Trends in Higher Education Staffing Costs

Insights from across the HelioCampus Labor Cost Analytics Consortium 2025 edition.

Introduction

As institutions face shrinking budgets, shifting funding sources, and rising expectations for performance and accountability, higher education’s financial leaders are navigating high stakes environments like never before.

For the first time, we’re releasing insights from the HelioCampus Labor Cost Analytics member consortium, drawing on real data from more than 70 higher education institutions, putting previously unknown data into your hands. You’ll find benchmarks, patterns, and strategic considerations across key functional areas—from centralization to fundraising, athletics to IT security, and beyond. The goal: to equip you with the clarity and evidence you need to make smarter, more strategic staffing decisions.

1. Adapting to a Shifting Research Landscape

Federal research funding is entering a period of uncertainty. Potential reductions threaten not just direct research dollars, but also the indirect cost recovery that funds vital administrative, facility, and technical support. In this climate, universities must carefully evaluate how staffing supports research activity—and whether resources are positioned to adapt to funding volatility.
HelioCampus data shows that research administration staffing averages 0.8 full-time equivalent (FTE) per $1 million in research expenditures across member institutions.

This figure serves as a sector baseline—your actual needs may vary depending on research complexity, compliance requirements, and institutional mission. 

Use this data to project an estimated number of FTE needed in order to achieve your desired sponsored research goal. For example, if you are an R2 institution with $50M in total research expenditures and 50 research admin FTEs aiming to double its research activity to $100M, you may need to also plan to double your administrative staffing to support this goal. Most R2 institutions staff 1.0 FTE of administrative support per $1M of total research expenses indicating a linear scaling function without assuming efficiencies. 

FY23 Research & Administration FTE needed for 1M in Total Research Expenses (NSF)

2. Balancing Research & Administration

Our member data identifies key distribution patterns, including the prevalence of research positions in medical schools and varied administrative models. Overall, for every 5 research positions (FTE), consortium institutions had approximately 1 research administration FTE. 

HelioCampus’ data leverages an activity based costing model, including the following activities in the above data, across any job title:

• Grant proposal review & submission

• Compliance & regulatory oversight

• Financial reporting & budget tracking

• Contract negotiation & subaward management

With labor spend data like the below, institutions can understand where research positions are contributing to academics on their campus. You may also use this to understand the relationship between research positions and research administration on your campus. Knowing which schools and locations on campus house these staff may help to design strategic communications with internal and external stakeholders that need to know the critical impacts of federal funding changes to research.

Research Positions by Standard School
Left Chart: Consortium - FY23 FTE attributed to Research Positions by Standard School
Right Chart: Consortium - Proportion of FY23 'Teaching, Research, and Service FTE' attributed to Research Positions

Research Administration by Standard School
Left Chart: Consortium - FY23 Research admin FTE by Standard School
Right Chart: Consortium - Proportion of FY23 FTE Devoted to Research Admin

3. The Rising Role of Philanthropy in Institutional Budgets

As public funding declines, many institutions are turning to philanthropy to bridge the gap. Development offices are now essential drivers of revenue, supporting not just scholarships and capital projects, but core operational needs. Yet, the question remains: Is your advancement team staffed to meet these growing expectations?

Consortium data shows that institutions, on average, require 1.5 full-time development FTEs to generate $1 million in philanthropic support. This includes not just frontline fundraisers, but also the behind-the-scenes roles—prospect researchers, donor services staff, stewardship coordinators—that make sustainable fundraising possible.

The consortium data indicates types of staffing models for this function:

• High-efficiency shops: < 1.2 FTE per $1M raised

• Average: 1.5 FTE per $1M raised

• Low-efficiency shops: > 1.8 FTE per $1M raised

Average FTE to Raise $1M by Carnegie Classification

A well-staffed advancement team is an investment—but it must be balanced against anticipated returns. Overstaffing can strain budgets, while understaffing risks missing fundraising opportunities and donor relationships. The above models provide a framework for staffing.

4. The Growing Divide in Athletics and Academic Spending

Investment in athletics programs has been a hot button issue at the center of many institution’s financial and strategic initiatives. In a recent study in the Journal of Education Finance, it was discovered that the average spend per student-athlete outpaced spend for all other students in 22 out of 25 universities over the past two decades. So are athletics the largest area of spending growth, or have other areas of spending increased at a higher rate for institutions?

Consortium data shows 89% of member institutions invest more in athletics labor than in academics labor; and from FY20 to FY23, there was a 28% increase in Athletics labor spend compared to just 12% in Academics. This holds true across public, private, and research-intensive universities. 

This shift isn’t without reason. Athletics programs can boost visibility, school pride, and alumni engagement—but they can also represent significant labor spend. Leaders must ask whether the scale of this investment is in balance with academic priorities and driving student success.

Athletic Spending Annual Change in AWI Labor Spend

The recent uptick in both academic and athletic spending (as indicated in both lines of the above chart) points to continued investment in athletics that outsizes academics, most likely due to the ability of athletic programs to produce multiple revenue streams for the institution. Like all other data in this report, creating balance that supports your institution’s mission while optimizing your ROI is the key.

5. IT Security Staffing in a High-Risk Era

Higher education is a prime target for cyberattacks due to the breadth and sensitivity of its data. In fact, higher ed has seen a 70% increase in attacks since 2020, mirroring global ransomware trends. The inherently open and collaborative nature of universities, often spread across multiple digital platforms and decentralized IT models, makes them vulnerable. This concern isn’t cheap — in 2023, the average cost of a cyberattack reached $3.7 million.

Yet, only 21% of EDUCAUSE survey respondents believe their IT security unit has adequate staffing to meet these demands. They shared that their organizations face compliance violations and intellectual property theft, concerns around inadequate staffing or training to combat these threats, and some even cited turnover issues related to compensation.  

How are these concerns impacting spending? Our member data shows universities have increased IT security labor spending by 42% since 2020, reflecting recognition of cybersecurity as a core competency.

Consortium: Change in IT Security relative change in labor spend FY2020 to FY2024

6. HR Centralization for Efficiency

Higher education governance structures are frequently decentralized, which can lead to HR functions being perceived primarily as compliance and administrative support rather than strategic agents. The deeply ingrained academic culture, with its emphasis on academic freedom, collegiality, and autonomy, often finds traditional business-oriented or bureaucratic HR methods to be incongruous with its ethos. 

Universities are also grappling with unique pressures, including budget shortfalls, increasing demands to demonstrate return on investment, and challenges in retaining overextended staff. These internal and external pressures drive a need for greater efficiency and strategic alignment, leading institutions to consider HR labor centralization or shared service models.

Centralization can unify processes, improve efficiency, and align HR strategy with institutional goals. While challenging to implement in higher ed, the payoff can be significant. Consortium data shows that institutions with greater HR decentralization face higher operational costs—highlighting the efficiency potential of centralization.

Human Resources: Normalized Labor Spend vs. Decentralization 

While it is important to consider other factors (such as the size of an institution's employee population) this data can be used as a benchmark for your HR strategy. Conduct an assessment of position titles, departments, and functions to help you identify inefficiencies and fragmented processes. Transparency and communication are essential with this exercise, so be prepared to consistently engage stakeholders (including faculty and staff) to build trust and lead through change.

Conclusion

Staffing decisions can make or break institutional success. The insights here show a consistent truth: a new lens on your staffing in alignment with your strategic goals and performance can shine a light on long-held beliefs and assumptions hiding in your traditional departmental budgets. 

By adding an activity based approach to your financial toolkit, you can move from instinct to evidence, and ensure every staffing decision strengthens your institution’s mission, financial resilience, and ability to adapt to change.

About the data

HelioCampus Labor Cost Analytics clients are members of our data-sharing consortium. Through this capability, members are able to compare their labor spend through various lenses and metrics in a self-service platform and guided insights. HelioCampus analysts use deidentified and anonymized data to identify trends in labor cost spending across the entire consortium, including those shared in this report, which looks specifically at 2025 data. The data is organized using an activity-based costing (ABC) model, which allocates labor costs to the specific activities and functions that drive them. This approach ensures comparability across institutions and provides a more accurate view of how resources are deployed.