Senate sifts through data on spending

by Sarah R. Buchholz, Chronicle staff

Joyce Hatch compares campus sources of plant funds to those at peer institutions during the Oct. 4 Faculty Senate meeting. (Stan Sherer photo)

he Faculty Senate took a closer look at some of the budget figures used in Worcester chancellor Aaron Lazare's report from the Amherst Task Force at the senate's Oct. 4 meeting. Associate vice chancellor for Finance and Budget Joyce Hatch presented "A Comparison of Revenues and Expenditures at the University of Massachusetts Amherst and Six Peer Institutions," examining "academic peers" of the campus: Research I institutions that do not have veterinary or medical schools.

     Hatch said during a question period that the fact that the campus is able to identify so few institutions as peers might be worth noting in itself. The peer universities in the study are the Rutgers system, California-Santa Barbara, Colorado-Boulder, Maryland-College Park, Nebraska-Lincoln and Connecticut. The study uses FY1999 figures.

     The Amherst campus had the median revenue in current and plant funds per FTE student - excluding auxiliaries and sponsored activity - roughly 2.4 percent less than the average of the seven schools.

     Of the sources of that revenue, the campus had the median amount in the categories tuition and fees; grant overhead, federal financial aid, and other; and plant funds from the state. Although the charts showed this cam-pus's plant funds as being less than half of the average, the average in the category was skewed by the state revenues being pumped into UConn's physical plant, which amount to nearly 5.8 times the money going into plant per FTE student at the second-best-funded school.

      In the smallest and largest sources of revenue, "sales and services" and "current funds" from the state, respectively, the campus was fifth, even though it came out well above average in the latter category because of very low "current funds" for Colorado-Boulder. The weakest showing was in the area of "gifts, earnings on the endowment and non-state plant funds," where the campus came in sixth. Funds per FTE student were 47.2 percent less in this area.

     Hatch broke down sources of plant funds to show that, while the campus spends more of its operating dollars on average than its peers do, it lags considerably in private funding and state monies to support physical plant.

     "If you've been to any of those campuses," she said, "they look a little different than we do."

     Looking at the overall revenue picture, Hatch said, "If we had another $10 million coming into the institution, we'd be about average."

     On the expenditure (per FTE student) side, the campus fell within one place of the median in most categories, including operations and maintenance of plant; student services; quasi-endowment; institutional support; academic support; instruction, research, and pub-lic service; and capital projects, as well as in total expenditures per student.

     The campus outspent all but the Rutgers system in "scholarships" and spent more than three times the average on "athletic support."

     The average peer institution receives more private and state monies for financial aid, she said, but this campus out-spends the average in federal and campus dollars by a ratio of nearly 2 to 1.

     In looking at athletics expenditures, Hatch cautioned that academic peers are not necessarily athletic peers. The report, therefore, includes five more institutions that are more like this campus in athletics. "Athletics" in this study refers to teams that compete with other schools. Intramural athletic offerings come under "student services."

     Of the 11 schools whose athletics costs were included in the study, all spent fewer campus funds on athletics and all but the University of New Hampshire generated more revenue through athletics.

     A number of senators, as well as Hatch, repeatedly pointed out that the numbers and charts should be read cautiously because the study's sample size is small and because every campus has different financial issues and different ways of organizing its spending. Associate professor of Management Marta Calas pointed out that the campuses are different ages and this affects spending on plant. She noted that not every category lends itself to comparison. Hatch agreed, but added that no categories can be removed from the study without losing the ability to track where every dollar goes.

     Several senators asked whether funding could be shifted from areas where the campus is spending more than average to areas where it is spending less than average. A few asked about moving funding away from Athletics.

     Interim Chancellor Marcellette G. Williams pointed out that the most recent trustee-approved mission statement specifically mentions athletics as part of the mission.
"Any changes need long-term planning," Hatch said. "It takes a long time to shift resources."

     Following the discussion the senate voted on a resolution urging the University and campus administration to "correct the imbalances shown in the report ... by shifting expenditures back to core academic categories. Several senators expressed concern that the resolution was unclear in what it was asking the administration to do. After further discussion, the resolution passed.

     Hatch's presentation was prepared by the Office of Financial and Cost Analysis in cooperation with the offices of Academic Planning and Assessment and Institutional Research.