Supplement to the Directory of Academic Library Consortia. INSTITUTION System Development Corp., Santa Monica, Calif
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
DOCUMENT RESUME ED 072 820 LI 004 174 AUTHOR Mantius, Kean TITLE Supplement to the Directory of Academic Library Consortia. INSTITUTION System Development Corp., Santa Monica, Calif. SPONS AGENCY Bureau of Libraries and Educational Technology (DHEW/OE), Washington, D. C. REPORT NO TM-5018-000-00 PUB DATE Oct 72 CONTRACT OEC -0 -72 -1243 NOTE 245p.;(140 References) AVAILABLE FROMSystem Development Corporation, 2500 Colorado Ave., Santa Monica, Calif. 90406 ($6.00) EDRS PRICE MF-$0.65 HC-$9.87 DESCRIPTORS *College Libraries; *Consortia; Directories; *Library Cooperation; Library Services; Shared Services; *University Libraries ABSTRACT In 1971, System Development Corporation (SDC) performed a study of academic library consortia, under contract to the 'U. S. Office of Education. The purpose of the study was to collect extensive information on existing academic library consortia and to develop a set of guidelines for planning, developing, operating, and evaluating a library consortium. One product of the study was the "Directory of Academic Library Consortia", which is LI 004173. The decision to produce a supplement came out of a desire to identify and describe a wider range of groups that are participating in the growing movement toward library cooperation. The supplement project was designed to include a greater variety as well as a larger number of cooperating library groups. To this end, the criteria for inclusion were significantly relaxed. Three basic criteria for inclusicn were used in the preparation of the supplement. Cooperatives that were included (1) were not included in the directory; (2) had at least one academic library member; and (3) were actively engaged in, or actively planning to engage in, cooperative library activities. This supplement provides 135 additional entries and contains title and state indexes. (Author/SJ) U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH. EDUCATION & WELFARE OFFICE OF EOUCATION THIS 00CUMENT HAS BEEN REPRO. DUCE° EXACTLY AS RECEIVED FROM THE PERSON OR ORGANIZATION ORIG INATING IT. POINTS OF VIEW OR OPIN. IONS STATED 00 NOT NECESSARILY REPRESENT OFFICIAL OFFICE OF EOLI CATION POSITION OR POLICY. SUPPLEMENT TO THE DIRECTORY OF ACADEMIC LIBRARY CONSORTIA OCTOBER, 1972 KEAN MANTIUS TM-5018/000/00 The work reported herein was performed pursuant to a contract with the United States Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Office of Education. However, the content does not necessarily reflect the position or policy of that Agency, and no official endorsement of these materials should be inferred. Printed in the United States of America. iii PREFACE The work reported herein was perforned pursuant to a contract with the United States Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Office of Education. The purpose of the contract was to prepare a Supplement to the Directory of Academic Library Consortia, which was published by System Development Corporation in 1972. The Supplement was to identify and describe a wide range of library consortia, cooperatives, and networks that were not included in the Directory. Criteria for inclusion in the Supplement are listed and discussed in the Introduction. The Supplement was prepared under the general supervision of Dr. Carlos A. Cuadra, Manager of the Education and Library Systems Department at System Development Corporation.contributions to the Supplement were made by Theresa Abramian, Donald Black, Diana DeLanoy, Ann Luke, and Ruth Patrick. Their assistance is gratefully acknowledged. Special thanks are due to Joyce Holmen, project secretary and research assistant, for her unceasing efforts to achieve completeness and ac..uracy. We are grateful for the help and support of Lawrence W. Papier, the USOE project monitor. V TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. INTRODUCTION 1 A. Background 3 B. Methodology 5 C. Application of Criteria 6 II. OVERVIEW 9 A. Categories of Cooperating Library Groups 11 B. Comparisons 15 III. SUPPLEMENT ENTRIES 21 IV. INDEXES 215 A. Title Index 217 B. State Index 227 I vii LIST OF TABLES Page TABLE-1. Categories of Library Groups Included in the Supplement . 12 TABLE 2. C-mparison of Number of Members 16 TABLE 3. Comparison of Amount of Budget 18 TABLE 4.Comparison of Sources of Funds 19 TABLE 5. Comparison of Number of FullTime Staff Members 20 I. INTRODUCTION 3 I. INTRODUCTION A. BACKGROUND In 1971, System Development Corporation (SDC) performed a study of academic li- brary consortia, under contract to the U.S. Office of Education. The purpOse of the study was to collect extensive information on existing academic library con- sortia and to develop a set of guidelines for planning, developing, operating, and evaluating a library consortium. One product of the study was the Directory of Academic Library Consortia, which was subsequently published by SDC.*The Directory lists 125 consortia and gives a detailed summary of the organization and activities of each one. The Directory was designed to facilitate communication among persons interested in the possibilities and potentials of library consortia.This included librari- ans interested in joining or initiating a cooperative agreement, researchers interested in the growth of cooperation among libraries, and people who were already involved in consortia and were interested in what other consortia were doing. The consortia that were selected for inclusion had to meet the follow- ing criteria: 1. The participating institutions must be autonomous; that is, they must report to separate Boards of Regents or other separate, higher-level governing bodies. 2. More than half the members of a consortium must be academic libraries. 3. Two or more libraries must be involved, with activities extending beyond traditional interlibrary loan as defined by ALA rules. 4. If the library consortium is part of a higher-level, multipurpose higher-education consortium, it must be a separate entity with the goal of improving library services. 5. The consortium must have developed beyond the exploratory stage; i.e., the group must have declared itself a cooperative entity and must at least be planning joint activities. *DeLanoy, Diana D., and Cuadra, Carlos A., Directory of Academic Library Consortia, System Development Corporation, Santa Monica, California, 1972. 4 6. The consortium must be organized to pursue activities that are of benefit to the academic participants involved. After the publication of the Directory in September, 1971, SDC and USOE agreed to cooperate on a second project, aimed at producing a Supplement to the Directory of Academic Library Consortia. The decision to produce a Supplement came out of a desire to identify and describe a wider range of groups that are participating in the growing movement toward library cooperation.The Supplement project was designed to include a greater variety as well as a larger number of cooperating library groups. To this end, the criteria for inclusion were significantly relaxed. We hoped that the variety of approaches to cooperation that we would identify by taking a more inclusive approach would provide interesting comparisons and useful information for the Supplement user. Three basic criteria for inclusion were used in the preparation of the Supplement. Cooperatives that were included (1) were not included in the Directory; (2) had at least one academic library member; and (3) were actively engaged in, or actively planning to engage in, cooperative library activities.We hoped to include new groups that had started since the original study, groups that had not been identi- fied during the original study, and several kinds of library groups that had been excluded from the Directory: 1. Cooperatives with at least one academic library member, 2. Informal cooperative arrangements, 3. State-administered cooperative programs, and 4. Cooperative arrangements among the various campuses of single insti- tutions. The application of thesit criteria is described more fully in Section C, Appli- cation of Criteria for Inclusion. 5 B. METHODOLOGY The following steps were taken to prepare the Supplement: 1. Identify potential Supplement entries. Sources of information about possible Supplement entries included: (1) the extensive SDC files on libraries and library consortia; (2) published reports and other literature; (3) experts in library cooperation; (4) government agencies that provide funding for groups of cooperating libraries; (5) State Librarians; and (6) directors of library consortia that were described in the Directory. The reader may note that Illinois and Pennsylvania are covered in greater detail than most other states. At the time we started gathering information for the Supplement, the state libraries in those two states had recently completed state- wide studies of library cooperatives; we were able to use the reports of their studies to identify potential Supplement entries. One other extremely useful source of information is described under item 4, below. An interesting characteristic of the process of gathering information about li- brary cooperatives is that the field changes very fast. Even in Illinois, where we had access to a report published in May, 1972, it was necessary to verify each entry by our draft-entry process, because many of the cooperatives had changed substantially by August or September. 2. Collect as much information as possible on each potential entry identified. When a particular group of libraries was identified as a possible Supplement entry, the project staff tried to get as much information as possible about that group of libraries before contacting them directly. This approach was taken to avoid the use of questionnaires and to give our respondents as little extra work as possible. 3. Compile the information for each library group_into a draft entry. A standard format for entries in the Supplement was developed. ,A draft entry was compiled for each group of libraries that had been identified as a potential Supplement entry. Draft entries were made up to look as much as possible like the final entries that would appear in the Supplement. 6 4. Mail the draft entry to the group of libraries -Lt describes. Draft entries were mailed to the consortia or cooperatives so that they could make any corrections or additions that they felt were necessary.