COVID-

19: Department of Education operational guidance

As 2018 is about to come to a close, organizations with fiscal year ends after December 15, 2018, are poised to start implementing the new not-for-profit reporting standard. Here are three areas to address before the close of the fiscal year to set your organization up for a smooth and successful transition, and keep in compliance:

1. Update and approve policies—organizations need to both change certain disclosures and add new ones. The policies in place at the end of the year will be pivotal in creating the framework within which to draft these new disclosures (for example, treatment of board designations, underwater endowments, and liquidity).
2. Functional expense reporting—if you have not historically reported expenses by natural and functional classification, develop the methodology for cost allocation. If you already have a framework in place, revisit it to determine if this still fits your organization. Finally, determine where you will present this information in the financial statements.
3. Internal investment costs—be sure you have a methodology to segregate the organization’s internal investment costs such as internal staff time (remember, this is the cost to generate the income, not account for it) and consider the overall disclosure.

While the implementation of the new reporting standard will not be without cost (both internal costs and audit costs), if your organization considers this an opportunity to better tell your story, the end result will be a much more useful financial narrative. Don’t forget to include the BerryDunn implementation whitepaper in your implementation strategy.

We at BerryDunn are helping organizations gain momentum with a personal touch, through our not-for-profit reporting checkup. This checkup includes initial recast of the prior financial statements to the new format, a personalized review of the checklist to identify opportunities for success, and consideration of the footnotes to be updated. Contact me and find out how you can join the list of organizations getting ahead of the new standard.

With the wind down of the Federal Perkins Loan Program and announcement that the Federal Capital Contribution (FCC) (the federal funds contributed to the loan program over time) will begin to be repaid, higher education institutions must now decide how to handle these outstanding loans. The Department of Education’s (DOE)’s plans to recover their FCC (or “distribution of assets”) in the coming 2018-19 year can be found here, with the Fiscal Operations Report and Application to Participate (FISAP) playing a crucial role in the close-out excess cash calculation. Colleges and universities are now faced with two options:

1. Continue servicing their loans, refunding future FCC excess cash as loans are repaid
2. Assigning loans back to the DOE (subject to certain requirements)

Colleges and universities have been evaluating these options since the decision was made to not renew the loan program. There are many considerations when deciding which path to choose:

• Continuing to service loans has the disadvantage of ongoing administrative costs. While there is potential an administrative cost allowance could be paid to institutions that continue to service loans in the future, legislation would need to be enacted for this to occur.
• In assigning loans back to the DOE, the institution will lose any Institutional Capital Contribution (ICC).  It is important to note the decision of whether or not to assign loans has not reached “now or never” status. You can assign loans your institution continues to service to the DOE in the future.

NACUBO recently published advisory guidance on the Perkins Loan Program close-out. This guidance provides a broader look at the close-out process, and explores the ramifications of how the two options above can impact alumni relations. The guidance also provides a useful cost/benefit calculation template and sample accounting entries for the close-out process.

Need help or have additional questions? Our experience with Perkins Loan liquidation/closeout can help as you plot a course through the Perkins wind down.

NEW UPDATE October 2017:

The Federal Perkins Loan Program expiration date has passed without extension and now the countdown is on for the program wind-down. On October 6, the Department of Education issued a Dear Colleague Letter, GEN-17-10, which provides important wind-down information and indicates the Department will begin collecting the Federal share of institutions’ Perkins Loan Revolving Funds following the submission of the 2019-2020 FISAP (due October 1, 2018) using a similar process to the Excess Liquid Capital currently in place under HEA section 466(c). The Department of Education has promised more information on this process ahead of the October 2018 deadline.

Institutions should be reviewing their portfolios to determine if they will choose to assign their Perkins Loans to the Department or continue servicing their portfolio. Once the loans are assigned, institutions lose all rights to future loan collections, including their institutional share.

Loans that are not assigned to the department should continue to be serviced under Perkins Loan Program regulations until all loans are paid in full, fully retired or assigned to the Department. The process of requiring the distribution of assets from the Perkins Loan Revolving Fund will continue each year based on the annual submission of the FISAP, until all of the Perkins Loans held by the institution have been paid in full, fully retired or assigned to the Department of Education.

An administrative cost allowance cannot be charged against the Perkins Loan Revolving Fund after June 30, 2018.

For those considering liquidation and assignment, the Assignment and Liquidation Guide provides step-by-step instructions through the process, including the required a Perkins closeout audit. We are experienced with the Perkins closeout and stand ready to assist.
 

NEW UPDATE March 30, 2016: 

A new combined Federal Perkins Loan Assignment and Liquidation Guide has been posted. You can see the announcement and links to the updated guide here.

The Federal Perkins Loan Program has expired, effective October 1. While guidance has not yet been issued by the Department of Education in response to program’s expiration, there is a published process for institutions to follow to liquidate a Perkins Loan Revolving Fund.

We'll keep you informed as guidance is issued

BerryDunn’s Higher Education experts are monitoring the situation and assessing the implications for colleges and universities and their loan recipients with outstanding balances.

Need help or have additional questions?

Our experience with Perkins loan liquidation/closeout audits can be of great help to you as you navigate the complexities of closing your Perkins loans. Feel free to contact Renee Bishop, Emily Parker, Mark LaPrade or any of our Higher Education experts.

While GASB has been talking about split-interest agreements for a long time (the proposal first released in June of 2015, with GASB Statement No. 81, Irrevocable Split-Interest Agreements released in March of 2016), time is quickly running out for a well-planned implementation. With the effective date looming on the horizon, (statement effective for periods beginning after December 15, 2016 unless early adopted), now is the time to start gathering needed information to record existing agreements under GASB 81.

We have learned from GASB’s not-for-profit FASB cousins that irrevocable agreements are rarely where they should be: in the hands of financial professionals. Compiling these agreements will require participation from many stakeholders. Your finance team will likely have to provide some education to avoid a great deal of confusion when asking the “do we have any irrevocable split-interest agreements?” question.

So, where do you start?

1. Have you been tracking this information right along, nicely documented in a folder by your desk? Great! Do a quick check of others in your organization to be sure your file is complete and skip steps 2-5.
    
2. Dig into your general ledger. Have you been receiving regular distributions from a trust? Some of these trust agreements pay out on a quarterly or annual basis and your accounting staff should be able to identify these payors. It may require a quick call to the administrator for the trust agreement to be sure the agreement qualifies under GASB 81.
    
3. Look to your fundraising professionals. Development departments like to keep track of all types of donations. It helps to quantify their good fundraising work. Be clear about what you need from them. Remember, irrevocable split-interest agreements, often trusts or other legally enforceable agreements, are agreements wherein a donor irrevocably transfers resources to a third party to hold for the benefit of the government and at least one other beneficiary —the “split” in “split-interest agreement”!
    
4. Keep talking to your fundraising professionals. Many of the split-interest agreements we find are very old, often created well before your current development software was put into place. Do you have old files that track this kind of information? It may require some digging in the paper files. Remember those?
    
5. All hands on deck. While the finance and fundraising teams are scouring their records, look to others in the organization that might have record of these types of agreements. You know who holds the keys to historical knowledge at your organization, so be sure to include them in your search.

Once the finance department has collected all of the agreements, take one more look to be sure they meet the requirements of GASB 81.“Are they really irrevocable? Or do we just hope they are?” Then you can get down to the business of accounting for them. If you have questions about the accounting for these agreements, please contact me. I would love to chat. And that is irrevocable.

With the implementation of GASB 72 now in full force, GASB organizations are hard at work drafting their new fair value disclosures. The addition of a fair value hierarchy table in the footnotes will add a bit more thickness to a likely already hefty financial package. With this added material comes valuable information for many financial statement users, including a much better explanation of the valuation approach of assets and liabilities reported at fair value.

Since GASB 72 (formally Fair Value Measurement and Application, effective for financial statement periods beginning after June 15, 2015) comes a few years after a similar FASB implementation, most investment professionals have dealt with the growing pains of the FASB implementation, and are well poised to provide the information necessary for the new fair value disclosures.

However, there are a few other things we have learned from the FASB implementation that can be shared with the GASB financial statement preparers:

• The unit of account is a big deal. While investments held by organizations may be specific stocks regularly traded on the open market (here’s a tip: these are level 1); there are other investment vehicles where an organization’s investment share represents a portion of a fund that holds all kinds of other investments (level 1? Maybe, maybe not – you will need to dig deeper). The good news is, with these kinds of investments, the organization is disclosing the level within the fair value hierarchy of their investment - the share of the fund. This is not the same as the level of the investments held within the fund. This is an important distinction and should result in much less time and effort in determining the appropriate level for an investment. GASB 72 uses the example of a mutual fund. An organization owns a share of the mutual fund, not the underlying investments, therefore the disclosure requirement is for the share of the mutual fund, not the underlying assets.
• GASB 72 requires investments measured at net asset value to be reconciling items to the fair value disclosure, but does not require these assets to be listed by level in the table (a recent change to the FASB). Further, a roll forward of level 3 items from year to year was also excluded.
   
• If you have heard of GASB 72, then likely you have heard of the three levels. The required disclosure includes three categories of valuation to be disclosed (aptly named level 1, level 2 and level 3). With each level, comes more involvement (or even, difficulty) in determining the fair value that is recorded. The new disclosure will make it clearer to the users of the financial statements how fair value is being measured.
   
• GASB 72 does provide some guidance in determining fair value through the use of one or more of the following valuation approaches: market approach, cost approach, or the income approach. GASB 72 discusses each of these separately, but remember there can be more than one approach, and not all items are measured equally.
• When you think about fair value, don’t focus solely on the investments, or even only on the assets. Liabilities are in there too! Think of measuring a warranty liability, for example.

We have the advantage of hindsight after the FASB implementation. I have great hope, that as with FASB, after the initial pain of the GASB 72 implementation, once our tables are setup, and a process is in place for identifying levels, our financial statements will be much more transparent, giving us all a clearer picture of the organization.

Please contact Emily Parker if you have questions on the latest GASB updates.

Good fundraising and good accounting do not always seamlessly align. While they all feed the same mission, fundraisers work to meet revenue goals while accountants focus on recording transactions in compliance with accounting standards. We often see development department totals reported to boards that are not in line with annual financial statements, causing confusion and concern. To bridge this information gap, here are five accounting concepts every not-for-profit fundraiser should know:

Understanding the differences in how the development department and finance department track these gifts will allow for better reporting to the board throughout the year—and fewer surprises when you present financial statements at the end of the year. Stay tuned for parts two and three of our contribution series. Have questions? Please contact Emily Parker of Sarah Belliveau.

 

The late science fiction writer (and college professor) Isaac Asimov once said: “I do not fear computers. I fear the lack of them.” Had Asimov worked in higher ed IT management, he might have added: “but above all else, I fear the lack of computer staff.”

Indeed, it can be a challenge for higher education institutions to recruit and retain IT professionals. Private companies often pay more in a good economy, and in certain areas of the nation, open IT positions at colleges and universities outnumber available, qualified IT workers. According to one study from 2016, almost half of higher education IT workers are at risk of leaving the institutions they serve, largely for better opportunities and more supportive workplaces. Understandably, IT leadership fears an uncertain future of vacant roles—yet there are simple tactics that can help you improve the chances of filling open positions.

Emphasize the whole package

You need to leverage your institution’s strengths when recruiting IT talent. A focus on innovation, project leadership, and responsibility for supporting the mission of the institution are important attributes to promote when recruiting. Your institution should sell quality of life, which can be much more attractive than corporate culture. Many candidates are attracted to the energy and activity of college campuses, in addition to the numerous social and recreational outlets colleges provide.

Benefit packages are another strong asset for recruiting top talent. Schools need to ensure potential candidates know the amount of paid leave, retirement, and educational assistance for employees and employee family members. These added perks will pique the interest of many candidates who might otherwise have only looked at salary during the process.

Use the right job title

Some current school vacancies have very specific job titles, such as “Portal Administrator” or “Learning Multimedia Developer.” However, this specificity can limit visibility on popular job posting sites, reducing the number of qualified applicants. Job titles, such as “Web Developer” and “Java Developer,” can yield better search results. Furthermore, some current vacancies include a number or level after the job title (e.g., “System Administrator 2”), which also limits visibility on these sites. By removing these indicators, you can significantly increase the applicant pool.

Focus on service, not just technology

Each year, institutions deploy an increasing number of Software as a Service (SaaS) and hosted applications. As higher education institutions invest more in these applications, they need fewer personnel for day-to-day technology maintenance support. In turn, this allows IT organizations to focus limited resources on services that identify and analyze technology solutions, provide guidance to optimize technology investments, and manage vendor relationships. IT staff with soft skills will become even more valuable to your institution as they engage in more people- and process-centric efforts.

Fill in the future

It may seem like science fiction, but by revising your recruiting and retention tactics, your higher education institution can improve its chances of filling IT positions in a competitive job market. In a future blog, I’ll provide ideas for cultivating staff from your institution via student workers and upcoming graduates. If you’d like to discuss additional staffing tactics, send me an email.

As a leader in a higher education institution, you'll be familiar with this paradox: Every solution can lead to more problems, and every answer can lead to more questions. It’s like navigating an endless maze. When it comes to mobile apps, the same holds true. So, the question: Should your institution have a mobile app? The Answer? Absolutely.

Devices, not computers, are how millenials communicate, gather, inform, and engage. Millennials, on average, spend 90 hours per month on mobile apps, not including web searches and website visits.

Students are no exception. A 2016 Nielsen study showed that 98% of millennials aged 18 – 24, and 97% of millennials aged 25 – 34, owned a smartphone, while a 2017 comScore report stated that one out of five millennials no longer use desktop devices, including laptops. Mobile apps have quickly filled the desktop void, and as students grow more reliant on mobile technology, colleges and universities are in the mix, creating apps to bolster student engagement.

So should you create an app? Here are some questions you should answer before creating a mobile app. Welcome to the labyrinth! But don’t be frustrated—answer these questions to help you avoid dead ends and overspending.

1. Is a mobile app part of your IT Strategy? Including a mobile app in your IT strategy minimizes confusion at all levels about the objectives of mobile app implementation. It also helps dictate whether an institution needs multiple mobile apps for various functions, or a primary app that connects users with other functionality. If an institution has multiple campuses, should you align all campuses with a single app, or if will each campus develop their own?

2. What will the app do? Mobile apps can perform a multitude of functions, but for the initial implementation, select a few key functions in one main area, such as academics or student life. Institutions can then add functionality in the future as mobile adoption grows, and demand for more functions increases.

3. Who will use the app? Mobile apps certainly improve engagement throughout the student life cycle—from prospect to student to alumni—but they also present opportunities for increased faculty, staff, and community engagement. And while institutions should identify the immediate audience of the app, they should also identify future users, based upon functionality.

4. Who will manage the app? Institutions should determine who is going to manage the mobile app, and how. The discussion should focus on access, content, and functionality. Is the institution going to manage everything in house, from development to release to support, or will a mobile app vendor provide this support under contract? Depending on your institution, these discussions will vary.

5. What data will the app use? Like any new software system, an app is only as good as its supporting data. It’s important to assess the systems to integrate with the mobile app, and determine if the systems’ data is up-to-date and ready for integration. Consider the use of application program interfaces, or APIs. APIs allow apps and platforms to interact with one another. They can enable social media, news, weather, and entertainment apps to connect with your institution’s app, enhancing the user experience with more content for users.

6. How much data security does your app need? Depending on the functionality of the app you create, you will need varying degrees of security, including user authentication safeguards and other protections to keep information safe.

7. How much can you spend for the app? Your institution should decide how much you will spend on initial app development, with an eye toward including maintenance and development costs for future functionality. Complexity increases costs, so you will need to  budget accordingly. Include budget planning for updates and functionality improvements after launch.

You will also need to establish a timeline for the project and roll out. And note that apps deployed toward the end of the academic year experience less adoption than apps deployed at the beginning of the academic year.

Once your institution answers these questions, you will be off to a good start. And as I stated earlier, every answer to a question can lead to more questions. If your institution needs help navigating the mobile app labyrinth, please reach out to me.