Abstract
Purpose. This study examined the grouped budget criteria, as indicated in the Budget Decision Criteria Instrument (BDCI), used by academic and administrative leaders to develop an operating budget. It also compared the perceived relevance of each criterion in terms of participants' job positions, times in current job, total experience in the field, gender, and ethnicity and the annual tuition cost, annual budget, and number of full-time enrollments at the participants' institutions.Methodology. This quantitative correlational study analyzed the criteria used by administrative and academic leaders to make budgetary decisions. The BDCI was used to measure their preferred budget decision criteria. Their responses were scored and used as the dependent variables. The leaders' positions, lengths of time in their current position, and years of experience in their fields were used as the independent variables. Demographic factors, including annual cost of tuition, size of institutional budget, and student enrollment, were used as co-variables. The BDCI analysis of frequency and variances and a multiple regression analysis were performed.Findings. Multiple regression indicated there was no significant difference in the budget decision criteria used in the academic area or the either area. However, there was a significant difference in the administrative budget decision criteria used by leaders in the administrative or academic area, after controlling for length of time in current job, total time in profession, student enrollment, annual cost of tuition, and size of institutional budget.Conclusions. There were no significant differences in the preferred budget decision criteria used by administrative and academic leaders in higher education to develop an operating budget, except in the administrative area. The majority of responses were from administrative leaders rather than academic leaders, which was a limitation. Also, a larger percentage of female respondents were administrative leaders.Recommendations. Future studies could include a larger number of responses from academic leaders. They could also be limited to specific types of institutions of higher education. Finally, the BDCI could be redesigned.