Chapter 4: Criterion Two

The institution has effectively organized the human, financial, and
physical resources necessary to accomplish its purposes.

Financial Resources

Peer Comparisons

The following paragraphs compare UNK to peer group averages on revenues per student FTE, expenditures per student FTE, and the distribution of expenditures among expenditure functions. Two factors prevent a detailed 10-year comparison. First, the Board of Regents revised the list of peer institutions beginning with FY 1995. Second, in FY 2002 UNK converted to the new reporting format approved by the General Accounting Services Board (GASB), known as GASB-35, as did eight of its 10 peer institutions. GASB-35 revised revenue and expenditure categories, complicating any comparison of FY 2002 to prior years. Although UNK can present data for UNK under the prior format, it does not have access to peer institutions' data under the prior format. As a result, the following analysis divides the peer comparisons on revenues and expenditures into two sections. First, the analysis examines historical peer data for FY 1995 through FY 2001. Then the analysis compares UNK to its peer institutions for FY 2002 under the new GASB format.

FY 1995 through FY 2001

Revenues. In total operating revenues per student FTE other than auxiliary enterprises, UNK collected $9,551 in FY 2001, which was $2,752 less per student than the peer average of $12,303. This is only a slight improvement from FY 1995, when UNK collected $2,827 per student less than the peer average; $6,520 versus $9,347. While Figure 4.19 in Appendix D provides detailed information, the highlights are as follows:

• Government Appropriations. For FY 2001, UNK received $5,379 per FTE, which was $450 less than the peer average of $5,829. This is an improvement from FY 1995, when UNK's appropriation of $3,591 per FTE was $1,106 less than the peer average of $4,697.
• Tuition & Fees. While the gap in state appropriations per student between UNK and its peers narrowed, the gap in tuition collections per student FTE expanded. UNK collected $2,524 per student FTE in tuition and fees in FY 2001, compared to $3,573 for its peer institutions, a difference of $1,049. In FY 1995, UNK collected $1,820 per student FTE, which was $774 less than the peer average of $2,594.
• Sales & Services. UNK's sales and services revenues experienced considerable growth between FY 1995 and FY 2001. UNK collected $460 per student in FY 2001, which was $25 less than the peer average of $485. In FY 1995, UNK collected $197 per student while its peer institutions averaged $374 per student, a difference of $177.

Expenditures. Figure 4.20 in Appendix D compares UNK expenditures per student FTE to the peer average. The highlights of that data are as follows:

• Overall Educational and General Expenditures. UNK spent $9,025 per student FTE for Educational and General expenses in FY 2001, which was $2,652 less than the peer average of $11,677. In FY 1995, the gap was $2,496 per student FTE. The largest gap occurred in FY 2000, at $2,777 per student FTE.
• Expenditures by Function. In FY 2001 UNK spent less than the peer average in each functional area. The smallest difference was in the Instruction function, where UNK spent $87 less per student FTE than the peer average. The largest difference was in the Institutional Support function, where UNK spent $528 less per student FTE than the peer average.

Distribution

The table below compares UNK's distribution of the Educational & General budget to the average of peer institutions in FY 1995 and FY 2001. FY 1995 is the first year that UNK used the current peer group. FY 2001 is the last fiscal year completed before UNK and eight of its peers converted to GASB-35 format.

Table 4.5

FY 2002 Peer Comparison

The discussion that follows reviews revenues and expenditures per student FTE for UNK and presents information relative to the average for eight peer institutions. It does not include data for Minnesota State University - Moorhead and Sam Houston State University, since their IPEDS reports do not conform to GASB-35.

Revenues. The table below compares UNK's revenue collections per student FTE to those of its peer institutions. Although the reporting format has changed under GASB-35, the results are similar to previous years under the previous format. The highlights are as follows:

• UNK collected a total of $1,558 less per student FTE from all operating and non-operating revenue sources (excluding auxiliary income) than its peer average; $10,705 compared to $12,263.
• Total federal, state, and local appropriations for UNK were slightly less than the peer average. UNK received $5,888 per student, which was $78 less than the peer average of $5,966.
• In tuition and fees, UNK collected $842 less per student FTE than its peer average, $2,382 versus $3,224.

Table 4.6

Expenditures. The table below compares operating expenditures per student FTE for UNK to that of its peer institutions in FY 2002. For the purposes of this report, UNK maintains the distinction between educational and general expenditures versus all expenditures and defines depreciation, other operating expenditures, interest, and all other non-operating expenditures as being outside of the educational and general subtotal. The highlights are as follows:

• UNK spent $2,300 less per student FTE than the peer average in FY 2002 for educational and general expenses.
• The smallest dollar difference between UNK and its peer average is in scholarships ($136), followed by academic support ($140), then Research ($170), then Instruction ($171).
• The largest dollar difference between UNK and its peer average is in Student Services ($592), followed by Public Service ($501), then Institutional Support ($311), then Operation and Maintenance of Plant ($311).
• As a percentage of Educational and General expenditures, UNK dedicates a higher percentage of its budget to Instruction (plus 8.8 %) and Academic Support (plus 1.0 %) than its peer institutions.
• UNK dedicates a lower percentage of its budget to Student Services (minus 4.0 %), Public Service (minus 3.8 %), and Research (minus 1.3 %).

Table 4.7

Strengths

As the data shows, UNK has placed a high priority on academics by dedicating a higher percentage of its resources to instruction than its peer institutions.

Concerns

The State of Nebraska's fiscal situation remains a serious concern to everyone at UNK. The institution has formally laid-off employees in the past year as the result of budget reductions. From initial revenue projections for the state, it appears that further budget cuts are probable. Although UNK has managed these reductions to this point, further base reductions could require reorganization or elimination of academic programs and support services.

Next: Chapter 4> Sections> Physical Resources
Previous: Chapter 4> Sections> University of Nebraska Foundation