JLARC: Virginia public colleges largely viable but face enrollment and cost pressures

The Joint Legislative Audit & Review Commission heard staff findings that Virginia’s public four‑year institutions “remain viable” but face structural pressures that could raise costs for students. Hal Greer, JLARC staff director, opened the commission meeting by describing two linked reviews — one on student costs and institutional efficiency and a second on institutional viability — and introduced project teams that spent nearly a year analyzing institutional finance and enrollment data.

Joe McMahon, a JLARC project leader, said the average published cost of attendance rose only modestly after adjusting for inflation but that many students still borrow. “The average net price paid by students at Virginia’s public institutions is about $12,500 less than the published total cost of attendance,” McMahon said, adding that 54% of in‑state bachelor’s graduates borrowed with mean debt around $30,000.

JLARC’s analysis shows that Virginia institutions often have characteristics associated with higher spending — more research activity, residential campuses and broader graduate offerings — and that when those factors are controlled for, “a majority of Virginia institutions spend about the same or less than similar schools nationwide,” McMahon said. The staff cautioned, however, that declining enrollment at many schools is the primary driver of higher spending measured on a per‑student basis because fixed costs do not fall as enrollment drops.

The staff highlighted several spending drivers. Noninstructional categories (student services, operations, institutional support), auxiliaries (housing, dining, athletics) and increased scholarship aid all contributed to spending growth at various institutions. JLARC also flagged institution‑funded research, which grew by about $125 million over the decade and represents an estimated $3,865–$4,800 per student depending on the institution — costs that are often covered in part by tuition, appropriations or unrestricted institutional funds.

On staffing, JLARC reported that personnel account for roughly 60% of total costs and that staffing grew by about 4,900 positions (≈12%) systemwide over the past decade, with the fastest growth in business and finance functions. The staff estimated that personnel spending rose by roughly $680 million (inflation‑adjusted) over the last ten years and that some staffing growth reflected increased compliance, financial reporting and safety responsibilities.

Recommendations and oversight

JLARC urged the General Assembly to consider clarifying board duties so boards of visitors must explicitly consider the impact of noninstructional spending on student costs when approving tuition and institutional policy. “The general assembly may wish to amend code to expressly include in the duties of boards of visitors the responsibility to fully consider the impact that policies and decisions in noninstructional areas will have on student costs,” McMahon said.

Staff also recommended continued monitoring and use of the existing six‑year planning process to assess viability for institutions with emerging risks, and encouraged CHEV (the state academic review body JLARC cited) to streamline academic program review to reduce administrative burden and improve transparency.

Athletics and student fees

JLARC singled out intercollegiate athletics as a substantial cost for students at certain institutions, noting that student athletics fees exceed $2,000 per year at about half of the schools examined and that institutional support for athletics has risen. As a policy option, staff suggested the General Assembly could amend code to cap the proportion of student fees or institutional funds that may be allocated to athletics in relation to the total cost of attendance.

Why it matters

Commissioners pressed staff on trade‑offs, including the recruiting and brand benefits of athletics and institutional research versus their contribution to student costs. Staff said the trade‑offs are real and vary widely by institution; some campuses can absorb foregone revenue more easily, while others — often smaller or lower‑resourced schools — are more exposed when enrollment declines.

What’s next

JLARC recommended augmenting monitoring for the seven institutions with relatively low or some viability risk and using OPSix’s review processes as a vehicle for ongoing assessment. The commission did not take formal votes on staff recommendations during the meeting; the presentation concluded with staff offering follow‑up data and additional appendices for members who requested deeper breakdowns.