The document summarizes the findings of the TCAL Shared Print Collections Task Force regarding options for shared print collections among academic libraries in Texas. It describes a survey of TCAL member libraries that found most support coordination but are reducing collections independently. The task force considered models from other state programs and recommends TCAL first explore using the Joint Library Facility to develop a centralized shared print collection of service copies, or piloting a regional consortium model if a centralized approach is not viable.

1. 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

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

3. 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)

4. 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 . . .”

5. 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

6. Percent of member libraries
that participated, by type
Private 59% (23/39)
Public 49% (27/55)
Community 38% (39/103)

7. Survey Participants’ Locations

8. KEY SURVEY RESULTS

9. 82% are reducing print monograph
holdings in next 5 years through
weeding.
Of those, 82% are NOT coordinating
this deselection with other libraries!

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

11. 80% of public and private
universities deem coordination
with other libraries important or
very important.

12. “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.”

13. 66% of community colleges
see such coordination as
not very important or
unimportant.

14. “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.”

15. Distributed or Centralized Program?
Would like either or both = 53%
Distributed collection = 19%
Centralized collection = 13%
None (i.e., not interested) = 15%

16. 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%

17. Factors Influencing Participation,
Most to Least Important
1. Contents of shared collection
2. Type and speed of delivery
3. Ease of discoverability
4. Participation by certain other libraries or
by my consortium
5. Geographic proximity to my library

18. 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.”

19. 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.

20. • 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 collection
Type and speed of delivery provided
• Two-thirds might commit to retain part of
their holdings as a shared resource.

21. • 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.

22. ENVIRONMENTAL SCAN
• To find out what others are doing
elsewhere in the country.
• To find out what factors lead to
success.

23. Models
1. Committee on Institutional Cooperation
(CIC) Shared Print Repository (Ohio)
2. Joint Library Facility (UT & TAMU)
3. Maine Shared Collections Strategy
4. Michigan Shared Print Initiative
5. Virtual Library of Virginia (VIVA)
Monographic Collection Analysis Pilot
6. Western Regional Storage Trust (WEST)

24. Traits of Successful Models
1. 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)

25. 4. Limit the type and format of materials
5. Leverage already established & trusted
networks
6. Use a phased approach
7. Use third-party services

26. Four Models
for 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

27. Four Models
for 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.

28. Four Models
for 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

29. Four Models
for 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)

30. 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).

31. 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.

32. Shared Collections Task Force
Report
http://bit.ly/1mD6ljy

33. Questions? Comments?
posie.aagaard@utsa.edu
bcaraway@trinity.edu
john.weaver@acu.edu