The Origin and Evolution of the Behavior Analysis Program at the University of Nevada, Reno.

Faso et al. (2016) tell the 25-year story of how the University of Nevada, Reno built its behavior analysis graduate program.

The program began with no state money. Faculty used a self-funded model to pay for staff, space, and students.

Over time the money ran thin. Leaders switched to a standard university budget so the program could stay alive.

Self-capitalization let UNR start fast without waiting for state dollars.

The same model later made growth hard. Salaries, equipment, and student aid kept rising while income stayed flat.

Moving to regular university funding kept the doors open and the classes full.

Castelloe et al. (1993) show the older path. West Virginia used normal state funds from the 1970s and built three linked tracks: clinical, basic, and education. Their steady money created a stable template that UNR tried to skip.

Chezan et al. (2018) extend the idea further. Four Virginia schools now share one consortium. They pool courses and supervisors so students finish faster. This multi-campus model solves the scale problem that forced UNR back into the standard system.

Scalzo et al. (2015) give a near-term contrast. UNMC launched a new PhD track in one year by folding coursework, practica, and grant writing into a single plan. Their quick build shows that today a clear blueprint can outrun the slow bootstrap that UNR used.

If you advise students or shape a new track, UNR’s tale is a caution map. Self-funding can jump-start a program, but only if you plan an exit to stable money before growth costs spike. Look at consortium or integrated-PhD models for faster, cheaper scale-ups.