SPEC Kit 337: Print Retention Decision Making · 11
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Introduction
ARL has conducted a number of SPEC surveys about
remote shelving that focused on physical facilities,
selection of materials, user access, services, and cost,
but those represent print collection management deci-
sions in the pre-electronic back-file, pre-Portico, and
pre-HathiTrust era. The idea for this survey came from
the experiences of the authors as they attempted to
manage major projects related to collections space
planning, on-site shelving for materials, off-site shelv-
ing of materials, and the formation of a collaborative
print collection with another research university.
These activities were undertaken simultaneously and
with some inflexible, externally imposed deadlines.
The first step in determining the best course for print
retention decisions was a literature review, and the
authors discovered that most of the literature related
to these decisions was created more than 10 years ago,
which represents a very different time for libraries and
collections. This survey investigates whether print
collection management strategies have changed since
the last SPEC survey in 2006. The intuitive notion was
that many of the concerns regarding the availability
of stored materials would have been abated by the
widespread electronic availability of content and by
the simple reality that many libraries’ print journal
and government documents collections are no longer
growing significantly and are appropriately dubbed
“legacy” collections.
This survey was distributed to the ARL member
libraries in June 2013 and these results are based on
data submitted by 65 of the 125 ARL member librar-
ies (52%) by the deadline of July 15, 2013. The survey
asked respondents about print retention decision
making strategies related to storage of materials in
three different types of facilities or circumstances: on-
site, staff-only shelving, remote shelving, and collab-
orative retention agreements. The survey also exam-
ined the decision making and practices surrounding
the deaccession of library material. Because in many
cases the decision to retain certain materials will im-
ply a decision not to retain other materials, the survey
concluded with questions regarding deaccessioning
strategies for print materials at member institutions.
For each retention or deaccession strategy, the survey
explored the type of on-going or project-based nature
of the work, the involvement of stakeholders, the se-
lection process and criteria for materials to be retained
or deaccessioned, the communication strategy with
internal and external audiences, and the responses
from the libraries’ internal and external audiences to
these endeavors.
The Print Retention Landscape
All but four of the respondents indicated that their li-
brary had recently been involved in activities to either
relocate or deaccession print materials. Of the 61 librar-
ies (94%) that had participated in these activities in the
last two years, 30 have sent print material to on-site,
staff-only shelving, 45 have sent material to remote
shelving, and 53 have deaccessioned print items. The
great majority of libraries (between 77% and 84%) have
managed this work through a combination of both on-
going and project-centered processes. Forty libraries
have collaborative retention agreements, and 33 of
these have deaccessioned print material.
Stakeholder Involvement
The involvement of stakeholders varies slightly across
the storage or deaccession decision scenarios. Senior
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Introduction
ARL has conducted a number of SPEC surveys about
remote shelving that focused on physical facilities,
selection of materials, user access, services, and cost,
but those represent print collection management deci-
sions in the pre-electronic back-file, pre-Portico, and
pre-HathiTrust era. The idea for this survey came from
the experiences of the authors as they attempted to
manage major projects related to collections space
planning, on-site shelving for materials, off-site shelv-
ing of materials, and the formation of a collaborative
print collection with another research university.
These activities were undertaken simultaneously and
with some inflexible, externally imposed deadlines.
The first step in determining the best course for print
retention decisions was a literature review, and the
authors discovered that most of the literature related
to these decisions was created more than 10 years ago,
which represents a very different time for libraries and
collections. This survey investigates whether print
collection management strategies have changed since
the last SPEC survey in 2006. The intuitive notion was
that many of the concerns regarding the availability
of stored materials would have been abated by the
widespread electronic availability of content and by
the simple reality that many libraries’ print journal
and government documents collections are no longer
growing significantly and are appropriately dubbed
“legacy” collections.
This survey was distributed to the ARL member
libraries in June 2013 and these results are based on
data submitted by 65 of the 125 ARL member librar-
ies (52%) by the deadline of July 15, 2013. The survey
asked respondents about print retention decision
making strategies related to storage of materials in
three different types of facilities or circumstances: on-
site, staff-only shelving, remote shelving, and collab-
orative retention agreements. The survey also exam-
ined the decision making and practices surrounding
the deaccession of library material. Because in many
cases the decision to retain certain materials will im-
ply a decision not to retain other materials, the survey
concluded with questions regarding deaccessioning
strategies for print materials at member institutions.
For each retention or deaccession strategy, the survey
explored the type of on-going or project-based nature
of the work, the involvement of stakeholders, the se-
lection process and criteria for materials to be retained
or deaccessioned, the communication strategy with
internal and external audiences, and the responses
from the libraries’ internal and external audiences to
these endeavors.
The Print Retention Landscape
All but four of the respondents indicated that their li-
brary had recently been involved in activities to either
relocate or deaccession print materials. Of the 61 librar-
ies (94%) that had participated in these activities in the
last two years, 30 have sent print material to on-site,
staff-only shelving, 45 have sent material to remote
shelving, and 53 have deaccessioned print items. The
great majority of libraries (between 77% and 84%) have
managed this work through a combination of both on-
going and project-centered processes. Forty libraries
have collaborative retention agreements, and 33 of
these have deaccessioned print material.
Stakeholder Involvement
The involvement of stakeholders varies slightly across
the storage or deaccession decision scenarios. Senior
