ACRL News Issue (B) of College & Research Libraries 400 / C&RL News purchases. At present rates, future subscriptions to these four databases will total $8,240 per year. Based on the present cost of supplies for our Info- T rac workstations, we estim ate th a t a m axim um of $1,300 per year will be needed for paper and ink cartridges for our five new workstations. Choosing CD-ROM products for a Reference D epartm ent is a complex process. This rapidly de­ veloping technology has problems today th a t m ay be solved tom orrow . Vendors cannot answer every question and prices are subject to change. Several vendors offer dem onstration disks th a t are helpful in m aking decisions and others send sales represent­ atives to dem onstrate their products. Librarians who are w illing to try out the new technology have the opportunity to m ake a m ajor im pact on product developm ent. L ibrarians can provide inform ation on m aking the databases m ore usable; vendors can provide inform ation on ob­ taining hard w are inexpensively. This is an oppor­ tunity for entrepreneurs to package com puters es­ p ecially designed for p u b lic C D -R O M use, to design security devices to protect all w orkstation components, and to w rite m anuals for end-users. Most significantly, this is an opportunity for lib ra r­ ians to evaluate the effectiveness of CD-ROM tech­ nology in m eeting the user’s inform ation needs. ■ ■ C h argin g fo r o n lin e se a r c h serv ices in a c a d e m ic lib ra ries B y M a r g a r e t L. B r e e n G overnm ent D ocum ents Assistant Swarthm ore College Can you afford the high costs of free access? R e l a t i v e l y recent technological advances have enabled m any libraries to supplem ent their tra d i­ tional inform ation resources w ith online searching of national databases. This new service comes at great cost in terms of equipm ent, personnel, and access fees. D eterm ining how these costs are paid has sparked heated controversy on a theoretical level and little concurrence on policy and proce­ dure in actual practice. The purpose of the traditional American library is to select, preserve and organize the records of h u ­ m an achievem ent w hich collectively represent so­ ciety’s “public know ledge.”1 The library and its 1National Commission on Libraries and Infor- services are perceived as public goods: they are funded through taxes and tuition money and exist for the good of the entire society. For these reasons, it is very difficult for people, often especially lib rar­ ians, to accept the idea of charging fees to users of the new online searching services. O n the surface it seems h ard to justify creating tw o very sim ilar end- products w ith tw o different price tags: a m anually- created bibliography w hich is unquestionably free and an electronically–created bibliography w hich is rarely free and seldom ch eap . m ation Science, The Role of Fees in Supporting L i­ brary and Inform ation Services in Public and A ca­ d em ic L ibraries (W ashington, D .C .: N C L IS , April 1985). July/August 1987 / 401 Upon closer examination, it becomes clear that the costs involved with online searching are tre­ mendous. When this service was first introduced, many academic libraries were able to meet de­ mand by setting up referral services with nearby institutions. However, by the late 1970s demands from faculty forced even small academic libraries to acquire online searching capabilities.2 This meant that each library had to purchase computer equipment, set up proper telephone access lines, pay d atab a se fees and telecom m unications charges, and train personnel. The technology is al­ ways changing: systems must be updated, librari­ ans retrained. The staff will want refresher courses and retraining sessions which may only be avail­ able off-campus. Such training alone comes to an estimated $1,500 to $2,000 annually per librarian. 3 Once trained, the librarian either has to train users or perform searches for them . All of this is in addi­ tion to regular duties. To make matters more complicated, user de­ mand is projected to increase steadily over the years to come. An example of user increase exists at the University of Tennessee at Knoxville. In 1975 online services were initiated. During that year, 88 searches were performed through one vendor. By 1983,1,696 searches were done through six vendors with access to over 200 databases. The only public­ ity was word-of-mouth and bibliographic instruc­ tion. Users seem to have a high level of awareness and an interest in these new sophisticated services. Unfortunately, similar increases in overall user awareness are widespread and come at a time when fiscal limits are forcing academic libraries to reexamine services that were once considered pub­ lic goods; traditional sources of funds are simply drying up. Thus demand increases as supply de­ creases, and, for some, the only way that online services can be offered at all is with the help of user fees. Even then, some feel that the user should not be forced to fund the majority of all expenses in­ curred, but rather that the library should carry most of the financial burden for all computer- related services. R ichard D eG ennaro writes: “…those who use libraries, and those who provide their financial support must recognize and accept this new reality. The explosion in quantity, cost and communicability of information is a new phe­ nomenon which calls for new responses… The pat­ tern of expenditures will change and an increased proportion of the library budget must be increased substantially and its function expanded to include acquiring and providing access to collections of in­ formation in electronic form .”4 2David Carlson & P. Grady Morein, Online Bib­ liographic Database Searching in College Libraries (Chicago: ACRL/ALA, 1983). ’Robert J. Bassett, et ah, Report of the Study Group on Electronic Access to Information (Knox­ ville: University of Tennessee, December 1984). 4Bassett, p. 8. Nevertheless, DeG ennaro reminds us th a t a precedent for charging fees to cover the expenses of a new technology does already exist: the copying machine. When introduced in the late 1930s, copy­ ing processes were very expensive and not available as a self-service operation. It was universally agreed upon that those who use the service should pay for it: it is limited, measurable, and consum­ able and its use is optional. Fees for copying recov­ ered costs for the libraries and discouraged abuse of the service. All of the above applies as well to online searching services. The product is tailor-made for one user, and costs involved can usually be attrib­ uted directly to that user because the product is a discrete entity. In these respects, both copying and online services can be seen as markedly different from the library’s general collections in print which can be used repeatedly by many different users. In summary, a price tag may easily and justifiably be attached to online search services in most situa­ tions. DeGennaro writes: “The arguments for pay li­ braries may be made in the name of economic the­ ory, efficiency, or inevitable economic trends, but in essence it is a political idea just as the concepts of free public library service or free public education are political ideas.”5 If one considers free library service as such, then one is classifying it as an American tradition. An­ other American tradition is the idea of charging for services rendered. Why cannot these two traditions coexist? Librarians object to anything less than free information for everyone, but why shouldn’t fees be charged to those who really need a great deal of highly specialized information and are more than happy to pay for it? DeGennaro suggests that the most reasonable solution to this emotionally and politically charged controversy is rational compro­ mise with policies and procedures which are flexi­ ble and based on local needs and budgets. Fees should be low enough to be as nondiscriminatory as possible, and yet high enough to discourage misuse and to provide libraries compensation for exhaus­ tive searches done for those willing to pay for them . Here is what is occurring in practice. In 1983, Carlson and Morein conducted a survey of aca­ demic libraries and learned that of those who offer online services, 73 % charged or planned to charge fees to faculty and students. This figure is consis­ tent with the results of the 1981 American Library Association survey which found that 68 % of two- and four-year colleges and 93 % of universities sur­ veyed assessed fees. The current trend is that such fees cover direct costs incurred by online search services: connect­ time, off-line printing charges and telecommuni­ cations costs. Public funds, that is taxes and/or tui­ tion m oney, cover in d irect costs: staff tim e, ’Richard DeGennaro, “Pay Libraries and User C h arg es,” Library Journal 100 (15 F ebruary 1975):363, 366. 402 / C&RL News equipment and supplies, utilities, training, etc. In effect, then, each search is heavily subsidized by the academic institutions themselves. The ALA survey found that 60% of academic li­ braries distinguish between either two or three classes of clientele and charge fees at separate rates. Such classes run as student clientele, faculty/staff clientele, and community clientele; or as student/ faculty/staff clientele and community clientele. The percentage of institutions charging commu­ nity clientele for online search services is surpris­ ingly low: 69.7%, according to the 1984 study by the Center for Business Research of Long Island University.6 The ALA survey offers an explanation: in many cases academic libraries offer the first ten minutes of search time free. In effect, this makes searches free for most individuals, especially com­ m unity clientele who may be pursuing simple, non-scholarly questions. The percentage of libraries charging a fee in­ creases as the length of time increases; that is, the longer a library has been offering online searching, the more likely it is to charge a fee. In 1976, the Wanger study of online search services found that 41% of educational users reported their original cost recovery goals changed: “The majority of those who changed their cost-recovery orientation had moved toward recovering some portion of the costs incurred by the online searching. For the most part these respondents began their online program using grant funds and hoped th at their grants would continue to be renewed. As the grant fund­ ing ended, they found that continuation of the ser­ vice dictated that the end-user pay for some portion of the search costs.”7 6See NCLIS, above. 7Judith W anger, Carlos C uadra, and Mary Fishburn, Impact of On-Line Retrieval Services: A Survey of Users 1974-75 (Santa Monica, Calif.: Similar financial constraints are reflected in the following findings. The Carlson and Morein study of academic libraries found that of responding li­ braries, the 35% of libraries which did not offer online searching, the three reasons given for lack of service w ere “ expense,” “ insufficient use ex­ pected,” and “lack of personnel,” with the reason “expense” being given twice as often as the other two reasons combined. Of libraries who do offer online searching, the ALA survey found that 71 % cited “level of funding available” as the reason for charging a fee. Of those not charging a fee, a mere 1 % gave the reason “philosophy of service” and 2 % cited “belief in free public library. ” These facts indicate that for all the eloquence of those arguing against fees on the basis of the tradi­ tion of free access to information in American li­ braries and for all the emotional outcry about dis­ crimination, these arguments carry little weight in the real world where bills must be paid. Online search services simply cannot exist in American ac­ ademic libraries without some costs being passed on to users. Many librarians may remain stubborn and resist fees as much as possible; however, they appear to be unavoidable. Studies cited above show that the most common reason for a library not providing online search services is lack of money. Libraries which do provide online search services seem to try to avoid imposing fees for as long a time as possible, but are usually forced to do so when initial funding for such services dries up. Once these facts are faced, it is hoped that the emotionalism will die down, and perhaps clear the way for compromise. One bright thought for the future; it is often the case that new technology be­ comes less expensive through the years. ■ ■ System Development Corp., 1976), p. 157. Academic library statistics now available A C R L University Library Statistics 1985-86 and 1986 “100 Libraries” Statistical Survey has just been published by the Association of College and Research Libraries. The 149 academic libraries responding to this survey included 81 university libraries, 42 college libraries, and 26 community and junior college li­ braries. Modeled on the survey conducted by the Association of Research Libraries on its member li­ braries, this statistical report includes 26 categories of data under four broad groupings: collections (size and growth); expenditures (library materials, binding, salaries and wages, other operating ex­ penditures); personnel (professional, nonprofes­ sional, and student assistants FTE); and interli­ brary loans (total items loaned and borrowed). This report also includes, for each institution, ten ratios comparing library operations and expendi­ tures. A C R L University Library Statistics 1985-86 and 1986 “100 Libraries” Statistical Survey (ISBN 0- 8389-7144-X) was compiled by Robert E. Moly­ neux, assistant professor at the Graduate School of Library and Information Science, University of Il­ linois. Copies may be ordered from the ALA Order D epartm ent, 50 East H uron St., Chicago, IL 60611. The 110-page paperback sells for $30 ($24 for ACRL members). ALA members receive a 10 % discount off the list price. ■ ■ You can’t ju d g e a book b y its title… … th a t’s why you n e e d th e NEW Index to Scientific Book ContentsTM! Searching m u lti-au th o red scientific b o o k s can be difficult and tim e -c o n su m in g – b ecau se th e ir title s d o n 't generally reflect individual c h a p te r c o n te n ts. But with th e Index to Scientific B ook C ontents, you g e t c h a p te r level access, sim plifying th e search process an d saving you valuable tim e! With ISBC, it's easy to p in p o in t relevant book c h a p te rs u sin g any of five acce ss po in ts: • a u th o r or e d ito r nam e • c h a p te r su b ject • bo o k su b ject • general bo o k topic • a u th o r affiliation ISBC gives you ac c e ss to all significant sin g le -au th o red bo o k s and p ro ceed in g s which are p art o f m u lti-au th o red series. And, because IS B C s coverage is m u ltidisciplinary, th e re 's no need to search individual d iscip lin e-o rien ted indexes for th e inform ation you need. A sin g le search d o es it all. For more information, call (800) 523-1850, extension 1405. From th e p u b lish e rs of Current C o n te n ts' and th e Science Citation Index". © 1987 1 2 –4 8 0 8