Signed: _________________________________
  Larry R. Faulkner
  President, The University of Texas at Austin

Approved: _________________________________
  Donald L. Evans, Chairman
  Board of Regents, The University of Texas System
 

Section I.   Overview of University Scope and Function
Section II.  Organizational Aspects
Section III. Fiscal Aspects
Section IV. Service Population Demographics
Section V.  Effects of Information Technology
Section VI. Economic Variables
Section VII. Impact of Federal Statutes/Regulations
Section VIII. Other Legal Issues
Section IX. University Self-Evaluation and Opportunities for Self-Improvement

Goal A. Provide Instructional and Operations Support
Goal B. Provide Infrastructure Support
Goal C. Provide Special Item Support
Goal D. Maintain Historically Underutilized Business Policies
Goal E.  Increase Federal and Private Sector Funding

Appendix A.  Description of Agency’s Planning Process
Appendix B.  Current Organizational Charts
Appendix C.  Five-year Projections for Outcomes
Appendix D.  List of Measure Definitions
Appendix E.  Report on Customer Service, Compact with Texans, Customer-related Performance Measures
Appendix F.  Survey of Organizational Excellence Results and Utilization Plans
Appendix G.  Information Resources Strategic Plan
Appendix H.  College/School Summaries
Appendix I.   Capital Improvement Program and Campus Master Plan
Appendix J.   Accrediting Agencies Affiliated with the University
Appendix K.  Texas Union Surveys Information
Appendix L.  University Health Services Survey
 

THE TEXAS STRATEGIC PLAN:  VISION TEXAS, 2000

Together, we can make Texas a beacon state: A state where our children receive an excellent education so they have the knowledge and skills for the 21st century; a state where people feel safe in their communities, have access to equal justice, and all people know the consequences of committing a crime are swift and sure; a state where our institutions encourage jobs and economy opportunity; a state where each resident accepts responsibility for his or her behavior; and a state where our people – our greatest resource -- are free to achieve their highest potential.  I envision a state where it continues to be true that what Texans can dream, Texans can do.  (Vision Texas, 2000, by Governor George W.  Bush )

State government will be ethical, accountable, and dedicated to serving the citizens of Texas well.  State government will operate efficiently and spend the public’s money wisely. State government will be based on four core principles that will guide decision-making processes.
 
 

Texas state government should serve the needs of our state but also be mindful of those who pay the bills.  By providing the best service at the lowest cost and working in concert with other partners, state government can effectively direct the public’s resources to create a positive impact on the lives of individual Texans.  The people of Texas expect the best, and state government must give it to them.

The mission of Texas state government is to support and promote individual and community efforts to achieve and sustain social and economic prosperity for its citizens.

State government should concentrate its energies on a few priority areas where it can make a difference, clearly define its functions within those areas, and perform those functions well.  State government must look for innovative ways to accomplish its ends, including privatization and incentive-based approaches.  Our imperative should be:  “Government if necessary, but not necessarily government.”

To provide an affordable, accessible, and quality system of higher education that prepares individuals for a changing economy and workforce and that furthers the development and application of knowledge through instruction and research.

• Percent of recent high school graduates enrolled in a Texas public college or university
• Percent of baccalaureate graduates who are first generation college students
• Percent of first-time, full-time freshmen returning after one academic year
• Percent of first-time, full-time freshmen who graduate within six years
• Percent of Texans with a bachelor’s degree or higher
• Percent of adult population with a vocational /technical certificate or degree
• Texas public colleges’ and universities’ cost per student as a percent of the national average
• Percent of total federal research and development expenditures received by Texas institutions of higher education
• Percent of college graduates employed, enrolled in additional education, or enlisted in the military

The mission of The University of Texas at Austin is to achieve excellence in the interrelated areas of undergraduate education, graduate education, research, and public service.

The University provides superior and comprehensive educational opportunities at the baccalaureate through doctoral and special professional educational levels.

The University contributes to the advancement of society through research, creative activity, scholarly inquiry, and the development of new knowledge.

The University preserves and promotes the arts, benefits the state’s economy, serves the citizens through public programs, and provides other public service.

UNIVERSITY PHILOSOPHY

The primary goal of The University of Texas at Austin is to be a university of the first class through excellence in teaching, research, and public service.  As a major center of learning, research, and culture, The University of Texas at Austin dedicates itself to the highest standards of scholarly activity.  We are guided by principles of academic freedom, freedom of expression, equal educational opportunity, shared governance, and access for all socio-economic classes.  We are mindful of the words of the late 19th Century educator, Dr. Oscar Henry Cooper who said, “The University of Texas is not the lengthened shadow of any one person or any group of persons—it is the noblest concrete embodiment of the best spirit of Texas.”

The University must involve itself constructively with the significant and challenging issues facing society now and in the future.  It serves as a catalyst for uniting the world of scholarship and the world of affairs and should seek out every opportunity to advance humane values and enhance the intellectual and cultural life of the state and of the nation.
The University must recruit and retain a faculty of the highest scholarly distinction.  The faculty must reflect wide-ranging interests and broad academic vision.  They must teach basic and advanced courses, make scholarly and creative contributions, and fulfill their responsibilities for public service.

The University must recruit and retain a staff of high professional competence.  The operation and maintenance of complex administrative systems, academic and administrative computing networks, libraries, classrooms, laboratories, sophisticated scientific equipment, concert halls, athletic, recreational, and other support facilities require a staff that keeps pace with a wide range of technological, regulatory, and administrative developments.

The University must maintain public confidence in its achievements and stand accountable for the support it receives from both public and private sources.

A.  Statutory Basis

Provision for the organization and maintenance of the University was made in Article VII, Section 10, of the Texas Constitution of 1876.  The act of the Legislature that actually established the University on March 30, 1881, provided for the location of the institution by popular vote and for the appointment of a board of regents to be entrusted with its organization and government.  In September 1881, the main university was designated to be located in Austin and the medical branch in Galveston.

B.  Historical Perspective

For more than 50 years before the 1881 legislation, the idea of a state university for Texas had been discussed and debated.  Indeed, the concept of a university for Texas is as old as the state itself, for the Declaration of Texas Independence, dated March 2, 1836, noted the need for a general education system for the state.  “It is an axiom in political science,” the Declaration posits, “that, unless a people are educated and enlightened, it is idle to expect the continuance of civil liberty or the capacity for self-government.”  In accordance with the doctrine so proclaimed, the first Constitution of the Republic declares it to be the duty of Congress “to provide, as soon as circumstances will permit, a general system of education.”

When the University opened in 1883, its first class of 218 students consisted of 55 women and 163 men.  Fifty-two students were registered in the Law Department, which had two professors; and 166 students were enrolled in the Academic (Liberal Arts) Department, which had six professors.  The University was located on a 40-acre tract of land set aside for that purpose during the days of the Republic of Texas.

C.  Affected Populations (Key Service Populations)

The University is in all senses a statewide institution rather than a regional one.  It serves academically talented undergraduate and graduate students who come from all parts of Texas.  Enrollment by county of origin generally reflects the population distribution of the state.  For example, more than 8,000 students list Harris County (Houston) as their place of permanent residence; about 3,400 come from Dallas County; and about 2,600 are from Bexar County (San Antonio).  The Lower Rio Grande Valley is another important population center that produces large numbers of students for the University, including (for Fall 1999) 618 from Hidalgo County, 439 from Cameron County, and 255 from Webb County. Students also are drawn to the University from all other states and many foreign countries.

It is important to recognize the proportional growth of ethnic minority population groups.  In 1988, almost 65 percent of the Texas population was White (non-Hispanic).  Estimates for 2008 indicate more than half of Texas residents will be non-white; and by 2030, 37% will be white, 46% Hispanic and 10% Black.

D.  Main Functions

The main functions of the University are undergraduate education, graduate education, research, and public service.  The University provides a wide range of services to students, scholars, alumni and other individuals, government agencies, businesses, professional associations, and other organizations throughout the state.  It offers 316 degree programs consistent with its role and scope defined by the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board.

The University’s national and international reputation as a preeminent comprehensive research university is firmly established.  Numerous surveys have ranked its academic programs among the best in the nation, and its special library collections draw scholars from around the world.  Because of its high quality and relatively low costs, the University consistently is ranked as one of the nation’s best buys in education.  This is clearly perceived by the public, as evidenced by the fact that the University each year receives applications from three times more freshman students than will be enrolled.

Nevertheless, there is always room for improvement and President Faulkner has challenged all members of the University community to focus consistently on improving the quality of performance, by getting better in all that it attempts – in courses and curriculum, in facilities and holdings, in services to students and to the public, and in services rendered internally among the faculty and staff.  During the millennial transition years of 1999-2001, the University will focus on the challenge of building strength and improving effectiveness.

The target areas for the year 1999-2000 and into 2001 include focusing on quality, having a banner year for the “We’re Texas” capital campaign, establishing a 5 year financial strategy, increasing compensation levels for the faculty, staff and teaching assistants similar to those of 1999-2000, improving administrative operations, preparing for the next legislative session, and accomplishing two-third of the goals established by seven steering groups established in January 1999.  The seven groups evaluated areas such as improving access and participation by groups previously underserved by the University; the undergraduate experience; the Latin American studies initiative; improving financial resources; recruiting highly qualified staff; and being a leader in the new Texas economy.  A number of the 40 goals they set have been accomplished already and the work continues on the remaining ones.  Additionally, the University will move forward actively to implement the recommendations of consultants regarding necessary improvements in the Office of Human Resources.

E.  Who Are We in the Public’s Perception?

The University of Texas at Austin is the leading institution of higher education and research in the state of Texas.  This is again evidenced by the fact that the University receives three times more applicants for freshman students’ positions than it will enroll.  It is a leading center of creativity and advancement in technology.  Its faculty, staff and students are substantive contributors to all facets of the life and economy of Texas in general and central Texas specifically.

The public expects it to be and it is in many respects, but not entirely, a place where:

• Texans’ best talents can find a vibrant community of accomplishment and learn from each other
• The ablest expertise is available to teach and inspire them
• The best of libraries and information networks are available to inform them
• Texans can see and use the most advanced tools of exploration
• The boundaries of knowledge are understood from the personal experience of engaged scholars
• New understanding emerges to buttress and advance a new economy of knowledge
• Texans receive willing support for their highest and best ambitions for personal achievement
• Texans can develop legitimate pride in themselves and a sense of citizenship toward their society.

 

A.  Size and Composition of Workforce

The University employs over 20,000 individuals (both full and part-time) in a variety of teaching and non-teaching capacities.  In fall 1999, there were over 2,500 regular faculty members, 32.5 percent of whom were female and 13.1 percent minority (Black 2.8%; Hispanic 4.4%; American Indian 0.4%; and Asian 5.5%).

Academic instruction is enhanced by graduate students who serve as part-time assistant instructors and teaching assistants.  As of fall 1999, about 2,800 individuals served in this capacity.

Approximately 7,800 persons are employed at the University as support personnel for its complex administrative and logistical operations.  In addition, approximately 4,500 individuals serve the University in various professional roles, including librarians and administrators.

A more detailed discussion of faculty and staff regarding ethnicity and gender, in comparison to service population and other universities, is available in Section IV, I. Faculty and Staff Demographic Profile.

B.  Organizational Structure and Process

The University is organized into 14 colleges and schools, a graduate school, 51 academic departments, and a division of continuing education.  To oversee administrative, logistical, and business operations, 28 units are employed.  Academic research is enhanced by 86 organized research centers and institutes.  (See Appendix B).  Governance is shared by the central administration, the General Faculty, the Faculty Council, and the Graduate Assembly.  The Faculty Council is composed of elected faculty members, students, and staff persons and administrative officials who serve as ex-officio members.  The Graduate Assembly includes elected faculty members and graduate students and administrative officials who serve as ex-officio members.  The General Faculty, composed of all regular faculty, has delegated certain responsibilities to the Faculty Council, which together with the Graduate Assembly exercises authority to consider matters such as educational policy, regulations dealing with student activities, requirements for admission, honors and degrees, and catalogue changes.

C.  Geographical Location

The main campus of the University is located five blocks north of the State Capitol building in Austin.  In addition to the main campus, the University operates other facilities in and near Austin.  The J.J. “Jake” Pickle Research Campus, a 399-acre tract eight miles northwest of the main campus, is a major research and teaching site that houses more than 15 research units, primarily in the areas of science and engineering.  Other facilities located in or near Austin are the Bee Caves Research Center, the Brackenridge Field Lab, Lake Austin Center, Montopolis Research Center, and Paisano (the ranch of the late J. Frank Dobie).  The University also administers facilities in other Texas locations, including the Marine Science Institute in Port Aransas, the McDonald Observatory on Mt.  Locke in the Davis Mountains, the Winedale Historical Center in Fayette County, the Sam Rayburn Library in Bonham, and the John Nance Gardner House and Museum in Uvalde, Texas.

D.  Location of Service Populations

The University of Texas at Austin serves the entire state of Texas.  Although its main campus is located in central Texas, it maintains facilities from Port Aransas on the coast to the Amarillo National Research Center to Ft. Davis in West Texas, as well as cooperative programs with other UT System component institutions across the state (see Section C above).  It maintains outreach centers for potential students in south Texas as well as separate freshman admissions offices in Dallas and Houston.  The student body comes from all areas of the state, as indicated earlier in Section IC.

To encourage more students from traditionally underserved areas, the University has recently established “Longhorn Opportunity Scholarships” which are available to top students graduating from high schools located in areas that traditionally have not sent significant numbers of students to the University.  These high schools are located primarily in disadvantaged areas of Houston and Dallas and the Rio Grande valley.

E.  Human Resource Strengths and Weaknesses

For The University of Texas at Austin to be a “university of the first class,” its programs must compare to the best in the nation, including those designed to support human resources.  The human resources of this campus form the foundation for excellence since their performance supports the teaching, research and public service in which the University is engaged.  In the extremely competitive workforce environment of today and the foreseeable future, where many employers compete to hire the same staff, the University recognizes that to attract and retain quality employees it must provide a desirable workplace environment.  It must be an employer that is chosen by people of outstanding qualifications and it must have first-class human resources programs that encourage employees to stay and be optimally productive.

Effective human resource leadership, provided by a partnership between campus administration and the expert staff of the Office of Human Resources (OHR), is key to creating a supportive environment for all employees.  Strategic human resource planning will result in programs and policies aligned with UT Austin’s organizational mission and operational needs as well as allow for the anticipation of future developments and planning of actions to address related needs.  Timely updating and implementation of human resource policies further ensures effective human resource management, especially when coupled with on-going training for all managers and supervisors, including deans, chairs and directors.  Efforts to diversify the staff must be undertaken through needs assessment, goals establishment, and campus-wide involvement in implementation of action plans.  To make appropriate administrative decisions regarding human resources, managers and administrators must have readily available data.  The Office of Human Resources must have a comprehensive information system that gathers, records and reports to the campus on a wide range of data for use in interpreting and analyzing the status of human resources.

To recruit and retain quality employees, staffing needs, both current and future, must be assessed.  Effective classification and compensation structures will be required to support the effective recruitment and retention of staff.  It will be necessary for the University to have a robust system for comparing its compensation levels with those in relevant markets.  To assess the state of compensation at the University, data must be gathered and presented to the administration for budget planning purposes.  The data include turnover, hiring statistics, jobs that are difficult to fill or those that turn over excessively, the past year’s growth in wages and inflation, projection for wage growth and inflation for upcoming years, and current and projected unemployment.  For those jobs that cannot be matched to market surveys, a process for internal job evaluation must be developed and implemented.

As of spring 2000, an analysis of the human resource information available indicates that the situation at the University is reasonably healthy.  Limited market information suggests that classified staff compensation at the University lags behind the Austin market; however, recent salary increases represent efforts to close the gap and the president of the University has made it a priority of his to try to make similar increases in the next budget cycle.  Turnover is not unmanageable, with classified staff turnover at an average of 11.48% during the period 1995-1999.  In this same period, the number of administrative/professional and classified job openings has increased, with an overall increase in the time needed to fill a vacancy.  In the area of benefits, including health, disability, survivors’ benefits, and paid vacation and holidays, the University generally compares favorably with local employers.  University administration must be diligent in its pursuit of competitive wages and benefits in order to continue attracting and retaining the level of staff expertise it desires.

For the University to retain successful and productive employees, staff must be managed effectively and treated well.  Positive employee relations must be practiced across campus, beginning with comprehensive programs orienting new employees to the campus.  Employee training and development needs must be assessed and opportunities made available to meet those needs.  Career development must be addressed within departments and at a campus-wide level.  Management training must be provided to coach managers and supervisors on behaviors fostering organizational values.  Further, managers and supervisors must be trained to provide effective supervision, including performance management, performance evaluation, and the managing of conflict.

The Office of Human Resources plays a key role in the future of human resources on campus.  OHR’s primary role must be as a true resource for the campus to effectively manage our human resources.  As such, it must be comprised of staff who have high levels of expertise and credibility and who can help other departments manage their human resources strategically.  OHR must partner with the campus and provide leadership in strategy, policy, and employee development and management.

F.  Capital Asset Strengths and Weaknesses

The main campus consists of over 423 acres and 14 million gross square feet of floor space in 144 buildings. The University has the fifth-largest academic library in the United States with almost 8 million volumes, 5.6 million microforms, 30 million pages of manuscripts, 337,000 maps, and on-line access to hundreds of electronic databases.  It ranks first among 111 research libraries in total number of students served. It ranks 87 among the 111 other research libraries in dollars spent on library materials per student; it ranks 104 among these 111 in dollars spent on library materials per graduate student. In general support of teaching, research, and administrative operations, the University maintains an extensive computer capacity.

The Texas constitution of 1876 provided a land endowment of one million acres in west Texas for support of the University.  Further additions by the Legislature in 1883 and thereafter brought the total to 2,109,190.87 acres located in 19 west Texas counties.  Since 1884, the income from this land and the land itself comprises the state endowment, the Permanent University Fund (PUF). The AUF comprises the net income from investment of the PUF in addition to certain related income, such as income from grazing leases.  Since the passage of the constitutional amendment known as Proposition 17 in the general election of November 1977, a portion of the capital gains on investments in the PUF are also considered to be AUF funds. The first call on the AUF is to retire bonded indebtedness.

See also “Budget Shortfalls”, Section IIID.

G.  Historically Underutilized Businesses

The chief administrative officer administers the Historically Underutilized Business (HUB) program. In November, the University hired a HUB Program Coordinator/Director to continue to lead and manage the University’s program office and activities.  The HUB Coordinator/Director assists in administering the program, specifically in terms of helping departments locate HUB vendors and then in facilitating transactions with HUB vendors.  The HUB Coordinator/Director also serves as outreach coordinator to the vendor community, analyzes and audits HUB data to enhance the University’s program, coordinates training programs to recruit HUBs, reports required information to the GSC, and matches HUBs with key staff within The University of Texas at Austin.  Furthermore the HUB Coordinator/Director will coordinate the design and implementation of the University’s Mentor-Protégé Program modeled after the GSC program, will sponsor presentations by HUBs, and advertise in trade publications to target HUBs.  Finally the HUB Coordinator/Director will coordinate the preparation of a detailed report that will accompany the Legislative Appropriations Request showing Good Faith Effort compliance for the past two calendar years, and will assist in developing and monitoring HUB subcontracting plans for all contracts with expected value of at least $100,000 including goods, services, public construction (excepting federally funded contracts if federal law prohibits application, as per S.B.178).

Meetings have been held with women and minority contractors in order to assist them in obtaining HUB certification.  The University co-sponsors, hosts, and participates in Economic Opportunity Forums in cooperation with the General Services Commission.

The University’s HUB office hosts an annual High Tech HUB Product Expo that allows vendors the opportunity to display and demonstrate their products and services to the University community as well as to other agencies and businesses. A Staff Coordination Group, consisting of representatives from administrative and research areas, meets quarterly to discuss HUB issues.

The University’s Purchasing Office continues to improve its on-line purchasing system to ensure that bids are taken from women and minority contractors.  The University continues to improve its automated reporting and management information system to assist divisions in tracking their individual HUB activities and to monitor buyer performance as it relates to institutional HUB programs and goals.

The HUB office has continued the quarterly newsletter, The HUB Light, which is distributed electronically throughout the University.  Through the Purchasing Office’s homepage on the Worldwide Web, information regarding the University’s HUB Program, including the newsletter, can be accessed by anyone who has Internet access.  Active bids are also posted on the homepage for vendor convenience.

In May 1999, the University entered into Memoranda of Understanding with the Texas Association of African American Chambers of Commerce (TAACC) and the Texas Association of Mexican American Chambers of Commerce (TAMACC).  There, associates work with the University to encourage and assist the development of HUBs within the State of Texas.  University representatives have been meeting regularly with both associations towards this effort, and will continue to do so.  As part of this effort TAACC and TAMACC have worked with the University, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, and the Department of Mental Health and Mental Retardation to develop and maintain a program that will assist HUB vendors in doing business with these agencies.

The Physical Plant Department has developed a series of quarterly training sessions in an effort to give HUB subcontractors the opportunity to identify opportunities and offer networking opportunities among subcontractors and job order contractors.  In an effort to disseminate the information to the widest possible audience, this effort is done in conjunction with “plan rooms,” where contractors, subcontractors and owners of projects meet to discuss the requirements of anticipated projects.

The staff of the University’s HUB office also is participating on a number of committees to promote and support the HUB program.  One of these groups is the HUB Construction Work Group, consisting of members from throughout state government.  The purpose of this group is to establish an effective networking and communication link between state agencies, HUB associations, and prime contractors.
 
 

SOURCE:  http://www.gsc.state.tx.us/98_hub_agy_sum_rpt/hub_721_cons_rpt.p01 and  http://www.gsc.state.tx.us/99_hub_agy_sum_rpt/hub_721_cons_rpt.01

The University’s current colleges and schools, the graduate school, and the division of continuing education were established in the following chronological order:

• School of Law, 1883
• School of Nursing, 1890 (originally in Galveston)
• College of Education, 1891
• College of Pharmacy, 1893 (originally in Galveston)
• College of Engineering, 1894
• Division of Continuing Education, 1909 (originally the Division of Extension)
• Graduate School, 1910
• Red McCombs School of Business, 1922
• College of Fine Arts, 1938
• Graduate School of Library and Information Science, 1948
• School of Social Work, 1950
• School of Architecture, 1951 (originally in the College of Engineering)
• College of Communication, 1965
• Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs, 1970
• College of Natural Sciences, 1971
• College of Liberal Arts, 1979

A.  Size of Budget and Method of Finance

The Fiscal Year 2000 Operating Budget for The University of Texas at Austin is $1,061,216,040.  In Fiscal Year 1985, the Operating Budget was $473,796,335. (See Table 2).
 

The Operating Budget is funded through several revenue sources.  (See Chart 1.)  The primary fund groups are: Educational and General Funds, Designated Funds, Sponsored Research and Services, Gifts and Grants, and Auxiliary Enterprises.

Educational and General Funds consist of general revenue (state tax dollars), net tuition, laboratory fees, overhead on sponsored projects, interest on educational and general funds, and the Available University Fund (AUF).

Designated Funds include self-supporting, educationally related enterprises and operations such as Continuing Education, the performances scheduled in the Performing Arts Center, conferences, workshops, publications, processing of application fees, registration fees, incidental course fees, library fines, etc.

Sponsored Research and Services is composed primarily of sponsored research funds, primarily sponsored by the federal government.

Gifts and grants include private donations and income from endowments.

Auxiliary Enterprises includes self-supporting enterprises such as dormitories, intercollegiate athletics and the Texas Union.

There has been a steady decline in general revenue (GR) for the past several years in the percentage of the Operating Budget.  (See Chart 2.)  In Fiscal Year 1985, GR ($207,824,375) comprised 44 percent of our Operating Budget.  By fiscal year 2000, GR ($250,641,699) dropped to less than 24 percent of the Operating Budget.  In actual dollars, there was a 24 percent increase in the amount of GR appropriated to the University over the 15-year period.

Net tuition has increased eight-fold in the last fifteen years, going from $9,291,000 in Fiscal Year 1985 to $74,843,357 in Fiscal Year 2000.  With every increase in tuition comes a need for an offsetting increase in the level of scholarships and fellowships.

*Data supplied by UT Office of Student Financial Services, from data supplied by institutions’ financial aid offices.  Figures based on off-campus housing (as opposed to on-campus residence hall costs), as this population is generally larger in number and thus, more representative.  Tuition and fees based on 13 semester credit hours.

Other factors determining the price of education include education-related costs to students, such as housing and books.  The Office of Student Financial Resources at the University uses the schedule in Table 4 for purposes of awarding financial aid.

* This exceeds the actual amount of UT room/board contracts because it includes the cost of residence hall meal plans as well as meals not served in residence halls, plus an allowance for snacks.

Regardless of whether or not students receive financial aid, there is a differential between the cost of providing an education and what students pay, which amounts to a subsidy to all students.

The University administration recently approved a $14 per credit hour increase in tuition and fees, which will be used to hire approximately 300 additional faculty members in the core disciplines of natural science and liberal arts, to increase financial aid and increase compensation for graduate teaching assistants, faculty and staff.  The additional faculty are a critical need in order to decrease the student faculty ratio of 20.6 to 1, which is significantly higher than other comparable universities such as the University of California at Berkeley, at a ratio of 17 to 1.

Research

Overhead on sponsored research grants is directly correlated to the level of research grants awarded to faculty members and other principal investigators.  Federal funds received are comprised almost entirely of research grants.  While research grants have increased in recent years, that source of funding cannot be sustained unless the University maintains a distinctive faculty and research staff that possesses a high level of professional competence and an impressive research capability.

Infrastructure

AUF proceeds allocated to The University of Texas at Austin are used to repay the principal and interest on construction bonds issued for the component institutions of The University of Texas System.  AUF proceeds in excess of this commitment go to fund The University of Texas System and to The University of Texas at Austin to maintain academic excellence.

B.  Budgetary Limitations

The Seventy-sixth Legislature, Regular Session, House Bill No. 1 (General Appropriations Act) included provisions for the general revenue portion of a $100 per month staff salary increase for the first year of the biennium.  Article III, Section 5 gives authorization for merit salary increases based on job performance.  Funding for faculty merit increases was not appropriated for the first year of the 2000-01 biennium, but the State Comptroller has announced locating funds for a 3% merit increase for faculty for the second year of the biennium.

C.  Per Capita And Other States Comparisons

Legislative appropriations have not kept pace with costs. The appropriation in Texas per FTE is significantly below the appropriation by the legislatures of other states to their comparable institutions with which The University of Texas at Austin competes.  This is clearly evidenced in Table 5.
 
 

* These institutions have Medical Schools as part of their main campus. ** One-half of University of Illinois System Administration appropriation.*** Appropriation from the State of Texas. **** Income from Available University Fund.

Sources:  IPEDS Finance and Fall Enrollment Reports from AAU Data Exchange.

D.  Budget Shortfalls

The University's needs for additional funding include the following:

• Hiring additional faculty to reduce the Student/Faculty Ratio
• Scholarships and fellowships
• Faculty and staff salary increases
• Outreach centers, other recruitment programs, and retention programs
• Libraries
• Research laboratory equipment & renovations
• Deferred maintenance program
• Regulatory compliance, including environmental, fire, safety, etc.

The University’s state appropriation per student in 1997-1998 was less than half of that of UCLA and Berkeley, less than 60 percent of Wisconsin’s, and about two-thirds that of Michigan and Illinois.  Even if all of UT Austin’s allocation from the Permanent University Fund is added to the state appropriation, the total is still significantly less than the state appropriation per student at all of these five peers. (See Table 5).  That means that UT Austin is more affordable than the others, but that its resource base is concomitantly weaker.

The total resource base for UT Austin, aside from research grants, gifts, and funds from auxiliary enterprises, is essentially the sum of state appropriations, allocations from the Permanent University Fund, and collected tuition and fees.  At UT Austin, this total revenue per student is last among these peers.  It closest competitor receives nearly $2,000 per FTE student more than at the University, and UCLA receives over $5,000 per FTE more.  Even considering the recently approved increase in tuition and fees, averaging approximately $420 per year, costs to attend the University will continue to be significantly lower than at its competition.

The University of Texas at Austin has done an outstanding job of building excellent programs because it has invested judiciously, it has been venturesome in ways that have paid off, and it has an attractive local environment.  Its competition is intelligent, experienced, and visionary.  The University must not deceive itself that it will be able to compete consistently, year after year, for the talent and facilities that Texas needs against the best universities in America with 70 percent or less of their resources.

Its funding structure is inadequate in many demonstrable ways.  This results in low graduate student stipends, low staff and faculty salaries, low start-up funding to recruit and establish new faculty members, and low matching funds that can help us attract important grant support.  The University’s faculty size is too small for the student body; hence the student-faculty ratio is high.  Budgets for library acquisitions and information are too constrained for the UT libraries to meet the top-level information needs of a sophisticated state.

The University’s highest priority must be to expand the revenue base.

A.  The Current Demographic Picture:  The Texas Population

In 1990, the residents of the state of Texas were ethnically diverse.  While the current population of Texas is predominantly White (60 percent), substantial numbers (about 37 percent) of Texans are African American and Hispanic.  Among state residents under the age of 25, nearly one-half (47 percent) are African American or Hispanic. (See Table 6).  This younger group of Texans is of particular interest because many applicants to the University will come from this group.
 
 

     Source: 1990Census of Population, General Population Characteristics, Texas (1990 CP-1-45), Table 19, p.197.

However, not all of the Texans in this younger group are high school graduates.  The data in Table 7 show that approximately 71 percent have high school diplomas, but noticeable differences are evident within ethnic subgroups.  For example, nearly 81 percent of the White residents under the age of 25, but only 53 percent of the Hispanic residents, have diplomas.  One reason for the low percentage of diplomas among the Hispanic population is that many of them are immigrants who came to Texas as young adults.
 
 

The Texas demographic picture will change in the years to come. (See Table 8).  The number of Texans from all four ethnic groups will increase over the next 30 years.  However, the Hispanic and Asian American populations will grow faster than the White or African American populations.  The Hispanic population will more than double and the Asian American population will more than triple.
 
 

Within the college-age population, a larger percentage will be Hispanic or African American than within the general population.  More importantly, by the year 2020, there will be as many Hispanic residents aged 18-24 as White residents.  Non-White Texas residents will constitute the majority.
 

Note: Population in thousands.  Source: 1990 data from tabulations of 1990 Census PUMS files for Texas; projections based on 1990 data and percent rates of growth calculated from Bouvier and Poston, Table 2.2, p.36, Medium Projections.

Note: Population in thousands.  Source: Percentage of high school graduates based on 1990 number of high school graduates as a percentage of the population ages 18-24.  The same percentages were used for all years.  High school completion rates from Table 3, projections from Table 4.

C.   The Educational Pipeline

The demographic population projections suggest that significant changes in the Texas population will occur in the years to come, especially among the younger age groups, many of whom will pursue college educations.

The path to college begins in elementary school.  At every grade level students are lost from the Texas educational pipeline, especially among the African American and Hispanic populations.  The loss of these students between Grades 1 and 12 will continue to be a serious concern.

To understand the changing demography in the educational pipeline, an examination of the ethnic representation within selected grade levels of the current K-12 student population is in order.  (See Tables 11a and 11b).  White students represent less than half of Grade 1, and Hispanic, African American, and Asian American students represent more that half in both 1996-97 and 1998-99.  As students progress through the education system, White and Asian American students gain as a percentage of all students and African American and Hispanics drop.  In 1996-97, by the time of high school graduation, White students comprised 51% of graduates and non-whites had dropped to 49%.  In 1998-99, White students comprised 53% of graduates and non-whites had dropped to 47%.

Between 1996-97 and 1998-99 we begin to see a shift upward in minority participation in elementary and secondary education meaning that the groups who have traditionally had the lowest progression from Grade 1 through high school graduation are becoming a larger part of the educational pipeline.  This will have consequences for the diversity of higher education in future years.
 

Sources: Texas Education Agency, Fall 98-99 PEIMS DATA, 1998-1999 AEIS State Performance Report

If students from all ethnic backgrounds were to complete high school at the same rate, substantial increases in the number of Hispanic and African American students who enrolled in college could be anticipated.  However, students leave the educational pipeline at differential rates.  A higher percentage of Hispanic and African American students leave the educational system between Grades 9 and 12.  Statistics from the Texas Education Agency (Snapshot '98) report that 51.5 percent of students who drop out are Hispanic, 17.6 percent are African American, 29.3 percent are White, and 1.7 percent are of other ethnic groups.

More significant, however, is the loss of students after they graduate from high school.  Within the state of Texas, most four-year colleges require a college entrance test score for admission.  Hence, one of the best indicators as to whether students plan to attend college is whether they complete either the ACT or SAT college entrance examination and have their scores sent to four-year institutions.  These students comprise the primary pipeline of students who may ultimately attend the University.

In 1998-1999, 69.4 percent of the 104,792 White high school graduates took the SAT, but only 55.9 percent of the 25,165 African American students and 44.6 percent of the 60,362 Hispanic students took the test.  A similar trend is likely evident among students who take the ACT and submit their scores to four-year institutions, but data are not available to verify this point.

Without changes in these general trends, White students will represent an increasing percentage of applicants to four-year colleges, not because of changes in the demographic population, but rather because of the relatively small percentage of Hispanic and African American high school graduates who apply to four-year colleges.

In order to increase minority enrollment at The University of Texas at Austin, every member of the University community must help foster a sense of ownership of UT Austin among all the people of Texas.  The faculty, staff and students must see that the University has meaning in the daily lives of ALL Texans and is an asset that all of them can take advantage of personally, to study, to visit, or to use its resources.

D.  Economic Conditions and the Educational Pipeline

Economic inequality has its greatest effect in those households in which adults do not have high school educations, including many Hispanic and African American households and many young, single-parent households often headed by women.  Between 1980 and 1990 the proportion of children in Texas living below the poverty line increased from 18.7 percent to 24.0 percent, with Texas ranking 38th among the states in the median income for families with children in 1990.

Such evidence of growing poverty among youth spotlights at least two major implications and trends for the University:

1) There will be a growing demand for financial assistance for youth as they enter and are educated at the University. The percentages of students needing financial assistance are certain to increase.

2) Children of poverty are typically the least academically prepared for college.  As these individuals increase in numbers and become the pool of applicants from which the University draws more of its students, there will be greater demands to develop and provide compensatory assistance and to increase levels of academic preparedness.

E.  The Undergraduate Educational Pipeline:  Mixing Demographics and Preparation Level

Two significant issues–who goes to college and how well those individuals are prepared–will intersect with two population trends to have a profound impact on the University.  First, the projected increase in population demographics will occur within the subcategories of students who have been the least likely to pursue higher education.  Second, the demographic increases within the state of Texas will be among those students who have historically been the least academically prepared.  The University will continue to participate actively in many programs designed to enhance and improve education from kindergarten through high school and into college.  For example, see the discussion of the Texas Longhorn PREP project discussed in Section IX B.

F.  Demographic Profile of the 1999 Student Population of The University

The demographic profile of students enrolled at the University is influenced by who applies, who is accepted for admission, who enrolls, and who graduates.  The flow of students through the institution is as important as the flow of students into it.

During the last decade, the enrollment trends for undergraduate and graduate students have been different.  During the last half of the 1990’s, the number of graduate students has declined while the number of undergraduates has increased. (See Chart 3).

Enrollment pressures for access to the University are evident in the number of applications, the number of students admitted, and the number of students matriculated.  These trends have been very different for the graduate and undergraduate student populations.

The number of first-time freshman applications to the University increased between 1992 and 1996, then dropped in 1997 as a result of changes in the application process.  First-time freshmen applicants reached a high in 2000 of over 21,000.  Transfer applications reached a high of 7,321 in 1997.

The undergraduate application trends also vary by ethnicity for first-time freshmen.  (See Table 12).  The percentage of White first-time freshmen that applied to the University has declined since 1992, while the percentage of African American, Asian American and Foreign applicants has increased.  The percentage of students enrolled closely mirrors the ethnic distribution of applicants.
 

At the graduate level, the percentage of Hispanic students increased from 5.0 in 1990 to 7.3 percent in 1997, and the percentage of Asian American students increased from 2.3 percent in 1990 to 4.7 percent in 1999.

The total number of African American students enrolled at the University in fall 1999 was 1,551, or 3.2 percent of the total.  African American students represented 3.4 percent of undergraduates, 2.5 percent of graduate students, and 1.2 percent of law students.

The total number of Hispanic students at the University in fall 1999 was 5,912, or 12.1 percent of the total.  Hispanic students represented 13.7 percent of undergraduates, 6.6 percent of graduate students, and 8.3 percent of law students.

The University was recently honored by the Quality Education for Minorities Network, a national non-profit organization dedicated to improving education for minorities, for the number of graduate degrees conferred upon non-Asian minority students from 1990 to 1997 in the fields of mathematics, physical sciences and engineering.

The total number of Asian American students at the University in fall 1999 was 5,947, or 12.1 percent of the total, including 14.5 percent of undergraduates, 4.7 percent of graduate students, and 6.0 percent of law students.

Another 222 students identified themselves as American Indians. While about 0.5 percent of the total enrollment, they represent 0.4 of undergraduates, 0.5 percent of graduate students, and 0.6 percent of law students.

For 1999, there were also 270 students for whom ethnicity was not known.

G.  Trends in the Preparation Level of Entering Students

The majority of undergraduate students at the University have been educated in Texas schools.  Changes in the number and diversity of students who apply, are admitted, and enroll at the University have had an influence on the preparation level of entering students, at both the undergraduate and graduate levels.  At the undergraduate level, preparation levels can be monitored by noting changes in the average SAT scores and in high school class standing.  Average SAT scores for first-time freshmen who enrolled at the University peaked in 1996 at 1221, and have remained above 1200 for the past three years.  Mean SAT test scores for all Texas students have remained steady from 1996-97 to 1998-99 and were 21 points lower than the national average; 995 vs. 1016.  The mean SAT scores of White and Asian students are comfortably near or above the national average, however, the mean SAT scores of African American and Hispanic students are 100 points below the national average.    However, a substantial gap persists between White/Asian American students and the African American/Hispanic student populations. (See Chart 4).  In 1999, the top quarter of freshmen had SAT total scores of 1300 or higher; the middle 50 percent of freshmen scored between 1100 and 1290.

At the graduate level, a number of indicators are used to assess qualifications.  In performance fields, auditions and portfolios typically carry the greatest weight.  In other fields, GRE scores and undergraduate grade point averages are indicators of the general level of preparation of entering students.  (See Chart 5).

The graduate student body shows fairly constant standardized test scores and undergraduate grade point averages.  Graduate students enrolled for the fall of 1999 had mean GRE verbal scores of 554, not statistically different from the score of 567 in fall 1997.  Similarly, the GRE quantitative mean score was 615, again not statistically different from e 1997 mean of 621.  The mean analytical GRE score was 603, not statistically different from 613 in fall 1997.  Finally, the average undergraduate grade point average was 3.52 in both fall 1999 and fall 1997.
 

The demographic profile of the student population is also influenced by how students move through the University and graduate.  The first-year attrition rate and the four-, five-, and six-year graduation rates for first-time freshmen from 1988 to 1998 are shown in Chart 6.  The preparation level of first-time freshmen has steadily increased over the last 10 years, and the first-year attrition rate has decreased from 18.9 percent in 1988 to 10.7 percent in 1998.  Approximately one student in three graduates within four years, over half graduate in five years, and almost 65 percent within six years.

Another issue at the undergraduate level is that, while graduation rates are increasing for African American and Hispanic students, they continue to be lower than for White and Asian American students.  Approximately half of African American and Hispanic students graduate in six years compared to 67 percent of White and 70 percent of Asian American students. (See Chart 7).  However, it is anticipated that these gaps in graduation rates will diminish in the next few years since first and second year retention rates for White, African American, and Hispanic freshmen are converging.
 
 

H.  Enrollment Projections

Enrollment projections for the University include considerations of demographic trends, graduation rates, and the University's resources. In order to capitalize on existing faculty, facilities, and funding resources and to enhance the quality of education for all students, the University has developed an enrollment management plan. The goals of the plan are to achieve a total enrollment of between 48,000 and 49,000, while providing access to maintain a diverse student body.  Table 13 shows enrollment projections for undergraduate, graduate, and law students through the fall of 2005.
 
 

   Source:  Office of Institutional Studies

Demographics provide useful data for two important issues regarding faculty.  The first issue is whether qualified faculty members will be available in the future, as a large number of faculty may retire in the coming years.  The second issue is whether a culturally diverse faculty can be achieved.

Demographic analysis cannot provide definitive information on either question because there is no circumscribed pool of eligible faculty from which the University can draw.  Also, pertinent data about faculty is not available in some cases.

The faculty is largely White (84.3 percent in 1997 and 84 percent in 1999) and male (69.0 percent in 1997 and 68.3 percent in 1999).  Table 14 compares the University faculty to the faculties of eight peer institutions.  Among these nine institutions, the University ranks sixth highest in percentage of faculty who are male, fourth highest in percentage of faculty who are White, fifth highest in percentage of faculty who are African American, and second highest in percentage of faculty who are Hispanic.

If an average of the peer groups were assembled as the norm to which the University should aspire, the University's faculty could be described as diverse; efforts will continue, however, to increase minority representation.

In setting goals and making plans, the University will continue to be mindful of the doctoral graduation rates by ethnicity as reported by the National Center for Education Statistics and listings of minority faculty, such as the roster developed by the National Minority Faculty Identification Program.  (See Table 15.)

Whether there will be faculty shortages remains an open question, and data are not available to provide a ready answer.  Warnings about faculty shortages include factors such as the possible retirement of a large number of faculty who were hired in the sixties and seventies; the increasing number of college-age students, especially during the years 1997-2003; a decreasing percentage of Ph.D. recipients who are natives of the United States, especially in some critical fields such as computer science; and the longer time necessary to complete a Ph.D. degree.  Those dismissing the idea of faculty shortages mention factors such as the lifting of mandatory retirement age; the ability to shorten the time to a Ph.D.degree when there is a greater demand for Ph.D.s, historical averaging, which explains the large numbers of retirements as merely a return to a more normal distribution of faculty by age cohort; and the ability of American universities to operate with fewer faculty by increasing faculty-to-student ratios somewhat and demanding slightly higher teaching loads of faculty.