<%BANNER%>

The Impact of Earmarked Lottery Revenue on the Funding of Florida's Community Colleges

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0042463/00001

Material Information

Title: The Impact of Earmarked Lottery Revenue on the Funding of Florida's Community Colleges
Physical Description: 1 online resource (101 p.)
Language: english
Creator: WILL,CHRISTINA
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2011

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: COLLEGES -- COMMUNITY -- FLORIDA -- FUNDING -- LOTTERY
Human Development and Organizational Studies in Education -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Higher Education Administration thesis, Ph.D.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy THE IMPACT OF EARMARKED LOTTERY REVENUE ON THE FUNDING OF FLORIDA?S COMMUNITY COLLEGES By Christina Will May 2011 Chair: David Honeyman Major: Higher Education Administration The purpose of this study was to determine the extent to and manner in which earmarked lottery revenue impacted the funding of Florida's 28 community colleges. Utilizing data from fiscal year 1997-1998 through 2008-2009, this study determined that funds from the Florida Lottery have become an integral part of the operating budgets of Florida's community colleges. The proportion of community colleges' operating budgets comprised of discretionary lottery funds varied by institutional size as did the mean appropriation of discretionary lottery dollars per full-time equivalent (FTE). Variations in discretionary lottery funds appropriated to the community college system were not correlated with general revenue, student fees, nor FTE. The amount of lottery funds appropriated to the community college system annually were not correlated with changes in Florida Lottery revenue nor the amount of lottery funds transferred annually to the Educational Enhancement Trust Fund. The lottery fund appropriations made to only one of the earmarked beneficiaries, the state university system, were significantly correlated with the appropriations made to the community college system. Community college system expenditures were not correlated with the amount of discretionary lottery funds appropriated to the community college system.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by CHRISTINA WILL.
Thesis: Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Florida, 2011.
Local: Adviser: Honeyman, David S.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2011
System ID: UFE0042463:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0042463/00001

Material Information

Title: The Impact of Earmarked Lottery Revenue on the Funding of Florida's Community Colleges
Physical Description: 1 online resource (101 p.)
Language: english
Creator: WILL,CHRISTINA
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2011

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: COLLEGES -- COMMUNITY -- FLORIDA -- FUNDING -- LOTTERY
Human Development and Organizational Studies in Education -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Higher Education Administration thesis, Ph.D.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy THE IMPACT OF EARMARKED LOTTERY REVENUE ON THE FUNDING OF FLORIDA?S COMMUNITY COLLEGES By Christina Will May 2011 Chair: David Honeyman Major: Higher Education Administration The purpose of this study was to determine the extent to and manner in which earmarked lottery revenue impacted the funding of Florida's 28 community colleges. Utilizing data from fiscal year 1997-1998 through 2008-2009, this study determined that funds from the Florida Lottery have become an integral part of the operating budgets of Florida's community colleges. The proportion of community colleges' operating budgets comprised of discretionary lottery funds varied by institutional size as did the mean appropriation of discretionary lottery dollars per full-time equivalent (FTE). Variations in discretionary lottery funds appropriated to the community college system were not correlated with general revenue, student fees, nor FTE. The amount of lottery funds appropriated to the community college system annually were not correlated with changes in Florida Lottery revenue nor the amount of lottery funds transferred annually to the Educational Enhancement Trust Fund. The lottery fund appropriations made to only one of the earmarked beneficiaries, the state university system, were significantly correlated with the appropriations made to the community college system. Community college system expenditures were not correlated with the amount of discretionary lottery funds appropriated to the community college system.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by CHRISTINA WILL.
Thesis: Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Florida, 2011.
Local: Adviser: Honeyman, David S.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2011
System ID: UFE0042463:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

1 THE IMPACT OF EARMAR KED LOTTERY REVENUE ON THE FUNDING OF FLORIDAS COMMUNITY COLLEGES By CHRISTINA WILL A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREM ENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2011

PAGE 2

2 2011 Christina Will

PAGE 3

3 To my Dad

PAGE 4

4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I thank my Chair, Dr. David Honeyman, and my committee members. Additional thanks to the faculty of the College of Education at the University of Florida for their dedication and enthusiasm Further thanks to my family and friends for t heir constant support and encouragement.

PAGE 5

5 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ...............................................................................................................4 LIST OF TABLES ...........................................................................................................................7 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND NOMENCLATURE ..............................................................8 ABSTRACT .....................................................................................................................................9 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................10 Purpose of this Study ..............................................................................................................16 Research Questions .................................................................................................................16 Significance of Study ..............................................................................................................17 Limitations ..............................................................................................................................18 2 LITERATURE REVIEW .......................................................................................................20 State Lotteries .........................................................................................................................20 Adoption Patterns ............................................................................................................20 Public Perception and Justifi cation .................................................................................22 Lottery Revenue Allocation Systems ..............................................................................23 Floridas L ottery F unds ...................................................................................................24 Lottery as a Revenue Source ..................................................................................................28 Maturity Effects and Product Revenue Patterns ..............................................................28 Cannibalism .....................................................................................................................30 Earmarking Effects .................................................................................................................33 Supplantation ..........................................................................................................................37 3 METHODOLOGY .................................................................................................................45 Research Design .....................................................................................................................45 Researcher Bias ......................................................................................................................47 Data Collection .......................................................................................................................47 Data Analyses .........................................................................................................................48 4 RESULTS ...............................................................................................................................53 5 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................................61 Conclusions .............................................................................................................................61 Recomm endations for F urther S tudy ......................................................................................67

PAGE 6

6 APPENDIX A SUMMARY OF STATE LOTTERY BENEFICIAR IES FISCAL YEAR 2008 ..................69 B LOTTERY REVENUE PROCUREMENT METH ODS BY STATE, FISCAL YEAR 2008 ........................................................................................................................................72 LIST OF REFERENCES ...............................................................................................................75 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH .......................................................................................................101

PAGE 7

7 LIST OF TABLES Table page 21 Florida lottery net sales and transfers to the EETF fiscal year 19 971998 through fiscal year 20 082009 .........................................................................................................43 22 Proportional distribution of lottery funds among beneficiaries fiscal year 1997 1998 through fiscal year 20082009 ...........................................................................................44 31 Community college size categories and definitions ...........................................................52 41 Proportion of total operating revenue comprised of discretionary lottery funds annually fiscal year 1997 1998 through fiscal year 20082009 by size category ..............58 42 Mean appropriation of lottery dollars per FTE annually fiscal year 19971998 through fiscal year 20082009 by size category ................................................................58 43 Pearson Correlation matrix: C ommunity college system level ..........................................58 44 Pearson Correlation matrix: Small institutional size category level ..................................59 45 Pearson Correlation matrix: Medium institutional size category level ..............................59 46 Pearson C orrelation matrix: Large institutional size category level ..................................59 47 Pearson Correlation matrix: Very Large institutional size category level .........................59 48 Pearson Correlation matrix: A ll earmarked lottery beneficiaries ......................................60

PAGE 8

8 LIST OF ABBREVIATION S AND NOMENCLATURE Earmark/earmarking The practice of designating a specific recipient for funds. EETF Educational Enhancement Trust Fund FTE Full time equivalent. This is not to be confused with headcount. FTE was determined by credits hours, where 12 credit hours equaled one FTE. Fungible/fungibility The nature of a commodity such that it is possible to replace th at commodity with another similar commodity. Instant games In Florida, instant games consisted of scratchoff tickets (pre printed tickets with a latex coating that the player scratched off to reveal a potential prize). Instant games offered in other stat es included PullTabs (players removed a paper cover to reveal the prize beneath), Keno, and video lottery terminals. Lottery revenue Profits. Lottery revenue remaining after prizes, administrative costs, and retailer commissions were paid. Online games T r aditional, lotto style games which involve d matching the numbers on a players generated ticket with those selected in a secure drawing. D escribes the manner in which numbers were generated, registered, and validated within the states gaming system, not the manner in which an individual accessed the games. Raffle A lottery sponsored raffle that was a limited time, and usually limited ticket number, offering. Supplant To substitute.

PAGE 9

9 Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School of the Uni versity of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy THE IMPACT OF EARMAR KED LOTTERY REVENUE ON THE FUNDING OF FLORIDAS COMMUNITY COLLEGES By Christina Will May 2011 Chair: David Honeyman Major: Higher Education Administration The purpose of this study was to determine the extent to and manner in which earmarked lottery revenue impacted the funding of Floridas 28 community colleges. Utilizing data from fiscal year 1997 1998 through fis cal year 200820 09, t his study determined that funds from the Florida Lottery have become an integral part of the operating budgets of Floridas community colleges. T he proportion of community colleges operating budgets comprised of discretionary lottery funds varied by institutional size as did the mean appropriation of discretionary lottery dollars per full time equivalent ( FTE ) Variations in discretionary lottery funds appropriated to the community college system were not correlated with general revenu e, student fees, nor FTE The amount of lottery funds appropriated to the community college system annual ly were not correlated with changes in Florida Lottery revenue nor the amount of lottery funds transferred annually to the Educational Enhancement Trus t Fund. The lottery fund appropriations made to only one of the earmarked beneficiar ies the state university system, w ere significantly correlated with the appropriations made to the community college system. Community college system expenditures were not correlated with the amount of discretionary lottery funds appropriated to the community college system.

PAGE 10

10 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION The Florida L ottery was created through a voter approved constitutional amendment in 1986, to allow the people of the state to benefit from significant additional moneys for education while playing the best lottery games available (Florida Lottery, 2008 f 1). In 1987, the Florida Public Education Lottery Act was enacted by the Florida Legislature. Section 24.102(2) F lorida S ta tutes, state d the expressed intent of the Legislature was that the net proceeds of lottery games conducted pursuant to this act be used to support improvements in public education and that such proceeds not be used as a substitute for existing resources f or public education (Florida Department of Education, 2008, p. 1). However, as Floridas Auditor General noted in 2004, the law did not define the existing resources for education for which the Lottery is not to be used as a substitute (Monroe, p. 2). T ickets went on sale in 1988 with the proceeds earmarked to enhance public education in the state (Florida Lottery, 2007a p. 2). From its inception through fiscal year 20082009, the Florida Lottery transferred over $21 billion in lottery proceeds to edu cation. The Florida Lotterys mission wa s to maximize revenues in a manner consistent with the dignity of the state and the welfare of its citizens (Florida Lottery, 2008 f 1) ; notice the mission did not stipulate that those revenues were to benefit education. The Florida Lottery attempted to maximize revenue by offering a variety of on line games, instant games, and, periodically, a raffle. Lottery proceeds were transferred quarterly to the Educational Enhancement Trust Fund (EETF) which wa s administere d by the Florida Department of Education. Florida wa s one of the few states with a lottery that d id not mandate by law minimum percentages of lottery proceeds to be designated for prizes, transferred to the lotterys designated beneficiaries, nor a maxim um proportion to be utilized for operating expenses.

PAGE 11

11 Instead, as reproduced by the Florida Department of Education, Section 24.121 of the F lorida S tatutes, which governed the allocation and expenditure of lottery revenues, ma de repeated references to the u se of variable percentages ( 2008, p. 2). In the 20082009 fiscal year, Florida Lottery funds comprised 5. 1% of the states total operating budget for public schools and public higher education institutions (Florida Department of Education, 2009). While the Florida Lottery was never intended to fully fund public education, (Florida Lottery, 2007a, p. 2) the funds the Florida Lottery provided to education were described by Lottery officials as far reaching and crucial to ensuring the future success of students in Florida (Florida Lottery, 2008d, 6). From the Florida Lotterys first sale in 1988 through fiscal year 20082009, over $21 billion in lottery revenue was transferred to K 20 education, which, Florida Lottery officials tout ed, wa s money rais ed without having to raise taxes (Florida Lottery, 2007a, p. 2). Initially, lottery revenue was distributed to designated beneficiaries as categorical funds. Beginning in 1991, school districts, community colleges, and state universities were provided a portion of lottery funds as lump sums whereby each institution was responsible for distributing the funds thereafter to use the funds for educational enhancement (Florida Department of Education, 2008, p. 6). Additional funds were also distributed to ins titutions through matching fund programs, grants, and special initiatives approved by the legislature. Lottery funds were used for school construction and renovation, K 12, community college, and state university funding, as well as state student financial aid I n 1997, the Florida Bright Futures Scholarship Program was established and became another earmarked recipient of Florida Lottery funds. Unlike other earmarked beneficiaries, t he Florida Bright Futures Scholarship Program was funded solely through lottery revenue, therefore Section 24.121(5e ) of the Florida Statutes (as

PAGE 12

12 reproduced by the Florida Department of Education) stipulated, i f shortages require reductions in estimated distributions from the Educational Enhancement Trust Fund, funds for the Fl orida Bright Futures Scholarship Program shall be reduced only after reductions in all other distributions are made ( 2008, p. 4). As demands for lottery funds increased, the Florida Legislatures Office of Program Policy Analysis and Government Accounta bility (OPPAGA) noted, in fiscal year 200708 growth in Lottery transfers to the Educational Enhancement Trust Fund began to slow and further noted that current forecasts indicate continued slowing of revenue growth and transfers ( 2009, p.1). Florida Lottery officials stated in the Lotterys Long Range Program Plan, FY 20082009 through 20122013 that, given Floridas ever increasing population and demand for education funding (the class size constitutional amendment and Bright Futures scholarships ar e but two examples), policy makers may face, for the first time, the very real possibility of not having enough lottery generated revenue to underwrite desired education programs without an impact to general revenue funds (DiBenigno, 2007, p. 11). Conside ring this prediction by Florida Lottery officials and the demands being placed upon the Lottery as a revenue source by the Governor and the Florida Legislature, the effects of earmarked lottery revenue on the budgets of Floridas educational institutions a nd programs must be clearly determined in order to prepare for a potentially devastating lack of lottery revenue. Previous studies conducted nationwide indicated that, in general, lottery revenue was an unreliable source of income that was subject not onl y to market demand, but a systemic, predictable life span of lottery games. The Florida Lottery was no exception; in fiscal year 2006 2007 the Florida Lottery experienced a $100 million decrease in sales ( Souza, 2008) despite acting upon multiple recommendations made by OPPAGA to increase revenue (Florida

PAGE 13

13 Legislature, Office of Program Policy Analysis and Government Accountability, 2007; 2006; 2004a; 2004b; 2003). In 2008, Floridas state economists reduced their projections of lottery revenue by $47 million and have scaled back projections for the next two years by $159 million (Bousquet & ColavecchioVan Sickler, 2008, 2). In April 2008, Florida House Speaker Marco Rubio stated that, Gambling is a stagnant source of revenue. Weve always known that. (Bousquet & ColavecchioVan Sickler, 2008, 10). Yet Governor Crists 20082009 budget proposal relied on a $250 million increase in lottery revenue; revenue that was earmarked for education (Bousquet, 2008). As Florida continue d to look to the Florida Lottery as a revenue source for education, an examination of this policys effect on its earmarked beneficiaries was due. While 18 states including Florida, earmark ed lottery revenues solely for educational purposes in 2008, the effectiveness of this policy wa s the subject of continued debate. Several studies examined whether earmarking lottery revenue for education actually benefit ed the institutions receiving those funds. In their 1974 evaluation of earmarking lottery revenue for education, Weinstein and D eitch concluded that in most cases, there is more likely to be a substitution rather than a supplemental effect (p. 79). Mikesell and Zorn (1986) said claims made by lottery proponents that the net revenue contributes to the expansion of functional area s are not provable (p. 315). By collectively examining states that earmark lottery revenue for education, later studies found some evidence to suggest that lottery funds actually supplanted state general revenue funds as a result of earmarking. In 1991, B org, Mason, and Shapiro (who included Florida in their collective study of five state lotteries) said earmarked education lotteries have probably led to significant fungibility of education revenues, and thus the lotteries have done much more to harm educ ation in the states that employ them than they have done to

PAGE 14

14 help (p. 47). In their Report to the National Gambling Impact Study Commission, Clotfelter, Cook, Edell, and Moore (1999) stated there is reason to doubt if earmarked lottery revenues in fact have the effect of increasing funds available for the specified purpose (p.2). They cited two works to support this statement; Clotfelter and Cooks book Selling Hope (1989) and Spindlers study of Ohio (1995). Still, Jones and Amalfitano declared in 1994 that the lack of any largescale research makes it difficult to substantiate any claims about the efficacy of earmarking, pro or con (p. 17). A dearth of further study left the issue unresolved, particularly in light of mounting data that was unavailabl e to earlier researchers who studied some lotteries while they were still in their infancies. As most recently stated by Ellis in 2007, it was still unclear whether lotteries produce a net benefit to education. While over $21 billion dollars were transf erred from the Florida Lottery to educational institutions through the end of fiscal year 20082009, the extent to which those funds benefitted education in Florida was a contentious issue. The very year the Florida Lottery began generating revenue, claims of fungibility were being reported; Allen (1991) stated that in 1988 Floridas Education Commission had reported the use of lottery funds for programs that had previously been funded through the states general revenue (p. 306). In 1991, then Governor Law ton Chiles, called Floridas lottery a great hoax on the people (as quoted in Bobbitt, 2007, p. 62). Stark (1991) and Stark, Wood, and Honeyman (1993) demonstrated the supplantation of general revenue funds with lottery funds at the K 12 level in Florida Summers, Honeyman, Wattenbarger & Miller (1995) found significant redistribution effects since the lotterys inception, with both lottery revenue and state revenue constituting a decreasing share of community college budgets In 1998, a study conducted b y the Palm Beach Post staff found that, during the 10 years the lottery had been in operation, 35 cents of each tax dollar was spent on

PAGE 15

15 education, whereas 40 cents of each tax dollar was spent on education before the lottery (Bobbitt, 2007). Bobbitt noted that before the establishment of the Florida Lottery, the state spent 60% of its budget on education, but now spends only 51 percent (2007, p. 62). In January 2008, former Florida State University President and member of the Florida Taxation and Budget R eform Commission, Sandy DAlemberte, stated in a newspaper editorial titled, Students Lose in this Shell Game, that the Legislature has used lottery funding to displace general revenue funding and there has been no benefit to education ( 7). However, there was still a need for current, datadriven, evidence based research examining the lotterys impact on Floridas education funding. If lottery dollars had supplanted general revenue dollars that would otherwise have been allocated to earmarked recipien ts of lottery revenue, Floridas educational institutions would be facing serious, long term budgetary crises as the lottery failed to produce sufficient revenue for current and proposed initiatives. It has already been noted that Florida Lottery revenue only constituted 5.1% of the states total public education budget in fiscal year 20082009. After examining five state lotteries, including Florida, Borg, Mason, and Shapiro declared in 1991 that, lottery revenues are just too small to make much of a dent in a large budget item like education (p. 13). They also concluded that lotteries were at best insignificant with regard to the funding of education (p. 40). Jones and Amalfitano (1994) concurred with this sentiment. However, at the institutional level the significance of lottery dollars may have been more palpable. Furthermore, if those lottery funds were supplanting general revenue funds, the importance of lottery dollars would be magnified. It had to be determined what proportion of institutional budgets was comprised of lottery dollars to truly understand the effect of lottery revenue on earmarked recipients.

PAGE 16

16 Several studies examined the effects of earmarking lottery revenue for education. However, most of these studies were multi state analyses whi ch several researchers concluded was not the best approach Each state lottery had reached a different point of maturity, offered differing products that effected revenue production, and had different economic situations that may or may not have made suppl anting general revenue with lottery revenue necessary (Garrett, 2001; Lauth & Robbins, 2002; McQueen, 2007). Furthermore, educational funding structures and lottery distribution schemes varied, even among states that earmarked lottery revenue for education Therefore, statelevel study could be more useful for determining the effects of earmarked lottery revenue on its recipients. Performing a state level examination of the Florida Lotterys effect on education funding was particularly important given the a forementioned reliance o n lottery revenue by the state. While the findings could possibly be generalized to other states earmarking lottery revenue for education, the potential and more immediate benefit for Floridas education policy makers cannot be ove rstated. Purpose of this Study The purpose of this study was to determine the extent to and manner in which earmarked lottery revenue impacted the funding of Floridas 28 community colleges. Factors influencing the amount of lottery revenue appropriated t o the Florida community college system were also examined. Research Questions This study examined five research questions : 1. w hat percentage of community college system funding was provided by discretionary lottery funds system wide at the institutional lev el ; what proportion of community colleges total operating revenue was comprised of discretionary lottery funds; what was the mean appropriation of discretionary lottery dollars per FTE at the institutional level; if these amounts vary by institutional siz e;

PAGE 17

17 2. if variations in discretionary lottery funds appropriated to the community college system correlated with general revenue, student fees, or FTE; if correlations among variables were consistent by institution size or if correlations varied with the size of the institution; 3. if variations in lottery funds appropriated to the community college system were correlated with changes in total lottery reve nue; if variations in lottery funds appropriated to the community college system were correlated wi th changes in the amount of funds transferred to the EETF; 4. if variations in lottery funds appropriated to the community college system were correlated with lottery fund appropriations to other earmarked beneficiaries; 5. if variations in community college system expend itures were correlated with the amount of discretionary lottery funds appropriated to the community college system Significance of Study In 2008, Floridas community college system was expected to grow over the next five years by 20% or 150,000 new students. This growth cannot take place without continuing and expanded state financial support (Florida Community College Council of Presidents, 2008, p.3). As earmarked lottery revenue recipients, lottery funds impact ed the level of financial support provided to Floridas community colleges. As Land and Alsikafi noted in 1999, when education funding is tied to a state lottery, the fiscal stability of educational programs often becomes a critical concern ( 19). In Florida at the time of this study, demand for lottery funds inc reased as the lotterys revenue plateaued and decreased making the concern regarding fiscal stability even more critical. An analysis of current data helped to clarify the budgetary situation facing Floridas community colleges, and provided community college administrators, advocates, lobbyists, and Floridas legislators with a current analysis to guide economic policy at the institutional and state level. The resulting policy recommendations could further be of use to all community colleges faced with decreasing state support and increasing demand for services. I t was hoped that the findings of this study would lead to an objective method of analysis that could be replicated for each category of educational institution currently re ceiving lottery

PAGE 18

18 revenue. This method could then be utilized by other states, allowing researchers the opportunity to conduct post hoc, multi state analyses. It was also hoped that, upon successful application of this model to other state lotteries, the 18 other state lotteries earmarking lottery funds for education at the time of this study would reevaluate community college funding policies in light of their findings. This study described the budgetary situation facing Floridas community colleges, thereby providing community college advocates, lobbyists, and legislators with a current, objective analysis to guide economic policy at the institutional, state and national level. Furthermore, the results, once publicized, could remedy public misperceptions re garding the impact of lottery funding on education. Limitations Community college revenue sources funding formulae and fiscal governance var ied by state Within Florida, available revenue sources varied slightly among t he states community colleges. As reported by Miller & Holt in 2005, 29 states utilize d local taxation as a form of revenue through property taxes, sales taxes and /or votedapproved bonds As a result, nationally, about one fifth of community college revenue As reported by the state of Florida t he total operating revenue of Floridas community colleges consisted of student fees (revenue derived from tuition and fees) an annual [was] derived from local tax appropriations ( Miller & Holt 2005, p. 67). In Florida, a few community colleges received local tax revenue during the time period studied but most did not However, these difference s do not restrict the ability to generalize the findings of this study to other community college systems. In Florida and nationally, regardless of the available revenue sources, community colleges were being asked to do more with less state support (Babitz, 2003; Bass, 2003; Miller & Holt, 2005; Romano, Gallagher & Shugart, 2010; Zeiss, 2003).

PAGE 19

19 appropriation of lottery funds, and a n annual general revenue appropriation from the State of Florida. The Board of Trustees of each community college w as responsible for developing a budget at the institutional level which fully utilized the appropriated funds Each year the Florida Legislature established a stand ard student fee amount per credit hour and each community college Board was authorized to set institutional tuition rates within a range of 10% below to 15% above the amount established the legislature (Florida Department of Education, Division of Account ability, Research, and Measurement, 2010 p.13). Florida was one of only two states (California being the other) in which the state legislature established community college tuition and fees. Community colleges in other states exercised local control of st udent tuition and fees or had a state or district educational board setting tuition rates and fees (Mullin & Honeyman, 2008). This study used post hoc data provided by the state of Florida for fiscal years 19971998 through 20082009. This study assumed the data provided by the state was accurate and reliable.

PAGE 20

20 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW A review of the literature provided the background for this study and placed the issue of lottery revenue and educational funding in context. Policy issues surrounding the use of lottery funds for education were relevant to every state earmarking lottery revenues for education. However, very little ha d been written about the extent to and manner in which earmarked lottery revenue impact ed the funding of higher education in general, or community colleges in particular. Most of the literature regarding the issue of lottery revenues impact on education funding focused on total education expenditures by states or state K 12 educational funding by states. Furthermore, most studies were multistate analyses which often obscured the manner in which lottery revenue was allocated, thereby affecting the studies results. State Lotteries Adoption Patterns Beginning with the establishment of the New Hampshire Lottery in 1964, waves of lottery adoption spread throughout the United States, usually coinciding with times of economic recession, shortfalls in state generated revenue, or changes in the federal governments distribution of funds to the states M arketed by legislators and view ed by many voters as an alternative to new taxes, lotteries were considered a painless way to raise revenue ( Barker & Britz, 2000; Berry & Berry, 1990; Borg, Mason & Shapiro, 1991; Jones & Amalfitano 1994; Karcher 1992; McGowan 1994; Nelson & Mason, 2007; Nibert 2000; V on Herrmann, 2002 ). As a useful fiscal tool that produce state revenue without major public complaint (Mikesell & Zorn, 1986, p. 318), state lotteries were found to yield as much revenue in one year as increasing a state sales tax rate by 1 percentage point ( Erekson, DeShano, Platt & Ziegert, 2002, p. 302). Several researchers reported that states with high per capita income had a

PAGE 21

21 constituency that favored lotteries as a means of alleviating some of their personal tax burden ( Ereks on, DeShano, Platt & Ziegert, 2002; Nelson & Mason, 2007; Whitaker, 2007). However, Whitakers 2007 study concluded that the perceived tax benefits to non participants are illusory (p. 542). Whitaker contended that if the public became aware of the costs they were incurring as a result of the lottery, support for lotteries will wane (2007, p. 542). However, most scholars believed that lotteries were here to stay. McGowan (1994) called lotteries a necessary income (p. 17) source for states services and noted that lotteries had become a means of finance for state governments when they can no longer demand that citizens pay more taxes in order to provide governmental expected services (1994, p. 17). In 2008, a review conducted by the researcher of lotte ry beneficiaries nationally indicated that lottery funds supported more than education. Lottery revenue underwrote multiple beneficiaries including state prescription plans, local infrastructure, transportation services, and social services considered vita l to local communities ( Appendix A). States were likely to institute a state lottery when a neighboring state alr eady had a lottery in operation, a phenomena that Berry and Berry (1990), Pierce and Miller (2004) and Nelson and Mason (2007) referred to as diffusion. As early as 1988, Mikesell and Zorn reported a loss of state revenue resulting from residents crossing state borders to play a neighboring states lottery. For example, before the Georgia lottery began selling products in 1993, Georgia residents spent $50 million on Florida Lottery products annually (Nelson & Mason, 2007). In 2007, Stodghill and Nixon reported North Carolinas citizens, through purchase of out of state lottery tickets, provided $500 million in aid to neighboring states causes It is no wonder, then, that when campaigning for the establishment of a state lottery, legislators often argu ed that when their own state did not have its own lottery, its citizen s dollars benefitted causes in the neighboring state

PAGE 22

22 that offered state lot tery games (Bobbitt 2007; Nelson & Mason, 2007; Pierce & Miller, 2004). State officials also noticed the seeming financial boon lotteries created in neighboring states and sought to establish their own state lottery to reap the same rewards (Barker & Brit z, 2000; Bobbitt, 2007). In 2007, the Ohio Lottery Office of Finance reported that nearly 94 % of the U.S. population resides in a state operating a lottery (p. 6). In 2008, Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Hawaii, Mississippi, Nevada, Utah and Wyoming did not have state lotteries. States that d id not have lotteries often had other forms of legalized gambling which lobbied against the establishment of a lottery for fear of the resulting cannibalization that could occur if a state lottery was introduced; such w as the case in Nevada and Mississippi Other states without lotteries often ha d a strong religious contingent that ha d significant influence on state politics, although that line of resistance was overcome in some states by tying the lottery to a worthy cause, such as education (Bobbitt 2007; Ellis, 2007; Jones & Amalfitano 1994; McGowan 1994; Nelson & Mason 2007; Pierce & Miller 2004; Weinstein & Deitch, 1974). As McGowan stated, even proponents of lotteries or gambling generally concede that while i t is not a good activity it can be used to fund good causes (1994, p. 4). Public Perception and Justification Lotteries were marketed by legislators and viewed by many voters as an alternative to new taxes, particularly when lotteries were established to benefit education. Erekson, DeShano, Platt & Ziegert (2002) deemed lotteries a legislators panacea; it satisfies those who value education, while also appeasing those who do not wish to pay for such quality through taxes (p. 305). Whitaker noted that lotteries provided revenue raising mechanisms for state legislatures that lessen monitoring [of those expenditures] since it does not increase implicit taxes (2007, p. 536).

PAGE 23

23 The public perception of the lotterys impact on education was often inflat ed, which inhibited efforts to raise taxes to support education. Lottery revenue constituted a small proportion of states educational budgets, ranging by state from 0.4% to just over five percent, however, the public was largely unaware of this (Ellis, 2007; Fairfield, Nixon & Nguyen 2007). Erekson, DeShano, Platt & Ziegert noted the distance (2002, p. 305) most constituents had from the educational budgeting process when there was a lack of understanding regarding the true impact of lottery dollars. Mo st constituents, however, were keenly aware (p. 305) of their own tax burdens which the lottery was purported to alleviate ( Erekson, DeShano, Platt & Ziegert, 2002). Erekson, DeShano, Platt & Ziegert contended, if lottery funds are giving voters a false sense of security regarding educational funding, voters may erroneously reduce property taxes and other forms of support for public education because they see lottery funds as being supplemental (2002, p. 304305). Bobbitt (2007) claimed this is just wha t occurred in Florida only two years after the lotterys adoption; bond issues that had met with success before the lotterys inception failed thereafter. Bobbitt stated, Florida found that public support for education funding suffered because of the misperception that the lottery was a windfall for education (2007, p. 62). However, this phenomena was not unique to Florida. In 1991, Allen examined the effects the publics perceived use of lottery funds for education had on state funding for education. Aft er examining Florida, California, Michigan and Illinois, Allen concluded that the lotteries served legislators by giving the appearance of meeting needs of education while masking the relative drop in more direct taxes (p. 310) and that the public was misled regarding the lotteries effect on educational funding. Lottery Revenue Allocation Systems In 2008, f orty two state s and the District of Columbia were operat ing lotteries. T he auspices under which each state lottery was created and operated var ied. I n 2008, 18 state

PAGE 24

24 lotteries purport ed to solely benefit educational endeavors, transferring all lottery profits to accounts from which revenue was appropriated directly to educational institutions via the institutions annual operating budget, institutional ly awarded grants, construction funds, or special programs Some educational institutions receive d lottery dollars indirectly through student scholarships, grants, and aid. Some state lotteries were established under the flag of education only to change t hat purpose, legislatively, a few years later. In 2008, seventeen states utilized lottery profits for a variety of purposes, earmarking revenues for environmental programs, infrastructure support, and social services. Twelve of these state lotteries design ated funds for multiple beneficiaries including some educational endeavors, such as school safety initiatives or teacher retirement funds. Eight state lotteries simply deposited lottery revenues directly into the states General Fund for spending later de termined by the states legislature. The transparency of operation varied among state lotteries, as did state level accounting practices and the disclosure of lottery revenue appropriations to the public. A summary of the state lotteries designated benefi ciary type during the 2008 fiscal year and the total disbursements of lottery revenue to beneficiaries through fiscal year 2007 (the most current year for which data was available from each state at the time of the study) is provided in Appendix A. Flori das Lottery F unds In Florida, l ottery proceeds were transferred to the Educational Enhancement Trust Fund (EETF) which wa s administered by the Florida Department of Education. Beginning in 1991, K 12 public school districts, community colleges, and state universities were provided a portion of lottery revenue transferred to the EETF in lump sums with e ach institution given responsibility for distributing the funds thereafter to use the funds for educational enhancement (Florida Department of Education, 2008, p. 6). Lottery funds that were not provided to institutions as

PAGE 25

25 lump sums were earmarked for school construction and renovation, grants, special initiatives, state student financial aid and, beginning in 1997, the meritbased Florida Bright Futures Scholarship Program. Lottery funds we re the sole source of funding for the Florida Bright Futures Scholarship Program. While Florida law r equire d that 80% of unclaimed prize monies be transferred directly to the Educational Enhancement Trust Fund with the remaining 20% retained by the Florida Lottery to pay for future prizes or special promotions (Florida Lottery, 2008b), Florida was one of the few states operating a state lottery that did not mandate, by law, the minimum percentages of proceeds to be desi gnated for prizes, transferred to the lotterys designated beneficiaries, nor a maximum proportion to be utilized for operating expenses. Instead, as reproduced by the Florida Department of Education (2008), Section 24.121 of the F lorida S tatutes, which go verned the allocation and expenditure of lottery revenues, ma de repeated references to the use of variable percentages (p. 2). Subsection (1) stated, variable percentages of gross revenue from the sale of online and instant lottery tickets returned to the public in the form of prizes shall be established by the department in a manner designed to maximize the amount of funds deposited under subsection (2) (Florida Department of Education, 2008, p. 2). Subsection (2) stated variable percentages of the gr oss revenue from the sale of online and instant lottery tickets as determined by the department consistent with subsection (1), and other earned revenue, excluding application processing fees, shall be deposited in the Educational Enhancement Trust Fund ( Florida Department of Education, 2008, p. 2). As reproduced by the Florida Department of Education (2008), Section 24.121(3) of the Florida Statutes state d, t he funds remaining in the Operating Trust Fund after transfers to the Educational Enhancement Trust Fund shall be used for the payment of administra tive expenses of the department (p. 3).

PAGE 26

26 State statute prioritized the use of revenues deposited into the Educational Enhancement Trust Fund (EETF). These priorities to be satisfied before the legislatur e shall equitably apportion moneys in the trust fund among public schools, community colleges, and universities as stated in Section 24.121(5c), Florida Statutes (Florida Department of Education, 2008, p. 3). Section 24,121(2) of the Florida Statutes authorized lottery revenues transferred to the Educational Enhancement Trust Fund [to be] reserved as needed and used to meet the requirements of school district construction bonds (Florida Department of Education, 2008, p. 2). Another priority authorized by Florida Statute was delineated in Section 24.121(5c ) allowing the legislature to annually determine a portion of lottery revenue for disbursement to each school district for enhancing school performance through development and implementation of a school improvement plan with funds allocated per student (Florida De partment of Education, 2008, p. 3). Section 24.121(5e ) of the Florida Statutes, as reproduced by the Florida Department of Education (2008), stated that all components of the Florida Bright Futures Scholarship Program (p. 4) were to be funded annually from the Educational Enhancement Trust Fund (p. 4). The section, as reproduced by the Florida Department of Education (2008), further stipulated that: Funds shall be allocated to this pr ogram prior to application of the formula for equitable distribution to public schools, community colleges, and state universities. If shortages require reductions in estimated distributions from the Educational Enhancement Trust Fund, funds for the Florida Bright Futures Scholarship Program shall be reduced only after reductions in all other distributions are made. (p. 4) The Florida Lottery officials stated the lottery was a dependable contributor to education in Florida (2008d, 6) At the close of fi scal year 200 82009, for the seven th time in the Florida Lottery's 21 year history the agency surpassed the billiondollar mark in a single year (Florida Lottery, 2010a 2) in annual transfers of lottery funds to the Educational Enhancement Trust Fund. Florida Lottery net sales and transfers to the EETF for fiscal years 19971998

PAGE 27

27 through 20082009 is provided in Table 21. In fiscal year 200 82009, Florida Lottery officials reported transferring $1.28 billion from the Florida Lottery to the Educational Enhancement Trust Fund (Florida Lottery, 2010b). Those Florida Lottery funds comprised 5.1% of the states total operating budget for public schools and public higher education institutions (Florida Department of Education, 2009). For public schools, the F lorida Department of Education noted, based on daily operating costs, lottery funds available to public schools would operate the public schools for fewer than four days (2009, p. 32). From fiscal year 1997 19 98 through fiscal year 20082009, $13,230,142,290 in lottery funds were appropri ated to earmarked beneficiaries (Florida Department of Education, 2009). Of that total, Floridas public schools received 52% of lottery appropriations from the EETF, Floridas Bright Futures Scholarship Program received 22%, the s tate university s ystem received 14%, Floridas c ommunity c ollege system received 11%, State Student Financial Aid received 1%, while the State Board of Education, F irst Generation in College Matching Grant Program, and Workforce Education each r eceived less than one percent of appropriated lottery funds Table 2 2 provides the proportional distribution of lottery funds appropriated to earmarked lottery beneficiar ies annually from fiscal year 19971998 through fiscal year 20082009. Beginning in 1991, the lottery funds appropriated to community colleges were no longer allocated as categorical funds with inherent spending restrictions. The lumpsum allocation of discretionary lottery funds to community colleges, referred to by the Florida Departmen t of Education as Community College Lottery Funds (2008, p. 10), wa s included in the total operating budget of the institution, therefore its use was de termined by each community colleges Board of Trustees. Additional lottery revenues were available to community colleges through grants and special initiatives. Acquisition and use of those funds were dictated by the

PAGE 28

28 grant or initiative. For example, in fiscal year 2007 2008, Floridas community colleges were appropriated $489,600 from the EETF to partiall y fund Floridas Two Plus Two Public and Private Partnerships baccalaureate programs with the remaining $2,774,400 provided from the states General Revenue fund (Florida Department of Education, 2008, p. 29). Community colleges and partnering institutio ns who participated in this initiative receive[d] equal proportions of the per student incentive award (Florida Department of Education, 2008, p. 28). Lottery as a Revenue Source Lotteries had significant start up costs. Whitaker found that during the ye ar a new lottery was established, state expenditures increased 1.68%, exceeding the average annual increase in spending usually experienced by state governments (2007). Even once a state lottery was firmly established, scholars contended that lotteries wer e not an efficient means of raising revenue due to the high administrative costs associated with lotteries as opposed to other fund raising mechanisms, namely taxes ( Mikesell & Zorn 1986; Ellis, 2007). Maturity Effects and Product Revenue Patterns L otte ries we re perceived by states as a consistent source of revenue and were incorporated into the annual budget based upon projected earnings despite the fluctuating annual sales experienced by every state lottery ( Jones & Amalfitano, 1994; Karcher 1992; McG owan, 1994; Mikesell & Zorn 1988). Mikesell and Zorns seminal works provided an examination of the stability of lottery revenue. In 1986, Mikesell and Zorn said, a state cannot rely on its lottery to be a stable, reliable source of net revenue (p. 314 ) due to its reliance on changing consumer preferences (p. 314), competition from neighboring states, and even competition from illegal forms of gambling. Jones and Amalfitano noted similar sources of instability in 1994. In 1988, Mikesell and Zorn said lottery sales were affected by several factors including lottery activities in neighboring states, maturation of the states lottery, introduction of new games and declining

PAGE 29

29 sales of older games, and size of jackpots. Mikesell and Zorn also demonstrated that lottery sales gradually declined once a state lottery had operated for about ten years (1988). A review of each state lotterys annual financial reports conducted by the researcher in 2008 confirmed Mikesell and Zorns 1988 analysis. By 2008, most state lottery officials reported a plateau in lottery sales and introduced new games as a means of reinvigorating interest in the states lottery even though there were costs associated with the introduction of new products. Florida was no exception. For exampl e, the Florida Legislatures Office of Program Policy Analysis and Government Accountability (OPPAGA) reported in 2007 that the Florida Lottery continue [d] to face the challenge of maintaining revenue growth (p.1) due to game sales that level off (p. 1 ) and competition from other forms of gambling. The Florida Lottery emulated several state lotteries by introducing new games over the years as a means of reinvigorating sales, however in 2007 OPPAGA recommended introducing additional new games, including video lottery and keno, to maintain Florida Lottery revenue levels. Floridas experiences reflected the patterns exhibited by other mature state lotteries. Most states reported the continued popularity of instant games and decreasing popularity of the old, established online games except in times when jackpots increased; lottery products had a life cycle that effected revenue production. A review of state lotteries operations, histories, and financial reports was conducted for this study during the summer of 2008 the findings of which also confirmed McGowans analyses of lottery game life spans (1994). A summary of lottery revenue procurement methods (games) employed by each state lottery during fiscal year 2008 is provided in Appendix B. In 1988, Mikesel l and Zorn declared the lottery provides neither a sizable nor a stable revenue foundation for the government (p. 41). In 1994, Jones and Amalfitano found lotteries generated about 2.2% of states tax revenues but noted Weinstein and Deitchs (1974) cont ention

PAGE 30

30 that the same amount of revenue could be generated by raising the sales tax by .05% (p. 53). As noted earlier, Erekson, DeShano, Platt & Ziegert stated in 2002 that it would now take a full percentage point increase in sales to generate the equivalent amount of state lottery revenue (p. 302). However, upon examination by the researcher of individual state lottery reports in 2008, it appeared the contribution of lottery funds to government coffers was becoming increasingly sizable in some states. In both Illinois and New Jersey, for example, the states lottery was the fourth largest revenue generator in the state (Illinois Lottery, 2008c; State of New Jersey, 2008 e). Cannibalism The researchers review of state lottery reports that were available in 2008 confirm ed the effect of neighboring state lotteries on state lottery revenue as discussed by Mikesell and Zorn (1988) and Jones and Amalfitano (1994). States that were bordered by a state that d id not have its own lottery ha d a customer base of out of state players who regularly cross ed state border to buy tickets. Neighboring state lotteries also compete d with each other for ticket sales as a jackpot gr ew in one state and enticed out of state residents to cross state lines to buy tickets. Several res earchers examined this effect at the state level. Garrett and Marsh (2002) studied the effects of cross border l ottery sales in Kansas, which is bordered by Oklahoma, Colorado, Nebraska and Missouri each of which ha d a lottery. Utilizing data from 1998 of per capita lottery sales in each of Kansas 105 counties (40 of which were border counties), Garrett and Marsh conducted a regression analysis incorporating the model of spatial autocorrelation making spatial dependence a dependent variable which they te rmed spatial lag ( 2002, p. 511). Their analysis found Kansas lost almost $10.5 million in 1998 to cross border lottery shopping ( Garrett & Marsh, 2002, p. 517). Noting the relevance of their findings to other states that border lottery states, Garre t t and Marsh conclude d that their findings suggest that states are vulnerable to a revenue loss due to neighboring states with

PAGE 31

31 lotteries. Given this potential vulnerability, states may not wish to rely on lottery revenues as a stable source of long run reve nues (2002, p. 518). Tosun and Skidmore (2004) performed a series of regression analyses of lottery sales data from 1987 to 2000 for West Virginias 55 counties and concluded, lottery and lottery game adoptions in West Virginia's contiguous states have had statistically and economically significant negative effects on West Virginia border county lottery sales (p. 176). As Garrett and Marsh (2002) noted, since this phenomena was not unique to any one state, all state lotteries should consider the effect o f neighboring state lotteries on their state lottery revenue. Casinos and pari mutuel betting also appeared to cannibalize sales of state lottery products, although the effects varied by state. Garrett and Marshs study of Kansas concluded it appears that pari mutuel racetracks and casinos do not have a significant impact on lottery sales (2002, p. 514). However, also i n 2002, Elliott and Navin studied the effects of riverboat casinos and pari mutuel racetracks on state lottery revenue and found there was an effect on lottery revenue. Utilizing regression analysis of data from 1989 to 1995 for all states operating a state sponsored lottery (p. 224) excluding Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Indiana, Louisiana, Minnesota, Mississippi, N ebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, and Wyoming, Elliott and Navin concluded statelicensed gambling casinos and pari mutuel betting cause significant cannibalization of gross state lottery revenues ( 2002, p. 244). Elliott and Navin concluded that states still benefit from having both lotteries and casinos (2002, p. 246) however, they noted that the substitution between pari mutuel betting and lotteries is so great that, at existing effective tax rates, states may suffer net revenue losses from the cannibalization of lottery revenues by pari mutuel betting (2002, p. 246) Elliott and Navin found that the state lost $0.83

PAGE 32

32 in net lottery revenue for each dollar in additional revenue from riverboat casino gambling ( 2002, p. 244) whereas a dollar of revenue from pari mutuel betting reduced gross state lottery revenue by $2.55 ( 2002, p. 245). Studies conducted on the effects of casinos alone also indicate d a cannibalization of lottery revenue. Siegel and Anders (2001) examine d the effects of Indian casinos on Arizonas lottery revenue. Utilizing a time series regression of monthly data from 19931998, Siegel and Anders found an increase in Indian casino slot machines was associated wi th a decline in lottery revenue s, especially Lotto (2001, p. 143). S pecifically Siegel and Anders found a 10% increase in slot machines is associated with a 3.8% decline in lottery revenues and a 4.2% decrease in Lotto revenues ( 2001, p. 144). However, the researcher s admit ted these results may not generalize to the other 23 states where Indian casino s operate ( Siegel & Anders 2001, p. 145). Noting that they were extending the 2002 study conducted by Elliott and Navin, Fink and Rork (2003) examined data from 48 states from 1988 to 2000 including tax receipts from all forms of commercial casinos Through regression analysis, t heir results indicate a strong cannibalization of state net lottery revenue by commercial casino tax revenue. Specifically, we find that a $1 increase in commercial casino tax revenue decreases net lottery revenue by $0.56 ( Fink & Rork, 2003, p. 2). Fink and Rork explain ed that their finding wa s 33% less than that of Elliott and Navin (2002) due to the presence of a negative sample selection bias (2003, p. 5) in Elliott and Navins study that those researchers did not control for. However, Fink and Rork concluded that their results confirmed the findings of both Elliott and Navin (2002) and Siegel and Anders (2001) that casinos negatively impacted net lottery revenues (2003).

PAGE 33

33 In 2008, Walker and Jackson noted the results of earlier studies, including those of Siegel and Anders (2001) and Elliott and Navin (2002) could not be generalized to other states or time periods due to t he state(s) or time period studied. Walker and Jackson further noted that most earlier studies only provided a one way test of the relationship among industries ( 2008, p. 311) and that a study gaming industries affects on each other was needed. Utilizin g data from all 50 states and the D istrict of Columbia from 19852000, Walker and Jackson concluded that lotteries and casinos are negatively related ( 2008, p. 326), confirming the findings of Siegel and Anders (2001), Elliott and Navin (2002), and Fink and Rork (2003) Walker and Jackson also confirmed the findings of Elliott and Navin (2002), Garrett and Marsh (2002), and Tosun and Skidmore (2004) that the availability of gambling in adjacent states affects each other s gaming industries Specifically, Walker and Jackson found that a states lottery sales were negatively affected by the availability of casino gambling and dog racing in an adjacent state, but were positively affected by the presence of horse racing in an adjacent state ( 2008, p. 324). Wal ker and Jackson further concluded that within a state, the availability of horse and dog racing significantly increase lottery sales in that state ( 2008, p. 324) but that lotteries do not, however, appear to cannibalize the racing industries (p. 326) within that state Earmarking Effects Earmarking lottery funds for education created support for lottery adoption and continued operation (Bobbitt, 2007; Ellis, 2007; Weinstein & Deitch, 1974). In 2007, as reported by Ellis, a survey of Georgia residents f ound 68% of respondents would vote to discontinue the lottery if it did not fund education ( 10). Earmarking may have also held legislators to a pattern of spending that does not allow for flexibility (Garrett, 2001, p. 220), a pattern approved by vot ers. However, it was widely recognized that earmarking may have resulted in supplantation of funds that were previously spent by the state on the beneficiary of earmarked lottery funds.

PAGE 34

34 In 1990, Borg and Mason examined five state lotteries that earmarked lottery revenue for education during fiscal years 1974 through 1985. While the focus was on total education expenditures, regression analyses showed that state expenditures decreased in every state but one. Borg and Mason (in their work with Shapiro) late r found a decrease in per pupil expenditures during the same time period in nonlottery states, leading them to conclude that lotteries were at best insignificant with regard to the funding of education (Borg, Mason, & Shapiro, 1991, p. 40). Jones and A malfitano (1994) observed that the lack of any large scale research makes it difficult to substantiate any claims about the efficacy of earmarking, pro or con (p. 17) Jones and Amalfitano examined the financing of public schools in all 50 states utilizing data from 1987. Like Borg and Mason (1990), Jones and Amalfitano concluded that lottery states allocated fewer state dollars to education than nonlottery states. However, they found that lottery states did spend more on education because they are weal thier than nonlottery states, not because they have the lottery (Jones & Amalfitano, 1994, p. 113). They also found the proportion of state funds allocated to education was smaller in lottery states than the proportion of state revenue allocated to education by nonlottery states. Furthermore, Jones and Amalfitano found the lottery was not a significant predictor (1994, p. 119) in any of the regression equations they employed, leading Jones and Amalfitano to conclude that states are not likely to enhance public education significantly by implementing the lottery foreducation proposals and that the findings strongly suggest state lottery revenue do not help schools (1994, p. 119120). In 2002, Erekson, DeShano, Platt & Ziegert examined all 50 states utilizing data from 1986 to 1990. Through a series of regression analyses, they found lottery states, on average, allocate around 0.2 percent more to education than nonlottery states (p. 309) but found the fungibility

PAGE 35

35 of resources off set this benefi t. Therefore, they concluded that regardless of a states relative wealth, population, debt pressures or tax burdens, increases in lottery revenues negatively affect support for public education. Clearly, lottery revenues are fungible ( Erekson, DeShano, Platt & Ziegert, 2002, p. 311). In 2005, Novarro challenged the findings of Borg and Mason (1990) and Erekson, DeShano, Platt & Ziegert (2002), claiming neither study controlled for the correlation between educational expenditures and unobservable charact eristics of states that adopt lotteries (p. 26). Novarro studied all 50 states using data from 1976 through 2000 with per student expenditures for elementary and secondary education as the dependent variable. After conducting regression analyses, Novarro stated, results suggest that earmarking lottery profits for education has a real effect on expenditures as $1 of profits earmarked to education increases spending by $0.36 more than a dollar of nonearmarked general fund profits and $0.60 more than a dolla r earmarked for some category other than education (2005, p. 31); one dollar of lottery profits earmarked for education increased current educational spending by roughly $0.79, whereas a nonearmarked dollar of lottery profits increased educational spending by only $0.43. However, Novarro did concede that some supplantation was occurring due to the fact that one dollar of lottery revenue did not result in one dollar of increased expenditure (2005) Also in 2005, Evans and Zhang examined the educational exp enditures of the 16 states that earmark ed lottery revenues for K 12 education to determine if expenditures increased when lottery profits increased. Utilizing data from 1978 through 1998, Evans and Zhang found a dollar increase in the earmarked profits co ntributes 50 to 70 cents in state per pupil revenues and slightly smaller increases in per student current expenditures (2005, p. 5 ) while one nonearmarked lottery dollar added to the general revenue fund increases state revenues for K 12

PAGE 36

36 education and current expenditures by about 30 cents (2005, p.5). The researchers acknowledged spending did not increase dollar for dollar, and the results suggest that a non trivial portion of earmarked lottery profits for education is leaked away at the state leve l (Evans & Zhang, 2005, p. 5) At the state level, Stark, Wood, and Honeyman (1993) examined the effects of earmarked lottery revenue on K 12 funding in Florida by conducting a series of linear regressions utilizing data from 1973 through 1990. They found a decrease in per pupil state funding occurred after K 12 education was earmarked to receive lottery revenue, with lottery funds thereafter comprising 56.8% of per pupil funding. Also in 1993, Summers examined whether Floridas community colleges benefitt ed from being earmarked recipients of lottery funds. Through a series of stepwise linear regressions that analyzed the expenditures and revenue distributions of each community college, Summers concluded that the community colleges did not benefit from bei ng earmarked recipients of lottery funds; expenditures decreased and fewer dollars were allocated from the state general fund to community colleges. Garrett (2001) affirmed the findings of Borg and Mason (1990) and Jones and Amalfitano (1994) at the state level, examining the effect of lottery funding on Ohios education system by utilizing ARIMA time series modeling. Employing a methodology that had yet to be employed in previous studies, Sotos dissertation of 2005 used a survey to gauge the opinion of community college chief financial officers from eight states, including Florida, regarding their satisfaction with lottery revenues as a source of community college funding. Chi square analyses were used to compare frequency counts between those states who w ere directly funded with lottery revenue or indirectly funded. The study found dissatisfaction among chief financial officers regarding lottery revenue allocations to community colleges and indicated that earmarking lottery revenue for community

PAGE 37

37 colleges m ay have been the cause of decreased funding. However, this study relied heavily upon the personal opinion of those surveyed and the questionable assumptions of the researcher regarding the survey respondents level of knowledge and the generalizability of their opinions. While several studies have examined the effects of earmarking lottery revenue for education, most of these studies were multi state analyses which was not the best approach in the view of several researchers. Each state lottery included in a multistate analysis had reached a different point of maturity, offered differing products that effected revenue production, and had different economic situations that may or may not have made supplanting general revenue with lottery revenue necessary (G arrett, 2001; Lauth & Robbins, 2002; McQueen, 2007). An examination of the effects of earmarked state lottery revenue on each level of education funding, preferably utilizing the same methodology thereby allowing posthoc cross analysis, would contribute greatly to the literature. At the time of this study, there was a dearth of research regarding the effects of earmarking revenue for higher education institutions; analyses of the effects on state universities and community colleges was needed. Thus, this s tudy aimed to provide an analysis of Floridas community college system and a methodology that could be replicated by other states currently earmarking lottery revenue for higher education institutions. Supplantation The supplantation of state revenue with lottery revenue as funding sources for earmarked recipients had been anecdotally reported since state lotteries began earmarking funds for education. For example, Bobbitt (2007) reported that within one year of the Florida Lotterys inception, critics ac cused the government of playing a shell game with the lottery proceeds, using them not to supplement the education budget, but rather to replace money taken away from education to spend elsewhere (p.6061). Bobbitt (2007) stated that in the early 1990s, money was taken out of Floridas education budget and spent on health care and prisons. By 2005,

PAGE 38

38 Bobbitt reported, the state was spending 51% of its budget on education whereas before the lottery Florida spent 60% (Bobbitt, 2007). However, demonstrating supplantation statistically had proven difficult. Several studies addressing supplantation were conducted in the late 1980s to early 1990s but failed to concretely demonstrate supplantation effects. Mikesell and Zorn suggest ed that the practice of earmar king and the subsequent phenomena of supplantation was at that time, too recent or amorphous to allow analysis (1986, p. 315). Their own study in 1986, which examined education expenditures as a proportion of total state expenditures before and after l ottery adoption as a means of determining supplantation, yielded mixed results (Mikesell & Zorn p. 315). These findings led the researchers to conclude that claims of lottery revenue contributes to the expansion of functional areas are not provable (M ikesell & Zorn 1986, p. 315). In 1993, Summers examined whether lottery funds supplanted or enhanced state general revenue funds allocated to Floridas community colleges. Several regression analyses were conducted, but Summers concluded, t his study did not find evidence that either supplantation or enhancement of general revenue dollars had occurred to a statistically significant level ( 1993, p. 90) To improve upon the findings of Mikesell and Zorn (1986, 1988) who utilized trend analysis but did not examine statistical relationships when conducting their studies, Spindler (1995), examined seven states, including Florida, utilizing ARIMA time series modeling with education expenditures as a dependent variable. Spindler concluded that lottery revenues w ere fungible in all states studied and that in four states the overall effect of lottery revenue on expenditures was determined to be negative (1995). Garrett (2001) felt that the use of education expenditures as a dependent variable was a problem with Spi ndlers study because changes in

PAGE 39

39 total revenue, which may or may not have been a result of supplantation, would have impacted education expenditures (this could also be considered a problem with the study conducted by Summers). Garrett further noted the pr oblems inherent in multistate analyses as a limitation of the Spindler study (2001). Borg, Mason, and Shapiro addressed the issue of supplantation in 1991. The researchers recognized that the conclusions of Borg and Masons 1990 study did not prove suppla ntation because the amount of lottery revenue being examined was too small to detect significant changes in education expenditures. As a result, Borg, Mason, and Shapiro developed a new model using a cross sectional analysis by estimating functions explaining state educational expenditures with lottery variables included (1991, p. 41). The results of this new methodology [implied] that the gap between education lottery and nonlottery state allocations to education per student are widening (Borg, Mason, & Shapiro, 1991, p. 47) as education lottery states allocated 15.4%, 22.9%, and 35% less per pupil than nonlottery states in 1974, 1979, and 1984 respectively. They concluded that, earmarked education lotteries have probably led to significant fungibility of education revenues (Borg, Mason, & Shapiro, 1991, p. 47). However, Garrett (2001) claimed this, too, failed to prove supplantation noting that although Borg, Mason and Shapiro (1991) found lottery states spent less per pupil than nonlottery states, those states that earmarked lottery revenue for education may have done so to compensate for a per pupil expenditure rate that was already low compared to that of other states. Even if earmarked lottery increased educational expenditures, Garrett (2001 ) argued, the revenue may not have compensated for previously existing differences. To overcome the problems of earlier studies, Garrett (2001) chose to examine Ohio only and examine per pupil expenditures utilizing data from 1958 through 1996. Garrett usefully and

PAGE 40

40 simply defined the issue of supplantation in terms of fungibility as such, if the contribution of lottery revenues does not increase education expenditures by the full amount of lottery revenues, education expenditures are said to be fungible (2001, p. 220). Garretts study of K 12 per pupil expenditures utilized ARIMA modeling and concluded that the results do not imply that lotteries harm education, rather the results simply reveal that lotteries may not be helping education (2001, p. 236) The following year, Erekson, DeShano, Platt & Ziegert found an overwhelming indication of the fungibility of lottery revenues (p. 309) in their study of K 12 funding in all 50 states over five years (2002). Using regression analyses, Erekson, DeShano, Platt & Ziegert found a 1% to 1.5% decrease in educational support for every per capita dollar of lottery revenue generated (2002, p. 309); Erekson, DeShano, Platt & Ziegerts use of per capita dollars was unique. As noted earlier, state level study was considered by many researchers to be more useful for determining the effects of earmarked lottery revenue on its recipients due to existing differences among states regarding the maturity of the lottery, the percentage of lottery revenue earmarked for edu cation, and economic situations that may or may not have made supplanting general revenue with lottery revenue necessary. However, Erekson, DeShano, Platt & Ziegert addressed this last concern by considering state wealth, debt, and tax burdens (2002). Als o in 2002, a study was conducted regarding supplantation and the Georgia lottery. Lauth and Robbins (2002) examined education expenditures from 19942002 and found a positive net effect as the state utiliz ed lottery funds as an additional source of revenue Lauth and Robbins also indicated that use of lottery funds may have stimulated spending by the state in certain areas of education although other factors may have also explain ed the observed increase in spending. Lauth and Robbins credit ed the transparency of Georgias appropriation and

PAGE 41

41 budgeting process as required by state statute and the states constitution with the successful use of lottery proceeds as a supplemental form of revenue. They further credit ed the personal commitment ( Lauth & Robbins, 2002, p. 99) of then Governor Zell Miller, a primary proponent of the lotterys adoption who was still in office when the lottery was enacted, for ensuring his administration utilized the funds as supplemental revenue. The policy dictated by Georgias Lott ery for Education Act wa s also credited by Lauth and Robbins (2002) for the states success in resisting the fungibility of lottery revenue, however, the authors also acknowledge d that the states strong economy during the period studied made substituting state funds with lottery funds unnecessary (2002). Georgia was often touted as an exemplary state lottery; Lauth and Robbins 2002 study demonstrated why states sought to follow Georgias model. However, it must be noted that the Georgia Lottery benefited a program that was created along with the lottery to receive lottery dollars, namely the HOPE scholarship program. The Georgia Lottery did not earmark revenue for services that had received state revenue before the lotterys inception. While some studies h ave proven the existence or lack of supplantation for total education appropriations or K 12 systems, at the time of this study there had been no successful analyses of the possible supplantation of general revenue funds with lottery dollars at the higher education level nor had a model emerged that could be replicated at the state level to allow a post hoc cross state analysis of the potential impact of supplantation (although Garrett (2001) suggested using his model for such a purpose). Only Stark, Wood, and Honeymans study was able to demonstrate supplantation of Floridas general fund allocations to education with lottery funds (1993). However, their study addressed the K 12 system only. Summers study of the Florida lotterys effect on state allocation s to community colleges did not pro duce a statistically significant measure of supplantation (1993)

PAGE 42

42 Jones and Amalfitano (1994) and Soto (2005) specifically noted the need for a study of the effects of earmarking lottery revenue at the community college level At the time of this study, t here wa s a lack of scholarship regarding this issue, and existing scholarship wa s either too broad in scope (encompassing other categories of educational institution and multiple states) or too old to ensure the findings were still applicable today. For example, since Summers study of Floridas community colleges in 1993, Georgia ha d created its own state lottery which may have had a negative impact on Floridas lottery revenue, the legislature ha d created the Florida Bri ght Futures Scholarship program which was solely funded through lottery revenue, and the legislature ha d allocated lottery revenues to pay for bonds arising from a K 12 class size amendment. Floridas lottery revenue distribution scheme in fiscal year 200 82009 was no longer what it was in 1993. An examination of the impact these modified allocation s had on community college funding in Florida was needed

PAGE 43

43 Table 2 1. Florida l ottery net s ales and t ransfers to the EETF fiscal year 19971998 through fiscal y ear 20082009 Fiscal Year Net Sales Transfer to EETF Proportion of Net Sales Transferred 19 97 19 98 2,050,037,000 801,685,000 0.39106 19 98 19 99 2,096,726,000 807,227,000 0.38499 19 99 20 00 2,248,496,000 908,353,000 0.40398 20 00 20 01 2,274,726,000 907,1 57,000 0.39880 20 01 20 02 2,330,365,000 926,488,000 0.39757 20 02 20 03 2,867,981,000 1,035,178,000 0.36094 20 03 20 04 3,070,962,000 1,051,658,000 0.34245 20 04 20 05 3,470,734,000 1,103,633,000 0.31798 20 05 20 06 3,929,030,000 1,224,651,000 0.31169 20 06 20 07 4,122,116,000 1,263,272,000 0.30646 20 07 20 08 4,174,776,000 1,283,414,000 0.30742 20 08 20 09 3.938,037,000 1,287,855,000 0.32703 19 97 19 98 20082009 36,573,986,000 12,600,571,000 0.34452 (Florida Lottery, 20 10b)

PAGE 44

44 Table 22. Proportional distribution of lottery funds among beneficiaries, fiscal year 19971998 through fiscal year 20082009 FY Public Schools Workforce Education Community Colleges State University System State Board of Education Bright Futures State Student Financial Aid First Gen Match. Grant 19 97 19 98 0.630 0.000 0.140 0.130 0.000 0.090 0.010 0.000 19 98 19 99 0.590 0.000 0.120 0.140 0.000 0.150 0.000 0.000 19 99 20 00 0.580 0.000 0.120 0.130 0.000 0.170 0.000 0.000 20 00 20 01 0.600 0.000 0.110 0.110 0.000 0.160 0.020 0.000 20 01 20 02 0.580 0.000 0.100 0.100 0.000 0.200 0.020 0.000 20 02 20 03 0.530 0.000 0.100 0.110 0.010 0.230 0.020 0.000 20 03 20 04 0.530 0.000 0.110 0.140 0.000 0.200 0.020 0.000 20 04 20 05 0.550 0.000 0.080 0.110 0.010 0.230 0.020 0.000 20 05 20 06 0.490 0.004 0. 090 0.130 0.000 0.270 0.016 0.000 20 06 20 07 0.420 0.000 0.120 0.210 0.000 0.240 0.010 0.000 20 07 20 08 0.460 0.000 0.100 0.160 0.000 0.250 0.030 0.000 2008 2009 0.441 0.005 0.084 0.148 0.000 0.295 0.021 0.006 19 97 19 98 20082009 0.519 0.001 0.106 0.139 0.001 0.217 0.016 0.006

PAGE 45

45 CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY The purpose of this study was to determine the extent to and manner in which earmarked lottery revenue impacted the funding of Floridas 28 community colleges from fiscal year 19971998 through fiscal year 20082009. This study sought to answer the following research questions: 1. w hat percentage of community college system funding was provided by discretionary lottery funds system wide at the institutional level; what proportion of community colleges total o perating revenue was comprised of discretionary lottery funds; what was the mean appropriation of discretionary lottery dollars per FTE at the institutional level; if these amounts vary by institutional size; 2. if variations in discretionary lottery funds appropriated to the community college system correlated with general revenue, student fees, or FTE; if correlations among variables were consistent by institution size or if correlations varied with the size of the institution; 3. if variations in lottery fund s appropriated to the community college system were correlated with changes in total lottery revenue; if variations in lottery funds appropriated to the community college system were correlated wi th changes in the amount of funds transferred to the EETF; 4. i f variations in lottery funds appropriated to the community college system were correlated with lottery fund appropriations to other earmarked beneficiaries; 5. if variations in community college system expenditures were correlated with the amount of discreti onary lottery funds appropriated to the community college system Research Design This study was conducted from a positivist, objectivist theoretical framework. An ex post facto research design was employed to determine the impact of, or relationships am ong, variables on the funding of Floridas 28 community colleges. In her seminal work on policy research, Majchrzak asserted this method is, by far, the most cost efficient method for answering policy research questions (1984, p. 60). Regression analys es were conducted to determine if any relationships existed, if variables were positively or negatively correlated, what proportion of variability in one variable could be

PAGE 46

46 explained by another variable, and if a predictor variable could be identified. Regr ession analyses had been successfully employed to examine the effects of lottery revenue on educational funding by Borg, Mason, and Shapiro (1991), Stark (1991), Stark, Wood, and Honeyman (1993), and Erekson, DeShano, Platt & Ziegert (2002). The variables examined in this study were not manipulated by the researcher; thi s was an archival study. Therefore the results of this study were dependent upon the accuracy of the data that was maintained and provided by the state. Statistical models were developed b y the researcher to analyze the interactions of independent variables with the measures of interest expressed in each research question. Data from fiscal years 19971998 through 20082009 were analyzed at the community college system and institutional leve ls For data analysis purposes, Floridas 28 community colleges were grouped by the researcher into four categories; Small, Medium, Large, and Very Large. The categories utilized in this study were based upon the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teachings 2009 classification definitions and the resulting institutional listings provided by the Foundation. The Carnegie classifications were determined by FTE and degree type offered by the institution. Institutions classification listings were determined by the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching based on data from 2003 and 2004 (2009, 24); this was beneficial for this study since these years fell in the middle of the timeframe studied. In 2009, the Carnegie Foundation for the A dvancement of Teaching classified Floridas 28 community colleges into five categories; small two year (S2), medium twoyear (M2), large two year (L2), very large two year (VL2) and large, four year, nonresidential (L4/NR). Only one community college, St. Petersburg College, was listed by the Foundation as a L4/NR (2009). For the purposes of this study, St. Petersburg College was included in the Very Large category, based upon the colleges

PAGE 47

47 20032004 FTE of over 10,000 students (Florida Department of Educa tion, 2009). With the exception of St. Petersburg College, this study utilized the categorizations determined by the Foundation. A complete list of the institutions in each category and the FTE as calculated by the Foundation that was required to fall within that category is provided in Table 31, Community College Size Categories and Definitions. The mean operating revenue, general revenue allocation, students fees, FTE, expenditures, and lottery appropriation was calculated for each category for each fis cal year and cumulatively for all fiscal years studied. For each categorical data element, a frequency distribution, median, and mode was also calculated to ensure the data was accurate. Researcher Bias At the time of this study, the researcher was employe d as a full time faculty member with administrative duties at a community college in Florida. At the time of this study th e researcher was neutral toward the Florida Lottery as a source of educational funding in general, and for community colleges in particular. The results of this study informed her opinion regarding the efficacy of this funding policy. The researcher had no moral objections to state run lotteries nor legalized gambling as sources of state revenue, and, therefore, bore no moral bias toward s the state lottery. Data C ollection An IRB was submitted to the University of Florida s Institutional Review Board requesting approval to conduct this study. Upon approval, data detailing the allocation of lottery revenue to all earmarked beneficiaries a nd Florida Lottery revenue data from fiscal years 19971998 through 20082009 were gathered by the researcher from published sources produced by the Florida Department of Education and the Florida Lottery. Additional data, specifically the annual allocatio ns of state general revenue to each of Floridas community colleges, annual lottery

PAGE 48

48 appropriations to each community college, student fees collected by each community college annually, annual community college FTE and the total operating budget for each i nstitution during each fiscal year from 19971998 through 20082009 was requested from the Florida Department of Education via email The data was supplied by Dr. David Holdnak, Vice Chancellor for Financial Policy at the Florida Department of Educations Division of Florida Colleges via email as pdf and Excel document s Data regarding the annual expenditures of Floridas community colleges was collected from figures published annually by the Florida Department of Education in The Fact Book (Division of Acc ountability, Research and Measurement; 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010; Division of Community Colleges, Bureau of Research and Information Systems; 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002). Data from all sources except data supplied by Dr. Holdnak for fiscal year 20082009, was obtained in print format either as a published document or a pdf file Data was manually transcribed by the researcher into PASW Statistics 18 Frequencies, means, modes, and medians were then calculated for each data set to check for missing mistyped, or noncompliant data. Data A nalyses Utilizing PASW Statistics 18, descriptive and inferential statistics were calculated for all variables utilizing a .05 level of significance. To analyze the effect of general revenue, student fees, and FTE on discretionary community college lottery fund appropriations, simultaneous multiple regression was conducted in order to determine the effect of each source of revenue. A simultaneous multiple regression was conducted at the system level and for each institution size category to determine if correlations varied by institutional size : Yi 0 1CCSYST LOTAPPi 2CCSYSTFTEi 3CCSYSTGENREVi + 4CCSYSTSTUFEEi i

PAGE 49

49 Yi 0 1SAVLOTAPPi 2SMALLAVFTEi 3SAVGENREVi 4SAVSTUFEEi i Yi 0 1MAVLOTAPPi 2MEDIUMAVFTEi 3MAVGENREVi + 4MAVSTUFEEi i Yi 0 1LAVLOTAPPi + 2LARGEAVFTEi 3LAVGENREVi 4LAVSTUFEEi i Yi 0 1VLAVLOTAPPi 2VERYLARGEAVFTEi 3VLAVGENREVi + 4VLAVSTUFEEi i To determine if v ariations in lottery funds appropriated to community colleges we re correlated with changes in total lotter y revenue a linear regression was conducted: Yi0 1FLLOTNETSALESii To determine if variations in lottery funds appropriated to the community college system were correlated with changes in the amount of funds transferred to the EETF, a linear regr ession was conducted: Yi0 1FLLOTTFERSTOEETFii To analyze the effect of additional earmarked lottery beneficiaries on community college lottery fund appropriations, simultaneous multiple regression was conducted in order to determine the effect o f each earmarked beneficiary: Y i 0 1PUBSCHLSTOTLOTAPPi 2SUSTOTLOTAPPi + 3STUAIDTOTLOTAPPi 4BRFUTTOTLOTAPPi 5WRFRCEDTOTLOTAPPi + 6STBOARDTOTLOTAPPi 7CCSYSTTOTLOTAPPi + 8FIRSTGENTOTLOTAPP + i

PAGE 50

50 To determine if variations in community college system expenditures were correlated with the amount of discretionary lottery funds appropriated to the community college system, a linear regression was conducted: Yi0 1CCSTSTLOTAPPii Variable Definitions: BRFUTTOTLOTAPP Amount of lotter y funds appropriated to Floridas Bright Futures Scholarship Program annually. CCSYSTFTE MAVSTUFEE Annual mean student fees collected by Medium institutions. Annual community college system FTE. CCSYSTGENREV Amount of general revenue appropriated to the community college system annually. CCSYSTLOTAPP Amount of discreti onary lottery funds appropriated to the community college system annually. CCSYSTSTUFEE Amount of student fees collected annually by the community college system. CCSYSTTOTLOTAPP Amount of lottery funds appropriated to the community college system annuall y. FIRSTGENTOTLOTAPP Amount of lottery funds appropriated to the First Generation in College Matching Grant Program FLLOTNETSALES Annual Florida lottery net sales FLLOTTFERSTOEETF Amount of lottery revenue transfer red from the Florida Lottery to the EETF annually LARGEAVFTE Annual mean FTE for Large institutions. LAVGENREV Annual mean general revenue appropriation to Large institutions. LAVLOTAPP Annual mean lottery appropriation to Large institutions. LAVSTUFEE Annual mean student fees collected by Large institutions. MAVGENREV Annual mean general revenue appropriation to Medium institutions. MAVLOTAPP Annual mean lottery appropriation to Medium institutions.

PAGE 51

51 MEDIUMAVFTE Annual mean FTE for Medium institutions. PUBSCHLSTOTLOTAPP Amount of lottery funds appropriated to public schools annually. SAVGENREV Annual mean general revenue appropriation to Small institutions. SAVLOTAPP Annual mean lottery appropriation to Small institu tions. SAVSTUFEE Annual mean student fees collected by Small institutions. SMALLAVFTE Annual mean FTE for Small institutions. STBOARDTOTLOTAPP Amount of lottery funds appropriated to the State Board of Education annually. STUAIDTOTLOTAPP Amount of lott ery funds appropriated to the student financial aid annually. This figure does not include Floridas Bright Futures Scholarship Program. SUSTOTLOTAPP Amount of lottery funds appropriated to the state university system annually. VERYLARGEAVFTE Annual m ean FTE for Very Large institutions. VLAVGENREV Annual mean general revenue appropriation to Very Large institutions. VLAVLOTAPP Annual mean lottery appropriation to Very Large institutions. VLAVSTUFEE Annual mean student fees collected by Very Large ins titutions. WRFRCEDTOTLOTAPP Amount of lottery funds appropriated to Workforce Education annually.

PAGE 52

52 Table 3 1. Community college size categories and definitions Small Medium Large Very Large 500 1,999 FTE 2,000 4,999 FTE 5,000 9,999 FTE 10,000 or m ore FTE Chipola Central Florida Brevard Broward Florida Keys Gulf Coast Daytona Beach FCCJ Lake City Okaloosa Walton Edison Hillsborough Lake Sumter Pasco Hernando Indian River Miami Dade North Florida Polk Manatee Palm Beach South Florida St. Johns River Pensacola St. Petersburg Santa Fe Valencia Seminole Tallahassee The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching calculated FTE as full time plus one third part time (2009, 22).

PAGE 53

53 CHAPTER 4 RESULTS The total operating revenue for the Florida community college s ystem from fiscal year 19971998 through fiscal year 20082009 was $ 15,891,489,049; 7.8% of the c ommunity c ollege s ystems operating revenue from fiscal year 1997 1998 through fiscal year 20082009 was comprised of discre tionary lottery funds. At the institutional level, the proportion of discretionary lottery funds that comprised the total operating revenue from fiscal year 19971998 through fiscal year 2008 2009 varied by institutional size category Small community col leges had 7.8% of its total operating revenue from fiscal year 19971998 through fiscal year 20082009 comprised of lottery funds. Lottery funds comprised 8.2% of the total operating revenue of Medium community colleges and 8.1% of the total operating reve nue of Large community colleges from fiscal year 19971998 through fiscal year 20082009. Very Large community colleges had 7.6% of its total operating revenue comprised of lottery funds from fiscal year 19971998 through fiscal year 20082009. During the time period studied, t he proportion of total operating revenue comprised of discretionary lottery funds at the community college s ystem level ranged from 11.2% in fiscal year 19971998 to 6.7% in fiscal year 20032004. For all institutional size categories, the proportion of the total operating revenue comprised of discretionary lottery funds varied annually. From fiscal year 19971998 through fiscal year 2008 2009, the proportion of discretionary lottery funds comprising the total operating revenue of Sma ll community colleges ranged from a high of 9.6% in fiscal year 199719 98 to a low of 6.4% in fiscal year 20032004. The proportion of discretionary lottery funds comprising the total operating revenue of Medium community colleges from fiscal year 1997 1998 through fiscal year 20082009 ranged from 11.2% in fiscal year 19971998 to 6.6% in fiscal year 20032004. For Large community colleges,

PAGE 54

54 the proportion of discretionary lottery funds comprising the total operating revenue of those institutions from fisca l year 19971998 through fiscal year 20082009 ranged from 11.5% in fiscal year 1997 1998 to 6.8% in fiscal year 20072008. The proportion of discretionary lottery funds comprising the total operating revenue for Very Large community colleges from fiscal y ear 19971998 through fiscal year 20082009 ranged from 11.1% in fiscal year 19971998 to 6.5% in fiscal year s 2003 2004 and 20072008. Table 41 present s the annual proportions of total operating revenue comprised of discretionary lottery funds from fisca l year 19971998 through fiscal year 2008 2009 by institutional size category The mean appropriation of lottery dollars per FTE at the community college s ystem level from fiscal year 199719 98 through fiscal year 20082009 was $375 per FTE This amount r anged from $462 per FTE in fiscal year 19971998 to $315 in fiscal year 20032004. Categorically at the institutional size level, the mean appropriation of discretionary lottery dollars per FTE from fiscal year 1997 1998 through fiscal year 20082009 was $ 479 at Small community colleges, $39 7 at Medium community colleges, $383 at Large community colleges and $358 at Very Large community colleges. The mean appropriation of discretionary lottery dollars per FTE at Small community colleges ranged from $650 in fiscal year 2006 2007 to $368 in fiscal year 2002 2003. At Medium community colleges, the mean appropriation of lottery dollars per FTE ranged from $481 in fiscal year 20062007 to $315 in fiscal year 20032004. The mean amount of lottery dollars per FTE a ppropriated to Large community colleges ranged from $477 in fiscal year 19971998 to $334 in fiscal year 20032004. At Very Large community colleges, the mean appropriation of lottery dollars per FTE ranged from $4 49 in fiscal year 1997 1998 to $300 in fis cal year 20032004. Table 4 2 present s the mean appropriation of lottery

PAGE 55

55 dollars per FTE from fiscal year 1997 1998 through fiscal year 20082009 by institutional size category A simultaneous multiple regression analysis was conducted to determine if vari ations in discretionary lottery funds appropriated to the community college system were correlated with general revenue, student fees, or FTE. At the community college system level, the analysis did not yield s ignificant results ( R2 = 604, F [3,8] = 4. 070, p = .05) However, statistically significant results were reached when the same simultaneous multiple regression analysis was conducted for each institutional size category. For Small institutions, variations in appropriations of discretionary lottery fund s were significantly correlated with variations in general revenue, with a Pearson Correlation coefficient of .798 and student fees with a Pearson Correlation coefficient of .762 (R2 = .807, F [ 3,8] = 11.141, p < .05) For Medium institutions, variations in appropriations of discre tionary lottery funds were most significantly correlated with variations in student fees with a Pearson Correlation coefficient of .724 (R2 = .7 24, F [3,8] = 7.002, p <.05) The analyses conducted for Large institutions (R2 = 596, F [3,8] = 3.935, p >.05) and Very Large institutions (R2 The relationshi p between the Florida Lotterys net sales and transfer of lottery funds to the EETF from fiscal year 1997 1998 through fiscal year 20082009 was examined with a bivariate regression analysis using net sales as the predictor variable. A strong positive, linear correlation was found between the variables. The coefficient of determination was .98 7 and was highly = 524, F [3,8] = 2.937, p >.05) did not yield statistically significant results. The correlation matrix for each analysis run at the community college system level, the Small institutional size categ ory level, the Medium institutional size category level, the Large institutional size category level, and the Very Large institutional size category level is provided in Table 43, Table 4 4, Table 45, Table 46 and Table 47 respectively.

PAGE 56

56 significant ( p =.000), indicating that 98.7% of the variability in the transfer of funds to the EETF from fiscal year 199719 98 through fiscal year 20 082009 was explained by t he Florida Lotterys net sales. The relationship between the Florida Lotterys net sales and appropriations of lottery funds from the EETF to the community college system was examined with a regression analysis using net sales as the predictor variable. There was no linear correlation found between the variables. The coefficient of determinat ion was .305 indicating that the proportion of variability in the appropriation of lottery funds to the community college system explained by net sales was low ( 30.5%) but was statistically significant ( p <.05 ) The relationship between the amount of funds transferred to the EETF and appropriations of lottery funds to the community college system was examined with a regression analysis using tr ansfers to the EETF as the predictor variable. There was no linear correlation found between the variables. The coefficient of determination was. 308 indicating that only 30.8% of the variability in the appropriation of lottery funds to the community colleg e system was explained by the amount of funds transferred to the EETF but was statistically significant ( p <.05) A simultaneous multiple regression analysis was conducted to determine if variations in lottery funds appropriated to the community college s ystem were correlated with the appropriations to earmarked beneficiaries, namely public schools, workforce education, the state university system, t he State Board of Education, Floridas Bright Futures Scholarship P rogram, First Generation in College Match ing Grant Program, and state student aid. The R2 value was .99 and the significance was high ( p =.001) indicating that, together, the independent variables in the equation explained 99% of the variance in lottery funds appropriated to the community colleg e system (R2 = .990, F [ 7,4] = 55.104, p <.05) Results indicated that appropriation of funds to the

PAGE 57

57 state university system was the most significant predictor of variability in the amount of lottery funds appropriated to the community college system with a Pearson Correlation c oefficient of .949. The correlation matrix is provided in Table 48. The relationship between expenditures at the community college system level and lottery fund appropriations to the community college system was examined with a regre ssion analysis using lottery appropriations as the predictor variable. There was no linear correlation found between the variables. The coefficient of determinat ion was .359 indicating that the proportion of variability in the community college system explained expenditures by lottery appropriations to the community college system was low ( 35.9%) but statistically significant ( p < .05).

PAGE 58

58 Table 4 1. P roportion of total operating revenue comprised of discretionary lottery funds annually fiscal year 1997 1998 through fiscal year 20082009 by size category FY Small Medium Large Very Large 19 97 19 98 0.096 0.112 0.115 0.111 19 98 19 99 0.082 0.096 0.099 0.095 19 99 20 00 0.077 0.088 0.092 0.085 20 00 20 01 0.076 0.087 0.092 0.086 20 01 20 02 0.072 0.080 0.084 0.078 20 02 20 03 0.065 0.073 0.077 0.071 20 03 20 04 0.064 0.066 0.070 0.065 20 04 20 05 0.082 0.073 0.072 0.068 20 05 20 06 0.080 0.070 0.070 0.066 20 06 20 07 0.084 0.085 0.074 0.070 20 07 20 08 0.078 0.077 0.068 0.06 5 2008 2009 0.088 0.086 0.076 0.071 19 97 19 98 20 0 8 20 0 9 0.07 8 0.08 2 0.081 0.076 Table 4 2. Mean appropriation of lottery dollars per FTE annually fiscal year 19971998 through fiscal year 2008 2009 by size category FY Small Medium Large Very Large 19 97 19 98 513 468 477 4 49 19 98 19 99 464 421 430 4 12 19 99 20 00 451 400 407 399 20 00 20 01 462 416 426 4 10 20 01 20 02 416 355 369 3 41 20 02 20 03 368 328 346 3 11 20 03 20 04 390 315 334 3 00 20 04 20 05 478 354 344 3 18 20 05 20 06 504 363 350 3 32 20 06 20 07 650 481 406 3 81 20 07 20 08 590 431 364 3 44 2008 2009 626 445 380 352 19 97 19 98 20 0 8 20 0 9 4 92 39 7 38 3 3 58 Table 43. Pearson C orrelation matrix: C ommunity college system level CCSYSTLOTAPP CCSYSTFTE CCSYST STUFEE CCSYST GENREV CCSYSTLOTAPP 1.000 428 582 462 CCSYSTFTE 428 1.000 960 854 CCSYST STUFEE 58 2 960 1.000 .9 07 CCSYST GENREV 462 854 .9 07 1.000 CCSYSTTOTLOTAPP: Amount of lottery funds appropriated to the community college system a nnually; CCSYSTFTE: Annual community college system FTE; CCSYSTSTUFEE: Amount of student fees collected annually by the community college system; CCSYSTGENREV: Amount of general revenue appropriated to the community college system annually

PAGE 59

59 Table 4 4. Pearson Correlation matrix: Small institutional size category level SAV LOTAPP SMALLAV FTE SAV STUFEE SAV GENREV SAVLOT APP 1.000 223 .7 62 798 SMALLAVFTE 223 1.000 724 500 SAV STUFEE .7 62 724 1.000 .9 07 SAV GENREV 798 500 .9 07 1.000 SAVLOTAPP: Annual mean lottery appropriation to Small institutions; SMALLAVFTE : Annual mean FTE for Small institutions; SAVSTUFEE: An nual mean student fees collected by Small institutions; SAVGENREV: Annual mean general revenue appropriation to Small institutions. Table 4 5. Pearson Correlation matrix: Medium institutional size category level M AVLOTAPP MEDIUM AVFTE M AV STUFEE M AV GENREV M AVLOTAPP 1.000 613 742 697 MEDIUM AVFTE 613 1.000 967 871 M AV STUFEE 742 967 1.000 922 M AV GENREV 697 871 .9 22 1.000 MAVLOTAPP: Annual mean lottery appropriation to Medium institutions; MEDIUMAVFTE: Annual mean FTE for Medium institutions; MA VSTUFEE: Annual mean student fees collected by Medium i nstitutions; MAVGENREV: Annual mean general revenue appr opriation to Medium institutions. Table 4 6. Pearson Correlation matrix: Large institutional size category level L AVLOTAPP LARGE AVFTE L AV STUFEE L AV GENREV L AVLOTAPP 1.000 .2 38 408 193 LARGE AVFTE .2 38 1.000 .9 59 855 L AV STUFEE 408 .9 59 1.000 891 L AV GENREV 193 855 891 1.000 LAVLOTAPP: Annual mean lottery appropriation to Large institutions; LARGEAVFTE: Annual mean FTE for Large instituti ons; LAVSTUFEE: Annual mean student fees collected by Large institutions; LAVGENREV: Annual mean general revenue appropriation to Large institutions. Table 4 7. Pearson Correlation matrix: Very Large institutional size category level VLAVLOTAPP VERYLARGE AVFTE VLAV STUFEE VLAV GENREV VLAVLOTAPP 1.000 416 550 428 VERYLARGEAVFTE 416 1.000 961 849 VLAV STUFEE 550 961 1.000 .9 04 VLAV GENREV 428 849 .9 04 1.000 VLAVLOTAPP: Annual mean lottery appropriation to Very Large institutions; VERYLARGEAVFTE: A nnual mean FTE for Very Large institutions; VLAVSTUFEE: Annual mean student fees collected by Very Large institutions; VLAVGENREV: Annual mean general revenue appropriation to Very Large institutions.

PAGE 60

60 Table 4 8. Pearson Correlation matrix: A ll earmarked lottery beneficiaries CCSYST TOTLOTAPP PUBSCHLS TOTLOTAPP WRKFRCED TOTLOTAPP SUS TOTLOTAPP STBOARDED TOTLOTAPP BRFUT TOTLOTAPP STUAID TOTLOTAPP FIRSTGEN TOTLOTAPP CCSYST TOTLOTAPP 1.000 .58 0 012 .9 49 .2 91 .6 2 1 .5 76 .095 PUBSCHLS TOTLOTAPP .58 0 1.000 237 638 .0 33 .7 93 .9 24 .327 WRKFRCED TOTLOTAPP 012 .237 1.000 .259 .1 89 5 98 326 .821 SUS TOTLOTAPP .9 49 638 .259 1.000 .2 46 .7 90 629 .323 STBOARDED TOTLOTAPP .2 91 .0 33 .1 89 .2 46 1.000 .0 05 .0 24 .131 BRFUT TOTLOTAPP .6 2 1 .7 93 5 98 .7 90 .0 0 5 1.000 .8 44 .543 STUAID TOTLOTAPP .5 76 .9 24 326 629 .0 24 .8 44 1.000 .364 FIRSTGEN TOTLOTAPP .095 .327 .821 .323 .131 .543 .364 1.000 CCSYSTTOTLOTAPP: Amount of lottery funds appropriated to the community college system annually; PUBSCHLSTOTLOTAPP: Amount of lottery funds appropriated to public schools annually; WRFRCEDTOTLOTAPP: Amount of lottery funds appropriated to Workforce Education annually; SUSTOTLOTAPP: Amount of lottery funds appropriated to the state university system annually; STBOARDTO TLOTAPP: Amount of lottery funds appropriated to the State Board of Education annually; BRFUTTOTLOTAPP: Amount of lottery funds appropriated to Floridas Bright Futures Scholarship Program annually; STUAIDTOTLOTAPP: FIRSTGENTOTLOTAPP: Amount of lottery funds appropriated to the First Generation in College Matching Grant Program. Amount of lottery funds appropriated t o the student financial aid annually;

PAGE 61

61 CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS From fiscal year 1997 19 98 through fiscal year 20082009, $13,230,142,290 in lottery funds were appropriated to earmarked beneficiar ies (Florida Department of Education, 2009) O f that total, Floridas c ommunity c ollege system received 11% of appropriated lottery funds. The purpose of this study was to determine the extent to and manner in which the appropriation of lottery revenue to the earmarked beneficiary Floridas community college system, impacted the funding of Floridas 28 community colleges f rom fiscal year 19971998 through fiscal year 20082009. Conclus ions As earmarked lottery revenue recipients, lottery funds impact ed the level of financial support provided to Floridas community colleges Although the proportion of operating revenue comprised of lottery revenue and lottery dollars per FTE varied by institutional size, the amount of lottery dollars appropriated to Floridas community colleges could not be deemed insignificant; lottery dollars had become an integral part of the community colleges operating budgets from fiscal year 19971998 through fisc al year 20082009. As Land and Alsikafi noted in 1999, when education funding is tied to a state lottery, the fiscal stability of educational programs often becomes a critical concern ( 19). In Florida at the time of this study, demand for lottery funds increased as the lotterys revenue plateaued and began to decline, making the concern regarding fiscal stability even more critical. Beginning in 1991, Floridas community colleges were provided a portion of the lottery revenue transferred to the Educa tional Enhancement Trust Fund ( EETF ) as lump sums with e ach institution given responsibility to use the funds for educational enhancement (Florida Department of Education, 2008, p. 6). These lump sums became an integral part of the Florida

PAGE 62

62 community col lege operating budget along with student fees and general revenue appropriations From fiscal year 1997 19 98 through fiscal year 20082009, these lump sums of discretion ary lottery funds comprised 87% of the lottery funds appropriated to the community coll ege system The remaining 23% were appropriated as nondiscretionary funds for special initiatives and grants. Those Florida community colleges that received lottery funded grants or participated in lottery funded initiatives did receive some benefit from e armarked lottery dollars in the form of supplemental, grant derived revenue. Unlike nondiscretionary lottery funds awarded through grants or earmarked for community college related initiatives, d iscretionary lottery funds were appropriated by the state to community colleges as part of their total operating revenue during the time period studied. The total operating revenue for the Florida community college system from fiscal year 19971998 through fiscal year 20082009 was $15,891,489,049; 7.8% of the community college systems operating revenue from fiscal year 1997 1998 through fiscal year 200820 09 was comprised of discretionary lottery funds. Lottery funds were an inextricable part of each Florida community colleges operating budget and did not positive ly impact spending This finding echoed those found in the studies of Allen (1991), Bobbitt (2007), Borg, Mason and Shapiro (1991), Erekson, DeShano, Platt and Ziegert (2002), Garre t t (2001), Mikesell and Zorn (1986) Spindler (1995), Stark, Wood and Honeym an (1993), and Summer, Honeyman, Wattenbarger and Miller (1995) that lottery revenue earmarked for education did not result in a dollar for dollar increase in expenditures as would be the case if the funds were supplemental F urthermore, this study confir m ed that these earlier findings derived from statewide or K 12 data analysis, we re also evident at a community college system level that ha d a mature lottery system providing it with revenue

PAGE 63

63 While lottery funds by no means fully funded education in gener al, nor community colleges in particular, earmarking lottery funds for Floridas community colleges created a dependency upon them for a sizeable proportion of community colleges operating revenue. Earlier studies that included Florida in their examinatio ns, namely those of Borg, Mason, and Shapiro (1991) and Jones and Amalfitano (1994), concluded that lottery funds were too small in amount to impact educational funding in a significant way. Those studies did not examine the effect on community colleges. T his study indicated a strong impact of discretionary lottery dollars at the community college level. Utilizing size categories as defined by the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teachings 2009 classification definitions on average from fiscal year 19971998 through fiscal year 200820 09 discretionary l otte ry funds comprised 7.8% of Small community colleges operating revenue, 8.2% of the total operating revenue of Medium community colleges, 8.1% of the total operating revenue of Large community colleges and 7.6% of the operating revenue of Very Large community colleges in Florida T he proportion of discretionary lottery funds comprising the total operating revenue ranged from a high of 9.6% in fiscal year 1997 1998 to a low of 6.4% in fiscal ye ar 20032004 for Small community colleges, from 11.2% in fiscal year 19971998 to 6.6% in fiscal year 20032004 for Medium community colleges, from 11.5% in fiscal year 1997 1998 to 6.8% in fiscal year 200720 08 for Large community colleges and from 11.1% in fiscal year 19971998 to 6.5% in fiscal years 20032004 and 20072008 for Very Large community colleges The mean appropriation of discretionary lottery dollars per FTE also varied by institutional size. From fiscal year 19971998 through fiscal year 20 082009 the mean appropriation of discretionary lottery dollars per FTE was $479 at Small community colleges, $397 at Medium community colleges, $383 at Large community

PAGE 64

64 colleges and $358 at Very Large community colleges. This indicated that the lottery dol lars had a greater impact per FTE at Small community colleges. The appropriation of lottery funds to Floridas community colleges did not affect community college expenditures positively or negatively from fiscal year 19971998 through fiscal year 2008 2009. Lottery funds were transferred to institutions from the EETF for colleges to use the funds for educational enhancement (Florida Department of Education, 2008, p. 6) If enhancement was measured by increased spending, this did not occur from fiscal year 19971998 through fiscal year 20082009. This finding confirms the statement by Clotfelter, Cook, Edell, and Moore that there is reason to doubt if earmarked lottery revenues in fact have the effect of increasing funds available for the specified pu rpose (1999, p.2). However, it must be noted that, unlike Summers earlier examination of the Florida lotterys influence on community college spending, this study did not find the decrease in spending Summers reported in 1993. So, while this study found no correlation between lottery funds and community college expenditures, the fact that a negative correlation no longer existed is worth noting and may indicate community colleges increasing reliance on lottery funds as an integral part of their general o perating budgets; a source of funds which was neither supplemental nor detrimental but essential. Each community college wa s responsible for deriving its own budget utilizing the funds provided by the state of Florida By appropriating lottery funds as noncategorical lump sums annually, the legislature transferred the responsibility of using lottery funds to pay for essential college functions to the institution receiving those funds. While it can be argued that community colleges were left with no choice but to use lottery funds to pay for basic operating costs the legislature ma de no such stipulation other than accounting for lottery funds as a part of the community college s operating revenue

PAGE 65

65 W hile this study found that lottery funds were not utilize d by community colleges as supplemental source s of revenue it could not be concluded that lottery funds supplanted general revenue funds that would have been appropriated to community colleges had it not been for the availability of lottery funds. Given the prediction by Florida Lottery officials that policy makers may face, for the first time, the very real possibility of not having enough lottery generated revenue to underwrite desired education programs without an impact to general revenue funds (DiB enigno, 2007, p. 11), and given that at the time of this study, Florida was facing decreasing general revenue funds in recessionary conditions, it was reasona ble to conclude Floridas community colleges would face decreases in funding as lottery funds bec ame unavailable and Floridas general revenue funds were insufficient to replace the loss of lottery revenue entirely Floridas community colleges, like all community colleges facing decreasing state support regardless of the revenue sources from which t hat state support is derived, need to explore new sources of revenue. Tuition and student fees, new or increased foundation support, and sale of customized, niche market training are all read il y available sources of community college revenue. Community col leges can begin generat ing revenue by raising tuition. While in Florida and California raising tuition can only occur within the confines established by the legislature, lobbying efforts must be undertaken to persuade the legislature to allow more fiscal l ocal control In Florida, t he legislature made community colleges responsible for determining the uses of the funds appropriated by the state, it should further grant community colleges the ability to set tuition and fees in a manner that will help offset decreases in state appropriated revenues. To offset some of the negative consequences of higher tuition including potential loss of enrollment, community college foundations should provide increased need based assistance and scholarships. In an effort to increase available funds, f oundations should cultivate alumni as a

PAGE 66

66 source of gifts and endowments in addition to seeking support from local corporate partners Community colleges must also become more entrepreneurial. Community colleges are in a unique pos ition to gauge the needs of local business es and respond quickly with customized instructional products that are too often outsourced to private industry. In addition to serving the training needs of local businesses, c omm unity colleges should provide programs that address the recreational and lifelong learning needs of the communities served Continuing education programs could not only raise considerable revenue but foster awareness w ithin the community that could benefit community college foundation fundraising efforts and garner local tax support There is no single course of action that will suit all community colleges, but community colleges have several existing commodities that can be maximized to produce revenue that will allow the colleges to bec ome less dependent upon state appropriated funds. Finally, community colleges that do not currently receive local tax support may want to investigate doing so. While there are issues of equity and fiscal stability associated with the use of local taxes as a funding source, during the time of this study, community colleges in 29 states were receiving revenue from local taxes. Nationally, lotteries were marketed by legislators and viewed by many voters as an alternative to new taxes ( Barker & Britz, 2000; Ber ry & Berry, 1990; Borg, Mason & Shapiro, 1991; Jones & Amalfitano 1994; Karcher 1992; McGowan 1994; Nelson & Mason, 2007; Nibert 2000; V on Herrmann, 2002 ) However, t he public perception of the lotterys impact on education was often inflated. Allen (1 991), Chiles (as quoted in Bobbitt, 2007, p. 62), and DAlemberte (2008) contended the Florida public was mislead, and this public misperception inhibited efforts to raise taxes to support education. Bobbitt stated, Florida found that public support for e ducation funding suffered because of the misperception that the lottery was a windfall for education ( p. 62) and that only two year s after

PAGE 67

67 the lotterys adoption in Florida, bond issues that had met with success before the lotterys inception failed there after (2007) In order for local tax support to either be adopted or remain a popularly supported form of revenue for community colleges this misperception must be remedied. Furthermore, community colleges must be viewed within their communities as v ital institutions that provide tangible benefits and are, therefore, worthy of local tax support Whether or not community colleges wish to receive local tax revenue, in those states where lottery funds are earmarked for education, t he public need s to be infor med of the true proportion of each educational sectors budget that is comprised of lottery funds. Stakeholders, including the public, must also be made aware that lottery funds are, at the community college level at least with Florida serving as an exampl e a small but not insignificant and integral part of community colleges operating revenue that cannot be lost or reduced without negatively impacting institutional operations or negatively impacting the communities served through the resulting decrease i n accessibility or services, higher tuition rates and new or increased local taxes. Recommendations for further study At the time of this study, the Florida legislature was proposing changes to Floridas Bright Futures Scholarship Program. The proposed changes were intended to decrease program costs through a variety of measures including more stringent eligibility requirements. If legislative changes were made to Floridas Bright Futures Scholarship Program, the effect on the availability of lottery fund s to all earmarked beneficiaries should be examined. It should also be determined if the changes in eligibility requirements affected the level of enrollment of Bright Future award recipients at Floridas community college s thereby affecting the FTE and g eneral revenue of Floridas community colleges. This study found that the proportion of a community colleges operating budget comprised by discretionary lottery revenue varied by institutional size. It was also found that lottery dollars

PAGE 68

68 per FTE varied by institutional size. These findings raised the question of fiscal equity. Stark (1991) studied the effect of lottery funds on the fiscal equity of Floridas K 12 institutions and t he studies of Brown (1999) and Yancey (2002) examined the e ffect s of perform ancebased funding on the fiscal equity of Floridas community colleges. It should be determined if the appropriation of discretionary lottery funds to Floridas community colleges affect ed the horizontal fiscal equity of Floridas community colleges. Fl oridas community college system at the time of this study was in a period of transition. At the time of this study, 18 of Floridas 28 community colleges were offering or had received approval to offer baccalaureate degrees (Florida Department of Educatio n, 2010) It remain ed to be determined if the community college system w ould remain its own entity or be divided on the basis of granting four year degrees It also remain ed to be seen if new funding formulae w ould be created as a result of adding baccalau reate programs. At the time of this study, distinctions were not being made among community colleges based upon degree offerings and the community college system remain ed uni fied as a division within the Florida Department of Education. However, given the possibility that four year granting community colleges may be reorganized being placed under the state university system or within a new administrative entity attention should be paid by community college officials and lobbyists to the precedent of provi ding the majority of lottery fund appropriations as nondiscretionary funds to the state university system T here may be a time when appropriations to community colleges revert to being primarily nondiscretionary funds. It must then be determined if this change was positive ( if as Summers found in 1993, that colleges received more state dollars when lottery funds were distributed as nondiscretionary funds ) or if the change negatively affected community college funding.

PAGE 69

69 APPENDIX A SUMMARY OF STATE LOT TERY B ENEFICIARIES, FISCAL YEAR 2008

PAGE 70

70 State First Year Generating Sales Fiscal Year 2008 Beneficiary Reported Percent of Lottery Revenue Transferred to Beneficiary Category through Fiscal Year 200 7 Total Lottery Dollars Transferred to All Beneficiaries from Inception through Fiscal Year 2007 Arizona 1981 Multiple, Some Education 30.27% $2.1 billion California 1985 Education 34.6% $20 billion Colorado 1983 Multiple, Some Education 25.35% $1.92 billion Connecticut 1972 General Fund 29% $6.2 billion Delaw are 1975 General Fund 34% $2.6 billion District of Columbia 1982 General Fund 25. 6% $1.4 billion Florida 1988 Education 30.7% $18 billion Georgia 1993 Education 26.8% $9.9 billion Idaho 1989 Education 24% $367.5 million Illinois 1974 Multiple, Some E ducation 33% $14.1 billion Indiana 1989 Multiple, Some Education 27.37% $3.3 billion Iowa 1985 Multiple, Some Education 33.23% $1.1 billion Kansas 1988 Multiple, Some Education 29% $982.8 million Kentucky 1989 Multiple, Some Education 26.4% $2.5 billio n Louisiana 1991 Education 36.2% $1.9 billion Maine 1974 General Fund 22.4% Data not available Maryland 1973 General Fund 31.3% $10.2 billion Massachusetts 1972 Multiple 23% $12.49 billion Michigan 1972 Education 32.6% $14.3 billion Minnesota 1990 M ultiple 26.4% $1.5 billion Missouri 1986 Education 25.2% $3 billion Montana 1987 General Fund 27.4% $141 million Nebraska 1993 Multiple, Some Education 25.6% $319 million New Hampshire 1964 Education 29.8% $1.16 billion New Jersey 1970 Multiple, Some Education 35% $16.4 billion New Mexico 1996 Education 23.4% $351.9 million

PAGE 71

71 State First Year Generating Sales Fiscal Year 2008 Beneficiary Reported Percent of Lottery Revenue Transferred to Beneficiary Category through Fiscal Year 2007 Total Lottery D ollars Transferred to All Beneficiaries from Inception through Fiscal Year 2007 New York 1967 Education 32.9% $34.2 billion North Carolina 2006 Education 35.9% $375 million North Dakota 2004 General Fund 27.8% $19.4 million Ohio 1974 Education 29 .62% $15 billion Oklahoma 2005 Education 32.28% $138.3 million Oregon 1985 Multiple, Some Education 34% or less* $4.6 billion Pennsylvania 1972 Multiple 30.9% $17.4 billion Rhode Island 1974 General Fund 17.74% $2.94 billion South Carolina 2002 Educat ion 28.05% $1.74 billion South Dakota 1987 Multiple 17.5% $1.5 billion Tennessee 2003 Education 27.19% $892.5 million Texas 1992 Education 27% $15 billion Vermont 1978 Education 22.4% $387 million Virginia 1988 Education 32% $3.4 billion** Washington 1982 Multiple, Some Education 23.75% $2.5 billion West Virginia 1986 Multiple, Some Education 38%*** $3.6 billion Wisconsin 1988 Multiple 31.4% $2.622 billion *Oregon combines prizes paid to winners and transfers made to beneficiaries. Combined, by la w, they must be 84% of lottery revenue with at least 50% being designated for prizes. ** Since 1999. ***Cumulative since the lotterys inception.

PAGE 72

72 APPENDIX B LOTTERY REVENUE PROC UREMENT METHODS BY S TATE, FISCAL YEAR 20 08

PAGE 73

73 State Online Games Scratch off Tickets PullTabs Video Lottery Keno Raffle(s) $1 $2 $3 $5 $7 $10 $15 $20 $25 $30 $50 Arizona X X X X X X California X X X X X Colorado X X X X X X X Connecticut X X X X X X X X X Delaware X X X X X X X X X District of Columbia X X X X X X X Florida X X X X X X X X Georgia X X X X X X X X X Idaho X X X X X X X X X X Illinois X X X X X X X X X Indiana X X X X X X X X X Iowa X X X X X X X X X Kan sas X X X X X X X X Kentucky X X X X X X X X Louisiana X X X X X X X Maine X X X X X X X X Maryland X X X X X X X X X Massachusetts X X X X X X X X X X Michigan X X X X X X X X X Minnesota X X X X X X X Missouri X X X X X X X X X Montana X X X X X X X Nebraska X X X X X X X New Hampshire X X X X X X X X X New Jersey X X X X X X X X New Mexico X X X X X X X

PAGE 74

74 State Online Games Scratc h off Tickets PullTabs Video Lottery Keno Raffle(s) $1 $2 $3 $5 $7 $10 $15 $20 $25 $30 $50 New York X X X X X X X X X North Carolina X X X X X X X North Dakota X Ohio X X X X X X X X Oklahoma X X X X X Oregon X X X X X X X X X X X Pennsylvania X X X X X X X X Rhode Island X X X X X X X X X South Carolina X X X X X X South Dakota X X X X X X X X X Tennessee X X X X X X X X X Texas X X X X X X X X X X X Vermont X X X X X X X X Virginia X X X X X X X Washington X X X X X X X X West Virginia X X X X X X Wisconsin X X X X X X X X Online games were lotto style games which involved matching the numbe rs on a players generated ticket with those selected in a secure drawing. Online games included state lotto games and multistate lotto games. Online game drawings were held daily, multiple times each week or once each week, depending upon the game and wer e often broadcast on television. Scratchoff tickets were preprinted tickets with a latex coating that the player scratched off to instantly reveal a potential prize. PullTabs were preprinted tickets with a paper cover which the player removed to instantly reveal the potential prize beneath. PullTabs were the least expensive games offered, with ticket prices starting at 25 cen ts each. Video lottery terminals were instant games similar to slot machines. The outcome of video lottery games were predetermined once the button was pressed and was not affected by any decisionmaking on the part of the player. Keno games involved matching the numbers or selected icons on a players generated ticket with those selected in drawings that were broadcast every four to five minutes within the retail location. Both Keno and video lottery games were termed video crack by their critics, due to their reportedly addictive nature (Stodghill & Nixon, 2007, 38).

PAGE 75

75 LIST OF REFERENCES Allen, P. J. (1991). The allocation of lotte ry revenue to education in Florida, California, Michigan, and Illinois. Educational Policy, 5(3), 296. Retrieved August 26, 2008, from the Academic Search Premier database. Arizona Lottery. (2006). Where the money goes Retrieved June 18, 2008, from http://www.arizonalottery.com/WhereTheMoneyGoes.asp Arizona Lottery. (2008a ). 2007 financial statements Retrieved June 19, 2008, from http://www.arizonalottery.com/pdfs/fs2007final.pdf Arizona Lottery. (2008b). Games: Scratchers Retrieved June 18, 2008, from http://www.arizonalottery.com/Scratchers/default.asp Babitz, B. (2003, Winter). Strategies for leveraging a community college foundation. New Directions for Community Colleges 514. Barker, T. & Britz, M. (2000). Jokers wild : Legalized gambling in the twenty first century W estport, Conn: Praeger. Bass, D. (2003, Winter). From the foundations up: Contexts for change in community college advancement. New Directions for Community Colleges 1526. Berry, F.S. & Berry, W.D. (1990). State lottery adoptions as policy innovations: An event history analysis. The American Political Science Review, 84 (2), 395415. Retrieved August 26, 2009, from the JSTOR database. Bobbitt, W. R. (2007). Lottery wars : Case studies in bible belt politics, 19862005. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books. Borg, M O. & Mason, P. M. (1990). Earmarked lottery revenues: Positive windfalls or concealed redistribution mechanisms? Journal of Education Finance, 15, 289301. Borg, M. O., Mason, P. M. & Shapiro, S. L. (1991). The economic consequences of state lotteries N ew York: Praeger. Bousquet, S. (2008, February 1). Crist builds budget on gambling funds St. Petersburg Times (FL), A1. Retrieved April 17, 2008 from the NewsBank database. Bousquet, S. & Colavecchio Van Sickler, S. (2008, April 11). No jackpot for schools. St. Petersburg Times (FL), A 1. Retrieved April 17, 2008, from the NewsBank database. Brown, R. (1999). A study of equity in a multi institution community college system prior to and after implementing performance based funding. (Ed.D., University of Fl orida). Retrieved October 15, 2010, from the ProQuest Digital Dissertations database.

PAGE 76

76 California State Lottery. (2007a ). 2007 report to the public Retrieved June 18, 2008, from http://www.calottery.com/NR/rdonlyres/7F476E30 187B 429F B5665027C6444C9B/0/LotteryAR2007English.pdf California State Lottery. (2007b). About us Retrieved June 19, 2008, from http://www.calottery.com/AboutUs/ California State Lottery. (2007c ). Comprehensive annual financial report for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2007. Retrieved June 19, 2008, from http://www.calottery.com/NR/rdonlyres/CD8A9CF2 C1084EA0 A8D7 42928927B69A/0/CA_Lottery_CAFR_2007.pdf California State Lottery. (2007d). Education FAQ Retrieved June 18, 2008, from http://www.calottery.com/Support/LotteryFunds/EduFAQ/ California State Lottery. (2007e ). Where does all the money go? Retrieved June 18, 2008, from http://www.calottery.com/Support/LotteryFunds/default.htm California State Lottery. (2008, Spring ). Journal 14(2), 18. Retrieved June 18, 2008, from http://www.calottery.com/NR/rdonlyres/76252290963E 4D3C 95219F0BB6377237/0/Spring08Journal.pdf California State Lottery. (2008). Scratchers: Scratch to win. Retrieved June 18, 2008, from http://www.calottery.com/Games/Scratchers/ The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. (2009). Classification description: Size & setting classification Retrieved December 9, 2009, from http://classifications.carnegiefoundation.org/descriptions/size_setting.php Clotfelter, C. T. & Cook, P. J. (1989). Sel ling hope: State lotteries in America Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press. Clotfelter, C. T., Cook, P. J., Edell, J. A. & Moore, M. (1999). State lotteries at the turn of the century: Report to the national gambling impact study commission. Retriev ed April 10, 2008, from http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/ngisc/reports/lotfinal.pdf Code of Georgia: Georgia Lottery for Education Act, Title 50 Chapter 27 (2006). Retrieved June 20, 2008, from http://www.galottery.com/uploads/LotteryReportList/LotteryReport/1/LotteryforEducatio nAct.pdf Colorado Lottery. (2008a ). 2007 fact book Retrieved June 19, 2008, from http://www.coloradolottery.com/index.cfm/ID/85/Annual Report/ Colorado Lottery. (2008 b). 2007 financial report Retrieved June 19, 2008, from http://www.coloradolottery.com/documents/annual_report/2007_FactBook_Financial_Re port.pdf

PAGE 77

77 Colorado Lottery. (2008c ). About the lottery Retrieved June 19, 2008, from http://www.coloradolottery.com/index.cfm/ID/8/About the ColoradoLottery/ Colorado Lottery. (2008 d). All current games Retrieved June 19, 2008, from http://www.coloradolottery.com/index.cfm/ID/53/AllCurrent Games/ Colorado Lottery. (2008e ). FAQs Retrieved June 19, 2008, from http://www.coloradolottery.co m/index.cfm/ID/73/FAQs/ Colorado Lottery. (2008f ). Where the money goes Retrieved June 19, 2008, from http://www.coloradolottery.com/index.c fm/ID/69/ColoradoLottery ---Wherethe Money Goes/ Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. (2001). Property tax/rent rebate program Retrieved June 27, 2008, from http://www.revenue.state .pa.us/ptrr/site/default.asp Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. (2007). 200607 Governors report on state performance Retrieved June 27, 2008, from http://www.state.pa.us/papower/lib/papower/attachments/ 2006_07_govperformancerept_ web.pdf Connecticut Lottery Corporation. (2007). Scratch games Retrieved July 5, 2008, from http://www.ctlottery.org/scratchoffs.htm Connecti cut Lottery Corporation. (2008a ). About the CT lottery Retrieved June 19, 2008, from http://www.ctlottery.org/about.htm Connecticut Lottery Corporation. (2008b). Comprehensive annual financial report for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2007. Retrieved June 19, 2008, from http://www.ctlottery.org/ images/CAFR FY2007.pdf Connecticut Lottery Corporation. (2008c ). Where the money goes Retrieved June 19, 2008, from http://www.ctlottery.org/proceeds.htm D'Alemberte, S. (2008, January 11). Students lose in this shell game St. Petersburg Times (FL), A 15. Retrieved April 17, 2008, from the NewsBank database. Delaware Lottery Office. (2008 a ). Backgrounder Retrieved June 19, 2008, from http://lottery.state.de.us/backgrounder.asp Delaware Lottery Office. (2008 b). Where the money goes Retrieved June 19, 2008, from http://lottery.state.de.us/wherethe.asp Delaware Lottery Office. (n.d.). Video lottery Retrieved June 19, 2008, from http://lottery.state.de.us/videolottery.asp DiBenigno, L. (2007). Florida lottery longrange program plan FY 200809 through 201213. Retrieved April 3, 2008, from http://www.flalottery.com/inet/downloads/longrange.pdf

PAGE 78

78 Distr ict of Columbia Lottery and Charitable Games Control Board. (2004 a ). DC keno Retrieved June 19, 2008, from http://www.dclottery.com/DCKeno.aspx District of Columbia Lottery and Charitable Games Control Board. (2004b ). Letter from the Mayor/CFO Retrieved June 19, 2008, from http://www.dclottery.com/AboutMayor.aspx District of Columbia Lottery and Charitable Games Control Board (2004 c ). Where $ goes Retrieved June 19, 2008, from http://www.dclottery.com/aboutMoney.aspx District of Columbia Lottery and Charitable Games Control Board. (2007 a ). Annual report: Fis cal year 2007. Retrieved June 19, 2008, from http://www.dclottery.com/pdfs/AnnRpt07.pdf District of Columbia Lottery and Charitable Games Control Board. (2007b ). Letter from the director Retrieved June 19, 2008, from http://www.dclottery.com/AboutDirector.aspx Elliott, D. S. & Navin, J. C. (2002). Has riverboat gambling reduced state lottery revenue? Public Finance Review, 30(3), 235 247. Retrieved November 24, 2008, from the SAGE Journals Online database. Ellis, K. A. (2007). Finding the winning numbers: State lotteries for education and their impact on the poor. Georgetown Journal on Poverty Law & Policy, 14 (2), 317338. Retrieved June 17, 2008, from the Lexis Nexus Academic database. Erekson, O. H., DeShano, K. M., Platt, G & Ziegert, A. (2002). Fungibility of lottery revenues and support of public education. Journal of Education Finance, 28(2), 301311. Retrieved April 9, 2008, from the OmniFile Full Text Mega database. Evans, W. N., & Zhang, P. (2005). The impact of earmarked lottery revenue on state educational expenditures Retrieved April 10, 2008, from http://www.bsos.umd.edu/econ/evans/ w papers/evans_zhang_earmark_lottery.pdf Fairfield, H ., Nixon. R. & Nguyen V (2007). Lotteries profit, but do students? Retrieved April 9, 2008, from http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2007/10/05/business/ 20071007_LOTTO_GRAPHIC .html Fink, S. & Rork, J. (2003). The importance of self selection in casino cannibalization of state lotteries. Economics Bulletin, 8(10), 18. Retrieved November 24, 2008, from http://www.economicsbulletin.com/2003/volume8/EB 03H70001A.pdf Florida Association of Community Colleges. (2008, September). Community colleges in Florida lead nation again in producing associate degr ees. Current, 12. Retrieved September 16, 2008, from http://www.facc.org/images/facc/PDF/Current0908.pdf Florida Community College Council of Presidents. (2008). A framework for development: Five year community college compact with Floridas legislative and executive leadership. Unpublished manuscript.

PAGE 79

79 Florida Department of Education. (2006, December ). 200607 education appropriations : Funded by the Educational Enhancement (Lottery) Trust Fund. Retrieved April 3, 2008, from http://www.fldoe.org/budget/pdf/lottery.pdf Florida Department of Education. (2008, September ). 200708 education appropriations : Funded by the Educational Enhancement (Lottery) Trust Fund. Retrieved February 25 2009, from http://www.fldoe.org/budget/pdf/lottery.pdf Florida Department of Education. (2009, August ). 200809 education appropriations : Funded by the Educational Enhancement (Lottery) T rust Fund. Retrieved September 15 2009, from http://www.fldoe.org/fefp/pdf/Lotbook200809.pdf Florida Department of Education. (n.d.). The Foundation for Florida's Community Colleges, Inc. (FFCC) Retrieved March 30, 2009, from http://www.fldoe.org/cc/foundation/ default.asp Florida Department of Education. (2008). 2008 2009 community college funding in Florida. Tallahassee, FL: Community College Budget Office. Florida Department of Education. (2009) The Florida College System: FTE, operating state funds, and student fees 199798 to 200708. Tallahassee, FL: Division of Florida Colleges. Florida Department of Education, Division of Accountability, Research and Measurement. (2003). The fact book Retr ieved August 29, 2009, from http://www.fldoehub.org/ CCTCMIS/c/Documents/Fact%20Books/factbk03.pdf Florida Department of Education, Division of Accountability, Research and Measurement. (2004). The fact book Retrie ved August 29, 2009, from http://www.fldoehub.org/ CCTCMIS/c/Documents/Fact%20Books/factbk04.pdf Florida Department of Education, Division of Accountability, Research, and Measurement. (2005). The fact book Retriev ed August 29, 2009, from http://www.fldoehub.org /cctcmis/c/Documents/Fact%20Books/factbk05.pdf Florida Department of Education, Division of Accountability, Research, and Measurement. (2006). The fact book Retrieved August 29, 2009, from http://www.fldoehub.org/ cctcmis/c/Documents/Fact%20Books/graphic.pdf Florida Department of Education, Division of Accountability, Research, and Measurement. (2007). The fact book Retrieved A ugust 29, 2009, from http://www.fldoehub.org/ cctcmis/c/Documents/Fact%20Books/fb2007.pdf Florida Department of Education, Division of Accountability, Research and Measurement. (2008). The fact book Retrieved August 29, 2009, from http://www.fldoehub.org/ cctcmis/c/Documents/Fact%20Books/fb2008.pdf

PAGE 80

80 Florida Department of Education, Division of Accountability, Research and Measurement. (2009). The fact book Retrieved August 29, 2009, from http://www.fldoehub.org/ CCTCMIS/c/Documents/Fact%20Books/fb2009.pdf Florida Department of Education, Division of Accountability, Research and Measurement. (2010). The fact book Retrieved September 5, 2010, from http://www.fldoehub.org/ CCTCMIS/c/Documents/Fact%20Books/fb2010.pdf Florida Department of Education, Division of Community Colleges Bureau of Research and Information Systems. (1997). The fact book Retrieved August 29, 2009, from http://www.fldoehub.org/CCTCMIS/c/Documents/Fact%20Books/FB1997.pdf Florida Department of Education, Division of Community Colleges Bureau of Research and Information Systems. (1998). The fact book Retrieved August 29, 2009, from http://www.fldoehub.org/CCTCMIS/c/Do cuments/Fact%20Books/FB1998.pdf Florida Department of Education, Division of Community Colleges Bureau of Research and Information Systems. (1999). The fact book Retrieved August 29, 2009, from http://www.fldoehub.org/CCTCMIS/c/Documents/Fact%20Books/FB 1999.pdf Florida Department of Education, Division of Community Colleges Bureau of Research and Information Systems (2000). The fact book Retrieved August 29, 2009, from http://www.fldoehub.org/CCTCMIS/c/Documents/Fact%20Books/FB2000.pdf Florida Depar tment of Education, Division of Community Colleges Bureau of Research and Information Systems. (2001). The fact book Retrieved August 29, 2009, from http://www.fldoehub.org/CCTCMIS/c/Documents/Fact%20Books/factbook.pdf Florida Department of Education, D ivision of Community Colleges Bureau of Research and Information Systems. (2002). The fact book Retrieved August 29, 2009, from http://www.fldoehub.org/CCTCMIS/c/Documents/Fact%20Books/webversion.pdf Florida Department of Education, Division of Florida Colleges. (2010). Florida college bachelors degree programs Retrieved April 5, 2010, from http://www.fldoe.org/cc/ students/bach_degree.asp Florida Department of education, Office of Funding & Financial Reporting. (2010). 200910 Education appropriations Retrieved August 13, 2010, from http://www.fldoe.org/fefp/pdf/Lotbook.pdf Florida Legislature, Office of Program Policy Analysis and Government Accountability. (2002). Justification review: Sale of lottery products program, department of the lottery Retrieved April 3, 2008, from http://www.oppaga.state.fl.us/reports/pdf/0211rpt.pdf Florida Legislature, Office of Program Policy Analysis and Government Accountability. (2003). Justification review: Additional steps could be taken to aid pari mutuel wagering industry and/or cut regulatory cost Retrieved April 3, 2008, from http://www.oppaga.sta te.fl.us/ reports/pdf/0356rpt.pdf

PAGE 81

81 Florida Legislature, Office of Program Policy Analysis and Government Accountability. (2004a). Lottery faces challenges meeting future revenue demands, continues work to improve efficiency. Retrieved April 3, 2008, from http://www.oppaga.state.fl.us/ reports/pdf/0480rpt.pdf Florida Legislature, Office of Program Policy Analysis and Government Accountability. (2004b). Progress report: Florida lottery makes progress by implementi ng many justification review recommendations Retrieved April 3, 2008, from http://www.oppaga .state.fl.us/reports/pdf/0401rpt.pdf Florida Legislature, Office of Program Policy Analysis and Government Accountability. (2006 ). Floridas lottery responding to revenue, efficiency, and minority retailer challenges Retrieved April 3, 2008, from http://www.oppaga.state.fl.us/reports/pdf/0604rpt.pdf Florida Legislature, Office of Program Policy Analysis and Government Accountabil ity. (2007). Lottery scratch off sales increase; options available to enhance transfers to education. \ Retrieved April 3, 2008, from http://www.oppaga.state.fl.us/reports/pdf/07 09rpt.pdf Florida Legislature, Office of Program Policy Analysis and Government Accountability. (2009). Lottery profits are slowing with economic downturn: Advertising services and retailer commission rates need to be addressed. Retrieved March 13 2009, from http://www .oppaga.state.fl.us/MonitorDocs/Reports/pdf/0914rpt.pdf Florida Lottery. (2007a ). 2007 education progress report Retrieved April 3, 2008, from http://www.flalottery.com/inet/downloads/2007 EducationProgressReport.pdf Florida Lottery. (2007b). Department of the lottery appropriation for fiscal year 20072008 as of September 30, 2007. Retrieved June 20, 2008, from http://floridalottery.com/inet/PDFs/FiscalYear200708Budget.pdf Florida Lottery. (2008a ). Florida lottery 200809 budget continues to support public education. Retrieved June 20, 2008, from http://floridalottery.com/inet/generalNewsContent.do ?searchID=195260 Florida Lottery. (2008b). Frequently asked questions Retrieved June 20, 2008, from http://floridalottery.com/inet/aboutus questionsMain.do Florida Lottery. (2008c). Games: Scratch offs Retrieved June 20, 2008, fromhttp://floridalottery.com/inet/games scratchoffsMain.do Florida Lottery. (2008d). Our history Retrieved June 20, 2008, from http://floridalottery.com/inet/abouthistoryMain.do Florida Lottery. (2008e ). Summer cash. Retrieved July 9, 2008, from http://www.flalottery. com/summercash/flash/index.html Florida Lottery. (2008f ). Timeline Retrieved June 20, 2008, from http://floridalottery.com/inet/aboutus factsMain.do

PAGE 82

82 Florida Lottery. (2010a ). Dollars to education. Retrieved August 13, 2010, from http://www.flalottery.com/inet/educationDollarToEducation.do Florida Lottery. ( 2010b). Transfers to the EETF Retrieved A ugust 13, 20 10, from http://www .flalottery.com/inet/downloads/EETFTransfers.pdf Florida Lottery. (n.d.). Florida lottery 2008 legislative priorities Retrieved June 20, 2008, from http://floridalottery.com/inet/PDFs/2008LegislativePriorities.pdf Garrett, T. A. (2001). Earmarked lottery revenues for education: A new test of fungibility. Journal of Education Finance, 26(3), 219 238. May 23, 2008 from the Wilson Education database. Garrett, T. A. (2001). Earmarked lotte ry revenues for education: A new test of fungibility. Journal of Education Finance, 26(3), 219238. Retrieved May 23, 2008, from the Wilson Education database. Garrett, T. A. & Marsh, T. L. (2002). The revenue impacts of cross border lottery shopping in th e presence of spatial autocorrelation. Regional Science and Urban Economics, 32(4), 501519. Retrieved November 24, 2008, from the ScienceDirect database. Georgia Lottery Corporation. (2008a ). Current instant games Retrieved June 20, 2008, from http://www.galottery.com/stc/games/instantgamesCurrent.jsp Georgia Lottery Corporation. (2008b). Frequently asked questions Retrieved June 20, 2008, from http://www.galottery.com/gen/aboutUs/faq.jsp Georgia Lottery Corporation. (2008c ). Georgia lottery facts & figures Retrieved June 20, 2008, from http://www.galottery.com/stc/aboutus/factFigure.jsp Georgia Lottery Corporation. (2008d). History of lotteries Retrieved June 20, 2008, from http://www.galottery.co m/stc/aboutus/history.jsp Georgia Lottery Corporation. (2008e ). Proceeds to education. Retrieved June 20, 2008, from http://www.galottery.com/stc/aboutus/proceedsToEduc ation.jsp Idaho Lottery. (2007 a ). 2007 Idaho lottery annual report Retrieved June 23, 2008, from http://idaholottery.com/forms/annualreport07WEB.pdf Idaho Lottery. (2007b ). Di stribution brochure: Where the money goes FY 2007. Retrieved June 23, 2008, from http://idaholottery.com/Forms/WMG2.pdf Idaho Lottery. (2007 c ). Where the money goes FY 2007 Retrieved June 23, 2008, from http://idaholottery.com/wherechart.asp Idaho Lottery. (n.d.). Facts at a glance Retrieved June 23, 2008, from http://idaholottery.com/ facts.asp Idaho Lottery. (n.d.). Idaho lottery history Retrieved June 23, 2008, from http://idaholottery .com/lothist.asp

PAGE 83

83 Illinois Lottery. (2008a ). FAQ Retrieved June 23, 2008, from http://www.illinoislottery.com/subsections/news03.htm#num17 Illinois Lottery. (2008b). Games Retrieved June 23, 2008, from http://www.illinoislottery.com/subsections/games.htm Illinois Lottery. (2008c ). Proceeds Retrieved June 23, 2008, from http://www.illinoislottery .com/subsections/News01Text.htm Indiana State Budget Agency. (2007). Distribution of build Indiana fund and lottery and gaming reven ues: Fiscal year ending June 30, 2007. Retrieved July 15, 2008, from http://www.in.gov/sba/files/LGS_Distribution_Report_2007.pdf The Indiana State Lottery. (2008 a ). Di stribution of Hoosier lottery profits Retrieved June 23, 2008, from http://www.in.gov/hoosierlottery/where_money_goes/profitdistribution.asp The Indiana St ate Lottery. (2008b ). Fiscal year 2007 dollar breakdown: Where does the money go? Retrieved June 23, 2008, from http://www.in.gov/hoosierlottery/where_money_goes/ dollardistribution.asp The Indiana State Lottery. (2008 c ). Hoosier lottery history Retrieved June 23, 2008, from http://www.in.gov/hoosierlottery/lottery_info/history.asp The Indiana State Lottery (2008d ). Pull tab games Retrieved June 23, 2008, from http://www.in.gov/hoosierlottery/games/pulltabs.asp The Indiana State Lottery. (2008 e ). Scratch offs Retrieved June 23, 2008, from http://www.in.gov/hoosierlottery/games/scratchoffgames.asp Iowa Lottery. (2007). Fiscal year 2007 annual report Reaching new heights Retrieved June 23, 2008, from http://www.ialottery.com/AboutUs/2007AnnualReport.pdf Iowa Lottery. (2008a ). History Retrieved June 23, 2008, from http://www .ialottery.com/ AboutUs/history.html Iowa Lottery. (2008b). How more than $1.1 billion in lottery profits have helped the state Retrieved June 23, 2008, from http://www.ialottery.com/PressRoom/ PressRoo m_WhereTheMoneyGoesPg2.html Iowa Lottery. (2008c ). Pull tab games listing. Retrieved June 23, 2008, from http://www.ialottery.com/Games/PulltabGamesList.html Iowa Lottery. (2008d). Scratch games listing Retrieved June 23, 2008, from http://www.ialottery.com/Games/ScratchGamesList.html Jones, T. H. & Amalfitano, J. L. (1994). America's gamble : Public school finance and state lotteries Lancaster, Penn: Technomic.

PAGE 84

84 Kansas Lottery. (2002a ). Frequently asked questions Retrieved June 23, 2008, from http://www.kslottery.com/LotteryInfo/F AQ.htm Ka nsas Lottery. ( 2002b). Kansas lottery games Retrieved June 23, 2008, from http://www.kslottery.com/GameInformation/LotteryGames.htm Kansas Lottery. (2007a ). Fi scal year 2007 annual report Retrieved June 23, 2008, from http://www.kslottery.com/LotteryInfo/AnnualReport07.pdf Kansas Lottery. (2007b). Where the money goes Retrieved June 23, 2008, from http://www.kslottery.com/WhereTheMoneyGoes/WhereTheMoneyGoes.htm Kansas Lottery. (2008). About us Retrieved June 23, 2008, from http://www.kslottery.com/LotteryInfo/AboutUs.htm Kansas Technology Enterprise Corporation. (n.d.). Kansas technology enterprise corporation. Retrieved July 15, 2008, from http://www.ktec.com/index_Flash.htm Karcher, A. J. (1992). Lotteries New Brunswick, N.J .: Transaction Publishers. Kentucky Higher Education Assistance Authority. (2008). Kentucky educational excellence scholarship. R etrieved June 23, 2008, from http://www.kheaa.com/website/kheaa/kees?main=1 Kentucky Lottery. (2007 a ). Fiscal year 2007 abridged annual report Retrieved June 23, 2008, from http://www.kylottery.com/apps/export/system/modules/com.kyl.site/galleries /documents/KYLottery_annual_report/Abridged_Annual_Report_2007.pdf Kentucky Lottery. (2007 b). Questions Retrieved June 23, 2008, from http://www.kylottery.com/apps/player/customer_service/questions.html?id=customer _service Kentucky Lottery. (2007 c ). Where the money goes Retrie ved June 23, 2008, from http://www.kylottery.com/apps/player/news/where_money_goes.html?name=Where%20t he%20Money%20Goes&id=news Kentucky Lottery. (2008). History Retrieved June 23, 2008, from http://www.kylottery.com/apps/player/about_us/history.html?name=History&id=about _us KPMG. (2007). New York state lottery basic financial statements M arch 31, 2007 and 2006 Retrieved June 25, 2008, from http://www.nylottery.org/storelayoutimages/nyl_fnl_stmnt.pdf Land, V. Q. & Alsika fi, M. H. (1999). A lottery's impact on instructional and noninstructional expenditures and unrestricted revenues for education. Journal of Education Finance, 25(2), 149174. Retrieved April 17, 2008, from the Wilson OmniFile Full Text Mega database.

PAGE 85

85 Lauth T. P. & Robbins, M. D. (2002). The Georgia lottery and state appropriations for education: Substitution or additional funding? Public Budgeting & Finance, 22(3), 89100. Legislative Council, State of Michigan. (1972). McCauleyTraxler Law Bowman McNeely lottery act of 1972. Retrieved June 23, 2008, from http://www.legislature.mi.gov /documents/mcl/pdf/mclAct 239of 1972.pdf Louisiana Lottery Corporation. (2007). Treasury transfers. Retrieved June 23, 2008, f rom http://www.louisianalottery.com/assets/docs/fact%20sheets/LLCTreasuryTransfers12.07. pdf Louisiana Lottery Corporation. (2008a ). About the lottery Retrieved June 23, 2008, from http://www.louisianalottery.com/index.cfm?md=pagebuilder&tmp=home&navID=15&cp ID=66&cfmID=0&c atID=0 Louisiana Lottery Corporation. (2008b). Drawing games Retrieved June 23, 2008, from http://www.louisianalottery.com/index.cfm?md=game&tmp=drawing&navID=63&cpID =0&cfmID=0&catID=0 Louisiana Lottery Corporation. (2008c ). FAQs Retrieved June 23, 2008, from http://www.louisianalottery.com/index.cfm?md=faq&tmp=home&navID=18&cpID=0&c fmID=0&catID=1 Louisiana Lottery Corporation. (2008d). Lottery facts & operations Retrieved June 23, 2008, from http://www.louisianalottery.com/index.cfm?md=faq&tmp=home&navID=151 &cpID=0&cfmID=0&catID=10#Q52 Louisiana Lottery Corporation. (2008e ). Scratch offs Retrieved June 23, 2008, from http://www.louisianalottery.com/index.cfm?md=game&tmp=scratchoff&navID=14&cpI D=0&cfmID=0&catID=0 Louisiana Lottery Corporation. (2008f ). Where the money goes Retrieved June 23, 2008, from http://www.louisianalottery.com/index.cfm?md=pagebuilder&tmp=home&cpid=28 Louisiana State Constitution of 1974, Article VIII, Section 13. Retrieved July 15, 2008, fro m http://senate.legis.state.la.us/Documents/Constitution/Article8.htm Madden, T. (2007). South Carolina education lottery: Overview Retrieved June 27, 2008, from http://www.sceducationlottery.com/lottery/lottery.aspx Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife. (2007). Maine outdoor heritage fund. Retrieved June 23, 2008, from http://www.maine.gov/ifw/grants/outdoorheritagefund / index.htm Maine State Lottery. (2005 a ). FAQ Retrieved June 23, 2008, from http://www.mainelottery .com/players_info/faq.html

PAGE 86

86 Maine State Lottery. (2005 b). Rules and regulations Retrieved June 23, 2008, from http://www.mainelottery.com/retailers/rules regs.html#11 Maine State Lottery. (2007 a ). New year millionaire raffle FAQ Retrieved June 23, 2008, from http://www.mainelottery.com/games/millionaire_raffle faq.shtml Main e State Lottery. (2007 b). Where the money goes Retrieved June 23, 2008, from http://www.mainelottery.com/about/where_money_goes.html Majchrzak, A. ( 1984). Methods for Polic y Research Newbury Park, CA : Sage Publications Maryland Lottery. (2007). Benefits to Marylanders Retrieved June 23, 2008, from http://www.mdlottery.com/benefits.html Maryland Lottery. (2008). Scratch offs page Retrieved June 23, 2008, from http://webkeno1.msla.state.md.us/scratchoffs/scratchoffs.aspx Maryland Lottery. (n.d.). Maryland hold 'em Retri eved June 23, 2008, from http://www.mdlottery.com/h2p_MDHoldEM.html Maryland State Lottery Agency. (2007). Comprehensive annual financial report for the years ended June 30, 2007 and 2006. Retrieved June 23, 2008, from http://www.mdlottery.com/resources/AnnualReport2007.pdf Massachusetts State Lottery Commission. (2006a ). Frequently asked questions Retriev ed June 23, 2008, from http://www.masslottery.com/about/faq.html Massachusetts State Lottery Commission. (2006b). Games Retrieved June 23, 2008, from http://www.masslottery.com/games/index.html Massachusetts State Lottery Commission. (2006c ). Pull tabs Retrieved June 23, 2008, from http://www.mass lottery.com/games/pulltabs.html Massachusetts State Lottery Commission. (2008a ). Information packet: 1971 2008. Retrieved June 23, 2008, from http://www.masslottery.com/StudentGuide/studentpack.htm Massachusetts State Lottery Commission. (2008b). Instant games Retrieved June 23, 2008, from http://www.masslottery.com/games/instantwin.html Massachu s etts State Lottery Commission. [2008c ]. Where the $ goes Retrieved June 23, 2008, from http://www.masslottery.com/wherethemoneygoes.html McGowan, R. (1994). State lotteries and legalized gambling: Painless revenue or painful mirage Westport, Conn: Praeger. McQueen, P. A. (2007). U.S. lottery proceeds surpass $17 billion in FY06. IGWB: International Gaming & Wagering Business, 28(4), 223. Retrieved April 17, 2008, from the General BusinessFile ASAP database.

PAGE 87

87 Mikesell, J. L. & Zorn, C. K. (1986). State lotteries as fiscal savior or fiscal fraud: A look at the evidence. Pub lic Administration Review, 46( 4), 311. Retrieved September 8, 2008, from the Education Research Complete database. Mikese ll, J. L. & Zorn, C. K. (1988). State lotteries for public revenue. Public Budgeting & Finance, 8(1), 38 47. Miller, T.M. & Hol t C.R. (2005, Winter) Sustaining local tax support for community colleges: Recommendations for college leaders. Ne w Directions for Community Colleges 6775. Minnesota State Lottery. (2007a ). Fiscal year 2007 annual report Retrieved June 24, 2008, from http://www.lottery.state.mn.us/ar07/Annual_Report_2007.pdf Minnesota State Lottery. (2007b). Minnesota state lottery overview 2007. Retrieved June 24, 2008, from http://www.lottery.state.mn.us/overview/ 2007_Overview.pdf Minnesota State Lottery. (2008a ). Environment and natural resources trust fund. Retrieved June 24, 2008, from http://www.lottery.state.mn.us/etf.html Minnesota State Lot tery. (2008b). In lieu of sales tax Retrieved June 24, 2008, from http://www.lottery.state.mn.us/etf/salestax.html Minnesota State Lottery. (2008c ). Online games Retrieved June 24, 2008, from http://www.lottery.state.mn.us/numbers.html Minnesota State Lottery. (2008d). Scratch games Retrieved June 24, 2008, from http://www.lottery.state.mn.us/instgame.html Minnesota State Lottery. (2008e ). Where the money goes Retrieved June 24, 2008, from http://www.lottery.state.mn.us/moneygo.html Missouri Lottery. (2007). FY07 Missouri lottery proceeds .Retrieved June 24, 2008, from http://www.molottery.com/where_the_money_goes/documents /fy07_proceeds.pdf Missouri Lottery. (2008 a ). $3 billion and counting! Retrieved June 24, 2008, from http://www.molottery.com/media/3billion.shtm Missouri Lottery. (2008b ). 2008 Miss ouri lottery factbook Retrieved June 24, 2008, from http://www.molottery.com/media/documents/08_factbook.pdf Missouri Lottery. (2008 c ). Club keno. Retrieved June 24, 2008, from http://www.molottery.com/club_keno/club_keno.shtm Missouri Lottery. (2008d ). Pull tabs Retrieved June 24, 2008, from http://www.molottery.com/pull_tabs/pull_tabs.shtm Missouri Lottery. (2008 e ). Sales and proceeds history. Retrieved June 24, 2008, from http://www.molottery.com/learnaboutus/sales_proceeds.shtm

PAGE 88

88 Missouri Lottery. (2008 f ). Scratchers games Retrieved June 24, 2008, from http://www.molottery.com/scratchers.do?sort=price Missouri L ottery. (2008 g). Where the money goes Retrieved June 24, 2008, from http://www.molottery.com/where_the_money_goes/where_the_money_goes.shtm Monroe, W. O. (2004). State education funding performance Retrieved April 3, 2008, from http://www.myflorida.com/audgen/pages/pdf_files/2004187.pdf Montana Lottery. (2007). 2007 annual repor t. Retrieved June 24, 2008, from http://www.montanalottery.com/reports_forms/annual_r eport_2007.pdf Montana Lottery. (2008 a ). Lottery history Retrieved June 24, 2008, from http://www.montanalottery.com/history.xsp Montana Lottery. (2008b ). Qwik tix Retrieved June 24, 2008, from http://www .montanalottery.com/qwiktix.xsp Montana Lottery. (2008 c ). Scratch Retrieved June 24, 2008, from http://www .montanalottery.com/scratch.xsp Montana Lottery. (2008d ). Where the mone y goes Retrieved June 24, 2008, from http://www.montanalottery.com/wheremoneygoes.xsp Mullin, C.M. & Honeyman, D.S. (2008). Statutory responsibility for fixing tuition and fees: Community colleges and undergraduate institutions. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 32 (4 6) 284304. Nebraska Environmental Trust. (2008). Homepage Retrieved June 25, 2008, from http://www.environmentaltrust.org/ Nebraska Lottery. (2007). 2007 annual report and resource guide Retrieved June 25, 2008, from http://www.nelottery.com/media/annualreport07.pdf Nebraska Lottery. (2008 a ). About the Nebraska lottery Retrieved June 25, 2008, from http://www.nelottery.com/about.xsp Nebraska Lottery. (2008 b). Beneficiary contact information. Retrieved June 25, 2008, from http://www.nelottery.com/article.xsp?aid=547 Nebraska Lottery. (2008 c ). Proceeds transferred since 1993. Retrieved June 25, 2008, from http://www.nelottery.com/article. xsp?aid=136 Nebraska Lottery. (2008 d). Scratch Retrieved June 25, 2008, from http://www.nelottery.com/scratch.xsp Nelson, M. & Mason, J. L. (2007). How the south joined the gambling nation: The politics of state policy innovation. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press.

PAGE 89

89 New Hampshire Lottery Commission. (2005). Homepage Retrieved June 25, 2008, from http://www.nhlottery.org New Hampshire Lottery Commiss ion. (2006). History of the N ew Hampshire lottery Retrieved June 25, 2008, from http://www.nhlottery.org/about us/history.asp New Hampshire Lottery Commission. (2007). Comprehensive annual finance report for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2007. Retrieved June 25, 2008, from http://www.nhlottery .org/pdf/cafr2007.pdf New Hampshire Lottery Commission. (2008a ). Instant games Retrieved June 25, 2008, from http://www.nhlottery.org/the games/instantgames/games list.asp New Hampshire Lottery Commission. (2008b). Yearly revenue. Retrieved June 25, 2008, from http://www.nhlottery.org/supporting education/yearly.asp New Jersey Lottery. (2007). New J ersey lottery 2007 annual report Retrieved June 25, 2008, from http://www.state.nj.us/lottery/general/anuual_reports/AR_PDF_2007.pdf New Mexico Higher Education Department. (n.d.). Lottery scholarship FAQ's Retrieved June 25, 2008, from http://hed.state.nm.us/content.asp?CustComKey=194795& CategoryKey=356787&pn=Page&DomName=hed.state.nm.us New Mexico Lottery. (2008a ). Beneficiary FAQs Retrieved June 25, 2008, from http://www.nmlottery.com/News/Beneficiary/BeneFAQ.htm New Mexico Lottery. (2008b). Scratchers Retrieved June 25, 2008, from http://www.nmlottery.com/scratchers/Scratchers.htm New Mexico Lottery. (2008c ). Where proceeds go Retrieved June 25, 2008, from http://www.nmlottery.com/News/Beneficiary/Proceeds.htm New York Lottery. (2003). Empire state games Retrieved June 25, 2008, from http://www.nylottery.org/ny/nyStore/cgibin/ ProdSubEV_Cat_333657_NavRoot_305.htm New York L ottery. (2007). New York lottery's mission Retrieved June 25, 2008, from http://www.nylottery.org/ny/nyStore/cgibin/ProdSubEV_Cat_305_NavRoot_305.htm New York Lottery. (2008 a ). Leaders of tomorrow scholarships Retrieved June 25, 2008, from http://w ww.nylottery.org/ny/nyStore/cgibin/ProdSubEV_Cat_333654_NavRoot_305.htm New York Lottery. (2008 b). Where the money goes Retrieved June 25, 2008, from http://www.nylottery.org/ny/nyStore/cgibin/ProdSubEV_Cat_333653_SubCat_337630_NavRoot_305.htm

PAGE 90

90 Nibert, D. A. (2000). Hitting the lottery jackpot: S tate governments and the taxing of dreams New York: Monthly Review Press. North Carolina Education Lottery. (2007a ). FY 2007 annual report Retrieved June 25, 2008, from http://www.nc educationlottery.org/uploads/20080122_0607NCELAnnualReport.pdf North Carolina Education Lottery. (2007b). Where the money goes Retrieved June 25, 2008, from http://www.nc educationlottery.org/where_the_money_goes.aspx North Carolina Education Lottery. (n.d.). Instant games Retrieved June 25, 2008, from htt p://www.nc educationlottery.org/instant_games.aspx North Dakota Lottery. (n.d.). Frequent questions Retrieved June 25, 2008, from http://www.lottery.nd.gov/faq/ Novarro, N. K. (2005). Earmarked l ottery profits: A good bet for education finance? Journal of Education Finance, 31(1), 23 44. Retrieved May 23, 2008, from the Wilson Education database. The Ohio Lottery Commission. (2007a ). History of transfers to education. Retrieved June 25, 2008, from http://www.ohiolottery.com/profits/transfers_hist.html The Ohio Lottery Commission. (2007b). Instant games Retrieved June 25, 2008, from http://www.ohiolottery.com/games/instants /AllGames.aspx The Ohio Lottery Commission. (2008a ). A brief history of the Ohio lottery Retrieved June 25, 2008, from http://www.ohiolottery.com/about/history.html The Ohio Lotter y Commission. (2008b). Lottery profits Retrieved June 25, 2008, from http://www.ohiolottery.com/profits/about.html The Ohio Lottery Office of Finance. (2007). The Ohio lottery, an enterprise fund of the state of Ohio: Comprehensive annual financial report for the fiscal years ended June 30, 2007 and 2006. Retrieved June 25, 2008, from http://www.ohiolottery.com/pdf/2007_CAFR.pdf Oklahom a Lottery Commission. (2007a ). Beneficiary Retrieved June 25, 2008, from http://www.lottery.ok.gov/beneficiary_vhtml.asp#bene Oklahoma Lottery Commission. (2007b). Compre hensive annual financial report for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2007. Retrieved June 25, 2008, from http://www.lottery.ok.gov/media/documents/Oklahoma%20Lottery%20CAFR%202007 .pdf Oklahoma Lottery Commission. (2007c ). Scratchers Retrieved June 25, 2008, from http://www.lottery.ok.gov/scratchers.asp

PAGE 91

91 Oklahoma Lottery Commission. (2008). The Oklahoma lottery: Maximizing profits for Oklahoma education. Retrieved June 25, 2008, from http://www.lottery.ok.gov/media/documents/Maximize%20Funds%20for%20Education %20Summary.pdf Oklahoma lottery law s (2007). Retrieved June 25, 2008, from http://www.lottery.ok.gov/media/documents/Lottery%2 0Statutes%20Title%203A%20605effective%207 107%20with%20Article%2010 Section%2041.pdf Oregon constitution article XV (4, 4a, 4b, 4c.) (2008). Retrieved June 25, 2008, from http: //landru.leg.state.or.us/orcons/orcons.html Oregon Lottery. (n.d.). Video lottery myth busters Retrieved June 25, 2008, from http://www.oregonlottery.org/video/mythbuster.html Oregon Lottery. (2004). About the lottery Retrieved June 25, 2008, from http://www .oregonlottery.org/general/ Oregon Lottery. (2006). FAQ. Retrieved June 25, 2008, from http://www .oregonlottery.org/ general/faq/ Oregon Lottery. (2007a ). Breakopen games Retrieved June 25, 2008, from http://www .oregonlottery.org/breakopn/b_games.php Oregon Lottery. (2007b). How are Oregon lottery proceeds used? Retrieved June 25, 2008, from http://info.oregonlottery.org/docs/ootjaug07howdollarsused.doc Oregon Lottery. (2007c ). It does good things Retrieved June 25, 2008, from http://info .oregonlottery.org/ Oregon Lottery. (2008). Scratch its Retrieved June 25, 2008, from http://www .oregonlottery.org/scratch/ Pennsylvania Lottery. (2007). Economic and benefit impact report by county during fiscal year 2006 2007. Retrieved June 27, 2008, from http://www.palottery.state.pa.us /uploadedFiles/PALottery/About/2006_2007.pdf Pennsylvania Lottery. (2008a ). Instant games Retrieved June 27, 2008, from http://www.palottery.state.pa.us/instant games view all.aspx Pennsylvania Lottery. (2008b). Lottery funded benefit programs Retrieved June 27, 2008, from http://www.palottery.state.pa.us/content.aspx?id=62 Pennsylvania Lottery. (2008c ). Where does my money go? Retrieved June 27, 2008, from http://www.palottery.state.pa.us/content.aspx?id=60 Pierce, P. A. & Miller, D. E. (2004). Gambling politics: State government and the business of betting Boulder, Colo: Lynne Rienner Publishers.

PAGE 92

92 Rhode Island State Lottery. (2007). Co mprehensive annual financial report for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2007. Retrieved June 27, 2008, from http://www.rilot.com/docs/financial/CAFR Report FY 2007.pdf Rhode Island State Lottery. (2008a ). Financial information Retrieved June 27, 2008, from http://www.rilot.com/financial.asp Rhode Island State Lottery. (2008b). Frequently asked questions Retrieved June 27, 2008, from http://www.rilot.com/faqs.asp Rhode Island State Lottery. (2008c ). Instant games Retrieved June 27, 2008, from http://www.rilot.com/instant.asp Rhode Island State Lottery. (2008d). Keno Retrieved June 27, 2008, from http://www.rilot.com /keno.asp Rhode Island State Lottery. (2008e ). Self service lottery. Retrieved June 27, 2008, from http://www.rilot.com/game_point.asp Rhode Island State Lottery. (2008f ). Video lottery Retrieved June 27, 2008, from http://www.rilot.com/video.asp Roman, J.C., Gallagher, G & Shugart, S.C. (2010 Summer ). More than an open door: Deploying philanthropy to student access and success in American community colleges. New Directions for Student Services 5570. Sadberry, A. J. (2008). Message from the executive director Retriev ed June 27, 2008, from http://www.txlottery.org/export/sites/default/About_Us/Message_from_the_Executive_D irector/ Senate Ways and Means Committee. (2007). 2007 Citizens guide to Washington state K 12 finance Retrieved June 27, 2008, from http://www.leg.wa.gov/documents/Senate/SCS /WM/SwmWebsite/Publications/2007/K1 2Guide2007.pdf Siegel, D. & Anders, G. (2001). The impact of Indian casinos on state lotteries: A case study of Arizona Public Finance Review, 29(2), 139 147. Retrieved November 24, 2008, from SAGE Journals Online database. Soto, C. D. (2005). Funding higher education with state lottery proceeds: Community college lottery funding issues, as perceived by chief financial officers. (Ph.D., New Mexico State University). Retrieved April 2, 2008, from the ProQuest Digital Dissertations database. South Carolina Commission on Higher Education. (n.d.). Lottery tuition assistance program Retrieved June 27, 2008, from http://www.che.sc.gov/New_Web/GoingToCollege /LTA_Hm.htm

PAGE 93

93 South Carolina Commission on Higher Education. (n.d.). SC HOPE scholarship program Retrieved June 27, 2008, from http://www.che.sc.gov/New_Web/GoingToCollege /HOPE_Hm.htm South Carolina Education Lottery. (2005). Instant games Retrieved June 27, 2008, from http://www.sceducationlottery.c om/games2/instant_games.aspx South Carolina Education Lottery. (2008a ). Education wins: Overview Retrieved June 27, 2008, from http://www.sceducationlottery.com/educationwins/educationwins.aspx South Carolina Education Lottery. (2008b). Financial highlights Retrieved June 27, 2008, from http://www.sceducationlottery.com/edu cationwins/highlights.aspx South Carolina Education Lottery. (2008c ). Where the money goes Retrieved June 27, 2008, from http://www.sceducationlottery.co m/images/PDF/beneficiary_brochure_2007.pdf South Carolina Education Lottery Commission. (2007). South Carolina education lottery commission report on financial statements for the years ended June 30 2 7 and 2006. Retrieved June 27, 2008, from http://www.sceducationlottery.com/images/PDF /FY07FinancialReport.pdf South Dakota Bureau of Finance & Management. [2008]. General fund expenditures Retrieved June 27, 2008, from http://www.state.sd.us/bfm/expenditures.htm South Dakota Department of Revenue & Regulation. (2004). Your property taxes Retrieved June 27, 2008, from http://www.state.sd.us/drr2/propspectax/booklets /your_property_taxes.pdf South Dakota Legislature. (2008). South Dakota codified laws: Chapter 42 7A Retrieved June 27, 2008, from http://legis.state.sd.us/statutes/DisplayStatute.aspx?Statute=42 7a&Type=Statute South Dakota Lottery. (2007a ). South Dakota lottery FY2007 annual report Retrieved June 27, 2008, from http://www.sdlottery.org/aboutpages/aboutPDFs /FY07%20FINAL%20ANNUAL%20RPT.pdf South Dakota Lottery. (2007b). Video lottery in South Dakota. Retrieved June 27, 2008, from http://www.sdlottery.org/VideoLotteryInfo.asp South Dakota Lottery. (n.d.). History Retrieved June 27, 2008, from http://www.sdlottery.org /history_of_lottery.asp South Dakota Lottery. (n.d.). Scratch tickets Retrieved June 27, 2008, from http://www .sdlottery .org/GameScratch.asp South Dakota Lottery. (n. d.). Where the money goes Retrieved June 27, 2008, from http://www.sdlottery.org/WhereMoneyGoes.asp

PAGE 94

94 Souza, G. (2008, March 2). Lotto adds chances for bigger wins, sales The News Press (Fort Myers, FL), B1 B2. Retrieved April 17, 2008, from the America's Newspapers database. Spindler, C. J. (1995). The lottery and education: Robbing Peter to pay Paul? Public Budgeting & Finance, 15 (3), 5462. Retrieved September 6, 2008, from the Business Source Premier database. Stark, S. D. (1991). The Florida education lottery: Its use as a substitute for existing funds and its effects on the equity of public school funding. ( Ed.D. University of Florida). Retrieved April 10, 2008, from ProQuest Digital Dissertations database. Stark, S., Wood, R. C., & Honeyman, D. S. (1993). The Florida education lottery: Its us e as a substitute for existing funds and its effects on the equity of school funding. Journal of Education Finance, 18, 231242. State of Connecticut, Auditors of Public Accounts. (2008). State of Connecticut single audit report for the year ended June 30, 2007. Retrieved July 10, 2008, from http://cga.ct.gov/apa/pdf2008/2007%20CT SWSA.pdf State of Georgia, Department of Audits and Accounts, State Government Division. (2008). The G eorgia lottery: Selected summary financial information from inception (November 2, 1992) through fiscal year ended June 30, 200.7 Retrieved June 20, 2008, from http://www.audits.s tate.ga.us/rptSearch/report/7496 State of Maine, Department of Audit. (2007). 2006 single audit report Retrieved July 26, 2008, from http://www.maine.gov/audit/reports/2006sare port.pdf State of Michigan. (2008 a ). Club games Retrieved June 24, 2008, from http://www.michigan.gov/lottery/0,1607,711046442_27071---,00.html State of Mic higan. (2008 b). History of the Michigan lottery Retrieved June 23, 2008, from http://www.michigan.gov/lottery/0,1607,711029196_29199---,00.html State of Michi gan. (2008 c ). Instant games Retrieved June 24, 2008, from http://www.michigan.gov/lottery/0,1607,711046442_8213401--,00.html State of Michigan. (2008 d). Mi chigan lottery fast facts Retrieved June 23, 2008, from http://www.michigan.gov/lottery/0,1607,711029196_29198---,00.html State of Michigan. (2008 e ). Michigan lottery's commitment to education Retrieved June 23, 2008, from http://www.michigan.gov/lottery/0,1607,71108883454-,00.html State of Michigan. (2008 f ). Michigan lottery's financial contribution to Michigan education. Retrieved June 23, 2008, from http://www.michigan.gov/lottery/0,1607,71108884091,00.html

PAGE 95

95 State of Mich igan, B ureau of State Lottery. (2007). Comprehensive annual financial report for the fiscal years ended September 30, 2007 and 2006. Retrieved June 24, 2008, from http://www.michigan.gov/documents/lottery/BSL L CAFR2007_217616_7.pdf State of Michigan, Office of the State Budget. (2007). Governmental fund financial statements : Major funds Retrieved June 24, 2008, from http://www.michigan.gov/documents/budget /f1_Govt_Fund_MF_220485_7.pdf State of Minnesota, Office of the Revis or of Statutes. (2007). 2007 Minnesota statutes chapter 349A. state lottery Retrieved June 24, 2008, from https://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us /statutes/?id=349A State of Nebraska. (2008 a ). Lottery regulations: title 370 Retrieved June 25, 2008, from http://www. nelottery.com/images/RegsFeb2008.doc State of Nebraska. (2008 b). State lottery act. Retrieved June 25, 2008, from http://www.nelottery.com/images/statelotteryact.doc State of New Hampshire. (2007a ). Revised statutes: Title VX education chapter 198 school money Retrieved July 20, 2008, from http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html /xv/198/198mrg.htm State of New Hampshir e. (2007b). Revised statutes: Title XXIV games, amusements, and athletic exhibitions, chapter 284. Retrieved July 20, 2008, from http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us /rsa/html/xxiv/284/284 21h.htm State of New Jersey. (2008a ). About us Retrieved June 25, 2008, from http://www.state.nj.us /lottery/general/6 0_about_us.htm State of New Jersey. (2008 b). Beneficiaries of lottery funds community colleges Retrieved June 25, 2008, from http://www.state.nj.us/lottery/money/4 2_benefit_colleges.htm State of New Jersey. (2008 c ). Beneficiaries of lottery funds EOP Retrieved June 25, 2008, from http://www.state.nj.us/lottery/money/4 2_benefit_eop.htm State of New Jersey. (2008 d). Revenue recipients FY 2007. Retrieved June 25, 2008, from http://www.state.nj.us/lottery/money/4 1_recipients.htm State of New Jersey. (2008 e ). Where the money goes Retrieved June 25, 2008, from http://www.state.nj.us/lottery/money/4 0_where_money_goes.htm State of North Dakota. (2005). North Dakota lottery laws chapter 5312.1 of the N orth Dakota century code. Retrieved June 25, 2008, from http://www.lottery.nd.gov/about/laws /laws.pdf State of North Dakota, Office of the State Auditor. (2004). North Dakota lottery Bismarck N orth Dakota audit report for the years ended June 30, 2004 client code 125.1. Retrieved June 25, 2008, from http://www.lottery.nd.gov/about/FinStatements/Audit04.pdf

PAGE 96

96 State of North Dakota, Office of the State Auditor. (2005). North Dakota lottery Bismarck, N orth Dakota audit report for the years ended June 30, 2005 client code 125.1. Retrieved June 25, 2008, from http://www.lottery.nd.gov/about/FinStatements/Audit05.pdf State of North Dakota, Office of the State Auditor. (2006). North Dakota lottery Bismarck N orth Dakota audit report for the years ended June 30, 2006 and 2005 client code 125.1. Retrieved June 25, 2008, from http://www.lottery.nd.gov/about/FinStatements /Audit06.pdf State of North Dakota, Office of the State Auditor. (2007). North Dakota lottery Bismarck N orth Dakota audit report for the years ended June 30, 2007 and 2006Client code 125.1. Retrieved June 25, 2008, from http://www.nd.gov/auditor/reports/125L_07.pdf State of Oregon, Office of the Secretary of State. (2008). Enterprise fund of the state of Oregon: Oregon state lottery for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2007. Retrieved June 25, 2008, from http://www.sos.state.or.us/audits/reports/full/2008/200801.pdf State of Tennessee. (n.d.). Ch apter 51 Tennessee education lottery implementation law Retrieved June 27, 2008, from http://www.tnlottery.com/aboutus/media/TEL_Implementation_Law.pdf State of Tennessee, Department of Education. ( n.d.). Lottery for education: Afterschool programs Retrieved June 27, 2008, from http://tennessee.gov/education/learningsupport /afterschool/index.shtml State of Tennessee, Office of Early Learning. (n.d.). Voluntary pre K for Tennessee initiative Retrieved June 27, 2008, from http://www.tennessee.gov/education/prek/index.shtml State of Vermont, Department of Finance and Management. (2007). State of Vermont, comprehensive annual financial report for the fiscal year ending June 30, 200.7 Retrieved June 27, 2008, from http://finance.state.vt.us/Fin%20Publicati ons /2007_cafr.pdf State Lottery Commission of Indiana. (2007). Hoosier Lotterys annual report for fiscal year 200.7 Retrieved June 23, 2008, from http://www.in.gov/hoosierlottery /where_money_goes/HOL_AR2007_Final_web.pdf Stodghill, R. & Nixon, R. (2007, October 7 ). For schools, lottery payoffs fall short of promises Retrieved April 9, 2008, from http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/07/business /07lotto.html?ex=1349755200&en=d0dd2d 9bdfc46817&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink Summers, S. R. (1993). An examination of supplantation and redistribution effects of lottery allocations to a community college system. (Ph.D., University of Florida). Summ ers, S. R., Honeyman, D. S., Wattenbarger, J. L. & Miller, D. M. (1995). An examination of supplantation and redistribution effects of lottery allocations to a community college system. Journal of Education Finance 21(Fall), 236253.

PAGE 97

97 Tennessee Education Lottery Corporation. (2007). Tennessee education lottery annual report 2007. Retrieved June 27, 2008, from http://www.tnlottery.com/aboutus/media /AnnualReport_2007.pdf Tennessee Lottery. (n.d.). The g ames Retrieved June 27, 2008, from http://www.tnlottery.com /thegames/instantgames/default.aspx Texas Lottery Commission. (2006). 2007 2001 strategic plan. Retrieved June 27, 2008, from http://www.txlottery.org/export/sites/default/Documents/2007_2011strategicplan.pdf Texas Lottery Commission. (2007). 2007 annual financial report for the year ended august 31, 2007 and independent auditor's report Retrieved June 27, 2008, from http://www.txlottery.org/export/sites/default/Documents/Gene ral_Purpose_Financial_Re port_2007.pdf Texas Lottery Commission. (2008a ). 10 years = $10 billion for T exas education Retrieved June 27, 2008, from http://www.tx lottery.org/export/sites/default/Supporting_Education/ Texas Lottery Commission. (2008b). Our core values, vision & mission statements Retrieved June 27, 2008, from http://www.txlotte ry.org/export/sites/default/About_Us /Core_Values/ Texas Lottery Commission. (2008c ). Scratch offs Retrieved June 27, 2008, from http://www.txlottery.org/export/sites/default/Games/Scratch_Offs/ Texas Lottery Commission. (2008d). Texas lottery commission milestones Retrieved June 27, 2008, from http://www.txlottery.org/exp ort/sites/default/About_Us/Milestones/ Tosun, M. S. & Skidmore, M. (2004). Interstate competition and state lottery revenues. National Tax Journal 57( 2) p. 16378. Retrieved November 24, 2008, from the Wilson Business database. Vermont Lottery Commission. (2007). Annual report fiscal year 200.7 Retrieved June 27, 2008, from http://www.vtlottery.com/uploads/pdfs/07annual.pdf Vermont Lottery Commission. (2008a ). FAQs Retrieved June 27, 2008, from http://www .vtlottery.com/faqs/faqs.asp Vermont Lottery Commission. (2008b). Instant games Retrieved June 27, 2008, from http://www.vtlottery.com/instantgames/ Vermont Lottery Commission. (2008c ). Mission and history Retrieved June 27, 2008, from http://www.vtlottery.com/about/mission and history.asp Vermont Lottery Commission. (2008d). Profit graph. Retrieved June 27, 2008, from http://www.vtlottery.com/pdf/graphs/profitgraph.pdf

PAGE 98

98 Virginia Lottery. (2007). Virginia lottery fiscal year 2007 annual report Retrieved June 27, 2008, from http://www.valottery.com/money/annual_report_2007.pdf Virginia Lottery. (2008a ). Director's corner Retrieved June 27, 2008, from http://www.valottery.com/director/ Virginia Lottery. (2008b). Scratchers Retrieved June 27, 2008, from http://www.valottery.com/scratchers/new.asp Virginia Lottery. (2008c ). Where money goes Retrieved June 27, 2008, from http://www.valottery.com/money/ Von Herrmann, D. (2002). The big gamble : The politics of lottery and casino expansion. Westport, Conn: Praeger. Walker, D.M. & Jackson, J.D. (2008). Do U.S. gambling industries cannibalize each other? Public Finance Review, 36, 308333. Retrieved August 26, 2009, from the Sage Journals Online database. Washington's Lottery. (2007). Comprehensive annual report for the fiscal year ended June 30, 200.7 Retrieved June 30, 2008, from http://www.walottery.com/sections/Education /Default.aspx?Page=AnnualReports Washington's Lottery. (2008a ). About us Retrieved June 30, 2008, from http://www.walottery .com/sections/AboutUs/ Washington's Lottery. (2008b). FAQ Retrieved June 30, 2008, from http://www.walottery .com/sections/AboutUs/Default.aspx?Page=FAQ Washington's Lotte ry. (2008c ). Initiative measure 728. Retrieved June 30, 2008, from http://www.walottery.com/sections/AboutUs/Default.aspx?Page=Measure728 Washington's Lottery (2008d). Scratch Retrieved June 30, 2008, from http://www .walottery.com/sections/LotteryGames/Scratch.aspx?Page=Numbers Washington's Lottery. (2008e ). Washington's lottery: A history of legislation. Retrieved June 30, 2008, f rom http://www.walottery.com/sections/AboutUs/Default.aspx?Page=History Washington's Lottery. (2008f ). Where the money goes Retrieved June 30, 2008, from http://www.walottery.com/sections/Education/Default.aspx?Page=MoneyGoes Weinstein, D. & Deitch, L. (1974). The impact of legalized gambling: The socioeconomic cons equences of lotteries and off track betting New York: Praeger. West Virginia Lottery. (n.d.). FAQ: Claims and prizes Retrieved June 30, 2008, from http://207.97.205.154/aspx/faq.aspx

PAGE 99

99 West Vi rginia Lottery. (n.d.). FAQ: Games Retrieved June 30, 2008, from http://207.97.205.154/aspx/faq.aspx West Virginia Lottery. (n.d.). FAQ: Sales, profits and proceeds Retrieved June 30, 2008, from http://207.97.205.154/aspx/faq.aspx West Virginia Lottery. (n.d.). Lottery history Retrieved June 30, 2008, from http://207.97.205.154/sections/info.aspx West Virginia Lottery. (2007). Comprehensive annual financial report for the fiscal year ended J une 30, 2007. Retrieved June 30, 2008, from http://207.97.205.154/pdf /WVL2007AR.pdf West Virginia Lottery. (2008). Instants Retrieved June 30, 2008, from http://207.97.205.154/aspx/instantgames/Currentgames.aspx? type=current West Virginia State Budget Office, Department of Revenue. (n.d.) Governor's proposed FY 2009 budget bill: sec. 4. appropriations from lottery net profits Retrieved June 30, 2008, from http://www.wvbudget.gov/budbill/09BB4&5.pdf Whitaker, R. B. (2007). State lotteries and agency costs: Hidden costs to nonparticipants. T hree perspectives on government run lotteries. The American Journal of Economics and Sociology, 66(3), 53312. Retrieved April 17, 2008, from the General BusinessFile ASAP database. Wickline, M. (2008, May 14). Halter: Lottery proposal qualifies: Students signature symbolic 77,468th Retrieved May 23, 2008, from http://www2.arkansasonline.com/news/2008 /may/14/halter lottery proposal qualifies 20080514/ Wisconsin Department of Revenue, Division of Research and Policy. (2002). Farmland preservation credit program and farmland tax relief credit program Retrieved July 1, 2008, from http://www.revenue.wi.gov/ra/frm2002.html Wisconsin Department of Revenue, Division of Research and Policy. (2006). Lottery and gaming tax credit Retrieved July 1, 2008, from http://www.revenue.wi.gov/ra /06ltrycr.pdf Wisconsin Legislative Audit Bureau. (2007). An audit: Wisconsin lottery department of revenue Retrieved July 1, 2008, from http://www.legis.wisconsin.gov/lab/reports/078Full.pdf Wisconsin Lottery. (2008). Instant scratch games Retrieved July 1, 2008, from http://www.wilottery.com/scratchgames/index.asp?vbsDbGridSort_0=GAME_PRICE Wisconsin Lottery. (n.d.). Frequently asked questions Retrieved July 1, 2008, from http://www.wilottery.com/faqs.asp Wisconsin Lottery. (n.d.). Where the money goes Retrieved July 1, 2008, from http://www .wilottery.com/wiswins.asp

PAGE 100

100 XAP Corporation. (n.d.). Georgia's HOPE program Retrieved June 20, 2008, from http://gacollege411.org/FinAid/ScholarshipsAndGrants/HOPEScholarship/default.asp Yancey, G. W. (2002). Fiscal equity change in the Florida community college system during the first five years after the implementation of performance funding (Ed.D., University of Florida). Retrieved October 15, 2010, from the ProQuest Digital Dissertations database. Yandow, A. R. (2008). Message from executive director Retrieved Jun e 20, 2008, from http://www.vtlottery.com/benefits/message from executivedirector.asp Zeiss, T (2003, Winter). Generating new sources of revenue. New Directio ns for Community Colleges 5361.

PAGE 101

101 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Christina Will received her Bachelor of Arts d egree from the University of Delaware. She received her Master of Science d egree in Library and Information Studies from Florida State University. Upon graduating from Florida State University in 1995, she began working as a Public Services Librarian for St. Johns River Community College. In 1998, she was promoted to Campus Librarian, a position she maintained through the completion of this study.