College and Research Libraries The Evolution of Cooperative Collection Development in Alabama Academic Libraries Sue 0. Medina The historical poverty of Alabama's academic institutions required bold action if deficiencies in library resources were ever to be overcome. The Network of Alabama Academic Libraries has implemented a successful cooperative collec- tion development program to strengthen resources available for graduate edu- cation and research. Recommendations resulting in the establishment of the Network are reviewed along with the conceptional decisions necessary for the implementation of the cooperative collection development program. Program funding, the formula for distribution of funds to disparate institutions, and corollary activities are discussed. • he Network of Alabama Aca- demic Libraries (NAAL) was established in 1984 to coordi- nate resource sharing among the academic institutions in Alabama that offer graduate education. Its mem- bership includes the state's coordinating body for higher education, the Alabama Commission on Higher Education (ACHE), and nineteen publicly and privately sup- ported academic institutions. In addi- tion, six other research and academic institutions are affiliated with the Net- work as cooperative members. NAAL was created as the direct result of a 1983 report that surveyed the condi- tion of Alabama's academic libraries and documented the deficiencies in the col- lective library resources needed to sup- port graduate education and research.1 The report recommended a series of ac- tions to overcome deficiencies identified in resources, collections, staffing, facili- ties, and the application of technology to library functions. Statewide cooperation and the reduction of unnecessary dupli- cation were proposed to ensure more effective utilization of the state's limited financial resources. Specific recommendations of the study addressed actions that would alle- viate current conditions and provide a framework for establishing a resource- sharing network. One of the most im- portant recommendations addressed the need for policies at the state level to in- sure that adequate collections would be developed to support any proposed new academic programs. ACHE has respon- sibility for approving proposed aca- demic programs; but its 1983 criteria did not require an evaluation of available library resources. Thus, the report rec- ommended that: The Alabama Commission on Higher Education in cooperation with . . . [the] network ... [should] develop a reasonable mechanism for reviewing library collection adequacy as part of the process of review and approval of Sue 0. Medina is Director of the Network of Alabama Academic Libraries, Montgomery, Alabama 36104-3584. 7 8 College & Research Libraries new academic programs. This mecha- nism would ensure that collections ad- equate to support these programs are in place or will be funded within a minimum of five years from the program's approval.2 If implemented, this recommendation would ensure adequate library resources for new programs in the curriculum. The report also recommended actions to cor- rect deficiencies in the existing collections: [The network should] initiate a statewide series of coordinated aca- demic library collection analyses to identify the collection strengths and weaknesses of each academic library. The data gathered from these studies will then support the successful im- plementation of the following actions: a. Eliminate existing quantitative and qualitative collection deficiencies through a multi-year retrospective collection development program. b. Continue, and enhance, a selective retrospective conversion project so that awareness of particularly strong collections can be made available to all. c. Develop guidelines for a statewide academic library shared collection development policy and procedure.3 Access to the collective resources was addressed in a series of recommenda- tions calling for each institution to sup- port membership in OCLC/SOLINET and participate in statewide resource sharing. In 1983, the Alabama legislature ap- propriated $580,000 for the NAAL. The Network was formally organized, and a plan of operation was adopted. Initial programs included statewide retrospec- tive conversion and a statewide inter- library loan program to address issues covered in the recommendations for the Network. Subsequent annual appropri- ations, reaching $1,085,513 in 1990-91, have enabled the Network to continue these programs and add other activities, such as cooperative collection develop- ment and professional development travel grants. Table 1 lists the members, their expenditures for library materials, and monograph volumes held as of Sep- tember 30, 1989. January 1992 Knowledge of specific holdings was a prerequisite to an understanding of strengths and weaknesses of the collec- tions and a necessary foundation for resource sharing. Therefore, the Network set as its first priority the addition of bibliographic records into the OCLC/ SOLINET database. State funding for ret- rospective conversion of print materials began in 1984, and the last record was added in 1990. When the Network began, each institution that was not al- ready a member joined OCLC/ SOLINET and began to catalog all current acquisi- tions into the database. Consequently, the Network was responsible only for retro- spective conversion of materials acquired prior to 1984.4 In the statewide resource-sharing pro- gram, NAAL members loan materials to other NAAL members on the same basis that they loan them to their own users. All charges, including photocopy costs and fees, are waived. With the assistance of HEA Title 11-D, all thirty OCLC librar- ies in the general and cooperative mem- ber institutions received telefacsimile equipment enabling them to transmit all interlibrary loan requests that can be sent via telefacsimile. NAAL pays the basic monthly charges for the telefacsim- ile telephone line and funds ground- based package delivery via United Parcel Service for sending all other re- quests. Further, NAAL reimburses institu- tions for part of the cost for interlibrary loan to help cover photocopying and long- distance telephone charges for telefac- simile.5 This program helps make the collective resources of the institutions more accessible by removing geograph- ical distance as a barrier to use. ADEQUATE COLLECTIONS TO SUPPORT NEW PROGRAMS One of the first actions of the new net- work was to create the Collection Devel- opment Committee and to charge it with implementing the recommendations of the report. The Committee's first respon- sibility was to work with ACHE to de- velop a methodology for assessing the adequacy of library collections. ACHE agreed to require the results of an assess- Cooperative Collection Development 9 TABLEt NETWORK OF ALABAMA ACADEMIC LIBRARIES Materials Volumes Institution Expenditures($),. Held Alabama A&M University 336,228 22~,482 Alabama State University 274,024 175,429 Auburn University 3,341,918 1,582,126 Auburn University at Montgomery 340,352 178,537 Birmingham Southern College 253,101 155,061 Jacksonville State University 505,287 484,535 Livingston University 106,680 96,491 Samford University 624,054 321,476 Spring Hill College 123,644 144,299 Troy State University 378,524 237,560 Troy State University at Dothan 124,705 73,658 Tuskegee University 355,786 257,359 University of Alabama 2,527,176 1,772,934 University of Alabama at Birmingham 1,699,699 752,705 University of Alabama in Huntsville 685,101 263,422 University of Montevallo 184,917 190,212 University of North Alabama 321,025 201,689 University of South Alabama 953,603 285,729 U.S. SEorts Academy 17,553 3,115 ,. Includes expenditures for library materials in all formats and preservation treatment such as binding ment as part of any new program pro- posal submitted for approval. For this recommendation to be implemented successfully, ACHE needed a standard- ized assessment methodology that could be applied consistently and be accept- able to the institutions in terms of the labor required to implement it. Ideally, the methodology would also collect in- formation useful for guiding efforts to correct identified deficiencies. In 1985, the Network prepared guide- lines, which were subsequently published, for the preparation of library assessment reports.6 The Collection Assessment Man- ual drew heavily on existing professional methodologies and on emerging strate- gies being developed for the Research Libraries Group (RLG) Conspectus.7 A series of workshops trained librarians in the specific evaluation techniques de- scribed in the Manual and in the prepa- ration of the report for ACHE. Using the Manual for new program review provided the Network with an excellent test. In addition to the sched- uled workshops, the Network office of- fered on-site training as well as assistance in interpreting data. Over the course of several years, the library faculty in all the institutions became familiar with the methodology and the report format. The assessment methodology described in the Manual could be applied consis- tently, the amount of work required was acceptable to the institutions, and the resulting report provided appropriate information to guide collection develop- 10 College & Research Libraries ment. As a result, the Manual could be used by NAAL for a statewide collection development program. COOPERATIVE COLLECTION DEVELOPMENT The Collection Development Commit- tee was also charged with developing Network guidelines for a statewide co- operative collection development pro- gram. Use of the methodology by ACHE had demonstrated that the assessment report would provide appropriate data on the following factors: a. strength of each collection in rela- tion to available materials; b. strength of each collection in rela- tion to other collections on the same subject; c. deficiencies and gaps in coverage within each subject collection; d. deficiencies and gaps in coverage within the statewide resources; e. current and anticipated demands of the graduate program supported by the collection; f. unique collections and resources; g. institutional resources available to maintain and strengthen the collec- tion. Many other issues related to the state- wide program had to be addressed, and the committee engaged in careful delib- eration to resolve these before NAAL actually began funding collection devel- opment. First, NAAL required each member to complete conversion of its records for monographs and serials be- fore it would be eligible for funding for collection development. This allowed the Network to implement collection de- velopment on a small scale, test its poli- cies, and make necessary changes before all nineteen members were affected by the policies governing this facet of NAAL's activities. Members of NAAL range from com- prehensive universities offering a vari- ety of doctoral degree and postdoctoral research programs to small liberal arts colleges offering only one master's de- gree program. NAAL had to be flexible in meeting these disparate needs. The Network recognized not only the neces- January 1992 sity of correcting existing collection defi- ciencies in the individual NAAL librar- ies but also the need to acquire research materials for Alabama that would lie be- yond the capability of any one institu- tion. Therefore, an early premise was that at some future time, the collection development program would support two activities: a. Instructional Support-collection development at the master's degree program level (RLG Level3); and b. Research Support-collection en- hancement at the doctoral degree and research level (RLG Level 4). The Network focused on implementing the instructional support activities first. INSTRUCTIONAL SUPPORT One of the most important debates centered on selecting subject areas that would receive NAAL funding assis- tance. One proposal was that NAAL identify a few academic programs, per- haps five, with special significance in terms of statewide economic develop- ment. NAAL would then fund acquisi- tions in these subjects for those institutions offering graduate education in those fields. Once adequacy was reached in one area, another program would be addressed. No time frame for concentrated support for each program was offered, but it was thought that this would ensure the development of ade- quate research collections in these sub- jects. Opponents argued that this approach would result in "spires of ex- cellence on a swamp of mediocrity," and, unless the institutions could guarantee a higher level of continuing financial sup- port, the adequacy of the selected collec- tions would erode once NAAL support ended. After much discussion, the Com- mittee agreed that the local institution should select the subjects needing exter- nal assistance. Rather than selecting a few subjects for special emphasis at cho- sen libraries, the Network would ensure that each member would receive some funds to enhance the collection of its choice. It was also agreed that subjects receiv- ing NAAL assistance would have to be linked directly to viable existing gradu- ate education programs. Since ACHE re- quired institutions to commit funding for adequate library resources as part of the approval of new programs, NAAL funds could not be used to develop col- lections for proposed or recently approved programs. Only academic programs al- ready in the ACHE Inventory of Academic Programs would be eligible for assis- tance. The institutions would be re- quired to submit information about the number of teaching faculty, number of enrolled graduate students, and number of conferred graduate degrees for each of the last three academic years. This would ensure that the programs were viable and that students and faculty would use the information resources ob- tained with NAAL funds. The Network recognized ••• the need to acquire research materials for Alabama that would lie beyond the capability of any one institution. Some discussion focused on the actual ownership of materials acquired with NAAL assistance. It was agreed that these items would be the physical prop- erty of the institution but would be avail- able to all members through interlibrary loan. Further, to help ensure timely ac- cess, the institution would add the bib- liographic records to the OCLC/SOLINET database within one year of the acquisi- tion. In the case of major microform sets, the Network required only the record of the set, not the analytics for each title in the set. The Network readily agreed that NAAL funding could not substitute for local funding. This simple assumption ultimately led to a more detailed policy requiring that institutions maintain their level of library funding in order to be eligible for NAAL funding in all areas, collection development as well as retro- spective conversion, interlibrary loan, and professional development. Over time, questions were raised about the kinds of materials that could Cooperative Collection Development 11 be acquired with NAAL funds. The Net- work readily agreed that unnecessary duplication should be avoided. How- ever, if duplication of materials would relieve an interlibrary loan burden, then duplication with another institution's holdings would be allowed. An institu- tion could not, however, use N AAL funds to acquire duplicate copies of ma- terials it already held or to replace lost or mutilated materials. Because serials sub- scriptions represent a long-term finan- cial commitment, N AAL funds could not be used to enter a new subscription. The Network agreed that backfiles of serials for which the institution maintained a current subscription could be acquired if they reduced the burden of interlibrary loan. The Network initially aliowed the acquisition of music recordings to ac- company scores or to demonstrate a per- formance, but later approved only the acquisition of print materials when fac- ulty began to pressure librarians to ac- quire multimedia materials intended primarily for classroom instruction. Mi- croform materials, while not encour- aged, were considered print surrogates and were acceptable acquisitions. Finally, the Network required each in- stitution to present an institutional plan for collection development detailing specific actions to correct the deficiencies identified in the assessment. Occasional problems have arisen when faculty felt a NAAL allocation should be used to sup- port current acquisitions for their per- sonal research interests. The Network requires that librarians with responsibil- ity for collection development in the sub- ject being addressed control expenditures made from NAAL funds. To review the results of NAAL funding, the Network requires an extensive end-of-project re- port at the completion of the second year following the award of funds. This re- port is a full assessment, including the librarian's judgment of the beginning and existing collection level and the cur- rent collecting intensity maintained by the institution. An important use of the end-of-project report is the assurance it provides auditors that NAAL funds were spent in accordance with the insti- 12 College & Research Libraries tutional plan approved by the Network. Thus, control of these expenditures re- mains with the library and with librari- ans who work within the statewide philosophy of NAAL. Two institutions completed retrospec- tive conversion and began NAAL- funded collection development activity in fiscal year 1985-1986. Funding avail- able for collection development was $43,000, and it was used in three subject areas: public administration, eighteenth- century literature, and biomedical e~gi­ neering. The next year, six institutions began collection development, and nearly $136,000 was available for twelve subjects. As more institutions began this activity, the collection development guidelines were adjusted to correct pro- cedural problems. Most importantly, discussion centered on the development of a new formula for the distribution of NAALfunds. FUNDING COLLECTION DEVELOPMENT When the first priority for the Net- work was retrospective conversion, NAAL funds were allocated to each member on the basis of the number of volumes held when the Network began. This number ensured that each institu- tion would receive full funding computed on the per-unit price for cataloging its retrospective records. The retrospective conversion formula, based on the historical size of collections, provided the most money to the institu- tion with the largest collection. For col- lection development, the Network sought to provide an incentive to im- prove institutional funding for current acquisitions. Therefore, the new formula recognized current effort rather than his- torical effort. Two elements decide the division of funds: expenditures for li- brary materials and volumes added. By using expenditures as one factor, the for- mula recognizes the enormous cost of serials that contribute only a limited number of volumes to the volume- added factor. Volumes added recognizes innovative collection building, such as friends-controlled endowments in which January 1992 the funds are not included in the library budget or aggressive gift campaigns that result in substantial gifts to the libraries. In addition, some libraries participate in the Library of Congress gift and ex- change program and, accordingly, add a significant number of materials to their collections from this source. Finally, sev- eral of the newer institutions have ac- quired collections from closed liberal arts colleges and are adding these vol- umes at a very reasonable per-volume price. These materials add a retrospec- tive depth to the liberal arts collections of institutions established in the early 1960s. The formula recognizes these practices. During deliberations for the new for- mula, the Network also examined its maintenance of effort policy. The Net- work realized that if NAAL funding in- creased substantially, no provisions had been made to encourage an institution to increase its funding for resources. The policy merely required an institution to maintain level funding for the library. Thus, the new formula included a provi- sion that NAAL funds could not exceed 25 percent of an institution's expendi- ture for library materials, thus capping the amount of funds an institution could receive. The new formula also included funding for research support by setting aside 20 percent of the collection devel- opment funds for this purpose. Implementing the new formula would result in a substantial change in grants to individual institutions. To phase in the new formula, the Network approved a two-year transition period during which each institution received a base of$7,500; the remainder of the funds was allocated according to percentages derived from expenditures for library materials and volumes added. This ensured that no institution would suffer a sudden de- crease in its allocation from NAAL. The base will be phased out by 1993-94. At that time, the 25 percent cap on NAAL funding will also be reduced to 15 per- cent (see appendix A). In 1990-91, the Network allocated $835,014 to the Cooperative Collection Development Program. Of these funds, 80 percent are used for instructional sup- port. The percentage of funds that each institution received was calculated using annual statistical report data submitted by each institution to the NAAL office. The largest grant made was for $140,610 for a library expending $3,341,918 on materials and adding 65,205 volumes. The smallest grant was for $4,388 and was limited by the 25 percent cap. These funds are paid quarterly to the institutions. The remain- ing 20 percent is used for research sup- port awards, and these grants are paid in one payment. The depth and breadth of library resources available to the state's students, faculty, and other researchers have improved. An analysis of subjects selected for in- . structional support since the collection development program began in 1985 in- dicates that acquisitions represent a wide spectrum of knowledge. Fears that N AAL funding would be used in a narrow range of subjects were unfounded (see graph 1). Institutions that are members of the Association of Southeastern Re- search Libraries have concentrated their funds in literature (emphasizing inter- national literature) and science and tech- nology (see graph 2). The regional public institutions' historical role as teacher- training schools is readily apparent in the 1985-91 expenditures for acquisitions sup- porting teacher education (see graph 3). The graph for the private schools is skewed by Tuskegee University, one of the first NAAL members to begin collection devel- opment, which has used its allocations in support of allied health and food sci- ence collections (see graph 4). RESEARCH SUPPORT The research support awards were de- signed as competitive grants to add new material to the aggregate of the NAAL holdings. It was anticipated that institu- tions would submit proposals to acquire expensive, highly specialized materials unique to the statewide resources. The Cooperative Collection D.evelopment 13 projects would not represent local collec- tion-building activities, as is the case with instructional support, but would support a research effort within the state or the institution. Acquisitions could only be made in support of RLG level- four or -five collecting intensity. In 1989- 90, the first competitive awards were approved. Eight proposals were submit- ted by six institutions. Three were elimi- nated from consideration as not meeting the research support guidelines. The re- maining five proposals exceeded the amount of funds available, and the Net- work had to decide whether to fund all five partially or to rank and fund the proposals until the funds were ex- hausted. The latter option was selected. Therefore, full funding was given to three proposals: Afro-American litera- ture ($31,648 to Tuskegee University), eighteenth-century literature ($69,179 to the Mervyn H. Sterne Library of the Uni- versity of Alabama at Birmingham), and music ($27,938 to the University of Ala- bama). One submitting institution agreed to accept partial funding for the acquisi- tions of U.S. patent literature ($44,876 to Auburn University) to support engi- neering resources in the state. One pro- posal in U.S. history, while meeting the criteria, was ranked lowest in priority and could not be funded. The Collection Development Commit- tee expressed concern that, with one ex- ception, acquisitions funded through research support awards were for mate- rials in microform. The time it takes to receive proposals, consider them in com- mittee, and approve them in the execu- tive council makes it difficult to use the funds for out-of-print or rare materials subject to prior sale. The Committee rec- ognizes the problem and hopes that these grants will be used for acquisitions other than large microform sets. The research support awards repre- sented a significant departure for NAAL. Until these grants were made, each mem- ber benefitted directly from every NAAL program. Every NAAL institution re- ceived money for retrospective conver- sion; every member receives funds to support resource sharing, professional 14 College &. Research Libraries January 1992 G R A P H 1 N A A L 1 9 8 5 1 9 9 1 2.3% OTHER 19.5% SCIENCE/TECH 1 8 . 9 LITERATURE 1 1 . 4 % SOCIAL SCIENCE 9.1%ART 1 3 . 1% BUSINESS 9.5% MED/ALLIED HEALTH G R A P H 2 A S E R L SCIENCE/TECH 1 5 . 5% SOCIAL SCIENCE 1 9 8 5 2.1%0THER 1 5 • 0 % ART 1 9 9 1 2 6 • 6% LITERATURE 5.7%BUSINESS 1 2 • 0 % MED/ALLIED HEALTH Cooperative Collection Development 15 G R A P H 3 N 0 N A S E R L 1 9 8 5 - 1 9 9 1 SCIENCE/TECH SOCIAL ART 3.0 3 • 2 MED/ALLIED 2 0 • 4% BUSINESS 1.6% OTHER 1 3 • 0% LITERATURE 4 1 . 3 % TEACHER EDUCATION G R A P H 4 P R I V A T E 1 9 8 5 - 1 9 9 1 5 . 5 %0THER 3 3 • 7 1 6 • 2% MED/ALLIED HEALTH 1 8 . 1% TEACHER EDUCATION 26.5% BUSINESS 16 College & Research Libraries development, and collection develop- ment. While the funds are not equally divided, they are equitably distributed, based on the level of contribution made by the institution to the statewide re- sources. Research support, while nomi- nally open to any NAAL member, cannot be distributed equally or equitably be- cause not all institutions engage in level- four collecting. Another function of the education collection analysis was to determine if machine-readable records could assist in collection analysis. However, Alabama needs to strengthen collections at a higher level than that required to support under- graduate and master's degrees. Institu- tions are not funded adequately to support the resources needed by their undergraduate and graduate students. NAAL funding for instructional support assists every institution to meet its in- structional mission for graduate educa- tion. Research support recognizes the obligation of the state to support a higher level of collecting intensity within the total resources available statewide. COROLLARY COLLECTION DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES The NAAL Cooperative Collection Development Program is not limited to the grant program. A number of other projects have been undertaken to pro- vide better collection management infor- mation. In 1989, the Network completed a computer-generated analysis of its col- lective holdings classified in the field of education. When NAAL was founded, the question of duplication was repeat- edly raised: What level of duplication was being supported by the state? Could unnecessary duplication be eliminated? Teacher education programs are the most numerous offered by NAAL mem- bers because every NAAL member of- fers at least one graduate degree in this field. Additionally, many students at- January 1992 tend graduate-level courses to meet the requirements for ongoing teacher certifi- cation. Consequently, the Network hy- pothesized that the level of duplication was potentially highest in materials clas- sified in education. All members were asked to complete retrospective conversion of their educa- tion holdings first. These machine-read- able records were extracted from the OCLC/SOLINET database and ana,- lyzed for duplication. The study found that 51 percent of the titles were unique; that is, held by only one NAAL library. Overall, the rate of duplication was an average of only 2.6 volumes for each title. The Network concluded that this was a very low rate of duplication for a field with such a high level of productiv- ity. Collectively, Alabama academic in- stitutions do not acquire a sufficient number of replicated current materials for duplication at the instructional level to be a primary concern of the Network.8 Another function of the education col- lection analysis was to determine if ma- chine-readable records could assist in collection analysis. For the education project, the cost and time outweighed the advantages of computerized analy- sis. Another approach was explored with EBSCO, Inc., a serials jobber, to de- termine if its records could provide meaningful data on deficiencies in seri- als collections. The Network hypothe- sized that the EBSCO current serials subscriptions database could be used to identify gaps in coverage for major in- dexing and abstracting services. It might be possible to identify serial titles needed to complete coverage and then use NAAL funds to acquire these titles so that all the titles would be available within the state. EBSCO undertook extensive program- ming to allow its data to provide an ex- ceptions list. The Education Index was used for the test because theN AAL office had manually compiled statewide hold- ings for this index. Unfortunately, the variations in fund accounting at the in- stitution level made it impossible for EBSCO to compile an accurate record of the exceptions. In addition, a number of libraries will pay for an employee's asso- ciation membership, provided that per- son donates his or her serial subscription to the library. These serials do not appear in the database as current subscriptions. Both NAAL and EBSCO believed that this technique had merit and that it was unfortunate that the data were not avail- able in the database. Meaningful statewide collection devel- opment in Alabama must consider the large volume of material held in micro- form. Most large microform sets are not cataloged to the individual title level; NAAL is fortunate if the institution has the record for the set in the database. To incorporate these materials into plan- ning for collection development, NAAL developed its Alabama Microform Proj- ect. The Network publishes Major Micro- form Sets Held in Alabama Libraries to identify sets held in Alabama and the in- dexes or other guides that make the sets more accessible. 9 The Network used the first edition of the union list to acquire 250,553 set holding symbol displays on OCLC for 130,000 individual records in twenty-five sets owned by NAAL librar- ies for which machine-readable records were available. Each NAAL member agrees to lend its microform materials, in original or surrogate format, to other NAALmembers to improve accessibility to these expensive materials. Auburn University used the Alabama Microform Project as part of its justification for HEA Title 11-D funding to catalog two sets, Confederate Imprints and French Revolu- tionary Pamphlets, into OCLC/SOLINET. Set holding symbol displays will be ac- quired for other NAAL members own- ing these sets when the cataloging has been completed. NAAL will continue to acquire set holding symbol displays as they become available and plans to cata- log analytics as funds permit. CONCLUSIONS The Network of Alabama Academic Libraries Cooperative Collection Devel- opment Program has provided very tan- gible benefits for the state of Alabama. First, and most obvious, it provides funds to increase the rate of acquisitions Cooperative Collection Development 17 in selected academic programs. Students and faculty in these programs benefit by having needed research materials readily available. Strengthening an institution's collection also strengthens its contribu- tion to the statewide resources. The depth and breadth of library resources available to the state's students, faculty, and other researchers have improved. The librarians who participate in the NAAL Collection Development Committee have gained a wealth of knowledge related to planning for collection development. Second, the Network has enhanced the skills of librarians responsible for collec- tion development. The librarians who participate in the NAAL Collection De- velopment Committee have gained a wealth of knowledge related to planning for collection development. They have analyzed the most pressing issues facing libraries and collecting policies. They have a better perspective of collections, based on their knowledge of shared re- sources and access. The librarians who prepare collection development propos- als have markedly improved collection evaluation skills. They are better able to analyze their current collections, develop plans to correct deficiencies, provide cost data for implementation, and justify a proposal's need to the Committee and to their own administrations. As a result, Alabama is well served by a cadre of skilled collection development librarians, the peers of any such group in the nation. Third, NAAL provides a degree of protection against the erosion of institu- tional support for libraries. The mainte- nance of effort policy requires an institution to maintain level funding for its library to be eligible for NAAL fund- ing. Teaching faculty working with li- brarians to assess collections become proponents for increased funding when they discover the inadequacies of collec- tions in their disciplines. These allies are important where competition for institu- tional funds is strong. 18 College & Research Libraries The Network of Alabama Academic Libraries has made substantial progress in implementing a statewide coopera- tive collection development program that addresses the concerns raised in the 1983 study Cooperative Library Resource Sharing among Institutions Offering Grad- uate Education. The study broadly out- January 1992 lined what was needed to improve library resources and services supporting gradu- ate education and research in Alabama. The mechanics to achieve these im- provements were left to the librarians. They have worked diligently to mold an effective program that works in a state with a long history of library neglect. REFERENCES AND NOTES 1. Cooperative Library Resource Sharing among Universities Supporting Graduate Study in Alabama (Montgomery, Ala.: Alabama Commission on Higher Education, 1983). Eric document 224-497. 2. Ibid., p.47. 3. Ibid., p. 46-47. 4. In 1984, the Network funded retrospective conversion at $400,000 and used a unit price of $1.27 per record. The maximum funding in any year was $900,000, with a unit price of $1.16 per record. This initial project added records for print monographs and serials only. Other projects continue to add records for microforms, government publications, and materials in other formats. . 5. In 1990-91, NAAL allocated $140,500 for the Resource Sharing Program. This includes $50,000 to reimburse institutions for interlibrary loan services, a $35,000 Libraries Services and Construction Act, Title III grant to reimburse NAAL for net lending to public libraries, $35,000 for UPS, $4,500 for telefacsimile equipment maintenance contracts, and $16,000 for monthly telephone lines for telefacsimile. Total interlibrary loan transactions for NAAL have grown from 9,401 in 1985-86 to 33,827 in 1989-90. 6. Sue 0. Medina and others, Collection Assessment Manual (Montgomery: Network of Alabama Academic Libraries, Alabama Commission on Higher Education, 1987). ERIC Document 290-462. 7. David L. Perkins, ed., Guidelines for Collection Development (Chicago: American Library Assn., 1979), passim. 8. Fred Heath, "An Assessment of Education Holdings in Alabama Academic Libraries: A Collection Analysis Project," unpublished report to the Network of Alabama Aca- demic Libraries, April 1990 (available from Fred Heath, c/o Mary Couts Burnett Library, Texas Christian University, P.O. Box 32904, Ft. Worth, TX 76129). 9. T. Harmon Straiton, Jr., and G. Boyd Childress, comps., Major Microform Sets Held in Alabama Libraries, A Union List and Guide (Montgomery: Network of Alabama Academic Libraries, Alabama Commission on Higher Education, 1988). Cooperative Collection Development 19 APPENDIX A THE FORMULA FOR DISTRIBUTION OF NAAL FUNDS FOR COLLECTION DEVELOPMENT NAAL will allocate 80% of the funds available for collection development to Instructional Support. Twenty percent (20%) of the available funds will be allocated to Research Support. The NAAL formula for the distribution of inst111ctional support funds will: 1. allocate a base amount for each institution; 2. use the number of volumes added annually by each institution expressed as a percentage of the total added for all institutions; 3. use the annual expenditures for Jibrary materials of each institution expressed as a percent- age of the total expended by all institutions; v + TV V = volumes added by "N" institution TV = volumes added by NAAL members E TE p E =expenditures for library materials by "N" institution TE =expenditures for library materials by all NAAL members P = percentage allocated to "N" institution and 4. allocate an amount of NAAL funds that does not exceed 25% of the institution's expenditure · for library materials.+ · The source of data for the formula will be the annual statistical reports submitted by each institution. • The base amount allocated to each institution was $7,500 for the trial period, 1989-1990 and 1990- 1991. NAAL will use the "Rule of Halves" to reduce the base beginning in 1991-1992. Thus, the base will be $3,750 in 1991-1992 and $1,875 in 1992-1993. There will not be a base in 1993-1994. tIn addition, the percentage of NAAL funds in relation to the institution's expenditure for library materials will be reduced until it reaches 15% by 1993-1994: Schedule of Changes Fiscal Year Base % 1990-1991 $7,500 25.0 1991-1992 3,750 20.0 1992-1993 1,875 17.5 ~ A world of information online SEARCHES: 25 R123000037 EXP:940816 AUTHORIZATION: 400 - 030 - 207 PASSWORD: GRUMMAAIA SOUTHERN UNIVERSITY PHONE: (123 ) 456 - 7890 EXT:5678 Risk Management You want to give your patrons expanded access to infonnation by letting them search online databases. But how do you control costs? With FirstSearch, you pay by the search, not by the minute. Patrons can search key databases like the OCLC Online Union Catalog, ERIC, The GPO Monthly Catalog, Consumers Index, plus 17 popular H. W. Wilson databases, without the risk of connect-hour charges mounting up while they search. Give your patrons FirstSearch Cards that authorize 10 or 2 5 searches, and you'll have a new way to control usage. Or sell cards, if you wish, and recoup costs. You can even get a refund for searches you don't use at the end of the year. FirstSearch eliminates the risk of hidden costs you'll discover with CD-ROM or locally mounted databases. Extra equipment, a rewired network, time lost in training staff and patrons-it adds up. Instead, FirstSearch uses your existing computer and phone line and ties directly into your local system OPAC. And our interface is so easy to understand, even novice users can start searching with no training. Call us today for more information. With your FirstSearch, we'll change your mind about the risks of online databases for patrons. Call your OCLC-affiliated Regional Network or OCLC Field Marketing Services and we'll send you information and an order form. 1-800-848-5878 USA -~~~~1-800-533-8201 Canada