Results of the 2000-01 Library Materials Budget Survey of the ALCTS/CMDS/Chief Collection Development Officers of Large Research Libraries Discussion Group

May 2001

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

2001 Spreadsheet (Seven-page spreadsheet with full survey results)

Narrative Summary

There were twenty-seven respondents to this year’s survey

1. Library Materials Budget Expenditures 1999/2000 by Source of Funds

a. Total Library Materials Expenditures:

The average total expenditure was $8,891,097. Nine (UCLA, Illinois, Johns Hopkins, Penn State, UC Berkeley, Cornell, Yale, and NYPL) reported spending more than $10 million. NYPL, Michigan, and Cornell spent more than $11 million. Yale spent the most: $19,143,619. Three (UC Davis, Kansas, and National Library of Medicine) spent less than $6 million and the rest spent between $6 and $9 million.

For the first time, total library materials expenditures as a percentage of the total library expenditures have been calculated. The average is 36.0%. The National Library of Medicine has the smallest percentage, 14.0%, and Washington has the largest, 56.5%.

Yale and New York University were unable to break down expenditures into the three components below.

b. Base Budget:

The average base budget was $7,630,390. Among those reporting, Michigan's base budget was the largest at $13,487,182. Nine reported base budgets of over $8 million (UCLA, Arizona, UC Berkeley, Illinois, Cornell, Johns Hopkins, Michigan, Penn State and NYPL). Three reported base budgets of less than $6,000,000 (California-Davis, Kansas, and National Library of Medicine.)

c. Endowed Funds:

Endowed and gift funds made up a significant amount of total library expenditures for many libraries, with the average being $623,248. Eight reported over $800,000 in this category.

Traditionally, private institutions get much of their funding in this category. It is interesting to note, however, that three state schools (Rutgers, Penn State, and UC Berkeley) were among those eight spending over $800,000 in this category. Eight schools reported less than $200,000 in this category (UC Davis, Arizona, Arizona State, British Columbia, Ohio State, Kansas, Texas, and Wisconsin).

d. One-time Funds, i.e., one year supplements to the base:

One-time money averaged $384,208. Arizona State, Texas and UCLA had the most in this category-$1,218,910, $1,211,596 and $1,334,999 respectively. Reversing a trend for this institution, UC Berkeley received no one-time money, now that it is getting large base increases.

2. 2000/2001 Budget Projections

a. Increase to the Base Budget:

The average percentage increase to the base budget was 5.8%. UC Davis' increase of 11.7% was the largest-the only double-digit percentage base increase. The next largest increases were Illinois (9.6%), Indiana (8.9%), and Chicago (8.7%). At the other extreme are Arizona with 0.0%, Arizona State with 1.0%, and Rutgers with 1.6%. Three reported base budgets in 2000/2001 of over $11 million (UC Berkeley, Michigan, and Chicago), and four over $10 million but less than $11 million (Cornell, Illinois, Penn State, and NYPL). The average base budget for 2000/2001 is $8,632,153.

b. One-time Money:

Among those nineteen who could report on this category the average amount is $575,480. Two libraries reported more than $2 million in one-time money (Texas and UC Davis) and three reported more than $1 million but less than $2 million (Arizona State, Rutgers, and Illinois).

3. Expenditures by Types of Materials

a. Electronic Resources, 1999/2000:

Among the twenty-three who reported in this category, the average expenditure in 1999/2000 was $1,163,100. Among those reporting the least amount in this category include UC schools and Ohio State, which have among the richest electronic resources. That is because most of their electronic resources purchases are funded by state consortia. The figures reported for them represent only such expenditures in excess of these consortial purchases. All but seven reported more than $1 million dollars of expenditures in this category. Johns Hopkins reports the most at $2,007,479 with Michigan a close second with $2,000,962. The vast majority of funds in this category was spent on networked electronic resources. Among the seven reporting on whether the expenditures were for permanent or temporary access, six interpreted their license agreements to mean most of their electronic resources were acquired for temporary access only.

The average percentage of the total materials budget devoted to electronic resources was 13.5%. Among the twenty-two reporting on the percentage of the total budget spent on electronic resources, three reported over 20% (Johns Hopkins, Texas, and Arizona with the largest at 23.3%).

Of the twenty-four reporting on whether hardware or software were included in expenditures for electronic resources, three reported that gateway expenses were included, but most reported that library materials funds were used to purchase content only.

Among the seventeen who reported on allocations for electronic resources in 2000/2001, Rutgers reported the most at $2,300,000. This reflects its decision to go exclusively electronic for Elsevier titles in ScienceDirect and transferring funds from Elsevier print subscriptions to the central electronic budget.

b. Percentage of Total Budget Spent on Serials, Monographs, and Binding:

The average expenditures in 1999/2000 for serials, monographs, and binding were 62.2%, 33.5%, and 3.2% respectively. Arizona State, Rutgers and British Columbia reported over 70% for serials. At the other extreme, Arizona reported only 41.0% for serials. Some respondents do not seem to include electronic resources among their serials expenses. The percentage of monograph expenditures was highest at UC Berkeley at 48.0%. Those spending less than 30% on monographs were Arizona, British Columbia, Penn State, and Rutgers. UC Berkeley also spent the largest percentage of the budget on binding: 7.0%.

c. Percentage of Budget Spent by Subject Category:

The average percentages of the budget spent by subject category among the twenty respondents in this category were 15.6% in Arts and Humanities, 17.9% in Social Sciences, 45.1% in Sciences, and 17.2% in Interdisciplinary. Only Michigan and Washington responded to the Area Studies category, 10.0% and 6.8% respectfully. The others must combine Area Studies in the other categories, especially Interdisciplinary. NYPL reported the highest expenditure in Arts and Humanities: 39.0%. Pittsburgh and Illinois reported less than 10% in this category. Arizona, Chicago, Kansas, Michigan, Penn State, and NYPL spent over 20% of their budgets on Social Sciences. Four libraries spent 50% or more of their budgets on Science-British Columbia, UC Davis, Michigan, Rutgers, and National Library of Medicine.

d. Bibliographic Utilities:

Only five libraries reported using the library materials budget for Bibliographic Utilities. Among these the average was $126,179, with Arizona spending the most at $318,404.

e. Binding:

As noted earlier, the average percentage of expenditures for binding was 3.2%. Berkeley spent by far the most at $750,000 which represents 7% of its materials budget. The next closest in binding expenditures were UCLA at $536,817 and Yale at $472,156. The average expenditure was $307,335.

f. CRL and Other Memberships:

The average cost for CRL membership was $46,384. The average expenditure for all other institutional memberships was $55,302.

g. ILL and Document Delivery:

Of the twenty-five reporting in this category, thirteen do not use library materials budget for ILL. Among those that do, the average expenditure was $59,007. Rutgers spent the most at $96,857. As for Document Delivery, twenty-three reporting in this category, fourteen did not use the library materials budget for these expenditures. The average expenditure for those that do was $76,853, with Arizona spending the most at $400,436.

h. Blanket/Approval Plans:

The average expenditure on blanket orders and approval plans in 1999/2000 was $823,419. For some libraries, this includes both books sent on approval and slips. Arizona, UC Berkeley, Michigan, NYPL, and Yale all spent over $1 million on these plans. UCLA, Cornell, and NYPL all reported increasing their approval plan coverage. Arizona includes a significant processing cost in its expenditures for approval plans: $122,404.

i. Serial Cancellations:

Of the twenty-five reporting in this category, fifteen canceled serials on average 244 subscriptions in 1999/2000. Five reported canceling over 300 subscriptions (Indiana, Iowa, Rutgers, Washington, and Wisconsin). Washington cancelled the most, 884. Some of them reported cancellations based on redundancy with electronic subscriptions. Twelve reported planning on canceling serials subscription in 2000/2001.

Comments from Survey Compiler:

Budgeting is the art of bringing policy to life by putting your money where your mouth is. From the data complied here, there are some clear reflections of institutional policies and local exigencies. Libraries have been positioning themselves with their materials budgets in regard to the access vs ownership debate: how much to spend on mechanism for getting access to materials not owned or leased (through ILL, document delivery, bibliographic utilities) and how much to spend on acquiring and maintaining materials (print and electronic purchases, binding, etc.). These materials budget decisions do not necessarily translate into experimental vs traditional library practices. Each strategy has elements of both.

Among the members of the discussion group there are two extremes: Arizona on the access side and UC Berkeley on the ownership side. From its materials budget, Arizona spent over $400,000 on document delivery and ILL, $318,404 on bibliographic utilities, and only $186,500 on binding. From its materials budget, Berkeley spent only $60,000 document delivery and ILL, nothing on bibliographic utilities, and $750,000 on binding (7% of materials budget). Berkeley also spent the most on monographs as a percentage of expenditures (48.0%) and Arizona nearly the least (29%). It is important to watch these two approaches to collection development, to see how much an institution can rely on accessing materials it does not own and how important it is to build strong local collections. It is comforting to know that some, like Berkeley, are still building strong collections that the rest of us can access.