449 Constrained? An Analysis of U.S. Academic Library Shifts in Spending, Staffing, and Utilization, 1998–2008 John J. Regazzi John J. Regazzi is Professor in the Palmer School of Library & Information Science and Department of Computer Science and Management Engineering at Long Island University; e-mail: john.regazzi@liu. edu. © 2012 John J. Regazzi The study provides an analysis of U.S. academic library spending, staffing and utilization trends from data collected during the period between 1998 and 2008. Data used in this study are part of the NCES biennial survey of approximately 3,700 degree-granting postsecondary institutions. Confirm- ing previous studies, there has been an order of magnitude change in the expenditure of e-books and e-serials; but, contrary to the view of being fiscally restrained, libraries have received investments and increases of approximately 12 percent above inflation over the period with significant increases in nearly every area of library operation. Library staffing is being diversified, while use of physical library assets are in decline for every metric in the study—gate count, reference service, general and reserve circulation. Academic libraries cannot be treated as a homogenous group of institutions, and the study analyzes shifts by type, size, and Carnegie class of institution, illustrating significant difference among these classes of academic libraries, particularly among large doctoral institutions and other academic libraries, with large public and doctoral private institutions driving growth, while small and medium-sized academic libraries have fallen behind in both collections and staff investments. or decades, at professional meetings and in the profes- sional literature, librarians have voiced the view that academic library budgets are being eroded and constrained. These concerns were voiced nearly 30 years ago with the “serials crisis” and the effects that high journal prices were having on the overall fiscal capabilities of academic libraries. Uncertainty in the general economic conditions in the United States, starting a decade ago with the “dot com bust” and as recently as the 2008 recession and recent deficit legislation, has raised more concern regarding the financial viability of academic libraries to meet the growing and changing information demands of students and faculty. This study attempts to provide, however, an evidence-based analysis of U.S. aca- demic library fiscal and funding trends from 1998 to 2008 only, using publicly available research. crl-260 450 College & Research Libraries September 2012 The study provides an analysis of U.S. academic library spending, staffing, and utilization trends from data collected during the period between 1998 and 2008 from the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). The study seeks to explore and analyze three issues: 1. What characterizes the shift in over- all academic library spending on collections and staffing between 1998 and 2008 and what are the trends that exist according to institutional type (public, private/nonprofit, and private/for-profit), Carnegie classifi- cation,1 and size of institution based on student enrollments; 2. What are the shifts in the use of the physical library assets between 1998 and 2008; and 3. Which subsets of institutions, if any, are driving the key changes in library spending, staffing, and utilization? Background Over the last decade, the role that aca- demic libraries played as a repository of knowledge has come under tremendous economic and technological challenges. A number of studies have identified several key catalysts for these challenges. No lon- ger are academic libraries focused on their traditional mission of being a supporting institution to other academic units. Rath- er, they are undergoing a transformation to adapt to the changing university cam- pus landscape and, in certain situations, aiming to become the center of scholarly communications.2 In the last decade, the U.S. economy underwent two major financial crises, the dot com bust and the subprime housing market collapse with a period of signifi- cant growth between these—a boom and bust cycle rarely seen in the U.S. economy. These major financial events triggered funding pressures across the globe, re- sulting in academic libraries facing an intensified period of financial cutbacks.3 At the same time, the rapidly evolving digital information landscape is forcing academic libraries to adapt from being just a print repository of knowledge to providing a much more diverse set of electronic resources and services, necessi- tating increased investments that can pro- vide the required higher level of service, but exacerbating funding pressures in this process of transformation. Although most academic libraries receive the majority of their funding from their parent institution and not directly from the government or through private grants, they are never- theless affected by reductions in private philanthropy and government spending, as their parent institution received their funding from these services, as well as tuition and fees also affected by general economic and market conditions.4 In a landmark study, the Associa- tion of College and Research Libraries (ACRL) compiled a list of top trends that are affecting academic libraries.5 Of the top trends, ACRL noted: 1) budget constraints are significant and will affect the development of academic libraries; 2) clientele demands have dictated col- lection growth toward digital libraries; 3) changes in staffs’ skill sets are needed and expanding; and 4) the need to justify the value that academic libraries provide their clientele is increasing steadily.6 Previous studies have looked at these trends from various perspectives. A study conducted by the Lumina Foundation for Education found that academic libraries in the United States are seeing a decline in spending at the end of this past decade from historic highs as a direct result of cutbacks in federal government fund- ing and private sector donations due to the slowdown in the U.S. economy in 2007 and 2008.7 The prohibitive cost of maintaining a comprehensive collection of research materials particularly for electronic journals with significant price increases over this period of limited bud- gets and increasing user demands have been equally well documented in this and other studies. Academic libraries’ move toward digi- talization of their collections will result in additional demands and strain on U.S. Academic Library Shifts in Spending, Staffing, and Utilization 451 whatever limited financial resources these libraries have.8 Although there had been increased overall spending on academic support from 1998 to 2008, according to one study,9 such increases are negligible and do not compensate for the rate of inflation over this time period. The changes to digital libraries and user access to electronic information ser- vices have resulted in a change of skills re- quired from libraries and librarians. There is now a need for library staffs to have a diversity of skills in technology enabled information access and management systems. The shift from print media to digital services is forcing many academic libraries to reassess the job descriptions and qualifications needed in the contem- porary academic library. These new staff- ing requirements will place additional burdens on an already shrinking funding pool in academic libraries.10 Others have noted a number of contributors to these trends including: growth in academic library positions not requiring master’s degrees in Library Science (MLS); a migration of librarian responsibilities to support staff; increasing use of informa- tion technology requiring staff with com- mensurate skills; and addressing budget shortfalls through deprofessionalization rather than reducing collections.11 With the increased competition for limited financial resources, academic libraries are now facing a need to justify their core existence to their parent institu- tion as well as their clientele. As a result, academic libraries are being pressured to demonstrate the value that they can impart to a student learning outcome. To assist academic libraries in documenting the value of the services they provide, there are several studies into this area, the most notable of which is the ACRL’s research project called “Value, Outcomes and Return on Investment of Academic Libraries.”12 These efforts attempt to document the value of the use of the library for academic faculty, students, and staff in support of their work in the university environment. Since academic libraries are already repository of knowl- edge, some have seen these accountability demands as an opportunity to capitalize on the effective exploitation of expanded knowledge management initiatives.13 Some view these challenges as a mix- ture of threats and opportunities. Many have argued that academic libraries are currently going through a challenging time and many are facing significant fi- nancial constraints. This study will look at the overall reported financial, staffing, and utilization trends of academic librar- ies and analyze how different types of academic libraries may face these chal- lenges differently. Methodology Data used in this study is part of the NCES biennial survey of approximately 3,700 U.S. degree-granting postsecond- ary institutions to provide an overview of academic libraries nationwide. The data analyzed for this study comes spe- cifically from the NCES Library Statistics Program. NCES makes available data files for public use for each year in which the survey is conducted. For the purposes of this study, 1998, 2004, and 2008 data were used. The reason for the use of these years is based, in part, on the growth of electronic holdings by libraries after 1998. Indeed, in the documentation that accompanies the data collected during 1998, the NCES notes: In 1998, a substantial number of additional changes were made [to the survey], especially in the col- lections and expenditures sections. These changes reflect the extensive changes in library services that have occurred with regard to the devel- opment of electronic media. Data Limitations As is the case with any data set popu- lated by survey responses, there are some inherent limitations that should be recognized and understood before interpreting the results. These limitations 452 College & Research Libraries September 2012 can be organized into two areas: those due to methodology and those due to definitional constraints. Methodological limitations include the following three: 1) due to the fact that not every institution responds to the survey, there is the possibility that differences in institution characteristics between responders and nonresponders might distort the results. The percentage of re- sponding libraries has declined between 1998 and 2008, though even the lowest re- sponse rate of 86.7 percent in 2008 is very high relative to similar survey efforts, and it is unlikely that statistical outcomes are impacted in any substantive sense; 2) in some cases where institutions responded to the survey but did not provide infor- mation to individual items, data have been imputed based upon an established methodology developed by the NCES;14 3) general methodological limitations inher- ent in any survey research effort, based on sampling errors (noted in the first bullet) and nonsampling errors, meaning errors made by respondents or in the editing of data by the NCES. Definitional limitations impact the abil- ity to analyze collections information re- lated to electronic holdings, in particular serial subscriptions. This is due to the fact that respondents are instructed to count titles twice if they are delivered in both paper and electronic format. This results in two main limitations since 1) respon- dents were instructed to report separate counts for paper and electronic serials in 1998, making comparisons between paper and electronic holdings with future years impossible; and 2) this eliminates the possibility of developing per-unit costs for electronic serial holdings. This limitation also impacts the ability to analyze expenditures for librarians and other professionals separately, since these reported expenditures are aggregated for librarians/other professionals and not tracked separately. Findings Shifts in Library Expenditures, 1998–2008 This section provides estimates of library expenditures for the period 1998–2008 as well as indications on whether any of these changes are significant. For the purposes of this report, significance test- ing is based on the results of evaluations between either totals or means for one group and confidence intervals for a com- parison group.15 Throughout this report, FIGURE 1 Changes in Spending by Expense Category, 1998–2008 Note: Change in inflation-adjusted spending (1998-2008) based on all U.S. Library Institutions. U.S. Academic Library Shifts in Spending, Staffing, and Utilization 453 TA B L E 1 C ha ng e in E xp en di tu re s an d U ni ts O bt ai ne d, 1 99 8– 20 08 / $T ho us an ds E xp en di tu re I te m s E xp en di tu re s an d U ni ts P er ce nt C ha ng e 19 98 20 04 20 08 19 98 -2 00 4 20 04 -2 00 8 19 98 -2 00 8 $0 00 S U ni ts $0 00 S U ni ts $0 00 S U ni ts $0 00 S U ni ts $0 00 S U ni ts $0 00 S U ni ts St af fin g L ib ra ri an s / O th er P ro f $1 ,5 24 ,0 00 29 ,9 73 $1 ,7 68 ,2 19 32 ,2 12 $1 ,8 65 ,1 88 34 ,4 50 16 .0 % 7. 5% 5. 5% 6. 9% 22 .4 % 14 .9 % A ll O th er P ai d St af f $1 ,1 34 ,3 50 37 ,0 92 $1 ,1 71 ,5 39 36 ,6 89 $1 ,1 15 ,1 96 34 ,7 23 3. 3% -1 .1 % -4 .8 % -5 .4 % -1 .7 % -6 .4 % St ud en t A ss is ta nt s $2 80 ,9 65 28 ,3 72 $2 60 ,2 41 25 ,0 38 $2 37 ,7 35 24 ,1 15 -7 .4 % -1 1. 8% -8 .6 % -3 .7 % -1 5. 4% -1 5. 0% Su bt ot al $2 ,9 39 ,3 15 96 ,5 57 $3 ,1 99 ,9 99 93 ,9 39 $3 ,2 18 ,1 19 93 ,2 88 8. 9% -2 .7 % 0. 6% -0 .7 % 9. 5% -3 .4 % C ol le ct io ns B oo ks $7 54 ,7 64 97 2, 78 2 $7 41 ,1 49 1, 10 5, 28 4 $7 87 ,4 48 1, 26 2, 98 7 -1 .8 % 13 .6 % 6. 2% 14 .3 % 4. 3% 29 .8 % Pa pe r/ M ic ro fo rm $6 77 ,3 12 87 7, 12 6 $6 26 ,2 76 98 0, 63 5 $6 10 ,0 72 1, 05 0, 43 3 -7 .5 % 11 .8 % -2 .6 % 7. 1% -9 .9 % 19 .8 % E le ct ro ni c B oo ks $3 7, 03 3 3, 46 7 $7 4, 77 4 32 ,7 69 $1 33 ,5 64 10 2, 47 6 10 1. 9% 84 5. 2% 78 .6 % 21 2. 7% 26 0. 7% 28 55 .8 % A ud io V is ua l $4 0, 41 9 92 ,1 90 $4 0, 09 9 91 ,8 80 $4 3, 81 2 11 0, 07 8 -0 .8 % -0 .3 % 9. 3% 19 .8 % 8. 4% 19 .4 % Se ri al S ub sc ri pt io n $1 ,2 84 ,3 35 7, 53 7 $1 ,5 51 ,0 68 12 ,7 57 $1 ,7 00 ,1 00 25 ,3 27 20 .8 % 69 .3 % 9. 6% 98 .5 % 32 .4 % 23 6. 0% Pa pe r/ M ic ro fo rm $1 ,1 19 ,1 41 N /A $1 ,0 05 ,0 90 N /A $6 97 ,8 66 N /A -1 0. 2% N /A -3 0. 6% N /A -3 7. 6% N /A E le ct ro ni c Se ri al s $1 65 ,1 95 $5 45 ,9 79 $1 ,0 02 ,2 34 23 0. 5% 83 .6 % 50 6. 7% D oc um en t D el iv er y $2 5, 45 3 16 ,8 89 $2 8, 26 9 18 ,7 05 $3 0, 48 4 21 ,7 74 11 .1 % 10 .8 % 7. 8% 16 .4 % 19 .8 % 28 .9 % Pr es er va tio n $5 6, 55 3 N /A $4 8, 95 5 N /A $4 1, 52 2 N /A -1 3. 4% N /A -1 5. 2% N /A -2 6. 6% N /A O th er In fo R es ou rc es $4 4, 91 2 3, 36 4 $8 5, 05 6 1, 90 8 $9 7, 99 1 3, 56 9 89 .4 % -4 3. 3% 15 .2 % 87 .1 % 11 8. 2% 6. 1% Su bt ot al $2 ,1 66 ,0 18 1, 00 0, 57 2 $2 ,4 54 ,4 96 1, 13 8, 65 4 $2 ,6 57 ,5 45 1, 31 3, 65 6 13 .3 % 13 .8 % 8. 3% 15 .4 % 22 .7 % 31 .3 % 454 College & Research Libraries September 2012 an alpha level of .05 was used to determine confidence intervals used in evaluating significance. Figure 1 indicates changes in inflation-adjusted spending in $000 from 1998 to 2008 for all libraries in the study for each major expense category. Table 1 provides expenditure estimates for all institutions for the years 1998 and 2008, as well as indi- cations of significant differences for each of the periods. As figure 1 and table 1 both indicate, there has been an order of magnitude change in the expenditure of electronic books and serials over the time period 1998–2008, a near 4-fold increase and 7-fold increase, respectively. Beyond e-materials and contrary to the view of the fiscally restrained, libraries have received investments and in- creases of approximately 12 percent above inflation over the period with significant increases in nearly every area of library operation, including 10 percent and 23 percent inflation- adjusted growth for staffing and collection development respectively. Type of Institution. In addition to prominent shifts in the use of e-materials, there are a number of other areas that have seen sig- nificant increases (or decreases) and indicate the underlying sea changes taking place in our nation’s academic libraries. Table 2 provides a more in-depth view of these changes by viewing them accord- ing to institution type, a category that includes public sector institu- tions, private sector institutions (not-for-profit), and private sector institutions (for-profit). In terms of the increase in the number of insti- tutions, the private/for-profit enti- ties have experienced the greatest increase over the time period from 1998 to 2008. In 1998, there were 457 institutions classified in the survey as private, for-profit, representing TA B L E 1 C ha ng e in E xp en di tu re s an d U ni ts O bt ai ne d, 1 99 8– 20 08 / $T ho us an ds E xp en di tu re I te m s E xp en di tu re s an d U ni ts P er ce nt C ha ng e 19 98 20 04 20 08 19 98 -2 00 4 20 04 -2 00 8 19 98 -2 00 8 $0 00 S U ni ts $0 00 S U ni ts $0 00 S U ni ts $0 00 S U ni ts $0 00 S U ni ts $0 00 S U ni ts O pe ra tio ns C om pu te r E qu ip m en t $2 16 ,5 77 N /A $1 62 ,9 51 N /A $1 58 ,3 94 N /A -2 4. 8% N /A -2 .8 % N /A -2 6. 9% N /A B ib lio gr ap hi c U til iti es $1 18 ,0 75 N /A $1 15 ,2 79 N /A $1 13 ,2 22 N /A -2 .4 % N /A -1 .8 % N /A -4 .1 % N /A A ll O th er O p E xp en se s $4 71 ,0 48 N /A $4 63 ,3 72 N /A $4 66 ,0 20 N /A -1 .6 % N /A 0. 6% N /A -1 .1 % N /A Su bt ot al $8 05 ,7 00 N /A $7 41 ,6 03 N /A $7 37 ,6 36 N /A -8 .0 % N /A -0 .5 % N /A -8 .4 % N /A U nr ep or te d E xp en di tu re s $1 39 ,3 59 N /A $1 45 ,8 67 N /A $1 57 ,7 49 N /A 4. 7% N /A 8. 1% N /A 13 .2 % N /A To ta ls $6 ,0 50 ,3 92 N /A $6 ,5 41 ,9 65 N /A $6 ,7 71 ,0 48 N /A 8. 1% N /A 3. 5% N /A 11 .9 % N /A N ot e: S ig ni fic an t c ha ng es a t t he a lp ha =. 05 le ve l i nd ic at ed in b ol d; D ol la r v al ue s ex pr es se d in 2 00 8 co ns ta nt d ol la rs U.S. Academic Library Shifts in Spending, Staffing, and Utilization 455 roughly 12 percent of all institutions. In 2008, 1 in 5 institutions are now classi- fied as private, for-profit institutions, a more than 60 percent increase in the ten- year period. Public sector and private/ nonprofit institutions, by contrast, have declined over that same period. There are some general observations that can be made upon an examination of table 2, as follows: • There are significant changes across all institutions regardless of type (in some cases, these changes are declines in spending); however, increases in spending on electronic books, serial subscriptions, electronic serials, and other information resources show significant increases, regardless of institution type; • In terms of total volume of spending, public and private/nonprofit insti- tutions maintain the vast majority of spending, making up 98 percent across all three types; nevertheless, in TABLE 2 Change in Expenditures, 1998–2008 (by Institution Type) / $Thousands ITEM 1998 2008 1998 2008 1998 2008 Public Private Non-Profit Private For-Profit Sample Size (Institutions) 1578 1571 1618 1515 457 742 Staffing Librarians / Other Prof $939,494 $1,123,028 $577,137 $722,135 $7,370 $20,024 All Other Paid Staff $754,428 $733,993 $377,680 $374,000 $2,243 $7,204 Student Assistants $176,031 $139,599 $102,478 $93,667 $2,456 $4,469 Subtotal $1,869,953 $1,996,620 $1,057,294 $1,189,802 $12,068 $31,697 Collections Books $422,122 $425,813 $323,803 $347,181 $8,840 $14,454 Paper/Microform $378,692 $326,624 $291,377 $273,047 $7,243 $10,401 Electronic Books $17,450 $74,126 $18,854 $56,986 $729 $2,452 Audio Visual $25,980 $25,062 $13,571 $17,149 $868 $1,601 Serial Subscription $781,490 $1,013,699 $497,141 $669,574 $5,704 $16,827 Paper/Microform $686,868 $387,416 $428,755 $305,096 $3,518 $5,353 Electronic Serials $94,622 $626,283 $68,387 $364,478 $2,186 $11,474 Document Delivery $16,176 $18,718 $9,183 $10,768 $94 $997 Preservation $32,453 $23,238 $23,972 $18,207 $128 $76 Other Info Resources $21,457 $50,434 $22,929 $46,975 $525 $582 Subtotal $1,273,698 $1,531,903 $877,028 $1,092,705 $15,291 $32,937 Operations Computer Equipment $130,916 $99,934 $81,188 $56,129 $4,472 $2,330 Bibliographic Utilities $61,878 $64,756 $55,531 $47,422 $667 $1,044 All Other Op Expenses $261,640 $254,855 $206,041 $209,396 $3,367 $1,769 Subtotal $454,434 $419,545 $342,760 $312,948 $8,506 $5,143 Unreported Expenditures $59,736 $68,534 $60,874 $56,680 $18,750 $32,535 Totals $3,657,820 $4,016,601 $2,337,956 $2,652,136 $54,615 $102,311 Note: Significant changes at the alpha=.05 level indicated in bold; Dollar values expressed in 2008 constant dollars. 456 College & Research Libraries September 2012 terms of percentage changes, private/ for-profit institutions have nearly doubled total expenditures on an inflation-adjusted basis, reflecting of course the smaller base in 1998 and the explosive unit growth in institu- tions over the period; • The increase in spending on elec- tronic materials has occurred at the same time that there have been significant declines in spending on computer hardware and software. This is likely due to the shift in usage from library-centered applications to the availability of library materi- als via the Internet; as this trend has increased, the use of library-centered equipment has declined. • Mass digitization of materials cou- pled with increasing use of digital access has led to the declining rela- tive value of print materials held by libraries. This shift is likely to become of even greater importance when taking into account the cost of print material or storage costs. While the level of spending on electronic books is still low relative to paper expen- ditures, the ratio between spending on paper and e-book purchases has declined from 18 to 5 (adjusted for inflation) between 1998 and 2008. • In terms of items in which there has been a decline (in some instances, sig- nificant), Preservation and Computer Hardware/Software have seen the largest declines across all three types. Carnegie Classification. Table 3 pro- vides estimates of changes in expendi- tures according to the Carnegie classifi- cation categories that contain the largest number of institutions: entities that grant doctoral, master ’s, baccalaureate, and associate degrees, as well as all other in- stitutions. For the purposes of this draft, this analysis includes all three institution types: public, private/nonprofit, and pri- vate/for-profit. As is apparent in the tables presented to this point, significant changes are found across all institution types accord- ing to our collapsed Carnegie typology. In particular, electronic books, serial sub- scriptions, and electronic serials have seen significant increases in expenditures on an inflation-adjusted basis. Interestingly, traditional books have seen significant declines among both master and bac- calaureate degree-granting entities, in direct contrast to doctoral institutions, which have also experienced a significant increase in inflation-adjusted expenditures for printed books between 1998 and 2008. Size of Institution. An additional manner by which to view differences in spending is to segment institutions according to size. This is based on the enrollment data as provided through the IPEDS16 public use data files. Segments according to size are based on information provided by the Carnegie Foundation and how they define classification segments. In the case of both type of institution and Carnegie classification, our size catego- ries are closely matched to differences between those two variables, as table 4 below indicates. This similarity exists for both 1998 and 2008 data. Table 5 provides information on changes in expenditures by size class. The size class of each institution is based solely on the level of enrollment at each institution. The categories indicating size class (<1,000; 1,000–2,999; 3,000–9,999; and 10,000+) are based on those used by the Carnegie Foundation in classifying four- year institutions. As noted in previous tables, table 5 in- dicates further significant changes in the other areas. The increase in expenditures (inflation-adjusted) for electronic books, electronic serials, and other information resources has been significant regard- less of size class designation. However, Preservation has seen significant declines across all size class categories, with the largest decline in the size class category 3,000–9,999, generally associated with public institutions. Figure 2 plots all these institutional variables, type (with private/nonprofit and private/for-profit grouped together), U.S. Academic Library Shifts in Spending, Staffing, and Utilization 457 TA B L E 3 C ha ng e in E xp en di tu re s, 1 99 8- 20 08 (B y Se le ct ed C ar ne gi e C la ss ) / $ T ho us an ds IT E M 19 98 20 08 19 98 20 08 19 98 20 08 19 98 20 08 19 98 20 08 D oc to ra l M as te rs B ac ca la ur ea te A ss oc ia te A ll O th er Sa m pl e Si ze (I ns tit ut io ns ) 23 4 25 6 52 1 58 0 60 3 54 3 12 17 13 49 10 78 11 00 St af fin g L ib ra ri an s / O th er P ro f $7 24 ,1 70 $9 58 ,1 53 $3 25 ,7 80 $3 68 ,0 11 $1 44 ,6 76 $1 56 ,7 65 $2 13 ,2 35 $2 57 ,6 37 $1 16 ,1 39 $1 24 ,6 22 A ll O th er P ai d St af f $6 13 ,2 53 $6 26 ,6 56 $2 14 ,3 43 $2 06 ,3 76 $7 9, 31 9 $7 5, 99 7 $1 57 ,4 56 $1 52 ,6 70 $6 9, 98 0 $5 3, 49 8 St ud en t A ss is ta nt s $1 53 ,2 02 $1 29 ,5 91 $5 8, 71 7 $5 0, 31 5 $3 3, 90 3 $2 6, 93 4 $1 9, 14 3 $1 7, 97 0 $1 6, 00 0 $1 2, 92 4 Su bt ot al $1 ,4 90 ,6 24 $1 ,7 14 ,4 00 $5 98 ,8 39 $6 24 ,7 02 $2 57 ,8 99 $2 59 ,6 96 $3 89 ,8 34 $4 28 ,2 77 $2 02 ,1 18 $1 91 ,0 44 C ol le ct io ns B oo ks $3 79 ,4 93 $4 70 ,6 97 $1 45 ,2 08 $1 25 ,3 51 $9 0, 00 6 $6 9, 76 2 $8 7, 30 3 $7 7, 43 1 $5 2, 75 5 $4 4, 20 7 Pa pe r/ M ic ro fo rm $3 48 ,7 05 $3 63 ,9 24 $1 30 ,3 70 $9 9, 69 5 $8 1, 08 4 $5 6, 01 8 $7 1, 21 7 $5 8, 24 4 $4 5, 93 6 $3 2, 19 1 E le ct ro ni c B oo ks $1 9, 32 4 $9 0, 51 2 $5 ,9 95 $1 6, 47 6 $3 ,5 94 $8 ,2 72 $5 ,1 09 $9 ,5 98 $3 ,0 12 $8 ,7 06 A ud io V is ua l $1 1, 46 4 $1 6, 26 1 $8 ,8 43 $9 ,1 79 $5 ,3 28 $5 ,4 73 $1 0, 97 6 $9 ,5 89 $3 ,8 07 $3 ,3 10 Se ri al S ub sc ri pt io n $7 58 ,6 52 $1 ,0 85 ,8 90 $2 51 ,2 76 $3 00 ,7 97 $1 07 ,8 28 $1 32 ,4 05 $5 8, 63 8 $5 8, 21 7 $1 07 ,9 41 $1 22 ,7 90 Pa pe r/ M ic ro fo rm $6 79 ,7 85 $4 00 ,5 55 $2 12 ,9 17 $1 45 ,5 36 $9 1, 34 5 $6 7, 55 3 $4 2, 69 9 $2 8, 32 4 $9 2, 39 5 $5 5, 89 7 E le ct ro ni c Se ri al s $7 8, 86 8 $6 85 ,3 35 $3 8, 35 9 $1 55 ,2 61 $1 6, 48 3 $6 4, 85 2 $1 5, 93 9 $2 9, 89 3 $1 5, 54 6 $6 6, 89 3 D oc um en t D el iv er y $1 5, 33 6 $1 8, 93 2 $4 ,6 36 $5 ,2 12 $2 ,2 89 $3 ,1 61 $8 40 $8 90 $2 ,3 52 $2 ,2 89 Pr es er va tio n $3 7, 57 8 $2 9, 47 3 $9 ,1 82 $5 ,3 99 $5 ,1 24 $3 ,7 91 $1 ,0 65 $7 80 $3 ,6 03 $2 ,0 78 O th er In fo R es ou rc es $3 7, 23 9 $7 0, 19 9 $2 ,2 15 $1 1, 24 3 $1 ,0 60 $4 ,5 00 $1 ,9 23 $3 ,2 69 $2 ,4 75 $8 ,7 80 Su bt ot al $1 ,2 28 ,2 99 $1 ,6 75 ,1 92 $4 12 ,5 16 $4 48 ,0 03 $2 06 ,3 07 $2 13 ,6 18 $1 49 ,7 69 $1 40 ,5 87 $1 69 ,1 26 $1 80 ,1 45 458 College & Research Libraries September 2012 Carnegie classification, and size on two dimensions: staff expenditure and collection expenditures. De- pending upon how much libraries increased or decreased their spend- ing for staff and collections, four quadrants of library development over the period were constructed: expanding staff (those with increased staff expenditure and decreased col- lections expenditures), expanding collections (increased collections expenditures and decreased staffing expenditures), balanced leading (in- creased expenditures in both staffing and collections) and balanced lagging (decreased expenditures for both staffing and collections expenditures). The size of the bubble represents the total expenditure for that category of library. Additional axes were also created using the average increased spend for staffing (9.5%) and collec- tions (22%) across the entire popula- tion. For example, in figure 2 the bubbles in the upper right corner of the graph illustrate that large and doctoral institutional libraries have increased their collections and staff spending well above the mean for all libraries during the period, while the bubbles in the lower left corner of the graph demonstrate that small and very small libraries have lagged the group in both staffing and collection development. What is clear from this graph is that the large, doctoral, private uni- versities are driving and leading the investments in academic libraries, with inflation-adjusted increases of 13 percent for staff and 25 percent for collections. Many other libraries, particularly small to medium-sized public and community college li- braries, are not able to keep up with this pace of investment. Small and medium-sized libraries are lagging far behind, with decreases in both staff and collections expenditures and total expenditure. Though com- TA B L E 3 C ha ng e in E xp en di tu re s, 1 99 8- 20 08 (B y Se le ct ed C ar ne gi e C la ss ) / $ T ho us an ds IT E M 19 98 20 08 19 98 20 08 19 98 20 08 19 98 20 08 19 98 20 08 D oc to ra l M as te rs B ac ca la ur ea te A ss oc ia te A ll O th er O pe ra tio ns C om pu te r E qu ip m en t $1 09 ,7 42 $9 5, 53 3 $4 0, 94 3 $2 7, 77 3 $1 8, 15 4 $1 0, 71 5 $2 5, 43 3 $1 3, 48 1 $2 2, 30 5 $1 0, 89 1 B ib lio gr ap hi c U til iti es $5 0, 12 0 $5 2, 15 7 $2 6, 95 6 $2 6, 74 3 $1 7, 74 8 $1 4, 21 6 $1 3, 01 4 $1 2, 25 2 $1 0, 23 8 $7 ,8 54 A ll O th er O p E xp en se s $3 17 ,0 99 $3 36 ,2 04 $6 3, 17 3 $6 1, 55 6 $3 0, 68 9 $2 9, 46 2 $3 0, 29 6 $2 1, 45 4 $2 9, 79 0 $1 7, 34 4 Su bt ot al $4 76 ,9 61 $4 83 ,8 94 $1 31 ,0 72 $1 16 ,0 73 $6 6, 59 1 $5 4, 39 2 $6 8, 74 2 $4 7, 18 8 $6 2, 33 3 $3 6, 08 8 U nr ep or te d E xp en di tu re s $5 79 $1 3, 63 7 $4 ,5 82 $9 ,3 76 $1 7, 10 2 $1 5, 30 6 $5 9, 19 5 $6 1, 85 6 $5 7, 90 1 $5 7, 57 4 To ta ls $3 ,1 96 ,4 63 $3 ,8 87 ,1 23 $1 ,1 47 ,0 10 $1 ,1 98 ,1 54 $5 47 ,8 99 $5 43 ,0 13 $6 67 ,5 41 $6 77 ,9 08 $4 91 ,4 78 $4 64 ,8 51 N ot e: S ig ni fic an t c ha ng es a t t he a lp ha =. 05 le ve l i nd ic at ed in b ol d; D ol la r v al ue s ex pr es se d in 2 00 8 co ns ta nt d ol la rs . U.S. Academic Library Shifts in Spending, Staffing, and Utilization 459 munity college libraries have decreased their investments in collections, they have increased their staffing expenses over the period. Shifts in Staffing, 1998–2008 This section explores shifts in the use of librarians and other professional staff between the years 1998 and 2008 across institution classes as explored in the previous section. Across all institutions, while changes in the staffing level of librarians has increased slightly (9%), the use of other professional staff has increased at a much more significant rate (51% in the time period under study). The use of all other paid staff (except student assistants) has declined by 6 percent, and student assistant staffing has declined by 15 percent. Table 6 provides this informa- tion according to Carnegie classification. Analysis is based on mean staff FTEs per TABLE 4 Relation of Size Class to Type and Carnegie Class Size Class (Enrolled) Institution Type Selected Carnegie Classification Public Private Non-Profit Private For-Profit Doctoral Masters Baccalaureate < 1,000 J J J 1,000 – 2,999 J J 3,000 – 9,999 J J 10,000 + J J Note: J indicates primary category (> 50%) by size class; two categories indicated means neither achieved 50%. FIGURE 2 Libraries Trends by Level of Staffing and Collections Expenditures 460 College & Research Libraries September 2012 TA B L E 5 C ha ng e in E xp en di tu re s, 1 99 8– 20 08 (b y Si ze C la ss ) / $ T ho us an ds IT E M 19 98 20 08 19 98 20 08 19 98 20 08 19 98 20 08 L es s th an 1 ,0 00 1, 00 0 – 2, 99 9 3, 00 0 – 9, 99 9 10 ,0 00 + Sa m pl e Si ze (I ns tit ut io ns ) 13 77 13 63 10 53 99 0 83 2 94 3 39 1 53 2 St af fin g L ib ra ri an s / O th er P ro f $7 7, 70 1 $6 8, 31 7 $2 22 ,6 59 $2 15 ,4 84 $4 00 ,7 80 $4 34 ,0 75 $8 22 ,8 59 $1 ,1 47 ,3 13 A ll O th er P ai d St af f $3 5, 52 3 $2 4, 79 5 $1 31 ,1 90 $1 00 ,8 05 $2 71 ,2 68 $2 32 ,6 26 $6 96 ,3 69 $7 56 ,9 70 St ud en t A ss is ta nt s $1 2, 77 8 $9 ,4 63 $4 1, 29 7 $3 1, 86 1 $5 6, 01 9 $4 7, 57 5 $1 70 ,8 70 $1 48 ,8 35 Su bt ot al $1 26 ,0 02 $1 02 ,5 75 $3 95 ,1 46 $3 48 ,1 51 $7 28 ,0 68 $7 14 ,2 76 $1 ,6 90 ,0 98 $2 ,0 53 ,1 17 C ol le ct io ns B oo ks $4 7, 01 8 $3 4, 34 6 $1 24 ,0 00 $8 7, 33 5 $1 81 ,1 92 $1 50 ,5 86 $4 02 ,5 55 $5 15 ,1 81 Pa pe r/ M ic ro fo rm $4 0, 86 9 $2 5, 84 8 $1 09 ,6 50 $6 9, 22 6 $1 57 ,2 00 $1 15 ,6 33 $3 69 ,5 93 $3 99 ,3 66 E le ct ro ni c B oo ks $2 ,7 87 $5 ,9 71 $5 ,3 25 $1 0, 61 2 $1 0, 80 7 $2 3, 10 8 $1 8, 11 3 $9 3, 87 3 A ud io V is ua l $3 ,3 61 $2 ,5 27 $9 ,0 24 $7 ,4 97 $1 3, 18 5 $1 1, 84 6 $1 4, 84 9 $2 1, 94 2 Se ri al S ub sc ri pt io n $6 1, 96 0 $5 8, 19 8 $1 78 ,0 18 $1 84 ,9 59 $2 81 ,3 52 $3 31 ,0 91 $7 63 ,0 05 $1 ,1 25 ,8 52 Pa pe r/ M ic ro fo rm $5 1, 49 8 $3 2, 07 0 $1 51 ,0 43 $9 0, 65 0 $2 37 ,3 52 $1 51 ,1 05 $6 79 ,2 47 $4 24 ,0 41 E le ct ro ni c Se ri al s $1 0, 46 2 $2 6, 12 8 $2 6, 97 5 $9 4, 30 9 $4 4, 00 0 $1 79 ,9 86 $8 3, 75 8 $7 01 ,8 12 D oc um en t D el iv er y $1 ,5 76 $8 95 $3 ,8 36 $3 ,7 59 $4 ,7 97 $5 ,6 60 $1 5, 24 4 $2 0, 16 9 Pr es er va tio n $2 ,4 94 $1 ,3 90 $6 ,8 58 $4 ,3 74 $1 0, 66 5 $6 ,9 15 $3 6, 53 5 $2 8, 84 3 O th er In fo R es ou rc es $1 ,9 97 $4 ,1 77 $2 ,0 03 $9 ,1 41 $6 ,5 59 $1 6, 21 3 $3 4, 35 4 $6 8, 46 0 Su bt ot al $1 15 ,0 45 $9 9, 00 7 $3 14 ,7 14 $2 89 ,5 68 $4 84 ,5 65 $5 10 ,4 65 $1 ,2 51 ,6 94 $1 ,7 58 ,5 05 U.S. Academic Library Shifts in Spending, Staffing, and Utilization 461 institution; expenditures per institu- tion, and expenditures per staff FTE per institution, which may be thought of as annual average wages per occupational category. Analyzing changes based on mean levels allows us to discern changes from 1998 to 2008, taking into account increases based on increases or decreases in the number of institutions participating in the study. The trend in using other professional staff over the past decade is revealed most clearly when looking at differences according to Carnegie classification. Figure 3 presents these trends in visual form, looking specifically at the change in staffing by Carnegie classification between 1998 and 2008. While FTEs per institution overall across all libraries was down by 8 percent over the period 1998–2008, all libraries increased their use of other pro- fessional staff by 44 percent. This was driven heavily by the use of other pro- fessional staff among doctoral research institutions. On a ratio basis, for every one staff FTE added as librarian staff to doctoral research institutions, 13 other professional FTEs were added. The in- crease in FTE/institution was from 10.1 to 16.2 among doctoral institutions; this compares to 0.3, 0.2, 0.2, and 0.1 among masters’, baccalaureate, associate, and all other institutions, respectively, over the same time period. Doctoral institu- tions also drive total spending on staff as over half (53%) of all staff-related spending by all institutions in 2008 was by doctoral institutions. In terms of institutional type (public, private/nonprofit, private/for-profit), staffing among public and private/ nonprofit has followed overall trends noted above generally. In the case of private/for-profit institutions, the use of all staff has increased considerably (again, most likely following the gen- eral increase of these institutions), but most rapidly (165% and 164% respec- tively) for other professional and all other paid staff. TA B L E 5 C ha ng e in E xp en di tu re s, 1 99 8– 20 08 (b y Si ze C la ss ) / $ T ho us an ds IT E M 19 98 20 08 19 98 20 08 19 98 20 08 19 98 20 08 L es s th an 1 ,0 00 1, 00 0 – 2, 99 9 3, 00 0 – 9, 99 9 10 ,0 00 + O pe ra tio ns C om pu te r E qu ip m en t $1 7, 29 1 $6 ,9 88 $3 3, 06 9 $1 7, 37 4 $4 4, 80 4 $3 0, 03 7 $1 21 ,4 13 $1 03 ,9 95 B ib lio gr ap hi c U til iti es $9 ,1 89 $6 ,4 57 $2 3, 72 8 $1 8, 70 9 $3 3, 09 3 $2 9, 19 3 $5 2, 06 5 $5 8, 86 2 A ll O th er O p E xp en se s $1 8, 54 5 $1 0, 64 7 $4 7, 94 1 $3 3, 87 2 $8 2, 40 0 $7 9, 71 9 $3 22 ,1 62 $3 41 ,7 83 Su bt ot al $4 5, 02 5 $2 4, 09 1 $1 04 ,7 38 $6 9, 95 5 $1 60 ,2 98 $1 38 ,9 49 $4 95 ,6 39 $5 04 ,6 40 U nr ep or te d E xp en di tu re s $6 9, 92 4 $6 8, 56 7 $4 6, 21 9 $4 3, 84 1 $1 9, 97 4 $2 9, 54 7 $3 ,2 42 $1 5, 79 5 To ta ls $3 55 ,9 96 $2 94 ,2 40 $8 60 ,8 18 $7 51 ,5 15 $1 ,3 92 ,9 05 $1 ,3 93 ,2 36 $3 ,4 40 ,6 72 $4 ,3 32 ,0 57 N ot e: S ig ni fic an t c ha ng es a t t he a lp ha =. 05 le ve l i nd ic at ed in b ol d; D ol la r v al ue s ex pr es se d in 2 00 8 co ns ta nt d ol la rs . 462 College & Research Libraries September 2012 TA B L E 6 C ha ng e in S ta ffi ng , 1 99 8– 20 08 (b y Se le ct ed C ar ne gi e C la ss ) IT E M 19 98 20 08 19 98 20 08 19 98 20 08 19 98 20 08 19 98 20 08 19 98 20 08 D oc to ra l M as te rs B ac ca la ur ea te A ss oc ia te A ll O th er To ta l Sa m pl e Si ze (I ns tit ut io ns ) 23 4 25 6 52 1 58 0 60 3 54 3 12 17 13 49 10 78 11 00 36 53 38 28 C ha ng e in S ta ffi ng (F T E p er I ns ti tu ti on ) L ib ra ri an s 44 .7 4 45 .1 9 10 .0 8 9. 76 4. 55 5. 02 3. 09 3. 28 2. 35 2. 35 6. 78 7. 04 O th er P ro fe ss io na l S ta ff 10 .1 3 16 .1 8 1. 60 1. 91 0. 84 1. 00 0. 61 0. 77 0. 47 0. 59 1. 36 1. 96 A ll O th er P ai d St af f 81 .8 6 70 .9 2 13 .8 0 11 .4 4 4. 90 5. 00 4. 25 3. 86 2. 43 1. 83 10 .1 5 9. 07 St ud en t A ss is ta nt s 50 .1 4 40 .1 4 12 .1 7 9. 56 7. 29 5. 90 2. 81 2. 29 2. 30 1. 82 7. 77 6. 30 To ta l F T E S ta ff 18 7. 34 17 2. 43 38 .0 1 32 .6 7 18 .0 6 16 .9 1 11 .1 3 10 .2 0 7. 87 6. 60 26 .4 3 24 .3 7 C ha ng e in S ta ffi ng (E xp en di tu re s pe r In st it ut io n) / $T ho us an d L ib ra ri an s/ O th er P ro f $3 ,1 08 $3 ,7 57 $6 36 $6 58 $2 86 $3 44 $2 93 $3 38 $2 59 $3 41 $6 28 $7 78 A ll O th er P ai d St af f $2 ,6 21 $2 ,4 87 $4 29 $3 81 $1 62 $1 74 $1 57 $1 48 $8 2 $6 7 $3 68 $3 65 St ud en t A ss is ta nt s $6 60 $5 18 $1 20 $9 7 $6 5 $6 2 $3 1 $2 4 $2 8 $1 9 $1 16 $9 0 To ta l F T E S ta ff $6 ,3 98 $6 ,9 74 $1 ,1 54 $1 ,2 11 $4 44 $5 91 $4 27 $4 11 $3 87 $2 63 $1 ,0 62 $1 ,2 14 C ha ng e in S ta ffi ng (E xp en di tu re s pe r F T E p er I ns ti tu ti on ) L ib ra ri an s/ O th er P ro f $5 5, 53 8 $5 8, 44 8 $5 2, 20 6 $5 2, 59 9 $4 5, 60 5 $4 7, 48 3 $5 4, 73 9 $5 3, 77 8 $4 8, 09 0 $4 9, 81 9 $5 1, 22 3 $5 2, 20 9 A ll O th er P ai d St af f $3 1, 12 4 $3 3, 08 0 $2 9, 47 9 $3 0, 21 4 $2 7, 14 9 $2 7, 48 0 $3 2, 13 8 $3 0, 78 3 $2 8, 91 4 $2 9, 87 1 $3 0, 00 0 $3 0, 22 9 St ud en t A ss is ta nt s $1 2, 74 4 $1 2, 54 0 $1 0, 01 2 $1 0, 22 8 $8 ,8 87 $9 ,1 98 $7 ,6 11 $7 ,9 76 $9 ,2 03 $9 ,7 86 $9 ,3 48 $9 ,7 21 To ta l F T E S ta ff $3 2, 77 6 $3 6, 72 4 $2 9, 30 4 $3 2, 32 6 $2 2, 35 8 $2 8, 95 0 $2 7, 69 8 $3 2, 19 2 $2 3, 32 0 $2 8, 27 7 $2 6, 51 0 $3 1, 27 1 N ot e: S ig ni fic an t c ha ng es a t t he a lp ha =. 05 le ve l i nd ic at ed in b ol d; D ol la r v al ue s ex pr es se d in 2 00 8 co ns ta nt d ol la rs . U.S. Academic Library Shifts in Spending, Staffing, and Utilization 463 Shifts in Library Utilization, 1998–2008 The following section provides an analy- sis of shifts in library utilization between 1998 and 2008. This is based on the creation of a metric that attempts to ac- count for increases in enrollment and/or increases in the number of library hours. Otherwise, what might seem like increas- es in utilization (at an aggregate level) may in fact be simply due to increases in enrollment and/or hours. This is achieved by calculating a ratio that is the product of the Gate Count (number of persons who physically enter library facilities in a typical week), Hours Open, and Enrollment. Not included in this analysis are those libraries in which their entire collection is electronic.17 Our measure therefore is Gate Count / Hours / Enrollment; this is then scaled by 1,000 to arrive at essentially a gate count per hour per 1,000 enrollments. Table 7 provides these estimates and results of significance testing by our selected Carnegie classes, institution type, and size class. As can be seen in table 7, there has been decline in nearly all tracked metrics of library utilizations when normalized for student enrollment and available hours of the library. For example, the gate count of visitors in a typical week on an overall un- adjusted basis has gone from 16.2 million in 1998 to 20.3 million in 2008; but when normalized by hours open and enrollment results in declines in all categories except baccalaureate, and small and medium- sized universities, and instead of a nearly 25 percent increase in gate count in the aggregate, there is a nearly 50 percent decline when normalized for hours open and student enrollment. Utilization of the general collection, the reserve collection, and reference transactions have declined in all classes of libraries regardless of type, size, and Carnegie category. These trends may reflect the changing trends of the functional use of libraries from central depositories of circulating collections to shared meeting spaces. As the space allocated to paper-based FIGURE 3 Libraries by Change in Total/Other Prof Staff (Carnegie) 464 College & Research Libraries September 2012 TA B L E 7 C ha ng e in U ti liz at io n, 1 99 8– 20 08 IT E M Sa m pl e Si ze M ea n G at e C ou nt / H ou r O pe n (p er 1 ,0 00 E nr ol lm en t) M ea n G en er al C ir cu la ti on / H ou r O pe n (p er 1 ,0 00 E nr ol lm en t) M ea n R es er ve C ir cu la ti on / H ou r O pe n (p er 1 ,0 00 E nr ol lm en t) M ea n R ef T ra ns ac ti on s/ H ou r O pe n (p er 1 ,0 00 E nr ol lm en t) 19 98 20 08 19 98 20 08 Si g Te st 19 98 20 08 Si g Te st 19 98 20 08 Si g Te st 19 98 20 08 Si g Te st C ar ne gi e C la ss D oc to ra l 23 4 25 6 15 .0 5 14 .0 3 N E G 20 9. 97 12 2. 44 N E G 50 .4 1 40 .0 4 N E G 2. 32 0. 58 N E G M as te rs 52 1 58 0 15 .2 3 14 .8 9 N E G 11 5. 85 75 .2 0 N E G 29 .0 3 23 .7 6 N E G 1. 38 0. 68 N E G B ac ca la ur ea te 60 3 54 3 24 .2 5 27 .2 7 PO S 20 0. 08 15 7. 02 N E G 54 .9 5 50 .3 0 N E G 2. 16 1. 31 N E G A ss oc ia te 12 17 13 49 15 .6 3 14 .9 3 N E G 10 1. 42 55 .0 8 N E G 31 .0 8 14 .4 1 N E G 2. 91 1. 79 N E G A ll O th er 10 78 11 00 10 2. 85 33 .7 3 N E G 1, 25 3. 92 28 5. 94 N E G 32 6. 23 64 .6 5 N E G 12 .2 0 4. 45 N E G Ty pe Pu bl ic 15 78 15 71 18 .0 6 13 .7 1 N E G 19 4. 69 63 .7 9 N E G 37 .9 1 19 .7 7 N E G 2. 21 0. 99 N E G Pr iv at e/ N on -P ro fit 16 18 15 15 68 .8 8 33 .2 1 N E G 66 8. 16 25 9. 59 N E G 18 8. 30 55 .9 0 N E G 7. 83 2. 95 N E G Pr iv at e/ Fo r- Pr ofi t 45 7 74 2 28 .4 9 16 .4 7 N E G 51 9. 35 58 .9 7 N E G 10 5. 50 17 .8 5 N E G 5. 88 3. 38 N E G Si ze C la ss (E nr ol lm en t) < 1, 00 0 13 77 13 63 88 .1 6 33 .7 1 N E G 1, 02 9. 75 25 3. 94 N E G 27 2. 85 58 .5 5 N E G 11 .2 9 4. 68 N E G 1, 00 0 – 2, 99 9 10 53 99 0 18 .5 7 20 .7 2 PO S 14 7. 87 11 5. 43 N E G 42 .2 3 35 .8 7 N E G 1. 96 1. 22 N E G 3, 00 0 – 9, 99 9 83 2 94 3 12 .6 1 12 .8 6 PO S 93 .6 2 58 .5 8 N E G 25 .6 3 20 .0 2 N E G 1. 27 0. 70 N E G 10 ,0 00 + 39 1 53 2 11 .5 1 10 .5 4 N E G 13 1. 40 70 .7 0 N E G 30 .4 3 26 .4 1 N E G 1. 62 0. 58 N E G To ta l 36 53 38 28 41 .6 5 21 .9 6 N E G 44 0. 97 14 1. 76 N E G 11 1. 67 35 .8 0 N E G 5. 13 2. 22 N E G N ot e: S ig ni fic an t c ha ng es a t t he a lp ha =. 05 le ve l i nd ic at ed u nd er S IG T E ST ; D ol la r v al ue s ex pr es se d in 2 00 8 co ns ta nt d ol la rs . U.S. Academic Library Shifts in Spending, Staffing, and Utilization 465 resources continues to contract, this space is being repurposed toward meet- ing space, collaboration, and, in some cases, the use of the library for academic support services. As the metrics in this study indicate, however, the utilization of the library even as new “collaboration space” is in decline in most institutions. Figure 4 provides a visual indication of these trends—again, buoyed in large part by larger institutions and in particu- lar those classified by doctoral research. Despite a nearly 7-fold increase in collec- tion expenditures for large, doctoral, and public institutions, their utilization of the library has declined by 15%–20%. Small to medium-sized baccalaureate and master’s institutions, while making significant increased investments in their collections, have also seen a slight increase in library utilization over the period. Shifts in Cost per Unit, 1998–2008 Table 8 takes available data and calculates per unit costs for 1) books, 2) e-books, 3) au- diovisual materials, and 4) all serials (both print and e-serial acquisitions) for the pe- riods indicated. Physical materials (books and audiovisuals) remain largely the same over the period, while e-books and e-serials (with increased overall expenditures as indicated earlier) have shown dramatic decreases, of 72.7 percent for e-books and 87.1 percent for serials in per-unit costs. It appears that libraries are generating signifi- cant value in their e-materials investments, while their investments in physical collec- tions have not been similarly improving, remaining flat, or increasing. Conclusions The study confirms a number of findings from previous studies and discussions regarding academic library trends, while also demonstrating some countervailing evidence regarding previously held no- tions about academic libraries. Academic librarians and administra- tors as a group may indeed feel con- strained by budget; but, over the study FIGURE 4 Change in Utilization by Change in Electronic Serial $ (1998-2008) 466 College & Research Libraries September 2012 period, academic libraries have grown in real dollars by nearly 12 percent above inflation; their professional staffs have grown by nearly 15 percent, and funding for these staffs have increased by over 22 percent. In addition, their collections have been expanded by over 23 percent in current dollar funding, and serial and e- book collections have delivered dramatic value as indicated by reductions in per- unit costs. In fact, few other educational institutions can point to such progress. What also seems clear is that academic libraries cannot be treated as a homog- enous group of institutions and that the drivers of the growth in this community come from the large, doctoral, private institutions; these libraries are far outpac- ing the growth of the group as a whole, particularly the investments that small, masters and baccalaureate, and public institutions can sustain. Staffing is indeed diversifying, as sug- gested by earlier studies. Nonlibrarian professionals are the fastest-growing group of staff, with an increase of over 60 percent of other professionals added to doctoral institutions and 50 percent in private institutions during the period. Librarians as a group have remained constant, with no significant increases across all academic libraries, while other paid staff and library assistants have been reduced, presumably to fund in part the expansion of other professional staff. With a very few exceptions, the use of the library physical (nonelectronic) assets are on a precipitous decline, when nor- malized for student enrollment and hours open. Visitors to the library measured by gate counts are down significantly in most categories of analysis, with private universities down by 50 percent; reference transactions have significantly declined in all categories of analysis and in doctoral universities are down 75 percent, and large institutions are down 64 percent in the period analyzed. Circulation of both general and reserve collections are also down in all categories of analysis, with a 68 percent and 62 percent decline in TA B L E 8 C ha ng e in P er U ni t E xp en di tu re s, 1 99 8– 20 08 It em 19 98 20 04 20 08 T ho us an ds $ / U ni t T ho us an ds $ / U ni t T ho us an ds $ / U ni t $0 00 S U ni ts A dd ed (F Y ) $0 00 S U ni ts A dd ed (F Y ) $0 00 S U ni ts A dd ed (F Y ) B oo ks $6 77 ,3 12 24 ,5 00 $2 7. 65 $6 26 ,2 76 24 ,5 73 $2 5. 49 $6 10 ,0 72 23 ,9 56 $2 5. 47 E le ct ro ni c B oo ks $3 7, 03 3 1, 13 8 $3 2. 55 $7 4, 77 4 14 ,2 39 $5 .2 5 $1 33 ,5 64 20 ,0 12 $6 .6 7 A ud io V is ua l $4 0, 41 9 3, 17 9 $1 2. 72 $4 0, 09 9 3, 96 5 $1 0. 11 $4 3, 81 2 3, 39 9 $1 2. 89 Se ri al S ub sc ri pt io n $1 ,2 84 ,3 35 33 7 $3 ,8 11 .7 6 $1 ,5 51 ,0 68 1, 36 3 $1 ,1 37 .6 5 $1 ,7 00 ,1 00 3, 46 3 $4 90 .9 7 N ot e: D ol la r v al ue s ex pr es se d in 2 00 8 co ns ta nt d ol la rs . U.S. Academic Library Shifts in Spending, Staffing, and Utilization 467 general collection circulations at public and private institutions respectively, and a 71 percent decline in reserve circulations at private nonprofit institutions and an 83 percent decline at for-profit institutions. (The use of electronic materials was not part of this study, as such data is not yet available in the survey data used.) It does seem clear that libraries are operating in two distinct environments where they make major investments in electronic services and new staff skills to support those services, while also trying to operate the physical library and its print collections. It is hard to imagine that this bifurcation of resources and pro- grams is sustainable over a long period of time. It may well be that managing both the print collections with the requisite staff, while also investing in the electronic future and the skills needed to drive these new initiatives, is what is beginning to strain library resources. Finally, it is clear from the data avail- able that libraries are generating strong returns in their investments in electronic resources—in particular, e-books and e-serials, which are part of the digital libraries now available in the market- place. Libraries and their institutions have benefitted from these electronic materials acquisitions as measured by reductions in per-unit costs. Though total acquisi- tion costs of e-books and e-serials have increased by 261 percent and 507 percent respectively, as noted earlier a 79 percent decrease in e-book per-unit costs and an 87 percent decrease in per-unit serial subscriptions have been realized across all libraries in the period 1998–2008. Notes 1. Carnegie classification system is developed by the Carnegie Foundation for the Advance- ment of Teaching and widely used in the study of higher education, both as a way to represent and control for institutional differences, and also in the design of research studies to ensure adequate representation of sampled institutions, students, or faculty. 2. K.L. Hahn, Research Library Publishing Services: New Options for University Publishing. Association of Research Libraries, Mar. 2008, available online at www.arl.org/bm~doc/research- library-publishing-services.pdf [accessed 29 August 2011]. 3. “Academic Library Woes,” American Library Association News, May 2009, available online at www.ala.org/ala/alonline/currentnews/newsarchive/2009/may2009/academiclibrarywoes051309. cfm [accessed 29 August 2011]; L. Blumenstein, “Around Academic Libraries, New Cuts and Charges: Washington U. Closes Two Libraries; Others Cut, Save Subscriptions,” Library Journal, Sept. 17, 2009, available online at www.libraryjournal.com/lj/communityfunding/855778-268/story. csp [accessed 29 August 2011]; M. Kelley, “University of Washington iSchool, University Libraries Face Budget Pressures,” Library Journal, Mar. 7, 2011, available online from www.libraryjournal. com/lj/communityacademiclibraries/889587-419/university_of_washington_ischool_university. html.csp [accessed 29 August 2011]. 4. M.G. Brooks, “Organizational Leadership in Academic Libraries: Identifying Culture Types and Leadership Roles” (doctoral dissertation, Marshall University, 2007), available online at www.marshall.edu/etd/doctors/brooks-monica-2007-phd.pdf [accessed 29 August 2011]. 5. ACRL Research Planning and Review Committee, “2010 Top Ten Trends in Academic Libraries: A Review of the Current Literature,” College and Research Libraries News 71, no. 6 (2010): 286–92, available online at http://crln.acrl.org/content/71/6/286.full [accessed 29 August 2011]. 6. Ibid. 7. Donna Dosrochers, et al., Trends in College Spending 1998–2008: A Report of the Delta Cost Project (Lumina Foundation, 2010), Indianapolis, IN. 8. Institute of Museum and Library Services, “Technology: Status of Technology and Digitiza- tion in the Nation’s Museums and Libraries” (2001), available online at www.imls.gov/resources/ TechDig05/Technology%2BDigitization.pdf [accessed 29 August 2011]. 9. K. Coyle, “Libraries and Standards,” Journal of Academic Librarianship 31, no. 4 (2005): 373–76. 10. ACRL Research Planning and Review Committee, “2010 Top Ten Trends in Academic Libraries.” 11. Christopher Stewart, “Half Full or Half Empty? Staffing Trends in Academic Libraries at U.S. Research Universities, 2000–2008,” Journal of Academic Librarianship 36, no. 5 (2010): 394–400. 468 College & Research Libraries September 2012 12. Association of College and Research Libraries (ACRL), Value, Outcomes and Return of Invest- ment of Academic Libraries (Chicago: ACRL, 2010). 13. S. Foo, A.S. Chaudhry, S.M. Majid, and E. Logan, Proceedings. World Library Summit, Keynote address: Academic Library Seminar, National Library Board, Singapore, April 22-26, 2002, available online at http://www3.ntu.edu.sg/home/assfoo/publications/2002/02wls_fmt.pdf [accessed 29 August 2011]. 14. For more information regarding imputation methodology, see http://nces.ed.gov/ pubs2010/2010348.pdf (page 22 under Editing and Imputation). 15. Confidence interval calculations are generally based on an approximation of the t distri- bution. The distribution around our evaluated statistic provides the upper and lower bounds as described above. The t distribution is generally used in most statistical applications when calcu- lating confidence intervals and approaches a normal distribution as sample size increases. The t-test (upon which the distribution is based) is used for comparisons between only two groups. As noted, throughout this report, the comparisons are based on significant differences across different groups (in many cases more than two) for individual items (such as expenditures on books, staff, or utilization metrics). 16. Integrated Post-Secondary Education Data System. 17. This question was not asked in 1998; in 2008, 10 institutions responded that their collection was entirely electronic. Primary among the 10 is University of Phoenix, the well-known online institution; the largest in terms of enrollment is Walden University, based in Minnesota. The #1 source ffor jobs in Library and Infformation Science and Technology WHERE JOB SEEKERS AND EMPLOYERS GET RESULTS HRDR joblist.ala.org JOB SEEKERS Search and sort hundreds of job ads by position type, employer, location, and more EMPLOYERS Strengthen your candidate pool— ALA reaches the most engaged professionals and students