DOCIMENT RESONE

ED .112 883 IR 002 593It

AUTHOR 'SpyerS-Duran, PeterTITLE . -Prediction of Resource Needs: A Model Eudge.pFormul&

for UPper Division University Libraries. 4

PUB DATE,NOTE

75 r

, ,

i

111p.; Dissertation, Nova, University

EDRS PRICE

, Ph.D.

MF-$01.76 HC-$5.70 Plus Postage' -

DESCEIRTORS *Budgeting; Budgets; Doctora, Theses; EducationalFinance; *Library Expenditures;,,Library Researchl*Mode).S; Program Budgeting; Resource Allocations;*University Libraries; *Upper Division Colleges

IDENTIVERRS *Fordal'aBudgeting. ti

ABSTRACT(' A study focused o library formula 'budgeting

.practices with A special concern for, the typical upper division n

. university functioning in a state system of higher educatiOn. Thebasieobjectives of this resaarch pfojectwere to develop a modelbudget for upper division university libraries and to demonstrate theuge of fofmulas,in predicting the anticipated resources necessary tooperate and maintain uppe, division iversity librarieS (UDUL) :Existing formulas were examinedra.nd evaluated. These, together withthe UDUL models, were field teste in application at :ten uppprdivigion institutions. The UDUL f rmulas.were.evaluated by a panel ofexperts and, finally, conclusionS and recompendations were drawnconcerning the feasibility and utilization 'value of a formula ,

designed dppergivision university libraries. The scope of thestudy was limited to formula budgeting. The UDUL formulas developedcover all major budget categoFies commonly found in academiclibraries, i.e., salaries, matgrials, and ekpense. A. physical a

facility formula was excluded,isince it is not typically part of anannual operating budget,AAuthor/SL)

.***4*********************4**.********4********************************:

* Documents acquired by ERLC include many informal unpublished *

I* materials not available from her sources. ERIC makes every effort *kc to- obtailYthe best copy,ava labl . Nevertheless, items of marginal * /)* reproducibility are, often en ounterd and this affects the quality *"* of the microfiche and hardcopy relproductIons'ERIC makes,available *

?* via -"the ERIC Document Reproduction Sertice (EDRs) . EDRS is not *

* responsible for the quality of the. original document. Reproduttions *esupplied by EDRS are the best that can be made from the original. *,V**********************************************************************

41

tO 4

a.

o

a

a 0

O4

Prediction of Resource Needs:

A Mode_ 11 Budget Formula$or

4pper iDivision University

Libraries '

ABSTRACT

by .

Peter Spy rs-Fran, Ed. D.Nova ' niversity 1975 r

Chairman: r. Frederick C. Kiatzer6

U S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH,kpUCATION & WELFARENATIONAL INSTITUTE OF

&DUCA TIONTHIS DOCUMENT HAS BEEN REPRODUCED EXACTLY AS RECEIVED FROMTHE PERSON OR ORGANIZATION ORIGINATING IT POINTS OF VIEW OR OPINIONSSTATED DO NOT NECESSARILY REPRESENT OFFICIAL NATIONAL INSTITUTE OFEDUCATION POSITION OR POLICY

ct

The need for sp cial,funding for upper division universities

has been aigued. This -'tudy focused on library formula budg'ting

practices with a speci concern for the typical upper division univer-

sity functionirig in a st te system,of trigher sduFation. The basicobjectives of this dev lopmental research project were twofold:7

(1) to devlop 'a mod budget for upper division university libraries

(UDUL) an:1,(2) to Cie onstrate the use of formuld.s in predictingtheanticipated resourq s necessary to operate and-maintain upper

Sion university lib aries., ( i.

.The twes-were devel ped thropgh six phases. Phasesone through three consisted of litei ture search, data collection, nd

the examination d evaluation. of existing formulas. Phase four field

tested the select d formulas, togethevv-with the UDUL models, in

aplication to t upper division institutions. -Phase Live consisted of

an evaluation o the UDUL formulas? by a panel of exp is from leading C

upper division ibraries. Phase six drew conclusions a presentedH

recommendations concerning the feasibility and utilization Value,of a

Nf rmula designed for upper diviiion university libraries.The scope of the study was limited to formula budgeting.

This is a method of line-item b feting based ur;fon quantitative models

whiepress the budgetary suppo t needs generated by operatingprograms and functions. The UDUL formulas developed cover allmajor bud5et categories commonly found in academic libraries, i.e.,salar'ies, materials and expense. A pitlysical facility formula was

4

excluded from this study, since it is not typically part Of an annual

operatinig budget.Although the study was necessarily limited to institutions

e 4

serving a statewide system of. higher' education, other institutions may

find the formula a plication useful.The primarygoL4 of the study was to develop a model library

budget formula that would be particularly sensitive to institutions

without lower division enroliMents. This goal hasZeen achieved, with

the limitations noted unde4'the con us ns. The major recommenda-,°tion resulting ,from the study is that upper division institutions give

,7serious consideration to the adiption of the UDUL formulas presented.

\

9

r

c

r

PREDICTION OF RESOURCE NEEDS:

A MODEL BUDGET FORMULA FOR

UPPER DIVISION UNIVERSITY

LIBRARIES

by

Peter Spyers-Duran

cn

A MAJOR APPLIED RESEARCH PROJECT PRESENTED

IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT CV THE 'REQUIREMEN.TS

FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF EDUCATIOI?

NOVA UNIVERSITY

1975

LI

0

4

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

) The completion of this major r6beardh project is due in larger part to-many co' leagues and friends. For thefrAencouragement and

support I am indebted to the members of the UDUL Committee of the

Americal. Library Assdciation, Association of College and Re arch

Libriries Div(ision.o

I am indebted to Andrew Farkas, University of North Florida;

Richard J.. Vorwerk, GovernorNState University; James ,Servieg,'

University of West Florida; Howard Cordell, Florida International

University; Dornin,ick Coppola, Richmond College; Dick L. Chappell,

University of Texas-Permian Basin; James T. Dodson, University of

Texas-Dana's; Emerson Jacob) Pennsylvania State University-Capital

Campus; and Howard W. Dillon,' Sangamon State University, for their

assistance in field testing' and evaluating the UDUL Formula.-

Special thanks is due DrE'rederick C. Kintzer who served

as my advisor and, in the process; contributed a great deal to the

improved qu'ality or this research project. I thank Dr. James 0.

Howell, Florida Atlantic University; Dr. James Chinn, Broward

Community College; .and' Dr. George M. Barton, Nova Uni ersity,

fc4r their critical review of the material. Special acknowledgement

Old thIks are due Mrs. Jan Brace, who helped with the final editipg

d did the final Wing of the report.Finally, I express my appreciation to my understanding wife;

Jane, who provided ehcouragenInt and assisted with the bditorial

aspects.. Her patience and help, together with the assistance of those

Mentioned above, have made completion of this project possible.

O

Ga

0

TABLE OF CONTENTSt

A.de

LIST OF TABLES . vi

ChapterI RATIONALE FOR THE STUDY

, .

Introduction . . . ,

What is/an 'Upper, Division University? . .How Dcyllpiper Division University' Libraries

Diger from Other LibrariesSumpary . . . . -

Bibliography . .

LIT RA TUBE *SURVEY

4. 8. 12

14'

7 Historical Backgrthmd . .

WPBS in Academic Library Environment .'Emergence of .Library Fore ula Budgeting .What Is a Library Budget ormula?Types of Current Formula pproachesSummary .

Bibliography

3 THE STUDY

IntroductictObjectivesDelimitations of the StudyAssumptionsProcedures in the DevelopOther Studies Using Devel mental

Research TechniquesSummaryBibliography

ent of the Formula'

"R

4

(10.

iv

1519,2127272930

'34.3737

p

38'38

39. 44

Chapter4

5

ADMINISTERING THE STUDY AND THEDEVELOPMENT OF UDUL FORMULAS

The Questionnaire.. .

Selection of the Expert PanelSelection of Institutibris for

Field Testing Formulas . .

Page

4647

47Discussion of Institutional Data for

Field Test Groups . . . . . 49Selection of Existing Librdry Formulas 51

Summary . . . . . . . 80

Annotated References . . . . 82

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS ANDRECOMMENDATIONS

Summary . . 83

Conclusions . N.85

Recommendations and Need forFurther StuVes . . . 89

-APPENDIXES

I Memo td Committee on Upper Division UniversityLibraries and tudget Formula questionnaire

117 List -of .Upper Division CoIlegs andUniversities in the U.S., Fall 1974 . . . 95

III.- Sam.ple of letter to all prospectiveY . ( 96,Expert Panel members . . . .

. IV Response form from Expert Panel members 97

V Memo inviting Expert Panel members toevaluate formulas at a meeting inChicago on January 20, 1975 - 98

VI 1FOrm for Evaluation of UDUL Formulas 99

,er

S

LIST OF TABLES

Table 5 Page

I. InstitutioLl Data for Select Upper DivisionUniversity Libraries, 73/74 . . . . 50

II. California State College Libraries Staffing Formula 54

III. 'California State College Staffing Formula A

Applied to.Test Institutions . . 55

IV. ,. Florida State UniversitykAbraries Staffing Formula r

.4,

56

V. Florida St fing Formula Applied to Test Institutions , - 57

iI. Washingtc tate University Libraries Staffing Formula .58

VII. Washington%taffing Formula Applied to Tesi'Institiitions, 59

qVIII. Proposed- Upper Division University Libraries t---

Staffing Formula ',?. . . . . 60)

IX. Upper Division Univers(kty Libraries"Staffing Formula _

, Applied to Test Institu'tions . . f . . . 61.

X. Summary Q- Minimum Library Staffing Formulas . .k -

62

XI. Comparative Group Analysis of Staffing Formulas 63

'XII. Components of Materials Formulas ' . ''. 65

XIII. California State College Formula: Library Materials 66

XIVi. Florida Formula: Library Materials 67

XV. Washington Formula: Library Materialsc.

68

XVI. Upper Division University LibrariesMaterials Formula, Part 0: Books , 70

XVII. Upper Division University Libraries MaterialsFormula, Part B: Periodicals/Serials . 71

XVIII. Summary - Minimum Library Mgterials Formula 72

\XIX.* Comparative Group Ana ysis of Materials--Formula

a

1

Table age

XX.' Upper Division Univer ity Libraries Expense Formula 76

XXI. Upper Division,Univ sity LibrarieS ExpenseFormula Applied to Test Institutions . . 77

XXII. Summary, - Minimum Expense Formula 78

XXIII. Effect 6f UDUL Expense Fol-mula onHypot etical System of Ten Libraries 79

!;(

CAP

vii

:11

Chapter

RATIONALE FOR THE STUDY

Introduc,tion,

,

There has never been a greater need for studies of the methods

by which the finanCial needs of publiC institutions of higher education

are determined. This is also true of the libraries serving theSe insti-tutions, requiring increasingly larger s ms of money year after year.

Much improvemepq in existing,methods as been noted;' however, there-.

are many problems yet to be resolved.

This study will focus on library formula buceting practices

W th a special concern, for the typical upper division university in a

,st to system of higher education. Library formula budgeting is a ra-.they new pgenomenon. As a systemwide budgeting method, the Library

form is less that ten years old and barely through the state of infancy.

In many state's 'the' formula approach is just being developed. Spf-rie

states, like Florida or Texas, have been 'utilizing the statewide applica-

of library formulas for university l.ibr ries for the past three to

four years. These two state systems ha, ut one-third of all upper- .

state

division state universities in existence a of 1974., 4 h,

The Texas system has exel?ipted t per. division university

libraries from the formula as of the 1974/75 academ year., They will

come under a formlila of their own or the existing Te as formula, de.-1

pertding on the outcome, of currently continged studies. The findings

of this and other studies will have some influence on the development

and direction of the upper avision library formula in Texas as well as;

elsewhere.

-10

O.

4-

ly

The library formulas in Florida (and presumably in'other9. states as well), have simply,assumed that the upper division institution

is the)apper half of a four-year college without any special considera-,tibn of the problem this.inight present in rendering adequate quality

at:

a

library service.. Library formulas that serve the traditional university along

with the Upper division university system h6.ve been in effect forqhe

past few years, and institutions have survived. There is a difference,however, between-mere survival and quality and equality in budgeting

methods ghat, would support .the upper division libraries commensurate .

with their specified missions.42 Do libraries serving upper division universities need a special

funding formula? An' informal survey o Hbracy directors employedby upper divis,iori universities 'revealed an.emphatic yes. In addition,

we find Burington Reed, Commissioner of flighrer, Education, State of. .T.6)kas, supporting thiSnot3,on.c,1

Reed felt that stude,nt services, library support and facultysalaries deserve special Considerations when planning for the UpperdiviSidn university:

"The purpose of all formulas is to provide adequateand equitable funding for the fupctions being performe&byan institution. The functions being perforyned by an upper-level institution are somewhat different from thbse per-formed by four-year institutions.

The whole area of special formulas for upper-level. institlitions-needs to be studied, with thOrough research

done to deterine how the different functiOns of these =newinstitutions may affect their need for funding. We in Texashave not yet done that research; therefpre, there isno,sould informational base on which I base my observations t-on the need for special formulas for upper-level institutions.

The fOrmMa Tor library supportt,alSo needs to bedied caref&lly to determine whether or not the present

foiernula, which iS for four-year institutions, would be equi.-table to meet the needs of institutions offering only upper-division and graduate work.-112

.11

a

3

Reed illustrated the varia)tions in instructional-cost by levelof teaching citing information collected by the Coordinating Board.Their report indicate's that the student-Iteacher ratio, the'single mostimportant factor in determining the cost of instruction, is larger in theA-eshman7sophomare cburses than in junior-senior and graduate levels.Sala:IkiesWere.;cited by Reed as another variation in instructional cost.Lower2division instructors arse paid less, as the upper division classesare more likely to. draw the most experienced senior faculty. Hence,

according.to Reed, productivity should be funded with full cOn-sidera-.° tion of the prevailing practices.

"Any special funding formia should be an attempt.to allOcate like amounts of money for like functions. Theup "per -level institution is a response to thd needs of stu-dents for more individualized programs, for strong

counseling programs, and for teaChing techniq es andmethodology which meets student needs. As f rmulasare developed, they should reflect these imp rtant functions of the dipper-level institution."3

Dr. Roy assiter, Vice President for Academic..Affairs atUniversity of Nor h Florida; an upper division state university," pre-

.

sentedaa case for special funding of Upper Division Universities withinthe Florida State University System.4 Lassiter discovered that the

ed upper-division level fundingfor lowerdivision students enrolled in upper-division classes. In fact,

he fodn'd that in one institution 17.# percent of tPre -total upper-level

credit hours were generated by freshman-sophomores; who thus in-creased upper-level enrollments by 4,800 1-NE. Dr. Lassiter hasdemonstrated in this paper. that the four-year institutions support andsubsidize their More expensive upper-division classes o a largeextent from the lower-division student overflow. This, of course -4snot possible for the Upper Division Universities by thee simple fact hatthese instituticins do not have freshman-sophomore classed, thus "crting a funding ine uity among these two types of institutions.

tra..c1..1 four-year institutions rec

°

,A thorough literature search revealed that while most areasof upper division universitiesave been studied, only a relativelysmall amount of investigation h4r,s been cOnducted in the area of'spe-,

,cial budgeting Soripulas for this ,type institution There is a definiteA

abserice of such studies for/upper division librariesland there are no.

major wbrks- available on upper division university library formulas.

What is an Upper Division University?

The upper divisio*Ideiiversity is an institution which admits

students only after complet-i,

work. Such.a university t

4

n of a minimum of two ycoars of collegiate

ically offers academic work 01T the junior

and senior year-levels. It'may or may not also offer postgraduate

work on the master and doctoral studies levels.The concept of the upper division university is by no means

new to higher, education, although the expansion of the junior college.

movement in the United States has created a sig1xificant recent

interest in the establishment of upper division universities. In fact,

most of the existing institution S) were created in the sixties and early

sevy...ri-tieg;" They typically serve urban centers and area located in

states which have active community college programs. By contrast,the established state universities, in most instances, are not locitedin population centers. Thus, the establishment of new upper levelinstitutions in strategic geographic locations affords more entry and

exit points in the educational system than were previously available.5

I

A major purpose of public upper level universities is tqserve students who have finished their first two years of,general

edUcation in a junior, or community college. This stated purpose is

a logical outcome of the rapid and successful growth of the junior and

community colleges,. As the number of AA degree graduates increased

so did the need to provide a' Continuum in the educational system.

.3

,,Altrrian believes that the whole aermaz philosophy of higher.

5

`education, is centered around the them that preparatory work be-

longs\

longs in a university. When a student enters a university he is to

come fully prepared to-enter a specialized field,' the broad liberal artsbackground having been learned in high school and during the freshman

sophomore years. Hence, Altman sees the role of the upp.er division

university as one that will not have to be concerned with general educa-tion.. General educatiori will have bee5 obtained during the first two

years, freeing the upper division iristitutions to concentrate on specialiczations and preprofessional,programs, American universities haveattempted to follow this pattern at least in theory. In practice,C htvever,one finds, a considerable percentag,e of mix of lower-division students

a r

_taking upper-division cou-rses. Conversely, it is possible for a junior

or senior level student to finish some of the required lowil\r-division,

general education classes just before graduation.The upper division university, its -studentsiand.itsfaculty have

special characteristics which must be noted, as they have a direct or1/4

indirect impact on institutional budgetary considerations:IN 9

1. The average student at the upper level university isolder than his counterpart in a traditional four-year: inStitution.7 The

older student generaily makes wiser Curricular choices and seems tohave clearer educational objectives than does the traditional student

. who is often ten to fifteen years younger.t.,..AS a consequence, upper division institutions place

probably less emphasis on the liberal arts and tend to concentrate ondvocational and professional programs. This s not necessarily mean

the total abandonment of liberal arts, offerings.

iIt does mean; however,

that upper division schools could not ignore the interests of junior- college graduates in those areas. *

2. A great majority of the students in upper division

universities c6me'from low to middle claits income families. The

a

S

fr

6

typical student sul)ports himself and is employed while attending school.

The consequence of this phenopienon is that thelmix of part -time to full-,

time students will be consld'erablS7 higher than on'traAitional campuses.0

3: The nature of the s,tudeiat body cre.aftes a basically Corn-

muter campus that is 'typical for the junior college from where these

student's have transferred. Although some, upper division universities

have some dormitory space, others do not. )?orrnitory space is an

important-consideration as far as qman,ds for library sp-Efce..and ser-

vices Ire'concerned..--A conirmi,er campus. experiences heavy student

use of the librarc,when cfasse,. are offered and, conversely, light-----...,

student use when there are few or no classes. `...

4. A rather high percentage of part-time students suggests

that mlny of them do not go through an academic pro.gnam in an uninter-

rupted schedule. This, in fact, iS one of the great advantages of the

upper division scholbl. .The student is able to interrupt and then return

to an educational institution at different times in his lifetime.

Educational opportunities are increasingly important as

many professions and occupations demand updating; also, some athalts

may wish to prepare for a Second career or a hobby. The setting and

orientation of the tipper level university is ideal to serve these needs

without the stigmas associated with attending a traditional college. 8

5. Most of the upper ivision universities have formed

their own unique philospihy in relation to curriculum offerings, degree

requirements, grading system and educational administration. Most<5 attempt to be innovative and creative in the complexity and diversity

of programs offered. One can\nly assume that tills phenomenon is

related to a problem common to all upper division universities. ,All

of these universities seem to have had enrollment problems even

during thse heydays of the, sixties. 9

6. The typical faculty member attracted to an upper division

university tends to be an individual ftvith a terminal degree.

015

tra

As such,

z_per FTE faCu ty seems to.be high. The research projects generate

'library activi and create demands for collections that'newhy--eated

/(

6he or she also tends to have research interests in addition to the

teaching assig ments. The percentage of active research conducted

7

institutions h ve difficulty in satisfying.Are pper division universities here to stay or will they

transform int the four-year tyffq institution after a period of time? (

The answer i nottdifkicult to formulate. One must recognize that the

public junior college, re the'f,a,stest growing segment of AniLican

higher educa The junicir collegeS will generate an increasing de-/

mand for the upper level edUcation. Thi observation is true espeCially

iri those areas where a system of community or junior colleges is in

operatio,n.it alternatives are there to provide the baccalaureate need

on a regional basis? The Cfordinating Board of theTexas College .and

University System recognized the availp.ble alternatives that may be

considered valid in othei- states, as well:10

1. To expand junior colleges to four. years. This possi-

bility received 'opposition from-the junior college sector which felt

that, among other reasons, their community Service and vocational-

technical prog-rams would suffer.

2. To create new four-rear ipatitutions. This aw...nue

promised to be financially unfe Bible. Facilities_ar4 Programs at

the lower-division level are vailable in the jynior colleges and

would represent unnecessary duplication. In addition, there would

be unnecessary competition for students among institutions.

3. To create upper division colleges and universities.

This lias captured the imagination of educators and legislators in

Texas and several other states.An upper division university can and should- provide an

educational experience uniquely tailored to the`needs a the junior

a

I

rAO

o

8

college transfer, as well as to of er students who elect to changeinstitutions after cOmpletion of ieir sopilom-or4 Aar. They w

. -

established for this pu se.

economically and edu fea ible alternative to the four -yeah

institution which\woold p to the- offer gs of existent junior ca-t,

1 'This is particularly rue in those states in which public juniorcolleges already provide conveniento access to higher e.dtcation for a

he. upper level institution provides(an

large number of studentS. 0,.The student at the upper division univerity level has already

.undergbne th7,--initial sifting and sorting. die is somewhat older than

.the traditional college student', more'n1,943..,,ir\e'..and probably highly moti-

vated. Yet, upper level institutions must concentrate some of theira

resources and services minimize the "transfer shock" which oftenaccompanies the mewl student from the juniorcollege.

%Existing upper division univLsities have demonstrated this

type of institution to be workable and capable of serving as a

to a growing number of public educational s3 stems. 11

How Do Upper Division University LibrariesDiffer from Other Libraries?

capstone

The objectives,,,of a typical university library are based on the

,objectives of the institution itself. Essentially these are: (1) to make

available the books, periFdicals; government publications, films,maps, records and otherLnstructional and research materials neces-sary for conducting a successful university program; (2) to assist and

cooperate with faculty members in their varied instructional and re-I .

search programs; (3) to encourage ap.d teach students in the effective:.kuse of collections; (4) to encourage students to develop the habit of self-

education; (5) to provide 'a "library environment?' that is conducive to

study, learning and research. 12 While institutional objectives may bc-

very similar, the two types of institutionsupper division universities

and traditional universities--have iniquely different characteristics.

v

.An exhaustive literature search failed to yid discussion on

1--- 9

the difference that may exist amongilibraries in upper division univer-.

safes and traditional universities. This area itself desL-ves further

.- in-depth investigatio. For the purposes of this research, however, it

is probably adequate to list some ()lithe obvious differences that do exrist

and to state factors that exert influence-and demand on the upper divi-\

sion university library.

1. Age of institutions. The majority of state supported

upper division universities have been in existence for less than five

yearS. Florida Atlantic Uirsity, one of the more,established insti-

tutions, is about ten years cold. The age of the institution reflects on, ..,z, the size and qua of the library collections. Quality in new library

collections 'requires.

time and special funds It90 permit the development

of they desired depth and mix of subject matter's.In creating instant imivers4ty libraries, the challenge is

two-fold. First, such a library muSt keep current in what is being

published of curricular and research interest for the faculty. Second,7

,

sUch a. library must buy some ofthe important material thatyas pub-

lishedlished in thepast. Public upper division librarieby and large, are

tbstant libraries and will stay in this pattern of operation for at least

e first twenty-five years of existence.,, Obvusly the first year of'

operation" will have greater demands for retrospective material than

are, twenty-fifth. Nevertheless, the demand for retrospective material

will be there. The four-ear institution (unless it is a brand new uni-

versity) will not have the need of similar dimensions for r rospective

purchases.2. Nded for some lower-division library materials.

Upper division libraries need some lower-division book and periOdiCal

purchases in addition to the specialized advanced works. This is con-

trary to pre sent forint la budgeting practiCes that use number and levele

of students/enrolled as one of the variableS for support. Just what

a

b

percyntage of a colrection in an upper division library should be at the

lower division level we do not know. Since thkre are no published

studies onte matter, any estimate at this time would be arbitrary andinaccurate; however, at 1Qdst two known parameters -may bp cited

which are based on institutional experience:A. Some transfer students arrive at the upper level

' institution without receiving the basic and introductory knowledge re-

...quired in the college of 'his/her choice. This is not to be inrpreted0

as a reflection on the junior college. Rather, it should be understood,that the reasons for unprep redness may be due to (1) the student

changed major after transfer; (2) the upper division university may offer

programs that do not have junior college parallels.I

B. Students who have studielfa subject mattar at one

time may have to go back toalementary material to refresh theirmemories. For example, it is not uncommon for doctoral studentstaking Research Methods courses to study from the elementary fresh+

man leveldstatistics textbo

\. 3. Experimentation and innovation. Upper division

libraries have been the centers for experimentation and innovation inhigher education during the past fifteen years. Their age, size and

cack of traditionsiand old habits provided natural ground and environ-

O'rnent fOr such activities. For example, Florida Atlantic University

has pioneered in library automation. This institution's library was the

firms to produce a printed card catalog on a computer: It was equipped

with teaching machines, listening room,.5language laboratories and

other aids to independent learning. Classrooms were equipped withTV receivers, and the University invested heavily in TV studio andtrpsinission facilities.,MuGh of what was learned through bold experi;

mentation has benefited and molded widespread library automationo

7throughout the nation during the seventies.

(Innovation and experimentation in anew, small institu1-1

tion can,be made undo - reduced risk conditions and possibly at lower

cost than in an older institution. probably due to the function

size; however, the lower cost and risk factors still mean higher opera-7

ting costs whenever experimentations are being carried out. It is a fact

that innovation and experimentation is a way of life in an upper division

university.

4.. Characteristics of-clientele served.' The Vaaracter and

composition of the students attending upper division universities have

an influence on the naturepof library service, collections and physicalc)

facilities. It was noted earlier that the average age' of the students is

higher than found in a typical four-year institutio . The older, more

mature students tend to be fliore independent and are not afraid to ex-

plore subjects of interest in the library. As working adults, they are

usually committed to learning and invariably insist on the availability

of resources that make exploration of a subject matter and learning

possible. °if

The upper division university students tend to make, a

special impact on library services in the Reference and Interlibrary

Loan areas. The research problems withWhich they need dssistanoe

'are more complex and, therefore, take longer to handle. This need

is expensive to support. It has an important consequence on staffing

requirements, fn that more professional librarians will be needed to

take care of fewer students; it also means that subject specialization of

library staff is desirable. By contrast-, the typical four-year institution

has a mix of lower reference service,, when it deals with freshman-

sophomore students, that is easier to satisfy and therefore should cost

less to render.Interlibrary loan services are particularly active on the

upper division and graduate" levels. The more specialized the research

tit

12

becomes on a given campus the less likely that its/ library will possess

all the needed Material for its researchers. Upper .division universi-

ties seem to have a clientele that demands material beyond the available

colledtions. The hi h level of interlibrary loan activity m also be a

function of the relative newness of the upper division university iibra-

ries. Their collections are naturally smaller, ,aCcollection size is

also a function of age; however, even large research libraries with

several million volumes borrow from other libraries. This activity

.1s not likely to disappear from the i.pper division university library as

its collection size also increases over a period of time.

Summary

LL

The purpose of fo mulas in institutional budgeting procedures

is to provide adequate and eqUitable funding. for the functions being per.:.

formed by an institutions The functions performed by an upper division

university e somewhat diffe% rent frofn those performed by the tradi.:-

Vtianal four-year institution.e %

There is little or no support in published' literature that0 0

,describes the fundamental differences between these types of institu-

tions. This is probably a function of time; as the' great majority of

the existing tipper division universities rare less than five years old.

There is even less written about the significant similarit'es'

or dissimilarities that may or may not exist among the librarie ser-

ving these types of institutipns. The author attempts to shoW that

basic differences are inherertein the purposes of the upper division

institutions and their'lil?raries. The following factors Were identified

that make, the upper division library needs unique:

1. The age of.the institutions;

2. The need for lower division library material;

O

O

1

13

3. ' The upper division university library's typicalcommit..m'en.t to experimentation and innovation;

4c Characteristics of clientelle, including (a) mature,olden Student body; (b) faculty with advanced teaching and research

tnteretla; (c) close ties with,community.

There may be other factors to be considered, but for thepurposes of this study it is sufficient to note that some differences doexist which mare upper division university libraries as uniql' as tie

institutions they serve.

0

1

`ob.

Bibliography Chapter 1

Reed, BUrington. Special Funding Formula for State SupportedUpper Level Institutions. Dallas, 1972. 8 pages.. ERIC Doc.ED 06802.

4.bid. pp. -6 7.

3 ibid.

4Lassiter,.tr---Roy L. Allocation Model Employed by the StateUniversity System of Florida. Position Paper No. 1 (unpublished,Urliversity of North orida, 1974).

5C3uster and Upper Division Colleges: New Organizational Formsin Higher Education. Issues in figher Edwftion, Number 2.Atlanta, Southern Regional Education Board, 1971.

,

6Altrnan, Robert A. The Upper Division College. San'Francisco,Jossey-Bass, '1970.

7Sweet, David E. "Minnesota Metropolitan State College: A NewInstitution for New Students". Paper presented at the AnnualSouthern Regional Educatidn Board Legislative Work Conference,July 21, 1972.

ib id.

9Altman. op. cit.: p. 167.

10Cluste and Upper Division Colleges. op. cit. p.4.

11 Altman. op. cit. p.175.12Florida Atlai-rtic University. "Objectives of the University Library".

Boca Ratbn, 1970.

2a

14

I

7

Chapter

LITERATURE SURVEY

Histor ical'Background

The annual operating expenditures for academic librai&

programs over the decdde of 1963 to 197Vhave increased from$276, 000; 000 to some _,$-850, 000, 000 excluding .capital outlays. 1 All

indications are that the'trend foreven greater expenditures will con-The magnitude of thesb library expenditures has created a.4

apparent interest in budgeting procedures among academicikibrarians,

presidents, fiscal officers and legislators.An understanding of the historical, development of the fiscal

administration of acaderdic institutions is basic to understanding the

Problems of formula buclgetiqg techniques that are currently used or

are under development in both higher education and libraries.

One of the first phlished works of major consequence on bud-

geting for higher education was Trevor ArAetti's College and University

Finance. 2,y Arnett's book, published in 1922, was Prompted by the rapid

increases in th_9 cost bf higher education during the first two decades of

the present century. He reported that the921-22 budgets of the large

rnidwestern state universities had reached upwards 9of five million

dollars. Many of Arnett's recommendatiOns for institutional budgeting

and management are being followed today.3

Following 'Arnett, Morey made important contributiov to the

literature during the 1930's. His work expanded on Arnett's writings

to cover the multiple activities of the growing universities.4 Morey's

principles of cost accounting form the current basic structures of

college and university accounting today.15

24

16)

The American Council on Education formed a Financial

Advisory Service headed by Morey in 19'36. This. Service has helped

a large segment of the nation'-s colleges and universities by means of

reports, bfulletins, conferences. ACE published a two-volume refer-

effce work entitled College and University Business Administration

"iii$1952. This work consisted of revisions toqfie 1935 edition of the

Financial Reports for Colleges and Universities, including a series

of recommendations for the admiiiiistration off' the non-accounting. areas

of the in itutions. The referencesqo buetint iri theSeworks were

)'designed r internal management and control of a,single institution.

Tie purpose f these budgets was simply.to insure that an institution;

dOes not obligate itself in excess Of available revenues. these ACE

books were quite, adequate for that purposei they were not designed' to

demonstrate the financial newts in the institution. This work cautioned

that income estimates should lie realistic, underscoring the philosophy

which dictated that budgetS were built to allocate available resources,

not projected needs. 5. °

The Arnett-Morey influence on budgeting procedures in higher

education was significant because they brought a degree of uniformity

into a setting where autonomy and diversity had existed: They estab-

lished principles which were needed for fiscal control and budgeting

techniques in a modern institution. They have laid the groundwork

and conditions basic tfiaour present budgeting methods.

One can observe the developments in budgeting procedures at

the federal, state, and local levels of government that have made an

impact on educational institutions beginning in the early 1950's. The

stages of governmental bud mg reform include .a Hoover Commission

recommendation that the dget' accounts be changed to reflect

functions and activities.°During the mid-1950's the Rand Corporation published several

reports regarding the deficiencies in military spending within the.

17

Defense Development. ,The reports described the failure to relate

budgeti and planning and suggested the use of program budgeting

as a methoclof relating.objectiveS and resources. It was ip:thi's set-

ting in 1954 that the concept of 'program budgeting was projected for

the Defense Department. Here "program" was to mean an integrated

planning, programMing, budgeting-eprocess that would bring together

all of the resources to laze applied- to specific missions. The.si nificant,feature of this process .was its effect .on decision-making and control

in vitalrea of defense expenditures. While this "program budget-,ing system 'had a nota ble impact on fiscal management, it left the

taditionarfiscal process relatively unchanged.?

The imqlementation of program budgeting in the :Defense

Department was made by Sebretary of Defense Robert McNaniara in

1963:. Preside t Johnson extended the concept of program budgeting

to all federal. age cies by Presidential Order in 1965.

Budget ref rrn in state and-local government has generally

followed that of'the 'Pederal 'government. In the case of the Planning,

Programming,Budgjting Systern.(PPBS) the federal government made

special efforts to-promote its applicatin. The federal governm.ent

financed d.emonstration,,projects. One of the best known of such pro--

Sects was the StateLocal Finan Project at George Washington

University.8. A 1968 survey shows that 28 states began steps toward.

initiating PPBS. 9The-interest in program budgeting spread in the field of edu-

cation also. A study pul5lished in 1966 by Williams .states the benefits

of program budgeting:

"The basic.principleof program budgeting is to derive andstructure an annual budget in such a way that it reflects theannual portion of 'all the major programs in a univer,sityswhich,in turn, promote the overall purposes and objectives.of that in-.stitution. Th.e single most important promoter of planning andprogramming landscape is the analysis which i behind the

Nstrjictural budget format. "1°

C

O 1)8

Farmer conceptualized the reasons for prOgram budgeting'in

higher education in a monograph,,published by. the Western Interstate

Commission for itghir Education (VVICHE), as follows:

"Planning and programming P two -step decisibn process- -represents the substance of PPBSII Budgeting is.the mechanismfor implementation and control not for basic decisionmaking.Planning requires a specific statement of institutional objectives,the development of alternative courses of action, and an analysisof these alternatives. 'ill

As several university systems began experimenting with

PPBS models, doubts about its usefulness began to surface as evi-

denced in literature.Mosher charged the advocates of PPBS with overselling,

promising more than they could deliver, and promising results faster

than they could deliver. 12 Mosher advanced an opinion that the De-

partment of Defense model, was inappropriate and misleading for stateCZ

implementation. Cost effectiveness studies had been conducted in the

'3 Department of Defense since World War II. While that agency had

such experience for twenty-five years, no such expertise in cost effec-

tiveness was available at the state; level or at the universities. This

phertQL-n.enon had obvious "consequences on the success or failure of

PPBS.Peterson expressed his concern over the use of PPBS in

higher ethication. He stated:

"The h i ex ctations of PPBS by its supporters in thefederal go rnment are exemplified by President Lyndon B.

,Johnson's statement in a message to Congress in 1967 that it'brings to eael1...depa4t*ent and agency of the federal govern;ment the most advanCed techniques of Modern business manage-ment'. Yet a Bureau of the, Budget report could label it 'asource of clidagrebment and confusion' and a noted politicalscientists has suggested that it was initiated 'in a burst ofgrandiose claims_ of "breakthroughs" and exaggerated applica-tion to irrelevant situdtions'. "13

19

PPBS in Academic Library Environment4

De G.enaro aanowledged that planning, programming,budgeting systems could be applied to academic libraries, s,ince the

model existed. 14 The implementation of such a system, however,

would likely be faced with insurmountable problems. These problemsas summarized by Mosher are probably common to academic libraries

and othe institutions:15

1. The prime prerequisite for effective PPBSadminis-

tration is a clearly pecific'set of objectives..

A. In a collegiate form of govgrnance, who should ,

determine these objectives?

egrft

$.P

B. w can values be defined in an academie

ironment where the rationality is diverse and not necessarily

economic?C. Academic undertakings have a multiplicity of

objectives and the weighing of one agairlft the rest is a monumental

task.2. The emphasis is on the ability to stretch quantitative

values to 'tit and output aid eventually attach a 'dollar value to each.

How do we measure in those terms the leaorning

process, research, and effective teaching at an academic institution?

3. Planning; programming, budgeting, by its very nature,

tends to shift organizational structure. Typically, the balance of'9

power tends to be centralized and strong, because of its knowledge and

control position.A. This characteristic of PPBS teri-dno be contrary

to the collegiate form of Management of universities with-"Somewhat

decentralized confrolt.B. By its nature (as described in A.) 11'BS creates

conflict between academic interest groups and the central bu7get.

management.'

et,

I

20

Mason states that if the univerikv as a whole does not have a

progralia7planning-budgeting sy, tem, iij unlikely that the library of

hat institution can have a compi ehensive PPP system of its own. 16

lie recognizes. that the library, as a service organization, rformally

responds to.demands placed by its users. In its response to these

demands, the library is expectki to (1) supply bibliographic materials

that are relevant to the research, instruction and service activities

within the academic disciplines; (2) supply user services such as iden-.

tifying, locating, retrieving and reproducing bibliographic sources;

and (3) supply user space and any necessary equipment for using the

library materials. Thus the level of total program-planning.sophisti--

cation of a given campus will directly influence the level of program

planning po .ble.in the library. 17

In spite of the serious attempts to introduce PPBS in academic

libraries progress was very slow. Allen identified the following rea-

sons and difficulties that caused 1i raries to abandon pure PPBS

applications by the early seventies:1. It is difficult to establish realistic objectives in terms

of PPBS-requirements for libilaries.

2. 'Quantitative measurement take a library does not

reflect quality.3. j_,ibraries have discovered that a truly effective PPBS

requires extensive record gathering that can be analyzed and compared

to quantified objectives.18,

All. of these activities are possible, but the cost of maintaining

a goad PPBS has been found to be more expensive than it it wo

Considerable staff resources must be devoted to these activities if

done properly, an expense for which most libraries have found they

cannot get support from funding agencies.19

Program-planning-budgeting is a management systeni. The

literature, acknowledges the theoretical benefits to be derived from itso

O:7, CAPad

Yet, even successful applications of P1 have been gradually

abandoned in the face of difficulties.

Emergence of I.Abrary Formula Budgeting.

As the pure PPB systems were rejected in libraries, formula

budgeting methods gained ,vider,pread acceptance. It is interesting to

note how some of the VPJ3S techniques left their mark of influence o

currently developed formulas. Axford has written an article entitled,

"An Approach to Performance Budgeting at the Florida Atlantic Uni-,

versity Library 21 T he article has very little to do with performance

budgeting. Irotead, it describes a library formula tlkat is currently

used by the State University System of Florida originally derived from

unit cost stu-die: and other work measurement techniques similar to-

the ones used in PPB systems.The govecning bodies rejecting PPBS have also expected a

simpler and better budgeting technique to be introduced. Across

an increasing number of state legislators Vegan demanding

more and easier-to-understand information, as they are asked to allo-.

cate large sums of funds for higher education in general and to Libra-

ries ires n particular. The widespread demand for reasonablygood14dget

preparation and its justification has helped the formula-approahh to

spread rather swiftly.The reasons for formula rather than PPB are probably best

ex resect by Allen:22

1. Formula is mechanical and therefore easierto prepare.

2. There appears to be justification for monies reqidsted,

because of its application to all institutionsin the political jurisdiction.

3. , The governing bodies have a sense of equity because .

each institution in the system is measured against the same criteria.

4. Fewer. budgeting and plannifig skills are required to

prepare and administer1a formula budget.

IOU

30

r 22

A closer scrutiny of the acceptance of formula budgeting (t,reveals that to Some extent it is, pot a totally new practice. What we

have seen emerge in the late sixties is a sophistca-ted formula ap-

proachlivhich was much influenced by Ow PPBS movement. If this

observation is accuratd, then development of formula budgets in libra-

ries can be categorized as (1)pre-1965 anti (2)-post-1965 formulas.t

1. Pre-1965 formula approacheS. For the sake of

convenience, McAnally grouped library budget formulas used during

the post-World War II period into four mayor categories: (A) arbitrary;,

(B).enrollment based ;,,( c) comparative; and (D) unit cost based. 23

A. rbitrary formula. This standard probably

was the most commonly used method during the period from 1945 to

1965. It assigned an arbitrary'percentage of the total educational

and general budget of the institution,The Ameritan Library AsSociation's Standards

for College and Research Libraries published in 1959 suggests the

following formula rationale:

"The library budget should be determined in relation tothe total budget of the institution,,,for educational and generalpurposes. The program of library service outlined in thesestandards normally required a minimum of 5 percent of thetotal educational and gendral budget. The percentage nthstbe higher if the library's holdings are seriously deficient, if

there is rapid expansion in student population or course offer-ing,s, or if the institution fosters a ,wide range of studies atthe Master's levels or programs of independent study. 24

It is not difficult to agree with Russell, Who has25

criticized the weaknesses of this approaCh to financing libraries.

First, he points out that no norms have ever been established,for the

percentage distribution, o expenditures 'among the various, functions.

l''''econd, this is merely d' device for dividing.up available funds, who-

ther adequate or not. Third, the funds are divided up and handed out

23

without evaluating in a reliable way the actual library needs.Another type of arbitrary formula was applied

in two states, I Texas aryl California. 26 The Texas Commission on

Higher education set a figure of five percent akthe rate of annual

growth for each institution of highei- education in Texas. The mug

ber of volumes generated for each institution was then multiplied by

the average cost per volume ($6, 000 in 1961). The base size foriheo

University of Texas was 1,200, 000 volumes; for the other graduate -

/ type institutions, 400,000 volumes; and for all the state colleges,100,000 volumes. The California System set a goal in 1.961 at

'3, 000,000 volumes for the universities'. Until the goal Was reached

in rn years, the libraries would grow at thte rate of four percent

(about 120,000 volumes annually). Both of these states abandoned the

above plan several years ago. Again it is easy to see the weakness.

in the simplistic and arbitrary approach previously represented in

these two state systems.

B. Enrollment based formula. The most commonly

used formula in the late fifties and, early sixties was the standard "not

less than $30.00 per full time equivalent student ,,.27 It is interesting

to note that the Southern AssoCiation of Colleges and Secondary Schools

no longer states the amount of dollars to be spent on FTE students in

qUantitative terms.Enrollment was a popular way to express staffing

needs in librar,i0'during the early sixties. A typical formula was that

of the Stoke.Univ*rsity of New York. This formula called for six

professional positions andsix clerical positions for the first 1,000

full-time regular students. 'For additional enrollments, staff was

allocated on a scale:28

pA -

24

Professional' Clerical.

Enrollment Staff Staff

. 1400 7 7

1800 8 8

2200 9. 9

k 2600 10 11

3000 10 12-

3400 11 13

3800 11

Book fads were als6 generatO on thesebaSes,f6

in a number of state institutions ,in such states as New York and New

Jersey, and by the California State Colt ges. 29 These formUlas

either called for a specific: amount per fulr-time students for both

funds, or they speCified the number of books the library shotild own

per student. In 1961 the SIJNY colicgeS received, $10: GO per student

for book purchases. The California state colleges had a somewhat

more complex formula calling for the acquisition of 4 volumes.per

student for he first 1,000 students, 2 volumes for the next 4000,

and one volume for all beyond 6,000. The cost per volume was based

on past experience. Both of these technlques were abandoned by the

late 1960's in favor of other budget formula techniques.

C., Comparative formulas. McAnally identified

three types of comparisons used in budget preparations during the pest-

World War II period. 30

(1) Comparison of proposed budget with

current4and past budgets within "a given institution;

(2) Comparison of institutional budgets.with

each institution that is part of the same state system;. (3) Comparison of budgets among institutions

in other states and/or in the region.

a33

-

Comparisons Used for budgeting purposes had

several dangers. ,If an institutional budget had been historically bad,

the in-house comparigon perpetuated the bad support year after ye-ar.-

The, interinstitutional comparisthe-boa d medioolsacy). It wa alsb based on the ofallacy that similar

1

in a state system encouraged across-.

institute. ns needed identical budgets. Similar- institutions may not be

identtl; hence, such arbitrary budgeting practi.ces created Unfortu-e

nate results. The Aird4nethod that compared buodgets Nvitinstitutions

outside the system, and even with out-of-state institutions, was useful

to helpo"keep up with the Jones's". In many institutions such compari-

sons were made ne ar,ly to justify budget increases.

0 .It is interesting to note that, while^it is unlikely

that arry state university syStem would use comparisons to prepare, a

'budget today, comparisons are still being made quite regiilarly.,.,Typi-

cally they. are used.to check on the validity of otherbpdgeting techniques

currently employed by the institutions. Such Comparisons are helpful

in demonstrating to board Merri ers or legislators that the actual.

amoun4s requeSted are in line w h. support received elsewhere.

D. Unit costLormula. The development of libr ary

budgets based on unit cost was the forerunner of the Formula Budget-.o

ing Technique introdliced during the sixties. The unit cost technique

was an effort 10 base the library budget on the work load it'earriethThe best example to be found may be the system'

usedby the California state colleges in the mid-50's. In this system- t

the library staffing needs were established by a series of worksheets

that translate( d the workload into staff.positions. Such factors were. .

.considered as (1) the number of books to be acquired, (2) the number_

of volumes circulated, and (3) the number of service points to be

staffed. 31

Q.

v.26

Clearly, the increased use of unit cost data inlibrary budgeting has helped administrators to appreciate the cost of

services rendered, much of which hidden in the past. Over the/years the unit cost studies, such as the Axford study, resulted in

nationwide understanding of the various el nents of library operation. 32

The academic library field- was ready to'tr nslate these cost studiesinto reliable formulas that were to replace the arbitrary and less sci-

entific budgeting systems, but without getting into the complexities of

a true PP13 system.

Post-1965 formula budgeting. The rapid growth of

libraries and their increased cost lave been the cause of concern toy

library adminiStrators, university pesiclents, legislators aad others.

`It may be easier to comprehend what has 11/4t-Ippened between the years

1964 and 1974 if one lookg at the actual dollar expenditure of 'a single

un iversity (library. For the Florida Atlantic University Library the

expenditures 'increased as follows:

Category Budget

1964/65 _ 1974/75

Books anti Periodicals $150, 000 517, 523

Salaries 155, 000 509, 028

Expenses 30,,000 37, 399

Total $335, 000 $1, 063, 950

Cost increases of this magnitude are impressive / as

well as alcirming to some, but their- significance lies More in the rate

of growth which they represent. Over the past five years the FAU..

Library has grown al'ana0rage annual rate of 20 percent. This growth4,rate means that the size of tie collection doubles every five years.

Dix reports similar findings in a survey of fifty-eight university libra-s

33ries. Dix has identified several library factors, in addition to:,,-

cLa

Of

general inflation and higher salaries, as the principal causes of this

growth:Increasing enrollments (at least until 1973);

B. Expansion in scope pf teaching and resech

programs;

27

C. Rapid increase in worlde production of.*:, 'r.7`i.

recorded:knowledge; .t .,

D. Ificrea.se in unit cost of publicationco.nsiderably

in excess of,general commodity indexes daring the last ten years.

In.this climate of growth,"-formula budgeting appears

to be the current trend in academic libraries. Libraries are not only

competing with each other for available funds, but they are also corn-(

peting with the'other educational units deserving support,. Formulas

have been looked "at as a management tool that could_ introdude some

equity in the budgeting process. Allefi.gathered evidence to this effect

In his survey of#thirteen 'academic libraries.tWhat is a Library Budget Formula?

34

A libraryibudget formula is defined as a method of line- item

budgeting which is lAsed upon quantitative models and which expresse's

the budgetary support needs eenera.ted by operating programs and func-o

tions. A formula budget system sets numeric.guidelines fcir fund gene;

ration in acco5rdance with accepted standards of.adequacy and expected

levels of attainment.

TypeS of Current Fdrmula Approaches

Modern library formulas vary widely in appreach,)overageand degree of sophistication. A library formula may cover one or all

of the following elements of a budget: a) staff, b) collection, c) other

expenses, d) library space (building).

1S4

28

In addition, the formula budgeting technique does not have to

be limited to-the asking budget. It i.ay include a budget distribution

formula, Of the funds actually received. The most sophisticated budgetformula will cover the three basic components of any operational bud--get (staff, collection, expense) and will have both an asking budget anda distribution model component. At this writing, on,e of the systemsof higher education seem to have a complete formula package that in-.

eludes all the above.The Washington Formula, which is widely copied by a number

of states, has neither an expense component nor a distribution model .35

The Washington Formula itself consists of the merger of the Clapp-.

Jordan model 36 and a proposed staffing forrqila for the University of

California System.37 The merging of thp Clapp-Jordan Formula (forcollections) and the California proposal (for staffing) erected one of themost complete library formulas for the State of Washington institu-

tions, followed by the Florida Formula in 1970. The Florida budgetgeperating formula has several antecedents. It is based on a modified

Washington formula and it also has a' distribution Model.

An extensive search for existing formulas in statewidesystems has revealed the following criteria:

Group A: Library forsmula including at lea taff aid collections

Florida 38 (similar to Washington with distribution model)

Kansas (sane as Washington)

Minnesota (same as Florida)Nebraska State Colleges 41 (same as Florida)

Washington42

Group B: Partial\formula (generates library dollars only)

Alabama43 `Arkansas44

South Dakota47 Texas48

Ohio45 South Carolina46

Wisconsin49 'California50

29

Group C: Partial formula (generates library staff onlyy.

tt

Colorado-- Illinois52 Maryland York54

Utah55 Virginia

The-adoption of a-library formulain a given state doesn't

necessarily mean that 'it is applied to all institutions in the state.

For example, b.s of 1974/75 tie TexaS Formula has not been applied

to the upper divisibn universities in .tbat. state..

Summary

In this chapter the evolutionary stages of budge.ting 'me.thods

were described.. The development of budgeting practices was re-

viewed, showing the influence of federal and state governments on

educational institutions. Considerable attention was-given to S,

which promised a great deal to higher education in general and to r

libraries in particular.The difficulties 'in Operating the complex PPBS resulted in a

drift to fOrmula systems.' Currently there is a great deal of activity

in the area of budget formula development. This fact alone poses a

problem in firmly establishing the state of the art at any given time.

The latest)knoiin inventory of library formulas used by state systems

is reported as of summer 1974. Formula budgeting concepts, if

developed properly; represent a great potential for enablineducti-

tional leadership to justify library budgets that keep getting larger,

and therefore more-yisible, each year.

V

Bibliography Chapter 2

1 Bowker Annual, 1974, p.250

2

3

4

Arnett, Trevor. College and University Fin ice, New York,General Education Board, 1922, pp. 1, 6.

L,

Stumph, Wayne Julius. A Comparative-Study of Statewide OperatingBudget Formulas . . . for Higher Education in Selected States.Carbondale, Southern Illinois University, 1970, p.22.

Morey, Lloyd. University and College Accounting, New4York, 1930.4

5 American Council on Education, College and University BusinessAdministration, vol. I, Washington, J. AtpE 1952, pp. 23,25.

6 U. S. Commission on Organization of he Executive Branch of theGovernment, Fiscal, Budgeting and Accounting Activities,Washingtort D. C.', Government Printing Offices 1949, p.8.

Novick, David. Program Budgeting, Canibridge, Harvard University,1967, p.86.

a8 Mushkin, 'Selma. "PPB in Cities. "Public Administration Review,

29:167-178,, March 1969.

9.ibid.

10Williams, Harry. Planning for Effective Resource Allocation inUniversities. Washington, 4merican Council on Education,1966. p.15.

t3

11Farmer, James. Why Planning, Programming, Budgeting Systemsfor Higher Education? Boulder, Colorado. WICHE, 1970, p.8.

q-12 Mosher, Frederick C. "Limitations and Problems of PPBS if theStates", Public Administration Review, March-April, 1969, p. 160.,

13Peterson, .Marvin W. "The Potential Impact of PPBS on Colleiges,and Universities", Journal of Higher Education, vol. 17,January 1971, p.2.

14 Genaro,Guy Joseph. "A Planning-Programming-BudgetingSystem in'Academic Libraries ". PhD. dissertation. Universityof Florida, 1971,, p. 146.

31

15Mosher. op. cit. p. 1624 A'

16 Mason, Thomas R. Program Planning for Research Libraries in aUniversity Setting. Boulder. University of Colorado,1969.ERIC Doc. ED. 027845, 'p. 8.

17ibid.

18Alien; 'Kenneth S. Current and .Emerging Budgeting Techniques inAcademic Libraries. University of Washington, 1972. ERICDoC. ED 071726, p. 16.

19. ibid. p. 17.

20Boaz , Allen & Hamilton, Inc. "Problems in University LibraryManagementTM. (A stiody conducted for the ,.Association oUtesearchLibraries and the Amer'ican Council of Education) Washington, 0

D.C. 1970.

Axford, H. William. "An Approach to Perforthance. Budgeting at the'Florida Atlantic University Library: ". ColleFe & Resear-thLibraries, 'March 1971, pp. 87 -104.

22Allen. op. cit. p. 18. **--"N

23McAnally, Arthur.M. "Budgets,by Formula ". The I,ibraryQuarterly, vol.23, April 1963, p.159.

24 Standards for College Libraries. Amerisan Library Association1959 (published in College & Research Libraries, July 1959;vol. 20; pp. 274-280).

25Russell, John Dole. "The Finance of Higher Education". Chicago,University of Chicago Press, 1954, p. 13'T.

26 McAnally. op. cit. p. 164.

27 Southern Association of Colleges and Secondary Schools. Standardsof the College Delegate Assembly, Standard Six. Atlanta, 1960.

2 8 McAnallj., op. cit. p. 165.o

29 ibid.. p.165.

30ibid. p. 166

40

3

32Axford. op. cit

California State Department of Education, Division of Budgets andAccounts. State College Libraries. Memorandum AN543,March 8, .1954..

33Dix, William.N

'The Financing of the Research Library". College& Research Libraries, vol. 35, July 1974, p.255.

34Allen. op. c,it. p. 19.

35 5Interinstitutiorfhl Committee of Business Officers. A Model BudgetAnalysis System for% Program 05 LibrarieS. Evergreen StateCollege. Olympia, Washington, Mardi 1970. ERIC DocumentED 051.866. 16 pages-+ appendixes.

36Clapp,, Vernon W. and Jordan, Robert T. "Quantitative Criteriafor Adequacy of Academic Library Collections", College &Research Libraries, vol. 25, Sep1141211_wr 1965, pp. 371-380.

37 Library Workload Measures. Office of the Vice President for'Finance, University of California, I3e,rkeley. 1963. pp. 1 -20.

38Explanation of AllOcation of 1972-73 I:ducational and GeneralAppropriation. State University Sys -tern Of Florida.Tallahassee, November 1972.

39 Condit, Anna R. Comparison of -Washington State and KansasApproaches to Formulated Budgeting for Libraries. Universityof Kansas Libraries, Lawrence, September 13, 1972..7 pages.

40Minnesota'State College System Media Directors. A MediaResources and Se?vices Budgetary Analysis and AllocationSystem for Minnesota Higher Education Insti:tution,s: Draft III,MSC Media System, Mankato, September 24, 1973. 9 pages.

41Spyers-Duran, Peter. Proposed Model Budget Analysis. Systemand Quantitative Standards for the Libraries of the NebraskaState Colleges. The Author, Boca Raton, Florida.' June 1973.ERIC Doe. Ell 077529. 8 pages + appsndixes.

42Washiniton. ,ED 051866. op. cit.

43Alabama. Commission on Higher Education. Recommended Unified7. Budget for Post-Seconda'ry. Education by Spending Units, 1973-75

Biennium. Appendix A. The Commission. MontgOmery. March 1973.

33

44Arkansas. Department of Higher Education. Section 13 of 1973-75budget requ6st. Little Rock: The Department. 1973.

45Ohio. Board of Regents. Prp,xpentlitufire Models for HigherEducation. Budgeting, Look II. Columbus: The Board. 1973.

6South Carolina. Commission on ^Higher: Education. 1974-75Appropriation Fat-mu la. Columbia: The Commission. 1973.

47South Dakota. Regents of Education. Formula Budget for Libraries.Draft. Pierre: The Regents, December 27, 1973.

48Texas. College and University System, Coordinating Board. PolicyPaper Nine, Designation of Formulas. Adopted February G, 1970.163 pages.

49Wisconsin. University Sy Stenid 1973-75 Biennial Budget PreparationGuideline Paper, Part 4. Madison: The System. 1973.

50The_California State Colleges. Office of the °Chancellor. Divisionof Academic Planning. Report on the Development of theCalifornia State College Libraries: A Study of I3ook, Sta fingand Budgeting Problems: Sacranrento, November 1970._

51Colorado. Department of HighercEducation. Operating BudgetRecommendations, 1974-75. Includes Section 3.8, "Librariesand Learning Resource, Centers". Denver: The Department. 1973.

vt,

52, 'Guidelines for Junior College Learning Resource CentersDeveloped in Illinois". Illinois Libraries, :11:J165-72. February 1973.

53..,Bixler, Paul. Maryland Council for Higher Education Library .

Study: Proposed Library Standacds and Growth Patterns forMarylandPublic Higher Education Institutions. Baltimore,Maryland Council for Higher Education, 1970. ERIC Doc.ED 046422.

54 New Committee on Planning for the AcademicLibrariGS of New York State.. Report. Albany: State EducationDepartmvit. 1973.

55Utah. Stale Coordinating Council of higher Education. Financing.'nigher IMIZarroirlh Utah 1969 -1970. Salt Lake City::TheCouncil. January 19,69. ERIC Doc. ED 031992. 144 pages.

56Virginia. 1974 134clget Manuals Appendix M. Richmond, 1R73.

9,

Chapter 3-

THE STUDY

Introduction

o

b

Operation of a library within an academic community isgenerally aimed at achieving a set of institutional goals. Lararyprograms seldom operate without purpoSe, even though there may be

programs for which purposes are olAcure. f.

Management is the proces that defines what thp program,to accomplish and specifies the methodologies for accomplishing the

stated objectives. One of the.most important elements in nrinagement

is plann ing. The- following pages include a dis. cussion of the planning

phases of ,management and the pr'Cicesses for identifying the resources

rxmied to operate the planned program through formula techniques.

Planning. is the process through which goals and objectives

are identified and the methods of attaining them are described. Justi-

fiation and value of program ,planning as described by Ewing indicates

that the process would:1.. Lead to a better position for the. organization--a means

to an end for the operating organization;2. Help the organization process in ways the management

thought bestcontrolled progress anti development;

3. help management make necessary decisions and act

more of ctively as dais for the program are sought--give direction

k to action;

4.

prepared tci to e needed actions.

-Help keep the organization flexible- -keep management

34

35

5. 'Stunti ate perative, integrated approach to organiza-

tional problems.', 6. Indicate to managemepf techniques for monitoring

progress of progiams as it strives to achieve the defined objectives.7. Lead to socially and economically useful results.

/-The conclusions drawn from Ewing's seven points are that

planning is an essential element in management of coniplex programs.\,4Planning is an element that needs to be included'in library

programs. A library budget formula is a tool that can be iitilizc'd in.

the planning activities. Thus, 'in electing the most suitable library.F

budget formula, one must attempt to devise a system that would ,make

the various major operational components .of- the library visible.

In describing planning, Hartley identifies three major cute-Id(gories: 1) long range- -five or oreyears into the future 2) 'medium

range--three to five years into the future; 3) short range -the nearestyear through two years into the future.2

Planning is a futuristic activity. As such, it brings to bearall available resources for,,predaictingjie future objectives of a pro-,

gram to meet the future needs of those calling upon that program.

Brong points odt that this implies predictions about 1) the demanids

to be placed on the academic institutions by society at some point inthe futUre; 2) the impact of the inst ion on that society; ) the role

of the library within the academic institution's programs; 4 the con-

sumption of resources by the institution and its subunits in priiding%the progMs needed-td meet the identified objectives. 3.

The further into the future planning moves, the less preciseit bOsomes. For this reason, the Upper Division University 'Library\

Formula to be created forVhis project will be designed for short rangeplanning activities. The need does exist for a,precision tool to pre- .dict the required Fspurces to operat a program identified for thenext year. T1

0 N.\N

r

36

Closely related to program planning is budget planning. The

udget glows the program both Th sequence of preparation and in con-

tent. Budgets are financi ITnsessions of the objectives, activities

and programs. Applicat , a given formula provides an indication

of the levels of resources lit cdecl to operate ativen program.The use of a formula does not necessarily imply that planning

cm?

has taken place. '-One mvit assume that the press of planning has

preceded WeNipplication of the formula.,. Allocation formulas generally

provide for an examination of the resources needed to opei-ate a pro-

grain from the b sis that all programs at various institutions are alike.

The variables in the existing formulas are usually such thiniis as size

of student zit91 tion, levels of degree progra.ms,

programs, and current size of eollections.

number -of degree

Even the best library budget formtilas will not solve all the

problems administrators face year after year. Some practitioners

dislike such systems, because a formula budget tent to remove the

budget generation froththe librarian to this business Imanager's office.

Sc d has express d two concerns over formula budgeting: 1) they

tyl tally ignore the specific needs of the collection and 2) the attitudes

-of those controlling the prod, n with the formula seem dominant.4

'While the imperfection o-f own formulas is acknowledg

we must accept the fact that libraries are probably better off with

imperfect formulas than with none at "all. The debate, however;. is

purely academic; because the formulas are here to stay as long as

governing bodies demand accountability. As thc.z, demand for account--

ability seems to be on the rise, improvement of the existing formulas

appears to be the only reasonable course of action.. .. .

r4

Objectives

T primary objective of this study was to develop and

37

recommend a model library budget formula for upper division univer-,

sjty libraries. It was found chat the following formula'components,

covered all major budgets commonly found in academic libraries:414,

1) material fupds(bookS, periodicals, etc.'); personriel (professional

and clerical); 3) expenseXsupplies, travel, etc.). .41 survey of physical

facilities formula was excluded from the'model formula, since physi-.

cal facility funds is typically not part of, this annual operating budget.

The secondary important objective of the proposed model

will 1?"e to serve as a short range planning tool for institutions.

T.11 scope of the study was limited to ormula Budgeting;

defined as a" rrQethod of line item budgeting based upo'n. qUantitative

models which Tress the budgetary support needs ,generated by..opera-

ting programs and functions. Such a system sets nufn ric guidelines

xf r fund allocations relative to accepted standards of adeqi,ia.cy and

accepted levels of attainment.

Delimitations of the Study

The delimitations of the research study were:

1. The skdy was limited to the examination and develop-

- ment. of a library formula budget to be Used by upper division univer-,sities existing instate systems.

2. The model was tested by select institutions considered

representative of other upper di.vi4sien,universities.

3. Although non-state-supported upper division universi-ities or institutions not part of a system may find this formula applica-

a

tion useful, this.study was not focused on their needs.

4. The forniula was limited to the following rnaj.or

operating budget elements: a) materials, b) personnel, c) expense.

.c]

38

11);cluded from the study was any discussion of library space foxmulas

on grounds that operating budgets seldom, if ever, include capital(building) funds.

Assumptions

1 8 1. For iula budgeting can by applied to all state supported

4-

upper division universities existing in a system with reasonably ac-ceptable results.

,$2. A budget formula suitable to the upper division univer-

sities can be an effective administratiVe tool for an equitable resourceallocation among institutions in d system.

sititsedue

3. A budget farmula suitable to the upper division univer-an be an effective administi'aiive tool for makingl-wiso

lans.4. EffectiveArerriiiistration of the nation's upper division

university.Libraries necessitates that funding needs are clearly andeasily, arlzyzed.othrough budget formula.

In term§ of long-range benefit's the-budget formulaJ

will improve the level ot support the libraries will receive.6.

.A budget formula designed for upper divi-ion universitylibraries will recognize the special needs of:this type cif in titution.

7. It be unnecessary to "invent." an entirely unique

forinula fOr upper division libraries. TeSting of select fo m Has mayprove'them to be, with or without some modification, desiredmodel for all libraries.

Procedures in the Develorrment of the Formulaff

This study was a developmental researe project. The search11

and development for the Upper Divisiori-University braryby this inve:-.;tig or progressed th-roug-h six phases.

4?

r.

I 4 ,

,r4

j

39

Phase Ono: Generalizatiens and guidelines in the literaturedealing with library formula budgeting were identified. Existing

library formulas were evaluated in terms of their usefulness to the

upper division university libraries. Based ON this evalUation, for

mula elements and techniques were classified and either retained ordiscarded for the purposes of the developineit of the Upper Division

University Libraries (UDUL) Formula.

Phase Two: Through a questionnaire library data were

collected from state-supported per division university libraries

which are alSo part ofR. statewide sy'stem. o

Phase Three: Existing formulas were selected for inclursion in the study and in the UDULFormula.

Phase Four: Ten upper division university libraries were

used to test the formulas. Institutional data "gathered from the qties-e 0 a

tionnaires served as a sour1pe of information.

Phase Five: The final product, consisting of a budgetgeneration formula, was evaluate fl by a panel of experts. The panel

of experts consisted of the members of tlreCoMmittee on UpperDiviSion Universities of the American Library,Asso iatiodirectors of libraries from the participating,instituti

Phdse Six: Conclusions- wev.e drawn and recommendations

were made' concerning the feasibility and utilizatibn of applying the

UDUL Formula.

Other Studies Utilizing Developmental Research Techniques

'The following five dissertations will be discussed here begsa.ue

they have used developmental research techniques in budgeting systems

for hiper education. The research techniques employed by these

X

40

dissertations provided the author with support of the methodology and

design used in the execution of this study on library formula budgeting.

1. Stumph5 collected publications, reports, statisticsand °the.; pertinent data on statewide operating budget formulas from

ten states. The data were analyzed and compared with 6ac1 other,

leading tothe selection or derivation of appropriate factors to beconsidered in planning and developing a scientific budget fbrmula and

tailoring it to the needs of'a state using a coordinating board system.The author relied heavily on interviews and correspondence.' Thevan -sous formulas currently/ in-Use are discussed in detail. Stumpt

selected one best suited and nresented, it as a plan for acceptance.

4In the selection of the formula he employed the following criteria:

A. Is the formula elerrient appropriate to the

spNcific activity to be measured?B. Iisitnple to apply to a comprehensil

situatipn?.

C. What is its potenti'al for contribution to effici

and economy in allocating resources?The plan developed by Stump1i was reviewed by an

expert, Robert A, Pringle, then Assistant DireCtor, Operating

Budgets of the Illinois "Board of Higher Education.6

2. MacKeraghan's study set out to determine whether a

conceptual planning-programming -b eting system model could be

developed for a community college. The model sought to provide a

method of identifying fhe co,sts'of community college programs for

use by -educational deci on-makers in the rational allocation of its

fiscal resources.he study's four phases included: a) identification of

educational PPBS generalizations and 'guidelines from a search of the

literature; b) development of a conceptual PPBS model for a corn-

S

A-

munity college based on such generalizations and guis1,0i.nes;

_ 41

c) analysis of the Conceptual. PPBS model as an administrative con-.

cept at a selected Florida comr unity ,college; within theinstitution's

existing communication, acc26unting, budgeting and decision-making

procedures; cl), development of conclUsions and recommendations con-

cerning the use of the conceptual PPBSt model in Florida's community

colleges.MacKeraghan applied hiS PPBS modePto a single

Florida junior college, -Making it difficult to draw brpad generaliza-

tions for applicabili y to other junior colleges.

3. The Wilson 7 study was accomplished by means .of:

a) a review and analysis of literature; b) acquisition of informationabodt planning- programming- budgeting systems from states, counties,

9 ities,- governmental agencies and industry; c) acquisitjonlof informa-

tion about the application of planning-programming-budgeting systemsin education; and d) development of a handbook fo'r PPIIS in :d,ducation.

The purpoes of this study were: a) to investigate the

origin, histOny and educational application of planning-programming-

budgeting systems; b) to identify the major factors involved in estab-lishing such a system; 'and c) to develop a hanclbook'for planning-programming-budgeting systems for administrators, boards of edu-cation, professors and students in education, supervisors, principals,

N I

teachers, and Other persons who Would be- involved in the adoption

and implementation of PPB systems in education.

° Following a review of. planning - programming- budgeting

systems in education reported in the available literature, an analysisof the materials and manuals available was completed. From thisbackground informatiort, a handbook was developed to meet the needs

of,those_planning to adopt a PPB 'System in education.

42

A. istance with the format of the handbook for 'planning-prOgrammingThit ttgetiri'g systems was obtained from Dr., Stirling B.

Williams, Jr: of the Mernphis City Schools, who had previous ex-.

periente.th. devt..h,ping handbooks for school personnel. Dr. Donald

R. Thomsen,. Attistant Project Director of the Research Corporationof the Associatitqt of School Business Officials, Chicago, Illinois,

Checked the hantlitook for accuracy of content. 'Changes suggested

by these special Jigs were incorporated into the handbook. The hand-

boOk appears as ihe Appendix of his study.

4. 1-')1.-tclier8 ,advanced the concept that community colleges

need .new systeiti.1 for effective and efficient utilizat ion of scarce re-

sources. The`tt.itural purpose of the study was to develop an opera-tional model of LI-program budgeting system (PBS) which would Make

it possible for cs6timunitycolleges to implement program budgeting.The; model which.'was developed in the form of a systems manual wasa result of the 'pi iteedural steps taken in response to th researchquestions listed 11. each step. These procedural s 't

ib

s included:

a) the develqpmt.nt of PBS criteria from a review of the literature;b) an in-depth sifidy of a typical. county-sponsored community college;

and c) the Clevel'Ialient of an operatiomil model to overcome the -dif-

ferences betwecl, a typical community college and the; PBS criteria.

TLC' model' was, then reviewed in community colleges.

sponsored by °Uhl., than a county and modified to reflect these differ-ences. A natioit t panel was requested to evaluate the usefulness and

general applicatillay of the model, to other community colleges in thenation.

5. h.ong9 developed a model for a:prediction formula for

determining resititces necessary to operate a defined. higher education

audiovisual cen11,1, To accomplish this the following objec-

tives were met:- 4

A. Create a:listing of descriptive statementsrepresentingelall components of audiovisikaa programs that .m,ight

exist; arrange the component listing into a catalog from whichItprogram components could be select-ed.

e Create a series of formula elements andmathematical statements, matched to the program convonents,

ciL

that could be used to predict ceillection sizes, personnel require-ments, or ,monies necessary to operate the defined program..

0-3igher educatio audiovisual center programs were

assumed to be extremely diverse operations. The range of 'prograni-ming areas that Light be operated could include but not be-limited to:

materials colle.ction development and management, materials produ-c-,, ;

tion, instructional .cieRign and curriculum development, equipment-,

services, research, professional association activities, and institu-

tional development.The formula developed was applied against six state-

su-pported four -.year 'institutions in the state of Washington. T

acceptability of the formula was based on its ability to adequately

predict the resources needed to operate the. six Waiingtono

programs. Adequacy,was determined by the program director

an adviSory panel.ConclusiOns drawn from the stu y indicated that the

approach used in formula resources prediction was applicable to

planning and budgeting -processes in use in 1972. The specific formula

de'Velopecl was found to provide acceptable predictions for audiovisual

center programs in many operational areas, and it was concluded that

it could serve as a model for further formula developMent in the

audiovisual center program areas.

44

This dwyelopmental research project had two objectives.

First, it developed,\a model budget formula for upper iii\vision univer-\sity libFaiies. Second, it proposed that the formula, once developed;shouldbe able to expres\sthd budgetary needs of an institution -and c

should serve as a satisfactoI short-range planning tool for Manage-

ment. Although the project was limited to State.institutions serving

in a systerxi, other institutions./maklind the formula application ,useful.\The six phases of the study reresented the key to the suc-

cessful completion of the project. Phases-7 to three consisted of,

literature,search, data collection, and examination. and evaluation of

existing formulas. Phases. four and five, consistedof testing formulas

selected for use.and the evaluation oilesults by a pb.nel of experts

from leading upper division University libreties. Phas, six included

conclusions and re-commendaticins concerning the feasibility a6d value

of applying a formula suitable for-upper diviskynunfifersity libraries

Five recent doctoral dissertations -Were reviewed in this

chapter, all of which used developmental research techniques in

budgeting systems for higher education. The research techniques

employed by these dissertation authors supported. the methodo,logy

and design used in the development of this study on library formula

budgeting.

.

Bibliography Chapter 3

19.

twin, Davis' W "The,Practice Planning ". New York: Harper& Row, 1968, pp.9-14.

..-2Hatley, Harry J. Educational Planning-Programming-Budgeting..

!A. Systems Approach. Prentice Hall,. X1968, p. 23.

3Brion"; Gerald R. A Resources.Prediction and Allocation Model..-for'Audio-Visual Centers in Higher EducationilWashington StateUniversity, Ed. D. disseriation, 1.972, p. 2 , e'

4 . .

Schad, Jasper. "Allocating Book FUnds: Control o

5Stumph, Wayne Jullu2s,- 1931.-A Comparative Study of.Operating Budget .Forfnulras AtirniniseeredAV'Statdwid COofdina-ting Ag,encis for Higher Education in Selected States. outhernIllinois University, 'Ph.D. dissertat-ibn, :197

College & Research Libraries. May 1979, p..23.Planning ? ". /

61VIp..cKeraghan, .Lysle Robert, 1929. A Conceptual Pla ingr,'Programiting-.Budgeting Model for a Communit ollege. :Un,iyersity-of Florida; Ecf: D. dissertation, 1 0.

.

7.Wilson, Iferbeirf Wayne, 1934. Tla'e Devdloprnen.Planning-P'rogriMming"Budgeting System.inSay of MisSiseippi, Ed. D. clisserta.tion, '1971.

of a Handbook for6.ucatiqn. Utiiver-

8Fischer William Burke, 1929, A Program Midgeting..UBS.Sub".system 0 -tional-.1N/Todel for Community alle es. StateUniversity iliew York at Buffalo, 'Ed. D ertation, 1972.

9Brong, Gerald R. A Resources Prediction 4 Allocation Model .

for Audio -'Visual Centers in Higher- T_',ducaion. Washington State.Univer,sity, . Ed. D. dissertation, 1-972.

45

6

Iy

The Questionnaire

ADMINISTERING THE STUDYAND-TEE DEVELOPMENT'

OF UDUL FO1,MULAS

An analysis of libi-ary 'programs in upper divitional settingswas considered basic in the development of.the formula... The Objec-.-live of the questionnaire was` o provide for. analysis an examination

of existing library programs. The questionnaire addressed the fol=lowing topics:

1.

. 1973/74;

2.-4

funds;

nary programs and functions carried out during1

Type 'of budgeting Methods used and extent of operating

3. General statistics on library operations during the1973/74 academic yed..L.

A draft of the questionnaire was mailed to members of theAmerican Library Association, Association of College & Resea:r4"Libraries Committee on.Upper Division University Libraries (UDUL)1

for their) comments and evaluation. 'Their remarks were incorporatedin tl final version of'the que'Stionnaire (see Appendix I).

'The basic mailing list for the .questibnnaire was the member-.

ship list from the Association of Upper Level'Colleges and Universities.Dr. Robert'Altman2 Was\ consulted before the final mailing was pre-

,

I.ared. It was assumed that he ,would be aware of any additional upper

level universities that might not haye membership in the Association.

41

Altman identified two such institutions, Monterey Institute of Foreign'Studies and Anchorage Senior College of the University df Alaska

system, both of which were added to the mailing list. -The questionnaire was mailed to twenty-eight institutions

representing 100 percent of upper level colleges and universities (seeAppendix II). The institutions surveyed included twenty state-supported universities, one city college and seven private schools.Enclosed with the questionnaire were., 1) a letter describing the pur-pose of the project and 2) a returns memorandum which enabled an.

indiv idual to express his/her interest in participating in the develop-"4,

mpnt of the.mod budget formula (see Appendiw.es III and fin:, Twenty -

fourfour of the tw nty-ei4ht institutions responded to the qu'estioiiha're.4 -...

Selectiron of the. Expert Panel1 3The Expert Panel was selected from among those library

directors who expressed an interest in evaluating the. proposed formulaThe Expert Panel serves, in addition, the memberS of the ALA,ACRL, UDUL Committee and d-provides the broaddst possible exposure

of this research project among ti-Qs...eLA111iight be able to use the

re sults. Although the primary objective of this project 1A44s to develop.a model for:mula for upper division university libraries serving in a

state system of higher education, it was assumed that once thelformula '

.was developed, it might also be-useful to non-state-supported institu-

tions. Forthis reason the Expert Panel included individuals fromboth private and public .s.ectcrs.

Selection of Institutions forField -Testing Formulas

-

There was general concensus among the Expert Panel mem-,

bers that the institutions selected should .pro.vide a representativebaser,;.

for field testing the formulas: The following. criteria were. set to help

a

r 56

with the selection process:1. The library should ha at least 120, 000 volumes;

2. The annual budget should bemot less than $300, 000;

3. ,There should be some, evidence of institutional

stability and maturity;4. The institution should be tax-supported.

A high percentage of the. upper division uhiversities are still

sd-new that they operate under unusual start-up conditions. The first-three .criteria were designed, to eliminate frOln field testing those

institutions which could distort the results by the unusual start-4conditions so typically employed in-such cases. Nine state institutionqualified for the field testing. A pity celle.ge was adjled as the tenthinstitution for the field test group under the assumption that the Mod

library budget formula may be of assistance to non-state-supportupper division libraries.

O

Tile Ten Institutions Used in the Field Test

Code

A

B

C.

EFG

I

J

institution

Sangamon State UniversityGovernors State UniversityFlorida International UniversityUniversity of West FloridaUniversity of North FloridaFlorida Atlantic Uni'versityPenn State-CapitalUniv. of Texas-Permian BasinUniversity of Texas-DallatRichmond College

Location

Springfield; Ill.Chicago, Ill: -Miami, Fla.Pensacola, Fla.Jacksonville, Fla.Boca Raton, Fla.Middletown, Pa.

Odessa, Tex.Dallas, Tex.Staten Island, N. Y.

Figure 1. Code Designation for Test Institutions

3/4

The ten institutions represent five states. Florida is=represented with twice as many institutions as the others, the resultoT the function of age. and maturity of the upper division university

moNienient.which develOped earlier in Florida than in other states.,o

Discussion of Institutional Datafor Field rest Groups

.of

49

The ten institutions selected for field testing have a rather. a

interesting profile. .A4'Table Lshows, their collection size ranges .-

from 120,000 to 63,853 volumes.. FTE student body rangesirom ana ,

enrollthent of 39 tO 6,625.- During 1973/74 the, smallest library opera-

ting budget was $341,416, while the largest was or $1:2.million.Nine of 'the ten schools haVe master level p ams and the tenth one

has laipproval to start Seyed.1 such programs next year. Only theUniversity of Texas-ESallas and Florida Atlantic Univers'ity offer

doctoral level progims; howeler, several schools expect to add.dbctordl programs in time. The. level and number of graduate pro.-:grams was aprisidered by all respondents to. be an important variable

Cfrin any formula.The distribution FTE staff between public services and

technical services may reflect both workload and institutional orienta-,tion toward either service or support functions. The smallest staff

t

of14.5 FTE- was-notad as totally inadequate by Richrriond College.

Other programs affecting workloads were consideed incollecting institutional data. Certainly, interlibrary loans are aworkload factor that every librar'y absorbs. There were two'institu-tions 'which did not report their interlibrary loan statistics even thoughthey proVide this service. The registered outside borrowers can alsobe a factor if a library is involved/in major community service. diedegree of such involvement in the test group was'quite mixed, making

it difficult to arrive at any conclusion.

TA

BL

E I

'

.C

.11

Sang

amon

CD

S4te

(A)

INST

ITU

TIO

NA

L D

AT

A F

OR

SE

LE

CT

'UPP

ER

DIV

ISIO

N U

NrV

ER

SIT

Y L

IBR

AR

IES,

1944

'74

Un.

Tex

as/

,.

Dal

l.as

'

(I)

.

Gov

erno

rsSt

ate

.(B

)

,,

Flor

ida

Uni

v. 'o

fIn

tl. U

niv.

Wes

t Fla

.(C

)(D

)

Uni

v. o

fN

orth

Fla

.(E

)

Flor

ida

,,,

Atla

nlic

trai

l,.'

(t)

Penn

Sta

te-C

apito

l(G

)

Un.

Tex

as/

Perm

ian

Bas

in(H

)

1. N

o. V

olum

es11

0, 5

1314

4, 4

4517

9, 4

63,

692

150,

417

261,

053

120,

000

5143

.r9

5, 1

85

2. N

o. F

TE

Fac

ulty

176

140

_262

,-

,42

220

6-

155

290,

130

(187

,'

6750

3. F

TE

Stu

dent

s by

leve

l:a.

Jr.

/Sr.

(30

0/40

0)1,

372

b. B

eg. G

rad.

(50

0)-0

-c.

Mas

ter

(600

)66

8d.

Doc

tora

l (70

0)-0

-

98(r

-0-

1, 0

20-0

-

6, 1

202,

899

242

,738

263

a-0

--0

--0

-

...*.

. 2, 1

03-

254

-0 t -0-

.

3:80

0i

500

500

100

.

.1, 3

50

.32

5-0

--0

-

673

- rs

,13

9-0

-

.

-0- 30

5 93

Tot

al F

TE

Stu

dent

s:2,

040

2, 0

001.

.___

_....

_. .

6, 6

253,

637

2, 3

574,

900

1,67

581

239

8

4. N

o. R

egis

tere

dO

utsi

de U

sers

116

312

n

310

3, 4

0024

32,

400

170

218

5. P

rogr

am C

ount

:a.

4 M

A w

/o d

octo

ral

17b.

4 A

LA

with

doc

tora

l.

-0-

c. #

Doc

tora

l-0

-'

19-0

-.:0

-

3915

-0-

-0-

.

,-0

--0

-

-

5

-0-

-0-

19 2 2

8

-0-

-0-

8-0

-'

-0-

8 3 8

6. F

TE

Sta

ff:

a. T

-ech

nica

l svg

s23

b. P

ublic

ser

vice

s18

27,

21

,,,,

..

23.7

421

e-,,:

24,1

7no

suc

hal

loca

tions

19. 5

-- 3

1. 1

9 9...

,,....

_..._

__ 18

10 1112

.511

Tot

al S

taff

:41

48.4

9.\

38-

37.5

51,..

221

23.5

7. N

o. I

nter

libra

ry L

oan

Tra

nsag

iions

1"2,

072

.2,

097

1, 7

73/9

325,

800

o

2, 5

00'

1, 8

802,

660

,,,E

f>._

__ux

Iget

, His

tory

197

3/74

:a.

Sal

arie

s'

$396

, 496

b. W

ages

(ho

urly

)70

, 558

c.M

ater

iaS

(boo

ks,

jour

nals

, etc

)37

3, 1

T5

d. E

xpen

se (

trav

el,

*

,su

pplie

s, e

tc)

89, 1

06

$47

0, 3

7340

, 000

542,

288

89, 0

82

c'

$45

8, 3

20$2

97, 2

2810

9, 5

4816

, 877

538,

93'

627

4, 4

80-

45, 5

2522

, 358

$285

, 392

28, 8

43.

392,

160

. 25,

359

$ .4

91,4

17,

17, 6

11

517,

523

37, 3

99

$141

, 416

'. 2

0, 0

00

162,

000

18, 0

00

$173

, 000

N/A

600,

000

27, 0

00

'$'

269,

316

-0-

835,

876

52, 2

00

Tot

al B

udge

t:$9

29, 2

47$1

, 141

, 743

$1, 1

80, 6

23$6

10, 9

4337

31, 7

54$1

,06

3,95

0$3

41, 4

16$8

00, 0

00$1

,207

, 392

Ric

hino

ndC

olle

ge(J

)

363,

853

,

175

2,'4

5,,

;58a

-0-

2, 8

3e 8 6. 5

14.5

$252

, 01$

-0-

.15

0, 3

15

26, C

539

$429

, 032

---,

----

O

51

Selection of Existing Library Formulas

.A number of library formulas were examined to determine'their 'probable usefulness in developing a new or modified formulasuitable-Nor UDUL purposes. In order to eliminate incomplete fdr-

.mulaS, the following selection criteria Mere eSta.blished:

f

1. The staffing formula should

A. .eddress itself to bothpublic and technicalservices Vail nee s;

13. be' able to respond to increasing or decreasingv .

workload in, these two basic divisions of library service;C. be.part of a formula package serving state sysr

tents which also has collection development formulas available.2. Thdimaterials formula should

A. reflect the need for a basic collection of at least75, 000 volumes;

13, relate the size of the collection to the size ofthe student body;

C. be responsive to the diversity and complexity ofgraduate programs.

.3. Expense formula. Theise was no expense formtila

available at the outyets of this project. It was established, how,ever,"

that an expense f rmula was desirable and that one should be designed.The design.of)the e pense formula will be discussed later.

Based on-the above criteria, the California Formula, theFlorida Formula anethe Washington.Formulauwere selected for theirability to predict library needs in 'an upper division setting.

The Kansas Formula was eliminated because it is the same asthe Washingtpn model. Similarly, the Minnesota and Nebraska for-mulas were discarded liecause they are basically the same as theFlorida model. Also eliminated were partial formulas used by about

6A

`fourteen other states because they did net meei'Ple stated criteria.

A complete. list of the formulas evaluated is, fOund in Chapter 2,

pages 28 and 2D.

52

.1. Staffing -form,u1a. The following pages Will conslder

the ten institutions tested both individually and as a hypothetical a i-oup

of,libraries.Serving. a single state system of higher-education. The

California, Florida and Washington staffing formulas will be first

described and then .applied to the ten institutions to show how each..

would be affected. This section inOlddes,the following tables of inter-.

est:Table LT. California Staffing Formula DesCriptiOn.N

Table III, California Staffing Formula Applied to Institutions9

Table IV. "Florida Staffing Formula Description

Table V. Florida Staffing Formula Applied to InstitUtionsa.

Table VI. .' Washington; Staffing Formula Description

Table VII. Washihgton Staffing Formula Applied to Institutions

Table VIII. Proposed UDUL Staffing Formula Description

Table IX. Proposed UDUL Staffing Formula Applied to Institutions

Table X. Summary of Staffing Formulas

TabLe XI. COmparative Group Analysis

The development of the UDULStaffing Formula . ' An analys its of

the results of the California, Florida and Washington'formulas revealedo

some useful basic concepts. The Washington type model was pre-'

ferred over California becaus,A it recognized the increased complexi-.1--

ties of book processing associated with larger collection size. The

formulas tested have.shown a c?ramatic discrepancy betwden existing

staffs and the staffs these formulas have generated: Nine out of ten

institutions stated that they would like to have some additional staff.

At the same time it was-assumed that any-formula asking for unreal-

istic staff increases would not be taken seriously by the funding

authorities. Keeping this in mind, the UDUL formula adopted the

concepts of the Washington staffing formula bu also infroduced

moderating influences. that redpced the total staff generated. This

turne_d out to be an\aceipta.ble model, accomplishing its objective

by manipulating .the constants.If one considers the ten institutions as a single

group serving a single hypothetical system of higher education, it is

possible to Study the impact of the four formulas (see Table XI, p. 63).

The total actual staff employed arnounts to 342.4 FTE. The mostextreme results are obtained from the Washington model ,that suggests

650.6 FTE, representing an additional 308.2 FTE staff for these in-

stitutions, or 90 percent increase. The Florida and California models

would increase the group total staff to 55 and 51 percent respectively.

The proposed UDUL formula increases the total

new staiff demand by'only 19.7 percent. In looking at the test results

of the thdividual institutions (Table X), it appears that three of the

institutions are staffed above the,UDUL.formula. It must be remern.-

berred, however, that all libraries employ, students andother hourly

wage earners. The formula recommends that not less than 15 per-

cent of the FTE staff be added in the form of hourly wage employbes.-4, This added labor force will bring each institution within a realiStic

range.of planning for library staffing.

B. Recommended conversion of UDULformula generated staff to dollars. The UDUL

formula generates minimum staff needs only. The nuber of positions

do not represent support for any special project a library ,,y wish to

inaugurate or for branch library operations. Similarly, it does not

propose to, generate support for media center type services such as

aUdio-visual, TV or graphics. There are standards and formulas pub-

lished for these activities that should be considered for institutional

J

54TABLE IT

J

CALIFORNIA STATE COLLEGE LIBRARIES STAFFING FORMULA

Basic Allowance per Projected total FTE.faculty & students

A) 3 positionsB) 5 n.

C) 7D) 8E) 9 tt

. 111 10

P1 e

new, unopened Collegeless than 1,601.1,601 - 6,2506,251 - 10,800

10,801 - 15,000greater than 15, 000

= number of public service area positions authorized

a = average weekly hours projeeted.to be -devoted to all- circulation activities related to charged Materials

functions by professionals, non-professionals andstudent assistants.

b = 40.hours per week

e = one position for projectethicrease or decrease ofeaeh 12,000 volumes, charged or 70,-000 volumes,reshelved of non-charged.materia.ls.

,(factors c and d.omitted; they relate specifically to the Cal. system)

'2= total FTE faculty and students divided by 750.-

P3 = speciaLclients and graduate students divided by 500.

5. Technical Services = number of volionee processed-divided by 950.

6. Managerial. /Administrative based on number of employees

A) 2 Ic"I/A positionsB) 3

C)D) 5

E)., 6'.F) 7

0) 8

H) 9

I) 10

up to .1516 - 2526 353,6 5051 - 7071 110

111 160.161 - 220over 220'

TA

BL

E I

II

CA

LIF

OR

NIA

ST

AT

E C

OL

LE

GE

S ST

AFF

ING

FOR

MU

LA

APP

LIE

D T

O T

EST

INST

ITU

TIO

NS

1. B

asic

Allo

wan

ce

Publ

ic S

ervi

ces

2.P

1b

=+

e{2

-9-

40-1

-5.1

0)

a =

90

ay. h

rs/C

vkb

= 4

0 hr

s/w

ke

=1

pos.

/ea.

incr

ease

of

12,0

00 v

ols.

cha

rged

(30

vols

x to

tal F

TE

-stu

dent

s)3.

P2

= to

tal F

TE

fac

ulty

&.

stud

erT

ts75

0

4. p

3=

reg

iste

red

outs

ide

user

s+

gra

d. s

tud.

4-

500

Tec

hnic

al S

ervi

ces

5. T

S =

No.

vol

s pr

oces

sed

950

7.35

2.95

1.57

21.2

3

7, 2

518

.81,

11.3

4

.

2.85

9.40

5.12

...3.

35

2.66

1.63

8.28

.99

"

30.8

530

.66

15.6

222

.31

8.14

14.5

0

C 6.92

.

7.00

'29.

45

6. M

anag

emen

t/Adm

i.n.

base

d on

No.

of

staf

f5

7. F

orm

ula-

Tot

al S

taff

45.1

0

8. S

taff

ing

Def

icie

ncy

(For

mul

a to

Act

ual)

4.10

5 55.6

1

7.61

55

56

73.5

052

.36

46.7

970

.87

23.7

614

.36

9.29

19:6

7

2.41

1.17

.60

4.01

.65

. 62

-1.

231.

37\ -

9.22

34.1

450

,41

33

28.7

248

.21

10.7

2.27

.21

39,9

9-

17.7

6

6.44

4.28

3.25

9.33

63.4

9

8.55

32.2

6

1

4

rs

TABLE IV

FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES STAFFING FORMULA

Public Services (including pro rata share of library administration)

56

1. Number of FTE Students. Multiplied by Weight

,300/4001evel x 11.76

500 level 2: 05600./700 level 4.76registered oufside7tisers x 1.00

2. Determine total weighted enrollment;divide by a factor. of 300 to deil.ve

0

formula FTEPublic Services Staff

Technical Services (incl. pro rata. share of, library :1dt/1in. )

Probes& Formula and Descriptive Example

Step 1: To the total units held at beginning of yearAdd the; number of units of library resourcesestimafted to be added in year to whichcalculdtion applies

Step 2: Multtply.Result by,Uxiits to be Added (UA)

Step 3: Divide by 1,000,000 to deri'veWeighted Units to be Added (WUA)

Step 4: Multiply WUA by the factors that apply:

W U A

17to 14, Ob9 x15,000., to 41,99,9 x

.1\ 42,000 to 300,000 --

To the. Result of Step 4Add the applicable cohstant asto obtain, the Factor Resulting

Factor(Step 4),

7

.001..5140068400360

r

k- 261,153

23,501284,654 (1)

x 23,50166,896,536 (2).

1,000,0006,689.65 (3)

x .01514 (4)

Consttnt(Step 5)

+ 67+ 194+ 322

given above(FR)

101..28 (4)

67' (5)168.28 (rR)`

Divide WOA, (step -3) 6,689.65by Factor .Result ing (FR, step 5)- 168.28to derive formula FTE Technical Services Staff 39.75 (6)

FLO

RID

A S

TA

FFIN

G F

OR

MU

LA

APP

LIE

D T

O T

EST

IN

STIT

UT

ION

S-

A. P

UB

LIC

SE

RV

ICE

SFT

E S

tude

nts

Lev

elN

o. x

1A

/eig

ht.

500/

400

# x

1.76

2,41

4.7

1,72

4.8

10,7

71.2

5,10

2.2

3,70

1.3

6,68

82,

376

1,18

4.5

-0-

3,77

5.2'

500

# x

2.05

-0-

-0-

496.

11,

512.

952

0.7

1,02

566

6.3

-0-

1,40

3.3

600

'ff

x 4

.76

3,17

9.7

4.85

5.2

1,25

1.9

-0-

-0-

2,38

02

-0-

661.

61,

451.

8-0

-70

0#

x 4.

76.

-0-

1-0

--0

--0

--D

-47

6-0

--0

-44

2.7

-0-

Tot

al W

eigh

ted

-

--

-Enr

ollm

ent '

-5,

594.

4.6,

580.

Q12

,519

.26,

615.

14,

222.

010

,569

.0.

3,04

2.3

1,84

6.1

1,89

4.5

5,17

9.5

Div

ided

by

300

--=

Tot

al F

TE

Gen

erat

edPu

blic

Ser

vice

s St

aff

18.7

21.9

41.7

.22

.114

.-1

35.2

10.2

6.2

6.3

17.3

\

AD

F.H-

B. T

EC

HN

ICA

L S

ER

VIC

ES*

Step

1 th

roug

h St

ep 6

. for

mul

a-de

tails

are

iden

tical

to W

ashi

ngto

n Fo

rmul

ato

obt

ain

Tot

al F

TE

Gen

erat

edT

ech.

Ser

vice

s St

aff

.30.

7

C. T

OT

AL

FT

E G

EN

ER

AT

ED

LIB

RA

RY

ST

AFE

(A

B)

49.4

D.

STA

FFE

NG

1.3

.L.F

ICIE

NC

Y8.

4or

(O

VE

R F

OR

MU

LA

)

35.3

57.2

3S.2

9.2

30.2

31.8

29.8

53.9

43.9

15.9

6.4

. 42.

7

77.9

264

7

13.4

40.8

47.0

5.6

'26.

0.

47.9

26.8

454.

244

.1

30.7

29.6

*See

for

mul

a an

d ex

ampl

e un

der

"Flo

rida

For

mul

a" T

able

IV

.

TABLE VI

WASHINGTON STATE UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES STAFFING FORMULA-

A. Public Services (including pro rata share of library administration)

58

1. Nu Mber of 'E Students Multiplied by Weight .

300/400 level x500 leltel x

600/700 level X.r.registered outside users x

2; Determine total :weighted enrollMent;divide by a factor Of 220 to deriveformula FTE Public. Services Staff

Technical Services (indl. pro rata.sharf?. of library admin )

1.804.306.00lh 00 ,

a A

Process Formula and Descriptive Example. . 6 1. 4

Step 1: To, the total units held at beginning of year ' J261,153 . ' ,

Add the number of units of library 4.-esourcesestimated to be added in yegx fa which

.

Step 2:

Step 3;

Step 4:

Step,o.

calculatibn applies...V .

Multiply Rejsult by Units to be Added (U.)

Divide by 1:,, 000, 009 to deriveWeighted Units to /A Added .(WUA)

.*. Multiply WITA by the factors that apply:

Facto'rW. U A- (Step 4)

23,501284, 654'. (1)

x 213, 50166, 896, 536 (2)

1, 000, 0006, 689.6.5 (3)c

' x .,0,1514 (4)

Constant'(Step '9)

1 to 14, 999 . 01514 ' 67

15,000 to 41,999 , Q0664 194.42,000 to 500, 000 .. 00360 322

-\To ,theiResult of Step 4..Add We constant as given aove,to obtain the FAtor Resulting (FR),

Step 6: Divide'WU.A (step 3)by. FactOr Resulting (PR, step 5)to derive fbrmula F'rETeehnical Services Staff

.

*an

101.28 (4)

67 (5/32,08.28 (VR)

6, 689.65168.2839.75 (6)

TA

BL

E V

II

WA

SHIN

3TO

N S

TA

FFIN

G F

OR

MU

LA

APP

LIE

D T

O M

ST I

NST

ITU

TIO

NS

-.

AB

eF

A. P

UB

LIC

SE

RV

ICE

S*FT

E S

tude

nts

..L

evel

No.

x W

eizh

t30

0, 4

CC

# x

1.80

2 ,4

701,

764

k1, 0

165,

2.18

3, 7

856,

340

2,43

01;

211

qo-0

-3,

861

50Q

if x

4.3

0-O

-0-

1, 0

413,

173

1, 0

922,

.150

"

1,39

8-0

-2,

946

/60

0#

x 6.

004,

86,

120

1, 5

78-0

--0

-.

'3,

000

...C

I-'

834

1., 8

30-C

-70

0ii

x 6.

00-0

--0

--0

--0

--0

-60

0-0

--0

-*

558

-0T

otal

Wei

ghte

d.

.

Enr

ollm

ent

6,47

87,884

13, 6

358,391'

4,877

12, 5

903,

828

-

2,04

5Il

i6,8C7

,D

ivid

ed b

y 22

0 eq

uals

..

Tet

.al F

TE

Gen

erat

edPu

blic

Sc-

rvce

s St

aff

29.4

35.8

6238

.122

,257

.217

.4'

'.'

9.3

'10

.930

.S

B. T

EC

HN

ICA

L S

ER

VIC

ES*

.

oS:

en 1

: Uni

ts h

eld

170,

5.1

314

4, 4

451

179,

463

262,

692

150,

417

261,

053

120,

000

187,

51C

195,

185

363,

853°

..

plus

uni

ts to

be

adde

d (U

A)

- 20

,168

29, 3

122,

9,13

114

,836

.t.

21,1

9727

, 974

18.,7

56"

32,4

3247

,835

68,

125

Equ

als

190,

681

173,

757

208,

594

277,

528

171,

614

284,

027

128,

756

219,

942

243,

070

371$

178

Step

2: Tot

al x

UA

X 2

0;16

8x

29,3

1?'

x 29

, 131

,x

14, 8

36x

21, 1

97x

27, 9

74x

8,75

6f.

x 62

,432

x 47

,335

x3,

125

3, 8

45, 6

54, 4

0_8

5, 0

93, 1

65, 1

846,

076

, 55:

, 614

4,11

7,40

5,40

3 3,

637

, 701

, 953

8, 0

35, 2

41, 2

981,

127,

387,

536

7,13

3,15

8,94

4 11

,639

,406

,950

3,02

2,32

1,25

0St

ep 3

:/

c±

1, 0

00,0

00 e

qual

sW

UA

3, 8

46,5

,"09

36,

077

4,11

73,

638

8, 0

851,

127

7,13

311

, 639

3,02

2St

en 4

:4

-.A

,

WU

A X

401

514

=58

.2s

7792

62.3

5512

2.4

171.

08.

176.

245

.8St

ep 5

:...

...

-a

Inus

tons

tant

(67

) =

-!-

6747

6767

6767

Fact

or R

esul

ting

(FR

)12

3 5.

214

4".

.°-3

.12

9:3

122

189.

4St

ep 6

:.

.....

,W

UA

3,84

6..

5, 0

936,

077

-4;

117

3, 6

388,

035

Div

ided

by

FR e

qual

s--

125

.24-

144

-L-:

159

+ 1

29.3

+ 1

2241

189

.4T

otal

FT

E G

ener

ated

0

Tec

h. S

ervi

ces

Staf

f30

.735

.438

.231

.829

.8_

-

C. T

OT

AL

FT

E G

EN

ER

AT

ED

LIB

RA

RY

ST

AFF

(A

+ B

.6)

,.

60.1

71.2

100.

2.

69.9

-57

/D

. ST

AFF

DIG

DE

FIC

IEN

CY

or

119.

123

.250

.531

.9l'4

5(O

VE

R F

OR

MU

LA

)...

,.- .

42.7

48.7

67 84

1

630

.850

.158

.8

12.8

29.1

35.3

6.7

6767

175

243.

211

2.8

1,12

77,

r33

11,6

39'3

,022

-:.-

844.

.4-

175

--

.4-

243

.24.

112

.8

13.4

'40

.847

.926.8

4_ 5/

.7

43.2

.See

ful

l ins

truc

tions

and

des

crip

tive

exam

ple

for

Publ

ic S

ervi

ces

and

Tec

hnic

al S

e'rv

ices

ipta

ffin

g un

der

"Was

hing

ton

Form

ula"

: Tab

le V

I.

TABLE VIII

, PROPOSEDUPPER DIVI UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES STAFFING FORMULAA.

A-. Public Se .es (including pro rata share of library administration)

a

. 60

1. Number of 1TTE Students300/400 level

500 level600 level700 level

Multiplied by`'Weighf,x 1.76x 2.05

. 764.76

i. Determine total Weighted Bnrollnent (WE).D. to first 7, 000 WE by a \factor of 300.c.. Divide in excess of 7, 000 by a factor of 450.

. Add insults of b.? and c. to derive total formulaFTE.Public`Services Staff.

Step 1A:-

Technical SerViceS (including pro rata share of library admin. )

Process Formula antr.

To the, total units held at beginning of yearAdd namtier of units of library resourcesestimated to be added in year to which,calculation applies,

Step Multiply Result by Units to be. Added (UA),r(

Sip 3: Divide .ReSult by 2, 000, 000 to deriveWeighted Units tobe Added (WUA)

Step 4: , Multiply WUA°13y- the factors that apply:

Step

Step

W U A1 to 14; 999

15, 000' to 41, 99942, 000 to 300, 000

Factor(Step 4)

x .03028x .01328x .00720

To"-the Result of Step 4Add the applicable constant as given aboveto obtain the Factor ItestIlting (FR)Divide. WUA (step 3)by Factor Iles'ulting (FR, step 5)

.;to derive formula FTE Services Staff

(

Descriptive Example61, 053

27, 974289, .027 (1)

x 27, 9748, 085,241, 298 (2r

÷ 2, 000, 0004, 042. 62 (3)

x .03028 (4)

Constant(Step 5)

30,97161

122.41 (4)30 (5)

152.41 (FR)

4, 042'. 62152.41

Not inclUding hburly wages.' For hourly wage's add 15% of staff generated..

69

wt

TA

BL

E I

X

UPP

ER

DIV

ISIO

N U

NIV

ER

SIT

Y L

IBR

AR

IES

STA

FFIN

Gl'O

RM

UL

A-A

PPL

IED

TO

TE

ST I

NST

ITU

TIO

NS

A. P

UB

LIC

SE

RV

ICE

S1.

FTE

Stu

dent

sL

evel

No.

x W

eigh

t30

8/4C

Ct.:

.-x

1.76

500

# x

2.05

600

# x:

,4.7

670

0#

x 4.

762.

Tot

al W

eigh

ted,

....

a. E

nrol

lmen

t (W

E)

=b.

Fir

st 7

000

WE

-..:

. 300

-E

xces

s of

c. 7

000

WE

-:-

450

,...

d. T

otal

FT

E G

ener

ate`

d`'`

1,,,.

.pub

lic S

ervi

ces

Staf

f--

BC

DE

FG

I

2,41

4.7

i-0

-1,

724.

8-0

-10

,.771

.249

6.1

5,10

2.2

1,51

2.9

3,70

1.3

520.

76,

688

e1,

025

,

2,37

666

6.3

1,18

4.5

-0-

,

-0-

-0-

3,77

5.2

1,40

4.3

3,17

9.7

4,85

5.2

,1,

251.

9-0

-' -

0-2,

380

-0-

661.

61,

451;

8-0

--

-0-

-0-

-0-

-0-

-0-

476

-0-

-0-

442,

72b-:

"Q

5.59

4.4

'6,

580.

012

,519

.26,

615.

1°4,

222.

010

,569

,'43,

042.

31,

846.

1'1,

894.

55,

179.

5=

18.7

21.9

23.3

22.1

1401

23.2

1.0.

16.

26,

317

.3

12.3

7.9

-.

18.7

21.9

35.6

22.1

14.1

31.3

10.1

a6.

26.

317

.3G

..3-

1B

.T

EC

HN

ICA

L S

ER

VIC

ES*

144,

445

29,3

12

.

179,

463.

-29,

131

262,

692

14,8

3615

6,41

721

,197

Step

1:

,\

Uni

ts H

eld

170,

513

Plus

uni

ts to

be

adde

d (U

A)

20,1

68E

qual

s (t

otal

)'

190,

681

Step

2:

173,

757

2,54

6.6

208,

594

.-

"The

rck.

3,03

8.3

277,

528

'

/..'° .

2,05

8.7.

171,

614

-1,8

18.9

Step

1 T

otal

x U

A...

Step

3: Step

2 T

otal

---

2,0

00,0

00E

qual

s IN

UA

1,92

2.8

S-1e

2 2:

12 W

TIA

fact

or77

.1-

30

92: 0

.30

'

62.3

30

-55

.1

30

-x

.030

28 =

.,58

.2St

ep--

..

5:Pl

usco

nsta

nt (

30)

30E

qual

s Fa

ctor

kesu

lting

(FR

)88

.2St

ep 6

- VU

A .±

- FR

=FT

E

107.

1

23.8

122.

0

24.9

,92.

3

22.3

85.1

21.4

Tot

alG

ener

ated

Tec

h. S

ervi

ces

Staf

f21

.8

C. T

OT

AL

FT

E G

EN

ER

AT

ED

LIB

RA

RY

ST

AFF

(A

.2+

B.6

)**

40.5

45.7

60.5

44.4

35.5

D..

STA

FFIN

G D

EFI

CIE

NC

Y(

. 5)

or (

OV

ER

FO

RM

UL

A)

( 2.

3)10.8

6.4

( 2.

0)

*See

inst

ruct

ions

& e

xam

ple

for

}tec

h. S

ervi

ces

unde

r "U

pper

**A

dd 1

5% to

tota

l sta

ff g

ener

ated

for

hou

rly

wag

e em

ploy

ees.

.o

D-

261,

053

120,

000

183,

510

.19

5,18

536

3,85

327

1,97

48,

756

32,4

32-,

47,8

858,

125

289,

027

128,

756

219,

942

243,

070

371,

978

/1,0

42.6

122.

4

30 152.

3

26.5

57.8 6.6

563.

73,

566.

65,

110.

71,

511.

2im

17.1

108.

017

6.2

45.8

3030

3C.

°

3047

.113

3.0

206.

275

.8.

. %.

11.9

25.8

23.2

.19.

.9

22,0

32.0

-

.34

.527

.24.

011

.0c.

11.0

,22

.7_

Div

isio

n U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es V

.orm

ula"

, Tab

le V

III.

O

rT

AB

LE

X

SUM

MA

RY

:M

LN

IIM

UM

LIB

RA

RY

ST

AFF

ING

FO

RM

UL

AS

1. 2.a) b) c) 3. a) b) c)

k5. a) b) c)

A

Act

ual F

Tt S

taff

.E

mpl

oyed

4148

49.7

38.

37.5

o 51

.218

2123

.514

.5

Cal

ifor

n :a

For

mul

aG

ener

ated

Sta

ff45

.155

.673

.552

.446

.870

.928

.748

.263

.532

.3D

evia

tion

from

Act

ual

4.1

7.6

23.8

14.4

9.3

19.7

10.7

27.2

40.0

17.8

Perc

ent '

Dev

iatio

n .

10.0

%15

.8%

47)

8%::.

,7.9

%24

.8%

38.5

%59

.4%

129.

5%17

0.2%

122.

7%'..

....-

".,

r-

.W

ashi

ngto

n Fo

rmul

aG

ener

ated

Sta

ff/

60.1

71.2

100.

269

.952

.099

.930

.8:)

.-6c

1: 1

58.7

57.7

Dev

iatio

n fr

om A

ctua

l10

.123

.250

.531

.. 9

14.5

48.7

12.8

29'.

135

.243

.2Pe

rcen

t Dev

iatio

n46

.6%

.3,4

. 3%

j10

1.6%

84.9

%38

.6%

95.1

%-

71.1

%13

8.5%

149.

8%29

7.9%

Flor

ida

Form

ula

Gen

erat

ed S

taff

49.4

57.2

79.9

53.9

43.9

_7'

77.9

23.6

47..

054

.244

.1D

evia

tion

from

Act

ual

8.4

9.2

30.2

*-

15.9

6.4

26.7

45.

6-26

.030

.729

.6Pe

rCen

trD

eVia

tiOn

26. 5

%19

.2%

60.8

%/0

17.0

%52

. 1%

30.8

%12

3.8%

130.

6%20

4.15

;/

Upp

er D

iv. U

niv.

Lib

rari

es F

orm

ula*

-.ge

nera

ted

Staf

f40

.541

5.7

60.5

44:4

35. 5

57A

22.0

32.0

34.5

37.2

Dev

iatio

n fr

orn

Act

ual`

(. 5

)(

2.3)

10.8

6.4

( 2.

0)6.

64.

01°

1.0

11.0

22.7

Perc

ent D

evia

tion*

*\

.( 1

.2%

)(

4.8%

)*2

1.7%

16.8

%(

5.3%

)12

.9%

22.2

%52

.4%

46.3

%15

0.5%

*N

ot in

clud

ing

15%

of

tota

l for

hou

rly

wag

e em

ploy

ees

**(

) =

Oile

r fo

rmul

a

, 63

adoption.if applicable. 4 A library ,needing additional staff for special

projects or,media activities should.request this staff based on justi-

,fiable grounds.o

The recommended ratio of supportive staff to

professional staff is .approximately 2.5:1. Supportive staff needs

may vary as much tte*0.5 according to local needs and circum-c stances.

=

To arrive at average salaries per position, onemust consider the average support staff type salaries in the local

geographic area. 'Average profdssional salaries must be computed

on the basis of both local and national salary offerings. In the final

analysiS,..-each instiption must develop its fii,vn mix of staff and defend

it through programs delivered.. Hourly wage earners are generated

at a 15.percent level over the staffing formula. The FTE- hourly wageS

are converted to dollars at the average current local rate, which is

typically equal to the beginning clerical rate paid by institutions.

z

TABLE XI

COMi'ARATIVE GROUP ANALYSIS.OF STAFFING PORMULAS

Actual staff employedby ten libraries: N= 342.4 Comparisons

Formula generated stafffor ten libraries

Deviation fromactual (N)

Percentdeviation

.California 517.0

Florida---1 531. 1

.Washington 650.6

UDUL 410.1

+174..6

188.7a

308.2

67.7

.50. 9%

55.0.r

90. 0

19. 7

-c.

64o

2. Materials Formula. In analyzing the ten materials

formulas, the institutions were tested individually and again as a

hypothetical group Of libraries serving in a single state system of

higher education. This section wiil follow the pattern established

earlier, describing the California, Florida and Washington materials

formulas and applying them to. the ten institutions. The following

tables are pisented in this section:

Table XII. Components of Material Formulas:California, Florida, Washington, UDUL

Table XIII. California Materials Formula Applied

Table XIV. Florida Materials Formula Applied

Table XV.. Washington Materials Formula Applied

Table XVI. UDUL Materials Formula AppliedPart A: Books

Table XVII. UDUL Materials Formula AppliedPart 33 Periodicals/Serials

Table XVIII. Summary of Materials Formulastr

Table XIX. Comparative Group Analysis

A. Components of material formulas. It is obvious.

at first dance that.the four formulas used in this' analysis'have a great

deal in common, yet they yield different results vastly significant to a

given institution or group of institutions.The existing material formulas generate volurries

only, leaving the periodical/serials group undefined for institutions.. ,

The UDUL-formula, however, has introduced a criteria that spth the

basic periodical/serial subscription*needs in scope with the academic

programs they support. (see Table XII). This make the UDUL form-61a

uniquely different.

3

eaki

t.t)

T "

.

CO

MPO

NE

NT

S O

F M

AT

ER

IAL

S FO

RM

UL

AS

L

O.

CA

LIF

OR

NIA

FLO

RID

AO

VA

SI:

IIN

GT

ON

1. B

asic

col

lect

ion

=75

, 000

vol

s. f

or ,f

irst

60b

FTE

stu

dent

s2.

Add

10,

000

vol

s. f

orea

ch a

dd'l

200

FTE

stud

ents

Add

- )

000.

vol

s. o

r ea

chte

rs p

rogr

am-4

. Add

-5,

000

vols

. for

eac

hdo

ctor

al p

rogr

am.5

. Tot

al v

olum

es*

Gen

erat

ed6.

No.

vol

umes

in c

olle

ctio

n

7 .

Col

lect

ion

defi

cien

cy.

or (

over

min

imum

)

L. N

o: d

octo

ral p

rOgr

ams

1..

x 15

, 000

vol

umes

O

2. N

o. m

aste

rs p

rogr

ams

2.w

/o d

oct.

x 7,

500

volt

3. N

o. m

aste

rs. p

rogr

ams

with

doc

tora

l x n

one

4. N

o. F

TE

fac

ulty

x 10

0 vo

lum

es

5. N

o. F

TE

stu

dent

sx

.15

volu

mes

asic

col

lect

ion

=,00

0 vo

lum

es

No.

doc

tora

l pto

gram

sx

24,5

00 v

olum

es

No.

mas

ters

pro

gram

sw

/o d

oot.

x 6;

100

vols

3. N

o. m

aste

rs p

rogr

ams

with

doc

tora

l x 3

,050

4. N

o. F

TE

fac

ulty

x 10

0 vo

lum

es

5.

7. T

otal

vol

s. g

ener

ated

7.

8. N

o. v

ols.

in c

olle

ctio

n8.

9. C

olle

ctio

n de

fici

ency

9.oi

-,(o

ver

min

imum

)

No:

FT

E s

tude

nts

x 15

vol

umes

Bas

ic c

olle

ctio

rr=

85,0

00 v

olum

es

Tot

al v

ols.

gen

erat

edN

o. v

ols.

in c

?lle

ctio

nC

olle

ctio

n de

fici

ency

or (

over

min

imum

)

TA

BL

E

- C

OM

PON

EN

TS.

OF

MA

TE

RIA

LS

FOR

MU

LA

S

UPP

ER

DIV

i UN

IV. L

IBS.

Part

A: B

ooks

1.=

No.

doc

tora

l pro

gram

sx-

21,8

00 v

olum

ese

2. N

o.m

as-t

ers

prog

ram

sw

/o d

oct.

x 10

,500

vol

s

3. N

o.na

stex

-s p

rogr

ams

with

doc

tora

l x n

one

4. *

No.

FT

E f

acul

tyX

115

vol

umes

5. N

o. F

TE

stu

dent

sx

18 v

olum

es

6. B

asic

col

lect

ion

=1'

00,0

00 v

olum

es

7. T

otal

vol

s. g

ener

ated

8: N

o. v

ols.

in c

olle

ctio

n9.

Col

lect

ion

defi

cien

cyor

(ov

er m

inim

um)

Part

B: P

erio

dica

ls/S

eria

ls1.

Bas

ic c

olle

ctio

n-ci

f.-1

, 000

subs

crip

tions

(T

itles

)Pl

us2.

10

title

s pe

r -F

TE

fac

ulty

3.5

title

s pe

r M

A w

/o d

oCt.

4.3

title

s pe

r M

A w

/ doc

t.5.

15

title

s pe

r*tio

ctor

al6.

Tot

al s

ubsc

ript

ions

(T

itles

)

rn C31

'

O

o.

TA

BL

E X

III

CA

LIF

OR

NIA

ST

AT

E C

OL

LE

GE

FO

RM

UL

A:

LIB

RA

RY

MA

TE

RIA

LS

7

Cit

E

Bas

ic C

olle

ctio

n =

75, 0

00 v

ols.

. for

75, 0

00fi

rst6

00 F

TE

stu

dent

s.7

5, 0

0075

, 000

75, 0

00

2. A

dd 1

0, 0

00 v

ols.

for

each

add

ition

al20

0 FT

E s

tude

nts

72, 0

0070

,.000

301,

250

151,

850

3. A

dd 3

, 000

vol

s. f

orea

. Mas

ter's

pro

gram

.51,

000

57, 0

0011

7, 0

0045

, 000

4. A

dd 5

, 000

vol

s. f

orea

. Doc

tora

l pro

gram

-0-

-0-

-0-

5. T

otal

Vol

umes

Gen

erat

ed19

8, 0

0020

2, 0

0049

3, 2

5027

4, 8

5017

7,_

.6.

No.

of

Vol

umes

in C

olle

ctio

n17

0,51

3---

-14

4, 4

4517

9, 4

6326

2, 6

92

7. C

olle

ctio

n..

Def

icie

ncy

orV

27, 4

8757

, 555

313,

787

9,15

8(o

ver

min

imum

)

C)

75, 0

00

87, 8

5

15, 0

00

-0- 85

0

150,

417

'

27,4

33'

10; 0

00-0

-

75, N

O75

,000

215,

000

"53

, 750

68, 0

0024

, 000

.

363,

000

.,15

2, 7

50

261,

053

120,

000

,_

101,

947

32,7

56

'7;

it

75, 0

00-

10, 6

00

.75,

000

75, 0

00

-0-

111,

500

33,0

00-0

7

-0-

40, 0

00

148,

,000

186,

500

1.09

, 60-

0

187,

510

.195

, 185

363,

853

.

( 77

, 910

)(

47,1

85)

(177

, 353

)

tS

1. N

o. D

octo

ral P

rogr

ams

x 15

, 000

vol

s.

2. N

o. M

aste

rs P

rogr

ams

w/o

Doc

. x7,

500

vols

.3.

No.

Mas

ters

Pro

gram

sw

ith D

oc. x

non

ex

4. N

o. F

TE

fac

ulty

x 10

0 vo

l ,.

5, N

o. F

TE

stu

dent

sx

15 v

ols.

6. B

asic

Col

lect

ion

= 8

5, 0

00 v

ols.

.

7. T

otal

Vol

umes

Gen

erat

ed

8. N

o. o

f V

olum

esin

Col

lect

ion

9. C

olle

ctio

n. D

efic

ienc

y,

' or

(ove

r. m

inim

um)

TA

BL

E X

IV

FLO

RID

AFO

/bU

LA

:

LIB

RA

RY

MA

TE

RIA

LS

0

P

DE

".

-0-

-0-

-0-

30, 0

00-0

--0

-12

0, 0

00

127,

500

142,

500

292,

500

112,

500

.,

37, 5

0014

2, 5

00.

,60,

000

60, Q

0060

, 000

-0-

-0-

-0-

-0-

-0-

-0-

-0-

-0-

..

17, 6

001,

_ 00

042

, 200

.20,

-630

15, 5

0029

, oh

.).

, 000

6,70

05,

000

17, 5

.00

30, 6

0030

, 000

99, 3

75.

54, 5

5535

, 355

, 73,

500

,25

, 1.2

512

, 180

5, 9

7042

, 450

..

85,

' 85, 0

00-

85, 0

0085

000

85, 0

0085

, 000

85, 0

0085

, 000

85, 0

0085

, 000

.000

..'2

260,

700

271,

500

519,

075

272,

655

173,

355

360,

000

183,

125

163,

880

275,

970

144,

-950

-

1'70

, 513

144,

445

179,

463

262,

692

150,

4].

261,

053

/12

0, 0

0018

7, 5

1019

5,18

536

3, 8

53.

...

90, 1

8712

7, 0

5533

9, 6

129,

963

22, 9

3398

. 947

63, 1

25(

23, 6

30)

80, 7

85(2

18, 9

03)

Gra

*

TA

BL

E X

V

WA

SHIN

GT

ON

FOR

MU

LA

:

LIB

RA

RY

MA

TE

RIA

LS-

-

BC

DF

1. N

p. D

octo

ral P

rogr

ams

.-,

-

x 24

, 500

vol

s.-0

--0

-.

-0-

-0-

49, 0

00-0

--0

-19

6, 0

00-0

-

2. N

o. M

aste

rs P

rogr

ams

w/o

Doc

. x 6

, 100

vol

s.10

3, 7

0011

5, 9

0023

7, 9

0091

, 500

30, 5

0011

5; 9

0048

, 800

...

48, 8

00 -

48, 8

00

3. N

o. M

aste

rs P

rogr

ams

Q

with

Doc

. x 3

,050

vol

s-0

--0

--0

-a

-0-

-0-

6, 1

009,

150

-0-

4. N

o FT

E f

acul

ty0

.

x 10

0 vo

ls17

, 600

14, 0

00, 4

2,20

0.

20, 6

0015

, 500

29, o

n13

, 000

6., 7

005,

000

17, 5

90

5. N

,z. F

TE

--s-

ttden

tix

15 v

ols.

'"--

.-'30

;6 d

o30

, 000

_ .

99, 3

75,

..,54

, 555

-35

, 355

73, 5

0025

,125

12,1

805,

970

42, 4

50.

-

6. B

asic

Col

lect

ion

=85

, 000

vol

s.''

65, 0

0085

, 000

85, 0

00-

85, 0

0085

, 000

''8

5;4/

0085

, 000

85, 0

00.

85, 0

0085

, 000

7. T

otal

Vol

umes

.

Gen

erat

ed23

6, 9

00-

244,

900

'464

, 475

251,

655

,.

165,

355

_ 35

8, 5

0017

1,.9

2515

2,.6

8034

9, 9

2014

4, 9

50

8. N

o. o

f V

olum

esin

Col

lect

ion

170,

513

144,

445

179,

463

-26

2, 6

9215

0, 4

1726

1, 0

63.

120,

000

187,

510

195,

185

363,

853

9. C

olle

ctio

n D

efic

ienc

yor

(ov

er m

inim

um)

66, 3

8710

0, 4

552'

65, 0

12(

11, 9

37)

15, 9

3897

, 437

51, 9

25.

(34

, 830

),

154,

735

(218

;903

)

B The development of the UDULMaterials Formula. Application of

69

the California, Florida and Washington-formulas to the ten institutions.tested shows how each formula affects the collection of an upper divi-sion institution.. The California formula generated the lea'st number ofvolumes, while the Florida model generated the most.. As JableXVIIIindicates, the ten institutions as a single group have a total of2;035,181 volumes.

The California model application increases thedesired Minimum volume count by 267,669, or about 13.1 percent.The Washington model shows a. difference between holdings and the

formula amounting to 507,129 volumes representing a 24.9 percentincrease. The Florida formula generates 2,62:5,210 volumes, repre-senting a 28..9 percent increase in the minimum number of volumes.'

direction'of the-Florida model has been used

to further 'increase fermula.-gener-ated collections for upper division

institutions. It was established in Chapter 1 that upper division gni,-

versity libraries need somewhat larger collections than traditionv.1-four;-year institutions. ,It was impossible lo establish with any degreeof accuracy just how much larger the UDUL library should get before

it reached a.minimu,m level of adeqtiacy. Expdrt opinions varied

somewhat, but irigeneral itwas estimated in .the 50 to 70 percent

range..

The formulas tested addressed.the'issue of:collection adequacy.simply in terms of volumes. This was considerecto be a major weakness because current subscriptionS and serial pub-lications, which are difficult tb convert to volumes, represent about50 to 60 percent*of library .acquisition costs. Ten years ago such

subscriptions may have been only 20 to 30 percent of the budget. The7

increased costs raise .many questions about subscriptions, including

the number of them an institution must have.

TA

BL

E X

VI

UPP

ER

: DIV

ISIO

N U

NIV

ER

SIT

Y L

IBR

AR

IES

MA

TE

RIA

LS

FOR

MU

LA

, PA

RT

A: B

OO

KS

BD

EF

G

1. N

o. D

octo

ral P

rogr

ams

x 21

,800

vol

s.-0

--0

--0

--0

-43

, 600

-0-

J74,

400

-0-

'2. N

o. M

aste

rs P

rogr

ams

w/o

doc

.x 1

0,50

0 vo

ls17

8, 5

0019

9, 5

0040

9,50

015

7, 5

0052

, 500

1499

, 500

84, 0

0084

, CO

O84

, 000

3. N

o. M

aste

rs P

rogr

ams

w/ d

oc. x

non

e'-0

--0

--0

--0

--0

--0

--0

--0

-

4. N

o. F

TE

fac

ulty

x 11

5 vo

ls.

, 20,

240

16, 1

0048

, 530

23, 6

9017

, 325

33,3

5014

, 950

7, 7

055,

750

0', 1

25.

5. N

o. F

TE

stu

dent

sx

18 *

vols

.86

, 720

36, 0

0011

9,25

065

,466

42, 4

2688

, 9pQ

t30

, 150

14, 6

167,

164

50, 9

40

6. B

asic

col

lect

ion

= 1

00, 0

00 v

ols.

100;

OQ

O10

0, 0

0010

0, 0

0010

0, 0

0010

0, o

opno

, on

loo,

000

-100

, 000

.1,

00, 0

00-

100

000

.

7. T

otal

Vol

umes

Gen

erat

ed33

5,46

035

1, 6

0067

7, 2

8034

6,65

621

2,75

146

4,65

022

9;10

020

6,32

137

1, 3

1417

1, 0

65

8. N

o. o

f V

olum

esin

Col

lect

ion

110,

54.

314

4, 4

4517

9, 4

6326

2, 6

9215

0, 4

1726

1, 0

53'

120,

000

187,

510

195,

185

363,

853

9. C

olle

ctio

n.

Def

icie

ncy

or(o

ver

min

imum

)16

4, 9

4720

7, 1

5549

7, 8

/783

, 964

62, 3

3420

3,59

710

9,10

018

, 811

176,

129

'(1

92, 7

88)

Not

e: A

.libr

ary,

sho

uld

add

not b

ets

than

25,

000

car

eful

ly s

elec

ted

volu

mes

per

yea

ror

fiv

e pe

rcen

t (5%

) of

its

hold

ings

, whi

chev

er is

gre

ater

.

ti

TA

BL

E X

VII

UPP

ER

DIV

ISIO

N U

NIV

ER

SIT

Y L

IBR

AR

IES

MA

TE

RIA

LS

FOR

MU

LA

, PA

RT

B: P

E$I

OD

ICA

LS

/SE

RIA

LS

AC

D

1. B

asic

Col

lect

ion

of 1

,.d00

-sub

scri

ptio

ns (

title

s)1,

000

1, 7

60 .- 85

-0-

1, 0

00

1, 4

00 95

-0-

-0-

1,00

0

4, 2

20

.19

5

-0-

-,0-

,-,

1, 0

00

2, 0

60 75

-0-

-0:

a

1,.0

00

s

1, 5

50 25 0- -0-

I, 0

60

,2, 9

00 95 6

30

1, 0

00

1,30

0 40

-0-

-0--

1, 0

00 670 40

-0-

1, 0

00 500

40-- 6

a 120

1, c

oo

1, 7

50

t -0-

zR

ims

2. 1

0 tit

les

per r

FTE

facu

lty3.

5 tit

les

per

Mas

ters

W./o

doc

tora

l'

4.3

title

s pe

r M

aste

rs,w

ithl

tdo

cora

5. 1

5 tit

les

per

Doc

tora

l.

6. T

otal

Sub

scri

ptio

ns(T

ITL

ES)

3, 8

45-

2, 4

955,

415

,,

3, 1

352,

575

.

4, 0

312,

340

1, 7

10.

1, 6

.66

, 2, 7

50

0/

TA

BL

E-X

VII

I

S U

:VI

1\1

A

MIN

IMU

M L

IBR

AR

Y M

AT

ER

IAL

S: F

OR

MU

LA

13A

J

1. A

ctua

l Vol

umes

in C

olle

ctio

n17

0, 5

1314

4,44

5179,463

262,

692

150,

417

261,

053

120,

000

.18

7, 5

10J9

5, 1

8536

3, 8

53:

2. C

alif

orni

a Fo

rmul

a19

8, 0

00

27,4

87

16.1%

202,

000

57, 5

55

39.9

%

493,

250

313,

787

174.9%

27.1

350

9, 1

5'8

3.5%

177,

850

27, 4

33-

18. 2

%

563,

000

101,

947

39.1

%

52, 7

50

32, 7

5

27.3%

109,

600

(77,

910

)

(41.6 %)

1.`q

*04-

0.

0;18

5

( 24.2%)

186;

500

(177

, 35)

( 48

.7%

)

Vol

umes

dif

fere

nce

()=

ove

r m

inim

umPe

rcen

t-de

viat

ion

from

actu

al c

olle

ctio

n

3. W

ash.

ingt

on F

orm

ula

'23

6, 9

00

66, 3

87

38.9

%

244,

nop

100,

455

69.6

%

464,

475

285,

012

158.

8%

251,

655

(11,

037

).

(4.

2%)

166,

355

15, 9

38

(10.

6%

)

358,

500

97, 4

37

( 37

.'3%

)

171,

925

51,9

25

(30,201)

159,

680

( 34

, 830

)

( 18

.6%

)

349,

920

154,

7351

'

(79.

3c7

0)

144,

950 90

3)

(60.

la

Vol

umes

dif

fere

nce

() =

ove

r m

inim

um,,.

Perc

ent d

evia

tion

from

actu

al c

olle

ctio

n

4. F

lori

da,F

orm

ula

,26

0,70

0

90,

187,

52.9 %.

271,

500

127,

055

87.9%

515,

075 77

339,

612

139.2%)

272,

655

_ _ 9,

963

3.8%

173,

355

22, 9

38

15. 3

%

t.3

66, 0

00

98, 9

47

37. 9

%

183,125

63,1

25

52. 6

%

163,

880

(23,

630

)

(12.

6%

)

'27

5,97

0

80, 7

8.5i

,I I

41. 4

%1

1-95

0

(2 _

8, 9

03)

(60.

2 %

)

Vol

umes

. dif

fere

nce

O =

ove

r m

inim

umPe

rcen

t deV

iatio

n fr

omac

tual

col

lect

ion

5. U

DU

L F

orm

ula,

Part

s A

+ 1

3*34

2,18

9

171,

676

100.

7%

355,

966

211,

521

146.

4%

fq

686,

756

- -

_50

7 29

3

'282

.7%

..

552,

1.4

2

897,

450

34.1

%

217,

257

66; 8

40

44.4

%

471,

704

s

210,

651

80, 7

%)

233

19-5

313,

195

94. 3

%

209

314.

21, 8

04

,11.

6%

4 i

374,

230

!

179,

045

I-

...1

91. 7

%1

175,

875

(187

,97

9)

( 51

. 7%

)

Vol

u 7r

nes

diff

eren

ce=

ove

r m

inim

umPe

rcen

t dev

iatio

n fr

omac

tual

col

lect

ion

*3 =

Per

iodi

cal s

ubsc

ript

ions

con

vert

ed.b

y m

ultip

lyin

g by

1.7

5

tr,i4

\

0

73

Th.ese issues were basic considerations in

developing the UDUL, materials formula. The UDUL model started

:out by adopting the basic Florida formula, but increased the number

of volumes generated in all variable categories. Justification can be-0.

made on several one of whiCh is}lie increase in new know-_

lectge and information during the past 15 years. For example, the

Cld'pp-Jordan Formula OHO,. cited in Chapter2, asked for a basiccolieetion'of 50; 000 volumes. The U.S. trade publishers produced

about 24,000 new titles_ during that y.eai-. In 1975. the trade publishers.

expeCt spine 46, 000 new titles to be published. If We associate basic

collections with rate of publication, as the Florida and Washington

formulas have-done, the T.JDUL formuja elements arereasonable;

;Part B of the UDUL formula establishes the

minimum number of periodical/serial titles to which a library should

subscribe. The increase to a basic collection of 1,000.titles is based

on the number and 'level of .programs and the number of FTE faculty

employed.

TABLE XIX

COMPARATIVE GROUP ANALYSISOF MATERIA LS FORMULAS

Actual volumes ownedby ten ljbtaries:

N z 2,035,131Comparisons

Formula generatedvolumes forten. libraries

. Deviation fromactual (N)

,Percent

deviation'

, -

CaliforniaWashington'

FloridaUDUL

2; 302; 800

2, 542;260

2,625,210 '

3,418,628

+ .267,669

50Y, 129

590,.079,.

1, 383;497

13.1%

24. 9

28.9 ..--

67. 9

4

at

4.1=

C. Redommended growth rate andconversion of UDULFormulat,'"Parts A and B, to dollars. The IIrDUL

' -'Materials Formula predicts only rilinimum collection adeqpac es. A. ,

library must' continue to grow past this level once it has been reached.

In fact, a minimum annual growth of the collection is equally impor-

tant to .a, whether, the collection is below or above the figure

.indicated by the .forinttla. The qu,stion remains; what is thiS mini

mum. annual &myth that must be maintained? . .

Both the Washington and Florida formulas suggest I

five percent growth of the colleetibnson harid. There are certain weak-.

nesses built into tIte five percent me4hod,- in that it ignores the depth,

and breadth of the institutions and-the annuarrange of new publications,

both domestic Sand foreign. These factors set the pace. in ni,inirnum

collectio9,devetopment and are as critical as the total volume count ino 4:

a. library..

TheUDUI, formula recolinne'ndt that an upper--.

.division niversity library add.to its oollection not less than 25,000,

volurneS per yea -or five percent (5%) of its. hOldings, whichever is

gi:eater. 'lie Members of the Expert, Panel defisidep thi'S rate. to be

minimalt,growth both 'under- and over the'formula-generated collectiOn

.count. ,Subsoriptioris are converted at the rate of 1.75 volumes per., t -

title when ealcuratifig arinual growth rate., 1: Institutional growth riaust be predetermined, and

budget reqtrestse shoulclle based 'On the average cost of library ma--. .

terials. The costs (thy actual.average costs for FAU for,

com uting. LIthe DUI, materials formula:

Monograt $18.50,:

0

SAscriiptions, @ $45.00.

Obviously, each irjstitution mu st determine its

1974/75) were use. ,

own dollar conversion. It rnayobe less or more peer volurne'''and/or.

75

title, depending on curricular einpha'sis affe.6ting collection develop-,.

ment.

3. The UDUL Expense"Formula. The ExpenSe Formula

rs unique in that no other exp' ense prediction formulas of any'kind areavailable for librhries. The need for, a valid expense model is great,-

asane can see frym Table I. Expense budgets ranged from $18, 000

to $89,.006 among the ten institutions selected for the study. The

objective of the UDUI, Expense,Formtrla is to predict with,,a reason-.

able degree of accuracy the minimum dollar support b. giverrlibrary'

needs:

A. . Development of the expense formula, The firSt

step in this task was to define the typical.and generally accepted 'ex-

pen:se items in libraries. Generally speaking,. expense items include

travel, rentals, postage,' printing costs, Supplies and-other.'consum-.ile items that cannot be classified as capitalexpenditure. ExcludedfroM the expense .category, also, are' all salaries and-Wages... Some

.

variation. exists arn(3-ng "StateS in their definition of when a supply, item

becomes a capital 'expenditure.. Some states tie it --to dollar figure,,setting an arbitrary lima of, let us say, $50 or .$100.r Under this

system any item that costs over the -set limit is not ank expense item.

Another method Uses the cost plus useful/life. Tinder \his system

any item over 'a predetermined/cost of, e. g.,> $25, whi h will laSt a

fixed number of years, will be considered a capital .exp nditure.3

In,discussing. this pr9b1-ern with a number of adMinistrators however,

if was agreeld thatthevariations in State practices are not sufficient

to upset the validity of a formula that discounts the gray areas of the. .

definitions.The UDUL exnntie formula was developed after

considerable conSultatio with library administrators foil-dived by an

ta

analysis of actual budgets and other institutional data of Oe ten

institutions in-this-study, The basic asSumption in the development

of this formula -was that the cost-generating factors must be common7

to all libraies. The formula list had to be brief in order to be prac-

tical for ,institutional use. ThisrequireMent reduced the cost-

-generating factors to the folio ing:

..(1) number of voluines added to collection

(2) number of subscriptions

-(3) students servedfapultyserved

(5), FA library staff, employed.

After considerable experimentation with assigning-

weights to these factors an acceptable expense formula emerged; as

...delineated in Table ..kX.

TABLE XX

UPPtat DIVISION UNIVERSITY LIBRARIESEXPENSE ].FORMULA

Item F.a.-etoro

..

Weight

.

1..

2.

3..

5.

G.

7..

gstimated ne vols. to beadded to collection

Subsmriptibils'.___------a) no. titles

b)' reciults of -,;(a) -

No. FTE siudent$ ..

,No-. FTE faculty

T,. otay'TE library staff ,

Tptal. of items 1 thnough aConvert fodirits to dolla s

, -

x '1.75

d

k 1. 75x 5,00

0.75

x 1. 5 0

x1,013Q.

--:- by 2,

ratio 1 :1

.

c.

to

8 5

TA

BIE

XX

I44

4

a

)

ZIP

PER

DIV

ISIO

N U

NIV

ER

SIT

Y L

IBR

AR

IES

EX

PEN

SE F

OR

MU

LA

APP

LIE

D T

O T

EST

IN

STIT

UT

ION

S

C

I. E

stim

ated

No.

..Vol

s.to

be

adde

d to

-C

olle

ctio

n x

1.75

2. a

) N

o. S

ulis

crip

tion.

sx

1.75

.'

136)

. Res

ult x

5. 0

0

3. g

o: F

TE

Stu

dent

' x,0.

754.

.I.

N.I

.cr.

4FT

E F

acul

tyx.

1.$

50,_

,-t

°r-.

os T

otal

FT

E L

ibra

ry-

Staf

f x

1, 0

00

6; T

otal

1-t

hru

5--

t- 2

ki.

7. C

onve

rt to

dol

lars

@ r

atio

of

$1 :1

pt.

.

33, 1, 41,29

4

. 643

530

264

'

000'

't

'51, 21, 1, 48,29

6

831.

25

500

210 9

000

50, 9

'31.

75

\47

, 381

.25

,

4;96

8.75

633

49, 7

40'

25, 9

63

27,4

31. 2

5A . 2

, 727

..75

,309

38, O

CO

37, 0

94.7

5

22, 5

31.2

5

1,76

7.75

232.

50

37, 5

00

48, 9

54.5

0.

35, 2

71.2

5

3,67

5

435

51, 2

00

15-,

323

2.0,

475

1, 2

56. 2

5

195.

13, 0

00_

..

56,7

.56

14, 9

62.5

0

- 60

9

100.

50

21, 0

00-

83,7

98. 7

5

.

1'44

.577

. 50

298.

'50

''7

5

- -2

3, 5

00

14,

-;,:

24,- 2, 4

14,21

3,75

-

062.

50

122.

60

262.

50

509

.

55, 8

-6,5

.'50

.61,

--

418.

6376

, 842

. 38

v

`b47

, 215

. 50

.49,

563

. 13

-..,

"

69;7

67. 8

8

..

27,

62.4

. 63

46, 7

1461

, 124

. 313

27,

533.

23

$55,

865.

50$6

1,41

8.63

$76,

842

.38

0

$47,

215

.50

a$4

'9, 5

63.1

-3.$

69, 7

6718

$27,

624

.63

$46,

714

.00

$61,

124

. SO

$27,

530,

13

TA

BL

E X

XII

SpM

MA

RY

.,M

INIM

UM

EX

PEN

SE F

OR

MU

LA

A'

B

Act

ual..

_Exp

ense

)3u

dget

$ 89

, 106

2. tr

DU

L F

or'm

uran

gene

rate

d R,

5 ;8

65E

xpen

se B

udge

t

3. D

orta

rs D

iffe

renc

eO

r; o

ver

geqr

atd

min

:(3

3;24

34

4.. P

erce

nt D

evia

tion

frpm

.ttA

ct-1

12,1

4Ex

udge

tI

(37.

3 %

)

v.

$ 89

, 082

$ 4,

5, 5

25$

22, 3

53

61, 4

19

$ (2

7, 6

63)

$25

, 359

$ 37

, 35`

318

, 000

$ 27

, CO

O$.

52,

200

$ 26

,.699

3).

----

°)76

, 842

';47

;916

49, 5

6369

.768

275

625

46,7

14%

.61,

125

,.

31, 3

17$

24, 8

58$

24, 2

04$

32, 3

69$

9,'6

25$

19, 7

14$

3, 9

25S.

)88

4

27, 5

83

( 3

1 .,

1 ci

ol,

68.8

%

.4

95.4

%-8

6.6%

53.5

%73

.(r

(017

.1%

It

o

r

0

C

-+

B. Oonversion of UDULxpenseFormula to dollars. Using the 197' 74

academic year data as the base, the conversion of the.formula todollars on a one-to-one ratio is shown in line 7 of Table XXI. The

/application of the formula to the ten institutions resultedin'reduc-tions of expense budgets in some cases and increases in others. The

o spread of dollars decreased from a range of $18, 000489, 000 to a

range of $27, 625 476, 842 (see Tables XXI and XXII).

If we take.the group of ten institutions and eon-AL

f 5 ider them again as .a hypothetical single system. of libraries we can,. :

determine the total impact of the formula. Through this formula, as.-.. $

o

., Table XXIII shOws, the terplibraries'gen6rated- $90, 992 more than...their actual combined 1973174 expertise budgets of: $432, 728. This

represefits'an increase of '17. 2 'percent ,forqlie hypothetical system

libraries.Expert Pa el members and others have agreed

that this formula pr duced reasonable hypothetical results for their

institutions.

TABLE XXIII

EFT4EaT OF UDUL EXPENSE FORMULAON ,HYPOTHETICAL SYSTX4:1VI

OF TEN LiB,RA14E'S

/Actual expense funds available

in tenlibrarieS, 1973/7'47Formula-generated' expense

funds for ten lilfraries-

$432 72'8

, 523,720

Formula dollar cliflier ncefitom actual funds

FoItthula percent difference :. 17.2%

80'`

C. Expense funds projection'tising 1115UL Formula. If 'a Library generated

55;000 po,ints in.the formula during 1973/74, these would be converted

to- $55, 000 with ,the 1 :.1 ratio.Using an economic index, the base year should, be

considered as 100 percent. On this basis, inflationary increments can. .

be calculated annually for future years. hence, if the budget for

1974/75 included a 12 percent inflationary factor,' the 55,000 points.generated by that same library would be calculated as followS:

55,000 x 1.12 = 61,600 x $1.00 = $61, 600

The formula.as de.yeloped will generate funds

proportionate to institutional growth and development. It will also

respN'd to proportionate reductions in .enrollment, staff and other

factors.

ummaryaha ter 4 diScussed phases two, three, four- and fives of this

dey0opmen al research project, as described in the Procedures

section of Chaptey' 3.This stt dy selected teii upviitr division university libraries,

,from a`total population oftwenty-eight, to be.included in the develop-

ment of budget prediction formulas particularly suited to -he needs of,.thi..; type of instit:iitiOn.. ...A questionnaire method was. use to initiate

the data-gathering phase of the prOject. The institutional data ob-

tained from the qucsticmnairc s Was applied to existing formulas

(California, Florida, Washingt15.7-T)N,

Results of these fOrmula applications, as shown in numerous

/ tables in this chapter, were used to clev lop. the UDUL Staffing and

/ Materials. Formulas:

83

81

. In vldition to the- taffing and Materials forrriulas., this project7

resulted in the: development of an UDUL Expense Fdrrnula model that

is unique in the field. This is the first known expense fOrmulatech-

nique and should be of 'interest to-library administrators beyond the

UDUL group,Consultations were held with individual members of the Expert

Panel and members of the ALA, ACRL, UDUL Comr ttee. Changes

and useful suggestions were incorporated in the final UDUL fornlulas.

O

Annotated References Chapter 4

'Members of the ALA, ACRL, UDUL-Cothrnittee are:

Peter Spyers-Duran, ChairJuries C. AndrewsDick L. ChappellJames T. DodsonIrlene R. StephopsRichard Vorwerk

man Florid la Atlantic UniversityRensselaer Polytechnic InstituteUniv. of Texas-Permian BasinUniv. of Texas-Dallas,Richmond College -CUNY .Governors State University

2 Dr. Robert Altman is Executive Director, Association of UpperLevel Colleges and Universitie, 28 Merion Place,Lawrenceville, New Jersey 08648.

3Expert Panel members are:Howard CordellHoward W. DillonGloria..B. Ellis -

Andrew FarkasEme Isson JacobBruce KeeneyJames ServiesW. Walter WiCker

Florida International. UniversitySangamon State- UniversityWalshto.ILPde. of Acdbuntancy and.'

Business AdministrationUnivers'ity of North FloridaPenn State Univ. -Capital CampdsState University College T.t UtiqaUniversity of West. EloridaUniv. of Houston-Clear Lake City

Brong,....Gerald R. A Resoutce Prediction and Allocation Model forAudiovisual Centers in.11ig-her Education: Washington StateUniverSity, 1972. JEd. D. dissertation.

/

ti2

0

Chapter

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS,-

r

Summary

The purpose of this,study was to develop and recommend a it

/ model librarY budget formula for upper division, university librarieS.

(UDUL). This formula was to cover all major budget categories

commonly found in acadernielibraries,. i. e.: salaries (staff); ma-

terials (books periodicals, ete.); expense (supplies, travel, rentals,"

etc.). The examination of the physical facilities category was exclu-

ded from this study,pn,the g rounds that such budgets are typically.not

pa-rt of annual operating budgets.The scope of this -Study was lifnited to formula budgeting,

defined as."a methOd of line ,item budgeting based upon qu9.ntitative

models which 4ress the budgetafi support needs generAted by°operating programS and functions". To accomplish the objectives of

thiS study, the investigation was developed through six phases.

In Phase l-currently-used -budget formulaS were iden-reiedia d evaluated for possible inclus'ion in this study. The Oaliforpia,

Florida and Wag:hipgton formulas were retained for coMparisonsand

, use as models whiCh could be ithproved.upoit Other.lormula models

were discarded because they either represented a duplication of the

Washington model or were simply less qophisticated in design.

In Phase 2 library data was collected through a Auestionrialire

83

:92

84

.from upper division university libraries known to exist in the United

States. Ten tax ,,supported. in itutions were selected for inclusion in. ,

..%*1 the study..

In Phase 3'thse existing California, Florida and Washingtonformulas were applied to the-ten upper division universities: The

li

results were evaluated* members of an Expert Panel,

Phase 4 included the development of three UDUL formulas:

-.(a)Staffing, (b). materials and (c) expense. - Again the results were

evaluated by members of the Expert Panel.-

As-Phase 5 the.final product was reviewed in/Chicago on

January 22, 1975, at a meeting of administrators representing upper

division university libraries.

/ "file final step, Phase 6, includes conclusions and recommen-

dations as,reportedrin this chapter concerning feasibility:and utilization

value of the UDUL formulas.e

The UDUJ.., formu as described in Chapter 4 were produced

through the Cooperation. ten-library directors participating in.the

study, with the aid and assistance of members. of the Committee on

Upper DiviSion University Libraries of the American Library Associ-

ation and tho indiV:iduals constituting the Expert Panel. The modelS

contained in -hat chapter were reyiewed for the purpose of assessing

theinuSefulness and adaptability to upper division libraries. Each/ .

individual received a copy of the formulas and appropriate tables

'showing:the actual appli ation.of the formuld's to ten institutions. Their.

responses atid corm/fonts helped to formulate the medelpresented.. (

EXpert Panel members basically agreed that libraPy budget

formulas .can- support stateW4deg'oals and objectives and.,that they tend

85'

to treat all institutions equally. This is probably one of the reasonsan increasing number of states have moved toward operating budget

formulas. It was also agreedthat formulas are not.an end, -but rathera means by which needs can be expressed. There was unanimousagreement that governing,boards must consider many, other facts inaddition to these formula's in order to arrive at an adequate level ofsupport. 'Each process must have a beginning, however, and the useof a budget formula establ an accurate measure of need.

Conclusions

The overall goal of the investigator was the development of'amodel library-budget formula that is pa.Pticularly sensitive to institu-

tions whi do not have lower division enrollments. Further, it wasthe o jective the study to utilize existing library budget formulasupon which the UD/JL formula could be. developed. In Chapter 3, Item 7,

of the Assumptions stated that it .might be unnecessary to "invent" an

entirely unique forniula. Indeed, the testing' of the. Florida formulart

with some,modification became the basis on which the desired model

se

A

for staffing and materials was built. The third major category, expense,

had to be treated difftrently as there was no known formula available.

For this reason an expenise formula was created. These formulas have

been field/tested to show hypothetical budget results in the upper divi-

sion university libraries.: The development details f the formu-

las are discusseiin Chapter 4.The acceptability of the UDUL formulas was, based on their

ability, to provide reasonable predixtidns of desired resources neces-sary to operate upper division university libraries. Acceptance of the

,UDUL Formula by a majority of library directors indicates that theseformulas can be useel for predicting resources needed for the operation

and maintenance of upper division libraries.

94

et' 86,

Formulas are useless, however,' without a skillfu4 adminis .

trator who can, effectively utilize the formula-generated results in theplanning-budgeting process, There is constant danger of blind accep-

s.

tance of formulas without-aFi effort to properly interpret results. Forthis reasdn, it is appropriate to review the formulas' capabilities and-

.

restrictions.

e

(

,What the formulas will 'do

A.. The Staffing formula provides an indication'of

the minimum number of FTE line2it positions needed to carry out1

the functions of anupper division un unity library. In addition, it

genera.teS hourty--rate (student) help in the 'amount of 15 percent of

the total,.FTE line-..item positions.

B. -.The Materials. formula establishes. the minimum

size of (a) ifie.bo.ca collection and (15) periodical/Serial subscriptions..

It also suggests a minimum annual growth rate that may, in the finalanalysis,_ be more important than overall .size. This suggested growth

rate has been set at 25, Q00 carefully selected volumes, pr five per-centcent (5%) of the total dolleetion, whichever is greater. .

,C. The Expense formula is-,,based on cost - generating

factors common to all libraries; It considers Only typical costs in an, ,

.

averageiristitution; therefore, it must be'regarded as a minirnuiw§ ,

.- .

.

formula.that mustbe expanded if the-library engages in projects de-,mantlin additional funding.

What the formulas mill not provide

A. The- Staffing formula- will net provide salary levels.

Further, it will not establislOhe exact n ix of professional and non-.profession'al staff; however, the suggested idealratio of professionals

to non-professionals would be not less than 1:2 and,hot more than 1:

B \. The Materials formula will not..pcovide gross

. budget figures'. As stated earlier,-tthis fora lu4a nerates desired

collectiori size and rate of growth only. 'Tie actual -dollar's Ceded

must be generated by establish/kngthe average cost per volume andd

multiplying.thaf:cost by the. expeeted number of volumes. to.be added

to the collection. The.same techniques must be used. for' periodical

subscriptions. Such figures: can be obtained from authoritative -sources'.

such as, the Bo\ fker Manual or from institutional pd el=lasinghistory.c.rThe materials.'"formula cannot distinguish between good' and useful

books and the outdated or poorly written ones. Onemust assuni,e that

the quantity expressed inqbe for nail, lie inter reted as the highest

quality plSs- ible.

C. ,The Expense formula cannot incluEre.all possible

expenses. For example,. the level of automation an institution deCtres

can increase the need for additipnal fiends. this, type of expense, as

well as'sPecial project. s

must be addec.1to the fo-rn4116.-generated base.

D. None of the above forraulaS identifiesthe leve\l of

support generated by a given sub-unit of a campus. The needs aa. e

established collectively for tlw'entire campus..i

0

. .. None of'the above fornAi a categories should be...

used.a.s a substitute for value judgement. FOv.mulas.are shiaply incli-, "k,

cators'of- need; which requize consideration and interpretation in the

budgeting '

J, .

.3. 'identified weaknesses arid possibl,e4)robleinsf a model budget formula system

; 4.. The UDUL Formula makeS no speci.lprovision

for adrninistrati4e.'staff, It leVves to.'''each Cnstitution'the dete,rm.inatiori

of the size of the libratry managerial staff.

b-

.88

13. The Formula assumes an equal 'difficulty of

cataloging in all institutions and does not provide Tor the, We'd corn-

plexities of techniCal processing associated with a larger collec ion.

C. The Formula doeS not provide for factors tcompensate for-4 decentralized organization.. Decentralization is notnow apr blem in the type of institutions we shave studied, -but it could

.

bdcorn a prof lem in the future.. A

D. Librar s render,services on different levels.The Formula does not recog ze the possible.differenCes ghat may

exist, but simply aims at the average needs.

E. The Formula does. not provide for arly.researchdevelopment, but assumes this,cost will be an a4d-on. There is

t.always danger in assuming.that'an institution will gotbe-

yond the formul4.-generp.ted funds.-)4,

F.. The Formula identifies minimilin needs. There\sJis a poteptial danger that institutions will se& the fo'mula-generated

. minirhunrs shoUldidev lop, alLnon-formulg.-cy ; a

gener:ated costs would appear as luxuries.

G. .Formula,budgets further: depypd upon several

important issues, fO example(1/6 High& education in general and libraries.

*n particular suffer-fro-1'n a lack of accepted definitions. ,Consfder,

4.

tor instance, the issue of program count. When 'is a program agenuine program and not,a)trak?

(2) Cre,dibility of a formula among board mtern-.

bers and legislators. Unrealistic formula results will erode the confi-dence of :these groups in the formula's validity.

I* t

Institutions adopting formula budgeting slaould.beltiwave ottlieik\

limitations thatexist.' A comprehensive formula should, produCe a

89. . ,

rea.sonably a equate budget. prediction-for financial support. It would.i .

enable libii,ries to continue their presenrscope 0 activities and pro-X

vide fdrilanticipdted 4.11er-eases or decreaSes in k r - loads.

, .Recommendations and Need for Fhrther Studies

, ) . . .

Thd primary recommendation resuging j'rOm this study isthat upper division iqstitutions giv6 serious consideration to the adop-tion of the .UDUL ForptIlas. ,.Then adoptipnof the Formula w .1 give

...a .these institutions the minimal resotwces necessary to serve heir

institutions. : .7 ,/

In addition., the need fd4further Stud..ies is tecOgnized a)drecommended' as follows:

1. Formulas sho. not remain static, They,shoulc. be.. 7constantly imrii.oVed inord z 0 became more acct' ate management,,,

tools. Continual researd st be/stimulated to assure the Currentand future relevanceor t e DUL./forrnulas

, #' 2.. Resear 1i ils needed to determine the'value orformula

..,

in contr-ibut i -t-o-th ding_ oflibrary needs by institutional,. " !.

___.presidents,. ovOrni ()Ards, legislators and others.

..". 1 ...

,ab,

4elerryen

of the factors i,vhich lead to the adoption orulas, including the reasons for changing fornu

of th

cs!"encouraged. t

search is needed to develop abetter. understanclin

or measuring:productwity and cost in libraries.

Researeh is needed to demonstrate-tee most approp iajeo-employbuclget formulas in academic libraries.

O Studies must'be conducted to refine formula techni ues'Ur

the Acclulli-cy of the hUdget grediCtiOn mokls.

A follow4 study is nefailure) of the UDUL fo'rimulas and to ide

level of support the participating librar

d to measureithe success ortif-their impact om the future

APPENDIX.' I

MIVIORANDUM. -...

To: 4 Committee 'on, Upper* Divisi.

-Fromv. Peter Spyers-Duran, Director of LibrarieS,N :

Subieci: Qdest ionno ire Eval nation..

7

Please find enclosed a draft Copy of the tplesiiontihi.your evaluation, quggestions anct additions.

..1As you recall our meeting iri New York, the final versioii of

1the questionnair ivill be sent to all tl-R4 upper division. librrie..-eknown to us. I will apply the various known formulas to the datareceived ili.ck from thiS group. Once that is done, I will return the,

,.. 1results for your evaluation and s.election of the mOst compatibleforthula.

, I would appreciate it if you could return your responSe byreturn mail.

PSD/lfencl.

James C. AndrewsDick L. Chappell

t

James DodsonIrlene R. StephensRichard Vorwerk

Rensselaer P6lytechnia'Univ. of Texa.S-Pemian,13asiln,

tM1 4ofoTexas4DallasRichmond Colleli,e,Governorqs,Slate Univ.

91

1°.0

.1

. .

FORT ULA STUPY QUESTIONNAIRE

FOR UPPER aDIVIS4ON UNIVERSITY-LIBRARIES

92

,;'1. -Total number of ;volumes equivalency in collection as 6f-June 30, 1974r

r(). ,

*Equivalents inchisionS and exclusions:

a. one volume one volume!

b. one /feel mici;ofilm one:volumec. eight .microva.rd or fiche ...

= one volume-

d..- . three maps = one volumee. all. other types: e.g.:, films,

ghono. records, tapes, etc. , = one-tOCone basis.f. for reporting purposes-

include all'such materials as have been classified,, cataloged and prepared for use;Jxclucle such groups as-government clekisitory. I

collections, ERIC, IIIVAF, and all archival.type collections. ,

-4,

2. Number of FT) faculty ppS7itions during 1973/74:.3. Number of FTE students -da.EA.-ig 1973/74;

(use '3-qua.tter or 2-serp,ester ave-cage)O

a. Give breakdown of students by levelNtimber 100/200 level (freshinan/sophomore)Number 300/400 level (jti-niorlsenior)Number 500 Vel (beginning graduate)Number 600 le (master)Number 700 levetla0c-tpral),.

,

4.. . -Number of registered outside users of library:5. Number oijIionors undergraduates '(if any):',6. \ Number of masters fields without doctorates:7. Numbq of masters'fields with doctorates:

.8. ° Nuenb r Of doctoral fields:9. Number of totajIhElibrary staff:

13..% allocated-to Technical ServiceS.b. allocated to Public Services

10. Number of transactions Idurinif ast final yeax:.ss

**defined as "persons not connecte the-institution Who make' use of thecollection, who are registered ndpossess a borrower's card".

10/74

-1-101.

udget Formula QuestiOtLNiire (continued)

11. What was your lilfrary budgetfor 1973/74?

a. , -1-12-TE staff

b.. Eldurly rate staffMaterialS,(books, binding,

periodicals, etc.)d. Expense (rentals, postage,

supplies, etc.)Total Library Budget:

f.

93

12. What is the,iiidgeting method currently use d at your institution?(Check one)

a. Formulab. PPBc.. Lump sum,d. -Line item..

. e. Last year base plusf. Combination of above (specify)

. .

13. Is Ahere any h dication,that your institution is moving toward....for latudge mg ? Yes , No.

. h ...

pprov fortnul:1' budgeting for librarigS?Yes ' No

14. Do yo

15. Do you feel ilia upper diviSion college/university libraries shouldhave formulas t )at are riartieularly sensitive td. the,Sp.ecial needsof such instituti nisi? If '.es; why? des " ' No

*e a forniula now, is that.-formula arbitrarily altered

by officeA outside the i 4a ___ .---_*e No,

0

17.. Is your _institution in a gtate system ?- '' Yes -NNo4 N

la:. Is your institution (check on-e)a. -o? 'state'"supportedb, .. privde

. e. °the? -.(Specify .

A

/19. Where in your'system are-library alKing brkdgets, determinedq.

a.. Librarianb. carnpus Business Officer& President.(Chief.Carnpus Officer)d. Other '(:ipecify)

7

\ ..

\ \5

-- i - -A- tI*If your answer to No. lb is .Yes'I', please give your reasons on ksverse sideof this sheet. .

, .,-... iA 4.

-Budget F or> la Questionmiire (oontinued) :

20, lore in your system is the budget distribution determin41?

94

21. How 'do upper division uniVer'sity libraries differ fom four -ye, r institutions?a. Doe-yourslillray have the, "upper half" of collections only?

Yes No

b. a If your answer is "No", please eXIlairi.theextent and degree oflabwe, collection development'.

c. Estimdte thepeeentage of the Collection development buspent on lower 4

d. What are the ch:lrac,teristieF-A of library services to students and

(IL

faculty. in an,upper'Clivif,3ion school? Do these represent a speciaiproblem in both level and numbe of st. ffing required?

0

;22-. Desert. e your.faculty.ni terQs of their demand the library for their.ebsCarc and teachittip; needs (r.i.rele one).

Vy den: nd

Tea hint; : 2

Rese rch 1 0l a2 /3

Comn unity service ' 1 2 3 4 5

Inte]. brary loan . 1 1 2 3 4 :5

° Low demand

5

S omitted. by:name

Da e:title

AC.

ct

institutionPlease returli to:

A

Peter Spyers-Du 'an, DirOctor or Libraries .

Florida Atlantic niversitysBotut li,zton, Mari la 33,132, l'hope: (305) 395-5100,, ext. 2't42

-3- 103

APPENDIX IIA ,-

. List of Upper,Diyision C01.14gesand liniversitiesin the U.S., Fall 19 ,74

membersPacific*Oaks. College./714:West California BoulevardPasadena, California91105

Florida Atlantic University-Boca Ratoh,..Florida 33.132

\gloritta. InternationalTamiami TrailMiami, Florida 33144

University of North FloridaP.O.:Box '17074Pottsburg StationJacksonville, Florida 32216

..,The U4iversity of Wett FloridaPeiksacola, Florida 32501

e

-.Goernors State UniversityPark Forest South.,ltlinois 60466

Sangamon State University ,Springfield; Illinois 62708

Concordia Senior College6600 North Clinton StreetFora Wayne; Indiana 46p5

Upper Divicio.-1001- of Applied ScienceRochester -institute of Tcr.hrtolvgy

Memorial Drh;eRochester, New York 14623

.State .University College at Utica /Ronde811 Court StreetUtica, New York 13502

College of communit. ServicesFrench -Hall

" University of CincinnatiCincinnati, Ohio 45221

Garfield Senior Collegec/o Lake Eric CollegeNnesville, Ohio 44077

Capital Campus;Pennsylvania State University

Middletown, Penns Ivania 17057

Texas A and I Universityal Corpus Christi

P.O. Box 6010Corpus Christi, texas 78-111

University of Baltimore1420 North Charles StreetBaltimore. Maryland 21201

Walsh College of A&countancy andBusiness/Administration

P.O. Box 35Troy,Michigan'48.084

University of Texas at IDallasP.O. Box 30365- 'Dallas, Texas. 75230

University of TeXas.of the Permian Basin

Odessa, Texas 79762

Milv..aukee School ofEngineering

redinologY Nrklilwauked, k''isconsin 53201

N(.) tuberUvoe'r Levg. Universitiqs

Anchorap Sr: Co]le.c.re ofUniversif) of. Alaska.2533 I-Toy]. once AveAt choraf:e, K ,90504

-texas A and I Center at LaredoPI'O. Box 537 I

Laredo,, Texas 78010,

East Texas State shy Center----at: iexartarta--

R.O. Box 5518Texarkana, Texas 75501

Tyler State College. 100 East Berta Street

Minnesota Metropolitan State College Tyler, leas 75701LL90 Metro SquareSE Paul, Minnesota 55191

Richmond College of the City" University of New Wyk"130 Stuyvesant PlaceStaten IslandNew York, New York 10301

,

.

Monterey Institute ofForeignStnclie

25 Van Buren StMoriterey, CA 9A,940.

University of Houston at Clear Lake CityCullen Boulevard '

Houston, Texas 77006

Univer sity of Ilouston; Victoria Center2708 North Bcnc Jordan Street.Victoria, Tex,r 77901

the association of upper level Colleges and universities

APPENDIX

Mr. Gary D. MacMillan, DirectorUpper Division School of, Appl ScienceRochester.. Institute of Technelogy.One Lomb Memorial DriveRochester, New York 1:4623,

Dear Mr. MacMillan:. .

As .Chairmanof the ALA ACRL.Committee on Upper Division Universities,I am-sndin the ens-loseci questipnnaire to all-twenty-nine ,of the upperlevel univer.'ity libraries known to exist. .The cooperation of each of youwill help in weloping a Model Budget Formula that will Serve the unique --

lceeds of our t pe of institution which, by and, large; are Unrecognized in '\the existing -.bu geting proce'ss'es.

Considerable work has already gone into developing a model budget. formulafor upper diVision\universities which may be completed by February.1975.We'hoPe to developnational gLridelines and standards that may help the fu-ture development okthese libraries. We need institutional data to finishthis ambitious proje

Please take a few minutes of your time to fill out the enclosed -question-naire and send it to me by return mail. I will'send you a Copy of the modelformula.assoCt as it can be deVeloffead-isfumed on.'the ,questiconaires. Thisproject. is one of the first efforts toward seeking some recognition°of thespecial -character of upper division universiry libraries. Your help andsus sort is much needed

TI would like invite you to serve on our Expert I anel and provide-an

;opportunityto revi-ew the model formula before is'presented for adoption.Yotii criticism and..evaluation will be inva uable in assuring qualityin such aeproject. This can be handled by mail; howsver, we do plan tohave an open discussion on the matter as one of she ALA programs. I hopethe enelose'd memo will reflect your, acceptance.

w ,

Many thanks for your cooperations.

PSDiksen 11&->ures

Sincerely,

,Peter Spyers-DuranDirector of Libraries

TKO:

g FROM:

Peter Spyers-DuranDirector of LibrariesFlorida Atlantic University

Name &

institutj.on.

Please-find enclosed,' your ModeLLibrary Formula BudgetStudy Questionnaire.

I will be pleased to receive.a draft copy of the prtoposedmodel and react to it as a rneMber of the Fkperts panel.

t will by iriterepted to receive a draft copy. of the proposedmodel, but must decline serving on 'the Experts. Panel. ri

106 t

PPEN y

tiMEMORANDUM

4

Y.4partreipating Experts in the Uppeet DiVision :UniversityLibrafies (UDUL). Formula Study-

From:-

From' : Peter Spyerp-Duran, Chairman of UDUL Committeeand Principal investigator.

. Subject: Comparatit.eAhalysis of California,. Florida'andWa.shivgton 1,orrritrlas a'nd Evaluation of UDUL Formula.

Please find enclosed a comparative analysis of the California, Floridaand Washingtonformula. These, being themOst advanced formulasin exsistanee, have been used to develop a DUL Formula; %altered tosuit upper'division library needs.

'Please loolc over the proposed UDUlt, formukusing. the enclosed evaluation sheet.1.

1

The ALA,' ACIIL, UDUL Committee9/ill mee kat' :00. p. m. 11/1Onday,Sanuary 20, 1975, at the 2, liner. House. Yo+bre cordially invitedto.attend our- Meeting. a participate in the evaluation of these

and` evaluate them by

_formUlas..e.

If you caianot attend, I woulli apvrecJanuary 30,..1:975, A 'trio response.'plete satisfaction with the proposed

Many tharils,-Jo--

PS.Q/genelosur'eS

ur. coo. eration.

late recery Y our evaluation by' will be i4iterpr'eted as your cornUDU,L LoO.yriU 1 as .

0

10'7

.

,

. .

APPENDIX 99

, EVALUATION OE UDUI, FOR,MULAS =';',_- - ... te' . .. , . . . , .In-'dvaluating the proposedrUDU.L'formutas, pleaSe.feel free.to acid your .

thoughtsvand comments .to these, questions:. Attach -additioNllleets ofpaper if needed.

A..-, STAFFING FORMULA

1. The UDU1\ Staffing Formula is (check ,one)a) potter than Other formulas

,b) about the same, .-c) worse

. Comments: .

2. Would.rou recommend ofqhe.U.DUL- Formula (check One) ' -.0 a) Without change .''.13 b))under no circumstances

c) only if the following eLlin.i.ges are_incorporated:

La

t

- Comments:

3. 'What is your overall .evaluation cif othe U.DULStaffing Fo'rmula?

,

B. MATERIALS FORMULA

1. Do you agree with the TJDUL formula concept whichseparates booksbfrom ser' eriodicals?n Yes 1 1 No

a (check.oil.e)r-.) a) better than the other formulas up.

b) about the' same13 ,c) worse

'CoMments:.

EValuation of UDUL F6rmulas -2- 1113/75',., - .

B. 3'.. Would you recommend adoption Of the UDUL Materials7 Forthula .(check one) ,..-

zfr,0 a) without change__ .,'-0 b) under no circumstances

d c) only.if the.following changes are incorported:-

'44t"

Comments:4

4. What, is your overall evaluation of the UDULMater:ials Porrnula? . . .

I,BX,PENSE FORIWULA

1. The UDUL Expense Forimila is4(checkOne)

a) agreeable for adoption withodtichange-Lli

El

b) a complete disastei-1. abandon

c)" has potential, but needs the followin change:

2. Please comment:

prepar-ed by:Peter Spyers-Duran, ChairmanALA, ACRL, UDUL Co -imittee13 January 1975 ,

submitted by.:

1O9

/41

k,

CURRICULUM VITAE

Peter SpyerS-Duran:'6:37 S.W. Fourteenth StreetBoca Raton, Florida 33432

4-

Born January 26, 1932, Budapest, Hungary. U. S. citizen.Married: Jane F. Cumber. Children: Kimber13;', Hilaly, Peter.

Education: ._Uni-crersit of Chicago, Graduate Library School,M.A. 1960; Nov. University, ci.,r). 1975.

EmployNent: Prol:eiSsOr ^ d Direct* 4f Litiraries, FloridaAtlantic University, 1970- ; P ssor and Difector of Libraries,,

101

Western Michigan University,. Kalamazoo, Mich., 1967-1970; Asso-ciate Professor and Ass'ociate Director f Libraries, University ofWisconsin-Milwaukee, 1963-,1967; Americ Library Association,Professional e

Assistant, 1962-1963; University of Wichita, Instructorand Head of Circulation Department, 1960-1962; Chicago Public e

Library, Reflmence Librarian, 1959-1960; University of ChicagoLay Library, Catalog Department,. 1957-1959.

Member:_ American Library Association (life); Florida and

Southeastern Library Associations; Florida Association of. Public-,.

Junior Colley;' Board of DirectOrs, United Fund of Greater BocaRaton.

Listed in: Who's Who in America, Contemporary Authors,Who's Who in Library Service, Dictionary International Biography,Who's Who in American Education.

Author: M ving Library Materials, 1964; Basic Fringe Bene-fits for Public Libraries in the U.S., 1967; Approval*and GatheringPlans in Academic Libraries, 1970; Advances in Understanding Ap-royal PianS in Academic Libraries; 1971; Economics6if Approval,Plans,1972; Management Problems iroSeriap Work, 1973; contributor to

,4)professional journals and,technical reports.

110_

I certif.; that,Viave read and am willing to. uonsorthis Major Atpplied Research Prbject. In my opinion it con-forms to aceept-ab34 standards. and is fully adequate in scopeand quality as a Major Applied Research ProjeCt for the (Agree1:f Doctor. of Education at Nova University.

e Zji44_

Dr. Frederick.C., Kintzer.Advisor

r.

I certify that I have read this Major A d ResearchrgifreProject and in my opinion it confcirms to acceptable standards

, for Major Applied Research P;ojects for the degree of Doctor,of. Education at Nova University.

CeCCS..

Dr. wine's ChinnCluster Coorflinator

This Major Appired Research Project was submittedto the Central Staff of the I4ova University. Ed. D. Programfor Community College Fa silty and is a4ceptable as partialfulfillmei4 of the requirem nts for the degree of Doctor of .

Education.

-36

Qr

GeorgNova UniversityM. Barton

ii