University Times

The issue of how Pitt and its fellow state-related institutions spend their state appropriation dollars is magnified this year in light of Gov. Tom Corbett’s proposal to cut funding by 30 percent in the state’s fiscal year 2013 budget. (See Feb. 9 University Times.)

And, in light of a mid-year freeze on $6.8 million in state funding (Jan. 26 University Times) Pitt deans and administrators have been asked to document their past cost savings and to seek additional cost-cutting proposals from their units.

Reporting on how the universities’ state dollars are spent isn’t new, however. The terms of Pitt’s appropriation require the University to report on its spending to Pennsylvania’s General Assembly, the state Department of Education and the auditor general each year.

In addition, under the Public School Code of 1949, the state-related universities must report financial information and details on faculty costs.

Each year, the Joint State Government Commission (JSGC) analyzes the state-related universities’ annual information disclosures and their reports on faculty outputs and salary costs as required by the public school code.

The required submissions make up the basis for two annual JSGC reports that typically are completed each February: “Information Disclosure of the State-related Universities” and “Instructional Output and Faculty Salary Costs of the State-related and State-owned Universities.”

The fiscal year 2010-11 analyses are posted in the publications section of the JSGC site (http://jsg.legis.state.pa.us).

Information disclosure

Analysis of the information disclosures is divided into sections addressing 2010-11 full-time faculty and staff and their average salaries; 2009-10 and 2010-11 revenue and expenditure data; 2010-11 goods and services purchase contracts, and the four state-related universities’ retirement and tuition benefit policies.

Changes

The most recent analysis reflects a change in how contracts and revenue and expenditure data are reported, making it impossible to compare directly current numbers with figures from prior reports, the authors cautioned. The state-related universities agreed to report only data that was required under the Public School Code of 1949. According to the JSGC, the statute does not require reporting on auxiliary enterprises that are not funded by tuition or the state appropriation. Therefore, revenue and expenditure data from auxiliary enterprises are not included in the fiscal year 2010-11 reports. Likewise the universities agreed to include in their reports only vendor contracts that use unrestricted (or general) fund dollars or auxiliary funds.

Vendor contracts

The vendor contract listing includes only those contracts of $1,000 or more that used general or auxiliary fund dollars. (According to the JSGC, that excludes contracts for sponsored research or within restricted funds, including some plant or construction contracts.)

Pitt reported $311.53 million in purchases of goods and services of $1,000 or more that used general or auxiliary fund dollars.

The report found that nearly two-thirds — 63.1 percent — of the Pitt contracts went to out-of-state firms or contractors whose location was not known while 36.9 percent went to Pennsylvania-based vendors.

At the top of Pitt’s contract list were: Duquesne Light, $30.6 million, Sodexo and affiliates, $28.69 million; Bellefield Boiler Plant, $14.26 million; Bridgeside Point II developer BPA II, $9.06 million, and Pittsburgh Water and Sewer Authority, $7.3 million.

Reporting by unit, the bulk of the contracts were attributable to the executive vice chancellor area with $139.98 million, or 44.9 percent of the total, followed by the senior vice chancellor and provost area, $74.71 million, or 24 percent; School of Medicine division, $52.41 million, or 16.8 percent; chancellor’s area, $23.96 million or 7.7 percent, and senior vice chancellor, Health Sciences area, $12.75 million, or 4.1 percent.  Of the total, $7.71 million, or 2.5 percent, was categorized as “general University,” or education and general activity costs not directly attributable to other units.

Contract data also were analyzed by expenditure type. Topping the list for Pitt was professional services, representing 28.6 percent of the $311.53 million total. Utilities followed at 18.5 percent and supplies/equipment at 18.3 percent.

Expenditures

Pitt reported its instructional operating revenues and expenditures and the percentage change from 2009-10 to 2010-11.

The reported revenues totaled $1.17 billion, an increase of 3.7 percent from 2009-10. Tuition and fees made up 55.1 percent of the total at $642.3 million, up 6.9 percent from the prior year.

State appropriations made up 15.8 percent of the total at $184.56 million, down 0.5 percent from the prior year, and other operating revenues made up 29 percent at $338.36 million, an increase of 0.3 percent.

Of Pitt’s $1.17 billion in reported instructional operating expenditures, wages and salaries made up 41 percent of the total with $477.43 million, up 5.3 percent over the prior year.

Employee benefits represented 13.3 percent of the expenditures with $155.29 million, an increase of 2.4 percent; travel expenses totaled 2.3 percent at $27.06 million, an increase of 12.6 percent, and other operating expenditures made up 43.4 percent with $505.35 million, an increase of 3.2 percent.

Faculty and staff data

Pitt reported the number of full-time faculty and staff and their average salaries (paid through all funds) by faculty rank and staff classification. No data were given for ranks or classifications that included three or fewer people.

Faculty figures

The report stated that University-wide, Pitt had 5,253 full-time faculty. That included 948 professors and an average salary of $120,622 for the rank; 1,019 associate professors and an average salary of $80,025 for the rank; 1,698 assistant professors and an average salary of $61,164 for the rank; 290 instructors and an average salary of $44,379 for the rank, and 1,298 other faculty with an average salary of $37,082.

Staff statistics

According to the report, full-time staff at Pitt totaled 6,947 in 2010-11. Of that number, 603 were categorized as executive/administrative/managerial with an average salary of $103,038; 4,491 were other professional non-faculty with an average salary of $44,709; 647 were clerical/secretarial, averaging $26,656, and 1,206 were categorized as technical, skilled, service and other, with an average salary of $33,692.

Instructional faculty costs

Of the four state-related universities, Pitt’s instructional faculty had the lowest average salary.

The University also had the lowest instructional faculty cost per full-time equivalent (FTE) student at $2,785, compared with $2,840 at Penn State, $2,982 at Temple and $3,277 at Lincoln.

For master’s level students, the cost per FTE student was $5,197 at Pitt; $1,445 at Lincoln; $7,343 at Penn State and $5,486 at Temple.

The 2,063 FTE instructional faculty at Pitt were paid an average of $60,000 per year, compared with an average of  $69,400 at Penn State, $67,600 at Lincoln and $65,800 at Temple.

At Pitt, 15 percent of the instructional faculty were full professors with an average instructional salary of $106,900; 20 percent were associate professors, with an average instructional salary of $68,200; 21 percent were assistant professors, averaging $54,900; 17 percent were instructors, averaging $31,900, and 27 percent had no rank and averaged $49,000 in instructional salary.

The report’s authors cautioned that these faculty salary data cannot be compared with other reports because non-instructional faculty salaries are excluded.

More graduates

Pitt’s graduating classes are increasing in size. In 2010-11, Pitt awarded 8,390 degrees, an increase of 466, or 6 percent over the prior year. The total included 5,227 bachelor’s degrees (an increase of 271, or 5 percent) and 3,163 graduate degrees (an increase of 195, or 7 percent.)

In 2010-11 the University had 34,281 FTE students, including 9,495 graduate students.

Instructional revenues

Pitt’s total instructional revenues per FTE student (tuition and fee revenues plus instructional appropriations) were highest among the four state-related schools. At Pitt, state instructional appropriations made up 21 percent ($4,585) of the total $22,310 in instructional revenues per FTE student, a 7 percent decrease from the prior year.

Penn State’s ratio was lowest with instructional appropriations of $3,317 representing 16 percent of its $20,889 in total instructional revenues per FTE student.

At Temple, instructional appropriations of $4,708 made up 22 percent of its $21,573 in total instructional revenues per student.

At Lincoln, instructional appropriations of $5,615 represented 33 percent of its total instructional revenues of $16,836 per student.

—Kimberly K. Barlow