Report of the Collections
Allocations Team
August 1, 2013
Core Members:
Dawn Childress
Gregory Crawford, Team Leader
Jennifer Gilley
John Meier
Other Members:
Robert Alan
Heather Benner
Alan Shay
Page 1 of 23
Table of Contents
Collections Allocations Team Composition and Charge
Page 3
Background: Steps and Literature Review
Page 4
Recommendations
Page 9
Bibliography
Page 12
Appendix 1: Analysis of User
Responses to Survey of UL Faculty
Page 13
Appendix 2: Summary of Sept. 27, 2012, meetings between
members of the C.A.T. and selectors
Page 19
Appendix 3: Summary of Survey of ARL
Chief Collection Development Officers
Page 22
Page 2 of 23
Collections Allocations Team Composition and Charge
Core Members:
Dawn Childress
Gregory Crawford, Team Leader
Jennifer Gilley
John Meier
Other Members:
Robert Alan
Heather Benner
Alan Shay
Charge to Team Leader:
Our collections budget has been allocated in pretty much the same way for about a dozen years.
A formula was devised for Commonwealth Campus budget allocations, and a set figure was used
for the various disciplines at University Park. Much has happened in the intervening years at
both Penn State and in the academic environment. During this time, our electronic resource
expenditures have increased from 20% of the collections budget to nearly 70% of the collections
budget. University departments are consolidating or being eliminated, new programs have been
implemented and yet, our basic allocation model does not reflect those trends.
The Collections Allocations Team Leader will lead a small group to devise a new method for
making collection allocations. It is anticipated that this will be an 18 month long process with the
goal of having a new allocation method in place beginning FY 2014.
The Team Leader will lead a small group that will:
● 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
Page 3 of 23
Background: Steps and Literature Review
The team engaged in several meetings, including a full day retreat, to begin to address a variety
of questions related to collections allocations, to understand the current budget and to look at
other means of allocating the budget. As part of the process, the Team held a general forum on
collections allocations, surveyed the libraries faculty about issues that they have observed
regarding collections (see Appendix 1), met with individuals and groups to discussion allocations
(see Appendix 2), and sought input through an article in Interview.
The following steps were undertaken by the team:
1.
Determine why the UL is undertaking this process
The ultimate goal is to have a logical, data driven method for allocating the budget. This begs the
question, “should our allocations be data driven?” Such a question also requires a specific
institutional direction as defined by the UL administration. What is the goal of the collection?
What role will historical print collections play?
2.
Understand the current UL budget system
The Team undertook an examination of the current budget thanks to Bob Alan and Heather
Benner. Also see: https://www.libraries.psu.edu/psul/toolboxes/companion.html
3. Examine the literature to determine the use of budget formulae within academic libraries.
Formulae have been used for decades to allocate library budgets within academic institutions.
The goal has been to allocate the budget based on the principle of equity. According to Walters
(2007), the principle of equity states that “departments with the same characteristics should
receive the same allocations.” But, is this true or does it really depend on the purpose of the
collection, e.g., the difference between a teaching institution or a research institution? Walters
also states that the use of a formula reduces “the likelihood that allocations will be assigned on
arbitrary or purely political grounds.” He also states, “The equitable distribution of funds
requires the careful selection of funding determinants (variables) that correspond to the goals of
the library, an understanding that some determinants should be weighted more heavily that
others, and an acknowledgement that changing conditions may require the revision or refinement
of the initial allocation formula.” He argues that three sets of variables are needed: supply (such
as the number of titles published), demand (such as the number of courses offered, course
enrollment, number of faculty and graduate students), and cost (price per title). It must be noted
that he limits his examination of the creation of a formula for collection allocation to
monographic titles and excludes serials and electronic resources. Walters provides a good
explanation of using regression-based methodology to determine one possible method of
allocation funds.
In a subsequent article, Walters (2008) describes a method for deriving a formula based on
demand, cost, and supply and applies the formula to a budget consisting of 33 different academic
disciplines. Similarly, Kaay and Zimmerman (2008) developed a similar type of allocations
Page 4 of 23
formula based on percentages but used 5 factors: undergraduate population, graduate student
population, faculty population, use of the collection, and book price. They also advocated
reviewing the formula every 5 years. Another application of a percentage based formula is given
by Guarria (2009).
Canepi (2007) summaries a variety of articles on collection formulae and present 23 different
formula elements that are often used in determining allocations, in order of the frequency of use:
1.
Enrollment/number of students
2.
Cost/price of materials
3.
Use/circulation
4.
Number of faculty
5.
Courses (number/nature)
6.
Grad versus undergrad
7.
Programs
8.
Research budget or output
9.
Publication output
10.
Credit hours
11.
Scope of existing collection
12.
Historical
13.
Adequacy of current collection
14.
Citations
15.
Library or university goals
16.
Formats
17.
Faculty needs or wants
18.
Interlibrary loan
19.
Subjects published
20.
Other weighted factors
21.
Honor students
22.
Inflation
23.
Faculty research
She points out that many of these are highly correlated and, therefore, all may not be needed in a
good formula. She also summarizes Budd and Adams (1989), who surveyed libraries for their
use of fund allocation formulas, “The most frequently cited factors in the Budd and Adams
survey were number of students (or number of student credit hours), cost of materials, number of
faculty, circulation by department or subject, number of courses offered by a department, and
number of students majoring in a department or subject. Often these factors were assigned
different weights for graduate students, student credit hours, majors, and circulation.”
Paris (2007) makes an excellent point: “It seemed obvious that a formula, no matter how
carefully derived, would not be perceived as fair in all its components by every member of the
campus community.” Thus, there are always “winners” and “losers” in any budget allocation
methodology.
In a recent article, Lyons and Blosser (2012) discuss the Comprehensive Allocation Process
(CAP) that has been put in place at Northwestern University. CAP is a decision-making structure
Page 5 of 23
that assists in allocating new collections funds, for reallocating funds within budgets, and for
cutting budged due to reduced funding levels. At its core, it seeks to devise a budget that
incorporates all fund types and material formats and establishes a budget based on demand and
costs. The CAP was used to allocate funds which remained after the annual commitments were
taken off the top of the general allocation. Northwestern divided their budget into three major
categories: collections for academic departments, collections of distinction, and “all others.” The
major variables used focused on supply, demand, and cost. Supply included unrestricted funds,
endowments, approval plans, serials packages, and e-book packages. Demand included measures
of faculty, enrollments in graduate and professional schools, undergraduate degrees conferred,
and course enrollment. Costs were measured as the average cost of non-recurring expenses paid
with unrestricted funds, average cost of books received through approval plans, average
recurring costs paid with unrestricted funds, and average cost of subscriptions in serials
packages.
John Regazzi (2012) summarizes the problem of libraries and their collections when he writes:
It does seem clear that libraries are operating in two distinct environments where they
make major investments in electronic services and new staff skills to support those
services, while also trying to operate the physical library and its print collections. It is
hard to imagine that this bifurcation of resources and programs is sustainable over a long
period of time. It may well be that managing both the print collections with the requisite
staff, while also investing in the electronic future and the skills needed to drive these new
initiatives, is what is beginning to strain library resources (p. 467).
Kusik and Vargas (2009) outline five goals in their argument for using a holistic collection
development methodology:
Goal 1: Collection development should be driven by curriculum, and collection
development funds should be allocated in a manner consistent with the university’s
educational priorities.
Goal 2: Collection development funds should be allocated to achieve an efficient mix of
information resources. Materials should be acquired according to curricular needs, not
format, and duplication of resources should be avoided.
Goal 3: The library budget should be organized in a manner that eliminates inefficiencies
and enables effective allocation of available funds.
Goal 4: The content and organization of the library’s collections and resources should
reflect the university’s curricular needs and priorities.
Goal 5: The library’s budget and collections should be reviewed annually as part of an
ongoing, continuous planning process.
Most of the articles dealing with the use of formulae for allocating the collections budgets limit
their use to allocating money for monographs. If PSU wishes to include both monographic and
serial funds, some different variables/factors may need to be used. Other considerations are:
1. E-resources: allocate first amd then run the formula?
2. Set aside contingency funds and CIC funds prior to running the formula?
3. Set aside DDA funding prior to running the formula?
4. Should campus and UP funds be kept separate or combined into one budget?
Page 6 of 23
5. Alternatively, should all funding be based on subjects with a different mechanism
used for the determination of where materials physically sit, i.e., their location in a
campus library or in a UP library?
6. Should the budget lines be redefined into broader categories rather than in narrow
subjects? If this is done, then library heads and their librarians could determine actual
budgets for specific subject lines.
7. How should endowments figure into the budget? One option is to include all funds in
the allocation process and then rebalance the actual allocations taking into account the
specific subject endowments.
8. How should the UL deal with approval plans? One option is to expand the approval
plans to acquire more desired materials automatically, reducing the need for so many
librarians to examine the same list of materials (such as in YBP) for selection. The
current process wastes human capital since many librarians perform the same
functions related to selection.. Funding for the approval plans, however, should be
assumed to be part of the allocations to subject areas.
9. How should the formula take into account the “spectrum of information available?”
This spectrum includes visual data, sound data, special data, data sets, in addition to
print and electronic resources.
10. Should preservation, special collections, the costs of annexing materials, and the costs
for services such as OCLC be included in the overall budget and, hence, the
allocation formula?
11. “[W]hat is a comprehensive research library collection?” (Hickerson, 2011). And as
Anderson (quoted in Hickerson) says, “we hold many of our traditional organizational
structures, practices, and mindsets in an increasingly desperate death-grip.” How do
we move beyond this and “substantially alter the existing concept of the collections
budget?” (Hickerson, 2011)
12. For the 2011-12 fiscal year, approximately 67% of the budget of $15+ million, i.e.,
$10M, was spent on electronic resources. How does this affect our thinking about the
future of the collection and the need for print based resources (and the allocation
formula)? Ownership versus access will be a continuing philosophical conundrum.
13. How do we instill the attitude that the collections budget is “not my money” but the
“University’s money?” The collections budget needs to support the curricular needs
of ALL students and the research needs of ALL faculty, not just the needs of “my”
liaison department(s).
14. How do we incorporate institutional priorities and direction into the formula?
15. How should weights be assigned to the factors included in the formula?
4. Benchmark with research universities
The Team, through the good graces of Lisa German, devised and conducted a survey of other
ARL libraries. The results may be found in Appendix 3.
5. Examine the previously used campus formula and the partially developed UP formula.
Page 7 of 23
Factors in the campus formula include: headcount of students; credit hours at various levels (0300, 400-499, 500+); number of Science and Engineering programs; and other programs (AA,
BA, M, graduate certificates, doctoral).
Factors in the partially developed UP formula include: enrollment count by program, faculty
count, student credit hours, research expenditures, and average college book price.
Alan Shay and Yue Lu developed a complete model based on the existing draft UP formula.
They expanded the formula greatly to include time trend data.
6. Other related topics addressed
Our examination of the budget allocation process and the budgets themselves raised many
questions: How do retention policies affect the allocations? How will reference be affected by
changes in the collections? How will the time of librarians be used if the amount of time devoted
to collection development declines? The resulting time freed from performing collection duties
could potentially amount to the equivalent of the hours worked by several full-time librarians.
Other issues include:
a. Approval plans
Work more closely with selectors to re-examine the use and breadth of the approval
plans. How much duplicate work is being done by selecting individual items for the
collections? See “3.h” above.
b. Serials and standing orders
How should serials and standing orders be accounted for in the formula?
c. Endowments
How are endowments best used and allocated?
d. Money for special projects and in reserve.
Can money for contingency purposes and special projects be set aside prior to the
formula?
e. Purpose of collection (one collection, geographically dispersed)
Should the purpose of the collection be redefined? If so, what is that purpose?
f. Role of campuses
How can we change the role/purpose of the campus libraries? What should the role of the
campus libraries be? What should the role of the UP libraries be? Do we want to allocate
by subject and not by location?
g. Structure of budget (fewer budget lines, broader categories)
Should the structure of the budget be changed? Can it be simplified into Collection
Development Group Budgets and then let the groups actually devise their own subbudgets? Should the structure mirror the organization of the University itself?
7. Test and refine model (formula)
The model was developed using the 2011-12 budget year data for the collections budget. Five
years of data was used for the factors of student enrollment since this number may be the most
subject to change over time. Only the current year was used for the more stable data including
the number of credit hours by course level, the number of degree programs by level, the number
Page 8 of 23
of faculty, and the amount of research funding. The 2011-12 budget was parsed to ascertain the
amount of funding for each academic unit through in iterative process in which the selectors
provided details on which academic unit their budgets best fit into. The team presented the draft
budget model to Lisa German and then it was revised to remove several groups such as law and
medicine that should not be included in the formula.
8. Present the completed model to the UL
The completed model was presented at the CSAG meeting of June 12, 2013, and to the faculty
and staff at a forum held on July 30, 2013. Finally, the report was presented to the administration
of the University Library on August 1, 2013.
Page 9 of 23
Recommendations
1. There is a need for a coordinator of collection development who can take a broad view and
make quick decisions on collection-related issues across the University.
2. Collections decisions and budget allocation models must be made to maximize flexibility so
that the UL can react to changing demands in an expeditious manner.
3. The concept that the collections of the University Library are truly one collection,
geographically dispersed, should be emphasized.
4. The collections budget should align with the academic structure of the University, such as the
colleges and schools. This will permit the collections budget to reflect the changing mission
of the University more easily.
5. Major e-resources that provide coverage across disciplines should be taken “off the top” of
the collections allocations.
6. A specific amount (approximately 3% per year) should be reserved for contingency funds.
7. A formula should be used as part of the allocations process, but should not be used as the
only determining method. Other issues such as collection strength, changing curricula,
research trends, and University priorities must also be considered.
8. After the “off the top” allocations are made, the remaining budget should be allocated by
broad subject areas representing the academic structure of the University. This will permit
ease of purchasing when the fields within those broad subject areas change or when new,
expensive, items are published which could not be purchased using narrower subject budgets.
It will also permit inflation to be more easily handled.
9. The use of approval plans should be expanded and broadened to include more materials
desired by selectors including those for libraries outside of University Park. This will ensure
that needed materials are acquired in a timely and efficient manner and will lessen the need
for librarians to duplicate each other’s work in selecting materials.
10. A small group such as CSAG or an ad hoc committee should review the large electronic
packages annually and they should solicit the input of all selectors.
11. Floating Collection should be expanded to reduce duplication.
12. A method for distributing new materials should be determined so that these items can be
broadly available before becoming a permanent part of a specific library, for example, being
part of the floating collection for a pre-determined amount of time. This may necessitate
designating a special collection code and a special “new materials area” for shelving at
University Park, but it will permit new materials to spread throughout the various libraries
that compose the University Libraries system.
Page 10 of 23
13. The collection development plans should be rewritten so that the needs of campus libraries
can be integrated into the goals of the subject collections being for the entire University, not
specific libraries.
14. Collection development teams, consisting of subject selectors, should have responsibility for
the broad subject areas. Collection development in all subject areas should be a shared
responsibility between librarians at University Park and at the campuses.
15. All libraries should receive some minimal level of funding to accommodate local needs that
cannot otherwise be handled by larger subject groups.
16. Ongoing assessment of the collections allocations process should be implemented and data
from the collection assessment program should be integrated into the allocation process.
17. In accordance with the UL strategic plan, the acquisition of materials in electronic format
should be pursued aggressively, especially in certain subject areas as defined by the relevant
selectors.
18. The collections budget should support new and expanding models of publishing.
19. The collections budget should provide additional support for non-print forms of scholarly
research such as data sets and streaming media.
20. Communication regarding the collections budget to both the faculty and staff of the
University Libraries and to other constituent groups such as faculty and administration of
academic units of the University should be open and transparent.
Page 11 of 23
Bibliography
Budd, John, and Adams, Kay. (1989). Allocation Formulas in Practice. Library Acquisitions:
Practice & Theory, 13, 381-390.
Canepi, Kitti. (2007). Fund Allocation Formula Analysis: Determining Elements for Best
Practices in Libraries. Library Collections, Acquisitions, & Technical Services, 31, 12-24.
Guarria, Charles I. (2009). How Using an Allocation Formula Changed Funding Allocations at
Long Island University. Collection Building, 28, 44-50.
Hickerson, H. Thomas. (2011). Rebalancing the Investment in Collections. Research Library
Issues: A Quarterly Report from ARL, CNI, and SPARC, 277, 1-8.
Kaay, Anne, and Zimmerman, Peter. (2008). The Development and Application of a Unique
Percentage-based Allocations Formula at the University of Windsor. Library Collections,
Acquisitions, & Technical Services, 32, 92-96.
Kusik, James, P., and Vargas, Mark A. (2009). Implementing a “Holistic” Approach to
Collection Development. Library Leadership & Management, 23, 186-192.
Lyons, Lucy Eleonore, and Blosser, John. (2012). An Analysis and Allocation System for
Library Collections Budgets: The comprehensive Allocation Process (CAP). Journal of
Academic Librarianship, 38, 294-310.
Paris, Terrence. (2007). Breaking the Mould: How Re-examining the Allocation Formula Led to
the Creation of a Dynamic Role for the University Librarians. Partnership: The Canadian
Journal of Library and Information Practice and Research, 2, 1-22
Regazzi, John J. (2012). Constrained? An Analysis of U.S. Academic Library Shifts in Spending,
Staffing, and Utilization, 1998-2008. College & Research Libraries, 73, 449-468.
Walters, William H. (2007). A Regression-based Approach to Library Fund Allocation. Library
Resources and Technical Services, 263-278.
Walters, William H. (2008). A Fund Allocation Formula Based on Demand, Cost, and Supply.
Library Quarterly, 78, 303-314.
Page 12 of 23
Appendix 1
Analysis of User Responses to Survey of UL Faculty
Collections Allocations Team:
Dawn Childress
Gregory Crawford, Team Leader
Jennifer Gilley
John Meier
May 25, 2012
A total of 38 individuals completed the survey (the summary report is attached).
Of those responding, 33 indicated that they managed at least one collection budget. Five
indicated that they did not manage a budget, but 4 of these reported that they did make selection
recommendations. The CCL was represented by 19 responses (50%), University Park by 17
(45%), and Dickinson School of Law and the Hershey Medical Center by 1 each (3% each).
When asked about the adequacy of the current budget, 22 (58%) said that the current budget was
adequate while 11 (29%) said it was not adequate. Four others provided a mixed or other
response stating that the budget was adequate for monographs but not serials. In fact, a total of 8
individuals reported specifically that the current budget was inadequate for serials. Among CCL
respondents, 16 said that their collections allocation was adequate with 3 indicating it was
inadequate. The response from UP based respondents was very different with only 6 answering
that their allocation was adequate.
When the written responses to the question, “What specific budget/collection allocation issues
would you like to see addressed by the Collections Allocations Team?,” the following issues
were raised:
Approval plans
Databases
Duplication
End of year spending
Equitable
Evaluation of products
Flexibility (subscriptions & firm orders)
Formula
Funding dbs
Funding models
Increase on-going funding
Inflation
Monographs
Multi-year planning
Multimedia
Needs
Page 13 of 23
Off-the-top funding for specific resources
Ongoing costs of journals & databases
Priorities
Program offerings
Reallocation
Research needs
Serials
Transparency
The greatest concerns centered upon:
Campus vs UP budgets (by far the biggest concern and mentioned by all those at the
campuses who completed this question)
Duplication
E-books
End of year spending
Expertise
Fairness
Flexibility
Inflation
New model of collection development
Not changing
One-time funds
Priorities
Purchases
Research collections
Small allocations
Spending
Staffing
Type of material (level, public library)
When asked about the variety of budget scenario that the selectors would like to see for
allocating the budget, the following methods were mentioned:
Anticipated needs
Approval plan
Centralize electronic resource packages
Centralized
Change formula
Consolidate electronic resources
Continue to use the current model
Coordinated collection development plan
Degree offerings
Electronic resources off top
Formula
Needs based
Page 14 of 23
No change needed
Priorities driven
Subjects across locations
10% reduction
Two year planning
Zero Based Budging
The final question asked the selectors to specify factors if a formula were to be used in allocating
the budget. The following factors were suggested (in rank order):
Enrollment (would this be total numbers or FTE): 16
Number of faculty (often included with number of other researchers): 14
Number of programs/Breadth of programs (both undergraduate and graduate): 8
Number of graduate students: 7
Circulation counts: 5
Average cost of item in the field (monographs?): 4
Number of undergraduate majors: 3
Research productivity and funding: 3
National ranking or measure of excellence of programs: 2
Number of graduate faculty: 2
Annual statement of need for subject: 1
Circulation per student: 1
Citation patterns: 1
Digital resources: 1
Discipline use of library resources: 1
Inflation (especially serials): 1
Publishing output: 2
Type of materials used in field: 1
University priorities: 1
Page 15 of 23
Collections Allocations Team - Informational
Survey
Respondents:
38 displayed, 38 total
Status:
Open
Launched Date:
05/14/2012
Closed Date:
N/A
1. Are you a selector who manages at least one
collection budget?
Response Total
Yes
No
Total
Respondents
Response
Points Avg
Percent
33
87% n/a n/a
5
13% n/a n/a
38
2. If not, are you a librarian who recommends
materials for purchase?
Response Total
Yes
No
Total
Respondents
(skipped this
question)
7
31
Page 16 of 23
Response
Points Avg
Percent
5
71% n/a n/a
2
29% n/a n/a
3. Location:
Response Total
University Park
CCL (Campus)
Dickinson School of
Law
Hershey Medical
Center
Total Respondents
38
4. Please discuss the adequacy of your budget for
meeting for the needs of your users.
Total
Respondents
(skipped this
question)
37
1
5. What specific budget/collection allocation
issues would you like to see addressed by the
Collections Allocations Team?
Total
Respondents
(skipped this
question)
32
6
Page 17 of 23
Response
Points Avg
Percent
17
45% n/a n/a
19
50% n/a n/a
1
3% n/a n/a
1
3% n/a n/a
100%
6. Please express your concerns, hopes,
frustrations, and fears about changing the way the
collections budget is allocated.
Total
Respondents
(skipped this
question)
30
8
7. Please describe your ideal scenario for
allocating the collections budget.
Total
Respondents
(skipped this
question)
30
8
8. If a statistical model would be used to allocate
the collections budget, what factors do you think
should be included? Please be as specific as you
can.
Total
Respondents
(skipped this
question)
30
8
Page 18 of 23
Appendix 2
Summary of Sept. 27, 2012, meetings between members of the C.A.T. and selectors
Collections Allocations Team
Team members (Gregory Crawford, Dawn Childress, John Meier, and Jennifer Gilley), in
various combinations, met with 15 different selectors representing 5 campuses, Penn State
Hershey, and 4 different libraries/units at University Park.
The major points discussed by those who met with the committee include:
●
There needs to be flexibility in the allocations process and the way the budgets are
actually used. For example, it should be easier to move funds from a
monographic account to a serials or electronic resources account. The concept of
“flexibility” was repeated in various ways. The main concept is that flexibility is
needed to meet the needs of our primary clienteles better. Another example of the
lack of flexibility is the limitations placed on some endowments. Can these be
renegotiated or changed to allow broader use of the funds, such as support for
electronic resources and datasets?
●
There is a concern with the spending on one-time purchases at the end of the year,
especially after serious serial cuts have been made in order to meet inflation
needs. The end of the year purchases seem to be “extravagant.”
●
Some programs are “overlooked” since they are newer or do not have specific
funds assigned to them. There is a disconnect between the establishment of new
academic programs or new areas of emphasis within existing programs and the
library support provided for them. This is especially noticeable in the support of
serials for new programs.
●
The acquisitions timeline does not recognize the time available for doing
collection development work. Specifically, the budget is allocated too late for
selectors to do a lot of their collection development during the summer months
when they have more time.
●
We need to consider factors such as the role of the budget allocation in
developing collections of distinction, such as certain areas of special collections.
●
The wants list process seems to have worked well over the past year, but the main
question is how to prioritize items that are needed. The process should not just be
ad hoc.
●
There is a need for a greater number of electronic resources, especially e-books,
and, at least in many fields, less a reliance on printed monographs. Others
stressed the need for print materials as a requirement for a true research
collection.
●
The role of streaming media and access to other types of media such as datasets
must be addressed.
●
The bigger issue is about “control” not necessarily the budget itself. Thus, there
needs to be greater collaboration and communication among selectors, regardless
of location, as well as consultation about larger purchases/withdrawals/wants lists.
Page 19 of 23
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
There is a joint desire to meet local needs as well as broader, University-wide
needs.
An ongoing examination of the role of local collections is needed. Suggestions
for the role of such collections include circulation counts that show the materials
are being used. Rewarding good selectors by providing increased budgets to
purchase materials was also suggested.
There is a frustration about programs “owned” by or housed primarily at a
campus but the budget doesn’t permit enough support across the University. The
local selector(s) needs a stronger voice in the development of the collection across
all locations.
Institute tracking of purchases at the level of programs. There is a need for more
granular collection data, especially for collection assessment and for accreditation
statements.
There is a desire that all selectors within the UL be “on the same page,” that there
be excellent guidance for the roles of selectors within collection development.
If a formula is developed that includes enrollments, time trends should be used to
compensate for the yearly ups and downs of enrollments
A separate pool of money is needed to purchase needed materials, especially for
new areas of research.
More approval plans are needed to ensure the acquisition of needed materials and
the plans should cover all locations.
Broader group discussions/decisions and discipline based groups on databases and
electronic resources is needed.
Implement a broader application of the floating collection concept.
Reduce the size of local collections, especially at campuses, so that there is more
student space, although some expressed a desire to maintain their collections.
Examine the purchase of textbooks and possible the establishment of an
endowment to support their purchase.
Explain the collections budget in greater detail.
If the selection of materials is more centralized, there is a great need to involve
more campus selectors so that there is insurance that local needs can be met.
There is a dramatic need for extra funds to help cover inflation.
Promote digital works, especially reference materials.
The primary budget allocations should be by subject, not location. Others
strongly disagreed and argued in favor of the importance of local collections.
There are specific needs, especially for databases, to increase the level of support
that we can give our researchers, comparable to other research libraries. (specific
business, medical, and English databases were mentioned)
Duplication should be minimized. One suggestion was that the first copy of a
book be purchased in print format, but any duplication be done through electronic
access. Others suggest that electronic should be the preferred format.
Qualitative assessments as well as quantitative factors should be included in any
budget model and budget allocation process.
Cross-campus and cross-disciplinary programs were raised as primary concerns.
How should programs such as nursing and biobehavioral health be funded? The
programs are growing across campuses, but the supporting budgets are not.
Page 20 of 23
●
●
●
●
●
Bigger funds, rather than highly specific funds, were mentioned as being better
and allowing greater flexibility.
The UL needs to include researchers from across the state, and even outside of
Penn State, as part of our mission.
One of the biggest problems is that so much funding is tied up in large packages
that the flexibility to use that money in other ways is lacking.
Carry-over funding should be used to help pay for inflation. There is worry that a
structural deficit may be built into the budget due to inflation pressures.
Any new budget model needs to benefit everyone!
Page 21 of 23
Appendix 3
Summary of Survey of ARL Chief Collection Development Officers
December 5, 2012
Background:
The University Libraries of the Pennsylvania State University has undertaken an examination of
the way that budget allocations are made for collections. As part of this process, Associate Dean
Lisa German appointed a Collections Allocations Team which was tasked with examining issues
related to devising a new method for making collection allocations. She also requested that the
Team determine what other research university libraries were doing within this arena. Thus, the
Team and Ms. German developed a short questionnaire to determine how other research libraries
are approaching their collections budgets. Of special concerns are changes being made in the
allocations process within research libraries. Ms. German emailed the resulting questionnaire and
a reminder to the Chief Collection Development Officers (CCDOs) of ARL libraries in October
2012.
Results:
A total of 22 institutions responded to the survey request, although one represented a consortium
and could not provide usable information for the questions asked. Of special note is that 8 of the
12 members (excluding Penn State) of the CIC responded.
Of the responding institutions, 12 (55%) allocate their budgets based on historical allocation
patterns. Only 2 use a formula or a formula with additional money available by request. The
remaining 7 use a combination of methods usually based on historical allocations with other
methods being used to allocate specific parts of the budget, such as at the discretion of the
CCDO.
When asked to detail the specificity or granularity of their budgets, no one method prevailed.
Seven libraries report that they use a combination of individual subject funds and larger
aggregated funds such as those based on colleges or schools within their universities. An
additional 7 libraries report using individual subject funds. The remaining report using either a
combination of several methods or a different method such as allocating to subunits of the library
or subject libraries which often do not match the academic departments. Others allocate to
specific funds for serials and monographs or to approval plans that are not allocated by subjects.
For print serials, the responding libraries use a variety of methods to allocate funds with 8
reporting that they include funds for print serials and periodicals in subject/college/school
budgets while 2 reported using separate print serials/periodicals budgets. The majority of
respondents report using a variety of methods such as at a subject group level, unit library
budgets, and one pot with each title assigned to a subject or general fund.
Page 22 of 23
Funds for electronic serials and periodicals and for electronic resources and databases are
allocated in a vast variety of ways with no method being predominant. Thus, funds are allocated
to subject/college/school budgets, to separate electronic serials/periodicals budgets, to the same
budget as print serials and periodicals, to the electronic resources/databases budget, and to a
combination of other methods. Often, large packages are funded through a central e-resources
budget while subject-related one are funded in subject lines or even “print” serials lines.
Consortial purchasing was also mentioned which requires a separate way of accounting for the
funds.
The next question focused on changes in approval plans. Again, there was no consistency in the
answers with responses showing that some approval plans have been expanded and others
become more restrictive. The main theme to emerge is that the main changes to the approval
plans have been the increase in the use of e-book collections, especially demand- or patrondriven acquisition, and the preference for e-books in some subjects. Several libraries note that
they continuously monitor the approval plans and “tweak” them as necessary.
Among these libraries, there is no consistency for decisions on prioritizing desiderata, although
there is a slight preference for the use of a collection development group or steering committee to
make such decisions. For those who commented on this question, most report that the decision
varies with the scope, scale, and cost of the resource. Often a team makes a recommendation or
provides input to the CCDO who actually makes the decision.
When asked about recurring increases in their budget, almost a quarter report not receiving an
increase each year. Another quarter report receiving additional funding each year, but the
percentage varies from year to year. According to one response, recent years have been years of
austerity. A couple libraries specifically mention receiving funds to help offset serials inflation or
to help fund “big deal contracts.”
The last question asked specifically how the budget has changed between 2011 and 2012.
Slightly more than a third of the libraries report an increase of more than 4%, while 7 others
report less than a 4% increase. Four report a steady budget, while 2 report a decrease in their
budgets.
Several respondents provided additional comments. Among the themes of these comments are
the need to question historical allocations, the desire to reflect changes in campus programs, and
the grasping for flexibility provided by fewer budget lines. Institutional culture, however, often
restricts making changes to the budget models used.
Page 23 of 23