9. Claremont Colleges Library
Who would be concerned about this?
$6,000,000
$5,500,000
-23%
$5,000,000 over past
4 years
$4,500,000
$4,000,000 Materials Funding
$3,500,000
$3,000,000
February 28, 2011
15. Claremont Colleges Library
Usage
User- Pre- Usage by
Library Model Read
Selected Selected Download
Online
A MIX 1131 552 6773 9888
B MIX 5246 2612 42880 38329
C USER 2198 102 0 11801
D USER 3010 48 697 15126
E MIX 4159 909 17396 25604
F PRE 0 1451 4905 3082
G PRE 31 2154 7001 4459
H USER 801 0 556 415
I MIX 305 336 3334 2568
J USER 2799 53 5 13349
K MIX 147 276 2436 2283
TOTAL 19,831 8,496 85,983 126,904
February 28, 2011
17. Claremont Colleges Library
A B E I K
lc USER PRE USER PRE USER PRE USER PRE USER PRE
H 20% 20% 20% 9% 28% 7% 13% 14% 7% 5%
R 14% 4% 8% 4% 10% 2% 2% 7% 3% 5%
Q 7% 2% 5% 4% 7% 3% 4% 5% 8% 28%
T 5% 5% 4% 3% 7% 2% 6% 3% 2% 7%
L 4% 1% 4% 2% 6% 1% 1% 1% 0% 1%
G 3% 2% 2% 2% 3% 0% 2% 5% 2% 3%
B 2% 1% 5% 2% 4% 1% 3% 6% 4% 2%
February 28, 2011
18. Claremont Colleges Library
30.0%
User-selected collections have similar LC profiles
25.0%
Proportion of collection
H
20.0% R
Q
T
15.0% L
H
R
10.0%
Q
T
L
5.0%
0.0%
A B E I K
Library
Example of a graphic that didn’t work. What we wanted to show to our administration was that over the course of the years our salaries were not keeping up with changes in libraries. This graphic plots the materials budget per student FTE paired with the salary budget per student FTE. It shows our materials budget has shrunk (or at least not kept up with the increasing size of our schools), while salaries have dipped, but only recently. This graphic didn’t tell the story I wanted to tell.
Whereas, on the other hand, I selected two years that showed radical change in our salary budget and plotted those against our peer institutions. Here is a scatterplot of our Salary & Benefits as a proportion of the total budget (less facilities assessments, hr assessments, and gifts for materials ; none of which are reported by the other schools). Our % in 2009 was about 57% (on just these measures). That seems a bit high compared to our competitors, although not the highest by any means. In addition, as total expenditures decrease, the costs allocated to staffing increase proportionally (usually).This showed we were probably too high, and should be corrected….but….
After our major changes and reorganization activities, our percentage dropped to about 42%, moving us from the top of the scale to one of the lowest in the Oberlin Group. (that’s bucknell way down there). We may have over-corrected quite a bit (and this includes the frozen VERP positions, so if we included just the expenses paid to staff, it’d be even lower).This graphic made sense to our administrators without being accusatory or inflammatory. It simply shows we overcorrected in one fell swoop and argues for more attention to be paid to it in the future.
Since the major changes have been 1) reduced personnel resources for library services and 2) even funding (or slightly negative) for materials when their inflation continues to rise, it would be worthwhile to explore if we are overfunded for personnel resources. Here is a scatterplot of our Salary & Benefits as a proportion of the total budget (less facilities assessments, hr assessments, and gifts for materials ; none of which are reported by the other schools). Our % in 2009 was about 57% (on just these measures). That seems a bit high compared to our competitors, although not the highest by any means. In addition, as total expenditures decrease, the costs allocated to staffing increase proportionally (usually).
Why are cancellations necessary?From 2002-2008, our purchasing power closely matched our available funds. In 2008, our library expenditures, including gifts and endowed funds, started to diverge from our purchase index – the amount need to maintain the current mix of library materials. As you will recall, part of the CUC Budget Reduction plan that was a reaction to the severe economic crisis at that time, included a 5% materials budget reduction – over $275,000 at the time. Now, after 4 years of flat or reduced budgets, plus the standard excessive inflation for library materials of 5-8% per year, and additional assessments for new storage, we are at a 23% gap in in our ability to spend and the amount the resources now cost.