Close this search box.
Close this search box.

APPENDIX 1: Capacities/Occupancies of Repository Storage Facilities

Most of the figures in Appendices 1 through 4 are estimates provided by the contact staff at the repositories surveyed between September and December 2002. The others are taken from the Associated Research Libraries annual academic libraries statistics for 2001. The figures are included to provide a general sense of the scale of repository efforts and, while statistically correct, they do not in all cases represent definitive reports of the repositories or their participating libraries.

Appendix 1. Capacities / Occupancies of Repository Storage Facilities
Repository Total Library Collection (volumes) Capacity (volumes) Current Count (volumes) Expandable to Percentage of Space Currently Occupied
Five Colleges 0.102M
CONStor 3.73M 0.021M
15.2M 5.45M 5.45M
Duke LSC 1.25M
ReCAP 21.8M
SWORD 5.22M 1.47M

M: million

APPENDIX 2: Types of Material Currently Housed in Repository

Appendix 2. Types of Material Currently Housed in Repository
Repository Journals Mono-graphs Manuscripts/Archives Micro-film News-papers Other Special Collections Realia Negatives LP’s, Audio-tapes Gov docs
Five Colleges
Duke LSC

APPENDIX 3: On-Site Services Provided by Repositories

Appendix 3. On-Site Services Provided by Repositories
Repository ILL/DD (outside consortium) ILL/DD (within consortium) Processing Conservation Study Facility Microfilming Digital Conversion
Five Colleges
Duke LSC

APPENDIX 4: Repository Costs and Expenditures

Appendix 4. Repository Costs and Expenditures
Repository Construction Cost (year) Cost/Volume/ann29 Operating Cost/ann FTE Staff
Five Colleges $3M (1992???2001) $1.61 $165,000
CONStor $2.38 $50,000
$27M (1987-96) $0.26 $1,200,000
$17.2M (1982-90) $0.17 $900,000
Duke LSC $7M (2000) $0.33 $414,000
ReCAP $24M (2001) $0.79 $1,700,000
SWORD $4.93M (1995-2000) $0.31 $456,000
$5M (1993) $0.39 $350,000


29The estimated annual cost per volume is based on a simple formula that divides the most recent annual operating cost of the facility, exclusive of depreciation and debt retirement, by the current number of volumes stored. This can be misleading for a number of reasons. Annual operating costs vary with the stages in the facility’s life cycle, the type of volumes loaded, and the kind and number of services provided to consortium members. This figure is provided only to give a broad sense of the range of costs of facility operation.

APPENDIX 5: Australian National Collections Storage Program

In December 2002, the federal government of Australia agreed to fund a package of national information infrastructure initiatives proposed by the Department of Education, Science and Training’s (DEST) Information Infrastructure Advisory Committee (IIAC) as part of its Research Information Infrastructure Framework for Australian Higher Education. The package included AUS$4 million to establish a collaborative storage facility to serve the nation’s universities. The facility is to be used for storage of low-use research material.

In its proposal, the committee cited the pressures of journal collection growth and the success of the CAVAL repository effort, saying:

The acquisition of digital publications provides opportunities for some print materials, especially journals, to be relegated to storage. Collaborative storage facilities have already proven their efficiency in South Australia and Victoria but further capacity is required to allow more extensive relegation and the better use of resources. (IIAC 2002, 21)

DEST will seek expressions of interest from universities and their partners for the coordination of the project over a 24-month period beginning June 2003.

The Council of Australian University Librarians supported the proposal for collaborative storage facilities not just as a source of inexpensive storage but “as a strategic means of improving the management of the national research collection and of assisting participating universities to redevelop space for other purposes such as information/learning commons.” One of the aims cited for establishing the facility was to “rationalise the library holdings, especially where digital copies are available, of university libraries.”

Under the program, all capital and initial establishment costs will be covered by the government’s Systemic Infrastructure Initiative. Ongoing operations of the facility, however, are intended to be supported by the participating institutions, which will be required to make a five-year commitment to the effort. Stakeholders will be required to agree to abide by a set of protocols, two of which are particularly reflective of Australia’s desire to integrate the storage initiative in the overall collection development and management program of the community. Those protocols are as follows:

  • implementation of collection rationalization among existing libraries and library stores; and
  • adoption of a concept of “virtual” national storage as well as physical facilities.

The latter includes abiding by stringent guidelines for cooperative collecting and nonredundancy, such as a prohibition against storing items in the national store that another institution, such as the National Library of Australia, has a mandate to acquire and make available.

APPENDIX 6: National Print Collections Planning:United Kingdom

There is a movement afoot in the United Kingdom (U.K.) to explore creation of a national repository network linking the British Library and British university libraries. This movement is encouraged by the increasing tendency between national-level library and cultural heritage thinkers to promote the sharing of the country’s knowledge resources and to think of the holdings of the various UK libraries as an “aggregate national collection.”

The Higher Education/British Library (HE/BL) Task Force was formed by the Research Support Libraries Group (RSLG) in September 1999. Its purpose is to identify areas for future collaboration between the British Library and higher education, among them collaboration on collections management and storage.30 The planners acknowledged a mutual interest in “ensuring more effective and efficient overall provision in the context of a distributed national collection of research resources.” They aimed to address a number of high-level trends in British higher education that had been identified by the 1993 Follett Report, namely, the dramatic growth in student enrollments, rapid inflation in the price of printed material, and the “added opportunities, but consequent costs, of information technology.” The report also cited the inequity among British universities with respect to their capacity to support research and attract research funding.31

It was of the opinion that, rather than dealing with the problem institution by institution, the issue needed to be addressed through strategic coordination “within and beyond the higher education system.”

One of the studies commissioned by the task force dealt with the collaborative storage of library resources. The report of the study, issued in June 2001, identified a number of obstacles that might impede the success of a national collections storage program.32 It cited a “clear lack of research into the extent of collection overlap or gap analysis in or between institutional repositories” and questioned the efficacy of a cooperative solution for storage that is not linked to rationalization of holdings among libraries participating in those facilities. Second, it cited the “the ‘personalities’ of the institutional players who retain collection size as an important performance indicator.” The report noted that the large extant repositories tended to be products of single large universities or regional consortia, and that they might not be adaptable on a national scale, for which there exist no “business models.”

The task force’s recommendations were quite general. They underscored the “necessity of building a framework for future sustainable and effective collaboration” between the British Library and the university libraries and among the latter, but left the specific programs to be pursued up to the RSLG.

The RSLG was subsequently asked to devise for the Higher Education Funding Councils and its other sponsors strategies for promoting collaboration in the development and provision of library collections, their long-term management, and services to support research, based upon the HE/BL task force findings (RSLG 2003).

The RSLG’s report, issued in January 2003, concluded that the U.K. should create a new body to lead and coordinate the provision of research information, among whose priorities for action will be “promoting and facilitating collaborative collection development for print collections efforts . . . and undertaking a cost-benefit study of collaborative retention, including ?managed disposals,’ of library print materials” (RSLG 2003, paragraphs 135-141). The RSLG endorsed “action to improve understanding of the economics of retention and disposal of rarely used printed material; and further collaborative action, based on that, to rationalize holdings where this is found to be justified.” This work is to be delegated to the newly established Research Libraries Network.

These recommendations, however tentative, suggest that the U.K. higher education and library communities will continue to explore national-level strategies on collection management and storage.


30 The Research Support Libraries Group was an ad hoc committee established in 2001 by the four U.K. higher education funding councils, the British Library, and the national libraries of Scotland and Wales to “make recommendations for a UK wide strategic framework and co-ordinated delivery mechanisms for research information provision.” Members were drawn from the senior ranks of the library profession and academic and research community. Sir Brian Follett chaired the group.

31 Joint Funding Councils’ Libraries Review Group: Report. 1993. Prepared for the Higher Education Funding Council for England, Scottish Higher Education Funding Council, Higher Education Funding Council for Wales, and Department of Education for Northern Ireland. Available at

32 The final report of the group, issued in June 2001 and entitled Report from the Higher Education/British Library Task Force to the Research Support Libraries Group, is available at

APPENDIX 7: A Collaborative Academic Library Store for Scotland (CASS)

The RSLG report refers to the efforts of U.S. libraries to develop collaborative storage and to a feasibility study for collaborative storage under way in Scotland as possible models. The Scottish effort has moved beyond the conceptual stage. In 2001, the Scottish Confederation of University and Research Libraries (SCURL) received funding from the Carnegie Trust for the Universities of Scotland to undertake a six-month study to “determine the optimal model for a collaborative storage and delivery service” for valuable but low-use research materials held in Scottish university libraries. Establishment of a collaborative storage facility for Scottish universities had been discussed since the 1960s. Key deliverables of the report included the wide dissemination of project findings in the form of a final report and a detailed business plan for a collaborative facility.

The report of the study, by Catherine M. Nicholson and Sharron Brown, was issued in June 2002.33 The authors recommended creation of a national cooperative storage facility and provided the general outline of a consortium-based business model to support it. SCURL has accepted their recommendations, although some issues still require discussion.

The repository will provide ILL and DD service by fax and through Ariel. Materials from the repository, whether or not owned by individual libraries, will be loaned to CASS members. The idea of lending to libraries outside the consortium on a fee basis was embraced as a source of possible revenue, although it was not part of the mission of CASS and therefore not a priority. The facility may also include a bindery, microfilming unit, conservation center, and joint records management facility.

The model agreed to is one of a “de-duplicated, jointly owned collection to be managed by a body representing the stakeholders.” The policies and economic model proposed are similar to those of the CAVAL model.

Governance. The facility will be owned and managed by a newly formed consortium with independent legal status and made up of participating libraries drawn from SCURL’s membership, other stakeholders, and the store manager and staff.

Economic Model. The aim is to finance the CASS by applying to the Scottish Higher Education Funding Council for start-up funding to cover capital and initial recurrent costs and to meet ongoing recurrent costs through a financial model that aims to spread the costs equitably between members, encourage maximum participation, and ensure sustainability in the light of future change. SHEFC will pay 50 percent of the set-up costs, and the participating institutions will pay the rest.

Ongoing operating costs will be paid through membership or capital “subscription” funds from participating institutions based on each institution’s proposed storage usage level. Non-capital contributors who are SCURL members will be able to add material to the collection at a per-volume rate set by the management committee. If the store holds material that the donating library is unable to cede ownership on, they may store it within the standard subscription costs if the owning institution commits to its long-term deposit.

The plan calls for incentives to promote membership, and hence long-term investment in the endeavor, and to curb redundancy among the repository collections. For instance, when a library donates a second copy, the library that is unable to cede ownership must either take the item back or pay for its continued storage at prevailing rates.

Two of the issues that remain subject to further discussion are ownership and de-duplication. Ownership of material was a politically sensitive issue; however, with the exception of Aberdeen and Glasgow Caledonian Universities, all libraries expressed a willingness to cede ownership to a jointly owned collection, subject to legal compliance, terms of bequests, and similar conditions. Joint ownership would not be possible for any archives, non-current records, or material from the National Library of Scotland.

General agreement on de-duplication was that while a single-copy model would be the most cost-effective, it might be more prudent to retain two copies. It was decided that care would have to be exercised in the first few years of operation. Any decisions in respect to last copies are to be made in consultation with the National Library of Scotland.


33 See the project documents for the Cooperative Academic Store for Scotland at

APPENDIX 8: Methodology and Sources

The survey for this study was conducted by Barbara DesRosiers and Bernard F. Reilly between October 1, 2002, and January 31, 2003. The survey authors visited the following sites:

  • ReCAP, Princeton, NJ
  • Southern Regional Library Facility, Los Angeles, CA
  • Northern Regional Library Facility, Richmond, CA
  • CONStor, Newark, OH
  • Five-College Library Depository, Amherst, MA
  • Library Service Center at Duke University, Durham, NC
  • American Antiquarian Society, Worcester, MA
  • Library of Congress, Washington, DC
  • Washington Research Library Center, Upper Marlboro, MD

Two sites were not visited, but information was compiled through phone interviews and email correspondence. These were

  • Ohio State University Book Depository, Columbus, OH
  • The Southwest Regional Depository, Middletown, OH

Barbara DesRosiers developed the survey questionnaire, which covered basic information about costs to build and operate the facility, staffing levels, environmental conditions, and types of material stored. The questions also addressed a wider range of issues, including

  • impetus for building the facility
  • criteria for selection and retention at the facility
  • policies on ownership of material
  • policies on access to material
  • resistance to the facility from users
  • technological infrastructure supporting operations at the facility
  • other uses of the facility besides storage
  • funding sources of the facility
  • governance and administration of the facility
  • history of relationships among the institutions participating in the facility
  • arrangements, agreements, and contracts among the participants
  • future plans of the facility

A modified version of the questionnaire was used for the visit to the American Antiquarian Society. This version did not include questions about relationships with other participants, but did ask about relationships with donors and contributors. It also asked about benefits to the society from their association with the National Endowment for the Humanities Newspaper Depository Program and about the role AAS might play in a national print preservation agenda and how that agenda might be funded.

One or more operations managers took part in each site visit. On-site staff decided whether other administrative or operations staff would attend. Each site visit included a tour of the shelving or storage facility. Time was also spent discussing the operations and administration of the facility. Some information included was beyond the scope of the questionnaire, especially when it had bearing on the current operation and future of the facility.

After the site visit or initial phone interview, additional phone calls were made to some of the contacts to clarify or complete information gathered during the initial contact.

The following individuals participated in the site visits or phone interviews:

American Antiquarian Society

  • Georgia Barnhill, Andrew W. Mellon Curator for Graphic Arts
  • Nancy Burkett, Marcus A. McCorison Librarian and Head of Acquisitions
  • Alan Degutis, Head of Cataloging Services
  • *Ellen Dunlap, President
  • Babette Gehnrich, Chief Conservator
  • Vince Golden, Curator of Newspapers and Periodicals
  • Ed Harris, Jr., Vice President for Administration
  • John Hench, Vice President for Collections and Programs
  • John Keenum, Vice President for Development
  • Tom Knoles, Curator of Manuscripts
  • Marie Lamoureux, Head of Readers’ Service


  • Chris Barth, Director of Information Resources, Kenyon College
  • Theresa Byrd, Director of Libraries, Ohio Wesleyan University
  • Lynn Scott “Scottie” Cochran, Director of Libraries, Denison University
  • Janet Cottrell, Director of Information Access, Kenyon College
  • *Margo Warner Curl, Coordinator of Cooperative Collection Development, CONStorColleges
  • Ray English, Director of Libraries, Oberlin College
  • Damon Hickey, Director of Libraries, The College of Wooster
  • Susan Palmer, Executive Director, Five-Colleges of Ohio
  • Michael Upfold, Library Systems Manager

Five Colleges, Inc.

  • *Will Bridegam, Director, Amherst College Library
  • David Spoolstra, Project Manager, Five-College Library -Depository

Library of Congress

  • *Nancy Davenport, Director of Acquisitions
  • Mark Roosa, Director of Preservation


  • * Thomas Wall, Director of Public Services, Duke University Library
  • David Ferriero, University Librarian, Duke University


  • *Bernie Hurley, Director of NRLF and Director of Libraries Technology, UC Berkeley
  • Karen Butter, Chair, Northern Regional Library Board
  • Scott Miller, Operations Manager, NRLF
  • Jackie Wilson, Senior Associate, California Digital Library


  • *Pat McCandless, Associate Director for Public Services


  • *Eileen Henthorne, Executive Director, ReCAP
  • William Walker, The Research Libraries, New York Public Library
  • Michael Zavelle, Vice President for Administration, New York Public Libraries


  • Claire Bellanti, Director, SRLF
  • Colleen Carlton, Operations Manager, SRLF
  • *Cecily Johns, Project Director for Collection Management, CDL
  • Cindy Shelton, Associate University Librarian for Collections and Technical Services, UCLA


  • *Sue Berry, Depository Manager

University of California

  • Daniel Greenstein, Executive Director, California Digital Library and University Librarian for System-wide Library Planning and Scholarly Information, Office of the President
  • *Gary S. Lawrence, Director, Library Planning and Policy Development, Office of the President


  • *Lizanne Payne, Executive Director

* Indicates the primary contact at each site.

Skip to content