This article was downloaded by: [The University of British Columbia]On: 30 October 2014, At: 10:17Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Access ServicesPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wjas20

Collateral Damage: Interlibrary LoanLending DenialsAndrew Leykam aa College of Staten Island , City University of New York , StatenIsland, NYPublished online: 02 Oct 2009.

To cite this article: Andrew Leykam (2009) Collateral Damage: Interlibrary Loan Lending Denials,Journal of Access Services, 6:4, 446-458

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15367960903103414

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Journal of Access Services, 6:446–458, 2009Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLCISSN: 1536-7967 print / 1536-7975 onlineDOI: 10.1080/15367960903103414

Collateral Damage: Interlibrary LoanLending Denials

ANDREW LEYKAMCollege of Staten Island, City University of New York, Staten Island, NY

The intent of this paper is to explore the potential of utilizing inter-library loan (ILL) data relating to lending denials to improve ILLservices while highlighting institutional policies that have a nega-tive impact on lending fulfillment rates. Reasons for denial as wellas the types of requests being denied are reviewed. In addition, theauthor explores lending denials on the item and transition level toestablish a frequency of denial. The author argues that frequencyof denial can be a useful tool for identifying institutional policiesthat have a negative impact on ILL lending fulfillment and providea targeted response to lending denials within the institution.

KEYWORDS Academic libraries, assessment, fill rate, interlibraryloans, ILL statistics, lending denials

INTRODUCTION

Interlibrary loan (ILL) services are an important component of the modernacademic library. They support the research and teaching needs of studentsand faculty by expanding the range of research materials available beyondthe local collection. The borrowing component of ILL is the primary focusin many institutions as it provides resources for the local patrons that theycould not obtain otherwise. Lending, however, does not often receive thesame level of attention or scrutiny. It is often seen as a secondary function,even though lending is an important aspect of the ILL exchange process,without which borrowing could not be possible.

One of the overlooked challenges of many ILL offices is that it is acomponent of a larger institution. Individual ILL offices do not set institu-tional policies and thus have very little input as to the interworking of the

Address correspondence to Andrew Leykam, College of Staten Island, City Universityof New York, Department of the Library, Building 1L-106B, 2800 Victory Boulevard, StatenIsland, NY 10314. E-mail: leykam@mail.csi.cuny.edu

446

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

ritis

h C

olum

bia]

at 1

0:17

30

Oct

ober

201

4

Collateral Damage 447

library as a whole. The institution often makes decisions that can potentiallyhave negative impacts on ILL lending fulfillment. When the library imple-ments measures intended to improve local access such as enhancing accessto electronic resources through the online public access catalog (OPAC),acquiring more materials in nonprint formats, or increasing the availabilityof textbooks and course materials through course reserves, there can beunforeseen negative consequences for ILL services.

By studying lending denials, one can gain a better insight into insti-tutional concerns and policies that may be having an unintended negativeimpact on the ILL lending service. After identifying potential conflicts or con-cerns with institutional policies, steps can be taken to mitigate the negativeimpact such decisions are having on the lending aspect of ILL. One tool thatthe author suggests is utilizing the frequency of denials to selectively target aresponse to institutional policies or concerns. At the same time, studying ILLstatistics can highlight service concerns across the institution while providingan avenue for internal assessment within the ILL office.

Lending denials represent wasted time and effort on the part of ILLstaff and, more importantly, for the institutions with which we are in anexchange relationship. When the same mistake is made repeatedly, we arefailing in our efforts to provide timely delivery of materials. By examining thecauses and frequency of denials, one can enable a focused response that canimprove fulfillment rates while highlighting unintentional consequences ofinstitutional policies that are affecting the ILL office and by extension outsideinstitutions that we rely on for our patrons’ borrowing needs.

BACKGROUND: THE COLLEGE OF STATEN ISLAND

The College of Staten Island (CSI) is one of 11 senior colleges in the CityUniversity of New York (CUNY). The college serves over 12,000 students(approximately 90.4% undergraduates) with a full-time enrollment (FTE) ofapproximately 8,900. In addition, the library serves over 850 faculty and staffemployed by the college. The library’s total collection consists of approx-imately 235,000 books, 900 print journal subscriptions, over 100 electronicdatabases with more than 15,000 full-text journals, 2,000 videos and DVDs,and more than 400 sound recordings cataloged. CSI offers degree programsranging from associate to doctoral, and has 18 academic departments.

The Interlibrary Loan (ILL) office of the CSI Library provides materialsnot available in the Library’s holdings or the holdings of the CUNY Librarysystem for faculty, staff, and students of the college. Materials that are avail-able from other CUNY libraries are handled through an internal loan system,CUNY Libraries Intercampus Services (CLICS), and are not included in thisstudy. There are two full-time staff members (one coordinator and one full-time assistant) and one part-time assistant. The ILL office makes all efforts

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

ritis

h C

olum

bia]

at 1

0:17

30

Oct

ober

201

4

448 A. Leykam

to locate and provide materials at no cost to the patron. If the item is onlyavailable for a fee, that fee is passed on to the patron. The ILL office at theCollege of Staten Island Library has utilized OCLC resource sharing and Arielfor the past 3.5 years. The ILL office provides all loans and article requestsfree to requesting institutions.

For all requesting libraries, the interlibrary loan office loans books andprovides copies of manuscripts, microfilm, newspapers, dissertations, seri-als, and theses. We do not lend microfilm, full journals, noncirculating, orreserve items. Utilizing the data collected from November 2005 to October2008, the author sought to construct a clear picture of the College of StatenIsland Library’s lending practices and reasons why the office has denied ILLrequests to outside institutions. Using this data, the author hoped to stream-line ILL operations and track denial of access and collection concerns (e.g.,missing items, cataloging errors, etc.) for our local patrons, while attemptingto improve lending fulfillment.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Previous studies dealing with interlibrary loan have tended to focus on theborrowing aspect of the ILL exchange process. However, there exist a smallnumber of current articles that address lending denials. A majority of thesearticles were originally written during the 1990s and reflect the transition ofinterlibrary loan reliance on technology as well as the increased demand onthe service. These articles seek to address lending denials while exploringthe reasons for denial in order to improve lending fulfillment rates.

Faced with a lending fulfillment rate of just over 50.1%, Scott Seaman(1992) sought a solution by exploring unfilled lending requests. He hopedto find a common reason and a solution that could help improve the lendingcapability of his institution. He discovered that loans were denied mainlydue to items being in use or to local policies that did not allow for loan.Copy requests, on the other hand, were often denied because the requestedperiodical issue was not owned. Seaman suggested that with more accuratecataloging and holding information the rate of successful ILL lending wouldincrease. The article identified the potential of utilizing denial data to improveILL services but did not explore possibilities for improvements beyond ILL.

Medina and Thornton (1996) explored lending requests, seeking to un-derstand why lending requests were being denied by institutions within theirlending network. They found that items were not loaned because 39% werenot owned by the institution, 38% were in use or were restricted use (13%not on shelf, 12% noncirculating, and 10% in use), 15% were denied becauseof cost, and 9% were denied for miscellaneous reasons. They also foundthat 31.5% of all requests were denied because they lacked the individualvolume though they owned the title. The authors were also interested in

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

ritis

h C

olum

bia]

at 1

0:17

30

Oct

ober

201

4

Collateral Damage 449

establishing if the type of material had an impact on the likelihood that itwould be supplied. They found that it did not affect likelihood for supply(Medina & Thornton, 1996, p. 20). Medina and Thornton provided a thor-ough overview of previous studies that explored request denials and founda common thread among them. The majority of studies indicated that itemswere denied because the item did not circulate, was not owned, or was lostor in use. The authors suggested that fulfillment rates could be improved bykeeping accurate and updated holding records, training staff, and adoptingtechnologies that could improve operating procedures. The authors foundthat the majority of denied lending requests were denied because the indi-vidual item requested was not owned, the material was in use or restricted,and because of cost.

Barbara Slater’s (1997) article illustrated some of the reasons for lendingdenials. The author was able to reduce lending denials from 39% to 23%,thus reducing staff workload and improving service to requesting institutions.While exploring the reasons for denial, Slater found that 54% of requests weredenied because they did not own the title or the volume that was requested.Due to cataloging errors it was found that a majority of denials were forjournals to which the library no longer subscribed (Slater, 1997, p. 426). Theauthor concluded that “careful analysis of unfilled requests can result in bothsignificantly improved fill rates and a corresponding decrease in workloadfor ILL staff.”

Tess Gibson’s article (2008) reviewed 26,800 lending transactions be-tween 2005 and 2006. The author reviewed lending fulfillment rates andfound that the ILL service institution had a 73% fill rate, while 3,957 copiesand 3,111 loans were cancelled. Unlike the authors of previous studies, Gib-son found that a significant number of requests were denied because theitem was in use. However, the majority of requests were denied because thelibrary did “not hold the requested item for one reason or another” (Gibson,2008, p. 386). The author did discover that 12% of denials were actually dueto staff error. Gibson sought to reduce error by retraining staff and encourag-ing a more effective work environment through improved communication.As a result of retraining, the fulfillment rate increased by 4%. Staff errors werenot the only factor contributing to lending denials; training, staffing levels,consortial commitments, as well as other additional factors, all contributedto lending denials. Gibson suggested that steps could be taken to improvefulfillment rates, including keeping WorldCat and local holdings current: “Ifthere are titles that will never be loaned, staff can use WorldCat’s new de-flection capability to block request for that title” (Gibson, 2008, p. 387).Gibson’s study focused on identifying factors within ILL that negatively af-fect fulfillment rates. However, Gibson did not examine the impact of largerinstitutional factors. As a result, the potential of utilizing interlibrary lendingdata for advancing interdepartmental collaboration to help improve accessand services for patrons was overlooked. This is implied but not explicitly

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

ritis

h C

olum

bia]

at 1

0:17

30

Oct

ober

201

4

450 A. Leykam

outlined. Gibson failed to point out ILL’s ability to provide assessment of thecollection and increase access.

While previous studies addressed the reasons for denial and potentialfor improvement of lending fulfillment rates, most stopped short of utilizingthis data beyond ILL. In 2003, Atkins and Weible conducted a study exploringthe potential of utilizing ILL statistics to identify materials missing from thelibrary’s collection. Noting that libraries are continually faced with identifyingmissing materials, the authors suggested that unfilled ILL requests mighthighlight items missing from the collection in a more timely and affordablemanner than an inventory (Atkins & Weible, 2003, p. 188–189). Utilizing thedata from one month of denials, the authors sought to identify the potential“of using ILL data from unfilled requests for updating items statuses in theonline catalog and to identify staff training issues” (p. 192). They examinedloan and copy requests originally marked “not on shelf” and found that20.7% of requests were originally denied due to not being on the shelf.After searching for them 65.4% were still not found, 17.5% were properlyshelved, 11.4% were found in the sorting area, and 4.5% were misshelved.The authors were able to identify limitations in the collection and highlighta need for better training for staff in order to help retrieve the requesteditems. After the review, it was found that 13.6% of the unfilled requests weremissing from the collection, highlighting the need to improve the accuracyof the OPAC by updating the catalog before performing another search invain. Retrieval error accounted for 17.5% of unfilled requests. Despite thefact that this article only discusses ILL requests that were refused becausethe items were missing from shelves, this article successfully highlights thepotential for ILL to contribute to collection maintenance while highlightingthe need for staff training. The article also suggests that certain institutionalpractices (e.g., shelving and circulation policies) may negatively impact theability of ILL staff to retrieve materials needed for lending.

LENDING DENIALS: PRELIMINARY FINDINGS

Between November 2005 and October 2008, the Interlibrary Loan office atthe College of Staten Island fulfilled 84% of all borrowing requests originatingfrom its own patrons. During the same time, the ILL office provided only59% of ILL lending requests to other institutions. This is slightly higher thanSeaman’s (1992) 50% success rate but falls short of the 73% success ratecited in Gibson’s (2008) article. During the 3 years that the CSI ILL officeutilized OCLC resource sharing it denied 7,740 (41%) lending requests. Theinability to successfully complete 41% of lending requests raised concerns.Was this inability to provide access to other institutions a result of holdingsinaccuracy, missing items, or procedural problems within the ILL office? Didinstitutional policies or procedures in other departments such as periodicals,

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

ritis

h C

olum

bia]

at 1

0:17

30

Oct

ober

201

4

Collateral Damage 451

cataloging, or circulation have a negative impact on the ability of ILL to fulfilllending requests? In order to improve lending fulfillment and possibly localaccess, lending denials needed to be examined in a more detailed fashion.The author set out to explore why requests were denied, what items weredenied, which institutional policies may be contributing to denials, and thepossibility of utilizing data on the frequency of denials to provide a targetedresponse to the problem.

WHY DID WE SAY NO?

Utilizing data collected during these 36 months, the author was able to con-struct a data set illustrating the reasons requests were denied: 18 reasons fordenial were originally identified. However, similar reasons were grouped to-gether to make categories more manageable while illustrating similar themesfor denial. For instance, all denials due to the item being lost, lacking issueor volume, not on shelf, or on order were grouped together because theyillustrated collection gaps that were not necessarily reflected in the holdingrecords. By combining similar reasons, we were able to consolidate the rea-sons provided for denial and provide a clear overview of denial activity (seeFigure 1).

Ninety percent of all lending denials fell into five main categories. Thirty-three percent were denied because the requested item was noncirculating,such as reference materials or course reserves. Although this had a significant

FIGURE 1 Reason for lending denials.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

ritis

h C

olum

bia]

at 1

0:17

30

Oct

ober

201

4

452 A. Leykam

negative effect on lending fulfillment rates, it did not reflect any limit to accessfor local patrons. Eleven percent were denied because the item was lost,lacking, or missing from the shelves, and 17% were denied because the itemwas not owned. This suggested that 28% of transactions were denied due toa discrepancy with holding records in the catalog, which could in turn havea negative impact on access for local patrons. The author began to see thatinstitutional policies such as cataloging reserve items in the general catalogand inaccuracy of periodical holdings appeared to be having a negativeimpact on lending fulfillment rates.

Fulfillment rates were further impacted by concerns within the ILL officeitself. Prior studies had suggested that between 12–18% of denials could beattributed to staff errors (Gibson, 2008; Atkins & Weible, 2003; Medina &Thornton, 1996). Our review suggested that 29% of lending denials wereattributable to ILL staff and procedural concerns. Eleven percent of all re-quests had not been successfully addressed by the staff, and an additional18% of requests were denied without providing a clear reason. This showsan inability of the staff to adequately answer outside requests in a timelyfashion and an inability to provide an accurate reason for denial, indicat-ing a need to review ILL staff procedures and coverage. Lending practiceswere not reviewed as closely as borrowing, as the focus of the service wason satisfying local patron requests, so these concerns had been previouslyoverlooked.

WHAT WAS DENIED: COPIES VERSUS LOAN REQUESTS

The author reviewed 7,704 requests denied at the item level and divided thedenied requests into copy and loan requests. These primarily representedjournals and books respectively; however, some overlap did occur. Outsideinstitutions occasionally requested loans of full journals or copies of bookchapters. This is a common practice in ILL and accounted for some of theobserved results. When the data was divided into these two categories andthen graphed, a clearer picture of lending denials began to emerge (seeFigure 2).

We began to see a direct correlation between the type of request andthe reasons for denial. This had been suggested in earlier studies (Seaman,1992; Medina & Thornton, 1996). For instance, 98% of items denied becausethe item was noncirculating were loan requests. A closer look revealed themajority of these requests were for textbooks or books found in the coursereserve collection. The catalog gave false positive results to outside insti-tutions for materials that, though owned, were not available for lending inILL. This flagged an area of concern that was having a negative impact onILL lending fulfillment that had previously gone unnoticed. The amount of

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

ritis

h C

olum

bia]

at 1

0:17

30

Oct

ober

201

4

Collateral Damage 453

FIGURE 2 Reasons for lending denials: Copies vs. loans.

requests denied because they were only locally available represented 33%of all lending denials. This was also in line with previous studies.

Currently we are working in conjunction with cataloging and circula-tion departments to attempt to come up with a solution to this concern. Byworking with cataloging and addressing the needs of the circulation depart-ment, we hope to achieve a solution that effectively addresses the library asa whole as well as the needs of the ILL office. The cataloger was originallyconsulted to determine if there could be a solution or a possibility of deflect-ing requests for reserve items; however, the reserve designation is a localholding code, that will not fix this issue. Preliminary suggestions currently re-volve around creating a local reserve catalog, attempting to utilize WorldCatauto-deflection. There does not appear to be an easy fix at this time, but anyimprovement would enhance our service. The sheer volume of our reservecollection also has a negative impact on the possibility of recataloging theitems in a timely fashion. For this reason, we also attempted to highlightthose items that may have a more negative impact than others. By workingwith cataloging, we hope to reduce the amount of lending requests for itemsthat do not circulate.

Another issue highlighted by this review was that 91% of all items deniedbecause they were not owned were for copy requests. Concern grew furtheras 60% of items denied because they were lost or missing were also for copyrequests. Closer inspection confirmed that almost all were for journal articles.We then began to review how periodicals were being handled, hoping toperhaps shed some light on the complications that we were experiencing

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

ritis

h C

olum

bia]

at 1

0:17

30

Oct

ober

201

4

454 A. Leykam

in ILL. It was soon discovered that over the past few years there had beena movement to reduce the number of physical journals in favor of onlineaccess. Print journals that are accessible through online subscriptions werediscarded, and the records were updated locally in Serial Solutions. Thispresented a twofold problem for ILL. First, due to contractual obligationsand licensing agreements, many requests for items that were electronicallyavailable could not be provided though ILL, causing a negative impact onfulfillment. Second, though Serial Solutions was being updated and keptaccurate, the updating of the local catalog and WorldCat had been neglected.Since our catalog was not being updated with enough frequency, WorldCathad incorrect information about the institution’s holdings. Once this linkwas established, we worked with the periodicals and cataloging librariansto update and improve the holdings information in an attempt to reduce thenumber of false positives. We could then highlight areas of loss in periodicalsby identifying titles that we were supposed to own but were missing, thusimproving both accuracy of the catalog and local access to periodicals.

By linking the reasons for denial to item types, we were able to seeproblems that had previously been overlooked. Originally, it was believedthat studying lending denials would highlight local-access concerns and ILLprocedures that were negatively affecting the ILL fulfillment rates. However,upon review of items that were being denied, it soon became apparent thatthe solutions to the concerns of the ILL department were not the universalconcerns of the institution. Cross-institutional policies and decisions thatwere meant to strengthen the local collection and access were having anunintentional negative impact on ILL. Loan denials had a relatively smallimpact on the local user population, as they were largely available locally.This was also repeated when one looked at copy denials. Although manyjournals were no longer available in print, a large majority of them werenow available online for local use. After establishing the reasons for denialand what types of materials were being denied at our college, we sought tounderstand how we could effectively reduce the number of denials. Next,the author set out to explore how many times ILL services were denyingrequests for the same item.

FREQUENCY OF DENIAL

The frequency with which unique titles were denied was evaluated, andour findings were surprising. During the 3 years covered in this study, 4,189requests for loans were denied. The majority of these denials were for books,although some videos, microfilm, and full journals were requested. Although4,189 loans requests were denied, they represented only 1,913 unique titles.This indicates that some titles were requested and denied more than once.In one case, one title was denied 61 times. Seventy-three percent of all loan

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

ritis

h C

olum

bia]

at 1

0:17

30

Oct

ober

201

4

Collateral Damage 455

requests for unique titles were requested once, while 27% of loan requestsfor unique titles were requested two or more times. Although these numbersmay not seem significant, on the transaction level 67% (2,801) of all deniedtransactions were for items that had previously been requested and denied.Even adjusting for items requested and denied up to four times, 45% of alldenials had been denied five or more times on the transaction level.

During the same period, requests for copies were denied as well; therequests for 1,166 unique journal titles were denied out of 3,293 transac-tions. Copy requests present unique challenges. Often the same journal titleis requested repeatedly as the title is only part of the request, and representsa set that is unique on a volume and even page level. Isolating titles doesnot necessarily result in reduction of outside requests, as the institution mayhave the title available but may be missing the desired volume or piecerequested. When looking at copy requests, repeat denial for the same titlecan highlight collection concerns, as it is unlikely that the same volume isrequested repeatedly. Sixty-one percent of all refusals were denied once,while 39% of titles were requested more than once. One journal title wasdenied 136 times over 3 years alone. Copy-request denials were most com-monly associated with the item not being owned, lost, or the request wasallowed to expire. This suggested that our holding data did not adequatelyreflect the actual holding of physical print journals. By focusing on thosetitles repeatedly denied, one can provide periodicals with a detailed list ofholdings to review in order to improve accuracy in the catalog. In addition,we can add the title to our auto-deflection list in WorldCat.

The author found that denial of ILL requests represented a recurringissue that had largely gone unresolved. Because the reasons for requestdenials were not adequately addressed, the same items continued to berequested over this 3-year period. Studying the frequency of denial requestsprovides a unique way to pinpoint issues that are having a negative impacton fulfillment rates.

INSTITUTIONAL CONCERNS REVEALED: CATALOGING CONCERNS

The author had expected to see lending denials associated with holding con-cerns (i.e., item missing, lacking, etc.). However, 33% of all lending requestswere denied because the requested items were on reserve or noncirculating.The majority of these were for textbooks that the institution has on reservefor its students and can only be checked out for 2 hours in the library. Wedo not have a separate reserve catalog, so items are placed in the generalcatalog with a local holding record indicating that they are on reserve. This isnot reflected in WorldCat or OCLC resource sharing, so requesting librariesare getting false positives. This high percentage suggests that students fromother colleges are attempting to acquire textbooks through ILL in order to

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

ritis

h C

olum

bia]

at 1

0:17

30

Oct

ober

201

4

456 A. Leykam

avoid the costs associated with their purchase, thus making our textbookshighly requested items. This highlighted a problem that we had not an-ticipated. Although we had known that textbooks and reserve items werepopular requests, the true impact on fulfillment rates was not understooduntil a long-term review was undertaken. Earlier studies had mentioned thatlocal policies had a negative impact on fulfillment, but the impact of thesedynamics is notable.

COLLECTION HOLDINGS

This review of denied lending requests initially sought to explore potentialcollection loss but found that this was only part of the problem. Seventeenpercent of requests were denied because the item was not owned, and 11%of denials were due to the item being absent from the shelves. Together,holdings concerns account for 28% of denials. This high percentage is ofconcern because it suggests that the collection may not be accurately re-flected in the catalog or that the items are lost or missing. A closer inspectionof these titles illustrates that the problem was more complicated than wasthought. By carefully highlighting and addressing the items found throughthe study of denial frequency, one can potentially improve local access andlending fulfillment rates.

Concerns for access revolve around denial due to cataloging and hold-ings issues. Twenty-eight percent of all lending denials occurred becausean item was missing, not on the shelf, or not owned. This rate suggests adiscrepancy between the holdings described in our catalog and our actualholdings. It also implies that our actual holdings may not be adequate. Itemsthat were denied because we did not own them raised some concerns be-cause these items were not in our catalog, but we were still getting requests.Closer inspection suggested that this was only half true. In many cases, weowned a periodical title but not the requested volume. Focusing on this issuecould help improve local access to the collection.

A review of the items denied because they were lacking or missingrevealed a concern not only for our collection maintenance but also forour periodical and cataloging departments. Many of the requested itemsappeared in our catalog but were only available in electronic format andtherefore were unavailable for ILL. The move to centralized cataloging aswell as shifts in the handling and ordering of periodicals have had a neg-ative impact on ILL fulfillment rates, but not necessarily on the institutionas a whole. Many of these resources are now more accessible to the localpopulation, just not for outside use. By utilizing the frequency of denial,ILL can highlight items that are repeatedly requested and denied and thenattempt to limit denials. More focused use of WorldCat’s auto-deflection inresponse to items requested a number of times can help reduce the negative

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

ritis

h C

olum

bia]

at 1

0:17

30

Oct

ober

201

4

Collateral Damage 457

fulfillment rate by denying an item only two or three times rather than 10to 20 times and can effectively reduce the impact of institutional changes tocataloging or periodical policies.

ILL OFFICE CONCERNS

What had started out as an exploration of the collection’s strengths andweaknesses soon became a review of the ILL office and procedures. Pre-vious articles have suggested that the staff can affect lending denials, andour findings reflected this. Twenty-nine percent of all denials could be di-rectly related to staff concerns and workflow. Eleven percent of requestswere allowed to expire, while 18% were denied without providing a clearreason. These findings suggest that staff did not review the requests within 4days or did not provide clear reasons for denial. The current staffing model,training, and procedures were reviewed as a result of these findings. Thisreview resulted in a complete retraining and reassignment of staff to im-prove the workflow of the ILL office. The ILL office now conducts weeklyreviews of lending denials highlighting those items denied more than twotimes and monthly performance review and retraining sessions. In addition,the ILL office recently acquired ILLIAD to help streamline and assist in theprocessing of requests in an effective manner. By keeping staff focused onthe importance of both borrowing and lending, we are able to improve thedaily operations of the ILL department and lending in particular. Lendingdenials are now reviewed every month to help identify problematic trendsquickly and keep track of lending fulfillment and staff performance.

CONCLUSION

Lending denials continue to negatively impact the ILL exchange process.They increase the time necessary to obtain items and the workload forinstitutions from which the item is requested. However, in the 17 years sinceSeaman’s (1992) article, technology has advanced and ILL services still havea lending fulfillment rate around 50%. Reserves continue to have a negativeimpact on lending fulfillment despite the advancement of auto-deflection,and cataloging of journals continues to fall short. The more ILL offices attemptto improve workflow and procedures to reduce denials divorced from theinstitution as a whole, the longer the problem will persist.

By analyzing the frequency of lending denials, ILL can better identifyinstitutional policies that negatively influence lending services. Working incollaboration with other library departments such as cataloging, periodicals,and circulation, ILL can help provide a targeted response to isolate prob-lem titles, improve the accuracy of holdings records, and increase lending

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

ritis

h C

olum

bia]

at 1

0:17

30

Oct

ober

201

4

458 A. Leykam

fulfillment rates. An easy fix would be to identify items that are missing andcorrect holdings in the catalog. The problem is that not all denied requestsinvolve missing items. In fact, as this study suggests, the library collectionsare actually increasing in size. However, much of this increase tends to bein our virtual rather than physical collections. The impact of electronic re-sources on traditional library cataloging and lending practices may continueto have a negative impact on ILL if not addressed.

Interlibrary loan services are not an island; they cannot simply be im-proved without addressing problems in other areas within the institutionthat they serve. Denial of lending requests was not simply a reflection ofholding errors. Upon closer inspection, it became apparent that the natureof the lending request, whether copy or loan, had a significant impact on thelikelihood of supply. Denying without understanding or addressing why arequest failed does not aid the process. Rather by looking at the reasons ILLrequests were denied one can gain a better understanding of ILL staff work-flow, the status and accuracy of the catalog, and how the catalog reflectswhat is on the shelves. Reviewing denials can be a valuable assessment tool,which can improve service and increase access to the collection for ILL usersand patrons in general while promoting a unified and cohesive institution. Astudy of lending denials can highlight the effect of institutional changes onILL while illustrating how ILL can improve and work within the confines ofits institutional identity.

REFERENCES

Atkins, S. S., & Weible, C. L. (2003). Needles in a haystack: Using interlibrary loandata to identify materials missing from a library’s collection. Library Collections,Acquisitions, and Technical Services, 27(2), 187–202.

Gibson, T. (2008). Cancelled requests: A study of interlibrary lending. Journal ofAccess Services, 5(3), 383–389.

Medina, S. O., & Thornton, L. L. (1996). Cannot supply: An examination of interli-brary loan requests which could not be filled by members of the network ofAlabama academic libraries. Journal of Interlibrary Loan, Document Delivery &Information Supply, 6(4), 11–33.

Seaman, S. (1992). An examination of unfilled OCLC lending and photocopy re-quests. Information Technology and Libraries, 11, 229–235.

Slater, B. M. (1997). An analysis of unfilled DOCLINE lending requests. Bulletin ofthe Medical Library Association, 85(4), 426–428.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

ritis

h C

olum

bia]

at 1

0:17

30

Oct

ober

201

4