Presentation for Smathers Libraries FY2014-2015 RCM Budget Review

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

Material Information

Title:
Presentation for Smathers Libraries FY2014-2015 RCM Budget Review
Series Title:
Fiscal Year 2014-2015 RCM Budget Review: The George A. Smathers Libraries
Physical Description:
PowerPoint Presentation
Language:
English
Creator:
Russell, Judith C.
Keith, Brian W.
Publisher:
George A. Smathers Libraries, University of Florida
Place of Publication:
Gainesville, Florida
Publication Date:

Subjects

Temporal Coverage:
FY2014-2015 ( 2014 - 2015 )

Notes

Abstract:
This PowerPoint Presentation and the related handout were used to present the Fiscal Year 2014-2015 RCM Budget Review for the George A. Smathers Libraries to the RCM Budget Review Council on March 26, 2014.
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:
IR00003851:00001

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

RCM 2014 2015 Budget Review George A. Smathers Libraries UNIVERSITY DEMAND LIBRARY RESOURCES 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Total Faculty 132% 129% 129% 131% 131% Volumes Held 56% 53% 53% 52% 53% Total Students 138% 135% 132% 130% 131% Monographs Acquired (2011) 60% 33% 19% 26% Undergraduates 131% 126% 121% 120% 120% Librarians & Professional Staff 61% 57% 59% 54% 54% Graduate Students 156% 155% 157% 156% 158% Other Staff 78% 74% 82% 78% 81% PhD's Awarded 188% 179% 191% 185% 165% TOTAL Staff 71% 67% 72% 68% 69% $ for Materials 80% 76% 76% 84% 77% $ for Hardware/Software (2011) 28% 27% 36% 13% TOTAL Library Expenditures 66% 64% 61% 65% 64% LIBRARY RESOURCES COMPARED TO UF DEMAND INDICATORS (2012 data except where indicated) Per Faculty Per Student Per Undergraduate Per Graduate Student Per PhD Awarded UF AVG Ratio UF AVG Ratio UF AVG Ratio UF AVG Ratio UF AVG Ratio Volumes Held 869 2,274 1 : 2.6 96 236 1 : 2.5 146 344 1 : 2.4 279 828 1 : 3 2,444 7,620 1 : 3.1 Monographs Acquired (2011) 4.28 21.02 1 : 4.9 0.47 2.34 1 : 4.9 0.72 3.46 1 : 4.8 1.38 7.76 1 : 5.6 11.02 75.48 1 : 6.9 Librarians & Professional Staff 0.0162 0.0409 1 : 2.5 0.0018 0.0043 1 : 2.4 0.0027 0.0062 1 : 2.3 0.0052 0.0158 1 : 3 0.0455 0.1428 1 : 3.1 Other Staff 0.0326 0.0555 1 : 1.7 0.0036 0.0060 1 : 1.7 0.0055 0.0086 1 : 1.6 0.0104 0.0226 1 : 2.2 0.0916 0.2054 1 : 2.2 TOTAL Staff 0.0488 0.0964 1 : 2 0.0054 0.0103 1 : 1.9 0.0082 0.0149 1 : 1.8 0.0156 0.0384 1 : 2.5 0.1372 0.3482 1 : 2.5 $ for Materials $2,370 $4,214 1 : 1.8 $261 $447 1 : 1.7 $397 $646 1 : 1.6 $760 $1,656 1 : 2.2 $6,664 $15,140 1 : 2.3 $ for Hardware/Software (2011) $34.51 $337.32 1 : 9.8 $3.81 $39.10 1 : 10.3 $5.80 $57.68 1 : 10 $11.12 $134.15 1 : 12.1 $88.82 $1,239.06 1 : 14 TOTAL Library Expenditures $5,202 $11,288 1 : 2.2 $573 $1,201 1 : 2.1 $872 $1,737 1 : 2 $1,668 $4,405 1 : 2.6 $14,627 $40,115 1 : 2.8

PAGE 2

Group A Group B Group C UF Actual R = 0.8637 R = 0.6398 R = 0.445 R = 0.0258 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 WISCONSIN 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 Expenditures 2008 2012 Peer Average & UF Actual Total Library Expenditures v. Total University Expenditures 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 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