In location and influence, Ballou Hall stands atop Tufts University. Most students will graduate without penetrating the well-secured doors protecting administrative arcana. Inside Ballou lie administrators whose tenures and decisions will last far beyond the four-year stay of the average undergraduate student. Despite the seclusion, the administration and its decisions are often mentioned in labor union demonstrations, student protests, and campus journalism.
To lift the veil of obscurity, the Tribune has spoken to leaders in the administration to glean some of its inner workings. Mike Howard, Tufts Executive Vice President, and Caroline Genco, Tufts Provost and Senior Vice President, offered the Tribune a behind-the-scenes view of Tufts’ complex financial situation, providing answers to important questions students have about their university’s financials. Namely: How does Tufts’ administration make financial decisions? What are their current prerogatives? Not least of all, what difficulties do they encounter in navigating the above?
Tufts’ financial office projects their Fiscal Year 2025 (FY25) spending to be $1.27 billion. 60% of this money will go towards people-related expenses (compensation and benefits), with 30% spent on supplies and services and 10% on space-related costs (depreciation and interest on property holdings). Their projected revenue barely exceeds their forecasted spending at $1.29 billion. Tufts’ annual revenue is composed mostly of net student fees (54%), with sponsored research & programs (18%), clinical services (11%), and investment support (13%) accounting for the remainder. With a razor-thin $17 million expected profit margin—less than 2% of their total revenue—the university’s financial flexibility is limited.
Howard and Genco cite the endowment as a key potential growth area. Endowment draw comprises only 9% of the university’s budget, compared to 16% at Northwestern, 18% at Brown, and 28% at Dartmouth. Collins says that, as a result, new, expensive initiatives usually necessitate either “a corresponding decrease of the same amount elsewhere in the budget; an increase in tuition, board and fees, which we do our best to avoid or minimize in order to keep costs as low as possible and in line with our peers; or the identification of a new revenue source, such as philanthropy, to support it.” Collins maintains that the administration “will continue to assess the ideas” raised by students “within this context and work collaboratively with students, faculty and the university community to introduce new initiatives and programs in accordance with the university’s strategy and resources.”
Although many demands on campus are sporadic, the administration prioritizes long-term strategic planning. Currently, the university’s focus is on “Tufts Beyond 175,” a strategic framework instituted by President Sunil Kumar. Speaking to the Tribune, Howard says Tufts Beyond 175 will “map out university priorities for the next five years while also preparing Tufts for the next quarter-century.”
Five strategic pillars comprise the plan: “educating responsible leaders for tomorrow,” “providing transformative experiences,” “expanding [Tufts’] research footprint,” “broadening our definition of what it means to be a student,” and “giving back to the community and society.” Genco says that the committee heading the initiative will identify and prioritize 3–4 initiatives for each strategic pillar through data collected from surveys and focus groups. Howard said, “New strategic priorities and plans will emerge from this process that will require long-term financial support.”
Howard and Genco detailed their strategic priorities for FY25, offering a glimpse into what Beyond 175 initiatives might resemble. They seek to establish AI+ and Public Health task forces; support Tufts’ faculty through housing, compensation, and expectation reforms; scale up research pertaining to their infection and immunity strategy; and implement an IIE strategic vision aimed at ensuring inclusive excellence. Notably, they seek to improve the quality and scalability of Tufts’ administrative model through RCM 2.0 and Administrative Transformation projects. Howard and Genco described this initiative as a consolidative effort to improve the efficiency of Tufts’ many independent schools. This involves aligning the university’s business processes to its academic aspirations.
In the backdrop of these lofty goals stands a rocky financial reality; Howard and Genco emphasized the necessity of balancing the budget as a prerequisite to implementing new programs. Over the past few years, Tufts’ budget environment has worsened. High inflation and national interest rates have “severely impact[ed their] cost structure.” Since Tufts is obviously unable to change these actualities, the financial office must adapt their fiscal approach. Policies from the new presidential administration have cast doubt onto Tufts’ federal funding. While not necessary for Tufts to maintain its operation, federal funds have comprised a large portion of the university’s profit margins since FY21. In FY23, government money accounted for nearly 50% of Tufts’ $42 million profit margin, much of which was COVID-19 relief from FEMA. For FY25, they predict $0 from FEMA, cutting their margin by more than half from FY23.
Howard emphasizes the impact that broader political and economic forces exert on Tufts’ financial decisions. He says that “recent orders and policy changes by the Trump administration” and “economic and market forces that are impacting higher education in general” will play an active role in the administration’s financial decisions. Still, he stresses that “the university is on solid footing.” Several key indicators of the university’s financial health have remained strong. Tufts maintains a positive operating result while steadily growing fundraising and shrinking long-term debt. Capital expenditures, in line with a ten-year plan of capital allocation, have risen steadily since 2022. The renovation of Eaton Hall and the planned upperclassmen dormitory on Boston Avenue are two notable products of this spending.
In line with the shared governance model, financial decision-making is split across Tufts’ various schools. Some run surpluses and deficits at different times, and all contribute to a central pot. Financial decisions must take the individual financial situations of schools into account. For instance, in FY24, the School of Arts and Sciences boasted a surplus of $11.3 million, while Fletcher ran a deficit of $6.2 million. The other schools in the red were the Friedman School at $2.3 million and Tufts Medical School at $11 million. The financial office projects a $17 million total surplus for FY25.
Facing challenging headwinds, the administration relies on school-level bureaucracy to save costs and innovate. Collins points to the fact that changes in dining hours “require input from AS&E because of the implications for the schools’ budgets.” This anecdote underscores the importance of extended coordination to ensure that all schools are on the same page with long-term, university-wide initiatives.
The Tufts community certainly has no shortage of initiatives of its own. Petitions abound, ranging from expanding meal swipes to reducing residency requirements. Patrick Collins, Executive Director of Public Relations, did not comment on specific proposals but noted that some were being “considered holistically with an eye toward both the university’s resource limitations and governance.” He also pointed to numerous instances where the administration had adopted student suggestions, like supplying feminine hygiene products to university restrooms and installing a contraceptive-supplying vending machine at the Campus Center. Most new initiatives come with a price tag; the university must solidify its current financial situation when considering these changes.
In the Tribune’s conversation with the senior administrators of Tufts’ financial infrastructure, Howard and Genco stressed the dichotomy between their lofty ambitions and the university’s financial reality. Working with an extremely slim profit margin, their ability to fund new initiatives is limited.
Throughout the conversation, Howard and Genco highlighted that the university’s expected rate of growth operates on a far longer timeframe than many students-led initiatives. Tufts Beyond 175 is a gargantuan, multi-decade process that shares many of the same goals as the student body. The four-year college experience shortens students’ window for perceived change, making it unlikely that they will see tangible reform during their tenure. While many students may be disappointed in the seemingly lethargic pace of Tufts’ change, a more transparent understanding of the university’s financial situation and decision-making process can help students align their expectations with Tufts’ financial realities.
Photo by Sascha Dembling