ANALYZING AND DESCRIBING COLLECTION USE TO INFORM STORAGE DECISIONS AT THE UNIVERSITY OF DENVER

Statistics & Reports: Data Driven Decision Making Pre-Conference

Las Vegas

June 27, 2014

Michael Levine-Clark

Timeline

• Penrose Library, 1972• Planning for new library, 2002-2008• Authorization for project, 2010

• Smaller collection footprint• ALL collections to high-density storage during project

• Permanent storage = size-sorted• Temporary storage = call number sorted

• Break ground, July 2011

Timeline

• Penrose Library, 1972• Planning for new library, 2002-2008• Authorization for project, 2010• Planning for collections, 2010• New vision – smaller collection footprint, spring 2011• New collection plan by library• Faculty committee charged with recommending a third collection plan

Timeline

• Penrose Library, 1972• Planning for new library, 2002-2008• Authorization for project, 2010• Planning for collections, 2010• New vision – smaller collection footprint, spring 2011

• Break ground – July 2011• Project completion – March 2013

Collection Locations Pre-Renovation

• Penrose Library• Built in 1972

• PASCAL • Shared storage facility with University of Colorado System

• Campus storage (Mary Reed Building)

• Music Library• Law Library

Collection Size – Linear Feet

Penrose; 108,502

Mary Reed; 3,187

PASCAL; 27,397

Collection Locations Post-Renovation

• Anderson Academic Commons• (The renovated, renamed Penrose Library)

• Hampden Center• High-density storage• 10 miles from campus• 3-hour delivery

The Initial Plan (until Spring 2011) • Renovated library

• 75% of monographs• Excluding monographs with 0 circulations (post-1997) published before

• 1950 (humanities)• 1980-2000 (social sciences, science, technology)

• 10% of serials (mostly image-heavy)

• New storage facility• 25% of monographs• 90% of serials• 100% of government documents• 100% of microforms• 95% of boxed archival collections

The Big Picture (original plan)

Upper level• 25000 sf of books• Perimeter seating

Main level• All services and seating• Staff areas

Lower level• 25000 sf of books• Some seating

Upper level• Seating and staff areas

Main level• Seating and service points

Lower level• 15K – 20K sf of Collections• Seating

Pre-renovation After completion

The Big Picture

Upper level• 25000 sf of books• Perimeter seating

Main level• All services and seating• Staff areas

Lower level• 25000 sf of books• Some seating

Upper level• Seating and staff areas

Main level• Seating and service points

Lower level• 15K – 20K sf of Collections• Seating

Pre-renovation After completion

The Library Plan, orHow Do You Plan for 20%

•Assumptions:• Need recognizable rules• Provide collections for all disciplines• Take usage into account• Require minimal maintenance

Library Recommendation (20%)

•Core collection:• Imprint date of 2003 and later in most disciplines

• Except those available as e-books.

• Five or more circulations since 1997, any imprint date

• 2900 LF of the art and art history books and journals

• Total: 19,900 LF

A Faculty Committee

Charge: to make a data-driven decision about the right mix of seating and collections on the lower level of the renovated library.

Representatives from (mostly) humanities and social sciences.

The questions:

• What is the purpose of an on-campus collection?• What criteria should be used to shape an on-campus collection?

• (Why) should it be larger than 20% of the monographs proposed by the Chancellor and the Board?

• Which data should be considered in supporting recommendations?

COLLECTIONS DATA

Collection Size – Volumes/Items

Books; 1,186,211

Journals; 252,512

Spec Coll Books; 35,407

Gov Docs; 604,702

Microforms; 1,367,533

Penrose Collection – Linear Feet

78,919

17,591

2,163

2,2513,883 3,695

BooksJournalsGov DocsSpec Coll BooksSpec Coll BoxesMicroforms

Digital Collection Size

eBooks; 1,060,043

eJournals (ti-tles); 95,570

Gov Docs; 594,431

Other eResources; 30,189

Collections Budget, FY 2010Expense Type Expenditure Percentage

Databases/Journal Packages $1,965,042.00

eJournals $842,737.00

Print/Electronic Journals $130,043.00

Total Electronic Subscriptions

$2,937,822.00 89.2%

Total Subscriptions $3,294,652.00

One-Time Electronic Purchases

$721,896.00

Total Electronic Spending $3,659,718.00 67.3%

Print Monographs $883,167.00

Special Collections $343,013.00

Videos $59,626.00

Total Collections Budget $5,439,134.00

Volumes AddedFY 06 FY 07 FY 08 FY 09 FY 10

Volumes Added

27,442 29,240 26,406 24,804 21,356

Vols Withdrawn

11,035 9,201 1,915 988 1,327

Net Increase 16,407 20,039 24,491 23,816 20,029

Types of Use, FY 2010• Circulation 125,886• ILL Borrowing 4,094• Prospector Borrowing 14,675

• Total Checkouts to DU 144,655• ILL Lending 4,015• Prospector Lending 26,339

• Total Resource Sharing 30,354• Reshelving 15,758

Circulation of Monographs

• Circulation of entire collection, 1997-present• % Circulated 44.8%• Avg Circ/Title 1.22• % Circulated FY 10, FY 11 2.6%

Circulation, Books Cataloged 2000-2004 (n=126,953)

0 Circ; 40%

1 Circ; 21%

2 Circ; 13%

3 Circ; 8%

4+ Circ; 19%

Circulation, Books Published 1950(n=4,036)

0 Circ; 71%

1 Circ; 19%

2 Circ; 6%3 Circ; 2% 4+ Circ; 3%

Highest Circulation by LC Class (1997-Present)LC Class Items % Circulated Avg

Circ/Title% Circ FY10, FY11

R (Medicine) 25,565 59.6% 2.17 2.8%

B (Philos, Psych, Religion)

65,275 55.3% 1.65 3.9%

N (Fine Arts) 35,103 54.7% 1.48 3.2%

L (Education) 28,487 52.8% 1.48 3.1%

K (Law) 7,254 52.3% 1.64 2.7%

E (History - Americas)

32,734 50.6% 1.34 2.6%

G (Geog, Anthro, Rec)

26,035 50.5% 1.50 4.0%

S (Agriculture) 4,309 49.8% 1.18 3.6%

U (Military Science) 6,715 48.5% 1.20 3.3%

H (Social Sciences) 161,244 47.9% 1.50 2.6%

F (History – Americas)

21,130 45.1% 1.09 2.7%

Lowest Circulation by LC Class (1997-Present)

LC Class Items % Circulated Avg Circ/Title

% Circ FY10, FY11

A (General Works) 15,538 12.4% 0.30 0.7%

Z (Bibliography, Lib & Info Sci, Info Resources)

21,978 26.0% 0.76 1.1%

M (Music) 912 32.2% 0.74 0.9%

V (Naval Sciences) 1,058 37.0% 0.66 1.3%

Q (Science) 80,876 37.0% 0.81 1.7%

C (Aux Sciences of Hist)

6,311 39.6% 1.06 2.9%

P (Lang & Lit) 206,636 40.9% 0.97 2.1%

T (Technology) 40,321 43.0% 1.01 2.5%

D (History – World) 80,024 43.7% 1.08 2.5%

J (Political Science) 38,681 43.9% 1.32 3.3%

70,054 titles lent in 2010, by publication date

1900-1999

1910-1919

1920-1929

1930-1939

1940-1949

1950-1959

1960-1969

1970-1979

1980-1989

1990-1999

2000-2011

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70,054 titles lent in 2010, by publication date

1900-1999

1910-1919

1920-1929

1930-1939

1940-1949

1950-1959

1960-1969

1970-1979

1980-1989

1990-1999

2000-2011

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70,054 titles lent in 2010, by publication date

1900-1999

1910-1919

1920-1929

1930-1939

1940-1949

1950-1959

1960-1969

1970-1979

1980-1989

1990-1999

2000-2011

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

On-Site Collection Goals?

• A starting point for undergraduate research papers• Serendipitous discovery (browsing) that will result in some material

• Immediate access for people who can’t wait to get something

• Something for everyone across all disciplines, supporting teaching

• Something for heaviest users: AHSS • Material to support research when only browsing works

THE SURVEY

Faculty: why do you visit the print collection?

• Two dominant browsing patterns for faculty:• A known item search, then find additional material on the

shelf • Go directly to “your” shelf location to browse for materials

• In addition, it is common (48%) for faculty members to visit in order to look up something specific in a specific title.

Students: Why do you go to the stacks?

• 14% do not use the print collection• 6% always use Request It• 67% browse for a course assignment• 44% browse for creative inspiration• 74% are going after a specific book• 41% need to look up a fact or passage in a book• 13% described other reasons

• Look for one book and find a lot of others• Reading for pleasure• Personal reading• Practicing language skills• To relax

Faculty: collection use for research

• 65% say books are primary research resources.• 68% use books to find specific information • 66% use books to update or refresh knowledge and 80% use books to expand knowledge

• Comments illustrate very high levels of concern about these modes of inquiry becoming so inconvenient that

inquiry itself will be disrupted, reduced, or even impossible.

How many Linear Feet for assignments?

• Clearly, all books in each call number would not be needed, but that’s how we counted.

• We did not include responses such as “all collections” or “all literature.”

• We added up linear feet for topics specified by respondents.• All areas of the collection are used in teaching.

73,000 LF

Faculty: What (specifically) should be returned to the new library?

70,041 LF

• Responses range from “everything” to “all literary criticism” to works by a specific author.

• Many responses show the extent to which teaching and research is interdisciplinary: gender studies, race studies, multicultural therapy, history of literacy, or church/art/social history.

• We excluded responses such as “all collections” or “all literature.”

Faculty: when is a 3-hour delivery OK (i.e. what can be stored?)

• Some respondents said there is nothing for which a 3 hour delivery time is OK; it diminishes browsing.

• 49% said we could store anything that had never been checked out.

• 49% said low use books were OK to store. • 60% approve storing the paper version of an e-book.• 34% thought we could store the book if the catalog record includes a table of contents online.

Key concepts from comments

• For some students and faculty little concern about storing collections.

HOWEVER• The vast majority of respondents, both students and faculty, very unhappy, worried, angry, upset, or concerned about the decision to store most of the book collections.

• Few worry about turnaround time; most regret loss of browsing.

Key concepts

• Some collection uses CANNOT be done by requesting known items. Examples from the survey are:• Image/photo/illustration searching within books (hence our

recommendation that we return the art books)• Assessment of degree of difficulty of non-English Language fiction• Choosing older volumes on the basis of presentation (font, format)

THE DISCUSSION

What would a subject collection look like?

50% Scenario

• Would accommodate 39,500 LF• Subtracting the core collection of 19,900 leaves 19,600 for flexible collections.

• Seating loss (compared to the 30% scenario) of about 120 seats.

• Which 19,600 LF?

What data support this scenario?

Data Points

• 80% of circulation = books published in last 30 years• 40% of recent books will circulate 2 or more times• Users of visually-heavy material (especially art history) browse in ways that other disciplines don’t

Recommendation• Books published since 1983, excluding e-books, duplicates,

older editions 32,000 LF

• Books published before 1983, checked out 2 or more times

4,419 LF

• Heavily-illustrated materials, excluding the above two categories

3,000 LF

• Total size of on-site collection 39,419 LF• Percentage 50%

1972 2013

• Finite space, tightly packed

• Code records for storage based on criteria• Allows for

shifting when needed

MANAGING A SMALLER LOCAL COLLECTION

iCode Disposition Action

0 Needs evaluation Periodic review based on criteria

10 Storage Can be stored when needed

12 Academic Commons, but needs review for ebook, edition (could move to storage)

Check for ebook availability, newer editions

20 Academic Commons Review on broad criteria (age, circulation)

29 New Book Area Can move to 10, 12, 20

EVERY BOOK IN ITS PLACE

• Easy: When it’s time to shift, search for iCode 10

• Fast: Allows staff to quickly meet space needs

• Policy-Driven: Based on established criteria

• Flexible: Code and note can be revised based on faculty or selector input

PRE-CODING ALLOWS FOR EFFICIENT STACKS MANAGEMENT

THANK YOU

Michael Levine-Clark

Associate Dean for Scholarly Communication and Collections Services

University of Denver Libraries

michael.levine-clark@du.edu