An analysis of California community college budget policy key components in multicollege districts
by Murillo, Kindred, Ed.D., PEPPERDINE UNIVERSITY, 2010, 162 pages; 3432932

Abstract:

This study explored the key components of budgetary policy for multicollege community college districts in California. Twenty policies from multicollege community college districts were analyzed against a structured matrix of 6 “additional criteria” (Community College League of California, 2007, p. 37) as recommended by the Community College League of California (CCLC). Further, a content analysis utilizing the framework as prescribed by Miles and Huberman (1994) was completed and 8 major themes emerged as key components of budgetary policy.

The findings of the study were analyzed against the literature review, which validated the findings of 8 key components of budgetary policy. Eight key components of budgetary policy were identified in this study to include (a) regulatory and legal compliance, (b) planning related, (c) allocation description, (d) participation process, (e) values-priority clarity, (f) process definition, (g) specific measurements, and (h) inclusion of the CCLC recommended language.

Of the districts, 90% included some or all of the CCLC 6 “additional criteria.” The review of the literature supports the 8 indentified key components as identified in the content analysis. This study found that 85% of the multicollege districts included in their policies some reference to regulatory and legal requirements, and 80% included some specific measurements.

Implications for the field, community college leadership, policy makers, and future policy include the inclusion of key components of budgetary policy that may provide clear budgetary policy with specific measurements. Future research stemming from this study could compare the identified components of budgetary policy to the fiscal stability of community college districts, as well as comparing how the inclusion of specific measurements may compare to long-term fiscal performance.

 
AdviserLaura Hyatt
SchoolPEPPERDINE UNIVERSITY
SourceDAI/A 72-02, p. , Jan 2011
Source TypeDissertation
SubjectsCommunity college education; Education finance; Higher education administration
Publication Number3432932
Adobe PDF Access the complete dissertation:
 

» This is an open access dissertation.
  Use the link below to access the full text PDF of this graduate work:
  http://gradworks.umi.com/3432932.pdf
  Use the link below to search and retrieve all open access dissertations:
  http://pqdtopen.proquest.com

About ProQuest Dissertations & Theses
With over 2.3 million records, the ProQuest Dissertations & Theses (PQDT) database is the most comprehensive collection of dissertations and theses in the world. It is the database of record for graduate research.

The database includes citations of graduate works ranging from the first U.S. dissertation, accepted in 1861, to those accepted as recently as last semester. Of the 2.3 million graduate works included in the database, ProQuest offers more than 1.9 million in full text formats. Of those, over 860,000 are available in PDF format. More than 60,000 dissertations and theses are added to the database each year.

If you have questions, please feel free to visit the ProQuest Web site - http://www.proquest.com - or call ProQuest Hotline Customer Support at 1-800-521-3042.