Tag: revenue

  • School facility governance standard aims to improve fairness, boost rental revenue

    School facility governance standard aims to improve fairness, boost rental revenue

    This audio is auto-generated. Please let us know if you have feedback.

    Dive Brief:

    • Facilitron is rolling out what it says is the first U.S. governance standard for community use of public school facilities, the digital facilities rental platform said Sept. 10.
    • The California-based company will debut the framework in San Diego this November at Facilitron University, its annual conference for school district leaders and facility managers.
    • The standard aims to align school facility use with districts’ mission and strategy, reduce legal risk, improve consistency and transparency across district operations, and ensure equitable access for community members and groups, the company says.

    Dive Insight:

    Facilitron provides facility rental and management support for some of the largest school districts in the U.S., including Florida’s Broward County Public Schools, Nevada’s Clark County School District and California’s San Diego Unified School District.

    That broad reach helped the company design a governance framework that goes beyond school boards’ existing model policies to encompass administrative regulations, site manuals, renter terms and audit tools, the company says. It draws on data from more than 15,000 schools, many of which have outdated, inconsistent and unenforceable facility-use policies, “exposing where current systems fail,” according to the company. 

    “Every district on our platform has a data trail that tells a story,” Facilitron Chief Marketing Officer Trent Allen said in an email. “Even when data is missing — because poor policy and enforcement means a lot of facility use never gets documented — you can still see the problems, like a black hole bending light in its direction.”

    Allen said many of those problems have a financial dimension. For example, many districts offer automatic subsidies for registered nonprofits, regardless of the actual public benefit the organization provides — so a national nonprofit with high participation fees gets effectively the same treatment as a grassroots group with a much smaller budget, Allen said.

    Districts’ facility-use policies — and the state statutes enabling them — leave money on the table in other ways, like sweetheart deals for school employees, rates that remain static for years, and ambiguous language that discourages districts from tapping their facilities’ full value. 

    As an example, Allen said, some Tennessee districts interpret a vaguely worded state statute prohibiting “private profit” in school facility use to mean that only nonprofit organizations can rent them, creating a situation where “essentially every use becomes a subsidized use.” That leaves out the possibility that private companies could use the facilities for charitable or other purposes. 

    Additionally, many school boards give school administrators or facilities managers free rein to adjust or waive fees, or approve informal use outside the plain text of board policy, he said.

    The upshot of all this, Allen added, is that larger districts forgo millions in potential revenue annually from facility rentals while creating conditions ripe for favoritism and inequity.

    Once one group gets access under favorable terms, every similar group is usually given the same,” he said. “Suddenly the district is on the hook for hundreds of thousands of dollars. It quickly runs into the millions and it is never budgeted for.”

    Facilitron says its national governance standard pushes back on the status quo by laying out detailed model school board policies and administrative regulations; a “modular policy toolkit” and site-level operations manual; a national terms and conditions template; and a “facility use audit framework,” which the company describes as “a diagnostic tool that reveals cost, risk and underperformance.”

    The national governance standard also includes frequently asked questions, case studies and other resources for school boards.

    “We require annual reporting, including an estimate of total subsidization. We make cost recovery the governing philosophy [and] move away from ‘nonprofit’ as the trigger for discounts, because that’s the wrong proxy for public benefit. And we separate policy into layers — board-level rules, administrative regulations, and site-level guidance — so principals aren’t left to invent their own rules,” Allen said.

    Source link

  • University of Iowa launches ‘proactive’ committee to hunt for revenue and boost efficiency

    University of Iowa launches ‘proactive’ committee to hunt for revenue and boost efficiency

    This audio is auto-generated. Please let us know if you have feedback.

    Dive Brief:

    • The University of Iowa has assembled a massive universitywide committee to explore new revenue opportunities and ways to boost efficiency, the public institution announced last week. 
    • Dubbed “Resparc” — short for Revenue and Efficiencies Strategic Plan Action and Resource Committee — the group includes nearly 100 faculty, staff and officials from 35 units across the institution. 
    • Subcommittees will explore specific areas such as philanthropy, academic programs and financial operations. Those teams will develop proposals for increasing revenue and improving operations for Resparc’s leadership and ultimately for University of Iowa’s president and provost.

    Dive Insight:

    The university framed its new initiative as forward-looking, meant to ensure University of Iowa “maintains its strong financial trajectory for years to come,” rather than having to wrestle reactively with challenges as they happen. 

    “By launching this effort from a position of financial health, the university will be able to build upon its success at a time when higher education is navigating significant disruption, from the anticipated demographic enrollment cliff to a decline in public trust and growing financial constraints,” the university said in its announcement. 

    Iowa’s flagship university is growing. By fall 2024, its total faculty and staff had increased 5.1% year over year to 27,795 employees, while enrollment grew 2.4% to 32,199 students. 

    The university’s total assets and revenues have also been steadily rising in recent years. In fiscal 2024, its operating income — which does not include state appropriations, certain grants and contacts, investment income or gifts — stood at $36.8 million. The positive operating income stands in contrast to that of the many public universities with operating losses before those sources of revenue are factored in. 

    But University of Iowa officials acknowledged the challenges rippling across the higher ed landscape, including an anticipated decline in the traditional college-age population. 

    In Iowa specifically, the number of high school graduates is projected to decline by 4% from 2023 to 2041, according to the latest estimates from Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education. 

    University of Iowa has also seen its expenses jump along with the rest of the higher ed world, adding new financial constraints. Between fiscal years 2022 and 2024, its total operating expenses rose 15.7% to $5 billion. 

    The Trump administration’s aggressive moves to limit federal research funding could pose additional pressure. In 2024, University of Iowa brought in $315 million in federal research funding. The Trump administration has now terminated grants to the university worth roughly $14.3 million and having $9.7 million still left to be paid out, according to a Center for American Progress analysis of U.S. Department of the Treasury data. 

    Against that backdrop, many institutions — public and private — are cutting back spending and shrinking their employee base, both through layoffs and attrition. But University of Iowa officials say Resparc is different. 

    In a FAQ page, the university said the efficiency-seeking efforts are “a proactive planning effort, not a response to a budget crisis.” It states that the goal “is to find ways to work smarter, improve processes, reduce administrative burdens, and better leverage our collective resources and technology.”

    Resparc is led by Emily Campbell, associate vice president for operations and decision support, and Sara Sanders, dean of the university’s liberal arts and sciences college. 

    Campbell and engineering dean Ann McKenna oversee the initiative’s revenue teams, while Sanders and Peter Matthes, vice president for external relations and senior advisor to University of Iowa President Barbara Wilson, oversee the efficiency group.

    Source link

  • Why Revenue Sharing Is a Bad Deal (opinion)

    Why Revenue Sharing Is a Bad Deal (opinion)

    For many decades, the National Collegiate Athletic Association preserved student athletes’ amateur status by prohibiting their ability to profit off their name, image or likeness (NIL). As a former Division I compliance coordinator, I often felt the NCAA’s amateurism policies went too far—denying student athletes the right to earn money like other college students, such as by running their own sports camps.

    But now the courts have turned the NCAA’s concept of amateurism on its head with the approval in June of a $2.8 billion athlete compensation settlement, which will be shared by student athletes who previously missed out on the opportunity to make money from their NIL. This historic deal between Division I athletes, the NCAA and the Division I Power 5 conferences—the SEC, Big Ten, Big 12, Pac-12 and ACC—has also made revenue sharing with current student athletes a reality.

    Athletes at top football and basketball programs may be celebrating this financial victory, which allows institutions to share up to $20.5 million each year with student athletes—money generated from media, tickets, concessions and donations.

    But many coaches who recruit them—along with professors like me, who teach them—believe that paying college athletes for their athletic ability will hurt college sports. That’s because doing so professionalizes college athletes in a way that hurts other students and sports over all and compromises the institution’s academic mission.

    And while some student athletes stand to benefit from the new system, most won’t. Many universities will use the 75-15-5-5 model, meaning that 75 percent of the revenue would be distributed to football, 15 percent to men’s basketball, 5 percent to women’s basketball and 5 percent to all other sports.

    Paying players will also change the spirit of college sports. Although the concept of amateurism has been a joke in college athletics for a long time—particularly in revenue-generating sports—a pay-for-play system would further move the emphasis away from educational goals and toward commercial ones. As one big-time head football coach described it to me, “As soon as you start paying a player, they become in some ways their [university’s] employees. It’s not amateurism anymore.”

    On many campuses, a separation already exists between student athletes and nonathletes, which some believe is due to student athletes’ perceived privilege. According to one Division I women’s basketball coach I spoke to, implementing revenue sharing will only increase that divide. Student athletes receiving five- or six-figure salaries to play for their institutions will be incentivized to devote more time to their sport, leaving less time to engage in the campus community and further diluting the purpose of college as an incubator for personal and intellectual growth.

    There’s also a possibility, one coach told me, that colleges will shrink staff and “avoid facility upgrades in order to fund revenue share,” putting off improvements to gyms or playing fields, for instance. At some institutions, funding the revenue-sharing plan will undoubtedly lead to cuts in Olympic and nonrevenue sports like swimming and track.

    What’s more, it remains unclear how revenue-sharing plans will impact gender equity, because revenue distribution may not count as financial aid for Title IX purposes. Since 1972, Title IX has ensured equal opportunities for female student athletes that includes proportionate funding for their college athletic programs. If NIL payments from colleges are not subject to Title IX scrutiny, athletic departments will be allowed to direct all revenue generated from media rights, tickets and donations to their football and men’s basketball programs. As one Division I women’s basketball coach put it to me, “We are widening the gap between men and women athletes.”

    To be sure, the college sports system is problematic; as scholars have pointed out, it exploits student athletes for their athletic talent while coaches and athletic leaders reap the benefits. But creating professional athletes within educational institutions is not the answer.

    Instead, I propose that all student athletes participate in collective bargaining before being required to sign employment-type contracts that waive their NIL rights in exchange for a share of the revenue.

    Collective bargaining would ensure that student athletes are guaranteed specific commitments by their institutions to safeguard their academic success, holistic development and well-being. These could include approved time off from their sport to participate in beneficial, high-impact practices like internships and undergraduate research, and academic support to help them excel in a program of their choosing—not one effectively chosen for them to accommodate their athletic schedule.

    The graduation rates of student athletes—particularly Black male football and basketball players at the top Power 5 institutions—are dismal. A 2018 study by Shaun R. Harper found that, across the 65 institutions that then comprised the Power 5 conferences, only 55.2 percent of Black male athletes graduated in six years, a figure that was lower than for all student athletes (69.3 percent), all Black undergraduate men (60.1 percent) and all undergraduates (76.3 percent). Under collective bargaining, student athletes could retain their scholarships, regardless of injury or exhausted eligibility, to help finish their degrees. Such financial support would encourage athletes to stay in college after their athletic careers end.

    They could also negotiate better mental health support consistent with the NCAA’s best practices, including annual mental health screenings and access to culturally inclusive mental health providers trained to work with athletes. Coaches would learn to recognize mental health symptoms, which is crucial; as one former women’s basketball coach told me, she didn’t “have the right language” to help her athletes.

    Presently, the NCAA’s posteligibility injury insurance provides student athletes only two years of health care following injury. Collective bargaining could provide long-term health care and disability insurance for those sustaining injuries during college. This matters because football players risk their lives every day to make money for their institutions—doubling their chances to develop chronic traumatic encephalopathy with each 2.6 years they play and likely significantly increasing their chances of developing Parkinson’s disease relative to other nonfootball athletes.

    As one football coach mentioned to me, it may be too late to put the proverbial genie back in the bottle when it comes to pay for play, but it’s not too late for colleges to prioritize their academic mission in their athletic programs, care for students’ well-being and restore the spirit of college sports.

    Debbie Hogan works and teaches at Boston College. Her research focuses on holistic coaching, student athlete development and sense of belonging of Black student athletes.

    Source link

  • Strong budgeting, revenue flexibility key to weathering K-12 financial storm, says Moody’s

    Strong budgeting, revenue flexibility key to weathering K-12 financial storm, says Moody’s

    This audio is auto-generated. Please let us know if you have feedback.

    Dive Brief:

    • School districts with strong budget management and the ability to raise revenue, in addition to state funding access, will be able to better weather the financial storm exacerbated by recent federal changes in education policy, according to a Moody’s Ratings’ report released last week. 

    • A significant increase in state aid could stave off effects from shrinking federal support under the Trump administration. However, any states’ plans to bolster school funding may be scrapped to adapt to other federal policy changes such as reduced Medicaid or disaster recovery funding. 

    • School districts in most states have an average ability to increase revenue. Districts in Arizona, Kansas, Michigan, New Mexico, Nevada and Oklahoma have more limited revenue-raising flexibility than other states, the report said.

    Dive Insight:

    Districts have faced financial turmoil in the past few months, as the Trump administration continues to change course on federal funding that was expected to be available for districts.

    The administration withheld pandemic aid reimbursements, for example — a decision it then walked back. It also recently delayed $6.2 billion in federal K-12 grants, only part of which the administration has said it would release so far. 

    States with a greater dependence on federal funding “will translate into additional credit pressure if federal funding is reduced,” the report said. Arizona and Oklahoma, for example, rely on federal funding for more than 20% of their K-12 budgets.

    Overall, the federal government provides 13.6% of total K-12 funding, according to the Education Data Initiative.

     Additional changes on the federal level will impact school district budgets such as an expansion in school choice — with the nation’s first federal school voucher program available nationwide established through the “One Big, Beautiful Bill.” The major tax and spending package was narrowly passed by Congress and signed by President Donald Trump earlier this month. 

    “This shift could result in enrollment being redirected to alternatives outside traditional K-12 districts,” the Moody’s report says. 

    In another Moody’s report released in April, the financial outlook and research organization showed that states are unlikely to fill gaps left by the federal government changes, leaving districts with a “limited menu of options.”

    “While many states have indeed increased their K-12 education funding, whether these efforts will fully offset the impact of reduced federal support remains uncertain,” said Gregory Sobel, senior analyst and vice president at Moody’s Ratings, in an email to K-12 Dive. Sobel said that “while state support is growing, it may not be sufficient to fully counterbalance the combined effects of reduced federal aid and heightened competition.”

    Districts are already feeling the blowback from federal-level changes. 

    About 85% of superintendents said they have existing contracts previously paid with federal funds that are currently being withheld, forcing them to backfill with local dollars, according to a survey released Tuesday of nearly 630 district leaders across 43 states. 

    As a result of these spending changes, nearly three quarters of surveyed districts will have to scrap academic services for students, such as tutoring and before or after-school programming, according to the poll conducted by AASA, the School Superintendents Association. Half of superintendents said they will have to make labor cuts, including in special education.

    “This isn’t a future problem; it’s happening now,” one superintendent said in the survey. “Our budget was set with these funds in mind. Their sudden withholding has thrown us into chaos, forcing drastic measures that will negatively impact every student, classroom, and school in our district.”

    Source link

  • Reputation Is Revenue: Why Brand Equity Matters in Higher Ed

    Reputation Is Revenue: Why Brand Equity Matters in Higher Ed

    If you’re a university leader today, you’re juggling a lot: enrollment challenges, tightening budgets, shifting student expectations, and the rise of non-traditional competitors. Amid all this, one asset might not be getting the attention it deserves — your university’s brand.

    No, not just your logo or tagline. We’re talking about brand equity — the value your institution holds in the minds of students, parents, alumni, faculty, employers, and the public. It’s about reputation, trust, recognition, and connection. And in a competitive market, it matters now more than ever.

    What is brand equity in higher education?

    Think of it this way: Brand equity is what people think and feel when they hear your university’s name. It’s the difference between being someone’s first-choice school versus just another option.

    It shows up in the pride alumni feel when they wear your sweatshirt, the confidence prospective students have when they see your graduates succeed, and the trust employers place in your credentials. It’s shaped by every experience — from the way your website tells your story, to how your faculty engage in the classroom, to the tone of your communications during a crisis.

    It’s what drives alumni to give, students to enroll, and faculty to choose you over other institutions. When a university has strong brand equity, people trust it, recognize it, and feel loyal to it. That kind of reputation can spark a ripple effect of positive influence across an entire institution.

    Understanding the impact of brand equity across an institution

    Brand equity touches every dimension of institutional life, influencing how people experience, perceive, and engage with your university across the student and stakeholder journey. Let’s take a look at its impact in six key areas.

    1. Enrolling new students

    Choosing a college is a huge decision for students and their families. Today’s students are more informed than ever and expect an institution that’s respected, innovative, and committed to their success.

    That’s where your brand can make an impact. If your university has a strong, positive reputation, you’re more likely to make their shortlist. Schools with solid brand equity are seen as high-quality, forward-thinking, and worth the investment, which makes all the difference in a world where competition is fierce and the landscape is changing fast.

    2. Attracting top faculty

    It’s not just students who care about a school’s reputation — faculty and academic leaders do too. A strong, well-respected brand sends a clear message: This place is serious about excellence, values academic freedom, and encourages innovation.

    It’s not just about prestige — top talent also wants to be somewhere that fosters genuine, supportive relationships with students. A respected brand signals a vibrant academic culture where everyone’s invested in each other’s success.

    3. Fostering alumni pride

    When a university has strong brand equity, it’s not just about reputation — it’s about the sense of pride and connection it creates. Alumni who feel proud of their alma mater are more likely to stay involved, whether that means attending events, volunteering, or giving back financially.

    A strong brand also helps foster a lasting sense of community and belonging well beyond graduation. In short, when your brand is trusted and respected, alumni remain engaged — and they’re more likely to support the institution not only with their resources but by recommending it to future students within their networks.

    4. Securing strategic partnerships

    Whether you’re aiming to partner with major companies, secure government grants, or build global collaborations, having a strong brand can be a significant factor. Organizations want to work with universities they respect, trust, and recognize as leaders in their field.

    When your university’s brand is strong and clear, opportunities that are imperative to your institution open up more quickly. Meanwhile, lesser-known schools often struggle to get noticed. Building a strategic and strong brand is your best way to stand out and secure meaningful partnerships that benefit your students and your bottom line.

    5. Staying resilient amid market disruption

    Higher education is under pressure from various directions shifting demographics, financial constraints, and evolving expectations. A strong brand is essential to stay resilient and relevant.

    When controversy, crises, or big changes hit, your brand becomes your safety net. People are far more likely to give you the benefit of the doubt if they already respect and trust you. That reputation can be the difference between weathering the storm and facing long-term damage.

    6. Boosting visibility through rankings

    While rankings aren’t everything, they do influence perception. Many ranking systems factor in peer reputation, which is directly tied to your brand. The same goes for media coverage. The stronger your brand, the more likely you are to be recognized as a thought leader and trusted voice in the field.

    Ready for a Smarter Way Forward?

    Higher ed is hard — but you don’t have to figure it out alone. We can help you transform challenges into opportunities.

    Practical tips for building brand equity that lasts

    University leaders can’t afford to view brand as merely a marketing function— it’s so much more than that. Brand must be seen as a strategic asset embedded in everything from big-picture planning to day-to-day decisions. It’s part of how you attract students, build partnerships, and earn trust.

    So how can you turn brand equity into a competitive advantage for your institution? Here are a few key moves to get started:

    1. Know what you stand for

    Start with a clear sense of who you are and what makes your school unique. What do you want people to feel when they think of your institution? Your brand promise should reflect your values, vision, and personality — and it should feel real, not like something cooked up in a boardroom.

    2. Take time to truly know your audience

    What matters most to your students, parents, alumni, and faculty? What are they proud of, and what do they wish were better? Take time to listen — through surveys, conversations, and social media — and use those insights to shape your strategy and message.

    3. Tell one clear, consistent story

    Your brand shows up everywhere: your website, your campus tours, your social media posts, even how your staff answers the phone. Make sure that story feels authentic, easy to understand, and consistent across every touchpoint. Developing comprehensive brand guidelines, share them widely across the institution, and conduct regular audits to ensure every touchpoint reinforces a unified, memorable experience for all audiences.

    4. Get your people involved

    Your brand isn’t just a logo — it’s how people talk about your institution and the trust they place in it. That means faculty, staff, students, and alumni all have a role to play. Keep them in the loop, give them the tools to share your story, and make them feel like part of the bigger picture. Want to get more people talking about — and proud of — your school? Make it easy for them. Share what’s happening through newsletters and social media and provide your community with tools that help them show off their connection. When faculty, staff, students, and alumni feel informed, celebrated, and included, they’re more likely to stay engaged — and more likely to brag about being part of your institution.

    5. Make sure the experience matches the message

    If you’re promising innovation, inclusivity, or career readiness, you better be delivering that on campus, in the classroom (both online and in person), and beyond. Brand equity grows when expectations match real experiences. That’s why creating a seamless website experience is so important — it directly impacts how much trust students place in your institution and it’s offerings.

    6. Get the word out (strategically)

    Raising awareness isn’t just about marketing louder — it’s about marketing smarter. Use the right mix of channels, from digital ads and social media to speaking opportunities for university leaders. And don’t forget about earned media and storytelling that highlights real student success. Do this by building a strategic content plan that aligns messaging across platforms, targets the right audiences, and consistently showcases the impact your institution makes.

    7. Keep a pulse on your reputation

    What are people actually saying about your school? Check in regularly using surveys, online reviews, social listening, and even informal feedback. This will help you spot issues early and see what’s working.

    8. Be prepared to evolve

    Higher ed is changing fast, so your brand needs to be flexible. Stay grounded in your core values, but be open to shifting your tone, visuals, or messaging as your audience and the world around you change.

    Build a brand with a lasting legacy and immediate impact

    In an age of increasing competition and shifting student expectations, brand equity is no longer a luxury — it’s a leadership priority. With students having endless options, donors getting more selective, and reputations spreading instantly, your brand equity can be a serious competitive edge.

    Investing in a strong, authentic, and trusted brand can lay the foundation for long-term success. The institutions that thrive in the years ahead will be those that treat their brand as a central part of their overall strategy instead of a marketing afterthought.

    Because in higher ed, your brand isn’t what you say it is — it’s what people believe it to be. And that belief? That’s your brand equity.

    Ready to strengthen your institution’s brand equity? Explore how a strategic marketing approach can help you stand out and thrive. Let’s talk!

    Innovation Starts Here

    Higher ed is evolving — don’t get left behind. Explore how Collegis can help your institution thrive.

    Source link

  • Protecting Revenue and Reputation from Fraud  

    Protecting Revenue and Reputation from Fraud  

    A New Era of Risk and Responsibility  

    Higher Education is under intensifying scrutiny as federal regulations tighten, and public trust continues to waver. A growing threat to this is student aid fraud. Organized schemes are exploiting institutional systems to siphon millions in financial aid, particularly targeting Pell Grant disbursements and student aid refunds. The result is a direct hit to both institutional revenue and reputation. Institutions can no longer afford to operate passively. They must lead with transparency, accountability and systems built to withstand obstacles. In an era already marked by increasing skepticism surrounding higher education, this is a risk that institutions cannot afford to ignore 

    In June 2025, The US Department of Education announced identity verification measures for over 125,000 FAFSA applicants—a clear signal that proactive fraud prevention is no longer optional. Failure to act risks financial loss, audit exposure and reputational damage. Explore how your institution can recognize the warning signs, implement smart prevention strategies and build a strong foundation of trust that supports both reputational and revenue goals.  

    Understanding the Modern Fraudster’s Playbook  

    Today’s fraudsters are highly strategic. They understand how to game institutional processes—enrolling just long enough to trigger student aid refunds, then disappearing soon after. By carefully selecting enough credits to qualify for more aid, these fraudsters have fueled the rise of “ghost enrollments” — fraudulent student records created to claim federal aid without actual attendance.  

    This surge is fueled by gaps in infrastructure, less stringent verification procedures and siloed systems, all challenges that hit resource-limited institutions hardest. The rapid expansion of online learning has outpaced the sophistication of verification systems, reducing touchpoints to confirm student legitimacy. Adding to this challenge, outdated or isolated internal systems often lack real-time data sharing between critical departments such as admissions, financial aid and academic offices. 

    These deceptive tactics lead to more than just financial losses; they corrupt enrollment data, misguide long-term strategic planning and damage an institution’s reputation. Enrollment fraud is not just a compliance problem but a strategic issue that compromises the very accuracy of the data institutions depend on to create budgets, predict enrollment trends and allocate resources effectively.  

    Without real-time data sharing and alignment between systems, institutions remain vulnerable to fraud and flawed decision-making. EducationDynamics supports colleges and universities in closing these gaps through integrated data strategies that prioritize accuracy and system-wide consistency. 

    Identifying the Warning Signs 

    Early detection is an institution’s strongest defense against coordinated financial aid fraud. As schemes grow more sophisticated, so must the systems and vigilance required to stop them. Fraudsters are increasingly leveraging tools like AI to complete assignments, VPNs to hide their locations and fake identities to access financial aid. Even with these evolving tools, fraud leaves detectable patterns—and catching these patterns can become a valuable asset for institutions. 

    Red Flag Reports are among the most valuable tools institutions can use to identify fraudulent activity before financial aid is disbursed. These reports highlight anomalies in student data that may otherwise go unnoticed, offering a proactive mechanism to pause and review questionable activity. Implementing this type of reporting is a critical step toward closing system gaps and elevating your fraud prevention infrastructure. 

    To effectively intercept fraud, institutions should actively monitor for specific indicators across the enrollment and financial aid process, such as: 

    • Multiple students tied to the same bank account or IP address  
    • Invalid or recycled phone numbers tied to applicants  
    • Unusual enrollment or participation patterns, such as registering for the maximum credit load with no subsequent academic engagement 
    • Last-minute documentation or sudden changes to refund delivery preferences 
    • VPN usage that obscures geographic location, particularly when login or application behavior conflicts with submitted residence information 

    In response to these growing concerns,  The Department of Education has expanded identity verification requirements under V4/V5 processes, encouraging institutions to adopt similar protocols—including video-based ID confirmation and tighter front-end validation of applicant information.  

    By actively seeking out these red flags and embracing modern verification practices, institutions can significantly bolster their defense.

    Actionable Strategies for Institutional Defense 

    This is the era of proactive defense, demanding that institutions build workflows that not only accommodate scrutiny but leverage it to strengthen their practices. 

    To achieve this, institutions must: 

    Empower Staff for Early Detection 

    Use Red Flag Reports to monitor for suspicious indicators such as shared IP addresses, duplicate bank accounts and invalid phone numbers. These reports empower your staff to pause questionable disbursements and trigger manual reviews, catching issues that might otherwise slip through. 

    Build Verification Workflows to Withstand Volume  

    Build scalable, repeatable workflows to efficiently handle identity checks, document intake and federal verification requirements. Implement triage systems that ensure timely reviews, minimizing student disruption while maintaining operational efficiency and compliance.   

    Create Strategic Friction 

    Introduce intentional friction points that deter fraudsters without impeding legitimate students. Examples include phone verification for refund information or holding disbursements until after the add/drop period. These small process shifts significantly raise the barrier for fraudulent activity, preventing large-scale losses. 

    Require the Financial Responsibility Agreement  

    Make it standard practice to collect signed Financial Responsibility Agreements (FRAs) before disbursement. Doing so strengthens your paper trail and creates another point of identity verification, helping deter those attempting to abuse the system.  

    Modernize Refund Security  

    Require muti-factor authentication (MFA) when students update refund profiles, and default to e-refunds over checks. Limit paper disbursements and ensure funds are only returned to verified payment methods, significantly reducing fraud risk and maintaining transaction integrity. 

    Showcase Strong Digital Infrastructure 

    When institutions adopt secure, transparent payment systems, they project competence. Adopting strong digital infrastructure is more than an operational improvement; it’s a powerful brand message. A secure system builds public trust and reinforces your institution’s responsible stewardship of student funds. 

    Break Down Silos and Align Teams

    Financial Aid cannot combat fraud in isolation. Establish a collaborative task force with key stakeholders from IT, Registrar and Academic Affairs. Faculty, for instance, are often early observers of suspicious academic behavior. When departments share insights, vulnerabilities are closed far more swiftly. 

    Create Real-Time Communication Loops  

    Facilitate consistent touchpoints between Financial Aid, Accounts Receivable and IT to rapidly flag and act on anomalies. Integrated communication accelerates response times and minimizes oversight risks. 

    Strengthen Awareness Across Campus 

    Incorporate scam awareness into existing financial literacy programs. Students who understand phishing and fraud risks are less likely to fall victim and more likely to report suspicious behavior.  

    Develop a Crisis Communication Playbook 

    A public incident of financial aid fraud extends beyond headlines; it directly threatens an institution’s credibility. Build a comprehensive crisis communication playbook that ensures a fast, transparent, and coordinated response. Proactive planning is crucial, and institutions can significantly strengthen their efforts by partnering with trusted reputation management experts. 

    When institutions elevate fraud prevention to a core business function, they safeguard far more than their balance sheets, protecting their reputation, enrollment pipeline and overall standing. 

    Why This Matters for Institutional Leaders 

    Fraud prevention is a strategic responsibility that demands the attention of every institutional leader. The consequences of fraud aren’t limited to financial aid offices. Fraud compromises presidential planning, marketing performance and enrollment numbers—all while chipping away at public trust.  If institutional leaders want to chart a course for sustainable growth, defense against fraud must be built into the foundation of that strategy.  

    Presidents

     For presidents, fraud erodes the central pillars that define institutional stability—financial resilience and decision-making confidence. Ghost enrollments and fake students distort budget forecasts, inflate success metrics and mask areas of real vulnerability. 

    Fraud prevention supports long-term vision by ensuring that enrollment, funding and performance data reflect institutional realities, not manipulations. In an environment where every resource must be justified, clarity is a leadership requirement.  

    Marketing Leaders

    Marketing teams are measured by outcomes. Fraud makes those outcomes unreliable. Invalid inquiries and ghost enrollments inflate to the top of the funnel, while wasting precious budget. For leaders who rely on brand perception to drive engagement and attract prospects, fraud directly undermines their efforts, risking a loss of trust and diminished return on investment.  

    Enrollment Leaders

    Enrollment leaders face rising stakes driven by declining traditional student populations and heightened expectations for conversions. In this environment, fraud distorts the metrics that enrollment leaders depend on. It artificially inflates applicant numbers, conceals melt and obscures true student movement through the funnel.  

    More importantly, fraudulent applications divert the time and energy of enrollment coaches. Every moment spent chasing a ghost applicant is a moment stolen from a real applicant who may never get the support they need. Over time, this leads to higher melt, poorer service and declining performance. Strategic financial aid conversations can refocus coaching efforts on real prospects and improve yield through trust-building and transparency. 

    Fraud prevention empowers enrollment leaders to understand their true audience and make decisions rooted in authentic student behavior, not artificial patterns. Aligning enrollment management strategies with proactive fraud prevention creates a foundation that drives sustained success.  

    Building a Resilient Institution 

    Fraud prevention is an ongoing commitment to institutional resilience. As fraudsters evolve their tactics, institutions must continually refine their defenses with smarter workflows, updated red flag criteria and technology. The most resilient schools treat fraud prevention as core infrastructure, integrating it into strategic planning rather than siloing it within financial departments. More importantly, many fraud safeguards also enhance the experience of students and staff by eliminating confusion and freeing teams to focus on supporting real students. When institutions take a proactive approach to fraud, they’re not only protecting their operations—they’re actively preserving the credibility and brand reputation that define long-term success. 

    EducationDynamics is here to help you turn defense into momentum. By aligning revenue strategy with reputation stewardship, we empower institutions to lead with clarity, act with confidence and build a foundation for success in an increasingly high-stakes environment.    

    Source link

  • Court Approves Final Settlement Allowing Revenue Sharing Between Higher Ed Institutions and College Athletes – CUPA-HR

    Court Approves Final Settlement Allowing Revenue Sharing Between Higher Ed Institutions and College Athletes – CUPA-HR

    by CUPA-HR | June 9, 2025

    On June 6, a federal judge for the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California approved a settlement in House v. NCAA, which will allow higher education institutions to share revenue with student-athletes directly.

    The settlement creates a 10-year revenue-sharing model that will allow the athletic departments of the higher education institutions in the Power Five conferences (the ACC, Big 12, Big Ten, Pac-12, and SEC) and any other Division I institutions that opt in to distribute approximately $20.5 million in name, image, and likeness (NIL) revenue during the 2025-2026 season. The revenue-sharing cap will increase annually and be calculated as 22.5% of the Power Five schools’ average athletic revenue. The settlement also includes an enforcement arm to penalize institutions that exceed the $20.5 million cap, which will be overseen by a new regulatory body, the College Sports Commission. Institutions can start to share revenue beginning on July 1, 2025.

    Additionally, the settlement requires the NCAA and Power Five conferences to pay approximately $2.8 billion in damages to Division I athletes who were barred from signing NIL deals. This covers athletes dating back to 2016. It also replaces scholarship limits with roster limits.

    The settlement does not change college athletes’ ability to enter into NIL contracts with third parties, but under the settlement, all outside NIL deals valued at greater than $600 will have to go through a clearinghouse for approval. The clearinghouse will determine if the revenue is for a valid business purpose and if it reflects fair market value.

    Prior to this settlement, college athletes could only earn NIL revenue through partnerships with outside parties, such as companies or donor groups. The original case, House v. NCAA, was brought by two former college athletes in June 2020. They challenged the NCAA’s then-policy that prohibited athletes from earning NIL compensation. The case was consolidated with Carter v. NCAA and Hubbard v. NCAA, two similar cases. None of the cases ever made it to trial. Instead, in an effort to avoid higher damages, the NCAA and Power Five conferences agreed to a settlement in May 2024, and the court granted preliminary approval in October 2024.

    As NCAA President Charlie Baker explained in a letter, the settlement “opens a pathway to begin stabilizing college sports. This new framework that enables schools to provide direct financial benefits to student-athletes and establishes clear and specific rules to regulate third-party NIL agreements marks a huge step forward for college sports.”

    CUPA-HR will keep members apprised of updates related to this settlement and the future of student-athletics.

     



    Source link

  • Beyond the Margin: When might low net revenue in international student recruitment be justified?

    Beyond the Margin: When might low net revenue in international student recruitment be justified?

    • Vincenzo Raimo is an independent international higher education consultant and a Visiting Fellow at the University of Reading where he was previously Pro Vice-Chancellor for Global Engagement.

    In my recent article for The PIE News, I argued that the financial sustainability of international student recruitment deserves much closer scrutiny. With commissions, scholarships, marketing costs, and operational overheads taken into account, the margins on international enrolment are often far lower than they appear on paper – sometimes even negative.

    At a time when the financial health of UK higher education is under intense pressure, it is right that we ask whether international recruitment is really worth it. But this doesn’t mean that every low-margin intake is necessarily a poor strategic decision.

    In fact, there are good, sometimes essential, reasons why institutions might pursue or maintain international student recruitment with lower net financial return. But those decisions must be deliberate, transparent, and aligned with broader institutional aims. That’s not always the case.

    So how can we assess whether low-margin recruitment is justified?

    Here are five scenarios where low net revenue per student might make strategic sense:

    1. Filling Capacity or Managing Fixed Costs

    For many universities, fixed costs dominate the cost base. If recruiting a marginal cohort of international students helps fill underutilised teaching space or resources, and the marginal cost of teaching them is low, then even a small surplus can help improve the overall financial picture. This is particularly relevant in the context of declining domestic demand in some areas.

    2. Maintaining Subject Diversity or Cross-Subsidising Departments

    Low-margin international recruitment can sometimes help sustain strategically important but otherwise financially marginal subjects. This may include courses that support the university’s civic role or feed into regional skills needs. Used appropriately, it can help protect the breadth and integrity of an academic offer.

    3. Building a Pipeline for Higher-Value Activities

    In some cases, international student recruitment may have low margins, but it helps establish relationships that lead to high-value postgraduate, PhD, or alumni outcomes. It may also feed research collaborations, business engagement, or future TNE ventures. But such pipeline logic must be based on more than hope – institutions need to measure conversion, retention, and downstream value.

    4. Advancing Strategic Partnerships or Market Development

    An institution might accept lower margins to anchor a presence in a high-potential market or strengthen a bilateral partnership with a key international institution, government, or agency. These efforts can open the door to broader collaborations – but again, they require long-term planning and evidence of value beyond headcount.

    5. Delivering Mission-Aligned Social or Cultural Impact

    Some universities recruit from particular countries or communities not because it delivers high surplus, but because it aligns with their mission: widening access to UK education, supporting development goals, or enhancing campus diversity. These are valid choices – but they must be recognised as such, and the trade-offs clearly understood.

    A Checklist: Is Low-Margin Recruitment Worth It?

    To support institutions in making informed decisions, I’ve developed the following tool – a series of guiding questions to assess whether low-margin recruitment routes or cohorts align with institutional strategy.

    This is not a tick-box exercise. Rather, it’s a framework to prompt a more strategic, evidence-based approach to planning.

    The Danger of Denial

    The real issue isn’t low-margin recruitment as such – it’s unexamined recruitment. Too often, institutions recruit internationally based on historic patterns, copying what others are doing or perceived opportunity, without fully evaluating cost, risk, or alignment with institutional strengths.

    As pressures continue to mount, universities need to treat international recruitment with the same rigour they apply to research, teaching, and estates: as a strategic investment with benefits and risks. That starts with honest internal conversations about why we recruit, who we are recruiting, and what success looks like.

    Conclusion

    Low net revenue doesn’t automatically mean bad recruitment. But it should always prompt a question: Is this worth it – and why?

    By adopting a more mature and transparent approach to international student recruitment strategy, UK universities can balance growth with sustainability, manage risk, and ensure they are maximising both financial and non-financial returns from their global engagement.

    Catch up here on HEPI’s Weekend Reading on ‘Imperfect information in higher education’.

    Source link

  • 5 Ways to Turn College Startups Into a Recurring Revenue Machine

    5 Ways to Turn College Startups Into a Recurring Revenue Machine

    Starting a college project is fascinating; nevertheless, maintaining profitability is quite another matter. Many college businesses find it difficult to maintain revenue growth between increasing running expenses, administrative inefficiencies, and erratic cash flow. Actually, cash flow issues cause 82% of small firms to fail; education startups are not an exception.

    The fix? smarter, data-based ideas for college recurrent income. Supported by actual data, let’s explore five tested strategies to make your college startup a revenue-generating machine.

     

    Five Data-Based Strategies for College Recurring Revenue to Increase Profits

     

     

    1. Automate Fee Collection: Save Up to 30% of Costs

    Unbelievably, mistakes in manual fee processing could cost organizations up to 25% of their whole income. Automating your fee collecting guarantees faster payments, less billing errors, and simplifies the process. Studies reveal that companies implementing automation cut their running expenses by thirty percent; consider what that could mean for the financial situation of your college.

    Using a cloud-based fee management solution can help you to automatically handle receipts, cut manual invoicing, and send quick payment reminders.

     

    2. Strengthener student relationships – boost enrollment by eighteen percent

    Automate Fee Collection: Save Up to 30% of Costs

    Unbelievably, mistakes in manual fee processing could cost organizations up to 25% of their whole income. Automating your fee collecting guarantees faster payments, less billing errors, and simplifies the process. Studies reveal that companies implementing automation cut their running expenses by thirty percent; consider what that could mean for the financial situation of your college.

    Using a cloud-based fee management solution can help you to automatically handle receipts, cut manual invoicing, and send quick payment reminders.

     

    3. Smart Reminders & Communication — 45% Less Late Payments

    Weary of hunting payments? When institutions deliver timely SMS, email, and push notifications, a shockingly 45% of late fees are paid within a week. Automated reminders guarantee parents and students never miss a deadline, therefore reducing late payments and improving cash flow.

    To expedite collections and save administrative expense, schedule automated reminders for due dates, past-due penalties, and payment acknowledgements.

     

    4. Control Your Spending Track About sixty percent of operational expenses

    Unchecked expenses cause colleges to bleed money; but, systematic expense tracking helps to control 60% of operational costs. Institutions can recognize early overspending, maximize resource allocation, and increase profitability by real-time cost capture and manual expenditure entry elimination.

    Use cost control tools to oversee vendor payments, check program budgets, and guarantee every dollar counts.

     

    5. Improve Real-Time Data Insights to Increase Revenue 20%

    Think about predicting financial constraints. Data analytics boosts revenue by 20% for institutions tracking revenue, costs, and student performance. Late payments, course profitability, and untapped income potential are visible in real time dashboards.

    With a real-time performance metrics dashboard, track cash flow, find income trends, and improve financial agility.

     

    Ready to Turn Your College Startup into a Revenue Powerhouse?

    The path to a sustainable, recurring revenue model isn’t about working harder — it’s about working smarter. By embracing automation, student relationship management, expense control, and data-driven decision-making, your college startup can maximize revenue, minimize costs, and scale faster than ever.

    Ready to future-proof your revenue strategy? Let Creatrix Campus help you build a smarter, more profitable institution — starting today.

    Source link