The Shared Print Landscape for Texas Academic Libraries

Posie Aagaard, Asst Dean for Collections, UT San Antonio

Beatrice Caraway, Head of Collection Development, Acquisitions and Resource Sharing, Trinity University

John B. Weaver, Dean of Library Services and Educational Technology, Abilene Christian University

Report: http://bit.ly/1mD6ljy

We’re Pulling Apart the Plane while Trying to Land it.

Task Force

• Posie Aagaard, UT-San Antonio• Jesus Campos, South Texas College• Beatrice Caraway, Trinity University• Beth Farwell, Baylor University• Dana Hendrix, Southwestern University• Selene Hinojosa, Texas State University• Kris Reed, Texas Womans University• Jeanne Standley, University of Texas at Tyler • Cristina Thomsen, Southwestern Adventist University• John Weaver, Abilene Christian University (Chair)

Charge“The TCAL Shared Print Collections Taskforce will propose a structure, or a process for developing a structure, for a shared print solution appropriate for TCAL member libraries.

This proposed solution needs to facilitate local deselection decisions while still maintaining our responsibility to preserve and provide access to our collective resources . . .”

THE SURVEY• Spring 2014 • Sent to 197 TCAL libraries • 45% response rate• Based largely on a 2013 survey from SCELC

(Statewide California Electronic Library Consortium)

• Responses at: http://tinyurl.com/TCALsurveydata

Percent of member libraries that participated, by type

Private 59% (23/39)

Public 49% (27/55)

Community 38% (39/103)

Survey Participants’ Locations

KEY SURVEY RESULTS

82% are reducing print monograph holdings in next 5 years through weeding.

Of those, 82% are NOT coordinating this deselection with other libraries!

Would coordination of deselection and retention activities among TCAL libraries be important to your library?

80% of public and private universities deem coordination

with other libraries important or very important.

“If materials were easily retrieved and dependably stored, I could deselect

more heavily.”

“We want to do our part to ensure preservation of the intellectual record.”

“A statewide system of communication about plans for print holdings would be beneficial.”

66% of community colleges see such coordination as

not very important or unimportant.

“As a community college, we are not a research institution.”

“The research at our institution tends not to require books older than 5 years.”

“Briefly, we do not maintain a research library collection policy.”

Distributed or Centralized Program?

Would like either or both = 53%

Distributed collection = 19%

Centralized collection = 13%

None (i.e., not interested) = 15%

Focus on widely-held service copies or on rarely-held archival copies?

Rarely held = 29%

Widely held = 9%

Either or both = 49%

None (i.e., not interested) = 12%

Factors Influencing Participation, Most to Least Important

1. Contents of shared collection2. Type and speed of delivery3. Ease of discoverability4. Participation by certain other libraries or

by my consortium5. Geographic proximity to my library

Willing to Retain Portion of Your Collection as a Shared Resource?

Yes = 67%

“If we were designated to retain monographs as part of this project, that would be doable.”

“Realistically, given our location, rare materials we already hold would be our most

likely contribution.”

Survey Summary• Most libraries are reducing collections

independently, without inter-library coordination…

• …yet most respondents deemed coordination important.

• Equal interest in distributed and centralized shared collections.

• Preference for sharing rarely held titles versus widely held, but 51% are interested in either or both.

• Biggest determining factors for participation:Contents of shared collectionType and speed of delivery provided

• Two-thirds might commit to retain part of their holdings as a shared resource.

• Fairly strong support among university libraries for a shared print monograph agreement, but…

• …the cost of such a program is a major concern and determining factor.

ENVIRONMENTAL SCAN

• To find out what others are doing elsewhere in the country.

• To find out what factors lead to success.

Models1. Committee on Institutional Cooperation

(CIC) Shared Print Repository (Ohio)2. Joint Library Facility (UT & TAMU)3. Maine Shared Collections Strategy4. Michigan Shared Print Initiative5. Virtual Library of Virginia (VIVA)

Monographic Collection Analysis Pilot6. Western Regional Storage Trust (WEST)

Traits of Successful Models1. Dedicated centralized funding + ongoing

financial commitment from participating libraries

2. Focus EITHER on archiving of rare materials OR on providing access to service copies of widely held titles

3. Undertake a joint collection analysis (expensive)

4. Limit the type and format of materials

5. Leverage already established & trusted networks

6. Use a phased approach

7. Use third-party services

Four Modelsfor Shared Print Collections

• Model #1: National– Advocate for using existing national or regional

shared print collection programs• e.g., CRL, HathiTrust, LOCKSS, JSTOR, PAPR, Portico,

SCELC, OCLC Shared Print Management

Four Modelsfor Shared Print Collections

• Model #2: Centralized Texas – Help advance and utilize the Joint Library Facility

(JLF) in Riverside, Texas, or develop another central repository

– JLF would be for sharing service copies for regular usage and would not immediately address the need for shared collection(s) of archival print copies, which might be a future development of the centralized model.

Four Modelsfor Shared Print Collections

• Model #3: Regional Texas –Support incremental development of

distributed, regional consortia in which libraries share service and archival copies through a pilot program that develops a scalable collection analysis and program framework

Four Modelsfor Shared Print Collections

• Model #4: Hybrid Texas–Pursue both a centralized model (for

archival or service copies) and a regional model (for archival or service copies)

Recommendations

• The TCAL Task Force on Shared Print Collections recommends that the TCAL Board explore a centralized shared print collection by first engaging with JLF leadership, with a view to a centralized service-copy print collection (Model #2).

• If the centralized service copy model (Model #2) proves not to be possible, we recommend that TCAL pursue and pilot a regional consortium model for shared print and archival print collections (Model #3).

Recommendations

• For both potential models -- whether centralized or distributed -- TCAL should adopt and promote a standard for identification, description, and retention of archival print copies (e.g., OCLC Shared Print Management), and should actively seek to educate members about the options for, and potential of, shared printed collections.

Shared Collections Task Force Report

http://bit.ly/1mD6ljy

Questions? Comments?

posie.aagaard@utsa.edu

bcaraway@trinity.edu

john.weaver@acu.edu