This item is only available as the following downloads:
The University of Florida (UF) is a major, public, comprehensive, land grant, research university UF is among the nation's most academically diverse public universities 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. In 2014, w ith the support of lawmakers and the UF Trustees, UF launched UF Rising a five year initiative to elevate the U niversity to among t A combined $ 9 50 million is aimed at hiring new midcareer and eminent professors add ing new endowed professorships, and to upgrad ing and add ing facilities The UF Libraries form the largest information resource system i n 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 are a member of the Association of Research Librari es (ARL) and other distinguished associations. The Associate Dean for Administrative Services and Faculty Affairs i s the most senior Human Resources, Financial, Facilities, and Grants Management professional for the Smathers Libraries, serving as represent ative to the larger University organization and as counsel to the management of the Libraries. The Associate Dean g athers, compiles, analyzes and interprets statistics and information related to library financial activities and leads the development of th e annual budget In 2011, UF adopted Responsibility Centered Management ( RCM ) for budgeting and financial management. Under RCM, became Responsibility C enters ( revenue generators ) and the L ibraries became one of the numerous Sup port Units ( non revenue generating units primarily providing services to Responsibility Centers ) The fundamental premise of RCM is to move decisions and resulting revenues and expenses to the Responsibility Centers. All revenues are allocated to Responsi bility Centers who must pay for the services provided to them and through the RCM Budget Review Committee (largely comprised of college budget officers appointed by their deans) make recommendations to the UF Administration about Support Center funding. RCM ideally permits decision making where ; however, any funding allocated to a Support Unit, like the L ibraries results in less discretionary funding for the Responsibility Center. RCM was implemented at UF at a time of severe budget reductions, including steep cuts in state appropriations the primary source of funding for the Libraries. The UF L ibraries entere d RCM chronically under funded and facing escalating materials costs. Since July 1, 2009, the Smathers Libraries have experienced $2.4 million in recurring funding cuts and $700,000 in one time cuts. M aterials costs have increased by an average of 5% per y ear and have resulted in a gap of $2.6 million from the level in FY 2008. [Table 1] In this environment, the L ibraries need to develop effective methods for communicating its budget circumstances and determining appropriate funding levels should be in ord The Smathers Libraries, led by the Associate Dean, have engaged in an ongoing analysis of how the resources of the L ibraries and the demands of UF compare to peer institutions using data from the 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 numer ous approaches. Findings: The scope of the population and programs at UF are significantly above average for peer institutions and reflect comparably higher demand. Incongruously the fiscal and human resources of the libraries are significantly below average. Said differently, there is a considerable and statistically significant gap between the scale of UF programs and populations, and the resources of the library system that is not explained simply by the size of the large institution, but r eflects a serious UF funding issue. At peer institutions, there is a strong, positive and consistent relationship between Library Expenditures and Total University Expenditures. This is not the case at UF. [Table 2] In fact, the average Total Library Expenditu res from the
peer institutions increased by $1.8 million from 2008 to 2012 while Total Library Expenditures for UF Libraries increased by only $7,858. In 2012, library expenditures as percentage of tuition and appropriation at peer universities averaged 4.97%. UF Library expenditures as percentage of tuition and appropriation were 3.37%, resulting in a gap of $14 million between UF and its peers. [Table 3] A similar gap exists when comparing library collection budgets at peer universities, where material s expenditures as a percentage of tuition and appropriation averaged 1.83%, compared to 1.53% at UF resulting in a gap of $2.5 million between UF and its peers. [Table 4] UF is above average for every university characteristic correlating with DEMAND for l ibrary resources and services [Table 5]. The UF Libraries are below average for every RESOURCE characteristic for library resources and services. [Table 6] The result of this imbalance between demand and resources is reflected in statistics for volumes he ld and other library resources available to UF faculty and students compared to those at peer universities. [Table 7] For the past several years, t he Libraries have focused the pleas for increased funding on materials funding, which is judged internally to be the most urgent problem and what is believed to be the most compelling case for the U niversity These pleas have been made repeatedly to senior administrators and deans and to the RCM Budget Committee in the annual funding reviews and requests. All parties acknowledge that the funding issues exist. M essage : Escalating materials costs are not unique to UF, but UF has not responded with increased funding for library materials. The Libraries have favored materials over staff and other operational expenditures. However, the losses of funding and escalating costs have reached an unsustainable level. FY2014 2015 RCM Budget Cycle: The Libraries reported that a flat budget equates to a budget cut because of the annual in crease in the cost of materials and w ithout 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 important materials. The Libraries requested p rioritized i ncreases totaling $1.986 millio n: 1. Addition of $1.1 million to the recurring materials budget to avoid loss of core content. 2. Commitment for an additional 5% per year to cover future price increases and to sustain currently available information resources ($434,000). This does not restore prior materials cut s 3. Commitment for at least 5% in additional funding in each of the next 6 years to begin to restore lost content and add new content to begin expanding to an appropriate collection ($434,000). As a significant gesture of suppo rt for sustained and improved library resources, the RCM Budget Committee recommended recurring funding increases for the Libraries of half of the $1.986 million requested despite the fact that this would result in reductions in their respective available funding The Committee asked that the UF Administration match this with funds from other sources. Despite this, the Committee recommendation was rejected and the recurring funding for the Libraries was budgeted as flat with a non recurring sto p gap increase of $1.1 million increase t o avoid the cut s to Springer and Sage journals The UF Administration has advised that there is a commitment to seek a longer term solution. Unfortunately, the current solution of non recurring funding does not address the long term funding problem and will extend the gap depicted in Table 1.
Top US Public Univ. Peers Top 25 Public Univ Peers UF Identified Peers 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
TABLE 5 TABLE 6
Per Faculty Per Undergraduate Per Graduate Student Per PhD Awarded UF AVG Ratio UF AVG Ratio UF AVG Ratio UF AVG Ratio Volumes Held 869 2,274 1 : 2.6 146 344 1 : 2.4 279 828 1 : 3 2,444 7,620 1 : 3.1 Mono graphs Acquired (2011) 4.28 21.02 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 and Professional Staff 0.0162 0.0409 1 : 2.5 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 0.0055 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 0.0082 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 $397 $646 1 : 1.6 $760 $1,656 1 : 2.2 $6,664 $15,140 1 : 2.3 $ for HW and S W (2011) $34.51 $337.32 1 : 9.8 $5.80 $57.68 1 : 10 $11.12 $134.15 1 : 12.1 $88.82 $1,239 1 : 14 Total Lib Expenditures $5,202 $11,288 1 : 2.2 $872 $1,737 1 : 2 $1,668 $4,405 1 : 2.6 $14,627 $40,115 1 : 2.8 LIBRARY RESOURCES COMPARED TO UF DEMAND INDICATORS (2012 data except where indicated) TABLE 7