The University of Florida (UF) is a major, public, comprehensive, land-grant, research university. UF is among the

nation's most academically diverse public universities. It is one of only 17 public, land-grant universities that belong to

the Association of American Universities, and is one of the largest universities in the nation, with more than 50,000

students. In 2014, with the support of lawmakers and the UF Trustees, UF launched UF Rising – a five-year initiative to

elevate the University to among the nation’s top public universities. A combined $950 million is aimed at hiring new

midcareer and eminent professors, adding new endowed professorships, and to upgrading and adding facilities.

The UF Libraries form the largest information resource system in the state. The UF Libraries consist of seven libraries; six

are in the system known as the George A. Smathers Libraries. These include the Health Science Center Libraries (HSCL).

The Smathers Libraries are a member of the Association of Research Libraries (ARL) and other distinguished associations.

The Associate Dean for Administrative Services and Faculty Affairs is the most senior Human Resources, Financial,

Facilities, and Grants Management professional for the Smathers Libraries, serving as representative to the larger

University organization and as counsel to the management of the Libraries. The Associate Dean gathers, compiles,

analyzes and interprets statistics and information related to library financial activities and leads the development of the

annual budget.

In 2011, UF adopted Responsibility Centered Management (RCM) for budgeting and financial management. Under RCM,

the university’s colleges became Responsibility Centers (revenue generators) and the Libraries became one of the

numerous Support Units (non-revenue generating units primarily providing services to Responsibility Centers). The

fundamental premise of RCM is to move decisions and resulting revenues and expenses to the Responsibility Centers. All

revenues are allocated to Responsibility Centers who must pay for the services provided to them, and through the RCM

Budget Review Committee (largely comprised of college budget officers appointed by their deans) make

recommendations to the UF Administration about Support Center funding. RCM ideally permits decision-making where

“we” are a university first and a college or unit second, and the achievement of the university’s goals supersede any

unit’s individual goals; however, any funding allocated to a Support Unit, like the Libraries, results in less discretionary

funding for the Responsibility Center.

RCM was implemented at UF at a time of severe budget reductions, including steep cuts in state appropriations - the

primary source of funding for the Libraries. The UF Libraries entered RCM chronically under-funded and facing

escalating materials costs. Since July 1, 2009, the Smathers Libraries have experienced $2.4 million in recurring funding

cuts and $700,000 in one time cuts. Materials costs have increased by an average of 5% per year and have resulted in a

gap of $2.6 million from the level in FY 2008. [Table 1]

In this environment, the Libraries need to develop effective methods for communicating its budget circumstances and

determining appropriate funding levels should be in order to adequately serve UF’s faculty, students and researchers.

The Smathers Libraries, led by the Associate Dean, have engaged in an ongoing analysis of how the resources of the

Libraries and the demands of UF compare to peer institutions using data from the Integrated Postsecondary Education

Data System (IPEDS) and ARL Statistics. The data reflecting measures for library resources and university characteristics

which influence the demand for library materials and services has been interpreted using numerous approaches.

Findings: The scope of the population and programs at UF are significantly above average for peer institutions and

reflect comparably higher demand. Incongruously, the fiscal and human resources of the libraries are significantly below

average. Said differently, there is a considerable and statistically significant gap between the scale of UF programs and

populations, and the resources of the library system that is not explained simply by the size of the large institution, but

reflects a serious UF funding issue.

At peer institutions, there is a strong, positive and consistent relationship between Library Expenditures and Total

University Expenditures. This is not the case at UF. [Table 2] In fact, the average Total Library Expenditures from the

peer institutions increased by $1.8 million from 2008 to 2012 while Total Library Expenditures for UF Libraries increased

by only $7,858.

In 2012, library expenditures as percentage of tuition and appropriation at peer universities averaged 4.97%. UF Library

expenditures as percentage of tuition and appropriation were 3.37%, resulting in a gap of $14 million between UF and

its peers. [Table 3]

A similar gap exists when comparing library collection budgets at peer universities, where materials expenditures as a

percentage of tuition and appropriation averaged 1.83%, compared to 1.53% at UF resulting in a gap of $2.5 million

between UF and its peers. [Table 4]

UF is above average for every university characteristic correlating with DEMAND for library resources and services [Table

5]. The UF Libraries are below average for every RESOURCE characteristic for library resources and services. [Table 6]

The result of this imbalance between demand and resources is reflected in statistics for volumes held and other library

resources available to UF faculty and students compared to those at peer universities. [Table 7]

For the past several years, the Libraries have focused the pleas for increased funding on materials funding, which is

judged internally to be the most urgent problem, and what is believed to be the most compelling case for the University.

These pleas have been made repeatedly to senior administrators and deans and to the RCM Budget Committee in the

annual funding reviews and requests. All parties acknowledge that the funding issues exist.

Message: Escalating materials costs are not unique to UF, but UF has not responded with increased funding for library

materials. The Libraries have favored materials over staff and other operational expenditures. However, the losses of

funding and escalating costs have reached an unsustainable level.

FY2014-2015 RCM Budget Cycle: The Libraries reported that a flat budget equates to a budget cut because of the

annual increase in the cost of materials and without a $1.1 million increase in the materials budget, the Libraries will be

forced to cut the Springer and Sage electronic journal packages, as well as other important materials. The Libraries

requested prioritized increases totaling $1.986 million:

1. Addition of $1.1 million to the recurring materials budget to avoid loss of core content.

2. Commitment for an additional 5% per year to cover future price increases and to sustain currently

available information resources ($434,000). This does not restore prior materials cuts.

3. Commitment for at least 5% in additional funding in each of the next 6 years to begin to restore lost

content and add new content to begin expanding to an appropriate collection ($434,000).

As a significant gesture of support for sustained and improved library resources, the RCM Budget Committee

recommended recurring funding increases for the Libraries of half of the $1.986 million requested, despite the fact that

this would result in reductions in their respective colleges’ available funding. The Committee asked that the UF

Administration match this with funds from other sources. Despite this, the Committee recommendation was rejected

and the recurring funding for the Libraries was budgeted as flat with a non-recurring stop gap increase of $1.1 million to

avoid the cuts to Springer and Sage journals. The UF Administration has advised there is a commitment to seek a longer

term solution. Unfortunately, the current solution of non-recurring funding does not address the long term funding

problem and will extend the gap depicted in Table 1.

Top

US P

ub

lic Un

iv. Pe

ers

Top

25

Pu

blic U

niv P

ee

rs U

F Ide

ntifie

d P

ee

rs U

F Actu

al

R² = 0

.86

37

R

² = 0.6

39

8

R² = 0

.44

5

R² = 0

.02

58

ILLINO

IS, UR

BA

NA

M

ICH

IGA

N

CA

LIFOR

NIA

, BER

KELEY

MIC

HIG

AN

M

INN

ESOTA

ILLIN

OIS, U

RB

AN

A

NO

RTH

CA

RO

LINA

N

OR

TH C

AR

OLIN

A

IND

IAN

A

PEN

NSYLV

AN

IA STA

TE

OH

IO STA

TE M

ICH

IGA

N

VIR

GIN

IA

PEN

NSYLV

AN

IA STA

TE

NO

RTH

CA

RO

LINA

WISC

ON

SIN

PITTSB

UR

GH

O

HIO

STATE

TEX

AS

PEN

NSYLV

AN

IA STA

TE

V

IRG

INIA

TEX

AS

W

ASH

ING

TON

TEX

AS A

&M

W

ISCO

NSIN

V

IRG

INIA

WISC

ON

SIN

TABLE 5

UNIVERSITY

Demand

Average

Excluding UF

UF as % of Non-UF Average

Total Faculty 4,206 131%

Total Students 38,197 131%

Undergraduates 27,346 120%

Graduate Students 10,851 158%

PhD's Awarded 1,187 165%

TABLE 6

LIBRARY

Resources Average

Excluding UF

UF as % of Non-UF Average

Volumes Held 8,962,398 53%

Monographs Acquired (2011) 89,280 26%

Librarians and Professional Staff 164 54%

Other Staff 222 81%

TOTAL Staff 386 69%

$ for Materials $16,924,627 77%

$ for Hardware/Software (2011) $1,422,413 13%

TOTAL Library Expenditures $44,945,336 64%

P

er Faculty

Per U

nd

ergradu

ate

Per G

radu

ate Stu

den

t P

er Ph

D A

ward

ed

U

F A

VG

R

atio

UF

AV

G

Ratio

U

F A

VG

R

atio

UF

AV

G

Ratio

Vo

lum

es H

eld

86

9

2,2

74

1

: 2.6

1

46

3

44

1

: 2.4

2

79

8

28

1 : 3

2

,444

7

,620

1

: 3.1

Mo

no

graph

s Acq

uired

(20

11

) 4

.28

2

1.02

1

: 4.9

0

.72

3

.46

1

: 4.8

1

.38

7

.76

1

: 5.6

1

1.02

7

5.48

1

: 6.9

Librarian

s and

Pro

fession

al Staff 0

.01

62

0

.04

09

1

: 2.5

0

.00

27

0

.00

62

1

: 2.3

0.0

05

2

0.0

158

1

: 3

0.0

455

0

.14

28

1 : 3

.1

Oth

er Staff 0

.03

26

0

.05

55

1

: 1.7

0

.00

55

0

.00

86

1

: 1.6

0

.01

04

0

.02

26

1 : 2

.2

0.0

916

0

.20

54

1 : 2

.2

TOTA

L Staff 0

.04

88

0

.09

64

1

: 2

0.0

08

2

0.0

14

9

1 : 1

.8

0.0

15

6

0.0

384

1

: 2.5

0

.13

72

0.3

482

1

: 2.5

$ fo

r Materials

$2

,37

0 $

4,2

14

1 : 1

.8 $

39

7

$6

46

1

: 1.6

$7

60

$

1,6

56

1 : 2

.2

$6

,66

4 $

15

,14

0

1 : 2

.3

$ fo

r HW

and

SW (2

01

1)

$3

4.51

$

33

7.3

2

1 : 9

.8

$5

.80

$5

7.68

1

: 10

$

11

.12

$13

4.1

5

1 : 1

2.1

$

88.82

$

1,2

39

1 : 1

4

Total Lib

Expen

ditu

res $

5,2

02

$

11

,28

8

1 : 2

.2

$8

72

$

1,7

37

1

: 2

$1

,66

8

$4

,405

1

: 2.6

$

14,62

7

$40

,115

1

: 2.8

LIBR

AR

Y R

ESOU

RC

ES CO

MP

AR

ED T

O U

F DEM

AN

D IN

DIC

AT

OR

S

(20

12

data e

xcept w

here in

dicate

d)

TAB

LE 7