Does anyone have Overdrive Consortiums in their libraries and how do you count the units?

 

Original Question (9/8/11):

 

 

Diana Very (GA)

 

I am dealing with a problem of how to determine the e-books and downloadable audio books provided by Overdrive among several library systems. Each library system contributes money to buy "books" and then all the books are available to patrons in the entire consortium. If a library leaves the consortium, the books that library has purchased will be taken from the collection for everyone. My idea is to determine the total amount of books and the total amount of funds. Calculate the percentage of the amount paid by each library and multiply that by the total amount of books, giving the number of books purchased by each library system in the consortium.

What do you do in your state? And, do you think my idea would work?
Would appreciate a quick response, since the survey is out now.

 

---

 

SDC Comments:

 

Edie Huffman (IN)

 

I have several consortia which are doing that, so I’m glad to see your suggestion. Sounds ok to me. Of course, you’ll want to deal in whole books, no fractions?  

 

---

 

Ann Reed (OR)

 

We have such a consortium. Here’s how we deal with it –

 

Collection counts are what the patron had available to them when they walk into a particular library (say, Salem Public) on June 30. If several libraries pool funds, and have persistent “ownership” of resources, and choose what they get, then each member of the consortium counts them all. Yes, it makes gibberish of a state total, but the purpose of the data is library advocacy and funding, which for the vast majority of libraries happens at the local level.

 

If a member leaves the consortium, I’d maintain that the count would be what they still have licensed access to.

 

I say forget state and national totals on this one and be true to the grass roots nature of the data.

 

---

 

Diana Very (GA)

 

Thanks, Ann. Never thought of that perspective. My eye always follows the money.

 

---

 

Laura Stone (AZ)

 

The loyal opposition reporting in here.

 

I am in favor of counting the entire collection for each library. My reasoning is two fold: 1) this is the count that patrons of that library have access to; and 2) trying to get all the libraries in a consortium to divide and report accurately based on a percentage would be next to impossible.

 

Just saw Ann’s comment, and it expresses my concern much better; in terms of money – the budget figures reflect those collection expenses.

 

---

 

Edie Huffman (IN)

 

Amen, Ann!

 

---

 

Genny Carter (TN)

 

We have an Overdrive consortia of sorts - the Regional Ebook and Audiobook System (R.E.A.D.S.) provided by the state to the 173 libraries in our regional system (out of 187 total AEs). The local libraries don't pay for it. I've been asking about how to count the items in the Overdrive collection (over 27,000 this year, 17,000+ last year) since 2008, but I don't think we've gotten a handle on this kind of state/consortial purchase of downloadables yet. I remember - and am swayed by - Ann's comments about patron access from my second SDC conference - the first time I asked about this issue. When counted as part of the collection of the 173 libraries with access, the 17,000+ items in READS became more than 3,000,000 items last year. This year, it will add 4.7 million. :/   There is some genuine ambivalence among our librarians and our regional staff about how to count this collection. Some want the additional collection numbers, but some feel that it artificially inflates their collection numbers, so that they have a hard time convincing the powers-that-be that they need any/additional funding for materials.

 

Thus far, we've been counting them as "Other" materials - for each library in the system, because their patrons have access to the entire collection. We also keep two separate collection totals - one with R.E.A.D.S., one without. The libraries seem to want both numbers. However, we're very aware that those 17,000 (or 27,000 this year) items shouldn't add up to millions in our total collection numbers.

 

We've talked about dividing the number of titles among the libraries who actually use READS - perhaps based on past READS circulation, perhaps by some other measure like service population. We've talked about counting it as a database (and get major objections on that).  [Note: our statewide electronic library also gets counted multiple times - 55 databases provided by the state. The multiplication of that number is nowhere near as dramatic as the multiplication of the ever-growing READS ebook/audiobook collection.]

 

In the past, part of our justification for not counting the items as part of libraries' ebook/audiobook collections was that the titles were not in their OPACs/catalogs, but rather accessed through the Overdrive site, so they didn't meet the federal definition. Now, we've purchased the MARC records, and the libraries *can* put them in their OPACS - or not. Only a few have, so far. It's their choice... and it's a nightmare to even contemplate dealing with the same collection in some OPACs, not in others... so we continue to count these as "Other" materials for the libraries.  And provide two total collection numbers.

 

There is also the issue that our R.E.A.D.S. administrator says that she can't provide a breakdown of how many of that 27,000+ are ebooks and how many are audiobooks. I would think that Overdrive could provide that, but since we're not slotting them into the ebook and audiobook categories at the present time, I haven't pressed her.

 

And now I have libraries asking me about Tumblebooks, etc...

 

After the Kansas lawsuit against Overdrive about ownership of the content (and ours with Overdrive seems to be more of a lease, I'd say), I do wonder anew - or rather, constantly, since this is the bane of my statistical survey work - about how we count these collections. If we cancel our Overdrive contract, or change vendors, it's highly likely that we'll lose all of those titles.

 

This year, they'll remain as "Other" materials - with the two separate collection totals at the state end.  Whew.

 

---

 

Edie Huffman (IN)

 

So, I change my answer, It is what is available when you walk into the door of that library, as with books or any physical item. Oh, it gets to be a tangled web!!! 

 

---

 

Tom Newman (CT)

 

I’m all in favor of having this “count the entire collection for each library” idea for shared e-content. It is certainly great for advocacy and a lot easier to compile! The question, however, is whether that is the statistic the national survey is trying to measure or just another number each of our states should keep track of for our libraries. Are state and national statistics important here? If not, why make it a question that we need to report on nationally? If it IS important, then we will all have to agree on some standard way of dealing with shared electronic collections. Diana’s suggestion is actually pretty clever, but I doubt we could all do it, especially as the e-content world gets more complicated with libraries owning a mixture of shared, individually-owned, and free collections. I don’t have an answer to what to do next, but I do think we have to decide together what data elements 451, 453, 455 are really trying to measure when libraries participate in shared collections.

 

---

 

Diana Very (GA)

 

Thanks. I'll need to look at this again from another point of view.

---

 

Diana Very (GA)

 

Thanks for the feedback, Tom

 

---

 

Edie Huffman (IN)

 

We really have to go back to the definitions. http://plsc.pbworks.com/w/page/30726475/453%20Audio-Downloadable%20Titles

Look at pages 49-50 of the WebPlus User’s Guide.

 

---

 

Diana Very (GA)

 

Got'cha. Can't these people think about counting them before they invent them? Whew!!

 

---

 

John DeBacher (WI)

 

Such a tangled web we weave…and get snared in.

 

With Overdrive’s Advantage program, in Wisconsin we could end up with a 3-tiered system. We are expanding a statewide buying pool, coordinated by our regional cooperative systems, who will put up $700,000 to which the state will match $300,000 (pending LSTA funding—insert required IMLS acknowledgement here). Overdrive is in turn marketing regional Advantage plans to those 17 systems (to buy additional copies of what is already in the state pool) as well as Advantage plans to individual libraries. I don’t know what we’ll be counting.

 

The definition includes “Report only items the library has selected as part of the collection and made accessible through the library’s Online Public Access Catalog (OPAC) or through a physical library catalog” (underscore mine). We talked last year about the antiquated absurdity of tying the “collection” to the OPAC, since in nearly all cases the checkout, “shelf status” and circulation is conducted outside of the integrated library system.

 

In Wisconsin we may start collecting stats on virtual materials similar to what we are doing for databases—we may distinguish those “materials” that the library selects, distinct from what is available to them through a regional consortium, and distinct from what is available as part of the statewide collection. That way we can calculate the “total” required for the federal collection but also determine how much duplication of materials there is and how many unique “volumes” are purchased by individual libraries. Of course, that model doesn’t work either for “always available” collections or virtual materials that are not “checked out” individually.

 

The thing I don’t like with the current method (counting the total available to the patron at the library) is that the same limited number of Overdrive “copies” are “available” statewide--and the current demand for e-materials has far outstripped the availability. Also, we now have nearly all public libraries participating in 17 large, regional shared integrated library automation systems, with regional and statewide delivery. Applying the same logic, I should allow the library to count all the materials in their regional cooperative as being available to their patron, since it is immaterial to the borrower, when doing a search, where the item comes from. They search from home, place a hold, and they get an email when it is waiting for them at the library.

 

To me, a library collection should include what the library selects, obtains, holds, and has available itself for use. Call me old-fashioned.

 

---

 

Bruce Pomerantz (MN)

 

Counting Consortium Download Collection

 

I have attached an example of how Minnesota reports on holdings when member libraries have access to downloadable materials licensed by a consortium.

 

As we SDCs agreed, the member libraries individually report the identical total items available to their users through the consortium. (For accuracy, I ask the consortium for the number and preload the data element. I learned the hard way that consortiums informing their members what to enter did not guarantee that everyone entered the identical number.) The member libraries also report what they have separately licensed. Table 1 in the Word file provides this information for one consortium.  

 

Table 2 in the Word file provides a summary of what each consortium has licensed for its members and the total materials licensed by their members separately.

 

The individual library report (the PDF file) indicates what is available to their users regardless of what agency licensed the material. The individual library report separates the materials collection into state-licensed, consortium-licensed, and library-licensed (page 5) and the expenditure section indicates the amount it spent for what it licensed. (Page 11) .

 

I hope this informs the public how it is possible for their library to have a large number of downloadable materials at a very modest expense.