New Feature Added to GPO's GILS Site

http://www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/gils/gils.html .

The default selection on the Web page searches all GILS records on GPO Access as well as all known WAIS-based Federal GILS sites. The search results combines records from all of these sites into one list.

In response to user feedback, this feature is available from the simple search GILS page.

For further assistance in utilizing this new GILS application, contact the GPO Access User Support Team by e-mail at gpoaccess@gpo.gov, by phone at (toll free) (888) 293-6498 or (local) (202) 512-1530 or by fax at (202) 512-1262.

.

Remodeling? Asbestos Removal?
Depository Collections Must Be Accessible to the Public!

[Updated from a notice published in Administrative Notes, vol. 11, no. 14 (June 30, 1990)]

Each year, some depository libraries undergo remodelling, undertake a move, or otherwise find their operations disrupted. This notice reminds library staff of their fundamental responsibility to keep depository services fully available to the public.

Any depository library contemplating asbestos removal, renovation, or other temporary situations that would involve curtailing public service to the Federal depository collection should develop a strategy for ensuring that both its primary clientele and the general public continue to have access to Government information in all formats through the Federal Depository Library Program.

Before beginning such a project, the library should prepare a contingency plan for its Federal depository operations, and submit a copy of that plan to the Library Programs Service and to the Regional library serving the state or region. This plan should include estimated beginnings and ending dates, the extent of the curtailment of service, the alternative strategies to be employed to fulfill Government information requests, and techniques for notifying primary clienteles, other depository and non- depository libraries, and the public.

Questions may be directed to:

Chief, Depository Services
Library Programs Service (SLLD)
U.S. Government Printing Office
Washington, DC 20401

phone: (202) 512-1119
fax: (202) 512-1432
e-mail: smcgarr@gpo.gov

.

GPO, The Suffolk Cooperative Library System, and The State University of New York at Stony Brook Open Free Web Link to Federal Information

Empire Access, New York's Gateway to United States Government Information, is the 18th electronic pathway to GPO Access accessible via the World Wide Web. Users may access the gateway by pointing their web browser to: http://www.suffolk.lib.n y.us/gpo/. Users of Empire Access may search the databases without charge as frequently as they like. For local user support, contact Diane Eidelman (516) 286-1600 ext. 325 (diane@suffolk.lib.ny.us ) or Jyoti Pandit (516) 632-7161 (Louis@suffolk.lib.ny.us .

The GPO databases are also available for free electronic searches to patrons of the Federal depository libraries under the "GPO Access" program launched in June 1994. There is a Federal depository library in nearly every congressional district.

"We believe the public should have timely access to vital information about the activities of their Government without charge," says head of the GPO, Public Printer Michael F. DiMario. "Further, it is our goal to establish local outlets to the GPO electronic system in every State. We want these important Government publications available to the American public around the clock, 7 days a week."

To this end, GPO is working with depository libraries to develop model gateways for public access to GPO's databases. Built on existing campus and public networks, these gateway depositories serve as models for the nationwide depository library system.

Inquiries about the availability of GPO Access services should be directed to the GPO Access User Support Team at (888) 293-6498 (toll free) or (202) 512-1530 (local); Fax: (202) 512-1262; or Internet e-mail: gpoaccess@gpo.gov. Questions about the service can also be directed to a nearby Federal depository library. Written information about the GPO Access and GPO products and services can be obtained via U.S. Fax Watch, the GPO's fax-on-demand service, by dialing (202) 512-1716.

Eight Short Weeks at LPS

The other issue concerns the distinction between the workstation specifications, which are only an evolving set of recommendations, versus the electronic service requirement, which continues unchanged. To recap the service requirement, every depository is expected to be able to offer public access to electronic information made available through the FDLP. As stated in the "Guidelines for the Federal Depository Library Program:"

Appropriate hardware and software must be provided for public users accessing electronic information available through the Federal Depository Library Program (e.g. CD-ROMs, on-line databases, etc.). This hardware and software should include computer work stations capable of providing Internet (read Web) access that requires GILS-aware software, CD-ROM readers, and printers.

This functional statement regarding electronic information access became a FDLP requirement effective October 1, 1996. During a depository library inspection, or during the self-study process, a functional approach should be used to determine compliance with this requirement. We must focus on the depository library's ability to provide public access to electronic FDLP information. The method, including the computer hardware, selected by the depository library to meet this public access requirement is a local determination. For example, public access to Government information provided via the Internet may be provided either through mediated searches, or by allowing members of the public to use depository library work stations on their own. In making such decisions, depository librarians should bear in mind the "rule of thumb" that services associated with FDLP information products should be at the same level as those accorded to products which are purchased for the library's collection.

"Core Documents of Democracy" on GPO Access

A new project that we've been scoping out is called "Core Documents of Democracy;" a basic electronic depository collection, one which will provide American citizens direct online access to the essential Federal Government documents that define our democratic society. The core documents collection will provide ready access from any school, home, or office desktop to the basic documentation of the United States, at no cost to the user. It should include documents currently produced in digital formats as well as important older materials that will need to be digitized. Where appropriate, the core documents collection will point to content at other official Government sites, for example at the National Archives' Web site. A basic assumption of this proposal is that development and implementation of the collection will take several years. The proposal is inherently open-ended, and the time frame will be governed by the availability of resources, both human and financial. LPS has developed a provisional collection from lists of major FDLP products compiled in several previous projects, such as the list of core documents which appeared in the 1996 Strategic Plan. We've put together a Web page mockup to give you an idea of what might be included as a starting point, and we welcome your thoughts on either the concept or the specifics.

I welcome Council's consideration of this proposal, and your advice on its overall desirability. Once a decision on the proposal is finalized, both the Council and ALA/GODORT will be consulted for input on refining the provisional list of titles. This input could also assist in setting priorities for the order in which titles will be added to the core documents collection.

Conclusion

Thank you for coming this morning. Please feel free to ask any of us any questions which are on your mind - we'll be around all week. At this point, I'll turn it over to Robin Haun-Mohamed, Chief of our Depository Administration Branch.

.

Depository Administration Branch Update

Remarks by Robin Haun-Mohamed
Chief, Depository Administration Branch

Library Programs Service
U.S. Government Printing Office

Depository Library Council
Federal Depository Conference
Monday, April 14, 1997
Arlington, VA

Good morning. Although I know from the calendar that it has been several months since we last met in Salt Lake City, it doesn't seem possible for us to be meeting again so soon. It has been a very busy and productive time for staff in LPS. In October I discussed several projects that I had hoped to have available by the end of the calendar year. At that time I was hoping to meet a very ambitious schedule we had developed for electronic shipping lists and the Item Lister. Thanks to staff located throughout GPO, but especially in the Electronic Transition Staff, EIDS, and Production, we were able to meet our goals for these two projects.

Electronic Shipping Lists

Effective January 2, 1997, shipping lists for all formats are routinely being posted to the Federal Bulletin Board (FBB) in dBase format. Shipping lists for paper, separates, electronic, and microfiche formats are loaded twice weekly into separate libraries on the FBB. Our partners, SUNY Buffalo and the University of Texas, Arlington, take this information and make it available via their Web page. They also offer an ingenious program that allows users to produce labels in their libraries from each shipping list. We are very pleased at the way this service partnership utilizes our basic products to provide additional value for those in the depository community.

Online Item Lister

In February, Item Lister became a reality. Item Lister is a service which allows users to view a library's item selection profile via the World Wide Web. Information from the Depository Distribution Information System (DDIS) is updated monthly for the Item Lister. This service is located off the FDLP Administration page under the Tools option. For those libraries wishing to have a complete printout of the depository item selection profile, you no longer need to wait until the spring update cycle. If you haven't seen this new service, take a look!

CenStats Available at No Charge

In March, LPS was advised by Census that the CenStats database was publicly available. Although the library registration site is not yet ready, Census has provided temporary passwords for depository libraries to access this service at no charge to the library. CenStats is a fee-based electronic subscription service that provides access to the contents of popular Census Bureau databases, including some CD-ROMs. On very short notice, the regional librarians provided invaluable assistance in notifying their selective libraries of the availability of this new service and also provided assistance in giving the passwords to these libraries. Census is still working on the development of a registration site on the Web where depository libraries can register and choose their own password to access the system. When this site is completed, depositories will be notified of the location by a fax broadcast via GPO's U.S. Fax Watch system. It could be as early as next week.

Depository access to the CenStats database differs from STAT-USA in that multiple users are allowed to access the database at the same time. But Census has limited access to the database to one physical location. The user must be in the library to access the database. They cannot do research from home, their dorm rooms or faculty offices, or even another library on the same campus or in the same system. For library systems with more than one library, the depository may not provide access to the database in the Business Library and the Undergraduate Library. The depository librarian will have to choose which location.

Council requested multi-user access to this new service without limitations to location. Census was advised of Council's request, but felt they could not meet the request because of the need to recover costs from users for this new service. During the time between the meeting in Salt Lake City and March when this service became active, LPS worked with a Council representative to keep Council informed of how the service was developing. And this information about the new service has also been included in GPO's responses to the Recommendations and Action Items of Depository Library Council to the Public Printer, Fall 1996. I'd like to thank all the parties involved in making no charge depository access to this new service a reality.

BET (Browse Electronic Titles)

There are several new projects we are working on in the Depository Administration Branch (DAB). We continue to focus on finding new electronic publications on the Internet and notifying the community via the Browse Electronic Titles (BET) page. One of the projects is the development of a permanent cumulative listing of all titles that have been placed on the BET page. Currently monographs are rotated off on a 90 day cycle. We continue to maintain the serial titles on the page, but when a monograph has been on the page for 90 days we take it off to keep the page to a more reasonable size. But for our own internal use, we have developed a page with all of the titles that have been listed on the BET. This allows us to have a way of quickly checking if we have pointed to a title before. And it is also a way to check for bad or broken URLs. I seek Council's advice on this issue. Does Council perceive a need for this page to be available for use by the depository community? And if it is perceived as a product that should be available to all, is there a problem with utilizing frame technology? The way we have designed this page for internal use requires the user to access the Internet with a browser such as Netscape 2.0 which supports frame technology.

Digital Rastor Graphic Maps

LPS is working with USGS to develop an on-demand service for replication of the Digital Rastor Graphic maps (DRGs) on CD-ROM. The DRGs have not been sent to GPO for replication and distribution since last fall. Because of budget limitations and low sales for the DRG's, staff at USGS made a decision to only produce DRGs on demand as requested, rather than acquiring them through GPO and storing copies in their warehouse for sale. GPO was notified of this decision and discussions began to determine a way to keep this information in the depository program. In our discussions with USGS, it was determined that the DRGs were essentially duplications of the topographic maps distributed to the libraries in paper format, and that USGS does not have plans to update the DRG database in the future.

Because of the large number of discs that are expected to be produced in this series, over 900 CD-ROMs, LPS is working with USGS to develop an experimental, on-demand pilot project to distribute the DRGs to depository libraries that request the discs as they are needed, at no cost to the requesting library. We hope to be able to gain information about on-demand services from this project. We will keep Council informed of how this project progresses.

Electronic Daily Treasury Statement

GPO and the Department of Treasury have been working together to obtain an electronic file of the Daily Treasury Statement (DTS) on a daily basis. Several issues of DTS have been successfully loaded onto the Web and it will soon be available online on GPO Access. Depositories will continue to receive DTS in paper format until the end of this calendar year at which time only the electronic version will be available through the depository program.

FBIS CD-ROM

The FBIS CD-ROM, no. 14, has been distributed to depository libraries. This is another example of the shift from traditional format to an electronic format. The first CD-ROM, no. 13 was distributed to libraries in January and no. 14 was distributed in March. The April 15, 1997 issue of the Administrative Notes includes an article on the dissemination policy associated with the FBIS on CD-ROM "Official Use Only" product. Please review the article for your responsibilities as indicated by the FBIS. We have consulted with the agency on the availability of the first 12 CD-ROM's and they responded they were not able to make these available to the depository libraries. Staff at Brown University have generously offered to work with us to be sure there are no holes in the microfiche collection that libraries have to bring the FBIS publications up-to-date with the CD-ROM product.

STAT-USA

All users of the STAT-USA depository subscription need to be aware of a password change to take effect April 14, 1997. Information about this change was dropped in each depository box and also appeared in the March 31, 1997 issue of the Administrative Notes Technical Supplement. Essentially, only the password will change, your user ID remains the same. If you are unsure of your original password or have not yet registered for this valuable and highly useful service, please contact me by e-mail. While many of my staff have the nice new GPO e-mail addresses, for now I still have the old one which is, chiefdab@access.digex.net . Please do not post the password change to a listserv in any summary of this address.

One further point on STAT-USA. Subscribers to the National Trade Data Bank have been advised they can continue to purchase the DOS version of the CD-ROM. Depository libraries have not been given this choice. The DOS version will only be available until the end of the calendar year. By the time LPS did a survey, assigned a new class and item number, and actually distributed the first issue of the DOS version, there would be little time left in the calendar year. Many of the resources on the NTDB are available in the libraries in alternate formats, paper, microfiche, and all are duplicated on the online STAT-USA free depository subscription. It has been decided to stay with the original decision to provide this product to the libraries only in the Windows format.

Good News on Fugitive Documents

I usually have examples of fugitive publications that we are attempting to obtain through the Program, but today I have good news about a title that has been a fugitive and seen a lot of discussion lately on GOVDOC- L. The 1995 edition of the Food Code will be distributed to libraries in the very near future. NTIS is sending paper copies for distribution to the depositories, and I expect them next week. We have also been advised by NTIS that the 1997 edition will be provided to the libraries. This is due sometime in early June. And to update you on another former fugitive, the 1997 Tide Tables CD-ROM was distributed to the libraries last week.

Department of State Dispatch, Background Notes, CIA World Factbook

I'd also like to bring you up-to-date on the Department of State Dispatch. We have had several inquiries on this title because it has not yet been distributed to libraries in 1997. Dispatch will no longer be a weekly product. The frequency is changing to 10 times a year with 2 supplements. And the first issue is just going to press for 1997. Also from the Department of State, the Background Notes will continue to be available in paper format, but they will not be updated as often as they have been in the past. The Background Notes are also included on the State Department's DOSFAN site and on the quarterly Foreign Affairs CD-ROM.

We still await word on some products, such as the CIA World Factbook. We haven't seen the CD-ROM yet and have been told the 1996 will not be in print. And while I reported in February that the 1997 would also not be available in print, we heard this last week that GPO may still be given the electronic files to do a print run. We will advise the community when a definitive answer has been reached on this.

Office Renovation

On the operational issues for DAB, I would like to remind all that we are still in a state of transition. The work has been completed in one room, and we are all in that office while the other room is being recarpeted, rewired and rearranged. Thus, if you call old familiar numbers, you may get a different person. There is a listing of the current LPS telephone numbers and e-mail addresses in Council's packet and it also available as a handout to the conference attendees. We are pleased with our new computers and the access to the Internet via a server. This is very much a learning process at this stage, but instead of three people to help search for electronic documents, we now have 13 as all the Publication Management Specialists can now assist with searching for products.

Online Item Selection

I always try to save the best for last. Last fall I brought up the idea of allowing libraries to make their own changes for the update cycle via the WWW. This is going to be a reality, in time for this year's item selection update cycle. We will begin the cycle this year on June 2nd with an ending date of July 31. The update cycle packets with the annual item selection printouts will be mailed to the libraries, but this year they will not include the "green cards." Rather, they will include the library's password to allow the library to do their own changes on a form available on the Web. By automating this process LPS will save a great number of hours that are usually used for inputting the update cycle changes. And libraries will be able to make their own changes and see what changes they have requested in a timely manner. Because of the need to have as many libraries as possible do their own data entry, we are asking that no more green cards be submitted after June 2, 1997. For those few libraries that are not able to access the FDLP Administration page, they will need to contact DAB staff to get the traditional green card package. Please do not let us know now that you are unable to access the Internet to do these changes, wait until the update cycle package arrives in your library in mid- to late May.

To summarize, I request Council's assistance in reviewing the need to have the LPS internal page listing all Browse Electronic Titles listings made available to the public and the advisability of maintaining this page with the frames format that is currently in use on this page. And I will keep Council advised of events associated with the USGS on-demand project we are attempting to develop for the DRG CD-ROMs. I thank you for your time this morning.

.

Electronic Transition Staff Highlights

Remarks by Sandy Schwalb Electronic Transition Specialist

Library Programs Service U.S. Government Printing Office

Depository Library Council Federal Depository Conference Monday, April 14, 1997 Arlington, VA

Introduction

Good morning. I heard Gil say that the clock was running and I wasn't sure if he meant this morning or in general. So I will use my best New York cadence and get as much material to you as I can in the next few minutes. I guess I should make note that I might have the distinction of having the most badges at this meeting: GPO staff/speaker/former council member. It is kind of interesting that seven years ago, as a member of council, I was involved in drafting recommendations calling for GPO and the depository program to move quickly into the new electronic age what goes around, comes around?

Pathway Indexer

Gil filled you in on the work being done by Lee Morey on Browse Topics and the soon to be renamed Draft Specifications for Public Access Workstations in Federal Depository Libraries. Lee is also heavily involved with the GPO Pathway Indexer. GPO has gone most recently from indexing almost 50,000 items on 809 government Internet servers to indexing over 110,000 items from 1274 Internet servers and is indexing sites in much greater depth than previous gathers achieved. Lee also wanted to report that GPO is currently indexing more pages--106,151--than GovBot, which is on the U.S. Business Advisor Web site.

Web Activities

You have heard about Joe Paskoski, "the spiritual father" of the FDLP Administration page and his other activities on green cards, item lister and shipping list. Joe has also been working with Susan Dow from the Depository Library Council in order to establish the Council's own Web pages on GPO Access. The plan is for the Council to go live with a complete package of pages sometime in mid-May.

ETS

In our roles as "expert consultants" (I love that title--should look good on the resume) Duncan Aldrich and I have been guided in our activities by the terms "partnerships" and "permanent access."

There are two types of partnership arrangements I will briefly discuss here. Those in which enhanced services are provided to help in the administration of library collections is called a "service" partnership. A second type of partnership that is being developed involves providing access to Government information products held by FDLP libraries for remote access. These are "content" partnerships, reflecting the fact that they provide remote access to the actual content. The FDLP believes it has a responsibility to provide permanent access to the content in these partnerships much as regionals have provided permanent access to traditional paper and fiche products.

NCLIS

As you may know, GPO and the National Commission on Libraries and Information Science (NCLIS) have signed an Interagency Agreement for NCLIS to conduct an "Assessment of Standards for the Creation, Dissemination and Permanent Accessibility of Electronic Government Information Products." As a matter of fact, I was working on this project the very day I "signed on" to work at GPO last August.

At the Federal Documents Task Force update, held during the ALA Midwinter conference here in DC, Peter Young, executive director of NCLIS said that he was talking with staff of the National Research Council (NRC), of the National Academy of Sciences, about having that organization produce a Statement of Work that would lay out the framework for conducting the assessment. Last week, a meeting was held during which Peter introduced staff from the NRC to the Public Printer and Superintendent of Documents. At that time it was decided that NRC would begin, in the very near future, to produce the Statement of Work. In brief, the assessment will be conducted in three steps:

1) production of the Statement of Work, that will focus on the nature of the issues and questions to be asked;

2) data and fact gathering to be done by an entity other than NRC; and

3) NRC would convene a panel of "experts" to examine and discuss the research data; offer recommendations; produce a report. The NCLIS commissioners will be involved in this process as well and GPO and NCLIS will then publish, jointly, a final report.

I am pleased to note that Peter Young and Commissioner Bob Willard are attending this conference.

DOE

At the fall Council meeting I reported on a project on which I had just started. At that time, some of the terms were foreign to me, but I can now report that thanks to Duncan and other colleagues at GPO, I almost completely understand the wonderful world of TIFF images. A quick review might be in order. At the end of fiscal year 96, due to budget

circumstances, the Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI) of the Department of Energy (DOE) ended its program of providing microfiche copies of its 12,000-15,000 reports and publications to the Federal Depository Library Program. GPO and OSTI had worked together under an Interagency Agreement on this project for 12 years.

Beginning in October, GPO began to receive between 2 to 2 1 gigabytes of data each week: TIFF image files. An enormous amount of material! Within GPO we were trying to determine the best way to provide this material to the depository community.

I can now report that GPO and DOE/OSTI are talking about providing this material electronically on a DOE system called "Infobridge." In March, a number of GPO staff including the Superintendent of Documents and others from ETS/LPS/EIDS and Production met with the new director of OSTI, Walter Warnick and Karen Spence, Assistant Manager, Information Access and Delivery, OSTI to talk about working together to make this material accessible to depositories. Karen Spence and Kathy Chambers, who is OSTI's GPO technical representative, are here today and would be happy to answer your questions about this project.

It was at this March meeting, that was planned to welcome the new head of OSTI and to examine a renewed partnership, they announced that OSTI was running a beta test of Infobridge that would link the bibliographic data of DOE reports to the full-text. The material will be fully searchable, user- friendly and will include both easy and advanced search capabilities. We were told that, barring any unforeseen developments, the site could be available to the depository community by the end of this calendar year. Last week, in fact, technical staff from OSTI and GPO participated in a conference call during which GPO staff provided feedback to the OSTI folks about Infobridge.

GPO staff is pleased that DOE/OSTI wants to ensure that the FDLP will continue to have access to DOE reports and publications. The introduction of Infobridge looks to be a continuation of the GPO/DOE partnership. Although we are still in the talking stage with DOE, we know that they intend to assure access to their material. GPO likes this arrangement of being the intermediary connecting the FDLP to info products maintained by the originating agency. This falls is line with current thought that the originating entity is the most appropriate entity to provide access to its information.

I might add that GPO had been in discussion with OCLC about a pilot project in which they would provide access to this DOE information to the FDLP. Now that GPO will be working directly with the agency, we are exploring other content alternatives with OCLC.

UIC/DOS/GPO

The Department of State and University of Illinois at Chicago (UIC) have agreed on a three-way memorandum of understanding establishing a partnership between GPO, UIC and Department of State, under which UIC will hold for permanent access electronic information products that migrate off the Department of State DOSFAN Web site. This is the first of an anticipated growing body of "content" partnerships, that I mentioned earlier. This partnership is being held together by a Memorandum of Understanding that outlines obligations on the part of UIC, Department of State and GPO. A key stipulation of the Memorandum is that UIC will deliver a copy of DOSFAN to GPO if UIC can no longer maintain it.

Indeed, the Memorandum of Understanding was strengthened based on the input Duncan received during the Fall 96 Council meeting. There will be a session on this topic to be held on Thursday morning at 9:15 a.m.

Service Partnerships

In terms of "service" partnerships, Duncan wanted me to announce that just last week (yes, last week WAS a busy one) we received word that Louisiana State University (LSU) gave us the go-ahead to use their Federal Agency List as a Browse Agency locator service. The thinking is that we will add this Browse Agency function to our "Locate Government Information Products" section on the Superintendent of Documents Home Page. Joe will be working out these and similar details on this project with Mary Jane Ledvina of LSU.

USDA Conference

As many of you know, GPO was a sponsor of a conference on preserving digital Department of Agriculture information. The meeting, held last month in DC, was proposed by Cornell University and the National Agricultural Library. Duncan, Gil, and T.C Evans (who will be up here in a few minutes) attended as working participants. Wayne Kelley presented a talk as a member of a "Panel of Responsible Parties and Key Stakeholders." With Mr. Kelley's presentation and contributions that Gil, T.C., and Duncan made in working sessions, the GPO perspective on providing permanent public access to remotely accessed electronic information products through the FDLP was clearly articulated to the group.

Several of the people involved in the USDA Conference will be here tomorrow morning at 10:30 a.m. to talk about the program and discuss "Permanent Access Planning: Preservation of USDA Digital Publications."

Conclusion

So the clock continues to run on both this presentation and the projects of ETS. The electronic transition, which members of my long ago Council class talked about, is becoming more of a reality and I certainly appreciate the fact that GPO and the Public Printer gave me the opportunity to be here and be a part of it.

Cataloging Branch Update

Remarks by Thomas A. Downing
Chief, Cataloging Branch

Library Programs Service
U.S. Government Printing Office

Depository Library Council
Federal Depository Conference
Monday, April 14, 1997
Arlington, VA

Introduction

Good morning. It is a pleasure to be here with you this morning to update you on recent Cataloging Branch operations. I look forward to our meetings during Council and Conference. Those of you with interests in cataloging may wish to attend the program on "Bibliographic Access to Electronic Sources: National Standards" and the Regional program on "Bibliographic Control in an Electronic FDLP: Problems, Practices, and Policies" to be held this Wednesday from 8:30 to 10:00 and from 10:30 to 12:00 respectively. During the 8:30 program we will present detailed information associated with cataloging Internet-related titles.

Personnel

At the present time, our branch consists of 21 people, including 15 catalogers. We hope to fill two vacancies within the next two months. Two vacancies have been announced, one announcement has closed and another remains open until Wednesday, April 23rd. Copies of this announcement are available in the back of the room. If you are interested, please apply.

Cataloging Related Work

During the first six months of this fiscal year, from October 1996 through the end of March, 1997, we received 15,573 pieces of work. We processed 13,412 pieces of work and, as of Wednesday, April 9, our backlog of work to be processed consisted of 3,327 pieces. We continue to estimate that more than 90% of our cataloging is original. At the present time most materials published in paper and as electronic titles available via GPO Access are cataloged within one week of receipt or notification. Most materials published in microfiche and CD-ROM are cataloged within approximately two to three weeks after receipt in the Cataloging Branch.

Internet Related Cataloging

As of Thursday, April 10, approximately 1,700 Monthly Catalog records contain URLs. OCLC tells us that we are the number two producer of OCLC records with URLs. Most of the records with URLs are serials.

Monthly Catalog Records and URLs

URLs within most Monthly Catalog records work effectively. If a URL does not connect to an electronic text, we encourage people to try again at another time because some agency servers may be unable to provide an adequate number of simultaneous connections.

We recognize, however, that some URLs no longer point to any content and, when this is known to be the case, we modify records with a 500 field note to indicate that a text is no longer available via the Internet and delete the URL from the 856 field. To date, approximately 9 Monthly Catalog records have been modified with such notes.

Two Cataloging Branch personnel have begun a long range effort to systematically test URLs. When a URL is no longer viable, we attempt to locate the most current URL and will change the URL in the 856 field of Monthly Catalog records. When efforts to locate a viable URL fail, LPS staff will contact agency personnel to determine if a title continues to be available via the Internet.

Potential Use PURLs for Monthly Catalog and Other GPO Applications

We have spoken in the past about the potential that PURL software may have for GPO applications. Until recently, GPO Production Services staff had been reviewing OCLC PURL software for use or adaption to Monthly Catalog hot link applications and other GPO Web site applications.

This situation has changed. Production Services personnel continue to work to improve response times for GPO Access applications and are unable to continue their work on PURLs. When they have completed their work to improve response times, we expect that they will resume consideration of PURLs software. We hope to provide more details concerning potential use of OCLC PURLs for GPO applications during the fall Depository Library Council meeting.

Corrections to SuDocs Class Numbers

Recently, a number of people have noted that some SuDocs class number changes have not been reflected in Monthly Catalog records. We have reviewed internal procedures in response to these concerns and have determined that this problem began in January, 1996. We very much regret that not all records were corrected during this period and have taken measures to correct these problems.

I am pleased to report that 254, or 47% of the 544 SuDocs class numbers that may require correction in Monthly Catalog records have been corrected. We expect to complete corrections in the near future. In addition to retrospective corrections, we immediately initiated internal procedures to assure that corrections will be processed in Monthly Catalog records on a monthly basis.

Corrections to class numbers now appear in our records in OCLC and will later appear in records at our Web site, in the CD-ROM edition, and in the corrections pages of the paper edition of the Monthly Catalog. Corrections have not yet appeared in the Web site edition of the Monthly Catalog because software used to produce the Web edition must be modified to permit overlay of data within existing records.

At the present time, when records are corrected, these corrections show up as duplicate records and remain at the Web site until an end of month purge of duplicates is accomplished. When software has been modified, corrections will be overlaid onto existing records and the temporary problem of duplicate records at the Web site should be eliminated.

Given the volume of class numbers needing correction, class number changes will not be reflected at our Web site until after Monthly Catalog related software has been modified. We expect that software will be modified within approximately six weeks.

GPO Web Site Availability of Monthly Catalog Records Now Within 24 Hours After Production in OCLC

We are pleased to announce that records produced within OCLC now appear at our Web site within 24 hours after production. This is the most rapid dissemination that is feasible and meets our objective of making our Web site Monthly Catalog a "Daily Catalog." Other Monthly Catalog Editions

Our Monthly Catalog CD-ROM edition is now in its second year. Each 1997 issue will contain all of 1996, the Periodical Supplements for 1996 and 1997, and current year to date monthly issues.

The Congressional Serial Set Catalog for the 102nd Congress should be shipped to depositories in late April.

Temporary Move to the 5th Floor

Next week we will be packing and preparing to move from current work areas into workstations on the 5th floor. We expect to move during the week of April 28th. This is a temporary move and we expect to work on the 5th floor for some four to six weeks while new carpeting is laid and a local area network (LAN) is installed in our branch.

While on the 5th floor, we will use the Internet to connect to OCLC rather than direct connections. It is also possible that phone numbers will change. E-mail addresses should remain the same.

When we resume operations on the 6th floor we should again be reached on current phone numbers and will resume using direct connections to OCLC for producing records.

Thank you. I hope this update has been of interest and look forward to meeting with you during our programs.

Office of Electronic Information Dissemination Services Update

Remarks by T.C. Evans
Assistant Director, Office of Electronic Information Dissemination Services
(EIDS)

U.S. Government Printing Office

Depository Library Council
Federal Depository Conference
Monday, April 14, 1997
Arlington, VA

Introduction

Good morning! It is my pleasure to provide you with an update on the many efforts currently underway at GPO to improve the products and services of GPO Access. While these efforts are numerous, in the interest of time, I will describe only those of major import. The others will come out as a part of the sessions being given by Terri Barnes and Vicki Ries the next three afternoons, which I hope many of you plan to attend. These sessions will contain a brief overview of GPO Access in general and detailed exposure to newer applications.

GPO Access Response Time

One of the most frequently mentioned issues with GPO Access over the last several months has been response time. As use and the amount of information available grew, response time suffered. Through a reconfiguration process and an upgrade of some equipment and software, dramatic improvements in navigating the Web site have already been realized. Additional improvements in the search and retrieval process are in mid- stream, with benefits beginning to show. As the equipment upgrades are completed, search and retrieval speed will be further enhanced.

Evidence of this improvement is already apparent in the use statistics for March. GPO Access had been going along for some months stuck in the range of 2.5 to 3 million documents downloaded per month, and it was believed that, due to the identified trend pattern, this sudden plateau must be attributable to the response time problem. After the first round of changes had been made, downloads for March jumped to over 4 million, showing that the system is now able to handle more traffic.

The commitment to improving response time will not stop with this success. A consultant contract is being prepared by our procurement area that will bring in outside expertise to help us to not only continue improving response time immediately, but will help us plan for the traffic that we anticipate in the future.

OpenText for GPO Access

The work on utilizing OpenText for GPO Access is proceeding. Even though GPO production personnel are vigorously working on this effort, there is a huge amount of work to be done and there are a number of other important efforts underway at the same time. So far this effort has succeeded in producing some of the needed SGML data for the Congressional Record, the Code of Federal Regulations, and the Commerce Business Daily. Quite a bit of testing is still required before any of this data can be used for GPO Access applications and I cannot at this time give you an authoritative date for the release of any of these applications. It is my hope that we will be able to show you some of the enhanced capabilities that will result from OpenText at the next meeting in Florida.

While I am unable to demonstrate concrete evidence to you today, I feel secure that the use of OpenText will provide a number of benefits to users that will significantly enhance the search and retrieval process. You will be able to conduct more targeted searches using the capabilities of OpenText and the fully fielded SGML databases. These searches will return a list of results better tailored to your needs.

As an example, a current search to find places in the Congressional Record where Senator Mikulski is speaking about nuclear energy is performed looking for her name and that topic in a fairly limited way. This results in a wide variety of results that may or may not have relevance to your needs. Through OpenText and SGML, you can pinpoint the locations in the database where Senator Mikulski is speaking and examine only those instances where she spoke about nuclear energy.

It will also be easier for you to make use of the results that are returned from a search. Individual results that are important to you can be marked in advance and you can jump from one result to another without returning to the results list. The results will be available to you in both the formats familiar to you (ASCII and PDF) and in HTML and SGML as well.

All of this can be accomplished in familiar ways using your Web browser or in more sophisticated ways using the OpenText SGML viewer or full client software. Since both will soon be incorporated into some of the CD- ROM products that will be distributed through the Federal Depository Library Program, you will probably be familiar with these packages before the databases are released. The SGML viewer can even be configured as a helper application to work automatically when called for by your Web browser.

Any necessary information required for the more sophisticated possibilities will be downloadable along with the results. This would include the necessary style sheets and DTD's necessary to work with the SGML formatted data.

GPO Access Training

Through a joint effort between GPO/OCLC/RONDAC, substantially more opportunities for training on the products and services of GPO Access should soon be available. A number of the RONDAC networks have already indicated a desire to include GPO Access in their network's training offerings and others are considering it. My staff is working with the Chair of RONDAC, Dave Brunell, and contacts from several of the networks to set up train-the- trainer sessions.

EIDS Products and Services

• We are preparing to release the newest edition of the GPO Access home page. The final part of this effort will come from feedback received during a focus group held during this conference, which a number of you have graciously agreed to participate in. Our goal, as always, is to offer a page that gets you to the information you need as quickly and efficiently as possible.

• Changes to CBDNet continue in response to user feedback. One such recent improvement is adding posting dates to the results from both the search and browse options. More changes, such as associating notices with the appropriate issue date and PDF files, are forthcoming.

• After a lot of hard work, Terri and Vicki have completed their latest revision of the GPO Access User Guide. It should be available electronically by the end of this week, and work will begin on the printed version soon after that.

• The GILS application on GPO Access now searches all WAIS- based U.S. Federal GILS sites as the default. This includes all GILS records maintained by GPO and those on other government GILS sites. A search using the default will return a results list of relevant records on any of these sites and those records can be retrieved.

• New specialized search pages have just been released for the Congressional Record Index and the History of Bills. It is quick and easy to search across all available years, or to limit the search to a specific year.

You will hear more about these and other developments from Terri and Vicki, but let me close by pointing out the importance of feedback from you, the users, in the ongoing growth of GPO Access. Many of the developments that you have enjoyed in the past and that you will hear about this week result from user suggestions. Keep up the good work.

Sales Program Update

Remarks by Joyce Parsons
Program Analyst

Superintendent of Documents Sales Program
U.S. Government Printing Office

Depository Library Council
Federal Depository Conference
Monday, April 14, 1997
Arlington, VA

Background

Good morning. My name is Joyce Parsons. I'm a Program Analyst for the Superintendent of Documents Sales Program. In the few minutes I have to speak with you this morning before your lunch break, I'd like to tell you about a major change underway in the Sales Program.

We are getting ready to launch a new Integrated Processing System (IPS) which will completely change how we do business. We expect the new system to go live in September 1997 and preparation is underway now to make the implementation a success. What I'd like to do this morning is give you a brief overview of how we are planning to use this state-of-the-art technology to provide world-class customer service.

First, a little background on the new system...

• The Government Printing Office awarded a contract to Northrop Grumman corporation on December 11, 1996 to develop and implement a new integrated processing system for the Superintendent of Documents by October, 1997.

• The system, which we've dubbed "IPS," consists of a central database and modified, off-the-shelf software. IPS will replace 20 outdated processing systems currently in use by the Sales Program and put in place a state-of-the-art, customer-oriented business system.

• In conjunction with reengineering its business systems through IPS, the Sales Program is also reorganizing Sales Program operations and redefining personnel functions to create a service organization on par with the best in business.

• And our service goals will truly put our new customer service vision to the test: our goal is to process all orders, inquiries, and complaints within 24 hours of receipt in our Customer Service Center. Key Benefits of the Integrated Processing System

  We've set our sights high. Here are some of the state-of-the art features of the new IPS system which will help us get there:

• One central database Unlike our current systems, the IPS system processes all transactions via one central database. The result is faster order processing and real-time access to all customer, inventory, warehouse, and financial information.

Streamlined order processing

IPS will also streamline order processing. As I mentioned earlier, our goal is to give our customers a service commitment comparable to the best in business -- order processing within 24 hours. Here are some ways IPS will help us reach this goal:

Unlike our current systems which process orders in batch at night, IPS has real-time transactions which release stock immediately for order fulfillment.

IPS also supports electronic data transfer to interface with remote order processing facilities.

IPS even supports remote order entry by high-volume customers. Special software will allow selected book dealers to enter orders directly into the IPS order processing system from remote locations. The benefits of remote order entry include reduced order processing costs, less paperwork, fewer service complaints, and faster processing times for our high- volume customers.

Scanning and imaging technology

Another state-of-the art feature of IPS is scanning and imaging technology. With IPS, we will no longer need to pass paper from desk to desk; instead, we'll be able to send scanned images of customer correspondence from computer to computer. The benefits of scanning and imaging technology are significant -- reduction of paperwork, improved management of work flow, faster processing times, and, most importantly, enhanced customer satisfaction.

Improved research tools

Another way IPS will help us enhance customer satisfaction is through improved research tools:

In our current system environment, customer information must be entered into several processing systems. With IPS, customer information will be entered once into a unique customer record. All subsequent transactions--whether orders, refunds, or invoices--will be attached to the customer's central data record, making research faster and easier.

Also, using the imaging technology I mentioned a few moments ago, our service agents will be able to view archived images of customer correspondence to perform research.

And, finally, IPS will give us order tracking capability. Using IPS, our service agents will be able to locate a customer order throughout the order fulfillment process to resolve customer concerns quickly and accurately.

Inventory management and forecasting tools

In addition to the service benefits I've just mentioned, IPS will also provide a comprehensive set of inventory management tools, including forecasting, demand modeling, trend analysis, and seasonal indices. These tools will help our inventory specialists identify how much stock we need to buy to meet customer demand.

State-of-the-art warehouse management technology

IPS will also give us state-of-the-art warehouse management technology. First, IPS will help us improve space utilization through system- assigned stock put-away locations as inventory enters the warehouse. Second, warehouse employees will receive stock picking locations via hand-held radio frequency devices and pick the stock by scanning a barcode, much like we see every day in our local grocery store. And third, IPS will even prioritize stock picking locations to maximize warehouse efficiency. Again, this cutting edge technology will reduce paperwork and speed order processing times.

Enhanced marketing opportunities

A final feature of the IPS system I'd like to highlight is enhanced marketing opportunities. IPS customer profiles will enable targeted promotions based on customer order histories and the ability to track the effectiveness of promotions. Marketing surveys to segments of our customer database will also help us stay aware of our customers' changing Federal information needs.

Reorganization of Operations and Redefining Personnel Functions

As I mentioned at the beginning of my remarks, our vision to provide world-class customer service goes beyond reengineering our business systems. In conjunction with the implementation of IPS, the Sales Program is launching a comprehensive reorganization effort to streamline organizational structures and redefine personnel functions.

• First, we're developing new position descriptions for our customer service personnel which will foster a more flexible and service- oriented work force.

  As with leaders in the service industry, our customer support representatives will be able to handle any customer request efficiently and effectively.

  Another benefit of these flexible staffing functions is that we will be able to increase phone coverage during periods of peak demand. Using new work flow management tools provided in the IPS system, our system managers will be able to increase staffing for the Sales Program Call Center without an overall increase in staffing.

• In addition to new position descriptions, another critical component of our reorganization effort is a comprehensive training curriculum for Sales Program employees. The training will focus on communication, computer, customer service, and teamwork skills.

Where Do We Go From Here

Now, you may be wondering how IPS will affect Sales Program interfaces with depository library systems and work functions. During the first year of implementation, the focus of IPS will be on the Sales Program, and other areas will be phased in over time. In a year, we expect to begin evaluation of the possible replacement of existing legacy systems in Library Programs Service and other areas. For this first year, the IPS system will interface with current LPS systems while we get the Sales applications of IPS up and running.

So, where do we go from here? Work is already underway to prepare for the implementation of IPS. Over twenty project teams are working on a variety of tasks, from data conversion to redesigning our work space, to help make IPS a success.

We'll keep you informed about our progress in the coming year and, hopefully, by next year's conference we'll be able to share with you how the IPS system is working to improve service to our customers. Thank you.

.

Self-Study of a Depository Library: Progress Report

Remarks by Sheila M. McGarr
Chief, Depository Services

Library Programs Service
U.S. Government Printing Office

Depository Library Council
Federal Depository Conference
Tuesday, April 15, 1997
Arlington, VA

A recommendation from the Spring 1994 Depository Library Council suggested reexamining the inspection process. Under 44 U.S.C. Section 1909, the Superintendent of Documents is authorized to make "firsthand investigations of conditions for which need is indicated." For several months in 1994, the inspectors and I developed a draft self-study to be conducted by documents librarians and submitted to GPO for evaluation before an on-site visit. At its October 1994 meeting, Council endorsed the draft questionnaire and it was published in the November 25, 1994 Administrative Notes. Throughout 1995 and 1996, depository libraries scheduled for inspection were asked to voluntarily complete the self-study. Who better to give feedback on the current process and the new proposal?

As part of the "Federal Depository Library Program Information Dissemination and Access Strategic Plan, FY 1996-FY 2001," the focus of the inspection program was modified. The self-study was adopted as an evaluation tool. If a depository submitted an unsatisfactory self-study, had major changes in facilities and staffing, had a prior record of noncompliance, or if complaints were received, the library will be inspected.

In September 1996, all depository libraries received Federal Depository Library Manual Supplement 3 entitled "Self-Study of a Federal Depository Library," a modified and condensed version based on the comments from the depository community. The template resides on the FDLP Administration page on GPO's Web site. It is also available for downloading from the Federal Bulletin Board.

For the new documents librarians in the audience, I'd like to provide some background for the inspection process. Until 1972, depository libraries were infrequently visited. Instead, GPO relied on the Biennial Survey of Depository Libraries, begun in 1947, for data. In 1972, the first inspection form, a 12-question checklist, became policy. Bookstore managers, GPO staff on travel, as well as specific examiners "dropped in" on depositories without warning. By the mid-1970's, GPO, on advice from GODORT (GOvernment DOcuments Round Table of the American Library Association) and the Depository Library Council, concluded that depository libraries needed systematic and formal inspection to insure the effectiveness of the Federal Depository Library Program.

In 1974, the first full-time inspector, a professional librarian, was hired. A second librarian was employed in 1976. By 1982, there were four librarian inspectors. While there are four positions today, there are two vacancies and one inspector is temporarily assigned to the Electronic Transition Staff leaving Gail Snider and me to handle the workload.

In the mid-1970's, the inspection form had progressed to include more questions reflecting sound library practice on such topics as bibliographic control, housing, public access, etc. By 1977, the Depository Library Council had developed the Guidelines for the Depository Library System which became the basis for the next iteration of the Inspection Report. In February 1996, the revised Guidelines for the Federal Depository Library Program were distributed to all depositories and the draft self-study was updated to reflect these updated Guidelines.

The inspection process evolved from a cursory examination to an all- day comprehensive review. At first, inspections were unannounced and the inspector visited two or more libraries per day. Since 1978, inspectors notified libraries of the specific inspection date from 4-6 weeks in advance. For nearly 20 years, we examined only one library per day but still rated each institution in the seven categories in the Guidelines: Collection Development, Bibliographic Control, Maintenance, Human Resources, Physical Facilities, Public Service, and Cooperative Efforts.

In February 1993, the Excellent, Good, Satisfactory, and Unsatisfactory ratings for each category were changed to Compliance and Noncompliance. We also eliminated the sometimes contentious numerical point scores for each question. We were interested in the basics of access, custody, maintenance, and service and whether the library's practice adhered to the law not on whether a library scored a 71 or 83 on the day of the inspection. After the audit, the Inspection Report was forwarded to the library director, documents coordinator, and the regional librarian.

In 1994, what gave us the idea for the self-study was our standard recommendation to documents librarians that during the intervening 4-6 weeks before the on-site inspection, they should review the Guidelines, the Instructions to Depository Libraries, the Federal Depository Library Manual, etc., and collect whatever materials would be useful, e.g., procedures manual, collection development policy, annual reports, etc.

In the chapter entitled "Inspections," in the Federal Depository Library Manual, and in the booklet, "Preparing for a Depository Inspection," we urged depositories to conduct a self-study before our arrival using the Instructions to Depository Libraries as the foundation. Few librarians took advantage of this technique and many librarians asked us for a template to follow for a self-study.

Since more than 60% of our depositories were academic or law libraries, we contacted many of the accreditation agencies to acquire their guidelines. The booklets we received were not very helpful as they left the format of the self-study to the institutions. We felt that a uniform set of written questions distributed well in advance of a potential on-site inspection and similar to the ones we already asked orally would be the most effective. The self-study could be a strategic assessment document which would walk the documents staff through issues such as collection development policy, compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, public access computer work stations, etc., which need careful consideration. We envisioned the self-study being an ongoing process requiring updating only when we contacted the depository to submit their self-study.

In October 1996, documents librarians and their directors whose depository operations were last inspected in 1989, 1990, and a few in 1991, were notified by mail to submit a mandatory self-study in December. The self- evaluation may, in some cases, replace an on-site inspection and the questions apply to all types of depositories with a couple of exceptions: Federal agency, Federal court, and highest appellate court libraries have different weeding procedures, and free access by the public applies to all depositories except highest appellate court libraries.

I was too ambitious and received more than 170 self-studies by fax, snail mail, or e-mail, with just Gail Snider and me to do the work, as there had been an inspector resignation in the meantime. In December and early January, I spent entirely too much time decoding reports which were UUencoded, used Bin Hex code, or used word processing software packages that no one in GPO had, etc. Some librarians e-mailed reports of 800,000 bytes when the average was 50,000 and I could not download these reports as images were imbedded in the text. Some libraries mailed the report on a diskette which I never received. Other libraries faxed in the report then mailed another copy as well. Still others e-mailed the self-study then mailed lots of supplementary materials. There were even libraries which photocopied the self-study, handwrote their responses, and faxed or mailed back the information. Needless to say, these libraries did not report e-mail addresses, had very limited or nonexistent electronic equipment, and will likely be inspected. The next time I request self-studies, paper copy via snail mail will be the preferred format.

Of the 38 self-studies requested from California, Colorado, and Nevada libraries, Gail examined 36, as two libraries failed to submit any report. What happened to these depository library operations? They were inspected and failed the Cooperative Efforts category in the audit. Only one library of 36 requested an inspection because they wanted to demonstrate all the improvements made since our last on-site examination. Three of the libraries will be evaluated even though they submitted good self-studies because they had never been inspected before and we wanted a baseline for comparison. Six California libraries were inspected in March as a result of deficiencies noted in their self-studies. Two depositories in Colorado and six in Nevada will be examined in May.

Each depository library which submitted a self-study will receive a letter and an abbreviated inspection report with recommendations for improvement. Even those we plan to inspect will receive a letter and a brief report pointing out deficiencies, some of which could be rectified before the inspector arrives. The remaining 130+ self-studies will be reviewed, libraries contacted, etc., but we cannot give you an exact time line as this conference, our May Interagency Depository Seminar, and selecting and training two new inspectors take up a lot of our time.

Later this spring the depository libraries last inspected in 1990 and 1991 in the following states will be notified to submit a self-study: Idaho, Illinois, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Montana, New York, Ohio, Tennessee, Texas, and Wyoming.

The inspectors still have their dual role, to identify areas of strength and weakness in the entire depository operation and to act as a consultant. We do not judge the documents librarian or assign blame. We are well aware that librarians and their administrators cannot totally control their working environment, architecture, or funding.

Self-Study: Review and Follow-Up

Remarks by Gail Snider
Depository Library Inspector

Library Programs Service
U.S. Government Printing Office

Depository Library Council
Federal Depository Conference
Tuesday, April 15, 1997
Arlington, VA

By January 1, 1997, Depository Services had received almost all of the self-studies we had requested. Thank you all for your timeliness in returning these. We separated them by state, then tallied them. Those libraries whose reports we had not received were contacted by telephone. Our database was updated with changes in documents librarian and director names, telephone numbers, and e-mail addresses, and any other data.

We then separated the self-studies by regions that could be inspected in winter or were best visited in the summer. California and Nevada were initially combined for an early spring inspection trip. As I read the self- studies from these states, it seemed I could fit both states into one two- week trip. But three self-studies did not arrive, other questions came up about several depositories, and the trip got longer and longer. Finally, the trip was broken up into a week and a half California trip and a two-week trip to Nevada and Colorado in May.

My first lesson with the new self-study method was not to wait too long for tardy self-studies. I used the requirements in the Instructions to Depository Libraries in examining each self-study to determine whether an inspection was warranted. Inspections are arranged to cover the 7 basic areas of collection development, bibliographic control, maintenance, human resources, physical facilities, public service, and cooperative efforts. Key triggers under collection development included a low selection rate, little or no selection or use of CD-ROMs or electronic online sources, or few indices. Under bibliographic control, it was incomplete piece level record keeping. Inadequate staffing, a human resources issue, and improper disposal of materials, which would be in the maintenance category, are other red flags. Under physical facilities, not meeting the minimum technical requirements for public access computer work stations, inadequate storage cabinets for maps, microfiche and CD-ROMs are other signals. A fair access policy, under public service, is an important indicator for special and academic libraries. A new depository which has never been inspected or a depository placed on probation at the last inspection will trigger an on-site inspection. How the self-study is completed, e.g., handwritten or typed on a photocopy of the self-study or incomplete answers are indicators that an inspection would be beneficial.

After reading each depository's self-study, I review past inspection reports to see if recommended changes from previous inspections have been made and look for other improvements. I also check that all Memoranda of Agreement for selective housing sites are in place and GPO has copies of them in the library's permanent file. If an answer is unclear I call the depository librarian for clarification. After all of the self-studies for a state have been read, I call the Regional librarian to gather insight on the libraries and to inform the Regional about which libraries will be inspected.

Our procedures include generating an abbreviated version of an inspection report for each self-study with a narrative that addresses only GPO's concerns and whether or not an inspection will be conducted later, on the assumption that a full description of that depository is contained in the self-study. If the library will not be inspected, the "short form" inspection report is mailed to the library director, documents librarian, and Regional with an accompanying cover letter stating that an inspection was not warranted. The brief report will still contain recommendations that are meant to serve as a guide to improving the depository's service to its community.

For libraries identified for inspection, a date for a trip is then set up, an adequate number of libraries, usually eight, are gathered to equal a two-week trip including up to 2 days travel time. I read self-studies from nearby states until I have enough libraries for a full inspection tour. The documents librarians are called to set the inspection dates. I later send a letter confirming the inspection date and enclose a copy of the brief inspection report written in reply to that library's self-study.

The California, Colorado, and Nevada inspections were set up about six weeks in advance and the libraries had time to fix some GPO-identified problem areas from the brief inspection report before I arrived. In addition to receiving copies of all of the abbreviated inspection reports, the Regionals receive a list of libraries and their dates of inspection and they are invited to join me. The self-study and brief inspection report are added to each library's file at GPO before I do the inspection. Regional also have copies of both. After the inspection, a regular report with cover letter to the director is added.

On January 27, I started reading 25 self-studies from California and Nevada. Two libraries in these states failed to supply the self-study. By February 14, 3 weeks later, I had generated inspection reports for all of the libraries and the 16 California depositories had been notified by mail that ten would not be inspected and the six that were to be inspected had been notified and assigned inspection dates. As I stated earlier, there were too many Nevada libraries needing inspection for a two-state trip, so California became a shorter trip. From February 18 through 28, the next 2 weeks, I read self-studies and generated 10 abbreviated reports on Colorado libraries and telephoned and wrote letters setting up the trip to Nevada and Colorado in May.

Before the self-study era, I would have inspected all 16 depository libraries in California, taking two trips to accomplish them over about 10 weeks. Using the self-study as an evaluation tool, all 16 were reviewed or inspected in about five weeks, i.e., two weeks to read the self-studies and review files, write initial reports, and set up an inspection trip; two weeks to inspect the libraries; and a final week to write the post-inspection reports.

Of the six libraries that I inspected in California, three were public libraries which historically do not have the funding or support given to academic libraries. Proposition 13 has adversely affected these libraries. One of these was inspected because of its low selection rate and it did not meet GPO's minimum technical requirements for computer work stations. Another was moving its collection to a new site and was undergoing growing pains. In the third, the depository librarian was relatively inexperienced, the library did not meet GPO's minimum technical requirements for its only computer work station, did not have an emblem on the front door, and there were processing issues that were unclear from the report.

Three academic libraries were visited: one because it had never been inspected before; the second because it did not submit a self-study, as the library was in the middle of a move and the depository librarian was very busy and not communicating with us; and the third because staff had included an access policy that needed to be more open and its depository collection historically had shorter hours than other parts of the library because of its basement location within the library.

The new depository and the depository being moved were excellent academic depositories. A baseline inspection was needed for the former and we just had no communication with the latter. I am hopeful that because of my inspection, the depository collection in the third academic library will be moved to a more accessible area or staffing will be increased to expand the service hours to be equitable with other library collections.

All of the visits to the public depository libraries were important problem-solving inspections. One public library had considered relinquishing its depository status. A solution was found so it can stay in the program. Another public library was looking for a way to put its collection in a larger branch which had better computer equipment and more space, but they were unsure that a depository vacancy was available in the congressional district where the other library was located. A solution was found for that, also. In the third public library, we reviewed their processing, discussed various bibliographic and record-keeping issues, did problem solving, and reviewed GPO policy. I saw the projects the depository librarian and library administration were undertaking and how they would impact the depository and the rest of the library. They had a new administration, and had made some major changes that positively affected the depository collection. It was important to recognize those changes and they would be reflected in a more complete inspection report.

In Nevada in May, I will be inspecting six of the 11 depository libraries whose self-studies I reviewed. Inspections in Nevada will be conducted because of low selection rates and not meeting GPO minimum technical requirements for work stations. One library will have just moved, had made major changes, and wanted support and recognition for their accomplishments since the last on-site inspection.

In Colorado, I will be inspecting two of the 10 depositories which submitted self-studies. Inspections in this state will be performed because of low selection rates or for a baseline inspection. In the Colorado/Nevada trip, I will inspect eight out of 21 libraries. Including the time to do the initial research and report writing, which has increased, time spent on the inspections was cut by half.

From an inspector's point of view, the new method is more productive in that more libraries are being inspected or evaluated in less time. Excellent depositories, while a pleasure to visit, rarely need help with problem-solving although issues are often raised and discussed during those inspections. If depository librarians will take the time to conduct a thorough self-study, they can accomplish more for their department than if I inspect. On-site inspections set up an environment that allows the depository librarian to answer questions that I ask and that my report requires, instead of their asking themselves hard questions about their own depository, and having the time to tailor their findings to the depository's needs and in-house reports as well.

Under the old system, on some inspection trips I may look at many fine libraries with only a few needing critical attention. On other trips, more than half of the libraries may have needed a thorough inspection, be shown efficient or appropriate procedures, and possibly have basic depository practices explained to them. Since the letters requiring the self-studies were mailed in October 1996, we have received a number of Memoranda of Agreement and requests for decals and publications. Many of the self-studies include collection development policies with very recent dates meaning they were either recently formulated or updated. Now, some of you will submit excellent self-studies but will still be inspected because we will be training inspectors by inspecting all types of libraries.

The inspection process is valuable for a library because it charts accomplishments over time. A report from GPO can be used as part of an arsenal to argue for needed change: more money, more space, more personnel, more equipment, etc.

While we are changing how we inspect, the end product is meant to be just as useful for the library as it is for GPO. We use the report as a snapshot of that library at that moment, with recommendations that will lead to a system of equally strong depository libraries providing uniform access all over the United States and accurate information on our Federal Government. The library should use the inspection and follow-up report to help shape its end product, information that produces informed citizens.

Biennial Survey of Depository Libraries: Its History and Process

Remarks by Sheila M. McGarr
Chief, Depository Services

Library Programs Service
U.S. Government Printing Office

Depository Library Council
Federal Depository Conference
Tuesday, April 15, 1997
Arlington, VA

Under provisions of 44 U.S.C. Section 1909, "[T]he designated depository libraries shall report to the Superintendent of Documents at least every two years concerning their condition." Since 1947, the Biennial Survey of Depository Libraries has been that method. While it has been 50 years since the inauguration of the survey, the 1997 issue will be the 24th in the series as 1949 was skipped. From that time to this, each form has reminded all depositories that the survey is required by law. It was more forcefully stated on the first survey in 1947 that "Libraries which do not comply with this investigatory requirement by December 31, 1947, will be considered as having vacated the depository privilege."

Back then the statement, "I do solemnly swear or affirm that the statements made on this instrument, plus all attachments, are true to the best of my knowledge and belief," appeared on the survey and a notary public witnessed the signature. That certification by a notary disappeared once and for all in the 1951 form.

In the 1951 questionnaire, libraries were asked whether they had microfilm [365-Yes, 173-No], microcard [179-Yes, 353-No], and microprint reading machines [48-Yes, 482-No] and whether they preferred receiving future additions to their depository collection in these formats [151-Yes, 359-No, 30-Undecided]. Two other interesting questions were posed that year and subsequent ones:

Do you feel that the investment made by the Federal Government in supplying depository publications to your library is justified by the use of these publications by the public you serve? [517-Yes, 12-No, 11- No answer]

Do you feel that the best interests of your institution and the Federal Government would be served by your library's relinquishing the depository privilege and obtaining the publications of the Federal Government which are needed in your locality by solicitation from the issuing Government agencies, or by purchase through the sales facilities of the Division of Public Documents? [12-Yes, 512-No, 16-No answer]

In 1956, GPO solicited opinion on the following question:

Would you favor in your State the adoption of the practice which is underway in certain States, whereby a central permanent depository collection is maintained, with other depositories being permitted to turn over to the central depository old and little-use publications, which they could then secure by inter-library loan from the central collection as necessary? [422-Yes, 82-No, 38-Other, 10-No answer]

A follow-up question asked the respondents for the most desirable retention period ranging in five year increments from five to 25 [130-5 years, 186-10 years, other answers scattered]. Six years later, the Depository Act of 1962 established regional depositories and the minimum five- year statutory retention requirement for materials not regularly superseded.

For a number of surveys, GPO asked "[H]ave you ever refused a member of the general public the use of the depository collection... If answer is "Yes", explain." The few who answered yes referred to their not allowing their noncirculating collection to be checked out.

In 1969, GPO asked Regional depositories this question:

Does a representative from your library make periodic visits to the depository libraries within the State? [10-Yes, 31-No citing lack of funds and staff]

Reviewing the surveys through 1972, when the inspection program began, I was struck by the number of questions concerning how quickly materials were available to the public, processing backlogs, reference tools, cataloging, etc., which became the foundation of questions asked during on- site inspections.

In only 1982, there were several questions about the Depository Library Council:

Is the Depository staff aware of the members who are currently on the Depository Library Council? [917-Yes, 240-No]

Does the library ever contact members of the Council with new ideas for the program or with problems? [270-Yes, 869-No]

In 1983, GPO first asked computer equipment questions including mainframe, minicomputer, and microcomputer makes and models. Other questions concerned subscribing to a telecommunications network such as TYMENET, TELENET, etc., and whether the library had teletype or telefacsimile equipment.

For nearly 50 years, few of the survey's questions remained constant. GPO asked questions reflecting the times whether they concerned microcards in 1951 or CD-ROMs, bulletin boards, Web access, telecommunications, and other computer equipment today. This group is meeting now to give advice on the 1997 Biennial Survey questions.

While the stroll down memory lane may be entertaining, only the basic "who and where" questions of depository library number, congressional district, address, etc., have been consistent. The procedures from survey to survey have generally stayed the same as well. Questions are prepared, the survey booklet and answer sheets are typed, proofread, and duplicated. Mailing labels are generated, envelopes stuffed, and mailed first class to the attention of the depository coordinator listed in our database. The database for tabulation by the Teleform fax software is developed. The libraries are given six weeks to return the survey. We publicize the survey due date on the survey itself, in Administrative Notes, GOVDOC-L, and on shipping lists. If librarians need replacement copies of the survey or the answer sheets, they can be obtained through U.S. Fax Watch.

Many years ago, before GPO employees were allowed to make long distance telephone calls, GPO sent telegrams to those libraries which failed to submit the survey on time. Today, on average 300 libraries fail to meet the due date each time the survey is distributed. We then provide each Regional librarian with a list of libraries in their State or region and request their assistance in obtaining the missing surveys. The libraries remaining after the regional follow-up are contacted by letter and then by telephone to get their survey responses.

Every returned survey is checked off and the handwritten or typed data of library name, address, telephone number, congressional district, etc., is reviewed against our database. These few questions, not those about statistics or electronic equipment, are the most-time consuming for GPO to process. We are constantly surprised at the number of errors in reporting congressional district and depository number. When a congressional district discrepancy is noted, we examine the Congressional Directory and the Congressional District Atlas before calling the library. The documents staff is asked to put an "x marks the spot" on the Congressional District Atlas page to prove on a map where they are located. We are so persnickety about congressional district because depository vacancies and thereby potential new depositories are designated by congressional district. When drastic changes of address or telephone are reported, we also call the library. Sometimes we have reached the home telephone number of the documents staff. Other times, it's the zip code of the home. Sometimes the phone number and fax number are reversed.

The "master" database is updated to incorporate the changes in documents librarian name, director's name, e-mail address, etc. This database is then uploaded in ASCII and comma-delimited format to the Federal Bulletin Board. Subsets of the database are used by U.S. Fax Watch, the Locate Libraries function on the SuDocs Web page, and for the printed Federal Depository Library Directory.

I have been involved off and on with the Biennial Survey since joining GPO in 1982, from proofreading the questions on galleys, typing the text, stuffing envelopes, checking off receipts, etc. The processing has changed in recent years from libraries mailing back an entire booklet, to just an answer sheet, to GPO using a contractor to optically scan the blocks filled in with #2 pencil, to the 1995 survey via the Teleform fax software. For the 1993 and 1995 surveys, my telephone number was the hotline and my e- mail address was available as well. For the 1997 survey, we are investigating the feasibility of a Web application.

As you mull over suggestions for statistics, please keep in mind that confusion is the rule rather than the exception. Public, law, Federal agency, State, and academic libraries keep statistics differently. I asked a question on REGIONAL-L in February about the number of new materials added to their library collections in the past five years, excluding Federal documents because we had those numbers, and I could make no comparisons because the volume/piece/title counts were dissimilar. Whether a documents collection is separately classified or partially or wholly integrated into another classification system affects the counting. Some libraries count slip treaties, slip opinions, preprints, etc., as a working count. Only the bound volume is included in the library's overall count. Others count every piece. Some include map sheets, others don't. I could go on ad nauseam.

I am partial to the KISS method. Many years ago, Julie Wallace suggested the following statistical questions to Bruce Morton, then a member of the Depository Library Council:

1. How much stuff did you get?
2. What kind of stuff was it?
3. How much stuff did you throw out?
4. How much stuff got used?
5. How many questions did you answer using this stuff?

.