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: 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.