The Ohio State University Library System Improvement Request,

The Ohio State University Library System Improvement Request, 2005-2009 Introduction: A Cooperative System with a Common Mission The University, Moritz Law and Prior Health Science libraries have a long and mutually enriching tradition of cooperation. Although not administratively linked and supporting different disciplines, the three libraries have long worked together towards the common mission of providing the highest possible level support to the faculty and students of Ohio State. These cooperative efforts have been carried out through informal contacts among the libraries as well as through an array of active committees and regular meetings of the three directors. In particular, this has meant that as research libraries within a major university, the University, Moritz and Prior libraries cooperate to foster inter-disciplinary scholarship. Thus, for many years, the three libraries have shared a common technological platform (most notably OSCAR, the online catalog), participated together in multi-institutional initiatives such as OhioLINK and the CIC, and consulted with each other on expensive, cross-disciplinary acquisitions. Common Budget Challenges Just as the University, Moritz Law, and Prior Health Sciences libraries share a common mission, they also face a common set of financial challenges. The cost of acquiring, by purchase, subscription or license, the published knowledge (in analog and digital formats) needed by the faculty and students of the University is steadily increasing. Yet, the budgets available for this have come under great pressure following the demise of the Library Material Index program and in the face of rapidly escalating serials prices. Similarly, the three libraries are under-staffed when compared with their peers and hard-pressed to offer competitive salaries when hiring and retaining talented staff. The libraries also face similar issues in funding new and replacement technology and providing for the maintenance and refurbishment of their facilities. The common budget challenges faced by the OSU Library System can be illustrated by the following charts and statistical tables, drawn from the Association of Research Libraries (ARL) and our nine peer institutions that are all part of this Association. Chart 1: Monograph and Serial Costs in ARL Libraries, 1986-2002. All research libraries are struggling to keep up with the high inflation of journal subscriptions and monographs. While costs for library materials have grown by 227% for serials and by 75% for books over the last fifteen years, research libraries in the United States and Canada have seen their acquisition of journals increase by only 9% and their purchase of new books actually decline by 5%. 1

Chart 2: Peer Comparisons for. Among our peer institution libraries, we consistently rank next to last in total library expenditures. These ARL statistics do include expenditures for all three libraries in our system: University, Moritz, and Prior. While the level of expenditures is not a direct indicator of quality, it does give an indication of the relative strength and competitiveness of library programs Total Expenditures 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 Michigan $39,310,808 Michigan $41,368,972 Michigan $43,558,787 Michigan $43,357,616 Michigan $48,193,379 UCLA $37,984,020 UCLA $37,599,170 UCLA $38,939,911 UCLA $42,265,154 Penn State $41,819,383 Penn State $34,167,912 Penn State $35,368,278 Penn State $37,745,294 Penn State $39,944,624 UCLA $40,044,840 Washington $30,143,019 Texas $31,437,601 Wisconsin $33,340,581 Texas $36,480,061 Wisconsin $39,281,520 Minnesota $29,715,493 Wisconsin $31,291,741 Texas $33,060,093 Wisconsin $33,601,436 Texas $36,671,492 Wisconsin $29,681,576 Washington $30,783,622 Washington $30,867,887 Illinois $32,542,338 Illinois $32,996,914 Texas $28,695,585 Minnesota $29,993,696 Illinois $30,457,637 Minnesota $32,443,747 Minnesota $31,413,131 Illinois $26,700,017 Illinois $27,698,982 Minnesota $30,139,362 Washington $31,567,959 Washington $28,464,332 OSU $25,711,099 OSU $26,275,208 OSU $28,256,469 OSU $27,822,167 OSU $27,045,276 Arizona $21,097,072 Arizona $22,629,734 Arizona $23,708,017 Arizona $25,433,853 Arizona $25,656,448 2

Chart 3: Peer Comparisons for FTE Library Personnel. Ohio State has been in eighth place or tied for eighth place in this category. Supporting one of the largest faculty and student bodies in the nation, our low FTE count for library personnel is particularly challenging. Wisconsin and Michigan, for example, with smaller constituencies and smaller output measures (such as circulation or interlibrary loan transactions) have in excess of 200 FTE positions more than OSU. FTE Personnel 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 UCLA 617 UCLA 630 UCLA 634 Michigan 643 Penn State 651 Michigan 602 Michigan 601 Michigan 632 Penn State 637 Michigan 621 Penn State 576 Penn State 587 Penn State 619 UCLA 601 Wisconsin 604 Texas 564 Texas 556 Texas 560 Texas 561 UCLA 576 Wisconsin 538 Illinois 517 Wisconsin 528 Illinois 522 Texas 574 Illinois 514 Wisconsin 514 Illinois 510 Wisconsin 513 Illinois 531 Washington 495 Washington 488 Washington 507 Washington 506 Washington 483 OSU 439 OSU 438 OSU 440 OSU 433 Minnesota 405 Minnesota 427 Minnesota 430 Minnesota 436 Minnesota 423 OSU 405 Arizona 354 Arizona 362 Arizona 361 Arizona 362 Arizona 354 Chart 4: Peer Comparisons for ARL Index. The ARL Index is a weighted measure of the most relevant ARL statistics, and it creates a ranking among the ARL libraries that is reported each year in the Chronicle of Higher Education. OSU rose to its highest ranking of 18 th in the ARL Index in 2000 but has fallen back to 23 rd in 2003. Among its peers, OSU ranking has remained next to the bottom. ARL Membership Criteria Index 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 UCLA 6 Michigan 6 Michigan 6 Michigan 6 Michigan 5 Michigan 7 Illinois 7 UCLA 7 Illinois 7 Illinois 6 Illinois 8 UCLA 8 Illinois 8 UCLA 8 UCLA 7 Texas 11 Texas 9 Texas 9 Texas 11 Texas 10 Washington 12 Washington 12 Washington 12 Penn State 12 Wisconsin 11 Penn State 13 Penn State 13 Penn State 13 Washington 14 Penn State 13 Minnesota 14 Minnesota 14 Wisconsin 14 Wisconsin 15 Washington 14 Wisconsin 16 Wisconsin 15 Minnesota 15 Minnesota 17 Minnesota 19 OSU 21 OSU 18 OSU 19 OSU 22 OSU 23 Arizona 27 Arizona 29 Arizona 31 Arizona 27 Arizona 27 3

With these common budget challenges before us, the three libraries of the Ohio State University welcome the opportunity to request additional continuing funds over the next five years, 2005-2010, that will make us more competitive in meeting the information support needs of our faculty and students. Additional funding will help us with the continuous improvement of our basic library services, while at the same time assisting us in changing and introducing new operations and services based on emerging digital technologies. Allocating Funds Within the University Library System We have reviewed past formulas used to allocate funds within the University Library System, and we recommend that a new formula, based on comparison with our peer institutions, be used over the next five years. In recent history, the following formulas have been used to allocate library funds: New acquisitions funds (when Index-based increases were given during the 1990 s) University Libraries 79% Prior Health Sciences Library 9% Moritz Law Library 12% Trademark funds University Libraries 83% Prior Health Sciences Library 9% Moritz Law Library 8% Indirect Cost funds University Libraries 56% Prior Health Sciences Library 38% Moritz Law Library 6% This last formula for the allocation of indirect funds was just established by the three library directors in 2003, and it is based on the proportion of sponsored research conducted by the units directly served by the libraries. We recommend that this formula continue to be used for the distribution of any indirect cost funds to the libraries for the next five years. The other two historic formulas, although not too far off national average, do need some revision. If we look to our peer institutions in the ARL that also have law and health science libraries and they are Arizona, UCLA, Michigan, Minnesota, Washington, and Wisconsin -- we can calculate the average proportion of expenditures by type of library over the last five years. We have prepared that calculation and present it in attachment 1. It results in the following five-year average for peer institution library expenditures: University Library 78% Health Sciences Library 13% Law Library 9% 4

These proportions, we believe, set a defensible and objective standard for relative support, and we recommend that they be used for the next five years to allocate new funds, except for indirect cost funds, among the University, Prior Health Sciences, and Moritz Law libraries. In 2009, these formulas should be reviewed and recalculated to reflect any changing trends in disciplinary support. Priority Programs for Library System Improvements In this last section, the three library directors identified our most pressing programmatic and budgetary needs. We believe that all funds provided as a result of this proposal will strengthen the libraries of Ohio State. To a significant extent these funds will support common initiatives (e.g., digitization projects, database licensing, and technical support); a portion of the funds will be used by each library in support of its local mission. 1. Improve support for scholarly communication by adding new acquisitions funds to libraries throughout the five-year period Respond to continued growth in volume and variety of scholarly communications with particular emphasis on the acquisition of new digital information assets Be smart, aggressive consumers with information vendors Coordinate local acquisitions with OhioLINK resource sharing Provide support for more digitization projects Enhance the Knowledge Bank Project with particular emphasis on activities that improve economics of scholarly communication Work with scholars and publishers to improve the economics of scholarly communication 2. Expand library services to support E-Learning (web-based curricula) with new personnel funds in first part of five-year period Add an instructional technology support staff member in each library to work with faculty creating Web-based reference and tutorials linked to course management systems Develop and staff an office in the libraries to manage copyright compliance and to educate faculty and students on copyright issues related to print and electronic resources. 3. Expand library services to support faculty research with new personnel funds during the middle part of the five-year period Add a librarian to each of the three libraries to increase specialized research services related to research projects and course development Add a librarian to the system for grant writing and development Sustain activities of Knowledge Bank Project such as the Faculty Expertise System 5

4. Recruit, develop, and retain quality librarians and staff in priority program areas with new personnel funds in the latter part of five-year period Add new positions in preservation, digitization, organization of information, and information technology support Insure salaries are competitive with peers Invest in training and development to enhance skills of current librarians and staff 5. Continuously improve library facilities and keep equipment updated with new equipment funds throughout the five-year period We hope that new continuing funds can be added to the libraries at the rate of $250,000 per year for the next five years. We recommend that the priority program needs be addressed in the following manner: Year 1 (2005): 50% acquisitions, 50% personnel Year 2 (2006): 45% acquisitions, 45% personnel, 10% equipment Year 3 (2007): 40% acquisitions, 50% personnel, 10% equipment Year 4 (2008): 40% acquisitions, 50% personnel, 10% equipment Year 5 (2009): 40% acquisitions, 50% personnel, 10% equipment 6

ATTACHMENT 1: Percentage of Expenditures for Health Sciences and Law 2002/2003 Arizona $25,656,448 $20,598,855 80.29% $3,465,823 13.51% $1,591,770 6.20% Calif, LA $40,044,840 $31,071,190 77.59% $5,729,615 14.31% $3,244,035 8.10% Michigan $48,193,379 $38,975,334 80.87% $3,538,570 7.34% $5,679,475 11.78% Minnesota $31,413,131 $22,684,936 72.21% $5,210,026 16.59% $3,518,169 11.20% Ohio State $27,045,276 $21,326,288 78.85% $3,180,362 11.76% $2,538,626 9.39% Washington $28,464,332 $21,765,163 76.46% $4,059,828 14.26% $2,639,341 9.27% Wisconsin $39,281,520 $33,073,333 84.20% $3,823,126 9.73% $2,385,061 6.07% Avg% (5) 78.80% 12.75% 8.45% 2001/2002 Arizona $25,433,853 $20,201,001 79.43% $3,465,768 13.63% $1,767,084 6.95% Calif, LA $42,265,154 $33,174,935 78.49% $5,748,485 13.60% $3,341,734 7.91% Michigan $43,357,616 $34,173,035 78.82% $3,742,690 8.63% $5,441,891 12.55% Minnesota $32,443,747 $24,453,771 75.37% $4,918,795 15.16% $3,071,181 9.47% Ohio State $27,822,167 $22,103,179 79.44% $3,180,362 11.43% $2,538,626 9.12% Washington $31,567,959 $23,946,199 75.86% $4,840,022 15.33% $2,781,738 8.81% Wisconsin $33,601,436 $28,023,809 83.40% $3,329,215 9.91% $2,248,412 6.69% Avg% (5) 78.80% 12.75% 8.45% 2000/2001 Arizona $23,708,017 $18,485,117 77.97% $3,499,104 14.76% $1,723,796 7.27% Calif, LA $38,939,911 $30,205,321 77.57% $5,446,019 13.99% $3,288,571 8.45% Michigan $43,558,787 $34,874,006 80.06% $3,636,799 8.35% $5,047,982 11.59% Minnesota $30,139,362 $22,772,143 75.56% $4,563,045 15.14% $2,804,174 9.30% Ohio State $28,256,469 $22,707,268 80.36% $3,067,330 10.86% $2,481,871 8.78% Washington $30,867,887 $22,994,012 74.49% $5,077,566 16.45% $2,796,309 9.06% Wisconsin $33,340,581 $27,880,870 83.62% $3,268,956 9.80% $2,190,755 6.57% Avg% (5) 78.52% 12.91% 8.57% 7

1999/2000 Arizona $22,629,734 $17,677,194 78.11% $3,350,408 14.81% $1,602,132 7.08% Calif, LA $37,599,170 $29,208,028 77.68% $5,143,405 13.68% $3,247,737 8.64% Michigan $41,368,972 $33,060,539 79.92% $3,542,078 8.56% $4,766,355 11.52% Minnesota $29,993,696 $21,986,021 73.30% $4,976,583 16.59% $3,031,092 10.11% Ohio State $26,275,208 $20,706,961 78.81% $3,041,791 11.58% $2,526,456 9.62% Washington $30,783,622 $24,091,797 78.26% $4,163,490 13.53% $2,528,335 8.21% Wisconsin $31,291,741 $26,261,660 83.93% $2,995,219 9.57% $2,034,862 6.50% Avg% (5) 78.27% 13.00% 8.73% 1998/1999 Arizona $21,097,072 $16,493,728 78.18% $3,192,156 15.13% $1,411,188 6.69% Calif, LA $37,984,020 $29,891,384 78.69% $4,725,720 12.44% $3,366,916 8.86% Michigan $39,310,808 $31,789,899 80.87% $3,125,854 7.95% $4,395,055 11.18% Minnesota $29,715,493 $22,422,737 75.46% $4,494,768 15.13% $2,797,988 9.42% Ohio State $25,711,099 $20,848,086 81.09% $2,742,178 10.67% $2,120,835 8.25% Washington $30,143,019 $22,809,244 75.67% $4,729,489 15.69% $2,604,286 8.64% Wisconsin $29,681,576 $24,930,631 83.99% $2,886,499 9.72% $1,864,446 6.28% Avg% (5) 79.01% 12.62% 8.37% Five year Average (Omitting the Highest and Lowest) 78.68% 12.81% 8.51% 8