The Challenges of Collection Management During Fiscal Uncertainty
•Transferir como PPTX, PDF•
0 gostou•83 visualizações
Presenters: Ashley Carroll, Angela Mehaffey. Presented at the virtual Georgia Libraries Conference in October 2020. During FY 2020, University of West Georgia’s Library was presented with actual and theoretical budget cut scenarios. As a result, we were asked to reduce our collections budget by approximately $400,000 for FY 2021 and to devise various strategies for potential budget reductions in the future. Our collection management committee accomplished this through a multifaceted approach: analyzing relevant data points, seeking insight from subject area liaisons and departmental faculty, and evaluating relevance to current degree programs and course rotations. Our framework provides an example of how to undertake a collection management project during times of fiscal uncertainty.
Recomendados
Recomendados
Mais conteúdo relacionado
Semelhante a The Challenges of Collection Management During Fiscal Uncertainty
Semelhante a The Challenges of Collection Management During Fiscal Uncertainty (20)
Mais de Georgia Libraries Conference (formerly Ga COMO).
Mais de Georgia Libraries Conference (formerly Ga COMO). (20)
Último
Último (20)
The Challenges of Collection Management During Fiscal Uncertainty
- 1. Ingram Library University of West Georgia
- 2. The Challenges of Collection Management During Fiscal Uncertainty Ashley Carroll Technical Services Budgeting and Accounting Associate Angela Mehaffey Resource Sharing Manager
- 3. About the University of West Georgia ● Georgia’s Seventh Largest Public University ● Approximately 13,200 FTE (Fall 2020) ● Eleven librarians ● Seventeen staff ● Prior to cancellation: ○ 400 databases ○ 50,000 print and electronic serials
- 4. Charge for FY 2020 ● Started process in September of 2019 ● Reduce collections budget by $379,517.00 ○ Decrease in enrollment which reduced budget from the University System of Georgia ○ Reallocation of funds within library budget ○ Last year receiving funds from eCore fees ● Overhaul Collection Development policies and procedures
- 5. Collection Management Committee Committee name changed from Collection Development to reflect change of focus from collection acquisitions to management of new and existing resources. Head of Technical Services (Chair) Head of Outreach and Assessment Head of Special Collections Technical Services Budgeting & Accounting Associate Serials and Electronic Resources Cataloger Electronic Resources Librarian (vacant) Resource Sharing Manager Liaison Librarian (Business)
- 6. Learning Process ● Can be messy and overwhelming throughout the process ● For FY 2020, the committee has approximately 50 spreadsheets and numerous pages of meeting notes containing a wide array of information and statistics regarding our decision-making process throughout this project.
- 7. Phase I: Evaluation and Reduction Process ● Initially evaluated subscriptions (outside of databases) to identify overlap, outdated materials, unused materials, etc. ● Serials, Print Standing Orders, and Microfilm ○ Cancelled remaining microfilm subscriptions while retaining electronic access and print subscriptions to selected newspapers
- 8. Serials ● Ashley & Angela divided all titles by subject area and generated an initial list of titles for committee consideration. ○ Considerations: usage data for stacks; CPU of both electronic and print from the three previous fiscal years; notated any journals could be shifted from print to electronic ● Journal Packages ○ Evaluated usage statistics of serials within each journal package to determine if the cost of the package outweighed the cost of the individual titles being used
- 9. Example: E-Duke Journals Scholarly Collection Usage ● FY 2020 Cost - $5,086.00 ● Total Cost of Journals Under Consideration - $3,079.00 ● Total Savings if all seven titles were kept - $2,007.00
- 10. Example: IOP Science Extra ● FY 2020 Cost - $17,055.15 ● Total Cost of Journals Under Consideration - $50,084.00 ● Difference - $33,028.85
- 11. Serials ● As a committee: ○ Requested input/feedback from subject area liaisons ○ Shifted print+electronic to electronic only ○ Cancelled print subscriptions to popular magazines, some newspapers, and select journal subscriptions ● Nursing and Education Titles
- 12. Print Standing Orders ● Requested input/feedback from subject area liaisons ● Analyzed cost and relevance to degree programs and courses being taught by faculty ○ “Legacy” titles for History department ○ Music
- 13. Example: Standing Order Circulation Statistics (Music)
- 14. Print Standing Orders ● Determined if information could be retrieved via an electronic resource/subscription ● Cost of remaining standing orders absorbed into respective subject area book allocation budgets ○ Special Collections ○ Library
- 15. Databases ● Organized all renewals into quarters and analyzed CPU from the previous two fiscal years ● Ranking of departmental databases by subject area liaisons with input from faculty ○ Found disparity between usage statistics and what liaisons/faculty deemed as “most valuable” ● Collection Management Committee ranked resources by relevance to degree programs and courses being taught by faculty for future reductions and analysis
- 16. Example: Database Statistics by Quarter
- 17. Example: Ranking of Philosophy Databases
- 18. Remaining Print Serials ● In two previous fiscal years, stacks specialist recorded 126 uses of print serials ● February 2020: cancelled all remaining print serials except several local/ regional titles identified by Special Collections ○ For example: Georgia Trend, Atlanta Business Chronicle, and Times-Georgian ● Other titles retained for professional development purposes, such as Choice
- 19. Remaining Print Serials ● Positives: ○ Regaining of physical space ○ Serials Associate transferred to Outreach and Assessment based on job skills and need ■ Few remaining job duties reallocated to other personnel
- 20. Example: FY 2020 Cancellation Totals
- 21. Phase I Challenges ● Web of Science ○ Cost, type of resource, inclusion of Endnote with resource subscription, renewal deadline ● Electronic archive subscriptions ● Reluctance to cancel resources associated with diverse and under-represented groups
- 22. Phase II: Potential Scenarios ● Preparation for potential FY 2021 budget scenarios ○ Three different plans based on varying lack of funds provided to the library ■ No Forward Funding ($150,000) returned to our budget - Cut $88,000 from our collections budget ■ No EOY funds ($500,000) - Cut $440,000 from our collections budget ■ No Forward Funding returned and no EOY funds - Cut $588,000 from our collections budget
- 23. Rubric ● Important to communicate with users about cancellation decisions ● Designed as we move through the cancellation process
- 24. Example: Final Results Entering into FY 2021
- 25. Looking Forward ● Limiting new acquisitions to electronic resources at this time ○ Covid-19 ○ Popularity of online degree programs in nursing, business, and criminology ● Regained physical space ○ Weed existing print collection and remove compact shelving to gain study space ● Now a more defined process for evaluating our collection and adding potential resources to our collection in the future
- 26. Committee Goals for FY 2021 ● Meet initial reduction goal ● Develop a solution to archives concern ● Re-evaluate rubric ● Finalize Collection Management policies and procedures
- 27. Questions? Ashley Carroll Technical Services Budgeting and Accounting Associate acarroll@westga.edu Angela Mehaffey Resource Sharing Manager amehaffey@westga.edu
Notas do Editor
- Hello! We are Ashley Carroll, Technical Services Budgeting and Accounting Associate and Angela Mehaffey, Resource Sharing Manager from Ingram Library at the University of West Georgia
- Welcome to our presentation on “The Challenges of Collection Management During Fiscal Uncertainty.”
- ANGELA: The University of West Georgia is the seventh largest public university in the state with approximately 13,200 FTE (full time equivalent) in Fall 2020. Ingram Library has eleven librarians and seventeen staff currently. Due to budget constraints and changes in the staffing, we have several unfilled positions at this time. Prior to the cancellations discussed here, we had approximately 400 databases and 50,000 print and electronic serials.
- ASHLEY: We began this process in September of 2019. We were charged by our Dean to reduce our collections budget by $379,517 by May 1 of 2020 in anticipation of budget cuts for FY 2021. There were a few different contributing factors leading to this budget reduction: we experienced a decrease in enrollment which reduced our budget from the University System of Georgia, we had a reallocation of funds within our internal budget, and fiscal year 2020 was our last year receiving funds from eCore fees. The committee met on a bi-weekly basis to evaluate all physical and electronic resources and also revamp Ingram Library’s Collection Development policies and procedures.
- ANGELA: The Collection Management Committee managed this project. The Committee name changed from “Collection Development” to reflect change of focus from collection acquisitions to management of new and existing resources The composition of the committee changed at this time and now includes the head of technical services (the chair); the head of outreach and assessment; the head of special collections; the technical services budgeting and accounting associate; the serials and electronic resources cataloger; the electronic resources librarian (a position that is now vacant); the resource sharing manager; and a liaison librarian. Previously, the head of special collections and the technical services budgeting and accounting associate were not members but were deemed to be important additions. In the absence of an e-resources librarian, the head of technical services and the budgeting and accounting associate were tasked with providing usage statistics, cost data, and other information. The committee will always include at least one liaison librarian. Currently, this is the liaison for the College of Business.
- ASHLEY: Before we talk about the methodology in which we approached this project, we want to emphasize that this was a learning process from start to finish. Honestly, we’re still learning. This is a messy process, but one that needed to take place regardless of the uncertain budget climate we encountered. At the time of recording this presentation, we have approximately fifty spreadsheets containing a wide array of information, statistics, and notes that we worked with on a weekly basis throughout this project during fiscal year 2020. Some of which will be featured and discussed during this presentation. Also, since we met on a bi-weekly basis to make major decisions regarding our collection, we were careful to take extremely detailed notes of each meeting so we could have comprehensive records for our Dean and all library personnel to reference as needed. Over time, we learned which data points were vital to our process and which ones were simply informative, and we now have a set of spreadsheets that we will utilize on a quarterly and annual basis to evaluate resources and track renewals moving forward. The rest will be retained as a historical account of the committee’s decision making process which can serve as reference if we are ever asked about re-subscribing to a cancelled resource. All of this is to say don’t get bogged down in the messy parts. It can be quite easy to do with the overwhelming amount of information you may deal with at one time. The best advice we can offer is stay as organized as possible, take copious notes, and focus on one area of the collection at a time.
- ASHLEY: This project naturally divided itself into two phases. The first phase consisted of evaluating and reducing our collections, and we kicked this process off by first focusing on non-database subscriptions--serials (both print and electronic), print standing orders, and microfilm--to identify any overlapping, outdated, or unused materials. We started with print serials based on previous conversations between Technical Services and Resource Sharing regarding their low usage. Coupled with initial overviews of the titles and costs listed on the serials invoices, we felt that we could come up with a significant amount of savings by reducing this part of our collection. As a committee, we decided to cancel remaining microfilm subscriptions. At the time, we only had three microfilm subscriptions for newspapers, and we retained electronic and/or print subscriptions to these resources.
- ANGELA: Ashley and Angela divided all titles by subject area and found titles that did not fall under specific academic disciplines. These were previously considered library-assigned subscriptions. Examples include Entertainment Weekly, Popular Mechanics, and Sports Illustrated. Considerations included usage data from stacks and cost per use of both electronic and print from the three previous fiscal years We notated any journals that could be shifted from print to electronic.
- ASHLEY: In addition to evaluating individual serial subscriptions, we also evaluated usage statistics of serials within journal packages to determine if the cost of the package outweighed the cost of the individual titles being used. This is a screenshot from a counter report from fiscal year 2019 of E-Duke Journals Scholarly Collection that has been filtered to only show journals with usage of greater than 5. This left us with seven titles to evaluate. The total cost of this journal package for our institution was $5,086.00, and the total cost of the titles with usage more than five times during the year was $3,079.00. The committee voted in favor of cancelling the E-Duke Journal Package due to low usage and individually subscribing to six out of the seven titles listed in the example. The final cost difference between the package and the individual subscriptions was $2,472. We followed this process with each of our journal packages and found that sometimes only a few titles were actually being used. However, sometimes the cost of the individual titles being used in the subscription totaled more than the journal package itself.
- ASHLEY: For example, when the committee evaluated the title list and statistics of the previous two fiscal years for IOP Science Extra, we found that only 16 titles recorded usage of more than 5 in at least one of the years. After obtaining a quote for an individual subscription to each of these titles, the total cost to subscribe to only the journals being used with some consistency by our patrons totaled $50,084.00. The quoted subscription amount for IOP Science Extra for FY 2020 was $17,055.15. This meant we would have a deficit of $33,028.85. In this case, the cost of the entire journal package far outweighed the cost of the individual titles being used by our patrons. Based on this data, the committee voted to retain this journal package for the time being.
- ANGELA: As a committee, we requested input and feedback from subject area liaisons We shifted print plus electronic to electronic only. We cancelled print subscriptions to popular magazines, some newspapers, and some journal subscriptions. A good example is our Nursing and Education print titles. These popular graduate programs are almost exclusively online. The liaisons, as well as the committee, felt that print journals were of little to no use for patrons who would not be coming to our physical library. Although we offer document delivery scanning services for items from our print collection, we found that this service was not particularly popular. Cancelling or converting those titles gave us an opportunity to reduce costs and expand access.
- ANGELA: We continued with print standing orders. Again, we requested input and feedback from subject area liaisons. We analyzed cost and relevance to degree programs and courses being taught by faculty. Standing orders included legacy titles such as presidential papers and colonial papers. The current subject specialist in the history department uses a different approach to teaching those courses. Obviously, departments evolve based on the faculty populus. Collection management requires attention to that detail. In addition, the music department had a number of expensive standing orders. Due to the large expense, the music liaison requested that we not fund these orders out of her allocation and continue to pay for them with the library-wide budget. The committee voted that we would not make allocation exceptions for any department in order to be fair to all.
- ANGELA: These are the circulation statistics for one of the music standing order titles. These statistics were retrieved from Voyager and Alma data. Anything that registers as “in house use” means that the item was browsed in the building but not actually checked out. Anything that registers as “not in house” refers to actual transactions that took place at Circulation. The circulation loans were extremely low. Due to these low statistics and the expense of the resources, the liaison agreed to cancel all of the titles.
- ANGELA: We determined if information could be retrieved via an electronic resource or subscription. The cost of remaining standing orders was absorbed into respective subject area book allocation budgets. For example, our special collections department was not previously responsible for any standing orders, but now the “Polk’s Carrollton City Directory,” a local history resource, will be paid for out of their budget allocation. Conversely, titles such as the “Library and Book Trade Almanac,” which was viewed as a professional development resource, do not easily lend themselves to a subject area book allocation. The library adjusted the book budget to include this title in future purchases from that line. Since liaisons knew they would have to cover the standing orders in their allocations, they were willing to review the lists and make cuts.
- ASHLEY: At this point, we had reached approximately $200,000 in cancellations. We then moved on to evaluating our database subscriptions. As a committee, we organized all renewals into quarters and analyzed CPU from the previous two fiscal years. We then made initial cuts based on what we considered very poor usage across all quarters. We then requested a ranking of departmental databases by subject area liaisons with input from faculty After gathering faculty and liaison feedback, the committee found disparity between usage statistics and what liaisons/faculty deemed as most important. For example, Philosophy is one of the smaller departments on our campus, so the committee anticipated usage of resources to be somewhat low before we analyzed the data. However, upon further examination the cost per use was considered extremely high by the committee and warranted a conversation with the faculty liaison. The committee met with the faculty liaison to go over all information and collected data. We anticipated that the liaison might be reluctant to agree to cuts; however, this was not the case after we presented all of the data.
- ASHLEY: Here is a screenshot from our Fiscal Year 2020 Database Renewal Stats by Quarter spreadsheet, and this example consists of the second quarter data. For this conversation, we looked at the data for Philosophy Collection which is the third line from the bottom. The cost per use for fiscal year 2019 as listed in column “E” was $3,840.00, and this equated to one use for the entire fiscal year. The first quarter data spreadsheet was too large to screenshot for a slideshow; however, the cost per use for Philosophy Documentation Center was $129.16 which equated to 24 uses over the entire year. Based on this data alone, it made sense to cancel both of these resources with their extremely low usage and high cost per use. However, the committee wanted to discuss this with the library liaison for that area to gain further insight.
- ASHLEY: After gathering feedback from the Philosophy faculty and library liaison, Philosophy Collection was ranked as a #1 resource and Philosophy Documentation Center was ranked as a #2 resource. The committee learned that the Philosophy library liaison and the faculty consider “Philosophy Collection” (formerly called “Philosopher’s Index”) to be the “gold standard” for the field. However, based on the usage data in the previous slide, we were able to show the liaison that this may not be the case for our campus populus since there were other Philosophy resources that had much better usage statistics while the top two resources received very little usage. As a committee and library, we had to wrestle with the idea that what “we” as experts on providing resources to these departments deemed as “valuable” may not be actually be perceived as such by our users. In the end, we only cancelled one of these resources, and the liaison felt as though they could have more informed conversations with their faculty as a result of this meeting. Based on what we learned from having conversations like this with our faculty in conjunction with the data we collected regarding usage and programming on campus, the Collection Management Committee gained a better understanding of how to rank resources by relevance to degree programs and courses being taught by faculty for future reductions and analysis.
- ANGELA: We now moved on to the remaining print serials. We obtained usage statistics for the two previous fiscal years from our stacks specialist. These statistics track usage for items used by our own patrons in the building and those used to send scans through our document delivery service for University of West Georgia faculty, staff, and students. Statistics from our stacks department showed that print serials had abysmal usage. The local and regional titles that we opted to retain included Georgia Trend, Atlanta Business Chronicle and the local Times-Georgian newspaper that our special collections librarian wanted to retain since we have a robust local and regional history collection. Other titles were retained for professional development purposes, such as Choice. We do have electronic access to this title, but some liaisons consult the print copy, as well.
- ANGELA: Since we will not be adding new issues to the serials area and will be weeding the existing collection, we will regain considerable physical space, as evidenced by this photo of our existing serials compact shelving area. Job duties of the serials associate were greatly reduced and the newly formed Outreach and Assessment department needed staff. The few remaining job duties were reallocated to other personnel. Choosing to cancel all print serials is a controversial decision at many libraries. We studied other examples in the University System and discussed this possibility repeatedly as a committee before we made our final decision. When we communicated this decision to the rest of our library, we were not met with resistance since the statistical data did not bear out continuation of the titles. After cancelling the remaining print serials, the library reached $365,253.65 in cancellations.
- ANGELA: Here are the total fiscal year 2020 cancellation amounts. This chart shows our original cancellation goal and the amounts saved through cuts to serials, standing orders, microfilm, and databases. The serials additions were the costs we accrued for converting print titles to electronic. We have made cancellations in fiscal year 2021 that will allow us to begin to meet the remaining $14,263.35 of our goal.
- ASHLEY: As we went through this first phase, we faced several different challenges. We are sharing only a few of those more difficult issues here. First, we hold a subscription to Web of Science bundled with Endnote. Web of Science provides access to multiple databases containing citation data for multiple academic disciplines, and Endnote is a management platform used to organize and house bibliographies and references for users when working on various writing and research projects. Upon evaluation, the committee found that the usage statistics were low and the cost per use was considerably high. However, due to the type of resource, we found it difficult to reach a decision before the renewal deadline. As a result, retained access for one additional year while we explore other options. Also, when evaluating our electronic archive subscriptions, we were faced with having to decide whether or not to lose access to information we’ve already purchased. Without an electronic resources librarian to help navigate the process, we weren’t sure if we were permitted to retain the information on our servers or how to move the data if we were allowed to do so. Another thing the committee had to remain cognizant of was ensuring that we retained adequate resources associated with diverse and under-represented groups.
- ASHLEY: In February of 2020, the Dean shared three potential budget scenarios for our library going into FY 2021 and asked the committee to come up with detailed plans of what would need to be cancelled to meet the goal of each scenario. For the first scenario, the library would not have our forward funding amount of $150,000 returned to our budget at the end of the fiscal year. Forward funding can be thought of like paying for or planning for an expense in advance. At the beginning of each fiscal year, we move money into a separate account with the president’s office, and at the end of the year, that money is returned to us to pay for specific database subscriptions for the next fiscal year. However, in times of budget uncertainty, the President’s office can utilize those funds to cover what’s considered more pressing matters. Given the budget climate at the time, we were unsure if those funds would be returned to the library budget. Also, since the budget at the state level was rather fluid at the time, we had to prepare for the real possibility that we would not receive end-of-year funds to cover the cost of most of our database renewals. After being handed these budget scenarios, the committee was mentally and emotionally in shock. This new information meant that we as a committee were potentially facing down some extremely difficult decisions that could have a severe impact for our students and faculty. For the first option, we could rely on the ranking of resources we were working on at the time. However, the other two amounts were so significant that we had to reverse our process and way of thinking up to this point. Instead of focusing on what we could cancel first, we created a list of resources we could not survive without and their respective costs. This included resources needed for accreditation and resources that covered a wide range of disciplines such as JSTOR. Fortunately, none of these budget scenarios came to pass for FY 2021. The forward funding was returned to our budget, and we received end-of-year funds. However, we are now better prepared for any budget scenario the University of West Georgia or the University System of Georgia may ask us to work within in the future.
- ANGELA: We created a rubric to inform decisions about cancellations. Our criteria developed over time, as we moved through the process. Of course, decisions do not always adhere to a strict rubric. Many factors come into play. These are some examples. We consider whether or not the resource is full text. Is there a Galileo equivalent available? Is there a similar, lower cost full text product available? Is the CPU $15 or less NOTE: This is our typical maximum cost for an interlibrary loan article. We intend to re-evaluate this metric going forward since we may need to lower this benchmark. Typically, we are able to acquire articles for little to no cost. Example A: Since the title is required for accreditation, the title must be retained. Example B: There are no Galileo or lower cost alternatives, and the CPU is over our benchmark, but this title is also required for accreditation. Thus, the title is ranked with a one on a 1 to five scale. Since the titles are required for accreditation, we did not request a ranking from the liaison librarian. Example C: Title is full text, which is preferable to a citation only database. Since there is both a GALILEO and a similar low cost product available, and the liaison librarian ranked the resource as a three, we ranked the title as a four. As for archive collections, we have made no definitive decisions and are weighing ongoing hosting fees against usage and the initial outlay. At this point, we found it helpful to draft language to use when we were communicating with our users about cancellations to avoid confusion and provide a unified message.
- ANGELA: As we are entering fiscal year 2021, this spreadsheet shows actual examples of our database rankings. This is the final product after the rubric has been applied. We have the option of filtering by start month and ranking to determine which resources may need to be considered for future cancellation.
- ASHLEY: For the time being, we’re limiting new acquisitions--to include books and serials--to electronic format as much as possible. This is due to both the new learning environments Covid-19 has created for college campuses and the popularity of online degree programs at the University of West Georgia. ANGELA: Physical space gained will allow us to expand our student seating after we weed our print serials collection. Seating is inadequate in our library, and we have few areas where we can gain space. ASHLEY: As a result of this project, our library now has a more defined process for evaluating our collection and adding potential resources to our collection in the future. ANGELA: Although this was a long and labor intensive process, involving many conversations, numerous spreadsheets, and a variety of meetings, it was both necessary and gratifying. Since our library had not engaged in this sort of systematic evaluation of the collection in the past, this was not an easy undertaking, and many decisions were quite difficult. We hope the information we have provided will help other libraries who are facing similar cuts and collection review projects.
- ASHLEY: Due to the pandemic and our temporary shift in priorities, we were unable to complete our charges for fiscal year 2020. However, the Collection Management Committee has already begun working on completing these goals and beyond for fiscal year 2021. First, we plan on reaching our initial reduction goal over the next few months by re-evaluating all of our resources using updated FY 2020 usage data. ANGELA: We will continue to work on a solution to our archive collections. The initial costs for these collections can be quite steep. Yearly hosting fees run the gamut from very low to quite expensive. As we said before, currently, we do not have an electronic resources librarian to explore how we may be able to retain our data and create a hosting platform and are unsure if our campus ITS will be able to assist with this. ASHLEY: Although we created a working rubric during this project, we plan to re-evaluate the metrics we chose to use and explore other potential considerations. In addition, we are working on drafting a separate rubric for evaluating electronic archive subscriptions.
- ANGELA: If anyone has any questions, feel free to email either of us. We would welcome the opportunity to hear about your own collection management projects. Thank you so much for your time.