Collection Analysis and Assessment: finding the best and worst in the library collection
Jennifer Arnold
Director, Central Piedmont Community College Library
cpcc.edu/library -- Look for Policies information
First of all, we are in a tiny, tiny room in the Francis Marion Hotel; whomever did the room assignments really got this mixed up! More likely, though, its just a reflection of the overall high conference attendance. Every session I has been overcrowded, people sitting on the floor, people standing, people standing in the doorway, people standing out in the hall...
On to Jennifer's presentation
Overview:
Project Scope/planning
Data
Tool selection
Staffing
Outcomes
Tips
Snapshot of CPCC
-largest CC in NC
-curriculum FTE ~11,000
-6 campuses in Mecklenburg Cty
-7 libraries
-RAPID enrollment growth and online environment
Origins of Project
-SACS recommending eliminated older materials in its collection
-bulk weeding, but wasn't appreciated by some academic departments
A New Approach
"The Big Picture"
-collection strengths and weaknesses
-support for programs and subject areas
-improving perceptions about the collection
-telling the story of the collection
-embracing change
Getting started
Planning:
-what did we need/want to assess about the collection?
-What did we mean by 'collection'?
What did we want to know?
What did we need & want to know about the collection?
-age
-circ, usage
-relative strengths & weaknesses
What data?
-circ stats, ILS
-usage stats, ILS & journal finder
-age of the collection, ILS
user perception, surveys
relative strengths & weaknesses, ?
overall quality, ?
Tools
-Bowker Book Analysis
-WorldCat Collection Analysis
Chose to use Bowker's Book Analysis
-lower-division undergraduates
-initial concerns about comparing our collection with other libraries
-look at overall quality by how many RCL items were held
-ability to compare against the core RCL collection
Staffing issues
-Tech Services
-Reference
-Circulation
-Systems
Action Plans
What to do with this data?
-weed based on the data
-change our CD focus
-update policies & procedures
-change/improve services
-communicate!
*tell the story of the collection
*involve the college community
*make the funding arguments
The Assessment: collection age
ILS data
0-5 yrs 6%
6-10yrs 10%
11-20 yrs 22%
21+ yrs 58%
Subject area details
The Assessment: Circ States
What wasn't circulating?
-in past decade
-problems with new materials
*lower circ than wanted to see
*relationship b/tw the two?
The Assessment: Quality
-used Bowker
-only had 6% of RCL core titles
-subject areas varied widely
-highest % were in subjects with accredited programs (allied health & paralegal)
The Assessment: Core titles
core title subject detail
The Assessment: User perception
-students need more resources-
-lots of outdated books
-below-average materials
-not enough up-to-date books
The Print Collection
What did we learn?
-its outdated
-some subjects better shape than others
-titles for weedings
-way to frame the story of the collection
Serials
Primary Concerns:
-Accreditation
-Support for programs
-Appropriateness
-Cost
Serials: procedures
-consultation with faculty
-physical examination
*appropriateness
-determine database availablity
-look for lower-cost alternatives
Serials results
-cut 23 titles and saved $7800
-added 8 titles at a total cost of $1100
-savings of $6700
-beyond savings, a better collection
*cut titles; changed focus, programs eliminated, etc.
*again, more than just weeding!
Databases
primary concern:
-usage vs. cost-database we purchase (vs. receive through NC Live)
-looked at usage statistics
Databases: the results
-lowest usage & highest usage were both high enough that no databases were cut
Overall findings:
Electronic resources
-high usage, no weeding necessary
Serials
-needed minor adjustments
Print
-needed weeding
-needed collection development focus changed
General outcomes
-could quantify what we knew anecdotally
-begin telling the story
-knew now the areas where we needed improvement
Specific outcomes
-RCL titles held percentages increased
-removed/weeded 2500 books from oldest collection
What did we do?
-revised collection development and weeding policies to
include references to RCL, percentages to weed, etc.
Established a communication plan
-admin support
-faculty support
-student support
What did we do?
-developed a new procedure for weeding
-changed collection development focus
*Adding RCL titles
*Identifying weak areas to focus on
Weeding our process
-develop a collection evaluation slip
*outdated
*usage (lack of circ)
*physical condition
*duplicate copy
*curriculum changes
*no longer under accreditation requirements
*superseded
Weeding:
Librarians assigned call number ranges
flagged materials with slips
faculty review
flagged materials pulled to TS
checked/withdrawn/replaced
What did we do???
Wrote a grant
-LSTA Grant : strengthening academic library collections
-focused on math and science
-weakness in collection
-received $10,000
Collection Assessment Tips:
Planning/scope
-What can you do in a reasonable timeframe
TheTools
-automate the tools
-find the tools that works for your collection or library
Staffing
-if possible, hire par-time help
-re-assign existing staff time
Get the DATA!!!!!!
always Assess in Context
expect the unexpected
-- found preview records?!
prepare for the impact on services
--reserves
Be willing to change accepted practices
-- got rid of oversize
Communication
--upfront
--consistent
Find project management tools
--software, timelines, deadlines, etc.
Assess regularly and consistently
Great presentation -- Jennifer knew her stuff and did a fantastic job talking about the steps her library took to plan and conduct the assessment and weeding project.
Comments