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 associations 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 [Link] 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 [Link] 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

United States have traditionally experienced funding in
an incremental or haphazard
fashion. This served libraries adequately
until the latter two decades of the 20th
century. The challenge in recent years has
been to find a model to support the sea

change of issues facing academic libraries,

including serials inflation, new technology
initiatives, growth in academic degree
programs, and changing usage patterns.
Models that may have worked decades
ago and models that may be effective in
our universities at large no longer serve
libraries. How does the 21st-century

Frank R. Allen is Associate Directorfor Administrative Services, University of Central Florida Libraries, and Mark Dickie is Professor,Department of Economics, College of Business Administration,at the
University of Central Florida;e-mail: fallen@[Link] and [Link]@[Link], respectively.

170

Toward a Formula-Based Model for Academic Library Funding 171

academic library petition for funds? What
new funding models can libraries employ?
What benchmarks are used to determine
if a library is adequately funded? Where
can we go to identify other models that
might serve academic libraries?
Subjective funding mechanisms for
libraries can impair short- and long-term
planning. How can a library director or collection manager make informed resource
allocation decisions when there is little
predictability for the materials budget?
Funding uncertainties are exacerbated by
the explosion of published literature, packaged deals that encourage libraries to buy
what they do not need, and redundancy
of content format. It is impossible to know
when the library is adequately funded
because there is no defined target toward
which to aim. Libraries may benefit from
an element of objectivity worked into the
funding mechanism, one that would center
the task of allocating dollars to the library.
The library might then be more resigned
to going about the business of allocating
its scarce economic resources internally,
knowing that at least it got its share of the
university pie.
It is the thesis of this study that the
library's budget should be more program
driven and less susceptible to the economic and political vagaries of the institution.
A formula-based budget may provide
more stability and render the library less
vulnerable to disproportionate cuts. A
program-driven budget may reinforce
the notion of the library as an academic
as opposed to an administrative campus
unit. Many libraries do not have much
traction when negotiating for funding. A
program-driven approach may build in
growth drivers based upon the health of
the institution as a whole. The economic
well-being of the library would rise and
fall along with the larger university.
Literature Survey
Few published studies address funding
mechanisms for the academic library as
a whole. It is important to distinguish
between models for funding of the entire

library (the focus of this study) versus

models for the allocation of the materials
budget, not the focus of this study. In a
1992 article, David Baker revealed findings
from a survey on resource allocation in
university libraries in the United Kingdom.
His major conclusions were that there is a
movement toward using formulae and unit
costs as the basis of allocation of central
(state) funds to universities; however, there
is little sign that such approaches are being
adopted by universities once the funds are
received. He found virtually no evidence of
a formula approach to the method of funding university libraries.' In a 1993 article,
Frank Goudy presented data from 1971 to
1990 to show that the ACRL Libraries standard that the library's appropriation shall
be 6 percent of total institution budget has
never been realized. According to Goudy,
the "6% rule" was wishful thinking that
never existed.2 The authors note that ACRL
subsequently dropped this standard, relying on a more generalized statement that
the library budget should be appropriate to
the library's objectives. (See: [Link]/
ala/acrl/acrlstandards/standardslibraries.
htm.)3 Kendon Stubbs lamented in a 1994
study the decline in research libraries' share
of university funds. Based upon survey
data from 88 ARL libraries, the percentage of university E&G funds allocated
to these libraries fell steadily from 3.91
percent in 1982 to 3.32 percent in 1992. He
postulated several causes for this decline,
but did not discuss funding formulas.4 Rolf
Griebel discussed in a 1995 examination
of German university libraries a financial
approach known as the "Bavarian Model
Budget." The model uses a methodology
that identifies the tier to which a library and
university belong and then specifies what
percentage of newly published literature
a library in this tier should purchase. He
concluded that German libraries are underfunded by approximately 30 percent,
according to this model. 5 In a 1996 opinion
paper, Murle Kenerson criticized formulas
that the Tennessee Higher Education Commission (THEC) uses for the distribution of
monies to support higher education in Ten-

172 College & Research Libraries

nessee, including academic libraries. The
formulas incorporate full-time equivalent
(FTE) enrollment and performance-based
approaches using student test scores and
placement of graduates. Kenerson argued
that FTE may be appropriate for funding of
classroom instruction; but, at the author's
home institution of Tennessee State University, "half-time" students may require
as many library resources as full-time
students. "Grade point averages, improved
test scores and similar mechanisms are
of little consequence in assessing the real
value of library services and in securing a
fair share of performance funding dollars."
Kenerson found that even when the library
was allocated a certain stated amount of
funding in the university budget, the full
sum was never received by the library.6 In
a 1999 article Jin-Chuan Ma argued that
Chinese university libraries are slipping
behind in their ability to support their institutions' research agenda. Ma suggested
that, in addition to receiving 5 percent of
the university's operational budget, the
current model, university libraries should
also receive a percentage of the university's
research and grant funding, to be used for
acquisition of information resources to
support that research.7
Libraries are somewhat of a microcosm
of a university, with large staffing, operational, and program-driven costs. It may
be of interest to look at the literature on
funding mechanisms of universities as a
whole. The picture here is also somewhat
muddled. In a 2002 article, Peter Facione
likened the fiscal process of most American
colleges and universities to the "controlled
economy approach" used by the former
Soviet Union. Central committees project
income and expenses, establish strict
guidelines for expenditures of resources,
and take back unexpended balances at
year's end. This approach does little to
reward strategic planning, program review, and new program development.'
In a 1985 paper, Jim Tolhurst discussed
resource allocation and budgeting in U.K.
and Australian universities. He reported
on an earlier U.K. study that summarized

March 2007
university funding practices as routinely
employing: (1) little relationship between
long-term objective and resource allocation; (2) allocation of resources based upon
incremental allocation from an historical
base; (3) a division of resources between
the academic and nonacademic sectors
based upon historical cost-share basis; (4)
resource allocation that does not appear
to take into account the relative strengths
of departments. 9 In a 2003 article, Nancy
Cantor and Paul Courant discussed recent
trends in higher education finance that
carry disquieting consequences. The use of
"bottom-line departmental budgeting" in
which units retain the revenues associated
with their activities, but are also responsible for the costs of those activities, works to
the detriment of university "public goods,"
a prime example of which is the university
library. Public goods such as the library are
vulnerable under this model because it is
often difficult to establish an exact return
on their investment, yet their presence is
thought to have a significant impact on
the intellectual and cultural well-being
of the community as a whole.10 In a 2003
paper, Gunapala Edirisooriya advocated
an entirely new approach to funding of
higher education in the United States. The
author's premise was to create a reserve for
higher education by reducing the amount
of funding for higher education by X% per
year, beginning far enough out to allow
universities to prepare, and increasing this
percentage each year until a sizable reserve
is established. The reserve is then used to
provide a stable source of revenue for both
the state and higher education.,
In summary, there appear to be few
published models for academic library
funding. Furthermore, of the few to be
postulated, some of those have not been applied. At least two studies have commented
upon the decline of academic library funding in the United States as a percentage of
university funding, which one might argue
gives further impetus for this study The
literature also reveals a concern at a larger
level over university funding mechanisms,
suggesting that most are short on objective

Toward a Formula-Based Model for Academic Library Funding 173

rigor and long on political influence or
incrementalism. One example of a novel
budgeting technique, responsibility-centered management, is a move in an interesting direction but denudes the library to an
administrative support function devoid of
academic mission.
Hypothesis and Methodology
The purpose of this study is to illustrate
a model in which funding of an academic
library depends on institutional characteristics. The model assumes that the
funding an academic library receives is
influenced partly by the demand for the
library's services from the university's
students, faculty, and programs. One
reason for adopting this assumption is
to explore the plausibility of a model that
relies on variables external to the library
as drivers of funding. This represents a
significant departure from arguments that
the library's funding, or more specifically
petitions for increases in funding, be predicated upon its existing size, holdings,
serials inflation -in essence, inertia.
To implement the model empirically, we
turn to the annual statistical survey of the
Association of Research Libraries (ARL)
as the source for operational indicators of
the theoretical construct "demand for the
library's services from students, faculty,
and programs." Specifically, we use X1
= undergraduate enrollment to indicate
demand from undergraduate students; X2
= graduate enrollment and X3 = number of
Ph.D. degrees awarded annually to reflect
demand from graduate students; X4 =
number of teaching faculty to indicate demand from faculty; X5 = number of Ph.D.
fields, X6 = presence of medical school (1
if present, 0 if not), and X7 = presence of
law school (1 if present, 0 if not) to reflect
demand from graduate and relatively
expensive professional programs of the
university. Although these variables are
imperfect measures of the theoretical
construct and, as discussed in more detail
later, there are other potential determinants
of library funding that might usefully be
considered in future research, the variables

selected represent measurable indicators

of institutional characteristics related to
the demand for library services.
Our research hypothesis is that a
positive relationship exists between total
library expenditures (dependent variable - Y) and the independent variables
just described (X1 through X7).We use
multiple regression to quantify this relationship. Recognizing that there may be
systematic differences in funding between
private and public institutions in the U.S.
and Canadian institutions, we include
two additional qualitative independent
variables: X8 = U.S. private university (1
if U.S. private, 0 if not) and X9 = Canadian
university (1 if Canadian, 0 if not). Finally,
we include a time trend in the regression
as a rough way of partially accounting for
factors outside the university that may
increase the costs of meeting a given level
of demand for the library's services (such
as serials inflation or rising salaries).
To test the hypothesis we analyze 11
years of data from 1992 through 2003 for
113 libraries that are members of the ARL,
yielding a total of 1,190 observations. ARL
libraries not examined include nonuniversity libraries and a small number of institutions that were dropped due to missing
data. The ARL data set is selected because
this is a widely recognizable and complete
longitudinal data set that represents a
relatively homogeneous population.
We regress the natural logarithm of total
real library expenditures (Y) on the logs of
undergraduate enrollment, graduate enrollment, number of teaching faculty, number of Ph.D. fields and number of Ph.D.s
awarded annually. The use of a logarithmic
rather than linear model allows the estimated marginal impact of a change in an
independent variable to diminish. For example, the impact on cost from adding the
90th Ph.D. program is probably less than
the impact on cost of adding the 20th. Also
included in the regression are a time trend,
a constant term and indicator variables for:
presence of a medical school, presence of
a law school, public/private status, and
Canadian/American affiliation.

174 College & Research Libraries

TABLE 1
Coefficient of Measurables

March 2007

Results
The estimated model is summarized in table 1. Coefficients
Regression
Coefficient
of the operational indicators of
Independent Variable
(t-ratio)
demand for library services take
the expected positive sign, and
Log of Undergraduate Student Population
0.037 (1.908)
most
are statistically significant
Log of Graduate Student Population
0.071 (4.284)
at the five percent level or less in
Log of Number of Ph.D.s Awarded
0.049 (3.511)
a two-tail test. The t-ratio for unLog of Number of Ph.D. Fields Offered
0.004 (0.291)
dergraduate enrollment is 1.908,
Log of Number of Faculty
0.071 (6.051)
slightly below the five-percent
critical value, and there appears
Medical School (=I if present, 0 if not)
0.086 (5.319)
to be no significant association
Law School (=I if present, 0 if not)
0.123 (5.421)
between funding and the numPrivate (=1 if U.S. private, 0 otherwise)
0.212 (3.773)
ber of Ph.D. programs after conCanadian (=1 if Canadian, 0 otherwise)
-0.216 (-2.882)
trolling for other independent
variables. The model produces a
Trend (= 1,2,..., 11by year)
0.024 (34.613)
coefficient of determination (R2)
Constant
14.637 (60.837)
of .489, indicating a modicum of
Lagrange multiplier test vs. OLS
4,170.88
correlation between the indeR-squared
0.489
pendent variables and library
funding. A "Lagrange multiSample Size
1190
plier" test of the random effects
Note: The dependent variable is the natural logarithm of
model against an ordinary
total real expenditures.
least-squares model that ignores
persistent library-specific facA "random effects" model is used to
tors yields a chi-square test statistic with
account for unobserved library-specific
one degree of freedom of 4,171, providing
factors that persist through time. Exstrong support for the importance of acamples of such factors would be a large
counting for library-specific effects.
library endowment, costly special collecThe coefficient of a logarithmic variable
tions or archives, multiple branches, or
measures the estimated "elasticity," or the
any other unmeasured variable specific
percentage change in total real expendito a library with an ongoing impact on
ture associated with a one percent change
spending. By accounting for effects of
in the independent variable. All of the
persistent, unobserved library-specific
estimated elasticities are well below unity,
factors, the random effects model recindicating that one percent changes in
ognizes that the observations are not
independent variables are associated with
all independent, since each library is
much smaller than one percent increases
observed repeatedly over the years. This
in library funding. For example, the largfeature allows for more efficient estimaest elasticity estimates of .071 indicate
tion (that is, 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. Intuitively, the model assumes
a 7/100 of one percent increase in total real
that the funding response to a change in
expenditure. That these estimates, as well
an independent variable is the same for
as the elasticity for Ph.D.s awarded, are
all libraries, but the base level of funding
larger than the elasticity for undergradumay vary due to library-specific factors.
ate enrollment should not be surprising
The model is estimated by generalized
given the relatively greater investment
least squares.
in library resources required by research

Toward a Formula-Based Model for Academic Library Funding 175

and graduate education. Coefficients of
indicator variables when multiplied by
100 approximate the percentage change
in total real expenditure associated with
presence of the indicator. Thus, presence
of a medical school is associated with 8.6
percent greater expenditure, and presence
of a law school is associated with 12.3
percent greater expenditure. Libraries
associated with private universities in
the United States spend about 21 percent
more than their public counterparts in the
United States, while Canadian university
libraries spend about 21 percent less on average than U.S. public university libraries.
The coefficient of the trend variable represents the average year-to-year growth in
expenditures when holding all independent variables constant and reflects the
influence of factors like serials inflation
or real increases in salaries. According to
the model, expenditures increase on average by 2.4 percent annually, holding other
independent variables constant.
Researchers seeking a more parsimonious model might consider whether all
three of the independent variables measuring graduate enrollment, number of
Ph.D. degrees awarded and number of
Ph.D. fields should be included, as they
correlate highly with one another. Pearson

correlation coefficients between pairs of

these variables range from 0.65 to 0.76.
While Pearson correlation is useful for
assessing linear relationships between
pairs of variables, the "condition number" of the data matrix indicates whether
more general linear relationships between
multiple variables are problematic.12 The
condition number computed for the data
matrix (the ratio of the largest to the smallest characteristic root of the normalized
cross-product matrix) is 10.59, well below
the value of 20 that Belsley, Kuh, and
Welsch suggest as indicating a potential
collinearity problem.

Application to a Specific Institution

Table 2 shows an application of the formula to an actual set of data for a rapidly
growing university in the south that is
not an ARL member. Based on changes
in the independent variables, the formula
produces a relatively modest increase of
$364,903 in library funding. There is, however, also an underlying rate of growth in
university library budgets independent
of growth in these campus independent
variables. This trend growth, produced
from the aforementioned trend variable,
is what the library would have experienced on average with no growth in the

TABLE 2
Application of Model to a University
Trend
Base:
Year
2002

Faculty
Undergrads
Grad Students
Number Ph.D.s
Ph.D. Fields

Year
2003

%
Change

X100

0.024
$10,000,000

Elasticity

%
Impact

Change
in
Funding

976
22,054

1,050

0.076

7.58

0.0710%

0.0054

25,799

0.170

16.98

0.0370%

0.0063

$53,832
$62,830

2,066
87

2607
97

0.262
0.115

26.19
11.49

0.0710%
0.0490%

0.0186
0.0056

$185,920
$56,322

20

23

0.150

15.00

0.0040%

0.0006

$6,000

Total change

$364,903

Trend growth

$240,000

Overall change
As percent

$604,903
6.05%

March 2007

176 College & Research Libraries

FIGURE 1
Actual and Model Expenditures
22,500

22,000
21,500
21,000

6 20,500
20,000
'

19,500

19000

18,500
18.000
17,500
17,000
1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

Year
-0-

independent variables. In the example

above, the increase from applying the
trend variable yields $240,000. The total
increase suggested from the formula is
$604,903, a 6.05 percent rate of growth.
Application to Expenditure Growth
over Time
A second application of the model is to
compare the time path of actual expenditures of a library or set of libraries to
the time path of expenditures predicted
by the model. Figure 1 illustrates this
type of comparison for the 99 libraries
having complete data for each of the 11
years. The solid line plots the average of
the 99 libraries' total real expenditures in
each year, while the dashed line shows
the average real expenditure predicted
by the model in table 1. To simplify the
comparison, the model-predicted expenditure is adjusted so that it matches the
actual expenditure in the first year. As
shown, the average library experienced
erratic transitory swings in its expenditure growth rate, namely the dip in the
mid 1990s and the pronounced slowing
in year 2002-2003. In contrast, a hypo-

Actual - -*-Model

thetical library with the same starting

level of expenditures in 1993 but funded
according to the model (represented
by the dashed line) would experience a
much steadier and more predictable rate
of budget growth.
Application across Libraries
The model can be applied in a third way
by comparing a library's actual spending
against the hypothetical spending that
the model suggests. Table 3 provides this
comparison for the ARL libraries that
formed the data set for this study. The Actual column shows the library's average
annual total expenditures, as reported in
the ARL statistics, for the 11-year period,
in 2003 U.S. dollars. The Model column
shows the library expenditures predicted
by the model, based upon the averages of
the independent variables for that institution for the 11 years of data. The difference
between these two produces an Over Predicted or Under Predicted amount based
upon the methodology of the model. To
argue that these terms are synonymous
with "overfunded" and "underfunded"
would be presumptuous; however, the

Toward a Formula-Based Model for Academic Library Funding 177

suggestion is worth exploring on a comparative basis. Static results that are of
limited value for one institution might
be useful in comparing a library against a
cohort group of peers. For example, three
of the ten libraries with the largest excess
of actual over model-predicted funding
are at Ivy League institutions (Harvard,
Yale, Princeton) and two are in the UC
system (Berkeley and UCLA). Only one
Ivy League library (Brown) and two of
seven of the included UC-system libraries
(Davis and Riverside) have actual funding
below model-predicted funding
Limitations to the Model
There are a number of limitations to this
research. There is no separate enumeration
of independent sources of funding such as
endowments, or of important cost drivers
such as archives, special collections, and
multiple library branches (although the
net effect of all persistent library-specific
factors is implicitly accounted for in the
random effects model). The analysis does
not account for the myriad of preservation and digitization efforts underway in
libraries. The model may be more useful
for growing institutions and less useful for
institutions in a steady state of existence.
Last, the formula does not explicitly estimate the impact of serials inflation but only
accounts for it indirectly through the trend
[Link] applications of formulabased allocation schemes should account
more directly for the funding necessities
born from serials inflation.
Further Study
If the goal were to make this model truly
practical and more applicable, one might
consider other possible independent
variables. Libraries can argue that there
should be a correlation between research
grant money flowing into the institution
and the library's budget. A more ambitious extension would be to measure the
amount of scholarly productivity for the
universities under study and use this to
create an independent variable that would
factor the number or quality of scholarly

publications into the model. Both of these

ideas suggest that the greater the university's rate of research and publication, the
more money should flow into the library
to support research. This approach turns
the notion of the size of the library as a
measure of its "goodness" on its head.
At least one study in the library literature suggests that a university library's
collection helps shape the university's
reputation. Lewis Liu provides empirical
evidence that the library's ARL ranking
correlates closely with its U.S. News and
World Report ranking."3 This may be true;
however it should be noted that U.S. News
and World Report includes library funding
per student as a metric in its ranking of
colleges and universities. In any case, the
extensions to the analysis proposed here
suggest the opposite relationship: that a
university that is demonstrating growth
in research activity should support its
faculty by building a stronger library
through increased financial support.
This is a subtle but important distinction, which moves the debate away from
measuring the goodness of the library by
input measures (volume count, number of
serials, expenditures, etc.) to a model that
suggests that the library should be strong
to reflect the level of research taking place
at the university.
Conclusion
The purpose of the study is not to create
a one-size-fits-all model for funding. The
model illustrates a foundation for what
could evolve into funding strategies based
upon measurable inputs. Easily measurable
inputs or drivers can potentially shield the
library from arbitrary cuts. An institution
can devise its own set of measurable inputs.
Is the model a good thing or a bad thing for
libraries? Libraries with exceptional influence on campus may find no benefit to such
an approach. Libraries faced with political
disadvantages or distinct underfunding
relative to peer institutions may be able to
use this approach to their benefit.
Does increased library funding even
necessarily convey additional benefit to

March 2007

178 College & Research Libraries

TABLE 3
Actual Expenditures, Model Expenditures, 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

10,870

16,512

-5,642

34%

ALBERTA

18,402

15,061

3,342

23%

ARIZONA

22,400

19,898

2,502

12%

18,461

3,510

19%

ALABAMA

ARIZONA STATE

21,972

AUBURN

10,399

13,835

-3,436

-25%

BOSTON

14,848

24,051

9,203

38%

BOSTON COLLEGE

15,884

19,655

-3,771

BRIGHAM YOUNG

16,073

17,318

-1,245

BRITISH COLUMBIA

22,254

15,891

6,362

BROWN

15,711

15,798

87

0%

CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY

42,217

19,251

22,966

119%

CALIFORNIA, DAVIS

18,982

19,598

-616

-3%

CALIFORNIA, IRVINE

16,691

15,695

996

CALIFORNIA, LOS ANGELES

39,396

21,871

17,526

81%

CALIFORNIA, RIVERSIDE

10,322

12,427

-2,105

-17%

CALIFORNIA, SAN DIEGO

20,720

15,960

4,760

30%

CALIFORNIA, SANTA BARBARA

14,553

14,124

429

3%

CASE WESTERN RESERVE

11,414

21,098

-9,684

-46%

CHICAGO

23,378

22,871

507

CINCINNATI

17,082

18,828

COLORADO

17,526

15,710

1,816

12%

COLORADO STATE

11,630

14,058

-2,427

-18%

COLUMBIA

35,062

25,059

10,003

-1,746

19%
-7%
41%

6%

2%
-9%

40%

CONNECTICUT

19,677

18,347

1,330

8%

CORNELL

34,170

22,372

11,798

52%

DARTMOUTH

14,118

15,702

-1,584

-10%o

DELAWARE

13,040

13,574

-534

-4%

DUKE

25,969

22,013

3,956

18%

EMORY

24,691

20,702

3,988

18%

21,247

1,020

4%

FLORIDA

22,267

FLORIDA STATE

12,363

17,506

5,143

29%

GEORGE WASHINGTON

17,475

22,471

-4,996

23%

GEORGIA

19,672

18,200

1,473

8%

8,820

13,854

5,034

36%

HARVARD

83,090

25,112

57,978

230%

HAWAII

13,023

13,942

919

-6%

GEORGIATECH

Toward a Formula-Based Model for Academic Library Funding 179

TABLE 3
Actual Expenditures, Model Expenditures, 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

12,779

16,443

HOWARD

12,269

20,098

7,829

-39%

ILLINOIS, CHICAGO

16,297

16,979

-682

-4%

ILLINOIS, URBANA

28,473

19,592

8,881

45%

INDIANA

27,385

18,103

9,282

52%

IOWA

20,907

19,064

1,844

9%

IOWA STATE

15,062

15,038

24

0%

JOHNS HOPKINS

24,128

19,165

4,963

26%

KANSAS

16,973

19,109

-2,136

-11%

KENT STATE

10,974

13,540

-2,566

19%

KENTUCKY

17,996

18,321

325

-2%

LAVAL

12,378

15,297

-2,919

-18%

LOUISIANA STATE

11,367

17,027

-5,661

-33%

LOUISVILLE

16,519

19,189

-2,671

-14%

MCGILL

15,639

15,546

93

MCMASTER

9,557

11,599

-2,043

-17%

MANITOBA

10,688

13,550

-2,862

-21%

MARYLAND

18,769

16,424

2,345

14%

MASSACHUSETTS

12,337

14,357

-2,019

14%

MIT

14,808

18,253

-3,446

-19%

MIAMI

15,430

21,635

-6,205

-29%

MICHIGAN

39,918

22,588

17,330

76%

MICHIGAN STATE

17,916

16,816

1,099

6%

MINNESOTA

30,511

20,646

9,865

48%

MISSOURI

13,001

18,298

-5,297

-29%

MONTREAL

16,296

18,180

-1,884

-10%

NEBRASKA

12,112

16,331

-4,220

-26%

NEW MEXICO

18,547

17,400

1,147

7%

NEW YORK

29,357

25,690

3,666

15%

NORTH CAROLINA

25,944

20,314

5,630

28%

NORTH CAROLINA STATE

19,014

14,934

4,080

NORTHWESTERN

21,047

24,191

-3,145

-13%

NOTRE DAME

15,925

18,264

-2,339

-14%
-22%

-3,664

OHIO

12,241

15,715

-3,474

OHIO STATE

25,372

22,242

3,130

OKLAHOMA

12,206

17,147

-4,941

-22%

01%

26%

14%
-29%

March 2007

180 College & Research Libraries

TABLE 3
Actual Expenditures, Model Expenditures, 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

15,262

-4,894

-32%

13,140

15,369

-2,229

-14%

28,942

24,911

4,031

16%

PENNSYLVANIA STATE

33,508

20,321

13,188

65%

PITTSBURGH

22,283

19,753

2,530

13%

PRINCETON

29,226

16,088

13,138

82%

PURDUE

14,251

16,331

2,080

13%

QUEEN'S

10,395

13,161

-2,767

-20%

RICE

13,502

14,528

-1,026

ROCHESTER

12,658

17,292

-4,634

RUTGERS

28,018

18,619

9,399

51%

9,055

12,983

3,928

-30%

OKLAHOMA STATE

10,368

OREGON
PENNSYLVANIA

SASKATCHEWAN

-8%
-27%

SOUTH CAROLINA

15,956

18,292

-2,336

-13%

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA

24,929

25,123

194

-1%

SOUTHERN ILLINOIS

12,657

15,706

-3,048

-19%

STANFORD

53,723

24,130

29,593

121%

SUNY-ALBANY

10,530

12,988

-2,459

-19%

SUNY-BUFFALO

16,153

18,823

-2,670

-14%

SUNY-STONY BROOK

12,237

15,959

-3,722

-23%

SYRACUSE

12,154

19,253

-7,099

-37%

TEMPLE

13,181

18,841

-5,659

-30%

TENNESSEE

15,399

17,681

-2,282

-13%

TEXAS

30,418

20,665

9,753

47%

TEXAS A&M

20,744

18,776

1,968

10%

TEXAS TECH

15,337

19,073

3,736

20%

TORONTO

38,465

17,260

21,205

123%

TULANE

11,607

20,490

8,883

-43%

UTAH

19,466

18,058

1,408

7%

VANDERBILT

17,031

21,965

-4,934

-22%

VIRGINIA

24,683

18,668

6,015

32%

VPI & SU

12,178

15,427

3,249

21%

WASHINGTON

29,972

21,701

8,271

WASHINGTON STATE

12,231

13,996

-1,765

WASHINGTON U.-ST. LOUIS

21,984

20,676

9,444

10,658

-1,213

17,683

18,427

-744

WATERLOO
WAYNE STATE

1,308

39%
-13%
5%
-11%
-4%

Toward a Formula-Based Model for Academic Library Funding 181

TABLE 3
Actual Expenditures, Model Expenditures, and Over or Under Predicted as
Percentage of Model: Average Year
I

University

Thousands of 2003 US Dollars

Actual

Model

Difference

Percent Over
(+) or Under (-)
Predicted

WESTERN ONTARIO

12,497

13,113

WISCONSIN

32,378

21,869

10,510

48%

YALE

47,174

23,299

23,876

102%

YORK

14,115

11,805

2,310

20%

the institution? Assuming that the institution's budget process is a zero sum game,
gains in library funding reduce funding
elsewhere. It is well beyond the scope of
this study to compare the marginal utility
of dollars steered toward the library versus other programs on campus. However,
in the cases of obvious underfunding one
might argue that the utility of marginal
dollars allocated to the severely under-

-616

-4%

funded library may be high (i.e., a good

investment by the institution).
Last, the model may also serve to
move the debate for funding away from
traditional input measures and toward
a broader set of institutionally based
output indicators. This approach may
be favorably received as universities as
a whole move more toward outcomesbased planning.

Notes
1. David Baker, "Resource Allocation in University Libraries," The Journalof Documentation

48 (Mar. 1992): 1-19.

2. Frank W. Goudy, "Academic Libraries and the Six Percent Solution: A Twenty-Year Financial
Overview," Journalof Academic Librarianship19 (Sept. 1993): 212-15.

3. Association of College and Research Libraries, "Standards for Libraries in Higher Education," College & Research Libraries News 65 (Oct. 2004): 534-43. Available online from [Link].
org/ala/acrl/acrlstandards/[Link]. [Accessed 15 September 2005].
4. Kendon Stubbs, "Trends in University Funding for Research Libraries," ARL: A Bimonthly
Newsletter of Research Library Issues and Actions 172 (Jan. 1994).

5. Rolf Griebel, "University Library Budgets - Model and Reality," New Review of Academic
Librarianship2 (1996): 59-67.

6. Murle E. Kenerson, "Performance Funding and Full-Time Equivalence: Implications for

Funding in Academic Libraries," 13 (1996). ERIC, ED398927.
7. Jin-Chuan Ma, "Fund Allocations for Information Resources in China's Key Universities,"
College & Research Libraries60 (Mar. 1999): 174-78.

8. Peter A. Facione, "The Philosophy and Psychology of Effective Institutional Budgeting,"

Academe 88 (Nov./Dec. 2002): 45-48.
9. Jim Tolhurst, "Resource Allocation and Budgeting," Journalof Tertiary Educational Administration 7 (Oct. 1985): 143-55.

10. Nancy Cantor and Paul N. Courant, "Scrounging for Resources: Reflections of the Whys
and Wherefores of Higher Education Finance," New Directionsfor InstitutionalResearch 119 (Fall

2003): 3-12.
11. Gunapala Edirisooriya, "State Funding of Higher Education: A New Formula," Higher
Education Policy 16 (Mar. 2003): 121-33.
12. David A. Belsley, Edwin Kuh, and Roy E. Welsch, Regression Diagnostics: Identifying Influential Data and Sources of Collinearity. (New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1980).

13. Lewis G. Liu, "The Economic Behavior of Academic Research Libraries: Toward a Theory,"
Library Trends 51 (Winter 2003): 277-92.

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. Further reproduction of this article in
violation of the copyright is prohibited. To contact he publisher:
[Link]