Honoring Past Practices While Increasing Collection Budget Flexibility Designing and Communicating a New Budget Model Ginger Williams, Head Acquisitions Librarian Scott Pope, Continuing Resources Librarian

Formula history 1966 Formula for book funds adopted 1979 Serials included in formula 1987 Avg expenditure by dep’t added to formula 1996 New formula adopted for books & serials 2000 PhD program weighting added to formula 2013 Serial supply element removed When LBJ was president and the Beatles were all the rage, Southwest Texas State College adopted a library allocation formula. In this session, we will discuss .. process we used … our communication strategies with the campus, and impact on serials workflow

Which department pays for Scopus? How many departments help pay for Wiley Journal Package? Who’s paying for New England Journal of Medicine this year? No, they can’t drop that one. It’s part of a package. After serials, what’s left for books?

Process for developing new collection budget model Where do we start?

Allocations task force charge Develop 2-3 models for allocating Acquisitions budget Focus on expanding mission of library & university Respond to shifts in ways information is generated, packaged, sold Simplify as much as possible Don’t try for a quick fix September 2014 Head Acquisitions Librarian Collection Development Librarian Systems Librarian Asst. Director of Admin Services Director, Collections & Digital Services

Fall 2014: Research Trends in scholarly record, research methods, library services University growth, library budget, acquisitions budget Benchmarking with several ARL libraries Literature review “the greatest danger in times of turbulence is not the turbulence but to act with yesterday’s logic” -Peter Drucker in Trends Report: Snapshots of a Turbulent World (ALA, 2014)

December 2014: Potential approaches No library has developed a perfect way to allocate the collection budget. Simplified formula Collection development groups Method to adjust allocations based on data showing need Budget committee & annual budget review to identify strategic needs Recommendation: Consider combining these approaches and develop some scenarios for testing.

Please stay tuned. This project is delayed due to staff changes Please stay tuned. This project is delayed due to staff changes. The project will resume momentarily.

Summer/Fall 2016: Developing a model Agreements Take serials out of department allocations. Use collection development groups. Allocate funds to departments. How? What formula do we use? Set aside funds for library initiatives.  Include a way to adjust allocations based on data showing need. Remember there’s no perfect model. Goal was workable, transparent, & flexible model.

What do we want in formula? Does every department have a reasonable minimum allocation? Will disciplines where few monographic materials are published be able to spend? Have we avoided extreme variations? Is data needed readily available? Which departments will need adjustments? Up or down? Base amount plus Formula amount limited by Cap amount = Department allocation

Communication strategies Who do we talk with about the new model? What do we tell people?

Points to emphasize Why change? The new budget model … The university has changed. So has the way information is packaged and sold. The formula was developed for a print world, but 70% of our budget is spent on e-resources. Aligns with the way information is packaged and sold today Allows us to address needs of emerging programs Gives us flexibility to address changing needs

Communication timeline Oct. 2016: University Librarian Oct. 2016: Library Committee Focus on need for change Dec. 2016: Library Directors’ Council Jan. 2017: Subject Librarians Feb. 2017: Library Committee Details of new model March 2017: Departmental representatives Oops! We forgot the acquisitions staff! I'd discussed various possibilities with Acq librarians, but not the entire staff. As fall semester began, the task force had agreed on a budget model, but we hadn't discussed it with anyone else. We decided to communicate in stages, gathering feedback as we shared the new model with each group. If major concerns were expressed at any stage, we were prepared to stop and re-think the budget model. 

After the planned communication... Emails with projected allocations to department representatives and chairs Responses ranged from Thanks! to Ouch! Our allocation went down! Talking points document for subject librarians Meetings requests One department faculty meeting  Faculty Senate meeting Council of Deans meeting Copy Univ Librarian on selected replies. Compile all feedback. Distribute talking points early.

Implement & communicate Spring 2017 Subject group serials review Sept. 2017 Allocation emails October 2017 Annual Collection Development Orientation Lunch Follow up email w/ offer to talk November 2017 Fall Library Committee meeting Two department meeting requests so far Expect more questions and meeting requests. Change is hard. Be patient. Communication became even more important as we implemented the model. The administration had bought into the model. Now, we needed the faculty members who serve as department representatives be  comfortable with the model. The department representatives are our primary contacts with faculty. We need them to understand the model, to ask us questions and share needs, and to answer questions from faculty in their departments. We provided a brief explanation in the allocation emails, then focused on the new model at the annual CD lunch for department representatives. We posted the slides from the CD lunch, did a follow up email, and promised that we'd come talk to any group at their request. 

Sample slides Collection Budget Model Slides Fall 2017 http://www.library.txstate.edu/about/departments/acq.html

Managing serials inflation Buying serials in multi-year package deals helps control serials inflation. It also provides access to journals and databases we couldn’t afford if we bought everything title-by-title. Serials inflation (6% avg.) meant some departments frequently needed to drop titles to stay within their budget. We can’t drop titles that are part of multi-year deals. Library staff spent time working around departmental serials allocations.  Transfer titles from one department to another? Require departments to drop individual titles that are being used? Transfer titles from department to general?

No library has developed a perfect way to allocate the collection budget. $60,000 is budgeted for allocation adjustments.

Any resource we pay for year after year

Workflow changes for serials CC0 How did moving serials from department allocations to subject librarian groups impact serials workflow from renewing journals to providing assessment data?

Past practice Generate a list of active subscriptions and amounts in January Estimate was not used for budget planning Used to identify force drop cases based on individual department allocations

Summer/Fall 2016: Took serials out of department allocations Tag! You’re in Art & Humanities Each serial was assigned to one and only one subject librarian group or MULTI (multi-year contract or extremely multi-disciplinary) There were a few must-never-cancel titles assigned to MULTI, but not many. Almost everything that used to be “Reference” or “Library General” is assigned to Arts & Humanities, Social & Behavioral Sciences, or STEM-H, so that librarians review them every year. We retained our historical data about which department or person originally requested our existing serials Several thousand

Fall 2016: Serials estimate for each subject group NEW! Serials estimate for each group NEW! Earlier budget request data Head of Acq and Head of Research decided, for the first year, each subject group would have just-enough budget to renew all of their existing subs without adding any if they didn’t drop any Head of Acquisitions and the Head of Research needed serials estimate earlier so they could decide on a budget for each subject group and the inflation estimate could be used for initial drafts of the acquisitions budget request.

Spring 2017: Serials review meetings Head of Acquisitions, Head of Research, and Continuing Resources Librarian Communicate tasks Reiterate reasons for budget model changes Answer questions and concerns Introduce spreadsheets Budget doesn't include multi-year contract titles Work together to decide on adds and drops! Stay within a specific budget for your subject group not your department!

Spring 2017: Serials review spreadsheets Estimated next-year prices for their group's subscriptions Their group's total budget List of suggested drops based on data List of suggested adds based on data Subject librarian groups could see the other groups spreadsheets to see how use and turnaways differed among groups, etc. Drops and initial adds are due in April Final adds are due by October! If you drop, you can add same $ amount Each subject group was given a single spreadsheet that had estimated next-year prices with each subscription (print, electronic, databases, etc.), list of suggested drops and suggested adds based on data—ILL, turnaways, cost-per-use 

Acquisitions is giving you recommended adds/drops based on data for no-use, low-use, high-CPU, high turnaways, high ILLs. You, as subject librarians, have to determine the overall value based on your knowledge of your programs.

Behind-the-scene changes Our internal drop list did not change (close out (and perhaps bind) print, contact the vendor to not renew, close out the ILS record, remove from A-Z list, etc.). Serials added in batches in the fall after complete serials review process instead of anytime Faculty requests for serials have to be routed to the subject groups Stop Collection Development from adding ILS pre-orders as they come in Create a subscription change list If one group drops, another group can add back Everyone needs $ amounts 

Spring 2017: assessment of MULTI package coming up for renewal Our Springer package (multi-year, multi-school) is coming up for renewal in 2018 We needed to provide subject librarians enough info so they can let us know whether we should begin negotiations with vendor for renewal More thorough evaluation within acquisitions We’re hoping to hire a data visualization specialist to help provide data to subject librarians (and administration) to clarify complex analysis Our multi-year, multi- disciplinary packages still need to be reviewed by subject librarians, even though not part of their budget. If it is a smaller multi- year package we’ll assign it to be reviewed by one subject group the year before and include it in their budget.

New subscription monies approved for use in September, now what? Attribution: https://www.flickr.com/photos/aidanmorgan/5444096544

Fall 2017: Final selections plus additional $$$ Luckily, the subject librarians had already been informed of this possibility and had been asked to make a prioritized wishlist They were given two months (Sept. and Oct.) to work together in their subject groups to make final selections. Subscription changes spreadsheet updated as group leader sent approved titles. Goal was workable, transparent, & flexible model. But our subject librarian drop spreadsheet became a “subscription changes spreadsheet” and now has itemized prices for both adds and drops. 

Results so far with serials? We had more drops than previous years Seeing the recommended adds along with the recommended drops really helped! More detailed questions from subject librarians Particularly the newer librarians were put in a situation to justify their recommendations to the rest of their team Example questions: Do we need to pay for an open access journal? Can we buy the issues as books so we don’t use our serials budget? Why would we keep something that is not used much? Are we double-paying for something if it is on the periodical list twice? Why is the ILL use for my subject so low? Subject librarians want more information about the MULTI titles

Credits Photograph of Lyndon Baines Johnson and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr, by Yoichi Okamoto, 03/18/1966, serial number A2134-2A, from the White House Photo Office Collection at the LBJ Presidential Library. Photograph of The Beatles By Eric Koch, Nationaal Archief, Den Haag, Rijksfotoarchief: Fotocollectie Algemeen Nederlands Fotopersbureau (ANEFO), 1945-1989 - negatiefstroken zwart/wit, nummer toegang 2.24.01.05, bestanddeelnummer 916-5099 - Nationaal Archief, CC BY- SA 3.0 nl, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=21578671.

Lit Review Highlights Northwestern University: Lyons, L., & Blosser, J.(2012). An Analysis and Allocation System for Library Collections Budgets: The Comprehensive Allocation Process (CAP). Journal of Academic Librarianship, 38(5), 294- 310. Texas A & M: VanDuinkerken W., et al. Creating a flexible fund structure to meet the needs and goals of the library and its users. Library Collections, Acquisitions, & Technical Services. September 2008; 32(3/4):142-149. UNC-Chapel Hill: Michalak, S. (2012). This Changes Everything: Transforming the Academic Library. Journal Of Library Administration, 52(5), 411-423. University of North Texas: White Paper: Redefining Collection Development at UNT Libraries. https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc335286/

Questions? Comments? Suggestions on data we need to collect for assessing the new model? Slides from presentation to faculty http://www.library.txstate.edu/about/departments/acq.html