Infinite Collections, Almost

The dilemma is one that most public librarians know well. Our interlibrary loan (ILL) service over the past seven years had increased by almost 72 percent—with no end to the upward spiral in sight. Borrowing had increased 23 percent, but lending to other libraries had seen the largest growth: 106 percent. ILL staffing hadn't increased and wouldn't, owing to budget restrictions. Sound familiar?

This was Jefferson County Public Library (JCPL), CO, in the late 1990s, a library with ten branches that serves a population of more than 500,000 and circulates over 4.3 million items a year. We explored every way to make our ILL operations more efficient but strained to keep up. At the same time, saying "no" to patrons or peer libraries was not an option. Nor did we consider it good service to make interlibrary loan less visible.

We also knew that, as a public library, we could not fill all of our patrons' requests, with their many diverse needs, from our own collection. To truly serve our public well, we needed to go beyond our physical walls. The solution came from an innovative partnership between both academic and public libraries that made resource sharing easier, cheaper, and patron-driven.

In 1997, JCPL was invited to participate in an experiment among a dozen or so academic and public libraries in Colorado called Prospector. The brainchild of the Colorado Alliance of Research Libraries and the University of Northern Colorado, with the help of a $640,000 grant from the state's Technology Grant and Revolving Loan Program, the partnership created a Colorado union catalog. Prospector allowed users to view library holdings and circulation information of member libraries with a single search. Patrons could request items online from any of the participating libraries and have those items delivered to their local library. We didn't think twice about joining.

Prospector was powered by the INN-Reach software from Innovative Interfaces, Inc., and the first libraries to participate were all Innovative libraries, including JCPL. Prospector first had to get the libraries named in the grant online and active in the system. Since other Innovative libraries in Colorado wanted to join but couldn't, we created a second group, PLUS, which grew to include six libraries, including JCPL. Eventually, Prospector and Plus merged to become what today is Prospector+.

Prospector went live in 1999 with membership that included private colleges, multiple campuses of the University of Colorado, and JCPL. The academic libraries willing to work with a large suburban library system deserve kudos. The fear from the start was that JCPL, with 350,000 cardholders, would overwhelm Prospector with requests. Some also thought there would be little reciprocal lending from JCPL to other Prospector sites (see "Myth-Busting Requests," p. 10).

Today, Prospector+ accepts new members in a fee-based structure. Membership is by no means limited to Innovative libraries—software has been developed so different systems can interact with the INN-Reach software. There are now 23 members, including the Denver Public Library, eight other public libraries or public library systems, and the libraries of the University of Colorado's Health Sciences Center and law school.

Resource sharing has its costs and challenges—from staffing to space to shipping—but from nearly any perspective, resource sharing at JCPL has been a tremendous success. If your measure is connecting patrons with the materials they want, in 2000, our first full year of operation, JCPL borrowed for its users 15,000 items. Last year it was over 65,000 items, a 337 percent increase. In the same period, lending has gone from 9600 items to over 44,000—a 363 percent increase. Moreover, materials arrive quickly, at low cost per transaction

For our patrons, Prospector+ is very straightforward. Links throughout our web site give them the option to search this database. The search strategies are the same as those used within JCPL's catalog. If the item needed is found, a simple link states, "Request This Item." From that link, users are asked four questions: their library, their name, their library card number, and where they want to pick up the material.

Once the system has verified the user is in good standing, the request is processed and an immediate message is seen onscreen letting the user know which library is sending the item. When the material arrives at the pickup location and we check in the item to our holds shelf, our circulation system generates a pickup notice.

Prospector+ works within defined parameters. A JCPL patron can only request to pick up items at a JCPL library. On the other hand, the initial request can be placed from any computer, anywhere.

Based on the success of Prospector+, JCPL looked to expand our resource sharing and use INN-Reach to connect with Innovative public libraries in different states—Sacramento Public Library and Salt Lake City Public Library—hundreds of miles away. The decision to partner with these institutions was based on several considerations. For example, Sacramento has an extensive collection of materials in other languages that we thought would interest JCPL patrons. Salt Lake City was the closest large urban library system to JCPL.

In 2004,we went live with Interstate, the first long-distance, patron-initiated resource-sharing effort among public libraries. Patron use has been good, but Interstate has encountered a few bumps along the road, and Salt Lake City opted to end its participation in the pilot project in November 2004. Nancy Tessman, director of the Salt Lake City Public Library, says they ended their participation with mixed feelings. "Our City Council is concerned about any relationship where we loan more than we borrow—the idea of reciprocity is on their minds as we experience record growth in use and pressures from out-of-city impact. In retrospect, I don't think we promoted the program as we could have done and that certainly reduced the possible benefit…. That being said, it is certainly a better and more cost-effective direction than traditional interlibrary loan."

Interstate continues as a pilot project between JCPL and Sacramento, and we would like to add new members. The project has proven that it is possible to connect the catalogs of distant libraries and move materials quickly and in a cost-effective way. Communication between the libraries is effective and efficient. Most important, we both are expanding our collections. While our core collections of basically popular materials are the same, the uniqueness rate between our two collections is about 70 percent. A major gain for both our public institutions.

With the success of Prospector+ and Interstate, do we still need to offer traditional ILL service? The answer is a resounding yes. JCPL's patron interests and needs are too varied for one library system or even two resource-sharing systems to handle.

Our 1999–2004 ILL and resource-sharing statistics show how ILL remains active. Despite all the requests fulfilled through resource sharing, JCPL still had nearly 8000 requests for items not available in any of these systems. Also, with our membership and visibility in OCLC WorldCat Resource Sharing, we continue to receive requests from other systems for our materials.

The bottom line Resource sharing isn't free. There is the cost of the software, in our case INN-Reach. According to Gene Shimshock, Innovative Interfaces' director of marketing, "Costs for INN-Reach are highly variable, depending upon the number of participants, the type of systems those participants have, whether the participants share a local system or have their own. We also consider the structure of the consortium (which can vary dramatically)." Pricing is often based on the number of libraries rather than other measures, like volumes. "In terms of total costs, we have found that the cost of the software is comparable to the purchase and processing of between 250 and 400 books per year, depending on the types of materials and the acquisition costs of the library," says Shimshock.

There are also ongoing maintenance costs, e.g., mailing, couriers, and staff. However, the costs are not the sole responsibility of one library but of the entire resource-sharing group, and with 23 members, participation in Prospector+ is very affordable. These shared costs have made our membership diverse, with all sizes of academic and public libraries.

In 2003 and 2004, JCPL looked closely at the costs associated with both our resource-sharing partnerships and traditional ILL. We looked at all factors, from supplies to software, from staff time to delivery costs. Whatever was needed to process a request was documented, noted, counted, and analyzed. A summary of the cost breakdown is in Table 1; the full report is available on the JCPL web site. As expected, it shows that it is far less expensive to borrow and lend materials via Prospector+ and Interstate than traditional ILL.

How did our numbers compare with those of other libraries? Mary Jackson's Assessing ILL/DD Services: New Cost-Effective Alternatives (ARL, 2004) provides insight. The study looked at 72 North American research, college, and governmental libraries. The mean costs for INN-Reach libraries in Jackson's report was $2.89 per item borrowed and $3.27 per item loaned. Mean costs in the Jackson study for mediated ILL $17.50 per item borrowed and $9.27 per item loaned.

In comparing JCPL costs to those in Jackson's study, our high ILL borrowing unit costs stand out. Part of that is because many of the staff are highly trained long-term employees with higher salaries.

Prospector+ and Interstate are cost effective for JCPL—and most other members, I would imagine. You cannot purchase an item for the numbers quoted. At JCPL, the average cost of an item, including staff time and processing, is $42. And that's if the material is still available for purchase.

What is truly amazing is that JCPL did not add staff at any of our libraries to handle Prospector+ or Interstate. The resource-sharing programs we participate in mimic in most ways our circulation procedures. With few exceptions, staff members follow the same procedures for both lending and borrowing. The learning curve for circulation staff was minimal.

The staff at our information desks had new catalogs to search, and, again, the learning curve has been minimal. Most important was for staff to understand what could be requested and what problems might be encountered. The most common difficulty was the inability to place holds—usually either because there was a problem with the requesting patron's library record or a problem with the item requested. If problems could not be resolved, they were reported to either the staff member designated to handle Prospector issues or to our IT staff. In addition, one staff member handles reports, attends meetings, and is the overall contact for Prospector+. Our central circulation coordinator handles circulation tracking of Prospector+. Again, all of these new duties were absorbed by existing staff.

Of course it is an understatement to say the volume of materials being handled at JCPL circulation desks has increased. To deal with it, some locations rescheduled or reassigned staff to retrieve materials and process incoming and outgoing items.

All of our JCPL locations have had to deal with the impact on space. Additional material requires more room, especially when that material is on hold or being prepared for shipping. No one solution fit all of our locations, although hardest hit was the receiving area in ILL, where all items coming from Prospector+ and Interstate libraries are received and distributed. Solutions include adding new shelves in the checkout area; expanding hold shelves with existing shelves in circulation workrooms (forcing staff to leave the circulation area to retrieve items); and placing overflow from our hold shelves onto book carts.

One library started a trial program called "Express Pickup," whereby all materials on hold are shelved in a public area. Patrons retrieve their own materials, then check them out. This has resolved some space issues while limiting staff involvement. We plan to expand "Express Pickup" service to other library locations.

While library staff are the backbone of Prospector+ and Interstate, the systems' lifeline has been the delivery operations that move materials among facilities quickly, efficiently, and economically. With libraries in close proximity, for example in the Denver metro area, material can easily move between libraries within 24 hours. Libraries farther afield can take two to three days. The statewide courier contract is administered for all libraries by the Colorado Library Consortium. Libraries interested in using that courier pay a yearly fee based upon the volume of materials they lend and borrow through resource-sharing networks, including ILL. We broke down the cost of using the statewide courier to 23¢ per item—a good price.

For JCPL's Interstate traffic, a statewide courier was not an option. Again, our goals were to move materials quickly and cheaply. We decided on a commercial carrier, in our case FedEx. The key to successful and economical FedEx shipping involved a (negotiated) discount rate and shipping smart (we bulk-ship items), making sure no package is too heavy. We use FedEx Second Day Ground Delivery for all Interstate materials. The average cost to move materials between Jefferson County, CO, and Sacramento, CA, is just 81¢ per item.

The benefits to participating in Prospector+ and Interstate are obvious. Our constituents have dramatically expanded collections at their fingertips. Patrons like being able to "do it for themselves," searching and initiating requests from other libraries. Prospector+ and Interstate interface easily with the existing circulation system and workflow, as well as the workflow at our information desks.

Participating in Prospector+ and Interstate has affected Jefferson County Public Library in ways both positive and negative. As mentioned, there are space and materials handling issues. We need to budget for added shipping supplies, especially for Interstate materials shipped via FedEx.

There is also an impact on collections and collection development. We review patron requests through both Interstate and Prospector+ to see if there are significant gaps in our holdings. Are we purchasing enough materials in a particular subject area? For example, when we joined Prospector and PLUS we purchased feature films but on a very limited basis (like Academy Award winners). Our patrons quickly showed us their interests by borrowing such films in record numbers from our resource-sharing partners—especially the Arapahoe Library System, Englewood. As a result, we now purchase more feature films and in greater quantity.

The popularity of Prospector+ and Interstate continues to grow. We have always recognized that we need to look beyond our physical presence. No library budget or building is big enough to house everything that Jefferson County residents need. Traditional interlibrary loan was the first step. Prospector+ and Interstate have taken this concept to a new level. We look forward to seeing what comes next.