Funding for the Future : Binghamton University’s Collections Resource Allocation Process Ed Shephard , [email_address] Elizabeth Brown , [email_address] Erin Rushton , [email_address] June 14, 2007 - 3 p.m.

Purpose Identify and develop common goals for collection resource development Develop budgetary methods to reach those goals Create an open and evolving dialogue on campus among library, faculty and administrators

Identify and develop common goals for collection resource development

Develop budgetary methods to reach those goals

Create an open and evolving dialogue on campus among library, faculty and administrators

Project Background Fall 2005 – Collections Department Retreat GOALS/PRINCIPLES/PHILOSOPHY OF THE RESOURCE ALLOCATION PROCESS March 2006 – Symposium FUNDING OUR DIGITAL FUTURE: BUDGETING FOR LIBRARIES & SCHOLARLY COMMUNICATION September 2006 – Consultation LYNN COPELAND, DEAN OF LIBRARIES, SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY

Fall 2005 – Collections Department Retreat

GOALS/PRINCIPLES/PHILOSOPHY OF THE RESOURCE ALLOCATION PROCESS

March 2006 – Symposium

FUNDING OUR DIGITAL FUTURE: BUDGETING FOR LIBRARIES & SCHOLARLY COMMUNICATION

September 2006 – Consultation

LYNN COPELAND, DEAN OF LIBRARIES, SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY

Consultation Outcomes Finalize charge Agreed goals: Collection development staff, Library Administration, Faculty Senate Library Committee Plan/timetable Communication plan Timeline Resource allocation report plan Begin discussion of options/issues

Finalize charge

Agreed goals: Collection development staff, Library Administration, Faculty Senate Library Committee

Plan/timetable

Communication plan

Timeline

Resource allocation report plan

Begin discussion of options/issues

Project Timeline Oct 1: Final charge, committee appointment [data gathering] Nov 1: Committee familiarized with issues [data gathering] Nov 21: General agreement on approach [data gathering] Dec 15: First outcomes for committee review Feb 15: Draft report Mar 15: Consultation complete April 1: Final Report

Oct 1: Final charge, committee appointment

[data gathering]

Nov 1: Committee familiarized with issues

[data gathering]

Nov 21: General agreement on approach

[data gathering]

Dec 15: First outcomes for committee review

Feb 15: Draft report

Mar 15: Consultation complete

April 1: Final Report

Charge Review alternative methods of assessing the Libraries’ subject collection allocations budget and recommend a preferred method. Identify a collections allocation budget process that assesses the current funding structure and recommends appropriate changes addresses anomalies and inequities without reducing current support levels ensures support for new research and teaching interests recommends base budget funding for newly created schools or departments provides the flexibility to respond to changing opportunities and needs includes alternative methods for provision of resources not in the Libraries' collections includes a procedure for ongoing review of the allocations. Consult widely with the BU community.

Review alternative methods of assessing the Libraries’ subject collection allocations budget and recommend a preferred method.

Identify a collections allocation budget process that

assesses the current funding structure and recommends appropriate changes

addresses anomalies and inequities without reducing current support levels

ensures support for new research and teaching interests

recommends base budget funding for newly created schools or departments

provides the flexibility to respond to changing opportunities and needs

includes alternative methods for provision of resources not in the Libraries' collections

includes a procedure for ongoing review of the allocations.

Consult widely with the BU community.

Committee Membership Faculty Senate Library Committee Peter Gerhardstein, Chair (Psychology) Carrol Coates (Romance Languages) Gerald Kadish (History) Jennifer Gordon (Education) Michael Lewis (Computer Science) Corinne Bertram (Human Development) Sarah Maximiek (Libraries) Library Ed Shephard, Chair Kate Bouman Beth Brown Erin Rushton Randall Miles

Methodology Review Most collection studies were dated and focused on a formula models An allocation method that allowed for consideration of subjective criteria The methodology used by the Simon Fraser University Library (SFUL) in its 2000 Collection Allocation Review and 5-Year Update was chosen for its blend of measurable criteria subjective evaluation and analysis

Most collection studies were dated and focused on a formula models

An allocation method that allowed for consideration of subjective criteria

The methodology used by the Simon Fraser University Library (SFUL) in its 2000 Collection Allocation Review and 5-Year Update was chosen for its

blend of measurable criteria

subjective evaluation and analysis

Our Methodology Adopted the SFUL model Identify measurement factors Rank measurement factors Count number of outliers in rankings BU modifications Identified additional measurement factors Recommendations for underfunded outliers Create subgroups of factors for analysis Prioritize for future funding opportunities

Adopted the SFUL model

Identify measurement factors

Rank measurement factors

Count number of outliers in rankings

BU modifications

Identified additional measurement factors

Recommendations for underfunded outliers

Create subgroups of factors for analysis

Prioritize for future funding opportunities

Process – SFUL Factors Student, Graduate and Faculty FTE Collection size measures Total dollar allocation Number of Serials subscriptions Serials Units Acquired Ratio of collection increase to faculty, graduate and undergraduate increase Ratio of collection factors to faculty, graduate and undergraduate FTE's

Student, Graduate and Faculty FTE

Collection size measures

Total dollar allocation

Number of Serials subscriptions

Serials Units Acquired

Ratio of collection increase to faculty, graduate and undergraduate increase

Ratio of collection factors to faculty, graduate and undergraduate FTE's

Process – BU Factors Monographic units acquired Interlibrary loan requests by department and by user status Non-departmentally based serials (e.g. ScienceDirect, Open Access, aggregator titles) Consumer Price Index (CPI) of serials

Monographic units acquired

Interlibrary loan requests by department and by user status

Non-departmentally based serials (e.g. ScienceDirect, Open Access, aggregator titles)

Consumer Price Index (CPI) of serials

Process – Data Collection Library budget documents Library management system (ALEPH) Binghamton University Office of Institutional Research (OIR) website Library inter-library loan system (ILLIAD) Serials Solutions Otto Harrassowitz subscription agency

Library budget documents

Library management system (ALEPH)

Binghamton University Office of Institutional Research (OIR) website

Library inter-library loan system (ILLIAD)

Serials Solutions

Otto Harrassowitz subscription agency

Process – Challenges/Factors Collection usage data Attributing e-journals to departments Transfer of Serial funds from Serials to Electronic Access Budgets e.g. ScienceDirect Embargoed journal titles - Aggregators Industrywide Average Serial Prices

Collection usage data

Attributing e-journals to departments

Transfer of Serial funds from Serials to Electronic Access Budgets e.g. ScienceDirect

Embargoed journal titles - Aggregators

Industrywide Average Serial Prices

Process – Challenges/Programs New Departments Interdisciplinary Programs

New Departments

Interdisciplinary Programs

Analysis of Factors – Historical 2001/02-2005/06 vs. 2003/04-2005/06 Total Expenditure Increase/Faculty FTE Increase Total Expenditure Increase/Grad FTE Increase Total Expenditure Increase/Undergrad Degrees Granted Increase Average Serial Price Increase (Binghamton) # Faculty ILL Requests Increase/Faculty FTE Increase # Grad ILL Requests Increase/Grad FTE Increase

2001/02-2005/06 vs. 2003/04-2005/06

Total Expenditure Increase/Faculty FTE Increase

Total Expenditure Increase/Grad FTE Increase

Total Expenditure Increase/Undergrad Degrees Granted Increase

Average Serial Price Increase (Binghamton)

# Faculty ILL Requests Increase/Faculty FTE Increase

# Grad ILL Requests Increase/Grad FTE Increase

Analysis of Factors - Current 2005/2006 Total Expenditure/Faculty FTE (Normalized) Total Expenditure/Grad FTE (Normalized) Total Expenditure/Undergrad Degrees Granted (Normalized) # Serials Acquired/Faculty FTE # Serials Acquired/Grad FTE # Serials Acquired/Undergrad Degrees Granted # Faculty ILL Requests /Faculty FTE # Grad ILL Requests /Grad FTE # Units Acquired/Faculty FTE # Units Acquired/Grad FTE # Units Acquired/Undergrad Degrees Granted Average Serial Price (Binghamton)/Average Serial Price (Industry Wide)

2005/2006

Total Expenditure/Faculty FTE (Normalized)

Total Expenditure/Grad FTE (Normalized)

Total Expenditure/Undergrad Degrees Granted (Normalized)

# Serials Acquired/Faculty FTE

# Serials Acquired/Grad FTE

# Serials Acquired/Undergrad Degrees Granted

# Faculty ILL Requests /Faculty FTE

# Grad ILL Requests /Grad FTE

# Units Acquired/Faculty FTE

# Units Acquired/Grad FTE

# Units Acquired/Undergrad Degrees Granted

Average Serial Price (Binghamton)/Average Serial Price (Industry Wide)

Factor Analysis – Normalization 1. Calculating the average “Total Expenditure” (for Monographs and Serials separately) and setting this to baseline 1.0. 2. Calculating the index of each departmental “Total Expenditure” (for Monographs and Serials separately) in relation to baseline 1.0. 3. Dividing each departmental “Total Expenditure” (for Monographs and Serials separately) by the departmental index to create a ‘normalized’ “Total Expenditure”. 4. Summing and ranking the ‘normalized’ Monograph and Serial “Total Expenditure

1. Calculating the average “Total Expenditure” (for Monographs and Serials separately) and setting this to baseline 1.0.

2. Calculating the index of each departmental “Total Expenditure” (for Monographs and Serials separately) in relation to baseline 1.0.

3. Dividing each departmental “Total Expenditure” (for Monographs and Serials separately) by the departmental index to create a ‘normalized’ “Total Expenditure”.

4. Summing and ranking the ‘normalized’ Monograph and Serial “Total Expenditure

Analysis of Factor Outliers Review of bottom quartile for factors. Total Number of “Underfunded” Ranking Outliers Subgroups of Total Outlier Factors Faculty Grouping Graduate Grouping Undergraduate Grouping Total Expenditure Grouping ILL Grouping Serials Grouping

Review of bottom quartile for factors.

Total Number of “Underfunded” Ranking Outliers

Subgroups of Total Outlier Factors

Faculty Grouping

Graduate Grouping

Undergraduate Grouping

Total Expenditure Grouping

ILL Grouping

Serials Grouping

Observations – Factor Analysis Faculty, graduate, undergraduate program growth Non-traditional and unmet library needs Growth of interdisciplinary programs Open access and new publishing models Degree of collections overlap within subdisciplines Foreign language needs Size of department and faculty needs

Faculty, graduate, undergraduate program growth

Non-traditional and unmet library needs

Growth of interdisciplinary programs

Open access and new publishing models

Degree of collections overlap within subdisciplines

Foreign language needs

Size of department and faculty needs

Recommendations from Charge Review alternative methods of assessing the subject allocations of the Library's collection budget and recommend a preferred method Employed modified SFUL outlier analysis model Investigate methods of obtaining usage information on serials and electronic resources at the level of departmental affiliation as soon as possible

Review alternative methods of assessing the subject allocations of the Library's collection budget and recommend a preferred method

Employed modified SFUL outlier analysis model

Investigate methods of obtaining usage information on serials and electronic resources at the level of departmental affiliation as soon as possible

Recommendations from Charge Identify a process for allocating the collection budget that: assesses the current funding structure and recommends appropriate changes Maintain current funding structure Match the evolution of the University as it moves towards a more inter-disciplinary organizational model of curriculum and research addresses anomalies and inequities without jeopardizing necessary support levels Any new funds should be used to augment department allocations that lie in bottom quartile No existing levels of budgetary support should be lowered

Identify a process for allocating the collection budget that:

assesses the current funding structure and recommends appropriate changes

Maintain current funding structure

Match the evolution of the University as it moves towards a more inter-disciplinary organizational model of curriculum and research

addresses anomalies and inequities without jeopardizing necessary support levels

Any new funds should be used to augment department allocations that lie in bottom quartile

No existing levels of budgetary support should be lowered

Recommendations from Charge provides a means for ensuring support for new research and teaching interests, with particular attention to interdisciplinary activities As new research and curricular programs form on campus, work with faculty to assess the need for separate funding lines, either temporary or permanent, that are not met by the existing budget structure includes recommendations for ensuring that additional base budget funding will be allocated to the Libraries for all newly created schools or departments within the University Additions to the Libraries’ budget should accompany the proposed establishment of all new schools, departments and degree-granting programs The level of support should be determined by academic faculty and the Libraries working in consultation

provides a means for ensuring support for new research and teaching interests, with particular attention to interdisciplinary activities

As new research and curricular programs form on campus, work with faculty to assess the need for separate funding lines, either temporary or permanent, that are not met by the existing budget structure

includes recommendations for ensuring that additional base budget funding will be allocated to the Libraries for all newly created schools or departments within the University

Additions to the Libraries’ budget should accompany the proposed establishment of all new schools, departments and degree-granting programs

The level of support should be determined by academic faculty and the Libraries working in consultation

Recommendations from Charge provides the flexibility to allow the Libraries to respond to changing opportunities and needs as they arise Establish budget mechanisms that will provide funding sources for extraordinary and unanticipated needs includes alternative methods for provision of important resources which do not form part of the Libraries' collection (e.g., university IT infrastructure, open access, consortia, government supported resources) Establish a task force of library and academic faculty to inventory and evaluate the information resources provided on campus outside the Libraries

provides the flexibility to allow the Libraries to respond to changing opportunities and needs as they arise

Establish budget mechanisms that will provide funding sources for extraordinary and unanticipated needs

includes alternative methods for provision of important resources which do not form part of the Libraries' collection (e.g., university IT infrastructure, open access, consortia, government supported resources)

Establish a task force of library and academic faculty to inventory and evaluate the information resources provided on campus outside the Libraries

Recommendations from Charge includes a procedure for ongoing review of the allocations Review collection budget allocation in five years Establish an ongoing method and process for budget allocation review

includes a procedure for ongoing review of the allocations

Review collection budget allocation in five years

Establish an ongoing method and process for budget allocation review

Recommendations from Charge Consult widely with the BU community The committee included the representatives of the University faculty to the Library via inclusion of the entire Faculty Senate Library Committee as members After acceptance of final report consider additional steps for dissemination to campus community

Consult widely with the BU community

The committee included the representatives of the University faculty to the Library via inclusion of the entire Faculty Senate Library Committee as members

After acceptance of final report consider additional steps for dissemination to campus community

Acknowledgements John M. Meador, Jr., Director of Libraries, Binghamton University BU Collections Staff BU Faculty Senate Library Committee Lynn Copeland, Dean of Libraries, Simon Fraser University http://www.slideshare.net/ebrown/sunyla2007-6-11-07/

John M. Meador, Jr., Director of Libraries, Binghamton University

BU Collections Staff

BU Faculty Senate Library Committee

Lynn Copeland, Dean of Libraries, Simon Fraser University

http://www.slideshare.net/ebrown/sunyla2007-6-11-07/