IV. Performance Measures
The actions presented in the previous section are designed to raise the level of activity at UTSA and transform it into a premier research university. As we implement the strategies and tactics given above, it is useful to monitor various performance measures so that we can evaluate our progress toward achieving this goal.
One way to accomplish this is to select a set of universities whose characteristics we aspire to reproduce at UTSA and measure our performance against benchmarks drawn from those institutions. We recognize that our ultimate goal is one that will take some time to achieve, simply because most of the institutions we emulate have much greater resources and support at their disposal, and it will take time and effort on our part to achieve that level of resource support.
As a result, the approach of Team 2016 has been to identify not only institutions whose characteristics reflect our ultimate aspirations (long-term aspirants), but also a set of institutions whose features are intermediate to those long-term goals (near-term aspirants). From this set of near-term aspirants, we draw benchmarks that will help shape our performance goals within the time frame of the current strategic plan, 2016.
- Aspirant InstitutionsOpen or Close
The aspirant institutions are a group of medium-to-large public universities without medical schools in large metropolitan areas whose key performance characteristics (see below) are currently higher than UTSA’s. Those institutions whose performance might be reached within the time frame of the current strategic plan (2016) comprise the near-term aspirants. Conversely, long-term aspirants represent a group of institutions whose performance levels might be reached by UTSA in a somewhat longer timeframe.
In order to identify these two groups, an initial screening of institutions, using the NCES IPEDS database was conducted. Data from a large group of potential peer institutions were presented to Team 2016, and after a number of discussions in which additional comparative factors such as minority-serving status and land-grant status were discussed, two sets of institutions were agreed upon as suitable aspirant institutions:
- Arizona State University
- University of California, Riverside
- University of Connecticut
- University of Central Florida
- University of Oklahoma
- University of California, Santa Barbara
- University of Colorado, Boulder
- Rutgers University
- The University of Texas at Austin
- Performance MeasuresOpen or Close
In any institution as complex as a university, there are many possible choices of characteristics that might be used to measure performance. For our purposes, appropriate institutional key performance indicators (or KPIs) are ones that are:
- directly related to our strategic plan and the goals of that plan, and
- things that can be affected by changes in our institutional practices and policies.
We focus on a small number of KPIs (≤ 12) that are central to the objectives of the strategic plan. Other metrics related to these performance measures are also important and monitored, but often the other metrics are related to processes and performance that would ultimately result in improvements of the KPIs. In addition to the KPIs listed here, we identify some secondary performance measures below that we propose to monitor in the coming years.
Strategic Initiative I: Enriching Educational Experiences to Enable Student Success
- Undergraduate six-year graduation rates of the first-time, full-time freshman cohort [from all institutions of higher education]
- Percent of student credit hours taught by full-time faculty
- Ratio of student FTE to student headcount, disaggregated for undergraduate, master’s and doctoral level students
- Numbers of students participating in courses, programs, or activities associated with Vision 2016 Foundational Themes: Diversity, Globalization, and Transformative Leadership
- Annual results on the Collegiate Learning Assessment (CLA) of student performance in critical thinking and problem solving, and the results of the National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) (selected items).
Strategic Initiative II: Serving Society Through Creativity, Expanded Research and Innovations
- Total annual (FY) research expenditures
- Annual number of doctoral degrees awarded
- Number of patents, inventions, disclosures
- Annual total scholarly activity of full-time, tenured and tenure-track faculty members
- Number of faculty with national or global recognition (National Academy members, Nobel Prize Winners, etc.)
Strategic Initiative III: Promoting Access and Affordability
- Total student enrollment (headcount and FTE) and enrollment of minority group students (by level)
- Percent of students receiving any financial aid and average size of grants per student
- Unmet financial need for undergraduate students
- Percent of graduate students (headcount and FTE)
Strategic Iniative IV: Serving the Public Through Community Engagement
- Number of non-degree students served through continuing education courses
- Economic impact of the university
- Number of student service learning opportunities
- Number of UTSA public-service partnerships and beneficiaries
Strategic Initiative V: Expanding Resources and Infrastructure
- Ratio of FTE students to FTE faculty
- Number and percent of faculty and staff from underrepresented groups
- Total gross square footage per FTE student as percent of statewide average
- Number, and average dollar amount, of gifts to the university
- Classroom and laboratory space utilization
- Number and percent of living alumni giving to the university
- Market value of endowment at end of fiscal year
- Amount and percent of operational revenues by source
- Performance GoalsOpen or Close
To establish performance goals for these indicators, we tabulate below the university’s current data for each key performance measure, as well as the median data for the near-term aspirant institutions. From these values, we define a 2016 goal for each of the key performance measures. Secondary performance measures and goals are presented below in Appendix D.
Performance Measure UTSA 2008 Near-Term
2016 Goal Undergraduate six-year graduation rate 30% 62% 54% % of student credit hours taught by full-time faculty 70% - 85% Total Expenditures, Research Grants and Contracts $32 M* $179 M* $100 M Annual number of doctoral degrees awarded 61 212 150 Total student enrollment (headcount/FTE); 28,533 26,068 30,000 % enrollment of minority group students—UG 57% 10,458 60% % enrollment of minority group students—GR 49 1,195 52% Percent of students receiving any financial aid 64% 73% 70% Average grant package $9,814 $10,835 $10,500 Number of non-degree students served through continuing education courses TBD - TBD Economic impact of UTSA $840 M* - $1.3 Billion Ratio of FTE students to FTE faculty 24.8 16.8 20.6 Number of minority faculty (percent) 406
Number of minority Executive/Administrative staff (percent) 110
Number of minority staff (percent) 1079
Total gross square footage per FTE student (as percent of statewide average) 159
Number, and average dollar amount, of gifts to the university 5,586
*2006 data - to be updated when newer data becomes available
Although not among the strategic performance measures, it is also useful to compare the financial resources available to UTSA relative to its aspirant peers as a means of determining what changes in revenues and expenditures might be needed as the strategic plan is implemented. The revenues and expenditures per FTE student are presented in the table below for UTSA and the median of its near- and long-term aspirant peers.
Revenue Source (%) UTSA Near-Term
Long-term aspirant median Tuition and fees $5,401 (33%) $6,756 (27%) $8,667 (28%) State appropriation 4,423 (27%) 7,168 (29%) 7,534 (24%) Sponsored programs 3,335 (20%) 5,186 (21%) 9,726 (32%) Other sources 3,227 (20%) 5,652 (23%) 4,970 (16%) Total revenues $16,386 $24,762 $30,897 Expenditures (%) UTSA Near-term
Instruction $4,167 (31%) $7,264 (35%) $9,367 (33%) Research/public service 1,803 (13%) 3,751 (18%) 6,526 (23%) Administrative support 3,519 (26%) 5,125 (24%) 5,543 (20%) Other core expenses 3,970 (30%) 4,709 (23%) 6,554 (24%) Total expenditures $13,459 $20,849 $27,990
This information suggests that UTSA should expand all its revenue sources and expenditures, with the goal of increasing the per student revenues and expenditures by at least 50% by 2016, and roughly doubling them in the long-term. While the relative proportions of revenue sources and expenditure targets need not change greatly in the next eight years, as the university approaches its long-term goals, it will need to focus on further enriching the portion of its revenue from sponsored programs and its expenditures devoted to research.
It is also helpful to compare the relative faculty salaries at UTSA and at its aspirant peers as a gauge of the university competitiveness in the national market for faculty.
Faculty type UTSA average Near-Term
Long-term aspirant median Full professor $106,990 $119,471 $126,502 Associate professor 77,975v 80,438 83,093 Assistant professor 66,643 69,064 71,892 Instructor 47,169 40,391 48,135 Lecturer 43,767 54,800 56,924 Average of all faculty $78,268 $88,015 $95,515