The bar under each rank is the spread across the peer group: the shaded box is the middle half, the pale line is their median, and the gold marker is this institution. Hover for the figures.
Net tuition revenue / FTE
Tuition revenue per full-time-equivalent student after institutional aid/discounts, what tuition actually nets.Calculated from filings
Strong
$14,588
76th percentile in peer grouppeer median $11,995
higher is better
2024-25 (Scorecard)188 peers
▲ +83% steady
Instructional spend / FTE
Spending on instruction per FTE student, how much of the budget reaches the classroom.Calculated from filings
Average
$7,128
43rd percentile in peer grouppeer median $7,695
higher is better
2024-25 (Scorecard)188 peers
▲ +136% steady
In-state tuition & fees
Published price before any aid. Shown as context, not as good or bad: at most private colleges almost nobody pays it, and a high sticker often sits on top of deep discounting, so a cheaper-looking school can cost a given family more. Compare schools on net price instead; sticker price is here because it is what gets quoted.Published in-state tuition and fees before aid (sticker price).As filed
$7,980
6th percentile in peer grouppeer median $25,725
context, not scored
2024-25 (Scorecard)186 peers
▲ +22% steady
Out-of-state tuition & fees
Published price before any aid. Shown as context, not as good or bad: at most private colleges almost nobody pays it, and a high sticker often sits on top of deep discounting, so a cheaper-looking school can cost a given family more. Compare schools on net price instead; sticker price is here because it is what gets quoted.Published out-of-state tuition and fees before aid (sticker price).As filed
$7,980
6th percentile in peer grouppeer median $25,725
context, not scored
2024-25 (Scorecard)186 peers
Avg annual cost of attendance
Published price before any aid. Shown as context, not as good or bad: at most private colleges almost nobody pays it, and a high sticker often sits on top of deep discounting, so a cheaper-looking school can cost a given family more. Compare schools on net price instead; sticker price is here because it is what gets quoted.Average total annual cost, tuition, fees and living costs, before aid.As filed
$25,161
18th percentile in peer grouppeer median $39,090
context, not scored
2024-25 (Scorecard)180 peers
Avg monthly faculty salary
What the institution pays its faculty. Scored as higher-is-better because it tracks an institution's ability to attract and hold teaching staff. It also tracks local cost of living, so compare within a region before drawing a conclusion.Average monthly salary of full-time faculty (IPEDS) – a proxy for faculty investment.As filed
Below peers
$4,103
6th percentile in peer grouppeer median $6,332
higher is better
2024-25 (Scorecard)183 peers
Average monthly salary of full-time faculty, as reported to IPEDS.
Average net price
What students actually pay after all grant and scholarship aid, averaged over the students in that income band. This is the one price figure that is scored: lower is genuinely better for the family paying it. It still averages over very different aid packages, so treat it as a band, not a quote.Average yearly price families actually pay after grants and scholarships.As filed
Average
$21,751
58th percentile in peer grouppeer median $20,875
lower is better
2024-25 (Scorecard)181 peers
Net price, low-income families (under $30K)
What students actually pay after all grant and scholarship aid, averaged over the students in that income band. This is the one price figure that is scored: lower is genuinely better for the family paying it. It still averages over very different aid packages, so treat it as a band, not a quote.Average yearly cost after all grant and scholarship aid for students from families earning under ~$30,000. Lower is better.As filed
Below peers
$21,751
78th percentile in peer grouppeer median $17,612
lower is better
2024-25 (Scorecard)176 peers
Average annual net price (cost of attendance minus all grant and scholarship aid) paid by students whose families earn under about $30,000 a year (College Scorecard, 2024-25). This is what the neediest admitted students actually pay, often far below the sticker price. Read it beside the overall net price and the high-income net price: a low figure here signals strong need-based aid. Lower is better.
Operating margin
Net surplus as a share of total revenue, whether the institution runs in the black.Calculated from filings
Deficit
-5.6%
36th percentile in peer grouppeer median 0.5%
higher is better
FY2022-23171 peers
Net surplus as a share of total revenue (IPEDS FY2022-23): (total revenues − total expenses) ÷ total revenues. A surplus above 4% is strong; a thin surplus near 0% leaves little margin for shocks.
Shown exactly as the institution filed it. The value falls outside the normal range for this measure, which usually means a reporting quirk rather than a real figure, so read it with care.
Tuition dependency
Tuition's share of total revenue, how exposed the budget is to enrollment swings.Calculated from filings
70.7%
93rd percentile in peer grouppeer median 39.2%
context, not scored
FY2022-23171 peers
Tuition & fees as a share of total revenue (IPEDS FY2022-23). Higher = more exposed to enrollment swings.
Tuition discount rate
Institutional grant aid as a share of gross tuition (IPEDS, private nonprofits only) – the tuition-discount rate. The share of sticker tuition handed back as aid; a high rate (the national average is ~56%) signals heavy price competition for students.Calculated from filings
Moderate
0.5%
5th percentile in peer grouppeer median 43.8%
context, not scored
FY2022-23182 peers
Institutional grant aid as a share of gross tuition & fee revenue (IPEDS FY2022-23, FASB): allowances applied to tuition ÷ (net tuition revenue + those allowances) – the tuition-discount rate enrollment leaders track, i.e. the share of sticker tuition handed back as institutional aid. Private nonprofit institutions only; public (GASB) institutions report tuition differently and are not shown. The national private-college average is roughly 56% (NACUBO); above ~60% signals heavy price competition.
State appropriations share
State appropriations' share of total revenue, material for public institutions, near zero for private.Calculated from filings
0%
48th percentile in peer grouppeer median 0%
context, not scored
FY2022-23171 peers
State appropriations as a share of total revenue (IPEDS FY2022-23). Material for public institutions; ~0 for private.
Administrative cost share
Institutional support (central administration, governance, general administration, fundraising, and under FASB the operation & maintenance of plant) as a share of total expenses, private nonprofit (FASB) institutions only, where the figure is comparable. An informational gauge of administrative intensity, not a measure of waste.Calculated from filings
9.1%
1st percentile in peer grouppeer median 23.2%
context, not scored
FY2022-23182 peers
Institutional support, central administration, executive management, governance, general administration, fundraising and (under FASB rules) operation & maintenance of plant, as a share of total expenses (IPEDS FY2022-23, FASB). Private nonprofit institutions only: public (GASB) institutions report functional expenses on a different basis and frequently consolidate large hospital and auxiliary operations, which makes a comparable ratio unreliable, so they are not shown. Because FASB folds plant operations into institutional support, this runs higher than a narrow 'central-office' figure, and schools with sizable hospital or auxiliary operations show a lower ratio as those costs enlarge total expenses. An informational benchmark of administrative intensity, compared within the peer group, not a measure of waste or quality.
Months of operating cushion
Months of operating expenses covered by expendable reserves, the institution's cash cushion.Calculated from filings
Strong
20.1 mo
85th percentile in peer grouppeer median 7.7 mo
higher is better
FY2022-23169 peers
How many months of operating expenses the institution could cover from expendable reserves (IPEDS FY2022-23 primary reserve ratio × 12). About 5 months, one semester, is the accreditor benchmark for solid footing; below ~3 months is thin. A negative figure means expendable reserves are themselves negative.
Reserves vs. debt
Expendable reserves divided by long-term debt, whether reserves could cover the debt.Calculated from filings
Strong
1.38×
55th percentile in peer grouppeer median 1.13×
higher is better
FY2022-23138 peers
Expendable reserves ÷ plant-related debt (IPEDS FY2022-23 viability ratio). At or above 1.25×, reserves fully cover long-term debt. Shown blank when the institution carries little or no plant debt.
Return on net assets
Change in net assets over the year, whether the institution grew wealthier.Calculated from filings
Weak
-3.1%
31st percentile in peer grouppeer median 0.9%
higher is better
FY2022-23166 peers
Change in total net assets ÷ net assets (IPEDS FY2022-23) – whether the institution grew wealthier over the year. 2–4% is adequate; above 4% is strong.
Shown exactly as the institution filed it. The value falls outside the normal range for this measure, which usually means a reporting quirk rather than a real figure, so read it with care.
Avg Parent PLUS loan
Average Parent PLUS loan originated per recipient family.As filed
$14,230
43rd percentile in peer grouppeer median $15,190
context, not scored
AY2025-26 YTD (Federal Student Aid)161 peers
Average federal Parent PLUS loan per recipient (U.S. Dept. of Education, FSA Direct Loan Dashboard, AY2025-26 YTD). Parent PLUS faces new aggregate borrowing caps under the 2025 budget law; a high average shows how far families currently borrow above other federal aid. Companion to the Grad PLUS and Parent PLUS cap-gap signals. Context, not a quality measure. From the Federal Student Aid Direct Loan dashboard for award year 2025-26, year-to-date through Q2. A partial year, so it is not comparable with a full-year total.
Spent on instruction
Instruction as a share of total functional expenses (private-nonprofit reporting).Calculated from filings
29.1%
58th percentile in peer grouppeer median 27.6%
context, not scored
FY2022-23 (IPEDS)182 peers
Instruction spending divided by total functional expenses (IPEDS Finance, FY2022-23 (FASB)). 'Where the money goes' context, reported here for private-nonprofit (FASB) institutions only, where the functional split is comparable; not computed for public or for-profit institutions. Higher is not automatically better; research universities and those with hospitals or large auxiliaries spread spending across other functions.
Spent on student services
Student services as a share of total functional expenses (private-nonprofit reporting).Calculated from filings
13.6%
26th percentile in peer grouppeer median 21.2%
context, not scored
FY2022-23 (IPEDS)182 peers
Student-services spending (admissions, registrar, student life, counseling) divided by total functional expenses (IPEDS Finance, FY2022-23 (FASB)). Private-nonprofit (FASB) institutions only. Spending-mix context, not a quality measure.
Spent on academic support
Academic support as a share of total functional expenses (private-nonprofit reporting).Calculated from filings
23.2%
99th percentile in peer grouppeer median 6.2%
context, not scored
FY2022-23 (IPEDS)182 peers
Academic-support spending (libraries, academic computing, deans' offices) divided by total functional expenses (IPEDS Finance, FY2022-23 (FASB)). Private-nonprofit (FASB) institutions only. Context, not a quality measure.
Spent on research
Research as a share of total functional expenses (private-nonprofit reporting).Calculated from filings
0%
45th percentile in peer grouppeer median 0%
context, not scored
FY2022-23 (IPEDS)182 peers
Research spending divided by total functional expenses (IPEDS Finance, FY2022-23 (FASB)). Private-nonprofit (FASB) institutions only; near zero at teaching-focused colleges and sizeable at research universities. Spending-mix context, not a quality measure.
Full-professor average salary
What the institution pays its faculty. Scored as higher-is-better because it tracks an institution's ability to attract and hold teaching staff. It also tracks local cost of living, so compare within a region before drawing a conclusion.Average salary of full (tenured-rank) professors, 9-month equated, 2023-24.As filed
Below peers
$28,988
2nd percentile in peer grouppeer median $64,835
higher is better
2023-24160 peers
Average salary paid to full professors, the most senior instructional rank (IPEDS Human Resources, 2023-24, 9-month equated). It reflects both the school's pay scale and the seniority of its faculty, and it is a sizeable share of academic cost. Banded against the school's peer group.
2.3
53rd percentile in peer grouppeer median 2.2
higher is better
FY2022-23 (Federal Student Aid)141 peers
The U.S. Department of Education's financial-responsibility composite score, a -1.0 to +3.0 measure of an institution's solvency built from its audited finances. 1.5 and above passes; 1.0-1.4 is a zone needing oversight; below 1.0 fails and can trigger letter-of-credit or cash-monitoring requirements. ED computes it only for private non-profit and proprietary schools, so it is reported only where scored. Higher is safer. Banded against the school's peer group.
Structural risk index
An indicative 0–100 structural-risk index (higher = more pressure) blending operating margin, months of cash cushion, tuition dependency and the home-state enrollment cliff. Screens for the financial and demographic strain that precedes closures and mergers, directional, not a prediction.Blended index
Elevated
46
FY2022-23 (IPEDS) with WICHE 2024 projections
An indicative 0–100 structural-risk index (higher = more pressure), an equal-weight blend of the stress signals we measure: thin or negative operating margin, low months of operating cushion, high tuition dependency, and a shrinking home-state high-school-graduate pipeline (enrollment cliff). Averaged over whichever signals are available (at least two required). It screens for the financial and demographic pressures that precede closures and mergers, a directional indicator, NOT a prediction that any institution will close, and not a credit rating. Built from the FY2022-23 IPEDS finance filing, the most recent one published, combined with WICHE's high-school-graduate projections. The finance side is two to three years old, so a school that has since raised money, cut costs or lost enrollment will not be reflected here. It is a structural signal, not a current diagnosis, and it is not a prediction that any named institution will close.
Federal awards expended
Total federal award dollars expended in the audited fiscal year (SEFA total).As filed
$1.3M
6th percentile in peer grouppeer median $9.2M
context, not scored
AY2025 (Federal Audit Clearinghouse)135 peers
Total federal award dollars the institution expended in the audited fiscal year, from the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards in its Single Audit. It combines student aid, research grants, and every other federal program, so it measures the institution's overall exposure to federal funding rather than its quality. Context metric, not better or worse. Shown as a position within the peer group, not as a score. Reported only for institutions that file their own Single Audit with the Federal Audit Clearinghouse; a school with no value did not file one, which is not the same as a clean result. Public universities audited inside a state or system report, for-profit institutions (exempt from the Single Audit), and schools under the federal expenditure threshold do not appear. Each school is shown at its own most recent filing, so the peer comparison spans a few filing years rather than a single one.
Title IV aid expended
Federal student aid dollars expended (Student Financial Assistance cluster).As filed
$1.3M
6th percentile in peer grouppeer median $7.9M
context, not scored
AY2025 (Federal Audit Clearinghouse)135 peers
Federal student financial aid the institution disbursed in the audited year: the Student Financial Assistance cluster, covering Pell, Direct Loans, Federal Work-Study, FSEOG and Perkins. It is the clearest single measure of how much Title IV money flows through the school. Context metric, not better or worse. Reported only for institutions that file their own Single Audit with the Federal Audit Clearinghouse; a school with no value did not file one, which is not the same as a clean result. Public universities audited inside a state or system report, for-profit institutions (exempt from the Single Audit), and schools under the federal expenditure threshold do not appear. Each school is shown at its own most recent filing, so the peer comparison spans a few filing years rather than a single one.
Pell Grant dollars
Pell Grant dollars expended in the audited year (ALN 84.063).As filed
$418,271
3rd percentile in peer grouppeer median $2.2M
context, not scored
AY2025 (Federal Audit Clearinghouse)134 peers
Pell Grant dollars the institution disbursed in the audited fiscal year (federal assistance listing 84.063). Read alongside the school's Pell share of enrollment: high Pell dollars at a small school signals a low-income student body and heavy dependence on that appropriation. Context metric, not better or worse. Reported only for institutions that file their own Single Audit with the Federal Audit Clearinghouse; a school with no value did not file one, which is not the same as a clean result. Public universities audited inside a state or system report, for-profit institutions (exempt from the Single Audit), and schools under the federal expenditure threshold do not appear. Each school is shown at its own most recent filing, so the peer comparison spans a few filing years rather than a single one.
Direct Loan volume
William D. Ford Direct Loan dollars expended (ALN 84.268).As filed
$855,650
9th percentile in peer grouppeer median $5M
context, not scored
AY2025 (Federal Audit Clearinghouse)131 peers
Federal Direct Loan dollars originated for the institution's students in the audited fiscal year (federal assistance listing 84.268). Large loan volume relative to enrollment means students are borrowing heavily to attend. Context metric, not better or worse; pair it with the school's median debt and earnings figures. Reported only for institutions that file their own Single Audit with the Federal Audit Clearinghouse; a school with no value did not file one, which is not the same as a clean result. Public universities audited inside a state or system report, for-profit institutions (exempt from the Single Audit), and schools under the federal expenditure threshold do not appear. Each school is shown at its own most recent filing, so the peer comparison spans a few filing years rather than a single one.
Audit findings
Distinct findings raised in the most recent Single Audit. Lower is better.As filed
No findings
0
26th percentile in peer grouppeer median 0
lower is better
AY2025 (Federal Audit Clearinghouse)135 peers
Number of distinct audit findings the independent auditor raised in the institution's most recent Single Audit. A finding records a failure to comply with federal award rules or a breakdown in internal control, and can range from a late report to unallowable spending. Zero is common and is the clean result. Lower is better. Reported only for institutions that file their own Single Audit with the Federal Audit Clearinghouse; a school with no value did not file one, which is not the same as a clean result. Public universities audited inside a state or system report, for-profit institutions (exempt from the Single Audit), and schools under the federal expenditure threshold do not appear. Each school is shown at its own most recent filing, so the peer comparison spans a few filing years rather than a single one.
No
AY2025 (Federal Audit Clearinghouse)
Whether the independent auditor included a going-concern disclosure in the institution's most recent Single Audit report. Auditors add one when there is substantial doubt about the organization's ability to continue operating for the next year, so it is the most serious signal an audit carries. Read it as a prompt to open the audit itself, not as a verdict: the flag is the checkbox the auditor ticked on the federal SF-SAC form, and the underlying disclosure may concern a subsidiary or a since-resolved condition. About 2% of audited institutions carry one. Reported only for institutions that file their own Single Audit with the Federal Audit Clearinghouse; a school with no value did not file one, which is not the same as a clean result. Public universities audited inside a state or system report, for-profit institutions (exempt from the Single Audit), and schools under the federal expenditure threshold do not appear. Each school is shown at its own most recent filing, so the peer comparison spans a few filing years rather than a single one.
No
AY2025 (Federal Audit Clearinghouse)
Whether the auditor found a material weakness in internal control over financial reporting: a deficiency severe enough that a material misstatement of the financial statements could go undetected. It does not mean money was lost, but it means the controls that would have caught a loss were not working. Around 10% of audited institutions report one. Reported only for institutions that file their own Single Audit with the Federal Audit Clearinghouse; a school with no value did not file one, which is not the same as a clean result. Public universities audited inside a state or system report, for-profit institutions (exempt from the Single Audit), and schools under the federal expenditure threshold do not appear. Each school is shown at its own most recent filing, so the peer comparison spans a few filing years rather than a single one.
No
AY2025 (Federal Audit Clearinghouse)
Whether the auditor found material noncompliance with the rules attached to the institution's federal awards, such as student eligibility, cash management, or allowable cost requirements. Material means the breach was large enough to matter to the federal agency funding the school. About 2% of audited institutions report it. Reported only for institutions that file their own Single Audit with the Federal Audit Clearinghouse; a school with no value did not file one, which is not the same as a clean result. Public universities audited inside a state or system report, for-profit institutions (exempt from the Single Audit), and schools under the federal expenditure threshold do not appear. Each school is shown at its own most recent filing, so the peer comparison spans a few filing years rather than a single one.
Program compliance opinion
Auditor issued a qualified, adverse, or disclaimer opinion on a major federal program.Regulator / auditor finding
Unmodified
No
AY2025 (Federal Audit Clearinghouse)
Whether the auditor issued anything other than a clean (unmodified) compliance opinion on at least one of the institution's major federal programs. A qualified, adverse, or disclaimer opinion means the auditor could not conclude the school followed that program's rules. Roughly 3% of audited institutions receive one; for most schools the major program at issue is Title IV student aid. Reported only for institutions that file their own Single Audit with the Federal Audit Clearinghouse; a school with no value did not file one, which is not the same as a clean result. Public universities audited inside a state or system report, for-profit institutions (exempt from the Single Audit), and schools under the federal expenditure threshold do not appear. Each school is shown at its own most recent filing, so the peer comparison spans a few filing years rather than a single one.
Yes
AY2025 (Federal Audit Clearinghouse)
Whether the institution qualified as a low-risk auditee under federal rule 2 CFR 200.520. A school earns the status only by filing on time for two consecutive years with clean opinions, no material weaknesses, and no going-concern doubt. It is a compact summary of a clean recent audit history, and it reduces how much of the school's federal spending must be audited the next year. About 73% of audited institutions qualify. Yes is better. The value is the box the filer ticked on the federal SF-SAC form, and a minority of filings tick it alongside a condition that should disqualify them, so treat a lone Yes as weaker evidence than a clean set of the other audit flags on this page. Reported only for institutions that file their own Single Audit with the Federal Audit Clearinghouse; a school with no value did not file one, which is not the same as a clean result. Public universities audited inside a state or system report, for-profit institutions (exempt from the Single Audit), and schools under the federal expenditure threshold do not appear. Each school is shown at its own most recent filing, so the peer comparison spans a few filing years rather than a single one.
Gifts and grants received
Total contributions, gifts, and grants received in the filing year (Form 990).As filed
Below peers
$1.2M
7th percentile in peer grouppeer median $5.8M
higher is better
FY2023 (IRS Form 990 (ProPublica Nonprofit Explorer))136 peers
▲ +2801% choppy · turning
Total contributions, gifts, and grants the institution received in the filing year, from its Form 990. This is the broadest available measure of philanthropic and grant support reaching the institution, covering alumni giving, foundation grants, and government grants recorded as contributions. Read it against enrollment: strong giving at a small school is a real cushion against tuition dependence. Higher is better. Sourced from the institution's IRS Form 990, matched on the Employer Identification Number it reported in its federal Single Audit. Only private nonprofit institutions file a Form 990: public universities are government units and file none, and for-profit institutions file none. A school with no value did not file, which is not the same as a value of zero. Each school is shown at its own most recent filing, so the peer comparison spans a few filing years rather than a single one.
Tax-exempt bond debt
Tax-exempt bond liabilities outstanding at year end (Form 990).As filed
$0
34th percentile in peer grouppeer median $0
context, not scored
FY2023 (IRS Form 990 (ProPublica Nonprofit Explorer))136 peers
Tax-exempt bond debt the institution still owed at the end of the filing year. Colleges borrow through municipal bonds to build dormitories, labs, and stadiums, so a large balance is not by itself a warning: it reflects a building programme. It becomes a risk when it is large relative to the institution's net assets, which is what the bond-debt-to-net-assets figure on this page measures. A zero here means the institution reported no tax-exempt bond debt outstanding, which is a genuine, debt-free result. Context metric, not better or worse. Sourced from the institution's IRS Form 990, matched on the Employer Identification Number it reported in its federal Single Audit. Only private nonprofit institutions file a Form 990: public universities are government units and file none, and for-profit institutions file none. A school with no value did not file, which is not the same as a value of zero. Each school is shown at its own most recent filing, so the peer comparison spans a few filing years rather than a single one.
Bond debt vs net assets
Tax-exempt bond debt as a share of total net assets. Lower is better.Calculated from filings
Low leverage
0%
34th percentile in peer grouppeer median 0%
lower is better
FY2023 (IRS Form 990 (ProPublica Nonprofit Explorer))135 peers
The institution's outstanding tax-exempt bond debt divided by its total net assets. It answers the question the raw debt figure cannot: how heavy is this borrowing relative to what the institution actually owns. A wealthy university with billions in net assets carries a large bond balance comfortably; a tuition-dependent college with thin reserves does not. Above roughly 50% the debt is a material claim on the institution's resources. Shown only where net assets are positive. Lower is better. Sourced from the institution's IRS Form 990, matched on the Employer Identification Number it reported in its federal Single Audit. Only private nonprofit institutions file a Form 990: public universities are government units and file none, and for-profit institutions file none. A school with no value did not file, which is not the same as a value of zero. Each school is shown at its own most recent filing, so the peer comparison spans a few filing years rather than a single one.
Officer pay, share of expenses
Compensation of current officers and key employees as a share of total expenses.Calculated from filings
4.2%
87th percentile in peer grouppeer median 2.1%
context, not scored
FY2023 (IRS Form 990 (ProPublica Nonprofit Explorer))121 peers
What the institution paid its current officers, directors, trustees, and key employees, as a share of its total functional expenses. At almost every college this is a fraction of one percent, because the denominator includes all faculty and staff salaries. The figure is useful mainly at the extremes and at small institutions, where an unusually high share can indicate a top-heavy cost structure. It is not a measure of executive pay in absolute terms. Context metric, not better or worse. Sourced from the institution's IRS Form 990, matched on the Employer Identification Number it reported in its federal Single Audit. Only private nonprofit institutions file a Form 990: public universities are government units and file none, and for-profit institutions file none. A school with no value did not file, which is not the same as a value of zero. Each school is shown at its own most recent filing, so the peer comparison spans a few filing years rather than a single one.
Net-cost payback period
Estimated years to recoup the four-year net cost from the annual earnings premium over a high-school graduate in this state.Blended index
Average
7.5 yrs
58th percentile in peer grouppeer median 6.7 yrs
lower is better
2020-21 to 2024-25 (Scorecard)145 peers
Four-year net price divided by the median 10-year earnings premium over a typical high-school graduate in the institution's state (College Scorecard earnings and net price; U.S. Census Bureau ACS state baselines). A simple value-for-cost gauge: fewer years is stronger. Shown only where net price and earnings are both reported, where earnings exceed the state high-school baseline, and where the resulting period is inside a working lifetime (past about 40 years the figure is only reporting that the premium is near zero, so no number is shown); it ignores aid timing, debt and non-completion, so read it as a directional comparison, not a financial projection.
Enrollment loss before deficit
How much of its enrollment the institution could lose before running an operating deficit, if it changed nothing else.Modelled by Ibex
No cushion
0%
24th percentile in peer grouppeer median 0.5%
higher is better
FY2022-23169 peers
The share of its students an institution could lose before its operating surplus becomes a deficit, assuming net tuition per student and total costs stay where they are. It comes straight from two figures in the same IPEDS finance filing: the operating margin, and tuition's share of total revenue. A school with a 3% surplus that funds 85% of itself from tuition can absorb about a 3.5% enrollment loss; the same 3% surplus at a school funding a quarter of itself from tuition absorbs about 12%. Zero means the institution is already running a deficit. It is not a prediction: no institution facing that loss would hold costs flat, and the number is the size of the hole that would have to be closed, not the outcome. Banded against the school's peer group. Higher is better.
Operating margin after a 10% enrollment loss
What the operating margin becomes if a tenth of the students go and nothing else changes.Modelled by Ibex
Into deficit
-13.6%
32nd percentile in peer grouppeer median -5.4%
higher is better
FY2022-23171 peers
The institution's operating margin recomputed after losing one student in ten, holding net tuition per student and total costs constant. Tuition revenue falls with the students; every other revenue line and the whole cost base stay put. A tenth is the scale of decline the demographic projections already put on several states' high-school graduating classes, so it is a scenario rather than a worst case. Not a forecast: a real institution would cut costs, and this measures the gap it would have to cut, not what it would end up reporting. Built from the operating margin and tuition dependency in the same IPEDS filing. Banded against the school's peer group. Higher is better.
Shown exactly as the institution filed it. The value falls outside the normal range for this measure, which usually means a reporting quirk rather than a real figure, so read it with care.
Operational-risk index (official findings)
0-100 severity of what federal regulators and auditors have actually said about this institution. Higher means more official concern.Blended index
Clean
6.0
41st percentile in peer grouppeer median 9.0
lower is better
ED composite FY2022-23 (Federal Student Aid) + Single Audit AY2025 (Federal Audit Clearinghouse)163 peers
A 0-100 severity score built only from published federal determinations: the Department of Education's financial-responsibility composite score, its Heightened Cash Monitoring list, and the going-concern, material-weakness, material-noncompliance, modified-opinion and repeat-finding results of the school's Single Audit. It is deliberately NOT a model: every component is something a regulator or an independent auditor put in writing. Components are scored only where they exist, and the score is their weighted average, so a school assessed on two signals sits on the same scale as one assessed on seven. Schools with neither a composite score nor a Single Audit on file are omitted rather than shown as clean: ED does not compute a composite score for public institutions, and no audit on file means nobody looked, not that nothing was found. Read it alongside the structural-risk index, which is the tool's own forward-looking model rather than a record of findings. Lower is better. The window shown is the one this school's own figure was measured over: it is shorter where the series starts late, ends early, or is cut at a reporting change, so peers are not all measured over identical years.