Skip to Search Skip to Global Navigation Skip to Local Navigation Skip to Content
Error processing SSI file

Implementation Plan
V. Resource Analysis

The success of the UTSA 2016 plan is directly related to the university’s ability to provide the resources needed by each of the strategies and tactics. As noted above in section III, some of these high priority action items require budgetary resources, while others require time and effort on the part of the university community. The greatest resources that any university possesses are the talents and energy of its faculty, staff, and students, but this effort must be aligned with strategic objectives to be effective.

In this section, we analyze the resources needed to achieve certain performance benchmarks and project the likely availability of budgetary resources in the next few years. This analysis will necessarily focus on four major areas of resource need:

  • space—including classrooms, labs, offices, library, and auxiliary spaces
  • personnel—including faculty, support staff, and graduate assistants
  • student support—including scholarships, fellowships, and work-study wages
  • operating budgets and equipment—including academic support, business process support, and support for the maintenance of new space.

We note that the latter three areas require continuing budgetary resources that typically come from a combination of state appropriation and tuition and fees, while the first area requires large, one-time allocations that are generally provided through tuition revenue bonding, special fund sources available to the UT System, or private gifts.

  • Budget Revenue ProjectionsOpen or Close

    The university receives revenue from several sources, including state appropriations, tuition and fees, grants and contracts, auxiliary services, and gifts, endowments, and investment income. Of these, the first two generally provide the bulk of discretionary funding available to the university. The contributions of these sources to UTSA’s current budget and our projected goals for those revenues are listed in the table below (all figures in millions of 2008 dollars):

    Revenue Source Current Goal for 2016Long-term Goal
    State Appr./Tuition and Fees 268 380 560
    Sponsored Programs 45 120 200
    Auxiliary, Educ. Services 30 80 120
    Gifts, Investment income 11 40 75
    TOTAL 354 620 955
    Notes:
    1. State Appropriation—currently receive < $4000/student. Tuition and fees—currently receive $6200/student FTE; increases limited to ≤ 5% annually.
    2. Sponsored programs—this figure includes both research ($100 M in 2016) and non-research grants ($20 M in 2016).
    3. Auxiliary Services—increase includes projected expansion of athletics program, food and retail services, new residence halls, and extended education programs.
    4. Gifts, Investment income—increase annual gifts from $11 M to $40 M and endowment from $54 M to $150 M by 2016; increase annual gifts to $75 M and endowment to $500 M in long-term.

    State Appropriations/Tuition and Fees

    Due to enrollment growth and graduate program development, the university’s state appropriation has grown each biennium; however, enrollment growth has slowed. To fully realize our strategic objectives, it would be necessary to average budget growth of about $14 million each year in additional combined revenues from the state and from student tuition and fees. This is equivalent to a net increase in funding of $42 million per biennium (the $14 million increase the first year is applied to both years of the biennium, with a additional $14 million increase in the second year). If the university is to keep tuition and fee increases to a manageable level for students, it will need to counter slowed enrollment growth by placing greater emphasis on enriching its formula for funding.

    In practical terms this latter point means increasing the fraction of student credit hours that are generated at the upper division and graduate levels, and teaching more credit hours at the lower division level with full-time tenured and tenure-track (T/TT) faculty (the state currently provides “incentive funding” for lower division courses taught by T/TT faculty). Thus, a few very important aspects of this implementation plan are (i) improving student retention, (ii) recruiting transfers from community colleges, and (iii) increasing the proportion of our student body enrolled in graduate degree programs. If these improvements occur, UTSA will receive a higher level of funding from the state per student.

    In 2009-10 (the first year of the next biennium), the university budget office currently projects discretionary tuition and fee revenue to increase by $7.8 million based on approved increases and projected enrollments. Of that amount, 20%, or $1.6 million, must be set aside for student financial aid; however, that partially addresses one of the four major areas of need listed above. The university also sets aside funds from this source for faculty and staff merit and promotional increases (3% of payroll) in the amount of $3.7 million per year. The remaining $2.5 million is then available for strategic allocation.

    For the purposes of planning, we assume three possible scenarios for increases in the budget due to combined state appropriation and tuition and fees funding: $20 million, $24 million, and $28 million per biennium—the last of these represents full funding of the plan. Assuming that the university continues to fund student financial aid at $1.6 million/year and faculty/staff merit awards at $3.7 million/year, this leaves $9.4, $13.4, and $17.4 million, respectively, for internal allocation each biennium. These provide us with a basis for projecting revenues and prioritizing budgetary needs in the next few years.

    Research Contracts and Grants

    Another source of institutional revenue is external grants and contracts and the Facilities and Adminis­tra­tive costs (F&A—also known as “indirect costs”) accrued from those projects. At present, UTSA generates about $6 million in F&A per year; however, more than 40% of this is used to service debt incurred to renovate research laboratory space and purchase startup equipment. As the faculty grows we expect increased external grant activity, and a greater amount of this activity with federal agencies that pay full indirect costs. This will have the beneficial effect of increasing the amount of F&A funds generated. Furthermore, as the debt service is retired, this will also free up more of the current F&A collections for discretionary use.

    Reallocation of Existing Funds

    In addition to the new resources that expand the university’s budget, a key element to achieving our strategic objectives will be to reallocate existing funds to accomplish strategies and tactics. It is important to set a goal for budget reallocation that is feasible, but is also meaningful. For these reasons, we suggest that the university adopt a practice of reallocating 2% of all operational (state appropriation + T/F) budgets each year. Over the next eight years, this will result in more than 15% re-investment in strategic priorities.

    In the current fiscal year, the discretionary portion of our budget from state appropriations and tuition and fees is about $140 million. Thus, a 2% reallocation within each unit of the university would provide roughly $2.8 million that would meet strategic needs. We note that the most feasible source of reallocated funds is personnel salaries, as this represents a significant portion of the university’s total budget. Consequently, the replacement of a vacated position with one that more closely meets strategic needs would represent a viable strategic reallocation under this policy.


    Back to top

  • Resource NeedsOpen or Close

    The resource needs of UTSA are driven by both enrollment growth and strategic objectives, including research. These drivers are not mutually exclusive, but can be used to enhance one another if resources are used wisely. They can also contribute to increasing the university’s revenue by enriching the formula for funding, by directing activities that increase external grants and contracts, and by investing in the university’s development and marketing effort as a means of increasing gifts and endowments.

    To project resource needs, we utilize a model that is based upon several assumptions, including:

    • the growth of total student enrollment to 30,000 by 2016 and to 32,000 in the long-term;
    • the increase in the percentage of graduate students to 15% of the student enrollment by 2016, 900 in doctoral programs, and to 18%, with 1,440 doctoral, in the long-term;
    • a 2% increase in the average number of student credit hours taken per student;
    • an increase in the percent of student credit hours taught by tenured and tenure-track faculty from 36% now to 48% by 2016 and to 60% in the long-term; and
    • he growth of annual research expenditures to $100 million by 2016, and to $200 million in the long-term.

    These assumptions are summarized below, along with current data and projected goals:

    Undergraduate Master’s Doctoral Total
    Headcount now 25,034 3,049 450 28,533
    Goals for 2016 25,500 3,600 900 30,000
    Long-term Goals 26,240 4,320 1,440 32,000
    FTE now 19,746 1,641 365 21,752
    Goals for 2016 20,740 1,950 740 23,430
    Long-term Goals 21,867 2,430 1,200 25,497
    Ave. SCH now 11.83 6.46 7.30 11.19
    Goals for 2016 12.20 6.50 7.40 11.43
    Long-term Goals 12.50 6.75 7.50 11.50
    % taught by T/TT now 33% 70% 95% 36%
    Goals for 2016 43% 75% 95% 48%
    Long-term Goals 52% 80% 96% 60%

    In 2007-08, the average T/TT faculty member taught 220 student credit hours, the equivalent of 73 students each semester in a three-credit course. If we assume that this average remains relatively constant per faculty member, while the percentage of total student credit hours taught by the T/TT faculty as a whole increases as indicated in the table, one can project how many T/TT faculty will need to be added by 2016, to address both enrollment growth and the university’s goal to teach more credit hours with full-time T/TT faculty.

    If we further insist that the average student credit hours per faculty FTE (including non-tenure-track, or NTT, faculty) decrease from the present value of 359 to 300 SCH/faculty FTE in 2016 and to 270 SCH/faculty FTE in the long-term, then we can also project the need for adding NTT faculty. As a strategic goal, we believe that most of this increase should be for full-time NTT faculty on rotating three-year contracts with competitive salaries (see further below). With these assumptions, the calculated faculty appointment need becomes

    T/TT faculty lines NTT faculty lines Total faculty lines T/TT lines added T/TT lines added
    Now 538 351 889 - -
    Goals for 2016 723 414 1137 185 63
    Long-term Goals 946 417 1363 223 3

    Thus, over the next eight years, UTSA would need to add 23 T/TT and 8 NTT new faculty lines per year based solely on teaching needs (meeting the research goals will require a higher number). Beyond 2016, the university would need to continue adding T/TT and NTT faculty lines to achieve its long-term goals. The net result of these additions would be to lower the student FTE-to-faculty FTE ratio from 24.8 (current) to 20.6 by 2016, and ultimately to 18.7 in the long-term. This is more commensurate with the institutions we aspire to emulate.

    The budgetary implications for adding these faculty lines can be estimated with some further assumptions. Using current data for starting faculty salaries (averaged over the whole university), and allowing for 20% of new hires to be at the senior level with a correspondingly higher average salary, the average compensation for new hires should be about $85,000 per T/TT faculty member. With the intention to compensate full-time NTT faculty competitively, we assume an average starting salary of $45,000 for each NTT faculty line added. At these rates, the total budgetary impact over the next eight years is $18.5 million, or about $2.3 million each year in new faculty positions.

    Some of the new faculty lines will require large startup packages (especially those in the science and engineering disciplines). This is compounded by the need to replace about 35 faculty each year who leave the university through retirement, resignation, or other reasons. On average, 11 of those faculty are from science and engineering.

    To estimate the annual costs the university would bear for startup packages, we make a set of assumptions concerning the average size of those packages, as well as the percentage of appointments that we are likely to make in different disciplinary areas (this is based on the current distribution of faculty at our near-term aspirant institutions). These assumptions are made for projection purposes only and are not intended to represent actual strategic allocations of new positions. The table below summarizes those costs:

    New Faculty type Ave. startup equipment cost % of new hires 2016 total Total startup cost
    Non-Science/Eng. $ 5,000 65% 119 $595,000
    Science/Engineering 300,000 28% 51 15,300,000
    Senior Science/Eng. 600,000 7% 13 7,800,000
    Replacement faculty
    Non- Science/Eng. 5,000 69% 193 965,000
    Science/Engineering 300,000 31% 87 26,100,000
    TOTAL $50,760,000

    On average, the university will need to provide about $6.35 million in total startup equipment funds each year, with an additional 20% required for personnel (graduate assistants, postdocs, summer salary) related to startup. For the analysis provided here, we assume that personnel and moving costs related to startup of new faculty will be covered by existing budgets, while startup equipment costs will need to be identified explicitly.

    As we add faculty lines, we will also need to add administrative and professional (A&P) and classified staff positions. At present, UTSA expends about 27% of its discretionary budget on staff salaries, and about 24% on faculty salaries. Our goal by 2016 is to bring both of these figures to around 25% of the discretionary budget (in line with aspirant institutions), and empirical modeling suggests that this can be accomplished by adding 1 new A&P and 3 new classified staff positions for every 5 new faculty lines. With the goal of addressing low compensation among staff, we suggest budgeting $50,000 per new staff position, with some of that amount allocated toward raising staff salaries in the coming years. This would result in a total allocation of $10 million over eight years, or $1.25 million per year in staff salaries.

    Finally, to achieve the growth in doctoral enrollment that is implied by our assumptions, the university expects to add three new doctoral programs every two years and increase the average enrollment per program to about 30 students. The university will also need to expand its enrollment of master’s level students and will likely need to increase the number of master’s degree programs. To accomplish this, UTSA will need to increase the number of graduate assistantships each year by about 35 positions, budgeted at $20,000 per year, for a total of $700,000. With health insurance added, this figure becomes $750,000.

    We note that the university must also cover about one-third of the fringe benefits costs for new faculty and staff. This corresponds to 10% of the payroll costs for adding those positions, or $350,000 under the scenario given here. To summarize the annual budgetary needs in new resources for executing our implementation plan for 2016:

    Annual budget lineAmount
    Faculty positions $2,300,000
    Startup equipment $6,350,000
    Staff positions $1,250,000
    Graduate assistantships $750,000
    Fringe benefits $350,000
    TOTAL $11,000,000

    This implies an increased resource need of almost $22 million each biennium solely for the purpose of adding needed personnel. Remember that this does not include the needed set asides for student financial aid ($3.2 M per biennium) and the merit/promotion pool ($7.4 M per biennium). If we are able to increase the budget by $28 million in new discretionary funding each biennium, the university will only be able to incorporate quality enhancements through student financial aid support, operating budget increases, professional development programs, and other programmatic improvements by using alternative revenue sources.

    The largest single item under this list of costs is the startup packages needed to appoint new faculty, especially in the sciences and engineering. It is possible to estimate the increase in the amount of external research funding generated by our science and engineering faculty, and the resulting revenue from F&A, that the university might expect in future years. These F&A funds might then be applied to startup packages to make up a part of the difference.

    With $32.3 million in research expenditures (2006 data), UTSA averages about $60,000 in expenditures from external grants per T/TT faculty FTE. Our aspirant institutions average about $100,000 per T/TT faculty FTE in external research grants and contracts, so if the university is able to achieve this average, while expanding the T/TT faculty by 185 FTE, the total research expenditures from external grants should exceed $72 million by 2016.

    Our overall goal, however, is to reach $100 million in external research grants and contracts by 2016. To reach this goal will require either additional faculty in funded research areas, or a greater average amount of expenditures per T/TT faculty FTE. Any strategy to bridge this gap of $28 million in research expenditures by 2016 will likely require a dual but synergistic approach of increasing research productivity per faculty FTE and finding alternate resources to make a significant number of targeted hires in funded research areas in addition to the 185 FTE described above.

    Two types of faculty appointments would be critical. The first type are “transformational” hires who can bring in already very well established research programs and junior faculty along with them. These individuals should be of such caliber that they would add significantly to the research funding base of UTSA almost instantly upon arrival. Additionally they would bring recognition and prestige to the institution, attract high caliber junior faculty, postdocs, and graduate students, and enable the research success of others around them.

    The second type of hire would be NTT research faculty who would significantly support their own salaries on grants but would not have required teaching duties. Some of these individuals would be senior hires from outside while others could be “home-grown” from UTSA’s post-doc pool. If such faculty lines could be developed, it would be possible, for example, to reach our institutional goals for external research funding by creating an additional 110 research faculty lines averaging $250,000 per year in expenditures. However, it will be imperative that all the above hires are in strategic areas which are aligned with five areas of collaborative excellence identified in the UTSA 2016 plan, and which have the highest probability of funding success. The establishment of core facilities that serve multiple research groups in theses areas will also contribute toward enhanced research productivity.

    To develop the resources for hiring the faculty described above, and creating core facilities, strategies such as leveraging salaries from external grants (course buyouts) and strategic use of F&A funds, not only for startup packages, but also for salaries of faculty, would have to be implemented. Through these and other similar mechanisms, up to 10% of the T/TT faculty salary budget, currently on state funds, could be released for additional hires. For start-up packages, sources such as development funds, research excellence funds from the UT system, STARS funding and annual F&A funds would have to be allocated.

    If the university is successful in bringing the level of external funding for research up to $100 million in the next eight years, F&A revenues should increase from $6 million per year to more than $20 million per year by 2016, assuming that the effective F&A rate increases modestly due to increases in the full indirect cost rate and in the proportion of grants received from federal agencies. While this is an optimistic scenario for research funding, one could conservatively project at least a doubling of F&A annual revenue and perhaps more.

    In addition to F&A funds, the university has access to Research Development Funds, in the amount of $1 million/year, and may apply for STARS funds, for outstanding hires at the senior level. Assuming that UTSA is successful in competing for STARS funds for one or two senior appointments per year, these two funds together could generate $1.75-2.5 million toward the $6.35 million needed for startup equipment.

    Another potential source of startup cost support is the salary pool from the vacant faculty lines to be filled each year. If faculty searches commence only when the funds are available for the new lines, then those funds can be applied to other costs during the time that the search process occurs. This would provide another $2.3 million each year toward meeting the startup equipment needs.

    This leaves up to $2.3 million in startup equipment costs each year to be covered from other sources, including F&A revenues. While the total current F&A revenues are sufficient to provide this difference, even with the debt service, the university will need to examine its current internal distribution of F&A funds to determine if it is feasible to dedicate this amount to startup. This amount could be halved if the institution were to apply the same strategy to new, vacant staff position salaries that we propose to utilize for new faculty lines (i.e. effectively delay filling the budgeted new staff positions by one year).


    Back to top

  • Budget Recommendations for 2009-11 BienniumOpen or Close

    Under the three funding scenarios provided above, we provide the following suggestions for new resource allocation in the coming biennium.

    Increase in State Appr. & T/F
    Resource need $20.0 M $24.0 M $28.0 M
    Student financial aid $3.20    
    Merit pool/promotion increases 7.40    
    Personnel
    New faculty positions 3.80 $0.80 0.45
    Faculty/staff salary adjustments 1.00 0.50 $1.00
    New staff positions 2.00 0.50 -
    Fringe benefits (10% of salaries) 0.68 0.18 0.15
    Student financial aid/recruiting
    New graduate assistantships 0.75 0.75 -
    Scholarships for study abroad, research     0.20
    Student wages (e.g. work-study) - 0.40 0.10
    Undergraduate recruitment initiatives - - 0.20
    Graduate recruitment initiatives 0.15 - -
    Operating Costs
    Marketing (recruitment, etc.) 0.05 - 0.05
    Development, communications M&O 0.05 0.10 0.10
    Business process M&O - 0.30 0.30
    Student services programming - - 0.15
    Web site for community engagement - - 0.05
    Expanded structure for Ext. Education - 0.20 0.15
    Professional development programs - - 0.10
    Strategic initiatives
    Faculty instructional development
    - - 0.15
    Program review process
    - - 0.05
    Interdisciplinary research incentives
    - - 0.30
    Support for prof. activities (travel)
    0.10 0.10 0.10
    Training in research issues
    - 0.04 -
    Arts events promotion, hosting
    0.05 - 0.05
    Tech transfer/commercialization
    0.05 - 0.05
    Equipment, Software, Renovation
    Instructional technology 0.07 0.03 0.10
    IT support for research needs 0.20 0.10 0.20
    TOTAL $20.00 $4.00 $4.00
    Amounts shown here are in millions of dollars. The columns labeled “$24 M” and “$28 M” are additive to the columns left of them.

    Back to top

  • Space NeedsOpen or Close

    The university’s most critical resource need is space. With a current total space inventory of 4.5 million gross square feet (GSF—this includes the new Engineering Building), the university has one of the smallest ratios of space per student headcount among public institutions in Texas with 159 GSF/student (by comparison, the state average is 270 GSF/student). Among other things, the space deficit places limitations on the frequency and number of sections we are able to offer our students, adversely affecting our graduation rates. As the student, faculty, and staff populations grow, this deficit of space will become exacerbated if UTSA is unable to obtain funding for several new buildings in the next eight years.

    Once again, it is possible to estimate the need for additional space by making a few reasonable assumptions based on average data for other institutions. First, we consider research laboratory space. We estimate that $65 million in externally-funded research projects could be accommodated in existing space based on national averages for research funding per SF of lab space. At present, the university averages about $130 in external funding per SF (not including offices); whereas, among our aspirant universities, $200-250/SF of lab space is typical.

    Beyond that, additional space will be needed, and the amount can be estimated by taking the increase in research expenditures projected for 2016 ($100 – 65 = $35 million) and dividing by $250/SF to project a need for 140,000 additional assignable square feet (ASF) of research lab space. Since roughly 35% of any building represents un-assignable space (e.g. restrooms, hallways, closets, etc.), the total new research laboratory space needed would be 215,000 GSF.

    With virtually every office space at the university currently assigned, and many assigned to two faculty or multiple staff, there is a need to provide 30,000 SF of office space (200-300 offices) to relieve current crowding, and another 40,000 to accommodate new faculty (at 150 ASF/new faculty FTE), and 20,000 SF of office space for new staff (at 100 ASF/staff). This represents a total additional need of 90,000 ASF or 130,000 GSF for office space.

    UTSA presently has about 180,000 SF of classroom space, 100,000 SF of instructional lab space, and 80,000 SF of special lab space. Our classroom utilization is among the highest of all public institutions in Texas, leaving very little flexibility in the assignment of classroom usage during the weekdays for ad hoc events. Moreover, many of the science instructional labs have inadequate capacity to handle enrollment demand and this impacts student progress toward graduation. Thus, there is a need to add 30% to the instructional space, or 108,000 ASF, quite apart from any enrollment growth considerations. Enrollment growth by 2016, under the assumptions suggested above, would necessitate another 32,000 ASF of instructional space by 2016, for a total instructional space need (including conversion to GSF) of 215,000 GSF.

    The current need for an additional 30,000 ASF in office space and 108,000 ASF in classroom and instructional laboratory space (total of 210,000 GSF), irrespective of university growth, is already a part of the university’s highest priority request for a STEM classroom/laboratory facility via tuition revenue bond (TRB) funding from the 2009 legislative session. Enrollment growth will necessitate future funding requests for another 60,000 ASF of office space and 32,000 ASF of classroom space (a total of 140,000 GSF) in a later biennium prior to 2016.

    Finally, the UTSA library is in critical need of expansion to serve the more than 28,000 students currently enrolled at the university, much less the 32,000 projected in the long-term horizon. The present library facility was constructed over 35 years ago to serve a much smaller student population and an institution that did not have doctoral programs. While one might contemplate gradually expanding the present facility, it would be more cost-effective in the long-term to build a new 300,000 GSF library to serve the future needs of a large, research-intensive university.

    In summary, the additional space the university requires to address its most critical academic needs is

    Type of space Size (GSF) Cost ($ millions)
    Research labs 215,000 130
    Offices 130,000 65
    Instructional 215,000 120
    Library 300,000 135
    TOTAL 860,000 450

    In this table, the total project costs are estimated using the following guidelines: research labs– $600/GSF; offices– $500/GSF; instructional spaces– $550/GSF; library– $450/GSF. In addition to the new construction costs, there will likely be a need for $60 – 100 million for renovation of existing spaces on the campuses. These projects will need to be funded from a combination of tuition revenue bonds (TRBs), permanent university funds (PUF), and private philanthropy.

    In addition to these projects, the university will continue to develop capital construction projects based on designated fees, auxiliary revenues, public-private partnerships, as well as private philanthropy. Some potential projects constructed using alternative funding mechanisms include:

    Type of space Size (GSF) Cost ($ millions)
    Parking garage 360,000 23
    Learning Center 55,000 23
    Residence Hall(s) 300,000 90
    TOTAL 715,000 136

    In addition, the university will likely add athletic facilities as discussed in the next section below. The impact of these projects would be to add 1.53 million GSF to the university inventory, a 33% increase, while the student enrollment grows by only 5%. The net effect would be to raise the space per student to 200 GSF/student (represented as our goal for 2016 in section IV above) which is still far short of the Texas average. This expansion plan is consistent with the first two phases presently identified in the campus master plan for adding new academic, residential, and parking facilities in both the central 1604 campus area and the downtown campus.

    As a side note, to raise the available space to the state average of 270 GSF/student, UTSA would need to add a total of 3.6 million GSF (all uses). The estimated cost of such an expansion would be between $1.4 and 1.8 billion, or about $200 million/year over the next eight years if it is to be accomplished by 2016.


    Back to top

  • Private Fund RaisingOpen or Close

    An important component of our implementation plan is expanding the university’s sources of revenue. One area critical to this strategy is private fund raising, and the university is in the midst of planning its first major capital campaign as this plan is being developed. In this subsection, we examine the investments that must be made to realize the university’s fund raising goals, but also discuss some of the benefits that we foresee resulting from the capital campaign.

    A general rule of thumb in development is that a mature operation needs to spend about $18 for every $100 that it raises, for an 18% overhead. That 18% includes the fractional effort of all individuals that devote time to fund raising, including the president, the vice-presidents, the deans, and the development staff. Ideally, assuming that the president spends up to 75% of his effort in fund raising and related activities and deans spend up to 25% of their effort, the university potentially allots $2.3 million towards fund raising by administrative officers each year. While this is optimistic, these estimates are achievable if emphasis is placed on fund raising. For the $2.1 million spent on development staff, we assume 100% of their effort goes toward fund raising.

    This year, the university raised about $11 million in gifts. If we assume that our administrative officers spent only about one-fifth of the ideal amount of effort in fund raising activities, then overall the university spent 0.2´($2.3 M) + $2.1 M = $2.6 M to raise that $11 million for a 24% overhead. As the emphasis on external fund raising by the administrative officers increases, and additional investment is made in the Office of University Advancement the capacity to raise funds should increase. We will also assume that the university’s fund raising infrastructure will mature to reduce the expected overhead to 18% over time. The table below explores a potential scenario for a gradual increase in administrative officer effort and the resulting impact on fund raising, exclusive of athletics fund raising, at the university:

    2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
    Goals for overhead cost 24% 22% 20% 18% 18%
    Development budget $2.20 M $2.35 M $2.50 M $2.70 M $2.90 M
    Admin. Officers’ effort 0.46 M 0.92 M 1.38 M 1.84 M 2.30 M
    Total $2.66 M $3.27M $3.88M $4.54M $5.20M
    Development Capacity $11.1 M $14.9M $19.4M $25.2M $28.9M

    If these initial five years are followed by a 10-12% growth in annual fund raising each year thereafter, UTSA could then meet its goal of raising $40 M per year by 2016. While this would be a desirable scenario, it does not take into account the giving capacity or inclination of the community to support UTSA—this only describes the optimal capacity for fund raising under the assumptions of this simplistic model.

    However, a similar analysis can be applied to the fund raising needed to build out the proposed athletics complex that is part of the overall Athletics Business Plan. That plan includes facilities development that goes well beyond UTSA 2016 planning horizon. The parts of the complex that might be constructed by 2016 will be determined by the success of our fund raising efforts in the next few years, with the first portion of those facilities funded by $22 million provided by county tax revenues. The remaining funds for any further facilities must be raised privately, but a straightforward analysis of the primary fund raisers in Athletics suggests that with an average effort of 20% toward fund raising, and some assistance from the president, these projects should be achievable provided there is donor capacity and interest in them.

    For a general fund raising campaign, the needs are likely to reflect the four major resource needs cited at the top of this section: space, personnel, student support, and operations and equipment. There is no strong tradition of private fund raising to support capital construction on the UTSA campuses, but that will likely have to change. As we have noted, gifts will be needed for much of athletics facilities costs, and it is likely that the university will be called upon to share some of the costs of the approximately $450 million in new construction cited above.

    Three other high-priority needs from a fund raising campaign will be

    • endowed faculty positions—this may facilitate additional senior hires beyond those projected already;
    • undergraduate scholarship support—this would be utilized in ways that support the university’s enrollment management plan; and
    • graduate fellowships—to help us increase the proportion of graduate students in our student body through financial support.

    Each of the deans will be asked to project a list of fund raising needs as the major campaign is planned and these needs will shape the goals of the campaign. To the extent gifts might offset expenses currently projected from our state-generated budget that will provide additional funds for strategic allocation. Private philanthropy will be critical in providing the funding edge needed to achieve higher quality educational outcomes at UTSA.

    Under this scenario, and assuming that the university is able to sustain its fund raising effort at a constant level beyond 2013, an additional $200 million in cumulative revenue due to private fund raising will be available for designated purposes during the planning horizon. Some portion of those funds will be in the form of endowments that support student scholarships, graduate fellowships, and faculty positions, while the remainder will help the university address immediate programmatic needs.

    Our fund raising goals may be summarized as follows:

    Current 2016 goal Long-term
    University endowment $54M $150 M $500 M
    Annual gifts $11 M $40 M $75 M
    Alumni giving rate 6.2% 11% 15%
    % Endowed faculty positions 6.7% 10% 20%
    % Capital construction costs from gifts - 10% 40%

    Back to top