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