The University Libraries: Report to the Academic Council

March 27, 2002

Jennifer Younger

Edward H. Arnold Director of University Libraries

                                                                                                           

 

 

 

 

 

Introduction

 

After the January 17, 2002 meeting, Nathan Hatch, Provost, requested a report on library funding.  This report presents information on recent University investments in the library, comparisons with other research libraries, and the funding trajectory for the library.  Also, information on the serious challenge to and strategies for maintaining purchasing power for books and journals is included as these are issues integral to understanding the impact of the funding trajectory for library resources.   

 

The University investment since 1994

 

The Report of the Ad hoc Committee on University Libraries (May 1994) recommended significant improvements in library funding for the University Libraries and the Kresge Law Library.  For the University Libraries, the Committee estimated the cost of its recommendations to be $3.9 million for annual (recurring) expenditures and $29.2 million for one-time (non-recurring) developments.  The specific cost estimates and budget additions for the Law Library are not addressed in this report; additions to its budget are reported on only in the total expenditures data in Table 2.

                                                           

The library budget increased substantially as a result of annual increases from the University totaling $3,450,000 over a six-year period (FY1995/96 - 2000/01) and from the successful Generations Campaign.  At the end of FY 1994/95, the University Libraries had 115 endowments with earnings of approximately $1 million while six years later, there were 167 endowments with earnings over $2 million. 

 

 

 

 

Table 1: Total budget (Unrestricted and restricted) by major budget categories

(Source: University Libraries Self Study 2001 Section I.C.2. Table 2)

 

 

 

TABLE 1: Total Budget (unrestricted and restricted) by Major Budget Categories

 

1994-95

2000-01

% increase

Salaries & Wages

3,906,936

7,093,642

81.6%

Acquisitions

3,453,424

6,122,681

77.3%

Capital

36,020

160,952

346.8 %

Operating

423,995

1,028,515

142.6%

Preservation

131,211

184,132

40.3%

Total

7,951,586

14,589,922

83%

 
 

 

The Report also identified six areas for one-time expenditures: 1) Retrospective purchases, $12,500,000; 2) Processing retrospective purchases, $5,000,000; 3) New equipment, $300,000; 4) A replacement of the NOTIS system, $1,000,000; 5) Hesburgh Library renovation, $10,000,000; and 6) a book security system, $400,000.  The one-time retrospective purchases and processing were not funded separately though the University did allocate some of the recurring money for retrospective purchases and processing.  Funding for new equipment was achieved largely through the Campus Workstation Plan (CWP).  A replacement for the NOTIS system and the book security system were fully funded.  Phase One of the Hesburgh Library renovation was funded at $8 million through an estate gift. 

                                                                                               

Comparisons with peer research libraries

 

As noted in the Report of the Ad hoc Committee on University Libraries (May 1994), “The ultimate criterion for evaluating the library is the adequacy of its service to the Notre Dame community.”  However comparisons with other libraries can be useful as a measure of resources available to the Libraries for carrying out its mission and responsibilities.   Table 2 below details the total library expenditures (excluding medical library expenditures) of institutions identified in the Report as peer institutions.  (The data is for the same institutions as was distributed at the February 2002 Academic Council meeting.)   Between 1995 and 2000, Notre Dame placed third in the percent increase.  Rice headed the list at 2.09%; Notre Dame was third at 1.46% and Syracuse was last at 1.03%. 

 

Overall, Notre Dame’s relative position in the Association of Research Libraries (ARL) has risen significantly since 1991-92.  Our ranking moved from 55th to 48th as of FY99/00.    

 

 

Table 2: Total Library Expenditures:  FY1999/2000

 

Institution

Expenditures Excluding Medical Library – FY 1999/00

Total Expenditure FY 1999/00

Princeton (no law/med)

29,434,902

29,434,902

Duke

20,628,492

24,895,354

Emory           

20,936,282

24,336,897

Johns Hopkins (no law)

18,961,998

24,302,865

Washington U – St. Louis

14,888,925

22,861,105

Northwestern

18,207,455

20,667,079

Rice (no law/med)

19,134,032

19,134,032

Georgetown

17,022,829

18,650,513

Notre Dame (no med)

17,225,138

17,225,138

Vanderbilt

13,554,733

16,992,146

Dartmouth (no law)

12,045,351

13,802,562

Syracuse (no med)

11,177,061

11,177,061

Tulane

9,665,029

11,037,542

 

 

Funding trajectory for library collections

 

The library collections budget is funded from unrestricted and restricted sources.   In FY2000-01, 61% of the collections budget came from unrestricted funds and 39% from restricted (endowment) income.  With the completion in FY00/01 of the annual increases responding to the Report of the Ad hoc Committee on University Libraries (May 1994), there was no increase this year in the nonsalary budget from the University.  As is discussed later, the annual rate of inflation for books and serials ranges from 6 – 10%, and suggests that consideration should be given to increasing the library collections budget to offset to some degree the impact of inflation on purchasing power.  

 

Growth in the library collections budget this year is a function of income from new endowments and/or increased payouts from existing endowments.  Though the Generations Campaign has ended, the library continues to receive new endowments including new endowments directed toward library collections in Shakespeare, architecture, Medieval studies, Portuguese studies, globalization and critical technologies in engineering.  There is a 20% increase in the payout rate from endowments of which we reserved half for covering inflation generally for books and serial subscriptions. 

 

Among our five major funding priorities, three are for library collections.  These are in the areas of 1) critical technologies, especially in engineering and the biological sciences, for the 21st century; 2) globalization and issues associated with the spread of a worldwide capitalist market economy in business, economic justice, democratization, and public policy; and 3) Early Christian, Byzantine, and Medieval Collections.   In addition, we have defined other giving opportunities in a wide range of subjects and we have an understanding with Development that any subject of interest to a potential benefactor is one for which we will immediately define an opportunity, such as those recently defined for modern Russian history, Caribbean Studies and Latino Studies.  Several endowments have come from this work or are in progress. 

Gifts and grants also fund library collections, directly, for acquisitions of books, other formats, and electronic resources, and indirectly, by funding the preservation and/or digitization of existing materials to preserve them in perpetuity or make them accessible to a wider user base.  Major NEH support has allowed for the acquisition of Medieval vernacular materials as well as the preservation of significant portions of the collections of the Medieval Institute Library.  Multiple expendable matching funds obtained as a result of the NEH initiatives directed by Chris Fox, College of Arts and Letters, have supported the Libraries’ Irish studies resources to a very significant degree.  A library-initiated grant to the Plym Foundation resulted an endowment for library resources in architecture and grants from the Arthur Vining Davis Foundations support resources in the humanities and Italian medieval/renaissance.

There are no outstanding universities without excellent libraries.  To build on the remarkable success of the University in generating external funding, the Libraries need an ongoing place in its priorities, and for that to happen, we must be in the priorities of the colleges, centers, institutes, and schools.  We are a knowledge and information infrastructure supporting the campus.  We must work with you to define your needs and to incorporate those into our collective priorities.  We must partner with you in joint and mutual fundraising initiatives as we recently did with the College of Arts and Letters to support the Asian Studies program through the acquisition of Chinese manuscripts written by Jesuit scholars in the 16th – 17th centuries. As you develop new areas of inquiry, we must take collaborative cognizance of their implications for library resources, programs and services and ensure the availability of funding for both.  Endowed chairs must be created with a “library component” commensurate with the strength and significance of research emanating from it.  And advisory councils must be educated to understand that the disciplines do not reside in isolation, but take their intellectual nourishment from a critical base of library resources, programs and services.

 

Last, we successfully pursue other funding opportunities on campus. We have received additional funds from the Provost’s Office and the Graduate School for major purchases including recently the Web of Science and A Mirror for Devout People, a 15th century illuminated manuscript. 

 

Maintaining purchasing power for books and journals

 

The library budget for books, journals and electronic resources is affected by inflation and must be mentioned to fully understand the impact of funding for those resources.   Superinflation in the cost of books and journals presents a serious challenge in maintaining purchasing power for books and journals.  Since 1986, the journal unit cost increased by +226% while the book unit cost increased +66%.  As a result, among research libraries, expenditures rose steadily but the number of journals purchased declined from an average of 16,312 to 15,223 while the number of books purchased dropped from 32,679 to 27,059 in 2000.   At Notre Dame, the annual inflation on the collections budget ranges from 6% - 10% with most of the inflation occurring in scientific and technical journals.  Over the last several years, the collections budget has absorbed the inflationary increases.  We were able to do so because between 1994/95 and 2000/01 the library collections budget increased by +77% through additional University funds and new endowments for collections.  We expect the inflation rate for serials next year of 6% at a minimum; the forecasts from national vendors point to a likely rate of 10%.  Though some additional income from new endowments, gifts, and/or other campus funding opportunities will appear in the library collections budget next year, at this time, we are projecting an overall increase in the collections budget of approximately 2 – 2 ˝ percent.  

 

Strategies for maintaining purchasing power

                                                                                               

We have put into place multiple strategies to maintain and grow the purchasing power required to meet effectively the information needs of Notre Dame faculty and students and to become a great destination for learning and research.  These strategies revolve around smart shopping, collaboration, and finding new sources of funding.  We leverage our purchasing power through the consortial licensing of electronic resources.   This spring we want to reduce the number of journals purchased in both paper and electronic formats, preferring the electronic format only where feasible.  We also intend to establish a regular review of journal subscriptions in order to be sure we are acquiring the most important titles for Notre Dame users.  Where cost effective on the basis of use, we will purchase individual journal articles on demand instead of placing subscriptions to the journal.  We will depend on and welcome your support in the cancellation of expensive, low-use titles.  We are investing more in approval plans for books to efficiently and economically acquire current books for those subject areas where useful. 

 

Second, we are strengthening existing collaborative relationships on campus, beginning with our good working relationships with the Lab for Social Research, to reduce duplicate purchases in data resources.  We will pursue new relationships beyond the campus to enhance resource-sharing and to develop collections cooperatively where possible, including Saint Mary’s College (education), Indiana and Purdue Universities.  We will also forge more direct inter-institutional borrowing, particularly in the areas of foreign languages, literature and history, and ensure we make full use of the Center for Research Library collections. 

 

Last, as already mentioned earlier in discussing the funding trajectory for library resources, we will continue to seek new funds through endowments and campus opportunities.  In addition, we have and will continue to work with colleges and departments to leverage library funds with college funds for specific collection goals, and to promote university capitalization for the acquisition and delivery of knowledge for new faculty hires

 

 

                                   

 

Not just a library problem

           

In the past, superinflation has been described nationally as a “library problem.”  It has been defined as "a seemingly permanent imbalance between the funds accorded to research libraries and the volume of scholarly output libraries are expected to purchase and manage" (To Publish and Perish at http//www.irhe.upenn.edu/pp-pubs/V7N4.pdf.)   Over the last decade, research library directors lobbied to rename this problem a “provost's problem,” but this only shifts the responsibility.  It doesn't adequately address the "challenge of maintaining access to significant research and scholarship at a time when both the volume and price of information have increased nearly threefold in the last decade alone" (To Publish and Perish).  Nationally, libraries have reduced acquisitions, leveraged buying power through consortial purchasing of electronic resources, and extended cooperative agreements with other libraries, yet as mentioned above, collectively we have seen a steady decline in the number of books and serials purchased.

 

It is only recently, with the strength of faculty editorial boards, that there has been any change in this larger pattern of significant cost escalation. In 2001, the American Association of Physical Anthropologists (AAPA) was concerned about the drop in library subscriptions to its journal American Journal of Physical Anthropology and negotiated a new publishing agreement with the commercial publisher to cut institutional (library) subscription prices by 40 percent. We have a subscription; this is a direct benefit to Notre Dame. 

 

Scholarly communication and publishing

                                                                                   

In addition, we seek to engage Notre Dame faculty as well in making changes to the system of scholarly publishing.  From the data on the costs, expenditures and the purchase of books and serials, research librarians think the current system of scholarly communication and publishing is no longer working as effectively as it once was to ensure the fruits of scholarship and research are broadly disseminated and widely available.  With university faculty, some of whom have been working with librarians for a decade or more, we have listed ways in which other faculty can address this problem listed in a short document titled Create new systems of scholarly communication, change old systems of scholarly communication (at http://www.createchange.org/change.html).  Of course no university faculty can tackle this problem independently of all other faculty, and many of the strategies therefore ask faculty to work through their national or international professional associations.

 

Though listed as single strategies, there is a common focus that begins with taking an interest in the business aspects of your society’s publishing program. Encourage your society to maintain reasonable prices, to define and explain these goals to commercial publishers as important for the broad and affordable dissemination of research, and if warranted, encourage your society to explore alternatives to contracting or selling publications to a commercial publisher.  Submit papers to SPARC-supported journals in your discipline or serve on their editorial boards.  Examine the pricing, copyright, and licensing agreements of any commercially published journal you contribute to as an author, reviewer, or editor, and discuss within societies or departments, how these agreements help or hinder affordable dissemination of research, e.g., in the ability to post papers on a public archive.  Again, within societies, ask questions about the role of campus intellectual property policies in creating an affordable system of scholarly communication.

 

We are for our part willing to participate in faculty departmental meetings and graduate seminars to discuss scholarly communication issues or to provide you with existing with journal cost-per-use studies, such as those conducted at Wisconsin (physics) or Illinois (chemistry).  We are charter members of SPARC, the Scholarly Publishing & Academic Resources Coalition at  http://www.arl.org/sparc/, that among other activities partners with publishers that bring top-quality low-cost research to a greater audience.  We provided information to the editorial board of the American Midland Naturalist on cost-effective alternatives for taking the journal on-line and are now providing support to the editors of the Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic. 

 

Concluding thoughts

 

Our collective ambition is to be a great Catholic university.  Toward that goal, the University Libraries, together with the Kresge Law Library, are building a knowledge and information infrastructure supporting Notre Dame students and faculty in their learning, teaching and research.  A major increase in financial resources has, and is, leading to great improvements in library services and collections and we continue to build on those initiatives.  At the same time, we recognize that the acquisition, preservation and creation of access to knowledge and information in all forms is expensive and we must work together to achieve our shared ambitions.