The purpose of the Library Materials Budget Survey was to collect and analyze detailed information about materials budgets: sources of funding, construction of budgets, and spending of funds. The comparative information in these surveys have frequently been sited in budget-justification statements among members of the discussion group. The survey was somewhat less formal and more dynamic than the ARL Statistics, the annual survey of the ARL membership. The CCDO's survey frequently expanded or changed categories reflecting new budgetary concern and therefore complements the more formal or "official" ARL Statistics.

Another fundamental way the CCDO's survey differs from the ARL Statistics is that it reports data only for the budgets for which the Chief Collection Development Officers are responsible. In most cases, these budgets do not include the budgets of law school libraries and possibly some other professional school libraries. Codes are attached to each reporting library on the spreadsheets indicating what professional school libraries are included in the survey. The ARL Statistics reflect all libraries of the members institution, regardless of reporting structure.

Other contrasting elements between the CCDO's Survey and the ARL Statistics include:

1. The CCDO's Survey is forward-looking in that it covers the current fiscal year's budget data. The ARL Statistics reports data for expenditures incurred in the previous fiscal year and does not include any questions on the current year's budget. The CCDO's Survey includes:
• increases to the base budget (the main reason for the survey initially)
• new base budget figure
• temporary supplements, if known
• allocations for electronic resources
• cancellation plans and planned changes in approval plans
2. The CCDO's Survey also includes data on the previous year¹s expenditures, but collects the data in much finer detail than the ARL Statistics. The only completely redundant data elements are last year's total library expenditures and total library materials expenditures. The CCDO's Survey breaks down the library materials expenditures in the following ways:
• by source of funds: base, endowments, and one-time funds;
• by category of expenditure by percentage of total expenditures and in some cases actual dollars:
• percentage spent on monographs and serials;
• percentage and actual expenditures on electronic resources, how e-resources are paid for, and how much is spent on networked resources as opposed to stand-alone CD-ROMs or LANs;
• subject areas percentages;
• amounts spent on bibliographic utilities, binding, institutional memberships, interlibrary loan and document delivery;
• serials cancellation--how many subscriptions and how much saved;
• blanket/approval plan--increase or decrease, how much expended.

In certain cases, some of these figures are not easily obtained and are therefore at times "best estimates." This circumstance reflects another somewhat less formal aspect of the CCDO's Survey as opposed to the ARL Statistics. But the CCDO's Group feels that best estimates are useful in documenting trends.

The CCDO's Survey also gives an opportunity for comments which are often reflected in the summary reports.