ACRL News Issue (B) of College & Research Libraries 3 4 8 / C&RL News Criteria for consolidation of branch lib raries By Elizabeth D. Byrne, Ralph H. Moon, and Gary R. Peete California’s practical guidelines fo r closing branches Over the last few years the University ofCalifornia has been rocked by a number of economic shocks. Budgetary cutbacks and a series of early retirement incentive programs have forced campuses such as Berkeley (UCB) to seriously evaluate the array of services of­ fered— particularly the large number of spe­ cialized decentralized service points and branches that exploded during the more pros­ perous periods of the 1950s and 1960s. With 22 branch libraries, an undergraduate library, and a main library, Berkeley has developed an abundance of these expensive service points to support. During the last few belt-tightening years, the library sustained large reductions in staffing so that the number of librarians and other nonstudent employees was reduced from around 575 at the end of 1988 to 460 in the beginning of 1993. By the spring of 1993 it had become appar­ ent that a piecemeal approach, which was tak­ ing across-the-board cuts from all operations, was only leading to the eventual weakening of all the services at UCB. Recognizing the enor­ mous cost of duplication of material, space, and staffing, the library administration decided that it would be preferable to eliminate and con­ solidate some services rather than weaken all operations. Despite the initial cost of consoli­ dations, it was also determined that funding fewer service points and branches could result eventually in improved services in those that remained. Dorothy Gregor, the university li­ brarian, asked that LAUC-B (the Librarians As­ sociation of the University of California, Ber­ keley) appoint a committee to develop guide­ lines that could be used when considering which branches would be closed. This committee found little guidance in li­ brary literature; rather it used advice from other librarians involved in closing decentralized ser­ vice points and other unpublished sources for drawing up these guidelines. The articles that had been published on the subject primarily dealt with the debate over centralization ver­ sus decentralization or the closing of under­ graduate libraries in conjunction with the elimi­ nation of their colleges, but not on how to decide which established branch libraries to close. The committee relied primarily on infor­ mation provided by the library staff involved with the closure of branches at UC-Los Ange­ les, a planning document written by the Sci­ ence Libraries Department at UCB, and discus­ sions with campus branch librarians for ideas. These “Guidelines for Consolidation” will hopefully provide other large research librar­ ies with some constructive ideas on how to approach this process. While they are written primarily for the situation at Berkeley, they deal with concepts that will be applicable at a num­ ber of large research institutions. Criteria for consolidation of branches These were developed by the LAUC-B Execu­ tive Committee, Subcommittee on Consolida­ tion, April 1993. Assumptions 1. Budget shortfalls will continue for several years. Elizabeth D. B ym e is h ea d o f the Environmental Design Library, Ralph H. Moon is assistant university librarian f o r p u blic services, a n d Gary R. Peete is business/economics librarian a t the University o f California, Berkeley Ju n e 1 9 9 4 /3 4 9 3 5 0 / C&RL News 2. There will be a continued reduction in staff. 3. Additional library space will be available through the completion of the Doe/Moffitt Ex­ pansion in fall 1994, and expansion in the North­ ern Regional Library Facility. 4. Library Guidelines for Consolidations and Reassignments (2/93) will be followed. 5. All branches will be judged according to these principles and criteria. 6. All affected groups will be informed and/ or involved in a timely manner, including li­ brary and academic units affected, branch and Senate library committees, Academic Senate, etc. 7. There will be considerable short-term costs associated with the planning and actual move and merger of any consolidated branches, e.g., review of collections for weeding and storage, relabeling, changing, merging, and/or clean­ ing bibliographic records, etc. Principles and criteria Consolidation should: 1) Reduce expenditures o r en han ce ser­ vices, and avoid fu rther ero sio n o f service quality w h ich results from stretch in g re­ duced staff across a greater num ber o f li­ b raries. Examples o f enhanced services include: longer hours of access to collections and ser­ vices; access to a larger, broader, and related collections; access to more or better library equipment; etc. Criteria: a. Will hours of access and services be in­ creased or decreased as a result of the consoli­ dation? b. Will loan policies be appropriate for the needs of the users whose collection is being consolidated? c. Will reference expertise in the affected subject be available in the new location? d. Will access to library equipment (photo­ copiers, microform equipment, CD-ROMs, etc.) be increased or decreased? e. Will short-term costs o f implementing consolidation be outweighed by long-term gains in savings or enhanced services? f. If necessary, will new services, such as document delivery, be created to enhance ser­ vices or improve parity of services? 2 ) Create a rational com bined collection w ith intellectual affinity. Criteria: a. What percentage of the branch collection is unique or not duplicated elsewhere on cam­ pus? How much is duplicated in other library units? If there are major subject overlaps with other collections, which location is the primary source for the affected academic units? b. Do the collections proposed for merger complement each other and contribute to in­ terdisciplinary research? c. What are future trends (e.g., electronic formats, a significant increase/decrease in amount of publishing, etc.) that will affect this collection, and what impact will they have on consolidation? 3) Continue to m eet the unique collec­ tion needs o f th e academ ic p rogram s af­ fected, and provide full access to th e en ­ tire cam pus com m unity. Criteria: a. Is there provision for qualified personnel to develop and manage the collection? b. Have the ramifications of ongoing collec­ tion development agreements with other librar­ ies been considered? Could collections be shared or transferred with assurance of open access to the entire campus community? 4 ) P ro v id e a p p r o p r ia te q u a lity an d quantity o f space to accom m odate the com ­ bined collections. Criteria: a. Are there special technological, environ­ mental, spatial, or security needs (e.g., rare books, music listening room, CD-ROM network tower, etc.) for the collections and services, and have provisions been made to meet them? b. What and how much material will need to be weeded and/or stored from both collec­ tions in order to accommodate the merger? c. What are the present and projected size and growth rates of both collections (e.g., an anticipated rapid increase in the literature)? d. What is the impact on study hall space? e. What is the impact on the receiving li­ brary? 5 ) Minimize inconvenience to p rim ary users o f the b ran ch being consolidated and th e receiving location. Criteria: a. What are the size and growth rate of the user groups in the branch considered for con- (Cri teria cont. on p a g e 378) Ju n e 1 9 9 4 /3 5 1 A B e t t e r Way To Sea r c h D atabases We started in 1985, database searchers committed to better search software design. We became the premier vendor of M edline, then expanded our catalog to other databases. Last year we won Information World Review’s PRODUCT O F T H E YEA R for faster, easier search software. But a better way means meeting the evolving needs - individual and campus wide - of today’s library users. Announcing OVID: a database interface so flexible it molds itself to your search environment. With OVID you’re free to mov from one operating system to another without retraining. OVID’s Common User Interface assures identical functionality in DOS, Windows and UNIX. e A haven for beginners, OVID’ Easy Mode has on screen prompts. The more experience can pull-down menus showing an array o f search options. Experts will feel at home using online syntax. s d Search with natural language i f you like. OVID mapping cuts through the mystery o f controlled vocabularies, homing in on precisely matching subject headings. There’s an unprecedented array o f search tools - indexes, thesauri, limits and fields - many never before available in an interface. They’re all standard OVID features. HELP for every search function is context-sensitive and on screen, never more than a key­ stroke or mouse click away. OVID. A better way to search ERIC, Current Contents’, PsycINFO®, Medline, Readers’ Guide Abstracts, EMBASE and more. CD PLU S Techno lo gies New Y o rk 8 0 0 - 9 5 0 - 2 0 3 5 / 2 1 2 - 5 6 3 - 3 0 0 6 L o n d o n 4 4 - ( 0 ) 8 1 - 7 4 8 - 3 7 7 7 A m sterd am 2 0 - 6 7 2 - 0 2 4 2