The Q formula: The flexible formula for library acquisitions in relation to the FTE driven formula

036444X/86 33.00 + .oO Library Acquisitions: Practice 14 Theory, Vol. 10. pp. 293-306, 1986 Copyright @ 1986 Pergamon Journals Ltd. Printed in the USA. All rights reserved.

FORMULAS REVISITED

THE Q FORMULA: THE FLEXIBLE FORMULA FOR LIBRARY ACQUISITIONS IN RELATION TO THE FTE DRIVEN FORMULA

DAVID C. GENAWAY University Librarian Youngstown State University Youngstown, OH 44555

Abstract - The purpose of this article is to identify the variables involved in the construction or selection of a formula to allocate library acquisitions funds to colleges and departments in a university; to summarize some of the key administrative issues relating to formula allocation, such as who should do the allocating, how the allocations should be determined, and the amount of the total acquisitions budget that should be allocated; and to present examples of both a working and a theoretical formula. A case study of a medium-sized university (Youngstown State University) where a committee of faculty and students have allocated the acquisitions budget using an FTE (full-time equivalent) driven formula successfully for several years is examined. A Q formula, incorporating most known variables plus productivity in disciplines and average cost per title in each discipline, is also suggested as an alternative formula. This approach would be most applicable in four-year colleges or medium-sized universities. Comments on the problems of the realities of applying formula-generated budgets and their relationship to collection development are given by Susan Jacobson, Acquisitions Librarian, and Carol Wall, Public Services Librarian.

INTRODUCTION Allocation of the acquisitions budget by a systematic plan is frequently lacking in many libraries. Over the years there have been several proposals for some kind of formula to equitably distribute acquisitions funds, for example Burton [l], Clapp and Jordan [2], Kohut [3], and Schad [4]. The library administrator must be concerned with the systematic development 293

294

DAVID C. GENAWAY

of the collection in a balanced way. Implicitly or explicitly, he/she is ultimately held responsible for the development of the collection when the accreditation team arrives. The primary basis for development should be the curriculum and the instructional program; programs and curricula change over the years, and the library acquisitions should also reflect these changes. It is acknowledged that no method of allocation is going to please every department. The best that can be hoped for is that most departments will agree that the method adopted is fair and equitable. Some method is essential, however, lest the collection be skewed in the direction of the most active faculty members. The library administrator has an obligation to ensure that the collection also develops in areas where faculty are less active by helping them become more involved and/or assisting them in identifying and selecting items in their field.

ADMINISTRATIVE

ISSUES

Who should decide how to distribute the library materials budget? A unilateral concentration of this selection power in the chief administrator or collection development officer implies that he or she is a Renaissance person, thoroughly knowledgeable in all fields. Most librarians do have a broader concern for the needs of all disciplines than would a Ph.D. in a given subject field, but few are specialists in virtually every area. The acquisitions librarian and the collection development librarian can approach allocation needs from a technical basis, i.e. the library has X number of books in a given field and should have Y number. The subjective analysis of reviewers can be relied upon to determine the quality of titles. There is a difference between what should or ought to be in terms of collection strengths and weaknesses and the realities of a finite budget. Standards are not necessarily criteria for a formula to allocate acquisitions funds. Standards address the collection after the fact or establish an overall goal for collection growth of the total library [5]. There are at least three basic administrative issues surrounding the use of any formula and its application to the allocation of the library’s acquisitions budget.

I. Who Who should decide how to allocate the acquisitions funds? Who should decide which method and/or formula to use: The University Librarian, Library Director or Dean of Libraries? The acquisitions librarian? The collection development librarian? A committee of library staff only? A committee of faculty only? A committee of faculty and students? A committee of librarians, faculty and students? If the acquisitions budget is distributed by a committee of faculty, what is the role of the librarians in collection development? Allocation by the chief administrator is certainly the most expedient and probably the most frequent [6]. This assumes that the administrator is unbiased and does not favor a pet discipline, especially if he/she has an advanced degree in that field. He or she could also use a formula for allocation. Allocation by or with the advice of the acquisitions librarian could have the advantage of first-hand knowledge of faculty ordering trends, publication irregularities, and the areas with the big spenders. Collection development officers might have valuable input derived both from analysis of the collection to determine areas of need and their more intimate knowledge of newly published items. Theoretically, librarians would be more likely to take into consideration the “library intensive” component.

The Q Formula

295

2. What What elements or variables should be included in the decision-making method or formula? Few wiI1agree that any single element or combination of elements is adequate to fully represent qualitative aspects of library needs. Obviously, the choice of elements governs the amount of money finally allocated to an academic unit. If FTE graduate students are used as a basis for allocation, those academic units with graduate programs with high enrollment will get the most money, If the number of classes is the basis, then the music department with all its different courses for each instrument, might get the most funding. What other elements should be in the formula: Historical precedent? FTE students and/or FTE faculty? Student credit hours by level? Number of majors? Should any or all of these variables be weighted by academic level? Circulation or use? Productivity in that discipline or number of titles published? Interlibrary loan activity? The average price of a book in a given field or discipline and/or the inflation index for books in that field? Each element or variable will have a significant effect in the bottom line allocated to each department and will be heavily debated in a committee involved in allocation. A case can be made for the inclusion or exclusion of virtually any variable; however, the following seem to be the most prevalent items used as a basis for formulas: FTE students, FTE faculty, student credit hours, number of majors, circulation, and historical precedent. Statistical elements are sometimes weighted by level, such as Technical, Undergraduate, Graduate, etc. The FTE student seems to be the most universally acceptable variable. It is a readily obtainable statistic that is not at all controversial because its definition is reasonabIy consistent. FTE faculty is another statistic that is widely defined and agreed upon. Someone has also proposed an FTEF, or full-time equivalent faculty, variable in an institution that has a high number of limited-service or part-time faculty. Definition of the term FTE may be appropriate at this point. The total FTE students and/or faculty are usually significant factors in determining the portion of the university’s budget that each school, college, or department receives. The FIE is commonly assumed to be a more accurate representation of enrollment than the real number of students. Each FTE represents a standard or normal student credit-hour load. This standard credit-hour load (FTE) per quarter or semester is determined by dividing the total number of credit hours taken in the institution by the standard workload. If a standard student load is 16 hours per quarter, then four students each taking four credit hours would be considered one FTE student for statistical purposes. Usually the total number of FTE students is lower than the actual total number of students, since not all students take a full load. In the case of faculty, the standard workload is treated as a unit and divided into the total number of units in the university to determine the number of FTE faculty. (If the average load is 20 class hours a semester, then two part-time professors each teaching 10 hours would be considered one FTE faculty member.) It is also important to consider the “library intensiveness” of a discipline, although most librarians would be hard pressed to define that term and to define discrete variables that could be used to measure it. Some have suggested that circulation count might be used as a measure of library intensiveness. This quantitative approach sounds good at first. Two items need to be considered, however, before eagerly embracing it as an accurate variable. First, a circulation-only approach neglects the periodical-intensive disciplines in the scientific areas, where most materials are used in the library, because periodicals usually do not circulate. The other aspect is the quality of use; is the statistical measurement of the circulation of books assigned for Freshman class reading at the same qualitative level as the use of a book by a

296

DAVID C. GENAWAY

faculty member or doctoral student whose research represents a major contribution to the field? intensive use of reference materials or looseleaf services is another area that is not covered by circulation statistics. Obviously, the department that has a high circulation is a heavy library user, but until better statistics can be obtained on in-library use of microformat items, periodicals and reference materials and the quality of use, circulation is a statistic that should be applied with caution and in relation to other variables. Interlibrary loan activity should be a reflection of the need for materials the library does not have; heavy borrowing in particular fields or substantial photocopying of journal literature in a given area should be some indication of collection weaknesses, but this is hard to incorporate into a formula. The number of requests from a school or college that are held over at the end of each year due to insufficient funds might be considered evidence of unmet needs owing to the depattment’s being underbudgeted. A weight could be assigned to represent the number of unfilled requests at the end of each year. Two other elements, it seems, should realistically be included in any formula: they are the prolificacy of titles produced in each field each year, and the average cost of a book or periodical in that field. The inflation rate in the same field might also be a factor.

3. Scope of Allocation. How much of the library’s acquisitions budget should be allocated by the above unit and in the above manner: The total budget? Only books? Only periodicals? All but reference materials? This is the area most crucial to library administrators. Some feel that faculty participation in the allocation of the acquisitions budget is a diminution of the duties of professional librarians. In reality, many librarians are not allotted the time necessary to review comprehensively the holdings in each field. The amount of the acquisitions budget that is allocatable is of prime consideration, however. If the entire budget is allocated, the general works and reference collection which serve all schools and colleges but are not directly represented by FTE students are shortchanged or receive no allocation. In addition to working closely with the faculty in collection development, the library must have a portion of the budget that can be used to obtain reference tools and other materials needed to serve the university community. What funds should be deducted from the total acquisitions budget for library use and how much money should be left to be allocated? Although a case for each of these to be included in the allocation could also be made, it seems prudent that the following segments should be segregated: 1. General works and reference funds. At least 15-20% is suggested. 2. Binding is another fairly constant cost. This could be charged to each individual department and included in the allocation, but the realities of bookkeeping make this impractical. 3. ~icroformat items are sometimes segregated since they usually involve large sets that would be beyond the normal budget of a single departmental allocation. Once the allocation is determined, the next question is who is authorized to spend from that account. Usually faculty and librarians work together to assure awareness, identification and evaluation of items purchased.

297

The Q Formula

ASSUMPTIONS Several assumptions

AND CONSTRAINTS

are made in this article:

Assumption

1: No formula or method of allocation will please everyone. If a method can be found that the majority will agree is more equitable and fair than the an existing unsystematic system, considerable progress will have been made. Assumption 2: There is a positive correlation between the variables used if a formula is applied and “library intensive.” Library acquisitions budgets also have several constraints: Constraint

1: Any method of allocation must reflect the departments’ or schools’ present curricula and programs. Constraint 2: An allocation should accommodate changing curricula, new programs, accreditation, gaps in holdings, etc. Constraint 3: Allocation must be based on an actual budget and be determined in time to be effective, i.e. before July 1 in many academic institutions.

ADVANTAGES

OF A FORMULA

APPROACH

Although the topic of formulas has been widely debated over the years, there are some advantages of this approach that merit mentioning. Shirk cited the following advantages of a formula approach [7]. 1. Provide governing bodies with a sense of equity because each unit is receiving an allocation that is measured against the same criteria. 2. Facilitate inter-institutional (also inter-departmental) comparisons. 3. Facilitate comparisons from year to year using the same base. 4. Reduce paperwork in the budget process. 5. Eliminate extraneous details. 6. Provide systematic, objective allocation techniques. 7. Connote mathematical infallibility. The following should be added to Shirk’s list. 8. Facilitate accurate budgeting allocations/expenditures for accreditation agencies. 9. Increase faculty involvement and awareness in the process of allocation and provide insights into library needs and the problems of equitable distribution.

GUIDELINES Any plan or formula developed ought to incorporate some of the guidelines outlined below: 1. It should be dynamic rather than static. Although it may not change drastically from year to year, the plan should have built-in elements that reflect long-term trends in the academic program.

298

DAVID C. GENAWAY

2. It should be broadly based to incorporate several elements and adequately reflect the University’s curricula and programs. 3. It should not generally be single-element driven, i.e. solely related to student credit hours or number of faculty, although the case study described later will illustrate a working formula that is largely FTE driven. Flexibility in the budget with some discretionary funds should allow compensations for the weakness of an FTE driven formula. 4. As a model, it should provide an equitable way of further suballocating college funds to various departments within each school or college. 5. Data used should be standardized and readily available. 6. It should be phased in over at least a two-year period if such a plan results in substantial adjustment.

CASE STUDY The procedures for the allocation and expending of library acquisitions funds at Youngstown State University will be used as a model case study because it is a “typical” medium-sized university, but more importantly because many of the elements found in this discussion have emerged in this case study. The procedure illustrates two elements that have heretofore been considered questionable by some librarians: faculty participation in the allocation process and the successful application of a formula. Allocation of library acquisitions funds at YSU begins with the Library Media Services Committee (LMSC), which is composed of 8 faculty members, 2 administrative members (deans or associate deans), and 2 students. The University Librarian and Media Services Center Director are ex-official members. This committee is directly responsible to the Academic Senate and makes recommendations to the Academic Senate, who in turn forwards approved recommendations to the President. There is a natural reluctance on the part of many committees to establish any method of allocation that would dramatically deviate from the past. Obviously, some departments, schools, or colleges that presently receive a low allocation must receive a higher one in order to achieve future balance. This money will have to come from the allocations made to some other school or college, unless the budget is increased. The procedure at YSU is currently divided into ten steps, the first seven of which are outlined in Fig. 1, Youngstown State University Library Acquisitions Formula. Also, this procedure allows for a happy balance between formula driven allocation and discretionary allocation. In Section I, a total library acquisitions budget of $825,000 is assumed. Estimated binding costs based on previous expenditures, an arbitrary sum for reference and general works, and an estimated amount for replacement items are deducted from the total acquisitions budget. Whether binding costs should be aggregated or charged to each school or college has been debated over the years. If charged to each school or college, a college such as Fine and Performing Arts would have abnormally high binding costs because of the special binding requirements of musical scores and parts. Reference and general works have historically been treated as a single account that is intended to allow discretionary purchasing of interdisciplinary titles, and encyclopedias and dictionaries even though they may be related to a specific discipline. Replacement items cover those items that have been lost in circulation, worn out, stolen from the collection, or in the case of periodicals, articles removed from bound volumes or unbound

The Q Formula

299

issues. For approximately one year, replacement funds were allocated to each school or college. In addition to the extra bookkeeping involved, this was found to hamper the ultimate good of the student. Frequently a school would be out of funds early in the year, and needed replacement items could not be obtained because of lack of funds in that account. This necessitated excessively long periods before the items could be replaced, causing a disservice to all other students who may have needed that article or book in the meantime. Since a separate replacement fund facilitated quick replacements, the general replacement fund was reinstated. Of the remaining acquisition funds, in this case $655,500, the committee arbitrarily decided to set aside 20% for judgment or discretionary funds and to allocate 80% by the formula method. As illustrated under Sections A and B under Heading I, the allocatable balance then became $524,400. Item II shows the actual FTE enrollment in the fall of 1985. The weighting factors are found in Section III. “Library intensiveness” is assumed to be reflected in the level of student. The four levels depicted here and their weights are derived from the Ohio Board of Trustees’ formula that is used to allocate funds to the university. “General studies” as defined by OBOR is “undergraduate instruction other than that categorized as technical or baccalaureate.” This definition becomes clearer when the other terms are defined. The term “Technical” represents “students whose instruction is associated with the associate (2-year degree) and technical education curriculum.” “ Baccalaureate” is defined as “undergraduate instruction which fills specific university requirements for the bachelor’s degree. ” “Master’s” level is used to describe “instruction at the post-baccalaureate level” [8]. The determination of the FTE students in each category is made by the Budget and Institutional Studies Office and printed in the YSU Factbook. These are the numbers applied throughout the formula. Using the weighting factors in III, the weighted FTE in each category is obtained by multiplying each weight by the number of FTE students in that same category. In Step V, the total weighted FTEs determined in Step IV, are divided into the amount of money to be allocated by formula, i.e. $524,400, yielding $58.65 for each weighted FTE. In Step IV, the dollar value of one FTE is multiplied by the weighted number of FTEs at each level and in each school. The amount determined for each school/college using this procedure is compared with the previous year’s allocation for each college. The percent difference is determined. Note that there was some fluctuation in the percentages from the previous year. After debating several different methods of allocation over the past decade and studying in-depth various alternatives and alternate formulas, the committee originally elected to use the FTE enrollment as the principal element in allocating funds. The university has over 15,500 students and 11,202 FTE. Earlier a similar procedure was used, but with the raw FTE students instead of weighted FTEs. Obviously, this assumed an equal distribution of graduate students and two-year students and usually resulted in an over or under budget total allocation, since it was not strictly a formula with both sides of the equation being equal. FTE enrollment by all three categories in each school was used to determine the amount of money it received by multiplying the amount times the number of FTE students in each category. Any underage was redistributed among the seven schools and colleges. Since these guidelines were implemented in the midst of an ongoing allocation previously based loosely on historical precedent, the committee knew there would be a period of adjustment and made some ground rules that limited a school or college’s increase or decrease to no more than plus or minus 10%. The amount allocated to each school or college is further suballocated by another committee, by the Dean, or treated in aggregate as one department. The University Librarian usually determines the amount of money needed for general works and reference, binding,

300

DAVID

I. Library Budget Binding Reference General Works Replacement

825.000 -44,500 -30,000 -85,000 - 10,000

Book Allocation A. FTE (80%) B. Judgment (20%) II. FTE Fall “85”

C. GENAWAY

655,500 524,400 131,100

Actual CAST

A&S

BUS AD

EDUC

ENG

F&PA

Total

Technical General Baccalaureate Master

1211.60 0.00 378. IO 7.20

0.00 3850.00 2886.30 93.70

0.00 0.00 965.80 78.00

0.00 22.00 270.20 169.60

0.00 0.00 423.90 25.40

0.00 208.00 584.30 16.80

I21 1.60 4091.70 5508.60 390.70

Total

1596.90

6840.90

1043.80

462.60

449.30

809.10

11,202.60

III. Weight Factors Weighted FIE Technical General Baccalaureate Master

S Value (+/0.5 0.5 1 2

IV. FTE Fall “85” Weighted

(Actual

CAST

Library

Intensiveness)

FTE * Weight

Factor)

II A&S

BUS AD

III EDUC

ENG

F&PA

Total

Technical General Baccalaureate Master

605.8 0 378.1 14.4

0 1930.5 2886.3 187.4

0 0 965.8 156

0 11.4 270.2 339.2

0 0 423.9 50.8

0 104 584.3 33.6

605.8 2045.9 5508.6 781.4

Total

998.3

5004.2

1121.8

620.8

474.7

721.9

8941.7

continued on facing page

Figure 1. Youngstown State University Library Acquisitions Formula.

microforms and replacement. This amount was deducted from the total library acquisitions budget to determine the amount to be allocated by the committee. At YSU, this budget includes only books, periodicals and microformat items. Phonorecords, curriculum materials center items and other audiovisual materials are not included in the library acquisitions budget. Since the use of raw FTE numbers does not assure unallocated funds for special needs, such as new programs, accreditation, etc., the model shown in Fig. 1 was proposed. This resolved some of the weaknesses of the straight FTE procedure through the use of weighting much like that used to achieve a GPA (grade point average). This weighting resulted in a working

301

The Q Formula V. Dollar Value of Weighted FTE I

S/FTE =

Total FTE Book Allocation

524,400 = = 58.65 8941.7

Total Weighted FTE’s IV

VI. FTE Allocation For 1986-87 (Is/FTE) (Weighted FI’E’s) V

IV

CAST

A&S

BUS AD

EDUC

ENG

F&PA

Total

Technical General Baccalaureate Master

35,528 0 22,174 845

0 113,217 169,272 10,990

0 0 56,641 9,149

0 669 15,846 19.893

0 0 24,860 2,979

0 6,099 34,267 1,971

35,528 119,985 323,060 45,827

Total

58,541

293,419

65,790

36,408

27,839

42,337

524,400

VII. Comparison To Last Year’s Budget CAST

A&S

BUS AD

EDUC

ENG

F&PA

1985-86 Total Budget

51,961.89

358.221.36

58,876.78

29,914.42

40,587.40

40.938.15

5 Difference VII-VI

+6,585

-64,742

+6,913

+6,494

- 12,748

+1,399

+ 12.7qo

-18.1%

+11.7%

+21.7%

-31.4%

+3.4vo

Difference of 1985-86to 1986-87

Figure 1 continued.

formula that was a true equation, with the total of money available on the left side equal to with the allocations on the right side. A “Judgment Reserve Guidelines” in Section VIII (not depicted in Fig. 1) is now used to help adhere to previously established principles that do not allow any college or school to gain more than 10% per year. Any surplus would revert to the judgment fund. The corollary, no school may lose more than 10’9’0,is likewise to be dealt with using the discretionary funds set aside in the beginning. Using the June 30 year-end expenditure report and July 31 monthly reports for the past several years, previous patterns of underspending were revealed for some schools and colleges and were used as a possible basis for setting a base level. These base levels were the most debatable part of the formula. The discretionary funds were again used to avoid a shortfall of more than 10% of the previous year’s budget. The amounts necessary to maintain a fixed base level were determined and added to the allocation to guarantee a base. Special needs and concerns are addressed in the distribution of the unallocated judgment fund. The sum of the final figures for each school or college is equal to the total amount to be allocated. Because of the limited number of librarians with assigned time for collection development,

302

DAVID C. GENAWAY

the library relies heavily on faculty recommendations for book orders. If there are sufficient funds in their account, items recommended are generally ordered. A few departments have opted to participate in an approval plan in which titles are received automatically according to a profile of topics and publishers. Titles ordered through this plan are charged to each faculty member’s respective department. Librarians assist faculty by helping underspent departments identify and acquire books in their field. Librarians also order books for general works and reference. Each month the acquisitions account clerk issues a report that includes the budgeted amount, expenditures, outstanding orders or encumbrances, and remaining balance after expenditures by school, college and or department. This is used to monitor each account. Figure 2, William F. Maag Library Acquisitions, shows the acquisitions budget, expenditures, and outstanding orders (encumbrances) for each school or college. Subsequent pages of this monthly report show further breakdowns by department and type of material (monographs and periodicals). The figures are actual 1985/86 amounts rather than those assumed for 1986187 earlier in this case study. A simplified illustration of the total allocation and more structured formula is outlined below. Total allocation = Cl + C2 + . . . Cn. Where Cn = each college or school in the university. Cl APS FTET FTEG FTEB FTEM

= APS (FTET(0.5) + FTEG(0.5) + Fl-EB(1 .O) + FI’EM(2.0) = unit amount available determined by dividing the total weighted FTE students into the amount available for allocation. = Full time equivalent technical students = Full time equivalent general students = Full time equivalent Baccalureate students = Full time equivalent Master’sIgraduate students

ANALYSIS OF CASE STUDY Several aspects of this method are worth observation. The most important aspect is that academic faculty are involved in the library acquisitions process. This fosters a better awareness and understanding by faculty of the problems involved in allocation. The second most important aspect is that an attempt to allocate dollars fairly and equitably to achieve a balanced collection is based on some systematic and at least partly rational basis. This procedure does ensure an attempt at balancing expenditures, although politics and vested interests obviously get considered. The fact that the Librarian usually determines the amount to be allocated should allay some fears about the process. From an administrator’s viewpoint, this process provides exact amounts for each school, college or department and solves the problem of determining expenditures for each discipline when the accreditation teams arrive. Items are charged to the department to which the faculty member belongs, not to the subject discipline of the specific book ordered. Although this could occasionally result in some inaccuracies for interdisciplinary faculty, usually acquisitions will be recommended in the specific faculty member’s area, and acquisitions should reflect the department of primary use. This procedure provides a relatively precise way of discreetly identifying purchases by discipline. For the administrator who does not enjoy defending his/her choices in allocating book budgets, that responsibility then becomes that of the committee; and faculty must look to their colleagues for explanations of shortfalls in their budget. Even if committee members are not in entire agreement on allo-

303

The Q Formula

Total Budget Allocation 1985-1986 CAST Arts and Sciences Business Education Engineering Fine and Performing Arts General Works/Library RepIacements

%51,9?0.00 357,840.OO 58,879.OO 29,915.M) 40,957.oO 40,939.oO 8s,olo.OO 15,ooo.OO $680,510.00

Payments to Date

Budget Less Payments to Date

Encumbered to Date S 13s78.95

46.602.81 21,716.12 44,433.23 26.693.12 69,870.69 5883.99

S 16,573.38 48,461.23 12,276.19 8,198.88 -3.476.25 14,245.88 15,139.31 9,l i6.01

5559.915.37

S120.534.63

S119.632.17

I 35.396.62 309.378.77

58,244.35 12,299.50 6.239.47 2.036.88 13,332.89 11,879.Oo 2,021.13

Figure 2. William F. Maag Library Acquisitions, July I, 1985 through January 31, 1986, Books, Periodicals, Microforms.

cations, at feast they understand the basis for the allocations and can be more articulate about them to their colleagues. The primary advantages of the use of a library committee of faculty and student members to allocate acquisitions funds to the schools or colleges are involvement and awareness. Facufty become aware of the complexities of allocating limited funds and participate directly in the process. This is not to say that the librarian(s) abdicate their responsibility. The library director should serve on the committee to keep them from going too far astray. By and large they will wrestle with the same issues and use the same basis for allocation that librarians would have, anyway. An incidental benefit occurred when the LMSC at YSU recently concluded that they should try to get more funds for the library acquisitions budget. A preliminary report was given to the Academic Senate. The Senate passed a resolution urging the university budget committee to increase the book fund for the library. The library subsequently received an additional ~2~,~ above the regular book budget, making its total book budget for 1986187 close to a million dollars.

ALTERNATIVES

TO THE FTE

Although the weighted FTE is simple, easy to apply, and generally considered equitable, modifications and alternatives to this approach should be explored. After discussing some of these alternatives, a formula that considers virtually all elements commonly identified by one segment of the academic community or another will be presented. The FTE does not adequately reflect library intensiveness, which is admittedly difficult to measure. As previously stated, circulation statistics have been suggested as a partial indicator of library intensiveness. Some of the best students may use all books in the library without ever checking them out; moreover, the most heavily used books, reference books, do not circulate. Periodical or microformat use by a department is extremely difficult to measure.

304

DAVID C. GENAWAY

Persons might be heavy users of these items and, hence, library intensive, but circulation statistics would not measure this. The number of courses, majors, student credit hours, nature of the discipline might provide some indication of library intensiveness. Use of the number of courses could considerably skew the results, depending on whether courses were taken as a total or variations of the same course were omitted. For example, should Gymnastics I, II, III (516, 517, 518) or Keyboard Musicianship for Keyboard Majors (590, 591, 592) each be counted as a single course or as three separate courses? The latter would favor certain disciplines. Student credit hours alone could also slant the results. An average of student credit hours, FTE, and actual headcount might better represent this component of a formula. Someone has further suggested the “rate of change of knowledge” in a discipline as a guide [9]. This would be extremely difficult to quantify. Q FORMULA The term Q formula has been coined by the author to refer to a formula which takes into account the most common elements historically identified as significant and combines them into a single formula. It derives its title from the supposed single source of several of the Gospels. There is a hypothesis that several of the Christian Gospels had their origins in a single common source called the Q source [lo]. Since the Q formula includes many of the elements commonly identified as being appropriate to a formula, it seemed appropriate to call this common source formula the Q formula. It is recognized that some redundancy may be evident in the different elements used. The weighting system provides some flexibility in adjusting the importance of each element. Although only a theoretical formula as presented here, it is inspired by the Ohio University working formula which is discussed in detail in Kent Mulliner’s article in these pages [ 111. Figure 3 illustrates this formula. Q represents the percent of the allocations budget that each school or college would receive, based on a combination of several of the most commonly perceived elements desirable in formulas. As presented here, it is a theoretical formula that represents an extension of the case study weighted FTE model. Elements included are the number of courses, number of FTE faculty, number of students (although FTE is intended, actual count could be substituted), number of undergraduate student majors, number of books circulated, number of interlibrary loans, and number of student credit hours. Note that apparent exponents are not true exponents, but merely ways of indicating the total for each department (d) and the total of each category (r). The formula could be extended by incorporating the ratio of cost and productivity in each discipline to the total for all fields. The R and T segments could be tacked on to the basic Q formula. Such statistics are usually found with varying degrees of discreteness and division of disciplines in the Bowker Annual [12]. To apply the R or relativity segment to the Q formula, the right side of the equation would be attached as an extension after the SCH element. The “R Formula” is a ratio of book/serial costs and productivity by discipline to all disciplines.

SUMMARY This article has shown some possible options regarding the formula approach to acquisitions allocation. Although any plan will not be universally accepted by all schools or colleges, whatever alternative is accepted should solicit intellectual assent or at least acknowledgment

305

The Q Formula

Q = The

percent

of the acquisitions budget allocated to each school or college.

G!==($J

Cb($)

+c(s)

+&($)

+e(;)

tl(=J

(I, b, c, dw, e,f= Q= d= t= Co = F= S= SM = Ci = I=

percentage weights assigned to each element Percent of Library Acquisitions Budget School or College Total (entire university) No. of Courses No. FTE Faculty No. of Students No. of Undergraduate Student Majors No. of Books Circulated No. of Interlibrary Loans SCH = No. of Student Credit Hours

T= (BP x Bpd) + (Sed x

.Spd)

R = Ratio of cost and productivity of books and serials in a discipline to cost and productivity of

TBc = Bp = Se = Sp =

all books and serials in all fields. Costs and productivity of books and serials by discipline Book Costs (Avg.) Book Production Serial Costs (Avg.) Serial Production

Figure 3. Q Formula.

that it is fair or even. The chief library administrator, since he/she has the ultimate responsibility for the library collection, has an obligation to see that the collection is evenly balanced regardless of the activity or inactivity of a given department. The larger interest of the University should prevail. When an accreditation team arrives, it would be detrimental to the larger interests of the University should a program fail because of a lack of library resources, due either to a lack of a budget or inactivity in spending its allocation. Given the assumptions and constraints and recognizing that there are commonalties amidst institutional diversities, the YSU FTE based formula as described in the case study has several advantages. The YSU formula has several stages at which there is allowance for judgment or discretion, but yields an allocation for each school or college that, while not irrefutable, is at least understandable and perhaps intellectually acceptable. The FTE based allocation has functioned relatively well at YSU, and it is anticipated that the weighted FTE allocation with a discretionary segment will function even better. There is sufficient flexibility in its development and administration to allow participation by librarians in the process of building the collection. The theoretical Q formula, with its arbitrary weights assigned to each element offers considerably more (perhaps too much?) flexibility. Obviously, the weighting can be assigned to the benefit of a school or college.

306

DAVID C. GENAWAY

The use of the weighted FTE student formula would most likely function best at a mediumsized university, where the allocation is limited primarily to books and periodicals. It is free from the complexities and redundancies of other formulas, but generally reflects the basis by which the university administration allocates funds to schools or colleges and in turn receives its allocation from the university’s funding agency. Finally, the participation of faculty in the allocation has been demonstrated to be positive by increasing faculty awareness of the library needs, involvement and identification with the library, as well as yielding direct monetary benefits to the library.

NOTES AND REFERENCES 1. Burton, Robert E. “Formula Budgeting: An Example,” Special Libraries, 66 (February, 1975), 61ff. 2. Clapp, Verner W. and Jordan, Robert T. “Quantitative Criteria for Collection Adequacy of Academic Collections,” College & Research Libraries, 26 (September, 1965). 371-380. 3. Kohut, Joseph J. and Walker, John F. “Allocating the Book Budget: Equity and Economic Efficiency,” College & Research Libraries, 36 (September, 1975), 403-410. 4. Schad, Jasper G. “Allocating Materials Budgets in Institutions of Higher Education,” Journal of Academic Librarianship, 3 (January 1978), 328-332. 5. Downs, Robert B. and Heussman, John W. “Standards for University Libraries,” College & Research Libraries, 31 (January 1970), 28-35. See also “Standards for College Libraries,” College & Research Libraries: News, 36 (October 1975). 277-301; “Standards for University Libraries,” College& Research Libraries: News, 39 (April, 1979), 101-l 10; “Standards for College Libraries, 1986,” Coflege & Research Libraries: News, 47 (March, 1986). 189-200. 6. A small sample survey of seven Northeast Ohio major academic libraries revealed that in 8OW of the cases the director and/or the acquisitions librarian allocated funds mostly at their discretion based on historical precedent and/or a loosely applied combination of elements or formula. It is expected that a larger survey of directors would not substantially change these findings, although this remains yet to be done. 7. Shirk, Gary M. “Allocation Formulas for Budgeting Library Materials: Science or Procedure,” Collection Management, 6(3/4) (Fall/Winter, 1984). 37-47. 8. Ohio Board of Regents. Office of Planning. “Procedures for Calculation of FY85. Subsidy Formula,” September 1985. 9. Memo to the Library Committee from Bernard Yozwiak, Dean of Arts & Sciences, Youngstown State University, July 19, 1978. 10. Twentieth Century Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1955. p. 470. 1I. Mulliner, Kent. “The Acquisitions Formula at Ohio University,” Library Acquisitions: Practice and Theory. (In press). 12. Grannis, Chandler B. “Book Title Output and Average Prices: 1984 Preliminary Figures,” TJte Bowker Annual of Library & Book Trade Information, 30th ed., New York: R.R. Bowker. 1985. 13. Thompson, James H. “The System of Allocations from the Book Budget at UNC-G,” North Carolina Libraries, 43 (Spring, 1985), 17-19. 14. Schmitz-Veltin, Gerhard. “Literature Use as a Measure for Funds Allocation,” Library Acquisitions: Pracfice and Theory, 8 (1984). 267-274. 15. White, Phillip M. “College Library Formulas Applied,” College & Research Libraries: News, 47 (March, 1986).

202-206.