Library Networks, Cooperatives and Consortia: a National Survey

Library Networks, Cooperatives and Consortia: A National Survey Released December 3, 2007 Denise M. Davis, Principal Investigator Director, Office for Research & Statistics American Library Association This research was made possible by a grant from the Institute of Museum and Library Services, award LG-06-05-0112-05, and funding from the American Library Association. Acknowledgements The American Library Association would like to thank the following individuals and organizations for their contributions to this study and final report: The Institute of Museum and Library Services for funding this project. The project advisory committee, without whose help this study series could not have been completed. The staff of the U.S. state libraries for their assistance in providing insight into the establishment and current organization of library networks, cooperatives and consortia. State librarians, current and emeritus, and library network, cooperative and consortia leaders for their willingness to be interviewed. The consulting principals of RSL Research Group for their work in supporting the survey design and administration, and the preliminary and final data analysis associated with this project. Karen Muller, ALA Librarian, for her efforts in finding every published article, report, book, thesis and dissertation that studied or discussed U.S. library networks, cooperatives and consortia. John Carlo Bertot for his project evaluation. Sara Behrman for editing this and previous study reports. 2 Table of Contents Executive Summary ...... 5 Methodology ...... 5 Survey Findings ...... 5 Eligibility Criteria ...... 5 Service Area Geography ...... 6 Types of Member Libraries ...... 6 Purposes Served ...... 6 Year LNCC Formed ...... 7 Member Libraries by Type ...... 7 Total Operating Revenues and Expenditures ...... 7 Capital Expenditures ...... 7 Full-Time Equivalent Staff ...... 7 Priorities Now and Over Next Two to Three Years ...... 7 Findings from Key Informant Interviews ...... 8 Introduction ...... 9 Library Cooperation Paradigm ...... 10 Defining Library Networks and Cooperatives ...... 11 Prior Federal Surveys – 1977-78, 1985-86 and 1997 ...... 14 Figure 1. Number of Library Networks Pre-1960 to 1984 ...... 15 Figure 2. Number of Library Networks Pre-1960 to 1984 ...... 156 Figure 3. Number and Proportion of Staff (Full-time Equivalent) by Whether Paid or Non-paid, by type of Staff: United States, 1977-78 and 1985-86 ...... 18 Other Federal Research ...... 18 Figure 4. Proportion of States Reporting Specific Products, Services and Procedures Resulting from LSCA III ...... 20 Figure 5. Summary of Cooperative Library Services and Activities Performed by Cooperative and Networking Projects Receiving LSCA III Funds in Fiscal Year 1976, by Whether Project was Completely Dependent on LSCA III Funding ...... 21 Non-Federal Surveys and Research ...... 22 Current Data Collection About Networks and Library Cooperatives ...... 24 2005-2006 ALA Baseline Study Findings ...... 24 Figure 6. Percent of Responding LNCCs Serving Public, Academic, and School Libraries ...... 25 Figure 7. Percent of Responding LNCCs Serving Special Libraries by Type ...... 26 Figure 8. Number of Public, Academic, and School Libraries in Majority LNCC States ...... 27 2006-07 ALA Descriptive Study ...... 28 Organizations Excluded From the Study ...... 28 Findings of the 2006-07 ALA Descriptive Study ...... 29 Figure 9. LNCC Survey Respondents by Organizational Characteristics ...... 30 Figure 10. Responding LNCCs by Member Library Type ...... 31 Figure 11. Staff FTE by Year LNCC Formed ...... 32 Figure 12. LNCCs by Primary Service Area Type ...... 33 Figure 13. Responding LNCCs by Services and Activities ...... 34 Figure 14. LNCC Service / Activity Priorities: Now & Over the Next Two to Three Years ...... 35 Figure 15. Mean Rank of Priorities of Services & Activities by LNCCs with More than 12 FTE Staff ...... 36 3 Figure 16. Mean Rank of Priorities of Services & Activities by LNCCs with 8 to 12 FTE Staff 37 Figure 17. Mean Rank of Priorities of Services & Activities by LNCCs with 3 to 7 FTE Staff..38 Figure 18. Mean Rank of Priorities & Services by LNCCs with Less than 3 FTE Staff ...... 39 Figure 19. Services and Activities Related to Year LNCC Formed ...... 40 Figure 20. Priority of Resource Sharing Related to LNCCs Serving Multiple Versus Single Library Types ...... 41 Figure 21. Priority of Resource Sharing and Digitization Related to LNCCs with Versus without Academic Library Members ...... 42 Figure 22. Priorities Related to LNCCs with Versus without Public Library Members ...... 43 Figure 23. Priority of Resource Sharing to LNCCs with Versus without School Library Members ...... 44 Figure 24. Priorities Related to LNCC FTE Staff Range ...... 46 Figure 25. Priorities Related to Year LNCC Formed ...... 47 Figure 26. LNCC Total Operating Revenue (Millions) by Source ...... 48 Figure 27. LNCC Total Operating Expenditures (Millions) by Type ...... 49 Figure 28. LNCC Capital Expenditures by Service Area Type ...... 50 Summary of Key Informant Interviews ...... 51 Study Design Challenges ...... 53 Independent Project Assessment ...... 54 Appendices Appendix A: Library Networks, Cooperatives and Consortia Baseline Study, Tables of Study Findings (2005) ...... 61 Appendix B: Library Networks, Cooperatives and Consortia Tables of Descriptive Study Findings (2006) ...... 65 Appendix C: Descriptive Survey Data Editing Procedures ...... 89 Appendix D: Survey Instruments ...... 92 Appendix E: Outcomes-Based Assessment Documentation ...... 102 Appendix F: References and Additional Resources ...... 107 4 Executive Summary Compared to the regular, annual or biennial, surveys of public and academic libraries, national surveys of library networks, cooperatives, and consortia (LNCCs) have been rare. Prior to this study, there have been only three—in 1977-78, 1985-86, and 1997— all three conducted by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). These studies were worthwhile, however, because they provided opportunities for the definition of a LNCC and discussions about desirable data on them to evolve. Since the advent of the State Library Agencies survey in 1994, the need and demand for more substantial information about these important organizations—some of which operate between state library agencies and local libraries, and some of which help to link state and local libraries—has increased steadily. The American Library Association’s (ALA) Office for Research and Statistics (ORS) responded to this clear and growing need by proposing this study in a Research and Demonstration proposal through the National Leadership Grant program of the Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS). With the support of the Association of Specialized and Cooperative Library Agencies (ASCLA)—the ALA division to which LNCCs belong—ORS took up the challenges of both creating a universe of LNCCs and surveying them about key organizational characteristics as well as basic data on their membership, services and activities, staffing, funding, and priorities. Methodology During Fall 2005, a baseline survey was conducted to develop a universe file of LNCCs. Initial responses to this survey were received from 354 organizations, though 150 of them did not meet eligibility criteria, which emphasized organizational and fiscal autonomy and distinctness from any member libraries. (Another 39 eligible respondents were later added as a result of follow-up efforts.) The initial survey included basic questions about organizational characteristics, the types of libraries included in the organization’s membership, and the purposes it is charged to serve. Responses to questions about organizational characteristics were utilized to determine if a respondent met the study advisory committee’s criteria for inclusion in the study. Between October 2006 and March 2007, a descriptive survey elicited usable responses from 147 of 243 eligible LNCCs—a response rate of 60.5%. This survey asked questions about: • the year the organization was formed • numbers of member libraries by type • total operating revenues by source • total operating expenditures by type • whether or not the organization had capital expenditures in the fiscal year reported • the number of staff in full-time equivalents and • the organization’s top five priorities—both now and over the next two to three years— among a list of services and activities Survey Findings Eligibility Criteria A total of 204 respondents to the baseline survey met the eligibility criteria, which included: 5 • being legally established • being a not-for-profit organization • having its own budget • having paid staff • having members that are primarily libraries and • having member libraries that are not under the organization’s administrative control To make the resulting universe file as complete as possible, an additional 37 respondents were obtained through follow-up contacts with known LNCCs that had not responded by the original deadline. In most cases, these known LNCCs were either OCLC network organizations or LNCCs that have sister organizations with which, collectively, they cover an entire state. Service Area Geography Most LNCCs are regional (i.e., multi-county) in geography and serve multiple library types. Of the 204 eligible LNCCs responding to the baseline survey, 125 (61%) are regional. Another 52 (26%) are local, and 24 (12%) are statewide organizations. Types of Member Libraries Public libraries are served by 167 LNCCs (82%); academic libraries, by 121 (59%), and school libraries, by 99 (49%). Special libraries are served by only 93 LNCCs (46%)—the most frequent types of special library members being medical, non-profit, and institutional. Purposes Served The most common services and activities of LNCCs—ones reported by three out of four responding organizations—include: • communication with member libraries • resource sharing • general professional development • general consulting and technical assistance and • cooperative purchasing or group discounts At least a majority of responding LNCCs also provide: • automation, networking and other technology services • library advocacy, public relations, and marketing • information and referral services and • courier or other document delivery services Fewer than half of LNCCs reported providing: • standards/guidelines development or support • support for services to special populations • library and information science professional collections • rotating or other shared collections and 6 • digitization or other preservation efforts Year LNCC Formed Of 144 LNCCs reporting year of formation, almost one-quarter each of LNCCs were formed between 1930 and 1965 (33, or 23%) and 1966 and 1973 (34, or 24%). Slightly more than half of LNCCs reported being formed since 1974. More than a quarter each of LNCCs were formed between 1974 and 1983 (40, or 28%), and 1984 and 2005 (37 or 26%). Member Libraries by Type Reported membership in LNCCs totaled 17,126. Not all respondents broke down their total membership by type; but, for the 13,529 member libraries that were reported by type, there were 5,189 public libraries, 2,655 school districts, 2,572 academic libraries, and 3,113 special libraries. States with the most LNCCs and the most LNCC members include: California, Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan, New York, Pennsylvania, Texas, and Wisconsin. Total Operating Revenues and Expenditures Piecemeal data on LNCC revenues and expenditures reiterate the importance of collecting data on this substantial segment of the library economy. Even with the limited response, figures reported totaled over $390 million in revenues and over $292 million in expenditures. Capital Expenditures Only half of the 139 LNCCs reported capital expenditures for the fiscal year studied. Full-Time Equivalent Staff Staff size varies dramatically among responding LNCCs by year formed. Of respondents with more than 12 full-time equivalent (FTE) staff, more than half were formed between 1930 and 1965. Of those with less than three FTE staff, more than a quarter have been formed since 1984 and almost half, between 1974 and 1983. Priorities Now and Over Next Two to Three Years When asked for priorities both now and over the next two to three years, responding LNCCs indicated focusing on: • automation, networking, and other technology services • resource sharing • courier and other document delivery services and • general professional development Priorities varied significantly based on selected characteristics of LNCCs: • LNCCs serving multiple library types were more likely to focus on resource sharing. 7 • The oldest LNCCs were likeliest to have the most staff, to provide more diverse services, and to give priority to courier and other document delivery services and support for services to special populations. • LNCCs with the most staff were likely to provide more diverse services, and to place higher priority on automation, networking, and other technology services and courier and other document delivery services. Findings from Key Informant Interviews In addition to the surveys, seven key informant interviews tapped the knowledge and expertise of those who helped to create, manage, and study LNCCs. Valuable insights from these interviews include: • The natural development of LNCCs from intrinsic values of librarianship, such as cooperation and economy of scale; • The important contributions of federal and state library agencies and associations in creating, and developing funding streams for, sustainable LNCCs; • The evolving roles of LNCCs from continuing education to resource sharing; • The ongoing need for more, more frequent, and better data about LNCCs in order to address their changing roles and services, their funding needs, their opportunities for improvement, and their own organizational responses to strategic and entrepreneurial challenges presented by emerging trends. In response to this need, products of this study include an online LNCC directory, an interactive report generator, and PowerPoint presentations about the study and its findings. As ORS concludes this research and demonstration project, it hands off the survey and associated projects to ASCLA, which will encourage LNCCs to update their survey responses annually. 8 Introduction Library networks and cooperatives were formed as early as the 1930s to provide regional support to public libraries, leveraging staff and resources to provide cost-effective and efficient services that the libraries individually could not afford. By the 1960s, the networks and cooperatives were focusing on automation; it was through them that library automation was introduced and pioneering efforts in statewide resource sharing began. As collaboration flourished, these burgeoning networks relied primarily on federal funding from the Library Services and Construction Act (LSCA). By using federal funds to match local funds, many states were able to build early networks and cooperatives, primarily consisting of public libraries. With the revision of federal block grants to libraries, and the new guidelines established by the Library Services and Technology Act (LSTA) (1996), multi-type library cooperation was encouraged. This federal support promoted the development of learning communities, leveraging local partnerships to advance projects that might not have succeeded had only local or state funding been available. As the world of libraries changed, other services became the business of networks and cooperatives. Frequently, services initiated by networks were later integrated into the daily operations of individual libraries. Examples of such pioneering services included: Internet connectivity and training; teleconferencing; services to special populations; distance learning; database licensing and training; “E-Rate” discount applications and technology planning, e-book and e-journal acquisitions; and, most recently, digital virtual reference services. Had it not been for the early development of networks, individual libraries would have spent considerably more, in both real dollars and staff time, to develop the expertise to implement these new services. Two such examples can be found in Maryland and Massachusetts: • In Maryland, the Sailor Project, an initiative to install a telecommunications backbone throughout the state, was made possible by “drawing down” federal LSTA monies. Sailor has continued to improve, thanks to local library support, limited state aid and E- Rate discounts (provided under the Telecommunications Act of 1996). This collaboration of public, academic, school and special libraries in Maryland allowed for an even larger vision — that of linking all public libraries in the state to the Internet. This highly successful project would have been much harder to implement had the State Librarian in the 1960s not also established a strong system of regional networks and library cooperation that spanned library types. • In Massachusetts, nine multi-type networks currently provide statewide resource sharing services as a result of the early automation efforts undertaken by these cooperatives. Today, these regional networks and consortia receive funding from the Massachusetts Board of Library Commissioners, regional library systems and members' fees. Services provided to all residents include access to books, magazines, audiotapes, CDs, videos and DVDs from more than 300 public libraries through regional automation systems, plus access to the collections of 38 academic libraries and a small number of participating school libraries. Massachusetts’ regional networks also negotiate statewide database licenses on behalf of their members. They provide a digital virtual reference service, called MassAnswers, as part of a cooperative project of the Massachusetts Regional Reference Center libraries and other libraries that have joined the nationwide 24/7 reference collaborative. 9 Library Cooperation Paradigm Much has been written about library cooperation (see: Glenny, Nolting, Reynolds, Carlile and Connor). It is important to understand the environment within which library cooperation is successful. Some influences are governmental (e.g., interlibrary cooperation legislation), while others are individual and attitudinal. Nolting outlined intergovernmental functions that could be provided cooperatively, thereby more effectively. Those highlighted include: 1. Informal cooperation 2. Parallel actions 3. Creation of regional councils and planning agencies 4. Annexation and consolidation 5. City-county consolidation 6. Granting of extraterritorial powers 7. Transfer of functions 8. Creation of urban counties 9. Regional agencies and metropolitan federation 10. Creation of special districts and authorities1 Further, Nolting clustered these methods into four categories — cooperation, amalgamation, expansion and new local unit. Methods (1) through (4) are cooperation, (5) and (6) are amalgamations, (7) through (9) are expansion of authority and (10) is a new local unit. 1 Nolting, Orin F. Mobilizing Total Library Resources for Effective Service. (p. 13-18) Chicago: American Library Association. 1969. 10