Upload
ngophuc
View
214
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
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