# 5 Recommendations {#recommendations .unnumbered}

After reviewing current selection practices, the JIG makes eleven
recommendations to ease the transition of routine selection from LS to
CO. The JIG's charge was to investigate the feasibility of CO staff
handling routine selection. The JIG finds no reason to counter this
assumption and believes that a significant portion of the material CO
receives can be selected by CO staff knowledgeable of the publishing
areas without searching the ILS. With appropriate training, RC/AD staff
can incorporate selection of routine cases in their daily duties. RC
staff can forward works that require searching or greater expertise to
an ACQ SO to search and make the selection decision. The ACQ SO would
then return the work, in a timely fashion, to the RC staff.

## Make a selection decision for all CO materials prior to exit from CO work stream.

Each work should receive a final selection decision before CO transfers
the work to LS. This alleviates the need for the ACQ SO to make a
secondary selection decision. Additionally, a final selection decision
prior to transfer of the deposit allows CO to retain the unselected
deposit in the Deposit Copy Storage Unit (DCSU).

Appendix E includes a table of selection criteria and the corresponding
selection decision CO staff should make. This includes the number of
copies to be retained and the person responsible for the selection
decision -- CO staff or a LS SO.

## Install ILS workstations in RC for Selection Officer use.

The JIG recommends that the ACQ SO use at least two ILS workstations in
the RC area to search questionable works without holding deposits for a
lengthy time. This reduces the physical handling and movement of
material outside CO.

## Eliminate manual marking of deposits, e.g. red and blue pencil check marks.

By using a single deposit slip containing the selection decision,
cataloging priority, number of copies selected, and the assignment, CO
will eliminate the manual marking of approximately 257,167 deposits.
When a ACQ SO comes to the RC area to search questionable material, they
will slip the deposit with the appropriate selection decision. RC staff
will enter these decisions in the online record.

## Reconsider assignment of default selection in CIP Division records.

The JIG recommends that the CIP Division examine its practice of
populating the selection field with a default number of copies. When the
CIP Division creates an initial record from a submitted galley, it
populates the selection field with a default "2 copies." When LC
receives a CIP deposit, staff cannot determine whether the material has
received a true selection decision in CO or if the selection field
represents the default.

## Implement a pilot for 408 commercially published TX and PA music material.

The Selection JIG recommends implementation of a pilot for 408
commercially published TX monographs and PA sheet music material. The
pilot will validate initial recommendation assumptions concerning CO
participation in routine selection and provide guidance for further
implementation. The pilot also allows LS and CO to collect statistical
information to further refine selection. This material was selected
because:

-   408 TX commercially published deposits represent the largest
    percentage of material selected by LC.

-   A high percentage of CO 408 music material is selected. In addition,
    RC staff has expert knowledge of music material.

## Maintain statistics on selection.

The JIG recommends that LC and CO collect various selection statistics
to measure the accuracy and relative workload among staff making
selection decisions. These statistics will be used to assess the success
of a pilot and to determine what additional resources are needed for
full implementation. General recommended data include:

-   Number of selected/non-selected deposits submitted by major
    publishers.

-   Number of selected/non-selected deposits by type of account.

    Recommended SO staff data include:

-   Percent of material correctly forwarded for decision.

-   Percent of material processed within 24 hours.

    Recommended RC staff data include:

-   Percent of material correctly forwarded for decision.

-   Percent of RC initiated selection decisions reversed by ACQ SO.

-   Time required for Examiners to make correct selection decisions.

## Reconsider existing CPS.

The Selection JIG recommends that LC assess current CPS to see if they
meet the needs of those performing selection and if they accurately
represent LC collection goals.

## Maintain current motion picture selection procedures.

Prior to examination, the LS SO currently reviews all motion picture
deposits in CO to determine the retention decision. The MBRS JIG
recommends that this practice be maintained.

## Select MBRS ancillary materials.

Currently, CO receives many ancillary materials to which MBRS does not
have access. To facilitate MBRS access to these materials, the MBRS JIG
recommends that CO staff review and apply LS guidelines (Appendix D) to
select the following:

-   Movie posters

-   Press kits

-   Style guides, including licensing material

-   Scripts and screenplays

-   Photographs

-   Graphic material/graphic design.

## Perform routine selection on sound recording (SR) deposits by CO.

The MBRS JIG recommends that CO RC staff perform selection on routine SR
deposits using the guidelines identified in Appendix D. On questionable
deposits, the LS SO will make the selection decision.

##  Create a separate searching unit for non-CIP selected monographs.

In the current environment, CO sends all commercial-print monographs to
the CIP Division for searching, regardless of whether CIP data is
present in the deposit. While the CIP Division and cataloging work
streams are not considered within the purview of this JIG, the group
makes a general recommendation that only those deposits with CIP data be
sent to the CIP Division for searching. Accordingly, the JIG recommends
that a new unit be created to search all non-CIP monograph deposits.

All deposits must be searched before they can be forwarded for LS
cataloging. This searching allows LS to determine if a CIP record exists
in LC, or if a cataloging record exists in another database such as the
Online Computer Library Center (OCLC).

The JIG believes that separating the searching into two different teams
may reduce the burdensome workload on the CIP Division and allow
deposits to move through the process more efficiently. This may allow
CIP Division staff to focus on validating and verifying the record and
on claiming the CIP Division deposits not received from participating
publishers. The JIG recommends that another workgroup examine and
streamline the workflows within the CIP Division.

#   {#section .unnumbered}