Depositories and Repositories: Changing Models of Library Storage in the United States

1. Depositories and Repositories: Changing Models of Library Storage inthe United States 2nd International Conference on Repository Libraries

2. Purpose-built Retrofit renovation Growth of Library Storage Facilities 2nd International Conference on Repository Libraries

3. Individual Binghamton University Case Western Reserve Cornell University Harvard University Indiana University, Bloomington LIBRARY OF CONGRESS Michigan State University Penn State University Rice University Southern Illinois University, Carbondale Stanford University University of Florida University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign (opening 2004) University of Michigan University of Pennsylvania University of Pittsburgh   University of South Carolina University of Texas Virginia Tech  West Virginia University Yale University Shared CONStor (Five Colleges of Ohio) Duke University y Johns Hopkins University Minnesota Library Access CenterNew England Regional DepositoryNortheastern Ohio Cooperative Regional Library Depository ORBIS (planning stage) PASCAL(Colorado Academic Libraries)Research Collections and Preservation Consortium (RECAP)Southeast Ohio Regional Library Depository Southwest Ohio Regional Depository Tri-Universities GroupUniversity of California Northern Regional Library FacilityUniversity of California SouthernRegional Library Facility Washington Research Library Consortium Library Storage Facilities 2nd International Conference on Repository Libraries

4. Facility Characteristics • Most new facilities use Harvard-model high-density shelving • Most Harvard-model facilities hold 1 to 2 million volumes per building module • Capacities range from about 150,000 volumes (CONStor) to over 5 million (ReCAP and SRLF) 2nd International Conference on Repository Libraries

5. Typical Depository Services • Accessioning/shelving • Cleaning and conservation • Long-term or permanent storage • Preservation/conservation • Physical item delivery • Electronic delivery • Onsite patron access (reading room) 2nd International Conference on Repository Libraries

6. Washington Research Library Consortium • 8 university libraries in Washington, DC • Shared collection and shared catalog for consortial borrowing • Volumes interfiled on shelves • Almost 1 million items stored currently • Expansion room for 2 million more 2nd International Conference on Repository Libraries

7. Minnesota Library Access Center (MLAC) • Built into caverns 84 feet underground, 600 feet long, 70 feet wide • Includes volumes from public libraries as well as academic • All items stored in MLAC are available for use by any Minnesota resident 2nd International Conference on Repository Libraries

8. New England Regional Depository • Currently 3 depositing libraries, available to 700 NELINET members • Separate collections • Volumes interfiled on shelves • Facility owned and operated by vendor 2nd International Conference on Repository Libraries

9. Research Collections and Preservation Consortium (ReCAP) • New York Public Library, Columbia University, Princeton University • Separate collections and catalogs • Shelves allocated by library and physically separate • Over 4 million volumes stored currently, total capacity about 7 million, expansion room up to 37 million volumes 2nd International Conference on Repository Libraries

10. Five College (Massachusetts) Library Depository Shared Collection (Repository) • Shared or delegated ownership • Cooperative selection and retention 2nd International Conference on Repository Libraries

11. Other “De Facto” Repositories • Five Colleges (Ohio) CONStor • PASCAL (Colorado) • Voluntary de-duplication • No duplicates allowed in storage • Original owners retain ownership of stored volumes, guarantee to make available to other members • Other members rely on that guarantee to de-accession from their own collections 2nd International Conference on Repository Libraries

12. Issues Raised by Change from Depository to Repository Ownership • Libraries still valued in part by collection size • Faculty fear loss of ownership of their particular research material • Libraries reluctant to weed campus copies to rely on repository copy 2nd International Conference on Repository Libraries

13. Issues Raised by Change from Depository to Repository Governance • Many shared facilities are based on voluntary participation • Need specific legal commitment for perpetual access to stored copy to facilitate deaccessioning local copies 2nd International Conference on Repository Libraries

14. From Depository To Repository In-process, in discussion: • University of California Libraries Shared Collection • Washington Research Library Consortium (WRLC) 2nd International Conference on Repository Libraries

15. University of California Shared Collections • “The University of California shared collection consists of information resources jointly purchased or electively contributed by the UC libraries…” • “…the [Regional Library Facilities] could and – if UC was to make good on its archival responsibilities – should have both a “storage” function and a “shared collection” function…” • UC Shared Print Archive project to store print copies of Elsevier and ACM titles 2nd International Conference on Repository Libraries

16. Other Depository to Repository Issues • Ad hoc (“coincidental”) deposits rather than selected collections • Serial runs not necessarily complete • Stored copy may not be the best copy • Deliver only electronically to preserve print copy? Or allow physical delivery and risk loss or damage? 2nd International Conference on Repository Libraries

17. From Individual Repositories to a Repository Network • Increasing reliance on digital resources increases the need for archival print copies • Existing depositories form a natural infrastructure to support an international network of print archives 2nd International Conference on Repository Libraries

18. How To Make the Transition • What is already stored? • Interdepository inventory project • Consistent mechanism for identifying stored/archived materials • What should be stored? • Identify collecting responsibilities. Categories? Specific titles? • How many copies? • What services should be provided? 2nd International Conference on Repository Libraries

19. Increasing shared management Decreasing library autonomy Increasing archival assurance Decreasing object access “Dark” No user services, emergency institutional services, planned redundancy Tertiary Service Layer: Archival Repositories “Dim” Limited user services, planned redundancy Secondary Service Layer: Regional Repositories “Bright” Full user services, access, circulation, significant redundancy Primary Service Layer: Local Libraries Distributed Collections ModelAdapted from and used with permission of Brian Schottlaender 2nd International Conference on Repository Libraries

20. Gathering Momentum in the U.S. • 1999: “A regional system of last copy depositories is needed for the twenty-first century…” Vernon Knisling • 1999: “Over the next ten years or so, … we will begin to see cooperation among different library storage facilities…The idea would be for individual storage facilities … to agree on what materials or kinds of materials would be stored at which facilities, and what access rights the affiliated libraries would have.” Lizanne Payne, keynote address, ALA LAMA Library Storage preconference • 2001: “[We need to] advocate for the development of regional repositories of artifactual collections that reduce duplication of effort, create economies of scale, and ensure that the greatest number of unique or scarce priority items are preserved and made accessible to researchers. “ Abby Smith, The Evidence in Hand • 2003: “Strengthen the network of print archives, depositories, and “libraries of record.” Action Agenda, CRL PAPR conference 2nd International Conference on Repository Libraries

21. End Note Since all library space is finite -- and it is -- a decision to remove a duplicate volume on campus and rely on a repository copy is a decision to reserve valuable space on campus for a future unique volume 2nd International Conference on Repository Libraries