Sector 1, public institutions of four or more years, represents more than half of all academic library spending in 2012. Of 622 libraries responding to the 2012 survey, 579 (93%) responded throughout the decade—and those 579 include 98% of all reported 2012 spending. In all, these 579 libraries served 6,534,358 FTE students in 2012. Libraries include those at University of Michigan-Ann Arbor; Pennsylvania State University Main Campus; Wright State University, Lake Campus; and Sitting Bull College. (In case you’re wondering, I’m using as examples the two libraries with the largest 2012 budgets and the two with the smallest that haven’t already been mentioned, or ones close to them.)¹

Table 3.1 shows key figures. Most libraries didn’t quite keep up with inflation overall—but most substantially increased serials spending and substantially decreased other acquisitions. Most changes are roughly within the norm (since, with more than half of all spending, this sector tends to define the norm). Specifically, 55% of libraries cut books and other acquisitions by at least 25%, including 31% where it dropped by half or more—while 20% increased books spending by at least 25%. Just over one-fifth of the libraries (21%) increased serials spending by at least half; 17% managed to cut it by 25% or more, while another 17% lost at least 25% of remainder spending. It would take $114,616,845 in added funding for all libraries to spend at least as much on books and other non-serials acquisitions as in 2002 (accounting for inflation).

I’m omitting the graph for median spending changes because it makes sense to show two graphs, splitting libraries into those where overall budgets at least kept up with inflation and those that have been losing ground to inflation. Here and throughout, I’m defining “keeping up with inflation” as showing a total budget change of $0 or more, rather than any negative change since 2002.

Sector 2, private nonprofit institutions of four or more years, is the largest group of colleges and universities. Of 1,253 responding to the 2012 survey, 1,032 (82%) appear here, representing 93% of spending for the group. In all, these 1,032 libraries served 2,810,243 FTE students in 2012. Examples include Columbia University in New York City, New York University, Wisconsin School of Professional Psychology, and World Medicine Institute (ALS 2012).

Table 3.4 shows an even split between libraries keeping up with inflation and those losing ground, and also an even split on remainder spending—but substantial cuts in books budgets in most libraries, with more than half of libraries losing more than one-third of their books budgets. Some key numbers that don’t appear in table 3.4: 60% of these libraries cut at least 25% from books (etc.) spending, including 35% that cut it in half (or worse), while 34% increased serials spending by at least half (ALS 2002–2012). To have all libraries spending at least as much for books (etc.) as in 2002, accounting for inflation, would require an additional $75,064,113.

Figure 3.3 is straightforward: serials gain, books lose, the rest stays about even.

The for-profit colleges and universities in Sector 3 are even more volatile—of 307 responding in 2012, only 131 (43%) appear here, representing 57% of the spending. Those 131 are mostly small institutions, serving a total of 687,896 FTE students in 2012. Perhaps worth noting: nine libraries account for most of the numbers in table 3.7 other than books spending—528,429 of the FTE students, $24.8 million in total spending, $12.6 million in serials spending, and $1.9 million in books spending. Libraries include University of Phoenix, Phoenix-Hohokam Campus; DeVry University, Illinois; Centura College Virginia Beach; and ITT Technical Institute, Boise (ALS 2012).

As table 3.7 shows, figures are all over the place. A majority of the libraries (56%) increased serials spending by at least 50% over inflation, including 40% that at least doubled it, but 21% cut serials spending by 25% or more. Exactly half increased books (etc.) spending by 25% or more—an unusually good number—and nearly all of those (46%) actually increased it by 50% or more; meanwhile, 37% cut books (etc.) spending by 25% or more, including 27% that cut it in half or worse. For other spending, 39% increased it by 25% or more (including 33% with at least 50% growth above inflation), while 26% cut it by 25% or more.

A mere $1,520,404 in additional spending would mean that every library spent at least as much on books (etc.) in 2012 as in 2002.

Given the small number of varied institutions in this group, it’s hard to read much into figure 3.6—except that most libraries saw big increases in serials spending (growing even more rapidly since 2010), possibly because they generally didn’t have bundles.

Sector 4 includes public two-year colleges. Of the 875 libraries responding in 2012, 785 (90%) responded throughout the decade, representing 93% of the spending. These libraries served 3,672,342 FTE students in 2012. Examples include Northern Virginia Community College, College of DuPage, Lamar Community College, and Sisseton Wahpeton College (ALS 2012).

It’s been a rough decade for community colleges and their libraries, as table 3.8 makes clear. More than half (56%) cut non-serials acquisitions by 25% or more, including nearly a third (32%) where it dropped by half or more; for that matter, 39% cut serials spending by at least 25% (20% by half or more), while 24% increased it by at least half. It would require $22,963,484 to restore books (etc.) spending at all of these libraries.

Sector 5 includes private nonprofit two-year colleges. Of 51 Sector 5 libraries responding in 2012, only 28 (55%) appear here, representing 62% of the total reported spending. The 28 libraries served 12,402 total FTE students in 2012. Notably, one library represents nearly half of all books spending. Libraries include Ellis School of Nursing, Harcum College, Bidwell Training Center, and Wentworth Military Academy and Junior College (ALS 2012).

Given such a small and diverse group, table 3.11 may not mean very much. The numbers are unusual: 43% of these libraries cut serials spending by at least 25%, including 32% where it dropped by half or more, while 36% increased serials spending by half or more. Not quite half of these libraries (46%) cut books spending by 25% or more, while 25% grew it by 25% or more; 32% grew remainder spending by 25% or more. It would cost only $210,858 to bring all libraries up to at least 2002 levels for books spending—but that’s still more than a third of current books budgets. A median spending graph would be largely meaningless (and is omitted for that reason).

Sector 6, private for-profit two-year colleges, is not surprisingly even more volatile than Sector 5: of 178 libraries responding in 2012, only 39 (22%) appear here, representing 28% of total spending in this sector. The 23 libraries served 38,557 total FTE students in 2012. Libraries include Technical Career Institutes; San Joaquin Valley College, Visalia; North Central Institute; and Brown Mackie College, Hopkinsville (ALS 2012).

Table 3.12 may also not mean very much, given the small and diverse group of (mostly very small) libraries. Note that the group more than doubled serials spending and had a hefty increase in remainder funding—and, although books spending as a whole declined slightly, it was up for most institutions. Indeed, 46% increased books (etc.) spending by at least 25%, with 41% increasing it by half or more (while 36% cut books by 25% or more, including 31% cutting by half or more). Most libraries (54%) did increase serials spending by at least half, with 44% at least doubling it—but 31% cut it by 25% or more, with 21% cutting by half or more. Basically, very few of these libraries did not change sharply for the better or worse. It would take a mere $343,726 for all libraries to spend at least as much on books (etc.) in 2012 as in 2002, allowing for inflation—but that’s considerably more than half of what they’re spending now.

This group is too small and diverse for a median spending graph to be useful.

As a whole, libraries at public institutions lost ground to inflation, with books and other non-serials acquisitions taking the hit, along with remainder spending. Private nonprofit four-year and above institutions did much better, but even there books were cut slightly.