© 2003- Luke Griffin & Aric Ahrens Deposits & Withdrawals A Survey of Depository Libraries That Have Recently Changed Status Aric Ahrens Illinois Institute

© 2003- Luke Griffin & Aric Ahrens

Deposits & Withdrawals A Survey of Depository Libraries That Have Recently Changed Status

Aric Ahrens Illinois Institute of Technology

Luke Griffin Jacksonville State University


Number of Depository Libraries 1895-2002

300

500

700

900

1100

1300

1500

1895

1898

1901

1904

1907

1910

1913

1916

1919

1922

1925

1928

1931

1934

1937

1940

1943

1946

1949

1952

1955

1958

1961

1964

1967

1970

1973

1976

1979

1982

1985

1988

1991

1994

1997

2000


Formative Era – FDLP Takes Shape 1895-1922


300

350

400

450

500

550

1895

1897

1899

1901

1903

1905

1907

1909

1911

1913

1915

1917

1919

1921


Selective Depository Era:1922-1962


300

350

400

450

500

550

600

650

1922

1924

1926

1928

1930

1932

1934

1936

1938

1940

1942

1944

1946

1948

1950

1952

1954

1956

1958

1960

1962


Expansion Era1962-1988


300

500

700

900

1100

1300

1500

1962

1964

1966

1968

1970

1972

1974

1976

1978

1980

1982

1984

1986

1988


Electronic Era1988-present


1240

1260

1280

1300

1320

1340

1360

1380

1400

1420

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002


1996-2002

1260

1280

1300

1320

1340

1360

1380

1400

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002


WHY?


1985 Survey of Libraries that Dropped Out of the FDLP

Quantitative Study 1985: Hernon, McClure, & Purcell32 Libraries

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%

Lack of Use

Proximity to Selective or Regional

Space Limitations

Professional Staff

Support Staff

Cost


2002 Qualitative Summary of Libraries that Dropped Out of the FDLP

Reasons for Leaving the FDLP2000-2002

37 Libraries

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

Staff or Funding

Internet

Proximity to Selective or Regional

Space

Lack of Use

Diminished Value of program.

Inability to meet GPO Standards


Surveys and Profile

Survey of FDLP libraries that have dropped out since 1996.

Survey of FDLP libraries that have joined the program since 1992.

Profile of the libraries that have dropped out.


Survey Response Rates

Drops Survey – FY 1996-2002 78 of 103 surveyed libraries responded 76% Response Rate Addressing Problems

Adds Survey – FY 1992-2002 15 of 29 surveyed libraries responded 52% Response Rate


Why are Depositories Dropping or Adding?

Survey Results – 1 to 5 Scale Rating of reasons for leaving FDLP Ranking of importance of different costs on

decision to leave FDLP Rating of reasons for joining FDLP Rating of satisfaction level with FDLP


Rating of Importance of Factors on Decisionto Leave the FDLP

0 1 2 3 4 5

Regional Close by

Selective Close by

Cost

Internet

Average Rating of Importance


Average Ranking of Importance of Costs

0 1 2 3 4 5

Preservation

Technology

Storage

Maintenance

Staffing

Average Ranking of Importance


Rating of Importance of Different Factors on Decision to Add Depository Status

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4

Resources Vital

Status

ElectronicResources

No NearbyDepositories

Rea

son

Rating on a 1 to 5 Scale


Level of Satsifaction with FDLP - Libraries Adding Depositories FY 1992-2002

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

Dissatisfied - Level One

Level Two

Neutral - Level Three

Level Four

Extremely Satisfied - Level Five

Sat

isfa

ctio

n Le

vel

Number of Libraries Responding


Retain Depository Status in the Future?

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

Yes

No

Don't Know

Ans

wer

Number of Libraries Responding


What Factors do Dropping Libraries Have in Common?

Selection Rate Low Selection Rate – More Often

Collection Size Small Collection – More Often

Designation Date Post 1961 Designation – More Often

Library Type Public More Often, Law Less Often


Factor #1: Selection Rate

A Selection Rate of Under 20% corresponds to a Higher Drop Rate


Libraries by Selection Percentages: Universe and Drops (except Law)

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

0-9% SelectionRate

10-19% SelectionRate

20-29% SelectionRate

30%+ SelectionRate

Selection Percentage

Num

ber

of L

ibra

ries

0

5

10

15

20

25

30


Factor #2: Collection Size

A Collection Size of fewer than 1,000,000 volumes corresponds to a higher Drop Rate


Libraries by Collection Size: Universe and Drops (except Law)

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

Under100K

100K-250K

250K-500K

500K-1M 1M-5M 5M-10M 10M+

Collection Size in Volumes

Num

ber

of D

epos

itori

es

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16


Factor #3: Designation Year

A Designation Year of 1962 or later corresponds to a Higher Drop Rate Law changes in 1962


Libraries by Designation Date: Universe and Drops

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

Pre 1962 Post 1961

Designation Period

Num

ber

of L

ibra

ries

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40


Factor #4: Library Type

Public Libraries have a higher Drop Rate Law Libraries have a lower Drop Rate

Consistently meet other 3 Factors, yet do not drop much


Libraries by Type: Universe and Drops

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

Academic CourtLibrary

FederalAgency

LawSchool

StateLibrary

PublicLibrary

Other

Library Type

Num

ber

of L

ibra

ries

02468101214161820


Law Libraries - Theory

Have low selection percentages, small collections, and recent designation dates; yet they don’t drop often

Focused collections mean that small collections are normal, and low selection percentages can address their needs

Exceptions to the formula


Public Libraries - Theory

Up to eight areas of focus identified in texts when discussing Public Libraries’ Missions. Government Documents extremely relevant in only

2 of 8 areas

Lower selection rate among Public Libraries: May be a normal result of limited need May be necessary result of distribution of

resources due to broader mission

Difficult to determine without focused survey


Public Libraries

355 Non-Law Libraries do not meet criteria of either less than 20% Selection Rate or less than 1 Million Volume Collection size

The 1 and only drop from this group happened to be a Public Library

Not statistically significant Not a major factor when viewed alone


Post 1961 Designation Dates - Theory Law changes in 1962

Major increase in open slots Less difficult to join FDLP

Pre 1962 Depositories had to fight for admission Post 1961 Depositories, by comparison, had much

easier time Post 1961 Libraries

Lower Selection Rates than Pre 1962 Libraries Smaller Collections than Pre 1962 Libraries Difficult to establish independence from these

variables


Post 1961 Designation Dates

355 Non-Law Libraries do not meet criteria of either less than 20% Selection Rate or less than 1 Million Volume Collection size

No libraries from this group who dropped were designated after 1961

Not a major factor when viewed alone


Factor Summary

Exclusionary Factor: Library Type Law Libraries

Primary Factor #1: Selection Rate Less than 20%

Primary Factor #2: Collection Size Less than 1 Million volumes

Secondary Factor #1: Library Type Public Libraries

Secondary Factory #2: Designation Date Post 1961


Primary Factors

Selection Rate and Collection Size Nearly Universal Application Factors under control of Library to some

degree Exclude Law Libraries

Formula doesn’t work; they don’t drop often


Secondary Factors

Designation Date: Post 1961 Not significant by itself May increase likelihood of dropping, but

only when combined with Primary Factors Library Type: Public Library

Not significant by itself May increase likelihood of dropping, but

only when combined with Primary Factors


Combining the Primary Factors

Venn Diagrams Selection Rate Under 20% Collection Size under 1M Volumes Meet both criteria Meet neither criteria Law Libraries Excluded









37 High Risk Libraries

27 Responded to our Survey Average importance of Internet

availability was 4.19 on a 5 Scale Compared to an average of 4.05 on a 5

scale for all libraries surveyed Internet availability had a bigger impact

on decision to drop of High Risk Libraries


Overall Picture

Small libraries dropping faster Low Selection Rates, Small Collection

Dropping libraries cite Internet Major factor in decision to drop

Internet satisfying small libraries’ needs Depository status becoming less appealing

Libraries Joining FDLP Cite high level of satisfaction with FDLP Statistically resemble those leaving FDLP