You are on page 1of 13

Toward a Formula-Based Model for

Academic Library Funding: Statistical
Significance and Implications of
a Model Based upon Institutional
Characteristics

Frank R. Allen and Mark Dickie

This study tests the hypothesis that a positive relationship exists between
academic library funding (dependent variable) and selected institutional
variables taken as indicators of the demand for library services at the
university (enrollment, number of doctoral programs, doctoral degrees
awarded, number of faculty, select other institutional characteristics). The
research employs 11 years of longitudinal data from 113 members of the
Association of Research Libraries to create a multiple regression model.
Empirical results indicate that operational indicators of the demand for
library services are positively associated with funding, and most of the as-
sociations are statistically significant at the five percent level or less in two
tail tests. In a corollary finding, libraries associated with private universities
in the United States spend 21 percent more than their public counterparts,
while Canadian university libraries spend 21 percent less than U.S. public
university libraries.The presence of a medical school is associated with
an 8.6 percent greater expenditure, and the presence of a law school is
associated with a 12.3 percent greater expenditure.The study suggests
that this formula may be useful as a tool for library funding and assessment
of adequacy of library budgets.

any academic libraries in the change of issues facing academic libraries,
United States have tradition- including serials inflation, new technology
ally experienced funding in initiatives, growth in academic degree
an incremental or haphazard programs, and changing usage patterns.
fashion. This served libraries adequately Models that may have worked decades
until the latter two decades of the 20th ago and models that may be effective in
century. The challenge in recent years has our universities at large no longer serve
been to find a model to support the sea libraries. How does the 21st-century

Frank R. Allen is Associate Directorfor Administrative Services, University of Central Florida Librar-
ies, and Mark Dickie is Professor,Department of Economics, College of Business Administration,at the
University of Central Florida;e-mail: fallen@mail.ucf.edu and Mark.dickie@bus.ucf.edu, respectively.

170

and redundancy Frank Goudy presented data from 1971 to of content format. David Baker revealed findings can we go to identify other models that from a survey on resource allocation in might serve academic libraries? university libraries in the United Kingdom. It is impossible to know 1990 to show that the ACRL Libraries stan- when the library is adequately funded dard that the library's appropriation shall because there is no defined target toward be 6 percent of total institution budget has which to aim. Based upon survey driven and less susceptible to the econom. He found virtually no evidence of the explosion of published literature. The economic percentage of newly published literature well-being of the library would rise and a library in this tier should purchase. A Budget. It is important to distinguish mission (THEC) uses for the distribution of between models for funding of the entire monies to support higher education in Ten- . however. In a if a library is adequately funded? Where 1992 article.ala. (See: www. 5 In a 1996 opinion Few published studies address funding paper. age of university E&G funds allocated A formula-based budget may provide to these libraries fell steadily from 3. the library's objectives. what they do not need. concluded that German libraries are un- derfunded by approximately 30 percent. Literature Survey according to this model. A postulated several causes for this decline. costs as the basis of allocation of central lection manager make informed resource (state) funds to universities.and long-term movement toward using formulae and unit planning. Toward a Formula-Based Model for Academic Library Funding 171 academic library petition for funds? What library (the focus of this study) versus new funding models can libraries employ? models for the allocation of the materials What benchmarks are used to determine budget. rely- The library might then be more resigned ing on a more generalized statement that to going about the business of allocating the library budget should be appropriate to its scarce economic resources internally.32 percent in 1992. a formula approach to the method of fund- aged deals that encourage libraries to buy ing university libraries. university pie. program-driven budget may reinforce but did not discuss funding formulas.4 Rolf the notion of the library as an academic Griebel discussed in a 1995 examination as opposed to an administrative campus of German university libraries a financial unit. He fall along with the larger university.org/ knowing that at least it got its share of the ala/acrl/acrlstandards/standardslibraries. How can a library director or col. subsequently dropped this standard. Murle Kenerson criticized formulas mechanisms for the academic library as that the Tennessee Higher Education Com- a whole. an element of objectivity worked into the the "6% rule" was wishful thinking that funding mechanism. According to Goudy. Libraries may benefit from never been realized.2 The authors note that ACRL the task of allocating dollars to the library. data from 88 ARL libraries. the percent- ic and political vagaries of the institution. there allocation decisions when there is little is little sign that such approaches are being predictability for the materials budget? adopted by universities once the funds are Funding uncertainties are exacerbated by received. Subjective funding mechanisms for His major conclusions were that there is a libraries can impair short. htm. not the focus of this study. Many libraries do not have much approach known as the "Bavarian Model traction when negotiating for funding.' In a 1993 article.91 more stability and render the library less percent in 1982 to 3." The model uses a methodology program-driven approach may build in that identifies the tier to which a library and growth drivers based upon the health of university belong and then specifies what the institution as a whole. one that would center never existed. pack.)3 Kendon Stubbs lamented in a 1994 It is the thesis of this study that the study the decline in research libraries' share library's budget should be more program of university funds. He vulnerable to disproportionate cuts.

Nancy test scores and similar mechanisms are Cantor and Paul Courant discussed recent of little consequence in assessing the real trends in higher education finance that value of library services and in securing a carry disquieting consequences. some of those have not been ap- and take back unexpended balances at plied. works to sum was never received by the library. Public goods such as the library are behind in their ability to support their in.6 In the detriment of university "public goods. which one might argue In a 1985 paper. program re. but are also responsi- funding in the university budget. opera. The university funding practices as routinely formulas incorporate full-time equivalent employing: (1) little relationship between (FTE) enrollment and performance-based long-term objective and resource alloca- approaches using student test scores and tion. of the few to be guidelines for expenditures of resources. improved of departments. It may of funding for higher education by X% per be of interest to look at the literature on year. including academic libraries. "Grade point averages. and program-driven costs. but. He reported level over university funding mechanisms. This approach does little to upon the decline of academic library fund- reward strategic planning. yet their presence is the university's operational budget. Ma suggested often difficult to establish an exact return that. postulated.7 higher education in the United States. establish strict funding. based upon historical cost-share basis. In a 2002 article. Jim Tolhurst discussed gives further impetus for this study The resource allocation and budgeting in U. with large staffing." a 1999 article Jin-Chuan Ma argued that a prime example of which is the university Chinese university libraries are slipping library. Furthermore. Gunapala Edirisooriya advocated acquisition of information resources to an entirely new approach to funding of support that research.172 College & Research Libraries March 2007 nessee. "half-time" students may require resource allocation that does not appear as many library resources as full-time to take into account the relative strengths students. the full ble for the costs of those activities.K. on an earlier U.K. study that summarized suggesting that most are short on objective . Kenerson argued incremental allocation from an historical that FTE may be appropriate for funding of base.' university funding. The Libraries are somewhat of a microcosm author's premise was to create a reserve for of a university. literature also reveals a concern at a larger and Australian universities." "bottom-line departmental budgeting" in Kenerson found that even when the library which units retain the revenues associated was allocated a certain stated amount of with their activities. there appear to be few Soviet Union. and new program development. At least two studies have commented year's end. beginning far enough out to allow funding mechanisms of universities as a universities to prepare.. vulnerable under this model because it is stitutions' research agenda. at the author's the academic and nonacademic sectors home institution of Tennessee State Uni. The use of fair share of performance funding dollars. university libraries should the intellectual and cultural well-being also receive a percentage of the university's of the community as a whole.10 In a 2003 research and grant funding. and increasing this whole. ing in the United States as a percentage of view. in addition to receiving 5 percent of on their investment. (4) versity. economy approach" used by the former In summary. the thought to have a significant impact on current model. to be used for paper. higher education by reducing the amount tional. Peter Facione is established. 9 In a 2003 article. The picture here is also somewhat percentage each year until a sizable reserve muddled. (2) allocation of resources based upon placement of graduates. Central committees project published models for academic library income and expenses. The reserve is then used to likened the fiscal process of most American provide a stable source of revenue for both colleges and universities to the "controlled the state and higher education. (3) a division of resources between classroom instruction.

s mand from faculty. the variables Canadian/American affiliation. be pred. Recognizing that there may be a model in which funding of an academic systematic differences in funding between library depends on institutional char. demand from undergraduate students. The use of a logarithmic fields. num- number of teaching faculty to indicate de. construct and.D. graduate en- demand from graduate students. X5 = number of Ph. public/private status. able .D. petitions for increases in funding. X2 We regress the natural logarithm of total = graduate enrollment and X3 = number of real library expenditures (Y) on the logs of Ph. The model assumes that the and Canadian institutions. Also imperfect measures of the theoretical included in the regression are a time trend. To test the hypothesis we analyze 11 icated upon its existing size. awarded annually. fields and number of Ph. private. Finally.D. 0 if not) to reflect independent variable to diminish. faculty. and X7 = presence of mated marginal impact of a change in an law school (1 if present. To implement the model empirically. ARL turn to the annual statistical survey of the libraries not examined include nonuniver- Association of Research Libraries (ARL) sity libraries and a small number of insti- as the source for operational indicators of tutions that were dropped due to missing the theoretical construct "demand for the data. the impact on cost from adding the expensive professional programs of the 90th Ph.S. as discussed in more detail a constant term and indicator variables for: later. 0 if not) and X9 = Canadian students. 0 if not). 0 if not). we include funding an academic library receives is two additional qualitative independent influenced partly by the demand for the variables: X8 = U.S. or more specifically as serials inflation or rising salaries). is a move in an interest. holdings.Y) and the independent variables just described (X1 through X7).We use Hypothesis and Methodology multiple regression to quantify this rela- The purpose of this study is to illustrate tionship. this is a widely recognizable and complete and programs. Our research hypothesis is that a ing direction but denudes the library to an positive relationship exists between total administrative support function devoid of library expenditures (dependent vari- academic mission. program is probably less than university. acteristics. X4 = rollment. inertia. X6 = presence of medical school (1 rather than linear model allows the esti- if present. One example of a novel of institutional characteristics related to budgeting technique. we yielding a total of 1. For ex- demand from graduate and relatively ample.D. One university (1 if Canadian. private university (1 library's services from the university's if U. presence of of library funding that might usefully be a law school. tered management. there are other potential determinants presence of a medical school. private and public institutions in the U.S. responsibility-cen. the demand for library services. number of teaching faculty. years of data from 1992 through 2003 for serials inflation -in essence. reason for adopting this assumption is we include a time trend in the regression to explore the plausibility of a model that as a rough way of partially accounting for relies on variables external to the library factors outside the university that may as drivers of funding. and programs. degrees awarded annually to reflect undergraduate enrollment.190 observations. This represents a increase the costs of meeting a given level significant departure from arguments that of demand for the library's services (such the library's funding. Although these variables are the impact on cost of adding the 20th.D. Toward a Formula-Based Model for Academic Library Funding 173 rigor and long on political influence or selected represent measurable indicators incrementalism. and considered in future research. 113 libraries that are members of the ARL. we use X1 longitudinal data set that represents a = undergraduate enrollment to indicate relatively homogeneous population. The ARL data set is selected because library's services from students. ber of Ph. faculty. ." Specifically.

489.212 (3. factors. or measures the estimated "elasticity. unobserved library-specific estimated elasticities are well below unity. are all libraries.037 (1.s Awarded 0.908. but the base level of funding larger than the elasticity for undergradu- may vary due to library-specific factors. That these estimates. Ex. 0 otherwise) 0. and Log of Graduate Student Population 0. For example. the random effects model rec.284) most are statistically significant at the five percent level or less in Log of Number of Ph. 0 if not) 0.s awarded. The model produces a Constant 14. strong support for the importance of ac- amples of such factors would be a large counting for library-specific effects. Intuitively.2.170. Fields Offered 0.004 (0.123 (5.071 (6.489 pendent variables and library Sample Size 1190 funding. the model assumes a 7/100 of one percent increase in total real that the funding response to a change in expenditure.049 (3. model against an ordinary least-squares model that ignores persistent library-specific fac- A "random effects" model is used to tors yields a chi-square test statistic with account for unobserved library-specific one degree of freedom of 4.. 11by year) 0. indicating that one percent changes in ognizes that the observations are not independent variables are associated with all independent.D. indicating a modicum of Lagrange multiplier test vs. ate enrollment should not be surprising The model is estimated by generalized given the relatively greater investment least squares. lower standard errors) than that a one percent increase in graduate would be obtained by estimators that student enrollment or in the number of ignored unmeasured library-specific teaching faculty is associated with about factors.S.637 (60..773) ber of Ph.837) coefficient of determination (R2) of .D.D. By accounting for effects of in the independent variable. in library resources required by research . Coefficients Coefficient of the operational indicators of Independent Variable (t-ratio) demand for library services take Log of Undergraduate Student Population 0.171. All of the persistent. This in library funding. multiple branches. providing factors that persist through time. library endowment. The t-ratio for un- Log of Number of Ph. as well an independent variable is the same for as the elasticity for Ph. private.216 (-2. 0 otherwise) -0.024 (34." or the any other unmeasured variable specific percentage change in total real expendi- to a library with an ongoing impact on ture associated with a one percent change spending. A "Lagrange multi- Note: The dependent variable is the natural logarithm of plier" test of the random effects total real expenditures. the larg- feature allows for more efficient estima. programs after con- Canadian (=1 if Canadian.D.071 indicate tion (that is.291) dergraduate enrollment is 1. est elasticity estimates of .086 (5. The coefficient of a logarithmic variable tions or archives. 0 if not) 0.051) slightly below the five-percent Medical School (=I if present.882) trolling for other independent Trend (= 1. Log of Number of Faculty 0. OLS 4. and there appears to be no significant association Law School (=I if present. costly special collec.613) variables. since each library is much smaller than one percent increases observed repeatedly over the years.319) critical value.511) a two-tail test.071 (4..421) between funding and the num- Private (=1 if U.908) the expected positive sign.88 correlation between the inde- R-squared 0..174 College & Research Libraries March 2007 TABLE 1 Results Coefficient of Measurables The estimated model is sum- Regression marized in table 1.

3 multiple variables are problematic. Ph. 100 approximate the percentage change While Pearson correlation is useful for in total real expenditure associated with assessing linear relationships between presence of the indicator.050 0. of growth in these campus independent suring graduate enrollment.0006 $6. Based on changes the model. There is. number of variables.19 0.000 Overall change $604.0040% 0. produced Ph.58 0.49 0.150 15. and libraries spend about 21 percent less on av.830 Grad Students 2.0710% 0. Toward a Formula-Based Model for Academic Library Funding 175 and graduate education. and presence more general linear relationships between of a law school is associated with 12.903 in library funding.920 Number Ph. collinearity problem. degrees awarded and number of from the aforementioned trend variable. The coefficient of the trend variable repre- sents the average year-to-year growth in Application to a Specific Institution expenditures when holding all indepen.066 2607 0.12 The percent greater expenditure. in the independent variables. holding other produces a relatively modest increase of independent variables constant. while Canadian university the value of 20 that Belsley. presence pairs of variables.D.903 As percent 6. Libraries condition number computed for the data associated with private universities in matrix (the ratio of the largest to the small- the United States spend about 21 percent est characteristic root of the normalized more than their public counterparts in the cross-product matrix) is 10. Welsch suggest as indicating a potential erage than U.S.799 0.59.6 ber" of the data matrix indicates whether percent greater expenditure. Thus. also an underlying rate of growth in nious model might consider whether all university library budgets independent three of the independent variables mea.024 Base: $10.170 16.4 percent annually.65 to 0.D.054 25.832 Undergrads 22.000 Change Year Year % % in 2002 2003 Change X100 Elasticity Impact Funding Faculty 976 1. Kuh.322 Ph. ever.000. how- Researchers seeking a more parsimo.0186 $185.76.000 Total change $364.903 Trend growth $240.262 26.0710% 0. the "condition num- of a medical school is associated with 8.0056 $56. the formula age by 2. $364. public university libraries. Coefficients of correlation coefficients between pairs of indicator variables when multiplied by these variables range from 0.076 7. expenditures increase on aver. Fields 20 23 0.D. Pearson enced on average with no growth in the TABLE 2 Application of Model to a University Trend 0. Table 2 shows an application of the for- dent variables constant and reflects the mula to an actual set of data for a rapidly influence of factors like serials inflation growing university in the south that is or real increases in salaries.05% .D.98 0. According to not an ARL member. This trend growth.0370% 0. well below United States.115 11.s 87 97 0.0054 $53. as they is what the library would have experi- correlate highly with one another.00 0.0063 $62. fields should be included.0490% 0.

The solid line plots the average of annual total expenditures.176 College & Research Libraries March 2007 FIGURE 1 Actual and Model Expenditures 22. Application to Expenditure Growth over Time Application across Libraries A second application of the model is to The model can be applied in a third way compare the time path of actual expen. the model-predicted expen.05 percent rate of growth. dollars. To simplify the by the model.500 20.000 6 20. a hypo. for the 11-year period. as reported in the 99 libraries' total real expenditures in the ARL statistics. The total according to the model (represented increase suggested from the formula is by the dashed line) would experience a $604. each year.500 21. As between these two produces an Over Pre- shown.-*-Model independent variables.903. while the dashed line shows in 2003 U. In contrast.S. Table 3 provides this by the model. would be presumptuous.500 5 19000 18. the average library experienced dicted or Under Predicted amount based erratic transitory swings in its expendi. To ture growth rate. however. Actual .500 22. The Model column the average real expenditure predicted shows the library expenditures predicted by the model in table 1.000 17. by comparing a library's actual spending ditures of a library or set of libraries to against the hypothetical spending that the time path of expenditures predicted the model suggests.000 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 Year -0. The Ac- having complete data for each of the 11 tual column shows the library's average years.500 18. the independent variables for that institu- diture is adjusted so that it matches the tion for the 11 years of data. The difference actual expenditure in the first year. a 6. the increase from applying the level of expenditures in 1993 but funded trend variable yields $240. based upon the averages of comparison. In the example thetical library with the same starting above. much steadier and more predictable rate of budget growth. namely the dip in the argue that these terms are synonymous mid 1990s and the pronounced slowing with "overfunded" and "underfunded" in year 2002-2003. upon the methodology of the model.000 ' 19.000 21. Figure 1 illustrates this comparison for the ARL libraries that type of comparison for the 99 libraries formed the data set for this study.000.500 17. the .

Lewis Liu provides empirical seven of the included UC-system libraries evidence that the library's ARL ranking (Davis and Riverside) have actual funding correlates closely with its U. special collections. At least one study in the library litera- Yale. Libraries faced with political tious extension would be to measure the disadvantages or distinct underfunding amount of scholarly productivity for the relative to peer institutions may be able to universities under study and use this to use this approach to their benefit. Only one collection helps shape the university's Ivy League library (Brown) and two of reputation. The model may be more useful input measures (volume count. Princeton) and two are in the UC ture suggests that a university library's system (Berkeley and UCLA). Libraries can argue that there Is the model a good thing or a bad thing for should be a correlation between research libraries? Libraries with exceptional influ- grant money flowing into the institution ence on campus may find no benefit to such and the library's budget. Both of these parative basis. suggests that the library should be strong Last. create an independent variable that would Does increased library funding even factor the number or quality of scholarly necessarily convey additional benefit to . are at Ivy League institutions (Harvard. The born from serials inflation. News and below model-predicted funding World Report ranking. Static results that are of ideas suggest that the greater the univer- limited value for one institution might sity's rate of research and publication. publications into the model. the of independent sources of funding such as extensions to the analysis proposed here endowments. which moves the debate away from tion and digitization efforts underway in measuring the goodness of the library by libraries. News Limitations to the Model and World Report includes library funding There are a number of limitations to this per student as a metric in its ranking of research. accounts for it indirectly through the trend variable. Toward a Formula-Based Model for Academic Library Funding 177 suggestion is worth exploring on a com. Conclusion based allocation schemes should account The purpose of the study is not to create more directly for the funding necessities a one-size-fits-all model for funding. An institution consider other possible independent can devise its own set of measurable inputs. or of important cost drivers suggest the opposite relationship: that a such as archives.S. the formula does not explicitly esti. For example. however it should be noted that U. etc. number of for growing institutions and less useful for serials. Easily measurable If the goal were to make this model truly inputs or drivers can potentially shield the practical and more applicable. The analysis does This is a subtle but important distinc- not account for the myriad of preserva. an approach. model illustrates a foundation for what could evolve into funding strategies based Further Study upon measurable inputs. variables. to reflect the level of research taking place mate the impact of serials inflation but only at the university. and university that is demonstrating growth multiple library branches (although the in research activity should support its net effect of all persistent library-specific faculty by building a stronger library factors is implicitly accounted for in the through increased financial support.) to a model that institutions in a steady state of existence. There is no separate enumeration colleges and universities. the be useful in comparing a library against a more money should flow into the library cohort group of peers.S. expenditures. In any case.Practical applications of formula. three to support research. This approach turns of the ten libraries with the largest excess the notion of the size of the library as a of actual over model-predicted funding measure of its "goodness" on its head. tion. A more ambi. one might library from arbitrary cuts."3 This may be true. random effects model).

526 81% CALIFORNIA.267 21.342 23% ARIZONA 22.427 -18% COLUMBIA 35.400 19. DAVIS 18.848 24.502 12% ARIZONA STATE 21.710 1.396 21. SAN DIEGO 20.510 19% AUBURN 10.402 15.347 1.471 -4.746 -9% COLORADO 17.170 22.251 22.363 17.702 3. Model Expenditures.691 20. LOS ANGELES 39.969 22.884 19.059 10.023 13.475 22.702 -1.062 25.642 34% ALBERTA 18.178 College & Research Libraries March 2007 TABLE 3 Actual Expenditures.898 2.247 1.473 8% GEORGIATECH 8.436 -25% BOSTON 14.691 15.399 13.372 11.684 -46% CHICAGO 23.073 17. BERKELEY 42.118 15.553 14.956 18% EMORY 24.090 25.203 38% BOSTON COLLEGE 15.322 12.870 16.020 4% FLORIDA STATE 12.966 119% CALIFORNIA. RIVERSIDE 10.414 21.584 -10%o DELAWARE 13.972 18.143 29% GEORGE WASHINGTON 17.506 5.695 996 6% CALIFORNIA.816 12% COLORADO STATE 11. IRVINE 16.112 57.512 -5.760 30% CALIFORNIA.526 15.655 -3.461 3.318 -1.711 15.798 87 0% CALIFORNIA.630 14.996 23% GEORGIA 19.871 17.098 -9.982 19.254 15.771 19% BRIGHAM YOUNG 16.798 52% DARTMOUTH 14.598 -616 -3% CALIFORNIA.378 22.105 -17% CALIFORNIA.988 18% FLORIDA 22.835 -3.082 18.871 507 2% CINCINNATI 17.200 1.427 -2.013 3.677 18.330 8% CORNELL 34.245 -7% BRITISH COLUMBIA 22.720 15.828 -1.978 230% HAWAII 13.942 919 -6% .061 3.058 -2.217 19.362 41% BROWN 15.003 40% CONNECTICUT 19.672 18. SANTA BARBARA 14.854 5.891 6.574 -534 -4% DUKE 25.820 13. and Over or Under Predicted as Percentage of Model: Average Year Thousands of 2003 US Dollars University Actual Model Difference Percent Over (+) or Under (-) Predicted ALABAMA 10.040 13.960 4.051 9.124 429 3% CASE WESTERN RESERVE 11.034 36% HARVARD 83.

646 9.282 52% IOWA 20.400 1.974 13.027 -5.546 93 01% MCMASTER 9.688 13.881 45% INDIANA 27.829 -39% ILLINOIS.661 -33% LOUISVILLE 16.136 -11% KENT STATE 10.664 -22% HOWARD 12.547 17.191 -3.474 -22% OHIO STATE 25.566 19% KENTUCKY 17. CHICAGO 16.907 19.816 1.296 18.557 11.206 17.064 1.540 -2.925 18.671 -14% MCGILL 15.297 16.331 -4.337 14.635 -6.345 14% MASSACHUSETTS 12.630 28% NORTH CAROLINA STATE 19.884 -10% NEBRASKA 12.865 48% MISSOURI 13.128 19.357 -2.473 19.043 -17% MANITOBA 10.378 15.205 -29% MICHIGAN 39. Model Expenditures. URBANA 28. Toward a Formula-Based Model for Academic Library Funding 179 TABLE 3 Actual Expenditures.918 22.599 -2.038 24 0% JOHNS HOPKINS 24.297 -29% MONTREAL 16.147 -4.919 -18% LOUISIANA STATE 11.297 -2.357 25.385 18.862 -21% MARYLAND 18.690 3.446 -19% MIAMI 15.147 7% NEW YORK 29.099 6% MINNESOTA 30.996 18.844 9% IOWA STATE 15.047 24.769 16.941 -29% .916 16.109 -2.588 17.372 22.808 18.424 2.330 76% MICHIGAN STATE 17.339 -14% OHIO 12.241 15.511 20.001 18.314 5.934 4.220 -26% NEW MEXICO 18.098 7.019 14% MIT 14.103 9.430 21.979 -682 -4% ILLINOIS.165 4. and Over or Under Predicted as Percentage of Model: Average Year Thousands of 2003 US Dollars University Actual Model Difference Percent Over (+) or Under (-) Predicted HOUSTON 12.130 14% OKLAHOMA 12.014 14.180 -1.367 17.264 -2.080 26% NORTHWESTERN 21.242 3.112 16.062 15.666 15% NORTH CAROLINA 25.298 -5.253 -3.715 -3.269 20.550 -2.189 -2.592 8.145 -13% NOTRE DAME 15.963 26% KANSAS 16.779 16.944 20.321 325 -2% LAVAL 12.973 19.443 -3.639 15.519 19.

337 19.683 18.140 15.466 18.154 19.683 18.048 -19% STANFORD 53.593 121% SUNY-ALBANY 10.188 65% PITTSBURGH 22.427 3.968 10% TEXAS TECH 15.080 13% QUEEN'S 10.321 13.026 -8% ROCHESTER 12.271 39% WASHINGTON STATE 12.767 -20% RICE 13.776 1.031 16% PENNSYLVANIA STATE 33.996 -1.229 -14% PENNSYLVANIA 28.336 -13% SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA 24.722 -23% SYRACUSE 12.823 -2.408 7% VANDERBILT 17.180 College & Research Libraries March 2007 TABLE 3 Actual Expenditures.181 18.659 -30% TENNESSEE 15.465 17.138 82% PURDUE 14.657 15.459 -19% SUNY-BUFFALO 16.965 -4. Model Expenditures.670 -14% SUNY-STONY BROOK 12.399 17.634 -27% RUTGERS 28.308 5% WATERLOO 9.658 -1.444 10.972 21.418 20.427 -744 -4% .894 -32% OREGON 13.988 -2.237 15. and Over or Under Predicted as Percentage of Model: Average Year Thousands of 2003 US Dollars University Actual Model Difference Percent Over (+) or Under (-) Predicted OKLAHOMA STATE 10.841 -5.031 21.369 -2.099 -37% TEMPLE 13.530 12.123 194 -1% SOUTHERN ILLINOIS 12.942 24.213 -11% WAYNE STATE 17.178 15.744 18.530 13% PRINCETON 29.088 13.161 -2.984 20.399 51% SASKATCHEWAN 9.765 -13% WASHINGTON U.055 12.528 -1.508 20.658 17.753 47% TEXAS A&M 20. LOUIS 21.231 13.-ST.502 14.395 13.253 -7.665 9.928 -30% SOUTH CAROLINA 15.956 18.490 8.929 25.018 18.251 16.205 123% TULANE 11.883 -43% UTAH 19.260 21.283 19.130 29.153 18.668 6.249 21% WASHINGTON 29.607 20.619 9.331 2.368 15.959 -3.262 -4.292 -2.226 16.073 3.676 1.058 1.983 3.015 32% VPI & SU 12.753 2.706 -3.723 24.292 -4.934 -22% VIRGINIA 24.282 -13% TEXAS 30.736 20% TORONTO 38.681 -2.911 4.701 8.

"Standards for Libraries in Higher Educa- tion. Liu." Higher Education Policy 16 (Mar. David A. Gunapala Edirisooriya.805 2." College & Research Libraries News 65 (Oct. 1980). Kendon Stubbs..113 -616 -4% WISCONSIN 32.174 23. Available online from www. Welsch.115 11. 2002): 45-48. Rolf Griebel. However. Peter A. and Roy E. ERIC." Journalof Tertiary Educational Admin- istration 7 (Oct. 1992): 1-19." The Journalof Documentation 48 (Mar. Jim Tolhurst. org/ala/acrl/acrlstandards/standardslibraries. Goudy.310 20% the institution? Assuming that the institu. Association of College and Research Libraries.876 102% YORK 14. Edwin Kuh. based planning. Frank W.htm.Model and Reality. It is well beyond the scope of move the debate for funding away from this study to compare the marginal utility traditional input measures and toward of dollars steered toward the library ver." New Directionsfor InstitutionalResearch 119 (Fall 2003): 3-12.378 21. Facione. "University Library Budgets . Jin-Chuan Ma. 4. David Baker. Courant. 2004): 534-43. Model Expenditures. 5. a broader set of institutionally based sus other programs on campus. Lewis G." Journalof Academic Librarianship19 (Sept. 6. Nancy Cantor and Paul N. 9.e. 2003): 121-33.869 10. "Trends in University Funding for Research Libraries.ala.497 13. Belsley. "Fund Allocations for Information Resources in China's Key Universities. 1999): 174-78." Library Trends 51 (Winter 2003): 277-92. (New York: John Wiley and Sons." College & Research Libraries60 (Mar. and Over or Under Predicted as Percentage of Model: Average Year I Thousands of 2003 US Dollars I University Actual Model Difference Percent Over (+) or Under (-) Predicted WESTERN ONTARIO 12." New Review of Academic Librarianship2 (1996): 59-67. funded library may be high (i. "Performance Funding and Full-Time Equivalence: Implications for Funding in Academic Libraries. [Accessed 15 September 2005]. "Scrounging for Resources: Reflections of the Whys and Wherefores of Higher Education Finance. the model may also serve to elsewhere. 3. 12. "The Economic Behavior of Academic Research Libraries: Toward a Theory.299 23. "Academic Libraries and the Six Percent Solution: A Twenty-Year Financial Overview. Toward a Formula-Based Model for Academic Library Funding 181 TABLE 3 Actual Expenditures./Dec." Academe 88 (Nov. "State Funding of Higher Education: A New Formula.510 48% YALE 47. Regression Diagnostics: Identifying Influ- ential Data and Sources of Collinearity. 10. 13. 1985): 143-55. a good tion's budget process is a zero sum game. "Resource Allocation and Budgeting." ARL: A Bimonthly Newsletter of Research Library Issues and Actions 172 (Jan. 11." 13 (1996). 1994). 8. ED398927. 1993): 212-15. . Murle E. Kenerson. "Resource Allocation in University Libraries. Notes 1. This approach may in the cases of obvious underfunding one be favorably received as universities as might argue that the utility of marginal a whole move more toward outcomes- dollars allocated to the severely under. investment by the institution). output indicators. gains in library funding reduce funding Last. 7. "The Philosophy and Psychology of Effective Institutional Budgeting. 2.

Further reproduction of this article in violation of the copyright is prohibited.ala.org/ .COPYRIGHT INFORMATION TITLE: Toward a Formula-Based Model for Academic Library Funding: Statistical Significance and Implications of a Model Based upon Institutional Characteristics SOURCE: Coll Res Libr 68 no2 Mr 2007 The magazine publisher is the copyright holder of this article and it is reproduced with permission. To contact he publisher: http://www.