1

Collection Assessment Eccles Health Sciences Library

Professor Keith Rocci, Emporia State University

Jesseca Beesley, Rikki Carter, and Steve Reest

Emporia State University, LI855XU SLC Cohort 10
12/05/2014

Table of Contents..2
Abstract.3
Executive Summary..4
Collection Assessment Eccles Health Sciences Library
Opening Summary5
Library Mission and CDP Purpose...5
Collection Format & Selection/Acquisition.6
Collection Maintenance....8
Budget Cuts..8
Conclusion...11
References12

Abstract:
Discussing the institution goals, budget and collection development policy of the Eccles
Health Sciences Library in the face of a 15% budget cut, this report proposes negotiations and
considerations for making budget adjustments that will meet the mandatory cut amount while
preserving the integrity of the collection, uphold organization goals, and continue to provide
needed information and access for the patrons served.

Executive Summary
The well maintained collection at the Eccles Health Sciences Library has a clearly focused
scope and breadth, which makes it difficult to recommend budgets cuts, as the available funds
are already tightly designated to a particular area of collection development with the health
science community, both in Utah and remote, in mind. After careful assessment of the existing
collection budget, the collection development policy, goals of the institution, and current
holdings- each topics visited within this report- a mandated 15% budget cut will be explained
and justified. This cut will maintain the integrity of the collection itself and will not hinder
further collection development or service to its patron population.

Collection Assessment Eccles Health Sciences Library

Opening Summary
While individual libraries may have different patron service areas, collection
development policies, management methods, budgets, collection specific focuses, and appraisal
methods, there is a commonality within all information organizations, as stated by Johnson
(2014), The goal of any collection development organization must be to provide the library with
a collection that meets the appropriate needs of its client population within the limits of its fiscal
and personnel resources (p. 2). For the Eccles Health Sciences Library, with its narrow
collection scope and focus on electronic resources, it is plain to see that the patron population
being served have clear needs and demands for medical and health related information and
resource format preferences that the library strives to accommodate within their budget and
staffing capabilities. With the combination of changing information needs and budgets seemingly
tighter every year, an assessment of the Eccles Library collection, collection development policy,
and budget has been conducted in this report, to ensure that, in the face of a 15% budget cut, the
patron needs and collection integrity are not compromised due to decreased collection funds.
Library Mission and CDP Purpose
The Eccles Library Collection Development Policy, hereafter known as the CDP, states
that goals of the library are to advance education, research and healthcare through information
access, service and innovation (C. Jarvis, personal communication, September 30, 2014). It is
wise to lead out with the mission statement because any collection activity the library takes
should reinforce and build upon this foundation. The CDP itself is meant to further public
understanding of the purpose and nature of the librarys collection and to provide guidance and
direction to the library staff (C. Jarvis, personal communication, September 30, 2014). It is

extremely important that the public understands why the collection is managed and maintained in
a certain manner, why particular journals are included while others are not, etc. The goals of the
CDP should strengthen the intent of the librarys existence and the Eccles Library succeeds in
this aim. The direction that this CDP provides to the library staff themselves is invaluable; the
best way to make sure that the goals and mission of the library are met through their collection is
setting up specific, clear, and measurable guidelines for how to accomplish this end.
The audience of the library is mentioned in two places, briefly in the opening paragraph
of the CDP and in some detail later in the first section. The audience is potentially quite large
while also focusing on a very specific collection scope. The Eccles Health Sciences Library
considers everyone at the University of Utah, University Health Care, the Consortium, Regional
health sciences community, and anyone in the state interested in health issues as part of their
community, as well as those who can access their collection remotely. They also speak of the
different education and use levels their audience may hold: undergraduate and graduate students
in the School of Medicine, Pharmacy, Nursing and Health, clinical care, research, and consumer
information. The Eccles Health Sciences Library has clearly spent a great deal of time
considering who their patrons are and why they would be using the library, which is an important
step in making sure that the needs of users are met.

Collection Format & Selection/Acquisition

The Eccles Library collection houses a variety of formats of information, the largest
being e-journals, followed by databases and closely after, e-books. The collection budget does
not allocate much towards a physical collection, which is a logical step as medical and health
information can change so rapidly. Johnson states, The notion of a trusted digital repository
implies an ethical obligation as well as the technical and organizational infrastructure to sustain it

(p. 220). The Eccles Library prioritizes e-resources in their collection and upholds the trust
given by patrons that they are providing the best, most valid and up to date information.
Department heads are consulted to ensure that the foremost journals in each field are obtained for
the collection and appropriate coverage is achieved. The CDP states that electronic formats are
always preferred. This is also because of the large audience served and the ease of accessibility
when dealing with electronic sources.
While patron-driven acquisitions are not specifically mentioned, the CDP does state that
high priority is given to staff and student requests, within budget. Pay-per-use is not mentioned,
which is odd because an academic library should be embracing this trend as a way to save money
and better serve patrons. Implementing this service on a trial basis will be discussed further in
this assessment as a vital tool in maintaining collection integrity after a budget cut.
It is interesting to note, on the topic of special collections, only History of Medicine
materials are present and this is a no growth collection. They do accept gifts on a case-by-case
basis and limited funding is available for purchase requests. The decision not to devote collection
funds to this purpose in a library whose mission is to advance education and research, is very
wise. While the History of Medicine collection is undoubtedly interesting and can be
educational, most patrons will want newer materials.
There are five selection aids listed including publisher catalogs and online catalogs, but
the CDP notes that these are not the only aids used to find resources. Gifts, while accepted,
must meet the same criteria and standards as other material selected for inclusion (C. Jarvis,
personal communication, September 30, 2014). This is a very good practice for a library
specifically trying to develop a strong collection of electronic materials, as they will not be

overburdened by gifts that may not meet the library goals and take up valuable space reserved for
the small physical collection they do maintain.

Collection Maintenance
The Eccles Library takes collection maintenance very seriously and also performs regular
weeding of the collection. Of the five page CDP, one and a half pages detail the procedures for
weeding or keeping print materials. Books and journals have separate lists for continued life in
the collection or for their deselection. There is no mention of weeding for the electronic
materials meaning that it is not known if or how that happens. As of this assessment, electronic
weeding will be recommended as part of the proposed budget cuts, as duplicate journals and
databases could be eliminated, and needs for these weeded items may be met with a resource
sharing program between Eccles Library and the Marriott Library at U of U.

Budget Cuts
Based on the upcoming 15% mandatory collection development budget cut, and with
careful examination of the Eccles Health Sciences Library CDP, it has been determined that a
straight 5% cut in each of the areas of print resources, e-books, and e-journals would be most
cost effective without leaving the collection lacking information. There are areas of the
electronic collection that contain some overlap, both within the Eccles Library subscriptions and
within those resources shared with the Marriott Library at the University of Utah. Resources
sharing can be a vital tool in the information profession, Tezla and Morse (2014) write, The
nature of collaboration and consultation may be changing, but the need for a robust culture of
collaboration remains essential as we work together to create a library collection in service of
curriculum (p. 158). In this vein, eliminating this overlap will account for a large portion of the

15% cut in all areas while ensuring access to needed information. Based on these and other
factors, to be discussed below, the following budget cuts are justified within the parameters of
the CDP, the goals of the Eccles library, and the needs of its patron group.

Amount
Printed materials $5,085.83

5% off of each
section

Amounts Total

$254.29

$4,831.54

E-Books $79,365.20

$3,968.26

$75,396.94

E-Journal $1,490,146.29

$74,507.31

$1,415,638.98

$78,729.87

$1,495,867.45

Total $1,574,597.32
(15%) Cut of Total

This table depicts an overview of the budget amounts that were spent to develop the
collection in 2014. In order to deal with the 15% cut for 2015, we took the collection specific
amounts from 2014 to come to a sum of the total, then subtracted 15% from the total amount of
the sum. By doing this, it allowed for each group to continue to develop their section of the
collection by only taking a 5% cut from their collection budget. This then adds up to the total
15% that needs to be cut from the collection development budget for the entire Eccles Library.
Determining which e-journal and database subscriptions contained overlapping materials,
and weeding journals that are no longer used or relevant was the first step in cutting the
collection development budget. After these cuts were determined, the following actions were
taken to preserve collection integrity and ensure patron access and services were maintained.
1. Resource Sharing
In the spirit of education and collaboration, the Eccles Library has worked out a deal with
the Marriott Library to allow free access for Eccles Library patrons to their medical and health
related databases saving $40,000 from the e-journal collection development budget this year

10

alone. This allowed the Eccles Library to eliminate e-journals and databases that overlapped with
Marriott collection, while still providing the same high standard of access to patrons.
2. Renegotiation of Contracts
After determining which e-resources were not being utilized, or were underused by
patrons, the collection development staff contacted e-journal and e-book vendors to renegotiate
their contracts with the library. The vendors were able to offer a price cut on popular
subscriptions and removed access to the underused resources resulting in the needed $3,968.26
cut in the e-book budget, and another $20,000 cut from the e-journal budget.
3. Pay Per Use
In negotiations with vendors, it was determined that implementing a Pay Per Use
system would be beneficial to continue to provide access to e-resources as needed by patrons,
without having an overarching subscription or e-journal bundle cost. E-journals least accessed
will be subject to a pay per use fee, as negotiated with the providers of the e-content. The content
will still be available to patrons and staff at the expense of the collection budget, but the
elimination of subscription fees to these underused resources will more than make up for the
almost $15,000 difference in the budget. This program is implemented under a trial use term, and
will need to be reassessed for practicality and cost effectiveness after a fiscal year has passed.

Conclusion
After careful assessment of the existing collection budget, the collection development
policy, goals of the institution, and current holdings a mandated 15% budget cut will be taken
from the e-books, e-journals, and printed materials budgets. The savings will be achieved
through resource sharing, renegotiation of contracts, and a trial pay per use program. This cut

11

will maintain the integrity of the collection itself and will not hinder further collection
development or service to its patron population.

12

Resources
Johnson, P. (2014). Fundamentals of collection development and management. 3rd, rev. ed.
Chicago: American Library Association.
Tezla K. & Morse V. (2014). Collection development between teaching mission and resource
management: The case of carleton college. In Albitz, B., Avery, C., & Zabel, D. (2014).
Rethinking collection development and management. (149-159). Santa Barbara, CA:
Libraries Unlimited.