Results of the 1996-97 Library Materials Budget Survey of the ALCTS/CMDS/Chief Collection Development Officers of Large Research Libraries Discussion Group

February 24, 1997

Compiled by
Robert G. Sewell
Associate University Librarian
Collection Development and Management
Rutgers University
rgsewell@rci.rutgers.edu

Narative Summary

Here are the results of the 1996/97 Final Library Materials Budget Survey of the membership of the ALA/ALCTS/CMDS Chief Collection Development Officers of Large Research Libraries Discussion Group.

The final survey results reflect 39 responses out of a possible forty-six libraries in the discussion group.

Final Survey Results

1. Average base allocation in 1995/96 was $5,5,941,024 and in 1996/97 was $6,567,048.

2. Increases or Decreases to the base:

a. The average increase to the base 1995/96 budget was 3.6% and 6.0% in 1996/97. These figures are skewed by the anomaly of Hawaii which had a 43.0% decrease in 1995/96 and an increase of 19.0% in the current year. Without Hawaii, the average increase in 1995/96 was 5.0% and in 1996/97 was 5.6%.

b. The highest increases in 1996/97 are 20.0% at North Carolina-Chapel Hill, 19.0% at Hawaii, 13.5% at Ohio State, 11.5% at UC Berkeley, and 10.5% at Washington.

c. Twenty libraries received increases between 5-9.1%.

d. Seven libraries reported increases ranging between 1.3%-4.4%.

e. Eight libraries reported no increases, two of which (Rutgers and UC Davis) have had no increases or actual decreases for seven straight years.

f. Wisconsin reported a decrease of 4.0% due to the merging of a library into another library not covered by the chief collection development officer�s budget.

3. One time funds in 1995/96 were reported by twenty-four libraries in amounts ranging from less than $10,000 to $1,904,458 (North Carolina-Chapel Hill) with an average of those receiving increases of $160,762 and for 1996/97 fourteen reported from $15,000 to $1,250,000 (UC Berkeley) with the average being $125,473.

4. Thirty-one reported endowed funds, of which twenty-two are not included in base allocations. The amounts range from $21,384 (Arizona State, not in base budget) to over $4,000,000 (Yale, in base budget).

5. Sixteen reported paying for bibliographic utilities (such as OCLC and RLIN) out of their materials budget in 1995/96, in amounts ranging from $3,900 (Michigan State) to $211,270 (Arizona State).

6. Twenty-five reported binding allocations from the materials budget ranging from $25,000 (Cornell) to $572,181 (Columbia), with the average expenditure of $164,251. Eighteen reported that binding was not covered by the materials budget.

7. Twenty-six included Center for Research Libraries membership in their materials budget. One reported not being a member of CRL.

8. Fourteen reported using the materials budget for interlibrary loan costs, with the average amount of $14,365. Arizona State spent the most ($85,710). Twelve reported subsidizing document delivery, with Arizona spending as much as $100,000, with the average being only $11,124.

9. Allocations for electronic resources:

a. Among the thirty-two libraries reporting in this category, the average amount spent for electronic resources was $261,707 in 1993/94, $334,007 in 1994/95, and $3,97,086 in 1995/96. In 1994/95 this represents on average 5.5% of the total materials budget and in 1995/96 the average was 6.7%.

b. The libraries that devoted the most to electronic resources from the materials budget in 1995/96 were Michigan--$764,859 (7.7% of total budget), Wisconsin-- $733,907 (10.0% of total); and North Carolina--Chapel Hill--$696,146 (9.0% of total). Some spent as little as $36,109 or $177,866 on electronic resources but in these two cases as well as many others, electronic resources are acquired with money outside the library materials budget, such as the library�s �services� budget, or completely outside of library�s total budget such as by state consortia or university computing centers. The average expenditure was $397,086 or 6.7% of total materials budget.

c. It is anticipated that in 1996/97, the average amount spent on electronic information will be $479,163.

d. Berkeley, Iowa, Princeton, Rutgers, and Toronto reported using some materials budget funds for hardware (public workstations) and software; Arizona State and USC only for software. All others did not use materials budget funds for these types of purchases.

10. Changes in balance between serials and monographs from 1994/95 to 1995/96:

In 1994/95 the average split was 57.% serials and 36.3% monographs and in 1995/96 the average was 61.0% serials and 35.4 monographs. (One problem with the results is that some reported the balance of serials and monographs alone--i.e., totaling 100%--whereas others reported the percentage of serials and monographs as part of overall materials budget including other categories such as memberships, binding, etc.)

11. In 1995/96 twenty reported serials were canceled. The average amount saved through cancellation among these was $114,375 and 377 titles on average were canceled. UC Berkeley canceled the most (2,000 titles). In 1996/97 twenty of those reporting will cancel on average 142 serials.

12. Of the thirty-six reporting, only four libraries plan to reduce their approval plans in 1996/97, two will increase them. Three libraries reported using materials funding for technical processes associated with �shelf-ready� approval plans: Arizona ($59,569), Florida ($10,000), and Virginia ($5,000).

Comments:

Ann Okerson's thoughtful reflections of electronic resources:

I believe that when we ask how much is spent on electronic resources (or how many of them are part of the Library's collections/services, as ARL does), we could be asking the wrong question. Electronic resources are of many different formats and sorts. The most important characterization for me is: do we own or perpetually lease the resource, OR do we merely access it. By ownership or perpetual lease, I mean databases that we license and mount ourselves, whether on CD-ROMs or CD servers or online locally -- and that are ours to keep as long as we comply with the license terms. They become as good as ours. For our substantial investments, we have a "residual" product, just as with a book or serial. These are part of genuine collections "development." These at Yale include resources such as our networked BIOSIS, the Chadwyck-Healy full-text databases.

The other category is materials we license in order to access temporarily. When the license period is over, the CD must be returned. Or if accessed remotely, the database is lost once we stop paying an annual or by the drink access fee. This sort of arrangement leaves the library with no residual or collection. It is purely and simply the same kind of service (not collection) as ILL and DD.

It seems (to me) important that we make this distinction rather than the "electronic" one in order to better understand the kinds of conceptual changes we are bringing about.