The Haves and Have Nots: Sophisticated Cross-Institutional Analysis Techniques that Support Budget Justifications

Examplesof the analyses for the presentation ( Related Link )
MISSING IMAGE

Material Information

Title:
The Haves and Have Nots: Sophisticated Cross-Institutional Analysis Techniques that Support Budget Justifications
Physical Description:
Presentation slides
Language:
English
Creator:
Keith, Brian W.
Publisher:
George A. Smathers Libraries, University of Florida
2014 Charleston Conference.
Place of Publication:
Gainesville, FL
Charleston, SC
Publication Date:

Notes

Abstract:
"The Haves and Have Nots: Sophisticated Cross-Institutional Analysis Techniques that Support Budget Justifications" by Brian W. Keith, presented at the 2014 Charleston Conference. Abstract: Universities face fiscal crises and pressures to operate more efficiently. Many are adopting budgeting models, like Responsibility Center Management (RCM), or concepts borrowed from business, like Return on Investment. Accordingly, libraries are pressured to justify their budgets, including among other things funding to cover increasing materials costs, and must make the most persuasive and defendable arguments possible. In 2011, the University of Florida (UF) adopted RCM budgeting and financial management. The UF libraries entered RCM chronically under-funded and facing escalating materials costs. RCM was implemented at a time of severe university budget reductions, including steep cuts in state appropriations. The libraries had to develop effective methods for communicating its budget circumstances and what appropriate funding levels should be in order to adequately serve faculty, students and researchers. The libraries have engaged in an ongoing analysis of how the resources of the libraries and the demands of the university compare to peer institutions using data from Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) and ARL Statistics. The data reflecting measures for library resources and university characteristics which influence the demand for library materials and services has been interpreted using numerous approaches including linear regression (with results with high correlation coefficients) and other statistical approaches. Through this process, we have provided stark evidence (and a compelling message) that there is a considerable and statistically significant gap between the scale of UF programs and populations and the resources of the library system which reflects a funding issue with negative impacts on the university community. Attendees will be introduced to innovative analysis techniques which allow for a rationale examination of the comparability of library funding across institutions. These methodologies will be explained so that they can be readily adopted or expanded upon at the attendee's institution. Please reference http://ufdc.ufl.edu/IR00003851 for examples of the analyses.
Biographical:
Brian Keith, Associate Dean for Administrative Services, University of Florida Libraries. Brian is the senior administrator for the areas of Human Resources, Staff Development, Grants Management, Facilities and Security, and Finance and Accounting for the Smathers Libraries. This system includes 405 employees and annual funding in excess of 34 million dollars. Functions under his direction include recruitment for all library positions; employee relations; compensation plan design and administration; performance management; tenure and promotion administration; and grants administration, including feasibility assessment, and pre- and post-award processes. He also gathers, compiles, analyzes and interprets statistics and information related to library financial activities; develops and maintains budgets and management reports on all library income and expenditures; enhances the accumulation of financial and statistical data for library departments, Deans and other library stakeholders; and provides library administration with in-depth analyses of pertinent financial activities to maximize the capacity Libraries’ resources. Brian has a distinguished record of service to the profession and has noteworthy accomplishments in research and scholarship.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida
Holding Location:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
Copyright by Creator. Permission granted to University of Florida to digitize and display this item for research and educational uses. Permission to reuse, publish or reproduce this item for purposes other than what is allowed by fair use or other copyright exemptions must be obtained from the copyright holder.
Resource Identifier:
System ID:
AA00027002:00001


This item is only available as the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

The Haves and Have Nots :Sophisticated Cross -Institutional Analysis Techniques that Support Budget JustificationsBrian W. Keith2014 Charleston Conference1

PAGE 2

AGENDA BackgroundThe Question and another oneInvestigation (data and peers)Peer AnalysisDemand and Resource comparisonsFunding comparisons1.Percentage based2.Linear regression based2

PAGE 3

BACKGROUND The University of Florida (UF) is a major, public, comprehensive, land grant, research university. It is one of only 17 public, land grant universities that belong to the Association of American Universities, and is one of the largest universities in the nation, with more than 50,000 students. 3

PAGE 4

The UF Libraries form the largest information resource system in the state. The UF Libraries consist of seven libraries; six are in the system known as the George A. Smathers Libraries. These include the Health Science Center Libraries (HSCL). The Smathers Libraries is an active member of the Association of Research Libraries (ARL ). 4

PAGE 5

FY20092010 FY20102011 FY20112012 FY20122013 Recurring $642,296 $277,522 $136,160 $1,387,951 Non Recurring $689,971Since July 1, 2009, the Smathers Libraries have experienced $2.4 million in recurring funding cuts and $700,000 in one time cuts.5

PAGE 6

6

PAGE 7

In 2011, UF adopted Responsibility Centered Management (RCM) for budgeting. 7

PAGE 8

Under RCM the colleges became Responsibility Centers (revenue generators) and the Libraries became one of the numerous Support Units (non revenue generating units primarily providing services to Responsibility Centers). The fundamental premise of RCM is to move decisions and resulting revenues to the colleges.8

PAGE 9

RCM, along with decreased UF appropriations and lost purchasing power for library materials have increased pressure (internally and externally) to assess library funding and expenditures9

PAGE 10

In 2014, UF launched UF Rising a fiveyear initiative to elevate the University to among the nations top public universities. A combined $950 million is aimed at hiring new midcareer and eminent professors, adding new endowed professorships, and to upgrading and adding facilities. 10

PAGE 11

Smathers Libraries Mission The Smathers Libraries partner with UF faculty, students and staff, as well as the Universitys collaborators and constituents, to facilitate knowledge creation that contributes to UFs standing as a preeminent public research university 11

PAGE 12

The QUESTION What should the funding be for the Smathers Libraries? Do the UF Libraries spend money eccentrically?12

PAGE 13

INVESTIGATION Establish Peers13

PAGE 14

INVESTIGATION Available data:National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) data for university characteristics that correlate with DEMAND for library resources & servicesARL data for characteristics that reflect library RESOURCES relating to materials and staff14

PAGE 15

PEER ANALYSIS Demand v. Resources15

PAGE 16

PEER ANALYSIS UNIVERSITY Demand Average Excluding UF UF as % of Non UF AverageTotal Faculty 4,206 131% Total Students 38,197 131% Undergraduates 27,346 120% Graduate Students 10,851 158% PhD's Awarded 1,187 165%16

PAGE 17

LIBRARY Resources Average Excluding UF UF as % of NonUF AverageVolumes Held 8,962,398 53% Monographs Acquired (2011) 89,280 26% Librarians & Professional Staff 164 54% Other Staff 222 81% TOTAL Staff 386 69% $ for Materials $16,924,627 77% $ for Hardware/Software (2011) $1,422,413 13% TOTAL Library Expenditures $44,945,336 64%17

PAGE 18

Findings:1.UF is above average in all metrics reflecting demand for library services and/or resources2.The UF Libraries are below average in all metrics reflecting the resources for the delivery of services and information 18

PAGE 19

Per FacultyUF AVG Ratio Volumes Held 869 2,274 1 : 2.6 Monographs Acquired (2011) 4.28 21.02 1 : 4.9 Librarians and Professional Staff 0.0162 0.0409 1 : 2.5 Other Staff 0.0326 0.0555 1 : 1.7 TOTAL Staff 0.0488 0.0964 1 : 2 $ for Materials $2,370 $4,214 1 : 1.8 $ for HW and SW (2011) $34.51 $337.32 1 : 9.8 Total Lib Expenditures $5,202 $11,288 1 : 2.219

PAGE 20

Per UndergraduateUF AVG Ratio Volumes Held 146 344 1 : 2.4 Monographs Acquired (2011) 0.72 3.46 1 : 4.8 Librarians and Professional Staff 0.0027 0.0062 1 : 2.3 Other Staff 0.0055 0.0086 1 : 1.6 TOTAL Staff 0.0082 0.0149 1 : 1.8 $ for Materials $397 $646 1 : 1.6 $ for HW and SW (2011) $5.80 $57.68 1 : 10 Total Lib Expenditures $872 $1,737 1 : 220

PAGE 21

Per Graduate StudentUF AVG Ratio Volumes Held 279 828 1 : 3 Monographs Acquired (2011) 1.38 7.76 1 : 5.6 Librarians and Professional Staff 0.0052 0.0158 1 : 3 Other Staff 0.0104 0.0226 1 : 2.2 TOTAL Staff 0.0156 0.0384 1 : 2.5 $ for Materials $760 $1,656 1 : 2.2 $ for HW and SW (2011) $11.12 $134.15 1 : 12.1 Total Lib Expenditures $1,668 $4,405 1 : 2.621

PAGE 22

Per PhD AwardedUF AVG Ratio Volumes Held 2,444 7,620 1 : 3.1 Monographs Acquired (2011) 11.02 75.48 1 : 6.9 Librarians and Professional Staff 0.0455 0.1428 1 : 3.1 Other Staff 0.0916 0.2054 1 : 2.2 TOTAL Staff 0.1372 0.3482 1 : 2.5 $ for Materials $6,664 $15,140 1 : 2.3 $ for HW and SW (2011) $88.82 $1,239 1 : 14 Total Lib Expenditures $14,627 $40,115 1 : 2.822

PAGE 23

3.54% 3.35% 2.81% 2.51% 4.46% 2.27% 3.16% 3.08% 1.64% 0.00% 0.50% 1.00% 1.50% 2.00% 2.50% 3.00% 3.50% 4.00% 4.50% 5.00% ILLINOIS, URBANA MICHIGAN NORTH CAROLINA PENNSYLVANIA STATE VIRGINIA WISCONSIN PEER AVERAGE PEER MEDIAN FLORIDA2012 Library Exp. as a % of University Instruction, Research and Public Service Exp. 23

PAGE 24

1.47% 1.27% 1.13% 0.99% 1.42% 0.74% 1.17% 1.20% 0.75% 0.00% 0.20% 0.40% 0.60% 0.80% 1.00% 1.20% 1.40% 1.60% ILLINOIS, URBANA MICHIGAN NORTH CAROLINA PENNSYLVANIA STATE VIRGINIA WISCONSIN PEER AVERAGE PEER MEDIAN FLORIDA2012 Materials Exp. as a % of University Instruction, Research and Public Service Exp. 24

PAGE 25

25

PAGE 26

26

PAGE 27

27

PAGE 28

28

PAGE 29

LINEAR REGRESSION A model of the relationship between two variables:1. Independent variable (e.g. a university budget) 2. Dependent variable (e.g. a librarys budget)MAY serve to predict a variable if the other variable is known29

PAGE 30

LINEAR REGRESSION R squared or Coefficient of DeterminationIndicates the proportion of the change in one variable that is predictable from another r2 Represents the percent of variation in a variable that can be explained by the relationship between the two30

PAGE 31

PEER ANALYSIS Compared UF to Three Groups of AAU Public UniversitiesGroup A: 6 of Top 11 from US News (Aspirational Peers)Group B: 10 of Top 25 from US News (Comprehensive Universities with Law & 2 or more Health Colleges)Group C: UF Identified Peers31

PAGE 32

PEER ANALYSIS Group A Group B Group CTop US Public Univ. Peers Top 25 Public Univ Peers UF Identified Peers ILLINOIS, URBANA MICHIGAN CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY MICHIGAN MINNESOTA ILLINOIS, URBANA NORTH CAROLINA NORTH CAROLINA INDIANA PENNSYLVANIA STATE OHIO STATE MICHIGAN VIRGINIA PENNSYLVANIA STATE NORTH CAROLINA WISCONSIN PITTSBURGH OHIO STATE TEXAS PENNSYLVANIA STATE VIRGINIA TEXAS WASHINGTON TEXAS A&M WISCONSIN VIRGINIA WISCONSIN32

PAGE 33

25,000,000 30,000,000 35,000,000 40,000,000 45,000,000 50,000,000 55,000,000 60,000,000 65,000,000 0 2,000,000,000 4,000,000,000 6,000,000,000Library ExpendituresUniversity Expenditures20082012 Peer Averages & UF Actual Total Library Expenditures v. Total University Expenditures Group A Group B Group C UF Actual R = 0.8637 R = 0.6398 R = 0.445 R = 0.0258 33

PAGE 34

34

PAGE 35

LINEAR REGRESSION Linear regression line formulaThe model identified by the linear regression analysis of university revenue from tuition and appropriation at peer universities (independent variable) and total library expenditures at those institutions (dependent variable) for each year can be expressed in a regression line with a formula of Y = a + bX35

PAGE 36

LINEAR REGRESSION Linear regression line formulaY = a + b X In this formula: Y = the dependent variable (library) X = the independent variable (university) b = the slope of the regression line a = the intercept point of the regression line and the y axis. 36

PAGE 37

PEER ANALYSIS Application of Linear Regression Formulas to Estimate Appropriate Funding for UF Libraries UF Tuition & Appropriations2008 $855,300,000 2009 $849,955,000 2010 $797,569,000 2011 $855,234,000 2012 $848,376,00037

PAGE 38

PEER ANALYSIS Application of Linear Regression Formulas to Estimate Appropriate Funding for UF Libraries Linear Regression for Peers: Total Library Expenditures & University Tuition and Appropriations2008 y = 0.01x + 30,868,025 2009 y = 0.02x + 29,693,057 2010 y = 0.02x + 27,401,814 2011 y = 0.02x + 30,223,057 2012 y = 0.02x + 26,651,03538

PAGE 39

PEER ANALYSIS Application of Linear Regression Formulas to Estimate Appropriate Funding for UF Libraries UF Tuition & Appropriations Linear Regression Line Formula UF Libraries Projected2008 $855,300,000 y = 0.01x + 30,868,025 $43,231,307 2009 $849,955,000 y = 0.02x + 29,693,057 $43,249,625 2010 $797,569,000 y = 0.02x + 27,401,814 $42,536,788 2011 $855,234,000 y = 0.02x + 30,223,057 $43,650,863 2012 $848,376,000 y = 0.02x + 26,651,035 $42,701,20339

PAGE 40

PEER ANALYSIS Application of Linear Regression Formulas to Estimate Appropriate Funding for UF Libraries UF Libraries Projected UF Libraries Actual Expenditures Difference 2008 $43,231,307 $28,573,302 ($14,658,005) 2009 $43,249,625 $28,147,202 ($15,102,423) 2010 $42,536,788 $27,242,279 ($15,294,509) 2011 $43,650,863 $29,537,452 ($14,113,411) 2012 $42,701,203 $28,581,160 ($14,120,043)40

PAGE 41

41

PAGE 42

42

PAGE 43

PEER ANALYSIS Spending within libraries43

PAGE 44

44

PAGE 45

45

PAGE 46

PEER ANALYSIS PROPORTION OF LIBRARY EXPENDITURES Materials Staffing Operations Median for Peers 38% 49% 12% Average for Peers 38% 49% 13% UF 43% 44% 12%46

PAGE 47

y = 0.423029510129217x 2,523,825.53 47

PAGE 48

LINEAR REGRESSION Linear regression line formulaY = a + b X In this formula: Y = the dependent variable (materials exp.) X = the independent variable (total library exp.) b = the slope of the regression line a = the intercept point of the regression line and the y axis. 48

PAGE 49

PEER ANALYSIS Average UF Libraries Material Expenditures for 20082013AVG $12,748,128Application of Linear Regression Formulas to Examine UF Libraries Expenditures49

PAGE 50

PEER ANALYSIS Average UF Libraries Material Expenditures for 20082013 Linear Regression for Peers: Library Materials & Total Library Expenditures UF Libraries Projected Total Expenditures$12,748,128 y = 0.42x 2,523,825.53 $36,101,390Application of Linear Regression Formulas to Examine UF Libraries Expenditures50

PAGE 51

PEER ANALYSIS UF Libraries Projected Average Total Expenditures UF Libraries Actual Difference $36,101,390 $ 28,715,527 ($7,385,864) Application of Linear Regression Formulas to Examine UF Libraries Expenditures51

PAGE 52

52

PAGE 53

FINDINGS Linear regression showed there exists a relationship between library spending for staffing and materials, and total library expenditures at these top institutionsThe relationship can serve as a basis for assessing library expenditures at other institutions53

PAGE 54

Questions? 54