Analyzing  University  and  College  Financial  Statements  

How  Faculty  Can  Understand  More  About  University  and  College  Finances  

Rudy  Fichtenbaum  and  Howard  Bunsis    AAUP  Summer  Ins@tute  2014  

1

Two  Main  Goals  

2

Does the University have money?

Are they spending the money the right way?

Ratio Analysis Expense Analysis

What  Financial  Informa@on  Do  You  Need?  

3

Budgets IPEDS: Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System:

4

Economic  and  Poli@cal  

Environment  for  Higher  Educa@on  

Moody’s  Outlook  for  Higher  Educa@on,  in  2014  

5

Negative Outlook The negative outlook for higher education reflects tepid revenue growth combined with growing expenses, resulting in operating margin contraction.

Grapevine  on  Public  Higher  Ed  in  2014  

6

Public Higher Education Still Hasn't Recovered From Recession Budget Cuts

Pressure  on  Tui@on  Revenue  for  Public  and  Private  Universi@es  per  Moody’s  

7

•  Price  pressure  on  private  universi@es  •  Public  and  poli@cal  pressure  on  affordability  •  Limita@ons  on  tui@on  increases  in  some  states  •  Declining  pool  of  gradua@ng  high  school  students  

Versus

Strong demand for higher education

A  College  Educa@on  is  Very  Valuable  

8

10CIC 2014 Presidents Institute January 5, 2014

Underlying Credit Strength: Value of a College Degree

» Demand Remains Solid » No Viable Substitute for a College Degree

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Current Population Survey

$0

$10,000

$20,000

$30,000

$40,000

$50,000

$60,000

$70,000

Less than a highschool diploma

High school graduate,no college

Bachelors degree orhigher

Median Earnings 2007 Median Earnings 2013

Med

ian

earn

ings

($)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

Less than a highschool diploma

High school graduate,no college

Bachelors degree orhigher

Unemployment rate 2007 Unemployment rate 2013

Une

mploymen

t�rate�(%

)

Declines  in  State  Funding  in  the  Public  Sector  

9

More  on  the  Decline  of  State  Funding  

10

U.S. PUBLIC FINANCE

6 NOVEMBER 25, 2013

INDUSTRY OUTLOOK: 2014 OUTLOOK – US HIGHER EDUCATION AND NOT-FOR-PROFITS

EXHIBIT 4 Public Universities Rely Less on State Funding Since Recession % of Public Universities Whose Largest Revenue Source is State Funding

Source: Moody's Municipal Financial Ratio Analysis

Heighted political scrutiny and increased regulatory oversight add uncertainty

The political and regulatory environment for higher education continues to present a number of unique challenges and risks, with many outcomes unknown for 2014.

Policy changes are evolving on both the state and federal levels. At the federal level, the focus is on affordability for higher education and accreditation, which has already led to greater regulatory oversight including heighted accreditation sanctions.9 In the next year, the White House plans to launch a federal college rating system that would allocate Title IV (financial aid) funding based on a university’s ratings for access, affordability and student outcomes. Title IV federal financial aid currently represents a median one-third of operating revenue for Moody’s rated public and private universities. These efforts will pressure net tuition revenue growth, the major source of revenue for the majority of public and private universities.

A significant number of unknowns surround the implementation of the Affordable Care Act, making it difficult for Academic Medical Centers (AMCs) to budget and perform necessary strategic planning.10 Similar to other not-for-profit hospitals, we expect AMC hospitals to increase collaborations or merge with hospitals to gain market share and revenue, which can result in growing exposure to patient care revenue for the university. Throughout the last several years, many university-owned AMC hospitals have contributed positively to the operating margins, research, and donor support for the parent universities. Going forward, AMC hospitals will be challenged by changing reimbursement models and the rise of narrow networks, lower reimbursement rates, a shift to outpatient care and slowed growth of inpatient admissions, the challenge of relatively high Medicaid exposure, and likely tightening of margins. As universities face their own revenue pressures, many AMC hospitals, in particular highly profitable hospitals, as well as faculty practice plans, are facing requests for increased financial transfers to their associated medical schools.

9 “Tighter Regulations Proposed by President Obama Pose Near Term Risks for US Colleges and Universities but Have Long Term Benefits”, February 2013 (150146) 10 “US Academic Medical Centers: Complex, Successful Organizations Driven by Integrated University-Hospital Strategies”, November 2012 (146668)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Est. 2013

Recessionary Periods % most reliant on state funding

Tui@on  Price  Increase  vs.  Other  Metrics,  2003  to  2013  US  News,  10/23/2013  

11

6%# 7%#

23%# 27%#31%#

43%#

80%#

0%#10%#20%#30%#40%#50%#60%#70%#80%#90%#

Women's#Apparel#

Men's#Apparel#

Housing# CPI# Food#&#Beverage#

Medical#Care#

College#TuiHon#

Top  20  Public  University  Tui@on  and  Fees  (2012-­‐13)    Source:  US  Dept.  of  Educa@on,  June  30,  2014    

12

University*of*Pittsburgh $16,590*

Pennsylvania*State*University $16,444*

University*of*New*Hampshire $16,422*

Colorado*School*of*Mines $15,654*

University*of*Vermont $15,284*

St*Mary's*College*of*Maryland $14,773*

New*Jersey*Institute*of*Technology $14,740*

University*of*Illinois*at*UrbanaOChampaign $14,522*

The*College*of*New*Jersey $14,378*

Pennsylvania*College*of*Technology $14,370*

University*of*CaliforniaODavis $13,877*

Virginia*Military*Institute $13,760*

University*of*CaliforniaOSanta*Barbara $13,671*

Temple*University $13,596*

Miami*UniversityOOxford $13,594*

College*of*William*and*Mary $13,570*

University*of*MinnesotaOTwin*Cities $13,459*

University*of*CaliforniaOSanta*Cruz $13,416*

University*of*Massachusetts*Amherst $13,415*

Michigan*Technological*University $13,353*

National Average: $7,407

Top  20  Private  Tui@on  and  Fees,  2012-­‐13  Source:  US  Dept.  of  Educa@on  

13

Landmark(College $49,793(Columbia(University((NY) $47,246(Sarah(Lawrence(College $46,924(Vassar(College $46,270(Wesleyan(University $45,928(George(Washington(University $45,780(Carnegie(Mellon(University $45,760(Trinity(College $45,730(University(of(Chicago $45,609(Bucknell(University $45,378(Tulane(University(of(Louisiana $45,240(Union(College $45,219(Bard(College(at(Simon's(Rock $45,125(Dartmouth(College $45,042(St(John's(College $45,004(St(John's(College $45,004(Williams(College $44,920(Oberlin(College $44,905(Connecticut(College $44,890(Bard(College $44,798(

National Average: $23,698

Top  20  Public  Community  College  Tui@on  and  Fees,  2012-­‐13    Source:  US  Dept.  of  Educa@on  

14

University*of*Pittsburgh2Titusville PA $11,324*Marion*Military*Institute AL $8,570*White*Mountains*Community*College NH $7,664*NHTI2Concord's*Community*College NH $7,360*Nashua*Community*College NH $7,232*Manchester*Community*College NH $7,168*Ohio*State*University*Agricultural*Technical*Institute OH $7,104*Thaddeus*Stevens*College*of*Technology PA $7,030*Great*Bay*Community*College NH $7,008*River*Valley*Community*College NH $7,000*Lakes*Region*Community*College NH $6,962*University*of*South*Carolina2Lancaster SC $6,284*University*of*South*Carolina2Salkehatchie SC $6,284*University*of*South*Carolina2Sumter SC $6,284*University*of*South*Carolina2Union SC $6,284*Lake*Area*Technical*Institute SD $6,155*Texas*State*Technical*College*Harlingen TX $6,120*University*of*Akron*Wayne*College OH $6,116*Minnesota*State*College2Southeast*Technical MN $6,064*Linn*State*Technical*College MO $5,730*

Na@onal  Average  is  $3,023;    Aus@n  CC  is  $2,660  

2013-­‐14  UG  Tui@on  of  Private  Universi@es  at  AAUP  SI  Source:  US  News    

15

$43,577''

$38,754''$38,400''$37,400''$35,820''$34,480''$33,358''$31,902''$30,690''$27,888''

$0''

$5,000''

$10,000''

$15,000''

$20,000''

$25,000''

$30,000''

$35,000''

$40,000''

$45,000''

$50,000''

Fordham'University'

University'of'Scranton'

Ithaca'College'

Hofstra'

Seton'Hall'University'

John'Carroll'University'

University'of'HarFord'

Augsburg'College'

Maryw

ood'University'

Albertus'Magnus'College'

2013-­‐14  UG  Tui@on  of  Public  Universi@es  at  AAUP  SI  Source:  US  News    

16

16496%%%%%15718%%%%%

12450%%%%%

10721%%%%%10240%%%%%9376%%%%%9161%%%%%8706%%%%%8542%%%%%

7726%%%%%7653%%%%%7536%%%%%7327%%%%%6927%%%%%6816%%%%%6388%%%%%6118%%%%%5759%%%%%5110%%%%%

$0%%

$2,000%%

$4,000%%

$6,000%%

$8,000%%

$10,000%%

$12,000%%

$14,000%%

$16,000%%

$18,000%%

U%of%N

ew%Ham

pshire%

Verm

ont%

URI%

Bowlin

g%Green%%

University

%of%C

olorad

o%

Central%Con

n%State%

Eastern%Michigan%

Eastern%Co

nn%State%

Wrig

ht%State%

Georgia%Re

gents%U

niv%

Portland

%State%Univ%

Eastern%Ke

ntucky%Univ%

CSURPue

blo%

Cal%State%East%B

ay%

Indian

a%Univ,%Sou

th%Ben

d%

UNCG

%

Cal%Poly%Po

mon

a%

John

%Jay%Co

llege%

HarrisRStowe%State%Univ%

Higher  Tui@on  has  Led  to  Affordability  Problems  

17

U.S. PUBLIC FINANCE

10 NOVEMBER 25, 2013

INDUSTRY OUTLOOK: 2014 OUTLOOK – US HIGHER EDUCATION AND NOT-FOR-PROFITS

In depth: Public Colleges and Universities

More public universities are expecting declines in tuition revenue for fiscal 2014. Combined with inconsistent state support and growing expense pressures after multiple years of constraint, our outlook for the financial performance of public universities has become increasingly negative though demand remains strong.

For several years, lower sticker prices allowed public universities to increase tuition at extraordinary rates in order to compensate for declining state appropriations.15 While some universities retain pricing power, it can be constrained by either mission-based or political limitations on tuition increases.

As a result, public universities are increasingly competing for out-of-state students, including those from outside of the US, for which the universities can often raise tuition at a greater rate.

The state funding environment is improving, and we do not expect the widespread cuts of recent years to continue. While there is some stabilization, we do not expect significant reinvestment. In many cases funding increases will remain below inflation or in exchange for holding tuition for resident undergraduates stable, resulting in no net revenue increase.

EXHIBIT 6 Public Universities have Become Less Affordable

Source: US Census Bureau; Moody's Municipal Financial Ratio Analysis

In depth: Community Colleges

Community colleges have greater operating flexibility and an adaptable business model that enables them to quickly respond to changing enrollment and local programmatic needs.16 Demand is often driven by local demographics and the economy surrounding a particular community college, although more community colleges are seeking to geographically expand their enrollment as they focus increasingly on serving a transfer student population. Concerns remain about federal financial aid funding and heightened accreditation focus; especially with significantly higher student loan default rates among the community college student population (see Exhibit 7).

15 “Heightened Pressure on Revenue Growth for US Public Universities in FY 2012”, August 2013 (156607) 16 Moody’s Municipal Financial Ratio Analysis

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Est. 2013 Proj. 2014

Median Family Income-to-Public Net Tuition Median Family Income-to-Private Net Tuition

Higher  Tui@on  has  Created  Student  Debt  Problems  

18

NY Federal Reserve: Student loan debt increases to $1.1 trillion (5/13/2014)

19 5

Non-mortgage balances

Student debt is the only kind of household debt that continued to rise through the Great Recession and has now the second largest balance after mortgage debt.

Source: FRBNY Consumer Credit Panel / Equifax

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000HELOC Auto Loan Student Loan Credit Card

Billions of Dollars Billions of Dollars

Federal  Reserve  of  New  York,  April  2014  

20

8

Figure 5: Share of 25 year olds with student debt

There are several explanations for these increases. First, more people are attending

college, adding to the number of borrowers (NCES 2012). Second, students are staying in

college longer and attending graduate school in greater numbers, and loans to finance

graduate study have become more readily available (Gonzales et al., 2013). Third, it has

become cheaper for parents to take out student loans to help finance their children’s  

education (see Finaid.org: http://www.finaid.org/loans/parentloan.phtml; last accessed

2/8/14.). Fourth, the cost of a college education has continued to grow sharply during the

period (College Board, 2013).

0%5%10%15%20%25%30%35%40%45%

Default  is  Also  a  Problem  

21

U.S. PUBLIC FINANCE

11 NOVEMBER 25, 2013

INDUSTRY OUTLOOK: 2014 OUTLOOK – US HIGHER EDUCATION AND NOT-FOR-PROFITS

EXHIBIT 7 Community Colleges Face Growing Default Rates, Significantly Higher than Four-Year Universities

Cohorts begin Sept 1 of the first year and end August 31 of the third year. Ex: "2011-13 is from 9/1/2011 to 8/31/2013 Unemployment rate is as of August in the middle year of the cohort. Ex: "2011-13" is as of August 2012 Source: US Department of Education; US Census Bureau; Moody's Municipal Financial Ratio Analysis

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

14%

16%

18%

2006-08 2007-09 2008-10 2009-11 2010-12 2011-13

Default Rate (Private) Default Rate (Public) Default Rate (Community College) Unemployment Rate

Negative Outlook on For-Profit Higher Education Providers

Moody’s US for-profit post-secondary education sector outlook remains negative due to continued top-line revenue strain, earnings stress and regulatory pressure. Sustained enrollment contraction reflects the negative effects of prolonged high unemployment, public and political scrutiny of rising student loan burdens and more selective admissions standards implemented by some companies to identify students more likely to succeed. Federal initiatives to link financial aid funding to performance metrics, reconsideration of the gainful employment rule, and potential reductions or changes to federal financial aid through federal budgetary decisions or the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act will constrain near-term revenue growth.

An additional area of pressure is the federal government’s focus on community colleges as a low-cost option to expand access to higher education. Since community colleges have historically served a similar demographic as for-profit providers, non-traditional age or first-generation students, potential investment in this sector would free up physical or virtual capacity for online courses and erode for-profit education’s market share. Similar to not-for-profit colleges and universities, the changing delivery model of higher education, including technological advancements, online education and competency-based learning could negatively impact for-profit companies.

State  of  California  Main  Taxes  Over  Time  Source:  Legislature  Analyst’s  Office;  2014  to  2016  are  projec@ons  

22

0""

20""

40""

60""

80""

100""

120""

2007"200

8"200

9"201

0"201

1"201

2"201

3"201

4"201

5"201

6"

Corporate"Tax"

Sales"Tax"

Personal"Income"Tax"

General'Fund 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016Personal'Income'Tax 51.943 54.289 43.700 44.575 49.779 50.000 65.000 66.000 71.400 75.900Sales'Tax 27.445 26.813 23.700 26.741 26.983 19.800 20.500 22.800 23.600 24.900Corporate'Tax 11.158 11.926 12.000 9.500 9.838 8.100 7.700 8.300 8.900 9.500All'Other 5.341 9.621 4.800 6.225 7.692 6.600 2.600 4.700 3.700 3.500Total'Revenues 95.887 102.649 84.200 87.041 94.292 84.500 95.800 101.800 107.600 113.800

State  of  New  Hampshire  Unrestricted  Revenue  Over  Time  General  +  Educa@on  Funds  Source:  Governor’s  Execu@ve  Budget  Summary,  2014-­‐15;  Amounts  in  Millions  

23

1,500%%

1,600%%

1,700%%

1,800%%

1,900%%

2,000%%

2,100%%

2,200%%

2,300%%

2,400%%

2,500%%

2006% 2007% 2008% 2009% 2010% 2011% 2012% 2013% 2014%Est%

2015%Est%

NH  and  US  Unemployment  Rates  Source:  Bureau  of  Labor  Sta@s@cs  

24

0.0%$

2.0%$

4.0%$

6.0%$

8.0%$

10.0%$

12.0%$2000$

2001$

2002$

2003$

2004$

2005$

2006$

2007$

2008$

2009$

2010$

2011$

2012$

2013$

2014$

US$

NH$

US  and  California  Unemployment  Rates,  2007  to  2016  Source:  Legisla@ve  Analyst’s  Office;  2014  to  2016  are  projec@ons  

25

0.0%$

2.0%$

4.0%$

6.0%$

8.0%$

10.0%$

12.0%$

14.0%$

2007$

2008$

2009$

2010$

2011$

2012$

2013$

2014$

2015$

2016$

US$$

CA$

Longer  Term  View  of  Unemployment  Rates,  US  vs.  CA  Sources:  California  LAO  and  US  Bureau  of  Labor  Sta@s@cs  

26

0.0%$

2.0%$

4.0%$

6.0%$

8.0%$

10.0%$

12.0%$

14.0%$1977$

1980$

1983$

1986$

1989$

1992$

1995$

1998$

2001$

2004$

2007$

2010$

2013$

2016$

US$

CA$

State  Appropria@ons:  6-­‐Year  %  Change  (2008  to  2014)  Source:  Grapevine  Report,  2014.      

27

!40%%

!30%%

!20%%

!10%%

0%%

10%%

20%%

30%%

40%%Louisian

a%Arizon

a%Alab

ama%

South%Ca

rolin

a%Nevad

a%Pe

nnsylvan

ia%

MassachuseB

s%New

%Ham

pshire%

Michigan%

New

%Mexico%

Oregon%

Florida%

Rhod

e%Island

%Washington%

Minne

sota%

Kentucky%

Wisconsin%

California%

Colorado

%Idah

o%Ohio%

West%V

irginia%

Mississippi%

Kansas%

Hawaii%

Delaware%

Virginia%

Georgia%

Iowa%

North%Carolina%

Missouri%

Oklah

oma%

Arkansas%

Tenn

essee%

New

%Jersey%

Conn

ecUcut%

Utah%

South%Da

kota%

Maine

%Ve

rmon

t%Texas%

Neb

raska%

New

%York%

Indian

a%Marylan

d%Mon

tana

%Wyoming%

Alaska%

Illinoisb%

North%Dakota%

US Average is -4.4%

28

!5.0%&

0.0%&

5.0%&

10.0%&

15.0%&

20.0%&

25.0%&New

&Ham

pshire&

Conn

ec8cut&

Oregon&

Utah&

Colorado

&Florida&

South&Dakota&

Wyoming&

Marylan

d&Mon

tana

&Idah

o&Haw

aii&

Michigan&

Mississippi&

New

&Mexico&

North&Dakota&

California&

Arizona

&Minne

sota&

Iowa&

Neb

raska&

MassachuseM

s&Geo

rgia&

Kansas&

Ohio&

Wisconsin&

Nevad

a&Tenn

esseeg&

Arkan

sas&

Alaba

ma&

New

&York&

Rho

de&Island

&Texas&

Vermon

t&Virginia&

Illinoise&

Indian

a&Louisian

a&Maine

&New

&Jersey&

Oklah

oma&

Penn

sylvan

ia&

South&Ca

rolin

a&Ke

ntucky&

Washington&

Delaw

are&

Missourif&

Alaska&

West&Virginia&

US  Average  is  Posi@ve  3.6%  

1-­‐Year  Change  in  State  Appropria@on:    2013-­‐14  to  2014-­‐15  per  Grapevine  (July  10,  2014)  

Higher  Ed  Opera@ng  Appropria@on  for  all  CSU  Source:  LAO  and  CSU  Audited  Financial  Statements;  Amounts  in  Millions  

29

0.0##

500.0##

1,000.0##

1,500.0##

2,000.0##

2,500.0##

3,000.0##

2007# 2008# 2009# 2010# 2011# 2012# 2013# 2014## 2015#proj#

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014) 2015)proj2,784.3 2,970.5 2,153.3 2,349.4 2,576.7 1,996.4 2,068.5 2,340.0 2,480.4

Same  Slide,  Different  Scale  

30

1,800.0&&

2,000.0&&

2,200.0&&

2,400.0&&

2,600.0&&

2,800.0&&

3,000.0&&

3,200.0&&

2007& 2008& 2009& 2010& 2011& 2012& 2013& 2014&& 2015&proj&

Higher  Ed  Funding  in  Michigan:  Correc@ons  vs.  Higher  Ed  Source:  Execu@ve  Budget  2015-­‐16;  Amounts  in  Millions  

31

500##700##900##

1,100##1,300##1,500##1,700##1,900##2,100##2,300##2,500##

2008#2009#2010#2011#2012#2013#2014#2015#

Correc1ons#

Higher#Ed#

Main  General  Fund  Revenues  for  All  15  Michigan  Public  Ins@tu@ons  Over  Time  Source:  Higher  Educa@on  Briefing,  House  Fiscal  Agency,  December  2013    

32

Public University General FundRevenue Source History

% o

f Tot

al G

F R

even

ue

0%

25%

50%

75%

FY 1

984

FY 1

985

FY 1

986

FY 1

987

FY 1

988

FY 1

989

FY 1

990

FY 1

991

FY 1

992

FY 1

993

FY 1

994

FY 1

995

FY 1

996

FY 1

997

FY 1

998

FY 1

999

FY 2

000

FY 2

001

FY 2

002

FY 2

003

FY 2

004

FY 2

005

FY 2

006

FY 2

007

FY 2

008

FY 2

009

FY 2

010

FY 2

011

FY 2

012

FY 2

013

FY 2

014

Other

State Appropriations

Student Tuition and Fees

Note: FY 2013-14 amounts are estimates

33House Fiscal Agency: December 2013

Aus@n  Community  College  Source:  2013  Audited  Financial  Statements  

33

�  “During  the  past  five  years,  the  College’s  financial  condi@on  has  been  stable.  The  College  weathered  the  Great  Recession,  state  funding  cuts,  and  extremely  vola@le  enrollments,  while  slightly  increasing  its  unrestricted  net  posi@on  from  $20.7  million  to  $21.7  million  over  that  @me.  This  stability  is  due  to  a  commitment  from  the  Board  and  administra@on  to  sound  financial  planning  and  budget  performance.    

�  While  recently  stable,  State  funding  con@nues  to  be  a  concern.  The  current  funding  rate  is  significantly  less  per  contact  hour  than  the  College  was  receiving  in  2000.  Because  the  State  con@nues  to  confront  various  funding  challenges,  the  future  of  State  funding  for  higher  educa@on  represents  an  ongoing  concern.  “  

34

What  Data  We  Will  be  Using?  Audited  Financial  Statements  and  

Where  to  Find  them  

What  Data  Will  We  Need?  

35

Audited Financial Statements NOT Budgets. Why not?

•  Budgets are Just Plans •  What about those budget

holes? •  What if we can’t get the

statements?

Where  Do  You  Find  The  Data?  

36

�  The  audited  statements  should  be  on  the  university’s  website  �  Finance  Office/department  �  Budget  Office/department  �  Comptroller  �  Put  “financial  statements”  or  “audit”  in  the  search  box  

�  For  a  System  (CT,  CA,  OR,  IL),  you  will  have  to  go  the  system’s  website.    Individual  campus  data  is  some@mes  within  the  System’s  financial  statements  

�  For  Ohio,  the  State  Auditor  General’s  Office  houses  all  the  public  university  financial  statements  

�  Email  Rudy  or  Howard  �  IPEDS  is  free  at  hlp://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/datacenter/  

Where  do  you  find  Financial  Statements?  Private  Ins@tu@ons  

37

�  All  private  ins@tu@ons  have  audited  financial  statements.  The  issue  is  gemng  access  to  them.  

�  Some@mes  shorter  financial  reports  (statements  without  the  notes)  are  on  the  website  

�  IRS  Form  990,  which  is  required  to  be  filed  � www.guidestar.org  �  Free  access  going  back  3  years  �  2012  is  available  for  most  ins@tu@ons  

�  Bond  website:  Electronic  Municipal  Market  Access  

hlp://emma.msrb.org/Home    

Basic  Setup  of  Audited  Financial  Statements  

38

�  Introductory  Sec@on:  Lots  of  pictures  �  Statements  from  the  external  auditor  and/or  State  auditor  –  these  usually  say  that  the  statements  are  “clean”  

�  Management  Discussion  and  Analysis:  This  is  management’s  take  on  what  happened:  �  Summary  of  the  Balance  sheet;  it  is  for  either  2  or  3  years,  and  some@mes  in  smaller  units  (thousands  or  millions  instead  of  all  the  numbers)  

�  2-­‐year  summary  of  revenues  and  expenses  �  Summary  of  capital  assets  and  debt  �  Economic  outlook  

Financial  Statements  Names  

39

40

IPEDS  (Integrated  Postsecondary  Data  Inventory  System  of  the  US  Dept.  of  Educa@on  http://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/datacenter/login.aspx    

IPEDS    (Integrated  Postsecondary  Educa@on  Data  System)  

41

�  Go  to  hlp://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/datacenter/login.aspx  �  Put  your  ins@tu@on’s  name  in  the  Ins@tu@on  Name  box.    If  this  screen  does  not  come  up,  you  can  click  on  Start  Over  (upper  right)  and  then  click  on  Look  up  an  Ins@tu@on  

�  You  will  then  come  to  a  screen  that  has  choices  for  Ins@tu@on  Profile,  Reported  Data,  and  Data  Feedback  Reports  

Data  in  IPEDS:  3  Main  Fields  

42

�  Aqer  you  click  on  “Look  Up  an  Ins@tu@on:  �  1.  Ins@tu@onal  Profile  �  2.  Reported  Data  �  3.  Data  Feedback  Reports  �  You  can  also  do  a  search  for  the  same  variables  at  a  number  of  ins@tu@ons  and  have  the  data  downloaded  to  a  file  

IPEDS  Ins@tu@onal  Profile  

43

�  General  Informa@on  �  Financial  and  Human  Resources  �  Student  Financial  Aid  �  Admissions  �  Enrollment  �  Gradua@on  Rates  �  Awards/Degrees  Conferred    

IPEDS  Reported  Data  Each  field  below  reported  annually,  2001  to  2011  

44

�  Ins@tu@onal  Characteris@cs  �  Fall  Enrollment  �  12-­‐Month  Enrollment  �  Comple@ons  �  Gradua@on  Rates  �  GR  200  (gradua@on  rate  within  200%  of  normal  @me)  �  Student  Financial  Aid  and  Net  Price  

� Finance  �  Human  Resources  

Finance  Field  of  IPEDS  

45

�  Part  A:  Statement  of  Net  Assets  �  Part  B  -­‐  Revenues  and  Other  Addi@ons  �  Part  C  -­‐  Expenses  and  Other  Deduc@ons  

�  Each  expense  broken  down  into  salaries,  benefits,  plant,  deprecia@on,  interest  and  other  

�  Salary  is  “pure”  �  Part  D  -­‐  Summary  of  Changes  In  Net  Assets  �  Part  E  -­‐  Scholarships  and  Fellowships  (including  Pell  grants)  

�  Part  H  -­‐  Details  of  Endowment  Assets  �  Summary:  %  distribu@on  of  revenues  and  expenses  

Human  Resource  Field  of  IPEDS  

46

�  Primarily  instruc@on  �  Instruc@on/research/public  service  �  Primarily  instruc@on  +  Instruc@on/research/public  service  �  Primarily  research  �  Primarily  public  service  �  Primarily  instruc@on  +  Instruc@on/research/public  service  +  Primarily  research  +  

Primarily  public  service  

�  Execu@ve/administra@ve/managerial  �  Other  professionals  (support/service)  �  Technical  and  paraprofessionals  �  Clerical  and  secretarial  �  Skilled  craqs  �  Service/Maintenance  �  Total  full  @me    �  Total  from  prior  year  �  The  above  is  repeated  for  Part-­‐Time  employees  

IPEDS  Data  Feedback  Reports:  8  years  of  data  (2006,  2007,  .  .  2013)  

47

�  Page  2  has  peer  ins@tu@ons  selected  by  IPEDS.    All  the  tables  below  are  reported  vs.  the  median  of  the  peer  group  

�  Figure  1.  Percent  of  all  students  enrolled,  by  race/ethnicity  and  percent  of  students  who  are  women  

�  Figure  2.  Unduplicated  12-­‐month  headcount  of  all  students  and  of  undergraduate  students  (2010-­‐11),  total  FTE  enrollment  (2010-­‐11),  and  full-­‐  and  part-­‐@me  fall  enrollment  (Fall  2011)    

�  Figure  3.  Number  of  degrees  awarded,  by  level:  2010-­‐11  �   Figure  4.  Academic  year  tui@on  and  required  fees  for  full-­‐@me,  first-­‐@me,  

degree/cer@ficate-­‐seeking  undergraduates:  2008-­‐09-­‐-­‐2011-­‐12    �  Figure  5.  Average  net  price  of  alendance  for  full-­‐@me,  first-­‐@me,  degree/

cer@ficate-­‐seeking  undergraduate  students  receiving  grant  or  scholarship  aid:  2008-­‐09-­‐-­‐2010-­‐11    

�  Figure  6.  Percent  of  full-­‐@me,  first-­‐@me  degree/cer@ficate-­‐seeking  undergraduate  students  who  received  grant  or  scholarship  aid  from  the  federal  government,  state/local  government,  or  the  ins@tu@on,  or  loans,  by  type  of  aid:  2010-­‐11    

�  Figure  7.  Average  amounts  of  grant  or  scholarship  aid  from  the  federal  government,  state/local  government,  or  the  ins@tu@on,  or  loans  received,  by  full-­‐@me,  first-­‐@me  degree/cer@ficate-­‐seeking  undergraduate  students,  by  type  of  aid:  2010-­‐11    

 

More  from  IPEDS  Data  Feedback  Reports  

48

�  Figure  8.  Percent  of  all  undergraduates  receiving  aid  by  type  of  aid:    �  Figure  9.  Average  amount  of  aid  received  by  all  undergraduates,  by  

type  of  aid:  2010-­‐11    �  Figure  10.  Gradua@on  rate  and  transfer-­‐out  rate  (2005  cohort);  

gradua@on  rate  cohort  as  a  percent  of  total  entering  students  and  reten@on  rates  of  first-­‐@me  students  (Fall  2011)    

�  Figure  11.  Bachelor's  degree  gradua@on  rates  of  full-­‐@me,  first-­‐@me,  degree/cer@ficate-­‐seeking  undergraduates  within  4  years,  6  years,  and  8  years:  2003  cohort    

�  Figure  12.  Full-­‐@me  equivalent  staff,  by  assigned  posi@on:  Fall  2011    �  Figure  13.  Average  salaries  of  full-­‐@me  instruc@onal  staff  equated  to  

9-­‐month  contracts,  by  academic  rank:  Academic  year  2011-­‐12    �  Figure  14.  Percent  distribu@on  of  core  revenues,  by  source:  Fiscal  

year  2011    �  Figure  15.  Core  expenses  per  FTE  enrollment,  by  func@on:  Fiscal  year  

2011  

IPEDS  Categories  �  The  next  several  slides  reports  the  defini@ons  of  the  different  expense  categories.      

�  Instruc@on  contains  more  than  faculty  salaries,  as  we  will  see  

�  The  main  administra@ve  category  is  ins@tu@onal  support  �  Academic  support  contains  most  of  the  academic  administra@on,  as  well  as  other  student-­‐oriented  costs.  

49

Defini@on  of  Instruc@on  Expense  Per  IPEDS  hlp://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/glossary/  �  A  func@onal  expense  category  that  includes  expenses  of  the  colleges,  

schools,  departments,  and  other  instruc@onal  divisions  of  the  ins@tu@on  and  expenses  for  departmental  research  and  public  service  that  are  not  separately  budgeted.  Includes  general  academic  instruc@on,  occupa@onal  and  voca@onal  instruc@on,  community  educa@on,  preparatory  and  adult  basic  educa@on,  and  regular,  special,  and  extension  sessions.  Also  includes  expenses  for  both  credit  and  non-­‐credit  ac@vi@es.    

�  Excludes  expenses  for  academic  administra@on  where  the  primary  func@on  is  administra@on  (e.g.,  academic  deans).    

�  Informa@on  technology  expenses  related  to  instruc@onal  ac@vi@es  if  the  ins@tu@on  separately  budgets  and  expenses  informa@on  technology  resources  are  included  (otherwise  these  expenses  are  included  in  academic  support).    

�  Ins@tu@ons  include  actual  or  allocated  costs  for  opera@on  and  maintenance  of  plant,  interest,  and  deprecia@on.  

50

Defini@on  of  Research  Expense  Per  IPEDS  �  A  func@onal  expense  category  that  includes  expenses  for  ac@vi@es  specifically  organized  to  produce  research  outcomes  and  commissioned  by  an  agency  either  external  to  the  ins@tu@on  or  separately  budgeted  by  an  organiza@onal  unit  within  the  ins@tu@on.    

�  The  category  includes  ins@tutes  and  research  centers,  and  individual  and  project  research.  This  func@on  does  not  include  non-­‐research  sponsored  programs  (e.g.,  training  programs).    

51

Defini@on  of  Public  Service  Expense  Per  IPEDS  �  A  func@onal  expense  category  that  includes  expenses  for  ac@vi@es  established  primarily  to  provide  non-­‐instruc@onal  services  beneficial  to  individuals  and  groups  external  to  the  ins@tu@on.    

�  Examples  are  conferences,  ins@tutes,  general  advisory  service,  reference  bureaus,  and  similar  services  provided  to  par@cular  sectors  of  the  community.    

�  This  func@on  includes  expenses  for  community  services,  coopera@ve  extension  services,  and  public  broadcas@ng  services.    

�  Also  includes  informa@on  technology  expenses  related  to  the  public  service  ac@vi@es  if  the  ins@tu@on  separately  budgets  and  expenses  informa@on  technology  resources  (otherwise  these  expenses  are  included  in  academic  support).    

52

Defini@on  of  Academic  Support  Expense  Per  IPEDS  �  A  func@onal  expense  category  that  includes  expenses  of  ac@vi@es  and  

services  that  support  the  ins@tu@on's  primary  missions  of  instruc@on,  research,  and  public  service.    

�  It  includes  the  reten@on,  preserva@on,  and  display  of  educa@onal  materials  (for  example,  libraries,  museums,  and  galleries);  organized  ac@vi@es  that  provide  support  services  to  the  academic  func@ons  of  the  ins@tu@on  (such  as  a  demonstra@on  school  associated  with  a  college  of  educa@on  or  veterinary  and  dental  clinics  if  their  primary  purpose  is  to  support  the  instruc@onal  program);  media  such  as  audiovisual  services;  academic  administra@on  (including  academic  deans  but  not  department  chairpersons);  and  formally  organized  and  separately  budgeted  academic  personnel  development  and  course  and  curriculum  development  expenses.    

�  Also  included  are  informa@on  technology  expenses  related  to  academic  support  ac@vi@es;  if  an  ins@tu@on  does  not  separately  budget  and  expense  informa@on  technology  resources,  the  costs  associated  with  the  three  primary  programs  will  be  applied  to  this  func@on  and  the  remainder  to  ins@tu@onal  support.    

�  Ins@tu@ons  include  actual  or  allocated  costs  for  opera@on  and  maintenance  of  plant,  interest,  and  deprecia@on.  

53

Defini@on  of  Student  Services  Expense  Per  IPEDS  �  A  func@onal  expense  category  that  includes  expenses  for  admissions,  registrar  ac@vi@es,  and  ac@vi@es  whose  primary  purpose  is  to  contribute  to  students  emo@onal  and  physical  well  -­‐  being  and  to  their  intellectual,  cultural,  and  social  development  outside  the  context  of  the  formal  instruc@onal  program.    

�  Examples  include  student  ac@vi@es,  cultural  events,  student  newspapers,  intramural  athle@cs,  student  organiza@ons,  supplemental  instruc@on  outside  the  normal  administra@on,  and  student  records.    

�  Intercollegiate  athle@cs  and  student  health  services  may  also  be  included  except  when  operated  as  self  -­‐  suppor@ng  auxiliary  enterprises.    

�  Ins@tu@ons  include  actual  or  allocated  costs  for  opera@on  and  maintenance  of  plant,  interest,  and  deprecia@on.  

54

Defini@on  of  Ins@tu@onal  Support  Expense  Per  IPEDS  �  A  func@onal  expense  category  that  includes  expenses  for  the  day-­‐to-­‐day  opera@onal  support  of  the  ins@tu@on.    

�  Includes  expenses  for  general  administra@ve  services,  central  execu@ve-­‐level  ac@vi@es  concerned  with  management  and  long  range  planning,  legal  and  fiscal  opera@ons,  space  management,  employee  personnel  and  records,  logis@cal  services  such  as  purchasing  and  prin@ng,  and  public  rela@ons  and  development.  

�  Also  includes  informa@on  technology  expenses  related  to  ins@tu@onal  support  ac@vi@es.  If  an  ins@tu@on  does  not  separately  budget  and  expense  informa@on  technology  resources,  the  IT  costs  associated  with  student  services  and  opera@on  and  maintenance  of  plant  will  also  be  applied  to  this  func@on.    

55

56

Basic  Accoun@ng  Constructs  

Fund  Accoun@ng  �  Universi@es  and  colleges  generally  have  five  fund  groups  (see  next  slide)  

�  Funds  use  what  is  called  the  modified  accrual  method  of  accoun@ng,  which  is  in  essence  the  cash  basis.    

�  Government-­‐wide  statements  (GASB  34)  use  the  full  accrual  method  of  accoun@ng  (more  comprehensive  than  the  cash  basis)  

�  The  General  Fund  does  not  include  capital  assets,  long  term  debt,  or  deprecia@on  expense.  

�  Most  audited  financial  statements  do  not  report  the  Fund  Statements,  even  though  the  General  Fund  is  what  the  budget  is  typically  based  on.  

57

Fund  Accoun@ng  Audited Financial Statements

Current Funds

Unrestricted

Education & General

Auxiliaries

Restricted

Sponsored Programs

Restricted Scholarships

Other Restricted Gifts

Loan Fund Endowment Fund

Permanent Endowment

Quasi-Endowment

Plant Funds

Renewal & Replacement

Plant Expenditures

Agency Funds

58

Statement  of  Net  Assets  or  The  Balance  Sheet  

Assets Liabilities & Net Assets

Net Assets

Long-Term Debt

Accounts Payable

Property, Plant & Equipment

Accounts Receivable

Cash & cash equivalents

59

Revenues,  Expenses  &  Changes  in  Net  Assets  

Total Revenues

Total Expenses

Change in Net Assets

60

Cash  Flow  

Cash Flows from Operating Activities

Cash Flows from Non-Capital and Cash Flow from Capital Financing Activities

Cash Flows from Investment Activities

Net Increase (Decrease) in Cash

61

What  is  the  Difference  Between    The  Change  in  Net  Assets  and  Cash  Flows?  

62

The change in net assets = Total Revenues – Total Expenses for the year; Total net assets (some of which are reserves) get built up if the change in net assets is positive, which is true at Whittier

Add back depreciation expense and other non-cash expenses

Add or subtract paper gains on investments

Operating Cash Flows; This includes all cash coming in, less all cash going out for recurring items

63

Balance  Sheet  

Analysis  and  Examples  

University  of  North  Carolina  at  Greensboro  (Summarized)  

64

4 The UNCG Financial Report 2012-2013

Management’sDiscussion andAnalysis

7KH�WRWDO�DVVHWV�RI�WKH�8QLYHUVLW\�LQFUHDVHG�E\�������PLOOLRQ�IRU�WKH�\HDU��������PLOOLRQ�LQFUHDVH�IRU�QRQFXUUHQW�DVVHWV�DQG�D������PLOOLRQ�GHFUHDVH�IRU�FXUUHQW�DVVHWV��DQG�H[FHHGHG����ELOOLRQ�IRU�WKH�¿UVW�WLPH���7KLV�RYHUDOO�LQFUHDVH�ZDV�DWWULEXWDEOH�WR�DQ�LQFUHDVH�RI�������PLOOLRQ�LQ�FDSLWDO�DVVHWV��QHW�RI�DFFXPXODWHG�GHSUHFLDWLRQ��DQ�LQFUHDVH�RI�������PLOOLRQ�LQ�HQGRZPHQW�LQYHVWPHQWV��D�GHFUHDVH�RI�������PLOOLRQ�LQ�QRQFXUUHQW�UHVWULFWHG�FDVK�DQG�FDVK�HTXLYDOHQWV��D�GHFUHDVH�RI������PLOOLRQ�LQ�RWKHU�DVVHWV��DQG�D������PLOOLRQ�LQFUHDVH�LQ�DOO�RWKHU�DVVHWV���7KH�LQFUHDVH�LQ�FDSLWDO�DVVHWV��QHW�RI�DFFXPXODWHG�GHSUHFLDWLRQ��LV�WKH�GLUHFW�UHVXOW�RI�FRPSOHWLRQ�DQG�FDSLWDOL]DWLRQ�RI�WKH�FRPSUHKHQVLYH�UHQRYDWLRQ�RI�WKH�VHYHQ�4XDG�5HVLGHQFH�+DOOV��WKH�FRQWLQXLQJ�FRPSUH-KHQVLYH�'LQLQJ�+DOO�5HQRYDWLRQ�SURMHFW��DQG�WKH�QHDUO\�FRPSOHWHG�6SDUWDQ�9LOODJH�5HVLGHQFH�+DOO�SURMHFW��The increase in endowment investments is due to increases in the value of all types of investments during WKH�¿VFDO�\HDU���7KH�GHFUHDVH�LQ�RWKHU�DVVHWV�LV�GXH�WR�D�ODUJH�GHSRVLW�PDGH�E\�WKH�&DSLWDO�)DFLOLWLHV�)RXQGD-WLRQ�LQ�WKH�SULRU�\HDU�IRU�WKH�SXUFKDVH�RI�UHDO�HVWDWH�ZKLFK�ZDV�¿QDOL]HG�RQ�-XO\������������7KH�LQFUHDVH�LQ�RWKHU�DVVHW�FDWHJRULHV�LV�SULPDULO\�GXH�WR�D�VLJQL¿FDQW�LQFUHDVH�LQ�UHVWULFWHG�VKRUW�WHUP�LQYHVWPHQWV�GXH�WR�LQFUHDVHV�LQ�WKH�YDOXH�RI�LQYHVWPHQWV�QRWHG�HDUOLHU�

7KH�WRWDO�OLDELOLWLHV�RI�WKH�8QLYHUVLW\�LQFUHDVHG�E\�������PLOOLRQ�IRU�WKH�\HDU�������PLOOLRQ�LQFUHDVH�IRU�FXU-UHQW�OLDELOLWLHV�DQG�D�������PLOOLRQ�LQFUHDVH�LQ�QRQFXUUHQW�OLDELOLWLHV����7KLV�RYHUDOO�LQFUHDVH�LQ�WRWDO�OLDELOLWLHV�FRQVLVWV�RI�D�������PLOOLRQ�LQFUHDVH�LQ�ERQGV�SD\DEOH�������PLOOLRQ�QHW�LQFUHDVH�LQ�QRWHV�SD\DEOH��D������PLO-OLRQ�GHFUHDVH�LQ�GHIHUUHG�UHYHQXH��D������PLOOLRQ�LQFUHDVH�LQ�DFFRXQWV�SD\DEOH�DQG�DFFUXHG�OLDELOLWLHV��D������PLOOLRQ�LQFUHDVH�LQ�WKH�FXUUHQW�SRUWLRQ�RI�ERQGV�SD\DEOH��D������PLOOLRQ�LQFUHDVH�LQ�DFFUXHG�YDFDWLRQ�OHDYH��DQG�DQ�LQFUHDVH�RI������PLOOLRQ�LQ�DOO�RWKHU�OLDELOLW\�FDWHJRULHV��ERWK�FXUUHQW�DQG�QRQFXUUHQW���7KH�LQFUHDVH�LQ�ERQGV�SD\DEOH�LV�GXH�WR�WKH�LVVXDQFH�RI�QHZ�ERQGV�IRU�������PLOOLRQ�GXULQJ�WKH�¿VFDO�\HDU��7KH�SURFHHGV�IURP�WKLV�ERQG�VDOH�ZHUH�XVHG�WR�UHWLUH�D�������PLOOLRQ�QRWH�DVVRFLDWHG�ZLWK�WKH�FRQVWUXFWLRQ�RI�WKH�����EHG�-HIIHUVRQ�6XLWHV�5HVLGHQFH�+DOO�DQG�WR�SURYLGH�IXQGLQJ�IRU� WKH�FRQVWUXFWLRQ�DQG�HTXLSSLQJ�RI�D�&DPSXV�3ROLFH�%XLOGLQJ�RQ�WKH�8QLYHUVLW\¶V�FDPSXV���7KH�FRUUHVSRQGLQJ�FKDQJH�LQ�QRWHV�SD\DEOH�LV�GXH�SULPDULO\�WR�WKH�UHWLUHPHQW�RI�WKH�DIRUHPHQWLRQHG�������PLOOLRQ�QRWH��DQ�LQFUHDVH�RI�������PLOOLRQ�LQ�D�OLQH�RI�FUHGLW�ZLWK�6XQ7UXVW�%DQN�ZKLFK�LV�EHLQJ�XVHG�IRU�WKH�FRQVWUXFWLRQ�RI�D�PL[HG�XVHG�YLOODJH��DQG�D������PLOOLRQ�UHGXFWLRQ�LQ�D�OLQH�RI�FUHGLW�ZLWK�31&�%DQN�IRU�ODQG�DFTXLVLWLRQ���7KH�GHFUHDVH�LQ�XQHDUQHG�UHYHQXH�LV�GXH�WR�UHGXFHG�

6/30/126/30/13 As Restated

Assets: Current Assets $ 135,328,652 $ 137,502,112 Noncurrent Capital Assets, Net of Accumulated Depreciation 620,321,811 557,392,385 Other Noncurrent Assets 257,735,619 241,431,797 Total Assets 1,013,386,082 936,326,294

Liabilities: Current Liabilities 29,525,107 28,601,181 Noncurrent Liabilities 301,250,487 265,760,073 Total Liabilities 330,775,594 294,361,254

Net Position: Net Investment in Capital Assets 363,312,541 353,341,164 Restricted - Nonexpendable 123,082,199 113,703,826 Restricted - Expendable 111,022,683 99,284,725 Unrestricted 85,193,065 75,635,325 Total Net Position $ 682,610,488 $ 641,965,040

Condensed Statement of Net Position

Seton  Hall  Balance  Sheet  

65

SETON HALL UNIVERSITY

Statements of Financial Position As of June 30, 2013 and 2012 (Dollars in thousands)

The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements. 3

Assets 2013 2012

Cash and cash equivalents 48,599$ 38,535$ Student accounts receivable, net (Note 3) 4,157 4,108 Contributions receivable, net (Note 6) 5,552 7,930 Prepaid expenses and other assets, net (Note 10) 6,104 6,272 Student loans receivable, net (Note 3) 14,033 13,657 Deposits with bond trustees (Note 10) 2,999 2,975 Investments (Note 4) 252,969 235,856 Funds held in trust by others (Notes 4 and 5) 8,115 7,441 Property and equipment, net (Notes 2, 7 and 10) 222,987 210,495

Total assets 565,515$ 527,269$

Liabilities and Net Assets

LiabilitiesAccounts payable and accrued expenses 42,491$ 35,446$ Deferred revenue and deposits 11,788 7,615 Conditional asset retirement obligations (Note 2) 7,819 8,039 Accrued postretirement benefit liability (Note 9) 960 976 Refundable U.S. government grants (Note 3) 13,311 13,036 Interest rate swap agreements (Note 10) 6,945 10,485 Bonds payable (Note 10) 106,231 114,594

Total liabilities 189,545 190,191

Commitments and contingencies (Notes 4, 8 and 17)

Net Assets (Notes 5 and 11)Unrestricted 227,153 197,217 Temporarily restricted 67,829 61,777 Permanently restricted 80,988 78,084

Total net assets 375,970 337,078

Total liabilities and net assets 565,515$ 527,269$

Rutgers  Balance  Sheet  Source:  Audited  Financial  Statements;  Amounts  in  Millions  

66

0.0##

500.0##

1,000.0##

1,500.0##

2,000.0##

2,500.0##

3,000.0##

3,500.0##

4,000.0##

4,500.0##

2008#

2009#

2010#

2011#

2012#

2013#

Total#Assets#

Total#Liabili7es#

Net#Assets#

Rutgers  Asset  Breakdown    (Does  not  include  the  $100  million  Rutgers  Founda@on)  Source:  Audited  Financial  Statements;  Amounts  in  Millions  

67

0.0##

500.0##

1,000.0##

1,500.0##

2,000.0##

2,500.0##

3,000.0##

3,500.0##

4,000.0##

4,500.0##

2008# 2013#

All#Other#Assets#

Capital#Assets#

Receivables#

Cash#and#Investments#

Hofstra  Balance  Sheet  Breakdown,  2013  Total  Assets  =  $923  Million  Source:  Audited  Financial  Statements  

68

39%$

24%$

28%$

9%$Endowment$

Other$Investments/Cash$

Capital$Assets$

Other$Assets$

69

What  are  Reserves?  

Analysis  and  Examples  

Reserves  in  the  Public  Sector  

70

Total Net Assets

= Invested in Capital Assets

+ Restricted Net Assets

+ Unrestricted Net Assets

Expendable Non-expendable

Reserves or Expendable Net Assets

= Restricted Expendable

+ Unrestricted Net Assets

Reserves  in  the  Private  Sector  

71

Total Net Assets

= Permanently Restricted

+ Temporarily Restricted Net Assets

+ Unrestricted Net Assets

Independent of Property and equipment

Related to property and equipment

Reserves or Expendable Net Assets

= Temporarily Restricted Expendable

+ Unrestricted independent of property and equipment

Expendable Non-expendable

University  of  Rhode  Island,  2013  

72

(Restated)2013 2012 2013 2012

University of University of Component ComponentRhode Island Rhode Island units units

Current Assets:Cash and equivalents (Note 3) 117,387,866$ 98,596,561$ 6,030,461$ 7,128,675$ Cash held by State Treasurer (Note 4) 737,688 5,579,779 - - Accounts receivable, net (Note 5) 29,261,333 29,703,938 9,965 22,597 Due from primary government 6,198,142 4,221,325 - - Current portion of pledges receivable - - 869,300 967,527 Current portion of notes receivable - - 153,960 246,381 Inventory and other current assets 3,977,265 3,266,410 97,029 242,171

Total Current Assets 157,562,294 141,368,013 7,160,715 8,607,351

Noncurrent Assets:Cash and equivalents – restricted (Note 3) 744,625 221,918 - - Funds on deposit with bond trustee 27,193,768 42,810,927 - - Investments (Note 3) - - 129,805,415 118,981,208 Pledges receivable, net of current portion - - 1,900,491 2,227,073 Loans receivable, net (Note 6) 13,752,200 13,658,092 - - Charitable remainder trusts - - 606,315 460,356 Other deferred assets (Note 7) 10,462,837 8,829,555 - - Capital assets, net of accumulated depreciation (Note 7) 584,798,399 564,331,422 1,736,416 1,817,791

Total Noncurrent Assets 636,951,829 629,851,914 134,048,637 123,486,428

Total Assets 794,514,123$ 771,219,927$ 141,209,352$ 132,093,779$

Current Liabilities:Accounts payable and accrued liabilities (Note 8) 36,432,347$ 36,628,463$ 2,706,601$ 2,100,049$ Compensated absences (Note 9) 765,288 1,084,863 - - Funds held for others 1,668,840 1,204,328 - - Unearned revenue 16,379,486 15,595,273 9,037 14,551 Current portion of due to primary government (Note 9) 1,600,000 1,495,000 - - Current portion of capital lease obligations (Note 9) 954,864 1,049,647 - - Current portion of bonds and loans payable (Note 9) 9,231,114 8,103,233 - - Current portion of gift annuity payable - - 120,000 155,750

Total Current Liabilities 67,031,939 65,160,807 2,835,638 2,270,350

Noncurrent Liabilities:Compensated absences (Note 9) 17,789,002 18,370,374 - - Capital lease obligations (Note 9) 6,565,000 7,519,864 - - Due to primary government (Note 9) 17,305,000 18,905,000 - - Bonds and loans payable (Note 9) 234,669,304 241,188,212 - - Gift annuity payable - - 608,645 622,917 Grant refundable (Note 6) 12,206,329 12,095,980 - -

Total Noncurrent Liabilities 288,534,635 298,079,430 608,645 622,917

Total Liabilities 355,566,574 363,240,237 3,444,283 2,893,267

Net Position:Net Investment in Capital Assets 349,706,938 334,889,079 1,736,416 1,817,791 Restricted: Expendable (Note 10) 3,232,925 3,777,057 51,884,578 37,492,476 Nonexpendable - - 74,527,549 81,649,955 Unrestricted (Note 11) 86,007,686 69,313,554 9,616,526 8,240,290

Total Net Position 438,947,549$ 407,979,690$ 137,765,069$ 129,200,512$

See accompanying notes to the financial statements.

Liabilities and Net Position

Assets

UNIVERSITY OF RHODE ISLAND(a Component Unit of the State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations)

Statements of Net Position

June 30, 2013 and 2012

- 25 -

UNIVERSITY OF RHODE ISLAND (a Component Unit of the State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations)

Management’s Discussion and Analysis (Unaudited) - Continued

June 30, 2013 and 2012

- 6 -

Financial Highlights - Continued The following chart displays the components of the University’s net assets for the fiscal years ended June 30, 2013, 2012, and 2011.

On June 30, 2013, 2012, and 2011, the University’s total assets of $794.51 million, $771.22 million, and $726.73 million, exceeded its total liabilities of $355.57 million, $363.24 million, and $359.43 million resulting in net position of $438.94 million, $407.98 million and $367.30 million, respectively. The resulting net position is summarized in the following categories (dollars in millions):

349.71

3.23

86.00

334.89

3.78

69.31

297.32

4.05

65.93

-

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

Net Investment in Capital Assets Restricted expendable Unrestricted

Net Position(Dollars in millions)

2013

2012

2011

`

(Restated) (Restated)2013 2012 2011

Net Investment in Capital Assets $ 349.71 334.89 297.32 Restricted expendable 3.23 3.78 4.05 Unrestricted 86.00 69.31 65.93 Total net position $ 438.94 407.98 367.30

(Restated)2013 2012 2013 2012

University of University of Component ComponentRhode Island Rhode Island units units

Current Assets:Cash and equivalents (Note 3) 117,387,866$ 98,596,561$ 6,030,461$ 7,128,675$ Cash held by State Treasurer (Note 4) 737,688 5,579,779 - - Accounts receivable, net (Note 5) 29,261,333 29,703,938 9,965 22,597 Due from primary government 6,198,142 4,221,325 - - Current portion of pledges receivable - - 869,300 967,527 Current portion of notes receivable - - 153,960 246,381 Inventory and other current assets 3,977,265 3,266,410 97,029 242,171

Total Current Assets 157,562,294 141,368,013 7,160,715 8,607,351

Noncurrent Assets:Cash and equivalents – restricted (Note 3) 744,625 221,918 - - Funds on deposit with bond trustee 27,193,768 42,810,927 - - Investments (Note 3) - - 129,805,415 118,981,208 Pledges receivable, net of current portion - - 1,900,491 2,227,073 Loans receivable, net (Note 6) 13,752,200 13,658,092 - - Charitable remainder trusts - - 606,315 460,356 Other deferred assets (Note 7) 10,462,837 8,829,555 - - Capital assets, net of accumulated depreciation (Note 7) 584,798,399 564,331,422 1,736,416 1,817,791

Total Noncurrent Assets 636,951,829 629,851,914 134,048,637 123,486,428

Total Assets 794,514,123$ 771,219,927$ 141,209,352$ 132,093,779$

Current Liabilities:Accounts payable and accrued liabilities (Note 8) 36,432,347$ 36,628,463$ 2,706,601$ 2,100,049$ Compensated absences (Note 9) 765,288 1,084,863 - - Funds held for others 1,668,840 1,204,328 - - Unearned revenue 16,379,486 15,595,273 9,037 14,551 Current portion of due to primary government (Note 9) 1,600,000 1,495,000 - - Current portion of capital lease obligations (Note 9) 954,864 1,049,647 - - Current portion of bonds and loans payable (Note 9) 9,231,114 8,103,233 - - Current portion of gift annuity payable - - 120,000 155,750

Total Current Liabilities 67,031,939 65,160,807 2,835,638 2,270,350

Noncurrent Liabilities:Compensated absences (Note 9) 17,789,002 18,370,374 - - Capital lease obligations (Note 9) 6,565,000 7,519,864 - - Due to primary government (Note 9) 17,305,000 18,905,000 - - Bonds and loans payable (Note 9) 234,669,304 241,188,212 - - Gift annuity payable - - 608,645 622,917 Grant refundable (Note 6) 12,206,329 12,095,980 - -

Total Noncurrent Liabilities 288,534,635 298,079,430 608,645 622,917

Total Liabilities 355,566,574 363,240,237 3,444,283 2,893,267

Net Position:Net Investment in Capital Assets 349,706,938 334,889,079 1,736,416 1,817,791 Restricted: Expendable (Note 10) 3,232,925 3,777,057 51,884,578 37,492,476 Nonexpendable - - 74,527,549 81,649,955 Unrestricted (Note 11) 86,007,686 69,313,554 9,616,526 8,240,290

Total Net Position 438,947,549$ 407,979,690$ 137,765,069$ 129,200,512$

See accompanying notes to the financial statements.

Liabilities and Net Position

Assets

UNIVERSITY OF RHODE ISLAND(a Component Unit of the State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations)

Statements of Net Position

June 30, 2013 and 2012

- 25 -

SJSU  Net  Asset  Detail  Source:  CSU  Audited  Financial  Statements  

73

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013Total,Assets 584,365,806 602,644,350 591,104,564 624,338,290 663,315,000 642,760,000Total,Liabilities 346,222,987 392,721,208 349,350,983 376,456,613 428,385,000 423,890,000

Total,Net,Assets 238,142,819 209,923,142 241,753,581 247,881,677 234,930,000 218,870,000

Components,of,Net,Assets 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013Invested,in,Capital, 150,298,342 139,907,698 127,098,941 111,153,512 99,836,000 128,747,000Nonexpendable 2,759,780 2,648,163 2,482,209 1,876,977 1,813,000 1,586,000

Expendable 14,713,425 11,259,780 11,780,749 9,267,025 10,384,000 7,952,000

Unrestricted 70,371,272 56,107,831 100,391,682 125,584,163 122,897,000 80,585,000

Total,Net,Assets 238,142,819 209,923,472 241,753,581 247,881,677 234,930,000 218,870,000

•  The first two categories of net assets do not tell us anything about the financial health or flexibility of SJSU

•  The latter two categories – expendable and unrestricted, tell us something, as they are the two components of reserves

SJSU  Reserves  Source:  CSU  Audited  financial  Statements  

74

0""20,000,000""40,000,000""60,000,000""80,000,000""100,000,000""120,000,000""140,000,000""160,000,000""

2008"2009"2010"2011"2012"2013"

Restricted"Expendable"

Unrestricted""

Furloughs

Tuition discounting

State Hit

Private  University  Example  of  Reserves:  Whimer  College  

75

Source: Audited financial statements

Not all of the unrestricted are true reserves – we have to take out the part devoted to the buildings. How much of the $179 million are true reserves? See the next slide

In#Millions 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013Unrestricted 79.8 52.1 56.1 69.5 75.8 94.0Temporarily#Restricted 9.4 10.0 14.5 18.6 15.0 18.5Permanently#Restricted 59.1 58.2 60.6 63.3 65.0 66.6Total#Net#Assets 148.3 120.3 131.2 151.4 155.9 179.0

Further  Analysis  of  Reserves  -­‐  Whimer  

76

We now need to put these reserves in context; how large is $62.8 million? We will compare to expenses and debt

In#Millions 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013Unrestricted 79.8 52.1 56.1 69.5 75.8 94.0Take#Out#Invested#in#Plant 36.3 42.7 43.8 45.3 49.7 49.7True#Unrestricted#Reserves 43.5 9.4 12.4 24.2 26.1 44.3Temporarily#Restricted 9.4 10.0 14.5 18.6 15.0 18.5Total#Reserves 52.9 19.3 26.9 42.8 41.1 62.8

Size  of  Reserves  Rela@ve  To:  Opera@ng  Expenses  and  Debt  at  Whimer  

77

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Reserves 52.9 19.3 26.9 42.8 41.1 62.8

Operating7Expenses 57.7 61.0 61.2 64.2 67.4 70.2

Primary7Reserve7Ratio 92% 32% 44% 67% 61% 89%

2011 2012 2013 2011 2012 2013

Reserves 52.9 19.3 26.9 42.8 41.1 62.8

Debt 59.3 58.3 55.4 54.5 53.4 52.4

Viability7Ratio 89% 33% 48% 79% 77% 120%

Summary  of  Ra@os  

78

Primary  Reserve  Ra@o  in  Context  

79

0%#10%#20%#30%#40%#50%#60%#70%#80%#90%#100%#

2008# 2009# 2010# 2011# 2012# 2013#

Whi0er#

Excellent#

Very#Good#

Good#

Solid#

ok#

QuesConable#

Trouble#

Viability  Ra@o  in  Context  

80

0%#

50%#

100%#

150%#

200%#

250%#

2008# 2009# 2010# 2011# 2012# 2013#

Whi-er#

Excellent#

Very#Good#

Good#

Solid#

ok#

Ques@onable#

Trouble#

81

Revenue  Analysis  and    Examples  

Revenue  Sources,  Per  Moody’s  (2013)  

82 12CIC 2014 Presidents Institute January 5, 2014

Majority of Sector is Tuition Dependent, Even PublicsAverage Revenue Contributions, FY 2013

Source: Moody's MFRA

Note: Other represents patient care revenue, tax revenue, and all other sources of revenue.

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Public Universities

Private Universities

Tuition and Auxiliaries Investment Income Gifts Grants and Contracts Government Appropriations Other

Main  CSU-­‐San  Marcos  Revenues  Over  Time  Source:  CSU  Audited  Financial  Statements  

83

0""

10,000,000""

20,000,000""

30,000,000""

40,000,000""

50,000,000""

60,000,000""

70,000,000""

80,000,000""

2008"

2009"

2010"

2011"

2012"

2013"

TUITION"+"FEES""

STATE"APPROPRIATION"

ALL"GRANTS"AND"CONTRACTS"

In  the  Private  Sector,  Reliance  on  Tui@on  

84

70%$ 67%$ 63%$72%$ 66%$

60%$73%$ 68%$

58%$

22%$ 25%$ 27%$ 13%$19%$

26%$10%$

10%$

10%$

0%$

10%$

20%$

30%$

40%$

50%$

60%$

70%$

80%$

90%$

100%$

Scranton$

Rider$

Ithaca$

Augsburg$

Maryw

ood$

HarCord$

Seton$Hall$

Hofstra$

John$Carroll$

Auxiliaries$

TuiJon$and$Fees$

Contra  County  District  Revenue  Distribu@on  

85

Rider  University  Discoun@ng  

86

Dollars'in'Thousands 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Gross'Tuition'and'Fees 124,389 134,070 143,772 147,182 150,789 156,420

Studet'Aid 35,994 40,838 44,550 47,171 49,125 52,839

Net'Tuition'and'Fees 88,395 93,232 99,222 100,011 101,664 103,581

Discount'Rate 28.9% 30.5% 31.0% 32.0% 32.6% 33.8%

87

Expense  Analysis  and    Examples  

SJSU  2013  Expense  Distribu@on  Source:  CSU  Audited  Financial  Statements  

88

38%$

9%$13%$

9%$

8%$

8%$

5%$

6%$4%$

Instruc1on$

Academic$Support$

Student$Services$

Ins1tu1onal$Support$

Plant$

Scholarships$

Auxiliaries$

Deprecia1on$

Interest$

SJSU  Expense  Distribu@on  in  Percentages  Source:  CSU  Audited  Financial  Statements  

89

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Instruction 40.5% 39.9% 38.5% 38.3% 39.5% 37.9%

Public8Service 0.3% 0.3% 0.4% 0.3% 0.4% 0.4%

Academic8Support 8.7% 8.6% 8.4% 7.5% 7.4% 8.8%

Student8Services 11.2% 11.2% 11.3% 11.7% 12.0% 12.9%

Institutional8Support 8.7% 7.7% 7.8% 8.6% 7.4% 8.8%

Plant 10.8% 11.1% 9.9% 10.1% 11.0% 7.8%

Scholarships 5.6% 6.1% 7.9% 9.0% 8.3% 8.5%

Auxiliaries 4.6% 5.5% 4.9% 4.2% 4.8% 5.4%

Depreciation 6.3% 6.3% 7.3% 7.0% 6.8% 6.0%

Interest 3.3% 3.2% 3.5% 3.2% 2.5% 3.6%

Total8Expenses 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

90

Cash  Flow  Analysis  and    Examples  

91

The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements.

13

UNIVERSITY OF CONNECTICUT HEALTH CENTER STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS

For the Years Ended June 30, 2013 and 2012 2013 2012

($ in thousands)Cash flows from operating activities:

Cash received from patients and third-party payors $ 418,557 $ 426,761 Cash received from tuition and fees 13,770 13,718 Cash received from grants, contracts and other revenue 158,799 143,438 Cash paid to employees for personal services and fringe benefits (454,175) (435,051) Cash paid for other than personal services (261,942) (247,981)

Net cash used in operating activities (124,991) (99,115)

Cash flows from investing activities:

Net change in malpractice, advances and bond trust funds (578) 727 Interest received 118 101

Net cash (used)/provided by investing activities (460) 828

Cash flows from noncapital financing activities:State appropriations 122,309 109,670 Gifts 7,658 7,435

Net cash provided by noncapital financing activities 129,967 117,105

Cash flows from capital and related financing activities:Additions to property and equipment (108,946) (52,726) Transfer from/(to) State and outside programs — 1,312 Capital appropriations 44,488 21,055 Interest paid (1,072) (1,095) Net repayment, proceeds from long-term debt 22,862 (2,261)

Net cash used in capital and related financing activities (42,668) (33,715)

Net (decrease) in cash and cash equivalents (38,152) (14,897)

Cash and cash equivalents at beginning of year 84,788 99,685

Cash and cash equivalents at end of year $ 46,636 $ 84,788

WMU  Opera@ng  Cash  Flows  Source:  WMU  Audited  Financial  Statements:  Amounts  in  Millions  

92

0.0##5.0##10.0##15.0##20.0##25.0##30.0##35.0##40.0##45.0##50.0##

2006# 2007# 2008# 2009# 2010# 2011# 2012# 2013#

•  Operating cash flows = all cash inflows less all cash outflows

•  WMU generated $35M of operating or excess cash flows in 2013

Revenue  vs.  Expenses  and  Cash  Flows  at  Emerson  Source:  Audited  Financial  Statements  

93

In#Millions 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013Total#Operating#Revenues 117.5 123.8 128.7 138.2 145.8 154.2Total#Operating#Expenses 105.1 110.3 111.4 135.7 138.0 145.4Operating#Income 12.3 13.5 17.3 2.5 7.8 8.8NonCoperating#Items (1.0) (10.3) 4.5 11.8 (0.6) 10.6Change#in#Net#Assets 11.3 3.2 21.8 14.3 7.2 19.4Net#Asset#Ratio#(Change#in#Net#Assets#/#Total#Revenues) 9.6% 2.6% 17.0% 10.4% 4.9% 12.6%

In#Millions 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013Operating#Cash#Flows 38.7 25.5 28.5 21.9 26.3 33.4Total#Revenues 117.5 123.8 128.7 138.2 145.8 154.2Cash#Flow#Ratio 33.0% 20.6% 22.1% 15.9% 18.0% 21.7%

The cash flow ratio is off the charts high

94

Ra@o  Analysis  and    Examples  

Moody’s  Ra@o  Analysis  �  Moody’s  uses  three  ra@os  to  judge  the  financial  condi@on  of  public  universi@es.    Then  a  composite  score  is  compiled  based  on  these  3  ra@os:  

�  Primary  Reserve  Ra@o  =  Reserves/Expenses  �  Viability  Ra@o  =  Reserves/Debt  �  Net  Income  Ra@o=  (Revenues  –  Expenses)  /  Revenues  �  Final  Score  =    

50%  *  Primary  Reserve  Ra@o  +    30%  *  Viability  Ra@o  +    20%  *  Net  Income  Ra@o  

 

95

Moody’s  Summary  Scores  

96

•  5.0 is a perfect score •  To be in financial exigency, the score has to be below

1.75 for two consecutive years

8 Universities with Aaa Moody’s Bond Ratings

97

Moody’s  Ra@ngs  of  Ins@tu@ons  at  SI  

98

AAA AA1 AA2 AA3 A1 A2 A3 Baa1 Baa2 Baa3 14(more

University(

of(Colorado

U(of(New(

Hampshire

Bowling(

Green(

Fordham(

University Hofstra

Univ(of(

Hartford NONE

California(

State(Univ(

System Vermont

Connecticut(

State(Univ(

System

Ithaca(

College Seton(Hall(

Augsburg(

College

John(Jay(

College(

(CUNY) URI

Eastern(

Michigan

Georgia(

Regents(

Univ John(Carroll

Colorado(

Comm(College(

System

Wright(

State

CSUOPueblo

Portland(

State(Univ

UNCG

Eastern(

Kentucky(

Univ

Fichtenbaum-­‐Bunsis  Ra@os  

99

•  A perfect score is 5.0 •  To be in financial exigency, there needs to be two

consecutive years below 1.75 •  First three ratios are the same as Moody’s •  Cash Flow Ratio = Operating Cash Flows / Total Revenues

Fichtenbaum-­‐Bunsis  Ra@o  Scores  

100

Summary  of  Ra@os  

101

Are  Revenues  Exceeding  Expenses?  Net  Asset  Ra@o  at  USNH  

102

In#Millions 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013Recurring#Revenues 679 714 748 790 788 795Recurring#Expenses 659 688 706 763 761 746Operating#Income 20 26 42 27 27 49Other#Changes 16 (35) 55 86 13 63Change#in#Net#Assets 36 (9) 97 113 40 112Net#Asset#Ratio 5.3% I1.3% 13.0% 14.3% 5.1% 14.1%

!5.0%&

0.0%&

5.0%&

10.0%&

15.0%&

2008& 2009& 2010& 2011& 2012& 2013&

USNH&

Excellent&

Very&Good&

Good&

Solid&

ok&

QuesBonable&

Trouble&

USNH  Cash  Flows  

103

In#Millions 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013Operating#Cash#Flows 56 66 58 86 79 91Total#Revenues 679 714 748 790 788 795Cash#Flow#Ratio 8.2% 9.2% 7.8% 10.9% 10.0% 11.4%

!2.0%&

0.0%&

2.0%&

4.0%&

6.0%&

8.0%&

10.0%&

12.0%&

2008& 2009& 2010& 2011& 2012& 2013&

USNH&

Excellent&

Very&Good&

Good&

Solid&

ok&

QuesConable&

Trouble&

Emerson  Ra@o  Scores  

104

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013Viability.Ratio 77% 2% 43% 50% 62% 56%Primary.Reserve.Ratio 84% 2% 82% 77% 115% 96%Cash.Flow.Ratio 33.0% 20.6% 22.1% 15.9% 18.0% 21.7%Net.Asset.Ratio 9.6% 2.6% 17.0% 10.4% 4.9% 12.6%

Viability.Score 2.94 0.56 1.92 2.17 2.54 2.36Primary.Reserve.Score 5.00 1.28 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00Cash.Flow.Score 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00Net.Asset.Score 5.00 3.29 5.00 5.00 4.47 5.00

FichtenbaumGBunsis.Composite.Score 4.54 2.11 4.31 4.36 4.38 4.41

Emerson  Ra@o  Scores  in  Context  

105

0.00#0.50#1.00#1.50#2.00#2.50#3.00#3.50#4.00#4.50#5.00#

2008# 2009# 2010# 2011# 2012# 2013#

Perfect#

Emerson#

Trouble#

106

IPEDS  Data:  •  Instruc@on  Expense  Detail  •  Percent  devoted  to  

instruc@onal  salaries  •  Salary  Component  of  Expenses  •  Full  @me  and  Part  @me  faculty  •  Enrollment  and  Tui@on  

Instruc@onal  Costs  in  Detail  per  IPEDS  –  San  Marcos  Integrated  Postsecondary  Educa@on  Data  System  of  the  US  Dept.  of  Educa@on  

107

•  IPEDS only has data available through 2012 •  The instruction category should only includes those who actually teach classes •  A lot more goes into instruction than salaries and benefits. •  The “other” category may include consultant costs; it also may include IT costs,

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012Salaries 28,555,015 28,574,793 27,013,086 31,565,112 34,614,958Fringe6Benefits 9,439,288 10,012,438 9,460,293 11,356,033 12,787,732Plant 5,331,070 4,892,329 5,142,209 6,963,445 7,205,198Depreciation 4,654,160 4,664,375 5,136,340 6,093,643 5,972,315Interest 0 715,928 1,064,756 1,914,064 1,838,660Other 3,517,580 3,761,324 2,471,523 5,149,839 4,183,644Total6Instruction6Costs 51,497,113 52,621,187 50,288,207 63,042,136 66,602,507

Instruc@onal  Salaries  and  Benefits  Compared  to  Total  Expenses  per  IPEDS  –  Western  Michigan  

108

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Instruction/Salaries/and/Benefits 131.2 138.5 140.3 144.7 142.9

Total/Operating/Expenses476.9 491.7 494.8 506.7 522.4

Instruction/Salaries/&/Benefits/as/%/of/Total/WMU//Expenses 27.5% 28.2% 28.4% 28.6% 27.4%

Barely more than 1 of every 4 dollars goes to the core instructional mission; lowest % is in 2012

Percentage  Changes  in  Main  Expenses:  Salary  Component  Only  of  IPEDS  –  Western  Mich.  

109

37.2%&

16.5%&14.4%& 12.6%& 10.7%& 10.1%& 9.5%&

-3.8%&

-5.0%&

0.0%&

5.0%&

10.0%&

15.0%&

20.0%&

25.0%&

30.0%&

35.0%&

40.0%&

Public&service&

Academic&support&

Student&services&

InsCtuConal&support&

Auxiliaries&

Plant&

InstrucCon&

Research&

The top four categories are mostly administrative functions

New  Brunswick:  Percent  Change  in  Employees,    2008  to  2013  per  IPEDS  

110

154%%

30%%17%% 16%%

9%% +4%%

+20%%

0%%

20%%

40%%

60%%

80%%

100%%

120%%

140%%

160%%

180%%

Full%Time%Non%Tenure%Track%

Part%Time%Instructors%

Research% Enrollment% Non+InstrucCon%Full%Time%

Tenure/Tenure%Track%

How has Rutgers dealt with the large 16% increase in enrollment? •  The full time NTT increased from 126 to 320, 154% •  Part time increased from 864 to 1,127, an increase of 263,

or 30% •  Tenure and tenure track faculty declined by 64, or 4%.

Shiq  in  Employment,  2000  to  2012,  Public  Source:  Delta  Project,  February  2014  (using  IPEDS  data)  

111

Shiq  in  Employment,  2000  to  2012,  Public  Source:  Delta  Project,  February  2014  (using  IPEDS  data)  

112

Shiq  in  Employment,  2000  to  2012,  Private  Source:  Delta  Project,  February  2014  (using  IPEDS  data)  

113

Full  and  Part  Time  Faculty  at    Eastern  Connec@cut  State  University  per  IPEDS  

114

0"

50"

100"

150"

200"

250"

300"

2003'04" 2007'08" 2011'12" 2012'13"

Full"Time"Faculty"

Part"Time"Faculty"

115

Other  Metrics  •  Faculty  Salaries  •  AAUP  Salary  Survey      •  Levels  and  changes  •  Peer  Analysis  

•  Athle@cs  

Toledo  2013-­‐14  vs.  State  of  Ohio  Peers  -­‐  Levels  Source:  Category  I  Ins@tu@ons  from  AAUP  Salary  Survey  

116

2013%14 Full Associate Assistant LecturerOhio7State $139,239 $94,148 $84,761Akron $111,236 $83,057 $70,931 $42,799Cincinnati $111,026 $78,736 $63,841Kent7State $109,915 $82,012 $71,275 $53,769Wright7State $108,986 $81,990 $66,882 $53,088Miami $106,724 $82,136 $74,998 $52,527Toledo $106,525 $83,658 $73,280 $48,621Ohio7University $105,522 $79,303 $70,367Cleveland7State $100,069 $74,984 $70,815Bowling7Green $99,252 $65,918 $63,012 $52,979

Mean7(without7Toledo) $110,219 $80,254 $70,765 $51,032Toledo7Rank7(out7of710) 7 2 3 57of76Toledo7Percent7vs.7Average 97% 104% 104% 95%Toledo7vs.7Average7of7Others ($3,693) $3,404 $2,515 ($2,411)

#7in7Each7Category7for7UT 202 242 143 155

Toledo  vs.  State  of  Ohio  Peers  –    Changes  from  2010-­‐11  to  2013-­‐14  Source:  Category  I  Ins@tu@ons  from  AAUP  Salary  Survey  

117

Full Associate Assistant Lecturer20112Toledo2vs.2Average $708 $6,939 $2,392 ($1,360)20142Toledo2vs.2Average ($3,693) $3,404 $2,515 ($2,411)Change2from220112to22014 ($4,401) ($3,535) $123 ($1,051)

20112Toledo2Percent2vs.2Average 101% 109% 103.7% 97%20142Toledo2Percent2vs.2Average 97% 104% 103.6% 95%Loss2from220112to22014 I4% I5% I0.1% I2%

20112Rank 4 2 3 42of2620142Rank 7 2 3 52of26Change (3) 0 0 (1)

Percent  of  Athle@c  Expenses  Supported  By  the  Core  Academic  Mission:  Rutgers  vs.  Big  Ten  and  Others  2012  Data  per  USA  Today  

118

44%#

27%# 25%#

8%# 7%# 5%# 4%# 4%#1%# 0%# 0%# 0%# 0%# 0%#

0%#

10%#

20%#

30%#

40%#

50%#

Rutgers#

UCONN#

Maryland#

Minneso

ta#

Wisconsin#

Illinois#

Michigan#State#

Indiana#iow

a#

Michigan#

Nebraska#

Purdue#

Penn#State#

Ohio#State#

These institutions do not use any subsidy from students or the academic side to support athletics

Percent  Supported  for  all  MAC  Ins@tu@ons,  2013    Source:  USA  Today  

119

48%$

61%$66%$ 67%$ 67%$ 68%$

74%$ 74%$ 75%$ 76%$ 77%$80%$

0%$

10%$

20%$

30%$

40%$

50%$

60%$

70%$

80%$

90%$

Toledo$

BGSU$

Ohio$U$

NIU$

CMU$

Miami$$

WMU

$

Akron$

Ball$State$

Buffalo$

Kent$State$

EMU$

Percent  of  Athle@c  Expenses  Supported  By  the  Core  Academic  Mission:  Rutgers  vs.  Big  Ten  and  Others  2012  Data  per  USA  Today  

120

44%#

27%# 25%#

8%# 7%# 5%# 4%# 4%#1%# 0%# 0%# 0%# 0%# 0%#

0%#

10%#

20%#

30%#

40%#

50%#

Rutgers#

UCONN#

Maryland#

Minneso

ta#

Wisconsin#

Illinois#

Michigan#State#

Indiana#iow

a#

Michigan#

Nebraska#

Purdue#

Penn#State#

Ohio#State#

These institutions do not use any subsidy from students or the academic side to support athletics