Defining the Future: The University of Tennessee Strategic Plan

Office of the President » Strategic Plan » Dashboard

Dashboard

Updated March 2014

The Strategic Plan dashboard tracks progress on each strategic goal as well as the overall impact, and there is separate tracking for progress toward Complete College Tennessee Act requirements. By clicking on each dial, visitors can access drill-down lists that provide more detailed supporting data.

Goal 4: Ensuring Effectiveness and Efficiency

Systematically invest in the UT System’s infrastructure and rigorously implement support mechanisms and practices that ensure the success of Strategic Plan aspirations and goals and effective and efficient delivery of services.

    Revenues Expenditures Advancement

    RevenuesExpendituresAdvancement


    Facilities Human Resources Affordability

    Assets and FacilitiesHuman ResourcesAffordability

Initiatives

  1. Catalyze and support collaboration across the UT System and with external partners, including removing policy and procedural roadblocks, to strengthen the impact of the UT System as greater than the sum of its parts.

  2. Define a System Administration approach to a service culture that is modeled by the System Administration and support campus and institute strategic goals with services, information and data.

  3. Implement Employer of Choice standards across the UT System.

  4. Create a “culture of communication” throughout the UT System through an improved internal communications program—both between the System and the campuses and institutes and the campuses and institutes with each other—that regularly informs the UT community about System goals, processes and services through multiple channels.

  5. Collaborate with campuses and institutes to define the facilities and space necessary for an environment of excellence in research, education and outreach.

  6. Identify and promote compelling opportunities for continued and expanded investment in the various entities of the UT System by the federal, state, county, industry and philanthropic communities.

  7. Extend diversity initiatives throughout the System for faculty, staff, students and cultural/community life.

Evaluation Metrics


Goal 4. Ensuring Effectiveness and Efficiency
Revenues

State Appropriation per Student Full-Time Equivalent (FTE) in 2013 dollars

State Appropriations per Student FTE significantly declined in FY2012 for all campuses.

State Appropriation
per Student Full-Time Equivalent (FTE) in 2013 dollars

Definition Data Source
Total state appropriations per fall student FTE as reported to Tennessee Higher Education Commission.
Amount per student FTE are in 2011 dollars and have been adjusted for inflation using HEPI index. Student FTE is the number of full‐time student equivalents in the fall semester.
UT Budget Office

Back to top »


Goal 4. Ensuring Effectiveness and Efficiency
Revenues

UT System: Current Revenues by Major Source

Systemwide, from FY2009 to FY2013, state appropriations as a percent of total revenues fell from 29% to 23% while tuition and fee revenue rose from 22% to 37%.

UT System Current Revenues x Major Source

Definition Data Source
Total current fund revenues (unrestricted and restricted) by major sources of funds. "Other Sources" includes private gifts, endowment income, sales and services of educational activities, auxiliary, and other sources. "Grants and contracts" includes federal, state, local, and private grants and contracts.UT Budget Office

Back to top »


Goal 4. Ensuring Effectiveness and Efficiency
Revenues

UT Knoxville: Current Revenues by Major Source

As a percent of total revenues, UT Knoxville had a 6% decrease in state appropriations and a 5% increase in tuition & fees between FY2009 and FY2013.

UT Knoxville Current Revenues x Major Source

Definition Data Source
Total current fund revenues (unrestricted and restricted) by major sources of funds. "Other Sources" includes private gifts, endowment income, sales and services of educational activities, auxiliary, and other sources. "Grants and contracts" includes federal, state, local, and private grants and contracts.UT Budget Office

Back to top »


Goal 4. Ensuring Effectiveness and Efficiency
Revenues

UT Chattanooga: Current Revenues by Major Source

As a percentage of its annual revenues, UT Chattanooga's state appropriations fell by 10%, tuition and fees rose by 9%, grants and contracts rose by 3%, and revenue from other sources fell 1% between FY2009 to FY20132.

UT Chattanooga Current Revenues x Major Source

Definition Data Source
Total current fund revenues (unrestricted and restricted) by major sources of funds. "Other Sources" includes private gifts, endowment income, sales and services of educational activities, auxiliary, and other sources. "Grants and contracts" includes federal, state, local, and private grants and contracts.UT Budget Office

Back to top »


Goal 4. Ensuring Effectiveness and Efficiency
Revenues

UT Martin: Current Revenues by Major Source

As a percentage of total revenue, UT Martin's state appropriations fell by 7%, tuition & fees revenue rose 8%, grants and contracts grew 1%, and revenues from other sources remained decreased by 2% from FY2009 to FY2013.

UT Martin Current Revenues x Major Source

Definition Data Source
Total current fund revenues (unrestricted and restricted) by major sources of funds. "Other Sources" includes private gifts, endowment income, sales and services of educational activities, auxiliary, and other sources. "Grants and contracts" includes federal, state, local, and private grants and contracts.UT Budget Office

Back to top »


Goal 4. Ensuring Effectiveness and Efficiency
Revenues

UT Health Science Center: Current Revenues by Major Source

As a percentage of its annual revenues from FY2008 to FY2012 at UTHSC, state appropriations decreased 7%, tuition & fees percentage rose 4%, grants and contracts revenue decreased by 2%, and revenues from other sources increased 4% between FY2009 and FY2013.

UTHSC Current Revenues x Major Source

Definition Data Source
Total current fund revenues (unrestricted and restricted) by major sources of funds. "Other Sources" includes private gifts, endowment income, sales and services of educational activities, auxiliary, and other sources. "Grants and contracts" includes federal, state, local, and private grants and contracts.UT Budget Office

Back to top »


Goal 4. Ensuring Effectiveness and Efficiency
Revenues

UT Institute of Agriculture: Current Revenues by Major Source

As components of annual revenues from FY2009 to FY2013 at UT Institute of Agriculture, state appropriations fell by 6%, tuition & fees rose 2%, grants and contracts rose 3%, and revenue from other sources fell 1%.

UTIA Current Revenues x Major Source

Definition Data Source
Total current fund revenues (unrestricted and restricted) by major sources of funds. "Other Sources" includes private gifts, endowment income, sales and services of educational activities, auxiliary, and other sources. "Grants and contracts" includes federal, state, local, and private grants and contracts.UT Budget Office

Back to top »


Goal 4. Ensuring Effectiveness and Efficiency
Revenues

UT Institute for Public Service: Current Revenues by Major Source

The Institute for Public Service had a 6% increase in state appropriations, a 12% decrease in grants & contracts, and a 7% increase in other sources as a percent of its total revenues from FY2009 to FY2013.

UT IPS Current Revenues x Major Source

Definition Data Source
Total current fund revenues (unrestricted and restricted) by major sources of funds. "Other Sources" includes private gifts, endowment income, sales and services of educational activities, auxiliary, and other sources. "Grants and contracts" includes federal, state, local, and private grants and contracts.UT Budget Office

Back to top »


Goal 4. Ensuring Effectiveness and Efficiency
Expenditures

Unrestricted Educational and General (E&G) Expenditures per Student Full-Time Equivalent (FTE) in 2013 dollars

Unrestricted E&G expenditures per student FTE has remained relatively stable at UT Chattanooga and UT Martin with slight increases at UT Knoxville in FY2012 and FY2013.

E&G Expenditures per Student FTE in 2013 dollars

Definition Data Source
Unrestricted educational and general (E&G) expenses, as reported to THEC, divided by undergraduate and graduate student FTEs. E&G excludes expenses for auxiliary enterprises such as housing, dining, and parking. Dollars are adjusted for inflation using the Higher Education Price Index (HEPI) and shown in 2012 dollars. Student FTE is the number of full-time student equivalents in the fall semester.UT Budget Office

Back to top »


Goal 4. Ensuring Effectiveness and Efficiency
Expenditures

Unrestricted E&G Expense per Degrees Awarded in 2013 Dollars

For UT Chattanooga, and UT Martin, the unrestricted educational and general expenditures per degree awarded has decreased between 5-8% over the last five years while UT Knoxville has increased 6%.

Unrestricted E&G Expenditures per Student FTE in 2013 dollars

  2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12
UTHSC $347,969 $329,122 $265,264 $280,716 $276,153

Definition Data Source
Unrestricted educational & general (E&G) expense, as reported in the financial statements. E&G excludes expenses for auxiliary enterprises such as housing, dining, and parking. Dollars are adjusted for inflation using the Higher Education Price Index (HEPI) and shown in 2012 dollars. Degreees awarded include all degrees (baccalaureate, masters, doctoral, and professional).UT Financial Schedules and THEC Degrees Awarded File

Back to top »


Goal 4. Ensuring Effectiveness and Efficiency
Expenditures

UT System: % of Total Expenditures by Function

Systemwide, education-related expenditures as a percent of of total expenditures fell by 2% in FY2011 but increased to 45% by FY2013. Scholarships increased by 2% and public service decreased by 1% from FY2009 to FY2013.

UT System. % of Total Expenditures by Function

Functional Area 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Education 45% 44% 43% 44% 45%
Instruction 32% 32% 31% 31% 32%
Academic Support 8% 7% 8% 8% 8%
Student Services 5% 5% 4% 5% 5%
Research 15% 15% 15% 15% 15%
Public Service 8% 8% 9% 9% 7%
Support 13% 13% 13% 13% 13%
Institutional Support 6% 6% 6% 7% 7%
Op/Maint Physical Plant 6% 6% 7% 6% 6%
Scholarships/Fellowships 11% 13% 13% 13% 13%
Auxiliary Enterprises 8% 8% 8% 8% 8%
TOTAL 100% 100% 100% 102% 101%

Definition Data Source
Percentage of total expenditures by functional area as reported annually to THEC. Expenditures include (unrestricted and restricted) educational and general funds and auxiliary funds.UT Budget Office

Back to top »


Goal 4. Ensuring Effectiveness and Efficiency
Expenditures

UT Knoxville: % of Total Expenditures by Function

Expenditures by function have remained relatively constant on the Knoxville campus.

UTK % of Total Expenditures by Function

Functional Area 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Education 38% 38% 38% 37% 38%
Instruction 24% 25% 24% 24% 25%
Academic Support 8% 7% 8% 8% 8%
Student Services 6% 6% 5% 5% 5%
Research 16% 15% 15% 16% 16%
Public Service 5% 5% 4% 4% 4%
Support 5% 5% 4% 13% 13%
Institutional Support 7% 6% 6% 6% 6%
Op/Maint Physical Plant 7% 7% 7% 7% 7%
Scholarships/Fellowships 13% 15% 15% 16% 15%
Auxiliary Enterprises 14% 14% 14% 14% 14%
TOTAL 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Definition Data Source
Percentage of total expenditures by functional area as reported annually to THEC. Expenditures include (unrestricted and restricted) educational and general funds and auxiliary funds.UT Budget Office

Back to top »


Goal 4. Ensuring Effectiveness and Efficiency
Expenditures

UT Chattanooga: % of Total Expenditures by Function

As a percentage of its annual expenditures, UT Chattanooga's scholarships rose by 5% while education-related expenditures fell by 1%, from FY2009 to FY2013.

UTC % of Total Expenditures by Function

Functional Area 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Education 51% 48% 48% 49% 50%
Instruction 33% 31% 32% 31% 31%
Academic Support 7% 6% 6% 6% 7%
Student Services 12% 11% 11% 12% 12%
Research 5% 6% 5% 5% 4%
Public Service 3% 2% 2% 2% 2%
Support 14% 14% 14% 14% 13%
Institutional Support 6% 7% 6% 6% 6%
Op/Maint Physical Plant 8% 7% 7% 8% 7%
Scholarships/Fellowships 22% 25% 26% 26% 27%
Auxiliary Enterprises 4% 5% 5% 4% 4%
TOTAL 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Definition Data Source
Percentage of total expenditures by functional area as reported annually to THEC. Expenditures include (unrestricted and restricted) educational and general funds and auxiliary funds.UT Budget Office

Back to top »


Goal 4. Ensuring Effectiveness and Efficiency
Expenditures

UT Martin: % of Total Expenditures by Function

From FY2009 to FY2013, UT Martin increased its expenditures on scholarships by 4%, while education-related spending fell by 1%.

UTM % of Total Expenditures by Function

Functional Area 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Education 48% 47% 46% 47% 47%
Instruction 32% 31% 29% 31% 31%
Academic Support 8% 8% 8% 8% 8%
Student Services 8% 8% 8% 8% 8%
Research 1% 1% 1% 0% 0%
Public Service 2% 2% 2% 1% 1%
Support 14% 12% 13% 13% 13%
Institutional Support 6% 5% 5% 5% 5%
Op/Maint Physical Plant 8% 7% 8% 8% 8%
Scholarships/Fellowships 28% 30% 32% 31% 32%
Auxiliary Enterprises 7% 7% 7% 7% 5%
TOTAL 100% 100% 100% 99% 98%

Definition Data Source
Percentage of total expenditures by functional area as reported annually to THEC. Expenditures include (unrestricted and restricted) educational and general funds and auxiliary funds.UT Budget Office

Back to top »


Goal 4. Ensuring Effectiveness and Efficiency
Expenditures

UT Health Science Center: % of Total Expenditures by Function

UT Health Science Center annual expenditures on education related activities increased by 2%, while expenditures on research decreased by 2% between FY2009 and FY2013.

UTHSC % of Total Expenditures by Function

Functional Area 2009 2010 2011 2012 2008
Education 68% 66% 67% 68% 70%
Instruction 57% 56% 56% 56% 57%
Academic Support 10% 10% 10% 11% 12%
Student Services 1% 1% 1% 1% 1%
Research 14% 16% 15% 14% 12%
Public Service 3% 2% 2% 2% 2%
Support 12% 12% 13% 13% 13%
Institutional Support 6% 6% 6% 6% 6%
Op/Maint Physical Plant 6% 6% 7% 7% 7%
Scholarships/Fellowships 3% 3% 3% 3% 3%
Auxiliary Enterprises 1% 1% 1% 1% 1%
TOTAL 100% 100% 100% 101% 100%

Definition Data Source
Percentage of total expenditures by functional area as reported annually to THEC. Expenditures include (unrestricted and restricted) educational and general funds and auxiliary funds.UT Budget Office

Back to top »


Goal 4. Ensuring Effectiveness and Efficiency
Expenditures

UT Institute of Agriculture: % of Total Expenditures by Function

UT Institute of Agriculture annual expenditures on research increased 2%, while expenditures on public service decreased 2% between FY 2009 and FY 2013.

UTIA % of Total Expenditures by Function

Functional Area 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Education 22% 22% 22% 21% 22%
Instruction 17% 17% 18% 17% 17%
Academic Support 5% 4% 4% 4% 5%
Student Services 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Research 35% 36% 36% 39% 36%
Public Service 38% 38% 37% 35% 36%
Support 5% 4% 4% 5% 4%
Institutional Support 3% 2% 2% 3% 2%
Op/Maint Physical Plant 2% 2% 2% 2% 2%
Scholarships/Fellowships 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Auxiliary Enterprises 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
TOTAL 100% 100% 100% 100% 99%

Definition Data Source
Percentage of total expenditures by functional area as reported annually to THEC. Expenditures include (unrestricted and restricted) educational and general funds and auxiliary funds.UT Budget Office

Back to top »


Goal 4. Ensuring Effectiveness and Efficiency
Expenditures

UT Institute for Public Service: % of Total Expenditures by Function

UT Institute for Public Service annual expenditures remained relatively constant in spending percentage by major functions from FY2009 to FY2012.

UT IPS % of Total Expenditures by Function

Functional Area 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Education 1% 2% 1% 2% 1%
Instruction 0% 1% 0% 1% 0%
Academic Support 1% 1% 1% 1% 1%
Student Services 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Research 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Public Service 93% 91% 93% 92% 91%
Support 6% 6% 6% 6% 7%
Institutional Support 6% 6% 6% 6% 7%
Op/Maint Physical Plant 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Scholarships/Fellowships 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Auxiliary Enterprises 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
TOTAL 100% 100% 100% 100% 99%

Definition Data Source
Percentage of total expenditures by functional area as reported annually to THEC. Expenditures include (unrestricted and restricted) educational and general funds and auxiliary funds.UT Budget Office

Back to top »


Goal 4. Ensuring Effectiveness and Efficiency
Advancement

Total Gifts, Payments, Pledges, and Bequests

Over the last four years, the total gifts, payments, and pledges for the UT System have fluctuated with a high of $177m in FY2010 to $149m in FY2013.

Total Gifts, Payments, and Pledges

  2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13
UTC $12.3 M $10.6 M $10.9 M $8.7 M $10.0 M
UTM $5.3 M $8.9 M $4.5 M $3.0 M $3.3 M
UTIA $17.8 M $6.4 M $8.3 M $18.8 M $11 M
UT IPS $0.6 M $0.5 M $1.3 M $0.2 M $0.6

Definition Data Source
The total number of gifts, payments, and bequests to the University during the fiscal year (July 1 to June 30).University of Tennessee Foundation

Back to top »


Goal 4. Ensuring Effectiveness and Efficiency
Advancement

Total Number of Donors

Systemwide, the total number of donors has remained relatively constant at around 50,000 donors.

Total Number of Donors

  2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13
UTC 5,181 5,630 4,941 5,659 6,062
UTM 2,505 2,275 2,447 2,440 2,702
UTIA 3,268 3,791 2,987 2,872 3,019
UT IPS 177 150 125 153 102

Definition Data Source
The total number of individuals who donated any gifts, payments, and bequests to the University during the fiscal year (July 1 to June 30).University of Tennessee Foundation

Back to top »


Goal 4. Ensuring Effectiveness and Efficiency
Advancement

Endowment Value

The market value of the endowment for the system has recovered its value prior to the economic downturn in FY2008 and now exceeds $900 million.

Total Number of Donors

  2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13
UTM $24.7 M $27.3 M $36.2 M $35.0 M $38.6 M
UTIA $36.9 M $41.0 M $48.7 M $47.2 M $52.6 M
UT IPS $5.2 M $6.3 M $7.7 M $7.5 M $8.8 M

Definition Data Source
Market value of the endowment as of June 30 of each year.University of Tennessee Foundation

Back to top »


Goal 4. Ensuring Effectiveness and Efficiency
Advancement

Endowment Dollars per Student FTE

Systemwide, total endowment funds per student full-time equivalent (FTE) increased over $5,000 per student between FY2009 and 2013.

Total Number of Donors

  2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13
UTK $13,940 $15,768 $17,771 $17,468 $19,584
UTC $13,919 $13,283 $15,117 $14,148 $15,416

Definition Data Source
Market value of the endowment as of June 30 of each year divided by the number of full-time student equivalents (FTE) in the fall semester.University of Tennessee Foundation

Back to top »


Goal 4. Ensuring Effectiveness and Efficiency
Assets and Facilities

Capital Assets

Systemwide, capital assets have substantially increased (42%) from FY2008 to FY2012.

Capital Assets


Definition Data Source
Capital assets include land, buildings, vehicles, equipment, and infrastructure as reported to the federal government. Capital assets include improvements and reductions for accumulated depreciation.Integrated Post-Secondary Educational Data System (IPEDS) Finance Form.

Back to top »


Goal 4. Ensuring Effectiveness and Efficiency
Assets and Facilities

Non-capital Assets

Systemwide, non-capital assets have increased in value, by almost 15%, from FY2008 to FY2012.

Non-Capital Assets


Definition Data Source
Non-capital assets is based on the total assets minus the capital assets as reported to the federal government.Integrated Post-Secondary Educational Data System (IPEDS) Finance Form.

Back to top »


Goal 4. Ensuring Effectiveness and Efficiency
Assets and Facilities

Current Net Assets as % of Current Expense

The current net assets (rainy day fund) as a percentage of current expenses hit its 3% to 5% target range each of the last five years on each campus.

Current Net Assets as % of Current Expense

2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13
UT System 3.9% 4.3% 3.9% 4.0% 3.8%
UTK 4.2% 5.0% 3.4% 3.7% 3.5%
UTC 4.2% 4.8% 4.5% 4.4% 3.5%
UTM 4.8% 3.1% 4.1% 3.9% 4.3%
UTHSC 3.1% 3.3% 4.5% 4.3% 4.0%
UTIA 3.1% 3.6% 4.5% 4.0% 3.1%
UTIPS 3.4% 4.9% 3.7% 3.9% 4.0%

Definition Data Source
This chart represents the unrestricted educational & general net assets divided by the total expenditures and transfers. The percentage is often thought as the rainy day fund. The recommended ratio is 2% to 5%. UT Knoxville does not include Vet Med or CASNR.UT Budget Office

Back to top »


Goal 4. Ensuring Effectiveness and Efficiency
Assets and Facilities

Capital outlay (State-Funded New Construction and Renovation Dollars in Millions)

In 2012-13, UT received it first major state funding for new construction and renovation projects.

Capital Outlay (New Construction and Renovation Dollars in Millions)

Definition Data Source
Capital Outlay represents the amount of funds requested and approved by the Tennessee General Assembly for new construction, and major renovations. These amounts reflect only the state-funded portion of the projects and do not include matching funds.UT Office of Facilities Planning

Back to top »


Goal 4. Ensuring Effectiveness and Efficiency
Assets and Facilities

Maintenance Funded

Systemwide, maintenance dollars requested as a percent of amount funded averaged around 48% from FY2009 to FY2013, with a high of 80% in FY2013 and a low of 14% in FY2010.

Maintenance Funded

Definition Data Source
This chart represents the amount of funds requested and approved by the Tennessee General Assembly for capital maintenance to protect the integrity of the building structures or bring the equipment or systems in the buildings into compliance with current federal, state and local standards. These amounts reflect only the state-funded portion of the projects.UT Office of Facilities Planning

Back to top »


Goal 4. Ensuring Effectiveness and Efficiency
Assets and Facilities

Gross Square Footage

Gross square footage of total facilities has increased from FY2009 to FY2013 by 5% systemwide, with all institutions averaging increases between -1% and 11% within that timeframe.

Gross Square Footage

2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13
UTC 2,654,170 2,673,304 2,708,135 2,732,521 2,712,077
UTM 2,330,604 2,447,704 2,431,545 2,431,545 2,450,526
UTIA 1,647,691 1,681,714 1,796,821 1,787,210 1,834,572

Definition Data Source
Gross square footage represents the total square feet of areas within the exterior walls of the building for all stories or areas that house floor surfaces.UT Facilities Space Inventory

Back to top »


Goal 4. Ensuring Effectiveness and Efficiency
Assets and Facilities

Educational & General Square Footage

Systemwide, the education & general square footage of total facilities has decreased by 2% from FY2009 to FY2013.

Educational & General Square Footage

2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13
UTC 1,870,498 1,898,657 1,917,716 1,531,196 1,616,212
UTM 1,411,255 1,415,545 1,425,206 1,345,152 1,344,777
UTHSC 2,485,485 2,453,292 2,658,690 2,803,823 2,498,066

Definition Data Source
E&G square footage represents the gross square footage dedicated to educational and general (E&G) functions on each campus/institute and exclude auxiliary (e.g., residence halls, dining facilities, etc.) and hospital space.UT Facilities Space Inventory

Back to top »


Goal 4. Ensuring Effectiveness and Efficiency
Assets and Facilities

Assignable Square Feet by Type of Space for 2012-13

Total assignable square feet of facilities by the type of usage of space varies across UT System, which is reflective of the campus' different missions.

Assignable Square Feet by Type of Space for 2011-12

Definition Data Source
Assignable square feet represents sum of all areas on all floors of a building assigned to, or available for assignment to, an occupant or specific use and excludes walls, stairways, corridors, restrooms, parking facilities, or mechanical space.UT Facilities Space Inventory

Back to top »


Goal 4. Ensuring Effectiveness and Efficiency
Human Resources

Staff Employees - Number of Staff

Systemwide, the number of employees classified as staff has increased slightly from 2009 to 2013. The number of staff employees at UT Chattanooga has increased 12% (associated with their enrollment increases).

Staff Employees - Number of Staff

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
UTC 824 834 852 907 925
UTM 576 602 593 592 586
UTIA 1,369 1,388 1,336 1,336 1,334
UTIPS 193 185 181 180 188

Definition Data Source
Represents the total number of paid, regular (permanent) and term (temporary) employees who are not classified as faculty in IRIS. UT Knoxville staff includes staff in the Space Institute and staff in the College of Veterinary Medicine, as of Nov. 1 each year.IRIS Human Resource Business Warehouse Report

Back to top »


Goal 4. Ensuring Effectiveness and Efficiency
Human Resources

Staff Employees - Percent of Staff that are Minority

Staff across the UT System are becoming more diverse.

Staff Employees - Percent of Staff that are Minority

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
UTM 8.9% 8.6% 11.0% 9.1% 9.6%
UTIA 7.6% 6.8% 7.0% 7.4% 7.3%
UTIPS 9.8% 9.7% 9.4% 12.2% 11.2%

Definition Data Source
Represents percentage of the total paid, regular (permanent) and term (temporary) staff who are classified as minority. Minority staff includes African American, Hispanic, Native American Indian, Asian, and multiracial.IRIS Human Resource Business Warehouse Report

Back to top »


Goal 4. Ensuring Effectiveness and Efficiency
Human Resources

Recruitment - New Hire Permanent Faculty

Systemwide, the number of permanent faculty hired yearly has increased overall from 2009 to 2013 by over 70%.

Recruitment - New Hire Permanent Faculty

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
UT System 169 262 201 214 289

Definition Data Source
Represents the total number of regular (permanent) faculty who were classified as New Hires from November 1 to October 31 of year reported.IRIS Human Resource Business Warehouse Report

Back to top »


Goal 4. Ensuring Effectiveness and Efficiency
Human Resources

Recruitment - New Hire Permanent Staff

Systemwide, the number of permanent staff hired each year has declined from 2009 to 2013, with an overall decrease of 15%.

Recruitment - New Hire Permanent Staff

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
UT System 633 762 501 480 540

Definition Data Source
Represents the total number of paid, regular (permanent) staff (all EEO codes but 21-26) who were classified as new hires from Nov. 1 to Oct. 31 of year reported.IRIS Human Resource Business Warehouse Report

Back to top »


Goal 4. Ensuring Effectiveness and Efficiency
Human Resources

Turnover Rate - Permanent Faculty (%)

Faculty turnover has increased 1.1% systemwide from 2009 to 2013, with the greatest increase in turnover rate, 5.2%, occurring at UT Chattanooga.

Turnover Rate - Permanent Faculty (%)

Definition Data Source
Represents the total number of full-time, regular (permanent) faculty (EEO codes 21-26) who were classified in IRIS as terminations from Nov. 1 to Oct. 31 of year reported. Does not include transfers to other UT departments.IRIS Human Resource Business Warehouse Report

Back to top »


Goal 4. Ensuring Effectiveness and Efficiency
Human Resources

Turnover Rate - Permanent Staff (%)

Staff turnover rates have typically fluctuated between 7 – 15%. In 2013, the turnover rates decreased at UT Knoxville, UT Martin, and the Institute of Agriculture, but increased at UT Chattanooga, Health Science Center, and the Institute of Public Service.

Turnover Rate - Permanent Staff (%)

Definition Data Source
Represents the total number of full-time, regular (permanent) staff who were classified in IRIS as terminations from Nov. 1 to Oct. 31 of year reported. Does not include transfers to other UT departments.IRIS Human Resource Business Warehouse Report

Back to top »


Goal 4. Ensuring Effectiveness and Efficiency
Human Resources

Salaries (% below market) - Faculty Compensation

In FY2013, the average professor salaries at UT Knoxville, UT Chattanooga, and UT Martin rose closer to their respective peer averages.

Salaries (% below market) - Faculty Compensation

Definition Data Source
Average annual salary of professor ranks (professor, associate professor, assistant professor) as reported to IPEDS. Campus salary average is compared as a percentage above or below its THEC-assigned set of peer institutions' faculty salary average.Integrated Post-Secondary Educational Data System (IPEDS)

Back to top »


Goal 4. Ensuring Effectiveness and Efficiency
Affordability

In-State Undergraduate Mandatory Tuition & Fees vs. Peer Group

In 2013-2014, all UT campuses charged lower in-state undergraduate tuition and mandatory fees than their peers; UT Knoxville and UT Martin were both more than 8% below peer averages.

In-State Undergraduate Mandatory Tuition & Fees vs. Peer Group

Definition Data Source
Total annual in-state tuition and mandatory fees for a full-time undergraduate. Peer groups include Top 25 for UT Knoxville, gap peers for UTC, and THEC peers for UTM.Campus Websites

Back to top »


Goal 4. Ensuring Effectiveness and Efficiency
Affordability

Net Cost of Tuition & Mandatory Fees for New Freshman

Actual net cost of tuition and mandatory fees are significantly less than tuition and fee rates when factoring in scholarships and grants. However, there were noticeable increases in net cost of tuition and mandatory fees since FY2011.

Net Cost of Tuition & Mandatory Fees for New Freshman

Definition Data Source
The average amount an in-state full-time undergraduate student pays in tuition and mandatory fees after subtracting the average amount for scholarships and grants.Campus Financial Aid Offices

Back to top »


Goal 4. Ensuring Effectiveness and Efficiency
Affordability

Net Cost of Attendance for New Freshman

The net cost of attendance at UT Knoxville and UT Martin increased approximately 26% and 33% respectively from FY2009 to FY2013, while the increase at UT Chattanooga was just over 6%.

Net Cost of Attendance for New Freshman

Definition Data Source
The average amount an in-state full-time undergraduate student pays in total cost of attendance (tuition and mandatory fees, room and board, books, transportation and personal expenses) after subtracting the average amount for scholarships an grants.Campus Financial Aid Offices

Back to top »


Goal 4. Ensuring Effectiveness and Efficiency
Affordability

Level of Undergraduate Student Indebtedness

Systemwide, the average level of undergraduate student debt at graduation has increased by 11% from FY2009 to FY2013.

Level of Undergraduate Student Indebtedness

Definition Data Source
The average amount of debt a student has accumulated at the time of graduation for those who have taken out student loans. This does not include loans taken out by parents to help pay their student's college expenses.Common Data Set reported on Campus Websites

Back to top »

Jump to a Chart