GAO 

United States Government Accountability Office

Report to Congressional Committees

POSTSECONDARY 

EDUCATION 

College and University 

Endowments Have 

Shown Long-Term 

Growth, While Size, 

Restrictions, and 

Distributions Vary 

February 2010 

GAO-10-393 
What GAO Found

United States Government Accountability Office

Why GAO Did This Study

Highlights

Accountability Integrity Reliability

February 2010

POSTSECONDARY EDUCATION 

College and University Endowments Have Shown 

Long-Term Growth, While Size, Restrictions, and 

Highlights of GAO-10-393, a report to Distributions Vary 

congressional committees 

The nation’s 4-year not-for-profit 

colleges and universities 

collectively held more than $400 

billion in endowments in 2008. 

Some institutions’ large 

endowments coupled with the high 

and growing cost of college have 

led to questions about institutions’ 

use of endowments. This mandated 

report describes (1) the size and 

change in value of endowments 

over the last 20 years, (2) the 

extent and manner to which 

endowment funds are restricted for 

financial aid and other purposes, 

and (3) institutions’ distribution of 

endowment assets. GAO obtained 

and analyzed data on college and 

university endowments from the 

Department of Education and other 

sources. Because industry-wide 

data were not available on 

endowment restrictions and 

distributions, GAO selected 10 

colleges and universities for case 

studies. The case-study institutions 

were selected to include a mix of 

public, private, large, small, and 

minority-serving institutions. 

Information from these schools 

cannot be generalized to all U.S. 

colleges and universities. 

What GAO Recommends

GAO is not making any 

recommendations in this report. 

Officials at the schools GAO 

selected as case studies were asked 

to review information in this report 

concerning their institutions. The 

Department of Education also 

provided technical comments on 

GAO’s characterization of 

Department of Education data. 

GAO incorporated these technical 

comments as appropriate. 

As of 2008, most 4-year postsecondary schools in the United States had 

endowments of less than $100 million, while only 70 had endowments of $1 

billion or more, as shown in the figure below. Among types of institutions, 

private schools tended to have larger endowments than public schools, while 

schools with high minority enrollment tended to have smaller endowments 

than other schools. Total inflation-adjusted endowments held by U.S. colleges 

and universities grew from just over $100 billion in 1989 to more than $400 

billion in 2008, the most recent year for which national data were available. 

Case-study schools’ endowments declined by an average of more than 27 

percent from 2007 to 2009, adjusted for inflation. Despite these recent losses, 

endowments at case-study schools showed average, inflation-adjusted longterm growth of 6.2 percent per year since 1989. Most endowment growth at 

case-study schools was from investment earnings. 

U.S. Postsecondary Institution Endowment Assets, 2008 

Source: GAO analysis of Department of Education data.

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1,000

5 billion or more

1 billion to less than 5 billion

500 million to less than 1 billion

100 million to less than 500 million

10 million to less than 100 million

1 million to less than 10 million

Less than 1 million

End-of-year endowment market value, 2009 dollars

Number of institutions

267

60

54

16

889

485

163

Most endowment assets at case-study schools were restricted by donors. 

Some restrictions are broadly-worded, designating funds to be used for 

financial aid, for example, while others are very specific, such as funding for a 

scholarship for students from a particular area. Schools have some ability to 

modify restrictions when a restriction outlives its purpose. At case-study 

schools, funds specifically restricted for financial aid ranged from about 12 

percent to nearly 70 percent of endowment assets in 2009. Officials noted that 

other funds may also be used for financial aid. 

Case-study institutions had mechanisms to smooth the effects of market 

fluctuations and ensure a reliable stream of funding for operations, such as 

basing distribution targets on the endowment’s market values for multiple 

years instead of just the most recent year. Over the past 20 years, inflationadjusted distributions from these schools have shown steady growth. 

View GAO-10-393 or key components.

For more information, contact Michael 

Brostek at (202) 512-9110 or 

brostekm@gao.gov. 
Page i GAO-10-393 

Contents 

Letter 1

Background 2 

Endowments Vary Greatly in Size and Grew during the Past 20 

Years despite Occasional Declines 6 

Distributions from Endowment Funds Are Typically Subject to 

Restrictions 13 

Colleges and Universities Establish Their Own Policies Governing 

Annual Endowment Distributions 16 

Appendix I Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 21 

Appendix II Berea College Case Study 26 

Appendix III Harvard University Case Study 31 

Appendix IV Howard University Case Study 35 

Appendix V Smith College Case Study 39 

Appendix VI St. Mary’s University Case Study 44 

Appendix VII Stanford University Case Study 48 

Appendix VIII University of Colorado Case Study 52 

Appendix IX University of Kentucky Case Study 57 

 College and University Endowments 
Appendix X University of Texas System Case Study 62 

Appendix XI University of Virginia Case Study 68 

Appendix XII GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 73 

Tables 

Table 1: Berea College—Endowment Facts, 2009 27 

Table 2: Berea College—Endowment Restrictions by Purpose, 2009 29 

Table 3: Harvard University—Endowment Facts, 2009 31 

Table 4: Harvard University—Endowment Restrictions by Purpose, 

2009 33 

Table 5: Howard University—Endowment Facts, 2007 and 2008 36 

Table 6: Smith College—Endowment Facts, 2009 40 

Table 7: Smith College—Endowment Restrictions by Purpose, 2009 42 

Table 8: St. Mary’s University—Endowment Facts, 2009 44 

Table 9: St. Mary’s University—Endowment Restrictions by 

Purpose, 2009 46 

Table 10: Stanford University—Endowment Facts, 2009 48 

Table 11: Stanford University—Endowment Restrictions by 

Purpose, 2009 50 

Table 12: CU and CUF—Endowment Facts, 2009 53 

Table 13: University of Colorado Foundation—Endowment 

Restrictions by Purpose, 2009 55 

Table 14: University of Kentucky—Endowment Facts, 2009 58 

Table 15: University of Kentucky—Endowment Restrictions by 

Purpose, 2009 60 

Table 16: University of Texas System—Endowment Facts, 2009 63 

Table 17: University of Texas System—LTF and SIF Restrictions by 

Purpose, 2009 65 

Table 18: University of Virginia—Endowment Facts, 2009 69 

Table 19: University of Virginia—Endowment Restrictions by 

Purpose, 2009 71 

Page ii GAO-10-393 College and University Endowments
Figures 

Figure 1: Notional Depiction of Endowment Inflows and Outflows 4 

Figure 2: Number of U.S. Institutions of Higher Education by Total 

Endowment Assets, 2008 7 

Figure 3: Number of U.S. Institutions of Higher Education by 

Endowment Assets per Student, 2008 8 

Figure 4: Total Endowment Assets at U.S. Institutions of Higher 

Education, 1989 through 2008 10 

Figure 5: Percent Change in Endowments at Eight Case-Study 

Institutions, 1989 through 2009 11 

Figure 6: Endowment Market Values in 2009 Dollars and 

Distribution Rates, 1990 through 2009 18 

Figure 7: Percent Change in Endowment Distributions at Seven 

Case Study Institutions, 1990 through 2009 19 

Figure 8: Berea College Endowment Market Value in 2009 Dollars, 

1989 through 2009 28 

Figure 9: Berea College Endowment Distributions in 2009 Dollars, 

1990 through 2009 30 

Figure 10: Harvard University Endowment Market Value in 2009 

Dollars, 1989 through 2009 32 

Figure 11: Harvard University Endowment Distributions in 2009 

Dollars, 1990 through 2009 34 

Figure 12: Howard University Endowment Market Value in 2009 

Dollars, 1989 through 2008 37 

Figure 13: Howard University Endowment Distributions in 2009 

Dollars, 1998 through 2007 38 

Figure 14: Smith College Endowment Market Value in 2009 Dollars, 

1989 through 2009 41 

Figure 15: Smith College Endowment Distributions in 2009 Dollars, 

1990 through 2009 43 

Figure 16: St. Mary’s University Endowment Market Value in 2009 

Dollars, 1989 through 2009 45 

Figure 17: St. Mary’s University Endowment Distributions in 2009 

Dollars, 1990 through 2009 47 

Figure 18: Stanford University Endowment Market Value in 2009 

Dollars, 1989 through 2009 49 

Figure 19: Stanford University Endowment Distributions in 2009 

Dollars, 1990 through 2009 51 

Figure 20: University of Colorado and University of Colorado 

Foundation Endowment Market Value in 2009 Dollars, 

2000 through 09 54 

Page iii GAO-10-393 College and University Endowments
Figure 21: University of Colorado Foundation Endowment 

Distributions in 2009 Dollars, 1998 through 2009 55 

Figure 22: University of Kentucky, Endowment Market Value in 

2009 Dollars, 1989 through 2009 59 

Figure 23: University of Kentucky Endowment Distributions in 

2009 Dollars, 1993 through 2009 60 

Figure 24: University of Texas System Endowment Market Value in 

2009 Dollars, 1989 through 2009 64 

Figure 25: University of Texas System Endowment Distributions in 

2009 Dollars, 1990 through 2009 67 

Figure 26: University of Virginia Endowment Market Value in 2009 

Dollars, 1989 through 2009 70 

Figure 27: University of Virginia Endowment Distributions in 2009 

Dollars, 1990 through 2009 72 

Abbreviations 

CPI Consumer Price Index 

CU University of Colorado 

CUF University of Colorado Foundation 

FASB Financial Accounting Standards Board 

FTE full-time equivalent 

GASB Governmental Accounting Standards Board 

HMC Harvard Management Company 

IPEDS Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System 

LTF Long-Term Fund 

PHF Permanent Health Fund 

PUF Permanent University Fund 

SIF Separately Invested Funds 

UK University of Kentucky 

UPMIFA Uniform Prudent Management of Institutional Funds Act 

UT University of Texas 

UVA University of Virginia 

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety 

without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain 

copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be 

necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately. 

Page iv GAO-10-393 College and University Endowments
Page 1 GAO-10-393 

 

United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548 

 

February 23, 2010 

The Honorable Tom Harkin 

Chairman 

The Honorable Michael B. Enzi 

Ranking Member 

Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions 

United States Senate 

The Honorable George Miller 

Chairman 

The Honorable John P. Kline 

Ranking Member 

Committee on Education and Labor 

House of Representatives 

U.S. colleges and universities hold hundreds of billions of dollars in 

endowments. In congressional hearings and in academic literature, some 

have argued that some college and university endowments have grown 

very large without a concurrent increase in the use of endowment 

proceeds to reduce the cost of attending those schools. Others have 

argued that it is the duty of institutions with endowments of any size to 

balance the needs of students today with the need to preserve 

endowments for students in the future, so schools should be prudent in 

making decisions about endowment distributions, even in years that 

endowment investments performed very well. The topic of college 

affordability continues to be an issue of great concern and many are 

concerned that increases in the cost of college may be discouraging large 

numbers of individuals, particularly minority and low income individuals, 

from pursuing higher education. This mandated report provides 

information about endowments that will help inform policymakers and 

others as they consider college and university endowment issues. 

The Higher Education Opportunity Act1

 requires us to describe university 

endowments. The objectives of this report are to describe: (1) what 

available data show about the size and change in the value of endowments 

over the last 20 years; (2) the extent and manner in which the funds in 

such endowments are restricted at selected institutions, including 

1

Pub. L. No. 110-315 (2008). 

 College and University Endowments 
 

restrictions for financial aid; and (3) selected postsecondary education 

institutions’ policies and practices for distributing endowment assets. 

To obtain this information, we analyzed information collected from notfor-profit private and public 4-year postsecondary educational institutions 

by the Department of Education2

 and reviewed documents and 

interviewed officials at 10 selected colleges and universities. We used a 

case-study methodology because information needed to address our 

second and third objectives was only available from records kept by 

individual colleges and universities. Throughout this report, when we refer 

to years, we are referring to schools’ fiscal years, as reported in their 

annual financial statements and in their responses to Department of 

Education surveys.3

 When we discuss private institutions, we are referring 

to nonprofit private colleges and universities. Dollar amounts for years 

prior to 2009 are adjusted for inflation and presented in 2009 dollars using 

the Consumer Price Index (CPI). Detailed information about our 

methodology can be found in appendix I. We conducted our work from 

June 2009 through February 2010 in accordance with all sections of GAO's 

Quality Assurance Framework that are relevant to our objectives. The 

framework requires that we plan and perform the engagement to obtain 

sufficient and appropriate evidence to meet our stated objectives and to 

discuss any limitations in our work. We believe that the information and 

data obtained, and the analysis conducted, provide a reasonable basis for 

the findings and conclusions in this product. 

Endowments are defined as institutional funds that, under the terms of a 

gift agreement, can not be entirely spent by the institution on a current 

basis. Typically, donors establish endowments to create a stable source of 

income for an institution, which invests the principal or original amount of 

the endowment gift and spends the earnings to support its operations. 

Donors can establish an endowment as either a true endowment—a fund 

whose principal cannot be spent by the institution, or as a term 

endowment—a fund whose principal may be spent after the passage of a 

Background 

 

2

The Department of Education collects information on endowments and other matters 

from postsecondary educational institutions that participate in federal student aid 

programs. 

3

The fiscal year for seven of our ten case-study schools runs from July 1 to June 30. The 

fiscal year for two other schools runs from September 1 to August 31, and for one other 

school from June 1 to May 31. 

Page 2 GAO-10-393 College and University Endowments
 

certain amount of time or the occurrence of a certain event. True and term 

endowments are collectively referred to as donor-restricted endowments. 

In addition, institutions can establish quasi-endowments, also known as 

board-designated endowments.4

 Institutions may create quasiendowments when officials (such as the institution’s board of directors) 

decide to move nonendowment funds, such as a gift or a bequest to the 

institution, into the institution’s endowment for investment and spend

purposes. The institution can reverse the decision to create quasiendowments and spend those funds in their entirety at any point in time. 

Institutions can include quasi-endowments with true and term endowmen

funds when reporting their total endowment, and the Department of 

Education and the National Association of College and University 

Business Officers both ask that colleges and universities include

endowment funds in the endowment totals they report in res

ing 

t 

 quasiponse to their 

surveys.5

tion, 

t 

ter 

r requirements to delay the spending of earnings for some period of 

time. 

 

When donors establish an endowment, they can either restrict the earnings

to be spent on a specific purpose—scholarships or faculty compensa

for example—or they can allow the institution to spend endowmen

earnings for any purpose. When an institution establishes a quasiendowment, it may also include a designation that the fund be restricted 

for a particular purpose, or the fund may have been originally given to the

institution with a purpose restriction, which would remain in effect af

its designation as an endowment. In addition to purpose restrictions, 

endowments can be restricted in other ways, such as requirements to 

reinvest the earnings back into the endowment until it reaches a certain 

size, o

4

In addition to true, term, and quasi-endowment funds, institutions may also include in their 

endowments funds held in trust by others, which are assets held and administered by 

external parties such as a foundation; and life income funds, which are assets donated to 

the institution with terms requiring that the institution pay a portion of the investment 

income to the donor until the donor dies, at which point the institution gains complete 

ownership of the assets. 

5

The Uniform Prudent Management of Institutional Funds Act—the model law most states 

have enacted to govern the management and use of endowments—does not apply to quasiendowment funds. However, because institutions invest and spend these funds alongside 

true and term endowments, and include them in their reported endowment amounts, we 

have included them in our analysis. 

Page 3 GAO-10-393 College and University Endowments
 

Individual funds established by donors, as well as funds an institution 

designates as endowments, are typically pooled for investment and 

management purposes, and are referred to collectively as an institution’s

endowment. nds 

es in the 

in 

 the 

fund holder’s spending of these distributions to ensure they are being 

Endowments change in value over time through several inflows and 

6

 Institutions may manage the investment of endowment fu

internally through an appointed investment committee, for example, or 

externally through an investment management company, or through a 

combination of internal and external managers. Regardless of the party 

managing endowment investments, institutions pay management fees for 

this service. Pooled endowment funds each own a number of shar

pool in proportion with their size, and receive a periodic distribution per 

share, based on the distribution rate set by the institution. These 

distributions are paid to the holder of the endowment fund—such as the 

department or program for which the fund is restricted—for spending 

accordance with the terms of the gift agreement. Administrators track

spent in a timely manner and within any donor-imposed restrictions. 

outflows of assets, generally as shown in figure 1. 

Figure 1: Notional Depiction of Endowment Inflows and Outflows 

Market value, beginning-of-year

 + New gifts

 + Interest and dividend income

 + Appreciation

 - Management fees

 - Distributions

Market value, end-of-year

} Investment earnings

Source: GAO.

Under federal law, colleges and universities are generally exempt from 

taxes on endowment earnings, and donors may deduct gifts to 

 

6

Endowments may also include assets that are not pooled, such as real estate or land, 

trusts held by others, life income funds, or other funds that are not pooled because of 

donor restrictions that they be separately invested or because of the nature of the 

underlying assets. See apps. II through XI for more detailed descriptions of different 

endowment structures. 

Page 4 GAO-10-393 College and University Endowments
 

endowments for tax purposes.7 State laws set guidelines for how colleges 

and universities must invest and distribute endowment funds. Finally, in 

accounting for and reporting on endowments, schools must follow 

generally accepted accounting standards as a requirement of their annual 

financial audits. 

When reporting on their endowments, accounting standards require 

schools to classify endowment assets according to how they are restricted. 

Private schools classify the original gift amount that must be held in 

perpetuity by the school as permanently restricted, and public schools 

report such assets as restricted nonexpendable assets. Endowment assets 

that the institution can spend but that are subject to restrictions on how or 

when they may be used are classified as temporarily restricted assets by 

private schools and restricted expendable assets by public schools. 

Endowment assets that are not subject to restrictions for how and when 

they may be used are classified as unrestricted assets by both private and 

public schools. 

 

7

Internal Revenue Code, Sec. 170. When making charitable contributions to qualified 

organizations, a tax deduction is generally available for those charitable contributions for 

taxpayers who itemize tax deductions on their tax return, provided, in most cases, the total 

tax deduction on the taxpayer’s tax return does not exceed one half of the taxpayer’s 

adjusted gross income. Excess tax deductions for charitable contributions may be carried 

forward to future tax returns for 5 tax years. 

Page 5 GAO-10-393 College and University Endowments
 

Endowments Vary 

Greatly in Size and 

Grew during the Past 

20 Years despite 

Occasional Declines 

Endowment Size Varies 

among Institutions, with 

Many Small and a Few 

Very Large Ones 

U.S. institutions of higher education held a total of more than $400 billion 

in endowment assets in 2008, the most recent year for which national data 

were available.8

 Endowments for these institutions ranged in size from 

several thousand dollars to tens of billions of dollars, with a median 

endowment size of just over $21 million. Within this range, the large 

majority of institutions had endowments of less than $100 million, while 70 

of the nearly 2,000 U.S. colleges and universities had endowments worth 

$1 billion or more, as shown in figure 2.9

 

8

Throughout this report, when we refer to endowment values, we are referring to the fair 

market value as of fiscal year end. In accordance with FASB Statement 157 and GASB 

Statement 31, institutions report endowment assets at their fair value. The Statements say 

that the fair value of an investment is the price that would be paid in a current transaction 

between willing participants. 

9

We limited our analysis of higher education institutions to not-for-profit private and public 

4-year colleges and universities in the United States. 

Page 6 GAO-10-393 College and University Endowments
 

Figure 2: Number of U.S. Institutions of Higher Education by Total Endowment 

Assets, 2008 

Number of institutions

Source: GAO analysis of Department of Education data.

End-of-year endowment market value, 2009 dollars

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1,000

5 billion or more

1 billion to less

than 5 billion

500 million to less

than 1 billion

100 million to less

10 million to le

than 500 million

ss

than 100 million

1 million to less

than 10 million

Less than 1 million

267

60 54

16

889

485

163

In most cases, schools with relatively large total endowments also have 

relatively large endowments per student. As seen below in figure 3, most 

schools have relatively smaller endowments per student, and a few have 

much larger endowments per student. However, some schools with large 

total endowments may have much smaller endowments per student 

relative to other schools, and vice versa. For instance, the University of 

Central Florida’s total endowment of $113 million was in the top 15 

percent in the country in 2008, while its endowment per student of $2,780 

was in the bottom 25 percent. Similarly, the total endowment for 

University of Texas system was the 4th largest in the country in 2008, but 

was the 118th largest per student. In contrast, Berea College’s total 

endowment was ranked 63rd in the country by total size, but 17th by 

assets per student in 2008. 

Page 7 GAO-10-393 College and University Endowments
 

Figure 3: Number of U.S. Institutions of Higher Education by Endowment Assets 

per Student, 2008 

Number of institutions

Source: GAO analysis of Department of Education data.

End-of-year market value per full-time equivalent student, 2009 dollars

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

5 million or more

1 million to less

than 5 million

500 thousand to less

than 1 million

100 thousand to less

than 500 thousand

10 thousand to less

than 100 thousand

1 thousand to less

than 10 thousand

Less than

1 thousand

194

26 13 2

762

711

176

Among different types of institutions, private colleges and universities 

tend to have larger endowments than public ones. For instance, private 

institutions made up about two-thirds of U.S. higher education institutions 

in 2008, but accounted for more than three-quarters of total endowment 

assets at all U.S. institutions. Per student, the difference between private 

and public institution endowments is even more pronounced; the median 

endowment per full-time-equivalent (FTE) student was $19,072 at private 

colleges and universities and $3,105 at public institutions in 2008.10

Research universities tend to have much larger total endowments than 

liberal arts colleges, although on a per-student basis median endowment 

sizes are more similar. In 2008, for example, the median endowment size 

 

10We calculated numbers of FTE students based on fall enrollment of full-time and parttime graduates and undergraduates. See app. I for further information. 

Page 8 GAO-10-393 College and University Endowments
 

for research universities—$219 million—was more than 10 times the size 

of the median endowment value of $20 million for liberal arts colleges.11

However, the median endowment per student at research universities of 

$16,024 was smaller than that of liberal arts colleges, which was $17,955. 

Institutions with high minority enrollment also show a difference in 

endowment size when compared to other schools. The endowments of 

schools with at least 50 percent minority enrollment, both in total and perstudent, are about one-third of the size of endowments at schools with less 

than 50 percent minority enrollment. For instance, the median endowment 

for schools with at least 50 percent minority enrollment is approximately 

$9 million, while at schools with less than 50 percent minority enrollment, 

the median is nearly $27 million. 

Endowments Have Grown 

since 1989 despite 

Declines in Some Years 

Endowments at U.S. institutions of higher education have shown 

substantial growth since 1989, despite some periods when endowment 

values declined. Nationally, total inflation-adjusted endowment assets held 

by U.S. colleges and universities grew from just over $100 billion in 1989 to 

about $432 billion in 2007, with a decrease to about $418 billion in 2008,12

the most recent year for which national data were available, as shown in 

figure 4. 

 

11We based our classifications of research universities and liberal arts colleges on the Basic 

Carnegie Classification, developed by the Carnegie Commission on Higher Education in 

1970 and updated in 2005. See app. 1 for further information. 

12All market value figures are as reported by institutions to the Department of Education as 

of the end of their fiscal year. 

Page 9 GAO-10-393 College and University Endowments
 

Figure 4: Total Endowment Assets at U.S. Institutions of Higher Education, 1989 through 2008 

End-of-year market value, 2009 dollars in billions

Fiscal year

Source: GAO analysis of Department of Education data.

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

103

108 121 132 135

151 151

220

300

332

364

432 418

Notes: The Department of Education did not have endowment data for any schools in 1990 and 1997-

1999 and for private schools from 2000-2002. 

Although this graph presents 20 data points for total endowment assets (including 7 missing years), it 

captures only 19 years of growth. This is because the first value—total endowment assets as of the 

end of 1989—is equivalent to the beginning-of-year value for 1990. Therefore, the growth 

represented in the graph is from the beginning of 1990 through the end of 2008. 

Although data on college and university endowments in 2009 are not 

available nationally, data from our case-study schools show that the 

recession has meant substantial endowment losses in 2009. Eight of our 

case-study schools had data on market values for the 1989-2009 period. 

Data from those schools show that, despite recent losses, endowments at 

those eight schools showed substantial overall growth from 1989 to 2009. 

The eight schools had combined endowment market values in 2009 dollars 

of $18.7 billion in 1989, $77.7 billion in 2007, and $56.0 billion in 2009.13

Although the real values of the endowments at these schools declined by 

an average of more than 27 percent from 2007 to 2009, they showed an 

average rate of growth of 6.2 percent per year over the 1989-2009 period, 

after accounting for inflation. Figure 5 shows the inflation-adjusted 

 

13All of these market value amounts are in inflation-adjusted 2009 dollars based on what 

was reported in the institutions’ accounting reports as of the end of their fiscal years. 

Page 10 GAO-10-393 College and University Endowments
 

percent growth of endowments over their 1989 market values for the eight 

case-study institutions for which complete data were available. 

Figure 5: Percent Change in Endowments at Eight Case-Study Institutions, 1989 through 2009 

-100

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 20042003 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Percent real growth over 1989 market value

Fiscal year

School 1

School 2

School 3

School 4

School 5

School 6

School 7

School 8

Source: GAO analysis of case-study institution data.

Notes: Percent growth was calculated using endowment market values in 2009 dollars. 

Although this graph presents 21 data points, it captures only 20 years of growth. This is because the 

first value—percent growth as of the end of 1989—is equivalent to the beginning-of-year value for 

1990. Therefore, the growth represented in the graph is from the beginning of 1990 through the end 

of 2009. 

Only six of our case-study schools had data that permitted an analysis of 

what went into the change in endowment market value. Those data show 

that, since 1989, the largest contributing factor to the growth of 

endowments at the six schools was investment earnings. The change in 

value for these endowments—which includes investment earnings or 

Page 11 GAO-10-393 College and University Endowments
 

losses,14 new contributions, distributions, and any other additions to or 

subtractions from the endowments such as management fees—totaled 

$29.6 billion from 1989 through 2009 (in 2009 dollars). Available data from 

these institutions showed that the large majority of this growth came from 

investment earnings; over the period, in 2009 dollars these endowments 

received less than $9.4 billion in new gifts, but had investment earnings of 

$64.8 billion, despite some years of substantial investment losses.15

Finally, data from our case-study institutions suggest that the institutions 

have not only preserved, but increased, the purchasing power of their 

endowment funds since 1989. Officials at case-study institutions, as well as 

the schools’ investment policies, indicated that a major consideration in 

investing their endowment funds is protecting the purchasing power of 

endowment gifts by achieving rates of investment earnings that are greater 

than endowments’ distribution rates plus inflation. For example, officials 

at one case-study institution said that they generally target a rate of return 

for their endowment of 8.1 percent per year, which is calculated by adding 

a planned distribution rate of 4.75 percent plus 3 percentage points for 

inflation and .35 percentage points for management fees. From 1989 

through 2009, the average annual inflation rate for consumer prices 

generally was 2.9 percent per year,16 while the average rate of inflation in 

the costs of higher education was 3.8 percent per year.17 Available data 

from our case-study schools showed that long-term rates of return (after 

management fees) were greater than distribution rates plus inflation for 

the seven institutions for which we had data going back to 1989, using 

either inflation in consumer prices overall or inflation in the costs of 

higher education specifically. For example, at one school, the average 

annual distribution rate from 1989 through 2009 was 4.9 percent per year, 

while during this time the school’s endowment earned an average annual 

rate of return on its investments of 10.1 percent per year. 

 

14Throughout this report, when we refer to investment earnings, we are including realized 

appreciation, unrealized appreciation, and investment yields such as dividends and rents. 

15Net growth in the endowments is less than investment earnings plus new gifts because of 

distributions, management fees, and other outflows of money from the endowments. 

16This rate is based on the Consumer Price Index. See app. I. 

17This rate is based on the Higher Education Price Index, an inflation index designed for 

institutions of higher education by the Commonfund Institute, an investment management 

and research organization for nonprofit organizations. The Higher Education Price Index is 

based on a fixed basket of goods purchased by colleges and universities, including faculty 

and administrative salaries, supplies and materials, and utilities. 

Page 12 GAO-10-393 College and University Endowments
 

When donors establish an endowment at a college or university, they have 

the choice of leaving decisions about how to distribute the earnings 

generated by their gift up to the institution or designating how the funds 

may be used. The Department of Education does not collect information 

from all schools about endowment restrictions, so we developed 

information on endowment restrictions from our case-study schools. Data 

from case-study schools show that the distribution of most of their 

endowment assets is restricted for a particular purpose by the terms the 

donors stipulated when they made their donations. Officials at the schools 

we visited told us that it is unusual to receive an endowment without some 

sort of designation from the donor about how the endowment earnings are 

to be used. 

Distributions from 

Endowment Funds 

Are Typically Subject 

to Restrictions 

Some restrictions are broadly worded, designating funds to be used for 

financial aid, for example. Another sort of broad restriction would be an 

endowment for a department within a college to use in any way it sees fit. 

This is a restriction in that only the specific department can use the 

proceeds from the endowment, but how to use those funds is up to the 

school to decide. Other restrictions are quite specific, such as funding for a 

scholarship for students from a particular community. In an example from 

our case studies, a donor in Texas gave funds specifically to plant and 

maintain trees on a school campus. 

Regardless of restrictions for how the earnings on an endowment can be 

spent, the original gift amount of all endowments is typically subject to the 

restriction that it be held and not spent by the institution.18 Data from our 

case-study institutions show that, of total endowment assets, a minority of 

endowment dollars is restricted in this way. For instance, on average, 39.4 

percent of the endowment assets at our case-study schools in 2009 were 

subject to the restriction that they be held in perpetuity. 

State policies governing public colleges and universities can influence 

endowment restrictions. For example, the University of Texas system is 

restricted by state law in how it may spend endowment money. The largest 

of its four major endowment funds—the Permanent University Fund—was 

established by the Texas Constitution, which restricts distributions from 

the fund to paying the debt for capital projects such as building 

 

18Endowments may be established so that the original gift amount is held in perpetuity, or 

the donor may stipulate that the original gift amount be held for a period of time or until an 

event occurs. When that period ends or the event occurs, the institution is free to spend the 

original gift. 

Page 13 GAO-10-393 College and University Endowments
 

construction or land acquisition.19 Another of the institution’s major 

endowment funds—the Permanent Health Fund—is restricted by the 

Texas Education Code to be used for purposes that benefit public health, 

such as medical research, treatment programs, or health education. The 

state of Kentucky has a program to strengthen the research capabilities of 

its universities by adding state funds to endowments for faculty positions. 

University of Kentucky officials told us that this has encouraged donors to 

designate their endowments for faculty positions, which has meant that a 

large portion of the institution’s endowment is dedicated to chairs and 

professorships. 

Prior to accepting an endowment, officials at some of the schools we 

visited told us that they work with potential donors to revise restrictions 

the officials believe would be difficult to abide by. Officials from one 

school also said that their institution would turn down a gift that came 

with restrictions that they believe would be too restrictive or would not 

contribute to the mission of the institution. 

Once an institution accepts an endowment, officials we spoke to said that 

they are careful to abide by donors’ wishes, but that they also have some 

ability to negotiate or modify restrictions when a restriction outlives its 

purpose and the university needs to revise the terms of the endowment. 

Nine of the ten schools we visited utilize gift agreements that include 

standard terms giving the schools flexibility to modify restrictions when 

the endowed funds become unusable under the original restrictions. 

Schools can also negotiate restrictions with donors or their descendants 

after the gift has been made. On rare occasions schools may go to court to 

ask for changes to endowment restrictions. The following are examples of 

endowment revisions from some of our case-study schools: 

• Howard University had an endowment that was restricted to providing 

aid to high-school students from Birmingham, Alabama. Officials told 

us that because the university does not always receive applications 

from qualified students from Birmingham, the endowment would 

sometimes go unused. Howard officials asked the donor to broaden 

the restriction to include all Alabama students, and the donor agreed. 

 

19This restriction applies to distributions at all University of Texas campuses except 

University of Texas–Austin, which may use Permanent University Fund distributions to pay 

for operating expenses as well. 

Page 14 GAO-10-393 College and University Endowments
 

• At Smith College, school officials told us that a donor established a 

fund to pay for books, newspapers, and magazines for students in one 

of the college’s dormitories. However, the fund eventually earned more 

than could possibly be distributed for this purpose, so the school took 

legal action to loosen the restriction so that income from the fund 

could be used for students in all of its dormitories. 

Not all restrictions are the result of donor intent. As noted previously, 

when institutions turn nonendowment funds into quasi-endowment funds, 

they may also restrict the funds to a particular purpose, though the 

institution is not legally bound by such a self-designated restriction. For 

example, Berea College has a policy of designating all bequests to the 

college as quasi-endowment funds restricted for financial aid. 

Officials we spoke to said that the way that endowment funds are 

restricted governs how those funds are used once they are distributed 

from the endowment. School officials said that they generally consider all 

spending to be education-related because it furthers the educational 

mission of the institution. To the extent that endowment funds are 

distributed for purposes that are not directly related to financial aid, those 

funds may still provide benefits to students by improving education quality 

for a given cost of attendance. An endowment made for a faculty position, 

for example, means that students receive the teaching and other benefits 

that the new faculty member provides, but a portion of their tuition and 

fees does not have to go to pay additional tuition and fees for that person. 

Among the schools we visited where data were available, the percentage 

of funds specifically restricted for financial aid—and the distributions for 

financial aid from those funds—varied substantially. For example, funds 

restricted for financial aid ranged from about 12 percent to about 68 

percent of endowment assets at case-study schools in 2009. The 

distributions from such funds were as high as about 73 percent of 

endowment distributions at one school and about 51 percent of 

distributions at another school in 2009. At several of the other schools we 

visited, distributions from funds restricted to financial aid were a smaller 

component of endowment distributions—between 10 and 23 percent at 

five of our case-study schools in 2009. Officials at the schools we visited 

noted that distributions from funds not restricted to financial aid may still 

be used for financial aid, such as when funds may be used for any purpose 

Page 15 GAO-10-393 College and University Endowments
 

by a particular department of the school. However, they also said that 

their accounting systems did not precisely identify such distributions.20

Although the use of endowment funds is generally restricted, institutions 

have to decide how much to distribute from the endowment each year. 

The Department of Education does not collect information from all 

schools about endowment distributions, so we developed information on 

such distributions from our case-study schools. Officials at the schools we 

visited told us that two important considerations went into their policies 

governing endowment distributions. First, they said that they need to 

protect the purchasing power of the endowments so that both students 

today and students in the future can benefit from the endowment. They 

said that they are careful not to distribute more from the endowment, over 

time, than the investment returns they realize, minus inflation and 

management fees. Second, officials said that they need to avoid large 

fluctuations in distributions from year to year. Officials at several schools 

said that, even though investment returns can vary greatly from year to 

year, institutions of higher education need reasonably stable budgets to 

fulfill their missions, so it would be unreasonable to let a single year’s 

investment gains or losses be the only factor influencing endowment 

distributions. One official said, for example, that the school could not tell 

academic departments to lay off personnel one year and hire them back 

the next, or tell the financial aid office to reduce scholarship funds for 

students partway through their undergraduate years. 

Colleges and 

Universities Establish 

Their Own Policies 

Governing Annual 

Endowment 

Distributions 

At the schools we visited, officials created mechanisms to smooth the 

effects of market fluctuations and ensure a reliable stream of funding for 

the units within the institution that use endowment funds. These 

sometimes involved basing distribution policies on the endowment’s 

market values for multiple years instead of just the most recent year. For 

example, one school’s policy is that the distribution rate for the coming 

year should be 5 percent of the endowment’s average market value over 3 

years. At another school, the policy averages market values for each 

quarter of the prior 3 years to further smooth market fluctuations. At 

another school, officials calculate a percentage increase in endowment 

distributions based on the higher education inflation rate over the prior 10 

years. Officials at the schools we visited noted that these policies and 

 

20Case-study schools used different terminology to describe financial aid. Some referred to 

such aid as “financial aid,” while others used terms such as “scholarships” or “grant aid.” 

Page 16 GAO-10-393 College and University Endowments
 

formulas can be revised by the school when necessary. For example, in 

response to the decline in endowment market values that came with the 

current economic downturn, several schools have increased their 

endowment distribution rate. Another school has changed its smoothing 

formula to include a slightly lower distribution rate and a 60-month 

average of market values instead of a 36-month average. 

For budgeting purposes, schools determine their target distribution rate 

and the distribution amounts that their distribution formula or policy 

dictates for the coming year, but officials told us that they may not 

accurately predict how the market value of the endowment will change 

during the year. The market value of the endowment is influenced by 

investment gains or losses during that year, as well as new endowment 

gifts. Unless the target distribution percentage determined by the school 

before the year begins precisely predicts the changes in market value for 

the year, the actual percentage distributed will be larger or smaller than 

what was planned before the year began. In years of greater-than-expected 

returns, distribution percentages will be smaller than planned, and in years 

with smaller-than-predicted gains (or losses), the distribution percentage 

will be higher. Figure 6 shows how actual distribution rates and market 

values fluctuate in opposite directions at one of our case-study schools. 

Page 17 GAO-10-393 College and University Endowments
 

Figure 6: Endowment Market Values in 2009 Dollars and Distribution Rates, 1990 through 2009 

2009 dollars (in millions) Percentage of market value

Source: GAO analysis of case-study institution data.

Fiscal year

Distribution as a percentage of market value

End-of-year market value

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

1,600

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

For the years in which our case-study schools had data available, actual 

distribution rates fluctuated. We received distribution data from 1990 

through 2009 from seven schools, which reported distribution rates 

between 3.0 and 7.5 percent of year-end endowment market values, with 

most schools in most years falling between 4.0 and 6.0 percent. During this 

period, the inflation-adjusted dollar value of distributions from the 

endowments increased steadily. Percentage change in endowment 

distributions for seven case-study schools is shown in figure 7. 

Page 18 GAO-10-393 College and University Endowments
 

Figure 7: Percent Change in Endowment Distributions at Seven Case Study Institutions, 1990 through 2009 

-100

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Percent real growth over 1990 distribution

Fiscal year

School 1

School 2

School 3

School 4

School 5

School 6

School 7

Source: GAO analysis of case-study institution data.

Distribution in a given year is not necessarily the same as spending 

because the money is not always spent in the same year it is taken from 

the endowment and distributed to a department of the school. University 

officials told us that departments sometimes put off spending endowment 

distributions for several years, until they have sufficient funds to fulfill the 

donors’ intended purpose. For example, a department may “save” its 

endowment distributions for several years until it accumulates enough to 

purchase an expensive piece of equipment. 

Appendixes II-XI provide details on endowment distributions and other 

information about our 10 case-study colleges and universities. 

Page 19 GAO-10-393 College and University Endowments
 

We will send copies of this report to the Secretary of Education and other 

interested parties. This report will also be available at no charge on GAO’s 

Web site at http://www.gao.gov. If you or your staffs have any questions 

about this report, please contact me at (202) 512-9110 or 

brostekm@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of Congressional 

Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this report. 

Michael Brostek 

Key contributors to this report are listed in appendix XII. 

Director, Tax Issues 

Strategic Issues Team 

Page 20 GAO-10-393 College and University Endowments
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 

Page 21 GAO-10-393 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 

This appendix provides information on the scope of work and the 

methodology used to examine (1) what available data show about the size 

and change in the value of endowments over the last 20 years; (2) the 

extent and manner in which the funds in such endowments are restricted 

at selected institutions, including restrictions for financial aid; and (3) 

selected postsecondary education institutions’ policies and practices for 

distributing endowment assets. 

We used a case-study methodology in combination with analysis of 

national data because some of the information needed to address our 

study objectives was only available from records kept by individual 

colleges and universities. In particular, information on endowment 

restrictions and distributions was not available nationally. The primary 

selection criteria for our 10 case-study institutions were endowment size 

and endowment size per full-time-equivalent student. Secondary criteria 

included institutional characteristics such as whether the institution was 

public or private, a national university or liberal arts college, or added 

geographical diversity. We also considered if the institution had a unique 

educational mission such as serving a minority population. We selected 

institutions with a range of endowment sizes and the other criteria 

discussed above. The institutions are not representative of postsecondary 

institutions in general or of any particular type or size of institution. 

We gathered case-study data from publicly available sources such as the 

institutions’ annual financial reports and the National Association of 

College and University Business Officers Endowment Study, which is a 

voluntary survey of member institutions. Where available, we also used 

schools’ answers to the Common Data Set—standardized questions 

developed by the higher education community and publishers such as the 

College Board, Peterson’s, and U.S. News & World Report. In addition, we 

analyzed data requested directly from the institutions. Finally, we asked 

officials at case-study institutions to verify these data and obtained other 

information from them through structured interviews. 

To determine the size and change in the value of endowments since 1989, 

we computed the annual median and range of total endowment assets, 

 College and University Endowments 
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 

assets per full-time-equivalent student,1 and the annual change in 

endowment value for postsecondary institutions for fiscal years 1989 

through 2008 using data from the Integrated Postsecondary Education 

Data System (IPEDS) sponsored by the Department of Education.2

 IPEDS 

gathers information from the postsecondary institutions that participate in 

federal student financial aid programs. We limited our analysis to not-forprofit private and public 4-year postsecondary educational institutions; we 

did not include 2-year institutions or for-profit institutions because, in the 

IPEDS data, for-profit schools are not asked to provide endowment 

information and relatively few 2-year schools had endowments as 

compared to 4-year schools. In addition, for those 2-year schools that had 

endowments, the values of the endowments were very small and not 

comparable to those of 4-year institutions. We also analyzed data from 

IPEDS to report on endowment size by type of institution, such as public 

and private schools, research universities and liberal arts colleges, and 

institutions with at least 50 percent minority enrollment.3

 To include 2009 

in our analysis of endowment size and change since 1989 and to provide 

details on various components of changes in value such as investment 

 

1

Some of our case-study institutions used different methods for calculating full-time 

enrollment numbers, and many of these methods are inconsistent from Integrated 

Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) calculations for full-time enrollment. 

Where there were differences, they were not large enough to materially affect our findings. 

For IPEDS data, we calculated institutions’ full-time enrollment numbers based on fall 

enrollment of full-time and part-time graduates and undergraduates, and for case study 

institutions, we used the full-time enrollment numbers they provided. For five institutions, 

these numbers were based on fall enrollment of graduates and undergraduates, and for the 

remaining institutions they were based on average enrollment of fall and spring semester 

graduates and undergraduates, with several institutions including summer students as well. 

2

IPEDS data for 2009 were not available when we conducted our analysis. In addition, 

IPEDS did not have publicly available endowment data for any schools in 1990 and 1997-

1999, and for private schools from 2000 through 2002. 

Fiscal years refer to schools’ fiscal years, as reported in their annual financial statements 

and in their responses to IPEDS surveys. The fiscal year for seven of our ten case-study 

schools runs from July 1 to June 30. The fiscal year for two other schools runs from 

September 1 to August 31 and for one other school from June 1 to May 31. 

3

In analyzing institutions by type, we used the 2005 IPEDS update of institutions’ Basic 

Carnegie Classification, the traditional classification framework developed by the Carnegie 

Commission on Higher Education in 1970. For research universities, we included schools 

with the following classifications: Research Universities (very high research activity), 

Research Universities (high research activity), and Doctoral/Research Universities. For 

liberal arts colleges, we included schools with the following classifications: Baccalaureate 

Colleges—Arts & Sciences, Baccalaureate Colleges—Diverse Fields, and 

Baccalaureate/Associate’s Colleges (institutions offering both 2- and 4-year degrees). 

Page 22 GAO-10-393 College and University Endowments
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 

earnings and new contributions, we analyzed data from our 10 case-study 

institutions.4

Except where noted, all dollar values have been adjusted for inflation to 

constant 2009 dollars using the Consumer Price Index (CPI). We adjusted 

dollar values using CPI instead of the Higher Education Price Index, an 

alternative inflation adjustment specific to postsecondary education. In 

making this choice, we calculated dollar values using both indexes and 

found that the choice of index did not affect our conclusions. We therefore 

chose to use CPI as it may be more familiar to readers than the industryspecific index. 

To determine the extent and manner in which the funds in endowments 

are restricted at selected institutions, including restrictions for financial 

aid, and to determine institutions’ policies and practices for distributing 

endowment assets, including distributions for financial aid and education, 

we obtained and analyzed data from the 10 institutions’ financial 

documents, other publicly-available institutional publications, and other 

data we requested from the institutions. In addition, we conducted 

structured interviews with officials at the case-study institutions to verify 

previously collected data and to obtain further information on endowment 

restrictions and distributions. 

For all three objectives, we reviewed state law regarding the management 

and use of endowments and federal law regarding the taxation of 

endowments. We also reviewed accounting standards established by the 

Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) and the Governmental 

Accounting Standards Board (GASB) that provide guidance on accounting 

for and reporting on the size, growth, restrictions, and uses of 

endowments. 

Our use of IPEDS data in this review is subject to some limitations. First, 

data for some years are not publicly available from IPEDS, and the 

Department of Education made changes to IPEDS reporting standards 

during the period we reviewed. Also, although institutions are requested 

to provide data for all related foundations and other affiliated 

 

4

Although the period from 1989 through 2009 includes 21 data points on endowment 

market values, it captures only 20 years of changes in value. This is because the first 

market value data point—market value as of the end of 1989—is equivalent to the 

beginning-of-year value for 1990. Therefore, the change in value captured in these data is 

the 20 years from the beginning of 1990 through the end of 2009. 

Page 23 GAO-10-393 College and University Endowments
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 

organizations, IPEDS may not contain data for endowments held in related 

foundations for the benefit of some schools, such as the University of 

Colorado Foundation. Also, in regards to both IPEDS and case-study 

institution financial data, some accounting standards changed over the 

period of our review, and there were differences in accounting standards 

between private institutions, which follow FASB standards, and public 

institutions, which typically follow GASB standards. The data we report 

generally reflect these differences in accounting standards. For instance, 

schools and their auditors determine and agree on what entities’ funds—

including endowment funds—should be included in their financial reports 

in accordance with FASB and GASB standards. Except where noted, we 

included the endowment funds of those entities that the schools and their 

auditors determined should be included for purposes of their financial 

reports. Officials from the Department of Education said that differences 

in accounting standards would not materially affect our findings and 

officials at the schools we visited did not indicate that the differences 

would have a material effect on the reported size, distributions, or uses of 

endowments over the period of our review. With regard to endowment 

restrictions, differing accounting standards and state laws affect the 

restriction classification of schools’ endowment assets, which is reflected 

in our reported data on restrictions. For instance, in Massachusetts—

which has enacted a version of the Uniform Prudent Management of 

Institutional Funds Act (UPMIFA) governing the management and use of 

endowments at schools in the state—schools must classify all earnings on 

endowments as temporarily restricted assets until appropriated for 

expenditure by the school. In contrast, schools in Kentucky—which has 

not enacted a version of UPMIFA—may classify such earnings as 

unrestricted if there are no donor restrictions on the use of the earnings. 

We did not quantify the affect of these differences on our reported data 

regarding endowment restrictions. 

Case-study institution financial data were also not available from all of the 

schools for all of the years under review. Financial data at our case-study 

institutions also differed somewhat due to the varying structure and 

organization of their endowments. We reviewed these data to ensure that 

the data we used were as consistent as possible over time, that definitions 

were consistent between institutions, and that any differences did not 

materially affect our findings. The following are examples of reporting 

differences among our case-study institutions: 

• Institutions differ in whether they report endowment distributions net 

of reinvestments of unspent funds back into the endowment. Where 

possible we had institutions report distributions net of reinvestments, 

Page 24 GAO-10-393 College and University Endowments
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 

and where they did not, officials said that reinvestments were small 

enough to not substantially alter the size of the distributions. 

• Institutions differ in whether they include funds held in trust by others 

or life income funds in their endowment data. We included such assets 

based on the data that our case-study institutions were able to provide. 

At several of our case-study schools such funds are excluded, and for 

those schools where they are included, they are a small portion of the 

total endowment. 

In cases of inconsistencies beyond those discussed above, we have 

included explanatory notes. We did not independently verify IPEDS data 

or the information provided by our case-study institutions from their 

audited financial statements and accounting systems.5

 We reviewed both 

IPEDS and case-study institution data for reasonableness and consistency 

and determined that the data were sufficiently reliable for our purposes. 

Where we have used data subject to limitations, we note them in the text 

of this report. 

We provided a draft version of our characterization of IPEDS data to the 

Department of Education. Department of Education officials provided 

technical comments which we incorporated as appropriate. We also asked 

officials at the 10 colleges and universities we selected for our case studies 

to review information in this report concerning their institutions. Officials 

from all 10 schools provided technical comments, which we incorporated 

as appropriate. 

We conducted our work from June 2009 through February 2010 in 

accordance with all sections of GAO's Quality Assurance Framework that 

are relevant to our objectives. The framework requires that we plan and 

perform the engagement to obtain sufficient and appropriate evidence to 

meet our stated objectives and to discuss any limitations in our work. We 

believe that the information and data obtained, and the analysis 

conducted, provide a reasonable basis for the findings and conclusions in 

this product. 

 

5

Where data were provided from institutions’ accounting systems and were not available in 

public documents such as financial statements, we verified that data from these accounting 

systems were subject to the annual audits required to issue audited financial statements. 

Page 25 GAO-10-393 College and University Endowments
Appendix II: Berea College Case Study Appendix II: Berea College Case Study 

Berea College is a private liberal arts institution admitting students with 

limited family financial resources who are primarily from the Southern 

Appalachian Mountain region. Berea only admits students who have 

significant economic need. The college was founded in 1855 and is located 

in Berea, Kentucky. Berea’s total enrollment for the fall 2008 semester was 

approximately 1,500 full-time-equivalent (FTE) students. 

The college provides every student a 4-year scholarship that, combined 

with other forms of financial aid, covers all of the school’s tuition—

$24,500 in the 2008-09 school year. This scholarship includes a Labor Grant 

through the college’s Labor Program, which has long been an integral 

component of Berea’s educational program. Under the program, all fulltime students are required to work at various jobs at the college for 

between 10 and 15 hours per week and receive a $4,000 labor grant as part 

of their financial aid from the college. Students are also paid for their work 

(between $3.80 and $6.25 per hour in 2008-09) and can request to work 

additional hours under the program. With fees and room and board, the 

total cost of attendance at Berea was $31,134 in 2008-09. All Berea 

students receive need-based financial aid; the average award in 2008-09 

from all nonloan sources—including financial aid from Berea, federal and 

state grants, and other scholarships—was $27,903 for undergraduate 

students.1

At just over $1 billion in 2009 dollars, Berea’s endowment placed the 

college in the top 4 percent of schools by total endowment size and in the 

top 2 percent by endowment per FTE student in 2008.2

 Berea’s endowment 

fell to $791 million in 2009. Further data on Berea’s endowment are in 

table 1 below. 

 

1

The average need-based financial aid award is an average for full-time undergraduates. 

2

Fiscal year 2008 was the most recent year for which national data were available. Except 

where noted, all dollar values have been adjusted for inflation to constant 2009 dollars 

using the Consumer Price Index. 

Page 26 GAO-10-393 College and University Endowments 
Appendix II: Berea College Case Study 

Table 1: Berea College—Endowment Facts, 2009 

Structure and management Berea’s endowment is managed by external investment managers 

and consists of approximately 4,500 individual funds of which 

approximately 2,500 are donor-restricted funds used to provide 

funding for cost of education, direct student aid, and various 

academic support programs. 

Market value as of June 30, 2009 $791,210,000a

Market value per FTE student $521,562

Distribution $50,548,000a

Distribution as a percentage of beginning-of-year market value 4.9

Share of operating expenses funded by distribution (percent) 73.1b

Source: GAO analysis of Berea College data. 

a

Rounded to the nearest thousand. 

b

Institutions with similar endowment distributions may differ substantially in the share of their 

operating expenses funded by those distributions when there are large differences in the types of 

operating expenses at an institution. At some institutions, for example, operating expenses included 

hospital services that constituted a significant portion of total operating expenses, while at other 

institutions operating expenses included only education-related expenses such as faculty 

compensation and building maintenance. 

Since 1989, the average annual inflation-adjusted change in the market 

value of Berea’s endowment was a 3.6 percent increase.3

 As seen in figure 

8 below, after accounting for inflation, the real value of Berea’s 

endowment has grown from $446 million to $791 million in 2009 dollars 

over the period despite losses in some years. 

 

3

As discussed previously, the change in endowment market value is a function of 

investment returns, new gifts, distributions, and any other inflows or outflows of money. 

Page 27 GAO-10-393 College and University Endowments
Appendix II: Berea College Case Study 

Figure 8: Berea College Endowment Market Value in 2009 Dollars, 1989 through 2009 

End-of-year market value, 2009 dollars (in millions)

Fiscal year ending June 30th

Source: GAO analysis of Berea financial data.

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

791

1,038

1,159

965

917

820

863

822

768

705

619

557

518 540

485 458 459 446

1,092

966

1,023

Note: Although this graph presents 21 data points, it captures only 20 years of growth. This is 

because the first value—market value as of the end of 1989—is equivalent to the beginning-of-year 

value for 1990. Therefore, the growth represented in the graph is from the beginning of 1990 through 

the end of 2009. 

Slightly over one-quarter of Berea’s endowment in 2009 was permanently 

restricted. This amount, made up of the original gift amount of donorrestricted funds, can never be spent. Twenty-nine percent of Berea’s 

endowment assets was temporarily restricted or unrestricted earnings on 

donor-restricted endowment funds. The remainder of the endowment, 

about 44 percent, was quasi-endowment funds that have been created 

mostly by unrestricted bequests designated as quasi-endowment by the 

Board of Trustees and can be spent with Board approval. 

Berea uses a large portion of the proceeds from its quasi-endowment 

funds for tuition replacement. The college follows a Board policy of 

designating all unrestricted bequests as quasi-endowment funds. Berea 

financial data showed that assets restricted for this purpose constitute 

approximately $345.7 million of the endowment. Table 2 details Berea’s six 

most common purpose restrictions. 

Page 28 GAO-10-393 College and University Endowments
Appendix II: Berea College Case Study 

Table 2: Berea College—Endowment Restrictions by Purpose, 2009 

Purpose of restriction 

Percent of

endowment assets

Financial aid 68

Debt service and capital projects 12

Operating budget reserve and capital projects 9

Campus Christian Center and Convocations 2

Appalachian Outreach Program 1

Other purpose restriction 9

Total 100

Source: GAO analysis of Berea financial data. 

Note: Percentages do not sum because of rounding. 

Berea calculates the annual target distribution for its long-term pooled 

investments as 5 percent of the moving average of market values over the 

prior 12 quarters. Over the past 20 years, Berea’s actual distributions from 

its endowment have averaged 4.7 percent of the beginning-of-year 

endowment market value, ranging from a high of 5.4 percent in 2003 to a 

low of 3.7 percent in 2001. As shown below in figure 9, annual 

distributions increased steadily over most of the period in real dollars, 

peaking at approximately $51 million in 2009. 

Page 29 GAO-10-393 College and University Endowments
Appendix II: Berea College Case Study 

Figure 9: Berea College Endowment Distributions in 2009 Dollars, 1990 through 2009 

Distribution, 2009 dollars (in millions)

Fiscal year ending June 30th

Source: GAO analysis of Berea financial data. 

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

21 21

40 41

45

47

51

43

46 44

39

35 35

32

27

25 24 24 23 22

Of Berea’s 2009 endowment distribution of nearly $51 million, 

approximately $37 million—about 73 percent—was distributed from funds 

restricted or designated for financial aid. 

Page 30 GAO-10-393 College and University Endowments
Appendix III: Harvard University Case Study Appendix III: Harvard University Case Study 

Harvard University is a private research university, established in 1636 and 

located in Cambridge, Massachusetts. Total enrollment at Harvard was 

approximately 19,348 full-time-equivalent (FTE) students for the 2008-09 

school year. Harvard’s total undergraduate cost of attendance for the 2008-

09 school year was $47,215, and the average need-based financial aid 

award from all nonloan sources for those undergraduates receiving 

awards was $36,850.1

At over $37 billion in 2009 dollars, Harvard’s endowment placed the school 

at the top of all U.S. higher education institutions by total endowment size 

and in the top 1 percent of schools by endowment per FTE student in 

2008.2

 Harvard’s endowment fell to $26 billion in 2009. Further data on 

Harvard’s endowment are in table 3 below. 

Table 3: Harvard University—Endowment Facts, 2009 

Structure and management Harvard’s endowment is made up of approximately 11,600 

individual funds that are pooled and invested in a General 

Investment Account managed by the Harvard Management 

Company (HMC), a wholly owned subsidiary of Harvard 

established to manage its investments. HMC uses a hybrid model 

of internal and external management teams.a

 

Market value as of June 30, 2009 $26,035,389,000b

Market value per student $1,345,637 

Distribution $1,655,910,000b

Distribution as a percentage of beginning-of-year market value 4.5 

Share of operating expenses funded by distribution (percent) 44.1c

Source: GAO analysis of Harvard University data. 

a

In addition to funds pooled in the General Investment Account, Harvard held approximately $612 

million of pledge balances and interests in trusts held by others in 2009, which constituted around 2 

percent of total endowment assets. These amounts are included in our analyses. 

b

Rounded to the nearest thousand. 

 

1

The total cost of attendance includes tuition, room, board, and required fees. In addition, 

the average need-based financial aid award is an average for full-time undergraduates who 

applied for, qualified for, and received need-based aid from any nonloan source, including 

federal and state grants, financial aid from Harvard, and outside scholarships. 

2

Fiscal year 2008 was the most recent year for which national data were available. Except 

where noted, all dollar values have been adjusted for inflation to constant 2009 dollars 

using the Consumer Price Index. 

Page 31 GAO-10-393 College and University Endowments 
Appendix III: Harvard University Case Study 

c

Institutions with similar endowment distributions may differ substantially in the share of their 

operating expenses funded by those distributions when there are large differences in the types of 

operating expenses at an institution. At some institutions, for example, operating expenses included 

hospital services that constitute a significant portion of total operating expenses, while at other 

institutions operating expenses included only education-related expenses such as faculty 

compensation and building maintenance. 

Over the past 20 years, the average annual inflation-adjusted change in the 

market value of Harvard’s endowment was a 6.9 percent increase.3

 As seen 

in figure 10 below, after accounting for inflation, the real value of 

Harvard’s endowment has grown from approximately $8 billion to $26 

billion over the period despite periodic losses, including losses in 2009. 

on to $26 

Figure 10: Harvard University Endowment Market Value in 2009 Dollars, 1989 through 2009 

End-of-year market value, 2009 dollars (in billions)

Fiscal year ending June 30th

Source: GAO analysis of Harvard University financial data.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

7.9

29

31.5

36.7 37.4

26.1 26

22.7

21.1 22.4

24.3

19.3

17.6

15.1

12.6

10.5

9.1 8.7 8.0 7.5 7.9

Note: Although this graph presents 21 data points, it captures only 20 years of growth. This is 

because the first value—market value as of the end of 1989—is equivalent to the beginning-of-year 

value for 1990. Therefore, the growth represented in the graph is from the beginning of 1990 through 

the end of 2009. 

Eighteen percent of Harvard’s endowment in 2009 was permanently 

restricted. This amount, made up of the original gift amount of donorrestricted funds, can never be spent. Fifty-seven percent of the endowment 

 

3

As discussed previously, the change in endowment market value is a function of 

investment returns, new gifts, distributions, and any other inflows or outflows of money. 

Page 32 GAO-10-393 College and University Endowments
Appendix III: Harvard University Case Study 

was earnings on donor-restricted endowment funds and was classified as 

temporarily restricted. The remaining 25 percent of the endowment was 

quasi-endowment funds that do not have to be permanently held and can 

be spent by the school in accordance with donor stipulations for spending 

purpose. 

Harvard officials said the large majority of endowment funds are restricted 

for a particular purpose by their donor, and data show that faculty support 

and financial aid are the most common purpose restrictions. Table 4 

details the top seven categories of purpose restrictions. 

Table 4: Harvard University—Endowment Restrictions by Purpose, 2009 

Purpose of restriction Percent of endowment assetsa

Faculty support 28

Financial aid 18

Other 11

Teaching and research 8

Program initiatives 4

Libraries and collections 3

University, school and departmental funds 

otherwise unrestrictedb

28

Total 100

Source: GAO analysis of Harvard data. 

a

For this table, endowment assets include true endowments and quasi-endowments, but not pledge 

balances or interests in trusts held by others. 

b

These funds are restricted generally to schools or departments within the university but are otherwise 

unrestricted for spending purpose, according to a Harvard official. 

According to officials, Harvard targets an endowment distribution rate in 

the range of 5.0 to 5.5 percent of market value, while also factoring in the 

need to “smooth” annual investment gains and losses so that they can be 

distributed for operations over several years and allow for budgeting 

stability. Although Harvard officials said that they do not adhere to a strict 

distribution formula, they do consider what they referred to as a “70/30 

formula” in planning their distributions. Under this formula, the 

distribution is calculated as 70 percent of the prior year’s distribution 

amount adjusted for inflation, and 30 percent of the targeted rate as a 

percentage of the projected end-of-year market value for the current year. 

Over the past 20 years, Harvard’s actual endowment distributions have 

averaged 4.3 percent of the beginning-of-year endowment market value, 

ranging from a low of 3.2 percent in 1999 to a high of 5.1 percent in 2003. 

Page 33 GAO-10-393 College and University Endowments
Appendix III: Harvard University Case Study 

As shown below in figure 11, annual distributions increased steadily over 

most of the period in real dollars, peaking at nearly $1.7 billion in 2009. 

Figure 11: Harvard University Endowment Distributions in 2009 Dollars, 1990 through 2009 

Distribution, 2009 dollars (in millions)

Fiscal year ending June 30th

Source: GAO analysis of Harvard University financial data.

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

1,600

1,800

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

1,651 1,656

1,376

1,106

1,047 1,054

719

561 523

415 438 432 448 392

332 349 327

807

1,038

1,147

Of Harvard’s 2009 endowment distribution, approximately $231 million, or 

14 percent, was distributed from funds restricted for financial aid. In 

addition to this amount, a Harvard official said that other endowment 

distributions from unrestricted funds went toward financial aid, although 

they were unable to provide specific data on this. 

Page 34 GAO-10-393 College and University Endowments
Appendix IV: Howard University Case Study Appendix IV: Howard University Case Study 

Howard University is a private university founded in 1867 and located in 

Washington, D.C. As a historically African-American university, Howard 

places particular emphasis upon educational opportunities for black 

students. While the university is private, about 35 percent of the 

university’s budget is financed through a federal appropriation. The total 

full-time-equivalent (FTE) student enrollment for the 2008-09 school year 

was 9,501 students, and the cost of attendance for a full-time 

undergraduate for the 2009-10 school year was $28,972.1

 Howard 

University reports that financial aid to undergraduate students averaged 

$16,990 in 2009. 

At nearly $484 million in 2009 dollars, Howard’s endowment placed the 

university in the top 5 percent of schools by total endowment size and in 

the top 15 percent by endowment per student in 2008.2

 Further data on 

Howard’s endowment are in table 5 below. Information about Howard’s 

operating expenses, endowment restrictions, and endowment 

distributions for 2009 was not available at the time of our study. 

 

1

The total cost of attendance includes tuition, room, board, and required fees. In addition, 

the average need-based grant award is an average for full-time undergraduates who applied 

for, qualified for, and received need-based aid from any source. Information about 

Howard’s cost of attendance for a full-time undergraduate and average need-based 

financial aid award from all nonloan sources was not available for 2009. 

2

Fiscal year 2008 was the most recent year for which national data were available. Except 

where noted, all dollar values have been adjusted for inflation to constant 2009 dollars 

using the Consumer Price Index. 

Page 35 GAO-10-393 College and University Endowments 
Appendix IV: Howard University Case Study 

Table 5: Howard University—Endowment Facts, 2007 and 2008 

Structure and management Howard University’s endowment funds are pooled for investing purposes 

and externally managed by an investment company chosen by the Board 

of Trustees. Officials told us that these funds do not include any funds 

held by the Howard University Hospital, or any external foundations. 

Market value as of June 30, 2008 (in 2009 dollars) $483,834,000a

Market value per student, 2008 (in 2009 dollars) $50,924

Distribution, 2007 (in 2009 dollars) $9,222,000a

Distribution as a percentage of beginning-of-year market 

value, 2007 

2.6

Share of operating expenses funded by endowment 

distribution, 2007 (percent) 

1.1

Source: GAO analysis of Howard data 

a

Rounded to the nearest thousand. 

c

Institutions with similar endowment distributions may differ substantially in the share of their 

operating expenses funded by those distributions when there are large differences in the types of 

operating expenses at an institution. At some institutions, for example, operating expenses included 

hospital services that constituted a significant portion of total operating expenses, while at other 

institutions operating expenses included only education-related expenses such as faculty 

compensation and building maintenance. 

From 1989 to 2008, the average annual inflation-adjusted change in the 

market value of Howard’s endowment was an 8.6 percent increase.3

 As 

seen in figure 12 below, after accounting for inflation, the real value of 

Howard’s endowment grew from $118 million to $484 million over the 

period despite losses in some years. Information about Howard’s 

endowment market value for 2009 was not available at the time of our 

study. 

 

3

As discussed previously, the change in endowment market value is a function of 

investment returns, new gifts, distributions, and any other inflows or outflows of money. 

Page 36 GAO-10-393 College and University Endowments
Appendix IV: Howard University Case Study 

Figure 12: Howard University Endowment Market Value in 2009 Dollars, 1989 through 2008 

End-of-year market value, 2009 dollars (in millions)

Fiscal year ending June 30th

Source: GAO analysis Howard financial data.

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

118

440

379

443

484

419

378 388

421

400 387

337

295

236

145

118 128 117 114 109

Note: Although this graph presents 20 data points, it captures only 19 years of growth. This is 

because the first value—market value as of the end of 1989—is equivalent to the beginning-of-year 

value for 1990. Therefore, the growth represented in the graph is from the beginning of 1990 through 

the end of 2008. 

Approximately 14 percent of Howard’s endowment in 2007 was 

permanently restricted. This amount, consisting of the original gift amount 

of donor-restricted funds, can never be spent. 86 percent of the 

endowment was temporarily restricted or unrestricted earnings on donorrestricted endowment funds. 

Howard officials said the large majority of funds are restricted for a 

particular purpose by their donor. In 2007, the most recent year of 

available data, the five major categories of restricted endowments were 

scholarships, professorships, fellowships, academic support, and lectures. 

Further information about these purpose restrictions was not available at 

the time of our study. 

According to its spending policy, Howard University sets a limit on the 

annual target distribution for its pooled endowment of 5 percent of the 3-

year moving average of the endowment’s total market value, with the most 

recent year removed. In the 10 years from 1998 to 2007, Howard’s actual 

distributions from its endowment averaged 2 percent of the beginning-ofPage 37 GAO-10-393 College and University Endowments
Appendix IV: Howard University Case Study 

year endowment market value, ranging from a low of 1.2 percent in 1999 to 

a high of 2.7 percent in 2003. As shown below in figure 13, annual 

distributions increased in real dollars from nearly $4 million in 1998 to just 

over $9 million in 2007. Information on Howard’s endowment distributions 

for 1989 through 1997, 2008, and 2009 was not available at the time of our 

study. 

Figure 13: Howard University Endowment Distributions in 2009 Dollars, 1998 through 2007 

Distribution, 2009 dollars (in millions)

Fiscal year ending June 30th

Source: GAO analysis of Howard financial data.

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

9.0 8.7

9.2 8.9

10.2

8.5

8.7

4.7

3.9 4.0

Of Howard’s 2007 endowment distribution of $9.2 million in 2009 dollars, 

approximately $6.4 million—about 70 percent—was distributed for 

spending on scholarships. The amount Howard distributed for 

scholarships in 2009 was not available at the time of our study. 

Page 38 GAO-10-393 College and University Endowments
Appendix V: Smith College Case Study Appendix V: Smith College Case Study 

Smith College is a private liberal arts college, founded in 1871 and located 

in Northampton, Massachusetts. Total enrollment at Smith was 

approximately 3,000 full-time-equivalent (FTE) students for the 2008-09 

school year. Smith admits only women at the undergraduate level and 

admits men and women into its graduate programs. Smith’s total 

undergraduate cost of attendance for the 2008-09 school year was $48,108, 

and the average need-based financial aid award from all nonloan sources 

for those undergraduates receiving awards was $29,403.1

At nearly $1.4 billion in 2009 dollars, Smith’s endowment placed the 

college in the top 3 percent of schools by total endowment size and in the 

top 3 percent by endowment per FTE student in 2008.2

 Smith’s endowment 

fell to slightly under $1.1 billion in 2009. Further data on Smith’s 

endowment are in table 6 below. 

 

1

The total cost of attendance includes tuition, room, board, and required fees. In addition, 

the average need-based financial aid award is an average for full-time undergraduates who 

applied for, qualified for, and received need-based aid from any nonloan source, including 

federal and state grants, financial aid from Smith, and outside scholarships. 

2

Fiscal year 2008 was the most recent year for which national data were available. Except 

where noted, all dollar values have been adjusted for inflation to constant 2009 dollars 

using the Consumer Price Index. 

Page 39 GAO-10-393 College and University Endowments 
Appendix V: Smith College Case Study 

Table 6: Smith College—Endowment Facts, 2009 

Structure and management Smith has a single, centralized endowment made up of 

approximately 1,900 individual funds. Nearly all of the funds are 

pooled for investing purposes and managed by an external 

investment company, according to officials.a

 

Market value as of June 30, 2009 $1,096,322,000b

Market value per FTE student $353,766

Distribution $67,900,000b

Distribution as a percentage of beginning-of-year market value 5.0

Share of operating expenses funded by distribution (percent) 33.4c

Source: GAO analysis of Smith data. 

a

In addition to Smith’s pooled funds, officials said that the endowment in 2009 included approximately 

$13 million to $14 million in assets held in trusts by others and approximately $2 million in assets held 

by Smith that were separately invested due to a donor restriction on investment. According to 

officials, Smith did not include the assets held in trusts by others in its reported endowment amounts 

prior to 1996. 

b

Rounded to the nearest thousand. 

c

Institutions with similar endowment distributions may differ substantially in the share of their 

operating expenses funded by those distributions when there are large differences in the types of 

operating expenses at an institution. At some institutions, for example, operating expenses included 

hospital services that constituted a significant portion of total operating expenses, while at other 

institutions operating expenses included only education-related expenses such as faculty 

compensation and building maintenance. 

Over the past 20 years, the average annual inflation-adjusted change in the 

market value of Smith’s endowment was a 3.8 percent increase.3

 As seen 

in figure 14 below, after accounting for inflation, the real value of Smith

endowment has grown from $672 million to $1.1 billion over the period 

despite periodic losses, particularly in the most recent year. 

’s 

 

3

As discussed previously, the change in endowment market value is a function of 

investment returns, new gifts, distributions, and any other inflows or outflows of money. 

Page 40 GAO-10-393 College and University Endowments
Appendix V: Smith College Case Study 

Figure 14: Smith College Endowment Market Value in 2009 Dollars, 1989 through 2009 

End-of-year market value, 2009 dollars (in millions)

Fiscal year ending June 30th

Source: GAO analysis of Smith financial data.

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

1,600

1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

1,096

1,385 1,431

1,160

1,066

971

1,025

1,154

1,053

923

810

717

656 649

588

546 569 572

1,150 1,125

1,247

Note: Although this graph presents 21 data points, it captures only 20 years of growth. This is 

because the first value—market value as of the end of 1989—is equivalent to the beginning-of-year 

value for 1990. Therefore, the growth represented in the graph is from the beginning of 1990 through 

the end of 2009. 

Around one-quarter of Smith’s endowment in 2009 was permanently 

restricted. This amount, consisting of the original gift amount of donorrestricted funds, can never be spent. Forty-six percent of the endowment 

was temporarily restricted earnings on donor-restricted endowment funds. 

The remaining 28 percent of the endowment was quasi-endowment funds 

that can be spent at any time by the school. 

Smith officials said that scholarships and faculty compensation are the 

two most common restrictions on the use of endowment earnings. Smith 

financial data showed that funds restricted for these purposes constitute 

more than half of the endowment. Table 7 below details the top six 

categories of restrictions for spending purpose. 

Page 41 GAO-10-393 College and University Endowments
Appendix V: Smith College Case Study 

Table 7: Smith College—Endowment Restrictions by Purpose, 2009 

Purpose of restriction 

Percent of

endowment assets

Undergraduate grant aid 33

Faculty compensation 20

Operation and maintenance of facilities 6

Libraries 3

Faculty research support 3

Other purpose or no purpose restriction 35

Total 100

Source: GAO analysis of Smith data. 

Smith determines the annual target distribution for its pooled endowment 

by adding 4 percent to the prior year’s distribution, provided that the 

resulting amount is within 4 and 6 percent of the endowment market value 

as of December 31st of the prior year.4

 If the distribution falls outside of 

that range, Smith may decide to increase or decrease the 4 percent 

inflation factor. Over the past 20 years, Smith’s actual distributions from 

its endowment have averaged 4.9 percent of the beginning-of-year 

endowment market value, ranging from a low of 4.2 percent in 1998 to a 

high of 5.7 percent in 2003. As shown below in figure 15, annual 

distributions increased steadily over most of the period in real dollars, 

peaking at approximately $68 million in 2009. 

 

4

Prior to 2006, Smith calculated its target distribution as 5.25 percent of a 12-quarter rolling 

average of market values. According to officials, Smith changed the formula to better 

balance the risk of real decline in endowment value and to smooth the effects of market 

volatility on the operating budget. 

Page 42 GAO-10-393 College and University Endowments
Appendix V: Smith College Case Study 

Figure 15: Smith College Endowment Distributions in 2009 Dollars, 1990 through 2009 

Distribution, 2009 dollars (in millions)

Fiscal year ending June 30th

Source: GAO analysis of Smith financial data.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

29

52 51 53

61

68

54

57 57

54

49

44

38

35 33 33 32 31 30 30

Of Smith’s 2009 endowment distribution, approximately one-third—$22.5 

million—was distributed from funds restricted for undergraduate grant 

aid. In addition, officials said that endowment distributions directly 

assisted students through graduate scholarships, internships, student 

work, student prizes, and emergency financial assistance, but they did not 

provide specific data on this. 

Page 43 GAO-10-393 College and University Endowments
Appendix VI: St. Mary’s University Case Study Appendix VI: St. Mary’s University Case 

Study 

St. Mary’s University is a Catholic, Marianist, private liberal arts institution 

located in San Antonio, Texas. The school was founded in 1852. The 

university’s total enrollment for the 2008-09 school year was 

approximately 3,600 full-time-equivalent (FTE) students. The cost of 

attendance for a full-time undergraduate for the 2008-09 school year was 

$28,966 and the average need-based financial aid award from all nonloan 

sources for those undergraduates receiving awards was $12,451.1

At $149 million in 2009 dollars, the endowment of St. Mary’s placed the 

university in the top 20 percent of schools by total endowment size and in 

the top 40 percent by endowment per FTE student in 2008.2

 The 

endowment of St. Mary’s fell to $116 million in 2009. Further data on St. 

Mary’s University’s endowment are in table 8 below. 

Table 8: St. Mary’s University—Endowment Facts, 2009 

Structure and management St. Mary’s has a single centralized endowment that is invested 

with several external fund managers, is overseen by an 

investment committee appointed by the Board of Trustees, and 

monitored by an external investment consultant. The endowment 

consists of approximately 270 individual funds established mainly 

for the use of scholarships, professorships, and endowed chairs, 

according to officials. 

Market value as of May 31, 2009 $116,475,000a

Market value per FTE student $32,299 

Distribution $5,603,000a

Distribution as a percentage of beginning-of-year market value 3.8

Share of operating expenses funded by distribution (percent) 7.0b

Source: GAO analysis of St. Mary’s data. 

a

Rounded to the nearest thousand. 

b

Institutions with similar endowment distributions may differ substantially in the share of their 

operating expenses funded by those distributions when there are large differences in the types of 

operating expenses at an institution. At some institutions, for example, operating expenses included 

hospital services that constituted a significant portion of total operating expenses, while at other 

institutions operating expenses included only education-related expenses such as faculty 

compensation and building maintenance. 

 

1

The total cost of attendance includes tuition, room, board, and required fees. In addition, 

the average need-based financial aid award is an average for full-time undergraduates who 

applied for, qualified for, and received need-based aid from any nonloan source, including 

federal and state grants, financial aid from St. Mary’s, and outside scholarships. 

2

Fiscal year 2008 was the most recent year for which national data were available. Except 

where noted, all dollar values have been adjusted for inflation to constant 2009 dollars 

using the Consumer Price Index. 

Page 44 GAO-10-393 College and University Endowments 
Appendix VI: St. Mary’s University Case Study 

Over the past 20 years, the average annual inflation-adjusted change in the 

market value of the endowment of St. Mary’s was a 6.5 percent increase.3

As seen in figure 16 below, after accounting for inflation, the real value of 

St. Mary’s University’s endowment has grown from $36 million to $116 

million over the period, despite recent declines. 

s grown from $36 million to $116 

Figure 16: St. Mary’s University Endowment Market Value in 2009 Dollars, 1989 through 2009 

End-of-year market value, 2009 dollars (in millions)

Fiscal year ending May 31st

Source: GAO analysis of St. Mary’s financial data.

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

36

116

147

162

149

116

109

99 97 101 102

94

85

70

62

56

50 48 45 40 42

Note: Although this graph presents 21 data points, it captures only 20 years of growth. This is 

because the first value—market value as of the end of 1989—is equivalent to the beginning-of-year 

value for 1990. Therefore, the growth represented in the graph is from the beginning of 1990 through 

the end of 2009. 

Approximately half of the endowment of St. Mary’s in 2009 was 

permanently restricted. This amount, consisting of the original gift amount 

of donor-restricted funds, can never be spent. Just over 16 percent of the 

endowment was temporarily restricted or unrestricted earnings on donorrestricted endowment funds. The remaining one-third of the endowment 

was quasi-endowment funds that do not have to be permanently held and 

can be spent by the school at the discretion of the Board of Trustees. 

 

3

As discussed previously, the change in endowment market value is a function of 

investment returns, new gifts, distributions, and any other inflows or outflows of money. 

Page 45 GAO-10-393 College and University Endowments
Appendix VI: St. Mary’s University Case Study 

St. Mary’s officials said that most endowment gifts are restricted for a 

specific purpose and data from the school show that scholarships are the 

most common purpose restriction. Table 9 below details the top five 

categories of these purpose restrictions. 

Table 9: St. Mary’s University—Endowment Restrictions by Purpose, 2009 

Purpose of restriction 

Percent of

endowment assets

Scholarships 45

Professor compensation and supporting expenses 21

Bill Greehey School of Business programs 19

Institutional support – operating expenses 7

Other purpose restriction 8

Total 100

Source: GAO analysis of St. Mary’s data. 

The St. Mary’s University endowment distribution policy is to target a 

distribution rate of up to 4.75 percent of the three-year moving average of 

total market value.4

 Within this constraint, St. Mary’s considers general 

factors such as its operating needs and preserving the purchasing power of 

the endowment when determining its annual distribution. Over the past 20 

years, actual distributions by St. Mary’s from its endowment have averaged 

3.8 percent of the beginning-of-year endowment market value, ranging 

from a high of 5.6 percent in 1991 to a low of 3.0 percent in 1998. As shown 

below in figure 17, annual distributions increased over most of the period 

in real dollars, peaking at approximately $5.5 million in 2009. 

 

4

For gifts of $5 million or more, the donor may request a higher spending percentage or 

different market value average for calculating the distribution, or both, provided the use is 

within the mission of the university and the donor acknowledges the potential risks of loss 

of future purchasing power. 

Page 46 GAO-10-393 College and University Endowments
Appendix VI: St. Mary’s University Case Study 

Figure 17: St. Mary’s University Endowment Distributions in 2009 Dollars, 1990 through 2009 

Distribution, 2009 dollars (in millions)

Fiscal year ending May 31st

Source: GAO analysis of St. Mary’s University financial data.

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

1.5

3.8

3.6

4.4

5.2

4.0 4.1

3.6

3.8

3.1

3.5

2.0

2.3

2.0 2.0 1.9

1.6

1.8

2.1

5.6

Of St. Mary’s University’s total endowment distribution in 2009, just over 

half—$3.4 million—was distributed for spending on scholarships, the 

largest of any of the university’s endowment spending categories.5

 

5

This percentage is based on the total distribution from the endowment, before accounting 

for any reinvestments of unspent funds. In 2009, this total distribution was $6.7 million, 

while the distribution net of these reinvestments was $5.6 million, as shown in table 8 

above. 

Page 47 GAO-10-393 College and University Endowments
Appendix VII: Stanford University Case Study Appendix VII: Stanford University Case Study

Stanford University is a private research university founded in California 

in 1885. Total enrollment at Stanford was approximately 14,815 full-timeequivalent (FTE) students for the 2008-09 school year. Stanford’s total 

undergraduate cost of attendance for the 2008-09 school year was $49,344, 

and the average need-based financial aid award from all nonloan sources 

for those undergraduates receiving awards was $36,419.1

At nearly $17.5 billion in 2009 dollars, Stanford’s endowment placed the 

university in the top 1 percent of schools by both total endowment size 

and endowment per FTE student in 2008.2

 Stanford’s endowment fell to 

$12.6 billion in 2009. Further data on Stanford’s endowment are in table 10 

below. 

Table 10: Stanford University—Endowment Facts, 2009 

Structure and management According to university officials, Stanford’s endowment consists of 

approximately 6,500 individual funds. Nearly all of the funds are 

pooled for investment purposes. The Stanford Management 

Company was established in 1991, as a division of the University, 

to manage Stanford’s investments. It determines overall asset 

allocation and selects third party managers within each asset 

class to make individual security investment decisions. 

Market value as of August 31, 2009 $12,619,094,000

Market value per FTE student $851,778

Distribution $956,518,000a

Distribution as a percentage of beginning-of-year market value 5.6

Share of operating expenses funded by distribution (percent) 31b

Source: GAO analysis of Stanford data. 

a

Rounded to the nearest thousand. 

b

Institutions with similar endowment distributions may differ substantially in the share of their 

operating expenses funded by those distributions when there are large differences in the types of 

operating expenses at an institution. At some institutions, for example, operating expenses included 

hospital services that constituted a significant portion of total operating expenses, while at other 

institutions operating expenses included only education-related expenses such as faculty 

compensation and building maintenance. 

 

1

The total cost of attendance includes tuition, room, board, and required fees. In addition, 

the average need-based financial aid award is an average for full-time undergraduates who 

applied for, qualified for, and received need-based aid from any nonloan source, including 

federal and state grants, financial aid from Stanford, and outside scholarships. 

2

Fiscal year 2008 was the most recent year for which national data were available. Except 

where noted, all dollar values have been adjusted for inflation to constant 2009 dollars 

using the Consumer Price Index. 

Page 48 GAO-10-393 College and University Endowments 
Appendix VII: Stanford University Case Study 

Since 1989, the average annual inflation-adjusted change in the market 

value of Stanford’s endowment was a 7.4 percent increase.3

 As seen in 

figure 18 below, after accounting for inflation, the real value of Stanford’s 

endowment has grown from $3.7 billion to $12.6 billion over the period 

despite losses, particularly in the most recent year. 

e period 

Figure 18: Stanford University Endowment Market Value in 2009 Dollars, 1989 through 2009 

End-of-year market value, 2009 dollars (in billions)

Fiscal year ending August 31st

Source: GAO analysis of Stanford University financial data.

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

3.7

13.7

15.2

18

17.5

12.6

11.4

10.2

9.2

10.1

11.3

8.1

6.3 6.3

5.3

4.5 4.6 4.3

3.5 3.7 3.8

Note: Although this graph presents 21 data points, it captures only 20 years of growth. This is 

because the first value—market value as of the end of 1989—is equivalent to the beginning-of-year 

value for 1990. Therefore, the growth represented in the graph is from the beginning of 1990 through 

the end of 2009. 

About one-third of Stanford’s endowment in 2009 was permanently 

restricted. This amount, consisting of the original gift amount of donorrestricted funds, can never be spent. Almost 30 percent of the endowment 

was temporarily restricted or unrestricted earnings on donor-restricted 

endowment funds. The remainder of the endowment, about 37 percent of 

the endowment, was quasi-endowment funds that can be spent with the 

approval of the Board of Trustees in accordance with donor stipulations 

for spending purpose. 

 

3

As discussed previously, the change in endowment market value is a function of 

investment returns, new gifts, distributions, and any other inflows or outflows of money. 

Page 49 GAO-10-393 College and University Endowments
Appendix VII: Stanford University Case Study 

Stanford officials said that the large majority of the gifts it receives are 

restricted for a particular purpose by the donor. Table 11 details the top 

categories of these purpose restrictions for endowment funds. 

Table 11: Stanford University—Endowment Restrictions by Purpose, 2009 

Purpose of restriction 

Percent of

endowment assets

Instruction and research 28

Faculty chair support 17

Graduate aid 12

Undergraduate aid 10

Other or miscellaneous 11

Not restricted for purpose 23

Total 100

Source: GAO analysis of Stanford data. 

Note: Percentages do not sum to 100 due to rounding. 

Stanford officials told us that the school determines the annual 

distribution for its endowment in advance of each fiscal year (for budget 

purposes) by using a combination of the current year’s distribution rate 

and a target rate. The distribution is reviewed and approved by the Board 

of Trustees. The university sets the disbursement rate by placing a 70% 

weight on the current year’s distribution rate and a 30% weight on the 

target rate. Over the past 20 years, Stanford’s actual endowment 

distributions have averaged 4.9 percent of the beginning-of-year 

endowment market value, ranging from a low of 4 percent in 2001 to a high 

of 5.8 percent in 1993. As shown below in figure 19, annual distributions 

increased steadily over most of the period in real dollars, peaking at 

approximately $957 million in 2009. 

Page 50 GAO-10-393 College and University Endowments
Appendix VII: Stanford University Case Study 

Figure 19: Stanford University Endowment Distributions in 2009 Dollars, 1990 through 2009 

Distribution, 2009 dollars (in millions)

Fiscal year ending August 31st

Source: GAO analysis of Stanford University financial data.

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

957

894

640

506

461 461

399

341

305

259 234 221 224 213

164 159 155

435 455

577

Of Stanford’s 2009 endowment distribution of $957 million, approximately 

$224 million—about 23 percent—was distributed from funds restricted for 

undergraduate grant aid and for graduate and postdoctoral grants and 

stipends. In addition to this amount, officials said that some amount of 

endowment distributions from unrestricted funds and from restricted 

instructional and research support funds went toward financial aid, but 

they were unable to provide specific data on this. 

Page 51 GAO-10-393 College and University Endowments
Appendix VIII: University of Colorado Case 

Study 

Page 52 GAO-10-393 

Appendix VIII: University of Colorado Case 

Study 

The University of Colorado (CU) is a public teaching and research 

institution founded in Boulder, Colorado, in 1876. CU has four campuses: 

the University of Colorado at Boulder, the University of Colorado at 

Denver, the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, and the 

University of Colorado at Colorado Springs. Total enrollment at CU was 

approximately 46,638 full-time-equivalent (FTE) students for the 2008-09 

school year. For the 2008-09 school year at the University of Colorado at 

Boulder (the largest institution in the system), the total undergraduate 

cost of attendance was $36,625 for out-of-state students and $17,138 for instate students, and the average need-based financial aid award from all 

nonloan sources for those undergraduates receiving awards was $6,729.1

CU has both an endowment that it owns directly as well as an associated 

foundation, the University of Colorado Foundation (CUF), which has a 

separate, much larger endowment that benefits CU. In 2008, the combined 

CU and CUF endowments were $784 million in 2009 dollars, placing CU in 

the top 4 percent of schools by total endowment size and in the top 40 

percent by endowment per FTE student.2

 The combined endowments 

declined to $635 million in 2009. Our analysis focuses mostly on the 

foundation’s endowment because it accounts for over 90 percent of the 

combined endowment. Some data regarding CU endowment distributions 

were not available to us at the time of our study, nor were data on either 

the CU or CUF endowment values prior to 2000. Available data on CU’s 

and CUF’s endowments are in table 12. 

 

1

The total cost of attendance includes tuition, room, board, and required fees. In addition, 

the average need-based financial aid award is an average for full-time undergraduates who 

applied for, qualified for, and received need-based aid from any nonloan source, including 

federal and state grants, financial aid from CU or CUF, and outside scholarships. 

2

Fiscal year 2008 was the most recent year for which national data were available. Except 

where noted, all dollar values have been adjusted for inflation to constant 2009 dollars 

using the Consumer Price Index. 

 College and University Endowments 
Appendix VIII: University of Colorado Case 

Study 

Table 12: CU and CUF—Endowment Facts, 2009 

Structure and management CU manages a few endowments which primarily include externally managed 

trusts. CUF is responsible for managing endowment funds and other gifts that 

benefit CU. These include endowments given directly to the CUF as well as 

the majority of endowments owned by the university. 

CU CUF

Market Value as of June 30, 2009 $41,968,000a$593,304,000a

Market Value per FTE Student $900 $12,721

Distribution Not available $23,042,000

Distribution as a Percentage of Beginning-of-Year 

Market Value 

Not available 3.2

Share of operating expenses funded by distribution 

(percent) 

Not available 1.1b

Source: GAO analysis of CU and CUF data. 

a

Rounded to the nearest thousand. 

b

This calculation uses the operating expenses of CU, since CU is the entity whose operations the 

distribution supports. Institutions with similar endowment distributions may differ substantially in the 

share of their operating expenses funded by those distributions when there are large differences in 

the types of operating expenses at an institution. At some institutions, for example, operating 

expenses included hospital services that constituted a significant portion of total operating expenses, 

while at other institutions operating expenses included only education-related expenses such as 

faculty compensation and building maintenance. 

Since 2000, the average annual inflation-adjusted change in the market 

value of the combined CU and CUF endowments was a 2.5 percent 

increase.3

 As seen in figure 20 below, after accounting for inflation, the 

real value of the combined endowments has grown from $540 million to 

$635 million over the past 10 years despite declines in some years, 

including 2008 and 2009. 

 

3

As discussed previously, the change in endowment market value is a function of 

investment returns, new gifts, distributions, and any other inflows or outflows of money. 

Page 53 GAO-10-393 College and University Endowments
Appendix VIII: University of Colorado Case 

Study 

Figure 20: University of Colorado and University of Colorado Foundation Endowment Market Value in 2009 Dollars, 2000 

through 09 

End-of-year market value, 2009 dollars (in millions)

Fiscal year ending June 30th

Source: GAO analysis of CU and CUF financial data.

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

540

515 489

578

622

689

810 784

635

492

Notes: Data on endowment market value were not available for fiscal years 1989 through 1999. 

Although this graph presents 10 data points, it captures only 9 years of growth. This is because the 

first value—market value as of the end of 2000—is equivalent to the beginning-of-year value for 2001. 

Therefore, the growth represented in the graph is from the beginning of 2001 through the end of 

2009. 

Almost 53 percent of CUF’s endowment in 2009 was permanently 

restricted. This amount, consisting of the original gift amount of donorrestricted funds, can never be spent. Twelve percent of the endowment 

was temporarily restricted earnings on donor-restricted endowment funds. 

The remaining 35 percent of the endowment was quasi-endowment funds 

that do not have to be permanently held and can be spent by the school in 

accordance with donor stipulations for spending purpose. 

Faculty positions and financial aid are the two most common designations 

for donor restrictions, and CUF financial data showed that assets 

restricted for these purposes comprise about two-thirds of the 

endowment. Table 13 below details the top categories of restrictions for 

spending purpose. 

Page 54 GAO-10-393 College and University Endowments
Appendix VIII: University of Colorado Case 

Study 

Table 13: University of Colorado Foundation—Endowment Restrictions by Purpose, 

2009 

Purpose of restriction 

Percent of

endowment assets

Professorships and Chairs 32

Financial Aid 28

Academic 15

Research 11

Other Purpose 14

Total 100

Source: GAO analysis of CUF data. 

The CUF’s policy is to set an annual target distribution rate as the greater 

of 4 percent of the current market value of the endowment, or 4.5 percent 

of the endowment’s trailing 36-month average fair market value. Over the 

past 9 years, CUF’s actual distributions from its endowment have averaged 

4.1 percent of the beginning-of-year endowment market value, ranging 

from a low of 3.2 percent in 2009 to a high of 4.8 percent in 2003. As shown 

below in figure 21, annual distributions increased in real dollars in most 

years, peaking at approximately $29 million in 2008. 

Figure 21: University of Colorado Foundation Endowment Distributions in 2009 Dollars, 1998 through 2009 

Distribution, 2009 dollars (in millions)

Fiscal year ending June 30th

Source: GAO analysis of CU and CUF financial data.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

17

19

21 20 21

23

26

29

23

22

15

11

Page 55 GAO-10-393 College and University Endowments
Appendix VIII: University of Colorado Case 

Study 

According to officials, spending from the endowment in 2009 was $26.8 

million, including the $23 million distributed from CUF in 2009 plus money 

from prior years. Of this, $8.7 million—or 33 percent—was from funds 

restricted for financial aid. In addition to this amount, officials said that 

some endowment distributions from unrestricted funds went toward 

financial aid, but they were unable to provide specific data on this. 

Page 56 GAO-10-393 College and University Endowments
Appendix IX: University of Kentucky Case 

Study 

Page 57 GAO-10-393 

Appendix IX: University of Kentucky Case 

Study 

The University of Kentucky (UK) is a public university founded in 1865. 

The university’s total fall enrollment for the 2008-09 school year was 

approximately 24,500 full-time-equivalent (FTE) students. For the 2008-09 

school year, the total undergraduate cost of attendance was $24,669 for 

out-of-state students and $16,521 for in-state students, and the average 

need-based financial aid award from all nonloan sources for those 

undergraduates receiving awards was $5,118.1

At more than $884 million in 2009 dollars, UK’s endowment placed the 

institution in the top 4 percent of schools by total endowment size and in 

the top 40 percent by endowment per FTE student in 2008.2

 The UK 

endowment declined to about $668 million in 2009. Since the late 1990s, 

over $200 million was added by the state of Kentucky to the UK 

endowment under an endowment match program. The program matches 

state money, up to the amount appropriated in each year’s state budget, 

with private gifts to fund endowed chairs, professorships, fellowships, and 

scholarships. It was developed by the state of Kentucky to encourage 

private investment in public higher education and is used specifically by 

UK to expand its research agenda.3

 Further data on the endowment are in 

table 14 below. 

 

1

The total cost of attendance includes tuition, room, board, and required fees. In addition, 

the average need-based financial aid award is an average for full-time undergraduates who 

applied for, qualified for, and received need-based aid from any nonloan source, including 

federal and state grants, financial aid from UK, and outside scholarships. 

2

Fiscal year 2008 was the most recent year for which national data were available. Except 

where noted, all dollar values have been adjusted for inflation to constant 2009 dollars 

using the Consumer Price Index. 

3

The Kentucky Postsecondary Education Improvement Act was passed in 1997 and created 

six trust funds, including the Research Challenge Trust Fund. The funds provide for 

strategic investment at the University of Kentucky, University of Louisville, and Kentucky’s 

six regional universities. 

 College and University Endowments 
Appendix IX: University of Kentucky Case 

Study 

Table 14: University of Kentucky—Endowment Facts, 2009 

Structure and management UK has one centralized endowment, which is pooled for 

investment purposes and managed by an external investment 

company. According to officials, the UK endowment is made up of 

1,950 funds. 

Market value as of June 30, 2009 $668,008,000a

Market value per FTE student $27,210

Distribution $44,169,000a

Distribution as a percentage of beginning-of-year market value 5.1

Share of operating expenses funded by distribution (percent) 2.2b

Source: GAO analysis of University of Kentucky data. 

a

Rounded to the nearest thousand. 

b

Institutions with similar endowment distributions may differ substantially in the share of their 

operating expenses funded by those distributions when there are large differences in the types of 

operating expenses at an institution. At some institutions, for example, operating expenses included 

hospital services that constituted a significant portion of total operating expenses, while at other 

institutions operating expenses included only education-related expenses such as faculty 

compensation and building maintenance. 

Since 1989, the average annual inflation-adjusted change in the market 

value of UK’s endowment was a 10.1 percent increase.4

 As seen in figure 

22 below, after accounting for inflation, the real value of the endowment 

has grown from $123 million in 1990 to $668 million in 2009, despite rece

losses. 

nt 

 

4

As discussed previously, the change in endowment market value is a function of 

investment returns, new gifts, distributions, and any other inflows or outflows of money. 

Page 58 GAO-10-393 College and University Endowments
Appendix IX: University of Kentucky Case 

Study 

Figure 22: University of Kentucky, Endowment Market Value in 2009 Dollars, 1989 through 2009 

End-of-year market value, 2009 dollars (in millions)

Fiscal year ending June 30th

Source: GAO analysis of UK financial data.

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

668

884

964

603

566

481 488

430

292

264

207 183 166 136 152 123 130 118

471

516

805

Note: Although this graph presents 21 data points, it captures only 20 years of growth. This is 

because the first value—market value as of the end of 1989—is equivalent to the beginning-of-year 

value for 1990. Therefore, the growth represented in the graph is from the beginning of 1990 through 

the end of 2009. 

Nearly two-thirds of UK’s endowment in 2009 was classified as restricted 

nonexpendable assets. This amount, consisting of the original gift amount 

of donor-restricted funds, can never be spent. Nearly 6 percent of the 

endowment was restricted expendable earnings on donor-restricted 

endowment funds. The remaining 30 percent of the endowment was quasiendowment funds that do not have to be permanently held and can be 

spent by the school in accordance with donor stipulations for spending 

purpose. 

UK officials said that most of UK’s endowment funds are restricted for a 

particular purpose by their donor. A common purpose restriction is for 

faculty positions such as endowed chairs. Table 15 below details the top 

categories of these purpose restrictions. 

Page 59 GAO-10-393 College and University Endowments
Appendix IX: University of Kentucky Case 

Study 

Table 15: University of Kentucky—Endowment Restrictions by Purpose, 2009 

Purpose of restriction 

Percent of

endowment assets

Scholarships and fellowships 19

Chairs, professorships, lectureships 28

Enrichments 13

Other purpose or no purpose restriction 40

Total 100

Source: GAO analysis of University of Kentucky data. 

UK currently calculates the annual target distribution for its long-term 

pooled investments as 4.5 percent of the average market value of the 

endowment over the preceding 36 months. Over the past 18 years, UK’s 

actual distributions from its endowment have averaged 5.4 percent of the 

beginning-of-year endowment market value, ranging from a high of 6.7 

percent in 1993 to a low of 4.0 percent in 1998. As shown below in figure 

23, annual distributions increased steadily over most of the period in real 

dollars, peaking at approximately $44 million in 2009. 

Figure 23: University of Kentucky Endowment Distributions in 2009 Dollars, 1993 through 2009 

Distribution, 2009 dollars (in millions)

Fiscal year ending June 30th

Source: GAO analysis of UK financial data. 

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

20.1

24.3

27.9

31.2 30 30.1

35.3

41.2

44.2

31.2

16

10.4 9.4 9.4 9.3 8.8 8.9

Note: Data on endowment distributions were not available for fiscal years 1989 through 1992. 

Page 60 GAO-10-393 College and University Endowments
Appendix IX: University of Kentucky Case 

Study 

About $5.4 million of UK’s actual endowment spending in 2009 of about 

$27.7 million was from endowment funds restricted for scholarships and 

fellowships. In addition to this amount, officials said that some 

endowment distributions from unrestricted funds went toward financial 

aid, but they were unable to provide specific data on this. 

Page 61 GAO-10-393 College and University Endowments
Appendix X: University of Texas System Case 

Study 

Page 62 GAO-10-393 

Appendix X: University of Texas System Case 

Study 

Established by the Texas Constitution in 1876, The University of Texas 

(UT) system is a public university system consisting of nine academic and 

six health institutions. Among these are major research universities such 

as UT Austin, the UT system’s flagship institution founded in 1883, and 

newer and smaller universities such as UT Permian Basin and UT Tyler, 

and medical centers for research, education, and patient care. Total 

enrollment for the UT system during the 2008-09 school year was more 

than 150,000 full-time-equivalent (FTE) students. For the 2008-09 school 

year at UT Austin, the total undergraduate cost of attendance was $37,312 

for out-of-state students and $17,754 for in-state students, and the average 

need-based financial aid award from all nonloan sources for those 

undergraduates receiving awards was $7,617.1

The UT system endowment is made up of several different groups of 

endowment funds, which vary in how they were established, how they are 

invested and distributed, and what restrictions govern their use.2

 At nearly 

$15 billion in 2009 dollars in total, the endowment placed the UT system in 

the top 1 percent of schools by total endowment size and in the top 15 

percent of schools by endowment per student in 2008.3

 The UT system 

endowment fell to $12.2 billion in 2009. Further data on the endowment 

are in table 16. 

 

1

The total cost of attendance includes tuition, room, board, and required fees. In addition, 

the average need-based financial aid award is an average for full-time undergraduates who 

applied for, qualified for, and received need-based aid from any nonloan source, including 

federal and state grants, financial aid from UT, and outside scholarships. 

2

Throughout this report, we refer to the UT System endowment in its entirety—that is, as 

the sum of the four major funds, as well as life income and annuity funds. See note a on 

table 16 below for further details. 

3

Fiscal year 2008 was the most recent year for which national data were available. Except 

where noted, all dollar values have been adjusted for inflation to constant 2009 dollars 

using the Consumer Price Index. 

 College and University Endowments 
Appendix X: University of Texas System Case 

Study 

Table 16: University of Texas System—Endowment Facts, 2009 

Structure and management The following are the four major endowment funds held by the UT 

systema: 

Permanent University Fund (PUF): The largest of the UT system’s 

four major funds, the PUF was established in the Texas 

Constitution, which dictates how the fund is to be managed and 

spent. PUF assets include both land and investments, and the 

fund provides income from its investments and from the leasing 

and mining of its land. PUF assets constitute 57 percent of the UT 

system’s endowment. 

Permanent Health Fund (PHF): The PHF is a state-established 

fund that was created with proceeds from the state’s litigation 

against the tobacco industry and is to be used for the benefit of 

public health. PHF assets constitute 6 percent of the UT system’s 

endowment. 

Long-Term Fund (LTF): The LTF is an amalgamation of nearly 

9,000 individual donor funds, similar to pooled endowment funds 

at other schools. LTF assets constitute 35 percent of the UT 

system’s endowment. 

Separately Invested Funds (SIF): The SIF is a group of donor 

funds that, due to donor restrictions or the nature of the underlying 

assets, cannot be pooled with other funds in the LTF. SIF assets 

constitute 3 percent of the UT system’s endowment. 

To improve the management of the UT system endowment, the 

system in 1996 formed the University of Texas Investment 

Management Company as a separate, nonprofit corporation to 

manage and invest these four major funds. 

Market value as of August 31, 2009 $12,229,254,000b

Market value per FTE student $80,910

Distribution $638,400,000b

Distribution as a percentage of beginning-of-year market value 4.3

Share of operating expenses funded by distribution (percent) 5.4c

Source: GAO analysis of University of Texas system data. 

a

In addition to the four major endowment funds listed, the UT system held approximately $16 million 

of life income and annuity funds, comprising approximately 0.1 percent of its total endowment assets 

in 2009. These funds are included in the total market values reported here, although distributions 

from these funds are not included in the UT system’s reported distribution amounts. Also, portions of 

both the PUF and PHF benefit the Texas A&M University system and other institutions outside of the 

UT system. We have excluded these portions of the PUF and PHF from all analyses. 

b

Rounded to the nearest thousand. 

c

Institutions with similar endowment distributions may differ substantially in the share of their 

operating expenses funded by those distributions when there are large differences in the types of 

operating expenses at an institution. At some institutions, for example, operating expenses included 

hospital services that constituted a significant portion of total operating expenses, while at other 

institutions operating expenses included only education-related expenses such as faculty 

compensation and building maintenance. 

Page 63 GAO-10-393 College and University Endowments
Appendix X: University of Texas System Case 

Study 

Over the past 20 years, the average annual inflation-adjusted change in the 

market value of the UT system’s endowment was an 5.2 percent increase.4

As seen in figure 24 below, after accounting for inflation, the real value of 

the endowment has grown from $5.2 billion to $12.2 billion over the 

period, despite periodic losses. 

over the 

Figure 24: University of Texas System Endowment Market Value in 2009 Dollars, 1989 through 2009 

End-of-year market value, 2009 dollars (in billions)

Fiscal year ending August 31st

Source: GAO analysis of University of Texas System financial data.

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

5.1

13.7

14.4

16

14.9

12.2 12

11

10.1

11.2

13.1

11.6

9.3

6.7 6.2 6.4 6.1 5.8

5.2 5.2 5.4

Note: Although this graph presents 21 data points, it captures only 20 years of growth. This is 

because the first value—market value as of the end of 1989—is equivalent to the beginning-of-year 

value for 1990. Therefore, the growth represented in the graph is from the beginning of 1990 through 

the end of 2009. 

Nearly two-thirds of the UT system endowment in 2009 was classified as 

restricted nonexpendable assets. This amount, consisting of the original 

gift amount of donor-restricted funds, can never be spent. One-third of the 

endowment was restricted expendable assets made up primarily of 

earnings on permanent endowment funds. The remaining 3 percent of the 

endowment was quasi-endowment funds that do not have to be 

 

4

As discussed previously, the change in endowment market value is a function of 

investment returns, new gifts, distributions, and any other inflows or outflows of money. 

Page 64 GAO-10-393 College and University Endowments
Appendix X: University of Texas System Case 

Study 

permanently held and can be spent by the school in accordance with 

donor stipulations for spending purpose.5

Two of the UT system’s four major endowment funds—the LTF and SIF—

are subject to donor restrictions for spending purpose. These funds—

which constituted nearly 38 percent of total UT endowment assets in 

2009—were almost entirely restricted for spending purpose, as shown in 

table 17 below. 

Table 17: University of Texas System—LTF and SIF Restrictions by Purpose, 2009 

Purpose of restriction 

Percent of LTF and

SIF endowment assets

Miscellaneousa48

Professorship or chair 35

Scholarship 12

Faculty or graduate fellowship 5

Lectureship 0.4

Unrestricted use of chancellor 0.1

Total 100

Source: GAO analysis of University of Texas system data. 

Notes: Percentages do not sum to 100 because of rounding. 

a

According to a UT official, miscellaneous purpose restrictions include restrictions for research funds, 

book funds, program support, or endowments with multiple purposes, such as research funds and 

program support. 

The other two major UT system endowment funds—the PUF and the 

PHF—are restricted for spending purpose by state law, as follows: 

• Permanent University Fund: The Texas Constitution requires that twothirds of the annual PUF distribution benefit UT system institutions, 

while the remaining third benefit the Texas A&M University system. 

The constitution also requires that these distributions be used to pay 

the debt for capital projects such as building construction or land 

acquisition at UT institutions, with the exception of UT Austin, which 

may use some of the distribution to fund its operating expenses. 

 

5

These percentages are based on the endowment assets reported in the UT System 

Consolidated Annual Financial Reports, which include portions of the PUF and PHF that 

benefit non-UT institutions. 

Page 65 GAO-10-393 College and University Endowments
Appendix X: University of Texas System Case 

Study 

• Permanent Health Fund: The Texas Education Code restricts the 

spending of PHF distributions to purposes that benefit public health, 

such as medical research, treatment programs, or health education. 

The law also specifies which institutions—including several UT system 

institutions—may receive these distributions. 

The UT system determines annual target endowment distributions 

separately for each of its major funds. For both the LTF and the PHF, the 

UT system calculates the target distribution by increasing the prior year’s 

distribution by the average inflation rate6

 for the previous 12 quarters, and 

can adjust the distribution if it falls below 3.5 percent or above 5.5 percent 

of the average market value over the previous 12 quarters. For the PUF, 

the UT system distributes an amount equal to 4.75 percent of the average 

net asset value of the fund over 12 quarters. In years when PUF investment 

returns exceed the UT system’s expectations by a certain threshold, 

distributions will increase to 5 percent of the average net asset value of the 

fund.7

 Over the past 20 years, actual distributions from the UT system’s 

endowment have averaged 5.1 percent of the beginning-of-year total 

endowment market value, ranging from a low of 3.6 percent in 2001 to a 

high of 7.5 percent in 1990. As shown below in figure 25, annual 

distributions increased over most of the period in real dollars, peaking at 

approximately $638 million in 2009. 

 

6

This calculation is based on Consumer Price Index inflation. 

7

Because the SIF is a group of individual funds that are not pooled and are often of 

disparate asset classes, distributions are made based on the terms of each individual fund 

in the group, and not based on a uniform distribution policy, according to UT officials. 

Page 66 GAO-10-393 College and University Endowments
Appendix X: University of Texas System Case 

Study 

Figure 25: University of Texas System Endowment Distributions in 2009 Dollars, 1990 through 2009 

Distribution, 2009 dollars (in millions)

Fiscal year ending August 31st

Source: GAO analysis of University of Texas System data. 

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

364

345 343 336 340 349 351

398

352 362

436

453 471 491 487 497

537

572

638

491

Of the UT system’s 2009 endowment distribution, approximately $66 

million—or just over 10 percent—was distributed from funds restricted for 

scholarships. This amount includes distributions from LTF and SIF funds 

restricted for scholarships, as well as PUF distributions restricted for 

scholarships at UT Austin. In addition to this amount, officials said that 

some amount of endowment distributions from PHF funds and from 

unrestricted funds went toward scholarships, but they were unable to 

provide specific data on this.8

 

8

UT system officials also noted that this amount does not capture distributions for work 

study aid. 

Page 67 GAO-10-393 College and University Endowments
Appendix XI: University of Virginia Case 

Study 

Page 68 GAO-10-393 

Appendix XI: University of Virginia Case 

Study 

The University of Virginia (UVA) is a public research university, 

established in 1825 and located in Charlottesville, Virginia. The university 

consists of three divisions—the Academic Division, which is the core 

academic campus in Charlottesville; the College at Wise, a branch liberal 

arts college located in Wise, Virginia; and the Medical Center, which 

provides patient services through a hospital and clinics. Total enrollment 

at UVA was approximately 21,000 full-time-equivalent (FTE) students for 

the 2008-09 school year. The total undergraduate cost of attendance was 

$37,420 for out-of-state students and $17,120 for in-state students, and the 

average need-based financial aid award from all nonloan sources for those 

undergraduates receiving awards was $14,486 for the 2008-09 school year.1

UVA’s combined university system endowment—which includes 

endowments held by related foundations such as the Darden School 

Foundation and the Alumni Association Foundation—totaled nearly $3.6 

billion as of June 30, 2009. The portion of this endowment held by UVA 

directly stood at nearly $2.5 billion.2

 In 2008, this directly-held 

endowment—worth nearly $3.2 billion in 2009 dollars—placed UVA in the 

top 2 percent of schools by total endowment size and in the top 10 percent 

by endowment per FTE student.3

 Further data on UVA’s endowment are in 

table 18. 

 

1

The total cost of attendance includes tuition, room, board, and required fees. In addition, 

the average need-based financial aid award is an average for full-time undergraduates who 

applied for, qualified for, and received need-based aid from any nonloan source, including 

federal and state grants, financial aid from UVA, and outside scholarships. 

2

Throughout the report when we refer to UVA’s endowment, including its market value, 

distribution, and rates of return, we are referring to the portion held and controlled directly 

by UVA. UVA includes related foundations’ endowment assets, which total nearly $1.1 

billion, in its reported combined university endowment in accordance with GASB 

standards because they are for the benefit of the university. In addition, according to 

officials the endowment held directly by UVA included approximately $50 million in trusts 

in 2009. We excluded these trusts from our analyses because officials said they typically 

have binding distribution rates and different rates of return from the main endowment, 

since they are not pooled together. 

3

Fiscal year 2008 was the most recent year for which national data were available. Except 

where noted, all dollar values have been adjusted for inflation to constant 2009 dollars 

using the Consumer Price Index. 

 College and University Endowments 
Appendix XI: University of Virginia Case 

Study 

Table 18: University of Virginia—Endowment Facts, 2009 

Structure and management The major portion of UVA’s endowment is made up of 1,862 

individual funds that are pooled for investing purposes, and that 

support the university’s three divisions. The endowment is 

managed by the University of Virginia Investment Management 

Company, a related foundation that maintains UVA’s investment 

funds.a

 

Market value as of June 30, 2009 $2,451,859,000b

Market value per student $114,616

Distribution $163,500,000b

Distribution as a percentage of beginning-of-year market value 5.2

Share of operating expenses funded by distribution (percent) 7.6c

Source: GAO analysis of University of Virginia data. 

a

According to officials, the endowment held directly by UVA also included $50 million in trusts in 2009, 

which are managed by the University of Virginia Investment Management Company but are not 

pooled with the other funds. 

b

Rounded to the nearest thousand. 

c

Institutions with similar endowment distributions may differ substantially in the share of their 

operating expenses funded by those distributions when there are large differences in the types of 

operating expenses at an institution. At some institutions, for example, operating expenses included 

hospital services that constituted a significant portion of total operating expenses, while at other 

institutions operating expenses included only education-related expenses such as faculty 

compensation and building maintenance. 

Over the past 20 years, the average annual inflation-adjusted change in the 

market value of UVA’s endowment was a 6.4 percent increase.4

 As seen in 

figure 26, after accounting for inflation, the real value of UVA’s 

endowment has grown from $800 million to $2.5 billion over the period, 

despite recent losses. 

 

4

As discussed previously, the change in endowment market value is a function of 

investment returns, new gifts, distributions, and any other inflows or outflows of money. 

Page 69 GAO-10-393 College and University Endowments
Appendix XI: University of Virginia Case 

Study 

Figure 26: University of Virginia Endowment Market Value in 2009 Dollars, 1989 through 2009 

End-of-year market value, 2009 dollars (in billions)

Fiscal year ending June 30th

Source: GAO analysis of University of Virginia financial data.

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

0.8 0.8 0.8

2.4

2.6

3.2

2.5

3.2

2.2 2.1 2.0 2.1 2.2

1.6

1.4 1.3

1.1 1.0 0.9 1.0 0.9

Note: Although this graph presents 21 data points, it captures only 20 years of growth. This is 

because the first value—market value as of the end of 1989—is equivalent to the beginning-of-year 

value for 1990. Therefore, the growth represented in the graph is from the beginning of 1990 through 

the end of 2009. 

Approximately nineteen percent of UVA’s endowment in 2009 was 

classified as restricted nonexpendable assets. This amount, consisting of 

the original gift amount of donor-restricted funds, can never be spent. 

Nearly 30 percent of the endowment was restricted expendable or 

unrestricted earnings on donor-restricted endowment funds. The 

remaining 53 percent of the endowment consisted of quasi-endowment 

funds that do not have to be permanently held and can be spent by the 

school in accordance with donor stipulations for spending purpose.5

As shown in table 19, slightly more than two-thirds of UVA’s endowment—

including donor-restricted and quasi-endowment funds—is subject to 

restrictions for spending purpose. The most common of these restrictions 

is for instruction, while funds restricted for financial aid comprise the next 

largest group of funds. 

 

5

These percentages are based on the endowment amount in UVA’s 2009 financial report, 

which included trusts. 

Page 70 GAO-10-393 College and University Endowments
Appendix XI: University of Virginia Case 

Study 

Table 19: University of Virginia—Endowment Restrictions by Purpose, 2009 

Purpose of restriction 

Percent of

endowment assets

Instruction 36

Financial aid 15

Academic support 7

Patient care 5

Research 3

Other purpose 4

Not subject to permanent purpose restrictions 31

Total 100

Source: GAO analysis of University of Virginia data. 

Note: Percentages do not sum because of rounding. 

According to officials, UVA currently determines the annual target 

distribution from its endowment by increasing the prior year’s distribution 

by inflation,6

 provided that the resulting amount is within 4 and 6 percent 

of the endowment market value.7

 If the resulting distribution amount is 

above or below these limits, UVA will reset the target rate. For instance, in 

the face of large gains in the endowment in 2007 that would have caused 

the distribution to fall below 4 percent of the market value, UVA reset the 

target rate to 4 percent. Over the past 20 years, UVA’s actual endowment 

distributions have averaged 4.4 percent of the beginning-of-year 

endowment market value, ranging from a low of 4.0 percent in 1993 and 

2007 to a high of 5.2 percent in 2009. As figure 27 shows, annual 

distributions increased over most of the period in real dollars, peaking at 

approximately $164 million in 2009. 

 

6

UVA uses a 10-year average of the Higher Education Price Index, an inflation index 

designed for institutions of higher education that is based on a fixed basket of goods 

purchased by colleges and universities, including faculty and administrative salaries, 

supplies and materials, and utilities. 

7

Although UVA maintained this spending policy for several years, from 2003 to 2005 the 

university instead distributed a fixed percentage of a 12-quarter moving average of 

endowment market value. Additionally, after returning to the current policy of increasing 

the distribution by inflation, UVA has made further changes to the percentages between 

which the distribution must fall, most recently adjusting them from 3.5 and 5.5 percent to 4 

and 6 percent in 2009. 

Page 71 GAO-10-393 College and University Endowments
Appendix XI: University of Virginia Case 

Study 

Figure 27: University of Virginia Endowment Distributions in 2009 Dollars, 1990 through 2009 

Distribution, 2009 dollars (in millions)

Fiscal year ending June 30th

Source: GAO analysis of University of Virginia financial data.

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

32

96 94

102

137

164

99

93 95

89

70 67

57 52

40 42 39

33 33 34

Of UVA’s 2009 endowment distribution, $24.6 million—or approximately 

15 percent—was distributed from funds restricted for financial aid. This 

amount does not include distributions for financial aid from funds not 

restricted to financial aid. UVA officials provided data showing that in 

2009, 26 percent of expenditures funded by endowment distributions, 

either from the current or prior years, were for financial aid. 

Page 72 GAO-10-393 College and University Endowments
Appendix XII: 

A

GAO Contact and Staff 

cknowledgments 

Page 73 GAO-10-393 

Appendix XII: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments 

Michael Brostek, (202) 512-9110 or brostekm@gao.gov 

In addition to the contact named above, David Lewis, Assistant Director; 

LaKeshia Allen; Nina Chen; Amy Friedlander; Thomas Gilbert; Miles 

Ingram; John Mingus; Amrita Sen; Sabrina Streagle; Jessica Thomsen; 

William Trancucci; and Sarah Viranda made key contributions to this 

report. 

 College and University Endowments 

GAO Contact 

Staff 

Acknowledgments 

(450765) 
GAO’s Mission The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and 

investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its 

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; 

and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help 

Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s 

commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability. 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost 

is through GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday afternoon, GAO 

posts on its Web site newly released reports, testimony, and 

correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products, 

go to www.gao.gov and select “E-mail Updates.” 

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony 

Order by Phone The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of 

production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the 

publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and 

white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s Web site, 

http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or 

TDD (202) 512-2537. 

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, 

MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional information. 

Contact: 

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470 

Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov, (202) 512-4400 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125 

Washington, DC 20548 

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs 

Congressional 

Relations 

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, DC 20548 

Public Affairs 

Please Print on Recycled Paper