SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON PLANNING
PERFORMANCE MEASURES
BOARD OF VISITORS RETREAT
JULY 10, 2009
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 Small Classes ............................................................................................................................................13 Financial Resources ................................................................................................................................15 Percentage of Alumni Giving................................................................................................................16 U.S. News and World Report (USNWR) and Other U.S. Graduate Rankings ......................18 U.S. News and World Report Graduate School Rankings ...............................................................18 U.S. News and World Report Professional School Rankings ..........................................................21 International Rankings ...........................................................................................................................23 National Research Council Rankings ................................................................................................24 General University Measures .................................................................................................. 25 Education/Student Experience ...........................................................................................................27 Student Selectivity - Undergraduate .....................................................................................................27 Student Selectivity - Graduate ...............................................................................................................30 Graduate Admission Test Scores for Entering Graduate Students (GMAT, LSAT, GRE,
MCAT) .................................................................................................................................................30 Student Engagement and Quality of Experience ...............................................................................33 Undergraduate Research ........................................................................................................................38 Graduation Rates by Minority Group..................................................................................................40 Research ......................................................................................................................................................43 Federal Research Expenditures Gross Amount and Per Capita ......................................................43 Research Dollars Per Assignable Square Feet ....................................................................................46 Faculty .........................................................................................................................................................47 Faculty Recruitment and Retention: Yield on Offers and Retention Rate .....................................47 Faculty Salaries ........................................................................................................................................49 University Staff Salaries..........................................................................................................................51 Faculty Membership in National Academies and Faculty Scholarly Awards .................................53 Financial......................................................................................................................................................55 Overall Financial Health: Long-term Financial Strength ..................................................................55 Overall Financial Health: Operating-cycle Financial Solvency and Flexibility ..............................57 Overall Financial Health: Bond Rating ................................................................................................59 Financial Planning ...................................................................................................................................61 Efficiency – Institutional Expenditures vs. Reputation ....................................................................62 Tuition and General Fund Resources Per Student ............................................................................63 Endowment Per Student........................................................................................................................65 Endowment Performance .....................................................................................................................67 Fundraising ................................................................................................................................................71 Annual Alumni Philanthropic Gross Cash Flow and Per Capita Alumni of Record ...................71 Investment Return Compared to Development ................................................................................76 Facilities ......................................................................................................................................................77 Facilities Condition Index......................................................................................................................77 Maintenance Reinvestment Rate ..........................................................................................................79 Diversity ......................................................................................................................................................81 Percentage of Low-Income and Middle-Income Undergraduate Students ...................................81 Percentage of Students on Pell Grants ................................................................................................83 Faculty Diversity Turnover Quotient ..................................................................................................85 SWAM Spend as a Percentage of Discretionary Expenditures........................................................89 Student Diversity.....................................................................................................................................92 Information Technology ........................................................................................................................96 Adequacy of Computing Environment ...............................................................................................96 Machine Room Capacity ........................................................................................................................99 Connectivity .......................................................................................................................................... 100 Compliance/Enterprise Risk Management Index ...................................................................... 102 Medical Center ...................................................................................................................... 103 Medical Center Peer Group ................................................................................................................ 105 Quality ...................................................................................................................................................... 107 Risk-Adjusted Mortality ...................................................................................................................... 107 Readmission Rate ................................................................................................................................. 109 Risk-Adjusted Patient Safety Index ................................................................................................... 111 Efficiency ................................................................................................................................................. 113 Severity-Adjusted Average Length of Stay (ALOS)........................................................................ 113 Cost per Adjusted Discharge (CMI Weighted) ............................................................................... 114 FTEs per Occupied Bed (CMI Adjusted) ........................................................................................ 115 Financial................................................................................................................................................... 116 Operating Margin ................................................................................................................................. 116 Cash to Total Debt Ratio.................................................................................................................... 117 Average Days in Accounts Receivable.............................................................................................. 118 Consumer Response ............................................................................................................................. 119 Overall Patient Satisfaction ................................................................................................................ 119 Growth in Total Volume .................................................................................................................... 121 Market Share in Primary and Secondary Area ................................................................................. 123 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; focus academic priorities on areas of excellence, strength,
and potential; and to be at 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 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, were forthcoming and to emerge from the academic planning process.
The measures were presented at the Board of Visitors Retreat in July 2006 and further discussed at
the September 11, 2006 meeting. Since 2006, the Vice President for Management and Budget has
led the work to refine the metrics and develop new ones where appropriate. Refinements have been
presented periodically to the Chair and Special Committee on Planning for feedback.
The Special Committee recommended that a careful review of the data for each measure be the
subject of a thorough annual report to the full Board. The first such report was presented to the
Board at its 2007 Retreat. The second was presented at the Board’s October 2008 meeting. The
administration will continue to report results on these selected measures on a regular basis to the
Board. While other performance measure data will be collected to inform and guide institutional
management, these secondary measures will not be reported regularly to the Board.
In preparation for the Board of Visitors Retreat in July 2007, two additional pieces of information
were reported. In order to make greater meaning of the reported data, a target was defined for each
measure and an improvement plan with strategies and specific actions were identified for each
measure where applicable.
The performance measures in this booklet have been updated for the July 2009 Board of Visitors
Retreat. The measures are representative of a comprehensive list of measures and address the
critical areas of education/student experience, research, faculty, finances, fundraising, facilities,
diversity, information technology, compliance/ enterprise risk management, resources, US News
undergraduate and graduate rankings, professional school and international rankings, and the
Medical Center. Enclosed are brief descriptions of each performance measure with trended and
comparative peer data where available.
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: 13,510
Setting: Suburban
Endowment: $5,421,847,003
U.S. News ranking: National Universities, 14
Tuition and fees: $36,504
Room/board: $11,690
Vanderbilt University
Year founded: 1873
Undergraduate student body: 6,532
Setting: Urban
Endowment: $3,488,258,000
U.S. News ranking: National Universities, 18
Tuition and fees: $37,005
Room/board: $12,028
Duke University
Year founded: 1838
Undergraduate student body: 6,394
Setting: Suburban
Endowment: $5,255,938,000
U.S. News ranking: National Universities, 8
Tuition and fees: $37,525
Room/board: $10,000
University of California Berkeley
Year founded: 1868
Undergraduate student body: 24,636
Setting: Urban
Endowment: $3,085,141,000
U.S. News ranking: National Universities, 21
Tuition and fees: $8,932 in-state, $29,540 outof-state
Room/board: $14,494
University of Pennsylvania
Year founded: 1740
Undergraduate student body: 9,687
Setting: Urban
Endowment: $6,635,000,000
U.S. News ranking: National Universities, 6
Tuition and fees: $37,526
Room/board: $10,622
University of California Los Angeles
Year founded: 1919
Undergraduate student body: 25,528
Setting: Urban
Endowment: $2,514,747,000
U.S. News ranking: National Universities, 25
Tuition and fees: $7,034 in-state, $26,102 outof-state
Room/board: $12,420
3
Peer Institutional Characteristics Continued
University of Michigan
Year founded: 1817
Undergraduate student body: 26,083
Setting: Urban
Endowment: $6,986,769,000
U.S. News ranking: National Universities, 26
Tuition and fees: $11,111 in-state, $32,401 out-of-state
Room/board: $8,190
University of North Carolina
Year founded: 1789
Undergraduate student body: 17,628
Setting: Suburban
Endowment: $2,178,924,581
U.S. News ranking: National Universities, 30
Tuition and fees: $5,396 in-state, $22,294 out-of-state
Room/board: $8,118
University of Virginia
Year founded: 1819
Undergraduate student body: 15,078
Setting: Suburban
Endowment: $4,370,209,000
U.S. News ranking: National Universities, 23
Tuition and fees: $9,300 in-state, $29,600 out-of-state
Room/board: $7,820
* Data obtained from 2009 US News and World Report, “America’s Best Colleges.” Enrollment information
represents fall 2007 data. Tuition and fee information is for the 2008-09 academic year. Endowment
information represents the June 30, 2007 market value.
4
Executive Summary
This executive summary highlights the University’s performance on select measures, grouped by
rankings, areas of high performance, and areas in need of improvement. For more information on a specific
measure, the cited page number refers to the page in this book where additional data and a full analysis can
be found.
Rankings
In late August 2008, U.S. News and World Report published its 2009 undergraduate rankings in which the
University remained tied for 23rd with Georgetown among National Universities. Detailed results of those
rankings were presented to the Board in October 2008. [see pages 11-17]
In March 2009, U.S. News and World Report published its 2010 graduate and professional program rankings.
Among the graduate and professional schools, the changes from 2009 to 2010 were mixed:
• The Darden School dropped from 14th to 15th.
• The Law School dropped from 9th to 10th.
• In the Medical research category, UVa dropped from 23rd to 24th.
• Engineering improved from 38th to 37th.
• Education rebounded from 31st to 24th, its 2008 level.
• Nursing climbed from 26th in 2003 to 19th in 2008 (nursing schools were not ranked for 2009).
[see pages 18-22]
The release date of the National Research Council (NRC) assessment of research doctorate programs is still
unknown. 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). [see page 24]
Academic Areas of Strength
Graduation Rates: UVa’s 1st-year undergraduate, six-year graduation rate for the graduating class of 2007-08
remained at the 93% level. The rates for each minority group (African American, Asian American, Hispanic
American) remain among the highest such rates of any public University in the U.S. Our rates also compete
very well with private AAU institutions. [see pages 40-42]
Student Engagement: The University participates, every third year, in the National Survey of Student
Engagement directed toward our 1st and 4th-year undergraduate students. In the most recent results
(administered in 2008) UVa, participating in the NSSE for the fourth time, continued to excel in most areas,
but also showed room for improvement. There are several important and positive findings about UVa from
NSSE 2008:
•
•
UVa faculty members continue to maintain a learning environment in which students are
academically challenged and engaged.
The co-curricular environment at UVa is strong and improving.
5
•
•
•
UVa continues to excel at providing students the support they need academically and socially.
UVa students are highly satisfied overall with their experience at UVa, more so than many peer
institutions.
Students who were part of the AccessUVa financial aid program are doing very well in their first
year.
NSSE 2008 results point to two particular areas that may need improvement: (1) Student-Faculty Interaction
and (2) Active and Collaborative Learning. UVa did least well overall on the Student-Faculty Interaction
index, particularly for 1st-year students. [see pages 33-37]
Adequacy of Computing Environment: The first biannual survey of the adequacy of the computing
environment provided to UVa faculty, students, and staff was conducted in November 2008, with the
assistance of the Center for Survey Research. A total of 1,525 surveys were completed – 642 by faculty
members, 451 by students (undergraduate and graduate), and 432 by staff. This inaugural survey will
function as the baseline measurement that allows tracking of changes in the assessment of the strengths and
weaknesses of the computing environment moving forward. UVa’s information technology infrastructure
was rated as “very good” in the survey. The technology infrastructure was also rated as “good” to “very
good” in terms of support of 1) research and scholarship; 2) teaching and learning; and 3) administration.
[see pages 96-98]
Financial and Medical Center Areas of Strength
Endowment per Student: UVa continues to have significantly greater investment assets, at $206,000 per
student, than its public peers, with Michigan a distant second at $152,000 per student. UVa has 36% more
investment assets per student than the closest public competitor, Michigan. [see pages 65-66]
Fundraising: In FY07 the University set a new record for annual philanthropic cash flow with more than
$282 million, a total that included three 8-figure gifts. This record total surpassed the previous record
(FY02) by more than $25 million. Philanthropic cash flow for FY08 was $270 million. While this
represents a decrease from FY07, it exceeds all previous years. Compared to its peers, however, UVa stands
near the bottom. [see pages 71-76]
Hospital Average Length of Stay: Since 2003 UVa has been slightly more efficient in treating its patients
than its peers. In 2008 the average length of stay for the UVa Hospital was 3.33 days compared to 3.42 days
for its peer group. [see page 113]
Operating Margin: This is a measure of profitability as determined by the ratio of operating income
(operating revenue less operating expenses) to operating revenue. From 2003 to 2008 UVa was consistently
higher in this measure than its peers. In 2008 UVa had an operating margin of 4.4% compared to 2.7% for
the peer group. [see page 116]
Academic Areas Needing Improvement
Faculty Hiring: The yield on offers for tenured and tenure-track faculty positions declined the past three
years, overall as well as for women, men, and Hispanic Americans. At the same time, yield rates for AfricanAmerican and Asian-American candidates each increased markedly. [see pages 47-48]
Faculty Awards and Academy Members: Two measures of faculty quality are 1) the number of awards
earned by the faculty and 2) the number of faculty who are members of prestigious academies. In awards
earned per year, UVa falls behind its peers, both in numbers and in the rate of increase. Despite the fact
6
that 4 UVa faculty were tapped as new members of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences in 2009,
the University remains below all but 1 of its peers.
[see pages 53-54]
Student Ethnic Diversity: Among undergraduate students, the University has seen very slow long-term
growth in the percentages of women, international students, and total ethnic minorities. However, the
percentage of African American students has seen just the opposite, a slow long-term decline. The entering
class of 2007, with the highest number of African Americans in 19 years, temporarily turned the trend
around. However, the numbers for fall 2008 class indicate a significant drop in African Americans, back to
the previous 10-year average. 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. The percentage of international graduate students increased steadily and significantly
between 1995 and 2001; since then, it has leveled off. 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. [see pages 92-95]
International Rankings:
Shanghai Jiao Tong University Academic Ranking of World Universities
The Times Higher Education World University Rankings
Newsweek Top 100 Global Universities
UVa ranks well below its peers in these three international rankings, which include elements of the global
reach or appeal of an institution in addition to comparative measures of quality of faculty and quantity of
research. [see page 23]
Financial and Medical Center Areas Needing Improvement
Unrestricted Endowment: Since 2003 the University's endowment, including related foundations, has been
approximately 20% unrestricted. Public institutions show an average of 24% of unrestricted endowment
assets over the four-year period ending June 30, 2008, while private institutions show an impressive 45%
average of unrestricted endowment assets over the same four-year period. [see pages 69-70]
Medical Center Patient Satisfaction: The University of Virginia uses a mailed survey to measure patient
satisfaction with services across the entire Medical Center. UVa’s score was close to the 50th percentile rank
goal from 2003 to 2005. However, in the past three years, UVa scores have been approximately one
percentage point below the 50th percentile rank goal. [see pages 119-120]
Risk-Adjusted Mortality Index: Patient survival is a universally accepted measure of hospital quality. The
lower the mortality index, the greater the survival of the patients in the hospital, considering what would be
expected based on patient characteristics. Overall, the mortality index has remained fairly flat since 2003,
consistent with the peer group in showing very little fluctuation. However, in 2008 the Medical Center
experienced a slight increase in mortality rate from .99 to 1.07. [see pages 107-108]
7
8
University Rankings
U.S. News and World Report Undergraduate Rankings
¾
¾
¾
¾
¾
Overall Undergraduate Ranking
Peer Assessment
Small Classes
Financial Resources
Alumni Giving
U.S. News and World Report and Other Graduate Rankings
¾ U.S. News and World Report Graduate School 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
3
5
Penn
7
Duke
9
11
13
Cornell
15
17
Vanderbilt
19
Peer Mean
21
Berkeley
23
Virginia
25
UCLA
Michigan
27
29
UNC
31
Analysis
UVa’s rank (currently 23rd) has varied over the last 10 years between 20th and 24th, with no clear trend either
up or down. Although a few of the peers do show clear trends for a period of time (Cornell, Vanderbilt,
UNC), overall the peers have changed little over the 10-year period.
Target
During the past three 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
very 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
4.7
Berkeley
4.6
4.5
Cornell
Penn
4.4
Michigan
Duke
Peer Mean
4.3
Virginia
4.2
UCLA
4.1
UNC
4.0
1999
Vanderbilt
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
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.
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
Small Classes
Description of Measure
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
70%
Duke
Vanderbilt
Berkeley
Cornell
60%
Peer Mean
UCLA
50%
Virginia
Michigan
UNC
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Analysis
UVa consistently falls below the mean of its peers in terms of the percentage of small classes and in 2009
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.
Secondary Measure
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.
13
Distribution of Classes by Size in the Careers of Graduating Cohorts
60%
2005-06 Cohort
51.8% 52.3% 52.3%
2006-07 Cohort
50%
2007-08 Cohort
40%
30%
20%
16.0% 16.3% 15.9%
14.2% 13.9% 14.2%
9.4%
10%
9.4% 9.2%
6.2%
2.4%
5.5% 6.1%
2.5% 2.3%
0%
Independent
Study
Group <20
Group 20-29
Group 30-39
Group 40-49
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.
14
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
US News Educational Expenditures per Student
110,000
Duke
100,000
Penn
Vanderbilt
90,000
80,000
Peer Mean
70,000
Cornell
60,000
UCLA
50,000
UNC
Michigan
40,000
Berkeley
Virginia
30,000
20,000
10,000
0
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Analysis
UVa consistently ranks below the mean of its peers and below each peer institution on this measure.
Target
In order to move up to the middle position among public peers, it would require approximately $215 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 will 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.
15
Percentage of Alumni Giving
Description of Measure
This measure is the average percentage of undergraduate alumni of record who donated money to the
college or university as calculated by U.S. News and World Report. Alumni of record are former full- or parttime students who received an undergraduate degree and for whom the college or 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
Analysis
For the alumni giving percentage, UVa has been close to the peer mean for the past 10 years. With an
alumni giving rate of 24% for 2006-07, UVa has the highest percentage of alumni giving among its public
peers in the 2009 U.S. News ranking. Of public peers, only UNC remains close to UVa in this measure with
an alumni giving rate of 23% in 2006-07. UVa’s giving rate for 2007-08 (which is represented above as the
2010 U.S. News year) has dropped to 23.1%. A decrease during the past four years corresponds to the
downturn in the economy and is consistent with national trends (fewer donors making larger gifts). A
portion of the decrease might also be attributed to the current capital campaign and its focus on major and
principal gifts, which could have a chilling effect on smaller annual gifts.
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 113,000).
16
To maintain the current participation rate, then, the University must increase the number of alumni donors
in each fiscal year by approximately 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 an 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, while increasing the overall alumni participation rate
by approximately 1%.
Any increase in the number of undergraduates admitted annually will impact this variable.
Plan for Improvement
Improving annual giving—both total dollars and participation rate—remains a priority for Development
and Public Affairs (DPA). In the FY10 goals prepared for the External Affairs Committee of the Board of
Visitors, DPA has committed to:
• Continue to build the new Reunions giving model;
• Design a single, unified Grounds-wide (undergraduate) effort for mass/direct annual fund
appeals and submit recommendation(s) at the September BOV meeting; and
• Implement any annual giving recommendation(s) approved by the Board
In FY09, 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, co-chairs, and
lead volunteers are recruited. Once fully staffed, the goal is for each Reunions class to have 50-100
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.
For Reunions 2009 the Class of 1979 was selected as a pilot class for this new model. The results are
promising—the Class of 1979 received the award for most dollars given in Reunions 2009 as well as the
highest participation for Reunions 2009 (33%).
As of this writing, the overall participation rate for Reunions 2009 giving was 21%, an increase of 2% over
the previous year and 3% over Reunions 2007. 591 donors were first-time donors to the University.
Further, the number of volunteers doubled, as did the number of five-year pledges.
DPA plans to add two additional Reunions and Leadership Annual Giving officers in FY10, expanding this
new, volunteer-driven model to additional classes. It is believed that this type of data-informed and
volunteer-driven effort can increase both alumni giving (total dollars) and alumni participation.
In addition to its focus on Reunions giving and leadership annual giving, DPA will continue to explore the
creation of a single, unified Grounds-wide program for mass/direct annual fund appeals. Building on the
recommendations of Lipman Hearne (described in last year’s report), DPA will create a plan for direct mail
solicitations, phonathons, and direct response marketing, testing new media, varying messages, and carefully
segmenting target populations to evaluate efficiency and effectiveness of pilot efforts. The plan will include
testing methods and modalities believed to be more appealing to younger alumni—i.e., crowd-sourcing and
social networking—as a means to increase participation.
17
U.S. News and World Report (USNWR) and Other U.S. Graduate Rankings
U.S. News and World Report Graduate School 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
5th
2008
2009
2010
10th
15th
20th
25th
30th
35th
40th
45th
50th
Architecture
(1997)
18
Education
Engineering
Nursing
(2003 &
2008)
Comparative and Trended Data1
Three UVa graduate 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.
Nursing schools were not ranked by USNWR for 2009 or 2010.
UVa Graduate Schools in U.S. News and World Report (USNWR) Graduate School Rankings (Top
50) Compared to 2010 Peer Rankings
Discipline
Architecture
Arts & Sciences
Commerce
Education
Engineering
Nursing3
UVa
2009
62
UVa
2010
Cornell
31
38
19
24
37
36
11
Duke
Penn
Vanderbilt
Berkeley
UCLA
Michigan
UNC
13
27
3
1
39
19
7
3
5
14
12
14
9
5
23
35
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. Nursing advanced to top-20 status and education rose seven
places to return to the top 30. Engineering is currently ranked in the top 40 at number 37. USNWR offers
no comprehensive ranking of the Graduate School of Arts & Sciences (GSAS). Individual programs within
GSAS are ranked periodically. The ranking formula for these programs is based solely on peer assessment
and contains no analysis of quantitative measures.
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 2008 rankings, the University’s graduate architecture program
was ranked 13th; the graduate landscape architecture program was ranked 14th.
2 Represents 1997 ranking.
3 Nursing schools were not evaluated for 2009, so 2008 rankings are provided for all peers.
1
19
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.
4
Such strategies are generally aimed at Ph.D. education, rather than professional and/or master’s-level education.
20
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
10th
2009
2010
15th
20th
25th
30th
35th
40th
45th
50th
Darden
Law
Medicine (research)
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
2009
14
9
23
UVa
2010
15
10
24
Cornell
17
13
18
Duke
12
10
6
Penn
3
8
3
Vanderbilt
33
17
15
Berkeley
7
6
UCLA
14
15
11
Michigan
13
9
11
UNC
20
30
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 three places of the top 20.
21
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
22
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
International Rankings
Shanghai Jiao Tong University Academic Ranking of World Universities
The Times Higher Education World University Rankings
Newsweek Top 100 Global Universities
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.
Newsweek evaluated universities in 2006 using overall publications and citations; publications in Science and
Nature; citations per faculty member; percentages of international students and staff; faculty-to-student ratio;
and library holdings.
Comparative Data
Jiao Tong University
Times Higher Education
Academic Ranking of World
Top World Universities,
Universities, 2008
2008
World Regional National World Regional National
Rank
Rank
Rank
Rank
Rank
Rank
UVa
95
57
53
96
38
34
UC
3
3
3
36
20
18
Berkeley
UCLA
13
11
11
30 (tie)
17
16
Cornell
12
10
10
15
11
11
Duke
32
25
24
13
9
9
Michigan
21
18
18
18
13
13
North
38
31
29
102
43
39
Carolina
Penn
15
13
13
11
7
7
Vanderbilt
42
34
32
101
42
38
Note: “Regional” refers to North America and Latin America.
Newsweek Top
100 Global
Universities, 2006
World Rank
80
5
12
19
14
11
41
13
66
Analysis
UVa fares better in the 2008 rankings than it did in 2006 or 2007. However, in two of the three rankings,
UVa ranks lower than all its peers. In the third ranking (Times Higher Education), UVa ranks behind three of
its public peers and three of its private peers.
23
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.
Status
No data currently available for reporting.
According to an update issued on April 9, 2009, the final report cannot be completed until the Methodology
Guide has been completed. 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.
24
General University Measures
Education/Student Experience
¾ Student Selectivity - Undergraduate
¾ Student Selectivity - Graduate
¾ Student Engagement and Quality of Experience
¾ Undergraduate Research
¾ Graduation Rates by Minority Group
Research
¾ Federal Research Expenditures Gross Amount and Per Capita
¾ Research Dollars per Assignable Square Feet
Faculty
¾ Faculty Recruitment and Retention
¾ Faculty Salaries
¾ University Staff Salaries
¾ Faculty Membership in National Academies and Faculty Scholarly Awards
Financial
¾ Overall Financial Health
¾ Financial Planning
¾ Efficiency
¾ Tuition and General Fund Resources Per Student
¾ Endowment Per Student
¾ Endowment Performance
Fundraising
¾ Annual Philanthropic Gross Cash Flow and Per Capita Alumni of Record
¾ Investment Return Compared to Development
Facilities
¾ Facilities Condition Index
¾ Maintenance Reinvestment Rate
Diversity
¾ Percentage of Low-Income and Middle-Income Undergraduate Students
¾ Percentage of Students on Pell Grants
¾ Faculty Diversity Turnover Quotient
¾ SWAM Spend as Percentage of Discretionary Expenditures
¾ Student Diversity
Information Technology
¾ Adequacy of Computing Environment
¾ Machine Room Capacity
¾ Connectivity
Compliance/Enterprise Risk Management Index
25
26
Education/Student Experience
Student Selectivity - Undergraduate
Description of Measure
This measure has three components which help evaluate the University’s ability to attract and admit highly
qualified undergraduate students: 1) first-year undergraduate offer rate; 2) yield rate on first-year
undergraduate offers; and 3) combined SAT mid-point for the undergraduate, first-year entering class.
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
10%
Penn
20%
Cornell
Berkeley
UCLA
Duke
Peer Mean
30%
Vanderbilt
UNC
40%
Virginia
Michigan
50%
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 has slipped over the past 10 years and might be difficult to
regain. 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.
27
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
Penn
0.6
UNC
0.5
Virginia
Cornell
Michigan
Peer Mean
Duke
Berkeley
0.4
UCLA
Vanderbilt
0.3
0.2
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
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 is 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.
28
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
1400
Cornell
Vanderbilt
Peer Mean
1350
Berkeley
Virginia
UNC
UCLA
Michigan
1300
1250
1200
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
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. The drop was across the board, among both in-state, and
out-of-state students. Preliminary data for 2008 indicates that the scores are likely to rebound for next
year’s entering class.
29
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
30
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
UVa Graduate Schools: Average Standardized Test Scores of Incoming Students (2007-08)5
School
Architecture
Arts & Sciences
Business
Commerce
Education
Engineering
Law
Medicine
Nursing
Possible
Score
1600
1600
800
800
1600
1600
180
45
1600
Test
GRE
GRE
GMAT
GMAT
GRE
GRE
LSAT
MCAT
GRE
UVa
Average
1184
1279
678
611
1148 (1120)6
1275 (737)7
168
33.43 (11.14)8
1029
Peer
Average (2006-07)
n/a
n/a
690
n/a
1221
768
166
11.2
n/a
Analysis
GRE scores of entering graduate students have remained relatively consistent over the past 10 years, with
some slight increase in quantitative and analytical scores. 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 Ph.D. students. Thus,
average GRE scores for Ph.D. students are the most relevant to VPR programs and initiatives.
Targets
The VPR solicited targets from individual graduate schools. These are summarized in the table below.
UVa Graduate Schools: Targets for Average Standardized Test Scores of Incoming Students
School
Architecture9
Arts & Sciences
Business (Darden)
Commerce (McIntire)
Education (Curry)
Engineering
Law
Medicine
Nursing11
Current
Score
Short-term Target →
Long-term Target
Target
Date from 2008
1279
678
611
1148
1275
168
1320
695 → 700
635 → Top 20
1350
1325 → Top 20
Top 10
33.5
3-5 years
2 years → 5 years
2-3 years
5 years
5 years
immediate10
5 years
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 Ph.D. students, with which Curry is primarily concerned. Parenthetical score
represents U.S. News average for all graduate students, which is comparable to the peer average.
7 Primary score represents average GRE for all graduate students, with which the School of Engineering is primarily concerned.
Parenthetical score represents U.S. News average for the quantitative portion of the GRE, which is comparable to the peer
average.
8 Primary score represents average MCAT on all three tests. Parenthetical score represents U.S. News average over the three tests,
which is comparable to the peer mean.
9 The School of Architecture has chosen not to focus on standardized test scores as a primary measure of student performance
and/or quality. Such scores account for approximately 20 to 25% of the school’s evaluation of a candidate. The school has
chosen to focus, instead, on admissions yield rate.
10 The School of Law’s current middle 50% range of 167-171 places them in the “Top 7” of LSAT scores.
11 The School of Nursing has chosen not to focus on standardized test scores as a measure of student performance and/or
quality. Graduate programs in nursing attract a non-traditional student cohort; the Educational Testing Service (ETS) has advised
that the GRE is not an accurate predictor of performance for this cohort. Many top graduate nursing programs (e.g., the
5
31
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 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; (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.12
•
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 Ph.D.-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.
University of Washington, the University of Pennsylvania, etc.) have discontinued the use of the GREs. The GRE currently is
optional in one of the University’s nursing doctoral programs (Doctor of Nursing Practice).
12
Such strategies are generally aimed at Ph.D. education, rather than professional and/or master’s-level education.
32
Student Engagement and Quality of Experience
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).
33
Comparative and Trended Data
National Survey of Student Engagement Benchmarks
100
Active and Collaborative Learning
90
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
Enriching Educational Experiences
90
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
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.
0
2000
34
2002
2005
2008
National Survey of Student Engagement Benchmarks
100
Level of Academic Challenge
90
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
Student-Faculty Interaction
90
80
70
60
50
40
UVA 4th-Year
AAUDE 4th-Year
30
AAUDE 1st-Year
UVA 1st-Year
20
10
0
2000
2002
2005
2008
35
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).
36
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.
37
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%
2004-05 Cohort
2005-06 Cohort
2006-07 Cohort
2007-08 Cohort
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Analysis
The results present data over the period 2004-2008. Overall in academic year 2007-08 64.2% of
undergraduates are represented to have completed a major research project matching the definition
provided by URAC. This figure changed little over the four 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.
Additional analysis under “Secondary Measures” will shed some light on the issue.
38
Secondary Measure
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.
39
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%
Penn
Duke
90%
85%
Virginia
Cornell
Vanderbilt
80%
Peer Mean
75%
UCLA
UNC
Michigan
70%
Berkeley
65%
1997
1998
1999
2000
Entering Year
2001
2002
Analysis
In graduation rates for African American students, UVa has remained above the peer mean. Among all
public universities, UVa has the highest graduation rate for African American students. Eighty-nine 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 2002 who
graduated within six years dropped to 85%, 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.
40
Comparative and Trended Data
6-Year Graduation Rates, Hispanic American
100%
Duke
95%
Penn
90%
Vanderbilt
Virginia
Peer Mean
Cornell
85%
UCLA
Michigan
80%
UNC
Berkeley
75%
70%
65%
1997
1998
1999
2000
Entering Year
2001
2002
Analysis
In graduation rate 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%. As with the graduation rate for African American students, the drop does not necessarily
reflect a trend. The graduation rate will continue to be monitored.
41
Comparative and Trended Data
6-Year Graduation Rates, Asian American
100%
Penn
Duke
Cornell
95%
Virginia
Michigan
UCLA
Berkeley
Peer Mean
Vanderbilt
90%
85%
80%
UNC
75%
1997
1998
1999
2000
Entering Year
2001
2002
Analysis
In graduation rates for Asian American students, UVa has remained near the top of its peer group for the
past six years.
42
Research
Federal Research Expenditures Gross Amount and Per Capita
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
Source: NSF
Michigan
$550
$500
UCLA
Duke
Penn
$450
Peer Mean
$400
Cornell
$350
UNC
Vanderbilt
$300
$250
Berkeley
$200
Virginia
$150
$100
FY2000
FY2001
FY2002
FY2003
FY2004
FY2005
FY2006
FY2007
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 2007 UVa
received $198.3 million in federal research expenditures. Over the eight-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% a
year over the next 10 years if federal resources permit.
43
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
$300,000
UCLA
Penn
Duke
Vanderbilt
Cornell
$250,000
Peer Mean
Michigan
UNC
$200,000
Berkeley
$150,000
Virginia
$100,000
$50,000
FY2000
FY2001
FY2002
FY2003
FY2004
FY2005
FY2006
FY2007
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 2007 UVa expended $198 million in federal research funds. Over the eight-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% a year over the next several years if federal resources permit. To achieve this target,
44
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 is currently under construction (College science building, and
Rice Hall) with additional GSF available in the Ivy 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.
45
Research Dollars Per Assignable Square Feet
Description of Measure
This measure examines the relationship between the amount of research space and the total expenditures in
research reported to Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS).
Trended Data
Research Expenditures per
Net Assignable Square Foot of Research Space
350
$283
300
D
O
L
L
A
R
S
250
$206
$216
$220
2003-04
2004-05
$244
$237
2005-06
2006-07
200
150
100
50
0
2002-03
2007-08
Analysis
Research expenditures per square foot of research space rose in 2007-08 after a slight drop in 2006-07.
Target
Maintain 2005-06 levels.
Plan for Improvement
To maintain its current standing, UVa will need to implement the recruiting and research facility building
plans outlined in the Commission on the Future of the University.
46
Faculty
Faculty Recruitment and Retention: Yield on Offers and Retention Rate
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
90%
2006
2007
2008
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Total
Women
Men
African
American
Asian
American
Hispanic
American
Native
American
White
American
Analysis
While the total yield rate remained stable in 2008, yield rates for African-American and Asian-American
candidates each increased markedly. The yield rate for Hispanic candidates declined by 30 percentage
points, however, compared to 2007, when targeted offers were made to identify and recruit Hispanic faculty.
Plan for Improvement
The Office of the Vice Provost for Faculty Advancement (VPFA) now administers a declination survey that
is sent to individuals who decline the offer of a tenure-track faculty position at U.Va. The current survey
findings indicate that spouse/partner career opportunities are a key consideration for individuals considering
an offer. When asked to rank workplace and community attributes in importance, the five attributes that
appeared most commonly in the top 3 were: Spouse/Partner Career Opportunities (n=19); Salary (n=9);
Department Ranking (n=8); Metropolitan Location (n=8); and Research Support (n=8). At the time of
offer 64% of respondents had a spouse or domestic partner who was also seeking employment and 52%
had one or more dependents. Further, when asked to compare U.Va.’s offer to their best competing offer,
47
respondents indicated that U.Va. was worse in regards to spouse/partner career opportunities, travel
accessibility, and metropolitan location (in rank order).
The VPFA 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. In addition UVa maintains active networks with surrounding academic institutions, both the
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. This past year, the VPFA hosted both
the Dual Careers Central Virginia Conference, with 51 representatives from 9 area colleges, and the Annual
Mid-Atlantic HERC Conference with representation from 24 institutions.
Trended Data
UVa Tenured Faculty Retention Rate
100%
Virginia
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
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. Because tenured faculty typically
leave either as a result of retirement or for better offers from competing institutions, maintaining this high
retention rate will require continued progress in faculty salaries and research space.
48
Faculty Salaries
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
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 19-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 and dropped again to the 26th position in 2009.
In 2009, the State did not provide any increase in faculty salaries. However, the Law School was able to
increase its faculty salaries by about 4% and other schools were allowed to make a few promotion and
retention raises. The result was an average salary increase of 0.87%. Only two of the 60 AAU institutions
gave smaller percentage increases in 2008-09 and the AAU median increase was 4.24%.
Sensitivity/Cost-Benefit
The University’s current position in the AAU, 26th, is at least seven positions short of the BOV target range
of 15th through 19th. This gap represents $6,400 in average salary. A total of $7.9 million would be required
to raise the salaries of the 1,241 full-time instructional (non-medical) faculty included in this calculation to
the 19th position (and holding peer salaries unchanged). A total of $14.3 million in current dollars would be
required to award the same salary increase to the 2,240 total FTE teaching and research faculty at the
University.
49
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 2008-09 caused UVa to drop to the 32nd percentile among its peers. Because no funds
have been provided by the legislature for salary increases in the 2009-10 budget, it is expected that the
percentile rank will drop further next year.
50
University Staff Salaries
Background and Context
In 2009, the University of Virginia implemented the new University Staff Human Resources Plan. The
cornerstones of the Plan include employee development, performance management, and competitive
compensation through market-based pay. All staff hired after July 1, 2006, are covered by the new plan as a
new category of employee, University Staff. The State has granted U.Va. the right to manage this category
of employee in accordance with the new HR Plan’s policies rather than the State Personnel Act. A
performance measure for University Staff employee salaries has been identified in order to measure how
well the University maintains strategic alignment of staff salaries. This is similar to the work we do for
faculty salary benchmarking, and aids in staff recruitment and retention, which in turn ensures optimal
faculty support.
Description of Primary Measure
Given the wide range of work that University Staff employees perform, we have established relevant market
ranges for different jobs and our initial goal is to have the employee salary average at the 50th percentile of
the market range. The faculty salary ranking goal places faculty salaries between the 70th and 75th percentile
of the AAU Peer Group. The University recognizes that excellent and competent staff provide for a
successful support infrastructure for instructional faculty, and therefore we realize that an even more
aggressive goal may be appropriate. However, since the State had not provided increases in staff salaries in
2009 and 2010, our position is deteriorating and an initial target goal of the 50th percentile of the market
ranges is appropriate and realistic.
As can be seen from the graph below, the University Staff employee salaries are currently positioned well
below the targeted 50th percentile of the market ranges. For comparison purposes, and as of the third
quarter of FY 2008-2009, both the Classified Staff and the Administrative & Professional Faculty employee
categories have more “Middle Third” positioned salary distributions than do University Staff.
51
Market Range Pay Penetration
50th Percentile
Analysis
Over the past several years, the University has been improving the pay positioning of the staff employee
salaries. The continued availability of 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, (named “Pay Action 7”), have been instrumental in directing these funds to those employees
whose salary positioning most warrant adjustments. Continued monitoring and targeted pay actions will be
necessary to achieve the primary goal.
Sensitivity/Cost-Benefit
The University Staff salaries are currently 13.7% below the 50th percentile of market ranges. Our ability to
attract, motivate and maintain highly qualified talent is in part dependent on maintaining competitive and
rewarding compensation levels. The cost to the University as a whole to reach the 50th percentile of the
market ranges is approximately $8.1 million. Since these salaries are funded from a variety of sources,
including auxiliary operations, grants and other revenues, the state portion of this requirement would be
approximately $3.8 million. As stated above, moving staff salaries closer to the 50th percentile mark will
establish market competitive salaries to sustain excellent services in support of the University’s core
missions of teaching and research.
52
Faculty Membership in National Academies and Faculty 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 seven-year period.
Comparative and Trended Data
Selected Faculty Awards - Cumulative Total
100
90
80
National Endowment for the Humanities Fellowships - Research
Fulbright Scholars
Guggenheim Fellowships
MacArthur Awards
(Cumulative number of awards since 2001)
Michigan
Berkeley
70
UCLA
60
Peer Mean
50
Cornell
Penn
40
UNC
30
Duke
Virginia
Vanderbilt
20
10
0
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
Analysis
Over the past eight years, UVa’s cumulative numbers of the selected awards have increased at a rate
somewhat less than the peer mean, with totals falling to below the middle of the range. During that time,
UVa faculty have been granted 34 such awards. The peer mean of awards granted during this eight-year
period was 53.
53
Comparative Data
200
190
180
170
160
150
140
130
120
110
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Current Faculty Memberships in Academies
Penn
Duke
Cornell
Vanderbilt
Berkeley
Virginia
UCLA
Michigan
North Carolina
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 and the Institute of Medicine, UVa falls near the middle of the pack. In the National Academy
of Science and the American Academy of Arts & Sciences, UVa is near the bottom of its peers; however, in
2009, four UVa faculty members were added to the American Academy of Arts & Sciences.
54
Financial
Overall Financial Health: Long-term Financial Strength
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%
UC Berkeley
85%
UVA
80%
Duke
75%
Cornell
70%
UCLA
65%
Penn
Michigan
60%
Vanderbilt
55%
UNC
50%
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
55
Analysis
The Equity Ratios for UVa and the eight peers are significantly higher than those in the corporate sector,
indicating that higher education is not as highly-leveraged as the for-profit sector. In our peer group, UC
Berkeley shows the highest equity to assets ratio over the entire period. UNC shows the greatest volatility
which, according to a UNC source, may be explained by significant accounting adjustments in two years in
this period. The FY2008 number for UNC is the most reliable. This means that UNC has the lowest
Equity Ratio in the group, at 62%. Excluding UNC, the FY2008 mean for this group is 77%; including
UNC, the mean and median for this group are 75%. In fact, the median and median for just the group of
five public universities are 75%, as are the mean and median for only the four private universities.
In FY1999, 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 FY1999 and FY2008.
Over this period, the Equity Ratio has increased for Duke and Penn, but decreased for the others. UVa’s
Equity Ratio decreased from FY1999’s 85% to 82% in FY2008. In both years we are 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. The FY2009
numbers will be very enlightening in the discussion about setting a target Equity Ratio or optimal leveraging,
because FY2009 is the first year in which private universities took the unprecedented step of issuing debt
for operations and not just capital. The target ratio would be determined as part of financial planning in
support of academic planning.
Sensitivity/Cost Benefit
For UVa, a 25% reduction in the market value of long-term investments would drop the FY2008 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%.
56
Overall Financial Health: 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 2002-2008.
57
Analysis
The University’s FCF Margin has fluctuated over the past seven years between 1.9% 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 2008 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.
58
Overall Financial Health: 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
59
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.
60
Financial Planning
Description of Measure
The University’s Ten-Year financial plan provides for a balanced operating budget.
Data and Analysis
While the state appropriates funds every two years, the University engages in multi-year financial
planning based on different assumptions. These plans account for different levels of general fund
appropriations, projected tuition, growth in grants and contracts, auxiliary enterprise revenues, and
gift and endowment distributions. This multi-year approach, which is updated on an annual basis,
ensures that the University has sufficient financial resources for core functions, basic operations, and
strategic initiatives over the long-term. Prudent, long-range plans assist in minimizing the impact of
unpredictable financial conditions.
61
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
Vanderbilt
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
Analysis
During each of the past ten 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 2009 rankings, UVa’s expenditure was 63rd while
attaining a reputational ranking of 15th. The difference (the score) is 48. This is very unusual. No
other institution in the top 25 has an expenditure ranking below 44th 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.
62
Tuition and General Fund Resources Per Student
Description of Measure
This measure provides an analysis of tuition and general fund educational and general resources
available per undergraduate student. It excludes philanthropic resources, as well as direct and indirect
research funding. The first graph represents the 2008-2009 year. For private institutions, the bar
represents the gross tuition and fee charge. For public institutions, the bar represents the weighted
average of (1) the in-state gross tuition and fee charge plus general funds per in-state student and (2)
the out-of-state gross tuition and fee charge. Eight years of historical data are available and presented
in the second graph.
Comparative and Trended Data
Tuition and State Support per Student
$40,000
$35,000
$30,000
$25,000
$20,000
Penn
$15,000
Duke
Vanderbilt
Cornell
$10,000
UNC
Michigan
$5,000
UCLA
Berkeley
Virginia
$2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
Notes
Fall 2008 is estimated by George Stovall for Berkeley and UCLA because they choose not to submit
these data.
Analysis
UVa’s tuition and state support per student has risen from $16,755 in 2001 to $22,803 in 2009. There
was a low of $15,987 after the general fund budget cuts of 2003 and 2004. Since that time, significant
tuition increases and a commitment by the state towards funding the base budget adequacy model in
2005 through 2007 have driven the upward trend. Further state reductions in 2008 and 2009 have
resulted in a slower climb. The University continues to have fewer non-philanthropic and nonresearch resources available to meet its educational mission than either its public or private peers.
63
Target and Time Frame
Based upon the Six Year Plan submitted to the state in October 2007, the University’s target for this
measure through 2012 was as follows:
2007-08
$ 21,586
2008-09
$ 23,191
2009-10
$ 24,625
2010-11
$ 26,055
2011-12
$ 27,420
2012-13
$ 28,821
2013-14
$ 30,139
In 2008-09, UVa reached $22,803. Because UVa has increased out-of-state tuition at a slightly greater
rate than planned while state funding has declined, we have nearly met our revised 2008-09 target
(based on the October 2007 plan).
Plan for Improvement
UVa will continue to recommend tuition and E&G fee increases that are consistent with the current
Six Year Plan. UVa will also continue to proactively support the state’s commitment to base budget
adequacy model, which will allow the Commonwealth’s general fund contribution to increase as
planned.
64
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
Source: NACUBO Endowment Survey
$250,000
Virginia
$200,000
Michigan
$150,000
$100,000
UNC
$50,000
UCLA
Berkeley
$0
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
Notes
Source: NACUBO Endowment Survey
Berkeley did not report endowment information to NACUBO before 2007.
Analysis
UVa continues to have significantly greater investment assets, at $206,000 per student, than its public
peers, with Michigan a distant second at $152,000 per student. UVa’s measure is 36% higher than
Michigan’s. Michigan, UNC, and UVa all increased by about $6,000 per student. UCLA increased by
about $2,000 per student, while UC Berkeley actually decreased by about $2,000 per student.
Target
Not applicable
65
Comparative and Trended Data
Endowment/Investment Per Student Compared to Private Peers
Source: NACUBO Endowment Survey
$600,000
$500,000
Duke
$400,000
Vanderbilt
Penn
Cornell
$300,000
Virginia
$200,000
$100,000
$0
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
Notes
Source: NACUBO Endowment Survey
Analysis
In comparison to the University’s private peers, UVa remains lower. Duke is well ahead of all peers,
at $481,000 per student. At $206,000, UVa trails Cornell, Penn, and Vanderbilt at $272,000, $294,000,
and $297,000, respectively. However, the measure for all three of those schools decreased between
1% and 7% in FY08, while UVa’s measure increased by 3%. Duke showed a slight increase of 1%.
Target
Not applicable
66
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
UVa excludes performance on investment assets held at foundations and not managed by UVIMCO
Source: NACUBO Endowment Survey
25.0%
20.0%
Michigan
UNC
15.0%
Virginia
Berkeley
UCLA
10.0%
5.0%
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
five-year periods from 2000 to 2005, UVa had the highest five-year return measure. However, for
each of the last three five-year periods, UVa has placed third. Michigan and UNC have placed first
and second, respectively, for each of the last three five-year periods. Both Michigan’s and UNC’s
measures increased for 2004-08, while UVa, UC Berkeley, and UCLA saw decreases of about 1
percentage point for 2004-08.
Target
The long-term goal for UVa is to maintain a 10% rate of return.
67
Comparative and Trended Data
Private Peer Comparisons of Nominal Rates of Return for Selected Five-Year Periods
UVa excludes performance on investment assets held at foundations and not managed by UVIMCO
Source: NACUBO Endowment Survey
35.0%
30.0%
25.0%
20.0%
Duke
15.0%
Cornell
Virginia
Vanderbilt
10.0%
Penn
5.0%
0.0%
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. For seven of the past nine
years, UVa has finished second among the five peers. In each of the last 10 five-year periods, Duke
has experienced the highest return, except for the 2001-05 period, in which UVa finished first. For
the most recent 2004-08 period, UVa is tied for third with Vanderbilt, finishing behind Duke and
Cornell.
Target
The long-term goal for UVa is to maintain a 10% rate of return.
68
Comparative and Trended Data
Peer Comparison of Unrestricted Endowment
50.0%
45.0%
% of Total Endowment
40.0%
35.0%
30.0%
25.0%
20.0%
15.0%
10.0%
5.0%
0.0%
2002
2003
2004
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
Notes
Source: NACUBO Endowment Survey
Includes private and public institutions with endowments greater than $1 billion. FY2002 survey had
fewer than 10 responses from public universities.
Analysis
Since 2003 the University's endowment, including related foundations, has been approximately 20%
unrestricted. Both public institutions and private institutions with endowment assets greater than $1
billion have significantly greater unrestricted endowment assets. Public institutions show an average
of 24% of unrestricted endowment assets over the four-year period ending June 30, 2008, while
private institutions show an impressive 45% average of unrestricted endowment assets over the same
four-year period.
69
Comparative and Trended Data
Peer Comparison of Restricted Endowment
100.0%
90.0%
% of Total Endowment
80.0%
70.0%
60.0%
50.0%
40.0%
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
0.0%
2002
2003
2004
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
Notes
Source: NACUBO Endowment Survey
Includes private and public institutions with endowments greater than $1 billion. FY2002 survey had
fewer than 10 responses from public universities.
Analysis
Since 2003 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 six years.
70
Fundraising
Annual Alumni Philanthropic Gross Cash Flow and Per Capita Alumni of
Record
Description of Measure
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 of one or two individual significant outright gifts within a fiscal year.
FY2002, FY2003, FY2007, and FY2008 each saw the receipt of significant 8-figure and above cash
gifts.
Comparative and Trended Data
Annual Philanthropic Cash Flow
$500,000,000
Penn
UCLA
$450,000,000
Cornell
$400,000,000
Duke
Peer Mean
$350,000,000
Michigan
$300,000,000
UNC
Berkeley
Virginia
$250,000,000
$200,000,000
$150,000,000
Vanderbilt
$100,000,000
$50,000,000
$0
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
Analysis
There remains an overall general trend upwards for UVa and most of its peers. In FY2007 the
University set a new record for annual philanthropic cash flow with more than $282 million, a total
that included three 8-figure gifts. This record total surpassed the previous record (FY2002) by more
than $25 million. Philanthropic cash flow for FY2008 was $270 million. While this represents a
decrease from FY2007, it exceeds all previous years.
Sensitivity/Cost-Benefit
Cash flow is inextricably linked to upturns and downturns in the economy. It is possible for
philanthropy to remain stable during periods of recession, but even then gifts may take on different
71
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, are counted at their tax-deductible value when given. Finally,
pledge payment schedules may be extended, and open solicitations postponed.
Projected cash flow for FY2009 is down 15-16% from the previous year. Cash flow totals for
FY2007 and FY2008, the two best years on record, included significant cash payments toward 8- and
9- figure campaign gifts. FY2009 also saw the receipt of one 8-figure pledge payment against a 9figure commitment. A similar campaign commitment, with a substantial cash component, will be
necessary if FY2010 is to return to the levels of prior years.
Target
For FY2008, the target goal for annual cash flow, as stated for the External Affairs Committee of the
Board of Visitors, was $275 million, an increase of approximately 15% over the average of the
previous three years. Philanthropic cash flow for the year was $270 million.
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. Given cash flow to date this target will
likely not be reached. Through May 30, 2009, cash flow stands at $217 million. Though receipts for
the month of June typically exceed the monthly average, receipts for that month typically range
between $25 and $30 million. Barring a significant and unexpected cash gift in the final month of the
fiscal year, this goal will not be reached.
A goal of $285 million (5% above the estimated average of the past three years) will be submitted to
the External Affairs Committee of the Board of Visitors at its July retreat. This represents a
significant increase over the current year and, as has been the case in preceding years, will require the
receipt of one or more significant gifts with a substantial cash component.
Although philanthropic cash flow decreased by 15% to $217 million through May 2009, it tracks only
19.5% down from the same period in record cash flow year FY2007 ($302.1 million) and reflects an
increase of 5.6% over FY06. The University predicts that as new gifts and pledge payments accelerate
in the recovering economy, cash flow will move closer to the recent record highs.
Plan for Improvement
Effectively identifying, cultivating, soliciting and stewarding alumni, parents, and friends of the
University is the key to growing philanthropic cash flow. Since the beginning of the campaign, 369
donors have given $1 million or more, with 256 (71%) at that level for the first time. 2067 donors
have given $100,000 or more, and of these, 1288 (62%) are first time donors at that level. Gift officer
activity has not decreased because of the current economic downturn; quite to the contrary, staying in
touch with prospects and donors is more critical now than ever. Gift officers have visited 8,000
alumni, parents, and friends since the beginning of the current campaign; 3,900, or 49%, of those
were visited for the first time in the campaign. The number of visits to alumni showed an increase of
22% over the previous 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
72
regular basis through meetings with schools and programs. As of this report, there are 209 prospects
in the major gift pipeline; of those, 37% were added in the last twelve months.
Development and Public Affairs (DPA) hired a Director of Development Officer Training in 2008
and launched a comprehensive, Grounds-wide training program to improve and enhance the skill
level and effectiveness of all University gift officers and increase the likelihood of retention of top
talent over the remainder of the campaign and beyond. Twenty-six training programs were offered in
FY2009. Of the 132 fundraisers currently working across Grounds, 94% participated in at least one
training program in the past year.
Finally, as stated earlier, DPA has shifted additional resources toward its Reunions giving effort. The
primary goal is to increase both dollars and participation, and to do so by increasing the level of peerto-peer contact. Thus, the goal for volunteers per class is between 50 and 100. For Reunions 2009
the Class of 1979 was selected as a pilot class for this new model. The results are promising—the
Class of 1979 received the award for most dollars given in Reunions 2009 as well as the highest
participation for Reunions 2009 (33%). The overall participation rate for Reunions 2009 giving was
21%, an increase of 2% over the previous year and 3% over Reunions 2007. 591 donors were firsttime donors to the University. Further, the number of volunteers doubled, as did the number of fiveyear pledges. Expansion and refinement of this effort will positively impact philanthropic cash flow
for years to come.
73
Secondary Measure
The peer data group includes public and private institutions that vary in size from 116,000 alumni
(Vanderbilt) to 464,000 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
giving. The per capita calculation is derived from the division of total annual giving 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. 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
Duke
2,500
2,000
Cornell
Penn
Virginia
Peer Mean
1,500
UCLA
UNC
Vanderbilt
1,000
Michigan
Berkeley
500
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
Notes
Cornell did not report data in 2001.
Analysis
Whereas the University of Virginia ranks 8th out of 9 on the primary measure (annual cash flow), with
total cash flow for FY2008 almost 22% below the median for the peer group, it ranks 4th out of 9 in
average gift size per alumnus, exceeding the median for the peer group by 2.4%. On this secondary
measure, UVa outperforms all of its public peers and one of its private peers (Vanderbilt).
Discussion
Effectively identifying, cultivating, soliciting and stewarding alumni, parents, and friends of the
University is the key to growing philanthropic cash flow. Since the beginning of the campaign, 369
donors have given $1 million or more, with 256 (71%) at that level for the first time. 2067 donors
have given $100,000 or more, and of these, 1288 (62%) are first time donors at that level. Gift officer
activity has not decreased because of the current economic downturn; quite to the contrary, staying in
touch with prospects and donors is more critical now than ever. Gift officers have visited 8,000
alumni, parents, and friends since the beginning of the current campaign; 3,900, or 49%, of those
74
were visited for the first time in the campaign. The number of visits to alumni showed an increase of
27% over the previous 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 this report, there are 209 prospects
in the major gift pipeline; of those, 37% were added in the last twelve months.
DPA hired a Director of Development Officer Training in 2008 and launched a comprehensive,
Grounds-wide training program to improve and enhance the skill level and effectiveness of all
University gift officers and increase the likelihood of retention of top talent over the remainder of the
campaign and beyond. Currently, there are 132 fundraisers across grounds; 90% have participated in
at least one training program in the past year.
Finally, because reunions are believed to be an effective means of increasing alumni giving, DPA has
shifted additional resources toward that effort. The primary goal is to increase the number of
volunteers per class to between 75 and 100. To date, Reunions 2009 giving is up $2.5 million, and the
number of active volunteers has grown from approximately 75 to 217 covering ten class years. The
Class of 1979, the pilot year for the new reunion structure, has 45 volunteers and is ahead in both
dollars and donors. Expansion and refinement of this effort will positively impact philanthropic cash
flow for years to come.
Target
As cash flow per alumnus of record is a factor of annual cash flow as compared to number of alumni,
this target is inextricably tied to the cash flow targets discussed above.
Applying a growth rate of approximately 6.5% per annum to cash flow against a growth in alumni of
record of 3% yields a target of $1,700 per alumnus by the end of the current campaign (December
2012). As stated above, sustained growth rate of 6.5% per annum to cash flow may not be achievable
in the current economy (the cash flow goal for FY2010 is 5% above the average of the past three
years). As a result, cash flow per alumnus of record may decrease in FY2009, recovering only as the
economy improves and as participation increases.
Plan for Improvement
See previous comments regarding plans to increase annual philanthropic cash flow.
75
Investment Return Compared to Development
Description of Measure
This graph shows the growth in the University’s endowment since 1984, with a comparison of the
market value adjusted for inflation, how much of the growth is attributable to gifts, and how much is
due to the University’s successful endowment performance. It demonstrates that the vast majority of
the current value is due to the University’s consistently strong management of the endowment.
Trended Data
UVa Endowment Growth
Endowment Held by Rector & Visitors
(In $ Millions)
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998
1997
1996
1995
1994
1993
1992
1991
1990
1989
1988
1987
1986
1985
1984
$3,400
$3,200
$3,000
$2,800
$2,600
$2,400
$2,200
$2,000
$1,800
$1,600
$1,400
$1,200
$1,000
$800
$600
$400
$200
$-
Analysis
As of June 30, 2008 the market value of the endowment for the Rector and Visitors stood at just over
$3.2 billion. The 1984 market value adjusted for inflation was $549 million, while another $512
million was due to growth from gifts, for a combined total of $1.1 billion. Over $2.1 billion was
attributable to market performance, less transfers. Overall, two-thirds of the value of the endowment
came from cumulative appreciation.
76
Facilities
Facilities Condition Index
Description of Measure
The Facilities Condition Index (FCI) is a fitness indicator for the University’s education 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.13 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.
Maintenance and Operations of Buildings and Grounds. The Association of Higher Education Facilities Officers. 1997 APPA
volume, p.486.
13
77
Trended Data
Facilities Condition Index
F.C.I.
UVA Facility Condition Index
10‐Year Trend
11.4%
11.2%
11.0%
10.8%
10.6%
10.4%
10.2%
10.0%
9.8%
9.6%
9.4%
FY00 FY01 FY02 FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09*
* FY09 ‐ Calculated using data through end of the month 4/09, annualized
Analysis
In FY2001, the FCI peaked at 11.1%. Incremental BOV funding, along with the state Maintenance
Reserve (MR) funding, have begun to reduce the FCI. 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 that
Facilities Management staff must recognize opportunities to address maintenance deficiencies as part
of nearby capital projects.
Plan for Improvement
The Maintenance Reserve allocation has continued to increase and at present, the BOV account
funding is set to increase next fiscal year. Furthermore, 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.
78
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
Maintenance Reinvestment Rate Trend
2.0%
1.8%
1.6%
1.4%
M.R.R.
1.2%
1.0%
0.8%
0.6%
0.4%
0.2%
0.0%
Budgeted FY06
Budgeted FY07
Budgeted FY08
Budgeted FY09
Budgeted FY10
79
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 through previous dollars per general state funding calculations.
The decrease shown in the FY2010 MRR is attributable to the following:
1. The 2009-2010 budget reductions have impacted maintenance budgets;
2. Each year, the CRV is adjusted to reflect inflation. Every month, the Engineering News Record
reports the current annual building construction index. For the period April 2008 through
April 2009, the index increased 5.1 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.
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
Maintenance Reserve allocation has continued to increase and the BOV has continued to provide
major maintenance support over the last several years. The University is also planning and executing
capital renewal projects. 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%.
80
Diversity
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 2008 term, the federal poverty level for a family of four represents a family income of
$20,650. Therefore 200% of the poverty level would represent a family income of $41,300.
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 2008 term, 500% of the federal poverty level for a
family of 4 represents a family income of $103,250.
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%
96-97
97-98
98-99
99-00
00-01
01-02
02-03
03-04
04-05
05-06
06-07
07-08
08-09
Analysis
Although there has been a general decline in the percentages of both low- and middle-income
students over the past 10 years, the full implementation of AccessUVa in 2005 has slowed the decline
and now appears to be increasing the percentages.
81
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.
82
Percentage of Students on Pell Grants
Description of Measure
Designed to promote access to higher education, federal Pell Grants are need-based aid to lowincome undergraduate students.
Comparative and Trend Data
Pell Grant Recipients
40%
Percent of Undergraduate Degree-Seeking Students
04-05
06-07
30%
07-08
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 four institutions in the group that registered a slight increase
in the percentage of Pell recipients between 2004-05 and 2007-08. 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.
83
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%
98-99
99-00
00-01
01-02
02-03
03-04
04-05
05-06
06-07
07-08
08-09
Analysis
Although not yet back to the 1998-99 levels, 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.
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 lowincome 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).
84
Faculty Diversity Turnover Quotient
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
130%
120%
Tenured
110%
Tenured & Tenure-Track
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
Analysis
In 2003, the TQ for female Tenured and Tenure-Track (TTT) faculty was actually greater than 100%,
meaning that the University lost more TTT female faculty than it hired. The following five years
stayed below the 100% mark though, more than making up for the loss in 2003. Further, for the
years 2004 through 2008, the TQ for female tenured and TTT faculty was less than the TQ for all
tenured and TTT faculty, respectively. Faculty mobility is a normative feature of the academic
environment; however, patterns that suggest a revolving door of recruitment and loss are cause for
concern.
85
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.
For all TTT faculty, UVa has averaged a 76% TQ over the last four years. 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
Any plan for improving the TQ must take into account both recruitment and retention. The Office of
the Vice Provost for Faculty Advancement oversees two surveys aimed at better understanding why
faculty leave or decline offers from UVa. The Exiting Faculty Survey collects both quantitative and
qualitative data and was conducted for faculty who left the university during the years 2002-2008.
Current results indicate that greater career opportunities and better research resources have been the
primary reasons for departure. However, measures of faculty life at UVa, institutional commitment to
the departments, support for career development and departmental leadership received low ratings.
Female and minority respondents also gave low ratings to the diversity of the faculty and the climate
for women and minorities.
The Office of the Vice Provost for Faculty Advancement oversees several recent initiatives aimed at
supporting faculty throughout their career and improving leadership at all levels. During the
upcoming academic year 2009-10, programs will be in place for new, mid-career, and senior faculty as
well as chairs. If these programs are continued UVa may expect improved retention over the longterm.
Please see “Faculty Recruitment and Retention: Yield on Offers and Retention Rate” for discussion of
the Declination Survey and associated interventions.
86
Trended Data
167%
African American Faculty Turnover Quotient
UVa Tenured and Tenure-Track Faculty
167%
130%
120%
Tenured
110%
Tenured & Tenure-Track
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
Analysis
The African American TQ over the past four years represents a perfect example of how the TQ can
vary widely for a relatively small group of faculty. Among the TTT faculty, the TQ dropped from a
high of 125% in 2004 to 0% in 2007 before increasing to 75% in 2008. It should also be noted that in
2003, 2004, and 2008, TQ is high due to both low numbers of new African American faculty and a
relatively high number of departures.
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
Before retention can become a primary focus of efforts to reduce the TQ, more African-American
faculty members must be recruited and advanced through the tenure process. 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. In order to increase the
overall percentage of African-American faculty at UVa, the percentage of offers made to AfricanAmerican faculty candidates must be greater than the actual percentage of African-American faculty
currently at the University. This was the case every year from 2002 through 2008, a trend that must
continue. Reduction of the African-American TQ will then depend on the University’s success in
retaining faculty, a significant challenge because UVa is regularly the target of faculty “poaching” by
better-endowed institutions.
87
Trended Data
Other Minority Faculty Turnover Quotient
UVa Tenured and Tenure-Track Faculty
130%
120%
Tenured
110%
Tenured & Tenure-Track
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
Analysis
The other minority category includes Asian American, Hispanic American, and Native American
faculty. Among TTT faculty, the other minority TQ varied less than it did for female or African
American faculty, but averaged closer to 65% for the period.
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
Two surveys, the UVa Faculty Senate Survey and the COACHE Climate Survey, were administered to
gather substantive data from both junior and senior faculty to determine the perceived positive and
negative aspects of the UVa environment. Findings included a lack of clarity in faculty policies and
dissatisfaction with departmental environments. Consistent with the VPFA Faculty Exit Survey,
faculty satisfaction with departmental and school culture has been identified as an important retention
factor. Promotion and tenure information sessions are now routine at the school and University to
combat policy ambiguity. A faculty policies brochure was created and distributed to educate faculty
regarding the tenure process. Additionally, the entire faculty handbook was made available online.
The Office of the Vice Provost for Faculty Advancement oversees several recent initiatives aimed at
supporting all faculty throughout their career and improving leadership at all levels. During the
upcoming academic year 2009-10, programs will be in place for new, mid-career, and senior faculty as
well as chairs. If these programs are continued UVa may expect improved retention for all faculty
over the long-term.
88
SWAM Spend as a Percentage of Discretionary Expenditures
Description of Measure
This measure reflects the University’s commitment to the promotion of small, women-owned and
minority-owned 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 2008 and 11 months of fiscal year 2009. Data will be
collected in the future and trended going forward.
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
FY 07
FY 08
FY 09*
* Projected from 11 months of data
89
SWAM Percentage of Discretionary Expenditures
DMBE Certified Firms
60%
MBE_total
50%
WBE_total
SBE_total
40%
SWAM_total
30%
20%
10%
0%
FY 05
FY 06
FY 07
FY 08
FY 09*
* Projected from 11 months of data
Analysis
UVA increased its percentage of expenditures for all three classes of business.
Target
Short-term
• Meet the 40% target for SWAM spend included in Executive Order 33 in FY 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.
Long-term
The long-term goal is for the University to have a world class supplier diversity program by 2010.
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.
90
Key areas of focus for FY2010 include:
• Implementation of a supplier diversity recognition program;
• Increased use of prime construction management firms’ ability to target opportunities to MWBE
firms;
• Implementation of a more formalized forecasting tool;
• Reconciliation of current strategies with outcomes from the Commonwealth’s 2009 Disparity
Study (to be completed in 4th quarter of the 2009 calendar year).
91
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
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.
92
Comparative Data, Undergraduate Diversity
100%
Full-Time Undergraduate Student Diversity - Peer Data
Fall 2007
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.
93
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
Analysis
The percentage of international graduate students increased steadily and significantly between 1995
and 2001; since then, it has leveled off. The 13-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 13-year period.
94
Comparative Data, Graduate Diversity
100%
Full-Time Graduate Student Diversity - Peer Data
Fall 2007
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, international, and African
American graduate students. However, it lags behind in terms of percentage of 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.
95
Information Technology
Adequacy of Computing Environment
Description of Measure
This measure assesses the adequacy of the computing environment provided to faculty, students, and
staff. The first biannual survey was conducted in November 2008, with the assistance of the Center
for Survey Research. A total of 1,525 surveys were completed – 642 by faculty members, 451 by
students (undergraduate and graduate), and 432 by staff. This inaugural survey will function as the
baseline measurement that allows tracking of changes in the assessment of the strengths and
weaknesses of the computing environment moving forward.
From the 80+ items in the survey, five measures are reported here. The first two focus on the
perceived adequacy and satisfaction with the general IT environment.
Overall Rating for Information Technology
Infrastructure at UVA
Mean (scale of 1-5)
5
4
3
2
1
How good
Q: Overall, how would you rate the information technology infrastructure at the University?
The possible responses to this question were, in order from 1 to 5, Poor, Fair, Good, Very Good,
and Excellent. The average response rated UVa’s information technology infrastructure as very
good.
Overall Satisfaction with Information
Technology Environment at UVA
Mean (scale of 1-5)
5
4
3
2
1
How satisfied
96
Q: What is your overall satisfaction with the information technology environment at UVA?
The possible responses to this question were, in order from 1 to 5, Extremely Dissatisfied,
Dissatisfied, Neutral, Satisfied, and Extremely Satisfied. The average response indicated that people
responding to the survey were somewhat satisfied with UVa’s information technology environment.
The final three measures addressed the importance and adequacy of technology in: 1) research and
scholarship; 2) teaching and learning; and 3) administration. The results are reported in the three
graphs below. The possible responses to questions on importance were, in order from 1 to 5, Not at
all Important, Slightly Important, Moderately Important, Very Important, and Critically Important.
The possible responses to the adequacy questions were the same as for the overall rating of the
information technology infrastructure. All areas were rated at the high end of importance, and on all
three adequacy measures the scores were positive albeit with room for improvement.
IT Systems for Support of Research and Scholarship
5
Mean (scale of 1-5)
4
3
2
1
How important
How good
Q: In your activities at the University, how important are information technology systems and
services in the facilitation and support of research and scholarship?
Q: In your activities at the University, how good are information technology systems and services
in the facilitation and support of research and scholarship?
97
IT Systems for Support of Teaching and/or Learning
5
Mean (scale of 1-5)
4
3
2
1
How important
How good
Q: In your activities at the University, how important are information technology systems and
services in the facilitation and support of teaching and/or learning?
Q: In your activities at the University, how good are information technology systems and services
in the facilitation and support of teaching and/or learning?
IT Systems for Support of Administration and
Service to other University Units
Mean (scale of 1-5)
5
4
3
2
1
How important
How good
Q: In your activities at the University, how important are information technology systems and
services in the facilitation and support of administration and service to other University units?
Q: In your activities at the University, how good are information technology systems and services
in the facilitation and support of administration and service to other University units?
Survey Results
This inaugural survey will function as the baseline measurement to allow UVa to track changes in the
assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of the computing environment.
98
Machine Room Capacity
Description of Measure
This measure provides an estimate of the on-Grounds machine room capacity that UVa has to
support production services (e.g., administrative databases, storage, email, etc.) and IT intensive high
performance research in the sciences and digital humanities. The goal is to achieve and maintain a
minimum of 20% free capacity (space, power, and cooling) in machine rooms that house production
and research computing clusters.
Current Data
Machine Room Capacity in Use (March of each year)
120%
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
2008
2009
Analysis
As of May 1, 2009, UVa had 0% free or available functional machine room space. Machine room
capacity on-Grounds is measured/limited by a number of critical factors, including: generator
capacity, uninterruptible power supply capacity, electrical power, cooling, floor space, and backup
capacity.
Target
The target is to have 50% free capacity in the new machine room and to maintain a minimum of 20%
free capacity aggregated across all functional machine room space. The new machine room building
should be completed by summer 2011.
Plan for Improvement
UVa has completed the funding analysis and identified funds sufficient to construct the facility. The
work during the preliminary design period and value management sessions has produced a workable
and cost-effective plan for the facility. The University continues to aggressively virtualize services.
Virtualization enables UVa to house more services while consuming fewer computer room resources.
UVa continues to investigate leasing options in commercial facilities should they be needed before the
construction of the new facility is completed.
99
Connectivity
Description of Measure
This measure provides a comparison between the connectivity of UVa and peer institutions. The
graphs below assess internet bandwidth (i.e., amount of connectivity for both commodity and high
performance networks such as Abilene) relative to the bandwidth that UVa’s peer institutions provide.
Comparative Data
Bandwidth to Commodity Internet (2007 & 2008)
UVa '08
UVa '07
Median '08
Median '07
Min '08
Min '07
Max '08
Max '07
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
Bandwidth in megabits per second
Total Bandwidth available to High-performance
Networks (2007 & 2008)
UVa '08
UVa '07
Median '08
Median '07
Min '08
Min '07
Max '08
Max '07
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
Bandwidth in megabits per second
Note: For 2007, the set of peers in the IT realm for comparison metrics includes Duke University,
Indiana University, UC Berkeley, University of Michigan, University of Texas, and the University of
Washington. For 2008, Duke University and the University of Michigan did not participate in the
EDUCAUSE Core Data Survey (the data source for this peer group).
Analysis
100
The University’s participation in National Lambda Rail (NLR) resulted in the Virginia and national
network connectivity needed to provide high capacity NLR and Internet2 services to UVa researchers.
As of May 2009, UVa has 9,000 Mbps of network capacity available for access to these national
research networks. The same NLR effort resulted in efficiencies in how UVa purchases access to
Commodity Internet services. In the years before NLR, UVa had to purchase expensive Internet
capacity in Charlottesville. Through the infrastructure put into place for NLR, UVa is now able to
purchase its Commodity Internet capacity in Northern Virginia where the rates are much lower. UVa
presently has 1,000 Mbps of Commodity Internet capacity.
Moving forward, UVa plans to pursue control of fiber-optic cable and the economies of scale it
potentially brings. As soon as it is economically feasible, the goal is to move to an “owned fiber”
infrastructure for provisioning Internet, Internet2, and NLR services.
Target
The focus on expanding and maintaining bandwidth is primarily in the research high-performance
space. Demand in this area tends to be “bursty” and capacity is critical. In contrast, demand for
Commodity Internet is more consistent and can be adjusted in response to on-Grounds demand.
Concretely, that means that the goal is to provide research capacity comparable to UVa’s peers.
Commodity capacity may or may not look like peers depending on the demand from the University
community. If demand increases, UVa can increase its commodity connections.
Plan for Improvement
UVa must continue to pursue control of fiber-optic cable; continue to participate in and shape
strategy of regional and national networks; and continue close collaboration with Virginia Tech.
101
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
TO BE DEVELOPED IN 2008-09 FOR INCLUSION IN FALL 2009.
102
Medical Center
Medical Center Peer Group
Quality
¾ Risk-Adjusted Mortality
¾ Readmission Rate
¾ Risk-Adjusted Patient Safety Index
Efficiency
¾ Severity-Adjusted Average Length of Stay (ALOS)
¾ Cost per Adjusted Discharge (CMI Weighted)
¾ FTEs per Occupied Bed (CMI Adjusted)
Financial
¾ Operating Margin
¾ Cash to Total Debt Ratio
¾ Average Days in Accounts Receivable
Consumer Response
¾ Overall Patient Satisfaction
¾ Growth in Total Volume
¾ Market Share in Primary and Secondary Area
103
104
Medical Center Peer Group
The Medical Center has identified the below peer group for comparison. The following 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.
¾
¾
¾
¾
¾
¾
¾
¾
¾
¾
¾
¾
¾
¾
¾
¾
¾
¾
¾
¾
¾
¾
¾
¾
¾
¾
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 Hosp - Columbia Presbyterian Hosp 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 Wisconsin Hospital & Clinics - WI
Vanderbilt University Medical Center - TN
Virginia Commonwealth University Health System - VA
Wake Forest University Baptist Medical Center – NC
105
106
Quality
Risk-Adjusted Mortality
Description of Measure
Patient survival is a universally accepted measure of hospital quality. The lower the mortality index,
the greater the survival of the patients in the hospital, considering what would be expected based on
patient characteristics. 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 pre-existing medical conditions. The desired value is
1.0 (where observed equals expected) or less. While all hospitals have mortalities, this measure can
show where mortalities did not occur but could have been expected given the patient's condition.
Comparative and Trended Data
Mortality Index
1.10
1.05
1.00
0.95
0.90
UVA
Peer Group
0.85
0.80
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
Analysis
Overall, the mortality index has remained fairly flat since 2003, consistent with the peer group in
showing very little fluctuation. However, in 2008 the Medical Center experienced a slight increase in
mortality rate from .99 to 1.07. The 1.07 reflects the new grouping of Medicare-severity diagnosis
related groups (DRGs) versus the traditional DRGs. The peer group continues a downward trend
representing opportunities for the Medical Center.
Target
Short-term Target: <1.0
Estimated time frame: by 2010
Long-term Target: <.75 or below our peer group mortality index
Estimated time frame: by 2014
Plan for Improvement
• Implement a dedicated 24/7 Rapid Response Team (MET) to review each patient transferred
from the intensive care setting to the acute care setting on a daily basis by July 2009.
107
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
108
Introduced an electronic dashboard reflecting key quality and safety metrics as a mechanism to
track organizational and unit performance. The dashboard was implemented in January 2009 and
will have the capability to document action plans when targets are not being met.
Establish unit based mortality review of all deaths utilizing a standard tool throughout the
organization. The reviews will be interdisciplinary and focus on the identification of systems
improvement opportunities.
Establish a Systems Opportunity Team to conduct in-depth reviews of the mortality data to
identify trends and patterns, system opportunities, conduct risk assessments and recommend risk
reduction strategies organization wide. This team will be interdisciplinary and serve as a
repository of information and communicator of “lessons learned”. June 2009 - ongoing.
Continue 100% review of all deaths utilizing a standard tool with a focus on an intensified review
of unexpected deaths by the attending physician’s department. January 2008 – ongoing.
Standardize Department Mortality and Morbidity Conferences by requiring the review of all
deaths, again utilizing a standard tool and input from the unit base review. While a focus on
education will continue the concept of looking at systems opportunities will be introduced. June
2009 – ongoing.
Focus an in depth review of performance on certain patient safety indicators supported by the
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ). Develop action plans for indicators
performing below targets. January 2010 – December 2010.
Focus on reducing Blood Stream Infections by implementing best practices and guidelines
throughout the organization. June 2009 – December 2010.
Implement strategies developed by the Patient Throughput Team in an effort to admit patients to
the appropriate location as early as possible. This will reduce the need to “board” in the
Emergency Department and enhance the continuity of care beginning as soon as possible.
The Critical Care Regional Team has established a number of interdisciplinary teams to determine
best practices and establish practice standardization for high risk populations to include
hypoglycemic and anticoagulation treatment. January 2008 – December 2009.
Focus an in-depth review and analysis of all low mortality Diagnostic Related Groupings with the
goal of reducing deaths in areas of low expected deaths. September 2008 – September 2009.
Medication Reconciliation is a high priority for the performance improvement projects for
January 2008 – 2010. This involves patient education, medications taken at home, and
medications to be taken following care and treatment. This is an ongoing focus with a high
priority.
Provide Medical Staff Departments and Physicians with an electronic tool for quality information
that provides aggregate and detailed patient information. This tool provides an opportunity for
physician involvement and engagement in Mortality Review and other critical quality processes.
October 2008 – December 2009.
The Pediatric Regional Quality Team is conducting and will continue to conduct an intensive
review of all pediatric deaths. There will be extensive physician involvement in the process. July
2008 – December 2009.
Readmission Rate
Description of Measure
This metric is defined as the percentage of patients who have an admission to the hospital within 30
days of a previous admission. This can be due to many causes.
Comparative and Trended Data
Readmission Rate
15%
14%
13%
12%
11%
10%
UVA
Peer Group
9%
8%
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
Notes
Peer data represents the mean of the peer group.
Analysis
Since 2003 UVa has decreased its readmission rate from 14.10% to 13.02%. UVa remains at a slightly
higher rate than its peers in this measure, but the gap continues to close over time.
Target
Short-term: In the next 12 months the goal will be a reduction in readmission rate to 12.0%.
Long-term: In six years, UVa will reduce readmission rate to the peer average, with a goal of 10.0%.
Plan for Improvement
• Short-term: Provide readmission data to department chairs for review with faculty with an
emphasis on evaluating “like readmissions.”
o Timeline: July 2009 – December 2010
• Implement follow-up phone calls to vulnerable patient groups to assess compliance with discharge
instructions.
o Timeline: Some areas are already conducting calls. In January 2008, the hospital enacted
an action plan based on deeper analysis of readmission populations. The hospital will also
implement phone calls with existing resources to assess medication management, status,
and need for further follow-up.
109
•
110
Long-term: Analyze specific groups that comprise the more frequent readmissions and address
specific measures that underlie reasons for readmission, i.e., complications, drug reactions, pain
management, etc.
o Timeline: Analysis commenced January 2009 and will continue through December 2010,
with review by Regional Quality Teams. Specific interventions implemented by clinical
departments and divisions, and medical center staff based on findings.
Risk-Adjusted Patient Safety Index
Description of Measure
Patient safety has become an increasingly important measure of hospital quality. Patient safety
measures are reflective of both clinical quality and the effectiveness of systems within the hospital.
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.
Comparative and Trended Data
Solucient Patient Safety Index
1.4
1.3
1.2
1.1
1.0
0.9
0.8
UVA
Peer Group
0.7
0.6
0.5
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
Notes
Date ranges for Solucient Patient Safety Index:
2004 – October 2002 through September 2003 (Medicare discharges only)
2005 – October 2003 through September 2004 (Medicare discharges only)
2006 – October 2004 through September 2005 (Medicare discharges only)
2007 – October 2005 through September 2006 (Medicare discharges only)
2008 – October 2006 through September 2007 (Medicare discharges only)
Analysis
UVa has improved its safety index in the past four years but has plateaued. This measure has
decreased from 1.09 in 2004 to 1.00 in 2008. This trend indicates increased safety in the UVa
Hospital. The UVa patient safety index is consistent with the peer group.
111
Target
Short-term Target: 0.90 (Top 25th percentile)
Estimated time frame: by 2010
Long-term Target: 0.86 (Top 25th percentile)
Estimated time frame: by 2014
Plan for Improvement
• Formal ongoing systematic process for Patient Safety Focused Program – Implementation January
2008 – January 2010.
o Annual educational seminar
o Patient Safety “Focus of the Month”
o Senior leadership Patient Safety Rounds with developed action plans
o Patient Safety Week
• Increased multidisciplinary focused reviews of patient safety related incidents that provide
opportunities for improvement in care and service – Implementation April 2007 – April 2010.
o Action plans developed and implemented
o Outcomes measured with focus on increased safety
• As a result of ongoing reviews charged teams to develop plans and strategies – January 2008 –
January 2010
o Sleep Apnea Protocol
o Anticoagulation Therapy Protocol
o Glycemic Control (July 2009)
o Patient Identification
o Medication Reconciliation
o Falls Prevention
o Delirium Reduction
o Identifying the Physician in Charge
o Introduction of New Equipment
o ED Boarding
• Incorporate the reporting of AHRQ metrics on the organizational dashboard providing a focused
review of key indicators – January 2008 – December 2010
112
Efficiency
Severity-Adjusted Average Length of Stay (ALOS)
Description of Measure
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.
Comparative and Trended Data
Average Length of Stay
3.7
3.6
3.5
3.4
UVA
Peer Group
3.3
3.2
3.1
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
Analysis
Since 2003 UVa has been slightly more efficient in treating its patients than its peers. In 2008 the
average length of stay for the UVa Hospital was 3.33 days compared to 3.42 days for its peer group.
Target
Short-term: Over the next 12 months reduce current ALOS to 3.1 days
Long-term: Over the next six years reduce ALOS to 3.0 days
Plan for Improvement
• Open Long-term Acute Care Hospital for patients with long lengths of stay and high acuity.
o Timeline: Long-term Acute Care Hospital opening expected by June 2010.
• Continue to partner with nursing homes, rehabilitation hospitals, assisted living facilities, home
care and others to place patients in other levels of care as and when appropriate.
• Work with Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation physicians to be more active in assessing difficult
to discharge patients to gain more rapid placement of patients to other levels of care (i.e., reducing
LOS).
113
Cost per Adjusted Discharge (CMI Weighted)
Description of Measure
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.
Comparative and Trended Data
Cost Per Adjusted Discharge
$10,500
$10,000
$9,500
$9,000
$8,500
UVA
Peer Group
$8,000
$7,500
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
Analysis
UVa’s cost per adjusted discharge has remained slightly lower than its peers. In general, cost per
adjusted discharge has risen for UVa and its peers. In 2003 the cost per adjusted discharge at UVa
was $7,693 compared to $10,127 in 2008. The mean cost per adjusted discharge for UVa’s peers in
2008 was $10,192.
Target
The Medical Center has selected 26 academic health systems that have operational characteristics
similar to UVa as a benchmark peer group. If possible the Medical Center will use the same peer
group for every benchmark measure to include cost, quality, and patient satisfaction. The UVa
standard for cost per adjusted discharge (CMI weighted) is to maintain cost at or below the median
cost for the peer group. The Medical Center has historically exceeded its goal and anticipates that it
will exceed its goal over the next six years.
Plan for Improvement
To help ensure compliance with the goal, the Medical Center continually focuses on all expenses,
especially labor, supplies, and pharmaceuticals.
114
FTEs per Occupied Bed (CMI Adjusted)
Description of Measure
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.
Comparative and Trended Data
FTEs Per Occupied Bed
4.5
UVA
Peer Group
4.4
4.3
4.2
4.1
4.0
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
Analysis
In 2008 the Medical Center’s efficiency improved and was better than its peer group.
Target
The target is the benchmark peer group performance. Historically UVa has exceeded the target or
performed close to the target. Compliance with the target is measured each quarter.
Plan for Improvement
The Medical Center’s plan is to continue to monitor compliance with the standard each quarter and to
make adjustments to staffing as required. Also, every few years the Medical Center will request a
comprehensive review by the University Health System Consortium of labor standards on a
departmental level.
115
Financial
Operating Margin
Description of Measure
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 excludes any non-operating revenue such as investment income,
interest income, and other gains. Operating expenses include salaries, fringe benefits, supplies,
purchased services, contracts, depreciation, interest on debt, and bad debt expenses. The operating
margin shows what percentage of operating revenues contributes to operating income.
Comparative and Trended Data
Operating Margin
5.5%
5.0%
4.5%
4.0%
3.5%
3.0%
UVA
2.5%
Peer Group
2.0%
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
Analysis
From 2003 to 2008 UVa was consistently higher in this measure than its peers. In 2008 UVa had an
operating margin of 4.4% compared to 2.7% for the peer group.
Target
The UVa operating margin is largely determined by the requirement to invest in employees and the
physical plant, equipment, and information systems. The projected operating margin target for the
future six years is reviewed and approved by the Medical Center Operating Board annually. While the
goal is unique to the needs of UVa, the Medical Center compares itself to the peer benchmark group
with an expectation that UVa’s goal should be close to the median of the benchmark group.
Plan for Improvement
The plan is to continue to evaluate the Medical Center’s needs on an annual basis and make
adjustments as requirements change. Over the last five years the Medical Center has achieved its goal
for operating margin and anticipates achieving the goal on an ongoing basis.
116
Cash to Total Debt Ratio
Description of Measure
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. A higher trend is more desirable.
Trended Data
Cash to Total Debt Ratio
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
UVA
2.0
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
Notes
No peer data available.
Analysis
The Medical Center’s cash to debt ratio has dropped to 2.36 due to the issuance of bonds for the
expansion program.
Target
The cash to total debt ratio is not a measure included in the UVa benchmark peer group. The target
for the future six years is approved each year when the Medical Center Operating Board approves the
Long-Range Finance Plan. In preparing the Long-Range Finance Plan the Medical Center considers
published ratios by bond rating agencies for a top rated bond.
Plan for Improvement
The Medical Center plans to monitor the ratio on an ongoing basis and make adjustments as required
by the Medical Center Operating Board. At this time the Medical Center is achieving an appropriate
ratio and anticipates achieving an appropriate ratio in future years.
117
Average Days in Accounts Receivable
Description of Measure
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 it 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.
Comparative and Trended Data
Average Days in Accounts Receivable
65
60
55
50
UVA
Peer Group
45
40
35
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
Analysis
UVa has historically been better than its peers in this measure except in 2004 and 2005. UVa has
decreased its ratio from 58.3 in 2003 to 48.0 in 2008.
Target
The UVa target is to manage the average days in accounts receivable below the median performance
of our benchmark peer group. The Medical Center has achieved that goal for three consecutive years.
Plan for Improvement
The Medical Center is achieving the goal but continues to focus on performance improvement in the
complete revenue cycle. The current focus is the time from discharge of a patient until the bill is
finalized. The Medical Center is also expanding the use of web technologies.
118
Consumer Response
Overall Patient Satisfaction
Description of Measure
The University of Virginia uses a mailed survey to measure patient satisfaction with services across the
entire Medical Center. There are several surveys used depending on the type of service received. The
survey process is contracted with Press Ganey Associates, the largest patient satisfaction survey
organization in the U.S., which allows for good benchmarking options. The score that is reported is a
composite score of the surveys used for the Medical Center services and includes: 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.
Peer Group
For this measure, the UVa Medical Center uses the AHA Region Three Peer Group for
benchmarking, provided by Press Ganey for the hospitals in the region. The reason for the selection
of this peer group is that more than 80% of UVa’s patients come from the group of states that makes
up this region. In addition, there are a number of academic facilities that fall within this region and
this peer group: Duke University Hospital, Georgetown University Hospital, Johns Hopkins
Hospital, University of Kentucky, University of Louisville Hospital, University of North Carolina
Hospitals, and Wake Forest University Baptist Medical Center.
Comparative and Trended Data
Overall Patient Satisfaction
90.0
Mean Score
89.0
75th percentile 88.0
50th percentile
87.0
FY 09 Year to Date 86.0
85.0
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3
FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY
03 03 03 03 04 04 04 04 05 05 05 05 06 06 06 06 07 07 07 07 08 08 08 08 09 09 09
Analysis
The graph shows the UVa Medical Center overall patient satisfaction score for the period FY 03
through the first three quarters of FY 09 for each quarterly reporting period with accumulation of
each previous quarter in the year. The Medical Center’s score was close to the 50th percentile rank
goal from 2003 to 2005. In the past three years, the Medical Center’s scores have been approximately
one percentage point below the 50th percentile rank goal.
119
Target:
The short-term target is to achieve mean scores for the five key surveys to position UVa Medical
Center between the 50th and 75th percentile ranks. The estimated time frame to achieve the target is
12 months.
The long-term target is to utilize information gathered from the specific initiatives listed below to
improve patient satisfaction in all Medical Center departments.
Plan for Improvement
• Strategies to achieve target:
o Increase training for staff and faculty on the importance of achieving high patient
satisfaction scores as a reflection of high standards and achievement in customer service,
particularly since the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services are now reporting
patient satisfaction scores publicly as part of the HCAHPS project;
o The Operations Leadership Forum of the Medical Center is providing leadership in
addressing patient satisfaction with a set of initiatives aimed at improving the customer
experience;
o Other strategies include focused efforts on specific areas and programs and increased
training on how to achieve high standards of service.
• Specific initiatives in progress:
o Adoption of “I Care” as an institutional goal and performance metric;
o Incorporation of customer service as a metric in annual performance evaluations;
o Service Excellence Initiatives led by the Operations Leadership Forum:
ƒ Welcoming and Physical Environment Initiatives
ƒ Patient Transportation enhancements
ƒ Standards of Service development
ƒ Compliments and Recognition of staff;
o Enhanced patient satisfaction score reporting to managers;
o Center for Organizational Development (COD) customer service training classes;
o Regional Quality Team focus on patient satisfaction;
o Pediatric and Obstetric follow-up telephone calls post discharge.
120
Growth in Total Volume
Description of Measure
Inpatient discharges are the total number of inpatients discharged within the fiscal year and 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.
Trended Data
Inpatient and Outpatient Visits and Adjusted Discharges
700,000
600,000
50,000
500,000
40,000
400,000
30,000
300,000
20,000
Inpatient Discharges
Outpatient Visits
Inpatient and Adjusted Discharges
60,000
200,000
Adjusted Discharges
Outpatient Visits
10,000
100,000
0
0
FY 03
FY 04
FY 05
FY 06
FY 07
FY 08
Notes
Peer group data are not applicable to this measure.
Analysis
The Medical Center’s total volume is continuing to grow.
Target
Short-term (12 months) – Achieve FY2009 budget targets as follows:
• Inpatient Discharges: increase to 30,770.
• Outpatient Visits: outpatient visits projected to grow to about 670,000 visits (excluding
Emergency Department visits).
• Adjusted Discharges: Projected to increase to 53,021.
Long-term (6 years):
• Inpatient Discharges: accommodate growth from patients in the Primary Service Area (PSA)
East and West to achieve inpatient market share of about 50% and 20% respectively (PSA
Total at 40% share); accommodate growth in discharges from the Secondary Service Area
(SSA) North and South to achieve market share of 12% and 9% respectively (SSA Total at
11% share).
121
•
•
Outpatient Visits: proportional growth in outpatient visits will maintain outpatient market
share at the same levels as for inpatients.
Adjusted Discharges: since this is a computation that considers inpatient discharges and
outpatient visits, projected volumes will depend on growth in these areas.
Plan for Improvement
Strategies to achieve target volume and specific actions:
• Increase provider (hospital and physician) capacity
o Increase primary care capacity through development of new practices in strategic locations
and increased provider full time equivalents with current provider base.
o Increase inpatient capacity:
ƒ 20 bed short stay (less than 24 hours) unit opened
ƒ 72 ICU capable inpatient beds under construction
ƒ 40 bed Long-term Acute Care Hospital under construction
ƒ Emily Couric Clinical Cancer Center under construction
ƒ Planning for Bill and Barry Battle Building at the UVA Children’s Hospital under way
ƒ Culpeper Regional Hospital clinical integration
o Improve patient throughput:
ƒ Ambulatory Operations Project is evaluating throughput and operations in outpatient
clinics
ƒ Average length of stay management
ƒ Timely discharge initiatives
ƒ Appointment access
• Institutional Performance Measures – These institutional goals are being used in the annual
performance evaluation for all Medical Center Chiefs, Administrators, and Managers:
o I Care – Investing in customers and people as measured through patient satisfaction and
employee engagement
o I Heal – Investing in expertise as measured through quality
o I Build – Investing in the future as measured through fiscal stewardship
122
Market Share in Primary and Secondary Area
Description of Measure
Market share is the number of admissions at UVa as a percentage of total admissions in the Primary
Service Areas East and West (PSA E and W) and Secondary Service Areas North and South (SSA N
and S). In this graph the percentage of UVa Medical Center Discharges is divided by total discharges
from that geographic area to show market share.
Trended Data
60%
50%
PSA‐E
40%
30%
PSA Total
PSA‐W
20%
SSA‐N
10%
SSA Total
0%
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
Notes
Source: Thomson Reuters Polaris
Peer data are not applicable to this measure.
Analysis
Until 2008 UVa’s market share in the primary and secondary service areas remained fairly consistent,
but it declined in 2008 largely due to length of stay and patient throughput. In its total primary service
areas, UVa had a 35.3% share of the market in 2008 versus 37.6% in 2007. In its total secondary
service areas, UVa had a 9.5% share of the market in 2008 as compared with 10.0% in 2007.
Targets
Short-term and long-term target(s) in this area are shown below:
SERVICE
AREA
CY03
CY04
CY05
CY06
CY07
PSA East
PSA West
PSA Total
SSA North
SSA South
SSA Total
46.5%
18.2%
36.0%
12.3%
9.5%
10.0%
46.7%
19.5%
36.8%
11.9%
9.5%
9.8%
47.1%
18.9%
37.2%
13.0%
9.0%
10.2%
45.8%
19.3%
36.6%
11.9%
8.5%
10.5%
46.6%
19.6%
37.6%
13.0%
8.5%
10.0%
CY 08
43.8%
17.6%
35.3%
12.2%
8.2%
9.5%
Shortterm
Target
~50.0%
~20.0%
~40.0%
~12.0%
~9.0%
~11.0%
Longterm
Target
~50.0%
~20.0%
~40.0%
~12.0%
~9.0%
~11.0%
The goal is to achieve target market share within the short-term and to sustain market share over the
long-term.
123
Plan for Improvement
• Strategies to achieve target - Several internal and external factors present challenges in the
achievement of higher market share. In order to increase market share it is necessary to address
capacity issues as discussed above in the section on Growth in Total Volume. A broader market
strategy also includes:
o Deliberate geographic focus with clinical focus areas;
o Strengthen affiliations with regional providers, including hospitals and physician groups,
through clinical service offerings, electronic medical records, etc.;
o Continued referring physician relationship management;
o Strategic contracting with insurers for physician and hospital services;
o Market positioning and differentiation as a cutting edge provider offering advanced
services and technology; improvement of preference through branding campaign, and
improvement of loyalty through improved patient satisfaction (efforts described in Patient
Satisfaction section of this report).
• Institutional Performance Measures – These institutional goals are being used in the annual
performance evaluation for all Medical Center Chiefs, Administrators, and Managers:
o I Care- Investing in customers and people as measured through patient satisfaction and
employee engagement
o I Heal – Investing in expertise as measured through quality
o I Build – Investing in the future as measured through fiscal stewardship
124