INTERLIBRARY LOAN IMPLEMENTATION TASK FORCE

The Texas State Library and Archives Commission contracted with Bibliographical Center for Research to conduct a thorough analysis of interlibrary loan and resource sharing services in Texas. It is clear that if the current funding restrictions in Texas persist (i.e. no significant increase in LSTA funding and no increased funding support from the state) while at the same time the volume of interlibrary loan requests continues
to increase each year, TSLAC will be unable to continue to support the current model of funding staff that provides interlibrary loan service for a significant number of public libraries in the state.

The combined challenge of improving service to patrons and reducing the service cost offers the Texas library community an opportunity to set new goals for service and to implement a new resource sharing model. View the final report of the Texas Resource Sharing Study conducted by the Bibliographic Center for Research (BCR).

The Texas Resource Sharing Study has outlined several models and pilot projects for interlibrary loan in Texas. The Texas State Library and Archives Commission has put together an Interlibrary Loan Implementation Task Force to evaluate the models and suggest possible pilot projects.

Resource Sharing Study Quick Fact Sheet

About Bibliographic Center for Research (BCR) (Word Document - Download a MS Word File Reader, if needed.)

Interlibrary Loan Implementation Task Force Members

Interlibrary Loan Implementation Task Force Charge and Timeline

Meeting Minutes

The Texas Resource Sharing Study developed goals based on their findings (Part 3 of Study). The ILL Implementation Task Force took those goals and revised them to better fit the goals of Texas. (Word Document - Download a MS Word File Reader, if needed.)

We welcome comments regarding the Texas Resource Sharing Study or the future of interlibrary loan in Texas.

Add Comments

Date: 06/02/2008
Name: Samantha Smith
Library: Hood County Public Library
Comments and Suggestions: I am the ILL librarian at HCPL. We do virtually all of our ILLs through OCLC already and don't have much of a problem doing it that way. The patrons make their requests to us, we put the request into worldcat, and do all the processing so that the patron checks out the ILL as if it were a regular checkout. It seems to work well from our point of view, despite the rise in cost of postage and packaging.

Date: 06/12/2008
Name: Information not available
Library: Information not available
Comments and Suggestions: All I can say is keep the interlibrary program it is working and everone enjoys this

Date: 06/17/2008
Name: Information not available
Library: Information not available
Comments and Suggestions: The current economy is hitting our budget hard. Any cost-sharing scenario, or shifting the entire cost of ILL to the local level, will place a huge burden on local budgets and may result in a reduction/cessation in the level of service.

Date: 06/20/2008
Name: Sue Compton
Library: Flower Mound Public Library
Comments and Suggestions: A very difficult report to digest and comment on. Many questions that need to be answered first. Of the many services libraries offer ILL seems to be one that benefits from statewide coordination. The models I've been told are being considered (Models 4-6) appear to take the state out of the mix. I'm not sure this is the best way to do this. And I'm surprised only 3 libraries have commented!

Date: 06/30/2008
Name: Beth Fox
Library: Westbank Community Library
Comments and Suggestions: I second Sue's comments that this is a very complex topic that left many questions unanswered. For the last few years, we have heard a great deal from TSL about the need to centralize library services for more efficiency. The 3 proposals left on the table do exactly the opposite. I want to reinforce the task forces’ conclusion that “cost shifting is not cost saving.” I find it unacceptable that 3 of the 6 options are apparently no longer under consideration.
According to the report, there are 26 libraries that now use OCLC cataloging. The training alone to bring 500 plus libraries up to speed on using OCLC to place requests and enter data is mindboggling. You have only to look at the database usage by the smaller public libraries to know that these are solutions that dead on arrival.
Models 3, 4 and 5 rely on a union or shared catalog based on the OCLC model. Unfortunately most public libraries do not use true Marc records. Instead they use "Marc like" records. While custom software might be written to overcome this initial problem, what will happen as each library adds and deletes items? Our library adds several hundred items a week. Our cataloger is already working at full speed. I suspect that we would have to add additional staff just to manage the OCLC records and we are probably one of the “wealthier” libraries in our size group.
The conclusion that this will be an additional burden on the circulation staff since they are already doing this with branch libraries is another poorly thought out premise. How many public libraries actually have branch libraries? Besides, preparing an item to be mailed is far more complicated than putting an item in a bin to be transported to a branch library.
There are hundreds of small Texas public libraries that operate with tiny staffs. These libraries depend heavily on interlibrary loan resources. The current options put the full burden of interlibrary loan on individual libraries that simply don't have the resources to support the service. My library, which serves a population of 25,000, would be hard pressed to come up with staff to not only manage the 1400 or more loans that we make each year but also to locate, track, package and mail 500 or 1000 (??) items to other libraries. I would be shocked if there was not a significant decline in both lending and borrowing. In other words, instead of sharing resources, Texans would have fewer resources available.
TSL has already seriously damaged the effectiveness of regional systems, and no matter how you look at these options; the effect is to dismantle interlibrary loan service as well.

Date: 07/18/2008
Name: Susan Anderson
Library: El Progreso Memorial Library
Comments and Suggestions: I agree whole-heartedly with Beth's comments. We too serve a population of 25,000. But we are a rural area and our population is spread through 3 Hill Country canyons. We have a difficult time delivering books between our 3 county libraries and rely on people who are coming in to town for shopping or a doctor's visit to pick up books and take them back to their community. The costs of mailing items to other libraries would break our already fragile budgets. We worked cooperatively to share books in our region long before there was such a thing as TexShare cards, but that was based on patrons coming to pick up the books. Delivery seems to be the biggest issue to me no matter what model is chosen.

Date: 09/08/2008
Name: Deanna Frazee
Library: Killeen City Library System
Comments and Suggestions: I can see why Models 4-6 may have more appeal for TSL than 1-3, but I fear that they will force many public libraries to stop offering ILL. Models 4-6 unrealisticly assume that we all have staff available to take on extra ILL duties.

In some ways, Model 6 holds the most promise--until you consider that the ILS market is not exactly stable right now. Over the past year and a half, open-source systems Evergreen and KOHA have gained a great deal of momentum and seem poised to take a substantial share of the library market from proprietary vendors. Yet Model 6 does not appear to consider whether or not a circulation-based ILL system will work with these relative newcomers who appear to be here to stay.

Another big problem is the changes that OCLC is undergoing. The company has made some startling moves that seem to be disassociating it somewhat from its ties to the library community and poising it for big changes. Will TSL be able to help all of us out if those changes end up costing more than anticipated in the study?

We need for TSL to take a more measured approach and talk with all us--not a random sampling, ALL--to help us find the right path. Based on the study results and suggestions, maybe that is what should have been done in the first place.

Date: 09/22/2008
Name: Eric Lashley
Library: Georgetown Public Library
Comments and Suggestions: Whatever plan is chosen, I would hope that the individual libraries will know what costs they will need to budget for in a timely manner. No matter what plan is selected, it looks like the workload is going to be shifted to the local libraries. Libraries need time to plan for these changes.

Date: 09/23/2008
Name: Information not available
Library: Information not available
Comments and Suggestions: test

Date: 09/23/2008
Name: Kathy Carter
Library: Fayette Public-La Grange
Comments and Suggestions: "The Inter-Library Loan Center at the Austin Public Library will most certainly close within 2-4 years. One ILC for the state would process all requests from area libraries not in the Texas group. Eventually this ILC would close and every library in the state would initiate its own requests for materials. All system members would be expected to fill requests from other libraries on a regular basis. The cost for these services would be the responsibility of each local library."--from CTLS newsletter March 2008. I look forward to the discussions at the 9-26-08 CTLS meeting in Taylor in order to better understand the study and its ramifications. I fear that if the process as outlined in the CTLS newsletter is the final product then many rural public libraries will no longer be able to participate in or offer ILL services.

Date: 09/29/2008
Name: Mary Boedeker
Library: Real County Public Library
Comments and Suggestions: I am amenable to Models two and six. I will function with whatever option is choosen.

Date: 10/01/2008
Name: Information not available
Library: Information not available
Comments and Suggestions: Our library and patrons want access to a broader range of materials than our small library is able to maintain. From beginning reading books, to classic videos, current BBC television, politics, and highly technical materials. Having access to those items was possible and quite popular while we had courier service provided by our library system. We were really able to serve the man on the street (current buzz word beloved by IMLS funders) when we could provide such a broad selection. It has been my understanding that it is our goal in the state of Texas and its libraries to make strides in providing statewide access to materials, to improve the public's ability to have books and other materials. That was the case while we have courier service. Our interlibrary loans were quite popular, patrons learned how to use the Library of Texas, took charge, as it were, of what they were going to read.
NOW, funding for the courier service has been so severely curtailed that it is no longer within our reach financially. Our library budget is very tight. The number of ILLs in our library was just under 100 for the first three quarters of 2008, having increased with the advent of our system courier. Now, however, we will again have to pass along the cost of returning items by post to our patrons.
I think if the state library is serious about providing access, use of funds for a statewide system of moving materials would be an ideal project. What is the use of creating Library of Texas, conducting training, enlisting libraries, if the man in the street, or at the rural library, can't have free access to the wealth of materials listed there.

I really think this is an area that needs further study and increased funding to enable small libraries to participate in ILL.

Date: 11/17/2008
Name: Beverly Ward
Library: Stonewall County Library
Comments and Suggestions: I am the librarian and staff of a small, rural library in West Texas serving approximately 2,000 patrons. I have muddled through the final report and must admit that it did not increase my understanding significantly. I do agree with the comments regarding the cost and staff required to facilitate these changes, and of course my choice is to keep the vital and efficient ILL program as is. I have been involved in the library community for only 5 years and believe the selection of the model could be better served by those with more experience than myself. However, I do have some questions that I believe should be answered.
1) Why are the only options available to us dependent on the closing of each system ILL office?
2) Is it possible that TSL is actively dismantleing our systems?
I believe I am speaking for the small, rural libraries when I say that the systems are our lifeblood! They are not only our support but our voice and our advocate. I am not so nieve to understand that significant changes are comming to the library community, but it does grieve my heart.

Date: 11/25/2008
Name: Victoria Carlson Kemp
Library: Flower Mound Public Library
Comments and Suggestions: After listening to Adam Wright explain all the options to us at a meeting I attended recently, I was less informed than previously. The bottom line of all this is the small libraries get left out in the cold. As someone pointed out previously, cost sharing is not cost reduction; it just makes it impossible for smaller libraries to foot the bill. And, the very worst part, my understanding is that if your library chooses to opt out of ILL due to the costs, you will not receive any Loan Star monies. That sounds an awful lot like double jeopardy to me. Is that true? Inquiring minds want to know.

Date: 12/05/2008
Name: Judy Spence
Library: Van Alstyne Public Library
Comments and Suggestions: I handle all the ILL's for our small library. We serve a population of around 5,000 but are growing rapidly. Remember small library = even smaller budget. I am relatively new to library science but the first thing I learned was that good libraries equate access to good/great resources. Without interlibrary loan service, our ability to serve our patrons would be greatly diminished. Any plan that would involve any more work on our already overworked, underpaid staff would knock us out of the running completely and I can not see any way we would be able to participate. I hate to bellyache here, folks, but this service is critical to us as it is to most small libraries and it seems that we just seem to keep getting the short end of the stick. The system is working for us the way it is and I don't have much to suggest in the way of improvement other than I would love to have courier service back. One last suggestion: Keep it simple, please! I found the above report to be tedious and not very informative.

Add Comments