Gregory Crawford & Lisa German Pennsylvania State University Libraries Creating a New Collections Allocation Model for These Changing Times: Challenges, Opportunities, and Data Gregory Crawford & Lisa German Pennsylvania State University Libraries

Penn State University Libraries Twenty-three campuses across PA with one budget Campuses range in size between 568 and 44,000 Some campuses have associate degrees and a few bachelor degree programs; others have Master’s and Ph.D. programs

Libraries continued One set of IP ranges for all locations Law and medical libraries have a separate budgets and cost centers

Penn State Collections Budget Allocated using a historical model No change in method for 10+ years Campuses allocated using a formula Growth in electronic resources – from 20% to 70% of budget Changes in collection management: storage, floating collection, DDA Little growth in institutional support; decline in state support

Restructuring to Meet Current and Future Needs of the Collection Collection Services Advisory Group Collections Assessment Team Collections Allocations Team Collection Retention Policy Working Group (CRPWG)

Collections Allocations Team Charges: Gain an understanding of the current collections budget structure Benchmark collections budget allocation methods with our peer institutions Examine LibQUAL data and the new LibQUAL Trifold data that pertains to collections Devise a collections allocation model that reflects the priorities of the University and the University Libraries

Team Composition Small group Representation from campuses and University Park Innovative & have broad perspective Greg Crawford, Team Leader [Director, Harrisburg Library] Dawn Childress [Humanities Librarian] Jennifer Gilley [Head, New Kensington Library] John Meier [Science Librarian] With excellent support from: Serials and Acquisitions Services (Bob Alan & Heather Benner) University Libraries Data Analyst (Alan Shay)

Data Collection Survey of UL Faculty Individual/small group meetings with selectors Survey of ARL Chief Collection Development Officers Literature reviews

Survey of UL Faculty 38 responses Adequacy of budget 19 from Campuses 17 from University Park 1 each from Law and Medicine Adequacy of budget 22 said adequate 11 said not adequate Others said monographs adequate; serials not

Survey of Faculty Issues to be addressed Greatest concerns Approval plans, duplication, databases, inflation, needs, priorities Greatest concerns Campus vs UP budgets, duplication, e-books, inflation, flexibility, staffing, types of materials purchased Factors for allocation scenarios (19 items mentioned) Enrollment Number of faculty Number of programs/Breadth of programs Number of graduate students Circulation counts Average cost of item in the field Research productivity and funding

Individual and Small Group Meetings Results Flexibility Serials cuts vs. on-time money “Overlooked” programs Acquisitions timeline Developing “collections of distinction” Wants list process Need for more electronic resources, e-books Main issue is “control” Need for streaming media Local needs vs. University-wide needs Broader selection responsibilities (campus vs. UP) Expand floating collection Focus on subject not location Assessment of collections

Survey of ARL Collection Development Officers 22 institutions responded 8 of the 12 CIC members Most allocate on historical basis; 2 use a formula; 7 a combination of methods 7 used combination of individual subject funds and larger aggregated funds; 7 used individual subject funds 8 include print serials/periodicals in subject/college/school budgets; others a variety of methods for serials: subject groups, unit level budgets, one big pot E-resources allocated multitude of ways No consistency in approval plan use, desiderata prioritizing Budgets have not increased to meet inflation or e-resource needs

Literature Review Plethora on articles on collection development and budgeting Relatively few on formulae, especially in large research universities If a formula is developed, rarely used for entire collection allocation (usually only subset of monographs) Vast array of formula elements or factors (one article listed 23) Special problem of e-resources Conclusion: curriculum should drive collection; organize budget efficiently; regularly review

Results Developed a sample formula that permits various weightings of factors; flexible Completed a report to the Dean and UL Administration

Recommendations Hire a coordinator of collection development Maximize flexibility so that the UL can react to changing demands in an expeditious manner Emphasize the concept that the collections of the University Library are truly one collection, geographically dispersed Align collection budget and allocations with the academic structure of the University, such as the colleges and schools Take major e-resources “off the top”  Reserve contingency funds Use a formula as part of the allocations process, but not as the only determining method Review the large electronic packages annually  Expand the floating collection to reduce duplication

Recommendations Collection development teams, consisting of subject selectors from UP and Campuses, should have responsibility for the broad subject areas, approval plans, and collection development plans All libraries should receive some minimal level of funding  Implement ongoing assessment of the collections allocations process  Pursue the acquisition of materials in electronic format aggressively   Support new and expanding models of publishing.  Provide additional support for non-print forms of scholarly research such as data sets and streaming media.  Open and transparent communication regarding the collections budget to all constituencies

Recommendations All libraries should receive some minimal level of funding  Implement ongoing assessment of the collections allocations process  Pursue the acquisition of materials in electronic format aggressively   Support new and expanding models of publishing.  Provide additional support for non-print forms of scholarly research such as data sets and streaming media.  Open and transparent communication regarding the collections budget to all constituencies

Formula Development Iterative process Historical data included (5 years) Factor for University strategic priorities Budget year 2011-12 used for analyses Structure of the budget examined and new organization created for analytical purposes Permits scenario planning

Formula Weights can be changed! Can add more historical data if desired. Can add or subtract factors if desired. Several versions on the website: All factors weighted evenly Factors with added weights for more recent data and for graduate programs Arbitrary/imbalanced weights

Next steps Determine Collection Coordinator/Strategist responsibilities Remap funds to align with colleges rather than the organization of the library

More next steps Determine weights for a formula Decide if/whether to use the formula for all/part of collections allocations

Questions/Comments/Discussion Greg Crawford gac2@psu.edu Lisa German lbg10@psu.edu