PBA: A Statistics-based Method to Allocate Academic Library
Materials Budgets
Wanda V Dole
Dean of Libraries, Washburn University, Topeka Kansas 66621, USA
Abstract
Academic librarians have proposed a variety of methods and formulae for the allocation
of library materials budgets by discipline and by format. Percentage Based Allocations
(PBA) is a method that uses simple institutional statistics to create a model for allocation.
First proposed by David Genaway in 1986 (Genaway, 1986a), it is a method by which the
percentage of the library’s budget allocated to each discipline is equal to the percentage
of the total university budget for instruction and departmental research received by the
corresponding academic department or programme.
This paper examines the application of PBA at two academic libraries of very different
size and type: a large academic research and a small comprehensive university library.
It discusses the rationale for selecting PBA, and compares PBA with other allocation
methods or formulae. It postulates that PBA is an objective method for the distribution of
library materials budget funds in alignment with university and library priorities. The paper
also examines the question of PBA’s scalability to small and medium-sized institutions.
The literature does not contain any examples of implementation of PBA other than that at
the two institutions studied.
Introduction
The allocation of an academic library’s
materials budget is a challenging process.
There is a dynamic tension between devising
allocations that correctly reflect institutional
priorities and explaining those allocations
within a politically charged environment.
There are three basic methods of allocation
mentioned in the literature: allocation
formulae, the historical method, and PBA
(Genaway, 1986a). Allocation formulae for
academic libraries are based on publishing
industry and local statistics such as
publishing cost and output, enrolment,
number of faculty, and number and level of
degree programmes. In the historical
method, allocations are based on past
practice and historical data; increases to the
total budget are added as increments to the
past year’s allocations. Percentage Based
Allocation uses institutional statistics to
build a mathematical model for the
allocation of funds on subject or
departmental lines. This paper discusses
PBA in depth.
Statistics in Practice – Measuring & Managing 2002
Scarce resources “inevitably cause the
spotlight to focus on the methodology of the
distribution technique employed.” (Eave,
1989, p 130). Strategic planning and library
self-studies furnish the impetus for the
examination of a library’s allocation system.
At the State University of New York at
Stony Brook in the early 1990s and
Washburn University in 2002, the
combination of strategic planning, an
Association of Research Libraries (ARL)
Collection Analysis Project, and scarce
resources led to such an examination and to
the consideration of PBA as a new system of
allocation.
Allocation can be defined as “the process of
distributing available financial resources at
the disposal of an organization for specified
purchases and functions.” (Shreeve, 1991,
p 17). There is a vast body of literature on
how and why to allocate the library
materials … so vast, according to Lowry
(1992, p 122), that “Rare is the faculty
member, or for that matter the librarian,
who is willing to digest the mountain of
98
PBA: A Statistics-based Method to Allocate Academic Library Materials Budgets
published literature necessary to developing
a comprehensive plan that satisfies the
general institutional interests.” Several
review articles provide an overview of this
literature (German and Schmidt, 2001; Rein,
1993; Budd, 1991; Packer, 1988; Werking,
1988; Sellen, 1987; Sanders, 1983; Yunker
and Covey, 1980; Schad, 1979). Much of the
literature describes allocation formulae in
theory and in practice. Theoretical articles
far outnumber those describing formulae
that have actually been implemented and
deemed successful. Lowry suggests that the
formulae discussed in the literature are often
“akin to Rube Goldberg contraptions,
fascinating to watch, but overly elaborate
means to ends.” (Lowry, 1992, p 122).
The ALA Glossary of Library and
Information Science defines the formula
budget as “a budget in which the allocations
are based on pre-established standards,
such as an established expenditure for
materials per student in an academic
library.” (Young et al, 1983, p 100). The
literature on budget allocation states that
objective, quantitative data should be used to
determine relative need for funding among
the different allocation units. Three
categories of objective data are mentioned in
the literature of budget allocation:
1. Factors relating to the university and
library users
2. Measure of library use
3. Size and cost of the literature in a
specific discipline
Librarians have used all or some of these
categories as variables in devising formulae
aimed at quantifying allocation decisions.
In 1984, Shirk questioned whether any of the
published allocation formulae could rightly
be considered a “formula” (Shirk, 1984). He
pointed out that a formula must be scientific
(i.e. theoretically and empirically sound) to
be a viable, long-term budgeting technique.
According to Shirk, an allocations formula
Statistics in Practice – Measuring & Managing 2002
must have the following essential
characteristics in order to be considered
scientific:
1. It is an explicit, mathematical expression
of a theorem
2. It can be empirically tested (Shirk, 1984,
p 39)
Shirk dismissed most published allocation
formulae as not scientific, but merely
“notationally simplified expressions of
arbitrary procedures.” They are “arbitrary
conventions” whose success depends on
their political acceptance, not upon a
defensible theoretical framework that relates
objective variables to the collection’s
performance in a meaningful way (Shirk,
1984, p 45-46).
The actual use of allocation formulae has
decreased during the last 60 years from
73.3% of US college libraries in the 1940s
(Muller, 1941, p 321), to 67.5% of
southeastern academic libraries in the 1970s
(Greaves, 1974, p 142) and finally to only
40.6% in the late 1980s (Budd and Adams,
1989, p 384) and 40% in the 1990s (Tuten
and Jones, 1995).
Percentage Based Allocation
In 1986 David Genaway proposed
Percentage Based Allocation (PBA) as a
simplified approach to the allocation of the
library materials budget (Genaway, 1986a).
He suggested that “any method used to
allocate university-wide resources will
ultimately be reflected at one point … the
budget line given to each college or
department for instruction and research.
Generally, this figure reflects accreditation
standards, number of faculty, student credit
hours, new programs, level of courses
taught, etc. In many cases, it also reflects
complex formulas used at the state level that
use various subsidy methods.” (Genaway,
1986a, p 289).
99
PBA: A Statistics-based Method to Allocate Academic Library Materials Budgets
Genaway goes on to outline how the
university’s “bottom line” figure for
“instructional and departmental research”
(I&DR) or similar category for each college
or department could be used as the basis for
allocating the library acquisitions budget.
(Ibid). “Essentially, the percent of I&DR (or
similar budget line) budget received by each
department or college would be used to
determine the library allocation: i.e. each
academic unit would receive the same
percent of the library materials budget that
it received for instruction and research from
the university’s budget. Simply put, the
“bottom line” of a college or university’s
budget for instruction and research for a
given academic unit divided by the
institution’s total for instruction and
research equals the percent of the
university’s budget received by each college
or school. This percent equals the percent of
allocated library budget that would be
received by that college or school.”
(Genaway, 1986a, p 289).
Genaway bases PBA on the following
assumptions:
1. A balanced collection of library
materials reflecting the curricula of an
institution is desirable
2. The college or university administration
applies the state regents’ formulas,
governing boards, or similar rational
methods of determining allocations to
the institution to the redistribution of the
funds intra-university
3. There is a positive correlation between
an academic department’s instructional
and research budget and library
intensiveness (Genaway, 1986a, p 291)
He lists the following advantages to PBA
(Genaway, 1986a, p 291):
1. PBA is a dynamic rather than static
method. Although allocations would not
change drastically from year to year,
they would reflect long-term changes in
100
the college or university’s curriculum.
The method is stable enough to be
functional. Most present allocations have
been constant for several years
2. It incorporates all of the items found in
most formulas, although these items may
be covert or indirect. The institutional
allocation to each department does or at
least should reflect all the criteria
normally found in most formulas
3. It is not single-element driven, although
it is a single element and simple to
determine and administer. It is not
“driven” solely by student credit hours or
courses, although it is indirectly
influenced by these factors
4. It is likely to be considered more
equitable by a greater number of
department heads and faculty than many
existing methods or other formulas. This
might be especially true if there were no
systematic method of allocation when
the PBA approach was introduced, and
allocation was based on previous
spending patterns instead. However, if it
resulted in any losses over the status quo
method of allocation, it might not be as
accepted
5. It could be applied at the school, college,
departmental or programme level
He also cites possible disadvantages
(Genaway, 1968a, p 291-2):
1. It is based on the assumption that the
college or university’s instructional
budget is subdivided on the basis of a
rational plan or formula that incorporates
all the usual elements for determining
budgets. This may or may not be the
case
2. It assumes a high positive correlation
between size of an academic unit’s
budget and that unit’s library needs or
intensiveness. Academic departments
with large credit hour production and,
hence, usually a high budget with a large
Statistics in Practice – Measuring & Managing 2002
PBA: A Statistics-based Method to Allocate Academic Library Materials Budgets
number of faculty may have limited need
for library acquisitions. Health and
Physical Education is an example. Other
disciplines, such as English and
Chemistry, may be more library
intensive and require acquisition monies
in excess of the proportion allocated for
instruction and research. If audiovisual
materials are a part of the library
acquisitions budget, this argument might
be negated, since the more multi-media
oriented disciplines would then remain
library intensive
3. It could result in a substantial reduction
in dollar amounts given to a college
when initially applied. This would
require a period of adjustment. If this
occurs, a gradual “phasing-in” or shifting
to the new method could be
accomplished over a period of two or
three years. Perhaps this might be
accomplished by using the average
between the two percentages each year
until this gap has diminished.
Theoretically, it should become narrower
each year
4. In private colleges or universities, the
amount of the instruction and research
budget allocated to each school or
college might be more difficult to obtain,
depending on the nature of the
administration. In state-supported
colleges and universities, these figures
are usually considered a matter of public
record and should be readily available
Writing in 1986, Genaway suggested that
PBA might “work best in an institution
where the library acquisitions budget
includes audiovisual materials as well as
books, periodicals, and micro format items,
such as a community college or small
general college. Inclusion of audiovisual
materials would balance the needs of more
physical- and skill-oriented disciplines, such
as physical education, against more
book-intensive disciplines such as history
and literature.” (Genaway, 1986a, p 292). In
today’s environment, an inclusive budget
Statistics in Practice – Measuring & Managing 2002
would cover newer formats, such as
electronic resources, introduced after
Genaway developed PBA in 1986.
When Genaway proposed PBA in 1986 he
was not aware of any institutions using the
method. A literature search has not revealed
any publications on the use of PBA to date.
In 1992 when evaluating allocation formulae
for use in his study, Young used the criterion
that the formula must be formally accepted
and used by the institution that developed it.
Using this criterion, he rejected PBA
(Young, 1992, p 231), which he erroneously
considered a formula.
Rein cites PBA as an example of “allocation
without formula” and calls it “seductive” as
“it appears to dovetail collection
development goals into university priorities
... is comprehensible both to library and
non-library staff; and it is by far the least
time-intensive procedure available” (Rein,
1993, p 28-29). She cites as a drawback the
assumptions that per capita cost per resource
unit is the same for all academic
departments, or that the university has a
weighted cost factor built into its teaching
and research budget which directly
correlates to the differences in library
materials costs for each department (Rein,
1993, p 29).
PBA at two institutions
Stony Brook: Background
The State University of New York (SUNY)
at Stony Brook is a young public Carnegie
Research University I. Founded in 1956 as a
training institution for teachers of
mathematics and science at the secondary
and community college level, Stony Brook
rapidly expanded its mission to include the
full range of undergraduate and graduate
programs through the doctorate in the
humanities, social sciences, sciences, and
engineering. In 2001/02 the University
enrolled 20,855 students: 13,646
undergraduates in 57 academic majors and
7,209 graduate and professional students in
101
PBA: A Statistics-based Method to Allocate Academic Library Materials Budgets
69 areas; 1,849 full- and part-time faculty
teach in seventy departments. Major
academic units include the College of Arts
and Sciences, College of Engineering and
Applied Sciences and the Health Sciences
Center.
The Stony Brook library system consists of
the Frank Melville Jr Memorial Library,
which houses the largest portion of the
collections, and seven branch libraries. A
Health Sciences Library is administered
separately. Throughout this paper, the terms
library, libraries, and library system refer to
the Melville Library and its branches,
excluding the Health Sciences Library.
During the 1960s and 1970s the library
system received generous funding for
collection development and attempted to
acquire materials at the comprehensive level
in most fields. After growing rapidly in the
1960s and 1970s, the acquisitions budget
thereafter levelled off and failed to keep
pace with inflation. The level of collecting
fell from 91,983 monographic volumes
added in 1970/71 to 21,000 in 1990/91 (the
year preceding Strategic Planning) and is
now at 26,755 (2001/02). The number of
purchased serials declined from 11,111
1970/71 to 8,060 1990/91 is now 6,117 print
journals, 11,709 e-journals. There are also
451 databases currently purchased
(2001/02).
Stony Brook: Strategic planning and CAP
studies
During the Stony Brook Libraries’ 1991/92
strategic planning effort, a Collection
Development Task Force examined the
Libraries’ collection development
programme in relation to external factors
and to the mission and goals of the
university. In its June 1992 final report, the
Task Force concluded that a number of
actions were necessary to insure that the
collection management and development
programme was responsive to the
university’s priorities and goals (State
102
University of New York at Stony Brook
Libraries, 1992b). The Task Force
recommended that the Libraries
•
Conduct the ARL/OMS (Association of
Research Libraries/Office of
Management Services) Collection
Analysis Project ... to help develop
collection development
policies/procedures and mechanisms for
keeping collection development in touch
with the changes in the University
programmes and missions
•
Develop a rational allocation of
resources (library materials budget)
which reflects the
strengths/missions/goals of the
University
Both recommendations were included in the
libraries’ Strategic Plan and accepted for
implementation (State University of New
York at Stony Brook Libraries, 1992a).
In late 1992 and early 1993, the Libraries
conducted the ARL/OMS Collection
Analysis Project (CAP), “as a crucial first
step in promoting the necessary change to
collection management and development at
Stony Brook into conformity with the best
accepted professional practices and thereby
make it more responsive to the University’s
priorities and needs” (State University of
New York at Stony Brook Libraries, 1993a).
Four task forces were created by the CAP
Study Team to examine key issues related to
collection management, and to make
recommendations for improving the efficacy
of the Libraries’ collection development and
management programme. This paper
examines the work of the Task Force
Funding and Materials Budget Allocation
whose charge was to examine the Libraries’
budget process and propose alternatives for
allocating the acquisitions and access
budget.
After assessing the strengths and weaknesses
of the Libraries’ allocation process, the Task
Statistics in Practice – Measuring & Managing 2002
PBA: A Statistics-based Method to Allocate Academic Library Materials Budgets
Force found that the failings of the
Libraries’ allocation system were due mostly
to its inability to adapt to changes in the
University’s academic and research
programs (State University of New York at
Stony Brook Libraries, 1993b). The Task
Force also identified several weaknesses in
the budget process used by the Libraries
(State University of New York at Stony
Brook Libraries, 1993a, p 1-3). The
allocation process used by Stony Brook up
to 1993 was for the most part historical.
Materials funds were distributed
incrementally to each allocation unit
according to a paradigm devised in the
1970s. The rationale and criteria for this
process had never been systematically
examined.
There were many observations of the
allocation process. Those most relevant to
PBA are:
1. Allocations were not based on objective
criteria, which makes it difficult to
defend budget decisions
2. Allocation units were not adequately
correlated with the University’s
curriculum and do not entirely reflect the
changing academic emphases of the
University. Some allocations perpetuate
past needs, which may no longer be valid
3. Automatic expenditures for periodical
subscriptions and standing orders can
result in the loss of flexibility to
purchase other library materials
4. No portion of the budget was held for
contingencies, and the Libraries did not
receive extra funding from the
University for new programmes.
One-time adjustments for new
programmes were possible but they were
not added to the budget base
5. The budget process did not provide for
the impact of new technologies, and did
not address the issue of on-site
ownership versus access. As a result, in
the early 1990s the Libraries experienced
Statistics in Practice – Measuring & Managing 2002
difficulties acquiring electronic
information resources
6. There was no provision for adjusting
allocations in relation to inflation
7. A strategy for dealing with the costs of
interlibrary loan, document delivery, and
database searching had never been
developed
8. The budget process was outdated and did
not support the systematic and consistent
development of the collections. There
was no mechanism for periodic review
of the process
The Task Force decided at the outset that it
would not state the obvious by advocating
increased funding for the Libraries, but drew
up recommendations that would be
applicable to the Libraries’ budgeting
process regardless of levels of funding. The
recommendations developed by the Task
Force addressed each of the weaknesses
identified in the analysis of the Libraries’
allocation process.
Stony Brook: CAP recommendations
After reviewing the literature on budget
allocation, the Task Force studied and
discussed possible solutions to the problems
identified in the analysis of current practice
and developed the following set of
recommendations addressing each of the
weaknesses listed above (State University of
New York at Stony Brook Libraries, 1993a,
p 3-14):
1. Develop a written statement describing
the allocation process and the criteria
upon which allocation decisions are
based
2. Use objective data in distributing the
Libraries’ acquisitions and access budget
among various allocation units.
Percentage Based Allocation (PBA) was
recommended as a good starting point
for accomplishing this
103
PBA: A Statistics-based Method to Allocate Academic Library Materials Budgets
3. Re-examine the choice of allocation
units and correlate discipline with
Library of Congress Classification
numbers. Create a separate allocation
unit for access to information
4. Provide each fund with a single
allocation for monographs and
continuations
5. Establish a separate allocation to cover
contingencies and special purchases
6. Develop a mechanism for periodic
review of the allocation process
All of the recommendations were accepted
by the CAP Steering Committee and
included in the final CAP recommendations
(State University of New York at Stony
Brook Libraries, 1993a). In his Preface to
the CAP Final Report, John Brewster Smith,
then Dean and Director of Libraries, singled
out PBA as one of the study’s most difficult,
but most important, recommendations,
because it called for reviewing and adjusting
historical allocations used for so long by the
Library. He recognised that PBA would be
“an exceedingly sensitive undertaking and
one that will require understanding and
support of higher University administration,
especially the academic deans.” (State
University of New York at Stony Brook
Libraries, 1993a, p ii).
Stony Brook’s rationale for PBA
Why did the Stony Brook Task Force chose
PBA instead of one of the numerous
allocation formulae described in the
literature? In its Final Report, the Stony
Brook Task Force concluded that most
formulae are too constrictive, and the choice,
application, and weighting of variables are
often arbitrary and subjective. The Task
Force found, however, that Percentage
Based Allocation (PBA) would provide a
good starting point for identifying possible
imbalances and inequities in a library’s
allocations.
104
PBA is a method by which the percentage of
the library’s material budget allocated to
each discipline is equal to the percentage of
the parent institution’s instruction and
departmental research funding (I&DR)
received by the corresponding academic
department or program (Genaway, 1986a).
All of the factors relating to the university
and library users have presumably been
applied and weighted by university
administrators; therefore, the allocations
arrived at are pragmatic and politically
defendable in that they reflect the
university’s strength and goals as
determined by the university administration.
The Task Force did not recommend that
allocations be based solely on PBA.
Although PBA may assist in determining the
amount of support needed for departments, it
is not practical for allocating funds to library
departments (such as Reference, Special
Collections, Maps, etc) and it does not take
into account the publication output and cost
or differences in need and demand for
library materials among various disciplines.
The Task Force believed that these are
important factors that should also be
examined and analysed during the allocation
process.
PBA provided the foundation for a codified
but flexible budget allocation process that
also includes several types of objective data.
The mathematical scheme is derived from
PBA documents and epitomises past practice
and demonstrates accountability when
asking for funding. Written policies and
procedures (such as PBA) are essential to
the continuing review and improvement of
the budgeting process. The Task Force
concluded that a combination of codified
policy, quantitative data, and professional
judgment would lead to acceptable decisions
and a valid process for allocating the
library’s materials budget.
Statistics in Practice – Measuring & Managing 2002
PBA: A Statistics-based Method to Allocate Academic Library Materials Budgets
Application of PBA at Stony Brook
The SUNY Stony Brook Libraries have been
using PBA to allocate the library
acquisitions and access budget since 1994.
The following institutional statistics are used
to build allocations:
1. The University’s Operating Budget, an
annual publication that lists departmental
allocations by object code
2. Historical data from the Library’s
acquisition department: the previous
year’s serials and monograph
expenditures by fund code
3. The Library’s acquisition and access
budget
The process requires several calculations.
The University’s Operating Budget is used
to create a mathematical model: each
academic department’s allocation for salary
and wages (I&DR) is divided by the total
University I&DR to obtain the percentage it
represents of the total.
The PBA percentages are then applied to the
Library’s acquisition budget, after funds
have been set aside for access (10-15% of
the total acquisitions budget) and
contingency (5% of the budget after access
funds have been subtracted).
Statistics in Practice – Measuring & Managing 2002
Table 1 shows the dollar figures for the
University’s 1997/98 I&DR (the basis for
the 1998/99 PBA) and the PBA for 1998/99.
One of the guidelines that Stony Brook
applied to PBA is not to increase or decrease
an allocation by more than 10%. Table 2
shows how this “comfort zone” of 10% was
used in building the allocations. The PBA
allocation is compared to the previous year’s
actual expenditures. If the difference
between the two was greater than 10%, the
comfort zone figure was the actual increase
or decrease. The resulting allocations were
called “modified PBA”. Table 3 compares
the historical allocations in place before
PBA was initiated with PBA allocations and
modified PBA allocations (the “actual
expenditures”) over time. Although there are
still some glaring gaps between the PBA
figure and the actual expenditures for several
subjects, slow and steady progress has been
made toward equitable distribution.
Stony Brook’s CAP recommended that there
be one allocation for both monographs and
continuations. This means that the PBA
allocation is the total allocation for a subject
and, in order to establish a monograph
allocation, the cost of serials (usually the
previous year’s actual expenditures with an
inflationary increase) is subtracted from the
PBA allocation (Table 4).
105
PBA: A Statistics-based Method to Allocate Academic Library Materials Budgets
Table 1 Calculation of PBA Stony Brook 1998-1999
HUMANITIES AND
SOCIAL SCIENCES
Total x 43%
Art
Classics/Comp.Stu/
Studies/Rel
English
French/Italian
Asian Studies
German/Slavic
Hispanic
Philosophy
Women’s Studies
Theater
Anthropology
Africana
Economics
History
Linguistics
Political Science
Psychology
Social Science/
Sociology
Management
CED
Subtotal
% of Total
PBA 98/99
$ 1,138,642
$ 1,029,034
5.3%
4.7%
49,296
43,715
$ 1,900,758
$ 775,598
$ 20,000
$ 433,801
$ 795,598
$ 1,510,594
$ 230,359
$ 573,555
$ 854,792
$ 368,442
$ 1,523,931
$ 1,608,633
$ 685,824
$ 1,355,514
$ 2,842,375
$ 430,014
$ 1,479,354
$ 1,148,297
$ 866,689
8.8%
3.6%
0.09%
2.0%
3.7%
7.0%
1.1%
2.7%
4.0%
1.7%
7.1%
7.4%
3.1%
6.3%
13.3%
8.9%
81,849
33,484
837
18,602
34,414
65,107
10,231
25,113
37,204
15,812
66,038
68,828
28,833
58,597
123,704
82,780
5.3%
4.0%
49,296
37,204
$ 21,571,804
100.0%
930,944
LIBRARY DEPTS
Library Science
AV/Film Studies
Documents
Maps
Reference
Special Collections
General Interest/
Periodicals/Papers
26,846
15,653
97,333
3,489
192,884
4,671
74,492
Subtotal
415,368
MUSIC
Music
SCIENCES
Biology
Chemistry
ESS
Math/Appl. Math
Physics/Astronomy
Engineering
Computer Science
MASIC
106
I & D R 97/98
Total X 4%
132,637
Total x 53%
$ 4,577,058
$ 2,710,341
$ 1,271,726
$ 4,680,336
$ 5,857,263
$ 4,669,184
$ 2,069,486
$ 934,000
17.0%
10.0%
4.8%
17.5%
22.0%
17.5%
7.7%
3.5%
298,766
175,745
84,357
307,553
386,638
307,553
135,323
61,511
Subtotal
$ 26,769,394
100.0%
1,757,446
TOTAL
$ 50,360,832
3,236,395
Statistics in Practice – Measuring & Managing 2002
PBA: A Statistics-based Method to Allocate Academic Library Materials Budgets
Table 2 - PBA comfort zone Stony Brook, 1998-1999
HUMANITIES/SOCIAL SCIENCES
Actual exp.
97/98
Art
$33,975
Classics/Comp.
$35,183
Studies/Rel
English
$59,894
French/Italian
$42,684
Asian Studies
$25,194
German/Slavic
$27,689
Hispanic
$37,124
Philosophy
$60,505
Women’s Studies
$38,841
Theater
$9,303
Anthropology
$32,937
Africana
$16,307
Economics
$95,346
History
$71,982
Linguistics
$27,154
Political Science
$54,528
Psychology
$83,801
Social Science/
$55,822
Sociology
Management
$23,175
CED
$28,576
PBA
98/99
$49,296
$43,715
$
Difference
($15,321)
($8,532)
$
Difference
-45%
-24%
Comfort
Zone
$3,398
$3,518
Modified
PBA
$37,236
$37,359
$81,849
$33,484
$837
$18,602
$34,414
$65,107
$10,231
$25,113
$37,204
$15,812
$66,038
$68,828
$28,833
$58,597
$123,704
$82,780
($21,955)
$9,200
$24,357
$9,087
$2,710
($4,602)
$28,610
($15,810)
($4,267)
$495
$29,308
$3,154
($1,679)
($4,069)
($39,903)
($26,958)
-37%
22%
97%
33%
7%
-8%
74%
-170%
-13%
3%
31%
4%
-6%
-7%
-48%
-48%
$5,989
$4,268
$2,519
$2,769
$3,712
$6,051
$3,884
$930
$3,294
$1,631
$9,535
$7,198
$2,715
$5,453
$8,380
$5,582
$63,726
$40,384
$27,000
$24,920
$34,414
$65,107
$30,970
$13,275
$36,231
$15,812
$85,811
$71,000
$32,833
$58,597
$92,181
$61,404
$49,296
$37,204
($26,121)
($8,628)
-113%
-30%
$2,318
$2,858
$26,493
$31,361
($70,924)
-8%
$86,002
$886,114
Subtotal
$860,020
$930,944
Library Science
AV/Film Studies
Documents
Maps
Reference
Special Collections
General Interest/
Periodicals/Papers
$26,846
$15,653
$97,333
$3,489
$192,884
$4,671
$74,492
$26,846
$15,653
$97,333
$3,489
$192,884
$4,671
$74,492
$26,846
$15,653
$97,333
$3,489
$192,884
$4,671
$74,492
Subtotal
$415,368
$415,368
$415,368
$88,754
$132,637
($43,883)
-49%
$8,875
$97,629
$304,185
$395,133
$164,036
$206,497
$263,532
$356,514
$101,787
$64,368
$17,523
$298,766
$175,745
$84,357
$307,553
$386,638
$307,553
$135,323
$61,511
$25,000
$5,419
$219,388
$79,679
($101,056)
($123,106)
$48,961
($33,536)
$2,857
($7,477)
2%
56%
49%
-49%
-47%
14%
-33%
4%
-43%
$30,419
$39,513
$16,404
$20,650
$26,353
$35,651
$10,179
$6,437
$1,752
$298,766
$355,620
$140,000
$227,147
$319,811
$320,863
$111,966
$61,511
$25,000
Subtotal
$1,873,575
$1,782,446
$91,129
5%
$187,358
$1,860,684
TOTAL
$3,237,717
$3,261,395
($23,678)
-1%
MUSIC
Music
SCIENCES
Biology
Chemistry
ESS
Math/Appl. Math
Physics
Engineering
Computer Science
MASIC
General Science
Statistics in Practice – Measuring & Managing 2002
$3,259,795
107
PBA: A Statistics-based Method to Allocate Academic Library Materials Budgets
Table 3 Comparison of historical allocations and PBA 1993-1999
HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES
Historical
Art
Classics/Comp/Studies/
Rel.
English
French/Italian
Asian Studies
German/Slavic
Hispanic
Philosophy
Women’s Studies
Theater
Anthropology
Africana
Economics
History
Linguistics
Political Science
Psychology
Social Science/Sociology
Management
CED
TOTAL
Library Science
AV/Film Studies
Maps
Documents
Reference
Special Collections
General Interest/
Periodicals/Papers
TOTAL
MUSIC
Music
SCIENCES
Biology
Chemistry
ESS
Math/Appl. Math
Physics/Astronomy
Engineering
Computer Science
MASIC
TOTAL
108
PBA
1994
Actual
Expend
PBA
1995
Actual
Expend
PBA
1996
Actual
Expend
PBA
1997
Actual
Expend
PBA
1998
1999
1993
1995 1994/1995
1996 1995/1996
1997 1996/1997
1998 1997/1998
4.55
5.44
4.42
4.39
4.43
5.61
4.38
4.57
5.44
5.54
5.07
4.93
4.17
4.18
5.04
4.83
3.95
4.09
5.3
4.7
6.96
7.09
12.42
3.87
7.59
6.13
8.72
3.35
6.95
5.22
10.36
3.68
7.14
4.98
9.27
3.84
5.62
4.46
6.18
2.02
1.97
3.73
1.46
11.34
8.67
4.51
8.73
8.73
7.17
0.69
0.58
2.57
4.40
7.41
0.24
3.41
3.98
1.58
7.84
8.52
2.24
5.47
14.44
10.28
0.52
1.88
5.83
4.53
6.89
2.11
1.22
4.28
1.51
11.80
8.93
3.79
8.31
9.32
8.14
1.71
0.63
2.18
3.05
5.87
0.58
3.83
4.26
1.09
5.24
7.21
2.53
5.86
17.22
9.43
6.85
3.80
4.21
3.71
6.82
1.18
1.68
4.04
1.06
12.05
11.56
3.86
7.84
9.54
8.44
0.53
0.45
2.46
3.06
6.90
0.72
3.70
4.05
1.37
5.84
8.16
2.90
5.99
13.95
8.76
6.42
1.68
4.31
4.50
6.32
4.24
1.21
3.68
1.90
13.72
9.21
3.23
6.55
9.41
9.69
1.21
0.35
2.62
3.57
7.09
0.75
3.15
4.18
1.49
7.61
7.48
3.06
6.08
14.30
9.18
5.17
1.20
6.96
4.96
2.93
3.22
4.32
7.04
4.52
1.08
3.83
1.90
11.09
8.37
3.16
6.34
9.74
6.49
2.69
3.32
8.8
3.6
0.09
2
3.7
7
1.1
2.7
4
1.7
7.1
7.4
3.1
6.3
13.3
8.9
5.3
4
100.00 100.00
100.00
100.0
100.00 100.00
100.00 100.00
100.00 100.00
7.70
7.02
1.53
23.26
47.98
0.99
11.47
8.92
5.22
2.04
15.34
54.56
0.99
12.92
10.30
4.28
1.37
27.61
44.56
0.74
11.15
6.35
3.53
0.84
27.48
47.70
0.87
13.17
6.46
3.77
0.84
23.43
46.44
1.12
17.93
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
2.50
4.80
100.00 100.00
2.80
3.60
100.00 100.00
2.60
4.90
100.00 100.00
2.69
4.19
100.00 100.00
2.76
100.00
4
100.0
16.28
10.22
6.88
17.28
18.85
16.74
8.64
5.10
16.39
21.29
8.84
11.13
14.20
19.21
5.48
3.47
17
10
4.8
17.5
22
17.5
7.7
3.5
100.00 100.00
100.00
100.0
20.18
25.30
10.94
9.75
11.37
17.44
4.98
0.00
18.70
12.85
8.10
16.11
14.27
16.00
8.57
5.36
100.00 100.00
18.51
22.60
9.26
10.03
12.99
18.36
5.38
2.88
18.14
11.34
7.67
12.85
22.09
12.96
6.53
8.39
100.00 100.00
18.58
22.77
9.11
9.72
13.62
18.55
5.19
2.46
16.00
10.44
7.00
18.40
18.75
16.77
8.10
4.54
100.00 100.00
17.16
23.20
8.61
9.55
13.93
19.37
5.18
2.99
Statistics in Practice – Measuring & Managing 2002
PBA: A Statistics-based Method to Allocate Academic Library Materials Budgets
Table 4 Derivation of monographic allocation Stony Brook 1998-1999
FUND
Africana
Anthropology
Art
A/V
Biology
Continuing Ed
Chemistry
Chinese
Classics
Comp. Literature
Computer Science
Documents
ESS
Economics
Engineering
English
Film Studies
French
German
General Science
History
Italian
Japanese
Korean
Library Science
Linguistics
Maps
MASIC
Mathematics
Music
Public Admin.
Philosopy
Physics
Political Science
Pyschology
Reference
Religious Studies
Russian
Sociology
Spanish
Special Collections
Theater
Women’s Studies
Gen. Int. Newspapers
Gen. Int. Periodicals
General Humanities
FY 1998/99
Allocation
$15,812
$32,816
$37,236
$7,826
$298,766
$31,361
$355,620
$11,000
$4,359
$17,000
$91,608
$97,333
$158,032
$136,247
$320,863
$63,726
$7,826
$18,384
$16,700
$25,000
$68,828
$18,000
$10,000
$6,000
$26,846
$28,833
$4,000
$57,931
$227,147
$97,629
$25,493
$65,107
$289,885
$58,597
$92,181
$192,884
$16,000
$14,190
$61,404
$34,414
$4,671
$13,275
$30,970
$7,639
$47,474
$1,856
FY 1998/99
Serials
$5,000
$12,000
$6,900
$125
$318,000
$25,000
$377,136
$1,500
$2,000
$7,000
$77,000
$85,000
$120,000
$61,000
$327,928
$9,275
$2,500
$7,088
$4,400
$11,750
$18,073
$4,824
$462
SUBTOTALS
$3,248,769
$4,790,583
ACCESS
BINDING
POSTAGE
SUBTOTAL
TOTAL ALLOCATIONS
Statistics in Practice – Measuring & Managing 2002
$21,000
$14,000
$1,337
$57,000
$188,593
$22,000
$16,450
$20,060
$2,601,071
$28,190
$63,000
$162,678
$7,000
$5,870
$28,630
$5,500
$1,094
$3,680
$2,500
$7,639
$47,474
$1,856
FY 1998/99
Monographs
$10,812
$20,816
$30,336
$7,701
$28,000
$3,161
$25,000
$9,500
$2,359
$10,000
$25,000
$12,333
$38,032
$34,238
$28,000
$54,451
$5,326
$11,296
$12,300
$13,250
$50,755
$13,176
$9,538
$3,900
$5,846
$14,833
$2,663
$931
$35,000
$75,629
$10,834
$45,047
$25,000
$30,407
$29,181
$30,206
$9,000
$8,320
$32,774
$28,914
$3,577
$9,595
$28,470
$885,507
$595,711
$70,000
$12,000
$677,711
$3,926,480
109
PBA: A Statistics-based Method to Allocate Academic Library Materials Budgets
Washburn University: Background
Washburn: Strategic planning and CAP
Founded in 1865 as a church-related college,
Washburn University is a municipal
university with an enrolment of
approximately 6,200 students and a full-time
faculty of 250. It is a Carnegie Master’s
University I with broad-based liberal arts
and professional education programmes
leading to 190 certificate, associate,
baccalaureate, master’s and juris doctor
degrees. The primary emphasis is on
undergraduate education. The University
Libraries (the Mabee Library and a
Curriculum Resources Center) serve the
needs of undergraduate and graduate
instruction in the humanities and social
science. There is a separately administered
Law Library. In this paper, the terms Library
and Libraries refer to the Mabee Library and
the Curriculum Resources Center.
In 2000 the Washburn University Libraries
began a strategic planning process that
resulted in the Washburn University, Mabee
Library, Strategic Plan, 2000-03 (Washburn
University Mabee Library, 2000). One of the
major goals identified in the Strategic Plan
involved collection development. The goal
was “to acquire, preserve, and provide
access to a diverse collection of print and
non-print information resources that are
directly aligned with the University’s
academic priorities.” Various strategies to
achieve this goal were developed including
the recommendation that the Libraries
contact ARL to learn if it still offered the
Collection Analysis Project (CAP) as an
assisted self-study.
During the last two decades, the Libraries
have received smaller and smaller additions
to the materials budget. Between 1980/81
and 1985/86, the Libraries received
relatively large increases between 6% and
25%. Between 1985/86 and the present
(2001/02) the increases were much smaller.
In fact there were decreases in the
monograph budget between 1995/96 and
1999/00. The budget has been flat since
1999. The periodicals budget has dropped
nearly 30% since 1980/81. The Libraries’
materials budgets have not kept pace with
inflation; thus, there has been a decline in
the number of monographs and media items
purchased and cancellation of periodical
subscriptions. Approximately 5,000
monograph volumes are purchased annually;
the number of purchased serials declined
from 869 in 1998/99 to 385 in 2000/01.
There has been a steady growth in the
number and percentage of the library
materials budget devoted to electronic
resources. The investment in these resources
nearly doubled in five years, from 12% of
the materials budget in 1994/95 to 20% in
1999/00.
110
With the assistance of a facilitator from the
Association of Research Libraries,
Washburn began a CAP study in November
2001 to “assess the efficacy of … [the]
collection management program and
policies” and is still working on the process.
Washburn’s CAP resembles Stony Brook’s
in goals and procedure. Three task forces
were created to examine key issues and to
make recommendations for the improvement
of the collection development and
management programme.
The Task Force on Funding and Materials
Budget Allocation was given the assignment
to examine the current method of funding
and materials budget allocation and to make
recommendations for change where
appropriate. It was specifically asked to
examine PBA. The Task Force began its
work in June 2002 and at this time (August
2002) has done only preliminary work with
PBA.
The Task Force identified the following
major weaknesses in the Washburn budget
process:
1. A complex allocation formula devised in
1980s for monographs (Table 5)
Statistics in Practice – Measuring & Managing 2002
PBA: A Statistics-based Method to Allocate Academic Library Materials Budgets
2. A totally historical periodicals budget.
There has been no attempt at a rational
allocation of the periodicals budget and,
until 2002, periodical expenditures were
not tracked by fund codes
3. There is no statement regarding
budgeting for electronic resources
4.
There is no strategy for dealing with the
costs of interlibrary, document delivery
and bibliographic utilities
The Task Force has done preliminary
comparison of the formula used to allocate
the monograph budget and PBA.
Table 5 Allocation formula for Washburn University Library
“Books and research materials fund”
1)
2)
3)
Scope of subject literature
A.
Average book cost for each department/school from the most recent complete fiscal year as a
percent of overall book cost for all academic unit book purchases (locally derived data)
B.
Number of titles published in each subject during the most recent complete fiscal year as a percent
of all titles published for all subjects in which the library collects (Blackwell North America supplied
data based on our subject profiles)
C.
A is weighted as 1, B is weighted as 1. (A + B)/2 = weight of 1 for this entire aspect of the formula.
Credit hours
A.
Lower division credit hours by department/school as a percent of all lower division hours for the
most recent complete academic year (locally derived data)
B.
Upper division credit hours by department/school as a percent of all upper division hours for the
most recent complete academic year (locally derived data)
C.
Graduate credit hours by department/school as a percent of all graduate hours for the most recent
complete academic year (locally derived data)
D.
A is weighted as 1, B is weighted as 2, C is weighted as 3. (A + B + C) x 2 = weight of 2 for this
entire aspect of the formula.
FTE Faculty
A.
FTE faculty by department/school as a percent of all FTE faculty for the most recent complete
academic year (locally derived data)
B.
4)
Usage
A.
A is weighted as 1.
Class use for each department/school as a percent of total class use (locally derived data during
one library survey period each semester)
B.
Circulation by subject as a percent of total circulation (locally derived data during one library survey
period each semester)
C.
A is weighted as 1, B is weighted as 1. (A + B)/2 x 1.5 = weight of 1.5 for this entire aspect of the
formula.
5)
Factors 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 are normalized to equal 100% and applied to 67.5% of the “Books and Research
Materials” fund.
6)
No single year fluctuation of more or less than 20% than the previous allocation is allowed for any
department/school.
Statistics in Practice – Measuring & Managing 2002
111
PBA: A Statistics-based Method to Allocate Academic Library Materials Budgets
Examination of the preliminary data does
show some unexpected discrepancies. For
example, according to PBA (which mirrors the
profile of actual university support for
programs), Psychology, with master’s level
programs, would receive less funding than
Mathematics, with only undergraduate
programs. Does this mean that the
undergraduate program in Mathematics is a
higher university priority than the master’s
program in Psychology? Does it mean that
university I&DR is not, contrary to
Genaway’s suggestions, an indication of
university priorities? Is this discrepancy
idiosyncratic to Washburn or indicative of the
differences (in salary structures and rewards
systems) between small comprehensive
universities and large research universities?
Preliminary applications at Washburn
The Washburn CAP Task Force has done only
preliminary calculations based on the same
data elements used at Stony Brook: the
University’s I&DR budget and historical
allocations and expenditures for library
materials. PBA allocations were created and
compared with actual allocations and
expenditures for 2000/01 (Table 6). Much
work still needs to be done: identifying a
comfort zone of 10%, calculating a modified
PBA and subtracting the previous year’s
periodical expenditures to produce the
suggested allocation for monographs. This
PBA allocation can then be compared to the
amount actually allocated by formula for
monographs in 2000/01 and the differences
examined.
Table 6 Washburn University: Comparison of actual expenditures and PBA
DEPARTMENTS
Allied Health
ACTUAL
EXPENDITURES
2000/01
%
OF
TOTAL
PBA
%
OF
TOTAL
$
DIFFERENCE
%
DIFFERENCE
A
B
C
D
E
F
$4,873.06
1.48%
$12,168.10
3.70%
$7,295.04
149.70%
Art
Biology
$7,729.58
$30,615.39
2.35%
9.31%
$8,101.75
$15,162.53
2.46%
4.61%
$372.17
-$14,452.86
4.81%
-50.47%
Business
Chemistry
$41,428.24
$24,506.40
12.59%
7.45%
$53,276.73
$7,353.39
16.19%
2.24%
$11,848.49
-$17,153.01
28.60%
-69.99%
$5,606.88
1.70%
$10,519.13
3.20%
$4,912.25
87.61%
Criminal Justice
Education
$13,309.91
$21,719.01
4.05%
6.60%
$11,009.67
$19,173.77
3.35%
5.83%
-$2,300.24
-$2,545.24
-17.28%
-11.72%
English
Health & Phys Ed.
$15,291.24
$8,559.17
4.65%
2.60%
$23,958.29
$10,884.97
7.28%
3.31%
$8,667.05
$2,325.80
56.68%
27.17%
History
$10,690.34
3.25%
$8,977.20
2.73%
$1,713.14
-16.03%
$9,735.31
$4,161.48
2.96%
1.26%
$6,172.64
$8,687.16
1.88%
2.64%
-$3,562.67
$4,525.68
-36.60%
108.75%
Computer Science
Human Services
Mass Media
Mathematics
$6,688.03
2.03%
$14,812.16
4.50%
$8,124.13
121.47%
Modern Foreign Lang.
Music
$3,566.27
$5,991.87
1.08%
1.82%
$5,329.19
$14,654.73
1.62%
4.45%
$1,762.92
$8,662.86
49.43%
144.58%
$14,412.70
$4,013.76
4.38%
1.22%
$19,992.20
$7,308.51
6.08%
2.22%
$5,579.50
$3,294.75
38.71%
82.09%
Nursing
Office/Legal/Tech
Philosophy
$7,690.41
2.34%
$7,543.93
2.29%
-$146.48
-1.90%
Physics
Political Science
$10,349.06
$11,068.64
3.15%
3.36%
$6,828.49
$10,154.82
2.08%
3.09%
-$3,520.57
-$913.82
-34.02%
-8.26%
Psychology
$33,331.05
10.13%
$11,989.95
3.64%
-$21,341.10
-64.03%
Social Work
Sociology
$16,172.94
$10,820.94
4.92%
3.29%
$12,438.34
$10,473.80
3.78%
3.18%
-$3,734.60
-$347.14
-23.09%
-3.21%
$3,473.05
$3,171.14
1.06%
0.96%
$7,359.27
$4,645.14
2.24%
1.41%
$3,886.22
$1,474.00
111.90%
46.48%
$328,975.87
100.00%
$328,975.87
100.00%
Speech Comm.
Theatre
TOTAL
112
Statistics in Practice – Measuring & Managing 2002
PBA: A Statistics-based Method to Allocate Academic Library Materials Budgets
Conclusions
Percentage Based Allocation has been tried
and found workable at a large academic
research library. It has been used by SUNY
Stony Brook since 1994. Stony Brook’s
implementation of PBA was tempered by
local circumstances. The acquisitions budget
was flat from 1990/91 to 1995/96 and since
1995/96 any inflationary increases have
been used to increase the allocation for
access (electronic resources). Thus the
Libraries lacked the additional funds
necessary to correct imbalances in the
allocations without taking funds away from
some academic department. Although
political realities and lack of financial
resources prevented the immediate
implementation of a pure and unmodified
PBA, the framework for a rational allocation
of the materials budget was put in place and
progress has made toward equitable
distribution each year.
Washburn is just beginning to test whether
PBA is a useful tool for a small to medium
sized academic library. Obstacles to PBA at
Washburn are the reluctance to change a
long established allocation formula and the
difficulty in obtaining accurate statistics on
the periodicals budget (both spending per
subject and the actual amount spent on
periodicals, excluding prepayments, in a
fiscal year). Although Genaway originally
proposed PBA for small to mid-sized
colleges, the preliminary Washburn PBA
shows greater discrepancies than the early
PBA at Stony Brook. Does this suggest that
PBA may in fact be more suited to large
academic research libraries or are Washburn
and Stony Brook unique examples? More
research, including replication of PBA at
other libraries, is needed.
References
Brownson, Charles W (1991) “Modeling Library Materials Expenditure: Initial Experiments at
Arizona State University,” Library Resources and Technical Services 35/1 (January),
87-103.
Budd, John M (1991) “Allocation Formulas in the Literature: A Review,” Library Acquisitions:
Practice and Theory 15, 95-107.
Budd, John M and Adams, Kay (1989) “Allocation Formulas in Practice,” LibraryAcquisitions:
Practice and Theory 13/4, 382-390.
Cubberley, Carol (1993) “Allocating the Materials Funds Using Total Cost of Materials, Journal
of Academic Librarianship 19/1, 16-21.
Genaway, David C (1986a) “PBA: Percentage Based Allocation for Acquisitions: A Simplified
Method for the Allocation of the Library Materials Budget,” Library Acquisitions: Practice
and Theory 10, 287-292.
Genaway, David C (1986b) “The Q Formula: The Flexible Formula for Library Acquisitions in
Relation to the FTE Driven Formula,” Library Acquisitions: Practice and Theory 10,
293-306.
German, Lisa B and Schmidt, Karen A (2001) “Finding the Right Balance: Campus Involvement
in the Collections Allocation Process,” Library Collections, Acquisitions & Technical
Services 25, 421-433.
Greaves, Francis Landon (1974) The Allocation Formula as a Form of Book Fund Management
in Selected State Supported Academic Libraries. Dissertation. Florida State University.
Statistics in Practice – Measuring & Managing 2002
113
PBA: A Statistics-based Method to Allocate Academic Library Materials Budgets
Lowry, Charles B (1992) “Reconciling Pragmatism, Equity, and Need in the Formula Allocation
of Book and Serial Funds,” College and Research Libraries 53/2 (March), 121-138.
Muller, Hans (1941) “The Management of College Library Book Budgets,” College and
Research Libraries 2 (September), 321.
Mulliner, Kent (1986) “The Acquisitions Allocations Formula at Ohio University,” Library
Acquisitions: Practice and Theory 10, 315-327.
Packer, Donna (1988) “Acquisitions Allocations: Equity, Politics, and Formulas,” Journal of
Academic Librarianship 14, 276-286.
Rein, Laura O, Hurley, Faith P, Walsh, John C and Wu, Anna C (1993) “Formula-Based Subject
Allocations: A Practical Approach,” Collection Management 17, 25-48.
Sanders, Nancy P (1983) “A Review of Selected Sources in Budgeting for Collection Managers,”
Collection Management 5, 151-159.
Schad, Jasper G (1978) “Allocating Materials Budgets in Institutions of Higher Education,”
Journal of Academic Librarianship 3/1, 328-332.
Shirk, Gary M (1984) “Allocation Formulas for Budgeting Library Materials: Science or
Procedure?” Collection Management 6, 37-47.
Shreeves, Edward, editor (1991) Guide to Budget Allocation for Information
Resources.Collection Management and Development Guides 4. Chicago: American Library
Association.
State University of New York at Stony Brook (1998) 1997-1998 Operating Budget. Stony
Brook: The University.
State University of New York at Stony Brook Libraries (1993a) Collection Analysis Project:
Final Report. Stony Brook, The Libraries. ERIC document ED 377 840.
State University of New York at Stony Brook Libraries (1993b) Collection Analysis Project:
Report of the Task Force on Funding and Materials Budget Allocation. Stony Brook: The
Libraries.
State University of New York at Stony Brook Libraries (1992a) Strategic Directions, 1992-1997:
A Plan for the University at Stony Brook Libraries. Stony Brook: The Libraries. ERIC
document 377 841.
State University of New York at Stony Brook Libraries (1992b) Strategic Planning Task Force
on Collection Development: Final Report. Stony Brook: The Libraries.
Tuten, Jane H and Jones, Beverly, comps. (1995) Allocation Formulas in Academic Libraries.
CLIP Notes 22. Chicago: Association of College and Research Libraries.
Washburn University Mabee Library (2002) Collection Analysis Project: Interim Report, April
2002. Topeka, KS: Mabee Library.
Washburn University Mabee Library (2002) Washburn University, Mabee Library, Strategic
Plan, 2000-2003. Topeka, KS: Mabee Library.
Webster, Judith D (1993) “Allocating Library Acquisitions Budgets in an Era of Declining or
Static Funding.” Journal of Library Administration 19, 57-74.
114
Statistics in Practice – Measuring & Managing 2002
PBA: A Statistics-based Method to Allocate Academic Library Materials Budgets
Werking, Richard Hume (1988) “Allocating the Academic Library’s Book Budget: Historical
Perspectives and Current Reflections.” Journal of Academic Librarianship 14, 140-144.
Young, Heartsill et al (1983) The ALA Glossary of Library and Information Science. Chicago:
American Library Association.
Young, Ian (1992) “A Quantitative Comparison of Acquisitions Budget Allocation Formulas
Using a Single Institutional Setting.” Library Acquisitions: Practice and Theory 16,
229-242.
Yunker, James A and Covey, Carol G (1980) “An Optimizing Approach to the Problem of the
Interdepartmental Allocation of Library Materials Budget,” Library Acquisitions: Practice
and Theory 4, 199-223.
Statistics in Practice – Measuring & Managing 2002
115