Collection Management Policy Critique
Evans, in his book Developing Library and Information Center Collections, describes the function and form of a good collection development policy. A written collection development policy is useful to help librarians learn how to select, evaluate and deselect; it is useful for non-librarians to understand the nature and scope of the collection; and it is useful for everyone to gain insight into the goals of the library and how the materials support these goals (Evans 2000, 72). Evans lists three main elements of a well-formed collection development policy: the overview, the detailed description of subject areas and formats, and the other miscellaneous items (Evans 2000, 73). Many libraries currently adopt and publish collection development policies and these can be good resources for libraries wishing to create a policy themselves. The Spokane Public Library, in Spokane, Washington, adopted a written collection development policy in 2003 and this policy can be evaluated using Evans’ elements of a good collection development policy, as well as other published collection development policies and also analyzed to determine how effectively the plan supports the uses set out by Evans.
Evans recommends starting a collection development policy with an overview. This overview should describe the community and show evidence of community analysis. It should also identify the current and desired user groups, as well as the primary user groups; identify the level of service for these users; and how the collection will fulfill the user needs and service goals. Finally, the overview should briefly state the parameters of the collection and what subjects and formats are covered (Evans 2000, 74). Of the three collection development policies reviewed in addition to the Spokane Public Library collection development policy, all have some form of overview that describes the library’s overall mission and goals and the community that it serves. Both the Eugene Public Library (Eugene Public Library 1992) and the Pasadena Public Library (Pasadena Public Library 2004) state the purpose and uses of the policy in the overview. Spokane Public Library’s Collection Development Policy clearly identifies the overview section and describes the library’s mission and service goals clearly, however it does not include any information about the community except in the most general sense. Unlike the Pasadena and Eugene Public Libraries, the Spokane Library also does not mention the purpose or use of the policy. This, although not necessary, seems like a helpful addition for both staff and users. The Spokane Public Library’s Collection Development Policy starts with a vague mission statement; for example, to provide “relevant books, programs and other resources (Spokane Public Library 2003, 3).” The policy overview continues with the collection development policy service principles. This section again is very vague about the type of users served. However, it mentions several important points: “not all materials will be suitable, not of interest to, all segments of the community”, “[the library] does not make a determination of what children should read, view or borrow from the library”, “purchase suggestions from customers are encouraged”, and it explicitly mentions resource sharing (Spokane Public Library 2003, 3). The overview concludes with a general description of selection criteria. These selection criteria are similar to those described in all three of the other policies reviewed and is also in line with selection criteria suggested by Evans. Including these criteria in easy to understand language is useful to the reader as an idea of how librarians judge materials. Overall, the overview suffers from a lack of community analysis, no description of the scope of the collection, and no description of the intended audience or purpose of the document. Although understandable and well intentioned, the overview fails to orient the reader as to the nature of the library and its collection.
The next major section of a collection development policy is the detailed description of the subject areas and formats of the collection. The Spokane Public Library’s Collection Development Policy first breaks down the collection description into groups by type of material: fiction, nonfiction, reference, electronic, audiovisual, and magazines and periodicals. A brief paragraph is included for each of these types. Each paragraph describes the subjects and formats collected for each type, and sometimes, general information about the intended user needs the materials will fill. For example:
In accordance with the library’s service responses, General Information and Current Topics and Titles, the library offers nonfiction that cover a broad variety of subject areas related to work, school, and personal life. Nonfiction resources will address the needs of all ages, and will emphasize material written or produced for the general reader. The Downtown Library includes greater breadth and a larger quantity of retrospective material.
(Spokane Public Library 2003, 6)
Compared to similar selections from the Eugene, Tempe, and Pasadena Public Libraries’ Collection Development Policies, the description seems typical. The Pasadena Public Library Collection Development Policy is more specific in these descriptions and would serve as a better model, however, as it allows the reader to more fully understand how the materials are intended to be used and how each type of material addresses user needs. In general this section of the Spokane Public Library’s Collection Policy seems too spare and again, not descriptive enough of the community. However, the policy does explicitly mention issues such as labels and ratings on audiovisual materials and overlap of electronic and print materials. These are important issues to a user and the inclusion will allow staff and users to have a point of reference and jumping off point for discussion.
After the section on material types, the Spokane Public Library’s Collection Development Policy continues with detailed descriptions of the collections by primary user group and special interest. These descriptions are more focused on intended use of the collection and specific formats included in the collection. Selection criteria specific to the segment of the collection are also included, for example, in the young adult collection “materials are chosen based on positive reviews, popularity, award winners, classics and relevance to teen interests (Spokane Public Library 2003, 13).” Compared to the other policies reviewed, the Spokane Public Library’s Collection Development Policy seems reasonably detailed and clear. As the collection partitions get more specific, for example the foreign language collection and the Northwest Room, the policy becomes slightly more detailed in describing the user needs and selection criteria. Evans suggests, however, that this part of the policy also include who the potential selectors should be; how the selection process should handled, such as by committee, or by individuals; what priority the part of the collection has in terms of the whole; and how to prioritize formats and materials within that part of the collection (Evans 2000, 80). These elements are missing from Spokane Public Library’s Collection Development Policy. They should be added, as they would help the document serve as a training tool, a selection and budgeting tool, and a public relations tool.
The miscellaneous section of the Spokane Public Library’s Collection Development Policy contains information on new formats, gifts, de-selection, and materials reconsideration. The new formats section explains why the Spokane Public Library will not be at the forefront of emerging formats and also when the library will consider these formats. This seems like a very useful section with the highly changeable and expensive nature of new multimedia and electronic technologies. The gifts section of the Spokane Public Library’s Collection Development Policy is one of the most detailed and longest sections. Evans suggests that the gifts section of the policy “must make it clear whether the library accepts only items matching the collection profile, or accepts anything with the proviso that the library may dispose of unwanted items in any manner deemed appropriate. (Evans 2000, 82)” The Spokane Public Library’s Collection Development Policy clearly states what a donor may expect when giving either money or materials and how the library will select, place, and dispose of the gifts. This section is clearly useful for potential donors and for librarians as a method of communication and a policy for action. The withdrawal of library materials is written as a set of lists: one the criteria for materials to be removed and the other the possible result of the de-selection. These lists are clear and the policy states that de-selection is valuable and necessary in a good library, but the policy makes no mention of the process of determining the need for multiple copies in the collection, if and how materials will be replaced and how often the collection will be reviewed for potential weeding. This would be helpful for the librarian charged with de-selection and also good information for users who are concerned about when weeding will occur and when materials will be replaced as opposed to withdrawn. The most detailed and lengthy part of the entire policy is the materials reconsideration. This is a description of the procedure that should be followed if a user would like to request that available materials be reevaluated or withdrawn. Evans advocates written instructions and formal procedures for reconsideration requests to allow librarians to diffuse emotional complaints, communicate with users, and defend against censorship. This section of the Spokane Public Library’s Collection Development Policy lists specific positions, people, and contact information, as well as specific forms and actions. This is very thorough and can clearly be used as Evans describes. While these important parts of the Spokane Public Library’s Collection Development Policy are well written, the policy leaves out some other important information. Unlike the Eugene and Pasadena Public Library’s policies and Evan’s outline for a policy, the Spokane Public Library’s Collection Development Policy does not contain information about evaluation of collection development practices or the assessment and revision of the policy.
Overall, the Spokane Public Library’s Collection Development Policy is a good document that would answer many general questions about the collection development practices for both users and librarians. The Spokane Public Library clearly is very concerned with intellectual freedom and lists the Library Bill of Rights, the Freedom to Read Statement, a Free Access to Libraries for Minors statement and an Intellectual Freedom Statement as appendices to the collection development policy. This will help anti-censorship issues and will help the library handle complaints, two of the uses Evans lists for collection development policies. Evans also lists uses such as: helping new staff keep collection development consistent, giving the audience an understanding of the nature and scope of the collection, helping the audience to be more aware of collection priorities and allowing the audience to better understand the library’s overall goals. In these respects, the Spokane Public Library’s Collection Development Policy is weaker. The lack of community analysis, the brief and general nature of the subject areas and the lack of an evaluation and review process don't allow the audience to develop a clear picture of the library and its goals. The Spokane Public Library’s Collection Development Policy doesn't reference any other policies or models as sources. It could benefit from incorporating a conspectus model or even just reviewing other policies. The Eugene Public Library Collection Development Policy provides a good example of describing patron needs. The Pasadena Public Library’s Collection Development Policy has an interesting section on collection development of web resources and also a good description of the scale of collection development. The Tempe Public Library’s Collection Development Policy provides a good model for community analysis. The Spokane Public Library’s Collection Development Policy is a good base policy, but could be improved with more detail in order to reach out to and serve the needs of staff and users.
References:
Eugene Public Library. 1992. “Collection Development Policy,” Eugene Public Library online. Web page on-line. Available from http://www.ci.eugene.or.us/Library/hours_locations_cards/collection_development.html; Internet.
Evans, G. Edward. 2000. Developing Library and Information Center Collections. Greenwood Village, CO: Libraries Unlimited Press.
Pasadena Public Library. 2004. “Collection Development Policy,” Pasadena Public Library online. Web page on-line. Available from http://www.ci.pasadena.ca.us/library/collection.asp; Internet.
Tempe Public Library. 2003. “Tempe Public Library Collection Development Policy,” Tempe Public Library online. Web page on-line. Available from http://www.tempe.gov/library/admin/colldev.htm; Internet.
University of California, Santa Barbara Library. 2003. “Dance: Collection Development Policy,” University of California, Santa Barbara Library online. Web page on-line. Available from http://www.library.ucsb.edu/policies/collections/cddance.html; Internet.
Spokane Public Libraries. 2003. “Collection Development Policy: Spokane Public Library,” Spokane Public Library online. Web page on-line. Available from http://www.spokanelibrary.org/about/Coll_Dev_Policy.pdf; Internet.