Problems with Using IPEDS Finance Data for Comparisons by qfc86623

VIEWS: 29 PAGES: 26

									Problems with
Using IPEDS Finance Data
for Comparisons

AAUDE Case Study, Columbus Ohio
May 2003
Problems with
Using IPEDS Finance Data for Comparisons


  Revenues
  Expenditures
  Examples
  Changes  in IPEDS Finance
  Conclusions & Looking Ahead
Problems with
Using IPEDS Finance Data for Comparisons

TheCenter review of financials included:

California Institute of Technology   Pennsylvania State University - University Park
Columbia University                  University of California - Berkeley
Cornell University                   University of California - Los Angeles
Duke University                      University of Florida
Harvard University                   University of Illinois - Urbana-Champaign
MIT                                  University of Michigan - Ann Arbor
Northwestern University              University of Minnesota - Twin Cities
University of Chicago                University of North Carolina - Chapel Hill
Stanford University                  University of Virginia
Yale University                      University of Washington - Seattle
University of Pennsylvania           University of Wisconsin - Madison
Problems with
Using IPEDS Finance Data for Comparisons
REVENUES (Part A)
      Appropriations    may/may not contain:

              Main Campus Only

              Branch Campuses

              Medical Center

              Ag Extension/Ag Experiment Station
Problems with
Using IPEDS Finance Data for Comparisons


     Tuition
            & Fee Revenue Can Be
      Reported:

          In Part A, Line 1 (Tuition & Fees), or

          In Part A, Line 4 (State Appropriations),or

          Both Line 1 and Line 4
Problems with
Using IPEDS Finance Data for Comparisons

   Endowment        Income:

         May/may not be reported in Part A, Line 10

         Sometimes determined by spending formula
          alone

         Sometimes includes yield (interest and
          dividends)
Problems with
Using IPEDS Finance Data for Comparisons
     Unclear where the following revenues
      are reported (inconsistent):

          Appropriations derived from auxiliaries

          Agency funds

          Appropriations for capital outlays

          Investment income
Problems with
Using IPEDS Finance Data for Comparisons


     Sales   & Services of Educational
       Activities (Part A, Line 11)

     What is included here?

    IPEDS Definition: “Revenues … incidental to the
    conduct of instruction, research, or public service.
    Examples include film rentals, testing services,
    scientific and literary publications, university
    presses, and dairy products.”
Problems with
Using IPEDS Finance Data for Comparisons

     Other   Sources of Revenue
       (Part A, Line 14)


     What is included here?

    Recent ad hoc query on Other Sources of
    Revenue (Purdue)
   Example – Using Revenues
                 1999-2000 Revenue
                   1999-2000 FTE
Revenue =
State Appropriations + Tuition & Fees
+ Local Appropriations
(Source: IPEDS Finance, 1999-2000)

__________
Note: Example is from “Equity in Funding in the State University
  System of Florida,” by the Council for Education Policy,
  Research, and Improvement (CEPRI), 2002.
  Example – Using Revenues

The Problem:

Numerator for UF includes revenues for:
           Ag Experiment Station

           Ag Extension

           Health Science Center

        (Above account for 35% of UF numerator)
    Example – Using Revenues

$652 million = Total Numerator for UF

   Less $117 million for Ag
   Less $113 million for Health Science Center

          Resulting ratio changes from
             $15,856  $10,276
Problems with
Using IPEDS Finance Data for Comparisons

EXPENDITURES (Part B)
     The  following are sometimes paid by
      state; sometimes paid by university
     Ifpaid by university, not separately
      identified

               Debt Service
               Worker’s Compensation
               Fringe Benefits
               Retirement
               Utilities
Problems with
Using IPEDS Finance Data for Comparisons


     Use of fund accounting to determine
      spending in instruction and research
      categories is problematic.
     Expenditures  for the following may or
      may not be included. If included, not
      separately identified.

               Central Office (System)
               Athletics
               Foundation (fund-raising arm)
Problems with
Using IPEDS Finance Data for Comparisons

     Research      Expenditures
      (Part B, Line 2)

              May or may not reflect institution’s
               expenditures on separately budgeted
               research (due to system accounting
               practices, etc.)

              Research expenditures for work
               conducted by affiliated or university-
               owned hospitals may or may not get
               counted here.

              Varying definitions of “Research”
Problems with
Using IPEDS Finance Data for Comparisons
       Comparison of IPEDS Finance and NSF R & D Expenditures
               (Selected National Universities-Doctoral)

                                                  1999 NSF     1999 IPEDS
                                                    Total     Total Research IPEDS $
                      Institution                 Research      (x $1,000)   / NSF $
     Massachusetts Institute of Technology            420,306        621,080    148%
     Stanford University                              426,549        539,861    127%
     Harvard University                               326,193        397,183    122%
     New York University                              167,179        203,213    122%
     Johns Hopkins University 1                       438,518        524,555    120%
     University of California - Davis                 307,950        215,688     70%
     University of North Carolina - Chapel Hill       252,767        174,973     69%
     University of California - Berkeley              451,539        289,253     64%
     Texas A&M University                             402,203        247,256     61%
     Brown University                                  76,330         40,808     53%
     Tufts University                                 100,872         42,055     42%
     SUNY-Buffalo                                     166,823         61,581     37%



     NSF/SRS Survey of R&D Expenditures at Universities and Colleges, FY99.
     NCES IPEDS Finance Survey, FY99.
Problems with
Using IPEDS Finance Data for Comparisons


Kansas looked at expenditures by PCS
  Category among peers -

  Found that patterns vary dramatically from
  institution to institution depending upon land
  grant and medical center.
Problems with
Using IPEDS Finance Data for Comparisons

Arizona – Trend Analysis of “Student
  Educational Expenditures per FTE in the
  1990’s”

Educational Expenditures = Total Instruction,
  Academic Support, Institutional Support, and
  Student Services
(Medical School costs computed and backed out
  statistically for comparison purposes.)
 Problems with
 Using IPEDS Finance Data for Comparisons

                                                          Figure 1
                    $25,000


                                                         Peer Maxim um
                    $20,000



                                                                        Peer Average
                    $ 15 , 0 0 0


                                                                          UA
                    $ 10 , 0 0 0



                                            Peer Minim um
                     $5,000
                                   19 9 1       19 9 3         19 9 5          19 9 7   19 9 9




 In 1991, the UA lagged behind its peers by $1,900 per FTE, translating into an annual
   underfunding of $55 million. By 1999, this had grown to $3,400 per FTE, or over $100
   million per year.

 Over the decade, the UA dropped from 11th to 13th among its 15 peers.
Problems with
Using IPEDS Finance Data for Comparisons


CHANGES IN IPEDS FINANCE
          New form Optional now
          Mandatory Spring 2005
       [http://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/web2000/GASB.asp]


       Developed by working group organized through
        NPEC & chaired by Larry Goldstein (NACUBO)
        for adherence to GASB 34/35
Problems with
Using IPEDS Finance Data for Comparisons

     Overview      of New Finance Form

          Look and contents considerably different
          Clarifying questions added regarding
           system, or part of system
          Current funds reporting, as we know it, goes
           away
          Operating, non-operating & other revenues
           (no distinguishing of current funds)
Problems with
Using IPEDS Finance Data for Comparisons

     Overview of New Finance Form, Cont’d.


           Expenses reported by function (instruction,
            research, etc.) and by natural classification
            (salaries, travel, etc.) in a matrix format
           Balance Sheet info added
           Capital asset costs required to be amortized
            over useful life of assets
Problems with
Using IPEDS Finance Data for Comparisons

     Overview of New Finance Form, Cont’d.


          Consideration of Discounts & Allowances
               Tuition & fees
               Sales & services of auxiliaries & hospital
                services
               Scholarships and fellowships
Problems with
Using IPEDS Finance Data for Comparisons
CONCLUSIONS & LOOKING AHEAD
      IPEDS  Instructions may not be followed
       consistently by all institutions.
      Difficult   to determine exactly how they differ.
      Notes      from financial statements can help
       clarify.
      New   GASB Standards – impact uncertain.
                              ~~~~~~
      IPEDSFinance not intended for peer
       comparison purposes!
Problems with
Using IPEDS Finance Data for Comparisons


“To Measure or Not to Measure – That’s
  Still in Question,” by Larry Goldstein
  (NACUBO Business Officer, August 2002).


Article addresses the issues that remain unresolved
  regarding a “standard operating measure” for
  colleges & universities.
Problems with
Using IPEDS Finance Data for Comparisons


          QUESTION:
          Is there interest among
            AAUDE in exchanging
            answers to a list of
            “Clarifying Questions” for
            IPEDS Finance?

           A Pilot?

								
To top