Defining the Future: The University of Tennessee Strategic Plan

Office of the President » Strategic Plan » Dashboard

Dashboard

Updated May 2015

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 increased slightly FY2014 for all campuses from the prior year.

Data chart

2009 - 10 2010 - 11 2011 - 12 2012 - 13 2013 - 14
UT Knoxville $8,571 $9,716 $6,331 $6,674 $7,271
UT System $7,339 $8,035 $5,295 $5,492 $5,861
UT Chattanooga $5,481 $5,538 $3,727 $3,653 $3,664
UT Martin $5,423 $5,399 $3,852 $3,996 $4,031

Definition Data Source
Total state appropriations per fall student FTE as reported to Tennessee Higher Education Commission.
Amount per student FTE are in 2012 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 FY2010 to FY2014, state appropriations as a percent of total revenues fell from 29% to 24%, while tuition and fee revenue rose from 22% to 29%.

Data chart

UT System 2009 - 10 2010 - 11 2011 - 12 2012 - 13 2013 - 14
State Appropriations 29% 29% 23% 23% 24%
Tuition & Fees 22% 23% 26% 27% 29%
Grants & Contracts 29% 30% 31% 29% 28%
Other Sources 21% 19% 19% 21% 19%

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 4% decrease in state appropriation and a 7% increase in Tuition & Fees between FY2010 and FY2014.

Data chart

UT Knoxville 2009 - 10 2010 - 11 2011 - 12 2012 - 13 2013 - 14
State Appropriations 24% 25% 18% 18% 20%
Tuition & Fees 27% 27% 32% 32% 34%
Grants & Contracts 24% 25% 26% 25% 23%
Other Sources 25% 23% 24% 24% 23%

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 about 8%, tuition and fees rose by 11% between FY2010 to FY2014.

Data chart

UT Chattanooga 2009 - 10 2010 - 11 2011 - 12 2012 - 13 2013 - 14
State Appropriations 26% 26% 19% 18% 18%
Tuition & Fees 34% 36% 42% 44% 45%
Grants & Contracts 24% 25% 25% 25% 23%
Other Sources 16% 13% 14% 14% 14%

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 about 5%, tuition & fees revenue rose about 8% from FY2010 to FY2014.

Data chart

UT Martin 2009 - 10 2010 - 11 2011 - 12 2012 - 13 2013 - 14
State Appropriations 25% 25% 19% 20% 20%
Tuition & Fees 33% 37% 41% 42% 42%
Grants & Contracts 25% 26% 26% 25% 24%
Other Sources 17% 12% 14% 13% 14%

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 about 2% while tuition & fees percentage rose 4% between FY2010 and FY2014.

Data chart

UT Health Science Center 2009 - 10 2010 - 11 2011 - 12 2012 - 13 2013 - 14
State Appropriations 32% 33% 28% 26% 30%
Tuition & Fees 13% 13% 16% 15% 17%
Grants & Contracts 45% 44% 47% 42% 44%
Other Sources 11% 10% 9% 16% 9%

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 FY2010 to FY2014 at UT Institute of Agriculture, state appropriations fell by 4%, tuition & fees rose 1%, grants and contracts rose 1%, and revenue from other sources rose 1%.

Data chart

UT Institute of Agriculture 2009 - 10 2010 - 11 2011 - 12 2012 - 13 2013 - 14
State Appropriations 48% 47% 43% 42% 45%
Tuition & Fees 5% 6% 7% 7% 7%
Grants & Contracts 23% 25% 26% 26% 24%
Other Sources 23% 23% 24% 24% 24%

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 of Public Service had no change state appropriations, a 3% decrease in grants & contracts, and a 3% increase in other sources as a percent of its total revenues from FY2010 to FY2014.

Data chart

UT Institute for Public Service 2009 - 10 2010 - 11 2011 - 12 2012 - 13 2013 - 14
State Appropriations 44% 39% 38% 44% 44%
Grants & Contracts 25% 33% 30% 23% 23%
Other Sources 31% 28% 32% 34% 34%

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 2014 dollars

Unrestricted E&G expenditures per student FTE has remained relatively stable at UT Chattanooga and UT Martin from FY2010 to FY2014, with about a 9.5% increase at UT Knoxville.

Data Chart

2009 - 10 2010 - 11 2011 - 12 2012 - 13 2013 - 14
UT Knoxville $20,439 $20,833 $21,593 $22,685 $22,425
UT System $17,409 $17,706 $18,079 $18,816 $18,740
UT Chattanooga $12,890 $13,137 $13,011 $13,335 $13,340
UT Martin $12,626 $12,692 $12,819 $13,112 $13,421

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 2014 Dollars

For UT Chattanooga, and UT Martin, the unrestricted educational and general expenditures per degree awarded has decreased between 9-12% over the last five years while UTK increased has increased 5%.

Data Chart

2009 - 10 2010 - 11 2011 - 12 2012 - 13 2013 - 14
3 Campus Average $74,721 $75,828 $72,271 $74,005 $74,321
UT Knoxville $78,031 $79,214 $76,662 $80,594 $81,872
UT Chattanooga $63,953 $64,959 $59,879 $59,811 $58,052
UT Martin $73,647 $74,514 $69,335 $64,478 $65,202
UT Health Science Center (not graphed) $267,646 $283,293 $280,571 $281,012 $0

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 in FY2011 but increased to 46% by FY2014. Instructional support and Research have both decreases since FY2010.

Data Chart

Functional Area 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Education 44% 43% 44% 45% 46%
Instruction 32% 31% 31% 32%  - 
Academic Support 7% 8% 8% 8%  - 
Student Services 5% 4% 5% 5%  - 
Research 15% 15% 15% 15% 13%
Public Service 8% 9% 9% 7% 7%
Support 13% 13% 13% 13% 13%
Institutional Support 6% 6% 7% 7%  - 
Op/Maint Physical Plant 6% 7% 6% 6%  - 
Scholarships/Fellowships 13% 13% 13% 13% 13%
Auxiliary Enterprises 8% 8% 8% 8% 8%
TOTAL 100% 100% 102% 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 Knoxville: % of Total Expenditures by Function

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

Data Chart

Functional Area 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Education 38% 38% 37% 38% 38%
Instruction 25% 24% 24% 25%  - 
Academic Support 7% 8% 8% 8%  - 
Student Services 6% 5% 5% 5%  - 
Research 15% 15% 16% 16% 15%
Public Service 5% 4% 4% 4% 4%
Support 5% 4% 13% 13% 13%
Institutional Support 6% 6% 6% 6%  - 
Op/Maint Physical Plant 7% 7% 7% 7%  - 
Scholarships/Fellowships 15% 15% 16% 15% 16%
Auxiliary Enterprises 14% 14% 14% 14% 15%
TOTAL 100% 100% 100% 100% 50%

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 and education relatedexpenditures rose while research expenditures fell, from FY2010 to FY2014.

Data Chart

Functional Area 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Education 48% 48% 49% 50% 51%
Instruction 31% 32% 31% 31%  - 
Academic Support 6% 6% 6% 7%  - 
Student Services 11% 11% 12% 12%  - 
Research 6% 5% 5% 4% 3%
Public Service 2% 2% 2% 2% 2%
Support 14% 14% 14% 13% 14%
Institutional Support 7% 6% 6% 6%  - 
Op/Maint Physical Plant 7% 7% 8% 7%  - 
Scholarships/Fellowships 25% 26% 26% 27% 26%
Auxiliary Enterprises 5% 5% 4% 4% 4%
TOTAL 100% 100% 100% 100% 35%

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 FY2010 to FY2014, UT Martin increased its expenditures on scholarships by 3%, while auxiliary fell by 2%.

Data Chart

Functional Area 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Education 47% 46% 47% 47% 48%
Instruction 31% 29% 31% 31%  - 
Academic Support 8% 8% 8% 8%  - 
Student Services 8% 8% 8% 8%  - 
Research 1% 1% 0% 0% 0%
Public Service 2% 2% 1% 1% 2%
Support 12% 13% 13% 13% 14%
Institutional Support 5% 5% 5% 5%  - 
Op/Maint Physical Plant 7% 8% 8% 8%  - 
Scholarships/Fellowships 30% 32% 31% 32% 31%
Auxiliary Enterprises 7% 7% 7% 5% 5%
TOTAL 100% 100% 99% 98% 38%

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 has increased by 5%, while expenditures on research decreased by 5% between FY2010 and FY2014.

Data Chart

Functional Area 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Education 66% 67% 68% 70% 71%
Instruction 56% 56% 56% 57%  - 
Academic Support 10% 10% 11% 12%  - 
Student Services 1% 1% 1% 1%  - 
Research 16% 15% 14% 12% 11%
Public Service 2% 2% 2% 2% 2%
Support 12% 13% 13% 13% 13%
Institutional Support 6% 6% 6% 6%  - 
Op/Maint Physical Plant 6% 7% 7% 7%  - 
Scholarships/Fellowships 3% 3% 3% 3% 3%
Auxiliary Enterprises 1% 1% 1% 1% 0%
TOTAL 100% 100% 101% 100% 16%

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 has increased 1%, while expenditures on public service has decreased 2% between FY2010 and FY2014.

Data Chart

Functional Area 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Education 22% 22% 21% 22% 23%
Instruction 17% 18% 17% 17%  - 
Academic Support 4% 4% 4% 5%  - 
Student Services 0% 0% 0% 0%  - 
Research 36% 36% 39% 36% 37%
Public Service 38% 37% 35% 36% 36%
Support 4% 4% 5% 4% 5%
Institutional Support 2% 2% 3% 2%  - 
Op/Maint Physical Plant 2% 2% 2% 2%  - 
Scholarships/Fellowships 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Auxiliary Enterprises 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
TOTAL 100% 100% 100% 99% 73%

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 of Public Service annual expenditures remained relatively constant in spending percentage by major functions from FY2010 to FY2014.

Data Chart

Functional Area 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Education 2% 1% 2% 1% 1%
Instruction 1% 0% 1% 0%  - 
Academic Support 1% 1% 1% 1%  - 
Student Services 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Research 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Public Service 91% 93% 92% 91% 91%
Support 6% 6% 6% 7% 7%
Institutional Support 6% 6% 6% 7% 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% 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
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.

data chart

  2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14
UT System $176,718,820 $144,053,061 $148,998,295 $149,133,945 $179,787,616
UT Knoxville $114,309,889 $97,190,310 $104,782,172 $92,690,173 $130,870,991
UT Chattanooga $10,630,550 $10,889,684 $8,656,965 $10,046,298 $6,375,134
UT Martin $8,852,558 $4,519,166 $3,045,309 $3,285,199 $3,110,931
UT Health Science Center $34,639,186 $20,427,757 $12,878,866 $30,876,560 $21,283,678
UT Institute of Agriculture $6,440,110 $8,296,148 $18,800,171 $10,954,190 $16,037,676
UT Institute for Public Service $462,289 $1,335,306 $156,481 $586,295 $171,186

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.

data chart

  2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14
UT System 51,964 50,983 48,234 48,583 51,379
UT Knoxville 33,659 34,060 32,732 32,528 35,244
UT Chattanooga 5,630 4,941 5,659 6,062 6,166
UT Martin 2,275 2,447 2,440 2,702 3,032
UT Health Science Center 5,907 5,869 4,035 4,141 3,940
UT Institute of Agriculture 3,791 2,987 2,872 3,019 3,359
UT Institute for Public Service 150 125 153 102 148

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 and now exceeds 1 billion dollars.

data chart

  2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14
UT System $728,726,358 $848,328,583 $826,701,196 $919,407,916 $1,071,999,837
UT Knoxville $390,827,278 $450,855,668 $438,189,227 $493,266,946 $572,756,022
UT Chattanooga $120,935,419 $141,064,863 $139,345,936 $154,334,008 $174,237,886
UT Martin $27,259,061 $36,163,576 $34,962,153 $38,591,350 $43,689,103
UT Health Science Center $149,184,063 $171,486,437 $167,018,261 $181,949,144 $221,802,081
UT Institute of Agriculture $40,993,748 $48,697,478 $47,243,312 $52,613,347 $62,444,389
UT Institute for Public Service $6,277,318 $7,746,246 $7,533,921 $8,761,830 $9,827,851

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 ($K)

Systemwide, total endowment funds per student full-time equivalent (FTE) increased over $7,000 per student between FY2010 and 2014.

data chart

  FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014
UT System $16,732 $19,022 $18,501 $20,686 $23,955
UT Knoxville $15,768 $17,771 $17,468 $19,950 $22,907
UT Chattanooga $13,283 $15,117 $14,148 $15,416 $17,037
UT Martin $4,039 $5,198 $5,110 $5,720 $6,681
UT Health Science Center $55,009 $60,446 $59,205 $63,199 $78,514
UT Institute of Agriculture $26,758 $29,912 $26,349 $29,658 $32,676

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

  2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14
UT System $1,652,520,888 $1,869,151,746 $1,849,079,851 $1,854,010,348  
UT Knoxville & UT Health Science Center (combined) $1,511,307,915 $1,704,464,893 $1,684,023,950 $1,689,550,768  
UT Chattanooga $81,897,303 $89,890,454 $89,579,989 $87,755,249  
UT Martin $59,315,670 $74,796,399 $75,475,912 $76,704,331  

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.

Capital Assets

  2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14
UT System $1,652,520,888 $1,869,151,746 $1,849,079,851 $1,854,010,348  
UT Knoxville & UT Health Science Center (combined) $1,511,307,915 $1,704,464,893 $1,684,023,950 $1,689,550,768  
UT Chattanooga $81,897,303 $89,890,454 $89,579,989 $87,755,249  
UT Martin $59,315,670 $74,796,399 $75,475,912 $76,704,331  

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

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.

data chart

  2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14
UT System 4.3% 3.9% 4.0% 3.8% 3.7%
UT Knoxville 5.0% 3.4% 3.7% 3.5% 3.3%
UT Chattanooga 4.8% 4.5% 4.4% 4.5% 4.4%
UT Martin 3.1% 4.1% 3.9% 4.3% 4.3%
UT Health Science Center 3.3% 4.5% 4.3% 4.0% 4.1%
UT Institute of Agriculture 3.6% 4.5% 4.0% 3.1% 3.2%
UT Institute for Public Service 4.9% 3.7% 3.9% 4.0% 3.8%

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%. UTK 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 its first major state funding for new construction and renovation projects.

data chart

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.

data chart

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 FY2010 to FY2014 by 5% systemwide.

data chart

  2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14
UT System Total 25,356,979 26,372,689 26,058,836 26,089,141 26,570,559
UT Knoxville 15,065,357 15,628,324 15,479,205 15,736,555 15,982,944
UT Chattanooga 2,673,304 2,708,135 2,732,521 2,712,077 2,987,957
UT Martin 2,447,704 2,431,545 2,431,545 2,450,526 2,493,647
UT Health Science Center 3,793,846 4,119,200 3,932,066 3,772,866 3,772,866
UT Institute of Agriculture 1,681,714 1,796,821 1,787,210 1,834,572 1,749,931

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 increased by about 2% from FY2010 to FY2014.

data chart

  2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14
UT System Total 14,806,686 14,833,185 14,360,627 14,387,900 15,062,688
UT Knoxville 7,663,591 7,454,928 7,288,756 7,512,088 7,864,333
UT Chattanooga 1,898,657 1,917,716 1,531,196 1,616,212 2,026,586
UT Martin 1,415,545 1,425,206 1,345,152 1,344,777 1,348,310
UT Health Science Center 2,453,292 2,658,690 2,803,823 2,498,066 2,505,569
UT Institute of Agriculture 1,680,247 1,687,981 1,695,411 1,834,212 1,734,676

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 2013-14

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.

data chart

  UTK UTC UTM UTHSC UTIA UTIPS
Instructional 1,243,319 432,908 440,090 263,678 233,603 5,020
Research 457,787 42,938 85,303 362,623 885,095  -
Office 1,231,233 329,997 174,923 1,256,071 354,763 45,930
Athletic 783,932 207,010 220,571 37,954 27,485  -
Residential/Food 1,706,160 408,625 550,668 36,690 218,760 350
Support 2,847,066 386,073 99,625 211,224 166,093 3,291
Health Care 28,307 1,500 3,208 125,169 87,615  -
Unclassified 107,685 2,753 797 141,850 11,368  -

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. Improving Effectiveness & Efficiency
Human Resources

Staff Employees - Number of Staff

Systemwide, the number of employees classified as staff has decreased slightly from 2010 to 2014. UT Chattanooga has increased 11% associated with their enrollment increases.

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
UT System 10,043 9,738 9,935 10,004 9,752
UT Knoxville 5,760 5,489 5,603 5,723 5,519
UT Health Science Center 1,551 1,557 1,572 1,676 1,621
UT Institute of Agriculture 1,381 1,336 1,359 1,329 1,275
UT Chattanooga 831 851 899 920 867
UT Martin 599 590 590 584 569
UT Institute for Public Service 184 181 179 169 170

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. Improving Effectiveness & Efficiency
Human Resources

Staff Employees - Percent of Staff that are Minority

Systemwide, the percentage if staff who are minority has increased from 17.6% in 2010 to 19.2%.

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
UT System Average 17.6% 17.8% 18.5% 18.7% 19.2%
UT Health Science Center 47.2% 47.4% 47.2% 49.7% 51.1%
UT Chattanooga 26.5% 27.1% 26.8% 26.2% 23.5%
UT Knoxville 10.7% 10.8% 11.7% 11.7% 12.3%
UT Institute for Public Service 9.7% 9.4% 12.2% 11.2% 8.8%
UT Martin 8.6% 11.0% 9.1% 9.6% 10.0%
UT Institute of Agriculture 6.8% 7.0% 7.4% 7.3% 8.3%

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. Improving Effectiveness & Efficiency
Human Resources

Recruitment - New Hire Permanent Faculty

Systemwide, the number of permanent faculty new hires decreased by 4% between 2010 to 2014.

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
UT System Total 262 201 214 289 251
UT Health Science Center 89 90 91 127 113
UT Knoxville 110 70 71 91 78
UT Chattanooga 37 12 26 30 31
UT Martin 19 16 14 22 13
UT Institute of Agriculture 7 13 12 19 16

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. Improving Effectiveness & Efficiency
Human Resources

Recruitment - New Hire Permanent Staff

Systemwide, the number of permanent staff new hires increased by 8% from 2010 to 2014.

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
UT System Total 762 501 483 540 824
UT Knoxville 350 211 230 240 401
UT Health Science Center 145 125 123 163 223
UT Chattanooga 107 57 45 52 76
UT Institute of Agriculture 109 78 52 44 71
UT Martin 44 29 29 36 42
UT Institute for Public Service 7 1 4 5 11

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. Improving Effectiveness & Efficiency
Human Resources

Turnover Rate - Permanent Faculty (%)

Faculty turnover in FY14 increased systemwide from the prior year rate, except for UTIA wich decreased from 8.2% to 5.7%. Faculty turnover rates are slightly higher than 5 years ago.

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
UT System Average 7.1% 7.6% 7.2% 8.7% 9.2%
UT Health Science Center 9.1% 7.3% 8.0% 9.3% 11.3%
UT Knoxville 7.3% 8.9% 7.5% 7.4% 7.6%
UT Institute of Agriculture 7.1% 6.3% 6.0% 8.2% 5.7%
UT Chattanooga 4.3% 5.9% 5.8% 11.2% 10.8%
UT Martin 5.0% 6.3% 6.5% 10.0% 11.9%

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. Improving Effectiveness & Efficiency
Human Resources

Turnover Rate - Permanent Staff (%)

Staff turnover rates have typically fluctuated between 7 - 15%. The FY2014 turnover rates were similar to last year with the excpetion of UTIA and IPS.

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
UT System 11.7% 13.3% 12.4% 12.6% 12.9%
UT Knoxville 11.6% 15.0% 13.6% 13.5% 13.1%
UT Chattanooga 12.7% 11.0% 11.4% 12.7% 12.3%
UT Martin 11.4% 9.7% 12.4% 12.3% 13.7%
UT Health Science Center 12.1% 13.2% 12.1% 13.4% 14.6%
UT Institute of Agriculture 11.1% 11.3% 8.4% 8.9% 10.5%
UT Institute for Public Service 15.3% 9.2% 7.6% 12.6% 10.9%

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

Back to top »


Goal 4. Improving Effectiveness & Efficiency
Human Resources

Salaries (% below market) - Faculty Compensation

In FY2014, the average professor salaries at UT campuses moved closer but are still below their respective peer averages. UTM is 7.9% below their peer average compared to 2.6% for UTC and .3% for UTK.

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
UT Knoxville -7.9% -7.1% -4.1% -1.3% -0.3%
UT Chattanooga -7.5% -7.0% -5.3% -2.7% -2.6%
UT Martin -10.8% -10.9% -8.4% -8.0% -7.9%

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 2014-15, all UT campuses charged lower in-state undergraduate tuition and mandatory fees than their peers. UT Martin is more than 8% below peer average.

data chart

  Peer UTK Peer UTC Peer UTM
Peer Tuition & Fees $11,815 $8,238 $8,382
Average Mandatory Insurance $474 $301 $401
Total $12,289 $8,539 $8,783

  UT Knoxville UT Chattanooga UT Martin
UT Institution Tuition & Fees $11,876 $8,138 $8,024

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 Undergraduates

Actual net cost of tuition and mandatory fees are significantly less than tuition and fee rates when factoring in scholarships and grants. However, there has been a noticeable increase in Net Cost of tuition and mandatory fees.

data chart

  2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15
UT Knoxville $1,965 $2,910 $3,468 $4,113 $4,962 $4,962
UT Chattanooga $373 $1,314 $1,763 $2,167 $2,594 $2,594
UT Martin $675 $695 $1,358 $1,787 $2,083 $2,086

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 Undergraduates

UT Chattanooga and UT Martin net cost of attendance has increased approximately 13% in 6 years, while the increase at UT Knoxville was about 22%.

data chart

  2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15
UT System $14,484 $15,552 $16,536 $17,328 $18,584 $18,549
UT Knoxville $16,305 $17,706 $18,731 $19,955 $21,590 $21,590
UT Chattanooga $12,365 $13,366 $13,888 $14,267 $15,174 $15,174
UT Martin $11,966 $12,317 $13,845 $14,105 $14,584 $13,996

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

Level of Undergraduate Student Indebtedness

Systemwide, the average level of undergraduate student debt at graduation has increased by about 18% from AY2010 to FY2014.

data chart

  2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14
UT System $20,168 $20,908 $22,132 $23,229 $23,781
UT Knoxville $19,987 $20,926 $22,860 $23,728 $23,869
UT Chattanooga $18,404 $19,392 $19,836 $21,585 $21,420
UT Martin $22,674 $22,675 $23,268 $23,840 $26,970

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 »


Goal 4. Ensuring Effectiveness and Efficiency
Affordability

Tuition as Percent Of Peer Average

UT Martin and UT Chattanooga have had slight trends upwards since 2009-10, while UT Knoxville has been steadily climbing, with a sharp increase with the implementation of the 15-4 tuition model in 2013-14.

data chart

  2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15
UT Knoxville 70.03% 71.12% 77.55% 80.84% 97.54% 96.74%
UT Chattanooga 88.91% 89.16% 93.51% 92.57% 92.05% 95.30%
UT Martin 90.38% 90.21% 92.54% 89.52% 91.18% 91.35%

Definition Data Source
The average amount an in-state full-time undergraduate student pays in tuition and mandatory fees as compared to peer institutions. Common Data Set reported on Campus Websites

Back to top »

Jump to a Chart