EDUCAUSE QuickPoll Results: Technology Budgets and Staffing

EDUCAUSE is helping institutional leaders, IT professionals, and other staff address their pressing challenges by sharing existing data and gathering new data from the higher education community. This report is based on an EDUCAUSE QuickPoll. QuickPolls enable us to rapidly gather, analyze, and share input from our community about specific emerging topics.^Footnote1

The Challenge

Higher education institutions are facing many challenges that threaten their long-term viability. Concerns around declining public confidence and trust in the value of postsecondary education, "enrollment cliffs" and other student demographic shifts, and global political and economic turmoil have left many higher education leaders feeling unsteady and vulnerable. Institutions must adapt in the short term by making programmatic, budget, and staffing adjustments while also looking ahead to long-term strategies afforded, in part, by emerging technology and data capabilities.

The Bottom Line

A plurality of respondents (42%) anticipate IT budget decreases in the 2025–2026 academic year, with a median of 8% in expected budget decreases, while more than a third of respondents (35%) anticipate no budget changes. Common cost reductions for weathering these budget changes include hiring freezes, decreased staff travel, and changes to current solution contracts and technology services. Many respondents, however, are also planning or considering investments in technologies for long-term operational efficiencies. Access to peer data and comparison groups can help these institutions more effectively evaluate the budgets and staffing needed to support these longer-term capabilities.

The Data: Anticipated Budget Changes

IT budget decreases may be on the horizon for many institutions. Asked about anticipated IT budget changes for the 2025–2026 academic year, a plurality of respondents (42%) reported an anticipated decrease in their IT budgets, with a median 8% decrease expected for next year. Only 12% of respondents are expecting a budget increase, reporting a median 7.5% expected budget increase. And a full 35% of respondents expect their IT budget to remain roughly the same in the next academic year (see figure 1).

Anticipated budget changes may depend on institution size. Respondents from larger institutions (student enrollment of 10,000 or more)—those more likely to be impacted by federal research funding cuts and large endowment taxes, among other potential funding model changes—are more likely to report anticipated budget decreases, at 52% compared with 33% of respondents from smaller institutions.^Footnote2 However, the potential magnitude of these decreases is smaller among respondents from larger institutions, with a median 6% expected decrease compared with a median 10% decrease among respondents from smaller institutions.

The Data: Strategies for Adapting to Change

Band-Aid cost reductions in the near term and operational efficiencies in the long term. Asked about the adjustments they've implemented or are planning or considering to reduce IT costs, pluralities of respondents reported that their institution has already implemented hiring freezes (49%) and staff travel reductions (41%) (see figure 2). Strong majorities of respondents also report that their institution is considering—if not planning or already implementing—renegotiating solution contracts, delaying planned work, and scaling back or eliminating services. Nearly a third of respondents reported that measures such as layoffs (31%) and retirement or layoff incentives (32%) are being implemented, planned, or considered.

In the longer term, some of these operational reductions could be curbed by new technologies that support operational efficiencies and streamlining, a cost-reduction solution that 83% of respondents say their institution is considering, planning, or implementing. This longer-term strategy aligns with recent findings from the 2025 EDUCAUSE AI Landscape Study, where respondents expressed overwhelming optimism about the potential for AI to "automate repetitive processes" and "offload administrative burdens and mundane tasks."^Footnote3

For some institutions, purchasing decisions are being driven by an unstable global economy. Looming tariff stand-offs and global trade wars could impact the availability of some technology solutions for institutions.^Footnote4 Asked if their institution has accelerated solution purchasing in the short term in anticipation of global economic disruptions, 30% of respondents reported that their institution had indeed accelerated purchasing decisions, while a plurality (44%) reported that their institution had not.

Among those reporting accelerated purchasing decisions, comments described planned device replacements well ahead of schedule to avoid potentially higher replacement costs in the future, while others described "stockpiling" hardware in the event of skyrocketing prices:

"We have hastened procurement of mostly electronic devices, but [also] some other goods, in light of expected tariff-related increases. This means we may sit on equipment for months longer than we intended."

"[We are] purchasing stock of certain items that may be affected by tariffs, with IT department funds to be billed back to individual departments later. This means we're taking on the risk of this equipment not being used to practice sound fiscal responsibility for the university overall."

"We purchase approximately 140 laptops annually, usually after July 1. This year, we pushed it into this fiscal year, in February."

The Data: Benchmarking for Budgeting and Staffing Decisions

Staff benchmarks edge out budget benchmarks in importance. Asked how important budget benchmarking data would be for team budgeting, 39% of respondents rated access to these data as "important" or "very important." In comparison, nearly half of respondents (48%) rated access to staff benchmarking data as "important" or "very important" for effectively managing their teams. When asked to specify the most important kinds of budget and staff benchmarking data, responses coalesced around a few common data points (see table 1).

Table 1. Budget, Staff, and Other Benchmarking Data Needs

Most important budget benchmarks
IT budget as a percentage of overall institutional budget
IT spending per student FTE and/or staff FTE
IT spending breakdown by function (e.g., cybersecurity)
Most important staff benchmarks
IT staff per student FTE and/or staff FTE
Types of positions, job titles/descriptions
Benefits, salaries, and work arrangements (e.g., remote work)
Other important benchmarks
IT services offered
Solutions purchased and implemented (including AI solutions)
Federal policy and regulation compliance and maturity

Institution size matters most for making peer comparisons. Provided a list of institutional characteristics that are potentially important for making budget and/or staff comparisons, a strong majority of respondents (69%) selected "institution size or enrollment" as the most important peer characteristic (see figure 3). "IT/technology spend or budget"—another potential proxy for institution size—was selected by 50% of respondents, and "close competitors or rivals" was selected by 39%.

Priority peer characteristics may vary by institution size. Which institutions respondents prioritize as "peers" for comparison may vary depending on institutional goals and leadership interests, among other factors. "Carnegie Classification"—a meaningful identifier for research-intensive institutions, for example—was more important as a peer characteristic for respondents from larger institutions than for respondents from smaller institutions (at 35% compared to 17%, respectively).^Footnote5 And "close competitors or rivals"—an identifier arguably more important for institutions likely to be facing the threat of mergers and acquisitions over shrinking enrollment pools—was more important for respondents from smaller institutions than for respondents from larger institutions (at 47% compared to 32%, respectively).

Common Challenges

There is still so much uncertainty. The number of people who responded "don't know" to the questions asked in this survey could be evidence of the shifting, uncertain times we're living in and uncertainty about the path forward. More than a quarter of respondents (27%) don't know if their institution is accelerating solution purchases in the short term in anticipation of global economic instability. Almost a third of respondents don't know if their institution is considering, planning, or implementing measures like retirement and other layoff incentives (31%), compensation freezes (30%), or benefit reductions (30%). Uncertainty about what the world around us will look like in the next few months—or the next academic year—is likely constraining institutional and team planning and strategy.

I have data for decision-making, but now what? Having access to data for benchmarking and decision-making is one thing. Having healthy institutional relationships and processes that foster data-informed decision-making is quite another. Some respondents expressed frustration with their leadership or with what they perceived as an institutional culture resistant to sharing and using data. One respondent put it this way:

"The irony is that I am not allowed to use [benchmarking data]. Do I view it as important? Yes. Does the institution? No. I make verbal arguments to the senior leadership team incorporating what I know."

Promising Practices

Pulling together rather than pulling apart. Perhaps the biggest benefit of peer benchmarking is not the data itself but the process of finding and knowing your peers. Respondents voiced a desire to learn from what other institutions are doing and lean on networks like regional consortia, institutional associations, and, yes, community platforms like EDUCAUSE Connect. There may be a lot of uncertainty around us, but no one has to bear it alone. Define and identify your peers and then collect and compare your data to theirs. But above all, find ways to collaborate, share, and learn from one another to advance higher education together rather than apart.

Make technology matter. One key finding that bears repeating is that 83% of respondents reported considering, planning, or implementing technologies that support efficiency at their institution. Technology doesn't have to be seen as a cost center that weighs down an already burdened institution—it can be part of the solution. Perhaps the most "promising practice" we can recommend, then, is for technology leaders to continue to mature their capabilities in areas like change management and develop approaches to collaboration focused on listening, understanding, and offering solutions that support the institution's overall goals and mission.

Notes

1. QuickPolls are less formal than EDUCAUSE survey research. They gather data in a single day instead of over several weeks and allow timely reporting of current issues. This poll was conducted between March 17–18, 2025, consisted of 21 questions, and resulted in 121 responses for analysis. The poll was distributed by EDUCAUSE staff to relevant EDUCAUSE Community Groups rather than via our enterprise survey infrastructure, and we are not able to associate responses with specific institutions. Our sample represents a range of institution types and FTE sizes. Jump back to footnote 1 in the text.↩
2. Other potential funding model changes are described in Ben Unglesbee, "Moody's Turns Negative on Higher Ed's Financial Outlook Amid Trump Cuts," Higher Ed Dive, March 19, 2025. Jump back to footnote 2 in the text.↩
3. Jenay Robert and Mark McCormack, 2025 EDUCAUSE Landscape Study: Into the Digital AI Divide, (EDUCAUSE, February 2025). Jump back to footnote 3 in the text.↩
4. Gyana Swain, "Trump's Tarriff Flip-Flop: Policy Shifts Disrupt Tech Procurement for CIOs," Computerworld, April 14, 2025. Jump back to footnote 4 in the text.↩
5. To learn about Carnegie's new R-1 status criteria, read Kathryn Palmer, "Ending the Research 1 'Arms Race,'" Inside Higher Ed, February 13, 2025. Jump back to footnote 5 in the text.↩

---

Mark McCormack is Senior Director of Research and Insights at EDUCAUSE.