The bar under each rank is the spread across the peer group: the shaded box is the middle half, the pale line is their median, and the gold marker is this institution. Hover for the figures.
Net tuition revenue / FTE
Tuition revenue per full-time-equivalent student after institutional aid/discounts, what tuition nets.Calculated from filings
Average
$10,804
59th percentile in peer grouppeer median $9,732
higher is better
2024-25 (Scorecard)283 peers
▲ +11% choppy · turning
Instructional spend / FTE
Spending on instruction per FTE student, how much of the budget reaches the classroom.Calculated from filings
Average
$8,254
39th percentile in peer grouppeer median $10,856
higher is better
2024-25 (Scorecard)283 peers
▲ +26% choppy · turning
In-state tuition & fees
Published price before any aid. Shown as context, not as good or bad: at most private colleges almost nobody pays it, and a high sticker often sits on top of deep discounting, so a cheaper-looking school can cost a given family more. Compare schools on net price instead. Sticker price is here because it is what gets quoted.Published in-state tuition and fees before aid (sticker price).As filed
$14,000
72nd percentile in peer grouppeer median $11,506
context, not scored
2024-25 (Scorecard)184 peers
▲ +67% steady
Out-of-state tuition & fees
Published price before any aid. Shown as context, not as good or bad: at most private colleges almost nobody pays it, and a high sticker often sits on top of deep discounting, so a cheaper-looking school can cost a given family more. Compare schools on net price instead. Sticker price is here because it is what gets quoted.Published out-of-state tuition and fees before aid (sticker price).As filed
$14,000
72nd percentile in peer grouppeer median $11,506
context, not scored
2024-25 (Scorecard)184 peers
Avg annual cost of attendance
Published price before any aid. Shown as context, not as good or bad: at most private colleges almost nobody pays it, and a high sticker often sits on top of deep discounting, so a cheaper-looking school can cost a given family more. Compare schools on net price instead. Sticker price is here because it is what gets quoted.Average total annual cost, tuition, fees and living costs, before aid.As filed
$23,300
51st percentile in peer grouppeer median $23,250
context, not scored
2024-25 (Scorecard)149 peers
Avg monthly faculty salary
What the institution pays its faculty. Scored as higher-is-better because it tracks an institution's ability to attract and hold teaching staff. It also tracks local cost of living, so compare within a region before drawing a conclusion.Average monthly salary of full-time faculty (IPEDS), a proxy for faculty investment.As filed
Below peers
$2,846
11th percentile in peer grouppeer median $5,707
higher is better
2024-25 (Scorecard)266 peers
Average monthly salary of full-time faculty, as reported to IPEDS.
Average net price
What students pay after all grant and scholarship aid, averaged over the students in that income band. This is the one price figure that is scored: lower is genuinely better for the family paying it. It still averages over very different aid packages, so treat it as a band, not a quote.Average yearly price families pay after grants and scholarships.As filed
Average
$10,880
40th percentile in peer grouppeer median $12,217
lower is better
2024-25 (Scorecard)149 peers
Net price, low-income families (under $30K)
What students pay after all grant and scholarship aid, averaged over the students in that income band. This is the one price figure that is scored: lower is genuinely better for the family paying it. It still averages over very different aid packages, so treat it as a band, not a quote.Average yearly cost after all grant and scholarship aid for students from families earning under ~$30,000. Lower is better.As filed
Average
$10,236
38th percentile in peer grouppeer median $11,436
lower is better
2024-25 (Scorecard)125 peers
Average annual net price (cost of attendance minus all grant and scholarship aid) paid by students whose families earn under about $30,000 a year (College Scorecard, 2024-25). This is what the neediest admitted students pay, often far below the sticker price. Read it beside the overall net price and the high-income net price: a low figure here signals strong need-based aid. Lower is better.
Net price, middle-income families ($30K-$48K)
What students pay after all grant and scholarship aid, averaged over the students in that income band. This is the one price figure that is scored: lower is genuinely better for the family paying it. It still averages over very different aid packages, so treat it as a band, not a quote.Average yearly cost after all grant and scholarship aid for students from families earning roughly $30,000 to $48,000. Lower is better.As filed
Average
$10,834
40th percentile in peer grouppeer median $12,115
lower is better
2024-25 (Scorecard)113 peers
Average annual net price (cost of attendance minus all grant and scholarship aid) paid by students whose families earn roughly $30,000 to $48,000 a year (College Scorecard, 2024-25). It is the middle rung of the income net-price ladder: read it together with the low-income (under ~$30K) and high-income (over ~$110K) net prices to see how steeply the school discounts as family income rises. Lower is better.
Net price, upper-middle families ($48K-$75K)
What students pay after all grant and scholarship aid, averaged over the students in that income band. This is the one price figure that is scored: lower is genuinely better for the family paying it. It still averages over very different aid packages, so treat it as a band, not a quote.Average yearly cost after all grant and scholarship aid for students from families earning roughly $48,000 to $75,000. Lower is better.As filed
Average
$13,861
60th percentile in peer grouppeer median $12,232
lower is better
2024-25 (Scorecard)108 peers
Average annual net price (cost of attendance minus all grant and scholarship aid) paid by students whose families earn roughly $48,000 to $75,000 a year (College Scorecard, 2024-25). It is the fourth rung of the five-rung income net-price ladder: read it with the low, middle, upper and high-income net prices to see how steeply the school discounts as family income rises. Lower is better.
Net price, upper-income families ($75K-$110K)
What students pay after all grant and scholarship aid, averaged over the students in that income band. This is the one price figure that is scored: lower is genuinely better for the family paying it. It still averages over very different aid packages, so treat it as a band, not a quote.Average yearly cost after all grant and scholarship aid for students from families earning roughly $75,000 to $110,000. Lower is better.As filed
Average
$15,555
56th percentile in peer grouppeer median $14,399
lower is better
2024-25 (Scorecard)90 peers
Average annual net price (cost of attendance minus all grant and scholarship aid) paid by students whose families earn roughly $75,000 to $110,000 a year (College Scorecard, 2024-25). It is the fifth rung of the income net-price ladder, just below the full-pay tier: read it with the lower rungs and the high-income net price to see the full cost gradient by family income. Lower is better.
Operating margin
Operating 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
Strong
7.7%
63rd percentile in peer grouppeer median 2.7%
higher is better
FY2022-23255 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.
Tuition dependency
Net tuition as a share of operating revenue, how exposed the budget is to enrollment swings.Calculated from filings
57.7%
85th percentile in peer grouppeer median 28.7%
context, not scored
FY2022-23254 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.
Tuition discount rate
Institutional grant aid as a share of gross tuition (IPEDS, private nonprofits only), the tuition-discount rate. This is the share of sticker tuition handed back as aid. A high rate signals heavy price competition for students.Calculated from filings
9%
21st percentile in peer grouppeer median 27.8%
context, not scored
FY2022-23225 peers
Institutional grant aid as a share of gross tuition and fee revenue (IPEDS FY2022-23, FASB): tuition allowances funded by the school itself (endowment, gifts and other institutional money) ÷ (net tuition revenue + all allowances applied to tuition). Pell, other federal, state and local grants are left out of the numerator because they are not the school's discount. Private nonprofit institutions only. Public (GASB) institutions report tuition differently and are not shown. Also not shown where a school books most of its own aid as scholarship expense instead of as a tuition allowance, because this measure cannot see that aid. The rate covers all students, undergraduate and graduate, so it runs well below NACUBO's widely quoted average, which covers first-time, full-time freshmen only.
State appropriations share
State appropriations' share of total revenue, material for public institutions, near zero for private.Calculated from filings
0%
50th percentile in peer grouppeer median 0%
context, not scored
FY2022-23279 peers
State appropriations as a share of total revenue (IPEDS FY2022-23). Material for public institutions, ~0 for private.
Administrative cost share
Institutional support (central administration, governance, general administration, fundraising, and under FASB the operation 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
20.4%
26th percentile in peer grouppeer median 29%
context, not scored
FY2022-23280 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 cushion
Months of operating expenses covered by expendable reserves, the institution's cash cushion.Calculated from filings
Thin
2.4 mo
25th percentile in peer grouppeer median 10 mo
higher is better
FY2022-23250 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 assets
Change in net assets over the year, whether the institution grew wealthier.Calculated from filings
Strong
12.7%
80th percentile in peer grouppeer median 3.7%
higher is better
FY2022-23250 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.
Spent on instruction
Instruction as a share of total functional expenses (private-nonprofit reporting).Calculated from filings
67.2%
98th percentile in peer grouppeer median 31.4%
context, not scored
FY2022-23 (IPEDS)282 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 services
Student services as a share of total functional expenses (private-nonprofit reporting).Calculated from filings
12.4%
60th percentile in peer grouppeer median 10.4%
context, not scored
FY2022-23 (IPEDS)282 peers
Student-services spending (admissions, registrar, student life, counseling) divided by total functional expenses (IPEDS Finance, FY2022-23 (FASB)). Private-nonprofit (FASB) institutions only. Spending-mix context, not a quality measure.
Spent on academic support
Academic support as a share of total functional expenses (private-nonprofit reporting).Calculated from filings
0%
7th percentile in peer grouppeer median 7%
context, not scored
FY2022-23 (IPEDS)282 peers
Academic-support spending (libraries, academic computing, deans' offices) divided by total functional expenses (IPEDS Finance, FY2022-23 (FASB)). Private-nonprofit (FASB) institutions only. Context, not a quality measure.
Spent on research
Research as a share of total functional expenses (private-nonprofit reporting).Calculated from filings
0%
45th percentile in peer grouppeer median 0%
context, not scored
FY2022-23 (IPEDS)282 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.
Room & board (on-campus)
Published price before any aid. Shown as context, not as good or bad: at most private colleges almost nobody pays it, and a high sticker often sits on top of deep discounting, so a cheaper-looking school can cost a given family more. Compare schools on net price instead. Sticker price is here because it is what gets quoted.Published annual room charge plus board (meal-plan) charge for on-campus residents.As filed
$6,750
53rd percentile in peer grouppeer median $6,000
context, not scored
2023-24147 peers
The school's published annual charge for on-campus housing plus its standard meal plan (IPEDS, 2023-24). This is the largest cost of attendance after tuition and the part families compare most directly across residential offers. Reported only for schools that publish both a housing and a meal-plan charge, or one combined charge. A published charge before any aid, so it is shown as context rather than scored: see the sticker-price note.
Full-professor average salary
What the institution pays its faculty. Scored as higher-is-better because it tracks an institution's ability to attract and hold teaching staff. It also tracks local cost of living, so compare within a region before drawing a conclusion.Average salary of full (tenured-rank) professors, 9-month equated, 2023-24.As filed
Below peers
$31,053
10th percentile in peer grouppeer median $63,505
higher is better
2023-24168 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.
3.0
81st percentile in peer grouppeer median 2.6
higher is better
AY2022-23 (Federal Student Aid)252 peers
The U.S. Department of Education's financial-responsibility composite score, a -1.0 to +3.0 measure of an institution's solvency built from its audited finances. 1.5 and above passes, 1.0-1.4 is a zone needing oversight, and below 1.0 fails and can trigger letter-of-credit or cash-monitoring requirements. ED computes it only for private non-profit and proprietary schools, so it is reported only where scored. Higher is safer. Banded against the school's peer group.
HCM2
Mar 2026 (Federal Student Aid)
The U.S. Department of Education places schools with financial-responsibility or compliance concerns on Heightened Cash Monitoring. HCM1 requires extra documentation before drawing federal aid. HCM2 is the more severe tier, paying the school only by reimbursement after it has disbursed its own funds. Shown only for currently flagged schools. Most institutions are not on the list. A red flag for closure or solvency risk.
Structural risk index
An indicative 0–100 structural-risk index (higher = more pressure) blending operating margin, months of cash cushion, tuition dependency and the home-state enrollment cliff. Screens for the financial and demographic strain that precedes closures and mergers, directional, not a prediction.Blended index
Elevated
61
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 expended
Total federal award dollars expended in the audited fiscal year (SEFA total).As filed
$1.9M
62nd percentile in peer grouppeer median $1.5M
context, not scored
AY2025 (Federal Audit Clearinghouse)51 peers
▲ +33% steady
Total federal award dollars the institution expended in the audited fiscal year, from the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards in its Single Audit. It combines student aid, research grants, and every other federal program, so it measures the institution's overall exposure to federal funding rather than its quality. Context metric, not better or worse. Shown as a position within the peer group, not as a score. Reported only for institutions that file their own Single Audit with the Federal Audit Clearinghouse. A school with no value did not file one, which is not the same as a clean result. Public universities audited inside a state or system report, for-profit institutions (exempt from the Single Audit), and schools under the federal expenditure threshold do not appear. Each school is shown at its own most recent filing, so the peer comparison spans a few filing years rather than a single one.
Title IV aid expended
Federal student aid dollars expended (Student Financial Assistance cluster).As filed
$1.9M
66th percentile in peer grouppeer median $1.3M
context, not scored
AY2025 (Federal Audit Clearinghouse)51 peers
▲ +67% steady
Federal student financial aid the institution disbursed in the audited year: the Student Financial Assistance cluster, covering Pell, Direct Loans, Federal Work-Study, FSEOG and Perkins. It is the clearest single measure of how much Title IV money flows through the school. Context metric, not better or worse. Reported only for institutions that file their own Single Audit with the Federal Audit Clearinghouse. A school with no value did not file one, which is not the same as a clean result. Public universities audited inside a state or system report, for-profit institutions (exempt from the Single Audit), and schools under the federal expenditure threshold do not appear. Each school is shown at its own most recent filing, so the peer comparison spans a few filing years rather than a single one.
Pell Grant dollars
Pell Grant dollars expended in the audited year (ALN 84.063).As filed
$1.9M
76th percentile in peer grouppeer median $1M
context, not scored
AY2025 (Federal Audit Clearinghouse)31 peers
▲ +70% steady
Pell Grant dollars the institution disbursed in the audited fiscal year (federal assistance listing 84.063). Read alongside the school's Pell share of enrollment: high Pell dollars at a small school signals a low-income student body and heavy dependence on that appropriation. Context metric, not better or worse. Reported only for institutions that file their own Single Audit with the Federal Audit Clearinghouse. A school with no value did not file one, which is not the same as a clean result. Public universities audited inside a state or system report, for-profit institutions (exempt from the Single Audit), and schools under the federal expenditure threshold do not appear. Each school is shown at its own most recent filing, so the peer comparison spans a few filing years rather than a single one.
Audit findings
Distinct findings raised in the most recent Single Audit. Lower is better.As filed
No findings
0
35th percentile in peer grouppeer median 0
lower is better
AY2025 (Federal Audit Clearinghouse)51 peers
Number of distinct audit findings the independent auditor raised in the institution's most recent Single Audit. A finding records a failure to comply with federal award rules or a breakdown in internal control, and can range from a late report to unallowable spending. Zero is common and is the clean result. Lower is better. Reported only for institutions that file their own Single Audit with the Federal Audit Clearinghouse. A school with no value did not file one, which is not the same as a clean result. Public universities audited inside a state or system report, for-profit institutions (exempt from the Single Audit), and schools under the federal expenditure threshold do not appear. Each school is shown at its own most recent filing, so the peer comparison spans a few filing years rather than a single one.
No
AY2025 (Federal Audit Clearinghouse)
Whether the independent auditor included a going-concern disclosure in the institution's most recent Single Audit report. Auditors add one when there is substantial doubt about the organization's ability to continue operating for the next year, so it is the most serious signal an audit carries. Read it as a prompt to open the audit itself, not as a verdict: the flag is the checkbox the auditor ticked on the federal SF-SAC form, and the underlying disclosure may concern a subsidiary or a since-resolved condition. About 2% of audited institutions carry one. Reported only for institutions that file their own Single Audit with the Federal Audit Clearinghouse. A school with no value did not file one, which is not the same as a clean result. Public universities audited inside a state or system report, for-profit institutions (exempt from the Single Audit), and schools under the federal expenditure threshold do not appear. Each school is shown at its own most recent filing, so the peer comparison spans a few filing years rather than a single one.
No
AY2025 (Federal Audit Clearinghouse)
Whether the auditor found a material weakness in internal control over financial reporting: a deficiency severe enough that a material misstatement of the financial statements could go undetected. It does not mean money was lost, but it means the controls that would have caught a loss were not working. Around 10% of audited institutions report one. Reported only for institutions that file their own Single Audit with the Federal Audit Clearinghouse. A school with no value did not file one, which is not the same as a clean result. Public universities audited inside a state or system report, for-profit institutions (exempt from the Single Audit), and schools under the federal expenditure threshold do not appear. Each school is shown at its own most recent filing, so the peer comparison spans a few filing years rather than a single one.
No
AY2025 (Federal Audit Clearinghouse)
Whether the auditor found material noncompliance with the rules attached to the institution's federal awards, such as student eligibility, cash management, or allowable cost requirements. Material means the breach was large enough to matter to the federal agency funding the school. About 2% of audited institutions report it. Reported only for institutions that file their own Single Audit with the Federal Audit Clearinghouse. A school with no value did not file one, which is not the same as a clean result. Public universities audited inside a state or system report, for-profit institutions (exempt from the Single Audit), and schools under the federal expenditure threshold do not appear. Each school is shown at its own most recent filing, so the peer comparison spans a few filing years rather than a single one.
Program compliance opinion
Auditor issued a qualified, adverse, or disclaimer opinion on a major federal program.Regulator / auditor finding
Unmodified
No
AY2025 (Federal Audit Clearinghouse)
Whether the auditor issued anything other than a clean (unmodified) compliance opinion on at least one of the institution's major federal programs. A qualified, adverse, or disclaimer opinion means the auditor could not conclude the school followed that program's rules. Roughly 3% of audited institutions receive one. For most schools the major program at issue is Title IV student aid. Reported only for institutions that file their own Single Audit with the Federal Audit Clearinghouse. A school with no value did not file one, which is not the same as a clean result. Public universities audited inside a state or system report, for-profit institutions (exempt from the Single Audit), and schools under the federal expenditure threshold do not appear. Each school is shown at its own most recent filing, so the peer comparison spans a few filing years rather than a single one.
Yes
AY2025 (Federal Audit Clearinghouse)
Whether the institution qualified as a low-risk auditee under federal rule 2 CFR 200.520. A school earns the status only by filing on time for two consecutive years with clean opinions, no material weaknesses, and no going-concern doubt. It is a compact summary of a clean recent audit history, and it reduces how much of the school's federal spending must be audited the next year. About 73% of audited institutions qualify. Yes is better. 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.
Federal funding obligated
How 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
$3.7M
94th percentile in peer grouppeer median $373,000
context, not scored
FY2025 (USAspending.gov)117 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 agencies
How many distinct federal agencies committed money to this institution in FY2025.As filed
1
50th percentile in peer grouppeer median 1
context, not scored
FY2025 (USAspending.gov)117 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 share
Share of federal funding that comes from the single largest awarding agency.Calculated from filings
100%
50th percentile in peer grouppeer median 100%
context, not scored
FY2025 (USAspending.gov)117 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.
Net-cost payback period
Estimated years to recoup the four-year net cost from the annual earnings premium over a high-school graduate in this state.Blended index
Below peers
35.2 yrs
94th percentile in peer grouppeer median 10.9 yrs
lower is better
2020-21 to 2024-25 (Scorecard)24 peers
Four-year net price divided by the median 10-year earnings premium over a typical high-school graduate in the institution's state (College Scorecard earnings and net price, U.S. Census Bureau ACS state baselines). A simple value-for-cost gauge: fewer years is stronger. Shown only for institutions whose predominant award is a bachelor's or graduate degree (four years of cost does not describe a certificate or associate program), where net price and earnings are both reported, where earnings exceed the state high-school baseline, and where the resulting period is inside a working lifetime (past about 40 years the figure is only reporting that the premium is near zero, so no number is shown). It ignores aid timing, debt and non-completion, so read it as a directional comparison, not a financial projection. The state baseline is Census ACS 2020-24 earnings in 2024 dollars, while Scorecard earnings are measured for earlier years, so the comparison leans against the school by a few percent (about 8% at the median state).
Enrollment loss before deficit
How much of its enrollment the institution could lose before running an operating deficit, if it changed nothing else.Modelled by Ibex
Some cushion
13.4%
61st percentile in peer grouppeer median 3.8%
higher is better
FY2022-23209 peers
The share of its students an institution could lose before its operating surplus becomes a deficit, assuming net tuition per student and total costs stay where they are. It comes straight from two figures in the same IPEDS finance filing: the operating margin, and tuition's share of the same operating revenue. A school with a 3% surplus that funds 85% of itself from tuition can absorb about a 3.5% enrollment loss. The same 3% surplus at a school funding a quarter of itself from tuition absorbs about 12%. Zero means the institution is already running a deficit. Where the surplus is larger than all tuition revenue, no enrollment loss alone produces a deficit and no figure is shown. It is not a prediction: no institution facing that loss would hold costs flat, and the number is the size of the hole that would have to be closed, not the outcome. Banded against the school's peer group. Higher is better.
Operating margin after a 10% enrollment loss
What the operating margin becomes if a tenth of the students go and nothing else changes.Modelled by Ibex
Still in surplus
2.1%
57th percentile in peer grouppeer median -0.7%
higher is better
FY2022-23254 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.
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
25.0
85th percentile in peer grouppeer median 6.0
lower is better
ED composite AY2022-23 (Federal Student Aid) + Single Audit AY2025 (Federal Audit Clearinghouse)255 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.