Toyota Technological Institute at Chicago

Chicago, IL · official site ↗

Private nonprofitSpecial Focus: Research InstitutionGraduate/Professional
Fin. Resilience
Resilience score

vs. 27 peers in its group

How is this calculated?

Toyota Technological Institute at Chicago is a private nonprofit institution in Chicago, IL, classified by Carnegie as “Special Focus: Research Institution.”

It is benchmarked here against 27 peer institutions (All private nonprofit institutions).

Its strongest standing relative to peers is months of operating cushion (64.6 mo, 100th percentile).

Its weakest is direct competitors within 100 mi (2).

Peer group

All private nonprofit institutions

27 institutions

No cross-metric risk flags triggered.

How exposed Toyota Technological Institute at Chicago 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
Elevated
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%; a directional feeder-market signal, not an enrollment forecast.
-31.5%
Severe decline

Indicative 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 actually exposed; “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; the rest are working mockups we build to your institution’s data.

5.1
on a −4 to 10 scale
Financial Health IndexStable

NACUBO Composite Financial Index, the balance-sheet health score accreditors and institutional boards use to gauge financial health; bond-rating agencies track similar ratios. 60th percentile of 27 peers. Carries little or no plant debt, so the viability ratio is excluded and weights re-normalized.

Primary reserve 55%64.6 mo
Return on net assets 30%-0.9%
Operating result 15%-2.7%

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.

Where the money comes from $10.1M total revenue · IPEDS FY2022-23

Investment return is the largest single source at 64% of revenue.

Investment return64.0%
Government grants & contracts21.2%
Private gifts & grants14.5%
Tuition & fees0.4%

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.

Which agencies fund this schoolThe share of this school's federal funding that comes from each awarding agency in FY2024. 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. $844,034 obligated · FY2024

NSF is the largest single funder at 87%.

NSF86.7%
Defense13.3%

Federal dollars each agency committed to this institution in FY2024, 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.

Endowment (end of year)Total endowment value at year end, long-term invested wealth that funds operations and cushions shocks.
Strong
$204.5M
67th percentile in peer grouppeer median $7.2M
FY2022-2315 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.
Operating marginNet surplus as a share of total revenue, whether the institution runs in the black.
Deficit
-23.7%
17th percentile in peer grouppeer median 5.9%
FY2022-2324 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.
Tuition dependencyTuition's share of total revenue, how exposed the budget is to enrollment swings.
0.4%
8th percentile in peer grouppeer median 40.6%
FY2022-2324 peers
Tuition & fees as a share of total revenue (IPEDS FY2022-23). Higher = more exposed to enrollment swings.
Tuition discount rateInstitutional 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.
Moderate
0%
33rd percentile in peer grouppeer median 14.7%
FY2022-2327 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 shareState appropriations' share of total revenue, material for public institutions, near zero for private.
0%
88th percentile in peer grouppeer median 0%
FY2022-2324 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 & 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.
24.2%
56th percentile in peer grouppeer median 23.8%
FY2022-2325 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 cushionMonths of operating expenses covered by expendable reserves, the institution's cash cushion.
Strong
64.6 mo
100th percentile in peer grouppeer median 9.1 mo
FY2022-2320 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.
Return on net assetsChange in net assets over the year, whether the institution grew wealthier.
Weak
-0.9%
25th percentile in peer grouppeer median 6.2%
FY2022-2320 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.
Endowment per FTE studentEndowment per full-time-equivalent student, the FTE-correct measure of endowment wealth per student.
Strong
$12.8M
100th percentile in peer grouppeer median $25,933
FY2022-2315 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.
Spent on instructionInstruction as a share of total functional expenses (private-nonprofit reporting).
37.6%
67th percentile in peer grouppeer median 27.3%
2024-2527 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 servicesStudent services as a share of total functional expenses (private-nonprofit reporting).
0%
15th percentile in peer grouppeer median 12.7%
2024-2527 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).
27.1%
89th percentile in peer grouppeer median 6.9%
2024-2527 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).
1.8%
78th percentile in peer grouppeer median 0%
2024-2527 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.
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.
Elevated
50
2024-25
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.
Federal awards expendedTotal federal award dollars expended in the audited fiscal year (SEFA total).
$2.2M
AY2024 (Federal Audit Clearinghouse)
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. Banded against the school's peer group. 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.
Audit findingsDistinct findings raised in the most recent Single Audit. Lower is better.
No findings
0
AY2024 (Federal Audit Clearinghouse)
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.
Going-concern disclosureThe auditor's report includes a going-concern disclosure.
None
No
AY2024 (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.
Material weaknessAuditor disclosed a material weakness in internal control over financial reporting.
None reported
No
AY2024 (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.
Material noncomplianceAuditor disclosed material noncompliance with federal award requirements.
None reported
No
AY2024 (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.
Program compliance opinionAuditor issued a qualified, adverse, or disclaimer opinion on a major federal program.
Unmodified
No
AY2024 (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.
Low-risk auditeeQualifies as a low-risk auditee under 2 CFR 200.520 (a clean recent audit history).
Low-risk
Yes
AY2024 (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.
Gifts and grants receivedTotal contributions, gifts, and grants received in the filing year (Form 990).
Average
$3.6M
33rd percentile in peer grouppeer median $4.5M
FY2023 (IRS Form 990 (ProPublica Nonprofit Explorer))9 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.
Tax-exempt bond debtTax-exempt bond liabilities outstanding at year end (Form 990).
$0
56th percentile in peer grouppeer median $0
FY2023 (IRS Form 990 (ProPublica Nonprofit Explorer))9 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.
Bond debt vs net assetsTax-exempt bond debt as a share of total net assets. Lower is better.
Low leverage
0%
56th percentile in peer grouppeer median 0%
FY2023 (IRS Form 990 (ProPublica Nonprofit Explorer))9 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.
Officer pay, share of expensesCompensation of current officers and key employees as a share of total expenses.
22%
100th percentile in peer grouppeer median 4.1%
FY2023 (IRS Form 990 (ProPublica Nonprofit Explorer))9 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.
Federal funding obligatedTotal federal dollars all agencies committed to this institution in FY2024, across grants, contracts, and student aid.
Below peers
$844,034
19th percentile in peer grouppeer median $2.6M
FY2024 (USAspending.gov)16 peers
Obligations reported to USAspending.gov for FY2024 (Oct 2023 to Sep 2024), 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.
Federal funding agenciesHow many distinct federal agencies committed money to this institution in FY2024.
2
56th percentile in peer grouppeer median 2
FY2024 (USAspending.gov)16 peers
A count of awarding agencies with positive FY2024 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.
86.7%
50th percentile in peer grouppeer median 86.7%
FY2024 (USAspending.gov)16 peers
The largest agency's FY2024 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.
12-month FTE enrollmentFull-time-equivalent enrollment over the full year, the denominator for per-student finance measures.
16
7th percentile in peer grouppeer median 305
2022-2327 peers
Full-time-equivalent enrollment over the full 12-month year (IPEDS 12-month enrollment, 2022-23). 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.
0%
59th percentile in peer grouppeer median 0%
2024-2527 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.
+1.4%
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.
0%
33rd percentile in peer grouppeer median 13%
Fall 202327 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. Banded against the school's peer group.
Graduate share of enrollmentGraduate students as a share of total enrollment, Fall 2023.
100%
100th percentile in peer grouppeer median 0%
Fall 202327 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. Banded against the school's peer group.
Women share of facultyWomen as a share of instructional staff (full- and part-time), Fall 2023.
16.7%
26th percentile in peer grouppeer median 46.4%
2023-2427 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. Banded against the school's peer group.
Faculty of color shareU.S. faculty of color as a share of instructional staff, Fall 2023.
16.7%
44th percentile in peer grouppeer median 20.7%
2023-2427 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. Banded against the school's peer group.
Direct competitors within 100 miNumber of same-type institutions (same Carnegie class and control) within 100 miles.
Below peers
2
100th percentile in peer grouppeer median 0
2024-2527 peers
How many institutions of the same type (same Carnegie classification and control, i.e. the schools competing for the same students) sit within roughly 100 miles. 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 leverage.
Metro-area unemployment rateUnemployment rate in the school's metro area, ACS 2019-23.
Below peers
6.1%
78th percentile in peer grouppeer median 5.6%
ACS 2019-2323 peers
The civilian unemployment rate in the school's metropolitan or micropolitan area (US Census ACS 2019-23, 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 spendingTotal academic R&D expenditures, FY2023 (NSF HERD).
$4.6M
FY2023 (NSF HERD)
Total research and development expenditures in FY2023, 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. Context metric, not better or worse. Banded against the school's peer group.
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%; a directional feeder-market signal, not an enrollment forecast.
Severe decline
-31.5%
2024-25
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.
Federal research fundingResearch and Development cluster dollars expended, all federal agencies.
$2.2M
AY2024 (Federal Audit Clearinghouse)
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.
Scholarly works publishedLifetime indexed scholarly works (OpenAlex).
1,977
80th percentile in peer grouppeer median 113
2024 (OpenAlex)10 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; reported only where OpenAlex has a confident match to this school. Context metric, not better or worse. Banded against the school's peer group.
Research citationsLifetime citations to the institution's works (OpenAlex).
191,148
80th percentile in peer grouppeer median 2,497
2024 (OpenAlex)10 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; reported only where OpenAlex has a confident match to this school. Context metric, not better or worse. Banded against the school's peer group.
Institutional h-indexInstitutional h-index (OpenAlex): h works each cited ≥ h times.
181
80th percentile in peer grouppeer median 28
2024 (OpenAlex)10 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.
Wikipedia pageviews (monthly)Average monthly English-Wikipedia pageviews, trailing 12 months.
952
80th percentile in peer grouppeer median 426
trailing 12 mo (Wikipedia)
Average monthly views of the institution's English-Wikipedia article over the trailing 12 months (Wikimedia REST API). 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. Banded against the school's peer group.
In-state HS graduatesPublic + private high-school graduates in the school's state, class of 2025.
144,561
74th percentile in peer grouppeer median 83,021
Class of 2025 (WICHE)27 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. Banded against the school's peer group.
How financially healthy is Toyota Technological Institute at Chicago?
On the NACUBO Composite Financial Index, the −4 to 10 balance-sheet score accreditors and institutional boards use – Toyota Technological Institute at Chicago scores 5.1 (Stable), computed from its IPEDS FY2022-23 finances. This is informational benchmarking, not a credit rating.
Which schools are Toyota Technological Institute at Chicago's peers?
Toyota Technological Institute at Chicago is benchmarked against 27 institutions in the All private nonprofit institutions peer group; all percentiles and medians on this page are computed within that group.

Explore Toyota Technological Institute at Chicago interactively

Open the full dashboard to switch peer views, hover trends, and compare head-to-head.

Open in dashboard

Want a custom dashboard for Toyota Technological Institute at Chicago?

We build tailored intelligence dashboards – Toyota Technological Institute at Chicago 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.

Request a custom dashboard

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). Figures lag the current academic year by roughly two to three years. 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.