Library Materials Budget Survey:
Source of Funds and New Commitments

by Robert G. Sewell, Associate University Librarian for 
Collection Development and Management, Rutgers University Libraries

Research library materials budgets are undergoing stress for a variety
of reasons: inflation, cutbacks, new academic programs and fields of
study, and new formats (in particular electronic resources).  The
budgetary process is changing, as is the definition of "library
materials" and what is to be covered by the library materials budget.
The central problem is that the serials crisis continues as the demand
for electronic resources grows.

Rather than focus specifically on print vs.  electronic or access vs.
ownership, this survey sought to discover how academic libraries are
coping with these problems by identifying basic budgetary processes,
the sources of additional/new funding (if any) to compensate for
inflation of traditional materials as well as for new institutional
commitments, and how budgets are being reallocated to cover these new
costs.  The results of the survey show the extent to which the library
materials budget is being "reconceptualized" in the face of new
pressures, new realities (virtual or not).

A QuickSPEC survey was sent to ARL member libraries in the spring of
1995.  Seventy-three surveys were returned, representing a return rate
of 67.6%.  The results are summarized below.

A fundamental question is just how the base allocation of the annual
budget is established.  Of the total, 41.1% of the respondents
indicated that the materials budget comes to the library distinct from
the main library budget.  Another 34.2% said the library
administration determined the materials budget from the total library
allocation.  Of the remander, 16.4% reported both processes were
involved and 8.2% indicate some other process determined the materials
budget.  An assumption can be made that if the materials budget is
handled separately from the rest of the library budget, there is a
recognition by the budgeting authority of the special problems
associated with the prices of library materials: they vary greatly
from year to year and they always increase.  Comments elaborating on
this question specified that the materials budget is determined by a
University Budget Committee or the University Administration, is
appropriated by State governmental agencies, or that a "line increase
for materials" is identified in an allocation letter from the
university administration.

Since prices for library materials increase every year, increases to
the base budget are required if a library hopes to keep up with
scholarly publishing.  Just over half of the respondents (50.7%)
reported annual increases within the last five years.  Of the rest,
38.4% indicated base increases less regularly (between one and four
times) within the last five years and 11% have had no increase in the
last five years.

Most responding libraries, 80.8%, have received supplements to the
base budget during the same time frame, while 19.2% have not.  The
sources of these supplements are primarily from gifts and endowments
but also include indirect costs recovery (ICR) from university grants,
direct grants, transfers from academic departments, computer fees,
library fines, salary savings, book sales, "special purpose funds"
from state legislatures, university "year-end" monies, and funds from
regional library consortia.

On average, the respondents indicated that 88.3% of their annual
materials budget came from their base allocation and the average base
budget was $4,199,801.  One library reported that its base budget
represented only 37.5% of their annual expenditures.  Gifts and
endowments on average represent only 6.8% of material budget
expenditures, while one library indicated that they make up 36% of its
expenditures.  The average amount from these resources was $422,135;
one library reported annual gift and endowments expenditures of
$4,059,000.  The average amount from other sources (ICR funds,
transfers from academic departments, university "year-end" monies,
etc.)  averaged 6% of the budget or $286,838; some received no money
from these sources and one received $1,405,000 from them.

In addition to the problems of price increases, new commitments that
strain materials budgets include new academic programs and materials
in new formats, especially electronic resources.

Of the respondents, 67.1% reported that while new academic programs
have been established within the last five years, no specific
increases were received to support them.  Another 27.4% indicated
additional funds were provided for some but not all of the new
programs.  The remaining 2.7% reported no new programs have been
established.  The primary way libraries have acquired materials for
new academic programs has been through reallocation of the existing
budget.  When additional funding was provided, the central university
administration (13.7%) and/or academic departments (11%) were the
sources.  The apparently wide-spread practice of not providing
additional funding to support new academic programs indicates a lack
of recognition or acceptance within the university that there are
library costs associated with new academic programs, especially for
graduate programs.

New electronic resources have also been funded primarily through
reallocation of the materials budget or from the operating budget.
Many indicated that one- time, start-up funding was provided by the
central university administration, other academic divisions, and state
legislatures, but on-going funding was supported through reallocation.
Some libraries reported sources for on-going support from gifts and
endowments (15.1%), salary savings, and student computer fees.

As libraries have had to cut back on their purchases of library
materials, they have sustained access to material available elsewhere
through traditional interlibrary loan with other libraries and through
commercial document delivery sources.  The costs associated with
traditional, non-commercial interlibrary loan have been covered by and
shared among the ILL budget (54.8%), the materials budget (46.6%),
patron's fee (32.9%) and other sources such as state and regional
consortia and photoduplication proceeds.  Just over half of the
respondents (50.7%) reported that commercial document delivery
services have been funded from the materials budget along with
patron's fees (38.4%) and their ILL budgets (34.2%).

General Observations 
About half of the libraries responding reported annual increases to
their base budgets.  Those with annual base increases apparently have
university recognition of the need for on-going commitments to library
materials.  This provides libraries with a degree of flexibility to
deal with regular price increases, new academic programs, and the
acquisition of electronic resources, even though such increases to the
base budgets have generally not been specifically designated for the
last two categories.  However, even for those libraries with annual
increases, such increases are, for the majority, inadequate to keep up
with inflation alone.

Slightly less than half of the respondents did not receive annual
increases.  Supplementary funding, most often one-time and
inconsistent, was reported by 80% of these libraries.  While such
funding is essential, dependence on supplementary funds makes it
difficult for long-term planning.  With the multiplication of formats,
some of which will be replacements for and others complimentary to
traditional publication formats, and the development of new academic
methods of inquiry, a transition is taking place that is complex to
manage even with adequate resources.  To date, research libraries have
responded to these circumstances primarily through reallocation of
existing resources that have been diminished by new commitments and
price increases, acquisition of new revenue from student and other
user fees, and the creative allocation of temporary funding.


-------  
ARL 182
A Bimonthly Newsletter of Research Library Issues and Actions
Association of Research Libraries
October 1995