基於國家教育資源合理有效分配之考量，自八十年代起，教育部每年都會為全國私立大專校院編列經費，並訂定經費補助辦法，以協助全國私立大學校院之發展，其中在學務工作方面，更是增列補助經費以推動各校內各項訓輔活動。為了瞭解四年（2003-2006）全國私立大專校院訓輔經費預算編列暨執行管控之變化趨勢，特別針對各校實際負責訓輔經費用之業務承務人員，進行本次調查研究工作。 　　分析結果顯示，近四年來各校諸多年度訓輔經費來源中，教育部訓輔獎補助及學校配合款仍然是最主要的經費來源。學校的年度訓輔工作經費來源中，以教育部訓輔獎輔助款及學校配合款為唯一的經費來源者，有逐年增加的趨勢。對於各校行政單位年度業務運作中是否編有固定所需的「行政費用」，仍然高逾八成的受訪人員表示沒有固定編列。 　　在經費運用的問題上，「不能充分了解使用上的規定」的選項，四年來仍是佔最高比例(30.2%)；包含「校內未落實經費使用之會議討論機制」（12.5%）、「校內未建立完善之訓輔經費使用辦法和夏關規定」（10.4%）、「校內學務單位同仁未能有效執行年度訓輔經費預算」（7.3%）、「校內學務單位和會計單位有待進一步溝通協調」（6.3%）「校內決策高層給予太多經費使用限制」（5.2％%）以及「校內未建立完善訓輔經費管控機制」（2.1%），前述七項常見問題合佔可能出現問題的比例為74%。 　　近四年來各校訓輔補助款經費的使用，屬於「只限學務單位」使用方式者，有明顯增加的趨勢。然而有更多學校沒有設立專門單位（或專派人員）辦理訓輔經費管控工作；且發現更高比例的學校未辦定期檢討訓輔經費的管控工作。此外，本文調查資料亦顯示，仍然有過半的受訪人員表示，對於訓輔經費的使用，學校確實存在「消化預算」的情形。

　　Under the consideration of fair allocation of nation-wide educational resources, the Ministry of Education (MOE), ROC has been preparing the budget for the private colleges in Taiwan annually since 1980’, and has set subsidy regulations in order to sustain the development of these colleges. Along with the more emphasis on student affairs, MOE’s budget of student affairs for private colleges is also getting more and more. The purpose of this study is to explore how private colleges in Taiwan prepare their student affairs budget and how they control the implementation of the budget during 2003-2006, surveying the school members who are actually responsible for the use of the fund. The result showed that among colleges’ annual sources of the student affairs budget, subsidies from MOE and the schools’ match-up outlays had the major proportion. And the proportion that subsidies from MOE and the schools’ match-up outlays were the colleges’ annual only sources of student affairs budget was increasing annually. Approximately 80% surveyed reported that there was no regular “administration fund” prepared in the student affairs departments at school. For the possible problems in student affairs budget preparation and budget implementation control, “can’t sufficiently understand the regulations about how to use fund of student affairs” had the highest proportion (30.2%) annually. The proportions for the rest possible problem items were: 12.5% “schools fail to establish the conference mechanism to discuss how to use the fund of student affairs”, 10.4% ” schools fail to set proper rules and regulations about how to use the fund of student affairs”, 7.3%” student affairs departments fail to implement annual student affairs budget effectively”, 6.3% “the communications between student affairs departments and accounting departments need to be improved”, 5.2%” top management levels set too many regulations about how to use the fund to student affairs”, and 2.1%” schools fail to establish proper control mechanism of student affairs fund.” The proportions that the funds of student affairs were “for student affairs departments’ exclusive use” were significantly increasing. The proportion that there was no specified unit or people at school designed to handle student affairs budget control was getting more, and the same was for the proportion that there was no regular review on student affairs budget control. Besides, over half reported that at their school the “digesting the budget” phenomenon really existed in the implementation of student affairs budget.