Financing of Higher Education in Virginia: Analysis and Issues Fall 2010

Financing of Higher Education in
Virginia: Analysis and Issues
Fall 2010
Table of Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................................................... i
1.0 TUITION AND FEES ........................................................................................................................................ 2
1.1.
1.2.
1.3.
1.4.
National Trends .................................................................................................................................. 2
Regional Trends .................................................................................................................................. 8
State Trends ........................................................................................................................................ 11
JMU Tuition and Fee History ......................................................................................................... 15
2.0 STATE APPROPRIATIONS ............................................................................................................................ 16
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
2.6
National Trends ................................................................................................................................. 16
Regional Trends ................................................................................................................................. 18
State Trends ........................................................................................................................................ 19
Financial Aid Appropriations .......................................................................................................... 25
JMU Total Operating Revenues ...................................................................................................... 26
JMU Facilities and Capital Outlay ................................................................................................... 27
3.0 EXPENDITURES ................................................................................................................................................ 29
3.1
3.2
Total Operating Expenditures ......................................................................................................... 29
Faculty and Staff Salaries .................................................................................................................. 34
Executive Summary
The purpose of this document is to inform the JMU community about the economic factors
that have and will face the University as it seeks to accomplish its Mission. This summary of
the financial environment for higher education for JMU, the Commonwealth, the Southeast
Region of the U.S., and nationally has been produced annually for more than 15 years. The
summary is divided into three sections that relate to the sources of funds and how they have
been spent: Tuition and Fees; State Appropriations; and Expenditures. Where available and
appropriate, comparisons are made to national, regional and state data.
In summary:
•
•
•
Virginia continues to be a high tuition state for residents and students from outside
of Virginia. Recent tuition increases to offset significant budget cuts have made
higher education even more unaffordable for Virginia residents.
The Commonwealth’s General Fund appropriations for higher education, which
have historically been much less than other states, have declined at a higher rate than
most other states in the last 30 years. Currently 8.2 percent of the Commonwealth’s
appropriations are directed toward higher education, down from 17 percent in the
1980s.
JMU has wisely preserved expenditures for instruction during the current and
previous budget difficulties. Administratively, JMU is one of the leanest public
institutions in the Commonwealth.
Tuition and Fees
•
•
•
•
Virginia's tuition and fees are higher than corresponding national and regional
charges. The Commonwealth's position as a high tuition state is reflected in national
comparisons that rank Virginia eight highest among the fifty states.
Virginia is affiliated with the Southern Regional Education Board (SREB) − the
nation's first interstate compact for education. Virginia has the third highest tuition
and fees for in-state undergraduates at similar regional institutions. JMU has held
this same position for the last five years. Virginia’s increase (five percent) was below
the median (nine percent) for all the states.
Among the Commonwealth’s fifteen four-year public colleges and universities,
JMU's in-state tuition ranks 12th highest, required fees ranks fifth, and room and
board ranks eighth. Total in-state tuition, required fees, and room and board ranks
eighth and JMU’s out-of-state total cost ranks 10th. In 2010-11 annual increases in
Virginia for the senior institutions for in-state tuition, required fees, and room and
board ranged from 3.5 percent at Virginia State University to 12.2 percent at Virginia
Commonwealth University.
Virginia’s average in-state undergraduate charges as a percentage of per capita
disposable income have exceeded the national average since SCHEV began tracking
this measure. Since reaching the low point (the most affordable) of 32.2 percent in
2001-02 after several years of state mandated tuition controls, this measure of
i •
affordability (41.6 percent in 2010-11) has crept steadily higher and is higher than the
previous (the least affordable) of 39.8 percent.
Since 2001-02 JMU’s in-state tuition and fee charges increased from $4,094 to $7,860
(92 percent) while increasing from $10,606 to $20,624 (94 percent) for out-of-state
students.
State Appropriations
Nationally, the majority of states have experienced inconsistent revenues – combined
with significant pressures to fund a variety of critical initiatives like health care and
corrections. One result of this difficult combination of factors has been a decline in
the state appropriations going to higher education. The FY10 appropriations per
$1,000 of personal income (a measure of the state’s ability to pay) were 11.4 percent
below FY05 and 18.5 percent below FY00.
• Since 1980 Virginia’s appropriations declined -56 percent. In FY10 Virginia ranked
43rd in appropriations per $1,000 at $4.59 ($5.70 in 2009), $1.59 below the national
average of $6.18. In 1990 Virginia ranked 27th at $9.78, $0.45 above the national
average of $9.33.
• For 2008-09, JMU would have required an additional $11.9 million in Educational
and General (E&G) operating funds to reach the median of its public national peer
group or $17.3 million to reach the 60th percentile.
• Per FTE student funding in Virginia was $1,464 below the regional median of $6,108
for comparable institutions in 2008-09 (the last year for which regional data are
available).
• According to the data provided by SCHEV, in constant FY11 dollars, between FY89
and FY11 general fund appropriations decreased by 51 percent, non-general fund
appropriations (tuition and fees primarily) increased by 86 percent and total E&G
appropriations decreased by five percent. This means that the Virginia public
institutions have fewer resources for operations now than they had 22 years ago (12
percent less than three years ago). The fact that the Commonwealth has encouraged
the institutions to grow in more expensive programs like nursing, computer
programming, and STEM makes it even more difficult for the institutions to
continue to fund adequately these programs. The ability to remain relatively constant
in funding over the years comes from tuition revenue, not from state support.
• Higher education's share of Virginia's total general fund appropriation decreased
from 11.3 percent in the FY98 to 8.2 percent in FY12. It was as high as 17 percent1
in the mid-1980s. Given the demands on the Commonwealth’s budget by medical
costs, other mandates and the uncertain revenue stream, higher education’s
proportion of the State’s budget is unlikely to improve in the foreseeable future.
• General Fund appropriations, excluding Capital Appropriations and Grants, Other
Operating Revenues, and Gifts, provided 32 percent of all JMU sources of revenue
in 2000-01. During 2008-09, the same sources provided 22 percent of all revenue.
Correspondingly, E&G tuition and fees have risen from 23 percent to 35 percent
over the same period.
• JMU has significantly increased space for instruction and instructional support.
E&G, total assignable square feet (ASF) increased at a higher rate than Regular
1
Virginia Business Higher Education Council
•
ii •
Session (fall and spring) FTE students. In the next few years E&G space devoted to
instruction and academic support will increase significantly with the addition of the
biotechnology building on the East Campus and the acquisition and remodeling of
the RMH property. Since FY97 total E&G ASF per FTE student increased from
66.64 to 79.18 (18.8 percent).
More than $1.7 billion (Operating = $1.4 billion; Capital = $0.3 billion) has been
appropriated for JMU since 1972.
Expenditures
•
•
•
•
•
•
When JMU is compared to the public institutions in its national peer group
(approved by State Council of Higher Education), the 2008-09 data indicate that
JMU is the sixth highest institution in support of instruction.
Of the Virginia comprehensive institutions in 2008-09, JMU ranks fourth in percent
of E&G budget spent on instruction and academic support (combined) and last in
percent of E&G budget spent on institutional support.
Of the Virginia institutions, JMU again ranks last at $1,340 per FTES expended on
institutional support in FY09. This figure is $129 per student less than the next
lowest institution (Old Dominion University) and $2,716 less than the highest
(UVA). On a per student basis, JMU has been administratively the leanest institution
in the Commonwealth for more than 20 years.
In the spring of 2007 JMU and the other Virginia publicly funded colleges and
universities created new faculty salary peer institutions through negotiations with
SCHEV staff and other state agency representatives. In 2009-10 JMU’s current
position was 18th out of 25 institutions. The 60th percentile faculty salary for 2009-10
was $80,600, thereby putting JMU’s average salary reported (to AAUP) $12,500
below the objective.
Salary increases for faculty, staff and administrators have mirrored the economic
condition of the Commonwealth. Currently salaries are frozen at 2007-08 levels for
all Commonwealth employees. In December 2010 all Commonwealth employees
were given a three percent bonus. The bonus was not added to the base salary.
Benefits as a percentage of salaries have mushroomed in the last 30 years due
primarily to higher costs for medical insurance. For instructional faculty benefits as a
percentage of total salary increased from 24.9 percent in 1991-92 to 33.7 percent in
2009-10.
iii 1.0 TUITION AND FEES
1.1
National Trends
Concerns over the rising costs of attending colleges and universities have been raised for many years
and significantly influenced state policies regarding tuition and fees. Since 1981-82 the average cost
for attending colleges and universities has increased faster than the rate of inflation as measured by
the Consumer Price Index (CPI)1. As indicated by the chart above, this trend strengthened markedly
from 2000-01 to 2004-05 as states dramatically reduced general fund appropriations for public
higher education in response to declining tax revenues. Colleges and universities increased tuition to
compensate. Tuition and fee increases moderated somewhat in 2006-07 and 2007-08, but increased
in 2008-09 and 2009-10 due to the national economic downturn that has severely restricted state tax
revenues. Allocations from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 helped moderate
tuition increases for 2009-10 and 2010-11.
Factors involved in rising costs for higher education include:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
1
Reduction in state general fund support,
Increase in the costs of medical insurance for faculty and staff,
Faculty salaries rising faster than general inflation,
Relative decline in federal student grant programs,
High cost of institutionally funded financial aid,
Migration of students from low to high cost disciplines,
Administrative support and governmentally imposed requirements have risen,
The need to keep pace with new technologies,
Federal funding for research has not kept up with institutional expenditures for research,
Program expansion, and
Trends in College Pricing 2009 by the College Board.
2
•
New construction or renovation.
Expanding enrollments in the 1960s and 70s permitted colleges and universities to spread fixed costs
and increase total expenditures (15 percent per year from 1970 to 1975) while holding per student
expenditure increases to 4.0 percent annually. In the decade of the 1980s, the rate of increase in
tuition did not come down as fast as the CPI because ⎯ at least in part ⎯ students were paying a
larger share of the costs of their education. In the public sector, more than half of the added tuition
revenue from 1982 to 2010 represents increases in the share of educational costs borne by students
to compensate for decreases in state general fund support.
Virginia's tuition and fees are higher than corresponding national and regional charges. The
Commonwealth's position as a high tuition state is reflected in national comparisons that rank
Virginia 8th highest among the fifty states2. This is still an improvement from previous years when
Virginia was ranked as high as 2nd. However, the tuition and fees for non-Virginia residents
continue to be the highest in the country.
The 1998 Acts of Assembly established the Joint Subcommittee on Higher Education Funding
Policies to develop funding guidelines. The Subcommittee adopted higher education funding
guidelines for Virginia public institutions in December 2000. The funding guidelines for operation
and maintenance of the physical plant were developed and added to the higher education funding
guidelines in 2001.
In addition, the Joint Subcommittee adopted a fund share policy of 67/33 between general fund
support and tuition revenue for base funding estimates derived by the funding guidelines in 2003.
The following pages contain two tables (pages 4 and 5) and two graphics (pages 6 and 7) comparing
Virginia's and JMU's national rankings on tuition and fees relative to national data from forty-six
states. The two tables compare the in-state undergraduate tuition and required fees, by state, for
state colleges and universities for in-state and out-of-state students. Virginia's in-state tuition and
fees in 2009-10 was the 8th highest out of 46 states for in-state students and the highest for out-ofstate students. Virginia has become one of the most costly states for both in-state and out-of-state
students.
Tuition and fee increases in Virginia moderated substantially between 1995-96 and 1999-00, but
increased significantly since then. The graphic on page 6 compares in-state undergraduate tuition
and required fees for selected states. Virginia’s comprehensive institutions (including JMU) ranked
8th highest among the fifty states and $1,419 above the national average. Virginia's one-year rate of
change for in-state tuition and required fees for 2009-10 was 5.5 percent, lower than the national
average of 6.7 percent. For out-of-state students, Virginia's average increase was 6.2 percent, 0.4
percent above the national average of 5.8 percent.
The graphic on page 7 compares JMU's tuition and fees to those of our SCHEV peer group. JMU
ranks 18th highest out of 25 peer institutions. JMU's 2009-10 tuition and required fees were $7,244.
This figure is below our peer group average of $16,907. However, when JMU’s figure is compared
with the 15 other publicly funded peer institutions, it ranks 8th highest. The public average for 200910, including JMU, was $7,870.
2
2009-10 Tuition and Fees at Virginia's State-Supported Colleges and Universities, State Council of Higher
Education for Virginia, July 2009.
3
Resident Undergraduate Tuition and Required Fees
(State Averages) Colleges and State Universities, 2005-06 to 2009-10
State
Alabama
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Florida
Georgia
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
National Average
Virginia Ranks
Rank
2005-06
24
15
28
35
39
11
41
31
36
2
9
16
38
17
45
14
10
12
4
23
37
26
40
32
34
3
1
46
25
43
29
5
42
19
13
20
7
18
27
22
44
6
8
30
33
21
4,570
4,446
4,951
13,225
3,212
5,925
3,288
3,245
3,936
6,780
6,171
5,602
3,538
4,813
3,412
4,836
6,755
5,882
6,256
5,251
3,982
5,112
4,403
4,234
3,270
7,190
8,653
2,864
5,238
3,244
4,530
7,567
3,284
4,727
46,263
4,676
5,984
4,793
4,629
4,682
3,165
6,484
5,906
4,178
3,886
5,072
4,872
12
2006-07
2007-08
4,627
4,616
5,188
3,228
3,287
6,231
3,383
3,434
4,172
7,511
6,643
6,112
3,771
5,367
3,570
5,259
6,942
6,286
6,687
5,656
4,231
5,386
4,615
4,479
3,732
7,639
9,269
3,065
5,318
3,652
4,882
8,162
3,500
5,551
6,464
4,958
6,512
5,351
4,808
5,121
3,432
6,828
6,426
4,419
4,141
5,334
5,201
11
5,107
4,905
5,409
3,604
3,636
6,660
3,565
3,852
4,405
8,335
6,990
6,190
4,037
5,810
3,641
5,754
7,168
6,592
7,328
5,894
4,468
5,740
4,403
4,768
4,081
8,121
9,919
3,223
5,379
3,915
5,142
8,167
3,820
5,858
6,743
5,256
7,038
5,743
5,212
5,481
3,664
7,243
6,854
4,572
4,387
5,703
5,517
10
4
2008-09
5,664
5,553
5,726
3,927
3,937
7,103
3,839
4,200
4,648
9,165
7,334
6,376
4,271
6,316
3,830
6,388
7,353
6,917
7,981
6,083
4,645
5,983
4,403
4,999
4,493
8,601
10,749
3,431
5,363
3,967
5,391
8,254
4,189
6,106
7,034
5,771
7,632
6,187
5,520
5,966
3,854
7,684
7,286
4,819
4,654
6,051
5,862
10
2009-10
6,252
6,734
5,857
4,956
4,451
7,485
4,372
5,403
4,916
9,933
7,628
6,636
4,549
6,597
4,026
6,759
7,533
7,348
8,700
6,295
4,645
5,986
4,448
5,219
4,977
9,139
11,133
3,588
6,027
4,148
5,589
8,387
4,189
6,511
7,345
6,408
7,960
6,550
5,910
6,358
4,087
8,196
7,683
5,502
5,005
6,395
6,257
8
1 Year
10.4 %
21.3%
2.3%
percent
26.2%
13.1%
percent
5.4%
percent
13.9%
percent
28.7%
percent
5.8%
percent
8.4%
percent
4.0%
percent
4.1%
percent
6.5%
percent
4.5%
percent
5.1%
5.8%
percent
2.5%
percent
6.2%
percent
9.0%
percent
3.5%
percent
0.0%
percent
0.0%
percent
1.0%
percent
4.4%
percent
10.8%
percent
6.3%
percent
3.6%
percent
percent
4.6%
percent
12.4%
percent
4.6%
percent
3.7%
percent
1.6%
percent
0.0%
percent
6.6%
percent
4.4%
percent
11.0%
percent
4.3%
percent
5.9%
percent
7.1%
6.6%
percent
6.0%
percent
6.7%
percent
5.5%
percent
14.2%
percent
7.5%
percent
5.7%
percent
6.7%
percent
26
percent
4 Year
36.8%
51.5%
18.3%
53.7 %
38.6 %
26.3 %
33.0%
66.5 %
24.9 %
46.5 %
23.6 %
18.5 %
28.6 %
37.1 %
18.0 %
39.8 %
11.5 %
24.9 %
39.1 %
19.9 %
16.7 %
17.1 %
1.0 %
23.3 %
52.2 %
27.1 %
28.7 %
25.3 %
15.1 %
27.9 %
23.4 %
10.8 %
27.6 %
37.7 %
17.3 %
37.0 %
33.0 %
36.6 %
27.7 %
35.8 %
29.1 %
26.4 %
30.1 %
31.7 %
28.8 %
26.1 %
28.4 %
18
Nonresident Undergraduate Tuition and Required Fees
(State Averages) Colleges and State Universities3
State
Alabama
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Florida
Georgia
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
National Average
Virginia Ranking
3
Rank
36
3
39
18
26
12
14
7
27
8
5
24
33
19
43
16
13
20
4
41
35
40
32
45
10
11
2
34
31
29
44
15
42
17
28
23
21
46
6
25
38
9
1
22
37
30
2005-06
8,722
14,382
9,763
13,393
11,530
13,864
15,778
10,923
11,490
12,276
14,549
13,214
10,591
12,209
9,059
11,446
14,971
13,765
14,039
8,730
9,134
9,434
12,547
7,620
12,737
14,030
13,384
10,424
11,498
12,859
10,173
15,372
8,044
11,537
12,492
11,988
11,833
9,780
13,934
12,831
9,599
13,804
14,800
13,363
9,194
15,119
12,005
5
2006-07
8,803
14,666
10,224
13,398
11,609
14,553
15,845
11,524
12,196
13,479
15,539
14,028
10,990
13,318
9,218
12,369
15,701
14,321
15,205
8,643
9,824
9,887
12,876
8,053
13,643
14,909
15,110
11,321
11,546
13,297
10,004
16,185
8,556
14,071
13,405
12,888
12,839
6,542
14,503
13,330
10,415
14,556
16,040
13,939
9,958
12,809
12,525
2
2007-08
9,582
15,748
10,591
13,774
12,448
15,380
16,083
13,071
12,831
14,852
16,451
14,282
11,634
14,263
9,288
13,884
16,413
14,736
16,560
9,240
10,499
10,318
13,244
8,578
14,891
15,331
16,720
11,887
11,639
13,560
10,521
16,191
9,322
14,403
13,198
13,664
13,841
6,980
15,488
13,702
11,135
15,427
17,150
14,352
10,461
13,276
13,193
1
Washington Higher Education Coordinating Board, March 2010
5
2008-09
10,536
17,246
11,231
14,097
13,774
16,240
16,513
14,143
13,538
16,457
17,363
14,596
12,278
15,407
9,692
15,508
17,681
15,221
17,617
9,371
11,444
10,864
13,244
9,034
15,588
16,451
18,162
12,718
11,623
13,675
11,039
16,277
10,235
15,014
13,720
14,482
14,979
7,507
16,431
14,356
11,161
16,348
18,271
14,875
11,038
13,624
13,906
1
2009-10
11,766
18,740
11,456
16,116
14,659
17,177
16,972
17,831
14,319
17,553
18,198
14,900
13,028
16,095
9,726
16,439
17,107
15,938
18,577
10,807
11,787
10,987
13,734
9,438
17,317
17,309
18,870
12,804
13,931
14,107
9,628
16,495
10,235
16,415
14,288
15,488
15,585
7,922
17,876
14,745
11,555
17,436
19,411
15,506
11,715
13,968
14,707
1
1 Year
11.7 %
8.7 %
2.0 %
14.3 %
6.4 %
5.8 %
2.8 %
26.1 %
5.8 %
6.7 %
4.8 %
2.1 %
6.1 %
4.5 %
0.4 %
6.0 %
-3.2 %
4.7 %
5.4 %
15.3 %
3.0 %
1.1 %
3.7 %
4.5 %
11.1 %
5.2 %
3.9 %
0.7 %
19.9 %
3.2 %
-12.8 %
1.3 %
0.0 %
9.3 %
4.1 %
6.9 %
4.0 %
5.5 %
8.8 %
2.7 %
3.5 %
6.7 %
6.2 %
4.2 %
6.1 %
2.5 %
5.8 %
14
4 Year
34.9 %
30.3 %
17.3 %
20.3 %
27.1 %
23.9 %
7.6 %
63.2 %
24.6 %
43.0 %
25.1 %
12.8 %
23.0 %
31.8 %
7.4 %
43.6 %
14.3 %
15.8 %
32.3 %
23.8 %
29.0 %
16.5 %
9.5 %
23.9 %
36.0 %
23.4 %
41.0 %
22.8 %
21.2 %
9.7 %
-5.4 %
7.3 %
27.2 %
42.3 %
14.4 %
29.2 %
31.7 %
-19.0 %
28.3 %
14.9 %
20.4 %
26.3 %
31.2 %
16.0 %
27.4 %
-7.6 %
22.5 %
11
Source: SCHEV 2010-11 tuition and fees annual report.
6
Source: IPEDS
Average = $16,907; Public Average = $7,870
7
1.2
Regional Trends
Virginia is affiliated with the Southern Regional Education Board (SREB) − the nation's first
interstate compact for education. SREB was created in 1948 at the request of southern governors
and acts as a clearinghouse for information on trends and issues that affect education in the south.
Colleges and universities are classified according to SREB definitions based on institutional size and
degree programs. Undergraduate tuition and fees in each state's universities and colleges are
compared with specific groups based on SREB definitions. For example, James Madison University
is considered to be a Four-Year 3 institution, offering at least 100 doctoral, masters, education
specialist, or post-master's certificates and degrees distributed among at least 10 broad program
areas. JMU and Radford are the Four-Year 3 public institutions in Virginia. Data for 2009-10 will be
available in December 2010 and will appear in next year’s report.
As the graphic below demonstrates, Virginia has the third highest tuition and fees for in-state
undergraduates at regional Four-Year 3 institutions. JMU has held this same position for the last
five years. Virginia’s increase (5 percent) was below the median (9 percent) for all the states.
Virginia’s seven-year increase (47 percent) was similar to the SREB median (48 percent). The
smallest seven-year increase was Florida (27 percent), and the largest was Kentucky (55 percent).
8
"Tuition and fees" refers to the annual tuition and mandatory fees charged all full-time
undergraduate students. Mandatory fees do not include special fees assessed in particular programs
such as music, science laboratories, or nursing. Other fees unique to given situations are not
included; for example late registration fees or automobile registration fees. Mandatory fees do
include health service fees, building use fees, student activity fees, and athletic fees where the fee is
not optional for full-time students.
Tuition and fees for in-state undergraduate students at JMU increased less than the SREB median
for Four-Year 3 institutions over the past ten years. Since 1998-99, in-state undergraduate student
charges at JMU rose 72 percent while median charges in the region went up 123 percent. JMU's
tuition and fees are now 123 percent (less than the 151 percent in 2000-01, but down from 255
percent in 1990-91) of the SREB regional median for Four-Year 3 institutions. In 2008-09 JMU's instate tuition and required fees were $1,249 above the regional median for comparable institutions.
The chart above shows how JMU’s changes in tuition and fees have been more variable than the
SREB region institutions as a whole.
9
The following two charts illustrate Virginia’s percentage ranking for in-state and out-of-state tuition
and fees as compared to the SREB institutional median (middle score).
Virginia Highlights
Percent of SREB Median Tuition and Fees by Residence, 2008-09
Percent of In-State
Median
SREB Classification
Four-Year 1 Universities
Four-Year 2 Universities
Four-Year 3 Universities (JMU and RU)
Four-Year 4 Universities
Four-Year 5 Colleges and Universities
Baccalaureate 6 Colleges and Universities
Two-Year Colleges
Source: SREB Data Exchange, December 2009
10
Percent of Out-of-State
Median
126
125
118
130
123
108
119
112
167
144
135
169
112
105
1.3 State Trends
Among the Commonwealth’s fifteen four-year public colleges and universities, JMU's in-state tuition
ranks 13th highest, required fees ranks 5th, and room and board ranks 8th. Total in-state tuition,
required fees, and room and board ranks 8th and JMU’s out-of-state total cost ranks 10th.
In-State and Out-of-State Undergraduate Tuition, Required Fees
and Room and Board for Virginia's State-Supported Institutions of Higher Education, 2010-11
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
In-State
Tuition
UVA
VT
2
W&M
VCU
GMU
VMI
2
UMW
2
LU
2
CNU
RU
ODU
JMU
UVAW
VSU
NSU
$8,780
$8,098
$7,618
$6,953
$6,320
$6,024
$5,500
$5,415
$5,314
$5,060
$4,722
$4,182
$4,020
$3,886
$3,159
Out-of-State
Tuition
UVA
W&M
VMI
GMU
VT
VCU
ODU
UMW
UVAW
JMU
LU
NSU
RU
CNU
VSU
Required
Fees
$31,726 VMI
$29,194 W&M
$24,016 LU
$23,084 CNU
$21,726 JMU
$20,085 UVAW
$18,162 NSU
$17,228 ODU
$17,142 VSU
$16,946 RU
$16,215 GMU
$16,212 UMW
$15,794 VCU
$14,056 UVA
$12,452 VT
Room and
Board1
$6,304
$4,570
$4,440
$3,936
$3,678
$3,174
$3,068
$2,986
$2,684
$2,634
$2,364
$2,362
$1,864
$1,848
$1,491
CNU
W&M
UVA
VCU
UVAW
VSU
LU
JMU
UMW
GMU
ODU
NSU
RU
VMI
VT
$9,340
$8,684
$8,652
$8,526
$8,351
$8,152
$8,114
$8,020
$8,012
$7,940
$7,902
$7,622
$7,302
$7,132
$6,290
Total
In-State
W&M
VMI
UVA
CNU
LU
VCU
GMU
JMU
VT
UMW
ODU
UVAW
RU
VSU
NSU
$20,872
$19,460
$19,280
$18,590
$17,969
$17,343
$16,624
$15,880
$15,879
$15,874
$15,610
$15,545
$14,996
$14,722
$13,849
Total
Out-of-State
W&M
UVA
VMI
GMU
VCU
VT
ODU
LU
UVAW
JMU
UMW
CNU
NSU
RU
VSU
$42,448
$42,226
$37,452
$33,388
$30,475
$29,507
$29,050
$28,769
$28,667
$28,644
$27,602
$27,332
$26,902
$25,730
$23,288
Source: SCHEV Report on 2010-11 Tuition and Fees, Appendices D-1 and D-2, August 2010.
NOTES:
1. Charges listed here represent the weighted average double occupancy room charge and the
maximum weekly meal plan offered, not necessarily the plan used by most students.
2. The 2010-11 rate includes the mid-year tuition increase in spring 2010.
11
Full-Time In-State Undergraduate Student Charges, 2010-11
Institution
CNU
GMU
JMU
LU
NSU
ODU
RU
UMW
UVA
UVA-Wise
VCU
VMI
VSU
VT
W&M
VCCS
2,3,4
RBC
Avg. 4yr
Avg. 2yr
(RBC&VC
Avg. All
CS)5
Insts.6
Tuition and
Mandatory
Fees
$5,314
$6,320
$4,182
$5,415
$3,159
$4,722
$5,060
$5,500
$8,780
$4,020
$6,953
$6,024
$3,886
$8,098
$7,618
$3,271
$2,848
$5,670
$3,060
$5,363
Percent
Change
20.40%
percent
8.20%
percent
12.00%
percent
14.60%
percent
7.00%
percent
7.00%
percent
15.10%
percent
11.20%
percent
11.50%
percent
8.80%
percent
32.40%
percent
9.50%
percent
8.40%
percent
9.90%
percent
17.50%
percent
18.20%
percent
6.80%
percent
13.10%
percent
12.60%
percent
13.10%
percent
Mandatory
Non-E&G
Fees
$3,936
$2,364
$3,678
$4,440
$3,068
$2,986
$2,634
$2,362
$1,848
$3,174
$1,864
$6,304
$2,684
$1,491
$4,570
$14
$1,085
$3,160
$550
$2,853
Percent
Increase
8.30%
percent
8.20%
percent
4.80%
percent
5.70%
percent
5.10%
percent
2.80%
percent
5.00%
percent
9.00%
percent
2.70%
percent
4.00%
percent
0.00%
percent
10.80%
percent
3.60%
percent
9.20%
percent
5.90%
percent
0.00%
percent
7.40%
percent
6.00%
percent
7.30%
percent
6.10%
percent
Source: SCHEV Report on 2009-10 Tuition and Fees, July 2010.
Room and
Board
$9,340
$7,940
$8,020
$8,114
$7,622
$7,902
$7,302
$8,012
$8,652
$8,351
$8,526
$7,132
$8,152
$6,290
$8,684
NA
$8,750
$8,003
N/A
$8,049
Percent
Increase
3.30%
percent
3.10%
percent
4.30%
percent
6.80%
percent
4.00%
percent
5.00%
percent
3.30%
percent
7.40%
percent
4.40%
percent
7.50%
percent
2.30%
percent
5.00%
percent
1.30%
percent
8.00%
percent
2.10%
percent
N/A
6.20%
percent
4.40%
percent
N/A
4.50%
percent
Total
$18,590
$16,624
$15,880
$17,969
$13,849
$15,610
$14,996
$15,874
$19,280
$15,545
$17,343
$19,460
$14,722
$15,879
$20,872
$3,285
$12,683
$16,833
$7,984
$15,792
Percent
Increase
8.80%
percent
5.70%
percent
6.30%
percent
8.80%
percent
4.90%
percent
5.20%
percent
7.30%
percent
8.90%
percent
7.30%
percent
7.10%
percent
12.20%
percent
8.20%
percent
3.50%
percent
9.10%
percent
8.10%
percent
18.10%
percent
6.40%
percent
7.50%
percent
8.60%
percent
7.60%
percent
Annual increases in Virginia for the senior institutions for in-state tuition, required fees, and room
and board ranged from 3.5 percent at Virginia State University to 12.2 percent at Virginia
Commonwealth University. JMU’s percentage increase (6.3 percent) was less than the average of the
other senior institutions (7.5 percent).
12
Full-Time Out-of-State Undergraduate Student Charges, 2010-11
Institutions
CNU
GMU
JMU
LU
NSU
ODU
RU
UMW
UVA
UVA-Wise
VCU
VMI
VSU
VT
W&M
RBC
VCCS
Avg. Senior
Insts.
Avg. 2yr
(RBC&VCCS)
Avg. All Insts.
Tuition &
Mandatory
Fees
Percent
Change
Mandatory
Non-E&G
Fees
Percent
Change
Room
&
Board
Percent
Change
Total
Out-ofState
Percent
Change
$14,056
$23,084
$16,946
$16,215
$16,212
$18,162
$15,794
$17,228
$31,726
$17,142
$20,085
$24,016
$12,452
$21,726
$29,194
$11,958
$9,019
$19,603
13.80%
percent
5.80%
percent
6.80%
percent
15.60%
percent
8.00%
percent
7.70%
percent
12.30%
percent
3.30%
percent
6.20%
percent
5.70%
percent
6.40%
percent
4.20%
percent
4.50%
percent
5.90%
percent
9.60%
percent
4.90%
percent
9.60%
percent
7.40%
$3,936
$2,364
$3,678
$4,440
$3,068
$2,986
$2,634
$2,362
$1,848
$3,174
$1,864
$6,304
$2,684
$1,491
$4,570
$1,085
$14
$3,160
8.30%
percent
8.20%
percent
4.80%
percent
5.70%
percent
5.10%
percent
2.80%
percent
5.00%
percent
9.00%
percent
2.70%
percent
4.00%
percent
0.00%
percent
10.80%
percent
3.60%
percent
9.20%
percent
5.90%
percent
7.40%
percent
0.00%
percent
6.00%
$9,340
$7,940
$8,020
$8,114
$7,622
$7,902
$7,302
$8,012
$8,652
$8,351
$8,526
$7,132
$8,152
$6,290
$8,684
$8,750
N/A
$8,003
3.30
percent
3.10
percent
4.30
percent
6.80
percent
4.00
percent
5.00
percent
3.30
percent
7.40
percent
4.40
percent
7.50
percent
2.30
percent
5.00
percent
1.30
percent
8.00
percent
2.10
percent
N/A
N/A
4.40
$27,332
$33,388
$28,644
$28,769
$26,902
$29,050
$25,730
$27,602
$42,226
$28,667
$30,475
$37,452
$23,288
$29,507
$42,448
$21,793
$9,033
$30,765
9.20%
percent
5.30%
percent
5.80%
percent
11.40%
percent
6.50%
percent
6.40%
percent
8.90%
percent
4.90%
percent
5.70%
percent
6.00%
percent
4.80%
percent
5.40%
percent
3.20%
percent
6.50%
percent
7.60%
percent
5.60%
percent
9.60%
percent
6.50%
$10,489
6.90%
$550
7.30 %
N/A
N/A
$15,413
6.70%
$18,530
7.40%
$2,853
6.10%
$8,049
4.50
$28,959
6.50%
Source: SCHEV Report on 2010-11 Tuition and Fees, Appendix D-2, July 2010.
Annual percent changes in Virginia for out-of-state tuition and required fees from 2010 to 2011 for
the senior institutions ranged from 3.2 percent at Virginia State University to 11.4 percent at
Longwood University.
The following excerpt from SCHEV’s annual tuition and fee report illustrates the increasing inability
of the average Virginian to afford higher education at one of the Commonwealth's public colleges or
universities.
For students and their parents, the cost of a college education is determined by the total cost they will have to
pay relative to the level of resources available to them. One commonly cited indicator of college affordability is
the relationship between total charges – tuition, all mandatory fees, room and board, and other ancillary
charges – as a percentage of per capita disposable income. According to the Bureau of Economic Analysis at
the U.S. Department of Commerce, per capita disposable income is the income that is available to persons for
spending and saving. It is calculated as personal income less the sum of personal income tax payments and
personal non-tax payments (donations, fees, fines, and forfeitures) to government.
Virginia’s average in-state undergraduate charges as a percentage of per capita disposable income exceeded the
national average every year since SCHEV began tracking this measure until FY10. In 1990, Virginia’s
per capita disposable income was about 6 percent higher than the national average. In contrast, the average
total undergraduate charge (including room and board) for in-state undergraduate students was nearly 30
percent higher than the national norm. Nationally, total charges represented 28.3 percent of per capita
disposable income, while the rate in Virginia was 34.6 percent.
Since reaching the low point (more affordable) of 32.2 percent in FY02 after several years of state mandated
tuition controls, this measure of affordability has crept steadily higher and is estimated to be at 41.6 percent
13
in FY11, surpassing the previous least affordable record of 39.8 percent set in both FY94 and FY95. Per
capita disposable income in Virginia is projected to grow by just over 2 percent next year, a similar growth to
that in FY10, while the average total cost at Virginia’s public four-year institutions will rise by 7.5 percent.
As a result, the average undergraduate charge as a percentage of per capita disposable income is estimated to
increase from 39.6 percent in FY10 to 41.6 percent in FY11 at the four-year institutions.
14
1.4 JMU Tuition and Fee 10-Year History
JMU Tuition, Fee, and Room and Board Charges, 2001-02 to 2010-11
01/02
IN-STATE
Tuition & Fees
Comp. Fee
Total Commuter
Room & Board1
Total On-Campus
OUT-OF-STATE
Tuition & Fees
Comp. Fee
Total Commuter
Room & Board1
Total On-Campus
02/03
03/04
04/05
05/06
06/07
07/08
08/09
09/10
10/11
$1,586
$2,508
$4,094
$5,678
$9,772
$1,728
$2,560
$4,288
$5,794
$10,082
$2,420
$2,638
$5,058
$5,966
$11,024
$2,752
$2,724
$5,476
$6,116
$11,592
$2,998
$2,888
$5,886
$6,372
$12,258
$3,228
$3,062
$6,290
$6,756
$13,046
$3,420
$3,246
$6,666
$7,108
$13,774
$3,556
$3,408
$6,964
$7,458
$14,422
$3,734
$3,510
$7,244
$7,690
$14,934
$4,182
$3,678
$7,860
$8,020
$15,880
$8,098
$2,508
$10,606
$5,678
$16,284
$8,912
$2,560
$11,472
$5,794
$17,266
$10,642
$2,638
$13,280
$5,966
$19,246
$11,696
$2,724
$14,420
$6,116
$20,536
$12,434
$2,888
$15,322
$6,372
$21,694
$13,174
$3,062
$16,236
$6,756
$22,992
$14,140
$3,246
$17,386
$7,108
$24,494
$15,050
$3,408
$18,458
$7,458
$25,916
$15,866
$3,510
$19,376
$7,690
$27,066
$16,946
$3,678
$20,624
$8,020
$28,644
Source: JMU Budget Office
1
Based on 19-meal plan
JMU Tuition and Fee History
2001-02 to 2010-11
15
2.0 STATE APPROPRIATIONS
2.1
National Trends
Nationally, the majority of states have experienced inconsistent revenues – combined with significant
pressures to fund a variety of critical initiatives like health care and corrections. One result of this
difficult combination of factors has been a decline in the state appropriations going to higher education.
The FY10 appropriations per $1,000 of personal income (a measure of the state’s ability to pay) were
11.4 percent below FY05, and 18.5 percent below FY00. In FY10 seven of the states showed one-year
percent increases, and five showed no increases. Ten states, including Virginia, had 30-year declines of at
least -50 percent. The states with the greatest 30-year declines were Colorado (-70 percent), Rhode
Island (-62 percent), Massachusetts (-61 percent), and South Carolina (-61 percent). Since 1980
Virginia’s appropriation declined -56 percent, which is 15 percent more than the national average of -41
percent. In FY10 Virginia ranked 43rd in appropriations per $1,000 at $4.59 ($5.70 in 2009), $1.59 below
the national average of $6.18. In 1990 Virginia ranked 27th at $9.78, $0.45 above the national average of
$9.33.
Changes in Appropriations of State Tax Funds for Operating Expenses of Higher
Education per $1,000 of Personal Income
FY80 to FY10
-56
perce
nt
Sources: Postsecondary Education OPPORTUNITY and GRAPEVINE, February 2010
16
The table below shows JMU’s total E&G funding (tuition, E&G fees and general funds) per FTE
student in relation to its national peer group for 2008-09 – the most recent year for which the data are
available. JMU is 11th out of the 16 public universities. For 2008-09, JMU would have required an
additional $11.9 million in E&G operating funds to reach the median of its public national peer group
or $17.3 million to reach the 60th percentile.
TOTAL FUNDING PER FTE STUDENT
JMU National Peer Group, 2008-09 Data
Institution Name
Boston College
Loyola Marymount University
Hofstra University
Fairfield University
Duquesne University
Marquette University
St. John's University-New York
Texas Christian University
Gonzaga University
Miami University-Oxford *
Baylor University
Rowan University *
The University of Alabama *
Ohio University-Main Campus *
University of Northern Iowa *
University of North CarolinaWilmington *
College of Charleston *
Illinois State University *
Truman State University *
Appalachian State University *
James Madison University *
Western Washington
University *
Eastern Illinois University *
Bloomsburg University of
Pennsylvania *
University of Wisconsin-Eau
Claire *
University of Wisconsin-La
Crosse *
2008-09
FTE
Students
Tuition and
Fees
State
Appropriations
Total Tuition &
Fees Plus State
Appropriations
12,476
8,069
12,291
4,714
8,145
10,840
17,439
8,263
6,356
17,430
14,864
8,965
25,018
23,553
12,105
11,866
342,481,266
207,735,057
269,081,855
101,519,000
173,478,000
201,195,000
319,117,797
151,078,000
115,039,908
237,571,444
240,799,000
74,763,403
227,904,509
209,638,857
60,034,123
68,897,732
0
0
1,069,033
0
0
0
1,596,199
0
0
70,329,062
0
65,215,937
156,521,464
128,855,656
101,686,218
86,971,604
342,481,266
207,735,057
270,150,888
101,519,000
173,478,000
201,195,000
320,713,996
151,078,000
115,039,908
307,900,506
240,799,000
139,979,340
384,425,973
338,494,513
161,720,341
155,869,336
27,451
25,745
21,980
21,536
21,299
18,560
18,391
18,284
18,099
17,665
16,200
15,614
15,366
14,372
13,360
13,136
10,253
18,899
5,665
16,190
18,225
13,715
98,406,287
137,167,496
23,357,186
72,463,672
125,405,039
73,572,734
27,172,853
90,628,518
43,806,665
115,211,236
80,536,598
78,535,426
125,579,140
227,796,014
67,163,851
187,674,908
205,941,637
152,108,160
12,248
12,053
11,856
11,592
11,300
11,091
11,168
8,641
69,339,046
53,104,378
49,302,337
37,151,468
118,641,383
90,255,846
10,623
10,445
10,003
51,420,519
46,179,031
97,599,550
9,757
9,494
48,785,245
35,377,616
84,162,861
8,865
JMU included
JMU included
Median
60th Percentile
$14,869
$16,200
* Public Institution
Notes
1.
2.
Total
Revenue
per FTES
All data are taken from the 2008-09 IPEDS Finance (F1) and EF forms, the most recent data.
FTE students were calculated from Fall 2008 headcount data using the standard federal methodology.
17
2.2
Regional Trends
During the period of 1982-83 through
2008-09, Virginia ranked near the top in
tuition and required fees among Four-Year
3 institutions in the Southern Region
Education Board (SREB) states.
During this same time period, state general
fund operating appropriations per FTE
student in Virginia ranked near the bottom
among similar institutions in SREB states.
In 2008-09 Virginia ranked 12th out of 14
states.
Per-student funding for Virginia's FourYear 3 institutions gained and lost ground
against other states between 1990-91 and
2008-09. For example, in 1990-91 Virginia’s percentage of the mean SREB institutions was 72 percent.
It decline to 68 percent in 2003-04, but rose to 76 percent in 2008-09.
18
2.3
State Trends
As the chart to the right indicates, the funding of higher
education in Virginia has
been greatly influenced by
policy
and
budgetary
developments. In 1988-89
non-general
funds
per
student were about 50
percent of general funds. By
1995-96 non-general funds
per student were about equal
to general funds, indicating
that
students
bore
a
significantly
higher
proportion of their total
educational
costs.
The
situation improved markedly
between 1996-97 and 2001-02, but budget problems have resulted in the non-general funds distribution
significantly exceeding general funds appropriations.
According to the data provided by SCHEV, in constant FY11 dollars, the FY11 general fund
appropriation per FTE student is 56 percent of the FY89 appropriation, the non-general fund
appropriations is 188 percent of FY89, and the total E&G appropriation is 101 percent of FY89. This
means that the Virginia public institutions have slightly greater resources for operations now than they
had 22 years ago (14 percent less than three years ago), but this increase was generated from tuition
revenue and short-term
ARRA funding, not from
state support.
As demonstrated in the
chart to the left, total E&G
funding in 2003-04 was less
than 1988-89 funding. By
2011-12, total funding will
be
approximately
four
percent lower than in 198889. However, as shown
above, this increase in
funding is primarily borne
by students and their
parents.
19
State general fund support to
JMU dropped from 63 percent of
the total educational and general
(E&G) appropriation in 1988-89
to 47 percent in 1995-96. The
percentage increased to 55 in
2001-02, but will drop to 28
percent in 2011-12. JMU’s
percentage mirrored that of the
other
four-year
Virginia
institutions. While improvement
occurred between 1995-96 and
2001-02, the percentage is now
the lowest in the last 25 years.
Virginia’s
budget
shortfall
resulted in this percentage
declining to percentages far
below those of the difficult budget years of the mid-1990s.
Higher education's share of Virginia's total general fund appropriation decreased from 11.3 percent in
the FY98 to 8.2 percent in FY12. It was as high as 17 percent1 in the mid-1980s. Given the demands on
the Commonwealth’s budget by medical costs, other mandates and the uncertain revenue stream, higher
education’s proportion of the State’s budget is unlikely to improve in the foreseeable future.
1
Virginia Business Higher Education Council
20
JMU's 2011-12 general fund appropriation per in-state FTE student was $930 below the average of the
four-year Virginia comprehensive public institutions. Its 2011-12 appropriation is $1,945 below 2001-02.
Were JMU to be funded at the average for all four-year comprehensive institutions in 2011-12, its
general fund appropriation would increase by $20.7 million. If JMU was funded at its highest year, 200001, the general fund appropriation would increase by $29.4 million.
The Commonwealth's two Four-Year 3 institutions, JMU and Radford are in a higher category than all
other state comprehensive colleges and universities. In most state higher education systems, higher
category institutions receive higher per student appropriations needed to meet their more complex
missions.
21
Appropriations of State Tax Funds for Operating Expenses of
Higher Education per $1,000 of Personal Income FY10
National Average = $6.18
Source: Postsecondary
Opportunity
February 2010
22
The graphic on the previous page and the one below examine higher education funding in terms of what
is generally called “effort.” This term refers to funding as measured against a state’s economic base —
or its ability to generate tax revenues. The two graphics use personal income as a measure of the size of
a state’s economic base. This seems to be a reasonable assumption since most states rely heavily on
personal income tax for general fund revenues.
The graph on the previous page shows Virginia’s effort as compared to the rest of the U.S. Virginia
appropriates $4.59 ($5.93 in FY09) to the operation of its public higher education system for each
$1,000 of personal income—or $1.59 below the national mean of $6.18 ($7.09 in FY09). This level
places the Commonwealth in 43rd place (least amount per person) compared to 37th last year.
The graph presented below demonstrates the changes in the Commonwealth’s higher education effort
since 1965. From a high of appropriating $9.75 per $1,000 in income in 1980, Virginia dropped to $4.59
in FY10. This represents a 53 percent decline since 1980.
23
In 2011-12 JMU's total E&G appropriation per student will be $10,378 ($11,565 in 2010-11). It is
ranked sixth out of the nine comprehensive institutions.
24
2.4
Financial Aid Appropriations
The
Virginia
General
Assembly expressed concern
about the impact of the
sizable tuition increases that
resulted
from
reduced
general fund appropriations
for higher education on
students’ ability to afford a
college education. To offset
partially the increases in
tuition and fees, the General
Assembly increased financial
aid appropriations for public
institutions. Between 200001 and 2010-11, the financial
aid appropriations for JMU
increased by 63 percent.
During the 1996—2002 biennia, the General Assembly also addressed these concerns by providing
funding to freeze, and then lower in-state tuition. The 2001-02 appropriations reverted to 1999-00 due
to the budget impasse in 2001. In the 2004-06 biennium $6.2 million in additional funds were allocated
to offset the increased tuition for students with financial need. Substantial increases occurred in the
2008-10 biennium, but remain flat for 2010-11 and 2011-12.
Source: SCHEV
25
2.5
JMU Total Operating Revenues
General Fund appropriations, excluding Capital Appropriations and Grants, Other Operating Revenues,
and Gifts, provided 32 percent of all JMU sources of revenue in 2000-01. During 2008-09, the same
sources provided 22 percent of all revenue. Correspondingly, E&G tuition and fees have risen from 23
percent to 35 percent over the same period.
Fiscal Year Current Fund Revenues, 2000-01, 2005-06, 2007-08, 2008-09
Revenues
Tuition & Fees
Federal Operating Grants & Contracts
State Operating Grants & Contracts
Local/Private Operating Grants & Contracts
Auxiliary Enterprises
Other Operating Revenues
State Appropriations
Gifts
Investment Income
Other Non-Operating Revenues
Capital Appropriations
Capital Grants & Gifts
Total Revenues
2000-01
$ 48,529,185
9,096,016
5,641,370
2,292,633
78,002,577
740,399
69,793,028
585,589
2,818,235
0
3,663,533
1,743,402
222,905,967
2005-06
$95,374,085
15,821,067
5,372,128
3,905,622
101,505,935
871,228
73,440,683
670,385
1,990,436
0
7,142,026
4,566,280
310,659,885
2007-08
$116,453,199
12,588,258
6,848,436
4,618,784
115,334,434
1,472,934
82,810,149
1,524,711
6,627,327
4,363,043
52,459,804
576,821
405,677,900
Source: 2009-10 Statistical Summary, Table 5-3
Total Operating Revenues, FY01 and FY09
26
2008-09
$125,405,039
13,695,817
8,102,327
4,092,994
125,726,142
1,857,258
80,536,598
2,268,490
2,767,977
5,076,195
47,325,370
61,250
416,915,457
2.6
JMU Facilities and Capital Outlay
JMU has grown significantly in the last two decades, and it has been necessary to increase the size of the
physical plant to support instruction and the needs of students for housing, dining, recreation and
student activities.
The table below displays the total assignable square feet reported annually to SCHEV since FY97.
Educational and General (E&G) total assignable square feet (ASF) increased at a higher rate than
Regular Session (fall and spring) FTE students. In the next few years E&G space devoted to instruction
and academic support will increase significantly with the addition of the biotechnology building on the
East Campus, and the acquisition and remodeling of the hospital property. Since FY97 total E&G ASF
per FTE student increased from 66.64 to 79.18 (19 percent).
Assignable Square Feet by Function, FY97 to 2011
Instruction &
Academic
Support,
Including
Libraries
549,897
Research &
Public
Service
34,428
Student
Services &
Institutional
Support
109,218
Operation
& Maintenance of
Plant
45,333
E&G Total
738,876
Auxiliary
Enterprise
1,296,935
1998
596,552
37,971
121,401
72,265
828,189
1999
601,783
44,093
134,948
66,268
2000
618,698
50,305
152,297
2001
694,027
54,590
2002
717,442
2003
Total
2,035,811
Regular
Session
FTES
11,087
E&G
ASF
Per
FTES
66.64
1,343,324
2,171,513
12,119
68.34
847,092
1,355,332
2,202,424
12,877
65.78
67,644
888,944
1,363,519
2,252,463
13,539
65.66
170,854
67,244
986,715
1,353,548
2,340,263
13,697
72.04
58,568
164,489
69,631
1,010,130
1,352,102
2,362,232
13,794
73.23
732,376
59,455
168,726
69,461
1,030,018
1,426,089
2,456,107
14,094
73.08
2004
710,403
80,676
149,770
71,004
1,011,853
1,450,202
2,462,055
14,457
69.99
2005
716,255
79,190
152,921
70,945
1,019,311
1,418,224
2,437,535
14,732
69.19
2006
745,298
80,722
175,166
88,213
1,089,399
1,514,332
2,603,731
14,857
73.33
2007
784,994
91,639
181,135
89,464
1,147,232
1,559,214
2,706,446
15,869
72.29
2008
805,149
93,944
194,604
91,250
1,184,947
1,545,413
2,730,360
16,115
72.44
2009
889,836
98,495
200,571
92,995
1,293,118
1,564,349
2,857,467
16,794
77.00
2010
903,705
96,868
204,777
94,675
1,300,025
1,676,071
2,976,096
17,077
76.13
79.18
Fiscal
Year
1997
2011
981,301
104,370
206,544
92,008
1,384,223
1,663,103
3,047,326
17,4812
Change
431,404
69,942
97,326
46,675
645,347
366,168
1,011,515
6,394
12.54
Percent
Change
78.5%
203.2%
89.1%
103.0%
87.3%
28.2%
49.7%
57.7%
18.8%
Sources: Statistical Summary Table 2-24 and Table 5-1
2
Estimated from fall 2010 headcount data
27
Appropriations for operating and Capital expenses have also increased significantly since the early
1970s. The table below displays the biennial appropriations. More than $1.7 billion has been
appropriated for JMU in the last 19 biennia.
Biannual Operating Expenses and Capital Outlay Appropriations for JMU
Year
1972-74
1974-76
1976-78
1978-801
1980-82
1982-84
1984-86
1986-88
1988-90
1990-922
1992-943
1994-96
1996-98
1998-00
2000-02
2002-044
2004-06
2006-08
2008-105
Total
1In
Operating
$10,526,000
14,153,755
20,241,600
26,542,375
33,687,955
37,899,145
43,156,920
54,203,641
65,086,881
64,314,591
57,351,203
70,424,607
83,908,588
115,585,470
138,638,018
128,625,934
129,713,843
157,101,378
168,569,834
$1,419,731,738
Capital
$3,740,780
1,217,200
145,620
2,932,325
2,583,850
1,523,280
8,210,600
2,184,990
12,744,995
1,656,000
34,310,787
4,669,392
1,239,505
3,399,927
3,206,668
124,169,100
0
34,026,064
67,951,000
$309,912,083
1978-80, $2,900,500 was authorized through a general obligation bond to be repaid by the General Fund.
2For
1990-92, the operating expenses appropriation is as contained in the revised 1991-92 Appropriation Act.
3In
1992-94, $34,260,787 was authorized through a general obligation bond to be repaid by the General Fund.
4In
2002-04, $99,919,900 was authorized through a general obligation bond to be repaid by the General Fund.
5In
2008-10, $65,126,000 was authorized through a general obligation bond to be repaid by the General Fund.
Sources: Statistical Summary Table 5-2 and University Budget Management.
28
3.0 EXPENDITURES
3.1
Total Operating Expenditures
As demonstrated by the charts to the right and
below, financial resources remain concentrated on
the university's core business — instruction.
Instructional functions detailed in the charts as
instruction and academic support represented 71.2
percent of JMU’s 2000-01 budget. In 2008-09 the
percentage was 69.4 percent.
The total percent of the budget spent on noninstructional administrative functions declined 2.4
percent since 2000-01. However, there were shifts
from academic support toward student services and
institutional support. The major causes of these
shifts are technology-related costs for software,
hardware and maintenance, expanded university
relations and development activities, and additional
student services required for a larger and more
diverse student body.
When JMU is compared to the public institutions in
its national peer group (approved by State Council
of Higher Education), the 2008-09 data indicate
that JMU is the sixth highest institution in support
of instruction (see chart on page 33). As indicated
in the chart on the next page, JMU spends a smaller
percent on institutional support than nine of its
peer institutions. JMU continues to operate
administrative functions efficiently in order to
concentrate resources on the university's primary
mission of instruction. In fact, during the budget
impasses of a few years ago and the current budget
challenges the University purposely preserves its
instructional monies.
29
*E&G estimate excludes Research, Public Service, Scholarships and Fellowships, and Transfers.
Data not available for private institutions: Baylor University, Boston College, Duquesne University,
Fairfield University, Gonzaga University, Hofstra University, Loyola Marymount University, Marquette
University, St. John's University-New York, Texas Christian University.
30
*E&G estimate excludes Research, Public Service, Scholarships and Fellowships, and Transfers.
Data not available for Baylor University, Boston College, Duquesne University, Fairfield University,
Gonzaga University, Hofstra University, Loyola Marymount University, Marquette University, St. John's
University-New York and Texas Christian University, all private institutions.
31
The graphic on the previous page shows JMU’s commitment to instruction. JMU spends
the sixth highest percentage of its E&G budget on instruction in its peer group. The fact
that JMU has a high percentage of its budget devoted to instruction and a low percentage
devoted to institutional support demonstrates that JMU clearly focuses its resources on its
mission of educating students.
The chart presented below compares instructional/academic and institutional support for
Virginia's comprehensive institutions. Of the Virginia comprehensive institutions in 200809, JMU ranks fourth in percent of E&G budget spent on instruction and academic support
(combined) and last in percent of E&G budget spent on institutional support.
* E&G estimates exclude Research, Public Service, Scholarships and Fellowships, and
Transfers
32
The chart presented below analyzes institutional expenditures in a slightly different manner.
Instead of examining institutional support as a percent of the E&G operating budget, this
graphic displays the same expenditure category on a FTE student (FTES) basis. It could be
argued that this represents a truer picture of expenditures than the percentage when
comparing institutions with different educational missions — e.g., comprehensive and doctoral
institutions. For doctoral-level institutions, the percent of E&G expenditures used for
institutional support is lessened by their huge research budgets that are often included in their
total E&G expenditures.
Of the Virginia institutions, JMU again ranks last at $1,340 per FTES expended on
institutional support in FY09. This figure is $129 per student less than the next lowest
institution (Old Dominion University) and $2,716 less than the highest (UVA). On a per
student basis, JMU has been administratively the leanest institution in the Commonwealth for
more than 20 years.
33
3.2 Faculty and Staff Salaries
In the spring of 2007 JMU and the other Virginia publicly funded colleges and universities
negotiated new peer institutions with SCHEV staff and other state agency representatives.
These replaced the peer groups negotiated in 1997 as a benchmark in support of the public
policy objective that all state colleges and universities offer competitive faculty salaries equal to
the 60th percentile of a national group of its peer institutions. In 2009-10 JMU’s current
position was 18th out of 25 institutions. The 60th percentile faculty salary for 2009-10 was
$80,600, thereby putting JMU’s reported (to AAUP) average salary $12,500 below the
objective. Comparative information for 2010-11 will be available in April 2011.
As demonstrated by the data shown on page 36, the 1996-97 through 1999-2000 salary
increases for faculty, administrators, and classified staff exceeded the CPI. In 2000-01 the CPI
exceeded the average salary increases. In 2001-02 no faculty or staff received salary increases
due to the budget impasse, and the monthly cost of the family medical plan increased to $218.
In 2002-03 the family medical plan increased to $240. In 2003-04 the Commonwealth
instituted a new medical plan, COVA Care, which reduced the monthly premium to $99. In
2004-05 the University funded salary increases for all faculty and staff in July (2.0 percent for
all instructional faculty plus 1.0 percent for full professors; 1.0 percent for all administrators
and classified staff). In December 2006 all eligible faculty received a 3.84 percent increase. The
family medical premium increased to $140. The 2005-06, 2006-07 and 2007-08 salary increases
exceeded the CPI. Due to the severe financial crisis in Virginia, 2008-09 and 2009-10 salaries
were frozen at 2007-08 rates.
Classified salary increases outpaced those for both instructional faculty and administrators
during 1993-94 and 1994-95 because the General Assembly funded a statewide merit program.
During 1995-96, classified staff received the same percentage pay raise as instructional faculty
and administrators. In 1996-97 their raises were greater than faculty and administrators, but
were less than faculty in 1997-98. In 1998-99 the increases for classified staff were higher than
administrators, but smaller than faculty. In 1999-00 and 2000-01 the increases for classified
staff were higher than the other two groups. In 2001-02 no classified staff received raises.
Classified staff received a 2.5 percent bonus in August 2002. A 3.00 percent raise for all
classified staff occurred in December 2004 in addition to the 1.00 percent July bonus. In
December 2005 instructional faculty received a 5.00 percent raise, and administrative and
classified staff received a 4.00 percent raise. In December 2006 faculty received a 3.84 percent
raise, administrators received a 3.29 percent raise, and classified staff received a 4.00 percent
raise. In December 2007 all faculty, administrators and classified staff received a 4.00 percent
raise. In December 2010 all faculty, administrators and classified staff received a 3.00 percent
bonus that is not applied to the base salary.
Between 1989-90 and 1999-00 the appropriated salary raises for faculty and classified staff
slightly exceeded the CPI due to the higher raises and lower CPI. Between 1989-90 and 199495, the monthly cost for family medical insurance increased by 67 percent from $102 to $170.
The monthly cost of family medical plan insurance decreased to $157 in 1995-96, but again
increased to $240 by 2001-02, a 66.7 percent increase since 1995-96. A new medical plan
instituted by the Commonwealth decreased the monthly premium to $113 for 2004-05. By
2010-11 the premium increased to $150. For instructional faculty benefits as a percentage of
total compensation increased from 24.9 percent in 1991-92 to 33.7 percent in 2009-10.
34
Average Faculty Salary = $77.0 (Thousands)
35
Source: Institutional Research and AAUP
36
Appropriated Salary Increases and Cost of Family Medical Coverage
1989-90 to 2010-11
Appropriated Salary Increase
Year
1989-90
1990-91
1991-92
1992-93
1993-94
1994-95
1995-96
1996-97
1997-98
1998-99
1999-00
2000-01
2001-02
2002-03
2003-04
CPI Increase
(December To
December) *
4.6%
6.1%
3.1%
2.9%
2.7 %
2.7 %
2.5 %
3.3 %
1.7 %
1.6 %
2.7 %
3.4 %
1.6 %
2.4 %
1.9 %
Instructional
Faculty
7.65 %
2.36 %
0.00 %
2.00 %
3.60 %
3.40 %
2.25 %
4.00 %
5.00 %
6.10 %
6.10 %
3.00 %
0.00 %
1 2.50 %
2.25 %
2.00 % - All Faculty
1.00 % - Additional for
Full Professors
Administrative
Faculty
5.90 %
1.90 %
0.00 %
2.00 %
3.60 %
3.40 %
2.25 %
4.00 %
4.00 %
3.10 %
4.00 %
3.00 %
0.00 %
2.50 %
2.25 %
Classified
Staff
3.25 %
3.00 %
0.00 %
2.00 %
6.50 %
3.57 %
2.25 %
4.35 5%
4.00 %
3.67 %
6.25 %
3.25 %
0.00 %
2.50 %
2.25 %
1.00 %
1.00 %
Bonus
3.3 %
3.00 %
3.00 %
3.00 %
$113
3.4 %
2.5 %
4.1 %
0.7 %
2.1 %
1.4 %
5.00 %
3.84 %
4.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
3.0 % Bonus3
4.00 %
3.29 %
4.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
3.0 % Bonus
4.00 %
4.00 %
4.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
3.0 % Bonus
$127
$140
$147
$144
$144
$150
2004-05
July2
2004-05
December
2005-06
2006-07
2007-08
2008-09
2009-10
2010-11
Monthly
Cost of
Family
Medical
Plan
$102
$147
$159
$155
$170
$170
$157
$157
$157
$170
$185
$207
$218
$240
$99
Source: JMU Budget Office and Human Resources
Note: 1990-91 percentage allows for the 2 percent salary reduction in December, 1990. Since 1992-93,
salary increase percentages are effective in December of each fiscal year. Effective date of change
in health care cost varies from year to year.
1
In August 2002 all continuing faculty, staff, and administrators received a 2.50 percent bonus that
was not added to the base salary.
2
In July 2004 JMU funded raises for all employees. The Commonwealth also funded raises for all
eligible employees beginning in December 2004.
3
In 2010 a one-time 3.0 percent bonus was given to all full-time employees. The 3.0 percent was
not added to the base salary and is not included in salary statistics for IPEDS and AAUP.
* Inflation Statistics from Bureau of Labor Statistics. http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/cpi.pdf
Health insurance figures from Virginia Department of Human Resources Management. Medical
plan is COVA Care (includes basic dental) for Family. See DOA Payroll Bulletins for annual rates.
37