1.What is the source of the financial problems at the UDC? Please be as specific, as you can, explaining all the reasons why actual results differ from budgeted ones.

2.What might Ms. Brooks do to correct the financial problems? Please be as specific as you can in outlining a course of action that you believe she should follow.

3.What action would you recommend the Trustees take at their March meeting?

HBSP Product Number TCG 229 THE CRIMSON PRESS CURRICULUM CENTER THE CRIMSON GROUP, INC. University Day Care Center Susan Brooks, Director of the University Daycare Center, was reviewing the yeartodate Budget Performance Report from the Finance Department of the university. As she tried to analyze the components of each report, she realized that something needed to be done about the Center's nancial status. The variance analysis for the Daycare Center showed a shortfall of over $89,000 (Exhibit 1). BACKGROUND University Daycare Center (UDC) was afliated with a large urban university and maintained a facility located two miles from the main campus. It had passed state inspection in April, and had opened in July, just in time for the beginning of the scal year. The building in which the UDC was located had formerly been an elementary school. The Center occupied one corridor, with four large classrooms on each side. Two other corridor ls in the same building were unoccupied and had not been renovated. At the the end of the hallway was the Director's ofce and a small reception area where parents arrived with their children, usually by eight o'clock in the morning. The rooms had been carpeted and all of their doors had been removed to decrease the possibility of injuries. Additionally, the walls had been remodeled so that glass panels occupied the upper half of each wall on the corridor side. This made it possible for Teachers and Aides to observe children directlv from the hallway. Each room was supplied with furniture. supplies and toys appropriate to Making at University of Alberta from 1/4/2022 to 4/30l2022. ght violation. directly from the hallway. Each room was supplied with furniture, supplies and toys appropriate to different age groups of children. The infant room, for example, had cribs and bassinets and was stocked with various sizes of disposable diapers. The facility was cleaned and maintained, respectively, by the housekeeping and maintenance departments of the university. In December of the previous year, the university's Department of Human Resources had surveyed 300 of the 1250 university employees, including professors, administrative personnel, laboratory workers, and ofce assistants, to determine if they would utilize a daycare center. The survey included questions about fees, hours of operation and coverage for emergencies. The response was overwhelmingly in favor of providing such a service. The Human Resources Director, therefore, had drafted a proposal for the following year's budget and received approval for a one year $160,000 subsidy for the operation of a daycare center. Funds for the remodeling and furnishing of the Center were to be obtained from the Capital Improvement fund and the building was to be rented at a cost of $60,000 a year, with a one year renewable lease. The Human Resources department began promoting the Center Two months prior to its opening. Plyers were posted throughout the university and were placed in the mailboxes of virtually every permanent employee. A Human Resources representative attended orientation sessions for new employees and answered questions regarding the Center's services. The promotion approach emphasized the presence of the Center as an employee benet, despite the fact that employees would pay for most of the operating expenses in the form of tuition fees. No fees were printed on the promotional literature, and all tuition discussions between potential enrollees and the UDC Director were to be held condential. The proposal stated that the Center intended to provide daycare at reasonable rates (based on parental income) for any permanent university employee. A sliding fee scale would guarantee access for employees of all income levels. The Human Resources department hoped that the UDC would become a permanent service and envisioned that its implementation and operation would become a model for other universityafliated daycare centers. Additionally, its presence could be an attractive incentive for employees to stay with the university or to choose employment there in the rst place. FEES AND ENROLLEES After considerable market research and consideration of various fee structures, a sliding fee scale had been developed. It incorporated not only income measures, but also intensity of care. Thus, the tuition charged for infants was generally higher, since they required closer supervision (Exhibit 2). The UDC was licensed to have seven spaces for infants (two to eighteen months old) eighteen spaces for toddlers (eighteen months to two years old) and seventeen for preschoolers (two to ve years old). In October, the enrolled population consisted of four infants, ten toddlers and nine preschoolers (Exhibit 3). Some of the children did not attend every day because their parents were part-time employees or had other child care arrangements for the remaining days of the week. All parents were required to submit documentation of immunizations, as well as a physician statement attesting to the health of each child. STAFFING The original budget allowed for stafng consisting of the director, three instructors, six teachers, ve aides, and a halftime clerical worker. The Center was not fully staffed in some of these categories, but, since the stafng budget had assumed full enrollment, some positions were in fact overstaffed (Exhibit 4). In anticipation of high demand for the service, Ms. Brooks had hired all of the instructors and teachers one month before the Center's opening, both to accommodate an immediate full enrollment, as well as to comply with state requirements concerning child-to-teacher ratios. All instructors and teachers were certied in child care. Aides were trained and supervised by the instructors. BUDGETING PROBLEMS The University's $160,000 subsidy was to be used to finance the decit at full enrolhnent; that is, at full enrollment, tuition fees were expected to contribute a total of $329,194 and expenses were expected to total $489,194. Since expenses had not fallen proportionately to revenue, the University was facing a subsidy of $249,326 (Exhibit 1). Ms. Brooks believed the Center should remain an integral part of the university community. Ms. Brooks believed the Center should remain an integral part of the university community. However, she also recognized the importance of its nancial viability. She knew that if she did not make some adjustments in expenses, revenues, or both, these decisions would be made by someone from the department of Human Resources. This would reect poorly on her ability to manage the budget and might also make the Center a target for elimination if budget cuts became necessary. As she reviewed the set of reports generated by the Finance Department, a number of items remained unclear as to what impact they would have on the continuing operation of the center. For example, adjustments made for the actual enrollment showed a variance of almost $65,000 for staff positions alone (Exhibit 4). Supplies expenses, by contrast, included many startup items. Some of these were relatively longlasting objects, such as toys and linens. Others, including disposable diapers and snack foods, were consumables. Many of the invoices for various classroom items had not yet been received. Additionally, charges for various services provided by the University, such as maintenance and laundry, were only generated every two to three months. Since this was the Center's rst year of operation, however, the clerk had been instructed to carefully record the nature and the amount of each purchase, so that a better estimate could be submitted for the following year's budge 't. As a result, Ms. Brooks believed that the expenses shown in Exhibit 1 accurately reected the results of the Center's activities. As of November, the UDC had increased its enrollment to over 50% of capacity in each category. Still, total revenues from all contributions were far below what had been projected (Exhibit 3). Ms. Brooks knew that part of this was due to the empty slots as well as the partial attendance by some children; however, even if adjustments were made for full enrollment by the end of the year, there would still be a revenue shortfall of approximately $67,000, assuming that average tuition in each category remained unchanged (Exhibit 5). It was clear that revenue could probably be increased if enrollment were limited to those in the highestpaying scales. One of the goals of the UDC, however, was to provide access to all employees, and charging the maximum tuition for the remaining slots would effectively limit the service to highincome applicants. Also, since the Center was not at full capacity upon opening, Ms. Brooks had seen no reason to exclude part-time attendance by some children. She had assumed that the revenue provided by part-time enrollees WWW. DECISIONS Complicating all of these considerations was the fact that even though future revenues and expenses were uncertain, both could be substantially manipulated. For example, decisions concerning the the hiring or ring of staff could have a large impact on salary expenditures. Ms. Brooks was reluctant to make these decisions too quickly. If teachers were laid off and then enrollment suddenly increased, she would have to rehire them in order to maintain the required child to teacher ratios. By contrast, discretion in the use of supplies was limited, but she wondered if it might be worthwhile to investigate different vendors for expensive items like disposable diapers. With only four month as of operation as a basis for making predictions, Ms. Brooks was uncertain as to how soon, if ever, the Center would be at full capacity. She also did not know what type of enrollee mix would best t the mission of the Center and at the same time, generate enough revenue to ensure its survival. The sliding fee scale might be awed, but the university's Budget Department was reluctant to do any more research on this item. They maintained that daycare centers throughout the city had comparable fee schedules. Ms. Brooks doubted that she could duplicate the efforts of the research by herself and therefore decided to accept the fee scale, and perhaps make minor adjustments for individual applicants. Whether to encourage the presence of more parttime enrollees presented another dilemma. The child-toteacher ratio on any given day could be compromised by the presence of too many part- time children attending on the same days. The Center 5 might be overstaffed on other days due to such uneven attendance. This not only created problems in the scheduling and hiring of staff, but also meant that the partial slots occupied by parttime enrollees could no longer be used by potential full-time enrollees. Ms. Brooks had wanted to make the service available to all employees, but wondered if she should limit attendance to fulltime children. On the other hand, if additional fulltime applicants never materialized, then parttime attendees were needed, even if they did create staffing problems. Although much of the promotional effort was ongoing, Ms. Brooks was unclear as to whether there were better ways of advertising the service to employees. The option of promoting to potential applicants outside the universig communi had occurred to her, although she doubted if the umeAAAb 1.: ;;;;;;;;;; Although much of the promotional effort was ongoing, Ms. Brooks was unclear as to whether there were better ways of advertising the service to employees. The option of promoting to potential applicants outside the university community had occurred to her, although she doubted if the university's Trustees would approve of funding for this. In addition to questions of how to increase enrollment, she wondered if the Center should instead opt to simply maintain the present enrollment or even to decrease it (by attrition). This would make the task of laying off teachers easier, since fewer children would provide a suitable justication for terminating the Teachers' employment. If the center could run at less than full capacity, but not run a decit, then she might be in a better position to bargain for a larger subsidy in next year's budget proposal. She also questioned the $160,000 subsidy amount. Was this just a token gesture to demonstrate to the community how progressive the university was, but one without real support from those who controlled the budget? The amount had seemed generous at rst, but clearly there were problems in complying with the revenue and expenditure targets on which the subsidy was based. e Although Ms. Brooks did not expect the university to subsidize any shortfalls in enrollment completely, she realized that she would need to make a convincing argument for the continued operation of the Center. Unless she could do this by the time budget negotiations began in February, the closure of the UDC would no doubt become a subject for discussion at the annual Trustees' Meeting in March. J Michael Waldemichael in Accounting Information and Decis EXHIBIT1. UNIVERSITY DAY CARE CENTER VARIANCES FROM BUDGET BASED ON ACTUAL ENROLLMENT AND ESTIMATED ANNUALIZED EXPENSES Budget Actual Variance REVENUES Enrollee tuition $329,194 $141,926 ($187,268) EXPENSES Salaries: FTES* FTES* budget actual Director $32,000 $31,990 $10 Instructors 66,000 66,500 (500) a w - Teachers iuna w - 120,000 114,108 5,892 Aides 83,200 27,140 56,060 Clerical 0.5 0.5 9,000 9,000 0 Subtotals 15.5 12 $310,200 $248,738 $61,462 Fringe benefits 68,244 54,722 13,522 Supplies: Training 4,000 2,190 1,810 Conference 1,650 904 746 Food 16,000 8,762 7,238 Disposables 4,200 2,300 1,900 Classroom supplies 4,800 2,629 2,171 Supplies subtotal 30,650 16,785 13,865 Other expenses:Disposables 4,200 2,300 1,900 Classroom supplies 4,800 2,629 2,171 Supplies subtotal 30,650 16,785 13,865 Other expenses: Field trips 1,100 602 498 Equipment 1,000 548 452 Laundry 500 274 226 Contingency 4,000 2,190 1,810 Maintenance 13,000 7,119 5,881 Telephone 500 274 226 Rent 60,000 60,000 0 Other expense subtotal $80,100 $71,007 $9,093 TOTAL EXPENSES $489,194 $391,252 $97,942 TOTAL REVENUES LESS EXPENSES ($160,000) ($249,326) ($89,326) PLUS BUDGETED DEFICIT $160,000 $160,000 VARIANCE FROM BUDGETED DEFICIT ($89,326) * Full-time equivalentsUNIVERSITY DAY CARE CENTER Exhibit 2. Sliding Fee Range Total Annual Tuition Annual Family Income Range Infant Toddler Proschool $0 - 19,999 $5,980 $4,680 $3,900 20,000 24,999 6,644 5,200 4,333 25,000 29,999 7,309 5,720 4,767 30,000 34,999 7,973 6,240 5,200 35,000 39,999 8,638 6,760 5,633 40,000 - 44,999 9,302 7,280 6,067 45,000 49,999 9,967 7,800 6,500 50,000 59,999 10,631 8,320 6,933 60,000 69,999 11,296 8,840 7,367 70,000 Above 11,960 9,360 7,800 Exhibit 3. Individual Tuition Contributions (Revenues) based on Present Enrollment Infants Toddlers Preschoolers TOTALS Number of fulltime slots 7 18 17 42 Tuition payments $1 1 ,296 $4,680 $3 ,900 11 ,960 8 ,3 20 3 ,900 3,588 * 7,800 4,767 10,631 7,800 7 ,367 Exhibit 3. Individual Tuition Contributions (Revenues) based on Present Enrollment Infants Toddlers Preschoolers TOTALS Number of fulltime slots 7 18 17 42 Tuition payments $1 1,296 $4,680 $3 ,900 11 ,960 8 ,3 20 3 ,900 3,588 * 7,800 4,767 10 ,631 7 ,800 7 ,367 8,3 20 3 ,120 * 5 ,720 6,500 5 ,720 5 ,633 4,680 2,340 * 3,744 * 2,340 * 7,800 Revenue subtotals $37,475 $64,584 $39,867 $141,926 Budgeted revenue $73 ,694 $156,048 $99 ,452 $329 ,194 Variance from budgeted revenue ($187,268) Average tuition per enrollee $9,369 $6,458 $4,430 Budgeted average tuition per enrollee $10,528 $8,669 $5,850 * Part-time enrollees Salary Category Director Instructors Teachers Aides Clerical Totals Director Instructors Teachers Aides Clerical Totals Exhibit 4. Salary Variances Based on Actual Enrollment Budgeted FTEs at full capacity 1.0 3.0 6.0 5.0 0.5 15.5 Budgeted FTEs needed for current enrollment* 1.0 1 .5 3.0 3.0 0 .5 9.0 (A) Budgeted Budgeted FTEs Budgeted salaries needed for salaries adjusted for current at full current enrollment* capacity enrollment Variances 1 .0 $32,000 $32,000 $0 1 .5 66,000 33,000 33 ,000 3.0 120,000 60,000 60 ,000 3 .0 83 ,200 49,920 33 ,280 0.5 9 ,000 9,000 0 9.0 $310,200 $183,920 $126,280 (B) Budgeted salaries adjusted for current Actual Actual FTEs enrollment salaries Variance 1.0 $32,000 $31,990 $10 3 .0 33 ,000 66,500 (33,500) 6.0 60 ,000 114,108 (54,108) 1 .5 49,920 27,140 22,780 0.5 9 ,000 9,000 O 120 $183,920 $248,738 ($64,818) * Budgeted positions have been adjusted here to account for the current stafng needs of the Center. Amounts are budgeted to nearest half FI'E (fulltime equivalent) except Director. Exhibit 5. Annual Individual Tuition Contributions (Revenue) Based on Full Enrollment Infants Toddlers Preschoolers TOTALS Number of fulltime slots 7 18 17 42 Tuition payments $11,296 $4,680 $3,900 11,960 8 ,320 3,900 3,588 * 7,800 4,767 10 ,631 7,800 7,367 9,369 # 8,320 3,120 * 9,369 # 5,720 6,500 9,369 # 5,720 5,633 4,680 2,340 * 3,744 * 2,340 * 7,800 4,430 # 6,458 # 4,430 # 6,458 # 4,430 # 6,458 # 4,430 # 6,458 # 4,430 # 6,458 # 4,430 # 6,458 # 4,430 # 6,458 # 4,430 # 6,458 # 4,430 # Revenue subtotals 865 ,582 $116,248 879 ,7 37 $261 ,567 Budgeted revenues $73,694 $156,048 $99,452 $329,194 Variance from budgeted revenue ($67 ,627) * Part-time enrollees # Assume future enrollees pay the current average tuition and attend full-time