ADMINISTRATIVE NOTES Newsletter of the Federal Depository Library Program Vol. 18, no. 08 GP 3.16/3-2:18/08 May 15, 1997 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. ^U1909, 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.