Changing Priorities - Acadia by Numbers Full Report

Changing Priorities – Acadia by Numbers

Dr. Peter Williams

Department of Physics, Acadia University

March 2009

The data used in this current analysis was extracted from Schedules A and B of the audited financial reports of Acadia University for the years 1999-2000 through 2007-2008.[1] The raw data from Schedule B, dealing with expenditures, are given in Table 1 and plotted in Figure 1. I have assumed that there has been consistent budget reporting over this time period.

Year	Academic	Plant	Admin	Library	Student Services	Other	Ancillary	Total
2000	27964	3974	3754	2152	2534	2828	10776	53982
2001	29832	4450	4740	2264	2624	2840	10923	57673
2002	31661	4495	4978	2338	2848	2986	11857	61163
2003	33536	5254	5084	2364	2884	2685	13811	65618
2004	34499	5202	5859	2438	2964	3717	16111	70790
2005	33583	5288	6915	2513	3279	3492	15172	70242
2006	36210	5707	6616	3012	3970	4260	15279	75054
2007	36884	5791	7711	3047	3709	4433	15020	76595
2008	35450	6662	8590	2766	3477	4939	10216	72102

Table 1 – Expenditures for the period 2000-2008 extracted from Schedule B of the Audited Financial Reports of Acadia University. All amounts are in thousands of dollars.

Figure 1 – Budget Data from Table 1 Plotted versus Time

Clearly the overall budget has increased during this time period, although we see a drop from 2006-07 to 2007-08.

To get a better picture of any changes in how the budget has been allocated to the various sectors of the university, it is useful to examine what percentage of the total budget has been allocated to each sector. These data are given in Table 2 and plotted in Figure 2.

Year	Academic	Plant	Admin	Library	Student Services	Other	Ancillary
2000	51.8%	7.4%	7.0%	4.0%	4.7%	5.2%	20.0%
2001	51.7%	7.7%	8.2%	3.9%	4.5%	4.9%	18.9%
2002	51.8%	7.3%	8.1%	3.8%	4.7%	4.9%	19.4%
2003	51.1%	8.0%	7.7%	3.6%	4.4%	4.1%	21.0%
2004	48.7%	7.3%	8.3%	3.4%	4.2%	5.3%	22.8%
2005	47.8%	7.5%	9.8%	3.6%	4.7%	5.0%	21.6%
2006	48.2%	7.6%	8.8%	4.0%	5.3%	5.7%	20.4%
2007	48.2%	7.6%	10.1%	4.0%	4.8%	5.8%	19.6%
2008	49.2%	9.2%	11.9%	3.8%	4.8%	6.9%	14.2%

Table 2 – Percentage of Total Budget Allocated to Each Sector.

Figure 2 – Percentage of Total Budget Allocated to Each Sector

Another useful way to examine these trends is to look at the percentage increase in each sector relative to the 2000 budget for that sector. These data are given in

Year	Academic	Plant	Admin	Library	Student Services	Other	Ancillary	Total
2000	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
2001	6.7	12.0	26.3	5.2	3.6	0.4	1.4	6.8
2002	13.2	13.1	32.6	8.6	12.4	5.6	10.0	13.3
2003	19.9	32.2	35.4	9.9	13.8	-5.1	28.2	21.6
2004	23.4	30.9	56.1	13.3	17.0	31.4	49.5	31.1
2005	20.1	33.1	84.2	16.8	29.4	23.5	40.8	30.1
2006	29.5	43.6	76.2	40.0	56.7	50.6	41.8	39.0
2007	31.9	45.7	105.4	41.6	46.4	56.8	39.4	41.9
2008	26.8	67.6	128.8	28.5	37.2	74.6	-5.2	33.6

Table 3 and plotted in Figure 3.

Year	Academic	Plant	Admin	Library	Student Services	Other	Ancillary	Total
2000	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
2001	6.7	12.0	26.3	5.2	3.6	0.4	1.4	6.8
2002	13.2	13.1	32.6	8.6	12.4	5.6	10.0	13.3
2003	19.9	32.2	35.4	9.9	13.8	-5.1	28.2	21.6
2004	23.4	30.9	56.1	13.3	17.0	31.4	49.5	31.1
2005	20.1	33.1	84.2	16.8	29.4	23.5	40.8	30.1
2006	29.5	43.6	76.2	40.0	56.7	50.6	41.8	39.0
2007	31.9	45.7	105.4	41.6	46.4	56.8	39.4	41.9
2008	26.8	67.6	128.8	28.5	37.2	74.6	-5.2	33.6

Table 3 – Percentage Growth in Budgets by Sector, Relative to 2000

Figure 3– Percentage Growth in Budgets by Sector, Relative to 2000

The growth in administrative spending has now become so spectacular that we feel compelled to analyze it further. Schedule B of the reports provide some detail on how the funds in each sector are spent. Table 3A gives the breakdown of administrative spending by category. The data are plotted in Figure 3A.

Year	Total Wages	Fringe Benefits	Supplies	Ext. contr. Services	Anc. Cost Goods sold	Travel	Prof. fees	Other
2000	1775	432	1083	55		164	193	52
2001	2365	565	1017	64	232	155	269	73
2002	2711	582	529	105	486	237	283	45
2003	2746	544	819	60	379	209	269	58
2004	3140	753	1033	77	302	175	316	63
2005	3841	969	1219	45	251	259	254	77
2006	3385	978	1230	34	247	357	286	98
2007	3624	1879	1328	27	221	310	221	101
2008	3811	2560	1131	97	153	287	421	100

Table 3A – Administrative spending by function. All amounts are in thousands of dollars.

Figure 3A – Data from table 3A plotted versus time.

Table 3B and Figure 3B contain corresponding data from the Academic Sector.

Year	Total Wages	Fringe Benefits	Supplies	Ext. contr. Services	Travel	Prof. fees	Other
2000	19120	2040	5831	239	599	93	22
2001	19777	1856	7179	222	686	74	19
2002	20551	2250	7835	218	718	37	18
2003	22003	2475	7248	264	744	144	22
2004	22776	3586	6826	283	762	236	9
2005	24266	3259	4836	237	738	206	25
2006	25980	4203	4787	182	818	173	58
2007	27408	3441	4726	219	786	266	31
2008	26457	3208	4704	205	752	81	38

Table 3B – Academic sector spending by function. Amounts in thousands of dollars.

Figure 3B – Data from Table 3B plotted versus time.

Clearly the category that is increasing most dramatically in both sectors is total wages. We note that in the academic sector, total wages is 38% higher in 2008 compared to 2000, roughly in line with the overall increases in the total budget. By comparison, in 2008 total wages in the administration sector are almost 115% of the 2000 figure.

The dramatic increases in fringe benefits in the admininstration sector are related to the pension plan that covers all employees.

It is also very interesting to observe the dramatic drop in the supplies budget in the academic sector that occurred from 2002 to 2005. It is very startling to contemplate where this category will go in light of the 30% budget cut that was implemented for the 2008-2009 fiscal year. By comparison, the supplies budget on the administration side grew during this same period, although it did fall from 2007 to 2008. We would also anticipate that it too would experience a 30% cut from 07-08 to 08-09.

In order to determine if these shifts in spending priorities are appropriate, it is useful to examine how other universities in Canada allocate their resources relative to Acadia. Figure 4, Figure 4a, and Figure 5 show the General Operating Expenditures by Function for all Canadian Universities, the “Primarily Undergraduate Universities” as defined by MacLean’s magazine, and Acadia University, respectively. These figures were drawn from a report generated by the Canadian Association of University Teachers (CAUT).[2] The CAUT purchased the data used in their report from the Statistics Canada Centre for Educational Statistics, who collected the data from the Canadian Association of University Business Officers (CAUBO). These data are from the 2006-2007 academic year and thus they lag the financial report data by one year.

It is important to note that the CAUBO data does not correspond directly to the categories used in the Acadia Financial statements. A quick comparison of the CAUBO Acadia numbers in categories with the same name with the data in Table 2 for 2007 reveals that the numbers are not the same. However, for the purposes of comparison between Acadia and the rest of Canada, we assume that the CAUBO data were reported in a consistent fashion and any comparisons between CAUBO sets are valid.

Figure 4 – Average Expenditure by Function for All Canadian Universities

Figure 4a – Average expenditure by function for the MacLeans group: Primarily Undergraduate.

Figure 5–Expenditure by Function for Acadia University

One can also compare academic salaries with national averages. The data in Table 4 were obtained from the 2008 Preliminary CAUT Salary Report, covering the year 2007.[3] CAUT obtained the data from Statistics Canada.

	Full Professor	Associate Professor	Assistant Professor	Lecturer	Librarians
National Average	130376	102892	83256	80458	80459
Acadia Average	109447	83664	71457	61683	62701
% Below National Average	19.1	23.0	16.5	30.4	28.3

Table 4 – Average Salary Data by Academic Rank 2007: National and Acadia Averages. National Averages were not available for Instructors or Part-Time Faculty.

AUFA has been collecting this comparative data only since 2006. Nevertheless, it is interesting to begin plotting it versus time to see what trends may be emerging. Figure 6 shows the trends in the CAUBO data while Figure 7 shows the percent lag of average Acadia salaries relative to National Averages.

Figure 6 – CAUBO data showing percent that Acadia budget exceeds National averages over time.

Figure 7 – The percent that Acadia salaries are below national averages. The data is drawn from Table 4.

Discussion – It is quite clear from the data that there has been a consistent shift towards more spending on Administration and less spending in the Academic sector during the 9 years represented in this report. During this time period, while the overall university budget has grown by approximately 34%, spending in the Academic sector has increased by 27% while administrative spending has grown by almost 129%.

When we compare our spending by sector to Canadian averages, we see that while there had been some improvement in spending on instruction, that seems to have deteriorated from 2007 to 2008 and we are now spending 14% less than the national average on instruction. While it is likely that some of this drop can be attributed to the strike, as three weeks of faculty salaries were not paid out in the 2007-2008 fiscal year, clearly that does not account for the total shortfall.

One area that stands out in the comparison is computing, with the Canadian norm at 4% while at Acadia we spent 9% of our budget – over twice as much as the national average in the 2007 comparison. Presumably this is due to the Acadia Advantage program and we might anticipate that this statistic will change with the restructuring of the Advantage program that took place in 2008-2009.

The academic salary comparison reveals that academic salaries at Acadia lag behind national averages and that for the time period covered in this report, the gap is widening except for the librarian data. The rate at which the gap is widening tends to be highest at the upper end of the pay scales. We must point out that the salary data has only begun to be influenced by the 12^th Collective Agreement and we will need to watch this area closely to monitor the impact of our new collective agreement.

Last year we noted that “spending on instruction does not just include academic salaries. There are many non-salary items in that budget line that have a significant impact on academic life at the University.” Those items are the non-salary departmental budgets that have been reduced by 30% in this academic year and we can see from the data that those items had already taken a significant hit.

Conclusion – The budget of Acadia University has grown by approximately 34% since 2000. In 2001, Bondrup-Nielsen observed a shift in spending away from the professoriate and concluded that it was largely due to the Acadia Advantage program. It would appear from the current analysis and that a new shift in spending has persisted and a new additional shift into administrative spending, largely at the expense of the Academic Sector, has occurred.

A more detailed analysis of the spending on administration reveals that the bulk of the increases over time are due to a total wage increase of 115% in that sector. There are also some significant increases in the administration sector due to the pension plan.

An earlier version of this document was circulated to the Joint Committee on Financial Information on November 14, 2008. Regrettably, the Committee has had only one meeting since then. Administration representatives representatives suggested that it would be useful to do a thorough analysis of these spending trends in order to develop a deeper understanding of why they have occurred. Naturally, we will keep you informed of any further insights that are gleaned from that analysis.

Table of Contents

[2] This is not a publicly available document. Those interested in examining it may do so by contacting Jane Longley at the AUFA Office, Huggins Science Hall, Room 211.

[3] The 2008 data are from the CAUT Preliminary Salary Report that is not publicly available. Ultimately they are published in the CAUT Almanac.