Duplicates Exchange Union: An Update
Priscilla C. Yu
As budget curtailment continues to affect li- braries throughout the country, exchange programs between libraries still serve an important function in procuring materials that are difficult to purchase or to locate. The exchange of duplicates is one form of exchange in which various types of libraries or- ganize cooperatively. The exchange of duplicates can be an economical way of seeing that materials not needed in a particular library find a home in another collection. Libraries that are members of a cooperative program can replace issues or find books that have gone out of print, for only the cost of postage. This exchange activity is particularly helpful to small public and college libraries. Through the exchange of duplicates, these libraries can main- tain their current subscription holdings or replace missing journal titles while building their books and serials collection.
The following is an examination of one national exchange group, the Duplicates Exchange Union (DEU) of the American Library Association's Re- sources and Technical Services Division (RTSD). The DEU was originally under the Serials Section of the RTSD, but it became a divisional-level committee in 1981.1 The function of the DEU committee is to facilitate the exchange of duplicate library ma- terials among institutions participating in the pro- gram.
The Duplicates Exchange Union has 458 mem- bers. Most of the member libraries are in the United States. 2 Over the past four decades the member- ship has increased six times, an average annual in- crease of 15 percent.
The DEU is an association of libraries that co- ..| i i i , i | l ! i |
Yu is Assistant Professor of Library Administra- tion at the University of Illinois Library at Urbana- Champaign. She served as the Chair of the Duplicates Exchange Union Committee of the American Library Association from 1983 through 1985.
operate in the exchange of usable library materials. Although the members are primarily small college and public libraries, the DEU aims to help all li- braries find a place for their duplicates or unwanted materials. No membership fee is required, nor is there any charge for exchanging an item. The only cost involved is the refunding of postage for the materials received from another library.
Twice a year,November and May, a new member- ship list is sent by the RTSD office to each member library. The members use this list as a mailing list to send their list of exchange materials. The list serves member libraries as an important tool in locating needed items.
This paper is divided into four parts. The first part will examine the history of the DEU's develop- ment, and will compare the DEU's past and present functions. Next, the current geographic distribu- tion of DEU libraries will be compared with their distribution ten years ago. This will enable us to see the growth and decline of member libraries in the various regions of the United States. Third, this paper looks at a sampling the author made of li- braries participating in the DEU today, in order to ascertain what types of libraries are likely to be members and how large their current serials collec- tions are likely to be. Since the exchange of serials is the main activity of DEU, only current serials subscriptions are examined here. Fourth, this paper will examine the comments and suggestions that the DEU committee offered in two letters sent to mem- bers in May 1984 and March 1985, respectively. Finally, the author will reflect upon the role and functions of the DEU and present a prognosis for DEU.
GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT
The Duplicates Exchange Union began operating
SERIALS REVIEW FALL 1985 59
TABLE 1 : Geographic Distribution of DEU Membership, 1984
REGION NUMBER PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL MEMBERS
PERCENTAGECHANGE ASCOMPARED TO1975
East North Central (Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, and Wisconsin)
93 20.3 +45.3
South Atlantic (Florida, Georgia, Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia, West Virginia, and Washington, DC)
78 17 +39.3
Middle Atlantic (Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and New York)
67 14.6 +21.8
West South Central (Arkansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma and Texas)
57 12.4 +78.1
West North Central (Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, and South Dakota)
56 12.2 -5.1
East South Central (Alabama, Kentucky, Mississippi, and Tennessee)
37 8:1 +15.6
Pacific (California, Hawaii, Oregon and Washington)
31 6.8 -31.1
Northeast (Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island and Vermont)
21 4.6 +16.7
Mountain (Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, New Mexico and Utah)
18 4 Unchanged
TOTAL 458 1 00
SOURCE: Membership List, Duplicates Exchange Union, Resources and Technical Services Division, American Library Association, May 1984.
60 SERIALS REVIEW FALL 1985
over 40 years ago, in 1940. At that time it was known as the l~eriodicals Exchange Union. It was organized by Neil Van Deusen, who was then a librarian at Fisk University in Nashville. At that time there were only 64 members in the union. After a year under Van Deusen's direction, the Periodicals Exchange Union came under the management of the Associa- tion of College and Reference Libraries (now the Association of College and Research Libraries). The original plan was to exchange periodicals solely on a piece-by-piece basis. Mr. Van Deusen devised a system in which a routing sheet would list the libraries in order according to their expenditure on periodicals, beginning with the one with the largest expenditure. Each member was to have a copy of the routing sheet. A member was to attach its dup- licates exchange list to this sheet, and send it to the first library on the routing list. After selecting the materials, the first library then sent the routing sheet and exchange list to the next library on the sheet. Complaints were made that some libraries were hold- ing on to the routing sheets too long and that libraries with the largest budgets had priority in procuring the requested item. In 1942 an alternative plan was suggested: to have members send their list to other members simultaneously, allowing a period of ap- proximately one month for checking and then filling orders in accordance to the routing sheets. Neither the original nor the alternative plan worked well. 3
In 1944 major changes occurred in the organiza- tion and in the procedures of the program, as a result of a questionnaire sent to all members. The following were among the changes made: first, the name of the organization was to be changed, to Duplicates Exchange Union, and the organization was to include not just periodicals, but also books and documents. Second, exchange lists were to be sent to all members simultaneously, and filled in order of receipt. Third, the routing slip was to be discontinued and re- placed by a membership listing. Fourth, each library could choose whether to issue lists of its wants. Fifth, members should attempt to send out at least two duplicate lists a year. 4 These changes marked a turning point in the history of the DEU: many of the procedures adopted in 1944 are still being used today. By October 1944, the membership had in- creased to 76 (an increase of 19 percent), s
Let us consider some of the changes made in the DEU's activities and regulations between 1944 and 1984. First, though periodicals are still the main type of material being exchanged, books, documents, microforms, and audio-visual sources are also ex- changed. Second, in the past a member library could choose whether or not to include "want" lists; now "want" lists are not to be sent to DEU libraries. Third, whereas in the past two duplicate lists were required to be sent each year, DEU members are
currently required to distribute at least one duplicate exchange list per year to maintain membership. Fourth, the number of foreign libraries included in the membership listing has increased. Member li- braries come from such diverse countries as Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Colombia, India, Israel, Jamaica, Malaysia, Mexico, and Spain. Possessions of the United States are also included in the listing: Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands. 6 (Since there are sometimes difficulties in the mailings and hand- ling arrangements, members have the options of sending, or not sending, lists to libraries outside the United States.) With the tremendous growth in membership and the high cost of mailing, the union now requests that all packages sent within the United States be sent at library postal rate.
DEU members currently are to be found in every state in the nation except Alaska, Delaware, Nevada, and Wyoming. By looking at Tables 1 and 2, we can compare the present geographic distribution of members to their distribution approximately ten years ago. Table 1 (which gives the 1984 geographic distribution of member libraries) shows that the greatest concentration of member libraries (238 members, or 52 percent) is in the East North Central, South Atlantic, and Middle Atlantic areas.
TABLE 2: Geographic Distribution of DEU Membership, 1975
REGION NUMBER PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL MEMBERS
East North Central 64 16.9
West North Central 59 15.7
South Atlantic 56 14.8
Middle Atlantic 55 14.5
Pacific 45 11.9
West South Central 32 8.4
East South Central 32 8.4
Mountain 18 4.7
Northeast 18 4.7 i l l
TOTAL 379 100
SOURCE: Adapted from Richard Eggleton, "The ALA Duplicates Exchange Union-A Study and Eval- uation," Library Resources and Technical Services 19 (Spring 1975): 150.
SERIALS REVIEW FALL 1985 61
In 1975 (see Table 2), the heaviest concentration of members was also in the East North Central, South Atlantic, and Middle Atlantic areas. The greatest gain in union members has been made in the West South Central State region, where there has been a 78.1 percent increase since 1975. The most notable change in membership distribution has taken place in the West North Central and Pacific re- gions, where membership decreased by 5.1 percent and 31 percent, respectively. Interestingly, the percent- age of members in the mountain statesremainsthe same.
SYSTEMATIC SAMPLING
To get some idea of the types o f libraries that participated in the DEU, as well as to gain a percep- tion of the size of current serials holdings, the author did a systematic sampling of ten percent of the libraries in the union. The first library was randomly selected; thereafter, every tenth library was chosen. As there are 458 libraries in the union, the author came up with 46 libraries in the sample. Of the libraries sampled, the majority (70 percent) were college libraries (see Table 3). Academic li-
TABLE 3: Types of Libraries from Systematic Sampling
Four Year College 32
Medical College 1
Religious College 1
Junior College 7
Public 3
Special 2
TOTAL 46
SOURCE: American Library Directory. 37th ed. 2v. Ed. by Jacques Cattell Press. New York: R. R. Bowker Company, 1984.
braries benefit greatly from these exchanges. It is apparent that the union has enabled more college libraries to expand their collection, since it has been a place where books and periodicals can be procured and out-of-print books sought.
Serials form an important part of most libraries' collections. It is vital to complete holdings of current sources, not only in a college library but also in public and special libraries. DEU, therefore, serves
an important function in helping libraries fill in gaps and make replacements. Libraries can even continue the run of a journal whose subscription was cancelled. As Table 4 indicates, 34.8 percent
TABLE 4: Profile of Serial Subscriptions of Sampled Libraries
i r r i i I u l |
Current Serials Number of Percent Subscriptions Libraries
100-600 15 32.6
601-1,000 13 28.3
1,001 -6,000 16 34.8
Over 6,000 2 4.3
i m 1
TOTAL 46 100
SOURCE: American Library Directory. 37th ed. 2v. Ed. by Jacques Cattell Press. New York: R.R. Bowker Company, 1984.
(or approximately one third of the sampled DEU members) received between 1,001 and 6,000 serial subscriptions. The size of the serials collection among members libraries has allowed for greater exchange and range of selectivity.
CONCERNSOFTHE MEMBERS
In May 1984 a letter was sent to all DEU mem- bers, asking for comments and suggestions on several concerns:
1. Should refund postage limit be raised to $1.007 2. Should DEU members have the option to
limit the mailing of exchange lists? 3. How should the lists be produced and mailed? The letter generated replies from 30 libraries. 7
Responses to the question of whether the refund post- age should be raised from $.50 to $1.00 were evenly divided. Half of the respondents felt that a reimburse- ment of $.50, though small, was satisfactory. These respondents felt that many exchange departments were on a shoestring budget and depended on re- imbursem*nts to keep the materials moving. Even a small repayment produced enough income to allow refunds to other libraries without incurring excessive expenses to the postage budget.
Half of the other respondents felt that the post- age refund should be raised to $1.00. These members felt that the time and expense involved in reimbursing the postage charges between $.50 and $1.00 were
62 SERIALS REVIEW FALL 1985
not worth the effort. Many libraries were of the opinion °that few shipments were under a dollar. Some libraries felt it was not worth the time and effort to pay $.20 (which was then the cost of a stamp) for a $.59 refund.
As Chair of the Duplicates Exchange Union for 1984 and 1985, it was extremely difficult for me to decide whether to increase the postage cost, as this might incur undue hardship on the small libraries. Several factors led to the final decision to raise the postage reimbursem*nt level to $1.00. Letters con- tinued to come in complaining of overdue postage refunds. The majority of the overdue refunds re- ported were in excess of $1.00. Another important factor that influenced the change was the increase in postage costs early in 1985. (Looking back, post- age rates have been rising steadily over the past few years and will certainly continue to escalate.)
DEU members also expressed their views on related economic issues. The most pressing problem was that members were neglecting to reimburse mailing fees, despite reminders. This was particularly frustrating when one was aware that the Duplicates Exchange Union provided an inexpensive service to ensure that materials be appropriately placed in a library that needed the materials. (There was no membership fee to join the union: the only cost involved was the refunding of postage for the materials received from another library.)
One proposed solution was to send libraries that continued to ignore reminders of overdue postage reimbursem*nt a final notice from the DEU Com- mittee, and to declare the offenders ineligible to maintain membership in the union if this notice was disregarded. This suggestion met with general approval.
A proposal that members should have the option of limiting the mailing of exchange lists was opposed almost unanimously. The basic aim of the DEU is to allow every library an equal opportunity to choose and receive items. If selective discrimination were permitted, not only would many of the smaller libraries be left out, but membership in the union would eventually be fragmented. This certainly would weaken the entire cooperative purpose of the union. However, the existing DEU guidelines do not require libraries to send lists or materials to DEU mem- bers outside the United States. Many respondents who recalled past mailing difficulties supported this policy. (One such difficulty is due to the fact that the governments of some Third World countries do not allow libraries to repay postage costs. A library sending materials to libraries in these countries must therefore absorb the cost of postage, or write first to make sure that the other library understands the shipping and postal arrangements.)
The last question, which requested suggestions for producing and mailing the lists, generated a
variety of responses regarding exorbitant postage rates incurred by members in mailing packages and exchange lists. Many libraries mailed their lists by first class mail, rather than by bulk mail. Exchange packages were also mailed first class, rather that at library rate. The libraries agreed that the most economical way to mail the list was through third class bulk mail, in zip code order. Those libraries fortunate enough to have a computer to produce labels in zip code order found this method cost- effective and time-saving. Libraries that did not have computers commonly photocopied the addresses, cut up the copies to make labels, and then taped the labels to the lists. Some respondents suggested that the mutilated and "junk" materials be eliminated from exchange lists and that certain other useful materials be included. Several libraries have reduced the print size of their exchange lists; this in turn has reduced printing and collating costs. To further cut costs, libraries hired student help or volunteers to type the list. The list then was duplicated through a standard mimeographer or photocopy machine.
The responses to these three questions also produced positive, enthusiastic comments regarding the DEU. One respondent wrote, "Not only have we saved thousands of dollars in the last two years, we often receive items through DEU which no commercial supplier can come up with. ''8 The following reply from Purdue University indicates the importance of the service the DEU provides to medium-sized academic libraries: "Many journat issues that are needed for our collection we cannot financially afford to purchase from dealers and also, gift donors like knowing that if we do not need the journals then they may be utilized by another li- brary. ''9 Other favorable comments were, "On the whole we have found the exchange system highly satisfactory as a means of acquiring necessary back- files and for the disposition of unwanted issues in a manner which insures their use . . . . -10 "I 'm glad to be a member of the DEU. I've been able to fill quite a few gaps in our collection through the Dup- licates Exchange program:" n
Another letter was addressed to the DEU members in March 1985; the letter added a few more reminders regarding standard procedures and informed the members of the new postage refund fee. Members were encouraged to write and express further con- cerns. Amofig the responses to this letter were sugges- tions that requests be filled according to the date due or in a timely manner, not nine months after their receipt; that libraries always return the exchange list with the requests circled in red, to- gether with the order; and that only requested items should be sent. (For example, if one issue of a journal was requested, only that issue should be sent, as it is expensive to pay postage for unrequested journals.)
SERIALS REVIEW FALL 1985 63
CONCLUSION 6. Membership List, Duplica,~es Exchange Union.
Duplicate exchange programs have become a vital resource for many types of libraries, both large and small. Libraries cannot afford to buy all the journals and books they need. The Duplicates Exchange Union of the American Library Associ- ation's Resources and Technical Services Division continues to grow and to attract different types of libraries. DEU libraries now have more choices and can be more selective as they expand their collec- tions. To further extend and improve its geographic distribution, the Duplicates Exchange Union might consider recruiting more libraries in the Pacific and "Mountain" regions.
As a possible solution to the concerns mentioned in the study, the author suggests that an international data network be established in the not-too-distant future. Through his network, members could input and update their exchange lists. Records could be kept of postage fees and of where, when, and to whom materials were sent. In this way, records and payments could be filed and easily monitored. Since the exchange of serials is the primary activity of the Duplicates Exchange Union, perhaps the union should concentrate its networking efforts in this area. Perhaps a computerized network of a Serials Duplicates Exchange Union will be the wave of the future.
NOTES
1. Based upon Membership List, Duplicates Ex- change Union, Resources and Technical Services Division, American Library Association, May 1984. Mimeograph. No pagination.
2. R TSD (Resources and Technical Services Di- vision) Progress Report, 6 January 1981.
3. Donald E. Thompson, "Duplicate Exchange Union." College and Research Libraries 6 (March 1945): 158-159.
4. Richard Eggleton, "The ALA Duplicates Exchange Union-A Study and Evaluation, Library Resources and Technical Services 19, (Spring 1975): 149.
5. Thompson, "Duplicate Exchange Union," 160.
7. Respondents included: Alexander City State Junior College Library, Alexander City, Alabama; Augusta College Library, Augusta, Georgia; Barry College Library, Miami, Florida; Beaver College Library, Glenside, Pennsylvania; Bennett College Library, Greensboro, North Carolina; Brunswick Junior College Library, Brunswick, Georgia; Erskine College Library, Due West, South Carolina; Louisiana State University in Shreveport Library, Shreveport, Louisiana; Midwestern State University Library, Wichita Falls, Texas; Mishawaka-Penn Public Library, Mishawaka, Indiana; Mississippi State University Library, Mississippi State, Mississippi; Mount Mercy College Library, Cedar Rapids, Iowa; Newport College Library, Newport, Rhode Island; North Country Reference and Resource Council Library, Canton, New York; North Park College Library, Chicago, Illinois; Ohio State University Library, Newark, Ohio; Purdue University Libraries, West Lafayette, Indiana; St. Bonaventure University Library, St. Bonaventure, New York; St. Clair County Community College Library, Port Huron, Michigan; St. Mark's Evangelical Lutheran Church Library, Clarksburg, West Virginia; St. Mary-of-the-Woods College Library, Saint Mary-of-the-Woods, Indiana; St. Meinrad Library, St. Meinrad, Indiana; South- western Adventist College Library, Keene, Texas; Working Collection, Department of Oceanography, Texas A & M University, College Station, Texas; Trinity Western College Library, Nooksack, Wash- ington; University of Science and Arts of Oklahoma Library, Chickasha, Oklahoma; University of South Carolina Library, Allendale, South Carolina; Walsh College Library, Canton, Ohio; Wayne State College Library, Wayne, Nebraska; Wells College Library, Aurora, New York.
8. Letter of Dan Suvak, Walsh College Library, 4 June 1984.
9. Letter of Kathryn L. Garner, Purdue University Libraries, 8 June 1984.
10. Letter of Judith A. Gifford, Newport College Library, 18 June 1984.
11. Letter of Dodie Guffy, Working Collection, Department of Oceanography, Texas A & M Uni- versity, 13 June 1984.
64 SERIALS REVIEW FALL 1985
