Herding Cats & Getting to Yes: Lessons Learned from University of California Libraries’ New Cost Share Model Implementation

Systemwide or multi-campus licenses provide many benefits such as favorable pricing, access to an expanded array of resources for all participants, and streamlined licensing. They also usually involve cost sharing among participating campuses. The licensing process can be labor-intensive and time-consuming. Successful collaboration among participants is essential in reaching consensus. In the past, the University of California (UC) libraries employed many cost models, and the California Digital Library (CDL) applied them for CDL-licensed subscriptions, both new licenses and renewals. After several years of discussion, the UC Libraries decided to implement an FTE-based model as the default cost share model, except in cases 1) in which a vendor quotes pricing for each campus; and 2) with fewer than all ten participants, or nine without UC San Francisco. Adjustments are made to co-investment shares to meet the principle that no campus should be asked to contribute more for a shared license than it would have to pay on its own. Additionally, CDL funds are occasionally used to support shared access to resources. The new default FTE-based model was implemented starting with the fiscal year 2018/2019, and is being phased in over a three-year period. To alleviate the impact of the FTE model implementation, CDL negotiated renewal fees for numerous resources and led a large-scale cancellation project for UC campuses. This article is a case study to inform libraries and consortia that might be interested in building shared collections and learning from UC’s experience in facilitating discussions, encouraging collaboration, and coming up with a cost share model that works for their system and creates shared value in the end

Strategic Reinvestments of Journal Packages at the Pennsylvania State University

In the face of budget challenges, organizational strategy changes, and the new open access (OA) policy, the Pennsylvania State University Libraries (PSUL) are reevaluating negotiations and collections of ‘big deal’ journal packages. While a growing number of libraries are considering cancelling subscriptions to ‘big deals’, PSUL has been taking a careful approach in containing cost and making sure that faculty and students have access to resources that they need. Current efforts include: renegotiating ‘big deals’; cancelling low value titles in title-by-title agreements; obtaining single agreements for the entire Penn State; promoting green OA for future subscription negotiation purposes; and renegotiating OA related licensing terms. To achieve greater efficiency of acquisitions workflows and increase university-wide purchasing power, reallocation of the collection budget will be discussed in the near future. Auto deposit of accepted manuscripts from any Penn State author into ScholarSphere, Penn State’s institutional repository, as well as exploration of other OA models are also under consideration

Social Capital, Rehabilitation, Tradition: Support for Restorative Justice in Japan and Australia

This paper investigates the attitudes and beliefs that the public hold about criminal behaviour in Japanese and Australian society, with a view to uncovering sources of resistance to, and support for, restorative justice. The study draws on a survey of 1,544 respondents from Japan and 1,967 respondents from Australia. In both societies, restorative justice met with greater acceptance among those who were (1) strong in social capital, (2) believed in offender reintegration and rehabilitation, (3) saw benefits for victims in forgiveness, and (4) were advocates for victims' voices being heard and amends made. The alternative 'just deserts' and deterrence models for dealing with crime were grounded in attitudes of punitiveness and fear of moral decay, and reservations about the value of reintegrating and rehabilitating offenders. Like restorative justice supporters, 'just deserts' and deterrence supporters expressed concern that victims' voices be heard and amends made. Winning public support for competing institutional arrangements may depend on who does best in meeting expectations for meeting the needs of victims