UC AFN Consortia Blocks

Patrons are given a false expectation that they have access to material through a Resource Sharing request (UC and/or Non-UC) at the time of requesting, only to discover they have a block at the point of patron checkout (at the final step of the resource sharing process). This is a change in behavior from pre-SILS Resource Sharing where users with blocks could not initiate Interlibrary Loan requests.

We recommend blocking delinquent patrons from making an AFN request in UC Library Search at the initiation point of requesting the material AND NOT the end point of checking out the loan. To do so, we are requesting that:

1. Ex Libris add to all UC Alma IZ instances the options for a consortial 04 block which prevents AFN requesting in UC Library Search, and a 05 consortial block which prevents AFN requesting and local loans, renewals, and holds.

2. Ex Libris create automation for applying and removing 04 blocks across UC consortium. UCs want to maintain the flexibility for not automatically placing the more restrictive 05 blocks on some user records.

3. UCs implement a consistent display in UC Library Search when request is unavailable due to block.

4. Defer cash limit block harmonization decisions to the SILS Fulfillment Group.

If Ex Libris is unable to assist with automation, we recommend a new project team be formed to investigate how these blocks could be applied and removed automatically - for instance using Analytics or UC would develop a service using Ex Libris API(s).

Automated placement and removal of blocks is essential to the implementation of consortial blocking. Without automation, this process is not manageable and the UCs agree not to move forward with the recommendations.

Patrons are given a false expectation that they have access to material through a Resource Sharing request (UC and/or Non-UC) at time of requesting, only to discover they have a block at the point of checkout (at the final step of the resource sharing process). This is a change in behavior from pre-SILS Resource Sharing where users with blocks could not initiate Interlibrary Loan requests.

From a Resource Sharing perspective, once a patron is sufficiently delinquent to be blocked from acquiring materials from one UC, they should be blocked from acquiring materials from ALL UCs until their account is cleared up. As a consortium, patrons should have the same expectations of services (including suspension of privileges) across the UCs. Patrons should not be given inaccurate information or false expectations that they have access to material through an Interlibrary Loan/AFN request when they are ultimately going to be blocked at the point of checkout.

These issues were not present in the pre-SILS era of Resource Sharing, as a block on a patron’s home campus account prevented them from making any and all Resource Sharing requests until they cleared up their delinquencies.

The best way to close the Resource Sharing loopholes mentioned above is to block the delinquent patron from making an AFN request in UC Library Search at the initiation point of requesting the material AND NOT the end point of checking out the loan. This would be similar to what occurred in the pre-SILS era which blocked delinquent patrons from making Resource Sharing requests at their home campus quite efficiently.

This could to be done by implementing the following specific recommendations:

Request that Ex Libris add a 04 and 05 Blocked Action option for all UCs in the Fulfillment User Block Definitions table in Alma configuration (Option 3 in Options Considered table below).

Consortial blocks 04 & 05 currently are only available at two campuses (UCLA & UCB), though they are not actively being used by those UCs.

The Billing cycle varies at each UC , but the AFN block should be applied at the patron’s home campus at the time the AFN bill is generated and removed at the home campus at the point the AFN bill is paid.

There needs to be a point in the resource sharing loan process where a consistent delinquency threshold is reached to necessitate the placing of a consortial 04 or 05 block on the patron’s home library account, and a resolution point to take it off.

Automated placement and removal of blocks is essential to the implementation of consortial blocking. Without automation, this process is not manageable and the UCs agree not to move forward.

Request that Ex Libris create automation for applying and removing 04 block across UCs.

UCs need to maintain the flexibility for not automatically placing the more restrictive 05 blocks on some user records, so automation of placement and removal of the 04 block is what is recommended. UCs would have the option to change those to 05 blocks as appropriate.

A consistent criteria in Alma must be identified to determine when a patron’s record should be blocked and unblocked. It is beyond the scope of this subgroup to get into any details or lengthy analysis of how this may be accomplished and this would have to be deferred to other future SILS teams or subgroups.

Make automation happen with UC resources

If Ex Libris is unable to assist with automation, we recommend a new project team be formed to investigate how these blocks could be applied and removed automatically - for instance using Analytics or UC would develop a service using Ex Libris API(s).

Configure UC Library Search to display a message when requesting is unavailable due to block.

Users should encounter a message when they are blocked from requesting in UC Library Search.

Harmonize language displayed in UC Library Search when request is unavailable due to block.

A consistent message display in UC Library Search should inform the patron why they cannot place their resource sharing request when a consortial block is applied to their account and whom to contact for further questions.

Defer cash limit block harmonization decisions to the SILS Fulfillment Group.

It has been determined that cash limit block harmonization among the UCs is difficult at best and not actually pertinent to the potential use of AFN consortial blocks across the UCs. Each UC may continue with their own costs and place the block at the time an AFN bill is generated. The issue of potential harmonization decisions of cash limit blocks has been deferred to and is in the purview of the SILS Fulfillment OST.

Placing a consortial block on a patron’s record at their home campus will block them from making any AFN requests in UC Library Search, similar to how it did in the pre-SILS Resource Sharing era. This also pushes the blocking dynamic to the initiation point of the Resource Sharing request, where it makes more sense, and not the end point of checkout which can lead to false expectations and frustration for the patron.

Consortial blocks will optimize operational efficiency for UC Libraries staff while providing a better customer service experience for patrons, as they will be able to request and receive materials they are truly eligible for.

As a consortium, patrons should have the same expectation of services (including suspension of privileges) across the UCs. Patrons should not be given inaccurate information that they have access to material through request when they are blocked at the point of loan. Additionally, library collections throughout the UC should be considered equally important. Thus, when a user is delinquent at one UC, they should be blocked across all UCs. When a user has outstanding material from one UC, they are impacting the availability of the material to users throughout the UC System.

All UCs should have the tools necessary to block patrons in Alma in a consistent manner (i.e. 04 & 05 manual blocks). We are recommending pursuing option 3 below (use 04 and 05 blocks) as this provides the most flexibility for each UC campus to balance their local policies with AFN request blocking.

Additionally, because cash blocks do not prevent AFN requesting, it would be useful for the lender to be made aware of these blocks prior to paging. Cash limit blocks can be configured to display on paging slips (see example - cohort only), allowing staff to make decisions about whether the request should be paged or cancelled.

Yes, but the mechanism for applying and removing blocks will need to be determined. 

A major concern of Interlibrary Loan (Resource Sharing) and Circulation units is having to manually place and remove consortial 04 and 05 blocks from patron records. It would be time-consuming for some campuses, there may not be staff available to routinely do this at some institutions, it is open to potential mistakes, and removal of blocks may not always be accomplished in a timely fashion when AFN bills are resolved. Automated placement and removal of blocks is essential to the implementation of consortial blocking.

The obvious choice of accrued fines cannot be used, as some UCs immediately send fines to their bursar to be handled, quickly zeroing out the fines in their Alma. Analytics or Fulfillment Sets may potentially be used to determine the criteria for automatically applying and removing blocks.

Placing an 05 consortial block on a patron’s record at their home campus will not only block them from making an AFN request in UC Library Search, but will also block them from making loans, renewals and holds for local materials at their home campus. The 04 block will allow UCs the flexibility to block resource sharing requests but still enable the patron to checkout, renew and place holds on their local library materials. By utilizing the 04 block, local checkout policies won’t clash with a potential harmonized resource sharing blocking strategy. For example, a UC may prefer to place an 04 consortial block on a faculty member with a delinquent resource sharing item, but still enable them to make transactions for locally owned material at their home campus. Conversely, a UC may wish to place an 05 block on a non-faculty patron who is delinquent with both resource sharing and local items and/or has a large amount of overdue/lost book fines.

We would like to have stub to home records automatically apply 04 blocks, as well as automatically remove 04 blocks, unless there is another UC with a problem for that patron.

Testing would need to be performed to identify block options.