Comparative Evaluation of Community College Collection Development Policies By Robbin Zirkle Part One: Discussion of Collections and Services

Emory W. Morris Learning Resource Center and Library The Emory W. Morris Learning Resource Center and Library (LRC) is the library affiliated with Kellogg Community College (KCC). KCC is a public two-year institution in Battle Creek, Michigan. Battle Creek is a small city about twenty miles from metropolitan Kalamazoo. KCC is a medium-sized school (5,992 degree-seeking undergraduates) that offers two-year certificate and associate degree programs. Furthermore, KCC is primarily a commuter campus with a large number of enrolled students driving a sizeable distance to get to class, and the average age of its students is 24 years of age. The collection development policy for the LRC states that its mission is to "collect, organize, and make available the learning resources/information necessary for both the faculty and the students of Kellogg Community College. The policy goes on to list collaboration with faculty, bibliographic instruction, and external collaboration as effective means for achieving that mission. Structure and allocation of the acquisitions budget is outlined explicitly within the collection development policy, and breaks the budget down into four line items for development: books, serials, multimedia materials, and digital resources. The budget for each of these is determined through recommendations to the Director of Library Services. Considerations in constructing the budget include estimated cost of maintaining the current

level of acquisitions as well as funds needed to improve areas within the collection that are lacking. The LRC exists to serve the Kellogg Community College students and faculty in both their instructional and research needs. It provides a number of services including a computer commons and mobile library, departmental liaisons, bibliographic instruction in classrooms and access to MeLCat (a materials catalog of library holdings in and around Michigan), CHOICE Reviews, access to both EBSCO databases and ProQuest, the InfoTrac database, LibGuides, and interlibrary loan. An interlibrary loan agreement has been established between KCC and nearby Miller College, although it does not appear that any funds are allocated for joint subscriptions. Battle Creek also boasts the well-established (public) Willard Library. The LRC has fairly straightforward gift policies, which essentially indicate that gifts will be evaluated using the same criteria used to select items for purchase, and that the institution will not accept materials unless the contributor agrees to allow them to be sold or offered to another library , college department or non-profit if not a fit. In contrast, challenges to the existing collections require the challenger to complete a form and submit it to the Director of Library Services for consideration. Lane Community College Library The Lane Community College Library (LCCL), like the institution itself, can be found in Eugene, Oregon. Lane Community College (LCC) is a medium-sized (12,837) public two-year institution set in a small city that is also home to the University of Oregon. LCC offers both associates and certificate programs in both career-specific fields (such as Computer Network

Operations) as well as in liberal arts fields (such as Ethnic Studies). The average student age at LCC is 30 years of age, and though it does not market itself as such, it is a commuter campus. LCC strives to be a learning-centered institution that provides affordable, quality, lifelong educational opportunities, while LCCLs mission statement indicates that its goal is to provide high quality, accessible lifelong education. The library aims to do this by satisfying information needs not only of students, but also for members of the faculty, staff, administration, and community at large when possible. It does this through building and maintaining of a vital collection of library materials and resources. The library aims to achieve these goals in a number of ways, and so, the faculty librarians and the Library Director create a separate materials budget for each area of the curriculum based upon a number of factors (curricular relevance, program size, research needs, publishing costs, balance of collection, overall needs). Costs are controlled through an extensive list of limitations and basic standards for the collection, including policies for collecting materials related to faculty research. LCCL provides an impressive list of services, including an online public-access catalog, assistive technology for persons with disabilities, library research guides, bibliographic instructions, online tutorials for skills, library liaisons, and document delivery to its Outreach Centers. The library also provides digital access to the EBSCO database, Credo Reference, Oxford Reference Online, e-books and Learning Express. Further, LCC is a part of the Orbis Cascade Alliance, a library consortium comprising over thirty-five higher education institutions in the region. Students may access other institutions catalogs through Summit, an online

catalog, and may then request texts through interlibrary loan. The library has also created a widget for Moodle course pages, used throughout the institution in individual courses.

Part Two: Constructive Critiques of Policies Kellogg Community College The needs of the LRC and KCC are essential to critiquing the librarys collection development policy. In the Battle Creek, Michigan, 86% of people have high school diplomas (or equivalent), but only 18.4% of people have Bachelors degrees or higher, making the individuals who pursue higher education successfully a minority. Consideration of both the environment and the university as a whole point to a number of needs within the community, specifically to support the career-specific degrees and certificates that students pay pursue at KCC. Therefore, materials must maintain currency and quality, as students encounter concentrated information over a short period of time. The nature of a commuter environment also necessitates online resources in addition to items available in a physical format since many students are required to work from home most of the time. The collection development policy designed for the LRC is, for the most part, geared toward the mission and characteristics of the community at large. For example, the policy indicates that when possible, resources will be purchased in a digital format. This is an excellent decision based upon the student population and the commuter nature of the institution, as a digital format is more portable than traditional or physical library resources.

While the budget allocations section does not provide concrete values for acquisitions, it does state that the budget is broken into four areas. The policy indicates that forty percent of the book budget goes toward subject areas, supporting degree programs, while the rest of the budget is allocated (primarily) toward reference and non-circulating resources, and a limited number of popular items. This breakdown is good in that a significant portion of funding is directed toward directly supporting degree programs, ensuring that they are current, quality collections. This also increases the ability of liaison librarians to cater to their specific subjects and to provide exemplary academic materials for patrons. Unfortunately, however, allocating a great quantity of that information for physical reference sources is not an ideal use of funds when dealing with a commuter community. Some of that 60% is presumably used for textbook reserves and popular items, but as there is a separate line for digital items altogether, revising those numbers may be in order. Another area to consider revising, or in this case, adding, is programming, specifically for distance learners. While bibliographic instruction is provided in classrooms at instructor requests, providing workshops or similar programming to students interested in adapting and maximizing their use of university resources from afar would be helpful. Furthermore, the consortial agreement leaves much to be desired; while the institution has access to MeLCat, it has created an agreement with only one other institution that utilizes that regional database. A significant issue with the collection development policy is that it does not promote onsite use or community outreach from within the LRC. Actual on-site study areas are somewhat limited, especially when considering that there are nearly 6,000 students. The computer commons allows small number of individuals to work, but group space is limited as is individual

space. Considering the large quantity of funds allocated to developing an on-site collection, this is problematic; students may have great physical resources, but they have nowhere to use them. Additionally, community outreach is not mentioned, despite only having one library in the area for residents to utilize. This demonstrates that the needs of students are prioritized, but that no one else may feel they are able to use the facilities. As a public institution, this is problematic for economic and social reasons; increased outreach to the surrounding community would be an easy way to address those issues. Lane Community College The Eugene, Oregon community and the LCC community both play a significant role in shaping the LCCLs policy. The policy itself is designed to coordinate with curricular relevance and curricular needs as well as program size and research needs, making most of the policy exemplary, and in-line with its student-centered mission statement. Also well-articulated and within the scope of the librarys mission statement are the policys weeding protocol and list of items that will and will not be purchased. Each of these explicit sections within the policy provide sound support for purchasing and disposal decisions and again, seem to align themselves with the institutions goal of maintaining currency and supporting student scholarship. That said, the policy is not without flaws. Funding for different types of acquisitions is dependent upon publishing cost and balance of each collection as a whole. This works in favor of the LCCL as a whole, as it seeks to support student interest and student volume. Unfortunately, however, this overlooks relative costs to purchase items; most English literature anthologies are listed at approximately $70.00, but a comparative text in the sciences will likely

cost three times that much, and need to be replaced with more frequency. The language utilized in regard to budgeting does not allow for differences based upon the nature of the field, which is a weakness within the policy. Two other budgetary issues lie in the policy as well. First, serials funding is not addressed specifically, which can be problematic. While subscriptions are most likely acquired through the consortial agreement, no money is appropriated for such a purchase. Furthermore, the policy explicitly states that advanced faculty research is not and will not be supported by the LCCLs book collection. The policy adds that such research can be achieved through the consortial agreement and interlibrary loan, yet this seems to inhibit the research and professional growth needs of a higher education environment. Overall, LCCL has a strong collection development policy, but may not cater to the needs of Eugene, Oregon as a whole. Specific issues lie in the budget, which doesnt allow the library to purchase specialized materials. Most of the population of Eugene (92.6%) has a high school diploma or equivalent, but 40.2% have a Bachelors degree or higher, which is significantly higher than the national average of 27.9% Comparative Critique On paper, both of these community colleges libraries are similar: both exist in suburban small cities and supports a mid-sized two-year program providing associates and certificate degrees, yet both seem to exist in completely different worlds. Eugene, Oregon has betterthan-average education in its population whereas Battle Creek, Michigan has below-average education among its citizens. KCC strives to meet the needs of a largely commuter campus

whereas LCCL aims to serve its entire community. Neither institution is home to a prestigious program, nor do they offer advanced degrees. In assessing each of these libraries, the primary concern is whether or not these collection development policies address the educational needs not only of students, but also of staff, faculty, administration, and the community at large. Each policy is written specifically to support students and faculty, and while each policy articulates a number of things very well, both collection development policies have weaknesses. First and foremost, the LRC does not address the Battle Creek community at all in its policy, and the LCCL mentions that it supports the community when possible in its objective statement, but does not address the community again within the policy. As the objectives of each institution cite lifelong learning, that seems somewhat contradictory; any institution that truly seeks to support lifelong learning provides lifelong access of materials, at least on site. Each library has either a leisure or popular collection as well as a childrens collection, yet no related programming is available to target audiences for either. The issue of programming ties directly into the second major issues in these policies: allocations for funding. For example, even though 9% of Battle Creek households regularly use a language other than English, the LRC provides no outline for purchasing texts for new Englishlearners or for newly-literate learners. Additionally, the LRCs consortial agreement is weak and in dire need of expansion, whether with other community college libraries, or major universities. In contrast, the LCCL is overly-specific, indicating that childrens books may only be purchased for early childhood development studies, and that non-English language texts will

only be purchased if that language is officially taught by the university, seriously limiting the potential for students to master new languages. A final issue noted after careful consideration of each policy is currency. The LRC policy explicitly states that it was last revised in 2008, but the LCCL policy is not dated. With 2013 rapidly approaching, it seems that it would be prudent for each institution to revise and republish its policy. Doing so would not only improve transparency, but would also provide an opportunity to consider suggestions and constructive criticism provided within this document.

10

Works Cited College Board. (2012). Kellogg Community College. Retrieved from https://bigfuture.collegeboard.org/college-university-search/kellogg-communitycollege. College Board. (2012). Lane Community College. Retrieved from https://bigfuture.collegeboard.org/college-university-search/lane-communitycollege?searchType=bf_site&q=&bf_cat=bf_. Kellogg Community College. (2012). Collection Development Policy. Retrieved from http://www.kellogg.edu/library/collection.html. Lane Community College. (2012). Collection Development. Retrieved from http://www.lanecc.edu/library/about/coldev.htm. United State Census Bureau. (2012). Eugene (city) QuickFacts. Retrieved from http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/41/4123850.html. United State Census Bureau. (2012). Battle Creek (city) QuickFacts. Retrieved from http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/26/2605920.html.