<%BANNER%>
UFIR
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/IR00001564/00001
 Material Information
Title: RCM 2013-2014 Budget Review: George A. Smathers Libraries Presentation (March 12, 2013)
Physical Description: Presentation
Creator: Russell, Judith
Keith, Brian W.
Bruxvoort, Diane
Botero, Cecilia
Publisher: George A. Smathers Libraries, University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Florida
 Subjects
Subjects / Keywords: RCM
Genre:
Spatial Coverage:
 Notes
Acquisition: Collected for University of Florida's Institutional Repository by the UFIR Self-Submittal tool. Submitted by Judith Russell.
Publication Status: Published
 Record Information
Source Institution: University of Florida Institutional Repository
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the submitter.
System ID: IR00001564:00001


This item is only available as the following downloads:

Presentation ( PPTX )

Presentation ( PDF )

Presentation with Notes ( PDF )

Handouts ( PDF )


Full Text

PAGE 1

3/12/2013 1 RCM 2013-2014 BUDGET REVIEWGeorge A. Smathers Libraries Judith C. RussellMarch 12, 20131 BACKGROUND • The George A. Smathers Libraries have two main components under RCM The Health Science Center Libraries The University Libraries • The HSC Libraries are funded through units of the Health Science Center • The University Libraries are funded through the other academic and research units, with the exception of the College of Law2

PAGE 2

3/12/2013 2 BACKGROUND • The Smathers Libraries embody the distinct characteristics of the University and its mission across all disciplines: to develop the human intellect through teaching and learning and to contribute through research to the expanding body of human knowledge• The Smathers Libraries are dedicated to supporting the University’s threefold mission of teaching, research, and service3 BACKGROUND • Flat Funding Request: $28,225,829 $26,599,749 (2012-2013 actual with $300,000 increase from HSC for HSC Libraries) plus $1,626,080 for essential library materials • Optimal FundingRequest: $32,044,217 4

PAGE 3

3/12/2013 3 5 AGENDA FOR TODAY• Peer Analysis: UF Libraries funding compared to peer AAU universities • Greatest Need: Funding for library materials essential to students, faculty, researchers, and clinicians • 2013-2014 Budget Request – Flat Funding plus $1.6 million for materials – Optimal Funding to improve collections and services6

PAGE 4

3/12/2013 4 PEER ANALYSIS • Compared UF to 8 Public AAU Universities– All with 4 or more Health Colleges – All with a College of Law – All with U.S. News Ranking above 30 – All members of the Association of Research Libraries (ARL) – 4 are land grant universities7 PEER ANALYSIS, continued • Peer Universities– University of Michigan (#4) – University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill (#5) – University of Wisconsin, Madison (#9) – University of Washington (#11) – University of Florida (#15) – Ohio State University (#18) – University of Pittsburgh (#20) – University of Minnesota (#22) – Michigan State University (#29)8

PAGE 5

3/12/2013 5 PEER ANALYSIS • ARL data for 7 factors that report library RESOURCES for materials and staff (2008) • NCES data for 7 university factors that correlate with DEMAND for library resources & services (2008)9 10 LIBRARIES Avg. Excluding UFUF as % of Non UF Avg.EXPENDITURES Library Materials Expenditures $14,820,85784%Total Library Expenditures $39,116,38273%PERSONNEL SALARIES Salaries & Wages Professional Staff$9,602,92263%Total Salaries & Wages$18,656,81875%PERSONNEL FTE Professional Staff (FTE)14968%Support Staff (FTE)19299%Total Staff (FTE)45484%

PAGE 6

3/12/2013 6 11 UNIVERSITYAvg. Excluding UFUF as % of Non UF Avg. PhDs Awarded 635135% Prof Degrees Awarded 626200% Total PhDs and Prof Degrees 1,261167% PhD Fields 95131% Faculty (Full Time) 3,449128% Total Student Enrollment 43,195119% Total Graduate & Prof Students 12,579134% PEER ANALYSIS, continued12 • UF Libraries are BELOWaveragefor every library RESOURCE factor for materials and staffing • UF is ABOVEaveragefor every university factor correlating with DEMAND for library resources and services

PAGE 7

3/12/2013 7 PEER ANALYSIS, continued • More useful comparison by accounting for differences in scale at the peer institutions– Analyzed correlations between ARL data on library expenditures and NCES data on university factors• The highest correlation was with total university budget (R = 0.8278)13 14

PAGE 8

3/12/2013 8 PEER ANALYSIS, continued 15 PEER ANALYSIS, continued • Average Library Expenditures as % of University Budget (8 Peers Without UF): 1.8352% • Average Library Expenditures as % of University Budget (At UF): 1.6442%16

PAGE 9

3/12/2013 9 PEER ANALYSIS, continued 17 Total UF Expenditures Projected Library Expenditures Actual Library Expenditures Difference $1,737,832,000$37,899,670$28,573,302$9,326,368Data from 2008Application of Linear Regression Formula to UF PEER ANALYSIS, updated 18 Total UF Expenditures Projected Library Expenditures Actual Library Expenditures Difference $2,121,460,000$41,851,038$28,147,202$13,703,836 Application of Linear Regression Formula to UF Using 2009 Data

PAGE 10

3/12/2013 10 PEER ANALYSIS, updated • The average Total Library Expenditures for the 8 peer institutions increased by $1,027,589 from 2008 to 2012 • The Total Library Expenditures for UF Libraries increased by $7,858 from 2008 to 2012 19 PEER ANALYSIS, updated 20 PROPORTION OF LIBRARY EXPENDITURES Materials and Operations Staffing Median for Peers50%48% Average for Peers54%46% University of Florida53%47%

PAGE 11

3/12/2013 11 Smathers Libraries Staffing 21 Decrease in Smathers Libraries Staffing 2009 2010 Through 2011 2012 Faculty & Other Professionals Non Professional Staff Total 201097186283 201185172257 201281167248 GREATEST NEED 22

PAGE 12

3/12/2013 12 23 $0 $2,000,000 $4,000,000 $6,000,000 $8,000,000 $10,000,000 $12,000,000 $14,000,000 09 1010 1111 1212 1313 14 RCM Budget Review for the George A. Smathers Libraries Expenditures for Materials By Source of Funds Add'l $ from HSC for HSCL Carry Forward Reallocated Salary $ Appropriation for Materials DSR 24 $0 $2,000,000 $4,000,000 $6,000,000 $8,000,000 $10,000,000 $12,000,000 $14,000,000 09 1010 1111 1212 1313 14 RCM Budget Review for the George A. Smathers Libraries Gap In Expenditures for Materials Add'l $ from HSC for HSCL Carry Forward Reallocated Salary $ Appropriation for Materials DSR $ to Maintain Content

PAGE 13

3/12/2013 13 25 $0 $500,000 $1,000,000 $1,500,000 $2,000,000 $2,500,000 $3,000,000 09 1010 1111 1212 1313 14 RCM Budget Review for the George A. Smathers Libraries Carry Forward Generation and Use Annual Carry Forward Balance Materials Expenditure Operating Expenditure Required Reserve ($766,288) 2013-2014 Budget Request • Flat Funding Request: $28,225,829 $26,599,749 (2012-2013 actual with $300,000 from HSC for HSCL) plus $ 1,626,080 for essential library materials • To avoid loss of core content for students, faculty, researchers, and clinicians, a “Flat Budget” MUST include an additional $1,626,080 for materials 26

PAGE 14

3/12/2013 14 2013-2014 Budget Request • Optimal Budget includes a total increase of $5.5 Million which would protect core content and allow acquisition of new content and provision of high-demand services • This is still $3.8 million below the 2008 gap of $9.3 Million relative to peer institutions – $8.2 million below the 2009 gap of $13.7 Million27 Additional Information: Judy Russell, Dean of University Libraries: jcrussell@ufl.edu ; 352-273-2505 Brian Keith, Associate Dean for Administrative Services & Faculty Affairs: bwkeith@ufl.edu ; 352-273-2595 28



PAGE 1

3/12/2013 1 RCM 2013-2014 BUDGET REVIEWGeorge A. Smathers Libraries Judith C. RussellMarch 12, 20131 BACKGROUND • The George A. Smathers Libraries have two main components under RCM The Health Science Center Libraries The University Libraries • The HSC Libraries are funded through units of the Health Science Center • The University Libraries are funded through the other academic and research units, with the exception of the College of Law2

PAGE 2

3/12/2013 2 BACKGROUND • The Smathers Libraries embody the distinct characteristics of the University and its mission across all disciplines: to develop the human intellect through teaching and learning and to contribute through research to the expanding body of human knowledge• The Smathers Libraries are dedicated to supporting the University’s threefold mission of teaching, research, and service3 BACKGROUND • Flat Funding Request: $28,225,829 $26,599,749 (2012-2013 actual with $300,000 increase from HSC for HSC Libraries) plus $1,626,080 for essential library materials • Optimal FundingRequest: $32,044,217 4

PAGE 3

3/12/2013 3 5 AGENDA FOR TODAY• Peer Analysis: UF Libraries funding compared to peer AAU universities • Greatest Need: Funding for library materials essential to students, faculty, researchers, and clinicians • 2013-2014 Budget Request – Flat Funding plus $1.6 million for materials – Optimal Funding to improve collections and services6

PAGE 4

3/12/2013 4 PEER ANALYSIS • Compared UF to 8 Public AAU Universities– All with 4 or more Health Colleges – All with a College of Law – All with U.S. News Ranking above 30 – All members of the Association of Research Libraries (ARL) – 4 are land grant universities7 PEER ANALYSIS, continued • Peer Universities– University of Michigan (#4) – University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill (#5) – University of Wisconsin, Madison (#9) – University of Washington (#11) – University of Florida (#15) – Ohio State University (#18) – University of Pittsburgh (#20) – University of Minnesota (#22) – Michigan State University (#29)8

PAGE 5

3/12/2013 5 PEER ANALYSIS • ARL data for 7 factors that report library RESOURCES for materials and staff (2008) • NCES data for 7 university factors that correlate with DEMAND for library resources & services (2008)9 10 LIBRARIES Avg. Excluding UFUF as % of Non UF Avg.EXPENDITURES Library Materials Expenditures $14,820,85784%Total Library Expenditures $39,116,38273%PERSONNEL SALARIES Salaries & Wages Professional Staff$9,602,92263%Total Salaries & Wages$18,656,81875%PERSONNEL FTE Professional Staff (FTE)14968%Support Staff (FTE)19299%Total Staff (FTE)45484%

PAGE 6

3/12/2013 6 11 UNIVERSITYAvg. Excluding UFUF as % of Non UF Avg. PhDs Awarded 635135% Prof Degrees Awarded 626200% Total PhDs and Prof Degrees 1,261167% PhD Fields 95131% Faculty (Full Time) 3,449128% Total Student Enrollment 43,195119% Total Graduate & Prof Students 12,579134% PEER ANALYSIS, continued12 • UF Libraries are BELOWaveragefor every library RESOURCE factor for materials and staffing • UF is ABOVEaveragefor every university factor correlating with DEMAND for library resources and services

PAGE 7

3/12/2013 7 PEER ANALYSIS, continued • More useful comparison by accounting for differences in scale at the peer institutions– Analyzed correlations between ARL data on library expenditures and NCES data on university factors• The highest correlation was with total university budget (R2= 0.8278)13 14

PAGE 8

3/12/2013 8 PEER ANALYSIS, continued 15 PEER ANALYSIS, continued • Average library expenditures as % of university budget (8 peers without UF): 1.8352% • Library expenditures as % of university budget (UF): 1.6442%16

PAGE 9

3/12/2013 9 PEER ANALYSIS, continued 17 Total UF Expenditures Projected Library Expenditures Actual Library Expenditures Difference $1,737,832,000$37,899,670$28,573,302$9,326,368Data from 2008Application of Linear Regression Formula to UF PEER ANALYSIS, updated 18 Total UF Expenditures Projected Library Expenditures Actual Library Expenditures Difference $2,121,460,000$41,851,038$28,147,202$13,703,836 Application of Linear Regression Formula to UF Using 2009 Data

PAGE 10

3/12/2013 10 PEER ANALYSIS, updated • The average Total Library Expenditures for the 8 peer institutions increased by $1,027,589 from 2008 to 2012 • The Total Library Expenditures for UF Libraries increased by $7,858 from 2008 to 2012 19 PEER ANALYSIS, updated 20 PROPORTION OF LIBRARY EXPENDITURES Materials and Operations Staffing Median for Peers50%48% Average for Peers54%46% University of Florida53%47%

PAGE 11

3/12/2013 11 Smathers Libraries Staffing 21 Decrease in Smathers Libraries Staffing 2009 2010 Through 2011 2012 Faculty & Other Professionals Non Professional Staff Total 201097186283 201185172257 201281167248 GREATEST NEED 22

PAGE 12

3/12/2013 12 23 $0 $2,000,000 $4,000,000 $6,000,000 $8,000,000 $10,000,000 $12,000,000 $14,000,000 09 1010 1111 1212 1313 14 RCM Budget Review for the George A. Smathers Libraries Expenditures for Materials By Source of Funds Add'l $ from HSC for HSCL Carry Forward Reallocated Salary $ Appropriation for Materials DSR 24 $0 $2,000,000 $4,000,000 $6,000,000 $8,000,000 $10,000,000 $12,000,000 $14,000,000 09 1010 1111 1212 1313 14 RCM Budget Review for the George A. Smathers Libraries Gap In Expenditures for Materials Add'l $ from HSC for HSCL Carry Forward Reallocated Salary $ Appropriation for Materials DSR $ to Maintain Content

PAGE 13

3/12/2013 13 25 $0 $500,000 $1,000,000 $1,500,000 $2,000,000 $2,500,000 $3,000,000 09 1010 1111 1212 1313 14 RCM Budget Review for the George A. Smathers Libraries Carry Forward Generation and Use Annual Carry Forward Balance Materials Expenditure Operating Expenditure Required Reserve ($766,288) 2013-2014 Budget Request • Flat Funding Request: $28,225,829 $26,599,749 (2012-2013 actual with $300,000 from HSC for HSCL) plus $ 1,626,080 for essential library materials • To avoid loss of core content for students, faculty, researchers, and clinicians, a “Flat Budget” MUST include an additional $1,626,080 for materials 26

PAGE 14

3/12/2013 14 2013-2014 Budget Request • Optimal Budget includes a total increase of $5.5 Million which would protect core content and allow acquisition of new content and provision of high-demand services • This is still $3.8 million below the 2008 gap of $9.3 Million relative to peer institutions – $8.2 million below the 2009 gap of $13.7 Million27 Additional Information: Judy Russell, Dean of University Libraries: jcrussell@ufl.edu ; 352-273-2505 Brian Keith, Associate Dean for Administrative Services & Faculty Affairs: bwkeith@ufl.edu ; 352-273-2595 28



PAGE 1

March 12, 2013 HANDOUT 1 RCM Budget Review for the George A. Smathers LibrariesComparison of UF Library and University Statistics With Peer InstitutionsUS NEWS RANK 459111518202229 MICHIGANNORTH CAROLINAWISCONSINWASHINGTONFLORIDAOHIO STATEPITTSBURGHMINNESOTAMICHIGAN STATEAvg Excluding UFUF as % of Non UF Avg.LIBRARY STATISTICS (Source: 2007 2008 Association of Research Libraries Statistics)EXPENDITURES Library Materials Expenditures $20,525,876$16,322,573$10,974,532$14,862,427$12,427,750$13,178,838$14,857,024$16,578,284$11,267,304$14,820,85784% Total Library Expenditures $51,599,110$41,123,515$42,879,223$40,854,830$28,573,302$38,473,238$31,660,109$40,734,045$25,606,985$39,116,38273% PERSONNEL SALARIES Salaries & Wages Professional Staff $11,897,358$10,686,200$14,155,552$11,904,128$6,042,307$8,394,752$6,678,904$7,854,878$5,251,600$9,602,92263% Total Salaries &Wages$25,853,159$18,943,723$23,459,430$22,029,970$13,953,783$16,642,379$12,538,822$18,117,695$11,669,365$18,656,81875% PERSONNEL FT E Professional Staff (FTE) 1691482291931021431201118214968% Support Staff (FTE) 30520916620619015617320012219299% Total Staff (FTE) 57045255352338147038239428845484% US NEWS RANK 459111518202229 MICHIGANNORTH CAROLINAWISCONSINWASHINGTONFLORIDAOHIO STATEPITTSBURGHMINNESOTAMICHIGAN STATEAvg Excluding UFUF as % of Non UF Avg.UNIVERSITY STATISTICS (Source: National Center for Educational Statistics Fall 2008)PhD's Awarded 710600755631858759392775458635135% Prof Degrees Awarded7306046465031,250852563788324626200% Total PhD's and Prof Degrees 1,4401,2041,4011,1342,1081,6119551,5637821,261167% PhD Fields 11869107801241036810011295131% Faculty (Full Time)5,2902,9693,0863,6684,3993,2174,1232,6232,6153,449128% Total Student Enrollment41,02828,56744,62044,93351,47453,71535,04851,14046,51043,195119% Total Graduate & Prof Students 15,03410,67211,25811,13916,82013,50310,13518,58310,30512,579134%

PAGE 2

March 12, 2013 Handout 2 US NEWS RANK 4591118202229 MICHIGANNORTH CAROLINAWISCONSINWASHINGTONOHIO STATEPITTSBURGHMINNESOTAMICHIGAN STATE Total University Expenditures$3,584,455,000$1,910,670,488$2,213,956,907$2,414,795,182$2,080,354,268$1,483,328,841$2,438,931,419$1,417,054,116Total Library Expenditures$51,599,110$41,123,515$42,879,223$40,854,830$38,473,238$31,660,109$40,734,045$25,606,985Total University ExpendituresTotal Library Expenditures4$3,584,455,000$51,599,110UM 5$1,910,670,488$41,123,515UNC 9$2,213,956,907$42,879,223U Wis 11$2,414,795,182$40,854,830U Was 15$2,080,354,268$38,473,238OSU 18$1,483,328,841$31,660,109Pitt 20$2,438,931,419$40,734,045U Minn 21$1,417,054,116$25,606,985MSU $0$28,573,302 15$1,737,832,000$28,573,302UF $1,737,832,000$0 173783200037899669.6FormulaTotal UF ExpendituresProjected Library ExpendituresActual Library ExpendituresDifference Projected Library Expenditures per Regression Analysisy = 0.0103x + 2E+07$1,737,832,000$37,899,670$28,573,302$9,326,368 $28,573,302 y = 0.0103x + 2E+07 R = 0.8278 $10,000,000 $15,000,000 $20,000,000 $25,000,000 $30,000,000 $35,000,000 $40,000,000 $45,000,000 $50,000,000 $55,000,000 $1,400,000,000$1,900,000,000$2,400,000,000$2,900,000,000$3,400,000,000Total Library ExpendituresTotal University ExpendituresRCM Budget Review for the George A. Smathers LibrariesTotal Library Expenditures as a Function of Total University Expenditures Other Library Systems UF Linear (Other Library Systems) Michigan Minnesota Washington Wisconsin Ohio State UNC Pittsburgh Michigan State

PAGE 3

March 12, 2013 HANDOUT 3 US NEWS RANK 459111518202229 MICHIGANNORTH CAROLINAWISCONSINWASHINGTONFLORIDAOHIO STATEPITTSBURGHMINNESOTAMICHIGAN STATE Library Expenditures as a % of Total University Expenditures1.4395%2.1523%1.9368%1.6919%1.6442%1. 8494%2.1344%1.6702%1.8071%US NEWS RANK 459111518202229 MICHIGANNORTH CAROLINAWISCONSINWASHINGTONFLORIDAOHIO STATEPITTSBURGHMINNESOTAMICHIGAN STATE Total University Expenditures$3,584,455,000$1,910,670,488$2,213,956,907$2,414,795,182$1,737,832,000$2,080,354,268$1,483,328,841$2,438,931,419$1,417,054,116Total Library Expenditures$51,599,110$41,123,515$42,879,223$40,854,830$28,572,302$38,473,238$31,660,109$40,734,045$25,606,985 1.4395% 2.1523% 1.9368% 1.6919% 1.6442% 1.8494% 2.1344% 1.6702% 1.8071%1.25% 1.35% 1.45% 1.55% 1.65% 1.75% 1.85% 1.95% 2.05% 2.15% 2.25%MICHIGANNORTH CAROLINAWISCONSINWASHINGTONFLORIDAOHIO STATEPITTSBURGHMINNESOTAMICHIGAN STATELibrary Expenditures as a Percent of Total University ExpendituresRCM Budget Review for the George A. Smathers Libraries Library Expenditures as a Percentage of Total University Expenditures

PAGE 4

March 12, 2013HANDOUT 4

PAGE 5

March 12, 2013HANDOUT 5



PAGE 1

1

PAGE 2

Legal Information Center is funded through the budget for the College of Law. 2

PAGE 3

Comprehensive university with unique scale and scope. Extremely high demand for content and services to serve a diversepopulation. 3

PAGE 4

4

PAGE 5

Thispie chart is in the Smathers Libraries 2013 1024 RCM Budget Review and was also included in the cover e mail message transmitting the budget review to the committee. You will see this slide again later in the presentation, and I think it’s significance will be clearer at that time. The Libraries current materials budget is $8.6 million, which is $1.6 million below the amount needed to maintain the content we currently provide to students, faculty, researchers, and clinicians. This will not restore the depth and breadth of library materials to the levels that we had even five years ago, but it is essential to avoid significant additional cuts. 5

PAGE 6

6

PAGE 7

Prepared for the 2010 2011RCM budget review 7

PAGE 8

Rankingsby U.S. News & World Report current as of June 2010. 8

PAGE 9

ARL data reports for all libraries, so the legal information centerstatistics are included in the peer analysis. Appropriate due to collaborative purchasing and other resources sharing at ARL institutions. 9

PAGE 10

HANDOUT 1 10

PAGE 11

HANDOUT 1 11

PAGE 12

12

PAGE 13

13

PAGE 14

HANDOUT 2 To account for differences in scale at the peer institutions,we analyzed correlations between ARL data on library expenditures and NCES data on university factors that correlate with demand for library resources and services. The highest correlation was with total university budget, and itwas a very high correlation (R = 0.8278).14

PAGE 15

HANDOUT 3 University of Michigan Libraries are verywell funded, althoughthe total university budget is so high that the library budget is a lower percentage of the total university budget than the other peer institutions. With the exception of Michigan, the UF Libraries funding is the lowest percentage. 15

PAGE 16

16

PAGE 17

Conclusion based on peer analysis: UF Libraries are significantlyunderfunded compared to the libraries at these peer institutions. 17

PAGE 18

Initial Peer Analysisused 2008 data from ARL and NCES (the latest available at the time). 2009 NCES data is now available and the linear regression analysis shows the gap is widening, not closing 18

PAGE 19

19

PAGE 20

Ratio of spending on materials and personnel is consistent with our peer libraries. This does not mean that the budget amount is appropriate. The UF staffing is 68% of the average staffing for our peer libraries and the UF materials budget is 84% of the average for our peer libraries. 20

PAGE 21

Salaries and Benefits are currently 47%of the Total Library Budget. Median for the 8 Peer Institutions is 48%. To protect the Materials Budget, the Libraries have given up vacant positions in response to budget cuts. 21

PAGE 22

Thispie chart is in the Smathers Libraries 2013 1024 RCM Budget Review and was also included in the cover e mail message transmitting the budget review to the committee. 22

PAGE 23

HANDOUT 4 23

PAGE 24

HANDOUT 4 24

PAGE 25

HANDOUT 5 2011 2012 drop in carry forward includes $428,000 recall by the University. 25

PAGE 26

26

PAGE 27

27

PAGE 28

28



PAGE 1

1

PAGE 2

Legal Information Center is funded through the budget for the College of Law. 2

PAGE 3

Comprehensive university with unique scale and scope. Extremely high demand for content and services to serve a diversepopulation. 3

PAGE 4

4

PAGE 5

Thispie chart is in the Smathers Libraries 2013 1024 RCM Budget Review and was also included in the cover e mail message transmitting the budget review to the committee. You will see this slide again later in the presentation, and I think it’s significance will be clearer at that time. The Libraries current materials budget is $8.6 million, which is $1.6 million below the amount needed to maintain the content we currently provide to students, faculty, researchers, and clinicians. This will not restore the depth and breadth of library materials to the levels that we had even five years ago, but it is essential to avoid significant additional cuts. 5

PAGE 6

6

PAGE 7

Prepared for the 2010 2011RCM budget review 7

PAGE 8

Rankingsby U.S. News & World Report current as of June 2010. 8

PAGE 9

ARL data reports for all libraries, so the legal information centerstatistics are included in the peer analysis. Appropriate due to collaborative purchasing and other resources sharing at ARL institutions. 9

PAGE 10

HANDOUT 1 10

PAGE 11

HANDOUT 1 11

PAGE 12

12

PAGE 13

13

PAGE 14

HANDOUT 2 To account for differences in scale at the peer institutions,we analyzed correlations between ARL data on library expenditures and NCES data on university factors that correlate with demand for library resources and services. The highest correlation was with total university budget, and itwas a very high correlation (R2= 0.8278). 14

PAGE 15

HANDOUT 3 University of Michigan Libraries are verywell funded, althoughthe total university budget is so high that the library budget is a lower percentage of the total university budget than the other peer institutions. With the exception of Michigan, the UF Libraries funding is the lowest percentage. 15

PAGE 16

16

PAGE 17

Conclusion based on peer analysis: UF Libraries are significantlyunderfunded compared to the libraries at these peer institutions. 17

PAGE 18

Initial Peer Analysisused 2008 data from ARL and NCES (the latest available at the time). 2009 NCES data is now available and the linear regression analysis shows the gap is widening, not closing 18

PAGE 19

19

PAGE 20

Ratio of spending on materials and personnel is consistent with our peer libraries. This does not mean that the budget amount is appropriate. The UF staffing is 68% of the average staffing for our peer libraries and the UF materials budget is 84% of the average for our peer libraries. 20

PAGE 21

Salaries and Benefits are currently 47%of the Total Library Budget. Median for the 8 Peer Institutions is 48%. To protect the Materials Budget, the Libraries have given up vacant positions in response to budget cuts. 21

PAGE 22

Thispie chart is in the Smathers Libraries 2013 1024 RCM Budget Review and was also included in the cover e mail message transmitting the budget review to the committee. 22

PAGE 23

HANDOUT 4 23

PAGE 24

HANDOUT 4 24

PAGE 25

HANDOUT 5 2011 2012 drop in carry forward includes $428,000 recall by the University. 25

PAGE 26

26

PAGE 27

27

PAGE 28

28