Colleges and universities avow as major goal ex cellence in teaching and rese rch. A factor in achieving this goal is sabbatical leave plan which is designed to render faculty member more useful to the institution as teacher, researcher, or administrator. Sab batical leave is defined as a plan for providing teachers with an opportunity for self-improvement with full or partial compensation following designated number of years of consecutive service.1 Institutions sponsoring such plans expect, as an outgrowth of funds invested, that the efficiency of the teaching force will be increased. Effectively organized and administered, the sabbatical leave plan can benefit both the institution and the recip ient. An increasing number of institutions of higher edu cation have adopted the sabbatical leave as faculty im provement program since its inception at Harvard in 1880.2 A survey conducted in 1965 among 745 institu tions of higher education showed that 57% granted some form of sabbatical leave.3 Approximately 70% of the state universities and, land grant colleges surveyed the same year reported such programs.4 Established sabbatical leave plans should be period ically evaluated. Evaluation serves as system of qual ity control and should be employed by institutions dedi cated to improving the overall effectiveness of their leave plans. This paper presents the results of an evalu ation conducted at the University of Utah. The evalua tion consisted first, of determining the leave taking pat terns of recipients. Next, survey was conducted among selected faculty to obtain answers to some institutional and faculty concerns: Should faculty be required to take their leave away from home ? Should faculty be encour aged to take longer leaves? What types of activities should be approved for taking leave? Is the six year eligibility rule for sabbatical sacrosanct or can it be waived ? Survey data were obtained from questionnaires sent to sample of 150 faculty members drawn from among faculty who ( 1 ) had taken sabbatical leave dur ing the period 1965 through 1968, (2) were eligible for leave during 1968-69 but did not apply, and (3) were %m eligible for leave during 1969-70. Usable questionnaires were received from 77 faculty members. Only total responses are reported since the responses of the three faculty sub-groups were virtually identical.