State Allotment (Operating Funds) (000's) FY13
FY14
FY15
FY16
FY17
FY18
FY19
Net Tuition State Allotment
64,731 63,536 63,696 33,472 40,479 39,988
64,257 47,707
54,217 58,565
56,250 60,845
57,500 63,356
Total
98,203 104,015 103,684 111,964 112,782 117,095 120,856
% of Total Revenue State Allotment per Capita
34.1%
38.9%
38.6%
42.6%
51.9%
52.0%
52.4%
3,114
3,830
3,826
4,397
5,163
5,255
5,425
Net tuition revenue Net tuition revenue (gross tuition less tuition waivers, or discounts) is a significant driver for core instructional operations. Again, Washington law limits the amount that CWU is allowed to increase resident undergraduate tuition, but there is no limit on other types of tuition (non- resident undergraduate, resident & non-resident graduate). RCW allows the university broad authority to waive tuition to achieve university goals. CWU uses tuition waivers for many purposes, including recruiting resident and non-resident first-year and transfer students, attracting students with specialized skills (e,g, performance in the arts or athletics), and to supplement federal and state need grants. Over the past few years, CWU’s discount rate (and enrollment) has grown quite significantly as shown in the following chart, which includes the state-funded tuition backfill for an accurate comparison:
Net Tuition Revenue
FY13
FY14
FY15
FY16
FY17
FY18
FY19
(000's)
Gross Tuition State Backfill Tuition Waivers Net Tuition Discount Rate
72,971 72,412 73,593
77,221 2,739 66,996
68,584 10,826 65,043
71,374 11,104 67,354
73,057 11,254 68,754
(8,240)
(8,876)
(9,897) (12,964) (14,367) (15,124) (15,557)
64,731 63,536 63,696
11.3%
12.3%
13.4%
16.2%
18.1%
18.3%
18.5%
Net Tuition per Capita
6,022
6,012
6,094
6,175
5,734
5,817
5,887
Expenditures – State and Tuition Fund The compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of expenditures since FY 2013 is 3.8 percent, but much of that growth occurred shortly after the recovery from the Great Recession, when CWU was able to invest in programs and people for the first time since 2008. Since 2016, however, the CAGR of expenditures has slowed to just 2.3 percent, despite annual wage and benefit increases in excess of that rate. 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
16 | P a g e
Made with FlippingBook flipbook maker