Funding for the Future: Binghamton University’s

Collections Resource Allocation Process

Ed Shephard, eshephar@binghamton.edu

Elizabeth Brown, ebrown@binghamton.edu

Erin Rushton, erushton@binghamton.edu

June 14, 2007 - 3 p.m.

Purpose

• Identify and develop common goals for collection resource development

• Develop budgetary methods to reach those goals

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

Project Background• Fall 2005 – Collections Department Retreat

– GOALS/PRINCIPLES/PHILOSOPHY OF THE RESOURCE ALLOCATION PROCESS

• March 2006 – Symposium – FUNDING OUR DIGITAL FUTURE: BUDGETING FOR

LIBRARIES & SCHOLARLY COMMUNICATION

• September 2006 – Consultation– LYNN COPELAND, DEAN OF LIBRARIES, SIMON FRASER

UNIVERSITY

Consultation Outcomes

1. Finalize charge

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

3. Plan/timetable

1. Communication plan

2. Timeline

3. Resource allocation report plan

4. Begin discussion of options/issues

Project TimelineOct 1: Final charge, committee appointment

[data gathering]Nov 1: Committee familiarized with issues

[data gathering]Nov 21:General agreement on approach

[data gathering]Dec 15: First outcomes for committee reviewFeb 15: Draft reportMar 15: Consultation complete April 1: Final Report

Charge• Review alternative methods of assessing the Libraries’ subject

collection allocations budget and recommend a preferred method.• Identify a collections allocation budget process that

– assesses the current funding structure and recommends appropriate changes

– addresses anomalies and inequities without reducing current support levels

– ensures support for new research and teaching interests– recommends base budget funding for newly created schools or

departments– provides the flexibility to respond to changing opportunities and needs – includes alternative methods for provision of resources not in the

Libraries' collections – includes a procedure for ongoing review of the allocations.

• Consult widely with the BU community.

Committee Membership

LibraryEd Shephard, Chair

Kate Bouman

Beth Brown

Erin Rushton

Randall Miles

Faculty Senate Library CommitteePeter Gerhardstein, Chair (Psychology)

Carrol Coates (Romance Languages)

Gerald Kadish (History)

Jennifer Gordon (Education)

Michael Lewis (Computer Science)

Corinne Bertram (Human Development)

Sarah Maximiek (Libraries)

Methodology Review

• Most collection studies were dated and focused on a formula models

• An allocation method that allowed for consideration of subjective criteria

• The methodology used by the Simon Fraser University Library (SFUL) in its 2000 Collection Allocation Review and 5-Year Update was chosen for its – blend of measurable criteria– subjective evaluation and analysis

Our Methodology

• Adopted the SFUL model– Identify measurement factors– Rank measurement factors– Count number of outliers in rankings

• BU modifications– Identified additional measurement factors – Recommendations for underfunded outliers – Create subgroups of factors for analysis– Prioritize for future funding opportunities

Process – SFUL Factors

• Student, Graduate and Faculty FTE • Collection size measures

– Total dollar allocation– Number of Serials subscriptions– Serials Units Acquired

• Ratio of collection increase to faculty, graduate and undergraduate increase

• Ratio of collection factors to faculty, graduate and

undergraduate FTE's

Process – BU Factors• Monographic units acquired

• Interlibrary loan requests by department and by user status

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

• Consumer Price Index (CPI) of serials

Process – Data Collection

• Library budget documents• Library management system (ALEPH)• Binghamton University Office of Institutional

Research (OIR) website• Library inter-library loan system (ILLIAD)• Serials Solutions• Otto Harrassowitz subscription agency

Process – Challenges/Factors

• Collection usage data

• Attributing e-journals to departments

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

• Embargoed journal titles - Aggregators

• Industrywide Average Serial Prices

Process – Challenges/Programs

• New Departments

• Interdisciplinary Programs

Analysis of Factors – Historical

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

• Total Expenditure Increase/Faculty FTE Increase • Total Expenditure Increase/Grad FTE Increase• Total Expenditure Increase/Undergrad Degrees Granted

Increase• Average Serial Price Increase (Binghamton)• # Faculty ILL Requests Increase/Faculty FTE Increase• # Grad ILL Requests Increase/Grad FTE Increase

Analysis of Factors - Current2005/2006

• Total Expenditure/Faculty FTE (Normalized)• Total Expenditure/Grad FTE (Normalized)• Total Expenditure/Undergrad Degrees Granted (Normalized)• # Serials Acquired/Faculty FTE• # Serials Acquired/Grad FTE• # Serials Acquired/Undergrad Degrees Granted• # Faculty ILL Requests /Faculty FTE• # Grad ILL Requests /Grad FTE• # Units Acquired/Faculty FTE• # Units Acquired/Grad FTE• # Units Acquired/Undergrad Degrees Granted• Average Serial Price (Binghamton)/Average Serial Price (Industry Wide)

Factor Analysis – Normalization

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

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

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

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

Analysis of Factor Outliers

• Review of bottom quartile for factors. • Total Number of “Underfunded” Ranking Outliers • Subgroups of Total Outlier Factors

– Faculty Grouping– Graduate Grouping– Undergraduate Grouping– Total Expenditure Grouping– ILL Grouping– Serials Grouping

Observations – Factor Analysis

• Faculty, graduate, undergraduate program growth

• Non-traditional and unmet library needs• Growth of interdisciplinary programs• Open access and new publishing models• Degree of collections overlap within

subdisciplines • Foreign language needs• Size of department and faculty needs

Recommendations from Charge

• Review alternative methods of assessing the subject allocations of the Library's collection budget and recommend a preferred method– Employed modified SFUL outlier analysis model– Investigate methods of obtaining usage information on

serials and electronic resources at the level of departmental affiliation as soon as possible

Recommendations from Charge• Identify a process for allocating the collection budget that:

– assesses the current funding structure and recommends appropriate changes

• Maintain current funding structure• Match the evolution of the University as it moves

towards a more inter-disciplinary organizational model of curriculum and research

– addresses anomalies and inequities without jeopardizing necessary support levels

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

• No existing levels of budgetary support should be lowered

Recommendations from Charge– provides a means for ensuring support for new research and

teaching interests, with particular attention to interdisciplinary activities

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

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

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

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

Recommendations from Charge

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

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

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

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

Recommendations from Charge

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

allocation review

Recommendations from Charge

• Consult widely with the BU community– The committee included the representatives of the

University faculty to the Library via inclusion of the entire Faculty Senate Library Committee as members

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

Acknowledgements

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

• BU Collections Staff

• BU Faculty Senate Library Committee

• Lynn Copeland, Dean of Libraries, Simon Fraser University

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