How to Identify Your Impact:
The Value of Libraries
Joe Matthews
June 10, 2013
Megan Oakleaf
Outline
• Performance Measures
• Value
• Value of Information
• Value of Information Services
Outline
• Value of a Library
– Personal value
• Direct measures
• Indirect measures
– Organizational value
– Financial value
Few libraries exist in a vacuum, accountable
only to themselves. There is thus always a
larger context for accessing library
quality, that is, what and how well does the
library contribute to achieving the overall
goals of the parent constituencies?
Sarah Pritchard
There is no systematic evidence
collected which shows the value
of academic libraries
for teaching and research staff.
Claire Creaser and Valerie Spezi
Performance Measures
Library Services
Input
Process
Resources
Capability
Output
Individual
Society
Outcomes
Outcomes
Use
Beneficial effects
Effectiveness
Efficiency
Impact
Cost Effectiveness
Cost benefit
VALUE
Start with the end in mind:
work backwards
Refocus from the activity
to the
impact
Impact
Library Control
How much?
How many?
How economical?
How prompt?
Magnitude
Magnitude
Resources used
Cycle times
% of change last
year
Change
Units processed
Turnaround time
Anticipatory
% of overall change
Cost
Library & Customers Decide
How valuable?
How reliable?
How accurate?
Effort expended
Dependability
Completeness
Cost
Access
Comprehensiveness
Benefits obtained
Accuracy
Currency
Customers Decide
How well?
How courteous?
How responsive?
How satisfied?
Accuracy
Attentive
Anticipatory
Expectations met
Promptness
Welcoming
Helpful
Materials obtained
Empathetic
Personal interaction
Courtesy
Expertise
Ease of use
Environment
Comfort
Willingness to
return
Live by the numbers, ….
Challenges
 Lack of consensus about what should be measured
and how
 Lack of understanding of performance
measurement and metrics
 Organizational structural issues
 Lack of precision in measuring performance, and
alignment issues
 Determining the “bottom line” is too far away
 Majority of stakeholders are too far away
 Library staff find it difficult to see the “big” picture
And the survey said ….
Lack of a Connection
• Budget and outputs (and outcomes) are
separated
• No “bottom line” measure for libraries
• Decision-making process is bigger than the
library
• Library has neither champions nor foes
• Library benefits are not widely self-evident
Orr’s Fundamental Questions
• How good is the library?
• What good does the library do?
• How well is the library managed?
We should be a bit wary of the “little
library”
…For when it is good, it is very, very good
and when it is bad,
it’s a “pretty
good library for a town this size.”
Eleanor Jo Rodger
Levels of Assessment …
• Individual student
• Course
• Departmental/Program
• College or University
Types of Measures
• Direct
– Provide tangible, visible and selfexplanatory evidence of what
students have & have not learned
• Indirect
– Capture students’ perceptions of
their knowledge & skills;
supplement direct measures;
sometimes called surrogates
Qualitative Tools
• Focus groups – open ended
• Biography
• Phenomenology – capture
the “Aha!” moment
• Grounded theory
• Ethnography
• Case study
Qualitative Assessment
• Provides in-depth understanding of user
responses and interactions
• Represents part of a long-term strategy of
formative evaluative
Quantitative Tools
• Surveys
• Transaction logs
• Statistics from systems
• Observations (count)
Quantitative Assessment
• Analyses to determine library impacts on
academic performance, retention rates
• Describe retention rates and GPAs in defined
populations over semesters and users
• Compare users & non-users of library services
while adjusting for academic preparation and
background differences
• Conduct quasi-experimental designs
employing multivariate analysis of covariance &
hierarchical regression techniques
Useful Assessment
Be cautious about cause-and-effect relationships
The Issue
• Is it: Use library resources/services and you
will get better grades.
• Or: I want to do well and so I work hard to
achieve better grades - and one way I do that
is to use library resources/services.
“Not surprisingly, librarians are keen to show
that the use of expensive, scholarly materials
positively correlates with higher grades,
although they cannot prove that this is so.”
Deborah Goodall & David Pattern
“There is growing pressure on all academic
library managers to be more accountable for
how they use limited resources and to achieve
institutional outcomes perceived as important
by college and university stakeholders….”
Elizabeth Mezick
Value of Information
• Expect value-in-use
• Library’s collection reflects a “potential value”
• Collection also reflects a “future value”
• Value of local collection is declining
Valuable is not about our professional values;
in the paradigm of the value of public libraries,
we are the producers,
not the consumers of services.
Our sense of what is valuable
really doesn’t matter
much at all unless it
matches that our our customers.
Eleanor Jo Rodger
Fundamental Changes
Libraries have changed more in the past two
decades than in the prior two centuries.
Technology is the major driver . . .
We need to recognize that all this change has
only begun, and that change is irreversible.
Increasingly it is important
to remember that libraries
provide
few unique
services.
Information is woven into our lives
Quality of Information
This fast food approach to information consumption drives
librarians crazy. “Our information is healthier and tastes better
too” they shout. But nobody listens. We’re too busy Googling.”
Peter Morville
Key Characteristics of Information
Uncertainty
Knowledge
Ambiguity
Indeterminacy
Redundancy
System dependency
Sharing
Timeliness
Compression
Presentation
Stability
Multiple life cycles
Leakability
Substitutability
Criteria for Judging Value
Customer Criteria
Value Added by the Service
Ease of use
Browsing, formatting, mediation service,
orientation service, ordering, physical
accessibility
Noise reduction
Access (item identification, subject
description, subject summary), linkage,
precision, selectivity
Quality
Accuracy, comprehensiveness, currency,
reliability, validity
Adaptability
Closeness to problem, flexibility,
simplicity, stimulatory
Time savings
Response speed
Cost savings
Cost savings
Collections are disrupted
Atoms to bits
Nature of Information is Changing
Information
was ….
Information
is ….
Scare, controlled
All around us
Expensive
Cheap or free
Shaped by elites
Shaped by consumers
One-way, mass
consumption
Designed for sharing,
participation &
feedback
Slow moving
External to our
worlds
Immediate
Embedded in our
worlds
Value of the Academic Library
If the physical proximity of
print collections had a demonstrable
impact on researcher productivity,
no university would hesitate to
allocate prime real estate
to library stacks.
Traditional Value Proposition
Without a great
library, there can be
no great university.
David Kinly,
President of
The University of Illiniois
1929
Universities Provide
• Private
goods &
services
– Courses exchanged for tuition
– Research completed for funding
• The value proposition
The value to an individual or an
organization determines whether
payment is made for the service
Academic Libraries Provide
• Public
goods and services
Print and online resources are
shared by all, usually without the
exchange of payment
• Value proposition
The collective value of all users
must be estimated to determine if
a good or service should be
continued
Value is determined by the
user
and the
use of information
Astin’s IEO Model
Programs
Institutional
characteristics
Input
Library
Fellow students
Faculty
Place of residence
Environment
Output
Student Learning Outcomes Model
Abstract,
Process
Oriented
Intelligence
General Reasoning
Broad Abilities
Knowledge, Understanding, and Reasoning
Concrete,
ContentOriented
Define, develop, and measure outcomes
that contribute to
institutional effectiveness
ACRL Standards for Libraries in Higher Education
Challenge
It is not how much a library
is used that matters,
rather how does the library
impact or benefit the customer?
Perspectives on Value
Impacts
Direct
Personal
Organizational
Use
Indirect
Financial
Benefits
Option – Preservation of option for
future use by me
Nonuse
Existence – Perceived value and significance
to the community
Legacy – Value of preservation for
future generations
Personal
Why Use the Library?
Reasons
For a TASK
For PERSONAL
reasons
To get an
OBJECT or
INFORMATION
Interactions
Access
RESOURCES
Results
COGNITIVE results
AFFECTIVE results
Use of
RESOURCES or
SERVICES
ACCOMPLISHMENTS
EXPECTATIONS met
OPERATIONS
TIME aspects
To perform an
ACTIVITY
ENVIRONMENTS
MONEY estimates
Generic Learning Outcomes
Knowledge & Understanding
Skills
Attitudes
Enjoyment, Inspiration, Creativity
Activity, Behavior, Progression
Organizational
Student Learning is Affected by …
•
•
•
•
•
Full-time students
Live on campus
Interact more with faculty
Study more
Collaborate with their peers
NSSE
• 5 benchmarks of effective educational practice
–
–
–
–
–
Level of academic challenge
Active & collaborative learning
Student-Faculty interaction
Enriching educational experiences
Supportive campus environment
• Student self-reported gains in intellectual &
personal development
• No overlap between self-reported data &
standardized objective tests
NSSE – Use of the Academic Library
• 50% never used the library
• Use of libraries at small, academically
challenging liberal arts colleges are correlated
with other purposeful activities
• Library use less intensive at larger universities
• Students who work harder use library
resources
Assessing Student Achievement
• Direct measures
– Capstone experience
– Use of a portfolio
– Standardized exam (Collegiate
Learning Assessment)
• Indirect measures
Assessment of Higher Ed
• Gains in student
performance are
quite low
• Individual learning is
characterized by
persistence
• Notable variation
within and across
institutions
Wabash National Study
• Different instrument – CAAP
• 2,212 students
•
•
•
•
Nearly identical results to Academically Adrift
44 percent no gains in the first year
33 percent no gains in 4 years
Students only study about 15 hours per week
• Opinion surveys
• Skills testing
• Observed behaviors
Bibliographic Instruction
• Improvement in basic library skills is the
means and not the end
• Yet the means is the focus for evaluation
efforts
• Evaluation efforts focus on
– Opinion surveys
– Skills improvement
– Pre-test & post-test knowledge
• Not the impact on student achievement
Library experiences do not seem to directly
contribute to gains in information literacy,
to what students gain overall in college, or
to student satisfaction.
Kuh & Gonyea
“One way to demonstrate the library’s
contribution is to assess whether students’
experiences with the library
directly or indirectly
contribute to desired outcomes of college.”
George D. Kuh & Robert M. Gonyea
How to Demonstrate Impact in …
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Student enrollment
Student experiences
Student learning
Student grades (GPA) & achievement
Student retention & graduation
Student career success
Faculty productivity
Institutional reputation
The environment
Student Enrollment
Student Enrollment
• Recruitment of prospective students
• Matriculation of admitted students
• Recommendation of current students
Student
Learning
Student Learning
•
•
•
•
GPA
Professional/educational test scores
Learning assessments
Faculty judgments
Meta-analysis
• Entering student characteristics
– SES
– High school GPA
– ACT/SAT scores
• Environment - Psychosocial and study skill
factors
– Academic goals, skills and self-confidence
– Social support & engagement (acculturation)
Student Learning Occurs …
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
in the classroom
in the laboratory
with peers
in the student union
in the dorm
in the library (for some)
online
and
Direct Measures
• Capstone Experience
• Portfolios
• Standardized Test
• Locally-developed test
Capstone Projects
Indirect Measures
Surveys
Retention, graduation rates
Grades
Acceptance rates into
graduate programs
• Job placement rates
• Exit interviews
• Alumni surveys
•
•
•
•
Student
Grades
Non/Low Use
Usage of Electronic Resources
WAM = Weighted Average Marks (Grades)
Other Studies
• Hong Kong Baptist University
• Georgia State University
Hope College
University of Minnesota
Gym Bags and Mortarboards
Use Campus Recreational Facilities
At least 25 times, first-year
retention increased 1%
&
5-year graduation rates
increased 2%
University of Minnesota Library
• 5,368 first-year non-transfer students
• Use of library was associated with a .23
increase in students GPA
• More use of the library, GPA also goes up
University of Minnesota Library
Library Instruction and GPA
• Surveys of student opinions & habits
• Assessing student work for specific skills
• Analysis of grade point average
• Mixed results
Library Instruction and GPA
Hong King Baptist University
• 45 sample groups – N=31 to 1,223, study majors
• Pairs of data
• One-fourth (11) had a positive relationship
• Results:
– 1 or 2 workshops – little impact on GPA
– 3 or 4 workshops – ½ show a positive impact
– 5 workshops (1 sample group) – 100% had a higher
GPA
Library Instruction and GPA
University of Wyoming Libraries
• Analysis of 4,489 transcripts
• Slight positive relationship between upperlevel library instruction courses and GPA –
0.075 GPA difference – that’s less than
1/10th of 1 percent
• Research statement – 44%
• Evaluate Web site – objectivity – 52%
– authority – 65%
• Presentation to persuade – 12%
How scalable is library instruction?
Student Retention & Graduation
Persistence
Attrition
Retention
Graduation Rates
Completion
Student Retention
• Fall-to-fall retention
• Graduation rates
Retention Concepts
• Institutional retention
– Enrolling & graduating from the same institution
• Program retention
– Enrolling & graduating with the same
major/department/school
• System retention
– Students who leave one university yet continue
and complete post-secondary studies elsewhere
Measures of Retention
• Persistence (Continuation rate)
– From first to second year? Entry to graduation?
• Completion rate
– From entry to graduation (Student goals?)
• Graduation rates
– Are transfers included? Time period?
• Attrition
– Leaving university? Leaving higher ed?
Measures of Retention
• Stopout
– Leave university with the intention (and action) of
returning later to complete a program
• Dropout
– Leave university with intention (and action) of
NOT returning
• Transfer
– Change institutions yet persist in higher education
– May change type of institution
• Voluntary vs. involuntary attrition?
Why Students Leave?
• Students’ decision to leave University is influenced by
many personal factors
–
–
–
–
Financial reasons
Family responsibilities
Lack of academic ability
Poor fit, etc.
• Foundational Theories from Education / Psychology:
– Tinto’s “Model of Student Integration”
– Bean’s “Model of Student Attrition”
Tinto’s
Model of Student Integration
Pre-entry
Attributes
Goals /
Institutional
Commitments Experiences
Integration
Goals /
Commitments
Outcome
Academic System
Performance
SES
Intentions
Skills &
Abilities
Quality of
Education
Academic
Integration
Engagement
Intentions
Goal
Institutional
ExtraCommitments Curricular
Peer group
Social System
Social
Integration
Institutional
Match
Stay or
Leave
Bean’s
Model of Student Attrition
Environmental
Variables
Personal
Variables
Organizational
Variables
Loyalty
Attitudes
Certainty
Practical
Value
Grades
Courses
Educational Goals
Intent
Major & Job Certainty
Opportunity to Transfer
Dropout
Family Approval
Student Retention & Graduation
• Important because … rankings, revenues,
educational achievement, emotional wellbeing
• Many reasons for drop-outs are not
under the control of the university
• Engagement is the key
Indicators
• Student goal attainment
• Course retention
• Subsequent course
work
• Fall-to-fall persistence
• Time to degree
• Degree completion
• Grad school enrollment
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Transfer rate & success
Employer assessment
Academic value add
Student satisfaction
Professional growth
Student involvement
Citizenship & engagement
Australasian Survey of Student
Engagement (AUSSE)
Curtin University
University of Huddersfield
“A high rate of attrition
is indicative of a failure
on the part of an institution
to achieve its purpose.”
Elizabeth Mezick
Student Engagement
“many students don’t
develop a personal
connection with their
institution. And when
they don’t, they leave”
Gonzales 2010
NSSE & CSEQ
Library Retention Studies
• Statistically significant relationships between
library expenditures, or staffing levels and student
retention
 E.g.
Hiscock, 1986
Hamrick, Schuh, & Shelley, 2004
Mezick, 2007
Graduation Rates & Library
Expenditures
• Used IPEDS data on institutional
characteristics & resource allocations
• Library expenditures was strongly correlated
with graduation rates – 1.77 percent increase
in graduation rates
• Greatest payoff is attributable to enhanced
library expenditures (+0.92) and instruction
(+0.80) while increased non-library
contributions were quite modest (+0.27)
Hamrick, Schuh & Shelley
Library Retention Studies
• Relationships between library use (collections)
and student retention
– Student who borrowed books = more likely to persist
• E.g.
Kramer & Kramer, 1968
• Impact of instruction
– Students involved in library skills programs showed
lower attrition rates
• E.g.
Knapp, 1966
Library Retention Studies
University of Minnesota
– 77% of undergrads made use of the libraries,
85% of grad students made use of the libraries
– Students who used the library at least once
were 1.54 times more likely to re-enroll
Library Retention Studies
• Some library involvement in first year experience
programs; specific programs for “at risk” groups
– NOT proven to have significant effect
• E.g.
Hollis, 2001
Colton, et al, 2002
Aguilar & Keating, 2009
Love, 2009
Library Retention Studies
• Relationship between library employment &
retention
– Higher completion rate among library student
workers
• E.g. Wilder, 1990
Rushing & Poole, 2002
“If strong linkages between libraries
and student retention can be made,
then the perceived value of the library
may indeed rise.”
Steven Bell
• Some groups, some majors & seniors engage
in more library-related activities
• Academic support expenditures tend to
correlate with increased engagement
• Institutional academic challenge correlates
with library use
Student Career Success
Grad School Exams
Alumni Surveys
Student Success
•
•
•
•
•
Job placement rates
First-year job salaries
Professional/graduate school acceptance
Internship success
Marketable skills
Faculty Teaching
• Integration of library resources and services
into course syllabi, Websites, lectures, labs,
reserve readings, etc.
• Faculty/librarian collaborations; cooperative
curriculum, assignment, or assessment design
Perceived Benefits for Teaching
• Savings
– Of own time
– Of own money
– Of other resources
• Improvements
– Teaching
– Course-related materials
– Student performance
Impact on Faculty
• Library is the source for most journal articles
(individual subscriptions are way down)
• If library subscriptions were unavailable –
productivity would decrease 17%
• Library is not the source of book readings
• 42% of reading material is library provided
Time
• Academics spend a lot of time reading
• Article reading inspires new thinking,
improved results, changed focus
• Award-winning academics read more
• Academics who publish more use more
library resources
Ithaka Studies
• Library services not understood
• Library services not valued
• The Library is disappearing
Faculty Research Productivity
• Number of publications, number of patents,
value of technology transfer
• Tenure/promotion judgments
Faculty Grants
• Number of grant proposals (funded or
unfunded)
• Value of grants funded
Assessment of Research
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Payback model – form of ROI
Research impact
Research utilization ladder
Lavis decision-making impact model
Weiss logic model
HTA organization assessment framework
Societal impact framework
Research assessment exercise
Becker medical library model
For Most Impact Models
• Indicators of research output
• Indicators of knowledge transfer
• Indicators of implementation
• Indicators of community benefit
Faculty Productivity
Institutional Reputation & Prestige
• Faculty recruitment
• Institutional rankings
• Community engagement
Institutional Reputation
• Changes in reputational rankings affects student
& faculty recruitment
• University budget allocations to libraries have
decreased
Since the library absorbs a very small percentage of a university
budget, the contribution of the library is disproportionately
high relative to its cost to the institution.
Sharon Weiner
University & the Library Can
• Attract outstanding faculty
• Retain outstanding faculty
• Foster innovative research
• Align library activities with
university goals
• Indispensable for their research
• Maintain a high-level overview of their field
• Value for money is good
• Library not available, costs would increase 40%
• Take 31% longer to locate same information
Financia
l
At the table or
On the menu?
What is ROI?
ROI Applications
• Projects
• Services
• Organization
ROI in Library Contexts
• Demonstrating the value of libraries
• Evaluating existing services, collections, etc.
• Making the case for additional services or
resources
• Recruiting support for a program or initiative
ROI Terminology
• Cost-Benefit Analysis (CBA)
– Compares cost or purchase price with estimated
value of variables that are difficult to measure
• Consumer Surplus
– Value that consumers place on the consumption of
a good or service in excess of what they paid for it
• Cost of Time and Effort
– Measures time and effort expended by users
• Contingent Valuation
– Measures value of use and non-use of non-priced
goods and services, e.g., a library
Cost/Benefit Methodologies
Maximize the benefits for given costs
Minimize the costs for a given level of benefits
Maximize the ratio of benefits over costs
Maximize the net benefits (present value of
benefits minus the present value of costs)
• Maximize the internal rate of return
•
•
•
•
Ratio of Benefits to Costs
Value of
benefits
divided by
Costs
ROI = Benefit – Cost
Cost
University of Pittsburgh ROI
• If the library’s journal collection (print &
electronic) were not available, faculty would
use 250,000 hours and $2.1 million to find
alternative sources for the articles
• It would cost the university 4.38 times the
cost of the current library journal collections
for the same amount of information gathering
to be carried out
University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign
Connected citations to resources in
the library’s collection to successful
grant proposals, and the income the
grants generated
ROI = 4.38:1
Other studies – 0.27:1 to 15.54:1
ROI may provide us with calculations that
seek to document a financial relationship
between action and benefit, but too often
in the library community these studies are
poorly constructed, ineffectively
executed, and naïvely communicated.
And in the final analysis, do not respond
to the legitimate questions being raised
by our administrators and funders, and do
not advance the academic library as a
critical factor in institutional success.
James Neal
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Comprehensive assessment of the library
ROI of the journal collection & readership
ROI for support of teaching & learning
ROI of digitized special collections
ROI of eBooks
Value of library commons
Bibliography
Bryant University – Faculty Access
Book ROI = 3.5:1
Article ROI = 3.2:1
Other publications ROI = 3.2:1
Syracuse University – ROI
4.49:1
(Millions of Dollars)
Faculty
Students
In Person
$13.6
$23.1
Remote
19.0
14.5
TOTAL
$32.6
$37.6
Remote access
$1.6
$3.7
Read not-printed
0.1
0.7
Social
?
?
TOTAL
$34.3
$42.0
Economic
Environmental
Journal Collections & Reading
ROI for Support of Teaching & Learning
Perceived Benefits –
• Savings …
– Of own time
– Of own money
– Of other resources – printing, copier
• Improvements …
– Teaching
– Course-related materials
– Student performance
ROI of Digitized Special Collections
User
• What is the value to a user in terms of
time and money spent?
Prestige
• What is the prestige to the institution for
high visibility digital special collection?
Development
• What value accrues to the development
effort of the institution?
ROI of Digitized Special Collections
Environmental
• What is the value of the environmental savings
from limited physical access to unique and often
fragile material?
Scholars
• What value accrues from the role of special
collections in attracting graduate students?
Collections
• What is the value of digital collection in attracting
additional special collections?
ROI of eBooks
The Commons
ROI = 26:1
Communicating Value
Past
Future
Building & maintaining
collections
Focus
Engaging students &
faculty
Internal silos
Structure
University priorities
Incremental
Change
Transformational
Periodic
Outreach
Deliberative
Top down
Decision making
Shared
Traditional
Measures of Success
Impact
Library Value
• How integral it is to the community
• How well it supports learning and teaching
• How well it supports research
Value Proposition
What your
library does
well
What your
customers
value
The Value Proposition
• An offer, not a demand
• Not what you value
• Only valuable perspective is the customer’s
• Valuable in a competitive environment
Or
The
promise
that a library makes to its
customers about what they can
expect
to receive in return for their time,
their effort, their loyalty, and
especially their dollars.
The library needs to …
Focus on customers
and
what they want and need
as well as
how they want and need it.
Stories + Stats = Success
Is the value in the glass, the wine
or the savoring?
The financial crisis is looking even worse,
but you will pleased to know that the
director reports that the library performance
went up a half a point on the
“library goodness scale” last week.
Michael Buckland
Joe@JoeMatthews.Org
www.joematthews.org
Joe Matthews
Library Consultant
What Are the Results
Four Year College
Full-time
College degree – 19%
Four Year College
Part-time
Two Year College
No college
Graduate degree – 11%
Stopout/Transfer
AA degree – 8%
No college degree – 60%
Valuing the Collection
Dewey Subclass
Number of Titles
2010-2011 Avg
List
Total Value ($)
001 - Knowledge
$76.71
$0.00
002 - The book
$62.45
$0.00
003 - Systems
$129.77
$0.00
004 - Data processing. Computer science
$89.82
$0.00
005 - Computer programming, programs, data
$69.14
$0.00
006 - Special computer methods
$83.60
$0.00
010 - Bibliography
$73.65
$0.00
011 - Bibliographies
$69.46
$0.00
012 - Bibliographies of individuals
$0.00
$0.00
013 - Of works by specific classes of authors
$0.00
$0.00
014 - Of anonymous and pseudonymous works
$55.95
$0.00
015 - Of works from specific places
$184.99
$0.00
016 - Of works on specific subjects
$134.87
$0.00
017 - General subject catalogs
$0.00
$0.00
018 - Catalogs arranged by author, date, etc.
$0.00
$0.00
019 - Dictionary catalogs
$0.00
$0.00
020 - Library and information sciences
$56.06
$0.00
021 - Library relationships
$62.60
$0.00
022 - Administration of the physical plant
$65.50
$0.00
023 - Personnel administration
$56.00
$0.00
025 - Library operations
$77.02
$0.00
026 - Libraries for specific subjects
$89.99
$0.00
027 - General libraries
$66.25
$0.00