Web Historical Disclaimer:

This is a historical page and is no longer maintained. Read our Web history statement for more information.

 

AGENCY STRATEGIC PLAN
 

For the 2001-2005 Period
by

THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN
 
 

Board of Regents


Board Member
 Term 
Hometown
Rita Crocker Clements 
February 1, 2001 
Dallas
Donald L. Evans 
February 1, 2001 
Midland
Tom Loeffler 
February 1, 2001 
San Antonio
Patrick C. Oxford
February 1, 2003
Houston
A.W. “Dub” Riter, Jr.
February 1, 2003
Tyler
A. R. (Tony) Sanchez, Jr.
February 1, 2003
Laredo
Woody L. Hunt 
 February 1, 2005 
El Paso
Charles Miller 
 February 1, 2005 
Houston
Raul R. Romero 
 February 1, 2005 
Houston

 

JUNE 1, 2000









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

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


Table of Contents

The Texas Strategic Plan, Vision Texas, 2000

Higher Education Statewide Goal and Benchmarks

University Mission

University Philosophy

External/Internal Assessment

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

University Goals, Objectives, and Strategies

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

Appendices

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

VISION

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 )

PHILOSOPHY

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.
 
 

Limited and Efficient 
Government
Government cannot solve every problem or meet every need.  State government should do a few things and do them well.
Local Control

The best form of government is one that is closest to the people.  State government should respect the right and ability of local communities to resolve issues that affect them.  The state must avoid imposing unfunded mandates.
Personal Responsibility

It is up to each individual, not government, to make responsible decisions about his or her life.  Personal responsibility is the key to a more decent and just society.  State employees, too, must be accountable for their actions.
Support for Strong 
Families
The family is the backbone of society and, accordingly, state government must pursue policies that nurture and strengthen Texas families.

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.

MISSION

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.”



HIGHER EDUCATION STATEWIDE GOAL AND BENCHMARKS

Priority Goal

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.

Benchmarks




UNIVERSITY MISSION

The University of Texas at Austin Mission

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 University of Texas at Austin 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.



EXTERNAL/INTERNAL ASSESSMENT

SECTION I.  OVERVIEW OF UNIVERSITY SCOPE AND FUNCTION

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:


SECTION II.  ORGANIZATIONAL ASPECTS

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.
 
 

TABLE 1: Program Performance FY ’98,’99
Total Purchases
HUBs Underutilized
HUBS Other
 Total HUB %
FY '98
$142,077,951
(100%) 
$13,374,068
(9.41%) 
$3,267,486
(2.29%) 
$16,641,555
(11.7%)
FY '99
$153,711,288
(100%) 
$20,155,758
(13.1%) 
$2,967,658
(1.93%) 
$23,123,417
(15.0%)
Change
$11,633,337 
$6,781,690
(3.69%) 
-$299,828
- (36%) 
$6,481,862
(3.3%)
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
H. Key Organizational Events

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



SECTION III.  FISCAL ASPECTS

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).
 

TABLE 2: The University of Texas at Austin
Comparison of 1984-85 and 1999-00 Operating Budgets
Fund Group
1984-85 
Budgeted
1999-00
Budgeted
Budget 
Increase
Percentage
Increase
Adj. for 
Inflation
Educational & General 
General Revenue
$207,824,375
$250,641,699
$42,817,324
20.60%
-21.13%
General Revenue ATP/ARP
0
$6,770,106
$6,770,106
Net Tuition
$9,291,000
$74,843,357
$65,552,357
705.55%
426.81%
Overhead on Sponsored Projects
$11,475,000
$32,500,000
$21,025,000
183.22%
85.22%
Interest and Other Income
$1,710,764
$5,190,139
$3,479,375
203.38%
98.41%
Available University Fund
$61,175,000
$86,460,000
$25,285,000
41.33%
-7.57%
Funding from Prior Year Sources
$21,841,072
$4,500,000
$2,315,893
106.03%
34.74%
System Transfer & Other Transfers
$130,908
0
-$130,908
Total
Education and General
$293,791,154
$460,905,301
$167,114,147
56.88%
2.60%
Designated Funds
$22,546,898
$161,851,232
$139,304,334
617.84%
369.45%
Sponsored Research & Services
$70,029,000
$220,188,255
$150,159,255
214.42%
105.63%
Gifts and Grants
$16,201,548
$86,476,429
$70,274,881
433.75%
249.06%
Auxiliary Enterprises
$71,227,735
$131,794,823
$60,567,088
85.03%
21.01%
TOTAL OPERATING
BUDGET
$473,796,335
$1,061,216,040
60,567,088
123.98%
46.48%

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.

CHART 1: The University Of Texas At Austin

1999-00 Operating Budget.  Education and General - 44%, Sponsored Research & Services - 21%, Designated Funds - 15%, Auziliary Enterprises - 12%, Gifts & Grants - 8%

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.

CHART 2: Comparison Of 1984-85 & 1999-00 Revenue Sources


 
1984-85 Revenue Sources:  Other Source - 56%.  General Rev - 44%
1999-00 Revenue Sources:  Other Sources - 76%, General Rev - 24%

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.

TABLE 3: Cost of Education Comparison
1999-2000 Academic Year

School 
Tuition and Fees 
Residents 
Tuition and Fees 
Non-Residents 
Cost of Education 
Residents 
Cost of Education 
Non-Residents
Berkeley
$4,184 
$14,506 
$14,230 
$24,552
UCLA
$4,060 
$13,444 
$15,043 
$24,427
Illinois
$4,746
$11,838
$11,006
$18,098
Indiana
$4,244 
$12,900 
$12,668 
$21,704
Michigan
$6,745
$21,486 
$14,833 
$28,574
Michigan State
$5,264 
$12,590 
$11,530 
$18,856
Minnesota
$5,260 
$12,794 
$13,524 
$21,058
North Carolina
$2,262 
$11,418 
$9,512 
$19,178
Ohio State
$4,137 
$12,087 
$12,901 
$20,851
Washington
$3,638 
$12,029 
$12,698 
$21,089
Wisconsin
$3,650 
$12,400 
$11,300 
$20,050
UT Austin
$3,422 
$9,038 
$13,446 
$19,062
*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.

TABLE 4:  Basic Costs for Two Semesters (Fall and Spring, 1999-2000) for
an Average Undergraduate Course Load of 13 Hours per Semester

   Resident  Nonresident
Tuition
$3,422
$9,038
Books and Supplies
$694
$694
Transportation
$720
$720
Miscellaneous (entertainment, personal items, clothing, etc.)
$1,878 
$1,878
Room and Board * (on campus)
$5,664
$5,664
ON-CAMPUS TOTAL 
$12,378
$17,994
Room and Board (off campus) 
$6,732 
$6,732
OFF-CAMPUS TOTAL
$13,446
$19,062
* 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.
 
 

TABLE 5: State Appropriation and Tuition & Fee Revenues per FTE Student at 
Selected Comparison Group Institutions Fiscal Year 1997-98
Institution 
State
Appropriation 
Tuition and 
Fees
Fall '97
FTE Students 
State Appropriation 
per FTE Student
Tuition and Fees
per FTE Student
UC Berkeley $340,978,000  $222,821,000 
$28,521 
$11,955 
$7,812
* UCLA $431,291,000  $222,738,000 
$34,278 
$12,582 
$6,498
Illinois $289,007,497  $183,983,562 
$34,366 
$8,410 
$5,354
  $24,053,858** 
  $700
Illinois subtotal
$313,061,355 
$9,110
* Michigan $314,539,283  $441,623,924 
$34,778 
$9,044 
$12,698
* Wisconsin $358,808,433  $228,695,910 
$36,095 
$9,941 
$6,336
UT Austin $255,187,994 *** $214,925,454
$45,090
$5,659
$4,767
 
$77,516,372****  
$1,719
UT Austin subtotal
$332,704,366 
$7,379
* 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:


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.


SECTION IV.  SERVICE POPULATION DEMOGRAPHICS

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.
 
 

TABLE 6:  Distribution of the Population of Texas by Ethnicity 
For All Age Groups and for Ages  0-24, 1990
  All Ages, Population 
Percent
Ages 0-24, Population
Percent
 
White 
10,239,637
60.3% 
3,449,729
51.3%
Hispanic 
4,339,905
25.5% 
2,204,027 
32.8%
AfricanAmerican 
2,021,632
11.9% 
909,734 
13.5%
Asian/Other 
319,459
1.9% 
136,809
2.0%
NativeAmerican 
65,877
.4% 
26,384
.4%
Total 
16,986,510
100% 
6,726,683
100%
     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.
 
 

TABLE 7:  Actual and Projected Population of 
Texas High School Graduates
Ages 18-24, 1990
 
Population 
High School 
Graduates 
Graduates as %
of Ethnic Status
       
White
996 
806
80.8%
African American 
242 
173
71.5%
Asian/Other 
46
36
78.3%
Hispanic 
547 
289
52.8%
Total 
1,831 
1,304 
71.2%
Note:  Population in thousands.  Calculated from 1990 Census PUMS file.
B.  Looking Ahead

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.
 
 

TABLE 8:  Projected Population of Texas by Ethnicity, 1990-2020
 
1990
Population
% Total
2000 
Population
% Total
2010 
Population
% Total
2020 
Population
% Total
White
10,329
60.5%
11,207
55.4%
11,972
51.0%
12,681
47.2%
Hispanic
4,390 
25.7%
6,075
30.1%
7,959
33.9%
10,012
37.3%
African American
1,988
11.6%
2,295
11.4%
2,604
11.1%
2,912
10.8%
Asian/Other
367
2.1%
638
3.2%
941
4.0%
1,262
4.7%
Total
17,074
100% 
20,215
100%
23,476
100%
26,867
100%
Note: Population in thousands.  Source: Bouvier and Poston, Table 2.2, p.  36, Medium Projections.
Because most students (92 percent, Statistical Handbook, 1999-2000) enter the University before age 25, the college-age population (18-24 years) projections are important.  The data for Table 9, which shows the population projections for the next 20 years for this specific age group, were produced by calculating the 1990 population representation for each age group assuming that the growth within each ethnic population would be the same.

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.
 

TABLE 9:  Actual and Projected Population of Texas Between the Ages of 18 and 24 by Ethnicity, 1990-2020
 
1990 
Population
% Total
2000 
Population
% Total
2010 
Population
% Total
2020
Population
% Total
White
996
54.4%
1,081
49.2%
1,154
44.7%
1,223
41.0%
Hispanic
547
29.9%
757
34.5%
992
38.4%
1,248
41.8%
African American
242
13.2%
279
12.7%
317
12.3%
354
11.9%
Asian/Other
46
2.5%
80
3.6%
118
4.6% 
158
5.3%
Total
1,831
100.0% 
2,197
100.00%
2,581
100.0%
2,983
100.0%
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.
The number of Texans between the ages of 18 and 24 with high school diplomas is projected from the 1990 base year to the year 2020 in Table 10.  Clearly, the demographic composition of high school graduates will become ever more diverse.  By the year 2020, White students will be a minority relative to all other students.  Interestingly, the number of Hispanics in the population with high school diplomas will more than double, and the Asian American population will more than triple between 1990 and 2020.  While the number of White and African American individuals in the population will increase, their percentage within the total population will decrease.
 
 
TABLE 10: Actual and Projected Population of Texas High School Graduates Between the ages of 18 and 24 by Ethnicity
 
1990 
Population
% Total
2000 
Population
% Total
2010
Population
% Total
2020
Population
% Total
White
806
61.8%
874
56.9%
934
52.6%
989
48.8%
Hispanic
289
22.2%
400
26.1%
525
29.5%
660
32.6%
AfricanAmerican
173
13.3%
200
13.0%
227
12.8%
253
12.5%
Asian/Other
36 
2.7%
62
4.1% 
92
5.2%
1236.1%
 
Total
1,304
100%
1,537
100%
1,777
100%
2,026
100%
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.
 

TABLE 11a:  Ethnic Representation within Selected Levels of Education – 1996-97
 
White
     African      American
Asian American 
Hispanic
 
N
%
N
%
N
%
N
%
First Grade
131,895
42%
46,297
15%
6,751
2%
127,468
41%
7th Grade
142,504
47%
42,678
14%
7,085
2%
110,332
36%
9th Grade
152,102
44%
51,582
15% 
8,106
2%
135,437
39%
H.S. Graduates
103,383
51%
27,848
14%
6,352
3%
64.148
32%
College Bound
71,439
57%
14,915
12%
4,537
4%
33,702
27%
Sources:  Texas Education Agency, fall, 96-97 PEIMS DATA
TABLE 11 b: Ethnic Representation within Selected Levels of Education – 1998-99
White
African American
Asian American
Hispanic
 
%
N
%
First Grade
130,174
40.8%
46,871
14.7%
7,247
2.3%
133,808
41.9%
7th Grade
139,614
45.9%
43,237
14.2%
7,275
2.4%
113,028
37.2%
9th Grade
152,476
43.5%
52,167
14.9% 
8,326
2.4%
136,974
39.0%
H.S. Graduates
104,792
53.1%
25,165
12.7%
6,263
3.2%
60,362
30.6%
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).

CHART 3:  Undergraduate and Graduate Fall Enrollments, 1990-1999
 Source:  Office of Institutional Studies
undergraduate and graduate fall enrollments, 1990-1999

In fall 1990, 75 percent of the student body were undergraduates while 25 percent were graduate, professional, or law students.  In fall 1999, 76 percent were enrolled as undergraduates and 24 percent were enrolled as graduate, professional, and law students.  While the relative balance of undergraduate to graduate students did not change, the growth patterns reversed.  The undergraduate population is growing while the graduate and professional population is declining.

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.
 

TABLE 12: Undergraduate Application Statistics for 1992 & 1999 by Ethnicity
   
White
Hispanic
African
American
Asian
American
Foreign
Applications
1992
64%
15%
4%
11%
5%
 
1999
58%
15%
5%
14%
6%
Enrolled 
1992
66%
15%
5%
12%
2%
 
1999
63%
14%
4%
17%
1%

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.

CHART 4: SAT Total Scores for Entering Class by Ethnicity, 1990-1999

SAT total scores for entering class by ethnicity, 1990-1999

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.
 

CHART 5: Mean GRE Scores and Undergraduate GPAs for Graduate Students Entering UT Austin in 
Fall 1997 and Fall 1999
 
Fall 1997
Fall 1999
Mean GRE Verbal Score 
567 
554
Mean GRE Quantitative Score 
621 
615
Mean GRE Analytical Score 
613 
603
Mean undergraduate GPA 
3.52 
3.52
SOURCE:  Office of Graduate Studies, 2000.


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.

CHART 6:  Attrition and Graduation Rates for First-Time Freshmen Fall 1988-1998
                Source: Office of Institutional Studies

attrition and graduation rates for first-time freshmen fall 1988-1998

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.
 
 

CHART 7: Six-Year Graduation Rates by Ethnicity Entering Classes
1988-1993

Six-Year graduation rates by ethnicity entering classes 1988-1993
Source: Office of Institutional Studies


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.
 
 

TABLE 13:  Enrollment Projections 2000 – 2005
 
Actual Fall 1999
Fall 2000
Fall 2001
Fall 2002
Fall 2003
Fall 2004
Fall 2005
Undergraduate 
37,159
37,500
37,100
36,800
36,800
36,700
36,600
Graduate 
10,470
10,500
10,500
10,500
10,500
10,500
10,500
Law 
  1,380
 1,400
 1,400
 1,400
 1,400
 1,400
 1,400
Total 
49,009
49,400
49,000
48,700
48,700
48,600
48,500
   Source:  Office of Institutional Studies
I. Faculty and Staff Demographic Profile

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.
 
 

TABLE 14: Comparison of Full-Time Faculty in 9 Major Public Universities by Gender and Ethnicity
 
Total
Male
Female
Non-Resident 
Alien
African-
American
American 
Indian
Asian 
Hispanic
White
1
1591
1075
516
0
54
3
79
30
1425
 
 
67.6%
32.4%
0.0%
3.4%
0.2%
5.0%
1.9%
89.6%
2
2905
2081
824
143
131
6
232
72
2321
 
 
71.6%
28.4%
4.9%
4.5%
0.2%
8.0%
2.5%
79.9%
3
3284
2213
1071
241
147
17
195
62
2622
 
 
67.4%
32.6%
7.3%
4.5%
0.5%
5.9%
1.9%
79.8%
4
2345
1764
581
129
34
6
135
31
1969
 
 
75.2%
24.8%
5.5%
1.4%
0.3%
5.8%
1.3%
84.0%
5
2365
1671
694
138
62
5
313
69
1778
 
 
70.7%
29.3%
5.8%
2.6%
0.2%
13.2%
2.9%
75.2%
6
3041
2137
904
130
87
8
519
148
2149
 
 
70.3%
29.7%
4.3%
2.9%
0.3%
17.1%
4.9%
70.7%
7
2100
1424
676
34
86
5
96
34
1845
 
 
67.8%
32.2%
1.6%
4.1%
0.2%
4.6%
1.6%
87.9%
8
2295
1705
590
95
58
6
171
56
1909
 
 
74.3%
25.7%
4.1%
2.5%
0.3%
7.5%
2.4%
83.2%
                   
UT
2223
1533
690
73
66
8
108
94
1874
‘97
 
69.0%
31.0%
3.3%
3.0%
0.4%
4.9%
4.2%
84.3%
                   
UT
2208
1507
701
92
62
8
105
87
1854
‘99
 
68.3%
31.7%
4.2%
2.8%
0.4%
4.8%
4.3%
84.0%
Source ‘97:  1997 IPEDS-S Report, Line 22 (total for full-time faculty), from UT EEO office.     Source ‘99:  1999 IPEDS-S Report, Line 22 (total for full-time faculty), from UT EEO office.
TABLE 15:  Doctorate Recipients from U.S.  Universities By Citizenship, Race/Ethnicity, Sex, and Subfield, 1994-95
 
Total
White
African
American
Hispanic
Asian 
American
Native
American
Non-
Resident
Male
Female
 
Number 
%
%
%
%
Physical Sciences
6,806
71.0
1.3
2.2
25.3
0.2
44.4
78.0
22.0
Engineering 
6,007
63.7
2.2
2.4
31.5
0.3
57.9
88.4
11.6
Life Sciences
7,913
74.9
3.1
3.0
18.5
0.5
35.2
57.9
42.1
Social Sciences
6,623
82.8
5.2
4.2
7.3
0.5
21.0
49.2
50.8
Humanities
5,061
87.8
2.9
3.8
5.1
0.4
19.4
51.7
42.1
Education
6,546
81.6
10.4
4.4
3.0
0.7
11.0
38.4
61.6
Business/Mgmt 
1,323
82.3
3.3
1.8
11.9
0.7
33.3
71.6
28.4
Other
1,305
83.0
8.5
3.1
4.9
0.5
20.2
54.9
45.1
Totals
41,610
               
Source: National Center for Educational Statistics, IPEDS, January 1997
The primary pool for staff at the University, except for the highest levels of administrative officials and degreed professionals, comprises working-aged adults in the Central Texas region.  The University intends for the diversity of its staff to mirror, insofar as is possible, the diversity of the population in this pool.

Table 16 shows the diversity of the University's staff as reported by the University's Equal Employment Opportunity Office in fall 1997 and fall 1999.  Population projections for the Central Texas region to the year 2000 also are reported.  This projection shows the direction in hiring the University will need to consider in the 1997/98-2002/03 quinquennium in order to be more representative of the labor force projected at that time.
 
 

TABLE 16:  A Comparison of the 1997 University Staff Composition With the Projected Central Texas Population in 2000
 
White
Hispanic
African
American
Other
Total
           
Projected Population (2000) 
1,268,921
353,974
222,556
48,991
1,894,452
Percent of Workforce 
67.0%
18.7%
11.7%
2.6%
100.0%
           
1997 UT Staff 
5,711
1,428
563
410
8,112
Percent of 1997 UT Staff 
70.4%
17.6%
6.9%
5.1%
100.0%
           
1999 UT Staff 
5,325
1,515
561
509
7,916
Percent of 1999 UT Staff
67.3%
19.1%
7.1%
6.4%
100.0%
Note: Executive/Administrative/Managerial positions are not included in the 1997 or 1999 staff numbers because recruiting for them is done statewide and/or nationally.  Some other professional positions, generally those with the highest salaries, are recruited statewide and some nationally but are included in this table because it is not possible to pull them out of this category.
Source ‘99:  1999 IPEDS-S Report, Line 71 (Part B – All Other Full-Time Employees), from UT EEO office.



SECTION V.  EFFECTS OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

A.  Introduction and Overview

The widespread and expanding use of information technology (IT) throughout U.S. society, and the rapid developments in that technology, continue to have significant effects on the nature and pace of intellectual inquiry and the manner in which the University fulfills its responsibilities in education, research, and public service.  What the University does in these three areas is increasingly shaped by the worldwide revolution in computer technologies. The job market now demands a work force that is technologically literate and prepared to engage in continuous, lifelong learning to adapt to new technologies as they come on line. UT Austin is poised to take advantage of opportunities to enhance its mission. Recognizing the importance of the IT field and its affect on the educational process, President Faulkner has recently created the position of Vice President for Information Technology to oversee the integrity and strategic development of the information/communications hardware infrastructure, to oversee systems infrastructure for mission-central functions and administration, and to oversee related education and training.

The University of Texas at Austin is currently meeting the IT needs of its community, although those needs are expanding, given the rapid developments in technology and concomitant expectations of the UT Austin community and the private sector.  While experimental and exploratory uses of information technology are still rapidly expanding, ordinary operational uses are now widespread, and UT Austin is among those institutions that best fulfill the operational IT needs of their communities. UT Austin has been ranked in the top 20 for the past several years on Yahoo's list of the 100 "most-wired" colleges, and its Web site ranks among the top five U.S. universities in usability and number of visits.

General Computer Use

More than 90% of students at UT Austin report that they have access to computers at their places of residence. In 1998, 97% of the faculty reported that they use computers and other information technology resources in their teaching, research, and service, and 95% of faculty have home computers. Laptop computers are now in widespread use on campus, particularly by students in Engineering and Business, where special-purchase agreements have been made with vendors.  The MBA program requires purchase of a laptop in order to take its computer-intensive curriculum.

E-mail

More than 500,000 e-mail messages are delivered daily by the campus network, and nearly all faculty use e-mail in their instruction and research.  Members of the university community now routinely use e-mail to seek help with computer operations and facilities: the Campus Help Desk receives about 2000 requests per month via e-mail.

World Wide Web

The Web is now a central information hub for the campus.  UT Austin Web Central (home page) received 12.7 million visits per week from January 1999 through August 1999.  Developed and administered at UT Austin, the World Lecture Hall, a collection of about 2,000 Web-based courses from around the world, now receives about 5000 visitors per day. Nearly 30% of faculty are creating their own Web pages. In July, 1999, the General Libraries made most of its vast array of electronic resources accessible from anywhere on the Web to all authorized users, and it is the home of the UT System Digital Library.  In August 1999, 82% of UT Austin's employees used the Web to update their employee benefits selections. The Registrar's Office maintains a set of secured Web-base services (ROSE) that enables students to register for classes and to see their class schedules, grades, degree requirements, financial status, and other information. The State of Texas Common Application for Admission is a Web site that began receiving applications in August 1998.  Since then, about 43,000 applications to some 35 participating Texas public universities have been submitted electronically.

Institutional Planning

Planning for information technology use at UT Austin is overseen by the Information Technology Coordinating Council (ITCC). The membership of the ITCC includes key decision-makers from various sectors of the campus who identify, prioritize, and resolve information technology issues within the context of a comprehensive long-range IT plan. Several task forces have emerged from the ITCC, including groups to study and report on the accessibility of electronic information, digital library data standards, electronic IDs, multimedia in the classroom, and a network master plan for UT Austin. A comprehensive, integrated, long-range plan for IT was developed previously and ratified by the ITCC in 1998, and a new planning effort will be initiated in 2000-2001.

In 1999, academic and administrative IT leaders from across campus participated in an all-day strategic planning session to outline the goals and directions for their respective organizations for the next several years. Task forces and the formulation of initiatives from those sessions are still in progress.

Competition for personnel is fierce in the Austin market where many companies are recruiting information technology specialists. Because of recent salary increases, UT Austin manages to attract and keep a capable staff, although the disparity in IT salaries with those in the private sector remains significant (around 20%).

IT Funding

UT Austin spends an estimated $80 million per year on IT in colleges, departments, administrative units, and IT service providers.  Students contribute more than $7 million a year through their $6 per semester credit hour information technology fee. Many also pay additional technology fees estimated at $9 million a year in their schools and colleges.  Indications from the annual IT vision plans presented by colleges and schools are that demand may exceed supply by a factor of three to one.  UT Austin has approved an increase of $3 per semester credit hour in the information technology fee for the next academic year to help pay for the IT infrastructure.

Increased funding is needed to keep IT salaries competitive; to meet scholarly demands for additional information resources; to ensure continuous staff training in order to provide professional-level information services; and to cover the overhead of electronic information servers, robust network connections, and the staff to maintain them.

Some major financial needs include upgrading UT Austin's telecommunications network to meet demands for increased bandwidth, a demand that has been doubling approximately every 12 months.  Other initiatives requiring increased technology funding include use of instructional technology; improving such centralized support as help desk and training services; increased computer access in the General Libraries; strategies for technology-enhanced learning; planning for high performance computing; development of a comprehensive e-University portal for all students, faculty, and staff; formulation of e-service and e-business initiatives; credentialing and smart cards; and funding on a lifecycle basis of essential services from desktops to servers to networks.

B.  Administrative Computing Efforts

Nearly every administrative task can be done on a computer.  Administrative computing business applications includes more than 330,000 program objects (180,000 programs, 70,000 maps, 60,000 data areas, and 20,000 copy code objects). The supporting databases contain approximately 300 gigabytes of official University data. About 310 million calls a day are made to these databases, which provide the infrastructure for about 1,500 different business and services applications. These business applications are used by 5,000 different people every day – with about 2,000 logged on at any given point every day.  All business applications are highly integrated and comprehensive; and while no completely paperless offices exist on campus, some are approaching that designation.  Further, UT Austin operates seven “core” financial applications (Payroll, Human Resources, Budget, Central Accounting, Departmental Accounting, Inventory, and Purchasing) for six other UT System component institutions.

UT Austin has developed a single UT Electronic Identity (UT-EID) for each member of the university community. Access privileges to administrative information resources are assigned on a need-to-know basis associated with job responsibilities.  The University is rapidly moving toward self-service applications which are available 24 hrs/day for all of its constituencies (i.e., current faculty, staff, and students, prospective students, vendors, and the general public).  Further, the University provides state-wide, web-based services for the Texas Common Admissions Application, electronic transcript sharing, and Common Medical/Dental Admissions Application forms on the web.

Many Web-based services are made possible due to "high-assurance” electronic IDs (UT-EID), which enable secure transactions to authenticated students, faculty, and staff.  UT-EIDs will enable e-Business Services and highly sensitive transactions to take place, further increasing the use of the Web and the demand for expanded resources, via the new “GUEST” role for UT-EIDs, certain web-based services will be extended to prospective students, employment applicants, and others.  And, the University is further extending secure, web-based  services to external constituents (e.g., parents of students, vendors, et.al.).

C.  Networks and Access

UTnet, the campus network, continues to expand, as indicated by the number of host computers and the amount of backbone traffic. In 1999, there were 36,074 assigned IP addresses on UTnet, up from 33,653 a year earlier, and 375 departmentally administered networks or sub-networks. This number does not include the 6500 ports of the ResNet residence hall network.  DHCP hosts during that time increased from 2569 to 4138.

UT Austin and the individual colleges and departments provide ready electronic access to networked data services and personal communication in offices, student computer labs, networked residence halls, dial-up services, and kiosks. Most of the large lecture halls with computer projection equipment now have Internet connections. ACITS has connected all University-owned student residence halls to the campus network so that each residence hall room is equipped with network outlets. Several private residence halls also have access to the campus network through other Internet service providers.

Important access problems remain, however.  Although access is high among administrative staff, more attention should be directed toward assessing access among staff at other levels.  Some building networks need to be upgraded to take advantage of the capabilities of UTnet.  Another segment of the UT Austin community not yet entirely well served by existing resources are non-tenure track, clinical, and visiting faculty.  This group sometimes has difficulty accessing resources as fundamental as e-mail because of the lack of desktop computers.  The University’s goal is to allow these individuals ready and continuing access.

Improved student access is a high priority.  The information technology fee has funded the Student Microcomputer Facility, two joint-use facilities (Colleges of Communication and Natural Sciences), and a large number of college and departmental laboratories.  In addition, access to branch library facilities has improved due to the award of a $1.5 million grant from the Telecommunications Infrastructure Fund.

UT Austin has made real progress in extending its networking boundaries. Telesys currently provides nearly 3,000 lines to serve approximately 29,000 subscribers. The Greater Austin Area Telecommunication Network, 600 Mb/s, not only links UT Austin's Main Campus, Pickle Research Campus, and the UT System Administration complex, but potentially offers similar connectivity to Austin's public schools, Austin Community College, government entities, and various telecommunication carriers and national networks such as Internet2.  UT Austin also operates the UT System digital video network.  Retired faculty and staff are provided with low-cost access and mailboxes under a recently approved initiative, and graduates can obtain electronic mail-forwarding service through the Ex-Students Association.

Recognizing the convergence of telecommunications and computing, ACITS is currently carrying out a test of voice-over-Internet protocol.  Five hundred Internet phones have been installed in the College of Business in order to evaluate their usability and quality of service.

Finally, challenges still face the University in terms of hardware, software, and network resources.  These issues include developing a systematic plan for capital replacement; extending human and fiscal resources to support and upgrade the expanding infrastructure; developing the network architecture to permit the seamless integration of new technology and high-speed access; and planning engineering and operational practices that can accommodate increasing complexity, while striving for maximum reliability and availability.

D. Academic Computing, Technology and Instruction (ACITS)

The fundamental role of a university is to create, preserve, and impart knowledge and wisdom. Information technology can make a major impact on teaching and learning.  It must be recognized, however, that information technology is an enabler of education and not the content of education.  There is no substitute for individual interaction between students and faculty. What information technology does now, and can do with enormous potential in the future, is to enhance the scope, the breadth, and the effectiveness of these interactions, as well as the structure, organization, and presentation of information.

Distance education is being carried out by Pharmacy, Engineering, the Graduate School of Library and Information Science, Education, IC2, and Continuing Education.  Coordination of the various university efforts is emerging gradually, with effort centering in the Center for Instructional Technologies and the Extension and Instructional Materials Center. The General Libraries' contributions through the UT System Digital Library have been outstanding. The UT System TeleCampus has been created to provide distance-education services to faculty and students, and several degree programs are now under development with cooperating faculty at UT Austin.

Policies on distance education are under the aegis of the Office of the Executive Vice President and Provost. Distance education for students not in residence is becoming more of a reality, which means that requirements and policies for non-resident students will need to be examined.  UT Austin has articulated strategies for technology-enhanced learning that will be implemented during 2000-2001.

E.  Computer Training

Training programs are widely available and are of high quality. The General Libraries have made substantial shifts in staff, particularly from technical service to public service positions, and has established or revised a number of programs. ACITS provides a curriculum of some 75 free short courses to faculty, staff, and students that cover such topics as Internet access, using e-mail, and Web publishing. ACITS also operates the Microcomputer Teaching Facility in the Joe C. Thompson Conference Center for hands-on instruction in 24 workshops. At the Center for Instructional Technologies, computer technology seminars are offered to faculty each semester.  UT Austin is also considering appointment of a campus-wide coordinator for computer training, to coordinate courses offered by ACS, ACITS, General Libraries, and the Texas Union.

F.  Research Computing and Networking

Texas has long been recognized as a leader in research and development in high technology. This recognition is due mainly to a continuing emphasis on education and research. Two trends for the future seem clear. First, new technologies and the evolution of existing technologies will increasingly require interdisciplinary approaches to education and research.  Existing structures must become flexible to encourage collaboration among departments and across colleges and schools.  It has been suggested that entirely new structures should be considered.  Second, education and training must extend beyond the campus. Technological change is occurring rapidly, and UT Austin should be an important resource for the continuing education of professionals and technical personnel in technologically relevant fields.

One new thrust under consideration is in the area of high-performance computing and networking.  To that end, The University of Texas at Austin participates in the National Science Foundation' s National Partnership for Advanced Computational Infrastructure (NPACI), which is funding the upgrade of two major components of the Texas Advanced Computing Center (TACC):  the CRAY T3E computer and the archival storage system.  NPACI is a consortium of 37 research and academic institutions devoted to the development of software infrastructure for utilizing and sharing the high-performance computing resources of the institutions.  The TACC is classified as one of eleven Resource, Research, and Education Partners--in addition to being the local research computing center for UT Austin. The NPACI grant is led by TICAM (Texas Institute for Computational and Applied Mathematics), and TICAM's focus is the application of scalable parallel supercomputers to problems in computational science and engineering.

TACC now has two CRAY supercomputers, an SV1 owned by the Center for Space Research and the T3E, as well as an IBM SP/2 parallel computer.  With 68 processing elements, the peak computational rate of the T3E is now 40 GFLOPS. Each PE has 128 MB of high-performance memory, for a system total of 8.7 gigabytes.  ACITS also operates a visualization lab, built around a Power Onyx system, with Reality Engine-2 graphics, in the Center for Instructional Technologies.

In the area of high performance networking, UT Austin is an active member of the Internet2 project, which involves more than 160 universities, working with governmental agencies, industry, and other research and education networking organizations to facilitate and coordinate the development, deployment, operation, and technology transfer of advanced, network-based applications and network services. The University Corporation for Advanced Internet Development  (UCAID) manages the Internet2 project.  UT Austin President Larry Faulkner is a member of the UCAID Board of Trustees.

G.  Private Sector Alliances

UT Austin has formed several alliances with private industry. LARIAT, the Leadership Alliance for Research, Instruction and Technology, is a strategic collaboration between UT Austin and Dell Computer Corporation. Through this alliance, Dell has funded more than $650,000 for research, instructional, and outreach projects since January 1999 (22 projects). In August 1997, UT Austin was awarded a $6 million grant by Intel Corporation to support advanced interdisciplinary research in distributed multimedia, simulation, and modeling, as well as enterprise systems and management.  Since 1997, annual awards have been granted to various university projects under IBM's Shared University Research (SUR) program, which was coordinated by the Vice President for Research and ACITS, at about $500,000 per year.  Areas of interest include science, engineering, business, multimedia, arts, communications, digital libraries, and databases.  Other alliances under consideration are with Microsoft Corporation, AT&T, and Cisco Systems.

H.  E-University Initiatives

An E-University Task Force has been created to move UT Austin toward the e-business model to create a framework and infrastructure into which current service applications will fit.  The goals of the task force are to provide e-service and e-business solutions campus-wide and create the infrastructure necessary to permit all services to use the infrastructure and framework to publish services for any constituent group (students, faculty, staff, alumni, etc.).  The goal is to allow the transformation of key relationships and business processes through the use of Internet technologies.   Each individual interacting with the University via the web will have their own customized portal containing services to which they have subscribed.

The first set of services to use the infrastructure and framework will be student services, planned for delivery by August 1, 2000.   Once the student services have been converted, efforts will focus on developing services for other constituencies.

Among the services that will be improved and that will benefit from the new e-university structure are: procurement and asset management; recruiting and training; accounts receivable and payable; continuing education; alumni development and relations; application and admission processes; financial aid; and housing.

Also recently formed is a Credential (ID Card) Task Force, whose charge is to reduce the number of ID cards currently required for students, faculty, and staff to a single electronic credential with multiple purposes:  identification, authentication, and eligibility for UT Austin services; residence hall dining and vending; purchasing capability and bill paying -- to name just a few.  With funding from the UT System, a pilot project is underway in the College of Business to employ smart-card technology for identification, facility access, banking, information storage, and point-of-service payments. As this project is expanded to other areas, it will greatly facilitate the development of e-commerce at UT Austin.


SECTION VI.  ECONOMIC VARIABLES

A.  Macroeconomic Conditions

Due to a confluence of favorable events, the national economy is likely to continue on a stable course for the next two or three years.  In the past, the current low employment and low inflation would have seemed unsustainable. Today’s more open economy, coupled with rapid technological advancement, has served to keep inflation in check, while domestic demand has brought unemployment down.  Increasing pressures will be exerted by the ongoing economic recovery in Europe and in Asia, but these will, in the near term, be offset by the likely national budget surpluses as well as by the increased competition that the now cheaper Asian products offer.  Overall, the U.S. economy is likely to see stable growth (2 to 3 percent real growth) over the next two to three years, with little acceleration in inflation.

The Texas economy has been strong for most of the 1990’s.  While the trend will continue, partly because of the state’s increased diversification and reliance on high-technology industries, and partly because people want to live in Texas and are moving from the (relatively) declining northeast and Midwest, the very rapid relative growth of the 1990’s is likely to diminish slightly.  However, the expectation is that the Texas economy will grow, on average, faster than the national economy between 2000 and 2005.

B.  Budget Changes

The current federal surplus and its likely increase bode well for university funding.  The recent substantial increases in NIH and NSF funding have very positive implications.  Similarly, the current increasing interest in education should have a positive effect.

C.  The International Environment

Current International Trends

Many profound changes are taking place in the world that affects the curriculum at the University and, consequently, faculty recruitment.  The organization of the University for dealing with international affairs must be mindful of these changes, for they will affect all regions of the world, forcing major adjustments in the domestic economy and the global competitive position of the United States.  The following are some of the changes:

University Responses to International Trends

Many more international courses are taught in the College of Business Administration today than were taught in the past.  Faculty and students are traveling to other countries and visiting foreign universities in ever-increasing numbers.  The University is offering a program to employees of Motorola, paid for entirely by Motorola, who will be working in the Motorola plant in China.  Faculty and student research on sustainable global environmental issues has increased in the College of Natural Sciences, Engineering, and Liberal Arts.  A new interdisciplinary research initiative on weapons of mass destruction is beginning at the University involving the Colleges and Schools of Communications, Engineering, Law, Natural Sciences, and Public Affairs, as well as research staff on the Pickle Campus.

The creation of the Office of Associate Vice President for International Programs reflects the University’s commitment to nourishing the University’s already strong focus on the international dimension of its programs.  This position established a central point to give a greater voice to funding, curriculum, and recruitment on international issues.

Given its location and assets in the area of Latin American studies (programs, library and art collections, distinguished faculty), the University should become the nation’s most important source of expertise about Latin America, its culture, language, issues and politics, businesses, technical development, and relationships with other geographic areas.  It should also be an important center for education of students from Latin America. The University does offer a joint MBA program with Monterrey Tech in Mexico City.  It will soon establish an Argentine Studies Center and it is expanding relationships with several other Latin American countries.

A world-class library system is essential for a strong international program.  The combination of inflation in publishing costs and diminishing budgets has led to continuing erosion over the past decade in the rate of acquisition of books, monographs, and serial publications on international affairs.  Over the past five years, cuts averaging 2,809 volumes and 736 serials subscriptions have been made very year.  The consequences of this trend are obvious:  These reductions are eroding the richness of information that students and faculty require from a great university.  This erosion, if not checked, could seriously compromise the University’s capacity in preparing students for international roles.

The University has also seen an enhancement of publications by UT Press of scholarly path breaking books and monographs dealing with international issues.  This trend should be continued and enhanced.

Two new projects, the formation of an interdisciplinary Defense Department-Sponsored research initiative on weapons of mass destruction and the University’s administration of the Guatemala Legislative Project, illustrate both the prospects and barriers to university-wide cooperation on global problems.  The University has not yet developed an effective institutional mechanism for investing in targets of research opportunity that span schools and colleges or for competing for multi-million dollar requests for proposals or indefinite quantity contracts offered by U.S. government agencies to contract research, teaching, outreach and service functions overseas.

D.  The Social Environment

Demographic Changes

According to a 1994 Bureau of the Census report, the Texas population was just over 18 million and ranked second among the states behind California.  Due to the youth of its population, high fertility rates, and the attraction of Texas for immigrants, the population of Texas is expected to continue its rapid growth to as many as 30 million by 2030.  This growth is expected to place significant demands on the environment, public services, and educational systems.

The state's ethnic composition has shifted dramatically, becoming more diverse in recent decades.  Perhaps the most dramatic indicators of such change can be seen in K-12 public school enrollments and in changes in the labor force.  By the late 1990s, 50 percent of public school students in Texas have come from cultural minority groups, with Hispanic students comprising approximately 35 percent of total students and Asian American students growing at the fastest rate, doubling their share from 1.1 percent during the 1980s to 2.2 percent.  Over the next 30 years, the White proportion of the Texas labor force will decline from just under two-thirds less than half.  Given significant differences across cultural groups in school completion rates, educational attainment, per capita wealth and income, and other indicators, economic equity is likely to remain a significant public concern.

Texas is a highly urbanized state, with 81 percent of the population living in urbanized counties in 1991.  During the 1990s, it had the second largest numerical increase of any state.  The proportion of the population located in urban areas is expected to continue to increase with the absolute numbers increasing steadily as the total population increases.  Although the age composition of the population is younger than the nation as whole, the average age of the population is rising.  Age composition varies considerably by ethnicity, with relatively more White elderly persons, including a steady increase in the number of such persons over 80 years of age and a projection of over one million such persons by 2010.  There will continue to be proportionally fewer elderly persons in this age range among African American, Hispanic, and Asian American populations.

Poverty, Inequality, Unemployment

There has been an increasing gap over the past decade in the income levels among families in Texas.  A recent report indicates that Texas has the fifth largest gap between wealthy and middle-income families, and the seventh largest gap between wealthy and low-income families.  Poverty continues to be most prevalent among the minority population with a 1998 Texas poverty rate of 25.5 percent for Hispanics, and 23.3 percent for African-Americans, compared to a poverty rate of 6.9 percent for Anglos and others.  Issues of poverty and the gap between rich and poor in Texas may accentuate as employment in defense industries and in the armed forces is cut back and as unskilled industrial wage jobs become more scarce due to competition from factories in Mexico and other countries.  Increasing agricultural imports from Mexico may compete with agricultural production in South Texas.  Recent problems in the Mexican economy have implications for employment in the South Texas area along the border.

Poverty also disproportionately affects children in Texas.  The child poverty rate in Texas (for children up to 18 years old) is 22.0 percent (1998) leaving 1.2 million children in poverty.  The rate for those 18 to 64 is 12.1 percent, and for those 65 and over, 13.4 percent.  Children growing up in poverty-level households often perform poorly on standardized learning measures upon entering public education, thereby increasing the pressures on elementary and secondary education and directly affecting the potential university applicant pool of the future.  Pervasive family poverty also contributes directly to the economic and physical deterioration of urban neighborhoods and rural communities, the absence of entry-level employment opportunities for young people, and the development of a drug economy, as well as other illegal activities.

Furthermore, Texas lags behind most states in its services for poor families.  Texas ranks 46th in the country in the amount of welfare benefits as a proportion of the poverty line (In 1997, this figure was 46 percent).  In 1996 the average monthly welfare payment (AFDC/TANF) to a family of three was $156, putting Texas at 48th among the states in its level of welfare payments.  Declining Medicaid roles have disproportionately affected children’s medical care coverage. One study reports a 14 percent drop in the last three years in children receiving health care, as Medicaid roles dropped along with the likelihood that poor children would be insured.  At least 500,000 Texan children lack health care coverage, and the effects are visible in other statistics.  For instance, Texas ranks 38th among the states in the proportion of children with up-to-date immunizations.  Food Stamp rolls are also dropping, while one study estimates that one in ten Texas children are hungry.

Family Issues

The definition of family has changed during recent decades.  Single?parent (mother, father, or grandparent) and blended families have become accepted alternative child?rearing family forms.  Individuals are bringing up children in an environment profoundly different from the one in which they themselves were reared.  According to the 1990 Census, almost a quarter of Texas families are single?parent households, a figure comparable to the country as a whole.  Many of the problems children have in single?parent families result from the poverty that often accompanies single parenthood or from the disturbances preceding divorce, rather than from the parenting pattern itself.  In two?parent households there has been a steady increase in the employment of both parents outside of the home.  The number of married women in the national labor force has increased 55 percent from 1960 to 1991 with some 62 percent of all married women now in the labor force outside of the home.  In 1990, 58 percent of all the women in the labor force in Texas had children under six years of age.  Increasing time pressures on working parents, lack of adequate family leave provisions, and difficulties in accessing quality day care have become important family stress factors.

Another issue shaping American families is the pregnancy rate among unmarried adolescents, which is the highest of any developed country in the world.  Each year, a child is born to more than 500,000 American adolescents aged 10 through 19.  In Texas there was nearly a 10 percent increase in the births to adolescents between 1989 and 1993.  In 1991, Travis County ranked second among the largest urban Texas counties in pregnancy rates for adolescents aged 13 to 15 and fourth for adolescents aged 13-17.  Between 1985 and 1991, six percent of all births in Texas were to single adolescent mothers, who are more likely than their peers to experience chronic unemployment, inadequate income, and reduced educational experiences, making adolescent pregnancy a major factor in, and a significant contributor to, family poverty. Almost one-half of all female-headed families with children under 18 in Texas in 1991 lived in poverty, while the median family income for two?parent families was three times that of female?headed families.

E.  Cross-Cultural Relationships

One of the serious challenges facing Texas at the onset of the 21st century is the quality of relationships among its various cultural groups.  Demographic, economic, and political changes have intensified the level of perceived competition in such relationships in many parts of our national society and within the state.

Texas is a society of many cultures.  At the heart of its survival and growth is a climate of acceptance, respect, but more importantly, parity.  For such a climate to exist, cultural diversity must be recognized as a fact of life, and as a valuable resource that deserves preserving, not destroying.  The unique experiences of citizens who are socially, culturally, and linguistically diverse must be understood and incorporated into the life of the state of which they are a part.  Cultural separatism or assimilation as the goals of group interaction should not become polarized philosophies of encounter.

F.  Health Care

The United States is at the most important juncture in its history in the provision of health care services. There are increasing concerns about the number of Americans with no health insurance (estimated at 31 million to 38 million individuals) and many more with inadequate benefits.  Furthermore, there are concerns about the escalating costs of health care (amounting to approximately 14 percent of the GDP) and the disorganization of the health care system in urban and rural areas, making health care a top public policy priority.

Nationally and in Texas, the health care industry is being restructured with rapidly increasing proportions of the population being included in commercial managed-care programs.  This development has radically changed the relationships between health-care professionals and health-care resources and also has radically changed the demand for services of physician sub-specialists, which has implications for major changes in medical education.  There is uncertainty about the ways in which managed health care can respond to the needs of persons with severe and chronic disease conditions including various forms of mental illness.

State governments are experimenting with new ways of meeting the health-care needs of persons covered by the Medicaid program.  The enactment of welfare reform and the establishment of TANF have created uncertainty about access to health care among households that would have had access to Medicaid under the AFDC program.  This particularly affects children.  While the federal role is being maintained in the Medicaid program, the shift towards managed care in the administration of Medicaid within Texas will continue to bring about far-reaching changes in the traditional system of publicly administered health care programs.  The state's demographic trends, particularly its rapid population growth and the high proportion of low-income households as well as a large number of young children and adults over the age of 80, require that issues of health care coverage be addressed.

The business sector is concerned about the rising costs of health care for employees.  Many small businesses and self-employed persons are unable to afford health?care coverage.  The just allocation of health-care resources challenges Americans to balance individual benefits and societal benefits.  Issues concerning the high cost of developing technologies, such as heart-lung transplantation or genetic therapies, force difficult bioethical decisions of distributive justice in deciding issues such as who should receive a heart transplant, and whether there should be a standard health-care benefit package, which might include experimental cancer therapies or expensive infertility treatments.

While there is general support for the concept of universal health care availability, the ways in which such availability would be structured and financed within a marketplace economy continue to be the focus of contentious debate.  Various models for health-care reform (including plans that contain mental-health care and long-term care coverage) have been proposed.  Current proposals for managed care or managed competition stress greater economic efficiency and cost control but also tend to exclude persons with potential high-cost medical care requirements.  The impact of shifting a large number of persons with Medicaid coverage to managed care, including managed behavioral health care, is being felt in those urban areas in which pilot programs were established beginning in 1996.  The transition has generally been viewed as positive by those persons covered by the Medicaid programs, although the coverage of persons with chronic disability conditions, rather than acute illnesses, has only started in the pilot programs in Houston.  The separation between authority roles and provider roles in the operation of publicly financed community?based mental health programs has increased the choices available for persons requiring mental health services.

G.  Chronic Illness/Long Term Care

Chronic diseases continue to be the major contributor to morbidity and mortality in the United States and in Texas, placing serious economic and social burdens on the individual, family, and community.  The major chronic diseases that affect the population are cardiovascular disease, cancer, cerebrovascular disease, and diabetes.  Although deaths from cardiovascular disease have declined by 35 percent in the past 15 years, it continues to be the major cause of death and disability in the nation and in Texas.  Deaths from cerebrovascular disease also have decreased steadily in the past 20 years, but it still remains the third leading cause of death in Texas.  Three important issues, the aging of our population, lifestyle factors, and inadequate health care, contribute significantly to the impact of these four diseases.  Gains in life expectancy combined with increased medical technology to prevent death without always restoring health add to the increasing prevalence of chronic conditions and a need for long-term care arrangements.  The older population, persons 65 years or older represent almost 13% of the U.S. population, about one in every eight Americans.  By the year 2030, people 65+ are projected to represent 20% of the population.  Almost 2 million older adults live in Texas at this time and projections indicate that persons over 80 years of age will number one million by 2010.  Bioethical debate has included such difficult issues as artificial hydration and nutrition in permanently comatose patients, surrogate decision making for incapacitated patients, physician-assisted dying, and foregoing end-of-life decision making.  Lifestyle factors include poor nutrition, obesity, inadequate physical activity, and adverse use of tobacco, alcohol, and drugs.  These factors have led to a dramatic rise in the cost of health care and insurance costs as well as a rise in the number of individuals and families who are excluded from health insurance coverage.

As a response to the increasingly visible problem of chronic illnesses, there is a growing demand, both within the health-care system and among the general public, for readily accessible disease prevention measures and health?care promotion and education.  There are also demands for the expanded use of qualified health professionals, such as community-based nurses, social workers, and health educators, to supplement the more traditional illness-oriented care providers.  Several models for organizing and funding health care are being proposed that include attention to the chronic disease and long-term health care needs of the population.  Of particular importance is the future organization of health-care services in rural areas of Texas under managed care as local community hospitals continue to close.  The role of tele-medicine, through which medical specialists become accessible to remote locations for diagnostic and consultative purposes, is expected to become increasingly important.

H.  Substance Abuse and Addiction

Many of the most serious public health problems in the United States are related to alcohol and other drug use.  In 1996, there were nearly 488,000 drug-related hospital emergency room episodes nationwide.  A primary source of HIV infection is injection drug use.  In 1996, an estimated 2.7 million car crashes were alcohol-related, killing more than 17,000 people and injuring approximately 870,000 individuals.  Morbidity and mortality (due to suicide, homicide, accidents, cirrhosis, and other causes) are especially likely to be related to alcohol use, the country’s most frequently abused drug.  Although the exact nature of the relationship between substance use and violence is not clear, alcohol and other drug use are also frequently associated with family disruption, such as child maltreatment and other forms of domestic violence.

According to the National Co-morbidity Survey, among Americans aged 15 to 54, alcohol dependence is the second most frequently occurring psychiatric disorder.  Twenty-seven percent of Americans aged 15 to 54 have had a diagnosis of alcohol or other drug abuse or dependence in their lifetimes, and 11% in the past year.  Half of individuals with a lifetime addictive disorder have also had a lifetime mental disorder.  In 1995, the estimated costs of alcohol and other drug abuse were $276 billion, of which $176 billion resulted from lost productivity.  In 1996, the Texas Commission on Alcohol and Drug Abuse (TCADA) estimated that nearly one million adult Texans (6.8 percent of the state's population) were dependent on alcohol or other drugs, and that in the past year, 17% of the state's adult population experienced at least one alcohol-related problem, and 4% reported drug-related problems.

Data from the 1999 Monitoring the Future Survey show that nearly half of high school seniors in the U.S. have tried marijuana, although this is less than the high of 60% reported in 1979.  In the month prior to the survey, 24% of eighth graders, 40% of 10th graders, and 51% of seniors had used alcohol.  In 1999, 41% of 10th graders reported having been drunk at some point.  In Texas in 1998, 25% of seniors reported driving "after having a good bit to drink" and 18% while "high on drugs."  In the past year, 10% of secondary school students in Texas had gone to school drunk and 13% had gone to school "high" on marijuana at least once.

The Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) reports that between 1985 and 1995 drug offenses were responsible for three-quarters of the growth in the federal prison population, and that the number of individuals imprisoned for drug offenses in state facilities increased by 478%.  The ONDCP also reports that in 1996, 63% of people in need of treatment for drug problems were not receiving help.  In 1996, TCADA reported that publicly funded treatment centers were meeting only 10% of adults' substance abuse and dependence treatment needs.

I.  Physical and Mental Disabilities

The passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) has resulted in much greater demands on staff and facilities in colleges and universities as intellectually qualified individuals with a wide range of physical and psychological limitations are accepted as students or employed by academic institutions.  The number of students with various types of learning disabilities at the University is increasing.  The impact of ADA goes well beyond the provision of a variety of specialized facilities and teaching accommodations for the physically handicapped.  The University of Texas at Austin is proud to be an educational institution that welcomes and supports a diverse student body.  By removing some of the barriers to education that students with disabilities often experience, a learning environment that encourages and challenges all students is created.  Within the Office of the Dean of Students, the Services for Students with Disabilities (SSD) provides a wide variety of services to assist students with disabilities directly and to work with faculty and staff who need information and assistance adapting class work, lectures, or University procedures for students with disabilities.  At present, nearly one thousand students (roughly 2% of the University population) receive support from SSD such as orientation assistance, special registration, reading and taping services, test-taking assistance (including extended test-taking time), sign-language interpreters, mobility assistance, adaptive equipment, support groups, and/or information and referral services.

Dramatic changes have taken place in the larger society and in Texas in the care and treatment of individuals with mental illnesses.  The pattern of short term, limited hospitalization of persons with severe mental illness and the increased use of medication to modify and control symptomatic behavior are resulting in increased numbers of intellectually qualified students with persistent emotional difficulties who often need both continuing medical attention and support services.  The stressful pressures of the academic campus contribute to the problems these students may have.  The UT Counseling & Mental Health Center (CMHC) offers a variety of services including group and individual therapy, psychiatric assessments, biofeedback for stress management, and referrals to both on- and off-campus resources.  Generally, individual counseling services as short term; longer-term treatment needs are usually addressed through group treatment, psychiatric services, and/or referral to the community.  Current student health insurance (for community referrals) provides 80 percent coverage for network providers and 50 percent coverage for out-of-network providers up to a maximum of $975 per year.

J.  HIV/AIDS

Members of specific population groups have been especially affected by AIDS with a recent increase among persons using injectable drugs, heterosexuals and persons of color (or minority population).  However, the incidence of HIV infection is also increasing for the general population, especially in college-age populations, as statistics from the University student seroprevalence study readily demonstrate.  College students are at especially high risk of HIV infection.  Reasons for this include the ubiquitous use of alcohol and other drugs in sexual situations, poorly developed sexual communication skills, an alarming incidence of collegiate date rapes, feelings of invulnerability and immortality, and the developmental tasks of experimentation and establishment of independence.  The concern about HIV infection among students is high.  Student Health Center anonymous HIV-antibody testing requests continue to increase.  In the general population, the incidence of HIV infection among infants born to women with HIV is creating new and difficult medical and social problems.

K.  Crime and Violence

The conservative columnist George F. Will often notes that the first duty of government is the physical protection of its citizens.  At the international level, the United States has been successful in protecting its national interests and insuring the physical security of Americans from foreign military threats.  Insuring domestic tranquility by reducing the threat of physical harm to individuals presents a different picture.

Victimization is not limited to crimes committed by third party strangers and professional criminals who attack innocent citizens.  Increasingly, crime occurs inside the family unit as reports of domestic violence and severe child abuse increase sharply.  Moreover, the level of violent crimes committed by adolescents has been increasing rapidly as the level of criminal offenses by older adults begins to level off, and even to decline.  Between 1985 and 1991, the rate of criminal arrests of juveniles for violent crimes in Texas went up 100 percent.

Texas has responded to fears of violence by increasing the size of its facilities for incarceration.  While lessening, from this effort, the numbers of offenders on probation and parole, this increase in numbers and size of prisons has led to skyrocketing increases in budgets for correctional facilities.  Indeed, the significant increase that has occurred in state revenue during the 1990s has been substantially offset by the cost of this greatly enlarged prison system.

Two significant budgetary and social problems exist with this large prison system.  One is that it does not have a high level of success relative to reforming prisoners.  With a recidivism rate of approximately 50 percent, we have both recurring costs and individuals made more violent by their prison experiences.  This recidivism has led to more lengthy prison stays creating an aging prison population with ever-increasing health costs.  This burden has already grown quite large and it looks to increase rapidly in coming years.  Complicating the size of the prison population is that African American males are over represented in the room prison population by a factor of 4 to 5 and Hispanics by 2.  Social justice and equity concerns will grow as the situation continues.

The failure of the education system with regard to school dropouts and educational attainment for all cultural groups and the challenges to families and neighborhoods to care and socialize all children must be matters of concern for the University.

L.  Education

Recent developments in Texas clearly indicate the educational challenges faced by the state.  Texas has the second largest public school system in the United States among other states as defined by the number of schools, teachers and students (It is no longer first.)  It is second among the states in the number of students.  The system for financing public education has been modified following decisions by the Texas Supreme Court.  Over the past few years, the proportion of support from state funds has declined, leaving local school districts more dependent on the local property tax base. School districts with less taxable property now receive additional funds from more wealthy school districts.  While school achievement as reflected in statewide test scores has shown a recent upward trend, it is still below expectations, especially among children from low-income households.  The high school completion rate continues to be much too low; it has not varied substantially since 1990.  The number of students from cultural minority backgrounds has increased to the point that over 55 percent of all public school students are now from such backgrounds.  Both Hispanic and African American student groups are disproportionately represented among dropouts.  This presents a challenge to create an educational system that must work well for students from many different cultural and linguistic backgrounds.  The Texas Assessment of Academic Skills (TAAS) test results show steady improvement in passing rates in all grades over the past three years.  Although the disparities in performance among the major ethnic groups in Texas have narrowed, efforts must continue to close these gaps.  The employment market for the future will expect high school seniors to perform at levels now expected of juniors and seniors in college.

The application of new technological tools in education, especially computers and telecommunications, has had a positive impact in many school districts, offering considerable promise for future progress.  In 1994, House Bill 2128 helped to open the door for extensive telenetworking in schools, making hardware more compatible and available to students.  In technology support, since 1992, approximately $600 million has been distributed to Texas schools to purchase hardware, software, and provide training.  New approaches to the organization of public school programs are being tried, including the development of charter schools provided for under Senate Bill 1 in 1994.  New instructional methods and innovations in teacher preparation and subsequent professional development are being tried.  Given the severity of adolescent social problems in Texas - a violent crime rate, gang activity, high alcohol and drug consumption, and an above average level of reported child abuse and neglect - efforts must intensify at both state and local levels to develop more effective educational approaches to these problems.


SECTION VII.  IMPACT OF FEDERAL STATUTES/REGULATIONS

A.  Historical Role of Federal Involvement

The historical role of the federal government with respect to the issues and functions that underlie the University’s basic mission was primarily to provide financial support, real property transfers, and other resources to promote educational opportunities.  Support was provided in areas such as capital improvement projects, student financial aid, and research funding.  In recent years, however, the federal government increasingly has placed itself in a regulatory and oversight role in higher education.  Currently, daily operations as well as planning activities of the University are impacted by federal mandates.  Compliance with federal requirements in many cases strains the administrative staff and budgets, at times causing a shifting of resources away from the basic educational mission of the University.

B.  Description of Current Federal Activities

The University has in place and is continually monitoring policies and procedures to insure equal educational opportunity and equal employment opportunity/affirmative action as is required by law and relevant federal legislation. These laws include  Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, Sections 503 and 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Executive Order 11246 as amended, the Vietnam Era Veterans Readjustment Act of 1974, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 as amended, the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, the Civil Rights Act of 1991, the Family and Medical Leave Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the Higher Education Amendments of 1998.  Student record activities and communications regarding students are conducted as required by the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974 and its implementing regulations.  In accordance with the Drug Free Workforce Act and the Drug Free Schools and Communities Act of 1986, and the Jeanne Clery Act (formerly Student Right to Know and Campus Security Act), a widespread annual educational effort was undertaken to distribute materials on the dangers of illegal drugs and alcohol abuse and on relevant laws and University policies.

Research is supported by grants and contracts from numerous federal agencies.  University administrative structures are being sustained to handle research activities that have continual federal oversight through administration of the grants/contracts awarded by the individual agencies.  In addition, the University monitors federal regulations for conducting research with human subjects or with animals, using bio-hazardous or radioactive materials, handling allegations of scientific misconduct, maintaining objectivity in research, assuring non-dissemination of technical data to foreign countries with restricted or export-controlled designations, and assuring appropriate indirect cost recovery.  Post-award administration of federal grants and contracts is handled in accordance with Office of Management and Budget Circular A-21, Cost Principles for Educational Institutions.

The increasing use of technology, especially communication, education, and information dissemination through the Internet and the World Wide Web and distance learning activities, has raised a number of important legal issues, including intellectual property ownership and rights, privacy, confidentiality, access to records, etc.  Federal laws related to these areas are monitored.

The University continues to review and monitor federal tax laws regarding unrelated business income and the potential impact upon public service and continuing education activities.

C.  Anticipated Impact on Service Populations and Agency Operations of Future Federal Actions

The University anticipates that the demands placed on staff by federal regulations will continue to increase, especially in terms of reporting requirements.  Steps must be taken to ensure appropriate staff for monitoring and implementing federal requirements.



 .
SECTION VIII. OTHER LEGAL ISSUES

A.  Impact of Anticipated State Statutory Changes

The state has legislation in most of the substantive areas described in Section VII.  The University continues to monitor these laws and works to assure appropriate implementation.  State law changes during the 1999 legislative session have impacted student admissions, degree completion, cost of education, financing, open government requirements and related issues.  The University will monitor additional changes with the UT System Office of Governmental Relations and propose modifications for flexibility and operational autonomy.

B.  Impact of Current and Outstanding Court Cases

The federal court case with a major impact upon the University, and potentially upon all of higher education, is Hopwood v.  Texas, et al.  The case, which involves claims of reverse discrimination resulting from the admissions program in the School of Law, was decided at the initial trial level by federal Judge Sam Sparks and upheld the University’s affirmative action admissions programs that support student diversity.  The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed and remanded the case in March of 1996.  The Fifth Circuit’s ruling was very broad and has been interpreted as prohibiting the use of race or ethnicity as a factor in making admissions or financial aid decisions.  A petition for writ of certiorari was denied by the U.S. Supreme Court.  A second trial on outstanding issues was held in the spring of 1997.  Judge Sparks made an attorneys’ fee and cost award for the plaintiffs in the spring of 1998, in addition to issuing an order that race may not be used in admissions. The parties have cross-appealed to the 5th Circuit Court where it is still pending.  The Board of Regents hopes that the U. S. Supreme Court will eventually hear the case and make a ruling that will apply the same law to all states.

The University is involved as a defendant in a few student-related or employment-related matters that deal with important issues of University policy and procedure.  The outcome of these cases will provide guidance to the University in policy and programmatic operations.

C.  Impact of Local Governmental Requirements

The University has been working cooperatively with local government to improve the economy and education through outreach efforts.  Local governmental requirements regarding land use near property of the University sometimes have an impact on the University’s development and capital improvement projects.


SECTION IX.  UNIVERSITY SELF-EVALUATION AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR SELF-IMPROVEMENT

A. Effectiveness of the University:  Campus Planning and Evaluation

The University is recognized as one of the leading institutions of higher education in the country.  It has achieved national and international eminence in a wide variety of disciplines, and its professional programs are among the nations most distinguished.  This is a testimony to the outstanding quality of the University faculty.  The quality of the student body is also high.  For summer-fall 1999, 80.2 percent of the entering freshman class graduated in the top quarter of their high school classes, and 47.9 percent ranked in the top 10 percent.  The University has made widespread efforts to evaluate the quality of its academic, research, and service goals.  These efforts are constantly being developed and refined.  A few examples follow.

Accreditation

The University has undertaken extensive efforts in self-evaluation.  Perhaps the most comprehensive self-evaluations were undertaken recently to prepare for the University’s 10-year reaccreditation by the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools (SACS) and the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA).  The two-year accreditation process involved more than 130 faculty, staff members, students, and alumni working on 13 major committees and subcommittees.  The self-study resulted in three publications: Information Technology and the Future of the University, the Report on Compliance, and the Report on Athletics.  All three publications, along with the documentation supporting findings, are available online at the following URL:

http://www.utexas.edu/depts/evpp/directory/units/accred/accred.index.htm

In addition to campus self-studies such as the ones done for SACS and the NCAA, academic units participate in professional accreditation self-studies and use external review committees to evaluate all aspects of their academic programs, including curriculum, faculty credentials, and student graduation rates. These external reviews occur at varying intervals, typically every five years.  (See Appendix J for a chart listing the accrediting agencies affiliated with the University.)

The Compact Process

Since 1995, the Compact Process (originally known as Compact 2000) has been the basic framework for strategic planning among academic units.  The process is an integrated management, planning, and budgetary activity involving the individual schools and colleges and the Office of the Executive Vice President and Provost.  Each Dean is provided an array of college/school-specific statistical data and management information prepared by the Office of Institutional Studies and the Academic Budget Officer.  This information and statements of plans and priorities developed by the Deans serve as the basis for the Compact discussions.  Initially annually, and now on a two-year cycle (half during the odd-numbered years and half during the even-numbered years), the Executive Vice President and Provost, each Dean, and members of their respective staffs meet in the spring to conduct an exhaustive review and assessment of the school or college.  Representatives from the graduate School and the Office of Admissions also attend these meetings to discuss graduate program quality and initiatives, as well as enrollment management matters.  The process results in a written agreement between the Provost’s Office and the individual schools and colleges (i.e. a Compact) that defines the issues, goals and objectives, plans, strategies, priorities, resources, and specific activities to be undertaken during the coming two-year period.

The Compacts are tailored to the individual needs and aspirations of the schools and colleges and recognize both the differences and similarities among these academic units.  Taken together in the context of the President’s planning horizon provided each fall during the State of the University address, the Compacts represent a comprehensive academic plan for the University characterized by greater departmental and academic autonomy, annual accountability, specifically identified resource needs, and detailed management, statistical, and financial data.  Each individual Compact agreement serves both as the basis for an assessment of past performance and a beginning point for the development of a new agreement on college goals, objectives, and priorities.

Similar planning and assessment activities are being introduced for the administrative departments that report to the provost.  The Measurement and Evaluation Center is the first unit to undergo such an assessment process and is working with the executive staff of the Executive Vice President and Provost’s office to develop a model for other units to follow.

Performance-Based Instructional System

The Performance Based Instructional System (PBIS) is a framework in which academic units annually prepare and evaluate their integrated instructional plans at both the undergraduate and graduate levels.  These plans measure the department’s efforts in meeting the instructional needs and demands of its students.  The basic goals of PBIS are to increase undergraduate student access to tenured and tenure-track faculty, to increase the availability and selection of substantial writing component courses, and to increase the availability of faculty development opportunities.  The deans have primary responsibility for the PBIS plans in their colleges and the Executive Vice President and Provost monitors institutional progress through the compact Process.

Course Instructor Survey

For more than 30 years, The University of Texas at Austin has surveyed students, whom it considers “clients” rather than “customers” as discussed later in Appendix E, to obtain information about the quality of the classes taken by students and the instructors who teach those classes.  The objective of these surveys is to aid in improving teaching effectiveness.  Students’ responses provide valuable feedback to instructors, administrators and students.  The results from the course-instructor survey are used by administrators to make promotion and salary decisions.  Responses to some of the items are also made available on the Web for students to use in selecting classes.

In the 1997-1998 academic year, 11,974 of the 15,259 classes taught during the fall and spring semesters were surveyed.  This represents 79.5 percent of all courses taught.  During the 1998-1999 academic year, 79.4 percent (12,311 of 15,497 classes) taught during the fall and spring semesters were surveyed.

The current course-instructor survey system has been evaluated the Faculty Council Ad Hoc Committee on Course Instructor Surveys. The committee worked under the guidance of the report The University of Texas System Faculty Advisory Study of Student, Faculty, and Administrator Attitudes Regarding the Student Evaluation of College Teaching.  Focusing on the original mandates to inform course choice for students, inform administrative & curricular decisions and inform professorial development, the committee set about a four-phase plan. Existing literature on teaching evaluation was reviewed. Materials and methods used on The University of Texas at Austin campus were reviewed. Proposed drafts of the new system were presented to all colleges and various student groups. Final recommendations were drafted that incorporated the suggestions and comments from the various user groups.

The final recommendations, which were presented in the Committee’s final report to the Faculty Council, Fall 1999, were aimed at serving three audiences: students, faculty and administrators. The proposed system should a) increase efficiency in the information gathering process, b) provide greater and more consistent access to information for students, faculty and administrators, c) provide more useful information for students, faculty and administrators, and d) provide respect for both the public and private needs of students, faculty and administrators. The report was forwarded to the Executive Vice President and Provost’s office the end of the fall semester, 1999.  Final approval is expected in the spring of 2000 with possible implementation in the fall of 2000.

Interactive Degree Audit

The effectiveness of the University's instructional efforts and academic support services to assist students to graduate in a timely manner are evaluated by the Interactive Degree Audit (IDA), which is designed to support academic advising by providing students with information about their progress towards degrees so that time spent with advisors may focus on course selection and other matters of concern.  IDA provides a computer-generated report of a student's progress toward completing degree requirements and allows the student to determine course requirements for various degree programs.

Retention Assessment

To assess the success of the University’s recruitment, advising, and retention efforts, the Office of Student Affairs Research has developed several online information systems to track student progress.  Descriptions of some of the systems follow.

Student Retention Tracking.  This computerized tracking system was developed in conjunction with the Learning Skills Center, the Undergraduate Advising Center, and the Office of the Dean of Students.  Referred to as ADRET, it was designed as a tool for individual offices to evaluate the effectiveness of their retention programs.

The main components of the system include a student menu, which lists the retention activities in which a student has participated while attending the University; a retention program menu, which provides a brief summary of the number of students participating in retention activities; and a report menu that allows offices to retrieve detailed, customized information on their retention activities.  These reports provide summary and statistical information on overall effectiveness of retention programs.

Longitudinal Tracking System.  The purpose of a longitudinal tracking system for first-time freshmen is to collect information annually for incoming freshmen and to use this information to assess the admission policies in effect when students were first admitted.  In considering students' progress, the system focuses on factors that might contribute to or hinder their success, such as test scores, high school rank, financial assistance, housing, and orientation attendance.

Data on entering cohorts of students enable progress tracking through graduation.  Some of the data collected are demographics, test scores, high school data, financial aid awards, grade point average, and enrollment status.

Telephone Survey System.  The University’s telephone survey system is a table-driven program that allows multiple surveys to run concurrently.  Each survey uses a range of table entries that specify the phrases of the survey questions and the range of valid responses.  The table indicates whether a particular response to a survey question should cause other questions to be asked or omitted.  The major advantage of using the telephone survey is immediate access to survey responses, which saves a great deal of time over other survey methods requiring manual data entry.  Another advantage of the survey is reduced cost, as written surveys involve the expense of postage.  The University is currently evaluating the response rate in comparison to more conventional surveys.

Student Advising and Retention.  The institutional effectiveness of student retention programs and academic advising are systematically monitored, which promotes proactive academic advising; supports professional activities of academic advisors; enhances communication among academic advisors, faculty, and student affairs professionals; and provides academic advisors with information about students and the advising process

The General Libraries

The University continues to build library resources that strengthen instructional programs and expand the University's research capacity through two key strategies: maintaining strong library collections and services, and providing broad, ready access to information in both digital and traditional formats.

Strong library collections and services build on a well-established tradition of excellence. The University libraries represent an important resource for the academic and research enterprise, not only for the University and other UT System components, but also for institutions of higher education throughout the state and nation. Increasingly, the resources of the University libraries will play a key role in supporting the instructional and research efforts underlying the transformation of the state's economy.

Access to digital information and onsite access to traditional library materials is a major strategy for campus libraries. While digital information, including full-text of books and journal articles, enhances instruction and research by direct delivery to the desktop anytime, anywhere, even when library facilities are closed, it also requires specialized equipment, annual subscription payments, network connections, and technical staff. Traditional library materials, in print and other formats, will continue to comprise a major part of campus information resources, with the concomitant demands on staff to acquire, process, circulate, interpret, shelve, and reshelve. The strategy of access to digital as well as traditional information will be implemented through innovative programs, both on the Austin campus and cooperatively with other UT System components, through careful fiscal management, and through external funding, where possible.

Research

The mission of the Office of the Vice President for Research is to support scholarship and its integration into classroom learning by:


The Office undertakes these activities in the belief that scholarship is a vital part of the University's mission to the people of the State of Texas.  Moreover, undergraduate and graduate students of The University of Texas at Austin can receive an education of the first class only if the research conducted at the University is also of the first class.

The Research Office staff provides support services for faculty and students to pursue their research programs and to obtain funding for their research projects.  Current emphases are on the development of new research programs and fostering linkages with industry.  Research objectives are directed toward the improvement of research-related University infrastructures and support for outreach activities related to industrial partnerships and technology transfer.

During the 1998-99 fiscal year, Research and Development (R&D) expenditures exceeded $258M, representing a 5.4% increase over the previous year. (See Table 17 below).   Industry sponsored research at UT Austin accounted for 15.4% of total research expenditures, significantly higher than the 6.9% national average for academic institution.  These collaborations help create an environment within the University where students and faculty benefit from direct involvement in activities of relevance to the business and industrial communities, and provide early access to our corporate partners to the intellectual capital of the University.  In FY1998-99, research sponsored by State and Local Government, which provides direct support to the agencies’ missions, increased by more than 17% over the previous year.
 

TABLE 17:  Expenditures by Source of Funds (Dollars in Thousands)
Source of Funds Fiscal Year 1999  1998 1997
Federal Government 164,913 165,082 151,954
State and Local Government 17,698 15,094 18,102
Industry 39,729 31,326 29,887
Institutional Funds 31,220 28,445 34,140
All Other Sources 4,562 4,896 4,938
Total 258,122 244,843 239,021

Last year, UT Austin faculty filed 81 invention disclosures and 49 related patents.  These inventions range from a technique for early detection of Alzheimer's disease, to software for managing computer labs, to the development of an electronic tongue that can be used to detect a variety of biological and chemical agents.

Partnerships for Sharing Resources

In several areas, University faculty and staff have found through vigorous self-evaluation that sharing resources with other institutions is a prudent way to deal with their needs.

General Libraries. The UT Austin General Libraries plays a key leadership role in UT System and statewide library resource sharing programs. Management services for the UT System Digital Library, serving all fifteen component institutions, are provided by UT Austin staff. This innovative program places UT System libraries among the national leaders of digital information services. UT Austin plays a similar role in the statewide resource-sharing program, Texshare, administered by the Texas State Library and Archives Commission. With strong support from UT Austin, TexShare provides digital information services, physical and electronic document delivery, and a statewide library card to all academic and public libraries throughout the state of Texas.

National partnerships with other members of the Association of Research Libraries (ARL) extend access to Latin American research materials. Collaboration with the other four ARL libraries in Texas (Houston, Rice, Texas A&M, Texas Tech) and the Texas State Library through the Texas Digital Library Alliance is producing online access to archival resources throughout the state, while campus partnerships with the Texas State Historical Association and others have produced The Handbook of Texas Online, a major tool for school children and other citizens of the state. The General Libraries is quite cognizant of the leveraging to be gained through partnering and the resultant capability to reach out and help those in need of information.

The Center for Small and Middle-Sized Enterprises.  This project of the College and Graduate School of Business is an umbrella project that includes the Community Minority Business Advancement Program (MBA), an economic and professional network of minority business owners, community leaders, faculty members, and corporate sponsors.  The Community MBA Program has graduated over 1000 participants from Dallas, Houston, San Antonio, and Austin since its establishment in 1993.  The Program has also partnered with The University of Texas at Tyler and with Texas Wesleyan University in Fort Worth to offer programs in those cities.

The College of Pharmacy Learning Resource Center.  The Learning Resource Center transmits and receives, on average, over 40 hours of programming every week.  The College has a joint undergraduate program with UT Health Science Center in San Antonio (UTHSCSA) and houses its Pharmacotherapy division of the college at UTHSCSA.  In addition to regularly transmitted classes, the college hosts various teleconferences, satellite downlinks, and other special interactive programming.

Administrative Computing Services.  UT Austin operates seven “core” financial applications (Payroll, Human Resources, Budget, Central Accounting, Departmental Accounting, Inventory, and Purchasing) for six other UT System component institutions.  Further, the University provides state-wide, web-based services for the Texas Common Admissions Application, electronic transcript sharing, and Common Medical/Dental Admissions Application forms on the web.

Administrative and Educational Support Services

Administrative and educational support units assess the extent to which they are achieving their goals through the annual budget process and through other evaluation procedures developed within each major division.  Administrative and educational support departments have developed mission statements, identified goals and objectives, and determined measures to evaluate their performance and effectiveness.

The Vice President for Business Affairs annually requests each Business Affairs unit to establish goals that support the unit’s purpose.  Departments are also asked to report on the accomplishments and achievements of these goals at the end of the fiscal year.  Each department has also developed workload measures for measuring operations, performance, and assessing improvement in these areas.  These measures include standardized measures developed division wide, in addition to departmental specific measures.  They are monitored by directors and senior management of the division, and used to evaluate departmental productivity, effectiveness, workloads, and quality.

Service departments within the Division of Business Affairs continue to prepare quarterly profit-and-loss statements.  These financial statements are used as tools to measure departmental operations and the financial outlook for those departments that rely on income for their daily operations.

Several departments have initiated customer surveys and feedback systems to evaluate performance and service levels.  The Vice President is requesting all service departments to perform customer assessments/surveys of services and products provided to faculty, staff or students.  The assessment techniques will vary from department to department.

Division of Student Affairs

Each of the units in the Division of Student Affairs is responsible to the Vice President for Student Affairs for preparing plans and evaluating activities in keeping with assigned responsibilities.  The mission is a direct function of the overall mission of the University, so by choice, the Student Affairs mission is not reflected in a separate statement to avoid insulating division purposes and activities from the general mission of the institution.  The operating units within Student Affairs prepare action plans that are approved by the Vice President and are reviewed periodically to ensure that the goals are in keeping with the institutional mission and the objectives of Student Affairs.  Each unit conducts surveys and prepares reports and other measures to determine the effectiveness with which the goals are achieved.  Survey methodology and techniques vary from unit to unit.  Results of surveys and the implications of reports and data collection are carefully reviewed and factored into subsequent action plans and budgets, as appropriate.

Office of Development

The University has recently completed the first two years of the $1 billion capital campaign.  With over one-half of the total raised, the Development Office has accomplished many of the goals and objectives set at the beginning of this comprehensive fund raising effort.  Over the next five years, the development program will concentrate on improving and expanding its current efforts in annual giving, major gifts, planned gifts, and corporate and foundation gifts.  In addition, support areas such as research, communication, and information systems will continue to implement improvements in their operations.  The fund raising programs in the colleges, schools, and units will receive special attention in order to maximize their effectiveness and level of output.

Because of the success enjoyed by the development program in its basic functions, the Development Office will focus on the general area of marketing. Building marketing capacity within the development program is necessary if the University is to expand its resource base in the area of private support.  Specifically, the communications area will work from a well-designed marketing strategy, develop a marketing research capability, and produce a wider variety of marketing pieces.

The Development Office will begin to explore the role of the Internet in raising private support for the University.  Whether as an outright annual fund solicitation or as a means to better communicate with our thousands of donors and friends, the Internet is clearly a communication vehicle that the University must understand and exploit.  The development program at the University intends to be a leader in this effort and thus capitalize on both the short and long-term benefits.

Office of Institutional Studies

Due to the size, complexity, and diversity of the University and the importance of institutional research activities to the effectiveness of all aspects of operation, institutional research is performed extensively across the campus in academic departments, deans’ offices, research units, and other administrative offices.  However, the Office of Institutional Studies (OIS) is the unit most readily identified to perform this function.  OIS works closely with the Measurement and Evaluation Center and the external research unit in the Office of Admissions to provide management information to central administrative offices.

As part of its analytical function, OIS assesses the implications of internal and external trends as they pertain to the University's future.  Emphasis has been placed on gathering and analyzing data from national comparison group institutions as well as other national data sources.  American Association of Universities and national data are used extensively.  (OIS participates in the AAU, Southern University Group, and Big 12 data exchanges.)

Examples of recurring internal analyses focus on student retention, grade trends, enrollment analyses and forecasts, and resource allocations.  External or comparative analyses have examined comparative faculty salary and fringe benefits, tuition and fees, minority student enrollment, graduate enrollment, student retention, research and development expenditures, federal obligations, and financial information.  All of these analyses are used in the strategic planning process by providing different measures for effectiveness.

B. New and Continuing Initiatives

Reorganization of the Campus Administration

On March 9, 2000, President Larry R. Faulkner announced the reorganization of the campus administration, citing as reasons changes in the President’s external role in the last 20 years, changes in the scale of the University, changes in the regulatory environment and the advent of large, new operational areas, such as information technology.  The new structure creates the position of Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, to be filled by the current Vice President of Business Affairs, and creation of the Vice President for Campus Services, taking over supervision of many of the operational functions of the former Vice President of Business Affairs and adding Human Resources, Equal Employment Gratuity, Employee Assistance Program and University Child Care Center.

Also added will be a Vice President for Information Technology, taking over academic computing from the Provost’s Office, and administrate computing and telecommunications from the Vice President of Business Affairs; and Vice President of Public Affairs to deal with University issues and concerns regarding the public, facilitation of interface with the media and support of major public special events.  Some of these areas are being transferred from the Vice President of Administration and Legal Affairs as well as the President’s office.

The Vice President for Administration and Legal Affairs will be re-titled Vice President for Institutional Relations and Legal Affairs and deal with support of legal services and interface with the Office of General Counsel, guidance on internal processes, oversight of intercollegiate athletics, the Institutional Compliance Program, Trademark Licensing, and interface with Board of Regents, UT System, state and city governments, the Big XII and NCAA.

The Vice President of Human Resources and Community Relations will be re-titled Vice President of Community and School Relations and deal with pre-college youth development programs focused on underrepresented populations, promotion of a representative student body, facilitation of relationships involving the University’s neighbors, and relationships with schools, school systems and state agencies regarding non-curriculum youth development.  Other vice presidencies remain essentially unchanged.

A new position with the title of Deputy to the President has been established to provide general assistance and advice to the President on business active in the office at any given time, including assembling information, analyzing data, providing complex report or correspondence in response to outside inquiries.  The position will also support strategic planning, oversee financial commitments of the President and serve as the President’s representative on task forces and ad hoc committees.

Texas Longhorn PREP (Partners Responding to Educational Priorities)

Following the passage of HB 588, which guarantees automatic admission to the University for the top 10% of Texas high school graduates, discussion ensued as to how The University of Texas at Austin could either expand and/or re-direct on-going programs, activities, and services to meet the needs of the “new pool” of top 10% academically talented students.  The University responded by establishing Texas Longhorn PREP (Partners Responding to Education Priorities), an educational partnership with public schools designed to support and enhance HB 588 by providing pre-collegiate instruction to improve the specific as well as general academic skills of the students in preparation for entry into a college or university of their choice.

As the state’s leading institution of higher education, UT Austin’s University Scholars Program has reached out, examined, created, and refined, as necessary, partnerships with numerous school districts in Dallas, and Houston, with San Antonio and Beaumont to be added in Fall 2000, in order to achieve the goal of identifying and helping to prepare underrepresented students for the collegiate experience. The Texas Longhorn PREP program has as its primary focus pre-collegiate English preparation.  Participating high school English teachers attend staff development sessions designed to help them work with students enrolled in the academic programs.  This innovative pre-collegiate endeavor provides a direct link between the University and public schools, and engages UT Austin faculty, public school counselors, administrators, and high school teachers in addressing key education issues relating to pre-collegiate preparation, curriculum/program development, diversity, leadership, career exploration, and teacher enhancement.  As a result, the University has established a strong network involving more than twenty (20) school districts.

In addition, by collaborating with the district superintendent, principals, and guidance counselors, project Texas Longhorn PREP serves to motivate and guide students with regard to the importance of academic preparation, assessing their academic potential, and knowing college entrance requirements.

The impact of this unique pre-collegiate instruction program has been both positive and dramatic.  As a result, many students now have the opportunity to be exposed to an effective pre-college English instructional program that focuses on the specific development of access and achievement among underrepresented students.

Currently, the Texas Longhorn PREP Program involves over 500 Dallas and Houston public school students and 20 high school English teachers.  Pre-collegiate instruction is being provided at over 20 separate locations.  It is anticipated that future Texas Longhorn PREP initiatives will offer not only the pre-collegiate English module, but also a parallel program in the area of pre-collegiate math and science.

Funding to support such efforts has come from a wide variety of sources, including the use of University funds leveraged with those from business, industry, and state and federal sources.

Compensation Initiative

In January 1998, the Compensation Advisory Committee, appointed by President ad interim Peter Flawn, began meeting to create a master compensation/classification plan for the University and to make appropriate recommendations to modify and enhance the current plan. The 13-member committee planned to build on the work previously completed by Buck Consultants in 1997. The Committee’s work was completed April 30, 1998, and President Larry R. Faulkner continues to stress his commitment to addressing the Committee recommendations.

Core Committees for the Support of Minorities and Women

The University has taken great strides in becoming a multicultural, diverse community.  The Core Committees for the Support of Minorities and Women were established to encourage continued attention to these groups.  The Committees include faculty members and administrators concerned with issues such as salary equity, promotion criteria, distribution of workload, promotion, tenure and mentoring.  In addition, the subcommittee on Sexual Harassment helped formulate and implement a new sexual harassment policy and procedure as well as faculty and student guides on the topic.

Improving the Undergraduate Experience

The size and decentralized nature of the institution tends to be overwhelming for some students.  Thus, the University is working continually to improve the quality of the undergraduate experience.  It must cope with the high student-faculty ratio and the fact that we have approximately 49,000 students.  The administration knows from the experience of other universities that students with an academic profile as good as that of UT Austin can succeed at higher rates.  To that end, the administration recently approved an increase in a combination of fees to permit, among other things, the hiring of 300 new faculty members in highly impacted teaching areas.

Research by the Division of Student Affairs shows strong improvement in the retention of freshman students. Emphasis was given to the performance of students graduating in the top ten percent of their high school classes regardless of admission test scores. This study was prompted by the passage of House Bill 588, which mandates admission of "top ten percent" high school graduates. The results have been quite encouraging, with retention improvements at all score levels. Much of this improvement can be attributed to the effect of  retention programs such as Preview and Gateway. Other programs such as freshman seminars and freshman interest groups have helped integrate newcomers into the academic community and help them find friends who share their interests.

Library Resources

The most serious issue facing the University libraries is the insufficiency of financial resources for collections, including digital information. While the wealth of scholarly print and digital resources continues to expand rapidly, and during a time (1986-1998) when the cost of serials has risen by 175 percent and the cost of monographs by 66 percent, the library’s acquisitions expenditures have increased by only 64 percent. As recently as 1996, the University libraries ranked 29th in expenditures for library materials among Association of Research Libraries members; the University’s ranking in this category improved to tenth in 1998. This recent improvement is due largely to student fees and one-time capital funds from the UT System Board of Regents. Despite this improvement, volumes purchased per year during this period (1986-1998) decreased from approximately 75,000 to 56,000 and the number of paid serial subscriptions has dropped since 1990 by almost 3,400, an 11 percent decrease. Adequate and secure base budget funding for collections for University of Texas at Austin libraries must be found.

In the information technology area, special UT System funding has been essential in allowing the library to upgrade its technology infrastructure. Without assured annual funding, it has been difficult to keep pace with the need for acquiring new technologies. Funding is also badly needed for replacement of the integrated library management system that supports access to library materials as well as internal library operations. The current 15-year-old system is built on outdated technologies. Not only has the University fallen behind peer institutions in regard to state-of-the-art onsite and remote library services provided by integrated library management systems, the libraries are not able to reap the benefits of staff efficiencies inherent in such systems nor take advantage of the burgeoning e-business capabilities of library publishers and vendors.

In recognition of the need to provide both traditional and digital library resources and services, the University libraries current reliance on one-time capital funding and other soft money sources needs to be exchanged for reliable annual funding streams.

University improvements in staff salaries (and plans to do more in the coming year) have somewhat lessened the serious situation with regard to the competitiveness of both the Austin labor market and peer institutions for the specialized technical and information skills so necessary for the innovative digital library services demanded by the University community. In addition, recent Regental approval of capital funding for additional remote storage capacity has provided some relief from concerns about space for library collections. This additional capacity is expected to be available within two to three years.

Recruitment & Diversity Initiative

The University continues to build upon its recruitment activities of the past and to redefine them in light of the present demographic and economic environments and the current state of the law.  Between 1994 and 1999, the University of Texas participated in more than 30 officially recognized recruitment programs.

Programs range from projects such as high school visitations that educate potential students about the University to achievement and honors awards that encourage the enrollment of graduating students of high ability who have overcome adverse circumstances.

All Office of Admissions recruitment publications, including informational brochures designed to assist in the application process, are intensively reviewed by the assistant directors and counselors involved with recruitment activities; they are also reviewed by the senior staff, which includes associate directors and the director of admissions.  These publications are subject to final approval by the Office of Official Publications to ensure that they accurately represent the University to prospective students, their parents, and the general public.  The usage of recruitment publications is recorded by admissions counselors through the Sequitur system.  These data are evaluated annually to determine effectiveness of publications in recruiting activities, and presented to appropriate Office of Admissions staff.  In mid-2000, the Office of Admissions plans to unveil new websites that will inform prospective students about the University.

The University conducts vigorous recruiting activities.  The Freshman Admissions Center reported that in 1994-95, the most recent year for which similar summary data are available, University representatives participated in 285 visits to Texas high schools and 387 Texas College Day/College Night events.  Further, the University distributed 60,707 copies of Preview, a brochure published annually that outlines application and admission, degree programs, housing, financial aid, and placement tests.  Recruiters made personal contact with an estimated 50,233 students, of which 5,351 were African American and 14,763 were Hispanic.  In fall 1997, the number of Texas College Day/College Night events held across the state increased to 413.

In fall 1998, the Freshman Admissions Center (not including outreach conducted by the Houston Admissions Center) participated in 463 visits to Texas high schools and 2422 College Day/College Night events and distributed over 60,000 copies of Preview.  FAC recruiters made personal contact with an estimated 61,150 students, of which 6,237 were African American and 22,015 were Hispanic.  The University also maintains an active Admissions Center in Dallas.

As of January 31, 2000, the Freshman Admissions Center’s (including the Houston Admissions Center) fall 1999 recruitment efforts total as follows.  The FAC participated in 413 in-state College Day/College Night/College Fair events and distributed 75,274 Preview brochures.  Of these contacts made during these events, 20,456 were Hispanic and 8,994 were African American.  Additionally, FAC staff conducted 556 day visits to Texas high schools and made personal contact with 14,155 high school students.  Of the contacts made, 6,200 students were Hispanic and 2,140 were African American.

Before the Hopwood V. State decision was handed down by the Fifth Circuit on March 18, 1996, some efforts adopted by the University, such as Access and Equity 2000, were aimed toward minority recruitment, retention, and graduation.  Another example was the high school visitation program, which was then directed at schools with at least 30 percent minority enrollment.  In Hopwood, a panel of the Fifth Circuit ruled that the defendants (the State of Texas) had shown no compelling state interest for an affirmative action program at The University of Texas School of Law that granted preferences to African-American and Mexican-American applicants.

After Hopwood, recruiting and retention programs were modified to conform to the landmark case.  Recruitment programs continue to achieve the University’s goals of helping high ability students from disadvantaged backgrounds enroll and graduate.  The President’s Achievement Scholarship Adversity Index was created in 1996 to establish a ranking mechanism for identifying students admitted to the University who have faced the most significant levels of adversity, yet were able to overcome the adversities and perform at high academic levels.  In 1998, a new scholarship program, known as Longhorn Opportunity Scholarships was established which allowed 49 high schools in Texas to be recognized for specific scholarships for their top 10% graduates.  In 1999, 15 additional high schools were added to this scholarship program to reach students at schools traditionally underserved by the University.  The University’s outreach programs have resulted in the number of minority freshmen in fall 1999 equal to pre-Hopwood levels.

In addition to changes in the University’s recruitment policies resulting from rulings by the Federal judiciary, the University also has responded to changes mandated by the Texas Legislature in House Bill 588.  This law, codified as Section 51.803 of the Texas Education Code, makes admissible all first-time freshmen who graduate in the top 10 percent of their classes and who submit all required paperwork by appropriate deadlines.

These recent changes have been incorporated within the University’s continuing goal to educate and develop scholars, a goal that the Freshman Admissions Center has supported by designing and implementing its own plan to recruit and enroll freshmen who are superior academically and who accurately represent the diversity of the State of Texas.  The Freshman Admissions Center continues to implement its goals while developing new strategies to recruit the best and brightest students from Texas, which include:


The University remains committed to the ideal of helping to enable all Texans, regardless of their circumstances, to participate in higher education.  As the University begins the 21st Century, it remains committed to building upon its Constitutional mandate to be a university of the first class that serves all the people of Texas.

Retention Planning

The University’s retention program efforts are centrally coordinated through the Retention Services section of the Dean of Students’ Office.  Retention Services is responsible for developing and coordinating retention and support efforts that will assist students after their initial matriculation.  Special emphasis programs are provided for underrepresented groups of students, examples of which include first-generation college students, students from low socio-economic backgrounds, and students from deprived school district backgrounds.

Gateway.  This is a two-year program that offers entering freshmen the opportunity to enroll in regular university courses with small class sizes allowing for individualized assistance. It is designed to facilitate and enhance the students' transition from high school to college through out their freshman and sophomore years.  The program is administered through the Office of the Executive Vice President and Provost and the Retention Services area of the Office of the Dean of Students.  Gateway strives to make students feel at home, helps them succeed and supports them on their journey of self-discovery at The University of Texas.

Preview.  The Preview program is a yearlong transition program that provides a head start to life and learning at the University.  Preview begins with an introductory summer semester, including peer advising and programs relevant to the freshman experience, which continue throughout the first year. The program offers support and opportunities for students to adjust to the demands of the University environment both in and out of the classroom.

Faculty/Staff Mentor Program.  The Faculty & Staff Mentor Program utilizes the positive impact of students' relationships with faculty and staff outside the classroom. The program targets first-year students from underrepresented populations in the University community. Students are provided with role models who share with them a perspective on dealing with academic, career, and personal issues.

Achieving College Excellence (ACE).  The ACE program assists freshman and transfer students in their transition from high school to college.  For students who choose to participate in the program, ACE provides academic support, peer counseling, and social activities.  Continuing students who are facing academic or personal challenges and who request assistance, also receive professional counseling and support.

Mooo-vin’ On: ACC to UT.  This program is designed to assist transfer students in their transition from Austin Community College (ACC) to the University.  It provides prospective students with a support network that is beneficial for their matriculation and academic support once they attend our institution. The program assists students with workshops, peer mentors and professional advisors at both institutions.

Minority Programs.  Programs for students of minority populations are available to help with adjustment to the University community.  The African American, Asian American, and Mexican American/Hispanic Experience are programs designed to introduce minority students to University resources.  The Welcome Program matches new students with students currently enrolled.

Multicultural Information Center.  During academic year 1998-99 the Multicultural Information Center (MIC) became an agency of the Division of Student Affairs, reporting directly to the Vice President. The MIC was formerly known as the Minority Information Center, founded as an agency of the UT Students' Association in 1988. The MIC has assisted hundreds of students with graduation and gaining leadership skills. Programs and organizations within the department have been developed throughout the past year and will continue to grow as the center serves the cultural and educational needs of all students. The mission of the MIC is to develop and train students for the multicultural/diverse society of today and the future; to assemble, process, and disseminate information pertinent to the retention and graduation of students of color; to create a welcoming environment for students of color; and to provide diversity education opportunities and support services for all students, with emphasis on African American, Asian American, International, Mexican American/Hispanic, and Native American students.

Student Success Conference.  This conference is held every other year at our institution primarily for faculty members.  The conference’s goals are: to promote a vision and plan of action by motivating attendees to improve retention efforts in their area; to raise consciousness about retention issues; to inform attendees of available resources on campus; and to address the faculty’s role in early intervention retention efforts.

Welcome Program.  The Welcome Program is a yearlong program of mentoring, special events, and regular meetings targeting traditionally underrepresented students at the University.  New students (“Welcomees”) are matched with upper-class students (“Welcomers”), based on major and/or college, for academic and personal mentoring.  Special programs and events throughout the year also provide social and co-curricular opportunities for all participants.  This program has been successfully introducing students to college life at the University since 1972.

The Dean of Students Office also publishes a minority newsletter, maintains a list of minority faculty and staff at the University, and makes available a notebook of job listings.

Class size

At the same time the University is working to recruit and retain outstanding students, it continues to maintain its efforts to control enrollment.  The current size of the student body severely strains existing faculty, staff, and physical resources of the institution.  Excessively large classes can inhibit learning; therefore, the University must focus additional efforts on decreasing the number and size of larger classes.  Additionally, high student/faculty ratios have a direct bearing on the quality of undergraduate education.  The current ratio of students to faculty is the fifth highest among public members of the American Association of Universities.

C.  Obstacles/Challenges

As mentioned elsewhere, the University must attract to its campus the most talented individuals in the market place to fill its faculty and staff positions.  In order to do that it must be able to pay competitive salaries, and while progress is being made, the goal has not been reached.  The booming economy of central Texas is making it ever more difficult just to keep up.  Not only is it difficult to find qualified new people, but also some who have been a part of the University are being lured away by better offers in the private sector or to other universities nationwide.

Another situation with which the University must deal is the ever-increasing requirement by many funding sources and governmental entities for more reports and more detailed analyses.  The University is constrained by budgetary and FTE limits as to the number of staff it can hire to do its everyday business.  As in other areas of government and business, fewer people are being required to do more work more efficiently with fewer resources and staff are being taxed almost to the limit.  This situation also contributes to loss of staff mentioned above.

The size of the student body, and the faculty and staff necessary to serve them properly, and the “landlocked” situation in which the University exists severely test the limits of classroom space, parking space, study space, room for necessary auxiliary services, housing both on and off campus, and other commercial needs of this “small city”. As mentioned earlier, the University receives three times more applications by incoming freshman than it enrolls. Controlling enrollment, as has been necessary, while attempting to provide a diverse student body, has caused consternation to prospective students and their parents, many of whom are loyal alumni of the University and donors to it who want their children to attend the University just as they did.  While some have suggested a California-type system, where application is made to the system and a student is admitted to a campus selected by the system based upon credentials and other factors, that has not been considered best for this institution or this state.  Nevertheless, it is anticipated that the problem of space will continue and that the current student body of 49,000 will one day have children who will want to study at the University, just as current students’ parents, who were here when the size of the student body was 25,000.

D.  Employee Attitudes

Survey of Organizational Excellence

The initial administration of the Survey of Organizational Excellence at The University of Texas at Austin occurred during the 1997-1998 academic year.  The survey results were returned to all participating units beginning in mid-July – two weeks after the close of data collection.  Five units within the University participated in the survey process.  The units were the Performing Arts Center, General Libraries, Charles A. Dana Center for Education Innovation, College of Engineering, Office of Human Resources and Dean of Students.  The Texas statewide response rate was 34%.  State agencies averaged a response rate of 58%. The University’s overall response rate was 36% with an average unit response rate of 45%.

The University scored higher than the state average on all questions except for fair pay (the lowest scoring question for the University) and benefits (49 points below the state average).  Fair pay is the lowest scoring question for all participating units with the exception of PAC, which scored supervisory effectiveness as the lowest.  The clustering of low scoring questions suggests that fair pay, supervisory effectiveness, fairness, empowerment, internal communication, and job satisfaction are areas of concern across the University.   Furthermore, the organizational strengths are clustered around strategic orientation, external communication, quality, time and stress management, and satisfaction with the adequacy of physical environment.

The clustering of items indicates that many attitudes are shared across the organization.  The strong items include: an organization with a strong orientation towards customer service, employees feeling comfortable in speaking with their supervisor, a climate where sexual harassment is not tolerated, and that employees exhibit honesty, accuracy, ethical behavior, and quality in their workplace.  The low scoring items suggest that employees feel that the University’s bureaucracy impedes them from getting their work completed.  Also, feelings of burnout and stress, low perceptions of salary, level of benefits, and rewards for performance are areas of concern and are perceived as getting worse.

The participating University units were asked to provide a brief description of how they were planning to utilize the survey data in their organizations.

The University units that participated in the Survey indicated that each possesses considerable internal strength to both acknowledge achievements and start the process of addressing issues that employees see as weaknesses.  With the exception of the PAC, high participation rates support the observation of highly committed and spirited employees that provide a base upon which to secure individual efforts and responsible conduct.  For all groups  (and especially the General Libraries, and the Office of Human Resources), pay is a pressing concern that unit and campus leadership cannot solve immediately.  However, leadership can acknowledge this concern and emphasize to employees what efforts are being made to address these concerns.  More readily solvable are problems that deal with high levels of bureaucracy, supervisor inadequacies, and failure to recognize exceptional individual effort.  For example, focus groups composed of employees can alleviate bureaucratic barriers and supervisor training can be continued.

Some distinctions for the University community were evident when the scores were compared to the statewide benchmarks.  Benefits are clearly viewed as less adequate by University employees as compared to statewide benchmarks.  With the exception of the PAC, University employees are less negative in their assessment of bureaucratic features than state employees.  Looking at issues of perceptions of quality, fairness relative to discrimination, ethical conduct, and openness, the University groups rate these areas much more highly than does the average state employee.  Noteworthy among the University units are the several dimensions wherein the Performing Arts Center has much greater negative concerns.  Employee participation in the Survey for the PAC was comparatively low, and while pay and benefits are campus-wide concerns, issues of fairness, quality of supervision and burnout are viewed by the PAC group as even more negative than pay adequacy.

Employees at the College of Communications and the Measurement and Evaluation Center were surveyed recently.  The results are being analyzed now.  Employees in other University colleges or schools, as well as other offices and facilities, are scheduled to be surveyed in similar fashion in the future.

The issue of staff salaries was addressed by the administration, resulting in a significant pay raise in the 1999-2000 fiscal year, and the administration continues to address the issue for the 2000-2001 fiscal year.  Also the administration addressed the issues at the Office of Human Resources by commissioning a study by outside consultants, which was recently received and the conclusions of which the administration has indicated it accepts and will implement.

President Faulkner has made it known, following receipt of the consultants’ report, that there will be “similar efforts, all aimed at improving administrative support units so each area ‘operates like a well-run business’ to enable UT Austin to continue toward its goal of being one of the world’s pre-eminent universities.”



UNIVERSITY GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND STRATEGIES
 

The primary goal of The University of Texas at Austin is to achieve its mission to be a university of the first class through excellence in teaching, research, and public service. The University will promote educational and equal employment opportunities, develop programs that reflect the diversity of American culture in all activities of the University, and support these principles in society as a whole.  The University will, through its research activities, scholarly inquiry, and development of new knowledge, contribute to the advancement of society.  The University will preserve and promote the arts, benefit the state’s economy and serve its citizens through public service outreach programs.

As part of reaching the University’s overall goals set forth in this Strategic Plan, various steering groups have been appointed by the President to consider and recommend actions in the following thrust areas:
 

1. Access and participation (improving participation in freshman seminars, improving attractiveness of the University to minority students, publicizing  the top 10% admissions rule, adding local admissions centers in underserved geographic areas, scholarship programs);

2. Financial resources (increasing the per student FTE base to at least equal that of the next lowest national peer public university, off campus instruction to become self-supporting, stronger formula support, greater indirect cost recovery, limited tuition deregulation, and private gifts, such as the recent one to the Red McCombs School of Business);

3. Human resources (competitive salaries for faculty, staff, and graduate students, improvements in HR infrastructure, updated personnel policies, enhanced training and professional development of employees, expanded child-care for employees);

4. New Texas economy (including expanded working relationships with new Austin businesses and the high tech community, expanded workforce education, improve internal education regarding intellectual property policies and conflict of interest policies, interface between the University and the high tech community at Pickle Campus, enlarging internship programs, rethinking licensing procedures and policies regarding venture capital and royalty vs. equity payment);

5. Public education (a special program to develop and distribute curriculum materials, teaching tools and teacher development, greater awareness of UT initiatives in public education, more clearly publicizing the University’s educational expectations);

6. Latin America (develop double degree and cooperative degree programs with carefully selected Latin American universities, expand fellowships, scholarships and internships for faculty and students in both geographic directions, develop incubation strategies for selective interdisciplinary programs, enhance cooperative research programs, and develop strategies to better utilize resources already on campus); and

7. Undergraduate experience (coordination of freshman seminars, handling large classes, especially teaching methods and grading practices, transfer and concurrent enrollment issues, better training for TA’s and AI’s and better coordination between the Office of Admissions and the schools and colleges).


All of the issues being considered by these focus groups have effects campus-wide.  Improvements in them will enable the University to move forward in its leadership role in education in Texas and nation-wide, and necessarily assist in reaching the following specifically elaborated goals.
 
Goal A: Provide Instructional and Operations Support.
Provide institutional support and ancillary services to students, faculty, and staff.
Sub Goal A.a: Provide Instruction.
Educate students to their highest potential of intellectual achievement and personal growth and develop scholars, professionals, artists, and scientists who contribute to the advancement of society, nationally and internationally.
Sub Goal A.b: Conduct Research. 
Conduct research that advances the frontiers of knowledge.
Sub Goal A.c:  Provide Public Service.
Engage in public service.
Goal B:
 

Provide Infrastructure Support.
Maintain and enhance the effectiveness, efficiency, accessibility, and environmental quality of University operations and the physical plant.
Goal C:

Provide Special Item Support.
Provide special item support.
Goal D:
 
 

Maintain Historically Underutilized Business Policies.
Maximize opportunities for Historically Underutilized Business (HUB) firms to supply the materials, supplies, equipment, and services needed to support the mission and the administrative and logistical operations of the University.
Goal E:

Increase Federal and Private Sector Funding.
Strive to increase the amount of federal and private sector funding received by the University through the Capital Campaign.


Goal A:  Provide Instructional and Operations Support

A.1.  Objective:  In furtherance of one of its thrust areas, to seek FTE funding from the state equal to that provided to peer universities in other states.  To use Legislative Appropriations to accomplish the mission of the University, which is to achieve excellence in the interrelated areas of undergraduate education, graduate education, research and public service.
A.1.1. Strategy:  Operations Support
The University will distribute and use budgeted funds in a general allocation to:
1.  Employ, retain and support a strong and diverse faculty
2.  Employ competent staff and acquire adequate support materials, such as computers, printers, telephones and supplies;
3.  Maintain and expand library collections and information delivery systems;
4.  Promote new research by faculty;
5.  Enhance distance education opportunities;
6.  Promote student recruitment and retention services;
7.  Provide student financial aid;
8.  Provide institutional support to the Office of the Board of Regents of The University of Texas System, executive and business management office of the University, campus security, logistical activities, and development and external relations;
9.  Promote public involvement with the University;
10.  Maintain positive relations with the media;
11.  Provide public service to the citizens of Texas and the residents of Central Texas and
12.  Provide a well-maintained and safe place to learn, work and visit.
A.1.2. Strategy: Teaching Experience Supplement.  The University will increase the number of tenured and tenure-track faculty who teach undergraduate students.
A.1.3. Strategy:  Growth Supplement. The University will use growth supplement funds to enhance its undergraduate course offerings.

A.1.4. Strategy: Staff Group Insurance Premiums.  The University will use premiums provided by the state and the insurance coverage to make available to the University’s employees a fair and comprehensive insurance plan that is considered comparable to that of other state employees in Texas and compares favorably with that of the private sector at the present time.

A.1.5. Strategy: Workers’ Compensation Insurance.  The University is self-insured to provide full coverage of necessary and reasonable medical expenses arising from work-related illnesses and injuries to employees.

A.1.6. Strategy: Unemployment Compensation Insurance.  All state employees are eligible for unemployment compensation benefits as determined by the Texas Employment Commission. Monthly premiums remitted to The University of Texas System assure benefits to assist former employees who are temporarily out of work.

A.1.7. Strategy: Texas Public Education Grants.  The University will make grants to needy and qualified students to enable them to enroll at the University as provided in the program.

A.1.8. Strategy: Indirect Cost Recovery.  As part of its thrust area of financial resources, the University will recover maximum indirect costs on proposals submitted for external funding and monitor research proposals submitted for compliance with the Indirect Cost Recovery Rate Policy.

A.2.  Objective:  To enhance the academic and administrative support structure for the development of facilities, instructional and research equipment, laboratories, computing infrastructure and capability, library acquisitions and technology, and instructional technology.
A.2.1.  Strategy:  Departmental Operating Expense.  The University will use departmental operating expense funds to employ departmental administrative staff, laboratory technicians and other support personnel, and to fund computing, telephones, printing, laboratory supplies, etc., which are necessary to operate the departments effectively.  It is a priority with the University that computer support provided to the faculty is upgraded, including widespread access to multimedia computers/workstations that are connected to the Internet and capable of providing the highest quality teaching and course materials and experiences.

A.2.2. Strategy:  Instructional Administration.  The University will use instructional administration funds to hire personnel and fund operations needed to support the instruction process.  As part of the thrust area of financial resources, the University will propose that the Coordinating Board recommended formulas be fully funded, and limited tuition deregulation be permitted.

A.2.3. Strategy:  Necessary Facilities and Equipment.  The University will provide the necessary facilities and equipment, including state of the art telecommunications, academic computing systems, and information technology support services to facilitate teaching excellence and appropriate distance learning.  The University will continue active participation in the UT System Information Technology Initiative, which seeks to give all students and faculty broad band (fiber optic) access to campus and national telecommunications networks, including such projects as the UT TeleCampus and common data warehouse.

A.2.4.  Strategy:  Library Support.  The University will provide for the maintenance and excellence of the collections and services provided by the University’s General Libraries, which are critical to the instructional and operational goals of the University.

A.2.5. Strategy: Electronic Information Retrieval.  The University will enhance the role of the University’s General Libraries as a statewide center for electronic information retrieval applications.

A.3 Objective:  To reach out to students of diverse cultural and socioeconomic backgrounds.  Since access and particiaption is one of its thrust areas, the University will provide opportunities and support within the institution’s roll and scope for women and men, irrespective of cultural or socioeconomic background, to learn, to satisfy requirements for baccalaureate or graduate degrees, and to satisfy applicable licensure or certification standards.  It will provide educational programs designed to increase knowledge and enhance understanding of our culturally diverse nation and world.  It will encourage and support effective participation by students from all sectors of the Texas population without relying on affirmative action.
A.3.1. Strategy: Conduct vigorous recruiting activities.  To implement one of its thrust areas, the University will continue to conduct over 30 officially recognized recruitment programs ranging from high school visitations to educate potential students and their counselors and teachers about the University, to achievement and honors awards that encourage the enrollment of high ability students or those who have overcome adverse circumstances.  The Office of Admissions strives to increase the diversity of the University by recruiting and enrolling students with superior academic qualifications who embody an exceptional blend of experiences, talent, motivation, ingenuity, goals, and strength of character.  Recruiting data is collected and maintained in a longitudinal tracking system that is analyzed each year by the Office of Admissions Research to evaluate the effectiveness of recruiting activities.

A.3.2. Strategy:  Enhance international programs.  The University will enhance the international studies program, including area centers, study abroad and exchange opportunities, and cooperative agreements with foreign universities.  Emphasis will be placed on strengthening associations with select universities in Latin America as one of its thrust areas.

A.3.3. Strategy:  Scholarships.  Also to further advance one of its thrust areas, the University will actively seek, acquire and administer scholarships and fellowships, such as Longhorn Opportunity Scholarships and Public Education Grants to attract, support, and retain a talented and diverse undergraduate and graduate student body.  The recent gift to the Red McCombs School of business will be particularly helpful in that school.

A.3.4. Strategy:  Graduate Student Stipends.  In thrust area of human resources, the University will increase graduate student stipend levels to enhance graduate student recruitment and retention.  This is particularly important at a time when the starting salaries for recent baccalaureate graduates is extremely high and multiple job offers await them upon graduation.

A.3.5. Strategy:  Provide educational and cultural experiences.  The University will continue to provide to its students, faculty and the community in general, excellent educational and cultural experiences, including exhibitions, performances, lectures, convocations and symposia.

A.3.6. Strategy:  Expand extension instruction and continuing education.  The University will expand extension instruction and continuing education programming, both in person and through teleconferencing and telecommunications, to meet the needs of the business, professional, non-traditional student and high technology communities within central Texas and the State.

A.4.  Objective:  To provide academic support and learning support services, implement counseling, advising, mentoring, and other student support programs that provide a supportive educational environment, enhance the undergraduate experience and encourage, access, participation and success of students.
A.4.1. Strategy:  Services to students in need of academic assistance.  The University will provide student support services to assist entering students in need of intensive academic assistance and those facing difficulty coping with the transition from high school to college life through tutoring, mentoring, and counseling.

A.4.2. Strategy:  Special Services to students.  The University will provide support services that include career exploration, counseling, achievement incentives, registration and student records, a discipline structure, special services for students with disabilities, awareness of cultural differences of international students, financial assistance, and related functions.

A.4.3.  Strategy: Programs for Freshmen.  Implementing its thrust area, the University will continue enhancement of the freshman experience through initiatives such as the Freshman Seminar, Freshman Interest Groups and “Gone to Texas.”

A.5.  Objective:  To provide an effective general administrative structure and administrative services that support the mission, goals, and effective operation of the institution.  To provide institutional support.  Continue state-approved funds for needed administrative services that contribute to the University's administrative units.
A.5.1.  Strategy: Management Team. The University will continue to rebuild the management team in the central campus administration and implement the new organizational structure.

A.5.2. Strategy: Strategic Planning.  The University will enhance the process for strategic planning and development of programmatic priorities and the means to accomplish them.

A.5.3.  Strategy: Planning Meetings.  The University will conduct weekly, monthly, and annual management conferences to accomplish central administrative tasks of planning, organizing, directing, controlling, and evaluating University operations.

A.5.4. Strategy: Faculty Governance.  The University will maintain liaison and coordination with faculty governance structures, including the General Faculty, the Faculty Council, and the Graduate Assembly.

A.5.5. Strategy: Management Information Systems.  The University will enhance the effectiveness of management information systems.

A.5.6. Strategy: Cost Controls.  The University will continue cost reduction and controls.

A.5.7. Strategy: Planning/Assessment Process.  The University will continue academic and administrative activities such as Compact Process, other planning and assessment activities, enrollment management systems, and process improvement reviews.

A.5.8. Strategy: Internal Audit.  The University will enhance internal auditing procedures and internal controls in a manner consistent with preserving productivity.

A.5.9.  Strategy:  Insitutional Compliance Program.   The University will engage in an active program to assure compliance with all state and federal laws and regulations governing its operations, including employee activities and research projects.

A.6. Objective.  As a thrust area, to continue enhancement of the Office of Human Resources’ capability to be an active, responsive, service-oriented office, and to provide appropriate compensation, workers’ compensation benefits, health and dental insurance, retirement benefits, and unemployment insurance benefits. Analyze and implement as appropriate recent recommendations of external consultants regarding operations of Office of Human Resources, such as developing classification and compensation programs better suited to market conditions, improve recruitment and screening procedures, provide new employee orientation programs and develop good employee relations practices, employee development and human resources technology.
A.6.1.  Strategy:  Strategic Plan.  The University's Office of Human Resources will develop a plan recognizing where it is, where it wishes to go and how it proposes to get there considering its strengths and weaknesses, its constraints and obligations, its institutional will and its resources.
A.6.1.a.  Project Leader.  A Project Leader from outside OHR will shepherd the implementation steps.

A.6.1.b.  Transformation Team.  Three campus leaders and two OHR leaders will consider consultants recommendations, review implementation strategies.

A.6.1.c.  Human Resource Advising Committee.  The committee will advise and consult on implementation of recommendations of KPMG assessment.


A.6.2. Strategy: Staffing. The University will hire and train a staff, procure the necessary equipment, supplies, and materials, and obtain the capital outlay necessary to house and support the units and agencies providing administrative and logistical support

A.6.3.  Strategy:  Staff Compensation.  Implementing one of its thrust areas, the University administration will address staff compensation, especially in critical systems analyst and related areas, to provide more competitive salaries.

A.6.4. Strategy: Workers’ Compensation. The University administration will address workers’ compensation by expanding the transitional duty pilot program, which is designed to facilitate the return to work of recovering employees who have less than full-duty releases, and support the Environmental Health and Safety office in developing on-line training, implementing a campus-wide train the trainer program, creating departmental safety resource libraries, implementing an Automated External Defibrillator program, and purchasing safety equipment to reduce injuries and improve safety on campus.

A.6.5. Strategy: Employee Insurance Benefits.  The University will continue to provide orientation sessions to educate employees about insurance and retirement benefits available to them and continue to offer annual opportunities to employees and retirees to review and alter their insurance selections.

A.6.6. Strategy: Unemployment Compensation.  The University will address unemployment compensation by enhancing the centralized tracking system for unemployment claims to cover all campus departments, ensure that all Texas Workforce Commission (TWC) unemployment claims are responded to in a timely fashion, educate departmental personnel on TWC rules and regulations so that they can assist in providing information to employees who are terminating, respond to appeals in a timely manner, and continue to involve supervisors in telephone hearings to give direct testimony regarding the details of employees separations from the University.

A.6.7. Strategy: Professional Development.  Implementing one of its thrust areas, the University will emphasize and improve professional development and training opportunities and programs for faculty and staff.

A.6.8. Strategy: Equal Employment Opportunity.  The University will ensure that equal employment opportunity plans are in place to increase the number of qualified minorities in applicant pools.

A.6.9.  Strategy:  Family/Supportive Practices.  As part of its thrust areas, the University will review expansion of child care facilities and related issues.

A.7.  Objective:  To maintain a campus climate that is free from racial and sexual intimidation, hostility, and harassment.
A.7.1. Strategy: Policy Statements.  The administration will advance position and policy statements that oppose racial and sexual harassment; encourage reporting of incidents.

A.7.2. Strategy: Alternative Dispute Resolution.  The administration will enhance policies and procedures for the use of mediation and other alternative dispute resolution mechanisms.

A.8. Objective:  To provide student services.  Continue state-approved funds for needed student services.
A.8.1. Strategy:  Housing.  The University will provide, as much as funding mechanisms and space will allow, on-campus housing for students that is functional and attractive, while attempting to keep costs low.  On-campus housing for freshmen is a priority.  Research indicates freshmen who reside on campus have higher retention and graduation rates.  As an initial step, a new dormitory is scheduled to open in the 2000-2001 academic year, which will add 850 beds.

A.8.2.  Strategy:  Food Service.  The University will provide a variety of food service facilities across campus to serve the needs of students, faculty, staff and others.  Facilities will be maintained in an attractive and clean condition and offer good quality products at reasonable cost.

A.8.3.  Strategy:  Financial Aid.  The University will provide a variety of financial aid services and counseling to students in a courteous and professional manner.

A.8.4.   Strategy:  Health Services.  The University will provide competent health services and counseling in a courteous and professional manner and at reasonable cost.

Sub Goal A.a.  To provide instruction.  The University will educate students to their highest potential of intellectual achievement and personal growth and develop scholars, professionals, artists and scientists who contribute to the advancement of society, both nationally and internationally.
A.a.1.  Objective.  Provide quality teaching in all courses offered, including those leading to the 118 undergraduate degree programs and 198 graduate and special professional programs designated in the approved Table of Programs as well as those offered in non-degree programs.
A.a.1.1. Strategy: Compact Process. The University will pursue all academic and instructional objectives identified through Compact Process.

A.a.1.2. Strategy: New Academic Programs.  The University will enhance the process for comprehensive review and prioritization of new academic programs.

A.a.1.3. Strategy: Honors Programs.  The University will expand the honors program for undergraduates.

A.a.2.  Objective:  To attract and maintain a preeminent faculty.
A.a.2.1. Strategy: Faculty Salaries.  The University will use formula generated and appropriated salaries to employ and maintain in each discipline faculty at salaries that are competitive with the best universities in that discipline.  As one of its thrust areas, it will assess the competitiveness of faculty salaries and define a long-term strategy for restoring them to a nationally competitive position.  In the shorter term, it will meet immediate recruitment and retention needs, especially for mid-career faculty.

A.a.2.2.  Strategy:  New Faculty Positions.  The University will use part of the funds received from the recent increase of approximately $14/SCH in tuition and fees to increase the size of the faculty by 300 positions, principally in the core disciplines of liberal arts and natural sciences, with 30 new positions in the 2000-2001 academic year.

A.a.2.3. Strategy:  Merit Increases.  The University will set individual faculty salaries through a merit system that rewards excellence in teaching, research and public service.  The University’s first priority in the use of faculty salaries will be for merit increases to maintain a competitive salary structure.

A.a.2.4. Strategy: Endowed Positions.  The University will provide endowed positions and other supplemental funding to help maintain a competitive structure of faculty salaries and support.

A.a.2.5. Strategy: Awards/ Recognition.  The University will provide special awards and recognitions, such as monetary awards, to recognize the importance of teaching excellence and to encourage the faculty to monitor, maintain and increase the level of their teaching effectiveness and reward those who are successful in so doing.  The University will maintain its Center for Teaching Effectiveness to assist in this effort.

A.a.2.6. Strategy: Faculty Development Leave.  The University will provide a broader program for faculty development leaves.

A.a.2.7.  Strategy: Family Leave Policy.  The University will continue to implement the family leave policy for faculty with a stop-the-tenure-clock provision.

A.a.2.8.  Strategy:  Performance-Based Instruction System.  The University will maintain Performance-Based Instruction System, taking advantage of the modifications to The University of Texas System faculty workload policies.  It will review faculty workload policies to enhance the effectiveness and efficiency of implementation.

A.a.2.9.  Strategy:  Center for Teaching Effectiveness.  The University will continue to sponsor workshops and special projects through the Center for Teaching Effectiveness to assist faculty members to improve their teaching skills.

Sub Goal A.b.:  Conduct Basic Research.  The University will conduct research that advances the frontiers of knowledge and artistic expression.  It will strengthen its infrastructure to foster research productivity and scholarship of faculty, scientists, and students.
A.b.1. Objective:  To conduct basic research.
A.b.1.1. Strategy:  Research Funding Base.  The University will enhance research program quality through increases in state-appropriated research support that provides a funding base of state funds and is leveraged by the University as it acquires external funding for research grants and contracts.

A.b.1.2. Strategy: High Priority Interdisciplinary Initiatives.  The University will advance high-priority interdisciplinary initiatives through such programs as the Department of Molecular Biology, the Texas Institute for Computational and Applied Mathematics (TICAM), the Texas Materials Institute (TMI), the Institute for Gerontology, the Urban Issues program, the Institute for Neuroscience, and the Waggoner Center for Alcohol and Addiction Research.

A.b.2. Objective:  To conduct Special Item directed research.
A.b.2.1.  Strategy:  Special Item Basic Research.  The University will continue to seek special item appropriated funds to sustain basic research operations at research units of the University that leverage appropriated state funds in acquiring other research funding.  (See Goal C.)
A.b.3. Objective: To establish a productive research environment.
A.b.3.1. Strategy: Facilities, Equipment, support services.  The University will provide the necessary facilities, library collections, equipment (including state-of -the -art telecommunications and academic computer systems), support services, professional research staff, and policies to facilitate productive research.

A.b.3.2.  Strategy: Grant Mechanisms.  The University will continue support for pilot and preliminary studies through the intramural grant mechanisms managed by the Office of the Vice President for Research.

A.b.3.3. Strategy: Research Support/Development Leaves. The University will enhance faculty recruitment and research program quality through increases in research support and a broader program for faculty development leaves.

A.b.3.4.  Strategy: Research Networking.  The University will explore opportunities for focused research networks to facilitate collaboration and communication of researchers conducting research in related areas.

A.b.3.5.  Strategy: Web Based Support.  The University will expand web-based research support services for preparing grant applications and for post-award grant management.

A.b.3.6. Strategy: Compact Process.  The University will pursue the research goals identified through the Compact Process.

A.b.3.7. Strategy: Research Excellence Awards.  The University will continue to make Research Excellence Awards to celebrate the importance of research and attest to the impact on the University’s scholarship.

A.b.3.8. Strategy: Undergraduate Fellowships/awards.  The University will continue to provide undergraduate research fellowships and University Cooperative Society Subvention Awards to encourage advancement in scholarship.

Sub Goal A.c.:  Provide Public Service
A.c.1.  Objective.  To provide outreach programs to the public schools, as one of the University's thrust areas.
A.c.1.1. Strategy: K-12 Initiative.  The University will continue to expand its participation in the UT System/Public Schools Collaborations Initiative, designed to improve the public education system of Texas, which may include field-based training for teachers and administrators such as the Collaborative for School Improvement and its STAR (Support for Texas Academic Renewal) Center, AmeriCorps for Community Engagement and Education and many other nationally recognized and award-winning programs of the University’s Charles A. Dana Center for Educational Innovation; expanded computer-based telecommunication and information retrieval  systems; tutoring and mentoring of K-12 students by college students through programs such as Neighborhood Longhorns, and special support services to prospective disadvantaged college students, or disabled students.

A.c.1.2. Strategy: TENET, THENET, ITAL.  The University will support programs to stimulate technology through development of software instructional materials and a virtual library for Texas public schools, such the Texas Education Network (TENET), The Texas Higher Education Network (THENET) and the Institute for Technology and Learning (ITAL).

A.c.1.3. Strategy: Reading and Language Programs.  The University will support and encourage reading skills, appreciation, and interests of K-12 students through projects such as the Graduate School of Library and Information Science programs that encourage reading, the UT Learning Center, the Student Athletes Outreach Program at Campbell Elementary School, and the Texas Center for Reading and Language Arts.

A.c.1.4. Strategy: Math and Science Programs.  The University will support and encourage math and science skills and interests of students K-12 through projects such as Applied Research Laboratories High School Apprenticeship Program, Astronomy Public Outreach, Careers in Engineering for Women, Changing the Science Culture at TA Brown Elementary School in Austin, Texas Chemistry Circus, Design Technology and Engineering for America’s Children (DTeach), Earth Systems and Aquifer Systems, Encounter with Engineering, Energy and the Environment Workshop, Expanding Your Horizons, Geological Sciences Outreach Lecture Series, Minority Introduction to Engineering, Pharmacy’s Role in Community Education: Substance Abuse, Physics Workshop for High School Physics Teachers and Students, Poison Prevention: Kappa Epsilon Professional Pharmacy Fraternity, Rocks and Fossils of Texas – University of Texas Child Lab School, Tex’s TEAM (Teaching Elementary Children about Medicine, Texas Memorial Museum programs, UTeach Science Enrichment Program, World of Engineering, and Young Scientists Program.

A.c.1.5. Strategy: Information Technology Skills. The University will develop and encourage information technology skills and abilities, access for K-12 students and their teachers through programs such as Austin Freenet – Graduate School of Library And Information Science, BioTech Web Server, Electronic Emissary Project, and Integrating Technology Tools into Instruction.

A.c.1.6. Strategy: Distance Education.  Support quality education for K-12 students in advanced or nontraditional learning situations through both synchronous and asynchronous programs delivered through instructional technology such as Algebra Across the Wire and Four Directions Challenge Technology Grant.  Continue and expand programs through Continuing & Extended Education’s Distance Education Center, formerly the Extension Instruction and Materials Center (EIMC), such as Credit by Exam (Grades 6-12), Dual Credit Program, Resources for Teachers, Examinations for Acceleration (Grades 1-8), GED Testing Center, Home School Curriculum, Independent and Distance Learning courses, Migrant Student Program, The University of Texas High School Diploma Program, and the University Charter School.

A.c.1.7. Strategy: Children’s Wellness Program.  The University will support programs designed to improve and protect the mental and physical health of K-12 students, such as the Children’s Wellness Center.

A.c.1.8. Strategy: Fine Arts Programs for Children in Public Schools.  Support programs and partnerships involving outreach to independent school districts and individual schools across the state, such as Blanton Museum of Art, Art Enrichment Program, Children’s Music Literature and Performance I and II, Choral Clinics, Classics Department/Public School Liaison, Community Based Art Intern Program, Partnership Between the Performing Arts Center (PAC) and the Austin ISD, Pillow Elementary Something’s Afoot Dancers, University Interscholastic League (UIL) Theater Superconference, Visual Arts Studies (VAS) Visiting Speaker Program.

A.c.1.9. Strategy: Special Programs in Arts.  The University will support and encourage skills and interests in fine arts of K-12 students through outreach programs and onsite resources such as AISD/Lively Arts, where students in the schools attend special performances, such as “Las Folkloristas” at the Performing Arts Center or other campus facility, a privately funded program called Believe in Me for disadvantaged children in public schools, The Blanton Museum of Art Enrichment Program, and the Longhorn Summer Band Camp.

A.c.2.  Objective:  To contribute to the economic and cultural development of Texas and the nation.
A.c.2.1.  Strategy:  Economic Impact.  The University will participate in a study by the University of Texas System on the economic impact of higher education in the State of Texas.

A.c.2.2. Strategy:  Shared Expertise. The University will continue and expand upon a policy framework and an environment that encourages University officials, faculty, and professional staff to share their expertise with government and industry, including service on public agency boards, state and national advisory committees, and advisory bodies on local governmental matters.
A.c.2.2.  Strategy:  Continuing Education.  The University will provide continuing education and other public programs to the citizens of the state through organizations such as the Texas Memorial Museum, the Blanton Museum of Art, the McDonald Observatory, the General Libraries, the Harry Ransom Humanities Research Center, the Center for American History, and the Tarlton Law Library.

A.c.2.3.  Strategy:  Continuing Education.  The University will provide continuing education and other public programs to the citizens of the state through organizations such as the Texas Memorial Museum, the Blanton Museum of Art, the McDonald Observatory, the General Libraries, the Harry Ransom Humanities Research Center, the Center for American history , and the Tarlton Law Library.

A.c.2.4.  Strategy:  Specialized Services.  The University will provide specialized services within the University’s mission to targeted populations who otherwise might not receive such services, using video conferencing and other telecommunications when effective and efficient.

A.c.2.5.  Strategy:  UT System Inter-institutional Cooperation. The University will continue and further develop current joint administrative and academic ventures with UT System components and other educational institutions through development of additional joint degrees, streamlining administrative processes, cooperative library resource sharing programs, and technical assistance efforts.

A.c.2.6.  Strategy:  Office of Industry Relations.  As part of its thrust area in the new Texas economy, this office will nurture and improve relationships with the business community, provide resources to serve its needs and be a catalyst for change.  The University will utilize J.J. Pickle Campus facilities whenever possible.

A.c.3.  Objective:  To maintain positive relations with a broad base of news and information providers in all media.
A.c.3.1.  Strategy: Office of Public Affairs.  The University will continue implementation of enhanced operations of the Office of Public Affairs to communicate with diverse constituencies, to build stronger links to the general public and relevant organizations, and to serve the needs of the media. A new position at the vice presidential level has been established to oversee interpretation of University issues and concerns, to facilitate the University’s interface with the media and the public at large, and to support major non-athletic public events.
A.c.4.  Objective.  To provide meaningful avenues of public involvement with the University.
A.c.4.1.  Strategy: Participation in Community Organizations.  The University will continue and expand participation through sponsorship and/or membership in community organizations striving to address social issues and problems, such as the Austin Area Urban League, Austin Area Research Organization, and the University Urban Issues Program.

A.c.4.2. Strategy: Share Expertise.  The University will provide support through special academic and research expertise for programs and agency responses aimed at solving community problems.

A.c.4.3. Strategy: Volunteer Center.  The University will continue operations of the Volunteer Center to serve as a link between volunteers and community organizations to target and direct volunteer efforts.

A.c.4.4. Strategy: Local Educational Institutions’ Development.The University will continue assistance to local educational institutions in implementing improvement and development projects.

A.c.4.5. Strategy: Federal Community Service Programs.  The University will implement policies and procedures and expand opportunities for federal community service programs, such as the AmeriCorps for Community Engagement and Education, which provides Austin inner-city schools and neighborhoods with trainer volunteers to help “at risk” students learn to read, and other family support services.
 
 


Goal B:  Provide Infrastructure Support
B.1. Objective:  To maintain and enhance effective, efficient, accessible and environmentally sound operations and plant.
B.1.1.  Strategy:  E & G Space Support.  (See Objective B.2)

B.1.2.  Strategy:  Tuition Revenue Bond Retirement.  The University will provide for bond indebtedness payments of General Tuition Revenue Bonds authorized under Texas Education Code, Section 55.17.

B.1.3. Strategy:  Skiles Act Revenue Bond Retirement.  The University will expend tuition funds for debt retirement as authorized by Texas Education Code, Section 55.17.

B. 2. Objective:  To provide Operation and Maintenance of Plant.
B.2.1. Strategy: Plant support services.  The University will provide funding for operating expenses to provide physical plant general services and effective administration and planning.

B.2.2. Strategy: Building Maintenance.  The University will keep each building in good appearance and in a safe condition, prevent deterioration, eliminate critical deferred maintenance, renovate incorporating the latest technology using quality materials.

B.2.3. Strategy: Custodial Services.  The University will, by either in-house or contract services, maintain each building in a clean and sanitary condition.

B.2.4 Strategy: Grounds Maintenance.  The University will improve and keep up all lands designated; land improvements, lawns, trees and shrubs; irrigation systems; streets, roads, parking areas, traffic control signs, and barriers. Maintain equipment to ensure dependability and life span; keep campus grounds so that they are attractive and safe to all persons.

B.2.5. Strategy:  Utilities.  The University will provide for the reliable, efficient, and cost effective purchase, manufacture, and delivery of all utility items; continue cost reduction management programs, and conduct utility audits.

B.2.6 Strategy: Police Services.  The University will provide a competent, reliable and friendly police department to assure the safety of all faculty, students, staff and visitors while on the campus.
 



GOAL C:  Provide Special Item Support
C.1. Objective:  To use Legislative Appropriations for special items to accomplish the mission of the University, which is to achieve excellence in the interrelated areas of undergraduate education, graduate education, research and public service.
C.1.1.  Strategy: Texas Pharmacy Program.  This program was funded in the last legislative session on a one-time basis due to the restructuring of the Pharm. D. degree.  It was understood at that time that no request for funding would be renewed in the next biennium.

C.2.1.  Strategy: Marine Science Institute.  The University will continue special item funding for partial operation of the Marine Science Institute, which provides basic and applied research aimed at understanding the biological, chemical, and physical processes driving the Texas coastal zone ecosystem.  In this region live about 1/3 the population of the State and exist about 1/3 of the industry, which places a great and increasing strain on living resources.  The Institute will play a vital role in addressing anticipated problems of growth in the region.

C.2.2.  Strategy: Institute for Geophysics.  The University will continue special item funding for partial operation of the Institute, which conducts research in the earth sciences.  With the growing demand for adequate water supplies and increasing concern for environmental consequences of human activities, the earth sciences will increase in significance to the State.

C.2.3.  Strategy:  Bureau of Economic Geology.  The University will continue special item funding for partial operation of the Bureau, which functions as a quasi-State agency in providing the geologic survey of Texas.  It conducts projects in basic and applied research with a variety of local, state and federal agencies, as well as foundations and businesses.  The Bureau maintains strong ties with all State agencies concerned with natural resources and produces journals, symposia, colloquia and lectures for the public and private sectors.

C.2.4.  Strategy:  Bureau of Business Research.  The University will continue special item funding for partial operation of the Bureau, which conducts research on organizational and resource strategies of Texas businesses, with emphasis on the high-tech sector and on small to medium size businesses.  This research is used by other State agencies, such as the Texas Department of Economic Development, TNRCC, Comptroller and Workforce Commission.

C.2.5. Strategy:  McDonald Observatory.  The University will continue special item funding for partial operation of the Observatory, which is one of the world’s leading centers for teaching and research in astronomy. It is the site of the Hobby-Eberly Telescope, which is a joint venture with The Pennsylvania State University. The Observatory also collaborates with the California Institute of Technology’s observatory on Mauna Kea, Hawaii, the largest and best facility of its type in the world. The Observatory hosts approximately 130,000 visitors a year from around the world and is one of the top tourist attractions in the State.  The public outreach program produces the popular and award-winning radio program Star Date in both English and Spanish and an accompanying magazine.

C.2.6.  Strategy: Center for Advanced Studies in Astronomy.   The University will continue special item support for partial funding of the operation of the Hobby-Eberly Telescope.  The 2000 and 2001 biennium is the first full two- year operation period for the Hobby-Eberly Telescope (HET), a joint venture between The University of Texas at Austin and The Pennsylvania State University. Continuation of this special item expenditure will assure that there are sufficient funds to operate the telescope successfully and that University astronomers will retain at least 50% access to the telescope. The operation of this 360 inch telescope, the third largest in the world, in combination with the other existing telescopes at the Observatory, will enable hitherto impossible studies on the structure and origins of our universe and the possibility of the existence of other planetary systems.

C.3.1.  Strategy:  Texas Memorial Museum.  The University will continue special item support for partial funding for the operation of the Texas Memorial Museum, which is the State’s museum for natural and cultural history.  Its collections of geological, biological, historic and anthropological artifacts are irreplaceable assets of the State.  The Museum also attracts 80,000 tourists per year from every county in Texas.  The Museum is expanding its outreach with new programs for K-12 science teachers and their students and is partnering with other State agencies, such as Texas Parks and Wildlife to serve the entire state through environmental assessments, documentation of biodiversity, and analysis of growth and its impact on the environment.

C.3.2.  Strategy:   Public Policy Institute.  The University will continue special item funding for partial operation of the Public Policy Institute to improve training in analysis of public policy issues critical to the State of Texas and bring to bear the experience of University researchers on problems confronting government policy-makers

C.3.3. Strategy:  Center for Public Policy Dispute Resolution.  The University will continue special item support for partial operation of the Center, which promotes the use of appropriate alternative dispute resolution (ADR) processes, such as mediation, facilitation and negotiated rule-making and other consensus processes in Texas government in order to save costs and time that would otherwise be involved through litigation and hearings.  The Center assists State agencies with dispute resolution, assists the State courts in referring appropriate matters to the ADR process, and trains mediators in local centers around the state.

C.4.1. Strategy:  Institutional Enhancement.  The University will continue funding for scholarship for culturally and economically disadvantaged students, and tuition and fees scholarships, continue funding for the Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs, Library Enhancement, Bureau of Engineering Research and University Outreach Center.

C.4.1.a. Disadvantaged Scholarship-Student Aid.  The University will continue special item support for scholarships to enhance recruitment and retention of culturally and economically disadvantaged students.

C.4.1.b. Scholarships.  The University will continue special item support to fund financial aid awards to qualified students.

C.4.1.c. Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs.  The University will continue special item support for partial operation of the LBJ School of Public Affairs, which enjoys an international reputation and serves as an important resource for the State of Texas.

C.4.1.d.  Library Enhancement.  The University will continue special item support to enhance the capability of the University’s library to serve as a statewide resource in providing access to its collections and electronic information resources through networked cooperative library programs.

C.4.1.e.  Bureau of Engineering Research.  The University will continue special item funding for partial support of the Bureau, which conducts research on problems of the cities and industries of the State and nation.  The results of this research benefit the State through the applications of its research to education and to existing Texas industries and by encouraging growth of new industries in the State.

C.4.1.f. University Outreach Centers.  The University will continue special item funding for partial operation of centers across the state to identify academically capable students with socioeconomic need who show good potential for college-level education.  Centers work with underachieving middle school students and their families to make them aware of options for education, financial planning and supplemental academic instruction programs.  The goal of the centers is to increase the chances that these students will attend SOME institution of higher education in the State, thereby increasing the educated workforce living in the state and available to service new industry attracted to the State.
 



Goal D:  Maintain Historically Underutilized Business Policy

Maximize opportunities for Historically Underutilized Business (HUB) firms to supply materials, supplies, equipment and services needed to support the mission and the administrative and logistical operations of the University.

D.1.  Objective:  Maintain necessary program administrative structures and procedures.
Outcome Measure:  Develop new management by objective criteria for effective management control of the HUB Program.

D.1.1. Strategy:  Operating Structure.  Specify an operating division structure for the purpose of defining responsibility and accountability in achieving HUB program goals and objectives.
Outcome Measure:  Directions regarding implementation of the HUB program from the Vice-President for Business Affairs and other executive management as required.

D.1.2 Strategy:  Staff Coordinating Group.  Maintain a staff coordinating group, chaired by the Vice President for Business Affairs, to provide functional staff expertise, advice, and counsel regarding implementation of all aspects of the HUB program.
Output Measure:  Minutes of meetings of the staff-coordinating group.

D.1.3. Strategy:  Outreach Program.  Maintain an outreach program designed to contact and maintain continuous liaison with the local/regional HUB business community.
Output Measures:
1. Records of liaison visits to local/regional HUB business associations/organizations in the   University’s market area.
2. Number of HUB firms processed for certification with the General Services Commission (GSC).
3. Number of economic opportunity forums sponsored.
4. Design and monitor a Mentor-Protégé program based upon the General Services Commission model.
5. Number of GSC Economic Opportunity Forums attended.

D.1.4. Strategy:  Internal Education Program.  Maintain an internal education program designed to and provide expertise to department personnel who exercise budget expenditure authority.
Output Measures:
1. Number of staff educational and assistance visits to departments.
2. Number of HUB training programs presented.
3. Number of personnel who have attended a HUB training program.

D.1.5. Strategy:  Reporting System.  Maintain a HUB utilization reporting system.
Output Measures:
1. Monthly HUB performance reports by departments.
2. Mid-fiscal year and fiscal year reports required by the General Services Commission.
3.  Progress reports required by UT System Administration.

D.2.  Objective:  Increase the overall total dollar amount and percentages of purchases from HUB firms throughout the University.
Outcome Measures:
1. Percent of total number of transactions for goods and equipment purchases awarded to HUB firms detailed by ethnic/gender group.
2.   Percent of total dollar value of goods and equipment purchases awarded to HUB firms detailed by ethnic/gender group.

D.2.1. Strategy: Monitor buyer performance.  Maintain a system to monitor individual buyer performance as it relates to institutional HUB program goals and objectives.
Output measures:
1. Number of firms solicited, each for aggregate small, medium, and large orders placed.
2. Number of HUB firms solicited, each for aggregate small, medium, and large orders placed.
3. Dollar value for aggregate small, medium, and large orders placed.
4. Dollar value for aggregate small, medium, and large orders placed place with HUB firms.

D.3.  Objective:  To utilize HUB firms to supply at least the following percentages of the total value of purchases of commodities (goods and equipment): 12.6% in FY 00; 12.6% in FY 01; 12.6% in FY 02; 12.6% in FY 03; 12.6% in FY 04: 12.6% in FY05.
Outcome Measures:
1. Increase in percent of total number of transactions for goods and equipment purchases awarded to HUB firms detailed by ethnic/gender group.
2. Increase in percent of total dollar value of goods and equipment purchases awarded to HUB firms detailed by ethnic/gender group.

D.3.1 Strategy:  Identification of HUB firms. Identify HUB firms that can supply the goods and equipment needed.
Output Measure:  Increase the number of HUB firms identified for commodity purchases.

D.3.2 Strategy:  Negotiation.  Negotiate with HUB firms to supply the goods and equipment needed.
Output Measure:  Increase in percentage the number of HUB firms negotiated with for the purchase of commodities.
 

D.4.  Objective:  To utilize HUB firms to supply at least the following percentages of the total value of special trade contracts:  11.7% in FY 00; 12.2% in FY 01; 12.5% in FY 02; 13.0% in FY 03; 13.2% in FY04; 13.5% in FY 05.
Outcome Measures:
1. Increase in percent of total number of contracts for special trade services awarded to HUB firms detailed by ethnic/gender group.
2. Increase in percent of total dollar value of contracts for special trades services awarded to HUB firms detailed by ethnic/gender group.

D.4.1 Strategy:  Identification.  Identify HUB firms that can provide the special trade needed.
Output Measure:
Increase in the number of HUB firms identified for contracts for special trade services.

D.4.2 Strategy:  Negotiation. Negotiate with HUB firms to supply the special trade services needed.
Output Measure:
Increase in percentage of total dollars spent with HUB firms for contracts for special trade services.
 

D.5.  Objective:  To utilize HUB firms to supply at least the following percentages of the total value of building construction contracts: 14.8% in FY 00; 15.0% in FY 01; 15.3% in FY 02; 15.5% in FY 03; 16% in FY 04; 16.3% in FY05.
Outcome Measures:
1. Increase in the percent of total number of contracts for construction services awarded to HUB firms detailed by ethnic/gender group.
2. Increase in the percent of total dollar value of contracts for construction services awarded to HUB firms detailed by ethnic/gender group.

D.5.1.  Strategy:  Communication.  Communicate the goal, objectives and procedures of the HUB Program to all contractors, subcontractors, and material suppliers invited to bid on construction projects.
Output Measure:  Increase in percentage of total dollars spent with HUB firms on contracts for construction services.

D.6.  Objective: To utilize HUB firms to supply at least the following percentages of the total value of contracts for professional services: 8.0% in FY 00; 8.1% in FY 01; 8.3% in FY 02; 8.5% in FY 03; 8.6% in FY 04; 8.8% in FY 05.
Outcome Measures:
1. Increase in the percent of total number of contracts for professional services awarded to HUB firms detailed by ethnic/gender group.
2. Increase in the percent of total dollar value of contracts for professional services awarded to HUB firms detailed by ethnic/gender group.

D.6.1. Strategy:  Communication.  Communicate the goal, objective and procedures of the HUB Program in requests for proposals to professional firms.
Output Measure:  Increase in the number of contacts with HUB firms for professional services contracts.

D.7.  Objective:  To utilize HUB firms to supply at least the following percentages of the total value of contracts for other services contracts:  12.4% in FY 00; 12.8% in FY 01; 13.1% in FY 02; 13.5% in FY 03; 13.8% in FY 04; 14.0% in FY 05.
Outcome Measures:
1. Increase in percent of total number of contracts for other services contracts awarded to HUB firms detailed by ethnic/gender group.
2. Increase in the percent of dollar value of contracts for other services contracts awarded to HUB firms detailed by ethnic/gender group.

D.7.1. Strategy:  Identification.  Identification of HUB firms to provide the other services needed.
Output Measure:  Increase in the number of HUB firms identified for contracts for other services.

D.7.2. Strategy:  Negotiation.  Negotiation with HUB firms to provide the other services needed.
Output Measure:  Increase in percentage of total dollars spent with HUB firms on contracts for other services.
 



Goal E: Increase Federal and Private Sector Funding

Since financial resources is one of the University's thrust areas, the University will strive to increase the amount of federal and private sector funding received through grants and contracts and the fund raising programs across the campus.  The current capital campaign will undoubtedly have a positive effect on overall private support to the University.

E.1. Objective:  The University will increase the total value of its endowment by increasing the number of new endowments, specifically in the areas of faculty chairs, professorships, faculty fellowships, graduate student support, scholarships, and program support.  Additionally, efforts will be made to increase the corpus of existing endowments by new gifts from the original donors and others.  The University will increase the level of current operating support provided by private sources.  These funds will assist research programs, unrestricted funds for the deans and directors, outreach programs, undergraduate academic programs, and many other endeavors at the University.  The recent leadership gift to the Red McCombs School of Business is particularly significant and hopefully will lead to other similar gifts to other colleges or schools within the University. Finally, the University will increase the number of non-cash gifts that provide support in the areas of equipment, artwork, computer hardware and software, and many other items of value.
E.1.1. Strategy: Cultivation.  The University will increase the cultivation and solicitation of individuals, foundations, and corporations for endowment funds, current operating funds, and non-cash gifts.
E.2. Objective:  The University will continue to strengthen overall institutional development systems, including reporting and information systems, endowment administration, stewardship, research, volunteer activities, and gift administration.
E.2.1. Strategy: Database.  The University will continue to improve the VIP database system by increasing its functionality in all areas.  Improve the reporting system capabilities and insure that training across campus is sufficient for all VIP sub-systems.

E.2.2. Strategy:  Gift Agreements. The University will continue to improve gift agreements with new endowments, insure compliance in the administration of current endowments, and monitor and assist the colleges, schools, and units as they administer the endowments within their operational units.

E.2.3. Strategy:  Donor Research.  The University will continue to improve the information sources available to research, improve the capability for market research, and continue to provide basic research to the campus to support individual, foundation, and corporate cultivation and solicitation.

E.2.4. Strategy:  Reports.  The University will increase the number of annual reports to donors and continue to improve the level of communication between the University and its private supporters.  Incorporate the new technologies, e.g. the Web, in delivering and receiving information to and from major donors and prospects.

E.2.5. Strategy:  Stewardship Events.  The University will continue to improve the stewardship events on campus, such as the Littlefield Society (a major donor group with a high profile annual event), and the Texas Leadership Society (a planned giving society).

E.2.6. Strategy:  Volunteers.  The University will continue to involve key volunteers in a variety of regular meetings and events.  Concentrate on the UT Development Board, the Campaign Executive Council, and the college, school, and unit advisory councils.  Provide staff supports in order to guarantee regular, high-quality communication with our key volunteers.  Improve the quality of the volunteer meetings mentioned above by providing substantive agendas at all meetings.

E.2.7. Strategy:  Gift Processing.  The University will continue to improve the gift processing system in order to better serve the donor and the University.  Improve the gift acknowledgement system by decreasing the time between the arrival of the gift and the thank you letter, including the IRS tax receipt.  Use a variety of methods to continue to improve the percentage of good addresses and phone numbers in the database.
 

SUMMARY

As a major center of learning and scholarship, the University, in partnership with business, government, and the community, will respond to the challenges of dramatic environmental changes that mark Texas’ entry into the 21st Century.  The University’s graduates will continue to contribute to society as responsible citizens and as productive members of an educated, skilled, flexible, and internationally competitive work force.  The University’s ongoing initiatives in research and public service will assist government and business in responding to rapid technological and social changes.  In this statement of purpose, there is continuity with the vision of Governor Oran M.  Roberts who signed the University’s enabling legislation:

“Nor will the benefits of the University and its branches be confined to the sons of the wealthy few.  By no means will that be so.  Place the facilities of a higher education before the people of the State, make it a reality, make it complete and cheap by a splendid endowment, and youths all over this broad land who catch the inspiration of high native talent in our common schools, will, if necessary, struggle up through poverty and through adversity by labor and by perseverance, until they will stand in the front ranks of the most gifted and favored in the halls of learning, and afterwards will adorn every sphere of life with their brilliant accomplishments and practical usefulness.  So it has been in other countries, and so it will be here.  (Message to the 17th Texas Legislature, called session.  Speech made on April 6, 1882.  Recorded in Senate Journal, pp. 6-12, House Journal, pp. 12-16.  Also recorded in “A Sourcebook Relating to the History of The University of Texas.”  University of Texas Bulletin No. 1735.  10 Oct. 1917.  p. 270.)”



Updated June 1, 2000.

Continue to Appendix A.
Back to Table of Contents.