0

COLLECTION ANALYSIS PROJECT

FINAL REPORT

August 2011

CAP Study Team

Maureen James, chair Jill Jascha

Carol Macheak Shawn Manis Donna Rose

Micah Sukany

Ottenheimer Library University of Arkansas at Little Rock

Little Rock, Arkansas

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. Dean’s Preface ............................................................................................. p. 3

II. Acknowledgements ..................................................................................... p. 4

III. Introduction .................................................................................................. p. 5

IV. Overview ....................................................................................................... p. 7

V. Summary of Work Group Activities

a. Collection Management Organization and Staffing ........................... p. 10

b. Materials Budget and Allocation ......................................................... p. 11

VI. Recommendations

a. Common Work Group Recommendations.......................................... p. 12

b. Work Group on Collection Management Organization and Staffing . p. 13

c. Work Group on Materials Budget and Allocation .............................. p. 15

VII. Implementation Strategy ........................................................................... p. 16

VIII. Appendices

a. Appendix I: Report of the Work Group on Collection Management

Organization and Staffing (CMOS)

i. Introduction ......................................................................... CMOS p. 2

ii. Organizational Structure and Staffing ............................... CMOS p. 3

iii. Selection Process for Library Resources ......................... CMOS p. 6

iv. Program Reviews, Gifts, and Weeding ............................ CMOS p. 18

v. Recommendations ............................................................ CMOS p. 20

b. Appendix II Report of the Work Group on Materials Budget and Allocation

(MBA)

i. Introduction ............................................................................ MBA p. 2

ii. Overview ................................................................................. MBA p. 3

iii. Materials Budget Allocation .................................................. MBA p. 5

iv. Methods and Tools for Gathering Collection Statistics ...... MBA p. 8

v. Recommendations ............................................................... MBA p. 10

c. Appendix III Collection Analysis Project Interim Report

i. Overview ...........................................................................INTERIM p. 2

ii. Introduction .....................................................................INTERIM p. 3

iii. Historical Development ...................................................INTERIM p. 6

iv. Environmental Analysis................................................. INTERIM p. 14

v. Summary ....................................................................... INTERIM p. 23

DEAN’S PREFACE

The Collection Analysis Project (CAP) was conducted in response to one of the major

recommendations of the Ottenheimer Library Strategic Plan 2006-2009, which was to ―support

faculty and students in their teaching, learning and research by evaluating the relevance of our

current collections and increasing access to information resources and services.‖ CAP was

seen by the Strategic Planning Steering Committee and by me as a crucial first step in

promoting the necessary changes to bring collection development and management at the

Library in conformity with accepted best practices and thereby make it more responsive to the

priorities and needs of the University of Arkansas at Little Rock (UALR). I accept the eight

recommendations outlined in this report. They address the major needs for changes in internal

processes and provide the framework for implementation.

In order to ensure that the implementation, review and evaluation of the recommendations are

carried out, I will appoint a CAP Implementation Committee and charge it with conducting an

initial progress review in July 2012. I will ask the Implementation Committee to remain

continuously in session throughout the implementation period. Of course, if needed, I will be

available to assist the Committee in its work.

I wish to thank the CAP Study Team and Work Groups for their work in producing an important

guide for reorientation and revitalization of the collection development and management

program at UALR. My thanks go to Maureen James, who chaired CAP, and to Carol Macheak,

Jill Jascha and Linda Wen, who chaired the Work Groups that produced the reports on which

this Final Report is based. My special thanks go to Julia Blixrud, Assistant Executive Director,

Scholarly Communication at the Association of Research Libraries (ARL), without whose

leadership CAP would not have been possible.

September 2011

WORK GROUP MEMBERS

Work Group on Collection Management, Organization and Staffing

Carol Macheak, Chair

Donna Rose

John Siegel

John Warwick

Work Group on Materials Budget and Allocation

Jill Jascha, Co-chair

Linda Wen, Co-chair

Deb Allison

Suzanne Martin

Micah Sukany

INTRODUCTION

This report of the Ottenheimer Library‘s Collection Analysis Project (CAP) Study Team

concludes an extensive 16-month study of the Library‘s collection management program,

staffing and budget allocation practices. The report makes key recommendations the Team

believes will help the Library fulfill its mission to the University.

In 2006 the Ottenheimer Library initiated a series of strategic planning activities. A primary

planning objective for collections was to identify a model to assess the existing collection

management program. With the Library Dean‘s guidance, the Strategic Planning Collections

Task Force, one of three task forces appointed by the Dean, identified CAP as a potential

assessment tool. It was designed as an assisted self-study process by which library staff review

and analyze a library‘s collection functions.

Following a CAP presentation by Association of Research Libraries (ARL) facilitator Julia Blixrud

in March 2010, the Library chose to participate in the Project. The formal launch of CAP began

with the Dean‘s charge to the 2010 Strategic Planning Collections Task Force and the Task

Force‘s formation of two teams: Historical Development and Environmental Analysis.

The Historical Development Team reviewed events and developments that have shaped the

Library since its founding in 1927. The Environmental Analysis Team examined the effects of

three internal and external pressures on the Library: the economy, the development of scholarly

content in digital formats and the development of university programs. The environmental

analysis focused on the period from 2004 to 2010, a time frame representing a major shift in the

information landscape and radical changes in the economy.

In August 2010, the Dean appointed a CAP Study Team composed of several members from

the 2010 Strategic Planning Collections Task Force. The Task Force and Study Team

completed the first phase of CAP with an Interim Report based on their findings. The Report

identified two areas of collection management for further study: materials budget allocation and

collection management organization and staffing. The Dean appointed two Work Groups to

study these areas and to make recommendations for change.

The two Work Groups (Materials Budget Allocation and Collection Management Organization

and Staffing) and the Study Team began work in mid-November of 2010. They developed a

brief questionnaire to send to libraries at eight institutions with a Carnegie classification of

Doctoral/Research Universities (DRU) or higher and four Arkansas libraries. The questions

focused on the institutional practices regarding budget allocation, collection management

organization and staffing. Both Work Groups produced final reports and submitted them to the

CAP Study Team.

From June to July 2011, the Study Team in conjunction with the ARL facilitator reviewed,

synthesized and adapted the Work Groups‘ Reports to write this Final Report. The first section

of the Report is an overview, including a brief summary of the historical and environmental

analyses extracted from the Interim Report (Appendix III). The second section summarizes the

activities of the Work Groups, synthesizes their recommendations and recommends an

implementation strategy.

The Study Team has submitted eight recommendations, some of which can be implemented

immediately; others will need to be phased in over the next two to three years. Implementation

of these recommendations will enable the Ottenheimer Library‘s collection management

program to enrich and support the University‘s research and teaching mission at a time of rapid

changes in scholarly communication and technology.

As acknowledged in the Interim Report, the Study Team discovered that the Task Forces and

Work Groups faced significant challenges in collecting accurate statistical data on library

processes and activities. The Team believes this problem deserves urgent attention and has

ranked it as a first priority recommendation.

The Study Team and the Acquisitions and Collection Development staff eagerly anticipated the

August 1, 2011, arrival of the new Director for Technical Services and Technology whose

participation in the implementation of the Study Team‘s recommendations will be essential.

Many individuals helped in completing this report and the Study Team is indebted to them. The

Task Force and Work Group members worked long and hard to collect data, analyze findings

and write their respective reports. Julia Blixrud, the ARL consultant, proved to be a patient and

skillful facilitator. Her guidance was invaluable in keeping the study team on task and in bringing

the Project to successful completion.

OVERVIEW

This section of the Final Report summarizes the findings of the Historical Development and

Environmental Analysis Task Forces. The key points are taken from the complete Interim

Report, which can be found in its entirety in Appendix III.

HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT

THE UNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS AT LITTLE ROCK

The University of Arkansas at Little Rock (UALR) was founded in 1927 as Little Rock Junior

College (LRJC)] under the supervision of the city Board of Education. In 1957, LRJC became

the private Little Rock University (LRU) and began offering four-year degrees. Little Rock

University merged with the University of Arkansas System in 1969 to create the University of

Arkansas at Little Rock. After a sustained period of growth in graduate programs from the 1970s

to the 1990s, UALR gained the distinction of a Doctoral/Research University classification from

the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. Today, UALR fully embraces the

multiple purposes of a vibrant metropolitan university where there is room for graduate and

undergraduate education, outreach and public services and research.

OTTENHEIMER LIBRARY BUDGET Historically, the Library‘s share of the university budget has remained consistent at 2.5 percent.

During the 1980s and 1990s a series of budget cuts followed by restoration of funds affected the

Library‘s budget. For the last five fiscal years the Library‘s materials budget has escaped

problematic budget cuts. The establishment and expansion of distance education classes have

had a significant and continuing impact on the Library‘s collection budgets. They increased the

need for electronic resources and provided the dollars to pay for them. In fiscal year (FY)

2008/2009, the Dean of Extended Programs permanently transferred $180,000 to the Library‘s

budget to continue electronic subscriptions and made provision for annual inflationary

increases.

COLLECTION GROWTH

In April 1976, the Library‘s collection included 175,000 volumes and 282,511 microfilm rolls and

microfiche sheets. Maps, audiocassettes, filmstrips and other media made up the rest of the

collection. As of June 2010, the collection contained over 512,000 book and periodical

volumes, 150 electronic databases, 19,000 electronic books and over 30,000 electronic

journals. These new electronic formats permit the Library to provide off-campus access to

remote databases, collections and electronic resources through the Innovative Interfaces

automated library system and through the Library‘s website http://ualr.edu/library. The

traditional formats of maps, microforms, audio, film and video persist and account for an

additional 250,000 volumes.

COLLECTION EMPHASES

Collection emphases have developed based on the existence of long-standing programs in

areas such as teacher education, social work, American and English literature and other liberal

arts disciplines. Because the collections reflect the Library‘s mission to support the teaching,

learning and research needs of the University, new areas of emphasis are developing

particularly in the sciences, health sciences and engineering. The Library‘s current practice is to

acquire current publications in electronic format whenever possible.

MATERIAL SELECTION METHODS

Individual members of the teaching faculty have always been involved in book selection. They

continue to be engaged in the process, although their participation may vary from discipline to

discipline. The current liaison program with faculty liaisons in each teaching department

provides a greater opportunity for faculty to participate in materials selection and to explore

other options for the selection of library materials.

COLLECTION ASSESSMENTS

Internal and external assessments of the Library‘s collections occur throughout the year.

Campus and departmental accreditation visits require library faculty and staff to prepare reports

that describe and evaluate the Library‘s holdings and expenditures for materials. In 2008, the

Library conducted LibQUAL+®, an Association of Research Libraries (ARL) web-based survey

that assesses user satisfaction with library services and collections.

ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS

ECONOMY Although Arkansas experienced a 2.4 percent budget deficit in 2009, it was one of only four

states without severe budget loss as a result of its balanced budget amendment. Arkansas

currently is expected to be spared a budget shortfall in FY 2011.

The uncertain national economic recovery, which could result in future reductions in state tax

collections, may adversely affect the funding of the University and, therefore, of the Library.

SCHOLARLY CONTENT IN DIGITAL FORMAT

Recent technology trends present formidable challenges for the Library. The shift from print to

digital publishing and the rapid proliferation of information have affected the way users discover

and access information. While smaller society and governmental publishers continue to produce

some print materials, larger commercial publishers predominantly produce electronic

information. Library users increasingly prefer digital formats.

Libraries face a growing demand to deliver services, content and media to mobile and personal

devices. This demand is expected to grow. As e-book readers and other portable devices

increase in popularity, the Library will have to select materials based not only on content, but

also on the ease of use on various platforms.

UNIVERSITY PROGRAMS The focus of the Library‘s current collection is the support of coursework and research for

faculty and students in the University‘s academic programs. Major influences shaping the

Library‘s collections in the last five years have been the expansion of graduate programs and

the development of distance education classes.

COOPERATIVE PROGRAMS The Library participates in consortial arrangements at the local, state and national levels. These

arrangements allow the Library to purchase electronic resources at discount rates and expand

access to resources that the Library might not otherwise be able to afford.

SUMMARY OF WORK GROUP ACTIVITIES

This section describes the work of the Collection Management Organization and Staffing and

Materials Budget Allocation Work Groups in addressing two major concerns identified in the

Interim Report. Each group conducted a literature review, interviewed library faculty and staff,

analyzed current procedures and developed and administered a questionnaire. From these

activities, they developed several key recommendations.

COLLECTION MANAGEMENT, ORGANIZATION AND STAFFING

The charge of the Collection Management Organization and Staffing Work Group was to

examine the current organization and workflow of the Collection Management and Acquisitions

departments.

The Work Group found that:

Job descriptions for Acquisitions and Collection Development need revision because of

recent restructuring.

Workflows need to be streamlined to accommodate a larger percentage of materials

purchased in electronic format from multiple vendors.

The Collection Development Policy must be revised in order to establish guidelines for

approval plan profiles and the acquisition of electronic materials.

Library selectors need general guidelines for choosing materials in all formats.

Multiple approval plans result in redundant workflows and added expense.

Ongoing communication between Acquisitions, Collection Development and

Administrative Services on budget issues should be strengthened.

Statistics on collections and other library data are difficult to extract from current systems

without specialized training.

MATERIALS BUDGET ALLOCATION

The charge of the Materials Work Group was to review the Library‘s budget methods and

allocations, and investigate mechanisms for aggregating collection statistics and data.

The Work Group found that:

The historical method of budget allocation is appropriate because it is flexible, based on

easily understood priorities, and can be adjusted to changing program needs.

Statistics on collections and other library data are difficult to extract from automated

systems without specialized training.

An interface between Millennium (the Library‘s integrated library system) and SunGard

Banner (the University‘s administrative software system specifically developed for higher

education institutions) should be explored to resolve data extraction problems.

RECOMMENDATIONS

COMMON WORK GROUP RECOMMENDATIONS

Based on their findings and analyses, the Collection Management, Organization and Staffing

and Materials Budget Allocation work groups made eight recommendations. Two common

themes emerged and the Study Team recommends these be given the highest priority for

action. The recommendations include an investigation of methods for compiling and

standardizing collection statistics and other data and the establishment of mechanisms for

collaboration among library departments.

Review and revise current methods of gathering collection statistics and other data

related to library activity. Learn about and optimize the use of the statistics available

from automated systems and vendors. (The current methods of identifying and

compiling statistics for internal and external reports are time-consuming and

cumbersome; accurate data is difficult to find without training.)

Clarify Acquisitions and Collection Development roles and responsibilities. Expand

collaboration between library departments to establish goals and objectives and review

existing procedures. Review the budget planning process and fund allocation

procedures.

WORK GROUP ON COLLECTION MANAGEMENT, ORGANIZATION AND STAFFING

RECOMMENDATIONS

The Work Group made recommendations to streamline workflow processes and to enhance the

Library‘s ability to provide consistent access to the Library‘s electronic resources. The Group

also identified a need for broader involvement of the Library‘s subject selectors in selecting

materials and in liaison activity with the teaching faculty.

A major challenge of acquiring electronic resources is coordinating the process of selecting,

ordering, gathering statistics, evaluating use and providing access to the user. Existing

workflows for electronic resources are not well coordinated among library departments and

there are few written procedures and guidelines.

As expenditures for electronic resources increase, the Library allocates a diminishing portion of

its materials budget to monographs. From this limited portion, the Library acquires most of its

monographs from two vendors that supply automatic shipments of books and notification slips.

Parts of the current process are duplicative and inefficient. There are challenges with both

vendors: one provides poor customer service and the other uses a paper slips plan at a time

when the industry has embraced electronic slips. One vendor supplies approval books only

from university presses. These issues could be resolved by consolidating both plans and using

one vendor.

The Library‘s subject selectors play a greater role in material selection than at any other time in

the Library‘s history. Currently, there are few written guidelines for them. As their involvement

in the selection process deepens, they need more information to make better selection

decisions.

In its Interim Report, the Study Team identified patron-driven acquisition (PDA) as one of the

new alternatives to the just-in-case model of acquiring materials. PDA is a method of selection

in which patrons initiate the acquisition of new titles.

The following six recommendations are grouped by common themes from the Group‘s 12

recommendations which are on CMOS page 20 of the Collection Analysis Project Report of the

Work Group on Collection Management Organization and Staffing. See Appendix I.

Work Group Recommendation 1: Clarify Acquisitions and Collection Development roles and responsibilities, updating job descriptions. Who: Director of Technical Services and Technology and Technical Services department heads. Timetable: September 2011-October 2011 Cost: Staff time Work Group Recommendation 2: Streamline procedures for the selection, acquisition and maintenance of materials in all formats, paying special attention to electronic resources. Who: Director of Technical Services and Technology and Director of Public Services Timetable: September 2011-January 2012 Cost: Staff time

Work Group Recommendation 3: Evaluate approval plans and consolidate with one vendor. Who: Collection Development Librarian, Head of Reference, Head of Acquisitions, Director of Technical Services and Technology Timetable: September 2011-December 2011 Cost: Staff time Work Group Recommendation 4: Update collection development policy, create guidelines and provide information and training for subject selectors, establish a regular meeting schedule. Who: Collection Development Librarian and selectors Timetable: October 2011- April 2012 Cost: Staff time Work Group Recommendation 5: Inventory the Library‘s collections. Who: Director of Technical Services and Technology and Director of Public Services Timetable: January 2012-September 2013 Cost: Staff time Work Group Recommendation 6: Investigate patron-driven acquisitions. Who: Director of Technical Services and Technology and Director of Public Services Timetable: January 2012-July 2013 Cost: Staff time

WORK GROUP ON MATERIALS BUDGET AND ALLOCATION RECOMMENDATIONS

This Work Group investigated allocation methods used by peer libraries and the method currently used by the Library. The Library uses the historical or incremental method which bases fund allocations on the previous year‘s expenditures. The Work Group concluded that the historical method of materials budget allocation is flexible and easy to apply. It should, however, be reviewed and evaluated. New fund codes were developed in 2010 and these should also be reviewed and evaluated in comparison to the curriculum and university priorities. The group recommends closer scrutiny of the budget allocation process by a team of appropriate library personnel. Acknowledging the difficulty of data collection for this report, the Group also recommends that a group of library faculty and staff review and revise current methods of gathering collection statistics and other library data and identify training needs. The Work Group identified the need for more formal communication and consultation about the materials budget among library personnel including the Director for Administrative Services, the Head of Acquisitions and the Collection Development librarian. The Group recommends increased communication and consultation throughout the year and especially at critical junctures such as the beginning and end of the fiscal year to make the budget process transparent to all. Such cooperation is essential to identify and resolve problems concerning fund allocations, fund codes and the monitoring/tracking of expenditures and encumbrances. The monitoring and tracking of expenditures and encumbrances in the Millennium and Banner systems present a challenge. A possible solution would be to implement software that provides a direct interface between the two systems. Work Group Recommendation 1: Review and improve the current budget planning process and fund allocation procedures. Who: Director of Technical Services and Technology, Director of Administrative Services, Collection Development Librarian, Head of Acquisitions. Timetable: September 2011-June 2012 Cost: Staff time Work Group Recommendation 2: Learn about and optimize use of statistics available from automated systems and vendors. Who: Director of Technical Services and Technology and Technical Services and Information Technology faculty and staff. Timetable: January2011-June 2013 Cost: Staff time, training costs, purchase of a statistical reporting systems.

IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY

Based on the Work Group reports, the Study Team identified several recommendations whose

implementation will strengthen the Library‘s support of the teaching, research and learning

mission of the University. The Study Team recommends that the Dean appoint a committee to

oversee implementation of these recommendations and report regularly on progress and

challenges.

The Study Team assigned broad priorities to the recommendations and suggests that the first

priority recommendations deserve immediate attention.

FIRST PRIORITY RECOMMENDATIONS

1. Clarify Acquisitions and Collection Development roles and responsibilities and update job descriptions. (CMOS Recommendation 1)

2. Update collection development policy. (CMOS Recommendation 4)

3. Create guidelines and provide information and training for subject selectors, establishing

a regular meeting schedule. (CMOS Recommendation 4)

4. Streamline procedures for the selection, acquisition, and maintenance of materials in all formats. (CMOS Recommendation 2 and 3)

Evaluate approvals plan and consolidate with a single vendor.

Write a new approval plan profile based on collection development policy and university priorities.

Generate regular expenditure reports for Dean and selectors.

5. Learn about and optimize the use of statistics available from vendors. (MBA Recommendation 2)

6. Review the budget allocation planning process and fund allocation procedures. (MBA

Recommendation 1)

SECOND PRIORITY RECOMMENDATIONS

1. Inventory the Library‘s collections. (CMOS Recommendation 5)

2. Investigate patron-driven acquisitions. (CMOS Recommendation 6)

COLLECTION ANALYSIS PROJECT

REPORT OF THE WORK GROUP ON

COLLECTION MANAGEMENT

ORGANIZATION AND STAFFING

July 2011

Work Group Members:

Carol Macheak, Chair

Donna Rose

John Siegel

John Warrick

Ottenheimer Library

University of Arkansas at Little Rock

Little Rock, Arkansas

CMOS 1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. Introduction CMOS p. 2

a. Task Charges

b. Description of Methodology

II. Organizational Structure and Staffing CMOS p. 3

a. Background

b. Results of Questionnaire

c. Strengths and Weaknesses

III. Selection Process for Library Resources CMOS p. 6

a. Introduction

b. Approval Plans and Firm Orders

c. Electronic Resources

i. Electronic Books

ii. Electronic Journals

iii. Electronic Databases

d. Patron-Driven Acquisitions

e. Consortial Agreements

f. Strengths and Weaknesses

IV. Program Reviews, Gifts and Weeding CMOS p. 18

a. Program Reviews

b. Gifts

c. Weeding or Deselection

d. Assessment

e. Strengths and Weaknesses

V. Recommendations CMOS p. 20

VI. References CMOS p. 21

VII. Bibliography CMOS p. 23

VIII. Appendices CMOS p. 26

IX. List of Figures CMOS p. 55

CMOS 2

INTRODUCTION

The Collection Management, Organization and Staffing (CMOS) Work Group was assigned to examine the current organization and workflow of the Collection Development and Acquisitions departments and make recommendations for change as needed. The Group‘s tasks included the following:

1. Describe and analyze strengths and weaknesses of the Library‘s current organizational structure and staffing and compare to peer institutions. Be sure to identify the roles and responsibilities of selectors and collection development and acquisitions staff.

2. Examine current workflow patterns, practices, and lines of communication and assess advantages and disadvantages.

3. Investigate how and by whom selection decisions are made and compare to peer institutions.

In addition, the Work Group was asked to examine the organizational structure of collection development including the liaison program and responsibility for tasks such as program review and other forms of collection analysis, gifts, and weeding.

The Work Group spent several months identifying and reading articles from library literature. The Work Group reviewed the sections in the Collection Analysis Project: An Assisted Self-Study Manual (Association of Research Libraries, 1980), the Washburn University Mabee Library Collection Analysis Final Report, and the UALR Collection Analysis Project Interim Report (CAP Phase I Report). Interviews with University of Arkansas at Little Rock (UALR) Ottenheimer Library personnel in Collection Development and Acquisitions resulted in an extensive analysis and synthesis of historical and current library practices. The Work Group contacted the consultant for this project, Julia Blixrud, Assistant Executive Director of Scholarly Communication for the Association of Research Libraries (ARL), who provided critical guidance and feedback on the development of the report and areas that needed attention.

In conjunction with the internal analysis, the Work Group developed and sent a questionnaire to selected peer institutions to collect statistical information and collection management data for comparative purposes. Institutions selected to answer the questionnaire had enrollments and budgets similar to those of UALR, and had a Carnegie classification of doctoral research university (DRU) or higher. [See Appendix A,B.] The questionnaire included two Arkansas academic institutions to collect data on local library practices.

CMOS 3

ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE & STAFFING

The Collection Management program at the UALR Ottenheimer Library includes a Collection Development Librarian (CDL), an Acquisitions department, and librarians with part-time selection responsibilities. The program relies on input from the teaching faculty. Recommendations from any library user are also part of the program.

In 1985, the Library created a Collection Development department headed by a CDL, a full-time assistant, and a part-time student worker. Previously, collection development responsibilities and selection duties were divided among the library faculty. The Acquisitions department included a department head, three assistants, and several part-time student workers.

Acquisitions merged with Collection Development under the supervision of the Head of Collection Development in 1999. The Head of Acquisitions position was transferred to the newly formed Finance department. In addition, one of the staff positions was reclassified to an accounting technician position and transferred to the new Finance department. The Finance Department was expanded to include human resources and facilities management. In 2006, this department was renamed Administrative Services to reflect these additional responsibilities.

The Collection Development/Acquisitions department continued as a combined unit until 2010 when a Head of Acquisitions was hired. With the addition of a Head of Acquisitions, all duties and personnel responsible for the ordering and receipt of materials were transferred to a separate Acquisitions department. [See Appendix C.] The CDL continues to be responsible for overseeing development of the library collections. Both departments report to the Director of Technical Services and Technology, a position which was vacant during the time that the Work Group was conducting its investigation. [See Appendix D.]

This new organizational structure presents challenges that have yet to be worked out between Acquisitions and Collection Development. These challenges include clarifying and defining the responsibilities of each department, establishing clear lines of communication between the departments and with Administrative Services, updating job descriptions, and adjusting to relocated work areas. The Work Group expects that implementation of some of its recommendations, and the arrival of the recently hired Director of Technical Services and Technology, will help to clarify and improve the Library‘s organizational structure and collection management procedures.

The following section defines and describes the roles and responsibilities of the library and campus personnel most closely involved in the process of selecting, ordering, processing, and maintaining the Library‘s collections.

The primary responsibilities of the Acquisitions department include the ordering and invoicing of all print and electronic resources, obtaining signatures for licensing agreements from the Head of the UALR Purchasing department, and coordinating the acquisition and maintenance of the journals collection. The Head of Acquisitions manages a staff of three library technicians, each of whom is responsible for different aspects of the ordering and receiving functions. [See Appendices E, F, G for job descriptions for the Acquisitions Library Technicians A, B, and C.]

Management and development of the collection is the primary responsibility of the CDL. [See Appendix H.] This librarian does not directly supervise selectors, but writes collection development guidelines and procedures, facilitates communication among selectors,

CMOS 4

coordinates training, works closely with the Acquisitions department, and has selection duties as well. In April of 2011, the job descriptions for the Acquisitions Library Technician positions were revised and are awaiting approval from the Library administration. As a result of the proposed changes, the CDL does not have direct staff support assigned to help with such responsibilities such as checking bibliographies, gathering statistics, weeding, and program reviews. Under the previous departmental structure, these duties were assigned to the Acquisitions Library Technician A (LT-A).

Ten librarians, designated as subject selectors, recommend material in 37 assigned subject areas. These librarians also have responsibilities in other areas of the Library. All but two librarians have selection duties. As indicated in the subject selectors‘ chart, the areas are not evenly distributed. [See Appendix I.]

Teaching faculty in 25 departments solicit requests for library materials from their colleagues to support teaching and research. They submit these requests to the CDL or to the subject selectors. These faculty members are known as faculty liaisons.

Most of the peer institution libraries contacted describe a similar collection management program although there are variations in how they structure collection management functions. Almost all have either experienced a recent change in structure or are actively involved in reorganization. These libraries report that budget pressures and the development of electronic resources are the main factors in changing the structure and job functions. They also attribute reductions in staffing, budget, and allocations to the economic downturn.

Articles from the literature confirm that these changes are not unusual. A recent article in Collection Management states, ―There has always been some variability in collection management organization and structure in academic libraries. It may be the library function least susceptible to any particular model‖ (Nabe, 2011, p.3). Questionnaire results and the Library‘s experience support this view.

Peer institutions also report that librarians function as part-time selectors who work closely with a collection development librarian or as part of a team and are responsible for purchasing materials in one or more subject areas. Many of these part-time selectors provide support and instruction to classroom faculty. This closely resembles the Library‘s selection process.

The Library‘s experiences and challenges with organizational structure and staffing closely parallel the experiences of the peer institutions surveyed with one major exception. The Library‘s stable budget has given it an advantage over institutions that were forced to make organizational changes because of budget shortfalls. Selectors at some of these institutions curtailed their activities by purchasing fewer materials or purchasing materials only to support the core collection. In contrast, the Library subject selectors continue to make recommendations with minor restrictions.

CMOS 5

Based on interviews with the Head of Acquisitions and CDL, responses from the questionnaire, and the literature review, the Work Group determined the major strengths and weaknesses in the Library‘s current organizational structure and staffing.

Strengths:

The Technical Services departments (Acquisitions, Cataloging, Collection Development and Information Technology) work together to decrease redundancy and streamline workflow.

The job duties of the CDL have shifted allowing more time for building and managing the Library‘s collections.

Most librarians actively participate in selection and consult regularly with the CDL.

Weaknesses:

Collection Development has no staff support.

There is a lack of formal communication about budget matters among Collection Development, Acquisitions, and Administrative Services.

The job description for the CDL is outdated.

There is no current formal job description for the Head of Acquisitions.

CMOS 6

SELECTION PROCESS FOR LIBRARY RESOURCES

COLLECTION DEVELOPMENT POLICY The Library‘s Collection Development Policy written in 1997 stated that the Library‘s mission at the time was ―to support the curricular and research needs of the students, faculty, and staff at the University of Arkansas at Little Rock.‖ [See Appendix J.] Though parts of the policy are dated, the document remains a guide to the Library‘s selection processes and provides a description of the criteria used in determining what materials are added to the collection. The policy states that the major criterion for adding materials to the Library's collection is the relevance of these materials to the educational programs of the University. Additional criteria include:

Strengths and weaknesses of the present collection

Anticipated use

Authority of author and/or reputation of publisher

Price

These factors remain important in the selection process but do not address a major development in the publishing environment: the shift from print to digital publishing. Written at a time when print resources were the primary format of new materials, the policy‘s major flaw is that it does not address issues related to the selection and acquisition of electronic resources. Foy and Clement (2010) state that ―[c]ollection development in academic libraries is undergoing rapid change, and the guiding policies for collection development need to be dynamic, up-to-date documents that reflect these changes‖ (p. 26). According to the Collection Development Policy, the Library relies on the subject selectors and the faculty liaisons to recommend titles to be added to the collections. The CDL is available to answer questions and to offer guidance, but there are no formal guidelines in place for either group. At the beginning of the academic year, the Library sends a letter to the faculty liaisons with important deadlines and general guidelines. [See Appendix K.] The Work Group believes that faculty liaisons may gain from more detailed direction regarding their roles and responsibilities. The subject selectors have been given some brief guidelines to follow by the CDL and occasional training from the approval plan vendors. However, the shift from a print to an electronic environment has made the selection of materials more challenging. For instance, an important consideration beyond cost is ―the balance of print and e-resources to be acquired.‖ There are also ―access and design questions that must be asked and answered‖ (Kovacs, 2009, p. 36, 66). Selectors would benefit from expanded criteria for evaluating and recommending electronic materials, as well as further training and support opportunities. APPROVAL PLANS ANSD FIRM ORDERS Since the 1970‘s, the Library has participated in approval plans. Approval plans offer newly published print or electronic book titles from vendors. Currently, the Library utilizes two approval plans from these vendors: Midwest and Coutts.

CMOS 7

Subject selectors rely extensively on the Library‘s approval plans to identify current print and electronic books for purchase. In most approval plans, book vendors collaborate with libraries to establish a profile of the type of material a library wants to collect. The profile can be based on several criteria such as publisher, price, subject, format, and level of program offerings. The vendor sends weekly book shipments or notification slips that identify books based on a library‘s profile. Approval plans automate the selection process and give libraries a chance to ‗approve‘ titles before they are added to the collection.

In conjunction with approval plans, subject selectors also use tools such as Resources for College Libraries, Library Journal book reviews, the Brandon/Hill Selected List, CHOICE, and other resources to identify titles for possible addition. The CDL makes the final decision on materials to be purchased for the library collections, with the exceptions of reference materials and government documents.

Requests for library materials come to the CDL from subject selectors, faculty liaisons, students, and other library users. These requests arrive in a variety of ways: approval plans, email, library-supplied order cards, flyers in campus mail, and the Library‘s online form. [See Appendix L.]

The Library utilizes firm orders as well as approval plans. Firm orders are materials specifically requested by faculty, library personnel or students. These titles include books, DVDs, and CDs.

Approval plans accounted for approximately 70% of the monographic materials that were purchased in 2010. The remaining 30% of titles were firm orders. Of the total number of firm orders, the majority are faculty requests. [See Figure 1.]

Figure 1: Breakdown of Monographic Material Purchased - 2010

Source: Coutts, Firm Orders, and Midwest Slip Orders Statistics for 2009-2010

Approval Plan 70%

Firm Order 30%

CMOS 8

Coutts uses an electronic slips plan and automatic book shipments from commercial or academic publishers. Each subject selector works with the CDL to refine the parameters of the profiles for assigned subject areas. Selectors submit slips electronically to the LT-A who checks for duplication and other problems. The LT-A creates a list of recommended titles and forwards it to the CDL. The CDL makes the final decision on titles to be selected and refers those titles to the LT-A for ordering. [See Figures 2, 3.]

The Midwest approval plan includes paper slips and automatic book shipments from university presses. Each week the LT-A sorts and distributes paper slips to the subject selectors. Selectors make their recommendations and return the slips to the CDL. The CDL makes the final decision on titles to order and sends the slips to the LT-A. The LT-A checks for duplication and other problems, and submits the orders to Midwest. The CDL reviews books received as automatic shipments and makes decisions on whether to retain or return the titles. [See Figures 2, 3.] As indicated by the figures, the workflows for Coutts and Midwest are almost identical.

CMOS 9

Figure 2A: Coutts Slip Approvals Workflow

Figure 2B: Midwest Slip Approvals

Workflow

Selectors log into vendor website and select titles from electronic slips that are supplied weekly.

Selectors transmits weekly selections to Library Technician-

Acquisitions (LT-A)

LT-A creates Excel lists of selections

Collection Development Librarian (CDL) reviews Excel list; returns list

to LT-A

LT-A transmits orders to vendor

LT-A receives materials from vendor

LT-A transfers materials to Cataloging

LT-A receives paper slips from vendor

LT-A distributes slips to selectors

Selectors make decisions; return slips to CDL

CDL reviews slips; forwards recommendations to LT-A

LT- A places order at vendor website.

LT-A receives materials from vendor.

LT-A transfers materials to Cataloging

CMOS 10

Figure 3: Book Approval Workflow

Approval Books arrive from vendors

LT-A checks condition of approval books; notifies

CDL

CDL reviews and transfers titles to

LT-A

LT-A transfers materials to Cataloging

CMOS 11

The approval plan is considered ―to be an effective, time-saving tool for librarians who are increasingly pressured to devote their time to activities other than book selection― (Jacoby, 2008, p.235). Unfortunately, this is not the case with the Library. On the average, the Library only orders 15-20% of the titles that are available through an approval plan. In 2010, the Library ordered approximately 15% of the titles available through the Coutts and approximately 17% of the titles available through Midwest. [See Figures 4, 5.]

Figure 4: Coutts Slip Orders - 2010

Source: Coutts, Firm Orders, and Midwest Slip Orders Statistics for 2009-2010

Figure 5: Midwest Slip Orders - 2010

Source: Midwest Slip and Book Order Statistics for 2010

15%

85%

Titles Ordered

Titles Not Ordered

17%

83%

Titles Ordered

Titles Not Ordered

CMOS 12

These statistics illustrate the need to re-examine the Library‘s approval plans. Recent changes to the UALR curriculum and the diversity of faculty research are not reflected in the current profiles of the approval plans. In certain subject areas, the available titles may not be appropriate for the Library‘s collections. For example, Coutts is a Canadian company which offers many titles with a Canadian or United Kingdom emphasis. While these titles may be of high quality, the information is not as useful for UALR faculty and students. There is some duplication of titles offered by the two vendors which requires additional cross checking of all orders. As indicated by the workflow chart, Midwest paper slips require extensive handling by Library personnel.

The questionnaire results indicated that the peer institutions that used approval plans generally had only one plan in place. Several institutions reported that they had to cancel their approval plans due to budget reductions.

The Work Group recommends that the Library have one approval plan that can be refined to better support the research needs of the UALR faculty and students. With the implementation of one plan, the workflow can be streamlined for more efficient use of time and resources as well as promoting the integrity of the Library‘s collections. One approval plan would also allow for more accurate and accessible gathering of data and statistics.

CMOS 13

ELECTRONIC RESOURCES

A major challenge of acquiring electronic resources is coordinating the process of selecting, ordering, gathering statistics, and providing access to the user. Further complicating the process is the shift from print to electronic resources. This transition ―has had major impact on workflows that typically were geared toward print purchasing and processing‖ (Horava, 2010, p. 146). As Kulp and Rupp-Serrano (2005) suggest, the acquisitions of electronic resources is more complex because multiple departments are involved. Licensing agreements must be signed by a campus official outside of the library. Although this is not difficult to do, it is an added step. The Library‘s Information Technology (IT) department plays an important role in ensuring that setup and proxy access is complete. The Acquisitions and Cataloging departments also have a role in coordinating the loading and maintenance of the electronic resources to provide continued access. The electronic resources workflow reinforces the complexity of establishing and maintaining access for library users. [See Appendix M.]

ELECTRONIC BOOKS

The CDL purchased the Library‘s first electronic book collection of 6500 titles in 1999. Offered by Amigos Library Services (a regional cooperative of libraries located in Arizona, Arkansas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas) and NetLibrary® (the first host of electronic books from multiple publishers), the collection was shared by participating libraries. Two more shared collections offered by Amigos and NetLibrary® were purchased primarily as a cost-saving measure and as an easy way to enter the e-book arena. Because many of these titles were not always appropriate for an academic audience, and because the option to purchase individual titles became available, the Library started purchasing individual titles and collections designed for academic libraries.

As publishers began offering e-books on individual platforms and withdrawing content from hosts like NetLibrary® and ebrary®, the Library began to purchase directly from database providers and publishers that offer e-books. Initially, the CDL identified reference books as good candidates for acquisition in electronic format and worked with the Reference department to select and purchase relevant resources. Currently, the Library has e-book collections from at least seven major publishers. Multiple platforms complicate the identification, selection, and acquisition of e-books, and these issues are likely to continue. According to Pomerantz (2010), ―[T]here is still a lack of standards in platforms, business models and metadata that need to be resolved‖ (p. 11). Despite the challenges, electronic books are becoming the new norm. A Library Journal survey

revealed that, on average, academic libraries spent 7.2% of their budget on electronic books in

2009. Academic libraries that participated in the survey predicted that e-book spending was

likely to increase by 150% over the next five years (Rapp, 2010). The incorporation of e-books

has changed, but not decreased the work flow. According to one respondent of another survey

conducted by Davis and Wood (2010), ―E-book management is more complicated than most

would think. It involves license agreements, POs [purchase orders], cataloging, [p]roxy servers,

persistent URL, authentication, etc. The use is greater than print books but the work is more

involved and requires a different skill sets [sic]‖ (Slide 38). Davis and Wood also highlight the

volatility of e-books and the importance of keeping up with website changes for continued

patron access.

CMOS 14

According to the Library‘s FY 2009-2010 Annual Report, the number of e-books owned by the Library was 18,793. Over the past ten years, e-book use at the Library has steadily increased with 2011 poised to be the year of highest usage of NetLibrary® e-books. In the period from January to March of this year, there have been 3,873 NetLibrary® accesses compared to 7,680 uses for 12 months of the previous year. [See Figure 6.]

Figure 6: Number of NetLibrary® Accesses – 1999/2000 to 2009/2010

Source: NetLibrary® Statistics

Fueling this enhanced interest in e-books may be: the growth of distance education courses, and the explosive growth of mobile devices. ―One impetus for the growing popularity of e-books as a format was the development of electronic book readers for individual users.‖ This has caused users some confusion as libraries ―more commonly deliver e-books via the Internet in PDF‖ (Johnson, 2009, pp.106-107). Electronic publisher EBSCO‘s recent acquisition of NetLibrary® is a positive step toward simplifying and streamlining the process of accessing e-books.

The number of requests for e-books from subject selectors is increasing. One major reason is that Coutts now includes e-book titles in its slips plan. Selectors routinely recommend e- books as well as print titles. In addition, the teaching faculty are beginning to request e-books for the curriculum and for research.

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

9000

Number of NetLibrary Accesses

CMOS 15

ELECTRONIC JOURNALS

Individual title selection of electronic journals is rare. Many of the titles to which the Library subscribes come as part of a ―big deal‖ purchase that typically involves a journal package from a publisher or group of publishers, and a multi-year license agreement. Yearly cancellations are limited to a small percentage of the expenditure for the total package and termination of the agreement can result in financial penalties. As reported in the Library‘s FY 2009-2010 Annual Report, the Library had full-text access to over 68,000 online journal titles.

Despite the restrictions, these packages offer the best value for the money as they give users access to titles they would never have without the purchase. Consortia negotiate the terms of the contract within budget guidelines and in conjunction with the CDL. The CDL reviews the package titles every year at renewal time, reviews use statistics, consults with the reference librarians and consortia members, and may cancel and/or add new titles for the upcoming year.

.ELECTRONIC DATABASES

According to the Library‘s FY 2009-2010 Annual Report, the Library subscribes to more than 200 databases. These databases enable patrons to locate scholarly information, including journal articles, and are critical for conducting research. As Tenopir and Read (2000) state, ―End-user online searching of commercial databases is now an integral part of library reference services and users have come to expect online access through their libraries‖ (p. 236). Database coverage is either multidisciplinary or subject-specific.

Requests for new databases come to the CDL primarily from librarians and teaching faculty. If funds are available and the database will support an existing program, the CDL sends a request to the Acquisitions department to order the resource from the vendor or from a consortium. Notices of databases available from consortia and vendors regarding new databases to support teaching and research may also trigger a purchase.

Databases that support active academic programs and multidisciplinary databases such as LexisNexis Academic and Academic Search Complete are routinely renewed annually. The CDL reviews use statistics and solicits informal input from the reference librarians and teaching faculty to determine whether to cancel or continue the subscription.

PATRON-DRIVEN ACQUISITIONS

Traditional collection development uses a just-in-case model to acquire materials. As libraries adjust to reduced budgets, they are turning to a just-in-time model that relies more heavily on the user to determine what is purchased. In the early 2000‘s, libraries began buying instead of borrowing print books requested by their patrons on interlibrary loan. The concept has moved easily from print to electronic books. Libraries are now experimenting with various plans that allow users to initiate e-book purchases (Nixon, Freeman, & Ward, 2010). Patron-driven acquisition (PDA) presents an opportunity for Acquisitions and Collection Development to work with the Interlibrary Loan department to provide library users what they need when they need it. Libraries that have participated in PDA indicate that it can save libraries money and time (―How Patron-Driven Acquisition,‖ 2011). Given the successes reported in the literature and the burgeoning interest in e-books this may be a good time for the Library to participate in a well-designed experiment of PDA with one of its e-book vendors.

CMOS 16

CONSORTIAL AGREEMENTS

The Library participates in formal and informal consortial arrangements at the local, state, and national levels. Amigos and LYRASIS are regional networks that broker discounts for electronic content on behalf of libraries. The Library has had a membership in Amigos for more than 30 years. Recently the Library also joined LYRASIS to take advantage of better discounts and a wider range of electronic products. Although not a member of the Greater Western Library Alliance (GWLA), the Library purchases databases and e-journal collections from them. The Library has also benefited from the Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research (EPSCoR) funding to buy specialized science and technology journals.

As a member of ARKLink, a consortium of 48 academic libraries in Arkansas, the Library has purchased eight databases at a discount. The consortium receives new offers from database vendors throughout the year but there are fewer and fewer databases that appeal to small, medium, and large academic libraries alike. Informal consortial arrangements with the University of Arkansas at Fayetteville and the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences permitted the purchase of three expensive databases: IEEE, SciFinder Scholar, and the Web of Science.

Similar to UALR, almost all peer institutions surveyed also participate in some type of state or regional consortium to increase shared resources and to allow purchase of expensive databases or journal packages.

These agreements have enabled the Library to expand its collection of databases, electronic books, and journals without adversely affecting the Library‘s budget. Thornton explains that ―the expansion of consortia has proved to be the most effective form of cooperation, and the unsurprising results have been reduced dependence and focus on individual institutional collections‖ (as cited in Nabe, 2011, p. 5). A statewide consortium of libraries funded by the legislature would increase the purchasing power of libraries in the state, but this is not a realistic expectation given the state‘s and the country‘s economic challenges.

CMOS 17

The Work Group examined the collection management guidelines and practices currently in use by the Library and identified strengths and weaknesses.

Strengths:

The UALR administration supports the Library‘s efforts to provide research materials for faculty and students (CAP Phase I Report, pp. 6-8).

The Library has had a stable budget for over five years (CAP Phase I Report, p. 6).

The subject selectors have had little turnover in the last five years and are familiar with the collection.

The CDL and the subject selectors have established a good working relationship.

The Library is a member of multiple consortia which allows for better purchasing power.

Weaknesses:

The Collection Development Policy is dated and does not specifically address electronic resources.

Few teaching faculty actively participate in developing the Library‘s collections.

The faculty liaisons and subject selectors have few formal guidelines to recommend materials for purchase.

The distribution of subject areas is not evenly balanced among selectors.

Two approval plans are cumbersome and labor intensive, creating more work for the subject selectors, CDL, and Acquisitions staff.

The changing landscape of electronic publications makes it difficult to plan for future development of all collections.

Electronic resources require intensive labor, such as creating new profiles, non-standardization of records from publishers, off-campus access, and the continual review to maintain access.

Electronic resources require coordination between multiple departments, such as Library IT, UALR Purchasing Office, UALR Computing Services, and the vendors.

CMOS 18

PROGRAM REVIEWS, GIFTS, WEEDING & ASSESSMENT

The CDL has several other responsibilities. The CDL writes supporting statements for program reviews of courses or programs that are being proposed. As stated in the Collection Development Policy, the CDL supervises any weeding of the circulating collections, monitors the receipt of all gift collections, and participates in any assessment endeavors.

PROGRAM REVIEWS

The focus of the Library‘s current collection is the support of coursework and research for faculty and students in these programs. New courses and programs proposed by the divisions must be reviewed by the Graduate and Undergraduate Councils which require the attachment of a library holdings statement that evaluates the collection to support the course or program and recommends new materials if necessary. This requirement is part of the University‘s Curriculum Change Form and ensures that the Library is aware of upcoming curricular changes and can plan to build collections in new areas and strengthen existing ones (CAP Phase I Report, p. 13). The CDL is responsible for writing library statements for proposed new courses and programs on campus. The faculty member who is proposing the new course or program contacts the CDL and makes the requests. A request can vary from a simple letter that outlines the number of materials that the Library holds in a particular call number range to a multi-page report required by an accrediting association of the program. [See Appendix N.]

Several peer institutions have a member of the library faculty who serve on a curriculum review committee, often as an ex-officio member. However, no formal library holdings statement is required by any of the peer institutions. In contrast, UALR Library faculty are appointed to serve on the Undergraduate Council and Graduate Council as voting members. The Library representatives on these councils provide information to the assigned subject liaison on new courses and programs.

GIFTS

The Ottenheimer Library regularly receives donations from faculty and members of the public. Criteria of accepting or declining gifts are outlined in the ―Gifts‖ section of the Collection Development Policy, Section IX. Donated materials are expected to meet the same standards of quality and relevance to the collection as new titles. Such items should support the academic programs of the university, as well as meet the Library‘s collection development guidelines and policies.

Although some of the donated items are worthwhile additions to the collection, most are unsuitable because of outdated content, poor condition or because the subject matter is not appropriate for an academic library.

WEEDING OR DESELECTION

The CDL conducts periodic weeding of the collection, with emphasis on science and technology titles. Criteria for weeding are outlined in the ―Weeding‖ section of the Collection Development Policy, Section XII. However the Library has never conducted a formal inventory of its entire collection. Weeding is likely to become more critical in the future since shelf space is now at a premium. The Library has had to vacate most of the 5th floor, resulting in less shelf space for the book collection on both the 4th and 5th floors. The reference collection has already undergone an extensive weeding project, but a complete inventory has never been conducted.

CMOS 19

The Library has the software and hardware to conduct inventories of the libraries‘ collections. Staff shortages, time commitment, and software compatibility issues have delayed the inventory process. The Work Group recognizes the need for a full inventory of the Library‘s collections in the near future.

Paul Metz and Caryl Gray, as well as Jutta Reed-Scott, suggest that "engaging faculty in the weeding process benefits all involved because it not only creates the best collection possible but also fosters relationships between faculty and librarians" (as cited in Soma & Sjoberg, 2011, p. 21). The Library‘s experience does not fully support this view. Faculty are inconsistent in their involvement with the process.

Most of the peer institutions did not report any specific information on their collection deselection policy. Only one peer institution actively seeks input from the teaching faculty on deselection.

ASSESSMENT

In 2008, the Library conducted LibQual+®, an ARL Web-based survey that helps libraries assess and improve library services. Results from focus groups provided data on user needs and on their perception of the quality of the collection. Electronic journals and databases ranked high on their list of needs and there were suggestions for books in specific subject areas. The Library purchased some of the recommended material and discussed ways to publicize the Library‘s holdings (CAP Phase I Report, p.13-14). Over half of the peer institutions indicated that they had used LibQUAL+® for input on their users‘ satisfaction with collections. The feedback was useful, but again, the economy has prevented further collection development based on the LibQUAL+® results.

The LibQual+® survey that the Library conducted indicated that UALR students and faculty were unaware of the multiple resources that were currently available. These results suggested that educating the campus community is necessary. Several peer institutions reported similar findings.

The Work Group examined program reviews, gifts, weeding and assessment currently in use by the Library and identified strengths and weaknesses of each activity.

Strengths:

The CDL writes holdings statements for course and program reviews.

Library faculty are voting members of Undergraduate Council and Graduate Council.

The Library has conducted a LibQUAL+® survey and held several focus groups within the past five years.

Weaknesses:

The Library has never conducted a circulating collection inventory.

The Library purchased software and hardware to conduct inventories that has not been used.

The gifts and weeding sections of the Collection Development Policy have not been updated.

CMOS 20

RECOMMENDATIONS

Based on information presented in this report, the Work Group makes the following

recommendations (not in priority order):

1. Investigate direct staff support for the Collection Development Librarian.

2. Update job descriptions.

a. Update job description for the Collection Development Librarian (CDL).

b. Create a current formal job description for Head of Acquisitions.

c. Complete revisions of Acquisition LT job descriptions.

3. Establish on-going communication among Acquisitions, Collection Development, and

Administrative Services.

a. Clarify job duties, review workflow, and communicate budget information.

4. Appoint a taskforce of the CDL, Director of Technical Services and Technology and representatives from Public Services to define collection development guidelines with an emphasis on electronic resources

5. Charge the CDL to review and update guidelines for subject selectors and faculty

liaisons.

a. Establish regular meetings.

b. Create and disseminate selectors‘ manual.

6. Appoint a taskforce of the CDL, Director of Technical Services and Technology, the

Head of Acquisitions, and the Head of Reference to recommend one approval plan

vendor.

a. Review workflow to streamline procedures and redistribute labor.

b. Investigate the most effective way to collect and report collection statistics.

c. Refine the Library‘s profiles to more closely align with the research and teaching

mission of UALR.

d. Investigate shelf-ready materials.

7. Appoint a taskforce of department heads to create guidelines for processing and handling electronic resources.

a. Establish a formal workflow among departments. b. Coordinate with Library IT to maintain access.

8. Charge the Director of Public Services to investigate the use of patron-driven

acquisitions at UALR.

9. Charge the CDL and reference librarians to educate the University‘s constituency on the benefits of consortia participation.

10. Appoint a taskforce to develop a process to inventory the Library‘s collections.

11. Charge the CDL to establish guidelines that involve subject selectors in program

reviews.

12. Appoint a taskforce of the CDL and Library subject selectors to prepare guidelines for

weeding of the Library‘s collection.

CMOS 21

REFERENCES

CAP Study Team. (2010, October). Collection Analysis Project interim report. Little Rock, AR:

Ottenheimer Library, University of Arkansas at Little Rock.

Davis, C. & Wood, A. (2010, June 4). eBook discovery and access: We want it now!

[PowerPoint slides]. Retrieved from

http://www.cla.ca/conference/2010/documents/presentations/E32-ebook.pdf

Foy, J., & Clement, S. K. (2010). Collection development in a changing environment: Policies

and organization for college and university libraries (ClipNote 42). Chicago, IL: American

Library Association.

Horava, T. (2010). Challenges and possibilities for collection management in a digital age.

Library Resources & Technical Services, 54(3), 142-152.

How patron-driven acquisition is changing collection development: An interview with Dennis

Dillon, Associate Director for Research Services at the University of Texas. (2011, January-

April). At Your Service: An EBSCO Quarterly Publication for Serials Librarians &

Information Professionals, (84), 4-6.

Jacoby, B. E. (2008). Status of approval plans in college libraries. College & Research Libraries,

69(3), 227-240.

Johnson, P. (2009). Fundamentals of collection development and management (2nd ed.).

Chicago, IL: American Library Association.

Kovacs, D. K. (2009). The Kovacs guide to electronic library collection development: Essential

core subject collections, selection criteria, and guidelines (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Neal-

Schuman.

Kulp, C., & Rupp-Serrano, K. (2005). Organizational approaches to electronic resource

acquisition: Decision-making models in libraries. Collection Management, 30(4), 3-29.

Nabe, J. (2011). What's next for collection management and managers? Collection

Management, 36(1), 3-16.

Ottenheimer Library. University of Arkansas at Little Rock. (1997). Ottenheimer Library

collection development policy. Little Rock, AR: Author.

Ottenheimer Library. University of Arkansas at Little Rock. (2010, June). Ottenheimer Library

annual report: June 1, 2009 – June 30, 2010. Little Rock, AR: Author.

CMOS 22

Pomerantz, S. B. (2010). The availability of e-books: Examples of nursing and business.

Collection Building, 29(1), 11-14.

Rapp, D. (2010, September 29). Ebook summit kicks off with library ebook survey results.

Retrieved from http://www.libraryjournal.com/lj/home/887020-

264/ebook_summit_kicks_off_with.html.csp

Soma, A. K., & Sjoberg, L. M. (2011). More than just low-hanging fruit: A collaborative approach

to weeding in academic libraries. Collection Management, 36(1), 17-28.

Tenopir, C., & Read, E. (2000). Patterns of database use in academic libraries. College &

Research Libraries, 61(3), 234-246.

CMOS 23

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bleiler, R., & Livingston, J. (2010). Evaluating e-resources (SPEC Kit 316). Washington, D.C.:

Association of Research Libraries.

Branin, J., Groen, F., & Thorin, S. (2000). The changing nature of collection management in

research libraries. Library Resources & Technical Services, 44(1), 23-31.

CAP Study Team. (2003, April). Collection Analysis Project final report. Topeka, KS: Mabee

Library, Washburn University.

CAP Study Team. (2010, October). Collection Analysis Project interim report. Little Rock, AR:

Ottenheimer Library, University of Arkansas at Little Rock.

Collins, M. (2009). Evolving workflows: Knowing when to hold'em, knowing when to fold'em.

Serials Librarian, 57(3), 261-271.

Covi, L. M., & Cragin, M. H. (2004). Reconfiguring control in library collection development: A

conceptual framework for assessing the shift toward electronic collections. Journal of the

American Society for Information Science & Technology, 55(4), 312-325.

Davis, C. & Wood, A. (2010, June 4). eBook discovery and access: We want it now!

[PowerPoint slides]. Retrieved from

http://www.cla.ca/conference/2010/documents/presentations/E32-ebook.pdf

Deeken, J. (2006). Report of the Heads of Technical Services of Medium-Sized Libraries

Discussion Group meeting. American Library Association Midwinter Meeting, San Antonio,

January 2006. Technical Services Quarterly, 24(2), 63-69.

Dorner, D. G. (2004). The impact of digital information resources on the roles of collection

managers in research libraries. Library Collections, Acquisitions, & Technical Services,

28(3), 249-274.

Duranceau, E. F. (2002). Staffing for electronic resource management: The results of a survey.

Serials Review, 28(4), 316-320.

Flatley, R. K., & Prock, K. (2009). E-resource collection development: A survey of current

practices in academic libraries. Library Philosophy & Practice, 11(2), 1-4.

Foy, J., & Clement, S. K. (2010). Collection development in a changing environment: Policies

and organization for college and university libraries (ClipNote 42). Chicago, IL: American

Library Association.

CMOS 24

Gardner, J. G., & Webster, D. E. (1980). The Collection Analysis Project: An assisted self-study

manual. Washington, DC: Association of Research Libraries.

Geller, M. (2006a). Managing electronic resources. Library Technology Reports, 42(2), 6-13.

Hazen, D. (2010). Rethinking research library collections. Library Resources & Technical

Services, 54(2), 115-121.

Holden, J. (2010). Acquisitions in the new information universe: Core competencies and ethical

practices. New York, NY: Neal-Schuman.

Horava, T. (2010). Challenges and possibilities for collection management in a digital age.

Library Resources & Technical Services, 54(3), 142-152.

How patron-driven acquisition is changing collection development: An interview with Dennis

Dillon, Associate Director for Research Services at the University of Texas. (2011, January-

April). At Your Service: An EBSCO Quarterly Publication for Serials Librarians &

Information Professionals, (84), 4-6.

Jacoby, B. E. (2008). Status of approval plans in college libraries. College & Research Libraries,

69(3), 227-240.

Johnson, P. (2009). Fundamentals of collection development and management (2nd ed.).

Chicago, IL: American Library Association.

Kinner, L., & Crosetto, A. (2009). Balancing act for the future: How the academic library

engages in collection development at the local and consortial levels. Journal of Library

Administration, 49(4), 419-437.

Kovacs, D. K. (2009). The Kovacs guide to electronic library collection development: Essential

core subject collections, selection criteria, and guidelines (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Neal-

Schuman.

Kulp, C., & Rupp-Serrano, K. (2005). Organizational approaches to electronic resource

acquisition: Decision-making models in libraries. Collection Management, 30(4), 3-29.

Munroe, M. H., Haar, J. M., Johnson, P., & Association for Library Collections & Technical

Services. (2001). Guide to collection development and management administration,

organization, and staffing (Collection Management and Development Guides, No. 10).

Lanham, MD.: Scarecrow Press.

Nabe, J. (2011). What's next for collection management and managers? Collection

Management, 36(1), 3-16.

CMOS 25

Nixon, J. M., Freeman, R. S., & Ward, S. M. (2010). Patron-driven acquisitions: An introduction

and literature review. Collection Management, 35(3), 119-124.

Ottenheimer Library. University of Arkansas at Little Rock. (1997). Ottenheimer Library

collection development policy. Little Rock, AR: Author.

Ottenheimer Library. University of Arkansas at Little Rock. (2010, June). Ottenheimer Library

annual report: June 1, 2009 – June 30, 2010. Little Rock, AR: Author.

Pomerantz, S. B. (2010a). The availability of e-books: Examples of nursing and business.

Collection Building, 29(1), 11-14.

Pomerantz, S. B. (2010b). The role of the acquisitions librarian in electronic resources

management. Journal of Electronic Resources Librarianship, 22(1), 40-48.

Rapp, D. (2010, September 29). Ebook summit kicks off with library ebook survey results.

Retrieved from http://www.libraryjournal.com/lj/home/887020-

264/ebook_summit_kicks_off_with.html.csp

Reference and User Services Association. (2010). Guidelines for liaison work in managing

collections and services. Reference and User Services Association, 50(1), 97-98.

Soma, A. K., & Sjoberg, L. M. (2011). More than just low-hanging fruit: A collaborative approach

to weeding in academic libraries. Collection Management, 36(1), 17-28.

Tenopir, C., & Read, E. (2000). Patterns of database use in academic libraries. College &

Research Libraries, 61(3), 234-246.

White, A. C., & Kamal, E. D. (2006). E-metrics for library and information professionals : How to

use data for managing and evaluating electronic resource collections. New York, NY: Neal-

Schuman.

CMOS 26

APPENDICES

Appendix A Peer Questionnaire Form Blank Page 3

Appendix B Peer Questionnaire Form Summary of Responses Page 3

Appendix C Job Ad, Head of Acquisitions Page 4

Appendix D Ottenheimer Library Organizational Chart Page 4

Appendix E-G Job Descriptions—Acquisitions Department Page 4

Appendix H Job Description—Collection Development Librarian Page 5

Appendix I Collection Development Contacts –Subject Selectors Page 5

Appendix J Collection Development Policy Page 7

Appendix K Sample Letter to Faculty Liaisons Page 7

Appendix L Online Title Suggestion Form Page 8

Appendix M Electronic Resource Workflow Page 14

Appendix N Program Review Form Page 19

CMOS 27

Appendix A: Peer Questionnaire Form

Questions for Peer Institutions

Budget:

1. How do you allocate your materials budget? Historical, formula or other?

2. Please describe advantages or disadvantages of your current allocation(s) method.

3. Have you made changes in your allocation methods in the past 5 years? If yes, why and

how.

4. How have your work flow and budget allocations changed because of the increased

purchasing of electronic resources? (IT help)

a. Electronic books

b. Databases

c. Electronic journals

Collection Management:

1. Who is responsible for selection decisions?

2. Please describe the roles and responsibilities of the selector(s).

3. Do you use approval plans?

a. How are they used?

b. Who makes the decisions on the categories?

4. Are your selections based on patron driven acquisitions?

a. How involved are the faculty with collection decisions?

b. Are students encouraged to make suggestions?

c. Are you trying any special promotion to encourage participation?

5. Please describe your library‘s organizational structure and staffing. Do you have

separate Acquisition and Collection Development departments?

6. Does your Library participate in resource sharing or cooperative purchasing?

a. If yes, please describe the process in terms of collection development decisions,

budgeting, and acquisitions.

b. How does resource sharing or cooperative purchasing impact staffing?

7. Have you participated in LibQual+®?

a. If yes, did the survey identify any deficits in your collections?

b. How have you addressed those concerns?

General:

1. What ILS system do you use?

a. How do you use that system in relation to

i. Budgeting

ii. Collection Management

2. How is the library involved in reviewing new courses/programs introduced by the

University?

**Will you send any documentation, organizational charts, procedures, etc?** 1/4/11

CMOS 28

Appendix B: Peer Questionnaire Summary of Responses

University Faculty/Staff Selectors within Faculty Liaison Approval Plan Journal Book Allocation LibQual

Ratio of CD Dept Library Allocation Method Participation

Method

Cleveland State University 1 libn yes yes YBP Was historical; no Yes

current method

Texas Woman's University Yes Yes No Historical formula Yes

University of Massachusetts 1 libn/ 1? Yes Yes/under review Was formula/now No

Boston Historical

University of Missouri 1 libn/1 staff yes yes YBP elec slips Historical was historical/now No; internal

St. Louis formula survey

University of New Orleans CD team Yes Yes YBP elec slips Historical Historical & formula Yes

University of West Florida 1 libn/1 staff Yes Yes No Sub costs Was formula/ now Yes

historical

Arkansas State University 1 libn/? Yes Yes No formula No

University of Arkansas 1 libn/1 staff Yes Yes For art books Historical/ tried Yes

Coutts under rev. formula

CMOS 29

Appendix C: Job Ad, Head of Acquisitions

HEAD OF ACQUISITIONS

Ottenheimer Library (Req. # 723)

University of Arkansas at Little Rock

The University of Arkansas at Little Rock (UALR) invites applications for the position of Head of

Acquisitions, req. #723, a faculty appointment with rank leading to tenure. The successful candidate

will be required to meet the Library’s criteria for promotion and tenure, which include librarianship,

service and scholarship/research. The position reports to the Director of Technical Services.

RESPONSIBILITIES: 1. Manage the ordering and receipt of library materials in all formats.

2. Train and supervise library assistants and other staff members in acquisitions and processing

procedures.

3. Provide leadership in the formulation of plans, policies, practices and projects relating to

acquisitions.

4. Maintain acquisitions related records in the Library’s Innovative Interfaces’ Millennium ILS.

5. Support budget planning through data gathering and analysis.

6. Establish and maintain positive working relationships with publishers and vendors; conduct vendor

evaluation as needed.

7. Participate in library-wide programs such as collection development and strategic planning.

8. Perform other duties as assigned.

REQUIRED QUALIFICATIONS: 1. ALA-accredited MLS degree.

2. Progressively responsible experience in an academic library, including management in

acquisitions.

3. Successful supervisory experience.

4. Demonstrated experience in the acquisitions of materials in all formats, including serials and

electronic resources.

5. Knowledge of library systems including OCLC.

6. Successful relationships with relations and experience with a monograph approval plans.

7. Experience with electronic ordering, invoicing and processing;

8. Strong computer knowledge and ability to adapt to new systems.

9. Excellent communication and interpersonal skills.

10. Qualifications for appointment at rank of Assistant Professor.

CMOS 30

PREFERRED QUALIFICATIONS: 1. Experience with Innovative Interfaces’ Millennium ILS system;

2. Experience with OCLC PromptCat and/or shelf-ready vendor processing.

3. Knowledge of standards, trends and best practices in library services, acquisitions, serials and

electronic resources management.

4. High attention to detail.

5. Evidence of service and leadership in the library profession.

Competitive salary and excellent benefits, i.e., TIAA/CREF, medical insurance; liberal vacation and

sick leave.

For a closer look at the Library and campus, visit the library Web site http://library.ualr.edu or UALR

Web site http://www.ualr.edu.

.

CMOS 31

Appendix D: Library Organizational Chart

Ottenheimer Library Organizational Chart

2010-2011

CMOS 32

Appendix E: Job Description for Acquisitions Library Technician A

OTTENHEIMER LIBRARY

Job Description

Job Title: Library Academic Technician II

Collection Development Assistant

Holder of Position:

Reports To: Head of Collection Development

BASIC FUNCTIONS AND RESPONSIBILITIES:

To perform all procedures pertaining to the working functions of the Library Collection

Development Department. To insure accurate and timely reporting of statistics regarding the

development of library collections. To be cross-trained in Acquisitions/Serials procedures to act

as backup and/or relief person in this area.

CHARACTERISTIC DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES:

Characteristic job duties may include but not be limited to the following:

Process requests for books and other materials from faculty, staff and patrons.

Search bibliographic databases to determine price and availability of requested materials.

Use Books In Print and other sources to complete price and publisher information on order

requests.

Search OCLC or public online catalog to determine if requested item is held. Notify faculty,

staff or student if library already owns or has previously ordered the requested item.

Identify acceptable records in OCLC or other database and transfer records into an

integrated library system.

Submit orders for approval books using electronic ordering process.

CMOS 33

Resolve minor problems with computers and train others to operate computer systems and

terminals.

Maintain files of distributor-generated slips and/or books for faculty perusal.

Receive and tally gifts. Print acknowledgment letters.

Evaluate gifts and make recommendation to add to collection, discard or place in storage for

eventual pickup by Marketing and Redistribution.

Periodically weed collection of books with outdated content or in poor condition, and make

recommendation to withdraw or replace.

Evaluate perspective withdrawal books received from Circulation or Reference, and make

recommendation to withdraw, replace or keep.

Maintain Excel document with a complete record of all books withdrawn from the

collection.

Evaluate damaged books for in-house repair, shipment to bindery, replacement or

withdrawal.

Prepare damaged books for shipment to bindery, process bindery shipments when received.

Assist in preparation of subject bibliographies.

Assist Collection Development Librarian with new course reviews and program reviews for

both undergraduate and graduate councils.

May supervise and train students to process materials.

Coordinate activities of work area in department head's absence.

Maintain list of current library liaisons and department heads.

Sort incoming mail.

Other duties as assigned.

QUALIFICATIONS:

Minimum qualifications include a high school diploma or equivalent, plus two years experience

in library services. A college degree is desirable. Other job related experience and/or education

CMOS 34

may be substituted upon approval of the Qualifications Review Committee. Experience with

word processing, database, and/or spreadsheet software (Microsoft Word, dBase, Excel)

desired.

Revised March 2007

CMOS 35

Appendix F: Job Description for Acquisitions Library Technician B

OTTENHEIMER LIBRARY

COLLECTION DEVELOPMENT

Job Description

JOB TITLE: Library Academic Technician III

Serials Assistant

HOLDER OF POSITION:

REPORTS TO: Head, Collection Development

Collection Development Librarian

BASIC FUNCTIONS AND RESPONSIBILITIES

To maintain records for electronic resources including payments and statistics; to handle all

aspects of print serials processing including checking in, shelving, and binding; to maintain

serials records in Innovative Interfaces Millennium.

CHARACTERISTIC DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES

Process annual serial renewals through EBSCO.

Maintain serials records in Millennium.

Supervise the checking in and shelving of journal issues.

Process incoming microforms and forward to Multimedia.

Process new volumes returned from the bindery.

Bind incomplete and damaged volumes in-house.

Barcode journal volumes.

Process invoices and forward to the Finance Department.

Maintain spreadsheet of annual payment information for electronic resources.

Maintain vendor files and collect usage statistics for electronic resources.

Maintain Serials Solutions account, updating subscription changes.

Load Serials Solutions MARC record updates.

Supervise student workers.

Verify hours and complete timesheets for student workers.

Maintain inventory statistics for print and microform serial collections.

Process volumes approved for withdrawal from the collection.

Perform spot-check of print volumes for mold.

CMOS 36

Maintain OCLC local holdings records.

Prepare reports.

Perform general office duties.

Other duties as assigned.

QUALIFICATIONS

Minimum qualifications include the formal education equivalent of a high school diploma, plus

two years experience in library services. Additional experience in using automated library

systems is desirable. Experience with word processing, database, and spreadsheet software

(Microsoft Word, Access, Excel) is highly desirable.

CMOS 37

Appendix G: Job Description for Acquisitions Library Technician C

CMOS 38

Appendix H: Job Description for Collection Development Librarian

OTTENHEIMER LIBRARY

JOB DESCRIPTION

Job Title: Head, Collection Development

Collection Development Librarian

Holder of Position:

Reports To: Library Dean

BASIC FUNCTIONS AND RESPONSIBILITIES

Basic functions and responsibilities are to: coordinate all functions of the Acquisitions,

Collection Development, and Serials departments; formulate and administer library

collection development policies and procedures; select library material to support

academic programs and provide liaison work with instructional and research faculty;

direct collection assessment projects; evaluate the collections as appropriate to obtain

information needed for sound collection management; direct the receipt,

acknowledgment, evaluation, and processing of gift materials; work closely with

academic programs on accreditation and program reviews; coordinate all aspects of the

approval plan program; supervise and train Collection Development staff.

CHARACTERISTIC DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES

Characteristic job duties include but are not limited to the following:

I. Collection Analysis

1. Refine library collection development policy.

2. Write library holdings analyses for proposed and existing programs for the

Undergraduate and Graduate Councils.

3. Write library holdings analyses for proposed courses.

CMOS 39

4. Work with Circulation and Interlibrary loan staff to identify areas of the

collection needing weeding or .

5. Work with the library administration to seek alternative funding sources.

6. Direct the receipt and processing of gift materials.

7. Direct the Library's approval program.

II. Selection

1. Identify and use appropriate selection sources for all subject areas.

2. Using the collection development policy as a guide, coordinate all selections and

requests to achieve a balanced collection.

3. Communicate the collection development policy and its procedures to all library

material selectors including the teaching faculty.

III. Liaison to Academic Departments

1. Establish and maintain communication with academic departments.

2. Communicate results of collection analyses and program reviews to the

appropriate departments and to the library administration.

3. Solicit input from faculty regarding selection and weeding of library materials.

4. Collaborate with faculty to establish departmental needs, to prioritize selections,

and to develop subject collections using external funds.

V. Other Responsibilities

1. Supervise clerical staff and student assistants.

2. Meet with sales representatives, vendors, and jobbers.

3. Make initial contact with potential donors.

4. Arrange for receipt of gifts.

CMOS 40

5. Serve on university and library committees.

QUALIFICATIONS

Required: ALA accredited MLS degree or equivalent plus; five years experience in an

academic or research library. Knowledge of collection evaluation methods;

demonstrated skill in planning, organizing, and coordinating work; understanding of

national issues and trends in collection development, resource sharing, electronic

formats, and scholarly communication; demonstrated ability to work effectively with

library staff, teaching faculty, and library administration; excellent oral and written

communication skills.

Desired: Previous collection development experience in an academic library; previous

experience using library automated systems; word processing, database, and or

spreadsheet software (Microsoft Word, Access, Excel).

CMOS 41

Appendix I: Collection Development Contacts—Subject Selectors

Collection Development Contacts

If you do not see your subject below, or have a general question, ask a Reference Librarian

instead.

Department Librarian Email Phone

Accounting Maureen James mejames@ualr.edu 569-8816

Applied Science Brent Nelson banelson@ualr.edu 569-8807

Art Wanda Dole wvdole@ualr.edu 569-8802

Audiology/Speech Carol Macheak cimacheak@ualr.edu 569-8809

Biology Brent Nelson banelson@ualr.edu 569-8807

Business J.B. Hill jbhill@ualr.edu 569-8808

Chemistry Brent Nelson banelson@ualr.edu 569-8807

Computer Science Lisa Li hxli@ualr.edu 569-8811

Construction Management Brent Nelson banelson@ualr.edu 569-8807

Counsel/Adult/Rehab Educ Carol Macheak cimacheak@ualr.edu 569-8809

Criminal Justice Karen Russ kmruss@ualr.edu 569-8444

Earth Science Brent Nelson banelson@ualr.edu 569-8807

Economics & Finance J.B. Hill jbhill@ualr.edu 569-8808

Educational Leadership Carol Macheak cimacheak@ualr.edu 569-8809

Engineering Technology Brent Nelson banelson@ualr.edu 569-8807

English Brent Nelson banelson@ualr.edu 569-8807

Health Science John Siegel jxsiegel@ualr.edu 682-3536

CMOS 42

History Karen Russ kmruss@ualr.edu 569-8444

Information Science Lisa Li hxli@ualr.edu 569-8811

Language Studies Karen Russ kmruss@ualr.edu 569-8444

Management J.B. Hill jbhill@ualr.edu 569-8808

Marketing & Advertising Maureen James mejames@ualr.edu 569-8816

Mass Communication Carol Macheak cimacheak@ualr.edu 569-8809

Math and Statistics Brent Nelson banelson@ualr.edu 569-8807

Music Maureen James mejames@ualr.edu 569-3454

Nursing John Siegel jxsiegel@ualr.edu 682-3536

Philosophy Brent Nelson banelson@ualr.edu 569-8807

Physics and Astronomy Brent Nelson banelson@ualr.edu 569-8807

Political Science Karen Russ kmruss@ualr.edu 569-8444

Psychology Donna Rose dkrose@ualr.edu 569-8817

Public Administration Karen Russ kmruss@ualr.edu 569-8444

Rhetoric and Writing Carol Macheak cimacheak@ualr.edu 569-8809

Speech Communication Carol Macheak cimacheak@ualr.edu 569-8809

Social Work Karen Russ kmruss@ualr.edu 569-8444

Sociology/Anthropology Karen Russ kmruss@ualr.edu 569-8444

Systems Engineering Lisa Li hxli@ualr.edu 569-8811

Teacher Education Carol Macheak cimacheak@ualr.edu 569-8809

Theater Arts/Dance Wanda Dole wvdole@ualr.edu 569-8802

CMOS 43

Appendix J: Collection Development Policy

Ottenheimer Library Collection Development Guidelines (1997)

http://ualr.edu/library/files/2010/12/Collection-Development-Guidelines.pdf

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. INTRODUCTION

A. Goal .......................................................................................... 4

B. Purpose .................................................................................... 4

C. Audience ................................................................................. 4

D. Revision Schedule ................................................................... 4

II. CLIENTELE ................................................................................................... 5

III. OVERVIEW OF THE COLLECTIONS ........................................................... 5

IV. RESPONSIBILITY FOR COLLECTION DEVELOPMENT ................................ 5

V. FUNDS FOR LIBRARY MATERIALS .............................................................. 6

VI. CRITERIA FOR THE SELECTION OF LIBRARY MATERIALS

A. General Criteria ...................................................................... 7

B. Special Criteria--Periodicals .................................................. 7

C. Special Criteria--Audiovisual Resources .............................. 8

D. Special Criteria--Electronic Resources ................................. 8

VII. CONTROVERSIAL MATERIALS ................................................................... 8

VIII. GENERAL COLLECTION DEVELOPMENT POLICIES

A. Formats Of Materials .............................................................. 9

CMOS 44

B. Children's Books .................................................................... 12

C. Languages ............................................................................. 12

D. UALR Authors' Publications .................................................. 12

E. Multiple Copies ..................................................................... 12

F. Copyright ............................................................................... 12

IX. GIFTS (GENERAL COLLECTION) ............................................................. 13

X. PRESERVATION ......................................................................................... 15

XI. REPLACEMENT ......................................................................................... 15

XII. DESELECTION OF MATERIALS

A. Criteria for the Deselection of Library Materials ............... 16

a). Books ................................................................................ 16

b). Periodicals ....................................................................... 16

B. Criteria for Retaining Materials ........................................... 17

XIII. TRANSFER OF MATERIALS ........................................................................ 17

XIV. METHODS OF ACQUIRING MATERIALS ................................................. 18

XV. POLICIES FOR SEPARATE COLLECTIONS

A. Archives and Special Collections....................................... 19

B. Government Documents .................................................... 21

C. Multimedia ............................................................................. 23

D. Recreational Reading .......................................................... 25

E. Reference .............................................................................. 26

F. Vertical File ............................................................................ 27

XVI. OTHER POLICIES

A. Interlibrary Loan Policy ......................................................... 28

CMOS 45

XVII. APPENDICES

Appendix A American Library Association (ALA) Bill of Rights .... 30

Appendix B ALA Intellectual Freedom Statement ....................... 31

Appendix C ALA Statement on Challenged Material ................. 34

Appendix D ACRL Statement on Appraisal of Gifts ...................... 35

Appendix E Donor Agreement ....................................................... 36

Appendix F List of Reference Sources for Info. on Appraisals .... 37

Appendix G IRS Publication #561. Determining the Value

of Donated Property ................................................. 38

CMOS 46

Appendix K: Sample Letter to Faculty Liaisons

CMOS 47

Appendix L: Online Title Suggestion Form

Suggest

Comments

Library Information

Suggest a Title for Purchase

Additional items library should acquire:

Author

Title

Publisher & where & when published

Where you saw this item mentioned.

Other Information

SUBMIT THIS SUGGESTION

CMOS 48

Appendix M: Electronic Resource Workflow

WORKFLOW FOR SELECTION AND ACQUIRING ELECTRONIC

RESOURCES

1. Collection Development librarian receives requests which may come from:

Faculty (library and teaching)

OR

Notice of electronic resources available from consortium

OR

Notice from vendor (ebook and ejournal collections) of available

database

2. CDL sets up temporary access to an electronic resource and notifies

university constituency of its availability.

3. CDL consults with Reference department and with appropriate department

faculty for feedback and evaluation of the resource.

4. CDL and vendor discuss and resolve issues of access, number of

simultaneous users, maintenance fees, etc.

5. If funds are available and if the database is a high priority, the CDL sends

a request to the Acquisitions department to order.

6. The Acquisitions department places the order either by e-mail or a product

order form; provides vendor with IP range.

7. Vendor/consortium sends licensing agreement for signature.

8. The Acquisitions department takes the licensing agreement to the

Purchasing department for review and signature; returns the agreement to

the vendor/consortium.

9. Vendor activates electronic resources.

CMOS 49

Appendix N: Example of Program Review

Art Department Accreditation Review, 1999

LIBRARY

OTTENHEIMER LIBRARY

Governance

1. The Ottenheimer Library houses all the collections that support the academic

programs offered by the university. The art and design collection is an integral part of

the Library’s total holdings of 500,000 book and periodical volumes, 1 million microform

items, 12,000 audio and video volumes, maps, music scores, and electronic databases.

Ms. Wanda Dole, Dean of the Library, is responsible for library operations.

Personnel

2. The Library employs 38 faculty and staff organized into the following 10

departments: Acquisitions/Serials, Cataloging, Circulation/Reserve, Collection

Development Director’s Office, Information Technology, Interlibrary Loan, Media,

Multimedia, and Reference/Documents. The staff includes 10 professional librarians

(Masters of Library Science degrees), and 1 archivist. One librarian has a doctorate. The

remaining staff members are classified at technical levels commensurate with skills

required for their positions. Art faculty and students consistently find that all librarians

are generally helpful and cooperative in providing information about and or interpreting

art/design holdings.

Services

3. During a typical week, the Library is open 86.5 hours. Circulation and Reserve services

are available during all open hours. Although they are open fewer than 86 hours weekly,

departments such as Reference, Media, and Multimedia offer evening and or weekend hours and

staff are generally available during the busiest periods of the semester. During fiscal year 98/99,

the building population count was 408,018 and the library circulated over 50,300 regular items

and 8,700 reserve items.

CMOS 50

Librarians in the Reference Services department serve as the primary resource for faculty

and students who come to the library to conduct research or prepare class assignments.

Librarians are available to explain the organization of the collections and the online catalog, assist

in the use of indexes and abstracts in both printed and electronic formats, and identify the most

appropriate sources to answer specific questions.

The Reference Department coordinates the Library’s programs of instruction including:

orientation tours and lectures, course-related instruction, and classes on electronic databases.

One-on-one instruction at the reference desk is available. However, the core of the program is

course-related instruction, in which librarians work with faculty in the academic departments to

teach those skills that students need in course assignments and related research.

Instruction sessions take place in the Fred Menz Library Instruction Room which

seats 30 persons. The room is equipped with a computer connected to a data projector.

This set-up allows for demonstrations, including live demonstrations of the library’s web-

based and CD-ROM resources. Also, there is a large screen television and VCR

available.

During 98/99, librarians reached 3,537 students in 245 sessions. Of these sessions, 8

were art-specific lectures requested by members of the art faculty. A typical session includes

how to use the online catalog, periodical indexes, and specific reference works to find

information on artists, schools, movements or historical time periods. The librarian conducting

the session often prepares handouts listing the major sources to be covered in the lecture and

distributes these to the students.

Interlibrary loan is a vital service that the Library offers. By using this service,

students and faculty can request and receive materials that are not owned by the

Ottenheimer Library. OCLC, an international electronic cataloguing network, allows the

Library to contact participating libraries worldwide and request photocopies and loans of

library materials. Available to all students, the service is used frequently by faculty and

graduate students in the art history program. The service is efficient: approximately 85%

of the material requested is obtained and most materials arrive within a six to ten-day

period. Interlibrary loan is one of the Library’s most popular services. The Library

considers this service a valuable supplement to the core collection that it provides on site.

Another service that expands access to collections outside the Library is the reciprocal

borrowing agreement between the five University of Arkansas campuses. With a letter of good

standing from the Ottenheimer Library, faculty and students can borrow directly from any library

on the five campuses. This agreement offers users the opportunity to be flexible and to direct

their research without third party intervention.

CMOS 51

User satisfaction with the Library’s services is high as shown in a 1996 ACT Alumni

Outcomes survey sponsored by the state Department of Higher Education. In that survey,

satisfaction with library services and materials ranked number one compared to other UALR

student services.

Facilities

The Ottenheimer Library is a 5-story brick and plate-glass building, centrally located on

campus, just south of the Fine Arts Building. Library materials are housed in separate collections

on all five floors. On the first and second floors are reference materials, government documents

and the archives. The third floor houses the non-circulating periodical and audio collection and

the fourth floor holds the circulating book collection. On the fifth floor the multi-media

department houses a collection of non-circulating videotapes. A few study carrels are available

on the third and fourth floors for quiet study.

Collections

The Library offers the traditional print, microfiche, and audiovisual resources found in

most academic libraries. Of the 320,000 book and 2,000 journal titles in the Library’s collection,

11,000 book and 150 journal titles support the art design program. There is also a small collection

of videotapes on major artists and their works, and several collection of exhibition catalogues on

microfiche. These materials form the core of the Library’s art design collection and satisfy the

primary needs of the undergraduate and graduate student.

Access to a growing number of local and Internet electronic resources is available via

work stations in the Library, from campus computers, and via modem from remote sites. These

resources include databases that index scholarly journals, popular magazines, dissertations, and

other types of information. Faculty, staff, and students can also access full-text resources online,

including scholarly journals, newspapers, encyclopedias, and general reference publications. The

Library’s web page where these resources may be accessed is http://library.ualr.edu.

The web-based databases most pertinent to the art department are Art Abstracts, Art Index

Retrospective, the Humanities Index, and ERIC. Art Index Retrospective is a bibliographic

database that cumulates citations from volumes 20-32 of the print version of Art Index. The

database producers plan to add citations from volumes 1-19 in the future. The Reference

department offers individual and group instruction.

Selection of library materials for the collection is a shared responsibility of the Library

and the teaching faculty. The Library’s collection development policy outlines this responsibility

as well as the criteria for selection and withdrawal of items from the collection. This policy was

developed by the Library faculty and ratified in 1996 by the Faculty Senate Library Committee.

Maureen James-Barnes, the collection development librarian is responsible for selecting book

titles and coordinating the selection process.

CMOS 52

At the start of each academic year, faculty liaisons from each academic

department receive a letter from the Library that outlines the procedure for submitting

request cards for material needed to support coursework and faculty research. These

liaisons are asked to consult their colleagues, get their recommendations, and to prioritize

the suggestions. For the last three years the Library has ordered all of the top priority and

a substantial number of lower priority recommendations submitted by the art department

liaison.

In addition to recommendations from faculty and students, the Library purchases art-

related materials reviewed in Choice, the Association of College and Research Libraries monthly

review publication. Publisher-based approval plans with two book vendors are another source of

orders. The approval plans are based on commercial publishers and university presses that have

consistently produced outstanding academic books during the last five years. Each week, the

Library receives notifications of new publications from these presses. Teaching faculty and

librarians select from the notification slips those titles to be added to the collection.

It is worth noting that any library user may recommend titles for purchase by dropping a

title in the suggestion box or by sending an electronic request via the Library’s web page. The

approval plans ensure that there is a steady stream of current information on art design topics

from mainstream publishers. Selections from Choice, the faculty, and students complement the

other selection methods.

Finance

6. Each year, periodical expenses for the Art Department and other academic units are the

first to be deducted from the Library budget. Remaining funds are used to purchase other library

materials to support the curriculum. In determining where to allocate dollars, the Library gives

special emphasis to supporting graduate programs and to building up collections in areas that are

undergoing accreditation. Weaknesses in collections are considered as are the cost of materials

and anticipated use. For the past three years, the Library has used funds from a matching

National Endowment for the Humanities grant to supplement state dollars in building up the art

history and art theory collection. In 1996, NEH funds made it possible for the Library to

purchase the now classic Dictionary of Art. Earlier this year, NEH funds were again used to

purchase Art Index Retrospective. NEH and other supplemental funds have been enormously

useful in purchasing large, expensive, art resources that are hard to accommodate in the regular

budget. These funds will continue to be available for another two to three years. Ms Kathy

Sanders, the Library Director, is ultimately responsible for decisions regarding allocation of all

library funds.

CMOS 53

Library Expenditures specific to art and design

# in Collection Actual Actual Budgeted

as of 8/99 Expenditures Expenditures 1999/2000

1997/1998 1998/1999

Books 11,056 $8,036.08 $7,222.74 $10,000.00

Periodicals 150 $4,165.00 $12,017.00** $ 4,248.72

Videos, Films, 165 $ 0.00 $ 75.00 $ 100.00

Microforms Total 11,371 $12,201.08 $19,314.74 $14,348.72

**Includes $8,543.00 – a one-time expenditure for Art Index Retrospective.

Procedures for Requesting Materials

7. Departmental library liaisons in consultation with colleagues may submit request cards

for materials they would like to see in the collection of Ottenheimer Library. Because of fiscal

constraints it is likely that every title requested cannot be ordered but the Library keeps a file in

the event money for materials becomes available later in the fiscal year.

Request cards are to be submitted early in the academic year. Request cards must be

submitted by the liaison and should be marked 1)essential, or 2) highly desirable, or 3) desirable.

If reviews of publishers flyers are available, they too should accompany the request cards.

Although the final deadline for ordering books during a fiscal year is sometime after January

(During the current academic year, the deadline for ordering books is February 29, 2000.) It is

CMOS 54

recommended that submissions be made early in the fall semester. (The suggested date for the

current year is November 30, 1999.) Delaying a request until the February deadline may result in

materials not being received in time or that sufficient funds are no longer available. Requests are

sent to the collection development office.

Approval Plan

The Library selects current books using approval plans in place with Midwest Library Service

(university presses) and Yankee Book Peddler (commercial presses). Liaisons and their

colleagues are invited to select titles to be added to the collection from the notification slips sent

by these two vendors. Slips are in Library of Congress class number order and are filed in the

Technical Processing are of Ottenheimer Library.

Serials

9. Annual increases in serial prices continue to consume a growing share of the Library’s

budget and to erode its ability to buy other library materials. For this reason, the Library is

reluctant to add new serials to the collection (except for serials that may be required by newly

established academic programs). The Collection Development librarian will provide assistance in

locating possible alternatives to Library-sponsored periodical subscriptions.

(All sections of this self-study relative to the Library were written by Maureen James-Barnes,

Collection Development Librarian/Ottenheimer Library in consultation with Ms Kathy Sanders,

Library Director, and Win Bruhl, Chairperson of the Department of Art.)

CMOS 55

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Breakdown of Monographic Materials Purchased- 2010 Page 8

Figure 2A: Coutts Slip Approvals Workflow Page 9

Figure 2B: Midwest Slip Approvals Workflow Page 9

Figure 3: Book Approval Workflow Page 10

Figure 4: Coutts Slip Orders-2010 Page 11

Figure 5: Midwest Slip Orders-2010 Page 12

Figure 6: Number of NetLibrary® Accesses, 1999/2000 to 2009/2010 Page 14

COLLECTION ANALYSIS PROJECT

REPORT OF THE WORK GROUP ON

MATERIALS BUDGET AND ALLOCATIONS

July 2011

Work Group Members

Deborah Allison

Jill Jascha, co-chair Suzanne Martin Micah Sukany

Linda Wen, co-chair

Ottenheimer Library University of Arkansas at Little Rock

Little Rock, Arkansas

MBA 1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction ...................................................................................................... MBA p. 2

Overview ........................................................................................................... MBA p. 3

Materials Budget Allocation ............................................................................ MBA p. 5

Literature Review of Allocations Methods

Ottenheimer Library’s Current Method of Budget Allocation

Peer Institutions Current Method of Budget Allocation

Methods and Tools for Gathering Collection Statistics ................................ MBA p. 8

Recommendations ......................................................................................... MBA p. 10

References ..................................................................................................... MBA p. 11

Bibliography ................................................................................................... MBA p. 12

Appendix ........................................................................................................ MBA p. 13

MBA 2

INTRODUCTION

The Materials Budget Allocation (MBA) Work Group was charged with the following: (See

Appendix A.)

1. Describe current method of materials budget allocation. 2. Identify and review alternative methods of budget allocation and compare to the current

allocation method; also compare current method to peer institutions. 3. Review methods and tools for gathering collection statistics from Millennium, Banner and

other sources; identify the basic data required for program reviews, accrediting bodies, and external agencies; recommend the most effective way to gather and maintain files of this data.

The Work Group reviewed electronic expenditures and their impact on the Library‘s budget, but

did not include the results in this report. The findings of this investigation reflect those

presented in the UALR Collection Analysis Project Interim Report (CAP Phase I).

In conjunction with a review of current library practices, the Work Group developed and sent a

questionnaire for selected peer institutions to collect and compare statistical information and

budget allocation practices. The institutions selected had enrollments and budgets similar to

those of the University of Arkansas at Little Rock (UALR), and had a Carnegie classification of

doctoral research university (DRU) or higher. To collect data on local library practices, the

Group sent questionnaires to two Arkansas institutions.

The Work Group consulted the sections in Collection Analysis Project: an Assisted Self-Study

Manual (Association of Research Libraries, 1980) on budget allocation, the Washburn

University Mabee Library CAP Final Report, and the UALR Collection Analysis Project Interim

Report (CAP Phase I). Julia Blixrud, Assistant Executive Director of Scholarly Communication

for the Association of Research Libraries (ARL), provided critical guidance and feedback on the

development of the report. The CAP Study Team and the Dean also provided valuable input

and guidance.

MBA 3

OVERVIEW

This narrative reviews budget allocation methods described in the literature, examines the

Library‘s current practices, and summarizes those used by peer institutions.

LITERATURE REVIEW OF ALLOCATION METHODS

Allocation methods serve as tools by which the libraries translate collection priorities into concrete form and should follow the:

mission and goals of the library.

goals of the university.

collection development policy.

fiscal year priorities.

priorities for the long term collection. (Ruzwyshn) An examination of the literature on budget allocation reveals that libraries use one of the following three methods: 1. Formula-based Allocation

―Different criteria are used for allocation and given various weights to represent their importance. This is sometimes called matrix budgeting. For example, the number of instructional units taught by each department could be weighted more highly than the number of PhDs granted. By assigning a value to a particular criteria, a budget can be created. As long as the criteria and weighing are logical, this can be an effective way to budget‖ (German, 2001, p.9).

2. Percentage-based Allocation (PBA) PBA uses institutional statistics to build a mathematical model for the allocation of funds on subject or departmental lines. ―PBA is a method by which the percentage of the library‘s material budget allocated to each discipline is equal to the percentage of the parent institution‘s instruction and departmental research funding (I&DR) received by the corresponding academic department or program. All of the factors relating to the university and library users have presumably been applied and weighted by university administrators; therefore, the allocations arrived at are pragmatic and politically defendable in that they reflect the university‘s strength and goals as determined by the university administration‖ (Genaway, 1986, PBA).

3. Historical-based or Incremental Allocation ―With this method, allocations for the current year are based upon the allocations of the previous year. Specific modifications can allow for a greater amount of money (e.g., additional science funds to cover double-digit journal price increases), but the premise under which the money is allocated is incremental adjustment. The underlying reasons for allocating money to specific budget categories are not questioned‖ (German, 1986, p.9).

MBA 4

A review of literature reveals an extensive discussion of allocation methods and reflects

evolving trends in their adoption. The following section will discuss the disadvantages and

advantages of each method.

The formula method can be cumbersome because it requires extensive data collection and

relies on complex mathematical calculations (Johnson, 2004, p. 91). Because it relies on

external data, use of this method can minimize the librarian‘s role and lead to unbalanced

collections (Schmidt, 2008, p. 61). One advantage of this method includes easily

understandable explanations for allocations.

A disadvantage of the PBA method is that it ―does not account for variations in format,

publication outputs, or costs of materials in different disciplines‖ (Johnson, 2004, 91). The main

advantages are that it incorporates all the elements of formulas, is simple to determine and

administer, and is likely to be considered more equitable than many other methods or formula

(Genaway, 1986, p. 91).

The disadvantages of the historical method are minimal when there are annual adjustments

based on changing needs. However, this method can lead to an unbalanced collection

rewarding vocal and active selectors (Smith, 2008, 31). An advantage of the historical approach

is its flexibility. It is also simple, requiring fewer inputs and weighted calculations. This method

also minimizes the effects of unexpected and short-term shifts in the budget received from the

parent institution (Johnson, 2004, 91).

MBA 5

OTTENHEIMER LIBRARY’S CURRENT METHOD OF BUDGET

ALLOCATION

The Library currently uses the historical or incremental method to allocate the materials budget

for both one-time purchases (monographs, media, back files) and continuing resources (serials,

databases and other materials that require ongoing financial obligations).

Allocations are reviewed on an annual basis, compared with previous year‘s allocations and current collecting needs. At the beginning of each fiscal year, the Director of Administrative Services first sets aside funds for continuing resources based on the previous year‘s expenditures plus annual price increases based on vendor-supplied projections. Next, the Director allocates the balance of the materials budget for monographs and other one-time purchases. Individual subject areas receive funds based on the amount expended during the previous year. Programs in new subject areas receive $500 to $1,000 for initial purchases.

MBA 6

PEER INSTITUTIONS CURRENT METHOD OF BUDGET ALLOCATION

Seven institutions responded to the Work Group‘s questionnaire (See Appendix B-1). See table

below for a summary of the responses. (For more detailed responses, see Appendix B-2).

Four of the seven responding libraries reported using the historical method, one library reported

using formula, and the remaining three libraries use a combination of historical and formula.

These libraries apply different methods for serials and monographs.

* A method of selection in which patrons initiate the acquisition of new titles.

Questionnaire responses echoed the disadvantages and advantages found in the literature

review. The questionnaire respondents cite equitable distribution of funds among university

departments and the ease of implementation as strengths of the historical method. They also

reported that this method involves more than one library staff member in the allocation process

and creates allocations more closely reflecting an institution‘s past spending. Respondents,

however, also reported that the historical method was not as useful for libraries experiencing

wide fluctuations in budget or changing needs.

The Library has not always used the historical method of allocation. In the early 1980's, the

Library experimented with a formula-based allocation for buying monographs based on student

semester credit hours. This formula was not effective because it awarded undergraduate

programs a disproportionate share of the budget. The Library abandoned the formula and

reverted to the historical method. (CAP Phase I Interim Report)

No allocation method is effective without monitoring and adjustment based on input from budget

officers and those librarians responsible for building and acquiring collections. In recent years,

Serials Monographs

Arkansas State

UniversityFormula Formula None mentioned.

The formula method is the most

equitable way of disbributing funds.

Texas Woman's

UniversityHistorical Historical

Doesn't account for all

distance programs. Method fair to all departments.

University of Arkansas Historical HistoricalSelectors expect an annual

increase in allocation.

Engages more people in the decision-

making process.

University of

Massachusetts at

Boston

Historical Patron-Driven

Acquisitions*

Historical method is harder to

justify in times of increased

accountability.

Historical method is easiest to

implement.

University of Missouri at

Saint LouisHistorical Formula

Book selectors are

commenting on their reduced

budgets.

The collection decisions more closely

reflect what the library does.

University of New

OrleansHistorical Historical and Formula

There is no "hard and fast"

allocation formula. Difficult to

describe book allocation to

accrediting teams and faculty.

Book allocation is more flexible. By

moving money around, it is easier to

get materials for new programs.

University of West

FloridaHistorical Historical

Book allocation favor vocal

and rapid selectors. None.

ALLOCATION METHODINSTITUTION ADVANTAGESDISADVANTAGES

MBA 7

there has been limited collaboration between the departments responsible for selection,

acquisition, and finance. Expansion of this collaboration to establish goals and review existing

procedures will ensure that Library supports faculty and students in their teaching, learning, and

research.

The Work Group believes that the Library's use of the historical method is the appropriate one

for this institution because it is flexible, is based on easily understood priorities, and can be

readily adjusted to changing program needs. A complicated allocation method such as the

formula or the percentage based method is not the most efficient strategy for allocating what

remains from a budget largely committed to continuing resources.

.

MBA 8

METHODS AND TOOLS FOR GATHERING COLLECTION STATITISTCS

The Work Group was also charged with reviewing methods and tools for gathering collection statistics needed for internal planning and reports required by external agencies. The Dean, Collection Development, Acquisitions, and other library faculty require data for the following purposes.

Planning and implementing annual budgets.

Developing strategic planning goals and objectives.

Tracking circulation and usage activities.

Analyzing the collection. External agencies such as National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), Association of College and Research Libraries (ACRL), and the Arkansas Department of Higher Education (ADHE) have regularly scheduled surveys for which the Library must provide data. The Library also collects data for accreditation bodies such the National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE), the Higher Learning Commission (HLC), and ABET, Inc. Reviews of university programs also require similar data. Library staff gathers collection statistics using Innovative Interfaces Inc. Millennium (the Library‘s integrated-library-system), SunGard Banner (the University‘s administrative software system specifically developed for higher education institutions), and reports from the Library‘s three major vendors: Coutts, Midwest, and EBSCO. Millennium centralizes the library activities and can also be a comprehensive tool for budget

management. Millennium also collects transaction-based information (title, patron, request,

etc.) and combines cataloging, circulation, and acquisitions data into one as a searchable

database. Library faculty use Millennium statistical functions including Web-Management

Reports to gather or review information on volume counts, number of titles added, age of

collection, expenditures, and other data.

Banner integrates student, financial, human resources, financial aid, and alumni data. The

UALR Department of Finance and Administration uses Banner to track the free balance of the

budget and sends regular reports to individual campus units. The Library records purchases

and payments in Banner.

Millennium tracks materials expenditures when the Library submits invoices to campus Accounts Payable, while Banner captures expenditures when invoices are actually paid. Because there is limited access to Banner, designated Library staff must rely on Millennium to access fiscal data. In order to get up-to-date information, library faculty and staff must check two systems to get a complete picture of encumbrances, expenditures, arrival dates, and other pertinent acquisitions data. Without an interface between Banner and Millennium, all the necessary budget information cannot be viewed in one system. An interface between Banner and Millennium may resolve issues of multiple access points to acquisitions data, allow more efficient fiscal management, and allow for the provision of timely reports.

MBA 9

Each of the library‘s three major vendors: Coutts, Midwest, and EBSCO offer both standard and

customized-management reports. The Collection Development and Acquisitions Librarians

currently review the standard reports, but each vendor has the capacity to provide detailed,

customized reports specific to the Library‘s needs. Duplication of management reports

sometimes requires adjustments due to the overlap of data provided.

The collection of statistics is cumbersome, time-consuming, and the data required is not easily extracted from existing systems. Definitions of statistical measures vary from report to report and the application of these measures is not consistent among library departments. There are multiple tools for gathering statistical measures, but the Library lacks a centralized resource that will streamline access to the data and provide reports on key performance indicators.

MBA 10

RECOMENDATIONS

Based on its findings, the Work Group submits the following recommendations:

Appoint a planning and implementation team to include the Director of Administrative Services, the Director of Technical Services and Technology, and librarians in Acquisitions and Collection Development to coordinate the budget planning process and provide direction on fiscal matters.

o Review current fund allocations and fund code structure. o Establish goals, procedures, and timelines to streamline budget allocation. o Investigate interfaces that enable seamless access between the Innovative

Millennium Acquisitions module and Banner.

Charge the Data Integrity Team (consisting of faculty and staff from the Acquisitions, Cataloging, Collection Development, and Information Technology departments) and the Director of Technical Services and Technology to review and revise current methods of gathering collection statistics.

o Designate a person or group to coordinate statistics gathering, train library staff, develop a procedure manual, and disseminate it to library staff.

o Review and clarify definitions of statistical measures. o Schedule training for the Millennium Statistics module. o Publicize timetables and deadlines for reports requiring statistical data. o Investigate a centralized statistical reporting system like Innovative Encore

Reporter. o Maximize the use of vendor-supplied management reports.

MBA 11

REFERENCES

Genaway, D. C. (1986) PBA: Percentage Based Allocation for Acquisitions: A

Simplified Method for the Allocation of Library Materials Budget. Library

Acquisitions: Practice & Theory, (10), 287-292.

German, L., et al., (2001) ed. Guide to the Management of the Information Resources

Budget. Collection Management and Development Guides 9. Lanham, Md.:

Scarecrow Press.

Johnson, P. (2004). Fundamentals of collection development & management. Chicago:

American Library Association.

Smith, D. A. (2008). Percentage-based allocation of an academic library materials

budget. Collection Building, 27(1), 30-4.

Williams, V. K., & Schmidt, J. (2008, January) Determining the Average Cost of a

Book for Allocation Formulas: Comparing Options. Library Resources & Technical

Services, 52(1), 60-70.

MBA 12

BIBLIOGRAPHY

CAP Study Team. (2003, April). Collection analysis project final report. Topeka, Kansas:

Mabee Library, Washburn University.

Clement, S. K., & Foy, J. M. (2010). Collection development in a changing environment:

policies and organization for college and university libraries. Chicago: American

Library Association.

Gardner, J. G., & Webster, D. E. (1980, January). The collection analysis project: an

assisted self-study manual. Washington, D.C.: Office of Management Studies,

Association of Research Libraries.

Genaway, D. C. (1986) PBA: percentage based allocation for acquisitions: a

simplified method for the allocation of library materials budget. Library Acquisitions:

Practice & Theory, (10), 287-292.

German, L., et al., (2001) ed. Guide to the management of the information resources

budget. Collection Management and Development Guides 9. Lanham, Md.:

Scarecrow Press.

Jackson, B., James, M., et. al. (2010, October) Collection analysis project

interim report.

Ruzwyshn, R. Collection development: budget allocation serials options [PPT file].

Retrieved from Web Languages, XML and SGML For Libraries and Information

Centres Web site: bellsouthpwp.net/r/u/ruzwyshn/Budgetpowerpoint.ppt.

Shirk, G. M. (1985) Allocation formulas for budgeting library materials: science or

procedure?‖ Collection Management, 6, (3-4), 37-47.

Smith, D.A. (2008) Percentage based allocation of an academic library materials

budget. Collection Building, 27, (1), 30-4.

Walters, W. H. (2007, October) A regression-based approach to library fund allocation.

Library Resources & Technical Services, 51, (4), 263-78.

Williams, V. K., & Schmidt, J. (2008, January) Determining the Average Cost of a

Book for Allocation Formulas: Comparing Options. Library Resources & Technical

Services , 52, (1), 60-70.

MBA 13

Appendix A- Work Group Charge

MBA 14

Appendix B-1: Questions for Peer Institutions

Budget:

5. How do you allocate your materials budget? Historical, formula or other?

6. Please describe advantages or disadvantages of your current allocation(s) method.

7. Have you made changes in your allocation methods in the past 5 years? If yes, why and

how.

8. How have your work flow and budget allocations changed because of the increased

purchasing of electronic resources? (IT help)

a. Electronic books

b. Databases

c. Electronic journals

Collection Management:

8. Who is responsible for selection decisions?

9. Please describe the roles and responsibilities of the selector(s).

10. Do you use approval plans?

a. How are they used?

b. Who makes the decisions on the categories?

11. Are your selections based on patron driven acquisitions?

a. How involved are the faculty with collection decisions?

b. Are students encouraged to make suggestions?

c. Are you trying any special promotion to encourage participation?

12. Please describe your library‘s organizational structure and staffing. Do you have

separate Acquisition and Collection Development departments?

13. Does your Library participate in resource sharing or cooperative purchasing?

a. If yes, please describe the process in terms of collection development decisions,

budgeting, and acquisitions.

b. How does resource sharing or cooperative purchasing impact staffing?

14. Have you participated in LibQual+®?

a. If yes, did the survey identify any deficits in your collections?

b. How have you addressed those concerns?

General:

3. What ILS system do you use?

a. How do you use that system in relation to

i. Budgeting

ii. Collection Management

4. How is the library involved in reviewing new courses/programs introduced by the

University?

**Will you send any documentation, organizational charts, procedures, etc?** 1/4/11

MBA 1

Appendix B-2: Summary of Peer-Institution Responses

Arkansas State University Texas Woman's University University of Arkansas University of

Massachusetts at Boston

12,156 FTE 13,338 FTE 19,849 FTE 14,912 FTE

Master's L Doctoral research university Research university- very high

research activity

Research university- high

research activity

Formula method of

allocation is used for

teaching departments.

Historical method of allocation

is used for departmental

allocations.

Director of Collection

Management prepares the

final budget using the

Historical method of

allocation. Calculates annual

increases of 10% for serials.

The historical method of

allocation has been used

for the past four years.

Feel that this method is

the most equitable for

distributing funds.

Method is fair to all

departments, but doesn't

account for all distance

programs.

More faculty and staff are

engaged in this method of

allocation. However, selectors

expect an annual increase in

allocation amount.

Historical method is easiest

to implement. However,

this method is more

difficult to justify in times

of increased accountability.

Have rerun formula and

updated inputs, but have

not made any changes to

formula.

Advisory committee reviews

allocation method every two

years.

Tried to implement an

allocation formula based on an

article by the director of an

ARL library in Maryland. The

idea was dropped as there

wasn't enough money to

justify the process.

Used the formula method

to allocate for monographs

for over ten years, but

abandoned the method as

the book budget shrunk

and as selectors failed to

spend all of the allocated

funds. Currently, using the

Historical method and

Patron-Driven Acquisitions

for eBooks.

MBA 2

Appendix B-2 Continued

University of Missouri at Saint

LouisUniversity of New Orleans University of West Florida

16,534 FTE 11,724 FTE 11,143 FTE

Research university- high

research activity

Research university- high research

activity

Research university- high research

activity

Historical method of allocation

is used for serials and the

formula method of allocation

for monographs.

Formula method of allocation is used

for book budget and then money is

moved to those departments that

need it. Historical method is used for

serials and databases.

Historical method of allocation is

used. Allocation for serials is based

on increases in subscription costs.

The balance of the materials budget

is then allocated to monographs.

The monographs budget is allocated

by faculty-driven requests.

The collection decisions more

closely reflect what the library

does. However, book selectors

are commenting on their

reduced budgets.

The book allocation method is

flexible and is supportive of new

programs. However, this allocation

method is difficult to describe to

accrediting teams and faculty.

For monographs, the library is

vunerable to rapid or vocal

selectors.

There was no documenation on

how allocations were made.

Programs were being neglected

and changes had not been

made, so the library began an

accessment of the process.

The allocation method is reviewed

periodically.

The formula method of allocation

was once used, but the formula

didn't respond to the needs of the

institution.

COLLECTION ANALYSIS PROJECT

INTERIM REPORT

October 2010

CAP Study Team & Task Force Members

Brenda Jackson Maureen James, chair

Jill Jascha Carol Macheak Shawn Manis

Jean Ann Pritchard Donna Rose

Micah Sukany Lixia Zhao

Ottenheimer Library University of Arkansas at Little Rock

Little Rock, Arkansas

INTERIM 1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Overview .......................................................................................... INTERIM p. 2

Introduction ..................................................................................... INTERIM p. 3

A. The University of Arkansas at Little Rock

B. The Ottenheimer Library

Historical Development ................................................................. INTERIM p. 6

A. Introduction

B. Budget

C. Collection Growth

D. Collection Emphases

E. Material Selection Methods

F. Collection Assessment

Environmental Analysis ................................................................ INTERIM p. 14

A. Introduction

B. Economy

C. Scholarly Content in Digital Format

D. University Programs

E. Cooperative Programs

Summary ........................................................................................ INTERIM p. 23

References ..................................................................................... INTERIM p. 24

Bibliography ................................................................................. INTERIM p. 27

Work Group Charges ................................................................... INTERIM p. 31

Appendix ........................................................................................ INTERIM p. 35

List of Figures ............................................................................... INTERIM p. 58

INTERIM 2

COLLECTION ANALYSIS PROJECT 2010

OVERVIEW

During the early to mid-2000s the University of Arkansas at Little Rock [UALR] developed a comprehensive strategic plan called UALR Fast Forward http://ualr.edu/about/strategicplan/.1 The plan was released in 2006 and the Ottenheimer Library initiated a series of strategic planning activities creating a vision for the Library‘s future services, facilities, and collection. A primary 2006 strategic planning objective was to identify and develop a model to assess the existing collection. The Strategic Planning Collections Task Force, one of three task forces appointed by the Library Dean, discussed options for achieving this objective. With the guidance of the Dean, the group identified the Collection Analysis Project [CAP] as a potential assessment tool. CAP was developed by the Association of Research Libraries [ARL] in 1980 to help libraries develop collections that more effectively meet the needs of students and faculty at their institutions. In the spring of 2010 after a CAP presentation by an ARL consultant, the Library chose to participate in the Project. The Dean‘s charge to the current Strategic Planning Collections Task Force in 2010 began the formal launch of CAP and the appointment of a study team and two task forces [See Appendix A]. This Interim Report completes the first phase of the Ottenheimer Library‘s Collection Analysis Project [CAP]. In preparing the Interim Report, the CAP Study Team and two task forces examined historical and environmental factors influencing and continuing to influence collection development at the library. The Study Team reviewed and analyzed annual reports, library and university statistics, and other relevant materials to understand the challenges and opportunities that have molded the collections. The Team also read articles in the current library literature describing the emerging information environment and technology that is reshaping all scholarship at academic institutions. These articles describe a mutable landscape of academic and economic uncertainty and recommend creativity and flexibility in planning, managing, and budgeting in the 21st century. 2,3,4,5

As a result of its study, the CAP Study Team identified key areas needing more study and is developing charges for CAP Work Groups to review budget allocation, and collection organization and management. These work groups will complete their assignments and submit written reports on or before February 28, 2011. The Study Team will compile these individual reports, analyze the information, make recommendations, and submit a Final Report to the Dean of the Ottenheimer Library on or before March 30, 2011. During the data collection process, it became clear that statistics gathering methods have not been consistent over the years; therefore the numbers given in this document are reasonable estimates only. Study team and task force members have examined statistical tables from multiple sources and have chosen the best statistics from the existing resources.

INTERIM 3

INTRODUCTION

THE UNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS AT LITTLE ROCK

The University of Arkansas at Little Rock [UALR] was founded in 1927 as Little Rock Junior College [LRJC] under the supervision of the city Board of Education. In 1957 LRJC became the private Little Rock University [LRU] and began offering four-year degrees. Little Rock University merged with the University of Arkansas System in 1969 to create the University of Arkansas at Little Rock [UALR]. In 1975, the University established its first graduate program, a Masters in Social Work. Doctoral programs followed in 1986 with the transfer of the Graduate Institute of Technology programs from the University of Arkansas at Fayetteville and the expansion of the College of Education in 1990. After this period of growth in graduate programs, UALR gained the distinction of a doctoral university/research intensive classification from the Carnegie Foundation. Today UALR fully embraces the multiple purposes of a vibrant metropolitan university where there is room for graduate and undergraduate education, outreach and public services, and research. THE OTTENHEIMER LIBRARY

John Larson, the founder and president of Little Rock Junior College, initiated the first library in the fall of 1927, the year of the first classes. Larson borrowed books from the high school library, instructors loaned volumes from their personal collections, and the faculty solicited donations from the citizens of Little Rock. At the end of the first year of operation, the library contained 1,430 volumes. By the early 1940‘s the collection of Little Rock Junior College Library had grown to 16,000 volumes and 110 periodicals and newspapers. There was also a music library of 1000 records and a small collection of prints. At that time, a room was dedicated to the Arkansas collection, which was augmented by the Allsopp Collection of Arkansas material, donated in 1946. 6 In 1949, the board of trustees named the library the John A. Larson Memorial Library to honor the president who had served the institution for 22 years. The collection grew with the addition of the L. Ernest Moore Manuscript Collection containing thousands of original records of the federal occupation of Little Rock by General Frederick Steele during the Civil War. The Larson Memorial Library received an endowment in the form of a gift of Sterling store stock in 1953 with the interest designated for the purchase of books. In 1954 Donald K. Hawthorne donated 1600 volumes to the general collection. 7 The initial investigation for the transition of Little Rock Junior College to a four-year college by the North Central Association revealed that the library‘s holdings of 30,000 volumes fell significantly below the standards for schools of similar size. In comparison, Reed College of Portland, Oregon, with approximately 800 students, had over 107,000 books and Kenyon College in Ohio, with only 700 undergraduates, had a library with over 137,000 volumes. Responding to this criticism, in 1958 the LRU board of trustees retained the services of Dr. Arthur McAnally, director of libraries at the University of Oklahoma, as a consultant to improve the overall quality of the Larson Memorial Library. McAnally reported that not only did the Library have insufficient holdings, but also it needed additional staff and more accessible book stacks. The necessary changes were made so that the school received four-year status and has since that time retained its North Central Accreditation.8

INTERIM 4

Gus Ottenheimer for many years had headed the committee that prepared Little Rock Junior College to transform into Little Rock University. With his brother Leonard, he created the Ottenheimer Brothers Foundation, incorporated in 1965 to use their estates for educational or charitable purposes. In 1985 one month after Gus Ottenheimer died, the Foundation pledged $1 million to purchase high technology equipment for UALR. It was the largest single gift the university had ever received and the UALR Library became the Ottenheimer Library in honor of the Ottenheimer brothers. 9 In April 1976, the Library moved its 175,000 volume collection from Administration South to its present location occupying four floors of a new five-story building. In 2005, the Library took possession of the fifth floor and transferred staff offices and part of its expanding collection to this location. Currently library offices and media are moving from the fifth floor to provide space for the Graduate School. Part of the book collection will remain on the fifth floor. During the early 1970s, the Ottenheimer Library became an official depository for Arkansas, United States, and European Union government publications. The federal collection receives about 37 percent of the materials produced and the European Union collection receives about 25 percent of the publications released with a growing percentage of both collections available in electronic format. In 2009, after tracking use statistics and investigating the availability of resources online, the government documents librarian recommended that the Library withdraw from the Arkansas Documents Program. In 1995, the Ottenheimer Library absorbed staff and collections from the Multimedia department, which had provided equipment delivery and set-up for classrooms and campus events. The department‘s collection included film strips, VHS tapes, laser discs, and equipment for classroom use. In the 1990s, these materials merged with the Library Media Center and relocated to the fifth floor in 2007. The Library transferred Multimedia staff to the Campus Computing in 2008. In the fall of 2010 the Library transferred its collection of VHS, LPs, CDs, DVDs, microforms, audio books, audiotapes, and other media material to the first floor. The Library Media Center no longer exists as a distinct department. The UALR Archives and Special Collections Department opened in 1978. Today the collections comprise about 8,000 linear feet, over 12,000 book volumes, and approximately 70,000 images. The Collections include Winthrop Rockefeller‘s Papers, political and editorial cartoon collections of both Jon Kennedy and Bill Graham, legal documents, newspapers, photographs, maps, architectural drawings, pamphlets, books, journals, and other materials.

INTERIM 5

In March 2009, UALR and the Central Arkansas Library System [CALS] entered into a partnership with the Arkansas Studies Institute [ASI], located in downtown Little Rock. At that time the Butler Center for Arkansas Studies and the UALR Archives manuscripts collections moved into the ASI and staff of each group began working in a shared research room. Currently the UALR Archives houses materials both at ASI [manuscripts] and on the UALR Campus [university papers, non-circulating books collections, and theses/dissertations]. As of September 15, 2010, Archives is under the direction of the Dean of Arts, Humanities, and Social Sciences and has moved to the ASI. Details of how the collection will be divided are forthcoming.

INTERIM 6

HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT

INTRODUCTION

The CAP Study Team reviewed significant events and developments that have shaped the Library‘s collection during the past 35 years. This narrative examines five areas: Budget, which provides an overview of the university and library budgets; Collection Growth, which explains the Library‘s transition from print to electronic format; Collection Emphases, which traces the effects of new university programs and courses, gift collections, and grant donations on the collection; Material Selection Methods, which reviews the process for identifying and acquiring materials; and Collection Assessment, which summarizes internal and external efforts to evaluate the Library‘s collection. BUDGET Revenues from state appropriations and student tuition/fees account for 88 percent of the University‘s operating budget. Bookstore sales and the sale of athletic tickets; comprise 9 percent and the remaining 3 percent comes from grants, contracts, investments, sales, and other sources. See Figure 1. Since FY 2005/2006 the percentage of the budget coming from state appropriations decreased from 47.7 percent to 44.94 percent while revenues from tuition/fees increased from 40.5 percent to 44.21 percent.

Figure 1: Source of UALR Operating Budget 2009/2010

Source: UALR Office of University Advancement

Since the 1970s, the Library's share of the University budget has remained consistent at about 2.5 percent despite the library administration's effort to increase it to the share recommended by the Association of College and Research Libraries [ACRL]. In their 1986 Standards for College Libraries, ACRL recommended that libraries receive a 6 percent share of the University's education and general budget.10 The library has never received a 6 percent share. The current ACRL Standards for Libraries in Higher Education do not specify a percentage but recommend that ―the Library director/dean prepare, justify and administer a library budget that is appropriate to the library‘s objectives.‖ http://www.ala.org/ala/mgrps/divs/acrl/standards/standardslibraries.cfm.

11

Student Tuition/Fees & State Appropriations

Athletic Ticket Revenues & Bookstore Revenues

Grants/Contracts, Investments, and Sales/Service

INTERIM 7

Figure 2 shows that the Library has received a higher share of its university‘s budget than ARL libraries.

Figure 2: Library Budget as Percentage of University Operating Budget

FY 2005/2006 to 2009/2010 for UALR Ottenheimer Library and ARL Libraries

Source: Ottenheimer Library Annual Reports and University & Library Expenditures. http://www.arl.org/stats/annualsurveys/eg/index.shtml

A series of budget cuts followed by restoration of funds affected the Library‘s budget during the 1980s and 1990s. A 31.5 percent budget reduction in FY 1986/1987 prompted the Library to initiate periodical cancellations and to reduce monograph purchases. However, in the next fiscal year, the Chancellor added $200,000.00 to the materials budget to begin restoring the original allocation. These cuts and subsequent actions led to lasting changes that strengthened the Library‘s ability to purchase materials for its collections. To offset the effects of periodical cancellations in 1991, the Library Director requested and received a library fee of $1.50 per credit hour. The fee provided additional funding but was not added to the library‘s base budget and fluctuated with enrollment. In 2002, the Chancellor resolved to add $50,000.00 to the base every fiscal year until the base increased by $250,000.00.

2.495 2.441 2.557

2.431 2.567

2.2942 2.2113 2.1353 2.0912

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

2005/2006 2006/2007 2007/2008 2008/2009 2009/2010

Ottenheimer Library

ARL Libraries (2009/2010 Data Not Available)

INTERIM 8

For the last five fiscal years the Library‘s materials budget has escaped problematic budget cuts. [See Figure 3] Factors positively influencing future budget growth are increased enrollment and endowed funds.

Figure 3: UALR Ottenheimer Library

Operating Budget and Materials Expenditures FY 2005/2006 to 2009/2010

Source: Ottenheimer Library Annual Reports

The establishment and expansion of distance education classes had a significant and continuing impact on the Library‘s collection budgets. When distance education programs were established in 2003 the Library applied for and received $68,000.00 from the Distance Education Committee to purchase electronic resources. By FY 2006/2007, the Library was receiving $157,000.00 from the Committee. In FY 2008/2009, the Dean of Extended Programs transferred $180,000.00 permanently to the Library‘s budget to continue electronic subscriptions. In FY 2010/2011, the Dean of Extended Programs allocated an inflationary allowance of 15 percent to accommodate subscription price increases. Graduate programs in the sciences and engineering also have had an impact on the budget as they require expensive databases that have diverted a portion of the budget to electronic resources. [See Figure 4]

Figure 4: Print and Electronic Expenditures as Percentage of Materials Budget

UALR Ottenheimer Library FY 2005/2006 to 2009/2010

Source: UALR Banner Financial System

2,930,536 3,116,769

3,386,043 3,332,598 3,606,973

1,128,607 1,229,071 1,326,390 1,410,168 1,605,869

0

500,000

1,000,000

1,500,000

2,000,000

2,500,000

3,000,000

3,500,000

4,000,000

2005/2006 2006/2007 2007/2008 2008/2009 2009/2010

Total Library Materials

78 80 81

73 77

21 19 19

27 22

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

2005/2006 2006/2007 2007/2008 2008/2009 2009/2010

Electronic Print

INTERIM 9

COLLECTION GROWTH

In April 1976, the Library‘s collection included 175,000 volumes, and 282,511 microfilm rolls and microfiche sheets. Maps, audiocassettes, filmstrips, and other media made up the rest of the collection. The Library was the physical point of access for all parts of the collection. As of June 2010, the collection contains over 512,000 book and periodical volumes, 150 electronic databases, 19,000 electronic books, and over 30,000 electronic journals. These new electronic formats permit the library to provide off-campus access to remote databases, collections, and electronic resources through the Innovative Interfaces automated library system and through the Library‘s Web site www.library.ualr.edu. The traditional formats of maps, microforms, audio, film, and video persist and account for an additional 250,000 volumes. The volume count increased by 3.78 percent in the 1980s, by 3.1 percent in the 1990s and by less than 1 percent in 2009-2010. This deceleration reflects the Library‘s transition to electronic materials and the reduction in the number of print serials that must be bound.

Figure 5: Historical Volume Count [Books and Bound Periodicals]

UALR Ottenheimer Library FY 1983/1984 to 2009/2010

Source: Ottenheimer Library Annual Reports

The Library‘s holdings reflect title counts exceeding 20,000 for the major disciplines. The ―Age of Collection Report‖ [Appendix B-1 to B-8] showing the number of titles purchased through 2009, lists title counts for the Social Sciences [48,419], English and American Literature [43,570], History [42,464], the Sciences and Engineering [34,593], and Education [20,538]. The Library expects to purchase print monographs in those disciplines for which print material continue to be important. [Highlights of significant events in the formation and development of the collection can be found in Appendix C]

0

100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

500,000

600,000

19

83-8

41

983

-84

19

85-8

61

986

-87

19

87-8

81

988

-89

19

89-9

01

990

-91

19

91-9

21

992

-93

19

93-9

41

994

-95

19

95-9

61

996

-97

19

97-9

81

998

-99

19

99-2

00

02

000

-01

20

01-0

22

002

-03

20

03-0

42

004

-05

20

05-0

62

006

-07

20

07-0

82

008

-09

20

09-1

0

INTERIM 10

COLLECTION EMPHASES

The general subject scope of the Library‘s collections is defined by the Library of Congress classification system; a few subjects are specifically excluded. Collection emphases have developed based on the existence of longstanding programs in areas such as teacher education, social work, American and English literature, and other liberal arts disciplines. Because the collections reflect the Library‘s mission to support the teaching, learning, and research needs of the University, new areas of emphasis are developing particularly in the sciences and engineering. No matter the emphasis, the Library acquires current publications with a preference for electronic format because of user demand. In the 1980s and 1990s, the Library‘s collections benefited from significant gifts and grants that helped to create new emphasis areas and build on existing ones. The largest grant received by the Library was a three to one matching National Education for the Humanities [NEH] Grant of 1.1 million dollars [1992 -1996 with extension to 2000]. The $400,000.00 requested from NEH was ―to purchase currently available monographs, videotapes, micromaterials*, tapes, and research collections to strengthen the library humanities holdings in support of the university‘s revised curriculum.‖ [See Appendix D] In addition to providing funds to purchase materials to support graduate and undergraduate research, the grant permitted the acquisition of research materials in the humanities for use primarily by faculty. The Director invited teaching faculty to submit requests for research material and selected proposals that met the criteria established by the NEH. Two endowments to purchase books in psychology and literature for children have strengthened collections in these areas. Since 1986, Psychology department faculty has used funds from the Rountree Fund to purchase over 200 titles in psychology and related disciplines. The Fund is an endowment set up in memory of Phyllis Rountree, a former psychology faculty member. From 1983 to 1992 the Library received $5,000.00 annually and purchased over 2,000 award-winning and notable children‘s and young adult books from an endowed fund in memory of Helon Brown Williams, the mother of June Williams, a student in the teacher education program. The Library has steadily built its collection of materials on the Middle East since 1996 when the Library began to receive $5,000.00 annually from the Middle Eastern Studies Foundation, a foundation established at the University of Arkansas at Fayetteville with funds from King Fahd of Saudi Arabia. In 1996, the Library added five new journals on the Middle East and has since purchased over 2,000 monographs. The centerpiece of the Middle East collection is a 237 volume facsimile edition of primary source materials purchased at a cost of $112,000.00 with funds from the Foundation and the Dean of the Arts Humanities and Social Sciences.

*microfilm, microfiche, ultrafiche.

INTERIM 11

When the Graduate Institute of Technology transferred to UALR in 1986, the Library acquired 34,000 volumes of materials that expanded its limited science and technology holdings. The Library proceeded to update old editions and add new titles where appropriate. The creation of the Donaghey College of Engineering and Information Technology signaled the University‘s firm commitment to science and technology education. The Library‘s response has been to

strengthen its collection of databases and electronic journals to support programs in these fields. Current databases include the Web of Science, SciFinder Scholar, Biological Abstracts, IEEE Xplore, INSPEC and a subset of the Science Direct database.

INTERIM 12

MATERIAL SELECTION METHODS

Under the leadership of the Library Director in the 1970s, the Acquisitions and Serials librarians selected materials for the collection. Choice, a monthly magazine of book reviews published by the Association of College and Research Libraries [ACRL] was the principal source for selection. Other sources included Books for College Libraries [BCL] and Magazines for Libraries. The Library also established an approval plan with vendor, Richard Abel, to automatically supply books from proven publishers to support the curriculum. Based on a profile using criteria such as the level of program offerings, the number of titles published in a field, and specific publishers, the plan was the first attempt to automate the selection process while saving time and money. In the late 1970s, budget cuts forced the Library to suspend automatic book shipments and return to title by title selection. This situation has recurred several times during the Library‘s history.

The first collection development librarian, Sarah Ringer, was hired in 1984. She continued to use Choice, BCL, and standard bibliographies to build the collection. In 1984, the Library Director arranged with a book jobber for a modified blanket order plan with six publishers including four university presses. When the Library received the NEH grant, John Calhoun, the second collection development librarian, expanded the approval program with two vendors: Midwest Library Services and Yankee Book Peddler [YBP]. Automatic book shipments resumed and both vendors sent slips with additional titles that could be selected and purchased. Faculty and library staff could make selections from the slips, but the Collection Development Librarian did most of the selection. Another budget cut suspended automatic book shipments, and the Library reverted to a slips only approval plan. The current Head of Collection Development, Maureen James, continued to do most of the selection from slips and reference librarians selected from Choice.

In 2006, the Library resumed an active approval program using Midwest Library Service and a new vendor, Coutts Information Services. Library faculty began selecting materials using electronic slips to select materials from Coutts and continued selecting from Midwest. The involvement of library faculty was not new. Through the years, library faculty interested in acquisitions have engaged in selecting materials, often in the form of selecting materials from Choice in specific subject areas, or reviewing the weekly descriptive lists that arrived from Midwest or YBP. The reference librarians select materials to be added to the reference collection and the Government Documents librarian selects documents published by the United States government and the European Union. The current Head of Collection Development coordinates selections from Choice, approval slips, and other sources. The teaching faculty always has been involved in book selection and they continue to be engaged in the process, although their participation is uneven. The current liaison program provides a greater opportunity for faculty to participate in materials selection and to explore other options for the selection of library materials. In the early 1980s, the Library experimented with an allocation formula for buying monographs based on student semester credit hours. This formula was not effective because it awarded undergraduate programs a disproportionate share of the budget. The Library abandoned the formula and reverted to an allocation method based on expenditures for the previous year.

INTERIM 13

COLLECTION

Internal and external assessments of the Library‘s collections occur throughout the year. Campus and department accreditation visits involve the preparation of reports by library faculty and staff that describe and evaluate the Library‘s holdings and expenditures for library materials. Accreditation teams also schedule time to meet with Library faculty when they visit.

The March 17th, 1980 accreditation report from the North Central Association of Colleges and School evaluation team found the Library‘s holdings ―not as extensive as the scholar would desire‖ but ―adequate to serve the needs of both students and faculty when coupled with inter-library loans and the direct use of the other library resources in the Little Rock area.‖12 Accreditation visits from the Higher Learning Commission of the North Central Association of Colleges and Universities in 2000 and 2010 resulted in reaccreditation for the University; there were no explicit critiques of the Library‘s collections. The same is true for the National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education [NCATE] visit in 2010.

The Graduate and Undergraduate Councils require statements from the Library describing and evaluating the collection to support proposed courses and programs. The Head of Collection Development prepares these brief statements focusing chiefly on the number of monographs, periodicals, and databases in direct support of the topics to be covered by the course or program. The statements highlight strengths and weaknesses and when necessary recommend new materials to bolster the collection. For departments undergoing accreditation, an expanded assessment of the collection might note detailed holdings by Library of Congress, classes, lists of periodical titles, and a comparison of holdings to WorldCAT* or another library with a comparable program. The Library uses standard bibliographies to determine the strength of its holdings. Books for College Libraries now Resources for College Libraries and Magazines for Libraries have been standard resources for evaluation. In the 1990s three major serial reviews involving use studies of the journal collection resulted in cancellations and additions of titles. With a journal collection that is increasingly electronic, the Library now relies on use statistics from vendors to evaluate database and journal usage. In 2008 the Library conducted LibQual+®, an ARL Web-based survey that helps libraries assess and improve library services. Results from focus groups provided data on user needs and on their perception of the quality of the collection. Electronic journals and databases ranked high on their list of needs and there were suggestions for books in specific subject areas. The Library purchased some of the recommended material and discussed ways to publicize the Library‘s holdings. Special assessment projects include the evaluation of the reference and government documents collection [2009/2010] and the ongoing evaluation of the vinyl record collection [2005]. Continuous evaluation takes place with the discarding of superseded titles and materials in poor condition and with decisions to withdraw or keep previous editions of new works. The Library‘s thirteen year-old Collection Development Policy outlines criteria for these activities. * WorldCAT is a global catalog of library collections.

INTERIM 14

ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS INTRODUCTION The following pages address four environmental factors affecting or likely to affect the Ottenheimer Library in the future: the economy, scholarly content in digital format, university programs, and cooperative arrangements. The CAP Study Team focused on the period from 2004 to 2010, a time frame representing a major shift in the information landscape. ECONOMY The 2008 recession has caused a disruption in the worldwide economy. Since 88 percent of the University‘s monies come from state revenues, the budget has been deeply impacted for the foreseeable future. The recession caused the steepest decline in state tax receipts on record. The 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act [ARRA] lessened state cuts in services, prevented tax and fee increases, and minimized withdrawals from state reserve funds. The ARRA provided funds to cover 30 to 40 percent of states‘ projected shortfalls. This aid is now almost depleted, but state budget gaps remain. Economists have recommended extending assistance while state fiscal distress continues. http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=711.13

Although Arkansas experienced a 2.4 percent budget gap in 2009, the state, one of only four states without severe budget shortfalls, benefited from its balanced budget amendment. Along with Montana, North Dakota and Alaska, Arkansas is now projected to be spared a budget gap in fiscal year 2011. http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=711.14

Figure 6 shows that at least 43 states have implemented cuts to public colleges and universities and/or made large increases in college tuition to make up for insufficient state funding. http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=1214.15

Figure 6: States with Budget Shortfalls 2010

Source: http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=711

INTERIM 15

In spite of the Arkansas balanced budget amendment, uncertainty about the national economic recovery, coupled with future reductions in state tax collections, is likely to adversely affect the lowered income of the University and therefore its Library.

Despite the financial setback in 2009/2010, the Library‘s appropriations have remained relatively stable. National Center for Education Statistics [NCES] data from 2008 [latest available] compared the Library to five peer institutions as named in UALR Fast Forward16. The data represented in Figures 7 through 9 shows the Library ranked lowest in total library expenditures and in expenditures per fulltime students.

Figure 7: Data from Academic Libraries Survey FY 2008 National Center for Education Statistics

Library Name Total FTE 12-

Month Enrollment

Total Library Expenditures

Total Library Expenditures Per

FTE Student

University of Arkansas at Little Rock

9,526 2,835,661 297.68

University of Massachusetts- Boston, MA

9,520 3,882,582 401.53

University of New Orleans, LA 9,636 4,263,165 442.42

University of Missouri- St. Louis, MO

9,939 5,766,849 580.22

Wichita State University, KS 10,717 5,664,239 528.53

University of Central Oklahoma, OK

11,781 3,885,027 329.77

Source: http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/libraries/Academic.asp

Figure 8: Data from NCES Academic Libraries Survey 2000 to 2008 Total Library Expenditures

Library Name 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008

University of Arkansas at Little Rock, AR

2,798,516

2,247,045

2,466,992

2,910,841

2,835,661

University of Central Oklahoma, OK

2,738,612

2,750,989

3,009,984

3,500,997

3,885,027

University of Massachusetts- Boston, MA

3,613,386

3,194,670

3,387,474

N/A 3,822,58

2

University of Missouri- St. Louis, MO

4,341,103

4,229,516

4,389,456

4,690,109

5,766,849

University of New Orleans, LA 3,486,34

2 3,590,29

6 3,990,65

0 3,963,27

2 4,263,16

5

Wichita State University, KS 4,411,14

7 4,921,78

1 4,971,04

7 5,444,94

0 5,664,23

9 Source: http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/libraries/Academic.asp

INTERIM 16

Figure 9: Data from NCES Academic Libraries Survey 2000 to 2008 Total Library Expenditures per FTE Student

Library Name 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008

University of Arkansas at Little Rock, AR

N/A N/A 280.02 320.22 297.68

University of Central Oklahoma, OK

N/A N/A 255.26 281.43 329.77

University of Massachusetts- Boston, MA

N/A N/A 405.54 N/A 401.53

University of Missouri- St. Louis, MO

N/A N/A 442.84 472.03 580.22

University of New Orleans, LA N/A N/A 293.56 513.84 442.42

Wichita State University, KS N/A N/A 473.03 512.71 528.53 Source: http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/libraries/Academic.asp

See Appendix F for additional NCES data - 2002 through 2008.

INTERIM 17

SCHOLARLY CONTENT IN DIGITAL FORMAT

Recent technology trends present formidable challenges for the Library. The shift from print to digital publishing and the rapid proliferation of information have redefined scholarly communication and the way users discover and access information. While commercial and government publishers continue to produce some print materials, library users prefer digital formats. Electronic journals at the Library increased from 26,781 in 2007-2008 to 31,341 in 2008-2009 and the number of electronic books increased from 23,994 to 31,057 during the same time period. Libraries are now spending a large portion of their acquisitions budget on electronic resources. ARL data from FY 2008 shows that in every year of the last decade ―electronic materials expenditures have grown sharply anywhere between two and ten times faster than other material expenditures have.‖17 See Figure 10 for the UALR library‘s expenditures for electronic materials.

Figure 10: Trends in Electronic Expenditures

UALR Ottenheimer Library FY 2005/2006 to 2009/2010

Source: UALR Banner Financial System

The digitization of existing content and the production of scholarly content in digital form have increased access to information. In 2006, Google Book Search [now Google Books] began scanning the full text of books and storing them in their digital database. The result is a new marketing platform for publishers. Publishers now release chapters of books for users to sample. While selectors now have a source for previewing titles before purchase, faculty and

researchers may be frustrated by the limited access. 18 In 2008, the Hathi Trust, a collaboration of the 13 universities of the Committee on Institutional Cooperation, including the University of California and the University of Virginia, established a repository for archiving and sharing their digitized collections on the Web. 19 It is not yet known how these resources will impact the Library‘s collections as the Library has not yet publicized these materials.

-100,000

0

100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

500,000

600,000

700,000

Exp

en

dit

ure

s in

Do

llars

Web Access

E-Books

e-journals

Linear (Web Access)

Linear (E-Books)

Linear (e-journals)

INTERIM 18

Traditional publishing of e-books has been on a single aggregator platform. In the late 1990s, NetLibrary initiated access to electronic books with the promise of twenty-four hour access to content. However, the purchase of e-books and their use in libraries remained sluggish until 2009. The advent of e-readers – portable devices designed for single users - and aggressive marketing campaigns by Amazon, manufacturer of Kindle, and Apple, manufacturer of the iPad, have fueled significant consumer interest in e-books. Princeton University has teamed with Amazon to publish Kindle versions of textbooks and academic libraries and universities are investigating providing electronic readers to students.20, 21,22,23,24,25 Each semester the Library receives requests to purchase textbooks. The Library‘s Collection Development policy states that textbooks are not routinely purchased. If these devices prove to be successful, the Library should receive fewer requests to purchase textbooks for the collection.

The explosive growth of mobile devices and applications is likely to change the way students and faculty access, view, and manipulate information. The 2009 EDUCAUSE Center for Applied Research [ECAR] study of undergraduate students and information technology found that 70 percent of respondents either owned or intended to purchase an Internet-ready handheld device. http://www.educause.edu/Resources/TheECARStudyofUndergraduateStu/187215. 26

Libraries now face a growing expectation to deliver services, content, and media to mobile and personal devices and this demand is expected to grow.27 As e-book readers and other portable devices grow in popularity, the library will have to select materials based not only on content but on their ease of use on various platforms. http://www.ifla.org/en/ifla76 28 In 2008, the publishing industry faced cutbacks, consolidations, takeovers, and layoffs and by early 2009 the situation had not improved. 29 Small scholarly publishers in particular have been hard hit because of budget cuts in higher education, and they face continued reduced profits if libraries remain their primary customers. http://www.educause.edu/EDUCAUSE+Review/EDUCAUSEReviewMagazineVolume45/IfIWereaScholarlyPublisher/209335 30 Publishers are now using different models of production to get books in the hands of users. One such model is print on demand [POD] publishing, the printing of a book at the time of ordering. One source reports that POD has overtaken traditional publishing in the number of titles produced and publishers such as Lightning Source are expanding their efforts in this area. 31 User created content in the form of blogs, personal Web sites, and discussion forums, have made it easy to share information freely via the Internet. Researchers and other users would like to see the same sort of ―open access‖ to scholarly material. The Budapest Open Access Initiative defines open access this way:

By ―open access‖ to this literature, we mean its free availability on the public Internet, permitting any users to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of these articles, crawl them for indexing, pass them as data to software, or use them for any other lawful purpose, without financial, legal, or technical barriers other than those inseparable from gaining access to the internet itself. (http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/overview.htm).32

Over the last three years, several major universities including Harvard and MIT have adopted open access policies that make the scholarly work of their faculty available online to anyone for free. http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/newsletter/

INTERIM 19

06-02-10.htm.33

Traditional collection development uses a just-in case-model to acquire materials. As libraries adjust to reduced budgets they are turning to a just-in-time model that relies more heavily on the user to determine what is purchased. Patron driven acquisition and resource sharing systems that offer twenty-four hour turnaround time for article requests are new alternatives. The full effect of open access and patron-driven acquisitions are not yet known. If the open access movement is successful, more free scholarly materials will become available on the web, and this may free up funds for buying other resources. Librarians will have to consider these free materials as they select materials for the collection. Library holdings that fit the immediate needs of users may result from a patron-driven acquisitions model. This may come at the expense of balanced collections.

INTERIM 20

UNIVERSITY PROGRAMS There are six program divisions at UALR: The College of Arts; Humanities and Social Sciences; the College of Business; the College of Education; the Donaghey College of Engineering Information and Technology; the College of Professional Studies; and the College of Science and Mathematics. Together these six colleges offer 38 master's degrees, 14 graduate certificates, two education specialists, and nine doctoral programs. [See Appendix G] Figure 11 shows UALR Undergraduate and Graduate FTE FY 2006/2007 to 2009/2010.

Figure 11: UALR Undergraduate and Graduate FTE FY 2006/2007 to 2009/2010.

Source: UALR Office of Institutional Research

The focus of the Library‘s current collection is the support of coursework and research for faculty and students in these programs. New courses and programs proposed by the divisions must be reviewed by the Graduate and Undergraduate Councils which require the attachment of a library holdings statement that evaluates the collection to support the course or program and recommends new materials if necessary. This requirement is part of the University‘s Curriculum Change Form [see Appendix H] and ensures that the Library is aware of upcoming curricular changes and can plan to build collections in new areas and strengthen existing ones. A major influence shaping the Library‘s collections in the last five years has been the expansion of graduate programs. Since 2006/2007, graduate enrollment has increased 14 percent and the Graduate Council has approved 163 new courses and 10 new programs.

Fiscal YearUndergraduate

EnrollmentGraduate Enrollment

2009-2010 19,659 4,837

2008-2009 18,117 4,562

2007-2008 18,300 4,394

2006-2007 17,835 4,244

2005-2006 18,095 4,112

2004-2005 17,905 4,012

2003-2004 17,891 3,870

2002-2003 17,959 3,614

2001-2002 17,980 3,514

2000-2001 17,127 3,516

1999-2000 N/A N/A

1998-1999 N/A N/A

1997-1998 16,822 3,562

1996-1997 16,508 3,381

1995-1996 17,086 3,628

1994-1995 18,007 3,323

1993-1994 19,377 3,357

1992-1993 20,560 3,053

1991-1992 19,829 2,764

INTERIM 21

Librarians support the teaching and research needs of UALR faculty by collaborating with faculty to ensure selections that support both the curriculum and special research areas. In the Library‘s liaison program, reference librarians work closely with designated departments to assist students and faculty. These librarians select library material [oftentimes in consultation with teaching faculty]; they provide instruction in the Library and in the classroom; and they are available for individual consultation. Online classes are quickly becoming a popular venue for higher education learning. UALR has embraced this trend with the administration supporting online classes and degree programs. In the academic year 2090-2010, there were 1211 online courses offered. The College of Arts, Humanities and Social Sciences has the largest number of disciplines teaching online classes, but Management in the College of Business offered the highest number of online courses of all disciplines.

Figure 12: UALR Online FTE FY 2005/2006 to 2007/2008

Source: UALR Office of Extended Programs

Program 2005/2006 2006/2007 2007/2008

Undergraduate 1584 1709 1459

Graduate 324 326 419

Total 1908 2035 1878

INTERIM 22

COOPERATIVE PROGRAMS

The Library participates in consortial arrangements at the local, state, and national levels. Lyrasis and AMIGOS are regional networks that broker discounts for electronic content on behalf of libraries. Although not a member of the Greater Western Library Alliance [GWLA], the Library purchased databases and e-journal collections from them. The Library has also benefited from the Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research [EPSCoR] funding to buy specialized science and technology journals. As a member of ArkLINK, a consortium of 48 academic libraries in Arkansas, the Library has purchased databases at a discount. Informal consortial arrangements with the University of Arkansas at Fayetteville and the University of Arkansas Medical Sciences permitted the purchase of expensive databases [IEEE, SciFinder Scholar, and the Web of Science.] A very recent development in cooperative programs is a proposal by ArkLINK to develop a group catalog [similar to OhioLINK –Ohio Library and Information Network] for libraries in the state. One benefit of the group catalog is that it would facilitate cooperative collection development. The Arkansas State Library Traveler Project makes a collection of databases and online resources free to any academic, public, school, or special library within the state. Initially part of the Library Services and Technology Act, the Traveler project receives the bulk of its funding from the Department of Education. The Library highlights 23 of the 100 databases available on its web page. Since 1979 the Library has been a member of OCLC Online Computer Library Center, Inc. a non-profit cooperative organization of libraries whose main services are a shared bibliographic database and an online interlibrary loan system. Interlibrary loan allows the Library to borrow books and journals that are not available on site. Over 11,000 libraries participate in ILLIAD [a resource sharing management system] providing a wide pool of potential lenders. See Appendix I for interlibrary loan use by department.

INTERIM 23

SUMMARY Choosing library materials for a fast growing urban university is a complex task. Librarians charged with selection must consider factors that were never before an issue due to the exponential growth of information and technology. Decisions must be made to choose materials, equipment, and systems that will not become obsolete in the near future. In the fall of 2008, the recession prompted the governor to severely cut the state and university budget. The economic recovery has been slow and seems to be stalled at present. Legislation at all levels of government influences enrollment, student loans and the budget of the university and therefore the library. Enrollment continues to climb, and new and returning students enrolled in distance education must be served, despite budget restraints. Research by faculty has grown quickly in the last few years as graduate programs have been added in many colleges, especially the sciences. A good academic library must constantly update materials to support these programs. The publishing world is reeling from the changes in technology. The journal publishing world is moving quickly into an electronic-only environment. E-books are beginning to make their mark. Discovery search systems are necessary and expensive. The library must decide how to allocate scarce collection resources. Cooperative programs seem to be a logical solution and the Library is currently taking advantage of these arrangements. As new state, regional, or national programs become available, the Library may participate. Funding for a state-wide consortium is a desirable goal but has not yet been achieved.

INTERIM 24

REFERENCES

1 UALR fast forward. Retrieved from http://ualr.edu/about/strategicplan/

2 Atkinson, R. (2010). Six key challenges for the future of collection development: introduction

for the Janus breakout sessions. Library Resources and Technical Services, 244.

3 Connaway, L.S. (2010). 2010 top ten trends in academic libraries: a review of the current

literature. College and Research Libraries News, 286-292.

4 Hazen, D. (2010). Rethinking research library collections: a policy framework for straitened

times, and beyond, Library Resources and Technical Services, 115-121.

5 Atkinson, R. (2010).

6 Lester, J. (1987). The People’s College: Little Rock Junior College and Little Rock

University, 1927-1969. Little Rock, Arkansas: August House Publishing Company, Inc.

7 Lester, J. (1987).

8 Lester, J. (1987).

9 LeMaster, C. G. (1995). The Ottenheimers of Arkansas. Little Rock, Arkansas: Rose

Publishing Company, Inc.

10 Standards for College Libraries. (1986). College & Research Libraries News, 47(3), 199.

11 ACRL standards for ARL libraries in higher education. Retrieved from

http://www.ala.org/ala/mgrps/divs/acrl/standards/standardslibraries.cfm

12 North Central Association of Colleges and School Evaluation Team. (1980). Report of a visit

to University of Arkansas at Little Rock, March 17-19, 1980, for the Commission on

Institutions of Higher Education of the North Central Association of Colleges and

Schools.

13 McNicol, E., Oliff, P., & Johnson, N. (2010). Recession continues to batter state budgets;

state responses could slow recovery. Retrieved from

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=711

14 McNicol, E., Oliff, P. & Johnson, N. (2010).

15 Johnson, N., Oliff, P. & William, E. (2010). An update on state budget cuts: at least

46 states have imposed cuts that hurt vulnerable residents. Retrieved from

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=1214

INTERIM 25

16 UALR fast forward Retrieved from http://ualr.edu/about/strategicplan/

17 Horava, T. (2010). Challenges and possibilities for collection management in a digital age.

Library Resources and Technical Services, 54(3), 147.

18 The course that ate the textbook & other adventures in educational publishing.(2006).

Publishing Trends, 13(4) Retrieved from http://www.publishingtrends.com/2006/04/the-

course-that-ate-the-textbook-other-adventures-in-educational-publishing/

19 http://www.hathitrust.org/faq

20 Aiming at a moving target: Pilot testing e-book readers in an urban academic library.

(2010). Computers in Libraries, March, 20-24.

21 Computers in Libraries (2010).

22 Horizon report 2009 Retrieved from www.nmc.org/pdf/2009_Horizon_Report.pdf

23 Horizon report 2010 Retrieved from www.nmc.org/pdf/2010_Horizon_Report.pdf

24 LITA top tech trends 2008. http://www.librarywebchic.net/wordpress/2008/06/30/top-tech-

trends-ala-2008

25 LITA top tech trends 2010. Message posted to http://litablog.org/2010/06/top-tech-.trends-

liveblog-2

26 Smith, S. D., & Salaway,G. (2009). The ECAR study of undergraduate students and

information technology, 2009. Educause. Retrieved from

http://www.educause.edu/Resources/TheECARStudyofUndergraduateStu/187215

27 Connaway, L.S. (2010). 2010 top ten trends in academic libraries: a review of the current

literature. College & Research Libraries News, 286-292.

28 IFLA statement on open access to scholarly literature and research documentation.

http://archive.ifla.org/V/cdoc/open-access04.html

29 Library and book trade almanac 2009, 54th edition. (2009). Information Today, 17.

30 If I were a scholarly publisher. (2010). EDUCAUSE Review, 45(no. 4), 10-11. Retrieved from

http://www.educause.edu/EDUCAUSE+Review/EDUCAUSEReviewMagazineVolume4

5/IfIWereaScholarlyPublisher/209335

INTERIM 26

31 Peng, C. (2010). On-demand publishing is in demand. Publishing Trends, 17(3) Retrieved

from http://www.publishingtrends.com/2010/03/on-demand-is-on-a-roll/

32 http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/overview.htm

33 http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/newsletter/06-02-10.htm

INTERIM 27

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Aiming at a moving target: pilot testing e-book readers in an urban academic library (2010).

Computers in Libraries, (3)20-24.

Atkinson, R. (2010). Six key challenges for the future of collection development: introduction

for the Janus breakout sessions. Library Resources and Technical Services, 244-251.

CAP Study Team. (April 2003). Collection analysis project final report. Topeka, Kansas:

Mabee Library, Washburn University.

Connaway, L. S. (2010). 2010 top ten trends in academic libraries: a review of the current

literature. College & Research Libraries News, 286-292.

Gardner, J. G., & Webster, D. E. (January 1980). The collection analysis project: an assisted

self-study manual. Washington, D.C.: Office of Management Studies, Association of

Research Libraries.

Gibbons, S. (2010). Time horizon 2020: library renaissance, river campus libraries, University

of Rochester, 1-3.

Hays, S. (1976, April 11). Volumes, Ho! UALR loads ‗em up, and moves ‗em out. Arkansas

Democrat, p. A16.

Hazen, D. (2010). Rethinking research library collections: a policy framework for straitened

times, and beyond, Library Resources and Technical Services, 115-121.

Horava, T. (2010). Challenges and possibilities for collection management in the digital age.

Library Resources and Technical Services, 54 (3), 142-152.

Horizon Report 2007(2007). Retrieved from www.nmc.org/pdf/2007_Horizon_Report.pdf

Horizon Report 2008(2008). Retrieved from www.nmc.org/pdf/2008_Horizon_Report.pdf

Horizon Report 2009(2009). Retrieved from www.nmc.org/pdf/2009_Horizon_Report.pdf

Horizon Report 2010(2010). Retrieved from www.nmc.org/pdf/2010_Horizon_Report.pdf

The humanities go Google, (2010, May 28). The Chronicle of Higher Education.

IFLA statement on open access to scholarly literature and research documentation (2010).

Retrieved from http://archive.ifla.org/V/cdoc/open-access04.html.

Johnson, S. (2009, April 20). How the e-book will change the way we read and write. The Wall

Street Journal. Retrieved from

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123980920727621353.html

Jones, E. (2010). Google books as a general research collection, Library Resources and

Technical Services, 54(2), 77-89.

INTERIM 28

Kyrillidou, M., & Bland, L. (2009). ARL statistics 2007–2008. Washington, D.C.: Associate of

Research Libraries. Retrieved from http://www.arl.org/bm~doc/arlstat08.pdf

Lewis, D. W. (2010). A strategy for academic libraries in the first quarter of the 21st century.

Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Coalition, 418-434.

LeMaster, C. G. (1995). The Ottenheimers of Arkansas. Little Rock, Arkansas. Rose

Publishing Company, Inc.

Lester, Jim. (1987). The People’s College: Little Rock Junior College and Little Rock

University, 1927-1969. Little Rock, Arkansas; August House Publishing Company, Inc.

If I were a scholarly publisher. (2010). EDUCAUSE Review, 45(no. 4), 10-11. Retrieved from

http://www.educause.edu/EDUCAUSE+Review/EDUCAUSEReviewMagazineVolume4

5/IfIWereaScholarlyPublisher/209335

LITA top technology trends 2006 trends (2006). Retrieved from http://www.librarywebchic.net.

LITA top technology trends 2007 (2007). Retrieved from

http://www.librarywebchic.net/wordpress/2007/06/20/top-tech-trends-2007/.

LITA top tech trends 2008 (2008). Retrieved from

http://www.librarywebchic.net/wordpress/2008/06/30/top-tech-trends-ala-2008/

LITA top tech trends 2010 (2010). Retrieved from http://litablog.org/2010/06/top-tech-trends-

liveblog-2/

Little Rock Junior College bulletin (1942-1943).

Little Rock Junior College bulletin (1956-1957).

Little Rock Junior College bulletin (1957-1958).

New library at UALR will open (1976, April 7). Arkansas Gazette.

New UALR library (1976, April 9). Arkansas Democrat.

North Central Association of Colleges and School Evaluation Team. (1980). Report of a visit to

University of Arkansas at Little Rock, March 17-19, 1980 for the Commission on

Institutions of Higher Education of the North Central Association of Colleges and

Schools.

Sandler, M.(2010). Collection development in the age day of Google, Library Resources and

Technical Services, 239-243.

Schonfeld, R. C. & Housewright, R. (2010). Faculty survey 2009: key strategic insights for

libraries, Publishers and Societies. Ithaka S+R, 1-35.

INTERIM 29

Smith, S.. D., & Salaway,G. (2009). The ECAR study of undergraduate students and

information technology, 2009. Educause. Retrieved from

http://www.educause.edu/Resources/TheECARStudyofUndergraduateStu/187215

Staley, Dr. D. J., & Malenfant, K. L. (2010). Futures thinking for academic librarians: higher

education in 2025. ACRL, 6, 3-31

Standards for college libraries (1986). College &Research Libraries News, 47(3), 199.

Top technology trends (2009, July). Library Technology Guides.

Using the iPhone and iPod touch@work (2010, March). Computer in Libraries. 15-19.

http://www.arl.org/news/enews

http://www.arl.org/stats/annualsurveys/eg/index.shtml

http://www.broadband.gov/plan/1-introduction

http://www.broadband.gov/plan/1-introduction

http://www.cga.ct.gov/2008/rpt/2008-R-0470.htm

http://www.cga.ct.gov/2008/rpt/2008-R-0470.htm

http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/overview.htm

http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/newsletter/06-02-10.htm

http://www.hathitrust.org/faq

http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=205674,00.html

http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=205674,00.html

http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=213012,00.html

INTERIM 30

http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=213012,00.html

http://www.libraryjournal.com/article/CA6720422.html

http://nces.ed.gov/collegenavigator/

http://pellgrantamount.net/2010-11-pell-grant_changes

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d111:h.r.00801

http://thomas.loc.gov/home/LegislativeData.php

http://trevordawes.blogspot.com

INTERIM 31

WORK GROUP CHARGES

October 4, 2010

Ottenheimer Library University of Arkansas at Little Rock

Little Rock, Arkansas

INTERIM 32

The CAP Study Team has identified two key areas where further studies are needed and has

developed assignments for the CAP Work Groups to conduct these studies. Work Groups will

submit their reports to the Study Team on or before February 28th, 2011. The Study Team will

compile these individual Reports, synthesize the information, make recommendations, and

submit its Final Report to the Dean of Ottenheimer Library no later than April 1st 2011.

INTERIM 33

MATERIALS BUDGET ALLOCATION

The charge issued to this Work Group is to examine the current method of materials budget

allocation for collection development and make recommendations for changes as needed.

Specifically, the Work Group will do the following:

1. Describe current method of materials budget allocation.

2. Review alternative methods of budget allocation and compare to the current allocation

method; also compare current method to peer institutions.

3. Review methods and tools for gathering collection statistics from Millennium and other

sources; recommend the most effective way to get data needed for program reviews,

accrediting bodies, and external agencies.

4. Examine the ratio of electronic to print expenditures and its impact on the Library’s

budget.

This review will examine how the library can best allocate funds in support of the University’s

and Library’s missions.

As a result of its investigation, the Work Group on Materials Budget Allocation will formulate

recommendations in a report to be submitted to the CAP Study Team on or before February 28,

2011.

The Work Group will meet as frequently as needed to complete its work. The Chair of the Work

Group will meet with the Study Team approximately every three weeks to share information. If

necessary, the full Work Group will meet with the Study Team to discuss key issues.

INTERIM 34

COLLECTION MANAGEMENT, ORGANIZATION AND STAFFING

The charge issued to this Work Group is to examine the current organization and work-flow of

collection development and acquisitions and make recommendations for change as needed.

Specifically, the Work Group will do the following:

4. Describe and analyze strengths and weaknesses of the Library’s current organizational

structure and staffing and compare to peer institutions.

5. Examine current work-flow patterns, practices, and lines of communication and assess

advantages and disadvantages.

6. Investigate how and by whom selection decisions are made and compare to peer

institutions.

This review will examine the organizational structure of collection development including the

liaison program; program reviews, and gifts and weeding.

As a result of its investigation, the Work Group on Collection Management, Organization, and

Staffing will formulate recommendations in a report to be submitted to the CAP Study Team on

or before February 28, 2011.

The Work Group will meet as frequently as needed to complete its work. The Chair will meet

with the Study Team approximately every three weeks to share information. If necessary, the

full Work Group will meet with the Study Team to discuss key issues.

INTERIM 35

Appendix A Dean’s Charge to CAP Study Team

INTERIM 36

Appendix B-1 Age of Collection Report Social Sciences.

Ending Description 2000-2009 1990-1999 1980-

1989 1970-1979 1960-1969 1950-1959 1940-1949 1930-1939

1920-

1929 1910-1919 <1909

No

Date TOTAL

H 9999.999 1 Social Sciences--General 13 188 181 233 305 169 56 65 64 33 3 12 1322

HA 9999.999 1

Statistics 16 104 77 69 107 56 22 7 6 1 8 17 490

HD 9999.999

1 Economic History & Conditions 39 1683 3384 3162 4299 2049 506 199 123 52 43 153 15692

HE 7600.999

1 Transportation 1 91 150 96 274 139 35 16 9 8 13 22 854

HE 8700.999

1 Radio, TV, Telegraph 1 25 77 115 106 15 3 5 1 0 0 6 354

HV 6000.999

1 H 1 23 292 219 592 310 81 12 16 17 8 4 1575

HE 9999.999 1

Air Transportation 0 6 13 17 31 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 74

HF 4055.999

1 Commerce 4 102 272 172 270 169 43 17 20 3 10 9 1091

HF 5380.999 1

Business, "How To", Directories 0 5 4 14 29 33 6 5 4 0 3 4 107

HF 5387.999

1 Business Ethics 2 41 45 34 6 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 130

HF 5427.999

1

Marketing/Distribution of

Products 10 110 182 152 313 178 27 6 3 2 0 6 989

HF 5430.699

1

Retail Trade & Shopping

Centers 0 14 29 16 33 13 5 1 0 0 0 2 113

HF 5459.999

1 Sales, Selling, Buying 1 9 22 25 41 18 10 6 2 0 1 1 136

HF 5548.699 1

Office Organization & Management

4 85 55 66 60 33 3 0 0 0 0 0 306

HF 5549.599

1 Personnel & Employee Mgmt. 12 119 185 168 107 50 16 2 0 0 0 0 659

HF 5689.999 1

Accounting 4 42 126 142 205 75 15 2 1 3 0 9 624

HF 5716.999

1 Math. Business & Commercial 0 6 8 0 10 10 2 1 3 0 0 0 40

HF 5746.999

1 Business Communication 1 45 47 29 20 4 2 0 5 1 1 0 155

HF 5780.999

1 Shipping & Delivery of Goods 0 1 3 1 7 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 15

HF 6162.999

1 Advertising 4 50 66 58 92 50 21 6 3 2 0 3 355

HG 7933.999 1

Banking & Finance 13 250 496 436 593 337 85 18 33 9 26 30 2326

HG 9999.999

1 Insurance 0 11 24 35 60 63 43 21 7 4 3 10 281

HJ 9999.999 1

Public Finance 4 71 146 219 240 103 43 14 11 5 8 32 896

HM 0021.999

1 Sociology--General 0 2 9 13 21 22 9 3 3 1 0 6 89

HM 0291.999

1 Psychology, Sociology 0 7 121 116 308 134 44 18 8 3 0 6 765

HN 9999.999 1

Social History, Problems & Reforms

8 211 380 296 913 275 56 16 19 11 14 8 2207

HQ 9999.999

1 Family, Marriage, Woman 48 862 1503 1227 1252 312 106 44 36 31 14 14 5449

HT 9999.999 1

Cities, Communities, Races 7 244 260 239 809 246 49 9 5 5 2 14 1889

HV 5840.999

1 Social Service, Welfare 58 835 950 984 1169 499 198 55 45 20 19 65 4897

HV 9999.999

1 Criminology, Criminal Justice 73 1544 756 645 1118 235 64 21 17 17 24 25 4539

INTERIM 37

Appendix B-2 Age of Collection Report English and American Literature

PN 0000 PN 0079.999

3

Lit

Theory/Phil/Study/Teaching) 6 68 177 99 128 66 25 6 9 6 6 1 597

PN 0080 PN 0099.999 3

Criticism 4 28 80 71 74 52 21 7 6 2 1 1 347

PN 0101 PN 0245.999 3

Authorship 6 98 87 61 58 38 16 7 9 3 3 4 390

PN 0441 PN 1009.599

3 Literary History 7 293 161 101 189 161 40 15 15 22 20 12 1036

PN 1010 PN 1551.999

3 Poetry 4 21 35 35 77 63 22 7 8 9 7 1 289

PN 1560 PN 1590.999

3

Performing Arts, Show

Business 0 13 17 12 15 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 61

PN 1600 PN 3307.999

3 Drama, Theater 50 1084 1146 916 1031 434 114 64 40 31 27 46 4983

PN 3311 PN 3503.999

3 Prose, Prose Fiction 6 51 83 76 134 56 24 13 4 5 4 2 458

PN 4001 PN 4500.999

3 Oratory, Letters, Essays 0 29 27 47 59 55 19 18 10 1 6 2 273

PN 4699 PN 5650.999

3 Journalism 23 322 420 299 438 196 47 25 27 12 4 7 1820

PN 6010 PN 6790.999

3

Collections of General

Literature 0 46 135 126 235 192 85 64 45 20 46 19 1013

PR 0000 PR 8967.999 3

English Lit (British) 76 1275 2046 1731 3452 2696 949 448 485 497 816 144 14615

PR 9080 PR 9179.999 3

Indiv. Countries Outside of GB 0 1 7 2 10 4 0 0 0 0 1 0 25

PS 8001 PS 8599.999 3

Canadian Literature 0 37 105 77 43 3 3 5 1 0 0 1 275

PR 9180 PR 9199.399 3

Canadian Literature 0 37 105 77 43 3 3 5 1 0 0 1 275

PR 9200 PR 9570.999

3

Latin American/African/Asian

Lit 2 80 138 92 58 25 2 0 0 0 2 0 399

PS 0000 PS 0125.999

3 American Lit--General 5 7 34 23 55 34 16 4 6 3 5 4 196

PS 0126 PS 0138.999

3 Biography/Memoirs/Letters/Etc. 0 5 5 13 9 4 1 0 0 0 1 0 38

PS 0147 PS 0152.999

3 Women Authors 1 8 21 11 6 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 49

PS 0153 PS 0161.999

3 Other Classes of Authors 2 64 114 52 35 8 2 0 0 0 0 0 277

PS 0163 PS 0173.999

3 Special Subjects & Classes 0 22 44 15 18 10 2 1 1 2 0 0 115

PS 0185 PS 0195.999

3 17th--18th Century 0 1 7 6 5 1 1 3 0 0 0 0 24

PS 0201 PS 0217.999

3 19th Century 0 12 22 20 24 8 7 3 0 0 2 1 99

PS 0221 PS 0228.999

3 20th Century 3 14 28 15 32 25 9 1 2 5 1 1 136

PS 0241 PS 0255.999 3

North 0 6 5 8 2 1 1 2 1 0 0 0 26

PS 0261 PS 0267.999 3

South 1 22 34 15 27 12 4 1 0 0 5 0 121

PS 0271 PS 0285.999 3

West & Central 0 4 12 5 6 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 30

PS 0286 PS 0286.999

3 Special Regions 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 3

PS 0301 PS 0325.999

3 Drama 2 23 57 34 42 23 3 4 3 1 0 0 192

PS 0330 PS 0352.999

3 Drama 2 23 57 34 42 23 3 4 3 1 0 0 192

PS 0301 PS 0325.999

3 Drama 0 14 23 15 16 19 2 3 4 0 0 0 96

PS 0330 PS 0352.999

3 Drama 0 14 23 15 16 19 2 3 4 0 0 0 96

PS 0360 PS 0379.999

3 Prose 3 67 184 96 89 66 21 5 3 4 0 1 539

PS 0400 PS 0428.999

3 Oratory/Diaries/Letters/Essays 0 2 4 2 4 3 1 0 1 0 0 0 17

PS 0429 PS 0478.999

3 Wit/Humor/Satire/Folk Lit 0 1 4 7 8 6 2 2 2 1 1 0 34

PS 0490 PS 0490.999

3 Juvenile Lit--General 0 3 5 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11

PS 0501 PS 0688.999 3

Collections of American Lit 5 85 212 168 196 107 56 30 45 32 11 32 979

PS 0700 PS 0893.999 3

Authors--Colonial 1 3 3 7 33 19 1 2 1 0 2 0 72

PS 0991 PS 3390.999 3

Authors--19th Century 19 194 329 254 525 579 135 75 51 78 324 17 2580

PS 3500 PS 3549.999

3 Authors--1900-1960 16 426 821 648 1205 976 476 367 301 223 114 25 5598

PS 3550 PS 3576.999

3 Authors--1961- 31 807 1878 1361 813 262 31 1 2 0 0 8 5194

INTERIM 38

Appendix B-3 Age of Collection Report History

Starting Ending Description 2000-

2009

1990-

1999

1980-

1989

1970-

1979

1960-

1969

1950-

1959

1940-

1949

1930-

1939

1920-

1929

1910-

1919 <1909

No

Date TOTAL

D 0000 D

9999.999

World History--

General 20 363 595 478 922 612 225 258 101 76 136 22 3808

DA 0000 DA

0699.999

British Empire,

England 3 96 281 215 791 464 130 56 83 71 152 14 2356

DA 0700 DA

0749.999 Wales 0 0 3 3 7 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 16

DA 0750 DA

0899.999 Scotland 0 5 13 11 43 12 1 2 5 4 7 2 105

DA 0900 DA

0999.999 Ireland 0 12 52 30 112 36 2 5 6 3 10 2 270

DAW 1000 DAW

9999.999 Central Europe 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5

DC 0000 DC

9999.999

France, Andorra,

Monaco 3 45 185 139 372 240 61 25 47 44 144 13 1318

DD 0000 DD

9999.999 Germany 2 74 208 155 323 183 57 22 21 20 26 3 1094

DE 0000 DE

9999.999 Mediterranean 0 15 15 11 19 12 4 3 3 1 8 2 93

DF 0000 DF

9999.999 Greece 4 50 110 102 176 114 25 9 9 2 28 4 633

DG 0000 DG

9999.999 Italy 1 64 129 110 252 145 36 7 20 19 82 4 869

DH 0000 DJ

9999.999

Belgium,

Luxembourg, Netherlands

0 2 8 10 27 13 2 3 2 0 18 0 85

DL 0000 DL

9999.999

No. Europe,

Scandinavia 0 8 11 20 48 31 5 3 7 2 11 1 147

DP 0000 DP

9999.999 Spain, Portugal 0 19 51 57 98 63 14 8 8 4 18 1 341

DQ 0000 DQ

9999.999 Switzerland 0 2 5 3 13 1 1 0 1 0 6 1 33

DJK 0000 DJK

0077.999 Eastern Europe 0 8 30 13 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 57

DR 0000 DR

9999.999 Balkan Peninsula 0 68 93 32 106 68 18 4 7 4 12 1 413

DS 0000 DS

0699.999

Asia-General, Iran,

Iraq, etc. 22 775 723 578 1133 577 166 62 69 57 60 24 4246

DS 0700 DS

0799.999 China 0 94 287 199 516 245 58 21 23 5 15 18 1481

DS 0800 DS

0899.999 Japan 0 19 108 89 151 91 33 12 6 2 19 4 534

DS 0900 DS

0999.999 Korea 0 24 23 24 38 27 11 0 0 0 1 0 148

DT 0000 DT

0364.999

Egypt, Sudan,

Libya, N. Africa 6 108 124 93 219 174 17 3 16 8 12 6 786

DT 0365 DT

0469.999 Eastern Africa 0 24 55 26 81 43 1 1 5 2 2 1 241

DT 0470 DT

1700.999 West Africa 0 14 62 84 248 141 19 8 4 4 6 4 594

DT 1701 DT

3999.999 Southern Africa 1 25 71 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 99

DU 0000 DU

9999.999

Australia, New

Zealand, Oceania 0 13 41 35 117 69 8 6 7 7 6 0 309

DX 0000 DX

9999.999 Roma (Gypsies) 0 0 3 1 8 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 14

E 0000 E 0143.999 America, Pre &

Post Columbus 7 263 484 384 842 332 89 44 55 41 97 41 2679

E 0151 E 0183.999 US History 15 334 414 359 642 420 167 111 89 121 505 19 3196

E 0184 E 0185.999 Racial & Ethnic

Populations 28 560 692 290 631 299 37 27 11 5 13 4 2597

E 0186 E 0199.999 Colonial History 1 4 7 14 33 28 11 1 3 2 7 0 111

E 0201 E 0298.999 The Revolution 1 28 25 54 184 93 24 8 6 7 16 0 446

E 0300 E 0453.999 Revolution to Civil

War 10 231 189 182 362 277 96 52 28 30 117 5 1579

E 0456 E 0655.999 Civil War 7 139 193 178 210 214 196 80 38 56 305 11 1627

E 0660 E 0738.999 19th Century--Late 1 24 32 38 102 91 26 3 20 25 53 2 417

E 0740 E 0837.999 20th Century to

1961 4 149 194 212 396 302 127 50 36 22 2 7 1501

INTERIM 39

E 0838 E 0999.999 20th Century

1961-- 9 404 340 168 274 116 1 0 0 0 0 6 1318

F 0000 F 0015.999 New England 0 1 12 10 20 12 3 1 3 1 3 1 67

F 0016 F 0105.999 ME, NH, VT, MA,

RI, CT 1 9 23 29 86 34 11 11 7 1 7 1 220

F 0106 F 0106.999 Atlantic Coast 0 0 2 2 7 7 0 3 1 2 1 0 25

F 0116 F 0205.999 NY, NJ, PA, DE,

MD 0 45 101 79 129 93 20 11 11 3 9 2 503

F 0206 F 0220.999 The South 2 50 53 59 71 65 21 13 13 6 23 2 378

F 0221 F 0295.999 VA, WV, NC, SC,

GA 0 20 46 57 99 55 20 10 9 2 8 1 327

F 0296 F 0301.999 Gulf States 0 0 1 2 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 6

F 0302 F 0395.999 FL, AL, MS, LA,

TX 2 50 86 66 166 102 34 31 25 22 104 5 693

F 0396 F 0396.999 Lower Miss.

Valley 0 0 0 2 1 5 0 3 5 2 10 0 28

F 0406 F 0420.999 Arkansas 1 60 124 212 182 78 68 32 45 25 75 54 956

F 0421 F 0475.999 TN, KY, MO 1 5 12 16 38 24 11 14 15 4 33 0 173

F 0476 F 0485.999 NW Terr, Old

Northwest 0 0 0 0 3 7 2 0 2 0 1 0 15

F 0486 F 0550.499 OH, OH River &

Valley, IN, IL 0 11 19 25 43 23 4 8 4 3 5 0 145

F 0550.5 F 0553.2 Great Lakes 0 0 1 0 2 4 0 2 0 0 0 0 9

F 0561 F 0590.29 MI, WI 0 2 4 10 23 10 2 1 2 0 1 0 55

F 0597 F 0597.999 Northwest 0 0 0 2 4 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 9

F 0598 F 0598.999 MO River &

Valley 0 0 1 0 1 3 1 2 2 0 0 0 10

F 0601 F 0705.999

1

MN, IA, ND SD,

NB, KS, OK 0 9 11 17 39 22 10 7 14 2 9 7 147

F 0721 F 0722.999

1 Rocky Mountains 0 2 1 0 9 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 14

F 0726 F 0785.999

1 MT, ID, WY, CO 0 5 4 6 28 14 6 3 1 0 3 0 70

F 0786 F 0788.999

1 Southwest 0 8 7 5 16 13 8 3 6 3 7 0 76

F 0791 F 0850.499

1 NM, AZ, UT, NV 0 9 16 21 73 22 6 8 8 7 7 1 178

F 0850.5 F 0853.999

1 Pacific States 0 0 6 5 14 11 6 0 0 0 2 2 46

F 0856 F 0950.999

1 CA, OR, WA, AK 0 21 40 33 103 59 14 10 11 2 13 1 307

F 0951 F 0975.999

1

Aleut. Is.,

Territories 0 0 0 1 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 5

F 2240 F 2250.999

1 F 0 1 4 2 5 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 15

F 1001 F 1140.999

1 Canada 0 9 91 132 252 110 23 10 8 10 11 1 657

F 1170 F 1170.999

1 French America 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2

F 1201 F 1392.999

1 Mexico 3 56 107 82 126 99 15 11 14 9 15 4 541

F 1401 F 1419.999

1 Latin America 5 28 50 41 110 87 12 14 5 4 3 1 360

F 1421 F 1577.999

1 Central America 2 42 87 77 69 25 4 6 5 8 7 2 334

F 1601 F 2191.999

1 West Indies 0 45 57 56 122 51 6 2 5 3 9 2 358

F 2201 F 2239.999

1

South America--

General 0 7 10 5 29 17 5 1 5 2 6 0 87

F 2251 F 2349.999

1 Venezuela 0 6 15 5 23 15 3 0 1 1 1 0 70

1 F 2471.999

1 Guyana 0 0 3 1 3 4 0 0 1 0 0 0 12

INTERIM 40

Appendix B-4 Age of Collection Report Sciences and Engineering

Starting Ending Description 2000-2009 1990-1999 1980-1989 1970-1979 1960-1969 1950-1959 1940-1949 1930-1939 1920-1929 1910-1919 <1909 No

Date TOTAL

Q 0124.5 Q 0127.299 4 Science History--General 0 35 48 48 79 54 13 3 7 4 1 5 297

Q 0130 Q 0130.999 4 Women in Science 0 11 18 7 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 37

Q 0141 Q 0143.999 4 Science--Biography 1 10 32 11 23 16 4 4 2 4 2 1 110

Q 0144 Q 0161.999 4 General; Textbooks Pre-/Post-1801- 1 9 20 15 24 15 3 1 0 1 2 0 91

Q 0162 Q 0163.999 4 Popular & Juvenile Works 0 3 9 8 13 13 8 1 8 1 0 0 64

Q 0164 Q 0164.999 4 Home Experiments/Recreations/Etc 0 0 2 4 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 9

Q 0167 Q 0173.999 4 Addresses/Essays/Lectures/Etc 2 32 30 18 10 24 11 4 5 6 4 1 147

Q 0174 Q 0180.999 4 Philosophy/Methodology/Research 2 114 192 147 136 61 32 4 1 3 2 7 701

Q 0181 Q 0183.999 4 Science Study & Teaching 2 42 30 27 29 21 5 1 1 0 0 1 159

Q 0184 Q 0185.999 4 Instruments & Apparatus--General 0 2 4 0 3 3 1 1 0 0 0 0 14

Q 0190 Q 0199.999 4 Handbooks/Tables/Formulas/Etc 0 0 1 2 0 2 0 0 1 1 0 0 7

Q 0223 Q 0227.999 4 Communication in Science 2 13 10 9 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 41

Q 0300 Q 0342.999 4 Cybernetics 4 56 61 61 27 23 0 0 0 0 0 1 233

Q 0350 Q 0390.999 4 Information Theory 0 14 9 9 5 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 43

QA 0000 QA 0008.999 4 Periodicals/Congresses/Serial Coll 1 20 57 43 100 46 18 4 0 2 0 2 293

QA 0009 QA 0010.499 4 Mathematical Logic 3 17 27 16 26 26 14 2 0 3 0 0 134

QA 0010.5 QA 0010.599 4 Mathematics as a Profession 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4

QA 0010.7 QA 0010.799 4 Social Aspects 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4

QA 0011 QA 0014.999 4 Study/Teaching/Research 8 58 38 23 20 14 3 0 0 0 0 1 165

QA 0016 QA 0020.999 4 Special Teaching Methods 0 7 6 4 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 21

QA 0021 QA 0035.999 4 History 0 24 34 33 22 33 17 2 0 3 4 0 172

QA 0036 QA 0039.999 4 General Works 0 19 27 15 32 40 14 11 4 0 0 0 162

QA 0040 QA 0040.499 4 Handbooks/Manuals/Etc 0 1 2 1 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 10

QA 0040.5 QA 0040.599 4 Juvenile Works 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 3

QA 0041 QA 0041.399 4 Formulas/Notations/Abbrev/Etc 0 4 4 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 12

QA 0041.7 QA 0042.999 4 Math Lit Authorship 0 0 2 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5

QA 0043 QA 0043.999 4 Problems/Exercises/Exams 0 6 6 1 4 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 26

QA 0047 QA 0059.999 4 Tables 0 5 0 0 3 7 3 8 3 1 1 1 32

QA 0071 QA 0075.499 4 Instruments & Machines 0 1 3 5 11 6 1 0 0 0 0 0 27

QA 0076 QA 0076.549 4 Automation (Dict/Enc/Careers/Etc) 0 47 91 126 86 51 3 0 0 0 0 6 410

QA 0076.55 QA 0076.579 4 On-Line Data Processing 0 12 9 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 24

QA 0076.6 QA 0076.659 4 Programming 0 45 90 75 78 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 288

QA 0076.71 QA 0076.7199 4 Programs & Operating Systems 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

QA 0076.73 QA 0076.739 4 Individual Languages 3 125 92 85 25 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 332

QA 0076.75 QA 0076.765 4 Computer Software, Etc. 4 203 191 48 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 446

QA 0076.8 QA 0076.999 4 Special Computers & Other Topics 4 377 300 204 37 7 0 0 0 0 0 3 932

QA 0077 QA 0099.999 4 General Works, Etc 0 8 24 17 17 24 12 3 0 1 1 0 107

QA 0101 QA 0141.899 4 Elementary Math/Arithmetic 3 45 33 26 37 22 3 0 0 0 5 0 174

QA 0150 QA 0275.999 4 Algebra 10 240 183 155 274 292 77 10 6 3 3 3 1256

QA 0276.6 QA 0295.999 4 Mathematical Statistics 12 138 88 91 78 31 5 1 0 0 0 0 444

QA 0297 QA 0299.599 4 Numerical Analysis 4 24 14 16 33 45 2 1 0 0 0 0 139

QA 0440 QA 0699.999 4 Geometry 2 51 83 55 75 110 36 13 5 3 6 0 439

QA 0801 QA 0939.999 4 Analytic Mechanics 8 35 31 24 60 77 33 6 2 2 2 1 281

QB 0000 QB 0139.999 4 Astronomy--General 0 42 98 126 129 78 18 14 13 4 40 16 578

QB 0140 QB 0237.999 4 Astronomy-Spherical & Practical 0 6 7 9 9 5 1 1 0 0 1 0 39

QB 0275 QB 0343.999 4 Geodesy 0 3 3 7 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 18

QB 0450 QB 0456.999 4 Astrogeology/Cosmochemistry 1 2 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9

QB 0460 QB 0466.999 4 Astrophysics--General 2 10 16 17 10 11 4 0 0 0 0 0 70

QB 0468 QB 0480.999 4 Astronomy--Non-optical 0 5 15 13 6 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 42

QB 0495 QB 0500.499 4 Astronomy--Descriptive 0 3 18 8 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 33

QB 0500.5 QB 0811.999 4 Solar System 5 38 97 110 77 41 14 0 3 3 13 0 401

QB 0812 QB 0999.999 4 Stars 3 49 88 96 50 21 7 1 8 2 6 1 332

INTERIM 41

QC 0000 QC 0075.999 4 Physics--General 5 122 137 111 150 140 46 10 14 4 4 7 750

QC 0081 QC 0114.999 4 Weights & Measures 0 3 4 8 21 12 2 1 0 0 0 1 52

QC 0120 QC 0168.859 4 Mechanics--Descriptive & Exptl 1 7 19 16 19 21 11 2 0 0 0 4 100

QC 0170 QC 0197.999 4 Atomic Physics 13 196 150 106 163 161 68 17 9 2 1 4 890

QC 0220 QC 0246.999 4 Acoustics/Sound 0 4 9 12 20 16 4 4 1 0 0 2 72

QC 0251 QC 0338.599 4 Heat 1 15 17 19 32 37 17 5 3 1 0 2 149

QC 0350 QC 0449.999 4 Optics/Light 6 45 32 33 65 67 17 5 4 0 0 2 276

QC 0450 QC 0467.999 4 Spectroscopy 0 15 24 13 53 46 15 6 2 1 0 3 178

QC 0474 QC 0496.999 4 Genl Radiation Physics 2 12 22 13 24 31 9 6 5 1 0 2 127

QC 0501 QC 0766.999 4 Electricity/Magnetism 11 86 120 70 110 150 60 16 9 0 3 3 638

QC 0801 QC 0809.999 4 Geophysics 0 4 8 7 7 7 6 0 0 0 0 1 40

QC 0811 QC 0849.999 4 Geomagnetism 0 2 2 0 3 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 9

QC 0851 QC 0999.999 4 Meteorology/Climatology 10 176 132 69 98 40 21 5 4 2 2 5 564

QD 0008 QD 0010.999 4 Communication of Chem Info 0 4 4 4 4 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 18

QD 0011 QD 0018.999 4 Chemistry--History 0 7 9 4 8 12 4 4 2 0 0 0 50

QD 0021 QD 0023.299 4 Biographies/Directories 0 8 14 8 13 15 1 3 6 2 0 0 70

QD 0023.3 QD 0026.599 4 Alchemy 0 0 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4

QD 0040 QD 0050.999 4 Study & Teaching/Research 1 12 1 2 17 10 3 1 0 0 0 2 49

QD 0051 QD 0064.999 4 Laboratories/Waste Disposal 0 3 16 16 26 8 3 1 0 0 0 0 73

QD 0065 QD 0065.999 4 Handbooks/Tables/Formulas 0 0 0 0 3 6 5 0 0 0 0 0 14

QD 0071 QD 0142.999 4 Analytical Chemistry 6 85 45 51 97 108 32 13 3 0 0 5 445

QD 0146 QD 0197.999 4 Inorganic Chemistry 3 13 21 13 57 78 19 5 3 1 0 8 221

QD 0241 QD 0441.999 4 Organic Chemistry 7 86 86 55 161 173 67 23 4 2 0 26 690

QD 0450 QD 0801.999 4 Physical & Theoretical Chemistry 13 83 84 90 208 326 84 22 10 5 1 19 945

QD 0901 QD 0999.999 4 Crystallography 0 15 14 19 24 46 11 1 3 1 0 1 135

QE 0000 QE 0350.629 4 Geology--General 0 44 53 93 109 42 19 14 7 3 9 8 401

QE 0351 QE 0399.299 4 Mineralogy 1 2 16 19 20 15 3 7 5 0 3 0 91

QE 0420 QE 0499.999 4 Petrology 1 15 16 52 62 15 11 3 2 0 2 0 179

QE 0500 QE 0639.599 5 Geology--Dynamic & Structural 6 72 78 95 84 28 11 6 4 2 3 1 390

QE 0640 QE 0699.999 5 Stratigraphic Geology 0 9 16 16 26 8 6 0 0 0 0 0 81

QE 0701 QE 0760 5 Paleontology 2 29 42 17 21 25 3 3 3 0 3 0 148

QE 0760.8 QE 0899.999 5 Paleozoology 2 33 36 56 29 14 11 1 0 1 1 0 184

QE 0901 QE 0996.599 5 Paleobotony 1 5 7 4 3 9 1 2 1 0 0 2 35

QH 0201 QH 0278.599 5 Microscopy 5 22 18 21 39 33 7 5 4 0 0 2 156

QH 0301 QH 0705.999 5 Biology--General 54 928 574 316 512 439 100 19 12 15 7 12 2988

QK 0000 QK 0474.799 5 Botony--Gen (Geographic Distrib.) 1 81 85 60 80 81 32 20 15 9 13 7 484

QK 0504 QK 0638.999 5 Cryptogams 0 35 38 23 48 74 23 3 4 3 5 1 257

QK 0640 QK 0707.999 5 Plant Anatomy 0 14 12 12 23 36 15 3 3 1 1 0 120

QK 0710 QK 0899.999 5 Plant Physiology 1 38 58 33 59 66 11 3 2 2 1 3 277

QK 0900 QK 0989.999 5 Plant Ecology 1 36 51 24 22 25 14 3 0 0 0 0 176

QL 0000 QL 0355.999 5 Zoology--General 4 109 134 89 137 106 29 17 12 10 11 5 663

QL 0360 QL 0599.829 5 Invertebrates 5 113 136 73 133 145 57 22 12 11 7 7 721

QL 0605 QL 0613.999 5 Chordates/Vertebrates--General 0 5 6 1 2 5 2 0 3 0 0 0 24

QL 0614 QL 0639.999 5 Fish 3 78 51 29 46 31 4 5 3 0 2 2 254

QL 0640 QL 0669.399 5 Reptiles & Amphibians 2 50 44 26 26 16 17 6 4 1 1 1 194

QL 0671 QL 0699.999 5 Birds 2 137 164 93 85 78 38 11 8 4 11 3 634

QL 0700 QL 0739.899 5 Mammals 7 162 157 152 156 56 15 6 3 0 1 1 716

QL 0750 QL 0795.999 5 Animal Behavior 5 82 57 64 107 85 30 9 7 2 0 1 449

QL 0799 QL 0799.599 5 Morphology 0 1 2 3 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 8

QL 0801 QL 0950.999 5 Anatomy 1 3 3 8 23 25 0 6 2 2 0 2 75

QL 0951 QL 0991.999 5 Embryology 0 1 2 6 14 24 12 2 3 0 0 1 65

QM 0000 QM 0511.999 5 Human Anatomy--General 0 17 10 10 21 19 6 5 2 0 0 0 90

QM 0531 QM 0549.999 5 Regional Anatomy 0 0 2 3 1 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 10

QM 0550 QM 0577.899 5 Human & Comparative Histology 0 1 3 6 6 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 22

QM 0601 QM 0695.999 5 Human Embryology 0 5 4 1 1 2 0 0 1 0 0 1 15

QP 0000 QP 0345.999 5 Physiology--General 5 118 97 118 188 103 25 11 2 1 1 7 676

QP 0351 QP 0495.999 5 Neurophysiology/Neuropsychology 8 86 104 108 141 71 17 3 2 1 1 4 546

QP 0501 QP 0801.999 5 Animal Biochemistry 13 90 78 44 75 37 8 0 1 0 0 11 357

QP 0901 QP 0981.999 5 Experimental Pharmacology 0 0 0 2 6 4 0 0 2 0 0 0 14

QR 0000 QR 0074.599 5 Microbiology--General 3 11 14 26 20 27 7 2 0 1 0 1 112

QR 0075 QR 0099.599 5 Bacteria 1 6 11 6 8 12 2 0 0 0 0 0 46

QR 0100 QR 0130.999 5 Microbial Ecology 1 15 9 4 8 5 3 0 1 0 0 0 46

QR 0171 QR 0171.999 5 Microorganisms--animal body 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

INTERIM 42

QR 0180 QR 0189.599 5 Immunology 0 12 14 27 27 26 4 0 0 0 0 4 114

QR 0355 QR 0502.999 5 Virology 0 6 9 4 10 18 2 0 0 0 0 1 50

T 0044 T 0051.999 5 General Works 0 9 12 10 9 2 1 0 0 0 1 0 44

T 0054 T 0054.999 5 Dangerous Occupations 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

T 0055.4 T 0060.899 5 Industrial Engineering 13 93 69 66 65 21 3 2 3 2 0 3 340

T 0061 T 0173 5 Technical Education 0 10 8 6 6 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 35

T 0173.2 T 0174.599 5 Technological Change 1 22 16 14 7 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 66

T 0174.7 T 0174.799 5 Nanotechnology 2 56 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 62

T 0175 T 0178.999 5 Industrial Research 0 11 15 6 1 4 0 0 2 0 0 2 41

T 0201 T 0342.999 5 Patents & Trademarks 0 6 9 8 10 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 38

TA 0166 TA 0167.999 5 Human Engineering 1 8 7 7 6 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 32

TA 0168 TA 0168.999 5 Systems Engineering 0 28 16 0 8 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 63

TA 0170 TA 0171.999 5 Environmental Engineering 0 1 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5

TA 0174 TA 0174.999 5 Engineering Design 4 18 14 21 9 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 69

TC 0000 TC 9999.999 5 Hydraulic Engineering 0 21 33 29 58 16 3 6 4 2 13 2 187

TD 0000 TD 0168.999 6 Municipal Engineering 1 6 7 3 15 4 1 0 0 0 0 1 38

TD 0169 TD 0171.999 6 Environmental Protection 0 12 19 5 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 43

TD 0172 TD 0193.599 6 Environmental Pollution 2 25 29 7 45 6 0 0 0 0 0 1 115

TD 0783 TD 0812.599 6 Municipal Refuse/Solid Wastes 0 6 24 22 30 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 85

TD 0878 TD 0894.999 6 Soil/Air/Noise Pollution Etc. 3 41 46 23 75 11 2 0 0 0 0 1 202

TD 0895 TD 0899.999 6 Industrial & Factory Sanitation 0 3 13 12 16 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 47

TD 1020 TD 1066.999 6 Hazardous Substances Disposal 0 5 11 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 22

TE 0000 TE 9999.999 6 Highway Engineering 9 449 16 20 27 8 2 2 0 0 2 5 540

TF 0000 TF 9999.999 6 Railroad Engineering 0 8 12 9 22 6 3 4 1 0 3 1 69

TG 0000 TG 9999.999 6 Bridge Engineering 0 5 14 10 14 8 8 0 1 0 2 0 62

TH 0000 TH 9999.999 6 Building Construction 32 164 207 151 94 21 4 3 2 0 1 5 684

TJ 0000 TJ 9999.999 6 Mechanical Engineering 25 202 224 226 163 74 18 2 1 2 3 5 945

TK 0000 TK 4661.999 6 Electrical Engineering 16 87 90 103 98 50 19 12 1 2 0 8 486

TK 7018 TK 7725.999 6 Installation--Household Appliances 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3

TK 9001 TK 9401.999 6 Nuclear Engr, Atomic Power 0 9 9 23 31 7 9 1 0 0 0 3 92

TK 9900 TK 9971.999 6 Electricity for Amateurs 0 0 2 11 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17

TL 0000 TL 0484.999 6 Motor Vehicles/Cycles 0 19 28 28 45 20 6 0 0 0 1 4 151

TN 0000 TN 9999.999 6 Mining Engineering 3 12 38 68 102 51 30 17 14 9 12 5 361

TP 0000 TP 9999.999 6 Chemical Technology 12 176 211 200 187 166 53 30 4 4 1 14 1058

TS 0170 TS 0171.699 6 Product Engineering 4 11 6 4 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 27

TS 0172 TS 0175.999 6 Production Engineering 0 3 1 5 7 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 17

TS 0176 TS 0183.899 6 Manufacturing Engineering 2 11 14 27 7 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 62

TS 0184 TS 0194.999 6 Plant Engineering 0 4 3 18 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 27

TS 0195 TS 0199.999 6 Packaging 0 0 2 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7

TS 0200 TS 0770.999 6 Metal Manufacturing 0 7 22 26 32 30 5 1 3 1 1 1 129

TS 0940 TS 1070.999 6 Leather Industries/Tanning & Fur 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 4

TS 1080 TS 1268.999 6 Paper Manufacturing/Trade 0 2 5 5 4 1 4 2 0 0 0 0 23

TS 1300 TS 1865.999 6 Textile Industries 0 1 3 7 15 5 2 1 3 1 1 0 39

TS 1870 TS 1935.999 6 Rubber Industry 0 3 2 1 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 9

INTERIM 43

Appendix B-5 Age of Collection Report Education

Starting Ending Description 2000-2009 1990-1999 1980-1989 1970-1979 1960-1969 1950-1959 1940-1949 1930-1939 1920-1929 1910-1919 <1909 No Date TOTAL L 0000 L 9999.999 2 Education--General 0 7 12 16 38 24 12 9 10 2 4 22 156 LA 0000 LA 9999.999 2 Education--History 3 127 333 288 559 289 74 21 17 12 9 20 1752 LB 0000 LB 0045.999 2 Education Theory & Practice 0 26 57 54 81 71 24 15 18 1 0 3 350 LC 6102 LC 6200.999 2 L 5 108 60 60 109 55 22 4 1 1 0 1 426 LB 1025 LB 1049.899 2 Teaching--Principles & Practices 8 246 348 348 450 207 52 12 6 2 1 4 1684

LB 1049.9 LB 1050.759 2 Reading--General 2 32 34 83 169 36 6 0 0 0 0 6 368 LB 1050.9 LB 1091.999 2 Educational Psychology 3 53 79 78 166 95 20 5 6 2 0 1 508 LB 1101 LB 1139 2 Child Study 1 26 36 84 129 75 32 7 7 5 3 0 405

LB 1139.2 LB 1139.999 2 Early Childhood Education 1 66 43 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 111 LB 1140 LB 1140.999 2 Preschool Education 2 15 30 41 113 21 2 0 0 0 0 0 224 LB 1141 LB 1489.999 2 Kindergarten 0 3 5 12 20 13 7 0 0 0 0 0 60 LB 1501 LB 1547.999 2 Primary Education 0 10 13 22 40 21 5 1 1 0 0 1 114 LB 1555 LB 1602.999 2 Elementary/Public School

Education

19 169 134 175 251 150 61 11 6 3 1 0 980 LB 1603 LB 1696.699 2 Secondary Educ, High Schools 7 59 37 50 92 83 28 3 2 2 0 0 363 LB 1705 LB 2286.999 2 Education & Training of Teachers 14 160 120 87 152 100 26 5 3 1 0 2 670 LB 2300 LB 2430.999 2 Higher Education 6 439 445 265 388 184 45 21 15 4 1 22 1835 LB 2801 LB 2844.199 2 School Admin & Teaching

Personnel

28 291 286 251 270 131 27 6 6 1 0 9 1306 LB 2844.52 LB 2844.639 2 Trade Unions 0 3 5 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14

LB 3011 LB 3012.599 2 School Discipline 2 17 11 17 21 4 2 0 0 0 0 0 74 LB 3050 LB 3060.879 2 Educ'al Tests, Measurements, Eval 1 94 79 39 36 23 9 0 0 0 0 1 282 LB 3401 LB 3499.999 2 School Hygiene/Health 2 9 9 9 19 28 8 1 0 0 0 0 85 LB 3525 LB 3640.999 2 School Life, Manners & Customs 0 8 9 10 42 38 6 5 3 1 0 3 125 LC 0000 LC 0008.999 2 Spec. Education--General 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 LC 0009 LC 0033.999 2 Self Education 0 0 2 4 3 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 11 LC 0037 LC 0044.399 2 Home Education 1 14 16 5 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40 LC 0045 LC 0045.899 2 Nonformal Education 0 8 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 LC 0047 LC 0058.799 2 Private School Education 0 0 2 8 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 LC 0065 LC 0245.999 2 Social Aspects of Education 12 182 252 231 208 80 18 1 0 0 0 6 990 LC 0251 LC 0951.999 2 Moral & Religious Education 0 12 26 29 51 23 7 2 2 1 0 0 153 LC 1390 LC 1390.999 2 Educating Boys 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 LC 1401 LC 2572.999 2 Educating Women 1 10 32 24 22 2 2 2 1 0 1 0 97 LC 2580 LC 2582.999 2 Educating Student-Athletes 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 LC 2601 LC 2611.999 2 Education in Developing

Countries

0 0 2 6 7 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 19 LC 2699 LC 2913.999 2 Educating Blacks, Afro-Amer 3 46 34 28 53 19 2 1 0 0 0 0 186 LC 3745 LC 3747.999 2 Educating Immigrant Children 0 2 5 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 LC 4812 LC 5160.999 2 Other Special Classes 1 34 39 28 47 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 169 LC 5161 LC 5163.999 2 Fundamental Education 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 LC 5201 LC 5401.999 2 Adult Educ, Continuing Educ. 1 73 80 113 53 20 6 2 3 0 0 1 352 LC 5451 LC 5493.999 2 Aged Education 0 0 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 LC 5501 LC 5771.999 2 Evening, Vacation, Summer

Schools

0 1 1 0 4 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 LC 5800 LC 6101.999 2 Distance Ed/Correspond. Schools 1 23 17 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 52 LC 6201 LC 6401.999 2 University Extension 0 0 1 1 4 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 10 LC 6501 LC 6560.499 2 Lyceums/Lecture Courses/Forums 0 1 2 1 6 6 2 0 0 0 0 0 18 LC 6571 LC 6581.999 2 Radio/TV Courses 0 1 0 1 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 LC 6601 LC 6691.999 2 Reading Circles, etc. 0 4 3 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 LD 0000 LG 9999.999 2 Individual Institutions 0 19 45 76 153 102 47 46 110 182 5604 107 6491 LH 0000 LH 0009.999 2 College/School Magazines &

Papers

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 LJ 0000 LJ 0075.999 2 Student Fraternities & Societies 0 2 2 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 LT 0000 LT 0501.999 2 Textbooks Multi-Subject 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 3

INTERIM 44

Appendix C

Historical Highlights of Significant Collection Events

1983-1984

Cancelled 329 periodical titles

Received an increase in materials budget from Chancellor Young

Began Approval plans for books

1985-1986

Flood damage (667 books reordered; 168 rebound)

GIT transferred to UALR

1986-1987

Budget reduction of $74,781 (31.5%); materials budget reduced $9,000

Approval plan cancelled

Student labor/library hours cut

1987-1988

$200,000 added back to materials budget by Chancellor

Approval plan set up with Princeton University Press

Deposit accounts set up with Scholarly and Coutts

1989-1990

LAN for serials

3 CD ROM databases: GPO Monthly Catalog, ERIC, Disclosure

1990-1991

Automated the processing of spine labels

OCLC dedicated terminal at the reference desk

1991-1992

Multiple copies were weeded from circulating collection

Serials use study

1992-1993

LAN with reference CD ROMS

INTERIM 45

Record of 14,328 books added

1994-1995

DRA contract signed

Multimedia transferred to the Library

1995-1996

DRA fully implemented

Physical card catalog is eliminated

1996-1997

1st comprehensive Collection Development policy implemented

1st library web page

1997-1998

Froze the shelflist

Serials use study

Major push to barcode and catalog government documents

1998-1999

Converted European Union documents to LC classification

Received $349,121 in supplemental funds from Legislature

$30,000 for Helon Brown Williams collection

Added web-based databases for the first time

1999-2000

III contract signed

First e-books purchase: 6500 titles from NetLibrary

Converted all databases to web

ArkLink Consortium was created

2000-2001

III implemented

9353 e-journals; 10,909 e-books

$100,000 to support materials for new CyberCollege (now EIT)

INTERIM 46

2001-2002

349,121 supplemental funds from Legislature

2002-2003

Began converting print journals to electronic access

Was officially given the 5th floor space

Presidential Studies money

2003-2004

Combined Media and Multimedia on 5th floor

First funding from the Distance Education Committee

Purchased Serials Solutions

ArkLink Reciprocal Borrowing Agreement

2004-2005

Cancelled 220 little-used serials

Increased the number of databases

Reference librarians were assigned as book selectors

2005-2006

Library Strategic Plan

ASI MOU(Memorandum of Understanding)

2006-2007

18,404 e-books; 47,763 e-journals

2007-2008

LibQUAL+® survey conducted

Approval plans: Coutts and Midwest

2008-2009

IMS transferred to Computing Services

ASI move

Ottenheimer Library Development Board created

INTERIM 47

2009-2010

Relocation project of 1st floor materials

Collection Development Project begins.

INTERIM 48

Appendix D 1992 NEH Grant Application cover sheet

INTERIM 49

Appendix E: Ottenheimer Library Collection Development Policy

Collection Development Policy OTTENHEIMER LIBRARY COLLECTION DEVELOPMENT POLICY The Library acknowledges the support of the Senate Library Committee in the evolution of the collection development policy. The Committee endorsed the policy on May 13th, 1997. TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION A. Goal 4 B. Purpose 4 C. Audience 4 D. Revision Schedule 4 II. CLIENTELE 5 III. OVERVIEW OF THE COLLECTIONS 5 IV. RESPONSIBILITY FOR COLLECTION DEVELOPMENT 5 V. FUNDS FOR LIBRARY MATERIALS 6 VI. CRITERIA FOR THE SELECTION OF LIBRARY MATERIALS A. General Criteria 7 B. Special Criteria--Periodicals 7 C. Special Criteria--Audiovisual Resources 8 D. Special Criteria--Electronic Resources 8 VII. CONTROVERSIAL MATERIALS 8 VIII. GENERAL COLLECTION DEVELOPMENT POLICIES A. Formats Of Materials 9 B. Children's Books 12 C. Languages 12 D. UALR Authors' Publications 12 E. Multiple Copies 12 F. Copyright 12 IX. GIFTS (GENERAL COLLECTION) 13 X. PRESERVATION 15 XI. REPLACEMENT 15 XII. DESELECTION OF MATERIALS A. Criteria for the Deselection of Library Materials 16 a). Books 16 b). Periodicals 16 B. Criteria for Retaining Materials 17 XIII. TRANSFER OF MATERIALS 17 XIV. METHODS OF ACQUIRING MATERIALS 18 XV. POLICIES FOR SEPARATE COLLECTIONS A. Archives and Special Collections 19 B. Government Documents 21 C. Multimedia 23 D. Recreational Reading 25

INTERIM 50

E. Reference 26 F. Vertical File 27 XVI. OTHER POLICIES A. Interlibrary Loan Policy 28 XVII. APPENDICES Appendix A American Library Association (ALA) Bill of Rights 30 Appendix B ALA Intellectual Freedom Statement 31 Appendix C ALA Statement on Challenged Material 34 Appendix D ACRL Statement on Appraisal of Gifts 35 Appendix E Donor Agreement 36 Appendix F List of Reference Sources for Info. on Appraisals 37 Appendix G IRS Publication #561. Determining the Value of Donated Property 38

INTERIM 51

Appendix F Data from National Center for Education Statistics

NCES Books, Serial Backfiles, and Other Paper Materials Volume Count

NCES Print Expenditures

NCES Electronic Materials and Serials Expenditures

Library Name 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008

University of Arkansas at Little Rock, AR 493,970 125,318 306,905 297,773 307,588

University of Central Oklahoma, OK 125,789 97,475 114,973 135,242 150,719

University of Massachusetts- Boston, MA 277,815 179,866 170,334 N/A 150,583

University of Missouri- St. Louis, MO 223,852 416,747 325,026 413,900 426,058

University of New Orleans, LA 490,279 297,046 317,033 444,259 659,334

Wichita State University, KS 479,009 556,253 487,117 736,535 547,350

Library Name 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008

University of Arkansas at Little Rock, AR 93,180 60,675 226,803 557,534 600,194

University of Central Oklahoma, OK 113,715 114,000 400,000 409,185 405,000

University of Massachusetts- Boston, MA 101,665 175,458 925,078 N/A 1,288,831

University of Missouri- St. Louis, MO 35,897 48,730 100,318 188,256 343,188

University of New Orleans, LA 85,710 205,441 276,374 415,077 1,692,037

Wichita State University, KS 243,953 316,593 390,203 662,437 1,742,576

Library Name 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008

University of Arkansas at Little Rock, AR 390,613 395,823 496,945 503,218 837,778

University of Central Oklahoma, OK 438,975 460,910 470,409 369,916 514,007

University of Massachusetts- Boston, MA 583,114 585,671 588,884 N/A 604,701

University of Missouri- St. Louis, MO 1,051,952 1,075,590 1,105,983 1,152,074 1,193,955

University of New Orleans, LA 864,942 895,977 918,932 951,705 951,394

Wichita State University, KS 1,590,705 1,649,694 1,680,529 1,722,220 1,772,590

INTERIM 52

Appendix G UALR Undergraduate and Graduate Programs

Anthropology (BA) Music

Art History Philosophy

Dance (BFA) Political Science

English Professional and Technical Writing

French Psychology

German Studies Sociology

History Spanish

International Studies Studio Art

Liberal Arts Theatre Art

Adult Education (Med) Higher Education (EdD)

College Student Affairs (MA) Learning Systems Technology (Med)

Counselor Education (MED) Middle Childhood Education (Med)

Curriculum and Instruction (MED) Rehabilitation of the Blind (MA)

Early Childhood Education (Med) Rehabilitation Counseling (MA)

Educational Administration (EdD, EdS) Rehabilitation Counseling (PMC)

Educational Administration and Supervision (MED) Secondary Education (MED)

Gifted and Talented Education (MED) Special Education (MED)

Applied Science (PhD) Information Quality (MSIQ)

Applied Science (MS) Integrated Computing (PhD)

Bioinformatics (PhD) Systems Engineering (GC)

Bioinformatics (MS) Systems Engineering (MS)

Computer Science (MS) Technology Innovation (GC)

Computer Science (MS)

Applied Communication Studies (MA) Gerontology (GC)

Audiology (AuD) Gerontology (MA)

Communicative Disorders (MS) Journalism (MA)

Conflict Mediation (PBC) Marriage and Family Counseling (PMC)

Criminal Justice (MA) Nonprofit Management (GC)

Criminal Justice (MS-Online) Public Administration (MPA)

Criminal Justice (Phd) Social Work (MSW)

Biology (BS) Mathematics (BA) Bioinformatics (PhD) Geospatial Technology (GS)

Chemistry (BA) Mathematics (BS) Bioinformatics (MS) Health Education (MS)

Chemistry (BS) Nursing (AS) Biology (MS) Integrated Science and Mathematics (MS)

Environmental Health (BS) Nursing (BS) Chemistry (MA) Mathematical Sciences (MS)

Geology (BS) Physics (BA) Chemistry (MS) Sport Management (MS)

Health Professions (BS) Physics (BS) Exercise Science (MS)

Health Sciences (BS)

Social Work

Law Enforcement (AA)

Criminal Justice (BA)

Journalism (BA)

Mass Communication (BA)

Speech Communication (BA)

Speech Pathology (BS)

Military Science- Reserve Officer Training Corp

Public History (MA)

COLLEGE OF SCIENCE AND MATHEMATICS

Interpretation: ASL/English (AA)

Management

Management (GC)

Accounting (GC, MACC)

Business Administration (MBA)

Management Information Systems (GC, MS)

Management Information Systems Leadership (GC)

Accounting (BS)

Business Administration in Advertising/Public Relations

Economics

Finance

International Business

Systems Engineering (BS)

DONAGHEY COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

COLLEGE OF PROFESSIONAL STUDIES

Interpretation: ASL/English (BA)

Professional and Technical Writing (MA)

Engineering Technology- Mechanical (AS)

Management Information Systems

Marketing

Computer Programming (AS)

Engineering Technology- Electronics (AS)

Computer Science (BS)

Construction Engineering (BS)

Construction Management (BS)

Electronics and Computer Engineering Technology (BS)

Information Science (BS)

Engineering Technology- Mechanical (BS)

Second Languages (MA)

Taxation (GC, MST)

Early Childhood Education (BS)

Midlle Childhood Education (BS)

Undergraduate Programs Graduate Programs

Art: History, Studio, or Education (MA)

Liberal Studies (MA)

COLLEGE OF ARTS, HUMANITIES, AND SOCIAL SCIENCES

COLLEGE OF BUSINESS

COLLEGE OF EDUCATION

INTERIM 53

Appendix H UALR Curriculum Change Form

INTERIM 54

INTERIM 55

INTERIM 56

Appendix I Ottenheimer Library Interlibrary Loan Use by Department 2005 -2010

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

His

tory

Ap

plie

d S

cien

ce

Inte

rnat

ion

al &

Sec

on

d L

angu

age

Stu

die

s

Art

Bio

logy

Edu

cati

on

al L

ead

ersh

ip

Ch

emis

try

Soci

al W

ork

Ph

iloso

ph

y &

Lib

eral

Stu

die

s

Psy

cho

logy

Bu

sin

ess

Ad

min

istr

atio

n

Soci

olo

gy, A

nth

rop

olo

gy &

Ge

ron

tolo

gy

Engl

ish

Edu

cati

on

Syst

ems

Engi

nee

rin

g

Po

litic

al S

cie

nce

Rh

eto

ric

& W

riti

ng

Gra

du

ate

Inst

itu

te o

f Te

chn

olo

gy

Co

mp

ute

r Sc

ien

ce

Mas

s C

om

mu

nic

atio

n

Mu

sic

Eart

h S

cien

ce

Cri

min

al J

ust

ice

Spee

ch C

om

mu

nic

atio

n

Ph

ysic

s &

Ast

ron

om

y

Hea

lth

Sci

ence

s

Co

un

selin

g, A

du

lt a

nd

Re

hab

ilita

tio

n E

du

cati

on

Mat

hem

atic

s &

Sta

tist

ics

Info

rmat

ion

Sci

ence

Pu

blic

Ad

min

istr

atio

n

Nu

rsin

g

Eco

no

mic

s &

Fin

ance

Engi

nee

rin

g Te

chn

olo

gy

Ph

ysic

s

Ad

min

istr

atio

n

Acc

ou

nti

ng

Au

dio

logy

& S

pe

ech

Pat

ho

logy

Teac

her

Ed

uca

tio

n

Thea

tre

and

Dan

ce

Mar

keti

ng

& A

dve

rtis

ing

Hea

lth

Ser

vice

s A

dm

inis

trat

ion

Smal

l bu

sin

ess

and

Tec

hn

olo

gy

Co

nst

ruct

ion

Man

agem

ent

Cen

ter

for

eco

no

mic

dev

elo

pm

ent

edu

cati

on

Article Requests Received

Loan Requests Received

Total Requests Received

57

APPENDIX

Appendix A - Library Dean‘s charge to CAP Study Team Page 38

Appendix B-1 - Age of Collection Report Social Sciences Page 39

Appendix B-2 - Age of Collection Report English and American Literature Page 40

Appendix B-3 - Age of Collection Report History Page 41

Appendix B-4 - Age of Collection Report Sciences and Engineering Page 42 - 44

Appendix B-5 - Age of Collection Report Education Page 45

Appendix C Highlights of Significant Events in Collection Development Page 46 - 48

Appendix D 1992 NEH Grant Application cover sheet Page 49

Appendix E Ottenheimer Library Collection Development Policy Page 50 - 51

Appendix F NCES Academic Library Expenditures Page 52

Appendix G UALR Colleges and Programs Page 53

Appendix H UALR Curriculum Change Form Page 54 - 56

Appendix I Interlibrary Loan Use by Department Page 57

58

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Source of UALR Operating Budget 2009/2010 Page 7

Figure 2: Library Budget as Percentage of University Operating Budget FY 2005/2006 to 2009/2010 for UALR Ottenheimer Library and ARL Libraries. Page 8

Figure 3: UALR Ottenheimer Library Operating Budget and Materials Expenditures FY

2005/2006 to 2009/2010 Page 9 Figure 4: Print and Electronic Expenditures as Percentage of Materials Budget

UALR Ottenheimer Library FY 2005/2006 to 2009/2010 Page 9

Figure 5: Historical Volume Count (Books and Bound Periodicals) UALR Ottenheimer Library FY 1983/1984 to 2009/2010 Page 10

Figure 6: States with Budget Shortfalls 2010 Page 16

Figure 7: Data from Academic Libraries Survey FY 2008 National Center for Education Statistics Page 18

Figure 8: Data from NCES Academic Libraries Survey 2000 to 2008 Total Library

Expenditures Page.18

Figure 9: Data from NCES Academic Libraries Survey 2000 to 2008 Total Library Expenditures Per FTE Student Page 19

Figure 10: Trends in Electronic Expenditures UALR Ottenheimer Library FY 2005/2006 to 2009/2010 Page 20

Figure 11: UALR Undergraduate and Graduate FTE FY 2006/2007 to 2009/2010 Page 23 Figure 12: UALR Online FTE FY 2005/2006 to 2007/2008 Page 24