[ Back to the Table
of Contents ]
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?
.
[ Back to the Table
of Contents ]