Within the context of the RCM/ABB paradigm is the goal to minimize the impact of spending on institutional overhead in order to push resources to teaching and learning, our core functions. While there is no “overhead rate” stated or implied, one can see in the graphic below that institutional overhead has hovered very close to 35 percent of all spending since FY 2013. In fact, over the past three years, spending on institutional overhead has remained relatively flat in dollar terms, increasing less than $200K between FY16 and FY18, despite across-the-board wage-and-benefit increases. During that period, spending by the Academic and Student Life division has increased almost $4.5M. This result is both intentional and desired, and is an indicator that the university has been using scarce resources more effectively.
State & Tuition Fund Expenses ('000s)
20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 140,000
65,248 66,982 69,776 71,348 74,239 77,753
61,258
31,563 37,242 36,736 40,434 39,478 40,619 42,612
FY13
FY14
FY15
FY16
FY17
FY18 (F)
FY19 (B)
Institutional Overhead Academic & Student Life 35% of total
Another way to measure effectiveness of resource management is to spread expenditures over the fall student headcount, and evaluate the changes over time. The chart below shows the expenditures per student headcount, which undulates as enrollment drops in the early years and then picks up after FY15. However, with the exception of FY14, the rate of per-student expenditure growth has been lower than wage inflation, indicating efficient use of resources as well as apparent capacity that is being leveraged.
17 | P a g e
Made with FlippingBook - professional solution for displaying marketing and sales documents online