The Rockefeller University
New York, NY · official site ↗
Private nonprofitR2: High Research Spending and Doctorate ProductionVery small
1
Fin. Resilience
The Rockefeller University is a private nonprofit institution in New York, NY, classified by Carnegie as “R2: High Research Spending and Doctorate Production.”
It is benchmarked here against 42 peer institutions (R2: High Research Spending and Doctorate Production · Private nonprofit).
On Ibex's Financial Resilience score it rates 1 out of 100 within that peer group, a transparent composite of endowment per undergraduate, net tuition revenue per student, and instructional spend per student.
That score and the financial health index below are not the same measure and can disagree: the resilience score ranks per-student resource levels against this peer group, while the financial health index scores the institution's own balance sheet and operating result on the CFI scale, independent of peers. A school with modest resources per student can still run a sound balance sheet, and a wealthy one can still post an operating loss.
Its strongest standing relative to peers is full-professor average salary ($289,007, 99th percentile).
Its weakest is instructional spend / FTE ($0).
Peer group
R2: High Research Spending and Doctorate Production · Private nonprofit
42 institutions
No cross-metric risk flags triggered.
What changedlargest year-over-year moves
Audit findings
▼ -100%
2 → 0
2024→2025
Gifts and grants received
▲ +15%
$230.3M → $265.7M
2022→2023
Federal awards expended
▼ -12%
$110.3M → $96.6M
2024→2025
Federal research funding
▼ -12%
$110.3M → $96.6M
2024→2025
Endowment (end of year)
▼ -9%
$2.77B → $2.52B
2022→2023
Most recent single-year change in each tracked metric (rates in percentage points). Green = moved in this metric’s favorable direction, red = unfavorable, grey = size or context, not scored. Each row uses the latest pair of years that metric has, and federal collections release on different schedules, so the years differ from row to row: read the years on the row, not just the ranking. A single year is also not a trend, the multi-year series is on each metric’s card below.
Policy & demographic exposure
How exposed The Rockefeller University is to the structural shifts reshaping higher ed: a composite structural-risk index plus the 2025 federal budget law’s endowment excise tax, Grad PLUS elimination, new Parent PLUS borrowing cap and new Workforce Pell short-term-credential opportunity, and the demographic enrollment cliff. Only signals that apply to this institution are shown.
Structural risk indexAn 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.
50
ElevatedEnrollment cliff (home state)Projected change in the institution's home-state high-school graduates from 2025 to 2041 (WICHE). The U.S. total falls about 13%. This is a directional feeder-market signal, not an enrollment forecast.
-27%
Severe declineIndicative signals, not forecasts, see each metric’s definition and the methodology. Endowment-tax, Grad PLUS, Parent PLUS and Workforce Pell figures appear only where the institution is exposed, and “nationally” compares against all schools that report each signal.
Turn these signals into action
Seeing exposure is step one. Ibex builds AI agents that monitor and act on exactly these pressures. Explore an interactive demo. Live demos run real workflows, and the rest are working mockups we build to your institution’s data.
Financial Health Index
4.8
on a −4 to 10 scale
Primary reserve 35%57.3 mo
Reserves vs. debt 35%2.62×
Return on net assets 20%-5.3%
Operating result 10%-13.7%
Composite of four ratios on a strength-factor scale (−4 weak → 10 strong): below 3 falls short of the threshold for financial health, below 1 signals acute stress, and above 6 is strong. Computed from IPEDS FY2022-23, the most recent finance release (it lags the current year by 2–3 years). Branch campuses that report finances at a parent/system level can show distorted ratios. For informational benchmarking, not a credit rating or financial advice.
Enrollment shock
What an enrollment loss would do to the budgetTuition revenue falls with the students. Every other revenue line and the entire cost base stay where they are. It measures the size of the hole a decline would open, not what the institution would end up reporting after it responded.
Tuition and fees fund 0% of this institution’s operating revenue, and it runs a -13.7% operating margin.
-13.7%
operating margin after the loss, with costs unchanged
A deliberately simple counterfactual: net tuition per student and total costs stay where the latest IPEDS finance filing put them, so only the tuition line moves. No institution facing this would hold costs flat, which is the point, the figure is the gap that would have to be closed, not a forecast of the margin it would report. A school that responds by discounting harder to hold headcount converts the same problem into a net-price one, and it does not show up here.
Revenue composition
Where the money comes from
$348.1M total revenue · IPEDS FY2022-23
Private gifts & grants is the largest single source at 47% of revenue.
Private gifts & grants47.2%
Government grants & contracts29.2%
Other revenue13.8%
Auxiliary enterprises9.2%
Investment return0.7%
Where each dollar of revenue comes from, as a share of total positive revenue. Sources are standardized across public (GASB) and private (FASB) reporting. A net investment loss in a down market is shown as 0% and excluded from the mix.
Federal funding mix
Which agencies fund this schoolThe share of this school's federal funding that comes from each awarding agency in FY2025. These are dollars agencies committed (obligations), not dollars the school spent, so the total will not match the audited federal-awards-expended figure elsewhere on this page. Matched to the school by its own SAM.gov Unique Entity ID.
$65.1M obligated · FY2025
Health & Human Services is the largest single funder at 97%.
Health & Human Services97.0%
NSF1.8%
Defense1.3%
Federal dollars each agency committed to this institution in FY2025, as a share of its total positive obligations (USAspending.gov). Obligations are money committed, not money spent, so this total will not match the audited “Federal awards expended” figure elsewhere on this page. Amounts an agency reclaimed during the year are excluded.
Financial Health
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 / FTETuition revenue per full-time-equivalent student after institutional aid/discounts, what tuition nets.Calculated from filings
Below peers
$0
1st percentile in peer grouppeer median $28,320
higher is better
2024-25 (Scorecard)42 peers
Instructional spend / FTESpending on instruction per FTE student, how much of the budget reaches the classroom.Calculated from filings
Below peers
$0
1st percentile in peer grouppeer median $18,411
higher is better
2024-25 (Scorecard)42 peers
Endowment (end of year)Total endowment value at year end, long-term invested wealth that funds operations and cushions shocks.As filed
Strong
$2.52B
96th percentile in peer grouppeer median $573.2M
higher is better
FY2022-2342 peers
Value of endowment assets at the end of the fiscal year (IPEDS finance, FY2022-23: FASB F2H02 / GASB F1H02), co-vintage with the other finance-year metrics on this page. Usually filed at the parent campus: most branch and online sub-units show the parent's endowment as a clearly labeled inherited value, and a few report a small endowment of their own alongside it. Multi-year trend from College Scorecard, shown only where it matches the IPEDS filing.
Avg monthly faculty salaryWhat 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
Strong
$22,875
99th percentile in peer grouppeer median $12,666
higher is better
2024-25 (Scorecard)39 peers
Average monthly salary of full-time faculty, as reported to IPEDS.
Operating marginOperating surplus or deficit as a share of operating revenue, leaving out investment swings and capital gifts: whether day-to-day operations run in the black.Calculated from filings
Deficit
-13.7%
6th percentile in peer grouppeer median 4.1%
higher is better
FY2022-2341 peers
Operating result as a share of operating revenue (IPEDS FY2022-23): the IPEDS net operating revenue ratio, the same figure the Financial Health Index uses. It leaves out capital appropriations, capital gifts and additions to endowment, and for private nonprofits counts only unrestricted revenue, so a one-year swing in investment markets or a building grant does not read as an operating surplus or deficit. For-profit institutions: (revenue excluding investment return − total expenses) ÷ that revenue. A surplus above 4% is strong. A thin surplus near 0% leaves little margin for shocks. Values beyond ±100% are not shown.
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 dependencyNet tuition as a share of operating revenue, how exposed the budget is to enrollment swings.Calculated from filings
0%
1st percentile in peer grouppeer median 53.4%
context, not scored
FY2022-2341 peers
Tuition and fees as a share of operating revenue (IPEDS FY2022-23), the same revenue base as the operating margin, so the two combine correctly in the enrollment-loss scenario. Operating revenue leaves out capital appropriations, capital gifts and endowment additions, and for private nonprofits counts unrestricted revenue only, so this share can run a few points above the tuition slice of the revenue-mix chart, which divides by every revenue source. For public institutions the base is the IPEDS consolidated figure, which can include component units such as foundations and university health systems, so a public with a large hospital shows lower dependency than its campus budget alone would. Not shown where the operating margin is not shown. Higher = more exposed to enrollment swings.
State appropriations shareState appropriations' share of total revenue, material for public institutions, near zero for private.Calculated from filings
0%
37th percentile in peer grouppeer median 0%
context, not scored
FY2022-2342 peers
State appropriations as a share of total revenue (IPEDS FY2022-23). Material for public institutions, ~0 for private.
Administrative cost shareInstitutional support (central administration, governance, general administration, fundraising, and under FASB the operation and 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
15%
42nd percentile in peer grouppeer median 16.4%
context, not scored
FY2022-2342 peers
Institutional support, central administration, executive management, governance, general administration, fundraising and (under FASB rules) operation and 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 cushionMonths of operating expenses covered by expendable reserves, the institution's cash cushion.Calculated from filings
Strong
57.3 mo
99th percentile in peer grouppeer median 13 mo
higher is better
FY2022-2341 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. debtExpendable reserves divided by long-term debt, whether reserves could cover the debt.Calculated from filings
Strong
2.62×
57th percentile in peer grouppeer median 2.02×
higher is better
FY2022-2338 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 assetsChange in net assets over the year, whether the institution grew wealthier.Calculated from filings
Weak
-5.3%
11th percentile in peer grouppeer median 4.5%
higher is better
FY2022-2341 peers
Change in total net assets ÷ net assets (IPEDS FY2022-23), whether the institution grew wealthier over the year. 2–4% is adequate, and 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.
Endowment per FTE studentEndowment per full-time-equivalent student, the FTE-correct measure of endowment wealth per student.Calculated from filings
Strong
$6.1M
99th percentile in peer grouppeer median $81,167
higher is better
FY2022-2342 peers
End-of-year endowment ÷ 12-month FTE enrollment, endowment wealth per full-time-equivalent student. The FTE-correct companion to endowment-per-undergraduate. FTE counts graduate and part-time load, so research universities look less wealthy on this basis than on a headcount basis. Both sides are FY2022-23: the denominator is the FTE count from the endowment's own year (2022-23), not the newer FTE figure shown in the enrollment section, so dividing the two numbers on this page will not reproduce this one. Where one campus files finance for sister campuses that share its federal ID, the endowment covers all of them, so their FTE is counted too.
Spent on instructionInstruction as a share of total functional expenses (private-nonprofit reporting).Calculated from filings
0%
1st percentile in peer grouppeer median 35.9%
context, not scored
FY2022-23 (IPEDS)42 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. It is 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 servicesStudent services as a share of total functional expenses (private-nonprofit reporting).Calculated from filings
4.4%
20th percentile in peer grouppeer median 9.8%
context, not scored
FY2022-23 (IPEDS)42 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 supportAcademic support as a share of total functional expenses (private-nonprofit reporting).Calculated from filings
9.3%
46th percentile in peer grouppeer median 10%
context, not scored
FY2022-23 (IPEDS)42 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 researchResearch as a share of total functional expenses (private-nonprofit reporting).Calculated from filings
62.7%
99th percentile in peer grouppeer median 6.2%
context, not scored
FY2022-23 (IPEDS)42 peers
Research spending divided by total functional expenses (IPEDS Finance, FY2022-23 (FASB)). Private-nonprofit (FASB) institutions only. It runs near zero at teaching-focused colleges and sizeable at research universities. Spending-mix context, not a quality measure.
Full-professor average salaryWhat 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
Strong
$289,007
99th percentile in peer grouppeer median $142,308
higher is better
2023-2439 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.
Structural risk indexAn 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
50
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. For-profit institutions report no operating-cushion figure and nearly all of them run close to 100% tuition dependency, so their index rests on at most three signals and reads higher than a nonprofit's; compare a for-profit with other for-profits. 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 expendedTotal federal award dollars expended in the audited fiscal year (SEFA total).As filed
$96.6M
32nd percentile in peer grouppeer median $142.6M
context, not scored
AY2025 (Federal Audit Clearinghouse)36 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.
Audit findingsDistinct 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)36 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.
Going-concern disclosureThe auditor's report includes a going-concern disclosure.Regulator / auditor finding
None
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.
Material weaknessAuditor disclosed a material weakness in internal control over financial reporting.Regulator / auditor finding
None reported
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.
Material noncomplianceAuditor disclosed material noncompliance with federal award requirements.Regulator / auditor finding
None reported
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 opinionAuditor 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.
Low-risk auditeeQualifies as a low-risk auditee under 2 CFR 200.520 (a clean recent audit history).Regulator / auditor finding
Low-risk
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. Note the periods it covers: the rule judges the two audit years BEFORE the one being filed, so this status can read Yes on a filing that also carries a going-concern disclosure or a material weakness raised for the first time this year. That is the rule working as written, not a contradiction, but it means a lone Yes is 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 receivedTotal contributions, gifts, and grants received in the filing year (Form 990).As filed
Strong
$265.7M
93rd percentile in peer grouppeer median $58M
higher is better
FY2023 (IRS Form 990 (ProPublica Nonprofit Explorer))36 peers
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 debtTax-exempt bond liabilities outstanding at year end (Form 990).As filed
$785.7M
99th percentile in peer grouppeer median $169.2M
context, not scored
FY2023 (IRS Form 990 (ProPublica Nonprofit Explorer))36 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 assetsTax-exempt bond debt as a share of total net assets. Lower is better.Calculated from filings
Moderate leverage
30.4%
74th percentile in peer grouppeer median 18.9%
lower is better
FY2023 (IRS Form 990 (ProPublica Nonprofit Explorer))36 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 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 expensesCompensation of current officers and key employees as a share of total expenses.Calculated from filings
1.5%
79th percentile in peer grouppeer median 1.1%
context, not scored
FY2023 (IRS Form 990 (ProPublica Nonprofit Explorer))36 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.
Federal funding obligatedHow much externally funded research the institution does. Shown as scale, not quality: it reflects mission, and an institution that does no sponsored research is not thereby worse at teaching. Useful for finding peers of comparable research intensity.Total federal dollars all agencies committed to this institution in FY2025, across grants, contracts, and student aid.As filed
$65.1M
83rd percentile in peer grouppeer median $19.8M
context, not scored
FY2025 (USAspending.gov)38 peers
Obligations reported to USAspending.gov for FY2025 (Oct 2024 to Sep 2025), summed across every awarding agency. This is money committed, not money spent, so it will not equal the audited 'Federal awards expended' figure and the two should not be subtracted from one another. Negative amounts (agencies reclaiming prior commitments) are excluded. A school with no figure here is one we could not match to a federal recipient (UEI) record, not one that received nothing; several large research universities are still unmatched.
Federal funding agenciesHow many distinct federal agencies committed money to this institution in FY2025.As filed
3
17th percentile in peer grouppeer median 5
context, not scored
FY2025 (USAspending.gov)38 peers
A count of awarding agencies with positive FY2025 obligations. Neither high nor low is inherently better: a community college funded solely by the Department of Education is behaving normally, while a research university typically draws on ten or more agencies.
Largest funder's shareShare of federal funding that comes from the single largest awarding agency.Calculated from filings
97%
91st percentile in peer grouppeer median 71.1%
context, not scored
FY2025 (USAspending.gov)38 peers
The largest agency's FY2025 obligations as a share of the institution's total positive federal obligations. Read it as concentration, not risk: most teaching colleges sit near 100% because nearly all their federal money is Department of Education student aid.
Operating margin after a 10% enrollment lossWhat the operating margin becomes if a tenth of the students go and nothing else changes.Modelled by Ibex
Into deficit
-13.7%
6th percentile in peer grouppeer median 0.2%
higher is better
FY2022-2341 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 said about this institution. Higher means more official concern.Blended index
Clean
0.0
24th percentile in peer grouppeer median 1.5
lower is better
Single Audit AY2025 (Federal Audit Clearinghouse)40 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.
Enrollment & Pipeline
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.
12-month FTE enrollmentFull-time-equivalent enrollment over the full year, the denominator for per-student finance measures.As filed
322
1st percentile in peer grouppeer median 8,256
context, not scored
2023-24 (IPEDS)42 peers
Full-time-equivalent enrollment over the full 12-month year (IPEDS 12-month enrollment, 2023-24). Counts part-time students at their fractional load, so it runs above fall full-time headcount and is the denominator used for per-student finance measures.
Fully online studentsShare of students enrolled exclusively in distance-education (online) courses.As filed
0%
6th percentile in peer grouppeer median 9%
context, not scored
Fall 2023 (IPEDS)42 peers
Share of students enrolled exclusively in distance-education courses (IPEDS, Fall 2023). Describes delivery model, not quality. Online-heavy institutions look different on residential measures.
Applicant-pool diversity shiftProjected change in the non-white share of the home state's public high-school graduating class, class of 2025 to 2037.Modelled by Ibex
+0.9 pts
WICHE 2024 (11th ed.)
Percentage-point change in the non-white share of the institution's home-state public high-school graduating class between the class of 2025 (the national peak) and 2037 (WICHE, Knocking at the College Door, 11th ed., public-school race detail). A forward look at who the future applicant pool will be: a positive value means the state's graduating class is projected to grow more racially diverse. Strategic recruiting context, not a forecast of any one school's enrollment, and a college recruits from many states.
Hybrid (some online) enrollmentShare of students enrolled in some but not all courses online (hybrid), Fall 2023.As filed
0%
5th percentile in peer grouppeer median 14.5%
context, not scored
Fall 202342 peers
Share of all students taking some, but not all, of their courses at a distance (IPEDS, Fall 2023). This is the hybrid middle ground between the fully online share and the fully in-person share, and it signals how far a school has moved coursework online without going exclusively remote. Context metric, not better or worse. Shown as a position within the peer group, not as a score.
Graduate share of enrollmentGraduate students as a share of total enrollment, Fall 2023.As filed
100%
93rd percentile in peer grouppeer median 38.9%
context, not scored
Fall 202342 peers
Graduate students as a share of total headcount enrollment (IPEDS, Fall 2023). It separates research-intensive universities with large graduate bodies from undergraduate-focused institutions. Context metric, not better or worse. Shown as a position within the peer group, not as a score.
Women share of facultyWomen as a share of instructional staff (full- and part-time), Fall 2023.As filed
32.4%
11th percentile in peer grouppeer median 49.4%
context, not scored
Fall 202342 peers
Women as a share of all instructional staff, full- and part-time combined (IPEDS Human Resources, Fall 2023). A gender-composition signal for the teaching workforce. Context metric, not better or worse. Shown as a position within the peer group, not as a score.
Faculty of color shareU.S. faculty of color as a share of instructional staff, Fall 2023.As filed
18.9%
25th percentile in peer grouppeer median 22.5%
context, not scored
Fall 202342 peers
Instructional staff who are American Indian/Alaska Native, Asian, Black, Hispanic, Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, or two-or-more races, as a share of all instructional staff (IPEDS Human Resources, Fall 2023). Nonresident and race-unknown staff are excluded from the numerator. Context metric, not better or worse. Shown as a position within the peer group, not as a score.
Direct competitors within 100 miCount of other institutions within 100 miles. Scored as lower-is-better because it is used here as a competitive-pressure signal for the institution, not as a benefit to students.Number of institutions in the same peer group within 100 miles.Calculated from filings
Below peers
13
89th percentile in peer grouppeer median 4
lower is better
2024-25 (Scorecard universe)42 peers
How many institutions in the same Ibex peer group, the schools most likely to compete for the same students, sit within roughly 100 miles. For most schools the peer group is the same Carnegie classification and control. Schools in small classes sit in broader fallback groups by level, sector or region (see Peer groups in the methodology), and for them the count is looser. A higher count means a more crowded local market and a harder yield fight, which matters most as the regional pool of high school graduates shrinks. A low count means the school has its catchment largely to itself. Distance is straight-line from campus coordinates. Banded against the school's peer group. Fewer is better for recruiting power.
Metro-area unemployment rateUnemployment rate in the school's metro area, ACS 2020-24.As filed
Below peers
6.8%
80th percentile in peer grouppeer median 6.1%
lower is better
ACS 2020-2442 peers
The civilian unemployment rate in the school's metropolitan or micropolitan area (US Census ACS 2020-24, mapped by the school's federal CBSA code). It is a proxy for local labor demand: a lower rate means a tighter job market, a stronger near-term destination for graduates and a smaller pool of working adults to recruit. It describes the local economy, not the school. Schools outside any metro area are not scored. Banded against the school's peer group.
Research & development spendingHow much externally funded research the institution does. Shown as scale, not quality: it reflects mission, and an institution that does no sponsored research is not thereby worse at teaching. Useful for finding peers of comparable research intensity.Total academic R&D expenditures, FY2024 (NSF HERD).As filed
$305.3M
89th percentile in peer grouppeer median $26.1M
context, not scored
FY2024 (NSF HERD)41 peers
Total research and development expenditures in FY2024, from the National Science Foundation's Higher Education R&D (HERD) survey. It separates research-intensive universities from teaching-focused peers and indicates grant capacity. Reported only for the institutions HERD surveys (those with at least $150,000 in R&D), matched to this tool by name. Where HERD reports a university together with its medical center or health-science campus (for example Nebraska-Lincoln with its Medical Center, Vanderbilt with VUMC, Dartmouth with Dartmouth Hitchcock, Maryland-College Park with Maryland-Baltimore), the combined total is shown on the main campus and the other unit shows none. Context metric, not better or worse. Shown as a position within the peer group, not as a score.
Enrollment cliff (home state)Projected change in the institution's home-state high-school graduates from 2025 to 2041 (WICHE). The U.S. total falls about 13%. This is a directional feeder-market signal, not an enrollment forecast.External projection
Severe decline
-27%
WICHE 2024 (11th ed.) projection
Projected change in the number of high-school graduates in the institution's HOME STATE from the class of 2025 (the national peak) to 2041, per WICHE's Knocking at the College Door, 11th Edition (Dec 2024). The 'enrollment cliff' is the post-2008 birth decline reaching college age. The U.S. total is projected to fall about 13% over this window. A college recruits from many states, so its home-state projection is an indicative directional signal of feeder-market pressure, not a forecast of that institution's own enrollment. A projection, not a measurement: WICHE's state-level forecast of high-school graduates. It describes the pool a school recruits from, not the school's own enrollment.
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.
Federal research fundingHow much externally funded research the institution does. Shown as scale, not quality: it reflects mission, and an institution that does no sponsored research is not thereby worse at teaching. Useful for finding peers of comparable research intensity.Research and Development cluster dollars expended, all federal agencies.As filed
$96.6M
88th percentile in peer grouppeer median $10.5M
context, not scored
AY2025 (Federal Audit Clearinghouse)36 peers
Federal research dollars the institution expended in the audited fiscal year, across the whole Research and Development cluster. Unlike the NIH funding figure on this page, it counts every federal agency: NSF, NIH, the Department of Defense, NASA, the Department of Energy and the rest. It is the broadest available measure of federal research capacity. 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.
Scholarly works publishedHow much externally funded research the institution does. Shown as scale, not quality: it reflects mission, and an institution that does no sponsored research is not thereby worse at teaching. Useful for finding peers of comparable research intensity.Lifetime indexed scholarly works (OpenAlex).As filed
45,411
86th percentile in peer grouppeer median 18,711
context, not scored
Jun 2026 snapshot (OpenAlex)39 peers
From OpenAlex, an open catalog of the world's scholarly works. Counts the institution's lifetime indexed research works (papers, datasets, books and other outputs). It separates research-intensive universities from teaching-focused peers and signals scholarly capacity. It is reported only where OpenAlex has a confident match to this school. Context metric, not better or worse. Shown as a position within the peer group, not as a score.
Research citationsHow much externally funded research the institution does. Shown as scale, not quality: it reflects mission, and an institution that does no sponsored research is not thereby worse at teaching. Useful for finding peers of comparable research intensity.Lifetime citations to the institution's works (OpenAlex).As filed
12,880,114
96th percentile in peer grouppeer median 934,611
context, not scored
Jun 2026 snapshot (OpenAlex)39 peers
From OpenAlex, an open catalog of the world's scholarly works. Counts the institution's lifetime indexed citations received by its scholarly works. It separates research-intensive universities from teaching-focused peers and signals scholarly capacity. It is reported only where OpenAlex has a confident match to this school. Context metric, not better or worse. Shown as a position within the peer group, not as a score.
Institutional h-indexHow much externally funded research the institution does. Shown as scale, not quality: it reflects mission, and an institution that does no sponsored research is not thereby worse at teaching. Useful for finding peers of comparable research intensity.Institutional h-index (OpenAlex): h works each cited ≥ h times.As filed
1,169
96th percentile in peer grouppeer median 310
context, not scored
Jun 2026 snapshot (OpenAlex)39 peers
From OpenAlex. The institution has an h-index of h when h of its works have each been cited at least h times: a single figure blending output and impact. Reported only where OpenAlex has a confident match. Context metric, not better or worse. Banded against peers.
NIH research fundingHow much externally funded research the institution does. Shown as scale, not quality: it reflects mission, and an institution that does no sponsored research is not thereby worse at teaching. Useful for finding peers of comparable research intensity.Total NIH award dollars, FY2025 (NIH RePORTER).As filed
$64.5M
79th percentile in peer grouppeer median $5.7M
context, not scored
FY2025 (NIH RePORTER)26 peers
Total National Institutes of Health award dollars the institution received in fiscal year 2025, from NIH RePORTER. It signals biomedical research strength and federal grant capacity. It is reported only for schools NIH funds and that match this tool by name and state. Dollars from multiple campuses or centers are summed. Context metric, not better or worse. Shown as a position within the peer group, not as a score.
Wikipedia pageviews (monthly)Average monthly English-Wikipedia pageviews, trailing 12 months.As filed
8,957
65th percentile in peer grouppeer median 6,898
context, not scored
trailing 12 mo (Wikipedia)39 peers
Average monthly views of the institution's English-Wikipedia article over the trailing 12 months (Wikimedia REST API), counting human readers only (automated crawlers excluded) and following a renamed article to its current title. A top-of-funnel public-attention proxy: how often people look the school up. Reported only where a matching Wikipedia article exists. Context metric, not better or worse. Shown as a position within the peer group, not as a score.
Year foundedYear the institution was founded (Wikidata).As filed
1901
75th percentile in peer grouppeer median 1887
context, not scored
Wikidata26 peers
The year the institution was founded, from Wikidata (the structured-data sister project of Wikipedia). An establishment and legacy signal. It is reported only where Wikidata records a founding date for a matched institution. Context, not better or worse. Banded against the school's peer group, so an earlier year ranks as more established.
In-state HS graduatesPublic + private high-school graduates in the school's state, class of 2025.External projection
206,184
58th percentile in peer grouppeer median 206,184
context, not scored
Class of 2025 (WICHE)42 peers
The size of the school's home-state high-school graduating class in 2025 (WICHE Knocking at the College Door, public and private combined). It is the near-term in-state feeder market, the complement to the enrollment-cliff projection, which shows the direction that market is heading. Context metric, not better or worse. Shown as a position within the peer group, not as a score.
Student Outcomes & Risk
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.
Full-time faculty shareShare of faculty employed full-time, higher generally means more availability and continuity.As filed
Strong
92.6%
68th percentile in peer grouppeer median 70.3%
higher is better
2024-25 (Scorecard)39 peers
Where these numbers come from
Every figure on this page carries one of these labels. They are not degrees of confidence: a projection is not a worse number than a filing, it is a different kind of claim, and the distinction is invisible when both are set in the same grey card.
As filedThis is the institution's own figure as filed with a federal collection, or a federal agency's own published figure about it. Ibex has not adjusted it.
Calculated from filingsCalculated by Ibex from figures in the same federal filing, using nothing but arithmetic: a share, a ratio, or an amount per student. It is exactly as sound as the filed numbers it divides.
Blended indexA blend of several other measures on this page, combined by Ibex. The components and how they are weighted are listed in this metric's description. Reasonable people could weight them differently and get a different score.
Modelled by IbexFitted or extrapolated by Ibex from the institution's reported history. This number appears in no federal file: it is a summary of a trend, and it inherits every irregularity in the years it was fitted through.
External projectionBuilt on an external projection about the future, published by a research body rather than measured. Projections are revised as the underlying assumptions change, and this one describes a scenario, not a fact.
Regulator / auditor findingA finding published by a regulator or an independent auditor about this institution. It is a statement someone made in writing, not a measurement Ibex or the school took.
Top fields of study (all levels)
The Rockefeller University’s largest fields by completions, with graduate earnings (4 years out) and debt benchmarked against the same field at its peer group. Sparklines show the 8-year completions trend.
| Field | Completions / yr | Median earnings, 4 yrs out | Median debt | Earnings premium | Risk score |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Biological & Biomedical Sciences | 40 | – | – | – | Low · 24 |
| Biological & Biomedical Sciences | 3 | – | – | – | High · 100 |
Earnings-premium status is an indicative estimate: median graduate earnings four years out vs the NY state median earnings of a high-school graduate (undergraduate credentials) or a bachelor’s-degree holder (graduate credentials) from the U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community Survey (2020-24). The official U.S. Department of Education determination uses its own cohort definition and may differ.
The risk score (0–100) is an indicative blend of earnings-premium margin and the yearly completions growth rate, higher means a field pays closer to (or below) the benchmark and is shrinking. A directional screen, not an official determination.
Major-level detail (CIP 4-digit)
Biological & Biomedical Sciences – 1 CIP program (4-digit), 0 with earnings
| Major (CIP 4-digit) | Compl./yr | Earn 4yr | Earn 1yr | % > threshold | Median debt | Debt/earn | Earnings premium | 2 of 3 yrs |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Biology, GeneralCIP 2601 › | 40 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
Major-level earnings, debt and threshold pass-rates are reported by College Scorecard only where enough graduates exist to protect privacy, so 0 of 1 major shows an earnings figure. The rest read “–”. % > threshold is ED’s own share of graduates out-earning the federal earnings threshold (the do-no-harm pass rate), drawn from the best available measurement window (4-, 5- or 1-year) pooled across all nine College Scorecard Field-of-Study releases. A small chip marks any figure not on the 4-year window, and hovering names the cohort size and source release. 2 of 3 yrs flags fields below the earnings-premium benchmark in two of the latest three reported cohort-years, the statutory trigger under the 2025 test (effective July 1, 2026). Indicative. The Department of Education’s official determination may differ. Source: U.S. Department of Education, College Scorecard Field of Study (2014–15 through 2022–23 cohorts + most-recent snapshot), accessed March 2026.
Biological & Biomedical Sciences – 1 CIP program (4-digit), 0 with earnings
| Major (CIP 4-digit) | Compl./yr | Earn 4yr | Earn 1yr | % > threshold | Median debt | Debt/earn | Earnings premium | 2 of 3 yrs |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Biological and Biomedical Sciences, OtherCIP 2699 › | 3 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
Major-level earnings, debt and threshold pass-rates are reported by College Scorecard only where enough graduates exist to protect privacy, so 0 of 1 major shows an earnings figure. The rest read “–”. % > threshold is ED’s own share of graduates out-earning the federal earnings threshold (the do-no-harm pass rate), drawn from the best available measurement window (4-, 5- or 1-year) pooled across all nine College Scorecard Field-of-Study releases. A small chip marks any figure not on the 4-year window, and hovering names the cohort size and source release. 2 of 3 yrs flags fields below the earnings-premium benchmark in two of the latest three reported cohort-years, the statutory trigger under the 2025 test (effective July 1, 2026). Indicative. The Department of Education’s official determination may differ. Source: U.S. Department of Education, College Scorecard Field of Study (2014–15 through 2022–23 cohorts + most-recent snapshot), accessed March 2026.
See the interactive dashboard for all fields and credential levels (associate through doctoral). Source: College Scorecard Field of Study.
Frequently asked
How financially healthy is The Rockefeller University?
On the NACUBO Composite Financial Index (the −4 to 10 balance-sheet score accreditors and institutional boards use), The Rockefeller University scores 4.8 (Stable), computed from its IPEDS FY2022-23 finances. This is informational benchmarking, not a credit rating.
Which schools are The Rockefeller University's peers?
The Rockefeller University is benchmarked against 42 institutions in the R2: High Research Spending and Doctorate Production · Private nonprofit peer group. All percentiles and medians on this page are computed within that group.
Compare with peers
Explore The Rockefeller University interactively
Open the full dashboard to switch peer views, hover trends, and compare head-to-head.
Want a custom dashboard for The Rockefeller University?
We build tailored intelligence dashboards: The Rockefeller University and the peer set you choose, the metrics and risk signals your team cares about, kept current and delivered to you. Tell us what you’d want to track and a specialist will scope it with you.
Source: U.S. Department of Education, College Scorecard & IPEDS (most recent releases), with the U.S. Census Bureau (ACS), the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (Employment Projections, field-demand outlook) and WICHE (enrollment-cliff projections). Most figures lag the current academic year by two to three years; earnings and debt come from the 2020-21 file and a few measures from older files, and each card states its own data year. Percentiles and medians are computed within the institution's peer group. Financial Resilience is a transparent composite, see each component above. Compiled by Ibex Insights.