ReCAP DataCirculation FY13

Zack LaneReCAP Coordinator

July 2013

ReCAPColumbia University

109.6% increase in total charges to offsite collections from FY04 to FY13

Meanwhile 35.7% decline for on campus collections

Offsite charges have leveled off over the past five years

Faculty (OFF) account for 40.4% of charges and 58.0% of renewals in FY13

Offsite collections have more renewals than charges; it is the opposite for on campus

Findings

ReCAPColumbia University

Circulation activity is only one measure of collection usage

System-wide circulation statistics are available for both offsite and on campus

Circulation data are accessible to all staff Offsite collections can be identified by CLIO

location format off,xxx. ReCAP opened in January 2002 Voyager circulation activity data is available

from July 2003, the date of implementation Data does not include Teacher’s College

or Law Library

Circulation Data

ReCAPColumbia University

ReCAPColumbia University

Previous Studies Previous study has been done:

System-wide Circulation Data: Initial Analysis (.ppt)

Completed by ReCAP intern Steve Zweibel in Summer 2010

Summarizes and visualizes system-wide data by activity type and patron group

Presents activity of both on campus and offsite collections; it is not ReCAP-specific

Includes observations, analysis and conclusions 

Charts

ReCAPColumbia University

109.6 % increase from FY04 to FY13 Increase in circulation activity totals every

year between FY04 and FY09 One, small decline between FY09 and FY10 Since FY09 the total charge volume has

plateaued

Charges to Offsite Collections

ReCAPColumbia University

ReCAPColumbia University

13,326 14,951

17,615

21,381

25,083

28,023 27,524 28,734 29,496

27,814

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

FY03/04 FY04/05 FY05/06 FY06/07 FY07/08 FY08/09 FY09/10 FY10/11 FY11/12 FY12/13

CHARGES: Offsite by Fiscal Year

Comparing offsite and on campus charges by volume

Offsite charge volume increased 109.6 % between FY04 and FY13

On campus charge volume declined by 35.7% between FY04 and FY13

On campus charges have declined every year since FY04

N.B. On campus collection size declines each year; offsite collections grow each year

Offsite vs. On Campus Charges

ReCAPColumbia University

ReCAPColumbia University

13,326 14,951 17,615 21,383 25,083 28,029 27,524 28,735 29,497 27,797

557,501 552,788

509,556

483,905

449,135 441,188 437,064415,987

404,690

358,538

0

100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

500,000

600,000

FY03/04 FY04/05 FY05/06 FY06/07 FY07/08 FY08/09 FY09/10 FY10/11 FY11/12 FY12/13

CHARGES: Offsite vs. On Campus by Fiscal Year

Offsite On Campus

Growth of offsite collection usage can be evaluated using a ratio

Offsite/Total Circulation as percentage Ratio has increased since FY04 Since FY09 the ratio has been 6-7% Data suggests that the leveling off

correlates to increased renewals

Offsite as Percent of Total Charges

ReCAPColumbia University

ReCAPColumbia University

2.33%

2.63%

3.34%

4.23%

5.29%

5.97% 5.92%

6.46%

6.79%

7.20%

0.00%

1.00%

2.00%

3.00%

4.00%

5.00%

6.00%

7.00%

8.00%

FY03/04 FY04/05 FY05/06 FY06/07 FY07/08 FY08/09 FY09/10 FY10/11 FY11/12 FY12/13

CHARGES: Offsite % of Total

Monthly charges of both offsite and on campus collections are in phase with the academic calendar

Peaks in the middle of Fall and Spring terms The pattern of offsite charges is more

apparent when viewed alone Amplitude is higher for on campus

collections – see charts by calendar month◦ 1:3 for on campus◦ 1:2 for offsite

Charge Volume by Month

ReCAPColumbia University

ReCAPColumbia University

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

80,0007/

1/20

03

10/1

/200

3

1/1/

2004

4/1/

2004

7/1/

2004

10/1

/200

4

1/1/

2005

4/1/

2005

7/1/

2005

10/1

/200

5

1/1/

2006

4/1/

2006

7/1/

2006

10/1

/200

6

1/1/

2007

4/1/

2007

7/1/

2007

10/1

/200

71/

1/20

08

4/1/

2008

7/1/

2008

10/1

/200

8

1/1/

2009

4/1/

2009

7/1/

2009

10/1

/200

9

1/1/

2010

4/1/

2010

7/1/

2010

10/1

/201

0

1/1/

2011

4/1/

2011

7/1/

2011

10/1

/201

11/

1/20

12

4/1/

2012

7/1/

2012

10/1

/201

2

1/1/

2013

4/1/

2013

CHARGES: Offsite vs On Campus by Month

Offsite On Campus

ReCAPColumbia University

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,5007/

1/20

03

10/1

/200

3

1/1/

2004

4/1/

2004

7/1/

2004

10/1

/200

4

1/1/

2005

4/1/

2005

7/1/

2005

10/1

/200

5

1/1/

2006

4/1/

2006

7/1/

2006

10/1

/200

6

1/1/

2007

4/1/

2007

7/1/

2007

10/1

/200

7

1/1/

2008

4/1/

2008

7/1/

2008

10/1

/200

8

1/1/

2009

4/1/

2009

7/1/

2009

10/1

/200

9

1/1/

2010

4/1/

2010

7/1/

2010

10/1

/201

0

1/1/

2011

4/1/

2011

7/1/

2011

10/1

/201

1

1/1/

2012

4/1/

2012

7/1/

2012

10/1

/201

2

1/1/

2013

4/1/

2013

CHARGES: Offsite by Month

ReCAPColumbia University

0

100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

500,000

600,000

January February March April May June July August September October November December

CHARGES: On Campus by Calendar Month

ReCAPColumbia University

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

January February March April May June July August September October November December

CHARGES: Offsite by Calendar Month

Chart compares total volume of charges to renewals for offsite collections

Faculty and Grad request more offsite collections than Undergrads

Faculty and Grads Faculty have higher renewal/charge ratios

Over time, these two patron groups tend to renew more than charge

CUL may expect to see steady or decreasing ReCAP retrieval rate as a result

Offsite Charges vs. Renewals

ReCAPColumbia University

ReCAPColumbia University

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

40,000

45,000

FY03/04 FY04/05 FY05/06 FY06/07 FY07/08 FY08/09 FY09/10 FY10/11 FY11/12 FY12/13

Circulation of OFFSITE Collections: Charges vs Renewals

Offsite CHARGES Offsite RENEWALS

Chart compares total volume of charges to renewals for on campus collections

Renewal behavior has changed significantly over time

Faculty and Grads Faculty have higher renewal/charge ratios

Undergrad loan periods were extended from four weeks to one term in January 2008

Loan period had a stark effect on usage pattern, reducing the need for renewal

On Campus Charges vs. Renewals

ReCAPColumbia University

ReCAPColumbia University

0

100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

500,000

600,000

FY03/04 FY04/05 FY05/06 FY06/07 FY07/08 FY08/09 FY09/10 FY10/11 FY11/12 FY12/13

Circulation of ON CAMPUS Collections: Charges vs Renewals

On Campus CHARGES On Campus RENEWALS

Calculates how many renewals per charge Renewal behavior has changed over time Offsite collections have been tending

upward, indicating more renewals per charge

On campus collections trend downward, less renewals per charge

Charge to Renewal Ratio

ReCAPColumbia University

ReCAPColumbia University

1.49

0.72

0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

1.20

1.40

1.60

FY03/04 FY04/05 FY05/06 FY06/07 FY07/08 FY08/09 FY09/10 FY10/11 FY11/12 FY12/13

CHARGE to RENEWAL Ratio

Offsite On Campus

Faculty (OFF) accounts for the majority of offsite activity in FY13: ◦ 40.4% of charges◦ 58.0% of renewals

Together Faculty and Grads (GRD) account for 76.7% of charges and 86.9% of renewals

Faculty charges have increased due to more Grads serving as adjunct faculty

This allowed Grads to have OFF set as primary patron group effective in Summer 2007

Offsite Charges and Renewals by Patron Group

ReCAPColumbia University

ReCAPColumbia University

GRD36.3%

OFF40.4%

REG19.6%

VIS3.7%

Offsite CHARGES: FY13 by Patron Group

ReCAPColumbia University

GRD28.9%

OFF58.0%

REG6.2%

VIS6.9%

Offsite RENEWALS: FY13 by Patron Group

More information and data can be found on the ReCAP Data Center

Website includes more information about system-wide data and special projects

Tailored data sets and analysis will be provided to staff via the ReCAP Coordinator

Please see the main ReCAP website for general information about CUL procedures and systems

More Data Available

ReCAPColumbia University