1

University of West Florida

Key Performance IndicatorsBoard of Trustees

Ground Rules

1. Focus on important issues – What is top of mind for the campus and its leadership?

2. Remember the audience – These indicators will be used primarily by the board and senior management.

3. Impact decision making – If you knew this data, would it lead you to make different decisions?

Ground Rules

4. Understandable – Each Key Performance Indicator should be quickly intuitive.

5. Come from available data – To the greatest extent possible, KPIs should be pulled from existing data and analysis sources.

6. Must have trend, benchmark, and target – Accountability requires that the institutional data be compared to the peer group and that the institution establish targets for each indicator.

7. Few in number – In selecting KPIs, less is more.

4

Peer Institutions

• Indiana State University • East Tennessee State University • Rowan University • Stephen F Austin State University • University of Arkansas at Little Rock • University of Massachusetts-Lowell • University of South Dakota • University of West Georgia • Valdosta State University • Western Carolina University

5

Aspirant Institutions

• Appalachian State University • Georgia Southern University • Indiana University of Pennsylvania • James Madison University • Montclair State University • Saint Cloud State University

UWF Organization – Scorecard Approach

• Quality• Effectiveness and Efficiency• People• Resources

7

Parameters

• UWF - 5 Year Trend Data• Majority of Benchmarks– Enrollment, People and Retention Data – Fall 2010– Financial and Graduation Data – Fiscal Year 2009-2010

• Targets– 1 year – Fiscal Year 2012-2013– 5 year – Fiscal Year 2015-2016

• Additional drill downs on each indicator will ultimately be available

8

Total Headcount and Full Time Equivalent (FTE)

9,819

11,59912,231

18,087

12,400

14,000

8,149

9,712 10,223

16,046

10,292 11,600

5,000

7,000

9,000

11,000

13,000

15,000

17,000

19,000

UWF Fall 2006/FY 2007

UWF Fall 2010/FY 2011

Peer Aspirant FY 2013 Target FY2016 Target

Fall Headcount

Annualized FTE

Peer/Aspirant:

HC: Fall 2010FTE: FY 2010

UWF is growing, but still smaller than the comparison groups

9

SAT and ACT Scores

10221028

10351040

1056

1017

1063 1066

1081

980

1000

1020

1040

1060

1080

1100

Fall 2006 Fall 2007 Fall 2008 Fall 2009 Fall 2010 Peer- Fall 2010

Aspirant-Fall 2010

Fall 2012 Target

Fall 2015 Target

SAT S

core

SAT Score for Entering Freshmen

22.83 22.74 22.9723.22

23.49

20.5

23

24

25

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

Fall 2006 Fall 2007 Fall 2008 Fall 2009 Fall 2010 Peer- Fall 2010

Aspirant-Fall 2010

Fall 2012 Target

Fall 2015 Target

ACT S

core

ACT of Entering Freshmen

The quality of our students continues to increase, and approaches or exceeds the comparison groups

10

Average High School GPA

3.30 3.30

3.31

3.28 3.33

3.20

3.50

3.40

3.52

3.00

3.10

3.20

3.30

3.40

3.50

3.60

Fall 2006 Fall 2007 Fall 2008 Fall 2009 Fall 2010 Peer- Fall 2010

Aspirant-Fall 2010

Fall 2012 Target

Fall 2015 Target

HS G

PA

Student success in high school is stable, but not as strong as the aspirant group

11

Applications Received

3,071 3,371 4,149 4,513 5,013

7,280

12,374

6,000

10,000

-

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

Fall 2006 Fall 2007 Fall 2008 Fall 2009 Fall 2010 Peer- Fall 2010 Aspirant- Fall 2010

Fall 2012 Target

Fall 2015 Target

FTIC

and D

ual E

nroll

ed

More students are interested in attending UWF

12

Undergraduate Acceptance and Yield Rates

71.75%70.27% 69.00%

69.88%

67.26%

70.%

62%

50%

55%

60%

65%

70%

75%

Fall 2006 Fall 2007 Fall 2008 Fall 2009 Fall 2010 Peer- Fall 2010

Aspirant- Fall 2010

FTIC A

ccepta

nce

Undergraduate Acceptance

44.05% 43.48%

38.14%38.87%

37.10%

43%42%

32%

34%

36%

38%

40%

42%

44%

46%

Fall 2006 Fall 2007 Fall 2008 Fall 2009 Fall 2010 Peer- Fall 2010 Aspirant- Fall 2010

Yield Rate

Selectivity is increasing, but a declining percentage choose to come (though enrollment is increasing)

13

Undergraduate Retention Rates

74.30%

73.00%

71.10%

78.80%

72.80%

71%

81%

66%

68%

70%

72%

74%

76%

78%

80%

82%

Fall 2006 Fall 2007 Fall 2008 Fall 2009 Fall 2010 Peer- Fall 2010

Aspirant-Fall 2010

Fa

ll t

o F

all

: F

resh

me

n t

o S

op

ho

mo

re

Retention rates exceed peer group levels, but need to improve

Undergraduate Graduation Rates

14

41.81%

48.49%

44.21%45.34%

47.38%

44%

59%

46%

49%

40%

42%

44%

46%

48%

50%

52%

54%

56%

58%

60%

FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 Peer- FY 2010

Aspirant -FY 2010

FY 2013 Target

FY 2016 Target

% of fir

st time

/full ti

me un

dergra

duates

gra

duating

Graduation Rate: 6 Year

22.63%

20.71%19.56%

21.03% 21.51% 22%

34%

22%23%

15%

17%

19%

21%

23%

25%

27%

29%

31%

33%

35%

FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 Peer- FY 2010

Aspirant - FY 2010

FY 2013 Target

FY 2016 Target

% of fir

st time

/full ti

me un

dergra

duates

gra

duatin

g

Graduation Rate: 4 Year

Graduation rates need to improve

15

Degrees Awarded: Total and STEM

281 313 344 368 369 267 302 380 415

2,3132,482 2,524 2,430 2,559

2,399

3,611

2,6102,825

-

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

4,000

FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 Peer- FY 2010

Aspirant-FY 2010

FY 2013 Target

FY 2016 Target

STEM

Total

Degree production is strong

16

Student Engagement

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65Se

nio

r Su

rve

y R

esu

lts

FY 2007

FY 2011

Peer- FY 2011

Aspirant-FY 2011

Student engagement is stable or improving, but often falls below comparison groups

17

Median Starting Salary

$36,100

$35,200

$37,800

$38,922

$40,133

$32,000

$33,000

$34,000

$35,000

$36,000

$37,000

$38,000

$39,000

$40,000

$41,000

FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 Peer - FY 2011 Aspirant- FY 2011

Me

dia

n S

tarti

ng

Sa

lary

The median starting salary of UWF graduates is increasing but lags behind the comparison groups.

18

Faculty, Staff and Student Diversity

21.84%

21.88%

17.70%

21.50%

54.74%

54.80%

53.70%

54.40%

0% 15% 30% 45% 60%

Fall 2006

Fall 2010

Peer- Fall 2010

Aspirant- Fall 2010

Faculty/Staff Diversity: Race and Gender

23.77%

25.32%

30.00%

26.00%

60.39%

59.06%

57.00%

56.00%

0% 15% 30% 45% 60%

Fall 2006

Fall 2010

Peer- Fall 2010

Aspirant-Fall 2010

Student Diversity: Race and Gender

Gender: Female

Race: Minority

Diversity is stable or increasing

19

Affordability

$3,351 $3,467 $3,655 $4,210

$4,794

$7,193 $7,116

$-

$1,000

$2,000

$3,000

$4,000

$5,000

$6,000

$7,000

$8,000

Fall 2006 Fall 2007 Fall 2008 Fall 2009 Fall 2010 Peer- Fall 2010

Aspirant-Fall 2010

Tuition

and F

ees

Price of Mandatory Tuition and Fees

38%

39% 39%

41%

42%

36%

37%

38%

39%

40%

41%

42%

43%

FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011

Perce

nt of

stude

nts wh

ose re

source

s me

et or

excee

d tuiti

on an

d fee

s

% of Students with No Unmet Needs

A UWF education remains affordable

20

Ratio of FTE Students to FTE Faculty

18.019.0

23.0

22.0

23.0

17.8

19.5

14.015.016.017.018.019.020.021.022.023.024.0

Fall 2006 Fall 2007 Fall 2008 Fall 2009 Fall 2010 Peer- Fall 2010 Aspirant- Fall 2010

Instruction is being delivered more efficiently

21

Average Undergraduate Class Size

23.27

25.4826.84 27.63 28.10

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Fall 2006 Fall 2007 Fall 2008 Fall 2009 Fall 2010

Stude

nts in

Class

As the University has grown, so have class sizes

22

Faculty and Staff Turnover

7.8%

12.0%

6.1%

7.0%

5.8%

8.2%9.3%

7.9% 8.5%

9.3%

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

14%

Turn

over

%

Faculty Turnover

Staff Turnover

Turnover of faculty and staff is stable or declining

23

Revenue by Source

46.7% 40.7% 38.8% 35.7%

15.9% 23.5% 29.6% 38.8%

20.4%27.3% 18.4%

14.3%

17.0%8.5% 13.3% 11.2%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%

100.0%

FY 2007 FY 2010 Peer- FY 2009 Aspirant- FY 2009

Other Core Revenues

Gov't Grants and Contracts

Tuition and Fees

State

State funding is being replaced by other revenue sources

24

Revenue per Full Time Equivalent (FTE)

$17,002

$17,008

$15,877 $16,369

$20,256

$18,501

$10,000

$12,000

$14,000

$16,000

$18,000

$20,000

$22,000

FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 Peer- FY 2010

Aspirant- FY 2010

Re

ve

nu

e p

er F

TE

Comparison groups have more resources to work with

25

Total Cost per Full Time Equivalent (FTE)

$17,607

$17,099

$16,565

$17,339

$19,246

$17,344

$15,000

$15,500

$16,000

$16,500

$17,000

$17,500

$18,000

$18,500

$19,000

$19,500

FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 Peer- FY 2010 Aspirant- FY 2010

Tota

l Cos

t per

FTE

UWF is more cost effective than the comparison groups

Total Giving

5 Year Cumulative arget = $21M

* Total giving without gifts to the Maritime Museum Project** FY2011 unaudited total; Peer & Aspirant not yet reported

$-

$2,000,000

$4,000,000

$6,000,000

$8,000,000

$10,000,000

$12,000,000

FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2013 Target

Actual (without MM)

Peer

Aspirant

FY 2016 Target:$21m cummulative

The economy has negatively impacted giving to the Institution

27

Faculty Salaries

$61,008 $63,244 $67,738

$74,553

$-

$10,000

$20,000

$30,000

$40,000

$50,000

$60,000

$70,000

$80,000

FY 2007 FY 2011 Peer - FY 2011 Aspirant- FY 2011

9 m

onth

equ

ated

sal

arie

s

Faculty salaries are improving, but lag behind the comparison groups

28

Research

162 166

92 99108

218199

144 138 157 155169

0

50

100

150

200

250

Numb

er of

propo

sals a

nd aw

ards

Number of Research, Grant and Contracts

# Awarded

# of Proposals $17.42 $14.22 $13.69 $16.68 $19.16 $19.60 $21.30

$46.89 $39.81 $38.30

$71.95

$50.21

$-

$10

$20

$30

$40

$50

$60

$70

$80

Dollars

(in mi

llions)

Amount of Research, Grants and Contracts

$ Awarded (in millions)

$ of Proposals (in millions)

Research activity continues to grow