System-wide Circulation Data: Initial Analysis Stephen Zweibel CCMSCC 7/14/2010

Table of Contents 1.Introduction 2.Charges 3.Renewals 4.Holds 5.Recalls 6.OPAC Happening Location Details 7.Patron Group Breakdown

1. Introduction

Purpose Compile existing system-wide circulation datacirculation data Organize data according to primary categories Visualize circulation data by year and month Observe changes in circulation patterns Explore questions: Who, What, When, Where, Why and How? Share with CUL staff

Available Data Categories Happening Location: physical (or virtual) location of circulation activity CLIO Location: owning location of collections Patron Group: classification of patron (undergrad, faculty, etc.) Charge Type: variety of circulation activity Date: FY and month of circulation activity

Unavailable Data Categories Granular data is not (yet) available for circulation Unlike other ReCAP- related data on accession and retrieval accession retrieval Categories not available include… Format Language Publication Date Subject/Call number BIBL/HLDG/ITEM ID Enum/Chron Time etc.

Questions to Explore Questions and corresponding data category: Who: Patron Group What: CLIO Location When: Date Where: Happening Location Why: [not so easy] How: charge Type

GRD: Graduate Students OFF: Officers (Faculty, Library, Administration) REG: Undergraduates, Non-officer support staff VIS: Visitors ***NOTE: As of Summer 2007 Patron Records have only one active Patron Group Patron Groups

2. Charges

General Observations on Charges In phase with academic calendar Large quantities, between 450,000 and 600,000 Decrease of -18.1% from FY03/04 to FY09/10 Decline trend strongest between FY04/05 and FY07/08 Since FY07/08 the volume has leveled off

Patron Group Observations on Charges Decline trends for GRD and REG Slight increase for OFF Little fluctuation for VIS Peaks for GRD precede REG by one month in both Fall and Spring Larger volume for GRD in Fall than Spring term; even volume for REG REG volume now less than GRD

Zack’s Deep Thoughts Trend of total charges is downward due to use of e-resources Leveling off indicates that use of print copy is still strong and critical Faculty charges have increased due to more Grads serving as adjunct faculty (with OFF privileges) Grads peak a month before Undergrads because of course requirements (tilted towards written papers instead of tests)

3. Renewals

General Observations on Renewals In phase with loan period due dates Large decrease in renewals, -32.6% from FY03/04 to FY09/10 Noticeable decline trend between FY04/05 and FY07/08

Patron Group Observations on Renewals REG renewal phase changes after January 2008 Large decrease by REG, -67.1% Significant decrease by GRD, -26.2% OFF and REG were equal in FY03/04; OFF much higher in FY09/10

Zack’s Deep Thoughts REG renewal phases changes because of loan period change from 4-weeks to 1-term for circulating collections in January 2008 Faculty tend to hold books longer than Grads or Undergrads; visible later on in 7. Patron Group Breakdown Undergrads renew less because loan period is for semester, typical duration of single course

4. Holds

General Observations on Holds In phase with academic calendar Overall lowest volume of all four charge types Increase in hold volume from FY03/04 to FY05/06 Hold volume declines after FY05/06 with one exception (FY08/09) Trends are more erratic than other charge types

Patron Group Observations on Holds GRDs have large increase followed by decrease Monthly data is more erratic for all groups except GRD

5. Recalls

General Observations on Recalls In phase with academic calendar Increase in recalls from FY05/06 to FY06/07 Relatively steady volume of recalls

Patron Group Observations on Recalls Large increase for GRD starting in FY05/06 Large increase for OFF starting in FY06/07 GRD always most recalls, OFF catching up

Zack’s Deep Thoughts The increase in volume between FY05/06 and FY06/07 may be attributable to a change in emphasis CLIO and staff began emphasizing recalls instead of holds OFF delayed increase linked to patron record change implemented in Summer 2007 (Grads as adjunct faculty)

6. OPAC Happening Location Details

General Observations on OPAC OPAC Happening Location transactions represent actions taken directly in CLIO by patrons without staff intervention “Everywhere Else” (all other happening locations) represents actions taken by staff on behalf of patrons Charges must take place at a physical circulation desk - can not take place in OPAC Majority of recalls/renewals in OPAC Majority of holds not in OPAC

Zack’s Deep Thoughts Staff tend to place holds for patrons Patrons tend to place recalls for themselves Pre-Voyager, NOTIS environment did not allow online holds, recalls or renewals Upward trend in OPAC recalls suggest a learning curve, associated to adapting to new technology Decline trend in Everywhere Else suggests that patrons have become less dependent on staff mediation

7. Patron Group Breakdown

Observations Charge/Renewal ratio is different for all four primary patron groups REG charges more than renews, much more starting FY07/08 GRD charges more than renews OFF renews more than charges VIS renews more than charges, much more starting FY06/07

Zack’s Deep Thoughts Charge/Renewal ratios are consistent with staff perceptions Faculty are more likely to hold onto the books that they have than charge out new ones Undergraduates have little need to renew now that loan periods extend for a semester Grad students will charge a lot of material and hold it over more than one term Visitors hold books longer since obtaining OPAC renewal permission in course of patron record changes of Summer 2007

Bonus!

Borrow Direct

Observations on Borrow Direct In phase with academic calendar Charges are tallied for outgoing Borrow Direct requests Incoming Borrow Direct requests are not charged in CLIO There was a 100% increase in outgoing volume between FY03/04 and FY07/08 Since FY07/08 the volume has leveled off

On-site vs. Off-site Collection Use

Observations on On-site vs. Off-site On-site charges remain significant despite substantial migration of print collections to off-site Suggests that selection for transfer was well made Spike in off-site charges in FY08/09 may be attributable to the Google Project