POSTSECONDARY 

EDUCATION

Financial Trends in 

Public and Private 

Nonprofit Institutions

Report to the Ranking Member, 

Committee on Health, Education, 

Labor, and Pensions, U.S. Senate

January 2012

GAO-12-179

United States Government Accountability Office

GAO
United States Government Accountability Office

Highlights of GAO-12-179, a report to the 

Ranking Member, Committee on Health, 

Education, Labor, and Pensions, U.S. Senate 

January 2012

POSTSECONDARY EDUCATION

Financial Trends in Public and Private Nonprofit 

Institutions

Why GAO Did This Study

The number of students seeking

postsecondary education at public or 

private nonprofit institutions has 

increased by 31 percent over the last 

decade, and close to 90 percent of the 

overall student population is now 

enrolled in these types of schools. As 

demand for a postsecondary education 

has grown, so has the cost, and 

families are finding college increasingly 

difficult to afford. To help students pay 

for college, the Department of 

Education (Education) provides 

assistance through Title IV of the 

Higher Education Act, awarding $133

billion in federal student aid in the 

2009-2010 school year.

To help ensure transparency and 

accountability in the public and private 

nonprofit postsecondary education

sectors, GAO was asked to review 

schools in these sectors with respect to 

their (1) revenue trends; (2) 

expenditure trends; (3) student 

graduation rates; and (4) disclosure of 

information to students on cost of 

attendance, graduation rates, and 

future employment. GAO reviewed 

relevant federal laws and regulations, 

reports, and Education records and 

data on revenues, expenditures, 

completion rates, and student 

characteristics. GAO also interviewed 

Education and postsecondary 

association officials and conducted site

visits to a nonrepresentative sample of 

nine schools representing a range of 

size, type, and geographic location.

The results of the site visits are not 

generalizable to all public and private 

nonprofit schools. Education provided 

technical comments, which were 

incorporated as appropriate. 

What GAO Found

For fiscal years 1999 through 2009, both public and private nonprofit schools 

increasingly relied on tuition revenues when compared with other sources of 

revenue. Net tuition and fees—revenues received after subtracting institutional

aid provided to students—climbed from 16 to 22 percent of total revenue at 

public schools, and from 29 to 40 percent at private nonprofit schools. According 

to four schools GAO interviewed, increased reliance on tuition revenue is partly a 

result of significant decreases in state and local appropriations and other revenue 

sources, such as endowment income. Analysis of Education data shows nearly 

all types of public and private nonprofit schools saw decreases in state and local 

appropriations ranging from 6 to 65 percent, as well as decreases in other 

revenues, ranging from 13 to 75 percent. In response to these declines, schools 

that GAO visited pursued additional revenue from out-of-state and, in some 

cases, international students, government funded research, and fund-raising.

Instructional spending consistently made up the largest share of total 

expenditures at public and private nonprofit schools, about 30 percent in fiscal 

years 1999 through 2009; however, spending varied across school types when 

accounting for student enrollment. Nonetheless, faculty compensation and 

benefits comprised the largest portion of instructional spending, about 70 

percent, and increased for all school types during this time period. The overall

number of faculty also rose with a shift toward hiring more part-time and 

nontenured faculty. Spending on most noninstructional activities also increased, 

particularly for research and student services. Schools GAO visited have adopted 

strategies to contain costs in response to revenue constraints, including

centralizing administrative functions, cutting personnel costs, delaying 

construction projects, and eliminating certain class offerings. 

According to GAO analysis of recent Education data, about 50 percent of firsttime undergraduate students at public and private nonprofit schools graduated 

within 6 years. However, graduation rates varied with student characteristics

such as gender, race, and income. For example, financially independent students

graduated at lower rates than financially dependent students. Education’s annual 

graduation measure provides a limited picture of student outcomes because it 

does not account for many nontraditional students, such as those who begin on a

part-time basis and some transfers. Thus, graduation rates vary considerably 

depending on a school’s student body and mission. Several efforts involving 

multiple stakeholders are under way to develop outcome measures that better 

account for all students. 

Schools visited by GAO disclosed required information on cost of attendance, 

graduation rates, and future employment primarily through websites and, in some 

cases, in printed materials. Nationally, less than 1 percent of Education’s 

program reviews and independent audits found violations of information 

disclosure requirements at public and private nonprofit schools. Education has 

taken a number of steps to help schools disclose complete and accurate 

information including developing a tool for school websites to help students better 

estimate and compare the costs of attending college and providing guidance to 

institutions on ways to disseminate information to students. 

View GAO-12-179 or key components.

For more information, contact George Scott at 

(202) 512-7215 or scottg@gao.gov. 
Page i GAO-12-179 Trends in Higher Education

Letter 1 

Background 3

Schools Increasingly Relied on Tuition Revenues as State and 

Local Appropriations and Other Revenues Decreased 9

Spending on Instructional and Noninstructional Activities Varied 

and Revenue Constraints Prompted Some Targeted Cuts 17

About 50 Percent of Students Graduated within 6 Years, but 

Measures Provide an Incomplete Picture of Outcomes 27

Schools We Visited Made Required Information Disclosures, but 

Education’s Monitoring Identified Some Problems at Other 

Schools 36

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 38

Appendix I Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 40

Appendix II Variables Used in Analysis of Revenue and Expenditure Trends 47

Appendix III Revenue Sources at Public and Private Nonprofit Schools 49

Appendix IV Information on How Schools Ensure Federal Student Aid Dollars 

Are Appropriately Awarded to Students 57

Appendix V Faculty and Staff Compensation at Public and Private Nonprofit 

Schools 58

Appendix VI Rates and Status of Nongraduates After 6 Years, Public and Private 

Nonprofit Students 70

Appendix VII Status of Public and Private Nonprofit Undergraduate Students 

After 6 Years of First Entry 73

Contents
Page ii GAO-12-179 Trends in Higher Education

Appendix VIII GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 74

Related GAO Products 75

Tables

Table 1: Types and Percentage of Public and Private Nonprofit 

Schools by Carnegie Classification, 2009-2010 School Year 4

Table 2: Number and Percentage Change of Students Enrolled in 

Public and Private Nonprofit Schools by Status, 

Race/Ethnicity, and Gender, 1998-1999 and 2008-2009 

School Years 5

Table 3: Average Annual Faculty Salaries at Public and Private 

Nonprofit Schools, School Years 2003-2004 and 2009-2010 20

Table 4: Average Annual Faculty Benefits at Public and Private 

Nonprofit Schools, School Years 2003-2004 and 2009-2010 21

Table 5: NonInstructional Spending per Student at Public Schools, 

Fiscal Years 1999-2009 23

Table 6: NonInstructional Spending per Student at Private 

Nonprofit Schools, Fiscal Years 1999-2009 24

Table 7: Public and Private Nonprofit Graduation Rates 

(Percentage) After 6 Years by Race/Ethnicity 29

Table 8: Revenues from Net Tuition and Fees, Fiscal Years 1999, 

2009, and Percentage Change 49

Table 9: Revenues from Pell Grants and Other Federal Grants, 

Fiscal Years 1999, 2009, and Percentage Change 50

Table 10: Average Loan Amount (in Dollars) by Federal Financial 

Loan Program, Award Years 1998-1999, 2008-2009, and 

Percentage Change 51

Table 11: Revenues from State and Local Appropriations, Fiscal 

Years 1999, 2009, and Percentage Change 52

Table 12: Revenues from Other Sources, Fiscal Years 1999, 2009, 

and Percentage Change 53

Table 13: Revenue from Federal Grants and Contracts, Fiscal Years 

1999, 2009, and Percentage Change 54

Table 14: Revenues from State and Local Grants and Contracts, 

Fiscal Years 1999, 2009, and Percentage Change 55

Table 15: Average Faculty Salaries by School Type, School Years 

2003-2004, 2005-2006, 2007-2008 and 2009-2010, in Dollars 58
Page iii GAO-12-179 Trends in Higher Education

Table 16: Average Faculty Benefits by School Type, School Years 

2003-2004, 2005-2006, 2007-2008 and 2009-2010, in Dollars 60

Table 17: Percentage of Noninstructional Staff by Salary, School 

Years 2003-2004, 2005-2006, 2007-2008 and 2009-2010 61

Table 18: Graduation Rates (Percentage) 70

Table 19: Degrees Attained (Percentage) 72

Table 20: Status of Nongraduates (Percentage) 72

Figures 

Figure 1: Sources of Revenue as Percentage of Total for Public 

Schools, Fiscal Years 1999-2009 10

Figure 2: Sources of Revenue as Percentage of Total for Private 

Nonprofit Schools, Fiscal Years 1999-2009 11

Figure 3: Instructional Spending per Student at Public Schools, 

Fiscal Years 1999-2009 18

Figure 4: Instructional Spending per Student at Private Nonprofit 

Schools, Fiscal Years 1999-2009 19

Figure 5: Status of Public and Private Nonprofit Undergraduate 

Students After 6 years of First Entry 28

Figure 6: Public and Private Nonprofit Graduation Rates After 6 

Years by Transfer Status 32

Abbreviations

BPS Beginning Postsecondary Students Longitudinal Study

FAFSA Free Application for Federal Student Aid

HEA Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended

IPEDS Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System

NCES National Center for Education Statistics

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 1 GAO-12-179 Trends in Higher Education

United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548

January 26, 2012

The Honorable Michael B. Enzi

Ranking Member

Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions

United States Senate

Dear Senator Enzi:

Over the last decade, the number of students seeking postsecondary 

education has increased; moreover, almost 90 percent of students enroll 

at public and private nonprofit institutions. Since the 1998-1999 school 

year, these two sectors have experienced a 31 percent increase in the 

number of students served and, as the economy recovers from the recent 

recession, more students may seek a postsecondary degree as a key to a 

better economic future. As demand has grown, so has the cost of paying 

for a college education. From fiscal years 1999 to 2009, published tuition 

and fees increased between 33 and 56 percent at public and private 

nonprofit schools1 while median family income remained stagnant over 

the same period.2 As a result, families are finding postsecondary 

education increasingly difficult to afford. To help students pay for college, 

the Department of Education (Education) provided $133 billion in Title IV 

federal student aid3

As requested, our review examined public and private nonprofit school (1) 

trends in revenues; (2) trends in expenditures; (3) graduation rates for 

students attending these schools; and (4) disclosure of information to 

in the 2009-2010 school year. However, despite the 

continued federal investment in higher education and growth in student 

enrollment, graduation rates have not significantly increased—prompting 

the postsecondary education community to increase its focus on 

improving student outcomes.

 

1

Trends in College Spending 1999-2009: Where Does the Money Come From? Where 

Does it Go? What Does it Buy?, Delta Project on Postsecondary Education Costs, 

Productivity, and Accountability (Washington, D.C.: 2011). 

2

Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2009, U.S. 

Census Bureau (Washington, D.C.: 2010). 

3

Federal student aid is provided through programs authorized by Title IV of the Higher 

Education Act of 1965, as amended.

 
 

Page 2 GAO-12-179 Trends in Higher Education

students regarding cost of attendance, graduation rates, and future 

employment. Proprietary, or for-profit, schools are not within the scope of 

our review.

To address these objectives, we: (1) reviewed studies and reports by 

Education’s National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) and Office of 

Inspector General (OIG), the Congressional Research Service, and 

postsecondary education associations and foundations; (2) interviewed 

Education officials at NCES, the Office of Federal Student Aid (FSA), the 

Office of Postsecondary Education (OPE), the OIG, and representatives 

of postsecondary education associations; and (3) conducted site visits to 

a nonrepresentative sample of nine schools, selected to include 2- and 4-

year public and private nonprofit schools with a range of enrollment, 

published tuition, and geographic locations. To describe national trends in 

revenues, expenditures, and school and student enrollment 

characteristics, we analyzed data from Education’s Integrated 

Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) for fiscal years 1999 to 

20094 and its National Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS) data 

from the 2007-2008 school year. We also gathered information from our 

site visits to describe potential impacts of the economic recession on 

operations since 2008. To provide average federal financial loan aid 

amounts per student, we used data from Education’s National Student 

Loan Data System (NSLDS), covering award years 1998-1999 through 

2009-2010. To provide information on graduation rates, we analyzed 

Education’s 2003-2004 Beginning Postsecondary Students Longitudinal 

Study (BPS) data.5

In addition, we reviewed relevant federal laws, regulations, and 

Education’s policies and procedures, including those related to monitoring 

schools’ verification of information submitted by students on the Free 

Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA) and schools’ compliance 

We determined that Education’s data systems were 

sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this report by testing them for 

accuracy and completeness, reviewing documentation about systems 

used to produce the data, and interviewing agency officials.

 

4

Data from fiscal year 2009 are the most recent publicly available IPEDS finance data. 

Trends in revenues and expenditures are adjusted for inflation and presented in fiscal year 

2009 constant dollars. 

5

This analysis is based on the most recent BPS study that surveyed a group of students 

who first enrolled in postsecondary education in the 2003-2004 school year. 
 

Page 3 GAO-12-179 Trends in Higher Education

with information disclosure requirements on the cost of attendance, 

graduation rates, and future employment. We reviewed relevant program 

review and independent audit documentation with findings related to 

school’s FAFSA verification and information disclosure from January 

2007 to December 2010. To assess the data reliability of Education’s 

program reviews, we examined the data, compared the data to available 

program review and audit documentation, and interviewed agency 

officials knowledgeable about the data. We determined the data to be 

sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this report. Appendix I discusses 

our objectives, scope, and methodology in further detail.

We conducted this performance audit from December 2010 to January 

2012 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing 

standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to 

obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for 

our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe 

that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings 

and conclusions based on our audit objectives.

There are over 3,000 public and private nonprofit postsecondary schools 

in the United States.6

 

6

This figure does not reflect nondegree granting schools or those that are authorized to 

award certificates typically obtained in less than 2 years, such as licensed practical nurse 

or cosmetology.

This diverse group of colleges and universities 

varies in such respects as the type and length of programs offered, 

highest degree awarded, governance, and funding. Public schools, which 

include state universities and community colleges, are generally operated 

by publicly elected or appointed school officials and are traditionally 

supported by public funds. Private nonprofit schools are owned and 

operated by independent or religious organizations, and their net earnings 

do not benefit any shareholder or individual. These schools are primarily 

supported by tuition and fees as well as other revenue sources. Schools 

also differ in other respects, such as their primary missions, selectivity in 

admitting students, and populations served. For example, some 2-year or 

associate’s degree schools, such as public community colleges, generally 

have unrestrictive admissions policies that emphasize open enrollment 

Background 

Characteristics of Public 

and Private Nonprofit 

Postsecondary Schools
 

Page 4 GAO-12-179 Trends in Higher Education

and primarily serve the local community. A majority of their students are 

older than traditional college age (18-24 years old) and attend part time. 

In the 2007-2008 school year, for example, over half of students attending 

public associate’s degree schools were over the age of 24, according to 

Education data.7 In contrast, many 4-year schools use criteria such as 

grades, test scores, academic preparedness, and other credentials in the 

admissions process, and serve students from many states or countries. 

Their students typically attend full-time. Given such diversity, the 

Carnegie Commission on Higher Education developed a system to 

classify schools: The Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher 

Education (see table 1).8

Table 1: Types and Percentage of Public and Private Nonprofit Schools by Carnegie Classification, 2009-2010 School Year 

Percentage of schools

Carnegie 

classification/

degrees awarded Description Public 

Private 

nonprofit Total

Associate’s 

(2-year)

All degrees awarded are associate’s (typically 2-year), or if 

baccalaureate (4-year) degrees awarded, they account for 

less than 10 percent of all undergraduate degrees; includes 

schools such as community colleges. 

a 32 4 36

Baccalaureate (4-year) Baccalaureate (bachelor’s) degrees account for at least 10 

percent of all undergraduate degrees, and fewer than 50 

master’s degrees or 20 doctoral degrees awarded in a year. 

11 15 b 36

Master’s Award at least 50 master’s degrees and fewer than 20 

doctoral degrees in a year. 

10

Research/Doctoral Award at least 20 research doctoral degrees in a year 

(excluding doctoral-level degrees that qualify recipients for 

entry into professional practice, such as law/JD, 

medical/MD, pharmacy/PharmD, etc.).

5 3 8 

Specialty Award baccalaureate or higher-level degrees, with a high 

concentration (above 75%) in a single field or set of related 

fields such as schools of art, music, design, health 

professions, and theology, among others. 

2 17 19

Sources: Carnegie Foundation; Education, IPEDS, 2009-2010.

 

7

The 2007-2008 school year is the most recent year for which NPSAS enrollment data 

were available. 

8

The Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education is used as a way to 

represent and control for institutional differences. The classification is used by Education 

to categorize institutions based on purpose and size.
 

Page 5 GAO-12-179 Trends in Higher Education

a

For the purposes of this report we use the following terminology to refer to different types of schools: 

associate’s; baccalaureate; master’s; master’s and baccalaureate (for public schools); research 

(doctoral degrees) and specialty schools.

b

For the purposes of our analysis, we merged public master’s and baccalaureate schools.

In the 2009-2010 school year, public and private nonprofit schools served 

a total of about 18.4 million students. Public associate’s schools, or 

community colleges, enrolled the largest share, about 7.6 million students 

or 41 percent. Public specialty schools had the smallest share, about 

134,000 students or roughly 1 percent, and were the only school type to 

see enrollments decline during this period. Over the 1998-2010 school 

years, private nonprofit associate’s schools experienced about a 68 

percent growth in enrollment, the largest of any type of public or private 

nonprofit school, even though the overall number of these schools 

declined slightly. The characteristics of students attending public and 

private nonprofit schools have changed over the past decade. Most 

notably, Hispanic student enrollment in postsecondary education has 

risen sharply. (See table 2.)

Table 2: Number and Percentage Change of Students Enrolled in Public and Private 

Nonprofit Schools by Status, Race/Ethnicity, and Gender, 1998-1999 and 2008-2009 

School Years

Population

Student 

characteristic 1998-1999 2008-2009 

Percentage 

change

Status 

Full-time 8,257,510 11,295,420 37

Part-time 5,768,343 7,118,390 23

Race/ethnicity 

White 9,358,982 10,596,526 13

Black 1,441,721 2,167,043 50

Hispanic 1,266,366 2,244,846 77

Asian/Pacific 

Islander 1813,461 1,136,889 40

Gender 

Women 7,865,729 10,385,276 32

Men 6,130,124 8,028,834 31

Source: GAO analysis of IPEDS data.
 

Page 6 GAO-12-179 Trends in Higher Education

Schools that participate in Title IV programs under the Higher Education 

Act of 1965, as amended (HEA),

9 report information on finances, financial 

aid to students, human resources, student enrollments, certificates and 

degrees awarded, and student characteristics such as race and gender, 

among others.10

The financial data collected by IPEDS—including revenues by source, 

expenditures by category, and faculty and staff compensation—offer 

context for understanding the costs of providing postsecondary education. 

Revenues reported by schools include tuition and fees, government 

appropriations, government grants and contracts, and other revenues. 

Schools report on expenditures for instructional activities and 

noninstructional activities, which include student services and the cost of 

conducting research at the school, among others (see app. II for the 

complete list of IPEDS finance variables and definitions used in our 

analysis). Schools report financial information according to the accounting 

standards that govern public and private institutions. Generally, private 

schools comply with the standards of the Financial Accounting Standards 

Board (FASB), and public schools comply with the standards of the 

Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB).

To capture this information, Education’s NCES annually

administers surveys through IPEDS. As the federal government’s core 

postsecondary data collection program, IPEDS gathers information from 

over 6,700 U.S. colleges, universities, and technical and vocational 

schools. The data are made publicly available to allow researchers and 

government agencies to analyze higher education issues and help 

students and parents make informed choices about postsecondary 

education.

In accordance with the HEA, schools that participate in Title IV of the HEA 

are required to disclose information on graduation rates11

 

9

20 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq. 

for full-time, 

first-time certificate- or degree-seeking undergraduate students entering a 

10Schools participating in Title IV are required to enter into a Program Participation 

Agreement agreeing, among other things, that they will complete surveys conducted as 

part of IPEDS and other data collection efforts designated by the Secretary of Education. 

20 U.S.C. § 1094(a)(17). 

11Both “graduation rate” and “completion rate” are used to capture the proportion of a 

group of students that complete an academic program or attain a certificate or degree 

within a certain time period. We use graduation rate for the purposes of this report, but 

consider the term synonymous with completion rate. 

Department of Education 

Data Collection

School Revenues and 

Expenditures

Graduation Rates
 

Page 7 GAO-12-179 Trends in Higher Education

school in a particular school year and who graduate within 150 percent of 

the normal time for graduation.12 IPEDS’ Graduation Rate Survey (GRS), 

which collects data to calculate graduation rates, was designed to help 

schools respond to these requirements. IPEDS’ graduation rate captures 

students who complete their academic program within 150 percent of 

normal time (i.e., 6 years for a 4-year program and 3 years for a 2-year 

program), and is used as the principle federal measure of student 

completion.13

Education also collects data through the BPS to calculate estimates of 

graduation rates for first-time undergraduate students in a particular 

school year.

In addition, GRS allows schools such as community 

colleges, whose missions include providing substantial academic 

preparation for students to transfer enrollment to another school, to report 

“transfer-out” rates. This rate is reported separately from the originating 

school’s graduation rate.

14 The survey compiles data on student persistence, 

certificate and degree attainment, and school and work experiences, as 

well as student characteristics such as gender, race/ethnicity, and 

socioeconomic status. The most recent group of BPS students entered 

postsecondary education during the 2003-2004 school year and 

participated in surveys after their first, third, and sixth year of first 

enrolling. The previous two BPS groups tracked students who first 

entered in the 1995-1996 and 1989-1990 school years.

 

12The Student-Right-to-Know and Campus Security Act of 1990 amended HEA to include 

the graduation rate disclosure requirement and defined the cohort of students to be 

included in the measure. Pub. L. No. 101-542, § 103(a)-(b), 104 Stat. 2381, 2382. (20 

U.S.C. § 1092(a)(1)(L), (a)(3) and (a)(4)).

13IPEDS also calculates graduation rates for first-time, full-time degree or certificate 

seeking undergraduate students who complete their academic program within 100 percent 

of normal time. In 2009, the Graduation Rates 200 survey was added to the IPEDS spring 

collection cycle for all schools to track first-time, full-time degree or certificate seeking 

undergraduate students who complete their academic program within 200 percent of 

normal time, to comply with the requirement as added by the Higher Education 

Opportunity Act that the Secretary make that information publicly available. Pub. L. No. 

110-315, § 111, 122 Stat. 3078, 3103 (2008) (20 U.S.C § 1015a(i)(1)(J)). 

14Students are eligible for inclusion in the BPS survey if they are eligible for Title IV aid; 

not concurrently enrolled in high school; not enrolled for the sole purpose of earning a 

general equivalency diploma (GED) or completing another high school completion 

program; and not have disenrolled early enough to receive a full tuition refund. 
 

Page 8 GAO-12-179 Trends in Higher Education

To help students pay for college, the federal government offers several 

forms of financial aid, primarily loans and grants, as authorized under 

Title IV of the HEA.15 A student applies for financial aid by filling out the 

FAFSA. Education, in turn, is responsible for ensuring schools verify the 

information students submit on the FAFSA. It annually selects a sample 

of applications for which schools must verify five elements: household 

size, number enrolled in college, adjusted gross income, U.S. taxes paid, 

and certain types of untaxed income and benefits, such as child support. 

Schools must also check any FAFSA it suspects contains incorrect 

information. A school can apply for exemption from verifying Educationselected applications if it participates in Education’s Quality Assurance 

(QA) Program, in which a school determines its own verification criteria 

through an institutional analysis of its student applicants.16

The HEA requires schools to annually provide updated information to 

students and their families on cost of attendance, graduation rates, and 

job placement information, among others.

(See app. IV 

for information on how schools ensure federal student aid dollars are 

appropriately awarded to students.)

17

Education annually conducts program reviews of selected schools to 

monitor compliance with program requirements, including FAFSA 

verification and information disclosure requirements. In addition, 

Cost of attendance includes 

tuition and fees, books and supplies, room and board, transportation, and 

any additional costs associated with a particular program. Schools are 

required to disclose graduation or completion rates for first-time, full-time, 

undergraduate students who finish a certificate- or degree-granting 

program within 150 percent of normal time. Additionally, schools are 

required to provide information on the type of employment obtained by 

graduates of the school’s degree or certificate programs. Schools can 

provide information to students through appropriate publications, 

mailings, or websites.

 

1520 U.S.C. §§ 1070 – 1099d. These programs include, among others, the William D. Ford 

Federal Direct Loan Program (Direct Loan program) and the Federal Pell Grant Program 

(Pell Grant program) for low-income students.

16Requirements related to FAFSA verifications are found at 34 C.F.R. pt. 668 subpt. E. In 

a final rule published on October 29, 2010, Education published revisions to subpart E that 

will become effective on July 1, 2012. 75 Fed. Reg. 66,832.

1720 U.S.C. § 1092(a).

Federal Financial Aid to 

Students and School 

Disclosure Requirements
 

Page 9 GAO-12-179 Trends in Higher Education

independent auditors conduct annual compliance audits of schools. 

Education is required to resolve deficiencies identified in program review 

and audit reports and may impose penalties on schools found in violation. 

As part of the resolution process, Education generally sends a program 

review or audit determination letter to the school describing the violations 

found and any corrective actions to be taken.

From 1999-2009, both public and private nonprofit schools increased their 

reliance on revenues derived from student tuition and fees. Our analysis 

of Education data for fiscal years 1999 through 2009,18 the most recent 

data available, found that the portion of revenues attributed to net tuition 

and fees—revenues received after subtracting institutional aid provided to 

students19

 

18For IPEDS finance data on revenues, all years reflected are fiscal years. 

—increased from 16 to 22 percent of total revenue at public 

schools and from 29 to 40 percent at private nonprofit schools. Among all 

public school types, master’s and baccalaureate schools saw the largest 

increase in share of revenues from net tuition and fees. Among all private 

nonprofit school types, baccalaureate schools saw the largest increase in 

share of revenues from net tuition and fees. By the end of the period, the 

growth in tuition and fee revenue outpaced that of all other types of 

revenues. (See figs. 1 and 2.)

19For the purposes of this report, net tuition and fee revenue is defined as the amount of 

money the institution takes in from students after only institutional aid is subtracted. 

Institutional aid is defined in this report as aid that schools provide to students using 

school funds to help with costs associated with attendance at the school. 

Schools Increasingly 

Relied on Tuition 

Revenues as State and 

Local Appropriations 

and Other Revenues 

Decreased 

From 1999-2009, Revenues 

from Tuition and Fees 

Increased Significantly
 

Page 10 GAO-12-179 Trends in Higher Education

Figure 1: Sources of Revenue as Percentage of Total for Public Schools, Fiscal 

Years 1999-2009

Notes:

Net tuition and fee revenue is the amount of money the institution takes in from students after only 

institutional aid is subtracted.

Total state and local revenues include both state and local appropriations and state and local grants 

and contract revenues.

Total federal revenues include both federal appropriations and federal grants and contract revenues. 

Federal appropriations can include such things as federal land-grant appropriations.

Other revenues include income from endowments, private gifts, and hospital revenues, among 

others. 

In 2009, other revenue excludes investment returns because some sectors had negative returns from 

investments; since these returns include realized and unrealized losses, excluding this volatile 

revenue source provides a better representation of available operating revenues.
 

Page 11 GAO-12-179 Trends in Higher Education

Figure 2: Sources of Revenue as Percentage of Total for Private Nonprofit Schools, 

Fiscal Years 1999-2009

Notes:

Net tuition and fee revenue is the amount of money the institution takes in from students after only 

institutional aid is subtracted.

Total state and local revenues include both state and local appropriations and state and local grants 

and contract revenues.

Total federal revenues include both federal appropriations and federal grants and contract revenues. 

Federal appropriations can include such things as federal land-grant appropriations.

Other revenues include income from endowments, private gifts, and hospital revenues, among 

others.

In 2009, other revenue excludes investment returns because some sectors had negative returns from 

investments; since these returns include realized and unrealized losses, excluding this volatile 

revenue source provides a better representation of available operating revenues.
 

Page 12 GAO-12-179 Trends in Higher Education

Accounting for student enrollments, net tuition and fee revenue per 

student also increased for all public school types, with the largest 

increase at public research schools.20 Similarly, net tuition and fee 

revenue per student increased for all private nonprofit school types, with 

the largest increase at private nonprofit associate’s degree schools. (See 

table 8 in app. III for additional information on net tuition and fee 

revenues).

In general, the funds schools receive from federal grants and loan aid 

awarded to students to help pay for tuition and other related costs of 

attendance increased over the time period. Taking into account student 

enrollments:

• Revenues from Pell Grant aid21

• Revenues from other federal grants to students, including 

supplemental educational opportunity grants,

to students increased at both public 

and private nonprofit schools, by 42 and 24 percent, respectively. 

Among school types, public associate’s degree and private nonprofit 

master’s degree schools had the largest increases.

22 increased at public 

schools—by 25 percent—but decreased at private nonprofit schools, 

by 20 percent. Public master’s and baccalaureate degree school 

types had the largest increases and private nonprofit specialty 

schools23 had the largest decreases.

 

20Throughout the report, per student figures are presented as median dollar amounts. 

21The Federal Pell Grant Program provides need-based grants to low-income 

undergraduate and certain post baccalaureate students. A federal Pell Grant, unlike a 

loan, does not have to be repaid. 

22Federal Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grants (FSEOG) are for undergraduate 

students with exceptional financial need. Pell Grant recipients with the lowest expected 

family contributions (EFCs) will be considered first for the FSEOG. Like Pell Grants, the 

FSEOG does not have to be repaid.

23Specialty schools include schools of art, music, health professions, and theology, among 

others.

Revenue from Federal 

Student Financial Aid Has 

Steadily Increased
 

Page 13 GAO-12-179 Trends in Higher Education

• Revenues from all federal loans increased at both public and private 

nonprofit schools, by 134 and 138 percent respectively. Loans to 

parents to help pay the costs of postsecondary education for their 

dependent undergraduate or graduate students accounted for most of 

the increase in revenues from federal loans.

(See tables 9 and 10 in app. III for additional information on revenues 

from federal financial aid.)

At nearly all the schools we visited, school officials told us the need for 

student aid has risen, especially in light of increases in tuition and the 

impact of the continued weak economy on the financial resources of 

students and their families.

Our analysis of Education data showed that most public and private 

nonprofit schools saw decreases in state and local appropriations during 

the period studied. Specifically, the portion of revenues from state and 

local appropriations decreased for all public schools, dropping from 34 

percent of total revenues in fiscal year 1999 to 28 percent in 2009. All 

public schools also saw per student decreases in state and local 

appropriations. While private nonprofit schools received a very small 

share of revenue from state and local appropriations, less than 1 percent 

of total revenues, most of these school types also saw per student 

decreases. (See table 11 in app. III for additional information on state and 

local appropriation revenues.)

Both public and private nonprofit schools also saw decreases in other 

sources of revenue, such as private gifts and income from endowments.24

 

24For more information on trends in school endowments, see our prior report, GAO, 

Postsecondary Education: College and University Endowments Have Shown Long-Term 

Growth, While Size, Restrictions, and Distributions Vary, 

For example, other revenues made up a smaller share of total revenues 

at all public schools, decreasing from 33 percent of total revenues in fiscal 

year 1999 to 27 percent in 2009. At private nonprofit schools, other 

revenues as a percentage of total revenues declined, from 61 percent in 

fiscal year 1999 to 46 percent in 2009. Taking into account student 

enrollments, public and private nonprofit schools both saw per student 

GAO-10-393 (Washington, D.C.: 

Feb. 23, 2010).

Most Types of Schools Saw 

Decreases in State and 

Local Appropriations and 

Other Revenues
 

Page 14 GAO-12-179 Trends in Higher Education

decreases in other revenues. (See table 12 in app. III for additional 

information on other revenues.)

At four schools we visited, officials said the shift toward a greater 

proportion of revenues coming from tuition and fees was partly due to 

declines in state appropriations and other revenues, including private gifts 

and income from endowments. Examples are as follows:

• At one public research school, officials said state generated support 

declined by 25 percent since the economic downturn in 2008, and in 

response the university system increased its reliance on tuition 

revenue to help pick up the funding gap.

• At a public associate’s degree school, officials told us while revenues 

have generally increased due to increasing enrollment, the school 

also instituted two tuition hikes over the past 10 years as a result of 

less state and federal revenue.

• Officials at two private nonprofit research schools said revenues from 

other sources have recently declined. One school experienced a 22 

percent loss in endowment value in 2008, while another school’s 

endowment value dropped by 32 percent since 2008. Officials at this 

school expressed concern about a lull in fund-raising. Further, due to 

increases in maintenance, utility, and food service costs, they said the 

school raised tuition 3.6 percent. Officials noted that tuition has 

increased at a faster rate since the economy weakened. They 

expressed concern about the sustainability of further tuition increases 

and the impact of these increases on students and families. To 

mitigate the impact, the school is maintaining its commitment to 

meeting the financial need of students by increasing the school’s aid 

budget, an official told us.

To compensate for declines in state and local appropriations and from 

other revenue sources, schools we visited pursued additional revenue 

from certain types of students who pay more, from government-funded 

research, and fund-raising. Officials at two public schools, including a 

community college, said they actively pursue out-of-state and, in a few 

cases, international students to keep enrollment levels high and boost 

tuition revenues because these students typically pay higher tuition. For 

example, officials at one public research school told us in the last 2 years 

they have worked toward increasing out-of-state enrollment with a 

Some Schools We Visited 

Increasingly Relied on 

Tuition Revenue as State 

Support and Endowment 

Revenues Declined

Schools We Visited 

Pursued Additional 

Revenue by Admitting 

Students Who Pay More 

and Increasing Research 

and Fund-Raising
 

Page 15 GAO-12-179 Trends in Higher Education

long-term goal of increasing the out-of-state enrollment from 20 to 30 

percent by 2020, while maintaining the same number of in-state students. 

They explained that, while a portion of tuition and fee revenues received 

from in-state students is redirected to the state, revenues from out-ofstate student tuition and fees can be retained by the school to cover 

operating expenses. In addition, a portion of the tuition revenues from 

these students is often used to provide institutional aid to low-income 

students, according to officials at three public research schools we 

visited. Other than to boost tuition revenue, officials also said schools 

pursue certain types of students, namely international students, to foster 

student diversity on campus, become world class institutions, and 

promote an enriching educational environment.

Beyond recruiting certain types of students, three schools we visited also 

sought to raise revenue through increased research productivity by 

securing federal, and state and local grants and contracts. This was 

reflected in our analysis of Education’s data for fiscal years 1999 through 

2009 that showed that at all public school types, federal grant and 

contract revenues increased by 38 percent and state/local grant and 

contract revenues increased by 68 percent. All public school types also 

saw per student increases in federal, as well as state/local grant and 

contract revenues during this period. In contrast, for all private nonprofit 

school types, federal grant and contract revenues decreased by 12 

percent and state/local grant and contract revenues decreased by 10 

percent. On a per student basis, all private nonprofit school types also 

saw decreases in federal and state/local grant and contract revenues 

during this period. (See tables 13 and 14 in app. III for more detailed 

information.)

Among the schools we visited, officials at one public research school told 

us that in the face of declining state funds, the school hopes to double its 

revenue from federal research grants over the next 10 years, from $80 

million to $160 million. The school also plans to partner with other major 

research institutions to help attract more funding. Another public research 

school hopes to double its research revenues, in part, officials said, 

through federal contracts for Science, Technology, Engineering, and 

Mathematics (STEM) funding.
 

Page 16 GAO-12-179 Trends in Higher Education

Finally, officials from many of the public schools we visited told us they 

are placing greater emphasis on bolstering endowments, private gifts, 

and fundraising—a generally new and nontraditional function for these 

types of schools. For example, efforts were under way to raise more 

revenue at two public research schools as follows:

• Due to declines in state resources over the past 20 years, one school 

told us the university is looking at private donors to help build its 

endowment. Through a philanthropic foundation established in 2008, 

the university intends to diversify its revenue streams and increase its 

fundraising efforts to raise $90 to $100 million from alumni and other

supporters over the next 5 to 6 years.

• Another school told us that, while its endowment is not a key 

component of the school’s operating strategy, they are now placing 

more emphasis on development and gifts by expanding fundraising 

campaigns.

Nevertheless, several school officials also cautioned that they expect 

endowment income to plateau, and growth in federal research grants and 

contracts to slow due to uncertainties in federal spending.
 

Page 17 GAO-12-179 Trends in Higher Education

Instructional spending25 consistently made up the largest share of total 

expenditures at public and private nonprofit schools, about 30 percent in 

fiscal years 1999 through 2009; however, such spending varied across 

school types when accounting for student enrollment.26

 

25Instructional expenditures include faculty compensation and other expenses associated 

with general academic instruction, occupational and vocational instruction, community 

education, preparatory and adult basic education, and regular, special, and extension 

sessions. They also include expenses for both credit and noncredit activities. However, 

schools only report enrollment figures for credit-based instruction. Thus, per student 

instructional expenses are higher at schools that provide other kinds of instruction beyond 

credit based. 

According to our 

analysis of Education data, among public school types, instructional 

26For IPEDS finance data on expenditures, all years reflected are fiscal years and per 

student expenditures represents median dollars. The expenditure categories used in this 

report are consistent with those used by the Delta Project on Postsecondary Education 

Costs, Productivity, and Accountability; however, some results may differ because the 

Delta Project reported mean dollars per student. Over the time period studied, changes in 

how schools reported expenditures in IPEDS and other accounting standards changes 

may also account for some differences in expenditure trends. See Appendix I for more 

information. 

Spending on 

Instructional and 

Noninstructional 

Activities Varied and 

Revenue Constraints 

Prompted Some 

Targeted Cuts

From 1999-2009, Spending 

on Instructional Activities 

Varied and Faculty Costs 

Remained Largest Share
 

Page 18 GAO-12-179 Trends in Higher Education

spending per student increased the most at research schools (12 percent) 

and decreased the most at specialty schools (29 percent).27

Figure 3: Instructional Spending per Student at Public Schools, Fiscal Years 1999-

2009

(See fig. 3.)

Note: Dollar figures per student represent median dollars. All figures are adjusted for inflation and 

presented in fiscal year 2009 constant dollars.

 

27IPEDS expenditure categories are not directly comparable between schools in the public 

and private nonprofit sectors due to differences in how expenditures are reported under 

FASB and GASB accounting standards. In 2008, public schools began phasing in a new 

version of the survey which distributed operations and maintenance expenditures among 

the various functional categories to better align with private nonprofit institutions. In 2009, 

public institutions also began distributing interest expenditures among the functional 

categories. For consistency in reporting expenditures between 1999 and 2009, GAO 

separated the operations and maintenance and interest expenditures that were distributed 

in the functional categories for public schools starting in 2008 and 2009, respectively. 
 

Page 19 GAO-12-179 Trends in Higher Education

Among private nonprofit schools, most types reduced instructional 

spending per student with the largest decline at private research schools 

(14 percent). (See fig. 4.)

Figure 4: Instructional Spending per Student at Private Nonprofit Schools, Fiscal 

Years 1999-2009

Note: Dollar figures per student represent median dollars. All figures are adjusted for inflation and

presented in fiscal year 2009 constant dollars.

Regardless of whether a school was public or private nonprofit, the 

largest component of instructional spending was faculty salaries, which 

generally accounted for 70 percent of all instructional costs. Moreover, 

average faculty salaries grew from school year 2003-2004 through 2009-
 

Page 20 GAO-12-179 Trends in Higher Education

2010, particularly at private nonprofit schools. 28

Table 3: Average Annual Faculty Salaries at Public and Private Nonprofit Schools, 

School Years 2003-2004 and 2009-2010

(See table 3.) Officials at 

schools we visited cited various reasons for salary increases. At one 

public school, for example, officials attributed increases to contractually 

obligated raises while at two private nonprofit schools we visited, officials 

cited competition among schools to attract and retain talented faculty as a 

cost driver. (See table 15 in app. V for more detailed information on 

faculty salaries by type of school.)

 Faculty rank 2003-2004 2009-2010 

Percentage 

increase

Public Professor $94,913 $98,080 3 

Associate professor 70,531 72,647 3 

Assistant professor 59,580 61,538 3 

Instructor 58,259 58,699 1 

Lecturer 48,992 49,687 1 

No academic rank 54,760 55,299 1 

Private nonprofit Professor 105,274 111,100 6 

Associate professor 72,420 74,823 3 

Assistant professor 60,020 61,791 3 

Instructor 45,404 47,207 4 

Lecturer 54,963 56,972 4 

No academic rank $57,430 $62,960 10

Source: GAO analysis of IPEDS Human Resource component, Salaries section, 9/10 month contract length.

Notes:

All figures are adjusted for inflation and presented in fiscal year 2009 constant dollars.

No academic rank are faculty who have not been assigned a rank by their institution.

As with salaries, average annual spending on faculty fringe and health 

benefits also increased from school years 2003-2004 through 2009-2010, 

 

28IPEDS faculty and staff data are presented in school years. Some sections of the IPEDS 

Human Resources component are administered only in odd years. Furthermore, the 

population surveyed is more consistent after the 2002-2003 school year. Thus, our 

analysis of number of faculty and staff and their benefits and compensation are from the 

2003-2004 school year until 2009-2010, the most recent year for which these data are 

available. 
 

Page 21 GAO-12-179 Trends in Higher Education

with health insurance being a significant cost driver according to officials 

at some schools we visited (see table 4). (See table 16 in app. V for more 

information on trends in average benefits by school type.)

Table 4: Average Annual Faculty Benefits at Public and Private Nonprofit Schools, 

School Years 2003-2004 and 2009-2010 

2003-2004 2009-2010 

Percentage 

increase 

Average fringe benefits 

Public $18,328 $20,367 11

Private nonprofit 20,130 21,733 8 

Average medical/dental benefits 

Public 13,765 16,892 23

Private nonprofit $12,342 $15,428 25

Source: GAO analysis of IPEDS Human Resource component, Salaries section, total benefits.

Notes:

All figures are adjusted for inflation and presented in fiscal year 2009 constant dollars.

Fringe benefits include cash contributions in the form of supplementary or deferred compensation 

other than salary, excluding the employee’s contribution. Employee fringe benefits include retirement 

plans, Social Security taxes, medical/dental plans, guaranteed disability income protection plans, 

tuition plans, housing plans, unemployment compensation plans, group life insurance plans, worker’s 

compensation plans, and other benefits in-kind with cash options. 

Hiring additional faculty—nontenured track and part-time faculty in 

particular—also contributed to growth in instructional spending. Faculty 

numbers increased overall by 194,000 from 2003-2004 through 2009-10 

school years with the share of faculty that is nontenured track increasing 

from 31 to 34 percent at public schools and from 37 to 39 percent at 

private nonprofit schools. A public research school we visited told us it 

addressed budget constraints in part by reducing its tenure system faculty 

while more than doubling nontenured faculty over the past two decades. 

Furthermore, the proportion of part-time faculty also increased between 1 

to 12 percent at most school types. Only private nonprofit research 

schools increased their proportion of full-time faculty during the period, by 

3 percent. According to an official at the American Association of 

University Professors, part-time faculty typically receive lower pay and no 

benefits, resulting in cost savings for schools. Officials at schools we 
 

Page 22 GAO-12-179 Trends in Higher Education

visited told us part-time faculty also provide flexibility needed to meet 

fluctuating enrollment and academic program demands. However, 

officials at two schools we visited noted that hiring part-time faculty can 

negatively impact the academic environment as they may not have the 

opportunity to interact with other faculty and students as much as their 

full-time counterparts.

Overall spending per student increased on most noninstructional activities 

at public and private nonprofit schools from fiscal years 1999 to 2009,29

Per student spending on student services also increased at most school 

types with public research schools experiencing the largest increase—24 

percent in fiscal year 2009.

with the greatest proportion of noninstructional total expenditures devoted 

to research (11 percent). Among public school types, per student 

research spending increased the most, by 24 percent, at master’s and 

baccalaureate schools. (See table 5.) Among private nonprofit school 

types, per student research spending increased by more than 40 percent 

at master’s, baccalaureate, and associate’s schools. (See table 6.) As 

some schools we visited sought additional revenue through federal 

research grants and contracts, officials told us that administrative and 

facilities investments associated with research contracts also grew. For 

example, the research schools we visited made improvements to or 

expanded their research labs, such as building a $150 million laboratory 

sciences building to attract research grants in the physical and life 

sciences. 

30

 

29Noninstructional activities include research, public service, academic support, student 

services, and institutional support. According to NCES, schools reported on other 

noninstructional expenditures such as auxiliary enterprises, independent operations, and 

hospitals, but these are not considered core expenses and therefore should not be 

calculated on a per student basis. Operations and maintenance has been considered a 

core expense, however, it cannot be presented as a separate expense for private 

nonprofit schools for the entire period studied or at public schools after 2008 when NCES 

phased in a new version of the survey which included operations and maintenance 

expenditures in the various functional categories. See appendix II for a full list of 

expenditure definitions. 

Most private nonprofit school types also 

increased spending on student services, though by smaller percentages 

30Student services include activities that contribute to the students’ emotional and physical 

well-being, including admissions and registrar activities, student organizations, and 

student health centers. 

NonInstructional Spending 

Increased, Particularly for 

Research and Student 

Services
 

Page 23 GAO-12-179 Trends in Higher Education

than their public school counterparts. Officials at a private nonprofit 

research school we visited said they increased spending in response to 

feedback from students for more academic advising and arts activities, 

among other student services. Officials at another private nonprofit 

research school we visited attributed spending increases to competition 

among schools to meet student and parent expectations for high-quality 

amenities and housing.

Table 5: NonInstructional Spending per Student at Public Schools, Fiscal Years 

1999-2009

 Expenditure 1999 2009

Percentage 

change 

Research Research $4,462 $4,920 10

Academic support 2,426 2,358 -3 

Public service 1,247 1,384 11

Student services 1,054 1,304 24

Institutional support 1,936 2,273 17

Other 8,499 8,426 -1 

Master’s and 

baccalaureate

Research 140 174 24

Academic support 1,344 1,491 11

Public service 389 373 -4 

Student services 1,215 1,365 12

Institutional support 1,672 1,880 12

Other 5,620 5,567 -1 

Associate’s Research 29 34 17

Academic support 866 884 2 

Public service 181 161 -11

Student services 1,041 1,095 5 

Institutional support 1,621 1,616 0 

Other 3,480 3,464 0 

Specialty Research 12,926 7,349 -43

Academic support 4,889 3,510 -28

Public service 1,665 2,732 64

Student services 1,863 2,183 17

Institutional support 8,027 7,787 -3 

Other $15,182 $12,498 -18

Source: GAO analysis of IPEDS Finance component data.
 

Page 24 GAO-12-179 Trends in Higher Education

Notes:

Dollar figures per student represent median dollars. All figures are adjusted for inflation and 

presented in fiscal year 2009 constant 2009 dollars.

For the purposes of our analysis, “other” noninstructional expenditures for public schools include 

expenses for independent operations, auxiliary enterprises (e.g., bookstores and meal services), 

operation and maintenance of plant, hospitals, and other operations.

Table 6: NonInstructional Spending per Student at Private Nonprofit Schools, Fiscal 

Years 1999-2009

 Expenditure 1999 2009

Percentage 

change 

Research Research $4,353 $4,894 12

Academic support 4,149 4,008 -3 

Public service 678 715 6 

Student services 2,712 2,941 8 

Institutional support 5,616 6,128 9 

Other 5,839 9,379 61

Master’s Research 158 246 56

Academic support 1,729 1,680 -3 

Public service 361 296 -18

Student services 2,554 2,827 11

Institutional support 3,725 3,875 4 

Other 3,215 5,221 62

Baccalaureate Research 235 349 49

Academic Support 1,649 1,705 3 

Public Service 279 300 8 

Student Services 3,220 3,629 13

Institutional Support 4,429 4,532 2 

Other 4,691 6,910 47

Associate’s Research 76 109 43

Academic support 1,233 1,108 -10

Public service 330 315 -5 

Student services 2,665 2,395 -10

Institutional support 5,052 4,121 -18

Other 3,497 4,390 26

Specialty Research 730 648 -11

Academic support 2,476 2,170 -12

Public service 535 803 50

Student services 2,326 2,308 -1 
 

Page 25 GAO-12-179 Trends in Higher Education

 Expenditure 1999 2009

Percentage 

change 

Institutional support 6,190 6,037 -3 

Other $3,561 $5,733 61

Source: GAO analysis of IPEDS Finance component data.

Notes:

Dollar figures per student represent median dollars. All figures are adjusted for inflation and 

presented in fiscal year 2009 constant dollars.

For the purposes of our analysis, “other” noninstructional expenditures for private nonprofit schools 

include expenses for independent operations, auxiliary enterprises (e.g., bookstores and meal 

services), operation and maintenance of plant, hospitals, and other operations.

From the 2003-2004 through 2009-2010 school years, noninstructional 

staff increased at public and private nonprofit schools by 10 and 9 

percent, respectively. Most of the increase reflected growth in executive 

managerial staff that provide institutional support, which increased 14 

percent at public schools and 21 percent at private nonprofit schools.31 In 

contrast, public schools saw little growth in the number of skilled 

craftsmen, technical paraprofessionals, and clerical secretarial staff and 

private nonprofit schools saw declines in these positions. (See table 17 in 

app. V for information on trends in salaries of noninstructional staff by 

school type and occupation.)

Schools we visited have adopted a variety of strategies to contain 

spending and improve the efficiency of their operations. While the specific 

circumstances of each school, including financial condition, determined its 

cost-containment strategies, most schools we visited took steps to make 

administrative functions more efficient. Some schools reduced personnel 

costs by freezing wages, instituting furloughs and, in some cases, layoffs. 

A few schools reported postponing or canceling capital projects and 

improvements. While school officials we spoke with emphasized the 

importance of maintaining academic quality in spite of fiscal pressures, 

two schools did reduce some courses and class sections. Examples 

include the following:

 

31IPEDS also captures information on “All Other” staff and this category saw increases 

between 22 and 25 percent from 2003-2004 through 2009-2010 school years. 

Schools We Visited Curbed 

Spending in Specific Areas 

in Light of Revenue 

Constraints and to 

Improve Efficiency
 

Page 26 GAO-12-179 Trends in Higher Education

• Administrative efficiencies: A public research school we visited 

streamlined administrative functions by realigning staff and 

centralizing support services for a projected annual savings of $75 

million. A public research school in another state we visited joined a 

consortium of schools to jointly purchase goods and services.

• Personnel savings: Five of the six public schools we visited eliminated 

or left some noninstructional positions vacant. For example, nearly 

500 staff were laid off in the 2009-2010 school year at a public 

research school. In contrast, one private nonprofit school we visited 

continued to hire: increasing its noninstructional staff by 50 percent 

over fiscal years 1999 through 2009. Officials at that school attributed 

the need for more staff to anticipated growth in enrollments and 

research and credited conservative endowment investments and 

spending for providing the necessary resources. Schools also 

reported adjustments to faculty numbers: five schools did not fill some 

faculty vacancies or add positions, despite enrollment increases. For 

example, officials at one public research school told us they have 

stopped filling vacancies in order to compensate existing faculty. Two 

public schools we visited also realized personnel savings by 

suspending merit and cost-of-living raises for several years.

• Construction delays and targeted upgrades: Some schools we visited 

delayed capital projects and deferred maintenance. Officials from five 

public schools pointed to declining state appropriations and limited 

financing options, and one private nonprofit school cited declining 

income from endowments as reasons for these spending cutbacks. 

For example, two private nonprofit research schools delayed planned 

construction projects including creating a visitors center. Deferred 

maintenance at some of the public schools we visited has resulted in 

backlogs of projects totaling $92 million to $1.8 billion per school. 

Some schools adopted energy-saving measures to cut costs, such as 

reducing water and electricity consumption and, in one instance, 

investing in an energy-efficient heating plant.

• Cutting classes and services: As enrollments rise, some public 

schools we visited face capacity issues. Officials at those schools told 

us they do not have the resources to meet demand and are cutting 

classes and support services. For example, one public associate’s 

school did not offer summer classes in 2010 and is planning to cut 

800 class sections in 2011. Some schools took steps to reduce 

support services for students. However, school officials emphasized 

that these cuts will not impact core academic areas. Some student 

services continue to be a funding priority, including academic support, 
 

Page 27 GAO-12-179 Trends in Higher Education

counseling, and diversity centers to promote graduation rates of 

minority students.

Nationwide, about 50 percent of first-time undergraduate students who 

enrolled in a public or private nonprofit school during the 2003-2004 

school year graduated by 2009, according to our analysis of Education’s 

Beginning Postsecondary Students Longitudinal Study (BPS) data.32 (See 

fig. 5.) Among students who first enrolled in a 4-year school, 67 percent 

graduated within 6 years. Among students who first enrolled in a 2-year 

school, 16 percent graduated within 3 years, and by 6 years, a total of 34 

percent graduated. Students at public schools generally graduated at 

lower rates than those at private nonprofit schools. For example, 16 

percent of students at 2-year public schools graduated after 3 years 

compared with 39 percent of students at 2-year private nonprofit schools. 

Overall, students included in the most recent BPS study achieved 

graduation rates similar to those in the previous 1995-1996 BPS study 

across all school types within our scope (see app. VI).33

 

32The figures in this section represent estimates for students included in the most recent 

BPS study after 6 years of entry into a public or private nonprofit school during the 2003-

2004 school year, unless otherwise stated. In addition, students are grouped by the type 

of school where they first enroll, regardless of transfer. For example, students who start at 

a 2-year public school are represented as such even if they transfer into a 4-year private 

school within the 6-year period. 

33The graduation rates for students at private nonprofit schools may or may not be similar 

across the study groups as sampling errors for both estimates are greater than ±5 

percentage points. 

About 50 Percent of 

Students Graduated 

within 6 Years, but 

Measures Provide an 

Incomplete Picture of 

Outcomes 

Graduation Rates Varied 

by Type of School and 

Student Characteristics
Page 28 GAO-12-179

Figure 5: Status of Public and Private Nonprofit Undergraduate Students after 

6 years of First Entry

Source: GAO analysis of 2003-04 BPS data.

First-time Public 

and Private 

Nonprofit Students

6 years later...

Did not graduate (50%)

Graduated (50%)

Interactive graphic

For more information, roll mouse over those that graduated and did not graduate. 
 

Page 29 GAO-12-179 Trends in Higher Education

We previously reported that student graduation rates differ based on 

student characteristics, such as race and transfer history.34 Our analysis 

of the most recent BPS data also found that rates varied based on a 

range of characteristics. For example, women graduated at rates 4 to 8 

percentage points higher than men across all school types.35 Black and 

Hispanic student graduation rates lagged behind those for white and 

Asian/Pacific Islander students36 at all school types (see table 7).37

Table 7: Public and Private Nonprofit Graduation Rates (Percentage) After 6 Years 

by Race/Ethnicity

 White Black Hispanic 

Asian /Pacific 

Islander

All 2-year schools 38.3 26.1 26.7 38.2

2-year public 

a 

38.2 26.0 25.5 38.3

2-year private 

nonprofit 

a

b b b 

All 4-year schools

b 

69.8 50.9 54.6 a 73.6 a a

4-year public 67.4 51.0a 56.4a 71.2

4-year private 

nonprofit 

a 

74.3 50.9a 51.2a 79.3

Source: GAO analysis of 2003-2004 BPS data.

a 

Note: Graduation rates for Asian/Pacific Islander students are not statistically different from the rates for white students.

a

Sampling error for this estimate is greater than ±5 percentage points.

b

 

34GAO, College Completion: Additional Efforts Could Help Education with Its Completion 

Goals, 

The sample size for students in this category was not sufficient to produce a reliable graduation rate 

estimate.

GAO-03-568 (Washington, D.C.: May 23, 2003). This report analyzed graduation 

rates for students enrolled in bachelor’s degree programs. 

35The sample size for men at 2-year private nonprofit schools was not sufficient to 

produce a reliable graduation rate estimate. 

36A previous GAO report found major differences in educational attainment and income 

among subgroups, such as Pacific Islanders. Specifically, subgroups differed in their 

levels of academic preparedness, ability to pay for college, and their need to balance 

academic, employment, and family obligations. For more information on these differences, 

see GAO, Higher Education: Information Sharing Could Help Institutions Identify and 

Address Challenges Some Asian Americans and Pacific Islander Students Face, 

GAO-07-925 (Washington, D.C.: July 25, 2007). 

37There was not sufficient sample size to produce reliable estimates of graduation rates by 

race at 2-year private nonprofit schools. 
 

Page 30 GAO-12-179 Trends in Higher Education

Our analysis of the most recent BPS data found that graduation rates also 

varied by student characteristics related to income. For example, 

financially independent students38 graduated at lower rates than 

financially dependent students across all school types,39 though variation 

was greatest among students at 4-year schools: 31 percent of 

independent students at 4-year schools graduated compared with 70 

percent of dependent students. Among financially dependent students at 

these schools, graduation rates increased with increases in family 

income.40 Furthermore, Pell Grant recipients at 4-year schools graduated 

at lower rates than nonrecipients—59 percent compared with 71 percent, 

respectively. At 2-year schools, 27 percent of financially independent 

students graduated compared with 39 percent of dependent students. 

There was generally not a significant difference in the graduation rates 

among students of different income levels at 2-year schools—except 

between students within the highest and lowest income brackets41

Research conducted by Education and others has linked the likelihood of 

graduating to a range of student characteristics. For example, according 

to Education, gains in graduation rates of women over men may be 

related to women’s increasing participation in education, improved high 

school academic preparation, and greater gains in full-time attendance, 

among other factors.

—or 

between Pell Grant recipients and nonrecipients at 2-year schools.

42

 

38NCES classified students as financially independent if they were 24 or older at the end 

of 2003, married, veterans of or on active duty within the U.S. armed forces, orphans or 

wards of the court, or had legal dependents. All other students under the age of 24 were 

considered financially dependent, unless they could document otherwise for financial 

purposes. 

Additional NCES studies have found that 

academic preparation in high school and measures of socioeconomic 

39There was not sufficient sample size to produce reliable estimates of graduation rates 

for financially dependent and independent students at 2-year private nonprofit schools.

40Data were insufficient to compare graduation rates among independent students that 

started at 4-year schools. 

41Students in the lowest income bracket—families earning $20,000 or less—graduated at 

a rate of 35 percent, while those in the highest income bracket—families earning $100,000 

or more—graduated at a rate of 44 percent. The sampling errors for these estimates are 

greater than ±5 percentage points.

42Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Gender Differences 

in Participation and Completion of Undergraduate Education and How They Have 

Changed Over Time (Washington, D.C.: 2005). 
 

Page 31 GAO-12-179 Trends in Higher Education

status, such as family income and parents’ education, are “highly 

predictive of degree attainment”.43 According to a Pell Institute report, 

low-income students graduate at lower rates because they are less likely 

to be well-prepared for college than higher income students. These lowincome students are also more likely to have other characteristics 

associated with lower rates of college degree attainment: they are more 

often black or Hispanic, the first in their family to attend college, financially 

independent, or have dependent children, among other factors.44 In our 

previous work, we likewise found that being black or a first generation 

college student was associated with lower graduation rates at 4-year 

schools.45

Transferring between schools also influenced graduation rates. Our 

analysis of the most recent BPS data showed that students who started at 

a 4-year school and subsequently transferred graduated at lower rates 

than their nontransfer counterparts, 45 percent and 74 percent, 

respectively (see fig. 6). Our previous work yielded similar findings of 

lower likelihood of graduation among students who transferred from one 

4-year school to another versus nontransfer students.46

 

43Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Placing College 

Graduation Rates in Context: How 4-Year College Graduation Rates Vary with Selectively 

and the Size of Low-Income Enrollment (Washington, D.C.: 2006). 

However, the 

opposite was true at 2-year schools. According to the most recent BPS 

data, about half of students at 2-year schools that transferred graduated 

within 6 years, compared with nearly a quarter of nontransfers (see fig. 6).

44The Pell Institute for the Study of Opportunity in Higher Education, Demography Is Not 

Destiny: Increasing the Graduation Rates of Low-Income College Students at Large Public 

Universities (Washington, D.C.: 2007).

45GAO-03-568. 

46GAO-03-568. 
 

Page 32 GAO-12-179 Trends in Higher Education

Figure 6: Public and Private Nonprofit Graduation Rates After 6 Years by Transfer 

Status 
 

Page 33 GAO-12-179 Trends in Higher Education

To help postsecondary schools meet the statutory requirement to disclose 

graduation rates, Education annually collects data through IPEDS’ 

Graduation Rates Survey.47 However, the information IPEDS collects for 

its graduation measure does not account for many nontraditional 

students,48 and rates vary considerably depending on a school’s student 

body and mission. According to NCES, roughly 49 percent of all 

undergraduate students who enter for the first time in the fall term are 

annually captured in IPEDS’ graduation rate measure.49 This percentage 

is even lower—approximately 35 percent—among students entering 

public 2-year schools.50 The IPEDS measure does not include part-time 

students, some transfers, and some students who enter at a point in time 

other than the fall term, which can result in a significant percentage of 

some schools’ students excluded from its graduation rate.51

 

47Schools are required to disclose and IPEDS collects information to calculate graduation 

rates for full-time, first-time certificate- or degree-seeking undergraduate students who 

graduate from their programs within 150 percent of the normal completion time. Schools 

can only remove a student from a cohort if he or she leaves the school due to death or 

total and permanent disability; service in the armed forces (including call to active duty); 

service with a federal government foreign aid service, such as the Peace Corps; or service 

on official church missions. 20 U.S.C. § 1092(a)(1)(L), (a)(3) and (a)(4). IPEDS also 

collects information to calculate graduation rates on full-time, first time certificate or 

degree seeking undergraduate students who graduate within 100 or 200 percent of normal 

time. Education is required to make these graduation rates, as well as those of students 

graduating within 150 percent of normal time, available on the College Navigator Website. 

20 U.S.C. § 1015a(i)(1)(J).

For example, 

at the 2-year schools we visited, part-time students represented 46 to 95 

percent of the student population during the 2009-2010 school year. To 

48According to Education, nontraditional status is based on the presence of one or more 

of seven possible nontraditional characteristics: delayed enrollment, part-time attendance, 

being financially independent, working full- time while enrolled, having dependents, being 

a single parent, or not obtaining a standard high school diploma. Department of 

Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Nontraditional Undergraduates: 

Trends in Enrollment from 1986 to 1992 and Persistence and Attainment Among 1989-90 

Beginning Postsecondary Students (Washington, D.C.: 1996).

49This estimate also includes students at for-profit schools. 

50 Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Integrated 

Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) Enrollment component (Spring 2010). 

51Students who complete a transfer preparation program and transfer to an eligible school 

are included in this measure. However, if they fail to complete a program before 

transferring, even if they attain a degree at their transfer school, they are not counted as a 

graduate. IPEDS data collection rules requires schools that predominately offer programs 

based on standard academic terms to only report on students who enroll during the fall 

term. Schools that operate on a continuous enrollment calendar are allowed to report on 

students who enroll from September 1 to August 31 of a given year. 

Education’s Annual 

Graduation Measure Omits 

Many Nontraditional 

Students, and Alternatives 

Are Under Consideration
 

Page 34 GAO-12-179 Trends in Higher Education

generate graduation rates, Education also uses its BPS survey to collect 

data on not only first-time, full-time students, but also part-time students 

and those who transfer to another school. Though BPS provides a more 

inclusive picture of graduation rates than IPEDS, it is not calculated 

annually.52

Many officials we spoke with at Education, higher education associations, 

and schools we visited said the IPEDS graduation rate is an appropriate 

measure for schools that primarily serve traditional students, such as 4-

year research schools. However, it is less representative, they said, for 

schools with significant numbers of students who are part-time, 

noncertificate, or degree-seeking (including those who intend to transfer), 

or who leave school and later reenroll. This is a particular concern among 

representatives of 2-year schools as their school missions often include 

access for all students and a range of learning outcomes other than 

degree attainment, such as academic remediation and occupational skills 

training. Officials at one community college told us their graduation rates 

have remained at 10 percent or below over the last decade because most 

of their students do not enroll in a degree program and thus are excluded 

from the IPEDS measure. In contrast, officials at a private research 

university in the same metropolitan area, and with a more traditional 

student population, told us their IPEDS graduation rates have exceeded 

90 percent over the same period. Officials at two schools we visited also 

said 150 percent of “normal” program completion time is too short to 

measure the outcomes of students who have other significant 

responsibilities such as work and children, or who are less prepared 

academically, which may delay their progress.

In response to the limitations of IPEDS’ graduation rate, several efforts 

are underway to develop measures that better capture outcomes for all 

students. In 2009, as required by HEA, Education established the 

Committee on Measures of Student Success, composed of 

representatives from schools and the higher education community, to 

recommend improvements in calculating and reporting graduation rates 

for full-time certificate- or degree-seeking undergraduate students at 2-

year schools. The committee was also tasked with recommending 

alternative measures of student success that are more aligned with the 

 

52BPS studies followed cohorts of students who entered postsecondary education for the 

first time during the 1989-1990, 1995-1996, and 2003-2004 school years. 
 

Page 35 GAO-12-179 Trends in Higher Education

missions of these institutions.53 The committee submitted its final 

recommendations to the Secretary of Education in December 2011.54

Among its recommendations, the committee suggested Education 

enhance graduation rate reporting in IPEDS to include information for 

three specific cohorts—beginning part-time degree seeking students, 

students who are not college ready, and students who receive federal 

financial assistance. In addition, the committee recommended Education 

broaden IPEDS measures to calculate graduation rates for an 

unduplicated count of students who completed their program, transferred, 

or were substantially prepared to transfer as well as other transfer 

outcomes. Education expects to announce its action plan in response to 

the committee’s recommendations by early Winter 2012. In addition, the 

American Association of Community Colleges is working with other higher 

education groups to develop alternative outcome measures through the 

Voluntary Framework of Accountability (VFA).55 Measures will include 

transfer, part-time, and noncertificate- or degree-seeking students and 

alternative outcomes such as the completion of developmental education, 

credit milestone progress, and licensure exam pass rates. Three of the 

public schools we visited participate in the Voluntary System of 

Accountability (VSA), which includes transfer students in its graduation 

measure.56

Most of the schools we visited have also developed institutional measures 

that differ from IPEDS’ graduation rate measure. The majority includes 

part-time and transfer students or calculates graduation rates that allow 

more time than 150 percent of “normal” completion. The 2-year schools 

we visited calculate graduation rates using a 300 percent of “normal” 

completion time period and employ alternative measures of student 

outcomes, including rate of transfer to 4-year schools or earned grade 

point average (GPA). These institutional measures are mainly used for 

 

5320 U.S.C. § 1092(a)(7)(B). 

54Education is required to disseminate the committee’s recommendations not later than 18 

months after its first meeting, which occurred on October 20, 2010.

55VFA is an initiative sponsored by American Association of Community Colleges, 

Association of Community College Trustees, and the College Board initiative. 

56VSA is an initiative sponsored by the Association of Public and Land-grant Universities 

(APLU) and the American Association of State Colleges and Universities (AASCU) that 

disseminates comparable institutional data through a common Web report, the College 

Portrait. 
 

Page 36 GAO-12-179 Trends in Higher Education

internal purposes but, in some cases, are disclosed externally on school 

websites and in recruitment materials.

The schools we visited made information required by HEA available to 

current and prospective students on cost of attendance, graduation rates, 

and future employment such as jobs obtained.57 Schools shared 

information on websites, and some also included this information in 

printed materials. For example, schools we visited provided information 

on estimated cost of attendance—tuition and fees, books and supplies, 

room and board, and transportation—through means such as websites for 

prospective students and in course catalogs. Officials from one school 

also told us that they share information on cost to students at information 

sessions and new student orientation. To provide prospective students 

with more detailed information on the cost of attendance at all schools, 

HEA recently required schools to also publish a net price calculator on 

their websites.58

 

5720 U.S.C. § 1092(a)(1). Schools are also required to provide information on financial 

assistance, academic programs, a security report, and a crime statistics report. However, 

these requirements are not within the scope of this review. 

Designed to help students better evaluate costs, each 

net price estimate is based on an individual student’s information input by 

the user, such as income and dependency status, combined with 

5820 U.S.C. § 1015a(h)(3). Schools were required to publish a net price calculator by 

October 29, 2011. Net price equals the cost of attendance minus grant aid.

Schools We Visited 

Made Required 

Information 

Disclosures, but 

Education’s 

Monitoring Identified 

Some Problems at 

Other Schools

Schools Published 

Required Information for 

Students on websites and 

in Printed Materials
 

Page 37 GAO-12-179 Trends in Higher Education

information from the school, such as price of attendance and median 

amount of grant and scholarship aid provided to eligible students.59

In addition to providing information on cost of attendance, schools we 

visited posted graduation rates on their websites or included this 

information in annual reports produced by the schools’ research offices.60

Most schools we visited used voluntary surveys to collect information on 

employment obtained by recent graduates of a school’s degree or

certificate program; however, many reported low response rates. They 

collected data on topics such as postgraduate education, current or 

expected employment, salary, and the extent to which the student’s major 

prepared them for a future career. Most of the schools we visited provided 

student outcome information at career services offices, on their websites, 

or in printed materials. To assist graduating students, most schools we 

visited posted information on potential employment on their career 

services websites. Specifically, seven schools provided job postings or 

searchable databases, and one school posted data from the state labor 

department on its website. Furthermore, five schools made potential 

salary information available online or at the career services office.

From January 2007 through December 2010, less than 1 percent of 

Education’s program reviews and independent audits identified findings 

related to information disclosure requirements at public and private 

nonprofit schools.61

 

59Education is also required to publish a variety of consumer information including 

information on college affordability for specific schools to help students and families learn 

which schools have the highest or lowest tuition and net price. This information can be 

found on Education’s College Affordability and Transparency Center, 

According to program review and audit 

documentation from Education, 15 public and private nonprofit schools 

did not meet information disclosure requirements specifically on cost of 

www.collegecost.ed.gov. 20 U.S.C. § 1015a(i). 

60We did not review requirements of schools to disaggregate graduation rates by 

race/ethnicity, gender, or whether the student received a Pell Grant or subsidized Stafford 

loan. 

61From January 2007 through December 2010, Education conducted over 700 program 

reviews, and independent auditors conducted over 19,000 audits. Of these, Education 

identified 23 program reviews and 17 independent audits with disclosure-related findings. 

However, we determined that one program review and two independent audits from 

Education’s list did not contain information disclosure findings and thus excluded them 

from our analysis. 

Education’s Monitoring 

Identified a Small 

Percentage of Schools 

Providing Insufficient or 

Inaccurate Information
 

Page 38 GAO-12-179 Trends in Higher Education

attendance and graduation rates.62 Examples of schools failing to provide 

sufficient graduation rate information include not adequately distributing 

information to students, not calculating the rate in accordance with federal 

requirements, or disclosing a rate that had not been updated for several 

years. To resolve findings identified by Education staff and auditors, 

schools generally took or were instructed to take corrective action such as 

adding information on the school’s website for current and prospective 

students.63

Education has taken steps in recent years to help schools make 

information more readily available to current and prospective students. In 

2009, the National Postsecondary Education Cooperative

Additionally, officials from Education’s Consumer Experience 

Group, which serves as a liaison between financial aid recipients and the 

agency, has identified very few complaints related to disclosures on cost 

of attendance and student outcomes.

64 published a 

guide to help schools meet disclosure requirements, as well as make data 

more useful and accessible to students.65 The guide includes suggestions 

for how schools can improve the organization and labeling of information 

on their websites to help students more easily find and compare 

information across schools. In 2011, Education also sponsored a focus 

group with students and school representatives on a uniform template for 

sharing information such as student graduation rates and cost.

We provided a draft of this report to the Department of Education for 

review and comment. Education provided technical comments, which we 

incorporated as appropriate.

 

62These monitoring activities are intended to confirm that schools have made information 

available to current and prospective students. However, Education officials said they do 

not verify that the information is accurate, for example, by comparing it to information 

submitted through IPEDS.

63The department has not issued a Final Program Review Determination for four program 

reviews related to information disclosure conducted during the time period reviewed. 

64National Postsecondary Education Cooperative, established by NCES, is a voluntary 

organization that includes representatives from federal agencies, postsecondary 

institutions, associations, and other organizations that have a major interest in 

postsecondary education data collection. 

65National Postsecondary Education Cooperative, Information Required to Be Disclosed 

Under the Higher Education Act of 1965: Suggestions for Dissemination (Washington, 

D.C.: 2009). 

Agency Comments 

and Our Evaluation
 

Page 39 GAO-12-179 Trends in Higher Education

As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce the contents of 

this report earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until 30 

days from the report date. At that time, we will send copies of this report 

to the appropriate congressional committees, the Secretary of Education, 

and other interested parties. The report also will be made available at no 

charge on GAO’s website at http://www.gao.gov. 

If you or your staff members have any questions about this report, please 

contact me at (202) 512-7215 or scottg@gao.gov. Contact points for our 

Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on 

the last page of this report. GAO staff who made key contributions to this 

report are listed in appendix VIII.

Sincerely yours,

George A. Scott, Director

Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 40 GAO-12-179 Trends in Higher Education

The objectives of this report were to examine public and private nonprofit 

school (1) trends in revenues; (2) trends in expenditures; (3) graduation 

rates for students attending these schools; and (4) disclosure of 

information to students regarding cost of attendance, graduation rates, 

and future employment. We relied on multiple methodologies to conduct 

our work. To describe national trends in revenues, expenditures, and 

student and school characteristics, we analyzed data from the 

Department of Education’s (Education) Integrated Postsecondary 

Education Data System (IPEDS). We present overall revenue and 

expenditure data for the public and private nonprofit sectors, as well as 

individual school types using an institutional classification coding structure 

developed by the Carnegie Commission on Higher Education and used 

by Education. The categories of schools included in our analysis were 

degree granting: 4-year research, 4-year master’s, 4-year baccalaureate, 

2-year associate’s, and specialty schools.1

In addition, we reviewed relevant federal laws, regulations, and 

Education’s policies and procedures including those related to monitoring 

schools’ verification of information submitted by students on the Free 

Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA) and schools’ compliance 

with information disclosure requirements. We also reviewed agency 

documentation on instances of noncompliance with FAFSA verification 

To provide average federal 

financial loan aid amounts per student, we used data from Education’s 

National Student Loan Data System (NSLDS), covering award years 

1998-1999 through 2009-2010. To provide information on graduation 

rates, we analyzed data from Education’s Beginning Postsecondary 

Students Longitudinal Study (BPS). We disaggregated BPS data by 

overall school type: 2-year and 4-year and, within these school types, by 

sector: public and private nonprofit. We also used Education’s National 

Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS) data from the 1999-2000 

through 2007-2008 school years to provide information on trends in 

student enrollment based on age. We determined that IPEDS, NSLDS, 

NPSAS, and BPS data are sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this 

report by testing it for accuracy and completeness, reviewing 

documentation about systems used to produce the data, and interviewing 

agency officials. Unless otherwise noted, all data estimates for graduation 

rates are within a confidence interval of 5 percentage points.

 

1

For the purposes of analysis, we merged public master’s and baccalaureate schools. 

Tribal colleges are included with specialty schools. We excluded less than 2-year schools 

because they are not degree-granting schools.

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 

Overview 
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 41 GAO-12-179 Trends in Higher Education

and information disclosure requirements. In addition, we reviewed studies 

and reports by Education’s National Center for Education Statistics 

(NCES) and Office of Inspector General (OIG), the Congressional 

Research Service, and postsecondary education associations and 

foundations. We interviewed officials at Education and representatives of 

postsecondary education associations. We also conducted site visits to a 

nonrepresentative sample of nine schools to inform all of our research 

objectives. 

We conducted this performance audit from December 2010 to January 

2012 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing 

standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to 

obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for 

our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe 

that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings 

and conclusions based on our audit objectives.

To provide information on trends in revenues and expenditures at public 

and private nonprofit schools, we analyzed data from the Finance 

component of IPEDS for fiscal years 1999 through 2009. We chose these 

years because they represent the most recent publicly available data. The 

Finance component includes: revenues by source (e.g., tuition and fees, 

government grants and contracts, private gifts) and expenses by category 

(e.g., instruction, research, academic support, institutional support). (See 

app. II for a list of variables used for our analysis and definitions). Schools 

report financial information to IPEDS using different accountings 

standards: public schools generally use Government Accounting 

Standards Board (GASB), and private nonprofit schools use Financial 

Accounting Standards Board (FASB). Variation in how schools report 

revenue and expenditure data under these two different standards 

precludes direct comparison between public and private nonprofit 

schools. Specifically, schools using FASB standards report Pell Grants as 

pass-through agency transactions and not as revenues from federal 

grants. In contrast, schools using GASB standards report Pell Grant funds 

as federal grants. Regarding expenditures, schools that use FASB 

standards distribute expenditures on operations and maintenance, 

depreciation, and interest among the applicable functional expenditure 

categories (i.e., instruction, research, and student services). In contrast, 

schools that use GASB standards had separate categories for operations 

Data Analysis

IPEDS
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 42 GAO-12-179 Trends in Higher Education

and maintenance, interest and, at times, depreciation expenditures until 

institutions began phasing in the new aligned standards in fiscal year 

2008. Beginning with the 2010-2011 IPEDS data collection, schools using 

GASB will be required to allocate expenses related to operation and 

maintenance of plant, depreciation, and interest among the other 

functional expenses, such as instruction. Furthermore, accounting 

standards and the IPEDS finance reporting system have changed over 

the time period studied. Specifically, FASB schools use a whole-entity 

concept of accounting which includes the resources of the entire 

institution. In contrast, GASB schools generally used fund-based 

accounting prior to fiscal year 2005 and whole-entity accounting since 

that time. According to Education, in the earlier fund-based approach, 

expense comparability is limited because items such as interest expenses 

were not included in current funds associated with functional expenses.

To provide information on trends in faculty and staff counts, salaries, and 

benefits, we used two sections of the IPEDS Human Resources 

component: Fall Staff and Salaries. The Fall Staff section captures the 

number of full-time and part-time faculty and tenure status (if applicable). 

It also captures the number of staff based on primary 

function/occupational category (i.e., instruction/research/public service, 

executive/administrative and managerial, technical and paraprofessional, 

clerical and secretarial) and the number that fall into various salary 

ranges. The Salaries section captures faculty count and salary 

expenditures by rank (i.e., professor, associate professor, assistant 

professor, instructor, lecturer, and no academic rank), gender, length of 

contract, and fringe benefits received which we used to calculate average 

salary and benefit figures. Because salary information and tenure status 

are tracked separately, we were unable to report on salaries for tenured 

faculty. We analyzed faculty count and salary and fringe benefits for 

school years 2003-2004 to 2009-2010 because the survey population 

was more consistent beginning in 2003-2004.

For both the Finance and Human Resources components, we analyzed 

and presented aggregate data (totals), median totals, and median per 

student figures for both the public and private nonprofit sectors, as well as 

specific school types within those sectors. All data were adjusted for 

inflation using fiscal year 2009 constant dollars and per student FTE 

enrollment. Enrollment was calculated using the undergraduate and 

graduate fall enrollment of full-time students multiplied by a factor to 

account for part-time enrollment.
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 43 GAO-12-179 Trends in Higher Education

To provide information on student graduation rates, we analyzed 

Education’s 2003-2004 BPS study that reflects graduation rate estimates 

for the most recent BPS cohort. As such, BPS data are not yet available 

for students who enrolled after school year 2003-2004. BPS is a 

longitudinal study of undergraduate students who first enrolled in a 

postsecondary institution during the 2003-2004 school year. Over a 6-

year period, the survey collects data related to student persistence, 

certificate and degree attainment, school and work experiences, as well 

as student characteristics, such as gender, race/ethnicity, and 

socioeconomic status, among others. BPS drew its initial sample of 

students from Education’s 2003-2004 National Postsecondary Student 

Aid Study (NPSAS), which gathered data on student participation in 

federal aid programs, demographics, and education and work 

experiences for a nationally representative sample of students who are 

eligible to participate in Title IV programs during the 2003-2004 school 

year. Student data is collected through Web-based self-administered 

surveys and computer assisted telephone interviews.

The most recent BPS dataset contained information on nearly 16,700 

students. Students were surveyed at three points in time: at the end of 

their first, third, and sixth year of first enrolling in a postsecondary school. 

In addition to surveys and interviews, student data were gathered from 

other sources, including school records and federal financial aid 

applications. To understand how graduation rates may have changed 

over time, we also analyzed data from the previous BPS study, which 

surveyed students who first enrolled during the 1995-1996 school year. 

This study included approximately 12,000 students and followed a similar 

process of selecting students and following up with them over time. We 

did not test for statistical difference between the two surveys, instead we 

present estimates for both groups to provide context for our findings.

For our purposes, we analyzed a subset of data from each BPS study. 

Specifically, we analyzed data on students that first enrolled in a public or 

private nonprofit 2- or 4-year school, excluding students that started at 

for-profit or less than 2-year schools. Using statistical software, we then 

calculated graduation rates according to school type (2-year public, 2-

year private nonprofit, 4-year public, and 4-year private nonprofit), and 

student characteristics (gender, race/ethnicity, socio-economic status, 

and transfer history). Students were classified as a graduate if they 

attained a certificate or degree within 6 years of first entry into a school, 

and a nongraduate if they did not meet this requirement. Among 

nongraduates, we calculated the proportion still enrolled in a 

postsecondary school at the end of the BPS study and those that “left 

BPS and NPSAS
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 44 GAO-12-179 Trends in Higher Education

without return”.2

The estimates presented in this report and derived from our analysis of 

the BPS study are representative of students first entering a public or 

private nonprofit postsecondary school during the school year being 

discussed. Furthermore, tests of statistical significance were performed 

using software to take into account the complex survey design and 

sampling errors. In addition to the reported sampling errors, the practical 

difficulties of conducting any survey may introduce other types of errors, 

commonly referred to as nonsampling errors. For example, differences in 

how a particular question is interpreted, in the reliability of data self 

reported by students, or the types of students who do not respond can 

introduce unwanted variability into the survey results.

We also calculated the makeup of postsecondary awards 

(certificate, associate’s degree, and bachelor’s degree) attained by 

students.

To determine the average federal loan amounts per student, we used 

data from Education’s NSLDS. Specifically, we used Education’s 

calculations of Title IV loan funding per student for public and private 

nonprofit schools, covering award years 1998-1999 through 2009-2010.

To determine how schools (1) verify information contained in the FAFSA 

application and (2) disclose information to students, we reviewed 

Education’s findings in these two areas. Specifically, we reviewed 

relevant case documentation associated with program reviews and 

independent audits that included findings regarding the school’s FAFSA 

verification and information disclosure, relevant federal laws and 

regulations, and enforcement actions taken against schools. We did not 

evaluate the effectiveness of Education’s policies and procedures to 

assess compliance with FAFSA verification and information disclosure 

requirements. For findings related to FAFSA verification, we selected a 

nongeneralizable sample of findings out of a total universe of 474 audit 

and program review verification findings for January 2007 through 

December 2010 identified by Education from their Postsecondary 

Education Participant System (PEPS) and eZ Audit databases. This 

sample included all 16 cases containing both FAFSA verification and 

 

2

“No degree, left without return” is the category label given by NCES. 

NSLDS

Analysis of Education 

Case Documentation
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 45 GAO-12-179 Trends in Higher Education

information disclosure findings, as well as a simple random sample of 

FAFSA verification findings. This yielded a review of 25 program reviews 

and 25 independent audits. With regard to information disclosure, we also 

reviewed all program reviews and independent audits identified by 

Education that contained information disclosure findings, 23 and 17, 

respectively, for January 2007 through December 2010. We found one 

program review and two independent audits from Education’s list that did 

not contain information disclosure findings and were therefore excluded 

from our review.

To understand Education’s monitoring of FAFSA verification and 

information disclosures, we interviewed officials at FSA, OPE, and OIG. 

We also interviewed an official at NCES to learn more about Education’s 

graduation rate measures and the Committee on Measures of Student 

Success. To inform all of our objectives we met with higher education 

associations representing a range of schools, students, and faculty. 

Specifically, we met with representatives from: APPA (formerly known as 

APPA: The Association of Higher Education Facilities Officers); American 

Association of Community Colleges; American Association of State 

Colleges and Universities; American Association of University Professors; 

Association of Public and Land Grant Universities; Delta Project on 

Postsecondary Education Costs, Productivity, and Accountability; Institute 

of International Education; National Association for College Admission 

Counseling; National Association of College and University Business 

Officers; National Association of Independent Colleges and Universities; 

National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators; State Higher 

Education Executive Officers; and United States Student Association.

We supplemented our data analyses by conducting site visits to selected 

schools to obtain their perspectives, especially regarding the impact that 

the recent weakened economy has had on their operations. We visited 

schools in three metropolitan areas: Boston, Chicago, and San Francisco. 

The localities were chosen based on the concentration and variety of

postsecondary schools within the metropolitan area and on overall 

geographic diversity. Within these areas, we selected a nonrepresentative 

sample of nine postsecondary schools using nonprobability sampling. We 

identified all public and private nonprofit schools within the United States 

and calculated the median for tuition price and undergraduate enrollment 

using Education data for the 2008-2009 school year. Within each selected 

locality, we judgmentally selected schools with tuition price and 

enrollment figures above or below the median, and included a range of 

Education and Higher 

Education 

Association 

Interviews 

Site Visits
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 46 GAO-12-179 Trends in Higher Education

school types based on the Carnegie classifications. In total, we visited 

four public research (including the main campus of two state-wide 

systems), two public associate’s, two private nonprofit research, and one 

private nonprofit associate’s school.

In advance of each site visit, we reviewed material that the selected 

schools made publicly available on their websites, such as student and 

course catalogues and handbooks, fact books, and financial and annual 

reports. We also reviewed schools’ websites themselves to determine 

whether they disclosed information on cost of attendance, graduation 

rates, and future employment. During the site visits, we interviewed 

school officials about all four research objectives within the scope of our 

study and collected information on the schools’ revenues and 

expenditures, student population, human resources, and other academic 

and nonacademic resources. We did not conduct any undercover testing 

or investigations related to information disclosed to current or prospective 

students. We did not evaluate the quality and format of the information 

disclosed on school websites or materials, nor did we evaluate the ease 

of access to this information. Evidence gained through our site visits is 

not generalizable to all public and private nonprofit schools, but it may 

help to illustrate some of the findings discussed in this report.
Appendix II: Variables Used in Analysis of 

Revenue and Expenditure Trends

Page 47 GAO-12-179 Trends in Higher Education

Variable Definition 

Revenue Revenue from federal 

appropriations

Revenue received by the institution through acts of a federal legislative body 

(except grants and contracts). Federal appropriations can include federal landgrant appropriations.

Revenue from federal 

grants and contracts

Revenues from federal governmental agencies that are for training programs, 

research, or public service activities for which expenditures are reimbursable 

under the terms of a government grant or contract. Includes Pell Grants for GASB 

institutions and some FASB institutions. 

Revenue from state and 

local appropriations

Revenues received by the institution through acts of a state legislative body 

(except grants and contracts) or by a governmental entity below the state level. 

For state appropriations, funds are for meeting current operating expenses, not for 

specific projects or programs. Education district taxes include all tax revenues 

assessed directly by an institution or on behalf of an institution when the institution 

will receive the exact amount collected. These revenues also include similar 

revenues that result from actions of local governments or citizens (such as 

through a referendum) that result in receipt by the institution of revenues based on 

collections of other taxes or resources (sales taxes, gambling taxes, etc.).

Revenue from state and 

local grants and contracts

Revenues from state and local government agencies that are for training 

programs and similar activities for which amounts are received or expenditures are 

reimbursable under the terms of a state or local government grant or contract.

Net tuition and fees revenue Net tuition revenue is the amount of money the institution takes in from students 

after only institutional aid is subtracted. 

Other revenue Total minus federal, state, local, and tuition and fee revenues. This includes 

revenues coming from private gifts, auxiliary enterprises, hospital revenues, sales 

and services of education activities, among other things.

Scholarships and 

fellowships/Student 

grant aid

Other federal grants Other federal awards are expenditures for scholarships and fellowships, excluding 

Pell Grants that were funded from federal government agencies. This includes 

Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grants (SEOG), Department of Health and 

Human Services (DHHS) training grants (aid portion only), State Student Incentive 

Grants (SSIG), and other federal student aid programs. 

Expenditures Instruction Expenses for general academic instruction including faculty compensation, 

occupational and vocational instruction, community education, preparatory and 

adult basic education. Includes expenses for both credit and noncredit activities. 

Does not include expenses for academic administration where the primary 

function is administration (e.g., academic deans). 

Academic Support Expenses that support the institution’s primary missions of instruction, research, 

and public service. Includes expenditures for libraries, museums, galleries, and 

audiovisual services.

Auxiliary Expenses 

(included in “other”) 

Expenses for essentially self-supporting operations of the institution that provide a 

service to students, faculty, or staff. Examples are residence halls, food services, 

student health services, intercollegiate athletics, and college stores. 

Independent Operations 

(included in “other”)

Expenses on operations that are independent of or unrelated to the primary 

missions of the institution (i.e., instruction, research, public service). 

Institutional Support Expenses for the day-to-day operational support of the institution including general 

administrative services, central executive-level activities concerned with 

management and long-range planning, and legal and fiscal operations. 

Appendix II: Variables Used in Analysis of 

Revenue and Expenditure Trends
Appendix II: Variables Used in Analysis of 

Revenue and Expenditure Trends

Page 48 GAO-12-179 Trends in Higher Education

Variable Definition 

Operations and 

Maintenance of Plant 

(included in “other”)

Expenses to provide service and maintenance related to campus grounds and 

facilities used for educational and general purposes. Specific expenses include 

utilities, fire protection, and property insurance. 

Public Service Expenses to provide noninstructional services to individuals and groups external 

to the institution. Examples are conferences, institutes, and reference bureaus. 

Research Expenses for activities commissioned by an agency external to the institution or 

are budgeted separately that produce research outcomes. The category includes 

institutes and research centers, and individual and project research. 

Student Services Expenses for admissions, registrar activities, and activities whose primary purpose 

is to contribute to students emotional and physical well-being and to their 

intellectual, cultural, and social development outside the context of the formal 

instructional program. 

Source: Education’s IPEDS data.
Appendix III: Revenue Sources at Public and 

Private Nonprofit Schools

Page 49 GAO-12-179 Trends in Higher Education

Tables 8-14 of this appendix contain information on various revenue 

sources at public and private nonprofit schools.

Table 8: Revenues from Net Tuition and Fees, Fiscal Years 1999, 2009, and 

Percentage Change

School type 1999 2009

Percentage 

change (1999-

2009)

All public schools 

% of total revenue 16 32 

$ per student 3,097 3,997 29

Public research 

% of total revenue 15 20 

$ per student 5,212 7,913 52

Public master’s and baccalaureate 

% of total revenue 23 34 

$ per student 3,892 5,558 43

Public associate’s 

% of total revenue 19 24 

$ per student 2,223 2,992 35

Public specialty 

% of total revenue 4 5 

$ per student 5,339 6,534 22

All private nonprofit schools 

% of total revenue 29 40 

$ per student 11,267 13,823 23

Private nonprofit research 

% of total revenue 20 27 

$ per student 17,971 21,366 19

Private nonprofit master’s 

% of total revenue 55 69 

$ per student 12,905 15,343 19

Private nonprofit baccalaureate 

% of total revenue 37 57 

$ per student 10,694 13,277 24

Private nonprofit associate’s 

% of total revenue 50 64 

$ per student 9,081 12,600 39

Appendix III: Revenue Sources at Public and 

Private Nonprofit Schools
Appendix III: Revenue Sources at Public and 

Private Nonprofit Schools

Page 50 GAO-12-179 Trends in Higher Education

School type 1999 2009

Percentage 

change (1999-

2009)

Private nonprofit specialty 

% of total revenue 30 40 

$ per student 9,710 11,540 19

Source: GAO analysis of Education’s IPEDS data.

Note: Dollar figures per student represent median dollars and are adjusted for inflation and presented 

in fiscal year 2009 constant dollars.

Table 9: Revenues from Pell Grants and Other Federal Grants, Fiscal Years 1999, 

2009, and Percentage Change

School type 1999 2009

Percentage 

change (1999-

2009)

All public schools 

Pell Grant $ per student 923 1,312 42

Other federal grant $ per student 69 86 25

Public research 

Pell Grant $ per student 574 731 27

Other federal grant $ per student 105 130 24

Public master’s and baccalaureate 

Pell Grant $ per student 892 1,136 27

Other federal grant $ per student 76 116 53

Public associate’s 

Pell Grant $ per student 1,019 1,508 48

Other federal grant $ per student 58 68 17

Public specialty 

Pell Grant $ per student 764 963 26

Other federal grant $ per student 217 187 -14

All private nonprofit schools 

Pell Grant $ per student 737 911 24

Other federal grant $ per student 297 239 -20

Private nonprofit research 

Pell Grant $ per student 354 335 -5 

Other federal grant $ per student 364 286 -21

Private nonprofit master’s 

Pell Grant $ per student 587 754 28
Appendix III: Revenue Sources at Public and 

Private Nonprofit Schools

Page 51 GAO-12-179 Trends in Higher Education

School type 1999 2009

Percentage 

change (1999-

2009)

Other federal grant $ per student 247 218 -12

Private nonprofit baccalaureate 

Pell Grant $ per student 738 907 23

Other federal grant $ per student 328 279 -15

Private nonprofit associate’s 

Pell Grant $ per student 1,219 1,480 21

Other federal grant $ per student 273 217 -21

Private nonprofit specialty 

Pell Grant $ per student 879 1,116 27

Other federal grant $ per student 291 215 -26

Source: GAO analysis of Education’s IPEDS data.

Note: Dollar figures per student represent median dollars and are adjusted for inflation and presented 

in fiscal year 2009 constant dollars.

Table 10: Average Loan Amount (in Dollars) by Federal Financial Loan Program, Award Years 1998-1999, 2008-2009, and 

Percentage Change

School 

type Award year

FFEL 

Stafford 

Sub 

FFELP 

Stafford 

Unsub

FFELP 

PLUS

FFELP 

Grad 

Prof 

PLUS

FDLP 

Stafford 

Sub 

FDLP 

Stafford 

Unsub

FDLP 

PLUS

FDLP 

Grad 

Prof 

PLUS

Federal 

Perkins 

loans Total

Public 

schools 

1998-1999 3,471 3,553 5,644 0 3,777 3,788 5,956 0 1,715 27,904

2009-2010 3,942 4,850 9,429 13,363 4,255 5,060 10,540 12,087 1,706 65,232

Percentage 

change (1998-

1999 to 2009-

2010)

14 37 67 13 34 77 -1 134

Private 

nonprofit 

schools 

1998-1999 4,579 5,989 8,256 0 4,282 5,365 8,135 0 1,782 38,388

2009-2010 5,166 6,738 14,596 20,973 4,726 5,805 14,975 16,366 2,049 91,394

Percentage 

change (1998-

1999 to 2009-

2010)

13 13 77 10 8 84 15 138

Source: GAO analysis of Education’s NSLDS data.
Appendix III: Revenue Sources at Public and 

Private Nonprofit Schools

Page 52 GAO-12-179 Trends in Higher Education

Notes:

The Federal Family Education Loan (FFEL) Program included Subsidized and Unsubsidized Stafford 

Loans, Federal PLUS Loans, and Federal Consolidation Loans. As a result of the SAFRA Act, no 

further loans are to be made under the FFEL Program starting July 1, 2010. All Stafford, PLUS, and 

Consolidation Loans after this date will come directly from the Department of Education under the 

Federal Direct Loan Program (FDLP).

The Direct PLUS Loan Program enables parents to borrow to pay the costs of higher education for 

their dependent undergraduate and graduate students to pay their costs. Graduate and professional 

students may apply for PLUS Loans for their own expenses.

The purpose of the Federal Perkins Loan Program is to provide low-interest loans to help students in 

need of financial assistance cover the costs of postsecondary education.

Table 11: Revenues from State and Local Appropriations, Fiscal Years 1999, 2009, 

and Percentage Change

School type 1999 2009

Percentage 

change (1999-

2009)

All public schools 

% of total revenue 34 28 

$ per student 6,839 6,311 -8 

Public research 

% of total revenue 29 21 

$ per student 10,276 8,332 -19

Public master’s and baccalaureate 

% of total revenue 41 34 

$ per student 6,884 6,099 -11

Public associate’s 

% of total revenue 50 49 

$ per student 6,272 5,875 -6 

Public specialty 

% of total revenue 18 19 

$ per student 33,308 24,854 -25

All private nonprofit schools 

% of total revenue 0.35 0.39 

$ per student 272 154 -43

Private nonprofit research 

% of total revenue 0.23 0.42 

$ per student 312 155 -50

Private nonprofit master’s 

% of total revenue 0.46 0.28 

$ per student 259 122 -53
Appendix III: Revenue Sources at Public and 

Private Nonprofit Schools

Page 53 GAO-12-179 Trends in Higher Education

School type 1999 2009

Percentage 

change (1999-

2009)

Private nonprofit baccalaureate 

% of total revenue 0.16 0.12 

$ per student 209 122 -42

Private nonprofit associate’s 

% of total revenue 0.3 0.16 

$ per student 293 471 6 

Private nonprofit specialty 

% of total revenue 1 0.84 

$ per student 678 239 -65

Source: GAO analysis of Education’s IPEDS data.

Note: Dollar figures per student represent median dollars and are adjusted for inflation and presented 

in fiscal year 2009 constant dollars.

Table 12: Revenues from Other Sources, Fiscal Years 1999, 2009, and Percentage 

Change

School type 1999 2009

Percentage 

change (1999-

2009)

All public schools 

% of total revenue 33 27 

$ per student 1,964 899 -5 

Public research 

% of total revenue 39 36 

$ per student 8,097 7,069 -13

Public master’s and 

baccalaureate

 

% of total revenue 22 15 

$ per student 3,468 2,682 -23

Public associate’s 

% of total revenue 12 3 

$ per student 1,325 329 -75

Public specialty 

% of total revenue 58 48 

$ per student 11,478 7,530 -34

All private nonprofit schools 

% of total revenue 61 46 
Appendix III: Revenue Sources at Public and 

Private Nonprofit Schools

Page 54 GAO-12-179 Trends in Higher Education

School type 1999 2009

Percentage 

change (1999-

2009)

$ per student 11,915 7,885 -34

Private nonprofit research 

% of total revenue 67 55 

$ per student 25,900 15,730 -39

Private nonprofit master’s 

% of total revenue 40 26 

$ per student 8,320 5,861 -30

Private nonprofit baccalaureate 

% of total revenue 59 39 

$ per student 13,456 9,304 -31

Private nonprofit associate’s 

% of total revenue 45 30 

$ per student 7,265 3,609 -50

Private nonprofit specialty 

% of total revenue 58 48 

$ per student 13,116 8,909 -32

Source: GAO analysis of Education’s IPEDS data.

Note: Dollar figures per student represent median dollars and are adjusted for inflation and presented 

in fiscal year 2009 constant dollars.

Table 13: Revenue from Federal Grants and Contracts, Fiscal Years 1999, 2009, and 

Percentage Change

School type 1999 2009

Percentage 

change (1999-

2009)

All public schools 

% of total revenue 12 15 

$ per student 1,633 2,251 38

Public research 

% of total revenue 14 16 

$ per student 3,635 4,955 36

Public master’s and baccalaureate 

% of total revenue 10 12 

$ per student 1,440 1,789 24

Public associate’s 

% of total revenue 13 17 
Appendix III: Revenue Sources at Public and 

Private Nonprofit Schools

Page 55 GAO-12-179 Trends in Higher Education

School type 1999 2009

Percentage 

change (1999-

2009)

$ per student 1,558 2,191 41

Public specialty 

% of total revenue 9 11 

$ per student 7,785 15,253 96

All private nonprofit schools 

% of total revenue 9 11 

$ per student 643 569 -12

Private nonprofit research 

% of total revenue 12 16 

$ per student 4,176 4,137 -1 

Private nonprofit master’s 

% of total revenue 4 3 

$ per student 489 408 -17

Private nonprofit baccalaureate 

% of total revenue 3 3 

$ per student 613 498 -19

Private nonprofit associate’s 

% of total revenue 3 4 

$ per student 954 942 -1 

Private nonprofit specialty 

% of total revenue 8 8 

$ per student 703 578 -18

Source: GAO analysis of Education’s IPEDS data.

Note: Dollar figures per student represent median dollars and are adjusted for inflation and presented 

in fiscal year 2009 constant dollars.

Table 14: Revenues from State and Local Grants and Contracts, Fiscal Years 1999, 

2009, and Percentage Change

School type 1999 2009

Percentage 

change 

(1999-2009)

All public schools 

% of total revenue 4 7 

$ per student 525 883 68

Public research 

% of total revenue 3 6 
Appendix III: Revenue Sources at Public and 

Private Nonprofit Schools

Page 56 GAO-12-179 Trends in Higher Education

School type 1999 2009

Percentage 

change 

(1999-2009)

$ per student 742 1,906 157

Public master’s and 

baccalaureate

 

% of total revenue 3 5 

$ per student 456 791 73

Public associate’s 

% of total revenue 6 7 

$ per student 480 781 63

Public specialty 

% of total revenue 5 9 

$ per student 1,552 3,677 137

All private nonprofit schools 

% of total revenue 1 1 

$ per student 348 313 -10

Private nonprofit research 

% of total revenue 1 1 

$ per student 580 551 -5 

Private nonprofit master’s 

% of total revenue 1 1 

$ per student 236 230 -3 

Private nonprofit baccalaureate 

% of total revenue 1 1 

$ per student 325 245 -25

Private nonprofit associate’s 

% of total revenue 2 1 

$ per student 970 593 -39

Private nonprofit specialty 

% of total revenue 3 3 

$ per student 475 371 -22

Source: GAO analysis of Education’s IPEDS data.

Note: Dollar figures per student represent median dollars and are adjusted for inflation and presented 

in fiscal year 2009 constant dollars.
Appendix IV: Information on How Schools 

Ensure Federal Student Aid Dollars Are 

Appropriately Awarded to Students

Page 57 GAO-12-179 Trends in Higher Education

Processes Used to Verify FAFSA Information at Schools We Visited

Officials at the schools we visited told us their policy is to verify application information for the selected number of students identified 

by Education, use their own criteria for verification or, in some cases, go beyond the minimum checks required by Education. For 

example, several school policies include verifying FAFSA information for:

• 100 percent of total student enrollment, or

• other identified at-risk populations, including students who are young and financially independent, have children, are married, file 

an estimated tax form, or have family income below $5,000.

Errors Found During Verification Process and Contributing Factors

According to Education officials, FAFSA verification at schools ranks among its top 10 annual findings of noncompliance with federal 

financial aid regulations. Analysis of Education’s data on FAFSA verification findings at schools from January 2007 through December 

2010 identified common problems with incomplete or unresolved verification. Specifically, program reviews and audits of selected 

schools revealed schools’ failure to:

• complete verification for selected students,

• resolve conflicting information found on applications or in documentation used to verify application elements, or

• maintain the appropriate documentation to demonstrate completed verification.

Schools we visited also identified common errors made by applicants and found during FAFSA verification, including mistakes in 

reporting:

• adjusted gross income,

• household size, and

• amount paid in taxes.

Schools attributed these errors largely to students’ and families’ limited understanding of application requirements and to the 

complexity of income tax returns. For example, families incorrectly reported untaxed income or did not understand the differences 

between taxes withheld and taxes paid. 

Sources: GAO analysis of Education data and information collected from site visits.

Appendix IV: Information on How Schools 

Ensure Federal Student Aid Dollars Are 

Appropriately Awarded to Students
Appendix V: Faculty and Staff Compensation 

at Public and Private Nonprofit Schools

Page 58 GAO-12-179 Trends in Higher Education

Tables 15-17 of this appendix contain information on salaries and benefits 

of faculty and staff at public and private nonprofit schools.

Table 15: Average Faculty Salaries by School Type, School Years 2003-2004, 2005-2006, 2007-2008 and 2009-2010, in Dollars

 2003-2004 2005-2006 2007-2008 2009-2010 

Percentage 

change 

Public research Professor 107,687 108,437 110,981 113,950 6 

Associate professor 75,333 75,820 77,102 78,671 4 

Assistant professor 64,257 64,521 65,736 67,212 5 

Instructor 42,768 42,893 43,769 44,062 3 

Lecturer 49,804 49,269 49,091 50,470 1 

No academic rank 47,789 51,003 52,104 54,002 13

All instructional staff 80,416 80,051 80,982 82,784 3 

Public master’s and 

baccalaureate 

Professor 84,871 83,079 84,232 86,249 2 

Associate professor 67,362 66,319 67,482 68,966 2 

Assistant professor 56,500 55,991 57,009 58,129 3 

Instructor 42,547 42,034 42,279 43,107 1 

Lecturer 48,072 46,097 47,359 48,061 0 

No academic rank 50,698 47,907 49,639 52,458 3 

All instructional staff 66,001 64,447 65,106 66,669 1 

Public associate’s Professor 72,421 71,205 70,646 71,441 -1 

Associate professor 61,003 59,645 59,747 60,773 0 

Assistant professor 53,625 52,541 52,749 54,085 1 

Instructor 63,701 61,404 63,241 64,626 1 

Lecturer 47,102 49,006 48,709 51,630 10

No academic rank 55,272 54,541 54,784 55,623 1 

All instructional staff 61,134 59,796 60,451 61,555 1 

Public specialty Professor 93,560 96,952 101,984 104,876 12

Associate professor 75,591 77,709 78,323 83,109 10

Assistant professor 61,645 62,959 64,631 66,694 8 

Instructor 48,853 49,086 48,687 50,421 3 

Lecturer 52,578 50,226 53,702 58,100 11

No academic rank 44,603 44,751 38,487 39,208 -12

All instructional staff 68,915 70,479 70,616 73,431 7 

Private research Professor 133,653 135,786 138,731 144,189 8 

Associate professor 87,088 87,105 89,154 91,751 5 

Assistant professor 74,724 74,518 75,440 78,772 5 

Instructor 51,538 51,345 51,726 56,808 10

Appendix V: Faculty and Staff Compensation 

at Public and Private Nonprofit Schools
Appendix V: Faculty and Staff Compensation 

at Public and Private Nonprofit Schools

Page 59 GAO-12-179 Trends in Higher Education

 2003-2004 2005-2006 2007-2008 2009-2010 

Percentage 

change 

Lecturer 57,916 55,964 57,398 59,189 2 

No academic rank 65,621 59,520 64,979 66,583 1 

All instructional staff 99,430 99,071 100,258 103,439 4 

Private master’s Professor 84,701 83,357 84,162 86,379 2 

Associate professor 67,098 66,496 66,541 68,031 1 

Assistant professor 55,444 55,172 55,220 56,698 2 

Instructor 44,532 44,471 45,595 46,266 4 

Lecturer 46,356 47,383 48,954 51,674 11

No academic rank 55,178 48,964 48,478 51,470 -7 

All instructional staff 66,113 65,266 65,355 67,118 2 

Private baccalaureate Professor 84,194 84,177 85,176 86,744 3 

Associate professor 63,377 63,399 63,789 65,128 3 

Assistant professor 52,747 52,386 52,466 53,489 1 

Instructor 42,653 41,855 42,212 43,137 1 

Lecturer 51,059 49,811 50,352 52,320 2 

No academic rank 61,089 61,727 61,530 62,460 2 

All instructional staff 64,626 64,454 64,741 66,158 2 

Private associate’s Professor 55,821 58,080 60,609 61,445 10

Associate professor 48,047 49,846 51,812 52,906 10

Assistant professor 44,927 45,140 46,459 47,560 6 

Instructor 39,056 39,195 40,420 43,121 10

Lecturer 37,853 43,775 32,431 31,447 -17

No academic rank 47,292 47,857 51,719 48,833 3 

All instructional staff 46,516 47,379 49,030 50,131 8 

Private specialty Professor 78,529 81,830 80,380 83,709 7 

Associate professor 65,246 65,435 64,397 65,930 1 

Assistant professor 54,425 54,404 53,888 56,485 4 

Instructor 45,912 43,233 43,922 45,085 -2 

Lecturer 56,889 57,968 54,371 59,868 5 

No academic rank 54,422 56,916 59,482 61,800 14

All instructional staff 63,415 65,132 64,701 67,700 7 

Source: GAO analysis of IPEDS Human Resources component.

Note: All figures are adjusted for inflation and presented in fiscal year 2009 constant dollars.
Appendix V: Faculty and Staff Compensation 

at Public and Private Nonprofit Schools

Page 60 GAO-12-179 Trends in Higher Education

Table 16: Average Faculty Benefits by School Type, School Years 2003-2004, 2005-2006, 2007-2008 and 2009-2010, in Dollars 

 

2003-

2004 

2005-

2006

2007-

2008

2009-

2010 

Percentage 

increase

Public research Average fringe benefits 20,199 20,728 21,609 22,369 10.7

Average medical/dental expenditures 13,492 14,639 15,694 16,924 25.4

Public master’s and 

baccalaureate

Average fringe benefits 18,041 18,593 18,980 19,844 10.0

Average medical/dental expenditures 13,305 15,082 15,014 16,375 23.1

Public associate’s Average fringe benefits 16,157 16,902 17,662 18,111 12.1

Average medical/dental expenditures 14,735 15,617 16,665 17,374 17.9

Public specialty Average fringe benefits 17,200 18,865 19,483 20,604 19.8

Average medical/dental expenditures 11,056 13,149 15,139 15,267 38.1

Private research Average fringe benefits 25,567 25,863 26,679 27,578 7.9

Average medical/dental expenditures 13,862 14,728 15,936 17,221 24.2

Private master’s Average fringe benefits 17,570 17,551 17,897 18,783 6.9

Average medical/dental expenditures 11,269 12,531 13,341 14,457 28.3

Private baccalaureate Average fringe benefits 17,351 17,729 18,303 18,767 8.2

Average medical/dental expenditures 11,112 11,839 12,758 13,756 23.8

Private associate’s Average fringe benefits 13,443 13,360 14,836 15,202 13.1

Average medical/dental expenditures 12,071 12,795 14,194 15,475 28.2

Private specialty Average fringe benefits 17,858 17,193 17,709 18,246 2.2

Average medical/dental expenditures 13,104 13,549 14,761 15,735 20.1

Source: GAO analysis of IPEDS Human Resources component.

Note: All figures are adjusted for inflation and presented in fiscal year 2009 constant dollars.
Appendix V: Faculty and Staff Compensation 

at Public and Private Nonprofit Schools

Page 61 GAO-12-179 Trends in Higher Education

Table 17: Percentage of Noninstructional Staff by Salary, School Years 2003-2004, 2005-2006, 2007-2008 and 2009-2010 

School type Occupation/title Salary 

2003-

2004

2005-

2006 

2007-

2008

2009-

2010 Change 

Public research Executive, administrative, and 

managerial

below $30,000 1 1 1 0 -1 

$30,000-$39,999 5 4 3 2 -3 

$40,000-$49,999 10 9 7 6 -4 

$50,000-$64,999 18 16 15 13 -5 

$65,000-$79,999 18 17 16 16 -2 

$80,000-$99,999 19 20 20 20 1 

$100,000 and over 28 33 39 42 14 

Other professional below $30,000 10 7 4 3 -7 

$30,000-$39,999 28 25 21 18 -10

$40,000-$49,999 26 27 27 26 0 

$50,000-$64,999 21 24 26 27 6 

$65,000-$79,999 9 10 12 14 5 

$80,000-$99,999 3 5 6 8 5 

$100,000 and over 2 3 3 4 2 

Technical and paraprofessional below $20,000 5 3 2 2 -3 

$20,000-$29,999 39 32 25 22 -17

$30,000-$39,999 34 37 36 35 1 

$40,000-$49,999 15 18 22 23 8 

$50,000 and over 7 10 16 18 11

Clerical and secretarial below $20,000 11 6 3 2 -9 

$20,000-$29,999 50 45 37 32 -18

$30,000-$39,999 33 39 42 43 10

$40,000-$49,999 6 9 16 19 13

$50,000 and over 0 1 2 4 4 

Skilled crafts below $20,000 3 2 1 1 -2 

$20,000-$29,999 27 22 16 14 -13

$30,000-$39,999 36 33 29 27 -9 

$40,000-$49,999 20 23 28 29 9 

$50,000 and over 15 19 25 29 14

Service/maintenance below $20,000 32 25 18 13 -19

$20,000-$29,999 46 47 47 45 -1 

$30,000-$39,999 16 21 26 29 13

$40,000-$49,999 3 4 6 8 5 

$50,000 and over 2 3 4 5 3 
Appendix V: Faculty and Staff Compensation 

at Public and Private Nonprofit Schools

Page 62 GAO-12-179 Trends in Higher Education

School type Occupation/title Salary 

2003-

2004

2005-

2006 

2007-

2008

2009-

2010 Change 

Public master 

and 

baccalaureate

Executive, administrative, and 

managerial

below $30,000 3 2 1 1 -2 

$30,000-$39,999 6 5 4 3 -3 

$40,000-$49,999 12 11 10 7 -5 

$50,000-$64,999 20 19 18 16 -4 

$65,000-$79,999 20 20 18 18 -2 

$80,000-$99,999 19 20 20 21 2 

$100,000 and over 19 24 29 33 14

Other professional below $30,000 16 12 9 7 -9 

$30,000-$39,999 30 29 25 22 -8 

$40,000-$49,999 26 27 26 26 0 

$50,000-$64,999 19 21 24 26 7 

$65,000-$79,999 6 8 10 12 6 

$80,000-$99,999 2 3 4 6 4 

$100,000 and over 1 1 2 2 1 

Technical and paraprofessional below $20,000 6 4 3 3 -3 

$20,000-$29,999 32 28 22 19 -13

$30,000-$39,999 36 39 36 35 -1 

$40,000-$49,999 18 20 24 26 8 

$50,000 and over 7 9 15 19 12

Clerical and secretarial below $20,000 16 11 8 6 -10

$20,000-$29,999 52 50 43 36 -16

$30,000-$39,999 26 31 36 40 14

$40,000-$49,999 5 7 11 14 9 

$50,000 and over 1 1 2 4 3 

Skilled crafts below $20,000 6 3 3 2 -4 

$20,000-$29,999 33 30 23 20 -13

$30,000-$39,999 32 31 31 31 -1 

$40,000-$49,999 16 19 22 23 7 

$50,000 and over 14 17 22 24 10

Service/maintenance below $20,000 32 26 20 17 -15

$20,000-$29,999 46 48 45 41 -5 

$30,000-$39,999 16 20 25 29 13

$40,000-$49,999 4 5 7 8 4 

$50,000 and over 1 2 3 4 3 

Public 

associate’s

Executive, administrative, and 

managerial

below $30,000 2 1 1 1 -1 

$30,000-$39,999 6 5 3 2 -4 
Appendix V: Faculty and Staff Compensation 

at Public and Private Nonprofit Schools

Page 63 GAO-12-179 Trends in Higher Education

School type Occupation/title Salary 

2003-

2004

2005-

2006 

2007-

2008

2009-

2010 Change 

$40,000-$49,999 13 11 9 8 -5 

$50,000-$64,999 24 23 20 19 -5 

$65,000-$79,999 23 23 22 21 -2 

$80,000-$99,999 19 21 22 23 4 

$100,000 and over 13 17 23 26 13

Other professional below $30,000 13 10 6 5 -8 

$30,000-$39,999 31 28 24 21 -10

$40,000-$49,999 28 29 28 27 -1 

$50,000-$64,999 20 23 26 28 8 

$65,000-$79,999 6 8 11 12 6 

$80,000-$99,999 1 2 4 5 4 

$100,000 and over 0 0 1 1 1 

Technical and paraprofessional below $20,000 5 4 3 2 -3 

$20,000-$29,999 26 23 17 14 -12

$30,000-$39,999 36 36 33 31 -5 

$40,000-$49,999 21 22 24 26 5 

$50,000 and over 12 15 23 27 15

Clerical and secretarial below $20,000 13 9 6 4 -9 

$20,000-$29,999 46 42 36 31 -15

$30,000-$39,999 29 33 34 35 6 

$40,000-$49,999 9 13 16 19 10

$50,000 and over 2 4 8 11 9 

Skilled crafts below $20,000 7 4 3 3 -4 

$20,000-$29,999 30 22 18 16 -14

$30,000-$39,999 31 32 30 27 -4 

$40,000-$49,999 21 24 25 25 4 

$50,000 and over 11 17 24 29 18

Service/maintenance below $20,000 24 18 12 10 -14

$20,000-$29,999 42 42 40 37 -5 

$30,000-$39,999 23 26 28 29 6 

$40,000-$49,999 7 10 14 16 9 

$50,000 and over 3 4 6 8 5 

Public specialty Executive, administrative, and 

managerial

below $30,000 4 2 1 1 -3 

$30,000-$39,999 10 8 6 6 -4 

$40,000-$49,999 14 11 10 8 -6 

$50,000-$64,999 18 18 18 15 -3 
Appendix V: Faculty and Staff Compensation 

at Public and Private Nonprofit Schools

Page 64 GAO-12-179 Trends in Higher Education

School type Occupation/title Salary 

2003-

2004

2005-

2006 

2007-

2008

2009-

2010 Change 

$65,000-$79,999 17 17 16 15 -2 

$80,000-$99,999 15 18 19 20 5 

$100,000 and over 22 26 29 34 12

Other professional below $30,000 12 8 5 6 -6 

$30,000-$39,999 28 22 16 15 -13

$40,000-$49,999 28 29 30 26 -2 

$50,000-$64,999 19 23 26 27 8 

$65,000-$79,999 8 10 12 12 4 

$80,000-$99,999 3 5 8 9 6 

$100,000 and over 2 3 4 6 4 

Technical and paraprofessional below $20,000 9 7 5 5 -4 

$20,000-$29,999 38 34 30 25 -13

$30,000-$39,999 24 28 30 28 4 

$40,000-$49,999 15 18 18 18 3 

$50,000 and over 14 14 18 23 9 

Clerical and secretarial below $20,000 12 9 4 4 -8 

$20,000-$29,999 44 40 37 36 -8 

$30,000-$39,999 34 37 41 41 7 

$40,000-$49,999 9 12 14 15 6 

$50,000 and over 1 2 3 4 3 

Skilled crafts below $20,000 3 2 2 2 -1 

$20,000-$29,999 26 28 18 21 -5 

$30,000-$39,999 33 31 31 29 -4 

$40,000-$49,999 26 24 27 23 -3 

$50,000 and over 12 14 22 25 13

Service/maintenance below $20,000 27 31 28 21 -6 

$20,000-$29,999 47 40 39 39 -8 

$30,000-$39,999 17 18 20 23 6 

$40,000-$49,999 5 5 7 8 3 

$50,000 and over 4 6 6 9 5 

Private research Executive, administrative, and 

managerial

below $30,000 2 1 1 0 -2 

$30,000-$39,999 9 6 4 4 -5 

$40,000-$49,999 15 13 10 10 -5 

$50,000-$64,999 22 21 20 19 -3 

$65,000-$79,999 17 17 18 17 0 

$80,000-$99,999 15 16 18 18 3 
Appendix V: Faculty and Staff Compensation 

at Public and Private Nonprofit Schools

Page 65 GAO-12-179 Trends in Higher Education

School type Occupation/title Salary 

2003-

2004

2005-

2006 

2007-

2008

2009-

2010 Change 

$100,000 and over 21 25 29 32 11

Other professional below $30,000 8 5 3 2 -6 

$30,000-$39,999 24 19 15 12 -12

$40,000-$49,999 26 27 24 22 -4 

$50,000-$64,999 24 26 28 29 5 

$65,000-$79,999 10 13 15 18 8 

$80,000-$99,999 5 6 9 11 6 

$100,000 and over 3 4 5 7 4 

Technical and paraprofessional below $20,000 4 2 2 1 -3 

$20,000-$29,999 35 26 21 17 -18

$30,000-$39,999 36 40 39 36 0 

$40,000-$49,999 16 18 20 23 7 

$50,000 and over 10 13 18 22 12

Clerical and secretarial below $20,000 4 3 1 1 -3 

$20,000-$29,999 41 32 24 19 -22

$30,000-$39,999 38 42 43 41 3 

$40,000-$49,999 14 18 23 27 13

$50,000 and over 2 5 9 12 10

Skilled crafts below $20,000 1 1 0 0 -1 

$20,000-$29,999 8 7 3 2 -6 

$30,000-$39,999 26 21 16 12 -14

$40,000-$49,999 33 33 31 25 -8 

$50,000 and over 31 38 50 61 30

Service/maintenance below $20,000 16 12 7 4 -12

$20,000-$29,999 48 45 39 38 -10

$30,000-$39,999 27 31 34 33 6 

$40,000-$49,999 7 10 14 18 11

$50,000 and over 2 3 5 7 5 

Private master Executive, administrative, and 

managerial

below $30,000 6 4 3 2 -4 

$30,000-$39,999 14 11 10 7 -7 

$40,000-$49,999 18 17 15 13 -5 

$50,000-$64,999 22 22 21 22 0 

$65,000-$79,999 15 16 17 17 2 

$80,000-$99,999 11 13 14 15 4 

$100,000 and over 14 16 21 23 9 

Other professional below $30,000 25 20 14 12 -13
Appendix V: Faculty and Staff Compensation 

at Public and Private Nonprofit Schools

Page 66 GAO-12-179 Trends in Higher Education

School type Occupation/title Salary 

2003-

2004

2005-

2006 

2007-

2008

2009-

2010 Change 

$30,000-$39,999 36 35 32 30 -6 

$40,000-$49,999 22 24 26 27 5 

$50,000-$64,999 12 15 18 20 8 

$65,000-$79,999 4 5 7 8 4 

$80,000-$99,999 1 2 3 4 3 

$100,000 and over 0 1 1 1 1 

Technical and paraprofessional below $20,000 11 6 5 4 -7 

$20,000-$29,999 36 32 27 21 -15

$30,000-$39,999 30 34 34 36 6 

$40,000-$49,999 16 17 20 21 5 

$50,000 and over 7 10 14 18 11

Clerical and secretarial below $20,000 20 15 11 8 -12

$20,000-$29,999 57 54 47 42 -15

$30,000-$39,999 19 26 33 37 18

$40,000-$49,999 3 5 7 10 7 

$50,000 and over 0 1 2 3 3 

Skilled crafts below $20,000 8 5 4 5 -3 

$20,000-$29,999 30 24 21 14 -16

$30,000-$39,999 37 35 32 32 -5 

$40,000-$49,999 17 23 26 27 10

$50,000 and over 8 12 17 22 14

Service/maintenance below $20,000 37 28 21 17 -20

$20,000-$29,999 43 47 48 47 4 

$30,000-$39,999 15 18 20 23 8 

$40,000-$49,999 4 5 8 9 5 

$50,000 and over 1 2 2 3 2 

Private 

baccalaureate 

Executive, administrative, and 

managerial

below $30,000 7 5 4 2 -5 

$30,000-$39,999 16 13 11 9 -7 

$40,000-$49,999 19 18 16 15 -4 

$50,000-$64,999 23 23 23 23 0 

$65,000-$79,999 14 15 16 16 2 

$80,000-$99,999 10 11 13 14 4 

$100,000 and over 11 14 17 20 9 

Other professional below $30,000 31 26 20 18 -13

$30,000-$39,999 33 33 31 29 -4 

$40,000-$49,999 20 21 24 24 4 
Appendix V: Faculty and Staff Compensation 

at Public and Private Nonprofit Schools

Page 67 GAO-12-179 Trends in Higher Education

School type Occupation/title Salary 

2003-

2004

2005-

2006 

2007-

2008

2009-

2010 Change 

$50,000-$64,999 11 14 17 19 8 

$65,000-$79,999 3 4 6 7 4 

$80,000-$99,999 1 1 2 3 2 

$100,000 and over 0 0 1 1 1 

Technical and paraprofessional below $20,000 14 8 7 7 -7 

$20,000-$29,999 32 26 23 18 -14

$30,000-$39,999 35 36 33 32 -3 

$40,000-$49,999 14 20 23 25 11

$50,000 and over 6 10 14 18 12

Clerical and secretarial below $20,000 24 18 11 7 -17

$20,000-$29,999 56 55 50 46 -10

$30,000-$39,999 18 24 31 36 18

$40,000-$49,999 2 4 6 9 7 

$50,000 and over 0 0 1 2 2 

Skilled crafts below $20,000 6 3 3 2 -4 

$20,000-$29,999 29 24 15 14 -15

$30,000-$39,999 34 34 33 32 -2 

$40,000-$49,999 24 27 29 28 4 

$50,000 and over 7 11 20 25 18

Service/maintenance below $20,000 39 31 24 19 -20

$20,000-$29,999 41 44 45 45 4 

$30,000-$39,999 16 19 23 25 9 

$40,000-$49,999 3 4 6 8 5 

$50,000 and over 1 1 2 2 1 

Private 

associate’s 

Executive, administrative, and 

managerial

below $30,000 7 6 4 3 -4 

$30,000-$39,999 18 15 14 12 -6 

$40,000-$49,999 20 19 19 18 -2 

$50,000-$64,999 23 26 22 22 -1 

$65,000-$79,999 14 14 15 16 2 

$80,000-$99,999 10 10 13 14 4 

$100,000 and over 8 9 13 15 7 

Other professional below $30,000 38 30 29 26 -12

$30,000-$39,999 35 36 33 32 -3 

$40,000-$49,999 17 20 21 23 6 

$50,000-$64,999 9 10 12 14 5 

$65,000-$79,999 1 3 4 4 3 
Appendix V: Faculty and Staff Compensation 

at Public and Private Nonprofit Schools

Page 68 GAO-12-179 Trends in Higher Education

School type Occupation/title Salary 

2003-

2004

2005-

2006 

2007-

2008

2009-

2010 Change 

$80,000-$99,999 0 0 1 1 1 

$100,000 and over 0 0 0 0 0 

Technical and paraprofessional below $20,000 8 6 10 12 4 

$20,000-$29,999 27 37 30 29 2 

$30,000-$39,999 40 39 33 31 -9 

$40,000-$49,999 18 12 18 18 0 

$50,000 and over 7 6 10 9 2 

Clerical and secretarial below $20,000 28 21 17 14 -14

$20,000-$29,999 50 52 47 43 -7 

$30,000-$39,999 18 22 29 34 16

$40,000-$49,999 3 5 6 7 4 

$50,000 and over 1 1 2 2 1 

Skilled crafts below $20,000 12 7 1 6 -6 

$20,000-$29,999 30 26 21 13 -17

$30,000-$39,999 36 37 43 33 -3 

$40,000-$49,999 16 25 27 38 22

$50,000 and over 6 5 9 11 5 

Service/maintenance below $20,000 40 30 27 22 -18

$20,000-$29,999 44 49 46 47 3 

$30,000-$39,999 13 14 18 21 8 

$40,000-$49,999 3 5 6 6 3 

$50,000 and over 1 2 3 3 2 

Private specialty Executive, administrative, and 

managerial

below $30,000 6 4 3 2 -4 

$30,000-$39,999 12 10 8 6 -6 

$40,000-$49,999 17 16 16 12 -5 

$50,000-$64,999 22 22 21 20 -2 

$65,000-$79,999 15 15 16 17 2 

$80,000-$99,999 12 13 14 16 4 

$100,000 and over 17 19 22 27 10

Other professional below $30,000 19 16 11 9 -10

$30,000-$39,999 30 28 24 21 -9 

$40,000-$49,999 24 25 26 24 0 

$50,000-$64,999 18 19 23 24 6 

$65,000-$79,999 7 8 10 13 6 

$80,000-$99,999 2 4 5 7 5 

$100,000 and over 1 1 1 3 2 
Appendix V: Faculty and Staff Compensation 

at Public and Private Nonprofit Schools

Page 69 GAO-12-179 Trends in Higher Education

School type Occupation/title Salary 

2003-

2004

2005-

2006 

2007-

2008

2009-

2010 Change 

Technical and paraprofessional below $20,000 6 8 4 3 -3 

$20,000-$29,999 37 26 23 17 -20

$30,000-$39,999 32 34 35 33 1 

$40,000-$49,999 15 18 20 21 6 

$50,000 and over 10 15 19 25 15

Clerical and secretarial below $20,000 12 9 7 5 -7 

$20,000-$29,999 46 38 32 25 -21

$30,000-$39,999 32 37 39 41 9 

$40,000-$49,999 8 11 15 19 11

$50,000 and over 3 5 7 10 7 

Skilled crafts below $20,000 11 6 6 4 -7 

$20,000-$29,999 25 20 20 11 -14

$30,000-$39,999 26 26 25 23 -3 

$40,000-$49,999 27 30 27 25 -2 

$50,000 and over 11 18 22 36 25

Service/maintenance below $20,000 28 20 13 10 -18

$20,000-$29,999 49 45 43 40 -9 

$30,000-$39,999 18 29 34 38 20

$40,000-$49,999 4 5 7 9 5 

$50,000 and over 1 2 3 4 3 

Source: GAO analysis of IPEDS Human Resources component.

Note: Salary categories are not adjusted for inflation.
Appendix VI: Rates and Status of 

Nongraduates After 6 Years, Public and Private 

Nonprofit Students

Page 70 GAO-12-179 Trends in Higher Education

Table 18: Graduation Rates (Percentage) 

BPS 1995-1996 BPS 2003-2004

Overall 49.7 49.8

4-year schools 64.8 66.5

Public 60.0 64.9

Private nonprofit 73.1 69.6

2-year schools 36.5 34.3

Public 36.0 34.1

Private nonprofit 58.0 46.9 b

Gender

a, b

 

4-year schools 

Male 60.8 62.8

Female 68.0 69.5

2-year schools 

Male 37.7 31.8

Female 35.4 36.3 a

Race/Ethnicity 

4-year schools 

White 67.9 69.8

Black 50.0b 50.9b

Hispanic 50.9b 54.6b

Asian/Pacific Islander 71.1a, b 73.6

2-year schools

a, b

 

White 38.0b 38.3

Black 27.9b 26.1

Hispanic 33.5 a, b 26.7

Asian/Pacific Islander 40.3b 38.2a, b

Dependency status 

4-year schools 

Dependent 67.2 69.7

Independent 34.7 30.5 b

2-year schools

b

 

Dependent 39.3 38.8 b

Independent 31.4 26.5 a, b

Income: dependent students 

4-year schools 

Less than $20,000 57.4 53.5

Appendix VI: Rates and Status of 

Nongraduates After 6 Years, Public and 

Private Nonprofit Students 

b
Appendix VI: Rates and Status of 

Nongraduates After 6 Years, Public and Private 

Nonprofit Students

Page 71 GAO-12-179 Trends in Higher Education

BPS 1995-1996 BPS 2003-2004

$20,000 - $39,999 59.4 62.9 a

$40,000 - $59,999 67.8 65.8

$60,000 - $79,999 70.3 71.9

$80,000 - $99,999 76.7 73.2

$100,000 or more 77.7 79.7

2-year schools 

Less than $20,000 40.5 34.8 b

$20,000 - $39,999

b

38.2 35.1 a, b

$40,000 - $59,999

a

39.3 39.8 a, b

$60,000 - $79,999

a

33.5 41.9 a, b

$80,000 - $99,999

a, b

 39.1

$100,000 or more

a, b

 43.6

Income: independent students 

b

 

4-year schools 

Less than $20,000 38.0 30.3 b

$20,000 - $39,999

b

 29.3

$40,000 - $59,999

a, b

 

$60,000 - $79,999 

$80,000 - $99,999 

$100,000 or more 

2-year schools 

Less than $20,000 39.7 24.0 b

$20,000 - $39,999

b

26.9a, 26.2 b

$40,000 - $59,999

a, b

 27.8

$60,000 - $79,999

a, b

 30.7

$80,000 - $99,999

a, b

 

$100,000 or more 

Pell Grant recipient status 

4-year schools 

Nonrecipients 69.7 71.2

Recipients 56.3 58.7

2-year schools 

Nonrecipients 33.4 32.7 b

Recipients 41.7 36.5 b

Transfer status 

a

 

4-year schools 

Nontransfer 71.9 73.8
Appendix VI: Rates and Status of 

Nongraduates After 6 Years, Public and Private 

Nonprofit Students

Page 72 GAO-12-179 Trends in Higher Education

BPS 1995-1996 BPS 2003-2004

Transfer 44.8 44.9

2-year schools 

Nontransfer 24.5 23.9

Transfer 53.4 49.9 b

Source: GAO analysis of BPS data.

Note: Missing cells indicate that sample size for students within this category was not sufficient to 

produce a reliable graduation rate estimate.

a

Graduation rate is not statistically different from the first category listed within the school group.

b

Table 19: Degrees Attained (Percentage)

Sampling error for this estimate is greater than ±5 percentage points.

BPS 1995-1996 BPS 2003-2004

4-year schools 

Certificate 3.8 2.0

Associate 5.8 5.7

Bachelor 90.4 92.3

2-year schools 

Certificate 30.1 25.5

Associate 42.0 41.1

Bachelor 27.9 33.4

Source: GAO analysis of BPS data.

Table 20: Status of Nongraduates (Percentage)

BPS 1995-1996 BPS 2003-2004

Still enrolled 31.3 31.8

Left without return 68.7 68.2

Source: GAO analysis of BPS data.
Appendix VII: Status of Public and Private 

Nonprofit Undergraduate Students After 6 

Years of First Entry

Page 73 GAO-12-179 Trends in Higher Education

Appendix VII: Status of Public and Private 

Nonprofit Undergraduate Students After 6 

Years of First Entry
Appendix VIII: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments

Page 74 GAO-12-179 Trends in Higher Education

George A. Scott (202) 512-7215 or scottg@gao.gov

In addition to the individual named above, the following staff members 

made important contributions to this report: Meeta Engle, Assistant 

Director; Claudine Pauselli, Analyst-in-Charge; Rachel Beers, Senior 

Analyst; and Kai Carter, Analyst. Also, John Mingus and Lorraine Ettaro 

provided guidance on the study’s design and data analysis; Jessica 

Botsford provided legal advice; Mimi Nguyen and Jeremy Sebest assisted 

with report graphics; Susan Aschoff advised the team on writing the 

report; Susan Chin, Nicole Harkin, and Ellen Phelps Ranen verified our 

findings; Deborah Bland provided administrative assistance throughout 

the engagement.

Appendix VIII: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments 

GAO Contact

Staff 

Acknowledgments 
Related GAO Products

Page 75 GAO-12-179 Trends in Higher Education

Postsecondary Education: Student Outcomes at For-Profit, Nonprofit, and 

Public Schools. GAO-12-143. Washington, D.C.: December 7, 2011.

Federal Student Loans: Patterns in Tuition, Enrollment, and Federal 

Stafford Loan Borrowing Up to the 2007-08 Loan Limit Increase. 

GAO-11-470R. Washington, D.C.: May 25, 2011.

Postsecondary Education: Many States Collect Graduates’ Employment 

Information, but Clearer Guidance on Student Privacy Requirements Is 

Needed. GAO-10-927. Washington, D.C.: September 27, 2010.

Higher Education: Institutions’ Reported Data Collection Burden Is Higher 

Than Estimated but Can Be Reduced through Increased Coordination.

GAO-10-871. Washington, D.C.: August 13, 2010.

Postsecondary Education: College and University Endowments Have 

Shown Long-Term Growth, While Size, Restrictions, and Distributions 

Vary. GAO-10-393. Washington, D.C.: February 23, 2010.

Federal Student Aid: Highlights of a Study Group on Simplifying the Free 

Application for Federal Student Aid. GAO-10-29. Washington, D.C.: Oct 

29, 2009.

Higher Education: Tuition Continues to Rise, but Patterns Vary by 

Institution Type, Enrollment, and Educational Expenditures. GAO-08-245. 

Washington, D.C.: November 28, 2007.

College Completion: Additional Efforts Could Help Education with Its 

Completion Goals. GAO-03-568. Washington, D.C.: May 23, 2003.

Higher Education: Tuition Increases and Colleges’ Efforts to Contain 

Costs. GAO/HEHS-98-227. Washington, D.C.: September 30, 1998.

Higher Education: Students Have Increased Borrowing and Working to 

Help Pay Higher Tuitions. GAO/HEHS-98-63. Washington, D.C.: 

February 18, 1998.

Higher Education: Tuition Increasing Faster Than Household Income and 

Public Colleges’ Costs. GAO/HEHS-96-154. Washington, D.C.: August 

15, 1996.

Related GAO Products

(131044)
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 website (www.gao.gov). Each weekday afternoon, 

GAO posts on its website 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.”

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 website, 

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.

Connect with GAO on Facebook, Flickr, Twitter, and YouTube. 

Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E-mail Updates. Listen to our Podcasts. 

Visit GAO on the web at www.gao.gov. 

Contact:

Website: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director, siggerudk@gao.gov, (202) 512-

4400, U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 

7125, Washington, DC 20548

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, DC 20548

GAO’s Mission

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony 

Order by Phone

Connect with GAO

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Congressional 

Relations 

Public Affairs

Please Print on Recycled Paper.