1. 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

2. 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

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

4. 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

5. 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)

6. 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

7. 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)

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

9. 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

10. 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

11. 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

12. 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

13. 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

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

15. 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

16. 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

17. 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

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

19. 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

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

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

22. Questions/Comments/Discussion
Greg Crawford
Lisa German