Planning for transforming the Libraries is now in its third year. A Planning Task Force has been focusing on using library spaces more creatively, providing technology-rich services, and incorporating collections seamlessly within those spaces and services. Because the collections occupy so much library space, and because of their special importance to faculty, delineating and describing these collections in different ways is essential to understanding how they can best be managed for support of the academic programs. Four of these descriptions are enumerated below—linear feet, number of volumes, comparison of holdings to partner libraries, and use, i.e., circulation data.
Determining the “linear feet,” i.e., how much shelf space is occupied by collections, is particularly important to planning for library space needs. During Fall break, library staff fanned out with measuring tapes and clip boards to gather and record this information. As a result, we know that in all library buildings and storage facilities combined, we have more than 158,000 linear feet of library materials. If the shelves were laid end to end, they would stretch along the 210 Freeway from Claremont to Eagle Rock. Start of pull quote: (skip pull quote) …we have more than 158,000 linear feet of library materials. If the shelves were laid end to end, they would stretch along the 210 Freeway from Claremont to Eagle Rock. End of pull quote. Books, journals, audio/video materials, manuscripts, and other types of materials were included in this measuring project.
A more common way of describing library collections is tallying the number of items. Although this is seemingly straightforward, it often depends upon a “built number.” [To see how this was handled previously, read “Honnold Library in 1962, by the Numbers”] This means that we accept a set number from some point in the past, and we simply update that number annually with additions and deletions. In our responses to agencies that gather this data, we report that as of June 30, 2007, the Claremont collections number 2,604,000 volumes. This encompasses books and journals, including those in special collections, Asian vernacular collections, and government publications. It does not take into account manuscript and similar items not easily categorized as “volumes.” Start of pull quote: (skip pull quote) …as of June 30, 2007, the Claremont collections number 2,604,000 volumes. End of pull quote. Also not included in this count are audio and video items, more than 1,460,000 microforms, and our growing digital collections. For the latter, we have more than 46,500 electronic journals and tens of thousands of digital books. In addition, contributors to the Claremont Colleges Digital Library have published nearly 40,000 objects in those collections.
Yet another way to understand our collections is by comparing our holdings to those of partner libraries such as other members of LINK+. Claremont has more than 1,319,000 bibliographic records in the LINK+ online catalog. These are records for several types of library materials—books, journals, media materials, and digital items. An automated analysis of the cataloging records of the 43 libraries comprising the LINK+ consortium revealed that Claremont owns more than 500,000 unique items; i.e., 38% of the items in our collection are not owned by any other LINK+ library. Start of pull quote: (skip pull quote) …analysis of the cataloging records of the 43 libraries comprising the LINK+ consortium revealed that Claremont owns more than 500,000 unique items, i.e., 38% of the items in our collection are not owned by any other LINK+ library. End of pull quote. The only library that owns a larger number of unique items is the University of California, Riverside. Our unique holdings and their importance to other libraries was established by Claremont’s designation in the early 1990s as one of 21 statewide resource libraries for California. Although Claremont is the third largest private academic library in California, we depend upon LINK+ members and other libraries to lend us materials we do not own, and of course, we reciprocate by sharing our collections with other libraries.
Finally, we can gain another perspective on the Libraries’ collections by investigating how they are used. Circulation data (items checked out through the automated system) is generally the basis for this type of description, but these numbers can be misleading. Items such as reference materials, bound journals, significant numbers of the 800,000 items in the documents collection, special collections items, and a major portion of the Asian vernacular collection, etc. comprise 60% of the collections and do not circulate through our automated system. The remaining 40% of our collections are our primary circulating collections. These are materials that range from those that were part of the original Pomona College library going back more than 100 years to newly published books. Further complicating analysis of usage, we have circulation data only going back to 1990 when the current automated system was implemented. Thus, we have no information on materials that circulated prior to that date. With those caveats in mind, we know that 54% of the items in the primary circulating collections have been checked out at least once since 1990; 14% have been checked out more than five times. These percentages vary by library and by collections or locations within each library. They are highest for the general collections in Honnold/Mudd Library with percentages of 63% and 19% respectively. Start of pull quote: (skip pull quote) …approximately 50% of books we purchase circulate within two years and nearly 75% circulate within five years. End of pull quote. A recent analysis of items added in the past several years gives us confidence that approximately 50% of books we purchase circulate within two years and nearly 75% circulate within five years. While no library will likely reach 100%, we will continue to seek ways to ensure that our purchases correspond to the current academic and research programs.
These four ways of analyzing the Libraries’ collections—by the numbers—are certainly useful points for understanding the collections. However, the larger point is the significance and contribution of the collections to The Colleges’ academic programs, and this is not easily represented as a number. As we ponder the future of the Libraries, we welcome your suggestions to help us gain a better understanding of how you and your students utilize the collections for learning, for teaching, and for researching.
