An Analysis of Collection and Circulation
Statistics of the University of Pennsylvania and
Temple University, 1992-2008
Andrea Goldstein
Info 651 – Academic Library Service
Assignment 2 – Input/Output Measures
February 20, 2011
Over the last 20 years, a number of changes have taken place in libraries, leading to new
practices in library collections and services. The Association of Research Libraries (ARL)
collects data annually “that describe the collections, expenditures, staffing, and service activities
for ARL member libraries” (ARL, 2010). There are a number of trends that can be extrapolated
from data in the ARL Annual Surveys. The trends across the 126 ARL member libraries,
however, do not necessarily reflect the data at each individual library. The University of
Pennsylvania and Temple University are good examples of this. While the libraries often reflect
the larger trends, each deviates on at least one important measure.
The University of Pennsylvania is a private, nonprofit university with a student
population of 24,599 located in Philadelphia, and a member of the Ivy League. According to the
Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, Penn has a balanced mix of arts and
sciences and professional undergraduate students, with a high coexistence of graduate students.
Its graduate programs are labeled as comprehensive doctoral with medical and veterinary
programs. Additionally, it is ranked as a university with very high research activity (Carnegie
Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, 2010b).
Temple University, also located in Philadelphia, is a public university with 36,507
students. Its Carnegie Classification labels it as having professional undergraduate programs
plus arts and sciences, with a high graduate coexistence. Like Penn, Temple’s graduate
programs are classified as comprehensive doctoral with medical programs. Finally, it is ranked
as a university with high research activity (Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of
Teaching, 2010a). Penn and Temple, then, are useful schools to compare, as they are similar in
their location, size, and programs offered, differing mainly in their type of funding.
1
As seen in Figure 1, both total library expenditures and library materials expenditures
have increased from 1992-2008. In every year data was examined, library materials
expenditures were just under 50% of total library expenditures. ARL data indicates that
expenditures for library materials increased 286% from 1986-2008, while total library
expenditures over the same time period increased 188% (ARL, 2008a, p. 15). This increase in
total expenditures is reasonable, considering inflation over the last 20 years as well as the rising
cost of both serials and monographs (Dalton, 2006). It is also important to note that all data was
collected prior to the current recession, so the trends in total expenditures do not reflect more
recent deep cuts in academic library budgets.
Library Expenditures
40000000
35000000
Penn total expenditures
30000000
Expenditures ($)
Penn materials expenditures
25000000
Temple total expenditures
20000000
Temple materials expenditures
15000000
Median ARL University total
expenditures
10000000
Median ARL University
materials expenditures
5000000
0
1992-1993
1997-1998
2002-2003
2007-2008
Figure 1. Total library expenditures and materials expenditures for Penn, Temple, and the
median ARL university library.
2
Figure 2 shows that while spending for both monographs and electronic resources has
increased from 1997-2008, they have increased at different rates. Monographic spending has
increased at a slow pace, whereas electronic resources expenditures shot up between 2002-2003
and 2007-2008. Again, this is to be expected for monographs, considering inflation over the
course of almost 20 years. For electronic resources expenditures, this is simply a reflection of
the shift from print to electronic resources. This is made particularly clear in Figure 3, which
shows electronic resources acquisitions as a percent of total library materials expenditures. The
median ARL university library is now spending more than 50% of its materials budget on
electronic resources. Not only are more resources being purchased electronically instead of in
print, but there has been a rapid increase in the price of scholarly journals, especially those in the
areas of science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM), where journals are relied on over
books (Van Orsdel & Born, 2007). Since ARL member libraries are likely to support doctoral
programs in the sciences as well as programs in the health professions, they are very likely to be
spending a lot of money on STEM journals.
3
Monographic and Electronic Expenditures
8,000,000
7,000,000
Penn electronic
6,000,000
Expenditures ($)
Penn monographs
5,000,000
Temple electronic
4,000,000
Temple mongraphs
3,000,000
Median ARL University
electronic
2,000,000
Median ARL University
monographs
1,000,000
0
1992-1993
1997-1998
2002-2003
2007-2008
Figure 2. Expenditures for monographs and electronic resources for Penn, Temple, and the
median ARL university library.
4
Electronic Resources as a Percent of Library
Materials Budget
60
Percent of Library Materials Budget
50
40
Penn
30
Temple
Median ARL University
20
10
0
1997-1998
2002-2003
2007-2008
Figure 3. Electronic resources as a percent of the total library materials budget.
The number of individual monographs and serials that have been purchased by ARL
university libraries increased from 1992-2008. Figure 4 indicates an increase in monographs
purchased. Figure 5 indicates a similar trend for total serials purchased from 1997-2003 (data for
how many of these serials were in print as opposed to electronic format is unavailable for these
years). Figure 6 shows the number of serials purchased, both in print and electronically, in 20072008. This data surprisingly shows that more print than electronic journals are being purchased,
although this may change as more and more journals move to electronic-only publishing.
5
Monographs Purchased
60000
50000
Volumes
40000
Penn
30000
Temple
Median ARL University
20000
10000
0
1992-1993
1997-1998
2002-2003
2007-2008
Figure 4. Number of monographs purchased. (Note: no data is available for Penn for 19972008).
6
Current Serials Purchased
25000
Subscriptions
20000
15000
Temple
Median ARL University
10000
5000
0
1992-1993
1997-1998
2002-2003
Figure 5. Current serials purchased. No distinction is made between print and electronic serials.
(Note: no data is available for Penn)
7
Serials Purchased, 2007-2008
60,000
50,000
40,000
30,000
20,000
10,000
0
Penn print
Penn electronic
Temple print
Temple
electronic
Median ARL
University print
Median ARL
University
electronic
Figure 6. Serials purchased, both print and electronic, in 2007-2008.
The data reported so far have all been input measures, or data about “resources available
to the system” (Kyrillidou, 2002, p. 43), in this case, library materials and expenditures. Data on
output measures, “activities the system exports” (Kyrillidou, 2002, p. 43), like circulation and
interlibrary loan transactions, are also collected here even though Kyrillidou argues that input
measures do not relate to output measures.
Figure 7 shows data about initial circulation transactions (that is, the first time an item is
checked out, not including any renewals). The median ARL university library has seen a steep
decrease in circulation from 1997-2008. ARL reports that initial circulation figures have
decreased by 26% from 1991-2008 (ARL, 2008a, p. 9). On the other hand, interlibrary loan
(ILL) transactions have increased over the same time period (Figure 8), which corresponds to a
8
295% increase in ILL borrowing and a 126% increase in ILL lending from 1986-2008 (ARL,
2008a, p. 13). Martell (2008) points out that the “decline in circulation is not universal” (p. 401),
so median figures may mask trends in individual libraries. Increases in ILL may stem from a
new emphasis on collaborative collection development, where libraries work together to create a
comprehensive collection, but rely on ILL to give their patrons access to materials they could not
afford by collecting alone (Casserly, 2002).
Initial Circulation
450000
400000
Circulation transactions
350000
300000
250000
Penn
Temple
200000
Median ARL University
150000
100000
50000
0
1997-1998
2002-2003
2007-2008
Figure 7. Initial circulation statistics. (Note: data is not available for 1992-1993).
9
Interlibrary Loan
90000
ILL transactions
80000
70000
Penn loaned
60000
Penn borrowed
50000
Temple loaned
40000
Temple borrowed
30000
Median ARL University loaned
20000
Median ARL University
borrowed
10000
0
1992-1993
1997-1998
2002-2003
2007-2008
Figure 8. Interlibrary Loan statistics, both materials loaned and materials borrowed.
So far, the trends discussed have been those pertaining to ARL University Libraries as a
whole. The data for the individual libraries studied here do not always conform to these trends,
and occasionally go in the opposite direction than those of the ARL median figures. In the area
of total expenditures, both Penn and Temple follow similar trends to ARL member libraries in
general (Figure 1). Temple spends close to the ARL median value, while Penn far outspends the
average, likely due to its lack of dependence on state funding and large endowment. A similar
pattern emerges in monographic and electronic resources expenditures (Figure 2); Penn far
outspends Temple and the average ARL university library in monographs. In electronic
resources, however, Penn outspent Temple and the ARL average in 1997-1998, but by 20072008, Temple had caught up to Penn, spending well above the average. Interestingly, while the
10
data were almost indistinguishable for the electronic resources expenditures as a percent of total
library spending (Figure 3), Temple now has the highest percent, followed by the average ARL
library, with Penn at the bottom, below 50%.
While this may seem like a strange reversal,
given Penn’s vastly greater overall budget, this can be explained quite simply. While many
libraries (including Temple’s, speculatively) have needed to decrease spending on print materials
in order to pay for much more costly electronic resources (Grafton, 2009), Penn, with its large
budget for library materials, can afford to keep purchasing print materials while also spending
money on electronic resources. Therefore, Figure 3 may be misleading, indicating that Penn has
not collected as many electronic resources as other universities, when other data shows this is not
the case. Data to further the assertion that Penn does not in fact collect fewer electronic
resources than other universities is evident in Figure 6, which indicates that Penn purchased
more serials, both print and electronic, in 2007-2008 than both Temple and the average ARL
university library.
In measures of monographic volumes and serials acquired, Temple follows the same
trends as the average ARL library (data for Penn was unavailable for these areas, except for
monographs in 1992-1993). Temple purchases fewer serials (Figure 5), but follows the same
trend. In monographs, Temple also purchases fewer than the median number of volumes, but by
2007-2008, the university had caught up to the median (Figure 4).
While both Penn and Temple are in line with the ARL median in input measures, where
they really differ is in output measures. This is clearest in data regarding initial circulation
(Figure 7). While the median ARL university has seen a steady decline in circulation, Penn’s
circulation actually increased from 1992-2008, while Temple’s circulation has remained steady
in the same time period. To some extent, this echoes Martell’s (2008) findings. His study
11
indicated that private and Ivy League universities both saw a 2% increase in circulation between
1995 and 2006 (p. 401). Martell also notes a decrease of 20% in circulation statistics at public
universities in the same time (p. 401), which marks Temple as a clear outlier, maintaining its
circulation figures over a 16 year span. These numbers may be an unreliable measure of the use
of the libraries’ collections, however, since they don’t account for the use of e-resources, which
are becoming the preferred method of acquiring information (Martell, 2008).
ILL statistics (Figure 8) also show an unlikely pattern. While Temple closely parallels
the trends of the median ARL library, Penn shows an almost four-fold spike in both borrowing
and lending between 2002-2003 and 2007-2008. While there is no explanation offered for such
an increase, one can speculate about the cause. Borrow Direct, a resource sharing consortium
between the Ivy League schools, was piloted in 1999 with three universities and expanded in
2002 to include four more (OCLC, n.d.). If the data for Penn include Borrow Direct
transactions, this could account for a large increase in ILL.
The biggest question raised from the data analyzed here may not be the trends in library
expenditures or library use statistics. It may be more important to ask whether these figures are
really the most important measures of a library’s value. Dillon (2008) argues that libraries are
seeing a shift from focusing on the collection to focusing on the user. Instead of using
expenditures or circulation to assess a library, libraries may need to begin focusing on in-depth
reference transactions and instruction sessions that librarians provide. Additionally, as libraries
begin to provide more mobile and electronic resources, as well as digitized content from their
own collections (ACRL, 2010), these will need to be measures that are assessed by ARL. In its
Supplementary Statistics, ARL has begun to assess e-books collections and digitization (ARL,
12
2008b), and these data will probably be added to the Annual Survey in the coming years, much
the way electronic resources expenditures were several years ago.
Overall, Penn and Temple appear to reflect the trends of ARL university libraries. Penn,
as a private, Ivy League university, tends to outspend the average ARL member library, and
Temple, with its reliance on state funds, tends to spend slightly less than the median amount, but
the general shape of the trends remains the same. It remains to be seen, though, how these input
and output measures will change in future years, taking into account not only the current
economic situation, but also the shifts being seen in research libraries to a greater reliance on
digital material and a stronger focus on user services rather than building a comprehensive
collection.
13
Resources
Association of College and Research Libraries. Research Planning and Review Committee.
(2010). 2010 top ten trends in academic libraries. C&RL News, 71(6), 286-292.
Association of Research Libraries. (1992). ARL Statistics 1992-1993. Retrieved from:
http://www.arl.org/bm~doc/arlstat93.pdf
Association of Research Libraries. (1998a). ARL Statistics 1997-1998. Retrieved from:
http://www.arl.org/bm~doc/1997-98arlstats.pdf
Association of Research Libraries. (1998b). ARL Supplementary Statistics 1997-1998.
Retrieved from: http://www.arl.org/bm~doc/sup98.pdf
Association of Research Libraries. (2003a). ARL Statistics 2002-2003. Retrieved from:
http://www.arl.org/bm~doc/arlstat03.pdf
Association of Research Libraries. (2003b). ARL Supplementary Statistics 2002-2003.
Retrieved from: http://www.arl.org/bm~doc/sup03.pdf
Association of Research Libraries. (2008a). ARL Statistics 2007-2008. Retrieved from:
http://www.arl.org/bm~doc/arlstat08.pdf
Association of Research Libraries. (2008b). ARL Supplementary Statistics 2007-2008.
Retrieved from: http://www.arl.org/bm~doc/sup08.pdf
Association of Research Libraries. (2010). ARL Statistics. Retrieved from:
http://www.arl.org/stats/annualsurveys/arlstats/index.shtml
Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. (2010a). Temple University. Retrieved
from:
http://classifications.carnegiefoundation.org/lookup_listings/view_institution.php?unit_id
=216339
Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. (2010b). University of Pennsylvania.
Retrieved from:
http://classifications.carnegiefoundation.org/lookup_listings/view_institution.php?unit_id
=215062
Casserly, Mary Frances. (2002). Developing a concept of collection for the digital age. portal:
Libraries and the Academy, 2(4), 577-587.
Dalton, Margaret Steig. (2006). A system destabilized: Scholarly books today. Journal of
Scholarly Publishing, 37(4), 251-269.
14
Dillon, Andrew. (2008). Accelerating learning and discovery: Redefining the role of academic
librarians. In No Brief Candle: Reconceiving Research Libraries for the 21st Century.
Washington, DC: Council on Library and Information Resources.
Grafton, Anthony. (2009). Apocalypse in the stacks? The research library in the age of Google.
Daedalus, 138(1), 87-98.
Kyrillidou, Martha. (2002). From input and output measures to quality and outcome measures,
or, from the user in the life of the library to the library in the life of the user. The Journal
of Academic Librarianship, 28(1), 42-46.
Martell, Charles. (2008). The absent user: Physical use of academic library collections and
services continues to decline 1995-2006. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 34(5),
400-407.
OCLC. (n.d.). “Borrow Direct” Resource Sharing. Retrieved from:
http://www.oclc.org/research/activities/past/rlg/borrowdirect.htm
Van Orsdel, Lee, & Born, Kathleen. (2007, April 15). Periodicals price survey 2007: Serial
wars. Library Journal, 132(7), 43-48.
15
Appendix: Data Tables
Note: All data gathered for this report comes from the ARL Annual Survey or the ARL
Supplementary Statistics for that year.
Penn
Temple
Median ARL University
Penn
Temple
Median ARL
University
Penn
Temple
Median ARL
University
Total Library Expenditures ($)
1992-1993 1997-1998 2002-2003
19827081
28838071 30,744,202
10882911
11961824 14,031,180
12288566
15084997 18,779,139
2007-2008
38,011,711
22,794,168
23,556,230
Total Library Materials Expenditures ($)
1992-1993 1997-1998 2002-2003 2007-2008
6428935
9160556
12,148,736 15,168,859
3810609
4676771
6,071,909 11,602,950
4297423
5591565
7,707,396
10,388,129
Total Electronic Resource Purchases ($)
1997-1998
2002-2003
2007-2008
1,229,223
2,023,031
6,792,252
292,577
1,156,466
6,601,957
495,011
1,775,865
5,410,421
Electronic Resources as a Percent of Library Materials Budget (%)
1997-1998 2002-2003
2007-2008
Penn
13.42
16.65
46.02
Temple
6.26
19.05
56.9
Median ARL University
8.29
22.01
53.06
Penn
Temple
Median ARL University
Penn
Temple
Median ARL
University
Expenditures for Monographs ($)
1992-1993
1997-1998
2198769
2825624
978617
1028755
1284116
1470005
2002-2003
3,453,450
1,218,053
1,827,006
Monographs Purchased (Volumes)
1992-1993 1997-1998 2002-2003 2007-2008
45267
unavailable unavailable unavailable
24274
23985
31874
47,318
27809
28976
35577
16
48,416
2007-2008
3,734,557
2,216,053
2,037,195
Current Serials Purchased
1992-1993
Penn
unavailable
Temple
11599
Median ARL
University
15016
Serials Purchased, 2007-2008
Penn print
Penn electronic
Temple print
Temple electronic
Median ARL University
print
Median ARL University
electronic
Penn
Temple
Median ARL
University
2002-2003
unavailable
14980
14533
21193
55,197
17,150
42,871
4,105
35,973
Initial Circulation Transactions
1997-1998
Penn
348225
Temple
200326
Median ARL
University
366873
Penn
Temple
Median ARL
University
1997-1998
unavailable
11764
6,820
2002-2003
386,983
215,401
2007-2008
416,739
219,083
294,066
248,979
Total Items Loaned (ILL)
1992-1993 1997-1998 2002-2003
22506
22781
24,780
13403
9426
19,349
22840
27289
33,178
Total Items Borrowed (ILL)
1992-1993
1997-1998
2002-2003
25689
33955
21,860
8625
9548
14,729
12486
17827
17
22,146
2007-2008
74,659
27,341
36,383
2007-2008
83,836
21,460
28,342