Extensive Universities1 (DREU) such as UHM. Lee and Bonham (2006) study the im-

pact of a variety of University and State characteristics on State appropriations to DREU.

They report that university characteristics such the competitiveness of programs and stu-

dent quality, degree of research focus, the existence of Medical or Law schools, as well as

characteristics reflecting the condition of the state economy significantly impact state

funding. Lee and Bonham develop a model of state funding and compare the results from

their model with actual funding during the period from 1987 to 2002 for 98 DREU. They

report that UHM experienced the second largest change in funding from over- to under-

funded during this time period. This report extends the work of Lee and Bonham by pro-

viding more detail on the funding of UHM and by comparing UHM to its peer group.2

1 The Carnegie classified Doctoral/Research-Extensive Universities is a classification made by the Carnegie Foundation, signifying those universities that offer a wide range of baccalaureate programs, while simulta-neously committed to graduate education. These universities should award 50 or more doctorate degrees per year across 15 disciplines. 2 The UHM peer group was developed by The National Center for Higher Education Management Systems (NCHEMS) Information Service and includes twelve universities: Colorado State University, Iowa State University, Louisiana State University, Oregon State University, University of California at Davis, Univer-sity of Georgia, University of Kentucky, University of Missouri at Columbia, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, University of Tennessee at Knoxville, University of Utah, and University of Virginia. See “Peer and Benchmark Comparison Groups: University of Hawaii 2004”, Institutional Research Office, Uni-versity of Hawai‘i October 2004. Available online at http://www.hawaii.edu/iro/pbcg/.

2

2. Source and change in University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa Revenue

Between fiscal year (FY) 1995-96 and 2003-04, UHM current-funds revenue grew

by an average of 4.7% per year, reaching more than $570 million in FY 03-04. Figure 1

shows UHM current fund revenues from the three largest sources, and Table 1 shows the

amount and distribution by source between FY 1995-96 and FY 2003-04.

The most striking change in funding has been the dramatic increase in Federal

Grants from $91 million in FY 1995-96 to $206.5 million in FY 2003-04, an increase of

nearly 130%. Meanwhile, revenue from tuition and fees increased from a little more the

$44 million in FY 1995-96 to almost $77 million in FY 2003-04, an increase of 73%. Of

the major funding sources, state appropriations have grown most slowly, increasing by

only 7% between FY 1995-96 and 2003-04. The average annual nominal growth rate in

state appropriations was 0.9% over this period (less than the rate of inflation for

3

Honolulu), compared with annual growth rates of 11.2% for local grants/contracts, 10.8%

for federal grants/contracts, and tuition and fees at 7.1%.

Although state appropriations continue to be one of the largest sources of funds for

UHM, the share of total funding provided by state appropriations has been on a general

downward trend since FY 1995-96. As a result, state appropriations became the second

largest source of revenue in FY 2003-04, accounting for 33% of total current-funds reve-

nues, while federal grants/contracts accounted for 36%. Thus, over time, we have seen the

increasing importance of federal grants/contracts as source of funding for UHM.

UHM vs. UHM Peer Group and other Doctoral/Research-Extensive Universities

To analyze UHM funding, we rely on Lee and Bonham’s (2006) model of state

appropriations to DREU, and compare UHM with all DREU as well as the UHM peer

group. Table 2 reports the amount of revenues per full time equivalent (FTE) student as

4

well as the distribution of funding per FTE for UHM, its peer group, and all other (97)

DREU.

State appropriations, tuition, and Federal grants/contracts are the largest sources of

funding for UHM, other DREU, and the UHM peer group.3 While the most prominent

feature of UHM funding over the past ten years has been the rapid growth in Federal re-

search grants, the most prominent difference between UHM and its peers is the share of

funding due to Federal grants. In FY 2000-01, UHM received $11,664 per student in Fed-

eral grants compared with only $5,310 per student in its peer group, and $4,716 per stu-

dent in all other DREU. Federal grants made up more than 33% of UHM funding in FY

2000-01, while the average UHM peer covered only 12% of its funding through Federal

grants.

In contrast, UHM’s funding per student from both state appropriations and tuition

are relatively similar to the levels received by its peer group and all other DREU. In FY

2000-01, UHM received $4,931 per student in tuition and fees compared with an average

of $5,470 for its peers. At the same time, UHM received $11,961 per student in state ap-

propriations compared to $11,080 per FTE student for its peer group. Yet looking at the

share of funding UHM receives from state appropriations (34% vs 25% for its peer group)

may have led others to conclude that UHM is over-funded. This comparison only serves

to highlight the primary point of Lee and Bonham’s (2006) research, that comparing fund-

ing across universities without taking careful account of specific characteristics of those

universities is potentially misleading. There are a number of differences between UHM

and universities in its peer group that help to explain the higher share of state funding of

3 While Federal grants surpassed state appropriates in FY 2003-04 as the largest source of funds, Table 2 is restricted to data through FY 2000-01 due to data availability for other DREU and PG.

5

UHM. For instance, only 75% of the UHM peer group institutions have a law school, and

only 67% of peer institutions are classified as competitive using an index developed in

Lee and Bonham (2006). In addition, UHM is more research oriented than the average

school in its peer group. Table 3 presents summary statistics that illustrate the differences

in University and State characteristics between UHM, its peer group, and other DREU.

The primary contribution of Lee and Bonham (2006) is to explain changes in state

funding of DREU after controlling for differences in University and State characteristics.

Using their model, we are able to predict the level of funding for any university and com-

pare it with the actual funding over time. Figures 3 and 4 illustrate the predicted and ac-

tual funding of UHM and its peer group from 1987 to 2002.

6

Figure 3 shows that UHM’s peer group has been consistently over-funded. In other words,

UHM’s peer institutions received higher levels of state funding than did DREU with simi-

lar characteristics, located in states with similar levels of median household income, un-

employment rates and state tax collections.

In contrast, Figure 4 shows that UHM has slipped below predicted funding levels

in recent years. While significant increases in state appropriations and a relatively flat

predicted funding level had placed UHM in an over-funded position in the mid-1990s, this

all changed starting in FY 1996. In that year, a large budget cut caused UHM to swing

from a $45 million over-funding to a $26 million under-funding, a switch in funding posi-

tion of over $70 million.4 From 1996 on, the gap between actual state appropriations and

4 This change from over- to under-funded is the second largest change in funding position in the sample of 98 DREU.

7

predicted funding has continued to grow leading to a funding deficit of almost $70 million

in 2002.5 Of the 12 Universities in the UHM peer group, only Colorado State and the

University of Virginia were more under-funded than UHM in FY 2001-02. Table 4 pre-

sents results for all DREU, showing that based on the research of Lee and Bonham, one

would conclude that in FY 2001-02, UHM was more under-funded than all but 14 univer-

sities.

5 The use of per capita state tax revenues may overstate the predicted amount of state funding for UHM; unlike other states that use property tax revenues to finance local primary schools, Hawaii finances its pri-mary school system through state tax revenues.

8

Source of Funds ($1,000) 1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04

Annual Growth

Tuition & Fees 44361 57290 65975 67865 70438 71533 62440 68791 76917 7.1Non Tuition & Fees 350565 333146 361599 373613 379442 434595 420557 470787 493369 4.4 Federal appropriations 2880 2537 3147 2802 2542 3060 3720 4003 3222 1.4 State appropriations 175074 166089 167363 174353 172480 173503 182772 189141 187471 0.9 Federal grants/contracts 91017 87522 102058 110801 106804 169203 146835 181392 206592 10.8 State grants/contracts 9042 7795 9293 7888 10042 8692 15001 16982 14292 5.9 Local grants/contracts 515 636 786 778 827 688 788 1256 1207 11.2 Private gifts, grants, and contracts 18742 15361 22211 22137 20563 18130 20185 23033 25156 3.7 Endowment income 1629 1684 1693 1874 2097 2266 1457 1316 1513 -0.9 Sales and services of ed. activities 5587 6657 6625 6905 7281 6810 6560 6718 7424 3.6 Auxiliary services 43661 42494 45200 43907 53449 48966 40731 42833 44931 0.4 Other sources 2418 2371 3223 2168 3357 3277 2508 4113 1561 -5.3Total 394926 390436 427574 441478 449880 506128 482997 539578 570286 4.7

Distribution (%)Tuition & Fees 11.2 14.7 15.4 15.4 15.7 14.1 12.9 12.7 13.5 ..

Non Tuition & Fees 88.8 85.3 84.6 84.6 84.3 85.9 87.1 87.3 86.5 ..

Federal appropriations 0.7 0.6 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.8 0.7 0.6 ..

State appropriations 44.3 42.5 39.1 39.5 38.3 34.3 37.8 35.1 32.9 ..

Federal grants/contracts 23.0 22.4 23.9 25.1 23.7 33.4 30.4 33.6 36.2 ..

State grants/contracts 2.3 2.0 2.2 1.8 2.2 1.7 3.1 3.1 2.5 ..

Local grants/contracts 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 ..

Private gifts, grants, and contracts 4.7 3.9 5.2 5.0 4.6 3.6 4.2 4.3 4.4 ..

Endowment income 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.3 ..

Sales and services of ed. activities 1.4 1.7 1.5 1.6 1.6 1.3 1.4 1.2 1.3 ..

Auxiliary services 11.1 10.9 10.6 9.9 11.9 9.7 8.4 7.9 7.9 ..

Other sources 0.6 0.6 0.8 0.5 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.8 0.3 ..

Total 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 ..

Source: UHM IRO

Table 1. UHM Current Funds Revenues by Source, 1995-96 to 2003-04

9

Average of UHM Peer

Average of Other 4-year,

DREU

Average of UHM Peer

Average of Other 4-year,

DREU

Current Funds Revenues Tuition and fees 4,931 5,470 5,577 14.13 12.38 16.93 Non Tuition and fess revenue 29,960 38,706 27,372 85.87 87.62 83.07 Federal appropriations 211 346 196 0.61 0.78 0.60 State appropriations 11,961 11,080 9,492 34.28 25.08 28.81 Local appropriations 0 108 25 0.00 0.24 0.08 Federal grants and contracts 11,664 5,310 4,716 33.43 12.02 14.31 State grants and contracts 599 1,330 898 1.72 3.01 2.73 Local grants and contracts 47 55 76 0.13 0.12 0.23 Private gifts, grants and contracts 1,250 2,972 2,168 3.58 6.73 6.58 Endowment income 156 530 345 0.45 1.20 1.05 Sales and services of educational activities 469 2,458 1,214 1.35 5.56 3.68 Auxiliary enterprises 3,376 4,562 3,583 9.67 10.33 10.87 Hospital revenues 0 8,623 3,521 0.00 19.52 10.69 Other sources 107 1,251 1,084 0.31 2.83 3.29 Independent operations 119 83 54 0.34 0.19 0.16Total current funds revenues 34,891 44,176 32,950 100.00 100.00 100.00

Table 2. Current Funds Revenues of UHM, Its Peer Group, and Other DREU 2000-01

Amount per FTE student Distribution (%)

10

Mean or Frequency SD

Mean or Frequency SD

Mean or Frequency SD

Institution Characteristics

State appropriation (million $) 189.0 35.6 205.0 91.5 171.0 101.1Per FTE student state appropriation ($) 10095 1507 8238 3153 6779 2776% Medical School 100% 0% 100% 0% 55% 50%% Law School 100% 0% 75% 44% 50% 50%% Competitive Schools 100% 0% 67% 47% 58% 49%Number of Atheletic Teams 18.00 0.00 19.09 3.53 19.30 4.43FTE students 18644 942 24630 3833 24993 9498% of graduate students 27% 11% 22% 10% 22% 10%Research orientation 0.213 0.422 0.183 0.360 0.143 0.315

State Characteristics

Cost of living index 157 0 100 15 104 17Per capita state tax collection ($) 2416 407 1365 376 1469 432State unemployment rate 4% 1% 5.33% 1.40% 5.62% 1.43%Meidan household income ($) 55800 9563 47672 10096 48957 10923

Number of instituions 1 .. 12 .. 98 ..Number of observations 9 .. 107 .. 863 ..

DREUPeer InstitutionsUHM

Table 3. Mean and Standard Deviation of Variables

11

Institution Ranking for FY 2001-02 FR Institiution Ranking for FY 1987- FY 2002 AFR

UNIVERSITY OF VERMONT AND STATE AGRICULTURAL COLL 0.21 UNIVERSITY OF VERMONT AND STATE AGRICULTURAL COLL 0.24

UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO AT BOULDER 0.44 UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO AT BOULDER 0.46

UNIVERSITY OF OREGON 0.47 UNIVERSITY OF OREGON 0.51

UNIVERSITY OF TOLEDO 0.55 UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND-BALTIMORE COUNTY 0.52

UNIVERSITY OF RHODE ISLAND 0.59 UNIVERSITY OF RHODE ISLAND 0.59

UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND-BALTIMORE COUNTY 0.59 OLD DOMINION UNIVERSITY 0.61

COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY 0.61 UNIVERSITY OF TOLEDO 0.61

UNIVERSITY OF MISSISSIPPI MAIN CAMPUS 0.64 UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA-MAIN CAMPUS 0.65

UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA-MAIN CAMPUS 0.65 COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY 0.66

KENT STATE UNIVERSITY-MAIN CAMPUS 0.69 UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH-MAIN CAMPUS 0.67

OLD DOMINION UNIVERSITY 0.69 UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA NORMAN CAMPUS 0.68

WESTERN MICHIGAN UNIVERSITY 0.70 TEMPLE UNIVERSITY 0.70

UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA NORMAN CAMPUS 0.71 WESTERN MICHIGAN UNIVERSITY 0.71

OHIO UNIVERSITY-MAIN CAMPUS 0.72 UNIVERSITY OF MISSISSIPPI MAIN CAMPUS 0.71

UNIVERSITY OF HAWAII AT MANOA 0.72 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA-SANTA CRUZ 0.72

UNIVERSITY OF LOUISVILLE 0.73 KENT STATE UNIVERSITY-MAIN CAMPUS 0.72

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA-SANTA CRUZ 0.74 OHIO UNIVERSITY-MAIN CAMPUS 0.74

UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN-MILWAUKEE 0.77 SUNY AT BINGHAMTON 0.75

UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN MISSISSIPPI 0.78 UNIVERSITY OF LOUISVILLE 0.77

UNIVERSITY OF KANSAS MAIN CAMPUS 0.80 SUNY AT ALBANY 0.78

UNIVERSITY OF MEMPHIS 0.83 UNIVERSITY OF KANSAS MAIN CAMPUS 0.80

INDIANA UNIVERSITY-BLOOMINGTON 0.85 UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA-COLUMBIA 0.83

UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA-COLUMBIA 0.88 UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN MISSISSIPPI 0.83

FLORIDA INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY 0.88 UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN-MILWAUKEE 0.85

OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY-MAIN CAMPUS 0.89 UNIVERSITY OF CONNECTICUT 0.86

UNIVERSITY OF NORTH TEXAS 0.89 UNIVERSITY OF MEMPHIS 0.87

TEXAS TECH UNIVERSITY 0.89 NORTHERN ILLINOIS UNIVERSITY 0.87

SOUTHERN ILLINOIS UNIVERSITY-CARBONDALE 0.91 SOUTHERN ILLINOIS UNIVERSITY-CARBONDALE 0.88

UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA 0.92 FLORIDA INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY 0.88

KANSAS STATE UNIVERSITY 0.93 UNIVERSITY OF NEVADA-RENO 0.88

UNIVERSITY OF WYOMING 0.93 OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY-MAIN CAMPUS 0.90

THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT ARLINGTON 0.93 PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY-MAIN CAMPUS 0.91

FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY 0.94 UNIVERSITY OF HAWAII AT MANOA 0.91

UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI-COLUMBIA 0.95 UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI-MAIN CAMPUS 0.91

WEST VIRGINIA UNIVERSITY 0.97 THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT ARLINGTON 0.92

NORTHERN ILLINOIS UNIVERSITY 0.98 INDIANA UNIVERSITY-BLOOMINGTON 0.92

UNIVERSITY OF HOUSTON-UNIVERSITY PARK 0.99 UNIVERSITY OF NEW MEXICO-MAIN CAMPUS 0.92

UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON-SEATTLE CAMPUS 0.99 UNIVERSITY OF UTAH 0.94

UTAH STATE UNIVERSITY 1.00 VIRGINIA COMMONWEALTH UNIVERSITY 0.94

UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN-ANN ARBOR 1.02 KANSAS STATE UNIVERSITY 0.95

PURDUE UNIVERSITY-MAIN CAMPUS 1.03 UNIVERSITY OF IOWA 0.96

VIRGINIA COMMONWEALTH UNIVERSITY 1.03 UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA 0.98

UNIVERSITY OF NEVADA-RENO 1.04 UTAH STATE UNIVERSITY 0.98

LOUISIANA STATE UNIV & AG & MECH & HEBERT LAWS CTR 1.05 UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI-COLUMBIA 1.00

NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIVERSITY AT RALEIGH 1.05 UNIVERSITY OF NORTH TEXAS 1.01

OKLAHOMA STATE UNIVERSITY-MAIN CAMPUS 1.05 UNIVERSITY OF WYOMING 1.01

UNIVERSITY OF NEW MEXICO-MAIN CAMPUS 1.05 OKLAHOMA STATE UNIVERSITY-MAIN CAMPUS 1.01

UNIVERSITY OF CONNECTICUT 1.06 TEXAS TECH UNIVERSITY 1.01

OREGON STATE UNIVERSITY 1.07 UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN-ANN ARBOR 1.02

UNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS MAIN CAMPUS 1.07 GEORGIA STATE UNIVERSITY 1.02

WAYNE STATE UNIVERSITY 1.08 WEST VIRGINIA UNIVERSITY 1.03

AUBURN UNIVERSITY MAIN CAMPUS 1.08 UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON-SEATTLE CAMPUS 1.06

UNIVERSITY OF UTAH 1.09 WAYNE STATE UNIVERSITY 1.06

UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND-COLLEGE PARK 1.09 NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIVERSITY AT RALEIGH 1.07

UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN-MADISON 1.11 UNIVERSITY OF HOUSTON-UNIVERSITY PARK 1.08

UNIVERSITY OF IOWA 1.12 PURDUE UNIVERSITY-MAIN CAMPUS 1.09

MISSISSIPPI STATE UNIVERSITY 1.13 NEW MEXICO STATE UNIVERSITY-MAIN CAMPUS 1.09

MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY 1.15 LOUISIANA STATE UNIV & AG & MECH & HEBERT LAWS CTR 1.09

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA-IRVINE 1.16 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA-IRVINE 1.10

IOWA STATE UNIVERSITY 1.18 UNIVERSITY OF IDAHO 1.10

ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY-MAIN CAMPUS 1.19 SUNY AT BUFFALO 1.11

GEORGIA STATE UNIVERSITY 1.20 OREGON STATE UNIVERSITY 1.11

UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS-AMHERST 1.20 FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY 1.12

VIRGINIA POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE AND STATE UNIV 1.21 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA-SANTA BARBARA 1.13

NEW MEXICO STATE UNIVERSITY-MAIN CAMPUS 1.22 UNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS MAIN CAMPUS 1.14

WASHINGTON STATE UNIVERSITY 1.23 MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY 1.16

UNIVERSITY OF IDAHO 1.24 UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND-COLLEGE PARK 1.17

CLEMSON UNIVERSITY 1.24 VIRGINIA POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE AND STATE UNIV 1.17

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA-SANTA BARBARA 1.24 ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY-MAIN CAMPUS 1.18

UNIVERSITY OF NEBRASKA AT LINCOLN 1.26 AUBURN UNIVERSITY MAIN CAMPUS 1.18

UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT URBANA-CHAMPAIGN 1.28 UNIVERSITY OF NEBRASKA AT LINCOLN 1.19

UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA-TWIN CITIES 1.32 UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS-AMHERST 1.19

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA-RIVERSIDE 1.33 SUNY AT STONY BROOK 1.22

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA-SAN DIEGO 1.33 MISSISSIPPI STATE UNIVERSITY 1.22

UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH FLORIDA 1.34 UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA-TWIN CITIES 1.24

UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY 1.35 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA-SAN DIEGO 1.24

UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA AT CHAPEL HILL 1.37 IOWA STATE UNIVERSITY 1.25

THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN 1.40 WASHINGTON STATE UNIVERSITY 1.25

UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA 1.42 UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN-MADISON 1.25

TEXAS A & M UNIVERSITY 1.65 CLEMSON UNIVERSITY 1.29

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA-DAVIS 1.68 UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT URBANA-CHAMPAIGN 1.30

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 1.71 UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA AT CHAPEL HILL 1.37

UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT CHICAGO 1.77 THE UNIVERSITY OF TENNESSEE 1.39

GEORGIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY-MAIN CAMPUS 1.80 UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH FLORIDA 1.42

UNIVERSITY OF GEORGIA 1.82 UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA 1.42

UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA AT BIRMINGHAM 1.82 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA-RIVERSIDE 1.43

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA-BERKELEY 1.92 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY 1.45

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA-LOS ANGELES 2.04 THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN 1.49

UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH-MAIN CAMPUS RUTGERS UNIVERSITY-NEW BRUNSWICK 1.51

TEMPLE UNIVERSITY GEORGIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY-MAIN CAMPUS 1.51

SUNY AT BINGHAMTON UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA-DAVIS 1.57

SUNY AT ALBANY UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA AT BIRMINGHAM 1.66

PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY-MAIN CAMPUS UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA-BERKELEY 1.70

UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI-MAIN CAMPUS UNIVERSITY OF GEORGIA 1.72

SUNY AT BUFFALO TEXAS A & M UNIVERSITY 1.74

SUNY AT STONY BROOK UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA-LOS ANGELES 1.77

THE UNIVERSITY OF TENNESSEE UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT CHICAGO 1.83

RUTGERS UNIVERSITY-NEW BRUNSWICK UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 1.93

Note: FR (funding ratio) = Ratio of Actual State Appropriations to Predicted Appropriations, AFR = Average Funding Ratio over period.

Table 4. Ranking of all DREU Based on Ratio of Actual to Predicted State Appropriations