- Email: [email protected]
Financial arguments and university education for nurses: a Canadian perspective
NurseEdwation Tcdq (1990) 10,44-49 IQ Longman Group UK Ltd 1990
02606917/90/0010-0044/$10.00
Financial arguments and university education for nurses: a Canadian perspective Patricia M Roberts
Published information concerning costs of the various university disciplines is scanty, and Deans of Nursing have to rely on information that is transmitted to them by their university administrators. This paper provides some hard facts of comparative costs at one university, where, after an examination of the various factors involved, it was found that when judged by a) the cost of producing a section of a course, Nursing ranked 2 1 out of 28; b) the cost/student/section, regardless of level, Nursing ranked 19 out of 28; and c) the cost/student/section of the highest level undergraduate courses, Nursing ranked one out of 28. It was therefore concluded that financial arguments cannot be used to deprive nurses of the university education received by all other professionals.
INTRODUCTION Some University Schools of Nursing in North America have been threatened with being closed. University administrators and politicians say they are too expensive. Deans of Nursing thus find themselves ‘between a rock and a hard place’: between the reality of university administrators eager to trim their budgets and the public expectation of being served by well qualified nurses with the university education required of all other professionals (physicians, teachers, social workers, school counsellors, et al). Published information concerning costs of the various university disciplines is scanty, and Deans of Nursing have to rely on information
Patricia M Roberts BSc MSc PhD Assistant Professor, School of Nursing, Memorial University of Newfoundland, St John’s, Newfoundland, Canada Al B 3V6 (Requests for offprints to PR) Manuscript accepted 11 July 1989 44
that is transmitted to them by their university administrators. Langston (198 1) indicated that Deans need to understand the total budgetary process and the various associated management techniques used by their institution so that they can: 1) use their resources more efficiently, 2) make long range plans, 3) provide credible support material for the funding requests that they make to their chief executive officers each year. Unfortunately, many Deans of Nursing lack adequate information for their decision making because their universities have little or no institutional research facilities, and the assumptions that they use as a basis for their decisions are unclear and often unstated (Pickens 1986; Rohrbaugh 1986; Milter 1986). Where information is available it is not always provided to the heads of the various faculties and schools of the institution, and certainly it is not readily available to the general public.
NURSE EDUCATION
This research
was carried out in an attempt to:
1) estimate,
for
1981/1982-1984/1985,
costs of the various disciplines
the
at one uni-
versity, to provide
2)
cators, 3) to increase involved,
factual
data for nursing
understanding
completion
generous the
was
made
co-operation
institution
who
the study
possible
by
the
of the administrators
of
provided
the
necessary
information. The University main campus
1) the
costs related to teaching
at the
were divided into:
expenditures
of
the
individual
teaching-units, i.e. monies controlled by the teaching-unit and spent on salaries,
2)
operating and capital items, and the expenditures of all the other divisions of the University library
services,
nical services,
that support computing
services,
and
expenditures
to the individual
student
tech-
services.
could not be allocated teaching-units
according
to the use made of them because cient information Therefore,
i.e.
and campus mainuniversity utilities,
administration, These
them,
building
tenance,
insuffi-
was available.
only the former
are reported
here.
for which
and capital expenditures)
the teaching-unit include
overhead,
administration,
incurred
is used to describe
a separate
budget
includes
the
Faculties
of Arts and Science,
individual
academic
units
was available.
Departments
of
It the
the Faculties
of
Education, Engineering, and Business, and the Schools of Nursing and Social Work. Unfortu-
computing,
maintenance,
etc.)
METHODS The teaching-unit
costs per course-section
(cost/
section) and per student per course-section
(cost/
student/section)
required
the collation
versity. The overall average of each of these costs was calculated for the 4 fiscal years ending 31 March
1985.
1) The total expenditure of each teaching-unit The total expenditure
of each teaching
calculated.
all salaries (faculty,
research (supplies,
It included assistants telephone
and capital costs (computers,
teaching
plus a share
budget,
allocated
of the Dean’s
according
provide
under
expenditures
both undergraduate
costs etc.),
aids, etc.), share
the control
of
were incurred
to
and postgraduate
teaching. 2) The course-sections provided by the teaching-units and there student enrolment For each teaching-unit, the number
tions taught at each course-level b) the
average
size of
course-sections c) the
total
and size of
of
all course-sections
of their course-level,
d) the average size of all course-sections taught regardless of their course-level. 3) The teaching-unit cost of providing
by a faculty
a discrete member
group for a
each year,
undergraduate
taught at each course-level,
number
taught regardless
the
section The total expenditure
semester.
staff,
which was
to the teaching-unit’s
of the total course-credits the Dean. These
unit was
et al), operating bills, photocopying,
able data were not available. Course-section is used to describe taught
of finan-
cial files with enrolment files obtained from the appropriate administrative officers of the Uni-
nately expenditures of the Faculty of Medicine are derived from a different source and compar-
of students
by
for its own use. It does not
the course-sections was expressed as: a) the number of undergraduate course-sec-
DEFINITIONS Teaching-unit
Teaching-unit costs refers to the costs (i.e. salaries, operating
of the factors
4) to encourage others to reproduce at their own institutions. Its
edu-
45
TODAY
one course-
of the teaching-unit
for
each fiscal year was divided by the total number of course-sections taught by the unit in the year,
46
NURSE EDUCATION
TODAY
regardless of course-level, to estimate the average teaching-unit cost of providing a coursesection. 4) The teaching-unit cost/student of providing
one
course-section The teaching-unit
cost of providing
one course-
section was divided by:
a) the average
size of the taught at each course-level,
costlstudentisection different
b)
for
course-levels,
the average
course-sections to estimate the courses
at
the
and
size of all course-sections
re-
gardless of course-level, to estimate the for all courses cost/student/section regardless
of course-level.
5) Understanding the factors involved For each teaching-unit, was calculated
the regression
for the relationship
size of the undergraduate and the course-level.
course-sections
The teaching-units were ranked the following 4-year averages:
4
average
cost of providing
tion (undergraduate
b)
equation
between
the
taught
according
to
one course-sec-
50
4 average
cost/student/section of a highest level undergraduate course-section.
section (Fig 2) Nursing ranked 21128 When the teaching-units were ranked 4) according to the overall cost/student/section of course-level
(Fig
3) Nursing
19128
the teaching-units were ranked 5) When according to the average cost/student/section of the highest level undergraduate course-
RESULTS correlation
coefficients the average
graduate course-sections were highly significant
for the relationsize of the under-
sections (Fig4)
Nursing ranked
l/28, the least
expensive.
and the course-level (P < 0.001) for all
except Classics (P < 0.02) and
Education (P < 0.05). The correlation coefficient was negative for all teaching-units except Nursing, i.e. Nursing was the only teaching-unit
0
-)
the teaching-units were ranked 3) When according to the cost of producing a course-
ranked
teaching-units
10
20
Fig 1 Nomograph showing the relationship between section size, section-cost and the cost/student/ section.
regardless
ship between
30
and postgraduate),
average cost/student/section of an undercourse-section regardless of graduate course-level,
1) The
40
couru size(ShJdmtu-
where the highest
level under-
graduate course-sections had more students than the lowest level course-sections.
2) The effect that course enrolment
has upon
the cost/student/section can be seen in the nomograph presented in Fig 1.
DISCUSSION One limitation of using data from only one university is that the findings may not be representative of the costs of other Comparisons between universities dubious value because and the environmental cantly from institution
universities. are often of
the budgetary processes context differ signifito institution. However,
NURSE EDUCATION
TODAY
47
CIW#kS Llnguktka krm8n
AnttmWw PolitlcrlBomnw English FMlCh Rmgtolls studbs -logy ~i~rophY
titstofy
FOlklO~ Musk itEizzs ECOllOlIlicr socw work EdUUtlOll 8urlnu8 -YdOWY Nursing Z’ scknc@ Enghmrfng Earth Scbme -MY Chomirty wochemistry 10 Fig 2 Teaching-units
20
30
$1000
ranked according to the cost of producing a course-section.
the uniform accounting procedures used in this study allow comparisons to be made of the teaching costs of different disciplines within the university. The costs presented are estimates. Some errors exist because the Registrar’s files cross-list a small proportion of courses, i.e. those courses that are shared by two teaching-units. This means that these courses will have been counted twice, for example English 2400 and 2401 taught by the English department are also listed as Linguistics 2400 and 2401. Cross-listing probably made little difference to the estimates of large departments, but it could be important for small departments when they bear the cost of teaching large cross-listed course-sections but do not get the benefit of all the student-course hours taught (Classics), and vice versa (Linguistics). Despite problems such as cross-listing, the costs presented do give a good indication of the teaching-unit costs associated with the different disciplines. One danger that arises when the costs associated with specific university disciplines are compared, is that of assuming that all disciplines
should attempt to approximate the average. Clearly, each discipline has costs specific to its needs and some teaching-units (e.g. those with expensive laboratory components) are legitimately more expensive than others. One aim of this paper was to estimate the costs associated with the various disciplines to see if Nursing is expensive relative to the costs of the other teaching-units. It was concluded that it was not because:
4 Nursing
ranked 21/28 with regard to the cost of producing one course-section, and 19/28 with regard to the overall average cost/student/section (calculated for all undergraduate and postgraduate courses taught). For both these measures of expense, it cost less than all the laboratory sciences.
b) It ranked l/28 when ranked with regard to the cost/student/section of the highest level The undergraduate course-sections. reason for this was the relatively large size of the highest level undergraduate coursesections in Nursing.
48
NURSE EDUCATION
TODAY
SOClOloOy
Engllah Mathamatka Ballglaua Studiaa Ecenomica Bualnaaa Polltlul Science Camputar Sciance Psychology Llngulatlca Franch History Education Seclal work Geography German Philoaophy Anthropology Nuralng Enginaaring Claaaica Folklora Biology MUSIC Physics Chemistry Earth Sclenca Biechamlatry
Fig 3 Teaching-units course.
ranked according to the cost/student/section
regardless of the level of undergraduate
Numing Buainaaa Englnaarlng Engllah Sactal work PolItical Scienca Ballgioua Studies Economics Computer Science Sociology Mathematics Franch History Geography Psychology Enginaaring Anthropology Linguiatlcs Music Blolqy Earth Scianca Phlloaophy Folklorn German Classics Biochemistry Chemistry Phyalcs
Fig 4 Teaching-units sections.
ranked according to the cost/student/section
of the highest level undergraduate
course
NURSE EDUCATION
This last course-level was specifically chosen for ranking not because it was the one that ranked Nursing as number one, but because when the costs of the various honours and professional degrees of the teaching-units were calculated, it was found that the most significant factor affecting the cost of the various degrees was the size of the highest level undergraduate course-sections. Most teaching-units require students to select at least 15% of their courses from the highest level undergraduate courses for an honours or professional degree, and because such courses are, with the exception of Nursing, the smallest in size, they are also the most expensive per student and have the most effect on the cost of producing a graduate (Roberts, 1989). Some teaching-units provide an extremely high proportion of their course-sections at the first- and second-level, to service the needs of other units: for example, at this institution English, Mathematics, Psychology, French, and Chemistry have the largest number of first-level course-sections. It seems reasonable to expect the advanced level courses of these teachingunits to be partly subsidised by the units that utilise their services at the introductory level. However, it is unreasonable to completely disregard the size of the highest level undergraduate course-sections when ranking units according to their teaching costs, because the cost of the advanced level courses is the most significant component of the cost of producing a graduate. This study provides estimates of the institutional costs at one university for one 4-year-period. The nursing program may become more expensive in the future. For example, additional faculty may be hired to reduce the student/ faculty ratio, new courses may be provided, etc.
NE.T
C
TODAY
49
These changes would increase the cost/student/ section. However, for this one 4-year-period, the cost to the University of Nursing courses and Nursing graduates was not expensive in comparison with the other disciplines. The very different ranking of Nursing, obtained when the cost/student/section was expressed in terms of the overall average (favoured by university administrators?) or the average for the highest level undergraduate courses, serves to highlight the need for those in charge of the budgets for Nursing education to be aware of the many factors involved, to ask for, or calculate, documentary proof of any claims made, and to question the basic assumptions underlying them.
References Knopf L 1982 Cost of nursing education: A manual for analysis of expenditures, Part 1. Methods, directions, and examples. National League for Nursing, New York Langston N F 1981 Budgetary planning: A key to program survival and success. In: Budget management in baccalaureate nursing programs: 1-8 National League for Nursing, New York Milter R G 1986 Resource allocation models and the budgeting process. New Directions for Institutional Research 49: 759 1 Pickens W H 1986 Funding over time: Measuring institutional finance. New Directions for Institutional Research 52: 57-67 Roberts P M Hartmann G 1987 Section Costs. St John’s, Newfoundland: A report of the Memorial University Senate Advisory Committee on the University Budget Roberts P M 1989 An estimate of the cost of educating a B N graduate and graduates of other disciplines at a Canadian university: A case study. Journal of Nursing Education 28: 140-145 Rohrbaugh J 1986 The future of decision support systems in institutional research. New Directions for Institutional Research, 49: 109-l 16.
02606917/90/0010-0044/$10.00
Financial arguments and university education for nurses: a Canadian perspective Patricia M Roberts
Published information concerning costs of the various university disciplines is scanty, and Deans of Nursing have to rely on information that is transmitted to them by their university administrators. This paper provides some hard facts of comparative costs at one university, where, after an examination of the various factors involved, it was found that when judged by a) the cost of producing a section of a course, Nursing ranked 2 1 out of 28; b) the cost/student/section, regardless of level, Nursing ranked 19 out of 28; and c) the cost/student/section of the highest level undergraduate courses, Nursing ranked one out of 28. It was therefore concluded that financial arguments cannot be used to deprive nurses of the university education received by all other professionals.
INTRODUCTION Some University Schools of Nursing in North America have been threatened with being closed. University administrators and politicians say they are too expensive. Deans of Nursing thus find themselves ‘between a rock and a hard place’: between the reality of university administrators eager to trim their budgets and the public expectation of being served by well qualified nurses with the university education required of all other professionals (physicians, teachers, social workers, school counsellors, et al). Published information concerning costs of the various university disciplines is scanty, and Deans of Nursing have to rely on information
Patricia M Roberts BSc MSc PhD Assistant Professor, School of Nursing, Memorial University of Newfoundland, St John’s, Newfoundland, Canada Al B 3V6 (Requests for offprints to PR) Manuscript accepted 11 July 1989 44
that is transmitted to them by their university administrators. Langston (198 1) indicated that Deans need to understand the total budgetary process and the various associated management techniques used by their institution so that they can: 1) use their resources more efficiently, 2) make long range plans, 3) provide credible support material for the funding requests that they make to their chief executive officers each year. Unfortunately, many Deans of Nursing lack adequate information for their decision making because their universities have little or no institutional research facilities, and the assumptions that they use as a basis for their decisions are unclear and often unstated (Pickens 1986; Rohrbaugh 1986; Milter 1986). Where information is available it is not always provided to the heads of the various faculties and schools of the institution, and certainly it is not readily available to the general public.
NURSE EDUCATION
This research
was carried out in an attempt to:
1) estimate,
for
1981/1982-1984/1985,
costs of the various disciplines
the
at one uni-
versity, to provide
2)
cators, 3) to increase involved,
factual
data for nursing
understanding
completion
generous the
was
made
co-operation
institution
who
the study
possible
by
the
of the administrators
of
provided
the
necessary
information. The University main campus
1) the
costs related to teaching
at the
were divided into:
expenditures
of
the
individual
teaching-units, i.e. monies controlled by the teaching-unit and spent on salaries,
2)
operating and capital items, and the expenditures of all the other divisions of the University library
services,
nical services,
that support computing
services,
and
expenditures
to the individual
student
tech-
services.
could not be allocated teaching-units
according
to the use made of them because cient information Therefore,
i.e.
and campus mainuniversity utilities,
administration, These
them,
building
tenance,
insuffi-
was available.
only the former
are reported
here.
for which
and capital expenditures)
the teaching-unit include
overhead,
administration,
incurred
is used to describe
a separate
budget
includes
the
Faculties
of Arts and Science,
individual
academic
units
was available.
Departments
of
It the
the Faculties
of
Education, Engineering, and Business, and the Schools of Nursing and Social Work. Unfortu-
computing,
maintenance,
etc.)
METHODS The teaching-unit
costs per course-section
(cost/
section) and per student per course-section
(cost/
student/section)
required
the collation
versity. The overall average of each of these costs was calculated for the 4 fiscal years ending 31 March
1985.
1) The total expenditure of each teaching-unit The total expenditure
of each teaching
calculated.
all salaries (faculty,
research (supplies,
It included assistants telephone
and capital costs (computers,
teaching
plus a share
budget,
allocated
of the Dean’s
according
provide
under
expenditures
both undergraduate
costs etc.),
aids, etc.), share
the control
of
were incurred
to
and postgraduate
teaching. 2) The course-sections provided by the teaching-units and there student enrolment For each teaching-unit, the number
tions taught at each course-level b) the
average
size of
course-sections c) the
total
and size of
of
all course-sections
of their course-level,
d) the average size of all course-sections taught regardless of their course-level. 3) The teaching-unit cost of providing
by a faculty
a discrete member
group for a
each year,
undergraduate
taught at each course-level,
number
taught regardless
the
section The total expenditure
semester.
staff,
which was
to the teaching-unit’s
of the total course-credits the Dean. These
unit was
et al), operating bills, photocopying,
able data were not available. Course-section is used to describe taught
of finan-
cial files with enrolment files obtained from the appropriate administrative officers of the Uni-
nately expenditures of the Faculty of Medicine are derived from a different source and compar-
of students
by
for its own use. It does not
the course-sections was expressed as: a) the number of undergraduate course-sec-
DEFINITIONS Teaching-unit
Teaching-unit costs refers to the costs (i.e. salaries, operating
of the factors
4) to encourage others to reproduce at their own institutions. Its
edu-
45
TODAY
one course-
of the teaching-unit
for
each fiscal year was divided by the total number of course-sections taught by the unit in the year,
46
NURSE EDUCATION
TODAY
regardless of course-level, to estimate the average teaching-unit cost of providing a coursesection. 4) The teaching-unit cost/student of providing
one
course-section The teaching-unit
cost of providing
one course-
section was divided by:
a) the average
size of the taught at each course-level,
costlstudentisection different
b)
for
course-levels,
the average
course-sections to estimate the courses
at
the
and
size of all course-sections
re-
gardless of course-level, to estimate the for all courses cost/student/section regardless
of course-level.
5) Understanding the factors involved For each teaching-unit, was calculated
the regression
for the relationship
size of the undergraduate and the course-level.
course-sections
The teaching-units were ranked the following 4-year averages:
4
average
cost of providing
tion (undergraduate
b)
equation
between
the
taught
according
to
one course-sec-
50
4 average
cost/student/section of a highest level undergraduate course-section.
section (Fig 2) Nursing ranked 21128 When the teaching-units were ranked 4) according to the overall cost/student/section of course-level
(Fig
3) Nursing
19128
the teaching-units were ranked 5) When according to the average cost/student/section of the highest level undergraduate course-
RESULTS correlation
coefficients the average
graduate course-sections were highly significant
for the relationsize of the under-
sections (Fig4)
Nursing ranked
l/28, the least
expensive.
and the course-level (P < 0.001) for all
except Classics (P < 0.02) and
Education (P < 0.05). The correlation coefficient was negative for all teaching-units except Nursing, i.e. Nursing was the only teaching-unit
0
-)
the teaching-units were ranked 3) When according to the cost of producing a course-
ranked
teaching-units
10
20
Fig 1 Nomograph showing the relationship between section size, section-cost and the cost/student/ section.
regardless
ship between
30
and postgraduate),
average cost/student/section of an undercourse-section regardless of graduate course-level,
1) The
40
couru size(ShJdmtu-
where the highest
level under-
graduate course-sections had more students than the lowest level course-sections.
2) The effect that course enrolment
has upon
the cost/student/section can be seen in the nomograph presented in Fig 1.
DISCUSSION One limitation of using data from only one university is that the findings may not be representative of the costs of other Comparisons between universities dubious value because and the environmental cantly from institution
universities. are often of
the budgetary processes context differ signifito institution. However,
NURSE EDUCATION
TODAY
47
CIW#kS Llnguktka krm8n
AnttmWw PolitlcrlBomnw English FMlCh Rmgtolls studbs -logy ~i~rophY
titstofy
FOlklO~ Musk itEizzs ECOllOlIlicr socw work EdUUtlOll 8urlnu8 -YdOWY Nursing Z’ scknc@ Enghmrfng Earth Scbme -MY Chomirty wochemistry 10 Fig 2 Teaching-units
20
30
$1000
ranked according to the cost of producing a course-section.
the uniform accounting procedures used in this study allow comparisons to be made of the teaching costs of different disciplines within the university. The costs presented are estimates. Some errors exist because the Registrar’s files cross-list a small proportion of courses, i.e. those courses that are shared by two teaching-units. This means that these courses will have been counted twice, for example English 2400 and 2401 taught by the English department are also listed as Linguistics 2400 and 2401. Cross-listing probably made little difference to the estimates of large departments, but it could be important for small departments when they bear the cost of teaching large cross-listed course-sections but do not get the benefit of all the student-course hours taught (Classics), and vice versa (Linguistics). Despite problems such as cross-listing, the costs presented do give a good indication of the teaching-unit costs associated with the different disciplines. One danger that arises when the costs associated with specific university disciplines are compared, is that of assuming that all disciplines
should attempt to approximate the average. Clearly, each discipline has costs specific to its needs and some teaching-units (e.g. those with expensive laboratory components) are legitimately more expensive than others. One aim of this paper was to estimate the costs associated with the various disciplines to see if Nursing is expensive relative to the costs of the other teaching-units. It was concluded that it was not because:
4 Nursing
ranked 21/28 with regard to the cost of producing one course-section, and 19/28 with regard to the overall average cost/student/section (calculated for all undergraduate and postgraduate courses taught). For both these measures of expense, it cost less than all the laboratory sciences.
b) It ranked l/28 when ranked with regard to the cost/student/section of the highest level The undergraduate course-sections. reason for this was the relatively large size of the highest level undergraduate coursesections in Nursing.
48
NURSE EDUCATION
TODAY
SOClOloOy
Engllah Mathamatka Ballglaua Studiaa Ecenomica Bualnaaa Polltlul Science Camputar Sciance Psychology Llngulatlca Franch History Education Seclal work Geography German Philoaophy Anthropology Nuralng Enginaaring Claaaica Folklora Biology MUSIC Physics Chemistry Earth Sclenca Biechamlatry
Fig 3 Teaching-units course.
ranked according to the cost/student/section
regardless of the level of undergraduate
Numing Buainaaa Englnaarlng Engllah Sactal work PolItical Scienca Ballgioua Studies Economics Computer Science Sociology Mathematics Franch History Geography Psychology Enginaaring Anthropology Linguiatlcs Music Blolqy Earth Scianca Phlloaophy Folklorn German Classics Biochemistry Chemistry Phyalcs
Fig 4 Teaching-units sections.
ranked according to the cost/student/section
of the highest level undergraduate
course
NURSE EDUCATION
This last course-level was specifically chosen for ranking not because it was the one that ranked Nursing as number one, but because when the costs of the various honours and professional degrees of the teaching-units were calculated, it was found that the most significant factor affecting the cost of the various degrees was the size of the highest level undergraduate course-sections. Most teaching-units require students to select at least 15% of their courses from the highest level undergraduate courses for an honours or professional degree, and because such courses are, with the exception of Nursing, the smallest in size, they are also the most expensive per student and have the most effect on the cost of producing a graduate (Roberts, 1989). Some teaching-units provide an extremely high proportion of their course-sections at the first- and second-level, to service the needs of other units: for example, at this institution English, Mathematics, Psychology, French, and Chemistry have the largest number of first-level course-sections. It seems reasonable to expect the advanced level courses of these teachingunits to be partly subsidised by the units that utilise their services at the introductory level. However, it is unreasonable to completely disregard the size of the highest level undergraduate course-sections when ranking units according to their teaching costs, because the cost of the advanced level courses is the most significant component of the cost of producing a graduate. This study provides estimates of the institutional costs at one university for one 4-year-period. The nursing program may become more expensive in the future. For example, additional faculty may be hired to reduce the student/ faculty ratio, new courses may be provided, etc.
NE.T
C
TODAY
49
These changes would increase the cost/student/ section. However, for this one 4-year-period, the cost to the University of Nursing courses and Nursing graduates was not expensive in comparison with the other disciplines. The very different ranking of Nursing, obtained when the cost/student/section was expressed in terms of the overall average (favoured by university administrators?) or the average for the highest level undergraduate courses, serves to highlight the need for those in charge of the budgets for Nursing education to be aware of the many factors involved, to ask for, or calculate, documentary proof of any claims made, and to question the basic assumptions underlying them.
References Knopf L 1982 Cost of nursing education: A manual for analysis of expenditures, Part 1. Methods, directions, and examples. National League for Nursing, New York Langston N F 1981 Budgetary planning: A key to program survival and success. In: Budget management in baccalaureate nursing programs: 1-8 National League for Nursing, New York Milter R G 1986 Resource allocation models and the budgeting process. New Directions for Institutional Research 49: 759 1 Pickens W H 1986 Funding over time: Measuring institutional finance. New Directions for Institutional Research 52: 57-67 Roberts P M Hartmann G 1987 Section Costs. St John’s, Newfoundland: A report of the Memorial University Senate Advisory Committee on the University Budget Roberts P M 1989 An estimate of the cost of educating a B N graduate and graduates of other disciplines at a Canadian university: A case study. Journal of Nursing Education 28: 140-145 Rohrbaugh J 1986 The future of decision support systems in institutional research. New Directions for Institutional Research, 49: 109-l 16.