This is a message from CTLS-L. Selecting "Reply" will send a message to the entire list. ---------------------------------------------------------
I sent the following to the LSA Board (which meets tomorrow) and Peggy Rudd. Bob Gaines ************* Dear Barbara and members of the LSA Board: I'm writing in response to Barbara's proposal for alternative funding sources for the TexShare databases. As some of you know, I have been a member of the TexShare Electronic Information Working Group since it was organized and before that a member of the informal advisory group for the public library databases known as the Texas State Electronic Library. I've also been helping to promote database use by public librarians since the State Library launched LINK (with telnet access!). Preserving statewide access to rich electronic resources is obviously one of our most important resource-sharing priorities. However, I would respectfully suggest that the LSA Board move cautiously as you consider Barbara's proposal. Not all Texas librarians care equally about having the databases, and I'm sure you would agree that this is not the time for us to begin fighting among ourselves over how to fund them. Even though public libraries have had some sort of shared access to databases for almost a decade, for a variety of reasons the extent of their use varies greatly. Not surprisingly, that means that some public libraries - mostly the smaller ones, but even some mid-size libraries as well - do not value the databases as much as many larger libraries. The 2002 stats on access via the State Library's "TexShare Databases Custom Gateway Pages" provide a an easy way to assess the extent to which the most motivated small and mid-size public libraries are actually using the databases. Any public or academic libraries which cannot provide remote authentication for themselves can request a Custom Gateway. The gateway was provided primarily for remote access, but most libraries are also using them for their in-house access. Systems and TSLAC have been encouraging their use, and as of last November there were 102 public libraries of the 124 libraries with gateways. Because a library must request the gateway, presumably these would be the libraries most committed to using the databases. The stats that UT publishes for TSLAC are a bit awkward to find -- and the format is a bit messy -- so I've cleaned them up and posted them for you at http://www.ctls.net/Projects/CTLSstudy.htm#2002stats or you can see the actual UT page at http://stats.lib.utexas.edu/texshare/2002/prod/ Another gauge of the extent of use comes from the survey last May by Bill Moen's team at UNT: 19.1% of public libraries reported they never use the databases, and 25.7% use them only 1 or 2 times a month. While 100% of larger public libraries reported that they used the databases at least daily, only 51% of mid-size libraries and 12% of small libraries reported daily use. ("Needs Assessment Study of Texas Academic, Public, and School Media Center Libraries," section III page 1.) It is also significant that academic libraries have used the databases at a much higher rate than public libraries. In FY2002 about 81.6% of documents viewed and 79.2% of searches were in academic libraries (to arrive at those percentages from the report on the TexShare website, I assigned all Grolier, Sanborn, and Genealogy documents to public libraries, since those vendors stats aren't reported by type of library). I know that TSLAC is exploring the possibility of raising some funding through contributions of local money from both academic and public libraries. That seems a useful way of avoiding the perception that academic libraries are piggy-backing on funds previously used primarily for public libraries. In light of current usage patterns, it seems to me important to approach carefully the choices about alternative sources of funds. We have been very successful so far in maintaining widespread support for the databases among academic and public librarians (and even garnered a bit of support from school librarians, in spite of restrictions on their access to the databases). That support could splinter if it appears that one group benefits at the expense of the other. To return to Barbara's suggestion, personally, I don't see any problem with allowing individual libraries to choose to use their direct aid grants for the databases, as that program already allows for local choice. However, a blanket commitment of the direct aid funds to databases by TSLAC might be controversial. The money Systems budget for books and other materials to check out should also be approached carefully. Here even allowing local choice might be problematic. Systems vary greatly in how they use the book money. Some, such as CTLS, have carefully crafted formulas to promote collection development and continuing education goals agreed upon by all members. In addition, our members are committed to promoting cooperation and resource sharing within the System. Some Systems also use the book money to negotiate discounts from vendors. Perhaps this could be done statewide as well, but I know that some Systems have managed to get better discounts than others, and they would need to be convinced that the State could do better. Local choice for databases might work just fine, but I suspect that at least some Systems would expect that their members might want to make that decision collectively. (Incidentally, as a database enthusiast I have to keep reminding myself that books on the shelf still matter to our users. In Catherine Park's excellent testimony to the House Appropriations Committee on Friday, she gave as an example of the importance of the databases that HCPL users made 80,000 searches in 2002. But then later she mentioned that the new branch in Rep. Hamric's district had 60,000 circulations in *one month*.) I'm glad Barbara's suggestion will be discussed, as this approach needs an airing, but I hope that the LSA Board will carefully consider all of the implications of any shift of funds. --------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, send to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Include in body: unsubscribe ctls-l For information on CTLS-L please visit: http://www.ctls.net/document/ctls-l.htm
