UNC System’s real problem is administrative bloat

Nationwide, universities are facing significant headwinds. Demographic decline means that fewer students are graduating from high school each year. And of that dwindling population, a smaller percentage choose to attend a 4-year university right after graduation than did so in the past. This decline means a loss of tuition at many small regional institutions. Elite private and flagship institutions are also facing cuts in the form of less federal research overhead funding.

In North Carolina, this is exacerbated by the UNC System’s enrollment funding model. Because state appropriations follow students, several UNC schools will receive less state funding this year due to decreases in student enrollment. Cuts are necessarily on the horizon.

A new report from the James G. Martin Center for Academic Renewal could help universities identify which cuts to make in order to eliminate waste while preserving core academic programs. The report, titled “Growth Beyond the Classroom: A Decade of Staffing and Spending in the UNC System,” documents changes in enrollment, faculty headcount, and non-faculty headcount at all 16 UNC campuses from 2015-16 to 2024-25.

At the Martin Center, we’ve long recognized that administrative bloat is a problem at universities nationwide. Schools across the UNC System are no different. Our new report provides confirmation. At most UNC institutions, staff members outnumber faculty by a large and growing margin. Specific findings include:

• Disproportionate growth in non-faculty staffing: While enrollment rose 10.2% and faculty headcount rose 9.5%, non-faculty staffing grew by 14.6%. In 2015-16, there were 2.18 non-faculty employees for every faculty member. In 2024-25, there were 2.28 non-faculty employees for every faculty member.
• Largest staffing increases by function: Fiscal affairs positions grew by 53.8%, followed by academic and student affairs and IT. In contrast, executive administration and office/clerical staffing remained flat or declined.
• Escalating salary expenditures: Faculty salary spending rose by 44.78%, while non-faculty salary expenditures jumped 55.53% — both surpassing the 32.72% inflation rate over the same period. The fastest-growing salary categories were research (86.5%), communications & frundraising (81.1%), and fiscal affairs (90.9%).
• Institution-level variability: Changes in staffing and expenditures varied significantly among the 16 UNC institutions. Some, such as East Carolina, experienced enrollment declines yet maintained or expanded staff. Others, like Elizabeth City State and Fayetteville State, increased enrollment while reducing or maintaining faculty numbers.

NC State and UNC-Chapel Hill have especially large numbers of faculty and non-faculty staff compared to student enrollment. At NC State, for example, there are 5.87 faculty members and 18.20 staff members for every 100 students. At UNC-Chapel Hill, there are even more: 13.35 faculty members and 31.10 staffers for every 100 students. (UNC School of the Arts has similar ratios, but with a much smaller student body.)

Several schools in the UNC System face acute enrollment and spending challenges. East Carolina, UNC Asheville, and Winston-Salem State University all lost students over the last 10 years. And despite spending cuts, some of those schools still have more faculty and staff than can be justified by enrollment figures.

As universities confront shrinking enrollment or cuts to federal research funding, halting and reversing administrative bloat will be essential. Keeping administration in check is also an important strategy to fulfill the UNC System’s commitment to access and affordability. By eliminating wasteful spending, UNC can devote more resources to keeping tuition low for all North Carolina students.

UNC can be proud of its longstanding tuition freeze for North Carolina undergraduate students. To continue keeping tuition flat and serving the people of North Carolina, UNC must find savings. Administrative bloat is a good place to start.

Editor’s note: A previous version listed UNC Greensboro among the schools who lost enrollment. This sentence was followed by a sentence saying “some” of those schools therefore can’t justify the level of staff/faculty they have. While there are no inaccuracies in these statements, after discussion with UNC Greensboro officials, who thought readers may assume their institution was among that “some,” the author and CJ have agreed to remove their name from the list.