College and Research Libraries condition of their disciplines. Most important to this group of scholars is the freedom and encouragement to travel to primary sources Research Notes I 365 and a comfortable work environment with efficient, effective services in their university library. REFERENCES 1. Paul Metz, " Duplication in Library Collections: What We Know and What We Need to Know, " Collection Building 2, no.3:27-33 (1980). 2. Ibid., p .29. 3. Richard E. Chaplin, " Limits of Self-Suf- ficiency," in Joseph Becker, ed., Proceedings of the Conference on Interlibrary Communica- tions and Information Networks (Chicago: American Library Assn , 1971), p.56. 4. Cynthia Corkill and Margaret Mann, Informa- tion Needs in the Humanities: Two Postal Sur- veys (CRUS Occasional Paper 2, [Sheffield, En- gland: Centre for Research on User Studies , 1978]), p.26. 5. Ibid. , p.25. RITA A. SCHERREI AND JUDITH M. CORIN Allocation of Student Assistance Funding In the Public Service Units of the UCLA Library As is the case in most academic libraries , the UCLA library depends heavily on student assistance to supplement its regular staff. As is also nearly universally true , money to sup- port student help is never available to the degree that would really satisfy unit and de- partment heads. Since there are twenty- seven separate units of the library that do re- ceive funds to hire students, attempting to allocate to each a fair share of the limited pot is an administrative challenge. Currently this challenge is met for the sev- enteen public service branches by a zero- based formula approach that relies on annual data in nine work-related areas. These areas , which are listed below, do not cover every task performed in every unit . However , they are those work areas that are common to most units and that are related to the total work load regardless of the specific ways in which tasks are carried out. The areas are the follow- ing: l. Shelving; 2. Circulation; 3. Volumes added to the collection; 4. Serial titles maintained; Rita A. Scherrei is senior administrative analyst, and judith M. Gorin is assistant university librar- ian for planning, . University Research Library , University of California, Los Angeles. 5. Public service points in addition to the circulation and reference desks; 6. Reference activity ; 7. Material records entered into CLSI; 8 . Patron records entered into CLSI; 9. Online bibliographic searches. From work-load measurement in these nine areas, full-time equivalent (FTE) em- ployee requirements are determined. A 20 percent factor for management activity and a 6 percent factor for collection development are also included in order to account for the total number of FTEs required to maintain the unit's activities. When the number of regular unit staff is subtracted from this total FTE requirement, the difference is the desir- able number of FTE students. This number can then be converted to dollars, which in turn is compared with other units' require- ments and with the total real money avail- able. Each unit is finally allocated its share based on its percentage of the theoretical or desirable total applied to the real total. The details of the data collection and calcu- lations follow, as does a discussion of the ad- vantages and disadvantages that have become apparent in the two years that this approach has been utilized. DATA COLLECfiON Monthly statistics are collected from the li- 366 I College & Research Libraries • ]ulv 1981 brary units on shelving, circulation, online bibliographic searches, and serial holdings. Volumes added to the collection are reported by unit from the four campus technical pro- cessing centers. Added public service credits are deter- mined by counting reference , reserve , special collection, or other points that are staffed in addition to the ordinary central reference and circulation desks . Records entered into CLSI are obtained from the two units that use this system for circulation. CALCULATIONS * 1. Shelving Each unit has an assigned time weight, based on average measures , for shelving an item. There are four possible weights , and these are ascribed as follows: 1. 0.417 minute-this figure is based on measurement in stacks with elevators, book materials, and no unusual obstacles to "smooth shelving." 2. 0. 75 minute-this figure is applied to units with a single shelving obstacle. One example is a unit with two call number se- quences , one the LC system and the other a form-based system that was utilized in the early days of the unit. 3. 1. 00 minute-this figure, the most common, is used for units with compound shelving difficulties. Examples are stacks with no elevators or materials that need special handling. 4. 1.25 minutes-this figure is employed for only two units, both of which have unusual physical layout problems as well as many spe- cial materials. The total number of items shelved is multi- plied by the time factor and then divided by minutes per year worked by an FTE. t This yields FTE required for shelving as follows: FTE 1 = (items shelved per year) (minutes per item) 1. 25 X 105 min per FTE year *Sherman Greenstein, formerly the administra- tive analyst for the UCLA library, developed the concepts for the formulas described in this section . tHours per year for an FTE is taken as 2,080. Converted to minutes, this is 124,800 or 1.25 X 105 minutes. 2. Circulation The method of least squares+ was applied to circulation data and staffing requirements to accomplish all circulation-related activities, including activities related to reserve mate- rials . 1 The resulting equation was FTE 2 = 1,003 + .089x 2,080 hours per FTE year where x = total number of items circulated per year . The number of FTE resulting from this equation is compared with the number of FfEs required to staff the circulation desk with one person for every hour the library is open. For some of the small units, this latter figure is larger than the formula requirement, and the larger figure is used. 3 . Volumes Added Although the units do not do their own cataloging, there is work load involved in bib- liographic searching , filing , and physical preparation for volumes added. Again, the method of least squares was applied, using data on FfE hours required for the tasks and the number of volumes added. The formula was FTE3 = 686 + .42y 2,080 hours per FTE year where y = number of volumes added per year. 4. Serial Titles Maintained The work load connected with serial main- tenance versus number of serials maintained resulted in the following equation when the least squares method was applied. FTE 4 = 229 + . 62y 2, 080 hours per FTE year 5. Service Points Dividing the hours the separate reserve :j:The theory and application of the method of least squares can be found in most applied statistics texts. See, for example , chapter 17 of Yule and Kendall (1940) for an extended and classic discus- sion. In this case the dependent variable was staff hours required as reported by the seventeen units; the independent variable was items circulated as reported by the same units . rooms, audiovisual centers, etc., are open per year by 2,080 results in the number of FTEs required for these extra stations. FTE 5 = hours/years 2,080 hours per FTE year 6. Reference Activity For every hour open, a unit is given one hour of reference support except in the cases of the smallest units, where reference queries are initiated at the circulation desk. FTE 6 = hours/year 2, 080 hours per FTE year 7. Material Records Entered into CLSI For the two large units that utilize CLSI, every item record entered into the database increases the allocation by 1. 2 X 10-5 FTE. This figure is based on an average entry time of 1.5 minutes per record. 8. Patron Records Entered into CLSI A time allotment of one minute is assumed for each patron record entered. This repre- sents 8.0 X 10-6 FTE per entry. 9. Online Bibliographic Searches* For those units that provide their own reference searches, a flat 10 percent of their reference allocation is added to their total: FTE 9 = .10 (FTE 6) Once these formulas have been applied, the staffing· for each unit can be summarized by the following expression: 9 FTE ~ 126 [, ~,FTE.] where the constant, 1.26, accounts for man- agement (20 percent) and collection de- velopment (6 percent). Finally, since the sum of the units' formula allocations will always be somewhat more or less than the amount of money available for student assistance, each unit's percentage of *Online services are growing in the UCLA sys- tem. The current approach of adding 10 percent to the reference allocation will be revised once enough units have implemented the services that some reasonable allocation measure can be de- rived. Research Notes I 361 the total is calculated. This percentage is then applied to the real dollars available, and this is the amount actually allocated to the unit. ILLUSTRATION One medium-sized unit's data, slightly al- tered, for 1979-80 is shown in table 1. It should be noted that this unit has a shelving time weight of 1.25; it has no extra service points and does not utilize CLSI. The total calculated public service FTE re- quirement for this unit is 10.28. When the management and collection development fac- tor is included, the total FTE required is 13.0. This library unit employs four librarians and five library assistants, so the student as- sistance allocation ideally should supply the equivalent of 4.0 full-time workers. When this FTE requirement is multiplied by the average student FTE salary of $9,984, this minimum "ideal" allotment is $39,936. As it turns out, $39,936 is 6 percent of the total of all units' ideal allocations. For purposes of il- lustration, if the pot of money available is set at $900,000, the unit would receive $36,000 for 1980-81. ADVANTAGES OF THE FORMULA APPROACH There is nothing subjective or mysterious about the allocation procedure. The figures on which the allocations are based are public; the formulas have been explained to unit heads. The allocations for all units are pub- lished. Public service is emphasized in the formula. There are rewards for good service to patrons (at least as far as these variables can measure service), and it is anticipated that TABLE 1 ILLUSTRATIVE LIBRARY UNIT DATA FOR CALCULATION OF 1980--81 STUDENT ASSISTANCE ALLOCATION Category 1. Items shelved 2. Items circulated 3. Volumes added 4. Serials maintained 5. Extra service points 6. Hours open 7. CLSI material records 8. CLSI patron records 9. Online searching 1979-80 Statistics 255,536 80,129 3,039 2,664 0 3,649 0 0 yes Calculated FTE 2.6 3.9 0.9 0.9 0 1.8 0 0 0.18- 368 I College & Research Libraries • july 1981 when the formula is revised, even more ser- vice areas will be included. Finally, there is the ease of application and of revision. For example, the appropriate least square equations can be recalculated when automation is in force for serials pro- cessing without essentially altering the for- mula. PROBLEMS WITH THE FORMULA APPROACH There is currently an oversimplification of the FTE required for reference services. The formula does not take into account the quality of such services or the real quantity of work in units of greatly varying sizes. This area, along with some adjustment for online services, needs refinement. The allocations are based on the previous year's record of basic services, and hence no expansion is built into the formula. This criti- cism is really more a function of total funding, since if more money were available than the sum of the basic allocations, every unit would receive a fair share of the excess. Another problem with the year-to-year ap- proach, however, is that no allowance is made for artificial peaks and valleys in the work areas. So far this has not been an issue, but it is conceivable that circulation or volume growth could fluctuate abnormally, . and this would affect the following year's allocation. Obviously this would be apparent when figures from the preceding year were exam- ined, and adjustments would be made. Theo- retically, a running average of data could be used once the formula has been applied for several years. The allocations depend on the accuracy of the statistics, and in some cases over the two years inaccuracies have been noted. How- ever, these have been due to underreporting and have been corrected as they have been discovered. The biggest criticism is that the formula does not allow for differences among units. In most cases, it can be safely assumed that the real deviations balance themselves. How- ever, it is true that this is not always the case. In one unit, for example, recordings make up a substantial part of the collection but have not been included in "volumes added" -this TAKE A GOOD LOOK. A new face for Faxon is just one of the things you'll see developing. Stop by the Faxon booths at the Association of College & Research Libraries Conference in Minneapolis, Minnesota on October 1-3rd. Take a good look at the most advanced, most reliable subscription service for over 150,000 foreign and domestic serials and continuations. Faxon. F.W. Faxon Company, Inc. 15 Southwest Park, Westwood, Massachusetts 02090 Tel: 800-225-6055 (toll-free) 617-329-3350 (collect in Mass. and Canada) 8: GJ 100 years helping the world communicate is an oversight that continued for two years and has only recently been realized. There may be other examples of this type, and they will be corrected as they are uncovered. CONCLUSION The formula approach as it is applied here at UCLA can be adapted to other similar academic systems as well as to quite different operations, such as public library systems. It is a fairly simple and straightforward solution to the problem of dispersing funds , and it works well if it is viewed as a dynamic ap- proach that can be changed or modified to Research Notes I 369 accommodate new information or different tasks. . It is anticipated that the UCLA public ser- vices formula will undergo changes after the three-year initial period of its implementa- tion ; some of the areas that will be altered have already been mentioned. Down the road is a technical services personnel formula that will be developed after automation is fully established. REFEREN CE 1. G. Udny Yule and M . G . Kendall, An Introduc- tion to the Theory of Statistics (London: Charles Griffin and Co., 1940). CLIFFORD H. HAKA AND NANCY URSERY University Faculties and Library Lending Codes: A Survey and Analysis The concept of holding patrons responsible for the return of books checked out from a collection is basic to libraries. The implemen- tation of this principle is difficult in the case of borrowing privileges for university faculty members . During the past two years the University of Kansas, Lawrence, has implemented a new lending code that provides for the assessment of penalties on faculty members. The code, although approved through university governance channels , has precipitated furious and continuing debate. Disgruntled faculty members opposed to the code have argued that such penalties are not imposed on their counterparts at other institutions. Believing this not to be the case but failing in an at- tempt to locate counterevidence, the circula- tion staff surveyed the ninety-eight members of the Association of Research Libraries that have faculties. The results of the survey are reported below. In April 1980, the following questionnaire was sent to the ARL academic library mem- bers . Clifford H. Haka is circulation librarian and Nancy Ursery is former circulation supervisor, University of Kansas Libraries, Lawrence. 1. Are faculty members subject to fines for over- due materials? ( ) Yes ( ) No 2. Are other or additional measures employed to encourage return? ( ) Yes (If yes, please explain) ( ) No 3. Are faculty members subject to fines for nonre- sponse to recall notices? ( ) Yes ( ) No 4. Are other or additional measures employed to encourage response? ()Yes (Ifyes, please .explain) ( ) No 5 . If fines are levied, are procedures available to ensure payment? ( ) Yes (If yes, please explain) ( ) No 6. Are there other cases where penalties or re- straints of any sort are levied against faculty? ( ) Yes (If yes, please explain) ( ) No Information from eight institutions that had not responded by August 1, 1980, was ob- tained via telephone, thereby completing the responses for all ninety-eight libraries. Initial inspection of the completed ques- tionnaires indicated a need for more precise definitions of what constituted positive and negative replies. Questions 1 and 3-In many instances re- spondents indicated that a fine was levied for nonreturn of regularly circulating or recalled