U.S. Academic Library Spending, Staffing and Utilization during the Great Recession 2008–2010

The Journal of Academic Librarianship xxx (2013) xxx–xxx

ACALIB-01389; No. of pages: 6; 4C:

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

The Journal of Academic Librarianship

PERSPECTIVES ON…

U.S. Academic Library Spending, Staffing and Utilization during the Great Recession2008–2010

John J. Regazzi ⁎Long Island University, Palmer School of Library & Information Science, 520 Northern Boulevard, Brookville, NY, USADepartment Of Computer Science and Management Engineering, 520 Northern Boulevard, Brookville, NY, USA

⁎ 39 Franklin Court, Garden City, NY 11530, USA. Tel.:6135(home).

E-mail address: [email protected].

0099-1333/$ – see front matter © 2013 Elsevier Inc. Allhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2012.12.002

Please cite this article as: Regazzi, J.J., U.S. Acaof Academic Librarianship (2013), http://dx.d

a b s t r a c t
a r t i c l e i n f o
Article history:Received 25 August 2012Accepted 17 December 2012Available online xxxx

Keywords:Academic librariesStaffingEconomicsManagement

The study analyzes the U.S. academic library spending, staffing and utilization trends during the “great reces-sion” in the period 2008–2010. These trends are compared to similar trends during the period 1998–2008,one of the most robust economic periods in U.S. history. The data used in the study was from publicly avail-able surveys from the National Center for Education Statistics. In general it was found that for both periodsmany similar trends persisted and were not significantly affected by macroeconomic conditions, and thatU.S. academic libraries cannot be seen as a homogeneous group with similar investment and operating pro-files. Between 2008 and 2010, growth among especially small to medium sized libraries has declined; whilelarge libraries continue to expand their investments and grow, particularly in electronic services. The eco-nomic collapse that occurred in 2008 and the effects of which are still being distributed through the economyand society are having the same impact on all types and sizes of libraries, as many library trends are notinfluenced by the economic downturn of the period 2008–2010. The study describes the significant differ-ences in the level and scope of spending, staffing, and utilization by size of library, and how the differencesamong small and large libraries became more accentuated in the period of the great recession.

© 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

BACKGROUND

Previous studies (Regazzi, 2012a, 2012b) focused on the invest-ment, staffing and utilization trends and changes of U.S. academiclibraries between 1998 and 2008. This study extends these trendanalyzes to the period of 2008 and 2010. The following points wereconcluded in the previous studies for the period 1998 and 2008:

• Libraries as a group, though noted to be perceived as “constrained”by budget, grew in real terms ($) by nearly 12% above inflation overthe time period 1998–2008, their professional staffs have grown bynearly 15% and funding for these staffs have increased by over 22%.

• Collections expanded by over 23% in current (2008) funding, andserial and e-Book collections have delivered dramatic value as indi-cated by reductions in per unit costs.

• Academic libraries were found to be a rather heterogeneous groupas changes between 1998 and 2008 were analyzed by segmenteddimensions (i.e., institution type, Carnegie designation, and size).Drivers influencing observed trends seemed to be most impactedby large, doctoral, private institutions.

+1 516 741 2177, +1 516 474

rights reserved.

demic Library Spending, Staffioi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2012.1

• Staffing changeswere characterized by increasing use of other profes-sional staff (non-librarian) with the number of library staff remainingmore or less constant.

• Utilization of the physical library and physical library collections wascharacterized as in a precipitous decline.While not readily available inprevious studies, the utilization of electronic materials and increasing“virtualization” of the library spacewas offered as a potential cause fordeclining utilization of the physical library and its housed collections.

• Academic library funding decline relative to public libraries, K-12schools, higher educational institutions, and public hospitals in theperiod 1998–2008.

Many studies have looked at the changing role of the academic li-brary during the recent past in other ways. Experiences at Drexel Uni-versity and Johns Hopkins University described by Howard (2011)reflect both the changing roles of librarians as well as what studentsexpect from the library and “library space”. Howard (2011) describessome of the new library staff roles required by increased investmentsin electronic holdings and information services. At Johns HopkinsUniversity, library staff, called “informationalists” go to where libraryservices are needed at the point of demand, as noted in the article:

An informationist assigned to a certain department will sit in onmeetings and research answers to questions that arise during theproceedings. He or she will conduct systematic literature reviews forresearchers working on articles and grant proposals — the kind oftask researchers themselves have traditionally done but now find it

ng and Utilization during the Great Recession 2008–2010, The Journal2.002

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2012.12.002

mailto:[email protected]


http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/


Table 1Institutional counts in the survey by year.

Enrollment size classes 1998 2004 2008 2010

Very small (b1 K) 1,231 1,053 1,098 870Small (1 K−b3 K) 887 928 1,026 1,036Medium (3 K−b10 K) 918 976 976 983Large (10 K+) 617 691 728 801Totals 3,653 3,648 3,828 3,690

Note: size class calculated for each year using enrollment figures provided by NCES.

2 J.J. Regazzi / The Journal of Academic Librarianship xxx (2013) xxx–xxx

harder to do as digital resources become more sophisticated and theliterature expands.

Other studies have looked at more fundamental shifts in highereducation and the viability of colleges and university following thegreat recession. Shuler (2005) argues that digitization of libraries“liberates” the institution and buffers libraries from economic volatil-ity of the general economy. Shuler (2007) in subsequent workslooked that the changing civic roles that academic libraries are begin-ning to try to play in their communities. In a recent study by Bain andCompany (2012), they estimate that nearly 30% of U.S. institutions ofhigher learning are unsustainable, and many of these projectedunsustainable entities are small and medium sized organizations.Shuler (2006) also argues that libraries are now one of several possi-ble economic and social knowledge alternatives available— no longeran exclusive channel, and thus putting more pressure in the librarieseconomic future sustainability. The economic stress of these smalland medium sized universities is related to similar reductions and re-versals of funding seen in the period 1998–2008 as well as later in thisstudy.

PURPOSE OF THIS STUDY

This study seeks to place changes between 2008 and 2010 as it re-lates to library institutions into a broader context by revisiting trendsexhibited in the decade before 2008. Perhaps the most salient aspectof the previous studies was the evidence that libraries as institutionsare not monolithic or homogeneous; that the manner which librariesspend money, utilize personnel, strategize, and even in the way theyare utilized, spans a wide distribution. Large libraries which have thebenefit of being associated with large educational institutions per-haps are insulated from some of the economic shocks that have be-fallen or impacted other institutions, but even here, the past decadehas revealed some exceptions. In particular, trends between 2008and 2010 indicate that in many instances, even the previous modestgrowth trends among small to medium sized libraries, have been re-versed. While it may not be proven statistically, one might safelyspeculate that this reversal is part and parcel of the economic collapsethat occurred in the great recession of 2008 and the effects of whichare still being distributed through the US economy and society. Addi-tionally, however, there are a number of trends among academic librar-ies that are run counter to, and are not influenced by, the economicchanges of the great recession. This study seeks to identify, analyze,and understand these various and conflicting trends.

DATA

As noted earlier, this study builds upon previous work (Regazzi,2012a, 2012b) which analyzed changes in staffing, expenditures,and utilization among academic libraries between 1998, 2004, and2008. Data is provided to the public through the National Center forEducation Statistics (“NCES”) and the estimates contained in this arti-cle are based on author calculations. The universe of libraries consistsof all academic libraries within the United States, District of Columbia,and outlying areas that meet the following criteria:

• Total [annual] expenditures of $10,000 and greater;• An organized collection of printed or other materials or a combina-tion thereof;

• A staff trained to provide and interpret such materials as required tomeet the informational, cultural, recreational, or educational needsof clientele;

• An established schedule in which services of the staff are availableto the clientele; and

• The physical facilities necessary to support such a collection, staffand schedule.

Please cite this article as: Regazzi, J.J., U.S. Academic Library Spending, Staffiof Academic Librarianship (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2012.1

This study had excluded the service academies, any outlying areas(US Territories), and institutions reported as a child to a parent institu-tion. Based on these exclusions, therefore, the total number of institu-tions under study here is slightly different from published estimatesby NCES.

DATA SOURCES

Data used in this study is part of the NCES biennial survey of ap-proximately 3,700 degree-granting postsecondary institutions inorder to provide an overview of academic libraries nationwide. Thedata analyzed for this study comes specifically from the NCES LibraryStatistics Program. NCES makes available data files for public use foreach year in which the survey is conducted. Table 1 below providesinstitutional counts across all of the years analyzed for this report,1998, 2004, 2008 and 2010.

DATA LIMITATIONS

As is the case with any dataset populated by survey responses,there are some inherent limitations that should be recognized andunderstood before interpreting the results. These limitations can beorganized into two areas: those due to methodology and those dueto definitional constraints.

Methodological limitations include the following three: 1) due tothe fact that not every institution responds to the survey, there isthe possibility that differences in institution characteristics betweenresponders and non-responders might distort the results; 2) insome cases where institutions responded to the survey but did notprovide information to individual items, data has been imputedbased upon an established methodology developed by the NCES;and 3) general methodological limitations inherent in any survey re-search effort, based on sampling errors and non-sampling errors,meaning errors made by respondents or in the editing of data bythe NCES.

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

This section provides details on the relevant findings as they relateto trends in overall library staffing and spending, as well as the utili-zation of physical resources. The presented research uses as a startingpoint those significant changes in spending staffing and utilizationthat took place between the years 1998 and 2008. The level and direc-tion of these changes are then analyzed for 2008–2010. Specificallythese prior changes are analyzed through the dimension of size, de-fined by the level of enrollment at each corresponding institution.Using size as a key differentiator, the study analyzes the potentiallytroubling trend with regard to the smaller institutions and how theyhave fared over the recent past in both rising and then challengingeconomic environments.

SUMMARY OF CHANGES BETWEEN 1998 AND 2008

Significant key trend areas across the years 1998–2008 are basedon results from previous work (Regazzi, 2012a). Table 2 summarizes



Table 3Significant changes/staffing, 1998–2008 & 2008–2010.

Category Very small(b1 K)

Small(1 K−b3 K)

Medium(3 K−b10 K)

Large(10 K+)

98–08 08–10 98–08 08–10 98–08 08–10 98–08 08–10

Total staffing (19%) (21%) (20%) (10%) (9%) (3%) (7%) (3%)Librarians (7%) (16%) (9%) (2%) 4% (2%) 22% 1%Other professionalstaff

23% (23%) 13% 8% 25% 9% 81% (2%)

All other paidstaff

(24%) (23%) (23%) (14%) (14%) (6%) 2% (5%)

Student assistants (20%) (22%) (25%) (17%) (16%) (4%) (9%) (4%)

Note: NS=not significant, and ( ) for decrease. Significant changes (.05 level) indicated inbold.

Table 2Significant changes (1998–2008) & direction.

Metric Very small(b1 K)

Small(1 K−b3 K)

Medium(3 K−b10 K)

Large(10 K+)

Staffing (units)/total FTEs (19%) (20%) (9%) (7%)Staffing ($)/total FTEs (19%) (12%) (2%) 21%Expenditures ($)/total (17%) (12%) 0% 25%Expenditures ($)/totaloperating

(56%) (26%) (23%) 5%

Expenditures (eSerials) 110% 287% 288% 699%Collections (eBooks)a 1849% 1514% 2170% 5429%Utilization — visits (68%) 5% 6% (3%)Utilization — circulation (76%) (30%) (31%) (40%)Utilization — reference (84%) (12%) (21%) (9%)

Note: significant changes (.05 level) indicated in bold, and ( ) for decrease.a Based on number “held” at the end of the corresponding fiscal year.

Table 4Significant changes (2008–2010) & direction.

Metric Very small(b1 K)

Small(1 K−b3 K)

Medium(3 K−b10 K)

Large(10 K+)

Staffing (units)/total FTEs (21%) (10%) (3%) (3%)Staffing ($)/total FTEs (13%) (9%) (1%) 1%Expenditures ($)/total (17%) (12%) 0% 25%Expenditures ($)/totaloperating

(20%) (12%) (8%) (4%)

Expenditures (eSerials) 0% 26% 24% 23%Collections (eBooks)a 22% 37% 56% 64%Utilization — visits (17%) (2%) 4% 3%Utilization — circulation 25% (8%) 3% (7%)Utilization — reference 0% (3%) (7%) (8%)

3J.J. Regazzi / The Journal of Academic Librarianship xxx (2013) xxx–xxx

the significant changes areas related to staffing, collections, and utili-zation for the period.

There are a number of observations that can bemade by viewing thistable. First, the shift towards the use of electronic materials has impact-ed libraries across the size class distribution, but most notably has beendriven by larger institutions, particularly in the area of e-books. Second,while smaller institutions (those with less than 10,000 enrollments)were impacted similarly in terms of staffing – both in level and expen-diture – larger institutions either were not significantly different fromany change (in the case of staffing) or had significant increases instaffing expenditures over this time frame (1998–2008). Third, utiliza-tion of traditional library services has impacted very small institutionsdisproportionately, with regard to visits, circulation, and reference.This utilization decline may be seen as a by-product of the trend to-wards increasing use of electronic materials as well as the communica-tion options that came into existence over this same time period —

remote access to materials, expansion of web space allowing librariesto catalog their holdings online, and the increasing dispersion of com-municative devices. How this trend continues in the period 2008–2010 will be discussed later in the study.

As can be seen in Table 3, there are some important shifts instaffing that need to be considered when viewing the overall macrostaffing trends for this base period. While on an aggregate basis,there has been a decline in the number of staff from 1998 to 2008;in fact, the staffing level of librarians has remained stable, increasingslightly, from 1998 to 2008, driven mainly by larger institutionswhich saw increases of 4% (for medium-sized institutions) and 22%for large institutions.1 Further libraries significantly increased theuse of non-librarian professional staff. Across all of the size classes,the percentage of non-librarian professional staff between 1998 and2008 increased. Small institutions saw larger shifts, perhaps due tothe impact the use of non-librarian professional staff have on expen-ditures, as average annual wages for non-librarian professional staff islower than that of degreed librarians. (Averages were calculated fromthe data by dividing total salary expenses with number of staff in eachrelevant category of staffing.) The deepest cuts in staffing came in thecategory of “all other paid staff” and “student assistants”, such as stu-dent, temporary and paraprofessional staff, and here the cuts weresignificant. Table 3 provides a deeper look into these trends at amore detailed level by looking at changes in staffing across the entireperiod 1998–2010 by size of institution and type of staff.

Table 3 indicates that the changes in staffing towards other profes-sional staff continued between 2008 and 2010 with one exception —

in the case of the smallest institutions, the trend towards the use ofother professional staff was the only positive direction reversed be-tween 2008 and 2010. For other, larger institutions the trend towardsthe use of other professional staff generally continued to increase,

1 Increases among large institutions significant at the .05 level.


though none of these were significant increases, and very large institu-tions had a non-significant decrease of 2%. In terms of significant changesacross both periods, one finding is certain: small institutions continuedto experience reductions across all types of staff. Very small and smallinstitutions have reduced the number of librarians significantly since1998, and this continues in the period 2008–2010; while large institu-tions dramatically expanded the number of librarians since 1998 andhavemaintained those staffing levels in the period of the great recession.Other professional staff have seen themost dramatic increases, andwiththe exception of very small institutions which reversed this expansionduring the 2008–2010 period, all other libraries have either continuedto expand or maintain the level of other professional staff members.

CHANGES BETWEEN 2008 AND 2010

In this section, specific changes that took place between 2008 and2010 are evaluated in detail. There are a few key areas upon which weare looking to provide insight. Most notably, what occurs to thetrends between 1998 and 2008? Do these continue? Reverse? Accel-erate?While it is difficult to test empirically whether or not the finan-cial strains beginning in 2008 had any impacts, there are a few datasources that can be examined in trying to answer these questions.

Before illustrating the analytic findings, a few notes regarding thesurvey and when it was fielded are appropriate. The data analyzed forfiscal year 2010 was collected from institutions during the time periodNovember 9, 2010 through April 8, 2011. Institutions were asked to pro-vide information related tofiscal year 2010, defined as any 12-month pe-riod between June 1, 2009 and September 30, 2010, that corresponds tothe institution's fiscal year. It is assumed that any impacts of the fall 2008financial collapse would be captured in the time period Jun 2009–Sep2010, as budgetary impacts would contributed to fiscal year 2010 levels.

Table 4 below revisits the broad trend areas introduced in Table 2and provides estimates for changes between 2008 and 2010. We main-tain our focus on changes according to size class of the institution.

Note: NS=not significant, and ( ) for decrease. Significant changes (.05 level) indicated inbold.

a Based on number “held” at the end of the corresponding fiscal year.



Fig. 1. Percent change in number of e-Books and Electronic Serials expenditures by library size for the period.

2 There are a few instances where there is a slight correlation between size class ofthe institution and population size of the metropolitan area, and that is among publicinstitutions only; however, the sample sizes among small institutions is too low forany of these results to be credible.


Table 4 suggests that the broadest trend towards investment inelectronic materials remains more or less unabated during the2008–2010 period. Staffing, noted previously, at smaller institutionsalso remains a challenge based on the results as further declinesoutpaced medium and large libraries in this metric.

ANALYSIS

In this final section of the report, three underlying trends arediscussed:

1. The widening gap between large libraries and all others;2. The key operational shifts witnessed over the period 1998–2010,

include:

a) from print to electronic materials;b) from labor-intensive to capital-intensive programs; andc) from brick and mortar to “virtual” library space and the impli-

cations of this shift;

3. Productivity gains in libraries and whether these trends can besustained into the future.

SMALL/LARGE INSTITUTION DICHOTOMY

As indicated by Tables 2 and 3, the smaller institutions have beendisproportionately impacted by the reductions in staff and/or spendingwhen compared to larger institutions. In terms of total expenditures,small and large institutions are moving in the opposite direction, bothin the decade between 1998 and 2008 and more recently between2008 and 2010. In terms of increasing investments in eBooks andeSerials, the growth rates among all libraries were large but dwarfedby the largest institutions (54× increase among large libraries com-pared to an 18× increase among the smallest category). Only themedi-um and large classes actually increased their spending between 1998and 2008 on an inflation-adjusted basis, and of the $891.7 million in-crease over these two years between medium and large institutions,large institutions contributed $891.4 million to that total (Fig. 1).

Movement between these categories may be exacerbating thesetrends, even when the analysis is based on a matched sample (e.g.the same institutions isolated for both time periods), the results aresimilar and indicate larger institutions driving the dichotomies be-tween small and large institutions.


One way to view changes in both the small and large dichotomy aswell as which institutions are driving the shift towards electronic hold-ings is illustrated in the figure above. The chart plots the change in thenumber of e-books held between 1998 and 2010 as well as the change(inflation-adjusted) in spending on electronic serials. Both of theseitems provide an adequate indicator of the shift towards digital hold-ings, which according to the figure is being concentrated in libraries de-fined as large (again, with enrollments at affiliated institutions above10,000). Large institutions are above the average in terms of spendingon electronic serials and well above the average related to the numbersof electronic books (e-books) held. The “bubble” size in the figure rep-resents the totals spend on electronic serials in FY 2010. Large librariesspent close to $1 billion on electronic serials in FY 2010; 4 times largerthan the medium size libraries and nearly 40 times larger than small li-braries. In per capita terms, that translates to $1.1 million per institutionamong the largest size class and slightly more than $25,000 per institu-tion among the smallest size class.

As noted in a previous study (Regazzi, 2012a), in terms of whichinstitutions are driving library trends, clearly the larger institutions(is correlated with doctoral institutions) are having an impact. Twoother analyses presented here provide some additional insight onthe structural and cyclic pressures on smaller library institutions.Data collected from library institutions was merged with a numberof other indicators to test the hypothesis that the economic crisis ofthe past few years had any impact or at least may have been correlat-ed with reductions in spending among smaller institutions.

In order to view this, responding institutions were matched to themetro areas of which they are a part and two key pieces of informa-tion were merged into the data file. The first is the 2010 populationlevel; this provides some insight into whether or not “small” institu-tions are more likely to be located in “small” areas. To some extent,the data characteristics make this somewhat hard to discern becausewe are merging based on metropolitan area, which are generally larg-er than their components such as places (towns, cities) or counties.2

In addition to merging population level, unemployment rates for2008 and 2010 (annual averages) were also merged. In this manner,



Table 5Percent change in expenditure & staffing by size class and increase in unemploymentrate (2008–2010).

Expenditurechange

Increase in unemployment rate (2008–2010)

Staff change

Size class First quartile(low increase)

Second quartile Third quartile Fourth quartile(high increase)

Very small 9.3 7.5 27.1 18.5(1.6) 1.4 11.2 9.2

Small 7.5 8.6 18.0 12.53.1 1.5 13.8 8.1

Medium 1.9 10.9 2.6 10.6(1.8) 7.7 1.1 6.0

Large 2.8 4.1 8.6 (1.3)4.0 (0.8) 4.3 (0.8)

Table 6Library material unit costs (1994, 2004, 2008, 2010).

Metric 1994 2004 2008 2010

Books/serial backfiles/other paper materials

$28.06 $25.71 $25.72 $18.97

Expenditures ($000s) 687,574 631,739 616,173 514,756

5J.J. Regazzi / The Journal of Academic Librarianship xxx (2013) xxx–xxx

one can assess whether any correlation exists between worsening un-employment rates and the direction of change among library expen-ditures and/or staffing levels.

Respondents to the survey were isolated to those who providedinformation in both the 2008 and 2010 versions of the questionnaire.This resulted in a smaller file3 but one that maintained generally thesize distribution of a larger file with institutions that responded eitherin 2008 (but not 2010) or 2010 (but not 2008).4 This was done in aneffort to determine whether any relationship exists between the sizeof the institution (based on enrollment) and the change in either totalexpenditures or total staffing between 2008 and 2010. Table 5 pro-vides the percentage change in total expenditures and total staffingby size class and change in the unemployment rate between 2008and 2010.5 The percentage point difference in unemployment be-tween 2008 and 2010 was cut into quartiles for the purpose of classi-fying institutions (by metro area conditions). These were defined asfollows: First Quartile, b2.9; Second Quartile, b3.6; Third Quartileand b4.2; and Fourth Quartile, >4.2.

The study explored library institutions found in areas with thehighest increase in unemployment between 2008 and 2010 withthe expectation that those institutions (in aggregate) would mostlikely reduce expenditures and staffing. The results did not conclu-sively meet these expectations. Though institutions in the largestsize class and in the highest unemployment increase quartile, did re-duce expenditures and staffing slightly, there appears to be only avery weak relationship between unemployment and library expendi-ture and staffing changes across all libraries. This tends to support –on an anecdotal level – the notion that libraries' patterns of expendi-tures and staffing are not sensitive to macro-economic forces, at leastto the extent that these patterns are impacted by labor marketdynamics.

SHIFTS TOWARD ELECTRONIC HOLDINGS AND THE “VIRTUAL” LIBRARY

While the particular trends regarding the increase in investments inelectronic materials is not surprising given the trends in technology,what is compelling in this study is these trends are not similar acrossthe distribution of all libraries. As can be seen from Table 2, larger insti-tutions made, both proportionally and in total, substantially more in-vestment in this area than did their smaller counterparts. There is anobvious progression when viewed by size from smaller to larger inboth the materials held as well as total spending on materials. The in-creasing use of electronic materials rather than paper/microform hassignificant impacts on a number of areas related to the utilization ofthe library, the cost structure of library institutions, and staffing. Simply,per unit library processing costs are declining and allowing institutionsto make do with fewer staff. The increasing use of web-based servicesfor library patrons and the expansion of self-service models provideadditional anecdotal evidence supporting a shift to a more capital-intensive cost structure, utilizing technological infrastructures andaway from a more labor-intensive service provision model.

One of the fundamental reasons for library space, traditionallyto house books, has shifted towards a place where students and facul-ty can come for self-service information access, work space and col-laboration with colleagues. The university seems to be embarkingupon the construction of a “virtual learning center”. It represents a

3 The resultant file consisted of 1499 institutions which responded to both 2008 and2010 survey efforts.

4 The following indicates differences in the proportions by size class between the da-ta file utilized with matching institutions responding in both years and the entire datafile (with all institutions): very small (30.08 cf. 24.75); small (27.13 cf. 28.82); medium(22.39 cf. 22.41); and large (20.40 cf. 24.02).

5 Every metropolitan area representing the 1499 institutions witnessed their unem-ployment rate increase between 2008 and 2010, a reflection of the worsening econom-ic conditions over this time span.


re-thinking of what library space should be, and focuses its value onthe delivery of what students and faculty require access to mostoften. As Howard (2011) notes, “…the center will be open aroundthe clock to give students access to the library's digital resources aswell as a place to gather. It won't be staffed at all times, but studentswill be able to arrange for a librarian to rendezvous with them towork on projects, and professors will be able to meet groups ofstudents there.” The challenge libraries face in this shift frombrick-and-mortar traditional libraries to “virtual” libraries is how tofund both the new virtual needs while simultaneously managingtheir physical assets. Very small and small libraries seem to be farmore challenged in this transition than very large institutions withdeeper pocket, and these smaller libraries are having a much moredifficult time in maintaining the levels of investment needed to besustainable for the future.

TRENDS IN PRODUCTIVITY AND UNIT COSTS

In a previous study (Regazzi, 2012a, 2012b), the unit costs of li-brary materials and their trends were analyzed for the periods1998, 2004, and 2008, and this study has extended that analysis for2008 to 2010. The calculation of unit costs is based solely on the an-swers provided by respondents to these surveys. In order to calculateunit costs for books and other materials, the aggregate number ofunits added to the library's collection for a given fiscal year isobtained in addition to expenditures outlaid for each material.These unit costs cannot be calculated for all materials as informationregarding holdings added during that fiscal year is only collected forselect materials. These include books, serial backfiles, and otherpaper materials; e-books; audio-visual materials; and current serialtitles. Table 6 provides all of the pertinent information used in

Units Added (000s) 24,500 24,573 23,956 27,128E-books $33.04 $5.30 $6.74 $4.77

Expenditures ($000s) 37,594 75,430 134,900 152,271Units added (000s) 1,138 14,239 20,012 31,955

Audio-visual materials $12.91 $10.20 $13.02 $4.32Expenditures ($000s) 41,031 40,450 44,250 55,628Units added (000s) 3,179 3,965 3,399 12,887

Current serial titles $3,869.52 $1,147.63 $495.88 $765.52Expenditures ($000s) 1,303,795 1,564,674 1,717,101 1,781,410Units added (000s) 337 1,363 3,463 2,327

Note: significant changes (.05 level) indicated in bold.




calculating unit costs as well as the resultant unit costs for 1998,2004, 2008, and 2010.6

Consistent with trends noted for the period 1998 to 2008 is thecontinued significant, large increases in productivity gain across allareas of collection. Also interesting is the increased, acceleratinginvestment academic libraries are making in e-books, while print ma-terials rate of growth declines and serial expenditures remain ap-proximately flat. One interesting finding is the large increase inaudio-visual materials, but this may be due to the sizable increasesover the past few years in digital media that may not be classifiedas strictly e-books.

The changing environment of the library in both physical spaceand staffing suggest an environment that is and will remain to be inconstant flux over the near term future as the shift to “virtual” librar-ies continues. This shift will drive more capital intensive investmentsby libraries, with resulting productivity gains, but libraries will befaced with how to invest in their traditional physical spaces, staff,and collections. The resources to manage this wide spectrum ofservices seems to be putting a great stress on very small and small li-

6 It should be noted that the estimates for years 1994, 2004, and 2008 are based oninflation adjustments converting dollar amounts to 2010 level; therefore, these willnot match prior estimates.


braries, while very large libraries are investing heavily and growingmost significantly.

REFERENCES

Bain & Company (2012). The financially sustainable university (by Jeff Denneen andTom Dretler). Available online http://www.bain.com/publications/articles/financially-sustainable-university.aspx (accessed July 30, 2012).

Howard, Jennifer (2011). Tomorrow's academic libraries maybe even some books. TheChronicle of Higher Education, 57(36), B19–B21.

Regazzi, John J. (2012a). Constrained? — An analysis of U.S. academic library shifts inspending, staffing and utilization, 1998–2008. College and Research Libraries,73(5) Available online http://crl.acrl.org/content/early/2011/09/21/crl-260.short(accessed July 30, 2012).

Regazzi, John J. (2012b). Comparing academic library spending with public libraries,public K-12 schools, higher education public institutions, and public hospitals be-tween 1998–2008. Journal of Academic of Librarianship, 38(4), 205–216.

Shuler, John A. (2005). Creative destruction: Academic libraries and the burden ofchange. Journal of Academic of Librarianship, 31(6) (593ff).

Shuler, John A. (2006). The revolution will not be cataloged: Gutenberg's librarians andthe 21st century. Journal of Academic of Librarianship, 32(5) (540ff).

Shuler, John A. (2007). The civic value of academic libraries and the open source uni-versity. Journal of Academic of Librarianship, 33(2), 301–303.


http://www.bain.com/publications/articles/financially-sustainable-university.aspx

http://www.bain.com/publications/articles/financially-sustainable-university.aspx

http://crl.acrl.org/content/early/2011/09/21/crl-260.short


Documents

U.S. Academic Library Spending, Staffing and Utilization during the Great Recession 2008–2010