Defining the Future: The University of Tennessee Strategic Plan

Office of the President » Strategic Plan » Dashboard

Dashboard: Ensuring Effectiveness and Efficiency

Updated May 2017

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.

Evaluation Criteria

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.

Goal 4. Ensuring Effectiveness and Efficiency
Revenues

State Appropriation per Student Full-Time Equivalent (FTE) in 2016 dollars

State Appropriations per Student FTE increased slightly since FY2012 for all campuses but still remain below FY2011 levels.

Data chart

2010 - 11 2011 - 12 2012 - 13 2013 - 14 2014 - 15 2015 - 16
UT Knoxville $9,925 $6,467 $6,817 $7,428 $7,627 $7,524
UT Chattanooga $5,657 $3,807 $3,732 $3,742 $3,863 $4,299
UT Martin $5,515 $3,935 $4,082 $4,118 $4,362 $4,784
UT System $8,208 $5,409 $5,611 $5,987 $6,187 $6,353

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

State Appropriation and Tuition/Fee Revenue per Student Full-Time Equivalent (FTE) compared to Campus Peer Group

State Appropriations and Tuition/Fee per Student FTE is 15-27% below the peer average.

Data chart

2010 - 11 2011 - 12 2012 - 13 2013 - 14 2014 - 15 2015 - 16
UT Knoxville 79% 67% 71% 77% 85%  –
UT Chattanooga 90% 66% 65% 70% 73%  –
UT Martin 79% 68% 73% 72% 76%  –
UT System 83% 67% 70% 73% 78%  –

Definition Data Source
This metric measures the combined state approopriation and tuition/fee revenue divided by the student FTE. Some campuses are able to charge lower tuition as their states provide higher levels of state appropriate and vice versa. 100% equals the peer average. Less than 100% is below the peer average. IPEDS and Campus Financial Statements

Back to top »


Goal 4. Ensuring Effectiveness and Efficiency
Revenues

UT System: Current Revenues by Major Source

Systemwide, from FY2011 to FY2016, state appropriations as a percent of total revenues fell from 29% to 30%, while tuition and fee revenue rose from 22% to 29%.

Data chart

UT System 2010 - 11 2011 - 12 2012 - 13 2013 - 14 2014 - 15 2015 - 16
State Appropriations 29% 23% 23% 24% 24% 23%
Tuition & Fees 23% 26% 27% 29% 29% 30%
Grants & Contracts 30% 31% 29% 28% 27% 27%
Other Sources 19% 19% 21% 19% 20% 20%

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 appropriation and an 9% increase in Tuition & Fees between FY2011 and FY2016.

Data chart

UT Knoxville 2010 - 11 2011 - 12 2012 - 13 2013 - 14 2014 - 15 2015 - 16
State Appropriations 25% 18% 18% 20% 19% 19%
Tuition & Fees 27% 32% 32% 34% 35% 36%
Grants & Contracts 25% 26% 25% 23% 22% 21%
Other Sources 23% 24% 24% 23% 24% 25%

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 7%, tuition and fees rose by 11% between FY2011 to FY2016.

Data chart

UT Chattanooga 2010 - 11 2011 - 12 2012 - 13 2013 - 14 2014 - 15 2015 - 16
State Appropriations 26% 19% 18% 18% 18% 19%
Tuition & Fees 36% 42% 44% 45% 46% 47%
Grants & Contracts 25% 25% 25% 23% 22% 20%
Other Sources 13% 14% 14% 14% 15% 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 3%, tuition & fees revenue rose about 5% from FY2011 to FY2016.

Data chart

UT Martin 2010 - 11 2011 - 12 2012 - 13 2013 - 14 2014 - 15 2015 - 16
State Appropriations 25% 19% 20% 20% 20% 22%
Tuition & Fees 37% 41% 42% 42% 43% 42%
Grants & Contracts 26% 26% 25% 24% 23% 23%
Other Sources 12% 14% 13% 14% 13% 13%

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, state appropriations at UTHSC decreased about 5% while tuition & fees percentage rose 3% between FY2011 and FY2016.

Data chart

UT Health Science Center 2010 - 11 2011 - 12 2012 - 13 2013 - 14 2014 - 15 2015 - 16
State Appropriations 33% 28% 26% 30% 28% 28%
Tuition & Fees 13% 16% 15% 17% 16% 16%
Grants & Contracts 44% 47% 42% 44% 47% 47%
Other Sources 10% 9% 16% 9% 9% 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 FY2011 to FY2016 at UT Institute of Agriculture, state appropriations fell by 4%, tuition & fees rose 1%, and revenue from other sources rose 2%.

Data chart

UT Institute of Agriculture 2010 - 11 2011 - 12 2012 - 13 2013 - 14 2014 - 15 2015 - 16
State Appropriations 47% 43% 42% 45% 42% 43%
Tuition & Fees 6% 7% 7% 7% 7% 7%
Grants & Contracts 25% 26% 26% 24% 24% 25%
Other Sources 23% 24% 24% 24% 28% 25%

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

As a percent of total revenues between FY2011 and FY2016 at the Institute of Public Service, state appropriations rose 5%, grants & contracts declined 12%, and other sources increased by 7%.

Data chart

UT Institute for Public Service 2010 - 11 2011 - 12 2012 - 13 2013 - 14 2014 - 15 2015 - 16
State Appropriations 39% 38% 44% 44% 45% 44%
Grants & Contracts 33% 30% 23% 23% 20% 21%
Other Sources 28% 32% 34% 34% 35% 35%

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 2015 dollars

Systemwide, the unrestricted E&G expenditures per student FTE has increased 11% over the last six years.

Data Chart

2010 - 11 2011 - 12 2012 - 13 2013 - 14 2014 - 15 2015 - 16
UT Knoxville $19,942 $20,465 $21,448 $21,114 $21,402 $22,032
UT Chattanooga $12,847 $12,575 $12,807 $12,775 $13,276 $13,752
UT Martin $11,972 $12,193 $12,477 $12,720 $13,167 $13,623
UT System $16,980 $17,200 $17,853 $17,711 $18,109 $18,805

Definition Data Source
Unrestricted Educational and General (E&G) expense, as reported to THEC, divided by undergraduate and graduate student FTEs. E&G excludes expenses for scholarshps and auxiliary enterprises such as housing, dining, and parking. Dollars are adjusted for inflation using the Higher Education Price Index (HEPI) and shown in 2016 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 2015 Dollars

The unrestricted educational and general expenditures per degree awarded has decreased over 14% over the last six years at UTC and UTM while UTK expenditures per degree has increased 8%.

Data Chart

2010 - 11 2011 - 12 2012 - 13 2013 - 14 2014 - 15 2015 - 16
3 Campus Average $67,510 $63,982 $65,286 $65,409 $65,085 $66,759
UT Knoxville $75,823 $72,656 $76,200 $77,084 $76,683 $82,188
UT Chattanooga $63,525 $57,876 $57,444 $55,597 $56,346 $54,684
UT Martin $70,289 $65,949 $61,359 $61,796 $62,037 $59,602

Definition Data Source
Unrestricted Educational and General (E&G) expense, as reported to THEC, divided by undergraduate and graduate student FTEs. E&G excludes expenses for scholarshps and auxiliary enterprises such as housing, dining, and parking. Dollars are adjusted for inflation using the Higher Education Price Index (HEPI) and shown in 2015 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 total expenditures increased from 43% to 46% between FY2011 and FY2016. Research and Public Service as a % of Total have both decreased since FY2011.

Data Chart

Functional Area 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Education 43% 43% 45% 46% 46% 46%
Instruction 31% 31% 32% 33% 33% 32%
Academic Support 8% 8% 8% 9% 9% 9%
Student Services 4% 5% 5% 4% 4% 5%
Research 15% 15% 15% 13% 13% 13%
Public Service 9% 9% 7% 7% 7% 7%
Support 13% 13% 13% 13% 13% 13%
Institutional Support 6% 7% 7% 7% 7% 7%
Op/Maint Physical Plant 7% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6%
Scholarships/Fellowships 13% 13% 13% 13% 13% 13%
Auxiliary Enterprises 8% 8% 8% 8% 8% 8%
TOTAL 100% 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 Knoxville: % of Total Expenditures by Function

At UT Knoxville, education-related expenditures as a percent of total have increased by two percent over the last six years, while research and scholarships have decreased.

Data Chart

Functional Area 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Education 38% 37% 38% 38% 38% 40%
Instruction 24% 24% 25% 25% 25% 27%
Academic Support 8% 8% 8% 8% 7% 8%
Student Services 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5%
Research 15% 16% 16% 15% 14% 14%
Public Service 4% 4% 4% 4% 3% 4%
Support 4% 13% 13% 13% 13% 13%
Institutional Support 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6%
Op/Maint Physical Plant 8% 7% 7% 7% 7% 7%
Scholarships/Fellowships 15% 16% 15% 16% 16% 14%
Auxiliary Enterprises 14% 14% 14% 15% 15% 16%
TOTAL 100% 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 education relatedexpenditures rose while research and support expenditures fell, from FY2011 to FY2016.

Data Chart

Functional Area 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Education 48% 49% 50% 51% 52% 51%
Instruction 32% 31% 31% 32% 32% 31%
Academic Support 6% 6% 7% 7% 8% 8%
Student Services 11% 12% 12% 12% 12% 13%
Research 5% 5% 4% 3% 3% 3%
Public Service 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2%
Support 14% 14% 13% 14% 12% 15%
Institutional Support 6% 6% 6% 7% 5% 7%
Op/Maint Physical Plant 8% 8% 7% 7% 7% 8%
Scholarships/Fellowships 26% 26% 27% 26% 27% 25%
Auxiliary Enterprises 5% 4% 4% 4% 5% 5%
TOTAL 100% 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

As a % of total expenditures from FY2011 to FY2016, UT Martin increased its expenditures on education by 4%.

Data Chart

Functional Area 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Education 46% 47% 47% 48% 50% 50%
Instruction 29% 31% 31% 31% 33% 32%
Academic Support 8% 8% 8% 8% 8% 8%
Student Services 8% 8% 8% 9% 9% 9%
Research 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Public Service 2% 1% 1% 2% 1% 1%
Support 13% 13% 13% 14% 13% 15%
Institutional Support 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 7%
Op/Maint Physical Plant 8% 8% 8% 8% 8% 8%
Scholarships/Fellowships 32% 31% 32% 31% 31% 29%
Auxiliary Enterprises 7% 7% 5% 5% 5% 5%
TOTAL 100% 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 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 4% between FY2011 and FY2016.

Data Chart

Functional Area 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Education 67% 68% 70% 71% 72% 68%
Instruction 56% 56% 57% 56% 57% 50%
Academic Support 10% 11% 12% 13% 14% 16%
Student Services 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1%
Research 15% 14% 12% 11% 10% 11%
Public Service 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 4%
Support 13% 13% 13% 13% 13% 14%
Institutional Support 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 7%
Op/Maint Physical Plant 7% 7% 7% 6% 7% 7%
Scholarships/Fellowships 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3%
Auxiliary Enterprises 1% 1% 1% 0% 0% 0%
TOTAL 100% 101% 101% 98% 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 of Agriculture: % of Total Expenditures by Function

UT Institute of Agriculture annual expenditures have remained farily constant between F2011 and FY2015.

Data Chart

Functional Area 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Education 22% 21% 22% 23% 23% 23%
Instruction 18% 17% 17% 18% 18% 18%
Academic Support 4% 4% 5% 5% 5% 5%
Student Services 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Research 36% 39% 36% 37% 36% 35%
Public Service 37% 35% 36% 36% 36% 37%
Support 4% 5% 4% 5% 4% 5%
Institutional Support 2% 3% 2% 2% 3% 3%
Op/Maint Physical Plant 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2%
Scholarships/Fellowships 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Auxiliary Enterprises 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
TOTAL 100% 100% 99% 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 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 FY2011 to FY2015.

Data Chart

Functional Area 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Education 1% 2% 1% 1% 2% 1%
Instruction 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Academic Support 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1%
Student Services 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Research 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Public Service 93% 92% 91% 91% 94% 93%
Support 6% 6% 7% 7% 5% 6%
Institutional Support 6% 6% 7% 7% 6% 6%
Op/Maint Physical Plant 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Scholarships/Fellowships 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Auxiliary Enterprises 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
TOTAL 100% 100% 99% 99% 99% 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
Advancement

Total Gifts, Payments, Pledges, and Bequests ($ in Millions)

Systemwide, total giving has increased by 67% between 2010-11 and 2015-16.

data chart

  2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16
UT System $144,053,061 $148,998,295 $149,133,945 $179,787,616 $303,746,886 $240,261,441
UT Knoxville $97,190,310 $104,782,172 $92,690,173 $130,870,991 $234,527,744 $167,211,254
UT Chattanooga $10,889,684 $8,656,965 $10,046,298 $6,375,134 $14,484,112 $15,059,187
UT Martin $4,519,166 $3,045,309 $3,285,199 $3,110,931 $3,879,841 $4,248,274
UT Health Science Center $20,427,757 $12,878,866 $30,876,560 $21,283,678 $39,248,141 $38,948,241
UT Institute of Agriculture $8,296,148 $18,800,171 $10,954,190 $16,037,676 $10,415,971 $14,228,148
UT Institute for Public Service $1,335,306 $156,481 $586,295 $171,186 $143,030 $70,705

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 increased by 21% over the last six years.

data chart

  2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16
UT System 50,983 48,234 48,583 51,379 56,452 61,539
UT Knoxville 34,060 32,732 32,528 35,244 39,344 43,156
UT Chattanooga 4,941 5,659 6,062 6,166 6,025 6,943
UT Martin 2,447 2,440 2,702 3,032 3,535 3,883
UT Health Science Center 5,869 4,035 4,141 3,940 4,374 4,323
UT Institute of Agriculture 2,987 2,872 3,019 3,359 3,311 3,799
UT Institute for Public Service 125 153 102 148 148 141

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 (in Millions)

The market value of the endowment for the system exceeds $1.1 billion dollars

data chart

  2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16
UT System $848,328,583 $826,701,196 $919,407,916 $1,071,999,837 $1,106,924,391 $1,099,633,820
UT Knoxville $450,855,668 $438,189,227 $493,266,946 $572,756,022 $565,020,778 $556,100,016
UT Chattanooga $141,064,863 $139,345,936 $154,334,008 $174,237,886 $178,434,207 $171,147,519
UT Martin $36,163,576 $34,962,153 $38,591,350 $43,689,103 $43,285,497 $41,319,674
UT Health Science Center $171,486,437 $167,018,261 $181,949,144 $221,802,081 $221,782,820 $233,993,760
UT Institute of Agriculture $48,697,478 $47,243,312 $52,613,347 $62,444,389 $64,509,847 $62,402,031
UT Institute for Public Service $7,746,246 $7,533,921 $8,761,830 $9,827,851 $10,095,911 $12,060,800

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 approximatly $6,000 per student between FY2011 and 2016.

data chart

  FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016
UT System $19,022 $18,501 $20,686 $23,955 $25,008 $24,538
UT Knoxville $17,771 $17,468 $19,950 $22,907 $22,779 $21,615
UT Chattanooga $15,117 $14,148 $15,416 $17,037 $17,702 $17,258
UT Martin $5,198 $5,110 $5,720 $6,681 $6,897 $6,894
UT Health Science Center $60,446 $59,205 $63,199 $78,514 $71,497 $73,699
UT Institute of Agriculture $29,912 $26,349 $29,658 $32,676 $32,015 $29,681

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 increased 40% from FY2011 to FY2016.

Capital Assets

  2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16
UT System $1,728,407,604 $1,895,759,159 $2,024,634,490 $2,104,873,163 $2,216,172,638 $2,426,955,299
UT Knoxville & UT Health Science Center (combined) $1,426,441,301 $1,566,165,673 $1,674,022,775 $1,744,162,349 $1,855,714,715 $2,052,720,533
UT Chattanooga $170,136,726 $185,810,197 $205,102,250 $220,747,940 $222,855,755 $233,344,066
UT Martin $131,829,577 $143,783,289 $145,509,465 $139,962,874 $137,602,168 $140,890,700
UT Knoxville  –  –  –  – $1,601,346,273 $1,783,521,288
UT Health Science Center  –  –  –  – $254,368,442 $269,199,245

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 by about 21%, from FY2011 to FY2016.

Capital Assets

  2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16
UT System $1,869,151,746 $1,849,079,851 $1,854,010,348 $1,992,534,390 $2,202,921,184 $2,263,994,966
UT Knoxville & UT Health Science Center (combined) $1,704,464,893 $1,684,023,950 $1,689,550,768 $1,813,628,203 $1,994,161,154 $2,066,535,318
UT Chattanooga $89,890,454 $89,579,989 $87,755,249 $95,222,440 $113,797,535 $109,896,793
UT Martin $74,796,399 $75,475,912 $76,704,331 $83,683,747 $94,962,495 $87,562,855
UT Knoxville  –  –  –  – $1,600,520,503 $1,677,223,769
UT Health Science Center  –  –  –  – $393,640,651 $389,311,549

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 on each campus except at UTHSC for FY2016.

data chart

  2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16
UT System 3.91% 4.01% 3.75% 3.65% 3.61% 3.34%
UT Knoxville 3.36% 3.71% 3.50% 3.27% 3.34% 3.14%
UT Chattanooga 4.52% 4.35% 4.45% 4.44% 4.23% 4.11%
UT Martin 4.05% 3.94% 4.25% 4.32% 4.60% 4.81%
UT Health Science Center 4.51% 4.33% 3.97% 4.09% 3.29% 2.65%
UT Institute of Agriculture 4.53% 3.99% 3.11% 3.22% 3.79% 3.76%
UT Institute for Public Service 3.71% 3.87% 4.00% 3.81% 4.09% 3.93%

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 2015-16, UT received $89 million in 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 funded as a percent of amount requested averaged around 67% from FY2011 to FY2016, with a high of about 85% in FY2015 and a low of 50% in FY2016

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

Systemwide, gross square footage of total facilities has remained farily constant with around 27 million square feet.

data chart

  2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16
UT System Total 26,372,689 26,058,836 26,089,141 26,570,559 26,917,416 26,724,671
UT Knoxville 15,628,324 15,479,205 15,736,555 15,982,944 15,783,256 15,502,566
UT Chattanooga 2,708,135 2,732,521 2,712,077 2,987,957 3,172,682 3,145,682
UT Martin 2,431,545 2,431,545 2,450,526 2,493,647 2,478,177 2,478,177
UT Health Science Center 4,119,200 3,932,066 3,772,866 3,772,866 4,026,308 4,026,308
UT Institute of Agriculture 1,796,821 1,787,210 1,834,572 1,749,931 1,851,445 1,966,390

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

Net Educational & General Square Footage

Systemwide, educational and general square footage of total facilities has remained farily constant with around 15 million square feet.

data chart

  2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16
UT System Total 14,833,185 14,360,627 14,387,900 15,062,688 15,213,101 14,937,736
UT Knoxville 7,454,928 7,288,756 7,512,088 7,864,333 7,970,478 7,683,767
UT Chattanooga 1,917,716 1,531,196 1,616,212 2,026,586 2,023,823 1,941,875
UT Martin 1,425,206 1,345,152 1,344,777 1,348,310 1,277,215 1,280,768
UT Health Science Center 2,658,690 2,803,823 2,498,066 2,505,569 2,499,805 2,466,497
UT Institute of Agriculture 1,687,981 1,695,411 1,834,212 1,734,676 1,837,016 1,959,281

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 2014-15

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 1,254,795 442,249 442,161 249,884 208,424 5,538
Research 473,307 44,941 81,997 355,242 967,298  –
Office 1,243,379 317,022 182,429 635,565 402,915 37,153
Athletic 785,178 199,055 216,819 38,700 27,485  –
Residential/Food 2,007,347 406,324 551,013 38,459 219,956 642
Support 2,863,671 390,089 98,431 912,114 173,808 3,195
Health Care 23,914 1,302 3,215 126,687 91,911  –
Unclassified 126,848 82,238 785 96,038 8,763  –
Total 8,778,439 1,883,220 1,576,850 2,452,689 2,100,560 46,528

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. Improving Effectiveness & Efficiency
Human Resources

Staff Employees - Number of Staff

Systemwide, the number of employees classified as staff has decreased by 4% from 2011 to 2016.

Data chart

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
UT System 10,867 10,994 10,925 10,582 10,166 10,430
UT Knoxville 5,489 5,314 5,434 5,246 4,968 5,192
UT Chattanooga 851 899 920 867 913 907
UT Martin 590 590 584 569 562 548
UT Health Science Center 2,658 2,601 2,451 2,429 2,259 2,240
UT Institute of Agriculture 1,336 1,359 1,329 1,275 1,278 1,358
UT Institute for Public Service 181 179 169 170 153 172

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 of staff who are minority has increased about 2 percentage points since 2011.

Data chart

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
UT System Average 17.7% 18.2% 18.5% 19.2% 19.5% 19.8%
UT Knoxville 10.8% 11.7% 11.7% 12.3% 13.0% 13.6%
UT Chattanooga 27.1% 26.8% 26.2% 23.5% 26.0% 26.3%
UT Martin 11.0% 9.1% 9.6% 10.0% 11.1% 11.2%
UT Health Science Center 35.4% 36.6% 39.2% 40.7% 40.7% 40.9%
UT Institute of Agriculture 7.0% 7.4% 7.3% 8.3% 7.4% 8.2%
UT Institute for Public Service 9.4% 12.2% 11.2% 8.8% 9.2% 9.4%

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 increased by 62% between 2011 to 2016.

Data chart

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
UT System Total 201 214 289 251 312 326
UT Knoxville 70 71 91 78 101 114
UT Chattanooga 12 26 30 31 30 49
UT Martin 16 14 22 13 24 27
UT Health Science Center 90 91 127 113 149 120
UT Institute of Agriculture 13 12 19 16 16 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 slightly from 2011 to 2015, with larger increases at UTC and UTIA.

Data chart

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
UT System Total 501 483 540 824 835 1,036
UT Knoxville 211 230 240 401 409 470
UT Chattanooga 57 45 52 76 92 101
UT Martin 29 29 36 42 40 72
UT Health Science Center 125 123 163 223 202 212
UT Institute of Agriculture 78 52 44 71 107 165
UT Institute for Public Service 1 4 5 11 8 16

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 (%)

Systemwide, faculty turnover rates have ranged between 7.2% to 9.9% with greater flucations at the campuses. Recent increases at UTC and UTM are related to early retirement incentive programs.

Data chart

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
UT System Average 7.6% 7.2% 8.7% 9.2% 9.9% 8.6%
UT Knoxville 8.9% 7.5% 7.4% 7.6% 7.9% 8.5%
UT Chattanooga 5.9% 5.8% 11.2% 10.8% 13.5% 8.8%
UT Martin 6.3% 6.5% 10.0% 11.9% 8.4% 11.8%
UT Health Science Center 7.3% 8.0% 9.3% 11.3% 11.9% 8.9%
UT Institute of Agriculture 6.3% 6.0% 8.2% 5.7% 10.2% 4.6%

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 11-14%. Recent increases at UTC and UTM are related to early retirement incentive programs.

Data chart

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
UT System 13.3% 12.4% 12.6% 12.9% 15.0% 14.5%
UT Knoxville 15.0% 13.6% 13.5% 13.1% 14.2% 14.1%
UT Chattanooga 11.0% 11.4% 12.7% 12.3% 20.3% 12.3%
UT Martin 9.7% 12.4% 12.3% 13.7% 12.5% 19.3%
UT Health Science Center 13.2% 12.1% 13.4% 14.6% 19.2% 18.1%
UT Institute of Agriculture 11.3% 8.4% 8.9% 10.5% 10.8% 12.0%
UT Institute for Public Service 9.2% 7.6% 12.6% 10.9% 14.8% 7.5%

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 FY2016, the average professor salaries at UT campuses remained below their respective peer averages, but have narrowed the gap slightly from last year at UTC and UTM. UTM is 9.2% below their peer average compared to 2.2% for UTC and 2.4% for UTK.

Data chart

2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16
UT Knoxville -4.1% -1.3% -0.3% -2.3% -2.4%
UT Chattanooga -5.3% -2.7% -2.6% -4.7% -2.2%
UT Martin -8.4% -8.0% -7.9% -10.6% -9.2%

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 2015-16, UT Knoxville charged higher in-state undergraduate tuition and mandatory fees than their peers, while UT Chattanooga and UT Martin remained below their peer average.

data chart

2016 – 2017 UTK UTC UTM
Peer with Insurance $13,214 $9,169 $9,644
Peer without Insurance $12,175 $8,752 $9,088
UT Institution $12,724 $8,544 $8,478
% Difference 104.5% 97.6% 93.3%

data chart

2016 – 2017 Peer UTK UTK Peer UTC UTC Peer UTM UTM
Peer Average            
Peer Tuition and Fees $12,175   $8,752   $9,088  
Average Mandatory Insurance $1,040   $417   $556  
Total $13,215   $9,169   $9,644  
             
UT Institution Tuition & Fees   $12,724   $8,544   $8,478

Definition Data Source
Total in-state tuition and mandatory fees for a full-time undergraduate. Peer groups include Top 25 for UTK, 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 steady increase in Net Cost of tuition and mandatory fees.

data chart

  2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17
UT Knoxville $2,910 $3,468 $4,113 $4,962 $5,702 $5,995
UT Chattanooga $1,314 $1,763 $2,167 $2,594 $3,498 $3,654
UT Martin $1,358 $1,787 $2,083 $2,086 $4,163 $2,099

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

The net cost of attendance for undergraduates has remained frailriy stable since FY2013-14 but has increased 14% systemwide over the past 5 years.

data chart

  2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17
UT System $16,536 $17,328 $18,584 $18,682 $19,032 $19,727
UT Knoxville $18,731 $19,955 $21,590 $21,590 $21,547 $22,161
UT Chattanooga $13,888 $14,267 $15,174 $15,174 $16,337 $16,928
UT Martin $13,845 $14,105 $14,584 $14,759 $14,708 $15,680

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 17% from AY2011 to FY2015.

data chart

  2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16
UT System $20,908 $22,132 $23,229 $23,781 $24,464 $24,558
UT Knoxville $20,926 $22,860 $23,728 $23,869 $24,272 $24,420
UT Chattanooga $19,392 $19,836 $21,585 $21,420 $23,009 $22,917
UT Martin $22,675 $23,268 $23,840 $26,970 $27,119 $28,077

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 downwards since 2014-15, 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

  2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17
UT Knoxville 77.6% 80.8% 97.5% 100.5% 102.4% 102.7%
UT Chattanooga 93.5% 92.6% 94.6% 99.1% 97.7% 97.6%
UT Martin 92.5% 89.5% 94.9% 95.7% 94.3% 93.3%
UT System Average 84.4% 85.4% 95.9% 98.8% 99.1% 98.9%

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