<%BANNER%>
HIDE
 Cover
 Table of Contents
 Strategic value
 Organization
 Programs
 Benchmarks
 2011-2012 budget proposals
 Opportunities
 Barriers
 Appendix A: UF libraries program...
 Appendix B: Integration one year...
 Appendix C: UF research 2008: An...
 Appendix D: UF libraries grants...
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00103501/00001
 Material Information
Title: 2010 RCM Comprehensive Budget Review: The George A. Smathers Libraries
Physical Description: Mixed Material
Language: English
Creator: Russell, Judith C.
Keith, Brian W.
Botero, Cecilia
Bruxvoort, Diane
Huang, Sam
Schipper, Rachel
Publisher: UF Libraries
Place of Publication: Gainesville, FL
 Subjects
Subjects / Keywords: RCM
 Record Information
Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
System ID: UF00103501:00001


This item has the following downloads:

PDF ( PDF )


Table of Contents
    Cover
        Cover
    Table of Contents
        Page i
        Page ii
    Strategic value
        Page 1
        Page 2
        Page 3
    Organization
        Page 4
        Page 5
        Page 6
    Programs
        Page 7
        Page 8
        Page 9
        Page 10
        Page 11
        Page 12
        Page 13
        Page 14
        Page 15
        Page 16
        Page 17
        Page 18
        Page 19
        Page 20
        Page 21
        Page 22
        Page 23
        Page 24
        Page 25
        Page 26
        Page 27
        Page 28
        Page 29
        Page 30
        Page 31
    Benchmarks
        Page 32
        Page 33
        Page 34
        Page 35
        Page 36
        Page 37
        Page 38
        Page 39
        Page 40
        Page 41
        Page 42
        Page 43
        Page 44
        Page 45
        Page 46
        Page 47
        Page 48
        Page 49
        Page 50
        Page 51
        Page 52
        Page 53
        Page 54
        Page 55
        Page 56
        Page 57
        Page 58
        Page 59
        Page 60
        Page 61
        Page 62
    2011-2012 budget proposals
        Page 63
        Page 64
        Page 65
        Page 66
        Page 67
        Page 68
        Page 69
        Page 70
        Page 71
        Page 72
        Page 73
        Page 74
        Page 75
        Page 76
        Page 77
        Page 78
        Page 79
        Page 80
        Page 81
        Page 82
        Page 83
    Opportunities
        Page 84
        Page 85
        Page 86
        Page 87
        Page 88
        Page 89
    Barriers
        Page 90
        Page 91
        Page 92
    Appendix A: UF libraries program review: Highlights (May 2010)
        Page 93
        Page 94
        Page 95
    Appendix B: Integration one year later (July 1, 2010)
        Page 96
        Page 97
        Page 98
        Page 99
        Page 100
    Appendix C: UF research 2008: An extract from office of research annual report (2009)
        Page 101
        Page 102
    Appendix D: UF libraries grants activities report for FY 2010
        Page 103
        Page 104
        Page 105
        Page 106
        Page 107
        Page 108
        Page 109
Full Text



TUF George A. Smathers Libraries
UF1UNIVERSITY of FLORIDA










2010 RCM Comprehensive Budget Review:
The George A. Smathers Libraries


January 3, 2011










Table of Contents


Introduction ............. ................... .1............................
. Strategic V alue ................... ............................................... .......... ..............1
The H health Science Center Libraries ................................................ ..............3
2. Objectives ....................................................... ........ .4
3. Organization ................... ........................................................ ........ .4
4. Program s .............. ............ ............. ................................ 7
Technology and Support Services.................................................7
A acquisitions and L licensing ........................ ....... .......... .............................. 7
Preservation and Conservation.......................................... 8
Cataloging and Metadata...................................... ........................... ... ........8
Access Support..........................................9
Digital Services ......................................................... .......................9
Information Technology ......................................................... ........ ............10
Facilities and Security Department ...................................... ........................ ..............10
Scholarly Resources and Research Services ......................................................... ........10
Special and Area Studies Collections...................................... ....................... ...........10
Government Documents and Maps...................................... ...................... ..............15
Library West (The Humanities and Social Sciences Library) .............. ...... ...........15
Marston Science Library....................................... ........................... ... .........16
Departmental Libraries ......................................................... ................. 16
Administrative Support Units and Programs......................................................... .........17
Office of the Dean of University Libraries ................................................. .........17
Human and Financial Resources...................................... ......................................19
Development and Advancement ...................................... ......................... ..............19
Health Science Center Libraries .................................................. ........20
Library Advisory Groups ........................................ ........21
Advisory Group for Research Services and Scholarly Resources (AGRSSR) .....................21
Health Science Center Library Advisory Committee ....................... ..............21
Faculty Senate Support Groups ................................................... ........22
Academic Infrastructure Council ...................................... .......... ........22
University Libraries Committee ................... ................. .........22
Supplemental Data About Library Programs and Services ......... ............... .......... .22










A acquisition of Library M materials .................................................. .............. 27
5. Benchm arks ................... ............................................. ................ ........ 32
2010 Assessment of UF Libraries Compared to Peer Academic Institutions .......................32
Selection of Peers for Comparison.............................................................. .............32
D ata Sources ...................................................... ........ 33
R results of the D ata A analysis .....................................................................33
Conclusion ...................................................... ........ 44
2006 Assessment of UF Libraries Compared to Peer Academic Institutions .......................44
Institutional C om prisons ...................................................................................... .......45
D ata Sources for Com prisons .............................................. .............. 45
Discussion ................... ..................................................... ........ 50
Conclusions ................... ..................................................... ........ 54
The H health Science Center Library ...................................................... 56
Appendix 1: Comparative Library Regressions........................................57
Appendix 2: [The Health Science Center Library] ................................... .....61
6. 2011-2012 Budget Proposals ............ ....... ..... ..............63
FY 2012 Projected Annual Uses of Funds Statement......... .....................63
Smathers Libraries 2011-2012 Budget With 5% Less Funding ............................................65
Smathers Libraries 2011-2012 Budget W ith Flat Funding ...................................................71
Smathers Libraries 2011-2012 Budget With Increased Funding...........................................76
7. Opportunities............................... .............. 84
Currently Funded Opportunities ......................................... .................. ......... 84
O pp ortu cities to b e F u ended .............................................................................................. 86
Alternative Funding for the Libraries................................................ 89
8. Barriers ............................................................90
Facilities ............................................................................90
Technology ......................................................... ................. ........90
Materials ......................................................... .................. ........91
Staffing .............................................................................91
Appendix A: UF Libraries Program Review: Highlights (May 2010) ......................................93
Appendix B: Integration One Year Later (July 1, 2010).......................... ........96
Appendix C: UF Research 2009: An Extract from Office of Research Annual Report (2009).. 101
Appendix D: UF Libraries Grants Activities Report for FY 2010 ................... .........................103




Page ii






2010 RCM Comprehensive Budget Review:
The George A. Smathers Libraries



Introduction

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 review.


1. Strategic Value

More than any other campus enterprise, the 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. While the nature of libraries has changed in the current digital
environment, this core mission has not: The George A. Smathers 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 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;
Integration of library materials and services into the course management system;
Provision of a wide-range of scholarly resources in print and electronic formats
to support the full range of research and academic programs of the university;
Digitization of unique research materials; and
Operation of an 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 of the University of
Florida (UF) continue their traditional role in knowledge management while expanding
support for learners and scholars in a digital world.


Page 1






2010 RCM Comprehensive Budget Review:
The George A. Smathers Libraries


The Smathers Libraries provides 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 email 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 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 Libraries operate an institutional repository (IR@UF) as a portal for archiving and
accessing digital scholarly and institutional information. Users can search across all files
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


Page 2









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 lifetime
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;
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 received one of the President's
jump start positions and have successfully recruited and hired a Clinical Research
Librarian. This librarian works closely with clinical and translational researchers, in
particular, those involved in the university's Clinical and Translational Science Institute
(CTSI). The Clinical Research Librarian thus serves as a critical bridge between the
clinical and research enterprise. The HSC Libraries recently created another new
position, the Consumer Health and Community Engagement Librarian. This librarian
provides students and faculty with information related to consumer health, providing
them with the skill sets they required to identify and evaluate such information in order to
share it with their patients. The HSC Libraries plan to provide additional services to the
clinical enterprise through a dedicated Clinical Librarian for the Gainesville campus. This
librarian would fulfill critical clinical information needs at the point of care.


Page 3









2. Objectives


In fulfilling our mission, the Libraries objectives are:
Provide greater access to electronic collections while continuing to build and
improve access to collections in all formats to meet the increasingly
interdisciplinary research, clinical and teaching needs of the university;
Support the academic success and develop the information literacy of an
increasingly diverse student population;
Repurpose spaces for study and collaboration in library buildings allowing
students to work individually or in groups in an efficient, safe environment;
Expand technology and user services to enhance access to library resources for
both on campus and remote patrons;
Support graduate student and faculty research needs through digitization of
research materials, expanded liaison programs, and improved access to scholarly
publishing; and
Build a system of data curation to support faculty in fulfilling federal mandates
and enhancing curation and accessibility of their research product.

Additional objectives specific to the Health Science Center Libraries include:
Partner with the university's CTSI, program to accelerate the delivery of the
researchers' work to the clinician and then to the community, and if warranted,
back to the researcher;
Serve as the bridge that unites the clinical, research, education and outreach
missions of the university by providing high quality information resources,
offering searching and information management expertise, and distributing digital
information through avenues such as the Institutional Repository;
Support the clinical enterprise by providing specialized services, such as
assistance in the creation of systematic reviews, which are essential to evidence
based practice; and
Provide health literacy services in the community through the libraries' consumer
health and outreach.


3. Organization

The organization chart for the libraries, with faculty and staff FTE counts, is presented on
the following page. This structure was established by a library reorganization that took
effect on July 1, 2008. The tenure homes for library faculty were subsequently simplified
to correspond with this structure.

The 2008 reorganization created efficiencies and simplified the administrative structure,
reducing administrative staffing including assistant director and chair positions. Details
about the reorganization are available at
http://www.uflib.ufl.edu/committees/reorganization/default.html.


Page 4
































U)
W

nyu

SOcu




0




(D


Page 5









The staff of the libraries consists of more than 96 library faculty; 189 professional,
technical and clerical staff; 30 Other Personal Services (OPS) staff; and 213 student
assistants.

Librarians at the University of Florida are tenure accruing faculty. All have graduate
degrees in Library Science or Information Studies, and/or a graduate degree in a relevant
subject area. Some teach for-credit courses and they often provide instruction and
learning aids that are incorporated into courses. The library faculty serves the university
community in the following roles:
General and specialized reference experts;
Faculty and department liaisons and outreach coordinators;
Instructors as part of courses, workshops and/or personalized one-on-one
sessions;
Collection managers and curators;
Preservation, cataloging, acquisition and digitization experts;
Clinical research liaisons; and
Principle investigators and grant participants

All library faculty are evaluated on three criteria. These same criteria are used to assess
the eligibility for a promotion or the award of tenure. The three criteria are described
below:

First Criterion: Professional Responsibility and Working Relationships.
Distinction is achieved through sustained, high-quality contributions to librarianship (or
the faculty member's area of responsibility) that enhance library services, foster new
knowledge, support the university's mission, and provide leadership to the profession.
Among the considerations are mastery of job responsibilities; effectiveness at fulfilling
responsibilities; commitment of the university, libraries, and research librarianship; and
the development of good working relationships.

Second Criterion: Professional Development and Scholarship.
Distinction requires evidence of accomplishment in research. Documented activities
demonstrating that the faculty member's experience has led to a broad understanding of
the field, that he/she has mastered a part of it, and that there has been intellectual
development and contributions beyond those called for by routine daily assignments are
required. Accomplishment is reflected in scholarly achievement (presentation, or
publication) and obtainment of grants and other funding.

Third Criterion: Service to the Library, University, State, and Profession.
Distinction requires a strong service record to the library, the university and the
profession. Examples would include leadership and significant service through
participation and contributions to library-wide committees or task forces; providing major
constructive suggestions and criticisms of a library-wide nature that have resulted in
improvements in library operations; service on university-wide committees, college or
academic departmental programs and endeavors, task forces, senates, or research teams;
planning of university programs and initiatives; teaching a relevant credit course or


Page 6









components of such a course; participation on SUL-wide committees and task forces, or
research teams; planning SUL-wide university programs; substantial contribution to the
work of a relevant professional organization (e.g. holding major elected or appointed
office, planning programs, serving on committees, task forces, or panels); and providing
successful formal consultations, workshops, or presentations outside the university.


4. Programs

The George A. Smathers Libraries are organized into four major divisions. The major
programs and services delivered by these units were summarized in the Provost's
Program Review submitted in May 2010. Appendix A provides highlights from the
annual program review. An important element of the program review was the
identification of alternative revenue streams to increase funding for the Libraries; these
alternatives are described in Section 7 below.

From left to right on the organization chart provided above, the divisions are Technology
and Support Services; Scholarly Resources and Research Services; Administrative
Support Units and Programs; and the Health Science Center Libraries. The
responsibilities of each unit are described below.

Technology and Support Services

The Technology and Support Services division consists of the following functional units:
Acquisitions and Licensing, Cataloging and Metadata, Preservation and Conservation,
Access Support (Interlibrary Loan, Electronic Reserves and Copyright services), Digital
Services, Information Technology, and Facilities. The mission of the Technology and
Support Services division is to enable the libraries' technobhoodbhlogy infrastructure to
work in support of the information needs of the University of Florida community and to
provide vital infrastructure services to all library units, thus ensuring that the Smathers
Libraries serve as a catalyst for research and discovery.

The Technology and Support Services division is the result of the 2009 merger of two
previous library divisions: Technical Services and Support Services.

Acquisitions and Licensing
The primary mission of the Acquisitions Department is to efficiently acquire research
materials in a variety of formats that support the academic and professional programs of
the University of Florida. Acquisitions is responsible for managing license agreements;
developing new software programs and macros to enhance technical services workflows;
tracking usage statistics; doing reclassification and shared copy cataloging of serials,
standing orders and series; overseeing a domestic virtual approval plan; monitoring large
materials budgets and paying invoices using EDI file transfer; receiving gift monographs;
managing a large academic Exchange Program, among other activities. The department
continues to expanded its support for the patron driven selection program for acquisition
of print and electronic books, which ensures that the limited resources for monographs
are directed to meet specific user needs.


Page 7









Preservation and Conservation
The Preservation and Conservation Unit is responsible for the maintenance and repair of
both analog and digital archival and library materials, keeping them maintained for use
through commercial library binding and a full service conservation lab. The unit is
responsible for over 20,000 reels of print master microfilm reels housed in
environmentally correct storage and fulfills request for sales and interlibrary loan of these
items. The department plays a large support role in disaster recovery and environmental
control for the collections.

The Conservation Unit is responsible for the physical condition of the collections.
Services include repair and restoration, rebinding, deacidification, encapsulation,
construction of protective enclosures, and environmental monitoring. The unit also serves
as a resource for the University and the general public for questions relating to the
conservation of books, paper, and photographic materials.

The Preservation Department is responsible for many activities, including processing
theses and dissertations. Since the fall of 2001, the University of Florida has required
electronic theses and dissertations (ETD). The unit is responsible for ETD submissions,
tracking access parameters and answering student inquiries. In 2008, the unit undertook a
retrospective dissertation scanning project to gather author permission to digitize theses
and dissertations previously submitted to the libraries in print. Over 1,600 dissertations
were scanned and made available on the Internet during 2009-2010. To date, 6,404
authors have been contacted and 3,603 permissions given, for a return rate of 56%. This
project was expanded to Health Science Center titles in 2010.

Cataloging and Metadata
The Cataloging and Metadata Department supports the academic programs of the
university by organizing, describing, and providing physical processing for the books,
journals, electronic resources, sound and video recordings, microforms, maps, and other
material purchased or received by the library system. The department catalogs
approximately 25,000 titles per year in compliance with national standards of
bibliographic control and in keeping with established cataloging priorities. In addition,
the department oversees the loading of e-resource and microform packages resulting in
the addition of thousands of records to the library catalog each year. Original record
contributions to OCLC, an international bibliographic database, number 5,000 annually.
The department participates in international cooperative cataloging programs including
CONSER, BIBCO, NACO, SACO, and AGRICOLA.

The department is currently engaged in an extensive multi-year initiative to catalog over
300,000 federal documents in storage in preparation for their move into the SUS Shared
Collection. As of November 2010, 78,604 records have been added to the catalog since
the inception of the project in January 2009, making this previously hidden collection of
materials visible to patrons. Two other substantially completed projects improve the
accuracy and extent of UF data in the WorldCat database including the uploading of
95,000 local serial holdings to OCLC and reviewing 3,500 records. A process to establish
the routine update of files for Smathers, Health, and Law holdings is underway, pending


Page 8









OCLC's review and ingest of the file sent in spring 2010. The Department collaborated
with the Florida Center for Library Automation on an OCLC Reclamation Project
involving four million records. A review of 350,000 of those records is ongoing.

Access Support
The Access Support Unit provides leadership in the development, coordination and
provision of services that facilitate user access to information resources. Access Support
serves as the central point for distribution and clarification of policies and procedures for
user access services. The unit supports scholarly research within the academic
community through interlibrary loans, which include lending scholarly resources to other
libraries, borrowing scholarly resources for UF patrons from other libraries, and
supporting distance learners research needs through document delivery services; and
Course Reserves, which include making available for student study, print and electronic
resources selected by faculty for specific course work. Access Support personnel instruct
students, faculty, and staff in copyright compliance and obtain copyright permissions for
course reserve and interlibrary loan materials.

Digital Services
The Digital Library Center (DLC) is among the largest capacity digitization facilities in
the southeastern United States, managing over 6.2 million pages of digital content. The
DLC develops, manages, and publishes digital content from curatorial collections, in
support of academic programs, organizes conversion and ingest capabilities, facilitates
awareness and coordinates instruction in scholarly use and development of digital
technologies and their application to collection and publishing services.

The University of Florida Digital Collection (UFDC) is the set of digital collections
hosted by UF, including the Digital Library of the Caribbean and the Caribbean
Newspaper Digital Library, both of which are international collaborative, as well as the
state-wide Florida Digital Newspaper Library. With rare children's literature books,
unique manuscripts and letters, antique maps, museum objects, herbarium specimens,
photographs, oral histories, architectural drawings, recordings of speeches and songs,
videos of performances, and more, the UFDC offers many resources for research and
discovery from anywhere in the world. Over two hundred versions of Robinson Crusoe;
over a million pages of Florida and Caribbean newspapers; and, over 6,000 photographs
from the University of Florida Archives are significant in that they are co-located, have a
browse capability, and are cross-referenced and searchable sets. The UFDC adds more
than 1 million pages a year, which are accessible via the libraries' web site.

From July 1, 2009 to June 30, 2010, the DLC digitized 1,305,743 pages. There were
14,249 self and partner-submitted pages for the Institutional Repository and the Digital
Library of the Caribbean; 60,752 pages digitized externally via Internet Archive; 55,573
pages "born digital" and brought into the collection from a variety of sources; and
1,175,169 pages digitized onsite.


Page 9









Information Technology
The Information Technology Department serves as the focal point for planning,
managing and coordinating computer-based information resources that support library
operations. The department consists of units dedicated to Software Development, Web
Design, Server and Network Management, and Hardware Support. Working with
librarians and subject specialists, Information Technology Department employees have
created prototypical solutions to enable Federal Depositories to access exchange lists,
have implemented a system to remotely image the more than 400 public workstations
within the libraries and support access to the more than 3.8M virtual visitors a year to the
Smathers Libraries web site.

Additionally, Information Technology personnel serve on state-wide advisory
committees and work with the Florida Center for Library Automation (FCLA), Northeast
Florida Library Network (NEFLIN) and others to insure access and connectivity.

Facilities and Security Department
The Library Facilities and Security Department is responsible for all facility planning,
construction, maintenance, security, signage, accountable property, office supply
distribution, and a system-wide mail and courier service for the Smathers Libraries. This
includes over 568,977 square feet of building space. Recent renovations have occurred in
several of the branch libraries, including substantial renovations in the Marston Science
Library. There are plans to expand the number of facilities with the renovation of Newell
Hall as a student learning commons and the construction and renovation of a high density
storage facility located within four miles of main campus to house an SUS Shared
Collection that over time will include over 4.5 million items. Renovation of the Health
Science Center Library and the Smathers Library (Library East) are also planned.


Scholarly Resources and Research Services

The Scholarly Resources and Research Services division oversees the university libraries'
collections and public services. The division is organized into five departments: Special
and Area Studies Collections, Government Documents and Maps, Library West (the
Humanities and Social Sciences Library), Marston Science Library, and Departmental
Branches (Architecture and Fine Arts, Education, Journalism, and Music libraries). The
mission of the Scholarly Resources and Research Services division is to serve the
academic community through access to and services around the Libraries' research
collections.

The Scholarly Resources and Research Services division is the result of the 2008
reorganization, merging two previous library divisions: Public Services and Collection
Management.

Special and Area Studies Collections
The Special and Area Studies Collections (SASC) department encompasses two units:
Special Collections (rare books, archives, and manuscript collections) and Area Studies


Page 10









(interdisciplinary collections pertaining to geographical, national or cultural regions).
These collections directly support a variety of academic disciplines and research
programs. As a public institution, access is afforded to researcher, students and
unaffiliated patrons in ways that is not usually permitted in private collections, making
these materials especially valuable to scholarship. For example, the Suzy Covey Comic
Book Collection directly supports the Comic Studies Program offered by the Department
of English, but its holdings are open to all having an interest in the field.

The Special Collections unit of SASC includes the Baldwin Library of Historical
Children's Literature, the P.K. Yonge Library of Florida History, the General Manuscript
Collection, the Harold and Mary Jean Hanson Rare Book Collection, the University
Archives, the Architecture Archives, and the Popular Culture Collections (including the
Belknap Collection for the Performing Arts and the Suzy Covey Comic Book
Collection).

Baldwin Library of Historical Children's Literature
The Baldwin Library contains more than 93,000 volumes published in Great
Britain and the United States from the early 1700s through the present. Its
holdings of more than 800 early American imprints is the second largest such
collection in the U.S. Begun by Ruth Baldwin, this assemblage of literature,
printed primarily for children, offers many topics for research: education and
upbringing, family and gender roles, civic values, racial, religious, and moral
attitudes, literary style and format, and the arts of illustrations and book design. A
great strength of the collection is the many English and American editions of the
same work, e.g. 300 editions of Robinson Crusoe. The importance of the
collection was recognized in 2008 with the placement of the third UF Historical
Marker.


P.K. Yonge Library of Florida History
The P.K. Yonge Library is the state's preeminent Floridiana collection and
includes a diverse array of primary sources. It has collected the largest North
American collection of Spanish colonial documents concerning the southeastern
United States, particularly materials on Florida from early Spanish exploration
through 1821. In addition, it is the single most comprehensive repository for early
and current Florida newspapers. The P.K. Yonge Library has always had a close
association with scholars working in prehistory, ethnohistory, and archaeology.
The holdings of colonial materials contain many essential sources of information
on indigenous life in Florida, and the library has specialized for a number of years
in collecting materials on the Seminoles and on the 19th Century Seminole Wars.
The library is the most important repository for political papers related to Florida
outside of the State Archives. It is also a major repository for books, maps,
reports, explorer's notes and other manuscript material on Florida's environment,
the Everglades, the Cross-Florida Barge Canal, conservation efforts, geology,
wildlife, fisheries, river surveys, and forestry.


Page 11









* General Manuscripts Collection
The General Manuscripts Collection consists of more than one thousand
manuscript groups and individual manuscripts, filling more than a mile of
shelving and covering a wide array of subject interests. These include General
Manuscripts, along with manuscripts in the specialized area of Florida History
and University Archives. General Manuscripts are a diverse collection of over one
hundred groups. Literary papers, creative writing, and papers related to literature
comprise the majority of the General Manuscripts collection. A second major
emphasis is the Caribbean and Latin America. The Braga Brothers Collection, for
example, is an archive of the Cuban sugar industry, believed to surpass any found
outside Cuba. Africa and the study of its peoples and lands is a subject area of
increasing emphasis for General Manuscripts. Other major areas of focus include
social activism, the human sciences including anthropology and psychology,
natural science and environmentalism, broadcasting, drama, and the arts.

* Harold and Mary Jean Hanson Rare Book Collection
The Harold and Mary Jean Hanson Rare Book Collection is one of the finest in
the nation. It is an invaluable resource for primary printed materials and is utilized
by students, faculty, researchers at the university and other research centers
throughout the country and abroad. The books range in date from the 15th
Century through the contemporary era. Subject strengths include New England
authors (Parkman Dexter Howe Collection of literature and related
cultural/historical topics for the 17th-19th Centuries); classical literature in early
printed editions; Restoration literature; 18th Century poetry, prose and drama;
Irish literature of the 19th and 20th Centuries; and select 20th Century British and
American poetry and fiction. The history of science collection provides
researchers with access to an important selection of works dealing with botany
and agriculture from the 16th Century onward as well as the scientific revolution
in 17th-Century Europe and biological studies from 19th-Century Germany. Book
arts and the history of the book include special bindings, fine presses, book
illustration, proofs and engraved wood blocks by Eric Gill and John Buckland
Wright, and fore-edge paintings. Other subject areas materially represented in the
collections include social and military history, theology, travel, and landscape
architecture. In addition to traditional rare books, the department also is fortunate
to hold several special print collections.

* University Archives
The University of Florida Archives is the official custodian of the university's
historical significant public records including the administrative files of past
presidents. In addition to public records, the Archives collects the papers and
records of individuals and organizations associated with the university in both
print and electronic formats. The Archives also maintains files of yearbooks,
newspapers, official publications, photographs, artifacts, and record copies of
theses and dissertations produced at the University.


Page 12









The Office of Archives and Records Management is a new unit, which integrates
the University of Florida Archives, established in 1951; the Office of Records
Management which was created in 1986 as a unit of the Office of Academic
Affairs; and the Health Science Center Archives which was established in 2003 in
the Office of the Vice President of Health Affairs. This integrated University
Archives allows for the efficient transfer of historical records from individual
offices, improving the university's records-keeping and providing documentation
on the institution's significant policy decisions and important milestones. The
Archives serves an important role in the university's public and community
relations campaigns, and provides generations of alumni a shared sense of
community and history.

* Architecture Archives
As a partnership between the Smathers Libraries and the School of Architecture
since 2004, the Architecture Archives has become a leading repository for
historical records pertaining to the architects and architecture of Florida.
Activities to date have focused on a handful of important collections, including
the archives of Alfred Browning Parker, Kenneth Treister, Rufus Nims, Darrell
Fleeger, and the Carrere and Hastings firm. The collections support scholarly
research, historic preservation, and the education of future students.

* Popular Culture Collections
The Popular Culture Collections consist of the Belknap Collection for the
Performing Arts, the Suzy Covey Comic Book Collection, and the Jim Liversidge
Collection. The Belknap Collection was donated in 1953 by Sara Yancey
Belknap, a New York librarian and an avid patron of the arts. Since then the
collection has grown by acquisition as well as through donations from artists,
libraries, and interested individuals. Nearly 85% of the holdings are ephemera
from 19th and 20th Century America and Europe. The archives include more than
60,000 playbills, programs, posters, photographs, costume and stage designs,
clippings, newsletters, theatrical scrapbooks, sheet music, recordings, prints,
scripts, and advertising circulars. The collection also contains reference works,
rare and large pictorial volumes, and performing arts periodicals. The Suzy Covey
Comic Book Collection is still growing, and is useful for those interested in the
history and development of sequential art formats, particularly in the United
States. It includes original and reprint comic books, strips, caricatures and related
items. The collection holds items from every recognized "Age" of comics as well
as every genre, including daily humor strips and political satire as well as
superhero, funny animal, and underground comics. The Jim Liversidge Collection
includes memorabilia and artifacts covering politics, television, theatre, film,
music, sports and day-to-day current events of the past 50 years. The collection is
comprised of almost seven thousand items, including scrapbooks, photos,
programs, posters, campaign buttons, sheet music, news clippings, audiovisual
recordings, artifacts and over 400 book titles.


Page 13









The Area Studies unit of SASC includes the Latin American Collection, the African
Studies Collection, the Isser and Rae Price Library of Judaica, and the Asian Studies
Collection. The holdings are significant in terms of quantity and quality. The collections
support the university's academic programs and scholars worldwide.

Latin American Collection
The Latin American Collection supports the Center for Latin American Studies
and other academic programs. It is among the largest and most distinguished
collections of Latin American materials in the U.S. and has been described as the
finest collection of Caribbeana in the world. Because of Florida's cultural past, the
University of Florida has a long tradition of Latin American studies, dating back
to the establishment of the university's Inter-American Institute in 1930. In 1951,
the libraries accepted national responsibility for collection Caribbean and West
Indian material, aided by federal and private support. Librarians in the 1950s and
1960s traveled extensively acquiring and microfilming newspapers, official
gazettes and rare books from many national archives. There is also deep coverage
of Brazil, Mexico, Central America, Andean nations and the Southern Cone.

African Studies Collection
The African Studies Collection supports the UF Center for African Studies. It is
recognized as a unique resource within the UF Libraries, and ranks among the
best such collections in the U.S. The collection numbers upwards of 130,000
volumes and over 500 journal titles published in many languages that are located
throughout the campus libraries. Books and periodicals, audio and video
recordings, newspapers, microfilm, rare books, manuscripts, maps and atlases,
computer data files, government documents and a variety of other formats support
research and teaching. The collection facilitates inter-disciplinary and applied
approaches to the study of the continent with current scholarship and materials of
historical interest in a vast array of academic and professional fields.

Isser and Rae Price Library of Judaica
The Price Library of Judaica was formally dedicated in March 1981 to support the
teaching and research missions of the Center for Jewish Studies at the University
of Florida. The library is named for Isser and Rae Price, whose sons, Jack and
Samuel Price, established a fund in support of the library. The Library's core
collection is the Rabbi Leonard C. Mishkin Library, which at the time of
purchase, was the largest private library of Judaica and Hebraica in the U.S. The
Mishkin collection was supplemented by two major acquisitions the Shlomo
Marenof Library and the inventory of Bernard Morgenstern's bookstore in New
York City. The library has built upon these acquisitions and is taking its place
alongside the well-respected and mature Judaica collections on other American
campuses. With few exceptions, the Price Library holds most of the important
scholarly landmark literature and classic texts in Jewish studies. It has become a
collection without peer in the southeastern United States.


Page 14









Asian Studies Collection
The Asian Studies Collection supports the Asian Studies Program at the
University of Florida, which includes East and South Asian history; East, South
and Southeast Asian languages and literatures; East, Southeast, South and Central
Asian religions; and Asian-related areas within other humanities and social
science fields. The Asian Studies Collection serves the research and curricula
needs of the Asian Studies faculty, the Asian-related M.A. and Ph.D. students in
the separate disciplines, and undergraduates working in various aspects and stages
of Asian Studies.

Government Documents and Maps
The Government Documents department at the University of Florida is the Regional
Federal Depository Library for the State of Florida and the Caribbean serving over forty
selective Federal Depository Libraries in Florida, Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin
Islands. As the Regional Depository, the department is required by law to receive and
retain forever all publications published by the federal government and distributed by the
U.S. Government Printing Office via the Federal Depository Program. The Federal
Documents collection has close to two million documents in paper, microfiche, and
microprint formats. The department is also one of two depositories in Florida for
European Union documents and is a depository for publications of the state of Florida.
The department also houses a unique collection of planning documents published by
counties and cities in Florida.

Located within the Government Documents department, the Map & Imagery Library has
over 500,000 maps and 200,000 aerial photos and satellite images. This library also
provides Geographic Information Services (GIS) and spatial data and the computer
workstations and software to support patron use of GIS. The Map & Imagery Library is
in continual collaboration with the libraries Digital Library Center to digitize as much of
the collection as possible in order to provide patron access anywhere at any time.
Extensive aerial photography coverage of Florida, from the 1930s to the present, is a top
requested resource and invaluable to consultants and researchers. The Map & Imagery
Library is among the top five academic map libraries in the United States. It has general
map coverage, topographic and thematic, world-wide. Maps ranging from the 15th
century to present day are an asset to historians as well as the general public. Specialties
of the collection include Florida, Latin America, the United States, Africa, and the Holy
Land.

Library West (The Humanities and Social Sciences Library)
Library West is the largest branch in the George A. Smathers Libraries with a capacity
for 1.7 million print volumes and current holdings of over 1.1 million print volumes and
2.2 million volumes overall. It is the home of the Humanities and Social Sciences
collections, including business, as well as 80,000 volumes from the Price Library of
Judaica and an important collection of microforms with an emphasis on historical Florida
newspapers. The collections support over 128 academic programs at both the
undergraduate, graduate, and research levels. Renovated in 2006, the Library West
building includes seating for 1,400 and a large Information Commons comprised of over


Page 15









140 public computer workstations. Two ADA/Media rooms outfitted with 42-inch
monitors and assistive equipment and media production software, as well as another 18
high performance workstations in the open computer area, are available for users with
disabilities and for students engaged in media presentations or projects. A number of
well-attended special educational events are held throughout the year in the commons
area, establishing Library West as a hub of activity on campus in addition to its role as
the primary destination for assistance and research materials in the humanities and social
sciences.

Marston Science Library
Named for Robert Q. Marston, the seventh president of the University of Florida (1974-
1984), the Marston Science Library (MSL) contains over 500,000 books and 5,000
journals and provides access to 160 online databases covering the agricultural, physical
and life sciences, as well as engineering and computer science. The library was built in
1987 to consolidate several discipline specific science libraries, the oldest of which was
the agricultural library established in 1905. The collections support over sixty academic
programs at both the undergraduate, graduate, and research levels. MSL also cooperates
in developing history of science collections in Special Collections as well as science
collections in Government Documents, the Map and Imagery collection, the Health
Science Center collection, and the Digital Library Center online collections. MSL
librarians have been instrumental in digitizing IFAS agricultural publications, Florida
Geological Survey publications, the Florida Museum of Natural History Bulletin and
other specialized science collections. As online access to journals and reference materials
has expanded, freeing space in the building, MSL has created additional group study
space for students, including five new study rooms, improved meeting rooms, and the
introduction of large screen monitors for group use.

Departmental Libraries
The Departmental Libraries are Architecture and Fine Arts, Education, Journalism and
Communications Library, and Music. These units are physically housed in the
corresponding colleges and are effectively integrated into their academic programs and
activities.

Architecture and Fine Arts Library
Located in Fine Arts Building A, the collections of AFA Library primarily
support academic programs associated with the School of Architecture,
departments of Interior Design, Landscape Architecture, and Urban and Regional
Planning, the School of Art and Art History, and the M.E. Rinker School of
Building Construction. In addition to bound volumes, the library houses over
1,400 architectural drawings and photographs; 20,000 microform units; and 6,000
art post cards. The library also houses over 1,000 historic preservation documents
created by the UF School of Architecture and several hundred student projects
each from landscape and construction disciplines. AFA's specialized video
collection consists of over 1,500 cataloged titles plus about 500 uncataloged tapes
of visiting speakers or class lectures. AFA's periodical collection includes about
2,700 titles with approximately 250 current subscriptions.


Page 16










Education Library
The Education Library is located Norman Hall. Its collection supports 26
academic degree programs in the College of Education. Significant materials in
the Education Library include the Children's Book Collection, the K-12 Textbook
Collection, the ERIC Documents Microfiche and several other microfiche and a
video collection. The collection consists of more than 145,000 monographic
volumes, approximately 600 journal subscriptions, both print and electronic, and
more than 585,000 microfiche.

Allen H. Neuharth Journalism and Communications Library
The Allen H. Neuharth Library is located within the College of Journalism and
Communications in Weimer Hall. It serves the students, faculty, and staff in the
College by supporting the instructional and research programs of the college,
including the Departments of Advertising, Journalism, Public Relations, and
Telecommunication. Due to space limitations, older titles in the circulating
collection of books are housed in Library West or remote storage, while newer
titles and all of the core reference and research materials supporting the fields of
journalism and mass communications are available on-site.

Music Library
The Music Library is located in the Music Building. It supports the research needs
of the School of Music's faculty, students and staff, as well as those in other areas.
The School of Music has been in existence as an administrative unit since 1948.
At that time, materials, particularly scores and recordings, to support music
courses were purchased by and housed in the department. The Music Reading
Room began primarily as a listening facility, staffed by a music faculty member
and an employee of the Office of Instructional Resources. Comparatively few
books on music were purchased as part of the general library collection. The
Music Reading Room became part of the UF Libraries in 1972 and has progressed
from a reading room used primarily as a listening facility to a research branch
library. The collection now contains music monographs and periodicals, scores,
sound recordings (compact discs, 331/3 rpm records, and cassettes), video
recordings (VHS, DVD, laser discs).


Administrative Support Units and Programs

The administrative support units and programs include the office of the Dean of
University Libraries, as well as the offices of the Assistant Dean for Human and
Financial Resources and the Associate Dean for Development and Advancement.

Office of the Dean of University Libraries
In addition to administrative support, the office of the Dean includes the SUS Shared
Collection and the Auxiliary Library Facility (ALF); the Academic and Scholarly
Outreach unit; the Kuali OLE project, and the Emerging Technology Librarian.


Page 17









* SUS Shared Collection and the Auxiliary Library Facility (ALF)
In October of 2007, the Board of Governors of the Florida State University
System (SUS) approved a request to build a high density storage facility at the
University of Florida to provide space for a shared research collection for the SUS
libraries. The plan called for a high density "Harvard" model storage facility with
a capacity of 4.5 to 5 million print volumes. The new facility will provide one
central shared repository enabling libraries more effectively manage little used,
but still important, print collections and free on campus space to better
accommodate much needed seating and public space within their individual
campuses.

The George A. Smathers Libraries have a medium density Auxiliary Library
Facility (ALF) located four miles from the main campus which holds 1.2 million
low circulating library materials and serves as storage for other materials pending
processing. The new high density facility will be built adjacent to ALF and the
existing ALF building will be renovated and repurposed. It will serve as the
processing space for moving materials into high density and retrieving them. It
will also house the digitization, preservation and conservation operations
currently located on campus in the Smathers Library (Library East). These
operations will continue to support the UF Libraries as well as materials in the
SUS Shared Collection. Some space in the renovated ALF building will be
reserved for UF library resources that are not appropriate for the Shared
Collection, including materials from the University Archives and Special
Collections. Access to materials for UF patrons will be possible through a campus
library or by appointment in an onsite reading room, but the primary means of
access for other patrons will be through unmediated borrowing services of the
SUS and interlibrary loan.

* Academic and Scholarly Outreach
The newly created Academic and Scholarly Outreach unit is responsible for
overseeing the Libraries scholarly communications and open access initiatives,
including the administration of the UF Open Access Publishing Fund Pilot
Project, Open Access Week programming, policy development, and outreach to
faculty, students, and staff on open access issues and use of the Institutional
Repository. The unit is also responsible for the coordination of the libraries many
instruction and outreach activities for the campus community.

* Kuali OLE
For Academic Libraries in Florida, the Kuali Open Library Environment (OLE)
holds the promise of a common, cost-effective, open source system that libraries
can use to more effectively collaborate and manage their materials. The system
will focus initially on the acquisition of print and digital resources, with the agile
capacity to be adapted to financial and other content systems at each participating
institution.


Page 18









The OLE project is developing a community-source library management system
that will define a next-generation technology environment based on a thoroughly
re-examined model of agile library business operations. The University of Florida
is a founding member of this Mellon Foundation funded project that includes nine
Florida partners: Florida International University, Florida State University, New
College of Florida, Rollins College, University of Central Florida, University of
Miami, University of South Florida and Florida Center for Library Automation.

Human and Financial Resources
This office supports the human resources and fiscal services for the Libraries.

Human Resources
The Library Human Resources Office provides guidance and support to
employees and managers on human resources policies and procedures. Core
services and competencies include: recruiting and retaining faculty, staff and OPS
employees; overseeing the completion of personnel-related paperwork and
transactions; administering an employee evaluation program responsive to
department needs and challenging to employee skills; working with employees
and managers on sensitive employee relations issues; supporting faculty through
the key processes for tenure and promotion; maintaining a training program
committed to continued education and staff development; and leave and benefits
administration.

Fiscal Services
The Library Fiscal Services Office supports the operations of the various library
units, departments and programs and ensures effective interaction with various
UF financial offices and officials by providing timely and accurate business
information and advice that enhances decision making by those in leadership
positions throughout the Smathers Libraries. Fiscal Services operations are
designed to provide high-level customer service, to ensure stewardship of library
assets and to leverage library resources to the best possible outcome for library
patrons by increasing the transparency and general understanding of the source
and availability of the libraries' financial resources and how they are used and
managed through a variety of regular financial reports available on the Fiscal
Services website.

Development and Advancement
This office supports the development, public relations, and grants management for the
Libraries.

Development
The Library Development Office designs, implements and manages the
fundraising and donor relations program and participates in strategic planning for
development in support of the libraries' mission and objectives. Working
collaboratively with the library deans, chairs and librarians, the unit has primary
responsibility for directing library efforts that encompass major gifts, donor


Page 19









stewardship, development of public support groups, coordination of fundraising
events, and relations between the Libraries, its Development Council, the
University of Florida and the UF Foundation, Inc. The Library Development
Office is responsible for the identification, qualification, cultivation, solicitation
and the stewardship of gift prospects.

Public Information
The Public Information Office generates and coordinates public relations efforts
on behalf of the libraries as a whole and individual programs, events and
initiatives. This office works closely with the library administration, library
faculty and staff, UF News Bureau, the UF Foundation, Inc. and other university
colleges and units to disseminate information about the libraries to support
donations, promote library educational, academic and social activities, and
provide information about library personnel, programs and achievements to the
university, the general public and other communities and partners at the local,
state and national levels.

Grants Management
The Library Grants Program promotes an increase in grant-funded projects in
order to meet the goals and mission of the libraries. The program coordinates
policies, processes and support mechanisms for grant activities for the libraries.
The unit works with library staff, faculty, functional teams and project teams to
identify opportunities and to expand the libraries' grants and revenue-producing
programs, while building partnerships on campus, as well as with organizations
locally, regionally, and nationally for project and revenue funding opportunities.
The Library Grants Program is responsible for the collection and compilation of
data, timely submission of proposals and the monitoring of awards.


Health Science Center Libraries

The Health Science Center Libraries provide services and programs to support the
Colleges of Dentistry, Medicine, Nursing, Pharmacy, Public Health and Health
Professions, and Veterinary Medicine; the McKnight Brain Institute; the University of
Florida Genetics Institute; the Emerging Pathogens Institute; the Institute for Child and
Health Policy; the Institute of Aging; Shands HealthCare; the University of
Florida/Shands Cancer Center; the University of Florida Physicians Clinics (12 primary
and 21 specialty care); and the North Florida Area Health Education Centers (AHEC)
program. The HSC Libraries also support health-related research by providing up-to-date
research content and information access and management support. Since 1999, the HSC
Libraries have operated a liaison librarian program to facilitate partnerships with
academic faculty and programs by designating a librarian as the primary point of contact
for each HSC college or department.

On July 1, 2009, the Health Science Center Libraries integrated with the George A.
Smathers Libraries. Appendix B provides a report on integration one year after
implementation.


Page 20










Health Science Center Library (Gainesville)
Located in the Communicore Building of the Health Science Center, the HSC
Library serves the academic, clinical, and research needs of over 11,000 students,
faculty and staff of the six health science colleges. In addition, it serves Shands
Health Care, medical institutions, outreach programs, and distance learning.

Borland Health Science Center Library (Jacksonville)
The Borland Health Sciences Library, located on the Jacksonville campus, is a
branch of the Health Sciences Center Libraries. It provides services and programs
to support the Colleges of Medicine, Nursing, and Pharmacy. In addition, Borland
provides services to member institutions, including Shands Jacksonville Medical
Center, Memorial Hospital and the University of St. Augustine.

Veterinary Medicine Reading Room
The Veterinary Medicine Reading Room is located in the College of Veterinary
Medicine Building to provide the College of Veterinary Medicine faculty and
students with on-site resources. Although the HSLC does not staff the Reading
Room, it does fund, acquire and catalog the materials in all formats that are
housed in the Reading Room or accessible online. The Veterinary Medicine
liaison librarian, who is an HSCL faculty member, serves as the subject specialist
and provides expert reference assistance to the faculty, staff and students.


Library Advisory Groups

Advisory Group for Research Services and Scholarly Resources (AGRSSR)
The scale and scope of the UF Libraries scholarly resources (content) and the evolving
nature of research services challenge both unified management on the one hand and
adequate participative involvement on the other. Fiscal and personnel issues related to the
provision of scholarly resources to library patrons by research and public services staff
are additional components of the complex nature of an effective academic research
library. To achieve a balance between administrative oversight and library-wide
investment, the Advisory Group for Research Services and Scholarly Resources
(AGRSSR) draws its membership from a wide range of librarians, unit heads, and
technical experts to advise on topic ranging from budgeting for and allocation of
scholarly resources to policies and procedures for user services.

Health Science Center Library Advisory Committee
The Health Science Center Library Advisory Committee advises the HSCL Director in
any matter pertaining to library policies or practices and to recommend improvements to
library services or resources on behalf of Library users. The Committee consists of
appointed faculty and student representatives from each of the library's primary user
groups including the Colleges of Dentistry, Medicine, Nursing, Pharmacy, Public Health
& Health Professions and Veterinary Medicine. Shands Hospital is also represented and
ex-officio members include the Director of the HSC Libraries, the Senior Vice President,


Page 21









Health Affairs and the Dean of Libraries. The Committee makes an annual report to the
Senior Vice President, Health Affairs and to the Provost.


Faculty Senate Support Groups

Academic Infrastructure Council
This Council encompasses the university's infrastructure supporting its academic
mission, including the provision of physical facilities and other physical resources;
libraries; information technology; the campus master plan; and the availability of
adequate computer, classroom, laboratory and other resources.

University Libraries Committee
The Committee assists the Dean of University Libraries in maintaining and promoting the
welfare of the University Libraries. It reviews and formulates library policies to serve the
needs and concerns of the faculty and students. The committee also serves as an advocate
for the University Libraries to the University community. The committee advises the
Faculty Senate about the state of the libraries and the committee's position on policy
matters affecting the libraries. The committee makes an annual report to the Faculty
Senate and the university administration. The members are determined by a combination
of Faculty Senate election and selection by the Graduate Student Council and Student
Government.


Supplemental Data About Library Programs and Services

The following tables provide an overview of the expenditures for materials, operations,
staffing, and administration of the George A. Smathers Libraries for FY 2009-2010;
library funded and maintained IT resources for library patrons; and statistics for library
usage, space allocation and hours.


Page 22


























co
c



lo







8
eS





00
I-







I
m?
N














In
a.






















00

o
S
6




o










E
0l
a




U
a
I-


a
0U
to
ii
=0

4
C)


Page 23





























Lu

C.

0
Q



E
IL

0







a.




0

gi-
a


Page 24

































































Page 25



















































































C
I-.
U


CEC


C- 0 C














o di
-o






E2 C |
0 -

















0=
a, so


cnr ~



0 o


H 0 0


Page 26









Acquisition of Library Materials

The primary purpose of library collections is to provide content to support every
discipline that is taught and every field in which UF conducts research. The following
charts reflect the breakdown of expenditures for materials by funding source, material
type, and academic discipline. Please note, HSCL expenditures by college closely parallel
the percentage of research awards for each college, as shown in Appendix C.


Page 27




















0
in



0 V
Ch 0
N m


O>
z


o I
u 0




* U
0


LL
.LL
0
O





m
O





< r_
















O'I
in I.







co


in
o
0
U,
cA-
N




Y A
C a




* U
LU I


Page 28











SMATHERS LIBRARIES
2009-2010 ELECTRONIC VS. PRINT LIBRARY RESOURCES EXPENDITURES
TOTAL= $10,911,660


Page 29
























0 1 a
*





S& 5 ? 1 E d
2 2 c


S< a a x
0 a
w AI
I A IN50

SU 0 0 U 1 0 U U
U,

















'-4
C
8


I
V\





V


Page 30
















;'.4

4 C



s 3 2 36







1=61


m I-



CA
LU
zo
.- 5



S5S
a 1 ax iu


Page 31









5. Benchmarks

For the Comprehensive Budget Review, two benchmark analyses are provided.

The first, an "Assessment ofUF Libraries Compared to Peer Academic Institutions"
developed by library administration, compares the resources of the UF Libraries and the
demand measures for UF to eight similar academic institutions.

The second is the Institutional Comparison section and appendixes from "The Future of
the Library" report presented to the UF Provost in December 2006 by a committee of
faculty from across the campus. These excerpted sections are copied verbatim from this
document. The complete report is available through the Provost's website at
http://www. aa.ufl.edu/search_committees/futureofthelibrary/.


2010 Assessment of UF Libraries Compared to Peer Academic Institutions

The following analysis, based on published statistical data, provides an assessment
of the resources of the UF Libraries and the demand measures for UF compared to
other similar academic institutions. The data has been interpreted using a number
of different approaches and the interpretations are based on a variety of measures
for library resources and university characteristics that influence the demand for
library materials and services. The two consistent findings throughout are that the
scope of the population and programs at UF are significantly above average and
the fiscal and human resources available to the UF libraries are significantly below
average when compared to those of peer institutions. Said differently, the data
collected indicates there is a considerable and uniquely steep gap between the scale
of this university's programs and populations and the resources of the UF library
system.

This data lends context to the proposal for increased and sustained investments in
the UF libraries submitted as part of the Libraries 2011-2012 budget. As the
university transitions to managing its budget under RCM, there is an opportunity to
redress the chronic underfunding of the libraries and establish a level of funding
that is more appropriate to the size and complexity of the university.

Selection of Peers for Comparison
A wide variety of institutions was considered before arriving at the following as
comparators: University of Michigan; University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill;
University of Wisconsin, Madison; University of Washington; Ohio State University;
University of Pittsburgh; University of Minnesota; and Michigan State University. Each
university is a member of the Association of American Universities and the library
system for each is a member of the Association of Research Libraries. Each university is
a large, public, research institution, with four or more health colleges and a law school.
Four (Wisconsin, Washington, Ohio State and Michigan State) are Land Grant


Page 32









institutions, as is UF. As shown in the table below, all of these universities are ranked in
the top 30 public universities by US News & World Report for 2010. UF is ranked 15.

US News Ranking
University of Michigan 4
University of North Carolina Chapel Hill 5
University of Wisconsin 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

In analyzing the collected data, a number of comparisons are based on two
groupings of these peers: all eight of the non-UF institutions and those 4
institutions with higher rankings than UF. This layered comparison is possible
due to the fortuitous placement of UF in the middle of the nine rankings. Where
relevant, the peer group used in the comparisons is indicated.

Data Sources
The data used in this report was collected from two sources. The university data
came from the institutions' fall 2008 Integrated Postsecondary Education Data
System (IPEDS) report submitted to US Department of Education's Institute for
Education Sciences. The library data came from the most recent published
(2008) ARL Statistics from the Association of Research Libraries.

Results of the Data Analysis
The data and analysis are depicted in 5 charts in this narrative.

Total Library Expenditures as a Function of Total University Expenditures
The table reports the total university and total library expenditures for each peer
institution. Included is a scatter chart reflecting this data and the resulting trend
line. The data for UF and the UF library system is also depicted and its plot is
considerably below the trend line. Please note the correlation coefficient (r-
squared) for these two data series is .83, representing a strong correlation. Using
the formula from the linear regression analysis of this data for the peer institutions
and applying the figure for UF total expenditures, the projection for comparable
library expenditures is calculated at $37,899,670, while the actual UF
expenditures for this period were $28,573,302. Accounting for the size of the
university's financial resources, this figure represents a considerable gap in the
level of investment in library resources between UF and these eight peer
institutions.


Page 33































































.C
I





0)


















*I





















0







z
\ "


aB

0)


NL-u
g=
rt~l


sIinIpuodx3 wuqn lioi



Page 34


N



Oi




cd














6










I






a



'U.










* Library Expenditures as a Percentage of Total University Expenditures
This table and bar chart reflect library expenditures as a percentage of the total
university expenditures. The UF library system's expenditures as a percentage of
the university expenditures are the second lowest for all peers. The only lower
percentage is for Michigan, which is a result of the huge level for total university
expenditures (more than double the total expenditures for a number of the peer
universities). The total expenditures for the Michigan libraries were $51.6 million,
which is the highest for all peer institution libraries and 38% above the average
for library expenditures of the 8 peer institutions. The expenditures by the UF
library system as a percentage of the university's expenditures is 10% below the
average percentage for both peer sets (all 8 institutions and the 4 higher ranked
institutions). Without the downward skewing of the average percentages caused
by Michigan, the gap between UF and its peers would be even more pronounced.


Page 35

















I I








4n U i __
I
















*8
0








re
I g o t













z z~
0 n0







"i 1 A i




























S EE' 0T c0 9M*- ) < < n
Z
K z
co


0 0





Lo,
I e

























g N S s T ^ ^ T T
z z
en en l IDw- C, ar












O k
.4 e I en

z z

en a
















Iz z
~ en



=ur .- .













00 0I. en 8


















| IA | -------- 0-----
C a IL

II ar E


aI B




enj Ee na -en


4I N


ena I~~Y V
N2 W1
o a e

B



a x *


Page 36










* Comparison of UF Library and University Statistics With Peer Institutions
This table compares library and institutional statistics across UF and the 8 peer
universities. UF statistics are compared to the averages for the eight peers (blue
highlighted heading) and the four higher ranked peers (orange highlighted
heading). The yellow highlighted cells reflect UF as a percentage of the averages.
The 'Library Statistics' represent resources and the UF library system falls
significantly below the average for each of these measures for both peer sets. The
'University Statistics' are a reflection of demand and UF is above the average for
each of the measures for both peer sets. There is a definite disparity between
library resources and the characteristics of the university that reflect demand for
library services and materials when compared to these peer institutions. These
resource and demand statistics are further interpreted in the final two charts.


Page 37

































































Page 38










* UF Library Compared to Average Resources of Peer Libraries
One of the challenges in analyzing data across institutions is the need to reflect
differences in the scale of the institutions. The peer group serves as a group of
similar universities, but there are still variances in programs and populations. The
following tables compare three library resource measures (Library Material
Expenditures, Professional Staff FTE and Total Staff FTE) to several factors
intended to capture the parent institution's size or scale: full time Faculty, PhD
Fields, PhD's and Professional degrees awarded, Graduate and Professional
Student count, and Total Student Enrollment. The statistic used here is UF's
percentage of the average of each resource measure divided by the indicated
university statistic. For example, UF's materials expenditures per faculty are 64%
of the average for all eight peers. As another example, UF's total library staff per
total student enrollment is 68% of the average for all eight peers. The second table
compares UF to just the four higher ranked peer institutions. While the exact
percentages vary and no one factor is authoritative when viewed by itself, it is
notable that in no comparison for either peer group does the UF library system
exceed 68% of the average.


Page 39



























10 In en in i












w 0C
a, x x s ae
















U -IC
aR se x






ID v






Pa 2
U. 0 U

a ;


.2 |1 I I
9d
d C SC

i I | 9










a CD
*^


NN 0 -



to to^





a
.s
C
a
d
2
I
a,


Page 40










* Library Resource Measures v. University Demand Measures (2 pages)
For each peer institution, data reflects library resources: Library Materials
Expenditures, Total Library Expenditures, Salaries and Wages for Professional
Staff, Total Salaries and Wages, and FTE counts for Professional Staff, Support
Staff and Total Staff. Data also reflects the scale and diversity of the university's
programs: PhD's awarded, Professional Degrees awarded, combined PhD's and
Professional degrees awarded, PhD Fields, full time Faculty and Total Student
Enrollment. For each measure the average, excluding UF, was calculated along
with the percentage for each institution compared to this average. For example,
looking at Library Resource Measures in the table, Michigan spent 138% of the
non-UF average for library materials. As another example, looking at the Demand
Measures, Michigan State only generated 72% of the non-UF average for the
number of PhD's awarded. The average percentage of each university's resource
and demand measures is reported, respectively, in the orange and blue highlighted
cells of the table. The bar graph reflects these overall averages and shows the
relationship of resource and demand for each institution. For example, the
University of Washington's Library Resource Measures are 20% higher than the
Demand Measures, while the comparable measures for UF show that Library
Resource Measures are 69% below those for Demand Measures. The graph
depicts the uniquely large gap between the UF library system's comparison to
averages for resource versus demand measures compared to these peer
institutions. The conclusion is that UF library resources are not measuring up to
the demand measures for such a large and complex institution.


Page 41

























Library Resource Measures v. University Demand Measures


Library and University Statistics as a % of the Non-UF Average for Each Statistic

US NEWRANK 4 5 9 11 15 18 20 22 29
MICHIGAN NORTH CAROLINA WISCONSIN WASHINGTON FLORIDA 0HIO STATE PRTISBURGH MINNESOTA MICHIGAN STATE


Library Materials 138.49% 110.13% 74.05% 100.28% 83.85% 88.92% 100.24% 111.86% 76.02%


Total ibrary 131.91% 105.13% 109.62% 104.44% 73.05% 98.36% 80.94% 104.14% 65.46%
Expenditures

Series & Wages
Professional Staff 123.89% 111.28% 147.41% 123.96% 62.92% 87.42% 69.55% 81.80% 54.69%




Professional Staff
Total Salaries & Wages 138.57% 101.54% 125.74% 118.08% 74,79% 89.20% 67.21% 97.11% 62.55%

ProfessionalStaff 113.14% 99.08% 153.31% 129.21% 68.28% 95.73% 80.33% 74.31% 54.90%


SupportStaff 158.75% 108.78% 86.40% 107.22% 98.89% 81.20% 90.05% 104.10% 63.50%


Total Staff
Total Staff 125.55% 99.56% 121.81% 115.20% 83.92% 103.52% 84.14% 86.78% 63.44%








US NEWS RANK 4 5 9 11 15 18 20 22 29

MICHIGAN NORTH CAROLINA WISONSIN WASHINGTON FLORIDA OO STATE PITTSBURGH MINNESOTA MICHIGAN STATE


DEMAND Measures IU ilversi Statlsticsl

Aaded 111.81% 94.49% 118.90% 99.37% 135.12% 119.53% 61.73% 122.05% 72.13%

Prof DegreesAwarded 116.57% 96.45% 103.15% 80.32% 19960% 136.05% 89.90% 125.83% 51.74%

TotalPhD'sandProf 114.17% 95.46% 111.08% 89.91% 167.14% 127.73% 75.72% 123.92% 62.00%
Degrees

hDs 124.70% 72.92% 113.08% 84.54% 131.04% 108.85% 71.86% 10S.68% 118.36%


Faculty (Full-Time] 153.38% 86.09% 89.48% 106.35% 127.55% 93.28% 119.55% 76.05% 75.82%


Total Student Enrollment 94.98% 66.13% 103.30% 104.02% 119.17% 124.35% 81.14% 118.39% 107.67%


Page 42




















4 o



]r- S



P~ C6



co
00



0 I0







U s N





co ch
0 0

LI-







z
4, 4


en I -









m z














r z
w C
I-






o ..
8 to
(N noey oo N8re 2nuo &op~




2cq
0





z

to 0- ID










Pag 43









Conclusion
The data is scalable to the size and funding level of UF. From this data, it is clear that the
library resources at UF are insufficient to support appropriately the students, faculty and
research enterprise at UF. Compared to peer institutions, even those ranked below UF by
US News & World Report, the students, faculty and researchers at UF are not afforded
comparable library resources and services.


2006 Assessment of UF Libraries Compared to Peer Academic Institutions

In 2006, Provost Fouke charged a committee of campus faculty to develop a report on the
future of the Libraries at UF. The committee membership represented Chemistry,
English, Economics, Molecular Genetics and Microbiology/Pediatrics, Classics,
Anthropology, Law, French, Art, Zoology, Microbiology and Cell Science, and History.
The Future of the Library report was presented to the UF Provost in December 2006.

The 47 page report includes a detailed Institutional Comparison section, with two
appendixes, which assessed the resources of the UF Libraries as compared to other
academic libraries. Following the discussion and conclusions related to the libraries at the
University level, the Institutional Comparison has an additional section that provides
analysis specific to the Health Science Center Library. These components of the report
are excerpted verbatim below. The complete report is available from the Provost's
website at: http://www.aa.ufl.edu/search committees/futureofthelibrarv/.


Page 44











I. Institutional Comparisons


In considering what the future holds for UF libraries, it was first important to determine
where we now stand, establishing a baseline for recommendations in this report.
Traditionally, academic libraries have been ranked by the Association of Research
Libraries (ARL). Currently, the ARL bases its rankings on five measures: volumes held,
volumes added, current serial titles, total operating expenditures, and number of
professional and support staff. As examples, the 2003-2004 rankings show Michigan
State ranked as 39, Florida 38, Arizona 30, Ohio State 21, Wisconsin 11, Berkeley 4,
and Harvard 1. Libraries with top ARL rankings are usually at large institutions and
have histories of stable and adequate funding.

In this report we compare the University of Florida's library funding, both total and by
major category, to that at other libraries. We choose two comparison groups. The first
is ARL libraries at five large land-grant institutions(a "peer" group) with medical and law
schools, and the second is all American universities that report data to ARL. Universities
in the first group are close to us in size and mission, so that unadjusted expenditure
comparisons are meaningful. That is not the case with the second group, which
contains over eighty universities with more widely varying size and missions. To make
comparisons meaningful, statistical methods are used to adjust expenditures for the
number of students, the number of faculty, the presence of law and medical schools,
and U.S. News & World Report rankings. For both comparisons, the latest statistics
available represent the 2003-2004 academic year.

The institutions selected for comparison to Florida in the peer group are: Michigan
State, Ohio State, the University of Arizona, the University of Minnesota, and the
University of Wisconsin. For some comparisons, Arizona and Michigan State are
omitted because their colleges in the health science fields are very different from ours.


Data Sources for Comparisons

Unless otherwise noted, the library data presented is from the 2003-2004 statistical data
collected by the Association of Research Libraries. It is available at an interactive
search site maintained by the University of Virginia Library at
http://fisher.lib.virginia.edu/cqi-local/arlbin/arl.cqi?task=setupreport The health science
center library data is from the 2003-2004 ARL Academic Health Science Library


Page 45









Statistics available at http://www.arl.org/stats/lawmed/medindex.html. Data for Michigan
State does not include health science library statistics.

Library-Institutional Factors

In comparing libraries at the five peer institutions, we first present their major library
user populations: undergraduates, graduate students, and faculty. Second, we compare
their libraries' resources measured by research and instructional staffing, facilities,
collection building, and expenditures. Finally, we normalize expenditures by degrees
granted and by programs offered.

User Populations

In 2003-2004, the Association of Research Libraries statistical report
[http://fisher.lib.virginia.edu/arl/index.html] indicated that the
user populations for each university were:

Table 1. User populations at each institution, 2003-2004
Michigan Ohio
Arizona Florida State Minnesota State Wisconsin
Full time
students 30,149 42,042 38,355 35,071 43,796 36,672
Full time
graduate
students 5,932 10,825 7,657 8,898 10,212 9,493

Full time
faculty 1,428 2,865 1,972 1,626 2,967 2,076
Total 37,509 55,732 47,984 45,595 56,975 48,241

Ohio State and UF have the highest major user populations, over 55,000 each, divided
in similar proportions among undergraduates, graduate students, and faculty. Michigan
State, Minnesota, and Wisconsin-though also very large have user populations of
fewer than that 50,000.

Library Staff involved in Research and Instruction

Table 2 shows the library professional and support staff at each university. In academic
libraries, professional and support staff are the most heavily involved in providing
instructional, reference and research services. The counts include staff at various
branch libraries. Florida includes the staffing of all ten branches in its count.


Page 46










Table 2. Library Staff supporting instructional and research
Michigan
Arizona Florida State Minnesota
(L, M) (B,L,M) (L) (L,M)


Professional
Staff*

Support
Staff

Total


Ohio St. Wisconsin
(L,M) (L,M)


98 121


Includes: B (branches), L (law), M (medical)


Of note here is the fact that Wisconsin has almost twice Florida's professional staff,
although UF serves approximately 7,500 more users. Aside from Wisconsin, UF's
professional staffing is roughly in line with that of the other institutions, with a relatively
large support staff.

Facilities

Only two data factors related to facilities are touched upon in this report: branch libraries
and square footage of the main library. Branch libraries are important because of their
staffing and collection implications.


Table 3. Number of branch libraries at each institution


Branch libraries


Arizona
3


Florida
10


Michigan Ohio
State Minnesota State Wisconsin
14 5 20 40


With the acceleration in the use of electronic resources, square footage has become
less useful as a measure of collection richness. Nonetheless, it does provide a heuristic
measure of collection breadth and depth. It is also related to Frazier's concept of an
academic library as a social-academic collaboratorry" or workspace. The size of each
main library is given in Table 4.


Table 4.
Square footage of main libraries


Institution


Square Footage


Arizona
Florida
Michigan State
Minnesota
Ohio State
Wisconsin


263,696
177,000
313,936
382,213
299,695
363,085


Page 47










Collection Building by Book and Byte


Another section of this report (III Balancing the Collections) analyzes the collections
at UF. Here, we compare collection sizes and expenditures, though the availability of
electronic resources has made total volume counts less meaningful for some purposes
as we migrate to electronic access. This is especially true for some of the sciences. For
many fields in the humanities and social sciences, however, access to large print
collections still determines the richness of a library collection. Table 5 below shows
total collection sizes reported in 2004.


Table 5.
Total volumes held in universities and total medical volumes
Institution Total Volumes Total Medical Volumes
Arizona 5,201,065 (L,M) 233,682
Florida 4,075,290 (L,M,B) 348,046
Michigan State 4,747,959 (L) Not included in ARL reports
Minnesota 6,374,293(L,M) 477,861
Ohio State 5,809,505 (L,M) 214,766
Wisconsin 7,807,097 (L,M,B) 315,657
Includes L=law, M=medicine, B=branch libraries


Collection building in 2003-2004

Table 6 shows collection building during 2003-2004. Florida purchased fewer current
serial titles (25,330) than any of its five peers. Ohio State, at 35,561, was next lowest.
Wisconsin bought over 55,000 current serial titles. In terms of monographs purchased,
Florida bought approximately 47,500 (third lowest); both Ohio State and Wisconsin each
purchased some 20,000 more. Though we cannot say for sure without a more thorough
look at monograph purchases, it is likely that the low monograph and serial purchases
have the greatest impact on the humanities and social sciences. Electronic journal
subscriptions may partially balance the serials situation portrayed here, but generally
electronic journals are more closely aligned with science and technology.


Table 6. Total current serials and monographs purchased, 2003-2004


Arizona Florida
(L,M) (B,L,M)
Current
Serials 36,060 25,330


Monographs
purchased


56,666 47,528


Michigan Minnesota Ohio St.
State (L) (L,M) (L,M)

37,880 35,801 35,561


30,693 37,161 67,671


Wisconsin
(L,M)

55,164


68,483


Includes B (branches), L (law), M (medicine)

Collection Building Expenditures


Page 48









The expenditures listed below (Table 7) show the main classes of materials that were
purchased in 2004. The total materials expenditures include formats beyond
monographs and serials, but these are comparably insignificant. The total materials
figure includes electronic journals, computer files (literature collections, periodical back
files, etc.), and hardware and software.

Table 7.
Monographs, serials, and total materials expenditures for 2004
Michigan
Arizona Florida State Minnesota Ohio State Wisconsin

Monographs $2,683,130 $1,695,403 $1,802,797 $2,280,527 $3,507,436 $2,638,090
Serials $8,874,139 $7,217,600 $6,570,003 $9,291,150 $9,113,712 $6,727,764
Total
materials $12,638,919 $10,167,169 $8,778,721 $11,847,047 $12,621,148 $10,596,306


Electronic vs. Print Expenditures

Because electronic resources are often bundled for sale, it is extremely difficult to pull
out individual number counts. Often several hundred electronic books and journals are
available under one licensing agreement. However, some expenditure comparisons
(Table 8) offer further insight into electronic vs. print formats.

Of interest in the serial situation is the fact that Florida and Wisconsin each spend less
than two million dollars on electronic journals, while Arizona, Minnesota, and Ohio State
spend about four million each. Initially, it appears that both Wisconsin and Florida may
fail to acquire a large number of electronic journals; however, it is possible that
consortial agreements have resulted in significant cost savings. It is unlikely, however,
that Florida and Wisconsin have been in stronger bargaining positions than their peers.

Table 8. Comparison of total serial to electronic serial expenditures for 2003-2004
Michigan
Arizona Florida State Minnesota Ohio St. Wisconsin

Total
Expenditure for $8,874,139 $7,217,600 $6,570,003 $9,291,150 $9,113,712 $6,727,764
Serials

Expenditures
for Electronic $3,905,137 $1,801,347 $2,581,546 $3,946,325 $4,247,736 $1,605,662
Journals


Table 9 shows that Florida spends more on computer files than Ohio State and
Minnesota, and less than Arizona, Michigan State, and Wisconsin. With respect to
spending on computer hardware and software, Florida lags behind all of the peer


Page 49










institutions and very far behind Wisconsin, spending only 24% as much as the average
of the five peers. Even excluding Wisconsin, Florida spends only 36% as much as the
average for the other four.


Table 9.
Expenditures on Computer files and hardwarelsoftware for 2003-2004


Computer Files


Arizona Florida
$488,191 $236,314


Michigan
State Minnesota
$387,800 $131,403


Ohio St Wisconsin
$31,837 $433,597


Hardwarelsoftware $544,980 $227,038


$778,925 $676,862 $553,375 $2,168,246


Overall Expenditure

Table 10 compares overall expenditures. The striking difference in staffing by Wisconsin
noted earlier is also reflected in the salary category. Wisconsin spends more than any
other university on salaries, nearly $10 million more than UF.

Table 10. Expenditures by main categories, 2003-2004
Arizona Florida Michigan State Minnesota Ohio State Wisconsin


Total Salaries $11,150,833 $11,711,598
Total Library Materials $12,638,919 $10,167,169
Other Operating Expenditures &
Miscellaneous Materials $3,694,102 $3,086,012
Total Expenditures $27,064,875 $25,112,380


$10,379,727 $15,770,857 $12,880,990 $21,584,660
$8,778,721 $11,847,047 $12,621,148 $10,596,306

$3,444,330 $3,798,669 $2,731,127 $7,095,014"
$22,557,590 $31,640,604 $28,509,784 $39,251,812


Notes:
Includes L-law, M-medical, B-branch
*No university spent more than $550,000 on miscellaneous materials.
"Wisconsin indicates that a substantial amount of Other Operating Expenditures was prepaid In 2002-2003.


Discussion

As noted earlier, the purpose of our comparison with a limited number of peer
institutions is to avoid complications that arise from the differing needs of institutions
with large differences in size and mission. To focus even more strongly on institutions
that closely resemble Florida and have comparable medical schools, we now further
limit the comparison group to Minnesota, Ohio State, and Wisconsin, with the caveat
that Minnesota and Wisconsin have noticeably fewer undergraduates than either Ohio
State or Florida. They do have more faculty, however.

We use the more restricted peer group to compare spending relative to the number of
degrees granted and to the number of degree programs, which serve as additional


Page 50









measures of user needs. In 2003-2004, UF granted more total degrees than Minnesota,
Ohio State or Wisconsin. It lagged Minnesota and Ohio State in one category,
professional degrees.

Table 11. Degrees granted 2003-2004
Ohio
Florida Minnesota State Wisconsin
Bachelors 8,574 6,049 8,288 6,156
Masters 3,022 2,677 2,606 1,968
Doctorate 694 592 560 627

Professional* 539 715 782 631

Total 12,290 10,033 12,236 9,382
*Includes dentistry, nursing, public health, law, medicine, veterinary
medicine, and pharmacy

Also shown is a comparison of the majors offered for advanced research degrees.
Counts were taken from the 2003-2004 graduate catalogs for each of the universities,
when available online. The registrar's office at Ohio State was contacted directly. The
Table 11 counts do not include professional degrees in law and medicine, but do
include the doctorates associated with health sciences.

Because Florida offers almost 100 more research majors at the masters level than any
of the other three universities, we expected that the collection breadth and depth and
the library services would be larger and be reflected in higher levels of funding. This is
not the case, however. Florida's spending is actually lower. Consequently, the spending
per program at Florida is far below that at the other institutions.

Table 12. Majors offered for advanced research degrees, 2003-2004
Ohio
Florida Minnesota State Wisconsin
M.A.IM.S. 233 112 127* 155
Ph.D. 124 101 95 108
as of Fall 2005

Table 13 below shows funding available to support the doctoral degree research
programs, assuming that undergraduate needs are sublimated, and expenses for the
law and medical libraries are removed. For Florida, before computation we have
subtracted five doctoral research programs served by the medical library. That is, the
funds available for non-law and non-medical programs are divided by 119 instead of
124 to obtain the $153,655 average per program for Florida. For Minnesota, Ohio State,
and Wisconsin, we have not subtracted programs that may be served by their medical
libraries. Consequently their numbers may be biased downward. Even so, they average
68% more funding per program than Florida.


Page 51










Table 13. Potential monies available to support Ph.D. research programs, 2003-2004
Florida Minnesota Ohio State Wisconsin
Total library expenditures 25,112,380 31,640,604 28,509,784 39,251,812

Subtract Medical library expenditures -4,340,931 -5,044,351 -3,413,349 -3,805,672

Subtract Law library expenditures -2,486,555 -3,414,887 -2,443,223 -983,935

Monies available for non-lawinon-
medical 18,284,894 23,181,366 22,708,171 33,002,917

Potential expenditures per program $153,655 $229,518 $239,033 $305,583

The Longitudinal View

To add perspective to our analyses for 2003-2004, we present total inflation-adjusted
expenditures for the years 1999-2000 to 2003-2004 in Table 14.

Table 14. Total library expenditures 2000-2004 (thousands of constant 2003-04 dollars)
Michigan Ohio
Fiscal Year Arizona Florida State Minnesota State Wisconsin

1999-00 $24,870 $25,597 $20,268 $32,963 $28,876 $34,390

2000-01 $25,296 $30,330 $20,100 $32,159 $30,149 $35,574

2001-02 $26,528 $26,190 $20,298 $33,839 $29,019 $35,046

2002-03 $26,272 $26,746 $21,112 $32,167 $27,694 $40,224

2003-04 $27,064 $25,112 $22,557 $31,641 $28,510 $39,252

Expenditures become more meaningful when compared to the potential user
populations, as shown in Table 15 for the same years.


Page 52









Table 15. Changes in user populations, 1999-2000 to 2003-2004
Michigan Ohio
Arizona Florida State Minnesota St Wisconsin
Total 1999-2000 33,781 43,574 42,693 37,636 51,040 45,416
Total 2000-2001 33,937 45,408 44,216 39,618 46,659 46,400
Total 2001-2002 35,796 52,910 45,058 41,428 52,606 47,258
Total 2002-2003 36,846 54,025 46,766 43,926 54,445 45,250
Total 2003-2004 37,509 55,732 47,984 45,595 56,975 48,241
Increase in populations
2000-2004 3,728 12,158 5,291 7,957 5,965 2,825
Total fulltime undergraduates, graduate students, and faculty

From Tables 14 and 15 we calculate that while Florida's user population rose by 28%,
more than at any of the other institutions, its inflation-adjusted total library spending fell
slightly, by 2%, so that real spending per user fell by 30%. Minnesota and Ohio State
also experienced spending decreases, of 3% and 1%, while their user populations rose,
by 21% and by 12%. Thus they had real declines of approximately 24% and 13% per
user (vs. Florida's 30%). Meanwhile, Arizona, Michigan State, and Wisconsin had real
spending increases of 9%, 11%, and 14%. Their user populations rose by 11%, 12%,
and 6%. Thus, Florida had a greater drop in library spending per user than any of the
comparison institutions.

Comparison to a Larger Set of Universities

Though comparison to a select group of institutions has the strong advantage of
requiring less worry about just how library needs vary according to such university
differences as size and mission, there remains the concern that the results may depend
strongly on the particular institutions selected. For this reason we include, in an
appendix (See Appendix 1), a statistical analysis of library spending at more than
eighty research universities. For the analysis, we augmented the ARL data from two
other sources: the 2006 U.S. News & World Report rankings and spreadsheets on the
web site of The Center, a research group at the University of Florida that compares
research spending and other measures across a large number of universities. From
results of four sets of regressions reported in the appendix, as well as many others run
as checks of robustness and not reported, a conclusion that emerges is:

Florida's total library spending is lower than expected for a university of its
size and quality, and spending on total electronic materials is remarkably
low.

Another finding is striking:

An 18-point higher U.S. News rating is associated with about 36% more library
spending, controlling for size and the presence of medical and law schools.
Eighteen points represents the difference between, say, 59 (Florida, Texas, UC
Santa Barbara, UC Davis) and 77 (Berkeley, Carnegie Mellon). The result is very
similar using peer evaluations instead of the US News total.


Page 53










Conclusions


Although ARL attempts to standardize its data collection instruments, we are aware that
discrepancies in counts and terminology are inherent in any data set. Nonetheless,
certain results are evident.

First in terms of user populations, Ohio State and the University of Florida are the most
closely matched, although Ohio State's user population growth from 2000-2004 has
been half (6,000) of UF's (12,000). As of fall 2003, they were very similar in numbers of
full time students, graduate students, and faculty. Ohio State's main libraries have
120,000 more square feet and 1.8 million more volumes than UF's. From 2001 through
2004, their total library budgets exceeded UF's by 1 to 3 million dollars a year which
was reflected in greater purchasing power for electronic journals, current serial titles,
and hardware and software. Perhaps the most telling data is presented in Table 13,
which indicates the average amount Florida, Minnesota, Ohio State, and Wisconsin
could spend on supporting Ph.D. research programs, if all monies were allocated to that
purpose. The other institutions could spend between $80,000 to $160,000 more per
program. Drawing on our regression analysis (Appendix 1), of a larger number of
institutions, we find that UF's total spending is 30% lower than would be expected for a
university of its size and rating with law and medical schools. An increase of 30% in the
2003-2004 academic year would have given the UF libraries a total operating budget of
$32.6 million, or an increase of approximately $7.5 million, an amount more in line with
the spending at Minnesota and Ohio State.

As a final check of the funding situation and to verify that the 2003-2004 academic year
funding was not an anomaly, a further regression was done for all years for which
necessary data was present, using the preferred specification from the appendix. The
results displayed in Graph 1 show the actual library expenditures as a percentage of the
expected funding for a university of Florida's size and stature.

Graph 1. Actual Library Spending Relative to Expected Spending, 1986-2004

100
80



0 1 s 01 s sa0 % spent to e pected

Years


Page 54









Since 1986, the library has never received the funding that would be expected,
considering the size and mission of the University of Florida, and has more often than
not received less than 80% of the amount that would put it in line with other institutions.

Inadequate funding has been an underlying factor throughout the history of the library
system at UF. In 1982, Dr. Robert Mautz chaired a fact-finding Task Force on
Evaluation of the Library Management Policies and Practices. He reported: "Most of
the problems the library faces arise from the fact that operating resources have not
been commensurate with the growth of the faculty, student body, collections, complexity
of information, automation, nor to the addition of constituencies not previously served."
Those findings are equally valid twenty-four years later.

The funding issues are exacerbated by the soaring costs of some electronic resources,
by the development of a plethora of discrete information services on campus and
beyond, and by changes in research, teaching and learning modalities in the university
environment. These factors are impacting all facets of the university, not just the
library.

Thus, summary recommendations are:

1) Increase library funding to appropriate levels
to support programs, including new IT and digital functions.

2) Support the development of a UF institutional repository by the library system as
a university-wide service, and as an open access alternative for distributing
research results.

3) Revisit space issues, as current space does not appear adequate for collection
growth or to create the "social-collaborative" workspaces suggested by Frazier.


Page 55










The Health Science Center Library


The coverage and services of health science libraries are extremely difficult to compare.
For that reason, they have been omitted from the analyses described above. That is an
important omission, and as partial compensation we add Tables 16 and 17 showing
enrollments and expenditures per student for Florida, Minnesota, Ohio State, and
Wisconsin.

Table 16. 2003-2004 enrollment for health related colleges
Ohio
Florida Minnesota State Wisconsin
Dentistry 373 556 617
Medicine 906 1969 2,288 1322
Nursing 936 821 1,028 689
Pharmacy 1855 581 788 641
Public Health 1560 610
Veterinary Medicine 511 425 668 371
Total 6141 4962 5389 3023
* Ohio State and Wisconsin have Colleges of Medicine and Public Health;
Wisconsin has no college of dentistry




Table 17. Expenditure per student in health science center libraries, 2003-2004
Ohio
Florida Minnesota State Wisconsin
Total Expenditures 4,340,931 5,044,351 3,413,349 3,805,672

Total Student Enrollment 6141 4962 5416 3023

Expenditure per student 707 1017 630 1259


In 2005, UF's total enrollment in health related colleges was 6914, up 773 students from
three years before. With a current budget of $3,774,948, the average student
expenditure has now fallen to $546, which represents a 23% decline from 2003-04.
Indeed, even without adjustment for enrollment or inflation, the decline in spending is
13%. Though we have not explored the causes of the decline and the categories in
which it has occurred, we speculate that it would be difficult for the health science
center libraries to improve or even maintain the quality of their services for long in this
situation.

The University of Florida Health Science Libraries recognize a different set of
institutions as peers, based size, diversity of colleges, and other factors. Information on
those peers may be found in the Integration of this report.


Page 56









Appendices


Appendix 1:

Comparative Library Regressions

In the text of the report, we compare the University of Florida's libraries on several
dimensions to those at six peer institutions, all large land grant universities with law
schools and medical schools. As additional support for the findings reported there, in
this appendix we broaden the comparison group to include all of the American
institutions of higher education whose libraries gather expenditure and staff figures for
the Association of Research Libraries. We use the most recent numbers, those for the
2003-2004 academic year. We augment the ARL data from two other sources: the 2006
U.S. News & World Report rankings and The Center spreadsheets at the University of
Florida.

Ideally, we would compare the library services provided by the University of Florida to
services provided by other institutions: how effectively compared to others do the
libraries at UF aid our teaching, research, and service missions? Since we know of no
practical way to do that, we look at inputs instead. We estimate what might be roughly
thought of as "demands" for various library inputs as functions of various university
characteristics. The characteristics are the number of students, the number of faculty,
the presence of a medical school, the presence of a law school, and, as a crude
measure of quality, the U.S. News & World Report scores. We expect the demand for
the various library inputs to vary positively with each of these measures.

The input measures we use are total library spending, total library salaries, the number
of professional library staff, spending on electronic materials including software, all
library spending on materials, spending on journals (serials), and spending on
monographs. Our method is ordinary least squares regression. All of the variables are in
logarithms, except for the US News rating, and dichotomous indicators of the presence
of a law school or a medical school. Primarily for ease of exposition, we add a
dichotomous variable UF, which takes the value one if the observation is for the
University of Florida and zero otherwise.

We report results from four sets of specifications of the regression equation. In the first
set the independent variables are the log of the number of students, the log of the
number of faculty, the U.S. News rating (on a scale of one to 100), and the dichotomous
variables for medical school, law school, and UF. With this specification, we have data
for 82 institutions (only 79 for total spending on electronic materials). As a minor
variation, we impute values for the U.S. News ratings for an additional 20 institutions,
using a standard imputation method that avoids inducing bias.


Page 57









Next, returning to the original 82 observations, we assume that in providing library
services, universities experience constant returns to scale in the sense that an
institution with 40,000 students and 3,000 faculty requires twice the library services of
one with 20,000 students and 1,500 faculty. This assumption is counterintuitive,
especially with respect to acquisitions and undergraduates. Few academics would
encourage a high school graduate to go to LSU instead of Swarthmore because of
LSU's larger holdings. Even for faculty, the increase in their number will result in more
people per discipline, not just more disciplines. Our first and second sets of regressions
strongly reject constant returns, and suggest that a doubling of university size is
associated with an increase in total library spending of about sixty percent. Since UF is
a very large institution, not allowing for economies of scale makes our spending look
especially low relative to our peers. We include this specification in case economies of
scale are being rapidly eroded by changes in information and communications
technology and by the determination of the publishers of commercial journals to seek
perfect price discrimination, to charge what the market will bear, which may rise in
proportion to size.

Finally, we go to the other extreme, and add a host of new variables to the first
specification for the 102 institutions. These variables, from The Center, are (in
logarithmic form) the number of postdoctoral fellows, annual giving, the number of
members of the National Academy of Sciences, and total research spending. We also
add the peer component of the U.S. News rating. These extra variables generally have
t-statistics less than one, indicating they do not belong. The inclusion of this extra noise
biases the coefficient of UF toward zero, making it appear that UF is closer to average
spending holding other things constant. Even with this method, the University of
Florida's total library spending is 18% below the amount predicted.

The conclusions that emerge most strongly are that (1) Florida's total library spending is
lower than expected for a university of its size and quality, and (2) spending on total
electronic materials is remarkably low. Spending on monographs is also very low, but
the number of monographs purchased is not much below the number expected.
Spending on serials, in contrast, is close to the expected value (except for the probably
inappropriate constant-returns-to-scale specification), perhaps reflecting the ability of
the publishers of commercial journals to price discriminate against (extract a lot of
money from) large institutions.

The results of our preferred set of specifications are summarized in Table 1. The
column for total spending serves to illustrate how to interpret the results. It suggests
that:
1. A 10% higher number of students is associated with 4.8% more library spending,
other things the same. The coefficient is over five times its estimated standard error
(0.09), suggesting it is estimated with reasonable precision.


Page 58









2. A 10% higher number of faculty is associated with 1% higher library spending, other
things the same. The effect is not only small but also statistically insignificant. The
estimated coefficient is only slightly larger than its standard error.
3. An 18-point higher U.S. News rating is associated with about 36% more library
spending, controlling for size and the presence of medical and law schools. Eighteen
points represents the difference between, say, 59 (Florida, Texas, UC Santa Barbara,
UC Davis) and 77 (Berkeley, Carnegie Mellon). The result is very similar using peer
evaluations instead of the US News total.
4. Having a medical school is associated with 8% higher spending.
5. Having a law school is associated with 18% higher spending.
6. UF's total spending is 30% lower than would be expected for a university of its size
and rating with law and medical schools. The coefficient is not very precisely estimated,
however. The calculation is 1/eA.36 = .70.



Table 1: Regressions Explaining Total Library Spending and Categories of Library
Spending by the Number of Students, the Number of Faculty, the U.S. News & World
Report Rating and the Presence of Medical and Law Schools.

Variable Spending Salaries Staff Electronic Materials Serials Monos

Students 0.48 0.53 0.33 0.41 0.36 0.22 0.67
(0.09) (0.10) (0.12) (0.17) (0.09) (0.08) (0.20)

Faculty 0.10 0.16 0.23 0.04 0.09 0.12 -0.05
(0.09) (0.10) (0.11) (0.17) (0.09) (0.08) (0.19)

USNews 0.020 0.022 0.018 0.017 0.016 0.010 0.028
(0.002) (0.002) (0.002) (0.004) (0.002) (0.002) (0.004)

Medical 0.08 0.05 0.08 0.16 0.08 0.10 -0.02
(0.06) (0.06) (0.08) (0.11) (0.06) (0.05) (0.13)

Law 0.18 0.20 0.20 0.01 0.18 0.13 0.16
(0.06) (0.06) (0.08) (0.11) (0.06) (0.05) (0.13)

UF -0.36 -0.40 -0.26 -0.55 -0.29 -0.11 -0.67
(0.22) (0.25) (0.30) (0.43) (0.22) (0.19) (0.50)

Constant 10.04 8.26 -1.78 9.28 10.67 11.74 6.49
0.59 (0.67) (0.81) (1.16) (0.60) (0.51) (1.34)


Page 59









N 82 82 82 79 82 182 82
R 0.78 0.77 0.64 0.35 0.33 0.69 0.49

Note: Data are from the report of the Association of Research Libraries, described in the
text, and from the U.S. News & World Report web site (subscription required). The
dependent variables are (across the columns): the logarithm of total library spending,
the logarithm of the number of total library staff, the logarithm of all spending on
electronic materials including software, the logarithm of all total library spending on
materials, the logarithm of spending on serials, and the logarithm of spending on
monographs. Three institutions did not report their spending on electronic materials
separately. The independent variables (down the rows) are the logarithm of the number
of students, the logarithm of the number of faculty, the U.S. News rating, the presence
of a medical school, the presence of a law school, an indicator for UF, and a constant
term. Standard errors are in parentheses. To differ significantly from zero in the
standard statistical sense, the magnitude of an estimated coefficient should be about
twice its standard error. The standard errors for UF are relatively large partly because
Florida is much larger than most universities, which is a reason we emphasize
comparisons with other very large institutions in the text.

Table 2: The University of Florida's Share of Its Predicted Measures of Library Inputs,
Using Four Sets of Specifications

Input Short 82 Short 102 Long 102 Constrained
82

Total 70% 76% 82% 52%
Spending

Salaries 67% 74% 80% 54%

Staff 58% 83% 89% 57%

Electronic 58% 58% 54% 39%

All Materials 75% 82% 86% 51%

Serials 89% 96% 102% 57%

Monographs 51% 56% 58% 39%

Notes: The columns represent the various sets of regression specifications. Short 82
has short sets of regressors representing the number of students, the number of
faculty, the presence of medical and law schools, and the U.S. News & World Report


Page 60









ratings. Short 102 has the same regressors except that the number of observations is
expanded to 102 by including imputed ratings for 20 institutions. Long 102 is the same
as Short 102 except that regressors representing the number of postdoctoral
employees, the number of members of the National Academy of Sciences, total
research funds, total giving, and the U.S. News peer rating are added, imputed when
necessary. Constrained 82 is the same as Short 82 except that the coefficients of Log
Total Students and Log Faculty are constrained to sum to one, thus imposing the
assumption of constant returns to scale.

The 70% in the cell representing total spending and Short 82 says that the University of
Florida's total library spending is only 70% of what the specification Short 82 predicts it
would be based on the other 81 institutions.

Appendix 2:

The Health Science Center Library at UF has made some comparisons with medical
libraries identified as serving similar clientele and colleges: University of Maryland-
Baltimore, University of Michigan, University of Minnesota, University of North Carolina-
Chapel Hill, and University of Washington.

Data on health science college enrollments is taken from enrollment figures from each
of the universities: Office of the Registrar, University of Wisconsin- Madison
http://registrar.wisc.edu/students/acadrecords/enrollment reports/Stats all 2003-
2004Fall.pdf; University of Minnesota, Institutional Research and Reporting
http://www.irr.umn.edu/stix/fall03/f03stixtabl.pdf; Ohio State figures are available at
http://www.ureg.ohio-state.edu/ourweb/srs/srscontentintadobe.html; and University of
Florida Enrollment http://www.ir.ufl.edu/factbook/i-02 hist.pdf .

Facility size and branch data were taken from the web sites of the universities, building
data collected in 1993, and email responses from appropriate staff at the universities.

Degrees granted information came for the University of Minnesota came from 2005-
2006 University Plan, Performance, and Accountability Report [ Retrieved
10/22/2006 at http://www.academic.umn.edu/accountabilitv/reports/20042005.html ];
Ohio State: Degrees Awarded by College Offering Major, Summer 2003-Spring
2004 [http://www.urea.ohio-
state.edu/ourweb/srs/srscontent/degree/maicolleae/Adobe/cnts0304.pdfl;
Wisconsin's 2003-2004 figures [Retrieved 10/22/2006 at
http://www.wisc.edu/about/facts/#degrees ; and UF's figures from Degrees, Grades, &
Grad uation/Retention Rates [Retrieved 10/22/06
http://www.ir.ufl.edu/factbook/degree.html

Other library data for this section was obtained from:


Page 61









Association of Academic Health Science Libraries Data for FY 04/05; personal
communications with Jane Blumenthal, Director, University of Michigan Health Science
Library; Linda Watkins, Director, University of Minnesota Health Sciences Library, Carol
Jenkins, Director and Steve Squires, Library Administration, University of North Carolina
Chapel Hill Health Sciences Library, Terry Ann Jankowski, Head of Information and
Education Services, University of Washington Health Sciences Library, and from
personnel at the University of Maryland Baltimore Health Sciences Library.


Page 62














6. 2011-2012 Budget Proposals


FY 2012 Projected Annual Uses of Funds Statement


College/Office Name:
Department Name:
DeptID (Level 4)
Person Completing Form:
Phone Number:




FTE
Salaries & Benefits
Faculty Salaries
Faculty Fringe Benefit Pool Expense
Faculty-COM Salaries
Faculty-COM Fringe Benefit Pool Expense
TEAMSIUSPS-Exempt Salaries
TEAMS/USPS-Exempt Fringe Benefit Pool Expense
TEAMSIUSPS-Non-Exempt Salaries
TEAMS/USPS-Non-Exempt Fringe Benefit Pool Expense
Total Salaries & Benefits
Other Temporary/OPS Faculty Salaries
Other TemporaryIOPS Faculty Fringe Benefit Pool Expense
Graduate Assistants Salaries
Graduate Assistants Fringe Benefit Pool Expense
Post Does/Housestaff Salaries
Post Docs/Housestaff Fringe Benefit Pool Expense
Student Assistants Salaries
Student Assistants Fringe Benefit Pool Expense
Additional Pay Salaries
Additional Pay Fringe Benefit Pool Expense
Total OPS & Additional Pay
Total Salaries & Benefits

Contractual Services
Repairs & Maintenance
Utilities (PPD Only)
Data Processing
Office Supplies I Software I Materials I Pubs
Rent
Printing & Reproduction
Insurance
Telephone
Postage & Freight
Food
Advertising
Travel and Training
Dues & Subscriptions
Scholarships
Graduate Asslstantship Tuition Waivers
Miscellaneous Other/ Contingencies
Concession Fund Expenses
Total Operating Expenses

Equipment
Library Resources
Financial Aid Appropriation
Risk Management Insurance
Debt-Service
Total Other

Administrative Overhead
Other Transfers Out
Net Transfers

Total Expenditures

Direct Bill to Component Units (provide details below)

Support Unit Total Expenditures


George A. Smathers Libraries
University Libraries Appropriated Only
5501
Grace Strawn







$4,925,444 $5,492,967 $5,146,124 $4,248,626
$1,347,580 $1,554,510 $1,511,687 $1.180.927

$0 $0
$3,360,023 $3,694,596 $3,404,633 $3,220,762
$1,139,357 $1,274,636 $1,177,163 $1,065,277
$2,188.473 $2,537,471 $2,288,680 $2.284,042
$933,435 $1,134249 $1,023,040 $961,578
$13,894,311 $15,688,429 $14,551,327 $12,961,213 $12,769,885
$12,489 $12,489 $12,489 $152,814
$300 ,$300 $300 $2,828
$6,893 $6,893 $6,893 $7,405
$607 $4$607 $607 $12$859,9

$0 $0
$318,308 $318,308 $318,308 $160,654
$1,592 $1,592 $1,592 $799
$43,22_ 43,224 $4,24 $8,361 417
$0 $0 $176
$340,189 $340,189 $340,189 $333,896 $401,536
$14.234,500 $16,028,617 $14,891,516 $13,295,109 $13,171,421

$63,484 $81,484 $63,484 $68,919 $65,748
$168,418 $895,108 $168,418 $147,217 $185,688

$145,480 $412,692 $125,984 $133,565 $70,731
$57,516 $57,516 $57,516 $67,045 $61,451
$19,193 $19,193 $19,193 $15.600 $14,414
$14,460 $14,460 $30,060 $10,137 $12,190

$73,400 $73,400 $73,400 $72,865 $83,629
$80,000 $80,000 $80,000 $70,975 $76,027
$307
$9,600 $9,600 $9,600 $10,173 $7,744
$136,500 $136,500 $136,500 $93,725 $169,124
$43,224 $43,224 $43,224 $50,314 $41,474


$24,300 $48,900 $8,700 $25 $422

$835,575 $1.872,077 $816,079 $740,561 $788,950

$13,000 $13.000 $13,000 $12,963
$6,763.310 $10,000.406 $7.513,310 $7,468,266 $7,783,468



$6,776,310 $10,013,406 $7,526,310 $7,481,229 $7,783,468



$0 $SO $0 $0 $0

$21,846,385 $27,914,100 $23,233,905 $21,516,899 $21,743,839



$21,846,385 $27,914,100 $23,233,905 $21,516,899 $21,743,839


Note: Include a reasonable reserve for contingencies based on prior year history.


Notes for the table above appear on the following page.


Page 63

















5% Reduction (Based on Flat Budget Below)
$415,000 Salaries
$750,000 Library Resources

Proposed Budget (Based on Flat Budget Below)
Salary
$825,000 New Positions
$620,000 for Special Projects

Operating Expense
$2,487,096 Library Resources Replace Lost Purchasing Power
$18,000 Increased Security
$726,690 Maintenance
$99,508 Replace Lost FCLA Funding
$67,200 CNS Additional Server Costs
$120,000 Additional IT Costs
$24,600 For Special Projects

Flat Budget
Salaries
$67,358 Faculty Spousal Program (Provost Funded)
$85,961 Faculty Spousal Program (Provost Funded)
$73,131 Scholarly Communication Librarian (Provost Funded)
$76,980 University Archivist (Provost Funded)
$69,156 University Records Manager (Provost Funded)
$49,120 Lib Assoc II Processing Archivist (Provost Funded)
$49,120 Lib Assoc II (Graham Center Funded)
$63,097 IT Expert (FCLA Funded)

OPS
$10,000 from IFAS
$7,000 from College of Journalism
$12,789 Archival Processing (Provost Funded)

Expense
$43,285 Archival Supplies (Provost Funded)
$15,600 DCE Contribution added to Base Budget per Provost


Page 64














Smathers Libraries 2011-2012 Budget With 5% Less Funding



5% Less Funding Smathers Libraries $1.348 Million

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 Lawton Chiles Legal Information Center which is supported by
the Levin College of Law and, therefore, not included in this proposal. For the purpose of this RCM
report, the Smathers Libraries are presented in a combined budget, but where appropriate, the data is
also reported separately for the two components.
Over the last several years, the Libraries have been extremely conservative in filling vacated staff and
faculty positions in order to meet anticipated or actual budget cuts, and have historically cut materials
last and/or least when facing budget reductions. As a result, the Libraries are severely understaffed.
Accordingly, when modeling for a 5% cut for the next fiscal year, collections (materials) and library hours
bear the brunt of the cuts.

Additional information about the Libraries that will be useful in considering this budget proposal has
been provided separately.

An overview of current library facilities and services is available at
http://www.uflib.ufl.edu/pio/Smathers Libraries/SmathersLibraries2010.html
A comparison of staffing levels and materials budgets for peer institutions in the Association for
Research Libraries (ARL) is available at http://www.uflib.ufl.edu/pio/budget/budget-
narrative2010-2011.pdf.

The Materials Budget:

The impact of material cuts on library patrons is intensified by lost buying power due to high rate
increases for library materials. These increases will total nearly $700,000 in 2011-2012 alone. This is in
addition to $2.4 million in lost purchasing power from 2007-2008 through 2010-2011.

Fiscal Year Inflation Rate Lost Buying Power Cumulative Loss
2007-2008 5.8623% $546,742 $ 546,742
2008-2009 5.8691% $579,464 $1,126,206
2009-2010 5.8759% $614,185 $1,740,391
2010-2011 5.8827% $651,032 $2,391,423
2011-2012 5.8896% $690,137 $3,081,560

As a result the Libraries have had no opportunity to maintain, much less develop, suitable collections.
The Libraries are unable to purchase and license the range of print and electronic resources, which are
core to an academic library's capacity to support a research enterprise with the breadth and depth of
UF's. The impact of this has been across the Smathers Libraries, affecting all disciplines.

Cumulative Lost Buying Power: UL HSCL Smathers Total
$2,487,096 $594,465 $3,081,560

Although the lost buying power impacts the entire collections budget, the majority of the Electronic
Resources budget is for materials licensed and purchased through consortia and, therefore, cannot be


Page 65










cut by UF independently. As a result, Print Monographs (books) and Print Serials (journals) experience a
highly disproportionate reduction when we adjust for lost purchasing power or budget cuts. In the event
of a 5% cut in the budget for the Smathers Libraries, the proposed reductions in the materials budget for
2011-2012, including those made as a result of lost purchasing power, are:

Proposed Materials Cuts: UL HSCL Smathers Total
-5% Budget Cut: $750,000 $113,000 $863,000
2011-2012 Lost
Purchasing Power: $556,138 $133,999 $690.137
TOTAL: $1,306,138 $246,999 $1,553,137

The application of these reductions by material type is represented in the table below:

2011-2012 Lost
-5% Budget Cut Purchasing Power Smathers Total
Print Serials $300,000 $200,000 $500,000
Print Monographs $300,000 $300,000 $600,000
Electronic Resources $263,000 $190,137 $453,137
Total: $863,000 $690,137 $1,553,137

A $500,000 cut in Print Serials represents a 30% decrease. While many serials are now available
electronically, a large number of important titles in the Humanities and Social Sciences, including many
foreign language journals, are still available only in print. To implement this cut, library subject selectors
would work with the academic faculty and units, directly or through the Faculty Senate, to identify the
specific materials to be forfeited.

A $600,000 cut in Print Monographs represents a 57% decrease in the number of volumes added to the
Libraries' book collections. This loss will primarily affect the Humanities, and to a lesser degree the
Social Sciences, as they are still heavily dependent on print monographs. In all likelihood these titles will
never be added to the collections, since print runs for academic titles are so small that most academic
books go out of print within the year and future purchasing will be focused on current, rather than
retrospective, acquisition. For the HSCL, however, this represents a 100% loss of monograph acquisitions
as this eliminates the entire print monograph budget.

A $453,137 cut in Electronic Resources1 (ER) is a comparatively low 6% decrease, but the options for
what can be cancelled in ER are tightly constrained by statewide consortial licenses and purchasing
agreements. These cuts would have to come from databases and journal packages purchased or licensed
by UF alone. The Sciences and Health Sciences are heavily dependent on electronic access and would be
deeply impacted by these cuts. Again, subject selectors would work in direct consultation with academic
faculty, or through the Faculty Senate, to identify cuts from the following list of databases and journal
packages likely to be eliminated:

*American Physical Society journal package
*American Society of Civil Engineers journal package
*CAB abstracts
*Digital Campus

1 The total Electronic Resources budget is $7.48 million, of which $1.4 million is funded by DSR.


Page 66










*Emerald Full Text
*EBMR (Evidence Based Medicine Reviews)
*JAMA & Archives (Journal of the American Medical Association)
*Journal Citation Reports Web
*Karger Publishing Package- sample titles
American Journal of Nephrology
Cytogenetic and Genome Research
*Lippincott Wilkins and Williams Publisher Package- sample titles:
Academic Medicine
American Journal of Nursing
Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise
Neurosurgery
Plastic & Reconstructive Surgery
Spine
*Mary Ann Liebert Publisher Package-sample titles:
Human Gene Therapy
Journal of Neurotrauma
*Mental Measurements Yearbook
*National Research Council of Canada journal package
*Optics infobase
*OVID Journals
*Oxford University Press journals
*PsycBooks
*Royal Society of Chemistry journal package
*Science Online
*Springer Protocols Current Content
*STATI-Ref
*Thieme Publisher Package-sample titles
Seminars in Respiratory & Critical Care
Synlett
Synthesis

These proposed cuts, when combined with the 2011-2012 lost buying power, would result is a loss of
$1.5 million from a materials budget already weakened by prior lost purchasing power and budget cuts.
The cumulative effect would amount to a 17% decrease in materials for 2011-2012.

The Salary Budget:

As noted above, the Libraries have hired conservatively in the past three years and have given up funding
for vacant positions rather than take cuts in the Materials Budget. As a result, the Libraries are severely
understaffed. In the event of a 5% cut in the budget for the Smathers Libraries, the proposed reductions
in the salary budget for 2011-2012 are:

Proposed Salary Cuts: UL HSCL Smathers Total
$415,000 $70,000 $485,000


Page 67










The application of these reductions is represented in the table below:


Elimination of staff positions $100,000 (2 positions)
Unfilled vacant tenure track positions $280,000 (4 positions)
Anthropology Librarian
Political Science Librarian
Emerging Technologies Librarian
Clinical Librarian
Unfilled vacant staff positions $105,000
Exhibits Coordinator
Cataloging Staff
Total: $485,000

A key consequence of eliminating two staff positions would be a reduction in the University Libraries
operating hours. The current plan, subject to input from the University Administration, Faculty Senate
and Student Government, would be for all branches (excluding Health Science) to be closed from Friday
night at 6 p.m. until Sunday afternoon at 2 p.m. Students would lose access to the Libraries for 16 hours
per weekend: 4 hours Friday night (from 6 until 10 p.m.); 8 hours on Saturday (from 10 a.m. until 6 p.m.)
and 4 hours on Sunday (10 a.m. until 2 p.m.). This would affect primarily Library West and Marston, but
AFA, Education and Government Documents/Maps also have weekend hours during this time frame that
would be eliminated. This is a 15% reduction in overall hours, and at Library West alone would affect
approximately 3,000 students each weekend.

As a result of unfilled library faculty vacancies, the disciplines of Anthropology and Political Science are
currently being serviced on a temporary basis by a part-time graduate student and another liaison
librarian with other subject specialization and assignments. Neither situation is acceptable for the long-
term: the graduate student can only handle basic services, and the liaison librarian is continually pulled
between multiple departments. As a result, basic services are provided, at best, and limited instruction
and research services are available to these departments.

Our current Emerging Technologies librarian was reassigned to cover a crucial service position,
Interlibrary Loan, which was previously staffed by two librarians. Technologies are constantly changing in
libraries, and without the position we will miss opportunities to provide the best services for our faculty
and students and to enhance their access to library materials.

The exhibits coordinator would provide services across the Smathers Libraries, shoring up a good, but
underfunded and understaffed, program of outreach to the campus and to the community.

One of the core services identified by the HSC in their strategic planning is the clinical mission: providing
the highest quality patient care and patient safety. Clinical librarians are becoming increasingly common
in health sciences libraries and this Clinical Librarian position is key to assisting the HSC in attaining their
patient care goals. Studies have found that there are numerous benefits to having a librarian as part of a
clinical team: saving clinicians' time, supporting evidence-based patient care at the bedside, and
developing future information systems. Other studies have found that online literature searches
provided during morning report result in a reduction in the length of stay for patients. The inability to
hire a Clinical Librarian will adversely impact the HSC's ability to help provide the highest quality patient
care and safety.


Page 68










The jeopardized cataloging position would catalog federal documents in preparation for the SUS high
density facility and generate catalog records for UF electronic theses and dissertations, foreign language
materials, maps, music scores and rare books. The loss of this position would substantially affect these
areas and delay readiness of UF materials for the high density facility.

The Operations Budeet:

Although the Libraries are not proposing cuts in the Operations Budget, we are experiencing increasing
costs and eroding funding in both maintenance and technology, which have the same effect as budget
reductions of over $1 million. Even by allocating the entire 5 percent cut to materials and staff
eliminations, the Libraries' operations budget will become increasingly inadequate.

Maintenance:

The library facilities are extensive (nearly 475,000 square feet of usable space, containing 3,800
upholstered chairs, and over 41,000 square feet of shelving for materials) and amongst the most heavily
used on campus (3 million in-person visitors each year). Student spaces include open areas, restricted-
study graduate student areas, group meeting rooms and individual study carrels. 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 students and researchers suffer from unclean and inadequately maintained
facilities and the lack of periodic cleaning of the shelving damages the library materials over time.

The current operations budget permits limited repainting and cleaning of upholstery, primarily to
address extreme situations. It does not allow for routine, schedule cleaning and maintenance of the
public spaces. There is already an estimated shortfall of $837,323 in annual expenses required for
maintenance.

Technology:

The University of Florida Libraries are technology hubs. The Libraries maintain over 1,000 workstations,
110 scanners, and 50 networked printers with 300 individual printers. All equipment is supported by the
Libraries' Information Technology Hardware Support Unit(s).

Smathers Libraries utilize over 90 terabytes of server space for archival and operational purposes. Costs
for virtualization and back-up with CNS are $150,120 in 2010-2011. It is anticipated that costs for virtual
CNS hosting and back-up will be an additional $67,200 for 2011-2012, given current growth patterns.
Based on volume increases for digital collections, including electronic theses and dissertations, this trend
will continue in successive years.

The Libraries maintain the largest number of public workstations on campus (541), but receive no
centralized IT funding. Instead, the Libraries have relied heavily on technology funding provided by the
Florida Center for Library Automation (FCLA) to sustain its technology. At the direction of the SUS
provosts, FCLA is now phasing out its direct support for technology at the SUS libraries. The table below
shows that the Libraries have lost $112,972 through 2011-2012 and will lose an estimated total of
$369,634 by 2014-2015, as shown in the table below.


Page 69












FCLA Technology Funds for the Smathers Libraries:


UL
$316,826
$320,031
$268,651
$265,023
$217,319
$162,989
$108,659
$54,330
$0


HSCL
$52,808
$53,981
$45,587
$47,980
$39,344
$29,508
$19,672
$9,836
$0


Smathers
Total
$369,634
$374,012
$314,238
$313,003
$256,662
$192,497
$128,331
$64,166
$0


Change in Total from
Prior Year
$0
$4,378
($59,774)
($1,235)
($56,341)
($64,166)
($64,166)
($64,166)
($64,166)


Cumulative
Change from
2007-2008
$0
$4,378
($55,396)
($56,631)
($112,972)
($177,137)
($241,303)
($305,468)
($369,634)


* FCLA technology funds are allocated based on student FTE at each SUS. The amounts to be received by UF and the shares
for UL and HSCL are estimates based on current allocations. If enrollment at the other institutions continues to outpace UF,
this decline in funding will be steeper.

Even if the Libraries' technology budget is protected by cuts to other areas, the reduced FCLA funding
must be replaced in the Libraries' budget or funded from the central IT budgets or student technology
fee, or the current level of service will suffer, including periodic replacement of public access computers
and peripherals.

Similarly, the CNS charges for hosting the Libraries' digital collections and other data is increasing
steadily, so without an annual increase in funding to cover these expenses, indefinite future funding by
the Libraries is not possible. For the Libraries these are equivalent to utility charges that must be
adequately supported through the Libraries budget or incorporated into the central IT budgets.


Page 70


2007-2008
2008-2009
2009-2010
2010-2011
2011-2012*
2012-2013*
2013-2014*
2014-2015*
2015-2016














Smathers Libraries 2011-2012 Budget With Flat Funding


Flat Funding Smathers Libraries

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 Lawton Chiles Legal Information Center which is supported by
the Levin College of Law and, therefore, not included in this proposal. For the purpose of this RCM
report, the Smathers Libraries are presented in a combined budget, but where appropriate, the data is
also reported separately for the two components.

Over the last several years, the Libraries have been extremely conservative in filling vacated staff and
faculty positions in order to meet anticipated or actual budget cuts, and have historically cut materials
last and/or least when facing budget reductions. As a result, the Libraries are severely understaffed. The
operational budgets of the Libraries, particularly the HSCL, are inadequate to address facilities and
patron needs. Price increases well above the rate of inflation chronically deplete purchasing power for
library materials. Accordingly, in planning for a flat budget, operations and, to an even greater extent,
collections are negatively impacted.

Additional information about the Libraries that will be useful in considering this budget proposal has
been provided separately.

An overview of current library facilities and services is available at
http://www.uflib.ufl.edu/pio/Smathers Libraries/SmathersLibraries2010.html
A comparison of staffing levels and materials budgets for peer institutions in the Association for
Research Libraries (ARL) is available at http://www.uflib.ufl.edu/pio/budget/budget-
narrative2010-2011.Ddf.

The Materials Budget:

Despite protecting the materials budget through the past budget reductions, lost buying power due to
high rate increases for library materials, which will total nearly $700,000 in 2011-2012 alone, is
extremely problematic. The 2011-2012 erosion will be in addition to $2.4 million in lost purchasing
power from 2007-2008 through 2010-2011, as shown in the table below.

Fiscal Year Inflation Rate Lost Buying Power Cumulative Loss
2007-2008 5.8623% $546,742 $ 546,742
2008-2009 5.8691% $579,464 $1,126,206
2009-2010 5.8759% $614,185 $1,740,391
2010-2011 5.8827% $651,032 $2,391,423
2011-2012 5.8896% $690,137 $3,081,560

2011-2012 Lost Buying Power: UL HSCL Smathers Total
$556,138 $133,999 $690,137

As a result the Libraries have had no opportunity to maintain, much less develop, suitable collections.
The Libraries are unable to purchase and license the range of print and electronic resources, which are
core to an academic library's capacity to support a research enterprise with the breadth and depth of
UF's. The impact of this has been across the Smathers Libraries, affecting all disciplines.


Page 71













Cumulative Lost Buying Power: UL HSCL Smathers Total
$2,487,096 $594,465 $3,081,560

Though the lost buying power impacts the entire collections budget, the majority of the Electronic
Resources budget is for materials licensed and purchased through consortia and, therefore, cannot be
cut by UF independently. As a result, Print Monographs (books) and Print Serials (journals) experience a
highly disproportionate reduction when we adjust for lost purchasing power. In the event of a flat
materials budget for the Smathers Libraries, the reductions from 2011-2012 lost purchasing power will
be attributed as follows:

UL HSCL Smathers Total
Print Serials $200,000 $0 $200,000
Print Monographs $200,000 $100,000 $300,000
Electronic Resources $156,138 $33,999 $190,137
Total: $690,137

A $200,000 loss in Print Serials represents a 12% decrease. While many serials are now available
electronically, a large number of important titles, including many foreign language journals, are still
available only in print. To manage these cuts, library subject selectors would work with the academic
faculty and units to identify the specific materials to be forfeited.

A $300,000 loss in Print Monographs represents a 28.5% decrease in the number of volumes added to
the Libraries' book collections. This loss will primarily affect the Humanities, and to a lesser degree the
Social Sciences, as these disciplines are still heavily dependent on print monographs. In all likelihood
these titles will never be added to the collections, since print runs for academic titles are so small that
most academic books go out of print within the year and future purchasing will be focused on current,
rather than retrospective, acquisition. For the HSCL, however, this represents a 100% loss of monograph
acquisitions as this eliminates the entire print monograph budget.

A $190,137 loss in Electronic Resources (ER) is a small percentage of the overall materials budget, but the
choices for what can be cancelled in ER are tightly constrained by statewide consortial licenses and
purchasing agreements. As a result the cuts would have to come from databases and journal packages
purchased or licensed by UF alone. The Sciences and Health Sciences are heavily dependent on
electronic access and would be deeply impacted by these losses. Again, subject selectors would work in
direct consultation with academic faculty to identify cuts from the following list of databases and journal
packages likely to be eliminated:

Digital Campus
Emerald Full Text
Optics infobase
CAB abstracts
National Research Council of Canada journal package
PsycBooks
Springer Protocols Current Content
STATI-Ref
Mental Measurements Yearbook
Karger Publishing Package- sample titles


Page 72













American Journal of Nephrology
Cytogenetic and Genome Research
Mary Ann Liebert Publisher Package sample titles
Human Gene Therapy
Journal of Neurotrauma
Thieme Publisher Package sample titles
Seminars in Respiratory & Critical Care
Synlett
Synthesis

Continued lost buying power for 2011-2012, resulting from a flat budget, will further compromise a
materials budget already weakened by past lost purchasing power and budget cuts. The cumulative
effect would amount to a 5.89% decrease in materials for 2011-2012.

The Salary Budget:

As noted above, the Libraries have hired conservatively in the past three years and have given up funding
for vacant positions rather than take cuts in the Materials Budget. As a result, the Libraries are severely
understaffed. In the event of a flat budget for the Smathers Libraries, we will fill some of the critical
vacancies, with particular emphasis on subject specialists and liaisons with academic departments, in
order to restore essential services for faculty and students.

The Operations Budget:

Maintenance:

The library facilities are extensive (nearly 475,000 square feet of usable space, containing 3,800
upholstered chairs, and over 41,000 square feet of shelving for materials) and amongst the most heavily
used on campus (3 million in-person visitors each year). Student spaces include open areas, restricted-
study graduate student areas, group meeting rooms and individual study carrels. 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 students and researchers suffer from unclean and inadequately maintained
facilities and the lack of periodic cleaning of the shelving damages the library materials over time.

The current operations budget permits limited repainting and cleaning of upholstery, primarily to
address extreme situations. It does not allow for routine, scheduled cleaning and maintenance of public
spaces. With a flat budget for 2011-2012, the estimated shortfall in annual expenses required for
maintenance is $837,323.

Technology:

The University of Florida Libraries are technology hubs. The Libraries maintain over 1,000 workstations,
110 scanners, and 50 networked printers with 300 individual printers. All equipment is supported by the
Libraries' Information Technology Hardware Support Units.

Smathers Libraries utilize over 90 terabytes of server space for archival and operational purposes. Costs
for virtualization and back-up with CNS are $150,120 in 2010-2011. It is anticipated that costs for virtual


Page 73













CNS hosting and back-up will be an additional $67,200 for 2011-2012, given current growth patterns.
Based on volume increases for digital collections, including electronic theses and dissertations, this trend
will continue in successive years.

The Libraries maintain the largest number of public workstations on campus (541), but receive no
centralized IT funding. Instead, the Libraries have relied heavily on technology funding provided by the
Florida Center for Library Automation (FCLA) to sustain its technology. At the direction of the SUS
provosts, FCLA is now phasing out its direct support for technology at the SUS libraries. The table below
shows that the Libraries have lost $112,972 through 2011-2012 and will lose an estimated total of
$369,634 by 2014-2015.

FCLA Technology Funds for the Smathers Libraries:

Cumulative
Smathers Change in Total from Change from
UL HSCL Total Prior Year 2007-2008
2007-2008 $316,826 $52,808 $369,634 $0 $0
2008-2009 $320,031 $53,981 $374,012 $4,378 $4,378
2009-2010 $268,651 $45,587 $314,238 ($59,774) ($55,396)
2010-2011 $265,023 $47,980 $313,003 ($1,235) ($56,631)
2011-2012* $217,319 $39,344 $256,662 ($56,341) ($112,972)
2012-2013* $162,989 $29,508 $192,497 ($64,166) ($177,137)
2013-2014* $108,659 $19,672 $128,331 ($64,166) ($241,303)
2014-2015* $54,330 $9,836 $64,166 ($64,166) ($305,468)
2015-2016 $0 $0 $0 ($64,166) ($369,634)

* FCLA technology funds are allocated based on student FTE at each SUS. The amounts to be received by UF and the shares
for UL and HSCL are estimates based on current allocations. If enrollment at the other institutions continues to outpace UF,
this decline in funding will be steeper.

Even if the Libraries' budget is flat, the FCLA funding must be replaced in the Libraries' budget or funded
from the central IT budgets or student technology fee in order to sustain the current level of service,
including periodic replacement of public access computers and peripherals.

Similarly, the CNS charges for hosting the Libraries' digital collections and other data is increasing
steadily, so without an annual increase in funding to cover these expenses, indefinite future funding by
the Libraries is not possible. For the Libraries these are equivalent to utility charges that must be
adequately supported through the Libraries' budget or incorporated into the central IT budgets.


Page 74















Recurring Increases to the Base Budget Already Authorized:


UF Archives & Records
Management (Salary, OPS, OE):
Scholarly Communications (Salary)
Clinical Research (Salary)
Distance Learning Fees (OE)

Committed Non-Recurring Funding:


Graham Center Archivist (Salary)
Trailing Spouse Basic Sciences
Librarian, HSCL (Salaries)


UL


$172,846
$73,131
$0
$15,600


UL
$49,120


HSCL Smathers Total


$115,370
$0
$57,510
$62,400


HSCL
$0


$40,200


$288,2161
$73,1312
$57,5102
$76,0003


Smathers Total
$49,1204


$40,2005


1 $241,470 in Salaries, $12,789 in OPS; and $33,967 in Operating Expenses. In addition, $263,000 is committed for archival
shelving in 2012-2013. (Authorized by the Provost and the Sr. Vice President of Health Affairs.)
2 Jump start positions. (Authorized by the President)
3 Student fee formerly passed through by DOCE to be added to the base budget. (Authorized by the Provost)
4 Time-limited position funded by the Graham Center.
s $20,100 from the Provost; $20,100 from CLAS.


Page 75














Smathers Libraries 2011-2012 Budget With Increased Funding



Increased Funding Smathers Libraries: Recurring: $5,222,056
Non-Recurring: $704,600

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 Lawton Chiles Legal Information Center which is supported by
the Levin College of Law and, therefore, not included in this proposal. For the purpose of this RCM
report, the Smathers Libraries are presented in a combined budget, but where appropriate, the data is
also reported separately for the two components.

Over the last several years, the Libraries have been extremely conservative in filling vacated staff and
faculty positions in order to meet anticipated or actual budget cuts, and we have lost over 5.8% per year
in purchasing power for materials. As a result, the Libraries are severely understaffed and materials
available to support our students, faculty and researchers are contracting, rather than expanding.
Accordingly, when modeling for an ideal budget for the next fiscal year, both collections (materials) and
library faculty and staff are identified for significant increases in investment.

Additional information about the Libraries that will be useful in considering this budget proposal has
been provided separately.

An overview of current library facilities and services is available at
http://www.uflib.ufl.edu/pio/Smathers Libraries/SmathersLibraries2010.html
A comparison of staffing levels and materials budgets for peer institutions in the Association for
Research Libraries (ARL) is available at http://www.uflib.ufl.edu/pio/budget/budget-
narrative2010-2011.pdf.

The Materials Budget:

Decreasing and tightly constrained budgets combined with high rate increases for academic journals and
other library materials have caused the UF Libraries to lose over $3 million in buying power since 2007-
2008.

Fiscal Year Inflation Rate Lost Buying Power Cumulative Loss
2007-2008 5.8623% $546,742 $ 546,742
2008-2009 5.8691% $579,464 $1,126,206
2009-2010 5.8759% $614,185 $1,740,391
2010-2011 5.8827% $651,032 $2,391,423
2011-2012 5.8896% $690,137 $3,081,560

As a result the Libraries have had no opportunity to maintain, much less develop, suitable collections.
The Libraries are unable to purchase and license the range of print and electronic resources, which are
core to an academic library's capacity to support a research enterprise with the breadth and depth of UF.
The impact of this has been across the Smathers Libraries, affecting all disciplines.

Cumulative Lost Buying Power: UL HSCL Smathers Total
$2,487,096 $594,465 $3,081,560


Page 76











This lost buying power should be restored by increasing the Libraries base budget for materials. The
restored materials funding would be allocated across material types as follows:

Proposed Recurring Expenses:

E-Journals $ 630,000
Databases $1,300,000
E-Books $ 300,000
Print Monographs $ 100,000
Electronic Back Files $ 750,000
Total: $3,080,000

Funding will be used for new and retroactive purchasing and licensing to restore the collection to the
depth it would currently have if the materials budget had been fully funded since 2007. A large increase
is projected for electronic journals since journal publication remains at the core of research
dissemination and it is essential that researchers across the university have access to a broad, diverse
and current collection. E-books are core to scientific research and are becoming increasingly important
in both the Humanities and Social Sciences. Databases provide aggregation of additional journals and
research publications and back files provide depth. Although back files are one-time purchases, the
libraries have had so little opportunity to build collections that back files will require years of funding to
build a collection worthy of a highly ranked institution, therefore it should be included as recurring
funding.

Planned growth in funding for materials is needed to maintain the purchasing power once restored and
provide for an increased materials budget over time to allow the Libraries to address the evolving needs
of the academic and research units. Future needs for sustainable funding for materials beyond 2011-
2012 will be addressed in the zero-based budget review to be presented to the budget review committee
in December.

The following are examples of how the restored materials funding would be spent in 2011-2012.

Journals Individual Electronic Journal titles in direct consultation with faculty.
Electronic Journal packages in direct consultation with faculty.
Likely journals and journal packages to be acquired include:
Biology of Blood and Marrow Transplantation
Cell Cycle
Chinese Academic Journals/Century Journals Project
Current Gene Therapy
Elsevier's complete Clinics in series
Endocrine Practice
Evidence Based Medicine Reviews
Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Clinics of North America
HFSP Journal
Immunologic Research
International Journal of pharmaceutical compounding
International Review of Cytology
Journal of American Academy of Audiology


Page 77










Journal of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography
Journal of Clinical Psychiatry
Journal of Hospital Librarianship
Journal of Knee Surgery
Journal of Neuroradiology
Journal of Pediatric Endocrinology and Metabolism
Journal of the American Association for Laboratory Animal Science
Journal of Visualization
Journal of Visualized Experiments
Neurocritical Care
Neuropsychopharmacology
Pink Sheet: Prescription pharmaceuticals and biotechnology
Reviews in the Neurosciences
Veterinary Clinics of North America: Equine Practice
Veterinary Clinics of North America: Exotic Animal Practice
Veterinary Clinics of North America: Food Animal Practice
Veterinary Clinics of North America: Small Animal Practice
Wiley's Current protocols in series

Databases ArtBibliographies Modern
Black Abolitionist Papers
Cabell's Directory of Educational Curriculum and Methods
Cabell's Directory of Education Psychology and Administration
Cabell's Directory of Educational Technology and Library Science
Classical Scores Library
Congressional Research Digital Collection
Counseling and Therapy in Video
CSH Protocols
Current Protocols in Bioinformatics
Current Protocols in Cytometry
Current Protocols in Human Genetics
Current Protocols in Immunology
Current Protocols in Microbiology
Current Protocols in Nucleic Acid Chemistry
Current Protocols in Pharmacology
Current Protocols in Stem Cell Biology
Current Protocols in Toxicology
Design and Applied Arts Index
Dynamed
Early European Books
EdITLib (Education & Information Technology Digital Library
Education in Video (Alexander Street Press)
Embase
Emedicine
Facts and Comparisons Online
Faculty of 1000 Medicine
FirstConsult
Gideon


Page 78










Global GIS Database
Goldfranks Toxicologic Emergencies
Handbook of Injectable Drugs
Harrison's Practice
Ingenuity Pathway Analysis (IPA)
JAMAEvidence
Lexicomp
MADCAD
Materials Connexion
Medicine Complete
Micromedex
Mosby's Nursing Consult
Natural Standards
NAXOS streaming audio
Newsbank Access World News Research Collection
Opera in Video
Oxford University Press Archives-Medicine
Oxford University Press Archives-Science
Pediatric Care Online
Pharmacy Library
Procedures Consult
Proquest Historic Newspapers
RISM
RIPM
Scopus
Up-to-Date
Video on Demand through Films for the Humanities
VisualDX

Books Springer E-Book annual packages
Faculty-driven monograph acquisition print and electronic
Likely acquisitions would include:
Access Emergency Medicine
Briggs: Drugs in Pregnancy and Lactation
Comprehensive Heterocyclic Chemistry III
Encyclopedia of Biostatistics
Foundation in Diagnostic Pathology
Medicine and Dentistry
Neuroscience
Peer VII Physicians Evaluation and Educational Review in Emergency Medicine
RedBook Online
Synthesis Lectures, collection 4

Back Files Springer Historical Archive
Elsevier journal back files.
Sage journal back files
American Geophysical Union Journal
American Journal of Physiology (before 1997)


Page 79










Annals of Behavioral Medicine (earlier than 1997)
Biomedical and Life Sciences Journal
Chemical Engineering Journal
Chemistry and Materials Science Journal
Computer Science Journal
Earth & Environmental Science Journal
Earth and Planetary Sciences Journal
Energy and Power Journal
Engineering Journal
High Energy/Nuclear Physics and Astronomy Journal
Inorganic Chemistry Journal
Journal of Chemical Ecology (earlier than 1997)
JSTOR Arts & Sciences VI
JSTOR Arts & Sciences VIII
JSTOR Arts & Sciences IX
JSTOR Business III
LWW Nursing Archive
Materials Science Journal
Mathematics Journal
Neuroscience Journal
Physical and Analytical Chemistry Journal
Physics and Astronomy Journal
Times Literary Supplement Historical Archive 1902-2005

Providing this restored funding to the Libraries would strengthen the infrastructure and help increase
the University's standing in the academic and research communities. Offering faculty, students,
researchers and clinicians anywhere, any time access to information enhances their ability to carry out
the university's goals. Access to information plays a strategic role in a number of the university's key
activities including successful research initiatives, distance learning initiatives, quality health care and
increased patient safety initiatives and educational initiatives including the establishment of new
programs. It is well documented that we are experiencing an explosion of information and it is the
library's role to deliver the most current and relevant information available, which in turn allows the
university to fulfill its mission. Lost purchasing power and flat materials budgets have hampered the
ability of the Libraries to support these academic and research endeavors.

The Salary Budget:

Decreasing and tightly constrained budgets have caused the UF libraries to be extremely conservative
over the last several years in filling vacated staff and faculty positions. Many librarians currently serve
multiple departments or colleges. This problem cuts across disciplines, but the most severe needs tend
to fall in the Sciences and Social Sciences. At the same time, a number of new initiatives on campus and
within the Libraries require increased staff effort and new types of staffing. A variety of positions are
needed to bring the Libraries to full service a level permitting the appropriate support of the
university's academic and research missions.

Proposed Recurring Expenses: UL HSCL Smathers Total
$843,000 $130,000 $973,000


Page 80










The application of these increases is represented in the table below:


Faculty 8 @ $65,000*
Visiting Faculty 1 @ $55,000*
Staff 2 @ $45,000* and 4 @ $65,000*
OPS 2 FTE @ $15,000
Contracted Services Security Guard @ $18,000
Total: $973,000 *includes benefits

Additional recurring positions needed to bring the Libraries up to a full service staff:
Liaison librarians for underserved colleges and departments (4 faculty)
Bio-informatics Librarian supporting the scientific intersection of biology, computer science, and
information technology (1 faculty)

New programs and initiatives made possible by additional staffing include:
Establishment of a campus Data Curation program, comparable to the Johns Hopkins University
libraries' Digital Research and Curation Center (http://ldp.librarv.ihu.edu/dkc), providing support
for researchers in meeting federal mandates and enhancing curation and accessibility of their
research product. (1 faculty and 2 staff)
Continuation of support for VIVO (http://vivo.ufl.edu/about) beyond the end of the grant in
August 2011 when the program is left unstaffed. (1 faculty and 1 staff)
Expanded library hours in Library West to 24/5 (open to patrons from Sunday morning through
Friday evening, as well as during the day on Saturday) as repeatedly requested by Student
Government. (2 staff, 2 FTE OPS and expanded contract security services for overnight shifts)
Expanded web services and mobile applications to enhance access to library materials and
research assistance, comparable to those at North Carolina State University libraries
(http://www.lib.ncsu.edu/dli/). (1 staff)
Establishment of a Digital Scholarship Unit, comparable to those at the University of Virginia
(http://www2.lib.virginia.edu/scholarslab/index.html), the University of Nebraska-Lincoln
(http://cdrh.unl.edu/) and Brown University (http://library.brown.edu/cds/). The unit will
support area specific needs as with E-Science and the Digital Humanities, develop new digital
projects with faculty, developing new forms of digital scholarly publishing, and build tools and
systems that support digital information and scholarly activity. (1 faculty preparing for
implementation in 2012-2013.)
Establishment of a long sought Post-MLS Fellowship position to be used to support special
projects. (1 Visiting Faculty)

The Operations Budget:

Maintenance:

Proposed Recurring Expenses: UL HSCL Smathers Total
$726,690 $110,633 $837,323

The library facilities are extensive (nearly 475,000 square feet of usable space, containing 3,800
upholstered chairs, and over 41,000 square feet of shelving for materials) and amongst the most heavily
used on campus (3 million in-person visitors each year). Student spaces include open areas, restricted-


Page 81










study graduate student areas, group meeting rooms and individual study carrels. 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.

Increased recurring funding would be used to paint and repair walls, clean upholstery, and dust and
clean library stacks. None of this upkeep is funded or routinely handled at present. The estimated
annual expenses for this $837,323.

Rotating repair and painting of walls
with an average service of once every 5 years. $712,272
Upholstery cleaning for public seating
with an average service every other year. $28,163
Shelving and materials to be dusted and cleaned
once per year. $96,888

Technology:

Proposed Recurring Expenses: UL HSCL Smathers Total
$286,708 $43,464 $330,172

The University of Florida Libraries are technology hubs that are among the most frequented student
spaces on campus. The Libraries maintain over 1,000 workstations, 110 scanners, and 50 networked
printers with 300 individual printers. All equipment is supported by the Libraries' Information Technology
Hardware Support Unit(s).

Smathers Libraries utilize over 90 terabytes of server space for archival and operational purposes. Costs
for virtualization and back-up with CNS are $150,120 in 2010-2011. It is anticipated that costs for virtual
CNS hosting and back-up will be an additional $67,200 for 2011-2012 given current growth patterns.
Based on volume increases for digital collections, including electronic theses and dissertations, this trend
will continue in successive years.

The Libraries maintain the largest number of public workstations on campus (541), but receive no
centralized IT funding. Instead, the Libraries have relied heavily on technology funding provided by the
Florida Center for Library Automation (FCLA) to sustain its technology. At the direction of the SUS
provosts, FCLA is now phasing out its direct support for technology at the SUS libraries. The table below
shows that the Libraries have lost $112,972 through 2011-2012 and will lose the remaining balance by
2014-2015.


Page 82











FCLA Technology Funds for the Smathers Libraries:


UL
$316,826
$320,031
$268,651
$265,023
$217,319
$162,989
$108,659
$54,330
$0


HSCL
$52,808
$53,981
$45,587
$47,980
$39,344
$29,508
$19,672
$9,836
$0


Smathers
Total
$369,634
$374,012
$314,238
$313,003
$256,662
$192,497
$128,331
$64,166
$0


Change in Total from
Prior Year
$0
$4,378
($59,774)
($1,235)
($56,341)
($64,166)
($64,166)
($64,166)
($64,166)


Cumulative
Change from
2007-2008
$0
$4,378
($55,396)
($56,631)
($112,972)
($177,137)
($241,303)
($305,468)
($369,634)


* FCLA technology funds are allocated based on student FTE at each SUS. The amounts to be received by UF and the shares
for UL and HSCL are estimates based on current allocations. If enrollment at the other institutions continues to outpace UF,
this decline in funding will be steeper.

The FCLA funding must be replaced in the Libraries' budget or funded from the central IT budgets or
student technology fee in order to sustain the current level of service, including periodic replacement of
public access computers and peripherals.

Similarly, the CNS charges for hosting the Libraries' digital collections and other data is increasing
steadily, so an annual increase in funding to cover these expenses is necessary. For the Libraries these
are equivalent to utility charges that must be adequately supported through the Libraries' budget or
incorporated into the central IT budgets.

The Libraries are also requesting $150,000 annual to upgrade technology in group study rooms.

Non-Recurring Investments:

The Libraries have identified essential non-recurring investments, including support for special projects
associated with the BOG-Funded SUS High Density Storage Facility that will be constructed next year.
While these are projects that can be supported with non-recurring funds, some of them are multi-year
projects and will need to be supported beyond 2011-2012. The expenses provided below are the
estimated cost for the coming year only.


Proposed Expenses:


UL
$644,600


Time-Limited Staff
OPS Staff
Operational Expenses
Total:


HSCL
$60,000


Smathers Total
$704,600


2 @ $65,000* and 7 @ $45,000*
5 FTE @ $15,000 and 8 FTE @ $20,000
$24.600
$704,600 *includes benefits


* Start up funding for the preparation and transfer of thousands of the already digitized rare,
visually striking, and out of copyright items held by the Libraries, including historic children's
books and antique maps, for print-on-demand which will generate a sustainable revenue stream


Page 83


2007-2008
2008-2009
2009-2010
2010-2011
2011-2012*
2012-2013*
2013-2014*
2014-2015*
2015-2016









comparable to that received by the Cornell University Libraries. (2 time-limited staff for 12
months and operating expenses for equipment, software, and CNS storage.)
Year 1 of a 2 year project to de-duplicate and catalog materials already in the Auxiliary Library
Facility (ALF) for transfer to the High Density Facility (HDF). (3 time-limited staff and 6 FTE OPS)
Year 1 of a 2 year project to inventory print journals in ALF for move into the HDF (1 time-limited
staff and 1 FTE OPS)
Year 1 of multi-year project to prepare print journals for move to be in the HDF. The result is the
eventual conversion approximately 11,000 square feet in HSCL into public spaces for students (1
time-limited staff plus 1 FTE OPS)
Year 1 of multi-year project to prepare print journals and government documents to be moved
into the HDF. The result is the eventual conversion approximately 23,000 square feet in Marston
into public spaces for students. (2 time-limited staff plus 5 FTE OPS)



7. Opportunities

For purposes of the RCM Comprehensive Budget Review, the following opportunities
are organized into three major categories: currently funded opportunities, opportunities to
be funded, and alternative revenue streams.


Currently Funded Opportunities

UF Archives and Records Management
The new Office of Archives and Records Management collects the papers and
records of individuals and organizations associated with the University in both
print and electronic formats. This will result in the efficient transfer of historical
records from individual offices, improving the university's records-keeping and
providing documentation on the institution's significant policy decisions and
important milestones. With the addition of the first full-time University Archivist
and a processing archivist, the new office will be better positioned to fulfill the
archives' important role in the university's public and community relations
campaigns, and provide generations of alumni a shared sense of community and
history.

Scholarly Communications and Open Access
Open Access (OA) is free, permanent, online access to scholarly publications.
Open access publishing benefits UF students and faculty and other researchers
worldwide. The libraries support open access publishing by administering the UF
Open Access Publishing Fund and operating the Institutional Repository
(IR@UF) as a portal to UF digital scholarship. In 2010, the Libraries launched a
self-submittal tool, allowing UF authors to easily submit their digital scholarship
to the IR for preservation and access. The library is well positioned to support
these and future OA initiatives because of its essential role in providing patrons
with access to reliable information and the fact that the collection and
preservation of such content is integral to the libraries' mission.


Page 84











* Clinical Research and Services
One of the key strategic initiatives of UF&Shands surrounding the clinical
mission is to provide the "...highest-quality patient care and patient safety..."
(Guzick, David S. Our Strategic Plan. On the Same Page May 20, 2010 p. 1). It is
documented in the literature that adding an information specialist to the patient
care clinical team yields positive results, such as, a reduction in the hospital
length of stay. It is noted as well that librarians assist clinical teams by providing
literature searches which save the clinician's time. Quality patient care and safety
is also enhanced by the provision of evidence-based patient care at the point of
care. With the addition of a clinical librarian at the Gainesville location, the
library is in the position to provide services that would create efficiencies and
enhance the level of patient care.

While the HSCL's new Clinical Research Librarian is providing focused
information services to the faculty in the Clinical and Translational Science
Institute, the HSC's research enterprise could be further supported through hiring
a Bioinformaticist to would provide instruction, consultation, resource
management and other services to researchers using fact-based databases and
analysis tools in their molecular, genetic, genomic and proteomic studies.

* OLE
The Kuali Open Library Environment (OLE) holds the promise of a common,
cost-effective, open source system that libraries can use to more effectively
collaborate. The system will focus initially on the acquisition of print and digital
resources, with the agile capacity to be adapted to financial and other content
systems at each participating institution. As a founding partner, the Libraries are
assisting in the design and implementation of the system in collaboration with
other research libraries. This will ensure that the resulting system supports the
needs of academic libraries in Florida.

* SUS Shared Collection and UF High Density Storage Facility
In 2007, a high density storage facility at the University of Florida was approved
to provide access to the shared research collection for the SUS libraries. Plans are
underway for construction of the facility and for the movement of UF collections
already in off-campus storage to establish the SUS Shared Collection. As a result,
UF and other academic libraries in Florida will have access to a central shared
repository, enabling more effective management of little used, but still important,
print collections and freeing on campus space to be repurposed for much needed
seating and other public spaces.

* Repurposing On Campus Library Space
The 2010 move of the Information Technology unit to the Eastside Campus and
the planned move of the Preservation and Conservation, and Digital Services units
to the renovated Auxiliary Library Facility (ALF) building in 2013 frees office


Page 85









and processing space in the Smathers Library (Library East) to be utilized by the
Special and Area Studies Collections Department. The initial result will be
removal of the wall separating public and processing spaces within the Grand
Reading Room. This will expand the current public space in the most historic and
prestigious room in the Libraries. Eventually the other historic reading rooms in
Smathers Library will be returned to public use.

Expanding Grant Program
The Libraries' Grants Management Office (one FTE of staff) has been very
successful in promoting library grant activities since its inception in 2008.
External support of library curation, digitization and outreach has increased
substantially from $193,637 expended in 2007-2008 to $464,646 expended in
2009-2010 and the office continues to identify new opportunities to obtain
external grant funding to support library and university priorities. Appendix D
provides a list of current grants.

Expanded Interdisciplinary and Inter-Institutional Collaboration
The list of interdisciplinary collaborations undertaken by the Libraries is
extensive and wide-ranging. Librarians work with faculty in for credit courses,
through the museums, on national grants, advisory councils, conferences, and
academic support programs. The Libraries also collaborate through local, state,
and national consortia to optimize resources and provide the highest levels of
support for the academic programs of the University of Florida. Key regional
consortial memberships include the Florida State University System (SUS),
Association of South East Research Libraries (ASERL), and South East
Conference Academic Council (SECAC). The Libraries are also institutional
partners in the Digital Library of the Caribbean, providing others with digital
access to unique materials in the UF Latin American Collection and providing UF
students and faculty with digital access to unique materials from the partner
institutions.

Opportunities to be Funded

Expanded Library Liaison Program
Responsibilities of a library liaison include four main areas of service and support
for faculty and students: communication, outreach activities, resource
identification and acquisition, and user services, including both reference and
instruction. Results from assignment of a library liaison include improved access
to resources, program evaluation, accreditation support, and increased library
participation in curriculum and other academic committees. Liaisons are the
primary link between academic faculty and library faculty. Though there are
already a number of successful liaisons, two preeminent examples are the HSCL
liaison to the Genetics Institute and the Library West liaison to the College of
Business. An expanded program will support additional disciplines.


Page 86









* Bio-Informatics
As the complexity of bioinformatics-related databases and analysis tools
increases, the level of expertise required to provide support services for molecular
researchers also increases. Researchers in these areas need assistance in the
retrieval and analysis of biological data of many types sequence, structure,
genomic, proteomic, metabolomic. In recent years, leading biomedical libraries
have begun to hire PhD scientists to meet complex bioinformatics needs,
including data analysis and selection of and instruction in the use of licensed
bioinformatics tools. Three biomedical libraries, Washington University,
University of Pittsburgh, and Harvard, have each hired two bioinformaticists.
Libraries are ideal home bases for such services, as they are trusted, neutral
environments filled with librarians who know how to manage information and
data; the addition of scientists who know how to analyze molecular data is a
natural extension of the role of the library. The HSCL have proposed to hire a
PhD scientist with research and library experience to provide expert and high
level bioinformatics support services, primarily related to non-bibliographic
information resources.

* Data Curation
As data sharing becomes more important in biomedical and health research, the
ability to identify, store, describe (curate), retrieve and re-use data, particularly
data not available in public or government repositories, becomes paramount for
furthering the research enterprise. The National Institutes of Health requires data-
sharing plans to be included in all grant proposals, and is actively strengthening
its data-sharing requirements for NIH-funded research. The proposed Data
Librarian will work closely with researchers in all the sciences including the
social sciences and others to identify their data-related needs, and work with a
proposed informatician to develop computer-based solutions. An Informatician
would directly support the efforts of a Data Librarian by providing database
creation and management services, object oriented programming maintenance and
expertise, server administration, interface development, maintaining scripts and
scheduled tasks used to insert and summarize data, and the development of web-
based tools for accessing data.

* VIVO continuation
VIVO is an open source semantic web application that, when installed and
populated with content, enables the discovery of research and scholarship across
disciplines at participating institutions. UF is one of the initial partners funded
through an NIH grant that will be completed in August of 2011. Once the funding
ends, VIVO must be sustained and fully implemented across UF in order to
enhance interdisciplinary collaboration and identification of potential research
partners. The libraries are already playing a key role in the VIVO implementation
under the grant and have the skills and contacts to continue to manage this as a
campus-wide asset.


Page 87









* Newell Hall Student Learning Commons
Establishing a state-of-the-art Student Learning Commons will meet a critical
need for UF students to have an attractive, secure, and continuously-available
facility designed and equipped to accommodate the way they work. This 24/5
facility will provide space for undergraduate and graduate students to conduct
research, study, and work collaboratively. Seating for approximately 700 students
will be provided, including individual and group study spaces, computer
workstations, and a variety of soft/lounge seating and study tables and/or carrels.
This will also reduce congestion in Library West and the Marston Science Library
during peak periods.

* 24/5 Access to Library Facilities
The two largest libraries are currently open until 1:00 a.m. five days a week, but
continue to receive requests from Student Government and individual students for
extended hours throughout the semester, not just immediately prior to and during
exams. The Libraries are proposing to keep either Library West or the Marston
Science Library open 24 hours a day Sunday through Thursday. This late night
and early morning access would benefit a broad cross-section of the campus
community.

* Expanded web services and mobile applications
Studies show that by 2013, mobile phones will overtake PCs as the most common
Web access device worldwide. By 2014, there will be a 90% mobile penetration
rate and 6.5 billion mobile connections. As library resources continue to move to
online content, it is essential that the Libraries provide access to these resources
on the mobile devices available to and preferred by library patrons.

* Digital Scholarship Unit
The Digital Scholarship Unit will support digital scholarship and digital curation
across campus. This includes support for the following: data curation for all fields
and the university, area specific needs as with E-Science and the Digital
Humanities, developing new digital projects with faculty, developing new forms
of digital scholarly publishing, and building tools and systems that support digital
information and scholarly activity.

* Post-MLS Fellowship
The Libraries propose to establish a long sought Post-MLS (Masters in Library
Science) Fellowship position to be used to support special projects. The position
would enhance the Libraries efforts to increase diversity in the profession, but
beyond this the selected librarian would be assigned to assist with development
and support of new opportunities, including pilot projects, for which staffing is
not otherwise available. The Libraries could use this position to experiment with
the introduction of expertise in new technologies and techniques for delivery of
library services.


Page 88









Print On Demand
The Libraries are seeking non-recurring funding for the preparation and transfer
of thousands of the already digitized rare, visually striking, and out of copyright
items held by the Libraries, including historic children's books and antique maps,
for print-on-demand through a contracted service provider such as Amazon.com.
This model has been used at peer libraries and would generate a sustainable
revenue for the Libraries.

Repurposing On Campus Library Space
The Libraries are seeking non-recurring, multi-year funding to prepare little used
print collections for transfer to the SUS Shared Collection in the high density
storage facility. Moving print journals would result in the eventual conversion
approximately 11,000 square feet in HSCL into public spaces for students.
Similarly, moving print journals and government documents would result in the
eventual conversion approximately 23,000 square feet in Marston into public
spaces for students.


Alternative Funding for the Libraries

Increased DSR Funding
DSR funding for the Libraries is now established as a percentage of the IDC
received by UF, so it will expand (and contract) with grant funded research. This
2010 change reflects a recognition that research at UF is dependent on access to
extremely expensive, but essential, scholarly resources for which the annual
increases in license fees are ongoing and cumulative while the Libraries' material
budget from state funds is not. Unfortunately, the percentage currently allocated is
not sufficient to cover the subscription to the most heavily used online e-journal
package for research, Elsevier Science Direct. Having DSR fully fund the
Elsevier Science Direct electronic journal package would no only more
appropriately reflect the Libraries' contribution to sponsored research, but also
allow the Libraries to increase access to other material of significant value to
researchers.

Dedicated Library Allocation from the Student Technology Fee
The Libraries maintain the largest number of public workstations on campus, at
least comparable to all of the CIRCA labs and instruction facilities, but currently
receive no centralized IT funding. The Student Technology Fee is a new source of
revenue for student-oriented technology expenses, and a portion should be
allocated to the Libraries to maintain its public service technology.

Dedicated Library Allocation from Annual Tuition Increases
The Libraries are core to the University's academic and research enterprise. The
University was successful in obtaining authorization from the Legislature for
annual tuition increases to correct historic underfunding and the documented
disparity between UF and its peer institutions. As documented above, the


Page 89









Libraries are also chronically and historically underfunded, even when
considering the underfunding of the University as a whole compared to peer
institutions. This compromises the Libraries' ability to meet the service and
information resource needs of UF students, faculty and researchers. Dedicating a
portion of the additional revenue generated by the annual tuition increase as new
recurring funding for the Libraries would benefit all campus programs by
allowing for predictable growth and planned strategic investment in appropriate
library services and resources. Over time, this would correct the disparity in
access to library resources experienced by UF students, faculty and researchers
compared to those at peer institutions.

Establish a Student Library Fee
Other than DSR funding, there is currently no mechanism for expanding library
resources over time. A Library Fee, applied to student credit hours or by FTE,
should be established to ensure a new and sustainable source of funding for the
Libraries in addition to the appropriated funds now received.


8. Barriers


Facilities

The library facilities are extensive and amongst the most heavily used on campus. 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 students and
researchers suffer from unclean and inadequately maintained facilities and the lack of
periodic cleaning of the shelving damages the library materials over time. With a flat
budget for 2011-2012, the estimated shortfall in annual expenses required for minimal
maintenance is $837,323.


Technology

The University of Florida Libraries are technology hubs, yet no central funding is
provided by UF to procure, maintain and support the use of this technology by students
and other library patrons. The Libraries have relied heavily on technology funding
provided by the Florida Center for Library Automation (FCLA) to sustain its technology.
At the direction of the SUS provosts, FCLA is now phasing out its direct support for
technology at the SUS libraries. The Libraries have lost $112,972 through 2011-2012 and
will lose an estimated total of $369,634 by 2014-2015. Even if the libraries' budget is
flat, the FCLA funding must be replaced in the libraries' budget or funded from the
central IT budgets or student technology fee in order to sustain the current level of
service, including periodic replacement of public access computers and peripherals.


Page 90









Costs for virtualization and back-up with CNS are $150,120 in 2010-2011. It is
anticipated that costs for virtual CNS hosting and back-up will be an additional $67,200
for 2011-2012, given current growth patterns. Based on volume increases for digital
collections, including electronic theses and dissertations, this trend will continue in
successive years, so without an annual increase in funding to cover these expenses,
indefinite future funding by the Libraries is not possible. For the libraries these are
equivalent to utility charges that must be adequately supported through the libraries'
budget or incorporated into the central IT budgets.


Materials

Despite protecting the materials budget through the past budget reductions, lost buying
power due to high rate increases for library materials, which will total nearly $700,000 in
2011-2012 alone, is extremely problematic. The 2011-2012 erosion will be in addition to
$2.4 million in lost purchasing power from 2007-2008 through 2010-2011, for a total
loss of $3.1 million.

2011-2012 Lost Buying Power:
UL HSCL Smathers Total
$556,138 $133,999 $690,137

Cumulative Lost Buying Power:
UL HSCL Smathers Total
$2,487,096 $594,465 $3,081,560

As a result of the lost purchasing power, the Libraries have had no opportunity to
maintain, much less develop, suitable collections. The Libraries are unable to purchase
and license the range of print and electronic resources, which are core to an academic
library's capacity to support a research enterprise with the breadth and depth of UF's.
The impact of this has been across the Smathers Libraries, affecting all disciplines.
Though the lost buying power impacts the entire collections budget, the majority of the
Electronic Resources budget is for materials licensed and purchased through consortia
and, therefore, cannot be cut by UF independently. As a result, Print Monographs (books)
and Print Serials (journals) experience a highly disproportionate reduction when we
adjustments are made for lost purchasing power. Continued lost buying power for 2011-
2012, resulting from a flat budget, will further compromise a materials budget already
weakened by past lost purchasing power and budget cuts. The cumulative effect would
amount to a 5.89% decrease in materials for 2011-2012.


Staffing

Decreasing and tightly constrained budgets have caused the UF libraries to be extremely
conservative over the last several years in filling vacated staff and faculty positions.
Many librarians currently serve multiple departments or colleges. This problem cuts
across disciplines, but the most severe needs tend to fall in the Sciences and Social


Page 91









Sciences. At the same time, a number of new initiatives on campus and within the
Libraries require increased staff effort and new types of staffing. A variety of positions
are needed to bring the Libraries to full service a level permitting the appropriate
support of the university's academic and research missions.


Page 92









Appendix A: UF Libraries Program Review: Highlights (May 2010)


Page 93













T | UNIVERSITY of
UF FLORIDA

George A. Smathers Libraries 535 Library West
Office of the Dean of University Libraries PO Box 117000
Gainesville, FL 32611-7000
352-273-2505
352-392-7251 Fax
www.uflib.ufl.edu


UF Libraries Program Review May 2010

HIGHLIGHTS

DSR Funding

The Libraries secured a change to the DSR funding that provides a percentage of IDC rather than a
fixed dollar amount, thereby indexing DSR support to future growth in research funding.
In 2010-2011 the DSR allocation will be 2% of IDC, or approximately $1.45 million. The increased
funding was added to the HSCL materials budget, bringing the HSCL share of DSR allocation to 21%
($318,000). This aligns itself with the 20% that HSCL contributes towards the purchase of $4 million in
shared e-resources ($800,000).
Perception of inequity in the allocation of DSR funding to HSCL persists based on the fact that 50% of
research funding is generated by the HSC. If HSCL received 50% of the Libraries DSR funding, it
would receive approximately $725,000; if HSCL paid 50% of the shared electronic resources, it would
need to contribute approximately $2,000,000.

Personnel

As a result of the centralization of HR and fiscal functions as part of the integration with Smathers
Libraries, HSCL was able to repurpose one faculty position to create a strategically critical Consumer
Health Librarian.
The Jump Start position for a Clinical Research Librarian at HSCL has been filled. Jennifer Lyon will
start work on July 23rd. She is currently working at the Eskind Biomedical Library, Vanderbilt
University Medical Center.
Recruitment is underway for a second Jump Start position for Scholarly Communications.
As a result of a trailing spouse appointment, HSCL will now have a "Basic Biomedical Sciences
Liaison," an identified need for over five years. Rolando Milian, who is an ARL Diversity Scholar, will
start work on August 16th. He currently works at Yale University.

Budget

In the four years from 2007-2008 through 2010-2011, the Libraries materials budget remained flat.
However, the Libraries cumulative loss of purchasing power during that four year periods is
approximately $2.4 million due to increases in the costs for electronic and other resources.
Assessments for the Retirement Incentive and Budget Recall will result in a loss of over $675,000 in
salaries and benefits for the Libraries. The Libraries are seeking waiver of these assessments or
restoration of the funds to avoid vacancies in critical positions.



The Foundation for The Gator Nation
An Equal Opportunity Institution


Page 94












Goals


Facilities: $2 million has been provided from PECO funds to plan for the construction of a High
Density Storage Facility at NE 39'h Avenue and Waldo Road to house the SUS Shared Library
Collection; the existing building will be renovated to house processing, digitization and preservation
services as well as research space. If funding is available, renovation of Newell Hall to create a Student
Learning Commons will begin. The Libraries are studying and beginning the preliminary
programming for the renovation and repurposing of the Smathers Library building to support the UF
Libraries Special and Area Studies Collections. The major impediment is uncertainty about the
availability of PECO and Stimulus Funds for the High Density Storage Facility and Newell Hall. Both
facilities will require significant operating endowments, although CSUL has approved sharing the
operating costs of the Storage Facility through an assessment based on student FTE at the
participating institutions.
Collections: The Libraries will play a lead role in expanding access to and preservation of the SUS
Shared Library Collection with and through the Council of State University Libraries. With the
selection of a preferred materials supplier for the SUS, the creation of a single SUS-wide bibliographic
catalog, and the implementation of a SUS-wide interlibrary loan system (UBorrow) will enable greater
collaboration that can reduce duplication and encourage greater diversity of research materials, thus
enhancing the possibilities for access to more information state-wide with the existing resources. The
major impediment is the infancy of this type of deep SUS-wide collaboration efforts, with both fiscal
and personnel implications.

Alternative Revenue Streams

DSR has committed to work with us next year to calculate a new rate for the Libraries percentage of
IDC, with the goal of getting it up to 2.5 or 3.0%. It is appropriate to link library resource funding
with research given the role of the libraries in supporting these activities, but the increases currently
discussed do not represent a solution to the state of inadequate funding for materials given the size
and scope of UF.
Other than DSR funding, there is currently no mechanism for expanding library resources over time.
A Library Fee or similar mechanism, applied to student credit hours or by FTE, should be sought to
ensure a new and sustainable source of funding for the Libraries in addition to the appropriated funds
now received.
The Libraries public IT resources are at least comparable to all of the CIRCA labs and instruction
facilities on campus. Despite a greater number of public computers offered through the Libraries, we
receive none of the recently established student technology fees. We are developing a proposal for
recurring funds from the student technology fee to support the Libraries' public IT resources. The
hope is that these funds will offset the recurring operating expenses we incur annually of
approximately $150,000.











The Foundation for The Gator Nation
An Equal Opportunity Institution


Page 95










Appendix B: Integration One Year Later (July 1, 2010)


Page 96










UF |UNIVERSITY of

UFIFLORIDA

George A. Smathers Libraries 535 Library West
Office of the Dean of University Libraries PO Box 117000
Gainesville, FL 32611-7000
352-273-2505
352-392-7251 Fax
www.uflib.ufl.edu


INTEGRATION ONE YEAR LATER
July 1, 2010

Integration of the Health Science Center Libraries (HSCL), including the Borland Library in
Jacksonville, into the Smathers Libraries took place on July 1, 2009. The integration was
implemented according to an October 13, 2008 directive by President Machen. The Smathers
Libraries and the Health Science Center Libraries (HSCL) were instructed to follow the design
described in the Future of the Libraries Report: "the libraries ... integrate their budgets and reporting
structures ... [while] HSCL retains autonomy to serve the needs of its clients." The integrated library
system's common goal is to assure that integration improves the ability of HSCL to meet the growing
information and research needs of Health Science Center students, faculty, researchers, and
clinicians. In the short term, this has meant maximizing services and resources through the use of the
combined assets and avoiding any diminution in service as a side effect of integration. In the long
term, the establishment of an integrated library system requires a University and Health Science
Center (HSC) commitment to bring the funding of the HSCL up to both campus and peer standards
and to provide sustainable funding for the integrated university library system.

There have been numerous accomplishments as a result of library integration, and the overall effect
of integration has been an ability to better target the Libraries' services in support of the varied and
sometimes competing strategic directions of our diverse institution. Integration allowed us to pool
resources in those areas that we serve in common, which allowed the integrated library system to
devote more time and resources to the areas that we each uniquely serve. Historically, there has been
extensive collaboration between the Smathers Libraries and HSCL, particularly in the area of the
acquisition of library resources as exemplified by the TIP (Tuition Increase from the Professional
Schools) received by the Libraries. Integration provided some additional opportunities for
collaboration particularly for the HSCL, which would have never been possible under the previous
organizational structure. An outline and the significance of the integration-generated changes follow:
The centralization of the fiscal & human resources management functions provided a
net savings of one FTE that was then repurposed to serve in a more essential capacity
within the HSCL. That personnel change, in return, freed one full time professional
librarian position that was repurposed to serve the area of consumer health and
community outreach. This position is now in place and poised to help fulfill the
UF&Shands strategic initiative to increase their community engagement and outreach
work.





The Foundation for The Gator Nation
An Equal Opportunity Institution


Page 97