RCM 2013-2014 BUDGET REVIEW George A. Smathers Libraries
RCM 2013-2014 BUDGET REVIEW George A. Smathers Libraries Judith C. Russell March 12, 2013 1 BACKGROUND The George A. Smathers Libraries have two main components under RCM The Health Science Center Libraries The University Libraries The HSC Libraries are funded through units of the Health Science Center The University Libraries are funded through the other academic and research units, with the exception of the College of Law 2
BACKGROUND The Smathers 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 The Smathers Libraries are dedicated to supporting the Universitys threefold mission of teaching, research, and service 3 BACKGROUND Flat Funding Request: $28,225,829 $26,599,749 (2012-2013 actual with $300,000 increase from HSC for HSC
Libraries) plus $1,626,080 for essential library materials Optimal Funding Request: $32,044,217 4 5 AGENDA FOR TODAY Peer Analysis: UF Libraries funding compared to peer AAU universities Greatest Need: Funding for library materials essential to students, faculty, researchers, and clinicians 2013-2014 Budget Request Flat Funding plus $1.6 million for materials Optimal Funding to improve collections and services
6 PEER ANALYSIS Compared UF to 8 Public AAU Universities All with 4 or more Health Colleges All with a College of Law All with U.S. News Ranking above 30 All members of the Association of Research Libraries (ARL) 4 are land grant universities 7 PEER ANALYSIS, continued
Peer Universities University of Michigan (#4) University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill (#5) University of Wisconsin, Madison (#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) 8 PEER ANALYSIS ARL data for 7 factors that report library RESOURCES for materials and staff (2008) NCES data for 7 university factors that correlate with DEMAND for library resources & services (2008) 9 LIBRARIES Avg. Excluding UF UF as % of Non-UF Avg.
Library Materials Expenditures $14,820,857 84% Total Library Expenditures $39,116,382 73% Salaries & Wages Professional Staff $9,602,922 63%
Total Salaries & Wages $18,656,818 75% Professional Staff (FTE) 149 68% Support Staff (FTE) 192
99% (FTE) 454 84% EXPENDITURES PERSONNEL-SALARIES PERSONNEL-FTE Total Staff 10 UNIVERSITY
Avg. Excluding UF UF as % of Non-UF Avg. PhDs Awarded 635 135% Prof Degrees Awarded 626 200% Total PhDs and Prof Degrees
119% Total Graduate & Prof Students 12,579 134% PhD Fields 11 PEER ANALYSIS, continued UF Libraries are BELOW average for every library RESOURCE factor for materials and staffing UF is ABOVE average for every university
factor correlating with DEMAND for library resources and services 12 PEER ANALYSIS, continued More useful comparison by accounting for differences in scale at the peer institutions Analyzed correlations between ARL data on library expenditures and NCES data on university factors The highest correlation was with total university budget (R2 = 0.8278) 13 14
PEER ANALYSIS, continued 15 PEER ANALYSIS, continued Average library expenditures as % of university budget (8 peers without UF): 1.8352% Library expenditures as % of university budget (UF): 1.6442% 16 PEER ANALYSIS, continued Application of Linear Regression Formula to UF Total UF Expenditures Projected Library
Expenditures Actual Library Expenditures Difference $1,737,832,000 $37,899,670 $28,573,302 $9,326,368 Data from 2008 17
PEER ANALYSIS, updated Application of Linear Regression Formula to UF Using 2009 Data Total UF Expenditures Projected Library Expenditures Actual Library Expenditures Difference $2,121,460,000 $41,851,038 $28,147,202
$13,703,836 18 PEER ANALYSIS, updated The average Total Library Expenditures for the 8 peer institutions increased by $1,027,589 from 2008 to 2012 The Total Library Expenditures for UF Libraries increased by $7,858 from 2008 to 2012 19 PEER ANALYSIS, updated PROPORTION OF LIBRARY EXPENDITURES
Materials and Operations Staffing Median for Peers 50% 48% Average for Peers 54% 46% University of Florida
53% 47% 20 Smathers Libraries Staffing Decrease in Smathers Libraries Staffing 2009-2010 Through 2011-2012 Faculty & Other Professionals Non-Professional Staff Total 2010
97 186 283 2011 85 172 257 2012 81
167 248 21 GREATEST NEED 22 RCM Budget Review for the George A. Smathers Libraries Expenditures for Materials By Source of Funds $14,000,000 $12,000,000 Add'l $ from HSC for HSCL $10,000,000 Carry Forward
12-13 13-14 23 RCM Budget Review for the George A. Smathers Libraries Gap In Expenditures for Materials $14,000,000 $12,000,000 Add'l $ from HSC for HSCL $10,000,000 Carry Forward $8,000,000
Reallocated Salary $ $6,000,000 Appropriation for Materials $4,000,000 DSR $2,000,000 $ to Maintain Content $0 09-10 10-11 11-12 12-13 13-14
24 RCM Budget Review for the George A. Smathers Libraries Carry Forward Generation and Use $3,000,000 $2,500,000 $2,000,000 Annual Carry Forward Balance Materials Expenditure Operating Expenditure Required Reserve ($766,288) $1,500,000 $1,000,000 $500,000
$0 09-10 10-11 11-12 12-13 13-14 25 2013-2014 Budget Request Flat Funding Request: $28,225,829 $26,599,749 (2012-2013 actual with $300,000 from HSC for HSCL) plus $1,626,080 for essential library materials
To avoid loss of core content for students, faculty, researchers, and clinicians, a Flat Budget MUST include an additional $1,626,080 for materials 26 2013-2014 Budget Request Optimal Budget includes a total increase of $5.5 Million, which would protect core content and allow acquisition of new content and provision of high-demand services This is still $3.8 million below the 2008 gap of $9.3 Million relative to peer institutions $8.2 million below the 2009 gap of $13.7 Million 27
Additional Information: Judy Russell, Dean of University Libraries: [email protected]; 352-273-2505 Brian Keith, Associate Dean for Administrative Services & Faculty Affairs: [email protected] ; 352-273-2595 28
Relacion con los Directores Informacion Financiera y Compliance Gestion de riesgos 66.7 51.9 48.1 50 46.8 41.3 46.2 Moderado Presupuestos y Proyecciones Gestion de liquidez Asignacion de Capital Estructura de Capital Relacion con los Directores Informacion Financiera y Compliance Gestion...
The Transition to Digital Television Jérôme Adda University College London Marco Ottaviani London Business School Talk Plan Digital television Business and public policy problem Model Data and results Effects of policies on viewers' incentives From Analogue to Digital TV TV...
Because Bacteria and Archaea get their nutrition differently, and it makes sense for them to live near where food is available … they tend to occupy different and diverse habitats . Keeping in mind they are still prokaryotes, which are...
Introduction to Regional Geography II (PAGES: 16-39) Definition: Shared patterns of learned behavior Components: Beliefs Institutions Technology A wide-ranging and comprehensive field that studies spatial aspects of human cultures Major components focus on: Cultural Landscapes Culture Hearths Cultural Diffusion Cultural...
Isoline type (Average Daily Solar Radiation) Lines connect points of equal value Dot Density type (Wisconsin Acreage in Potatoes) Each dot represents a frequency of mapped variable Proportional Symbol Map (Graduated Circle type) Size of symbol varies in relation to...
Ready to download the document? Go ahead and hit continue!