ACRL News Issue (B) of College & Research Libraries


114 /  C& RL News

C ollege a n d  u n iversity lib rary  
ex p en d itu res in  th e U .S., 1 9 8 1 - 8 2

B y B etsy F a u p e l

U.S. D epartm ent o f Education 
National Center fo r Education Statistics

W hat we spent per student four years ago.

C o l l e g e s  and universities spent $1.9 billion in to- 

tai library operating expenditures in 1981-82. This 
am ounts to $215.63 per full-tim e equivalent (FTE) 
student.

The total am ount spent by college and university 
libraries in different states varies considerably, 
ranging from a high of $248 million in C alifornia to 
a low of $4 million in W yom ing (see Table 1).

The average library operating expenditures per 
full-tim e equivalent (FTE) student are highest in 
Alaska at $623.27, the D istrict of C olum bia at 
$451.42, and C onnecticut at $306.24. They are 
shown on the m ap on the cover of this issue as the 
darkest areas. By contrast, college and university 
libraries in states spending an average of less th an  
$175 per FTE student are shown as w hite areas.

On the average, private institutions spent more 
liberally on their libraries th a n  public institutions. 
Nationally, private institutions spent about one 
and one-half times as much (153.4 %) per full-tim e 
equivalent student as public ones. Only in about 
one-third of the states did the library expenditures 
of public institutions per full-tim e equivalent stu­
dent exceed those of p riv ate institutions in the 
state.

Some of the differences am ong the states and be­
tw een public and private institutions can be a ttrib ­
uted to the different mixes of the different types of 
institutions. For example, there are more doctoral- 
level institutions in some states th a n  in other states, 
and 2-year institutions are m uch more prevalent in

the public th a n  in the private sector of higher edu­
cation.

Only a small p a rt of the expenditures was cov­
ered by Federal contribution. Receipts from F ed­
eral governm ent grants for college and university 
libraries am ounted to 1 % of the expenditures of 
college and university libraries in 1981-82. Private 
institutions received 31% of th e F ederal g ran t 
money w ith 69% going to public institutions. The 
total am ounts private institutions received from 
Federal governm ent grants exceeded the am ounts 
received by public institutions only in 14 states (not 
shown in the tables).

However, in term s of Federal grants received 
per FTE student the receipts w ere higher in private 
colleges and universities in 34 states. N ationally, 
private institutions received about one and one- 
th ird  times as m uch (137.8% ) in federal govern­
m ent grants for libraries per full-tim e equivalent 
student as public ones (see Table 2).

Since 1979 the N ational C enter for E ducational 
Statistics has decreased the frequency of its surveys 
of college and university libraries and conducted 
them  in 3-year intervals. The statistics presented 
here were produced through a m erger of previously 
unpublished expenditure d ata collected by NCES 
through the Survey of College and University L i­
braries in 1982 and the enrollm ent d a ta  collected 
through the annual Fall Enrollm ent Survey. All of 
the 3,104 institutions of higher education recog­
nized by the United States D ep artm en t of Educa-



February 1986 /  115

TABLE 1
Total library operating expenditures in institutions of higher education, and total library operating expenditure per £ull- 
time equivalent (FTE) student, by control of institution; United States, 1981-82_______________________________

Total library 
operating Library expenditures per FTE student

expenditures 
(thousands All Public Private

State of dollars) institutions institutions institutions

United States $ 1,943,769.8 $ 215.63 $ 190.43 $ 292.14
Alabama 24,295.9 170.81 171.93 163.72
Alaska 7,306.0 623.27 653.37 0
Arizona 25,346.6 195.89 205.19 64.77
Arkansas 11,666.7 184.61 189.63 159.76
California 248.487.8 217.06 192.06 371.89
Colorado 25,290.1 199.43 190.43 261.70
Connecticut 34,299.4 306.24 145.71 540.01
Delaware 5,761.5 225.92 238.30 109.25
District of Columbia 29,127.5 451.42 301.42 471.52

56,980.0 190.63 193.20 181.94Florida
38,294.3 241.67 234.11 263.22Georgia
10,174.0 277.45 284.59 167.84Hawaii

Idaho 6,888.6 205.18 217.66 161.53
Illinois 103,495.0 232.90 197.19 327.20
Indiana 39,586.5 200.55 196.50 212.18
Iowa 25,129.8 205.84 205.96 205.57
Kansas 21,892.9 215.99 219.96 187.48
Kentucky 23,414.2 204.41 208.59 189.10
Louisiana 28.577.3 202.57 187.92 289.63
Maine 7,459.9 213.63 165.00 331.79
Maryland 33,106.7 219.04 191.03 371.02
Massachusetts 87,794.1 272.88 128.04 367.80
Michigan 62,513.2 169.78 168.16 178.88
Minnesota 32,759.5 195.42 176.60 251.62
Mississippi 14,712.2 162.17 159.05 189.27
Missouri 34,611.4 187.14 155.81 257.98
Montana 5,925.6 196.05 200.69 154.71
Nebraska 14,005.2 198.86 194.23 216.34
Nevada 5,938.0 276.55 277.75 98.18
New Hampshire 10.958.6 274.73 193.44 366.58
New Jersey 45,860.8 208.97 161.09 356.51
New Mexico 10,412.9 230.82 235.87 139.37
New York 184,033.3 237.65 186.62 300.08
North Carolina 60,641.1 251.69 229.07 326.36
North Dakota 5,644.1 179.50 180.64 165.17
Ohio 69,054.3 177.38 168.33 202.31
Oklahoma 22,120.6 187.76 165.50 307.21
Oregon 23,876.1 215.24 199.19 314.52
Pennsylvania 93,960.4 227.51 205.76 254.73
Rhode Island 11,375.2 218.17 157.35 274.42
South Carolina 19,545.6 179.54 173.38 204.64
South Dakota 5,165.9 176.41 179.36 167.86
Tennessee 31,388.1 196.32 165.46 277.50
Texas 117,188.1 218.36 202.82 309.31
Utah 16,752.5 215.36 188.07 257.54
Vermont 6,684.3 265.52 263.39 268.26
Virginia 46,404.9 220.43 205.81 303.20
Washington 36,972.2 202.35 202.74 199.81
West Virginia 9,176.9 150.24 153.27 133.05
Wisconsin 40,055.9 192.02 180.56 261.64
Wyoming 4,077.3 262.80 263.24 N/A
U.S. Service Schools 7,580.7 140.45 140.45 N/A
Note: Because of rounding, details may not add to totals.
Sources: Expenditures from U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, special tabulation 
derived from Higher Education General Information Survey (HEGIS)—College and University Libraries, Fall 1982. 
FTE student enrollment from unpublished data, survey of “Fall Enrollment in Higher Education.



116 /  Cò-RL News

TABLE 2
Receipts from Federal Government Grants per Full-time Equivalent (FTE) Student in Institutions of Higher Education: 
United States, 1981-82 ____________________________________________________________________

Receipts per FTE student 
All Public Private

State Institutions Institutions Institutions
United States $ 2.15 $ 1.96 $ 2.70

Alabama 1.24 1.21 1.40
Alaska 1.16 1.22 0
Arizona 2.67 2.82 0.62
Arkansas 0.59 0.53 0.87
California 3.29 2.95 5.41
Colorado 0.74 0.72 0.90
Connecticut 7.55 0.77 17.41
Delaware 0.41 0.31 1.32
District of Columbia 2.59 0.47 2.88
Florida 4.50 5.37 1.54
Georgia 5.16 4.77 6.26
Hawaii 10.19 10.67 2.82
Idaho 1.25 1.41 0.68
Illinois 2.44 2.88 1.30
Indiana 1.55 1.56 1.53
Iowa 1.96 2.07 1.70
Kansas 3.26 3.38 2.43
Kentucky 2.33 2.17 2.90
Louisiana 0.35 0.18 1.31
Maine 2.56 2.97 1.56
Maryland 0.58 0.50 1.04
Massachusetts 2.35 2.24 2.43
Michigan 2.75 3.12 0.71
Minnesota 1.04 1.20 0.56
Mississippi 0.78 0.73 1.29
Missouri 0.38 0.25 0.68
Montana 2.16 0.50 16.93
Nebraska 3.87 3.73 4.42
Nevada 0.32 0.27 8.33
New Hampshire 7.98 5.15 11.16
New Jersey 1.19 0.15 4.38
New Mexico 0.72 0.64 2.16
New York 1.65 1.50 1.83
North Carolina 2.00 1.98 2.07
North Dakota 1.05 0.52 7.61
Ohio 1.45 1.46 1.43
Oklahoma 1.00 0.30 4.76
Oregon 2.39 1.60 7.27
Pennsylvania 0.70 0.50 0.95
Rhode Island 3.52 0.24 6.55
South Carolina 2.47 2.85 0.93
South Dakota 1.54 1.00 3.12
Tennessee 2.17 1.81 3.12
Texas 0.98 0.93 1.22
Utah 0.65 1.06 0
Vermont 3.05 2.74 3.45
Virginia 1.30 0.72 4.57
Washington 2.51 2.00 5.76
West Virginia 1.44 1.01 3.91
Wisconsin 1.49 1.51 1.35
Wyoming 10.24 10.25 N/A
U.S. Service Schools 0.07 0.07 N/A
Sources: Receipts from U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, special tabulation c 
rived from Higher Education General Information Survey (HEGIS)—College and University Libraries, Fall 1982. FI 
Student enrollment from unpublished data, survey of “Fall Enrollment in Higher Education.”



February 1986 /  117

tion as colleges or universities th a t h ad  libraries 
w ere included.

T he Survey of College and University L ibraries 
achieved a response rate of 91 %. T he d a ta  for a 
non-responding institution w ere im puted by using

d a ta  of a peer institution of sim ilar characteristics, 
based on control and level, enrollm ent size, NCES 
classification, level of offering, and state of th e geo­
graphic location. ■ ■

M en torin g in  th e  a c a d e m ic  lib r a r y

D e a n n a  L. R o b erts

Social Sciences Bibliographer 
University o f Georgia

Professional development through observation and 
consultation.

M e n t o r i n g  to accelerate an individual’s profes- 

sional developm ent is not a novel concept in either 
business or academ ia. This m aster-apprentice or 
teach er-stu d en t relationship occurs inform ally in 
m a n y  o rg an izatio n s, an d  fo rm alized  m e n to rin g  
program s have been successful both in th e federal 
governm ent as well as th e p riv ate sector. L inda 
Phillips-Jones, in her article on establishing m en ­
to rin g  program s, states th a t “ ...a m o n g  th e most 
successful in the federal governm ent include those 
in th e In tern al Revenue Service, th e F ederal Exec­
utive D evelopm ent P rogram , and th e Presidential 
M anagem ent In tern  P rogram . In th e p riv ate sec­
to r, program s have been established in such corpo­
rations as Jewel C om panies, A m erican Telephone 
an d  T e le g ra p h ’s Bell L a b o ra to rie s, an d  M errill 
L y n c h .” 1 In academ ic libraries, the Council on L i­
b ra ry  Resources In ternship Program  was im ple­
m ented in 1974 to provide a first-hand leadership 
perspective to experienced professionals in order to 
enhance th eir know ledge an d  und erstan d in g  of the

}L inda Phillips-Jones, “Establishing a F o rm a l­
ized M entoring P ro g ra m ,” Training and D evelop­
m e n t Journal 37 (F ebraury 1983):38.

complexities of research libraries. It is tim e to take 
new  look at th e idea of m entoring program s in the 
adem ic lib rary  as a m eans of staff developm ent 
r the junior professional or recent lib rary  school 
aduate.
W hile the definitions of a m entor are m any and 
rie d —coach, m odel, guide, teacher, sponsor, or 
visor—th e purpose is th e same. This relationship 

lows new  people to observe d ep artm en ta l activi­
s, divisional functions an d  goals, in addition to 
e policies an d  procedures of th e organization, 
rough consultation w ith  th e experienced profes­
nal. E lizabeth Bolton, a specialist in public af­

irs education, advises th a t “th e most im p o rtan t 
em ent in this type of relationship is th e w illing­
ss to share accum ulated know ledge w ith  another 
d iv id u a l in th e  novice stag e of d e v e lo p m e n t 
h eth er on th e sam e occupational level or from a 
gher p osition.”2

2E lizabeth B. Bolton, “A C onceptual Analysis of 
e M entor R elationship in th e C areer D evelop­
ent of W o m e n ,” A d u lt E ducation 30 (Summer 
80):205.

a 
ac
fo
gr

v a
ad
al
tie
th
th
sio
fa
el
ne
in
w
hi

th
m
19