The Haves and Have Nots: Sophisticated Cross-Institutional Analysis Techniques that Support Budget Justifications Brian W. Keith 2014 Charleston Conference.

The Haves and Have Nots:

Sophisticated Cross-Institutional Analysis Techniques that Support Budget

Justifications

Brian W. Keith

2014 Charleston Conference

1

AGENDA• Background• The Question and another one• Investigation (data and peers)• Peer Analysis• Demand and Resource comparisons• Funding comparisons

1. Percentage based2. Linear regression based

2

BACKGROUND• The University of Florida (UF) is a major,

public, comprehensive, land-grant, research university.

• It is one of only 17 public, land-grant universities that belong to the Association of American Universities, and is one of the largest universities in the nation, with more than 50,000 students.

3

• The UF Libraries form the largest information resource system in the state. The UF Libraries consist of seven libraries; six are in the system known as the George A. Smathers Libraries. These include the Health Science Center Libraries (HSCL).

• The Smathers Libraries is an active member of the Association of Research Libraries (ARL).

4

5

FY2009-

2010FY2010-

2011FY2011-

2012FY2012-

2013

Recurring $642,296 $277,522 $136,160 $1,387,951

Non-Recurring $689,971

Since July 1, 2009, the Smathers Libraries have experienced $2.4 million in recurring funding cuts and $700,000 in one time cuts.

6

• In 2011, UF adopted Responsibility Centered Management (RCM) for budgeting.

7

• Under RCM, the colleges became Responsibility Centers (revenue generators) and the Libraries became one of the numerous Support Units (non-revenue generating units primarily providing services to Responsibility Centers).

• The fundamental premise of RCM is to move decisions and resulting revenues to the colleges.

8

• RCM, along with decreased UF appropriations and lost purchasing power for library materials have increased pressure (internally and externally) to assess library funding and expenditures

9

• In 2014, UF launched UF Rising – a five-year initiative to elevate the University to among the nation’s top public universities.

• A combined $950 million is aimed at hiring new midcareer and eminent professors, adding new endowed professorships, and to upgrading and adding facilities.

10

• Smathers Libraries Mission

The Smathers Libraries partner with UF faculty, students and staff, as well as the University’s collaborators and constituents, to facilitate knowledge creation that contributes to UF’s standing as a preeminent public research university…

11

The QUESTION

• What should the funding be for the Smathers Libraries?

UF Libraries?

• Do the UF Libraries spend money eccentrically?

12

INVESTIGATION

• Establish Peers

13

INVESTIGATION

• Available data:

• National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) data for university characteristics that correlate with DEMAND for library resources & services

• ARL data for characteristics that reflect library RESOURCES relating to materials and staff

14

PEER ANALYSIS

• Demand v. Resources

15

PEER ANALYSIS

16

UNIVERSITYDemand

Average Excluding UF

UF as % ofNon-UF Average

Total Faculty 4,206 131%

Total Students 38,197 131%

Undergraduates 27,346 120%

Graduate Students 10,851 158%

PhD's Awarded 1,187 165%

17

LIBRARYResources

AverageExcluding UF

UF as % of Non-UF Average

Volumes Held 8,962,398 53%

Monographs Acquired (2011) 89,280 26%

Librarians & Professional Staff 164 54%

Other Staff 222 81%

TOTAL Staff 386 69%

$ for Materials $16,924,627 77%

$ for Hardware/Software (2011) $1,422,413 13%

TOTAL Library Expenditures $44,945,336 64%

• Findings:

1. UF is above average in all metrics reflecting demand for library services and/or resources

2. The UF Libraries are below average in all metrics reflecting the resources for the delivery of services and information

18

19

Per FacultyUF AVG Ratio

Volumes Held 869 2,274 1 : 2.6Monographs Acquired (2011) 4.28 21.02 1 : 4.9

Librarians and Professional Staff 0.0162 0.0409 1 : 2.5Other Staff 0.0326 0.0555 1 : 1.7TOTAL Staff 0.0488 0.0964 1 : 2

$ for Materials $2,370 $4,214 1 : 1.8$ for HW and SW (2011) $34.51 $337.32 1 : 9.8Total Lib Expenditures $5,202 $11,288 1 : 2.2

20

Per UndergraduateUF AVG Ratio

Volumes Held 146 344 1 : 2.4Monographs Acquired (2011) 0.72 3.46 1 : 4.8

Librarians and Professional Staff 0.0027 0.0062 1 : 2.3Other Staff 0.0055 0.0086 1 : 1.6TOTAL Staff 0.0082 0.0149 1 : 1.8

$ for Materials $397 $646 1 : 1.6$ for HW and SW (2011) $5.80 $57.68 1 : 10Total Lib Expenditures $872 $1,737 1 : 2

21

Per Graduate StudentUF AVG Ratio

Volumes Held 279 828 1 : 3Monographs Acquired (2011) 1.38 7.76 1 : 5.6

Librarians and Professional Staff 0.0052 0.0158 1 : 3Other Staff 0.0104 0.0226 1 : 2.2TOTAL Staff 0.0156 0.0384 1 : 2.5

$ for Materials $760 $1,656 1 : 2.2$ for HW and SW (2011) $11.12 $134.15 1 : 12.1Total Lib Expenditures $1,668 $4,405 1 : 2.6

22

Per PhD AwardedUF AVG Ratio

Volumes Held 2,444 7,620 1 : 3.1Monographs Acquired (2011) 11.02 75.48 1 : 6.9

Librarians and Professional Staff 0.0455 0.1428 1 : 3.1Other Staff 0.0916 0.2054 1 : 2.2TOTAL Staff 0.1372 0.3482 1 : 2.5

$ for Materials $6,664 $15,140 1 : 2.3$ for HW and SW (2011) $88.82 $1,239 1 : 14Total Lib Expenditures $14,627 $40,115 1 : 2.8

23

ILLINOIS, URBANA

MICHIGAN NORTH CAROLINA

PENNSYLVANIA STATE

VIRGINIA WISCONSIN PEER AVERAGE PEER MEDIAN FLORIDA0.00%

0.50%

1.00%

1.50%

2.00%

2.50%

3.00%

3.50%

4.00%

4.50%

5.00%

3.54%3.35%

2.81%

2.51%

4.46%

2.27%

3.16% 3.08%

1.64%

2012 Library Exp. as a % of University Instruction, Research and Public Service Exp.

24

ILLINOIS, URBANA

MICHIGAN NORTH CAROLINA

PENNSYLVANIA STATE

VIRGINIA WISCONSIN PEER AVERAGE PEER MEDIAN FLORIDA0.00%

0.20%

0.40%

0.60%

0.80%

1.00%

1.20%

1.40%

1.60%

1.47%

1.27%

1.13%

0.99%

1.42%

0.74%

1.17%1.20%

0.75%

2012 Materials Exp. as a % of University Instruction, Research and Public Service Exp.

25

26

27

28

LINEAR REGRESSION

• A model of the relationship between two variables:

1. Independent variable

(e.g. a university budget)

2. Dependent variable

(e.g. a library’s budget)

• MAY serve to predict a variable if the other variable is known

29

LINEAR REGRESSION

• R-squared or Coefficient of DeterminationIndicates the proportion of the change in one variable that is predictable from another

0 ≤ r2 ≥ 1

Represents the percent of variation in a variable that can be explained by the relationship between the two

30

PEER ANALYSIS

• Compared UF to Three Groups of AAU Public Universities– Group A: 6 of Top 11 from US News (Aspirational

Peers)– Group B: 10 of Top 25 from US News

(Comprehensive Universities with Law & 2 or more Health Colleges)

– Group C: UF Identified Peers

31

PEER ANALYSIS

32

Group A Group B Group CTop US Public Univ. Peers Top 25 Public Univ Peers UF Identified PeersILLINOIS, URBANA MICHIGAN CALIFORNIA, BERKELEYMICHIGAN MINNESOTA ILLINOIS, URBANANORTH CAROLINA NORTH CAROLINA INDIANAPENNSYLVANIA STATE OHIO STATE MICHIGANVIRGINIA PENNSYLVANIA STATE NORTH CAROLINAWISCONSIN PITTSBURGH OHIO STATE

TEXAS PENNSYLVANIA STATEVIRGINIA TEXASWASHINGTON TEXAS A&MWISCONSIN VIRGINIA

WISCONSIN

33

0 2,000,000,000 4,000,000,000 6,000,000,00025,000,000

30,000,000

35,000,000

40,000,000

45,000,000

50,000,000

55,000,000

60,000,000

65,000,000

2008-2012 Peer Averages & UF ActualTotal Library Expenditures v. Total University Expenditures

University Expenditures

Libra

ry E

xpen

ditu

res

Group A Group B Group C UF ActualR² = 0.8637 R² = 0.6398 R² = 0.445 R² = 0.0258

34

LINEAR REGRESSION

Linear regression line formula

The model identified by the linear regression analysis of university revenue from tuition and appropriation at peer universities (independent variable) and total library expenditures at those institutions (dependent variable) for each year can be expressed in a regression line with a formula of

Y = a + bX

35

LINEAR REGRESSION


Y = a + bX

In this formula:

Y = the dependent variable (library)

X = the independent variable (university)

b = the slope of the regression line

a = the intercept point of the regression line

and the y axis.

36

PEER ANALYSIS

37

Application of Linear Regression Formulas to Estimate Appropriate Funding for UF Libraries

UF Tuition & Appropriations

2008 $855,300,000

2009 $849,955,000

2010 $797,569,000

2011 $855,234,000

2012 $848,376,000

PEER ANALYSIS

38


Linear Regression for Peers: Total Library Expenditures & University Tuition and Appropriations

2008 y = 0.01x + 30,868,025

2009 y = 0.02x + 29,693,057

2010 y = 0.02x + 27,401,814

2011 y = 0.02x + 30,223,057

2012 y = 0.02x + 26,651,035

PEER ANALYSIS

39


UF Tuition & Appropriations

Linear Regression Line Formula

UF Libraries Projected

2008 $855,300,000 y = 0.01x + 30,868,025 $43,231,307

2009 $849,955,000 y = 0.02x + 29,693,057 $43,249,625

2010 $797,569,000 y = 0.02x + 27,401,814 $42,536,788

2011 $855,234,000 y = 0.02x + 30,223,057 $43,650,863

2012 $848,376,000 y = 0.02x + 26,651,035 $42,701,203

PEER ANALYSIS

40



UF Libraries Actual Expenditures Difference

2008 $43,231,307 $28,573,302 ($14,658,005)

2009 $43,249,625 $28,147,202 ($15,102,423)

2010 $42,536,788 $27,242,279 ($15,294,509)

2011 $43,650,863 $29,537,452 ($14,113,411)

2012 $42,701,203 $28,581,160 ($14,120,043)

41

42

PEER ANALYSIS

• Spending within libraries

43

44

45

46

PEER ANALYSIS

PROPORTION OF LIBRARY

EXPENDITURESMaterials Staffing Operations

Median for Peers 38% 49% 12%

Average for Peers 38% 49% 13%

UF 43% 44% 12%

47

y = 0.423029510129217x - 2,523,825.53

LINEAR REGRESSION


Y = a + bX

In this formula:

Y = the dependent variable (materials exp.)

X = the independent variable (total library exp.)

b = the slope of the regression line

a = the intercept point of the regression line

and the y axis.

48

PEER ANALYSIS

49

Average UF Libraries Material Expenditures for 2008-2013

AVG $12,748,128

Application of Linear Regression Formulas to Examine UF Libraries Expenditures

PEER ANALYSIS

50

Average UF Libraries Material Expenditures for 2008-2013

Linear Regression for Peers: Library Materials & Total Library Expenditures


Total Expenditures

$12,748,128 y = 0.42x - 2,523,825.53 $36,101,390


PEER ANALYSIS

51


Average Total Expenditures

UF Libraries Actual Difference

$36,101,390 $28,715,527 ($7,385,864)


52

FINDINGS

• Linear regression showed there exists a relationship between library spending for staffing and materials, and total library expenditures at these top institutions

• The relationship can serve as a basis for assessing library expenditures at other institutions

53

Questions?

54

The Haves and Have Nots: Sophisticated Cross-Institutional Analysis Techniques that Support Budget Justifications Brian W. Keith 2014 Charleston Conference.

Documents

uf libraries

smathers libraries

uf faculty

university of florida

decreased uf appropriations

library funding

uf average total faculty4

university demand average