Guiding Principles for Considering Participation in Shared Print Programs Mary Miller Director of Collection Management & Preservation University of Minnesota Libraries, Twin Cities Campus PAN ALA Annual 2019, June 21 memiller@umn.edu

About Us Large(ish) ARL - 6.6 mil print volumes Largest research library in state Strong relationship with Minitex, the resource sharing organization for MN, SD, ND Archiving role on behalf of state At capacity in remote and on-site storage Timeline for additional storage uncertain Participants in shared print programs: BTAA, HathiTrust, Federal Depository, MedPrint

Collection Management Planning Starting in 2015, groups formed to address planning for print collections: How do we prioritize for onsite storage? What do we prioritize for preservation/digitization/retention commitments? When can we withdraw? When can/should we rely on a digital surrogate? How do we make these decisions in consortial/national context? Projects: GreenGlass analysis, monographs and serials deduplication, post-cancellation access review for serials

When Shared Print Calls Who makes the decision about participation? How do we evaluate a shared print program proposal? What specifications are required? What might be red flags? How can we calculate the resource requirements? What constitutes a beneficial relationship, or a good value for us?

Opportunities Preserve print collections and maintain enough copies for ILL Identify scarce and unique items for retention/preservation Support distributed responsibility and collaborative efforts print monograph collections without sacrificing access to resources. And yes, withdraw stuff While shared print programs offer many potential benefits, they may also require significant resources, including initial or ongoing funds, administrative costs, staff time associated with reviewing lists, collection validation, records updating, and long-term allocation of on-site or remote storage to house collections included in a print retention agreement. The potential benefits, and costs, associated with participation in shared print programs should be carefully considered. This consideration must be supported by an ongoing and consistent collection of relevant supporting data.

Costs Actual money (administrative, replacement costs) Staff time: Reviewing lists Collection Validating Updating Records Loss of capacity for other work, staff burnout Space, future flexibility While shared print programs offer many potential benefits, they may also require significant resources, including initial or ongoing funds, administrative costs, staff time associated with reviewing lists, collection validation, records updating, and long-term allocation of on-site or remote storage to house collections included in a print retention agreement. The potential benefits, and costs, associated with participation in shared print programs should be carefully considered. This consideration must be supported by an ongoing and consistent collection of relevant supporting data.

Principles for Shared Print Participation 1. Stability and strength of the governing program organization: “organization supporting the program should have demonstrated organizational and financial strength and stability to support long-term programs. Signals of this support might be commitments registered in national/international registries such as PAPR, OCLC, etc.” 2. Explicit agreement among members through a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) or other formal documentation: “The program’s scope, duration of commitments, and the responsibilities of participants and administrative bodies must be outlined in an MOU or other formal document.” The document should be signed by participating organization directors or other administrators whose authority binds the organization beyond their individual tenure in their position to indicate organizational support for, and commitment to, the program.

Principles for Shared Print Participation 3. Clearly defined program scope: To ensure a clear understanding of what is being committed to by the University Libraries, the shared print program must outline specific parameters of what collections are being committed to the project. This may include title lists, subject areas outlined by call number ranges, etc. 4. Benefits or positive impact to the Libraries: Potential programs should offer benefits to the Libraries, its users, and other stakeholders that can be clearly articulated and measurable. Benefits, such as reclamation of collections space for other purposes, should also be measured against costs or resource requirements.

Principles for Shared Print Participation 5. Libraries resources needed for the length of the shared print program: Libraries resource needs must be understood for the entirety of the program’s timeline and not just limited to current organizational structures. 6. Complementarity with the Libraries’ existing shared print commitments: As more and more libraries and organizations look to shared print programs to support ongoing collection decisions, it is key that programs complement not only the libraries’ needs but also the potential crossover between programs. 7. Provisions for access to materials registered in the program: Some form of access to the materials (e.g., circulation, interlibrary loan, digitization of the print materials) should be required to ensure the collections can be used. If non-circulation of the collection is a factor in shared print programs, every effort should be made to ensure access is available in other ways. While participation in shared print programs provides opportunities for collaboration between institutions with measurable benefits for those involved, this must be balanced with our own user needs. It is essential that terms of agreement for one program not contradict another program or larger Libraries’ collection strategic and space planning. For instance, discussions for a 25-year shared print program should include both resource data for today and projections for the future.

Discussion How should institutions and shared print programs gauge success and value of shared print programs? Could criteria be developed for evaluating shared print programs? Best practices for MOUs? How can/do SPPS help individual libraries convey value to their organizations?

Thank you! memiller@umn.edu