PART III

SWOT ANALYSIS & A FOCUS ON

INTERNAL CIRSUMSTANCES

Overview

Strengths Well qualified, experienced, motivated, public-service minded staff Well constructed building Remote access to databases 24x7 USM consortia-discounted database purchases and access to all USM books Cooperation with IT Effective librarian/faculty liaison program

Weaknesses Static funding that places Blackwell next-to-last among its peers in total expenditures and last in expenditures on books Limited opportunity for staff development (in a rapidly accelerated environment of change—an allocation of $2,500 supports 21 staff, inc. 10 librarians) Insufficient staff (at 61% and 48% of ALA recommended professional & support positions) Insufficient space for staff, collections, and instructional services No storage space and split/stored collections No space for the new roles that libraries/librarians are playing on campuses, e.g., group study spaces No specially designated ADA area Perception that the library is “uninviting” Changing locations for TLN & NABB Out-of-date equipment Un-refurbished furniture Dated, insufficient collections No 5-year plan or comprehensive assessment plan, including systematic evaluation of collections Dated collection development policy

Overview (continued)

Opportunities NABB Center’s development (grant opportunities) Greater involvement among Blackwell/ TLN/Nabb Local historical societies divesting their collections (Nabb) Library endowment/external funding ExLibris (new online system) Jstor and other archived full-text journal databases to provide archived electronic data, enhance research, and recoup collection space Consortia: discount pricing Technological change Middle States interest in information literacy and librarians’ teaching roles Compact shelving/joint offsite storage Service to Wicomico community residents and area teachers Digitizing original materials Alternative scholarly publishing projects

Threats Dwindling pool of librarians Annual 10% inflation rate for periodicals Instability of contents in full-text databases Instability of e-media Increasing dependence on e-materials and limited control over pricing structures/cost increases Effect of decreased state funding on access to databases that are now free Consortia: building collections not targeted to needs Middle States interest in information literacy Myth that “everything is on the Internet” Technological change Service to Wicomico community residents and area teachers Staffing expertise required to manage digitizing projects Economic burden of maintaining traditional and supporting alternative scholarly projects Doctoral level programs Negative national press evaluations (Princeton Review-one of the 20 worst libraries among the best 345 schools) Restrictive copyright & licensing agreements & the complexity of managing e-resources Patriot Act

Some general information indicates the library’s limitations—travel funding for 21 staff and 10 librarians is $2,500; four staff share an office designed for two; by American Library Association standards the library has 61% of the professional and 48% of support staff recommended; the NABB Center and library lack a professional archivist; not all materials can be displayed on open shelves; items in storage are now at 91% capacity; the instructional room has 15 computers for 35 students and insufficient space for seating; and the physical facility doesn’t easily accommodate features common to most new libraries and their roles on campus: a cafe, group study rooms (some with data projection), computer labs, writing labs, leisure reading rooms, media labs, ADA equipment spaces, space for tutoring activities, etc.

The best picture of the library’s ability to support the University’s academic programs and mission, however, comes from a comparison to its peer institutions (see next page).

PEER INSTITUTION COMPARISON

Institution & 12 month FTE	Libr-arians (#)	All Staff (#)	Books/ Micro-forms ($)	Serials ($)	All Expenses $	Vols. Held (#)	Hrs. Wk.	?s Wk.
Salisbury Univ. 5,214	12	10	76,664	322,744	1,838,858	249,710	101	560
Humboldt State Univ. 6,869.67	17	22	452,399	475,067	3,440,970	559,893	96	750
Sonoma State Univ. 6,079.67	14.7	19.8	242,091	305,002	4,643,668	571,505	89	1,375
Eastern Illinois Univ. 10,093.33	21.33	44	515,740	467,744	4,159,618	794,469	93	1,907
Univ. of Mass.-Dartmouth 5,723.67	19	24	253,840	738,100	3,561,075	455,323	89	356
Northern Michigan Univ. 6,984.67	14	12	92,740	538,728	2,028,046	755,366	93	340
Univ. of N. Carolina-Wilmington 8,792.33	17	24	415,189	1,106,346	3,309,637	852,937	112	630
SUNY, Oswego 6,899	17.5	20	146,469	323,063	2,060,507	453,390	95	375
SUNY, Plattsburgh 5,436.33	17	13	155,361	539,500	2,047,584	302,416	96	481
Western Oregon Univ. 3,989.67	7	8.13	119,925	176,303	1,127,570	180,588	96	233
Central Washington Univ. 7,509.67	15	29.08	177,228	394,825	3,096,329	537,718	95	482
SU’s RANK	10th	9th	11th	9th	10th	10th	2nd	5th

Source: National Center for Education, 2000 data http://www.nces.ed.gov/surveys/libraries/academicpeer/

Summary

Among its ten peers, Salisbury ranks last in the amount of money it spends on books and next to last in the size of its book collections. The connection is obvious. Although circulation data are not in the table above, it’s not too surprising that Salisbury ranks 11^th among its peers in the number of books circulated given the size of and support for these collections. It also ranks next to last in total library expenditures and in the number of librarians and professional staff. It ranks 9 out of 11 in the overall number of staff and the amount spent on serials collections. In all of these categories, however, it is in the lower quadrant of all its peers. Conversely, when it comes to the number of weekly service hours and number of reference questions answered in a week, its rankings are 2^nd and 5^th.

Conclusion

The staffing, budgetary, and building constraints impair the library’s ability to re-tool efficiently, to take advantage of leadership or model program grant opportunities, or even to provide a strong level of support for existing academic programs. Decreasing state dollars, which will undoubtedly result in the loss of free access to now state-supported databases, will erode collections further.

Clearly, there’s a need to raise funds targeted strategically to basic needs, but also to projects that will make the library more competitive and more aligned with the institution’s growing national reputation. Otherwise, the library will tarnish rather than support the institution’s reputation.