An examination of decision-relevant financial and nonfinancial indicators in colleges and universities

This study was an investigation of decision-relevant financial and nonfinancial indicators of four-year colleges and universities. In determining decision relevance, the study focused on major decision areas of governing boards and other major constituent groups. Seventy-two trend indicators were evaluated during the study to determine a set of key trend indicators for higher-education external reports that are deemed to be decision-useful by CEOs, trustees, and administrators.; To determine the key trend indicators, a hierarchical chart was constructed to model the relationships among (1) reporting objectives (condition, performance, and compliance), (2) decision areas (e.g., financial condition, academic performance, donor restriction compliance), (3) indicator categories (e.g., groups of input, output, or outcome measures), and (4) specific indicators (e.g., expenditures per student, admission ratios, or tenure rates). This comprehensive framework is foreseen as a contribution to the literature because it is the first known attempt to develop a structure for all types of institutional indicators.; Judgments about the relative importance of the hierarchy's elements were obtained from CEOs, trustees, and key administrators from 28 Arkansas and Missouri higher-education institutions. The judgments of CEOs and administrators were obtained through campus visits during which personal interviews were conducted with the CEO, an academic administrator, and a nonacademic administrator at each participating institution. The judgments of trustees were obtained from questionnaires distributed to them by their respective CEOs.; The judgments were synthesized by the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) to determine the interrelated priorities for reporting objectives, decision areas, indicator categories, and indicators. AHP is a statistical technique useful in the analysis of judgments in complex decision-making situations. The resultant priority weights provided by AHP were used to identify key trend indicators.; In the last two years, the American Accounting Association, the Governmental Accounting Standards Board, and the National Association of College and University Business Officers have each focused on performance measurement and/or the identification of key financial and nonfinancial indicators in college and university financial reports. This study was developed to be a rigorous attempt at the identification of key financial and nonfinancial indicators of not only institutional performance but also institutional condition.; The results of the study were partitioned according to the type of judge (i.e., CEOs or trustees) and type of institution (i.e., private or public). In this way, a better understanding was gained of (1) CEOs' perspectives of the information needs of external users, (2) trustees' informational interests, and (3) possible differences in reporting needs of private and public institutions.