Fiscal Year 2014-2015 Budget Review: The George A. Smathers Libraries

http://uflib.ufl.edu ( Publisher's URL )
MISSING IMAGE

Material Information

Title:
Fiscal Year 2014-2015 Budget Review: The George A. Smathers Libraries
Physical Description:
Budget Proposal
Creator:
Russell, Judith
Botero, Cecilia
Bruxvoort, Diane
Keith, Brian W.
Publisher:
George A. Smathers Libraries, University of Florida
Place of Publication:
Gainesville, Florida
Publication Date:

Notes

Abstract:
This document supports the FY2014-2015 RCM budget for the George A. Smathers Libraries. It provides two scenarios for the 2014-2015 budget: flat funding and an increase that addresses critical needs and provides for reasonable growth, especially in the funding for library materials. It also describes the Libraries organization and services.
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:
IR00003674:00001

Full Text

PAGE 1

RCM 2014-2015 BUDGET REVIEWGeorge A. Smathers Libraries Judith C. RussellMarch 26, 20141

PAGE 2

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 3

2014-2015 Budget Scenarios • Flat Funding Scenario: $27,781,345 Library Materials: $8,676,807• “Optimal” Funding Scenario [Reasonable Growth & Prioritized Increases]: $31,214,786 Library Materials $10,618,6543

PAGE 4

AGENDA• Peer Analysis: UF Libraries funding compared to libraries at peer AAU universities • 2014-2015 Budget Scenarios – Flat Funding will result in the loss of critical content – “Optimal” Funding allows for reasonable growth and prioritized increases to restore collections and improve services – Truly Optimal Funding is established by the peer analysis4

PAGE 5

PEER ANALYSIS • Compared UF to Three Groups of AAU Public Universities– Group 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 Peers5

PAGE 6

PEER ANALYSIS • Group A Peer Universities– University of Virginia (#3) – University of Michigan (#4) – University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill (#5) – Pennsylvania State University (#8) – University of Wisconsin, Madison (#11) – University of Illinois, Urbana (#11) – University of Florida (#14)6

PAGE 7

7 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 02,000,000,0004,000,000,0006,000,000,000Library ExpendituresUniversity Expenditures2008 2012 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 = 0.445R = 0.0258

PAGE 8

PEER ANALYSIS • National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) data for 5 university characteristics that correlate with DEMAND for library resources & services • Association of Research Libraries (ARL) data for 8 characteristics that reflect library RESOURCES for materials and staff8

PAGE 9

9 UNIVERSITY Demand Average Excluding UF UF as % of Non UF AverageTotal Faculty4,206131% Total Students38,197131% Undergraduates27,346120% Graduate Students10,851158% PhD's Awarded1,187165%

PAGE 10

10 LIBRARY Resources Average Excluding UF UF as % of Non UF AverageVolumes Held8,962,39853% Monographs Acquired (2011)89,28026% Librarians & Professional Staff16454% Other Staff22281% TOTAL Staff38669% $ for Materials$16,924,62777% $ for Hardware/Software (2011)$1,422,41313% TOTAL Library Expenditures$44,945,33664%

PAGE 11

PEER ANALYSIS11 • UF is ABOVEaveragefor every university characteristic correlating with DEMAND for library resources and services • UF Libraries are BELOWaveragefor every library RESOURCE characteristic for resources and services

PAGE 12

PEER ANALYSIS • Correlations between NCES data on university characteristics and ARL data on library expenditures account for differences in scale at the peer institutions – The highest correlation for library expenditures was with total university budget (R2= 0.8637)• RCMbudget process allocates income from tuition and appropriations so the following slides focus on those sources of income12

PAGE 13

13 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 70,000,000 01,000,000,0002,000,000,000Library ExpendituresUniversity Income UF Actual Linear (2008) Linear (2009) Linear (2010) Linear (2011) Linear (2012)2008 2012 Total Library Expenditures v. University Tuition & Appropriations

PAGE 14

PEER ANALYSIS 14Application of Linear Regression Formulas to Estimate Appropriate Funding for UF Libraries UF Tuition & Appropriations UF Projected UF Actual Difference2008$855,300,000$43,231,307$28,573,302 ($14,658,005) 2009$849,955,000$43,249,625$28,147,202 ($15,102,423) 2010$797,569,000$42,536,788$27,242,279 ($15,294,509) 2011$855,234,000$43,650,863$29,537,452 ($14,113,411) 2012$848,376,000$42,701,203$28,581,160 ($14,120,043)

PAGE 15

15 5.02% 5.62% 4.73% 3.04% 6.35% 5.04% 4.97% 5.03% 3.37% 0.00% 1.00% 2.00% 3.00% 4.00% 5.00% 6.00% 7.00% 2012 Library Expenditures as a % of University Tuition & Appropriations

PAGE 16

PEER ANALYSIS • Average library expenditures as % of tuition & appropriation (Group A peers without UF): 4.97% • UF Library expenditures as % of tuition & appropriation : 3.37% That reflects the gap of $14 million between UF and its peers16

PAGE 17

17 2.08% 2.14% 1.90% 1.20% 2.02% 1.63% 1.83% 1.96% 1.53% 0.00% 0.50% 1.00% 1.50% 2.00% 2.50% 2012 Materials Expenditure as a % of University Tuition & Appropriations

PAGE 18

PEER ANALYSIS 18 PROPORTION OF LIBRARY EXPENDITURES MaterialsStaffingOperations Median for Peers38%49%12% Average for Peers38%49%13% UF43%44%12%

PAGE 19

19

PAGE 20

2014-2015 Budget Scenarios • Lastyear the Libraries asked for $1.6 million and received $275,000 (non-recurring) The resulting cuts are listed in Appendix 1• 2014-2015 Flat Funding Scenario: $27,781,345 Library Materials: $8,676,807 • “Optimal” Funding Scenario [Reasonable Growth & Prioritized Increases]: $31,214,786 Library Materials: $10,618,65420

PAGE 21

21

PAGE 22

PEER ANALYSIS • Escalating materials costs are not unique to UF, but UF has not responded with increased funding for materials • The average Total Library Expenditures for the peer institutions increased by $1,789,915 from 2008 to 2012 • The Total Library Expenditures for UF Libraries increased by $7,858 from 2008 to 201222

PAGE 23

2014-2015 Budget Scenarios • Flat Budget Scenario A flat budget is a budget cut because of the increase in the cost of materials Without a $1.1 million increase in the materials budget, the Libraries will be forced to cut the Springer and Sage electronic journal packages as well as other materials23

PAGE 24

2014-2015 Budget Scenarios • Optimal Budget Scenario A truly optimal budget should make significant progress toward parity with peer institutions as UF progresses toward preeminence Full parity requires an increase of $14 million In lieu of that, we submitted a scenario with 6 priorities for Reasonable Growth & Prioritized Increases24

PAGE 25

2014-2015 Budget Scenarios • Reasonable Growth & Prioritized Increases:1.Addition of $1.1 million to the recurring materials budget to avoid loss of core content listed in Appendix 2 2.Commitmentfor an additional 5% per year to cover price increases and sustain currently availableinformation resources ($434,000) This does not restore 2012-2013 cuts listed in Appendix 1 or prior year cuts25

PAGE 26

2014-2015 Budget Scenarios26 3.Commitment for at least 5% in FY2014 2015 and each of the next 5 years to begin to restore lost content and add new content ($434,000) 4.Respond to student interest in overnight hours for Marston Science Library (MSL) ($100,000) 5.Increased operating budget to maintain library facilities and furnishings ($750,000) 6.5 faculty and 4 staff to provide core services ($641,595)

PAGE 27

2014-2015 Budget Scenarios • “Optimal” Budget includes a total increase of $3.4 Million which would protect core content and allow acquisition of new content and provision of high-demand services Library Materials: $1.9 Million • This is still below the optimal library budget of $42.7 Million relative to peer institutions 27

PAGE 28

2014-2015 Budget Report • Fiscal Year2014 2015BudgetReview: The GeorgeA. SmathersLibraries Full Report: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/IR00003674/00001 Appendix 1. Title list for University Libraries Print Serials Cancellations: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/l/IR00003671/00001 Appendix 2. Springer and Sage Title Lists with Usage Data http://ufdc.ufl.edu/l/IR00003671/00001 28

PAGE 29

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 29



PAGE 1

Fiscal Year 2014 2015 Budget Review: The George A. Smathers Libraries February 2014

PAGE 2

FY2014 2015 Budget Review: The George A. Smathers Libraries Table of Contents Dean’s Message Page 1 Budget Scenarios Page 2 FY2014 2015 Budget Equal to Final FY2013 2014 Budget Page 2 FY2014 2015 Budget with Reasonable Growth and Prioritized Increases Page 4 FY2014 2015 Projected Annual Uses of Funds Statements: Smathers Libraries Page 6 Annual Review Page 9 Organization Chart Page 9 Library Services Page 10 Appendix 1. Title list for University Libraries Print Serials Cancellations Page 13 Appendix 2. Springer and Sage Title Lists with Usage Data Page 14

PAGE 3

FY2014 2015 Budget Review: The George A. Smathers Libraries Page 1 Dean’s Message The University has understood for many years that the George A. Smathers Libraries are underfunded for their mission to support the full range of teaching, learning, research and clinical practice at the University of Florida. Although this is true for the entire budget, it is especially problematic for the library materials budget, which is dramatically below an appropriate level because there has not been an adjustment for the annual increases in the costs for essential electronic journals, databases and other information resources for many years. At a time when the University is aggressively investing in preeminent faculty, seeking to grow its research funding, and establishing the new online academy, the Libraries are forced by flat or declining funding to continue to reduce the content it makes available to support the University’s mission and are unable to meet demands of students and faculty for new and improved services. For the past 5 years, the recession and the declining state appropriations, as well as the pressure to minimize increases in tuition and fees, have made it difficult for the University to address the situation. The transition into the Responsibility Center Management (RCM) budget model without first addressing the chronic underfunding of the Libraries has exacerbated the situation because there is no effective mechanism for the Libraries to address this. Last year, the Libraries’ RCM Budget Review documented that between 2008 2012 total library expenditures at our peer and aspirational peer institutions increased by an average of $1 million, while library expenditures at the University of Florida increased by less than $8,000. While the University is aspiring to improve its institutional rankings, the Libraries ranking is declining because of lack of funding. The Libraries are asking for an immediate increase of $1.94 million in the Libraries recurring materials budget to avoid further severe cuts in the content we offer to our users and restore some of the materials that have been lost in recent years. We are also asking for a commitment from the University for an annual adjustment in the materials budget to cover price increases so we do not continue to lose important content. Additionally, in order to contribute to the preeminence of the University and to adequately support the University mission of teaching, research and service, the Libraries need to add new, high demand information resources. This requires a minimum increase in the materials budget of 5% in each of the next five years. Much more is needed if the Libraries are to reach a level of funding for materials comparable to our peer and aspirational peer institutions. This year the colleges will see the costs for support of the Libraries presented differently in the RCM documentation. Rather than a single amount, each College will see its assessment for the Smathers Libraries in three separate categories: library materials, library operations (salaries and operating expenses) and University overhead charged to the libraries (administration, physical plant and campus information technology). Showing the materials budget as a separate line item on the RCM statements will help the Libraries and the Colleges focus on this important priority for investing University resources in direct support of our students, faculty, researchers and clinicians.

PAGE 4

FY2014 2015 Budget Review: The George A. Smathers Libraries Page 2 Budget Scenarios FY2014 2015 Budget Equal to Final FY2013 2014 Budget When proposing a flat FY2014 2015 budget based on the final FY2013 2014 budget, it is important to first consider the repercussions of the Libraries inadequate funding in previous fiscal years. As depicted in the following tables, and as projected in the previously submitted RCM Budget Reviews, inadequate funding for the Smathers Libraries, particularly in the materials budget, has resulted in continued damage to the information resources provided to the University of Florida community as the Libraries struggle to absorb the escalating cost of large electronic journal packages. Monograph acquisition in FY2013 2014 represented a 51% reduction from the level in the prior year. Monograph Purchases Number of titles acquired* Expenditures FY2012 2013 12,772 $830,207 FY2013 2014 6,266 $407,295 Total Decrease (6,506) ($422,912) % Decrease 50.9% Based on an average cost of $65.00 per monograph. Print journal subscription cancellations in FY2013 2014 represented a 38% reduction from the level of the prior year, resulting in a loss of nearly 3,900 titles. A complete list of the cancellations is available in Appendix 1. Print Journal Cancellations Number of subscriptions canceled Cost reduction University Libraries (2,011) ($527,538) Health Science Center Library (350) ($214,584) Total Decrease (3,893) ($742,122) % Decrease 37.7% As a result of the inadequate materials budget for FY2013 2014, a total of 3,893 print journals have been or will be cancelled, and 6,506 academic monograph titles will not be added to the collection. This reduction in content has been necessary to reallocate $1,165,034 in materials funding to electronic materials, including the increased funding necessary for cost increases that have occurred over time. Recurring inadequate materials budgets have resulted in an ongoing loss of content for use by the UF community. The 50% decrease in the monographs budget is a significant loss and only part of the story since monographs purchasing has been steadily declining. In the last ten years, the monograph budget for the University Libraries has been cut by 75% and monographs purchasing has been completely eliminated by the HSCL. While the purchase of less print is to be expected as content moves to digital access, it is important to understand that the Libraries purchase electronic books from the monographs

PAGE 5

FY2014 2015 Budget Review: The George A. Smathers Libraries Page 3 budget, so our ability to add these electronic resources has also been curtailed. The remaining budget for purchasing monographs supports all disciplines, so these reductions affect every college in the university and all of our collections. This affects our ability to sustain preeminent collections like the Latin American Collection. The severe cuts resulting from the inadequate materials budget for FY2013 2014 are just a precursor to what will be needed to balance the budget if the Libraries receive a flat budget in FY2014 2015. The Sources of Funds chart below reflects a flat budget for the Libraries with the million dollar FY2013 2014 cuts remaining in place. The Projected Expenditures chart delineates the funding needed to retain the content available in the current fiscal year for use by the students, faculty and staff of the University. The shortfall that will result from another flat materials budget is again over a million dollars, despite cuts that have been made in prior years. Sources of Funds University Libraries HSCL Smathers Total Appropriation $7,069,810 $1,606,997 $8,676,807 DSR $1,091,313 $300,300 $1,391,613 Total (flat) funding $8,161,123 $1,907,297 $10,068,420 Required expenditures to retain current content University Libraries HSCL Smathers Total Electronic resources $7,605,233 $2,330,142 $9,935,375 Print journals $518,843 $0 $518,843 Monographs $421,580 $0 $421,580 Fees/memberships* $243,239 $23,549 $266,788 $8,788,895 $2,353,691 $11,142,586 Shortfall $627,772 $446,394 $1,074,166 These are memberships that allow us to participate in consortial collections, such as the Center for Research Libraries. The Libraries have been good stewards of our limited resources as the materials budget has decreased or been flat: journal subscriptions have been dropped; monograph purchases have been limited to just in time, demand driven purchasing; duplicative print/electronic content has been eliminated; and non recurring funds such as salary savings have been applied to temporarily reduce the materials funding gap. We have forgone purchases of databases, journal archives, streaming video services, and research tools that are core to an academic library supporting a comprehensive research university with a large student population, substantial research portfolio, and significant and growing online programs. These decisions were made in order to retain as much core content as possible for our students and faculty. However, with a flat budget in FY2014 2015 the Libraries will not be able to protect core electronic content any longer. The majority of electronic journal titles are purchased through packaged bundles that provide an extraordinary amount of content for the price. This makes cutting content in a targeted manner difficult because buying individual titles is prohibitively expensive. In FY2013 2014, the Libraries declined to participate in the state wide multi year journal packages for Sage and Springer because of our concern that the materials budget shortfall would not be addressed in FY2014 2015. If we have a

PAGE 6

FY2014 2015 Budget Review: The George A. Smathers Libraries Page 4 flat materials budget in FY2014 2015, we will need to cancel one or more large journal packages in addition to making other cuts. To manage spending with a flat materials budget in FY2014 2015, we will be forced to cancel the subscriptions to two major cross disciplinary journal packages: Springer and Sage, and eliminate a number of electronic databases such as Emerald, Proquest Dissertations & Theses, MLA International, and BIOSIS. A complete list of the Springer and Sage electronic journals that our users will no longer be able to access as a result of this cancellation is available in Appendix 2. Usage for each of the journals is also included. We are not planning a further cut to the monographs budget since it is already below an acceptable level to support a comprehensive university. These are difficult decisions. The loss of access to these databases and journal titles will affect every faculty member on campus. They cut across all subject areas and are used hundreds of thousands of times over the course of a single year. We may find over time that there are titles so heavily used that we will need to license them individually, which is an expensive and inefficient way to acquire materials and will require even deeper cuts elsewhere. In order to fill the information needs of the campus, the libraries will need to increase our reliance on interlibrary loan services, which delays access for users and increases the costs to the Libraries. Access to these titles will be lost in January 2015 when the 2014 subscriptions, acquired with funds in the FY2013 2014 funding, expire. The Libraries have managed the collection as well as possible with the available resources, but we have exhausted all options. A flat budget in FY2014 2015 will result in severe cuts to electronic journal and database content. Monograph purchases, though spared from further cuts in the FY2014 2015 budget, have already been virtually eliminated. Our total materials budget is already below the level for FY2008 2009 in actual dollars, without calculating the loss of purchasing power due to price increases, so we are already delivering substantially less content. With these further reductions in content, our ability to meet the information needs of the University and appropriately support its teaching, research and clinical initiatives will be compromised. FY2014 2015 Budget with Reasonable Growth and Prioritized Increases Although the call for this RCM Budget Review requests an Optimal Budget the Libraries are presenting critical needs and a request for reasonable growth, recognizing that a truly optimal budget is not attainable in the short term. We will be presenting separately an updated peer analysis that creates benchmarks for an Optimal Budget First priority: Critical materials funding As described above, in order to avoid additional cuts in the available content, including selected databases and all Springer and Sage electronic journal titles, the Libraries need an infusion of $1.1 million into the recurring materials budget. Second priority: Sustained materials funding The Libraries need a commitment from the University for an annual adjustment in the materials budget to cover price increases so we do not continue to lose important content. An additional 5% per year would allow the Libraries to cover these costs and sustain the information resources currently available to our users. For FY2014 2015, this would be an increase of $434,000.

PAGE 7

FY2014 2015 Budget Review: The George A. Smathers Libraries Page 5 Third priority: Improved materials funding The Libraries need an additional increase of at least 5% in FY2014 2015 and each of the next 5 years to allow us to begin to restore content lost with years of decreasing or flat budgets and to add new content in support of students, faculty and researchers. These modest increases would allow incremental progress toward a materials budget more appropriate to support a comprehensive research university with a large student population, substantial research and growing online programs. For FY2014 2015, this would be an increase of $434,000. Fourth priority: Increased hours for Marston Science Library (MSL) As a result of the renovation of the ground floor of Marston Science Library, the Libraries have been asked to offer 24/5 access. The addition of this new student learning commons and the additional service hours is expected to increase use of MSL from approximately 1 million visits per year to an estimated 1.7 million visits. Accommodating this will require an addition of $100,000 to the recurring budget for staffing. Fifth priority: Operating budget The fifth priority in an optimal budget would be to end the Libraries' dependence on carryforward for core services in the operating budget. On average, the Libraries spend $750,000 each year in operational expenses such as maintaining public space and technology for students and other users. The current funding for operations is inadequate to maintain these spaces and the amount of upkeep services provided by UF Physical Plant has been historically inadequate and is now further reduced. While the Libraries attempt to mitigate the impact, the library users face inadequately maintained furnishings and facilities. In recent years, carryforward has also been allocated to cushion the impact of inadequate facilities and technology funding and minimize the reduction in the content available to students, faculty and researchers resulting from the flat or declining material budgets. The Libraries are generating less and less carryforward and can no longer absorb these operational expenses. Sixth priority: New positions to better serve the academic community The Libraries remain understaffed to provide core services. A variety of positions are needed to allow us to respond to specific requests for library services and to make incremental progress toward a level of support more appropriate to the University’s academic, research and clinical missions. The most critical of these requirements are represented by the positions proposed below. Proposed Recurring Expenses for Library Personnel: University Libraries HSCL Smathers Total $438,322 $203,273 $641,595

PAGE 8

FY2014 2015 Budget Review: The George A. Smathers Libraries Page 6 The application of these increases is represented in the table below: FTE Expense Faculty 5 $393,310* Staff 4 $248,285* Total: 9 $641,595* Includes benefits The proposed recurring positions are: Bio informatics Librarian supporting the scientific intersection of biology, computer science, and information technology (1 faculty); Clinical librarians at HSC Gainesville and Shands Jacksonville delivering information resources services directly to the point of care to facilitate effective decision making (2 faculty); Data Curation Librarian to identify, store, describe (curate), retrieve and re use data, comparable to the program at Johns Hopkins University Libraries Digital Research and Curation Center ( http://ldp.library.jhu.edu/dkc ), providing support for researchers in meeting federal mandates and enhancing curation and accessibility of their research product (1 faculty); IT staff to develop software applications to support data management and to increase the accessibility of library materials (2 staff); and Special and Area Studies Collections archivists to process and make available these unique and valuable collections (1 faculty and 2 staff). FY2014 2015 Projected Annual Uses of Funds Statements: Smathers Libraries As noted above, the Libraries are presenting critical needs and a request for reasonable growth, recognizing that a truly optimal budget is not attainable in the short term, but the term Optimal is used in the tables below to reflect the terminology in the call for the RCM Budget Review. A summary of the FY2014 2015 Budget Scenarios for the entire Smathers Libraries is provided in the table immediately below. Smathers Libraries Flat Optimal Faculty Salaries and Benefits $7,897,408 $8,290,718 TEAMS/USPS Salaries and Benefits $9,114,893 $9,463,177 Other Personnel Services $357,975 $357,975 Operating Expenses $1,734,262 $2,484,262 Library Resources $8,676,807 $10,618,654 Total Expense $27,781,345 $31,214,786 The official submission for the budget for the Smathers Libraries is reported to the University in three segments: University Libraries, Health Science Center Libraries and Administration. A summary of the 2014 2015 Budget Scenarios for each of these units, along with explanatory notes, is provided separately in the tables below.

PAGE 9

FY2014 2015 Budget Review: The George A. Smathers Libraries Page 7 FY2014 2015 Projected Annual Uses of Funds Statement: University Libraries University Libraries Flat Optimal Faculty Salaries and Benefits $5,186,622 $5,376,659 TEAMS/USPS Salaries and Benefits $5,980,036 $6,328,320 Other Personnel Services $296,722 $296,722 Operating Expenses $1,041,798 $1,791,798 Library Resources $7,069,810 $8,404,563 Total Expense $19,574,988 $22,198,062 The Optimal Scenario for the University Libraries includes funding for: Essential materials; Staffing to support 24/5 MSL hours (2 staff); Increased operating expenses; Data Curation Librarian (1 faculty); Information technology (2 staff); and Special and Area Studies Collections archivists (1 faculty and 2 staff) FY2014 2015 Projected Annual Uses of Funds Statement: Health Science Center Libraries HSCL Flat Optimal Faculty Salaries and Benefits $1,138,550 $1,341,823 TEAMS/USPS Salaries and Benefits $1,285,571 $1,285,571 Other Personnel Services $61,253 $61,253 Operating Expenses $123,864 $123,864 Library Resources $1,606,997 $2,214,091 Total Expense $4,216,235 $5,026,602 The Optimal Scenario for the Health Science Center Libraries includes: Essential materials; Bio informatics Librarian (1 faculty); and Clinical librarians at HSC Gainesville and Shands Jacksonville (2 faculty)

PAGE 10

FY2014 2015 Budget Review: The George A. Smathers Libraries Page 8 FY2014 2015 Projected Annual Uses of Funds Statement: Administration of the Libraries (Inclusive of Acquisitions and Interim Storage Facility) Administration of the Libraries Flat Optimal Faculty Salaries and Benefits $1,572,236 $1,572,236 TEAMS/USPS Salaries and Benefits $1,849,286 $1,849,286 Other Personnel Services Operating Expenses $568,600 $568,600 Library Resources Total Expense $3,990,122 $3,990,122

PAGE 11

FY2014 2015 Budget Review: The George A. Smathers Libraries Page 9 Annual Review Organization Chart

PAGE 12

FY2014 2015 Budget Review: The George A. Smathers Libraries Page 10 Library Services The George A. Smathers Libraries have two main components under RCM, the Health Science Center Libraries (HSCL) and the University Libraries (UL). Under RCM, the HSCL is funded through units of the Health Sciences Center. The University Libraries are funded through the University’s other academic and research units, with the exception of the Levin College of Law, which supports its own library, the Lawton Chiles Legal Information Center. The Legal Information Center is not part of the George A. Smathers Libraries and, therefore, is not included in this budget review. University Libraries The University Libraries are dedicated to supporting the University’s threefold mission of teaching, research, and service. The Libraries continue to adjust services and facilities to create supportive learning environments for students and to provide teaching and research support for faculty through: Offering technologically sophisticated learning and research commons on campus and hosting equivalent virtual environments for remote access; Conducting information literacy programs to enable students to recognize when information is needed and have the ability to locate, evaluate, and use it effectively, as well as providing other subject specific instruction; Integrating library materials and services into the course management system; Providing a wide range of scholarly resources in print and electronic formats to support the full range of research and academic programs of the University; Digitizing unique research materials and collaborating in digital scholarship; and Operating the institutional repository as a permanent portal to access the digital scholarly output of UF students and faculty. As library services are integrated into the information infrastructure of the University, the Libraries become a major partner in the institutional shift of resources to support collaborative interdisciplinary teaching and research. The Libraries continue their traditional role in knowledge management while expanding support for learners and scholars in a digital world. The Smathers Libraries provide a place for students to access information and to create projects and presentations for their coursework, updating technology as often as feasible to provide fast, reliable access. The library is a welcoming, comfortable, and functional meeting place. As books and journals become available electronically, space is reconfigured to serve learning through information commons with high end computing and production software, and through group and individual study spaces. Library staff and library designed interfaces provide personalized service through in house circulation and reference services as well as chat and e mail reference and electronic library guides. In Library West, graduate students have an entire floor designated for their exclusive use. The Libraries strong focus on customer service is flexible and changing as service desks are consolidated and staff is deployed to engage library users, either in person or virtually. Librarians teach students how to find reliable information and use it effectively. They are becoming increasingly integrated into the curricula by working with academic faculty in curriculum planning and teaching. The Libraries are working to achieve seamless integration of library resources and instruction

PAGE 13

FY2014 2015 Budget Review: The George A. Smathers Libraries Page 11 into the curriculum, shifting resources significantly toward digital material rather than print or analog, selecting information resources learners can trust and making the resources as mobile and portable as possible, including availability through handheld devices. The Smathers Libraries operate an institutional repository (IR@UF) as a portal for archiving and accessing digital scholarly and institutional information. Users can search across all materials in the repository simultaneously as well as submit their own documents to the repository. The Smathers Libraries are a key component of the open access movement on campus, and an important campus resource for fair use, intellectual property, privacy, confidentiality, intellectual freedom and information policy issues. These are roles the Libraries currently assume in support of scholarly research and publishing, but new roles are under active investigation: embedding library content, services and librarians within researchers' regular workflows, redefining reference services as research consultation, and engaging researchers in the identification of primary research data sets that merit long term preservation and access. In the midst of rapid and often unpredictable change, the Smathers Libraries remain a critical partner in the research enterprise by anticipating, understanding, and addressing the challenges and opportunities inherent in new research practices. The libraries at UF fill the role of the intellectual ombudsman as they bring disciplines together in a rapidly changing environment. By teaching information literacy, hosting digital content, and providing technology and research consultation, the Libraries offer learners and researchers venues to explore the breadth and depth of information and to create new knowledge. The Libraries provide mechanisms for engaging in intellectual content and instruction for developing information literacy skills. Libraries organize and preserve stored information and serve as the steward of the institutional record and culture. The library is the place where learning and research are unrestrained by disciplinary boundaries. The Health Science Center Libraries The mission of the Health Science Center (HSC) Libraries is to serve the information needs of the six colleges of Health Science Center as well as the affiliated hospitals, clinics and research centers. Like the University Libraries, the HSC Libraries assist the colleges in fulfilling their educational and research mission by obtaining high quality information resources in all formats, although the preferred format is digital when that is available and affordable; offering searching and information management expertise; and providing instruction to facilitate the acquisition of information literacy and lifelong learning skills. The HSC is charged with both clinical and community outreach missions, which the HSC Libraries actively support. The HSC Libraries employ liaison librarians to support the specific information needs of the six colleges. Liaison librarians are the “personal librarians” for the students, faculty, researchers, clinicians, staff and administrators of the HSC. These liaison librarians work with faculty to embed information literacy and access to high quality information resources into the curriculum. They also: Serve as members of college level curriculum committees; Teach classes and workshops on information related tools and resources; Provide house call information services to faculty, researcher and clinicians and in depth information consultations for library users, both in person and virtually;

PAGE 14

FY2014 2015 Budget Review: The George A. Smathers Libraries Page 12 Provide expert searching services; Offer specialized information services such as, bioinformatics, data management, and NIH Public Access instruction; Create online tutorials and subject guides for the various disciplines; Select and acquire materials for purchase or license by libraries to support the full range of disciplines and research of the HSC; and Plan new initiatives based on need. In addition to primary liaison services, the HSC Libraries offer other specialized services. The Clinical Research Librarian works closely with clinical and translational researchers, in particular, those involved in the University’s Clinical and Translational Science Institute (CTSI). She serves as a critical bridge between the clinical and research enterprise. The Consumer Health and Community Engagement Librarian delivers information to students and faculty, providing them with the skill sets required to identify and evaluate such information in order to share it with their patients. The Clinical Librarian at the Borland Library in Jacksonville provides information at the point of care.

PAGE 15

FY2014 2015 Budget Review: The George A. Smathers Libraries Page 13 Appendix 1. Title list for University Libraries Print Serials Cancellations Print journal subscription cancellations in FY2013 2014 represented a 38% reduction from the level of the prior year, resulting in a loss of nearly 3,900 titles. A complete list of the cancellations is available at http://ufdc.ufl.edu/l/IR00003671/00001

PAGE 16

FY2014 2015 Budget Review: The George A. Smathers Libraries Page 14 Appendix 2. Springer and Sage Title Lists with Usage Data To manage spending with a flat materials budget in FY2014 2015, we will be forced to cancel the subscriptions to two major cross disciplinary journal packages: Springer and Sage. A complete list of the Springer and Sage electronic journals that our users will no longer be able to access as a result of this cancellation is available at http://ufdc.ufl.edu/l/IR00003671/00001 Usage for each of the journals is also included. Many titles are highly used while some show little or no usage. These journals are licensed in packages for affordability. Licensing just the high use journals is usually more costly than acquiring the entire package from a publisher.