Since some groups of specialized institutions aren’t discussed in any detail and others may not have complete discussions, it might be worth looking at the whole wildly disparate group. Of 852 libraries that responded in 2012, 408 (48%) appear here; those 408 account for 72% of the total spending. The 408 libraries supported 928,962 FTE students in 2012 (ALS 2012). Table 5.1 shows key figures for all 408 libraries.

This is an extremely diverse set in terms of size, partly because of how some institutions report. As an extreme example, one library alone accounts for 44% of the total FTE students but only about 3% of the reported spending (ALS 2012). While most of these libraries are relatively small, they still account for more than $300 million total spending—of which current serials make up almost a third and other acquisitions very little (7%). Some of the more striking numbers: 54% of these libraries cut books (etc.) by at least 25% from 2002 to 2012, with 36% cutting such acquisitions by half or more—while 26% increased books (etc.) spending by 25% or more (including 20% by 50% or more). Not atypically, 40% increased serials spending by at least 50% over inflation, while 25% at least doubled it—and 25% reduced such spending by 25% or more. Three out of ten libraries increased remainder spending by 25% or more, while 22% reduced it by 25% or more. It would require $11,188,090 to bring all library books budgets at least up to 2002 levels (including inflation).

At the median, these libraries are fairly typical, with more moderate swings than some other groups (see figure 5.1). Although more moderate, the cuts in non-serials spending are still substantial, mostly since 2008.

Here is the definition of CC 51, theological seminaries and other specialized faith-related institutions:

These institutions primarily offer religious instruction or train members of the clergy. ²

Of 140 libraries responding in 2012, 105 (75%) appear here, representing 80% of spending. Those libraries supported 42,343 FTE students in 2012. Libraries include Princeton Theological Seminary, Graduate Theological Union, Appalachian Bible College, and Oak Hills Christian College (ALS 2012).

Given that seminaries continue to spend more on books and other acquisitions than on current serials (perhaps not surprisingly), it’s noteworthy that, as shown in table 5.4, these libraries cut books spending by 37% overall and increased serials spending by 12% over inflation. These libraries haven’t done well overall, with 14% cuts and only one-quarter of libraries keeping up with inflation.

Two-thirds of these libraries cut books (etc.) spending by at least one-quarter, including 40% cutting by at least half; 31% cut serials spending by 25% or more, including 19% cutting serials by at least half—while 27% increased serials spending by at least half. Three out of ten lost at least 25% of remaining spending. It would require $2,838,429 for all libraries to bring books spending up to at least 2002 levels (plus inflation).

At median, as shown in figure 5.4, these libraries increased serials spending through 2008 but have started to slide back since—while what was a slow decline in books spending accelerated rapidly after 2008.

Here is the definition of CC 52, medical schools and medical centers:

These institutions award most of their professional degrees in medicine. In some instances, they include other health professions programs, such as dentistry, pharmacy, or nursing. (CC)

Noting that these are medical school libraries that aren’t encompassed within larger institutions, it’s tempting to say that, with only 29 out of 37 libraries appearing (78%, representing 84% of spending), the group doesn’t merit full discussion—except for one thing: Those 29 libraries represent almost one-third of all spending by specialized libraries, more than twice as much as the second largest group (CC 51, seminaries). The 29 libraries supported 63,715 FTE students in 2012. Libraries include Mayo Medical School, University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, Kansas City University of Medicine and Biosciences, and West Virginia School of Osteopathic Medicine (ALS 2012).

Given the subject area, the huge multiple of serials spending over books spending in table 5.5 makes sense, although with serials making up 39% of all spending in general and 46% or more for one-quarter of the libraries, there’s not a lot left for other functions. The damage here is a likely inability to maintain needed serials access and pressure on other spending areas. Slightly more than half of these libraries cut non-serials (books etc.) acquisitions by at least 25%, with 34% cutting half or more. For that matter, 28% cut current serials by 25% or more. Remainder spending is evenly split: 31% cut it by at least 25%, 31% increased it by at least 25% (with 24% increasing by half or more). Another $1,830,963 would be required for all of these libraries to spend at least as much on books (etc.) in 2012 as in 2002, allowing for inflation.

Figure 5.5 is distinctly unusual, with serials spending flatlining between 2010 and 2012 and growing more modestly than in most groups before 2010. That’s partly accounted for by serials spending already being very high—it grew more than 20% from 2000 to 2002 (ALS 2012), but unless medical serials have defied all other patterns by keeping price increases at inflation, this suggests that some libraries are cutting needed subscriptions just to stay afloat. Note the precipitous drop in books spending since 2010, after relatively minor cuts before then.

Here is the definition of CC 53, other separate health profession schools:

These institutions award most of their degrees in such fields as chiropractic, nursing, pharmacy, or podiatry. (CC)

Of 59 libraries in this classification that responded in 2012, 50 (85%) appear here, representing 85% of the spending. Those 50 libraries supported 35,080 FTE students in 2012. Libraries include Massachusetts College of Pharmacy and Health Sciences, MGH Institute of Health Professions, New England School of Acupuncture, and Dongguk University Los Angeles (ALS 2012).

As shown in table 5.6, these libraries as a group did stay ahead of inflation—and spent almost all of that increase on serials, with those costs rising 51% higher than inflation. The hefty cuts in books at many libraries are par for the course, but the sheer magnitude of serials increases is unusual. While 58% of these libraries increased serials spending by at least 50% more than inflation from 2002 to 2012, 44% of them at least doubled serials spending (and note the 170%, not much below tripling, for the top 25%). Meanwhile, 48% cut books (etc.) spending by at least 25%, including 24% where it went down by half or more—and yet 32% managed to increase books (etc.) spending by 25% or more, with 24% increasing it by at least half. Four out of ten libraries increased remainder spending by at least 25%. It would take $694,227 for all these libraries to spend at least as much on books in 2012 as they did in 2002.

Figure 5.6 shows that median spending for books didn’t fall all that much (it was already low), but serials spending has gone up enormously, especially since 2006.

Here is the definition of CC 54, schools of engineering and technology:

These institutions award most of their bachelor’s or graduate degrees in technical fields of study. (CC)

Of 39 libraries in this classification, 30 (77%) appear here, representing 82% of spending. Those 30 supported 99,087 FTE students in 2012. Libraries include Colorado School of Mines; Wentworth Institute of Technology; Herzing University Kenner; and ITT Technical Institute, Boise (ALS 2012).

Table 5.7 fairly shouts “wildly diverse group,” both in size and spending changes—noting the extremely high acquisitions increases for the top quarter of libraries (and very high cuts for the bottom quarter), for example. Not quite half of the libraries increased serials spending by at least 50% above inflation, including 37% where it at least doubled—but 23% cut serials spending by 25% or more. On the books side, 33% cut spending (which clearly never amounted to very much) by 25% or more—but 43% increased it by 25% or more, including 40% where it went up by at least half. It would take $621,424 for all these libraries to spend at least as much on books (after inflation) in 2012 as they did in 2002.

This group is so full of anomalies that no general statements make much sense. One for-profit institution accounts for almost two-thirds of the FTE and about one-quarter of the spending. The rest of the larger libraries are all public and nonprofit private schools, but there are only 10 of those; and almost all of the smaller institutions (16 of 19) are campuses of one for-profit technical institute (ALS 2012). The median spending graph isn’t especially meaningful and doesn’t appear here.

Here is the definition of CC 56, schools of art, music, and design:

These institutions award most of their bachelor’s or graduate degrees in art, music, design, architecture, or some combination of such fields. (CC)

Of 58 libraries in this classification that responded in 2012, 50 (86%) appear here, representing 92% of spending. Those 50 libraries supported 66,391 FTE students in 2012. Libraries include Pratt Institute, Main Campus; Savannah College of Art and Design; Columbia College Hollywood; and Paier College of Art (ALS 2012).

Not surprisingly—especially given that “books” includes sound recordings, scores, visual materials, etc.—this is another group where other acquisitions outweigh current serials. But consider table 5.8: these libraries, which have generally kept ahead of inflation, spending $3,239,570 more (after inflation) in 2012 than in 2002, nearly doubled current serials spending, with an increase of $1,147,489. Other acquisitions declined a tiny amount, $3,683. For 64% of the libraries, serials spending increased at least 50% above inflation between 2002 and 2012, including 30% where it at least doubled—while 46% of libraries cut other acquisitions by at least 25% (with 26% cutting by half or more). At the same time, 36% increased books (etc.) spending by 25% or more. It would require a relatively modest $712,553 for all these libraries to spend at least as much on acquisitions other than serials in 2012 as in 2002 (allowing for inflation).

This is a group where ten larger libraries account for half of the total spending and a bit less than half of the students; those ten also account for half of the serials spending and books spending. While those ten all increased serials spending—in all but two cases, by at least half—four of them cut books and other acquisitions, in one case by more than half. In one case (not the extreme cut) there’s an overall budget loss involved—but in most cases, these libraries had healthy overall budget increases (ALS 2012).

Figure 5.7 shows fairly small cuts in books and other acquisitions, but not the increases one might expect—even as serials spending shoots way up.

CC 55, Schools of Business and Management, includes 18 of 21 responding in 2012; while serving an enormous number of students (449,124 FTE) and spending a reasonable amount of money ($22.1 million, of which more than half—$11.6 million—goes to current serials while $1.6 million goes to other acquisitions), this is basically University of Phoenix (90% of the students, almost half the money, 73% of the serials spending) and a small group of others. Other libraries include Babson College and Pacific States University (ALS 2012).

CC 57, Schools of Law, includes 13 of 14 libraries responding in 2012. While those libraries spend quite a bit of money ($30.3 million, including $12.8 million for serials and $1.2 million for other acquisitions), it’s too small a group for extended comment. Examples include Thomas M. Cooley Law School and Massachusetts School of Law (ALS 2012).

CC 58, Teachers Colleges, is at this point almost an anomaly, with only four libraries and a total of $2.1 million in spending. Examples include Bank Street College of Education and Martin Luther College (ALS 2012).

CC 59, Other Specialized Institutions, is the “others of others”—military academies and a hodgepodge of others that don’t fit elsewhere. The group (23 of 36 responding in 2012) is large enough for commentary but so diverse that such commentary would be meaningless. Examples include United States Naval Academy and Wisconsin School of Professional Psychology (ALS 2012).

CC 60, Tribal Colleges and Universities, includes 18 of 26 that responded in 2012. Those 18 spent $4.7 million in 2012, very little of it on either serials ($228,000) or other acquisitions ($248,000). In any case, it’s too small a group for extended discussion. Libraries include Haskell Indian Nations University and United Tribes Technical College (ALS 2012).

Then there’s “−3,” the special code for institutions not yet assigned a Carnegie classification. It’s a potentially large group, with 419 libraries responding in 2012, but only 68 of those libraries (16%, representing 31% of total spending) qualify for discussion. As with CC 59, the group is simply too ill-defined to justify discussion, even though it does represent $30.2 million in total spending ($6.9 million for current serials, $3.3 million for books and other acquisitions). Examples include Mount Sinai School of Medicine and Colorado School of Healing Arts (ALS 2012).

Supplemental graphs and tables (mentioned in chapter 6) cover all of these classifications.