Benchmarking Exercise
ILS 560/Academic Libraries
Spring, 2012
Kathy Georgian
The purpose of benchmarking is to not only determine the effectiveness of the organization, in
this case an academic library, but also to discover improved methods of serving the client or library
patron. It helps the academic library to answer the following questions:
 What are we doing well?
 What do we need to do better?
 Should we be doing something else in order to achieve our goals?
(ACRL/CLS Standards 2000 Excerpt, p41)
Due to the current challenging economy, academic libraries are also using the benchmark study to
illustrate their worth or perhaps to illustrate their need of funds.
Selection of Target & Peer Institutions:
I decided to choose as my target library one that I have a vested interest in because my daughter
attends this institution. I also thought that it may be interesting because it's Carnegie Classification is,
“Special Focus Institutions: Schools of Art, Music and Design”. My target library is the Godine
Library at Massachusetts College of Art & Design (MassArt), in Boston, Massachusetts. MassArt is
the only public, freestanding art school in the country so I had no choice but to choose private art
schools for my peer group. I was able to find the peer group which MassArt uses for their
benchmarking studies and from that group I chose five actual peer institutions and three inspirational
institutions. (www.mass.edu/library/documents/AAC10-11MassArtPeers.pdf) The actual peer
institutions are:
 Columbus College of Art & Design (CCAD) in Columbus, Ohio
 Maryland Institute College of Art (MICA) in Baltimore, Maryland
 School of the Art Institute of Chicago (SAIC) in Chicago, Illinois
 The University of the Arts (UArts) in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
 Ringling College of Art & Design (Ringling) in Sarasota, Florida
The three inspirational institutions are:
 Pratt Institute-Main, NY (Pratt) in New York City, New York
 Rhode Island School of Design (RISD) in Providence, Rhode Island
 California Institute of the Arts (CalArts) in Valencia, California
Following is a chart comparing the target and peer institutions.
Comparison of Target and Peer Institutions 2010
Tuition $ SAT
Acceptan UnderGrad.
Student
In/out of Math/
ce Rate % grad.
Pop.
Faculty
State (1) Verbal (1)
(1) Pop. (1)
(1) Ratio (1)
Retention Faculty
Rate %
FT/PT
(2)
(2)
MassArt
9000/
25400
470/500
60
2252
192
11 to 1
89
100/224
MICA
34550
500/530
51
1869
233
10 to 1
87
137/166
SAIC
35550
500/530
73
2500
748
9 to 1
76
141/453
UArts
33500
430/440
67
2002
244
9 to 1
82
119/337
CCAD
24864
430/430
73
1804
11
11 to 1
82
73/170
Ringling
29800
NA
74
1368
0
12 to 1
82
88/60
CalArts
36166
NA
15
895
559
7 to 1
79
151/118
RISD
38000
500/530
34
1975
431
10 to 1
94
147/360
Pratt
35410
520/530
41
3039
1761
11 to 1
80
100/224
Notes: (1) Source is (www.studentadvisor.com); (2) Source is (nces.ed.gov/collegenavigator); MassArt
has been highlighted in blue as it is the target school.
All of these schools are freestanding art schools, meaning that they are not an art department
which is part of a larger institution. They all have mission statements similar to MassArt: “The
college's professional baccalaureate and graduate programs prepare students to participate in the
creative economy as fine artists, designers, and art educators, and to engage in the well being of their
society.” (inside.massart.edu/Academic_Resources/Academic_Catalog/About_MassArt/Mission_Statement.html) The specific art majors of each school vary but not significantly. SAT scores were
presented because they are often requested in the admissions process, however, in art schools, emphasis
is placed upon the quality of each student's personal portfolio for final acceptance. The tuition is lower
in CCAD, and Ringling with MassArt's instate tuition being the lowest as is typical of state schools. It
is not listed in the chart, but MassArt also offers a discount to New England residents, (CT, ME, NH,
RI, VT). The student/faculty ratio is low for all of the peer institutions as individualized instruction is
needed in art classes. The student population of all schools is similar, in that they are all small schools,
however, Pratt is a bit higher than the rest. For this reason, MassArt requested, and had it approved,
that Pratt be removed from their peer group. I decided to retain the school in this study as an
aspirational institution. The retention rates of all the schools are also similar, with RISD having the
highest at 94% perhaps because of its highly respected reputation. The high number of part-time
faculty is probably due to the fact that so many of the instructors are practicing artists and teaching is
not only a way to communicate their passion to others but also a way to “pay the bills” when
commissions and work may be sparse. My aspirational schools were chosen because of their
reputations, (CalArts, Pratt and RISD were all included in Businessweek's 2007 top international
design schools); their notable alumnus, (Seth MacFarlane/creator of Family Guy; Betsey
Johnson/fashion designer; Martin Landau/actor, artist; Peter Max/artist); their high level of
endowments and low acceptance rates. SAIC is also a highly respected school with notable alumni and
a high level of endowment, however I was reluctant to include them in the aspirational peer group
because of their high acceptance rate, (73%).
Endowments-2010
In $000
Massart
MICA
SAIC
UArts
8762
55146
149000
33141
CCAD Ringling CalArts
6250
21577
98201
RISD
Pratt
286464
73592
Note: (from US News and rankings and reviews, 2012; 2011 NCSE Public Tables Endowment)
Assessment of Peer and Target Institutions:
All of the assessment data to be presented was gathered from the Academic Library Peer
Comparison Tool (http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/libraries/compare/Index.asp?LibraryType=Academic) and
is from the year 2010. Staffing, inputs (expenditures), size of collections and outputs (services
rendered) data will be presented and explored.
Library Staff
Librarians %Profess. Prof.Staff All Other % Pd
Student
% Student TotalStaff
/Profess. Staff to
per 1000 Pd Staff Staff to
Assistants Assistants per 1000
Staff
TotalStaff FTE Stud.
TotalStaff
toTotStaff FTE Stud.
MassArt
7
44
3.79
4
25
4.93
31
8.62
MICA
7
36
3.59
8.5
43
4.2
21
10.11
SAIC
9
40
2.93
7.29
33
5.82
27
7.3
UArts
7
42
2.83
7.85
47
1.77
11
6.73
CCAD
8
65
5.81
1.2
10
3.01
25
8.99
Ringling
4
30
3.51
7.08
53
2.19
16
11.64
Average
of Peers
7
43
3.73
6.38
37
3.4
20
8.95
CalArts
5
24
3.44
8
38
8.14
39
14.53
RISD
9
33
3.58
9.89
37
8
30
10.69
Pratt
21
42
4.47
12
24
16.7
34
10.58
This chart illustrates that MassArt is within the average for the number of professional librarians and
above the average for the number of student assistants but significantly below the average in the
number of all other paid staff . It is important that MassArt is within the average for the number of
librarians and professional staff employed at the library per total staff and perhaps they could add more
paid staff and cut down on the number of student assistants, (although I would hesitate to recommend
the cutting of student workers). The aspirational peer schools appear to have a higher than actual peer
average number of student workers which also pushes them over the average for total staff per 1000
FTE students. Except for Pratt, they also appear to have a low number of professional librarians.
Expenditures ($)
Total
Salaries
Books,
Electronic
All Serials, & AV
Other
Materials
Preservation
Biblio.Util. Total
Net.,Conso Library
rtia,other
Expend.
Expend.
Per FTE
Student
MassArt
630378
155979
4148
13913
142098
912688
493.61
MICA
764000
176488
12000
5400
57274
988298
507.34
SAIC
742156
320442
49351
17392
116918
1172877
390.96
UArts
Suppressed
277025
14968
8271 Suppressed
895155
362.41
CCAD
Suppressed
143102
10162
4047 Suppressed
541694
410.06
Ringling
480696
200112
86779
4823
80679
782168
686.11
Average
662284
223433
34652
7987
84957
876038
471.38
CalArts
781691
286907
34214
23952
60442
1209650
831.37
RISD
1122363
248605
11138
10590
69334
1422449
565.36
Pratt
1698787
217720
109073
26457
83002
2293353
488.16
From this table it appears that MassArt is weak in their expenditures for books and all serials
(backfiles, current, electronic); and electronic and audiovisual materials yet devoted most of their
resources in the areas of preservation and bibliographic utilities, network, consortia and all other
operating expenditures. These high and low expenditures averaged each other out so that the final total
library expendures were comparable to the actual peer institutions, but these schools cannot match
some of the expenditures being made by the aspirational institutions and of SAIC. The endowments
table reflects the reason for this gap in expenditures. The funds expended can only be as high as the
funds available. Yet the expenditures per FTE student show that CalArts and Ringling are the only two
institutions that have significantly higher numbers perhaps because they have the two lowest number of
students.
The following table concerns the size of collections. From this table we can see that even
though MassArt was low on expenditures for books and all serials and electronic and audiovisual
materials, their collection size in these areas were already comparable to their actual peer schools and
some of their aspirational peer schools. However, MassArt has the second highest amount of “books,
serial backfiles, other paper materials/FTE student”, when comparing to both the actual and
aspirational peer schools. Also of note is the considerable investment in E-books by MassArt, CCAD
and Ringling making them by far the leaders in this area. MassArt, in contrast to this, has the lowest
number of “current serial subscriptions held”.
Size of Collection
Books,Serial
Backfiles,
Paper Mat.Held
MassArt
Books,Serial E-Books
Backfiles,
Added
Paper Mat./FTE Student
E-Books
Held
Audiovisual
Materials
Held
Current
Serial
Subscription
Held
123604
66.85
51557
51557
210503
259
MICA
86321
44.31
8
590
271500
354
SAIC
100913
33.64
17
17
144519
372
UArts
139853
56.62
0
6
355604
535
CCAD
56962
43.12
13782
25361
136694
300
Ringling
55547
48.73
5513
46395
190593
375
Average
87919
45.28
3864
14474
219782
387
CalArts
203471
139.84
0
198
32804
665
RISD
151804
60.34
0
0
200790
2404
Pratt
200403
42.66
0
0
358455
920
The following tables explore outputs which includes services rendered, circulation of materials,
presentations, and hours of operation.
MassArt
MICA
SAIC
UArts
CCAD Ringling CalArts
Gate Ct.
/ Week
2178
3780
2702
1899
1051
2567
Info.Svc
to Indiv.
Tot.Ref.
1339
6789
20166
0
5210
1639
RISD
Pratt
2500
4500
10598
550
2029
13045
Services/Circulation/Presentations/Hours of Operation
Interlibrary Interlibrary Circulation All Circ.
Loans
Loans
Transaction Trans. Per
Provided
Received Gen/Reserv FTE Stud.
MassArt
Number of Attendance Hours in a
Presenat Presen- Typical
tations
tations
Week
1230
902
26928
15
105
1648
74
MICA
275
898
95143
49
153
2295
70
SAIC
4671
10946
166282
55
333
5299
74
UArts
319
549
30734
12
109
1887
77
CCAD
1005
893
44271
10
31
577
70
Ringling
362
293
55031
48
84
1550
89
Average
1326
658*
78292
35
142
2322
76
CalArts
810
1025
70297
48
45
925
87
RISD
513
747
87144
35
166
3351
88
Pratt
343
726
86274
18
176
2112
90
Note: *SAIC was not included in this average as it would have misleadingly elevated the data.
All of the academic libraries in this study offer:




Documents digitized by the library staff
E-mail/Web library reference service
E-mail reference
Library supports virtual reference services
Of all of the academic libraries in this study, only CCAD, SAIC and CalArts had positive responses to
some, and in the case of CCAD all, of the questions regarding defining and incorporating Information
Literacy in the institution's mission and strategic plan and recognizing the role of the library in
information literacy instruction.
MassArt is strong in the number of interlibrary loans received and provided but they appear
weak in the number of circulation transactions both general and reserved and the number of circulation
transactions per FTE student. The number of presentations and the attendance at those presentations is
comparable to the other peer institutions and the hours of operation are typical of the actual peer
institutions but less than the inspirational peers. The gate count per week of Massart is below the
average of the actual peer institutions as is the information service to individuals total reference.
MassArt has a comparable amount of library materials and they have a sufficient number of patrons
who want those materials from outside of the school and who order outside materials but they need to
attract more students to the library to use the library's own materials.
Conclusions and Recommendations:
One area that MassArt is lower than their peer libraries is the amount of their endowments. In
2003 Massachusetts drastically cut the budget for college library resources 92% over two years. In
2001 the budget was $14 million and in 2002 it was cut to $5 million, then $1.2 million in 2003. In
2004 funding leveled. During those years, MassArt's library budget went from $202,000 down to
$17,000. “We've tried to preserve the serials collection as much as possible.... You pay ten to twenty
times more for back issues. Even at that, the library has cut 185 of its subscriptions.”, said interim
librarian Paul Dobbs. (Pfeifer) The staff was reduced from thirteen positions to nine positions. In
2009, the MassArt board of trustees, because of the economic environment and a proposed 2010 budget
cut of 19%, decided to review and extend their financial plan for three years. They decided that over
the next three years MassArt would need to reduce their expenses by around $2.5 million with
mandatory furloughs for non-unit staff, up to five unpaid days.
(www.massart.edu/Documents/inside.massart.edu/governance/BOT_Minutes_06-01-09.pdf)
MassArt
appears to be surviving the current economic downturn as evidenced by their showing in this
benchmarking exercise. They do need to work on improving their gatecount and the amount of
transactions per student. Perhaps adopting an information literacy policy and plan would help to bring
more students into the library. Hopefully as the economy recovers they will be able to again build up
their number of subscriptions and library staff. Until then efficient use of the staff and resources is
critical.
Bibliography
Nelson,Wm. Neal, Robert W. Fernekes. Standards and Assessment for Academic Libraries: a
Workbook. 2002 by ALA.
Pfeifer, Ellen, Massfunding: The Godine Library Looks for Help, The Boston Pheonix, Issued
April 25 – May 1, 2003.
Woyke, Elizabeth and Maha Atal, The Talent Hunt: Design Programs are Shaping a New
Generation of Creative Managers, Bloomberg Business Week Special Report, October 4 2007.
(www.businessweek.com/innovate/content/oct2007/id2007104_575219.htm)
Massachusetts College of Art and Design Board of Trustees Meeting-June 1, 2009.
(www.massart.edu/Documents/inside.massrt.edu/governance/BOT_Minutes_06-01=09.pdf)
ACRL/CLS Standards 2000 excerpt. C&RL News, 61:175-82, March 2000.
Perspectives on Outcome Based Evaluation for Libraries and Museums. Institute of Museum
and Library Services Publications.
(http://www.imls.gov/pubs/)
Outcomes Assessment in Higher Education, The Journal of Academic Librarianship.
January/March 2002, 28 (No.1&2) (Special Issue)
(www.nacubo.org/Documents/research/2011_NCSE_Public_Tables_Market_Values_Final_January_17
_2002)
Academic Library Peer Comparison Tool,
(http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/libraries/compare/Index.asp?Librarytype=Academic)