Executive Summary

University Libraries’ Budget Review Report

Conducted by the Central Services Subcommittee of the Senate Fiscal Committee

June 12, 2012

Budget Review Process

A draft of a revision to the mandate of responsibilities assigned by the University Senate to the Senate Fiscal Committee (SFC), currently under consideration for approval by the Senate, assigns the task of reviewing, providing input, offering interpretations, and assessing the Unit Fiscal Review documents of central support units to the Central Services Subcommittee (CSS).

The University Libraries agreed to engage in a trial run of this process, and CSS appreciates their willingness to do so.

In conducting the resource and budget review of the University Libraries, CSS:

  • Met with Carol Diedrichs, Director of University Libraries, and Assistant Director Lisa Patton-Glinski on December 13, 2011 to review the University Libraries Overview Presentation, including budget information, and its draft strategic plan
  • Met with Henry Zheng from OAA on December 13, 2011 who shared the University Libraries’ Strategic Planning Financial Summary
  • Received information from Director Diedrichs on January 6, 2012 and February 3, 2012 in response to additional questions submitted by CSS
  • Collected additional information on financials and personnel from Business and Finance
  • Met with Professor Richard Hart, Chair of CoLIT (Committee on Library and Information Technology) on March 6, 2012 to discuss that committee’s notions about issues faced by the University Libraries and future directions for libraries generally
  • Examined the 2005-2006 Functional Review of the University Library System, including a self study, reports by external and internal review panels, and CSS’s summary report

The Libraries is essentially a non-revenue generating unit with a budget that does not increase as demand or utilization grows in response to greater enrollment and research needs at Ohio State. Cost increases currently are covered through unpredictable sources such as the Student Services Assessment, Trademark and Licensing revenue, IDC revenue, and the annual Support Unit Budget process through CSS. Rather than trying to fill the gap annually, a more thorough review of the budget model and budget sources is recommended, potentially including an adjustment of PBA to meet needs and/or the establishment of a reliable funding source for extra needs.

We recognize that the role of libraries within the academic enterprise generally is changing. Within Ohio State, the University Libraries are developing a Strategic Plan that will identify its future directions. The main drivers of this analysis are:

  • What will be the Libraries’ role in helping the university meet its strategic objectives in Teaching and Learning, Research and Innovation, Outreach and Engagement, Resource Stewardship?
  • What will be the Libraries’ role in helping the university’s reach its aspirational goals?
  • What should be the University Libraries’ standing among its peers, etc.?
  • What fiscal, physical collection, electronic access, and human resources are needed to achieve the University Libraries’ goals?

At the end of this document we pose a number of possibilities that should be among those considered as possible means of addressing the continuing shortfalls in the Libraries’ budget, including:greater funding from Trademarks and Licensing or other affinity relationships, a continuation of library funding from the Athletics Departmentonce the commitment for Thompson Library renovations has expired, exploration of potentially increased revenue sharing from contracts and room rentals, funding from any monetization initiatives, external sources such as grants or contracts, or a library fee or sharing of an IT fee with the University Libraries,

Highlights of Factors Considered and Recommendations

1. Continuing Funding Shortfalls for University Libraries’Acquisitions and Staffing

  1. Materials and Access
  • Escalation of materials and access costs, including OhioLINK
  • 7.5% increase in materials costs annually, anticipated $1.5M increase in OhioLINK costs for FY 14

Basic Recommendation: Work with OAA and Business and Finance to review options for increasing the University Libraries’ materials and access budget

  1. Staffing
  • What is the right mix of staff (faculty, A&P, CCS, students) to achieve University Libraries and University goals?
  • What are the appropriate salary levels for Libraries staff?

Basic Recommendation: Continue to examine staffing mix, working with OHR, reviewing ARL and other yardsticks to ensure that the mix will meet OSU’s needs now and in the future and that salary levels are appropriate

2. Physical Facilities and Physical Materials Storage

  • Continue to review the University Libraries’ physical facilities footprint to shed unneeded space and reduce POM
  • Address physical materials storage needs for Ohio State and for Ohio State’s needs as a repository within OhioLINK and the CIC
  • Review the budgetary impacts of greater utilization and expanded operating hours for University Libraries

Basic Recommendation: Continue to work with PPARE to right-size on-campus space needs, withFOD, OAA, and Business and Finance to ensure that funding and staffing meet the needs resulting from expanded utilization, and with PPARE, OhioLINK, and other organizations and other libraries to determine best solutions to physicalmaterials storage and access needs

3. Potential Operational Efficiencies for All Libraries at Ohio State

  • Examine the possibilities for realizing efficiencies in costs and services by combining personnel, technical services, physical facilities, and/or other elements of the University Libraries, Prior Health Science Library, and Law Library

Basic Recommendation: Engage OAA, administrators of all three libraries, the Committee on Library and Information Technology (CoLIT) and other appropriate bodies, in reviewing the potential benefits/drawbacks of partial or complete combination of the three libraries

University Libraries’ Budget Review Report

Conducted by the Central Services Subcommittee of the Senate Fiscal Committee

June 5, 2012

1. Continuing Funding Shortfalls for University Libraries Acquisitions and Staffing

A. Escalating Costs for Materials Acquisition and OhioLINK

The costs for acquiring updated material for the libraries continues to increase by approximately 7.5% per year. It seems to be a truism that as more electronic resources become available, more electronic resources are demanded, adding to the upward pressure on costs. This up-spiral increases the importance of maintaining a comprehensive and collaborative electronic resources prioritization process to ensure that key reference materials are provided while balancing cost containment efforts. The University Libraries is already very actively involved with regularized reviews and adjustments of content purchases, but as prices continue to rise, either they are covered or decisions about which resources to provide have to be made.

The materials acquisitions budget for FY 2012 is $11.4M, which includes Health Sciences and Law. Reports show a total acquisitions budget of $14.1 M, inclusive of equipment. This also includes Health Sciences and Law. If, based on the above breakdown of acquisitions and equipment hold on an annual basis, 80% of equipment budget is actual acquisitions ($11.4M of $14.1M), then the projected acquisitions only budget for FY 17 will be $16.4M ($11.4 X 1.075 for FY 13 – FY 17).

In the 2012 support unit budget request process, all threelibraries received a total of $800,000 in permanent allocation to support acquisition needs. In addition, the three libraries received $1,000,000 in permanent funding for the same purpose in FY 2011.

The Ohio Library and Information Network, OhioLINK, is a consortium of 88 Ohio college and university libraries, and the State Library of Ohio, that work together to provide Ohio students, faculty and researchers with the information they need for teaching and research. OhioLINK’s membership includes 16 public/research universities, 23 community/technical colleges, 49 private colleges and the State Library of Ohio. In 2005, OhioLINK instituted a membership fee for the first time. OhioLINK is likely to continue to experience many pressures against its operating and capital budgets, and these pressures affect the member institutions. It is anticipated that there will be an increase of $1.5M Ohio State’s FY 2014 assessment for OhioLINK. The source for this additional revenue has not been determined at this time. The Libraries requested funding for this as part of the FY 2013 Support Office Budget process being reviewed by CSS. Final recommendations from CSS will be submitted in June 2012.

The price of content increases each year, even with the buying power of OhioLINK and because of this the University Libraries need to set aside more of their funding to support the cost of content. OhioLINK and University Libraries funding has had some increases and decreases but, overall, purchasing power has been flat. Because content is such a large piece of the University Libraries’ overall budget, funding issues represent a potential risk to its constituents each year. The Libraries has been able to make some organizational changes to account for the rising expenditures, but if that trend continues the overall goals of the University Librariescould be placed in jeopardy.

CSS recommends that the University Libraries works with OAA and Business and Finance to review options for increasing the Libraries’ budget for acquisitions and access to develop a funding source which increases each year. This funding will help close the gap in funding the annual cost increases for acquisitions and access. At the same time, CSS recommends that all three libraries continue working with CoLITin implementation of the comprehensive and collaborative electronic resources prioritization process involving librarians, library patrons, OhioLINK, the CIC, and other consortia.

B. Staffing Levels

Budget report data from January 6, 2012 indicates that an estimated addition of $250,000 in PBA is needed annually so that the operational needs of the University Libraries can grow along with expenses. Extending this forward, an increase in PBA from $1.7M in FY 2012 to an estimated $2.7M for FY 2017 will be required.

The first chart below indicates that some significant changes in the staffing mix at the University Libraries have occurred over the last six fiscal years. Trends in University Libraries hiring show a marked increase in functional specialists (A&P staff) for digital imaging, copyright, information technology and similar roles. At the same time, the number of Classified Civil Service (CCS) staff numbers has declined markedly as the work of the University Libraries changes. Student worker FTEs also have declined. The University Libraries has initiated a significant number of faculty and A&P hires during the past year to fill needed positions. If changes in the mix of staffing have been driven solely by changing needs and new directions for library services, then the proper motivators for change are in place. But if the staff reductions or redistributions are driven by budget pressures, then service to the university community may be affected. It appearsthat staff reductions and redistributionsmay have been the result not of intentional right sizing but in response to budget pressures as positions are held open to shore up the annual budget in other places.

Personnel costs consume the largest portion of the University Libraries’ budget and are proposed to significantly increase, although the future increases proposed are not in line with what has occurred over the last six years. According to the January 6, 2012 report from the University Libraries, the salary line for FY 2012 is budgeted at $18.3M and the projection for FY 2017 is $24.6M. According to the University ProfileeReport, since FY 2007, the total compensation portion of the University Libraries’ budget has increased by only $100K, from $16.3M in FY 2007 to $16.4M in FY 2011, and the FY 2011 figure is a notable decline from a peak of $17.4M in FY 2008. Personnel costs included University ProfileeReport are displayed in the second chart below. Total compensation for faculty has increased by just 3% from FY 2007 to FY 2011; staff total compensation has increased by just 4% from FY 2007 to FY 2011; total compensation for students has decreased by 24% from FY 2007 to FY 2011. While the personnel cost data noted above include different specific numbers, they agree on the generally flat total personnel budget trend for faculty, staff and specials from FY 2007 to FY 2011.

In conjunction with analyses of potential streamlining and operationsefficiencies, appropriate staffing levels andemployee types (faculty, A&P, CSS, student), and the required total compensation pool to meet staffing needs (including recruitment and retention) should be determined. Do surveys (such as the sampling done by LibQual™ of faculty, staff and students) show dissatisfaction with service relatable to staffing levels or mix? What is the University Libraries’ mix of staffing compared to OSU’s aspirational peers or ARL or other benchmarks? Identifying the appropriate mix of staffing going forward becomes even more critical as technological advances change the service provision and support needed for students and faculty.

Source: University Libraries

Source: eReport, University Profile

CSS recommends that the University Libraries continues to examine its distribution of staffing categories (faculty, A&P, CCS, students), drawing relevant information from the Self-Study and Program Review of the Libraries conducted in 2005-2006 (although this study may be dated), reviewing ARL and other yardsticks, and working with OHR to ensure that the staffing mix will meet Ohio State’s needs now and in the future. In addition, an examination of current and future compensation needs to ensure retention and recruitment of top-flight employees should be undertaken. Having determined the proper mix of staff and examining the Libraries personnel budget, if shortfalls exist, the Libraries should work with OAA and Business and Finance to review options for increasing the Libraries’ personnel budget as appropriate. This plan should be shared with Senate Fiscal Committee and should be the basis of the FY 14 budget request for the Libraries.

2. Physical Facilities, Materials Storage, and Utilization

A. Physical Facilities

The University Libraries occupies over 367,500 assignable square feet (as of December, 2011) across the Columbus campus. The Law and Health libraries together occupy an additional 142,500 assignable square feet. Covering the costs associated with the University Libraries’ physical facilities footprint consumes a considerable portion of its budget. Balancing space needs to utilize POM funds as efficiently as possible while ensuring appropriate service delivery is an important budget management tool for each of the three libraries, and is a factor to be included when considering possible streamlining amongOhio State’s libraries.

OSU LIBRARIES
SPACE ALLOCATION SUMMARY
Comparison
Resource Planning / Projected
Program / Building / July 2011 ASF / Dec 2011 ASF / mid-2013 ASF / Comment
Architecture Library / Knowlton / 9,179 / 9,179 / 9,179
Biological Sciences/Pharmacy Library / Riffe / 22,189 / 22,189 / 22,189 / Under consideration for space reduction. We can expect reductions in this period but cannot yet predict the precise number
Book Depository & Archives / 2700 Kenny / 28,845 / 28,845 / 28,845
Cartoon Library & Museum / Wexner / 6,808 / 24,935 /
Resource Planning combines Fine Arts and Cartoon onto one number as they are currently in the same building.
Cartoon Moves to Sullivant August 2013, adds additional 18,127 SF;
Fine Arts Library / Wexner / 22,365 / 15,557 / 15,557 / Resource Planning includes Cartoon Library & Museum
Food Agri Env Science Library / Ag Admin / 8,151 / 8,151 / 8,151 / Projected figure may change via current collaboration with CFAES. We can expect reductions in this period but cannot yet predict the precise number
Geology Library / Orton / 8,576 / 8,576 / 8,576
Music-Dance Library / Sullivant Hall / 18,883 / 0 / 0 / MUS moved to SEL September 2011
Science & Engineering Library / S&E Library / 69,248 / 69,248 / 69,248
Thompson Memorial Library / Thompson Library / 190,914 / 190,637 / 190,637
Veterinary Medicine Library / Vet Med Academic / 8,187 / 8,187 / 8,187
Total Libraries / 386,537 / 367,377 / 385,504

The above chart indicates the UniversityLibraries’ current space allocations with a projection into 2013, when the Cartoon Research Library and Museum will be occupied and assigned, bringing the total space assigned to the Libraries mid-2013 at 386,505 assignable square feet (asf). This does not include the rental space at the Ackerman Road facility, which is not covered by POM. The trend in the UniversityLibraries’ assigned space shows a marked and steady decrease since 2005 (488,723 asf), 2006 (480,893 asf), and 2008 (446,111 asf). These changes in assigned space reflect strategic shifts in use of campus space assigned to libraries with the moves of collections and services from Journalism, Business (Mason Hall) and Lincoln Tower, and with the smaller space assigned to the UniversityLibraries with the renovated Thompson Library (reduced from 213,000 to about 190,000 asf between 2006 and 2009). None of the figures include Law or Health Sciences library facilities.

B. Materials Storage

For a number of years, the University Libraries has been utilizing a remote storage facility on Kenny Road for those materials that do not circulate regularly. The Kenny Road facility also serves as one of four OhioLINK “Harvard style” book depositories around the state. And when Thompson Library was renovated, the actual book storage capacity of the facility was reduced and additional materials were moved to remote storage. The Kenny Road storage facility is full and a new storage module is needed. This storage module will be more expensive to add to the Kenny Road facility than others have been due to the total size of the facility and fire code regulations. Ohio State’s libraries are storing materials at other locations around campus, with resultant additional costs. For example, the FY 2013 support unit budget submission requests from University Libraries includes $360K in continuing funds for “operating – storage costs” for the Ackerman Road facility.

A number of efforts are underway to slow the increased need for remote storage. Staff are currently culling duplicates and establishing primary and secondary storage priorities for materials. The University Libraries is participating in the CIC’s Shared Print Repository, an arrangement where complete print runs of selected journal content from three publishers (Elsevier, Springer and Wiley) are stored cooperatively. Given the ongoing shift to electronic books and periodicals, an analysis of the need for storage of physical materials and the options available, the projected costs for the various options, and the possible funding options should be undertaken.