Resource-sensitive collecting and Total Cost of Stewardship: Insights from the RLP Special Collections Leadership Roundtable

This post is one in a series documenting findings from the RLP Leadership Roundtable discussions.

Our most recent RLP Special Collections Leadership Roundtable focused on resource-sensitive approaches to collection building and implementing the Total Cost of Stewardship (TCoS) tools and frameworks. TCoS emerged in 2021, when many institutions struggled with pandemic-era closures, staffing shortages, and disruptions. Four years later, as libraries and archives regain bandwidth to function beyond survival mode, we’re seeing renewed engagement with the TCoS framework. Our conversations revealed that the issues TCoS aimed to address continue to plague special collections and archives, making resource-sensitive collecting practices even more vital now than when the report first appeared. 

Institutions have implemented various approaches to resource-sensitive collecting, and our conversation focused on sharing these experiences to support our collective efforts in this arena. 

The discussions included 36 participants from 35 institutions across the US, UK, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand: 

Cleveland Museum of Art	Cornell University	Emory University	Getty Research Institute
Hofstra University	Montana State University	National Library of Australia	National Library of New Zealand
New York Public Library	New York University	OCAD University	Ohio State University
Smithsonian Institution	Stony Brook University	Syracuse University	The New School
University at Buffalo, SUNY	University of Arizona	University of California, Irvine	University of Chicago
University of Delaware	University of Glasgow	University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign	University of Kansas
University of Leeds	University of Michigan	University of Nevada, Las Vegas	University of Nevada, Reno
University of Pennsylvania	University of Southern California	University of Toronto	University of Washington
Vanderbilt University	Virginia Tech	Washington University in Saint Louis

These questions guided our discussion: 

• Has your institution started shifting to a more resource-sensitive collecting approach? If not, what prevents you from doing so? 

• How are you approaching implementation, or what might be your first steps? Which parts of your program have adjusted, or will need to adjust, to work this way? 

• What challenges have you encountered, and what benefits or successes have you seen? 

Each session yielded rich and nuanced discussion, but common themes emerged across all four conversations. This post summarizes those shared experiences and needs. 

Legacy practices, backlogs, and space constraints 

The Total Cost of Stewardship framework serves as a corrective, acknowledging that past collecting practices—often characterized by acquiring as much as possible without adequate consideration for stewardship—have created current challenges that require rethinking. As one participant noted, “The 20 previous years of collecting practices have now caught up with us, and our backlog is massive. We were just collecting, collecting, collecting, and not really thinking too much about downstream impacts.” 

These downstream impacts include significant backlogs of unprocessed and uncataloged collections, impeding access to and discovery of the materials held in special collections.  

However, the impact repeatedly mentioned across our conversations was a critical lack of space, with institutions facing full vaults and costly off-site storage. Approaching storage capacity limits is forcing a rethinking of collecting habits. A few institutions now allocate curators annual storage capacity for collecting, which requires them to budget for space as they might acquisition funds. Backlogs also significantly affect staff morale. One person characterized this as “fatigue from decisions of the past.” Teams feel burdened, guilty, and overwhelmed by having to address ever-accumulating backlogs. 

Some participants have devoted resources to better understand and address their backlogs, yielding benefits beyond just clarifying the scope of work. One person shared that “having data about the backlog and how big it actually is, is also powerful — it made people go, ‘oh, I guess we have to deal with that and can’t just continue to build it.’”   

Collection development policies and strategies 

Many institutions are building collection development guidance as a first step toward more resource-sensitive collecting, typically by creating or revising collection development policies. Some are also crafting collecting strategies that complement broader collection development policies by offering more specific and timely guidance about current priorities. These documents often directly address stewardship capacity as one factor in decision-making. 

Participants noted that articulating these policies supported their staff in making curatorial decisions more consistently and confidently. Several emphasized the importance of having these guidelines to help their team decline some collections, building what one participant described as “the internal fortitude to say NO.” Providing a framework for these decisions that disperses responsibility beyond individual curators is crucial. This is more than simply a policy change; it is also a cultural one that requires rethinking what constitutes successful collection building. One institution reported that their curators used to be evaluated on how much they brought in annually, and that this mindset can persist even years after evaluation criteria changed. The roundtable discussion highlighted the need to redefine success metrics for curators beyond acquisition volume to include alignment with teaching and research priorities, collection use, and other qualitative measures. 

A few institutions have temporarily paused collecting due to space constraints or anticipated budget shortfalls. Others have considered full or partial pauses to address backlogs or slow down collection growth until additional storage can be secured. All agreed this approach presents challenges because collection development often unfolds over many years—initial conversations with donors might occur 5-10 years before materials arrive and significant time and labor goes into stewarding relationships with potential donors that may only come to fruition during a collecting pause. Additionally, flagship collections will only be available once, and collections squarely within development priorities can demand quick action. Hard stops on collecting don’t always work for a process that requires long-term relationship building or flexibility. Most agreed that a “soft pause” was more realistic but worried that anything short of a complete prohibition might lack sufficient impact. 

Estimating costs and capacity 

Many institutions began this work by better understanding the costs of caring for archives and special collections materials and their institutional capacity to do so. People use the TCoS cost and capacity estimator tools, the DLF digitization cost calculator, and the LOGJAM tool in the UK. These tools reveal previously unrecognized costs and activities. Some institutions are going all in on cost and capacity estimation, while others take a more incremental approach of estimating time but not necessarily translating that to cost or capacity impact. 

Being transparent about costs has occasionally sparked challenging conversations, with administration questioning costs and donors reacting to stewardship costs as optional rather than necessary activities. One complication in using these tools is the difficulty in capturing the full scope of stewardship costs. People find it difficult to estimate some costs, such as physical and digital storage over time, the costs of iterative work over many years, and to more fully conceive of what to include in the costs of collection needs over time. 

Information sharing and collective decision-making 

Many participants are revamping their workflows to involve more stakeholders in acquisition decisions. They have standardized workflows that engage multiple departments and areas of responsibility to better understand the broader impact of potential additions to collections. One person described initiating early conversations about potential acquisitions with public services, technical services, and conservation colleagues to determine whether to pursue a collection further. The goal isn’t necessarily an immediate yes or no but rather deciding whether to continue investing energy in the collection. 

Institutions benefit when teams think collectively about acquisition decisions and developing a culture of talking openly about costs. Several participants had uncovered hidden costs and interdependencies, helping them recognize they had previously underestimated the impact of collecting on staff both inside and outside special collections. This has improved relationships across the library: “Our big successes have really been thinking about how new acquisitions impact other parts of the library… [We’ve developed] better relationships with those other units by pulling them in sooner and considering them more effectively in our acquisitions process.”  

More appraisal, earlier in the process 

Resource-sensitive approaches have motivated several institutions to reinvigorate their appraisal work and reconsider its timing in the acquisition process. One institution’s reappraisal of their backlog revealed that around 30% of collections warranted deaccessioning, significant weeding, or transfer to elsewhere in the library. Discovering how much excess material they’d been storing for years sparked a cultural shift toward more pre-custodial appraisal and appraisal at accessioning. 

Another participant explained how understanding stewardship costs led to emphasizing “appraisal before acquisition, because… we spend a lot of money on things we don’t end up keeping in terms of shipping, accessioning, and processing. We’re trying to limit that ‘total cost’ earlier in the process.” Collections that are smaller when they arrive or don’t come at all save on shipping and storage costs, and accessioning labor. 

One institution now mandates site visits to assess all collections, and budgets necessary travel funds to support this practice. These visits enable better understanding of potential acquisitions and their requirements, allow more granular appraisal, and sometimes lead to declining a collection after the initial assessment. They found that site visits significantly reduce the volume of what they acquire versus what’s offered, helping them bring in less volume and higher-quality materials. 

Supporting fundraising and advocacy 

Many participants use TCoS tools to support fundraising and advocacy efforts. Cost estimation tools help plan grant projects with realistic budgets. Having concrete time and resource estimates improves communication with development colleagues, helping them understand the true costs and financial implications of accepting new materials. This empowers development staff to make compelling cases for funding stewardship activities which may be less “visible” but equally critical, making them more effective partners in fundraising efforts that address actual collection needs. 

A common challenge when working with fundraising colleagues involves requests to acquire materials that monetary donors want to give the library. When development colleagues understand the full scope of collection management work, they can engage in more informed conversations about whether such acquisitions align with institutional capacity and priorities. 

Similarly, institutions can have more transparent conversations with donors about the work involved in accepting their collections and why processes take time. This fosters greater appreciation for stewardship responsibilities and the care staff give collections. Some institutions have successfully negotiated with donors to include funds specifically for collection care. However, participants raised concerns about monetary donations becoming an expectation of donors. Any “pay-to-play” approach would contradict professional values and severely limit the diversity of materials in collections. While many have had productive discussions about costs with donors, others have experienced resistance from donors who believe that processing and storage are the institution’s responsibility. 

Challenges, benefits, and continued evolution 

Challenges certainly remain, even for institutions making significant progress in resource-sensitive collecting. Some challenges are structural: restrictions on endowment funds often limit their use for stewardship activities. Some participants work around this limitation by “buying individual more expensive things rather than nickel and diming ourselves to death… [because] it’s faster to catalog one expensive thing than 200 inexpensive things.” But others are renegotiating with donors to expand the use of endowment funds beyond acquisitions to include processing, cataloging, or preservation.  

Cultural challenges also exist. One person noted, “The biggest impediment is institutional appetite…suddenly, something big will come that the president or director wants, and we’re taking it.” The shift to a more collective approach made some people, especially curators, feel their autonomy was diminishing. Leaders countered this by emphasizing that changes aimed to improve collective work and holistic approaches, not penalize individual performance. Often, challenges simply involve resources: “Our biggest challenge is not having enough people and hours to revamp processes because it takes time to stop what you’re doing, think of a better way, develop that better way, and then implement it.” 

Overall, these discussions highlighted significant benefits from resource-sensitive collecting. Institutions are addressing backlogs and improving workflows to make collections more accessible. They report acquiring higher-quality collections, and becoming more strategic rather than reactive in their collecting practices. Better communication and visibility into each other’s work has improved relationships both within and beyond special collections.   

For readers attending the RBMS conference in New Haven this June who want to build more resource-sensitive collecting programs, we are organizing a day-long pre-conference symposium on Total Cost of Stewardship. The day will include three panels featuring TCoS implementation experiences from multiple institutions, and structured exercises to help participants envision implementation at their own institutions. It promises to be an interesting and rewarding day—we hope you’ll join us! 

AI Nota Bene: I used AI tools to assist me in writing this post. I used WebEx’s internal AI tools to create transcriptions and high-level summaries of the roundtable conversations. I consulted these to create my own notes and summary, which did not include any information identifying individuals or institutions. I then fed them into Google’s NotebookLM to analyze key themes, identify interrelationships between those themes, and generate potential ways of organizing this post. I reused some language generated by NotebookLM but did the bulk of writing myself. I used Claude to edit my final draft, asking it to review the post and make suggestions to improve clarity, concision, grammar, and reduce passive voice and redundancies. I used many, but not all, of Claude’s suggestions.