↓ Download PDF ← Back to Library
91 UNIVERSITY
REPORT TO THE
BOARDOF TRUSTEES
1998-99 YEAR END PROJECTION
1999-2000 PROPOSED BUDGET
June 4-5, 1999
TABLE OF CONTENTS
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. Introduction 1
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………. Antioch University-wide Schedules 18
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. Antioch College 20
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. Antioch New England 33
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. Antioch Seattle 45
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. Antioch Southern California 62
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… The McGregor School 76
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. University Administration 84
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. Glen Helen 96
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Antioch Review 100
WSO
Radio ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 103
University-Wide Expenses ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 115
Funded Carry Forward and Liquidity Reserves ……………………………………………………………………………………….. 117
Cost Centers ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 118
Line Items ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 119
REPORT TO THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES
June 4-5,1999
I. INTRODUCTION
The 1999-2000 Proposed Budget contains the spending plans developed by each of the Campuses and operating units
for consideration and action by the Board of Trustees. The Proposed Budget for each Campus reflects a careful analysis
of their future revenues and expenditures with appropriate adjustments for changes in enrollment and other demand
factors. In nearly every case, program redirection and changing circumstances have necessitated adjustments in staffing
and support cost levels. In some cases, the 1998-99 experience dictated changes for 1999-2000 in order to comply with
the policy of the Board of Trustees that each Campus submit and maintain a balanced Operating Budget. One quarter
remained of the 1998-99 year at the time the Proposed Budget was developed, and the year-end projections in this report
were made with two months remaining in the fiscal year. The 1998-99 full-year performance of each Campus will be
reviewed at the October meeting of the Board of Trustees following the close of the fiscal year.
The financial information in this report is presented using the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) 117 reporting
standards that became mandatory for independent colleges and universities on July 1 , 1995. The objective of this FASB
standard is to enhance the relevance, clarity and comparability of financial statements issued by not-for-profit organi-
zations, regardless of the nature of their operation or mission. The material presented in this report provides a detailed
view of the budgeted revenues and expenses of the University and is intended to promote the understanding of University
operations as a whole and of each of its units. If you are familiar with the terms and format of this report, you may want to
begin reading at the 1998-99 Year-End Projection section on page 7.
I. FORMAT AND CONTENT .
The 1999-2000 Proposed Budget contains summary schedules for the entire University and similar schedules for each
Campus. In addition, each Campus has prepared a narrative description of the significant events that have occurred in
the current year as well as those that are expected to occur during the next year. The purpose of the narrative is to give
an overview of how each Campus is managing and what problems and opportunities it anticipates in the coming year. In
addition, each Campus has proposed capital expenditures for 1999-2000 that are part of the Five-Year Capital Plan.
Under Board of Trustee policy, Trustee approval is required for any facility or equipment expenditure of more than
$25,000. Expenditures between $10,000 and $25,000 require the advance approval of the Vice Chancellor and they
must be reported to the Finance Committee in a timely manner. The capital expenditures contained in this report are
proposed for purchase in 1999-2000. Campuses frequently identify planned purchases of less than $10,000 in order to
provide a more complete picture of their capital spending plan.
Board of Trustee action is needed to authorize tuition and fee schedule changes for 1999-2000. Each Campus has
included a schedule of proposed student charges showing the prior year rates, the proposed rates, and the percentage
change. Although a schedule of tuition rate changes is included for the College, the Board of Trustees approved tuition
and fees for the College at the February meeting. Early action on College tuition and fee rates is needed in order to allow
the timely preparation of financial aid packets for prospective students.
I. THE FUNCTION SCHEDULE
For the University as a whole and for each of the Campuses, the Proposed Budget contains two schedules. The first is
the 1999-2000 Proposed Budget by Function. This schedule provides information about Revenues by Type and
Operating Expenses by Function. The purpose is to show what is happening to the various major revenue streams that
support the University and to show how Operating Expenses are assigned to the various programs or functions.
In both the Revenues and Operating Expenses sections of this schedule is a reference to
“E&G1′.
This abbreviation
stands for Educational and General and the Total E&G lines show the Revenues and the Operating Expenses of all
functions other than those that are classified as Auxiliary Enterprises. The E&G subtotals are provided to simplify
comparison of the revenues and expenses of the primary missions of the University while excluding “support
functions”
that are not part of the primary missions. Auxiliary Enterprises include support functions such as dining services,
housing, bookstore, and similar
“businesses”.
An additional Revenues item that appears below the Total E&G Revenue totals is Released from Restrictions. The
amounts on this line reflect funds that were initially received by the University or Campuses for specific purposes and held
until they could be spent to further the specific purpose. Most of this money represents gifts or bequests that have been
provided for such things as scholarships or specific program initiatives. Much of the funding of this type is expended in
the year it is received but Restricted Funds are often held for several years until they can be expended in accordance
with the conditions set out by the donor. For example, scholarship funds that provide for students with certain types of
abilities or needs will not be expended until such students can be identified. Restricted Funds do not become part of the
Operating Budget until released. Prior to being transferred to the Operating Budget, Restricted Funds are carried in the
accounts of the University and invested in accordance with University policy.
Because restricted revenues do not become part of the unrestricted operating funds of the University until they are
Released from Restrictions, the amounts shown for Gifts and Grants may vary from the figures reported by the
Development Offices for the same period. The Development Offices report gifts on a cash basis, that is, as they are
received. The Accounting Office reports gifts on an accrual basis, that is, when they are received or pledged. Pledges
are commitments that will be realized at a future date and are not expendable until the funds are actually received.
Funds that are given for a restricted purpose are invested until they can be expended for the purpose specified by the
donor. Several years may pass before a campus can expend a restricted gift as the donor intended, but the restricted gift
is recorded by the Development Office when it is received. The financial schedules contained in this report do not reflect
restricted revenue until it is expended. Therefore, reports from the Development Office may show higher or lower giving
levels than will appear on these schedules.
Restricted Funds should not be confused with Endowment Funds. Endowment Funds are also separated from
unrestricted revenues and are also limited to specific purposes as provided by their donor. The primary difference is that
the principal of Endowment Funds must be retained in perpetuity and only the annual income can be expended to satisfy
the purpose of the donor. On the other hand, the principal amount of a restricted gift can be used as soon as a valid
purpose has been identified. Income from the Endowment Funds appear as a Revenue Item on the Endowment Income
line.
The Function schedule in this report for Antioch University as well as the Function schedules for Central Administration
and University Wide expenses contain an additional line, “Net Overhead for Central Operations.” This line has been
added to the Function schedules of these three areas to more clearly display the cost of central operations. Ordinarily,
the Overhead used to support the Central Administration and the University Wide expenses budget would appear as a
“negative expense” entry, but the Board of Trustees has requested that central operations be displayed more in keeping
with the way the budgets of the individual Campuses are displayed. Accordingly, this line has been added to these three
schedules and appears as a quasi-revenue entry. It shows how much is transferred from the operating units to meet the
costs of central operations and it clearly separates the “revenue” of the central operations from their expenses and makes
it easier to see the true cost of these units.
The Operating Expenses section of the Function schedule provides financial information for each of the primary activities
or programs. Each operating department of the University is classified in accordance with its primary function. For
example, the Languages Department of the College is classified as Instruction and all of its expenditures will be
combined with those of other teaching departments and reported on the Instruction line of the Function schedules. A list
of the Cost Centers that comprise each of the Functions is presented on page 11 8.
The columns of the 1999-2000 Proposed Budget by Function schedules present information about the two prior years,
the current year, and the coming year. For comparison purposes, the first two columns contain the 1996-97 and 1997-98
actual expenditure history. The third column contains the 1998-99 Budget as approved by the Board of Trustees and the
fourth column contains information about how each of the Campuses anticipate their 1998-99 Budget will appear at the
end of the current fiscal year. That is, the 1998-99 Budget column is the plan for the current year while the
1998-99
Projected column shows how the plain is likely to play out. The next two columns, Change from 1998-99 Budget to
1998-
99 Projected show the dollar amount and percentage variance between the plan for the current year the likely outcome at
June 30.
Because the Proposed 1999-2000 Budget is developed from current year operations, it is important to consider how the
current year will end before deciding on what is or is not possible in the new year. For this reason, the Proposed Budget
schedules show the changes from the current year budget to the anticipated year end amounts.
The Proposed 1999-2000 Budget is segregated from the other columns by solid vertical lines to make it stand out from
the other numbers. The next two columns on this schedule compare the Proposed 1999-2000 Budget with the
1998-99
Projected outcome, and the last two columns compare the Proposed 1999-2000 Budget with the 1998-99 Budget as
approved by the Board. Each set of comparisons present the dollar variance and percentage variance. Major
dollarlpercentage
changes tend to signify programmatic shifts or restructuring.
FASB 117 requires the presentation of information on an accrual basis, but the actual management of the University also
depends on maintaining an appropriate cash flow so that current obligations can be met. The schedules in this Report
contain a Conversion to Cash Basis section which identifies those expenses and revenue sources that must be
considered when adjusting from an accrual basis to a cash basis. These items are primarily concerned with equipment
and facilities which, although occurring in one fiscal year, are depreciated over their useful life. Accumulated depreciation
is shown as an offset to the Depreciation Expense that is included as a part of the Plant Maintenance function. Borrowing
proceeds, if any, associated with the expenditures shown are reflected on a separate line, as are the Principal Payments
necessary to retire the loans of previous years.
The Conversion to Cash Basis section also shows the use of any Prior Year Reserves. Prior Year Reserves are
maintained by the University as “funded” or “unfunded”. Whenever the campuses end the year with an operating surplus,
this sum is recorded and carried forward on the books. If the University has sufficient surplus cash at year-end, the
surplus is funded and invested in an interest bearing account. The “Unfunded Reserves” of the campuses become
‘Funded Reserves” whenever there is surplus cash at year-end. If there is not sufficient cash to cover the surplus, the
uncovered portion becomes a credit to the unfunded reserve. Campuses may propose the use of their Prior Year
Reserves in the annual budget, or they may request the Chancellor’s permission to use Funded Reserves to meet
unexpected expenses during the year.
IV. THE CATEGORY SCHEDULE
The second major schedule is the 1999-2000 Proposed University Budget by Category. On this schedule, Revenues
from the Function Schedule (including Net Overhead for Central Operations) are condensed to a single line, but
Operating Expenses from the Function schedule are presented by category
(e.g.,
Salaries & Wages, Benefits, Supplies).
These Categories show how the Proposed Budget will be expended by the Major Expense categories that are explained
in detail on page 11 9.
A section of these schedules show the ContingencyIReserves that the Campuses are required to budget. The “Campus
Contingency, Mandatory” amount is budgeted at 2% of net student revenue. This Reserve will be retained centrally until
the University Administration is reasonably sure that overall University Revenues and Expenditures will balance for the
year. At the end of each quarter of the fiscal year, those Campuses which are performing at or above their budgeted level
may request the release of a portion of the Mandatory Reserve. In October we do not anticipate releasing more than
10% of the total. In January we would expect to release not more than 50% (cumulative) of the total with the remaining
50% to be released in April. These percentages are guidelines; if total University Revenue appear to be much higher or
lower than budgeted, the percentages that can be released at the end of any quarter will be appropriately adjusted.
The “Campus Program Contingency,
Discretionary”
is a reserve amount determined by individual Campuses. Depending
on the volatility of its programs, a Campus may elect to hold an additional sum in reserve to off set possible revenue
fluctuations. The amount of this Reserve is determined by the Campus, and the Campus determines when this Revenue
is released for expenditure. Not all Campuses elect to place funds in this Reserve.
The Liquidity Reserve is equal to 1.25% (1.5% for Seattle) of the net tuition and fee Revenue of each Campus. The
Liquidity Reserve is not available for expenditure for any purpose, but the amounts budgeted are added to the Liquidity
Reserve each year and allowed to accumulate in order to increase the financial integrity of the University. The bond
issues that have financed facilities at New England and Seattle and retired debt for the College require the University to
operate with an excess of revenue over expenses in each year. In order to satisfy this ratio requirement and to build for
the time when the University can satisfy Moody Investors Service requirements for a bond rating, this money is
accumulated during the year in a University-wide account. As with the Program Contingency, the Liquidity Reserve is
removed from the campus budgets and appears as an expense. However, the Liquidity Reserve is shown in the
University Wide section and this makes the University position as a whole appear somewhat worse than it is. Unlike the
Program Contingency, the Liquidity Reserve is not credited back to the campuses at year-end because it may not be
used to off-set expenditures. Rather, it is intended to provide a budgeted surplus.
The Overhead section shows the assessments that are made against each Campus in order to support operations of the
University. The assessments are made at the rate of 13.75% of net student revenue. Net student revenue excludes
tuition generated by new programs less than two years in operation, tuition discounts and waivers, and uncollectable
tuition and fees. From the overhead, Rebates from the University are transferred to the individual campuses, as is the
Subsidy from Adult Campuses and the Subsidy from Overhead. Campuses that receive Rebates and Subsidies will show
negative amounts in the various columns of this schedule because the transfer is shown as a “negative expense” rather
than as a Revenue. Although these transfers are “income” to the receiving campus, from the standpoint of the University
they represent only the reassignment of revenue from one campus to another.
The Overhead section of the Summary by Category schedule shows the assessments that are made against the student
derived revenue of each campus in order to support operations of the University. Although overhead is assessed at
13.75%,
Rebates reduce the effective Overhead rate. Rebate increases in 1999-2000 will lower the effective Overhead
rate to 9.0% or less for the Adult Campuses. The Other line in this section of the Category schedule shows the effect of
various contractual relationships between Campuses as well as certain University-wide assessments such as the
University Conference. Because the University Conference will not occur in the 1999-2000, there is no assessment for
the Conference.
Depreciation is a major expense for the University, and is carried centrally because all facilities are held in the corporate
name of the University. Both the Depreciation Expense and the Add Back Depreciation entries appear in the University
Wide expenses section on pages 1 15 and 116.
The columns on the 1999-2000 Proposed Budget by Category schedule are identical to those on the Budget by Function
schedule.
V. 1998-99 YEAR-END PROJECTION
In general, the current year’s budget forms the basis for the 1999-2000 budget. If current year revenues are low or
expenses high, the 1999-2000 budget may require adjustment. On the basis of the first ten months of operations the
operating units are projecting that they will complete the 1998-99 year with a narrow accrual surplus of $28,635. The net
cash basis budget surplus is projected to be $329,709. Because the Liquidity Reserve is reflected on the various
Campus schedules as an expense item, the year-end accrual surplus that will be reported in October will increase by
$349,193. This amount will also be added to the net cash basis budget, which means that the University will complete
1998-99
with both positive accrual and positive cash balances.
While positive accrual and cash balances for the University as a whole is welcome news, the contributing factors behind
this performance are less reassuring. At present, the College is projecting an accrual surplus of $580,978, but a cash
basis deficit of
-$307,282.
New England is projecting an accrual basis surplus of $225,127 and a zero cash basis finish.
At Seattle, the accrual surplus is projected to be $138,452, while the cash surplus will be about $8,000. McGregor
anticipates an accrual basis surplus of $98,580 and a cash basis surplus of $52,406. The best performance is projected
by Southern California with an accrual surplus of $243,641 and a cash basis surplus of $215,499. Glen Helen is currently
projecting an accrual deficit of
-$42,475
and a cash basis deficit of
446,275.
WSO
is projecting positive results on both
an accrual and a net cash basis. The largest contribution to the projected net cash basis surplus is in University-Wide,
however. Here, a projected surplus of $384,771 is derived primarily from investment income, but these gains are not
available as operating cash. Therefore, our functional cash position is not as strong as the summary schedules would
suggest.
It is important to remember that these projections were made with two months remaining in the fiscal year. Each of the
campuses is taking steps to improve their financial standing and the overall performance numbers are very likely to
improve at year-end.
A major reason for the narrow surpluses being projected by the campuses is that tuition and fee revenue is below the
budgeted level at every campus except New England. In total, tuition and fee revenue is $2.5 million below the 1998-99
budgeted level.
1998-99 TUITION AND FEE REVENUE
Budgeted Projected Variance
Antioch College 12,039,945 10,548,246 -1,491,699
Glen Helen 137,586 11 8,401 -19,185
New England 8,250,283 8,254,740 4,457
Seattle 7,420,590 6,960,764 -459,826
Southern California 7,921,655 7,818,871 -1 02,784
McGregor
5,188,545 4,744,977 -443,568
TOTALS $40,958,604 $38,445,999
-$2,512,605
Fortunately, tuition discounts are projected to be $826,814 less than was budgeted, and this will offset a significant part of
the tuition and fee variance. This reduction in the amount of discounts to be awarded occurred at the College and the
tuition and fee variance at the College is projected to be
-$658,305.
Other revenues are not sufficient to offset the under performance of tuition and fees. Grants are currently projected to be
about $100,000 below budget and Contracts are projected to be about $79,000 below budget. Both of these may well
improve by year end. Other income, which includes investment income, is projected to be more than $600,000, or
67%,
greater than the budgeted amount.
With Total E&G Revenues expected to be down 2.8% from budget, it was important for the Presidents to move
aggressively during the year to reduce expenses. As a result of their managerial actions, Total
E&G
Expenses are
projected to be down 3.77% from budget for a total savings of about $1.9 million. Instruction, which represents more than
34% of Total E&G Expenses, is expected to decline 4.8% from the budgeted level due to actions taken to limit expend-
itures. As a result, Instruction expenditures are projected to be slightly below the Instruction expenditures in 1997-98.
Salaries and Wages is the single largest expense category and accounts for 46.2% of all expenses. Directly related to
Salaries and Wages is Benefits which accounts for 13.7% of total University expenses. Both of these categories are
projected to be below budget for 1998-99 with Salaries and Wages being down
-.83%
and Benefits being down -6.77%.
With the exception of Training & Development, which is projected to be -$556,987 below budget (-27.64%); Special
Events forecast to be under budget by
-$65,722
(-27.43%) and Miscellaneous, which is projected to be
-$I
11,425 below
budget
(-21.88%),
the other expense categories are projected to be above budget. The largest variance from budget is
for Student Aid Services which will be $290,813 above budget
(23.64%),
but this line contains considerable funding from
restricted grant scholarships that cannot be used for other purposes. Resale Costs are 22% above budget ($1 31,084)
because Auxiliary sales and inventories have increased.
Capital Expenditures are expected to exceed the budget by $199,617, or 19.51%. A major factor in this increase,
$221,974, will be expended by the College for the technology improvements and library roof repairs authorized by the
Board. New England projects total Capital expenditures of $525,500, but only $25,500 will be above budget.
This
money
was spent on the “warehouse” space renovation and $182,333 of the total came from funded reserves that New England
borrowed from
McGregor.
VI. 1999-2000 BUDGET OVERVIEW
With the exception of New England, all of the campuses are projecting double digit percentage increases in their Tuition
and Fee Income for 1999-2000. These aggressive forecasts are a reflection of the efforts of the new presidents to
expand their enrollments by improved advertising, new programs, and more active involvement of faculty and staff in the
identification of potential students. New programs factor large in the forecasts as several campuses are bringing
innovative programs on-line. Among these are the new Teacher Education Certification Program at Southern California;
an Art Therapy Master’s Program within the Psychology Program, Organization Systems Renewal Program in Chicago,
and a Corporate Leadership Program for the ALCOA Corporation by Seattle; and a new MA in Educational Leadership
with a Principalship Licensure at McGregor. In addition, new cohort sessions are being added and existing cohorts are
being expanded. Together, the Presidents forecast that Tuition & Fee Income will reach $43,079,084 in 1999-2000. This
is a 5.18% increase over the
1998-99
budget and a 12.05% increase over the projected Tuition & Fee Income.
A comparison of the amounts budgeted in 1999-2000 with the Tuition & Fee Revenue for the current year, by campus, is
in the following table:
1999-2000 TUITION AND FEE REVENUE
1998-99
Projected
Antioch College 10,548,246
Glen Helen 1 18,401
New England 8,254,740
Seattle 6,960,764
Southern California 7,818,871
McGregor
4,744,977
TOTALS $38,445,999
1999-2000
Budgeted
12,069,086
1 16,440
8,306,440
8,027,204
9,286,332
5,273,582
$43,079,084
Change
1,520,840
-1,961
51,700
1,066,440
1,467,461
528,605
$4,633,085
Percent
Change
14.42%
-1.66%
0.63%
15.32%
18.77%
11.14%
The growth in Tuition & Fee Income at New England would be greater than the amount shown above if it were not for a
one-time accounting change that has transferred a portion of New England’s summer tuition to the 1998-99 year. This
accounting change results from the adoption by New England of the Datatel Student Service modules which permit fee
income from a session that spans the fiscal year boundary to be divided between the two fiscal years. Previously, the
summer Tuition & Fee Income was allocated to the following fiscal year.
On a budget-to-budget basis, Tuition Discounts are being held constant, but on a projected-to-budget basis, Tuition
Discounts will increase by more than 29%. Some of the change is associated with tuition increases, and the College is
still honoring its commitment to merit awards that began a few years ago and has increased support for Ohio residents.
During the year, the need for College Tuition Discounts may be reduced if external scholarship funds exceed the amount
budgeted. The following table shows, by campus, the change between the projected Tuition Discounts for 1998-99 and
the amount budgeted in 1999-2000.
1999-2000 TUITION DISCOUNTS
1998-99
Projected
Antioch College 2,469,296
Glen Helen 0
New England 55,000
Seattle 58,353
Southern California 175,100
McGregor
45,727
TOTALS $2,803,476
1999-2000
Budgeted
3,286,264
0
40,000
86,700
212,100
0
$3,625,064
Change
81 6.968
0
-1 5,000
28,347
37,000
-45,727
$821,588
Percent
Change
33.09%
Tuition discounts are not a major budget factor for the adult campuses. Most of the tuition reductions provided by the
adult campuses are granted to employees under the Board’s policy.
Gift Income is expected to reach $2,070,399 in 1999-2000. This represents an increase of $1 07,742 over the 1998-99
budget and approximately the same amount over the amount projected for 1998-99. Gift Income for 1998-99 is projected
to be at the budget level which is why the change from projected-to-budget and budget-to-budget are virtually the same.
The College receives approximately 69% of the Gift Income budgeted for 1999-2000, but over time this percentage will
decline as the development efforts by the other campuses produce results. Although still small, Gift Income budgeted in
1999-2000 by the Adult Campuses shows significant growth over the prior year.
Endowment income will increase by $120,578 over the 1998-99 budget. With the change in endowment management to
a Total Return basis, all of the external administrative costs of endowment investing will be paid from the unrestricted
earnings of the endowment. Previously, a portion of these costs were paid from the endowment and others were charged
to the University Wide account. Transaction fees for gifts of stock that were sold prior to transfer to the endowment were
discounted from the proceeds. Beginning in 1999-2000, all of the management and brokerage fees will be paid from
unrestricted earnings of the endowment. This will lower the expense charges to Overhead in the University Wide unit by
$35,000.
Contract Income is projected to decrease by 23% from the 1998-99 budget. Because the number of contracts received
by Antioch is relatively small, receiving or not receiving one or two contracts in a given year can significantly alter the
total. New England, which receives most of the contract income, has decreased its 1999-2000 Contract budget by
42%,
or
4183,739.
It is possible that the New England faculty will be successful with their grant proposal activities during the
year and that this decline will not materialize.
Salaries and Wages in 1999-2000 will increase by $1,991,315, or
8.18%,
above the 1998-99 budget. The addition of
positions for the new programs at the Adult Campuses as well as full-year financing of some positions started with
MacArthur
Funds at the College, plus the faculty and staff salary increases, account for this increase. The campuses are
proposing salary increases for faculty and staff that will be above the inflation rate of the prior year.
BUDGETED SALARY INCREASES FOR 1999-2000
COLLEGE: 3% for faculty and staff effective 7-1 -99; additional 1 % effective 1-1 -2000
Approximately 2.5% for union staff (20
centslhour)
effective 8-1 -99
NEW ENGLAND: 3% for core faculty and staff
SEATTLE: 3% for core faculty and staff effective 1-1-2000
3.5% for adjunct faculty effective 7-1-99
SOUTHERN
CALIFORNIA: 2% for staff effective 7-1 -99
2% for faculty and administrators effective 1-1-2000
McGREGOR:
2% for faculty and administrators effective 7-1-99
2% estimate for union staff; contract expires 10-16-99
UNIVERSITY
ADMINISTRATION: 3% for staff and administrators effective 7-1-99
These increases will provide a small amount of catch-up for the faculty and staff who have seen their salaries erode due
to inflation. This is particularly important for those campuses that have skipped annual salary increases in recent years
because of enrollment problems. The increases are also important because many faculty and staff will begin health
insurance premium sharing on January 1,2000.
The 1999-2000 budget has reduced the Net Overhead that the campuses pay to support Central Administration and to
provide central services. In 1997-98 the Net Overhead Rate for the Adult Campuses was reduced to 10% or less. It was
reduced to 9.5% in 1998-99 and will be reduced to 9.0 in 1999-2000. The Net
OverheadRate
is calculated by reducing
the Budgeted Overhead by the amount of Budgeted Rebate and Budgeted Subsidy provided to the individual campuses.
The Budgeted Net Overhead is then divided by the Student-Derived Income to get the effective overhead rate. For the
adult campuses, the 1999-2000 Net Overhead Rate has been reduced by half of a percentage point. The overall rate for
all campuses will be 7.27% in 1999-2000. If Overhead for central operations were calculated as a percentage of all
revenues, the rate would be less than 5%.
1999-2000 NET OVERHEAD AND REBATES
Student
Derived Budgeted
Campus Income Overhead
College 7,243,638 996,000
New England 7,670,142 1,054,645
Seattle 7,563,078 998,673
Southern CA 8,279,383 1,140,897
McGregor
4,809,166 663,601
Totals $35,565,407 $4,853,816
Net
Budgeted Budgeted Budgeted Overhead
Rebate Subsidy Net Overhead Rate
-550,000 -400,000 46,000 0.64%
-364,332
690.31
3 9.00%
-31 7,996 680,677 9.00%
-406,271 734,626 8.87%
-228,435 435,166 9.05%
-$I
,867,034
-$400,000
$2,586,782 7.27%
One significant change in the 1999-2000 budget is the reduction in Interest Expense charged to the University Wide
account. Interest Expense will decrease by $74,000 in 1999-2000 because the university is expected to complete the
repayment of the internal loan from the Endowment Fund. In 1974 the University pledged a portion of its endowment
portfolio to secure a line of credit needed to support operations in Yellow Springs and elsewhere. When the University
was unable to repay the line of credit, Winters National Bank liquidated the pledged endowment portfolio. Several years
later the Board of Trustees adopted a resolution calling for the repayment of the loan principal as well as interest:
50% of realized and unrealized gains and losses on the pooled endowment each year have been .
applied to the repayment of the principal. (Until 1996, Ohio law permited 50% of gains and losses to be
treated as unrestricted income that could be expended for any purpose that the Board might determine.
In 1996 Ohio law was changed to permit the discretionary use of 100% of gains and losses.)
University operating funds (overhead) were used to pay interest on the outstanding balance of the loan
at the rate of 7% on $450,000 and 8.5% on the remainder of the debt.
The following table shows the history of the repayment of the internal debt:
Original
Amount
Borrowed Amount
From Repaid
Endowment
3,337,343
Balance Interest
Original
Amount
Borrowed Amount Balance Interest
From Repaid
Endowment
1996 381,759 1,463,365 150,085.54
1997 659,080 804,285 1 17,636.03
1998 571 ,149 233,136 61,614.23
1999 (projected) 233,136
Total 3.337.343
The repayment of this internal debt to the endowment fund is significant because it satisfy a commitment created by the
Board of Trustees at a time when the financial future of the University was uncertain, while serving as an indicator of
increasing financial health of the University and its campuses.
Also contributing to the financial stability of the University is the growth in the Liquidity Reserve. The purpose of the
Liquidity Reserve is to increase the financial strength of the University. By providing cash for operating expenses, the
Liquidity Reserve will reduce and eventually eliminate the need for short-term borrowing to bridge the periods between
the major inflows of tuition revenue. Lenders and grant-giving organizations assess an institution’s financial strength
before granting a loan or providing grants. By increasing the financial strength of the University, each campus is in a
better position to attract outside funds or, when needed, to issue bonded indebtedness. Each campus and the Central
Administration commit 1.25% (Seattle has been at 1.50% since its bonds were issued) of student-related income to the
Reserve. 1999-2000 will be the fourth year in which the Liquidity Reserve fund has been in operation. At the end of
1998-99, we are projecting that the Liquidity Reserve Fund balance will equal $1,177,848. Details of the Liquidity
Reserve are on page 1 17.
VII. SUMMARY OBSERVATIONS
The impact of new leadership is apparent in the 1999-2000 budget as the campuses begin new initiatives to increase
enrollments and raise revenues. Faculty and staff restructuring are being put in place to provide better administrative and
classroom services, and expectations are high that additional students can be brought to our campuses. This new
emphasis on students can be seen in the Instruction portion of the 1999-2000 budget. The proposed budget shows a 6%
increase for Instruction over the prior budget and more than 11 % above the projected expenditures for this year.
Antioch University
Instruction Expenditures by Campus, 1997 to 2000
Actual Actual Projected Budgeted
College 3,913,926 3,919,508 4,019,712 4,806,883
New England 4,296,789 4,255,288 4,242,078 4,239,619
Seattle 3,272,043
3,377,932
3,314,288 3,412,450
Southern California 2,769,233 2,877,836 2,795,929 3,612,262
McGregor
2,236,494 2,144,096 2,183,499 2,341,456
Total $16,488,485 $16,574,660 $16,555,506 $18,412,670
The restructuring of the 1998-99 budget for Southern California was painful, but it has reversed a three-year slide and
restored financial integrity to the operations of that campus. On this foundation, Southern California is building new
programs and meeting new challenges. The College continues to make progress in attracting additional students as
word of its renewed strength circulates to the high school community. McGregor, Seattle, and New England have had a
difficult budgeting year, but each has emerged in a stronger position.
New programs, the expansion of existing programs, and salary increases for faculty and staff all signal the concern and
attention being paid towards expanding programs and increasing the significance of Antioch in all of the regions where
we operate. These initiatives are aggressive, and not without risk, but it is important for Antioch to move ahead. The
Strategic Plan will contain additional details for guiding our future growth and will outline additional ways in which the
campuses and the University can successfully innovate.
Glenn Watts
Vice Chancellor and
Chief Financial Officer
Antioch University
1999-00 Proposed Budget Summary by Function
Change From
1998-99 Budget Proposed
1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1998-99 to 1998-99 Projected I 1999-00
Change From Change From
1998-99 Proj 1998-99 Budget
to
1999-00
Budget to 1999-00 Budget
$ % $ %
— — —– —–
Actual Actual Budget Projected $
– – .– — —-
% Budget
Revenues
Tuition & Fees
Less Tuition Discounts
Gifts
Grants
Endowment Income
Contracts
Other Income
Total
E&G
Revenue
Auxiliary Enterprises
Released From Restrictions
Total Revenues
Net Overhead for Central Operations
Operating Expenses
Instruction
Research
Public Service
Academic Support
Student Services
Institutional Support
Plant Maintenance
Scholarships
Total
E&G
Expenses
Auxiliary Enterprises
Total Operating Expenses
Excess Revenue over Expenses
Annual Budget Conversion to Cash basis
Capital Expenditures
Borrowing Proceeds
Principal Payments
Prior Year Reserves
Add back Depreciation
Total Cash Items
Net Cash Basis Budget 440,171 638,477 0 329,709 329,709
Antioch University
1999-00 Proposed Budget Summary by Categor
Change From
1998-99 Budget
to 1998-99 Projected
$ %
– –
-937,222 -1.81 %
Change From
1998-99 Budget
to
1999-00
Budget
$ %
— —
3,163,531 6.10%
Change From
1996-97
Actual
–
50,041,726
Proposed
1999-00
Budget
–
55,022,206
1997-98
Actual
–
50,362.650
22,885,358
6,287,012
1,512,014
1,599,716
207,120
1,412,738
4,832,019
3,330,642
1,421,355
610,603
406,447
0
0
0
4,443,387
-1,511,459
0
-525,000
122,812
2,503,482
49,538.246
824,404
3,701,291
-1,797,319
1,066,325
-277.888
-2,503,482
188,927
635,477
1998-99 Pro]
to 1999-00 Budget
$ %
– –
4,100,753 8.05%
1998-99
Budget
–
51,858,675
24,336,289
7,203,228
2,015,145
1,229.964
239.556
1,300,482
4,484,356
3.01 7,924
1,403,835
594.280
509,180
662,025
435,788
452’1
26
4,444,833
-1,664,855
647
-400,000
23,904
2,436,000
52,724,707
-866,032
1,023,216
0
946,752
-400,000
-2,436,000
-866,032
0
1998-99
Projected
–
50,921,453
24,133.91
1
6,715,478
1,458,158
1,520,777
173,834
1,348,200
4,592,085
3,132,972
1,523,622
725,364
397,755
0
0
443,596
4,444.832
-1,663,582
647
-400,000
145.167
2,200,000
50,892,818
28,635
1,222,833
-40,110
1,091,576
-375,373
-2,200,000
-301,074
329,709
Revenues
Operating Expenses
Salaries &Wages
Benefits
Training & Development
Student Aid Services
Special Events
Supplies
Business Operations
Plant Maintenance
Interest Expense
Resale Costs
Miscellaneous
Contingency/Reserves
Campus Contingency, Mandatory
Campus Program Contingency,
Discret
Liquidity Reserve
Overhead
To the University
Rebates from the University
Subsidy from Adult Campuses
Subsidy from Overhead
Other (Intercampus Agree & Univ Conf
Depreciation
Total Operating Expenses
Excess Revenue over Expenses
Annual Budget Conversion to Cash Basis
Capital Expenditures
Borrowing Proceeds
Principal Payments
Prior Year Reserves
Add Back Depredation
Total Cash Items
Net Cash Basis Budget
ANTIOCH COLLEGE
1999-2000 PROPOSED BUDGET
1998-99 ACCOMPLISHMENTS AND CHALLENGES
During 1998-99 the College’s Strategic Plan continued to provide the focus and direction for the College’s
efforts. The Plan presents a blueprint of action steps for revitalizing
Antioch’s
role as a distinctive and
innovative liberal arts institution while at the same time providing benchmarks against which to measure
progress. Efforts were directed at strengthening the curriculum, the delivery of the Co-op program, and
the climate of the community, while at the same time continuing to improve the infrastructure, building the
foundation for a major fundraising effort, and enhancing the College’s reputation, both locally and
nationally. The College’s efforts during the 1998-99 year were directed toward the following areas critical
to the long-term health and quality of the College.
Improving recruitment efforts. The College experienced a very poor recruitment outcome in the fall of
1998 due to several factors. First and foremost, we failed to fully implement the sort of cultivation effort,
particularly among juniors, that is necessary for developing an inquiry pool capable of sustaining the
matriculant numbers essential to the College’s continued growth. We were also significantly behind in
recruitment of Ohio students (generally accounting for 20% of our entering class), and of transfer
students (a percentage that had been slipping for several years). The leadership of the newly
restructured Department of Admissions and Financial Aid had not brought the considerable energies of
staff together in a focused and coordinated effort, with lists not being mailed, schools not being visited,
data not being tracked. The Acting Director resigned at the beginning of the year, and the College
enlisted the talents of the Director of the Annual Fund to reshape our recruitment efforts. To strengthen
our “recovery” effort for spring and summer, two recent graduates were hired with soft money, and the .
half-time administrative role, held by former Dean Cheryl Keen, was transferred to the Admissions effort.
We continued to work very hard on cultivating the Coalition for Essential Schools connection, realizing
that our two years of work with this targeted audience is beginning to have very positive results. We also
revamped our merit aid program, creating 50 “Community Responsibility Scholarships” that would be
allocated to, and awarded by, schools in our target group. This approach has proven very successful for
other small schools in building relationships with target institutions and creating an ongoing “pipeline1′ of
inquiries, applicants and matriculants. Other efforts included (a) packaging Ohio students at
loo%,
and
focusing considerable energy on rebuilding the Ohio base of our inquiry pool; (b) doing “alternative”
recruiting with current students, the community managers, and our recent graduates through “tabling” at
events, concerts and rallies, recruiting in the informal culture of student “scenes” and working through
student, rather than school networks; (c) stepping up our efforts to bring particular targeted groups of
prospective students to campus; and (d) targeting specific groups of prospective students that have
traditionally been interested in the College — Quakers, Unitarian Universalists, liberal Jewish youth,
Buddhists, etc. — through youth groups, publications and membership organizations. These focused
efforts have begun to show success. Our spring 1999 entering class was the largest on record, and our
numbers of inquiries and applications as of week 30 in the recruitment cycle have surpassed last year’s
year-end numbers. The College conducted a national search for a Dean of Admissions and Financial Aid
during the 1998-99 year, and after screening and interviewing five highly qualified candidates, the Search
Committee selected the incumbent, Michael Murphy, to lead our efforts.
Improving retention efforts. The Strategic Plan called for building support for various aspects of
program, service and community life that would contribute positively to retention. Central to our efforts
was a revitalization of the academic program, and in the fall the College brought 16 new faculty into the
mix. The increase in student satisfaction was immediate and palpable, as retirements, departures,
deaths and leaves had left the College seriously short-handed in the previous year. In an effort to help
these new faculty be successful, the College led a
year-long
orientation effort, bringing new faculty
together more than a dozen times for workshops, presentations and discussions on every aspect of the
College, its curriculum, its student and community life, faculty life, policies and procedures, and
examination of issues of teaching and advising. We are currently administering the Student Satisfaction
Inventory that we’ve used in the past, to assess whether we’ve made progress in this area. The Dean of
Faculty has also renewed our assessment efforts, and a revitalized committee has engaged the faculty in
discussions of the cycle of outcomes and program improvement, an effort that we see as contributing to
the retention of our students. In the area of Student Services, the Strategic Plan called for the College to’
build upon our
gift-
and
MacArthur-grant-funded
efforts at building an Office of Multicultural Affairs, to
consolidate the Writing Center and Learning Lab (again having start-up support from the
MacArthur
Foundation grant) with the position of Director of our new Academic Support Center, and to add an
additional half-time Health Advocate position to supplement the half-time nursing care provided to our
residential campus. These positions have been realized, and again have given indication of contributing
significantly to campus climate and, thereby, to retention. In general, the College has held onto — and in
some cases improved upon — its dramatic retention gains of a year ago, and the graduation rate has
inched up from 48% to 50% during a time when the national averages are headed in the opposite
direction.
Reconceptualizing and strengthening the Co-op program. The recommendations of the Co-op
Committee of the Strategic Planning Task Force have, for the most part, been implemented during the
1998-99 year. Two of our new faculty hires were in the Co-op department, and their contribution to this
effort has already been substantial. The plan involves (a) rebuilding stable long-term relationships with
employers, and we’ve begun that process; (b) developing materials and mechanisms for student
preparation for Co-op, and we’ve developed City Guides, refined our job files and, through an OFIC grant,
begun to develop classroom curricular modules that provide preparation for students; (c) communication
to students in the field, and we’ve significantly increased our connections with students on Co-op jobs; (d)
reflection and integration, and our new faculty orientation and advising work has focused somewhat on
this critical dimension; and (e) support for transition, and during this year our program of transition
stipends has been implemented in a way that strengthens student participation in this central part of our
curriculum. These efforts contribute to the attractiveness of the program for prospective students, and
undoubtedly a strengthened program also contributes to retention. In addition, some of Assoc. Professor
Pat Linn’s long-term research on the outcomes of Co-op learning is coming to publication, and we can
expect to see Antioch’s Co-op program back on a national stage in the near future. At year end we are in
the process of appointing a Dawson Professor of Cooperative Education to provide intellectual leadership
for the program.
Addressing technology and infrastructure needs. Technology, infrastructure and facilities continue to
be critical negative factors in Antioch College’s competitive position among liberal arts colleges nationally.
Although we have made some progress in each of these areas in the 1998-99 year, issues of facilities
continue to play a key role in both the recruitment and the retention of students. At the center of the
College’s Technology Infrastructure Plan is the Olive Kettering Library, and the College was able to bring
the library on line and make our connections through OPAL and OhioLink fully operational during the
1998-99 year. The wiring and networking of the campus has slowed down considerably, due to
availability of funding, and while 160 beds (Birch and Spalt) are wired for data and phone, further
progress in wiring dormitories will require significant fundraising, as will the switching capacity necessary
to permit phone service in dorm rooms. Efforts were made, with the assistance of MacArthur grant funds,
to provide networked desktops to the College’s new faculty, but given the slowdown in the wiring of
buildings, approximately 113 of the faculty remain un-networked. The College convened its Renovation
Task Force during the year, to begin the process of inventory and assessment necessary for revisiting,
updating and prioritizing campus renovation for the long term. The Task Force has held 16 meetings with
constituent groups in the community regarding buildings and facilities, and with the assistance of the
architectural firm of Schooley
Caldwell,
has conducted physical assessments of 15 of the campus’ 34
buildings. In the Fall the Task Force will hold community meetings on student spaces and the Library,
and will begin dialogues with the community on long term priorities for the campus’ physical facilities. The
College continues to have an overwhelming amount of deferred maintenance to address if it is to
maintain progress and improve its competitive position.
Continuing to strengthen and regularize the summer academic term. After three years of MacArthur
funding in support of developing and implementing a summer term to move the College to a year-round
academic calendar, the College has successfully moved the functions of the summer program to the
College’s regular budget. The College clearly realized its goals for the summer program: (a) building our
transfer traffic and attracting non-matriculants to contribute new revenue streams; (b) providing the
mechanism and context for drawing alums back to the College; (c) increasing the profile and cultural
presence of the College, both regionally and nationally, through Institutes, events and visiting
speakerslartists;
and (d) providing a space for curricular innovation and development. Our second
summer program brought 11 new matriculants and 30 non-matriculants into the program, brought 20
alums back to the College to teach, present, perform and participate on panels, brought more than 80
visiting artists, speakers and performers to campus who generated significant press attention and created
a continuing “back-feed” of summer innovations — field work, service learning, team teaching, partici-
patory research, etc. — in the regular curriculum of the College. The new Entrepreneurship Institute
focused our efforts at rebuilding ties to the business community and to Co-op employers, was highly
successful for our students, and will be continued and expanded during this next summer term.
Continuing the College’s efforts to build an anti-racist and multicultural community. During the
1998-99 year, the College successfully hired a Director of Multicultural Affairs, continued to offer
workshops focused on addressing racism and homophobia, and began a series of initiatives aimed at
reaching out to the surrounding community. The College developed an ongoing dialogue with the Yellow
Springs and Miami Valley community through its Racial Legacies and earning Program. The monthly
meetings have involved the Yellow Springs High School, Village Council, and various non-profits and
agencies, and at times have engaged more than 70 local residents in dialogue and interaction. The
College also increased its visibility and participation in the Miami Valley through a covenant of agreement
with Wilberforce University, and the implementation of an America Reads program (with a dozen student
members of the Antioch Literacy Corps doing regular tutoring in the surrounding community, and an
Americorps Leadership program (which placed service volunteers at 20 Miami Valley locations).
Strategic Leveraging of Resources. The College continued its efforts to build strategic capacity and
attract additional resources to Antioch through the development of grant proposals to the Department of
Education, the
Luce
Foundation, the Hewlett Foundation, and the Bonner Foundation.
I.
FINANCIAL SITUATION IN 1999-2000 COMPARED TO 1998-99
The College’s financial situation in the coming fiscal year will remain essentially level with the current
year, with increased enrollment making up lost ground from the deficiencies of the fall 1998 enrollment
effort, and increases in expenditures in some areas being made up by strategic reductions in other areas.
The two key factors in making such budget decisions were the Strategic Plan, and our obligations to
follow through on commitments initiated with funding from the
MacArthur
Foundation grant. The
significant differences are as follows:
Budgeted revenues from tuition and fees and tuition discounts will remain approximately at the 1998-99 .
budget level in 1999-2000 even with thecombination of an increase of 4% in tuition and fees and a
modest increase in enrollment.
Funded student aid will increase due to receipt of endowed scholarship funds from the Michener bequest.
Salary improvements of 3.5% for faculty and staff, and contracted union wage increases have been
included in the 1999-2000 budget.
Position changes deriving from Strategic Plan mandates and obligation deriving from the MacArthur grant
of $144,000 plus benefits have been included in the budget. These include continuation of a recent
graduate admissions counselor, continuation of the Summer Program Coordinator position funded by
MacArthur, funding for a Foundation
RelationsIGrant
writer position as part of ramping up to a major
fundraising campaign, restoration of the Science Technician position as per our Strategic Plan, and
continuation of the position of Network Administrator, critical to our ability to maintain the campus network
and system operations.
Support and continuation of functions that were initiated through “soft money” funding represent
mandates of the Strategic Plan and obligations derived from MacArthur grant initiatives. These include
increased support for Development and fundraising (as per our expenditure of MacArthur funds to ramp
up to a capital campaign), increased travel support for the President’s office (again for expanded
fundraising efforts), increased support for the summer program (to replace MacArthur support), and
increased funding in Admissions for publications (part of our continuing efforts to reach our goal of
increasing enrollment to 800).
Bequests from Michener and Lang are expected during the 1999-2000 year, as well as an additional
$125,000 bequest from the estate of Georgia Lloyd.
Shifts within the proposed budget include reduction in budgeted funds for capital. Our intention is to shift
responsibility for capital projects to our ongoing fundraising efforts.
In terms of our financial situation in 1999-2000 as compared to 1998-99, it is significant that the College
continues to make progress in reversing past financial ills. It’s important to note that in the past several
years, the College has worked back from an $800,000 deficit, has voluntarily terminated University
subsidies for Public Relations
($125,000),
the Olive Kettering Library
($68,000),
has agreed to a change
in cross-campus tuition billing
($20,000),
has managed to integrate all of the initiatives of the MacArthur
grant into its ongoing operating budget, while losing the $250,00O/year revenue enhancement for the
1999-2000 year, and has initiated a change in the repayment formula for the unrestricted and unrealized
bequests from the last capital campaign that results in a shift of $500,000 in the short term benefit from
such bequests. While these positive measures point the College in the right direction, at the same time,
the College’s growth in revenue has been allocated almost entirely to addressing past financial ills. The
issues raised vis a vis the College’s financial situation are these:
How quickly can the College attain sufficient financial health to make good on the
financial difficulties of the past?
How much of the revenue growth of the College can be channeled to such ends, rather
than to program and facility support, without demoralizing those who have worked with
dogged commitment to restore the College’s financial health, and without constraining
the College’s efforts to remain competitive among private liberal arts colleges
nationally?
How will the College approach further-changes in the framework of its financial situation
within the University in terms of balancing pressures for autonomy against the pressing
demands of deferred maintenance and an increasingly competitive market for faculty
and students?
How will the College (and the University) strategically address the specific
disequilibrium in the College’s (and the University’s) financing — the College’s lack of
sufficient endowment to cover unfunded aid, to maintain a large residential campus,
and to maintain its long term health and competitive viability?
For the College these are the central issues confronting our financial position as we enter the 1999-2000
fiscal year. .
I. ENROLLMENT, RECRUITMENT, RETENTION & FTE PROJECTIONS
The enrollment goal specified by the College’s Strategic Plan for 1999-2000 is 278 new student enrollees
across the year. Targeted marketing efforts for the 1999 summer term are under way, and the budget
anticipates 16 matriculants and 30 non-matriculants. The goal for fall 1999 is 230 new student enrollees.
In addition, we anticipate recruiting 32 students to enroll in the spring term of 2000, and expect the
College’s Limited Residency Degree Completion program to yield 10 students during the 1999-2000 year.
Ninety-two year old Richard
Atwood
was the first Limited Residency Degree Completion student to walk
in the College’s graduation ceremonies this spring, as he completed a degree in Mathematics initiated
during the presidency of Arthur Morgan.
The addition of a Multicultural Affairs Director, an Academic Support Center Director, and a Health
Advocate have made a tremendous difference in campus climate, and through the continuing efforts of
Scott Warren and Jimmy Williams, we have gotten through the 1998-99 year with minimal turmoil and
with our retention gains intact. Against the national trends, we continue to improve on first-year retention
and overall retention, and these gains are in large part responsible for maintaining our momentum in
enrollment growth. The budget is based on an average retention scenario, even though we have been
experiencing numbers that are well above average. Detailed projections for 1999-2000 enrollment of 608
to 628 FTE are included in this package.
IV. TUITION AND FEES.
College tuition reflects an increase of 1.4% In addition to this level of inflationary increase in tuition, room
and board fees will be increased by 16.8% in order to bring them closer to a level at which the College
recovers costs for these operations. Overall increases in tuition and fees is 4%. The tuition and fees for
1999-2000 are as follows:
Tuition $17,556
Room and Board $4,876
Fees $1,553
CG Fees $412
TOTAL: $24,397
V. COMPENSATION
Salary increases of 3.5% for faculty and administrative staff are included in this budget proposal, with 3%
increases going into effect in July, and a 1% increase going into effect in January. Discussion continues
concerning the establishment of goals for a multi-year faculty salary improvement program. It is worth
noting that the College experienced significant compensation-related personnel losses during the
1998-
99 year (a) in being unable to sign faculty selected by search and screen committees, and (b) in being
unable to retain key continuing faculty members. In two very significant searches we were not able to
sign a contract with those selected because of salary and compensation offers from other institutions that
were significantly higher — in one case by 100% — than College capacity. This Spring we lost our
Director of AfricanIAfrican-American Studies to an institution that doubled his salary and offered a
compensation package far in excess of what was possible at the College. In terms of our reference
group, the GLCA-ACM, College salaries for such comparisons are as follows:
Full Professor 79% of median
Associate Professor 82% of median
Assistant Professor 76% of median
In order to maintain Antioch College’s status as a distinctive and innovative private liberal arts institution,
it must stay somewhat competitive with peer institutions. In those terms, our compensation proposal is
modest, but acknowledges our commitment to continued improvement.
Robert H. Devine
President
Revenues
Tuition & Fees
Less Tuition Discounts
Gifls
Grants
Endowment Income
Contracts
Other Income
Total E&G Revenue
Auxiliary Enterprises
Released From Restrictions
Total Revenues
Operating Expenses
Instruction
Research
Public Service
Academic Support
Student Services
Institutional Support
Plant Maintenance
Scholarships
Total E&G Expenses
Auxiliary Enterprises
Total Operating Expenses
Excess Revenue over Expenses
Annual Budget Conversion to Cash basis
Capital Expenditures
Borrowing Proceeds
Principal Payments
Prior Year Reserves
Add back Depreciation
Total Cash Items
Net Cash Basis Budget
1996-97
Actual
–
8,893,663
-2,310,298
1,114,121
1,403,628
188,687
1,455
214,455
9,505,711
2,048,157
3,244,930
14,798,798
3,913,926
48,491
0
953,273
1,936,646
1,491,470
1,505,662
2,120,208
11,969,676
2,119,233
14,088,909
709,889
2,242,206
-484,186
444,452
0
0
2,202.472
-1,492,583
Antioch College
1999-00 Proposed Budget Summary by Function
1997-98
Actual
–
9,598,204
-2,167,392
1,980,001
1,349,156
170,112
996
752,614
11,683,691
2,265,022
1,766,920
15,715,633
3,919,508
16,868
27,839
928,303
2,167,584
1,526,985
1,512,379
1,929,299
12,028,765
2,146,793
14,175,558
1,540,075
1,255,535
-142,569
427,109
0
0
1,540,075
0
1998-99
Budget
–
12,039,945
-3,302,690
1,367,776
1,553,738
225,000
0
77,181
11,960,950
2,414,564
1,777,557
16,153,071
4,366,921
0
0
926,685
2,122,734
2,615,389
1,361,648
1,844,017
13,237,394
2,196,698
15,434,092
718,979
278.368
0
440,611
0
0
718,979
0
1998-99
Projected
–
10,548,246
-2,469,296
1,391,667
1,262,137
225,085
2,550
72,820
11,033,209
2,315,208
1,757,303
15,105,720
4,019,712
0
0
876,192
2,197,577
2,191,823
1,390,364
1,746.1
73
12,421,841
2,102,901
14,524,742
580,978
500,342
-40,110
428,028
0
0
888,260
-307.282
Change From
1998-99 Budget
to 1998-99 Projected
Proposed
1999-00
Budget
–
12,069,086
-3,286,264
1,427,776
1,453,468
250,000
0
208,451
12,122,517
2,527,376
1,771,631
16,421,524
4,806,883
0
0
1.01 7,622
2,387,122
2,127,554
1,459,497
1,818,747
13,617,425
2,211,387
15,828,812
592,712
175,180
0
41 7.532
0
0
592,712
0
Change From
1998-99 Pro)
to 1999-00 Budget
$ %
– -..
1,520,840 14.42%
-816,968 33.09%
36,109 2.59%
191,331 15.16%
24,915 11.07%
-2,550 -100.00%
135,631
186.26%
1,089,308 9.87%
212,168 9.16%
14,328 0.82%
1,315,804 8.71%
Change From
1998-99 Budget
to 1999-00 Budget
$ %
– —
Antioch College
1999-00 Proposed Budget Summary by Category
Revenues
Operating Expenses
Salaries & Wages
Benefits
Training & Development
Student Aid Services
Special Events
Supplies
Business Operations
Plant Maintenance
Interest Expense
Resale Costs
Miscellaneous
ContingencyIReserves
Campus Contingency, Mandatory
Campus Program Contingency,
Discret
Liquidity Reserve
Overhead
To the University
Rebates from the University
Subsidy from Adult Campuses
Subsidy from Overhead
Other (Intercampus Agree & Univ Conf
Depreciation
Total Operating Expenses
Excess Revenue over Expenses
Annual Budget Conversion to Cash Basis
Capital Expenditures
Borrowing Proceeds
Principal Payments
Prior Year Reserves
Add Back Depreciation
Total Cash Items
Net Cash Basis Budget
1996-97
Actual
—
14,798,798
6,986,238
2,150.1
77
357,989
1,407.1 73
89,661
677,849
1,432,237
1,014,477
370,367
335,810
197,991
0
0
65,273
782,365
-550,000
-200,000
-525,000
-503,698
0
14,088,909
709,889
1997-98
Actual
—
15,715,633
7,041,143
2,048,330
445,517
1,383,668
78,671
736,264
1,271,995
1,093,328
203,490
401,125
256,612
0
0
69,832
960,187
-550,000
-200,000
-525,000
-539,604
0
14,175,558
1,540,075
1998-99
Budget
—
16,153,071
7,639.794
2,451,724
1,008,949
996,217
97,560
686,038
1,183,826
974,597
126,735
378,480
, 366,515
145,017
38,517
90,636
996,993
-550,000
-200,000
-400,000
-597,506
0
15,434,092
718,979
1998-99
Projected
—
15,105,720
7,363,813
2,129.340
443,272
1,273,174
59,198
752,880
1,308,431
1,025,838
143,100
343,378
276,754
0
0
90,636
996,993
-550,000
-200,000
-400,000
-532,065
0
14,524,742
580,978
Change From
1998-99 Budget Proposed
to 1998-99 Projected 1 1999-00
Change From
1998-99 Pro]
to 1999-00 Budget
$ %
—- —
1,315,804 8.71 %
%
—
-6.48%
Change From
1998-99 Budget
to
1999-00
Budget
$ %
.– —–
268,453 1.66%
Budget
—
16,421,524
Campus
Campus
College
Campus
College
Campus
College
Campus
College
ANTIOCH COLLEGE
1999-00 Capital Budget
Buildings
Total Buildings
Building Improvements
Fire System Upgrade
Underground Tank Removal
HVAC/Electrlcal/Plumbing
Transformer
Total Building Improvements
Equipment
Computer Equipment
Total Equipment
Furniture & Fixtures
Dorm Carpeting and Furniture
Total Furnlture & Fixtures
Library Books
Library Books
Total Library Books
Grand Total Capital Budget
Amount
Amount
10,000
20,000
14,600
28,000
Amount
32,580
Amount
10,000
Program
——–
Tuition
Room and Board
Fees
Total per Year
Antioch College
Tuition Rate Changes 1999-00
1998-99 1999-00
Rates Proposed % Change
——– ——– ——–
17,316 17,556 1.39%
4,177 4,876 16.73%
1,965 1,965 0,00%
ANTIOCH NEW ENGLAND GRADUATE SCHOOL
1999-2000 PROPOSED BUDGET
I. 1998-99 ACCOMPLISHMENTS AND CHALLENGES
From almost every perspective, save one, Antioch New England Graduate School’s 1998-99 experience was
highly positive. Supporting “evidence” for that assessment is provided below in the listing of some of the year’s
salient highlights. The overall financial picture, however, was highly problematic and its pervasive qualities
tended to at least partially obliterate the good news and successes we enjoyed. The approximate 37 FTE
shortfall, the dollar equivalent of approximately $435,000, caused considerable distress and pain within the
institution. Operating budgets were slashed, identified priorities were abandoned, some personnel were
reassigned, positions were not filled, and salary increases were not awarded to faculty and staff. Little solace
could be found in the reality that this was rather typical stuff for graduate programs in northern New England. In
the final analysis, the highlights are a partial antidote and do provide the basic sustenance for moving ahead
with a shared sense of optimism. Briefly:
Quality control and significant external validation came from two sources in1998-99: the Committee on
Accreditation of the American Psychological Association (APA) awarded the Doctoral Program in
Clinical Psychology full accreditation for the maximum allowable period of time, seven years; and the
Commission on Accreditation of the American Association of Marriage and Family Therapy (AAMFT)
awarded our master’s program (M.A.) in Marriage and Family Therapy full six-year accreditation.
ANE’s project in the Rachel Marshall Outdoor Learning Laboratory in Keene’s Ashuelot River Park
received several important honors – a grand gold medal from CASE in the category of school-
community partnerships and the New Hampshire Governor’s Award for the “Outstanding Service
Learning Award” for 1998 in New Hampshire.
Service Matters, a publication of the Campus Compact, cited ANE’s Education by Design@ program in
Problem-Based Service Learning as a model for the training of faculty in how to integrate service
learning into curricular offerings.
Physical expansion of the Antioch Psychological Services Center (PSC) into the West Wing of the
ANE campus enabled the PSC to significantly expand its array of mental health and
wellness
programs to Keene and the Monadnock Region. Its elevated community profile has led us to seek
United Way funding support in1 999-2000.
Institutional visibility remains quite high — the ANE Speaker’s Series continues to draw capacity
crowds on a monthly basis, faculty and staff publications and professional involvement continues to be
substantial, and the campus remains a focal point for many community meetings and forums.
Student evaluations reflect a high degree of satisfaction with the educational experiences here, and
students have been particularly pleased with increased efforts at providing more student services (pot
luck events, relocation support, etc.). Library services, enhanced substantially by the full operation of
our on-line card catalogue and an expanded web-based availability of materials, has added to
program quality and student scholarship.
The Board of Visitors is in place and active, providing advice around a strategy for local corporate
fundraising, identifying potential new members, and helping to develop “one good
ad”
as part of our
marketing strategy.
Strategic planning has been taking place throughout the Graduate School through six vertical work
groups, organized around priorities identified by the faculty and staff in September 1998.
ANE’s
Strategic Plan should be completed in the summer of 1999.
Faculty and staff have been active in the strategic planning processes of the larger University, and the
staff has worked diligently to get to a point where full implementation of the Datatel system is on the
horizon.
Grant and contract activity continues to be impressive in terms of the scope of activities, uniqueness
of program offerings, and the nature and promise of newly formed partnerships. Total of grant and
contract activity for 1998-99 will certainly exceed $1 million dollars, a new record total for Antioch New
England.
Despite the overarching shortfall issue cited above, the 1998-99 budget projection looks quite reasonable, even
healthy, on the surface (we, as anticipated, could not cover the full cost of the capital renovation project, and
unfortunately, did not have the hoped for support of the contingency reserves as a backstop), but it is somewhat
misleading in that we are utilizing, for the first, and only, time, an accrual accounting principle that every other
campus in the system has used previously. A percentage of the revenue and the limited corresponding
expense for the summer 1999 semester will be
bookedlreflected
in the 1998-99 report since a portion of our
summer 1999 semester is actually delivered in 1998-99 (June 7- June 30). However, this paper display
provides no cash relief, and that’s an obvious problem for the system.
While we sincerely believe that we are doing all of the
“right”
things and have worked tirelessly to diversify our
array of activities, broaden partnerships, keep in step with the competition, elevate our local and regional
visibility, and “market” the Graduate School in every way imaginable within the constraints of a limited budget,
we continue to face difficult decisions and dilemmas because the resource base is so tenuous and limited. It
serves no meaningful purpose to provide the laundry list of needs and priorities that we believe need to be
addressed; certainly for most of the document’s readership, it is not an unusual or original story.
I 1999-2000 ENROLLMENT AND REVENUE PROJECTIONS
The fundamental problem we faced in crafting the 1999-2000 budget is the reality that the enrollment shortfall of
one year directly impacts the budget for the following year. The revenue problem simply carries forward, and
the campus faces a deep hole that needs to be back-filled by an improved admissions picture, a reduction of
expense or some combination of the two. The problem, specifically related to Antioch New England, is
exacerbated because our funded campus reserve is at zero and those of other campuses remain largely
unfunded, effectively eliminating any kind of cushion to provide some measure of comfort and maneuvering ”
room during problematic times. Hindsight is always 20-20, but had we known we were going to face a $435,000
revenue shortfall in 1998-99, it would not have made fiscal sense to engage in a capital project to expand the
Antioch Psychological Services Center, even though we believe that the investment was necessary to preserve
our competitive edge in the market for doctoral-level students in clinical psychology. Hindsight would have
tempered any genuine optimism, and, therefore, subsequent thoughtful planning which surrounded the original
projections around the expectations of a relatively quick funding of carry-forward reserves back in 1992-93.
(Some folks actually do defy actuarial tables in a significant way, and that should be factored into future
planning.) And hindsight would have argued that the cash funding of major operating deficits in 1996-97, which
effectively contributed to the depletion of cash reserves, should have had some consequence or proactive
planning
(i.e.,
“solutions”) that did not negatively affect those campuses which contributed.
ANE1s
“backfill1′ problems have been compounded by the fact that we made the decision to implement a new
tuition
structure/schedule,
beginning with the summer semester 1999-2000. Following years of study, we
determined that it was necessary to develop schedules that are more consistent with credit loads taken by
students, that permitted some flexibility for students who might want to shift from full-time to half-time status, and
that do not “give away” extra credits within the boundaries of degree programs. The end result of this protracted
exercise produced schedules that now make sense and that address all of the key problematic issues that we
were attempting to resolve. As one consequence, we have schedules for entering students that do not
“frontload” tuition; we expect total revenue from newly matriculating students to be $150,000 – $160,000 less in
1999-2000 than if we had maintained current schedules. However, we expect to capture that “lost” revenue and
more, since we are not giving away credits in 2000-01. This is the complex background tapestry for attempting
to construct
ANE1s
budget for 1999-2000.
What is presented in the proposed operating budget is based on what we believe to be a realistic, perhaps
slightly conservative, scenario which reflects what is known about our carry-over enrollments and what we have
for data as of May 5 in the admissions arena, relative to new matriculants in 1999-2000. There clearly is reason
for optimism, based on activity in admissions, though it is increasingly difficult to predict what will actually
happen on scheduled registration days. We are reasonably confident of the following:
The entering Psy.D. class will be 26-28, based upon the largest number of applications we have ever*
received for the doctoral program and an anticipated capture rate of accepted students of 60%. This
1999 first year entering class will replace our smallest
Psy.D.
class, 17, that moves on to its Internship
year. (From a revenue perspective, this helps provide a portion of the backfill.)
Our fourth class, making a full program cohort, will enter the Ph.D. Program in Environmental Studies
this summer. We expect 12-13 new students to enroll and we will not increase the Core Faculty; only
new expenses for dissertation advisement will be added. (The net result of this new revenue influx
and the lack of major new expenses contributes yet another chunk to the backfill.)
We fully expect to run three experienced educator “clusters” (in Gilmanton, N.H., Kingston, N.H., and
Saco, Maine) next year. In 1998-99, we anticipated a cluster in Saco, but it did not materialize,
contributing in a pretty significant way to the shortfall. (While there will be some added expense to
provide the required instruction, the revenue gain will add substantially to the backfill.)
There is every indication that enrollment in our master’s program in Environmental Studies will continue to
rebound, as it did in the spring 1999 when goals for the environmental studies programs were exceeded. We
expect historical patterns of new student enrollments in our teacher certification and
Waldorf
education
programs to remain constant, and we have some tempered optimism that the improving job market in the mental
health field in New England will provide some modest enrollment increases in our Applied Psychology programs
(more applications are on file than at this time last year and a recent Visiting Day drew 35 prospective students).
Management programming represents a “wild card” in that we have made the decision to move completely to
weekend programming models (combined, with some technological applications) at our Keene and Portsmouth
sites, phasing out our weekday programming. We will also phase out the Bennington, Vermont, site after
twenty-one years of operation. These delivery change decisions were made following a careful market analysis
that surveyed current students and students who made serious inquiry about ANE, but chose not to pursue
graduate study or matriculated elsewhere. We will carefully monitor this major change in delivery and trust that
the end result will be increased students, greater efficiency and reduced costs.
I MAJOR CHANGES FROM THE 1998-99 BUDGET
The above representations, a tuition increase of approximately 4%, and a virtually level expense budget,
reflecting cuts made in 1998-1 999, essentially have given ANE the basic backfill necessary to “cover” the 1998-.
99 shortfall. We have not factored into the operating budget any major new discretionary monies from overhead
that might come in via grant and contract activities; some is reflected in the operating revenue via “overhead”
transfers, but we have to be conservative here because of the softness of the funding and the fact that we do
not have in hand a major grant which pays substantial overhead rates
(e.g.
40+%
of salaries and benefits, etc.)
Funding for two, and only two critical priorities, is addressed in this budget.
Priority One: Provide 3% raise package plus corresponding benefits to core faculty and staff. It is
imperative that we do not go yet another year without providing employees a raise, especially at a time
when we have indicated that there would be a health premium share of 5% starting January 1, 2000.
Given the reality that a 3% raise package might be heavily offset with a 5% health premium contribution
from employees on the low end of the salary range, we might have to adjust the raise percentages for
certain employees. It would be easy to make raises contingent on enrollment performances, but
employees, we believe, must see the immediate commitment if we are to maintain any kind of positive
morale. For purposes of this presentation, however, the total compensation package increase, in round
numbers $1 30,000, has been spread across operating units within the Graduate School.
Priority Two: Beginning with the fall semester 1999, Antioch New England students will be required to
have computer and Internet access, along with an e-mail address. While the doctoral programs have had
this requirement for some time, we have extended it to
master’s-level
students for a variety of reasons —
direct library access, more efficient academic and administrative communication, accelerated
opportunities for appropriate distance learning activities, reduction of paper and postage expense, and
the creation of a full-time learning community in a non-residential institution. We need to support this
initiative through: (a) expanded technical support which will be outsourced to
InfoTech,
a proven
company operating out of Portland, Maine; and (b) making sure that we begin to directly address the
myriad needs related to faculty training, administrative and academic integration, and the development of
on-line capacity to deliver pieces of our educational programs. With paper and postage savings factored
in and a personnel shift that moves one highly computer-literate faculty member out of the Education
Department and the Education By
Design@
Program to maintain our web site and to lead the educational
computing effort, we believe that we can address this priority with an additional $20,000.
In sum, the fundamental need for these two priorities is $150,000, a sum which is roughly equivalent to the .
revenue that would come in if the decision to change the tuition schedule had not been made. Antioch New
England needed this sum to balance the budget for 1999-2000, and we have done it through the short-term
application of $1 50,000 from ANE’s unfunded carry-forward reserves. This approach has ULC support.
Jim Craiglow
President
Antioch New England Graduate School
1999-00 Proposed Budget Summary by Function
Revenues
Tuition & Fees
Less Tuition Discounts
Gifts
Grants
Endowment Income
Contracts
Other Income
Total E&G Revenue
Auxiliary Enterprises
Released From Restrictions
Total Revenues
Operating Expenses
Instruction
Research
Public Service
Academic Support
Student Services
Institutional Support
Plant Maintenance
Scholarships
Total E&G Expenses
Auxiliary Enterprises
Total Operating Expenses
Excess Revenue over Expenses
Annual Budget Conversion to Cash basis
Capital Expenditures
Borrowing Proceeds
Principal Payments
Prior Year Reserves
Add back Depredation
Total Cash Items
Net Cash Basis Budget
1996-97
Actual
—
8,247.71 7
-71,698
35,000
538,338
0
208,188
71,262
9,028,807
0
242,868
9,271,675
1997-98
Actual
–
8,224,966
-60,399
31,600
468,511
0
208,858
80,223
8,953,759
0
307,207
9,260,966
1998-99 1998-99
Budget Projected
– –
Change From
1998-99 Budget
to 1998-99 Projected
Proposed
1999-00
Budget
–
8,306,440
-40,000
41,000
830,000
0
250,000
57,700
9,445,140
0
268,000
9,713,140
Change From
1998-99 Pro]
to
1999-00
Budget
$ %
— —
Change From
1998-99 Budget
to
1999-00
Budget
$ %
–.-. —-
56.157 0.68%
0 0.00%
41.000
282,395 51.57%
0
-1 83,739 -42.36%
-2,950 -4.86%
192,863 2.08%
0
125,656 88.28%
318,519 3.39%
Revenues
Operating Expenses
Salaries &Wages
Benefits
Training & Development
Student Aid Services
Special Events
Supplies
Business Operations
Plant Maintenance
Interest Expense
Resale Costs
Miscellaneous
Contingency/Reserves
Campus Contingency, Mandatory
Campus Program Contingency,
Discret
Liquidity Reserve
Overhead
To the University
Rebates from the University
Subsidy from Adult Campuses
Subsidy from Overhead
Other (Intercampus Agree & Univ Conf
Depreciation
Total Operating Expenses
Excess Revenue over Expenses
Annual Budget Conversion to Cash Basis
Capital Expenditures
Borrowing Proceeds
Principal Payments
Prior Year Reserves
Add Back Depredation
Total Cash Items
Net Cash Basis Budget
1996-97
Actual
–
9,271,675
4,819,572
1,284,177
234,417
30,391
10,633
214,617
753,511
307,674
436,465
0
24,980
0
0
81.816
1.01 3,870
-277,255
61,630
0
7,760
0
9,004,258
267,417
138,902
0
65.000
0
0
203,902
63,515
Antioch New England Graduate School
1999-00 Proposed Budget Summary by Category
1997-98
Actual
–
9,260,966
4,535,279
1,334,148
362,124
19,585
12,130
244,041
879,482
288.825
441,149
0
51,582
0
0
79,947
973,515
-277.000
61,800
0
0
0
9,006,607
254,359
234,027
0
70,000
-49,668
0
254,359
0
1998-99
Budget
–
9,394,621
4,679,740
1,400,565
259.395
19,200
11,710
205,255
809,417
290,325
439,132
0
31,859
163,620
58,185
102,262
993,374
-313,415
61,647
0
7.350
0
9,219,621
175,000
500,000
0
75,000
-400,000
0
175,000
0
1998-99
Projected
–
9,773,659
4,935,213
1,465,419
284,685
48,500
14,200
174,474
874,741
344,625
435,632
0
96,825
0
0
102,262
993,374
-313,415
61,647
0
30,350
0
9,548,532
225,127
525,500
0
75,000
-375,373
0
225,127
0
Change From
1998-99
Budget Proposed
to
1998-99
Projected 1 1999-00
Change From
1998-99 Pro]
to 1999-00 Budget
$ %
– —
-60.519 -0.62%
%
–
4.03%
Change From
Budget
–
9,713,140
1998-99 Budget
to 1999-00 Budget
$ %
Campus
Campus
ANTIOCH NEW ENGLAND GRADUATE SCHOOL
1999-00 Capital Budget
Campus
New England
Campus
New England
Campus
New England
Buildings
Total Buildings
Building Improvements
Total Building Improvements
Equipment
Computer Equipment
Total Equipment
Furniture & Fixtures
Library A-V Equipment
Total Furniture & Fixtures
Library Books
Library Books
Total Library Books
Grand Total Capital Budget
Amount
Amount
Amount
30,000
Amount
2,500
ANTIOCH NEW ENGLAND
Tuition Rate Changes 1999-00
Program
———-
Applied Psychology Department
Dance & Movement Therapy Certificate
Dance & Movement Therapy MA
Counseling Psychology MA
Marriage & Family Therapy MA
Clinical Psychology
Psy.D.
Environmental Studies Department
Environmental Studies MS
Resource Management & Administration MS
Environmental Studies MS w Certification
Environmental Studies
Ph.D.
Fall All
Fall All
Fall Fall, Spring
Summer
Summer Summer
Summer Fall, Spring
Summer
Fall, Spring
Summer
Fall, Spring
Fall, Spring
Summer
Fall, Spring
Summer
Fall, Spring
Summer
Summer
Fall, Spring
Summer
Fall, Spring
Rate
Program
—————-
Education Department – Waldorf Programs
Waldorf Certificate
Waldorf 3+2 Certificate
Waldorf
MEd
year round
Waldorf
MEd
Summer Sequence
Education Department – Integrated Learning
Intergrated Learning MEd
Education Department – Experienced Educator
Experienced Educators MEd (5 semester)
Experienced Educators
MEd (4 semester)
Organization & Management
OM Weekend MEdIMHSA
OM Weekend
MEdIMHSA –
OM Weekend MS
All
Spring
Summer
Fall, Spring
Summer
Fall, Spring
Summer
Fall, Spring
Summer
Ail
All
Spring Fall, Spring
Summer
Fall Fall, Spring
Summer
Fall, Spring Fall, Spring
Summer
Note: New England has instituted a new tuition rate structure for the 1999-00 year which does not
facilitate a comparison with the previous year. Overall, the tuition increase averages out to 4%.
Also, students who began their programs under the old tuition schedule will continue to be
billed according to that schedule while the above rates apply to students beginning their programs
in 1999-00 and beyond.
ANTIOCH SEATTLE
1999-2000 PROPOSED BUDGET
I. 1998-99 ACCOMPLISHMENTS AND CHALLENGES
The 1998-99 year for Antioch University Seattle (AUS) has proven to be one of building foundations for our
future while confronting a potentially devastating financial situation. It was a year of continued transition and
change in academic leadership and organizational and governance structures. It was a year in which the
campus held together as a community while it coped with major revenue shortfalls. When one reflects on the
financial problems confronted by the campus during
1998-99,
it is amazing that so much has been
accomplished. These accomplishments are verification of the dedication to the institution of its faculty, staff,
administrators, students and alumni.
The greatest challenge faced by AUS in 1998-99 was a drastic revenue shortfall. The three primary sources
of revenue decline were enrollment shortfall; bankruptcy of our tenant, the Swallow’s Nest; and reduced income
from the Heritage Institute. Our annualized enrollment for the 1998-99 was 772 FPE which was 58 FPE less
than projected. Enrollment decline alone constituted a $455,400 decrease in revenue. The Swallow’s Nest
bankruptcy and its past rental debt, along with the revenue shortfall from the Heritage Institute, constituted a
$146,500 decrease in revenue. Overall, this meant that approximately $600,000 had to be cut from the budget.
Summer enrollments and low Fall
inquirylapplication
numbers gave an early indication that AUS might be in
financial difficulty. In dealing with the revenue shortfall, the President’s Team readjusted the projected
enrollment figures downward and drafted a new budget based on a three-phase program to address the
revenue shortage. Phase I was an immediate freeze on all open positions. Phase I1 included freezing all
spending in the areas of building improvements, furniture and supplies, computing equipment, miscellaneous
line items, business travel, professional development, diversity funding, food, and business entertainment.
Phase 11 followed close on the heels of Phase I as we learned that the Swallow’s Nest had filed bankruptcy and
we suffered a major drop in our Fall enrollment numbers. When it was seen that we were probably not going to
meet our Spring enrollments and the Heritage Institute revenue projections were not met, Phase Ill was
implemented.
resulted
in the elimination of one staff position, depletion of the building capital reserve, and the
closing
out
of
the
WSD Institute bank account, which had been housing continuing education money from
program
activities. In order
to
assist in balancing the budget, it also was necessary to request use of
our
mandatory
contingency
funds.
At
the time of this report, we expect to end the year with a balanced budget
after
much
commitment,
sacrifice
and community effort.
~lthough
the
financial
situation hovered as a threatening cloud over the campus, the community optimistically
rolled-up
its
sleeves
and
immersed
itself in a strategic planning process, both at the campus and University-
wide
levels TWO full days in October were dedicated to a campus-wide conference to begin the work of
establishing
strategic
goals
and
objectives. Don Krebs, an external planning consultant, led the faculty and staff
through
the
planning
process, which included a historiogram exercise acknowledging and valuing the past 23
years
of
~ntioch
University
Seattle.
The
results
of the larger group were turned over to the Planning and Budget
Council
for
continued
refinement. Seven strategic goals with objectives were identified for presentation to the
campus
community
by the end
of
the Spring term. During the planning process I presented a vision for the
overall
future
direction
of
AUS,
which
calls
for a redesign of the current academic program structure grounded in
the
principles
of
learner-centered education, access, and community engagement. As is usually the case with
most
Antioch
planning
efforts,
we are behind on our completion schedule, which in turn delays the individual
program
and
unit
five-year
planning process. With continued effort, we hope to have the program and unit
proposals
completed before October 1999 allowing for the direct integration with the 2000-01 budget process.
Besides
attention
to
strategic
planning,
the campus completed approval of a new governance structure. In a
little
over
nine
months, a task force designed a structure and gained consensus among the campus community
for
implementation
in October
1998.
The new structure provides for greater distribution of the decision making
through
three
major
councils:
Academic
Council, Planning and Budget Council, and Student Services Council.
Students,
faculty,
and
staff
are
represented on all councils. The Planning and Budget Council has been most
active
this
year
through the strategic planning and budget processes. The budget recommended
by
the Council
to
the
President
for
1999-2000
represents
a much more creative and responsive budget than the one presented
last
year.
is
a
validation
that
greater participation in the budgeting process through a body such as the
Council
results
in
a
stronger
end-product.
The new governance structure is scheduled for evaluation of its
efficiency
and
effectiveness during Spring quarter.
In addition to the three councils, the new governance structure called for the creation of three assemblies:
Faculty Assembly, Staff Assembly, and Student Assembly. The Student Assembly is the first successful
attempt at AUS to establish a student organization that serves as an advocate for students and provides for
student representation on the major decision-making bodies. Complementing the Student Assembly is the new
Student Services Council, which is composed of all units involved with student services and charged with
enhancing and improving student services. This council is the first such body organized at AUS to address
student issues. Monthly meetings are held and we are currently blessed with strong leadership from two student
coordinators.
The Faculty Assembly launched a new series of faculty presentations this year to showcase scholarly works,
both in progress and completed. Initially aimed at a campus audience, it has been met with such enthusiasm
that there are plans to promote it to the wider Seattle community next year. A small group of faculty have
provided leadership in a Homeless Women’s Education Project. The project is a partnership between AUS and
two community agencies. AUS faculty, staff, students and alumni have provided weekly educational sessions
on campus to women who are homeless or living in local shelters. The project has been an experiment in
community involvement and an expression of the campus commitment to social justice. The faculty were also
actively engaged in hosting the University faculty conference held in Seattle during February and joined on the
last day by the University strategic planning teams. The empty Swallow’s Nest space was decorated to provide
an ambiance more elegant and intimate than the finest restaurants of Seattle for the well-attended Saturday
dinner. The theme of the conference was “The Alchemy of Academic Excellence,” and the goodwill and
collaboration among colleagues continued to linger in the halls long after the closing ceremony.
On several occasions during the first few months of my presidency I expressed concern about the future
enrollment health of AUS. The trend analysis of inquiries, applications and enrollments over the last five years
indicated the potential for increasingly downward spiraling enrollments. In May 1998, enrollment management
consultants were brought in to analyze the marketing, recruitment, and admissions system of AUS. Their report,
submitted in June, was sobering and called for a complete reorganization of the system with a more centralized
and professional structure. A number of other recommendations concerning the Web page, changing the tuition
schedule, recruitment material and advertising were able to be implemented with little disruption. The most
complicated, disruptive and controversial recommendation, however, was the reorganization. This was doubly
compounded by an already declining enrollment picture starting in the summer and continuing through the Fall.
The new Director of Enrollment Services did not come on board until mid-October 1998. The transition to
centralization of the admissions staff, along with normal staff attrition, has kept the Admission Office
short-
staffed and scattered through most of the year.
The consultants also called for combining the Admissions, Financial Aid, and Registrar’s Offices under one
umbrella to provide better student services. We opted to bring the Financial Aid Office under the Admissions
Office in January 1999. Personnel problems in Financial Aid caused us to terminate the financial aid officer in
March causing further disruption of services. As of April, however, the Admissions Office was 314 staffed and
the Financial Aid Office was 213 staffed. It is unknown whether there will be any negative residual effect on the
Summer and Fall 1999 enrollments from the reorganization transition. The positive effect of having a strong,
professional, and coordinated recruitment and admissions system will hopefully outweigh the negative effect of
its slow and rocky transition phase.
Fall 1998 saw another transition in the academic leadership at AUS. Gail Martin retired as the Academic Dean
effective December 1998. The campus celebrated with Gail by letting its hair down and throwing a huge dance
at a local marina. There was singing, dancing, satire, poetry, limericks, laughter, and many tears. Over $5,000
was raised for scholarships in her honor. The next week, Dr. Martin was recognized at the AUS December
graduation with the award of Academic Dean Emeritus. Paul David was selected to serve as interim Academic
Dean through June 2000. Long-time faculty member Betsy Geist of the Whole Systems Design program was
also appointed as Special Assistant to the President. Her primary responsibility this year was to organize the
new Planning and Budget Council into an effective and contributing governance body. The addition of these
two individuals to the President’s Team has greatly strengthened the representation of the academic voice and
enhanced the decision-making process. New leadership appeared in the Education program when
Dr.
Bev
Purrington left and Dr. Jeffery
Hamley
was hired as the program director. I also initiated a monthly Leadership
Breakfast to include all the Deans and Program Directors. The group engages in discussions over selected
readings and topics associated with leadership and higher education.
Academic Dean Paul David has been instrumental in bringing forth two new initiatives. One cause of our
enrollment shortfall was the delay by the Illinois Board of Education to approve the Chicago WSDIOSR-MW
program in time for either a Fall or Winter start date. Dean David has spent numerous hours working with the
.. – – f^yvÈ?Â¥’-‘-y-
staff of the Illinois Board and attended the April board meeting in Chicago. He returned home from a successful
mission and the
OSR-MW
program will enroll its first students in Fall 1999. Dean David and the
Psychology
department have also been hard at work designing a new
Psy.D.
program. This program is scheduled to come
before the ULC and Board of Trustees at the June 1999 meeting with a proposed Fall 2000 start date. The Art
Therapy master’s
degreelcertificate
and the weekend Environment and Community program are also new
initiatives this year. Enrollments are small this year in both programs because their approval dates were late,
which placed them behind the normal recruitment cycle. AUS also initiated a continuing education effort this
year, creating the Antioch Center for Community and Professional Learning. The Center is still in an infant
stage and will take time and investment to reach the level of outreach and revenue generation we desire.
Countering some of the depression caused by the revenue shortage was the tremendous
success.of
the new
University Relations office. In its first full year of operation, the University Relations office has made significant
progress in establishing an ongoing development effort for the campus. Our list of individual contributors to
the campus has increased from 83 to over 220 in one year, and Antioch Seattle will raise significantly more from
private donors than its fiscal year goal of $1 00,000. This has been a benchmarking year for the development
effort, with some encouraging results. Our Annual Fund
phone-a-thon
received a 22% positive response, with
an average gift of over $75; both numbers substantially exceeded our goal. We have also increased Horace
Mann Society level participation by over
loo%,
and have received several major gifts of over $5000, with more
in the works.
Antioch Seattle now has an active and growing Board of Visitors. Seven members serve on this Board, with
several other individuals being cultivated for membership. The Board of Visitors represents a cross section of
leadership in the Puget Sound area, including representatives from The Boeing Company, major health care
organizations, the K-12 community, the legal profession, non-profit leadership, and organizational development.
Members from the high-tech sector of the region are being recruited. The Board has met in retreat to begin
team building, and is committed to increasing visibility, community partnerships, and fund development for the
campus. They will meet with Vice Chancellor Lois Mann in June for an introduction to their relationship with the
University.
Increasing communication with alumni has been a major initiative in the Office of University Relations.
Communication with alumni through regular production of the alumni newsletter and ongoing campus events
has generated increased interest in the campus. Board member Barbara Winslow and Carol Krinsky, spouse of
Board chair Robert Krinsky, were speakers at campus events that involved alumni. We have identified a
number of major donor prospects among our alumni, and are beginning the research and cultivation process
with these individuals. Media relations efforts have also increased, including my appearance as the featured
guest on “Northwest Week,” a popular local public affairs television show. Antioch has also been featured in
stories in The Seattle Times and Real Change, a local alternative newspaper, in the past year.
Commitment to diversity continues to be a priority of the campus. Through the Ford Foundation’s diversity
grant, I hosted a dinner with members of the Antioch campus and members of the First AME Church in Seattle.
In addition to these participants, Mark Trahant, columnist for The Seattle Times, was in attendance. In order to
deepen the dialogue regarding diversity in our pedagogy, the AUS faculty held a day-long retreat in October.
Personal cultural histories as well as issues confronted in the classroom were explored. This retreat was
followed by an Academic Forum during Winter quarter which used a specific classroom incident as a basis for
exploring new approaches. The decision for the University to become an affirmative action institution provided
the opportunity for Edgar
Beckham
of the Ford Foundation and
AAC&U
to hold a seminar for the entire campus
on “What does it mean to be an
amrmative
action higher education institution in light of I-200?” Initiative 200
was the anti-affirmative action legislation recently passed by the voters in the State of Washington. Most
impressive is the increased diversity in our faculty and staff. Out of new hires this year, 50% of the faculty and
38% of the staff were people of color. Our progress in this area is owing to the hard work of our Human
Resource Office and the commitment to diversity at the program and unit level.
The 1998-99 year has experientially felt like a roller coaster ride. There has been the agony of revenue
shortfalls and enrollment declines, the fear engendered when any process of budget cuts preside, and the
frustrations in dealing with external state boards and other attempted partnership trials. At the same time, the
campus has experienced exhilaration of optimism shown in the strategic planning process and enjoyed
successful development efforts. During a time of major financial constraints, the campus kept focused and
committed to its future by developing a strategic plan, establishing a new Board of Visitors, increasing its
development efforts, initiating new programs, implementing a new governance system, and creating a new
admissions/recruitment
structure.
II. GOALS AND OBJECTIVES FOR 1999-2000 AND ITEMS TO NOTE IN THE 1999-2000 BUDGET
The campus community has devoted an enormous amount of time in the 1998-99 year in developing a strategic
plan to guide us through the next five years. Although the plan was not totally completed and approved at the
time of the budget discussions, the general direction and priorities of the plan served as a framework upon
which to build our 1999-2000 budget.
It is also important to note that the 1999-2000 budgeting process was set in the context of a campus that had
undergone severe budget cuts and freezes. We based our approach almost totally on a zero-based model. The
1998-99 budget cuts forced the Planning and Budget Council to go through an exercise of determining not only
what new budget requests should be included, but also what items should be restored to the 1999-2000 budget
from those cut the previous year. The commitment to the priorities of the strategic plan guided the thinking on
the restorations or continued funding of certain items. Compounding the exercise was the need to make a 1 %
across-the-board cut in all programs and units to balance the new budget.
The primary objectives of the 1999-2000 budget are (1) fiscal conservatism and a desire for financial stability;
(2) maintaining academic quality while moving forward with new initiatives; (3) enhancing student services,
particularly in terms of technology; (4) supporting the new Office of Enrollment Services; (5) employee retention;
and (6) community engagement and development efforts. The proposed strategic plan covers a five year span
and identifies seven goals. Special items to note in the budget have been aligned with, and listed under, each
of the seven goals:
Academic Quality
Deliver outstanding degree and non-degree programs with a dual focus on innovation and
excellence in every field we choose to address.
The budget supports three new academic initiatives:
1. Art Therapy master’s degree and certificate program within the Psychology program
2. OSR-MW as a Whole Systems Design master’s degree program in Chicago
3. Corporate Leadership Program as a Management master’s degree program for the ALCOA
corporation
The budget also earmarks continuing education funds derived from the prerequisite courses
required by the Psychology master’s degree program to use as start-up funding for the new
psychology doctorate program scheduled for implementation in Fall 2000.
Establishment of a program development contingency fund to provide for potential program
redesign, new program initiatives, and supplemental support for the psychology doctorate start-up
budget.
Funds earmarked to support preparation for accreditation.
Full reinstatement of the funds for the Academic Dean position.
Restoration of the funds to support diversity programs to enhance faculty and staff activities in
diversity development and curriculum integration.
Student Enrollment
Achieve institutional capacity in student enrollment while increasing diversity and quality.
The restructuring of the Admissions Office to provide greater professionalism and increased
recruiting and marketing efforts has resulted in the salary enhancement of two previous
admissions positions to a Director of Enrollment Services, which now includes supervision of the
Financial Aid Office, and an assistant director position.
The budget supports the addition of an admissions administrative assistant position and a Datatel
position to primarily support the enrollment services areas but also other units utilizing the Datatel
module.
A simplification of our tuition schedule to move toward a single costkredit charge presents a less
confusing picture to prospective students and enables better financial planning on their part. This
change was strongly recommended by the enrollment management consultants.
Student Services
Provide responsive, accessible and high quality student services that meet the needs of a diverse
adult population.
Part-time staff hours have been added to the bookstore to increase the time it is open to better
serve our students.
One percent of the tuition increase has been earmarked for technology to provide better support
services to our students. This commitment was made as the result of student demand and
represents a 50% increase in overall budgeted dollars for technology support.
Library directorship position funded at 75%.
Community Engagement
Build relationships that provide educational service to the community and enhance the quality and
distinctiveness of the Antioch experience.
A new secretarial staff support position for University Relations to be added effective January 2000,
subject to meeting our enrollment projections.
Support of the new Antioch Center for Community and Professional Learning to provide increased
continuing education programs and outreach efforts.
Emolovees
Attract, develop, excite and retain an exceptional and diverse group of employees, adequate to
support University activities.
Compensation funds have been budgeted to cover a 3.6% increase in compensation (3% salary
increase) for all regular employees beginning January 2000. The increase is subject to meeting
our enrollments.
Adjunct salaries are budgeted for a 3.5% increase per course effective July 1, 1999.
Faculty and staff development funds are reinstated after freezing those funds during the 1998-99
year.
Technology
Use technology in innovative and appropriate ways to support a leamer-focused educational
environment.
A new staff position to support computing services to be added effective January 2000, subject to
meeting our enrollment projections.
Funds earmarked to support efforts to integrate technology into our curriculum and training of
faculty.
The previously mentioned use of 1 % of tuition revenues targeted for technology enhancement.
Financial
Create a healthy, diversified financial base to support institutional excellence.
The facility budget is increased 5% to cover increased security and maintenance expenses and to
account for revised cost estimates for utilities now that we have been in the building a full year.
Reestablishment of the building reserve fund that was depleted during the 1998-99 budget cuts.
Establishment of a new presidential reserve fund funded at 112 of 1% of student derived revenues
for contingency use and emergency funding. Our goal is to increase this voluntary contingency
fund to a full 1 % in 2000-01.
Ill. FPE AND PROGRAM COSTS
Enrollment Proiections
Antioch Seattle is projecting 81 1.2 Annualized Full Pay Equivalents (FPE) for the 1999-2000 budget. The
projection of 81 1.2 minus the new initiatives of Art Therapy, OSR-MW, and the Corporate Leadership program is
actually the same as year’s budget, when both are converted to the new FPE methodology. The experience of
not meeting our enrollment projections this past year has resulted in carefully developed, conservative
projections for the 1999-2000 budget. With the help of our new Director of Enrollment Services, each program
was carefully assessed for potential growth or the potential for continued down turn in enrollment levels. For
example, the combined graduate programs in Psychology are projected at 267 FPE. The 1998-99 budget was
built with 299 FPE for Psychology and we expect them to finish this year with 280 FPE. This budget anticipates
that we may continue to experience lower enrollments in Psychology.
&
High demand for teachers, a good placement rate, and plenty of applications has resulted in a more optimistic
projection of enrollments for Education. This year we added an additional Teacher Certification cohort so the
figures for Education show a growth of 44 FPE. In other programs the projections are closer to last year’s
budget and this year’s actual enrollments with projections being more conservative for Whole Systems Design,
Management, and the Environment and Community Limited Residency Program. The newly developed Seattle
Weekend Option of the Environment and Community Program is projected more optimistically as is the BA
Completion Program.
This represents our best thinking about a budget built on conservative and attainable enrollment projections.
Revenue
Total revenue projected is $8,640,910, which is 6.6% higher than was budgeted for 1998-99. Most of this
increase is from modest enrollment growth from new programs, a tuition increase, and minor changes in other
sources of revenue as outlined in the following paragraphs.
The 1999-2000 budget contains a tuition increase that involves two components. The actual tuition levels are
based upon extensive program-by-program analysis of local competitive programs calculated by the Academic
Dean and Program Directors. The regional analysis resulted in a broad range of increases from 0% in one
program to as high as 10% in another. Most programs are in the 2-3% range for full-time students. The overall
average tuition increase is 3.4% with 1% of the tuition increase dedicated to technology.
The second component of our pricing changes involves a transition to a level price per credit structure for each
program. Because this change caused dramatic increases at some credit levels, especially at
12-1 5 credits in
the BA completion program, we are phasing in the change over two years and giving Antioch Tuition Grants
(ATG) to continuing students in the BA completion program if they enroll for 12 or more credits. This change
was complicated to implement, but it simplifies our tuition schedule and presents a less confusing picture to
prospective students (which was strongly recommended by our enrollment management consultants).
This budget also reflects growth in our continuing education efforts and an increased contribution from
development to operations. A decision has been made to eliminate the computer access fee and dedicate a
portion of our overall tuition dollars to technology. Rent from our tenant space is budgeted at the rate we
anticipate if only 50% of the available space is occupied. There is an offsetting reserve in the budget in the
event the space is not rented. Current negotiations with prospective tenants give us optimism that we will have
a tenant by this Summer or early Fall. Auxiliary revenues from the Bookstore are increased modestly to the
level we expect for this year’s actual performance.
IV. OTHER PRIORITIES
If AUS exceeds its enrollment projections, the Planning and Budget Council has requested that the first priority
for any excess revenue be used to restore to the programs and units the funds taken in the 1 % cut made to
balance the 1999-2000 budget. I have asked the Planning and Budget Council to recommend a priority funding
list for any potential additional excess revenues.
Toni Murdock
President
Revenues
Tuition & Fees
Less Tuition Discounts
Gifts
Grants
Endowment Income
Contracts
Other Income
Total
E&G
Revenue
Auxiliary Enterprises
Released From Restrictions
Total Revenues
Operating Expenses
Instruction
Research
Public Service
Academic Support
Student Services
Institutional Support
Plant Maintenance
Scholarships
Total E&G Expenses
Auxiliary Enterprises
Total Operating Expenses
Excess Revenue over Expenses
Annual Budget Conversion to Cash basis
Capital Expenditures
Borrowing Proceeds
Principal Payments
Prior Year Reserves
Add back Depreciation
Total Cash Items
Net Cash Basis Budget
1996-97
Actual
–
6,537,877
-94,423
20
202,788
0
128.993
417,544
7,192,799
214,337
-5,350
7,401,786
3,272,043
0
0
101,710
536,385
1,683,570
687,807
185,232
6,466,747
209,761
6,676,508
725,278
6,456,071
-6,216,245
0
0
0
239,826
485,452
1997-98
Actual
–
7,085,708
-59,353
6,928
158,522
0
67,919
202.816
7,462,540
250,786
65,095
7,778,421
3,377,932
0
109
391,862
547.792
1,942,423
826,264
165,087
7,251,469
242,294
7,493,763
284.658
1,968,557
-1,647,883
100,000
-1 36.01 6
0
284,658
0
Antioch Seattle
1999-00 Proposed Budget Summary by Function
1998-99
Budget
1998-99
Projected
Change From
1998-99 Budget
to 1998-99 Projected
Proposed
1999-00
Budget
Change From
1998-99 Pro]
to 1999-00 Budget
$ %
—- –
Change From
1998-99 Budget
to 1999-00 Budget
$ %
Antioch Seattle
1999-00 Proposed Budget Summary by Category
Revenues
Operating Expenses
Salaries &Wages
Benefits
Training & Development
Student Aid Services
Special Events
Supplies
Business Operations
Plant Maintenance
Interest Expense
Resale Costs
Miscellaneous
ContingencyIReserves
Campus Contingency, Mandatory
Campus Program Contingency, Discret
Liquidity Reserve
Overhead
To the University
Rebates from the University
Subsidy from Adult Campuses
Subsidy from Overhead
Other (Intercampus Agree & Univ Conf
Depreciation
Total Operating Expenses
ExcessRevenueoverExpenses
Annual Budget Conversion to Cash Basis
Capital Expenditures
Borrowing Proceeds
Principal Payments
Prior Year Reserves
Add Back Depreciation
Total Cash Items
Net Cash Basis Budget
1996-97
Actual
—
7,401,786
3,384,195
833,410
152,062
92,763
30,257
73,057
432,880
765,707
17,195
172,813
-7,471
0
0
62.894
799.140
-189,654
45,912
0
1 1,348
0
6,676,508
725,278
6,456,071
-6,216,245
0
0
0
239,826
485.452
1997-98
1998-99
Actual Budget
— —.-
7,778,421 8,102,582
1998-99
Projected
—
7,640,665
3,852,694
963,515
109,744
93,046
33,589
11 3,900
485,190
236,100
626,058
257,586
2.91 1
0
0
90.644
830,906
-261,432
48,000
0
19,762
0
7,502,213
138,452
20,474
0
11 0,000
0
0
130,474
7.978
Change From
1998-99 Budget Proposed
to 1998-99 Projected 1 1999-00
Change From
1998-99 Pro]
to 1999-00 Budget
$ %
— –.
1,000,245 13.09%
%
–.-
-5.70%
Change From
1998-99 Budget
to 1999-00 Budget
$ %
—- —-
538,328 6.64%
Budget
–
8,640,910
Campus
Campus
Seattle
Campus
Seattle
Campus
Seattle
Campus
ANTIOCH SEATTLE
1999-00 Capital Budget
Buildings Amount
Total Buildings 0
Building Improvements Amount
Y2KlHVAC Controls 5.500
Roof, Windows Upgrade 14,500
Lobby Upgrade 4.000
Total Building Improvemer 24,000
Equipment Amount
Computer Equipment 73,500
Computer Instruction Cart 10,000
Total Equipment 83,500
Furniture & Fixtures Amount
Upgrade Phone System 12,000
Classroom Chairs 20,000
Total Furniture & Fixtures 32,000
Library Books
Total Library Books
Grand Total Capital Budget
Antioch Seattle
Tuition Rate Changes 1999-00
Program
——–
BA Completion Per Credit
Half Time
Full Tlme
Overload Add
ere
Non Matriculated
Psychology Per Credit
Half Tlme
Full Tlme
Overload Add
ere
Non Matriculated
Whole System Design Per Credit
Half Tlme
Full Time
Overload Add
ere
Non Matriculated
Education/On
Campus Per Credit
Half Time
Full Tlme
Overload Add
ere
Non Matriculated
Site Based
Educatlon/Teacher
Cer Full Time
1998-99 1999-00
Rates Proposed % Change
Program
——–
Education/TC MA Per Credit
Half Tlme
Full Tlme
Overload Add
ere
Management Full Time
(Monthly Rate)
Organization Systems Ren
Northwest Full
Time
Midwest Full Time
Environment & Community LRO
Cohort 1 & 2 Part Time
Cohort 4 (Win ’98) Part Time
Cohort 4 (Win ’99) Part Tlme
Cohort 5 Part Time
Environment & Community SWO
Per Credit
Half Tlme
Full Tlme
Overload Add
ere
Non Matriculated
1998-99 1999-00
Rates Proposed % Change
ANTIOCH SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
1999-2000 PROPOSED BUDGET
I. 1998-99 ACCOMPLISHMENTS AND CHALLENGES
The budget crisis of last summer is old news, but we cannot understate the severity of the rapid turns of events
on the morale and stability of the organization. Effects linger. Repercussions abound. The good news is that
we are on the mend.
Given our current projections for Spring enrollment, we expect to end the year with the Mandatory Contingency
and some of the Program Contingency intact and carry the bulk of these monies forward as reserves. This is
essential since our reserve situation, after the previous years’ deficits, is precarious. Despite the pain it caused,
the roughly $400,000 we excised from this year’s budget in the summer was a wise move. We have learned the
consequences of living beyond our means.
Enrollment for the year, based on the revised projections of the budget reconfiguration, was solid though not
spectacular. We should end the year with approximately 777 annualized Full Pay Equivalent (FPE) students in
the region, 13 short of our revised projection. This represents a dollar shortfall of $1 16,300. At about 1.5% of
projected tuition income and budgeted FPE, this is an amount we can manage. Vigilance regarding expenses in
the final weeks of the year is the key to achieving the results we require to remain stable.
I believe we are getting a handle on how to be more accurate in our enrollment projections. We are refining our
methodology of interpolating from inquiries, evaluating what the Antioch University Southern California “funnel”
should really be, and studying how to market effectively. (One area we need to work on is retention and that is
on the agenda for next year.) These efforts should show up clearly in the accuracy of next year’s numbers.
We are also taking seriously the need for careful analysis of trends and outcomes, program by program. In a
brief view in those terms, our Los Angeles MFA and both BA programs are performing well. Psychology in
Santa Barbara is holding steady after a decline; in Los Angeles, the questions remain about the level at which
that program will stabilize. Our greatest weakness is in the MAOM programs at both locations. We need to
devise a strategy to make these work; we have begun that process in earnest.
Our most impressive accomplishment has been our ability to survive a year of great turmoil and dislocation.
Within that framework and against the odds, we have impressive concrete gains we should acknowledge:
The build-out of the Los Angeles campus is complete (though now we need additional
space for new programs again) and makes the campus a better place to work and
study.
We launched a bookstore in Los Angeles as an auxiliary enterprise and negotiated a
successful arrangement to open a cafe there. This looks even better when contrasted
with the fact that the prior arrangements for both bookstore and cafe collapsed at
startup or shortly thereafter.
The reorganization of regional structure and governance began with the appointment of
Executive Deans for each campus and continued with personnel changes throughout
the ending year and planned reorganizations for the beginning year. Most pertinent to
mention are the outsourcing of information technology in Los Angeles and the nascent
development efforts in the region.
New academic specialization within MAP began in Los Angeles (child studies) and
Santa Barbara (career counseling). At the same time, we explored new delivery
systems (Saturday one-day-a-week in Los Angeles). Due to the severity of our
technology problems, we slowed the pace of regional distance learning expansion,
which is a disappointment.
We are in the midst of a comprehensive and far-ranging planning process and we are
beginning to create a culture of evidence that measures our progress, assesses our
capabilities, insists on accountability, and communicates the organizational realities to
all.
II. 1999-2000 GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
We enter a new budget year (and new century!) with two overarching goals in the fiscal arena:
Budget Authenticity: realistically estimating income and ending the underbudgeting
of expenses
(e.g.,
the graduations, legal fees).
The combination of off-the-mark enrollment projections and its effect on income,
and the consistent under-budget of known expenses, by $5000 in this area and
$10,000 in that (which adds up in total and throws spending out of whack), can no
longer be afforded and has not been a principle of the proposed budget.
Future Investment: prudently (but with a dash of risk-taking) moving into new
areas for income generation and program expansion.
New credit and non-credit programs, an additional location in Los Angeles,
building a solid development effort — these and other initiatives need to be seeded
financially next year and can be expected, in the not-too-distant future, to bear fruit
by increasing the revenue stream.
Among the objectives our fiscal plans reflect to achieve these goals are:
1. Improve technology infrastructure, service and employee training.
Both locations are in need of comprehensive technology plans. We are shoring up our
technological situations for the next year while we develop the plan for 2000-01. Of particular
note is our outsourcing of the entire information technology operation in Los Angeles, which,
while costing somewhat more (at least at startup), should finally create the possibility of
correction and growth in infrastructure and support there.
2. Launch regional teacher credentiallMA in education program
With final approval from the State only weeks away (we hope), we are gearing up to hire the
faculty, recruit students, organize support services, and acquire or set up facilities.
3. Open and develop the San Gabriel Valley Center
The venture into this new catchment area, with implications for our partnerships and
academiclcommunity
program, along with teacher education, is the other major new initiative
for next year.
4. Expand the External Relations and Development efforts.
One full time staff in
alumnilae
and community relations has been hired. Two consultants in
publications and marketing are on board. The main focus of efforts is the October 1999
presidential inauguration, seen as the kickoff of greatly increased efforts.
5. Increase outreach efforts.
In LA, we added another front desk staff person with an Admissions focus and added a
Registrar Datatel staff assistant to free the Student Services Datatel Coordinator to focus on
full implementation of Admissions and Communication Management modules. This will
facilitate improved management of inquirers and applicants.
In SB, we added a half-time staff assistant to assist with outreach to local communities and to
improve data input capabilities.
6. Reorganize the campuses.
The recently formed LA Campus Services Center will be staffed and provided its own budget
to manage copying services, order office supplies, distribute incoming and process outgoing
mail, and outsource print jobs as needed. Supplies and copying budgets from all cost centers
are now consolidated into one function. Under the supervision of the Facilities Manager, the
Center will also manage all small equipment maintenance and repairs (except computers).
The Student Services area, partially reorganized in August 1998, will see the full
implementation of the original plan. By reallocating salaries of threeadministrative positions
(one resigned in September 98; one will not return to this role from maternity leave; the third
wishes to move to a different position in the academic area), the Associate Dean of
Administration, Registrar and Director of Admissions positions are being created. An
Associate Dean search will begin immediately for an individual who will supervise
Admissions, Registrar, Financial Aid, Campus Operations and Facilities.
The LA fiscal office is currently under review after the departure of the Assistant Dean of
Business Operations, who headed that office, in September 1998. Thus far, job duties have
been reassigned among three staff members, offices have been reorganized, improved
internal controls are in place, and the backlog of fiscal tasks is steadily being brought current.
Further changes are likely, though the Assistant Dean position will not be replaced.
Review uncertain programs:
MA Clinical Psychology: While the LA program has grown slightly in the current year it has
failed to meet projections and, overall, it has decreased by 23 FPE over the past three years.
In SB the program has decreased by 30 FPE in the same period. Both programs are
continuing to add non-clinical concentrations (Child Studies in LA and Career Counseling in
SB) but FPE numbers in the 13 to 18 range have not yet made up the difference.
MAOM:
LA’S program is down from 28 FPE in 1997-98 to 16 FPE in 1999-2000. In SB, the
program has remained stable at
40FPE
but did not meet growth targets of 45 FPE in
1998-
99.
I. THE BUDGET PROPOSAL: A BIRD’S EYE VIEW
Proposed for next year is a balanced budget which totals $9,859,782, including allocations from Restricted Gift
~unds.
At the three revenue-generating campuses – Los Angeles, Santa Barbara, and the San Gabriel Valley
Center (fiscally separate but structurally part of Los Angeles), the revenue distribution (by percent of total) is
approximately 27.2% from Santa Barbara, 66.1 % from Los Angeles, and 2.4% from the San Gabriel Valley
Center. The Regional “campus” – compensation and expenses for regional officers of Antioch University
Southern California — is funded by an overhead payment from Santa Barbara ($202,402 or 26.7%), Los Angeles
($450,507 or 59.5%) and the University rebate ($104,000 or 13.7%).
The regional budget development process for 1999-2000 instructed the rollover of expenses and a careful
calculation of enrollment income. Changes from this fiscal year, up or down in income or expense, were justified
in narratives submitted with the requests. It should be noted that a more strategic budgeting process will be put
in place for future years.
Under the continuing difficult financial conditions of the region, very few new projects or areas could be funded
from any source. There are significant planned investments in the San Gabriel Valley Center and Teacher
Education Program (delineated below). Two mandated items were funded:
Los Angeles Core Faculty Position under Past President’s Retreat Rights ($80,000)
University Overhead Increases – mostly for the third-year start of MFA payments ($192,000)
The following discretionary items were budgeted at $20,000 or more above this year’s expense lines:
Additional Staff for the President’s Office ($42,000)
Inauguration ($25,000)
Los Angeles Student Services Reorganization ($20,000)
Tentative Salary Increase and Service Recognition ($48,000)
Q New Core Faculty Positions in Los Angeles for MFA and BA ($55,000)
Los Angeles Technology Outsourcing Contract ($31,000)
Los Angeles Increase for Student Parking ($42,000)
Los Angeles Campus Services Center Staff ($23,000)
Santa Barbara Admissions Office Staff ($22,000)
IV. SOME SPECIFIC ISSUESIASPECTS
1. Enrollment maintenance and improvement
Our annualized FPE projection for next year is 844. We have been conservative and increased only
slightly in the overall projection based on program performance
(i.e.,
BA Los Angeles and Santa
Barbara ) or program initiatives which will have impact (i.e., MAP Los Angeles child studies
specialization). Forty-four FPE are new, based on projections for the first year’s cohorts in both
locations in the teacher
credentiallMA
in education programs.
2. Tuitionlfee increases
We are proposing a full-time tuition increase of $200 per quarter (per semester in the MFA in Los
Angeles) for all programs. This represents a larger increase than we would wish to impose, but past
practice has not been smooth or prudent.
For the five-year period ending in 2000, the proposed $200 increase, on top of prior increases of
varying amounts in 1995-1999, will result in an average increase per year from a low of 1.6% (Los
Angeles BA) to a high of 2.8% (Santa Barbara BA) over that period in each of the programs (the
two-
year-old MFA has its first increase since inception which amounts to 5%). The problem is that these
increases have come in fits and starts, thus making next year’s increase appear hefty in some
programs. Our goal must be to have a reasonable, steady and consistent increase every year — and
that should probably be the 2-4% range. Our analysis of the competition demonstrates we will not be
pricing ourselves inappropriately in the current market.
We propose, in addition, modest fee increases in some areas
(e.g.,
the parking fee in Los Angeles). *
3. Compensation policy and review.
Tentative salary increases are pegged at 2% as a cost-of-living, across the board package beginning
either July 1 (staff) or January 1 (faculty and administration) as we did this year. Individual
adjustments have been made in a few cases for equity reasons, reclassifications of positions, or
acknowledgement of added responsibilities
(e.g.,
the Executive Dean roles for the two regional
deans). Our Service Recognition Program, which provides a modest salary increase for every three
years of service, will be in effect for the second year as a base salary increase for employees so
recognized .
We plan a comprehensive review of our compensation policies and procedures with the intention of a
major overhaul over the next two years.
4.
planned
Uses for Program Contingency
Our proposal includes a discretionary program contingency for the region of approximately $100,000.
We will use this, if available, to begin to implement the strategic technology plan we will have in place
by January.
We aim to budget 5% of net tuition revenue for the combined contingency categories (mandatory
campus and discretionary program) in the next budget if feasible. In this proposed budget, we
achieve 3.4% of net tuition revenue.
5. San Gabriel Valley Center
Negotiations continue for leasing the building in South Pasadena and collaborating with Classes
Unlimited and the Fremont Center Theatre, the current occupants. We expect to conclude both
before the end of May. We are pleased to report that we have verbal permission from the city
planning office to proceed without a Conditional Use Permit.
Contained in the budget proposal, as a separate cost
centerlcampus
for fiscal purposes, is $284,900
in revenue (including $25,000 from the Program Development budget) and $259,887 in expenses for
this area.
6. Teacher Education Program
Final budget figures for this major initiative are still in a bit of flux since we await further directives from
the state mandating required actions
(e.g.,
increase library size or facilities, additional computers and
software, staffing ratios, and so on). At this moment, our budget proposal includes $484,367 in
expenses and $459,300 in revenue (including $73,000 from the Program Development budget) for
Teacher Education.
The roughly $25,000 deficit is acceptable for a new program and may not occur since we are
optimistic that we can exceed our enrollment projections. Two additional FPE in the region would just
about remove the deficit entirely, making this a break-even program. We should also note that we
have been working with a grantwriting consultant to identify and submit appropriate proposals and
success in this area will affect positively next year’s bottom line.
7. Capital Budget
We have about $32,000 for technology to sustain current operations in this budget proposal. We plan
to achieve the $75,000 goals in the 1999-2000 Capital Budget either by spending released Program
Contingency or by only fulfilling the priorities we can afford and postponing the rest. Full revision of
last year’s Five-year Capital Budget awaits a more careful analysis of needs, since the plan submitted
last year seems flawed in concept and certainly could not be executed this year.
The expectation would be that our 2000-05 Capital Budget submitted next year will be a substantially
improved version based on more complete and thorough analysis of needs. Both technology and
facilities are in a state of flux, and much clearer information on current realities, near-term require- ,
ments and future directions will emerge in the next few months.
8. Restricted Budget Highlights
Antioch University Southern California’s restricted budgets include federal grants, several modest
scholarship funds, and major gifts for faculty and program development and a presidential
discretionary fund. Transfers will occur in faculty development ($18,000 for various activities),
program development ($73,000 for Teacher Education, $25,000 for the San Gabriel Valley Center,
and $5,000 for Psychology in Santa Barbara), and marketing consultation ($25,000) and professional
development ($5,000) from the President’s Discretionary Fund.
V. IN CONCLUSION
I hope this brief narrative has provided the Board with the information it needs to assess our 1999-2000 budget
proposal. I believe the proposal is a carefully constructed, prudent, sound, and appropriate effort. I think it
reflects the current reality and projects a realistic future.
As any good budget should, it juggles all the myriad aspects and keeps us attuned to what we are doing: Trying
to serve students with the best possible education we – and they – can imagine. And, in the unique context of
the Antioch federal model, it postulates how we can be a good citizen both within the region and within the
University.
We hope you will agree with this assessment and welcome your questions and comments.
Mark Schulman
President
Antioch Southern California
1999-00 Proposed Budget Summary by Function
Revenues
Tuition & Fees
Less Tuition Discounts
Gifts
Grants
Endowment Income
Contracts
Other Income
Total
E&G
Revenue
Auxiliary Enterprises
Released From Restrictions
Total Revenues
Operating Expenses
Instruction
Research
Public Service
Academic Support
Student Services
Institutional Support
Plant Maintenance
Scholarships
Total
E&G
Expenses
Auxiliary Enterprises
Total Operating Expenses
Excess Revenue over Expenses
Annual Budget Conversion to Cash basis
Capital Expenditures
Borrowing Proceeds
Principal Payments
Prior Year Reserves
Add back Depreciation
Total Cash Items
Net Cash Basis Budget
1996-97
Actual
—
7,425,607
-175,925
14,115
303,828
0
0
29,943
7,597,568
0
61,060
7,658,628
1997-98
Actual
–
7,439,528
-182,975
11,705
238,306
0
0
17,526
7,524,090
561
64.1 18
7,588,769
1998-99
Budget
–
7,921,655
-209,600
23,700
263,500
0
0
20,000
8,019,255
0
139,100
8,158,355
1998-99
Projected
–
7.81 8,871
-175,100
63,395
264,148
0
0
9,852
7,981,166
105,000
113,000
8,199,166
Change From
1998-99 Budget
to 1998-99 Projected
Proposed
1999-00
Budget
-.-
9,286,332
-21 2,100
97,500
263,500
0
0
35,550
9,470,782
230,000
159,000
9,859,782
3,612,262
0
106,603
760,097
1,112,595
2,515.310
1,219,440
271,000
9,597,307
230,000
9,827,307
32,475
32,475
0
0
0
0
32,475
0
Change From
1998-99 Proj
to
1999-00
Budget
$ %
– –
1,467,461 18.77%
-37,000 21.13%
34,105 53.80%
-648 -0.25%
0
0
25,698 260.84%
1,489,616 18.66%
125,000 119.05%
46,000 40.71 %
1,660,616 20.25%
Change From
1998-99 Budget
to
1999-00
Budget
$ %
Antioch Southern California
1999-00 Proposed Budget Summary by Category
Revenues
Operating Expenses
Salaries & Wages
Benefits
Training & Development
Student Aid Services
Special Events
Supplies
Business Operations
Plant Maintenance
Interest Expense
Resale Costs
Miscellaneous
ContingencyIReserves
Campus Contingency, Mandatory
Campus Program Contingency,
Discret
Liquidity Reserve
Overhead
To the University
Rebates from the University
Subsidy from Adult Campuses
Subsidy from Overhead
Other (Intercampus Agree & Univ Conf
Depreciation
Total Operating Expenses
Excess Revenue over Expenses
Annual Budget Conversion to Cash Basis
Capital Expenditures
Borrowing Proceeds
Principal Payments
Prior Year Reserves
Add Back Depreciation
Total Cash Items
Net Cash Basis Budget
1996-97
Actual
–
7,658,628
3,786,358
894.940
106,356
106,294
34,762
137,820
679,953
1,122,666
15,457
0
12,069
0
0
78,818
1,062,744
-250,000
62,378
0
8.1
10
0
7,858,725
-200,097
36,568
0
0
-236,665
0
-200,097
0
1997-98
Actual
–
7,588,769
3,903,729
812,557
147,803
89.834
34,426
120,152
722,589
1 .I 83,403
18,390
0
7,024
0
0
78,064
993,908
-271,066
58,000
0
0
0
7,898,813
-310,044
38,516
0
0
-92,203
0
-53,687
-256,357
1998-99 1998-99
Budget Projected
— —
8,158,355 8,199,166
Change From
1998-99 Budget
to 1998-99 Projected
Proposed
1999-00
Budget
–
9,859,782
4,64l,716
1,054,160
284,279
75,800
57,010
157,148
1,006,985
1,170,203
13,150
190,000
2.015
183,058
100,039
103.718
1,140,897
-406,271
53,400
0
0
0
9,827,307
32,475
32,475
0
0
0
0
32,475
0
Change From
1998-99 Pro]
to
1999-00
Budget
$ %
— –
1,660,616 20.25%
Change From
1998-99 Budget
to
1999-00
Budget
$ %
— —
1,701,427 20.86%
ANTIOCH SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
1999-00 Capital Budget
Campus Buildings
Total Buildings
Campus Building Improvements
Amount
Amount
Total Building Improvements 0
Campus Equipment Amount
Southern CA Computer Equp – Teacher Ed 15,000
Southern CA Instructional Resource Cntr 7,475
Total Equipment 22,475
Campus Furniture 81 Fixtures
Southern CA SGV Furnishings
Amount
10,000
Total Furniture & Fixtures 10,000
Campus Library Books
Total Library Books 0
Grand Total Capital Budget 32,475
——– ——–
Antloch Southern California
Tuition Rate Changes 1999-00
1998-99 1999-00
Rates Proposed
Program Per Quarter Per Quarter % Change
——– ——– ——– ——–
Los Angeles – BA Program 3,200 3,400 6.25%
Los Angeles – MAP & MAOM 3,350 3,550 5.97%
Los Angeles – MFA Program 4,000 4,200 5.00%
Los Angleles – Teacher Cert 3,400
Santa Barbara – BA Program 3,050 3,250 6.56%
Santa Barbara – MAP Progra 3,200 3,400 6.25%
Santa Barbara – MAOM Pro< 3,200 3,400 6.25%
Santa Barbara - Teacher Cert 3.400
THE McGREGOR SCHOOL
1999-2000 PROPOSED BUDGET
I. 1998-99 ACCOMPLISHMENTS AND CHALLENGES
There have been a number of positive accomplishments and milestones at the School during the 1998-99
academic year that are cause for significant optimism as we look forward to the new academic year. Barbara
Danley assumed the presidency of The McGregor School on May 1, and Steve Brzezinski began his duties as
Academic Dean on the same date. The Teacher Certification Program has continued to expand and is now
clearly recognized as a leader in teacher education in the Miami Valley. The McGregor School's participation in
AACU1s
Racial Legacies and Learning Project has received national recognition. The Graduate Management
Program and the Intercultural Relations track within the IMA continued their strong resurgence in both students
and income over the previous year. Finally, the Educational Leaders Summer Series (ELSS), our summer
teacher education institute in continuing education initially funded with a generous grant from the
Lovelace
Foundation, attracted almost 1,000 teachers to the McGregor campus during the summer of 1998.
However, substantial weakness in several key McGregor School program areas are contributing to a difficult
budgetary situation at McGregor as academic year 1998-1999 winds down. With most revenue for the year now
either booked, anticipated, or already factored into the budget, it appears that revenue at year's end on June 30
will fall short of budget by approximately $400,000. This $400,000 includes a rollover of an estimated $78,000
in unspent grant income into 1999-2000, so that the actual revenue budget deficit for the academic year will be
about $322,000.
As of March 31, expense savings against budget for the academic year total $276,781, or an average of about
$31,000 per month. However, with $20,000 in emergency building repairs already committed, in addition to
other unavoidable year-end expenses, it is not realistic to project that we will be able to save $31
,OOO/month
on*
expenses during the final quarter of the year. The most realistic projection is that we will be able to save an
additional $40,000 against budgeted expenses through careful and prudent expense monitoring over the rest of
the year. Comparing booked and projected expense savings, plus utilization of the $49,000 Mandatory Campus
Contingency, against the projected revenue shortfall leaves the prospect for a balanced budget somewhat
precarious. Hence, though hopefully it will prove to be unnecessary, I have formally taken the precaution of
requesting from the University Vice Chancellor access to $20,000 from The McGregor School's funded reserve
account to cover the previously approved emergency building repairs, in the event such an action proves
necessary for the School to end the year with a balanced budget.
II. 1999-2000 ENROLLMENT AND REVENUE PROJECTIONS
We are projecting essentially flat revenue for 1999-2000 over the 1998-99 budgeted level. However, this
"flatness" is in aggregate, not by program, where there are some large increases and some sharp reductions.
For example, the two programs that struggled mightily in 1998-99, the B.A. Completion Program, or Weekend
College, and the Conflict Resolution track within the Individualized Master of Arts Program, are each budgeted
almost $200,000 below their
1998-99
levels, since large recruitment shortfalls in this calendar year impact next
year's budgeting process by reducing the continuing student pool. Stronger programs, like Graduate
Management and the Self-Designed Track within the IMA, are targeted for modest student increases in the
upcoming year. Finally, assuming Ohio Board of Education approval in October, the growing Teacher
Certification Program will add a new MA in Educational Leadership with a Principalship Licensure to its existing
programmatic offerings. The first cohort is tentatively scheduled to begin their studies in January 2000. For
programs which are experiencing difficulty, like the Weekend College and the Conflict Resolution track in the
IMA, new student recruitment targets were set substantially lower than 1998-99 budget targets, but modestly
higher than 1998-99 actual student numbers.
Given the "no growth" nature of this budget in the midst of our transition to a
PresidentIAcademic
Dean
structure, we have formally requested access to $20,000 of our funded reserves to support a 2% raise for our
employees and to continue professional development initiatives during this transitional period.
I. EFFORTS TO INCREASE ENROLLMENTS AND REVENUE
A number of efforts to increase enrollments and provide greater stability in our revenue projections are now in "
place. The new PresidentlAcademic Dean structure positions The McGregor School for a more aggressive
external presence in the Miami Valley which should clearly aid in fund-raising, as well as more rapid program
redesign and new program development to meet changing market challenges and opportunities. Our Annual
Fund should continue to grow as our contacts and relations with alumni are strengthened through alumni
newsletters, events, and additional points of contact presently being developed by the Director of Alumni
AffairsIPublic
Relations. The Board of Visitors has pledged to assist our new president in becoming more
connected and visible in the Miami Valley and to aid in fund-raising initiatives.
On the programmatic side, we are beginning a comprehensive strategic planning process intended to help us
focus on and prioritize organizational priorities, highlight and build on existing program strengths, and directly
address areas of weakness and concern. Although this type of scrutiny will be extended to all programmatic
offerings at The
McGregor
School, particular attention will be paid to the areas clearly struggling at present,
especially the B.A. Completion Program and the Conflict Resolution track within the IMA.
IV. MAJOR CHANGES FROM THE 1998-99 BUDGET
A. Personnel Additions
Budget constraints and lack of new programs for 1999-2000 keep the addition of new personnel
limited to the teacher education area to support our new MA in Educational Leadership with a
Principalship Licensure. We are adding one additional faculty position to chair the new program and a
program administrator to coordinate both the new program and the existing teacher certification
program.
B. Salary Increase Plans
We have a 2% raise in the budget for all employees. For union employees whose contract with the
School expires on October 16, 1999, this is an arbitrary number subject to being raised or reduced in
subsequent contract negotiations.
C. These funds would be used to enhance and upgrade our computer network, hardware, and software.
capabilities.
V. CONCLUSION
After essentially three flat years in terms of revenue and enrollment, 1999-2000 is a pivotal year in the evolution
of The
McGregor
School. Previously identified program weaknesses need to be addressed. Even our most
successful programs need to be monitored and reshaped to meet changing demographics and rapidly evolving
career patterns. Finally, new program initiatives need to be brought forward if we are to compete effectively in
an increasingly competitive marketplace for adult students.
Barbara Gellman-Danley
President
The McGregor School of Antioch
1999-00 Proposed Budget Summary by Function
Change From Change From
1998-99 Proj
To
1999-00 Budget
$ %
-.. --
Change From
1998-99 Budget
to 1999-00 Budget
$ %
---. -----
1998-99 Budget
To 1998-99 Actual
$ %
Proposed
1999-00
Budget
-
5,273,582
a
20,000
67,625
a
102,ooc
18,770
5,481,977
45,000
15,
OM
5,541,977
2,341,456
0
189,726
146.668
726,043
1,941,711
90,8lt
17,501
5,453,921
60,501
5,514,421
27,557
45,006
1
1
47.44
1
27,557
1
1996-97
Actual
1997-98
Actual
1998-99
Budget
1998-99
Projected
Revenues
Tuition & Fees
Less Tuition Discounts
Gifts
Grants
Endowment income
Contracts
Other Income
Total E&G Revenue
Auxiliary Enterprises
Released From Restrictions
Total Revenues
Operating Expenses
Instruction
Research
Public Service
Academic Support
Student Services
Institutional Support
Plant Maintenance
Scholarships
Total E&G Expenses
Auxiliary Enterprises
Total Operating Expenses
Excess Revenue over Expenses
Annual Budget Conversion to Cash basis
Capital Expenditures
Borrowing Proceeds
Principal Payments
Prior Year Reserves
Add back Depreciation
Total Cash Items
Net Cash Basis Budget
The McGregor School of Antioch
1999-00 Proposed Budget Summary by Category
Revenues
Operating Expenses
Salaries & Wages
Benefits
Training 8 Development
Student Aid Services
Special Events
Supplies
Business Operations
Plant Maintenance
Interest Expense
Resale Costs
Miscellaneous
Contingency/Reserves
Campus Contingency, Mandatory
Campus Program Contingency,
Discre
Liquidity Reserve
Overhead
To the University
Rebates from the University
Subsidy from Adult Campuses
Subsidy from Overhead
Other (Intercampus Agree & Univ Conf
Depreciation
Total Operating Expenses
Excess Revenue over Expenses
Annual Budget Conversion to Cash Basis
Capital Expenditures
Borrowing Proceeds
Principal Payments
Prior Year Reserves
Add Back Depreciation
Total Cash Items
Net Cash Basis Budget
1996-97
Actual
1997-98
Actual
-
4,948,397
2,173,360
637,785
86,355
1,000
30,596
72,848
662.981
85.489
15,864
0
6.822
0
0
49,130
675,543
-184,239
35,800
0
453,520
0
4,802,854
145,543
95,526
0
0
0
0
95.526
50,017
1998-99
Budget
-
5,394,890
2,444,092
769,453
120.935
0
34,226
52,700
710,035
94,580
16,260
0
56,463
48,963
15,532
61,308
674,389
-21 3,588
36,800
0
430,342
0
5,352,490
42,400
42,400
0
0
0
0
42,400
0
1998-99
Projected
-
5,014,204
2,348.1
17
656,776
11 0,456
36,357
28,410
61,449
565,783
97,036
14,520
0
7,025
61,308
674,389
-213,588
36,800
0
430,786
0
4,915,624
98,580
46,174
0
0
0
0
46,174
52,406
Change From
1998-99 Budget
To 1998-99 Actual
$ %
-- -
-380,686 -7.06%
Proposed
1999-00
Budget
-
5,541,977
Change From
1998-99 Pro1
To 1999-00 Budget
$ %
- -
527,773 10.53%
Change From
1998-99 Budget
to 1999-00 Budget
$ %
- -
147,087 2.73%
The McGregor School of Antloch
1999-00 Capital Budget
Campus Buildings Amount
Total Buildings 0
Campus Building Improvements Amount
Total Building Improvements 0
Campus Equipment Amount
McGregor Y2K Network Equipment 7,000
Network Server System 24,000
Desktop Standardization 14,000
Total Equipment 45,000
Campus Furniture & Fixtures Amount
Total Furniture & Fixtures 0
Campus Library Books
Total Library Books 0
Grand Total Capital Budget 45.000
-------- --------
Program
--------
Weekend College
Graduate Management
IMA Classic
IMA Intercultural Relations
IMA Conflict Resolution
Teacher Certification
The McGregor School of Antloch
Tuition Rate Changes 1999-00
1998-99
Rates
Per Quarter
--------
2,472
3,201
1,486
2,032
2,178
2,863
1999-00
Proposed
Per Quarter
--------
2,544
3,289
1,531
2,094
2,404
2,948
% Change
--------
2.91%
2.75%
3.03%
3.05%
10,38%
2.97%
ANTIOCH UNIVERSITY ADMINISTRATION
1999-2000 PROPOSED BUDGET
I. 1998-99 ACCOMPLISHMENTS AND CHALLENGES
In addition to the ongoing responsibilities of the University Administration in 1998-99, the office focused on priorities
established with the University Leadership Council and the Board of Trustees. A year-long activity has been the
development of a University Plan. The Chancellor appointed six University-wide task forces selected from among
individuals nominated by campus Presidents. Each task force was chaired by a President. A hefty volume of
background readings was prepared to familiarize the faculty and administrative participants in the planning process
with current trends and thinking in higher education. The result of these efforts will be a University Plan with strategic
objectives and a focused identification of actions to be taken in the next five years. Although the Plan will define the
priorities for future action, several areas have already received attention during the current year and will be advanced
by this budget. Several grant applications have been prepared to gain early support for these priorities. Moreover,
this budget proposes special funds for academic program initiatives and fiscal reserves, as the Plan recommends. A
full discussion of the University Plan will be provided to the Board in a separate document.
Trustee Vacancies. During the year, the trusteeship committee focused considerable attention on identifying trustee
prospects. Due to a number of circumstances, turnover left the Board with several vacancies, but we have been
successful in recruiting four highly qualified individuals who are both willing and able to assume the important
responsibilities of Board membership.
New Academic Programs. In the academic arena, the University Administration has focused attention on the
continuing development of the
Ph.D.
program in Leadership and Professional studies, and more recently, an on-line
BA initiative. Recruitment of a director for the
Ph.D.
program is in progress and will be completed soon after the end
of the 1998-99 fiscal year. The P-L Foundation has agreed to underwrite a portion of the development and
implementation costs of this important program. Once the new director is in place, we should be able to move rapidly
towards making this program a reality.
A smaller but very exciting initiative has been the identification of Antioch as "A Place for Writers". Drawing
together faculty from several of the campus programs and the Antioch Review, this initiative will give Antioch
nation-wide recognition in an area of traditional strength. Promotional support for this program has been
provided by an Antioch Trustee.
Development and Public Relations. In an effort to strengthen the national image of Antioch and to better
coordinate our development activities, the University Administration sponsored a retreat for development and
external affairs staff. Held in Yellow Springs, the retreat brought together campus people who had not otherwise
known each other so that their ideas and techniques could be shared. An agenda was developed to improve
public relations activities and to insure coordination of development efforts.
Other efforts have focused on increasing internal publications and communications, development of a
University-wide calendar, and improvement of the University
Website.
Presidential Selection. During 1998-99, the University, with important participation from the Board of Trustees,
successfully recruited a new president for the
McGregor
School. In addition, the new president of Antioch
Southern California began his duties on September 1 and we permanently appointed the new president of the
College on July 7. Together, these three individuals bring great strength to the University Leadership Council.
They are most welcome additions.
Health and Benefits. Administratively, 1998-99 was another productive year for the University. A major
change in the health insurance coverage of employees was designed and presented to the faculty and staff of
each of the campuses. As part of the process, a series of explanatory memos were circulated at monthly
intervals to insure that all participants had an opportunity to understand the reasons why changes were
necessary and the benefits that the new plan would provide. During the campus presentations, modifications to
the original proposal were identified and changes were made to accommodate special circumstances. The
result has been a plan that provides more effective insurance for University employees at a lower cost than
would be possible if we continued the traditional fee-for-service approach.
As part of the restructuring of fringe benefits, we were also able to double the life insurance coverage for most
university employees, to offer a modest vision plan, and to offer employee paid dental care for those who
otherwise did not have coverage.
Federal Overhead. Periodically, colleges and universities that seek federal funds are required to prepare a
complicated overhead analysis. The federal government has dictated a strict set of accounting rules that must
be followed in order to recover overhead costs from federal contacts. Our previous federal indirect cost rate
expired this year and we have completed the application for a new rate and are awaiting a response from the
Government.
Datatel Improvements. Datatel continues to provide more and greater management information to help both
the campuses and the University Administration perform their duties. In 1998-99 we began preparing a monthly
financial tracking report that compares the expenditures and revenues of each unit with its projected
expenditures and revenues. With this report in place, it is possible to more quickly identify when a financial
problem is developing and to pinpoint some of the reasons for the variance. The success of this tracking report
depends on the ability of the individual campus financial officers to project their revenues and expenses
accurately, but once this is done, Datatel can provide the monitoring reports on a regular and timely basis.
The most noticed change in our computing area occurred with the replacement of our Datatel server with a new,
faster machine. Known to its users as "Helen," the new server is able to handle transactions much faster than
its predecessor, and this improvement in speed has eliminated processing delays that were greatly limiting
efficiency at the campuses.
The adoption by New England of the Datatel Student Services modules has been proceeding smoothly and New
England expects to be fully operational on these modules by the end of the calendar year. This conversion is
particularly important because the system currently in use at New England is not Y2K compatible and would not
continue to function satisfactorily after January 1 , 2000. With the conversion of New England, all campuses will
be using Datatel student modules for admissions, registration, and other student support functions.
In what may prove to be one of the most significant additions to Datatel, the University has purchased a new
graphic interface report generator known as Safari. When fully implemented during the next fiscal year, this
product will enable campus users to produce reports from Datatel information that are custom made to their
immediate needs. One of the major weaknesses of Datatel is that custom report generation requires computer
programming skills not generally available in most of the user offices. Users who are trained to use Safari will
be able to align designated data fields on screen to produce custom reports or download information to desktop
spreadsheets for further manipulation.
Fraud Deterrence. The Datatel system has also afforded us the capacity to thwart efforts by individuals to write
fraudulent checks against University accounts. In cooperation with our primary bank, the University has
developed a procedure by which all Antioch checks are verified for authenticity before they are cleared.
Beginning during the fourth quarter of this fiscal year, if a fraudulent check is received by our bank, it will be
returned to its source without being charged against University accounts. This approach provides greater safety
than multiple signatures, watermarks or other techniques that are used to insure authenticity.
Endowment Management. While safeguarding assets is a major responsibility of the University Administration,
so is promoting their growth. During 1998-99, with the invaluable assistance of the Investment Committee of the
Board, the administration undertook the restructuring of the way in which the University Endowment is managed.
Beginning with a Request for Proposals, aninvestment consultant was selected to assist the University with the
investment of endowment funds. Using a sophisticated computer database, the consultant was able to screen
thousands of potential fund managers and identify a "short list" of those who have been most successful in
managing the kinds of investments that the University plans to make. In addition, the endowment will now be
invested on a "total return" basis that allows the endowment to be invested for growth as well as current return.
The Investment Committee has adopted a spending policy that follows from the Total Return approach.
Beginning in 1999-2000, the College and other campuses will be authorized to spend 5% of the three-year
rolling average market value of their endowment funds. The calculation will be based on calendar years, which
means that the amount of money available for expenditure will be known in time to be incorporated into the
budget planning process for the next fiscal year. This change will provide stability and predictability that has not
been present in the previous arrangement.
Insurance Review. The annual review of our property and liability insurance disclosed that the special
coverage that we purchase to protect our psychology clinic operations was not as effective as we thought. In
some cases, duplicate coverage was being acquired by students or the campus, and in other cases the
coverage did not adequately cover the risks. Following a comprehensive review that involved consultation with
faculty and administrative staff at the campuses, we have eliminated central coverage for the New England
campus because they are able to acquire a policy locally that is superior to the central coverage. In addition, we
have expanded coverage in Southern California and Seattle to better match the risks represented by their
operations. We are also engaged in transferring all coverage to the company that insures the New England
campus because their policy is better suited to our operations and more cost competitive.
Overall, the cost of property and liability insurance was kept constant by negotiating with the insurance
companies and by increasing our property deductible from $2,500 to $10,000. The lower premium on this policy
would allow us to experience three major losses each year and still be ahead. Generally, we do not have three
major losses per year.
Electronic Mail Upgrade. Electronic mail service for the University Administration will change during the fourth
quarter of the fiscal year as the new FirstClass software is made fully operational. The new software uses Web
technology, and e-mail will now be accessible from any location using a standard Web browser. In addition to
increased accessibility, imbedded Web addresses can be selected and Web images can be received. The
number of users of the central FirstClass server is also expanding. In order to reduce the load on the College
e-
mail system, users of the College system who are affiliated with the University Administration will transfer to the
University FirstClass server before the end of the
1998-99
fiscal year. This change required the purchase of
additional license capacity for FirstClass.
On-Line Applications. As the Web becomes more important to prospective students, the campuses are
investing more in their websites. These sites provide students with information previously provided only through
the view books. But because of their interactivity, the sites can do much more in a very cost-effective manner.
In order to capitalize on this investment in websites, the University Administration explored the possibility of
linking these
websites
directly to the Datatel student applicant database. During this process we found that a
firm was already providing this service to colleges and universities across the country at a very competitive
price. Rather than invest in the development of software that would take time to perfect and which would
become obsolete at a very rapid rate, the University arranged a presentation of this option to the admissions
people of each campus. Known as
CollegeNet,
this company hosts web pages that are linked to the
website
of
the individual campus and looks exactly like the web pages of the home campus. A prospective student who
goes to a campus site and wants to apply, needs only to click on the "electronic application" button to be
connected seamlessly to the
CollegeNet
site. The student can then complete a full application and pay the
application fee using a credit card or check. Paid applications are then transmitted electronically to Datatel for
use by the campus. Most campuses around the country have found that their paid applications increase by as
muchas 20% when they permit the electronic option.
Litigation. Legal problems involving the University continue to be of a routine or minor nature. Efforts were
initiated to protect
Antioch's
name, and the names and trademarks used by the campuses, to insure that
prospective students and others are not confused by organizations using names similar to ours. The explosive
growth of the Internet has brought us into closer contact with organizations that wish to use the name
"Antioch"
in conjunction with an educational or training program, but by registering our names and trademarks, we should
be able to minimize future litigation in this area.
While 1998-99 has not seen the initiation of major litigation against the University, this always remains a
possibility. To minimize the risk, a legal audit that encompasses all campuses began during 1998-99.
Beginning in the Human Resources areas, this audit will extend to other administrative areas to insure that we
are in full compliance with all state and federal laws and regulations. Being in compliance will reduce the
likelihood of future litigation.
II. MAJOR CHANGES
It is becoming increasingly apparent that we need to quicken the pace of university-wide academic program
development and expand our support for collaboration between similar and compatible programs on a
University-wide basis. Antioch has a unique geographic placement that should enable us to mount national
programs using the Internet while retaining the capacity to provide local contact. In addition, we need to
promote individual campus initiatives that will result in successful new academic ventures and a strengthened
technological infrastructure. To some extent, we have relied too heavily on our traditional academic core without
applying our extensive knowledge to new and related areas. In 1999-2000, we will need to assess the
opportunities to expand and grow and then exploit these opportunities. To make this happen will require
significant new funding to research, design, promote and implement these ventures. Some of this money must
come from campus reallocation, but a good part of the work will be provided by faculty and staff who seize the
opportunity to make a positive difference. With luck, we will be successful in attracting grant support, but we are
also using internal resources to create a revolving Academic Development Fund to promote new initiatives. The
initial allocation to the Fund will be $50,000, but with this funding in hand, the University should be able to assist
the campuses with the development of new opportunities that can succeed in today's competitive market place.
Development Activities. During the next fiscal year the University administration will continue its efforts to
make fund development a priority at every campus. The campuses are developing databases of potential
supporters and efforts will be made to insure that there is no duplication in solicitation, or that there is joint
solicitation whenever this is appropriate. This coordination is particularly important whenever Antioch
approaches national corporations or foundations. In 1999-2000, there will be an increased emphasis on grant
writing and foundation visits in support of University-wide academic initiatives.
Accreditation. During 1999-2000 the University will begin to establish an institutional research capacity to
assemble and interpret programmatic outcome data. This work will form the foundation for the self-analysis
required by the next North Central Association accreditation review. The University has had only limited
institutional research capacities but, with the addition during
1998-99
of a staff person in the Chancellor's Office,
the University is now better positioned to prepare for the North Central review.
Y2K Corrections. As we approach the year 2000, the University will intensify its efforts to insure that all
computers and other systems are ready. Each campus has been examining its hardware and software in an
effort to identify any problems that may exist. The University Administration has been conducting reviews of the
central hardware and software and those devices and applications that need upgrades or replacements have
been identified. Datatel, which performs the majority of the business and student functions for the University
and its campuses, is Y2K compliant. However, some upgrades to the database software and replacement of
some network devices will be needed to insure uninterrupted operation when we start the year 2000.
Budget Changes. The new budget being proposed for University central operations represents an increase of
less than 1.2% over the 1998-99 budget. The University Administration has worked hard to contain costs so
that additional overhead generated by the campuses can be used to support campus programs and University-'
wide activities.
Overhead rebates to the campuses will increase by more than 12% ($202,179) as the bulk of the additional
overhead is returned to the campuses. The net overhead rate for the adult campuses will be 9% in 1999-2000,
down from 9.5% in 1998-99. This is the third straight year in which the net overhead rate has been reduced as
we move toward the 8.0% target level established by the Board of Trustees when the current University
structure was established.
In addition to increasing rebates to the campuses, some of the overhead will be used to create two new
accounts that will strengthen the entire University. The first is the Academic Development Fund mentioned
earlier. The initial $50,000 committed to starting this fund is far less than the amount needed, but this is a
beginning.
The second account is the University ULC Reserve Fund. During recent years we have seen two and
sometimes three campuses experience enrollment declines or other problems that made it difficult for them to
keep their budgets in balance without extraordinary mid-year reductions to their programs. Major reductions
made during the year can produce negative consequences well beyond the scope of the budget reductions
because of the programmatic disruptions they cause and the harm to morale that they foster. Heretofore, the
University has depended solely on the contingency reserves of the individual campuses to provide a source of
funds that could be reassigned to a campus experiencing difficulty. This mechanism does not function
effectively when two or three campuses simultaneously encounter trouble. Therefore, while we are not
abandoning this traditional method for mitigating problems, we are adding the University ULC Reserve Fund to
our tool kit. This fund will initially receive $150,000 of overhead and will be used, if needed, to provide
transitional relief for a campus confronted with unanticipated financial problems. The expectation is that the
fund will provide mid-year loans that will be repaid to enable the fund to continue without major annual additions
of cash. The ULC will evaluate the need for the loan as well as the plan for resolution of the underlying problem.
The ULC will also review the proposed repayment plan. Only after ULC has given its recommendations to the
Chancellor will funds be released.
Once again, the University-wide depreciation on facilities and equipment showed the largest growth of any
expense category in the central budget. In 1999-2000, the increase will be $184,000, or 7.55% greater than the
1998-99 budget. Although this is not a cash item, this increase does affect the accrual budget and must be
recognized in our financial planning.
With the change in endowment management to the Total Return basis, all of the external administrative costs of
endowment investing will be paid from the unrestricted earnings of the endowment. In previous years, some of
these costs were paid from the endowment and some from the University Wide account. This change will lower
the expense charge to the University Wide unit by $35,000. University Wide interest expense will also decline
following the payoff of the internal endowment fund loan. Although unrestricted earnings have been used to
repay the loan principle, the interest expense has always been paid from the University Wide account. Interest
expense will decrease by $74,000 in 1999-2000.
Glenn Watts
Vice Chancellor and
Chief Financial Officer
University Administration
1999-00 Proposed Budget Summary by Function
Revenues
Tuition & Fees
Less Tuition Discounts
Gifts
Grants
Endowment Income
Contracts
Other Income
Total
E&G
Revenue
Auxiliary Enterprises
Released From Restrictions
Total Revenues
Net Overhead for Central Operations
Operating Expenses
Instruction
Research
Public Service
Academic Support
Student Services
Institutional Support
Plant Maintenance
Scholarships
Total
E&G
Expenses
Auxiliary Enterprises
Total Operating Expenses
Excess Revenue over Expenses
Annual Budget Conversion to Cash basis
Capital Expenditures
Borrowing Proceeds
Principal Payments
Prior Year Reserves
Add back Depreciation
Total Cash Items
Net Cash Basis Budget
1996-97
Actual
-
0
0
21,952
0
0
0
3
21,955
0
0
21,955
1,897,839
0
0
0
0
112.225
1,749,883
0
0
1,862,108
0
1,862,108
57,686
57,686
0
0
0
0
57,686
0
1997-98
Actual
-
0
0
40,311
0
0
0
0
40.31 1
0
0
40,311
1,804,359
0
0
0
0
114,573
1,673,836
0
0
1,788,409
1,788.409
56,261
56,261
0
0
0
0
56,261
0
1998-99
Budget
-
0
0
20,000
0
0
0
0
20,000
0
34.408
54.408
1,992.519
0
0
0
0
1 15,401
1,856,126
0
0
1,971,527
0
1,971,527
75,400
75,400
0
0
0
0
75,400
0
1998-99
Projected
-
0
0
20,000
0
0
0
0
20,000
0
35,000
55,000
1,921,377
0
0
0
0
1 15,401
1,780,976
0
0
1,896,377
0
1,896,377
80,000
80,000
0
0
0
0
80,000
0
Change From
1998-99 Budget
to 1998-99 Projected
Change From
1998-99 Budget
to
1999-00
Budget
$ %
-- -
Change From
Proposed
1999-00
Budget
-
1998-99 Pro)
to
1999-00
Budget
$ %
- -
University Administration
1999-00 Proposed Budget Summary by Category
1996-97
Actual
Revenues
Operating Expenses
Salaries &Wages
Benefits
Training & Development
Student Aid Services
Special Events
Supplies
Business Operations
Plant Maintenance
Interest Expense
Resale Costs
Miscellaneous
ContingencyIReserves
Campus Contingency, Mandatory
Campus Program Contingency, Discret
Liquidity Reserve
Overhead
To the University
Rebates from the University
Subsidy from Adult Campuses
Subsidy from Overhead
Other (Intercampus Agree & Univ Conf
Depreciation
Total Operating Expenses
Excess Revenue over Expenses
Annual Budget Conversion to Cash Basis
Capital Expenditures
Borrowing Proceeds
Principal Payments
Prior Year Reserves
Add Back Depreciation
Total Cash Items
Net Cash Basis Budget
1997-98 1998-99
Actual Budget
- --..
1,844,670 2,046,927
1998-99
Projected
-
1,976,377
1,050,061
310,000
200,000
0
10,000
40,000
124,296
150,000
0
0
5,000
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
7,020
0
1,896,377
80,000
80,000
0
0
0
0
80,000
0
Change From
1998-99 Budget
to 1998-99 Projected
Proposed
1999-00
Budget
--
2,200,859
1,070,104
314,914
1 90,500
0
2,000
37,200
106,707
151,434
0
0
4,000
0
224,000
0
0
0
0
0
a
0
2,100,859
100,000
100,ooa
0
0
a
a
100,000
a
Change From
1998-99 Pro]
to 1999-00 Budget
$ %
- ---.-.
224.482 11.36%
Change From
1998-99 Budget
to
1999-00
Budget
s %
-----. .----
153,932 7.52%
UNIVERSITY CENTRAL ADMINISTRATION
1999-00 Capital Budget
Land
Buildings
Total Buildings
Building Improvements
Kettering
Big
Awning Repair
Kettering
BIdg
Brick Repair
Kettering BIdg Pipe Maintenance
Parking Lot Resurfacing
Total
Building Improvements
Equipment
Internet Router Replacement
Datatel On-Une Backup System
Upgraded Uninterruptible Power
Suppb
Internet
Firewall
Security
TCPIIP
Printer
Spooler
Manager
Windows Systems to Replace MACS
Back-up Printer - Payroll
Desktop Software Upgrades
Video Conference Teaching System
Total Equipment
Furniture & Fixtures
Total Furniture & Fixtures
Library Books
Grand Total Capital Budget
Amount
Amount
Amount
11,500
1,200
4,200
19,500
Amount
3,000
12,000
3,000
6,000
7,000
5.600
2.833
4,000
20,167
Amount
Amount
GLEN HELEN ECOLOGY INSTITUTE
1999-2000 PROPOSED BUDGET
I. 1998-99 ACCOMPLISHMENTS AND CHALLENGES
The Glen Helen Ecology Institute's struggle to generate revenues through the initiation of a fund development
program has not met with success. The strategy was employed to reverse the long-term, chronic funding
problems and for Glen Helen to become self-supporting. The implementation of the development program is
unfunded and on an extremely ambitious schedule. Funds needed to support operations demanded that the
program grow from raising $32,000 in 1994-95 to raising $303,500 in 1998-99, nearly a ten-fold increase. The
projected 1998-99 deficit for Glen Helen reflects this struggle. Major gifts and grants which were budgeted have
not, and will not, materialize. With a small, diverse donor base and no meaningful previous history of
fundraising, progress has been slower and more difficult than anticipated.
compounding
this problem is the
enrollment shortfall at the Outdoor Education Center which results in an unfavorable variance to budgeted
revenue of $-60,000.
For the balance of the year, expenses will be held below budget through the initiation of spending freezes. To
address the financial problem, and with the active support of the College, the 1999-2000 budget has been
created. It is conservative, scaled back, and realistic given current program revenue streams and a modest
fund development program. The budget modifications in the 1999-2000 budget should stabilize Glen Helen
financially in the short term and produce balanced financial performance in the coming year.
II. 1999-2000 PROPOSED BUDGET
Glen Helen Nature Preserve is a 1,000 acre land laboratory and environmental education facility adjacent to the .
Antioch College campus. A gift of alumnus Hugh Taylor Birch, the Glen has provided educational programs to
the community since 1946. Since 1952 more than 1.5 million people have experienced the educational services
of Glen Helen. In addition, the nature preserve is open to the public.
In 1996, the Board of Trustees approved a new organizational structure for Glen Helen as the Glen Helen
Ecology Institute. The programs and operations of this organization include:
Glen Helen Nature Preserve
Glen Helen Outdoor Education Center - environmental education facility for children
Glen Helen Raptor Center - birds of prey educational facility
Trailside Museum and Visitor Center
The Glen Helen Association - a 700 member association of "friends of the Glen"
Due to the budget shortfall of 1998-99, the 1999-2000 budget is based on the following assumptions:
Maintain emphasis on the stewardship and preservation of Glen Helen
Maintain the highest opportunities possible for educational programs
Pursue a greater degree of integration with the College
Stabilize operations using a two-year plan
Budget revenues conservatively and reduce expenses, including downsizing staff by two
positions
Rick Flood
Executive Director
Glen Helen
1999-00 Proposed Budget Summary by Function
1996-97
Actual
Revenues
Tuition & Fees
Less Tuition Discounts
Gifts
Grants
Endowment Income
Contracts
Other Income
Total E&G Revenue
Auxiliary Enterprises
Released From Restrictions
Total Revenues
Operating Expenses
Instruction
Research
Public Service
Academic Support
Student Services
Institutional Support
Plant Maintenance
Scholarships
Total
E&G
Expenses
Auxiliary Enterprises
Total Operating Expenses
Excess Revenue over Expenses
Annual Budget Conversion to Cash basis
Capital Expenditures
Borrowing Proceeds
Principal Payments
Prior Year Reserves
Add back Depreciation
Total Cash Items
Net Cash Basis Budget
1997-98
Actual
--
121,709
0
23,114
2,000
42,000
14,113
8,721
21 1,657
260,245
179,559
651,461
0
0
660,296
0
0
0
0
0
660,296
0
660,296
-8,835
18,822.
-6,867
2,674
0
0
14,629
-23,464
1998-99
Budget
-
137,586
0
210,000
132,000
42,000
12,400
1.643
535,629
280,926
14,181
830,736
0
0
820,236
0
0
0
0
0
820,236
0
820,236
10,500
10,500
0
0
0
0
10,500
0
1998-99
Projected
-
118,401
0
129,800
22,500
42,000
13,400
3,149
329,250
237,070
45,000
61 1,320
0
0
653,795
0
0
0
0
0
653,795
0
653,795
-42,475
300
0
3,500
0
0
3,800
-46,275
Change From
1998-99 Budget
to 1998-99 Projected
Proposed
1999-00
Budget
-
116,440
0
110.000
0
42,000
10,000
0
278,440
248,560
12,200
539,200
0
0
536,600
0
0
0
0
0
536,600
0
536,600
2,600
0
0
2,600
0
0
2,600
0
Change From
1998-99 Proj
to 1999-00 Budget
$ %
--- --
Change From
1998-99 Budget
to 1999-00 Budget
$ %
----. ---
-21,146 -15.37%
0
-100,000 -47.62%
-132,000 -100.00%
0 0.00%
-2,400 -19.35%
-1,643 -100.00%
-257,189 -48.02%
-32,366 -1 1.52%
-1,981 -13.97%
-291,536 -35.09%
Glen Helen
1999-00 Proposed Budget Summary by Category
Revenues
Operating Expenses
Salaries &Wages
Benefits
Training & Development
Student Aid Services
Special Events
Supplies
Business Operations
Plant Maintenance
Interest Expense
Resale Costs
Miscellaneous
ContingencyIReserves
Campus Contingency, Mandatory
Campus Program Contingency,
Discret
Liquidity Reserve
Overhead
To the University
Rebates from the University
Subsidy from Adult Campuses
Subsidy from Overhead
Other (Intercampus Agree & Univ Conf
Depredation
Total Operating Expenses
Excess Revenue over Expenses
Annual Budget Conversion to Cash Basis
Capital Expenditures
Borrowing Proceeds
Principal Payments
Prior Year Reserves
Add Back Depreciation
Total Cash Items
Net Cash Basis Budget
1996-97
Actual
-
675,081
322,113
11 7,292
4,580
0
0
61,535
18,560
123,574
234
7,919
229
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
656,036
19,045
14,589
0
0
0
0
14,589
4,456
1997-98
Actual
-
651,461
330.696
112,560
10,558
0
767
55,559
56,770
84,787
124
7,249
1,226
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
660,296
-8,835
18,822
-6,867
2,674
0
0
14,629
-23,464
1998-99
Budget
-
830,736
382,732
134,256
10,700
0
0
62,605
71,684
116.414
0
8,500
18,345
0
15,000
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
820,236
10,500
10,500
0
0
0
0
10,500
0
1998-99
Projected
-
61 1,320
346,244
111,469
7,219
0
0
61,369
53,706
63,388
100
8,500
1,800
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
653,795
-42,475
300
0
3,500
0
0
3,800
-46,275
Change From Change From Change From
1998-99 Budget Proposed 1998-99 Pro1 1998-99 Budget
to 1998-99 Projected 1999-00 to 1999-00 Budget to 1999-00 Budget
S % 1 Budget 1 S % S %
ANTIOCH REVIEW
1999-2000 PROPOSED BUDGET
We expect a balanced budget for the year, continue to operate without a subsidy and produced four issues on
schedule. We raised $20,000 in gifts and pledges through fund raising events in Cambridge and New York and
an annual appeal. The number of contributors to the "Friends of the Review" continues to grow. We anticipate
that the figure should go to $25,000 if we can receive some fund raising support. Monies from subscriptions is
just about on target. There has been some erosion in library support, but that has been offset, in part, by
revenues from electronic subscriptions. Without monies for direct mail we cannot do much to increase the
individual subscription base. Our print run is between 4800 and 5200 copies.
This year we introduced a Web page that features writers' guidelines, current issue excerpts and
announcements about future issues and awards received by Review authors. It is a part of the
"Antioch,
A
Place for Writers" program.
On the literary side, we received a substantial review in the February 26, 1999 Times Literary Supplement and
saw several of our authors receive national awards. The number of submissions continues to grow with
approximately 4500 pieces of fiction, 1000 non-fiction, and poetry envelopes too numerous to count.
The proposed budget is a bare-bones one with status quo assumptions.
Robert
Fogarty
Editor
Antioch Review
1999-00 Proposed Budget Summary by Function
Revenues
Tuition & Fees
Less Tuition Discounts
Gifts
Grants
Endowment Income
Contracts
Other Income
Total
E&G
Revenue
Auxiliary Enterprises
Released From Restrictions
Total Revenues
Operating Expenses
Instruction
Research
Public Service
Academic Support
Student Services
Institutional Support
Plant Maintenance
Scholarships
Total E&G Expenses
Auxiliary Enterprises
Total Operating Expenses
Excess Revenue over Expenses
Annual Budget Conversion to Cash basis
Capital Expenditures
Borrowing Proceeds
Principal Payments
Prior Year Reserves
Add back Depredation
Total Cash Items
Net Cash Basis Budget
1996-97
Actual
-
0
0
17,085
1,077
9,483
0
6,917
34,562
52,273
15,597
102,432
0
0
102,390
0
0
0
0
0
102,390
0
102,390
42
0
0
0
0
0
0
42
1997-98
Actual
-
0
0
15,585
1,231
12,100
0
5,539
34,455
60.052
8,310
102,817
0
0
102,607
0
0
0
0
0
102,607
0
102,607
21 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
210
1998-99
Budget
-
0
0
31,181
2,957
11.700
0
5,400
51.238
53.800
0
105,038
0
0
105,038
0
0
0
0
0
105,038
0
105,038
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1998-99
Projected
-
0
0
14.364
2,957
11,700
0
6,878
35,899
57,575
8,792
102,266
0
0
102,266
0
0
0
0
0
102,266
0
102,266
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Change From
1998-99 Budget
to 1998-99 Projected
Proposed
1999-00
Budget
-
0
0
24,123
8,100
11,700
0
8,400
50,323
54,000
0
104,323
0
0
104,323
0
0
0
0
0
104,323
0
104,323
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Change From
1998-99 Pro)
to 1999-00 Budget
$ %
- -
Change From
1998-99 Budget
to 1999-00 Budget
1996-97
Actual
1997-98
Actual
Revenues
Operating Expenses
Salaries &Wages
Benefits
Training & Development
Student Aid Services
Special Events
Supplies
Business Operations
Plant Maintenance
Interest Expense
Resale Costs
Miscellaneous
ContingencyIReserves
Campus Contingency, Mandatory
Campus Program Contingency, Discret
Liquidity Reserve
Overhead
To the University
Rebates from the University
Subsidy from Adult Campuses
Subsidy from Overhead
Other (Intercampus Agree & Univ Conf
Depreciation
Total Operating Expenses
Excess Revenue over Expenses
Annual Budget Conversion to Cash Basis
Capital Expenditures
Borrowing Proceeds
Principal Payments
Prior Year Reserves
Add Back Depreciation
Total Cash Items
Net Cash Basis Budget
Antioch Review
1999-00 Proposed Budget Summary by Category
Change From
1998-99 Budget
to 1998-99 Projected
s %
-- -
-2,772 -2.64:
1998-99
Budget
-
105,038
31,439
14,639
650
0
0
500
53,360
100
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4,350
0
105,038
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1998-99
Projected
-
102,266
31,200
16,558
2,825
0
0
-2,701
50,160
-126
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4,350
0
102,266
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Proposed
1999-00
Budget
--
104,323
31,989
17,474
700
0
0
-2,500
52,210
100
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4,350
0
104,323
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Change From
1998-99 Pro]
to 1999-00 Budget
s %
-- -.--
2,057 2.01%
Change From
1998-99 Budget
to 1999-00 Budget
s %
--. ---
-715 -0.68%
WYSO RADIO
1999-2000 PROPOSED BUDGET
I. 1998-99 ACCOMPLISHMENTS AND CHALLENGES
WYSO-FM is the Miami Valley's most popular public radio station (according to Spring 1999 Arbitron audience
data). It is a member station of National Public Radio (NPR) and an affiliate of Public Radio International (PRI).
The station airs and files news stories with Ohio Public Radio (OPR) and the Great Lakes Radio Consortium
(GLRC). Additionally, WYSO features programming from the BBC World Service, Canadian Broadcasting
Corporation, Pacifica, along with locally-produced programming of interest to the
DaytonISpringfield
marketplace.
WSO continued to make significant progress this year. It is particularly noteworthy that almost three years
ago, the station was at-risk of loosing its "qualified" status at the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB).
This would have translated into the loss of over $80,000 in annual federal support. However, thanks to the
assistance of an NPR managed project, supported by
CPB'S
Future Fund, WSO is no longer at-risk but, rather
is healthy and experiencing steady and appropriate growth. There are many aspects to the support WSO
received through the
AudienceIService
Standard Enhancement Project. Following are highlights during this, the
final year, of the project's existence:
Funds provided for the purchase of scheduling software to manage the station's program logs. This
system is particularly helpful to the Development Department's needs to manage underwriting
contracts and the individual needs of our clients.
A final report was issued by consultant Linda Carr, one (and, arguably, the best) of several
consultants brought in during the run of the at-risk stations project. Ms.
Carr's
comprehensive
overview of the state of WSO provided a valuable framework for the station's thinking throughout +
much of this year. Her insights and counsel were so valued that the WSO Resource Board, with the
support of station management, has extended an invitation to Ms. Carr to remain as
WSO1s
ongoing
consultant, beyond the run of the at-risk project.
Funds provided for the purchase of software to manage the station's membership database. This
system, custom-designed for the specific needs of public broadcasters, will allow greater efficiency in
the station's business affairs operations. Most valuable are the system's ability to analyze
membership data and to generate mailings specifically tailored to the individual interests of members.
Funds provided for the purchase of news wire services, for two (2) years, from the Associated Press
(AP).
Funds provided to access one year's membership in the Development Exchange, Inc. (DEI). DEI is
the public radio industry organization dedicated to improving the fundraising and development
operations of its clients.
DEI1s
assistance has been of enormous value to
WSO1s
management and,
in particular, to the station's Development Director.
To briefly demonstrate the overwhelming success of participation in the at-risk project, it is perhaps useful to
note that the Fall 1998 on-air membership campaign was conducted with outside consulting assistance (at that
time, still necessary to assuring the drive was focused and productive). The Spring 1999 campaign was run
entirely in-house. The goal for the Fall drive was to acquire 2,100 new and renewing members, and to raise
$175,000. The final tally was 2,107 members and a little over $177,000 raised. It is too soon to report the final
results of the Spring drive as a third, and final, mail drop to secure membership renewals has just been sent out.
The station anticipates that its overall Spring goal of 1,615
newlrenewing
members and $1 10,000 is still
achievable. At this writing, WSO has secured 1,366 memberships and $100,514. Management understands
that Spring
1999's
results-to-date compare favorably with those of a year ago. In other words, WSO has
benefited greatly from the training and knowledge it has acquired from national public radio system
professionals.
Other station accomplishments this year include:
Just after the start of the second quarter, the station hired a permanent general manager.
In the third quarter, the station hired a new and, by all accounts, very popular local anchor for the
morning drive time programming block, featuring
NPR's
MORNING EDITION.
Also in the third quarter, the station hired Aileen LeBlanc, WYSO's first, full-time News Director in
many years. Ms. LeBlanc is a broadcast journalist with over twenty years' experience. Her reports
and features have been heard regularly on
NPR's
MORNING EDITION@, ALL THINGS
CONSIDEREDa, and LIVING ON EARTH. In her exceedingly short tenure at WYSO, she has already
filed several reports with NPR, bearing the slug, "From member station WYSO in Yellow Springs,
Ohio.. . ," thereby providing the station with its most consistent opportunity for national exposure in its
history. Ms. LeBlanc has also produced pieces for OPR and the GLRC.
WYSO's Development Director, along with the station's Sales Associate, continue to meet or exceed
the station's goals for the acquisition of business underwriting of WSO and its programming.
Significant is the adjustment of the station's underwriting rates to levels commensurate with the
Dayton area's radio marketplace and
WSO's
market dominance as the Miami Valley's public radio
station of choice. Additionally, the Development Department has focused its attention on building
long-term relationships with its clients with the intent of generating a loyal and consistent client base
with high incentive to renew contracts. The Development Director is currently coordinating the WYSO
Resource Board's Development Committee. The committee is expected to help the station to identify
major donor support dollars, especially as they relate to WYSO's needs to secure local matching
funds for state and federal grants. The committee is also expected to assist the station in its efforts to
identify new business underwriters, provide a framework for the establishment of a WSO
Endowment Fund, and to work with management to assure the station's continued financial health.
In March 1999, WYSO submitted three project proposals to the Ohio Educational Telecommunications Network
Commission (OETNC) for consideration by that body for state grant support. These projects are for the
following:
Establish a digital production studio, primarily dedicated to the creation of locallregional news and .
cultural features;
Purchase a digital automation system to streamline station operations, particularly allowing for greater
efficiency of
WSOk
on-air personnel; and
Completely equip WSO's newly renovated performance studio for production and broadcast of public
forums, concerts, audio dramas, etc. This project would include wiring the space for sound,
construction of an engineering booth at the back of the space, installation of appropriate stage lighting
and sound dampening curtains.
Just prior to the preparation of this report, WYSO learned that during this current biennial grant round, OETNC
received 105 project submissions. OETNC established priority
rankings
for these projects and the results were
very favorable to
WYSO's
requests. Specifically, OETNC ranked 44 projects as those for which it will request
support funding from the Ohio legislature during its 2000 session (projects ranked 45-105 were returned to the
submitting organizations with recommendations that they be re-submitted during the next biennial round or the
one to follow).
WSO's
projects all ranked among the top 44 projects, receiving
rankings
of 7, 22, and 33
(respective to the descriptions above). According to OETNC's Executive Director, these designations likely
assure that WYSO will receive all of the grant support it is seeking from the state (which provides 40% of all
project costs).
WYSO is understandably excited about this development, particularly because of the opportunities it will open
for the station to dramatically increase its ability to serve the local community and to be a more significant
contributor of programming to other stations around the state and across the country. Additionally, WSO will
have an enhanced opportunity to develop broadcast projects to compliment various Antioch University
initiatives. At this writing, WYSO expects to play a role in the further development of "Antioch: A Place for
Writers" and hopes to work on collaborative projects with the Antioch Review. These developments will, in turn,
allow WYSO to offer specific, project-oriented internships and apprenticeships for Antioch College students.
A major area benefactor of Miami Valley public radio, Charles Berry, continues to deepen his relationship with
WYSO. Two years ago, Mr. Berry, via his family's philanthropic organization, the Berry Foundation, donated
$5,000 to WYSO. Last year, Mr. Berry doubled that support. This year, Mr. Berry donated $25,000 to the *
station.
As Antioch University's public radio service, WYSO, of course, continues to make public service announcements
aimed at increasing awareness of the programs and events of the College and the
McGregor
School. The
station has also proposed to both campuses better ways to refine and target on-air messages to reach listeners
and reach them in a way most likely to generate results.
Despite the accomplishments cited above, WYSO faces a number of challenges in the coming fiscal year.
Among these are:
NPR's
implementation of a new pricing structure for its programming. Many member stations
throughout the nation will experience an increase in program acquisition costs, especially for the
major newsmagazines MORNING EDITION@, ALL THINGS CON SIDE RED^ and WEEKEND
EDITIONe. At this writing, NPR is suggesting that WYSO will witness an almost 28% increase in the
cost of these programs. NPR is proposing that these increases will be phased in over the course of
the next two fiscal years. WYSO management does not argue with
NPR's
stated need for the price
restructuring or even with the increased costs WYSO will have to incur. However, WYSO
management is dissatisfied with the phase-in proposal (which would have all stations experiencing a
20%+ increase, pay 20% of the price increase in the first year of the phase-in and the remaining
amount in year two). During
NPR1s
Annual Membership Meeting, at the 1999 Public Radio
Conference, WYSO will lobby for a more equitable phase-in plan (either by leveling the percentage
increase for each year of the phase-in
and/or
by extending the phase-in to three or four years).
WYSO is already working with its colleagues within the regional interest organization, Public Radio in
Mid-America (PRIMA), in hopes that such a proposal will be submitted as a PRIMA-sponsored
resolution for consideration by the entire NPR membership.
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for the
establishment of a new class of FM radio service, commonly referred to as microradio or Low-Power
FM (LPFM). WYSO management agrees with FCC Chairman Bill Kennard's contention that
something should be done to counteract some of the negative aspects of the Telecommunications Act
of 1996, particularly large scale consolidation of ownership of broadcast licenses (thereby limiting
diversity of programming as well as the possibility of new broadcast players being able to enter the *
marketplace). However, the current FCC proposal is of serious concern to WYSO and thousands of
other FM broadcasters (public and commercial) nationwide. Most critically, current FM broadcasters
are concerned about the continued integrity of their own signals should thousands of LPFMs be
licensed. Interference with current analog broadcasting and the additional engineering burdens that
will be placed on the establishment of a digital audio broadcasting (DAB) standard are the most
serious of the several issues raised by the FCC's proposal. Unfortunately, WYSO is in no financial
position to have LPFMs degrade the broad coverage its signal presently enjoys throughout the Miami
Valley.
Despite WYSO1s progress in increasing revenue, half of the current full-time staff receives a salary
that is below the public radio industry's standards for similar positions at stations in similar markets.
This is, of course, a problem and concerning to management. Staff turnover in a relatively small
operation like
WYSO1s
can impact organizational benchmarking, sometimes dramatically so. And
identifying, securing, and retaining good talent in today's economy is not always easy, particularly in
the not-for-profit sector. Since WYSO now boasts its most professional and team-oriented staff in
many years, management is committed to doing everything it can reasonably do to maintain its human
resource assets but, it must note that more needs to be done before WYSO can consider itself
competitive within its own industry.
As to the last point above, I want to highlight here the very positive impact that even modest growth in
compensation, coupled with the acquisition of technical resources, can have on staff morale and retention.
WYSO still lacks the technology improvements necessary to achieve the level of growth for which it is capable.
The station does not have enough computers to perform all necessary station tasks in an efficient and timely
manner. And those computers the station does have are almost all antiquated, creating additional problems for
station efficiency. I estimate that for the relatively small investment in say, four computer systems WYSO could
witness a productivity increase commensurate with the costs of acquisition of those systems within the first 18
months after the purchase of said.
Additionally, automating much of
WYSO9s
telephone system would improve staff efficiency greatly. Many hours
of staff time are spent providing basic information
and/or
taking messages for staff who are out or unavailable to
answer calls. Providing answers to frequently asked questions and voice mail for staff would significantly
decrease telephone traffic and constant interruptions to staff already managing multiple tasks.
On the other hand, WSO takes this opportunity to offer its sincere thanks to the administration and the trustees
of Antioch University for their support of
WSO1s
recent facilities expansion and renovation project. The
improvements in the physical plant alone have generated a new source of pride and a renewed sense of
mission among the staff and volunteers of WSO.
II. THE 1998-99 BUDGET
As noted previously, the Fall 1998 membership campaign was a major success and the Spring 1999 campaign
will likely achieve its stated objectives after the station receives the last of its mail renewals. Accordingly,
WSO's
gift revenues are likely to achieve budgeted goals for the current fiscal year. Grant support from
OETNC, as expected, did decrease this year. However, federal grants support from the CPB, though
anticipated to decrease to $54,689, actually came in at $81,551. This represents an increase of almost 49.12%
above budget.
Other Income, in 1900-2000 and beyond, will represent revenues derived from sources other than Gifts, State
Grants, Federal Grants, and Underwriting. Underwriting revenues (derived from area business and corporate
support for WSO and its various programs) are represented in Other Income. At this writing, WSO has
secured almost $137,068 of a stated goal of $140,000 --- an objective easily obtainable by June 30. WSO
continues to be pleased with the performance of its Development Department and, in particular, the dedication
and considerable skill of its Development Director, Melodie Bennett. Her efforts, in coordination with
management, are establishing many new business relationships and renewed respect for WSO throughout the
Miami Valley.
Please note: In 1999-2000 and beyond, Other Income will present those revenues obtained by grant sources
other than the State of Ohio and federal government. Additionally, Other Income will reflect revenues obtained
by conducting special events and from major donations of $1,000 and above. In this budget WSO is only
comfortable with anticipating Other Income success in securing grants support for the acquisition of broadcast
equipment for its News Department. While the station expects that the WSO Resource Board's Development
Committee will, and
WSO1s
Development Department may, secure several major donations in the coming
fiscal year, I feel that it is premature to establish any benchmarks for this likely revenue source.
For the coming fiscal year, WYSO anticipates its major revenue streams producing as follows:
Gifts (listener support) $31 0,000
Federal Grants (CPB) 80,727
State Grants (OETNC) 38.185
Underwriting 168.000
Other Income 10,500
TOTAL $607,412
The two largest cost sectors for WYSO are, and will likely remain, staff salaries and the fees the station pays to
acquire programming from NPR, PRI, and Pacifica. The station continues to have critical needs for new office
and broadcast equipment (some of which have been explained above). The preliminary success with OETNC
for project grant support will address some broadcast needs but, assuming approval by the Ohio State
Legislature, these funds will not be available before July 2000, and would require
WYSO1s
providing the 60% in
matching funds.
As noted in last year's budget report, WYSO still needs to secure a reliable back-up transmitter to assure
consistent delivery of the broadcast service should the primary transmitter fail. And the current transmitter
should have a generator or UPS (uninterrupted power supply) unit as part of the transmitter plant to assure
continuation of the broadcast service in the event of power fluctuations
andlor
service disruptions from the
Dayton Power & Light Company.
Additionally, WYSO may wish to explore other transmitter tower site opportunities. While the station currently
enjoys a cordial relationship with WCDR (a Christian-oriented, non-commercial radio station from which WYSO
leases tower space), it is always more secure for a station to lease or purchase its own tower site.
Management, along with the Antioch administration and the WYSO Resource Board, will continue to explore
options.
WYSO and other radio broadcasters are already investigating how best to prepare for the national conversion
from analog broadcasting to DAB. While conversion to digital broadcasting is already underway for television,
the FCC has yet to adopt a DAB standard for radio (let alone a timetable for conversion). Regardless, the most
sensible approach at this point is to convert as much of the air chain as possible to digital. Simply speaking, this
means replacing all analog equipment to similarly purposed digital equipment. WYSO has identified ways to
begin this major overhaul of its broadcast and production operations
(e.g.,
the OETNC projects submissions).
However, a great deal more will need to be accomplished to completely convert
WYSO
into a digital station.
Accordingly, management believes that a major capital campaign will need to be organized and conducted
within the next two to three years to allow WYSO to keep pace with the radio broadcast industry and to remain
competitive within the public radio community.
Steve Spencer
General Manager
WYSO
1999-00 Proposed Budget Summary by Function
Revenues
Tuition & Fees
Less Tuition Discounts
Gifts
Grants
Endowment Income
Contracts
Other Income
Total E&G Revenue
Auxiliary Enterprises
Released From Restrictions
Total Revenues
Operating Expenses
Instruction
Research
Public Service
Academic Support
Student Services
Institutional Support
Plant Maintenance
Scholarships
Total E&G Expenses
Auxiliary Enterprises
Total Operating Expenses
Excess Revenue over Expenses
Annual Budget Conversion to Cash basis
Capital Expenditures
Borrowing Proceeds
Principal Payments
Prior Year Reserves
Add
back Depreciation
Total Cash Items
Net Cash Basis Budget
1996-97
Actual
--
0
0
209,207
106,916
0
0
102,124
418,247
0
11,189
429,436
0
0
427,357
0
0
0
0
0
427,357
0
427,357
2,079
0
0
12,396
0
0
12,396
-10,317
1997-98
Actual
--
0
0
286,465
105,650
0
0
103,691
495,806
0
0
495,806
0
0
466,098
0
0
0
0
0
466,098
0
466.098
29,708
7,593
0
14,621
0
0
22,214
7,494
1998-99 1998-99
Budget Projected
Change From
1998-99 Budget
to 1998-99 Projected
Proposed
1999-00
Budget
-
0
0
310,000
118,912
0
0
178,500
607,412
0
0
607,412
0
0
581,364
0
0
0
0
0
581,364
0
581.364
26,048
12,500
0
13,548
0
0
26,048
0
Change From
1998-99 Pro)
to 1999-00 Budget
Change From
1991-99 Budget
to 1999-00 Budget
WYSO
1999-00 Proposed Budget Summary by Category
Revenues
Operating Expenses
Salaries &Wages
Benefits
Training & Development
Student Aid Services
Special Events
Supplies
Business Operations
Plant Maintenance
Interest Expense
Resale Costs
Miscellaneous
Contingency/Reserves
Campus Contingency, Mandatory
Campus Program Contingency,
Discreti
Liquidity Reserve
Overhead
To the University
Rebates from the University
Subsidy from Adult Campuses
Subsidy from Overhead
Other (Intercampus Agree & Univ Conf)
Depreciation
Total Operating Expenses
Excess Revenue over Expenses
Annual Budget Conversion to Cash Basis
Capital Expenditures
Borrowing Proceeds
Principal Payments
Prior Year Reserves
Add Back Depreciation
Total Cash Items
Net Cash Basis Budget
1996-97
Actual
-
429,436
111,101
37,677
4.276
0
0
5,936
146,301
48,190
15,057
0
48,367
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
10.452
0
427,357
2.079
0
0
12,396
0
0
12,396
-10,317
1997-98
Actual
--
495,806
154,726
50,777
6.883
0
0
3,756
164,768
35,825
14,243
0
24.636
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
10,484
0
466.098
29,708
7,593
0
14,621
0
0
22,214
7,494
1998-99
Budget
-
516,762
200,160
62.61 1
8,700
0
0
4,700
147,980
53,879
13,200
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
10,484
0
501,714
15,048
0
0
15,048
0
0
15,048
0
1998-99
Projected
-
590.260
199,694
66,110
6,000
0
0
5,700
200.388
25,754
12,504
0
2,065
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
10,484
0
530,699
59,561
21,901
0
15,048
0
0
36.949
22,612
Change From
1998-99 Budget
to 1998-99 Projected
Proposed
1999-00
Budget
-*
607,411
217.23t
61,673
16,401
a
a
7,95a
201,401
51.m
12.2W
a
2,5W
a
a
6
a
a
I
a
11,000
a
581.364
26,MS
12.5W
a
13,W
a
a
26,046
4
Change From
1998-99 Pmj
to 1999-00 Budget
Change From
1998-99 Budget
to
1999-00
Budget
WYSO
1999-00 Capital Budget
Buildings
Total Buildings
Building lmprovements
WYSO Wing Renovations
Total Building lmprovements
Equipment
Computer Equipment
Total Equipment
Furniture & Fixtures
Total Furniture & Fixtures
Library Books
Grand Total Capital Budget
Amount
Amount
2,m
Amount
10,m
Amount
University Wide
199940 Proposed Budget Summary by Function
Revenues
Tuition & Fees
Less Tuition Discounts
Gifts
Grants
Endowment Income
Contracts
Other
Income
Total
E&G
Revenue
Auxiliary Enterprises
Released From Restrictions
Total Revenues
Net
Ovehead
for Central Operations
Operating Expenses
lnstrud~on
Research
Public Service
Academic
Suppod
Student Services
Institutional Support
Plant Maintenance
Scholarships
Total E&G Expenses
Auxiliary Enterprises
Total
Operating Expenses
Excess Revenue over Expenses
Annual Budget Conversion to Cash basis
Capital Expenditures
BOKOW~~~
Proceeds
Principal Payments
Prior Year Reserves
Add back Depreciation
Total Cash Items
Net Cash Basis Budget
1996-97 1997-98
Actual Actual
-- --
1998-99 1998-99
Budget Projected
- -
Change From
1998-99 Budget
to 1998-99 Projected
Proposed
199940
Budget
.-
0
0
0
120,000
95,578
0
41 7,400
632,978
0
304,686
937,664
455,415
0
0
0
261,724
0
660,617
2,620,000
120,000
3,662,341
0
3,662,341
-2,269,262
0
0
350,738
0
-2,620,000
-2,269,262
0
Change From
1998-99 Pmj
to 199940 Budget
s %
- --
Change From
1998-99 Budget
to 199940 Budget
s %
.--- -.-.
University Wide
1999-00 Proposed Budget Summary by Category
Revenues
Operating Expenses
Salaries &Wages
Benefits
Training & Development
Student Aid
Sewices
Special Events
Supplies
Business operations
Plant Maintenance
Interest Expense
Resale Costs
Miscellaneous
contingency/Rese~es
Campus Contingency, Mandatory
Campus Program Contingency,
Discret
Liquidity
Rese~e
Overhead
To the University
Rebates from the University
Subsidy from Adult Campuses
Subsidy from Overhead
Other (Intercampus Agree & Univ Conf
Depreciation
Total Operating Expenses
Excess Revenueover Expenses
Annual Budget Conversion to Cash Basis
Capital Expenditures
BONOW~~~
Proceeds
Principal Payments
Prior Year
Resewes
Add Back Depreciation
Total Cash Items
Net Cash Basis Budget
1996-97
Actual
1997-98
Actual
1998-99
Budget
1998-99
Projected
Change From
1998-99 Budget Proposed
to 1998-99 Projected 1999-00
% Budget
-- ---
65.08% 1,393,079
Change From
1998-99 Pnj
to 199940 Budget
$ %
---.- .----
-514,737 -26.98%
Change From
1998-99 Budget
to 199940 Budget
$ %
.-- -
237,386 20.54%
Antioch University
FUNDED CARRYFORWARD AND LIQUIDITY RESERVES
Funded Carryforward Balance Balance
6130197 6130198
Antioch College 0 0
New England 228$220 1 93$040
Seattle 155$307 29$390
Southern California 85$ 191 0
McGregor 28g1505 305,820
University Administration 0 0
Projected
Balance
6130199
0
0
29,390
0
123$467 *
0
Total $758$223 $528$250 $1 52$857
*Note: McGregor loaned $182,333 to NE to'cornplete the 1999 facility renovation.
Projected
Liquidity Reserves Balance Balance Balance
6130197 6130198 6130199
Antioch College 65$273 135$1 05 225$741
New Englandp 81,816 161,763 264,025
Seattle 62$894 161 $922 252,566
Southern California 78,817 156,881 246$569
McGregor 47$41 8 96$548 1 57$856
University Administration 1 2$975 22,033 31,091
Total $349,193 $734,252 $1 ,I 77$848
COST CENTERS
INSTRUCTION:
Undergraduate
Heritage Institute
Preparatory-Remedial Education
Teacher Certification
Art s
Human Services
Computer Instruction
Cooperative Education
Environmental Field Program
Continuing Education
History, Philosophy & Religion
Physical Sciences
Languages, Literature & Culture
Environmental & Biological Sciences
Self, Society & Culture
Cultural & Interdisciplinary Studies
Social & Global Studies
AEA Brazil
AEA Buddhist Studies
AEA Egypt
AEA Germany
AEA
Japan1
AEAMexico
AEA Overseas Non-AEA Program
AEA Women's Studies
AEA Thailand
AEA France
AEA Cape Verde
MS Management
MA Psychology
MA Education
OSR
Whole System Design
MA Organizational Management
DancelMovement
Therapy
Counseling Psychology
Marriage and Family Therapy
Environmental Studies
Education
1NSTRUCTION
(Conrd):
Organization & Management
Applied Psychology
Clinical Psychology
IMA
Weekend Program
Intercultural Relations
Conflict Resolution
Environment & Community
Fine Arts
Art Therapy
Corporate Leadership
RESEARCH:
Individual and Project Research
PUBLIC SERVICE:
Glen Helen
Antioch Review
WSO
Counseling Centers
ACADEMIC SUPPORT:
Academic Administration
General Faculty
AEA Administration
Cross Cultural Program
ArchiveslAntiochiana
- LibrarylMedia Services
Psychological Services Center
Research and Evaluation
Writing Center
WSD Institute
Academic Computing
STUDENT SERVICES:
Financial Aid Administration
Student Admissions
Registrar (Student Records)
Student Services
Advocate's Office
STUDENT SERVICES
Cont'd:
Infirmary
Counseling
Security
Student Loan Office
Community Government
INSTITUTIONAL SUPPORT:
Chancellor
Trustees
President
Fiscal Operations
Business Operations
General Administration
Central Services
Personnel
Alumni
DevelopmenffAdvancement
Public Relations
Publications
Administrative Computer Service
University Administration
PLANT MAINTENANCE:
Maintenance
Custodial
Building & Grounds
Power Plant
Depreciation
SCHOLARSHIPS:
Grants & Scholarship
AUXILIARY ENTERPRISES:
Dining Services1 Gathering Space
HousinglBookstore
Computer Sales
McGregor
Conference Center
LINE ITEMS
SALARIES & WAGES: Compensation
Paid to Contracted Employees
Core Faculty
Associate Faculty
Adjunct Faculty
Administrators
Administrative Associate .
Teaching Assistants
Unionized Staff
Non-Unionized Staff
Students
Retirees
Other Staff Employees
Student Vouchers
Student Stipends
Overseas Allowance
BENEFITS: Required and Non-Required
Benefits Paid
MedicalIDental
Card
Dental
FICA
Worker's Comp
Unemployment
Life Insurance
Long & Short Term Disability
Retirement
Moving Expenses
Employee Tuition Waivers
Miscellaneous Benefits
TRAINING & DEVELOPMENT:
Non-Contracted Expenses for Trg &
Develop
Business Travel
Local
Meetings/Workshops
Professional Development
Employee Recruiting
Program Development
STUDENT AID:
Restricted Grant Scholarships
Student Vouchers
SPECIAL EVENTS:
Graduation
Orientation
Miscellaneous Special Events
SUPPLIES:
Office Supplies
Instructional Supplies
Research Supplies
Duplicating Supplies
Computer Supplies
Maintenance Supplies
Furniture Supplies
Equipment Supplies
Library Supplies
Food Supplies
Miscellaneous Supplies
BUSINESS OPERATIONS COSTS:
General Cost of Doing Business
Subscriptions
& Publications
Purchased Services
Consulting
HonorarialStipends
Information & Communications
Memberships & Dues
Printing
Postage
AudioNisual
Advertising
Telecommunications
Internet and Leased Lines
Legal
Audit
Bad Debt Expense
PLANT MAINTENANCE COSTS:
Costs Related to Facilities
Maintenance Contracts
& Repairs
Purchased Services
Utilities
Vehicle Operation
Facility Rental
Equipment Rental
Insurance/Taxes
DEPRECIATION:
INTEREST EXPENSE:
Interest
Bank Charges (include credit card charges)
RESALE COSTS:
Books for Resale
Computers for Resale
Supplies for Resale
MISCELLANEOUS COSTS:
Miscellaneous
Student Activities
Student Insurance
Payments to Annuitants
CONTINGENCYIRESERVES:
Campus Contingency, Mandated
Campus Contingency, Discretionary
Liquidity Reserve
OVERHEAD COSTS:
Regional Overhead
university
OverheadIRebate
University Conference
College Fund
Operation Subsidy
Inter-Campus Agreements
