Abstract
Libraries continue to struggle with the transition to an online environment. In this session, the presenters discussed periodical cuts and the transition to online-only subscriptions at three large academic libraries. Their journey included identifying potential titles, balancing consortial arrangements, considering available online archives, analyzing statistics, time and budget constraints, as well as binding, available space, and patron demands. The motivation for reducing print will vary from one library to another. However, most libraries will share some or all of the factors to be considered when making the necessary changes. Proper planning can help take the sting out of print reductions.
In this session, librarians from three different academic libraries provided a look into the process they each used in making difficult decisions about which materials to cut during tough budgetary years. The presenters also discussed the transition from a print to an online environment at each library. The panel included Michael Arthur from the University of Central Florida Libraries, Carol Ann Borchert from the University of South Florida Libraries, and Debbie Montgomery and Ellen Safley from the McDermott Library at the University of Texas at Dallas.
The University of Central Florida (UCF) is a large university with about 48,000 students. The University has grown rather quickly but the Libraries' materials budget has not grown in proportion. As a result, the UCF libraries face serious challenges against their peers. The UCF libraries have 13,000 active periodical subscriptions, including aggregator titles. Usage of the periodicals collection is very high; in 2006/2007, there were over 4.5 million database searches. In 2006/2007, UCF's total library expenditures were $13.7 million. UCF spent just short of $6 million on expenditures for the collection during the same time period, of which $5.1 million was recurring costs; $850,000 was allocated for firm orders and books.
Due to annual inflation costs, UCF faced a $400,000 deficit at the beginning of 2007/2008 without a budget cut figured in. Unfortunately, late in the spring of 2007 it was announced that UCF would expect a cut of 6 percent or higher in the beginning of July 2007. The Libraries had to make cuts to the periodicals and databases to slow the recurring costs. With budget cuts projected to be as high as 10 percent, nothing was going to be safe. UCF did not set out to target print subscriptions. However, after looking at all different areas, they discovered that due to Big Deal package and consortial agreements with other Florida institutions, basically all that was left as sources for cuts were the print titles. Some of the package deals required that UCF maintain the titles that they currently have; so if UCF made cuts to any of those packages, it would affect the pricing for the other state institutions. UCF ended up working from a list of print titles that included those titles that UCF had in print but were also available through an aggregator. Unfortunately, cutting 500 print titles only saved UCF $90,000. The few print titles that are left are core association titles, many of which are not available online. Collaborating with collection development librarians and faculty in order to fairly cut titles across all disciplines was complicated. It was a lot of work for such a small savings, and in the end, the goal of trying to slow down the continuing obligations was not met because $90,000 against $400,000 inflation did not really make much of a difference.
UCF is facing another 4 percent budget cut in July 2008 and another $400,000 in annual inflation. In order to break even, UCF would need a $400,000 increase to the base budget. In dealing with more cuts, there is no savings left in cutting print. The Libraries have a collection of 2,500 print periodical titles, with most of the print coming with the online that does not have archival or perpetual access; those titles are still being bound because they serve as the archive. UCF has now begun to look at databases for possible sources of cuts using usage statistics in determining which databases to eliminate. UCF is also planning to cut more print journals, and they have cut all the newspapers except the most important ones.
UCF has gathered print usage statistics since January 2008, and the print usage is extremely low. The focus will now most likely shift to those titles that are print only for possible cuts because some of those titles are quite expensive and the usage is low. They are currently cutting standing orders as well. UCF is likely to eliminate the print titles because the cuts will reduce the costs associated with processing, binding, and reshelving. The online format will be preferred for periodicals and standing orders. UCF currently spends $300,000 a year for print reference sources. Those sources will either be cut or moved online if it means a cost savings. At UCF, there is not a philosophy to cut print, but the current situation has made it a necessity.
Like UCF, the University of South Florida (USF) found out about budget cuts late in the year. There was a 10.6 percent budget cut at the university level over the past year, and there may be additional cuts for the next year. USF has 22,000 electronic journals available to patrons including journals available in aggregator databases, with about 7,000 being electronic subscriptions. USF also faces the problem of price increases occurring during the same time as their budget is being cut. The University held the library's electronic resources budget harmless from the budget cuts; this e-resources budget amounts to $3.4 million of the Library's total materials budget of $5.7 million. Because cuts could not be made to the e-resources budget, the USF Libraries lost some vacant staff positions. At the beginning of the fiscal year, USF's serials unit included seven full-time staff. One person has since moved to the monographs unit to work with standing orders, two positions were cut because they were open, and two more people have since left USF, leaving two people in the serials unit. Because the serials unit handles an electronic journal budget of $2.5 million, the unit has been declared “mission critical” and will hopefully be able to hire the two open positions.
Since the budget cuts were announced in July 2007, they had to happen immediately. This meant library staff had no time to consult with faculty and discuss what was occurring. Together with USF's collection development librarians, the team cut $81,000 in print periodicals and $32,000 in print serials by the beginning of September 2007. USF was in a renewal cycle, decisions had to be made immediately. With e-resources being held harmless, e-journals could not be cut. Most of USF's microfilm subscriptions were cancelled. Also, all binding of periodicals was halted.
Like UCF, USF's print journal usage is very low. USF has a high percentage of distance learners that make heavy use of the e-resources, with USF having the highest e-journal usage through SFX in the Florida State University System. USF is continuing to convert print subscriptions to online whenever possible and they are starting to plan for additional cuts during the 2009 fiscal year. When considering moving subscriptions to online only, USF's criteria include requirements for perpetual access, IP authentication, system-wide access across all USF campuses, and equivalent content to the print. To better plan for current cuts and possible cuts next year, a print journal survey was created for faculty; core journals with high impact factors were intentionally left off the survey. As part of the survey, faculty were asked about their use of a list of print and print plus online journals as well as use of journals within other disciplines.
The University of Texas at Dallas (UTD) is a doctoral research university with approximately 14,500 students. The library was hit hard by budget cuts in the 1980s. In 1983, there was a 25 percent reduction in the periodicals budget and in 1989, the periodicals budget was reduced by 27 percent. During that time, lists of periodicals were sent out to each academic department and the department was asked to cut a certain percentage of journals. This method did not seem to work very well and it turned out to be a biased way of making cuts. By the 1990s, UTD's budget stabilized a bit and the UT System consortium was developed. The consortium allowed for more buying power and UTD's journals rose in number from 3,000 in 1994 to an electronic journal collection of over 38,000 in 2008.
UTD currently has only 200 print subscriptions in their collection. The strategic plan for UTD was to create a library of the 21st century and move to an electronic periodical collection. With this in mind, there was a mandate to move from print to online if there was a licensed archive. UTD's criteria to consider before moving to online includes the quality of the online graphics, the quality of color, the printability of online articles, the presence of all content, and the presence of a licensed archive. With the move from print to online, UTD was checking in a good deal fewer journals, which allowed the library to convert a position to the new task of compiling usage data for e-resources. Massive spreadsheets of usage statistics were compiled that included the number of downloads and number of sessions by title and month. These statistics were to be used in case the move to electronic was challenged by the faculty, which did not happen.
UTD decided against taking manual usage statistics for print materials. Eventually, the technology of using handheld barcode scanners for usage gathering developed, and UTD decided to make use of this technology for collecting print usage statistics. When the shelvers clear the floors, they also use the handheld scanners to track items that have been used within the library. The scanners are used on all of UTD's collections, with the exception of microfilm, which is not barcoded. After the shelvers have cleared the floors and gathered usage data, the scanner is returned to a docking station, and the data is uploaded into UTD's integrated library system (ILS), Voyager. Reports can be run that give the number of browses by title and year. The reference librarians at UTD reported that people were still using the print journal collection, but there was a need to know how much the print collection was actually being used because the majority of print was being cancelled in favor of online access. In 2007, there were over 600,000 online article downloads, which was up 100,000 from the previous year. During the same time period, there were only 3,105 browses from the print collection, which was down from 5,200 in 2006.
2007 was a bad budgetary year for Texas, and UTD had to cut approximately 10 percent of the materials budget, which was about $3.2 million. The cuts were made using print usage information, online usage statistics, cost per volume analysis, and aggregator content information. The first cuts that were made were underused databases without content. Next were the underperforming print standing orders. Finally, UTD looked at the usage for the print periodicals. The vendor's database was checked to see if current print subscriptions were available online or print with online if online only was not available. In some cases, licenses were changed to ensure an archive for online content. The end result was that over $150,000 in materials were cut, and no one noticed.
In July 2008, UTD found out they had to cut an additional 17 percent from the budget before September. This cut was made by cancelling the following: the leisure reading plan that also included audiobooks; the monographic approval plan, giving some of that money to selectors instead; print standing orders in the reference collection that had never been used; and print journals that were underperforming or had a high cost per use. After the cuts, people noticed that the best sellers had been cut and the faculty was horrified that the approval plan had been cancelled. In the end, the library's budget was restored for 2009.
UTD has data on which titles in the collection are being used as well as data from interlibrary loan (ILL) requests along with information from course reserves, all of which are used when making purchasing decisions. The library's budget is based on enrollment figures, so if enrollment is down and inflation is up, there will be problems. UTD has little left to cut that is not core and is reluctant to add new journals even though the university is in the process of adding forty-four new degree plans. However, if the library's users are frequently requesting individual titles through ILL, the journals are considered for purchase. At UTD, e-books are being used more than print and all selectors will be spending a portion of their funds on electronic resources. The library is also looking at the possibility of putting selection in the hands of the users.
All libraries hope they will never have to face budget cuts, but, unfortunately, budget cuts are likely in today's economy. The presenters provided valuable insights that can be used when facing impending budget cuts. Informed decisions can be made by making use of usage statistics for print and electronic collections and input from collection development librarians and faculty. Although the transition from a print to online environment can be difficult, the ideas given by the presenters should make this shift smoother.
CONTRIBUTOR NOTES
Michael A. Arthur is Head of Collection Development and Acquisitions at the University of Central Florida Libraries.
Ellen Safley is the Senior Associate Director, Public Services and Collection Development at the University of Texas at Dallas.
Debbie Montgomery is the Head of Cataloging at the University of Texas at Dallas.
Carol Ann Borchert is the Coordinator for Serials at the University of South Florida.
Jessica L. Ireland is Serials and Electronic Resources Librarian at McConnell Library, Radford University.