SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON PLANNING
PERFORMANCE MEASURES
BOARD OF VISITORS RETREAT
JULY 9, 2010
Special Committee on Planning
Performance Measures
Table of Contents
Background ............................................................................................................................... 1 Peer Group .................................................................................................................................3 Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................5 University Rankings ..................................................................................................................9 U.S. News and World Report (USNWR) Undergraduate Rankings .........................................11 Overall Undergraduate Ranking ...........................................................................................................11 Peer Assessment......................................................................................................................................12 Financial Resources ................................................................................................................................13 U.S. News and World Report (USNWR) and Other U.S. Graduate Rankings ......................14 U.S. News and World Report Graduate School/Program Rankings ..............................................14 U.S. News and World Report Professional School Rankings ..........................................................18 International Rankings ...........................................................................................................................20 National Research Council Rankings ................................................................................................21 General University Measures .................................................................................................. 23 Faculty and Staff .......................................................................................................................................25 Average Faculty Salary ...........................................................................................................................25 Staff Salary Average Market Range Penetration .................................................................................27 Faculty Recruitment and Retention......................................................................................................30 Minority Faculty Turnover ....................................................................................................................32 Federal Research Expenditures per Full-Time Instructional Faculty..............................................36 Research Awards .....................................................................................................................................39 Faculty Publications and Citations .......................................................................................................41 Current Faculty Membership in Academies and Scholarly Awards ................................................42 Innovation ................................................................................................................................................44 Students .......................................................................................................................................................46 Student Diversity.....................................................................................................................................46 Percentage of Low-Income and Middle-Income Undergraduate Students ...................................50 Pell Grant Recipients ..............................................................................................................................52 Undergraduate Graduation Rates .........................................................................................................54 Undergraduate Graduation Rates by Minority Group ......................................................................55 Graduate Graduation Rates ...................................................................................................................58 First-Year Undergraduate Median Combined SAT Scores ..............................................................59 Student Selectivity – Undergraduate ....................................................................................................60 Student Selectivity – Graduate ..............................................................................................................62 Small Classes ............................................................................................................................................64 Undergraduate Research ........................................................................................................................66 National Survey of Student Engagement ............................................................................................68 Resources ....................................................................................................................................................73 Facilities Condition Index......................................................................................................................73 Maintenance Reinvestment Rate ..........................................................................................................75 Percentage of Alumni Giving................................................................................................................77 Campaign Progress .................................................................................................................................80 Future Support ........................................................................................................................................83 New Commitments ................................................................................................................................85 Annual Philanthropic Cash Flow .........................................................................................................87 Endowment Performance .....................................................................................................................91 Endowment per Student ........................................................................................................................95 Long-term Financial Strength – Equity Ratio ....................................................................................97 Operating Cycle Financial Solvency and Flexibility ...........................................................................99 Bond Rating .......................................................................................................................................... 101 Efficiency – Institutional Expenditures vs. Reputation ................................................................. 103 SWAM Spends as a Percentage of Discretionary Expenditures ................................................... 104 Compliance/Enterprise Risk Management Index .......................................................................... 107 Medical Center ...................................................................................................................... 109 Description of Performance Measures ............................................................................................ 109 Performance Data.................................................................................................................................. 111 Peer Group............................................................................................................................................... 112 Background
On June 11, 2005, the Rector appointed the Special Committee on Planning to complete a financial
and strategic ten-year plan for the University. The overall objectives of the planning process were to
improve the University’s national ranking; to focus academic priorities on areas of excellence,
strength, and potential; and to gain a strategic advantage relative to its public and private peers. As
part of the plan, the Committee also developed performance measures to assess institutional
progress and achievement. These measures are the primary, high-level measures the Board monitors
as indicators of overall institutional performance and progress.
At the April 6, 2006 meeting, the Special Committee on Planning was presented with performance
measures in three areas: 1) state measures required by the Restructuring Act, 2) measures to track
Board initiatives, and 3) measures associated with core mission outcomes of instruction, research,
public service, and administrative/financial operations. The fourth area, measures associated with
strategic academic initiatives, was to emerge from the academic planning process.
Performance data on the initial measures were presented at the Board of Visitors Retreat in July
2006 with a follow-up discussion at the September 11, 2006 meeting. Since 2006, the Vice President
for Management and Budget has led an ongoing effort to refine the metrics and develop new ones
where appropriate. Refinements have been presented periodically to the Chair and Members of the
Special Committee on Planning and the Rector for feedback.
The Special Committee on Planning recommended that a detailed review of performance data with
U.Va. performance trended over time and with comparisons to peer institutions when possible be a
regular, annual report to the full Board. The first such report was presented to the Board at its 2007
Retreat, followed by a report at the Board’s October 2008 meeting, and at the Board’s 2009 Retreat.
Over the course of these annual reports, the exact measures and data analyses have continued to
evolve. In the July 2007 edition, two additional pieces of information were added to enhance the
meaning of the raw data and peer comparisons. For each measure, a target was defined and an
improvement plan with strategies and specific actions were described when applicable. Other
existing measures have been modified, and a few new measures have been proposed to ensure that
the Board has a comprehensive perspective of University performance at an executive level.
The reported measures address the critical areas of education/student experience, research, faculty,
finances, fundraising, facilities, diversity, resources, US News undergraduate and graduate rankings,
professional school and international rankings. Enclosed are brief descriptions of each performance
measure with trended and comparative peer data where available. The administration will continue
to report results on these selected measures on a regular basis to the Board. While other
performance measure data are collected to inform and guide institutional management, those data
are not reported regularly to the Board.
1
2
Peer Group
A standard peer group is used for comparative benchmarking when data are available. This group
represents a mix of top public AAU institutions and private institutions. The peer group below is
the group used for comparison unless data were not readily available for these institutions or these
peers are not appropriate for the specific measure. In these cases, another peer group is defined for
comparison.
Private
Public
Cornell University
Duke University
University of Pennsylvania
Vanderbilt University
University of California Berkeley
University of California Los Angeles
University of Michigan
University of North Carolina
Peer Institutional Characteristics*
Cornell University
Year founded: 1865
Undergraduate student body: 13,846
Setting: Rural
Endowment: $5,578,101,861
U.S. News ranking: National Universities, 15
Tuition and fees: $37,954
Room/board: $12,160
Vanderbilt University
Year founded: 1873
Undergraduate student body: 6,637
Setting: Urban
Endowment: $3,495,439,000
U.S. News ranking: National Universities, 17
Tuition and fees: $38,579
Room/board: $12,650
Duke University
Year founded: 1838
Undergraduate student body: 6,496
Setting: Suburban
Endowment: $6,123,743,000
U.S. News ranking: National Universities, 10
Tuition and fees: $38,975
Room/board: $11,115
University of California Berkeley
Year founded: 1868
Undergraduate student body: 25,151
Setting: Urban
Endowment: $3,070,746,000
U.S. News ranking: National Universities, 21
Tuition and fees: $8,352 in-state, $30,022 outof-state
Room/board: $15,308
University of Pennsylvania
Year founded: 1740
Undergraduate student body: 9,756
Setting: Urban
Endowment: $6,233,271,000
U.S. News ranking: National Universities, 4
Tuition and fees: $38,970
Room/board: $11,016
University of California Los Angeles
Year founded: 1919
Undergraduate student body: 26,536
Setting: Urban
Endowment: $2,566,497,000
U.S. News ranking: National Universities, 24
Tuition and fees: $8,228 in-state, $29,897 outof-state
Room/board: $13,310
3
Peer Institutional Characteristics Continued
University of Michigan
Year founded: 1817
Undergraduate student body: 25,994
Setting: Urban
Endowment: $7,462,302,000
U.S. News ranking: National Universities, 27
Tuition and fees: $11,738 in-state, $34,230 out-of-state
Room/board: $8,590
University of North Carolina
Year founded: 1789
Undergraduate student body: 17,895
Setting: Suburban
Endowment: $2,335,824,025
U.S. News ranking: National Universities, 28
Tuition and fees: $5,922 in-state, $24,736 out-of-state
Room/board: $9,306
University of Virginia
Year founded: 1819
Undergraduate student body: 15,208
Setting: Suburban
Endowment: $4,517,750,000
U.S. News ranking: National Universities, 24
Tuition and fees: $9,870 in-state, $31,870 out-of-state
Room/board: $8,260
* Unless otherwise noted here, data was obtained from 2010 US News and World Report, “America’s Best
Colleges.” Enrollment information represents fall 2008 data. Tuition and fee and room/board information
is for the 2009-10 academic year; figures for the University of North Carolina are from their 2009-10
Common Data Set. Endowment information represents the June 30, 2008 market value.
4
Executive Summary – 2010
This executive summary highlights the University’s performance on select measures - rankings, new
performance measures, and measures of interest. For more information on a specific measure, the page
number cited refers to the page in this book where additional data and a complete analysis may be located.
Rankings
Undergraduate: In the 2009 U.S. News and World Report undergraduate rankings the University tied for 24th
with the University of California Los Angeles among National Universities. Detailed results of the 2009
rankings were presented to the Board in October 2009 following the August 2009 publication. [see
pages 11-13]
Graduate: In April 2010, U.S. News and World Report published its 2011 graduate and professional program
rankings. The most significant changes in the rankings are summarized below. [see pages 14-19]
• The Darden School rose from 15th to 13th.
• The Law School remained at 10th.
• In the Medical research category, UVa dropped from 24th to 25th.
• Engineering dropped from 37th to a tie for 39th with the University of Colorado-Boulder and Yale
University.
• Education improved from 31st in 2009, to 24th in 2010, and to 21st in 2011.
• Nursing moved from 26th in 2003 to 19th in 2008, the most recent year in which nursing schools
were ranked.
International Rankings: UVa dropped in the 2009 rankings relative to 2008. In the Jiao Tong University
Academic Ranking of World Universities, U.Va. ranks lower than all its peers. The other international
ranking Times Higher Education has been scrutinized heavily and the 2010 rankings will use a new
methodology and be completed by a new research data specialist, Thomson Reuters. [see page 20]
National Research Council (NRC): The assessment of research doctorate programs has not yet been
released. [see page 21]
New Measures
Several new measures have been added to this year’s report: Innovation; Federal Research Awards,
Graduate Student Rate of Graduation; Campaign Progress, Future Support Progress, New Commitments.
Innovation: Innovation is a pan-university initiative being addressed in multiple schools. National and
global market conditions also indicate that enhanced understanding and practices driving effective
innovation are highly desirable. UVa can be a global leader in defining innovation, linking theories of arts
and creativity, human motivation, organizational networks, quantitative social science, basic core science,
engineering practices, and commercialization pathways. Based on this understanding, UVa can connect its
basic discovery programs to societal needs, values, and markets.
The measure tracks University innovation activity as measured by licensing revenue and industry R&D
divided by overall sponsored research. Currently, the University ranks above UNC and Vanderbilt in
performance but behind Penn, Michigan, and Cornell. While the University’s performance shows a decline
from 2004 to 2007, there is a slight increase from 2007 to 2008. With new staffing, redesigned models, and
enhanced processes it is expected that the University’s position will dramatically increase over the next five
to 10 years. It will take some time for all the pieces to completely align, but positive results are expected.
[see pages 44-45]
5
Research Awards: While federal research expenditures have been included in former reports, overall
research awards have not been previously reported as an annual performance measure. This measure
provides an evaluation of research activity as measured by the dollar amount of sponsored program grants
awarded per year by school.
As widely documented, federal research budgets leveled off over the past several years and correspondingly,
so did the University’s sponsored award totals. However, from the federal stimulus program, the University
expects to see at least a two-year spike in total sponsored research for FY 2010 and FY 2011. To date, UVa
has received over $67 million in stimulus funding on 167 awards with the School of Medicine and the
College of Arts and Sciences receiving the largest share of these funds. The University’s sponsored research
totals have increased over 58% since FY 2000 (FY2000: $209.5M and FY2009: $332.3M) but leveled off
more recently. The overall immediate future of UVa sponsored research depends in large part on the
ongoing federal agency R&D budgets. The University is also aggressively diversifying its research portfolio
with corporate, foundation, and private funding support. [see pages 39-40]
Graduate Student Rate of Graduation: The graduation rate of entering students in PhD programs is one of
the important factors in the most recent National Research Council (NRC) rankings of doctoral programs in
the US (not yet released). According to a report from the Council of Graduate Schools (CGS) on their 7year PhD Completion Project at major research universities:
“Increasing demand for workers with advanced training, particularly at the graduate level, an
inadequate domestic talent pool, and a small representation of women and minorities
graduating at all education levels are among some growing concerns over workforce issues
that relate to the economic health and competitiveness of the United States. These concerns
are particularly acute in science, engineering, and mathematics (SEM), but are not by any
means limited to these fields. Even small improvements in attrition and completion rates
would substantially address many of these workforce issues.”
The average graduation rate of entering PhD students at UVa hovered between 60% and 63% for students
entering between 1996-97 and 1999-2000. According to the above mentioned CGS study, the average tenyear graduation rate of the public institutions in the study was 56.1%, and 58.2% for the private institutions.
[see page 58]
Campaign Progress: In September 2006 the “Knowledge is Power” campaign was publicly launched with
an ambitious goal of $3 billion, more than twice the amount raised in the previous campaign ($1.42 billion)
and, at the time of its announcement, the highest campaign goal of any institution of higher education in the
country—public or private. When envisioned, it was acknowledged that the trajectory of this new campaign
might be slower than the previous campaign, although projections indicated that the University could reach
the $3 billion campaign goal within the eight-year time period. Campaign progress is generally reported in
terms of percentage of campaign goal achieved against percentage of campaign time elapsed.
At this writing, campaign progress stands at $2.15 billion, or 71.64% campaign goal achieved in 79.15% time
elapsed (7.5%, or $225 million behind target). The $2 billion milestone was achieved in September 2009,
leaving $1 billion to be raised in the final 27 months of the eight year campaign period. As of April 30,
2010, reaching the goal on time would require average campaign commitments of more than $40 million per
month. Though this amount is significantly higher than the average per month to date ($27 million per
month), the campaign deadline remains unchanged. [see pages 80-82]
Future Support Progress: The future support measure tracks expected dollars (dollars that donors have
documented that they are leaving in their wills) against the future support campaign goal. Launched in the
fall of 2007, the Bequest Campaign has a goal of $400 million in future support dollars, representing 13.3%
of the overall $3 billion campaign goal. Through May 2010, the Bequest Campaign stood at $235,077,853,
6
which is 59% of the overall Bequest Campaign goal. Since the launch of the Capital Campaign,
$100,638,490 in realized bequests have come in to support schools and programs. [see pages 83-84]
New Commitments: New Commitments, unlike Annual Philanthropic Cash Flow, shows all new
commitments, both cash and pledges. These data are reported by monthly new commitments (which allows
for comparison with previous months) and fiscal year new commitments to date. Through May 2010, fiscal
year new commitments were $156 million, reflecting a decrease of 15% when compared with new
commitments during the same period in FY2009 ($184.4 million). Monthly new commitments fluctuate,
with predictable increases at the end of calendar (December) and fiscal year (June). [see pages 85-86]
Measures of Interest
Faculty Turnover: This is only the fourth time in the last 30 years that the number of full-time instructional
faculty declined from one year to the next. The turnover quotients for female, minority, as well as majority
faculty were much higher than usual for fall 2009. These rates may be attributable to the economic
conditions, which have resulted in budget reductions and no salary increases; the low number of new hires
at the University along with increasing numbers of retirements; and other institution’s strategic recruiting
efforts. While faculty mobility is a normative feature of the academic environment, patterns that suggest a
revolving door of recruitment and loss are cause for concern.
Plans for improving the TQ must take into account both recruitment and retention. The Office of the Vice
Provost for Faculty Recruitment and Retention (VPFRR) oversees two ongoing surveys aimed at better
understanding why faculty leave or decline offers from UVa. Across the University there are multiple
programs and resources to support faculty in these areas. One outgrowth of the VPFRR research has been
the establishment of professional development programs aimed at supporting faculty throughout their
career and improving leadership at all levels. [see pages 32-35]
Faculty Hiring: In last year’s report, Faculty Recruitment, yield on offers, was identified as an area in need
of improvement. After a three-year decline, in 2009 yield rates in all categories increased significantly. Yield
rates for African American and Hispanic American candidates showed the most percentage increase and
reached a level of 100%. A major contributor to the increased performance, however, may have been the
downturn in the global economy. As a result, there were fewer competitive tenure-track positions open,
nationally and at peer institutions. As the economy improves, the University will seek to sustain high yield
rates. [see pages 30-31]
Federal Research Expenditures: UVa bucked the downward trend in research expenditures per faculty
member set by many of its peers, including Penn, Duke, Cornell, UNC, and Berkeley. The upswing is likely
to continue for two more years. UVa receives the majority of its federal funding from NIH. As has been
widely reported, NIH’s budget has flattened over the past several years, so the University’s federal research
expenditure increases have begun to flatten out as well, as have those of its peers. However, since the
majority of the 2009 federal research and development stimulus funding is allocated to NIH (on top of the
agency’s regular annual budget), the University expects to see at least a two-year spike in research
expenditures as those funds are applied for and spent. Over this time period, UVa anticipates a one-time
increase of approximately 10% in federal research dollars as part of the federal stimulus funding. Future
overall UVa research spending will largely depend on the ongoing federal agency R&D budgets. [see
pages 36-38]
7
8
University Rankings
U.S. News and World Report Undergraduate Rankings
¾ Overall Undergraduate Ranking
¾ Peer Assessment
¾ Financial Resources
U.S. News and World Report and Other Graduate Rankings
¾ U.S. News and World Report Graduate School/Program Rankings
¾ U.S. News and World Report Professional School Rankings
International Rankings
National Research Council Rankings
9
10
U.S. News and World Report (USNWR) Undergraduate Rankings
Overall Undergraduate Ranking
Description of Measure
This measure shows UVa’s ranking among its peers in the USNWR undergraduate ranking of the best
national universities.
Comparative and Trended Data
US News Overall Undergraduate Rank
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
3
Penn
5
7
9
11
Duke
13
15
17
19
Cornell
Vanderbilt
Peer Mean
21
Berkeley
23
Virginia
25
UCLA
27
Michigan
29
UNC
31
Analysis
UVa’s rank (currently 24th) has varied over the last 10 years between 20th and 24th, with no clear trend either
up or down. Although some of the peers do show clear trends for a period of time (Cornell, Vanderbilt),
overall the peers have changed little over the 10-year period.
Target
During the past four years the Board of Visitors Special Committee on Planning has investigated the
possibility of the University attaining a rank of 15th. The results of those inquiries showed that it would be a
significant stretch to attain that rank.
Plan for Improvement
The Committee on Planning identified several areas in which the University could likely influence an
increase in its rank. These include hiring more faculty, especially in science and engineering, reducing the
student/faculty ratio in the College and Engineering, teaching more sections of size less than 20, increasing
funding in sponsored research, and stimulating publications and citations in science and math.
11
Peer Assessment
Description of Measure
This measure shows UVa’s peer assessment rating from the USNWR undergraduate ranking of the best
national universities. On the peer assessment, university presidents, provosts, and admission deans are
asked to rate the academic programs of institutions. Ratings range from 1 (marginal) to 5 (distinguished).
Comparative and Trended Data
US News Peer Assessment Score
5.0
4.9
4.8
Berkeley
4.7
4.6
4.5
Cornell
Penn
4.4
Michigan
Duke
Peer Mean
4.3
Virginia
4.2
UCLA
4.1
UNC
Vanderbilt
4.0
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Analysis
UVa’s peer assessment score (currently 4.3) has varied over the last 10 years between 4.3 and 4.4, with no
clear trend either up or down. With the exception of Duke, who has dropped from 4.6 to 4.4 over the 10year period, overall the peers have changed little over the period.
Target
A peer assessment of 4.4 seems attainable since UVa did reach that score four times in the past 10 years.
This would move UVa up three positions in the peer assessment rank from 16th to 13th. There would be
three institutions tied at 4.4 (13th position), so if the peer assessment score increases to 4.4, UVa would be
tied for 13th in the rankings, up three positions from its current rank of 16th.
Plan for Improvement
Current Board of Visitors initiatives such as AccessUVa and focused investment in areas identified through
the work of the Commission on the Future of the University — (1) the student experience, (2) science and
technology, (3) the arts, and (4) global education—should help to enhance UVa’s peer assessment score.
12
Financial Resources
Description of Measure
This measure shows the educational expenditures per undergraduate student reported in the USNWR
undergraduate ranking of the best national universities. Educational expenditures are considered to be those
for instruction, research, student services, and related areas. Expenditures for athletics, dormitories, and
hospitals are not counted.
Comparative and Trended Data
Educational Expenditures per Student
120,000
Duke
110,000
Vanderbilt
Penn
100,000
90,000
80,000
Peer Mean
70,000
Cornell
60,000
UCLA
UNC
50,000
Michigan
Berkeley
40,000
Virginia
30,000
20,000
10,000
0
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
Analysis
UVa consistently ranks below the mean of its peers and below each peer institution on this measure.
Target
The data above, for the 2010 USNWR rankings, represents the 2007-08 fiscal year. In order to move up to
the middle position among public peers in 2007-08, it would have required approximately $260 million
dollars in additional educational expenditures per year. This is clearly a stretch goal but it does not get UVa
to the 15th rank position overall.
Plan for Improvement
There has been additional investment in instruction and research through the recommendations of the
Commission on the Future of the University. Budget reductions imposed by the Commonwealth over the
last three years could reduce the level of expenditures per student sending the trend line in the wrong
direction. The University should maximize all its potential revenue sources if it is to turn this measure in a
positive direction.
13
U.S. News and World Report (USNWR) and Other U.S. Graduate Rankings
U.S. News and World Report Graduate School/Program Rankings
Description of Measure
This measure shows UVa’s rankings in the USNWR graduate school rankings of the best national graduate
schools and graduate programs. The measure is based on a comprehensive formula which varies somewhat
by discipline, but generally includes peer assessment, employer assessment, undergraduate GPA,
standardized test scores, acceptance rate, student-to-faculty ratio, enrollments, degrees granted, employment
rate, funded research, and funded research per faculty member. There are some limitations associated with
this performance measure – it ranks individual graduate schools and programs rather than the entire
university, and it does not publish rankings for several of the University’s schools including the largest
graduate school, Arts & Sciences.
Comparative and Trended Data
UVa Graduate Schools in
US News Graduate School Rankings
1st
2008
2009
2010
2011
5th
10th
15th
20th
25th
30th
35th
40th
45th
50th
Architecture
(1997)
14
Education
Engineering
Nursing
(2003 &
2008)
Comparative and Trended Data 1
Three UVa graduate schools are ranked in the top 50 of the USNWR “America’s Best Graduate Schools.”
The table below represents the 2010 and 2011 rankings for UVa and 2011 rankings of peer institutions.
Nursing schools were not ranked by USNWR for 2009-2011.
UVa Graduate Schools in U.S. News and World Report (USNWR) Graduate School Rankings (Top
50) Compared to 2011 Peer Rankings
Discipline
Architecture
Arts & Sciences
Commerce
Education
Engineering
Nursing 3
UVa
2010
62
UVa
2011
Cornell
24
37
19
21
39
36
10
Duke
Penn
Vanderbilt
Berkeley
UCLA
Michigan
UNC
13
23
3
1
37
19
10
3
6
15
12
14
8
5
30
33
15
5
Note: Fields without data indicate (a) programs not evaluated by USNWR, or (b) peer institutions that do not have programs in
the particular discipline.
Analysis
In judging the quality of a graduate program based on USNWR rankings, it is recognized that fluctuations
of a few places within a decile (e.g. top 10, etc.) from year to year are less significant than differences
between deciles sustained over many years. Engineering has been ranked in the top 40 for the past several
years, and is currently at number 39. USNWR offers no comprehensive ranking of the Graduate School of
Arts & Sciences (GSAS). Individual programs within GSAS and Education are ranked periodically; these
rankings are discussed below.
Competition is fierce among the top programs. Even once top-10 status is achieved, maintaining that status
requires continued investment of resources and a commitment to excellence. For University programs to
improve in the rankings will require allocation of substantial resources to graduate education. To compete
with UVa’s peers will require a direct investment in the form of an endowment to attract and retain
outstanding faculty and to provide competitive offers of financial support to prospective graduate students.
Targets
The Office of the Vice President for Research (VPR) solicited targets from individual graduate schools.
These are summarized in the table below. Over the long-term all of the University’s graduate and
professional schools aspire to be ranked at least among the top 20 programs. Most programs plan to reach
these targets over the short-term and then strive to maintain such rankings over the long-term. Engineering
has set the most ambitious target of moving from top 40 to top 30 over the short-term and then to top 20
over the long-term.
U.S. News provides no comprehensive rankings for graduate schools of arts and sciences or schools of commerce. U.S. News
does provide periodic rankings of individual programs in arts and sciences; however these rankings are not represented in the
table above. It has discontinued rankings for schools of architecture. As a result of the U.S. News decision not to rank graduate
architecture programs, DesignIntelligence – a bi-monthly journal – introduced rankings based on professional performance of alumni
in architecture, landscape architecture, and interior design. In the 2010 rankings, the University’s graduate architecture program
was ranked 9th; the graduate landscape architecture program was ranked 5th.
2 Represents 1997 ranking.
3 Nursing schools were not evaluated for 2009, so 2008 rankings are provided for all peers.
1
15
Targets for UVa Graduate Schools in U.S. News and World Report (USNWR) Graduate School
Rankings
School
Architecture
Arts & Sciences
Commerce (McIntire)
Education (Curry)
Engineering
Nursing
Current
Ranking
Short-term Target
(2007-2012)
Long-term Target
(2017 and beyond)
Top 40
Top 40
Top 20
Top 20
Top 30
Top 18
Top 20
Top 20
Top 18
Note: Fields without data indicate programs not evaluated by USNWR.
Plans for Improvement
Consistent with the strategy outlined in the 10-year academic plan, the quality of the University’s graduate
programs relies on three fundamental resources: the quality of the faculty, the quality of students, and the
quality of the physical environment in which to conduct their work.
While VPR has limited financial resources for graduate education, it attempts to leverage such resources to
aid Ph.D.-granting schools and departments in attracting the highest quality graduate students. VPR
manages the Fellowship Enhancement for Outstanding Doctoral Candidates, which supplements departmental aid
packages for top applicants to the University’s graduate programs. It offers financial assistance to faculty
and advanced graduate students for travel aimed at recruiting prospective doctoral students. VPR also
works closely with other administrative units and individual schools in allocating new state monies and
ensuring such funds meet the strategic objectives of the Commonwealth, the University, the schools, and
individual academic programs.
•
Strategies: (1) advocating for more reliable sources of funding for graduate students through
development of a $200 million endowment as part of the capital campaign; (2) increasing the size of the
graduate student population, specifically targeting science and engineering programs; (3) providing
competitive benefits and resources for graduate students; and (4) increasing financial resources in
targeted specialty areas. 4
•
Actions: (1) offering supplemental incentive programs to attract the highest quality graduate students;
(2) promoting graduate education to the General Assembly, donors, and other relevant constituencies;
and (3) targeting new institutional and state resources to strategic areas of excellence.
In addition to the pan-University strategies and actions noted above, VPR solicited school-specific strategies
and actions which are tailored to individual disciplines. Examples of these include (1) increasing financial
resources to offer more competitive financial aid and support packages; (2) improving outreach to multiple
constituencies such as prospective students, faculty, employers, peer institutions, and government agencies;
(3) increasing research productivity by assisting faculty in securing extramural research funding; (4) greater
school oversight of the admissions process; and (5) enhancing career and professional development
opportunities for graduate students. Detailed responses from individual schools may be requested from
VPR.
Comparative and Trended Data
Twelve UVa graduate programs in GSAS and Education are ranked in the top 50 of the USNWR
“America’s Best Graduate Schools.” The table below represents the 2009, 2010, or 2011 rankings for UVa
and peer institutions.
4
Such strategies are generally aimed at Ph.D. education, rather than professional and/or master’s-level education.
16
UVa Graduate Programs in U.S. News and World Report (USNWR) Graduate School Rankings
Compared to 2011 Peer Rankings
Program
Biological Sciences
Chemistry
Clinical Psychology
Computer Science
Earth Sciences
Economics
English
History
Mathematics
Physics
Political Science
Psychology
Sociology
Speech-Lang Path
Statistics
Ranking
Year
2011
2011
2009
2011
2011
2010
2010
2010
2011
2011
2010
2010
2010
2009
2011
UVa
46
45
16/116
28
63
28
10
20
46
40
33
23
36
53
58
Cornell
11
10
5
13
18
7
12
13
7
20
17
17
Duke
13
45
9
27
45
19
10
14
24
30
9
23
14
Penn
20
19
9
17
81
9
4
9
18
17
28
11
11
22
10
12
Vanderbilt
32
49
16
58
34
29
26
51
57
39
29
31
5
Berkeley
2
1
4
1
3
6
1
1
2
5
6
1
1
UCLA
24
16
1
14
17
14
10
9
8
19
11
3
9
Michigan
20
16
25
13
9
12
13
7
8
11
4
3
3
2/17
27/31
12/17
UNC
24
13
6
20
52
34
16
12
30
36
13
13
5
18
10/22
Note: Fields without data indicate (a) programs not evaluated by USNWR, or (b) peer institutions that do not have programs in
the particular discipline. Multiple rankings reflect programs offered in more than one department. For example, UVa’s two
clinical psychology rankings reflect GSAS/Education.
It should be noted that the ranking formula for these programs is based solely on peer assessment and
contains no analysis of quantitative measures.
17
U.S. News and World Report Professional School Rankings
Description of Measure
This measure shows UVa’s rankings in the USNWR graduate school rankings of the best national
professional programs. The measure is based on a comprehensive formula which varies somewhat by
discipline, but generally includes peer assessment, employer assessment, undergraduate GPA, standardized
test scores, acceptance rate, student-to-faculty ratio, enrollments, degrees granted, and employment rate.
Comparative and Trended Data
UVa Professional Schools in
US News Rankings
1st
5th
2008
2009
2010
2011
10th
15th
20th
25th
30th
35th
40th
45th
50th
Darden
Medicine
(research)
Law
All three UVa professional schools are ranked in the top 50 of the USNWR “America’s Best Graduate
Schools.” The table below represents the 2009 and 2010 rankings for UVa and 2010 rankings of peer
institutions.
UVa Professional Schools in U.S. News and World Report (USNWR) Graduate School Rankings
(Top 50) Compared to 2009 Peer Rankings
Discipline
Business (Darden)
Law
Medicine (research)
UVa
2010
15
10
24
UVa
2011
13
10
25
Cornell
18
13
16
Duke
14
11
6
Penn
5
7
2
Vanderbilt
36
17
15
Berkeley
7
7
UCLA
15
15
11
Michigan
12
9
6
UNC
21
28
20
Note: Fields without data indicate (a) programs not evaluated by USNWR, or (b) peer institutions that do not have programs in
the particular discipline.
Analysis
In judging the quality of a professional school based on USNWR rankings, it is recognized that fluctuations
of a few places within a decile (e.g. top 10, etc.) from year to year are less significant than differences
between deciles sustained over many years. Law is ranked in the top 10 and business is within four places of
top-10 status. Medicine remained within five places of the top 20.
18
Schools must continue to improve with respect to the metrics evaluated by USNWR. Maintaining the status
quo may result in a drop in the rankings as peer institutions improve their overall scores. Competition is
fierce among the top programs. Even once top-10 status is achieved, maintaining that status requires
continued investment of resources and a commitment to excellence. The School of Law attributed a drop
from 8th in 2007 to 9th in 2009 to “the intense competition for students and faculty from the University’s
upstream and downstream peers—peers that are well-resourced and are deploying their resources with
increasing sophistication in order to achieve specific strategic objectives.”
Targets
The Office of the Vice President for Research (VPR) solicited targets from individual professional schools.
These are summarized in the table below. Over the long-term all of the University’s graduate and
professional schools aspire to be ranked at least among the top 20 programs; business and law aspire to top10 status. Most schools plan to reach these targets over the short-term and then strive to maintain such
rankings over the long-term.
Targets for UVa Professional Schools in U.S. News and World Report (USNWR) Graduate School
Rankings
School
Business (Darden)
Law
Medicine
Current
Ranking
Top 15
Top 10
Top 25
Short-term Target
(2007-2012)
Top 10
Top 10
Top 20
Long-term Target
(2017 and beyond)
Top 10
Top 10
Top 20
19
International Rankings
Shanghai Jiao Tong University Academic Ranking of World Universities
The Times Higher Education World University Rankings
Description of Measures
The Institute of Higher Education, Shanghai Jiao Tong University conducts the Academic Ranking of
World Universities based on academic or research performance. Data used include publications in Science
and Nature, citations, and Nobel Prizes or Fields Medals won by faculty and alumni. Results are also
weighted based on the size of the institution.
Times Higher Education is a London-based magazine devoted to higher education. Beginning in 2004, it has
annually published rankings of the Top 200 World Universities. It also publishes rankings within
disciplines. Data used include ratings by peers and employers; citations; and percentages of international
students and staff.
Comparative Data
Jiao Tong University
Times Higher Education
Academic Ranking of World
Top World Universities,
Universities, 2009
2009
World Regional National World Regional National
Rank
Rank
Rank
Rank
Rank
Rank
UVa
91
54
51
128
48
41
UC
3
3
3
39
20
18
Berkeley
UCLA
13
11
11
32
18
16
Cornell
12
10
10
15
11
11
Duke
31
24
23
14
10
10
Michigan
22
18
18
19
14
13
North
39
32
30
78
30
26
Carolina
Penn
15
13
13
12
8
8
Vanderbilt
41
33
31
140
51
44
Note: “Regional” refers to North America and Latin America.
Analysis
UVa dropped in the 2009 rankings relative to 2008, and in one of the two rankings, ranks lower than all its
peers. It should be noted that the methodology of the Times Higher Education rankings shown above has
been criticized; the 2010 rankings will be done with a new research data specialist, Thomson Reuters, and
will feature a new methodology.
20
National Research Council Rankings
Description of Measure
The National Research Council’s Assessment of Research-Doctorate Programs will result in the creation of
an online database containing quantitative data and ratings on research-doctorate programs at U.S.
universities. Data collected will include quantitative descriptors of each program; reputational ratings; and
data on publications, citations, and dissertation keywords.
The previous rankings, from the 1995 NRC assessment, were based exclusively on peer assessment of
faculty quality. The current assessment is significantly more data-driven and represents a substantial
increase in the scale and scope of the project. As such, the comparability of the two assessments will be
limited. Rather than the specific numerical rankings used in 1995, program ratings will be reported within
ranges (e.g., 13th-20th, etc.) to account for the imprecise nature of program assessment. Thirty-nine UVa
doctoral programs participated in the assessment. More than 800 UVa faculty received questionnaires with
88 percent responding (2 percent above the national average). In addition, more than 300 doctoral students
received questionnaires, with 73 percent responding (1 percent above the national average).
Status
No data currently available for reporting.
The National Research Council issued A Guide to the Methodology of the National Research Council
Assessment of Research Doctorate Programs on July 9, 2009; however, the assessment report itself has
not yet been issued. When the report is ready to be released, institutions will receive results for their
programs 72 hours before public release of the report and database.
21
22
General University Measures
Faculty and Staff
¾ Average Faculty Salary
¾ Staff Salary Average Market Range Penetration
¾ Faculty Recruitment and Retention
¾ Minority Faculty Turnover
¾ Federal Research Expenditures per Full-Time Instructional Faculty
¾ Research Awards
¾ Faculty Publications and Citations
¾ Current Faculty Membership in Academies and Scholarly Awards
¾ Innovation
Students
¾ Student Diversity
¾ Percentage of Low-Income and Middle-Income Undergraduate Students
¾ Pell Grant Recipients
¾ Undergraduate Graduation Rates
¾ Undergraduate Graduation Rates by Minority Group
¾ Graduate Graduation Rates
¾ First-Year Undergraduate Median Combined SAT Scores
¾ Student Selectivity – Undergraduate
¾ Student Selectivity – Graduate
¾ Small Classes
¾ Undergraduate Research
¾ National Survey of Student Engagement
Resources
¾ Facilities Condition Index
¾ Maintenance Reinvestment Rate
¾ Percentage of Alumni Giving
¾ Campaign Progress
¾ Future Support
¾ New Commitments
¾ Annual Philanthropic Cash Flow
¾ Endowment Performance
¾ Endowment per Student
¾ Long-term Financial Strength – Equity Ratio
¾ Operating Cycle Financial Solvency and Flexibility
¾ Bond Rating
¾ Efficiency – Institutional Expenditures vs. Reputation
¾ SWAM Spends as a Percentage of Discretionary Expenditures
¾ Compliance/Enterprise Risk Management Index
23
24
Faculty and Staff
Average Faculty Salary
Description of Measure
This measure shows where UVa ranked among the AAU institutions on average faculty salary and average
total compensation, which includes salary and benefits. The population of faculty is limited to instructional
faculty and does not include any School of Medicine faculty.
Rank of Average Faculty Salary and Total Compensation Among AAU Institutions
1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
1
3
Fiscal Year
5
7
9
11
13
15
BOV‐Targeted Range
17
19
21
Salary
23
25
27
29
Total
Compensation
31
33
35
Analysis
Both the average salary rank and the average total compensation track relatively closely over the 20-year
period and both track closely with the condition of the state budget over time. By supplementing state
funds for faculty, the BOV program succeeded in raising UVa’s rank to 20th in 2007 before it began to
decline again in 2008, dropped again to the 26th position in 2009, and the 29th in 2010.
In 2010, for the second consecutive year, the State did not provide any increase in faculty salaries. The
result was an average salary increase of 0%. Only a little over half of the 60 AAU institutions were able to
give faculty salary increases in 2009-10, and many actually suffered decreases in their salary averages. The
AAU median and average increases were both approximately 1%, hence the drop in UVa’s position for the
3rd consecutive year.
Sensitivity/Cost-Benefit
The University’s current position in the AAU, 29th, is at least 10 positions short of the BOV target range of
15th through 19th. This gap represents $7,000 in average salary. A total of $8.5 million would be required to
raise the salaries of the 1,220 full-time instructional (non-medical) faculty included in this calculation to the
19th position (and holding peer salaries unchanged). A total of $15.7million in current dollars would be
required to award the same salary increase to the 2,238 total FTE teaching and research faculty at UVa.
25
Position Among the SCHEV Peer Group
The State Council for Higher Education has a stated goal that Virginia public institutions should maintain
the 60th percentile in average faculty salary among their SCHEV peer institutions. The 0% salary increase
from State funds for 2009-10 caused UVa to drop to the 30th percentile among its peers. Because no funds
have been provided by the legislature for salary increases in the 2009-10 budget (any possible bonus would
not be included in the base salary), it is expected that the percentile rank will drop further next year.
26
Staff Salary Average Market Range Penetration
Background and Context
2010 is the second year of the new University Staff Human Resources Plan, implemented in January 2009.
All staff hired after July 1, 2006 are covered by the Plan as a new category of employee, University Staff.
The University tracks Market Range Penetration for University Staff employee salaries as a performance
measure to determine how well the University maintains strategic alignment of staff salaries. This is similar
to the work done for faculty salary benchmarking, and aids in staff recruitment and retention, which in turn
ensures optimal faculty support. As expected, the suspension of most types of salary adjustments over the
last several years has challenged the University’s ability to use the University Staff Plan to make progress
towards the desired competitive positioning of staff salaries.
Description of Primary Measure
The University adopted the concept of market relevance in building competitive pay “market ranges.” These
ranges were developed by applying generally accepted compensation practices to reflect similar pay
opportunities in the marketplace. As depicted below, each market range is displayed as annual salary values
with a Lower Reference (minimum), 33rd Percentile, 67th Percentile, and an Upper Reference (maximum).
Market Range
Each market range is segmented into “thirds.” For purposes of analysis, the “middle third” pay interval is
considered the “competitive range.” How far into the market range a University Staff employee salary is
positioned is called “range penetration.” Therefore, a salary level between 33% and 67% has a pay
penetration within the middle third and would be considered appropriate for a fully qualified and fully
competent performer in the job.
While the goal for UVa faculty salaries is to rank between the 70th and 75th percentile of the AAU Peer
Group, the initial goal for staff is to have the salary average at the 50th percentile of the market range. The
University recognizes that excellent staff provides a successful support infrastructure for faculty and
students, and therefore we realize that an even more aggressive salary goal may be appropriate in the future.
However, given that there was no direct link between the State Classified Pay Bands and market data for
many years, we have much work to do to create a correlation between University Staff pay and market data.
Furthermore, with no salary increases during the past two years, it is difficult to make progress. Therefore,
the initial target of the 50th percentile of the market ranges is an appropriate and realistic starting goal.
27
The graph below shows the distribution curves of staff salaries at UVa as of the third quarter of FY2009-10.
The market range ‘thirds’ are shaded in green, yellow, and red to reflect the market range segments
described above.
Market Range Penetration
50th Percentile Target
Current
Range Penetration = 34.9%
As can be seen in the above graph, the peak of the University Staff salary line is currently positioned below
the targeted 50th percentile of the market ranges. Given that the University is still in the early stages of
using market data for staff salaries, it is not unexpected to see distribution curves with salaries positioned
outside of the market pay ranges established for their jobs. The shape of the distribution curve is explained
in part by the fact that University Staff is a new category and therefore employees in that category would be
expected to have fewer years of service (and therefore lower salaries). For comparison purposes, data are
also provided for Classified Staff and Administrative & Professional Faculty employee categories. The
graphed data for these employee categories have more normally positioned salary distributions than do
University Staff.
Analysis
The figure above depicts a significant number of University Staff salaries falling below the middle third –
54% (45% in Lower Third plus 9% below the Lower Reference). This represents an improvement from
59% last year. The figure also shows the University’s targeted goal of market range penetration at the 50th
percentile and the current actual market range penetration of 34.9% (an improvement from last year’s result
of 24.4%). This represents the composite positioning of all University Staff salaries in relation to the 50th
percentile. The positive movement is primarily attributable to the impact of using market ranges for new
hires. However, employees who are fully qualified, performing competently, and whose salaries are
positioned in the lower third are considered “at risk” employees – at risk of turnover or low engagement
and satisfaction levels.
28
Of even greater and more immediate concern is the large number of University Staff (9%) with salaries still
below the Lower Reference. While progress is being made—this is down from the 14% reported last
year—restoration of targeted funds to address this issue should be a high priority. The cost to the
University as a whole to increase those salaries above the Lower Reference is approximately $515,000, with
the “state” portion being approximately $150,000.
In the years immediately prior to the recent budget reductions, the University had been improving the pay
positioning of staff salaries. The supplemental funding approved by the Board of Visitors as part of the
annual operating budget, as well as the implementation of an effective pay decision-making tool for
managers, Pay Action 7, was instrumental in directing funds to those employees whose salary most
warranted adjustments based on consideration of their pay positioning as well as other relevant factors.
Continued use of these processes, monitoring and targeted pay actions will facilitate pay improvement.
Our ability to attract, motivate and maintain highly qualified talent is in part dependent on maintaining
competitive and rewarding compensation levels. Moving staff salaries closer to the 50th percentile through a
disciplined, fiscally responsible, and well-informed movement to the right of the range penetration curves
will establish market competitive salaries, salaries necessary to sustain excellent services in support of the
University’s core missions of teaching and research.
2011 Compensation Increases
Considering continued state and University budgetary concerns, in 2011 the University is providing a onetime bonus payment in recognition of individual employee contributions. This one-time, performancebased bonus, awarded to eligible employees and paid in December 2010, will not increase the fixed base
salary cost of the University. The one-time funding has been approved in the budget for non-recurring
payments of 3% of the total annualized salary expenses for University Staff. The specific amount awarded
to each person will vary within a range, developed by the administration. In the meantime, a five-year staff
salary strategy has been prepared to achieve the 50th percentile goal and more appropriately align University
Staff base salaries as soon as recurring funds become available.
29
Faculty Recruitment and Retention
Description of Measure
This measure has two components to evaluate institutional ability to attract and retain faculty: 1) the annual
percentage yield on offers for tenure-track positions, and 2) the retention rate of faculty awarded tenure.
Data became available for annual percentage yield on offers for tenure-track positions in 2005. This
measure also includes data on minority and gender yield rates.
Trended Data
Yield on Offers
UVa Tenured and Tenure-Track Faculty Positions
100%
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Total
Women
Men
African
American
Asian
American
Hispanic
American
Native
American
White
American
Analysis
Yield rates in all categories increased significantly in 2009. This was likely due to the downturn in the
economy. There were fewer tenure-track positions open to applicants, nationally and at peer institutions.
Internal factors may also play a role. It seems likely that factors such as the fewer number of searches and
uncertainty as to whether or not open positions would be funded in the next hiring cycle resulted in more
focused efforts.
Plan for Improvement
In the long-term, it is unlikely that yield rates will improve as compared to 2009. However, as the economy
improves we should focus on sustaining these high yield rates.
In order to better understand why individuals refuse offers from UVa, the Office of the Vice Provost for
Faculty Recruitment and Retention (VPFRR) administers a declination survey that is sent to individuals who
decline the offer of a tenure-track faculty position at UVa. Over the course of this next year the VPFRR
will expand that survey to faculty who do accept positions, in order to better understand why faculty accept.
The current survey findings indicate that spouse/partner career opportunities are a key consideration for
individuals considering an offer. Resources for research and salary were also important.
30
The VPFRR and UVa more broadly is addressing dual career placement in multiple ways. It has allocated
resources for both accompanying spouse placement assistance and/or short-term funding for additional
faculty lines as appropriate. UHR and the VPFRR also provide placement assistance to spouses. In
addition the VPFRR maintains active networks with surrounding academic institutions, both fellow Higher
Education Recruitment Consortium (HERC) members and those which have yet to join, in order to place
spouses, as well as share resources and information. Over the past year the VPFRR has created additional
print and web-based resources to help spouses who may need assistance.
Trended Data
UVa Tenured Faculty Retention Rate
100%
Virginia
95%
90%
85%
80%
75%
70%
65%
60%
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
Analysis
The above chart shows the percentage of tenured faculty in the fall of the given year who remained at the
University in the fall of the following year. UVa traditionally retains over 95% of the tenured faculty from
year to year. Recent data do not indicate any change in that tradition. We do expect the retention rate to
increase slightly in upcoming years as the economy improves and increasing numbers of baby boomers
reach retirement age.
31
Minority Faculty Turnover
Description of Measure
The overall diversity of a faculty is not only affected positively by the number of new hires, but also
negatively by the amount of turnover. The turnover quotient (TQ) is intended to display the extent to
which the number of newly hired faculty of any race or gender is cancelled out by turnover in that same
category. It represents the number of a particular category of faculty who left the institution in a given year
displayed as a percentage of the number of newly hired faculty in that category. A TQ of 100% would
imply that all newly hired faculty were cancelled out by turnover. A low TQ (less than 100%) in minority
faculty in a given year would result in an increase in overall diversity. The TQ can vary widely from year to
year, especially in smaller groups of faculty. In the following three graphs, tenured faculty are counted as
new tenured faculty if they were hired with tenure or promoted from within.
Trended Data
Female Faculty Turnover Quotient
UVa Tenured and Tenure-Track Faculty
150%
140%
Tenured
130%
Tenured & Tenure-Track
120%
110%
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
Analysis
In 2009, the TQ for female tenured faculty rose above 100% for the first time on record. The combined
TQ for tenured and tenure-track (TTT) faculty was similarly high compared to previous years. Given the
current economic situation, the low number of new hires at the University, and other strategic recruiting
efforts, as well as an overall increasing number of retirements, these rates are not surprising. It should be
noted that in both 2003 and 2009, the number of new women TTT faculty was between 38% and 51%
lower than all other years. While faculty mobility is a normative feature of the academic environment,
patterns that suggest a revolving door of recruitment and loss are cause for concern.
32
Target
There is very little national data available on faculty TQs. What little does exist indicates that a TQ of
between 50% and 100% is not unusual, especially for female and under-represented minority faculty. In
order to diversify the faculty, the TTT female faculty TQ should be lower than the TQ for all TTT faculty.
As more female faculty join UVa and stay, and solo status becomes less of an issue, the University might
expect the female faculty TQ to drop below 50% consistently.
Plan for Improvement
Plans for improving the TQ should take into account both recruitment and retention. Acknowledging the
current economic situation, the limited number of hires and pay raises, other institutions’ efforts at strategic
recruiting, and the potential for increased retirement as faculty from the “baby boomer” generation age, we
must be diligent in all of our efforts to support and retain faculty.
The Office of the Vice Provost for Faculty Recruitment and Retention (VPFRR) oversees two ongoing
surveys aimed at better understanding why faculty leave or decline offers from UVa. The Exiting Faculty
Survey, which is aimed at better understanding why individuals resign from UVa, collects both quantitative
and qualitative data and is conducted annually. Current results indicate that the greater career opportunities
and better research resources offered in another position are the primary reasons for resignations.
Across the University there are multiple programs and resources to support faculty in these areas. One
outgrowth of the VPFRR research has been the development of professional development programs aimed
at supporting faculty throughout their career and improving leadership at all levels. Funded as part of the
Commission on the Future of the University, and overseen by the Office of the Vice Provost for Faculty
Development, the relatively new Institute for Faculty Advancement provides extensive programming for
new, mid-career, and senior faculty as well as chairs. Other support is available through the Teaching
Resource Center, the Libraries, as well as through the Office of the Vice President and Chief Information
Officer. If these programs continue UVa may expect improved retention over the long-term.
Please see “Faculty Recruitment and Retention: Yield on Offers and Retention Rate” for discussion of the
Declination Survey and associated interventions.
33
Trended Data
African American Faculty Turnover Quotient
UVa Tenured and Tenure-Track Faculty
300%
Tenured
250%
Tenured & Tenure-Track
200%
150%
100%
50%
0%
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
Analysis
The African American TQ over the past seven years represents a perfect example of how small populations
lead to greater variation in the TQ. Among the TTT faculty, the TQ dropped from a high 125% in 2004 to
0% in 2007 before increasing to 250% in 2009. In 2009, the low number of new African American faculty
clearly had a big impact. Two TTT African American faculty members were hired as compared to five that
left. On average, over the past seven years, 4 African American faculty members leave per year.
Target
Ideally, the TQ for African American Faculty would remain below 25% on average. However, it should be
noted that given the small number of African American faculty, there is going to be considerable variation
from year to year.
Plan for Improvement
Recruiting more African American faculty members should be a central part of any plan for improvement.
While recruiting occasional “star” senior faculty will play a supplemental role, the long-term strategy at UVa
must be focused on recruiting at the junior level. This approach plays to the institution’s strengths in
identifying talented scholars early and supporting them through tenure.
34
Trended Data
Other Minority Faculty Turnover Quotient
UVa Tenured and Tenure-Track Faculty
200%
Tenured
175%
Tenured & Tenure-Track
150%
125%
100%
75%
50%
25%
0%
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
Analysis
The other minority category includes Asian American, Hispanic American, and Native American faculty. In
2009, the TQ for tenured “other minority” faculty rose to 200%. In contrast, the tenured and tenure-track
TQ was 33% due to a substantial number of new hires at the junior level. In regards to tenured “other
minority” faculty, it should be noted that the high TQ is due to both a higher number of departures and a
lower number of “new” tenured faculty members relative to previous years, as well as a case of small
numbers (2/4) leading to greater variation in the TQ.
Target
For this category UVa should see steady decreases in the average TQ over time. As more minority faculty
join UVa and stay, the University might expect other minority faculty TQ to drop below 25%, consistent
with the target for African American faculty. However, it should be noted that given the small numbers of
“other minority” faculty, there is going to be considerable variation from year to year.
Plan for Improvement
Recruiting more minority faculty members should be a central part of any plan for improvement. While
recruiting occasional “star” senior faculty will play a supplemental role, the long-term strategy at UVa must
be focused on recruiting at the junior level. This approach plays to the institution’s strengths in identifying
talented scholars early and supporting them through tenure.
Please see the “Plan for Improvement” for female faculty. Across the University there are multiple
programs and resources to support faculty. If these programs are continued UVa may expect improved
retention over the long-term.
Please see “Faculty Recruitment and Retention: Yield on Offers and Retention Rate” for discussion of the
Declination Survey and associated interventions.
35
Federal Research Expenditures per Full-Time Instructional Faculty
Description of Measure
This measure provides an evaluation of research activity as measured by federal research expenditures
reported to NSF in an annual survey. The gross amount of research expenditures is presented in the first
graph, and the amount of research expenditures per tenured and tenure-track faculty member (IPEDS fulltime instructional/research/public service faculty) is provided in the second graph.
Comparative and Trended Data
Federal Research Expenditures (in millions)
$600
Michigan
Source: NSF
$550
$500
Penn
UCLA
$450
Duke
Peer Mean
$400
Cornell
UNC
Vanderbilt
$350
$300
$250
Berkeley
$200
Virginia
$150
$100
FY2000
FY2001
FY2002
FY2003
FY2004
FY2005
FY2006
FY2007
FY2008
Analysis
UVa receives the majority of its federal funding from NIH. As has been widely reported, NIH’s budget has
flattened over the past several years, so the University’s federal research expenditures increases have begun
to flatten out as well, as have those of its peers.
In total federal research expenditures, UVa falls below its peers in each of the last seven years. In 2008 UVa
made $219.4 million in federal research expenditures. Over the nine-year period represented above, UVa’s
rate of growth in federal research expenditures has also been slightly less than that of the peer mean.
Target
As highlighted in the University’s Commission for the Future plan, UVa intends to “increase the size of its
faculties in mathematics, science, and engineering… To prepare for new faculty members, the University
will construct new laboratory space immediately.” Also, as outlined in the University’s restructuring
agreement with the state, UVa plans to grow its sponsored research expenditures approximately 2%-4%
each year over the next 10 years if federal resources permit.
36
Plan for Improvement
To achieve the target, UVa will need to implement the recruiting and research facility building plans outlined
by the Commission for the Future. The actions outlined in the plan include hiring about 150 new
outstanding science and engineering faculty and purchasing equipment for their work.
Comparative and Trended Data
Federal Research Expenditures Per Tenured and Tenure-Track Faculty
$350,000
Source: NSF, IPEDS
UCLA
$300,000
Vanderbilt
Penn
Duke
$250,000
Peer Mean
$200,000
UNC
Cornell
Michigan
Berkeley
$150,000
Virginia
$100,000
$50,000
FY2000
FY2001
FY2002
FY2003
FY2004
FY2005
FY2006
FY2007
FY2008
Analysis
As mentioned above, UVa receives the majority of its federal funding from NIH, contributing to the plateau
seen in overall federal research expenditures. However, since the majority of the 2009 federal research and
development stimulus funding is allocated to NIH (on top of the agency’s regular annual budget), the
University expects to see at least a two-year spike in research expenditures as those funds are applied for and
spent. Over this time period, UVa anticipates a one-time increase of approximately 10% in federal research
dollars as part of the federal stimulus funding. Future overall UVa research spending will largely depend on
the ongoing federal agency R&D budgets.
In 2008 UVa expended $219.4 million in federal research funds. Over the nine-year period represented
above, UVa’s rate of growth in federal research expenditures was slightly less than that of the peer mean. It
is important to note that the number of faculty in the University’s science departments is smaller compared
to its peers. Proportionately, UVa has more humanities faculty, who traditionally do not receive sponsored
research funding.
Sensitivity/Cost-Benefit
As highlighted in the University’s Commission on the Future strategic plan, UVa is planning to selectively
increase faculty in sciences and engineering and construct new laboratory space. Also, the University’s
restructuring agreement with the state calls for UVa to grow its sponsored research expenditures
approximately 2%-4% each year over the next several years if federal resources permit. To achieve this
37
target, UVa will need to implement the recruiting and research facility building plans outlined by the
Commission, which include targeted hiring for new outstanding science and engineering faculty and
purchasing equipment for their work.
The University recently completed 200,000 GSF of new research space in the Carter-Harrison building for
the Medical School. An additional 200,000 GSF is currently under construction (College science building
and Rice Hall) with additional GSF available in the Snyder Building and Life Sciences Annex located in the
Fontaine Research Park.
With the new state-of-the art research space being developed and the planned targeted recruitment of
outstanding new faculty, the University should be able to positively impact the federal research dollars per
faculty member. However, this performance measure will take time to change as the strategic recruitment
and research plans and priorities evolve.
38
Research Awards
Description of Measure
This measure provides an evaluation of research activity as measured by the dollar amount of sponsored
program grants awarded per year. The data are displayed by the school of the principle investigator.
Trended Data
Millions
UVa Sponsored Program Awards by School
$350
$300
2000
2001
2002
A&S
Comm
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
$250
$200
$150
$100
$50
$0
Arch
Dard
Educ
Engr
Law
Med
Nurs
Other
Total
Analysis
UVa receives the majority of its sponsored research awards from federal sponsors (mainly NIH and NSF).
As has been widely reported, federal research budgets leveled off over the past several years,
correspondingly, so did the University’s sponsored award totals and that of our peers.
However, from the federal stimulus program, the University expects to see at least a two-year spike in total
sponsored research for FY 2010 and FY 2011. To date, UVa has received over $67 million in stimulus
funding on 167 awards. The majority of research stimulus support was allocated to NIH and NSF, which
align well with UVa research strengths and priorities in the School of Medicine and the College of Arts and
Sciences. Therefore, these schools will receive the largest share of federal stimulus funds.
The University’s sponsored research totals have increased over 58% since FY 2000 (FY2000: $209.5M and
FY2009: $332.3M) but leveled off more recently. The overall immediate future for UVa sponsored research
will largely depend on the ongoing federal agency R&D budgets. However, the University is also pursuing
diversification of its research portfolio through a more aggressive approach to corporate, foundation and
private funding support. As part of the CoFU research plan, the VPR office just hired a new Executive
Director of Innovation Partnerships and Commercialization. His goals include increasing the amount of
corporate research sponsorship and deals associated with University intellectual property.
39
The University’s restructuring agreement with the state calls for UVa to grow its sponsored research totals
approximately 2%-4% a year over the next several years if federal resources permit. To achieve this target,
UVa will need to implement the selective strategic recruiting, innovation initiatives and research facility
building plans outlined by the Commission.
40
Faculty Publications and Citations
Description of Measure
The number of faculty publications provides an assessment of faculty scholarly output apart from
sponsored research awards more readily available to faculty in the sciences and engineering than in the
humanities. The number of citations provides a means of measuring the relevance or value of faculty
research to others in the same field.
Status
Development of this measure is on hold as the University evaluates the best source of the data for the
measure.
41
Current Faculty Membership in Academies and Scholarly Awards
Description of Measure
This achievement measure signifies a partial gauge of faculty quality based on membership in national
academies and receipt of scholarly awards. The number of current faculty who are members of the National
Academy of Science, the National Academy of Engineering, the Institute of Medicine, or the American
Academy of Arts and Sciences is trended for the past seven years. The number of UVa and peer school
faculty receiving awards from the Fulbright Scholar, Guggenheim Fellowship, MacArthur Award, and NEH
is also provided over a nine-year period.
Comparative and Trended Data
Selected Faculty Awards - Cumulative Total
110
100
90
National Endowment for the Humanities Fellowships - Research
Fulbright Scholars
Guggenheim Fellowships
MacArthur Awards
(Cumulative number of awards since 2001)
Michigan
Berkeley
80
UCLA
70
Peer Mean
60
Penn
Cornell
50
UNC
Virginia
40
Duke
30
Vanderbilt
20
10
0
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
Analysis
Between 2001 and 2008, UVa’s cumulative numbers of the selected awards had increased at a rate somewhat
less than the peer mean, with totals falling to below the middle of the range. However, during 2009, UVa
faculty received more of these awards than any of its peers except Michigan.
42
Comparative Data
Current Faculty Memberships in Academies
200
Penn
Duke
Cornell
Vanderbilt
Berkeley
Virginia
UCLA
Michigan
North Carolina
180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
Nat. Acad. of
Science
Nat. Acad. of Engr.
Institute of
Medicine
Am. Acad. of A&S
Analysis
UVa membership in the four Academies is mixed in comparison to its peers. In the National Academy of
Engineering, UVa falls near the middle of the pack. In the National Academy of Science, the American
Academy of Arts & Sciences, and the Institute of Medicine, UVa is nearer the bottom of its peers.
43
Innovation
Description of Measure
Innovation is one pan-university initiative that is beginning to be addressed in multiple schools of UVa.
National and global market conditions also indicate that enhanced understanding and practices driving
effective innovation are highly desirable. UVa can be a global leader in defining “How does one innovate?”
linking theories of arts and creativity, human motivation, organizational networks, quantitative social
science, basic core science, engineering practices, and commercialization pathways. Based on this
understanding, UVa can be a leader in linking our array of superb basic discovery programs to societal
needs, values, and markets.
This performance measure tracks University innovation activity as measured by licensing revenue and
industry R&D divided by overall sponsored research. The graph presents innovation as a percentage of the
University’s overall sponsored research.
Comparative and Trended Data
Licensing Revenue Plus Industry Research Expenditures/Total Research Expenditures
0.09
Penn
0.08
Michigan
0.07
0.06
Cornell
0.05
Virginia
0.04
Vanderbilt
0.03
UNC
0.02
0.01
0
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
Note: Data for Berkeley and UCLA are not available above because the source of the information, The
Association of University Technology Managers (AUTM), only provides the information for the University
of California System as a whole.
Analysis
The University has developed and is implementing a new model for technology transfer, which expands and
integrates University and Patent Foundation capability. The University also has hired a new Executive
44
Director of Innovation Partnerships and Commercialization who will lead and oversee the university
through these changes and enhancements. This individual’s primary charge is to achieve an integration of
our tech transfer operations, enhance deal flow and revenues, and build new relationships with outside
partners that are conducive to maintaining a highly innovative and entrepreneurial environment in our UVa
research operations.
Current revenue for the Patent Foundation is projected to increase 20% per year under the new model and
we project revenues of at least $44 million 10 years from now. The baseline expectation is that the revenue
will meet or exceed 10% of the research grant funding for the institution. Industry research is another
funding source in which we anticipate increased activity over the next several years with the new staffing,
processes, and culture.
Sensitivity/Cost-Benefit
As described above, with the new staffing, redesigned models and enhanced processes we are implementing,
our expectation is that the University’s position with this innovation performance measure will dramatically
increase over the next five to 10 years. It will take some time for all the pieces to completely align, but we
expect positive results with this innovation measure.
45
Students
Student Diversity
Description of Measure
This measure represents the diversity of the student body in terms of gender, race/ethnicity, and
international origin. Percentages are provided for the full-time undergraduate population separately from
the full-time graduate population. Trended UVa data assist with the identification of growth patterns, which
are influenced by a combination of recruitment and retention efforts. Comparative data are also provided
for the most recent year to help ground the information among the University’s peers.
Trended Data, Undergraduate Diversity
Undergraduate Student Diversity
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
Female
50%
40%
30%
Total Ethnic Minorities (includes African American)
20%
African American
10%
International
0%
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
Analysis
Among undergraduate students, the University has seen slow long-term growth in the percentages of
women, international students, and total ethnic minorities. Although the percentage of African American
students has seen just the opposite, a slow long-term decline, the entering class of 2007 at least temporarily
turned the trend around.
46
Comparative Data, Undergraduate Diversity
Full-Time Undergraduate Student Diversity
100%
Fall 2008
90%
Penn
Duke
Cornell
Vanderbilt
Berkeley
Virginia
UCLA
Michigan
North Carolina
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Female
International
African Am
Total Ethnic Minority
Analysis
Although UVa falls below many of its peers in terms of total ethnic minority enrollment, it compares well to
its peers in terms of enrollment of female, African American, and international students.
Target
The University does not set specific targets in these areas. However, one of the long-term goals of the
Office of Undergraduate Admission is to recruit and enroll highly qualified female, minority, and
international students in order to contribute to the diversity of the undergraduate student body.
47
Trended Data, Graduate Diversity
Graduate Student Diversity (includes Law and Medicine)
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
Female
50%
40%
30%
20%
International
10%
Total Ethnic Minorities (includes African American)
African American
0%
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
Analysis
The percentage of international graduate students increased steadily and significantly between 1995 and
2001; since then, it leveled off before starting to increase again. The 14-year period has seen little
permanent change in the percentage of female and total ethnic minority groups. Like the undergraduate
population, the graduate student body has experienced a long, slow decline in the percentage of African
American students over the 14-year period.
48
Comparative Data, Graduate Diversity
Full-Time Graduate Student Diversity
100%
Fall 2008
90%
Penn
Duke
Cornell
Vanderbilt
Berkeley
Virginia
UCLA
Michigan
North Carolina
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Female
International
African Am
Total Ethnic Minority
Analysis
UVa falls approximately in the middle of its peers in percentage of female and African American graduate
students. However, it lags behind in terms of percentage of international student and total ethnic minority
enrollment.
Target
As with undergraduate students, the University does not set specific targets in these areas for graduate
students. However, the graduate schools strive to recruit and enroll highly qualified female, minority, and
international students in order to contribute to the diversity of the graduate student body.
49
Percentage of Low-Income and Middle-Income Undergraduate Students
Description of Measure
This measure reflects the University’s socio-economic diversity. These two percentages represent:
1. Low-Income: The number of undergraduate students whose family income falls within 200% of the
federal poverty level as defined by the Department of Health and Human Services. For the fall 2009
term, the federal poverty level for a family of four represents a family income of $21,200. Therefore
200% of the poverty level would represent a family income of $42,400.
2. Middle-Income: The number of undergraduate students whose family income is above the 200%
mark but falls within 500% of the federal poverty level as defined by the Department of Health and
Human Services. For the fall 2009 term, 500% of the federal poverty level for a family of 4
represents a family income of $106,000.
In both cases above, only students who applied for need-based aid are included because the University does
not collect income data on students unless they apply for need-based aid. So the implicit assumption is that
students/families who feel they need aid will apply for need-based aid. In any case, the definition is
consistent for each year represented, so the trend analysis will accurately show the University’s progress
towards socio-economic diversity.
Trended Data
Percent of Students who are Low- or Middle-Income
20%
18%
16%
Middle-Income Students
14%
12%
10%
8%
6%
Low-Income Students
4%
2%
0%
99-00
00-01
01-02
02-03
03-04
04-05
05-06
06-07
07-08
08-09
09-10
Analysis
Although there has been a general decline in the percentages of both low- and middle-income students over
the past 11 years, the full implementation of AccessUVa in 2005 has slowed the decline and now appears to
be increasing the percentages of low income students.
50
Target
Increased enrollment targets for AccessUVa must be tied to the available resources that will support
additional numbers of students. In a class of 3,000 students, 6% of that class would represent 180
AccessUVa students. Short-term increases of 10% per year should be achievable, but doing so over the
long-term would mean an increase of 50% above the current figure or 270 students in a five-year period,
and a 100% increase to 360 students over 10 years. These numbers are achievable, provided that the
funding support is available.
Plan for Improvement
The keys to enrolling larger numbers of AccessUVa students are creating greater recognition of the program
in communities where such students are located and “spreading the word” through advocates to whom they
can relate. AccessUVa needs to revamp and expand its advertising approaches to more effectively reach the
target audiences, and it needs to take advantage of the vast UVa alumni network in various communities
around the nation. With these actions the goal of greater national recognition is achievable within the next
two to three years.
51
Pell Grant Recipients
Description of Measure
Designed to promote access to higher education, federal Pell Grants are need-based aid to low-income
undergraduate students.
Comparative and Trend Data
Pell Grant Recipients
40%
Percent of Undergraduate Degree-Seeking Students
04-05
06-07
07-08
08-09
30%
20%
10%
0%
UCLA
Berkeley
Cornell
North
Carolina
Michigan Vanderbilt
Duke
Penn
Virginia
Peer Mean
Analysis
UVa enrolled fewer Pell Grant recipients as a percentage of undergraduate students than any of its peer
institutions, although UVa is one of two institutions in the group that registered a slight increase in the
percentage of Pell recipients between 2004-05 and 2008-09. A primary goal of the AccessUVa program was
to increase access to the University for low-income students. We will expect to see more growth in that
percentage over the next few years.
52
Trended Data
UVa Pell Grant Recipients and Students with Need
40%
Percent of Undergraduate Students
35%
30%
Students with Need
25%
20%
15%
10%
Pell Recipients
5%
0%
99-00
00-01
01-02
02-03
03-04
04-05
05-06
06-07
07-08
08-09
09-10
Analysis
Both the percentage of undergraduate students demonstrating financial need and the percentage of
undergraduate students receiving Pell Grants have risen since the full implementation of Access UVa in
2005. Part of the increase in Pell recipients in 2009-10 is due to changes in the federal regulations.
Target:
While not all Pell Grant recipients are low income by the UVa definition of 200% of the poverty level, most
are. So one would expect the number of Pell recipients to increase at a rate similar to the low-income
increases discussed in the previous measure. A 50% increase over the five-year period beginning in 2005-06
would result in approximately 11% Pell Grant recipients.
Plan for Improvement
The plan here is the same as the plan for the previous measure (for low-income students).
53
Undergraduate Graduation Rates
Description of Measure
Undergraduate graduation rates represent the percentage of entering first-time, first-year undergraduates
who graduated by the end of the summer following their fourth, fifth, or sixth academic years. The
graduation rates of all undergraduates as well as of African American, Asian American, and Hispanic
students are presented.
Comparative and Trended Data
100%
6-Year Graduation Rates, All Undergraduates
Penn
Duke
95%
Virginia
Cornell
Peer Mean
90%
Berkeley
Vanderbilt
UCLA
Michigan
UNC
85%
80%
75%
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
Entering Year
2002
2003
Analysis
In graduation rates for all undergraduates, UVa has remained above the peer mean as well as above all the
peer public institutions. The graduation rate has been constant at 93% for the classes entering in 2001,
2002, and 2003.
54
Undergraduate Graduation Rates by Minority Group
Description of Measure
Graduation rates represent the percentage of entering first-time, first-year undergraduates who graduated by
the end of the summer following their fourth, fifth, or sixth academic years. The graduation rates of African
American, Asian American, and Hispanic students are presented.
Comparative and Trended Data
100%
6-Year Graduation Rates, African American
95%
Duke
90%
Penn
Cornell
85%
Vanderbilt
80%
Virginia
Peer Mean
Berkeley
UNC
75%
UCLA
70%
Michigan
65%
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
Entering Year
2002
2003
Analysis
In graduation rates for African American students, UVa has remained above the peer mean. Among all
public research universities, UVa has the highest graduation rate for African American students. Eightynine percent of the African American students entering UVa in 2001 graduated within six years. This was
up slightly from 88% in the previous year. The percentage of African American students entering UVa in
2003 who graduated within six years dropped to 83%, the lowest since 1997. This drop does not necessarily
reflect a trend. The data fluctuate from year-to-year, and the situation will continue to be monitored.
55
Comparative and Trended Data
6-Year Graduation Rates, Hispanic American
100%
Duke
95%
Penn
90%
Virginia
UNC
Peer Mean
Cornell
Vanderbilt
85%
UCLA
Berkeley
80%
Michigan
75%
70%
65%
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
Entering Year
2002
2003
Analysis
In graduation rates for Hispanic students, UVa has remained well above the peer mean. Among public
institutions, UVa has moved ahead of UNC for the highest graduation rate for Hispanic students in its
public peer group. The graduation rate dropped from 94% for the entering class of 1997 to 86% for the
class of 1998. Although the rate for the 2001 class rose back to the 94% level, the rate for the 2002 class
declined to 89%, and remained at that level for 2003. As with the graduation rate for African American
students, the drop does not necessarily reflect a trend. The graduation rates will continue to be monitored.
56
Comparative and Trended Data
6-Year Graduation Rates, Asian American
100%
Duke
Virginia
Penn
95%
Berkeley
Peer Mean
UCLA
Cornell
Vanderbilt
Michigan
90%
UNC
85%
80%
75%
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
Entering Year
2002
2003
Analysis
In graduation rates for Asian American students, UVa has remained near the top of its peer group for the
past six years.
57
Graduate Graduation Rates
Description of Measure
Graduate graduation rates represent the percentage of entering new PhD students who received a PhD
degree within 10 years of entering. This definition parallels that used by the Council of Graduate Schools in
a major study of PhD completion rates.
Trended Data
UVa PhD Students who Graduated within 10 Years of Entering
100%
90%
80%
70%
63.2%
60.0%
59.8%
61.5%
1997-98
1998-99
1999-00
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
1996-97
Entering Cohort
Analysis
The graduation rate of entering students in PhD programs is one of the important factors in the most recent
National Research Council (NRC) rankings of doctoral programs in the US. According to a report from the
Council of Graduate Schools (CGS) on their 7-year PhD Completion Project at major research universities:
“Increasing demand for workers with advanced training, particularly at the graduate level, an
inadequate domestic talent pool, and a small representation of women and minorities
graduating at all education levels are among some growing concerns over workforce issues
that relate to the economic health and competitiveness of the United States. These concerns
are particularly acute in science, engineering, and mathematics (SEM), but are not by any
means limited to these fields. Even small improvements in attrition and completion rates
would substantially address many of these workforce issues”.
The average graduation rate of entering PhD students at UVa hovered between 60% and 63% for students
entering between 1996-97 and 1999-2000. According to the above mentioned CGS study, the average tenyear graduation rate of the public institutions in the study was 56.1%, and 58. 2% for the private institutions.
58
First-Year Undergraduate Median Combined SAT Scores
Description of Measure
Combined SAT Mid-point for the First-year Undergraduate Entering Class is calculated as the median point
of the total combined verbal plus math SAT scores of all of the entering, first-year undergraduate class.
This measure helps to evaluate the quality of the entering class based on their performance on the
standardized SAT tests administered by ETS to high school juniors and seniors.
Comparative and Trended Data
First-Year Undergraduate Median Combined SAT Scores
1500
1450
Duke
Penn
Vanderbilt
1400
Cornell
Peer Mean
1350
Berkeley
Virginia
UNC
Michigan
1300
UCLA
1250
1200
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
Analysis
UVa competes very well against the public peers but lags behind the private peers. There has been a
significant increase in mean scores over the past 10 years among the peer group. UVa growth has not quite
kept up. UVa’s median dropped significantly in 2007. The drop was across the board, among both in-state,
and out-of-state students. In 2008 and 2009, however, this decline reversed, with 2009 results being higher
than in any previous year.
59
Student Selectivity – Undergraduate
Description of Measure
This measure has two components which, in combination with the median combined SAT score, help
evaluate the University’s ability to attract and admit highly qualified undergraduate students: first-year
undergraduate offer rate and yield rate on first-year undergraduate offers.
First-Year Undergraduate Offer Rate is calculated as the number of offers made to first-year undergraduates
as a percentage of the total completed applications. This measure is heavily dependent upon the number of
applications and measures the University’s reputation among high school seniors and their parents. A lower
offer rate would indicate a more selective application process. The following measure, the yield rate
described below, also has a significant impact on the offer rate. The greater the yield, the fewer offers
would be made to fill the class.
Comparative and Trended Data
First-Year Undergraduate Offer Rate
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
10%
20%
Penn
Duke
Cornell
Vanderbilt
Berkeley
UCLA
Peer Mean
30%
UNC
Virginia
40%
50%
Michigan
60%
70%
Note: For this measure, lower offer rate values represent a more selective admissions process.
Analysis
UVa is competitive with its peers but has seen little growth in applications except in the last three years.
Recent growth is encouraging but UVa’s position slipped over the past 10 years and only in 2009 returned
to the levels in 1998 and 1999. A bit of an increase in the offer rate for 2008 (from about 35% to almost
37%) was due to the uncertainty of the impact of the elimination of early decision on the yield rate. Offer
rates under the new rules would not be strictly comparable to previous years’ rates.
60
Description of Measure
Yield Rate on First-Year Undergraduate Offers is calculated as the number of offers accepted by first-year
undergraduates (the size of the entering class) as a percentage of the total offers made. This measure also
helps to assess the University’s reputation among high school seniors and their parents. A high yield rate
indicates that applicants to UVa are serious about wanting to attend UVa and highly value the offer. This
measure also has a significant impact on the offer rate. A high yield rate allows the institution to achieve a
lower (better) offer rate.
Comparative and Trended Data
First-Year Undergraduate Yield Rate
0.7
0.6
Penn
UNC
0.5
Cornell
Virginia
Peer Mean
Berkeley
Duke
Vanderbilt
Michigan
0.4
UCLA
0.3
0.2
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
Analysis
UVa competes very well against its peers, both public and private, on yield rate. It shows that, although the
University may not attract as many applicants as the peers, the applicants are very serious about attending
UVa. Some decline in yield rate did occur between 2004 and 2006 but it rebounded somewhat in 2007. The
sharp drop in 2008 was an expected result of the elimination of early decision in the admission process.
Yield rates under the new policy are not comparable to rates from earlier years.
61
Student Selectivity – Graduate
Graduate Admission Test Scores for Entering Graduate Students (GMAT, LSAT,
GRE, MCAT)
Description of Measure
This measure assesses the performance of entering UVa graduate students on their graduate admission
exams.
Trended Data
Mean GRE Scores of Entering Graduate Students
800
750
Fall Terms
700
Quantitative
650
Analytical
600
Verbal
550
500
450
400
350
300
250
200
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
UVa Graduate Schools: Average Standardized Test Scores of Incoming Students (2007-08) 5
School
Architecture
Arts & Sciences
Business
Commerce
Education
Engineering
Law
Medicine
Nursing
Test
GRE
GRE
GMAT
GMAT
GRE
GRE
LSAT
MCAT
GRE
Possible
Score
1600
1600
800
800
1600
1600
180
45
1600
UVa
Average
1211
1299
702
648
1150
1298 (762) 6
168
33.80 (11.27) 7
1088
Peer
Average (2006-07)
n/a
n/a
690
n/a
1221
768
166
11.2
n/a
Not all data correspond to those provided by Institutional Assessment & Studies (IAS). IAS data include all graduate students
within a particular school. Some schools focus on particular subsets of graduate students when analyzing standardized test scores.
6 Primary score represents average GRE for all graduate students, with which the School of Engineering is primarily concerned.
Parenthetical score represents USNWR average for the quantitative portion of the GRE, which is comparable to the peer average.
7 Primary score represents average MCAT on all three tests. Parenthetical score represents USNWR average over the three tests,
which is comparable to the peer mean.
5
62
Analysis
GRE scores of entering graduate students have remained relatively consistent over the past 10 years, with
fairly substantive increase in quantitative scores over the past 2 years. The analytical test has been replaced
by the analytical writing test which is scored on a very different scale.
The average scores noted above include all graduate and professional students. The Office of the Vice
President for Research (VPR) is generally focused on recruiting the highest quality PhD students. Thus,
average GRE scores for PhD students are the most relevant to VPR programs and initiatives.
Plan for Improvement
Consistent with the strategy outlined in the 10-year academic plan, the quality of UVa’s graduate programs
relies heavily on the quality of incoming students.
While VPR has control over limited financial resources, it attempts to leverage such resources to aid PhDgranting schools and departments in attracting the highest quality graduate students. VPR manages the
Fellowship Enhancement for Outstanding Doctoral Candidates, which supplements departmental aid packages for
top applicants to the University’s graduate programs. It offers financial assistance to faculty and advanced
graduate students for travel aimed at recruiting prospective doctoral students. VPR also works closely with
other administrative units and individual schools in allocating new state monies and ensuring such funds
meet the strategic objectives of the Commonwealth, the University, the schools, and individual academic
programs.
•
Strategies: (1) advocating for more reliable sources of funding for graduate students through
development of a $200 million endowment; (2) encouraging faculty to develop relationships that will
enhance recruiting of top prospects; (3) providing competitive benefits and resources for graduate
students; and (4) increasing financial resources in targeted specialty areas. 8
•
Actions: (1) offering supplemental incentive programs to attract the highest quality graduate students
and including standardized test scores as a key criteria for such incentives; (2) continuing and
developing recruitment travel and summer programs that increase the visibility of the University as an
option for graduate education; (3) monitoring reasons top applicants decline admission to the
University; and (4) targeting new institutional and state resources to strategic areas of excellence.
In addition to the pan-University strategies and actions noted above, VPR solicited school-specific strategies
and actions which are tailored to individual disciplines. Examples of these include (1) increasing financial
resources to offer more competitive financial aid and support packages; (2) improving outreach to
prospective students through feeder arrangements, minority fairs, and other venues; (3) greater school
oversight of the admissions process; and (4) enhancing career and professional development opportunities
for graduate students. VPR will work with the schools, most specifically with PhD-granting departments,
on such strategies to ensure the University attracts the most highly-qualified graduate students. Detailed
responses from individual schools may be requested from VPR.
8
Such strategies are generally aimed at PhD education, rather than professional and/or master’s-level education.
63
Small Classes
Description of Measure – Percent Small Classes
This measure shows the percentage of undergraduate classes having fewer than 20 students enrolled in a
given fall semester, as reported in the USNWR undergraduate ranking of the best national universities.
Comparative and Trended Data
US News Percent Small Classes (under 20)
Penn
Duke
Vanderbilt
70%
Berkeley
60%
Peer Mean
Cornell
UCLA
50%
Virginia
Michigan
UNC
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
Analysis
UVa consistently falls below the mean of its peers in terms of the percentage of small classes and in 2010
had fewer small classes than all but two of its peers. However, among the public peers, UVa fares better,
falling in the middle of those four public institutions.
Sensitivity/Cost-Benefit
One proposal discussed by the Special Committee on Planning was to add 260 more small classes. This
would increase the small class percentage to 55% and place UVa above three of the four public peers.
Description of Measure – Distribution of Classes by Size
Although the percentage of small classes in any fall semester is useful since it is used by USNWR and,
therefore, can be compared to UVa’s peers, it is also of interest to examine individual graduating students
and determine what percentage of enrolled courses throughout their undergraduate education were “small
classes.” These data are not available for peer institutions.
64
Distribution of Classes by Size in the Careers of Graduating Cohorts
60%
50%
2005-06 Cohort
2006-07 Cohort
2007-08 Cohort
2008-09 Cohort
51.8% 52.3% 52.3%
49.8%
40%
30%
20%
17.7%
16.0% 16.3% 15.9%
15.6%
14.2% 13.9% 14.2% 14.4%
15.8%
14.9% 15.3%
10%
2.4% 2.5% 2.3% 2.3%
0%
Independent Study
Group <20
Group 20-29
Group 30-49
Group 50+
Discussion
This shows not only the percentage of group instruction courses with size less than 20, but it also shows the
independent study courses, which also have a positive effect on student/faculty interaction and very often
involve independent research. If we combine independent study with group courses of size less than 20
into “small classes,” then the average graduate would take one small class per semester throughout his/her
career at UVa.
65
Undergraduate Research
Description of Primary Measure
This measure provides the percentage of undergraduate degree recipients who participated at some point in
their undergraduate career in a significant research experience. As defined by the Undergraduate Research
Assessment Committee (URAC), undergraduate research is “the practice of carefully formulating or
addressing a question, problem or objective; analyzing it within a disciplinary or interdisciplinary framework;
producing findings, conclusions, designs, or creative works; and clearly communicating and defending such
to a critical audience.” Programs and departments provided a list of courses where students would be
required to complete such a project; enrollments for those courses were tabulated and are presented below.
Trended Data
Undergraduate Degree Recipients who
Participated in a Research Experience
100%
90%
80%
70%
63.2%
63.4%
63.8%
64.2%
64.7%
2004-05 Cohort
2005-06 Cohort
2006-07 Cohort
2007-08 Cohort
2008-09 Cohort
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Analysis
The results present data over the period 2005-2009. Overall in academic year 2008-09 64.7% of
undergraduates are represented to have completed a major research project matching the definition
provided by URAC. This figure changed little over the five years. The method used to count the number
of undergraduates completing such a project has some obvious limitations. Course requirements can vary
from semester to semester, depending upon who teaches the course and possible changes to requirements
by faculty teaching the same course over time. The assumption that all students taking a course met the
requirements of the course cannot be proven. Thus, these figures should be interpreted with some caution.
66
In addition to the program and departmental counting exercise, the Office of Institutional Assessment and
Studies conducted a survey of first- and fourth-year students in the spring of 2009 that asked students about
their research experiences. The question provided the defined learning outcomes and asked:
Have you completed a significant research project as part of your undergraduate program of study,
or are you currently working on one? By significant research project, we mean one in which YOU
did ALL of the following:
a) carefully formulated or addressed a question, problem, or objective,
b) analyzed it within a disciplinary or interdisciplinary framework,
c) produced findings, conclusions, designs, or creative works, and
d) clearly communicated and defended your work to a critical audience.
Overall 48.8% of fourth-years reported either completing or currently working on such a project. The
overall sampling error for respondents answering this question is ± 3.2% for a 95% confidence level. The
survey was conducted in February and March, 2009. The survey will be administered twice more during the
10-year implementation period of the QEP—in the springs of 2013 and 2017.
Discussion
The data presented indicate between 49% and 64% of undergraduates engage in significant research. While
these methodologies provide two independent means by which to estimate the number of undergraduates
conducting this type of research, it may be the case that both figures are inflated, given that individual
faculty members and students are reporting their perceptions. While no method currently exists to more
rigorously count these types of projects across the University, both methodologies can be examined for
validity and reliability and improved, if necessary. In spite of possible limitations, these figures provide
baselines from which to measure future performance, assuming these approaches yield reliable information.
Future surveys will provide opportunities for measuring the additional numbers of students conducting
significant research over the 10-year implementation period of the QEP. Specific targets are being
determined, based on these data and the initiatives currently being implemented.
67
National Survey of Student Engagement
Description of Measure
This measure is the University’s results from the National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE).
NSSE is designed to obtain, on an annual basis, information from scores of colleges and universities
nationwide about student participation in programs and activities that institutions provide for their learning
and personal development. The results provide an estimate of how undergraduates spend their time and
what they gain from attending college. Survey items on NSSE represent empirically confirmed “good
practices” in undergraduate education. That is, they reflect behaviors by students and institutions that are
associated with desired outcomes of college.
NSSE results are reported in five composite indexes of engagement to measure how students spend their
time at different colleges and universities and what they gain from their experiences.
• Level of Academic Challenge looks at the quantity and quality of academic work assigned, the cognitive
complexity of work, and the standards faculty use to evaluate student work.
• Active and Collaborative Learning attempts to measure the extent to which students take advantage of
opportunities in and outside of the classroom to actively participate in the learning process.
• Student Interactions with Faculty tries to get at how closely and how often students interact with their
professors.
• Enriching Educational Experiences looks at the opportunities students have to learn in a diverse
environment, both in and outside of the classroom. Exposure to differing points of view, the use of
technology in the educational environment, and the opportunities to participate in educational
activities such as internships, volunteer work, and study abroad are all areas which contribute to an
enriching educational experience.
• The Supportive Campus Environment index looks at the extent to which the school is actively committed to
helping students succeed academically and socially.
Four years of average scores for UVa students in 2000, 2002, 2005, and 2008 are available, and comparative
data are available for AAU public peers. The survey will continue to be administered every three years in
the future.
Peer Group for NSSE Results
Since many private universities do not release their results from the data, a new peer group of public AAU
institutions is used. This information is from the AAU Data Exchange (AAUDE).
68
Comparative and Trended Data
National Survey of Student Engagement Benchmarks
100
90
Active and Collaborative Learning
80
70
60
50
AAUDE 4th-Year
UVA 4th-Year
AAUDE 1st-Year
UVA 1st-Year
40
30
20
10
0
2000
2002
2005
2008
National Survey of Student Engagement Benchmarks
100
90
Enriching Educational Experiences
80
70
UVA 1st-Year
60
50
AAUDE 1stUVA 4th-
UVA 4th-
AAUDE 4thAAUDE 4th-
40
UVA 1st-Year
AAUDE 1st-Year
30
20
10
0
2000
Note: The wording of one of the questions in the EEE index changed in 2005, which had a
significant impact on the scores, mostly for 1st-years: results are not, therefore, suitable for
comparing to earlier results.
2002
2005
2008
69
National Survey of Student Engagement Benchmarks
100
90
Level of Academic Challenge
80
70
60
UVA 4th-Year
AAUDE 4th-Year
UVA 1st-Year
AAUDE 1st-Year
50
40
30
20
10
0
2000
2002
2005
2008
National Survey of Student Engagement Benchmarks
100
90
Student-Faculty Interaction
80
70
60
50
40
UVA 4th-Year
AAUDE 4th-Year
30
AAUDE 1st-Year
UVA 1st-Year
20
10
0
2000
70
2002
2005
2008
National Survey of Student Engagement Benchmarks
100
90
Supportive Campus Environment
80
70
UVA 1st-Year
AAUDE 1st-Year
UVA 4th-Year
AAUDE 4th-Year
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
2000
2002
2005
2008
Analysis
In three out of the five student engagement benchmarks UVa has scored higher than the AAUDE peer
average for both first-year and fourth-year students for either all four years of the survey or the last three
years. The first exception is the Active and Collaborative Learning benchmark, where UVa dropped very
slightly below the peer average for first-year students in the 2005 and 2008 surveys, and for fourth-year
students in the 2008 survey. For Student-Faculty Interaction, UVa first-year students fell below the
AAUDE peer average in 2008; in the same year, fourth-year UVa students were virtually identical to the
AAUDE peer average.
Target
NSSE, which is administered every three years (first- and fourth-year cohorts), was distributed during the
spring 2008. Student Affairs will focus on enhancing existing and pursuing new initiatives in the following
areas that shape the student experience at UVa, which are measured in part through NSSE:
• Climate (i.e., overall sense of community and inclusiveness of environment; exposure to multiple
perspectives);
• Engagement (i.e., outside classroom experiences that support classroom learning, encourage
involvement in university life);
• Behavior (i.e., principles that relate to accountability and responsibility essential to community
goals);
• Residential living (i.e., learning tied to academic and community promoted through residential
communities); and
• Health and wellness (i.e., measures that support students’ physical, mental and emotional wellbeing).
71
Examples of initiatives and metrics for each of the above include:
• Maximizing and improving existing space (e.g., Newcomb Hall) currently available to support
student programs.
o analysis of space use; satisfaction assessment related to access, quality of amenities
• Enhancing the quality of advising, with particular focus on African-American students, in the areas
of pre-commerce and pre-med.
o number of African-American students matriculating in graduate school; in the Commerce
School; increase in GPA
• Strengthening the overall experience of students living in residential colleges.
o satisfaction assessment focused on quality of residential experience
• Strengthening the means by which the University helps new students (first-years and transfers)
transition during their first year to University life through increased collaboration among
Orientation, Residence Life, Career Services, and schools.
o data on transfer program residential program objectives; post-orientation assessments
Overall, the time frame for each target is three to five years to realize “best in class” status as connected to
current student affairs divisional planning. There are factors (e.g., improvements to space to support
engagement and residence life objectives), which will not be realized for 10 to 12 years.
Plan for Improvement
Connect current Student Affairs divisional planning and assessment (critical functions goals, metrics, and
time line) to University’s 10-year plan, Commission on the Future of the University, and the Quality
Enhancement Plan (SACS) to ensure coordination across initiatives. This will be realized through the use of
the Student Affairs Planning Group (meets once a month) to synthesize work across all areas, as well as
through discussions with Institutional Assessment and Studies (IAS), especially as it relates to verifying the
validity and reliability of metrics and coordinating between assessment conducted by Student Affairs versus
that managed centrally by IAS. Each of the target initiatives will be included in the critical functions
planning document (report revised annually). Information garnered through metrics will be used to modify,
add, or eliminate initiatives.
72
Resources
Facilities Condition Index
Description of Measure
The Facilities Condition Index (FCI) is a fitness indicator for the University’s Educational and General
(E&G) buildings and infrastructure. The FCI is the ratio of known maintenance deficiencies (MD) to
current replacement value (CRV). MD represents a dollar assessment of major maintenance repairs
currently existing in buildings, grounds, infrastructure, and fixed equipment. 9 CRV is the estimated
construction cost of a new facility which has been designed and equipped for the same use as the original
building.
Industry standards suggest an FCI of 5% or less indicates a “good” condition with systems working as
originally intended. An FCI between 5% and 10% indicates a “fair” condition. When the FCI rises above
10%, systemic failures become more likely, aesthetics are generally compromised, and building condition is
considered “poor.”
The FCI formula has two stated variables, MD and CRV. Thus, the FCI can be improved by correcting
maintenance deficiencies and/or increasing the current replacement value of E&G buildings and
infrastructure.
Maintenance deficiencies are reduced, improving the FCI, when:
• A whole building renewal occurs. Whole building renewals are the best way to improve the FCI
because deficiencies are eliminated and the CRV will likely increase.
• A major building system deficiency is corrected. Renovating a major building system in an occupied
facility is often more difficult than constructing a new building. Coordination of work schedules
and outages is difficult, expensive, time-consuming, and disruptive to occupants. These projects
typically take years to design and construct.
• Minor deficiencies are corrected. This is a normal part of University life and building occupants are
nearly always supportive.
The CRV increases, improving the FCI, when:
• A whole building renewal occurs. Renewals almost always add air conditioning and/or accessibility
and/or fire protection that did not previously exist, thus raising the CRV.
• Brand new or fully renovated facilities are added to the E&G building inventory.
9 Maintenance and Operations of Buildings and Grounds. The Association of Higher Education Facilities Officers. 1997 APPA volume,
p.486.
73
Trended Data
Facilities Condition Index
11.5%
11.0%
F.C.I.
10.5%
10.0%
9.5%
9.0%
8.5%
FY01
FY02
FY03
FY04
FY05
FY06
FY07
FY08
FY09
FY10*
* FY10 ‐ Calculated using data through the end of May 2010
Analysis
In FY2001, the FCI peaked at 11.1 percent, falling in the “poor” condition range by industry standards.
Incremental BOV funding, along with the state Maintenance Reserve (MR) funding, have begun to reduce
the FCI, thereby elevating the condition rating to “fair.” Significant maintenance projects take several years
to design and execute so the FCI is not immediately impacted by fund allocation.
Target
The goal is to reduce the Facilities Condition Index for E&G buildings and infrastructure to 5% by 2015.
To achieve this, mutual cooperation will be required by maintenance project teams and building occupants
to complete renovations with a tolerable impact on research, teaching, patient care, and public service
activities. Moreover, capital construction projects consume essential resources, so Facilities Management
staff must recognize opportunities to address maintenance deficiencies as part of nearby capital projects.
Plan for Improvement
The University will need additional state and BOV funding to reach the FCI target. The BOV deferred
maintenance funding will increase by $1.5 million next fiscal year, but unfortunately the increase will not
cover the funding reduction ($2.4 million) in the State’s Maintenance Reserve allocation. The University
continues to plan and execute capital renewal projects. While the University and the state have made
significant strides in addressing appropriate levels of maintenance support, continued budget reductions
would impact progress.
74
Maintenance Reinvestment Rate
Description of Measure
The maintenance reinvestment rate (MRR) measures the maintenance and repair (M&R) budgets as a
percentage of current replacement value (CRV). M&R budgets fall into the following categories:
• Operating Budget: Corrective, preventive, and major maintenance
• Maintenance projects funded by specific BOV maintenance allocations
• Maintenance projects funded by the State’s Maintenance Reserve (MR)
M&R does not include the cost of utilities, grounds care, custodial services, or building adaptation. CRV is
the estimated construction cost of a new facility which has been designed and equipped for the same use as
the original building.
A MRR in the range of 2% to 4% is considered appropriate for buildings in good condition that are
expected to remain in the facility inventory for the long-term. A higher reinvestment rate is needed when
there is a backlog of maintenance deficiencies that must be corrected to sustain building usefulness.
Trended Data
Maintenance Reinvestment Rate
2.2%
2.0%
1.8%
M.R.R.
1.6%
1.4%
1.2%
1.0%
0.8%
0.6%
0.4%
Budgeted
FY06
Budgeted
FY07
Budgeted
FY08
Budgeted
FY09
Budgeted
FY10
Budgeted
FY11 *
* Assumes $4.8 million allocation from the State's Maintenance Reserve
Analysis
Fluctuations in funding directly impact the MRR. A reduction in MR funding in the beginning of the
decade resulted in a reduction in the MRR for the same timeframe. By mid-decade, both MR and BOV
funding began to increase which led to a corresponding increase in the MRR. For the past decade, the
University has allocated 2% maintenance funding for new E&G facilities. This reverses a trend of
underfunding maintenance for new buildings.
In the past four years, the maintenance budget has been reduced over $2.3 million due to State budget cuts.
The University also expects to receive substantially less from the State’s Maintenance Reserve program for
the upcoming biennium. Additionally, each year the CRV is adjusted to reflect inflation. Every month, the
Engineering News Record reports the current annual building cost index. For the period May 2009 through
May 2010, the index increased 1.8 percent. The CRV has been adjusted accordingly. Since base budgets are
not adjusted for inflation, the MRR’s denominator has a tendency to grow at a greater rate than the
numerator, pushing the MRR downward.
75
Target
Grow the MRR to 2% by the year 2015 and sustain it at that level.
Plan for Improvement
The University will need additional state and BOV funding to reach the MRR target. The BOV account
funding is set to increase next fiscal year, but unfortunately the increase will not cover the funding reduction
in the State’s Maintenance Reserve allocation. The University continues to plan and execute capital renewal
projects. Examples include Garrett Hall, New Cabell Hall, and Ruffner Hall (the latter two are dependent
on state funding). These do not show in the MRR calculation, but are essential to the goal of providing
exceptional facilities.
While there is frequent pressure to divert MR to non-maintenance needs, continued discipline and prudence
is essential to improve the MRR. This discipline, along with a combination of operations and maintenance
funding for new facilities, a steady level of MR funding, funds for building renewals, and continued BOV
support will enable the University to move toward the goal of a consistent MRR of 2%.
76
Percentage of Alumni Giving
Description of Measure
This measure is the average percentage of undergraduate alumni of record who donated money to the
university as calculated by U.S. News and World Report. Alumni of record are former full- or part-time
students who received an undergraduate degree and for whom the university has a current address.
Undergraduate alumni donors are alumni with undergraduate degrees from an institution who made one or
more gifts for either current operations or capital expenses during the specified academic year. The alumni
giving rate is calculated by dividing the number of appropriate donors during a given academic year by the
number of appropriate alumni of record for that year. The percent of alumni giving serves as a proxy for
how satisfied students are with the school.
Comparative and Trended Data
US News Average Alumni Giving Percentage
55%
50%
45%
40%
Duke
Penn
35%
Cornell
30%
Peer Mean
25%
Vanderbilt
UNC
20%
Virginia
Michigan
15%
UCLA
Berkeley
10%
5%
0%
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
Analysis
In alumni giving percentage, UVa has been close to the peer mean for the past 12 years. With an alumni
giving rate of 23% for 2010, UVa has the highest percentage of alumni giving among its public peers in the
2010 USNWR ranking. Of those peers, UNC remains closest to UVa in this measure with an alumni giving
rate of 22% in 2010. The fairly steady decrease over the past five years corresponds to the downturn in the
economy and is also consistent with national trends (fewer donors making larger gifts). In the peer group
noted above, all experienced declines over the past five years, with the exception of Michigan, which has
experienced moderate growth (13% in 2006 to 17% in 2010).
Target
At present, the undergraduate alumni of record population grows at approximately 3% per annum (3,400
graduates each year, added to a database currently at about 120,000). To maintain the current participation
rate, then, the University must increase the number of alumni donors in each fiscal year by approximately
77
3%. As the graph above shows, national trends point toward minimal growth, if any; most annual giving
professionals predict a downturn in participation rates (potentially offset, to some degree, by the
aforementioned increase in average gift size).
Growing the donor population by 3.5% per annum over the next five years would yield a cumulative
increase of approximately 25% in number of donors, increasing the overall alumni participation rate by
approximately 1%.
Additional growth in the number of undergraduates admitted annually, a topic under current discussion,
would further impact this variable.
Plan for Improvement
In 2009, the Board of Visitors asked that the University explore ways to be more effective in raising annual
funds, developing strategies to (1) improve annual giving performance, (2) increase the percentage of alumni
participation, and (3) make better use of volunteers in annual giving efforts.
A senior full-time development professional has been assigned to lead this work. Preliminary
recommendations have been shared with key Board members, deans and directors, chief development
officers and heads of the University’s various fundraising foundations. They include:
• Focus on Performance – Measure, then set target goals based on current performance in each
schools/unit; establish a baseline of information about performance to build on; set benchmarks
related to performance over time; focus on ways to improve performance in five donor-focused
areas: acquisition; retention; retention of new donors; upgrades; and reactivation.
• Build Services – Concurrently build services in DPA to help support efforts in the schools and
units to raise the level of performance.
This work will continue through the end of the current campaign and beyond. Metrics used to evaluate
performance and effectiveness will be included in subsequent updates of this report.
Also in 2009, DPA re-allocated personnel and operating dollars toward the creation of a new Reunions
giving model. Briefly stated, each class’s alumni population is carefully segmented, with a focus on the top
20% in giving (major donors) and those who make leadership annual gifts. From this group, chairs, cochairs, and lead volunteers are recruited. Once fully staffed, the goal is for each Reunions class to have 50100 volunteers, each committed to contacting at least 20 selected peers to seek their participation in both
Reunions giving and Reunions programming. Regional gift officers and school-based gift officers
coordinate around those class members not assigned to the volunteer leadership group.
Final results for Reunions 2010 are incomplete as of this report. Preliminary results are positive, however.
Four hundred and fifty volunteers participated in the Reunions 2010 giving effort. That number represents
a 100% increase over last year and a 400% increase over Reunions 2008. The Class of 2000, celebrating its
10th reunion, had the largest volunteer committee (85). Volunteer giving committees ranged in size from 12
to 85.
Reunions giving for 2010 kept pace with last year’s performance, with 4,600 donors, or 20%, making gifts.
The Class of 1965 posted the highest participation rate, with a rate of 30%. Total dollars committed as of
June 4, 2010 (gifts through June 30, 2010 are counted in the final total) stood at $16.9 million.
In addition to the focus on increased volunteer participation, Reunions giving volunteers actively sought to
secure multi-year pledges; a commitment paid over five years allows for continued connection over nonReunion years and increases the likelihood of continuing Reunions gift commitments. The number of
multi-year pledges in Reunions 2010 was 220, up from 40 in Reunions 2009.
78
Finally, Reunions 2010 saw 430 new donors (since their last reunion in 2005), 900 continuing donors
making larger gifts, and 600 of those actually at least doubling their previous gift.
Two additional Reunions and Leadership Annual Giving officers were hired in FY10, for a current total of
7.0 FTE (five gift officers and two support staff). Work is already underway for Reunions 2011, with next
year’s volunteers participating in this year’s session. While it is too early to claim to have reversed the
current downward trend in participation, DPA maintains the position that an effort led by trained
professionals, informed by data and supported by volunteers will increase both alumni giving (total dollars)
and alumni participation.
79
Campaign Progress
Description of Measure
In September 2006 the “Knowledge is Power” campaign was publicly launched with an ambitious goal of $3
billion, more than twice the amount raised in the previous campaign ($1.42 billion) and, at the time of its
announcement, the highest campaign goal of any institution of higher education in the country—public or
private. When envisioned, it was acknowledged that the trajectory of this new campaign might well be
slower than the previous campaign, although projections indicated that the University could reach the $3
billion campaign goal within the eight-year time period. Campaign progress is generally reported in terms of
percentage of campaign goal achieved against percentage of campaign time elapsed.
Analysis
At this writing campaign progress stands at $2.15 billion, or 71.64% campaign goal achieved in 79.15% time
elapsed (7.5%, or $225 million behind target).
Six years into the current campaign, we can draw several conclusions about campaign progress and also
relate those to cash flow. For this report, campaign giving is defined as all gift commitments during the
campaign period, including any outright gift, planned gifts and pledges.
An examination of trends indicates that campaign giving grew steadily in the first three years of the
campaign, with an unprecedented year in 2007 (due to several 8- and one 9-figure commitment) and
declined in 2008 and 2009. Cash flow for the same period reflects a similar trend, although less sharply,
since pledge payments were more evenly distributed in the years following 2007. Note that the decline in
campaign giving in 2008 was mitigated by the “lump sum” addition of future support into the campaign
totals at that time – a practice acknowledged as the industry standard (CASE) and also utilized in peer
campaigns.
Average campaign progress per month in each Campaign year
*note: future support added to campaign totals starting in 2008
$40,000,000
$35,000,000
$30,000,000
$25,000,000
$20,000,000
$15,000,000
$10,000,000
$5,000,000
$0
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
Avg/mon future support*
Avg/mon outright campaign
Discussion
The reasons for the declines in the last two years of the campaign are debatable. However, there are at least
three factors that have likely contributed to the lack of growth. First, it is a recognized characteristic of
most substantial campaigns that they tend to lag during the middle of the campaign period. Whether this is
due to donor fatigue, changing internal priorities or difficulty in maintaining momentum, many campaigns
80
identify the need for renewed energy during this period. Secondly, the University experienced significant
leadership changes in many of its schools during the 2007-2009 period, especially in its deans’ and
development offices. These changes included modifications in strategy and time to get to know major
donors, slowing the pace of gifts. Finally and probably most significant, the difficult economic situation has
certainly affected expectations for major giving (giving from assets), from the latter part of 2008 to the
present.
Target
The $2 billion milestone was achieved in September 2009, leaving $1 billion to be raised in the final 27
months of the eight year campaign period. As of April 30, 2010, reaching the goal on time would require
average campaign commitments of more than $40 million per month. Though this amount is significantly
higher than the average per month to date ($27 million per month), the campaign deadline remains
unchanged. Further, the campaign gift pyramid was adjusted to reflect the projected need for two additional
9-figure gifts (or their equivalent) over the remainder of the campaign (the campaign pyramid envisioned
prior to campaign launch included one 9-figure gift).
Plan for Improvement
The campaign has been, as expected and planned, highly impacted by principal gifts (those gifts over $5
million). An examination of the top 10 gifts in each fiscal year shows that these gifts (except for one
unusual year, 2007, in which the $100 million Batten gift, $45 million Ivy Foundation gift and $25 million
Philip Morris gifts were received) generally accounted for $45 million to $55 million of the campaign totals
in any given year.
We have been successful in this campaign in growing the largest gifts. The following chart shows principal
gift levels and a comparison of the number of gifts received by the end of the last campaign, as compared
with the number received to date in this campaign:
Level
$100M+
$50M - $99M
$25M - $49M
$10M - $24M
$5M - $9M
$1M - $4M
*note: does not include future support gifts
By end last campaign
0
1
7
10
25
174
By April 2010 this campaign*
1
4
4
15
27
240
While we also are growing the number of gifts below the $1M mark, we are still in a period of developing
these donors, which is indicated in the volatility of the “baseline” fundraising (or normal fundraising activity
without $1M+ gifts) for the campaign. Extracting the top 10 gifts from the campaign totals for each year,
this baseline of usual giving shows a considerable range: from $12 million per month to as high as $24
million per month, depending on the fiscal year.
Last year’s report noted the hiring of an additional full-time fundraiser in the Office of Principal
Relationship Development with the goal of expanding the pool of prospects and donors at the $1M+ level.
The Million Dollar Action Group (MAG) was created in November 2007 to track the “pipeline” of activity
Grounds-wide on prospects with the capacity to make $1 million gifts. Those in the pipeline have an open
or pending (within 12-18 months) solicitation for $1M+ or a concrete strategy in place for a $1M+
solicitation in the current campaign. The MAG pool is reviewed on a regular basis through meetings with
schools and programs; as of April 2010 approximately $660 million in planned/active solicitations was
reported.
81
With less than two years remaining in the campaign, development officer activity must shift from its current
focus on communication and cultivation and return to a focus on solicitation; though the timing is less than
ideal there is simply no choice. An analysis of the number of gifts needed to reach the goal, and the number
of visits and donors required to secure those gifts, shows the need for more than 17,000 visits in the
campaign time remaining, with approximately 8,000 solicitations among those visits. Gift officer training
has been enhanced with a renewed focus on “making the ask” and “accelerating solicitations.” In the
current calendar year, nine such sessions have been offered, with more than 300 attendees over the course
of those nine sessions. Development officer activity reports are currently being modified to more accurately
capture and report all planned, pending, and completed solicitations.
Finally, the arrival of President-elect Sullivan in August 2010 offers the University an opportunity to renew
interest in and excitement around the current campaign in partnership with its new leader. DPA is currently
working on a proposal to bring increased attention to the ‘final billion’, working with schools and units to
identify and feature select campaign priorities while also showcasing institutional priorities such as
AccessUVa, graduate fellowships, and science and technology, among others.
82
Future Support
Description of Measure
The future support measure tracks expected dollars (that is dollars which donors have documented that they
are leaving in their wills) against the future support campaign goal.
Launched in the fall of 2007, the Bequest Campaign has a goal of $400 million in future support dollars,
representing 13.3% of the overall $3 billion campaign goal.
Analysis
There are approximately 48,000 alumni, parents, friends, and faculty in University database either known or
estimated to be 50+ years of age. With such a large prospect pool, the Office of Gift Planning has chosen to
take a targeted approach in identifying those most likely to make a planned gift. Currently, the Office of
Gift Planning has identified 180 individuals with bequests for which no value has been attributed and is
actively working with Senior Development Officers of schools to contact these individuals. To date, 13%
of this group has been contacted, resulting in $1,162,372 in future support and $436,372 in cash gifts. They
are also working with Principal Relationship Development to identify and strategically contact individuals
within a list of 1,500 prospects.
Through May 2010, the Bequest Campaign stood at $235,077,853, which is 59% of the overall Bequest
Campaign goal. Since the launch of the Capital Campaign, $100,638,490 in realized bequests have come in
to support schools and programs. The attached report (Appendix A) provides full details for the future
support measure within the Bequest Campaign and the overall Capital Campaign.
83
84
New Commitments
Description of Measure
A measure added this year is New Commitments. Unlike Annual Philanthropic Cash Flow, the new
commitment measure shows all new commitments, both cash and pledges.
The reported data show both monthly new commitments (which can be compared with previous months)
and fiscal year new commitments to date, broken out by schools/units.
New Commitment Progress FY-10
$180,000,000.00
$160,000,000.00
Monthly New
Commitments
FY-10
Fiscal Year New
Commitments
FY-10
$140,000,000.00
$120,000,000.00
$100,000,000.00
$80,000,000.00
$60,000,000.00
$40,000,000.00
$20,000,000.00
$0.00
Jul-09 Aug- Sep- Oct- Nov- Dec- Jan- Feb- Mar- Apr- May09
09
10
10
10
10
10
09
09
09
Analysis
Attached is the May 2010 report for fiscal year new commitments. (See Appendix B)
Through May 2010, fiscal year new commitments stood at $156 million, which reflects a decrease of 15%
when compared with new commitments during the same period in FY2009 ($184.4 million). As the chart
above illustrates, monthly new commitments fluctuate, with predictable increases at the end of calendar
(December) and fiscal year (June).
Plan for Improvement
See comments regarding plans to increase annual philanthropic cash flow.
85
86
Annual Philanthropic Cash Flow
Description of Measure – Annual Philanthropic Cash Flow
This measure provides an evaluation of annual philanthropic resources received for the benefit of University
activities. Total annual giving, which includes giving from alumni, friends, foundations, and corporations to
the University and its related foundations, is provided; peer data are made available for comparison
purposes. It is important to note that this measure can be dramatically influenced by the receipt (or
absence) of one or more significant outright gifts within a fiscal year. FY2007, FY2008 and FY2009, for
example, saw the receipt of 8-figure pledge payments toward a 9-figure campaign commitment.
Comparative and Trended Data
Annual Philanthropic Cash Flow
$500,000,000
$450,000,000
Cornell
Penn
$400,000,000
UCLA
$350,000,000
Duke
$300,000,000
Peer Mean
UNC
Michigan
Berkeley
$250,000,000
Virginia
$200,000,000
Vanderbilt
$150,000,000
$100,000,000
$50,000,000
$0
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
Analysis
While the overall trend for the period charted above, and for UVa specifically, remains upward, FY 2009
and year-to-date FY2010 show declines reflective of the overall economic downturn still in effect.
Following a peak in FY2007 ($282 million), cash flow decreased to $270.8 million in FY2008 (down 4%
from FY2007) and $233.5 million in FY2009 (down 17% from FY2007 and 13.8% from FY2008). Cash
flow 10 to-date for FY2010 (through April 30, 2010) stands at $169.1 million, down 17.5% from FY2009 and
down 32% from FY2007. The decline experienced between FY2008 and FY2009 (13.8%) slightly exceeded
the mean decline of the peer group (12.7%). Of the 9 institutions in the comparison group, only two posted
positive growth between FY2008 and FY2009: Cornell (9.1%) and Vanderbilt (20.3%).
10
It is important to note the difference between total cash flow as reported to the BOV and total cash flow as defined by The
Council for Aid to Education, which adjusts for student activity fees, 20% of Athletics cash flow, and face value vs. net
present value of deferred gifts.
87
Sensitivity/Cost-Benefit
Cash flow is inextricably linked to upturns and downturns in the economy and remains volatile as the
economy continues to struggle. Higher education is not immune to this volatility; further, the gifts that are
received may take on different forms. For example, gifts of appreciated assets typically decrease while some
forms of future support may increase. Newly established deferred gifts, while critical to the institution’s
financial well-being and central to the current campaign, count at their tax-deductible value when given.
Finally, pledge payment schedules may be extended, and open solicitations postponed. These trends hold
true for philanthropy at the University during the current recession.
Last year’s report noted that a 9-figure campaign commitment, with a substantial cash component, would be
necessary for FY2010 cash flow to return to the levels of prior years. To date, that gift has not been
realized, though at least two discussions of gifts at that level remain active.
Target
A target goal of $300 million was established for FY2009, with a sub-goal of increasing average annual
philanthropic cash flow (three-year average) to $296 million. This goal was not met ($233.5 million for the
fiscal year; three-year average of $262.3million). The target goal for FY2010 ($288 million, or 10% above
the average of the past three years) will likely not be met. Receipt of a significant, and at present
unforeseen, cash gift in the final months of the fiscal year will be needed to reach the stated goal.
Though new gifts and pledge payments typically accelerate during an economic recovery, continuing
economic uncertainty and market volatility will continue to negatively impact philanthropic cash flow, likely
leading to marked adjustments in next year’s target goals.
Plan for Improvement
Effectively identifying, cultivating, soliciting and stewarding alumni, parents, and friends of the University
remain the keys to growing philanthropic cash flow. Due to the economic downturn, development activity
over the past two years has focused on identification, engagement, cultivation, stewardship, and
communication; conversely, the number of actual solicitations opened and accepted has decreased. Gift
officer activity, measured by number of contacts with donors and prospects, remains high. In FY2009, gift
officers logged more than 10,000 contacts (29% higher than the previous year). This fiscal year to-date
(through April 2010), total contacts stand at 8,644.
In 2009, the BOV asked that the University explore ways to be more effective in raising annual funds, with
an eye toward increasing both dollars raised and percentage of alumni participation. Specifically, DPA was
tasked with developing strategies to (1) improve annual giving performance, (2) increase the percentage of
alumni participation, and (3) make better use of volunteers in annual giving efforts.
A senior full-time staff member was re-assigned to lead this work. Preliminary recommendations have been
shared with key Board members, deans and directors, chief development officers and heads of the
University’s various fundraising foundations. They include:
• Focus on Performance – Measure, then set target goals based on, current performance in each
schools/unit; establish a baseline of information about performance to build on; set benchmarks
related to performance over time; focus on ways to improve performance in five donor-focused
areas: acquisition; retention; retention of new donors; upgrades; and reactivation.
• Build Services – Concurrently build services in DPA to help support efforts in the schools and
units to raise the level of performance.
This work will continue through the end of the current campaign and beyond. Metrics used to evaluate
performance and effectiveness will be included in subsequent updates of this report.
88
Description of Measure - Annual Philanthropic Cash Flow per Alumni of Record
The peer data group includes public and private institutions that vary in size from 117,000 alumni
(Vanderbilt) to 471,000 alumni (University of Michigan); a per capita calculation accounts for the variance
among alumni populations and thus more accurately reflects the strength of UVa’s annual philanthropic
cash flow. The per capita calculation is derived from the division of total annual philanthropic cash flow by
the number of alumni of record, defined by the CAE as living alumni for whom the university has a means
of contact (mailing address, phone number, email) and who completed at least one course that could be
counted toward a degree or certificate. Note: since non-alumni giving is included in the numerator, the
result does not yield an average alumni gift.
Comparative and Trended Data
Annual Philanthropic Cash Flow per Alumni of Record
3,500
3,000
2,500
Duke
2,000
Cornell
Penn
1,500
Virginia
Vanderbilt
Peer Mean
UNC
UCLA
1,000
Berkeley
Michigan
500
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
Notes
Cornell did not report data in 2001.
Analysis
Whereas the University of Virginia ranks 8th out of 9 on the annual cash flow measure, it continues to rank
4th in average gift size per alumnus, exceeding the median for the peer group by 5.8%. On this measure,
UVa outperforms all of its public peers (UNC is 2nd, 29% below) and one of its private peers (Vanderbilt,
6% below). Though average gift size is down from FY2007, the average gift for FY2009 ($1,371) shows an
increase of 18% over FY2008 ($1,161).
Discussion
As cash flow per alumnus of record is a factor of annual cash flow compared to number of alumni, this
target is inextricably tied to the cash flow targets discussed above. Growth in the denominator (alumni of
record) also affects performance. Increased enrollment will incrementally increase the denominator;
participation rates and giving levels must increase at the same rate to maintain current performance.
89
Further, an increase in participation rate, though desirable for myriad reasons, could lead to a decrease in
cash flow per alumnus if new donors make annual gifts below the current average.
Target
At the onset of the current capital campaign, a growth rate of 6.5% per annum in cash flow was projected
against a growth in alumni of record of 3%. This formula would yield a target of $1,700 per alumnus by the
end of the campaign. Sustained average growth of 6.5% per annum to cash flow does not appear feasible in
the current economy. Given continuing economic uncertainty, no new target is offered at this time.
Plan for Improvement
See previous comments regarding plans to increase annual philanthropic cash flow.
90
Endowment Performance
Description of Measure
This is a quantitative measure of the results of investment activities from the endowment assets. Data are
also presented for restricted and unrestricted assets. The source of these data is the National Association of
College and University Business Officers (NACUBO) annual endowment survey.
Comparative and Trended Data
Public Peer Comparisons of Nominal Rates of Return for Selected
Five-Year Periods
25.0%
20.0%
15.0%
10.0%
UNC
Michigan
5.0%
Virginia
Berkeley
UCLA
0.0%
Notes
Source: NACUBO Endowment Survey
UVa data exclude performance of endowment assets held by foundations AND not managed by UVIMCO.
Analysis
In comparison to its public peers, UVa has consistently shown strong returns. For each of the rolling fiveyear periods from 2000 to 2005, UVa had the highest five-year return measure. However, for each of the
last four five-year periods, UVa has placed third, behind Michigan and UNC. All peers and UVa saw their
2009 rolling averages decrease dramatically from 2008, reflecting the large decline in market returns in FY09.
The dismal performance in 2009 also resulted in UVa’s falling below its 10% target for this measure.
Target
The long-term goal for UVa is to maintain a 8% rate of return.
91
Comparative and Trended Data
Private Peer Comparisons of Nominal Rates of Return for
Selected Five-Year Periods
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
Vanderbilt
10%
Duke
5%
Virginia
Cornell
Penn
0%
Notes
Source: NACUBO Endowment Survey
UVa data exclude performance of endowment assets held by foundations AND not managed by UVIMCO.
Vanderbilt did not consistently participate in the NACUBO annual endowment survey.
Analysis
In comparison to its private peers, UVa has done very well over the years, never finishing lower than third
in any of the last 10 periods. In each of the eight periods prior to FY08, UVa finished second (seven times)
or first (once) among the five peers. However, UVa has finished third for the last two years. In each of the
nine years prior to 2009, Duke had been the best, except for the 2001-05 period, in which UVa finished first
for the only time. Vanderbilt’s consistently strong results in recent years enabled it to overtake Duke for
first place in 2009. The dismal performance in 2009 results in UVa’s falling below its 10% target for this
measure.
Target
The long-term goal for UVa is to maintain a 8% rate of return.
92
Comparative and Trended Data
University of Virginia
Peer Comparison of Unrestricted Endowment
50.0%
45.0%
40.0%
35.0%
30.0%
25.0%
20.0%
15.0%
10.0%
5.0%
0.0%
2005
2006
2007
2008
Private Institutions with Endowment Assets Greater Than $1 B
Public Institutions with Endowment Assets Greater Than $1 B
University of Virginia
2009
Notes
Source: NACUBO Endowment Survey
Includes private and public institutions with endowments greater than $1 billion.
Analysis
Since 2005, the University's endowment, including related foundations, has been approximately 20%
unrestricted. That changed slightly in 2008, with the unrestricted share increasing to 21%, due to added
investment by the Medical Center of its reserve funds. In 2009, the unrestricted share rose to 22%, as the
University is actively working to increase its unrestricted resources. Both public institutions and private
institutions with endowment assets greater than $1 billion have significantly higher percentage of
unrestricted endowment assets than the University. Public institutions show an average of 24% of
unrestricted endowment assets over the four-year period ending June 30, 2009, while private institutions
show an impressive 45% average of unrestricted endowment assets over the same four-year period.
93
Comparative and Trended Data
University of Virginia
Peer Comparison of Restricted Endowment
90.0%
80.0%
70.0%
60.0%
50.0%
40.0%
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
0.0%
2005
2006
2007
2008
Private Institutions with Endowment Assets Greater Than $1 B
Public Institutions with Endowment Assets Greater Than $1 B
University of Virginia
2009
Notes
Source: NACUBO Endowment Survey
Includes private and public institutions with endowments greater than $1 billion.
Analysis
Since 2005, the University's endowment, including related foundations, has been approximately 80%
restricted assets. This percentage is higher than the average for private and public institutions with
endowments greater than $1 billion for the past five years.
94
Endowment per Student
Description of Measure
This measure is a partial measure of the financial strength of the institution to support current students. It
is a calculation of investment resources divided by the number of currently enrolled students. The source of
the endowment information is the annual National Association of College and University Business Officers
(NACUBO) Endowment Study for Fiscal Year 2008.
Comparative and Trended Data
Endowment/Investment Per Student Compared to Public Peers
250,000
200,000
Virginia
150,000
Michigan
100,000
UNC
50,000
UCLA
Berkeley
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
Notes
Source: NACUBO Endowment Survey
Berkeley did not report endowment information to NACUBO before 2007.
UVa’s endowment per student does include endowments held at related foundations.
Analysis
UVa continues to have significantly greater investment assets than its public peers. However, all schools
saw their measure drop significantly in FY09, primarily as a result of the large decline in market values of
endowment assets. UVa’s endowment per student dropped from $206,000 in FY08 to $160,000 in FY09,
which is a 22% decrease. UVa’s return on investment for FY09 was a negative 21%. By comparison,
UNC’s endowment per student decreased less than UVa’s because UNC’s investment return of negative
19.6% was better than UVa’s negative 21%. On the other hand, Michigan saw investment losses of 23%,
which contributed to a larger decrease in its endowment per students than UVa.
Target
Not applicable
95
Comparative and Trended Data
Endowment/Investment Per Student Compared to Private Peers
600,000
500,000
400,000
Duke
300,000
Penn
Vanderbilt
200,000
Cornell
Virginia
100,000
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
Notes
Source: NACUBO Endowment Survey
UVa’s endowment per student does include endowments held at related foundations.
Analysis
In comparison to the University’s private peers, UVa remains behind, as expected. Duke remains well
ahead of all peers, at $341,000 per student. At $160,000, UVa trails Penn, Vanderbilt, and Cornell at
$241,000, $234,000, and $196,000, respectively. As with public peers, the measure for all private peers
decreased dramatically during FY09. Both Duke and Cornell suffered significantly larger investment losses,
at negative 24% and negative 26%, respectively, resulting in steeper declines in their endowment per student
than the other peers.
Target
Not applicable
96
Long-term Financial Strength – Equity Ratio
Background and Context
The higher education industry has not been able to develop one measure of long-term financial strength that
is relevant across the industry. Tuition-dependent colleges generally have gravitated towards the Composite
Financial Index (CFI), which is a weighted average of four financial ratios. However, the CFI is not as
meaningful for complex universities, especially those with large endowments invested in less liquid assets.
In selecting one metric to measure long-term financial strength for UVa, the following criteria were used:
(a) The data to be used for the metric must be easily available for UVa’s peers. Preferably, the data
would also be consistent across major changes in FASB and GASB standards (FASB 116/117 and
GASB 34/35)
(b) In order to represent the long-term view, the metric should use balance sheet information.
(c) Year-to-year volatility in endowment returns should not be mirrored in a measure of long-term
financial strength.
(d) The metric should be flexible enough to accommodate changes in financial strategy without
appearing to indicate a degradation of financial health.
(e) The metric should provide a high-level indicator of potential proactive or reactive action steps.
Description of Measure
The Equity Ratio, calculated as the ratio of UVa’s total net assets divided by total assets, measures long-term
financial leverage and solvency. It highlights the resources not subject to claims of third parties, but also
recognizes the role of leveraging in contributing to financial strength. If the ratio is too high, it could
indicate too heavy reliance on internal capital. If it is too low, it could indicate limited ability for future
borrowing. It meets all five criteria listed above.
Comparative and Trended Data
Equity Ratio at June 30 (1999-2009)
100%
95%
90%
Berkeley
85%
Virginia
80%
Duke
75%
Cornell
70%
UCLA
Penn
65%
Michigan
60%
Vanderbilt
UNC
55%
50%
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
97
Analysis
Despite decreases from last year, the Equity Ratios for UVa and the eight peers are significantly higher than
those in the corporate sector, indicating that higher education remains less leveraged than the for-profit
sector. In our peer group, Berkeley maintains the highest equity to assets ratio over the entire period, and is
the only school in this group to see an increase, albeit small, between last year and this year. UNC shows
the greatest volatility which, according to a UNC source, may be explained by significant accounting
adjustments in two years in this period, just prior to FY08. UNC continues its trend of having the lowest
Equity Ratio in the group since FY06, at 58% in FY09, down from 62% the year before. The mean and
median for the whole group are 69% and 67%, respectively. However, the disparity between the private and
public schools has grown. In FY08, the mean for the group of the five public universities was 75%, as was
the mean for the four private universities. In FY09, the five public schools ended the year with a reduced
mean of 72%, but the private schools dropped from 75% to 66%. As stated in last year’s report, many
private universities took the unprecedented step in FY09 of issuing debt for operations and not just capital,
and the Equity Ratios reflect additional debt as well as decreased endowment values.
In FY99, the mean and median for the group were 79% and 81% respectively. The group as a whole
therefore has seen a decrease in the Equity Ratio or increase in leverage between FY99 and FY09. Over this
period, UVa’s Equity Ratio decreased from FY99’s 85% to 82% in FY08 followed by 76% by the end of
FY09. At both ends of this period, UVa is second only to Berkeley, and above the mean and median for the
whole group. This indicates that we have been more sparing in the use of debt and have the ability to
borrow more, compared with our peers.
Sensitivity/Cost Benefit
Last year, we calculated for UVa that a 25% reduction in the market value of long-term investments would
drop the FY08 Equity Ratio to 80% (ceteris paribus); if there were no change in the long-term investments,
a $250 million addition to long-term debt would reduce the Equity Ratio to 80% as well. If both events
occurred in the same year, the Equity Ratio would be 76%. In fact, our long-term investments fell by
somewhat less than 25% (actually 21%) and our long-term debt increased by something less than $250
million (actually $217 million), resulting in the predicted 76% Equity Ratio at year-end.
98
Operating Cycle Financial Solvency and Flexibility
Background and Context
A primary indicator of financial health is an entity’s strength of cash flow. Cash flow is the essential element
used to assess many qualities of an entity including its liquidity, solvency, and financial flexibility. In times
of financial or economic stress, the focus on cash flow is magnified and lack of, or lack of access to, cash is
one of the first indicators of potential insolvency.
Cash and liquidity have become a central focus of the University during the 2008-2009 financial markets
crisis. The University tracks, and has guidelines in place, to assure it has adequate liquidity. However, a
more important indicator of financial solvency and flexibility is the University’s ability to generate
uncommitted, or free, cash flow from its operations. While access to credit lines provides the University
with access to a finite amount of cash if needed, its true ongoing strength is provided from its ability to
generate unrestricted free cash flow.
Description of Measure
Free cash flow (“FCF”) is defined many different ways, but a good general definition is “a measure of how
much cash an entity has for ongoing activities and growth after paying its bills”. FCF margin measures free
cash flow as a percentage of operating revenues. FCF margin has become an important and closely-watched
number for corporations. By customizing the calculation for higher education, we attempt to capture the
importance and predictive nature of this measure.
Free Cash Flow Margin = Free Cash Flow / Adjusted Operating Revenues
While the long-term financial strength metric is derived from the balance sheet, this operating-cycle
solvency and flexibility metric uses information from the income statement and cash flow statement.
Trended Data
Shown below is a comparison of U.Va.’s FCF Margin to its peers for 2002-2009.
Free Cash Flow Margin ‐ Peer Comparison
12.0%
10.0%
8.0%
6.0%
4.0%
2.0%
0.0%
‐2.0%
‐4.0%
‐6.0%
2002
UVA
UCLA
2003
2004
2005
MICHIGAN
DUKE
2006
2007
UNC CHAPEL HILL
VANDERBILT
2008
2009
BERKELEY
CORNELL
99
Analysis
The University’s FCF Margin has fluctuated over the past eight years between 1.3% and 6.3%. The
University would prefer to see this percentage trend upward as an indicator of growing strength in free cash
flow. A growing number indicates increased solvency and financial flexibility for the University, while a
decreasing percentage signals the University’s increased reliance on outside sources of funding to meet its
non-operational needs. The primary driver of the change in the ratio from year-to-year for public
universities is change in net cash from operations, and for private schools is endowment distribution.
Sensitivity/Cost Benefit
Free cash flow is used to support the discretionary financial needs of the University, such as creating
reserves, financing capital projects, and funding new initiatives. Using FY 2009 as an example, every onetenth of one percent reduction in the FCF Margin means that approximately $2 million would not be
available to either fund reserves or support university priorities including capital projects. With no change
in the funding requirements for reserves and capital projects, the University would need to rely on outside
capital to fill this void. Taken to its extreme, if the University had zero FCF (and therefore had operating
cash flow only sufficient to support operating expenses) all capital projects would need to be funded with
outside capital or the use of reserves.
100
Bond Rating
Description of Measure
RATINGS METHODOLOGY FOR PUBLIC COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES
All three of the major credit rating agencies (i.e., Moody’s, S&P, and Fitch) assign credit ratings to various
colleges and universities. Each agency uses its own proprietary methodology in assigning ratings. Among
the three, Moody’s provides the greatest transparency into its ratings methodology and, as such, is typically
used by schools that wish proactively to manage their ratings.
In managing its credit ratings, the Office of the VP and CFO primarily looks to the guidance provided by
Moody’s. In its most recent report on its rating methodology, Moody’s explains that it focuses on the
following five core rating factors in assigning credit ratings to public schools as well as in identifying the
drivers that make for stronger ratings.
FACTOR 1: MARKET POSITION
• Substantial revenue base
• Larger student base
• Recognition by state of flagship or other
unique status
• Broad geographic reach
• Solid demographic prospects
•
•
•
•
Steady support from an economically vibrant state
Strong demand
Large amount of sponsored research activity
Clearly articulated value proposition and market
power
FACTOR 2: GOVERNANCE AND MANAGEMENT
• Board members with broad expertise
• Management team with a range of years of
university and varied industry experience
• Significant flexibility granted by state for
daily operations
• Well integrated strategic, capital and financial
plans
FACTOR 3: OPERATING PERFORMANCE
• Consistently positive operating performance
• Healthy revenue diversity
• Ability to retain operating surpluses
• Sophisticated financial planning
• Solid coverage of debt service from
• Growing level of philanthropic support for
operations
annual support, endowment and facilities
• Reliable state funding environment which
allows for rational planning of operating
budgets
FACTOR 4: BALANCE SHEET AND CAPITAL PLAN
• High level of financial resource cushion
• Attractive and safe campus environment
relative to debt and operating expenses
• Significant level of unrestricted financial resources
• Comprehensive and long-range capital
• Debt structure well matched to liquidity and
planning process with diverse and reliable
credit profile of the organization
funding sources
FACTOR 5: COVENANTS AND LEGAL FRAMEWORK
• Effective allocation of risk between the
• Fully funded debt service reserve fund
bondholder and the university through
Secured interest in a broad revenue stream
legal covenants
including all legally available funds including
student tuition and fees
101
The University either qualitatively or quantitatively assesses these factors in proactively managing its ratings
and in its formal communications with the rating agencies. While the University does track key ratios
identified by Moody’s, no single ratio, or combination of ratios, can provide a roadmap for continued
ratings strength. Instead, the management of all these items is used to help secure the optimal ratings for
the University now and into the future.
Data and Analysis
The University holds AAA ratings from Moody’s and Fitch. It received AAA rating from Standard &
Poor’s in 2003 and has since maintained it.
The rating agencies’ commentaries on the University’s AAA rating highlight “prestigious academic
reputation,” “impressive” student demand,” “substantial balance sheet resources” (including a sizable
endowment and historically low levels of debt), “strong record of fund-raising,” “historically good financial
performance” including “healthy operating performance at the University’s medical center,” and “reduced
dependence on state support” for general operations and capital projects.
102
Efficiency – Institutional Expenditures vs. Reputation
Description of Measure
This measure demonstrates UVa’s efficient use of resources compared to its peers. In general, institutions
which rank highly in the US News and World Report reputation measure also rank highly in the expenditures
per student measure. The extent to which an institution with a low expenditure ranking can attain a high
reputational ranking, could be a measure of the efficient and effective use of its limited resources. This
measure gauges the difference between the ranking of the Expenditures per Student and the ranking of the
Peer Assessment (reputation). A high score on this measure indicates efficiency of spending per student to
obtain a high peer assessment.
Comparative and Trended Data
Institutional Expenditures vs Reputation (Peer Assessment)
55
50
Virginia
45
40
Berkeley
35
30
25
Michigan
20
15
UNC
10
Peer Mean
Cornell
UCLA
5
0
Penn
Duke
-5
-10
-15
1999 2000
Vanderbilt
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Analysis
During each of the past 12 years, UVa has performed well above its peers in this measure. None of the peer
institutions has been able to attain such a high peer assessment on such a limited budget. UVa scores high
on this measure because in the 2010 rankings, UVa’s expenditure was 64th while attaining a reputational
ranking of 16th. The difference (the score) is 48. This is very unusual. No other institution in the top 25
has an expenditure ranking below 43rd and only three institutions rank below 30th. Interestingly enough, the
only institution in the top 33 with a lower expenditure rank than UVa is William and Mary.
103
SWAM Spends as a Percentage of Discretionary Expenditures
Description of Measure
This measure reflects the University’s commitment to the promotion of small, women-owned and minorityowned business (SWAM) participation in the University’s procurement activities. The measure is calculated
by adding direct spend and sub-contractor spend for the three classes of business included in the definition
of SWAM firms. The data are presented for minority-owned businesses (MBE), women-owned businesses
(WBE), small businesses (SBE), and total SWAM spend. Data are available for fiscal years 2005 through
2009 and 11 months of fiscal year 2010.
Trended Data
SWAM Percentage of Discretionary Expenditures
DMBE & Self-Certified Firms
60%
MBE_total
50%
WBE_total
SBE_total
SWAM_total
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
FY 05
FY 06
* Projected from 11 months of data
104
FY 07
FY 08
FY 09
FY 10*
SWAM Percentage of Discretionary Expenditures
DMBE Certified Firms
50%
45%
MBE_total
40%
WBE_total
SBE_total
35%
SWAM_total
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
FY 05
FY 06
FY 07
FY 08
FY 09
FY 10*
* Projected from 11 months of data
Analysis
UVa increased its percentage of expenditures with minority-owned businesses through three quarters of this
year. This increase is the result of construction sub-contracting plans initiated two to three years ago. These
dollars are significant and enough to offset the reduced spending that has resulted from the current budget
challenges. These challenges have caused spending with women-owned and small businesses to fall slightly.
The same can be said for overall spending with SWAM firms. It is important to note that through three
quarters, spending with minority-owned firms is just over $14 million and is forecasted to reach $18 to $20
million for the year. This compares to a total of $9.5 for all of FY 2009.
Target
Short-term
• Meet the 40% target for SWAM spend included in Executive Order 33 (2008).
• Create relationships with SWAM firms but in particular MBE and WBE firms that are both strategic and
sustainable. Evidence of success in reaching this target will be measured in two ways:
o Year-over-year growth in individual minority- and women-owned firms doing business with
UVa.
o An increase in both dollars spent with minority- and women-owned firms and the percentage of
discretionary dollars represented by spend with MBE and WBE firms.
• Continue outreach to diverse firms that encourages participation in procurement opportunities.
• Continue implementation of the second tier reporting.
105
Long-term
The long-term goal is for the University to have a world class supplier diversity program by 2012. The most
widely accepted benchmarks for development towards a world class program were created by Ralph G.
Moore & Associates of Chicago, Illinois.
Plan for Improvement
SWAM Implementation Plan – Strategies to achieve targets are included in the University’s SWAM
Implementation Plan. The plan, submitted to the Virginia Department of Minority Business Enterprise, is
revised each year near the end of the first fiscal quarter. This plan is reviewed and updated periodically.
Key areas of focus for FY2011 include:
• Implementation of a supplier diversity recognition program;
• Increased use of prime construction management firms’ ability to target opportunities to MWBE firms;
• Improvement of the forecasting tools implemented for second-tier construction in 2010;
• Active participation in decisions made by the McDonnell Administration regarding supplier diversity.
106
Compliance/Enterprise Risk Management Index
Description of Measure
Enterprise risk management (ERM) consists of the identification and prioritization of the risks related to an
organization’s goals and objectives with the aim of minimizing their effects and impact. Development of an
ERM index helps an organization to be proactive rather than reactive when faced with new or changing
situations, and to determine which risks should be mitigated and which might be seized as opportunities.
Status
This measure will be developed during 2010-11 for presentation in the 2011 report.
107
108
Medical Center
Description of Performance Measures
Risk Adjusted Mortality
This metric is defined as the ratio of the observed mortality rate divided by
the expected mortality rate. Expected values are calculated using a risk model
that takes into account patient characteristics such as demographics and preexisting medical conditions. The desired value is 1.0 (where observed equals
expected) or less.
Readmission Rate
This metric is defined as the percentage of patients who have a related type of
admission to the hospital within 30 days of a previous admission. Data
exclude Chemotherapy, Radiation Therapy, Rehabilitation, and Dialysis.
Risk-Adjusted Patient
Safety Index
This metric is used as one part of the Solucient National Benchmarks for
Success. Scoring is based on the difference between the observed and
expected number of patients with Patient Safety events as defined by the
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ). Expected values are
based on normalized expected outcomes given the risk of the event for each
patient. The number of indicators used to calculate the index varies from
year to year. The desired value is 1.0 (where observed equals expected) or less.
Severity-Adjusted
Average Length of Stay
ALOS is a means to measure the average number of days a patient stays in
the Medical Center, the product of total patient days for discharged patients
divided by total discharges adjusted for case mix index. Typically, the ALOS
will be higher to treat sicker patients. When adjusted for severity, this is a
measure of efficiency.
Cost Per Adjusted
Discharge (CMI
Adjusted)
Adjusted discharge is an industry accepted standard statistic to represent the
full inpatient and outpatient activity for a medical center. The calculation for
adjusted discharges is inpatient discharges divided by the inpatient percentage
of gross revenues (inpatient gross revenues divided by total gross revenues).
This is a measure of efficiency of expenses relative to volume levels.
FTEs Per Occupied
Bed
(CMI Adjusted)
This is a measure of staffing productivity. A lower number calculated for this
ratio is generally thought to be more efficient. The calculation for FTEs per
occupied bed is the quotient of total FTEs including contract labor multiplied
by the number of days in the year divided by adjusted patient days.
Operating Margin
This is a measure of profitability as determined by the ratio of operating
income (operating revenue less operating expenses) to operating revenue.
Operating revenues include all patient care revenues and other operating
revenues and exclude any non-operating revenue, such as investment income,
interest income and other gains.
Cash to Total Debt
Ratio
This is a measure of liquidity as determined by the ratio of cash (total dollar
value of cash and marketable securities) to total debt. The cash to total debt
ratio measures the extent to which the Medical Center can quickly liquidate
assets and cover liabilities.
109
Average Days in
Accounts Receivable
The average days in accounts receivable ratio shows both the average time it
takes to turn the receivables into cash and the age, in terms of days, of the
Medical Center’s accounts receivable. The ratio is regarded as a test of
financial efficiency, the effectiveness with which the Medical Center converts
its receivables into cash. The calculation of days in accounts receivable is
gross accounts receivable divided by the daily average gross charge for the
period. A lower trend is more desirable.
Organizational
Commitment Indicator
The commitment indicator represents a grouping of items that measure an
employee's emotional attachment to, identification with, and involvement in
the organization, and the corresponding score indicates how committed
employees are to the organization. Item scores include the following
questions: I am proud to tell people I work for UVa Medical Center; I would
recommend UVa Medical Center to family and friends who need care; I
would like to be working at UVa Medical Center three years from now; I
would stay at UVa Medical Center if offered a similar job elsewhere for
slightly higher pay; I would recommend UVa Medical Center as a good place
to work; and Overall, I am a satisfied employee.
Patient Satisfaction
The University of Virginia uses a mailed survey to measure patient satisfaction
with services across the entire Medical Center. The survey process is
contracted with Press Ganey Associates, the largest patient satisfaction survey
organization in the U.S. The score that is reported is a composite of the
surveys used for the Medical Center services, including Inpatient, Emergency
Department, Outpatient Clinics, Outpatient Ancillary Testing and
Procedures, and the UVa Outpatient Surgery Center. The individual survey
mean scores are weighted to produce the composite score each month and
each quarter.
Volume Growth
Inpatient discharges are the total number of inpatients discharged within the
fiscal year. Outpatient visits are the total number of outpatient visits to
Medical Center clinics. Adjusted discharges are a universal measure of
volume used by hospitals. This represents a combination of inpatient
discharges and outpatient visits into combined indicator of patient activity.
Market Share
Market share is the number of admissions to the Medical Center as a
percentage of total admissions in the Primary Service Areas (PSA) and
Secondary Service Areas (SSA).
110
Medical Center Performance Data
FY 2010
Goal
Consumer Response
Patient Satisfaction
Volume Growth
- Inpatient Discharges
- Outpatient Visits
- Adjusted Discharges
Market Share
- Primary Service Area
- Secondary Service Area
Quality
Risk-Adjusted Mortality
Readmission Rate
Risk-Adjusted Patient Safety
Index
Efficiency
Severity-Adjusted Average
Length of Stay
Cost Per Adjusted Discharge
(CMI Adjusted)
FTEs Per Occupied Bed (CMI
Adjusted)
Financial
Operating Margin
Cash to Total Debt Ratio
Average Days in Accounts
Receivable
Employee Engagement
Organizational Commitment
Indicator
FY 2010
YTD 11
FY 2009
FY 2008
87.3
87.2 12
86.2
86.3
29,173
662,818
51,817
26,834 13
671,6443
48,8983
28,554
644,286
50,495
29,922
642,777
51,692
40.0%
10.0%
33.3% 14
9.2%4
34.8%
9.4%
36.6%
9.8%
<1.0
5.0%
1.16 15
4.85%5
1.22 16
5.71%
1.116
6.28%
.95
NA
1.10
1.11
3.04
3.01
3.12
2.98
$9,472
$9,379
$9,270
$8,811
3.22
3.06
3.17
3.18
4.7%
2.11
5.1%
1.70
4.0%
1.90
4.1%
2.68
51
45
48
48
4.05
3.87
3.82
3.79
FY 2010 data through March 2010 except as otherwise noted
January 2010 – March 2010
13 July 2009 – March 2010 annualized
14 July 2009 – December 2009
15 July 2009 – February 2010
16 Results reflect new risk adjustment methodology effective August 2009
11
12
111
Medical Center Peer Group
The Medical Center has identified the below peer group for comparison. The reported performance
measures are compared to the average data for the following group of Medical Centers. These peers are
selected for their similarity in key characteristics to the University of Virginia Medical Center. Key
characteristics would include volumes, capacity, breadth of clinical care programs, and teaching activities.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
112
Crawford Long Hospital of Emory University - GA
Emory University Hospital - GA
Froedtert Memorial Lutheran Hospital - WI
Johns Hopkins Hospital - MD
Medical College of Georgia Hospital & Clinics - GA
Medical University Hospital Authority of South Carolina - SC
Methodist Hospital (TX) - TX
New York Presbyterian Hospital - Columbia Presbyterian Hospital - NY
Penn State Milton S Hershey Medical Center - PA
Pennsylvania Hospital – PA (not included from 2007 on)
Shands at University of Florida - FL
Stony Brook University Hospital - NY
UCLA Medical Center - CA
UCSF Medical Center - CA
University Medical Center of Southern Nevada - NV
University of Chicago Hospitals - IL
University of Illinois Medical Center at Chicago - IL
University of Iowa Hospitals & Clinics - IA
University of Kansas Hospital - KS
University of Michigan Health System - MI
University of North Carolina Hospitals - NC
University of Pennsylvania Medical Center - PA
University of Virginia Medical Center - VA
University of Wisconsin Hospital & Clinics - WI
Vanderbilt University Medical Center - TN
Virginia Commonwealth University Health System - VA
Wake Forest University Baptist Medical Center – NC