BY THE U.S. GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE ’ 

Report To The Chairman, 

Joint Committee On Printing 

Depository Librarians’ 

GPO’s Administration 

Views On 

Of The 

Depository Library Program 

At the request of the Joint Committee on 

Printing, GAO studied the Government Printing Office’s Depository Library Program in 

1983. As part of that effort, GAO sent a questionnaire to depository librarians. This report 

summarizes their responses. 

. . . . 

GAO/AFMD-84-80 

APRIL 9. 1984 

UNITED STATESGENERALACCOUNTINGOFFKE 

WASHIFJGTON, D.C. 20548 

MXOUNTIN~ AND FINANCIAL 

MANAGEMENT q IVISIGN 

B-214852 

The Honorable Augustus F. Hawkins 

Chairman, Joint Committee on Pr,inting 

Congress of the United States 

Dear Mr. Chairman: 

This report summarizes the views of depository librarians on 

the Government Printing Office's (GPO's) depository library program 

as obtained from a questionnaire we administered. The questionnaire was developed to obtain background information for our response to the former Chairman's February 10, 1983, request for a 

comprehensive audit of the depository library program as administered by the Superintendent of Documents. 

The objective of our questionnaire was to obtain the librarians' views on GPO's administration of the depository library program. We mailed the questionnaire to the total universe of 1,382 

depository libraries in July 1983 and received 1,246 completed 

questionnaires for a response rate of 90 percent. 

Appendixes include: 

I. "Librarians' Views on GPO's Depository Library Program" 

which discusses the librarians' responses to the individual questions, includes tables reflecting these views, and 

summarizes the librarians' narrative comments. 

II. "Survey of Depository Libraries' Views Concerning GPO's 

Depository Library Program", the actual questionnaire, 

which notes the librarians' responses to each question. 

As arranged with your office we are sending a copy of this report to the Public Printer. We appreciate the efforts of your 

staff, the Public Printer, and GPO personnel in providing information that helped in developing the questionnaire. 

Sincerely yours, 

~si&A!Y!&( 

Frederick D. Wolf 

Director / 

APPENDIX I APPENDIX I 

LIBRARIANS' VIEWS ON GPO'S DEPOSITORY LIBRARY PROGRAM 

In July 1983, we conducted a survey of the 1,382 libraries in 

GPO's Depository Library Program as part of our review of the management and operational efficiency of the GPO Depository Library 

Program. The purpose of the survey was to obtain information on 

the libraries' views on GPO Depository Library Program and the 

service it provides to them. A mail-out questionnaire was used to 

ask the depository libraries questions regarding 1) their library 

size and type 2) the current service GPO provides for document distribution 3) the service the libraries receive on other documents, 

such as maps or soil surveys 4) GPO's cataloging and 5) the format 

of the Monthly Catalog. We received 1,246 completed questionnaires 

for a response rate of 90 percent. (For a copy of the questionnaire, see app. II). 

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE DEPOSITORY LIBRARIES 

Of the 1,382 libraries in GPO's Depository Library Program, 50 

are regional depository libraries (libraries required by Title 44 

to receive all documents GPO publishes under its Depository Library 

Program) and the other 1,332 libraries are selective depository 

libraries (libraries which do not receive all documents GPO publishes under the program, but do select those they think would 

interest their users). 

Of the libraries that responded to our survey, 47 were regional depository libraries, 1,194 were selective depository 

libraries and the remaining five did not indicate whether they were 

regional or selective depository libraries. 

The librarians were asked to indicate what type best described 

their library, such as academic library, court library, or public 

library. Most of the libraries (57 percent) indicated they were an 

academic library. Public library was the next largest type of 

library with 20 percent in this category. The table below shows 

the different type of libraries responding to our survey. 
APPENDIX I APPENDIX I 

Table 1 

Type of Library 

Library type 

Academic library 706 56.7 

Public library 250 20.1 

Law school library 125 10.0 

State library agency 45 3.6 

Court library 45 3.6 

Federal agency library 43 3.5 

Other 30 2.4 

No answer 2 l 2 

Total 

Libraries 

Number Percent 

100.0 

One of the best indicators for measuring the size of a library 

is the number of volumes a library has. Therefore, we asked the 

depository libraries how many volumes their libraries had and 

learned that the size of these depository libraries ranged from 

libraries with less than 50,000 volumes to libraries with more than 

four million volumes. Over half the libraries had between 100,000 

and 500,000 volumes including paper and microfiche. 

Table 2 

Number of volumes 

Size of Library 

Less than 50,000 74 5.9 

50,000 to 99,999 125 10.0 

100,000 to 199,999 299 24.0 

200,000 to 499,999 342 27.4 

500,000 to 999,999 188 15.1 

1,000,000 to 3,999,999 178 14.3 

4,000,OOO or more 34 2.7 

No answer 6 l 5 

Total 

Libraries 

Number Percent 

GPO has about 5,500 item numbers or types of documents available for selection. We asked these librarians to estimate how many 

item numbers they selected from the Depository Library Program. 

Only the selective depository libraries were considered because the 

regional libraries are required to get every item. The librarians' 

answers ranged from 16 selections to 5,500 selections. On the 

average, these selective depository libraries selected 1,617 item 

numbers or types of documents from the Depository Library Program. 

2 
APPENDIX I APPENDIX I 

LIBRARIANS' VIEWS ON GPO'S 

DOCUMENT DISTRIBUTION SERVICE 

The librarians were asked a series of questions on how well 

GPO filled orders. Specifically, we sought to determine if the GPO 

shipments contained 

--the correct number of documents, 

--extra documents (documents the depository library had not 

requested but still received), or 

--"missing" documents {documents the library had requested 

but did not receive). 

We also sought to determine how librarians felt about the distribution of the documents, the quality of the microfiche GPO distributes, and the process of selecting documents. 

Extra documents versus "missing" documents 

Most of the selective depository librarians said they rarely 

received an extra paper or microfiche document that they had not 

requested. About 50 percent indicated they never received extra 

paper documents in shipments or received them less than once per 

month. About 56 percent indicated they never received extra 

microfiche documents in shipments or received them less than once 

per month. 

3 
APPENDIX I APPENDIX I 

Table 3 

Number of Times Per Month Libraries Received Documents 

They Had Not Requested 

Times per month 

25 or more 

10 to 24 

5 to 9 

1 to 4 

Less than once 

Never 

No answer 

Total 

Libraries receiving 

paper documents 

Number Percent 

18 1.5 

34 2.8 

77 6.4 

461 38.4 

483 40.3 

102 8.5 

24 2.0 

Libraries receiving 

microfiche documents 

Number Percent 

15 1.3 

36 3.0 

81 6.8 

363 30.3 

513 42.8 

154 12.8 

37 3.0 

Not applicablea 

Total 

aThe figures include the regional depository libraries, which do 

not select documents because they are supposed to receive everything. 

Librarians experienced more problems by not receiving documents they had r&quested than by receiving extra documents. 

"Missing" paper documents were more of a problem than "missing" 

microfiche. About 39 percent of the depository libraries said 

paper documents were missing from their shipments about 1 to 4 

times a month. Another 26 percent said paper documents were missing from their shipments 5 or more times a month. With respect to 

microfiche, about 34 percent of the libraries did not receive 

microfiche they had selected about 1 to 4 times a month. Another 

19 percent of the libraries did not receive microfiche they had 

selected 5 or more times per month. Table 4 shows the number of 

times per month that depository libraries did not receive paper or 

microfiche documents in their shipments. 
APPENDIX I APPENDIX I 

Table 4 

Number of Times Per Month Selected Documents 

Were Missing From Shipment 

Times per month 

Libraries missing 

Number Percent 

Libraries missing 

microfiche documents 

Number Percent 

25 or more 6 .5 7 .6 

10 to 24 91 7.3 60 4.8 

5 to 9 232 18.6 166 13.3 

1 to 4 483 38.8 422 33.9 

Less than once 312 25.0 369 29.6 ! 

Never 92 7.4 181 14.5 

No answer 30 2.4 41 3.3 

Total 1,246 100.0 1,246 100.0 

Distribution of documents 

Next we asked questions regarding the timeliness and efficiency of the document distribution. Specifically, we asked if the 

documents were distributed on time. Also we wondered if a document 

was missing from a shipment did GPO follow up and provide that document later to the library. And finally we wondered if the microfiche documents libraries received were in the most efficient format for a library. 

We asked librarians how many times per month slowness in 

receiving a document from GPO had caused problems, such as not 

being able to handle a user's request promptly. Almost 60 percent 

of the libraries reported GPO had never been slow in distributing 

the documents or had been slow less than once a month. Another 

30 percent of the libraries said GPO had been slow 1 to 4 times a 

5 
APPENDIX I APPENDIX I 

month. And almost 11 percent of the libraries indicated GPO had 

been slow 5 to 25 or more times a month. 

Table 5 

Number of Times Per Month GPO's Slowness in Distributing 

Documents Kept the Library From Helping the User Promptly 

Times per month Libraries 

Number Percent 

25 or more 11 .9 

10 to 24 32 2.6 

5 to 9 90 7.2 

1 to 4 367 29.5 

Less than once 564 45.3 

Never 165 13.2 

No answer 17 1.4 

Total 1,246 100,o 

Results from our next question showed that "missing" documents 

were little or no problem, When requested documents are not received in a shipment ("missing" document), the libraries can submit 

a claim to GPO for the documents. We asked libraries how often, if 

at all, the failure to receive a claimed document from GPO causes 

the libraries a problem. Over 80 percent of the libraries said 

they never or rarely (less than once per month) experienced problems because GPO had failed to provide the claimed document. 

Table 6 

Number of Times Per Month Libraries Experience Problems 

Because GPO Failed to Provide a Claimed Document 

Times per month Libraries 

Number 

10 or more 5 .4 

5 to 9 27 2.2 

1 to 4 183 14.7 

Less than once 716 57.5 

Never 283 22.7 

No answer 32 2.6 

Total 

We learned from our final question on document distribution 

that GPO had distributed some documents in a microfiche format 

which was not in the libraries' or the users' best interests. 

Forty-four percent of the libraries said they had experienced great 

6 
APPENDIX I APPENDIX I 

problems receiving certain serials in microfiche when all other 

issues of the serial had been in paper. This presented a problem 

for the libraries since the serials then could not be stored toqether and a problem for the users since the serials were difficult 

to use simultaneously. 

Table 7 

Extent of Problem Libraries 

Experience When Serials Are in Microfiche 

And Previous Editions of the Serral Are in Paper Format 

Extent of problem Libraries 

Number Percent 

Great 548 44.0 

Moderate 216 17.3 

Some 168 13.5 

Little to none 270 21.7 

No answer 44 3.5 

Quality of microfiche 

With respect to the quality of the microfiche, we asked the 

libraries how many microfiche documents were physically damaged, or 

had poor readability, inadequate or inaccurate header information, 

or illegible headers. The majority of the libraries found the 

microfiche in good condition. The following table shows how many 

times per month the libraries received microfiche of poor quality. 

7 
APPENDIX I APPENDIX I 

Table 8 

Number of Times Per Month Libraries Receive 

Mlcroflche of Poor Quality 

I nadeguate fnaccurate 

Times Physically Poor header header I I legible 

per month damaged read&if ity lnformatlon Information headers 

Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent 

5 or m3r9 41 3*3 103 8.2 165 

1 to 4 107 8.6 241 19.3 232 

Less than 

OtlCB 454 36.4 558 44.8 434 

Never 609 48.9 298 23.9 378 

No answer 35 2.8 46 3.7 37 

Tota I &Z& 100.0 _1t246 

13.3 180 13.7 40 3.2 

18.6 277 22.2 126 10.1 

34.8 421 33.6 491 39.4 

30.3 341 27.4 550 44.1 

3.0 37 3.0 39 3.1 

s 1,246 

The process for selecting documents 

As mentioned earlier, selective depository libraries select 

the documents they receive from GPO while regional depository 

libraries are required to receive all documents distributed under 

GPO's Depository Library Program. The next questions on the 

selection process were limited to the 1,194 selective depository 

libraries. 

Selection of items had created a problem for about half of the 

selective depository librarians. That is, the number of item numbers needed for selectivity was not enough. 

ted, 

Once items were selecthese librarians had difficulty receiving the items. Over 55 

percent of the selective depository librarians said they were dissatisfied with the length of time between item selection and the 

receipt of the item. 

8 
APPEMDIX I APPENDIX I 

The selective depository librarians were asked whether the 

Superintendent of Documents, GPO (SuDoc) classification number 

could be used for selection instead of item numbers. Although the 

opinion of the librarians varied, more librarians agreed than disagreed with this proposal. About 45 percent of the selective 

depository librarians said they agreed GPO could eliminate item 

numbers and instead make each class stem a new basis for selection. About 36 percent disagreed with this proposal. The following table shows how the librarians viewed this proposal. 

Table 9 

Librarians' Views on Proposal: GPO Could Eliminate Item 

Numbers and Make Each Class Stem a New Basis for Selection 

Type of response Librariesa 

Number Percent 

Agree 543 45.5 

Disagree 431 36.1 

Neither 199 16.7 

No answer 21 1.8 

Total 

aOnly selective depository libraries are included because only they 

participate in the selection process. 

Both regional and selective depository libraries were asked if 

the SuDoc class stem (e.g. GA1.13:) could be simplified because 

both kinds of libraries at times refer to documents by that number. Specifically, we asked how many libraries would favor GPO 

assigning publications a SuDoc class stem that remains the same 

regardless of changes that occur in the agency. Most librarians 

preferred a simpler classification system that would not change 

every time agency changes occur. Over 60 percent of the libraries 

agreed that GPO should assign publications a SuDoc class stem that 

remained the same. These views are shown in the following table. 

9 
APPENDIX I APPENDIX I 

Table 10 

Librarians' Views on Proposal: GPO Should Assign 

Publications SuDoc Class Stems That Remain the Same 

Type of response Libraries 

Number Percent 

Agree 766 65.4 

Disagree 248 21.2 

Neither 136 11.6 

No answer 21 1.8 

Total 1,171 

Not appliable (do not 

use SUDOC numbers) 75 

Total 

LIBRARIANS' VIEWS ON OTHER DOCUMENTS 

We sought to determine the librarians' views on documents 

other than the standard publications, such as 1) those documents 

not offered through the GPO Depository Library Program, 2) 

geographically specific material like material from the U.S. Census 

or U.S. Geological Survey and 3) GPO's newly expanded map service. 

Documents not offered by GPO Depository Library Program 

Ninety percent of the libraries had received user requests for 

documents not offered through GPO's Depository Library Program and 

about 50 percent of the libraries had at least one user request a 

month for these documents. 

Most (53 percent) of the libraries which had requests for 

documents not offered through GPO's program did not try to obtain 

the document from GPO. Eighty-three percent of those libraries 

which did request a document said GPO made the documents available 

only sometimes or rarely. 

To determine how libraries generally get documents not offered 

through GPO's Depository Library Program, we asked the libraries to 

enter the percentage of time they obtained the document from another source such as another library, member of Congress, or agency* Answers varied depending on whether librarians were obtaining 

the document for their own collection or for users. About 37 percent of the time, libraries which needed the document for its own 

collection obtained the document through the GPO sales program. 

j 

10 
APPENDIX I APPENDIX I 

When the document was needed by a user, the libraries tried to obtain the document about 48 percent of the time by borrowing it 

through interlibrary loan. The following table shows the different 

ways the libraries tried to obtain the document and the average 

percent of time that the libraries tried each method. 

Table 11 

Methods Used by Librarians to Obtain Documents not Offered 

Through GPO Depository Library Program 

Average percent of time 

Method used to obtain documents librarians used method 

For library's 

own collection For users 

Borrow through interlibrary loan a.3 

Contact member of Congress or 8.6 

committee 

Contact the agency 18.5 

Obtain from GPO sales program 37.3 

Obtain them from a commercial source 9.4 

Obtain from Documents Expediting Project 4.5 

{Library of Congress Subscription 

Service) 

Refer to other sources 6.4 

Unable to obtain 6.9 

Total 

Geographically specific material 

47.5 

5.4 

9.0 

12.6 

3.6 

1.6 

15.8 

4.5 

Currently, regional depository libraries are required by Title 

44 to keep all geographically specific material, such as 

statistical material, maps, agriculture surveys, and flood 

studies. Over 80 percent of the libraries favored a change in the 

Title 44 requirement. 

The librarians were asked to comment on three suggested 

methods for keeping these materials. The present method, in which 

regional depositories keep this material for the entire country, 

was favored by only 14 percent of the libraries. 

The second method, favored by 32 percent of the libraries, 

would require regional libraries to keep the material only for the 

state where they were located, with an option of keeping more 

material. 

f 

The third method was favored by more than half the libraries. 

Under this method the regional depository libraries would keep the 

material only for their region of the country with an option of 

keeping more material. (We also looked at these results by type of 

11 
APPENDIX I APPENDIX I 

library, regional versus selective, and found no significant 

difference in how they responded.) The results are presented in 

the following table. 

Table 12 

Methods Advocated for Keeping Geographically Specific 

Materials at Regional Depository Libraries 

Method advocated for keeping materials Libraries 

Number Percent 

Keep material for the entire country 

(present method) 

175 14.0 

Keep material for the state only, with 399 32.0 

option of keeping more material 

Keep material for their region of the country 644 51.7 

with option of keeping more material 

No answer 28 2.2 

Total 

To get some idea of the need for libraries to keep some geographically specific material, we asked the librarians to indicate 

how often they received requests for U.S. Bureau of the Census 

material, U.S. Geological Survey maps, soil surveys, and flood insurance studies. Material from the four categories was divided 

into two types-- material that covered areas outside the library's 

own state and areas outside the library's own region. 

Most libraries did receive requests for U.S. census materials 

on areas outside the library's state or outside the library's 

region; but the same was not true of U.S. Geological Survey maps, 

soil surveys or flood insurance studies. Libraries in our survey 

indicated little interest in this latter material. 

12 
APPENDIX I APPENDIX I 

The following table shows how often libraries received requests 

for these materials. 

Table 13 

frequency of Rquests f&eIved by Llbrarles 

For Geoqraphlcally Specific Material 

Type of LlbrarIes recelvlng requests 

material Frequently Occasionally Seldom No answer Total 

Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent 

U.S. ceflsus 

material: 

Outslde 

the state 493 

Outslde 

the region 375 

U.S. Geological 

survey maps: 

Outside 

the state 256 

Outside 

the region 205 

Soll surveys: 

Outslde 

the state 88 

Outside 

the reglon 68 

Flood Insurance 

studies: 

Outslde 

the state 3 

Outside 

the region 3 

39.6 

30.1 

20.5 

16.4 

7.0 

5.5 

347 27.8 391 

362 29.1 490 

278 22.3 684 

237 19.0 772 

142 11.4 994 

117 9.4 1,038 

31.4 15 1.2 1,246 100.0 

39.3 19 1.5 1,246 100.0 

54.9 28 2.2 1,246 100.0 

62.0 32 2.6 1,246 100.0 

79.8 

83.3 

22 1.8 1,246 100.0 

23 1.8 1,246 100.0 

.3 51 4.1 1,169 93.8 23 1.8 1,246 100.0 

.2 36 2.9 1,183 94.9 24 1.9 1,246 100.0 

13 
APPENDIX I APPENDIX I 

GPO's expanded map service 

Although GPO is expanding the types of maps available to the 

depository libraries, the librarians expressed little interest in 

maps other than 1J.S. Geological Survey or Bureau of the Census 

maps. In our questionnaire, we listed 13 types of maps and asked 

the librarians which maps they were interested in receiving (see 

am. II for the list of maps). Forty-three percent of the librarians wanted U.S. Geological Survey maps and 56 percent wanted Bureau of the Census maps. For the other 11 maps, the interest 

ranged from only 11 percent (Tennessee Valley Authority maps) to 

26 percent (U.S. Forest Service maps). 

LIBRARIANS' VIEWS ON GPO CATALOGING 

The following section contains the librarians' opinions about 

GPO's cataloging. To find out these opinions, we addressed several 

issues. First, we asked librarians to rate the overall quality of 

GPO's cataloging. Next, librarians responded to questions on GPO's 

descriptive cataloging and GPO's use of Library of Congress subject 

headings. Also librarians were asked about the use of special 

vocabularies, such as those found in legislative work, the Online 

Computer Library Center's (OCLC) cataloging, GPO's personal name 

authority work, and the rules to follow when cataloging documents. 

The issue of cataloging scientific and technical documents also was 

addressed. We asked how librarians felt about the components of 

the Monthly Catalog. 

Finally, we asked about specific cataloging procedures--whether 

GPO should set priorities when cataloging items and, if so, what 

items should be expedited. The librarians also were asked about 

GPO's current method of cataloging items when OCLC had already 

created a catalog record for the item. 

Overall quality of cataloging 

Librarians in our survey showed very little displeasure with 

GPO's cataloging. In fact, over 70 percent of the libraries gave 

good rating to the quality of GPO's cataloging as found in the 

Monthly Catalog's subject headings, authority work, main entries, 

14 

a 
APPENDIX I APPENDIX I 

added entries, and other access points. The following table shows 

how highly the librarians rated the quality of GPO's cataloging. 

Table 14 

Librarla’ns’ Vleus on the Qua1 ltv 

Of GPO Cataloqing in Selective Areas 

Selective 

cataloging 

areas : GOOd 

Number Percent 

Subject 977 78.4 

headings 

Author I ty 942 75.6 

work 

Main entries 1,025 82.3 

Added entrles 948 76.0 

Other access 889 71.3 

points 

Libraries rating 

Ne i ther 

good nor poor Poor No answer Tota I 

Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent 

180 14.4 57 4.6 32 2.6 1,246 100.0 

217 17.4 36 2.9 51 4.1 1,246 100.0 

155 12,4 28 2.3 38 3.G 1,246 100.0 

225 18.1 32 2.5 41 3,3 1,246 100.0 

246 19.7 41 3.3 70 5.6 1,246 100.0 

Descriptive cataloging 

With respect to descriptive cataloging, we asked whether GPO 

should 1) add more information, 2) keep the descriptions the same, 

or 3) make the descriptions shorter. About two-thirds of the 

librarians thought GPO's descriptive cataloging should remain the 

same. Fifteen percent thought GPO should add more information in 

its descriptive cataloging. Another 15 percent thought GPO should 

make the descriptive cataloging shorter. (Four percent did not 

answer the question.) 

Library of Congress subject headings 

Librarians in our survey generally wanted GPO to continue using Library of Congress subject headings, but to make the subject 

headings more specific. An overwhelming majority, over 90 percent 

of the librarians, thought GPO should continue to use Library of 

Congress subject headings. About 53 percent of the librarians 

thought GPO should use more specific Library of Congress subject 

headings. 

GPO's use of special vocabularies 

Almost one out of three librarians was undecided when asked if 

GPO should use scientific and technical vocabularies and about one 

out of three was undecided when asked if GPO should use legislative information vocabularies. For both of these special vocabularies, more librarians said GPO should use the vocabularies than 

not. However, because of the large number of undecided librarians, 

no clear opinion can be stated. 

15 
APPENDIX I APPENDIX' 1 

Use of OCLC for cataloging 

Our survey asked about the type of impact on the libraries if 

GPO developed an in-house cataloging system and withdrew from 

OCLC. A majority of the librarians said if this happened the 

libraries would experience a negative impact. Over 60 percent of 

the librarians thought GPO should not withdraw from OCLC. About 

one third said if GPO should drop OCLC and perform the cataloging 

in-house it would have little or no impact on their libraries. 

following table illustrates this point. 

The 

Table 15 

Impact on Libraries if GPO Dropped 

OCLC and Developed In-House Cataloginq System 

Impact on libraries Libraries 

Number Percent 

Positive impact 

Little or no impact 

Negative impact 

No answer 

56 4.4 

406 32.6 

761 61.1 

23 1.8 

Total 

We also looked at these results based on the size of the library. Generally the larger the library, the more often libraries 

said GPO should not drop OCLC and develop its own in-house cataloging. Of thdse libraries responding to the question, 26 percent of 

the smaller libraries with less than 50,000 volumes felt this would 

16 
APPENDIX I APPENDIX I 

have a negative impact compared with about 71 percent of the 

larger libraries with one million or more volumes. The table below 

illustrates this point. 

Table 16 

Impact on Different Sire Libraries if GPO Dropped 

OCLC and Developed In-House Catalwing System 

Size of library 

Impact on Less than 50,000 to 2oa,ooo to 1,000,000 

I 1 brary 50,000 volumes 199,999 VOIO~~S 999,999 voIumes or more volumes 

Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent 

Positive 

Impact 2 2.7 11 2.6 34 6.4 9 4.2 

LIttIe or no 

impact 52 70.3 165 38.9 142 26.0 47 22.2 

Negative 

impact 19 25.7 230 56.1 347 65.5 151 71.2 

No ansner 1 1.4 

- - 

10 2,4 - 7 - 1.3 e 5 2.4 

w 

Tota I a 74 100.0 424 100.0 530 100.0 212 100.0 

-- ----rsap--- 

aSlx did not answer the question on the size of thelt- library, and are not included 

In this table. 

Personal name authority work 

Almost half of the librarians said a negative effect would 

result if GPO discontinued its personal name authority work. But 

48 percent of the librarians thought GPO could discontinue its 

personal name authority work and the libraries would not notice a 

difference (only a little or no impact would be felt). Another 4 

percent thought the libraries would experience a positive impact if 

GPO dropped this work. 

17 
APPENDIX I 

Table 17 

APPENDIX .I 

Impact on Libraries if GPO 

Discontinued Personal Name Authority Work 

Impact on libraries Libraries 

Number Percent 

Positive impact 

Little or no impact 

Negative impact 

No Answer 

Total 

48 3.8 

597 47.9 

587 47.1 

14 1.1 

Again, we looked at these results based on the size of the 

library and found the larger the library the more the libraries 

thought GPO should not discontinue its personal name authority 

work. 

smaller 

Of those responding to the question, 27 percent of the 

libraries with less than 50,000 volumes felt if GPO discontinued its personal name authority work it would have a negative 

effect on their libraries. For the larger libraries with over one 

million volumes about 55 percent felt their libraries would experience a negative impact. 

Table 18 

Impact on Different Size Llbrarles If GPO 

Dlscontlnues Personal Name Authofrty Work 

Size of library 

Impact on Less than 50,000 to 200,000 to 1 ,ooo,ooo 

I ibraries 50,000 voIumes 199,999 voIumes 999,999 voIumes or more voIumes 

Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent 

Positive 

1 mpact 

Little or 

no Impact 

Negat I ve 

impact 

No Answer 

2 2.7 12 2.8 29 5.5 5 2.4 

51 68.9 230 54.2 225 42.5 88 41.5 

20 27.0 173 40.8 274 51.7 117 55.2 

1 9 2 4 2 9 

- 

1,4 

- 

-A! 

- A - A 

Tota I a 74 100.0 424 100.0 530 212 

-------- 

100.0 100.0 

--- 

aSix Ilbrarles did not answer the question on the size of their library and they 

are not included in the table. 

18 
APPENDIX I APPENDIX I 

Level of cataloging rules 

Anglo-American Cataloging Rules, Second Edition (AACR2) has 3 

levels of cataloging-- Level 1 (minimal level cataloging), Level 2, 

and Level 3 (highest level). GPO currently uses Level 3 

cataloging. 

About half the librarians thought GPO could use Level 2 and 

the information in the cataloging records still would be sufficient 

for the libraries' referencing needs. We also asked if Level 1 

would suffice for the librarians' referencing needs and over 60 

percent of the librarians said Level 1 was not sufficient, The 

results of our survey are illustrated in the following table. 

Table 19 

Response 

Will Level 1 or Level 2 Cataloging 

Suffice for Reference Purposes? 

AACR2 Level 1 AACR2 Level 2 

Number Percent Number Percent 

Yes 240 19.3 619 49.7 

Undecided 152 12.2 140 11.2 

NO 792 63.6 419 33.6 

No answer or don't know 62 5.0 68 5.5 

Total 1,246 100.0 1,246 100.0 

Scientific and technical documents 

About half of the librarians said little or no problems 

resulted from GPO not cataloging scientific and technical 

documents. Only 10 percent of the librarians indicated they had 

great problems because these documents had not been cataloged. 

Table 20 

Problems Experienced by Librarians Because Scientific 

And Technical Documents Are Not Cataloged 

Degree of 

problem Libraries 

Number Percent 

Great 125 10.0 

Moderate 270 21.7 

Some 217 17.4 

Little or no problem 609 48.9 

No answer 25 2.0 .- 

Total 1,246 100.0 

19 
APPENDIX I APPENDIX I 

Although most of the librarians in our survey said they currently do not have many problems that result from GPO not cataloging scientific and technical documents, we asked the librarians to 

comment on seven suggested methods for cataloging these documents. 

The number of librarians with no opinion ranged from 16 to 28 percent. Of those that did express opinions, the views varied from 

strongly support to strongly oppose. These seven methods and the 

responses are listed in app. II. 

Printed Monthly Catalog 

Librarians were asked how often they had problems in accessing 

documents which were not cataloged in the printed Monthly Catalog. 

We were primarily interested in the printed Monthly Catalog because 

this catalog was used by most libraries. 

A majority of the librarians said they had problems in accessing documents because the documents had not been cataloged in the 

printed Monthly Catalog. Of the 1,246 libraries, over 90 percent 

said they used the Monthly Catalog. Of those libraries which used 

the catalog, about 30 percent said they frequently experienced 

problems because the catalog was incomplete and over 40 percent 

said they occasionally experienced problems. The following table 

shows the frequency of this problem. 

Table 21 

How Frequently Libraries Experience Problems 

Because' Printed Monthly Catalog is Incomplete 

Frequency Libraries 

Number Percent 

Frequent 356 29.6 

Occasional 496 41.2 

Seldom 313 26.0 

No answer 38 3.2 

Total 1,203 100.0 

Don't use system 43 

Total 1,246 

Priorities in cataloging 

We asked the librarians if GPO should set any priorities in 

cataloging documents. The majority of the librarians in our survey 

(961) indicated certain items should be cataloged before others. 

In our survey we then listed nine items and asked the 961 

librarians to what extent they felt GPO should expedite cataloging 

20 
APP.ENDIX I APPENDIX T 

of each item (see app. II). Of the nine items, listed over 80 percent of the librarians felt items covered in the news media should 

receive the highest priority, while only 10 percent thought maps 

should receive the highest priority. 

The table below lists the nine items in order of preference. 

Table 22 

Preference of Items for GPO Priority Cataloging 

Item 

Items covered in the news media 785 81.7 

Census publications 694 72.2 

Congressional documents 626 65.1 

Items for sale through GPO 566 58.9 

Presidential publications 521 54.2 

Library of Congress requests based 452 47.0 

on cooperative cataloging agreement 

with GPO 

Scientific and technical material 

Items not for sale through GPO 

Maps 

234 24.3 

195 20.3 

95 9.9 

Expedite to a great extent 

Number Percenta 

apercentages based on the 961 librarians who thought GPO should set 

priorities when cataloging. 

GPO cataloging method 

Sometimes, as GPO begins to catalog an item, they find OCLC 

already has a cataloging record for that item. Since GPO is the 

authority, they modify the OCLC record. In our survey we asked if 

librarians thought this was the best approach or would another 

approach be better. Specifically we asked should GPO 1) always 

change the OCLC record (present method), 2) change the OCLC record 

less often, or 3) accept the record as OCLC has it. We also gave a 

fourth choice for those with no opinion. Over half of the 

librarians said they thought GPO should always change the OCLC 

record. Over 26 percent said they had no opinion. 

LIBRARIANS' VIEWS ON MONTHLY CATALOG 

To determine how libraries regarded the Monthly Catalog, we 

asked questions concerning I) the Monthly Catalog's format and 

size, 2) the libraries' usage of the Monthly Catalog, 3) the 

librarians' views comparing the Monthly Catalog with an expanded 

Publication Reference File (PRF) and 4) characteristics of an ideal 

Monthly Catalog. 

21 
APPENDIX I APPENDIX I 

Present format and size 

The majority of the libraries were satisfied with both the 

format and the size of the Monthly Catalog. Over 75 percent of the 

libraries said they were satisfied with the format of the printed 

Monthly Catalog. Only about 14 percent of the libraries were dissatisfied with the format and the remaining 10 percent either had 

no opinion or were undecided. 

Regarding the size of the printed Monthly Catalog, about 

60 percent of the libraries said it was about right. Only about 

2 percent thought the Monthly Catalog was too small. The remaining 

33 percent felt that the Monthly Catalog was too large and 5 percent had no opinion. 

In the questionnaire, several alternatives to the current format of the Monthly Catalog were listed (see app. II). The librarians again thought the present format more useful than the alternatives listed. Over 80 percent of the librarians thought the 

present format useful, while few librarians thought the alternatives were useful. Of the alternatives listed, at most, only 

22 percent of the libraries felt any one of the alternatives was of 

great use. 

Use of the Monthly Catalog 

In our survey we asked what percentage of time was the Monthly 

Catalog used for 1) cataloging, 2) accessing current material, and 

3) accessing retrospective material, compared with the PRF and 

other sources. When trying to access retrospective material, 

librarians primarily used the Monthly Catalog. When trying to 

access current material, librarians used the PRF about as often as 

the Monthly Catalog. For cataloging, the librarians used the 

Monthly Catalog more than the PRF, but mainly used other sources. 

The next table illustrates this point. 

22 
APPENDIX I APPENDIX I 

Table 23 

Use of the Monthly Catalog as Compared with 

The Publication Reference File (PRF) and Other Sources 

Sources: 

Monthly Catalog 

PRF 

Other 

Total 

Cataloginga 

30.2 

6.5 

63.3 

100.0 

Average percent of time libraries 

use sources for: 

Accessing Accessing 

current 

materialb 

retrospective 

materialC 

36.9 58.9 

36.7 13.7 

24.4 27.4 

100.0 100.0 

aBased on 872 libraries responding to the question. 

bBased on 1,150 libraries responding to the question. 

cBased on 1,123 libraries responding to the question. 

Preference --Monthly Catalog vs. an expanded PRF 

We asked the librarians in our survey if they would prefer an 

expanded PRF (one that includes documents other than sales documents) to the Monthly Catalog, More librarians agreed than disagreed that they would prefer an expanded PRF to the Monthly Catalog. About 42 percent of the librarians said they would prefer the 

PRF to the Monthly Catalog, if the PRF included documents other 

than sales documents. Over 33 percent of the libraries said they 

would not prefer the PRF to the Monthly Catalog. The remaining 

24 percent were undecided or did not answer the question. Because 

a large percentage of librarians were undecided, we feel no clear 

position can be stated. 

Characteristics of the ideal Monthly Catalog 

alog. 

In our survey we listed nine characteristics of a Monthly CatWe asked the librarians to indicate how important or unimportant they thought each characteristic was. All nine characteristics were thought to be important by a majority of the librarians. However, some were considered more important than others. 

An overwhelming majority of librarians, over 95 percent, 

thought the Monthly Catalog should be current and have a complete 

index. Other characteristics of great importance included 1) the 

23 
APPENDIX I APPENDIX I 

Monthly Catalog should be inclusive of all documents 2) the Monthly 

Catalog should be cumulative, and 3) the Monthly Catalog should be 

easy to use (a one-step process). Almost 90 percent of the librarians considered these characteristics of great importance. The 

table below lists the nine characteristics in order of preference. 

Characterlstlcs I mportant 

Number Percent 

Current 1,217 

camp tete 1,202 

index 

lncluslve 1,148 

of all 

documents 

Cumulative 1,108 

Ease of 1,100 

using 

cat3 log 

(one-step 

process) 

CescrIptIve 941 

1 nformatlon about 

the contents 

of the pubI lcatlon 

Inclusive of 795 

all corporate authors 

inclusive of 766 

all persona I 

authors 

Short I tern 732 

descr I ptlons 

97.7 7 .6 

96.5 18 1.4 2 

22 

24 

92.1 47 3.8 23 

.2 

1.9 28 

89.0 81 6.5 28 2.3 29 

88.2 71 5.7 40 3.2 35 

1.8 t,246 100.0 

1.9 1,246 100.0 

2.2 1,246 100.0 

2.3 1,246 100.0 

2.8 1,246 100.0 

75.6 153 t2.3 127 10.2 25 2.0 1,246 100.0 

63.8 256 20.5 169 13.5 26 2.1 1,246 100.0 

61.5 252 20.2 201 

136 

16.1 27 2.2 1,246 100.0 

58.7 326 26.2 10.9 52 4.2 1,246 100.0 

Table 24 

Importance of Certain Characteristics in 

The Monthly Catalog 

Undec I ded Un Important No answer Tota I 

Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent 

Additional comments --overall satisfactory evaluation of program 

Space was provided at the end of the questionnaire for the 

librarians to make additional comments on the questionnaire or 

GPO's Depository Library Program. About 40 percent of the libraries 

wrote additional comments at the end of the questionnaire. Most of 

these additional comments restated the positions librarians had 

24 
APPEtiDIX I APPENDIX I 

taken on the individual questions, such as the selection process 

needed to be more accurate, distribution of documents had been 

slow, and librarians and users had difficulty when serials that had 

previously been sent in paper were now being sent in microfiche. 

However, some librarians used this as an opportunity to make an 

overall evaluation of the GPO Library Program that in a number of 

cases was favorable. For example, 33 librarians wrote that the GPO 

Depository Program recently had improved greatly. Twenty-six librarians thought GPO provided an essential service, and 22 librarians wrote that GPO should be commended for doing a fine job. 

25 
APPENDIX II APPENDIX II 

US. GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE 

SURVEY OF DEPOSITORY LIBRARIES’ VIEWS 

CONCERNING GPO’S DEPOSITORY LIBRARY PROGRAM 

INTRODUCTlON (Based on completed questionnaires received from 1,246 depository 

libraries. i 2. Select the item below that best describes your library. (Check 

The purpose of this questionnaire IS to obtain information on one.) ,n 

your library’s views on theGovernment Printing Office’s Ikposi- NUMBER 

tory Library Program and the service it provides to you as a 706 I. q Academic library 

depcsitory library. 

45 

Tbt questionnaire can be completed in about an hour or two. 

Most of the questions can be readily answered either by checking 

boxes or filling in blanks. Where records or figurts are not readily 

available. we would like to have your best estimates. WC would 

like the head of the library to review and be responsible for the 

questionnaire but you may want to consult with othm, such as 

depository librarians or catalogers, for certain information. 

2. q Court library 

4 3 3. q Federal agency library 

125 4. q Law school library 

250 5. r] Public library 

45 

As mention& in our Ima. this questionnaire is numbered only 

6. 0 State library agency 

so we can dektc your library’s name from the follow-up procedure 30 

scheduled for those who do not return the questionnaire. 

7. q Other (please specify.) 

2 No Answer 

Throughout this questionnaire there are numbers printed 

within parentheses to assist our keypuncher in coding responses 

3. Approximately how many volumes (both paper and microfiche) does your entire library have? (Check one.) (II 

far computer analysis. Please disregard these numbars. NUMBER 

I. 

Please return UK completed questionnaire in the self-addressed 74 0 Less than 50,000 

envelope within 10 days, if possible. If you have any questions, 

please contact either Rosemary Jcllish at (202) 275-9029 or Debra 

125 2. 0 so,ooo to 99.999 

Bell at (202) 275-6073. We appreciate your participation. 

GLOSSARY OF ACRONYMS 

AACR Anglo-American Cataloging Rules 

COS4TI Committee of Scientific and Technical 

Information (cataloging rules) 

Do&x Documents Expediting Project (Library of Congress Subscription Service) . 

GPO Government Printing Office 

LC Library of Congress 

MARC Machine Readable Cataloging (cataloging format) 

OCLC Online Computer Library Center; 

formerly, Ohio Colkgc Library Center (Bibliographic Utility Network) 

PRF Publications Reference Fire 

RLIN Research Libraries lnformarion Network (Bibliographic Utility Network) 

SuDoc Superintendent of Documents, &vernment Printing Office 

WLN Washington Library Network (Bibliographic Utility Network) 

299 

342 

188 

178 

3. 0 Ioo.om to 199.999 

4. 0 24lo,coo to 499,999 

5. 0 soo.ooo to 999,999 

6. q 1,OOO.C40 to 3.999.999 

7. 0 4,000,ooO or more 

fi;;.l~yRMATION ON TYPE AND SIZE OF 

34 

6 

4. 

Mean 

No Answer 

GPO has approximately 5.5#1 item numbers or types of documents available for selection. About how many of these item 

numbers has your library selected? (Enter number.) 

1,755 item numbers range 16-5500 19-11) 

5. GPO sends depository libraries an average of l.600 documents 

per month in paper and 3,400 per month in microfiche. Ap 

proximately how many documents in paper format and in microfiche does the library receive per month from GPO? /Enrer 

approximate numbers.) 

range 5-5400 

Mean I. 565 paper documents (volumes) per month (u-16) 

Mean 2. &?!.i-- microfiche docu range P-7000 nts per month C 17-20, 

IS, I 

6. GPO sends an average of about 100 shipments per month to 

1. IS your library a selective or a rqional depository library? depository libraries. Approximately how many shipments 

Number ICheck one.) 161 (c-g.. boxes. not daily periodic&) in both paper and micro1194 1. 0 Selective depository library 

fiche doa your library receive from GPO each month? (Enter 

ihe approxrmare number.) 

47 2. 0 Regional depository library Mean 39 range l-200 

slupments per month t11m 

5 No Answer 

26 
APPENDIX II APPENDIX II 

B. CURRENT GPO DOCUMENT 

DiSTRlBUTlON SERVICE 

7. FOR SELECTIVE DEPOSITORIES ONLY. (Restonal depositories, skip to question 8.) 

How many paper and microfiche documents. if an!‘. do you 

set per month, distrtbuted under an item number you had not 

selected, excludmg ramples? (Check one box m each row.) 

1. Paper 18 34 77 461 83 102 ---?f?+ 

2. Microfiche 15 36 81 36 

(Figures do not include the 47 regional 

9. 4ssummg GPO fills most of your claims. how are your uafilled cialms handled by GPO? (Check one barn each row./ 

Unfilled clarms 

2) No response reabout 3 months 

a 

(1) 

f 

138 

IO. How often, if at all. lees failure CO receive a clanned document from GPO cause you a problem, such as having to seek 

the document from another source? (Check one./ ,101 

8. +?oFplsitory libragies. ,i 

ow man paper an mtcro.lche documents, if any, do 

you submit a claim to GPO because a docutttent you selected 

Was missing from your shipment? fCheck one box in each 

row.1 

I. q 10 or more tunes per month 

2. a 5 to 9 times per month 

3. @ I to 4 times per month 

4. 0 Less than once per month 

5. (g Never 

32 No Answer 

I I. HOW often. if at all, has sJowness in rcceivmg a document from GPO caused YOU a problem. such as being unable to handle a library 

user’s request in a timely manner? /Check one.) ,,I, 

Number 

11 I. 0 25 or more times per month 

32 2. 0 IO IO 24 times per month 

90 3. D 5 to 9 times per month 

367 4. 0 1 to 4 times per month 

564 5. m Less than once per month 

165 6. q Never 

1 7 No Answer 

Answer 

27 
APPENDIX II APPENDIX TI 

12. To what extent, if at all, has it been a problem receiving the followmg categories of documents in microfiche? (Check one bow in each row.l 

I) Other @lease specifyl 

75 ‘995 

103 r”rl 027 

13, bob how many documents w month, if any, do you find microfiche with the following characteristics? (Cheek one box in each r0w.l 

4) Inaccurate header information 12 53 105 277 421 341, '48' 37 

5) Illegible headers 4 10 ;16 !26 491 550 ‘w’ 39 

28 
APPENDIX II APPENDIX II 

14. (FOR SELECTIVE DEPOSZTORIES QNL Y; REGIONAU: SKlp TO QtiESTION ICS 

Number Whjch of the following best describes Ihe ittm numkr breakdown for stlecting documtnts? (Cheek atic.) 

580 1. q Not enough item numbers for needed selectivity 

513 2. 0 About the right number of item numbers 

48 3. a Too many item numbers 

53 No Answer (Figures include only selective depository libraries) 

15. (FOR SELECTIVE DEPOSITORlES ONLY, RECIONALS, SKIP TO QUESTION 16.) 

How satisfied or dissatisfied are you with the current GPO procar for requnting your document #leztionr? (Check one box in wh row.1 

I 1 

Ndlhn 

misfid 

Document selection process 

1) Frequency of periodic surveys (“PRINTOUTS”) 

2) Regularity of periodic surveys (“PRINTOUTS”) 

3) Adequacy of information on new item surveys 

Hi&hly I’D* Dh- VW 

~SmrW Sa~iriicd vrirkd DiibM DilrIirfid 

(11 (2) (3) (4) (5) No Answer 

79 556 193 284 57 tsu 27 

63 487 226 312 78 IS21 28 

67 588 233 233 33 . uJ’ 35 

I 4) Time period ktwecn periodic SUWN 

I”PRINTOUTS”) and when YOU start flting Your I I I I I I u4) 

new selcdon 

5) Time period between surveys for new items and 

when you start getting the new items 

17 252 212 4% te8 30 

OS, 

19 343 _ 380 346 74 32 

(Figures include only selective depository libraries) 

16. Do you egret or disagree that GPO should assign publications 

B SuDoc class stem (e.g., GA 1.13:) that remains the same 

18. What. if anything. do you use M item number for? (Cheek 

no mutu what chw occur in the agmg? (Ckek one.) Number 

all that apply.) 

Number 

75 

408 

358 

136 

196 

52 

21 

17. 

‘tm - 

I. 0 Not applicable (do 

492 1. 

~0; use SuDOC numbers) 

57-4 

2. 0 strongly agree 

2. 

122 3. 3. q ABr= 

4. 0 Neithc 

1146 4. 

r agree nor disaeree 

5. rJisagra 

33 5. 

6. [3 Strongly diqra 150 6. 

No Answer 

0 Trace history of P document (RI 

[7 Union list of what libraries get which documcntsoq 

q Keep like documents together WI 

0 Check whether the document has been s&ted WI 

161) 

Number 

175 

368 

199 

287 

144 

21 

1 Figures 

Suggestions have been made that SuDOC clasaifiution 19. Approximately how oRen, if at all. do users rqucrc documents 

numbers be used for selection rather than item numbers. Do that GPO does not offer through the Depository Library PTCyou agree or disagree that GPO could eliminate item numbers Number gram? (C&k one.) (WI 

and insteed make each class stem a new b8sis for selection? - 

(Check one.) m-l 39 I. 0 25 or more timer per month 

1. q Strongly aree 101 2. 0 10 to 24 times per month 

2. 0 Apes 129 3. q 5to9timerpermonth 

3. [7 Neither agree or disagree 335 4. q 1 to 4 times per month 

4. 0 Disagree 523 5. u Less than once per month 

5. 3 Strongly disagree 102 6. q Never 

17 No Answer No Answer 

include only selective depository libraries.1 

29 
APPENDIX II APPENDIX f1 

20. When you request a document from GPO that isn’t currently offered through the Depository Library program, how often, if at all, 

does GPO subsquently make it available to you through the program? (Check one.) ,651 

Number Number 

675 1. 0 Not applicable. have not requested such documents 52 4. 0 As often as not 

7 2. q Always or almost all the time 247 5. 0 somttimts 

37 3. 0 Most of the time 211 6. q Rarely. if ever 

17 No Answer 

21. Whtn you have a need for Government documents not offered through the GPO Depository Library Program. how do you generally 

obtain them: I) for your own collection: and 2) for users? (Eltter pcrcenlages in each column.) DUP (1.4 

(NOTE: each column should toto! to 100%) (1) 2 

For your own 

collection For users 

I. Borrow through inter-library loan 8.3% (4.1~ 47.5% 03celI 

2. Contact Congressperson or committee 8.6 (*III 5.4 (X-l, 

3. Contact the agency 

18.5 W-l., 9.0 w311 

4. Obtain from GPO sales program 

5. Obtain them from a commercial source 

6. Obtain from Do&x (Library of Congress Subscription Service) 

7. Refer to other sources 

8. Unable to obtain 

22. Title 44 requires regional depositories to receive and keep geographically-specific material (such as statistical material, maps, agriculture 

surveys. flood studies, etc.) for the entire country. 

Suggested alternatives indude: regional depositotics be required to keep onIy the material for the State where they are located, with 

an option of keeping more mffui& w regional depositories be rquircd to keep only tht material for their region of the country with 

the option of keeping more material. Which of the following requirements do you think is besr for regional depositories? (Please keep 

Number in mind cost and space constraints. Check OrrC barr.) (54, 

175 1. q Keep material for the entire countrl 

399 2. q Keep material f or tbcir State only, with option of keeping more material 

644 3. 17 Keep material for their region of the country, with oprion of keeping more material 

28 No Answer 

30 
APPENDIX II APPENDIX II 

23. Regardless of whether or not you gel the material, how often, if ever, do you have user requests for there gcographic~ly-specific mater& 

from States or regions of the counrry other than your own? (Check one box in each row.) 

I I 1 “W 

USER REQlJE5TS 

Census materials: 

very 

Frequently 

(1) 

Frequently Occasionally 

(2) (31 

Seldom 

(4) 

Seldom. 

if wet 

(51 No Answer 

1) From other States 228 265 1 347 I 187 I 704 I fJ5) 1 5 

2) From other regions of the country 189 186 362 223 267 061 , g 

U.S. Gcoloeical Survcv mm: 

3) From other Stare; . 170 146 278 207 477 "" 28 

("' 32 

w!l 

24 

24. FOR REGIONAL DEPOSITORY LlBRARlES ONLY. (Sdcctive depositories, please skip to the next question.) What would be your 

approximate space and dollar savings if you were required to keep only geographically-specific material from your State ot region of 

the country? fPleose/ill in ZheJeet of shell spore, number of microfiche srorage drawers, and dollar savings in each row.) DUP ~141 

0, I 

AMOUNTS 

SAVINGS 

1) If you wcte required 10 keep only your Stale’s marerials 

2) If you wnc requited to keep only your region’s materials 

Microfiche 

Feel of storage 

shelf space drawers DotInn 

(1) (2) (3) 

range Q-250) range l-11 :.ange 500-24421 

range 30-2731 range l-20 ange 350-3003 

31 
APPENDIX.11 

25. GPO IS exn?nli:3 thr: t:‘oes of O’OS that. wliil be avahahle to depository libraries. If and when they are availabl 

the following maps from GPO in your dpwozitory library collsctmn! (Please keep in mind cost and space canstra~~ 

in eQCh row.) 

_- 

Definitely Probably P&ably Definitely 

Yes Yes Undecided NO NO 

(11 (2) (3) (4) (5) 

I) U.S. Geological Survey maps 344 194 104 158 235 

r 

2) Defense Mapping Agency maps 171 131 132 285 408 

3) National Ckeaneraphic and Atmospheric 

Administration/Weather Survey maps 99 149 190 346 390 

1 

4) National Ocean Survey maps 96 101 156 352 476 

1 

5) Bureau of Land Management maps 123 151 193 I 358 I 340 

6) Bureau of Census maps 382 313 128 173 145 

7) Office of rhe Geographer maps 120 115 296 307 351 

8) Soil Conservation Service maps 122 138 188 75n 777 

9) Department of Energy maps 106 146 233 350 355 

10) Corps of Engmeers maps 99 154 la2 356 398 

1 I) Forest Service maps 142 177 178 ?R4 756 

12) Housing and Urban Development maps 92 177 261 ii23 144 

13) Tennessee Valley Authortry maps 68 55 108 350 503 

, would you ant 

:s. Check one 50x 

Not 

Applicable 

(already 

recewe) 

(6) 

32 

23 

15 

129 

10 

12 

OS, 

46 

'W 36 

0. CATALOGING 

26. How do you rate the quality of,GPO’s cataloging (as found in the Monthly Catalog) n the following areas? (Please ignore mechanical 

errors such as typographical errors or misspellings.) (Check one box m each row./ 

rw' 4 1 

5. Other access points 246 I 643 246 32 9 

27. Which of the following changes, II any, do you think GPO should make regarding descriptive catalogmg? (Check one.) ,V, 

Number 

187 I. 0 Add more information to catalogjng record le.~., more Goverr~menr ogencws, contractors, permu/ authors, etc./ 

822 2. 0 Keep the descriptions the same as they are currently 

189 3. 0 Make the cataloging descriptions shorter (more like what GPO used before odoptlng Anglo-American Cotaiogmg Rules (AA 

in 1976) 

48 No Answer 

3 

32 
APPENDIX II APPENDIX II 

28. Do you agree or disqgree with the following statements regarding Library of Congress (Lc) subject headings? (Check one box in each row.) 

I I I I I I 

GPO should: 

Agree 

m 

Undecided 

(3) 

1) Continue to use LC subject headings 

2) Give more LC subject headings for each record 

3) Give fewer LC headings for each record 

774 I 386 41 

152 ] 314 388 

6 56 273 

Disagree 

(4) 

24 

319 

607 

A (*6’ 45 

4) Use more specrfic LC subject headings 211 452 1 757 172 

29. Do you agree or disagree that, in addition to LC subject headings, GPO should use scientific and technical vocabularies and/or legislative 

vocabularies? (Check one box m each row.) 

GPO should use: 

1) Scientific and technical vocabularies 

2) Legislative information vocabularies 

Strongly 

Agree 

(11 

142 

182 

Agree Undecided Disagree 

(2) (3) (4) 

331 40.2 284 

359 363 266 

Strongly 

Disagree 

(3 0 Answer 

59 IV, 28 

57 _I I’O 19 

30. If GPO developed an m-house cataloging system and withdrew from OCLC (Online Computer Library Center), what type of impact 

would this have on your library? (Check one.) m 

Number 

28 I. q Significantly positive impact 

28 2. 0 Positive impact 

406 3. 0 Little or no impact 

324 4. q Negative mtpact 

437 5. 0 Significantly negative impact 

23 No Answer 

31. 

Number 

If GPO were to discontinue its personal name authority work, what type of impact would this have on your library? (Check one.) 

if-a 

10 1. [3 Significantly positive impact 

38 2. 0 Positive impact 

597 3. q Little or no impact 

400 4. q Negative impact 

1R7 

14 

32. 

5. 0 Significantly negative impact 

No Answer 

AACR 2 (Anglo-American Cataloging Rules, Second Edition) has 3 levds of cataloging-Level 1 (mmimal level cataloging), Level 2. 

and Level 3 (highest level), GPO currently uses level 3 catalogtng. In your opinion. would Level 1 and/or Level 2 provide sufficient 

information for a reference tool for your library? (Check one box in each row.) 

I I I 1 I 1 1 

CATALOGING ALTERNATIVES 

AACR 2 Level 1 

AACR 2 Level 2 

Definitely Probably 

Yes Yes 

(1) (2) 

30 210 

166 443 

Undecided 

(3) 

152 

140 

Probably 

NO 

(4) 

315 

222 

Defmitely Don’t 

No know 

(5) 16) 

pANo Answer 

477 32 lhl, 30 

197 37 rb?, 3, 

1 

33 
APPENDIX II APPENDIX~ II 

33. A number of alternatives have been suggested for cataloging scienrlfic and techmcal documents, such as the Department of Energy 

technical reports. Would you support or oppose the following suggestions for current documents 0.e.. those published from the slan 

of the program forward) and for old documents Ike.. [hose puhhshed prom 1976 to rtarf of progrunt) whxh GPO would distnbute 

lo deposuory libraries who want them? (Check one column under each iypp of document, current and old. Thus. there should be two 

columns checked in each row.) 

Suggested Options 

1) GPO should not catalog them since the 

issuing agency already does 

2) GPO should catalog them with full cataloging into AACR2 and MARC format so that 

all Government documents are cataloged 

together 

3) GPO should catalog them wth mimmal 

cataloging 

d) GPO should mechanically convert the issuing 

agency’s COSATl format records to MARC 

and include them in with their cataloging 

records 

5) GPO, Library of Congress and the scientific 

and technical agennes should work out 

cataloging rules that would be consistent 

between COSATI and AACRZ 

6) The agencies currently using COSATI format 

and rules should use MARC format and 

AACRZ rules 

7) Agencies currently using MARC format and 

AACRZ rules should use COSATI format 

and rules 

CATALOGING SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL DOCUMENTS 

No Answer 

OLD DOCUMENTS 

I ‘No Answer 

I i i i i i i 

23 316 216 56 l-t-t-t 

Wti, 

104 

,67-&s, 

116 

34 
APPENDIX II APPENDIX II 

34. 

Cxnber 

36 

89 2. q Great problem 

270 3. r! Moderate oroblem 

217 

609 

25 

35 

36 

Number 

198 

207 

354 

324 

76 

a7 

Whar problems, if any, has the lack of cataloging by GPO 37. Would a temporary skeleral cataloging record on the rolof scientific and technical documenrs caused your library in lou~ng systems help you until full cataloging could be done’? 

atrcmpring to acce~ the material for users? (Check 0ne.J (Check one box in euch row.) 

,--, 

I. c) Very great problem 

4. u Some problem 

5. q Little or no problem 

No Answer 

How often, if ever, have you experienced problems in accessing 1) OCLC 317 3 

documents for users because the documents were not cara- ’ I I 

loged in the following systems? (Check one bow in each row.) 2) WLN 77 -2 36 149 98 b57 ‘“‘283 b 

3)RLIN 40 51 153 103 622 977 

4) Monthly 

Catalog llJL 

tapes 47 66 167 lC9 588 269 

51 Printed 

Catalog Monch1y 349 457 11 1 147 97 ““B5 

VI 38. In your opinion, should GPO have any priorities in catalog84 ing documents? (Check one box.) II? 

If you have experienced problems caused by documents not 

being cataloged by GPO, how do you handle the situa- 

!ion? (Check one box.) ,!I, 

1. q Not applicable-have not had problems 

2. a Catalog most or all items when received (in-house, 

contractor, or commercial system) 

3. 0 Catalog some ~rerns as needed (in-houe, contractor 

or commercial system) 

4. 0 Use other cools, e.g., Energy Research Abstracts, PRF 

5. 0 Other (please spe$y.) 

No Answer 

35 
APPENDIX II APPENDIX II 

59, To &hat extent. if any. do you think GPO thould euped~ie ~‘~alo~rng Ihe loilowng irem belore any ~vher Ifems” ~Cfwck one bar 

m each row., 

5) Items <overed in the news media 596 130 a7 45 28 021 , 6 

6) Census publicatmns 449 - c 137 67 ,2X ,b 23 

7) Presidential publications 230 79 I 247 107 55 

04, 

31 

8) Maps 21 74 222 244 365 0% 35 

9) Scientific and rechntcal marenal 85 : ,;9 792 218 186 126) 3, 

IO) Other /&v.se ~peci/y.) --.- 16 13 6 lzr- 2 15 ,2?!!N9 

- 

!FigUt-eS include only the 961 who thought ^ ‘LIFO .shf>?lld have priorities. ) 

40. Sometimes, as GPO begins to catalog an item, they find OCLC already has a cataloging record for that Item. Smce GPO 1s the authority, [hey modify the OCLC record. DO you think GPO should change ihe GC1.C record or should GPO accept the record as OCLC 

has It? (Check one.) 

Number 

111, 

674 I. c GPO should always change the OCLC record 

126 2. 0 GPO should change the OCLC record less often than at presmr 

90 3. u GPO should accept the record as OCLC has it 

331 4. r-J No opmon 

2L No Answer 

E. MONTHLY CATALOG FORMAT 

41 

Number 

381 

560 

107 

143 

32 

15 

a 

We would hke your opinion on the overall format of the 42. 

printed Monthly Catalog issued by GPO. How satisfied or 

dissatisfied are YOU with the present format of the printed Number 

Monthly Catalog? (Check one.) ,291 104 

I. r] Very sattsfied 306 

2. q Somewhat satisfied ‘i ‘4 5 

3. 0 Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied 

1. 0 Somewhat dissatisfied 

5. 0 Very dissatisfied 

6 C Uo opinion 

No Answer 

What is your opinion on die SIZC of rhe prmred Monthly 

Catalog? (Check one.) iw 

I. 0 Much IOO large 

2. 0 Toa large 

36 
43. Some ahernatives have been suvvested to the current format of the Wxtthiy Cat~loa. How useful. if at all. would the Monthly Catalog 

be if it were as dexrtbed in eayh of the foi&ing s:dtements? /Check & bar 1; each row.) 

“cry Greatly GrKdy Moderately Smwrhat Little or 

Useful Useful Useful tiactul No Use 

(1) (21 (3) (4) (5) 

I) Both the test of each record and the indexes 

II-I paper {present format) 620 392 153 35 14 

No Answer 

011 

32 

APPENDIX II APPENDIX II 

J-l 

Number 

235 

25 

376 

How often should a cumulative index to the Monthly Catalog be issued (each mdev would tncludc entries from all previous months 

of the year)? /Check one.) , WL 

I. 0 !vlonthly 

2. c Bimonthly 

3 0 Quarterly 

450 

83 

31 

4. q Semiannually (present method) 

5. 0 Annually 

46 No Answer 

2) Both the text of each record and [he Indexes 

in microfiche 

3) Text of each record in paper and Indexes 

cumulated periodically in microfiche 

1) Tuxt of each record in fiche and indexes 

cumulated perio%cally u-t paper 

5) Shorter descripttons in one paper verston 

with the larger version also available in 

microfiche 

42 77 200 349 545 

52 109 240 340 4% 

99 150 294 275 385 

93 I83 269 248 401 

6) Broken down mto several smaller catalogs 

covcrmg different subject areas 28 64 123 247 743 

71 Broken down mto several smaller catalogs 

covering different agenctes 

S) Other rPiease specrfy.) 

?? GIL T3t. 217 774 

48 9 5 1 78 

02, 

33 

ill, 

47 

,3*, 

43 

tm 

52 

U6) 

41 

37 
APPENDIX II APPENDIX II 

45. In Your opinion, which of the following nUmbCring syslems should appear in the GPO catalopmg records? fche.-k one oox,,, e0ch row.j 

46. About what percentage of the time do you use the Monthly Catalog, (JPO’T Publicmon Reference File (PRF). or other sources for 

the followcng purposes? fEnter percentages in each column. Now each column should roraf fo IiN%.) D”P ,I-4, 

I. Monthly Catalog 

2. PRF 

- -- 

TOTAL 

Cataloging 

30.2 “.---. % 

ISa, 

ACCfC.Sing 

Retrospective 

Material 

47. If the PRF included documents other than sales documents. would you prerer to UC it Insread of the Monthly Cardlog? (Check 

“dumber 

one.) Itm 

?59 1. 0 Defirmely yes 

2 7 2 2 n Probably yes 

272 3, D Undecided 

3; G 4. q Probably no 

1 ‘35 5. r] Definitely no 

i _ .: No Answet, 

33 
APPENDIX II APPENDIX II 

4X. HOW important or ummportant do you think it is that the Monthly Catalog should have the following characteristics? Khmk one box 

in each ro w.j 

217 515 326 128 8 

8) Inclusive of all corporare authors 316 479 256 155 14 

9) inclusive of all personal authors 301 465 ?5? 1% If. 

10) Other (please specify.) 

56 10 4 2 1 

lo Answer 

61’ 28 

62’ 35 

163> 22 

‘-) 24 

165, 25 

‘N.3 29 

‘*” 52 

‘64’ 26 

(691 

27 

noi 1 73 

49. If you have any additional comments regarding any previous question or general comments concerning GPO’s Depository Library Ptogram. please use the space below. 01) 

496 additional comments 

i 

MMS-7183 

39 
APPENDIX II APPENDIX II 

We apprcciak your answers and comments. Please return the questlooruule III the postage-patd envelopf to: 

Ms. Debra &II 

U.S. &nerai Accounting Office 

Room 1907 

441 G Street. N.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

SO. Please enter below the name, title. and telephone number of the mdividual who should be contacted if clarification and/or additional 

information to thu questionnaxe are needed. This sccnon will ultimately be separated from the questionnaire. 

TITLE: ____-.- .-_-.--- 

‘TELEPHONE: I_- _._. --._ 

(Area code) 

I_-- --.. 

~_-- _-.-_ 

(Number) 

(916667) 

40 

t 
Request for copies of GAO reports should be 

sent to: 

U.S. General Accounting Office 

Document Handling and Information 

Services Facility 

P.O. Box 6015 

Gaithersburg, Md. 20760 

Telephone (202) 275-6241 

The first five copies of individual reports are 

free of charge. Additional copies of bound 

audit reports are $3.25 each. Additional 

copies of unbound report (i.e., letter reports) 

and most other publications are $1.00 each. 

There will be a 25% discount on all orders for 

100 or more copies mailed to a single address. 

Sales orders must be prepaid on a cash, check, 

or money order basis. Check should be made 

out to the “Superintendent of Documents”. 

,