|
At their fall 1992 advisory meeting, the Depository Library Council to the Public Printer explored possible ways of restructuring the Federal Depository Library Program. The results of their deliberations were compiled into a report to the Superintendent of Documents and the Public Printer which was published as a "discussion draft" in the June 20, 1993 issue of Administrative Notes (v. 14, #13). Comments from members of the depository library community were solicited, received, and incorporated into the final report, which appears in the following pages. Preface I. History and Objectives of the Depository Library Program II. Assumptions Assumption 1: A Depository Library Program should be and will continue to be a vital link between the citizens of the United States and the agencies of American government. Assumption 2: As currently structured, the Depository Library Program is floundering so badly that its very existence is threatened. The Depository Library Council believes that significant restructuring of the Program is needed to ensure its future viability and to ensure that it will continue to meet the objectives for which it was established. The purpose of this report is to set out and explore several alternatives by which such restructuring might be accomplished. Assumption 3: The burdens on the regional libraries are causing a breakdown in the system. The Depository Library Council believes that it may not be necessary for all 52 regional libraries to keep everything in perpetuity, and that other aspects of the responsibilities of the regionals also need to be re-examined. Assumption 4: The cost of running the Depository Library Program is increasing faster than the willingness/ability ofCongress to provide the funds. If this pattern continues, a way needs to be found to leverage the available resources. Assumption 5: The Depository Library Program will contain both print and electronic information for the foreseeable future. Assumption 6: As a result of the increased availability of electronic information via the INTERNET and other sources, user expectations concerning access to all forms of information will change and increase. Assumption 7: Information professionals, in their roles as intermediaries, will continue to be a key part of the program. Assumption 8: In the new information environment, there will be many more diverse points of access to information. The traditional library will be one centralized place for information, but there will be others as well. Assumption 9: New laws, regulations, and information systems, and related changes in how government information is collected, maintained, and disseminated will have a major impact on the Depository Library Program. Assumption 10: Some libraries will be partners in the change; some will not. III. Alternative Scenarios for a Restructured Program
A. The ARL Model--Multiple Service Levels Preface Members of the depository library community have discussed the need to restructure the Depository Library Program for many years. This issue became critical in 1992-1993, as the Government Printing Office continued to try to respond to the twin pressures of the budget and the development of new means of information delivery using new technology. In its fall 1992 meeting, the Depository Library Council decided to take the initiative to move the discussion forward by identifying the important assumptions about the program along with a variety of alternatives for restructuring. The results of the Council's work are presented in this report to the Public Printer and to the depository community. In addition to using its own ideas, members of the Council also received significant input and assistance from other members of the community in the preparation of different sections of this report. Although no one on the Depository Library Council agrees with everything here, everyone does agree that the program needs to be restructured to meet the current challenges. It is no longer viable to simply maintain the status quo. We also agree that the ideas presented here deserve to be debated in the hope of coming to a new consensus about the future of the Depository Library Program. If this report serves as a catalyst for that discussion, then it will have served its most important purpose.
A. History of the Depository Library Program The Depository Library Program (DLP) is a national resource network designed to ensure free public access to government produced and published information. The commitment to public access to government information can be traced back to 1857 when it was resolved that printed documents should be made available to the public through official sources. In 1859, the Secretary of the Interior was given the statutory authority and responsibility to distribute all books (except those earmarked for the special use of Congress or Executive Departments) printed or purchased for the use of the Federal Government. Ten years later, the Superintendent of Public Documents was created within the Department of the Interior and charged with the custody of government publications and their distribution. Through the Printing Act of 1895, the Superintendent of Public Documents was renamed the Superintendent of Documents and transferred from the Interior Department to the Government Printing Office which had been established in 1860. The Superintendent of Documents was given authority for the distribution and sale of government documents as well as for maintaining the Depository Library Program. In addition, the Printing Act of 1895 laid the groundwork for bibliographic control over government information and expanded the number of libraries eligible to participate in the Program. The Depository Library Act of 1962 established the network of regional libraries and further increased the potential number of depository libraries. It also expanded the number of categories of publications available for depository distribution. Efforts to reorganize the Government Printing Office and the Depository Library Program in 1979 were unsuccessful. While the law has undergone several revisions over the years, the guiding principles of the Program have remained constant:
2) depository libraries shall be located in each State and Congressional district in order to make government publications widely available; and 3) these government publications shall be available for the free use of the general public. Historically, the Federal Government and the depository library community have shared equitably the costs associated with providing free public access to government information. In recent years however, the trend has been for depository libraries to absorb more of the cost of providing citizens with government produced information. During the past decade, GPO's budget has remained relatively constant while the cost of producing and distributing the information has skyrocketed. At the same time, government information in electronic formats, such as CD-ROM, have placed additional burdens on the GPO. As a result, libraries have had to take on the additional expense of locating and acquiring fugitive Federal documents as well as the costs associated with computer/CD-ROM workstations, software, and technical support. The Depository Library Program is currently faced with two separate, but interrelated needs. First, GPO's funding must be increased to adequately fulfill the goals of the Depository Library Program. To help achieve that goal, GPO must exert its potential to be the primary information packager for the Federal Government. Second, the depository library system must be reorganized in a way that will relieve some of the financial overhead from the program, while at the same time continuing to provide the American public with ready access to government information. The focus of this paper will be to document and explore the problems associated with the existing structure of the DLP and to offer some alternatives and strategies for its reorganization. B. Values & Objectives of the Program Describing the Depository Library Program, former Public Printer Danford L. Sawyer commented that countless Americans of all ages are using materials distributed through the DLP. He observed that it is one of the least recognized and most unique resources of our American public. No other nation in the world, he argued, has anything comparable in scope or in freedom of public access.(1) Indeed, it is hard to imagine any other program within the Federal Government that is able to reach more Americans in such an economical manner. Consisting of over 1400 libraries throughout the country, the DLP is predicated on the notion that all U.S. Federal documents--regardless of content or format--should be readily available to the American people. In addition, the Depository Library Program provides an effective, low cost mechanism for Federal agencies to disseminate government information to virtually every Congressional district in the United States. The result of these two factors is considerable. Through the distribution of all types and levels of government publications, the DLP has consistently met the research and information needs of the American public. Indeed, it is the diverse needs of the end-user that drives the program and makes it a vital source of information for citizens nationwide. Small businesses use census data; farmers use climatological data; and anyone may use legal and regulatory information. This program is vital to the economy insofar as the engine of the economy is the small businessman, farmer, or entrepreneur. At the same time, by ensuring public access to agency-produced information, the DLP has also helped to facilitate the accountability and openness of the Federal Government. Finally, the DLP has significantly enhanced the collections of depository libraries and consequently their ability to serve the public. In return, depository libraries invest considerable time, money and staff to receive, process, house, preserve and service the material. Indeed, according to the latest information available, the 52 regional depository libraries alone are spending more money to support their depository collections than the Federal Government is to run the entire program. Unfortunately, libraries are currently facing the same fiscal restraints as the Federal Government and are unable to continue the status quo. It is imperative that the equitable balance that once existed between libraries and the Federal Government for supporting the Depository Library Program be re-established. II. Assumptions In considering the possible restructuring of the Depository Library Program members of the Depository Library Council made several assumptions. Assumption 1: A Depository Library Program should be and will continue to be a vital link between the citizens of the United States and the agencies of American government. Central to the basic program objectives of most Federal agencies is the provision of government information to the public, and for some agencies information dissemination is their principal mission. Most agencies that are heavily involved in information dissemination rely on the depository library system as one of several mechanisms for making their information available to the public; other mechanisms have historically included the Government Printing Office's document sales service, the Commerce Department's National Technical Information Service, private contractors, and agency programs to distribute their own products or to maintain information centers, bulletin boards, and other dissemination services. Among all mechanisms, however, the depository library system is unique, in that it embodies the obligation of a democracy to keep all its citizens informed. In the spirit of its mission, it insures that agencies have an effective means of disseminating their information, and that the public has access to it regardless of economic status. In many cases it represents not only the primary, but also the only means that many citizens have of gaining access to the vast amount of government information. It also provides an important link between agencies and their user communities. In addition to serving as a primary disseminator, the depository library system satisfies the requirement for long-term availability, serving as an "active archive" to which agencies can send their clients for information products no longer in production or inventory. As agencies deemphasize traditional paper and film in favor of more efficient and, over time, less expensive electronic information products and services, they will continue to need a nationwide library system through which government information, current and historical, remains physically, financially, and technologically accessible to the general public. As the traditional depository library system adapts to these changes, agencies will require more feedback from libraries than they have historically received concerning who their library clients are and how these changes will affect them. Assumption No. 2: As currently structured, the Depository Library Program is floundering so badly that its very existence is threatened. The Depository Library Council believes that significant restructurin g of the Program is needed to ensure its future viability and to ensure that it will continue to meet the objectives for which it was established. The purpose of this report is to set out and explore several alternatives by which such restructurin g might be accomplished . By any measure, the current structure of the depository library system is inadequate, inefficient, and ineffective. The introduction of electronic products and services into the program has exacerbated already existing problems, and the failure to develop an online service as part of the program has made GPO largely irrelevant for agencies seeking to disseminate information in that manner.(2) As a result of these problems, neither the information dissemination needs of government agencies nor the information needs of the public are being met. For over 30 years, library literature has called for the restructuring of the DLP. More recently, the Government Documents Roundtable of the American Library Association (GODORT), the Depository Library Council, and the GPO itself have all suggested alternatives for a revitalized program. While no action has been taken on any of these proposals, preliminary agendas from the 103rd Congress indicate that now may be the ideal time for legislative reform. To be more specific, in 1988, Peter Hernon and Charles McClure, long time observers and critics of the Depository Library Program, identified several weaknesses within the existing program:
The development of new technologies has exacerbated the problems in many of these areas. For example, dissemination of information in electronic formats has necessitated the purchase of computerized workstations complete with CD-ROM drives, modems, and software. Additionally, staff's ability (or inability) to access digital information has widened the differences that already existed in the quality of reference/referral services offered by depositories. New technologies have also exposed the woeful lack of training and support that depository libraries receive from Federal agencies. Assumption 3. The burdens on the regional libraries are causing a breakdown in the system. The Depository Library Council believes that it may not be necessary for all 52 regional libraries to keep everything in perpetuity, and that other aspects of the responsibilities of the regionals also need to be re-examined. The current "Regional Depository Library System" was created by the Depository Library Act of 1962. This act allows a maximum of two depository libraries per state to be designated regional depositories, or "regionals." In addition to the obligations required of all depositories, the regionals have the following additional responsibilities:
2. Attempt to complete their retrospective collections of Federal Government publications by means of purchase, exchange, or gift. 3. Permit selective depositories to dispose of unwanted government publications, after reviewing disposal lists submitted by the selectives. Regionals screen the lists in order to add to their own collections and to ensure future availability of those titles in their region. Regionals must also make sure that the publications on the lists are offered to other libraries in the area before being discarded. 4. Provide interlibrary loan and reference service based on their regional collection to all depository and non-depository libraries in their region. 5. Contribute to the effectiveness of the depository network in their region through workshops, training sessions, and consulting services (including designation and termination of selective depositories). 6. Take an active part in the GPO depository inspection process, preferably by accompanying library inspectors on their visits. Citing these extra responsibilities, one library recently relinquished its regional status, and others are seriously considering doing so. They can no longer accept the level of burden placed upon them. A number of factors have contributed to this situation and have led to major discrepancies in the ability of regionals to perform their additional responsibilities. One of the factors is the geographic distribution of depository libraries. Since the number of depositories per state varies widely, and since most states have only one designated regional (that in some cases is responsible for other states as well), there is a severe imbalance in the ratio of selectives being served by the 51 regionals. As a result, inequities range from nine out of 51 regionals serving 40% of all depositories to nine regionals serving only 6% of the libraries in the depository system. Two regionals (the California and New York state libraries) alone are responsible for 14% of all selective depositories. Another factor affecting the regionals' ability to serve selective depositories within their region is the cost of being a regional depository. The estimated annual cost per regional library to provide the required services and maintenance of its Federal document collection in 1991 was approximately $500,000; the annual cost for all regionals therefore is about $26 million, more than the total GPO budget for the Depository Library Program.(4) Most regionals do not have adequate resources--staff, space, equipment, and funding for training, travel, indexes, collection development, and telecommunications--to carry out all of their obligations under the law. Depository publications may come to the library free of charge, but considering GPO's estimate of $100,000 (5) for the value of documents received annually by the regionals, the regionals spend five times as much annually as the value of the collection received in the same period in order to fulfil their responsibilities. These problems are compounded by the increase in electronic government information being distributed through the Depository Library Program. Will regionals be expected to provide the same level of services for government information distributed in CD-ROM, online databases, and via satellite transmission that they now do for paper and microfiche formats--ensuring all depository items are available and accessible within their region? Very few regionals, if any, are equipped to provide training, service, and access to all electronic depository information as part of their required reference and interlibrary loan service to libraries in their region. Assumption 4. The cost of running the Depository Library Program is increasing faster than the willingness/ability of Congress to provide the funds. If this pattern continues, a way needs to be found to leverage the available resources. Costs for the Depository Library Program come out of the Salaries and Expenses (S&E) portion of GPO's annual appropriation. Approximately 83.4% of the S&E appropriation funds this program. The other 16.6% funds three other programs. In FY 1992 GPO received just over $27 million for these four programs. While it is true that the S&E funding went up by $1.5 million in FY 1991 and by $1.3 million in FY 1992, the effects of inflation over time have significantly reduced the purchasing power of the S&E dollars. In 1980 the S&E appropriation was $23.2 million. By 1992 it had increased $3.9 million to $27.1 million. This amount, representing a nominal 16.8% increase, has the buying power of 13.5 million 1983 dollars - a net loss of 50.2% in real terms. The depository library portion of the S&E appropriation sustained an even greater loss in purchasing power (50.4%). In FY 1980, GPO had $17.1 million for depository library distribution; in FY 1992, GPO had $22.6 million. What appears to be $5.5 million in growth, when adjusted for inflation, represents purchasing power of $11.2 million in FY 1983 dollars, (6) a loss of $5.9 million in constant (1983) dollars. It is also important to note that during this same time period, GPO added 50 new libraries to the program, thereby requiring GPO to serve more libraries with less money. Assumption 5. The Depository Library Program will contain both print and electronic information for the foreseeable future. Over the last 25 years, the Depository Library Program has witnessed changes to the formats that are distributed by the Government Printing Office to libraries. Once almost exclusively a print-based program, some sets began to be distributed in microform in the late 1960's and early 1970's. Now, a substantial part of the total distribution is made in microform. In the meantime, many agencies have begun to create information products in electronic form, and the need to distribute that information through the program has become evident. Moreover, as the public has become more computer literate, it is requesting access to certain products in an online form. Among the most conspicuous requests for online versions of existing products are the requests for an online Congressional Record and an online Federal Register. The Toxic Release Inventory is a popular product, available online from the National Library of Medicine, not from GPO, and not through the Depository Library Program. Response by GPO to the need to distribute electronic information has been tentative and hesitant at best, rather than assertive and forward looking. Consistent with its past practices, GPO has been willing to distribute information products on disk through the depository program. Examples include the National Trade Data Bank, the Toxic Release Inventory, and several others. However, GPO has been reluctant to explore bulletin boards and other online technology to make online information more readily available. Nonetheless, the Depository Library Council believes that the trend toward electronic distribution is well established and will grow rather than shrink. As a result, we believe that for the foreseeable future, the program--if it survives at all--will have to combine access to information in many forms, some print, some on disk, and some electronic online. Some materials will or should stay in print (and some should be available in both print form and electronic form). Among them are the core materials (Congressional Record, Federal Register, etc.) that are distributed widely and read closely so that citizens can stay abreast of the actions and activities of their government. These materials are of such vital importance to our democratic society that access to them should not be restricted to those that have access to a computer. Also included in the list of materials that should remain in print are those that are intended to be read cover to cover, rather than merely checked as a reference. These include booklets, reports to consumers, brochures, etc. People read faster from paper than from screens. Similarly, reports and items containing complex material should also, in many cases, be distributed in print, because they are more intelligible when viewed in the context of a whole document rather than as isolated screens. Finally, some materials require browsing. Large amounts of text cannot be browsed easily from a computer file. On the other hand, numeric data and other materials are often intended to be used as computer files, and they must be published electronically. In such cases, paper publication is both unnecessary and wasteful. Software to support such statistical applications is readily available, but documentation of the data on tape or on CD-ROM is still needed to facilitate the extraction and downloading of data. Furthermore, dynamic databases such as economic statistics need to be updated regularly, and must be available online so that people can have access to the latest data. Both CD-ROM and print publication delay the transfer of this important information. Many items, however, can be stored on CD-ROM or tape and printed on demand. Examples of publications that might be distributed in this way include Congressional hearings and other voluminous files used primarily for reference. In these cases, the library could save the space previously required in the library for paper, but the user could quickly get a print of the specific material they needed. One of the highest costs of being a depository is the cost of space, and the probability of any government or academic institution creating more space for the storage of paper material is decreasing with each passing year. Assumption 6: As a result of the increased availability of electronic information via the INTERNET and other sources, user expectations concerning access to all forms of information will change and increase. The number of people with access to the Internet has been increasing at an accelerating rate for the last several years. With the passage of the NREN legislation in the 102d Congress, the network will continue to expand in both speed and capacity. In the 103d Congress, H.R.1757 and S.4 contain provisions designed to follow up on the original NREN legislation and to extend network access much further, most especially into schools and libraries throughout the country. Since the concept is a high priority to Vice President Gore and the program is an important part of the Clinton-Gore economic stimulus package, it can be expected that the provisions of H.R.1757 and S.4 will be passed in some fashion. As a result, it seems likely that connectivity to the Internet/NREN will be available to all libraries within the next few years. In addition to providing wider access to electronic information, the Internet will also help individual libraries save on storage space by providing them with the ability to download only what they need for their clients. In addition to the investment being made at the Federal level, investments in telecommunications are also being made at the local, state and regional levels. Several states are building statewide networks that will help to bring high speed networks into schools and libraries, and quite possibly, even into the home. No doubt, these governmental investments will continue for the next 5 - 10 years, making it increasingly possible for more people to gain electronic access to all types of information. As more people have access to the network and more information is available over it, there is little doubt that the net will quickly become a primary vehicle for the delivery of basic information to American citizens. This vision is already taking shape with the development of local Freenets which make available, among other things, community information, news, and weather, as well as local, state, and Federal Government information. Assumption 7: Information professionals, in their roles as intermediaries, will continue to be a key part of the program. As these new networks develop, citizens will face an increasingly complex information world. Faster networks, electronic storage of information and telecommunications have already exponentially increased an individual's opportunity to access and receive information. Information sources have also increased with, for example, over 2,000 vendors already producing CD-ROM's. In addition, the proliferation of new information technologies used in the home, such as fax and interactive video, has made citizens acutely aware of their power and potential. With all these information resources available in a variety of formats, understanding how to use and access them is critical if citizens are to be prepared to function as fully participating members of society. Information professionals such as librarians can fill an important role in helping citizens navigate through this complex information world. All information professionals share similar traits; they know where to find the answers, how to organize information, how to communicate with man and machine, and they know about the latest information technologies. Anyone may be able to find an answer to anything, but is it the right or the best answer? The information professional is trained to identify the best sources for quality information. Information professionals also know how to organize information. Unorganized information is not information at all--it's just data. Take, for example, the current dilemma with the 1990 census data; in order to be replicated in the 1980 format, it needs to be processed through three separate software programs. The typical interested citizen has certain expectations regarding census information and simply handing him or her a CD-ROM containing the raw data is not satisfactory. However, the information professional's unique skill is the ability to communicate. Webster described information as "the communication or the reception of knowledge". Understanding the logic stream to a question, and translating it back to the individual, demands unique communication skills that cannot be replaced by artificial intelligence, at least not in the near future. The information professional also plays a critical role in the development of more useful and usable information products and technologies. No one works more closely with the end-user, knows the requirements of the user better, and can have a greater impact on the future of information technology than the information professional. While all of this is true, the rapid pace of change also makes it necessary for librarians to be constantly updating their skills, to learn to manage information using the newest electronic systems. In addition, in view of the large number of datafiles being distributed, librarians also need training in manipulating numeric data and responding to requests for information presented in a tailored fashion. Extraction of data from CD-ROM or tape, for example, will require more human resources in depository libraries. Librarians need to know how to manipulate the data and how to produce a custom product for each requestor. Assumption 8: In the new information environment, there will be many more diverse points of access to information. The traditional library will be one centralized place for information, but there will be others as well. With the new information environment, users may not need to come to the library to fill their information needs. Electronic information allows dial-in access from a number of locations. While the traditional library will be one centralized place for information, other locations may exist as well. The establishment of the National Research and Education Network, which will build an information "super highway," guarantees access to government information for all citizens through libraries, distribution programs, community learning centers and the information highway. Depository libraries may play the role of providing local network access and making the network function rather than simply receiving, storing, and providing access to paper copies. Like the depository library program which reaches every Congressional district, public schools reach every neighborhood in the country. Once schools are on the network, they will provide additional access points. Many other scenarios can be envisioned as local, state, and regional networks grow and become interconnected. For example, one could go to the local government building and through a terminal there be connected to the network thereby accessing needed information. Kiosks could be set up in shopping malls, very much like the mini-libraries that now exist in some malls. Assumption 9: New laws, regulations, and information systems, and related changes in how government information is collected, maintained, and disseminated will have a major impact on the Depository Library Program. The Depository Library Program is over 100 years old and the last major revision of Title 44 was in 1962. There are many in the library/information community who infer from this fact that Title 44, as written, does not take into account new technologies and that the Government Printing Office might not have a mandate to distribute government information in new electronic formats. This remains a divisive issue. Some have argued that GPO has statutory authority under Title 44 to disseminate all government information regardless of the format in which it is stored. GPO's General Counsel opinions in 1982 and 1989 provided different viewpoints in this debate. Another opinion from the GPO General Counsel in 1990 does expand the definition of a "government publication" to include "government information presented in an electronic format." Does this, however, provide a definitive answer? The question remains as to whether GPO can afford to embark on a new electronic course without a clearcut mission to do so. Further, if GPO does forge ahead in the electronic arena, Federal agencies still are not mandated to provide their products and services (regardless of format) for distribution to the DLP. In a 1991 legal opinion of the GPO General Counsel about cost sharing, there is a footnote in which it is stated that: "Our review of the legislative history indicates that technological advancements in the field of information compilation and dissemination have outstripped, in many instances, the expectation of Congress when it passed the Depository Library Act of 1962. Regardless of this anachronism, both this office (GPO General Counsel) and the Joint Committee on Printing have construed Title 44 to encompass Government information presented in electronic format, although electronic products are not expressly included in the definition of Government publications."Another question to consider is whether this (or previous) legal opinion(s) could be overturned or revised should there be a different General Counsel or Public Printer. "Legislative intent" is always open to interpretation unless there is definitive language contained in public laws. Title 44 must be fully re-examined in light of the new technologies available for information dissemination. If there is a revision, it cannot and should not be done in a piecemeal manner. It is the guiding force of the GPO operations and any changes should be positive and not done to negatively impact the depository or sales programs. All stakeholders must be part of the debate, and that includes JCP and other congressional committees which have some relationship to the operations of GPO, the depository community, library/ information associations, Federal agencies, the information industry, public interest groups, and the oft-discussed "users" of government information. It is also a given, however, that when there is a legislative overhaul of a program, it could bring out the "enemies," in this case, those who might want to restrict the scope of the program, as well as the "friends," who see a need to expand the mandate for GPO operations. It is imperative that Members of Congress be educated about the DLP. The 110 freshmen members of the House of Representatives and the new Senators must be taught by their constituents about the value of the program and its cost-effectiveness. They must understand what the program offers to citizens--their constituents. But they must be convinced NOT only because the DLP offers an information "safety net" or that citizens are entitled to access information about their government. In these budget cutting times, there must be a case made for how the DLP provides an economic advantage to citizens, helps small businesses, aids in this country's competitiveness, etc. The new Administration in Washington came in on the theme of "change" and the DLP and the depository community must be willing to advance that theme. This is especially important in the area of funding--how to convince Congress to adequately fund the GPO/DLP so that electronic products and services are an integral part of the depository program. Some specific issues which should be examined in reviewing Title 44 include:
The Office of Technology Assessment's Report "Informing the Nation," urges Congressional action to resolve Federal information dissemination issues and to set direction for future policies. Discussions about national and Federal information policy issues will have a major impact on any potential changes to the depository library system. Federal agencies are using more and more electronic products and services. Statutes should keep ahead of the times and not just play "catch up." OMB Circular A-130 in its latest proposed revision (April 1992), while noting that Federal agencies should "ensure that government publications are made available through depository libraries," created a number of loopholes for agencies to avoid utilizing the program. The circular provides a narrow definition of a "government publication" and in essence creates a difference between paper and electronic formats. This difference would allow Federal agencies to use the argument they need not provide electronic products and services to GPO for distribution to the DLP. The writers of the circular note that: "...the definition of "government publication" in 44 USC 1901 is: 'informational matter which is published as an individual document'.... OMB does not understand that this definition, on its face, includes electronic data files, software, online information services, or the like .... Therefore, OMB believes it is not clear that agencies have a legal obligation to make electronic products available to depository libraries."Although the circular goes on to say that "as a matter of policy" Federal agencies should make electronic products (services are not mentioned) available to the DLP, such a negative approach sends the wrong signal to agencies. What are agency officials more likely to base their own dissemination policy on--Circular A-130 which provides guidance to executive branch agencies in the area of information policy or a legal opinion of the GPO general counsel (an agency located in the legislative branch) relating to provision of information in electronic formats? With a new administration and therefore new officials at OMB, it is possible that there will be further revisions to A-130. Whether these revisions will take a more positive stance toward the DLP and the role of agencies remains to be seen. But it is something members of the depository community need to be aware of and they could make their concerns known as the guard changes at OMB. As policy makers are working on "building" NREN, the depository community and the library world as a whole must be viewed as stakeholders in the process. The new administration will be closely linked to the notion of an electronic super-highway due largely to Senator Gore's work on the NREN bill and other allied legislation. There is a strong link with Senator Gore also because of his association with the JCP over the past years. If the DLP is to have a viable role in the electronic information age, it and the community must be part of the NREN. The position paper produced by GODORT/ALA in March 1991 titled, "National Research and Education Network and the Federal Depository Library Program," provides strong arguments as to why the DLP should be included in the NREN. It might be worthwhile for the paper to be updated in light of the new administration and new agency heads being appointed. But while there are many in the depository community who are conversant with the issues in this area, it is important that GPO is as well. There were many concerns raised during discussion of the GPO WINDO bill that the agency was not equipped to handle these new technological advances. It might be well for the agency to look to the depository community for expertise in some of these areas. This approach could forge a strong partnership between the depository community and GPO. A final item--or rather a question for further study--is where the regional Bell operating companies (RBOC's) fit into the scheme of things. If and when RBOC's can begin offering information services, how might that development affect depositories? Will there be any impact? Will it mean more players in the information industry repackaging and selling government information? Will it help by increasing competition? Assumption 10: Some libraries will be partners in the change; some will not. As the Depository Library Program moves towards restructuring due to the addition of electronic access and/or the need to control the cost of the program, some libraries will be partners in the change, while others will not. There are already many differences in the services provided among depository libraries. With the move to electronic access, it must be accepted that some libraries will not be able to participate due to a lack of financial support, necessary equipment, or technical expertise. While Council does not support denying information access to any depository library, it must be recognized that this may be the result if some libraries do not have the capability of handling electronic government information. The change in how government information is delivered will happen, with or without a restructured depository library program. But a restructured program will allow those depository libraries that do have electronic access to obtain that information and to assist those libraries that do not. III. Alternative Scenarios for a Restructured Program A. The ARL Model--Multiple Service Levels In 1988, the Task Force on Government Information in Electronic Format of the Association of Research Libraries explored the changing relationship between the Federal Government and depositories libraries. The Task Force noted that, "Government information--its creation and dissemination--is a microcosm of the elements and layers of a new paradigm for libraries" and that "the prospect of GPO providing government information in electronic format for depositories accelerates the need for libraries to address the shifting paradigm." Recent ARL statistics illustrate the depth and breadth of this shifting paradigm and how significant the shift has become in a relatively short period of time. 1990-91 ARL Statistics provide evidence that research libraries "are increasingly moving from the traditional supply or warehouse model, to a demand or access model for providing information to users. ARL libraries are moving from the "just in case" model of on-site resources to the "just in time" model of resource sharing." A recent survey intended to provide a snapshot of ARL libraries' activities considered key elements of a research library of the future--electronic document delivery, electronic journals, full text database access, network access, and the like--provides additional evidence of how widespread this shift is and how it is influencing ARL libraries' services and operations. The survey found that a large number of institutions are making "notable commitments to electronic networked systems and services." (ARL, a Bi-monthly Newsletter No. 163, Toward a Realization of the Virtual Library, Nancy Schiller, and Barbara von Wahlde) For example, 85% of the respondents are using or developing electronic document delivery services and 66% are providing access to electronic full text. And finally, interlibrary loan data demonstrates the continuing reliance upon research libraries for resources and an increase in interlibrary loan activity. Because of the breadth and depth of their collections, research libraries tend to serve as resource collections for other libraries. As more multi-type libraries have used OCLC or RLIN for retrospective and current cataloging, the presence of their holdings in these networks has spread interlibrary loan requests among a larger number of libraries, although the general pattern of research libraries as net lenders seems to be continuing. Since 1981, while lending by ARL libraries has grown 155%, borrowing has grown by 206%. ARL Statistics for FY 1990 documents a total of 5.2 million items loaned or borrowed. The speed with which this shifting paradigm has been introduced and integrated into research libraries can be attributed to numerous factors -- constrained budgets, the serials crisis, new opportunities and services resulting from computer and telecommunications investments and programs, changing user information needs and requirements including increased demand due to more effective bibliographic and access measures, increasing reliance upon electronic resources, and more. As noted elsewhere in this paper and in the forthcoming paper, "Problems and Issues Affecting the U.S. Depository Library Program and the GPO: The Librarian's Manifesto," (20 Government Publications Review, 121-140, (March-April 1993)) there is ample evidence that documents collections in participating depository libraries are a part of or are experiencing many of these same pressures and opportunities. These pressures result in these authors reaching the same conclusion as the ARL Task Force on Government Information in Electronic Information: that there is a pressing need to review and assess the depository library program on a number of fronts, including the questionable value of retaining its current structure given the shifting paradigm. The ARL proposal for a restructuring of the depository program or a variation of it is still valid today. And such a reassessment of the program should be conducted in light of one central and underlying assumption: a program that provides equitable, no-fee access to basic public information for all citizens should be retained and in fact strengthened through any restructuring proposals. There remains the commitment to the role that libraries have always played: provider of no-fee access for the general public to government information. What is highlighted by the prominence of electronic information is that not all government information is the same and that the level of user accessibility provided for electronic products varies tremendously depending on the system characteristics provided by the government or added to it by libraries or other intermediaries. Government information defined as essential for fulfilling the citizenship information needs of the public and for fulfilling government responsibilities should be distributed to depository libraries in a manner that allows libraries to make it available at no-fee. There is also the understanding that with the introduction of new services such as the GPO WINDO, there are also new responsibilities that must be addressed in a restructuring proposal. For example, although a library providing basic services could access the GPO Gateway directly, a user's request might be for retrospective information no longer available via the agency or GPO. The role of full service libraries vis-a-vis issues relating to indexing, archiving, and related long-term access issues will need to be addressed. The ARL model (see Technology & U.S. Government Information Policies: Catalysts for New Partnerships, 1988) proposed the following redefinition of depository library service responsibilities in which government documents and gateways to government information would be focused along the following lines:
B. The Direct Support Model(7) Depository libraries currently play only a limited role in determining the distribution policies and patterns of the depository system as a whole. The fundamental design of the present system is quite simple: regional depositories receive everything distributed by GPO; selective depositories generally opt to receive items in a recommended basic collection, plus whatever additional items are appropriate to the library's mission and responsive to the needs of the public which it serves. The information and incentives for managing the depository program, to the extent that they exist at all, are centralized at GPO. There is a widely held perception that the obligations imposed upon regionals for (a) comprehensive receipt of publications in multiple media, (b) indefinite retention of at least one copy of each publication, and (c) service to other libraries within the region, are too burdensome and inflexible. The model of fifty-plus regional libraries all performing what is often (and incorrectly) described as an archival function, along with other functions that owe more to a paradigm of government property management than to any theory of library service, is becoming less sustainable with each passing year. Selective depositories, for their part, are able to choose the categories of publications that they wish to receive. However, they have little incentive to consider the economic impact of their choices upon the whole depository system, and, even if they attempt to do so, they have very limited tools for participating in the optimum allocation of resources. The subject of cooperation between selective depositories is not well developed in GPO's "Instructions to Depository Libraries." Officially, at least, most cooperation must be mediated by the regional depository. Moreover, the limited autonomy that government documents departments have in most depository libraries, together with the need for the library as a whole to conform to broader institutional policies, tends to reduce the scope of potential contributions by an individual library to system-wide management. The flaws of the present system have been more fully described in other sections of this report, and even more extensively in the growing body of literature on the subject. Many, if not all, of these flaws can be traced to a fundamental structural weakness of the system: the member libraries that serve as the critical link to the ultimate beneficiaries--the public at large--are not empowered to participate in managing the system to best advantage. Federal funding has always been restricted to support of document reproduction and distribution, and has been estimated to constitute less than half of the full cost of the depository system.(8) But decisions that determine how the Federal resources will be allocated largely control the disposition of resources for the entire system. For example, the government's decision to distribute a certain proportion of titles in microform virtually mandates a certain corresponding level of expenditure by a regional library--and by many selectives as well--for the procurement of microform viewing, storage, and replication equipment, as well as for associated staffing and maintenance. Moreover, the likelihood of long-term constraints on Federal spending suggests that if the present system is maintained, there will not be enough money to continue distribution at current levels, to say nothing of meeting the complex distribution challenges posed by the growing body of agency-produced electronic publications. The depository library program is desperately in need of ways to maximize the return on every Federal dollar expended. It is equally urgent that the system enable depository libraries themselves to show a return on their investment in the system, expressed in terms of service to the public and perhaps in terms of other institutional goals as well. Reforming the depository system may involve many elements of change. But the one change that would most effectively align available resources with the "demand" registered by library patrons for government publications would be to give libraries control over how depository resources are allocated. The proportion of overall depository reproduction and distribution costs that are necessary to supply a particular library with its free publications represents the germ of a budget. Each depository's budget can in fact already be considered to exist, albeit in just a latent sense in the present system. The aggregate budget for the entire depository system--a very real figure for GPO--is nothing more than the sum of the costs incurred to serve each depository, even if the latter costs are not currently isolated. The question is not whether each depository has its own budget. Rather, the question is whether the necessary information and incentives will be developed to manage that budget for the maximum benefit of the American public. Fortunately, an essential preliminary step toward giving libraries control over how the expenditures dedicated to their support are allocated will be taken by 1994, when the GPO Library Programs Service's Acquisitions, Classification, and Shipment Information System (ACSIS) is scheduled to have the capacity to report on the cost of each depository publication distributed. This capability will make it possible to calculate the cost of supporting any depository library merely by summing the cost of all the publications that it receives, and perhaps adding to that sum a standard proportion of GPO administrative costs. The next step would be to let libraries have a voice in the disposition of the resources that are now used for their support. This is in fact already being done, but only through a sporadic, command-oriented, crisis-driven process, as represented by GPO's letter to depositories of Nov. 18, 1992 announcing certain curtailments in distribution, asking for voluntary cutbacks in depository selections, and seeking depositories' reactions to additional possible cuts. The only incentive that depositories have to curtail their selections is their hope that such action will prevent deeper future cuts affecting the entire system. In such circumstances, it is very difficult for an individual library to make rational assessments of the costs and benefits associated with GPO's "either/or" propositions. Assuming that for the indefinite future there will be limited funding relative to the costs of distributing all Federal depository publications in a variety of media, it would be much more productive to entrust libraries with the authority to choose at the start of each Federal fiscal year how the library's share of depository funds is to be spent. This would help depository librarians to more fully evaluate the consequences of their selections and would provide a basis for making rational trade-offs. Coupled with cooperative collection development within each region, this approach would enable each library to tailor its selection practices to match its own needs much more closely than is possible today. The question of what base should be used to determine the size of a library's individual budget obviously could be decided in various ways, but should not present an insurmountable obstacle. Perhaps selection patterns for the immediate past year, or for several previous years, would provide a basis from which to start. A library might decide not to use all of its budgeted selection authority each year. Since even free publications incur costs once they are acquired by the library, the same forces that today lead selective depositories not to select everything would continue to operate. Once a system is in place that gives libraries responsibility for how "in-kind" government aid, in the form of free publications, is allocated, it would be attractive to consider expanding libraries' options by making Federal support available as more widely convertible credits that could be used for a variety of purposes in support of depository responsibilities. One could envision GPO's depository distribution operation becoming a more closely related adjunct to the GPO sales program, with a library "paying" for individual items with "depository credits." Eventually, ACSIS should be able to support a more dynamic selection process, so that a depository could choose to receive an individual title at any time up to GPO's placement of the replication order. The library could choose to use its credits to obtain multiple copies of some items, and items placed by GPO in its general sales program could be purchased at some time later than the date of original distribution. As electronic media move into the mainstream of the GPO sales program, and as GPO begins to take advantage of print-on-demand technology, it should be feasible to expand the number of items that are available through the sales program, and to keep them "in print" indefinitely. Additionally, it should be possible to arrange for the use of depository credits for acquisitions on concessionary terms from NTIS. Such credits could also be applied to the purchase of dedicated electronic equipment, commercially produced document sets, and "non-government reference tools" such as those recommended in the "Guidelines for the Depository Library System."(9) Software and databases from government and non-government sources would also be eligible for purchase. Such a plan would make it clear what could be obtained, by an individual library and by the whole depository system, for a given level of expenditure. The participation of multiple suppliers would require GPO to offer high standards of service, as measured by comparison to the alternatives available to libraries rather than merely by internal assessments. Moreover, libraries would be the judges of the adequacy of that service, and could send messages in the form of choices about how they allocate their depository credits. Such a development would actually come as good news for GPO. The burdens of depository system administration would be reduced. A rationalized depository system that empowers libraries and provides for multiple sources of supply would elicit broader support for congressional appropriations. GPO's Library Programs Service unit could emerge changed but revitalized, ready to fulfill the roles expected of it in the future. During the spring 1992 meeting of the Depository Library Council, Superintendent of Documents Wayne Kelley noted, in the words of the official summary, that "the only truly equitable program is one where the actual value is transferred to be disposed of by the consumer."(10) Empowerment of the customer, the user, the voter, the taxpayer, the employee, the shareholder, or the consumer is a key feature of the sweeping political, economic, and administrative changes that are taking place today in our own society and throughout the world. Systems characterized by centralized, command-driven, and production-line forms of organization are giving way to constituent-controlled, demand-responsive, service-oriented structures. It is time to use these new structures to deliver maximum benefit for the American public's investment in depository distribution. Depository libraries have for years been entrusted with the enduring legacy of the depository system: the extensive collections of government publications that are maintained for public use in hundreds of locations throughout the nation. They have also developed, largely on their own, the facilities and the trained staff to provide convenient access to these publications, including the electronic publications that form a growing part of depository information resources. Few would dispute that on the whole depository libraries have merited the trust that has been placed in them, and that they have done an excellent job with the available resources. It is time now to entrust to depositories all of the tools that they need to deliver government information to the people whom they serve. By empowering them to make their own decisions, the depository program will remain true to its original mission, and will be prepared to respond creatively to the challenges of a new century. C. A National Collection of Last Resort The creation of a National Collection to house at least one copy of each government document printed or produced electronically would provide access, as a depository library of last resort, to copies of documents by reproduction, interlibrary loan, or electronic transmission for other depository libraries throughout the country. The primary functions of this library would be the acquisition, housing, and dissemination of a comprehensive collection of documents needed by information users around the country. In general, identification and reference to specific sources would be within the purview of the requesting depository; however, in cases where such identification is difficult or impossible except with onsite access, the librarians at the National Collection could provide some reference help and technical service type information based on their holdings. This collection would be very labor intensive, very expensive, and have an expansive level of service since it would be serving the whole nation. The establishment of a National Collection would provide access to otherwise unavailable "fugitive" documents by requiring agencies to submit only two or three copies of items that could not be procured in large numbers. With dissemination on demand, the National Collection could house and make available to depositories those titles with limited interest and infrequent user potential that are now being distributed to and permanently retained by fifty-two regional libraries. This would be a more cost-effective solution for both the Government Printing Office and for the regional depositories. GPO monies saved on printing, binding, and distribution could be reallocated to support the National Collection. Funding in local depositories that had previously gone to process and store these items could be reallocated for other purposes. The National Collection could be built upon an existing regional collection of exhaustive historical breadth with additional resources culled from the collections of other regionals nationwide to create a comprehensive warehouse of materials readily available to any user in the United States. With the National Collection established, some regionals, as they are now designated, could be allowed to select less than 100% and to discard items after some defined period and after offering their material to the National Collection. Another option for current regionals would be to become a Super-Regional (see below). This structure would meet some citizen information needs that are currently unmet by improving access to materials of limited distribution. It would also allow Federal agencies to disseminate all information to at least one location, getting information into the system that is not currently represented. Questions to be answered include:
D. A Network of Super-Regionals Like the National Collection described above, Super-Regionals would be libraries of last resort, but organized at a regional level to insure coverage for all geographic areas within that region. A Super-Regional would be designated by the Government Printing Office to serve as the "regional collection" for one of ten Federal depository regions to be defined by GPO based upon geographic distribution and population density in the United States (The Environmental Protection Agency's 10 regions would be a good model.) These depositories would provide resource sharing and other support activities to approximately five contiguous states optimally having similar industries and services. Institutions agreeing to accept Super-Regional status must demonstrate the ability to act in that capacity based on strength of collection, adequacy of facility, commitment to continued funding, and enough staff and technical support to meet the needs of constituent depositories and of other Super-Regionals. Responsibilities for Super-Regionals might include:
Unlike a regional depository under the current structure, the Super-Regional collection would be based, at least to a degree, on the subject and geographic needs of the states in its designated region, with comprehensive coverage of materials of more universal interest. Collection development at this level would necessitate a transition from the "item selection" base to a more flexible option such as SuDocs stem or title selection in the Depository Library Program. This would eliminate the need for 52 regionals, including the Super-Regionals, to acquire and maintain ALL documents distributed by GPO while developing strong, comprehensive subject- and geographical-based "regional" collections in each of the 10 Federal Depository Regions. Also, as with the National Collection, "fugitive" documents could more easily be brought into the program if procurement of some documents were limited to 10 Super-Regionals as opposed to 52 regional depositories. Selective depository libraries in each state would also be encouraged to develop strong subject-based collections in cooperation with neighboring depositories to complement rather than duplicate collections. In this scenario, local participants could build the strongest network possible by using their combined, unique knowledge of their region, libraries, and patron needs. With the rapid advancement of electronic technologies and products, more and more information will be made available electronically and the capability of electronic file transfer will greatly reduce the need for warehousing as much information as is presently required. With GPO's proposed development and implementation of FIND, the Federal Information Directory, a comprehensive Federal information product and service locator system, in conjunction with advanced delivery systems and electronic transmission capabilities unavailable at the conception of the Depository Library Program as we now know it, a reduction in hard copy distribution to depository libraries could be achieved without appreciably limiting or restricting access to information. The substantial savings to GPO in the Printing and Binding budget and the reduction in distribution costs would enable GPO to reallocate funds to the development and support of Electronic Depositories or Federal Electronic Distribution Sites (FEDS). Electronic dissemination along with the change from regionals to Super-Regionals could allow for a reallocation of funds so that financing limitations at all levels of the system would be less harmful to the overall goal of information dissemination and retrieval. Questions to be answered include:
The Electronic Depository concept is based on the premise that the effective use of electronic products requires special expertise and hardware and software technologies not currently available in many depository libraries. As more sophisticated products are brought into the depository system, a way must be found to use these sources in an effective, efficient manner. Electronic depositories would evolve from those depositories currently providing the optimum level of service to the general public and from other depositories wishing to develop advanced services by specializing in electronic products and services. As designated "electronic libraries," these depositories would agree to select depository electronic products and services as they become available, regardless of electronic format. Such electronic depositories might or might not also collect selected depository items in paper. Electronic depository libraries would take responsibility not only for receiving electronic products but also for providing support to others for access to electronic information. This type of agreement would necessarily charge these sites with a commitment to learn the developing technologies and to provide service to their constituents. Such services might include training in the use of the systems, the development of user-friendly front-ends for certain products, or other activities intended to facilitate the use of electronic government information. In return for this enhanced responsibility, these depositories should receive supplemental support. For example, a technological advisor might be provided for at least one electronic site in each of the 10 Federal Depository Regions. This position could be funded jointly by the Government Printing Office and appropriations from each state in the Region. Each technological advisor would be expected to travel to other designated electronic sites within the Region to assist in training and development for those sites. Staff at those sites would in turn serve as resource persons for other depository libraries in the area not designated as electronic libraries. With the further development of NREN/Internet and with the establishment of the Government Printing Office as the "gateway" to agency electronic information, it would be necessary for some FEDS to become nodes to provide access to the information infrastructure for those depository libraries not yet connected. The electronic site structure may develop slowly at first with only a handful of libraries willing to make such a drastic commitment, but as expertise is shared and more libraries become willing to embrace the technology, the emphasis will shift much more dramatically from the printed product to the electronic world. There is a real opportunity for economic efficiency if we can learn to use electronic products effectively and for improving access to certain information. Questions to be answered include:
F. Mandatory minimum technical standards. This scenario is a variation on the electronic depositories scenario. Rather than having some libraries specifically designated as electronic depositories, with all the associated responsibilities, this proposal requires all depository libraries to meet minimum technical guidelines in order to be a "full-fledged" depository library. The minimum technical guidelines should become requirements, rather than just guidelines, and be included in the "Instructions to Depository Libraries." If a library truly wants to be a full-fledged depository library, then they will have to have the required minimum workstation configuration and software, and be able to provide the associated reference service necessary to access this information. Those libraries that are unable to meet the minimum technical guidelines could continue to be in the depository library program, but they would only receive a core collection of government information, in either paper or microfiche. None of the materials that these libraries receive would be in electronic format, and therefore they would not need the hardware, software, and technical expertise. Some libraries may never have the necessary funds to purchase the equipment needed to meet the minimum technical guidelines. What service will these libraries be able to provide to their users if they have a CD-ROM, but no workstation in which to play it? On the other hand, such a library could serve to provide its users with basic core government information and to refer its users to another depository that can provide information beyond the core. G. A System of Subject-Based Regionals Many current depository libraries - both regional and selective - have developed significant expertise in one or more subject areas. The subject-based regional concept draws upon this developed expertise to provide relief to those regionals having difficulties due to lack of space, staff, and/or funding. Selective depositories with expertise in specific subject areas or those willing to develop expertise in specific subject areas could accept the obligations of comprehensive collection and service in their specialization. The subject-based regional concept would enhance an invigorated effort to bring about closer cooperation between the information creators (agencies), the information disseminators (GPO) and information access points (libraries) to insure that information products are used to their full potential. By having a smaller pool of contacts for specific subjects, these relationships would have an improved chance of developing into a very effective tool for improved communication. Many of the factors important in the Super-Regional concept would be valid here:
Questions to be answered include:
It should be noted that there may be some significant overlap and blending of possibilities within four of the scenarios, the national library, the super-regional, the subject-based regional, and the electronic depository. For example:
H. Recognize a new role for the depositories when electronic government information comes through a network or a single point of access, such as the GPO Gateway/Windo. Recognize that the DLP creates a foundation for building electronic dissemination systems, and that it can be a primary element in an active Federal information dissemination program Should there even be a Federal Depository Library Program (DLP) in an age dominated by electronic publishing on the Federal level? Is there a role for a system of library centers, geographically dispersed, acting primarily as information repositories in an environment where information can be distributed from point of origin directly to point of use without need for transmission through or storage in a library? In response to these, and other similar questions, technologists, and many in government, often argue that the need for library service, such as the DLP, will diminish as individuals obtain the ability to access information via electronic channels. They see a system of depository libraries as an anachronism in an information environment based on high speed computer networks and such services as a GPO Gateway, a program like the NTIS FedWorld, or a Government-wide Inventory Information/Locator System (GIILS) like the one proposed by Charles McClure and his associates. Certainly, under such scenarios, the traditional role of depository libraries as repositories of Federal information offers less to the information user. Those people who can gain access to the government information they need directly from their homes, schools, and offices, or through "information kiosks" located in various public centers, are less likely to use depository libraries. Other commonly acknowledged barriers to the DLP playing a significant role in a system featuring direct access to the databases of Federal agencies are:
Nevertheless, imagination and dreams of a network Utopia often cause us to overlook the fact that depository libraries are more than geographically dispersed repositories. The idea of replacing the DLP with a high-performance communication network serving citizens through gateways and GIILS-like systems is supported mainly by several underlying assumptions. The first is that public and private resources will be available for, and will be committed to building a government information network from the top down. The second assumption is that a single point/direct access system will connect widely distributed and diverse Federal systems in such a way as to be easily accessible and easily manipulated by the user. The third is that this system will be the most cost effective for the Federal agencies and affordable to all potential users. In order to duplicate and enhance what a system of electronically connected libraries could attain, a dissemination system must:
The proposition that the DLP provides an "information safety-net" for those individuals who cannot afford either the technology or to pay for access to electronic information is not an argument upon which the DLP should base its continued existence as part of the Federal electronic information dissemination system. It relegates the DLP to a minor role in access to government information resources. Although it is true that the DLP can provide a system of last resort for people without institutional affiliations, or who cannot pay for the information, it implies that the information provided through the DLP will be in the least desirable and cheapest form, and that it will be only information without charge or with a lower user fee. In addition, it does not support the mission of the DLP as envisioned under the legislation that established the program as being one of the major providers of primary government information resources. What are the primary features that give the DLP an important role to play as first, a foundation for building electronic dissemination systems, and, second, as a primary element in a Federal information dissemination program? Supporters of the DLP argue that:
I. Rename the program to recognize changes brought on by the era of electronic information. The name "Depository Library Program" is too restrictive and not appropriate in an era of electronic information. Webster's definition of depository reads "a place where something is deposited especially for safekeeping." Citizens soon will have access to information in many formats including active and interactive formats which will never be stored or deposited in a local collection. The name "depository libraries" also is not recognizable to most citizens. Unless a citizen has prior knowledge that depository libraries contain collections of Federal information, these libraries are probably the best kept secret around. Even if a major marketing effort were undertaken to improve and increase library use, the name itself would handicap these efforts. As a suggestion, the name "Federal Information Program" reflects clearly the purpose and content of the program. Individual libraries could then be designated as "Federal Information Centers" for their communities. J. Downsize the program to meet budgetary constraints The Depository Library Program has been under almost continuous budgetary pressure in recent years, as the costs of running the program have far exceeded the available resources.(11) The primary response of the Government Printing Office to these pressures has been to make much of the information available in less costly alternative formats, primarily microform. For example, despite the fundamental importance of the bound Congressional Record, it is now distributed in paper only to the regional depositories. Other depositories receive it on microform or pay to obtain it in paper. Many other publications are also only available in microform, while some are available in both paper and microform in the expectation that some libraries will select the less costly alternative. The rationale for this approach has been that the Government Printing Office can meet its legal obligation to distribute the publications by doing it in a less costly way. On the other hand, for the basic core material heavily used by depository patrons, it is a disservice to the user and to the program itself to distribute the material in ways that make it less accessible and less useful. As more material is distributed in less accessible formats the program is less relevant to meeting the needs of a information users. Rather than letting the whole program deteriorate, serious thought should be given to maintaining the quality of the program on a smaller scale. Converting selected materials to microform is only a piecemeal solution. The problems of the program are pervasive, and radical approaches may be required for the program to survive. Such radical approaches are necessary because fundamentally, it is not possible to continue to disseminate the same amount of material to the same or a larger number of libraries with the same or fewer resources without making significant changes--including either downsizing or massive conversion to electronic dissemination. This fact was demonstrated clearly in the fall of 1992, when the program confronted a crisis in which it became clear that further conversion to microfilm threatens the program itself. Then, in response to a 10 percent budgetary shortfall, the Government Printing Office asked libraries to reduce their selections and specifically targeted a number of "big ticket items" for conversion to microform, including the Serial Set, the Code of Federal Regulations, the U.S. Code, and other basic materials. To many, these are the most fundamental documents about the operation of the government that justify the very existence of the program. In striking a blow here, GPO struck at the heart of the program itself. It should be clear that if Congress is not going to provide the program with more funds, other fundamental changes will have to take place. GPO can either stop printing and distributing material when they run out of money or they can make proposals to Congress for ways to downsize the program and its costs. There are several possibilities for downsizing the depository program which would result in the distribution of fewer materials and reducing the cost to GPO. This, in turn, should permit GPO to maintain the quality of the program without further conversions to microform. No proposal for downsizing will be popular. Some library or group of libraries will feel the pain. Painful though it is, some effort to downsize seems necessary if the program is to survive at all. Several possibilities for downsizing are listed below in order of increasing difficulty. 1. Reduce the amount of material selected by each library. Either voluntarily, or through the establishment of a ceiling on selections, each library--perhaps even including the regionals--could be asked to reduce the amount of material it acquires. In the past, libraries were encouraged to acquire a large number of items; there was even an expectation that every library would select a minimum of 25% of the available items, whether they needed that material or not. In a time of financial difficulty, such assumptions are no longer valid. Instead of encouraging each library to select more than they really need, each library should select only those items likely to be needed to serve its constituency. Under this plan, regionals might be permitted to select everything, but need not do so. Selectives would be asked to review the items they select with their primary depository constituencies in mind. Instead of minimum selection targets, ceiling targets--rules of thumb--might be established to help libraries decide what might be appropriate. For example, large research libraries might select 50 to 90 percent, mid-sized libraries might select 20 to 50 percent, and law libraries might select 7 to 15 percent. To help libraries hone their selections, GPO should also refine its item numbers to allow libraries to be more precise in their selections. It is widely acknowledged that the current item numbers are quite broad and that many libraries receive more than they really want because they must take a large category of materials to receive the few items really needed. 2. Downsize by Eliminating Selective Housing Arrangements. A corollary of the need to downsize and the need to ask libraries to select no more than they really need is a need to eliminate entirely selective housing arrangements. Under this program, depositories select materials they don't really need and send them to another library for "housing." These arrangements effectively increase the number of depository libraries and the amount of material distributed under the program. For example, in the years before law libraries became depositories, it was not uncommon for another depository on a university campus to select legal materials not really needed in their collection and send them to the law library. Although this arrangement met a significant need, it has the effect of increasing the costs of the program. In an era of financial stringency, it seems entirely appropriate to insist that only those libraries that have been named as depositories should be able to collect and hold the material they acquire. Elimination of such arrangements would leave the total number of validly designated depository libraries unchanged. 3. Downsize by Reducing the number of depository libraries. If the foregoing measures do not result in sufficient savings, it may be necessary to confront the difficult political question of finding ways to reduce the total number of depository libraries. Reduction in the number of libraries in the program will be the most painful solution, but may have to be done in order to keep the program from sinking of its own weight. With over 1400 depository libraries throughout the nation, there are an average of 28 in each state. Realistically, it may be that that number would have to be reduced to 24 or 25, or even fewer. In all likelihood, if done carefully, that step could be taken without significant damage to the overall program. How is it possible to reduce the number of libraries in the program? What libraries would be terminated? This is obviously the most difficult of areas, and an answer probably requires a re-examination of some of the program's premises. Two fundamental aspects of the program are the Congressional designation and the requirement of public access.
Even while this downsizing is going on, GPO should move aggressively to develop effective alternative delivery systems that, unlike microform, could meet the needs of users for access to information and eliminate the need for costly paper distribution. Paper is expensive for libraries to store as well as for the Government Printing Office to print and distribute. If reliable and effective means were developed for the delivery of some information electronically, it would be less necessary for libraries to go to the expense of acquiring and housing the documents. They would, no doubt, continue to select in paper the items they considered central to their mission. However, in many cases, electronic dissemination could substantially replace paper distribution. IV. Process for the Future This paper has been written by the members of the Depository Library Council to stimulate a discussion about the future of the Depository Library Program. We have tried to state a number of assumptions about the future, and working within those assumptions, tried to develop a number of alternative scenarios for the future of the program. This report contains a great many different ideas, and no one on the Council agrees with everything in the report. However, we do agree that the depository program needs to be re-structured to meet the challenges created by the economy and the development of new technology. We further agree that the ideas presented here deserve to be debated in the hope of coming to a new consensus about a new future for the depository program. The Council distributed an earlier draft of this paper for discussion at the Federal Depository Conference in April 1993. That draft also served as the basis for extensive discussion of the issues that it treated during the spring meeting of the Depository Library Council on May 17-18, 1993. After that, Council plans to disseminate it more broadly and solicit comments from many of the stakeholders: the depository community in general, the Government Printing Office, Federal agencies, the Office of Management and Budget, the information industry, and members of Congress, especially those serving on the Joint Committee on Printing, the Subcommittee on Government Information of the House Committee on Government Operations, and the Subcommittee on Government Information and Regulation of the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs. Following that discussion, Council will consider revising the report, adding to it any recommendations that reflect a consensus among the parties. To the extent that implementation requires Congressional action or decisions from the Government Printing Office, it is hoped that those bodies will follow up directly on the recommendations made by the final report. FOOTNOTES 1. "Public Printer Supports Depository Library Program," Public Documents Highlights, 48/49 (October/December 1981): 1 2. We understand that when the National Technical Information Service announced its bulletin board, many agencies expressed interest in using the system as a means of public access, thus bypassing GPO and the Depository Library Program. 3. Peter Hernon and Charles McClure, Public Access to Government Information: Issues, Trends, and Strategies (Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corp., 1988), 367-69. 4. U.S. Congress, Joint Committee on Printing, "Government Information as a Public Asset", 102nd Cong., lst sess., April 25, 1991, 24-25, (hereinafter cited as "Government Information as a Public Asset"). 5. See "Estimated Monetary Value of Depository Collections" 4 Administrative Notes, 4 (May 1983). 6. Russell, Judith C., "GPO Update" in 13 Administrative Notes 3, at 6-7 (August 15, 1992). 7. The ideas in this section reflect some of the perspectives of the information industry. However, this section is not, and should not be construed as, a position statement of the Information Industry Association. 8. "Government Information as a Public Asset", nt.4, supra at 24-25. 9. Guidelines for the Depository Library System, as adopted by the Depository Library Council, revised 1987, Guideline 4-2 (Washington, D.C.: USGPO, 1988). 10. Administrative Notes, Vol 13, No. 11, May 31, 1992. 11. See discussion at nt.6, supra. 12. Double the number of Representatives and Senators would result in 1080 depositories, a reduction of over 300. One thousand depositories across the 50 states would still go a long way toward meeting the needs of the people.
|
| A service of the Superintendent of
Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office. Questions or comments | ||||
| Last updated: July 10, 2000 Page Name: http://www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/fdlp/council/alternat.html | ||||
| [ GPO Home ] | [ GPO Access Home ] | [ FDLP Desktop Home ] | [ Council Home ] | [ Top ] |