Balancing Budgets: How Does Your Athletic Department Compare

Public Vs. Private

It’s a debate that has been going on for decades — is it the public or private school that has an advantage in high school athletics? Public schools claim that private institutions have deep pockets and the ability to draw students from an entire region. Private schools point to the large enrollments of public schools as well as the ability to draw from public funds. Both sides may be surprised at some of the survey data.

In general, private schools are smaller in enrollment size than their public counterparts (65.8% of private-school athletic directors said their school has 500 students or less while 75.1% of public-school respondents oversee 500 students or more). Private-school athletic directors, however, are just as busy as public-school A.D.s when you consider that 85.5% of them also serve as a coach while only about half (51.8%) of public-school A.D.s are coaches.

But, the idea that private schools have deep pockets and almost unlimited spending capabilities is not true. But budget expectations provide an interesting glimpse into the dynamics of private vs. public schools. Almost one-quarter of private-school athletic directors (23.3%) expect an increase in their budget for 2011-12 while only 8.0% of public-school athletic directors anticipate a budget increase. Part of this can be explained through trends in fundraising and the collection of athletic fees at both types of schools.

While public schools have more money to spend, they also have more students to accommodate. As a result, 64.7% of public-school athletic directors rely on fundraising for 10% or more of their total budget, vs. 45.9% for private schools.

Fundraising may be lower at private schools due to tuition but also because of “pay to play.” Almost half of all private-school respondents (48%) collect participation fees from students, which is in contrast to the public-school side where that number is only 34.1%. When private schools collect fees, they also are collecting more than public schools ($131.76 vs. $94.92 on average).

If you are a coach looking for a raise, a private school is the place to be. More than a quarter (27.1%) of private-school athletic directors indicated they are increasing coaching pay this budget year. With only 2.7% reporting a decrease. On the flip side, only 14% of public-school athletic directors project an increase for coaching pay this year with a whopping 17.8% indicating the coaching pay will decrease.

Renovation projects currently appear to be better funded at private schools as well right now. Thirty-eight percent of all private-school athletic directors indicated they plan on court-resurfacing projects in the next three years (compared to 29.8% of public-school athletic directors). More private-school athletic directors (20.3%) are scheduling major artificial-turf installations in the next three years vs. their public-school counterparts (14.6%).

By the numbers, private-school athletic directors clearly are not as concerned with a decreased money supply as are the public-school athletic directors. When it comes to reduced school funding, 96.1% of public school athletic directors express concern, vs. 66.7% on the private school side.

School Size Matters

While school size has a direct correlation to the budget for athletic directors to work with, small schools (less than 500 students) will see less cuts than their mid-size (501-1,500 students) and large-school (1,501 and more) counterparts.

The small-school budgets were cut by more than 2% at 30.8% of those schools. But, consider that mid-size (43%) and large schools (48.1%) reported a greater rate of having budgets cuts from last year to this. Small schools already are operating on razor-thin budgets so cutting them any deeper could send those programs into a tailspin.

Despite more money being cut from the budget, mid-size and larger schools have been slower to start charging fees for athletes to participate in sports. Forty-one percent of small-school athletic directors currently are part of the “pay-to-play” system while that number dips to 35% at mid-size schools and 34% at larger schools. With the larger cuts coming to the mid- and large-size school from last year, expect to see “pay to play” becoming more of a way of life at these institutions.

Athletic directors at the largest schools already are expecting to make up some of their lost money via fundraising, more so than the mid- or small-size schools. Sixty-one percent of large-school athletic directors said they expect fundraising to be a “significant contributor moving forward.” That number falls a bit to 56.8% at mid-size schools and 50% at the small schools. So, more than half of all athletic directors are expecting to see an increase in fundraising moving forward. Teams better start figuring out unique ways to fundraise to separate themselves from the rest of the programs all looking to get a cut of the public’s money via fundraising.

One athletic director commented that the added fundraising responsibility being heaped upon coaches is accelerating the process of burn-out. He added that it is becoming more difficult to find coaches who are willing to take the time necessary to fulfill both the coaching and fundraising obligations that come with it.

For small-school athletic directors, the idea of also needing to be a part of the fundraising effort might seem daunting, considering the majority of them (70%) also coach at their school. At mid-size schools, the athletic director is also a coach 53.6% of the time. At larger schools, that number dips to less than half at 48.6%.