Informing the Nation: Federal Information

Dissemination in an Electronic Age

October 1988

NTIS order #PB89-114243

GPO stock #052-003-01130-1
Recommended Citation:

U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Informing the Nation: Federal Information Dissemination in an Electronic Age, OTA-C IT-396 (Washington, DC: U.S.

Government Printing Office, October 1988).

Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 88-600567

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents

U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402-9325

(order form can be found in the back of this report)
Foreword

Federal information is essential to public understanding of many issues facing Congress

and the Nation, and is used by all sectors of society. Technological advances are opening up

many new and potentially cost-effective ways to collect, manage, and disseminate this information.

Although traditional ink-on-paper publications will continue to meet important needs for the

foreseeable future, many types of Federal information—such as statistical, reference, and scientific and technical-are well suited to electronic storage and dissemination. For example, an entire

year’s worth of the Congressional Record or several Bureau of the Census statistical series can

be placed on one compact optical disk that can be easily read with a low-cost reader and basic

microcomputer. Press releases, weather and crop bulletins, and economic or trade indices can

be disseminated immediately via electronic bulletin boards or online information systems.

This report addresses the opportunities to improve the dissemination of Federal information.

It also highlights two major problems: maintaining equity in public access to Federal information

in electronic formats, and defining the respective roles of Federal agencies and the private sector

in the electronic dissemination process. The report focuses on current and future roles of the

U.S. Government Printing Office (GPO) and Superintendent of Documents, the Depository Library Program (administered by GPO), and the National Technical Information Service (NTIS).

In addition, this report examines electronic dissemination of congressional information, the

Freedom of Information Act in an electronic environment, and electronic dissemination of government information to the press.

In conducting this assessment, OTA drew on expertise and perspectives from numerous

sources in and outside of the government. OTA received special assistance from the General

Accounting Office (GAO) for the surveys of Federal information dissemination practices and

Federal information users, from GPO with respect to Federal printing and related dissemination

activities, and from NTIS with regard to dissemination of scientific and technical information.

OTA appreciates the participation of the advisory panelists, contractors, working group participants, Federal agency officials and Federal information users who responded to the GAO surveys,

and members of the library, academic, business, labor, consumer, and Federal agency communities,

among others, who helped bring this report to fruition.

The report responds to an initial request from the Joint Committee on Printing and subsequent

expressions of interest from the Subcommittee on Government Information, Justice, and Agriculture of the House Committee on Government Operations, the House Committee on Science,

Space, and Technology, the Committee on House Administration, and the Subcommittee on

Legislative of the House Committee on Appropriations.

The report is solely the responsibility of OTA, not of those who assisted us in the assessment or of the congressional committees who requested or endorsed the undertaking of the study.

.,, ///
Informing the Nation Advisory Panel

Marvin Sirbu, Chairman

Associate Professor, Carnegie-Mellon University

Ben Bagdikian Paul P. Massa

Dean and Chairman President & Chief Executive Officer

Graduate School of Journalism Congressional Information Service, Inc.

University of California at Berkeley James A. Nelson

Nolan Bowie State Librarian and Commissioner

Assistant Professor of Communications Kentucky Department for Libraries and

Temple University Archives

Tom Davies

General Manager

SCT Corp.

Miriam Drake

Director of Libraries

Georgia Institute of Technology

Lee Felsenstein

President

Golemics, Inc.

Ron Plesser, Esq.

Nash, Railsback, and Plesser

Howard Resnikoff

President

Aware, Inc.

Katherine D. Seelman

Director of Communications

Massachusetts Commission for the Deaf

and Hard of Hearing

James K. Galbraith Fran Spigai

Associate Professor of Economics President

LBJ School of Public Affairs Database Services, Inc.

Mary Gardiner-Jones Susan Tolchin

President Professor of Public Administration

Consumer Interest Research Institute The George Washington University

Robert Gibson, Jr.

Head Librarian (retired)

General Motors Technical Center

John A, Jenkins

General Manager

BNA On-Line

Earl C. Joseph

President

Anticipatory Sciences Inc.

Myer Kutz

Executive Publisher

John Wiley and Sons

Congressional Agency Participants

Robert L. Chartrand

Senior Specialist in Information Policy and

Technology (retired)

Congressional Research Service

Vincent DeSanti

Group Director

General Accounting Office

Harold C, Relyea

Specialist in American National

Government

Congressional Research Service

NOTE: OTA gratefully acknowledges the members of this advisory panel for their valuable assistance and thoughtful

advice. The panel does not, however, necessarily approve, disapprove, or endorse this report. OTA assumes

full responsibility for the report and the accuracy of its contents.

iv
OTA INFORMING THE NATION ASSESSMENT STAFF*

John Andelin, Assistant Director, OTA

Science, Information, and Natural Resources Division

Fred W. Weingarten, Program Manager

Commumication and Information Technologies

Project Staff**

Fred B. Wood, Project Director

Prudence S. Adler, Assistant Project

Jamie A. Grodsky, Analyst

Carol S. Nezzo, Analyst

Director

Other OTA Staff Contributors

Jean Smith

Darlene Wong

Administrative Staff

Elizabeth Emanuel, Administrative Assistant

Rebecca Battle, Secretary

Karolyn Swauger, Secretary

Publishing Staff

Kathie S. Boss, Publishing Officer

Chip Moore, Publishing Assistant

Debra Datcher Cheryl Davis

Dorinda Edmondson Steve Kettler

Ted Williams Susan Zimmerman

*see appendix A for acknowledgments of GPO, GAO, and NTIS staff, agency officials, workshop p~ticipants. reviewers, and

others who participated in the study. **See appendix B for OTA project staff responsibilities.

v
Contractors

Brenda Dervin

Ohio State University

Stephen Frantzich

Congressional Data Associates

Henry Freedman

Consultant

Gregory Giebel

University of the District of Columbia

Mark P. Haselkorn, Philip L. Bereano, and

Barbara Lewton

University of Washington

Peter Hernon

Simmons College

Earl Joseph

Anticipatory Sciences, Inc.

Charles McClure

Syracuse University

Judith E. Myers

University of Houston Library

Thomas P. Riley

Riley Information Services

Frank J. Romano

Consultant

Barry M. Schaeffer

Consultant

Jacob W. Ulvila

Decision Science Consortium, Inc.

Carol Watts, Sarah Kadec, and Dorothy Weed

Washington Information Network
Contents

Chapter Page

CHAPTER 1: SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Opportunities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Problems and Challenges. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Government Printing Office . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

National Technical Information Service. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

National Technical Information Service/Superintendent of Documents. . . . . . . .

Depository Libraries. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Technical/Management Improvements. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Statutory/Oversight Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Legislative Branch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

About This Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

CHAPTER 2: OVERVIEW OF FEDERAL INFORMATION

DISSEMINATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Size and Scope of Federal Information Dissemination Enterprise . . . . . . . . . . . .

Technological Initiatives by Federal Agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Institutional Infrastructure for Federal Information Dissemination . . . . . . . . .

CHAPTER 3: KEY TECHNOLOGY TRENDS RELEVANT TO FEDERAL

INFORMATION DISSEMINATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Introduction and Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Information Systems Integration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

The Microcomputer Revolution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

The Continuing Role of Paper and Microform. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Electronic Publishing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Desktop Publishing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

High-End Electronic Publishing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Electronic Forms Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Computer Graphics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Scanners and Printers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Online Information Dissemination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Online Information Retrieval. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Telecommunications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Electronic Mail . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Optical Disks.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Expert Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Technical Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

CHAPTER 4:ALTERNATIVE FUTURES FOR THE GOVERNMENT

PRINTING OFFICE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Traditional GPO-Centralized . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Demand for Traditional GPO Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Impacts of Medium-Term Reductions in

Traditional Demand. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

3

3

5

8

10

13

14

14

17

19

20

21

27

27

28

28

32

36

45

45

47

47

48

49

51

51

52

54

54

55

57

57

58

60

61

63

64

71

71

73

74

76

vii
Page

Traditional GPO–Legislative Branch

Only . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81

Financial Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81

Labor Force Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82

Other Vulnerabilities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83

Electronic GPO–Decentralized . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85

Trends in Technology and Demand. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86

Opportunities and Challenges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89

CHAPTER 5:AN ELECTRONIC NATIONAL TECHNICAL

INFORMATION SERVICE AND NTIS/SUPERINTENDENT OF

DOCUMENTS COOPERATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ............107

Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ............................107

Role and Current Status of NTIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ....108

Opportunities and Challenges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...............111

Trends in Demand and Revenues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ................111

Possible New Initiatives. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ., , .116

NTIS/SupDocs Cooperation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , .. ....119

Differences and Similarities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..119

Disadvantages and Advantages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .................121

CHAPTER 6: INFORMATION TECHNOLOGIES, LIBRARIES, AND THE

FEDERAL DEPOSITORY LIBRARY PROGRAM . ....................127

Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .................127

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...128

Role of Information Technologies in Libraries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .......131

Use of Specific Technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .132

Online Database Services. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...133

Library Communication Networks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...............134

Electronic Bulletin Boards. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...................135

Optical Disks.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...................136

Facsimile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ................137

Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........................138

Federal Depository Library Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..............138

Origins and Operations of the Depository Library Program . . . . . . . . . ......138

Format of Depository Library Materials: Paperv. Microfiche . ............140

Dissemination of Information in Electronic Format. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .142

Online Catalogs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...........144

CHAPTER 7: ALTERNATIVE FUTURES FOR THE DEPOSITORY

LIBRARY PROGRAM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .149

Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..................149

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........151

Alternative I: Status Quo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ...151

Alternative II: Electronic Depository Library Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..153

A Subalternative for Distributing Electronic Formats. . ..................157

Alternative III: Reorganized Electronic Depository System . . . . . . . . . . ......158

Disseminating Electronic Information Products–Two Case Studies. . ........160

Congressional Record on CD-ROM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....161

Federal Register Online . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....164

Issues Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ......171

Dissemination Formats in the Depository Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..171

Changing Costs of the Depository Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .......173

,., VII!
Page

Reorganized Depository Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ................175

Changing Roles of Stakeholders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .176

CHAPTER 8: ELECTRONIC DISSEMINATION OF CONGRESSIONAL

INFORMATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ., .....183

Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,183

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...184

Current Methods of congressional Information Dissemination . . . . . . . . .. ...185

Congressional Information Products Case Studies:

Congressional Record and Bill Status Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .187

Congressional Record . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ....187

Bill Status Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .190

Dissemination Practices of congressional Support Agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .192

Office of Technology Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ................192

General Accounting Office . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...194

Congressional Research Service. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .................195

Discussion of crosscutting Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .196

Benefits of Electronic Formats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....196

Congressional Responsibility for Electronic Access . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..199

Need for an Index to Congressional Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 201

Role of GPO.... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..................201

Need for Congressional Coordination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .............202

CHAPTER9: THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT IN AN

ELECTRONIC AGE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........,,,207

Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..207

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...............209

Applicability of FOIA to Electronic Media. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .........210

Computerized Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...210

Other Media.. . . . . ~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~ . .............211

Defining the Limits of Searching Under FOIA . ..........................213

Traditional Interpretations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..213

In the Computer Context: The Distinction Between Searching and

Programming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ................215

Determining the Format of Information Delivered . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...221

Expanding the Legal Frontiers: Public Access to Software and

Online Databases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .222

Software . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .................222

Online Databases. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .........223

Fee Assessment and Fee Waivers: Charged Issues in an Age of

Electronic Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ....225

New Technologies and the Need for Amending FOIL . . . . . . . . . . . ...........226

Electronic Information Technologies Are Obscuring the Boundary

Between Record and Nonrecord Material . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........228

Computers Are Facilitating Faster and More Complex Searches,

Thereby Encouraging a Broader Definition of a

“Reasonable’ ’Search. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..............229

Electronic FOIA Requests Can Be Incompatible With the Ways

Agencies Collect and Organize Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , .230

Computer Searching Raises New Staffing and Budgetary Problems,

as Well as Opportunities for Federal Agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .232

Federal Agencies Are Using Information Products Whose Status

is Unclear Under FOIA. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .233
Page

Paper Printouts of Electronic Information May Not Satisfy

Public Access Needs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ............234

Computers Are Prompting New Discussion About the Basic

Purposes of FOIA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...............236

CHAPTER 1O:THE ELECTRONIC PRESS RELEASE AND

GOVERNMENT-PRESS RELATIONSHIPS. . ..................,......239

Slummary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .................239

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ............240

Functions and Problems of Agency Press Offices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ...241

Status of Automation in Federal Agency Press Offices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ......242

U.S. Department of Agriculture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .................242

U.S. Supreme Court . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .243

Environmental Protection Agency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...............243

White House . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ............,244

Bureau of Labor Statistics. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..244

The Federal Election Commission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...244

Status of Automation in Press Newsrooms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .........245

Challenges to Government/Press Automated Dissemination . ...............247

Need for Coordination. . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . .247

Need for Improved Communication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ., .. ...247

Need for Completeness and Quality Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .......247

Private Contracting and Price Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..247

Potential Unavailability of Paper Copy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...........248

Technological and Strategic Choices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...248

Technological Choices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..., ...248

Strategic Choices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..........250

CHAPTER 11: FEDERAL INFORMATION DISSEMINATION POLICY IN

AN ELECTRONIC AGE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...255

Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .255

Renewed Commitment to Public Access . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ............257

Clarification of Governmentwide Information Dissemination Policy . .........261

Cost-Effectiveness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .........261

Electronic v. Paper Formats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .264

Possible Congressional Actions . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .267

Clarification of Institutional Roles and Responsibilities . ...................271

Improvements in Information Dissemination Management . ................276

Electronic Publishing/Dissemination Technical Standards. . ...............276

Governmentwide Information Index. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .277

Government Information Dissemination Innovation

Centers/Committees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ......278

Revised Information Resources and Personnel Management . .............280

Improvements in Conventional Printing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .283

Cost.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..283

Timeliness. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...............288

Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ....288

Cost Estimating and Billing Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..........289

General Themes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .......................289

CHAPTER 12: SETTING FUTURE DIRECTIONS FOR THE

SUPERINTENDENT OF DOCUMENTS AND NATIONAL TECHNICAL

INFORMATION SERVICE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........295

x
Page

Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..................295

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .296

The Competitive Electronic Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .296

Institutional Alternatives for SupDocs and NTIS Electronic Information

Dissemination. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .300

Centralizing Government Electronic Information Dissemination . . . . . 300

Privatizing SupDocs and NTIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...3oI

Reorganizing SupDocs as Part of a Legislative Printing Office . ...........303

Consolidating NTIS with SupDocs and/or Reorganizing as a

“Government Information Office” or Government Corporation . .........305

Authorizing SupDocs or the Consolidated SupDocs/NTISto Produce

and Disseminate Electronic Formats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .307

Broader Implications of SupDocs/NTIS Electronic Information

Dissemination. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .309

Government Productivity and Cost-Effectiveness. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .309

Agency Missions and the Role of SupDocs and NTIS... . ................310

Private Sector Economy. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .312

Other Implications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .316

APPENDIXA: ACKNOWLEDGMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ...323

APPENDIX B: CONTRIBUTING AUTHORS . ..........................330

APPENDIX C:LIST OF CONTRACTOR REPORTS . ....................331

APPENDIXD: SOME KEY TERMS AND DEFINITIONS . ..............332

CONTENTS

Page

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Opportunities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. .. .. ... ... sO..... 5

Problems and Challenges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Government Printing Office . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

National Technical Information Service. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

National Technical Information Service/Superintendent of Documents . . . . 14

Depository Libraries. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Technical/Management Improvements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Statutory/Oversight Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Legislative Branch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

About This Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Boxes

Box Page

A. Information, the Lifeblood of the Federal Government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

B. General Accounting Office Surveysof Federal Agencies and

Federal Information Users . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

C. Some Opportunities for Productivity Improvement or Cost Avoidance

Through Electronic Technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

D. National Technical Information Service and Superintendent

of Documents, How They Compare.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

E. The Importance of Text Markup and Page Description Standards for

Information Dissemination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Tables

Table Page

l-1. Civilian Departmental Agency Dissemination of Statistical

Information, by Format Used . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

I-Z. Civilian Departmental Agency Dissemination of Scientific and

Technical Information, by Format Used, Current and Projected . . . . 6

l-3. Depository Library Demand for Federal Information,

by Type and Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

l-4. Civilian Departmental Agency Use of Selected Electronic

Publishing-Related Technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

l-5. GPO Workload Distribution, Fiscal Year 1987 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

l-6. Trends in Sales of Selected NTIS Products, Fiscal Years,

1980, 1987. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

l-7. Trends in New Titles Received byNTIS, Fiscal Years, 1983, 1987 . . 13

l-8. Depository Library Demand for Federal Information in

Electronic Formats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

l-9. Depository Library Access to Information Technology . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

l-10. Federal Agency Policies on Electronic Information Dissemination . . . 19
Chapter 1

Summary

INTRODUCTION

If a Nation expects to be ignorant and free

in a state of civilization, it expects what never

was and never will be . . . if we are to guard

against ignorance and remain free, it is the

responsibility of every American to be informed.

–Thomas Jefferson, Julv 6, 1816

Federal information is used by all sectors of

society. For example, the business and financial communities look to price levels and government indicators of economic activity as

important inputs to business planning and investment decisions. Similarly, the agricultural

community regularly uses government crop

and weather bulletins, as well as forecasts, to

aid in scheduling crop planting. Scientists and

engineers benefit from technical information

generated by federally conducted or sponsored

research in areas like superconductors, supercomputers, and solar energy. Indeed, information generated by the Federal Government

spans the entire spectrum of issues and programs relevant to agency missions-from public health crises, such as AIDs; to environmental problems, such as hazardous waste

disposal and water pollution; to demographic

and employment trends. And at the most basic

level, information about governmental processes—such as the Congressional Record for

Congress and the Federal Re~”ster for the executive branch agencies—is used by citizens

and organizations that wish to monitor and

participate in a wide range of government

activities.

For most of this Nation’s history, Federal

information has been disseminated predominantly in the form of paper documents and,

in recent decades, to a lesser extent in microfiche. However, in the last few years, technological advances have resulted in a rapid increase in the use of electronic formats for

Federal information dissemination. While the

use of electronic technology offers many new

opportunities for cost-effective dissemination,

serious conflicts have arisen over how to maintain and strengthen public access to government information and balance the roles of individual Federal agencies, governmentwide

dissemination mechanisms, and the private

sector.

OTA has concluded that congressional action

is urgently needed to resolve Federal information dissemination issues and to set the direction of Federal activities for years to come. The

government is at a crucial point where opportunities presented by the information technologies,

such as productivity and cost-effectiveness improvements, are substantial. However, the

stakes, including preservation andlor enhancement of public access to government information plus maintenance of the fiscal and administrative responsibilities of the agencies, are high

and need to be carefully balanced by Congress.

Congress has enacted numerous laws that

emphasize the importance of broad public access to Federal information (such as the Printing Act of 1895, Depository Library Act of

1962, Freedom of Information Act of 1966, and

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980) and assign

various information dissemination functions

to individual Federal agencies (see box A) and

governmentwide clearinghouses. The latter include principally the Superintendent of Documents (SupDocs) at the U.S. Government

Printing Office (GPO), Depository Library Program (DLP) also at GPO, National Technical

Information Service (NTIS), and Consumer Information Center (CIC). However, the existing statutory and institutional framework was

established by Congress largely during the preelectronic era. It is important, therefore, that

Congress review this framework to determine

what actions are needed to ensure that legislative intent is carried out in an electronic environment and whether any adjustments in legislative objectives or legislation are needed.

3
4

Box A.—Information, the Lifeblood of the Federal Government

Information is truly the lifeblood of many Federal Government programs and activities

and is essential to the implementation of agency missions as well as to informed public debate

concerning such programs and activities. Congress has enacted hundreds of specific laws that

assign information dissemination and related functions to Federal agencies. Some illustrative

laws include:

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

Public Law 96-374, Education Act Amendments of 1980, Department of Education to

establish an information clearinghouse for the handicapped;

Public Law 96-399, Housing and Community Development Act of 1980, Department

of Housing and Urban Development to collect and report data on sales prices for new

homes;

Public Law 96-482, Solid Waste Disposal Act Amendments of 1979, Environmental Protection Agency to collect, maintain, and disseminate information on energy and materials conservation and recovery from solid waste;

Public Law 97-98, Agriculture and Food Act, Department of Agriculture to develop an

agricultural land resources information system and to establish relations with foreign

agricultural information systems;

Public Law 97-290, Export Trading Company Act of 1982, Department of Commerce

to disseminate information on export trading;

Public Law 98-362, Small Business Computer Crime Prevention Act, Small Business

Administration to establish an information resource center on computer crime;

Public Law 99-412, Conservation Service Reform Act of 1985, Department of Energy

to disseminate information annually to States and public utilities on residential energy

conservation; and

Public Law 99-570, National Antidrug Reorganization and Coordination Act, Department of Health and Human Services to establish a clearinghouse for alcohol and drug

abuse information.

SOURCE: Congressional Research Service and Office of Technology Assessment, 1988.

This assessment presents information and

analyses on a broad range of topics and issues.

It is intended to:

●

●

help both Congress and the Nation better understand Federal information dissemination in an electronic age; and

assist Congress in implementing improvements in Federal information dissemination activities.

The focus of this report is on public information, that is, Federal information that is or

should be in the public domain and is not subject to exemption under the Freedom of Information Act (e.g., due to privacy, security, or

confidentiality considerations). The report focuses on the process of information dissemination, including the Federal Government’s

technical and institutional infrastructure for

dissemination, not on information collection

(although also important). The report considers a wide range of information formats—from

paper and microfiche to computer tapes and

diskettes, compact disks, and online databases.

And the report covers all major types of Federal information at a general level—including

agency reports and pamphlets, rules and regulations, periodicals and bibliographies, statistical information, and scientific and technical information, among others.
5

OPPORTUNITIES

The Federal Government today stands at a

major crossroads with respect to the future of

Federal information dissemination. Technological advances have opened up many new and

potentially cost-effective ways to disseminate

Federal information, especially those types of

information (such as bibliographic, reference,

statistical, and scientific and technical) that are

particularly well suited to electronic formats.

OTA expects several key underlying technical trends to continue unabated for at least

the next 3 to 5 years and 10 years or more in

many cases. These include:

●

●

●

●

●

●

continued, steady improvement in the

price/performance of microcomputers,

nonimpact printers, scanners, and desktop software;

rapid proliferation of desktop publishing

systems and continued improvement in

the ability of desktop systems to produce

higher quality, more complex documents;

rapid growth in networking of desktop

and high-end systems, nonimpact

printers, and phototypesetters used for

more complex, higher volume, and/or larger institutional applications;

continued increase in the number and use

of computerized online information services and online information gateways (that

provide the channels for information exchange), and continued advances in the

underlying computer and telecommunication technologies;

rapid advances in optical disk technologies

and applications, including accelerating

penetration of CD-ROM (compact disk

read-only memory), maturation of WORM

(write once read many times) and erasable optical disks, plus emergence of CD-I

(compact disk interactive, with audio,

video, graphics, textual, and software capabilities all on one disk); and

rapid advances in the development of expert systems applicable to many aspects

of information dissemination—including

technical writing, indexing, information

retrieval, and printing management.

Many individual Federal agencies already

are experimenting with and increasingly implementing information dissemination via electronic bulletin boards, floppy disks, compact

optical disks, desktop publishing, and electronic printing-on-demand. For example, statistical data are highly suited to electronic formats, and, based on the results of the General

Accounting Office (GAO) survey of Federal

agencies (see box B), about one-third of the

civilian departmental agencies use magnetic

tape or disks, one-fifth floppy disks and electronic data transfer, and one-tenth electronic

mail for dissemination of statistical data (see

Table l-l). By comparison, about three-fourths

of the agencies use paper and roughly one tenth

use microfiche for disseminating statistical

data. Overall, civilian agencies (departmental

and independent) reported over 7,500 information products disseminated electronically, as

of fiscal year 1987. The number of civilian

agency publications in paper format appears

to be declining slowly, while the number of electronic products has more than tripled over the

past 4 years. The GAO survey results suggest

that this trend will continue. For example, by

1990, agency use of electronic mail and bulletin boards, floppy disks, and compact optical

disks in disseminating scientific and technical information is expected to more than double, on the average, as shown in Table 1-2.

With respect to demand for Federal information, OTA has concluded that, for the foreseeable future, paper will continue to be the

preferred format for many purposes, such as

browsing government reports, and microfiche

will continue to be used for document storage

and archival purposes. However, OTA’S 3- to 5-

year outlook for the dissemination of Federal

information indicates that overall demand for

paper formats will decline modestly and the demand for microfiche will drop rather markedly,

while the demand for electronic formats will increase dramatically.

There already is a significant demand for

Federal information in electronic formats among

user groups, and particularly within the library
6

Box B.—General Accounting Office Surveys of Federal Agencies and Federal Information Users

GAO, at the request of the Joint Committee on Printing, conducted several surveys that provided important input to the OTA report. Copies of the complete results are available from GAO.

Federal agency survey. In 1987, GAO surveyed all 13 cabinet-level departments and 48 major

independent agencies with respect to information dissemination practices, technologies, budgets,

plans, and policies. GAO asked department or agency senior Information Resources Management

officials to coordinate the response but to consult with agency printing officers, librarians, publishers, and public information officers, among others. GAO asked that the cabinet departments

provide a separate response for each major subdivision or component, such as bureaus or administrations. GAO received responses from 114 civilian departmental components, 11 Department of

Defense components, and 48 independent agencies. GAO edited responses for completeness and

internal consistency but did not independently verify their accuracy.

Overall, the survey results are very informative; however, the survey responses were unaudited

and undocumented. Also, it is unclear how the agency responses were developed, especially with

respect to evaluative questions. Nonetheless, the results present a useful overall picture of agency

information dissemination activities.

Federal information user surveys, In 1987-1988, GAO surveyed four user groups: (1) GPO depository libraries; (2) other libraries; (3) scientific and technical associations; and (4) general associations. These groups were surveyed with respect to current and desired types and formats of Federal

information.

As with the Federal agency survey, the results of the user surveys were not verified, and the

exact process by which the responses were provided is not known. Also, the sampling error could

be high, but it does not affect the OTA analysis since OTA has emphasized only the major trends

and findings that emerged from these surveys.

Table 1-1 .—Civilian Departmental Agency

Dissemination of Statistical Information,

by Format Used

especially among the more technically sophisticated user groups.

Percent of agencies

Format used responding

Paper . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73

Magnetic tape/disk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

Floppy disk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Electronic data transfer . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Microfiche . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Electronic mail . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Microfilm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Electronic bulletin board . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Videotape . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Film . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

aTOtalS more than 100 percent since many agencies use more than one format

SOURCE’ General Accounting Office Survey of Federal Agencies, 1987

community, private industry, Federal agencies

themselves, and various groups with specialized needs (such as educators, researchers, and

disabled persons). OTA projects that this demand will rise sharply over the next few years,

Table l-2.—Civilian Departmental Agency

Dissemination of Scientific and Technical Information,

by Format Used, Current and Projected

Percent of agencies

responding

Use in

Use next

now 3 years a Percent

Format (1987) (by 1990) change

Electronic mail . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.1 15.8 + 159

Electronic bulletin board . . . . . 6.1 10.5 +72

Electronic data transfer . . . . . . 14.9 18.4 +24

Magnetic tape/disk . . . . . . . . . . 14.0 16.7 +19

Floppy disk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.8 16.7 +90

Compact optical disk . . . . . . . . — 8.8 +

%alculated by adding the percentage of agencies now (as of 1987) using the

format indicated to the number who expect to use the format within the next

3 years (by 1990) Assumes that agencies currently using a format will continue

to do SO,

SOURCE General Accounting Off Ice Survey of Federal Agencies, 1987
7

GPO computer room

The results of the GAO survey of Federal information users document this likely trend in

demand. For example, the depository library

community (as intermediaries reflecting users

and user information needs in university, research, Federal, State, local, and public libraries)

indicated a strong preference for obtaining increasing percentages of Federal information

in electronic form and declining percentages

in paper and microfiche. The survey results for

318 depository libraries out of a sample of 451

(34 of the 51 regional depositories and 284 of

the 400 selective depository libraries sampled)

are highlighted in Table 1-3. These results show

that, by and large, the depository library communit y desires or anticipates decreases in use

of paper and microfiche formats and significant increases in online databases and compact

optical disks. Trends for other surveyed segments of the Federal information user community (e.g., nondepository libraries, scientific

and technical associations) are not so dramatic,

but show a similar pattern.

Electronic publishing and related technologies, when coupled with essential technical

Table l-3.— Depository Library Demand for Federal Information, by Type and Format

Number of libraries responding

Demand

Demand in next Percent

Type of information Format now 3 years change

Congressional Recordlhearingsl

reports/ bi 11s paper 271 234 –14

microfiche 274 225 –18

online database 59 132 + 124

floppy disk o 27 +

compact optical disk 3 112 + 3600

Scientific and technical reports/

information paper 244 172 –17

microfiche 212 159 –22

online database 76 95 +25

floppy disk 1 27 + 2600

compact optical disk 9 78 + 770

Press releases/bulletins paper 246 183 –26

microfiche 39 35 –10

electronic mail or 9 51 +467

bulletin board

online database 24 50 + 108

compact optical disk 1 18 + 1700

paper 309 270 –13

microfiche 241 134 –44

electronic mail or 12 27 + 125

bulletin board

online database 103 158 +53

magnetic tape/disk 11 25 + 127

floppy disk 12 65 +442

videodisk o 12 +

compact optical disk 15 140 + 833

SOURCE General Accounting Off Ice Survey of Federal Information Users, 1988.

Statistical data
8

standards, offer the near-term prospect for integrated information systems utilizing the “information life cycle” concept. Here, the collection, processing, storage, and dissemination

(and ultimately retention or archiving) of information in multiple formats (paper, microform, and electronic) are viewed and implemented as interrelated functions rather than

separate, unrelated activities. The life cycle

concept offers the prospect of improvements

in Federal productivity or cost avoidance

through increased efficiencies in the publishing of government reports, reduced paper and

postage costs, and the like (see box C).

The Federal Government should be able to

realize at least a significant portion of the

productivity improvements demonstrated by

private business users. Private firms typically

report 30 to 50 percent productivity improvement with a payback on investment in the 2-

to 3-year range. The Federal Government

spends, conservatively, $6 billion per year on

information dissemination (not including the

cost of collection, processing, or a prorated

share of agency automation). Thus, productivity improvements on the order of hundreds

of millions of dollars per year appear to be readily achievable. In addition, the substantial ongoing investment by Federal mission agencies

in agency automation, if planned and implemented properly, can incorporate multi-format

information dissemination at little additional

marginal cost, compared to the total cost of

automation, and with the potential for net cost

savings in agency information functions.

PROBLEMS AND CHALLENGES

Technological advances are creating a number of problems and challenges with respect

to Federal information dissemination:

●

●

●

At a fundamental level, electronic technology is changing or even eliminating many

distinctions between reports, publications,

databases, records, and the like, in ways

not anticipated by existing statutes and

policies. A rapidly growing percentage of

Federal information exists at some point

in an electronic form on a computerized

system as part of “seamless web” of information activities.

Electronic technology permits information

dissemination on a decentralized basis that

is cost-effective at low levels of demand,

but in ways that may challenge traditional roles, responsibilities, and policies. In

contrast, conventional ink-on-paper printing technology tends to be cost-effective

with more centralized production and distribution and higher levels of demand.

Electronic technology is eroding the institutional roles of governmentwide information

dissemination agencies. While many Federal agencies disseminate at least some of

their information in electronic formats,

the central governmentwide dissemination mechanisms (SupDocs, DLP, NTIS,

and CIC) are presently limited largely to

paper or paper and microfiche formats

and thus disseminate a declining portion

of Federal information.

Technology has outpaced the major governmentwide statutes that apply to Federal

information dissemination. The Printing

Act of 1895, Depository Library Act of

1962, and Freedom of Information Act of

1966 predate the era of electronic dissemination, and have not been updated to explicitly reflect electronic as well as paper

formats. The Paperwork Reduction Act

of 1980 was amended in 1986 to include

information dissemination within its scope,

but substantive statutory guidance on

electronic information dissemination per

se is minimal.

The advent of electronic dissemination

raises new equity concerns since, to the extent electronic formats have distinct ad-
9

Box C.–Some Opportunities for Productivity

Improvement or Cost Avoidance Through

Electronic Technology

● Electronic publishing

—facilitates the document revision process by minimizing rekey boarding and

graphics redesign;

–produces documents that are generally

found to be more attractive and easier

to read;

—reduces the total publishing time typically by 25 to 50 percent;

—reduces the total number of document

pages typically by 35 to 50 percent,

since typeset pages contain more text

than typewritten pages;

—reduces the costs for paper and postage for hard copy print runs; and

—can achieve rates of return on investment of up to 30 to 50 percent and payback periods of 2 to 3 years or less.

● Compact disk-read only memory (CDROM)

—can store and disseminate large amounts

of information at very low cost;

—is best suited for statistical, reference,

technical, and other information that

does not require frequent updates;

—can store up to the equivalent of about

250,000 pages of typewritten, doublespaced text on one disk, or the equivalent of about 1,500 single-sided floppy

disks or about 10 of the 1,600 bits-perinch magnetic computer tapes;

—can reduce the cost of dissemination

by an order of magnitude compared to

magnetic tapes and up to two orders

of magnitude compared to paper documents (a typical estimate is that the

same amount of information that could

be disseminated for $50 per week on

CD-ROM would cost $345 per week on

magnetic tapes and $2,250 per week in

paper); and

—permits searching, retrieval, and manipulation of the data in ways simply

not possible with paper (or microfiche)

formats.

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1988.

●

●

●

vantages (e.g., in terms of timeliness,

searchability), those without electronic access are disadvantaged. In general, the

library, research, media, public interest,

consumer, and State/local government

communities, among others, argue that

the Federal Government has a responsibility to assure equity of access to Federal information in electronic formats as

well as in paper. These groups contend

that they are or will increasingly be disadvantaged to the extent that Federal information in electronic form is not available

through normal channels.

Technological advances complicate the Federal Government’s relationships with the

commercial information industry. While

those companies that market repackaged

or enhanced Federal information benefit

from access to electronic formats, some

of these firms are concerned about possible adverse effects of government competition. Efforts by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to establish

policy in this area have proven to be controversial. Also, the privatization of major Federal information dissemination activities (such as the NTIS clearinghouse)

has not yet been demonstrated to be either cost-effective or beneficial for important governmental functions.

OMB and industry representatives support

government dissemination of Federal information in raw electronic form without software enhancements or searching aids, but

oppose government dissemination of enhanced or “value-added” information. This

conflicts with the long-established government role in producing and disseminating

value-added information products in paper format and its logical extension to

electronic formats. Existing policy does

not define “value-added’ or specify under

what conditions value-added electronic

information products are inherently or

appropriately governmental versus commercial in nature.

In general information industry represent-
10

atives strongly favor open government and

unimpeded and nondiscriminatory access to

Federal information for philosophical and

competitive fairness reasons (i.e., so that

no single vendor has a captive or monopoly position over Federal information). In

these respects, the industry shares common ground with the library, research, and

press communities, among others.

The absence of congressional action to address these issues is likely to result in:

●

●

●

●

●

●

continuing erosion in overall equity of public access to Federal information,

continuing confusion over institutional

roles and responsibilities,

a significant time and dollar cost to the

government and various stakeholders in

seemingly endless debate over statutory

interpretation and legislative intent,

inefficiency and excessive duplication in

electronic information dissemination

research and pilot-testing,

inability to capture learning from experience and economies of scale, and

failure to realize the significant opportunities for cost-effective improvements in

overall public access to Federal information.

OTA concluded that the government needs to

set in motion a comprehensive planning process

for creatively exploring the long-term future (e.g.,

10 to 20 years from now) when the information

infrastructure of the public and private sectors

could be quite different. At the same time, the

government needs to provide short-term direction to existing agencies and institutions with

respect to electronic information dissemination.

A central challenge is setting future directions

for the governmentwide information dissemination institutions.

Any electronic future for GPO, NTIS, and

DLP must consider the increasingly decentralized, competitive environment that characterizes the electronic information marketplace. The Federal Government is moving in

the direction of implementing electronic information systems at the heart of most agency

activities. In the long-term, the myriad of possible information dissemination alternatives,

made possible by technological advances, could

serve as a catalyst for significant changes in

the current institutional framework. Full understanding of long-term alternatives will require several years of pilot tests, demonstrations, and experiments and related evaluation

studies. In the short-to medium-term (3 to 10

years), the basis for setting directions is better established.

. . . an intelligent, informed populace has been,

is, and will continue to be the fundamental element in the strength of our Nation. Contributing greatly to that intellectual strength is

the so-called Government document, designed

to disseminate to the American public important information relative to the activities and

purposes of its Government.

–former U.S. Senator Frank J. Lausche, March 1962

GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

GPO has historically carried out most of the photocomposition, there is very little producFederal Government ink-on-paper printing, tion or sales of products in electronic formats.

either directly or through private contractors, GPO does sell (through SupDocs) some agency

has marketed and sold selected government and congressional products in magnetic comdocuments (in paper and microfiche) to the pub- puter tape format. It also has ongoing pilot

lic (through the SupDocs), and has distributed projects involving both online and CD-ROM

government documents to the depository li- dissemination and both desktop and high-end

braries (through the DLP). While GPO already electronic publishing, pursuant to direction of

makes extensive use of electronic input and the Joint Committee on Printing (JCP).
11

Defining GPO’s future role in the dissemination of electronic formats presents a major

opportunity for Congress and GPO. One alternative, mandatory centralization of all electronic dissemination through SupDocs (or any

other central government office), would conflict with numerous existing agency activities,

would meet strong agency opposition, could

precipitate legal and political challenges, and

would not appear to be cost-effective. On the

other hand, excluding electronic formats from

the SupDocs sales program would erode the

viability and integrity of the program over

time, and compromise the ability of SupDocs

to facilitate broad public awareness and use

of Federal information. A middle ground alternative, with SupDocs including selected electronic formats and products, would appear to

strengthen the SupDocs sales program, facilitate public access, and preserve the prerogatives

of the agencies to disseminate electronically

themselves (and of private vendors to enhance

and resell electronic formats).

SupDocs sales of magnetic computer tapes,

floppy disks, compact optical disks, and perhaps electronic printing-on-demand products

would appear to be straightforward, except for

a possible overlap with NTIS. Sales of online

services could be more difficult due to staffing, software development, and capital requirements, and to more intensive competition with

agencies and commercial vendors.

Another challenge is to define GPO’s role

relative to the growth in agency desktop and

high-end electronic publishing systems. The

GAO survey of 114 civilian agency components indicated that one-half or more are curf’hofo credft U S Government Pvnt(ng Off/cc

GPO operator using electronic photocomposition

equipment

rently operating or pilot testing desktop publishing, computer-aided page makeup, and

electronic composition technologies, and onethird are operating or testing full electronic

publishing systems, as shown in Table 1-4.

OTA estimates that, as of fiscal year 1987,

agencies had already spent at least $400 million on electronic publishing-related technologies.

GPO could have a key role in standardssetting, training: and innovative activities rele~

vant to electronic publishing, but GPO will be

operating in a much more decentralized, competitive environment than has traditionally

been the case with conventional ink-on-paper

printing. The general demand for conventional

printing is likely to continue for several years

at a slow growth or steady-state level. However, in the medium-term (3 to 10 years), a sigTable l-4.—Civilian Departmental Agency Use of Selected Electronic

Publishing-Related Technologies

Percent of agencies responding

Currently in Currently prototyping

Technology operational use or pilot testing Totals

Computer-aided page makeup ... .‘ . . . . . 50.0 8.8 58.8

Computer graphics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65.8 7<9 73.7

Electronic photocomposition ... ... ... 43.9 7.9 51.8

Laser and other nonimpact printing ., ... . 64.0 1.8 65.8

Desktop publishing system . . . . . . . . . . 34.2 14.9 49.1

Electronic publishing system . . . . . . . . . . . 21.1 10.5 31.6

SOURCE General Accounting Off Ice S“urvey of Federal Agencies, 1987

.—
12

nificant portion of GPO inplant and procured

printing could be suitable for electronic dissemination or vulnerable to competition from

electronic formats. The plans and activities of

defense agencies are particularly important,

since the Army, Navy, and Air Force together

account for roughly one-third of total GPO

billings. Over the next few years, the defense

agencies are hoping to place most manuals,

directives, and technical documentation on

electronic media. GPO will have to be innovative in matching its expertise to agency needs,

which are likely to vary widely and change at

an increasingly rapid pace.

With respect to GPO’s role in traditional inkon-paper printing, the fiscal year 1987 GPO

printing workload totaled $771 million, of

which about threequarters was procured from

commercial printing contractors and one-quarter carried out at the GPO main and regional

printing plants. As shown in Table 1-5, about

80 percent of legislative branch printing work

is done inplant, while about 85 percent of executive branch printing work is contracted out.

Overall, about 45 percent of inplant work is

legislative, while about 95 percent of contracted work is for the executive branch.

OTA examined several alternatives, including decentralizing GPO’s conventional printing and procurement functions, transferring

GPO’s procurement program to the executive

branch, and limiting GPO to legislative branch

work. Based on information available to OTA

(including comparative costs of GPO inhouse,

GPO procured, agency inhouse, and agency

procured printing), none of these alternatives

appears to be cost-effective. These alternatives

would largely eliminate concerns about separation of powers, since executive branch printing would no longer be done by or through a

legislative branch agency. However, they could

complicate the functioning of SupDocs and the

DLP, and could have significant adverse effects on the GPO labor force.

OTA identified several opportunities for improvement in GPO’s traditional printing services, These include more competitive pricing and

timely delivery of GPO main plant inhouse work

for executive agencies, itemized estimating and

billing practices, regular surveys of customer

needs and problems, and revised and strengthened GPO advisory groups.

In principle, the GPO main plant is well positioned to meet demands for conventional printing, with one of the best equipped printing facilities in the United States and an experienced

work force. However, GPO inhouse printing

costs are high in part due to the need to maintain operational capacity to handle a wide

diversity of printing work, and to meet peak

congressional and priority executive branch

workloads. A significant part of this workload

is well suited for electronic formats (e.g., Confessional Record, Federal Register). A gradual transition from paper to electronic formats

for these items could help reduce GPO costs,

potentially increase access to this information,

and place the GPO main plant on a more competitive footing for executive branch printing.

Table 1.5.—GPO Workload Distribution, Fiscal Year 1987

(in millions of dollars)

Procured Main plant Regional plant

printing printing printing Totals

Legislative branch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 23 $ 90 $113

Executive branch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 552 90 :1!! 656

Judicial branch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Totals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $576 $18; ;1’2 $77:

NA = not applicable.

SOURCE U S Government Prlntlng Office, 1987
13

NATIONAL TECHNICAL INFORMATION SERVICE

NTIS has historically served as the Federal

Government’s archive and clearinghouse for

scientific and technical reports prepared by

Federal agencies or contractors, along with related indices and bibliographies. The bulk of

NTIS documents are provided in paper or microfiche format, although, in recent years,

NTIS also has served as a clearinghouse for

some electronic format products (e.g., software

and databases). Also, NTIS performs other related services such as patent licensing, Japanese literature exchange, and FOIA request

and/or information sales processing for a few

agencies.

With respect to NTIS, the major opportunity is, quite simply, determining the future

of NTIS as a government entity. NTIS faces

strategic challenges on several fronts. First,

the core NTIS business, as measured by sales

of paper and microfiche reports, has been

shrinking (by about 40 to 50 percent) over the

past decade (see Table 1-6). In part as a result,

NTIS prices for these reports have gone up considerably faster than the inflation rate in order to help maintain break-even operations.

Over the last few years, NTIS has offset declining revenues from full-text reports and subscription, bibliographic, and announcement

products with increasing revenues from services to other agencies (such as order billing and

processing), brokerage fees on sales of other

agency materials, and sales of computer-related products.

Photo credit Natlortal Technical In forrnatfon Serv/ce

NTIS staff pulls an archive document from

the NTIS collection

Second, a significant percentage (estimated

at one-third to one-half, see Table 1-7) of Federal scientific and technical reports are never

provided to NTIS, since agency participation

is strictly voluntary. The NTIS collection is

thus becoming increasingly incomplete. Third,

Table 1.7.—Trend in New Titles Received by NTIS,

Fiscal Years 1983, 1987

1983 1987 Net change

Number of titles received . ....79,471 62,856 –21 “/0

Estimated percentage of all

relevant titlesa

. . . . . . . . . . . . 67°/0 530/0 – 140/0

aA~~umes the number of relevant agency titles remains constant al 119,000 Per

year

SOURCE National Technical Information Service and Office of Technology

Assessment, 1988.

Table 1-6.—Trends in Sales of Selected NTIS Products, Fiscal Years 1980, 1987

Net

1980 1987 —— change

in thousands of copies

Paper documents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 752 393 –48 0/0

Microfiche documents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155 67 –57

in millions of copies

Selected Research in Microfiche (SRI M). . . . . . . . . . . . 2.72 1.33 –51

in thousands of subscriptions

Government Research Announcements and Index . . . 2.22 1.15 –48

Abstract Newsletters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .......16.0 6.8 –58

SOURCE National Technical Information Service, 1988
14

NTIS is being outdistanced by most of the Fed- firmed its intent that NTIS remain in the

eral science agencies with respect to use of elec- government, Congress now has the opportutronic information technology. And fourth, nity to determine where NTIS should be loNTIS has been caught in the middle of the on- cated and how it should relate to other Fedgoing debate over privatization of Federal in- eral agencies, including what agency materials

formation functions. Since Congress has af- should or must be submitted to NTIS.

NATIONAL TECHNICAL INFORMATION SERVICE/

SUPERINTENDENT OF DOCUMENTS

Proposals have been made to retain NTIS

in the Department of Commerce, as a government corporation or in essentially its present

form; consolidate NTIS with SupDocs, either

within GPO or as part of a newly established

Government Information Office; and consolidate NTIS with the Library of Congress.

Whatever the alternative chosen by Congress, strengthened NTIS-SupDocs cooperation would likely lead to improvements in

indexing, marketing, and international exchange of Federal information. And strengthened cooperation seems essential to the extent

both agencies pursue sales of electronic format

products and that SupDocs enters the lowdemand market. At present, demand for NTIS

documents averages about 10 copies per title,

compared to about 2,000 copies per title for

items in the SupDocs sales program (see box

D for a comparison of NTIS and SupDocs).

NTIS and SupDocs could cooperate on implementing electronic technologies that would

meet NTIS clearinghouse and archival needs,

plus support a broadening of the SupDocs

product line to include selected low-demand

items. Wherever located, NTIS appears to be

DEPOSITORY

The DLP is administered by GPO and serves

as a mechanism for dissemination of Federal

agency documents free of charge to the approximately 1,400 participating libraries. The

libraries, in return, provide housing for the documents and access to this information free of

ideally suited for implementation of an electronic

document system (using optical disk storage,

electronic printing, and multi-format output—

paper, microfiche, and electronic), perhaps using

the Defense Technical Information Center

(DTIC) system as a prototype, that could revitalize NTIS if coupled with improved agency participation. Overall, an electronic NTIS should

be able to greatly increase the diversity and

timeliness of NTIS (and related private vendor) offerings, increase the ability of NTIS (and

private vendors) to match information products with potential users, and reduce costs.

. . . the new [electronic] technology not only

gives potential users quicker and more convenient access to wider bodies of information,

including instantly current information, than

can be provided by print alone; it also gives

the user a new kind of ability to search through

and manipulate the information, and in effect

to create new information by the selection,

combination, and arrangement of data.

–Commission on Freedom and Equality of Access to Information,

American Z.ibrary .4ssociation, 1986.

LIBRARIES

charge to the general public. About 55 percent

of the depository libraries are university

libraries, 23 percent are public libraries, 11 percent are law school libraries, 7 percent are Federal libraries, and 4 percent are special libraries

and the like.
15

Box D.—National Technical Information Service and Superintendent of Documents,

How They Compare

NTIS SupDocs

Branch of government Executive Legislative

Location Department of Commerce GPO

Statutory authority 15 U.s.c. 1151-1157 44 U.S.C 1701-1722

Total annual revenues’ $22 million $100 million

(approximate)

Titles for sale 2 million 20,000

(approximate)

Total annual sales volumeh

6 million copies 27 million copies

Average sales per title 10 copies 2,000 copies

Primary document formats paper, microfiche paper, microfiche

Primary source of documents Federal agencies and con- Federal agencies, Congress

tractors

Electronic products’ 800 numerical or statistical few dozen magnetic

databases tape products

(approximate) 300 textual databases

300 computer software items

(incl. models)

Prepares bibliographies/ Yes Yes

catalogs

Conducts marketing activities Yes Yes

Carries out international Yes Yes

document exchange

Performs reimbursable services Yes—for agencies Yes—Consumer Information

Information Center, Depository Library Program(

’

a 1 ~clude~ fisca] ~.ear 19R7 revenues from reimbursable services and services funded through appropriations.

bFiscal “ear 198ti; SUpI)OCS data include Consumer Information Center SdeS.

cFiscal ~rear 198’7.

dRelmbursed through appropriations.

SOURCE; Nat]onal Technical Information Ser\’ice :ind US. Go\rernment Printing Office, 1988.

As with GPO and NTIS, there is a major ernment information in all formats, and other

opportunity to define the future role of the congressional committees concur in the deciDLP with respect to dissemination of Federal

informatione in electronic formats. As agencies

make increasing use of electronic formats, limiting the DLP to paper and microfiche products

would, over time, reduce the type and amount

of Federal information available to the public,

and would erode the legislative intent of the DLP

(e.g., as expressed in the legislative history of

the Depository Library Act of 1962). The impetus for including electronic information in the

DLP is strong. The JCP has interpreted the

DLP statutory provisions as extending to govsion to disseminate certain electronic formats

to depositories. OTA concluded that, if it is

to succeed, this emerging policy needs to be

further developed and refined, and have the

support of DLP participants (especially libraries, GPO, and the agencies that are the

source of most DLP materials). A variety of

pilot projects, demonstrations, and tests involving various technologies, financial arrangements, and delivery mechanisms (including

possible involvement of the private sector) is

warranted. Ultimately, Congress may wish to
16

Photo credit Documents Center, Robert W. Woodruff Library, Emory Unlvers/ty

Librarian assisting user at reference desk at the

Robert W. Woodruff Library

consider a reorganization or restructuring of

the current DLP in light of both electronic information dissemination options now or likely

to become available and the evolving nature

of libraries and the telecommunication infrastructure.

An important reason for electronic pilot

projects is to better understand the issue of

costs to users, government, and depository institutions. If the basic underlying principle of

the depository program is to retain free access

to government information for users, then Congress needs to be aware that there maybe additional costs associated with the introduction of

certain electronic services, and assist depository

libraries and GPO in designing and financing

ways to make this information available to the

public.

Distribution of selected government information products in CD-ROM format such as

the bound, cumulated Congressional Record

could improve access to such information and

could be a cost-effective dissemination mechanism for certain datafiles. There could be some

additional equipment and training costs associated with this format for the depository library participants. Delivery of online datafiles

(such as the Federal Register) to the public

through depository institutions requires pilottesting to determine how best to provide access to this information, and how to ensure that

the additional costs associated with online formats do not hinder public access or place unrealistic, unmanageable financial or administrative burdens on participating libraries.

The results of the GAO survey of Federal

information users indicate a substantial depository library demand for electronic formats.

The vast majority of libraries responding indicated that the Record and Register, along

with an index to Federal information and database of key Federal statistical series, would

be moderately to greatly useful in both online

and CD-ROM formats, as shown in Table 1-8.

The GAO survey also found that many of the

depository libraries have access to key information technologies, as shown in Table 1-9.

Table 1-8.—Depository Library Demand for Federal Information in Electronic Formats

Percent of libraries responding

moderately to greatly usefula

Online Offline

immediate CD-ROM

Item access issued monthly

Congressional Record . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77 74

Congressional Committee Calendar/Bill Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 60

Federal Register . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86 80

Federal Agency Press Releases. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 40

Agency Reports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 62

Comprehensive Index to Federal Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94 90

Integrated Database of Key Federal Statistical Series. . . . . . . . . 90 88

aBaS8d on responses from 318 depository libraries out Of a sample Of 451

SOURCE General Accounting Office Survey of Federal Information Users, 1988
17

Table l-9.—Depository Library Access to Information Technology

Number of libraries

Information technology with accessa

Microcomputer without modem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 283

Microcomputer with modem for online access. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 337

Microfiche reader without printer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 352

Microfiche reader with printer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 384

CD-ROM reader . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169

Videodisk player . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72

Mainframe computer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149

aBased on responses from 403 depository libraries out of a sample of 451 depository libraries

SOURCE General Accounting Office Survey of Federal Information Users, 1988

TECHNICAL/MANAGEMENT IMPROVEMENTS

OTA identified several important technical

management alternatives that could be implemented under a wide range of institutional

scenarios and could be implemented by agency

action using existing statutory authorities and

with congressional concurrence. These alternatives include:

 Technical standards on text markup,

page/document description, optical disks,

and other areas important to information

dissemination (see box E). The National

Bureau of Standards (NBS), DTIC (or

another responsible Department of

Defense component), and GPO could be

assigned lead responsibility, presumably

building on accepted or emerging private

sector industry standards to the extent

possible and working through the existing national and international standards

organizations.

● Governmentwide information index to major Federal information products, regardless of format. GPO and/or NTIS could

be assigned lead responsibility to consolidate and upgrade existing indices, directories, and inventories into one integrated

index. The government could contract

with private firms or library and information science professionals to carry out

some of this work. The index could be

made available in multiple formats and

disseminated both directly from the government as well as via the depository

●

●

●

libraries and private vendors (perhaps in

enhanced form).

Innovation centers to exchange learning

and experience about technological innovations and user needs relevant to information dissemination. Such centers could

be designated or established at, for example, DTIC (for the defense sector), NBS

and NTIS (for the civilian executive branch),

and GPO (for the legislative branch).

DTIC, NBS, and GPO, along with several

mission agencies, already have a variety

of laboratory and/or demonstration activities under way. Agencies could be required to conduct “Agency X-2000”

studies to creatively explore and develop

their own visions of future information dissemination activities.

Revised Information Resources Management (IRM) program. A variety of training, career development, budget reporting, and management actions could be

taken to give information dissemination

(including printing, publishing, public affairs, press, library, and related activities

and personnel) a stronger and better understood role within the IRM concept.

Electronic press release service. Press releases and other time-sensitive information (such as crop reports, weather bulletins, and economic and trade data) from

major Federal agencies could be electronically provided directly to the press, via
18

Box E.—The Importance of Text Markup and Page Description Standards for

Information Dissemination

Text markup standards are particularly important to realize the full benefits of electronic

information dissemination. If government documents (whether reports, pamphlets, manuals,

other text, or text plus tabular and graphics material) are not prepared in a standardized electronic format using standardized codes and descriptors, substantial and costly recoding and

rekeyboarding may be necessary at later stages of the dissemination process. Text markup

standards are intended to establish a consistent set of codes for labeling key elements of a

document–such as chapter titles, paragraph indentations, tabular presentations, and the like.

If these electronic codes are widely agreed upon arid used (i.e., standardized), then the documents can be electronically transferred from one stage in the dissemination process to another

with little or no additional effort and cost, if the equipment is designed to be compatible with

the electronic codes, Three major approaches to text markup standards are:

. GPO logically structured full text database standard;

● Standard Generalized Markup Language (SGML), an international standard that has

been adopted by DoD and NBS; and

● Office Document Architecture (ODA), an international standard under consideration

by NBS.

Page description standards are also very important. If the language or code used by the

page composition equipment is not compatible with the code used by the output devices (e.g.,

printers), then additional work is required to convert the codes. Sometimes it is easier just

to rekeyboard and recode the entire document, at significant additional cost. Page description

languages are intended to establish a consistent set of codes compatible with both composition

and output equipment. One possible page description standard is PostScript, a defacto industry standard under consideration by NBS and the national and international standards organizations. Another possibility is the Standard Page Description Language (SPDL) now being

developed.

SOURCE: National Bureau of Standards, Defense Technical Information Center, and U.S. Government Printing Office, 1988.

private electronic news and wire services,

and to the DLP. A major issue concerns

equity of press access and the need to ensure that cost or technical requirements

do not discourage smaller, less affluent,

and/or out-of-town news organizations

from realizing the potential benefits. While

electronic press releases can be more timely

and cost-effective than messenger or mail

delivery of paper releases, dual format (paper and electronic) would appear to be

necessary-at least for a lengthy transition period–for those news outlets without, or lacking interest in, online electronic

capability.

Photo cred(t USA TODAY, Gannett, Co /nc all rights reserved

Reporter sitting at video display terminal
19

STATUTORY/OVERSIGHT CHANGES

Congress could amend the Printing Act, Depository Library Act, and Paperwork Reduction Act to provide statutory direction for specific institutional and technical/management

alternatives, as well as to provide general philosophical guidance on electronic information

dissemination.

At the most basic level, a fundamental crosscutting issue is public access to Federal information. Debate over the use of electronic formats, privatization, and the like is obscuring

the commitment of Congress, as expressed in

numerous public laws, to the importance of

Federal information and its dissemination in

carrying out agency missions, and the principles of democracy and open government. A renewed congressional commitment to public access in an electronic age may be needed.

Congress may wish to legislate a governmentwide electronic information dissemination

policy. In so doing, Congress would need to

consider several sometimes competing considerations, including: enhancing public access;

minimizing unnecessary overlap and duplication in Federal information activities; optimizing the use of electronic versus paper formats;

and optimizing the role of the private sector.

OMB has promulgated its own view, albeit controversial, of appropriate public policy (in the

form of OMB Circular A-130). The vast majority of agencies do not have policies on electronic dissemination (see Table 1-10). As agencies begin to develop such policies, the OMB

view is likely to have a dominant role, in the

absence of clear and positive congressional

guidance. Congress may wish to amend specific

statutes or otherwise promulgate its own views

on the basic principles addressed and policies

enunciated in OMB Circular A-130 as it relates

to Federal information dissemination. In particular, Congress could provide more specific

guidance on the role of the private sector and

contracting out of Federal information dissemination, user charges, and provision of value-

-added information products. Congress could

also make any necessary adjustments in oversight mechanisms (such as establishing a Joint

Congressional Committee on Government Information).

With respect to the Freedom of Information

Act (FOIA), this statute too was enacted in

an era when paper records were the dominant

form of government information. The application of FOIA to electronic formats has created

a number of problems. The courts have expressed a need for Congress to clarify gray

areas left open by the statute. For example:

c The case law as applied to paper information establishes that FOIA does not require agencies to create new records in

Table I-l O.—Federal Agency Policies on Electronic Information Dissemination

Percent of agencies having

documented policies

Policies and procedures for Dept.a

I nd;b

Public access to agency electronic databases?

yes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.6 10.4

no . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90.4 89.6

Electronic dissemination by agency contractors?

yes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.9 6.3

no . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43.0 41.7

do not use contractors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49.1 52.1

App/icabi/ity of FO/A to electronic formats?

yes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18.4 25.0

no . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81.6 75.0

ap~rC~nt of 114 depafirnental clvlllan agency Cofnponents responding

bPerCent of 4J3 independentcivilian agency Components responding.

SOURCE General Accounting Office Survey of Federal Agencies, 1987
20

●

fulfilling requests. When additional programming is required to extract information from computer systems, agencies and

courts have sometimes held that such programming would be analogous to record

creation, and therefore would not be a required part of the FOIA “search” process. In the electronic age, however, some

degree of reprogramming or program

modification may be essential to obtain

access to electronic information.

Another gray area involves defining a

‘‘reasonable effort on the part of the government in searching for records responsive to a FOIA request. In the computer

context, the programming/no programming distinction has begun to separate decisions about ‘reasonableness from considerations of effort. This is incongruous

with tradition, as significant expenditures

of effort continue to be involved in manual FOIA searches. Retrieval of paper documents may involve extensive tracking,

communication with various bureaus, consolidation of disparate files, and substantial hand deletions of exempted materials.

As computer capabilities for searching,

segregating, and consolidating of data become increasingly efficient and cost-effective, computer searches could be broadened

and public access enhanced. Agencies may

need to focus on designing new ways to

respond more readily to FOIA requests

for computer records.

● Another issue is whether and under what

conditions the advantages of electronic

formats are such that access to the format

as well as the information itself should be

guaranteed. Although the case law and the

FOIA fee guidelines have established that

computer-stored information is subject to

FOIA, requesters are not guaranteed access to the information in formats other

than paper. If large quantities of data

could be more effectively utilized with the

flexibility offered by magnetic tapes,

disks, or online retrieval, access to these

electronic media may be important.

Congress could amend FOIA to bring electronic formats clearly within the statutory purview, define the scope and limits of FOIA

searches in an electronic environment, and clarify fees and procedures for FOIA requests for

electronic information. For the 1990s and beyond, Congress may need to decide whether

the FOIA should continue to be viewed as an

“access to records” statute, or whether it

should be perceived more broadly as an “access to information” statute. Due to the explosive growth in electronic information storage,

processing, and transmission by the Federal

Government, traditional views about records

and searches may need to be modified to ensure even basic access to computerized public

information.

LEGISLATIVE BRANCH

Congress itself is a major source of Federal ever, increasingly, electronic formats offer siginformation. Congressional information ranges

from the Congressional Record to congressional calendars and schedules to the status

of pending legislation to a wide range of committee reports, and to numerous documents

produced by the analytical support agencies

(Congressional Research Service [CRS], General Accounting Office [GAO], and Congressional Budget Office ICBO], as well as OTA).

Most of this information has been and continues to be available in paper formats. Hownificant advantages in terms of timeliness and

searchability, and are being utilized by private

vendors and congressional in-house support

offices (e.g., the House Information Systems

Office and CRS) for a growing range of congressional information.

To a large degree, OTA’S general findings

about technological trends and opportunities

also apply to congressional information. Electronic options offer the potential to make con-
21

gressional information more quickly and widely

available. This can be very important for citizens and organizations-whether consumer, library, research, labor, or business in nature—

that desire to closely follow congressional

activity and/or participate in the legislative

process. As congressional offices automate, increasing amounts of information are created,

revised, and stored in electronic form. This creates the potential to apply “information life

cycle’ and ‘multi-format output concepts to

the legislative branch as well as to the executive branch. Again, common technical standards will be important in realizing this potential.

Congress has the opportunity to establish a

strategic direction for electronic dissemination

of legislative branch information. The importance of congressional information to an informed citizenry and the need to ensure equitable

channels of access for all interested citizens, including access to electronic formats, are widely

accepted in principle. The differences of opinion

focus on the means of implementation.

In setting an overall direction, Congress will

need to determine its own level of responsibility for ensuring that electronic congressional

information is readily available to the public,

and how that information should be made

available (by GPO, other congressional offices,

and private vendors). For example, because of

GPO’s growing role in providing electronic formats to Congress as part of the electronic publishing process, GPO is positioned to more actively participate in disseminating electronic

congressional information to the GPO depository libraries and the public-at-large. At the

same time, some commercial vendors would

like to contract directly with Congress, perhaps on a bulk rate discount basis, for electronic dissemination of congressional information to libraries, the public, and Congress itself.

Finally, given the large number of House,

Senate, and congressional support offices and

units involved with the creation and dissemination of congressional information, Congress

may wish to establish a formal coordinating

mechanism to maximize the exchange of learning and minimize the potential overlap, and

to take advantage of the opportunities for technologically enhanced access. In many respects,

congressional decisions on electronic dissemination of congressional information are just

as important as prior decisions on radio and

television coverage of congressional hearings

and floor sessions.

ABOUT THIS REPORT

The report is organized into 12 chapters.

Chapter 1 is the summary. Chapters 2 and 3

together provide an overview of key technical

and institutional trends and issues. Chapter

2 presents a picture of current evolving Federal Government information dissemination

technologies and activities. The results of the

GAO survey of Federal agencies are used extensively. Chapter 3 discusses current technical trends that are relevant to Federal information dissemination and that are expected

to continue or intensify for 3 to 5 years into

the future and in many cases longer.

Chapters 4, 5, 6, and 7 provide substantial

analysis and discussion on the major governmentwide information dissemination institutions–GPO (including SupDocs), NTIS, and

DLP. Chapter 4 examines three alternative futures for GPO printing functions—continuation of a traditional ink-on-paper printing role

only, for both the legislative and executive

branches; a GPO for the legislative branch

only; and the so-called decentralized electronic

GPO that would involve expanded electronic

publishing activities and the inclusion of some

electronic formats in the SupDocs sales program. The results of the GAO surveys of Federal information users are used extensively in

chapter 4. These three alternatives highlight

a range of considerations important to planning GPO’s future.

Chapter 5 examines the opportunities and

challenges facing NTIS. Some of the GAO user

survey results are included, and survey results
22

previously cited in chapters 2 and 4 are also

relevant. Improved cooperation between NTIS

and SupDocs is also examined. Much of the

discussion is relevant to NTIS and SupDocs

regardless of the institutional structure as long

as NTIS remains in the government in some

form.

Chapters 6 and 7 provide indepth analysis

and discussion of the history and current status of GPO’s Depository Library Program

with respect to electronic dissemination. Chapter 6 covers a range of electronic information

technologies currently used or whose use is contemplated by libraries, and introduces the

DLP, current technology and several dissemination issues. Chapter 7 examines and evaluates in considerable depth a range of alternative futures for DLP with specific illustrations.

Two case studies are presented on the Congressional Record and the Federal Register.

Finally, chapter 7 provides an analysis of pending DLP policy and institutional issues regarding electronic dissemination.

The next three chapters—8 through 10—

examine other important dimensions of Federal information dissemination. Chapter 8 discusses congressional information dissemination with particular attention to two case

studies (on the Congressional Record and bill

status information) and to the dissemination

practices of three congressional support agencies (OTA, GAO, and CRS).

Chapter 9 presents an indepth analysis of

FOIA with respect to electronic formats. This

chapter reviews statutory and judicial precedents on the applicability of FOIA to electronic

media, and examines possible directions for

amending FOIA in light of the implications

of technological change for basic FOIA concepts. Chapter 10 focuses on the electronic

press release and its implications for government-press relationships. The chapter reviews

the status of automation in Federal agency

press offices and in the press newsroom, examines the strengths and weaknesses of electronic press releases, and discusses the technological and strategic choices.

Chapter 11 considers a wide range of policy

and institutional issues that are relevant to

Federal information dissemination. Chapter 11

also highlights the debate over the applicability and interpretation of key policy instruments to electronic dissemination. Chapter 12

discusses possible future directions for and

broader implications of SupDocs and NTIS involvement in Federal electronic information

dissemination.

Several crosscutting themes are relevant to

many chapters. Three of the most important

themes are:

1. public access to Federal information,

2. user needs for Federal information, and

3. the private sector role in Federal information dissemination.

While there are not separate chapters devoted

to these topics, they are discussed throughout the report. Also, while there is a separate

chapter on technology trends, technology is

discussed to varying degrees in every chapter

of the report. Similarly, while there are separate chapters on GPO, NTIS, and DLP, there

is at least something significant in every chapter of the report that is relevant to planning

the future of these institutions.

For discussion of related topics not covered

in this report, see the other OTA reports listed

below. These reports cover such topics as: the

tension between public access to government

information and: protection of national security interests; physical security and data integrity; privacy rights of individuals and organizations; and intellectual property rights.

Other reports cover the need to preserve government information for archival and historical purposes, and the need to consider government information in the context of long-term

social, political, and economic changes relevant

to the information and communication infrastructure of the United States.

● Medlars and Health Information Policy—

A Technical Memorandum, OTA-TM-H11, September 1982. NTIS order #PB

83-168658.
Federal Government Information Technology: Electronic Surveillance and Civil

Liberties, OTA-CIT-293, October 1985.

GPO stock #052-003-01015-l; $3.00. NTIS

order #PB 86-123 239/AS.

Federal Government information Technology: Management, Security, and Congressional Oversight, OTA-CIT-297, February 1986. GPO stock #052 -O03-O1026-7;

$7.50. NTIS order #PB 86-205 499/AS.

The Regulatory Environment of Science,

OTA-TM-SET-34, February 1986. GPO

stock #052 -O03-O1024-l; $6.00. NTIS order #PB 86-182 003/AS.

Intellectual Property Rights in an Age of

Electronics and Information, OTA-CIT302, April 1982. GPO stock #052-003-

01036-4; $15.00 NTIS order #PB 87-100

301/AS.

Federal Government Information Technology: Electronic Record Systems and

1ndividual Privacy, OTA-CIT-296, June

1986. GPO stock #052 -O03-O1038-l; $7.50

NTIS order #PB 87-100 335/AS.

23

Commercial Newsgathering From Space,

OTA-TM-ISC-40, May 1987. GPO stock

#052 -O03-O1066-6; $3.00.

The Electronic Supervisor: New Technology, New Tensions, OTA-CIT-333, September 1987. GPO stock ~052-003-01082-8;

$6.50.

Defending Secretsf Sharing Data: New

Locks and Keys for Electronic Information, OTA-CIT-31O, October 1987. GPO

stock #052 -O03-O1083-6; $8.50.

Science, Technology, and the First Amendment, OTA-CIT-369, January 1988. GPO

stock #052 -O03-O1090-9; $3.50.

Book Preservation Technologies, OTA-O376, May 1988. GPO stock #052-003-

01103-4; $5.00.

Communication Systems for an Information Age, OTA-CIT, forthcoming, spring

1989.

Scientific and Technical information Dissemination: Opportunities and Problems,

forthcoming, spring 1989.
Chapter 2

Overview of

Federal Information

Dissemination

Photo cradit: Chase Studios

National Institute of Health medical staff using the National Library of Medicine’s

Medline database
CONTENTS

Page

Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

Size and Scope of Federal Information Dissemination Enterprise . . . . . . . . 28

Technological Initiatives by Federal Agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

Institutional Infrastructure for Federal Information Dissemination . . . . . . 36

Tables

Table Page

2-l. Federal Expenditures on Information Dissemination, Civilian and

Military . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

2-2. Illustrative Agency Expenditures for Information Dissemination,

Fiscal Year 1987 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

2-3. Selected Federal Agency Information Dissemination Activities,

Fiscal Years 1983 and 1987 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

2-4. Types of Public Information Dissemination by Federal Agencies.. . . 31

2-5. Agency Dissemination of Scientific and Technical Information and

Statistical Data, by Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

2-6. Agency Use of Nonpaper Formats for Information Dissemination

by Type of Information. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

2-7. Agency Use of Information Technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

2-8. Agency Prototyping or Testing of Advanced Technologies . . . . . . . . . 35

2-9. Federal Agency Use of Institutional Mechanisms for Information

Dissemination, by Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

2-10. Approximate Distribution Volume, Fiscal Year 1987 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

2-11. GPO/SupDocs and NTIS Sales Distribution, Fiscal Year 1987. . . . . . 39

2-12. Estimated Use of Depository Libraries, Fiscal Year 1985 . . . . . . . . . . 39

2-13. Federal Civilian Departmental Agency Evaluation of

Information Dissemination Channels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

2-14. Federal Civilian Departmental Evaluations of GPO Services . . . . . . . 40

2-15. Federal Publishers Committee Survey of GPO Services,

Selected Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
Chapter 2

Overview of Federal Information

Dissemination

SUMMARY

Information dissemination is a significant

function of the Federal Government, accounting for an estimated $6 billion per year in annual expenditures for relevant executive

agency activities (including information clearinghouse operations, printing and publishing,

library operations, and related research, development, and testing). This estimate does not

include expenditures for the collection and development of the information disseminated, or

even a prorated portion of expenditures for

basic agency automation and information technology procurement.

The primary Federal mechanisms for information dissemination are the Federal agencies

themselves; the U.S. Government Printing Office (GPO), which includes about 5 percent of

agency publications in the GPO Superintendent of Documents Sales Program and roughly

one-half of agency publications in the Depository Library Program (DLP); the National

Technical Information Service (NTIS), which

sells scientific and technical documents provided by the agencies; the Consumer Information Center (CIC), which distributes free or lowcost consumer pamphlets for the agencies; and

various private sector vendors operating under government contract. Federal information

is also disseminated by numerous intermediary mechanisms, such as the press, libraries,

and commercial vendors who, on their own initiative, enhance and/or resell government information.

The number of civilian agency publications

in paper format appears to be declining slowly,

while the number of publications in electronic

format has more than tripled over the past 4

years. Civilian agencies reported, as of fiscal

year 1987, over 7,500 information products disseminated electronically. Paper is still by far

the dominant format (accounting for 80 to 90

percent of total information products), but significant agency use of some electronic formats

is already occurring for some purposes. For example, statistical data are highly suited to electronic formats, and, based on results of the

General Accounting Office (GAO) survey,

about one-third of the civilian agencies use

magnetic tape or disks, one-fifth floppy disks

and electronic data transfer, and one-tenth electronic mail for dissemination of statistical

data. By comparison, about two-thirds of the

agencies use paper and roughly one-tenth use

microfiche for disseminating statistical data.

Many Federal agencies have taken initiatives with respect to the use of electronic

information technologies for information dissemination. Electronic technologies have penetrated the majority of agencies in every aspect

of the information process. The GAO survey

results suggest roughly one-half to two-thirds

of the civilian agencies make at least some use

of floppy disks, magnetic tapes or disks, electronic data transfer, and electronic mail for

information collection/filing and dissemination. About one-third of the agencies have desktop publishing systems, roughly one-half have

electronic photocomposition capability, and

roughly one-quarter have electronic publishing systems.

A key characteristic of the current Federal information infrastructure is that while Federal

agencies and private companies disseminate Federal information in paper and, increasingly, electronic formats, the central governmentwide dissemination mechanisms (GPO/SupDocs, NTIS,

DLP, CIC) are presently limited largely to paper (or paper and microfiche).

27
28

Evaluating agency satisfaction with the various dissemination channels is difficult. Available survey data for dissemination of paper

formats are subjective in nature. Not surprisingly, the civilian agencies rated their own dissemination services as generally of high quality, timely, and moderate to low in cost.

Agencies rated GPO slightly lower in timeliness and slightly higher in cost, and NTIS

somewhat lower in quality and timeliness and

higher in cost. Commercial vendors were rated

about the same as the agency. With respect

to GPO, there appears to be overall agency

satisfaction with respect to traditional ink-onpaper composition, printing, and binding,

However, there is continuing dissatisfaction

among some agencies with respect to GPO

cost, timeliness, estimating and billing procedures, and marketing/distribution of printed

products.

INTRODUCTION

The Federal Government today stands at a

major crossroads with respect to numerous policy, oversight, and operational aspects of Federal information dissemination. Advances in

information technology over the past decade,

and especially in the past few years, have

opened up many new opportunities for information dissemination-for all segments of

American society. Each year the private commercial sector generates literally thousands of

new information technology-based products

and services (including hardware, software,

and application packages), many of which are

currently or potentially applicable to Federal

information dissemination.

Over the past several years, technological

applications such as optical disks, electronic

mail and bulletin boards, electronic and desktop publishing, electronic printing on demand,

and the like have become technologically feasible and economically viable for widespread

application in the Federal Government as well

as the private sector. The vast majority of Federal agencies are experimenting with some of

these technologies, and some agencies are already implementing major operational applications.

Capturing the full benefits of these technologies involves consideration of a wide range

of Federal policy, oversight, and operational

questions as they relate to information dissemination. In order to assess this broad topic, the

Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) commissioned a series of staff and contractor research papers, sought related studies and

information from various executive and legislative branch agencies, and drew on the results

of an extensive GAO survey of Federal agency

practices and plans.

This chapter provides a technological and

institutional overview of Federal information

dissemination. The chapter addresses the following specific areas:

● the size and scope of the current Federal

information dissemination enterprise;

● the technological initiatives already underway in Federal agencies; and

● the institutional bases for Federal information dissemination.

Each of these is discussed below. This overall picture of the Federal information dissemination enterprise provides an important part

of the context for the rest of this report.

SIZE AND SCOPE OF FEDERAL INFORMATION

DISSEMINATION ENTERPRISE

For purposes of this study, OTA defined missions and considered “public” (legally avail-

“Federal information” as information collected able to the public and not subject to exempand/or developed by the Federal Government tions under the Freedom of Information Act,

to carry out government functions and agency such as law enforcement, investigative, pro-
29

prietary, and classified information). Such public information runs the gamut from statistical data and computer models, to reports,

periodicals, and directories, to rules, regulations, and circulars, to maps, charts, and photographs. Also, OTA included most formats

of Federal information in the scope of study

—including paper, microforms, and electronic.

Estimating the magnitude of Federal information dissemination activities is difficult at

best. There are no credible prior estimates and

only very rough estimates can be made, since

there is no systematic reporting of budget and

activity data for Federal information dissemination.

Based on the GAO survey results, with 173

agency components responding, the minimum

dollar amounts spent by the Federal Government (civilian and military) in fiscal year 1983

and fiscal year 1987 for relevant activities are

shown in Table 2-1.

The total of about $3.2 billion in reported

fiscal year 1987 expenditures is undoubtedly

conservative. Inspection of individual agency

responses indicates that many agencies did not

provide complete responses because they did

not have and/or could not estimate relevant

expenditures. Based on examination of selected agency responses that appear to be especially well done, it appears that about one percent of agency budgets on the average are

devoted to information dissemination, which

would translate into about $6 billion (1 percent

of the roughly $600 billion Federal budget, excluding interest on the national debt and transTable 2-1 .—Federal Expenditures on Information

Dissemination, Civilian and Military

(in billions of dollars)

Fiscal year Fiscal year

1983 1987 —

Agency information clearinghouse

operations . . . . . . . . . . . . $1.500 $1.70

Agency printing and publishing . . . 0.900 1,10

Agency library operations . . 0.200 0.30

Agency research, development and

testing on information

dissemination ., ... . . . . . . 0.005 0.05

$2.605 $3.15

SOURCE GAO Survey of Federal Agencies, 1987

fer payments), or about twice the total figure

reported to GAO. Agencies vary widely in the

budget percentage reported to be allocated to

information dissemination, and many well exceed the one percent level, as illustrated in Table 2-2.

Also, these estimates do not include the costs

of dissemination of technical information for

weapon systems and other applications in Department of Defense (DoD), which are largely

sensitive or classified in nature. Nor do these

estimates include expenditures for the collection and development of the information disseminated, or even a prorated portion of expenditures for basic agency automation and

information technology procurement. And these

estimates do not include the cost of federally

funded research, development, or other activities on which a significant portion of the information collection, development, and/or dissemination was based.

The GAO results provide a rough profile of

the number of information dissemination activities. The data are presented in Table 2-3 for

fiscal year 1983 and fiscal year 1987, with a

breakdown for DoD, civilian departments, and

civilian independent agencies. Again, due to

incomplete reporting from various agencies,

these numbers must be considered as minimum

estimates of activity levels. For example, GPO

reports that about 58,000 titles were distributed to depository libraries in fiscal year 1987,

or about 40 percent more than reported by the

agencies to GAO. However, assuming a random distribution of errors, the general trends

portrayed should be reasonably accurate.

The data suggest the following conclusions

about the Federal information dissemination

enterprise:

DoD accounts for the largest share of total Federal Government publications, with

about 82 percent of the titles and 96 percent of the pages (originals, not copies) as

of fiscid year 1987.

However, an insignificant percentage (less

than 1 percent) of DoD publications are

sold by GPO or included in the DLP. This

may be explained in part because many

of these documents are considered to be
30

Table 2-2.—illustrative Agency Expenditures for Information Dissemination, Fiscal Year 1987

Information dissemination budget (in millions of dollars)

Total Research, Printing Information

agency development and Library clearing- Totals

Agency budget and testing publishing operations house dollar s

a percen tb

Library of Congress . . . . . . . . . . 239.3

86,584.4

0,6

4.6

4.1 — —

207.8 40.5 0.2

4.7

253.1

2.0

0.3

2.8

21.7

1.2

5.3

2.5

3.1

7.8

3.4

2.8

7.1

US Navy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Economic Research

Services (USDA). . . . . . . . . . . . 44.0 1.1 0.1 0.05

18.3 4.7 —

0.8 1.7 —

1.25

Patent and Trademark

Office (DOC). . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Natn’1 Bureau of

Standards (DOC) . . . . . . . . . . .

255.8

224.8

32.5

0.2

55.5

2.7

58.6

Natn’1 Oceanic and

Atmospheric Admin. (DOC) . . 1,113.1 56.8 1.8 —

Bureau of the Census

(DOC) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 363.1 7.9 1.0 — 8.9

US Geological Survey

(DOI). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 632.4 0.5 14.6 3.2 1.2

0.4 0.2 0.4

19.5

Federal Elections

Commission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.9 1.0

Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101.5 2.4 0.5 0.6 3.5

1.8

Federal Trade

Commission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65.0 0.6 1.2 —

Securities Exchange

Commission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114.5 6.4 1.1 0.6 — 8.1

‘Total agency expenditure for information dissemination activities

bAgency Information dissemination expenditures as a percentage of the total agency budget

SOURCE: GAO Survey of Federal Agencies, 1987

Table 2.3.—Selected Federal Agency Information Dissemination Activities, Fiscal Years 1983 and 1987

Fiscal year 1983 Fiscal year 1987

DODa DEPb

INDC DOD DEP IND

Publications printed

Number of titles. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 339Kd

60K 29K 334K 54K 20K

Number of pages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93Me

4.2M 0.63M 93M 3.7M 0.55M

Printed publications accepted into GPO’s saies program

Number of titles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 323 3.6K 1.2K 295 2.8K 0.9K

Number of pages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80K 435K 182K 72K 277K 105K

Printed publications inciuded in Federai Depository

Library Program

Number of titles. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 762 38K 2.7K 776 36.5K 3.6K

Number of pages ., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111 K 7.1 M 0.27M 110K 7.7M 0.26M

information products disseminated eiectronicaiiy

Number of titles. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104 1,461 1,001 307 6,261 1,521

aDoD = Depaflment of Defense Agency components

bDEP = Civilian departmental agency components clND = civilian independent agency COrnPOnefItS

‘K = thousands

‘M = milllons

SOURCE GAO Survey of Federal Agenctes, 1987
31 —

sensitive and/or to have very narrow and

limited demand.

● Of the civilian departmental and independent agency publications (totalling at

least 74,000), about 5 percent are sold by

GPO and about half (54 percent) are included in the DLP as of fiscal year 1987.

 While the number of DoD publications (titles and pages) has remained roughly constant over the past 4 years (fiscal years

1983-1987), the number of civilian agency

publication titles has declined by about

17 percent and the number of pages by

about 12 percent. This appears to be

paralleled by even a larger decline in the

number of titles accepted into the GPO

sales program (down about 23 percent).

GPO reports that the total number of titles in the sales program increased from

17,513 in fiscal year 1983 to 26,123 in fiscal year 1987 (up 49 percent). But this includes periodicals, forms, carryover documents, and the like in addition to current

year publications, and is not necessarily

inconsistent.

 The number of titles in the DLP appears

to have remained roughly constant over

the past 4 years, with the number of pages

showing a modest increase (about 8 percent). The Depository Program includes,

as of fiscal year 1987, about one order of

magnitude (10 times) greater number of

titles than are available from the GPO

sales program.

s The number of information products disseminated electronically appears to have

increased dramatically over the past 4

years, by about 200 percent for DoD, 300

percent for the civilian departments, and

50 percent for the civilian independent

agencies. The estimated total number of

civilian agency electronic information

products for fiscal year 1987 was 7,782,

up from 2,462 in fiscal year 1983.

The scope of Federal information dissemination cuts across all types of public information. As reported to GAO by 114 civilian

departmental components and 48 civilian independent agencies, the profile is shown in Table 2-4.

The formats currently used for Federal information dissemination cover the entire spectrum. Paper is still by far the dominant format. However, significant use of some

electronic formats has already occurred. For

the 114 civilian departmental agency components and 48 civilian independent agencies

reporting to GAO, nonpaper formats are used

most extensively for dissemination of scientific and technical information and for statistical information, as indicated in Table 2-5.

The use of nonpaper formats is also occurring, although on a more selective and limited

basis, for certain other types of information.

The uses of nonpaper formats reported by more

than 5 percent of the civilian departmental

agencies responding are shown in Table 2-6,

by type of information.

In sum, Federal information dissemination has

already begun the transition to significant use

Table 2.4.—Types of Public Information Dissemination

by Federal Agencies

Percent of agencies responding

Departmental Independent

Types of public information agencies agencies

Pamphlets/bulletins . . . . . . . . 82 94

Press releases. . . . . . . . . . . . . 79 94

Statistical data . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 75

Directories/catalogs/

bibliographies . . . . . . . . . . . 69 83

Manuals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 67

Scientific and technical

information . . . . . . . 63 65

Contractual specs/

documents. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 83

Administrative reports ., ., 62 88

Rules, regulations,

directives, circulars . . . . . 62 85

Maps, charts, photos . . . . . 54 50

Decisions/opinions. ., . . . 46 71

Professional journals/

proceedings. . . . . . . . . . ., 45 54

Laws/statutes . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 44

Software products . . . . . . . 30 25

Satellite imaaetvldata . . . . . . 6 6

SOURCE GAO Survey of Federal Agencies, 1987
Table 2-5.-Agency Dissemination of Scientific and

Technical Information and Statistical Data, by Format

Table 2-6.—Agency Use of Nonpaper Formats for

Information Dissemination by Type of Information

Percent of agencies

Type of information responding

Dissemination of scientific and technical information

Percent of agencies

responding Administrative reports

Electronic mail. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Electronic data transfer . . . . . . . . . . .

Floppy disk. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Magnetic tape/disk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Microfiche. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

14

12

8

6

5

Departmental Independent

Format agencies aaencies

Paper . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Microfiche . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Electronic data transfer . . . . .

Magnetic tape/ disk . . . . . . . .

Videotape ., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Floppy disk. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Microfilm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Film . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Electronic mail. . . . . . . . . . . . .

Electronic bulletin board . . . .

Videodisk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

61

19

15

14

13

9

8

8

6

6

2

65

21

10

13

8

10

6

4

8

2

Pamphlets/bulletins

Microfiche. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Electronic mail . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

10

9

Press releases

Electronic mail . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Electronic data transfer ., ... , , ... ,

Videotape . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Electronic bulletin board . . . . . . . . . .

13

7

6

— 5

Directories/catalogs/bib/iographics

Microfiche. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Electronic data transfer . . . . . . . . . . .

Magnetic tape/disk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Floppy disk. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Dissemination of statistical data 11

9

9

5

Percent of agencies

respond i ng

Paper . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73

Magnetic/tape/disk . . . . . . . . . 32

Floppy disk. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Electronic data transfer . . . . . 18

Microfiche ., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Electronic mail. ... , . . . . . . . . 8

Microfilm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Electronic bulletin board ., , . 4

Videotape . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Film . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

SOURCE GAO Survey of Federal Agencies, 1987.

75

29

17

10

13

8

13

4

Manuals

Floppy disk. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Contractual specs/documents

Floppy disk. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Rules, regulations, directives,

circulars

Electronic mail . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Floppy disk. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

9

6

—

—

Maps, charts, photos

Film ... , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Software products

Magnetic tape/disk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Floppy disk. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Electronic data transfer ., . . . . . . . . .

18

17

6 of electronic formats. While paper is still dominant, it appears that electronic formats are already used more frequently than microfilm or

microfiche for many types of information. While

microform still has important archival benefits,

the sectors in which microfiche is used relatively

heavily (e.g., scientific and technical information,

SOURCE GAO Survey of Federal Agencies, 1987

statistical data, directories, bibliographies) are

also those in which new technologies, such as

compact optical disks, offer the greatest potential.

TECHNOLOGICAL INITIATIVES BY FEDERAL AGENCIES

Many Federal agencies have taken initiatives with respect to the use of electronic information technologies for Federal information

dissemination and related activities. The number and scope of these initiatives have grown

dramatically over the past 4 years. One indicator is the amount of agency spending for research, development, and testing on information dissemination. Collectively, agencies

reported to GAO that this expenditure increased from $5 million to $50 million between

fiscal year 1983 and fiscal year 1987. This dollar amount is undoubtedly low, since many

agencies did not report or reported incompletely on this item. If DoD is included, the

dollar amounts are low by at least an order of
33

magnitude, based on separate DoD estimates.

For example, the DoD Computer-Aided Acquisition and Logistics Program (CALS) alone is

spending on the orderof$150 million per year.

The primary focus of CALS is on weapon system technical data (including technical documents such as engineering drawings and specifications developed in support of weapon

systems acquisition), much of which is sensitive or classified. However, the magnitude of

increase is probably accurate—a roughly 1,000

percent cumulative increase over the past 4

years. There is, at present, no reporting system in DoD or the civilian agencies that systematically collects relevant expenditure or

activity data.

The GAO survey results provide a remarkable picture of agency operational use of electronic information technologies for information dissemination. OTA has relied primarily

on the GAO survey results for the civilian departmental agencies as being the most representative. As discussed in chapter 1, the defense agencies did not circulate the GAO

survey instrument to many major subcabinet

agency components, contrary to GAO instructions; therefore, the defense agency responses

are likely to be biased by the aggregate responses of the major military departments. On

the other hand, the independent agency

responses are dominated by a large number

of small agencies, with a similar result—the

likelihood of bias in the overall aggregate results. However, both the departmental and independent agency results are reported where

particularly appropriate. For 114 civilian departmental agency components and 48 independent agencies reporting, electronic technologies have penetrated the majority of agencies

in every aspect of the information process. The

rank order of technologies in operational use

is listed in Table 2-7.

The survey results do not, of course, give the

absolute magnitude of each of the above as a

percentage of total activity. They provide the

relative use, and thus may tend to overstate

actual use. In other words, the survey results

indicate the percentages of agencies responding that use a specific technology, but not the

absolute number of each technology in use. For

example, 34 percent of civilian departmental

agencies report use of desktop publishing, but

the survey instrument did not ask nor did the

agencies provide, the absolute number of desktop publishing systems. Nonetheless, the qualitative penetration levels of these technologies

are, overall, far greater than indicated in any

known prior survey.

It is also noteworthy that significant percentages of civilian departmental agencies are currently prototyping or pilot testing advanced

technologies for information storage and dissemination including those listed in Table 2-8.

Also, it appears that about half of the civilian

departmental components will soon have desktop publishing systems (34 percent already have

operational capability, and another 15 percent

are prototyping or pilot-testing), about one-half

will soon have electronic photocomposition capability (44 percent now, plus 8 percent in prototyping or pilot-testing), and about one-third

will soon have electronic publishing systems

(21 percent now, plus 11 percent prototyping

or pilot-testing). For the independent agencies,

more than one half will have desktop publishing (29 percent now, with another 31 percent

prototyping or pilot-testing), onehalf already

have electronic photocomposition (with another

13 percent prototyping or pilot-testing), and

about two-fifths will have electronic publishing (31 percent now plus 13 percent in prototype or pilot testing).

Where available, quantitative estimates of

Federal Government use of key technologies

are generally consistent with the results of the

GAO survey. For example, based on all available data, OTA estimates that the Federal microcomputer inventory has increased from a

few thousand in 1980 to (conservatively) over

500,()()() today, with a million microcomputers

likely within 2 years if current agency procurement plans are fully implemented. The microcomputer is a key component of agency electronic publishing and dissemination activities.

OTA estimates that the Federal agency inventory of high-end electronic laser printers has

increased from a handful in 1980 to several

hundred today, and low-end desktop laser
34

Table 2-7.—Agency Use of Information Technologies

Depart mental

Technology agencies

Information collection/filing

Floppy disk. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Magnetic tape/disk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Electronic data transfer (computer to computer). . . . . . . . .

Electronic mail. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Computerized telephone calls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Nonpaper storage

Floppy disk. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Magnetic tape/disk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Micrographics (microfilm/fiche) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Videodisk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

CD-ROM (Compact Disk-Read Only Memory) . . . . . . . . . . . .

Optical disk (WORM) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

CD-I (Compact Disk-Interactive) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Optical disk-erasable . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Printing

Computer graphics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Laser and non-impact printing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Photo-offset printing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Computer-aided page makeup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Electronic photocomposition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Desktop publishing systems. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Electronic publishing systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Microform printing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Electronic dissemination

Floppy disk. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Magnetic tape/disk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Electronic data transfer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Electronic mail . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Videotape . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Electronic bulletin board . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Teleconferencing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Film . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Broadcast TV.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Videodisk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

One-way cableTV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Videoconferencing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Digital cartographic systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

CD-ROM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Selective dissemination of info. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Expert systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Videotext/teletext . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Interactive cable TV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

CD-1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

SOURCE GAO Surveyof Federal Agencies, 1987

73

64

60

50

18

76

66

54

9

4

1

0

0

66

64

54

50

44

34

21

18

61

58

50

46

46

35

33

30

16

9

8

8

7

4

4

3

3

3

0

Independent

agencies

67

63

56

48

21

73

73

71

6

8

4

2

2

58

81

63

52

50

29

31

29

58

60

52

40

52

17

33

31

19

6

10

8

2

2

8

2

6

2

—

printers and desk top publishing software have

increased from very few in 1980 to several tens

of thousands today. Since a microcomputer,

laser printer, and software are the major components of a desktop publishing system,OTA

conservatively estimates that there are 30,000

desktop publishing systems and 300 high-end

electronic publishing systems in the Federal

Government.

The GAO survey results are generally consistent with the results of OTA’s own research

and contractor case studies of selected agencies. For example, all three military services

(Army, Navy, and Air Force) as well as the

Office of the Secretary of Defense, have major electronic publishing and dissemination

systems under development or in operation.

In the civilian sector, the U.S. Geological Sur-
35

Table 2-8.—Agency Prototyping or Testing of

Advanced Technologies

Percent of

agencies responding

Departmental Independent

Storage technology agencies agencies

CD-ROM a 

. . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 1 0

CD-lb . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 2

WORM C . . . . . . . ., . 10 10

Dissemination technology

CD-ROM . . 11 10

CD4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2

Expert systems. . . 7 8

NOTES

aCornpa ct Disk Read Only Memory

bCompact Disk Interactive Cwr,te once Read Mawlmf=

SOURCE GAO Survey of Federal Agencies 1987

vey and Bureau of the Census (among others)

are col.laboratingon information dissemination

via Compact Disk-Read Only Memory (CDROM) and digital cartographic technologies.

A capsule description of selected highlights is

given below.

● DoD, Office of the Secretary of Defense

(OSD): DoD is implementing the Computer-Aided Acquisition and Logistics

Support (CALS) program designed as an

integrated system for the creation, storage, revision, and dissemination of technical information relevant to weapon systems. CALS is designed to use state-ofthe-art electronic publishing technology

and incorporates an extensive set of technical standards for electronic exchange of

information, page markup, graphics, and

the like. The objective is eventually to convert current paper flows of information to

digital electronic flows, so that engineering drawings, technical manuals, logistics

records, and life-cycle data are created and

accessed in electronic formats. CALS participants include OSD, Army, Navy, Air

Force, the Defense Logistics Agency, and

the private defense contractors. The

CALS consolidated budget for DoD is

roughly $150 million per year.

● DoD, Defense Technical Information Center (DTIC): DTIC, a component of the Defense Logistics Agency, is implementing

a Defense Applied Information Technology Center, in cooperation with OSD and

the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The Center includes four laboratories:

1.

2.

3.

4.

Defense Gateway Laboratory, which

will facilitate electronic access to over

800 diverse DoD, commercial, and Federal databases via the Defense Gateway Information System, and will utilize user-friendly search software along

with an online database catalog;

High-Density Information Systems

Laboratory, which will develop highdensity optical disk storage and retrieval systems with electronic printing, publishing, and dissemination capabilities;

Artificial Intelligence/Decision Support Laboratory, which will explore

state-of-the-art software for diagnostics, monitoring, control, and information retrieval, and will research the application of AI/expert system software

and display techniques to defense information needs, including online interfacing with the Defense Gateway Information System; and

Interactive Video Laser Disk Systems

Laboratory, which will explore ~nnovative disk techniques for training prospective users of the various hightechnology systems under development.

● NOAA, National Geophysical Data Center

(NGDC): NGDC has prepared a prototype

CD-ROM on selected geomagnetic and

solar-terrestrial physics data, including

data on solar flares, sunspots, and wind.

NGDC makes this data available to users

at reduced cost (e.g., the disks cost about

$50 each at a volume of 600 copies–

including costs of data preparation, software, premastering, mastering, and duplication —compared to a cost of about $5OO

for the same data on magnetic tape). The

CD-ROM runs on any IBM-PC AT or XT

or compatible microcomputer with 512

kilobyte random access memory, 10 megabyte hard-disk drive, standard floppy-disk

drive, and CD-ROM reader and software

using the High Sierra standard at a total
●

●

cost of under $4,000. By comparison, magnetic tapes require a mainframe or minicomputer and peripheral equipment at a

total cost of several tens to hundreds of

thousands of dollars or more.

DOI, U.S. Geological Survey (USGS):

USGS has prepared a prototype CD-ROM

on mapping data for the Gulf of Mexico,

known as Project Gloria. The prototype

was prepared with NOAA (which developed the search software) and the Jet

Propulsion Laboratory (which developed

an interactive image display program).

The combined software permits the user

to search the database by geographical

mapping areas, latitude, and longitude, and

to display the data in graphic and variable image formats. USGS views microcomputer-based CD-ROM applications as the

key to dramatically improving access to

and reducing the cost of many earth

science databases maintained by USGS,

NOAA, NASA, and other Federal agencies, and, accordingly, has already purchased CD-ROM premastering equipment.

DOC, Bureau of the Census: The Census

Bureau offers a full range of products in

electronic format in addition to paper and

microfiche. Electronic formats include:

CENDATA, an online information service including press releases, statistical

summaries, product announcements, and

the like, and available via DIALOG Information Services, a private vendor; electronic bulletin boards that provide instantaneous access to selected census data

(including most CENDATA entries) to

participants in the State Data Center program and the Federal-State Cooperative

Estimates Program; floppy disks containing data from such Census reports as the

County and City Data Book and County

Business Patterns and, on request, data

downloaded from magnetic tapes in the

Census inventory; and magnetic tapes

that contain large volumes of Census data,

frequently in more detail than is available

in the paper publications, and sell for $175

per tape (6,250 bits per inch). In the future, CD-ROMs will be used for dissemination of statistical data to microcomputer users (Census has already prepared

prototype disks and envisions a significant role for CD-ROM for distributing the

results of the 1990 census).

In the legislative branch, GPO has initiated

technology innovation projects in several

areas, including dial-up desktop to mainframe

electronic printing capability, dial-up fiber optic links for remote photocomposition, and

long-distance electronic data transfer. While

GPO disseminates its information products

primarily in paper format (and secondarily microfiche), the majority of inputs to GPO is already in electronic format. (GPO pilot projects

are discussed in ch. 4, 7, and 8. Other executive agency electronic pilot projects are discussed in ch. 3, 5, and 10.)

In sum, the current initiatives of the Federal Government, taken as a whole, indicate

a very significant use of advanced information

technology. While use varies widely by agency,

and even within agencies, overall the government appears to be at or close to the threshold where technology-based electronic information dissemination can be a significant and

integral part of the Federal information infrastructure.

INSTITUTIONAL INFRASTRUCTURE FOR FEDERAL

INFORMATION DISSEMINATION

The primary institutional mechanisms used disseminated by numerous intermediary mechfor Federal information dissemination are the anisms, such as the press, libraries, interest

Federal agencies themselves, GPO, NTIS, Con- groups, congressional offices, and the like.

sumer Information Center (CIC, located in

Pueblo, CO), DLP, and private sector ven- Almost all Federal agencies, and certainly

dors/contractors. Federal information is also all Cabinet departments, have some explicit
37

— —.

statutory authority for information dissemination and many have multiple statutory authorities. Because Federal agencies collect

and/or develop the bulk of Federal information,

they are generally the most knowledgeable about

their own information products and services, and

frequently are the best informed about the current and potential users of that information.

Many agencies have formal and/or informal

mechanisms to discuss information needs and

problems with users. According to the GAO

survey results for 114 departmental agency

components, many agencies directly disseminate a wide range of types and formats of Federal information.

GPO, or more precisely the GPO Superintendent of Documents (SupDocs), is statutorily

authorized to sell selected agency documents

to the general public. The documents selected

for the GPO sales program represent only a

small fraction (a few percent) of all government

publications, and are ones judged by GPO marketing specialists to have significant demand

and/or those that by law must be sold to the

public. Documents sold by GPO cover a wide

range of types of Federal information, but the

formats are limited primarily to paper and microfiche, with a few items available in magnetic

tape format. (See ch. 4 and 5 for further discussion of SupDocs activities. )

NTIS, pursuant to public law, sells scientific

and technical information provided by the

mission agencies. The types of information

products available from NTIS are much more

limited than those available from the agencies

or GPO, and are provided to NTIS on a voluntary basis. NTIS products have very limited

demand (about 10 copies per item) compared

to GPO products. NTIS sells primarily microfiche and paper formats, with some sales of

magnetic tape and floppy disk formats. (See

ch. 5 for further discussion of NTIS activities. )

CIC (operated on a reimbursable basis by

GPO for the General Services Administration),

pursuant to public law, primarily facilitates

the distribution of consumer-oriented pamphlets and bulletins from the agencies. These materials are usually short and are available free

or at a small fee. CIC products are limited to

paper formats.

DLP is a cooperative program by which

agency documents, whether or not they are

sold via GPO or NTIS, are provided to a network of about 1,400 libraries around the United

States. Over 50 regional depository libraries

receive all documents distributed, while the

other depository libraries select which types

of documents or titles they wish to receive.

DLP was established by public law and is operated by GPO. It serves as part of an “information safety net by which the government

funds the distribution of materials to designated libraries. DLP includes all types of Federal information, but has been limited, until

now, to paper and microfiche formats. (See ch.

6 and 7 for further discussion of DLP

activities. )

Finally, private sector contractors play a role

in disseminating information for many of the

agencies. Since, in general, government information cannot be copyrighted, numerous private sector vendors repackage, add value, and

sell or resell a wide variety of types of Federal

information in a wide variety of formats. The

dissemination of agricultural information developed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) provides a good illustration of the

private sector role. USDA information is disseminated directly by agency components,

through private contractors, via private sector online gateways, and by private sector

value-added providers. For example, the ED I

(Electronic Dissemination of Information)

service is provided online on a fee-for-service

basis by the U.S. Department of Agriculture

(USDA) through a contract with Martin Marietta Corporation. ED I provides time-sensitive

daily, weekly, and monthly reports and news

releases from USDA agencies. AGRICOLA, an

extensive USDA bibliographic reference database on all aspects of agriculture, is provided

online via DIALOG Information Services, a

commercial database vendor. USDA Online,

a USDA current information service including news releases and short reports, is provided

via ITT Dialcom, a commercial online electronic mail gateway.

ED I, AGRICOLA, and USDA Online are information products developed by USDA, but

disseminated online via private vendors or

. . ,—, . ..— .,

., “
38

contractors. There are also many online information products that make use of USDA information, but are developed as well as disseminated by the private sector. For example,

Deane Publishing sells AgLine, an online information service that covers USDA daily

commodity reports and updates and also offers

electronic mail and software capabilities. Pioneer Hi-Bred International sells AGRIBUSINESS U. S. A., a comprehensive online database that indexes agricultural business, trade,

and government publications. This database

is available via DIALOG Information Services, a commercial vendor. As a final example,

Vance publishing sells ProNet, an online news

and information service on the produce industry that incorporates a variety of price, market, weather, and related information from

USDA and elsewhere.

The GAO survey results indicate that the

114 civilian departmental agency components

responding use several institutional mechanisms for information dissemination with respect to the formats indicated, as shown in Table 2-9.

This highlights one of the key characteristics of the current Federal information infrastructure: while individual Federal agencies

and private companies disseminate Federal information in paper and electronic formats, the

central governmentwide dissemination mechanisms are presently limited largely to paper

(or paper and microfiche). Both GPO/SupDocs

and NTIS sell a small number of products in

electronic format, but this represents an insignificant percentage of total sales volume for

either.

The four governmentwide dissemination

agencies collectively distribute about 107 million copies of documents (in paper or microfiche format) per year, as summarized in Table 2-10.

Of these dissemination agencies, only

GPO/SupDocs and NTIS maintain customer

profiles. Percentage estimates are shown in Table 2-11. The profiles for SupDocs and NTIS

are fairly similar, although the use of different categories makes comparisons somewhat

difficult. In any event, the largest customer

group is business. To keep this in perspective,

consumers are, by definition, the primary customer group for CIC, and the libraries are the

primary DLP customers. Of course, libraries

largely serve an intermediary role, and the ultimate customers of DLP are the patrons of the

individual depository libraries. DLP does not

at present maintain comprehensive user statistics, although a survey is in progress. However, a 1985 estimate suggests that over 10

million persons use DLP each year, as detailed

in Table 2-12, although these estimates have

not been validated.

The GAO survey attempted to measure

agency satisfaction with the various dissemination channels for typical agency reports (i.e.,

50-100 pages, paper format, typeset, some

graphics, specified deadline). There are numerous problems in interpreting and using these

data. Not surprisingly, the civilian departmental agencies rated their own dissemination

services as generally of high quality, timely,

and moderate to low in cost for paper products. This is, of course, a self-assessment, and

Table 2-9.—Federal Agency Use of Institutional Mechanisms for Information Dissemination, by Format

—

Percent of agencies responding

Electronic

Elect ronic data Magnetic Floppy

Institution Paper Microfiche mail transfer tape/disk disk

Own agency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92 11 25 9 40 33

Gpo/Sup Docs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 9 1 1 3

NTIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 23 1 — : 7

CIC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 — — —

Depository Libraries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

— —

12 — — 2 1

Private sector vendors/contractors . . . . . . . . . . 48 7 9 3 15 11

SOURCE GAO Survey of Federal Agencies, 1987
39

Table 2“10.—Approximate Distribution Volume,

Fiscal Year 1987

Dissemination Distribution volume

agency (millions of copies)

GPO/SupDocs (free)a 

. . . . . . . . . . . . 30

GPO/SupDocs (sales)b ., . . . . . . . . . . 27

NTIS (sales ., ., ., . . . . . . . . . . . 6

CIC (free) ., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

DLP (free) ., ., ., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Total ., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107

aB law and re q:hde~c,#:aMe

SOURCE US Government Prlntlng Office and National Techn!cal Information

SewIce 1988

Table 2”ll.— GPO/SupDocs and NTIS Sales

Distribution, Fiscal Year 1987

Percent of total sales —

GPOI

SupDocs NTIS

Business . 59-

64(U.S. only)–

Private individuals . 27 4 (general

public)

Foreign . ..., . . . —a 20 (business and

government)

Federal, State, and

local government . 8 6

Universities and

college s 6 6 (includes public libraries)

a GPO foreign customers Included In all other categories as appropriate except

Government

SOURCE U S Government Prtntlng Off Ice and National Technical Information

Service 1988

Table 2-12.—Estimated Use of Depository

Libraries, Fiscal Year 1985

—

Actual a Projectedb

No, Ilbrarles reporting . . . . . . 1,188 -

1,400

Avg. no. weekly users

per library . . . . . . . . . . . 141 141

Total weekly users . . . . 167,508 197,400

Total annual users . ........8,710,416 10,264,800

a Based on I Ibrary estimates, numbers not valldated and may tnclude undercounts,

overcounts, or doublecounts (multlple users per person)

b Projects the average use based on the 1,188 Ilbrarles reporting to all of the approximate 1,400 depository Ilbrarles

SOURCE U S Government Printing Off Ice and Office of Technology Assessment,

1988

its validity cannot be objectively determined

from the survey results. Agencies rated GPO

slightly lower in timeliness and slightly higher

in cost for paper products relative to agency

views of themselves. NTIS was rated by agencies as somewhat lower in quality and timeliness and higher in cost for paper products.

DLP was evaluated as slightly less timely.

Commercial vendors were rated about the same

as the agency itself. The full comparative data

are shown in Table 2-13 (normalized to 100 percent) and expressed as a percentage of the

agencies responding to each question, based

on 114 civilian departmental components responding.

Given the subjective and general nature of

the agency evaluations, these results should

be interpreted cautiously. For example, the perceived problems with the quality and timeliness of NTIS documents could be due largely

to poor quality and late delivery of copies provided to NTIS by source agencies. Also, the

perception that GPO, NTIS, and DLP dissemination is less timely than agency dissemination could reflect the role of GPO and NTIS

as secondary rather than primary distributors

of agency documents and the delays inherent

in a secondary role. And the perception that

NTIS documents are more costly than agency,

GPO, and commercial sources may reflect the

very low volume of sales per NTIS title (and

resulting higher per unit costs). Finally, some

of the agency responses appear to be questionable. For example, the majority of agencies

rated the cost of DLP dissemination as moderate (rather than low or very low), yet for many

agencies there is no cost for DLP dissemination. Agencies only pay printing and binding

costs when they provide copies directly to DLP

for documents not produced by or procured

from GPO.

The GAO survey requested additional evaluation detail for GPO. The results indicated that

the majority of the departmental agency components responding were satisfied or very

satisfied with publications layout, composition, printing quality, printing timeliness, binding, cataloging, marketing/sales, distribution,

and depository library services provided by

GPO. The one area where one-half were neutral (neither satisfied or dissatisfied) or dissatisfied was printing cost. Some dissatisfaction

was also indicated with respect to marketing/sales, printing timeliness, and distribution,

as indicated in Table 2-14 (in normalized percentages), based on the civilian departmental
40

Table 2-13.—Federal Civilian Departmental Agency Evaluation

of Information Dissemination Channels

QUALITY

Percent of agencies responding

Dissemination channel Very high High Moderate Low Very low

Agency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29.8 45.2

—

25.0 - -

GPO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

—

20.9 56.9 19.4 1,4 1-4

NTIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.5 30,0 30.0 25,0 2.5

Clc . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45.0 50.0 5.0

DLP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

— —

19.3 44.2 34.6 1.9

Commercial . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

—

22.2 53.7 22,2 1.9 —

TIMELINESS

Percent of agencies responding

Moderate Some Little or no

Dissemination channel Very great Great extent extent extent

Agency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27,9 45.2- 23.1 2,9 1.0

GPO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.6 31.5 45,2 11.0 2.7

NTIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — 22.5 57.5 10.0 10.0

Clc . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21.1 36.8 31.6 10.5

DIP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

—

14.8 25.9 50.0 3.7 5,6

Commercial . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.0 37.0 40.7 7,4 1.9

COST

Percent of agencies responding

Dissemination channel Very high High Moderate Lo~ Very low

Agency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.9 15.3 63.5 13,5 ‘5.8 -

GPO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.9 23.3 61.6 8.2

NTIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

—

22.5 45.0 27.5 2.5 2.5

Clc . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . – 15.0 65.0 5.0 15.0

DLP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.9 7,5 56.6 11.4 22.6

Commercial . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — 14.8 79.6 5.6 —

SOURCE GAO Survey of Federal Agencies, 1987

agency components responding. Note that of

the l14 agency components that participated,

the number that actually commented on specific GPO services ranged from 54 to 91, as

indicated inTable 2-14. These 1987 GAO survey results can be compared with the results

of a 1987 survey conducted by the Federal Publishers Committee(FPC~ an interagency group

of printing, publishing, and public information

officials, and a 1983 survey conducted by GPO

itself. While the FPC survey included many

other topics, it did cover several cost, timeliness, and marketing/distribution topics, with

the results indicated in Table 2-15. The FPC

survey results must be interpreted cautiously

since the overall response rate was only about

10percent (48respondents out of the475persons who were sent the questionnaire). FPC

has noted thatthe48respondents included officials from nine cabinet departments (AgriculTable 2-14.—Federal Civilian Departmental

Evaluations of GPO Services

—

Percent of

agencies responding

GPOService No,

a Satisfied Neutral Dissatisfied

Publications layout . . . 47 ‘78.0 12.0 10.0”/0

Composition ...,..,.. 66 81.5 10.8 7,7

Printing quality . . . . . . 91 80.0 12.2 7.8

Printing timeliness . . . 91 66.7 17.8 15.6

Printing cost . . . . . . . . 87 50.0 36.0 14.0

Binding . . . . . . . . . . . 82 74,1 19,7 6.2

Cataloging . . . . . . . . 39 73,0 24,3 2.7

Marketing/sales . . . . . 57 57.9 26.3 15.8

Distribution . . . . . . 67 67.2 21,9 10.9

Depository library . . . . 54 78.9 19,3 1.8

aNumberof agency components commenting on each GPO service

SOURCE GAO Surveyof Federal Agencies, 1987

ture, Commerce, Defense, Energy, Health and

Human Services, Housing and Urban Development, Interior, Justice, and Labor) and

about a dozen independent agencies. FPC has
Table 2-15. —Federal Publishers Committee Survey

of GPO Services, Selected Results

Number of respondents

Needs

Area of concern Adequate I m provement

Bllllng delays and

discrepancies. ., ., . 8 29

Cost of GPO lnhouse work ., 9 7

Delivery date reliability. 14 22

Quallty, timeliness, and cost

controls of GPO contractors 11 25

Accuracy and adequacy of

S U PD OCS sales information 13 11

SOURCE Fed2rd\ Publishers Committee Survey 1987

submitted the complete survey results and related recommendations to GPO for comment

and followup action where appropriate. ]

In 1983, the GPO Inspector General conducted an audit of customer satisfaction with

GPO services, based on a questionnaire sent

to agency customers. The response rate was

over 90 percent, with 125 out of 136 agencies

completing the questionnaire. Six areas appeared to be of greatest concern to customers,

with 38 to 70 percent of the respondents dissatisfied at least some of the time with regard

to:

1. lack of advance notice to agencies when

due dates slip;

2. failure to complete jobs on time;

3. failure to bill jobs in a timely manner;

‘Nlemorandum from <John 11. hlounts, Chairman, Federal Publishers (’omrnittee, to Ralph E;. Kennickell, ,Jr., I’uhlic Print~r,

on ‘‘ Recommendations from Federal I’uhlishers C’ommit tee to

(;oiernment Printing Off ice,” hla~’ 13, 1 Wfi.

4,

5.

6.

41

failure to provide accurate cost estimates

in a timely manner;

improper or unclear levying of surcharges;

and

improper packaging, labeling, or delivering of jobs by GPO contractors.

This survey is, of course, dated, and GPO has

not conducted a similar followup survey.

In addition to being 5 years old, the 1983

GPO survey has been criticized because it was

based on the opinions and perceptions of

GPO’s customer agencies. The GPO Inspector General did not attempt to validate the responses by checking records or seeking corroboration from multiple sources within a

given agency. However, the 1987 GAO and

FPC surveys are subject to this same criticism.

Taking all information into account, there

appears to be overall satisfaction with GPO

services with respect to traditional ink-onpaper composition, printing, and binding, but

continuing dissatisfaction among some agencies with respect to cost, timeliness, estimating and billing procedures, and, possibly, marketing/distribution of printed products. GPO

has instituted improvements in its customer

service operations in recent years. And FPC

has acknowledged that GPO “has greatly increased its responsiveness to agency needs;

but FPC “is not satisfied that many of the longstanding problems are being resolved. Opportunities for further improvement are considered in chapters 4 and 11.

‘Ibid.
Chapter 3

Key Technology Trends

Relevant to Federal

Information Dissemination

i.

Clockwise from top left: National Library of Medicine CD-ROM Disk (phott

credit: Doug Jones, National Library of Medicine); satellite (photo credit

USA Today, all rights reserved); and gallery of Bureau of the Census dati

products (photo credit: Neil Tillman, Bureau of the Census).

)
CONTENTS

summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Introduction and Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Information Systems Integration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

The Microcomputer Revolution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

The Continuing Role of Paper and Microform . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Electronic Publishing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Desktop Publishing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

High-End Electronic Publishing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Electronic Forms Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Computer Graphics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Scanners and Printers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Online Information Dissemination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Online Information Retrieval . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Telecommunications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Electronic Mail . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Optical Disks.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Expert Systems. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Technical Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

45

47

47

48

49

51

51

52

54

54

55

57

57

58

60

61

63

64
Chapter 3

Key Technology Trends Relevant to

Federal Information Dissemination

SUMMARY

The results of the General Accounting Office (GAO) surveys of Federal information

users (see chapter 4) and prior studies on the

future of paper and paper-based media (such ●

as books) indicate that paper is expected to

decline only marginally as a preferred format

in the next few years, although this decline

could become significant for specific types of

information (e.g., bibliographic, reference, statistical, scientific, and technical) that are highly ●

suited to electronic access and manipulation.

The outlook for microform is less favorable.

Microfilm is currently used very little for Federal information dissemination; microfiche, ●

while used extensively, is expected to decline

significantly as a preferred format, except for

records storage and archival purposes.

In sharp contrast, the GAO surveys of Federal agencies (see ch. 2) and Federal information users (ch. 4) indicate that plans and prefer- ●

ences for dissemination in electronic formats

(e.g., electronic mail and bulletin boards, optical disks) are projected to increase dramatically.

This chapter surveys a number of major tech- ,

nologies and key technical trends relevant to

Federal information dissemination. Several

key technical trends are expected to continue

conservatively for 3 to 5 years and in many

cases for at least 10 years, and are combining

in such a way that most of these plans and

preferences are likely to become reality. These c

trends include:

● continued steady improvement in the

price/performance of microcomputers,

which already bring the power of mainframe computers to the desktop at the

cost of a stereo set; microcomputers provide the technological underpinning for

numerous information collection, processing, and dissemination activities;

continued, rapid proliferation of desktop

publishing systems, comprised of a

microcomputer, nonimpact printer, and

page composition software (and sometimes a scanner for paper input) in the

most basic configuration;

continued, rapid improvement in the

power of desktop publishing software to

handle more complex documents, formats,

fonts, and the like;

continued, steady improvement in the

price/performance of nonimpact printers,

with low-cost desktop printers offering

output quality acceptable for most documents, and high-end printers offering

quality comparable to some phototypesetters;

similar improvement in the price/performance of scanners, with the capability of

high-end scanners (to handle a wide range

of type styles and sizes) migrating to desktop scanners;

as a combined result of the above trends,

overall continued improvement in the ability of desktop systems to produce higher

quality, more complex documents, thus

further reducing the gap between desktop

and high-end electronic publishing and

phototypesetting systems;

for complex, large-volume, and/or large institutional applications, continued improvement in high-end electronic publishing characterized by:

–declining cost of software and workstations;

—increasingly heavy competition between

desktop and high-end systems;

45
46

●

●

●

●

—rapidly growing networking of desktop

and high-end systems;

—rapidly growing networking of workstations with high-end nonimpact printers

and phototypesetters;

—increasingly heavy competition between and among software, workstation, phototypesetter, and computer

equipment vendors, as well as systems integrators and service bureaus

and;

—continued migration of electronic publishing to other applications such as

forms management and multi-format

output;

continued, rapid increase in the number

and use of computerized online information services, especially for information

search and retrieval, electronic display,

and remote printing-on-demand when

needed;

continued, steady increase in the number

of online information gateways that provide the channels for electronic information exchange (such as electronic data

transfer, mail, facsimile, and bulletin

boards), but not the information itself;

these gateways include common carriers

(interexchange and bell operating companies), value-added companies, and nonprofit and governmental systems;

continued advances in the telecommunication technologies that underlie online information services and gateways, including packet switching, fiber optics, satellite

networking, FM subcarrier transmission,

and integrated switched digital systems;

rapid advances in optical disk technologies

and applications, especially for purposes

of information storage and dissemination;

advances include:

—accelerating penetration of Compact

Disk-Read Only Memory (CD-ROM) as

●

●

remaining standards issues are resolved;

—maturation of Write Once Read Manytimes (WORM) and erasable optical

disks (compact and full size) as technology stabilizes and standards are established;

—emergence of Compact Disk-Interactive

(CD-I) and other optical disk applications;

rapid advances in development of expert

systems applicable to many aspects of information dissemination-including technical writing, indexing, information retrieval, and printing management; and

continued, steady progress in development and acceptance of standards for telecommunication, data transfer, optical

disks, and page description and text

markup.

The net, cumulative effect of these technical trends is to afford the Federal Government

the opportunity to realize the kind of significant performance improvements and cost reductions that have been demonstrated in the

private sector. Also, the convergence of these

technical trends, along with progress in

standards-setting, makes information systems

integration a real possibility for the Federal

Government and other users. Systems integration permits the coupling of input, storage,

processing, and output technologies in ways

that permit multi-media (e.g., paper, microform, online electronic, and stored electronic)

dissemination from the same electronic database. In essence, the key technologies and technical trends highlighted above are central to

the emerging movement towards systems integration.
47

INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW

A major objective of this study is to identify and discuss new or evolving ways in which

information technology can or might be applied

by the U.S. Government Printing Office (GPO),

National Technical Information Service

(NTIS), and other Federal agencies to the dissemination of Federal information. An important step in this process is the identification

of key technology trends that are relevant to

information dissemination.

OTA has surveyed a representative crosssection of major technologies relevant to information dissemination. The presentation in

this chapter emphasizes electronic technologies, although paper and microform are discussed briefly. Conventional ink-on-paper

printing technologies, including prepress and

binding, are considered in chapter 4 in the context of alternative futures for GPO. As discussed in chapter 4, GPO has already upgraded

its conventional printing technology to a level

comparable to most of the private printing industry, However, GPO has much less experience with online information systems, expert

systems, optical disks, and high-end electronic

publishing. NTIS is in a similar situation (see

ch. 5), as is the Depository Library Program

(DLP). Libraries in general, especially the

larger research libraries, have more experience

with electronic systems (see ch. 6). Thus, this

chapter is highly relevant to general consideration of future technological directions for

GPO, NTIS, and DLP, as well as the Federal

mission agencies.

This chapter emphasizes significant current

or emerging technical trends that are expected

to persist for at least 3 to 5 years into the future. In many instances, the key trends are

likely to continue even longer–perhaps for 10

years or more. In the aggregate, the trends provide what OTA believes is a reliable overall

technology planning framework for Federal information dissemination. However, the presentation in this chapter is not intended to be

used in the evaluation and selection of specific

equipment and systems. Some examples of

equipment, vendors, and/or applications are provided, but for illustrative purposes only. Some

cost and performance data also are included for

illustrative purposes only. These data change

rapidly, and should be checked with vendors if

product or service-specific evaluation is contemplated. Also, the presentation is geared to the

level of the informed lay person, not to the technical specialist. For discussion of specialized

information technologies not included here

(e.g., digital data tapes, digital cartographic

systems), the reader should consult a forthcoming OTA staff paper on Federal Scientific and

Technical Information Dissemination. Finally,

for the discussion of telecommunication technologies not covered here (e.g., digital facsimile, videotext, cable television), the reader

should consult OTA’S forthcoming report on

Commumnications Systems for An information

Age (1989).

Information Systems Integration

One important finding is that a combination

of technological advances, cost reductions, and

current or pending standards has opened up

for the first time a real possibility of information systems integration in the Federal Government. The importance of this development

cannot be overstated. Until recently, the Federal Government, along with other major information system users, had no choice but to

obtain an essentially incompatible complement

of information technology hardware and software, such that system integration across the

government and major agencies was very difficult, if not impossible. Integration of specific

systems within agencies was possible. But

even here, major integration efforts, for example in the Department of Defense, still led to

numerous incompatible systems.

The relevance to Federal information dissemination is immediate and direct. It is now possible to conceive of, plan for, design, and

implement an integrated information dissemination system (or more likely a network or hierarchy of systems) for the Federal Government. This is possible because of advances in
48

a whole range of relevant technologies-including input, storage, processing, and output

technologies-that can deal with the entire

range of media, including paper, microform,

magnetic disk, optical disk, and direct electronic. And the cost/performance trends in

these technologies are likely to make a wide

range of applications cost-effective when compared to conventional methods.

Two other related trends are equally important. One is the trend toward standards for

systems interconnection at the hardware, software, and applications levels. There is strong

movement among the vendor and user communities and in the various national and international standards bodies towards a hierarchy of standards that will make it possible

for a wide range of information systems to talk

with and exchange information with each

other.

Another trend is the rapid penetration of

computerized information systems in all sectors of society, but especially in the business,

educational, and research communities. This

means that many of those who provide information to the government and use information

from the government can now or soon be electronically connected, and can, where appropriate, send and receive information in a variety

of electronic formats. This in no way suggests

an end to paper-based information products—

but only that paper can be used where it is

really needed and in a more efficient and costeffective manner.

Realizing this potential for information systems integration requires, of course, more than

just the technology and standards. A variety

of institutional and policy changes maybe necessary, and various alternatives will be discussed in later chapters.

Nonetheless, it appears that the technology,

the industry, the standards, and the government are all moving towards systems integration. It is now possible to envision, in the relatively short term, a Federal information

dissemination environment that includes the

following illustrative elements:

document/data entry (e.g., scanning, word

processing, facsimile);

document revision/composition (e.g., electronic publishing-desktop and high-end,

computer graphics);

document storage (e.g., electronic database, optical disk);

document output (e.g., electronic publishing, laser printing, photo offset); and

document distribution (e.g., optical disk,

electronic mail, computer diskette, online

electronic, paper copies, microform).

Indeed, electronic publishing can be viewed

as a key integrative technology because it can

serve to integrate the various formats (paper

and microform as well as electronic) of information input, processing, storage, and output

within a common technical framework. Electronic publishing can also serve to connect the

various so-called islands of automation in an

organization-office automation, publishing

systems, database systems, records management, document storage systems, and the like.

Standards on information exchange are critical, as is the need to find ways for the people

who work in various areas of automation to

work more effectively together.

The Microcomputer Revolution

Most Federal Government information is either collected from the private sector, State/local government, and the general public, or is

created by Federal employees and contractors

as the result of studies, analyses, research, and

the like. Even information collected from outside the government is frequently subject to

analysis by Federal employees, and in that

sense has a creative or value-added aspect.

The dominant technology relevant to the collection and creation of Federal information is

the microcomputer. Over the last 5 years or

so, the United States has witnessed a revolu-
49

.-

tion in computer technology that has brought

the power of the mainframe computer to the

desk of millions of public and private sector

employees and citizens. And this revolution

is expected to continue for at least another 5

years.

The sheer magnitude of this microcomputer

revolution can be measured in many different

ways. For example, the Federal Government

itself has gone from only a few thousand micros

in 1980 to roughly 200,000 in 1986 to 500,000

in 1988 to a projected 1 million by 1990. The

percentage of school districts with computers

had already increased from about 18 percent

in 1981 to over 90 percent by 1985, according

to the National Center for Educational Statistics. ’ In the business community, microcomputers drew even in total computing power

with mainframes and superminis as of 1985

and are projected to dominate by 1990, according to Dataquest. z

Indeed, various projections show microcomputers growing at an

average 10 to 15 percent through 1990, compared to about 5 percent for mainframes and

superminis. The logic of this trend is understandable when one considers that the IBM

personal computer systems, selling for less

than $10,000 are equivalent in computing

power (measured in millions of instructions per

second) to the IBM 370-168 mainframe computers that sold for several million dollars when

introduced in the mid-1970s.

Even the home market has had significant

microcomputer penetration, with about 19 million households buying a microcomputer since

1981 (about 14 percent of all households).’

Link Resources projects an ultimate home

penetration of about 35 percent, although this

may be conservative if full function microcom-

‘Cited in tJ. Bloomdecker, Computer (%rne, Computer Security, Computer Ethics (Los Angeles, Calif. National Center for

Computer Crime Data. 1986).

‘Cited in G. Lewis, Zoom! Here Come the New Micros, ”

Business W’eek, Nov. 1, 1986 pp. 82-92.

‘F;. Roth, ‘*Power Surge in Personal Computers, ” Editoriaf

Research Reports, vol. 1, No. 1, ,Jan. 9, 1987, p. 4.

puters drop to the $300-500 price range in the

next 3-5 years.4 This would place the

microcomputer in the same price range as a

good quality 19-inch color television.

The continuous improvement in price/performance of microcomputers is driven in part

by advances in semiconductor chip technology,

which shows no signs of slowing down. The

32-bit chip family (such as the Intel 80386 or

the Motorola 68020) made possible the latest

personal computer systems that are more powerful, more user friendly, and more compatible with each other. Price/performance is expected to continue to improve as the 32-bit

chips are further assimilated in microcomputer

product offerings and as next generation microcomputers are developed and introduced.

The important impact on Federal information collection and creation is that an already

large and increasing amount of information is

generated in electronic form, that is, by capturing electronic keystrokes with a microcomputer or word processor. Today, much of this

electronic information is submitted to or provided by the government in paper form. But

the potential exists to substantially reduce the

amount of rekeyboarding, and presumably the

cost of such information, by maintaining the

information in electronic form as long as

possible.

The Continuing Role of Paper and

Microform

A note of caution with respect to the role

of paper is in order. Despite the dramatic increase in computer technology and electronic

information, paper documents are expected to

have a continuing, major role for several

reasons. First and foremost, for documents of

significant length, research has found that

reading from a computer screen is much more

difficult than reading from paper, despite improvements in the design and resolution of

‘Ibid, p. 6.
50

screens and terminals. Even extensive practice at electronic reading does not appear to

make a significant difference. Second, paper

continues to be a more convenient and portable medium for many purposes, and accommodates a wide range of reading styles and locations. Third, for many documents, paper is still

a bargain, although this is changing with the

advent of optical disk storage technology. And

of course, electronic publishing can significantly increase the efficiency of paper use,

even when the final product is still in paper

format. Fourth, the paper format (especially

for lengthy reports and books) permits the

reader to browse through material and use a

variety of conscious or subconscious search

patterns that may be difficult if not impossible to replicate even with today’s computerbased search and retrieval software. Reading

paper formats can lead to greater comprehension.

Overall, most studies on the future of paper

and paper-based media (such as books) have

concluded that the paper format will play a major role as a medium of information storage,

exchange, and dissemination for the foreseeable future.5 The results of the GAO surveys

of Federal information users (summarized in

ch. 4) indicate that paper is expected to hold

steady or decline only marginally as a preferred

format in the next few years, although this decline could become significant for specific types

of information (e.g., bibliographic, reference,

and statistical) that are highly suited to electronic access and manipulation. At the same

time, the preference for electronic formats (e.g.,

electronic mail and bulletin boards, floppy

disks, and compact optical disks) is expected

to increase dramatically.

The outlook for microform (microfilm and microfiche) is not as favorable as for paper or electronic formats, but there is likely to be con-

%ee, for example, Priscilla Oakeskott and Clive Bradley

(eds.), The Future of the Book: Part I -- The Impact of New Technologies ( Paris Unesco, 1982); U.S. Congress, Joint Committee on the Library, Books in Our Future, A Report From the

Librarian of Congress to the Congress, S. Print 98-231, U.S.

Government Printing Office, Washington, DC, 1984; John Y.

Cole, Books in Our Future: Perspectives and Proposals (Library

of Congress, Washington, D.C. 1987).

tinuing significant use of microforms for

records storage and archival purposes for the

foreseeable future, or at least until electronic

alternatives have been fully established and

stood the test of time. Microform is well suited

for archival purposes because it requires less

storage space (compared to paper), has a longer

shelf life (compared to paper and electronic,

although this may change), is a stable access

technology (compared to electronic), and is

lower in cost (compared to paper and some electronic).’ Microform offers a lifetime of 100+

years, whereas the lifetime of acidic paper is

perhaps several decades, and magnetic media

(tape and disks) a few years to a decade or two.

The main competitive threats to microform for

archival purposes are from acid-free paper

(which can last 100 + years, but would still require more storage space and be more costly

than microform) and optical disks. Optical

disks do not as yet have proven archival capability (although manufacturers are claiming

40+ years), require less storage space, and can

be less expensive than microform. Microform

is likely to continue as a major archival medium

at least until optical disks (or some related

electronic-storage technology) are well established.

However, for many nonarchival purposes,

microform is not the preferred medium even

today. For reading lengthy written materials,

users find microform to be inconvenient, uncomfortable, and inefficient compared to paper. For information search and retrieval, users

frequently prefer electronic formats, including

online database systems as well as, increasingly, offline media such as CD-ROMs. The results of the GAO surveys of Federal information users (summarized inch. 4) indicate that

microfilm is little used today for Federal in-

%ee, for example, Kenneth E. Dowlin, The Electronic Library: The Prorm”se and the Process, (New York, Neal-Schuman,

1984; F.W. Lancaster, Libraries and Libraries in An Age of Electronics (Arlington, VA: Information Resources Press, Arlington, VA, 1982); Edward Gray, “The Rise and Fall of Technological Applications: Considerations on Microforms and Their

Possible Successor, ” International Journal of Micrographics

and Video Technology, vol. 15, No. 1, 1986, pp. 31-38; National

Research Council, Committee on Preservation of Historical

Records, Preservation of Historical Records ( Washington, DC,

National Academy Press, 1986).
formation dissemination, and that microfiche,

while used extensively, is expected to decline

significantly as the desired format for dissemination of many types of Federal information.

It should be noted, however, that the micrographics industry is itself using electronic technology to continuously upgrade microform access technologies, such as computer-assisted

microfiche retrieval systems and computeroutput microfilm systems.7 AIso, the tecology for microfiche to paper conversion continues to advance. For example, the Defense

Technical Information Center recently funded

the development and installation of duplex

(two-sided) microfiche copier machines.

In sum, however, the current and future use

of paper, microform, and electronic formats will

‘See, for example, Coopers and Lybrand, Information and

Image Management: The Industry and the Technolo@”es, study

conducted for Association for Information and Image Manage- ment, Sil\’er Spring, MD, 1987.

51

depend largely on the type of information and

the type of information user. The kinds of criteria that will be relevant in selecting format

include:

amount of information to be stored, accessed, and/or distributed;

amount of storage space available;

frequency of information access or retrieval;

length of time information is to be stored;

desired speed of access or retrieval;

costs of storage, access, and retrieval;

number of users; and

technical expertise of users.

The rest of this chapter focuses on several key

electronic technologies relevant to Federal information dissemination. The price/performance characteristics of these technologies make

them highly competitive with paper and microform for those types of information well suited

for electronic formats.

ELECTRONIC PUBLISHING

Desktop Publishing

One of the microcomputer applications most

relevant to this study is desktop publishing.

Desktop publishing combines elements of advanced word-processing and computerized

page layout and composition systems. Desktop publishing can be defined as a set of hardware and software, including a multifunction

personal computer, which has the ability to

produce near-typeset quality output, and utilizing multiple type fonts, sizes, and styles and

multiple page layouts. The characteristics of

desktop publishing are:

low cost (about $10,000 for an entire

system),

user-friendly software (frequently employing icons and a mouse and a ‘what you see

is what you get or WYSIWYG screen display) that requires minimal training,

near-typeset quality output (but still considerably less than high-quality book and

magazine printing, for example), and

● relatively simple and straightforward documents (although the desktop publishing

software is much more sophisticated than

typical word-processing software).

A typical desktop publishing configuration

includes:

●

●

●

●

a microcomputer with mouse or digitizing tablet, keyboard, and screen (roughly

$2,000 to $4,000 inclusive);

page composition software (about $500 to

$1,000);

a low-end laser printer (about $1,500 to

$3,000); and

a low-end scanner for paper input (about

$2,000 to $4,000).

Desktop publishing is expected to become

a standard part of personal computing, and to

grow significantly over the next several years.

Growth in desktop publishing reflects the substantial potential savings for those types of
52

documents that do not require higher levels

of quality and complexity. For simple reports,

newsletters, pamphlets, and the like, desktop

publishing can cut composition costs from the

$50 or more per page range (for commercial

composition and typesetting) to the $1 to $5

per page range. Compared to straight wordprocessing text, desktop publishing can reduce

the page length by perhaps 40 percent on average, and this translates into substantial savings from reduced paper and mailing costs.

There are also major savings from a streamlined revision process, minimal rekeyboarding,

and the ability to store text and graphics for

future use and revision.

Two significant limitations of the low-end

desktop publishing are limited ability to deal

with complex documents (e.g., complicated layouts using text and graphics) and limited print

quality (due to the typical 240 dots per inch

(dpi) or 300 dpi resolution of low~nd laser

printer output). The first limitation is being

mitigated rapidly by ever more powerful desktop publishing software releases. Also, users

can invest in more sophisticated software and,

if necessary, obtain software that supports

phototypesetters as well as laser printers. Finally, low-end laser printers are improving output resolution, thus reducing the print quality differential between laser printers and

phototypesetters.

Desktop publishing has made dramatic inroads in the newspaper and newsletter industries. An estimated 80 percent of newspapers

with a circulation of over 100,000 use Macintosh-based desktop publishing, including the

Wall Street Journal and USA Today, as do an

estimated 75 percent of newspapers with a circulation over 50,000.H Knight Ridder and the

Gannett Corp. are using desktop publishing

systems to create and distribute graphic designs nationwide. While major newspapers

generally use photocomposition equipment for

typesetting in order to get higher print quality, newsletter and some small newspaper pub-

“F. Seghers, “In News Graphics, Macintosh Makes the Front

Page, ” Business Week, Jan. 19, 1987, p. 87.

lishers frequently find that laser printer typesetting quality is good enough.

The potential implications of desktop publishing for Federal information dissemination

seem just as significant. An increasing percentage of Federal information collected, created,

and disseminated would appear to be well

suited for desktop publishing.

High-End Electronic Publishing

The distinction between desktop publishing

and so-called “high-end” electronic publishing

is somewhat arbitrary, since microcomputerbased desktop systems can be connected or

networked to high-end work stations, typesetters, and printers. Electronic publishing is considered to be the electronic preparation of material at all pre-press stages of the publishing

process, including text and graphics preparation, page layout, and composition, with the

actual printing in any of a variet y of formats—

paper, microform, magnetic tape or diskette,

optical disk, or direct electronic. In general,

high-end electronic publishing is distinguished

by:

 high volume (in number of pages and

copies),

● high quality (of the final product),

● high complexity (of the page layout and

composition), and

● high cost (compared to desktop systems).

High-end systems typically cost $30,000 to

$150,000 depending on the configuration, compared to $5,000 to $10,000 for desktop systems. For the software alone, high-end publishing systems typically cost $15,000 to $30,000

compared to $500 to $1,000 for desktop

software.

The demand for high-end electronic publishing (and to a lesser extent desktop publishing)

is driven by a powerful combination of advantages that translate into significant cost savings and productivity improvements. For example, electronically published materials are

generally found to be:

● more attractive,

● easier to read,
 more timely (publishing time can be anywhere from 25 to 90 percent faster), and

● much less expensive.

Cost savings can be realized in several ways.

For example, electronic publishing generally

reduces the total number of document pages

by 40 to 50 percent, but occasionally up to 80

percent, since typeset pages contain more text

than typewritten pages. This can dramatically

reduce paper costs for hard copy print runs.

For documents with limited demand and low

volume, electronic publishing makes printingon-demand a realistic option. Electronic publishing also facilitates the revision process by

minimizing rekey boarding and graphics redesign.

Various market surveys project a strong demand for electronic publishing over the next

5 years, based on a perceived need for electronic

publishing by major corporations and government agencies.

Electronic publishing systems have made

rapid technical advances in just a few years.

This trend is expected to continue due, in part,

to heavy competition among graphics workstations, publishing software, traditional

photocomposition services, and computer

equipment companies, as well as systems integrators that combine hardware and software

from numerous vendors. At the heart of electronic publishing systems is the 32-bit workstation that permits complex manipulation of

text, graphics, and, increasingly, halftones.

These are the same types of workstations used

for computer-assisted design (CAD) and sophisticated graphics applications. This workstation is now an established technology, with

a substantial track record. According to Dataquest, 32-bit workstation sales ($15,000 to

$50,000 per workstation price range) grew from

about 100,000 units in 1983 to 1 million units

in 1985, an estimated 2 million in 1987, and

a projected 4 million in 1989.9

The technical power, sophistication, and flexibility of electronic publishing systems are illustrated by a typical system which uses 32-

“Cited in G, Lewis, “ Nrew Nlicros, ’ op. cit.

53

bit workstations (such as Sun, DEC, or Apollo),

a 19-inch monochrome display with a high resolution screen, and a local area network. The

typical system can accept input from CAD

workstations, scanners, graphics (raster and

vector, line art and halftones), spreadsheets,

and text (in standard formats compatible with

almost any mainframe, mini, microcomputer,

or word processor). The system provides output to various laser printers (such as Xerox,

Kodak, Imagen, Apple, and Sun) and phototypesetters (such as Linotronic and Compugraphic). Advanced software capabilities typically include:

●

●

●

●

●

●

integration of text and graphics in nonstructured pages;

free-form drawing with a mouse;

tracing tablet to copy drawings:

editing of digitized line art;

pixel-by-pixel editing of halftone photographs; and

simultaneous editing of different portions

of the same document.

Overall trends in electronic publishing include the following:

movement from a fragmented market to

an integrated market;

aggressive competition from electronic

publishing systems offered by traditional

phototypesetters and by electronic publishing service bureaus;

standardization of information exchange

among different types of hardware and

soft ware;

declining price/performance ratios; narrowing of the technical differences between desktop and high-end publishing

systems;

increasing integration of direct-to-plate

printing technologies; and

increasing speed and quality of performance (including higher resolution, color,

and multiple languages).

In the corporate community, investment in

electronic publishing is generally claimed to

have a rate of return of 50 to 60 percent and

a payback period of 2 years or less. Also, companies typically claim to have cut overall pub-
54

lications turnaround time by 50 to 75 percent.

While similar data are not yet available from

government users, Interleaf Corp. indicates

that the following Federal agencies are using

Interleaf electronic publishing systems: Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (for

technical reports); Office of Naval Research (for

research studies); intelligence agencies (various applications); U.S. Coast Guard (for technical manuals); U.S. Army (for technical

manuals); Department of State (for regulations); Department of Agriculture (for statistical documents); Bureau of the Census (for statistical reports); and Federal Reserve Board

(for financial analyses). Xyvision reports sales

of electronic publishing systems to, among

others: the National Center for Health Statistics, National Center for Disease Control, U.S.

Geological Survey, Bureau of the Census, and

Central Intelligence Agency.

Electronic Forms Management

Another growing application of systems related to electronic publishing is electronic

forms management. Several companies specialize in this applications area. The typical standalone workstation, including a processor and

hard disk along with software and a high resolution display, costs in the range of $25,000

to $60,000, depending on memory size. The

typical system has many of the capabilities of

electronic publishing systems discussed earlier, and can be used for designing newsletters,

manuals, and technical documents as well as

forms.

However, it is not necessary to have fullcapability electronic publishing systems for

many forms-management applications. For example, among Federal agencies, the Air Force,

Army, Navy, Internal Revenue Service, Social

Security Administration, Federal Reserve

Board, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation,

and National Aeronautics and Space Administration are all using personal computers and

laser printers to manage forms. Microcomputers are used to enter the data, and laser

printers are used to merge the data with standard forms for printing. The agencies indicate

direct savings on the order of 40 percent over

preprinted forms.

For larger print runs, even greater savings

may be possible where offset printing can be

used to reduce the per-page printing cost of

about two cents assumed for laser printers.

Further savings seem likely since the forms

can be stored and edited electronically, minimizing rekey boarding and redesign. As

another example, the combination of microcomputers (or mainframe terminals) and laser

printers can be used to permit direct electronic

input of data collected by agencies into standard reporting forms stored on the laser printer.

The completed forms can be transmitted electronically to a regional office or to Washington, DC, eliminating both cost and potential

errors associated with rekey boarding and the

time delays associated with mail delivery. Paper copies can be printed out for archival

purposes.

Computer Graphics

Advances in computer graphics are central

to the recent breakthroughs in desktop and

high-end electronic publishing. Indeed, computer graphics capabilities are key aspects of

most electronic publishing systems. And publishing applications have themselves become

one of the driving forces for further advances

in and broader use of computer graphics. Other

driving forces include:

graphics needs of the scientific community;

military applications of computer graphics,

most recently stimulated by the Strategic Defense Initiative’s requirements for

very sophisticated, three-dimensional, dynamic computer graphics and modeling;

continued movement toward graphics

standards; and

continued breakthroughs in price/performance ratios.

Major technical trends in computer graphics

include:

● the continuing transition from film-based

techniques to digital processing;
55

development of relatively low-cost (under

$15,000) desktop color scanners and

printers;

further improvements in high resolution

graphics (up to 2,000 x 2,000 pixels);

further development of full color, interactive, three-dimensional graphics workstations at relatively modest prices (e.g.,

$30,000);

continued migration of high-end workstation capabilities to low-end workstations;

and progress in developing standards for

exchanging graphics data between workstations, such as the Digital Data Exchange Standard.

Further technical progress in computer

graphics seems assured as various companies

continually develop new products for top secret

military applications. Advanced digitized mapping techniques are used by the Defense Mapping Agency and by various Federal civilian

agencies such as the Fish and Wildlife Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and Bureau of the Census. Computerized graphics products can interpret infrared

aerial imagery and produce maps. In general,

computerized mapping offers advantages similar

●

●

●

●

to computerized printing in that:

The original map preparation is

faster.

Maps can be stored electronically

cilitate relatively easy updating.

much

to faThe original map and an-y revisions can

be displayed on a video screen.

Hard-copy output can be obtained relatively quickly with a plotter or laser

printer.

Scanners and Printers

Almost all desktop and high-end electronic

publishing systems are configured to include

one or more printers, and may include one or

more scanners. The price/performance of scanners and printers has dropped dramatically in

the last few years. Scanners are used primarily to digitize text and images that are initially

in paper formats. Scanners are not as efficient

as direct electronic input, but are much more

cost-effective than rekey boarding or redrawing those materials not in electronic format.

The cost of scanners has dropped to the point

where low-end scanners are available in the

$2,000-4,000 price range with a speed of up to

several pages per minute and a scanning resolution of 200-300 dots per inch. While satisfactory for many desktop applications, higher

speed and resolution are generally needed for

high-end publishing purposes. High-end scanners are available in the $15,000 to $40,000

price range with speeds of 1 or 2 pages per second and resolution levels up to 400-dp~. Thus,

the high-end scanners achieve speeds and resolutions similar to the high-end laser printers

discussed later.

A major advantage of high-end scanners is

the capability to approximate graphics-quality

halftone pictures. This is accomplished by

scanning the image at up to about 120 scan

lines per inch and recording multiple bits for

each pixel, rather than the one bit commonly

used for scanning text and line art. Instead

of recording black or white with one bit per

pixel, multiple bits permit the recording of the

degree of blackness for each pixel, known as

gray-scale scarming. Also, many high-end scanners can scan a wide range of type styles and

sizes, and some scanners can be programmed

to learn new (to the scanner) type styles. These

capabilities are expected to migrate to the

desktop scanners.

The technical status of printers is more complicated because printers are now used for functions other than printing, such as typesetting,

graphics input, and forms management.

For printing of straight textual material,

electromechanical line printers (known as impact printers) are efficient for low-copy runs

(i.e., one or a few copies per original). Medium

performance impact printers can print at about

1,000 lines per minute (20 pages per minute

at 50 lines per page) and cost $10,000 to

$15,000. High-end impact printers can reach

output speeds of about 3,600 lines (72 pages)

per minute. Low-end desktop line printers print

at a few pages per minute.
56

The role of impact printers is expected to continue to decline, because of the need for printing graphics and complex page layouts, the use

of variable type styles and fonts, and the integration of forms and data at the point of

printing.

Non-impact printers (using laser, light emitting diode array, ion deposition, and other technical processes) provide better quality, greater

flexibility and diversity, and faster speed (at

the high end). While on a per-page cost basis,

non-impact printers may be more expensive

than impact printers, this is not an appropriate comparison in most cases. When serving

as a typesetter or graphics printer or proof

printer, the non-impact printer can be an order of magnitude cheaper than conventional

methods. For example, for low-volume applications where 300 dpi output resolution is

satisfactory, a desktop laser printer at $1,500

to $3,000 may be perfectly adequate for producing camera-ready copy, compared to a phototypesetter at $35,000 to $70,000.

The high-end, non-impact printers are still

quite expensive, typically in the $100,000 to

$200,000 range although these prices are expected to come down. A typical high-end, nonimpact laser printer prints at 90 to 120 pages

per minute. By comparison, a desktop laser

printer prints a few pages (e.g., 3 to 6) per minute and costs as low as $1,500. At the next

level up, a typical mid-range laser printer might

print at 12 to 20 pages per minute and cost

$10,000 to $15,000. Again, price/performance

ratios continue to fall.

Non-impact printers are not well suited for

jobs requiring high output quality and/or print

volume. With respect to quality, most nonimpact printers can achieve an output resolution of 300 dpi (assuming that the input resolution is at least at that level). This output quality is adequate for a wide range of purposes,

but not for high-quality publications. By comparison, photocomposition equipment can produce typeset output at resolutions of 1,200 or

more dpi. Technical advances are reducing this

quality differential. Indeed, 400 to 1,000 dpi

laser printers are now on the market. High

resolution non-impact printers are adequate to

meet many electronic publishing needs, either

for demand printing or as camera-ready copy

to be used in subsequent plate-making and

photo-offset printing. Continued technical advances and market forces are likely to push

the typical output resolution of laser and other

non-impact printers into the 600 to 800 dpi

range over the next few years, thus further

closing the quality differential.

With respect to print-volume requirements,

it is still far cheaper to use conventional photooffset printers for high-volume print runs than

laser and other non-impact printers. One can

debate the various break-even points as a function of the length, format, number of copies,

and desired turnaround time for specific documents. In offset printing, plate-making (preparation of masters or negatives of the original

images by which ink is transferred onto paper

to make copies of the original) costs anywhere

from a few dollars to $50 and up per page. This

cost indicates that non-impact printing is frequently less expensive for short print runs of

under a few hundred copies per original. For

larger print runs, the printing cost is likely to

be cheaper with photo offset rather than laser

printing.

It appears that the cost of non-impact printing (including xerographic) is rarely below 2

cents per page. Thus, assuming $2 per page

for plate-making (this is for desktop relatively

low volume applications), and assuming all

other costs are equal (purchase or lease, maintenance, supplies, and labor), the break-even

point would be about 100 copies. In this

hypothetical and oversimplified case, print

runs under 100 copies per original would use

a non-impact printer and print runs over 100

per original would use a photo offset printer.

Other elements besides cost may enter into the

printing decision, such as quality, speed, turnaround time, and control. In the future, the

break-even point between non-impact and

photo-offset printing will depend in part on

their relative technical advances and cost reductions.
57 — —

ONLINE INFORMATION DISSEMINATION

Online Information Retrieval

Previous discussions have focused on a number of electronic information technologies–

microcomputers, page composition and publishing software, computer graphics, scanners,

printers—with the information maintained in

electronic form through many or all stages of

the publishing process. The primary final output has been in paper format. Advances in technology make it possible to disseminate the output information in a variety of electronic

formats as well as paper. For some purposes

and some kinds of information, electronic formats may be preferable to paper. This is especially so for bibliographic, reference, statistical, and bulletin board information where the

user may not want to see the whole document,

but is only interested in locating specific pieces

of information. The private sector information

industry has given high priority to computerizing access to these types of information,

whether the original source of the information

is the government, academic, research, or commercial sectors.

This section discusses the technology and

application of online information retrieval systems in the context of the private sector, since

this is where much of the online activity is occuring. From a technical viewpoint, these private sector applications are directly relevant

to the Federal Government.

The technology of online information retrieval is well established. Customer access is

typically via a microcomputer or terminal connected to a modem. Residential customers normally tie into the local telephone company

network (e.g., Bell Operating Companies, independent telephone companies) and, if accessing a database from long distance, then connect to an interexchange carrier network (e.g.,

AT&T, MCI, U.S. Sprint) or a value-added network (e.g., Tymnet, Telenet). Business customers can sometimes bypass the local telephone

company and connect directly to an interexchange or value-added network. At the other

end, access to the desired database is frequently via an online database services company (e.g., Lockheed DIALOG, Pergamon Infoline) or a database gateway company (such

as is available from Western Union Easy Net).

Gateway companies serve as intermediaries between the customer and the database source

and do not maintain the database itself. Online database service companies actually maintain copies of the databases online, so that

referral to the database source is not necessary. Some database source companies do provide for direct customer electronic access to

the database, without going through a gateway or online services company. Companies

that maintain online databases need:

 a host computer and memory necessary

for handling the volume of data and frequency of use, and

 the necessary front-end processor and

communications equipment for handling

remote inquiries and transmitting responses.

The growth of the online information industry has been phenomenal. From less than $500

million in annual revenues in 1978, the industry has grown to about $2 billion total revenues in 1986, $3 billion in 1987, and is projected

to reach about over $4 billion by 1990.

A typical commercial online database service charges about $40 to $80 per hour, of which

about 40 to 45 percent is for acquiring and preparing the actual data, and another 40 to 45

percent is for sales, marketing, and administration. About 6 to 9 percent is for communications (including the cost of customer premises equipment, e.g., computer terminal and

modem, local exchange access, and interexchange link if applicable), and about 6 percent

is for data processing (including the cost of

hardware and software for database storage

and data communicaticm).l

’

)

“

)

Studies by Cuadra Associates and Elsevier Science publishing cited in P. W’. Huber, The (leodesic ,Vetwork: 1987 Report on Competition in the Telephone Industry, prepared for

U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, January 1987,

p, 7.13.
58

One implication of the above cost structure

is that substantial savings can result to the

extent that the data are already in the appropriate electronic format. If as a result of electronic publishing government statistical or

reference reports were produced in electronic

form as a matter of course (even if the ultimate

product is in paper format), then the electronically formatted information could, at least

theoretically, also be made available as an online database. This could significantly reduce

the cost of data acquisition and preparation.

This is a major cost element, regardless of

whether the government and/or commercial

firms disseminate the data. Sales, marketing,

and administrative costs may not be as amenable to reduction for commercial firms, unless

they are working under contract to the government in such a way that the market was,

in effect, guaranteed. For the government, distribution to information intermediaries (e.g.,

libraries in the depository program) might help

reduce marketing and other costs. Technology

is only a small part (perhaps less than 15 percent) of the cost of online databases.

Telecommunications

Online information retrieval services and

several other kinds of electronic information

dissemination (e.g., electronic mail and facsimile) are dependent on telecommunication

technology and systems. A number of developments are converging to facilitate and most

likely reduce the relative cost of data communication. One key trend is the transition from

analog to digital telecommunication networks

that are designed to transfer information much

more efficiently than the conventional analog

telephone networks. A second trend is the rapid

movement towards national and international

standards for data networks of all kinds. A

third trend is the maturation of Ku-band satellite, fiber optic, and FM subcarrier technologies for data transmission.

The implementation of FTS 2000, the upgraded Federal Telecommunication System, is

intended to make state-of-the-art data communication capability available to all major Federal agencies. As currently planned, FTS 2000

will

●

●

●

●

●

include:

switched voice (up to 4.8 kilobits/second

transmission capacity);

switched digital integrated service;

packet-switched services;

video transmission (including graphics,

facsimile, limited and full motion video);

and

dedicated voice or data transmission

circuits.

The switched digital integrated service and

packet-switched service should be especially

useful for online database retrieval or electronic

document transmission. The switched digital

integrated service is designed to be the equivalent of the Integrated Services Digital Network

(ISDN) for digitally integrating voice, data, images, and video over the same transmission

medium. As planned, the FI’S 2000 version will

be consistent with ISDN international standards and will have a 1.544 megabit/second

transmission capacity subdivided into 24 individual channels of 64 kilobits/second each.

For illustrative purposes, one 64 kilobit/second channel can transmit about four pages of

text per second (at 250 words per page x 8 characters per word x 8 bits per character). The

planned IWS 2000 packet-switched service will

be consistent with international standards for

open systems interconnection and interoperability with public data networks and public

electronic mail services. The FTS 2000 packetswitched service is planned as a 24 hours a day,

7 days a week operation with 99.5 percent uptime and 98 percent availability.

The basic concept of packet-switchingis that

data can be transmitted most efficiently when

assembled into packets (or bunches) of bits of

information. The U.S. packet-switching volume for 1985 has been estimated by International Resource Development at about 47 million kilopackets, of which 7 million kilopackets

were for database access, 3 million for electronic mail, and 0.3 million for electronic data

interchange. 11 Typical commercial rates for

1lCited in P.W. Huber, Telephone Industry, op. cit., table

PA.1.
59

packet-switching have been estimated at about

$0.50 per page of text for local packetswitching and roughly 3 times that for national

packet switching. ” While these rates compare favorably with electronic mail and may

be acceptable for very short documents, the

cost of packet-switching long documents would

be quite high. Whether FTS 2000 will significantly reduce packet-switching costs in unknown at this time.

Data transmission networks of all kinds are

expected to incorporate both satellite and fiber optic technology wherever appropriate. For

example, a high speed (56 kilobit/second)

packet-switched data transmission network

can incorporate both a fiber optic terrestrial

component and a Ku-band (12-14 gigahertz)

satellite component. The Ku band permits use

of lower-cost, very small aperture (VSAT) earth

stations with receiving disks that are 1.2 or

1.8 meters in diameter. Such a system could

be used for such functions as transmitting data

collected from remote locations.

Over the next few years, a balanced network

of satellite and fiber optic transmission links

is likely to evolve. Fiber optic links are likely

to be used primarily for heavy volume, pointto-point transmissions, while satellite links are

expected to dominate for point-to-multipoint

transmissions. Experimental tests of fiber optics have attained transmission rates of 4 billion bits/second over relatively short distances.

By comparison, this is more than a 1,000 times

the 1.544 megabits/second transmission capacity specified in the ISDN standard, and is

equivalent to transmitting an entire 30-volume

encyclopedia in 1 second.

The integration of fiber optics with satellite,

microwave, and copper wire circuits will be

facilitated by the continuing development of

teleports, with respect to traffic between major U.S. metropolitan areas and overseas traffic. Teleports are essentially buildings and facilities that serve as a platform or bridge for

interconnecting different modes of telecommunication all at one location.

“I bid., table PA.2 and accompanying text.

The trend towards so-called intelligent buildings will facilitate integration across different

telecommunication technologies and services.

Intelligent buildings are prewired during construction with local area networks (LANs) capable of handling digital data communication.

LANs can carry information much faster and

more efficiently than the conventional telephone and PBX (private branch exchange) analog circuit and switching systems. The cost of

LAN installation is much reduced if completed

during building construction rather than retrofitted. The trend toward intelligent buildings

is expected to accelerate in response to the

rapid increase in networking of microcomputers, mainframe terminals, peripheral equipment (including scanners, printers, and

graphics workstations), and the like in the office environment.

A final telecommunication technology to be

discussed in this section is FM (frequency

modulated) radio subcarrier transmission. The

FM subcarrier is an excess portion of the bandwidth assigned to FM radio stations, and was

deregulated by the Federal Communications

Commission in 1983. The FM subcarrier appears to be cost-effective for point-tOmultipoint transmission of time-sensitive digital

data traffic, such as news and public affairs

information. For example, MultiComm Telecommunications Corp. (Arlington, VA) is using

Western Union’s Westar IV satellite to transmit information to 90 participating FM radio

stations, where the information is in turn

retransmitted on the FM subcarrier to receiving sites equipped with a special, low-cost FM

receiver. The information can be stored on a

microcomputer or printed out. MultiComm sells

the receiver/printer for $500 or leases the equipment for a nominal fee of $25/month. The costs

of the service per receive site range from 20

cents per page of information transmitted for

immediate delivery (e.g., within 19 seconds),

10 cents per page for delivery within 2 hours,

and 5 cents per page for overnight delivery.

This is far cheaper than courier service, especially for shorter documents. The 90 participating FM stations broadcast to an estimated

85 percent of the U.S. population. Ku-band
60

small satellite earth stations could be used to

reach rural and remote areas. MultiComm

offers a Federal News Service that transmits

transcripts of White House briefings, congressional testimony, and the like to hundreds of

newspapers and trade associations, and an Infowire service for low-volume users who need

time-sensitive information on, for example,

White House and agency press releases, advance schedules of upcoming hearings, and the

like. Other private firms are using the FM subcarrier to distribute such information as stock

market quotes.

Electronic Mail

Another technical option for online information retrieval and two-way information transfer is electronic mail. As discussed previously,

electronic mail capability is planned as part

of the FTS 2000 system. Electronic mail has

grown more slowly than initial expectations,

but appears to breaching a critical threshold

of viability.

The outlook for electronic mail is being enhanced by several key trends:

Electronic mail is increasingly included as

a basic capability of office automation systems, such as those offered by Data General, DEC, IBM, Wang, and NBI;

Vendors are providing much improved capacity for interconnections or gateways

between electronic mail systems (e.g.,

Wang and IBM, DEC and MCI Mail, IBM

and Western Union Easy Link, MCI Mail

and CompuServe Easy Plex);

Enhanced electronic mail capabilities are

being developed that can handle graphics

and spreadsheets besides American

Standard Code for Information Interchange (ASCII) text; and

There is growing acceptance of the CCITT

(Consultative Committee on International

Telephone and Telegraph) X.400 standard

for electronic mail and messagehandling

service. X.400 is based on the 0S1 (Open

Systems Interconnection) model and will

permit interconnection among various

electronic mail services.

Many electronic mail systems require a modem

(modulator/demodulator) at each end of the circuit, to convert the digital signals from the

sending computer into analog signals for transmission over the telephone lines (at least in the

local exchange) and back again from analog

to digital at the receiving computer. However,

modems are likely to be less of a constraint

in the future for at least two reasons. First,

the cost of modems continues to drop–a 300

bits per second modem now costs $100 to $200,

a 1,200 bps modem (the de facto standard for

remote computer networking including electronic mail and bulletin boards) $200, and the

higher speed 2,400 bps modem about $300 to

$400. Second, in the future, all-digital data

communication and telephone networks will

eliminate the need for modems almost entirely.

Modems will be necessary only to the extent

analog phone systems are still used.

The cost of electronic mail varies according

to the length and the volume of the messages

and the type of electronic mail system used.

For an inhouse personal computer or office

automation-based electronic mail system, the

cost range has been estimated at roughly $1

to $2 per 3-page message (7,500 characters) at

a monthly volume of 1,000 messages, and is

estimated to drop to about $0.10 to $0.20 per

3-page message at a monthly volume of 10,000

messages. By comparison, electronic mail service bureaus typically charge in the range $1

to 3 per 3-page message regardless of volume.

Other alternatives for transmission and receipt of electronic mail include: electronic bulle

tin boards, digital facsimile services, and

videotext services. For discussion of these and

other related telecommunication technologies,

see Communication Systems for An Electronic

Age (OTA, forthcoming, 1989).
61

— —

OPTICAL DISKS

For information that neither changes frequently nor requires immediate, online remote

access, optical disk technology is a viable technical option for purposes of information storage and dissemination and as an important

component of electronic publishing systems.

(Other optical technologies not discussed here,

such as optical or laser cards on strips, could

provide storage and dissemination of smaller

amounts of information. ) While some standards issues still need to resolved, the significant technical advantages of optical disks are

becoming more and more evident as a result

of numerous development applications, prototype tests, and, commercial offerings.

Optical disk technology uses a laser beam

to record data on plastic disks by engraving

pits in the surface. The disks can then be subsequently read by a low-power laser beam to

retrieve the data. There are several different

types of optical disk, and some are further

along in terms of technology and standards

than others. Standards are essential for optical technology to ensure compatibility among

different types of disks and disk readers, and

to minimize the possible need for future

rerecording of data due to incompatible

equipment.

The major advantage of optical disk technology is the ability to store and disseminate

large amounts of information at very low cost.

For example, a 4.72 inch (12 centimeter) CDROM (Compact Disk-Read Only Memory) can

store up to roughly 540 megabytes (millions

of bytes) of data. Assuming that one typewritten text page averages 250 words or about

2,000 bytes per page, one CD-ROM can store

up to 270,000 pages of typewritten text. Grollier has recorded its entire 20-volume Academic

American Encyclopedia on about one-fifth of

one disk. One floppy diskette (single-sided, single density) can store about 360 kilobytes of

data, which is equivalent to about 180 pages

of double-spaced typewritten text. Thus, 1 CDROM can store the equivalent of about 1,500

floppy diskettes, about 54 of the 10-megabyte

hard disks, or about 10 of the 1,600 bits-perinch magnetic computer tapes. A 12-inch (30

cm) WORM (Write Once Read Many times) optical disk can store up to 1 gigabyte (billion

bytes), which is roughly double the capacity

of a CD-ROM. All of these storage capacities

are per single side, and would be doubled for

two-sided disks.

The total and per bit or byte manufacturing

costs of both 4.72-inch CD-ROMs and 12-inch

WORM optical disks are already quite low. CDROMS can be mastered for $4,000 to $5,000

and can be reproduced in quantities ranging

from $30 per disk for 100 copies to $6 per disk

at volumes of several thousand. Some estimates suggest per disk costs as low as $3 for

volume runs. The 12-inch WORM disks are

more expensive to produce, at about $150 a

copy, but are still far cheaper per byte than

floppy diskettes or hard disks. These costs do

not include the cost of data acquisition and

preparation, which apply to any storage

medium, and the cost of equipment needed to

read the disks. All that is necessary to read

CD-ROMs is a CD-ROM reader, available from

several vendors in the $500 to $1,000 price

range, and a personal computer and screen.

Thus, for users already owning a microcomputer system, the incremental cost of CD-ROM

equipment is in the same range as the medium

to high-end consumer-oriented compact digital audio disk players. WORM readers are considerably more expensive—several to tens of

thousands of dollars range-although this can

be modest for the institutional (corporate and

government) users who are the likely clients

for 12-inch WORM disks.

Optical disks also offer other advantages:

rapid access to stored data (i.e., in one

second),

the ability to use a microcomputer for data

access and retrieval,

high levels of data integrity,

very minimal disk or equipment wear,

convenience and portability, and

relatively long media life.
62

The latter point is somewhat controversial as

initial manufacturer estimates of 10 to 20 years

have now been extended to 40 to 50 years.

Some suggest that 100 years is possible under ideal conditions. Disks could be recopied

at periodic intervals if necessary.

The high level of commercial and governmental activity is indicative of the potential

for CD-ROM and WORM disks. Vendors (such

as Lockheed DIALOG, Cambridge Scientific

Abstracts, Aide Publishing, and VLS, Inc.) are

offering many new optical disk-based products

and services. Many of these include databases

that originate in whole or in part from the Federal Government.

Federal agencies are actively pursuing a wide

range of development and prototype projects.

For example:

●

●

●

●

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (in

cooperation with the Smithsonian Institution) is developing a WORM optical disk

system to keep track of submissions regarding nuclear waste disposal under the

Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982. The

system uses personal computers, scanners, and 12-inch WORM optical disk

drives.

The Library of Congress is prototyping

optical disk technologies for general research, archival, and information retrieval

purposes, including the use of a 100-disk

optical jukebox for 12-inch WORM disks.

The jukebox has a potential storage capacity of 200 gigabytes.

The National Library of Medicine is prototyping various optical disk technologies

for medical applications, research, archival,

and instructional purposes.

The Bureau of the Census is prototyping

the use of CD-ROMs for storing and distributing maps that will result from the

1990 census. The Census Bureau is also

examining the potential of CD-ROM for

a broad range of geographic and topographic maps as part of the Topographic

Integrated Geographic Retrieval (TIGER)

project being conducted jointly with the

U.S. Geological Survey.

USGS is prototyping the use of CD-ROMs

for the possible goal of providing all (or

a large part) of USGS earth science information in CD-ROM format such as seismic data from the National Earthquake

Information Center. USGS officials believe that CD-ROM offers the potential to

make earth science data much more accessible at lower cost.

The U.S. Navy’s Printing and Publications Service is implementing a print-ondemand system for 1.2 million pages of

military specifications and standards, including text and graphics images. The

Navy is using a 12-inch WORM optical

disk unit to record the disks, which are

then placed on two 32-disk juke boxes.

More frequently requested documents are

concentrated on a few disks, and output

is printed with Xerox 9700 laser printers.

The system is intended to:

—reduce warehouse space and printing

costs,

—improve response time,

—eliminate dissemination of out-of-date

documents, and

—serve as a prototype for many other

applications-for example, technical manuals, training materials, and handbooks.

The Navy intends to develop interactive

applications for document updating, alternative storage media (such as CD-ROM

and 5.25-inch WORM optical disks), and

document search capability.

Other Federal agencies actively pursuing

optical disk technology include the: Internal Revenue Service, Patent and Trade

mark Office, National Archives and Records Administration, National Aeronautics

and Space Administration, Central Intelligence Agency, and numerous components of the Department of Defense including the National Security Agency.

Another popular optical disk technology is

the analog videodisk. This is heavily used for

educational and training purposes, and can

store up to 54,000 images per disk. Videodisks

are roughly similar to CD-ROMs in cost—about

$2,000 to master, $18 per disk for the first 100
63

——— —.

copies, and under $10 per disk for runs of several thousand. Videodisk readers cost in the

range of a few hundred to a few thousand

dollars.

Beyond the CD-ROM, WORM, and videodisk, there are several other optical disk technologies under active development and application. The most noteworthy are: the CD-I

(Compact Disk-Interactive) that combines

text/data, video, audio, and software storage,

editing, and retrieval on one disk; and the erasable 12-inch or 5.25-inch optical disk. CD-I is

of particular interest because it will make possible such compact disk applications as: talking CD books, “smart” CD books (using expert systems), CD book (or library) of the

month, and interactive audio, video, and database software. CD- I will be a disk with powerful capabilities including:

graphics (e.g., digital video still frames,

limited motion video, encoded colors, full

screen animation);

audio (e.g., digital audio, hi-fi, mid-fi,

speech quality); and

text (e.g., bit-map text storage for display

EXPERT

Expert systems, sometimes known as knowledge-based or rulebased systems, are typically

computer soft ware packages that permit users

to have the benefit of expert knowledge in

specified subject areas. The ‘expert inexpert

system means that both the knowledge and

rules (decision paths and criteria) built into the

software come from relevant subject matter

experts. Expert systems have advanced to the

point where widespread application to many

aspects of information dissemination is

likely-ranging from technical writing to information access and retrieval to the management of electronic publishing.

The expert systems applicable to information dissemination are no different in principle from the systems that have been successfully applied to various scientific, industrial,

only, character-encoded text for editing/processing).

Optical disk technologies and applications

continue to advance at a rapid pace. Double

sided 12-inch WORM disks are now available

with up to 4 gigabytes storage capacity per

disk. The initial commercial 5.25-inch erasable disks already have been introduced, and

CD-I disks now are in the prototype stage, with

commercial introduction expected in 1989 or

1990. Some vendors have expanded the capacity of CD-ROM disks up to 750 megabytes,

and others offer CD-ROM juke boxes that can

access up to 240 disks. Personal computer compact disk readers are entering the market, as

are specialized PC-CD/ROM applications (e.g.,

using hypertext or hypergraphics software).

A fledgling CD-ROM service bureau industry

is developing, not far behind and perhaps eventually to be integrated with the electronic publishing service bureau industry.

A major critical path item for optical disk

technology is the development of standards.

The current status and outlook are briefly discussed in a later section, along with consideration of other standards issues.

SYSTEMS

and educational areas. For example, expert systems have been used to:

●

●

●

help make agricultural management decisions regarding pest control as a function of the type of crop, landscape, weather

conditions, season, other vegetation, infestation history, and the like;

help students explore and master a subject or skill and even monitor the learning progress of the students (known as

“electronic or intelligent tutors”); and

help technicians interpret technical data

from computer-assisted manufacturing

systems.

Expert systems can be tied into both online

bibliographic and full text information retrieval

and to electronic publishing. For example, pro-
64

totype expert systems with sophisticated

search strategies are being used to retrieve and

deliver full text information via electronic publishing systems. These kinds of information

retrieval expert systems could eventually work

hand-in-hand with expert systems designed to

efficiently manage electronic publishing. One

can easily envision the day when expert systems will help optimize the electronic publishing and dissemination (paper and electronic)

of information products (or packages of products), given the specific profile of the product

(number of pages, composition, type style, use

of graphics, etc.), anticipated user needs (e.g.,

size of demand by format), and the mix of dissemination channels (initial press run of paper copies, provisions for demand printing, online database access, optical disk distribution,

etc.).

Numerous expert system applications for information search and retrieval are under development. For example:

● The National Records and Archives

Administration (NARA) developed a prototype expert system to assist with routine inquiries from researchers. The objectives of the project were to evaluate the

capability of an expert system to capture

the expertise of experienced archivists and

to relieve them of the significant expenditure of time needed to answer routine inquiries. Test results indicated that if the

prototype system were expanded to full

scale, the system could be expected to

agree with its human counterpart more

than 90 percent of the time. NARA plans

to extend testing of expert systems to

other areas of records management.

The Defense Technical Information Center has established an Artificial Intelligence/Decision Support Laboratory that

is working to apply the full range of expert systems and even more powerful artificial intelligence technologies to information access and retrieval. The ultimate

objective is to facilitate the capture and

transfer of knowledge from the experts to

the users of DTIC (and other DoD) information systems, utilizing innovative information display techniques and full

integration with the DoD Gateway Information System that is interfaced with

hundreds of online databases.

The National Agricultural Library (NAL)

has developed prototype expert systems

that query users on their information

needs and route them to the appropriate

bibliographic sources. The prototype was

provided to over 700 librarians in a floppy

disk format that runs on a microcomputer.

NAL hopes to create a critical mass of expert system users, and believes that expert systems could help free librarians

from the more routine ready reference and

directional questions. NAL is also exploring linking expert systems to other government and commercial online databases

and CD-ROM players. Expert systems

could be used to query the user on his or

her information needs, help sharpen the

request, and then route the request to an

online bibliography, a disk-based bibliography, or a full text document on videodisk or CD-ROM with electronic printing

on demand. The possibilities are almost

endless.

TECHNICAL STANDARDS

The pace of development and application of

several of the technologies discussed earlier is

dependent on the development of and agreement on national and international standards.

Standards-setting efforts are underway in all

critical areas, although the intensity of activity varies. The major standards organizations

include:

●

●

the International Committee on Consultative Telephone and Telegraph (CCITT),

which is a unit of the International

Telecommunications Union and whose formal members are 160 governments;

the International Standards Organization

(1S0), whose members are the national

standards bodies of 89 countries;
65

●

the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) that represents the United

States in the IS0 and coordinates voluntary standards activities in the United

States;

the National Bureau of Standards (NBS),

which is the lead U.S. government agency

in many standards areas; and

the Federal Communications Commi ssion

with respect to certain telecommunication

standards.

A new organization, the Corporation for Open

Systems (COS), was established in 1986 to promote open systems interconnection standards.

COS members are primarily telecommunication and information equipment and services

companies.

The following discussion highlights standardssetting for optical disks, page description languages, and test markup languages. For discussion of other standards areas (e.g. electronic

data interchange, integrated digital services),

see Communication Systems for an Information Age (OTA, forthcoming, 1989).

With respect to optical disk standards, the

two leading manufacturers of optical disks—

Sony and Phillips-took the lead and developed

a set of proposed standards for CD digital audio, CD-ROM, and CD-I, known as the Red

Book, Yellow Book, and Green Book standards, respectively. The proposed CD-ROM

standards (Yellow Book) included detailed

technical specifications for CD encoding,

mastering, replication, decoding, and reading,

such that any CD-ROM disk can be read by

any CD-ROM disk drive, and have become de

facto industry standards. In addition, standards for the logical formatting of CD-ROMs

were initially proposed by the so-called High

Sierra Group and subsequently adopted by

1S0 as an international standard. Data preparation is the one area not fully specified by

the proposed standards. While data must be

logically organized, formatted, and prepared

prior to conversion into opticaI disk format,

the standard permits use of a wide range of

computer operating systems. Although the

other specifications insure that disks are physically readable by any disk drive, the data may

not be accessible except through proprietary

software. However, this approach is consistent with the usual industry practice for disk

drive standards. Standards for WORM, Eraseable, and CD-I disks are in earlier stages of

development.

Another very important standards area involves the page description and the text

markup languages used to code the format,

style, and composition of documents. If the

text markup language used to prepare a document is not compatible with the language used

by the composition and/or output devices, then

significant additional work is required to strip

the markup commands from the document and

reinsert the commands in a compatible language. Sometimes it is easier just to rekeyboard and recode the entire document, at significant additional cost. Alternatively, a page

description language can be used to make the

conversion automatically, if there is page

description software compatible with the particular text markup language and output devices in use.

One possible page description language is

the PostScript language (by Adobe Systems)

that is becoming a defacto standard at least

for desktop and WYSIWYG publishing systems due to the fact that both Apple and IBM,

among others, use PostScript. This possibility is under consideration by NBS, ANSI, and

1S0. A related effort involves the development

of a Standard Page Description Language

(SPDL). These approaches are intended to

match the applications software (e. g., for editing and composition) to the output devices and

eliminate the need for the so-called device

driver which is a separate set of instructions

needed to make the applications software communicate with the output device.

Text markup standards are particularly important to realize the full benefits of electronic

information dissemination. If government documents (whether reports, pamphlets, manuals,

other text, or text plus tabular and graphics

material) are not prepared in a standardized

electronic format using standardized codes and

descriptors, substantial recoding and rekeyboarding may be necessary at later stages of

the dissemination process. Any significant

recoding and rekey boarding is costly and can
66

offset some or all of the cost advantages of electronic formats.

Text markup standards are intended to establish a consistent set of codes for labeling

key elements of a document–such as chapter

titles, paragraph indentations, tabular presentations, and the like. Such standards establish

a logical structure for the elements of a document, in a hierarchical order—such as chapter, paragraph, line, word, and character. The

elements are assigned codes (which can be a

letter, number, symbol, or combination thereof)

that are keystroked along with the text, tables, and graphics included in the document.

If these electronic codes are widely agreed upon

and used (i.e., standardized), then the documents can be electronically transferred from

one stage in the dissemination process to

another with little or no additional effort.

A wide range of information dissemination

functions would be facilitated by text markup

standards, including:

● authoring

—creating the document

—editing

—revising

● archiving

— short-term

–long-term

● disseminating in multiple formats

—conventional printing

—electronic printing-on-demand

—online electronic

—offline electronic (e.g., magnetic tape,

floppy disk, CD-ROM)

—microform

—specialized outputs (e.g., braille, foreign

languages, voice)

● disseminating through multiple channels

—agency clearinghouses and information

centers

—governmentwide clearinghouses and

sales programs

—press, libraries, and commercial vendors

For example, text markup standards would

help ensure that NTIS and/or GPO are able

to efficiently reproduce and disseminate

agency electronic documents. This would also

facilitate private vendor repackaging or enhancing of agency documents, if the vendors

utilized the same standards.

Three major approaches to text markup

standards are: 1) GPO’s logically structured

full text database standard; 2) the Standard

Generalized Markup Language (SGML) that

has been adopted by the Department of Defense; 3) and the Office Document Architecture standard.

The GPO standard is used almost exclusively by GPO, congressional committees and

offices, and Federal agencies—primarily those

agencies that submit magnetic tapes to GPO

for typesetting and printing. Full text database standard or specification is the application of a logical coding structure to the full text

or content of the document, including tables

as well as text. GPO staff recently completed

training on how to write software programs

that can translate from SGML to GPO’s full

text database standard. GPO indicates that

it is prepared to write such software at customer request. The GPO standard is designed

primarily to meet the needs of publishing

professions. SGML, on the other hand, while

also meeting publishing needs, is recognized

as an international standard, endorsed by DoD

and some vendors, and is being issued by NBS

as a Federal Information Processing Standard

(FIPS). SGML is a set of rules for developing

the element codes for a document, whereas the

GPO standard includes both the rules and the

specific codes themselves. Both SGML and

GPO use a logical structure, so in principle

SGML codes should be convertible to GPO’s

codes, and perhaps vice versa, although some

of these applications are still under development.

Office Document Architecture (ODA), a related protocol, is directed primarily to meeting office, not publishing, needs, and thus the

document complexity is reduced (due to fewer

fonts, formats, etc.). ODA is a method of encoding software that essentially converts documents to a common code compatible with a

wide range of office automation systems. ODA

is a protocol for converting the codes used to
67

format individual documents into a common

format for the interchange of the documents

among different systems. ODA was initially

defined by the European Computer Manufacturers Association (ECMA) to be consistent

with the Open Systems Interconnection standard developed by the 1S0 and has been issued

as an international standard. Officials at NBS

believe that there may be a need for both ODA

and SGML standards within the Federal Government.

Finally, there is intensive work by all major

standards organizations to refine and implement the open systems interconnection (0S1)

concept. An 0S1 reference model has been developed under 1S0 auspices. The model services as a master standard for an integrated

telecommunications-information systems environment. It also incorporates already established standards such as those for packetswitched data networks and electronic mail.

Many vendors and users have recognized the

need for rapid 0S1 implementation. In the

United States, NBS is coordinating an 0S1

prototype system known as OSINET that is

intended to be a test of the 0S1 reference

model. The results are being made available

to the standards-setting organizations.

The Federal Government commitment to 0S1

is already significant, with a growing consensus that 0S1 is necessary to move to interoperability of the now confusing and largely

incompatible range of equipment and software

in the government inventory. Indeed a Federal interagency committee has recommended

that 0S1 standards be mandatory for new Federal computer and telecommunication procurements and be a first option for retrofits of

existing systems. The suggested 0S1 procurement standard would be consistent with the

1S0 reference model. This 0S1 procurement

standard is being issued by NBS as a Federal

Information Processing Standard (FIPS).
Chapter 4

Alternative Futures for the

Government Printing Office

Clockwise from top left: a hot type scene at GPO, circa 1940s; GPO operator using electronic photocomposition equipment;

GPO operators using keyboard input terminals; and the Congressional/ Record coming off the press (photo credit:

U.S. Government Printing Office).
CONTENTS

Page

Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71

Traditional GPO-Centralized . . . . . . . . . . . . 73

Demand for Traditional GPO Services . . . 74

Impacts of Medium-Term Reductions in

Traditional Demand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76

Traditional GPO–Legislative Branch

Only . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81

Financial Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81

Labor Force Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82

Other Vulnerabilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83

Electronic GPO–Decentralized. . . . . . . . . . . 85

Trends in Technology and Demand . . . . . . 86

Opportunities and Challenges. . . . . . . . . . . 89

Tables

Table Page

4-1,

4-2.

4-3.

4-4.

4“5.

4-6.

4-7.

4-8.

4-9.

4-1o.

4-11.

4-12.

4-13(

4-14.

4-15.

4-16.

GPO Revenues for Printing Services -

and Publications Sales, Fiscal Years

1978-87 ....., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74

GPO Billings and Labor Force

Breakdown, Fiscal Year 1987 . . . . . . . . 75

GPO Workload Distribution, Fiscal

Year 1987 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75

Electronic Potential for Main Plant

Products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76

Cost of GPO Work, 20 Sample Jobs . . 77

GPO Cost Structure, Fiscal

Year 1987 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78

GPO Main Plant Cost Structure,

Fiscal Years 1984 and 1985 . . . . . . . . . 78

Major Changes in GPO Labor Force,

Fiscal Years 1975-87 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79

Selected Major Equipment,

Acquisitions, GPO Press and Bindery,

Since 1977, as of September 1987 . . . . 80

Hypothetical Calculation of Financial

Impact of Legislative Branch GPO . . . 82

Hypothetical Main Plant Total Labor

Force Reductions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83

Hypothetical Main Plant Divisional

Labor Force Reduction ... , ., . . . . . . . 83

GPO Main Plant Composers, Years of

Service and Retirement Eligibility,

Fiscal Year 1987 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84

Changes in GPO Main Plant Volume

for Eight Principal Products,

1975-84 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84

Congressional Printing and Binding

Billings Selected Items, Fiscal Years

1975, 1983, and 1984 ........, . . . . . . 85

Congressional Printing and Binding

Billings, Selected Items, Fiscal Years

1975 and 1987 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85

Table Page

4-17, Origination Formats for Material

Submitted to GPO, as Percent of .

Total. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86

4-18. Origination Formats, Including

Camera-Ready, as Percent of Total

and by Branch of Government. . . . . . . 86

4-19. Civilian Department Agency Use of

4-20,

4-21,

4-22,

4-23,

4-24.

4-25.

4-26.

4-27,

4-28.

4-29.

4-30.

4-310

4-32.

4-33.

4-34,

4-35.

Selected Electronic Technologies . . . . . 87

Estimated Use of Electronic

Publishing Software, Calendar

Year 1987 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87

Estimated Use of Other Electronic

Publishing Technologies, Calendar

Year 1987 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87

Depository Library Demand for

Federal Information, by Type and

Format , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88

Scientific and Technical Association

Demand for Federal Information, by

Type and Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89

Agency Activities and Plans for

Electronic Information Dissemination,

by Type and Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90

GPO Pages Produced from Databases

and Direct Drive Magnetic Tapes,

Fiscal Years 1983-87 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91

GPO Dial-Up Electronic Transmission

Customers, January 1988 . . . . . . . . . . . 92

Departmental Applications of GPO

Structured Full Text Database

Standard, as of November 1987 . . . . . . 93

Ten Largest GPO Printing Customers,

Fiscal Year 1986 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94

Distribution of GPO Defense

Customers by Procurement and

Printing Offices, Fiscal Year 1986 . . . . 94

Federal Agency Electronic Publishing

Activities and Plans, as of 1986 in

Percent of Agencies Responding . . . . . 96

Depository Library Demand for

Federal Information Electronic

Formats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98

Scientific, Technical, and General

Association Demand for Federal

Information Electronic Formats. . . . . . 99

Library and Association Access to

Information Dissemination Technology 99

GPO Union Bargaining Units, as of

April 1987 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .......101

Selected GPO Electronic Composition

Equipment, Fiscal Year 1987 ., .. ....103
Alternative

Government

Chapter 4

Futures for the

Printing Office

SUMMARY

This chapter along with chapter 5 examines

in detail selected alternatives for the future of

the U.S. Government Printing Office (GPO)

and National Technical Information Service

(NTIS). Chapter 4 focuses on GPO, and chapter 5 on NTIS and NTIS/Superintendent of

Documents (SupDocs) cooperation. The intent

is to gain a full understanding of the strategic

outlook for both GPO and NTIS as an input

to congressional decisions on their future direction. This strategic outlook should be relevant

to congressional consideration of any alternatives for GPO and NTIS, not just the ones explicitly discussed here, and should be read in

the context of the trends discussed in chapters ‘2 and 3 of this report. The results of this

strategic analysis are highlighted below. Policy implications are discussed in chapters 11

and 12.

First, General Accounting Office (GAO) surveys of Federal agencies (chapter 2) and Federal information users (this chapter), coupled

with a review of agency automation plans and

activities, suggest the following overall projections:

c 1 to 3 years-steady state in demand for

paper formats; rapid growth in electronic

formats, but still a very small percentage

of total demand;

 3 to 5 years-demand for paper formats

may start to decline; demand for electronic

formats likely to reach critical thresholds

for several types of Federal information;

● 5 to 10 years-demand for paper formats

likely to decline markedly in some categories, but would still be significant for

traditional government books, reports,

and publications; electronic formats likely

to dominate for many types of information.

On one hand, near-term (l-3 years) future demand for traditional GPO services is likely to

be stable, absent a severe governmentwide fiscal crisis and assuming executive agencies continue to be required to obtain printing from

or through GPO. GPO’s greatest assets are

its traditional ink-on-paper printing facilities

and experienced labor force, coupled with a

substantially automated prepress capability,

including electronic input, photocomposition,

and typesetting. GPO has invested heavily

over the past decade in upgraded prepress,

press, and bindery facilities. Despite the possibly misleading external appearance, the GPO

main plant compares favorably with even the

largest and best equipped commercial printing plants.

On the other hand, GPO is particularly vulnerable in the medium-term (3-5 years) to

changes in demand for paper formats that

might reduce executive agency need for GPO

procured printing (which accounts for about

three-quarters of GPO’s total printing work)

and for GPO main plant inplant printing

(where the bulk of GPO overhead and labor

costs are located). The future of GPO printing

depends in large measure on the plans and

activities of Department of Defense (DoD)

agencies, that collectively account for roughly

one-third of all GPO billings. The defense agencies are determined to reduce drastically their

dependence on paper formats within the next

few years. If traditional ink-on-paper defense

work was phased out, almost all of the GPO

regional and satellite procurement offices

would lose at least half and some over 90 percent of their work, and two of the GPO regional

printing plants would lose perhaps one-third

to one-half of their work. Realistically, the defense conversion from paper to electronic for71
72

mats could take longer than planned, but warrants careful monitoring due to the highly

leveraged effects on the GPO regional work

load. The GPO main plant is not dependent

on military work, but is vulnerable due to the

combination of potential electronic competition for some major product lines (such as the

Congressional Record and Federal Register)

and a high overhead cost structure necessitated largely by GPO’s current diversified

responsibilities.

In the hypothetical case that GPO were to

be limited to legislative branch printing (plus

some key governmental process work such as

the Federal Register, passports, and postal

cards), the main plant printing operations

would switch from a net surplus of several million dollars to a net loss of several tens of millions of dollars, assuming no changes in demand and overhead, cost, and labor force

structure (other than those associated with

transferring the GPO printing procurement

program to an executive agency such as the

General Services Administration (GSA)). Restoring GPO to breakeven operations under

this scenario could necessitate up to a 40 percent reduction in the main plant labor force

and/or a significant increase in rates.

GPO is faced with several challenges and opportunities concerning electronic publishing

and dissemination of electronic formats. Federal executive agencies are rapidly increasing

their automation activities, and have already

invested, collectively, an estimated $400 million in electronic publishing systems. GAO surveys found dramatic increases in the percentages of both agencies and information users

that anticipate use of electronic formats (especially online data bases, electronic mail or bulb

tin boards, floppy disks, and compact optical

disks) over the next 3 years.

For the executive branch, several roles for

GPO are emerging beyond the continued provision of traditional printing services. GPO

could:

● continue to improve cost-effectiveness at

the input and prepress end of the print-

●

●

●

●

ing process by encouraging electronic submissions, already at high levels, and dialup composition services where appropriate;

encourage adoption of governmentwide

structured database standards for electronic (as well as conventional) printing;

facilitate mechanisms for training and

education about electronic publishing;

establish an electronic publishing laboratory and innovation center, open to agency

personnel; and/or

increase SupDocs dissemination of electronic formats.

Up to now, GPO has participated in only a

handful of agency automation programs. From

a strategic perspective, GPO would benefit from

staying abreast of agency applications and,

thereby, be in a much better position to identify

opportunities to meet agency needs. In a decentralized and competitive electronic information

environment that increasingly characterizes the

Federal Government, GPO will have to be innovative in matching its expertise to agency needs

that are likely to vary widely and change at an

increasingly rapid pace.

For the legislative branch, GPO already has

a central role in many traditional publishing

activities and several electronic publishing pilot projects. GPO could develop plans for an

expanded role for congressional committees

and offices, including electronic search, retrieval, and printing-on-demand of congressional documents. Any detailed planning

would need to take into account the related

roles of the Library of Congress and Congressional Research Service, House Information

Systems Office, and Senate Computer Center.

With respect to GPO SupDocs sales of electronic formats, SupDocs would be operating

in a more competitive environment than has

traditionally been the case with respect to paper formats. For many types of Federal information, individual agencies and/or private

vendors might decide to market electronic formats. SupDocs would need to decide which

electronic items would be cost-effective and

competitive if included in the sales program.
Three policy issues would need resolution.

●

●

●

First is that significant SupDocs sales of

magnetic tapes and floppy disks (and, potentially, CD-ROMs and electronic printing-on-demand) could overlap and duplicate the NTIS sales program, absent a

consolidation of or close cooperation between NTIS and SupDocs.

Second is that SupDocs sales of online

databases could overlap and duplicate

offerings by individual agencies, agency

online gateways (such as the National Library of Medicine), and/or private (or nonprofit) online gateways or database providers that include Federal agency databases, absent agency agreements. While

multiple government sales outlets for the

same tapes and disks may be cost-effective, given the small breakeven volumes,

multiple government outlets for sales of

online services may be hard to justify,

considering the more substantial development, staff, and capital investment requirements.

Third, sales of electronic formats could involve heavier demands for user support

and generate the need for far more sophisticated and extensive customer service—

from GPO, agencies, and/or vendors—

than is expected for paper (or microfiche)

formats.

GPO faces two major challenges with respect

to staffing: retaining the necessary skilled labor

force to maintain traditional printing services

at a level commensurate with demand, and obtaining personnel with the new skills needed to

implement GPO’s future role in electronic publishing and electronic information dissemination,

73

.

however that role may be defined. With respect

to capital investment, it would seem prudent

for GPO to carefully reevaluate its capital investment plans in light of possible adjustments

to traditional printing services and possible

new electronic initiatives. Staffing and capital investment decisions are best made within

an overall strategic framework for the future

of GPO.

The discussion in this chapter focuses on

technical, financial, organizational, labor, and

demand questions and not on the broad policy issues addressed in chapters 11 and 12. The

alternatives presented here assume that Congress would take whatever policy actions were

necessary to implement the particular alternative. In other words, this chapter is intended

to probe more deeply into several of the possible alternatives for GPO. Also, although the

alternatives are framed in terms of GPO, the

discussion applies equally regardless of the

name, for example, Government Information

Office or Government Publications Office.

The alternatives explored in this chapter are:

. Traditional GPO—centralized

 Traditional GPO—legislative branch only

● Electronic GPO—decentralized

Each of these alternatives is defined and discussed below. The order of discussion does not

imply an order of preference or priority, but

was chosen to facilitate the presentation. Key

facts and analyses are incorporated at the first

appropriate place and then referenced in subsequent discussion rather than repeated. Discussion relevant to SupDocs is also found in

chapter 5, which focuses on an electronic NTIS

and NTIS/SupDocs cooperation.

TRADITIONAL GPO–CENTRALIZED

Under this alternative, GPO would continue pository Library Program (DLP). GPO would

to provide centralized conventional printing do very little electronic dissernination, as is the

services (that is, Federal Government ink-on- situation today. The mission agencies would

paper printing would be obtained from or handle electronic dissemination themselves, inthrough GPO), disseminate paper formats on eluding direct distribution to the depository

a sales basis through SupDocs, and dissemi- libraries to the extent needed. Note that printnate paper and microfiche formats to the De- ing services are defined to include composition,
74

printing, binding, blank paper sales, and related activities.

Demand for Traditional GPO Services

A logical starting point for the analysis is

to examine demand for traditional GPO services. The two major components of demand are

printing services, and publication sales. In fiscal year 1987, these accounted for 88.7 percent

and 8.4 percent of total revenue, respectively.

The 10-year trend data for these two items are

shown in Table 4-1. Clearly, other than the temporary decline in printing services during fiscal year 1981 and fiscal year 1982 (almost half

of which was due to reductions in congressional

work), the overall trends show a gradual increase in printing services and a rather steady

increase in sales of publications. Even accounting for inflation, there is no historical evidence

of weakness in the demand for traditional GPO

services.

Looking to the future, most independent pro

jections suggest that overall general demand

for paper formats will continue for at least 5

years at a slow growth or, at worst, steady

state level—even in the face of rapid growth

in electronic formats. This projection should

apply to the Federal Government as well, short

of a severe fiscal crisis. There is no evidence

that agency budgetary restraints in the past

few years have translated into a significant reduction in actual printing services obtained

from GPO.

Table 4“1 .—GPO Revenues for Printing Services and

Publications Sales, Fiscal Years 1978-87

(in millions of dollars)

Sales of

Fiscal year Printina services Duplications

1978 . . . . . . . . . . . $499 $44.4

1979 . . . . . . . . . . . 606 44.4

1980 . . . . . . . . . . . 672 47.6

1981 . . . . . . . . . . . 644 51.3

1982 . . . . . . . . . . . 608 55.0

1983 . . . . . . . . . . . 637 57.1

1984 . . . . . . . . . . . 739 59.4

1985 . . . . . . . . . . . 771 59.3

1986 ... , . . . . . . . 737 62.9

1987 . . . . . . . . . . . 773 73.5

SOURCE: U S Government Printing Office, 1988

However, in the longer term, significant reductions in paper formats could occur. OTA’S

independent printing consultant reviewed

GPO’s current product line and, using several

different methodologies, concluded that about

60 percent of GPO’s current products could

potentially be suited for electronic formats, although realistically perhaps only one-half of

this amount (or 30 percent) would be suited

for electronic dissemination and even this

would not automatically mean that paper dissemination would be eliminated.1 Any actual

switch from paper to electronic formats would

most likely take place gradually, since electronic dissemination requires that the recipient (user) as well as the sender have the necessary equipment and knowhow. On the other

hand, results of the GAO survey of Federal

information users, highlighted later in this

chapter, indicate that many users desire to increase dramatically their use of electronic formats within the next 3 years. These findings,

coupled with the ambitious automation plans

and activities of many Federal agencies, suggest the following projections:

●

●

●

1 to 3 years-steady state in demand for

paper formats; rapid growth in electronic

formats, but still a very small percentage

of total demand;

3 to 5 years-demand for paper formats

may start to decline; demand for electronic

formats are likely to reach critical thresholds for several types of Federal information;

5 to 10 years-demand for Paper formats

are likeiy to decline markedly {n some categories but would still be significant for

traditional government books, reports,

and publications; electronic formats are

likely to dominate for many types of information.

However, even though there is not likely to

be a precipitous near-term decline in overall

demand for paper formats, GPO is particularly

vulnerable to changes in demand for products

‘Frank Romano,, “Decision Analysis Framework for GPO

Strategic Alternahves,” contractor report prepared for OTA,

January 1988.
75

-.

that are printed at the main GPO plant in

Washington, DC. This is because the bulk of

GPO overhead and labor are located at the

main plant, and also because about threequarters of GPO’s total printing work is contracted out (known as procured printing).

These figures are highlighted in Table 4-2 for

fiscal year 1987.

In addition to the 3,500 personnel allocated

in Table 4-2 to procured, main plant, and regional printing, there are 692 administrative

and support personnel located primarily at the

main plant and 930 personnel assigned to the

SupDocs office. The SupDocs personnel are

supported through sales revenues, appropriations (for DLP and by law dissemination), and

agency reimbursements (for reimbursable dissemination), and are not counted as part of

GPO overhead. However, the administrative

and support personnel, plus main plant maintenance, utilities, and the like, are included in

general overhead, which is allocated across all

major GPO activity centers.

Any reduction in the GPO work load would

result, at least in the short run, in spreading

the general overhead over a smaller base and,

thereby, increasing unit costs. Moreover, reductions in the main plant work load would

have a magnified impact since the high costs

of main plant operations would be allocated

over a smaller base of main plant work thus

driving up the unit costs even further, all other

things being equal.

Main plant operations are particularly vulnerable to changes in the legislative branch

work load, which is concentrated at that plant.

Table 4-2.—GPO Billings and Labor Force Breakdown,

Fiscal Year 1987

Main Regional

Procured plant plant

printing printing printing

Billings ($ millions) . . . . . . . $576 $180 $14

(Percent of total). . . . . . . . . . 74.8°\0 23.40/o 1.80/0

Labor force assigned

(persons) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 637 2,619a

244

(Percent of total). . 18.2°/0 74.80/o 7,0 ”/0

aExcludes 692 admtnlstratwe and support personnel and 930 SupDocs personnel

SOURCE U S Government Prlntlng Off Ice 1988

As shown in Table 4-3, about 80 percent of all

legislative branch work is done inplant, while

about 85 percent of all executive branch work

is contracted out. Of the 20 percent (or $23 million worth) of legislative branch printing that

is procured, only about $1 million is for Congress itself, with the remainder for legislative

branch agencies and extra copies of agency documents for SupDocs and DLP. Also, about 45

percent of inplant work is legislative, while

about 95 percent of contracted work is for the

executive branch. Judicial branch work is split

about 50-50 between inplant and procured

printing, but represents only a fractional percentage of total GPO work compared to about

15 percent for the legislative branch and 85

percent for the executive branch. Also, over

90 percent of inplant work is done at the main

plant, with the remainder at GPO regional

plants. Complete fiscal year 1987 workload

data are presented in Table 4-3. Again, note

that the term “printing’ is defined to include

composition, layout, printing, binding, blank

paper sales, and other associated services in

addition to printing.

An analysis of fiscal year 1987 billing data

for the GPO main plant indicates that a significant portion could be suitable for electronic

dissemination or could be vulnerable to competition from electronic formats. The major

items are listed in Table 4-4 with fiscal year

1987 billing amounts indicated. Other significant main plant billing items which are judged

as not suitable for electronic formats include

such things as envelopes, books, letter head

stationery, note pads, passports, and postal

cards. Some main plant billings are for personnel services only (e.g., Congressional Record

Table 4-3.—GPO Workload Distribution,

Fiscal Year 1987 (in millions of dollars)

Main Regional

Procured plant plant

mintina Drintino ~rintino Totals

Legislative branch . . 23 90 – 113

Judicial branch . . . . . 1 l — 2

Executive branch . . . 552 90 14 656

Totals . . . . . . . . . . . $576 $181 $14 $771

SOURCE. U.S Government Printing Off Ice, 1988
76

Table 4=4.—Electronic Potenfial for Main Plant Products

Fiscal year 1987

billings

Major product (in $ millions) Electronic potential

U.S. Code . . . . . . . . . . . .

Forms . . . . .

Pamphlets . . . . . . .

Bills, resolutions,

amendments . . . . . . .

Calendars . . . . . . . . . . . .

Codeof Federal

regulations . .

Committee prints . . . .

Committee reports . . .

Congressional RecordDaily . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Federal Register ..., .

Hearings . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Total, . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1.4

5.8

11.5

11.0

2,0

8,6

3.5

4,2

13,0

17.7

17.6

96.3

Online and CD-ROM distribution could reduce demand for paper format.

Electronic filing and electronic printing-on-demand could reduce demand for

paper formats in medium to long-term.

Online, CD-ROM, diskette, and electronic mail/bulletin board distribution

along with electronic printing-on-demand could reduce demand for paper

formats in medium-term.

Online authoring, editing, publishing, and status systems along with online

and CD-ROM distribution could significantly reduce demand for paper

formats.

Online systems could reduce demand for paper formats.

Online and CD-ROM distribution could reduce demand for paper formats.

Online, CD-ROM, and diskette distribution along with electronic printing-ondemand could reduce demand for paper formats.

Online and CD-ROM distribution could sharply reduce demand for paper

formats.

Online and CD-ROM distribution could sharply reduce demand for paper

formats.

CD-ROM distribution could reduce demand for paper formats,

SOURCE Bllltngs from GPO: Electronic Potential from OTA, 1988

indexers at $0.75M, details to congressional

committees at $6 M).

Overall, just over half of the main plant work

could be affected by electronic formats. The

vulnerable congressional work is particularly

significant and amounts to about 45 percent

of main plant billings if the Federal Register

and Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) are included. In principle, reductions in inplant work

could be offset by shifting some procured work

to in-plant printing. However, the congressional work is quite unique and specialized,

with little work of a similar nature currently

being procured, unlike forms and pamphlets

where work could be rather easily shifted from

procured to in-plant printing. Also, once initial press runs reached small enough levels, certainly in the few hundreds of copies and possibly in the few thousands, fully electronic

composition and printing would likely be costeffective. In other words, primary dissemination could shift from paper (or paper and microfiche) to electronic with a small initial press

run (e.g., a few thousand copies) of paper copies and possibly some microfiche copies (on

a transitional basis). Any subsequent dissemination of paper copies could be on a printingon-demand basis for complete copies or, probably more common, printing of selected pages.

Impacts of Medium-Term Reductions

in Traditional Demand

Realistically, any significant transition from

paper to electronic formats would take place

over several years, so GPO would have time

to adjust. Basically, GPO could make up for

any shortfall by transferring a portion of procured printing (primarily executive branch

work) to the main plant or reducing main plant

operating costs or some combination of the

two. The major drawback of transferring more

work in-house is that the main plant work costs

significantly more than procured work. Thus,

either the executive agency customers would

pay considerably more than they do now, or
77

—————. .

GPO would have to charge considerably less

than full cost to offer a competitive price.

GPO Cost and Labor Force Structure

The cost of GPO work for 20 sample printing jobs is shown in Table 4-5 in cost per 100

pages and total cost, averaged over all 20 jobs.

For these 20 sample jobs, the average main

plant regular rate cost was more than double

the procured cost. While these 20 jobs do not

constitute a statistically valid sample of all

GPO work, the sample jobs were selected by

GPO as being reasonably representative. (See

ch. 11 for further details. )

In recent years, GPO has been offering a special rate for some executive branch printing

jobs done at the main plant. The rate is based

on the tenth lowest bid for comparable procured work plus ten percent. For the 20 sample jobs, the average main plant cost using the

special rate was about 45 percent higher than

the procured cost. The special rate is intended

to recover variable costs and make some contribution to general overhead. This would appear to be the case, since the special rate for

the 20 sample jobs averaged about 68 percent

of the regular rate that presumably covers full

costs. According to GPO, the average direct

labor rate is about 30 percent of full costs. So

the special rate does appear to more than cover

direct labor. If one assumes direct labor to be

a fixed cost, at least in the short-term, the special rate appears to easily cover the cost of expendable (e.g., paper, ink) PIUS make a Contribution to overhead. Of course, on the other

hand, the greater the use of the special rate,

the greater the overhead rate will be for the

balance of the work, all other things being

equal.

Table 4-5.—Cost of GPO Work, 20 Sample Jobs

Main plant Main plant Main plant

procureda

regular rateb

special ratec

Total cost, . $1oo,o1 7 $213,281 $144,881

.-

aProcured esttmates based on general usage contracts us I ng the average pr!ce

of the f!rst 5 lowest b!dders

bMaln plant regular rate estimates based on the GpO Price scale as of Dec 1

1987

cMaln plant special rate estimates based on the 10th lowest b!d plus 10°.

SOURCE U S Government Prlntlng Off Ice 1988

There are several reasons for the higher main

plant costs. First and foremost, GPO is a

unique printing facility in terms of product

mix, schedule requirements, and customer

base. GPO produces a much more diversified

set of printing products than any single private sector printing facility. As a consequence,

GPO operates and maintains a much wider

range of equipment than do private printing

companies. Most private firms specialize in a

small number of products, to keep overhead

down and maximize economies of scale. Second, to provide quick turnaround of congressional work and overnight printing of the daily

Congressional Record and Federal Register,

GPO operates on a three shift basis. This results in significantly higher costs for staffing,

supervision, maintenance, and general overhead. The overnight operations are so important that, in 1987, GPO designated an Assistant Public Printer to provide overall on-site

management of the night operations. Third,

as a government agency, GPO provides such

services as employee and congressional relations, public affairs, inspector general, equal

employment, labor relations, safety and health,

and the like, many of which contribute to

higher general overhead than in private companies.

Overall, GPO is a labor intensive organization. After deducting the cost of procured

printing and sales of publications and the surplus (net profit), about two-thirds of the remaining costs are for labor, about one-fifth for

supplies and materials, and one-tenth for utilities and the like. The GPO cost structure,

based on fiscal year 1987 data, is shown in Table 4-6. Data for main plant costs shown in Table 4-7 confirm the general cost structure noted

above.

With respect to the total GPO labor force,

a significant downsizing has already taken

place. Over the past 12 years, total GPO employment has declined by about 3,500 persons

or 40 percent (from 8,632 in fiscal year 1975

to 5,122 in fiscal year 1987). As shown in Table 4-8, the reductions have been spread across

several GPO activities, but with the highest

absolute and percentage reductions occurring
78

Table 4-6.—GPO Cost Structure, Fiscal Year 1987

Percent of

fiscal year 1987

Cost element revenue dollar

Procured printing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61.5

Sales of publications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3

Surplus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.6

Subtotal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66.4

Labor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22.4

Supplies and materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.1

Rents, communications, and utilities . . . . . 3,3

Capital expenditures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.8

Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.0

Subtotal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33.6

Percent of fiscal year 1987

revenue dollar less cost

of procured printing and

sales plus surplus

Labor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66.6

Supplies and materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18.2

Rents, communications, and utilities. . . . . 9.8

Capital expenditures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.4

Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.0

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100,0

SOURCE” US Government Printing Office and Office of Technology Assessmen~

1988

Table 4.7.—GPO Main Plant Cost Structure,

Fiscal Years 1984and 1985

Percent of total costs

Fiscal year Fiscal year

Cost element 1984 1985

Labor. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65.0 66.8

Supplies and materials . . . . . . . . . 26.2 25.0

Rents, communications, and

utilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,3 4.4

Depreciation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3 2.6

Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2 1.2

100.0 100.0

SOURCEUS Government Printing Office and Office ofTechnology Assessment,

1988

in the composition, printing, binding,procuremerit, persomel management, and documents

sales/distribution areas. Most of these labor

force reductions resulted from advances in

printing technology and improvements in management efficiency. The reduction in personnel management in part reflects the reassignment of apprentices from personnel to the

appropriate operating units.

Medium-Term Outlook

To sum up,near-termdemandfortraditional

GPO services appears to be stable, absent a

severe fiscal crisis on the part of the customer

agencies or some other circumstance that

would precipitate a rapid decrease in conventional printing activity, and assuming the executive agencies continue to be required to obtain printing from or through GPO.

On the other hand, the GPO main plant appears to be vulnerable in the medium-term (3-

5 years) and beyond due to the combination

of electronic competition for some major product lines (such as the Congressional Record and

Federal Register), and a high overhead cost

structure necessitated largely by GPO’s current responsibilities. Additional executive

agency work could be shifted from private

printing companies to the GPO main plant, but

this would likely increase the cost to the agencies. GPO could charge a special, lower rate

for most agency work, but this would mean

some portion of overhead would be uncovered

and have to be paid out of direct appropriations or, possibly, reimbursed from net revenues on sales of publications. These latter alternatives would appear to require amendment

of the relevant provisions of Title 44 of the U.S.

Code. On the other hand, it is possible that cost

reductions resulting from the provision of electronic alternatives to the Record and Register (among other publications) could offset any

cost increases that might result by shifting

more executive agency work from procured to

inhouse printing.

GPO could attempt to further reduce operating costs, but this may be difficult given the

already substantial labor force reductions obtained since the mid 1970s, absent a basic restructuring of GPO responsibilities and operations. Some additional labor cost reductions

are likely to occur as agencies assume greater

responsibility for composition and other prepress functions, as a consequence of desktop

and high-end electronic publishing capabilities.

However, in other production areas, such as

press and binding, projected retirements could

create an actual labor shortage, according to

GPO. OTA’S independent labor consultant

concluded that GPO workforce is relatively

old (average age of 45.2 years) and that 13 percent of the work force (687 persons) is eligible
79

—

Table 4-8.–Major Changes in GPO Labor Force, Fiscal Years 1975-87

—

Fiscal year Fiscal year Net chang e

Selected labor force categories’ 1975 1987 NumberPercent

Document sales/distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,833 930 – 903 – 49:3

Composition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,632 616 – 1,016 –62.3

Binding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,166 630 – 536 –46.0

Press (includes prepress) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,006 701 –305 –30.3

Printing procurement (excludes regional) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 718 432 –286 –39.8

Engineering and facilities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 490 359 –131 –26.7

Personnel (includes apprentices in fiscal year 1975, but not in

fiscal year 1987) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 332 104 –228 –68.7

Financial . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 367 250 –117 –31.1

Materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 269 205 –64 –23.8

Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124 79 –45 –36.3

‘L’b~r force ~ategor,e~ ~ele~ted and defined to permit FY75-87 comparison; may not correspond exactly with current labor force cate90rles

bAsof Aug 5, 1987

SOURCE US Government Pnntlng OffIce and OffIce of Technology Assessment 1988

to retire immediately. About 35 percent of the

GPO work force has over 20 years of service.’

There is also the possibility of reducing GPO’s

overhead costs, discussed later.

GPO Plant and Equipment

Other areas of possible cost savings include

the purchase or construction of a new main

plant building, and the upgrading of conventional prepress, press, and binding technology.

A 1982GA0 study identified numerous inefficiencies in GPO’s facilities-including materials handling, storage, and production flow

problems at the main plant. OTA’S independent printing consultant examined al lof

these areas and concluded, first, that there is

no compelling need for a new plant.Thepresent

building was specifically built to handle the

load factors of the printing process, whereas

very few commercial printing facilities were

originally designed for printing. Most new

plants are on one floor, rather than a multifloor facility such as GPO’s, and do offer some

production efficiencies not currently available

to GPO. However, continued renovation and

upgrading of the main plant elevators should

help compensate. Also, a single level building

‘Gregory Giebel, *’Technological Changes at the Government

Printing Office, ’ contractor report prepared for OTA, January

1988.

‘]U. S. General Accounting Office, Report to the Chairman,

Joint Committee on Printing, GPO Needs to Analyze Alternatives to Overcome Limitations in Government Printing Operations, PLRD-82-20, Jan. 4, 1982.

would require much more acreage and would

probably have to be located much further away

from GPO’s customer base in Congress and

the executive agencies. Overall, OTA’S printing consultant concluded that the GPO main

plant is equal to most commercial printing facilities handling a comparable volume of work.

However, if viable options become available

to GPO, a detailed evaluation would be warranted, taking into account all the factors

mentioned above and others, especially any

strategic decisions on GPO’s future role in conventional printing and electronic publishing

and dissemination. One GPO building option

currently under consideration involves a plan

to transfer GPO’s main plant to GSA in exchange for the construction of a new plant on

property in the Washington Navy Yard, and

to relocate SupDocs to a site in Suitland, Maryland. As noted in the 1982 GAO report, costbenefit analyses of all serious alternatives are

warranted, including continued renovation of

the existing main plant building, as well as

construction of a new building. Cost-benefit

studies would appropriately include consideration of the impacts on the cost, quality, and

timeliness of GPO main plant services, productivity of GPO main plant operations, and, to

the extent possible, GPO’s general morale,

sense of direction, and strategic outlook.

With respect to printing technology, OTA’S

printing consultant concluded that GPO technology at the main plant was generally on a par
80

with or exceeded the top fifth of the commercial printing industry. GPO was found to be on

a par with the top 5 percent of private firms

with respect to composition technology, the

top 11 percent for press technology, and substantially ahead for bindery technology (a more

exact estimate here was not possible given the

differences between the GPO product mix and

that of typical commercial firms). GPO has

stayed abreast of the private sector with respect to conventional technology as a result

of gradual, but continuous equipment upgrades. As long as GPO provides a substantial volume of inplant printing services, periodic equipment upgrades are likely to be

cost-effective.

Perhaps the best example of GPO’s performance in adopting new technology is the now

fully completed transition from hot type composition to electronic photocomposition at the

main plant. This transition took place largely

during the 1970s. In fiscal year 1968, only

40,000 pages were phototypeset. This increased to over 700,000 pages in fiscal year

1972, over 1 million pages in fiscal year 1976,

and over 2.75 million in fiscal year 1980. As

of fiscal year 1986, about 3.7 million pages per

year were being phototypeset. Another example is the rapid increase in electronic input to

the GPO printing process over the past several years. As of fiscal year 1987, about three

quarters of material phototypeset at the GPO

main plant was received in electronic form.

With respect to conventional press and bindery equipment, GPO has nearly completed a

major equipment upgrade stretching over the

past decade. Selected major equipment acquisitions are listed in Table 4-9 along with the

acquisition date and cost for each item. Since

1977, GPO has invested almost $15 million in

major press equipment, and over $10 million

in bindery equipment. Actual totals are higher

than shown, since a large number of small

equipment items plus furniture, vehicles, and

extensive renovations are not listed here.

Based on all of the above, OTA has concluded that, despite the possibly misleading

Table 4-9.–Selected Major Equipment, Acquisitions, GPO Press and Bindery, Since 1977, as of September 1987

Acquisition Acquisition Acquisition Acquisition

Item year cost in dol tars Item year cost “in dol Iars

Press Division 1987 19,272

Letter Press-Envelope . . . . . . . .

Letter Press-Auto Feed

Dryer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Offset Press-Harris . . . . . . . . . .

Offset Press (5 units) . . . . . . .

Offset Press 35x50 (2 units). .

Copier-Xerox 9200 II . . . . . . . . .

Offset Press-Miehle 43x60

(7 units) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Offset Press-Harris (2 units). . .

Offset Press-Web (3 units) . . . .

Offset Press-5 Color Postal

Card . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...

Cut-Pack System-Postal

Card . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Total Press Division . . . . . . .

Binding Division

Paper Cutter-71 inch . . . . . . . . .

Strapping Machine. . . . . . . . . . .

Machine Wrap-Stretch Plastic

(2 units) . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Inserter-Stitcher Complete .

Trimmer-3 Knife (2 units) . . . . .

Folding Machine (6 units). . . . .

Labeler Machine. . . . . . . . . . . . .

SOURCE U S Government Printing Off Ice, 1988

1986

1987

1986

1979

1981

1979

1977

1980

1979

1986

1987

48,500

98,303

40,663

2,025,000

6,264,000

62,530

1,918,000

66,000

2,136,000

1,104,674

970,084

14,733,754

1986 75,237

1987 2,623

1979 23,000

1987 326,400

1981 243,000

1985 420,000

1986 4,311

Shredder . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Perforator (2 units). . . . . . . . . . .

Nipping Machine . . . . . . . . . . . .

Paper Cutter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Trim Paper Collection . . . . . . . .

Waste Paper System . . . . . . . . .

Perforator (2 units). . . . . . . . . . .

Passport Machine . . . . . . . . . . .

Nipping Machine . . . . . . . . . . . .

Sewing Machine-Smyth

No. 12. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Cutter Spacer-Lawson . . . . . . . .

Eyelet Attacher Machine . . . . .

Wrapping Package Machine. . .

Casemaking Machine-Smyth

Strapping Machine (4 units) . . .

Strapping Machine-Signode

(3 units) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Folding Endsheet Machine . . .

Casing-In MachineVersamatic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Copier-Xerox 9500 VR . . . . . . . .

Adhesive Binder (2 units) . . . . .

Adhesive Mailer (2 units) . . . . .

Total Binding Division. . . . . . . .

1984

1985

1986

1987

1986

1982

1987

1983

1980

1984

1978

1979

1979

1982

1984

1983

1983

1986

1983

1983

15,600

13,900

47,139

39,495

40,582

17,200

1,213,650

12,300

17,355

70,000

5,045

37,972

25,138

20,000

63,000

4)950

23,100

12,564

6,343,347

977,498

10,113,678
81

external appearance, the GPO main plant is,

overall, essentially up-to-date with respect to

conventional printing technology and already

makes very extensive use of electronic input

and photocomposition. There will, of course,

be opportunities for future technology upgrades as the need arises. Overall, however,

GPO is well positioned technologically to carry

on its traditional printing responsibilities. The

strategic challenge arises with respect to how

GPO can remain competitive and maintain or

improve cost-effectiveness in the face of possible future reductions in the demand for paper formats (and especially demand for major

products produced at the main plant), increases

in demand for electronic formats, and rapid

progress in agency automation (including use

of desktop and high-end electronic publishing).

These possibilities are discussed later in this

chapter.

TRADITIONAL GPO–LEGISLATIVE BRANCH ONLY

Under this alternative, GPO would continue

to provide centralized conventional printing

services, but only for the legislative branch.

The printing procurement program would either be transferred to the executive branch

(e.g., to GSA) or dispersed among individual

agencies. Responsibility for the DLP could be

retained at GPO, as could the sale of paper formats by the SupDocs, or these functions could

also be transferred to the executive branch.

GPO would do little electronic dissemination.

Analysis of this alternative is illustrative of

one extreme on the spectrum of alternatives

available and provides further insights into the

functioning of GPO. The discussion here emphasizes financial and labor impacts (see ch.

11 and 12 for other implications).

To keep this in perspective, it is important

to note that GPO was originally established

in 1860 primarily to serve the printing needs

of Congress and to eliminate the corruption

in printing procurement that had become widespread. Over the following decades, executive

branch printing needs grew much faster to the

point where, for fiscal year 1987, 85 percent

of GPO work is for the executive branch.

Financial Impacts

Using fiscal year 1987 data, the restriction

of GPO to conventional printing for the legislative branch would have the following first

order impacts, all other things being equal:

c the total workload of GPO would decrease

from about $771 million to about$113 million or an 85 percent reduction;

the total workload at the GPO main plant

would decrease from about $180 million

to $113 million ($90 million main plant

work plus $23 million previously procured)

or a 37 percent reduction (this assumes

the $23 million in procured printing for

the legislative branch would be shifted to

the main plant);

the total labor force of GPO would decline

by about 881 persons or about 17 percent

(637 printing procurement staff and 244

regional printing plant staff, all presumably transferred to GSA or elsewhere);

the net income of GPO would decrease by

about $4.6 million due to transfer of the

printing procurement program which has

operated at a net surplus for the past several years (presumably this net income

would accrue to GSA, assuming the procurement program was kept intact and retained its effectiveness);

the net income of GPO would increase by

about $1 million due to transfer of the regional printing plants (which have operated at a net loss for the last several years),

all other things being equal; and

the net income less expenses at the GPO

main plant would change from a surplus

of several million dollars to a potential loss

of several tens of millions.

These figures highlight how the GPO main

plant operation is dependent on executive

branch work to help spread the costs of gear-
82

ing up to meet the quick turnaround and diverse needs of the legislative branch (and some

executive branch work, such as the Federal

Register). The executive branch work helps fill

in the valleys between the peaks of the congressional work load and utilizes labor and

plant capacity that would otherwise be underutilized. Both in-plant and procured executive

branch work help cover GPO overhead expenses and are sources of net income.

The role of executive branch work can be illustrated using the assumptions about the

main plant cost structure presented earlier.

Starting with $180 million in main plant gross

revenues and assuming a 2 percent profit or

surplus, the total GPO main plant expenses

would be $176.4 million. The cost breakout for

the main plant would be as in Table 4-10. Now

if gross revenues drop by 37 percent to $113

million due to the exclusion of executive branch

work, total expenses would decrease by only

13 percent to about $154 million, if materials

and supplies are assumed to be variable costs

but labor, rent, and depreciation are assumed

to be almost entirely (95 percent) fixed costs

in the short run. The result is a swing from

a net surplus of about $4 million to a net loss

on main plant operations of about $4 I million.

If printing procurement were transferred out,

there would be no net surplus from procurement to even partially offset this loss.

Labor Force Impacts

In order to return GPO to break even operations, it would be necessary, using this hypothetical calculation, to cut costs and/or increase

revenues by a total of $37 million. Any significant cost reductions would probably necessitate labor force reductions, since further cuts

in the other, much smaller cost categories

would have marginal effects at most.

Recovering the entire hypothetical deficit

would necessitate roughly a one-third reduction in the main plant labor force, assuming

that this could be accomplished without

jeopardizing the main plant’s capacity to do

the $113 million in legislative branch work. Re

organization of the production processes might

be necessary-for example, scaling back or

eliminating the night shift. Alternatively, some

or all of the hypothetical deficit could be offset through increased appropriations and/or

user fees.

If the hypothetical deficit was to be recovered through labor force reductions, a total reduction in force of about 1,100 employees

would be needed, assuming a total main plant

work force of 3,311, calculated as shown in Table 4-11. The main plant labor force of 3,311

persons is estimated by deducting the SupDocs staff (which operates on a breakeven baTable 4.10.— Hypothetical Calculation of Financial Impact of Legislative Branch GPO

Main plant Main plant

Executive and legislative work Legislative work only

Gross ;evenue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $180.0 million $113.0 million

Less net surplus (assumed 2°\o). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . –3.6

Total expenses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 176.4 million

Assumed cost structure Assumed cost

(as percent of total expense) reduction

Labor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67°/0 $118.2 million –50/0 $112.3 million

Materials and supplies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25°\0 44,1 – 370/0 27.8

Rent, communications, and utilities. . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,40/0 7.8 –50/0 7.4

Depreciation and other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ; . 3.60/o 6,3 – 50/0 6.0

$176.4 million $153.5 million

Net income or (loss) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 3.6 million ($ 40.5 million)

SOURCE Office of Technology Assessment, 1988
83

Table 4-11 .—Hypothetical Main Plant

Total Labor Force Reductions

Fiscal year 1987 total GPO labor force . . . . . . . . . 5,122

Less SUPDOCS staff . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . – 930

4,192

Less regional printing staff –244

3,948

Less printing procurement staff. . . . . . . . . . . . . –637

Current main plant labor force . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,311

Less 1/3 reduction in force . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,100

Reduced main plant labor force . . . . . . . . . . 2,211

SOURCE Off Ice of Technology Assessment 1988

sis, financially separate from the main plant)

and the regional printing and printing procure

ment staffs (which would, in this hypothetical example, be transferred to GSA). The hypothetical one-third labor force reduction is

calculated by dividing the net loss ($37.3 million) into the main plant labor costs ($110.0

million).

GPO has previously estimated that about

78 percent of the employees in the main plant

Photocomposition, Press, and Binding Divisions would be required to perform the legislative branch work (GPO defines this as congressional work plus the Federal Register,

postal cards, passports, CFR, and OMB and

Presidential documents). This means that the

fiscal year 1987 staffing level of 1,947 persons

for these divisions could be reduced by only

428 persons (22 percent) in order to maintain

the necessary capacity. The remaining reduction of 672 persons (to provide a total of 1,100)

would have to come from the Executive Office, Operations, and Production Divisions.

These divisions had a fiscal year 1987 combined staffing level of 1,364 persons, which

would translate into a roughly 50 percent staff

cut (672 out of 1,364) for these areas. The calculations are shown in Table 4-12.

Options available to GPO for handling these

hypothetical reductions would depend on how

fast they had to be made. Overall, GPO has

a relatively old labor force with about 13 percent of its employees eligible for retirement,

and about 35 percent having 21 or more years

of service. Some craft units have even higher

Table 4-12.— Hypothetical Main Plant Divisional

Labor Force Reduction

Persons

Electronic Photocomposition Division . . ~. 616

Press Division . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 701

Binding Division . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . +630

Current FY87 labor force . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,947

x .78

Reduced labor force . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,519

Staff reductions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 428

Executive Office . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 693

Operations Division . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 359

Production Division . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 313

Current FY87 labor force . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,364

x .50

Reduced labor force . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 682

Staff reductions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 682

Total staff reductions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ., . 1,110

Total remaining labor force . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,201

SOURCE Off Ice of Technology Assessment 1988-

percentages. For example, of the 547 composers (International Typographical Union,

Local No. 101), 176 (or 32 percent) are eligible

for retirement and 326 (or 60 percent) have 21

or more years of service, as shown in detail in

Table 4-13.

If three years were available to make the

transition to a legislative branch GPO, the 22

percent reduction in the photocomposition,

press, and binding labor force probably could

be made mostly through natural attrition

(averaging 5-10 percent per year at the main

plant). However, the 50 percent reduction in

the executive office, operations, and production labor force probably could not be made

over this period of time through natural attrition, and some early retirement buyouts might

be necessary. Of course, the hypothetical transition would be easier if more time were

available.

Other Vulnerabilities

As a final note, the “traditional GPO-legislative branch only” alternative would be especially vulnerable to any significant future reductions in the demand for paper formats.

Prior GPO analyses have, indeed, documented
84

Table 4-13.—GPO Main Plant Composers,

Years of Service and Retirement Eligibility,

Fiscal Year 1987

Number of

employees

Years of service

o-5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

6-10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

11-15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

16-20 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161

21-25 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193

26-30 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94

31-35 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

36-40 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

41+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 547

Retirement eligibility

Age 55/30 years service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

Age 60/20 years service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85

Age 62/5 years service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 176

SOURCE US Government Pnntlng Office, 1988

significant reductions over the 1975-1984

period.

Thecombinedtotalsforeightprincipalmain

plant products (daily Congressional Record;

Federal Register; bills, resolutions, and amendments; committee hearings; committee reports; committee prints; calendars; and the

Code of Federal Regulations) showed declines

of 64 percent in total number of copies printed.

However, this reflected primarily a 55 percent

reduction in the number of titles, which is a

function of a lower overall level of congressional activity rather than an indication of

lower demand. The number of pages declined

by only16percent,whichmeans that theaverage number of pages per title must have increased significantly over this period of time

(for example, fewer but longer reports and

bills). Indeed, as shown, the average number

of pages per copy almost doubled, from 36 to

64 pages. Nonetheless, over the 1975-1984

period, the total number of pages printed at

the GPO main plant for these eight products

declined by about 36 percent. The statistical

results are shown in Table 4-14.

This volume reduction would be expected to

increase drastically per unit costs, all other

things being equal. However, all other things

Table 4-14.—Changes in GPO Main Plant Volume

for Eight Principal Productsa, 1975”1984

1975 1984 Percent

number number change

Titles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28,893 13,854 –55

Original pages (inmiliions) . 1.048 0.886 –16

Copies (in millions) . . . . . . . . . 134.6 48.7 –64

Pages per copy (average) . . . . 36 64 +78

Printed pages (in trillions) . . . . 4.85 3.12 –36

aDailY cO~gfeSS/Ona/ Record, Federal Ffeg/ster, bills, reSOILItl OnS, an d

amendments, committee heari rigs, committee reports, committee pr! nts,

calendars, and Code of Federa/ Regulatw?s

SOURCE U S Government Prlntlng Office and Off Ice of Technology Assessment,

1988

were not equal. During this period, the GPO

labor force decreased by about 34 percent, and

more productive, less labor-intensive equipment was deployed. Some of the difference was

also made up in price increases. However, as

the trend data indicate (Table 4-15), billings

for key congressional printing and binding

items remained remarkably stable, increasing

by only 1.4 percent through fiscal year 1983

and by about 17 percent through fiscal year

1984.

Trend data for the entire fiscal year 1975-

1987 period show only minor changes in GPO

billings for hearings, committee prints and

reports, and calendars. As indicated in Table

4-16, billings for bills, resolutions, and amendments were up significantly, although this may

reflect a fiscal year 1987 anomaly since fiscal

year 1986 billings were $8.41 million, up only

marginally from the $7.97 million expended in

fiscal year 1975. The only dramatic changes

were for bills, resolutions, and amendments (up

35 percent), the Congressional Record (up 71

percent) and the Federal Register (up 128 percent), as shown below. These latter two items

are: among the biggest work orders at the main

plant, very labor intensive, the primary reason (along with congressional bills and reports)

for overnight operations at the main plant, and

among the more vulnerable main plant products with respect to competition from electronic formats. As mentioned elsewhere in this

chapter, the Record and Register are both

highly suited to online and CD-ROM electronic

formats.
85

Table 4-15.—Congressional Printing and Binding Billings Selected Items,

Fiscal Years 1975, 1983, and 1984

Fiscal year Fiscal year Fiscal year “

1975 1983 1984

Item (in thousands of dollars)

Hearings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $17,746 $16,684 $22,304

Miscellaneous printing and binding . . . . . . . . . 9,776 8,720 10,042

Bills, resolutions, and amendments . . . . . . . . . 7,965 7,552 6,827

Miscellaneous publications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,680 4,130 4,585

Committee prints. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,372 2,956 3,065

House and Senate calendars. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,720 1,256 2,138

Documents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 466 1,571 958

Committee reports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,644 2,827 3,048

Franked envelopes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 815 759 1,111

Congressional Record (daily) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8,287 11,794 13,352

Totals. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $57,471 $58,249 $67,430

SOURCE U S Government Printing Office and Offtce of Technology Assessment, 1988

Table 4.16.—Congressional Printing and Binding Billings, Selected Items,

Fiscal Years 1975 and 1987

Fiscal year Fiscal year Percent

1975 1987 change

Item (in thousands of dollars)

Hearings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $17,746 $16,835 –5.1 “/0

Bills, resolutions, and amendments . . . . . . . . . 7,965 10,830 + 36.0

Committee prints and reports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7,016 7,247 +3.3

House and Senate calendars. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,720 1,543 – 10.0

Congressional/ Record (daily) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8,287 11,173 + 35.0

Federal Register (daily). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7,776a

17,697 + 128.0

aln~ludes billings for Congressional copies only and thus understates total billin9s

SOURCE U S Government Prlntlng Off Ice and Off Ice of Technology Assessment, 1988

ELECTRONIC GPO–DECENTRALIZED

Under this alternative, the GPO would continue to provide centralized conventional printing services (that is, Federal Government inkon-paper printing would be obtained from or

through GPO), expand the range of electronic

publishing services available to agencies, disseminate selected electronic formats on a sales

basis through SupDocs as well as traditional

paper formats, and disseminate selected electronic as well as paper and microfiche formats

to the DPL. However, government dissemination of electronic formats would not be centralized solely via GPO. Mission agencies could,

at their discretion, disseminate their own electronic formats, or they could opt to utilize SupDocs, or both. SupDocs could, at its discretion,

select those electronic formats judged to be

suitable for inclusion in the sales program. Furthermore, electronic formats selected for inclusion in the DLP would be distributed to the

depository libraries either directly by the agencies or via GPO. Also, this alternative assumes

that GPO would develop and maintain a

governmentwide information index in cooperation with NTIS and would actively participate in governmenttide standards-setting and

innovation activities concerning electronic

printing, publishing, and information dissemination.

This alternative, labelled for convenience

“Electronic GPO-Decentralized,” most closely

aligns with the current development path of

GPO. GPO is conducting a number of relevant

pilot projects, and is experimenting with and

occasionally implementing precursor electronic
86

applications. This alternative is conceptually

viable, and, therefore, warrants careful consideration, due to the convergence of several key

trends in electronic technology and demand for

Federal information in electronic formats.

Trends in Technology and Demand

Technology Trends

One key technology trend is the rapid increase in agency automation, which means that

most agencies already are creating their original information products in electronic form,

and many are also converting this material to

a camera-ready format. OTA’S independent

printing consultant estimated that about 25

percent of the original material is being provided by Federal agencies to GPO in cameraready format. For these pages, no typesetting

or page composition by GPO is required.

Almost all (98 percent) of this camera-ready

material is estimated to originate from executive branch agencies. The other 75 percent of

the original material is being provided to GPO

in a variety of formats, primarily electronic,

as shown in Table 4-17.

The overall picture that emerges is as follows. Almost all executive agency material is

being provided to GPO in camera-ready or electronic formats, with very little material requiring GPO keyboarding. Almost all agency electronic input is via magnetic tape. On the other

hand, roughly one half of all legislative branch

material requires GPO keyboarding, roughly

10 percent is scanned, and the remaining 40

percent of electronic input is split between

magnetic tape and fiber optic cable transmission. The distribution of origination formats

is shown in Table 4-18 for camera-ready, manuscript, scanned, and electronic input as a percentage of total input and total by branch of

government.

The executive branch agencies are able to

capture their own electronic keystrokes and,

increasingly, do their own electronic composiTable 4-17.—Origination Formatsa for Material Submitted to GPO,

as Percent of Total

Executive Legislative

Format branch branch Totals

Manuscript Copyb 

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.6 0/0 23.4 0/0 260/o

Scanned entry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.5 4.5 5

Magnetic tape . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41.6 10.4 52

Floppy disk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.96 0.04 2

Fiber optic cable. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 10.0 10

Other electronic transmission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.25 0.75 5

100’Y”

aexcluding camera-ready cOPY.

brequlring keyboarding.

SOURCE U S Government Printing Office, F R. Romano, and Office of Technology Assessment, 1988

Table 4-18.—Origination Formats, Including Camera. Ready, as Percent of Total

and by Branch of Government

Percent of all Percent of all

Government totals branch totals

Executive Legislative Executive Legislative

Format branch branch Totals branch branch

Camera-ready. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24.5 0.5 25 39.1 1.3

Manuscript . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.95 17.55 19.5 3.1 47.0

Scanned entry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.375 3.375 3.75 0.6 9.0

Electronic input . . . . . . . . . . . . 35.86 15.89 51.75 57.2 42.6

Totals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 100 99.9

SOURCE: U S. Government Printing Office, F R. Romano, and Office of Technology Assessment, 1988
87

tion, largely because of the widespread penetration of computer and word processing technologies and, recently, the rapid increase in the

use of desktop and high-end electronic publishing. As noted in chapter 2, the GAO survey

of 114 civilian departmental agency components indicated that many are using and/or

testing relevant technologies, as summarized

in Table 4-19.

The GAO survey did not ask for estimates

of the absolute number of these technologies

in use. However, these estimates can be developed from other relevant indicators, including

the use of page makeup and page description

software. OTA’S independent printing consultant has estimated that, as of year end 1987,

there were already over 20,000 units of page

makeup software in use in the Federal Government, and over 125,000 units of page description software. The detailed breakout is in

Table 4-20.

OTA’S printing consultant estimates that,

in addition, there are 200-350 high-end electronic printers (Xerox 9700 class) in use in the

Federal Government. Just these three items

alone account for over $200 million in installed

base of electronic publishing technology (21K

units page makeup at $600/unit + 127K units

page description at $750/unit + 275 high-end

electronic printers at 400 K/unit = $12.6M +

$95.3M + $11OM = $217.9 M). This does not

include high-end workstations and low-end laser printers, among other relevant technologies. Rough estimates for the latter are shown

in Table 4-21.

These technologies represent, conservatively, roughly another $160 million in installed

Table 4.20.—Estimated Use of Electronic

Publishing Software, Calendar Year 1987

Total Estimated

units in units in

Software/Vendor United States U.S. Government

Page makeup software

Aldus Pagemaker. . . . . . . . 115,000 6,000

Xerox Ventura . . . . . . . . . . 85,000 12,000

All others ... , ... , . . . . . . 66,000 3,000

Totals. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 226,000 21,000

Page description software

Hewlett. Packard PCL . . . . 210,000 29,000

Postscript . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 420,000 14,000

Proprietary for printer . . . . 790,000 67,000

Typesetter. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125,000 8,700

Other laser printer. . . . . . . 45,000 11,000

Totals. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,590,000 129,700

SOURCE: TypeWorld, F J. Romano, 19S8

Table 4-21 .—Estimated Use of Other Electronic

Publishing Technologies, Estimated,

Calendar Year 1987

Estimated Estimated

units in cost

Technology U.S. Government per unit

High-end electronic

publishing software . . . loos $40K

(e.g., Interleaf)

High-end workstation . . . 1 ,000s $20K

(e.g., Sun)

Low-end laser printers . . 10,000s $ 3K

(e.g., HP Laserjet)

SOURCE Off Ice of Technology Assessment, 1988

equipment (assuming 300 units high-end software at $40 Khmit + 3000 units highend workstations at $20 K/unit + 30,000 units low-end

laser printers at $3 K/unit = $12M + $60M

+ $90M = $162 M). These estimates suggest

that the Federal Government, and primarily

the executive agencies, have already invested

about $350-$400 million in electronic publishTable 4“19.—Civilian Department Agency Use of selected Electronic Technologies

(percent of agencies responding)

Currently in Currently prototyping

Technology operational use or pilot testing Totals

Computer-aided page makeup . . . . . . . . 50.0 8.8 58.8

Computer graphics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65.8 7.9 73.7

Electronic photocomposition . . . . . . . . . 43.9 7,9 51.8

Laser and other non-impact printing . . . 64.0 1.8 65.8

Desktop publishing system. . . . . . . . . . . 34.2 14.9 49.1

Electronic publishing system . . . . . . . . . 21.1 10.5 31.6

SOURCE U S Government Printing Office, F R Romano, and Office of Technology Assessment, 19S8
88

ing and related technologies, with no end to

agency procurements in sight. Also, these

figures do not include any allocation of the over

25,000 mainframe computers and the estimated 500,000 microcomputers in the Federal

Government that are used in part for electronic

publishing applications. Finally, these figures

do not reflect the rapidly growing agency pilot tests and operational applications for direct electronic dissemination via bulletin

boards, electronic mail, CD-ROM, and the like.

Trends in Demand

This high level of agency activity reflects,

in part, opportunities presented by advancing

technology and the overall drive to automate

agency functions. However, agency activities

also reflect growing demand on the part of Federal information users to receive information

in electronic formats.

The results of the GAO survey of Federal

information users document this demand. For

example, the depository library community,

which heavily reflects university, research, and

Federal libraries, indicated a strong preference

to obtain increasing percentages of Federal information in electronic form and declining percentages in paper and microfiche. The results

for 318 depository libraries responding out of

a sample of 450 (34 out of 50 regional depository libraries and 284 out of 400 selective depository libraries) are highlighted in Table 4-

22. Only the most significant changes are included here. These results show that the library

community desires or anticipates decreases in

use of paper and microfiche formats, significant increases in electronic mail or bulletin

boards and floppy disks, and substantial increases in online databases and compact optical disks.

Trends for other segments of the Federal information user community are not so dramatic

but show a similar pattern. The results for 109

scientific and technical associations responding to the GAO survey (out of a sample of 250)

are highlighted in Table 4-23.

The GAO survey of Federal agencies indicates that agency use of electronic disseminaTable 4“22.—Depository Library Demand for Federal Information, by Type and Format

Number of libraries using

Next Percent

Type of information Format Now 3 years change

Congressional record/hearing/ paper. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 271 234 – 13.7

reports/bills microfiche . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 274 225 – 17.9

online database. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 132 + 124.0

floppy disk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 27 large increase

compact optical disk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 112 + 3,633.0

Scientific and technical paper. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 244 172 – 17.2

reports/information microfiche . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 212 159 –21 .7

online database. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 95 +25.0

floppy disk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 27 + 2,600.0

compact optical disk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 78 + 767.0

Press releases/bulletins paper. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 246 183 –25.6

microfiche . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 35 –10.3

electronic mail or bulletin board . . . . . . 9 51 +467.0

online database. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 50 + 108.0

compact optical disk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 18 + 1,700.0

paper. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 309 270 – 12.6

microfiche . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 241 134 –44.4

electronic mail or bulletin board . . . . . . 12 27 + 125.0

online database. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103 158 + 53.4

magnetic tape/disk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 25 + 127.0

floppy disk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 65 +442.0

videodisk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 12 large increase

compact optical disk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 140 +833.0

SOURCE: GAO Survey of Federal Information Users, 1988, —

Statistical data
89

Table 4-23.—Scientific and Technical Association Demand for Federal Information, by Type and Format

Number of associations using

Next Percent

Type of information Format Now 3 years change

Congressional record/hearings/ paper . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 57 –6.6

reports/bills electronic mail or bulletin board . . . . 1 18 + 1,700.0

online database. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 22 + 450.0

floppy disk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 13 large increase

Scientific and technical paper. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89 75 – 15.7

i nformat ion microfiche . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 5 – 37.5

electronic mail or bulletin board . . . . . . 6 24 + 300.0

online database. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 30 + 233.0

floppy disk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 20 + 233.0

compact optical disk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 3 + 200.0

paper. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77 60 – 22.1

electronic mail or bulletin board . . . . . . 3 26 + 767.0

online database. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 16 + 220.0

floppy disk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 10 + 900.0

paper. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 49 –18,3

electronic mail or bulletin board . . . . . . 1 11 +1,000.0

online database. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 23 +283.0

floppy disk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 23 +360.0

compact optical disk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 5 +400.0

Press releases/bulletins

Statistical data

SOURCE GAO Surveyof Federal Information Users 1988

tionis already significant forsometypesof

information and is projected to expand considerably over the next 3years. For the 114

civilian departmental agency components respending, some key trends are in dicated inTable 4-24.

While generalizations are difficult, the survey data suggest that, for several major types

of Federal information, especially statistical

data, scientific and technical reports/information, administrative reports, and press releases, about one-fifth to one-third of the

executive branch agencies expect to have electronic dissemination available within 3 years.

The dominant electronic formats vary by type

of information. Probably one-tenth to oneeighth of the agencies expect to have electronic

dissemination of other types of Federal information (e.g., pamphlets, manuals, regulations,

directories). Overall, however, the survey data

suggest that despite dramatic increases in electronic formats, paper will still be the dominant

format for the near- to medium-term.

Opportunities and Challenges

These trends in technology, user demand,

and agency activities present GPO with a number of challenges and opportunities. Principal

among these are: electronic input, structured

database standards, electronic publishing support, dissemination of electronic formats, staffing, and capital investment.

Electronic Input

As noted earlier, most Federal agencies already have the technology needed to originate

materials in electronic form and capture the

key strokes needed to initially enter the data

and make subsequent revisions. Once the material is ready for composition and layout, and

assuming the originating agency is not performing these functions, it is generally more

cost-effective to transmit the data in electronic

form to GPO so as to minimize any necessary

rekeyboarding. The cost savings can be substantial. GPO estimates that rekeyboarding

costs on average $35 to $50 per page, whereas

electronic input costs $1 to $15 per page, depending on how much recoding and reformatting are needed. For electronic input materials

using the GPO structured database standards,

the average cost is $1 to $2 per page, since no

rekey boarding and minimal recoding or reformatting are needed.
90

Table 4-24.—Agency Activities and Plans for Electronic Information Dissemination, by Type and Format

Percent of agencies using

Next

Type of information Format Now 3 yearsa

Scientific and technical reports/

information

Press releases

Pamphlets/bulletins

Manuals

Statistical data

Administrative reports Electronic mail . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Electronic bulletin board . . . . . . . . . .

Electronic data transfer . . . . . . . . . . .

Magnetic tape/disk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Floppy disk. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Compact optical disk . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Electronic mail . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Electronic bulletin board . . . . . . . . . .

Electronic data transfer . . . . . . . . . . .

Magnetic tape/disk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Floppy disk. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Compact optical disk . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Electronic mail . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Electronic bulletin board . . . . . . . . . .

Electronic data transfer . . . . . . . . . . .

FIoppy disk. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Video tape . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Electronic mail . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Electronic bulletin board . . . . . . . . . .

Electronic data transfer . . . . . . . . . . .

Floppy disk. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Electronic mail . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Electronic bulletin board . . . . . . . . . .

Electronic data transfer . . . . . . . . . . .

Floppy disk. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Compact optical disk . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Decisions/opinions Electronic mail . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Electronic bulletin board . . . . . . . . . .

Electronic data transfer . . . . . . . . . . .

Magnetic tape/disk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Floppy disk. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Rules, regulations, directives, Electronic mail . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

circulars Electronic bulletin board . . . . . . . . . .

Electronic data transfer . . . . . . . . . . .

Floppy disk. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Directories/c atalogs/bibl iographies Electronic mail . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Electronic bulletin board . . . . . . . . . .

Electronic data transfer . . . . . . . . . . .

Magnetic tape/disk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Floppy disk. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Videodisk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Compact optical disk . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Electronic mail . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Electronic bulletin board . . . . . . . . . .

Electronic data transfer . . . . . . . . . . .

Magnetic tape/disk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Floppy disk. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Com~act orMical disk . . . . . . . . . . . . .

14.0 ”/0

0.9

12.3

6.1

7,9

—

6.1

6.1

14.9

14.0

8.8

—

13.2

5.3

7.0

3.5

6.1

8.8

3.5

4.4

1.8

0.9

0.9

3.5

5.3

—

2.6

—

2.6

0.9

2.6

8.8

0.9

2.6

6.1

0.9

1.8

8.8

8.8

5.3

0.9

—

7.9

3.5

17.5

31.6

19.3

.

~b.~ “/0

8.8

21.1

11.4

16.7

2.6

15.8

10.5

18.4

16.7

16.7

8.8

28.1

12.3

13.2

7.0

8.8

18.4

10.5

13.2

9.6

9.6

5.3

11.4

14.0

3.5

10.5

5.3

9.6

4.4

6.1

18.4

6.1

10.5

12.3

11.4

7.9

18.4

11.4

14.9

3.5

7.9

20.2

12.3

25.6

34.2

31.6

2.6

Percent

change

+87.90/o

+ 878.0

+71 .5

+82.0

+ 111.4

+

+ 159.0

+72.1

+23.5

+ 19.3

+ 90.0

+

+ 112.9

+ 132.1

+ 88.5

+ 100.0

+44.3

+ 109.0

+ 200.0

+200.0

+433.3

+ 966.6

+488.9

+225.7

+ 164.2

+

+303.9

+

+269.2

+ 388.9

+ 134.6

+ 109,1

+577.8

+ 303.9

+ 101.6

+ 1,167.0

+ 339.0

+ 109.1

+29.5

+ 181.1

+288.9

+

+ 155.7

+251 ,4

+46.3

+8.2

+63.7

+

%alculated by adding the percentage of agencies now using the format indicated to the number of agencies who expect to use the format within the next 3 years.

Assumes that agencies currently using a format will continue to do so.

SOURCE: GAO Survey of Federal agencies, 1987.

GPO already provides multiple options for GPO has scanners that can read most of the

electronic input, as noted earlier, including popular typewriter and word processor fonts

scanned input, floppy disks, magnetic tapes, and convert the material from alphanumeric

dial-up telephone lines, and fiber optic lines. characters to electronic form. However, the

Some of these options could be refined and/or scanned copy must be very clear and legible

expanded. in order to obtain a low error rate and, in any
91

event, must be coded as well as scanned in order to produce a database for input to the GPO

composition system. As a result, the cost of

scanned input is higher than other purely electronic input modes but, when properly selected, can be much lower than rekeyboarding.

Scannable material is still a small percentage (about one-fifth) of all material in manuscript form received by GPO. As long as manuscript copy is submitted, the more that is

scannable, the lower the costs. GPO could intensify efforts to advise agency customers of

the scanner option and the typeface and format requirements. GPO could also aggressively

evaluate state-of-the-art scanner technology in

order to increase the range of typefaces and fonts

that can be scanned, and to simplify recoding

to the extent feasible. Also, agencies which have

their own scanners could be encouraged to do

the scanning themselves and submit materials

to GPO in floppy disk or other direct electronic

format. However, in the final analysis, scanners are much slower and more error-prone

than direct electronic formats.

GPO has a floppy disk reader that is capable of reading over 100 different disk formats

from a wide range of word processing systems.

Agencies can submit their material on floppy

disks, and the word processing codes for typeface and format used on these disks can be converted to GPO’s structured database codes.

Very few agencies currently make use of this

option. GPO could encourage greater agency use

of floppy disk input, especially as a substitute

for manuscript submission, which requires complete rekeyboarding. GPO could also survey the

Federal agencies to ascertain the types and distribution of word processing systems being

used, and could add capability to existing GPO

equipment to convert other kinds of disk formats used by agencies. Floppy disk conversion

does require quality control on the part of the

agencies to insure consistently error-free coding. Floppy disk input is generally best suited

for shorter documents, cheaper than scanned

input, but more expensive than magnetic tape

input.

Magnetic tape input is the dominant mode

used by executive agencies, and is used to a

lesser, but still significant, extent by legislative branch agencies. Magnetic tape represents

a high speed, high volume, low cost per page way

to transmit material from originating agencies

to GPO for composition, typesetting, and printing. Magnetic tapes can be provided to GPO

in any of three formats: database tapes, direct

drive tapes, and data tapes.

Database tapes are produced by the originating agency (or an agency contractor) using

GPO’s structured database specifications.

These tapes require no code conversion and

serve as input to the GPO composition system. GPO has been processing database tapes

for nearly twenty years. The preparation of

camera ready copy at GPO from database

tapes is inexpensive, priced at $1.85 per page.

The preparation of film negatives from data

tapes costs $3.15 per page. Direct drive tapes

are produced by the originating agency (or an

agency contractor) using not only GPO’s structured database specifications, but also GPO’S

electronic composition codes (with type face

and page format already specified). Direct

drive tapes provide direct input to GPO’s phototypesetters, producing camera ready copy

or film negatives. The preparation of camera

ready copy or film negatives from direct drive

tapes is $0.30 cheaper per page than from database tapes, at $1.55 and $2.85 per page respectively, and is a low-cost way of providing materials to GPO. The use of both database and

direct drive tapes has increased in recent years,

as indicated in Table 4-25.

These two forms of magnetic tape input are

likely to continue at or above present levels

for the forseeable future, so long as traditional

ink-on-paper output formats are needed and

GPO traditional printing services remain competitive. Some agencies have the capability to

produce magnetic tapes, but do not have the

Table 4-25.—GPO Pages Produced from Database and

Direct Drive Magnetic Tapes, Fiscal Years 1983-87

Database tapes Direct drive tapes

Fiscal year total pages total pages

1983 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 392,162 350,723

1984 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 654,606 859,497

1985 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 769,791 781,398

1986 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 926,445 724,889

1987 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 807,507 838,545

SOURCE U S Government Pr!ntlng Off Ice, 1988
92

expertise or desire to code the tapes to GPO

specifications. In these cases, GPO does not

have to rekeyboard the substantive material,

but does have to convert from agency codes

to GPO’s structured database standards and

insert composition codes. These tapes are handled on a case-by-case basis similar to the

floppy disks.

A final means of input to be discussed here

is electronic transmission via dial-up telephone

lines, fiber optic lines, satellite private lines,

and the like. Conceptually, the originating

agency keyboards the data on its own microcomputer or other terminal, electronically

transmits the data via a telecommunications

link to GPO for composition, and electronically

receives the proof pages back from GPO via

the telecommunications link for printout on

a laser printer. Corrections can be made on the

proof copy and electronically transmitted (or

mailed) back to GPO, where the final pages are

produced on GPO’s phototypesetters. As of

January 15, 1988, the organizations listed in

Table 4-26 were using dial-up transmission for

input and proofing of various publications.

While electronic transmission represents, at

present, a small portion of total input to GPO,

this use for electronic input is likely to grow

significantly, especially if proven to be cost effective. The experience with the fiber optic

transmission between the Senate Office of

Legislative Counsel and GPO is illustrative.

The Legislative Counsel uses a fiber optic link

to transmit draft bills to GPO, where they are

typeset and transmitted back to the Legislative Counsel’s Office and proof copies are

pMted out on laser printers. During fiscal year

1987, 163,893 pages were transmitted in this

fashion at a total GPO billable cost of $75,350,

or about $0.46 per page. This appears to be

a competitive price, although it presumably

does not reflect any capital costs (such as the

fiber optic link or laser printers) and does not

include the GPO cost of printing copies of the

bills in final form. Also, bills are very straight

forward in format. While not strictly comparable, the average GPO per page composition

cost for the U.S. Code using magnetic tape input was about $7.40 per page in fiscal year 1986

Table 4-26.—GPO Dial-Up Electronic Transmission

Customers, January ,388

Executive branch

Department of Commerce

Department of Housing and Urban Development

Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation

Administration

Department of the Treasury, Customs Bureau

Veterans Administration

Office of Management and Budget

Office of the Federal Register, Code of Federal

Regulations

Legislative branch

GPO—Daily Congressional Record, Record Index, Bills

Library of Congress

House of Representatives

Committee on Banking, Hearing

Committee on the Budget, Hearing

Committee on Energy and Commerce, Hearing,

Committee Print

Committee on Foreign Affairs, Committee Prints

Committee on the Judiciary, Hearings

Committee on Small Business, Hearings

Committee on Veterans Affairs, Committee Print,

Hearings, Report, Title 38 (U.S. Code)

Sergeant At Arms, Notice

Office of Legislative Counsel

Office of the Clerk, Calendars, Lists, Stationary,

Directory

U.S. Senate

Committee on Veterans Affairs, Hearing

Office of the Secretary, Document, Book, Senate

Journal

Office of Legislative Counsel

SOURCE: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1988.

(6,158 pages at a total cost of $45,592). The

U.S. Code is more complex and contains more

characters per page than a bill, and bills usually go through several revisions. If one assumes three revision cycles for bills, with 4 bill

pages equivalent to one U.S. Code page, the

costs are similar.

Structured Database Standard

As mentioned in chapter 3, a structured database standard is a key aspect of overall standards development for electronic publishing and

dissemination. GPO has developed and implemented what it calls a logically structured fulltext database standard or specification, or simply a structured database standard for short.

All this really means is that the database (containing textual, tabular, and/or numerical information) contains no coding unique to a spe

cific word processing or typesetting system.
93

Data elements are tagged with an identifier

that can be used to control the format of a particular document. Users who agree on and implement a common set of structured database

standards are able to change the database easily and cost-effectively from one location to

another, one format to another, and one revision to a later revision or edition.

GPO uses its own structured database

standard for the vast majority of materials

composed and produced at the GPO main

plant. However, the GPO standard is not, at

present, generally accepted by private industry and significant parts of the Federal Government. For example, DoD is committed to

the Standard Generalized Markup Language

(SGML) approach, which is similar to GPO’s

approach, but still a distinctly different standard. Many of the desktop and high-end electronic publishing systems located in Federal

agencies use display oriented standards (what

you see on the screen is what you get in the

document) and/or structured database approaches different from GPO’S.

GPO indicates that software could be written to convert SGML (or presumably any other

markup language) automatically into GPO’s

logically structured full text database approach. Also, GPO is prototyping a desktop

microcomputer-based version of its structured

database software.

In sum, as noted in Table 4-27 there is significant use of GPO’s database standard. But this

percentage of use is only a small fraction of all

government publications. This suggests a significant, unrealized opportunity to apply GPO’s

or some other approach as a broadly accepted

and acceptable government wide database

standard.

Electronic Publishing Support

Under the electronic GPO-decentralized alternative, GPO would need to develop an overall electronic publishing strategy that leverages GPO strengths to meet changing needs

of the Federal agencies. This strategy is likely

to differ for the executive and legislative

branches of government. As presented in deTable 4-27.—Departmental Applications of GPO

Structured Full Text Database Standard,

as of November 1987

— —

Number of publications

or publication series

Depart ment using GPO standard

Agriculture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Air Force . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Army . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Commerce . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

Defense (other) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Energy. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

HHS a . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Interior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Justice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... , . . . . . . . . 3

Labor. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Navy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Transportation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Treasury . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

State . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163

FIHe a lth and HUrnan sewlces

SOURCE U.S Government Prfntlng Off Ice, 1988

tail earlier, the executive branch has made and

continues to make a major investment in electronic publishing and related technologies,

typically as part of agency automation programs. While implementation varies widely,

electronic publishing is conceptually viewed

as part of agency information resources nlanagement (IRM), and staffing, budgeting, and

the like are evolving within the IRM framework. Many agencies are committed to a transition from paper to electronic-based operations, although the transition is likely to take

many years.

For the executive branch, several roles for

GPO are emerging. First, GPO can continue

to provide traditional printing services either

at the well-equipped main plant or via outside

procurement. Second, GPO can continue to improve cost-effectiveness at the input and

prepress end of the printing process by encouraging electronic submissions, already at

very high levels, and dial-up composition services, where appropriate. Third, GPO can encourage adoption of governmentwide structured database standards as discussed above.

Fourth, GPO can provide or facilitate mechanisms for training and education about electronic publishing.
94

On the one hand, GPO’s greatest assets are

its traditional printing facilities and labor

force, coupled with a substantially automated

prepress capability, including electronic photocomposition and typesetting. GPO is well

suited for agency work requiring typeset quality ink-on-paper output, for large documents

and long press runs, and for a variety of specialty jobs. GPO’s structured database standard, or some variation thereof, is well suited

to provide cost-effective linkages between document origination, revision, and multi-format

dissemination, regardless of who is doing the

disseminating. On the other hand, many of the

executive agencies are committed to acquiring and implementing their own electronic publishing and dissemination capability, largely

as part of agency automation programs in

which GPO has little or no involvement. Some

agencies, and especially the defense and regulatory agencies, are determined to reduce their

dependence on paper drastically within the

next few years.

The plans and activities of defense agencies

are particularly important, since, as shown in

Table 4-28, the Army, Navy, and Air Force together account for about $250 million in GPO

billings or roughly one-third of total GPO billings. The Navy, for example, has established

the “paperless ship” as a prime directive. All

military services are hoping to place most

Table 4-28.—Ten Largest GPO Printing Customers,

Fiscal Year 1986

Fiscal year 1986 billings

Percent of

Dollars in fiscal year

Customer mill ions 1986 totala

Army . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134.7 18.3

Navy. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74.6 10.1

Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68.0 9.2

Treasury . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65.6 8.9

Postal Service . . . . . . . . . . . 53.0

HHSb . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49.8 : : :

Air Force. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48.0 6.5

GSA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23.0 3.1

Agriculture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21.8 3.0

Energy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19.3 2.6

aperCent of f~~Cal year IgSS GPo total revenues of $737 million net of wblica.

tions sales, appropriations, and reimbursements

bHealth and Human services.

SOURCE U.S Government Prlntlng Office, 19SS

manuals, directives, and technical documentation on electronic media for filing, revising,

updating, and disseminating.

GPO’s high dependence on printing for defense customers is concentrated at several of

the regional procurement and printing facilities, as shown in Table 4-29. In the extreme

case that most traditional ink-on-paper defense

work was phased out (over a period of several

to many years), only the GPO main printing

plant, rapid response center, Chicago, Denver,

New York, and San Francisco regional printing plants, and Denver and Seattle regional

procurement offices would be substantially unaffected. All other offices could lose between

Table 4.29.—Distribution of GPO Defense Customers

by Procurement and Printing Offices, Fiscal Year 1986

Total Defense Agency

billings, fiscal year 1986a

Dollars in Percent of

mil I ions office totalb

Procurement offices

Boston Regional . . . . . . . . .

Philadelphia Regional . . . . .

New York Regional . . . . . . .

Hampton Regional . . . . . . .

Atlanta Regional . . . . . . . . .

Chicago Regional . . . . . . . .

Columbus Regional. . . . . . .

St. Louis Regional. . . . . . . .

Dallas Regional . . . . . . . . . .

Denver Regional . . . . . . . . .

Los Angeles Regional . . . .

San Francisco Regional . . .

Seattle Regional . . . . . . . . .

San Antonio Satellite . . . . .

Charleston Satellite . . . . . .

San Diego Satellite . . . . . . .

Oklahoma City Satellite . . .

Rapid Response Center . . .

Printing Offices

Chicago Regional . . . . . . . .

Denver Regional . . . . . . . . .

New York Regional . . . . . . .

San Francisco Regional . . .

Seattle Regional . . . . . . . . .

Rapid Response Center . . .

Main Piant

Procurement. . . . . . . . . . . . .

Printing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

3.3

27.0

7.3

19.5

23.7

21.8

8.3

12.0

13.7

3.5

7.1

7.1

2.7

2.6

1.1

0.2

0.07

1.2

0.02

0.1

0.5

0.1

0.2

1.4

63.6

17.2

69.9

84.8

58.2

89.7

71.1

73.6

68.3

70.4

61.4

23,7

77.0

52<7

26,4

95.6

85,2

99.4

100.0

9.7

1.0

4.8

34.3

16.8

59.6

15.5

19.3

9.3

a For Army, Navy, Air Force, Defense Logistics Agency, and Other Defense

Agencies

bDefense agency billings calculated as a percentage of total billings fOr each

Office

SOURCE: U S. Government Printing Office, 19SS
95

half and over 90 percent of current billings,

all other things being equal.

Clearly, then, an important part of GPO’s

electronic publishing strategy would logically

be a very careful analysis of how defense automation activities are likely to affect the demand for traditional GPO printing services

over what time frame, and what are the leveraged opportunities for GPO with respect to the

emerging defense electronic information infrastructure.

Such an analysis would require, first, that

GPO obtain basic information about defense

agency automation plans. Up to now, GPO has

directly participated in only a handful of defense automation programs, including the

Army Programs 600-S (terminated before contract award) and 400-S (contract awarded in

1984) and the Air Force Program 50-S (contract awarded in 1988). However, these three

electronic publishing programs represent only

a fraction of all relevant DoD activities. For

example, GPO did not participate in the

Navy’s “Printing on Demand System” designed to produce 15,000 15-page documents

per day on an electronic printing-on-demand

basis.

In addition to keeping more fully informed

on agency automation activities (both military

and civilian), GPO could establish an electronic

publishing laboratory and innovation center

for both GPO and agency personnel. GPO already has taken some action along these lines

with respect to establishment of the “dial-up

composition service’ now available. This service permits agencies to originate material from

agency microcomputers, transmit the material

over telephone or fiber optic lines to GPO for

typesetting, and receive the typeset material

via transmission back to the agency for printing of proof copies on agency laser printers.

This dial-up service uses GPO’s logically-structured database, and GPO provides both a demonstration room and a training program.

This concept could be expanded to a much

wider range of electronic publishing applications, including high-end and optical disk configurations. From a strategic perspective, GPO

would benefit from staying abreast or, perhaps,

ahead of agency applications and thereby be

in a much better position to identify opportunities to meet agency needs. In a decentralized

and competitive electronic environment which

increasingly characterizes the Federal Government, GPO will have to be imovative in matching its expertise with agency needs. Agency

needs will vary over a wide spectrum and will

change over time at an increasingly rapid pace.

Some agencies will look to GPO for a wide

range of electronic publishing services, assuming such services are available, while others

will be completely independent of GPO, regardless of what GPO offers.

At this point in time, it is not possible to

determine with precision the extent of agency

needs for GPO electronic publishing services.

In 1986, GPO conducted its own survey of

agency needs. The results (based on 175 of 850

questionnaires returned—a 20 percent response rate) strongly indicate that almost all

agencies will be using electronic publishing

within 5 years, especially for reference materials, technical documentation, and periodicals,

but the role of GPO is much less clear. Roughly

one-fifth to one-quarter of the respondents indicated a near-term preference for GPO automatic composition, computer-aided page makeup, and typeset quality output, increasing to

about one-third of the respondents in 5 years.

This compares to the roughly two-thirds of the

respondents who indicated an overall intent

to use these electronic publishing services in

5 years. This suggests that perhaps up to about

one-half of these types of agency electronic

publishing work might be done by GPO, and

the other half by the agencies themselves (or

by agency contractors). The results suggest

a relatively smaller role for GPO with respect

to text input and editing, electronic display,

data telecommunicating, and computer generated graphics, although the overall use of

these GPO services was still projected to grow

significantly.

The response rate to this 1986 survey was

low, and both agency and GPO activities–as

well as the underlying technologies-have

changed markedly since then. Clearly, a new
96

survey is needed and hopefully with a much

higher response rate. Some highlights from the

1986 survey are shown in Table 4-30.

Several of the agency respondents indicated

in written comments that use of GPO electronic publishing services would depend in

large part on whether such services were costeffective compared to in-house costs or commercial rates. In essence, GPO is competing

for agency electronic publishing business

against agency inhouse, contractor, and commercial vendor alternatives. GPO is already

moving to provide more electronic publishing

options, but the pace is still much slower than

the rates of change in technology, agency activities, and user needs.

While GPO training and innovation activities are relevant to all branches of government,

the role of GPO with respect to legislative

branch electronic publishing could be different in several key ways. First, the legislative

branch has not yet made the major capital investment in the technical infrastructure that

makes decentralized executive branch activities a reality. Second, the legislative branch

generally does not have a large number of staff

already trained in electronic publishing. Third,

GPO is in the legislative branch, so separation

of powers concerns do not apply. Fourth, GPO

already has a central role in many legislative

branch publishing activities. And fifth, many

of GPO’s own pilot projects involve the legislative branch, such as the fiber optic links between GPO and the Senate Office of Legislative Counsel, House Office of Legislative

Counsel, and House Information Systems Office (HIS).

For all of these reasons, GPO could develop

plans for an expanded role with respect to the

legislative branch. These plans could include the

GPO provided capability for congressional committees and offices to search, retrieve, and printon-demand key governmental process documents

such as the Congressional Record, Record Index,

Table 4-30.—Federal Agency Electronic Publishing Activities and Plans,

as of 1986 in Percent of Agencies Responding

Types of documents for which electronic

publishing is/will be used Currently In 5 Years

Reference Materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35’/0 57 ”/0

Technical documentation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 56

Periodicals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 48

Throwaway . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 36

Catalogs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 31

Legal documentation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 20

Electronic publishing services that

are/will be used Currently Next year In 5 years

Text input and editing (microcomputers,

word processors) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75’/0 820/o 87°\o

Automatic composition (software/systems) . . 25 40 56

Computer generated graphics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 59 77

Computer-aided page makeup, . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 34 61

Typeset quality output . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 45 57

Electronic display . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 43 58

Data telecommunicating . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 54 68

GPO electronic publishing services

that will be used Next year In 5 years

Text input and editing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90/0 140/0

Automatic composition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 28

Computer generated graphics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 20

Computer-aided page markup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 30

Typeset quality output . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 38

Electronic display . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 16

Data telecommunicating . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 18

SOURCE U.S Government Printing Off Ice, 1988.
97

Federal Register and Code of Federal Regulations, all of which are already in an electronic

structured database format. This concept could

be extended to include the capability to search,

retrieve, and print-on-demand selected committee prints, reports, and hearings, although the

degree of difficulty would be considerably

greater since little of this material is currently

in structured database format. This problem

could be gradually eliminated overtime if more

committees utilized GPO electronic database

and photocomposition capability, either on a

dial-up or floppy disk basis. These alternatives

will become more widely possible as the penetration of microcomputers on Capitol Hill continues. Any detailed planning along these lines

would need to take into account the inevitable increase in desktop publishing (software

has decreased to the $600 per unit range) and

the complementary roles of GPO, the Library

of Congress, HIS, and the Senate Computer

Center.

Dissemination of Electronic Formats

Under the “Electronic GPO-Decentralized’

alternative, SupDocs would select agency electronic format information products for inclusion in the GPO sales program, presumably

based on an evaluation of sales potential. Agencies could sell such products as well, but could

also opt, at agency discretion, to use SupDocs

as their sales outlet.

At the present time, SupDocs includes only

a few dozen magnetic tape products in the sales

program. These tapes are sold at the usual cost

plus 50 percent (in accordance with Title 44

of the U.S. Code) and include, for example, the

Congressional Record, U.S. Code, Code of Federal Regulations, Federal Reg”ster, Statistical

Abstract of the U. S., Budget of the United

States, Weekly Compilations of Presidential

Documents, and U.S. Government Manual. At

the moment, these magnetic tape products are

sold primarily to commercial information vendors–such as Mead, WE STLAW, DIALOG,

Legi-Slate, Congressional Quarterly, and BRS

—which repackage or enhance and resell the

information.

GPO planning for an expanded offering of

electronic formats would need to take into account questions of demand, economies of scale,

cost, private sector competition, and marketing. The results of the GAO surveys of Federal information users clearly indicated a growing demand for electronic formats, as discussed

earlier. As part of these surveys, GAO also

asked respondents to estimate the usefulness

of a variet y of online and offline Federal information formats. The depository library community indicated the strongest positive response, with a clear majority of respondents

finding the illustrative items to be useful.

These results (based on responses from 318 depository libraries, out of a sample of 451) are

summarized in Table 4-31 and the number of

libraries rating each item as moderately useful, useful, or greatly useful out of the total

respondents for that item. The remaining percentages (not shown in Table 4-31) include

those libraries rating the item as somewhat

useful or having little or no use. The respondents were asked to reply irrespective of how

the formats might be provided (e.g., by the Federal Government, commercial vendors, and/or

not-for-profit organizations).

The depository library results suggest very

strong demand for the Congressional Record,

calendars and bill status, the Federal Reg”ster, an index to Federal information, and an

integrated database in both online and offline

electronic formats. Demand for agency press

releases and reports is weaker. In terms of intensity of demand, as measured by the percentage of libraries rating these items as greatly

useful, the results indicate the highest rankings for the index and integrated database (online and offline) followed by the Reg”ster (online and offline), committee calendar and bill

status (online), and Record (online and offline).

The information needs of depository libraries

could, of course, be met to some extent through

DLP, as discussed in detail in chapters 6 and

7. However, the depository libraries serve as

a good indicator of demand among library and

information science professionals and those

groups in American society that are the most

information-intensive.
98

Table 4-31 .—Depository Library Demand for Federal Information Electronic Formats

Percent of libraries responding

moderately to greatly useful

Online Offline CD-ROM

Item immediate access issued monthly

Congressional Record. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77 74

Committee Calendar and Bill Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 60

Federal Register. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86 80

Federal Agency Press Releases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 40

Agency Reports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 62

Comprehensive Index to Federal Information . . . . . . . . . 94 90

Integrated Database of Key Federal

Statistical Series . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90 88

SOURCE GAO Survey of Federal Information Users, 1988

GAO also surveyed scientific and technical

associations and general associations (trade,

professional, consumer, etc.). The results

(based on 133 responses from a sample of 250

scientific and technical associations, and 134

out of 350 general associations) are similar to

those of the depository libraries, but with a

considerably lower level of intensity. In other

words, while the relative preferences for various types of electronic information formats

were roughly the same, the overall percentages

of respondents rating the items as moderately

to greatly useful were about half to threequarters that of the libraries for online access,

and about one-third to one-half for offline access. The survey results for the associations

are highlighted in Table 4-32.

All categories of respondents indicated that

the index and integrated database would be

the most useful among the items included in

the survey. Unlike the depository libraries,

which indicated little difference in usefulness

of online versus offline formats, the associations showed a clear preference for online electronic formats. This may reflect, in part, differences in the nature of demand. For example,

researchers using libraries may have a less urgent need for some types of Federal information and, therefore, might find monthly CDROMS to be adequate. Many associations may

be primarily concerned with only the latest,

up -to the minute information that necessitates

online access. It is also probable that the associations are less familiar with CD-ROM technology than the libraries. Indeed, relatively few

associations reported having access to CDROM readers compared to the libraries, as indicated in Table 4-33.

Clearly, depository libraries have better access to all categories of technology listed except mainframe computers. Scientific and technical associations have generally better access

than the general associations, with the exception of microfiche readers, CD-ROM readers,

and videodisk players, where the groups of

associations are about equal.

The implications for SupDocs are several.

First, there does appear to be an already significant demand for electronic formats, but,

second, this demand at the moment is somewhat ahead of the actual technical capability

of users, especially with respect to CD-ROM.

Taking all survey groups together, online demand ranges from 34 to 94 percent of respondents while microcomputer with modem capability ranges from 54 to 83 percent. Offline

CD-ROM demand ranges from 22 to 90 percent, but CD-ROM reader capability ranges

from only 6 to 41 percent. However, third, continually declining equipment costs mean that

the gap between user demand and technical

capability is likely to close rather rapidly.

Microcomputers cost $1,500 or less, modems

about $300, and CD-ROM readers about $700.

For types of information where a demand

has been established, SupDocs would need to

determine if including a particular item in the

sales program would be cost-effective and competitive relative to any other alternatives that
99

Table 4-32.—Scientific, Technical, and General Association Demand for Federal Information Electronic Formats

Percent of associations responding moderately to greatly useful

Scientific and technical

associations General associations

Online Offline CD-ROM Online Offline CD-ROM

Item immediate access issued monthly immediate access issued monthly

Congressional Record . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 ”/0 220/0 530/0 390/0

Committee Calendar and Bill Status . . . . . . . . 39 23 54 36

Federal Register . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 27 55 41

Federal Agency Press Releases . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 30 54 36

Agency Reports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 33 53 40

Comprehensive Index to Federal

Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 43 60 43

Integrated Database of Key Federal

Statistical Series . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 42 63 43

SOURCE GAO Survey of Federal Information Users, 1988

Table 4-33.—Library and Association Access to

Information Dissemination Technology

Percent of libraries or

associations responding

Scientific

Depository and technical General

Technology libraries associations associations

Microcomputer. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 700/0 640/o 51 “/0

Microcomputer with modem (for online access) . . 83 65 54

Microfiche reader. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88 24 22

Microfiche reader with printer. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96 18 12

CD-ROM reader . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 6 6

Videodisk player . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 11 12

Mainframe computer (for tape/disk access) . . . . . . 37 36 27

SOURCE. GAO Survey of Federal Information Users, 1988

may be available to users. For many types of

Federal information, individual agencies and

private sector vendors might decide to market electronic formats. In other words, SupDocs would be operating in a more competitive environment than has traditionally been

the case with respect to paper formats. Thus,

for example, at present the Bureau of the

Census sells paper formats via the SupDocs

sales program, but sells magnetic tapes and

floppy disks itself and also offers online electronic bulletin board services. Both the Bureau

of the Census and private vendors are developing CD-ROM products, and some Census

CD-ROM products will be disseminated as part

of DLP.

The approach taken by SupDocs in deciding what to include in the sales program could

vary depending on the particular information

product. Some items, such as a governmentwide information index, could be developed by

SupDocs and/or NTIS, have an apparently

broad demand, and could be sold in both online and CD-ROM formats. SupDocs would

need to determine if electronic format products

could be produced and sold at an acceptable

price. For example, most depository library respondents to the GAO survey indicated that

they would be willing to pay no more than $49

per hour online and $199 per CD-ROM for access to a governmentwide index. However,

most of the associations responding indicated

that they would be willing to pay no more than

$24 per hour online and $19 per CD-ROM. OTA

has not done a detailed analysis of this data,

but $24 per hour online is in line with non-profit

rates for similar information products. And $19

(or less) per CD-ROM is realistic at production

volumes of over 1,000 or so disks. If the index
100

on CD-ROM were distributed to depository

libraries, this would guarantee a base volume

of about 1,400 disks. Initial demand for a CDROM index product could easily be in the several thousands, based on the GAO survey response. Again, since the index information

would not be copyrightable, and assuming the

electronic master tape (or the equivalent) would

be available for purchase, private companies

could put the index up as a file on DIALOG

and similar value-added database services, and

even could add value and sell an enhanced CDROM product.

In general, CD-ROM products can be produced at low unit costs at volumes over 500

to 1,000 disks. Thus, there would likely be a

growing number of opportunities for SupDocs

to “ride” the order for production of agency

CD-ROMs, where a sufficient market exists,

just as SupDocs now rides the agency orders

for printed ink-on-paper products. Presumably, the mastering and duplications of CDROMS would be contracted out to the private

sector, by either the agency or GPO, at least

until such time that inhouse government capability might be more cost-effective.

As for other formats, the market for magnetic tapes is probably not going to be large

in the forseeable future, due to the need to have

a mainframe or minicomputer and related

peripheral equipment. Major customers are

likely to continue to be the value-added vendors and scientific or research organizations.

Government experience to date (at GPO and

various agencies) is that sales in the hundreds

of copies per year are considered good. Similarly, sales of floppy disks to date by NTIS

and various agencies have been minimal.

Floppy disks can be produced at only $1 to $5

dollars per unit, compared to about $100 to

$200 for magnetic tapes (depending on bit density). Also, floppy disks can run on the increasingly commonplace microcomputers. Thus, the

potential market for floppy disks would appear

to be large compared to magnetic tapes. However, detailed market analyses are needed to

establish reliable estimates.

Perhaps the most difficult format for SupDocs could be online. Whereas SupDocs could

ride the agency orders for CD-ROMs, magnetic

tapes, and floppy disks, regardless of where

and by whom the copies were produced, it is

hard to conceptualize riding an online database. It seems unlikely that, as a general rule,

agencies and SupDocs would be offering the

same online databases. SupDocs could offer

agency online databases at agency discretion,

or could offer a gateway to agency databases.

Also, SupDocs could contract with a private

commercial (or non-profit) gateway service.

Further, private gateway or value-added database companies could contract directly with

individual agencies and/or purchase the magnetic tapes, as some do today.

On the other hand, SupDocs could serve as

the primary Federal outlet for online access

to key governmental process information items

such as the Congtessiona.1 Record and Federal

Re~”ster. These kinds of items are all well

suited to online format because the information is frequently time sensitive and of selective interest. That is, many users are not interested in reading these documents cover to

cover at their leisure, but, instead, want to

quickly search for and retrieve information on

selected topics of interest. The GAO survey

results suggest that there would be broad demand for these items if priced below $24 per

hour. Since items such as the Record and Register are bought by vendors in magnetic tape

format from SupDocs and then put online and

sold at a significant mark-up, it seems plausible that SupDocs could itself offer these items

online at a competitive price. SupDocs could,

of course, itself contract with a private gateway or database vendor. SupDocs offerings

would not necessarily have any significant impact on private services, since the markets

served may be quite different. Again, detailed

feasibility and marketing studies would be

needed.

Overall, the development of a rational and

workable plan for SupDocs sales of electronic

formats would require close consultation and
101

coordination with mission agencies and especially those agencies that already have clearinghouse or gateway functions for electronic

formats, such as NTIS and NLM. NTIS currently serves as a clearinghouse for some

agency floppy disk and magnetic tape products, and NLM currently offers several agency

online database services. For paper formats,

SupDocs has included in the sales program primarily items judged to have significant demand, given the economics of traditional printing which penalizes small press runs and given

the need to spread overhead, processing, and

marketing costs over as large a sales volume

as possible. However, somle electronic formats

could be economically viable at much lower

sales volumes. To the extent SupDocs might

seek to include low demand and perhaps even

printing-on-demand items in the sales program, then SupDocs would be taking on NTISlike functions. This would intensify the need

to consider SupDocs-NTIS relationships, as

will be discussed in chapter 5 and 12 in more

detail.

Staffing

GPO faces two major challenges with respect

to staffing: retaining the necessary skilled labor force to maintain traditional printing services at a level commensurate with demand, and

obtaining personnel with the new skills needed

to implement GPO’s future role in electronic

publishing and electronic information dissemination, however that role may be defined.

As noted earlier, GPO has a relatively old

labor force, with about thirteen percent of all

current employees eligible for retirement (and

up to 25+ percent in some key areas). With

a natural attrition rate of 5-10 percent (retirements and quits), GPO has considerable flexibility to reshape the labor force to match future needs. About 80 percent of the GPO labor

force is unionized and works under collective

bargaining agreements. The twenty union bargaining units and the approximate number of

employees in each are listed in Table 4-34.

Table 4-34.—GPO Union Bargaining Units,

as of April 1987

Number of

Bargaining unit employees

American Federation of Government

Employees (AFGE) Local 2876/Printing

Crafts Joint Council (Main Plant White

Collar Workers) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ., . .

Washington Federal Printing Workers’ Union

(Member of GCIU see below) Local 713-S

(Printing plant workers) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Columbia Typographical Union Local 101

(2 units, Composers and Rapid Response

Center). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Graphic Communications International Union

(GCIU) Local 4-B (2 units, Bookbinders and

and Journeymen Bindery) . . . . . . . . . . . ...

Washington Printing and Graphic

Communications Union (member of GCIU)

Local 1-C (2 units, Pressmen and Masonry

Workers) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

GCIU Local 285 (Offset Strippers) . . . . . . . . . .

Washington Government Photo Offset Union

(member of GCIU) Local 538-C (Offset

Platemaker Strippers) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

AFGE Local 3392 (Pueblo Distribution

Center). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

International Brotherhood of Electrical

Workers (IBEW) Local 121 (Electricians and

Sanitary Engineers) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

AFGE Local 2738 (Police) ... , . . . . . . . . . . . . .

AFGE Local 1248 (Denver Printing Plant) . . . .

International Association of Machinists

Local 2135 (Machinists) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

AFGE Local 1292 (Chicago Printing Plant) . . .

Sheetmetal Workers’ International Union

Local 100 (Sheet Metal Workers and Pipe

Fitters) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

United Brotherhood of Carpenters and

Joiners of American, Local 2456

(Carpenters) ... , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

AFGE Local 2618 (New York Printing Plant).

Brotherhood of Painters and Allied Trades,

Local 1632 (Painters). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1,327

1,020

672

247

232

138

69

67

65

62

42

36

27

21

17

14

9

4,065

aNumber of employees represented by their Union, nOt al I emplOyees represented

are union members

SOURCE U S Government Prlntlng Off Ice, 1988

Collective bargaining has been able to accommodate major changes in the size and job structure of the GPO labor force over the past fifteen

years, responding in large part to technological

change in composition, prepress, and press tech-
102

nology. Collective bargaining should be able to

accommodate future changes, so long as labor

and management work closely together and bargain in good faith.

At the moment, one possible impediment to

successful labor-management relations, as

pointed out by OTA’S independent labor consultant, is the absence of a clear strategic vision of GPO’s future role. The lack of a clear

vision not only contributes to employee uncertainty, but makes staffing decisions difficult.

It seems likely that, absent major changes in

GPO’s traditional printing role as discussed

earlier, GPO should be able to continue its policy of no involuntary reductions in force (governed by a May 1982 resolution of the Joint

Committee on Printing). Any reductions in the

traditional labor force should be able to be handled through retirements and reassignments.

It also seems likely that, if GPO pursues a significant role in electronic publishing and dissemination, GPO would need to bring in new

skills from outside. While some existing personnel undoubtedly could be retrained for new

jobs involving electronic processes and formats, as has been done in the past, some new

personnel with advanced engineering, technical, and marketing education and experience

would be required. The exact skills mix of

retrained personnel and new hires cannot be

determined in the absence of an overall strategic plan.

Capital Investment

Another important element of GPO’s overall strategic plan would be capital investment

alternatives. Again, a detailed capital investment program would require a well developed

strategic plan. Short of that, it would seem prudent for GPO to reevaluate carefully its capital investment plans in light of possible adjustments to traditional printing services and

possible new initiatives in electronic publishing and dissemination.

As discussed earlier, GPO has already substantially updated its main plant press and

bindery equipment. The major outstanding

item is the pending purchase of two new web

off set presses for the printing of the Cozzgressional Record and Federal Register at an estimated cost of about $10.5 million for the two

units. OTA’S independent printing consultant

endorsed this capital investment on the

grounds of improved efficiency and productivity. However, GPO’s rationale for this investment presumes that traditional printing

of the Record and Re~”ster will continue for

at least 10 years substantially unchanged from

today. As noted earlier, the Record and Register are well suited to online and offline electronic formats for which there is growing demand. Should Congress decide to make these

publications available online and through CDROMS issued periodically to the legislative

branch and depository libraries and on a sales

basis via SupDocs, then it is conceivable that

the paper format versions of the Record and

Reg”ster could be reduced significantly in a few

years. Indeed, the volume of paper copies could

be reduced to the point where the large web

offset presses would no longer be cost-effective.

For example, even if paper copies were still provided to every Member, committee, and office

of Congress, every depository library, members of the press, high-level executive officials,

and Federal and State archival agencies, the

required press run of several thousand copies

could be uneconomical for the large presses.

GPO notes that a change of this magnitude

would conflict with current provisions of Title 44 that require the printing and distribution of specified numbers of the Record and

Register. However, electronic formats could

be provided first as a complement to paper and

eventually, after a transition period, as a substitute, and Congress could amend Title 44 if

necessary. GPO also notes that any excess capacity on the two new web offset presses could

be used to absorb workloads from other, older

equipment, and to facilitate a gradual phaseout

of some of that equipment. In addition, the new

presses would be less labor intensive and would

be technologically up-to-date. GPO and Congress need to carefully evaluate whether, even

if electronic formats are encouraged or required, the remaining volume of paper copies

is sufficient to justify use of the large web off-
103

set presses or, if not, whether the other advantages noted above would by themselves be

compelling.

Future capital investment in the prepress,

press, and bindery areas should also reflect any

decisions on changing the work load distribution at the GPO main plant. The main plant

carries out a much more diverse range of printing work than almost all private printing companies. GPO could consider some greater degree of specialization in order to help reduce

indirect labor and overhead costs. (The fiscal

year 1986 cost allocation for the main plant

production department was about 31 percent

direct labor, 34 percent section burden [indirect

labor, materials, etc.], 28 percent overhead

[general management and staff, utilities, rent,

etc.], 2 percent depreciation, and 5 percent

other [supplies, maintenance, etc.]). Presumably future capital investments would be made

primarily in those areas designated as GPO

specialities. Also, the shift to electronic formats for the Record and Re~”ster could further reduce indirect labor and general overhead

since the overnight main plant operations

could be scaled back although not eliminated,

due to the continuing need for input to and creation of the online databases by the next day.

With respect to composition equipment,

OTA’S independent printing consultant concluded that GPO’s current equipment is strongly

competitive with private industry. GPO uses an

ATEX minicomputer-based text editing system and Videocomp and Comp80 phototypesetters. As with press and bindery, the composition equipment has been substantially

updated over the past decade, as highlighted

in Table 4-35.

One area where GPO is not competitive is

high-end electronic publishing equipment. The

ATEX system is designed to handle large text

files and is not well suited for smaller and

specialty jobs involving complex layouts,

graphics, and the like. To help meet this need,

GPO established an Electronic Job Section

equipped with Compugraphic and Bedford

electronic publishing systems, among other

equipment. The Bedford system, although two

years old, is rarely used and is essentially obTable 4-35.—Selected GPO Electronic Composition

Equipment, a Fiscal Year 1987

Number

Equipment of units Year(s) acquired

Personal computers . . . . . . . . . . 12 1984-1987

Video display terminals ., . . . . . 160 1978-1987

Multi processor control

system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1983-1987

PDP 11-44 minicomputer . . . . . . 2 1981,1985

Floppy disk reader . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1985

Text editing systems (ATEX) . . . 16 1978-1987

Text editing system

(Videocomp) . . . . ... . . . . . . 1 1986

Photocomposers (Videocomp,

Comp 80). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1976-1981

.- aEXcludes Electronic Job Sect Ion

SOURCE U S Government Prlntlng Off Ice, 1988

solete. The Compugraphic system is used for

fully processing about 60 percent of the work

done in this section, and is used for partially

processing (in conjunction with ATEX or other

systems) another 35 percent of the work. While

performance of the Compugraphic appears to

be satisfactory, the now 3-year old system is

obviously not state-of-the-art.

In essence, GPO’s capital investment strategy depends in part on whether GPO strives for

(or is directed to take) a leaders~p role in electronic publishing technology. An effective leadership role probably requhes a heatier investment

in state-of-the-art technology, partly to learn

about the technology for GPO’s own purposes

but, equally important, to also at least stay

abreast of the mission agencies, some of which,

at this point in time, are well ahead of GPO. For

example, GPO has no significant activity

underway in optical disk or compact disk technologies and expert information retrieval systems, and is behind the state-of-the-art in highend electronic publishing work stations and

software, all of which are under active testing

or actually being implemented by various

agencies.

With respect to the provision of online databases, GPO would need to decide whether existing computer capability would be adequate

and, if not, whether to purchase or lease aciciitional capability or whether to, at least initially, utilize the services of private sector

value-added gateway carriers and database

providers. For example, if SupDocs decided to
sell the Congressional Record online, the Record could be established as a file on The Source,

CompuServe, Easylink, and/or DIALOG. This

would minimize GPO’s capital investment requirements until experience with actual demand levels and patterns could be analyzed.

Alternatively, or in addition, the online Record could be set up as a file on NLM’s MEDLARS, on the gateway system operated by the

Defense Technical Information Center, andlor

on the library community’s various networks.

There are numerous possibilities, especially for

key governmental process information such as

the Record and Reg”ster. Eventually, SupDocs

online information products could be made

available via the FTS-2000, when implemented,

and could make use of advanced satellite and

fiber optic transmission technologies embedded

in FTS-2000 and various commercial telecommunication systems.

In an era of constrained resources, GPO may

have to make some difficult choices between

investment in traditional versus electronic

publishing technology, and between capital investment versus the training and recruitment

of personnel to apply the technology. These

decisions are best made within an overall strategic framework.
Chapter 5

An Electronic National Technical

Information Service and

NTIS/Superintendent of

Documents Cooperation

- -

Clockwise from top left: NTIS staff searching the NTIS database for a customer; NTIS staff “blowing back” from microfiche

to produce a paper copy of a technical report; NTIS staff reproducing additional shelf stock; and NTIS staff pulling an

archive document from the NTIS collection (photo credits: National Technical Information Service).
.

CONTENTS

Page

summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ................107

Role and Current Status of NTIS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .............108

Opportunities and Challenges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ....111

Trends in Demand and Revenues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...111

Possible New Initiatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..........116

NTIS/SupDocs Cooperation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , .........119

Differences and Similarities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ......................119

Disadvantages and Advantages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....121

Tables

Table Page

5-1. Source of NTIS Reports, Fiscal Year 1987 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .108

5-2,

5-34

5-4.

5-5.

5-6.

5“7.

5-8,

5-9.

5“10.

Distribution of NTIS Sales, Fiscal Year 1987 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..1o9

NTIS Revenues and Costs, Fiscal Years 1980-87 . ................112

Demand for Selected Major NTIS Products, Fiscal Years 1980-87. ..112

Demand for Selected Minor NTIS Products, Fiscal Years 1983-87. ..113

Average Per Unit Prices for Selected Major NTIS Products

Compared to Inflation Rate, Fiscal Years 1980-87 . ...............113

NTIS Revenues by Product Group, Fiscal Years 1986-87 . .........113

Federal Agency Evaluation of the Cost of NTIS Reports, Paper and

Microfiche Formats, 114 Agency Components Responding . ........114

Trend in New Titles Received by NTIS, Fiscal Years 1983-87 .. ...,114

Federal Civilian Agency Dissemination of Scientific and

Technical Informa~ion ; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .........................115

5-11. Scientific and Technical Association Use of Federal Information

Sources, Rank Order . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........115

5-12. Demand for NTIS Documents Announced in Calendar Year 1986 ...116

5-13.AgeofNTIS Documents Sold in Calendar Year 1986 . ...........,116

5-14. SupDocs Sales and Distribution Activity, Fiscal Years 1981-8’7 .. ...122

5-15. Conventional Printing Functions Affected by Length of Press Run. ,123

5-16. Estimated Page Length and Content of Government Documents. . ..123
Chapter 5

An Electronic National Technical

Information Service and

NTIS/Superintendent of

Documents Cooperation

SUMMARY

This chapter discusses the current status of

and future prospects for the National Technical Information Service (NTIS), and opportunities for cooperation between NTIS and

GPO’s Superintendent of Documents (SupDocs). The debate over the privatization of

NTIS is discussed in chapters 11 and 12. The

discussion in this chapter assumes that this

debate will be resolved by Congress in favor

of retaining NTIS within the Federal Government— as a separate agency or government corporation within the Department of Commerce

or consolidated with SupDocs or even with the

Library of Congress. The major challenge facing Congress is defining a viable role for NTIS

in the future. A variety of indicators strongly

suggest that the current role may not be sustainable absent some significant changes.

NTIS operates in a highly constrained environment, characterized by ambivalent support

from the executive branch, limited financial

resources, mixed support from the information

industry, limited technical resources, and a difficult product mix (many low volume items).

In addition, the basic demand for NTIS products appears to be significantly eroding. Most

NTIS users and client agencies believe in

the NTIS concept and seek to find ways to

strengthen NTIS or at least the core NTIS

functions as a continuing element of the Federal Government.

NTIS appears to be ideally suited for the implementation of an electronic document system

(with multi-format output—paper, microfiche, or

electronic), regardless of organizational location.

NTIS could use aversion of the Defense Technical Information Center (DTIC) system as a

prototype. An electronic document system

could help revitalize NTIS if coupled with improved agency participation. Overall, an electronic NTIS should be able to increase the

diversity and timeliness of NTIS (and related

private vendor) offerings, increase the ability

of NTIS (and private vendors) to match information products with potential users, and reduce the cost of NTIS products. An electronic

NTIS should be better able to serve all users,

but especially small and medium businesses

and individual researchers.

NTIS/SupDocs cooperation could create new

opportunities for improvements in the indexing, marketing, and international exchange of

Federal information. NTIS/SupDocs cooperation could be synergistic with respect to implementing an electronic document system

that would meet NTIS needs plus a broadening of the SupDocs product line to include

selected low demand items. The NTIS/SupDocs combined low-demand sales volume could

help justify investment in the necessary equipment, which could be funded out of the GPO

revolving fund and/or NTIS retained earnings

(if authorized) and charged back as depreciation. NTIS/SupDocs cooperative initiatives

would need to be sensitive to concerns about

separation of powers between the executive

and legislative branches, and about the

strengthening of government wide dissemination mechanisms at the possible expense of decentralized agency activities.

Regardless of the ultimate institutional structure, there are significant opportunities for improvement in both NTIS and SupDocs product

line analyses, development, and marketing.

Strengthened cooperation between NTIS and

SupDocs would not only help identify mutually

advantageous joint activities, but would seem

almost mandatory to the extent that both agencies pursue sales of electronic format products

and that SupDocs enters the low-demand

market. 107
108

ROLE AND CURRENT STATUS OF NTIS

The primary role of NTIS is to serve as a

central governmentwide source of scientific

and technical reports describing research performed by Federal agencies, contractors, and

grantees. NTIS depends on the voluntary submission of these reports by the Federal agencies. NTIS maintains a permanent archive of

these reports, establishes bibliographic control

over these materials, prepares various index

and abstract materials, and sells copies of the

reports. In recent years, NTIS has increased

its collection to include additional reports prepared by state and local governments and by

foreign government research organizations,

and to include Federal databases and software.

In addition to the basic archival and clearinghouse functions, NTIS is responsible for:

the Federal Research in Progress (FEDRIP)

Program that provides information

describing on-going Federally funded research projects;

the Center for the Utilization of Federal

Technology (CUFT);

acquisition and licensing of governmentowned patents;

provision of production and billing/collection services for information dissemination activities of other Federal agencies;

and

provision and processing of FOIA requests for agency materi~s placed on file

at NTIS.

This discussion focuses primarily on the NTIS

archival, clearinghouse, and dissemination

functions.

As of fiscal year 1987, the NTIS archive included close to 2 million reports and over 2,500

data and software files. About 60,000 to 70,000

new items are added each year. About half of

the NTIS reports originate from just three

agencies: the Department of Defense (Defense

Technical Information Center (DTIC)), the Department of Energy (DOE) (primarily the DOE

Office of Scientific and Technical Information

(OSTI)), and National Aeronautics and Space

Administration (NASA) (primarily the NASA

Table 5“1 .—Source of NTIS Reports, Fiscal Year 1987

Agency Percent of total

Department of Defense . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Department of Energy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

NASA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

All other Federal agencies . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Non-Federal agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Foreign countries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 ;

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100

SOURCE: National Technical Information Service, 1988

Scientific and Technical Information Facility

(STIF)). The percentage distribution is shown

in Table 5-1.

NTIS operates under several constraints.

One is the variable and limited funding commitment of the government to NTIS. NTIS

began in 1945 as the Publication Board. The

Publication Board was established by Executive Order 9568, which charged the Board with

reviewing all government-generated scientific

and technical documents and determining

what could be released to the public. Executive Order 9604 expanded the Board’s responsibilities to include scientific and technical documents captured from the enemy during and

at the end of World War II. The Board’s objectives were to organize declassified information so as to permit researchers, and especially

industry, fast and easy access to information,

and to notify the public ‘and industry about

what was available. The intent was to promote

economic growth and development through the

rapid dissemination of scientific and technical information.

Since established, questions have been raised

concerning the appropriate functions and funding for NTIS. The Publications Board became

part of the Office of Declassification and Technical Services (OTS) in late 1945, the Office

of Technical Services in 1946, the OTS Clearinghouse in 1950, the Clearinghouse for Federal Scientific and Technical Information in

1964, and NTIS in 1970. The history of NTIS

has reflected uncertainty on the part of the

Federal Government as to the appropriate Federal commitment to a central clearinghouse for
109

dissemination of scientific and technical information, the role of the clearinghouse vis-a-vis

the Federal science agencies and the private

sector, and the appropriate pricing of such

clearinghouse services.

In general, representatives of the scientific

and technical community believe that the cost

of such clearinghouse services is a very small

price to pay compared to the substantial Federal investment in research and development.

To place this in perspective, the fiscal year 1987

NTIS revenues and costs were about $22 million each (breakeven operation) compared to

the fiscal year 1987 Federal research and development budget of about $59 billion. Excluding defense R&D, the NTIS operating budget

of $22 million represents about one onethousandth of the civilian R&D budget ($21.5

billion in fiscal year 1987). Advocates of a

strong Federal role in dissemination of scientific and technical information argue that the

level of Federal support is far too small. Others

believe that, while a Federal role is needed, it

should be limited in terms of functions and

budget.

The result is that NTIS receives no appropriated funds for its basic archival and

clearinghouse functions, with costs covered by

sales of documents and services. NTIS does

not have a working capital revolving fund. As

a consequence, since any net revenues must

be returned to the U.S. Treasury, it has proven

difficult for NTIS to obtain up-to-date equipment—especially modern information technology.

A second major constraint is that NTIS has

a voluntary relationship with the source agencies and cannot require agencies to submit materials. NTIS estimates that more than onethird of Federal scientific and technical reports

are never submitted. There is also concern that

agencies may delay submission of key reports

and/or submit primarily reports with less perceived interest or demand. NTIS functions, for

the most part, as a secondary distributor of

Federal scientific and technical information.

The key Federal science agencies, such as DoD,

DOE, and NASA, have their own mechanisms

for direct dissemination of reports to agency

personnel and contractors. NTIS then makes

secondary distribution to the business community and general public. In addition, the GPO

SupDocs includes some scientific and technical reports in the SupDocs sales program.

NTIS includes some GPO titles in the NTIS

clearinghouse. However, the overlap is thought

to be small, since SupDocs selects titles based

on significant market potential (projected sales

of several hundreds to thousands of copies),

whereas almost all NTIS includes titles are included regardless of demand, which is generally very small (an average sales of 10 copies

per title). In sum, NTIS must achieve breakeven operations working with a substantially

incomplete collection of reports that sell very

few copies on the average. This is a difficult

challenge.

A third major constraint is a complex relationship with the private sector and the information industry in particular. On the one hand,

NTIS was established to help serve the scientific and technical information needs of business and industry. NTIS estimates that about

75 percent of its business customers are small

firms, with major corporations accounting for

the other 25 percent of business customers.

Overall, the U.S. business community accounts

for about two-thirds of NTIS sales, as shown

in Table 5-2.

The information industry appears to be generally comfortable with the NTIS archival

function and clearinghouse activities with respect to dissemination of paper and microfiche

copies. However, NTIS initiatives with respect

Table 5.2.— Distribution of NTIS Sales,

Fiscal Year 1987

Percent of

NTIS sales,

Customer fiscal year 1987

U.S. business . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64

Foreign (business and government) . . . . . . 20

U.S. Federal and State government . . . . . . 6

Academic researchers/institutions and

public libraries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

General public . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . 100

SOURCE. National Techn!cal Information Servtce, 1988
110

to direct electronic dissemination of documents

and derived products (e.g., indices, abstracts,

searches) are perceived by NTIS as meeting

resistance from the information industry. The

record of debate over NTIS privatization suggests a basis for this concern, although the

views of industry are varied and complex. As

a matter of practice, NTIS depends on the private sector for dissemination of online products (such as the NTIS Bibliographic Database

available via DIALOG, BRS, and the like).

NTIS estimates that private sector revenues

derived from adding value to or re-marketing

NTIS products totals about $11-12 million annually. NTIS reliance on the private sector for

electronic and/or enhanced dissemination has

had the perhaps unintended effect of discouraging NTIS from aggressively pursuing how electronic technology might improve even the

NTIS core archival and clearinghouse functions. Improvements here could benefit both

NTIS customers served directly by NTIS and

those served indirectly via private sector

vendors.

There is also an equity issue involved concerning access to the online NTIS Bibliographic Database and other online products.

Some customers, and especially small businesses, independent researchers, and the general public, may not be able to afford the commercial rates (which can typically range from

$50 per online hour and up). Since online

searching of the NTIS database offers significant advantages, these customers could be disadvantaged in terms of their ability to effectively access and retrieve Federally funded

scientific and technical reports.

In sum, NTIS presently operates in a constrained environment, characterized by ambivalent support from the government, limited financial resources (no public appropriation for the

core clearinghouse and archival operations),

mixed support from the information industry,

limited technical resources, and a difficult product mix (many low volume items). In addition,

the basic demand for NTIS products appears to

be significantly eroding, thereby placing in considerable jeopardy the overall viability of NTIS

as it is presently operating. At the same time,

most NTIS users and client agencies believe in

the NTIS concept and seek to find ways to

strengthen NTIS or at least the core NTIS functions as a continuing element of the Federal Government.

The record of the NTIS privatization debate

provides ample evidence of support for the

NTIS concept. For example, in response to an

April 1986 request for public comment, ’

NTIS received 138 written responses from executive agencies, the legislative branch, the information industry, and individuals or organizations that used NTIS.2 Review of the

responses, by NTIS3 and OTA, indicates

that:

●

●

●

The NTIS user community overwhelrning

opposed privatization, supported NTIS as

a government entity, and testified to the

importance of scientific and technical information available from NTIS. The user

community was heavily represented by library associations and individual university, public, and technical libraries.

The Federal agencies which supply the

source documents to NTIS opposed

privatization, cited numerous problems

that could or would result if NTIS were

not a government entity, and emphasized

their reliance on NTIS clearinghouse and

archival functions.

The information industry and individual

company representatives overwhelming

opposed privatization of the core NTIS

functions on the grounds that these functions were not appropriate for the private

sector and/or would create unfair competitive conditions. However, industry and

company representatives strongly favored

privatization of various dissemination and

value-added functions.

‘U.S. Department of Commerce, “Study of Alternatives for

Privatizing the National Technical Information Service”, Notice and request for public comment, Federal Register, vol. M,

No, 81, Apr. 28, 1986, pp. 15868-15870.

2U s Department of Commerce, NTIS Privatization StUdY Re-

. .

sponses to April 28, 1986 Federal Register Notice Request for

Pub]ic Comment, PB86-21 1240, National Technical Information

Service, Springfield, Virginia, June 1986.

3U s Department of Commerce, National Technical Informa-

.,

tion Service, “Analysis of Comments to Federal Register Notice”, prepared by NTIS staff, 1986,
111

These general positions were reaffirmed at

congressional hearings held in July 1987 and

February 1988 by the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, Subcommittee

on Science, Research, and Technology. At the

latter hearing, the Subcommittee chairman released a letter from the Information Industry

Association stating its position that “the Administration’s proposal to privatize NTIS is

not in the public interest in that it will ultimately reduce the availability of Federally

funded scientific and technical information. 

Overall, the years-long debate over privatization of NTIS has further constrained the ability of NTIS to take initiatives, and has diverted

substantial NTIS and Department of Commerce

resources (primarily staff time and attention).

Members of Congress and public witnesses have

criticized the Administration for prolonging the

debate when congressional sentiment against

privatization is clear. In a February 23, 1988

letter, the Chairman and Ranking Minority

Members of the House Committee on Science,

Space, and Technology and Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation

wrote the Secretary of Commerce and requested delay in the privatization of NTIS

activities until Congress completed legislative

actions

~l~~tt~~ tO Hon. Doug wal~ren, Chairman, Subcommittee ‘n

Science, Research, and Technology, House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, from Kenneth E. Allen, Senior

Vice President, Information Industry Association, Feb. 12, 1988.

5Letter to Hon. C. William Verity, Secretary of Commerce,

from Hon. Ernest F. Hollings, John C. Danforth, Robert A. Roe,

and Manuel Lujan, Jr., U.S. Congress, Feb. 23, 1988.

In a March 3, 1988 letter, the Chairman of

the Subcommittee on Science, Research, Technology, and Space sought the views of the Secretary of Commerce on legislation to establish

a National Technical Information Corp. The

Chairman advised that “[i]t is clear tome that

privatization of NTIS will not occur in the near

future . . . To engage in a protracted NTIS

privatization argument would be less than

productive. I would much prefer to look beyond

the privatization controversy to implementing everyone’s underlying goal of transforming NTIS into a modern, low-cost deliverer of

scientific and technical documents.”~ Congressional and agency officials, as well as public witnesses, have concluded that the drive

for NTIS privatization was not based on a balanced analysis and finding of clear net benefits, and furthermore that the Administration

did not have the capacity to successfully implement the NTIS privatization plans, even if

thought to be desirable.~ (For further discussion, see chs. 11 and 12 on policy issues and

implications.)

6Letter to Hon. C. William Verity, Secretary of Commerce,

from Hon. Doug Walgren, Chairman, Subcommittee on Scien(:e,

Research, and Technology, House Committee on Science, Space,

and Technology, Mar. 3, 1988.

‘See U.S. Congress, House Committee on Science, Space, and

Technology, Subcommittee on Science, Research, and Technology, National Technical Information Serl’ice, Hearing, IC)Oth Congress, 2nd Session, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D. C., Feb. 24, 1988, Also see A.S. Levine, “Legal Financial

Woes Hamper NTIS P]an ”, Federal Computer Week, May 2, 1988,

PP. 15-16.

OPPORTUNITIES AND CHALLENGES

The major challenge facing NTIS is defin- major NTIS products and services. As shown

ing a viable role for its future. A variety of in- in Table 5-3, NTIS appears to have had a

dicators strongly suggest that the current role healthy total revenue and cost performance in

may not be sustainable absent some signifi- recent years, with net revenues realized in fiscant changes. cal years 1981, 1983, 1984, 1986, and 1987, and

Trends in Demand and Revenues

net losses experienced in fiscal years 1982 and

1985. For the entire eight year period, NTIS

The starting point for this analysis is the his- realized net revenues of $4.6 million or about

torical trend in demand for (and sales of) the 2.8 percent of total sales.
112

Table 5.3.—NTIS Revenues and Costs, Fiscal Years 1980.87

Total revenues Total costs Net revenues or loss

Fiscal year $ millions $ millions $ millions Percent

1980 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1981 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1982. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1983 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1984 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1985. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1986 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1987 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Totals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

18.6

21.3

19.4

21.4

20.7

21.3

22.4

22.3

167.4

17.8

18.6

19.8

20.4

20.4

22.1

21.6

22.1

162.8

0.8

(:::)a

1.0

( N )

0.8

0.2

4.6

4.3

12.7

(2.1)

4.7

1.5

(3.8)

3.6

0,9

2.8

aParentheses Indicate net loss

SOURCE National Technical information Service, 1988

However, a detailed analysis by major NTIS

product line reveals a much different picture.

Sales of all major NTIS products have declined

markedly since 1980, inmost cases by about

50 percent. For example, sales of paper copies

dropped from752,000copiesin fiscal year1980

to 393,000 copies in fiscal year 1987. Sales of

microfiche copies dedined from 155,000 copies

in fiscal year 1980 t0 67,000 in fiscal year1987.

This pattern is repeated throughout the NTIS

product line, as shown in Table 5-4.

Overall, sales of the abovesevenmajor NTIS

products collectively declined from about3.69

million units (copies or subscriptions) in fiscal

year 1980 t oabout 1.82 million units in fiscal

year 1987, a net declineof51 percent. Areview of all other NTIS products indicated that

sales increased only for CUFT publications,

data tapes, and data diskettes, but these items

account for a small percentage of total NTIS

sales. Trends in these three items and for software tapes and catalogs (which declined) are

shown in Table 5-5.

An obvious question is how could NTIS maintain a breakeven operation with slightly increased revenues (in current dollars) over the

fiscal year 1980-87 period, given the large reduction in product sales? Part of the answer

is that NTIS per unit prices increased significantly over this same period of time, and with

net price increases that typically equalled or

exceeded the rate of inflation. For example,

while paper copy sales decreased by about 50

percent, the average per unit price for paper

copies increased by 70 percent over the 1980-

87 period while inflation averaged 45 percent.

Thus, in the case of paper copies, net revenues

actually increased despite the drop in demand.

This general pattern holds for all of the major

NTIS products, as illustrated in Table 5-6.

In addition to maintaininggrevenues through

increased prices despite declining demand,

NTIS augmented sales revenues through:

s services to other agencies (such as order

billing and processing),

Table 5-4.—Demand for Selected Major NTIS Products, Fiscal Years 1980-87

Demand by fiscal year Net change

Product 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 Number Percent

On th~:;ands of copies)

Paper copy demand . . . . . . . 752 676 550 493 457 451 393 –359 –48

Microfiche copy demand 155 154 134 120 121 101 85 67 –88 –57

(in millions of copies)

Selected research in

microfiche (SRIM) . . . . . . . . 2.72 2.74 2.48 2.37 2,34 1.94 1.78 1.33 – 1.39 –51

(in thousands of subscriptions)

Government research

announcements and index 2.22 2.01 1.85 1.61 1.49 1.38 1.25 1,15 – 1,97 –48

Annual index ... . . . . . . . . . 0.91 0.84 0.96 0.82 0,73 0.63 0.61 0.50 –0.41 –41

Abstract newsletters . . . . . . 16.0 14.0 12.5 12,2 11,0 10.4 8.6 6.8 –9.2 –58

Published searches, ... .33.9 41.0 32.7 28.9 27.7 31.0 26.8 21.2 – 12.7 –38

SOURCE National Techn!cal Information Service, 1968.
113

Table 5-5.— Demand for Selected Minor NTIS Products, Fiscal Years 1983-87

Demand by fiscal year (number of copies) Net change

Product 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 Number Percent

CUFT publications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . NA 4,227 5,412 6,577 5,552 + 1,325 +31

Software tapes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 524 586 537 638 380 – 144 –28

Data tapes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,405 1,783 2,174 2,493 2,503 +1,098 +78

Data diskettes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . NA NA 100 179 338 +238 +238

Software catalog . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,064 648 3,486 1,622 969 –1,095 –53

NOTE NA=not available

SOURCE National Technical Information Service, 1988

Table 5-6.—Average Per Unit Prices for Selected Major NTIS Products Compared to Inflation Rate,

Fiscal Years 1980.87

Fiscal year 1980 Fiscal year 1987 Net change Inflation

Product per unit price per unit price Dollars Percent rate

Average price per copy

Paper copies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $16.50 $27.87 $11.37 +690/o +450/0

Microfiche copies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.50 6.50 3.00 +86 +45

Selected research in microfiche. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0,85 1.25 0.40 +47 +45

Average price per subscription

Government research announcements

and index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $275 $379 $104 +38V0 +450/0

Annual index ..., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 375 479 104 +28 +45

Abstract newsletters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 89 27 +44 +45

Published searches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 45 15 +50 +45

SOURCE National Technical Information Service, 1988

● sales ofcomputer-relatedproducts (which

haveahigh averageperunit price, about~

$67 per unit comparedto $28 for paper

and$6.50 for microfiche, asoffiscalyear

1987~ and

● NTIS brokerage fees on sales of other

agency materials.

Infiscalyear 1987 these three itemstogether

accounted foroveraquarter oftotalNTlSrevenues. The fiscal year 1986 and fiscal year 1987

revenue breakouts are shown in Table 5-7.

The comparison between fiscal year 1986 and

fiscal year 1987 revenue data shows how NTIS

has offset revenue decreases in full text reports

and subscription, bibliographic, and announcement products with revenue increases in computer products and services to other agencies.

Whether and how long NTIS can be expected

to remain viable operating on this basis requires examination. One risk is that continued

reductions in the sales volume of reports, subscriptions, bibliographies, and the like could

Table 5-7.—NTIS Revenues by Product Group, Fiscal Years 1986-87

(in thousands of dollars)

Fiscal year 1986 Fiscal year 1987 Net change

Product group Dollars Percent Dollars Percent Dollars Percent

Full text reports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11,195 50.0 10,403 46.6 – 792 –7.1

Subscription, bibliographic, and

announcement products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6,100 27.3 5,429 24.3 –671 – 11.0

Computer products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,416 6.3 2,167 9.7 + 751 +53.0

Services to other agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,811 8.1 2,451 11.0 +640 +35.0

Patent licensing fees. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 617 2.8 575 2.6 –42 –6.8

Brokerage fees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,095 4.9 1,220 5.5 + 125 + 11.4

Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147 0.7 102 0.5 –45 –30.6

Totals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22,381 100.1 22.347 100.2

SOURCE National Technical Information Service, 1988
114

necessitate further price increases, which

could, in turn, further reduce sales, and so on.

The elasticity of demand for NTIS products

is not precisely known. NTIS staff believe that

increasing price is one significant factor contributing to the decline in sales. For example,

various library officials observe that rising

NTIS prices have been a major factor contributing to reductions in NTIS subscriptions,

especially as libraries are faced with increasingly tight budgets. This view is supported to

some extent by results of the GAO survey of

Federal agencies. Of the 114 civilian departmental components responding, 40 agency

components evaluated the cost of NTIS

reports in paper format and 27 evaluated the

cost of microfiche format. Two-thirds of the

agencies evaluated the costs for paper as high

or very high, while two-thirds evaluated microfiche cost as moderate or low, as indicated

in Table 5-8.

NTIS staff believe that online searching of

the NTIS bibliographic database may also be

contributing to a reduction in the number of

requests for reports. The NTIS index products

offered directly in paper or microfiche form and

in electronic form via private sector vendors

may well be improving the efficiency of customer searches of the NTIS archives, while at

the same time may be undercutting sales of

NTIS documents. The effects of online searching on overall NTIS demand are debatable. The

experience with other online bibliographic

databases has tended to be just the opposite;

online searching has facilitated more awareness of and requests for the referenced documents. This subject warrants further research

Table 5-8.—Federal Agency Evaluation of the Cost

of NTIS Reports, Paper and Microfiche Formats,

114 Agency Components Responding

Percent of agencies using NTIS

Cost of NTIS report Paper Microfiche

Very high . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22.5

High . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45.0 2;: ;

Moderate . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27.5 63.0

Low . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.5 7.4

Very low . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.5 —

SOURCE: GAO Survey of Federal Agencies, 1987,

by NTIS and the library and information science community.

Other contributing factors include declining

agency participation in the NTIS program and

limited customer awareness of NTIS products.

With respect to the former, NTIS reports that

the number of new titles provided to NTIS by

Federal agencies has declined by about 20 percent over the fiscal year 1983-87 period, as

shown in Table 5-9. Assuming that NTIS was

not receiving one-third of relevant agency materials in fiscal year 1983 (NTIS estimate), the

fugitive document percentage would now be

up to about 47 percent. In effect, this trend

may compromise both the perceived and real

utility of the NTIS archive. NTIS may now

be receiving only about one-half of relevant

agency documents.

This conclusion is qualitatively consistent

with the results of the GAO survey of Federal

agencies. Of the 72 civilian departmental

agency components disseminating scientific

and technical information, only onehalf of the

agencies responding use NTIS. Agencies appear to rely primarily on themselves for dissemination, secondarily on GPO, NTIS, and

the Depository Library Program (DLP), and

to an even lesser extent on the private sector.

The results are presented in Table 5-10.

With respect to customer awareness of NTIS,

NTIS has an ongoing series of activities to inform potential customers of NTIS services.

However, the results of the GAO survey of

Table 5-9.–Trend in New Titles Received by NTIS,

Fiscal Years 1983.87

Titles received Estimated percent

Percent of all relevant

Fiscal year Number change agency titlesa

1983 . . . . . . . . . . . . 79,471 67.0

1984 . . . . . . . . . . . . 71,587 60.4

1985 . . . . . . . . . . . . 70,211 59.3

1986 . . . . . . . . . . . . 69,760 58.9

1987 . . . . . . . . . . . . 62,856 53.0

Net change

(1983-87) . . . . . . –16,615 –2o.9 – 14.0

a&SUmOS number Of relevm! agency titles remains constant at 11 g,000 PN year

SOURCE National Technical Information Service and Office of Technology Assessment, 1988.
115

Table 5-10.—Federal Civilian Agency Dissemination

of Scientific and Technical Information

Percent of

Dissemination channel agencies a

Own agency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 931

Government Printing Office . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52.7

National Technical Information Service. . . . . 50.0

Depository libraries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50.0

Private sector vendors/contractors . . . . . . . . . . 36.1

Consumer Information Center . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,2

a&ult~ expressed as percentage of agencies that disseminate STI that use each

channel

SOURCE GAO Survey of Federal Agencies, 1987 and Off Ice of Technology Assessment, 1988

Federal information users suggest that, overall, NTIS plays a rather limited role relative

to other direct and indirect sources of Federal

information. Among other groups, GAO surveyed a random sample of scientific and technical associations. Based on the responses of

133 associations (out of 250 sampled), NTIS

is used by about one-third. Individual Federal

agencies are used occasionally to very often,

as are newspapers, news magazines, newsletters, and trade, professional, and scientific

journals. Compared to other governmentwide

information dissemination mechanisms, NTIS

is used more often than the Consumer Information Center (CIC) or DLP, but less often

then GPO mail/telephone orders. While associations are perhaps not the best indicator of

NTIS customer awareness, science, environment, and technology were the most frequently

cited categories of Federal information used

by the respondents. The relative ranking of

Federal information sources for these associations is shown in Table 5-11.

The relatively low use of NTIS may reflect

a combination of low demand for NTIS products, low awareness of NTIS products, and/or,

as mentioned earlier, high cost of NTIS products. In addition, OTA’S independent consultant on university use of scientific and technical information concluded that NTIS is not

viewed as a source of state-of-the-art information, due to the time delays between the existence of a document and its availability via

NTIS. On the other hand, the role of NTIS as

a secondary source of scientific and technical

Table 5.11 .—Scientific and Technical Association Use

of Federal Information Sources, Rank Order

Percent of associations

responding that the

Source of Federal information source is usedb

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7,

8.

9.

10.

11,

12.

13,

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19,

20,

21,

22.

23.

24.

25,

26,

—

Trade, professional, or

scientific journals. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Newsletters. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Newspapers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

News magazines , . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Individual Federal Agencies . . . . .

Radio/television . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Congressional agency (LOCI

GAO, OTA, CBO, CRS) . . . . . . . . .

College/university library . . . . . . .

GPO mail/telephone orders . . . . .

Office of U.S. Senator or

Representative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

State or local government

agency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Inhouse library or information

center. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Commercial bookstore . . . . . . . .

Congressional committee. . . . . .

Local public library . . . . . . . . . . . .

Commercial mail/telephone

orders. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

NTIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Federal agency library. . . . . . . . . .

Commercial online database

vendor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

GPO bookstore . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

GPO depository library . . . . . . . .

Commercial information

brokers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Consumer Information Center . .

State agency library. . . . . . . . . . . .

State government library. . . . . . . .

Local school (Grades 1-12)

88.9

82,9

71.9

68.9

64.1

53.8

50.8

45.8

44.4

43.2

42.6

39.5

38.7

37.7

37.5

35.8

30,6

25.2

24.8

23.7

19.8

15.4

12.1

11.2

7.8

library . . . . . . J . . . . . . . . . .‘. . . . . . . 1.7

aFederal sources are italicized

bAgencies repo~ing that a source of Federal !nformat!on IS used Occasionally,

often, or very often.

SOURCE: GAO Survey of Federal Information Users 1988

documents is appreciated, especially in the library community and among university researchers. a

“Mark P. Haselkorn, Philip L. Bereano, Caro]yn Plumb, and

Patricia Tetlin, “Perspectives on Federal Dissemination of Scientific and Technical Information”, OTA cent ractor report prepared by the program in Scientific and Technical Communica.

tion, School of Engineering, University of Washington, Seattle,

February 1988, Also see Charles R, McClure, Peter Hernon, and

Carj R. Purcell, Linking the U.S. IVational Technical Information Sert’ice With Academic and Public Libraries, (Norwood,

NJ: Ablex Publishing, 1986); and Peter Hernon and Charles R.

McClure, Federal Information Policies in the 1980s: Conflicts

and Issues, INorwood, NJ, Ablex Publishing, 1987).
116

Possible New Initiatives

The nature of demand for NTIS documents

makes NTIS highly suitable for application of

electronic publishing and printing-on-demand

systems. As noted earlier, the average demand

for NTIS documents is 10 copies, and perhaps

one-quarter of the documents never sell a single copy. As an illustration, for all documents

archived by NTIS in calendar year 1986, there

was no demand for 43 percent, only 5 percent

sold more than 10 copies, and only 1 percent

sold more than 50 copies. The detailed demand

distribution is shown in Table 5-12.

In addition to very low total demand for

most NTIS documents, demand for a given

document can be spread over many years. For

example, of the average sales of 10 copies per

document, only 3 copies might be sold in the

first year after announcement, 2 copies in the

second year, 4 copies spread over the third

through tenth years after announcement, and

the last copy might be sold 11 to 15 years or

more after being made available. This phenomenon is known as the demand decay curve, and

is illustrated in Table 5-13 for NTIS documents

sold during calender year 1986.

This highlights the NTIS dilemma: low sales

volume spread over many years, but a document

that sells only a single copy could contribute to

significant innovations. While NTIS is able to

identify documents that are relevant to current

technical issues and research and development

priorities, it is difficult to predict which documents will have high demand and virtually

impossible to predict which documents will conTable 5.12.—Demand for NTIS Documents

Announced in Calendar Year 1986

Number of Percent of total

Level of demand documents documents

(total annual) (per demand level) announced

No demand. . . . . .

1 copy . . . . . . . . . .

2-5 copies . . . . . . .

6-10 . . . . . . . . . . . .

11-20 . . . . . . . . . . .

21-50 . . . . . . . . . . .

51 + . . . . . . . . . . . .

Totals . . . . . . . .

28,364

10,906

16,853

5,597

2,228

967

379

65,294

43

17

26

9

3

1

1

100

SOURCE National Technical Information Service, 1986

Table 5-13.—Age of NTIS Documents Sold

in Calender Year 1986

Percent of

Date of document Co~ies sold total

1968 and prior. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7,730

1969 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,412

1970 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,931

1971 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,489

1972 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,744

1973 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,346

1974 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,278

1975 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,942

1976 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7,282

1977 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8,117

1978 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8,660

1979 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9,571

1980 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10,446

1981 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14,799

1982 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15,615

1983 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24,318

1984 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30,448

1985 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72,149

1986 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138,431

Pre-announcement demanda 

. . . . . 2,854

Announcement date unknownb . . . 37,423

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ., . . 410,985

1.9

0.3

0.5

0.6

0.9

1.1

1.0

1.2

1.8

2.0

2.1

2.3

2.5

3.6

3.8

5.9

7.4

17.6

33.7

0.7

9! 1

100.0

aPre.announcement demand Announcement date of 1987, orders were received

in FY 1986 due to source pre-announcement, etc , and NTIS was able to fill the

b~~~~~~cement Date IJnknown Announcement date IS not included In NTIS in.

ventory file

SOURCE National Technical Information Service, 1988

tribute to a major scientific or technical breakthrough. This is the primary rationale for the

NTIS archive, and underpins the need to maintain NTIS documents on file indefinitely.

Fortunately, technological advances have

created several possibilities that appear to be

ideally suited to the nature of NTIS demand.

First, most federally-sponsored or conducted

scientific and technical reports are created on

word processing or microcomputer-based systems. Thus, the keystrokes are captured electronically. The electronic versions of these

reports are typically converted to paper (or microfiche) format by the originating agency (or

the agency contractor) and submitted to NTIS

as paper (or microfiche) copies. NTIS then disseminates copies in paper (or microfiche) in response to requests. About 80 percent of the

NTIS reports are disseminated in paper format and the remaining 20 percent in microfiche. Because demand is low, and typically for
117

——...—— .—

one copy at a time, the per unit costs are high

—averaging $25-30 per paper copy.

If NTIS could receive agency reports in electronic format, using compatible document description standards, then NTIS could apply

electronic publishing and printing-on-demand

technology where appropriate. For example,

NTIS could develop and implement a version

of the Electronic Document System similar to

that being developed by DTIC. Documents

could enter NTIS either indirect electronic format (by magnetic computer tape, floppy disk,

or electronic transmission, similar to GPO receipt of publications material) or by scanning

paper copies. DTIC envisions the use of highspeed, high-resolution optical scanning equipment that will compete favorably with the current microfiche system used by DTIC. However, direct electronic input should be less

expensive than scanning for new input, at least

for NTIS purposes. Scanning may, however,

be the only option for converting old material.

DTIC also envisions using high capacity, low

cost per bit digital storage systems such as

those using laser optical disks. High capacity

WORM (Write Once, Read Manytimes) optical disk juke boxes should be applicable to both

DTIC and NTIS. The 12-inch disks can store

about one gigabyte of information per side, or

roughly 400,000 to 500,000 pages of doublespaced typed material per side. This means

that, assuming straight digitized text only and

an average length of 200 double-spaced pages

per document, the roughly 70,000 new documents received by NTIS each year could be

stored on about 14 doublesided WORM optical disks.~j

For output, DTIC plans to use high-speed,

high resolution electronic printing equipment

for producing paper documents on demand.

Documents will be printed double-sided using

plain bond paper to reduce paper and mailing

costs. The reproduction cost should drop by

an order of magnitude. The fully developed

Electronic Document System permits the reITOK d [)(:11 In ~!Ilt ~ i 200 j)agf;s per docunlellt = 14 million

pages divided by 1 million pages perdoubl~sided 12-inch 11’ORM

disk.

production of full copies, and facilitates

printing-on-demand of selected pages, since the

text of documents stored on the system could

be made available for electronic display at remote terminals. DTIC plans to use a standard

structured database approach known as Standardized General Markup Language (SGML) to

facilitate electronic document reproduction on

a fast turnaround basis.

DTIC intends to continue its present microfiche-based production system in parallel with

the Electronic Document System. However,

as new documents are added in electronic format, the use of microfiche is expected to decline substantially. DTIC estimates that the

electronic system will fill about 40 to 45 percent of paper copy requests after one year of

operation, and about 60 to 70 percent of such

requests after 3 years of operation. Should

NTIS implement a similar system, NTIS could

expect comparable results, with an estimated

35 percent of requests handled with electronic

printing on demand after the first year, 60 percent of requests after 3 years, and perhaps 75

percent of requests after 5 years. These estimates assume that the NTIS backfiles (archival documents entered in earlier years)

would be retained in microfiche, since demand

is so low and the cost of conversion may not

be justified.

Should NTIS implement its version of an

Electronic Document System, NTIS would be

positioned to offer search and retrieval capability, directly and/or via private vendors or

other government agencies. Such software

could build on the results, as they become available, of DTIC’S Artificial Intelligence/Decision

Support Laboratory. Another prototype is

“Grateful Meal, ’ bibliographic search software

developed by the National Library of Medicine

for users of the MEDLARS database.

An NTIS Electronic Document System, if

properly interfaced with the source agencies,

should be able to substantially reduce the time

lag between the existence of a document and

its availability via NTIS. The time lag could

be further reduced if interagency procedures

are strengthened so that agencies are required

. . - >. — , ‘

- — “
to make more timely submissions to NTIS.

Strengthening of such procedures could also

address the question of how to increase the

completeness of the NTIS archive. As noted

earlier, perhaps one half of the scientific and

technical reports generated by or for Federal

agencies are not submitted to NTIS. While all

the fugitive documents may not be relevant,

it is likely that a significant portion of these

are. Agencies could be required to provide more

complete submissions and/or follow a specified

set of procedures for determining what items

should be submitted.

An electronic NTIS with a more complete

and up-to-date archive would open up a wide

range of possibilities for marketing and dissemination of scientific and technical information. The following illustrative activities could

be implemented by NTIS, individual Federal

science agencies, and/or private vendor:

●

●

●

●

●

●

CD-ROM distribution of NTIS bibliographic database on selected subjects;

CD-ROM distribution of NTIS documents

on selected subjects;

Floppy disk distribution of individual

NTIS reports;

Online distribution of selected NTIS documents with printing-on-demand of the entire document or selected pages at NTIS

or remote locations;

Electronic bulletin board announcement

of selected new NTIS documents of general interest; and

Electronic bulletin board announcement

of NTIS documents on subject matter

matched to the bulletin board participants.

In essence, an electronic NTIS would have

the capability to produce multi-format output

—paper, microfiche, offline electronic, or online electronic as appropriate, depending on the

type of product and user needs. As noted

earlier, the GAO survey results highlighted the

significant anticipated increase over the next

three years in demand for scientific and technical information in electronic formats on the

part of libraries and scientific and technical

associations. Demand for paper and microfiche

is anticipated to decrease moderately over the

next three years.

Overall, an electronic NTIS should be able

to greatly increase the diversity and timeliness

of NTIS (and related private vendor) offerings,

increase the ability of NTIS (and private vendors) to match information products with potential users, and reduce the cost of NTIS (and

private vendor) products. An electronic NTIS

also should be better able to serve, especially,

small and medium businesses and individual

researchers who tend to be penalized by the

present paper-based system that assigns a

premium to economies of scale. Understandably, NTIS directs much of its marketing efforts at its largest customers who generate the

most sales, but who also are typically well

staffed with information specialists. An electronic NTIS would increase the incentives and

available options to reach smaller market segments from whence many innovations ultimately originate. It is certainly conceivable

that NTIS could eventually be used by the individual researcher and entrepreneur who depend heavily on informal and collegial networks for the sharing of scientific and technical

information. Also, NTIS would be a logical key

participant in the development of a governmentwide information index, for which respondents to the GAO survey of Federal information users indicated strong interest. Such

an index would also help improve the ability

of researchers and entrepreneurs to know of

potentially relevant information. Finally, as

a complement to the electronic document system and improved indexing, increased agency

participation in the NTIS clearinghouse may

need to be mandated. The declining trend in

the percentage of agency scientific and technical documents submitted is cause for concern. While including 100 percent of agency

documents in NTIS is unrealistic, some steps

could be taken to broaden the coverage and

increase the timeliness of agency submissions.

This could be accomplished through interagency agreements, OMB circulars, and./or, if

necessary, legislation.
119

NTIS/SUPDOCS COOPERATION

The consolidation of NTIS with GPO’s SupDocs has been proposed by the Public Printer

and as part of legislation introduced in the past

two Congresses that would establish a Government Information Office. However, this

section focuses on opportunities for improved

cooperation between NTIS and SupDocs, irrespective of the formal institutional structure,

since the need for improvements in NTIS/SupDocs marketing, product line analyses, and coordination will exist regardless of the institutional structure. (See chs. 11 and 12 for further

discussion of institutional alternatives.)

The major reasons advanced for improved

NTIS/SupDocs cooperation (whether or not

through formal consolidation) are: efficiencies

in management and operations, improved coordination of Federal information dissemination, enhanced opportunities for use of new

technology, strengthened joint marketing programs, reduced overlap and duplication in

government dissemination activities, and improved overall public access to Federal information. Possible drawbacks of or barriers to

improved cooperation include: some differences in current missions of the NTIS and SupDocs and resultant potential problems in more

closely coordinating these functions, difficulties inherent in cooperative activities of agencies from different branches of government,

and reluctance on the part of some Federal

agencies to cooperate with NTIS and/or SupDocs, regardless of the institutional structure.

Differences and Similarities

The major differences between NTIS and

SupDocs are that:

●

●

NTIS is in the executive branch while SupDocs is in the legislative branch;

NTIS maintains a permanent archive of

scientific and technical documents totalling close to 2 million items, while GPO

maintains documents in inventory only

while in stock or if reprinted (usually due

to strong demand);

NTIS has 2 million document titles for

sale whereas the average SupDocs sales

inventory is about 20,000 or about one percent of the NTIS inventory;

the average NTIS sales volume is about

10 copies per title whereas the SupDocS

average is on the order of 2,000 copies per

title;

NTIS retains all titles received in the

NTIS archive and available for sale, while

SUpDocS for the most part includes only

the titles judged to have significant sales

potential;

the NTIS annual sales volume is in the

few millions range whereas the SupIXxx

volume is in the few tens of millions range;

and,

NTIS is considerably smaller than SupDocs–at yearend fiscal year 1987, NTIS

had 344 employees compared to 930 for

SupDocs, NTIS had total revenues of

about $22 million in fiscal year 1987 compared to about $100 million for SupDocs

(figures include reimbursed services and

services funded through appropriations).

At first glance, these differences could appear as, collectively, a significant barrier to improved cooperation. However these differences

could become complementary aspects of a combined strateg~ for institutional sur~~iva] and

growth.

There are significant similarities between

NTIS and SupDocs:

●

●

●

Both must operate their sales programs

on a breakeven basis, that is, there are no

appropriations to subsidize the cost of

sales.

Both must compete with private vendors,

who can always reprint and resell government documents since these materials

cannot be copyrighted.

Both must compete to some extent with
120

Federal mission agencies, who frequently

distribute significant numbers of copies

of documents free of charge to agency

clients, contractors, and interest groups.

Both NTIS and SupDocs carry out marketing activities in support of their sales programs, although the programs have relative

strengths and weaknesses:

●

●

NTIS produces a variety of specialized

subject matter searches that have no direct parallel at SupDocs.

SupDocs makes growing use of radio and

television public service announcements

and is revitalizing the GPO bookstores as

sales outlets, marketing tools not used by

NTIS.

NTIS and SupDocs perform reimbursable

services for other agencies:

●

●

e

In fiscal year 1987, NTIS performed about

$2.5 million worth of services for other

agencies (accounting for roughly 10 percent of total revenues).

In fiscal year 1987, SupDocs performed

about $5 million in reimbursable services,

primarily for operating the CIC for GSA

(accounting for about 5 percent of total

SupDocs revenues).

If the DLP, also operated by SupDocs, is

counted as a reimbursable service funded

through appropriations, then reimbursable services would be about 25 percent

of total SupDocs revenues.

The similarities go on. Both NTIS and SupDocs prepare indices or catalogs to government documents. NTIS publishes a weekly and

annual Government Reports Announcement

and Index Journal (known as GRA&I) that includes summaries of government conducted or

sponsored research reports. The summaries are

indexed by subject, author, institution, and

contract number (if applicable). NTIS also prepares the NTIS Bibliographic Database that

includes all items in the NTIS archive. In addition to government conducted or sponsored

reports, the NTIS Database includes federallygenerated machine readable data files and software, U.S. Government inventions available

for licensing, and foreign government reports

exchanged with Federal agencies and any

federally-generated translations thereof. The

NTIS database is updated biweekly and, is

available online through commercial vendors.

SupDocs prepares:

the Monthly Catalog of United States

Government Publications (which indexes

publications by author, title, subject, series/report number, contract number, stock

number, and title keyword);

the 3 times a year Consumer Information

Catalog (which lists consumer publications from about 30 Federal agencies that

are available free or at minimal charge

from CIC);

the quarterly Government Peri&”cals and

Subscription Serw”ces (which lists over 500

subscriptions to periodicals and recurring

reports published by more than 40 Federal agencies and sold by SupDocs);

the 3 times a year U.S. Government Books

(which catalogs about 1,000 of SupDocs

best-selling publications); and

the bimonthly New Books (which lists new

SupDocs wd-es items).

Information on SupDocs sales items, bibliographies, and catalogs is available from private

vendors, in both online and CD-ROM formats.

For example, the GPO Sales Publications

Reference File, which lists all GPO titles currently for sale, is available online to the public

via the commercial DIALOG information retrieval service and includes an online ordering

capability.

Both NTIS and SupDocs primarily use paper and microfiche formats for dissemination,

although NTIS sales of computer tapes, floppy

disks, and software have been growing, as have

GPO sales of computer tapes. Both NTIS and

SupDocs have international exchange programs to encourage the two-way flow of information between the U.S. and other countries.

Finally, it bears emphasis that, except for the

type of bibliographic and index products mentioned earlier, both NTIS and SupDocs depend

on the Federal mission agencies as the primary
121

source of documents. The agencies (including

Congress for SupDocs purposes) create the documents and in many cases handle primary distribution; NTIS and SupDocs as governmentwide information dissemination mechanisms

are responsible for, in effect, secondary distribution through their sales programs (and

through the DLP and CIC in the case of SupDocs)~Private vendors also serve as secondary distributors of selected agency documents.

Disadvantages and Advantages

The possible disadvantages of improved

NTIS/SupDocs cooperation are erosion of the

NTIS archive function and aggravation of separation of powers concerns. Representatives

of the scientific and technical community as

well as the Federal science agencies believe that

the NTIS archive or something equivalent is

essential to the U.S. research and development

effort and to basic science and technical innovation. From this perspective, cooperative initiatives would have to be designed so as to ensure continuity of the archive. If the DLP is

viewed as part of SupDocs, then SupDocs does

already have an archive function, since the regional depository libraries maintain a complete

archive of all government publications distributed to them, 60 percent of which in recent

years are in microfiche format. Also, either microfiche masters or camera ready copy existed

at some previous point in time for most of these

materials. However, retention of these originals is incomplete, and neither the originals

nor the regional depository library archives are

available as part of a coordinated sales program. The SupDoc’s Library Programs Service does maintain a collection of microfiche

masters procured for the DLP, and plans to

eventually transfer this collection to the National Archives and Records Administration

(NARA). Copies of some of these items are

available for sale on demand. It also should

be noted that NTIS has submitted to NARA

a plan that provides for transferring NTIS

master microforms to NARA when records are

10 years old.

The actual current overlap between the NTIS

archive and the SupDocs sales program is

thought to be small; the overlap between the

NTIS archive and the regional library archives

is unknown (as the libraries do receive some

NTIS publications).

Another possible disadvantage is aggravation of separation of powers concerns, since

NTIS is in the executive branch and SupDocs

in the legislative. Some Federal executive

branch agencies do not like the current roles

of GPO and the Joint Committee on Printing

(JCP) (as authorized by Title 44 of the U.S.

Code) with respect to agency printing and publishing activities, view those roles as inappropriate and/or unconstitutional (see ch. 11),

and oppose any greater role for them. Regardless of the merits or demerits of these concerns,

the role of SupDocs has not been the primary

focus of attention or challenge. In fact, some

NTIS officials believe that NTIS is handicapped because, while Federal agencies are

required to participate in the SupDocs sales

program, agency participation in the NTIS archive is voluntary and not required by statute. SupDocs seems to be able to work effectively with many executive branch agencies,

even though SupDocs is in the legislative

branch. Nonetheless, improved NTIS/SupDocs

cooperation and especially a consolidation is

viewed by some Commerce Department and

OMB officials as possibly aggravating conflicts over separation of powers, but more importantly, from their perspective, further distancing the creators of the information (the

executive agencies) from the disseminators. In

this view, the decentralizing tendencies of electronic technologies should be encouraged by

placing information dissemination as close as

possible to the ultimate users of the information. The strengthening of centralized dissemination mechanisms (whether SupDocs, NTIS,

or even governmentwide indices) seems to be

feared and resisted, even if centralized dissemination would not preempt agency dissemination.

It seems plausible that strengthened NTISSupDocs cooperation would lead to improvements in indexing, marketing, and international exchange. Perhaps most important, however, is the potential improvement in overall
722

strategic posture that could result from improved cooperation. As presented earlier in detail, NTIS is in a very vulnerable situation. In

contrast, SupDocs has maintained better than

breakeven operations in recent years, with net

income of $11.4 million in fiscal year 1987 and

$5.5 million in fiscal year 1986. However, while

in a strong position compared to NTIS, SupDocs has some emerging areas of vulnerability that could become significant in a rather

short period of time.

Like NTIS, SupDocs could be vulnerable to

electronic competition. For example, one of

SupDocs largest revenue sources is the Commerce Business Daiiy (CBD), with subscriptions generating more than $9 million in SupDocs revenue, or about 12 percent of total sales

revenue in fiscal year 1987. However, the results of private sector marketing of the CBD

online or on CD-ROM suggests that electronic

formats may be preferable for many C13D customers. If the demand for paper copies declined

dramatically over the next few years, it is conceivable that the Department of Commerce

might stop funding the set-up charges for

printing paper copies. While SupDocs presumably could continue to print the CBD itself,

the cost would increase significantly, since

SupDocs now pays only the marginal printing cost, but would have to pay the full printing cost if the Department of Commerce ceased

participation. This could put SupDocs in the

position of raising prices for paper copies of

a product (the C13D) that clearly is well suited

to electronic formats, especially online. If the

NTIS experience is any guide, higher prices

could further reduce sales and encourage more

users to switch to electronic formats, which

in turn could lead to yet another price increase

for paper copies to cover fixed costs with a

smaller sales volume. According to GPO, under current law, if the Department of Commerce stopped printing the CBD, there would

be no printing requisition for SupDocs to

“ride” (order extra copies) and thus no “additional copies” for SupDocs to sell.

Other SupDocs best sellers that might be vulnerable include (with fiscal year 1987 revenues

indicated): the Code of Federal Regulations ($2

million), Federal Acquisition Regulations ($1.9

million), Tariff Schedules Annotated ($0.9 million), and DoD FAR Supplement ($0.9 million).

At the moment, SupDocs sales volume and

total distribution appear to be holding reasonably steady. Most indicators declined in the

early 1980s, but have since been relatively

level. Trends for fiscal years 1981-87 are shown

in Table 5-14 for SupDocs sales orders, copies

sold, CIC free orders, CIC copies distributed,

and depository library copies distributed.

A detailed analysis of the SupDocs product

line is warranted to determine if significant vulnerability extends beyond items such as the

CBD and, as discussed in chapter 4, the Record and l?e~”ster, that are well suited to electronic formats. Overall, SupDocs would appear

to be in a stronger position than NTIS, since

many of the traditional government reports

and periodicals sold or distributed by SupDocs

are likely to be best suited to paper formats

for years to come. Also, SupDocs has potential opportunities in other areas, such as sales

of government forms. For example, in fiscal

Table 5-14.—SupDocs Sales and Distribution Activity, Fiscal Years 1981-87

Millions of orders or copies

Fiscal year Fiscal year Fiscal year Fiscal year Fiscal year Fiscal year Fiscal year

1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987a

Sales ordersb . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.0 1.5 1.3 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.6

Free CIC orders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.9 2.4 2.3 2.2 2.1 2.6 2.2

Copies soldb. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29.8 25.9 24.5 24.8 26.7 27.1 26.7

Free CIC copies distributed . . . . . . . NA 25.7 23.0 14.7 21.9 19.2 21.5

Depository library copies

distributed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28.7 20.7 31.9 37.1 36,1 26.7 22.7

aEstlmates.

blncludes CIC sales

SOURCE U.S Government Printing Off Ice, 1988.
123 —

year 1987, SupDocs sold IRS forms to tax practitioners. About 80,000 orders were processed,

yielding a gross revenue of $2.8 million and

net revenue of $1.5 million. Nonetheless, given

the strong commitment of many Federal agencies to shift to electronic formats over the next

few years, especially for statistical, scientific

and technical, and administrative documents,

the SupDocs sales and distribution outlook

bears continuous scrutiny.

NTIS-SupDocs cooperation could be especially synergistic with regard to low-demand

items. At present, the NTIS product sales line

is dominated by low demand documents, but

NTIS does not have the resources or mechanism to invest in the electronic technology best

suited to low demand dissemination. On the

other hand, the SupDocs product sales line is

almost devoid of low demand items, yet SupDocs does have access to the GPO revolving

fund for capital investment in electronic technology (subject, of course, to approval of the

Public Printer and JCP and to overall GPO

funding constraints). An NTIS-SupDocs cooperative initiative could design an Electronic

Document System (similar to the DTIC prototype) that would meet NTIS needs plus a

broadening of the SupDocs product line to include selected low demand items.

The economics of electronic printing-ondemand for low volume documents are quite

simple. Many of the cost elements in conventional printing are essentially fixed, and are

not affected by the number of copies printed,

as shown in Table 5-15.

Thus most costs are independent of the size

of the press run, and reducing the length of

the press run increases the per unit printing

cost, all other things being equal. Electronic

printing eliminates most of the prepress functions, although the cost of toner (e.g., for laser

printers) is higher per page than the cost of

printing ink. Electronic printing is generally

less expensive per page at volumes of tens to

a few hundred. In addition, electronic printing facilitates electronic linkages bet ween the

document database and user terminals for onTable 5-15.—Conventional Printing Functions Affected

by Length of Press Run

Affected by length

Function of press run

Composition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - No --

Camera. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . No

Platemaking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . No

Film . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . No

Plates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . No

Press makeready . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . No

Press running . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Yes

Bindery set-up. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . No

Bindery running . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Yes

Paper . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Yes

Ink . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Yes

SOURCE F J R;mano, 1988 —-

line searching and printing-on-demand of

selected pages.

Electronic printing provides cost-effective

multiformat output capability and is especially

suited to low-volume, shorter, ald simpler documents with straight text or text and tables

and a minimum of photographs and complex

line art (high-end systems can handle photos

and art work, although at higher cost). Best

estimates suggest that over half of the documents printed by GPO, and about 90 percent

of the documents printed by other agencies,

are 100 pages in length or less. Estimates alSO

indicate that about 90 percent of all material

is straight text (80 percent) and tables (10 percent). The detailed breakout is shown in Table

5-16.

Table 5-16.—Estimated Page Length and Content

of Government Documents

Other Overall

GPO Government average

..—— —

Page length

10 pages or less . . . . . . . . . 9“/0 13’Yo 110/0

~1-50 pages . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 30 26

51-10() pages . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 37 31

101-250 pages . . . . . . . . . . . 20 10 15

251-499 pages . . . . . . . . . . . 15 10

500 pages or more . . . . . . . 8 : 7

Page content

Text ., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79.30/0

Tables ., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.8

Line art . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.8

Photographs ... , ... . . . . 4.1

SOURCE GPO and F J Romano 1988
124

In sum, many government documents are suitable for electronic printing if the demand is low.

Clearly many NTIS document sales items meet

this criterion. At present, few SupDocs sales

items meet this criterion, since average sales

volume is about 2,000 copies (and the average

GPO press run is 3,000 to 4,000 copies). However, a significant number of government documents not presently included in the GPO

sales program may be viable on an electronic

printing-on-demand basis. The combined NTIS

and SupDocs low-demand sales volume could

help justify investment in the necessary equipment. An Electronic Document System could

be funded out of the GPO revolving fund and

charged back to SupDocs as depreciation, just

like any other SupDocs capital investment.

NTIS could reimburse SupDocs for a prorated

portion of the capital investment, funded out

of NTIS retained earnings (if authorized by

Congress).

NTIS-SupDocs cooperation could also be

synergistic with respect to sales of what NTIS

calls computer products. As noted earlier, this

has become a significant product line for NTIS,

one of the few showing recent sales growth.

However, it is likely that only a small fraction

of agency computer products are included at

the present time. SupDocs has initiated a related sales program that at present is limited

to a few magnetic tapes. An expanded SupDocs program could start to duplicate NTIS.

A single coordinated governmentwide sales

mechanism presumably would be more efficient and easier for both the participating agencies and the customers. Many agencies would

still be likely to distribute some computer products themselves. A coordinated and possibly

even consolidated NTIS-SupDocs computer

product line could also benefit from appropriate use of GPO bookstores, catalogs, and advertising, and would fit well with the concept

of a governmentwide index to Federal information in all formats.

Another potential advantage of NTIS-SupDocs cooperation would be to improve coordination among all four of the governmentwide

information dissemination mechanisms (SupDocs, NTIS, DLP, and CIC) and help insure

that statutory requirements are fulfilled. It is

also possible that improved cooperation would

result in reduced total overhead and indirect

labor, due to efficiencies in certain management and administrative functions. However,

a full analysis would require more detailed information on NTIS and SupDocs cost and labor force structures.
Chapter 6

Information Technologies,

Libraries, and the Federal

Depository Library Program

Clockwise from top left: library shelving with document collection materials; librarian assisting user at reference desk;

librarian assisting user with map collection; and user on an OCLC terminal (photo credits: Documents Center,

Robert W. Woodruff Library, Emory University).
CONTENTS

Page

Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ......................127

Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..........128

Role of Information Technologies in Libraries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .131

Use of Specific Technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ...132

Online Database Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...133

Library Communication Networks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .134

Electronic Bulletin Boards . . . . . . . . . . .............................135

Optical Disks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ................136

Facsimile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .................137

Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ................................138

Federal Depository Library Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..138

Origins and Operations of the Depository Library Program . ..........138

Format of Depository Library Materials: Paper v. Microfiche ... ... ...140

Dissemination of Information in Electronic Format. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...142

Online Catalogs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...............144

Table

Table Page

6-l. Depository Library Access to Information Technology . . . . . . . . . . . . .133
Chapter 6

Information Technologies, Libraries, and

the Federal Depository Library Program

SUMMARY

Chapters 6 and 7 explore the role of libraries,

and particularly those participating in the U.S.

Government Printing Office (GPO) depository

library program (DLP), in the dissemination

of Federal information to the public. ] The

program is a cooperative activity between the

Federal Government and approximately 1,400

libraries. The government provides copies of

government-produced materials free of charge

to the libraries; the libraries, in return, provide

housing for the documents and access to this

information free of charge to their patrons.

DLP is a principal avenue of access to government information for the public. It is recognized as one of several guaranteed channels

of public access to government information

established by Congress in support of our

democratic form of government, and serves in

part as an ‘‘information safety net for members of the public. This safety net is changing

because of the increasing use of information

technologies by Federal agencies in support

of agency programs. This use is influencing the

way in which agencies conduct their business,

and how citizens access government information.

This chapter examines how libraries employ

a variety of information technologies to support their mission of “allowing people to utilize information. First, the chapter reviews

the role of libraries in the dissemination of government information in the United States. This

is followed by a discussion of key technological trends and applications relevant to libraries

in general and to depository libraries in particular. The technologies examined include

~ ~ ~ this rewrt, use of the phrase “depositor~ program”

refers onl~’ to the CI PO depositor~ libra~’ program.

‘hl, Turoff and M. Spector, “ I,ibraries and the 1 replications

of Computer Technology, proceedings of the,1 FI1’.S ,\’ati~~nal

Computer (’(reference, 1’01. 45. 1976 ,

microcomputers, online databases, library

communication networks, electronic bulletin

boards, facsimile, and optical disks. Next, the

history of the depository program is briefly reviewed, followed by a description of current

dissemination efforts in the Library Programs

Service. Three topics concerning access to government information are examined in detail:

dual format which concerns the distribution of selected materials in paper and microfiche:

provision of government information in

electronic formats to depository libraries

through a pilot project program; and

the development of online catalogs in depository institutions.

The three topics are concerned with meeting

the information and format needs of users,

while at the same time facing and resolving

new financial issues.

OTA has found that depository libraries are

increasingly incorporating new technologies in

support of user services and operations. The results of the General Accounting Office Survey

of Federal Information Users, when compared

to earlier depository library data, indicate a

strong and growing technology base in depository institutions. For example, 83 percent of

those surveyed have access to microcomputers

with modems for online access, 95 percent have

access to microfiche readers with printers, 41 percent have access to a CD-ROM reader, and 36

percent have access to a mainframe computer

facility. The survey also found that these same

institutions intend or wish to expand their use

of information technologies within the next 3

years to support user information needs. OTA

has concluded that information technologies,

if appropriately planned and executed, hold the

promise of helping to achieve the original goals

127
128

and intent of the depository program through

enhanced access to government information.

Information technologies are changing how

libraries function and how users seek information. Many libraries are deploying the electronic technologies to become gateways to information with the use of local, State, regional,

and national networks and information

services—both public and private. The relatively recent, rapid introduction of new information applications, such as full-text online

retrieval of networked information services

and CD-ROM tools, demonstrates that librarians and information providers are experimenting with current electronic capabilities and future opportunities in order to meet user

information needs. For example, it appears

that since government information has been

integrated into library collections through online catalogs, use of the information has increased significantly.

While these technologies present the user

with different types and levels of access, they

also present both the librarian and user with

new cost concerns and format decisions.

INTRODUCTION

People need information to perform a variety of daily tasks, to participate in governmental deliberations, to vote, to be effective

members of a community, to make business

decisions, and more. As the largest collector

and disseminator of information in the United

States, the Federal Government is responsible for creating and disseminating much of this

“information” used by the public. Information

reaches the public through a number of formal and informal, complimentary and competitive channels. These range from agency programs with specific dissemination charters to

private sector services, and from public interest group efforts and the media to libraries—

State and local public libraries, libraries in academic and research institutions, special

libraries, and Federal libraries.

Many of these channels are supported by the

Federal Government in recognition of the importance of public access to government information. This is a basic tenet of U.S. society

and is considered vital to the functioning of

our democratic form of government. As stated

by Jefferson:

If a nation expects to be ignorant and free

in a state of civilization, it expects what never

was and never will be . . . if we are to guard

against ignorance and remain free, it is the

responsibility of every American to be informed.3

Recognition of the importance of an informed

citizenry has been affirmed since the founding of the country, and continues through the

enactment of new laws such as the Freedom

of Information Act, Government in the Sunshine Act, and the law establishing the DLP.

As stated by Senator Lausche during hearings

on the Depository Program in 1962:

Although it may sound trite, an intelligent,

informed, populace has been, is and will continue to be the fundamental element in the

strength of our Nation. Contributing greatly

to that intellectual strength is the so-called

Government document, designed to disseminate to the American public important information relative to the activities and purposes

of its Government.4

There is also the understanding that: “equally

important is their (the people’s) ability to access all other types of information, informa-

~Letter to Cd. Charles Yancey from Thomas Jefferson, July

6, 1816.

‘U.S. Congress, Committee on Rules and Administration,

Subcommittee on the Library, Depositor-y Libraries, Hearings

on S.2029 and H.R. 8141 To Revise the Laws Relating to Depositor-y Libraries, 87th Cong., 2d session, Mar. 15-16, 1962,

p. 25.
tion that has a direct bearing on the quality

of life our citizens enjoy.

In addition to democratic and quality of life

principles, the DLP serves the business community, which is important to local, State, and

national economies. Congress, through the

establishment of the DLP, specifically recognized the need for a guaranteed channel of access to government information by citizens,

and in Title 44 describes the purpose of the

program as an avenue of dissemination of government information free of charge to the

public:

The depository library system is a longestablished cooperative program between the

Federal Government and designated major libraries throughout the United States under

which certain classes of Government publications are supplied free of cost to those libraries

for the purpose of making such publications

more readily accessible to the American

public.”

The primary mission of the program as set

out in the 1977 Guidelines For the Depository

Library System is: “. . . to make U.S. Government publications easily accessible to the general public and to insure their continued availability in the near future. The Guideh”nes a.lso

note that the materials will be forwarded to

the participating institutions” without delay, ”

again to insure timely access to information

by citizens.7 There are two other elements of

program mission: use of government documents by the academic/research community;

and educational needs and use.

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB)

also recognized the importance of the program

in Circular A-130 and noted that: “depository

libraries provide a kind of information ‘safety

“Testimony of <Joseph Duncan on behalf of the 11A in U.S.

Congress, Committee on [~overnrnent Operations. Electronic

Collection and Dissemination of Information b?’ Federal .4gencies: A Policy 0~’er\riew’, 99th Cong., 2d CWSS., House Report

NO. 323, 1986, p. 52.

‘U.S. Congress, Senate Committee cm Rules and Administration, op. cit., footnote 4, p.1.

‘Depositor IJibrary Council, Guidelines for the Depositor>

I.ibrar?- S~rstem GPO: il$rashington, DC: Oct. 18, 1977). p. 1.

129 —

net’ to the public, an existing institutional

mechanism that guarantees a minimum level

of availability of government information to

all members of the public, ” and “the Federal

Government shall rely upon the depository library system to provide free citizen access to

public information. ”

There are many classes of government information collected for a variety of purposes,

and these are disseminated to the public

through the DLP. Some information is referred

to as process, core, or basic information such

as that found in the Federal Register and Congressional Record, executive and congressional

budgetary information, and the like. This information is recognized as both a product of

the operation of government and a necessary

element to maintaining an educated and informed citizenry. As noted by members of the

Subcommittee on the Library, “Government

publications generally serve two main purposes. In the first place they have a functional

value in the agency which issues them. Secondly, and often quite as important, they have

an educational value which makes their availability y to the American public a highly desirable objective. In the course of fulfilling

their missions, agencies collect information.

Some agencies, such as the Bureau of Census,

collect information on the population as their

mission; other agencies, such as the Department of Transportation, collect information in

order to effect policy and regulation. This same

information is then used by a variety of communities—business and industry, academia,

and others—for a variety of purposes.

The Federal Government has long recognized the importance of libraries as a channel

for disseminating information it has collected.

The role of libraries in society, and the unique

role of libraries in support of the “public good,

“Office of Management and Budget, ‘ ‘Management of Fed.

eral Information Resources”, Circular No. A-130, Dec. 12, 1985,

and ‘Improved Management and Dissemination of Federal Information: Request for Comment, ” Federal Register, \rol, 45,

June 9, 1980, p. 38462.

WJ. S. Congress Committee on Rules and Administration,

Senate Report No. 1587, 87th Cong., 2d sess., 1962 p. 8.
130

.-

have been well defined. Libraries perform a

number of tasks in our society-’ ‘conserving

and preserving our cultural heritage,”] 1 pro- viding education resources to various publics, and disseminating government information. “The library. . . collects all the knowledge

of society, all the information, unedited, unscreened, unrewritten, and instead of broadcasting it to the masses, organizes, and directs

that information to the individual. ”]z As

noted by Curley, “Libraries do not serve

merely individual, informational, and recreational interests, but are part of the essential

fabric of our society– its fragile cultural and

social ecology. ‘1{] Libraries and librarians promote access to all types of information and represent user interests and information needs. A

library collection, regardless of format, reflects

the information needs of its users, whether they

be the local community, academic, research, special interest institution, State, or region.

Today , there are over 8,000 public libraries,

s,000 college and university libraries, 88,000

elementary and secondary school libraries,

2,700 Federal libraries, and 11,000 private and

other special libraries in the United States.

This number and diversity are due in large

part to Federal Government recognition of the

importance of access to information through

libraries. Since the founding of the Nation,

there has been government support of libraries.

The Continental Congress arranged with the

Library Company of Philadelphia to receive

needed information for its members, and the

First Congress of the United States arranged

access to the New York Society Library for

similar purposes. In April 1800, the Library

“

)

Public good is the concept that the “good” for society is

greater than the well-being of certain individuals within it; see

I.ibraries, Coalitions and the Pubfic Good, E.J. Josey, cd., (New

York, NY: Neal-Schuman Publishers, Inc., 1987).

‘‘ Robert Wedgeworth, “A Library Agenda for the 1980’ s.”

in An Information Agenda for the 1980 ‘s, Carlton C. Rochell,

cd., Proceedings of a Colloquium, (Chicago: American Library

Association, June 17-18, 1980), p. 94.

‘JJohn N. Berry III, “The Public Good: What Is It?”

Libraries, Co&”tions and the Public Good, E.J. Josey, cd., (New

York, NY: Neal-Schunlan Publishers, Inc. 1987), p. 10.

] ‘Arthur Curlev, “Towards a Broader Definition of the Public Good,’” I,ibrar;es, Coalitions, and the Pubiic (iood, kj.J. Josey,

cd., (11’ew }’ork, NY: Neal -Schuman Publishers, Inc. 1987), p. 36.

of Congress (LOC) was established and is now

the largest library in the world. It continues

to be the principal library for Congress. In the

late 1850s the DLP was established to make

congressional and other governmental information more broadly available to the general

public. The establishment of a depository

library system was further affirmation by Congress of the need for a sound distribution system for government documents through libraries.

In addition, two national libraries were

established-the National Library of Medicine

(NLM) began in 1836; and the National Agricultural Library (NAL) was created in 1862

with the establishment of the U.S. Department

of Agriculture. A variety of other information

dissemination mechanisms were subsequently

created, expanding the number of avenues for

citizens to receive government information—

the National Archives in 1943, now known as

the National Archives and Record Administration (NARA); the Federal Library Committee in 1965, now known as the Federal Library

and Information Center Committee (a cooperative organization of Federal libraries); the National Technical Information Service (NTIS)

in 1970 (its predecessor, the Office of Technical Services, was created in 1946); and other

Federal depository programs such as the Patent Depository Library Program. In addition,

a series of congressional actions led to increased Federal involvement in libraries and,

expanded the role of libraries in the provision

of information to citizens.

Since the Library Services Act (LSA) was

passed in 1956, the relationship between the

Federal Government and libraries has expanded markedly. Libraries are one means by

which the Federal Government seeks to provide educational resources, services, and opportunities to both a broad populous and to

specific segments of society. LSA provided library services to rural areas, and the Higher

Education Act of 1957 authorized funds for

the purchase of books, periodicals, and other

library materials; library training programs;

and R&D for new ways to program, process,

store, and disseminate information. The Li-
brary Services and Construction Act (LSCA)

provides services to rural areas and allows

funding for facilities’ construction, enhancing

of interlibrary cooperation, and increased service for physcially handicapped, disadvantaged,

and bilingual individuals. 11 LSA, the Higher

Education Act, and LSCA have enhanced the

libraries’ ability to serve the general population,

and with various government information dissemination programs, serve to strengthen and

reinforce the role of libraries in the dissemina131

tion of government information. As noted in

congressional hearings on the depository library program:

The Clovernment is able to make such information available to the citizenry due in large

measure to the splendid cooperation of the

American library profession. This is a ser~’ice

to the Nation which its libraries ha~re performed in the past, are presently performing,

and are anxious to perform in the future to a

greater degree and in a more comprehensive

manner. 13

1“~1.s, congress, committee on Rules and t’+dm]rli~[r:it ion,

op. cit., footnote 4, p. 26.

ROLE OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGIES IN LIBRARIES

All Libraries employ a variety of information

technologies in support of their mission of ‘allowing people to utilize information.’’”) The

following section discusses the role of technologies in libraries and reviews a few key information technologies and current applications.

Emphasis has been placed on those technologies found in depository institutions.

Although over time the physical form of information has varied from manuscripts to audiovisuals, to online service, and to other technologies, the need of the librarian to access this

information for users has remained constant.

A library is an institution that acquires, manages, and disseminates information. Moreover,

‘‘a library is a bibliographic system regardless

of the situation in which it is placed, and the

task of the librarian is to bring people and

graphic records together in a meaningful relationship that will be beneficial to the user. “l;

Information technologies offer libraries opportunities and capabilities for enhancing their

current services and for allowing libraries to

“’Turoff and Spector, op. cit., 1976.

‘

; Pau!ine Wilson, A Ccn]rnunit> Elice and tbe /)ul)ll’(, [,ibrar.v: The li.~es of in forma~ion in I,eadership (W’estport, (’T:

19771, p. xii.

better fulfill their missions. As stated by ~Briscoe et al.:

Technology has already changed the traditional way in which libraries operate, and this

trend will continue. The library needs to persist in its role as a knowledge institut,ion––

mankind’s archive and encyclopedia—while

providing the necessary services of an information broker: computer literature searching,

information retrieval, and document de.

livery .18

As libraries increasingly employ the technologies and expand access to all types and forms

of information, the role of the library and information specialist will not diminish. In fact,

the current role will likely increase. The advent

of “user friendly’ software available to users

for accessing electronic information systems

will increase the number of users in libraries

and elsewhere, and at the same time many

users will still require information specialists.

For example, specialists in government information will: assist users in identifying sources

to search, provide users with some assistance

in using search technologies, and/or in some

cases actually perform the search for users.

“P. 13riscoe, et al., “Ashurbanipal’s P;nduring Ar~het~’p~:

Thoughts on the I~ibrary Role in the Future, ” College and I<esearch Libraries, March 1986, pp. 121-126.
132 —

These same technologies, by integrating government information into the full library collection, will increase both the use of government information and the use of the total

resources of the library and other local, State,

regional, and national information resources.

Information technologies are not “new” to

libraries. A broad range of technologies have

been employed by them for years and have affected all aspects of library operations and

services. In fact, it has been noted that:

“Almost every function carried out in a library

has been altered to some extent by electronics,

computerization, and telecommunications.

Software is available for most aspects of library operations: circulation, inventory, acquisitions, periodicals, cataloging, and reserves.

The use of technologies for information user

services has resulted in the formation of library

networks, and has spurred the development

of national databases, thus allowing faster and

more efficient access to information.20 “The

changes brought about by advances in technology have been so extensive that it is difficult to assess their total effect, but it is clear

that libraries are in a stage of fundamental

transformation. “2] Generally, library automation refers to systems and technologies that

provide improved access to resources within

a library, whereas information automation

refers to systems and technologies that provide access to resources outside the library.

A growing range of information technologies

are regularly employed in all types of libraries,

though the cost of some of these needed technologies is still prohibitive for many libraries,

due to fiscal constra.ints.22 Library funding

comes from a number of sources, including

State, local, and Federal governments, all of

which have experienced reduced revenues.

“Barbara Moran, Academic Libraries, The Changing Knowledge Centers of Colleges and Universities (Washington, DC:

Clearinghouse on Higher Education, 1984) p. i.

“)U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, information Technology and Its Impact on American h’ducation (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, November 1982)

p. 238.

‘l Moran, op. cit., footnote 19.

“For those institutions unable to afford a “new” technology,

the user’s access to desired information may be limited as some

information is not available in more than one format.

This, in turn, has affected libraries and their

ability to purchase new systems.

These technologies and technological applications are merely machines or processes for

distributing information-the content does not

vary, though one can do more and different

things with information in electronic form than

in paper form. As noted by the Commission

on Freedom and Equality of Access to Information:

. . . the new technology not only gives potential users quicker and more convenient access

to wider bodies of information, including instantly current information, than can be provided by print alone; it also gives the user a

new kind of abilit y to search through and manipulate the information, and in effect to create new information by the selection, combination, and arrangement of data. Moreover,

the user can alter the data in a kind of twoway transaction.23

A variety of technologies are found in depository libraries, though not always in the

documents collection. The amount or types of

technologies available reflect, in some respects,

the parent institution. Twenty-three percent

of the depository libraries are public libraries,

55 percent are academic research institutions,

7 percent are Federal libraries, 11 percent are

law school libraries, and 4 percent are special

institutional affiliations such as special libraries and historical societies.

Use of Specific Technologies

In a 1984 survey of depository libraries, the

Ad Hoc Committee on Depository Library Access to Federal Automated Databases (appointed by the Joint Committee on Printing

[JCP]) concluded that:

. . . there is a wide array of computer equipment already in place in depository libraries

or their parent institutions, and that many of

the libraries regularly make use of time-sharing services for searching databases, both

Government and non-Government.

~ ‘American Library Association, Commission on Freedom

and Equality of Access to Information, Freedom and L’qualitj’

of Access to Information (Chicago, IL: 1986), p. 31.

24U.S. Congress, Joint Committee on Printing, Provision of

Federal Government Pubh”cations in Electronic Format to De-

(continued on next page)
133

Since that survey, more depositories have

adopted information technologies.25 As indicated in the GAO Survey of Federal Information Users, for the 403 responding of the 451

depositories surveyed, libraries were equipped

as shown in Table 6-1.

Depository libraries employ one or more of

the following technologies and/or technological applications: microcomputers, online data

services (bibliographic, numeric and others),

networks such as OCLC (Online College Library Center) and RLIN (Research Libraries

Information Network), automated information

systems, electronic bulletin boards, optical

disk technologies such as videodisk and CDROM, facsimile, and microfiche and related

equipment. (A discussion of microfiche can be

found in a following section on the format of

materials in the depository library program. )

These are the primary technologies and technological applications in use today and those

most likely to be found in libraries within the

next 5 to 10 years.

In a 1984 survey, over 5,000 public libraries,

1,600 academic libraries, and more than 7,000

special libraries were using microcomputers for

a variety of information automation and li-

(continued from pre~ious pagel

pository Libraries, Report of the Ad Hoc Committee on Depository Library Access to Federal Automated Databases (Washington DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1984) p. 3.

‘

>Discussions with Joseph McClane, Chief Library Inspection Team, LPS, and Mark Scully, Director, I.ibrary Programs

Service, U.S. Government Printing Office. Dec. 8, 1986.

Table 6“1 .—Depository Library Access to Information

Technology

Number of Libraries

Technology with Equipment

Microcomputer without ‘-

modem . 283

Microcomputer with modem

for online access . . . . 337

Microfiche reader without

printer . . . . . . . . . 352

Microfiche reader with printer 384

CD-ROM reader . . . . . . . . . . . . 169

Videodisk player . . 72

Mainframe compute r 149

SOURCE GAO Federal Information User Survey, 1988

brary automation tasks. In addition, there

were over 140,000 microcomputers in elementary and high school libraries. Recent survey

data, including the GAO Survey of Federal Information Users, indicate further growth and

purchases by libraries. A recent survey discovered that the mean expenditure spent on library automation per library over the past 5

years was $38,000. As in the 1984 survey,

word-processing software continues to be the

most popular software, followed by software

for database management purposes and statistical uses in academic, public, and special

libraries. School libraries prefer word processing as well, though statistical, database, inventory, graphics, and spreadsheet software

are also used in these institutions. PC’s are employed in support of administration, cataloging, and reference purposes the majority of the

time.2G

Online Database Services

Online database services, such as DIALOG,

BRS, and other computerized retrieval systems, cover a wide array of continually expanding subject areas. Each database is a compilation of textual, statistical, and/or bibliographic

information. Bibliographic and referral databases are sometimes called reference databases, whereas numeric and textual-numeric

databases are called source databases. In 1979-

80 there were 400 databases, 221 database producers, and 59 online services available. By

1987, there were 3,169 databases, 1,494 database producers, and 486 online services. y~

These services allow rapid access to information sources, can integrate information for the

user, permit libraries greater flexibility in a

choice of format, and provide access to previously unavailable information. Use of these

services also allows the library to be less dependent on paper or hard-copy indexing materials. These services are a primary means of

accessing certain types of government information not found elsewhere (e. g., government

“’Sur\’e\’ data from Cahners Research, September 1986, and

“Table 1,-” I,ibrm-j. Journal, No\ember 1986, p. IJC8.

‘

7 Cuadra Associations, Director~’ of Oniine Databases (New

York, NY: 1986) \’ol. 7. No. 3, p. ~.
134

information found only in an online format,

such as some Bureau of the Census data).

Online bibliographic services usually require

a trained searcher to search the databases effectively, and also to limit search time and

associated costs. A number of vendors and institutions, such as NLM and academic institutions, have introduced user-friendly software

that may reduce both the need for trained

searchers and the costs of online searching.

Pricing policies for online services vary.

Some services charge a monthly fee (e.g. $200

per month), as well as connect time ranging

from $4.00 to $45.00 per hour and system use

charges ranging from $.03 to $.90 per unit of

computer processing time. There may also be

disk storage costs incurred with certain services. Prices of online services are most commonly based on hourly connect charges in addition to telecommunication costs for access to

the network. These connect charges range from

$15 to $300 per hour. If offline printing occurs,

the user will typically pay per citation or

page.” Online services are reexamining

connect-time pricing due, in part, to the increase in transmission speeds. With the increase in transmission speeds (from 110 bps

to 300 bps in the 1970’s to up to 2,400 bps or

higher today), users can perform more in-depth

searches, download, or print in a more costeffective manner. NLM and Mead Data Central have revised their pricing schedules to account for this shift. For example, NLM now

has a lower connect fee, and charges according to the characters transmitted and the work

performed on a given search by the NLM

computer.

A number of Federal agencies produce databases consisting of original statistical information. Agencies such as the Bureau of Census

provide computer tapes of their information,

sometimes, in lieu of the paper format. Use of

these numeric databases allows the librarian

to both provide the needed information to the

patron directly and be able to manipulate the

‘* Ibid., pp. v-vi.

data to the extent desired. In general, the GAO

Survey of Federal Information Users found

that depository institutions use online services primarily for bibliographic and statistical information. Regular library use of many

of the Federally generated databases available

through commercial vendors is limited because

of the relatively high costs. Online systems,

such as DIALOG and BRS, have introduced

new services for “after hours” users that can

substantially reduce the costs of online searching, if a library can accommodate requisite

scheduling changes.

Library Communication Networks

Two or more libraries may form communication networks utilizing information technologies to enhance the exchange of materials, information, or other services. The formation of

local, State, regional, and national networks

has significantly altered the operation of

libraries. There are several types of networks–

bibliographic utility, regional service organizations, and others (which include State-wide

publicly funded networks, local or geographically concentrated multi-institutional networks, and sub-regional subject-oriented

networks). AMIGOS, SOLINET, CLASS, and

the like are regional service networks that facilitate the expansion of the bibliographic utility. Although bibliographic utilities began as

a means for libraries to reduce costs of cataloging, their primary function today is for sharing of resources. One example of a bibliographic utility is OCLC, a major computerbased cooperative network with over 7,900

members and employed by all types of libraries

nationally and internationally. The OCLC network assists librarians in acquiring and cataloging materials, ordering custom-printed catalog cards, initiating interlibrary loan, locating

materials in member libraries, and gaining access to other databases. More and more depository libraries are using the OCLC database

for reference purposes to assist in searching

for government documents. The GPO Library

Division catalogs government documents into
135

OCLC where they can be searched by member

institutions. 

These networks are undergoing changes in

their structure and functions. Areas affected

include autonomy for members, changes in the

telecommunication infrastructure, decentralized versus centralized control, the development of more integrated systems for libraries that permit less reliance on the utility and

greater emphasis on local resource sharing, and

finally, the debate concerning ownership of

data found in the shared cataloging databases.

As a result of network changes, libraries are

being changed as well.]

’

)

Automated information systems are those

that assist the librarian in performing specific

library tasks such as circulation, inventory, acquisitions, cataloging, administration, budgeting, personnel, and more. Many depository

libraries use OCLC to perform many of these

tasks because they lack access to other dedicated systems or necessary software. An example of an automated information system at

NLM is DOCLINE. This is the Library’s automated interlibrary loan request and referral

system that automatically routes an interlibrary local request through the Regional

Medical Library Network. Requests for titles

found in SE RLINE, the Library’s online database of approximately 66,000 serial titles, are

also automatically routed, based on the holdings of SE RHOLD, NLM National Biomedical Serials Holding database, which contains

the holdings of 2,276 libraries.

Electronic Bulletin Boards

Libraries are employing electronic bulletin

boards in support of library operations such

as interlibrary loan (ILL), resource-sharing

functions, and for access to current informa-

‘g13ecause GPO has been inputting to OCLC since July 1976,

a limited amount of retrospective searching is possible, though

it has been extensively noted that these earIjr GPO cataloging

records contain numerous errors.

‘

f

’ Moran, op. cit, footnote 19.

tion located elsewhere. The Wisconsin Interlibrary Service (WILS) network is one example of the growing use of bulletin boards in

libraries. The WILS network is used by over

one-half of the 55 member libraries, a combination of public library systems and State library resource centers, in the Wisconsin library

system. WILS can handle over 90,000 requests

a year. Users note the following advantages:

it is inexpensive and, in fact, is less costly

than the previous system;

it offers increased speed of communication;

many members had the necessary equipment (microcomputers and modems) and,

therefore, it did not require special equipment or hardware purchases;

it has the capability to store and track the

requests in a database;

it reduces the amount of paper used to support the ILL system; and

it enhances microcomputer use by library

staff. 31

Libraries are also subscribing to bulletin

boards containing government information.

These boards contain timely information

produced by agencies. For example, the SRS

Remote Bulletin Board System (RBBS) of the

National Science Foundation contains information on financial and human resources for

science and engineering activities. Also included is information concerning current

studies of the Foundation, announcements of

available publications, and comprehensive statistical tabulations. Specific data contained

within the file include: “Federal Funds for Research and Development, ” “Scientific and

Engineering Expenditures at Universities, ”

‘‘Employment and Demographic Characteristics: U.S. Scientists and Engineers, ” and “International Comparisons of Science and Technology Data, among others .32 The GAO

‘

] Cathy Moore, “Do-It-Yourself Automation: Interloan

Bulletin 130ards, ” Library Jouma), }10}. 112, NO. 18, NOV. i, 1987.

“National Science Foundation, “Remote Access to Science

Resources Studies Data”, 1987.
136

Survey of Federal Information Users found a

minimal use of electronic bulletin boards by

those surveyed. The predominant library use

was for press releases and statistical data.

Optical Disks

In a 1985 survey by Link Resources Corp.,

7.6 percent of the libraries contacted had one

or more videodisks or CD-ROMs. Sixty-five

percent of those responding forecast a purchase of optical disk technology by 1990.33

The GAO Survey of Federal Information Users

found that 169 of the 403 depository library

respondents had access to a CD-ROM player.

Libraries are adopting optical disk technologies for both operational or technical services

purposes and for reference services. In fact,

the”. . . library and information communities

are at the forefront of testing the various optical media-videodisk, CD-ROM, and optical

digital disk–in digital data publishing and

storage applications. These technologies

can provide improved access to a variety of

information tools and sources, are a means of

preserving important documents and information, and appear to be popular with users.

Optical disk technologies include videodisks,

compact audio disks, CD-ROMs, optical digital disks, and others. This discussion will focus on videodisks and CD-ROMs. With regard

to videodisks, the very large storage capacity

and the ability to carry both video and audio

information, are the two key characteristics

that make videodisks attractive technologies

for libraries. There are a number of types of

videodisks with different capabilities. The laser optical videodisk is the most accepted technology. One indication of wider acceptance of

this technology is the recent drop in the price

of products as more data files are introduced

and competition increases.35

The MINI MARC produced by Library Systems and Services is an example of a technical

service application in videodisk format. The

MINI MARC cataloging system is published

on two videodisks containing over 2.1 million

Library of Congress MARC records– 1.5 million MARC records on 52,900 video frames on

the first disk, and over 600,000 MARC records

on 27,000 frames and 17,000 video frames of

index data on the second. 36 The videodisk is

updated twice a month. ALDE (Applied Laser Disk Efficiencies) Publishing produces the

United States Code (USC) and the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) using digitally encoded

videodisks. These materials are available on

disk and can be broken out into specific areas

of Titles of Interest. For example, Title 26 (tax

code) of the CFR is available annually with

monthly updates.37 Another example is

IAC’S Government Publications Index on videodisk, which indexes the Monthly Catalog

from 1978 to the present with monthly

updates.

CD-ROM, an optical storage device, “uses

the differential reflection of light from a mirrorlike disk surface as a means of reading information. 8 The following factors make CDROMS increasingly popular, particularly in

libraries and for database creators:

● storage capacity,

● durability and stability,

● cost compared to magnetic tape and microfiche,

● fixed searching costs,

● the ability of users to perform the searches

themselves without a trained librarian to

assist, and

 size and compactness of the disk.

Despite a lack of common information access

and retrieval standards, an increasing number

of vendors are introducing database services

on CD-ROM.

Use of a CD-ROM usually requires an interactive system consisting of a microcomputer,

a ROM disk, and a disk drive. Reference maSSJudY Mc@een ad RichMd W. Boss, videodisk and @~ical Disk Technologies and Their Apph”cations in Libraries, 1986

Update (Chicago, IL: American Library Association, 1986), p.

105.

]’Ibid., p. 3.

]’Ibid., pp. 9-36.

“Ibid., p. 115.

‘TIbid., p. 127.

‘

hDonald Case and Robert Powers, Optical Disk Publication

of Databases: A Review of Applications for Acaderm”c Libraries,

(Washington, DC: Council of I.ibrary Resources, 1986), p. 4.
terials and large textual or statistical databases are ideal candidates for the CD-ROM format in some libraries and information centers.

Reference materials are especially well suited

to CD-ROM because they save shelf space and

do not require frequent updating.

Books in Print and Ulrich Periodicals

Directory are now available from R.R. Bowker

in CD-ROM format. In a joint venture with

Online Computer Systems Inc. who developed

the search software, the Books in Print Plus

service includes all of the multivolume BIP,

the Subject Guide to BIP, BIP Supplement,

Forthcoming Books and Subject Guide to

Forthcoming Books, in addition to names and

addresses of book publishers. This is contained

on one disk. Ulrich Plus on CD-ROM includes

68,000 periodicals, in alphabetical order by title, in 557 subject categories.

Online databases are also available on CDROMS. The primary advantage of having these

databases on disk is that the user may sit at

a terminal for any length of time and not incur high connect charges. This allows the untrained user to perform his/her own search.

This user-oriented characteristic of CD-ROM

explains some of the technology’s popularity.

In fact, many libraries find the need to place

a time limit on the workstations due to the

popularity of using these disk files. AGRICOLA, the database compiled by NAL containing citations on agriculture and related

topics, is available on CD-ROM from $950 annually with a quarterly update. Another government-generated database, ERIC (Educational Resources Information Center), is also

available from $1,750 with quarterly updates.

The acceptance by users of the CD-ROM technology has been rapid, and as a consequence,

vendors are quickly respondng through the

introduction of new products.

The Library Corporation markets Library

of Congress (LOC) MARC databases in disk

format. The BiblioFile Catalog Production System contains over one million Library of Congress MARC records on four disks. The user

can search, edit, create, and save MARC

records, display the catalog card image, print

137

.-

cards, transmit records, and more. Brodart

markets the Le Pac: Government Documents

Option on CD-ROM. This service also uses

GPO/LOC MARC records, and provides a public access catalog of about 230,000 titles of depository and nondepository titles from 1976

to the present on an annual subscription basis with bi-monthly updates. Auto-Graphics

GDCS also produces a government documents

catalog on CD-ROM with monthly cumulated

updates.

There are a number of other factors to be

considered by libraries as this technology is

introduced. CD-ROMs cannot be updated unless a new disk is mastered. Therefore CDROMS are not practical for time-sensitive data,

Access time to CD-ROMs varies, and this may

limit the number of users able to use the system concurrently. Different databases require

different access software and indexing structures. The use of different search and retrieval

software packages by vendors results in difficulty for librarians when “putting up’ a new

disk. This requires additional expertise and

training on the part of the libraries. Finally,

a microcomputer or PC and a CD-ROM reader

are necessary, and this may represent additional expense to the library. However, many

libraries already have or will be purchasing

microcomputers.

Facsimile

Facsimile is the transmission of printed information (e.g., a letter, order form, interlibrary

loan request) from one locale to another by

encoding the printed materials into digitized

form. The information is converted (or decoded)

back to its original form once it is received.

Current generation digital facsimile machines

are able to transmit one to three sheets of 81,’z

by 1 l-inch paper per minute. This is a substantial improvement over analog machines that

were only able to transit one page every 6 to

7 minutes. Facsimile machines area very quick

method of relaying information between Iibraries. The NLM facsimile program is an example of how this technology is currently used.

NLM and a number of medical libraries are par-
138

ticipating in an interlibrary loan program

whereby NLM will send up to 20 pages of library material to a member library in support

of emergency patient care. A small amount of

information is relayed quickly-this is not a

printing-on-demand program for lengthy documents. The project is limited to emergency

medical care for a number of reasons: a broader

project could overwhelm the NLM interlibrary

loan staff, the cost could be prohibitive, and

the majority of requests are satisfied by the

regular interlibrary loan program. Another example is the use of facsimile machines by GPO

field offices. Field offices send notices of printing requisitions via facsimile to the GPO Library and GPO Sales Program. The GPO Library and Sales Programs select items to be

included in their respective programs and advise the field offices via facsimile of the items

and number of additional copies to be printed.

Summary

In summary, information technologies individually and collectively are changing the nature of access to govermnent documents via

libraries and have the capability to improve

access to government information. They can

provide timely and accurate information to library users in a variety of formats and for various purposes. For instance, as noted earlier,

surveys show that all types of libraries are purchasing microcomputers in increasing numbers

for a variety of purposes. The GAO survey

demonstrates the growing technology base in

depository libraries and how new technologies

such as CD-ROM are becoming more widely

accepted and used.

Most importantly, information technologies

permit access to a much greater range of information and resources, including government information through vendor (profit and

not-for-profit) services. New types of Federal

information resources, such as statistical/numeric databases from the Bureau of the Census, are now online and available to libraries

through the use of information technologies

and vendors. Newer technologies such as CDROM are moving quickly from the marketplace

to libraries as producers place more and more

services in a CD-ROM format. Libraries are

experimenting and employing these technologies in support of their operations, which, in

turn, permits the user greater access to needed

information.

FEDERAL DEPOSITORY LIBRARY PROGRAM

In 1813, Congress established a system for

the distribution of congressional literature, and

this system developed into the depository library program-a significant avenue for dissemination of government information to the

public. The program has experienced a number of changes since its inception, and is still

changing as participating libraries and managers of the program at GPO debate how to

best serve the users of the depository system.

The following section provides a brief description of the origins of the program and its operations. This is followed by a discussion of three

specific topics: 1) dual format distribution (paper and microfiche), 2) the dissemination of information in electronic format, and online

catalogs.

Origins and Operations of the

Depository Library Program

There are approximately 1,400 Federal depository libraries in the United States and related territories. These libraries provide Federal publications without charge to the general

public. This program is the primary avenue or

“safety net ~

for dissemination of government information to the general public.

The DLP originated in 1813 when a resolution was passed authorizing the printing of additional copies of’ congressional literature for

distribution to State governments and legislatures. The following year, the American An-

“’Office of Management and Budget, op. cit., footnote 8.
tiquarian Societ y became the first depository

library. Responsibility for the distribution of

materials shifted among a number of government agencies prior to resting with GPO. Congressional resolutions in 1857 and 1858 affirmed the distribution of congressional

materials to institutions such as libraries and

colleges, and Members of Congress designated

organizations within their districts as depository institutions. In 1895, a new printing act

was passed, incorporating the old legislation

and placing responsibility for bibliographic

control efforts, distribution, marketing of public documents, and the DI.P in the office of the

Superintendent of Documents at GPO.*’) This

legislation also specified that certain (not internal, confidential, or administrative) executive materials were to be included in the depository program. In addition, the act called

for a catalog to be published each month listing government documents published the previous month. A number of other points in the

legislation were central to the DLP-attaining

status as a depository library could be gained

either through congressional designation or

through legal designation; and the Superintendent of Documents could now “investigate”

depositor-y libraries and evaluate their holdings vis-a-vis the program. It was not until

1923 that depository libraries were able to select those government documents most appropriate to their clientele. 1’

The Federal Depository Act of 1962 revised

the previous legislation by:

. increasing the number of possible depository libraries;

● establishing a system of regional libraries

(two per State), which were to maintain

a permanent collection and provide interlibrary loan and reference services;

 providing for the transfer of certain documents within New York and Wisconsin

to either the ~New York State Library or

“’’l’he General I)rinting Act of 1895, ch, 23, 28 SLat 601 (codified as amended in scattered Sections 44 [J. S.C.).

‘

 i Peter Hernon, Charles hfc(’lure, and (jar~ Purcell, G P O

L)epositor.\r Librarj’ Program .4 Descriptit’c .4nai\’si.~ (Norwood,

N,J: i4blex Publishing Corp.. 19X5), pp. 5-8,

139

to the State Historical Society of Wisconsin;

expanding the variety of government documents available for distribution; and

establishing a reporting mechanism to

ascertain the libraies’ condition (the Biennial Survey became the reporting vehicle).

There have been two changes to the 1962

Federal Depository Act. The highest appellate

court of each State became exempt from the

requirement of public access in 1972, and law

schools were eligible to become depositories

under the law designation in 197S, ~: This legislation has expanded the total number of

libraries in the program, since some of those

law libraries already participating became

members under the “law” designation thus allowing for new participants under the separate

congressional designation. Another effect has

been a substantial increase in law schools participating in the depository program; almost

one-half of the new depositories between 1976

and 1985 were accredited law schools. The appointment of librarians and knowledgeable individuals to a Depository Library Council began in 1972 in an effort to assist the I>ublic

Printer and the Superintendent of Documents. 3

One description of the Library Programs

Service is that of a “production shop, ’

From this perspective, its purpose is to act as

a transfer agent of government documents

from Federal agencies to the member depositories. By law (as stipulated in Title 44, all

documents produced by an agency that are not

confidential, not for internal use, or not concerned with national security belong in the depository program. In fiscal year 1986, 66,367

titles or 27 million copies of government documents were distributed to depository libraries.

GPO staff state that the workload of the program has remained relatively constant for sev-

‘-i bid., pp. 5-8.

1‘Hernon, McClure, and Purcell, ~;p. cit., fmtn~te 42, p. 1 i.

.jn earlier (’ouncil was formed in the 1960’s.

‘‘I)iscussion with Mark Scull~’, Director, I.ibrar~’ Programs

Ser\’ic’e, and [jonald Fossedal, Superintendent of Documents,

[’. S [~t)~ernment Printing Office. Dec. 8, 1986.
140

eral years. GPO staff estimate that an additional 5 percent of the 66,000 titles or about

3000 titles are fugitive documents–those belonging in the program but not included by the

agencies .45

The operating cost of managing the depository program is provided by the GPO in the

annual budget. In fiscal year 1987, the budget for the depository program was $19.7 million, and the fiscal year 1988 estimate is $20.2

million. DLP is managed by the Superintendent of Documents. The principal mission of

this office is to “distribute government documents, and information about them for the

three branches of government. ”4G The DLP is

managed directly by the Library Programs

Service (LPS), within the Office of the Superintendent of Documents. The Joint Committee

on Printing (JCP) oversees the policies and

overall direction of the program.

Until recently, the Gu.i”deLines for the Depository Library System recommended that

libraries (other than regionals that receive one

copy of all documents distributed) select a minimum of 25 percent of available documents,

and approximately 50 percent of the depositories select no more than 25 percent of the

available government documents. It is predicted that “. . . the U.S. Government Printing Office will distribute approximately 20,000

paper documents and 43,000 on microfiche

each year. “47 For those libraries selecting the

minimum number of government documents,

this represents approximately 15,000 documents per year-requiring an enormous investment in space, collection maintenance, and

staff time by participating libraries. GPO,

—

‘

s Fugitive documents continue to be a problem for the program, although members of the Library Programs Servicce believe the number is declining. However, it has been noted by

members of the depository library community that the number

of fugitive documents is increasing, at the same time that the

number of materials in the depository library program is decreasing.

%overnment Printing Office, Government Printing Office,

Superintendent of Documents Description, Draft, (GPO, 1986),

p. 1.

‘TDonald Case and Kathleen Welden, “Distribution of Government Publications to Depository Libraries by Optical Disk,

Government Publications Review, vol. 13, 1986, p. 314.

through a legislative branch appropriation, is

responsible for the cost of distributing these

materials to member institutions if GPO prints

the documents. If another agency prints documents on its own premises or elsewhere, that

agency is then responsible for the cost of printing copies for depository distribution, with

GPO bearing the distribution costs.

Over the past several years LPS, the Depository Library Council, and members of the depository library community have debated the

availability of government information in

different formats in the depository library

program. There are two debates regarding

format— the dual format debate that concerns

materials distributed in paper and microfiche

with libraries selecting either format; and the

debate about inclusion of government electronic information products in the program.

Both debates are concerned with meeting user

preferences on format, with the costs of providing these products, and with ensuring access to government information regardless of

format. The focus of both debates is the accessibility of the information and availability

of the information.

Format of Depository Library

Materials: Paper v. Microfiche

Materials sent to depository library participants are either in paper format, microfiche,

or a combination of both (although only

regionals can receive a title in both formats).

Beginning in the early 1970s, the JCP and GPO

began to explore the advantages and disadvantages of instituting a microfiche publishing

program for depository materials. In 1977, following a number of library surveys and committee evaluation efforts, the JCP gave permission to GPO to begin conversion of selected

depository materials to a microfiche format to

effect cost savings for the program and for participating libraries. Private information providers objected to this practice at the time because it was their stated position that the

library community was already well served by

private sector firms. At issue was the difference in the scope and amount of materials to
be offered by GPO in contrast to those available from the private sector. Members of this

community, as represented by the Information

Industry Association (11A), believed that provision of free microfiche to depository institutions would undermine their business, and

voiced concerns that the Federal Government

would be the “sole” information provider to

libraries and other users of Federal information.

Since that time, the LPS has adopted a policy of providing more and more documents in

microfiche format, primarily for financial reasons. Reduced production and postage costs

of microfiche, compared to paper, allow savings for the program. Many libraries have

adopted microfiche to both achieve greater access to a broader range of government materials and reduce their maintenance costs. Housing of paper can be quite costly. In turn, use

of microfiche has reduced the financial burden

on GPO. In the spring of 1986, 54 percent of

the materials sent by GPO to member institutions were in microfiche, and the number is increasing. By December of 1986, 61.2 percent

of the materials were in microfiche.~s In addition, a number of agencies send their microfiche materials directly to library participants,

based on interagency agreements resulting in

a more decentralized operation. The Department of Energy sends copies of microfiche

concerned with technical R&D information

directly to participating depository institutions, and the U.S. Geological Service (USGS)

ships cartographic microfiche materials for

themselves and the Defense Mapping Agency

(DMA). The Equal Employment Opportunity

Commission (EEOC) also provides agency decisions in microfiche to depositories via its contractor, IHS. EEOC pays the production costs

and is responsible for sending out the materials; GPO reimburses the EEOC for postage

costs.

There is a continuing debate between the

LPS, member institutions, and the JCP over

what proportion of materials and which mate-

“Discussion with Mark Scully, Director. I,ibrary Programs

Services, GPO Dec. 8, 1986.

141

rials will remain in hard copy. In August 1983,

the Superintendent of Documents issued SOD

13, a list of criteria for determining which documents were more appropriate in microfiche

or paper format. Criteria include physical characteristics (color, size, etc.,), timeliness, audience, frequency and type of use, savings in

space, historical significance, and reference

value. This directive recognized that certain

documents are more suited to either paper or

microfiche and some documents to both formats. Depository librarians also recognize that

some conversion to microfiche is helpful in order to reduce program costs, save space in participating libraries, and make more information available to the public. The Depository

Library Council and the Public Printer continue to work together to identify materials

that can be converted to microfiche and those

that must remain in dual format (that is, distributed in both paper and microfiche). The

JCP passed a resolution on April 9, 1987 supporting choice of format for depository institutions.

Dual format documents are the most heavily used titles in the majority of depository

libraries, and “are the fundamental records of

Government.’’” Secondly, it is important

that libraries receive dual format items such

as the F’edez-al Register in a timely fashion so

that users can respond to proposed regulations

within a 30-or 60-day timeframe. The delay resulting from conversion from paper to microfiche format and subsequent shipment can

sometimes make a timely response impossible.

Third, the format of some key documents, such

as the Code of Federal Regulations, does not

lend itself to use in the microfiche format.

Given the high usage of key documents, the

need for receiving these documents in a timely

fashion, and ease of access to information contained in the paper documents versus microfiche, it is understandable why a paper format

is preferred.

Library use of microfiche has a number of

advantages and disadvantages. On the pIus

1(] Conversation with Judy Myers, University of Houston Library. tJune 1’7, 1987.
142

side, microfiche is an enormous space saver;

consequently, more government information

can be made available at the depository. Small

colleges and public libraries in particular benefit from the distribution of government materials in microfiche, and access is improved

since many of these institutions otherwise

could not afford to store the materials. The use

of microfiche also permits libraries to retain

more information for longer periods of time or

permanently. It is projected that, “. . . libraries

that accept all depository publications distributed over the next 20 years will require an estimated 7,500 linear feet of hard copy storage

and 2,500 linear feet of microfiche storage.

However, microfiche also has disadvantages.

Librarians are finding that patrons prefer paper to microfiche as there are:

. . .problems with viewing and reproduction

equipment (that) have resulted in user complaints of eye strain and unsatisfactory paper

copies.51

The cost to the patron is at least double when

duplicating pages from microfiche, compared

to copying paper documents, and the range of

costs to the library for the purchase of a microfiche reader/printer from Kodak, for example, is between $1,500 and $5,000, plus maintenance fees. Also, there are added difficulties

in the organization and bibliographic control

of fiche.52 Another consideration is that conversion of a document to microfiche by GPO

adds 4 to 8 additional months to the processing time prior to the document being shipped

out. GPO has stated that time-sensitive materials will not be included in the microfiche

program due to this extra delay.5:

’

The dual format issue exacerbates two somewhat competing and contradictory philosophies of the depository library program. To

many, the GPO program is simply one that

50Case and Welden, op. cit., footnote 45, p. 315.

5’ Ibid.

‘*Discussions at the Depository Library Council Meeting,

Oct. 15-17, 1986.

~.~Discussion with Mmk &ully, op. cit., footnote 45. An IJPS

microfiche contractor has defaulted on the contract, causing

extensive delays in the creation and distribution of microfiche

to the depositories.

transfers materials from the government to

participating institutions. To others, the program is one that provides timely and informative government materials to citizens in support of the principle of public access. To those

adhering to the access philosophy, the adoption of microfiche as the predominant format

negates both the accessibility and timeliness

objectives of the program.54 Dissatisfaction

with the microfiche format by library patrons

and the added delay of conversion from hard

copy to microfiche are cited as critical

factors.”

An added difficulty in resolving the dual format distribution debate is the poor but improving relationship between the managers of

the DLP and members of the depository library

community. There has been some improvement

in the relationship since the LPS began upgrading the quality of the GPO cataloging tapes,

the inspection program, and pertinent training programs and seminars, among other areas.

On the other hand, GPO’s failure to resolve

problems with its microfiche contractor has

exacerbated its relationship with depository

libraries.

Dissemination of Information in

Electronic Format

Microfiche and hard copy materials are the

only formats employed to date by GPO in the

transfer of government information to depository institutions (except for the planned shipment of the Bureau of the Census CD-ROM

“Test Disk No. 2“ to the depositories).’6

GPO is currently reformulating agency policies with respect to electronic dissemination

in the depository program. Prior agency decisions to withhold electronic information from

‘iIIA supports the continuation of the dual format programs

because it recognizes the need for items used more heavily to

be available in paper due to ease of access, patron preference,

and timeliness.

‘sDiscussions and meetings, GODORT, American Library

Association Midwinter Meeting, Jan. 16-19, 1987, Chicago, IL.

“t’GPO has agreed to “ride” the Census “Test Disk No. 2“

order and ship copies of this CD-ROM to all depository institutions. The Census of Agriculture for 1982 and the Census of

Retail Trade by Zip Code will be included on this disk.
the program were based on a GPO interpretation of previous legislation concerning the depository program, specifically section 1901 of

the 1962 Depository Act. The opinion by

former GPO general counsel Garrett Brown

determined GPO policy:

. . . the Depository Library Act [of 1962] does

not direct [the] Superintendent of Documents

make published documents available in all possible formats to the libraries. It was the intent

of Congress that only printed publications

would be made available to depositories,:);

(3PO now supports the position that, while it

cannot require agencies to submit electronic

products for distribution through the depository system, agencies may voluntarily submit

electronic products to GPO. Also, those electronic products available in paper or microfiche

format can be disseminated to depositories in

electronic format since these materials have

already been ‘‘published. ”

The recent plan to distribute a Bureau of the

Census CD-ROM to depositories prompted the

Public Printer to request approval from the

JCP and clarification of the Committee’s views

concerning disseminatiOn of government information in electronic formats to depositories.

In a March 25, 1988 letter to the Public Printer,

Congressman Frank Annunzio, Chairman of the

JCP, affirmed both the Committee’s support

of the Census project and the position that the

GPO’s authority as required by Title 44, UiN”ted

States Code, extended to the “production and

distribution of Government publications in

these new formats. “;)”

GPO and the JCP recently developed a research plan that identifies selected electronic

data files as products for depository distribution. This plan was approved by the JCP on

.June 29, 1988. The demonstrations involve a

ombination of online and CD-ROM govern-

,- [). S. ”Congress, ,Joint Conlmittee on I]rinting l’r~~~i.sion of

[’edt’ral {;o\’c3rnment ])utlficaLiOns in Eiectronl(’ [<’<)l”nl:jt t (~ [~tIposj[or~” l.ihrarie.s, Report of the .Ad Hoc Comfllit we ()[1 h?poSit~r~’ I.lbrar}T Access to Federal Automated Databases (\$’ashington, 1)(”: U S. (iovernrnent Printing office, I 984), pp. 112-113.

“l, etter from the ~][J1lOr~lbh? Frank Annunzio, Chairman,

Joint Commit tee on I’rint ing CO the Ilonorable RaJph Kennickell, ,J r., the I’ub\ic I)rinter, hlar. 2.>, 19H8.

143

-.

ment data files. The Subcommittee on Legislative of the House Committee on Appropriations supported dissemination in CD-ROM

formats in the fiscal year 1989 I.egislative

Branch Appropriation Bill and requested a

copy of the GPO-JCP plan. In addition, the

Committee noted that online access and other

formats (excepting CD-ROM) may require additional funding, and requested that GPO submit any future electronic dissemination plans

to the Subcommittee on Legislati\’e. -’

(

’

The JCP position on the dissemination of

government information in electronic form resulted in part from the deliberations of the Ad

Hoc Committee on Depository Library Access

to Federal Automated Databases. The Committee’s efforts were based on a request from

the JCP to: “. . evaluate the feasibility and

desirability of providing access to Federal Government information in electronic formats to

depository libraries. ” The Ad Hoc Committee

has considered a variety of formats, databases,

and institutional arrangements for the pro\’ ision of agency information for the past A

years.’”)

This advisor~ committee intended to recommend to Members of the JCP certain agency

databases for depository distribution in online

or CD-ROM format to test electronic dissemination to depositories. These recommendations

were to be based, in part, on proposals made

by each agency to the JCP. As of December

1986, 16 proposals were received by the JCP

from Federal agencies hoping to participate

in the pilot program. (;’ These proposals

ranged from provision of 4 possible databases

from the U.S. Geological Survey-the Geologic

Map Index, the Library System Catalog, the

Mineral Resources Data System, and the Selected Water Resources Abstracts–to 3 databases from the Department of the Treasury–

“’’U.S. Congress, Commitw, on ,\ppropriations, Legiskt~\(~

Appropriations Bill, 1989 Report to accompanJ, H. R. 4587,

Report No. 1W621, I()()th C’on~,. 2d session, 1988.

‘(’The Ad HOG Committee is c{)rnpc)sd of indit~iduals from

government agencies and representatives of pertinent ass{)-

ciations.

“‘The tJCP is still recei~’ing new pilot proj(lct proposals” from

Federal agencies interested in pro~iding electronic products t ()

depositor: nlembers.
144

the Financial Management Database, the Internal Revenue Bulletin, and the Taxpayer Information Publications.

One goal of the pilot and demonstration projects was to permit depository institutions access to some agency data not previously available or data that were lost once converted to

an electronic format. It would also open up the

depository program to government information in electronic form. The JCP passed a resolution on April 9, 1987, accepting the recommendations of the Ad Hoc Committee in principle

and “urged” GPO to initiate pilot projects.

Despite the April 9, 1987 resolution, a fiscal

year 1987 funding request of $800,000 for the

initial round of pilot projects was deferred by

the Appropriations Committees of both the

House and Senate. GPO did create the Information Technology Program within LPS, with

internal funds, to prepare the depository program for electronic projects, gather information on Federal agency electronic programs,

and assist internal LPS operations.

The introduction of electronic formats to the

depository library program has been characterized as:

. . . an opportunity to make Government information useful and more timely, and, . . . an opportunity to achieve a higher level of service

to constituents.G2

This proposal has been endorsed by the American Library Association, Special Library

Association, American Association of Law

Libraries, Association of Research Libraries,

National Coordinating Committee for the Promotion of History, Medical Library Association, Cartographic Users Advisory Council,

and others representing thousands of libraries

around the country. Many depository librarians also view the pilot projects as a chance

to test a variety of electronic formats, and discover which one or combination of technologies

and formats (electronic, paper, and microfiche)

are appropriate for different kinds information.

Finally, provision of information in an elec-

‘)zDiscussions, American Library Association Midwinter

Meeting, Chicago, II.., Jan. 16-19, 1987.

tronic format is seen as a continuation of the

current multi-tiered approach to disseminating government information: provision of information directly to the individual by government, provision of information via the private

sector through a number of services, and provision of information through the GPO document sales program and the DLP. This threetiered approach recognizes that there are both

different markets and different users for this

information, and that these three modes of delivery are not necessarily competitive and, in

many respects, are complementary.

Some database producers and services object to the inclusion of electronic formats in

the depository program as proposed in the pilot project program. The private sector position is represented, in part, by the Information Industry Association (11A), a trade

association with over 450 members from the

publishing and information sectors of the economy. These businesses employ information

technologies to supply users, both public and

private, with all types of information. The 11A

has argued that provision of government information in electronic format via depository

libraries, as proposed in the pilot project program, would compete with existing private sector online services, and that, if electronic formats are included in the depository program,

they should be provided by private vendors.

The Association has further stated that the

depository program should comply with OMB

Circular A-130 (though the legislative and judicial branches of government are not legally

subject to A-130), and that the goals of the depository program should be developed and reviewed in much greater detail. Some members

of the 11A also contend that, if government

information in electronic format is disseminated through the depository program, private

vendors will be unable to compete fairly and

will suffer adverse economic consequences.

Online Catalogs

Some government information is available

to depository libraries in electronic formats

through a number of private and not-for-profit
145

— ————-——— —— ———

database and vendor services, such as DIALOG, BRS, and OCLC, and the number of these

services is growing. The majority of the depository libraries have access to at least one of the

database systems, such as DIALOG or BRS,

and the majority are also planning future online catalogs.’” Since 1976, LPS use of OCLC

allows depository institutions and others to

search OCLC and other online services for government documents for cataloging purposes,

for downloading into library catalogs, and as

a limited reference tool.

LPS is the “center of authority” for the cataloging of Federal documents (employing accepted Anglo-American cataloging rules

[AACR2]), and is responsible for producing

original cataloging records of Federal documents in a timely fashion. Once cataloged at

GPO, the record is available online immediately. Each week, OCLC sends the computer

tapes to GPO where they are consolidated by

the GPO Data System Service. Four computer

tapes are again consolidated to produce the

MonthluY Catalog of the Um”ted States Government Publications. These GPO MARC tapes

can be purchased from GPO and the Library

of Congress by commercial firms and libraries.

As more and more libraries adopt information technologies, the promise of online catalogs is particularly appealing for government

document collections. It has been noted that,

“three developments seem to have had the

widest impac~ on the overall effects of automation in academic libraries: the growth and

development of bibliographic utilities, the

changes brought about in information retrieval

by the use of online databases, and the more

recent development of online public access catalogs. ‘f

’

f The 1981 Depository Library Biennial Statistical Summary found that only 70

depository libraries (or 6 percent of all depository libraries) catalog all government documents received, while 666 depositories (or 56

percent) catalog less than one-tenth of items

selected. It has been noted that:

“‘Con\rersation with .Joseph hlcl’lane. Chief. 1.ibrar~ Inspection Team, I.ibrar~r I]rograrns Ser\rice, U, S. (lo fernment Printing office>, Nm’ember 19H6.

‘ ‘hloran, op. cit.. footnote 19, p. S.

. . . the resources required to catalog items and

to maintain card catalogs in even a moderatesized institution are so extensive that libraries

have frequently chosen not to catalog documents in order to contain these costs. f

’

-

’

Whereas previously the combination of traditionally understaffed and low-budget document departments could not afford the enormous cost of cataloging the materials, new

technologies now allow many to catalog both

new and retrospective documents.

There are a number of commercial services

available to libraries for cataloging of government documents, including retrospective materials. For example, Marcive and Brodart provide machine-readable tape, a microfiche

catalog, or catalog card set records to depository libraries. The library identifies by a GPO

item number those documents requiring a record, and the vendors will supply the record in

the desired format. Vendors are also providing this service for retrospective government

documents. This type of service presents the

participating institution with new opportunities for creating online catalogs of Federal documents, as these tapes can be loaded into a

library’s local online catalog.’’”

Some GPO cataloging records, particularly

from July 1976 to 1984 (when GPO began to

include corrections made during the Monthl&v

Catalog production process), contain errors

that have not been corrected.” GPO does not

generate retrospective corrections on the

OCLC tapes for users, unlike the Library of

Congress and other Federal library institutions. The added expense to a library of iden6sRoseann Bowerman and Susan Cad3, “Go\ernrnent Pub -

lications in an Online Catalog: A Feasibility Stud~,” fioternrnent Publications, December 1984, p. 331,

66Conversation with Judy hl~ers. op. cit., footnote 50.

‘;TFor more information, see: LJudj E. Myers, ‘‘The (;o\ernment Printing Office Cataloging Records: Opportunities and

Problems, ” Government Information Quarterl~r 2 ( 1985), pp.

27-56; Bowerman and Cad~’, op. cit.. footnote 65: Nlary Sue

Stephenson and Gary Purcell, ” Current and Future Direction

of Automation Activities for t] ,S. (’, merriment Depvsi~ur~ Collections, ” Government Information QuarterI.}r 3 ( 1986), pp. 191-

199; and Margaret ,Johnston Powell, Deborah Smith, and Ellen

Conrad, “The Use of OCLC for Cataloging IJ. S. Go\’ernment

Publications, A Feasibility’ Studj, ’ (;ol’ernnlent Public ation.q

Re~riem’ ( 1987), pp. 61-76.
146 — —.. -—

tifying and correcting a record is quite high–

almost $4.50 per corrected record versus $1.40

per high-quality record such as those produced

today. For example, it would cost about $495,000

to examine, identify, and correct the 110,000

GPO cataloging records at the University of

Houston in order to include these records in

the online catalog. Error-free, the cost of inclusion in the online catalog would be substantially reduced to $154,000G8

At those depositories where online catalogs

are being created and/or catalog records are

being generated, government documents are

becoming more accessible as cataloging

records are now integrated into the main catalog, and “. . . usage rates are going Up. As

early as 1984, Trinity University noted a 300

“

h

Ibid, Judy E. Myers.

“

S

’Discussions, American Library Association Midwinter

Meeting, Jan. 16-19, 1987. There are materials that are still not

accessible through the program; GPO does not catalog all materials it distributes, such as the DOE materials, and there are

no plans for creating machine-readable records for those depositor-y materials that predate 1976.

percent increase in documents usage once

records were included in the circulation

system .70

In conclusion, the availability of retrospective GPO cataloging tapes and private and notfor-profit vendor services, combined with the

increasing number of technologies in depository institutions, permits these institutions to

catalog their government documents in a more

cost-effective manner. This, in turn, increases

access by patrons to government documents.

In addition, it also allows these libraries to consider machine-readable catalogs. The advent

of online catalogs in libraries in the next 5 to

10 years will revolutionize government document collections, as they will allow subject

access to these materials by users utilizing electronic capabilities, and integrate the government information into the rest of the library

collection.

7“Bowerman and Cady, op. cit., footnote 65, p. 341.
Chapter 7

Alternative Futures for the

Depository Library Program

Photo credft ” Documents Center, Robed Woodruff Library, Emory University

Documents librarian assists users with the Documents Center online catalog.
CONTENTS

Page

Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ......................149

Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .........151

Alternative I: Status Quo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........151

Alternative II: Electronic Depository Library Program . ...............153

A Subalternative for Distributing Electronic Formats. . ..............157

Alternative III: Reorganized Electronic Depository System . ...........158

Disseminating Electronic Information Products–Two Case Studies . . . . ..160

Congressional Record on CD-ROM . ...............................161

Federtd Re~”ster Online . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..........164

Issues Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ......171

Dissemination Formats in the Depository Program . .................171

Changing Costsof the Depository Program . .......................173

Reorganized Depository Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ............175

Changing Rolesof Stakeholders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..176

Tables

Table Page

7-l. Estimated Costs Per Library Per Year for Distribution of

7-2

7-3

7-4

the Bound C’ongz-essional Record to Depository Libraries,

Various Formats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..............163

Estimated Costs Per Library Per Year for Distributionof the

Federa.lRe@ster, by Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .........167

Queries and Cost Data for Online Patent Information, 1987.........167

Estimated Reproduction and Distribution Costs, Per

Magnetic Tape . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ....170
Chapter 7

Alternative Futures for the

Depository Library Program

SUMMARY

This chapter discusses several alternative

futures for the U.S. Government Printing Office (GPO) depository library program (DLP)

and examines their implications for the depository program and users of Federal information. The three alternatives considered are:

●

●

●

maintaining the status quo (that is, the

program as currently operating, excluding most electronic information products);

incorporating electronic information products into the current depository library

program; and

reorganizing the depository program in

the 2- to 10-year time period, to accommodate electronic formats and the adoption of current and emerging information

technologies by libraries.l

Included in this chapter are case studies of electronic delivery oft wo data files—the Congressional Record and Federal Register. This chapter also discusses several key issues concerning

the future of the DLP.

In 1962, Congress revised the laws relating

to the depository program. Throughout the

hearings and debate on the proposed legislation, Members and those testifying noted the

“vital role” of the depository program in the

dissemination of government information to

the American people. One of the revisions accepted by Members was a provision to extend

to the depositories access to additional

government-produced materials, and Members

noted that “. . . the Subcommittee on the Li1 Throughout this Chapter D PI. refers onl}r to the U.S. (~ overnment Printing Office depository librar~.”program; and the

reorganized DLP alternative is based in part on the proposal

developed by the Association of Research Libraries Task Force

on Government Information in Electronic Format. For more

information see: Association of Research Libraries, Technology & U.S. Government Information Poh”cies: Catalwvsts for New

Partnerships (J4’ashington, DC: ARL, October 1987).

brary considers . . . the expanded availability

of documents to those depository libraries as

absolutely essential if the purpose intended by

Congress in the establishment of the original

program is to continue to be served.’” The

debate today concerns not only additional materials but additional formats, and whether including electronic formats is consistent with

the legislative history and statutory authority of the 1962 act.

With the increasing number of electronic dissemination projects in agencies as well as related private sector offerings, the impetus for

including electronic information in the depository program is strong. Electronic products

enhance access to many types of information,

and failure to include these products within

the depository library program could create

or exacerbate inequities in public access to such

information. The Joint Committee on Printing (JCP) has interpreted provisions of Title

44 of the United States Code as extending to

government information in all formats and has

endorsed pilot and demonstration tests and delivery of government information products in

electronic formats. The Subcommittee on Legislative, Committee on House Appropriations,

has approved the distribution of CD-ROMs to

depository libraries. Thus, it seems clear that

some electronic products will be included in

the depository program. However, the number and types of products are likely to be quite

limited, in the absence of further congressional

guidance, since at present GPO is not empowered to require agencies to submit their electronic products for depository distribution.

Thus, without further policy action, erosion of

IU. S. Congress, Committee on Rules and Administration,

Revising the I.a ws Relating to Depositor?’ Libraries. Senate Report No. 1587, 87th Cong., 2d sess., 1962,p. 25.

149
150

-—

public access to government information via

the depository libraries is likely to continue.

OTA has also concluded that the likely introduction of electronic information to the depository library program may require an examination of the current structure of the program and

the nature of the relationships between depository participants and the government. Committees of Congress, member libraries, and GPO will

need to assess the current organizational structure and operation of the depository library program and determine if it is the most effective

and efficient system for users to access government information. Pilot projects and the like will

provide useful information regarding user information needs, financial costs, administrative requirements, and levels of usage. These pilots will

also assist the committees, GPO, and member

institutions in designing new delivery and

financing arrangements, particularly in light

of the evolving nature of both libraries and the

telecommunications infrastructure.

An important reason for electronic demonstration projects is to better understand the

issue of costs to users, to government, and to

depository institutions. If the basic underlying

principle of the depository program is to retain

free access to government information for users,

then Congress needs to appreciate that there

may be additional costs associated with the introduction of certain electronic services, and Congress may have to assist depository libraries and

GPO in designing and financing ways to make

this information available to the public. Case

studies of two electronic data files, the final

or bound Congressional Record in CD-ROM

format and the Federal Re~”ster online, are pre

sented to illustrate possible delivery modes and

costs.

Distribution of selected government information products in CD-ROM format such as

the bound or final cumulated edition of the Congressional Record could improve access to such

information, and could be a cost-effective dissemination mechanism for the Library Programs Service (LPS) for certain data files.

There could be some additional equipment and

training costs associated with this format for

the depository library participants. There will

be a need to periodically review depository library policies as new formats are added, especially since budgetary constraints are not likely

to permit multiple formats for many government information products. Difficult decisions

will need to be made about which formats for

the different products should be distributed

to depository libraries.

In the longer-term, Congress may wish to

consider a reorganization or restructuring of

the current depository program in light of electronic information dissemination options now

or likely to become available. This assumes

that there is a fundamental need to reorganize

the depository program to account for changes

in how users access information and how libraries provide information to users. A reorganized depository program presumably would

incorporate the ‘lessons learned’ from the pilot projects and demonstrations. To this end,

the pilots and other resource-sharing projects

would assist depository librarians, GPO, the

JCP, and other congressional committees in

discussing and redesigning the current structure of the depository program to best serve

the end-user—the public. Other issues, such

as how best to serve the needs of rural users

of government information and whether the

depository program should remain within GPO

or be moved elsewhere (e.g., to the Library of

Congress), also could be examined during the

reorganization discussions.

In the final section of this chapter, four

closely related policy issues are examined.

These issues concern the need for developing

a clear information policy on access to government information in electronic format through

depository libraries. In formulating policy it

will be important to consider the following spe

cific questions or issues:

● Should government information in all electronic formats be disseminated to the public through the depository library program?

 Are the principles of free access still applicable to the depository program, or are

there new costs associated with the introduction of electronically formatted prod-
151 —

ucts such that user fees or new funding ●

mechanisms need to be considered?

Can the current depository system accommodate new responsibilities for electronic

formats or should a new institutional

structure be considered? and

Does the increasing shift to electronically

formatted information require a reexamination of the composition and relationships of the stakeholders in the depository

program, and especially the role of the information industry?

INTRODUCTION

The first three major sections of this chapter explore three possible alternatives for the

depository library program. These are maintaining the status quo, establishing an electronic depository library program, and developing a long-term, reorganized electronic

depository library program based on new and

emerging technologies and the changing nature of libraries and information needs of users.

The analysis of the alternatives and their

possible implications is intended to facilitate

an understanding of the possible choices available to policy makers. The three alternatives

are presented and evaluated in some detail. In

evaluating the alternatives, the effects of proposed changes resulting from the use of new

technologies are given considerable attention.

Each of the alternatives is structured in

terms of the five main functions of the Library

Programs Service (LPS):

ALTERNATIVE

The status quo is defined as a continuation

of the current roles and activities of the DLP

as described in chapter 6. The discussion below assumes that no major congressional or

executive actions are taken for the next few

years and:

●

●

GPO disseminates information in paper

and microfiche formats with a few CDROMS and a few online files; and

depository libraries receive information

from Federal agencies in paper and microfiche formats with few electronic formats.

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

acquisition of materials;

classification of materials;

cataloging of materials;

distribution of materials;

monitoring of member depositories.

The discussion of monitoring includes consideration of internal LPS operations and is presented from the perspective of the quality of

library service and access to Federal information.

The fourth section in this chapter discusses

the possible dissemination of two data files to

the depository libraries in electronic formats—

the bound Congressional Record in CD-ROM

format, and the Federal Register online. Finally, the fifth and last section in this chapter

discusses four key issues relevant to the future of the DLP.

I: STATUS QUO

DLP, within the Superintendent of Documents (SupDocs) at GPO, would continue to

distribute government documents to approximately 1,400 participating depository institutions. The amount of government information that should belong in the program is

projected to increase, but the actual amount

distributed would probably decrease for two

reasons—agencies failing to place paper documents in the program (fugitive documents),

and an increase in the percentage of electronic

products falling outside the program. The decentralized practice of agencies shipping materials directly to participating depository in-
152

stitutions would likely increase, as in the case

of Department of Energy and Equal Employment Opportunity Commission agreements

that are typical of arrangements between GPO,

libraries, and the agencies (see ch. 6 for more

information).

Classification of materials. There would be

no changes in or effects on the classification

of materials.

Cataloging of materials. There would be no

changes in the cataloging of materials.

Distribution of materials. The bulk of government documents distributed to depository

libraries would continue to be in microform format. Dual format (paper and microfiche) would

continue for selected congressional and executive branch materials. GPO and the library

community would likely revisit the debate over

the choice and cost issues raised by dual

format.

The Superintendent of Documents would

maintain the practice of selling GPO tapes to

vendors at a nominal fee. Neither these tapes

nor the bulk of electronically-formatted materials from other government agencies would

be distributed to depository institutions (except for a few CD-ROMs and online products).

Depository institutions in need of electronically-formatted information would presumably

purchase this information from vendors or

through other arrangements directly with the

agencies, for example, Bureau of the Census

or National Library of Medicine (NLM).

Monitoring of the member institutions and effectiveness of the program. The budget of the

LPS would likely remain relatively constant.

If Federal agencies move away from GPO services (for whatever reasons, such as an increase

in electronic products in lieu of paper) and, as

a consequence, fewer government documents

were available to the Sales Program, the GPO

sales could be reduced. This could in turn affect the amount of monies redirected from net

sales revenues to LPS to partially reduce the

need for appropriated funds.

The LPS Information Technology Program

(ITP) was established in the summer of 1987

with a charter to initiate agency electronic pilot projects for the depository program. However, no monies were appropriated by Congress

for this program. The program focus instead

has been on internal operations, such as automated shipping lists, a claims-processing system, and other microcomputer-based systems

in support of LPS operations. Additional staff

time has been spent gathering information on

other agency electronic information programs

and a few electronic projects such as the

Census Disk. Over the next few years, under

the status quo alternative, the role of ITP with

respect to dissemination of electronic formats

would continue to be limited.

The ability of LPS to accomplish its mission

would be eroded to the degree that:

●

●

●

electronically-formatted government information was unavailable to the public

through the depository program;

the agencies became even more dependent

on NTIS rather than GPO/SupDocs as a

dissemination mechanism for electronic

products; and

the agencies relied on contractors, interagency agreements, or private sector arrangements rather than GPO for electronic dissemination in general.

Although the number of selective depository

institutions in the program would likely increase, several regional libraries (those libraries

receiving and permanently maintaining all government documents) would likely drop membership in the depository program (as is happening currently). The increase in membership

of selective depositories would be due to the

minimum selection requirement that allows

participating institutions to select only those

government documents as appropriate for

their patrons. The decline in the number of regional depositories would be attributed to the

growing amount of government information

that would need to be maintained permanently

and the escalating costs of participation.

As GPO’s role diminished, the role of the private sector in the provision of government information to the public would likely expand.

An increasing percentage of information in
.

electronic formats would be available only

through private vendors. Depositories would

have two choices: either pay vendors for government information not available through the

depository program or directly from agencies,

or not provide direct access to these materials

for their patrons.’ The costs to member depositories would increase and continue to rise

as agencies moved to greater reliance upon electronic formats and private sector services. The

costs to those depositories opting to provide

access would continually rise as agencies

moved to greater reliance upon electronic formats and private sector services. Also, depositories could incur increased costs for online

searching and additional reference services to

the extent that librarians and information

specialists needed to check a greater number

of sources for government information. Regionals could face additional costs to the extent

that selective depository institutions were unable to provide specific information to patrons

and as a result referred inquiries to the regional

libraries.

Under the status quo alternative, public access to government information via depository

libraries would likely be continually eroded and

reduced. Equity of access would be adversely

affected to the extent that patrons of depository institutions would have to pay for access

to government information. Also, many of the

agency electronic information products could

‘Not all government information in electronic format would

be available through private sector services, since some or many

types of information would not be expected to produce monetary benefits for vendors. This information could be permanently

lost to the public.

153

— .

be more difficult for patrons to locate. To the

degree that depository library users were denied effective access to enhanced electronic versions of core governmental process information such as the Congressional Record, equity

of access would be further reduced. As stated

by Frantzich:

The current hard copy version of the Record is particularly inflexible. While users generally want a full picture of a debate on a particular subject or the actions of a particular

Member, these are scattered throughout the

text and over a number of different documents. The ability to use new technology to

“cut and paste” a tailored document would

greatly increase the usability of the material

in the Record.4

Under this alternative, overall government

costs would likely increase since government

at all levels (including Federal as well as State

and local depository libraries) would not be receiving needed Federal information through

the depository program and would have to

maintain it through other more expensive

means.

Under the status quo, with a greater number of agency information products available

in electronic formats, GPO would be unable

to comply fully with a legislative mandate of

providing access to government information

to the public through the depository library

program.

‘Stephen Frantzich, “Public Access to Congressional Information in the Technological Age: Case Studies. Draft OTA

contractor report, OTA, September 1987, pp. 50-51.

ALTERNATIVE II: ELECTRONIC DEPOSITORY

LIBRARY PROGRAM

This alternative assumes that the existing ●

DLP would be extended to include government

information products in electronic formats as

well as paper and microfiche. The program ●

would be managed as it is now. In addition,

this alternative assumes that GPO would serve

as the disseminating agency for the depository

program, and:

each depository would select the type and

number of formats; and

OMB WOLIM issue a circular requiring

agencies to comply with the depository

program for all government information

regardless of format (within current accepted guidelines for those materials that
154

are not confidential, administrative, or for

internal use).

Under this alternative, the Superintendent

of Documents would approve the inclusion of

electronic products from Federal agencies for

dissemination to depository institutions, in

addition to paper and microfiche products. Under this alternative, it is likely that microfiche

would still account for the bulk of products

within the program. Dual format would probably continue for a minimum number of products, and fewer paper documents would be

available to member institutions. LPS would

be able to provide a choice of files in a variety

of formats to members of the program, but

these files would not always be available in all

formats.

This alternative could have the following effects on the five major functions of LPS.

Acquisition of materials. Many of the current

procedures for acquiring materials would continue. GPO would receive tapes, disks, or diskettes from the issuing agency, duplicate the

new media in-house or via a contractor, or depositories would receive the materials directly

from the agency or an agency contractor pursuant to an interagency agreement.

The information format would require individual decisions by the agencies and GPO to

determine if GPO would operate in a centralized or decentralized mode. For example, a data

file developed by or for an agency could be received by the depository via GPO, from the

issuing agency directly, or from an agency contractor. This data tape could also be a “raw”

data tape or one with “value-added” software

included. Each mode of delivery to the depositories and each format has advantages and disadvantages to the program, the participating

institutions, and the agencies. Thus, it could

be more advantageous for libraries to work

directly with the Bureau of the Census for certain data tapes. This could require additional

infrastructure within agencies where the

amount of electronically formatted information is significant. Another example would be

CD-ROMs of the bound Congressional Record

or of Bureau of the Census materials, where

it might be more advantageous for GPO to ship

the CD-ROMs directly to the depositories.

Classification of materials. The introduction

of electronically formatted materials should

not require any significant changes in current

LPS classification procedures. The format type

–paper, microfiche, CD-ROM disk, diskette,

or online tape—would need to be noted as it

is now. It would be necessary for the originating agencies to clearly define the source and

nature of the electronic material so it can be

properly classified and assigned a correct

number.

Cataloging of materials. GPO employs

AACR-2 (Anglo-American Cataloging Rules),

the accepted standard for cataloging developed

by the library community. The cataloging of

new media is already an accepted practice in

the library community. GPO’s integration of

new media into the depository program would

require training of LPS cataloging staff and

informational assistance to depository institutions to make library catalogers aware of the

changes in format. GPO has developed Cataloging Guidelines that describe preferred routines for inputting records into the Online Computer Library Center (OCLC), use of AACR-2,

serials procedures, and the like. GPO would

be required to update these guidelines to include procedures for handling electronic

formats.

Distribution of new materials. Overall, the

current distribution procedures would remain

with some modification for materials in an online format. Diskettes and CD-ROMS would

present few, if any, new distribution problems

to LPS. However, distribution of online data

files could present a variety of problems, depending on whether the mode of operation was

centralized or decentralized.

The addition of electronic formats might affect the selectivity of the depositories. Depository institutions are becoming increasingly

selective in the number of and kind of government information products they receive. The

inclusion of electronic products in the program

would not change this trend, and might even

increase selectivity. As with paper and micro-
fiche, librarians would need to examine the government materials available in electronic format and explore the choices for their- patrons.

Whereas the initial cost of adding a document

in microfiche is minimal (not counting the costs

of storage and maintenance), the cost of equipment and software development for electronic

formats could be higher, at least initially. With

electronic formats, depositories would have

new choices to make concerning the information needs of users.

Monitoring of member institutions and effectiveness of the program (as it relates to quality of service and access). The introduction of

electronic files to the depository program and

to GPO would require the development of additional GPO in-house expertise in information

technologies. For example, GPO could contract

for the mastering and production of CD-ROMs,

produce CD-ROMs in-house (equipment permitting), or obtain the necessary number of

CD-ROMs from the agencies. Regardless of the

choice, an overall understanding of CD-ROM

technology, production, and use would be

needed to ensure an effective program.

The Information Technology Program (ITP)

would need to be expanded. The new responsibilities of this office could include development of training programs for depository libraries that focus on equipment purchases, use

of new electronic services, and awareness of

electronic information products available from

the government. This training component would

be critical to the success of this alternative, and

would require increased funding.

Overall, large institutions such as the Association of Research Libraries (ARL) members,

academic institutions, and State libraries

(which collectively account for over 50 per cent

of the depositories) would be better prepared

than smaller institutions to accept products

in electronic format. These institutions already

have much of the needed equipment and ongoing training programs for staff. Acceptance

of electronic products probably would be

slower at smaller institutions, primarily due

to lack of necessary equipment, training, and

an adequate financial base. The GAO Survey

155

of Federal Information Users noted a growing technology base in depository institutions.

If GPO were to provide electronically formatted materials, it is likely that more and more

depositories would, over time, invest in needed

equipment just as they did for microfiche.

Each depository institution would be in a

different stage of development concerning the

use of information technologies in support of

depository library programs. For example,

many university libraries already have CDROM equipment, whereas many smaller libraries do not. On the other hand, CD-ROM technology is inexpensive, very user-friendly, and

requires minimal staff and user training. It

does, though, require some training and knowledge in order to use different software packages effectively.

A determination would need to be made on

what kind and level of support GPO should

provide including, costs and other implications.

For example, GPO could offer the depository

libraries a series of comprehensive seminars

on equipment and training, and/or form a team

of information technology consultants similar

to the current depository inspectors. This team

would assist member institutions introduce

electronic formats to the library staff and

users.

Congress could consider a one-time equipment grant for depository library CD-ROM

equipment but would need to address standardization issues. Depository participants and

GPO are likely to be unable to regularly upgrade their CD-ROMs (for financial constraints

alone), yet, at the same time, CD-ROM technologies are constantly changing (both hardware and software capabilities). One possible

side effect of an equipment grant, if made,

would be to encourage and accelerate standardsetting, since the government would be buying for up to 1,400 institutions.

Some reconsideration of retention policies

wou[d be necessary with the introduction of

electronic files. These new policies would be

applicable to regional depositories that are now

required to retain all government materials permanently. There are over 50 regional institu-
156

-.

tions—a mix of public and private institutions

and academic, public, and State libraries. Storage guidelines for new formats at these institutions, particularly for online files, would be

an issue if the old requirements were retained.

The two key issues that would need to be addressed would be the development of guidelines for online storage, and the development

of guidelines regarding the costs to regionals

for provision of online information to other institutions.

A new institutional structure for the depository program is evolving with the emergence

of a set of “supra” regionals. The role of some

regional depositories has developed into one

of providing service support to other depositories, including staff time and equipment.

Also, some regional institutions do not house

all government materials received, but instead

assume responsibility for these documents

regardless of the location. This change has

occurred due to increased cooperation among

members, with “statewide” institutions expanding their participation. There are a number of advantages to this emerging structure:

●

●

●

●

increased integration of government documents into library collections,

greater resource sharing,

spreading out the “burden” of the service support functions and costs, and

improved flexibility of storage requirements.

This growth in cooperation and flexibility

within the depository system is very important and should be beneficial as the amount

of electronic information increases.5

Other impacts of Alternative II. Under Alternative II, there could be substantial savings

in GPO production and distribution costs if

more government information products were

available in CD-ROM format and not produced

in paper and microfiche (e.g., for certain Bureau of the Census materials). There could be

additional costs incurred depending on the

number of products distributed in an online

format as this format can be more expensive.

“Based on discussions with GPO, LPS staff, November 1987.

There would be some reduction in other current costs, such as for storage of paper and

microfiche. For example, the cost of microfiche

cabinets is very high-$3,000 per year, including maintenance and space considerations—

and the reduction in the amount of microfiche

could be a benefit to regional depository institutions.

All depository institutions that accept electronically formatted products might face additional costs from participating in the program. These costs would result from one or

more of the following: 1) staff training, 2) equipment purchase (beyond that possibly provided

by GPO, 3) costs of online searching, 4) local

mounting and/ or downloading of government

information, and 5) increased user support. The

specific electronic format would affect the level

of costs to the user, the library, or the government. For example, providing the Congressional Record retrospectively on a CD-ROM

disk to all depository institutions (if mastered

by GPO, replicated by a contractor, and distributed by the depository program), would

likely impose some additional financial responsibilities on depositories and actually reduce

costs to the government if provided in lieu of

paper or microfiche. However, access to an

agency online data file might involve additional

costs to the depositories and/or the government when telecommunication costs are factored in.

Some regional depositories would face additional financial burdens, and some depositories

might reconsider membership as the costs of

resource-sharing increased. An increasing

number of depositories not receiving certain

electronic files might turn to the regional depository libraries for that information. If this

occurred, it could be difficult for these regional

libraries to maintain policies of free access to

government information.

Under alternative II, overall access to government information would be expected to improve. But access would be enhanced only if

depository libraries could accommodate and

support electronic formats and develop resource-sharing procedures for those libraries
157

—

that did not have the necessary technologies,

funding, and training within a State or region.

This alternative would increase the need for

clarification of the roles and legal authorities

of GPO, the depositories, and the agencies.

Agencies presumably would be required to provide electronically formatted information to

the depository program. Clear guidelines and

possibly legislation would be necessary.

A Subalternative for Distributing

Electronic Formats

A subalternative of Alternative II would

make selected electronic products available to

specified depositories not via GPO but via an

agreement with private sector or not-for-profit

services. The Public Printer has previously proposed a pilot project whereby private sector

and not-for-profit services would disseminate

selected government generated tapes to a subset of depository libraries at little or no cost

to the government.h The private sector service would add value to five suggested databases: congressional bills, Congress~onal Record, Federal Register, Code of Federal

Regulations, and the Monthly Catalog of

Um”ted States Government Publications, in return for free receipt of the tapes. The private

sector service would be required to accept all

five tapes, because the total value of the five

tapes would provide increased access for users

and increased value to the vendor. The cost

of the tapes would be debited to the depository program.

For this or similar proposals to be seriously

considered, a number of issues would require

clarification. For example:

● GPO would need to determine a level of

public access to the electronic information

that would be considered viable and appr~

priate. Would the combined value of the

tapes minus the va.badded costs provide

a sufficient level of access to the public

and sufficient incentive to the vendors?

61.etter from Ralph E. Kennickell, Jr., Public Printer, to

Honorable Frank Annunzio, Chairman, tJoint Committee on

Printing, Dec. 10, 1987.

● GPO would need to design criteria for

selection of library participants. Telecommunications permit access to online information regardless of geographic location,

so geographical concerns need not limit

the libraries selected. The type of library,

the facilities, equipment and training programs in the library, and the networking

capabilities to other depositories are examples of criteria or factors that could be

employed by GPO to select participants.

● GPO would need to specify the responsibility of participating libraries regarding

the need to maintain paper and microfiche

copies of these data files to guarantee access to government information, and for

archival purposes.

● GPO would need some assurance (on behalf of all participants) of length and level

of commitment by the vendor, and the

vendor would require some assurance as

to the commitment by GPO to the continuation of this program. For example,

would this be a pilot project or a program

that would seek congressional endorsement and financial support for, say, the

next 3 years?

● For an option such as this to be successful, the vendor would likely already have

considerable market share in one or several of the data files and within the library

community.

● The value of the duplicated tapes and the

“charge” against the depository program

would need to be factored into the overall

costs of the program.

 A determination of proprietary rights in

the ‘value added’ information and ensuing use by libraries would be necessary.

● Previous “barter” agreements between

agencies and private sector services generally have been unsuccessful, and congressional committees with relevant jurisdiction generally have not supported

projects of this nature. Congressional concerns would need to be alleviated prior to

implementation of such a proposal.

 Arrangements concerning telecommunications charges and the like would need

to be specified.
158

.—— —

Under this subalternative, public access to

government information would appear to increase. Electronic information would be available to the depositories at little or no immediate cost to participating institutions. Some

insight would be gained concerning usage

levels and the overall costs that would be associated with a larger electronic program. There

would be minimal costs to government, at least

at the outset.

There are also disadvantages associated with

this subaltemative. With the pilot project, only

a selected number of libraries would participate and even those would have only a minimum level of access. It is unclear whether and

under what conditions this suba.lternative

could be extended to all depository libraries.

The costs to the government while minimal

with the pilot project would increase substantially over time as the number and types of

files expanded. The question of proprietary

rights in the value added by vendors would

need to be addressed. Should or could these

rights be waived, or should restrictions on public use of such value added information be accepted? Any restrictions could adversely affect the ability of libraries to share this

information with other depositories and users.

Overall, this subalternative would change the

current relationships between the government

and the depository libraries. Congress, GPO,

and the libraries would need to consider carefully the implications of including new “partners’ in the depository library program. Finally, barter-type arrangements such as this

suba.lternative have not been successful in

other agencies, for example, the Patent and

Trademark Office (PTO) and the Securities and

Exchange Commission (SEC). Another possibility would be for the government to simply

pay the vendor for services rendered at a bulk

discount rate.

ALTERNATIVE III: REORGANIZED ELECTRONIC

DEPOSITORY SYSTEM

This alternative presents one of many pos- ●

sible future directions for the depository program once electronic pilots have commenced

and user needs, usage patterns, and cost factors are more fully understood. This alternative seeks to describe a longer-term reorganized

view of the LPS incorporating current and

emerging technologies and reflecting the ●

changing roles of libraries. The composition

of participating libraries could be reviewed and

reorganized, consistent with meeting user

needs and optimizing use of resources. This

alternative is based on the recent Association

of Research Libraries (ARL) proposal for restructuring the depository program. This proposal has been put forth by the ARL Task

Force on Government Information in Elec- ●

tronic Format for discussion purposes only.

The ARL proposal defines a three-tiered system of libraries and library responsibilities.

Three new levels of service would be designated: Basic, Intermediate, and Full:

Basic Service–libraries with small government document collections and gateway access to electronic information located elsewhere. Basic service would be

characterized by self-help, on-demand

service, and high cost per transaction, but

small fixed cost.

Intermediate Service—libraries with a

larger government document collection,

including some electronic information and

gateway access to other electronic information located elsewhere. Intermediate

service would be characterized by some

vah.wadded information development and

increased mediation between information

resources and information users.

Full Service—libraries with a complete

government document collections and a

full range of electronic information and

gateways to other resources. Full service

would be characterized by support from

“related, locally available databases, ”
159

value-added services, development of software packages and similar “approaches

which would change wholesale Government information into retail Government

information, higher fixed costs, and

lower per transaction costs.7

Under this alternative, LPS would continue

to distribute government information to participating institutions. Electronic products

from Federal agencies would be included in the

depository program (and the Monthly Catalog of United States Government Publications)

in addition to paper and microfiche products.

Dual format would continue for a minimum

number of products. Microfiche would probably continue to account for the bulk of materials in the program. LPS would be able to provide a choice of files in a number of formats,

but these files would not always be available

in all formats. The full-resource institutions

would be assuming many new responsibilities,

for example, local mounting of tape files. The

new focus would be on the ability to access information as required from a host of available

resources. With the reorganized structure LPS:

would not require the same amount of

printed or microfiche products from GPO;

would need to expand the functions oft he

ITP;

would determine with depository institutions the “core” collection for basic and

intermediate services; and

would work closely with depository members in developing criteria and infrastructure for the reorganized system.

Acquisition of Materials. Most of the current

procedures for acquisition of materials would

remain in effect. The discussion in Alternative

II would apply to this alternative.

Classification of Materials. The previous discussion of Alternative I I would apply to this

reorganized electronic alternative. LPS and the

intermediate-and full-service depositories could

consider the value of devising a system whereby LPS would be notified of any value-added

products, software products, or the like cre-

‘Association of Research Libraries. op. cit., footnote 1, p. 22.

ated by a member institution. LPS would then,

in turn, notify other participants in the program (e.g., through Administrative Notes) that

the products were available. The depository

institutions could also rely on other networks

and bulletin boards to convey this information.

Cataloging of Materials. The cataloging discussion found in the previous section would

apply to this reorganized electronic option.

Distribution of New Materials. In addition to

the distribution mechanisms discussed in the

previous section, a core collection of materials for basic and intermediate levels of service

would need to be developed by LPS in concert

with the depository institutions. Distribution

systems or new resource-sharing procedures

between basic, intermediate, and full service

libraries would need to be developed by participating institutions and the LPS. These procedures would include a description of the

responsibilities of each service level, financial

obligations, interlibrary loan procedures, and

the like. ITP could be responsible for assisting intermediate-and full-service institutions

with new technological applications, and providing current information on activities in Federal agencies, such as the development of new

electronic information products and applications.

Monitoring of member institutions and effectiveness of the program (as it relates to quality of service and access). Most of the new tasks

noted in the previous discussion of Alternative II would apply here as well—the expansion of ITP to assist libraries in choice of formats, technological applications, and liaison

with other Federal agencies; new retention policies for electronic formats; and the possible

provision of CD-ROM equipment. Overall, policies for bibliographic searching, cooperative

acquisition, interlibrary loan, document delivery services, reciprocal borrowing privileges,

referral and reference services, and the storage and preservation of government materials would need to be modified or created.

The establishment of a new infrastructure

for the depository program would probably require changes in the monitoring responsibili-
160

ties of LPS. Depository members and GPO together would need to define the goals and

objectives of the new system, define the

responsibilities of each level of service, and define the responsibilities of GPO and an overall framework for monitoring performance of

the depository program. The current system

employed in a number of regions, whereby regional depositories have assumed some responsibilities for the level of service in their region

or State, might be applicable in the new system. In this instance, full service libraries would

with intermediate libraries assist new libraries

wishing to join the depository system and

would regularly evaluate the services needed

and those already provided for the region.

The depository institutions would need to

consider carefully which level of service under

the reorganized system would best serve their

organization and patrons. There is a wide variance in technological sophistication among the

libraries in the current depository system. The

same variance would be evident in a reorganized system, and many libraries would not be

capable of providing “gateway” services without guidance and support from affiliated depository members. The reorganized structure

would likely streamline the current program

and permit the development of a network or

system of depository institutions, recognizing

that there is a need for different levels of

service.

Other impacts of Alternative III. It is difficult to determine if there would be savings to

government under this alternative, without

detailed cost-benefit studies. Reducing distribution of paper and microfiche would save

money. However, there would be transition

costs as well as new equipment and training

costs (e.g. resulting in the shifting of funds

from distribution functions to ITP within

LPS).

Access to government information would be

improved under this alternative. A reorganized

electronic program would: 1) facilitate access

to print-based materials and electronic information, 2) expand and improve access to a host

of online information services and products,

and 3) encourage a new level of sophisticated

manipulation of information electronically

(government and nongovernment information).

The reorganized structure would permit an information network to develop among depositories, allowing for increased efficiency and access to information resources on a national,

State, and local scale.

This alternative would increase the need for

clarification of the roles and legal authorities

of GPO, the depositories, and the agencies.

Agencies presumably would be required to provide electronically formatted information to

the depository program. Clear guidelines and

possibly legislation would be necessary.

DISSEMINATING ELECTRONIC INFORMATION

PRODUCTS–TWO CASE STUDIES

The previous sections examined three pos- Register online. These files were selected for

sible alternatives for the depository library several reasons. First, the Congressional Recprogram: maintenance of the status quo, an ord and the Federal Register represent core

electronic depository library program, and a or process government information. Second,

reorganized electronic depository library sys- these files: have been identified by depository

tern. This section will examine two formats (on- librarians as useful and/or desirable in elecline and CD-ROM) and delivery mechanisms tronic format; are extremely popular with high

for specific government data files as test or regular usage; and are files found in most

projects for disseminating electronic formats depositories. Third, providing these files in

through the DLP. The data files described are electronic formats clearly improves and enthe Congressional Record in CD-ROM format hances public access, and in some cases timefor the bound, cumulated file, and the Federal liness, compared to paper and microfiche for-
mats. The bound or final Congressional Record

in CD-ROM format and the Federal Register

online could be made available to depositories

as described in Alternatives II or III. Finally,

the JCP recently announced that the bound

Record will be available on CD-ROM through

GPO.

Congressional Record on CD-ROM

In the 1983 Ad Hoc Committee on Depository Library Access to Federal Automated

Databases survey of depository institutions,

depository librarians identified the Congressional Record as a key data file which, if available in electronic format, would enhance access by patrons to government information.

The Congressional Record is received by most

depositories, is currently available in paper or

microfiche (dual format) from GPO, and is

available online for a fee through several commercial vendors.

The Congressional Record contains the daily

record of House and Senate floor proceedings

as well as schedules of other congressional

activities and actions. A new Record is

produced nightly and is available to the public the following morning. It has been stated

that, “a distinguishing feature of the Record

is its timeliness."8 GPO receives scheduling

information, prepared remarks and inserts

from Members, floor debate transcripts, bill

texts, and other documents and melds this material into a 200-to 300-page document every

night that Congress is in session.

The material is accepted by GPO in numerous formats (electronic, printed, and handwritten) which are then entered in the database by GPO staff. This new electronic version is used to produce the printing plates for

the printing of the Congressional Record in

hard copy.9 The electronic database in the

form of magnetic computer tapes is corrected

and then made available for purchase through

the Superintendent of Documents within 24

‘Frantzich, op. cit., footnote 4,

‘Due to time constraints of the printing process, errors in the

electronic tapes are not corrected immediately. For more infor- mation see Frantzich, op. cit., footnote 4, p. 35.

to 72 hours after the printing of each Record.

A number of vendors acquire these tapes from

the GPO, add value to the existing version,

and sell this enhanced information to clients.

A yearly subscription to the Congressional

Record tape service costs $29,300, and each

tape can be purchased for $175. Microfiche copies of the Record are produced by a GPO contractor and are then distributed by GPO. These

microfiche copies are not available as quickly

as either the paper or electronic formats.

The Congressional Record is recorrected and

new printing plates are created to produce the

bound, permanent copy or final edition of the

Congressional Record. The bound Record is a

number of years behind. The most recent

bound volumes published cover 1982 (volume

128) and 1985 (volume 131), with current efforts focused on 1983, 1984, and 1986. The

most current index available is for 1980. The

1981 index is in production and expected in

1988; the 1982 index is scheduled for completion in late 1988. The cumulated, final, bound

Congressional Record represents the only corrected edition of the Record and is important

for archival, historical, and sometimes legal

purposes. (For more information on the issues

relating to the Record, see ch. 8.)

Bound Congressional Record on CD-ROM

There are a number of possible options for

mastering and replicating a CD-ROM disk of

the bound Record; for example, by GPO, by

a commercial vendor, or by a combination of

the two. Several new internal production steps

will be necessary to produce a disk. Once complete, the yearly cumulative Congressional

Record on CD-ROM, produced either by GPO

or a contractor, could then be shipped to the

depositories through normal distribution channels. The disk could also be available through

the Superintendent of Documents for a fee (the

usual cost plus 50 per cent).

The corrected daily Record tapes produced

by the GPO Office of Information Resources

Management will be the digitized data used

for the creation of the CD-ROM. GPO management is currently considering the lease of
162

—

a CD Publisher system that is capable of reconfiguring (reindexing) a file structure and preparing the file for one or more disks. This file

would then be ready for a contractor to master and replicate CD-ROMs for GPO distribution to the depository libraries and/or sale

through the Superintendent of Documents.10

GPO management has determined that GPO

staff will not develop the needed retrieval software itself, but will purchase the software from

a vendor. Producing the software on CD-ROM

may eliminate the need for a separate index

to the Record because of the search and retrieval capabilities inherent in CD-ROM software. On the other hand, it is also argued that

there may be the need for both the Congressional Record Index and the CD-ROM search

and retrieval software because the index provides additional reference points and “human

judgment” not found in the software.

The average amount of data in the Record

per year is: 37,594 pages representing over 500

million bytes of information (for 1985 as a sample year). These figures do not include an index to the bound version. GPO is considering

many possibilities. Two under consideration

are: one year, one volume of the bound version

of the Record, without the index, plus required/necessary software on one CD-ROM;

and one year of the Record on one CD-ROM,

plus a floppy disk that would contain the software for accessing and manipulating the data

residing on the CD-ROM. Because GPO has

not developed such a disk before, staff are uncertain as to the amount of data that can fit

on the disk and what constitutes the “best”

approach.

Certain crosscutting criteria can be applied

to each data file and delivery mode to describe

and present the opportunities and drawbacks

of each format option. These criteria are:

• data requirements—including completeness, size, and use of data, timeliness, etc.;

10 At this time, GPO does not intend to master and replicate

CD-ROM products. GPO believes that it would not be costeffective for the agency to invest in such equipment or necessary manpower at this time. If the need for and use of CD-ROM

products by the Federal Government increased radically and

requires substantial production capabilities, then GPO would

reconsider its position.

• delivery mode—including format, equipment needs, training needs, etc.; and

• costs—including startup, equipment,

staff, operational needs, etc.ll

Data requirements. Under the current guidelines, GPO only offers to depositories the microfiche format with a paper index of the bound

final Congressional Record. If the CD-ROM

bound Record were available, libraries could

choose among the two formats (microfiche or

CD-ROM) for a limited amount of transition

time. This transition time would provide data

to determine user preferences regarding the

format of the bound or final Record. (A limited

number of printed copies would be available

for purchase through the Superintendent of

Documents.) The bound Congressional Record

serves as an important historical, archival, and

legal tool. Member institutions would need to

determine their institutions’ needs regarding

access (printed or electronic) and transition

time between different formats if switching

from paper and microfiche to CD-ROM or microfiche to CD-ROM. Many libraries may be

in the position of housing paper, microfiche,

and electronic versions of the Record for archival purposes.12 Many of the same transition issues addressed in the late 1970s and

1980s, as libraries incorporated microfiche into

their collections, would apply here.

There is no agreement on the longevity of

optical disks, with estimates ranging from as

little as 10 years to as long as 100 years. Also,

although CD-ROMs may endure for up to several decades or longer, the equipment used to

“read” these products may quickly become

outdated. Format longevity is important for

archival purposes because one goal of some depositories is to provide a continuous and complete record of government information. The

importance of maintaining a usable and complete Record file reflects several needs—

11 These criteria are based in part on questions proposed by

the ARL Task Force on Government Information in Electronic

Format for use in evaluating pilot projects; Report No. 1, App.

1, Oct. 30, 1986, Draft No. 1.

12GP0 could begin production of CD-ROM formats beginning with the 1983 bound Record. However, GPO would be unable at this time to retrospectively convert earlier (pre-1983)

Record tapes to CD-ROM products.
163

historical research, research on a political position, and, increasingly, determination of

legislative intent by the courts, agencies, lawyers, and others.

Timeliness is not a critical issue for the

bound Record, though use of the CD-ROM format probably would reduce the current backlog. As with the replication of microfiche, GPO

would rely on private sector contractors to

master and replicate the disks. The schedules

and reliability of the firms chosen as well as

GPO contract specifications would, in many

respects, determine the turnaround time from

GPO to the depositories.

The availability of the bound Record in a CDROM format would enhance and improve access by users to those files. The number of

users simultaneously using Congressional Record information would not necessarily increase,

but ease of access to the file would increase

dramatically. This would be particularly true

when compared to the microfiche format. In

addition, by its very nature, indexing would

be built into the disk file, whereas with microfiche there is a separate index (still maintained

in paper for congressional and depository use),

and searching is more cumbersome and timeconsuming. The CD-ROM format would include print-on-demand capabilities similar to

those in use today for microfiche reader/

printers. It has been noted that:

A major limitation of using the Record in

its current form is the limited indexing and

the difficulty of finding materials. Whereas,

the ability to create new subsets of data makes

an electronic database very powerful and much

more valuable than a paper catalog. Searches

of the database become easier, faster, cheaper,

and more thorough. 13

In general, the bound Record is not one of the

most heavily used items in a depository, but

it is one that 1,305 of the 1,393 libraries maintain and one that is used by patrons. It is expected that improved indexing and easier re-

} ‘Frmtzich, op. cit., footnote 4, p. 42 and, Stephen Frantzich,

“Public Access to Congressional Information: The Potential and

Pitfalls of Technology I?nhanced Access” OTA contractor report, January 1987, p. 17.

trieval of information would increase the use

of the Record.

Delivery and costs. There would be few, if

any, new requirements or equipment needs for

LPS to deliver this information in CD-ROM

to the depositories. As noted in Table 7-1 the

estimated per-library cost for provision of the

bound Congressional Record is $632.83 for paper format; $33.74 for a hard copy of the index of the Record; $83.62 for a microfiche copy;

and $10.05 for a CD-ROM plus floppy disk (one

of two possibilities under investigation). If

GPO used commercial access software with the

disk, there might be an additional software

license fee, although it would likely be minimal. According to GPO, the overall cost of producing the microfiche master of the bound Record is $5,047.50, and the estimated production

cost of the CD-ROM master for the bound Record is $1,700. GPO would not require supplemental funding to produce the CD-ROM for

the bound Record, if this were the only format

produced.

However, member depository libraries would

need to assess their CD-ROM information access and equipment needs. The GAO Survey

of Federal Information Users found that over

40 per cent of those surveyed have a CD-ROM

player or access to one. Those libraries without CD-ROM players would need to invest

about $600-$700 per player. The GAO survey

also found that 283 of 451 depository libraries

have (or have access to) a microcomputer without a modem, and 337 of the 451 have a microTable 7-1 .—Estimated Costs Per Library Per Year

for Distribution of the Bound Congressional/ Record

to Depository Libraries, Various Formats

Paper Paper Microfiche CD-ROM

Copies Index Copies Copies

Printing Cost ... . $569,70$30.30 – –

Production Costs — — $28.27 –

Duplication Costs

CD-ROM ... ... – – – $3.00

Floppy Disk — — — $5.00

Postage . . . . . . . . . . . $55,30 $3.13 $.85 $1.49

Handling . . . . . . . . . $7,83 $.31 $54,50 $.06

Documentation . . . — — — $.50

Total . . , . . . . . . . . $632.83 $33,74 $83.62 $10,05

SOURCE: U.S. Government Printing Office 1987
164

computer with a modem for online access

(many libraries have more than one microcomputer). Those libraries not having a microcomputer, or not having adequate access if the

equipment is located elsewhere, would need to

invest in a microcomputer as well, at a cost

of about $1,200 to $1,400. If CD-ROM becomes

a major format for depository distribution,

many libraries may wish to invest in a complete CD-ROM system (player, microcomputer,

and printer, at a total cost about $2,500-$3,000

per system) for dedicated use.

GPO/LPS training needs would be rather

minimal. The LPS training role could be

directed toward assisting member libraries

choose equipment, providing or developing additional software applications, and arranging

training seminars for participating library

staff.

Depository library training requirements

would be greater. Libraries would need to provide both hands-on training sessions for staff

and at least minimal assistance to users. The

amount of training and assistance required

would depend, in part, on the software package provided or developed by GPO and its ease

of use. Libraries that have provided some user

CD-ROM training and instruction note improvements in user capabilities and searchstrategy success.14

An important consideration with the introduction of any service is to factor in, as well

as possible, the life cycle costs. The shift to

a CD-ROM format for the bound Record could

result in a three-format collection for many

institutions (for archival and preservation purposes): 1) maintenance of paper format for current information, 2) microfiche for the retrospective collection, and 3) CD-ROM for the

bound Record. The combination of formats

would require the use of different equipment

and possible upgrading of equipment (particularly for CD-ROM players), all with associated

purchase, lease, and/or maintenance costs.

14 For more information see K.J. Pearce, ‘‘CD-ROM: caveat

Emptor, Library Journal, vol. 113, No. 2, Feb. 1, 1988, pp. 37-

38; and Linda Stewart and Jan Olsen, “Compact Disk Databases: Are They Good For Users?, Online, vol. 12, No. 3, May

1988, pp. 48-52.

However, this equipment would be used for

numerous tasks and many information products, not just the Record.

In summary, there appear to be numerous

advantages to using the CD-ROM format for

the

●

●

●

●

●

●

bound Congressional Record:

the large textual database lends itself to

the CD-ROM format;

the information is not current data and,

therefore, does not require regular updating;

the efficiency and ease of access to the information would improve with this format, compared to either paper or microfiche products;

library shelving needs would be reduced;

there could be substantial cost savings for

the GPO/Library Programs Service, depending on the format options; and

for some libraries, the ability to combine

the historical data on disk- and current

data online would present exciting new access possibilities and potential.

The disadvantages of adopting the CD-ROM

format would be:

●

●

●

the need for some libraries to purchase one

or more pieces of equipment;

the need to provide physical space for CDROM work stations for microcomputers,

printers, and CD-ROM players; and

finally, the need for some or many libraries

to maintain collections of the Record in

paper, microfiche, and CD-ROM formats.

Federal Register Online

The Federal Register is one of the core or

process documents included in the collections

of most depository institutions. The Federal

Register is a dual format item (available in microfiche or paper from the GPO), and is available online (all or parts thereof) through several commercial services for a fee. The Code

of Federal Regulations (CFR) is also available

in CD-ROM format from VLSOPTEXT. VLS

plans to offer a combination CFR and Federal

Register on disk quarterly with “seamless” access to an online Federal Register file.
The Federal Register is a daily publication

of the government that documents executive

branch regulations (proposed and final),

presidential directives, meetings, and policies

(proposed and final). The classes of documents

found in the Register are grouped under four

headings or categories:

1.

2.

3.

4.

the President’s section consisting of executive orders, proclamations, and other

presidential documents;

rules and regulations, which include the

administrative actions pursuant to statutory law;

proposed rules, that provide an avenue

for notification of new rulemaking and for

interested parties to comment on draft

rules; and

notices, which include miscellaneous

agency material, advisory activities and

opinions, meetings, and the like. 15

Like the Congressional Record, the Federal

Register is produced daily by GPO, and an electronic database is created by GPO for use in

the printing process. Also, like the Record, the

hard copy of the Federal Register takes precedence over both electronic and microfiche versions. The microfiche version is replicated (by

a GPO contractor) and distributed 24 hours

following the printing, and the corrected electronic tapes are available up to 72 hours following the hard copy release. Final corrections

are made by GPO in the electronic database

during a lull in the printing process. These data

tapes, once corrected, can be purchased on a

yearly subscription basis for $37,500, or on a

daily basis for $175 per tape from the Superintendent of Documents. The daily Register contains an index, and a cumulated index is produced monthly. Indexing of the Reqister is

automated. The average number of pages per

year in the Federal Register is 52,000, representing 416 million bytes of information, including the GPO printing codes.

165

Frantzich has noted that:

It is unreasonable to expect individuals and

organizations to comply with the rules and regulations of government without timely access

to the relevant details. A prime purpose of the

Federal Register is to solicit comments and

inform the interested public about meetings

on proposed regulations.16

The Federal Register is regularly cited by

depository librarians as a key document that

is needed on an up-to-date basis; 1,040 libraries

receive paper copies of the Register and 363

receive microfiche copies, both via LPS. In the

GAO survey, depository librarians identified

the Federal Register online as one of the most

useful electronic services that could be provided. The Federal Register has been described

as one item received by depositories that can

“never arrive soon enough. ” If not received

in paper format, it is clearly less useful in microfiche due to the time lag and the inherent

limitations of the microfiche format.

LPS requests that depository members retain at least the current and previous year’s

editions of the Federal Register on file. Member libraries also retain the current year of the

Code of Federal Regulations (except for Title

3). Much of the pertinent material printed in

the daily Register is eventually included in the

Code of Federal Regulations. Some regional

depository libraries keep retrospective microfiche collections of the Federal Register. Use

of these back files has been described as minimal due, in part, to the difficulty in using the

microfiche format.

Federal Register Online Delivery

If the Federal Register were to be provided online to depository libraries, there are several

possible delivery options:

Option 1: Centralized delivery. Depositories

would have direct access to the Federal

Register data file maintained by GPO,

with GPO providing minimal value-added

enhancements to the basic data and with

15 Frantzich, “Public Access to Executive Agency Information in the Technological Age: Case Studies, OTA contractor

report, February 1988, p. 8.

“

< 

, — ‘- . , -

16 Frantzich, Ibid.
166

libraries using commercial dial-up telecommunication lines;17

Option 2: Decentralized delivery. GPO would

duplicate and provide Federal Register

computer tapes to a select number of depositories; these depositories would, in

turn, locally mount the data and make the

information available online to participating libraries in a designated region; and

Option 3: Subscription basis. Depository

libraries would access the Federal Register data file via a commercial or not-forprofit vendor with a subscription subsidy

(full or partial) provided by GPO.

Each of these options will be considered in

terms of the same criteria applied in the previous discussion of the Record on CD-ROM: data

requirements, delivery, and costs. The bulk of

the information presented in the discussion of

centralized delivery applies to the discussions

of decentralized and subscription delivery.

Choice of these three delivery options for discussion does not preclude other possible options. It is important to note that decisions

concerning the Federal Register are made by

the Office of the Federal Register (OFR). Decisions relating to format and dissemination

are determined by the Administrative Committee of the Federal Register, whose members are the Archivist, Public Printer, a representative of the Department of Justice, and

the Director of the Federal Register.

Centralized Delivery

The daily Federal Register computer tapes,

plus minimal search and retrieval software developed by GPO’s Office of Information Resources Management, would be the basic service provided by GPO to the depositories. The

GPO would provide the data via telecommunication facilities online to depositories. The

information provided to the depositories would

be the same as that found in the paper and microfiche formats, except for the electronic format indexing aids, and would likely be avail1

7 Minimal value-added enhancements would mean adding

sufficient search and retrieval capabilities to the database to

permit access and use. Anything beyond this level could be left

to the private sector to develop and market.

able within hours of the printed Register. 18

GPO would need to determine how much data

to maintain online-for example, the past year

or two of the Register. Users would be required

to use paper or microfiche copies of the Register for certain dated materials-for example,

those more than 6 months or a year old—

instead of relying on the online file.

Data requirements. Online access to the Federal Register would greatly improve and enhance access to and timeliness of the information for patrons. Receipt of the Register in a

timely fashion is one requirement of its use.

Unlike direct access with CD-ROM technology,

online access could require a trained information specialist. Although there are user-friendly

software packages available, the telecommunication costs associated with online access can

be high, and these costs could be reduced if

a trained librarian performed the search.

Although access to the information in the

Federal Register file would be improved, unless the libraries have high speed modems,

users’ searches would likely be limited and the

information would be downloaded and printed

offline. This adds an additional step to accessing the information.

Libraries choosing to access the Federal Register online via GPO would still need to retain

some archival copies of the Federal Register

for retrospective information. For example,

these libraries could elect to maintain microfiche copies of the Federal Register for archival

purposes and access the Federal Register online from GPO for current information.

It is difficult to estimate the average usage

of the Federal Register file per library, or even

by type of library, due to the diversity and mix

of the depository members. While lacking concrete data, several general observations can

be made. First, for many libraries, the Register is used most heavily when first received,

and then usage drops off. Second, for those libraries choosing to access the GPO database,

with microfiche as the format maintained for

18 GPO is striving to improve the turn-around time for correcting the tapes for the Record and Register.
167

archival purposes, there would be greater reliance on the online system due to ease of access and improvement in timeliness. Third,

without a certain “cap” placed on usage by

depositories, GPO could face ever increasing

telecommunication costs. The recent experience of the PTO with a similar online service

is illustrative (see Table 7-3 and discussion

below).

Fourth, if an overall online usage level were

set, guidelines would be necessary for allocating access throughout the month so that the

allocation would not be used up in the first few

days. Law school libraries are heavy users of

the Register, as are large urban public libraries.

Other depository members have stated that

use of an online Federal Register would be minimal, perhaps as little as once every other

month. Usage of the online service would be

quite disparate among the depository library

members, with some employing the service less

than once a month and some requiring daily

use. Fifth, the enhanced access and capabilities of such an online file could increase usage

by patrons, which would, in turn, increase the

value of the file to users.

Data Delivery. A microcomputer, modem,

and printer would be the necessary components for a library electing to access the GPO

database. This would be no different than current access to online services such as DIALOG,

BRS, and others.

Costs. The Federal Register is funded

through the publishing agencies, not the depository library program. As seen in Table 7-

2, the cost of printing, postage, and handling

per year, per library subscription to the Federal Register, is $339.67. The cost of the microfiche master, again paid by the publishing

agencies, is $7,238, and microfiche copies are

$103.12. There are no comparable figures for

online costs for a GPO Register file. However,

the online commercial service of Federal Register Abstracts from Capitol Services Inc.,

available through DIALOG, ITT, and SDC,

costs $75 per hour, plus $.20 per full record

printed offline.

Table 7-2.— Estimated Costs Per Library Per Year for

Distribution of the Federal Register, by Format

Paper

Copies with Paper CFR

Index, CFR Index Sections Microfiche

Sections a Only Only Copies b

Printing Cost . . . . . $209.01 $5.66 $8.45

Production Costs . — $23.74

Postage . . . . . . . . . . $61.16 $3.06 $3-

0 6 $1.21

Handling . . . . . . . . . $69.50 $3.00 $3.00 $78.17

Total . . . . . . . . . . . $339.67 $11.72 $14.51 $103.12

a Includes relevant sections of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR).

b

lncludes Federal Register, Index, and relevant sections of the CFR.

Source U S Government Printing Office, 1988

The recent experience with the Classification

and Search Support Information System

(CASSIS) at PTO is useful in evaluating the

delivery of an online information service to

libraries, although the information is different

and the number of libraries within the Patent

Depository System is much smaller. The provision of online patent information to the patent depository libraries direct from PTO resulted in spiraling costs of over one-half million

dollars in 1987 at over $120 per hour (see Table 7-3) and a partial termination of the program. PTO has, instead, offered a CD-ROM

disk with the same information to participating patent depository libraries. The CASSIS

system does not require constant or timely updating; therefore, a CD-ROM is an appropriate technology for this information. Overall,

the cost to GPO and the government or to the

libraries in delivering an online file could be

high, depending on who pays the computer and

telecommunication charges and how the development costs are allocated and recovered.

Table 7-3.—Queries and Cost Data for Online

Patent Information, 1987

Total Queries: . . . . . . . . . . . 151,808

Total Connect Time: . . . . . . 4,315.4 hours

Total Cost: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $552,066

Average Cost per Inquiry . . $3.64

Average Cost per Connect

Hour . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $128 including telecommunication costs of

about $20 per hour

SOURCE: Patent and Trademark Office, 1987
168

If GPO were to provide online access to a

Federal Register database, it would be important to evaluate necessary capacity to serve

a broader constituency. GPO is planning an

upgrade of their computer facilities. This upgrade is designed for several reasons, one of

which is to add capacity to accommodate access by congressional users to an online Congressional Record database. (See ch. 8 for more

information.) If the Federal Register were

available to depositories online, GPO would

need to examine whether this system could accommodate both congressional and depository

access and for more than one data file. The introduction of such a service would place GPO

in the position of an information provider for

another agency’s data file. Presumably, either

GPO would be providing this online service for

the OFR on a reimbursable basis or GPO would

receive appropriations to provide such a

service.

There would be additional costs to some depositories if this service and format were added. These costs might include training costs

associated with learning to use the data file,

and equipment costs for those libraries without an available microcomputer and modem.

The GAO user survey found that 283 of 451

depositories surveyed have access to a microcomputer without a modem and 337 have access to a microcomputer with a modem for online access. Thus, for some libraries, online

access to the Federal Register would require

the purchase of a modem ($200-$300) and, for

some, a microcomputer.

Another variation on this option would be

to provide online access to a Federal Register

database modeled after the National Library

of Medicine (NLM) system. The NLM access

policy provides that “users share in the costs

of access to online services and tapes, ” and that

“appropriations . . . bear the cost of building

the database, the creation cost.”19 Paper or

microfiche products would be required in concert with this electronic option to guarantee

“free” access by those who choose to use the

traditional formats. Users would be expected

19 NLM, Pricing Policy and Medlars Fees, May 1985.

to pay a minimal fee for access to government

information in an additional, but optional, format, and users would be given a choice. The

average hourly search cost for the NLM databases is between $17 and $22. This is significantly less than the commercial or PTO costs

and merits further consideration, especially

given the responses to the GAO Federal Information User Survey. Most depository library respondents expressed willingness to

pay at least a minimal fee ($1-$24 per hour)

for online access to the Register data.

Decentralized Delivery

Here, GPO would duplicate magnetic computer tapes of the Register for those institutions participating in a distributed regional access program. Daily tapes would be duplicated

(in-house or via duplication services) and

shipped by overnight mail to depositories for

mounting on local computer facilities (or could

be downloaded directly by electronic data

transfer). These libraries would be responsible

for providing at least a minimal, agreed-upon

level of service/access to depositories within

their region. Libraries, not GPO, would be responsible for developing usage policies and

resource-sharing principles. In consultation

with depository libraries, GPO would determine the needed regional distribution and number of libraries required for such a plan. Delivery of information between participating

institutions would require interconnections

with local, State, and regional networks.

Data requirements. The computer tapes provided to the depositories would consist of daily

Federal Register data. Minimal retrieval capabilities would be provided by GPO with

licensed software, or the participating institutions could choose to license another software product with comparable or enhanced capabilities to meet local requirements. Storage

requirements for the local institutions would

likely require that one year’s data be kept online. The libraries could choose to mount the

data in one of two ways: one file with full text

data online; or two files with the indexing aids

on one for the initial search, and the full text

file on the second for follow-on search, if nec-
169

essary. Inquiries for information more than 6

months to 1 year old (or whatever period chosen) could be referred to paper, microfiche, or

CD-ROM collections of archival data. Most of

the discussion found in option 1 (centralized

delivery) pertains to this option as well.

As with option 1, usage of this data file would

likely increase at certain institutions, with little change at others. There would be enhanced

access to information in the daily Register, and

the value of the information to the user would

increase due to improved timeliness and accessibility. The number of patrons using the

online system might increase because the local costs per inquiry would be reduced compared to option 1, and user-friendly software

could assist local users. The number of users

of an online system would likely increase, if

microfiche were the only other format available. Use of the library’s “full” collection of

government documents would likely increase

as a result of the Register being online and the

integration of government information with

the rest of the library’s collection.

Access to information found in the online

Federal Register would be improved due to the

electronic format. However, as in option 1, unless the library has a high speed modem and

can download quickly, the library would likely

limit long searches and request that printing

of the file be done offline. In this case, with

the file as a local resource, many of the same

time constraints would apply.

Archival copies of the Register would likely

not be in tape format due to the size of the database and ensuing storage requirements. In concert with other local institutions, archival plans

could be formulated, possibly permitting a

sharing of archiving resources, including consideration of CD-ROM products.

Data delivery. For libraries participating as

“hosts” in the regional access program, affiliation with a computer center, either resident

within the library or within a university or local government community, would be required.

It is likely that the needed computer facilities,

for example, mainframe computers, would already be in place in the host institution, so that

the addition of one more database would be

minimal. Of the 451 depository institutions

responding to the GAO Survey of Federal Information Users, 149 have access to a mainframe computer. To appreciate the cost undertaken by a library to support such an effort,

the up-front cost of a database management

system could be as much as $300,000, plus approximately $300,000 per year to maintain and

run the software package. This level of a database management system could accommodate

many online services and up to 50 concurrent

individual searches employing complex searching (boolean) techniques. The cost of adding

additional files to such a system could range

from several to tens of thousands of dollars.

Equipment needs within a region would be

as they are now—varied and uneven. Decisions

concerning access within a region would be required to determine hardware and software

necessary for connectivity, for example, dedicated phone lines from depositories to the

“host” library. A minimum level of service, as

set forth by the GPO, would be required of all

participants so that the “host” institution, in

concert with other local, regional, State, and

national networks, could accommodate depositories. Additional services and responsibilities would be determined by the host institution.

There would be training needs at the host

institution as well as those institutions electing to access the online file. This would entail

training on use of the file and, in some cases,

training on use of equipment for access to files.

Database management packages available are

“user friendly, ” and these packages permit

users to perform searches without assistance.

Additional staff would be required for maintenance of the file and for training programs.

Costs. There would be minimal additional

costs to GPO under this option and increased

costs for the host depository institutions. As

shown in Table 7-4, it would cost GPO a maximum of $62.70 to prepare and ship a tape to

a depository, and this estimate may be quite

high. A more realistic cost is about $30 per tape

if tapes are recycled and some of the loading
170

Table 7-4.—Estimated Reproduction and Distribution

Costs, Per Magnetic Tape

Initial loading of the tape. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $7.00’

Computer duplication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $23.25a

Packaging and Iabelling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $10.00’

Cost of tape . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $14.75b

Postage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $7.70

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $62.70

a Does not create new expenses for GPOlf the tasks can be performed with existing personnel and no overtime IS required

b

This is expense can be avoided if the vendor/user is required to return the tape

to GPO for reuse,

SOURCE. U.S. Government Printing Office, 1987.

and duplication costs are provided in the course

of normal GPO operations.

The host depository costs would likely entail initial expenses for mounting and yearly

maintenance and access costs. With computer

facilities and storage capacity already in place,

the other new costs would be for additional telecommunication and administrative support.

The costs noted previously for a database management package and yearly maintenance

would be the approximate investment necessary per institution if the facilities were not

already in place. Once in place, the costs of

including another database would be incremental. Local usage costs would be less, given

the reduced telecommunication costs. The uncertainty involves comparing host institution

costs for access charges to information resident elsewhere, and the costs of mounting locally and permitting access by other depository institutions. Other local costs would likely

reflect increased use of the library collection

and resources, including costs associated with

expanded interlibrary loan and additional

equipment, and space requirements for work

stations.

The costs to the host library in providing

this service to other “local” institutions would

require careful evaluation by GPO and by the

host library to ensure that the benefits of

mounting the file are not outweighed by

greater than anticipated usage, additional staff

and training costs, and equipment needs. Participation would likely require careful coordination with and support from local, State, regional, and national networks.

Subscription Basis

Here, GPO would, on a subscription basis,

provide online Federal Register information

to depositories. GPO would contract with a

vendor or not-for-profit institution for a minimum period of time (e.g., 3 years) to provide

online Federal Register data to all depositories.

GPO would provide a full or partial subsidy

to the depositories for use of this system.

GPO would, through a solicitation process,

select a vendor to provide depository members

with access to an online data file of the Federal Register for a minimum of 3 years to provide some continuity. The vendor or not-forprofit service would provide search and retrieval capabilities within the file comparable

to that described in options 1 and 2 (centralized and decentralized GPO delivery). The information provided to the depositories would

be the same as that found in the paper and microfiche format, except for electronic format

indexing aids, and would likely be available

within hours of the printed Federal Register.

One year of Federal Register data could be included within the data file. Much of the discussion found in option 1 applies to option 3.

And as with option 2, reliance on local, State

and regional networks would be important to

the success of this option.

Data requirements. As with options 1 and 2,

users would have enhanced access to Register

data in electronic format. The timeliness of the

data would also increase the benefit to users.

Under this option, there could be some difference between the types of use possible. Once

the data file was mounted at an institution (as

in option 2), there could be unlimited downloading or manipulation of that file by users.

This may not be the case with option 3 due

to telecommunication costs, possible restrictions placed on this file by the vendor, and the

type of search and retrieval software employed.

Concerns for archiving the data would be the

same as with options 1 and 2. Archival copies

would need to be retained in some format. A

combination of online and CD-ROM might provide the optimal mix of access and archival requirements. The preservation needs of the li-
171

brary would not be the same as those of the

vendor. Consequently, maintenance by libraries of an alternative format would be required.

As with options 1 and 2, local resource-sharing

policies could be considered.

The extent of usage of this file would be similar to one provided by GPO, with the improved

timeliness and ease of access increasing the

number of users. Also, these improvements

would increase the value of the file to users.

Data delivery. As with option 1, there would

be few new requirements beyond a microcomputer and modem for those libraries electing

this format. Accessing this data file would be

like accessing any other online information

service. Depending on the vendor selected,

there could be a need for depository library

staff training. The telecommunication costs

would likely drive the need for a trained information specialist to perform searches for patrons in order to contain search costs, even if

user-friendly software were used.

Unlike option 1 where GPO would add value

to the existing tapes, a vendor would perform

this service in option 3. This could decrease

the amount of control that could be exercised

over the data file and its use—depending upon

the contract. Although government information is not copyrightable, format is. The value

added to government information by the vendor would be format-related and this could–

but, depending on the contract, need not

necessarily-restrict the type of use by depositories.

Costs. There are additional costs associated

with this option for GPO and member libraries.

GPO would subsidize either full, or a specified

level of, access to an online data file. In consultation with the libraries, GPO would need

to determine an equitable level of access per

month to this data. Again, some libraries

would actively and regularly use this Register file; others would perform just a few

searches.

Vendors providing online congressional information and other governmental data have

suggested that given the size of the program,

a special rate for depository access could be

provided, and that these same vendors already

provide service to many of the libraries. In a

somewhat similar arrangement, special rates

online could be negotiated through FEDLINK

(under the auspices of the Federal Library and

Information Center Committee). This access

could also include files other than the Register.

Libraries participating in this service would

need a microcomputer modem and printer; and,

to be successful, this equipment should be

within the depository collection. Training costs

would be minimal. Finally, there would still

be the costs of retaining archival copies of the

Register for 2 years, unless GPO reconsidered

its current requirements.

ISSUES DISCUSSION

In this final section, four issues are dis- There are already many government inforcussed. These issues concern the need for de- mation products in electronic formats that are

veloping a clear information policy on access unavailable to the public through the deposito government information in electronic for- tory program. Congress needs to determine

mat through depository libraries. whether extensive electronic access to government information should be available through

the depository library system, or if the current

Dissemination Formats in the depository access to paper and microfiche

Depository Program printed products, and perhaps a few CD-ROMS

and online datafile demonstrations, is an

Should government information in electronic acceptable level of access, recognizing that informat be disseminated to the public through creasing amounts of government information

the depository library program? are available only in electronic formats.
172

Congress has repeatedly endorsed and supported the concept and the continuation of the

depository program. As noted earlier, congressional support is evident for a number of reasons, but particularly because of:

the recognition of the relationship between

access to government information and the

principles of a democratic form of government;

the need for a guaranteed channel of access by the public to government information;

a recognition, in part, that Congress

should not rely solely on the agencies and

the marketplace to provide channels of access to Federal information; and

the acknowledged modest investment of

approximately-$20 million in disseminating this information through the GPO depository program, compared to the estimated several billion dollar cost of

creating the information.20

As noted by members of the Subcommittee on

the Library during the 1962 hearing on revising the laws relating to the depository libraries:

After a publication serves its primary purpose in the functioning of the Government,

what more useful additional purpose can it

serve than to keep the American public informed on the workings of its Government and

extending to private endeavors the benefits

and advantages of the information compiled?

The depository library system was specifically

established to perform that vital function.21

Congress has also endorsed and supported,

through the appropriations process and congressional oversight, agency dissemination

programs employing information technologies.

Implicit in this approval process is the ac30 For discussion, see Peter Hernon and Charles McClure,

Federal Information Policies in the 1980 ‘s: Conflicts and Issues

(Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation, 1987); U.S. Congress, Committee on Rules and Administration, Senate Rept.

No. 1587, 87th Cong., 2d. sess. (1962); and U.S. Congress, Com- mittee on Rules and Administration, Subcommittee on the Library, Hearings on S. 2029 and H.R. 8141 to Revise the Laws

Relating to Depository Libraries, Mar. 15-16, 1962, 87th Cong.,

2d sess.

21 U.S. Congress, Committee on Rules and Administration,

Senate Rept. No, 1587, 87th Cong., 2d. sess. (1962) p. 18.

knowledgment by Congress that use of the

technologies is necessary to accomplish agency

missions or perform agency functions and represents a change in how agency business is and

will be conducted.22 This is also true for congressional operations as described in chapter

8. An April 8, 1987, resolution by the JCP accepted the recommendations of the Ad Hoc

Committee on Depository Library Access to

Federal Automated Databases and urged GPO

to initiate pilot projects. By following this

course, the JCP hoped to ensure that the depository program would keep pace with electronic information applications within the rest

of the Federal Government and in the private

sector. The June 17, 1987 JCP resolution authorizing GPO to treat publications in electronic format the same as paper and microfiche

for the purposes of sale to the public is pertinent. The recent June 29, 1988 JCP approval

of a series of demonstration projects is also

important.

GPO policy on electronic dissemination to

depository institutions is under revision due

to a recent letter from the Chairman of the JCP

supporting the position that:

GPO’s responsibility to print and disseminate Government information, as required by

Title 44, clearly extends to the production and

distribution of Government publications in

these new formats.23

And the House Committee on Appropriations,

Subcommittee on Legislative, recently approved distribution of CD-ROMs to depository

libraries.

Congress has also recognized the overall importance of ensuring that government infor22OMB also recognizes the benefits of electronic information

technologies: “We believe that there are substantial savings

to the public and to the government; that the government can

operate more efficiently and more effectively by moving to electronic media; and that there will ultimately be less burden on

the public, ultimately less cost to the public, by moving toward

electronic media. ” From Timothy Sprehe, “Developing a Federal Policy on Electronic Collection and Dissemination of Information, Government Publications Review, No. 11, 1984, pp.

353-362. 23 Letter from the Honorable Frank Amunzio, Chairman,

Joint Committee on Printing, to the Honorable Ralph Kennickell, Jr., Public Printer, Mar. 25, 1988.
173

mation is publicly available. The 1986 House

Committee on Government Operations Report,

Electronic Collection and Dissemination of Information by Federal Agencies: A Policy Overview, noted the need:

. . .to make certain that government data in

the public domain-information that has been

compiled using taxpayer funds and that is not

classified or sensitive or exempt from public

disclosure–will remain freely accessible and

easily reproducible, whether the data is

maintained in paper form or in electronic

form. 24

The legislative history and recent interpretations of the 1962 Depository Library Act and

related provisions of Title 44 appear to support the inclusion of electronic products in the

depository program. Clarification of congressional policy to this end would help to eliminate confusion on the part of users, depository

libraries, private sector and not-for-profit information services, the agencies, and GPO.

In summary, the increasing use of electronic

information services by all sectors of government, as is evident from the results of the GAO

surveys of Federal agencies and Federal information users (see chs. 2, 4, and 5), requires new

dissemination decisions by Congress and GPO

concerning depository library distribution format options. Many information products will

no longer be available solely in paper or microfiche format, may only be available in electronic format, and may incur additional costs

associated with creating multiple formats.

Changing Costs of the

Depository Program

Are the principles of free access still applicable, or are there new costs associated with the

introduction of electronic access such that user

fees or new funding mechanisms need to be considered?

24 U.S. Congress, Committee on Government Operations,

Electronic Collection and Dissemination of Information by Federal Agencies: A Policy Overview. House Report 99-560, 99th

Cong., 2d sess. (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing

Office, 1986) p. 9.

Free access by the public to government information is an essential component to the current depository program. Depository members

have always assumed financial responsibilities

to provide users with free access to government information. Current estimates project

that, on average, for every dollar spent by the

Federal Government in depository appropriations, 10 dollars are invested in public access

by each participating library.25 Some of the

responsibilities of the libraries include provision of space, materials processing, storage and

retention of materials, reference service, interlibrary loan, and necessary equipment such as

microfiche reader/printers.26 A recent survey

by the American Library Association of 16 depositories estimated that these institutions

spend over $1 million on staff salaries per year

to provide public access to their collections.

This same survey noted that 8 libraries invested almost $750,000 per year in space and

utilities, 15 libraries spent an additional

$268,000 in acquisition costs beyond government-provided materials (e.g., additional copies of documents, indexes and reference tools,

and the like), 11 libraries spent over $17,000

in telecommunication costs, and 14 libraries

invested over $45,000 in supplies, copying, and

the like. Users typically pay only copying fees

for paper and microfiche materials, and, in

some institutions, copying of diskettes. The

financial contribution of GPO and the source

agencies to the program is the cost of printing, publishing, and dissemination of government materials to the depository libraries.

The introduction of electronic information

to the program may result in the need for a

reexamination of the current relationship between libraries and the government. Because

there are new costs associated with provision

of electronic information, depository members

X American Library Association, Survey data from Questionnaire to Federal Depository Libraries, February 1988. 26 For information on costs assumed by depositories see:

Francis Buckley, “Cost Elements of a Federal Depository, ”

Detroit Public Library, July 1976; Sandra Faull, “Cost and Benefits of Federal Depository Status For Academic Research

Libraries, ” New Mexico State Library, May 1979; and Ann Bregent, “Cost of Regional Depository Library Service in the State

of Washington, ” Washington State Library, July 1979.
174

and GPO will need to determine if the level of

support currently provided by libraries and

GPO will be sufficient for and applicable to providing electronic information. It has been

stated that:”. . . it has become quite clear that

to take full advantage of computer and telecommunications technologies will require added funds on the part of the library.”27 The

nature of the relationship between the libraries

and the government is one of cooperation. If

the introduction of a new service or technology shifts the balance of the program and

places even greater financial and/or administrative burdens on libraries, the cooperative

infrastructure of the program could be changed

or diminished. This shift in costs is already

occurring as institutions increasingly move to

using information technologies.

Libraries, like the Federal agencies, are employing information technologies in support

of their programs and in support of their users’

information needs. The amount and types of

information technologies used by libraries will

continue to expand and change. As the newer

technologies are introduced, the role of the library will become more of a gateway to information versus a repository for information, and

more and more librarians will be asked to act

as intermediaries for accessing information. Although there will continue to be a growing

amount of “user-friendly” software to assist

the user in employing information technologies, there will be an even greater need for

information specialists to perform searches on

sophisticated search services and technologies.28 This evolving role of libraries also affects current resource-sharing practices by

shifting access from a print-based to a "bimodal environment of a library providing access

to document-based and electronic informationbased resources.”29 With this shift comes

new costs or reallocation of old costs to accommodate the expenses of electronic information.

These trends are forcing librarians to recognize that there are additional costs associated

with electronically formatted information and

that these costs must be reconciled with current library practices and budgets.

There would be some reallocation of costs

within libraries as more information and services become available electronically. For example, staff costs for the processing of incoming

microfiche and paper would be reduced, as

would storage needs. However, the costs of

training, increased staff intervention, and

equipment for electronic-based services would

increase. Agencies will experience similar shifts

in services and financial obligations.

Depository institutions now provide access

to government information “free” of charge

to users. Policies concerning government information available through online services to

which value has been added vary from library

to library. Some provide a minimum level of

free access by number of citations or search

time, whereas others charge the user for the

full cost of the search. Depository librarians

note the different kinds of access afforded by

the different media, and these differences (in

addition to cost) are taken into consideration

during the mediation/reference process.

When considering the introduction of electronic products, it is also important to reexamine all formats and the criteria or guidelines

employed in determining which format(s) are

used for each government information product. Many government information products

may not be available in more than one format

due to budgetary and fiscal restraints. These

restraints affect the depository program as

27 Susan K. Martin,“Technology and Cooperation: The Behaviors of Networking. ” Library Journal, vol. 112, No. 16, October 1987, p. 44. z~Ass~iation of Research Libraries, Task Force on Government Information in Electronic Format, Report No. 2, Apr. 21,

1987, p. 19.

291 bid., p. 20, and Barbara Moran, Academ”c Libraries: The

Changing Knowledge Centers of Colleges and Universities

(Washington, D. C., Clearinghouse on Higher Education, 1984),

p. 24; and Cline and Sinnott, The Electronic Library (Lexington, MA: Lexington Books, 1983).
175

well as other governmental programs. The depository community and LPS need to collectively determine which products can be provided in one format to effect savings for the

program and, thereby, permit the inclusion of

other information products in the program.

The appropriate format for one library may not

be the best format choice for another institution but, given the number of products entering the program and the cost of many of the

new electronic products, budgetary constraints

require further format decisions.

If the basic underlying principle of the program is to retain free access by the public to

government information, then Congress needs

to recognize that there maybe additional costs

associated with the introduction of electronic

information, and assist depository libraries and

GPO in designing and financing new ways to

make this information available to the public.

Reorganized Depository Program

Can the current depository system accommodate new responsibilities for electronic formats

or should a new institutional structure be considered?

The current depository system is composed

of a mix of organizations with diverse needs

and clienteles. Members are at different stages

of introducing information technologies, ranging from the highly sophisticated institutions

with a broad array of electronic services to

libraries just introducing OCLC services. Any

discussion of either a reorganized depository

program, or a system that would include new

formats, must consider this diversity.

The current system can accommodate new responsibilities for the dissemination of electronic products, regardless of format, through

the depository program. The current structure

may not necessarily be the most efficient or

effective, but many member institutions have

some experience with electronic formats from

providing other electronic services to patrons

and/or incorporating electronic technologies

into their operations.30 More information concerning the effectiveness and user needs of the

depository program will be available following the completion of a GPO study of the depository program. Fry noted in 1978 that the

effectiveness of the depository program could

only be: “. . . a matter of conjecture, because

there is a lack of reliable descriptive and statistically significant data upon which to base

policy decisions.”31 This remains true today.

An evaluation of the effectiveness of the GPO

depository library program may be merited.

This evaluation could take place at the same

time as the pilot and demonstration projects

that will introduce and evaluate the delivery

of electronic products. This is an opportunity

to examine the future directions and organization of the depository program.

If electronic files are included, it is likely that

many depository libraries will continue to select only those products and files most germane to their patrons. For some, this may not

include electronic files for the foreseeable future. Individual libraries will decide whether

or not electronic access to certain government

files is a necessary addition to the collection.

More and more government information will

be produced in electronic formats. Some libraries may not accept these formats immediately,

but will require electronic data in the near future to supplement paper and microfiche collections.

The level of resource-sharing and cooperation among depository libraries varies throughout the country. Generally, it has been noted

that: “using technologies and databases already in place, librarians are beginning to idena~Fo~ more information, see: Peter Hereon, Charles McClure,

and Gary Purcell, GPO Depository Libraq’ Program: A

Descriptive Amdysis (Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corp.,

1985); and Peter Hernon and Charles McClure, Public Access

to Government Information: Issues, Trends, and Strategies.

(Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corp., 1984.) al BernWd Fry, Government Publications: Their Role in the

National Program for Library and Information Services (Washington, DC: NCLIS, December 1978. )
176

tify the benefits and procedures of cooperative

collection development and cooperative preservation of library materials."32 In some

States, such as New York, there is a very unified system, with the State library (a regional

depository) taking a lead role in the operation

of the program. In this case, the State library

assists new libraries wishing to gain depository status, implements resource-sharing policies throughout the State, and seeks to achieve

a consistent level of service throughout the

State for access to government documents.

Some regionals share resources, whereby a regional will accept responsibility for government documents, but the documents themselves are processed and housed elsewhere.

This practice enhances collection development

and resource-sharing within a State or region.

Within this “system,” it is also recognized that

the degree of technological sophistication is

varied (as are user needs); not all libraries need

on-site access to all electronic files, nor do they

have the capabilities to access these files. However, there is an infrastructure in place that

can accommodate these institutions if access

to electronic files or other data is needed. Other

areas and States do not have a “collective” system and operate on a more independent basis.

Some of those States and regions already employing cooperative arrangements have developed or are planning systems similar to the

Association of Research Libraries’ proposal for

restructuring the depository library system.

The ascending levels of responsibilities of

basic, intermediate, and full service describe

an informal network already in place in many

parts of the depository system. This is just one

of many possible directions that the depository library program could take as new technologies and electronic information applications are introduced.

Careful evaluation of the effects of these new

information services on users, libraries, agencies, and GPO will be needed. When these effects are better understood, discussion could

32 Op. cit., P. Martin, footnote 27, p. 43.

begin on possible reorganization alternatives.

A mechanism for evaluating these effects

might be helpful, such as a committee with representatives from LPS, the JCP and other relevant congressional committees, agencies with

electronic products in the program, depository

librarians, and members of the Depository Library Council.

Transition to a reorganized depository system would take time and effort. Current depository members would need to consider carefully a new system that would best serve the

needs of libraries and users, and ensure that

the resources within the region would be sufficient to satisfy resource-sharing requirements.

Changing Roles of Stakeholders

Does the increasing shift to electronically formatted information require a reexamination of

the composition and relationships of the stakeholders in the depository program?

As noted in chapter 6, the depository program is a: “. . . cooperative program between

the Federal Government and designated major libraries throughout the United States . . .

"

33 Three participants are identified by Congress in this depository program relationship:

the government, selected libraries throughout

the United States, and the public. Throughout the history of the program, Congress and

GPO have maintained this partnership and

have relied on other services-both private sector services, such as Congressional Information Service, Inc. (CIS), and not-for-profit services, such as OCLC—to improve government

information resources and to serve as other

sources of access to government information.

The different avenues of access–directly from

an agency, through a depository library, or

through a private sector information source—

ensure access for a variety of constituencies,

each with differing needs.

33 Senate U.S. Congress, Committee on Rules and Administration, Subcommittee on the Library. Depository Libraries,

Hearings on S. 2029 and H.R. 8141 to Revise the Laws Relating to Depository Libraries, 87th Cong., 2d. sess., Mar. 15-16,

1962, p. 25.
177

The depository library program represents

one of several marketplace opportunities for

private sector services, and this marketplace

is expanding. Private information vendors perform numerous roles in the government information marketplace. Vendors reprint government materials (since there is no government

copyright). For example, The Effects of Nuclear War, an OTA publication, was reprinted

commercially under that title and as After Midnight: The Effects of Nuclear War. Private sector services design and create databases for

Federal agencies and may even disseminate the

data files for agencies. Private sector firms also

add value to government data in all formats—

paper, microfiche, and electronic. For example, CIS, Inc. develops indexes to congressional

information, and the Code of Federal Regulations is available through OPTEXT on CDROM. Depositories and other institutions purchase and/or subscribe to these products for

several reasons:

• to enhance existing government materials, for example, the CIS Congressional

indexes;

● to have access to information in a more

timely fashion; or

• to access value-added information that is

not available through the government depository program.

The increasing shift by agencies to electronic

information products is presenting new opportunities for private sector involvement in the

information practices of government. Office of

Management and Budget (OMB) Circulars A76 and A-130 encourage agencies to employ

private sector services when possible to minimize competition between government and the

private sector and for reasons of economy and

efficiency .34 Generally, private sector firms

support OMB policies because they advocate

an expanding private sector role in government

information practices. The Commission on

Freedom and Equality of Access to Information noted in 1986 that:

“Hereon and McClure, Federal Information Policies, op. cit.,

footnote 20, pp. 244-246.

The Information Industry Association and

other organizations representing information

providers have vigorously opposed expansion

of government publishing programs, advocating a policy that would forbid government entry into competition with existing private sector services and discourage the Government

undertaking new information dissemination

programs using the new media unless there

was an overriding national need and a demonstrated unwillingness or inability of the private sector to offer a service meeting that

need. 35

In the past, the Information Industry Association has opposed “direct distribution’ of

government information in electronic format

to depository libraries by GPO, taking the position that information in electronic format

does not fall within the statutory authority of

the depository library program, and if distribution were to occur, “. . . the Government

should rely upon the private sector."36 Members of the Information Industry Association

have voiced concern that, if GPO were to disseminate government information in electronic

format, there would be direct competition with

existing or prospective private sector services,

and that some of these services would be forced

out of business or otherwise suffer adverse economic consequences.

On the other hand, the Commission on Freedom and Equality of Access noted that:

. . . libraries and university interests have

wished to see the Government expand its publishing programs using the new media in order to offer broad and inexpensive access.

They have felt that the principle of the depository library system developed for printed materials should be applicable to information in

other forms as well.37

35 Commission on Freedom and Equality of Access to Infor- mation, Freedom and Equality of Access to Information (Chicago, ALA, 1986), p. 75.

36 Information Industry Association, Public Policy Activities

of the Information Industry Association, (Washington, DC: 11A,

June 1987), p. 49, and (January 1988), pp. 43-44.

37 Commission on Freedom and Equality of Access to Infor- mation, Freedom and Equality of Access to Information (Chicago, IL: ALA, 1986), p. 75.
178

An expanded role for the information industry in the dissemination of electronic information in the depository library program is cause

for further concern within the library community, due to the lack of explicit information policies.38 As the information industry looks to

OMB for leadership on electronic dissemination, the library community looks to the JCP.

The separation of power issue causes additional

tension because the agencies are caught between

OMB’s policies that emphasize the private sector role and JCP policies that emphasize a governmental and GPO role. The information industry tends to view government information

as an economic commodity that should, to the

extent possible, be sold for profit in an unregulated free market. In contrast, the library community (as represented by the American Library

Association [ALA]) views government information as a public good and believes that reliance

on market forces will not adequately ensure access to government information.

Several groups, including the National Commission on Libraries and Information Science

Public Sector/Private Sector Task Force, the

Commission on Freedom and Equality of Access to Information, and the ARL Task Force

on Government Information in Electronic Format, have developed broad-based principles

and/or key considerations that describe, clarify, and/or determine the roles of stakeholders

in the government information creation, processing, and dissemination cycle. Some have

suggested that it maybe impossible to develop

overall guidelines for electronic products, and

that a case-by-case review may be needed for

each data file.

There are several underlying principles of

this overall debate on which most major stakeholders appear to agree and from which further congressional policy can be developed.

First, public access to government information

(regardless of format) is a basic right of U.S.

society and is vital to the functioning of our

democratic form of government. Second, there

are different stakeholders in this public access

process, all of whom contribute to its success.

Third, the roles of the stakeholders are both

complementary and competitive, and none can

be completely excluded from the process.

Fourth, the depository program, a key avenue

of public access, is a unique dissemination program of the Federal Government, and is necessary to the continuation of the principles of

public access.

An examination of the changing roles of the

stakeholders in the depository program is important as new formats are introduced and

demonstration projects commence. The recent

controversy over an initiative by the Public

Printer to “enlist the cooperation of nongovernment information service providers for

the delivery of online information services to

selected depository libraries” is one example

of the need for a clearly stated congressional

policy .39 Reliance on a non-governmental

service or government-contracted service to

provide depository library program access to

government information would signify a

change in the depository program and would

alter the current relationships.

Moreover, the basic premise of free access

to government information in the depository

program may conflict with a private sector

value-added role. For example, once a government-generated database is purchased by a

vendor, the vendor “adds value” to this data

file, creating anew enhanced product. The vendor now may have proprietary rights associated with this new product or format (although

not the information per se). If this product is

the electronic file made available to the depositories, conditions may be placed on the use

of that file. This would be a departure from

current practice of unrestricted use that is primarily due to the nature of the format—paper

and microfiche versus electronic. For the value

38 Letter from Duane Webster, Interim Executive Director,

Association of Research Libraries, to Ralph Kennickell, Jr., Public Printer, Dee, 28, 1987; and phone conversations with members of the depository library community and information industry, December 1987.

39 Letter from Ralph Kennickel], Jr., Public Printer, to

Honorable Frank Annunzio, Chairman, Joint Committee on

Printing, Dec. 10, 1987.
179

added to the government information, the ven- tent the private sector is directly involved in

dor deserves compensation. At the same time, electronic dissemination to depository librarthe public’s right to free and unrestricted ac- ies, new kinds of pricing and access arrangecess to government information is a corner- ments maybe needed to preserve the basic obstone of the depository program. To the ex- jectives of the depository program.
Chapter 8

Electronic Dissemination of

Congressional Information

From the top: Congressional Research Service Inquiry

Unit (photo credit: Library of Congress); and the

Congressional Record coming off the press

(photo credit: U.S. Government Printing Office).
CONTENTS

Page

Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ......................183

Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...................184

Current Methods of Congressional Information Dissemination . .........185

Congressional Information Products Case Studies:

Cogressional Record and Bill Status Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..187

Congressional Record . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....... 187

Bill Status Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... .., .., ..190

Dissemination Practices of Congressional Support Agencies . ...........192

Office of Technology Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .192

General Accounting Office . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... ... ...194

Congressional Research Service . . . . . . . . . . .........................195

Discussion of Crosscutting Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....196

Benefits of Electronic Formats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...196

Congressional Responsibility for Electronic Access . .................199

Need for an Index to Congressional Information . ...................201

Role of GPO.... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .., ...201

Need for Congressional Coordination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .202

Tables

Table Page

8-1. GPO Distribution of the Congressional Record . ...................189

8-2. Volume of Telephone Bill Status Requests Handled by

the House LEGIS Office. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .......192

8-3. GAO Information Products Distributed in Fiscal Year 1987. . . .. ....194

8-4. Library Use of Congressional Information by Format,

Currently and in Next 3 Years . . . . . . ............................198

8-5. Library Assessment of Usefulness of Congressional Information

in Electronic Formats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .198

8-6. Library Willingness to Pay for Congressional Information in

Electronic Formats, Maximum Acceptable Charge, ,. .... ,. ... ... ..200
Chapter 8

Electronic Dissemination of

Congressional Information

SUMMARY

Congress, like the rest of the Federal Government, is presented with new technological

opportunities and choices for the dissemination of information. Congress has a long and

valued tradition as an open political institution and has, over time, made information

about congressional processes and actions

more readily available to the public. The advent of electronic formats for congressional

information has created a window of opportunity for Congress to set the direction of congressional information policy for the years and

perhaps decades ahead.

Electronic formats—such as online computer

systems or compact disks—offer significant

benefits to knowledgeable users, including,

most importantly, improvements in timeliness

of information, access to information, and efficiency of information search and retrieval.

Those who have access to electronic formats,

therefore, gain significant information advantages over those whose access is limited to

traditional paper and microfiche formats.

At present, the members of Congress and

congressional staff have access to electronic

formats via internal legislative branch information systems and/or private sector vendors.

Members of the general public have access

through commercial information services if

they can afford the rather substantial user fees.

The problem is that many segments of the public cannot afford commercial rates, and, therefore, are effectively disadvantaged in terms of

access to congressional information. Congressional information products such as the Congressional Record, bill status, committee

reports and hearings, materials from support

offices, and the like are vital to informed and

effective participation in the legislative process. Therefore lack of access, or the inability

to afford access, to electronic formats can easily translate into a political handicap.

Congress needs to determine the level of

responsibility y it wishes to assume for electronic

information dissemination, and how active its

role should be. In doing so, Congress may wish

to establish an overall congressional information

dissemination policy (which is currently lacking)

that would help define the types of congressional

information that Congress desires to be readily

and publicly available in electronic formats. At

the same time, Congress should also consider

the roles of the various congressional offices

and agencies (including U.S. Government

Printing Office (GPO), House Information Systems [HIS], Senate Computer Center, Office

of Technology Assessment (OTA), Congressional Research Service (CRS), General

Accounting Office (GAO), Congressional Budget Office, and the like), as well as publicly

funded programs such as the Depository Library Program (DLP), in making such electronic information available. Because of its

growing role in providing electronic formats

to Congress as part of the electronic publishing process, GPO is positioned to more actively

participate in disseminating electronic formats

to the depository libraries and public at large.

Congress may wish to review policies on public dissemination of support agency materials.

For example, congressional policies limit direct public distribution of CRS reports to a

small fraction (perhaps 1/10 of the total), although copies of many more are obtained by

the public indirectly through individual member offices. As another example, a limited number of GAO reports and OTA summaries are

available to the public free while OTA reports

are available for a fee through the GPO sales

program.

183
184

Congress also may wish to develop, as part

of an overall policy, a clear intent as to the role

of private vendors. Presumably, vendors would

be able to obtain any publicly available congressional information, and repackage and resell

that information, as they already do to some

extent now. However, some vendors would like

to contract directly with Congress, perhaps on

a bulk rate discount basis, for electronic dissemination of congressional information to depository libraries, the general public, and the

Congress itself.

Finally, given the large number of House,

Senate, and congressional support offices and

units involved with the creation and dissemination of congressional information, Congress

may wish to establish an index to such information (through a congressional agency or a

contractor), and a formal coordinating mechanism to maximize the exchange of learning

and minimize the potential overlap, and to take

advantage of the opportunities for technologically enhanced access. In many respects, congressional decisions on electronic dissemination of congressional information are just as

important as prior decisions on radio and television coverage of congressional hearings and

floor sessions.

INTRODUCTION

Congress has traditionally supported and endorsed meaningful citizen participation in its

deliberations. One key facilitator of participation is the dissemination of congressional information, which has occurred in a variety of

ways since the earliest days of the Republic

and continues today with a mix of public and

private information services participating in

the dissemination process.1

Initially, Congress relied upon newspapers

to publish information concerning the deliberations and acts of Congress. The first appropriation for public printing was made in 1794, and

policies were effected which ensured distribution of Federal statutes to rural areas not well

served by newspapers. And with the December 1813 resolution concerning government

printing, “Congress became committed to the

formal and regular distribution of its publicaI The information in this chapter is based in part on contractor reports prepared for OTA by Stephen Frantzich, “Public

Access to Congressional Information: The Potential and Pitfalls of Technology Enhanced Access, ” January 1987; “Public

Access to Congressional Support Agency Information in the

Technological Age: Case Studies, ” Nov. 12, 1987; and “Public

Access to Congressional Information in the Technological Age:

Case Studies,” September 1987. For related discussion also see,

U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Federal Government Information Technology: Congressional Oversight and

Civil Liberties, OTA-CIT-297, (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, February 1986), especially ch. 8.

tions." 2

 Reliance upon private printers ended

with the establishment of GPO in 1860. GPO

was created due to charges of corrupt printing practices and concerns about newspaper

patronage. The establishment of GPO gave

government, and particularly Congress, the

means to produce documents for its own and

the public’s use. Congress also established the

DLP to make Congressional and other governmental information more broadly available to

the general public. The creation of the depository system was further affirmation by Congress of the need for a sound distribution

system for congressional documents and information about governmental deliberations,

to ensure widespread information dissemination in support of the democratic form of government.

The Printing Act of 1895 was the next major legislative action concerned with the printing and publishing practices of government.

This legislation combined pertinent past legislation relating to the printing, binding, and

distribution of government publications. This

Act centralized the printing functions of government at GPO, institutionalized the distribution of the Congressional Record, and

strengthened the depository library provisions

2P. Hernon, C. McClure, and G. Purcell, GPO’s Depository

Library Program (Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing, 1985), p. 4.
185

among other things. The Act and subsequent

amendments continue to be the basis for existing regulations and policies.

Throughout this time, GPO and congressional lawmakers continued to place emphasis on improving the quality, timeliness, and

efficiency of dissemination mechanisms. The

predominant format available has been and

continues to be paper or hard copy, with microfiche serving as a secondary format since

the 1970s. Recent advances in information

technologies present Congress with new opportunities for creating, producing, packaging,

and disseminating the Congressional Record

and other congressional materials in a more

timely fashion. The issues facing Congress are

not unlike those facing the Federal agencies

as they move to incorporate information technologies into ongoing information activities.

As with debate concerning the future of the

depository program, the central issue in the

debate over congressional information concerns the level of public access to congressional

information envisioned by Congress, particularly as facilitated by the new information technologies. In exploring this issue, there are

several questions that require examination, including: the extent to which electronic formats

permit enhanced access to congressional materials, and, if they do, what types of congressional information are especially useful in electronic formats; the degree to which Congress

has a responsibility to ensure equitable access

to congressional information in all formats; the

need for an index to congressional information

in order to improve public access to such information; the extent to which the introduction of new electronic technologies might

change the GPO and private sector roles in dissemination of congressional information; and,

finally, the extent to which the increasing pace

of automation activities within the legislative

branch requires a more coordinated information dissemination plan to enhance public access to congressional information.

This chapter will explore these questions

through a description of current dissemination

practices, and by case studies of the Congressional Record and of bill status information.

These are followed by a brief review of other

types of congressional information available

and current dissemination practices of selected

support offices. Finally, the chapter discusses

several key cross-cutting issues.

CURRENT METHODS OF CONGRESSIONAL INFORMATION

DISSEMINATION

Numerous access channels are available to

users of congressional information, though not

all avenues are open to all users nor do many

users know how to access certain types of congressional information. Once a document is

identified, it is possible to receive information

directly from a congressional office, from a congressional committee, from House or Senate

Document Rooms, and from the GPO Sales

program. DLP is another avenue available to

those who seek access to congressional information. This depository library channel,

though not part of a‘ ‘congressional’ office or

agency, is available throughout the country

in approximately 1,400 libraries. Also, though

not an “information’ product per se in the

traditional sense, C-SPAN (the Cable Satellite

Public Affairs Network) provides direct access

to televised congressional proceedings and

stimulates interest in congressional materials.

Finally, access to congressional information

is available through the press and via private

information services that provide congressional information in all formats.

Congressional offices are often the first stop

for many seeking congressional information,

Congressional staff will obtain for constituents

congressional documents from other offices,

committees, and congressional support offices
186

such as OTA or CRS. An estimated 25 percent

or more of incoming congressional mail are information requests from constituents.

Congressional committees distribute their

own hearings, committee prints, and reports.

The Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit

Control Act of 1985, Public Law 99-177, resulted in a tightened limit on the number of

copies available to committees, thereby reducing availability of congressional information

to the public through this channel. Committees are provided 300 copies of each product

today, compared with an average of 612 in

1985. It has been noted that committees are

now less willing to give away copies of congressional materials from their limited

supply. 3

The House and Senate Documents Rooms were

originally intended as the primary access point

for those seeking free congressional products.

Distribution rules for the two Rooms are similar, though not identical. The stock of the

Rooms is composed of the following: bills, resolutions, committee reports, laws, and congressional documents from the current Congress.

Committee reports are only in stock on a “as

available” basis, and other documents are generally reprinted or photocopied as necessary.

Committee hearings are not distributed by the

Document Rooms. Calendars of the United

States House of Representatives are available

from the House Document Room, and the Senate Calendar of Business is distributed through

the Senate Post Office with no direct public

dissemination. Finally, both Rooms retain

selected materials from previous Congresses,

although coverage is very incomplete.

Requests to Document Room staff are either

in person over the counter, by phone, by mail,

or through electronic mail. No formal records

are maintained, though Document Room staff

do estimate the number of individuals served

and do distinguish between congressional staff

requests and those of the general public. It is

important to note that many of the congres3 Stephen Frantzich, “Public Access to Congressional Information in the Technological Age: Case Studies, ” op. cit., footnote 1, p. 16.

sional staff requests are in response to constituent inquiries. The House Document Room

serves approximately 300 in-person requests

per day, with over half of these being “direct”

requests from the public. The Senate Document Room serves approximately 400 to 500

in-person requests daily with no comparable

estimate on the number of ‘direct” public requests. The Senate Document Room responds

to phone requests only from congressional

staff, totaling approximately 300 daily calls

that are usually for multiple documents. The

House Document Room responds to approximately 275 congressional staff requests for information each day by phone, and another 45-

50 requests are recorded each night on a telephone answering machine. The volume of mail

requests varies depending on the day of the

week and the visibility of congressional

proceedings. The House Document Room receives between 125 to 250 mail requests per

day, and the Senate Document Room receives

approximately 200 to 250 mail requests per

day. Both Senate and House Document Room

staff note along term growth in mail requests.

Finally, congressional staff can place orders

for documents from the House Document

Room through an electronic mail system.

The Document Room distribution is primarily used by more “sophisticated observers of

government. Commercial firms, lobbyists,

public interest groups, and law firms systematically use the Document Rooms to access congressional information.

Budget reduction measures resulted in the

establishment of the Congressional Sales Office under the Superintendent of Documents

(SupDocs) at the GPO. This Office receives 25

copies of hearings and prints. Staff do order

more copies for those materials thought to be

of greatest interest and, therefore, likely to be

in higher demand. Items are sold on a nonsubscription basis over the counter, by mail,

and by telephone. GPO also offers permanent

subscriptions to government documents, and

this includes subscription sales of electronic

tapes of selected congressional documents.

‘Ibid., p. 21.
187

Private information services also provide access to congressional information. For example, Congressional Information Service (C IS)

serves as a source of congressional material.

CIS offers extensive indexing and abstracting

of congressional documents, sells hard copy

indexes to congressional information, and provides online indexing via DIALOG. The CIS

indexes have become the standard source and,

in fact, are used by GPO as a master list. In

addition to these other services, CIS sells

yearly microfiche subscriptions and individual microfiche subscriptions of bills, laws, committee prints, committee reports, committee

documents, and hearings.

Several private information vendors are

offering congressional products in electronic

format. Commercial efforts focus on products

such as the Congressional Record and bill status as these are time sensitive and can be much

more useful in an online format. The vendors

purchase the computer tapes produced by GPO

that are used in support of the printing process, remove the GPO printing codes, and add

search and retrieval software. The searching

software employed by the different vendors

varies considerably.

In addition to the access channels described

above, there are two other not so direct avenues

for those interested in obtaining congressional

information. These are telephone hot lines operated within Congress and outside and the DLP.

The LEG IS office within the House Information Systems Office provides bill status information over the phone or will send a printout

with information concerning House and Senate actions. Party leadership offices’ also provide scheduling information (recorded messages) that is accessible by the public. Finally,

different interest groups, such as the Chamber of Commerce, have recorded message services for members but these services are available to the general public as well. These

services usually provide minimal information

concerning current congressional actions and

news.

The DLP is a cooperative program between

the Federal Government and approximately

1,400 libraries. The Government provides copies of government-produced materials free of

charge, and the libraries, in return, provide

housing for the documents and access to this

information free of charge to their patrons.

Congressional documents are some of the most

frequently used materials in depository collections. Many of the congressional materials are

dual format items, available in either paper or

microfiche. (For more information on depository libraries, see chs. 6 and 7.)

CONGRESSIONAL INFORMATION PRODUCTS CASE STUDIES:

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD AND BILL STATUS INFORMATION

Case studies of the Congressional Record gins. Information in all formats, typed, hand

and of bill status information are presented to written, and electronic, is received by GPO for

illuminate many of the issues and questions reproduction in the daily printed Record. Mafacing Congress as electronic information tech- terial from the floor includes typed transcripts

nologies are introduced in support of ongoing from floor reporters (approximately 20 perprograms. cent), typed speech drafts from Members, copies of bills, newspaper articles, and other docCongressional Record

uments Members wish included in the Record.

Much of this information to be inserted includes hand written corrections. Members have

Production the right to “revise and extend” their remarks

The Congressional Record is produced as taken down on the floor, or to insert an ennightly and delivered to Congress by 8:00 a.m. tirely new speech. It is GPO’s job to “weave

the following morning, before the session be- and blend’ this material into the Record.
188

GPO keystrokes all documents anew, except

for the text of some bills and resolutions and

recorded votes in the House. Approximately

56 percent of the text of bills are in electronic

format; the remainder require keystroking by

GPO. Although much of the material inserted

in the Record is created on word processors,

it is not received in electronic form by GPO.

GPO must transfer this information into electronic format to produce the typeset pages and

the photographic plates from which the hard

copies of the Record are printed. In the process, magnetic computer tapes of the Record

database are created. From this perspective,

the creation of the magnetic tapes is solely to

support the printing process and, therefore,

is a byproduct of the printing process.

As material is received from the floor

reporters of the House and the Senate, it is

marked for identification purposes, edited for

proper format, and keyed into the database.

Those materials, such as bills, that are prestored in electronic form are then inserted, and

the data are proofread. Since all sections of the

Record do not arrive at the same time or in

the order they are to be printed, electronic assembly of the final product is required prior

to the creation of typeset pages, plates, and

printed copies. Proofreading is accomplished

in galley format prior to electronic assembly,

and final corrections are made to the photocomposed page before negatives and printing

plates are prepared. The presses then begin

running the hard copy version of the Record.

Final corrections to the electronic version are

not a priority effort at GPO but are completed

as soon as possible.

In addition to the paper format, microfiche

copies are produced for distribution. A contractor produces both the microfiche master and

copies for the GPO.

There are two other products, the Congressional Record Index and the bound Record, related to the daily Record. The Index is created

largely by hand and is published by GPO biweekly, though automation has been introduced to speed up this process. The yearly index accompanies the bound Record. The bound

copy of the Congressional Record requires a

second revision to the daily Record with new

photographic plates created. Production of the

bound Congressional Record is a number of

years behind; the last bound volumes published

covered the years 1982 (vol. 128) and 1985 (vol.

131) with work proceeding concurrently on

years 1986, 1984, and 1983 (vols. 133,130, and

129). The last Index produced was for the year

1980 with the 1981 Index due out in 1988, and

the 1982 Index also in production and expected

to be completed in late 1988.

Dissemination

Over 22,000 copies of the Congressional Record are distributed daily when Congress is in

session. Distribution is made mostly on a predetermined basis, with many copies distributed free to individuals and organizations as

required by law or designated by Members of

Congress. SupDocs also sells single copies of

the Record. Each Member of the House is allocated 25 copies of the Record to distribute

and each Senator, 37 copies.5 Recipients can

request copies of the Record in paper or microfiche format. For DLP distribution, the Record is a dual format item with libraries indicating a preference for hard copy over microfiche

formats (942 for hard copy v. 307 for microfiche). Table 8-1 provides data on the current

GPO distribution of the Record. Several private firms also distribute microform and hardcopy versions of the Record.

Since July 1, 1987, Congressional Record

magnetic computer tapes have been sold by

GPO.6 Individual tapes can be purchased for

$175 or yearly subscriptions at $29,300 from

the SupDocs Sales Office. The tapes sold are

equivalent to the printed copy with all “stripped in” corrections; there is a delay for the corrected computer tape of up to 72 hours.

Three commercial vendors, Legi-Slate, Mead

Data, and Congressional Quarterly, purchase

5 Microfiche copies of the record count as only one-third of

a hard copy in Member distribution quotas.

6 iA June 17, 1987 resolution by the Joint Committee on

Printing directed GPO to sell government publications in electronic format.
189

Table 8-1 .—GPO Distribution of

the Congressional Record

Microfiche Paper — —

Free distribution

Designated by Representatives . . . . .

Designated by Senators . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Government departments . . . . .

Joint Committee on Printing (additional

distribution to Congress) . . . . . .

Depository libraries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

House of Representatives (by law) . . .

Congress (officials) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Press. ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Ex-members . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Government agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Governors, independent

establishments . .

Courts. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Public Printer ., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

International Exchange . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Sales Distribution

Superintendent of Documents

(subscriptions) ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

676

175

1

18

306

25

3

83

100

7,765

3,147

2,788

2,002

942

680

301

202

182

174

40

36

31

2,860

SOURCE: U.S. Government Printing Office 1987

subscriptions to the Record tapes which are

used in support of online services. Congressional Quarterly and Legi-Slate offer the Record online as a subscription service, charging

a single yearly fee for unlimited searching.

Mead Data Central charges an hourly connect

fee. Each service has employed different search

and retrieval software; hence access to congressional information within each file is different

and varied.

GPO, utilizing its own tapes, has developed

an online Congressional Record database for

use by Members and staff. This service is currently being tested in several congressional

offices and is planned to be offered to all congressional offices and support agencies within

a year. The GPO online service will include Senate and House proceedings, Extensions of Remarks, the Daily Digest, and the Congressional

Record Index. The system will provide electronic search and retrieval capabilities, but is

also designed to facilitate the creation of secondary products for Members and staff. The

House Information System Office (HIS) also

has the Congressional Record full text online

for House Members and staff. HIS relies upon

GPO tapes for original input into their online

system. Finally, the Library of Congress provides search and retrieval of Congressional

Record abstracts in the SCORPIO system.

Over two-thirds of the Members of the Senate have purchased private sector services, primarily Legi-Slate, with congressional information online, whereas the House has relied upon

HIS and its information services pursuant to

a decision by the Committee on House Administration.

The growing demand for an electronic version of the Congressional Record has generated concern regarding the role of the GPO in

the future and the nature of its products. First,

some have noted that an electronic Record

could reduce sales of the hard copy version.

Others contend the opposite, namely, that electronic searching of the Record will boost sales

because it will improve indexing and access

to the hardcopy version. Experience with some

other information products has indicated that,

when hard copy documents became available

electronically, sales of the hard copy did not

diminish but, instead, increased. Also, to the

extent that paper is the preferred format for

certain classes of users, the demand for paper

copies of the Record is likely to be unaffected.

Second, a gradual shift to an electronic Record and phasing out of conventional printing

could eventually realize some productivity improvements and savings at GPO. It would also

help cut costs if GPO were able to receive a

higher percentage of the Record input material in electronic form so as to minimize rekeyboarding.

Third, there could be changes in GPO net

revenues for the Record, both in paper and electronic formats. Sales of the hard copy version

realize $675,000 per year for SupDocs. The

bulk of the costs associated with producing the

Record are fixed and not heavily dependent

upon the number of copies printed. A reduction in the volume of copies printed could increase unit costs and reduce revenue to GPO

unless prices were raised. Conversely, if the

electronic Record encouraged additional

demand for the hard copy, GPO revenues could

increase without significantly increasing costs.

In terms of revenue, each of the 3 current com-
190

puter tape subscriptions is equivalent to over

125 hard-copy subscriptions.

Fourth, HIS and private vendors are in a potentially competitive position with GPO with

respect to online access to the Record. These

relationships need to be examined with respect

to minimizing overlap and duplication (with

regard to HIS), and to developing complementary roles to the extent possible.

Fifth, there is concern within both Congress

and GPO about the content and accuracy of

government publications. GPO is striving to

improve the turnaround time for corrections

to the daily Record electronic database and,

hence, to reduce the time lag for making corrected tapes available to subscribers. A priority is to ensure that the online Record is

accurate and complete, regardless of the provider. Some further Record corrections and revisions are made by Members (approximately

5 percent of the total material) after the corrected tapes go out, but prior to production

of the bound Congressional Record. There is

no procedure at present for exchanging an incorrect or incomplete daily version for a revised

bound copy version of the computer tape. Once

GPO distributes the electronic tapes to subscribers, all control or revision of the information is lost.

The Record serves as a primary source for

determining legal intent and is widely used by

the legal community and government alike to

this end. The ability to search the Record electronically, particularly over several years,

would aid in such research. There is concern

that the information maintained by the vendors will not match that found in the bound

Record. A related concern is that the new flexibility inherent in an online system allows for

cutting and pasting of congressional information, creating anew information product, possible not reflecting the appropriate context of

a Member’s vote or statements. Changes in

congressional procedures regarding Member

corrections and revisions to the Record could

be considered in order to minimize or eliminate

content differences between the daily and

bound Record.

Bill Status Information

With thousands of bills introduced by Members each Congress, it is important for individuals or interest groups to monitor the

progress of legislation. Monitoring the status

of legislation requires tracking bills through

numerous stages and different committee jurisdictions. Entire bills can be included in other

pieces of legislation, and the official title may

not reflect the true or full content of the bill.

It is possible to miss amendments to bills or

other substantive changes if an individual is

only following a bill by number or title.

Current Practices

The Congressional Research Service (CRS)

creates the hard copy Digest of Public General Bill and Resolutions. This includes a summary of bills introduced, the sponsor and cosponsors of the legislation, and any action

taken on the bill. Originally, the Digest was

printed a number of times each year and provided relatively frequent updates on legislative action. Since CRS automated the Digest,

it is only printed on an annual basis, and is

not a priority item, and thus is usually even

further delayed in reaching the public. However, the Joint Committee on the Library has

recently authorized the Library of Congress

to discuss with GPO the possible sale of daily

computer tapes prepared by CRS which update the online system.

The bill status system was one of the first

automated information systems of Congress,

and is a timely system reflecting Congressional

legislative action less than 12 hours after it

occurs. The Bill Status system is, in fact, 3 separate systems which share information. The

House and Senate create computer tapes of all

official actions taken within the chambers, and

CRS develops bill digests, abstracts, and indexing for each bill introduced. Each bill is indexed by one or more categories to facilitate

searching. HIS, the Senate Computer Center,

and CRS share their data and then create separate comprehensive databases for their users.

Users can search for bills by bill number, sponsor, index terms, and more. Once identified,
191

information is available on bill sponsors and

co-sponsors, actions on bills at successive

stages of the legislative process, and a summary of the legislation. Within the LEG IS system for those bills reaching the floor voting

stage, aggregate voting totals are available,

though only the Members and staff can access

how individual Members voted for the first 24

hours after a vote; after this time, only the

leadership can access this information.

The bill status system also permits retrospective searching of previous legislation. This

capability is helpful when trying to shepherd

current legislation through the process and to

research the history of prior legislation. For

example, retrospective searching can illuminate types of legislation a Member tends to

sponsor or co-sponsor or oppose, or determine

the types of legislation certain committees favor or oppose. As a consequence, the previous

year’s data is maintained online. The ability

to search current and retrospective data on

Members has been used by interest groups, national political parties, and individual candidates to gather information on Member’s voting records, legislation introduced, supported,

or opposed, and their legislative success rates.

HIS and the Senate Computer Center will, for

a Member, provide a summary of the individual’s legislative efforts and the results. Comparable services can be purchased from commercial sources by individuals or comparable

information can be gleaned with considerable

effort from hard copy records.

Access to Bill Status Information

The daily Calendar of the United States

House of Representatives provides a bill status chart of major legislation and a detailed

“History of Bills and Resolutions. The Calendar is a product of the Office of the Clerk. Complete cumulative histories of legislation are

printed on the first legislative day of each week

the House is in session, with subsequent daily

listings including only new action. Calendars

are distributed free by both Document Rooms

and are also distributed to the depository

libraries.

The Digest of General Bills and Resolutions,

a CRS product, is disseminated to depository

libraries and subscribers. The hard copy is less

accessible than the electronic format for two

reasons. First, the hard copy is not timely or

current for those trying to keep abreast of congressional actions. Secondly, there is limited

indexing in the Digest, inhibiting easy bill identification and tracking, particularly for those

bills amended more than once. However, as

noted earlier, GPO and the Library are exploring the possibility of making daily computer

tapes available to the private sector.

Private sector information products such as

the Congressional Quarterly and the National

Journal track major legislation, but do not

cover a full range of issues. CIS publishes an

annual CIS Index of Legislative Case Histories, with abstracts of those bills that become

law and some detailed analysis of major legislation. The Commerce Clearinghouse produces

the Congressional Index, a looseleaf service,

containing the status of both congressional and

state legislative bills, listed by number. There

is also a daily tracking service available from

Commerce Clearinghouse, known as the Congressional Legislative Reporting Service.

Both the House and Senate Bill Status Offices respond to phone requests from their

chambers. Public requests are directed to the

House LEG IS office, located in the Clerk’s office, for an oral response or for a hard copy of

the relevant print out from the LEGIS system. The cost of the LEGIS print out is $0.20

per page with a $5.00 minimum. Table 8-2 details the volume of external and internal phone

requests for bill status information handled by

the House LEGIS system.

Members and congressional staff have direct

access to LEG IS from their own terminals. It

is possible to specify bills of particular interest and receive updated information whenever

there is action on this legislation. Most congressional offices respond to constituent requests for bill status information, but there

is no information on how many requests are

answered in this fashion. Terminals are available to the public at the Library of Congress
192

Table 8-2.—Volume of Telephone Bill Status Requests

Handled by the House LEGIS Office

Total number of requests and

percent of total by year

Source of request 1984 1985 1986

House offices . . . . . . . . . . . 183,635 152,062 137,839

(66%) (65%) (64%)

Senate offices . . . . . . 6,438 5,331 5,684

(2%) (2%) (3%)

Others (public and

agencies) . . . . . . . . . . . 87,420 72,811 82,648

(32%) (33%) (33%)

SOURCE House LEGIS Office, 1987

to access the bill status system. This system

does not permit public access to information

on a Member’s voting record or to tag certain

bills for monitoring on a continuous basis.

A number of commercial firms have developed online databases with bill status information. Vendors purchase bill text computer

tapes from GPO; the vendors then add additional information such as action on bills and

voting records of Members, and necessary

search and retrieval software. Legi-Slate, Congressional Quarterly’s Washington Alert Systems, and Commerce Clearinghouse’s ELSS

or Electronic Legislative Search System, are

current online services offering bill status information, all with differing capabilities, pricing schedules, and information.

In sum, there are multiple avenues for dissemination of bill status information, but with

differing levels of access and cost. In the case

of bill status information, electronic information technologies employed to improve congressional operations have, at the same time,

altered access by the public to this same information. Members of the public who rely on

only the printed versions of the bill status information, the Digest of General Bills and

Resolutions and Major Legislation of the Congress, have access to retrospective information, but not to current information about the

legislative process.

DISSEMINATION PRACTICES OF

CONGRESSIONAL SUPPORT AGENCIES

Several congressional support agencies were

established by Congress with the primary purpose of providing Members and staff with

information and analyses for congressional

decisionmaking. In the process of assisting

Congress, the agencies develop numerous

information products. Each agency employs

differing access and dissemination practices,

and the introduction of electronic information

technologies presents new opportunities and

challenges with respect to their philosophies

and operations concerning public access. Dissemination practices of three of the congressional support agencies, the Office of Technology Assessment (OTA), the General Accounting

Office (GAO) and the Congressional Research

Service (CRS) of the Library of Congress are

briefly described. Some of the changes and opportunities resulting from the introduction of

technologies are discussed in the following

section.7

Office of Technology Assessment

OTA was established in 1972 to provide Congress with information on a wide range of public policy issues concerned with scientific and

technological change. OTA was created to remedy a perceived lack of objective, non-partisan,

and expert analyses on scientific and technical issues relevant to congressional deliberations.

OTA’s organizational structure and the nature of its work processes set it apart from its

sister agencies. OTA is governed by the Tech-

‘Dissemination practices for the Library of Congress and the

Congressional Budget Office are not discussed.
193

nology Assessment Board (TAB), composed

of 12 Members of the House and Senate. The

TAB determines which assessments OTA staff

will undertake based on proposals developed

by OTA staff and requested by either the chairman, ranking minority member, or a majority

of committee members of any congressional

committee. If approved by the Board, these

assessments can take up to 2 years to complete and are comprehensive in nature.

Throughout the study process, OTA research

efforts are open for external review and public participation. This process includes extensive use of outside consultants, formal reviews

by panels of experts, distribution of draft

reports and papers to interested parties, and

extensive internal and external review prior

to publication. The Technology Assessment

Act of 1972 (Public Law 92-484) stipulates that

OTA products (as distinct from the research

process) may be made publicly available:

Assessments made by the Office, including

information, surveys, studies, reports and

findings related thereto, shall be made available to the initiating committees of Congress.

In addition, any such information, surveys,

studies, reports, and findings produced by the

Office may be made available to the public

except where—(1) to do so would violate security statutes; or (2) the Board considers it necessary or advisable to withhold such information . . .

OTA offers a number of information products

to the public, including final reports, one-page

briefs of each report, and summary documents

which highlight the full reports. OTA also produces staff papers, technical memoranda, special reports, background papers, testimony,

and contractor reports. OTA draft reports, testimony, and other materials are keyed in on

word processors. A “paste up” camera ready

version of the final assessment is prepared by

OTA publishing staff using electronic photocomposition where possible, and this version

is then sent to GPO for printing.

There are multiple avenues for dissemination of OTA information products. Summary

reports are sent out to congressional staff and

Members, interested persons on OTA mailing

lists, and individuals and organizations requesting information on a particular subject.

Full reports are also sent out, but to a more

limited mailing list, usually including study

participants, advisory panel members, and interested congressional staff and members.

OTA reports can be purchased from the GPO

SupDocs, and from NTIS; NTIS also stocks

selected OTA contractor reports. Sales of OTA

reports vary widely depending upon the topic

and press coverage. GPO may sell several hundred to over 25,000 copies of a report.

OTA reports are available to depository libraries. Of the depository libraries, 771 elect

to receive OTA reports. OTA reports are distributed in hard copy or paper, but contractor

reports are only available in microfiche.

The OTA Information Center receives a number of telephone calls per month to confirm a

report title, learn how to purchase an OTA report, inquire about a study, and the like. The

Information Center is open to the public, and

some users rely on the Center for access to

OTA reports. The Information Center also

maintains QuOTAtion, an in-house database

of OTA publications. This file includes citations to 375 reports, staff papers, and technical memoranda. The database is used to answer staff and public information requests.

The OTA Publishing Office produces OTA

Publications (annually) and Assessment Activities (quarterly) pamphlets; these are widely

distributed. This office also responds to numerous inquiries for OTA reports-and other publications.

OTA provides summaries and reports to congressional staff for mailing to constituents in

response to information requests. This distribution is in addition to copies sent by OTA

to congressional offices at-the completion of

a project. Practically all formal OTA informa-
194

tion dissemination is in the form of printed documents. There have been a few videotapes, audiotapes, and diskettes produced in connection

with specific projects.

General Accounting Office

GAO was established in 1921 as the auditor

for the Congress, and today this role has broadened to include agency program reviews to better assist committees and Members. These reviews can include social, organizational,

technical, and financial aspects of programs

and activities.

GAO assists Congress with a number of information services. Program reviews are carried out in response to specific congressional

requests from committee chairman, ranking

minority members, and/or individual members.

GAO also has a significant number of on-going

reviews required bylaw. The agency’s primary

function, the provision of audits and program

evaluations, is supplemented by other services

such as provision of legal services to Congress

on issues concerning government programs

and activities, and reviews of proposed recisions and deferrals of government funds. Other

services include “resolving bid protests that

challenge government contract awards, assisting government agencies in interpreting the

laws governing the expenditure of public

funds, and adjudicating claims for and against

the government."8

GAO produces a number of research products for Congress. This can include fact sheets,

testimony, staff studies, Comptroller General

Decisions, and briefing and detailed reports.

Fact sheets provide limited background information, no conclusions, and pertinent information on specific questions. Staff studies are

compilations of previously produced GAO and

other work on a given subject. Comptroller Decisions are rulings from the Comptroller General on personnel and procurement issues.

Detailed reports provide in-depth information

on the operation and background of agency

8 GAO, Serving the Congress (Washington, DC: GAO, n.d.)

p. 20.

programs and include conclusions and recommendations. Briefing reports contain much of

the same information found in detailed reports,

including conclusions and possible recommendations but provide less background data. Table 8-3 summarizes the volume of GAO information products distributed in 1987.

All unclassified GAO products are available

to the public through a variety of channels.9

●

●

●

●

First, GAO maintains a mailing list of interested parties who receive copies of

selected materials.

Second, individual depository libraries can

elect to automatically receive all or selected GAO reports.

Third, GPO maintains a distribution outlet (operated by a contractor) that handles

orders for GAO materials. The first five

copies of GAO reports are free to requestors with a $2.00 fee for each copy thereafter.

Fourth, GAO publishes several newsletters or pamphlets announcing their publications: a monthly pamphlet entitled

‘Requesting committees control the time of release of some

GAO materials.

Table 8.3.—GAO Information Products Distributed

in Fiscal Year 1987

Free

Product distribution Sales

Briefings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 184,616

Fact sheets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97,606

Reports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 536,582 15,508a

Staff studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9,684

Testimony . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77,812

Solicitor General’s decisions . . 8,296

Letters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,930

Memos . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 566

Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34,932

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . 954,024b

Depository library standing orders

GAO Annual Report . ................802 (microfiche)

Reports to Congress . ...............587 (microfiche)

Bibliographies of publications . .......651 (microfiche)

Documents, catalog of reports,

decisions, testimony . .............653 (paper)

Comptroller General decisions and

testimony . . . . . . . . . ...............505 (microfiche)

a Virtually all sales are of Reports

b 484,782 of the free items distributed did not involve a specific request, but rather

were sent to individuals on established maiIing Iists.

SOURCE: General Accounting Office and U.S. Government Printing Office, 1987
195

Reports Issued in . . . (listing of current

month); an Annual Index of Reports Issued in FY 19xx; a monthly catalog of

GAO publications entitled GAO Documents; and bibliographies on specific subjects such as Energy, Health, and the like.

A newly revised and reinstated service,

the GAO Journal, is intended to serve as

an internal communication tool and as a

means of informing a larger public audience about GAO’s activities.

GAO maintains an online bibliographic database in its Information Handling and Support

Facility (IHSF). This facility is contractor operated and provides bibliographic cataloging, indexing, and abstracting of GAO documents.

The IHSF facility also maintains the document

inventory which contains GAO Audit Reports

(Reports, Fact Sheets, and Briefing Reports)

from 1978 to the present and some from as

early as 1972. This facility processes requests

for copies of GAO materials. In 1987, the IHSF

received over 190,000 requests. Of these,

nearly 30,000 involved database searches to

track or locate information products. GAO

products are disseminated in hard-copy format

but originate in electronic form. Short reports,

those under 60 pages, are printed in-house; an

outside contractor is employed for the electronic photocomposition phase of the printing

process. Longer reports are printed by GPO.

Congressional Research Service

CRS provides both immediate and in-depth,

detailed analyses on all subject areas of interest to Members of Congress and staff. As the

reference and research arm of Congress, CRS

draws upon the broader resources and services of the Library of Congress. The CRS began as the ‘legislative reference bureau’ (later

known as the Legislative Reference Service)

in 1914 to better respond to Congressional inquiries as distinct from library operations and

functions. The Legislative Reorganization Act

of 1946 authorized the Legislative Reference

Service as a permanent department within the

Library, and the development of staff specialists in a wide range of subjects. The Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970 provided the

newly named Congressional Research Service

with research, administrative, and fiscal autonomy within the Library and expanded CRS

capabilities and services.

CRS produces a variety of information products for Members and staff. These products

include responses to telephone inquiries, confidential reports, CRS reports, issue briefs, info

packs, and databases, among others.

CRS receives well over 1,000 inquiries per

day from Congress and responded to a total

of 443,400 inquiries in 1987. CRS performs confidential analyses on policy issues for Members and committees. These analyses remain

the property of the requestor unless the Member or committee explicitly provides approval

for a wider dissemination. Annual appropriations language prohibits CRS from publishing

its research without prior approval of one of

CRS’ oversight committees. While 10 percent

of CRS research is published by Congress in

congressional documents such as hearings, 90

percent of CRS research remains unpublished.

CRS Reports, Issue Briefs, and Info Packs

are three products developed for use by Members and staff. CRS Reports are in-depth,

longer term analyses on particular subject

areas whereas Issues Briefs are short and succinct analyses of pressing policy issues. Each

Issue Brief contains information on current

legislation, relevant hearings and documents,

a chronology of events, and a bibliography, all

pertinent to the topic of interest. Congress has

online access to Issue Briefs. Info Packs are

designed to satisfy general audiences, and

these packs include a collection of clippings,

CRS Reports, speeches, and the like. Over 100

Info Packs are actively maintained on a broad

range of subjects.

CRS also produces an SDI (selective dissemination of information) online and in offline

print-outs for congressional staff. Congressional staff develop a profile of policy interests, and the CRS database is searched weekly

to alert staff to new articles, or other information products on these topics. Staff, following

a review of the SD I information, can order spe-
196

cific articles of interest. Some of the SDI information is maintained within the Library’s

optical disk project, which maintains full text

of over 70 periodicals.

CRS maintains several of the files in SCORPIO, the Library of Congress’ automated information system. The legislative file (as discussed earlier), the bibliographic citation file,

and the issues file are the responsibility of CRS.

CRS actively disseminates its products to

congressional offices. For example, once released, reports and issue briefs are listed in the

annual Guide to CRS Products, with new products highlighted in the monthly Update. Some

CRS products are also announced in the CRS

Review, a digest of recent CRS policy analyses. It is published 10 times each year for congressional use and is sold by GPO to the public.

When responding to congressional information

calls, these same products may be a part of

the information package offered to staffs. Finally, CRS information products are listed in

the Citation File (CITN) which is available online to all congressional offices through the

SCORPIO system.

The CITN file is a bibliographic database designed to support the research needs of the

CRS research staff and congressional clients

and includes citations to articles, reports, and

papers of potential relevance to congressional

policy making. An abridged form of this file,

BIBL, is available to the public via terminals

in the Library of Congress. Those items not

directly available to the public such as CRS

Reports are excluded from the database. The

CITN file is undergoing revision at present and

will eventually be replaced by two files: a CRS

Products File, and a public policies literature

file. The new products will augment the current bibliographic information with a one page

summary of each CRS document, and are intended to both speed up the searching of files

and increase the awareness and accessibility

of CRS materials within the Congress.

Congressional offices serve as primary disseminators of CRS materials. CRS products

can be ordered by congressional staff via telephone, letter, or electronic mail. CRS cannot

determine the amount of information used by

congressional staff for internal use versus that

ordered to answer a constituent request for

information. The volume of CRS products distributed (in hard copy format) in 1987 is indicative of their use and popularity: about

83,000 CRS Reports; 230,000 Issue Briefs; and

166,000 Info Packs.

There is some dissemination of CRS materials through private sector services. For example, University Publications of America (UPA)

offers a set of CRS Reports on microfilm and

a limited index. This company does not receive

the information directly from CRS, but instead

receives the materials, including Reports and

some Issue Briefs, through Member offices.

DISCUSSION OF CROSSCUTTING ISSUES

The incorporation of electronic information

technologies into congressional operations, its

deliberations, the work of its support agencies,

and of the GPO, changes access to congressional information by all participants in the

process. The introduction of electronic technologies to assist in the recording, management, and dissemination of congressional information, in fact, challenges the traditional

modes of information access and provides new

opportunities for enhanced access by both Congress and the public to congressional information. The increasing use of these technologies

to support congressional operations presents

Congress with a new opportunity to examine

its dissemination practices and to determine

what level of access to congressional information should be afforded to the public beyond

current publicly and privately offered services.

Five key issues are discussed below.

Benefits of Electronic Formats

Electronic versions of congressional information involve considerably more than a new
197

storage medium for the production of the hardcopy document. There is an unlocking effect

to information found in the electronic Congressional Record, for example, because of the

search and retrieval capabilities inherent in online and CD-ROM systems. Electronic products can permit a user to perform tasks that

are difficult or impossible through the manipulation of the hard copy version; a user can undertake full-text word searches, simultaneous

searches for segments indexed under more

than one term, automated cut and paste editing, print on demand production, content analysis through word counts, and more. Transfer

of information electronically increases timeliness, and has no geographic limitations.

There are several other criteria that can be

applied to compare dissemination formats,

such as: timeliness, comprehensiveness, searchability, ease of use, user support required,

archivability, flexibility, and stability of the

technology. The differences in accessing congressional information in different formats can

be better appreciated when these criteria are

applied to bill status information, as discussed

below for illustrative criteria.

● Timeliness: Timeliness is the most important

characteristic for consideration of bill status

information. For the vast majority of users,

bill status information has a relatively short

“shelf life. For example, delayed knowledge

of when legislation passes through crucial

stages (e.g., reporting from the full committee) is no better than complete lack of information. Online formats permit access to upto-date information whereas printed formats

typically provide the information on a much

less frequent (e.g., weekly or even annual)

basis. CD-ROM potentially falls somewhere

in between.

● Comprehensiveness: Comprehensiveness is

important in order to retrospectively analyze previous related bills and to track fully

the history and status of current legislation.

The cost of online formats may limit its historical completeness; CD-ROM may offer

the most complete and cost-effective coverage.

● Searchability: The more specific a searcher’s

interests, the more important the ability to

search for particular bills and sections of

bills. Online systems and CD-ROMs clearly

enhance the ability to search for specific legislation or topics of interest.

• Archivability: Historical bill status information is of interest when analyzing the record of prior legislative activity. Microform

and CD-ROM appear to be best suited for

archival purposes.

• Flexibility: The flexibility of combining bill

status information in different ways can be

important, (e.g., matching topics and sponsors). Online and CD-ROM offer more flexibility to the extent this capability is needed.

● Stability of the technology: The technology

for both printed and online formats is stable. CD-ROM technology is still changing

rapidly, although standards on readers and

disks protect to some degree against technological change.

As with bill status information, access to information in the Congressional Record is improved for the user when employing electronic

information technologies and especially online

services. Access to committee reports, hearings, and prints typically is less time sensitive,

and CD-ROM may be particularly helpful in

ensuring the availability and indexing of these

materials.

The GAO Survey of Federal Information Users

found that, for example, depository libraries

already make considerable use of congressional

information, primarily in paper format, with

some microfiche and online access (the latter

via private vendors). As shown in Table 8-4,

the depository libraries desire to dramatically

increase their use of online and compact optical disk formats, while reducing use of paper

modestly and microfiche substantially. More

specifically, the majority of depository libraries

responded that an online Congressional Record and online committee calendar and bill

status would be useful or greatly useful, as

summarized in Table 8-5. CD-ROM format was

assessed as somewhat less useful than online

for these types of congressional information,

but the majority of depository libraries re-
198

Table 8-4.— Library Use of Congressional Informationa by Format, Currently and in Next 3 Years

Number of libraries responding

Desire to use in Net change

Library group/Selected formats Currently use next 3 years Number Percent

Regional depository libraries

Paper . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 41 – 5 –12

Microfilm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 3 – 7 –70

Microfiche . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 40 – 6 –15

Electronic mail or bulletin board . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 6 + 5 +500

Online data base . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 24 +10 +71

Magnetic tape . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 3 + 2 +200

Floppy disk... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 2

Compact optical disk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

— —

3 23 +20 +600

Selective depository libraries

Paper .<....... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 302 262 –40 –13

Microfilm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 23 –30 –57

Microfiche . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 302 248 –54 –18

Electronic mail or bulletin board . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 13 +13 +

Online database . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 144 +83 +136

Magnetic tape . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 1 +1 +

Floppy disk..... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 31 +31 +

Compact optical disk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 112 +110 +5,500

Nondepository libraries

Paper . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99 90 – 9 – 9

Microfilm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 11 + 3 +38

Microfiche . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 41 +10 +32

Electronic mail or bulletin board . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 3 + 3 +

Online data base . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 36 +23 +177

Magnetic tape . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0

Floppy disk. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 10 +10 +

Compact optical disk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 21 +21 +

aDefined as Congressional Record, Committee hearings and reports, and bills

SOURCE: GAO Survey of Federal Information Users, 1988

Table 8-5.—Library Assessment of Usefulness of Congressional Information in Electronic Formats

Number of libraries responding

Greatly Moderately Somewhat

Library group/information product useful Useful useful useful

Regional depository libraries

Congressional Record

Online . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 13 9 2

CD-ROM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 13 5 3

Committee calendar and bill status

Online . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 8 6 1

CD-ROM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 14 6 4

Selective depository libraries

Congressional Record

Online . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109 87 68 58

CD-ROM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95 103 57 65

Committee calendar and bill status

Online . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133 65 46 63

CD-ROM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80 66 55 77

Non depository libraries

Congressional Record

Online . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 21 36 39

CD-ROM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 30 27 32

Committee calendar and bill status

Online . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 19 29 33

CD-ROM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 19 27 36

Little

or no

2

2

1

4

33

36

49

76

66

78

79

85

SOURCE: GAO Survey of Federal Information Users, 1988

—
199

spending felt that the CD-ROM format would

still beat least moderately useful. Overall, the

nondepository libraries assessed electronic formats as less useful than did the depositories,

but the majority of nondepository respondents

still rated electronic formats as at least somewhat useful.

In sum, electronic formats do permit enhanced access to a variety of congressional

information, as reflected in the desire of the

library community (and especially the depositories) to increase use of electronic formats.

Congressional Responsibility for

Electronic Access

Congress has a long and valued tradition as

an open political institution, sharing its information with a wide range of groups and individuals. Public access to congressional information is a dynamic concept and dependent

upon a number of avenues of dissemination

using various technologies. The use of electronic information technologies enhances congressional operations but at the same time

produces some inequities in public access to

congressional information. As more electronic

technologies are incorporated into congressional processes, Congress will find it necessary to consider what level of public access to

congressional information in electronic formats

is desirable.

The debate concerning congressional information is no different than that with other government information. The debate is focused on

the level of and type or format (paper, microfiche, and/or electronic) of public access. Some

argue that as long as paper and microfiche documents are available to the public, then a sufficient level of access is permitted. In contrast,

others contend that characteristics of the electronic media, for example, search and retrieval

capabilities and timeliness, are so powerful

that lack of comparable access to these formats

constitutes inequitable access to congressional

information. In this view, failure to provide

comparable access to these products will exacerbate the gap between the information

“haves and have nets. ” The arguments as put

forth by those advocating a more active congressional role in the dissemination of congressional information and those supporting a more

limited congressional role are presented below.

If one accepts the need for Congress to insure equitable access to congressional information in electronic formats, then the debate

shifts to how equitable access should be provided. A key question concerns the role of the

private sector. Private vendors have suggested

that the most cost-effective way to provide access would be for Congress to contract with

vendors, presumably on a competitive basis,

for bulk rate online services made available to,

for example, depository libraries. The Senate

currently has a bulk rate contract with LegiSlate for online congressional information.

On the other hand, Congress could offer its

own online information services (e.g., via HIS

and/ or GPO) to the depositories libraries and

even the broader public. Advocates argue that

a direct congressional role would help guarantee the accuracy and continuity of the information provided, would ensure at least a minimum level of electronic access to the general

public, and would be cost-effective by utilizing systems already developed for internal congressional use.

Private vendors argue that such a congressional role would duplicate private offerings,

be a wasteful use of public funds, unfairly compete with commercial enterprise, and possibly

result in excessive reliance on Congress as the

source of congressional information with the

attendant potential for manipulation and control of information flow. However, at the same

time, vendors point out that their services are

state-of-the art and that it is unlikely that HIS

or GPO would catch up soon or ever. If true,

then it would seem rather unlikely that HIS

or GPO offerings would be very competitive

with private sector services. Perhaps more

likely, Congress would itself provide a basic

level of subsidized, low cost electronic access.

and vendors would provide highly enhanced

access to those who need and can afford to pay

for such services. Even here, Congress could

negotiate bulk rate contracts with vendors to
200

the extent highly enhanced service was needed

for congressional and/or depository library

users.

In considering the issue of public access to

congressional and, in fact, all government information, three potentially competing goals

impinge on the discussion. These goals relate

to efficiency, equity, and cost. The desire to

increase the efficiency of producing congressional information and also to make it more

usable by Congress has led to extensive internal applications of and investment in information technology (which will continue to change

and improve), and this, in turn, has resulted

in unequal access to congressional information

by the public. For example, with the development of the online capabilities for bill status

information, Congress made a clear choice in

favor of an electronic format in response to

legislative information needs and demands.

However, the production and distribution of

congressional information involves significant

expense, and Congress must balance the need

for subsidized public access to congressional

information against these production and dissemination costs.

The GAO survey found that libraries, perhaps typical of many public users, are willing

to pay only modest amounts for electronic formats. As shown in Table 8-6, relatively few

libraries are willing to pay more than about

$25 per hour for online congressional information or about $50 per CD-ROM. Consideration

by Congress of possible new dissemination

techniques in concert with current methods

(e.g. the depository library program) will affect future public access to congressional information and ultimately the degree to which

the public is an active participant in the political process. In many respects, the resolution

of these issues may be just as significant as

Table 8-6.—Library Willingness to Pay for Congressional Information in Electronic Formats,

Maximum Acceptable Charge

Number of libraries willing to pay

$1-$9 $10-$24 $25-$49 $50-$99 $100 +

Information product/library group per hour per hour per hour per hour per hour

Congressional Record online

Regional depository libraries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 8 11 2

Selective depository libraries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

—

98 81 48 15 1

Nondepository libraries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 16 15 9 1

Committee calendar/bill status online

Regional depository libraries ... . . . . . . . . . . . 14 10 8 2 1

Selective depository libraries ... . . . . . ... ... . 110 66 43 13 2

Nondepository libraries . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 17 13 5 1

Willing to pay

$1-$19 $20-$49 $50-$199 $200-$499 $500-$999 $1000+ -

-

per CD-ROM per CD-ROM per CD-ROM per CD-ROM per CD-ROM per CD-ROM

Congressional Record CD-ROM - 

Regional depository libraries . . . . . . 17 12 3 1 1

Selective depository libraries . . . . . .

—

119 71 22 6 1 1

Nondepository libraries . . . . . . . . . . . 55 24 4 1 — 1

Committee calendar/bill status CD-ROM

Regional depository libraries . . . . . . . 20 10 1 — 1 1

Selective depository libraries . . . . . . . 141 41 14 4 1 1

Nondepository libraries . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 13 3 1 — 1

aExcludes "do not know” responses (about 50 Percent) and “not willing to pay anything" (about 1 Percent)

SOURCE GAO Survey of Federal Information Users, 1988
201

prior decisions on radio and television coverage of congressional proceedings.

Need for an Index to Congressional

Information.

A vast amount of information is developed

to support congressional operations. This information, as described previously, is created

and disseminated in a combination of paper,

microfiche, and electronic formats. Most of this

information is available to the public, though

not always in the same format as it is available to Congress. There is no central government produced index or catalog of congressional publications. Some items for sale at GPO

are listed in the GPO Publications Reference

File (in microfiche or on-line via DIALOG) and

in the GPO Monthly Catalog of United States

Publications (in hard copy or online from a

number of vendors). There are also private sector indexing products available for a fee.

Several channels of access to congressional

materials are available to the public, and how

one chooses to access congressional information can depend upon the information needed,

the skill level of the requestor, the financial

resources of the requestor, and the geographic

location, and personal or political contacts of

the requestor. There is also no common dissemination policy employed by congressional

offices and support offices. The introduction

of electronic media to congressional operations

presents Congress with the opportunity to improve public access to congressional materials, and this improvement could be effected,

in part, through better tracking and indexing

of congressional information. If Congress determines that an index is needed to facilitate

improved access to congressional information,

then Congress could authorize one (or more)

of its offices to create an index, or could contract with a private or not-for-profit vendor for

such service.

Role of GPO

As described in chapter 4, “Alternative Futures for GPO, ” GPO already uses electronic

photocomposition for many types of congressional documents or significant portions of

these materials. As a result, congressional documents originate in electronic format, yet are

disseminated in a printed format. This shift

in GPO’s production technologies presents

Congress with the opportunity to disseminate

its information in printed and/or electronic

formats.

There are a number of trends and issues considered throughout this report which relate to

the role of GPO. First, as described in chapters 2, 3, and 4, and in this chapter, the Federal Government as a whole is increasingly

adopting information technologies in support

of on-going programs and agency missions.

Second, the hard copy or printed version of a

document (if it still is printed) becomes, increasingly, a byproduct of the electronic publishing

process. Third, there is no common information dissemination policy within the executive

branch and Congress which specifies how government information is to be disseminated in

other than hard copy or microfiche format ( see

ch. 11 for a discussion of policy issues). Fourth,

GPO is a primary avenue for dissemination of

government (including congressional) information to the public through the depository library program and SupDocs, and there is a

debate as to which electronic products to disseminate and how.

Some electronic databases created in support

of the printing process (e.g. for the Congressional Record) are already for sale by SupDocs.

This practice is consistent with the sale of

traditional hard copy or microfiche products

in that GPO is providing to the public another

avenue and format for dissemination of government information; this practice could be extended to a wide range of congressional information in electronic formats. Some members
202

of the information industry have expressed

concern about the potential for competition

with private enterprise if the GPO role in electronic information expands. The Information

Industry Association has previously taken the

position that the “government should only provide those information products and services

which are essential to society’s wellbeing and

which are not, and cannot be, provided by the

private sector’’.10

GPO’s role in electronic media has already

changed and is likely to change further, if only

because GPO’s primary client, Congress, is

requesting products in electronic formats. In

providing electronic formats to Congress, however, GPO is positioned to more actively participate in disseminating electronic formats to

the public at large. The previous discussion of

congressional responsibility for electronic access and the role of the private sector is relevant here. Congress is in a unique position to

assist GPO in defining its responsibilities with

respect to congressional information dissemination in an electronic age.

Need for Congressional Coordination

Congress invests over $100 million annually

in automation activities, and this figure has

increased steadily since the 1970s.11 This investment in information technologies has been

made by Congress in response to legislative

needs and demands, and to technological opportunities. Recognizing the size and nature

of this investment, Congress established the

Policy Coordination Group (PCG) in the late

1970s to “coordinate the development of

technology-supported information systems

during the present and succeeding Congresses. "

12 This group’s actions were successful, but, recently, its coordinating efforts have

diminished. Given the importance and complexity of the congressional information technology activities, Congress may wish to consider

‘[’Information Industry Association, “Public Policy Activities of the Information Industry Association, ” June 1987, p. 26.

‘

] Congressional Research Service, “The Legislator as User

of Information Technology, ” Dec. 28, 1987, p. 3.

“Ibid., p. 18.

or examine its current automation practices,

including information dissemination activities,

evaluate the current and anticipated information needs of the legislative branch, and possibly establish new or revised coordination

mechanisms.

The 1987 CRS report, “The Legislator as

User of Information Technology, ” describes

many of the resources available to Congress.

For example, it is estimated that there are

5,000 computer terminals connected to the

Senate computer support system and between

3,500 to 4,000 terminals within the House of

Representatives. This does not include terminals and related equipment supporting other

congressional offices. In the Senate, the Committee on Rules and Administration establishes overall policy for computer related operations, and the Committee has supported and

developed a combination of four systems to

address Senate automation and information

requirements. The systems serve different office and legislative functions, and included in

this resource base is the ability to access commercial online information systems. In the

House, the Committee on House Administration and its Subcommittee on Office Systems

determine House information policies and practices, and the House Information Systems

(HIS) is responsible for information systems

planning and operations. For example, HIS

operates the Members Information System

(M. I. N.) which includes newswire services, information services such as LEGIS, government statistics, the Congressional Record in

full text, federal funding files, and administrative services such as electronic mail, scheduling information, and the like.

The Congressional support offices–CBO,

CRS, the Library of Congress, GAO, OTA, and

GPO—are all in different stages of automation,

each with differing future plans and goals for

incorporating electronic media within their programs. Appropriate use of electronic information systems permits these offices to improve

their operations, and hence their service to Congress, but, also, increases the amount and types

of possible interactions with other institutions

and the options for information dissemination

to the public.
203

The expanding use of electronic dissemination may necessitate that Congress review, in

particular, policies on public dissemination of

support agency reports and materials. As

noted earlier, GAO reports are publicly available directly from GAO with the first five copies free to any requestor. OTA reports are

publicly available but, for most requestors, via

the GPO sales program and at the established

sales price and sometimes via private vendors

who reprint OTA documents. OTA one-page

briefs and summary reports are available free

to the public. CRS reports are available free

to all member offices, and to the public through

these offices at the discretion of members. Only

about one-tenth of CRS reports are available

directly to the public. The dissemination of

other support agency documents (e.g., GAO

testimony, OTA staff papers, CRS issue briefs)

is even more variable. Congress may wish to

consider revisions to existing policies to help

ensure more equitable public access to support

agency materials, including the possibility of

consolidated indexing and more consistent approaches to pricing and availability.

Expanding electronic interactions will also

influence and could change the nature of some

congressional operations. The cooperative program between the LOC and the Research Libraries Group is illustrative. The Library’s

Linked Systems Project (LSP) enables eight

other libraries to input (online) cataloging information into the LOC’s computer. And work

is currently underway which will permit the

exchange of bibliographic data from computer

to computer using the LSP so that, when the

data is transmitted to the LOC, it can also be

redistributed to other bibliographic utilities.

The role of the LOC in the future, as it is seen

by the new Librarian, James H. Billington,

fully employs the electronic technologies:

By imaginatively using new technologies,

for instance, we might aspire to share by the

year 2000 much of the substantive content and

not merely the descriptive catalog of this

remarkable national collection with citizens

and students directly in their local communities. Using new technologies boldly may enable us to become less preoccupied with the

means and freer to pursue the ends of enhancing the direct interaction between people and

ideas within and beyond the Library.

In sum, the integration of information technologies into congressional operations is changing the nature of congressional processes and

the possibilities for enhanced public access to

information created, generated, and disseminated by Congress. There is a window of opportunity for Congress to examine the congressional information infrastructure (including

House, Senate, and support offices) in light of

changing technology and user needs, and to

consider new or alternative ways to harness

the technology to strengthen congressional information dissemination and more fully realize the goal of public access.

13 U.S. Congress, Senate, Committee on Rules and Administration. Confirmation Hearings of James Billington as Librarian of Congress, 100th Cong., 1st sess., July 14, 1987.
Chapter 9

The Freedom of Information Act

in an Electronic Age

. .

. .

.$

\

Jim

Photo credit: Mark MangoId, Bureau of the Census

Mainframe area, 1986, Bureau of the Census
CONTENTS

Page

Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .207

Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...................209

Applicability of FOIA to Electronic Media. . .........................210

Computerized Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........210

Other Media... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...............211

Defining the Limits of Searching Under FOIA . ......................213

Traditional Interpretations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........213

In the Computer Context: The Distinction Between Searching and

Progr amming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .215

Determining the Format of Information Delivered . . . . ...............221 -

Expanding the Legal Frontiers: Public Access to Software and

Online Databases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ............222

Software . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .......222

Online Databases. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...............223

Fee Assessment and Fee Waivers: Charged Issues in an Age of

Electronic Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...................225

New Technologies and the Need for Amending FOIL . . . . . . . . . . . . ......226

Electronic Information Technologies Are Obscuring the Boundary

Between Record and Nonrecord Material . ........................228

Computers Are Facilitating Faster and More Complex Searches,

Thereby Encouraging a Broader Definition of a

“Reasonable" Search . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........,229

Electronic FOIA Requests Can Be Incompatible With the Ways

Agencies Collect and Organize Information . ......................230

Computer Searching Raises New Staffing and Budgetary Problems,

as Well as Opportunities for Federal Agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .232

Federal Agencies Are Using Information Products Whose Status

is Unclear Under FOIA. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..................233

Paper Printouts of Electronic Information May Not Satisfy

Public Access Needs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .........234

Computers Are Prompting New Discussion About the Basic

Purposes of FOIA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...................236
Chapter 9

The Freedom of Information Act

in an Electronic Age

SUMMARY

When the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)

was passed in 1966, Federal Government records were stored primarily in paper form; the

act makes no mention of computer records.

Since 1966, the installation and use of computer systems by Federal agencies has proceeded at a dramatic pace. Agency regulations

and judicial interpretations have generally supported the treatment of computer tapes and

other non-paper media (such as motion pictures, video, and audiotapes) as agency records

under FOIA. However, significant unresolved

issues warrant congressional attention.

For example, the case law as applied to paper information establishes that FOIA does

not require agencies to create new records in

fulfilling requests. When additional programming is required to extract information from

computer systems, agencies and courts have

sometimes held that such programming would

be analogous to record creation, and therefore

would not be a required part of the FOIA

“search’ process. In the electronic age, however, some degree of reprogramming or program modification may be essential to obtain

access to electronic information.

Another gray area involves defining a “reasonable effort on the part of the government

in searching for records responsive to a FOIA

request. In the computer context, the programming/no programming distinction has begun

to detach decisions about “reasonableness”

from considerations of effort. This is incongruous with tradition, as significant expenditures

of effort continue to be involved in manual

FOIA searches. Retrieval of paper documents

may involve extensive tracking, communication with various bureaus, consolidation of disparate files, and substantial hand deletions of

exempted materials. As computer capabilities

for searching, segregating, and consolidating

of data become increasingly efficient and costeffective, computer searches could be broadened and public access enhanced. Agencies

may need to focus on designing new ways to

respond more readily to FOIA requests for

computer records.

Another issue is whether and under what

conditions the advantages of electronic formats are such that providing electronic access

should be guaranteed. Although the case law

and the FOIA fee guidelines have established

that computer-stored information is subject

to FOIA, requesters are not guaranteed access

to the information in formats other than

paper. If large quantities of data could be more

effectively utilized with the flexibility offered

by magnetic tapes, disks, or online retrieval,

access to these electronic media may be important.

In several FOIA cases, the courts have expressed a need for Congress to clarify the gray

areas left open by the statute in its application to electronic information. In developing

and considering possible amendments to

FOIA, it is important to understand the types

and nature of emerging computer-related problems. It is also important to consider new developments in computer and database technology that could alleviate some of these problems

in the future. A synopsis of the issues is presented below:

Electronic information technologies are obscuring the boundary between record and

nonrecord material. As electronic databases become more sophisticated, they resemble information “pools” rather than

discrete records. For example, relational

database technology allows data elements

from different pathways or “fields” to be

connected to one another in nonlinear com207
208

binations. The parallels to paper records

are becoming more remote.

● Computers are facilitating faster and more

complex searches, thereby encouraging a

broader definition of a “reasonable” search.

Given computer capabilities for expedited

searching, segregating, and consolidating

of data, the definition of a “reasonable”

search may need to be broadened.

● Electronic FOIA requests can be incompatible with the ways agencies collect and

organize information. Although this problem also applies to FOIA requests for paper documents, computerized information

management systems are aggravating the

issue as they are relatively inflexible, with

limited capacity to respond to inquiries

in an ad hoc fashion. Evolving technologies such as relational databases and

hypertext could provide some solutions

in the future.

● Computer searching raises new staffing and

budgetary problems, as well as opportunities for Federal agencies. Most agencies

have no computer programmers assigned

to FOIA implementation. Requests for

computerized records are generally given

to personnel hired to operate internal information management systems. Agency

use of electronic technologies that would

help administrative staff retrieve computerized information could ultimately enhance public access to computer records.

These technologies include preprogrammed utility software, front-end systems

with natural query languages, expert systems, and optical disks.

● Federal agencies are using information

products whose status is unclear under

FOIA. The status of computer programs

(including computerized indexes, codes,

and directories) is unclear, as is that of integrated software and database packages.

Electronic mail, quickly becoming a major mode of interdepartmental communication, presents additional questions for

FOIA.

● Paper printouts of electronic information

may not satisfy public access needs. Although the case law has established that

computerized information is subject to

FOIA, agencies are not required to deliver

the information in machine-readable form.

The option of encouraging or requiring

agencies to provide alternative electronic

formats– such as magnetic tape, floppy

disk, optical disk, and online access—

warrants consideration.

In resolving these issues, Congress may need

to reconsider the purposes and goals of FOIA.

If new procedures need to be instituted for an

electronic FOIA, the policies behind the procedures should be evaluated and clarified. Computer records today bear few similarities to the

paper records of 1966. New database technologies have begun to raise questions about

whether computer-stored information can even

be conceptualized as discrete records.

For the 1990s and beyond, Congress may

need to decide whether the FOIA should continue to be viewed as an “access to records”

statute, or whether it should be perceived more

broadly, as an “access to information” statute. This is not to suggest that public access

to computer-stored government information

should be unlimited; access must be balanced

against economic and personnel constraints of

Federal agencies. However, due to the explosive growth in electronic information storage,

processing, and transmission by the Federal

Government, traditional views about records

and searches may need to be modified to ensure even basic access to computerized public

information.

The case law in many areas is too limited,

conflicting, or vague to give consistent direction to agencies and courts. Even in those areas

where the case law is clear, variation in agency

practice suggests the need for greater statutory specificity. If Congress wishes to maintain the integrity of FOIA in an electronic environment, the goals of the statute need to be

reassessed and statutory amendment pursued.
209

INTRODUCTION

The passage of the Freedom of Information

Act (FOIA)l in 1966 eliminated the ambiguous public information provisions of the

Administrative Procedures Act,2 and shifted

the burden of proof from the public to Federal agencies with respect to the withholding of

Federal information from public view. The act

not only created a “clear right” of access to

government information for the press and public, but also made that right enforceable.3 The

purpose of the act was to establish a “general

philosophy of full agency disclosure unless information is exempt under delineated language,

and to provide a court procedure by which

citizens and the press may obtain information

wrongly withheld.”4

In signing the bill into

law, President Johnson articulated the spirit

behind the legislation: “I signed this measure

with a deep sense of pride that the United

States is an open society in which the people’s

right to know is cherished and guarded."5

In the years following the passage of FOIA,

there has been substantial growth in Federal

Government use of electronic information systems. Estimates indicate that, when FOIA was

passed in 1966, about 3,000 mainframe computers had been installed by Federal agencies;

microcomputers were not yet in use.6 Recent

reports indicate that, by 1986, approximately

25,000 mainframes and over 125,000 microcomputers were in place, representing a dra1 5 U.S.C. sec. 552.

2 60 Stat. 238 (1946); 5 U.S.C. sec. 1002 (1964).

3 Harold L. Cross, quoted in the FOIA Source Book, U.S.

Congress, Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee

on Administrative Practice and Procedure, 93rd Cong., 2d. sess.,

1974.

4 U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Administrative Practice and Procedure, Freedom

of Information, Hearings on S. 1663, 88th Cong., 1st sess., 1964.

“U.S. Senate, FOIA Source Book, op. cit., 1974.

6 Martha Mulford Gray, U.S. Department of Commerce, National Bureau of Standards, Institute for Computer Sciences

and Technology, Computers in the Federal Government: A Compilation of Statistics-J978, N.B.S. Special Publication 500-46

(April 1979).

matic increase over a 20-year period.7 The use

of electronic mail and other electronic information systems has also proliferated. For example, according to a 1986 Office of Technology Assessment survey, 97 of 134 Federal

agencies and agency components responding

reported the use of electronic mail.8 The results of the 1987 GAO survey summarized in

chapter 2 indicate significant and growing Federal agency use of electronic technologies and

formats.

When a “paper statute” is applied in an era

of electronic information, its original ideals

may become more difficult to carry out. Drawing analogies in the courts between paper documents and electronic information is often difficult. Evolving problems in interpreting FOIA

could mean that new electronic technologies

may serve as barriers to, rather than facilitators of, information disclosure under the act.

This chapter draws upon the existing body

of FOIA case law addressing electronic information, and presents those FOIA cases involving traditional paper records that have served

as precedents for decisions involving computer

records. Inmost instances, cases are presented

chronologically, to provide an evolutionary perspective on the lines of reasoning relevant to

issues involving computerized records. Other

sources of information that may help clarify

ongoing debates, such as legislative history

and agency practice, are included.

Finally, the chapter provides an analysis of

trends in computer and database technology

that raise additional questions about the applicability of traditional interpretations of

FOIA to current Federal information practices.

7 U. S. General Services Administration, Information Resources Management Service, Managing End User Computing

in the Federal Government, No. 2, September 1986.

8 U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Federal

Government Information Technology: Management, Security.

Congressional Oversight, OTA-CIT-297 (Washington, DC: U.S.

Government Printing Office, February 1986).
210

APPLICABILITY OF FOIA TO ELECTRONIC MEDIA

Although the term “records” is used

throughout the text of FOIA,9 it is not defined. Absent statutory reference, application

of FOIA to computer tapes and other nonpaper

media is determined by agency practice or on

a case-by-case basis in the courts. To date, both

agency practice and the case law generally support the treatment of computerized information as “records” under FOIA, although agencies are not necessarily required to provide the

information in machine-readable form. In certain commonly-occurring cases, the status of

computerized information still remains problematic. For example, in instances where computer records require insertion of codes or some

form of additional programming to be retrieved

from computer systems, agencies and courts

have sometimes designated these efforts to be

supplemental to the required FOIA “search”

process.

According to the following decisions, the

term “records,” at least in principle, should

be applied to computerized information and

other nonpaper media, including motion pictures, audio recordings, and videotapes.

Computerized Information

The history of discussion of computerized

FOIA records by Federal courts began in 1979,

in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. In Long v. Internal Revenue Service, 10

the court vacated and remanded a district

court decision that had denied a request for

electronic information compiled by the IRS in

its “taxpayer compliance measurement program. ” Speaking for the majority, Judge

Kennedy stated:

. . . we dispose at the outset of any contention

that computer tapes are not generally within

the FOIA. The district court apparently determines that the term “records,” as used in

the Act, does not include computer tapes. This

conclusion, however, is quite at odds with the

purpose and history of the statute.

‘5 U.S.C. sec. 552.

‘

0

596 F.2d 362 (9th Cir. 1979).

Kennedy relied upon the Senate Report accompanying the 1974 amendments to FOIA for

its consideration of special problems of computer records in the context of search and copying fees.11 In addition, he cited the Treasury

Department’s FOIA regulations which “make

explicit provision for disclosure of ‘records

maintained in computerized form’,”12 and a

1975 opinion by the U.S. District Court for the

Northern District of California that had affirmed the accessibility of motion pictures under FOIA.13

Judge Kennedy concluded: “In view of the

common, widespread use of computers by government agencies for information storage and

processing, any interpretation of the FOIA

which limits its application to conventional

written documents contradicts the ‘general

philosophy of full agency disclosure’ which

Congress intended to establish.14 We conclude that FOIA applies to computer tapes to

the same extent it applies to any other documents." 15

The United States Supreme Court addressed

the issue of computerized records in 1980. In

Forsham v. Harris,16 the Court referred to

the Records Disposal Act” to arrive at a definition of agency records under FOIA. In

delivering the opinion of the Court, Justice

Rehnquist cited the Attorney General’s 1976

Memorandum on the FOIA for its conclusion

that Congress intended the Records Act definition to apply to FOIA:

. . . although Congress has supplied no definition of agency records in the FOIA, it has formulated a definition in other Acts. The Records

Disposal Act, in effect at the time Congress

enacted the FOIA, provided a threshhold requirement for agency records: “records inllS. Rep. No. 854, 93rd Cong. 2d sess. 12 (1974), cert. denied,

446 U.S. 917 (1980).

1’31 C.F.R. ssl.5(f) & 1.6(g) (3)(ii)(1977).

13Save the Dolphins v. U.S. Department of Commerce, 404

F. !%qq). 407, 410-411 (N.D. Cal. 1975).

“S. Rep. No. 813, 89th Cong. 1st sess. 3 (1965).

‘3596 F.2d 362, 365 (9th Cir. 1979).

16445 us. 16g, 186 (1980).

‘T44 U.S.C. sec. 3301.
211

eluded all books, papers, maps, photographs,

machine readable materials, or other documentary material, regardless of physical form or

characteristics, made or received by an agency

of the United States Government under Federal law or in connection with the transaction

of public business . . . ." (emphasis added)18

A 1982 decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals

for the District of Columbia reaffirmed the applicability of FOIA to computerized records.

Yeager v. Drug Enforcement Administration, 19 concerned an appeal to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) for the release of computerized information and the use

of computer-facilitated “disclosure avoidance

techniques” to conceal exempted private information. Though the appellant request for

“compacting” or concealing personal information was denied, the court acknowledged parallels between manual and computer storage:

“Although it is clear that Congress was aware

of problems that could arise in the application

of the FOIA to computer-stored records, the

Act itself makes no distinction between records

maintained in manual and computer storage

systems."20 The court concluded that:

It is thus clear that computer-stored records,

whether stored in the central processing unit,

on magnetic tape or in some other form, are

still “records” for the purposes of the FOIA.

Although accessing information from computers may involve a somewhat different process than locating and retrieving manuallystored records, these differences may not be

used to circumvent the full disclosure policies

of the FOIA.21

Other Media

A small, yet important, body of case law has

established that various other media constitute records under FOIA. These cases have

been cited in several decisions concerning computer generated materials.

‘“445 U.S. 169, 186 (1980). 19678 F. 2d. 315 (D. C. Cir. 1982~.

“’Ibid.

21 Ibid.

Motion Pictures

In Save the Dolphins v. U.S. Department

of Commerce,22 the U.S. District Court for

the Northern District of California affirmed

that motion pictures constitute records subject to the disclosure requirements of FOIA.

The case concerned a nonprofit corporation

that sought access to a National Marine Fisheries Service film documenting the incidental

killing of dolphins in the nets of commercial

tuna fishing boats. In attempting to determine

the status of motion pictures under FOIA, the

court admitted to a lack of precedent in the

area: “The first question is whether the film

sought is a ‘record’ within the meaning of the

Act (FOIA). The term is not defined in the Act.

Neither do existing judicial interpretations appear helpful in regard to the precise questions

here presented.”23 The court was forced to

draw on examples from agency practice, citing both the “Disposal of Records” chapter

of the Public Printing and Documents Act24

and the General Services Administration definition of agency records, which includes “all

books, papers, maps, photographs, or other

documentary materials, regardless of physical form or characteristics . . . ."25 At the time

of the case, the Department of Commerce had

not yet defined records in its regulations pertaining to FOIA.

The court’s decision in Save the Dolphins

reflected an interest in broad policy goals over

narrow “records” definitions:

The object of the Freedom of Information

Act is to make available to the public “information” in the possession of government agencies. The term “records” in common parlance

includes various means of storing information

for future reference. There does not appear to

be any good reason for limiting “records” as

used in the Act to written documents. The motion picture film in question was made in order to store the information it now contains;

it therefore falls within the definition of

“records” in 5 U.S. C. § 552.26

22404 F. &lpp. 407 (N.D. Cal. 1975).

‘iIbid.

“44 U.S.C. sec. 3301.

2’141 C.F. R. sec. 105-60.104(a).

26 404 F. Supp. 407 (N.D. Cal. 1975).
212

The important conceptual distinction between whether FOIA applies to “records” narrowly defined or to ‘information’ broadly construed recurs throughout the FOIA debate in

cases involving computer-generated materials.

Audio Recordings

A 1976 decision by the U.S. District Court

for the Southern District of New York, Mobil

Oil Corp. v. Federal Trade Commission27 has

been cited for its implied treatment of audio

recordings as FOIA records. The defendant

had requested copies of communications between several Federal and State agencies pertaining to aspects of petroleum use. Although

the case dealt primarily with the applicability

of pertinent FOIA exemptions, the court specified that “all identifiable records must be made

available to the public on demand unless requested documents fall within one of the Act’s

nine exemptions. ” Mobil’s request encompassed

“all communications including letters, reports

or memoranda, and notes, transcripts, or other

memorialization of oral communications. During the proceedings, the FTC was ordered by

the court to search for any relevant tape recordings and documents. Only after this search was

completed did the court attempt to establish

whether Mobil’s request fell under FOIA exemptions.

Videotape

Murphy v. F. B. I.28, a 1982 decision by the

U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, concerned a New York Congressman’s request for ABSCAM videotapes documenting

alleged meetings between the Congressman

‘T406 F. !+lpp. 305 (S. D.N.Y. 1976).

‘“490 F. Supp. 1138 (D.C. Cir. 1980).

and undercover agents. Although the decision

concerned whether or not the tapes constituted

investigatory records, subject to the law enforcement exemption of FOIA, the court held

that videotapes could be obtained at the conclusion of the law enforcement proceedings:

“[V]ideotapes which were exempt from disclosure prior to indictment can be obtained by

accused after indictment.”29

Although Albright v. United States30 is essentially a Privacy Act case, the judgment by

the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of

Columbia was based on FOIA’s inclusion of

videotapes as public records. The case concerned the legality of the filming and retention of a potentially damaging videotape by

the Department of Health, Education, and

Welfare (HE W). The videotape documented a

confrontation between HEW employees and

their supervisors. The plaintiffs maintained

that storing videotapes of displeased employees exercising their First Amendment rights

constituted an unfair labor practice and a violation of the Privacy Act. A copy of the videotape had been provided by the agency to the

employees pursuant to a FOIA request filed

3 years earlier. The court determined that:” We

do not think the fact that the means of storing information in this case was a videotape

makes it any less a record for the purposes of

the Act. After citing the decision in Save the

Dolphins 31 concerning motion picture film,

the court maintained that: “As long as the tape

contains a means of identifying an individual

by picture or voice, it falls within the definition of a ‘record’ under the Privacy Act.”32

29 Ibid.

30

31 631 F.2d 915 (D.C. Cir. 1980).

404 F. Supp. 407, 410-411 (N. D. Cal. 1975).

“631 F.2d 915, 920 (D.C. Cir. 1980).
213

DEFINING THE LIMITS OF SEARCHING UNDER FOIA

Traditional Interpretations

Although it has been established that FOIA

applies to records on computer tapes that are

in government possession at the time of a request, the status of information stored in computers is undercurrent dispute. The arguments

turn on the definition of what activities should

constitute searching under FOIA, and what

activities extend beyond the realm of searching to records creation. The case law, as applied to paper information, establishes that the

FOIA does not require agencies to create new

records in fulfilling requests. A history of relevant Supreme Court decisions is presented below. The difficulties involved in making analogies between paper and computer-generated

materials will be discussed in a subsequent

section.

National Labor Relations Board v. Sears

Roebuck, 33 a 1975 decision by the U.S. Supreme Court, addressed the Labor Board’s attempted rejection of a request by Sears forcertain Advice and Appeals Memoranda used in

litigation proceedings. The Board argued, first,

that the memoranda should be exempt from

disclosure under FOIA Exemption 7 dealing

with law enforcement proceedings. Second, the

Board argued that the requirement to generate explanatory material describing “circumstances of the case” was beyond the reach of

FOIA. Although the Supreme Court remanded

the first objection, it held that describing the

“circumstances of the case” constituted the

generation of new materials, and was thus unnecessary for FOIA disclosure purposes:

The Act does not compel agencies to write

opinions in cases in which they would not

otherwise be required to do so. It only requires

disclosure of certain documents which the law

requires the agency to prepare or which the

agency has decided for its own reasons to create. Thus, insofar as the order of the court requires the agency to create explanatory material. it is baseless.34

In Forsham v. Harris,35 the Supreme Court

addressed the issue of whether materials generated by government contractors and remaining in the possession of contractors could be

considered government records and subject to

FOIA request. As in National Labor Relations

Board, this case turned on whether or not the

FOIA request would involve the creation of

new records. Speaking for the majority, Justice Rehnquist equated records creation with

the obtaining of records not previously held

by the agency:

. . . Congress contemplated that an agency

must first either create or obtain a record as

a prerequisite to its becoming an ‘agency record” within the meaning of the FOIA. . . .[I]n

this context the FOIA applies to records which

have been in fact obtained, and not to records

which merely could have been obtained.36

Justice Brennan, dissenting, denied that

government possession was a requirement for

determining what constituted a record: “Nothing whatever in the legislative history suggests

that Congress meant to allow agencies to insulate important steps in decisionmaking on

the basis of the technical niceties of who ‘owns’

crucial documents. ” In explaining his dissent,

Brennan argued that a “close connection’ between the government and the record was

sufficient:

Where the nexus between the agency and

the requested information is close, and where

the importance of the information to public understanding of the decisions or the operation

of the agency is great, I believe the congressional purposes require us to hold that the information sought is an “agency record” within

the meaning of FOIA.S7

Brennan added that if contractor information

was not subject to FOIA, the institution of

government contracting could ultimately

shield public access to information:

‘)421 U.S. 132 (1975).

“421 U.S. 132 at 161-162 (1975).

“’445 U.S. 169 (1980).

‘0445 U.S. 169 at 186 (1980).

]7445 U.S. 169 (1980).
214

Just as the explosion of Federal agencies,

which are not directly responsible to the electorate, worked to hide the workings of the Federal Government from voters before enactment of FOIA, the understandable tendency

of agencies to rely on nongovernmental grantees to perform myriad projects distances the

electorate from important information by one

more step. If the records of such organizations,

when drawn directly into the regulatory process, are immune from public inspection, then

government by secrecy must surely return.38

In Kissinger v. Reporters Committee for

Freedom of the Press39

, the Supreme Court

once again addressed the issue of whether

records outside of government hands at the

time of a request were subject to FOIA disclosure. The plaintiff had questioned a journalist’s access to transcripts of politicallysignificant telephone conversations. Originally

in government hands, the transcripts had subsequently been donated to a private library

prior to the request. In delivering the opinion

of the Court, Justice Rehnquist emphasized

the distinction between existing records and

record production: “When an agency has demonstrated that it has not ‘withheld’ requested

records in violation of the standards established by Congress, the Federal courts have

no authority to order the production of such

records under the FOIA.” Rehnquist cited the

legislative history to strengthen his argument:

Several sources suggest directly that agency

possession or control is prerequisite to triggering any duties under the FOIA. In the

debates, the Act was described as ensuring

‘‘access to the information possessed by (government) servants. ” (emphasis added)’”

He also referred to FOIA guidelines issued by

the Attorney General in 1966 for the use of

all Federal departments and agencies in complying with the new statute:

The guidelines state that FOIA “refers, of

course, only to records in being in the posses38 Ibid.

39445 U.S. 136 (1980).

40 112 Cong. Rec. 13652 (1966), reprinted in FOIA Source

Book, S. DOC. No. 93-82, p. 69 (1974).

sion or control of an agency. , .” [It] imposes

no obligation to compile or procure a record

in response to a request. (emphasis added)41

Justice Brennan, concurring and dissenting

in part, determined that FOIA contained an

implicit mandate for the government to retain

those records it had created, but did not contradict Rehnquist stance on record creation:

FOIA does not compel agencies to write

opinions where not otherwise required. FOIA

neither compels the Government to conduct

research on behalf of private citizens, nor

duplicates administrative law requirements of

adequate explanation for Government action.

. . . What the Act does mandate is exposure

of the research and explanations which the

government has chosen to memorialize; an

agency’s obligation to retain records, therefore, may be inferred from FOIA without contradicting the principle that agencies need not

create records. (emphasis added)42

Although it is clear that agencies are not required to create new records in response to

FOIA requests, determining the point at which

searching becomes records creation can be difficult. Put another way, the definition of what

constitutes a “record” may depend upon the

viewpoints of agencies or courts on the purposes and goals of FOIA. These views will influence whether or not records are perceived

to be tangible entities, or whether records are

defined more broadly, in terms of the information they may provide. The debate about the

physical nature of records pervades the FOIA

case law addressing paper records, and is

highly significant for cases involving computer

records. Whether FOIA applies to some notion of a tangible ‘agency record’ or, instead,

to “information in the abstract becomes a crucial distinction in the case of computer records,

which may not exist in tangible form unless

modified in some way.

In the Supreme Court’s decision in Forsham43

, Justice Rehnquist embraced a narrow definition of records, stating outright that

“Ibid.

“445 U.S. 136 at 152 (1980).

“445 U.S. 169 (1980).
“The FOIA deals with ‘agency records’, not

information in the abstract. ’44 In his dissent,

Justice Brennan drew upon the legislative history to argue for a broader interpretation of

‘‘records’ to account for the original purposes

of the Act:

The Court concedes, of course, that the statute itself does not define “agency records. ”

Therefore, out task is to construe the statutory language consistently with the purposes

of FOIA , . . FOIA is a broad enactment

meant to open the processes of government

to public inspection. It reflects a finding that

if left to themselves agencies would operate

in near secrecy. FOIA was, therefore, enacted

to provide access to information to enable “an

informed electorate,” so ‘‘vital to the proper

operation of a democracy, to govern itself .45

In 1982, the Supreme Court in F.B.I. v.

Abramson, 46 used a broad definition of records to limit access to exempted information.

The Court addressed the issue of whether information contained in records compiled for

law enforcement purposes (and thus subject

to Exemption 7 of the FOIA) would lose its

exempt status when incorporated into records

compiled for purposes other than law enforcement. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit had used a physical

definition of records to conclude that the exempt status would be lost when records were

recompiled into a new physical form. According to the Supreme Court, because recompilation of the physical form of the documents

would not alter the basic nature of the information, the exempt status should remain. The

Court’s decision was based on the “equivalence” of the information contained in the two

sets of records:

We are of the view, however, that the statutory language is reasonably construable to

protect that part of an otherwise non-exempt

compilation which essentially reproduces and

is substantially the equivalent of all or part

of an earlier record made for law enforcement

uses. (emphasis added)47

44 Ibid.

‘“S. Rep. No. 813, 89th Cong. 1st sess. 3 ( 1965).

“’456 U.S. 615 ( 1982). 47 Ibid.

215

In dissenting, Justice Blackmun advocated

a narrower definition of records: ‘‘I cannot escape the conclusion that the Court has simply

substituted the word ‘information’ for the word

‘records’ in Exemption 7 (C).” He cited

Forsham48 to conclude that FOIA applied to

“agency records, not information in the abstract.” Justice O’Connor, also dissenting, concluded that the Court was reaching beyond

Congressional intent:

To reach its result, the Court assumes that,

through inadvertence or inattention, Congress’

pen slipped while amending Exemption 7 in

1974, Proceeding on this basis, the Court helpfully undertakes to rewrite the Exemption,

substituting for the statutory phrase ‘ ‘investigatory records compiled for law enforcement

purposes” something like “records containing

investigatory information originally gathered

for law enforcement purposes. "49

In the Computer Context: The

Distinction Between Searching

and Programming

Can the distinctions between searching and

record creation under FOIA be extended by

simple analogy to the computer context? It is

clear that, in cases involving paper documents,

the FOIA does not require agencies to create

new records on behalf of requesters. A fundamental difference between computerized

records and hard copy records, however, is that

the former may reside within computer systems until they are specifically demanded.

Computerized government records may require the application of codes or even additional programming to be retrieved from host

systems in systematic or comprehensible form.

By extending analogies from cases involving

paper records, the courts are creating distinctions between computer searching and computer programming, maintaining that programming is not required under FOIA, as it

is analogous to record creation. As more information becomes machine-readable, the line

48 

445 U.S. 169 at 186 (1980).

4 9 456 U.S. 615 (1982).
216

between record searching and record creation

becomes increasingly fine. Also, as Federal

agency communication via electronic mail and

other electronic vehicles intensifies, government records may have the potential to become

“buried” within computer systems.

The intellectual debate that needs resolution

is as follows: in an electronic age, is creating

a program to retrieve a document part of the

searching process, analogous to a manual

search, or should it be considered creation of

a new record (not required for governmental

purposes), which, the case law has determined,

is not required under FOIA? Press groups and

various public interest and public data user

groups tend to hold the view that creating a

program is analogous to the searching process, while agencies may respond that creating

a program is no different from creating a new

document.

The arguments turn on how records are defined. If an agency maintains that FOIA pertains only to “records in being, ” then any kind

of manipulation used to extract data from a

system could technically serve as a rationale

to withhold information. If some degree of

manipulation is required to make a computer

record comprehensible or available to the public, then perhaps the “record in being” definition should be avoided. On the other hand, in

some cases, distinctions must be drawn between making records available and analyzing

or further manipulating data, as FOIA does

not compel agencies to assume analytical research functions. Furthermore, FOIA applies

only to records created for government purposes, and the manipulation of information

may be perceived to be equivalent to the creation of records that are not for government use.

Another gray area, which has become increasingly apparent in the context of online

information, is the determination of what constitutes a “reasonable effort” on the part of

the government in searching for records responsive to a FOIA request. The legislative

history of the FOIA indicates that a description of a requested record is sufficient if it enables “a professional agency employee familiar

with the subject area to locate the record with

a reasonable amount of effort. “5° How can a

‘‘reasonable effort be defined in an electronic

age, when the capabilities for manipulating information become increasingly efficient and

cost effective? In the light of electronic developments, the threshold of “reasonableness”

warrants re-examination. The issue becomes

apparent in the cases presented below, some

of which involve requests for computer

segregating and compacting of data. According to the case law, when exemptions are involved, FOIA only requires agencies to disclose that information which is “reasonably

segregable." The ability to delete personal and

trade data electronically could call for a

broadening of the domain of requests that are

considered reasonable. Congress and the courts

may need to abandon some traditional views,

and build an entirely new frame of reference

for electronic information.

Federal appellate and district courts have

begun to address the problems associated with

defining the appropriate nature and extent of

computer seaching under FOIA. In Long v.

lRS, 51 the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth

Circuit vacated and remanded a district court

decision that had determined that the process

of deleting personal information from a record

in order to “sanitize” tax compliance information would involve the creation of a new

record. The appeals court determined that the

material requested was, in fact, “reasonably

segregable” from exempted information, and,

therefore did not involve the creation of a new

record: “We do not believe, however, that the

mere deletion of names, addresses, and social

security numbers results in the agency’s creating a whole new record."52

The Long court differentiated the facts of

the case from N.L.R.B. v. Sears:53

Requiring an agency to write an opinion on

request is far different, however, from requir-

~~H R. Rep. No, 876, 93rd Cong., 2d sess. 6 (1974), reprinted

in 1974 U.S. Code Cong. & Ad. News 6271.

s15g6 F. 2d. 362 (9th Cir. 1979), cert. denied, 446 U.S. 917

(1980).

‘

z

Ibid.

‘:’421 U.S. 132, 161-62 (1975).
217

ing it to excise a name or social security number from an existing record. . . . [T]he editing

required here is not considered an unreasonable burden to place on an agency.54

The appeals court in Long disagreed with the

district court’s holding that deletion of identifying information would be prohibitively expensive; the IRS had estimated an editing cost

of $160,000. The court explored “. . . whether

the cost and inconvenience to the agency attributable to the editing process can be the

sole basis for determining that material is not

reasonably segregable.” The court cited the

legislative history of the 1974 amendments to

FOIA dealing with fees to argue that agencies

should bear the costs of deletions. The legislative history contains a statement indicating

that “fees should not be used for the purpose

of discouraging requests for information or as

obstacles to disclosure of requested information. ‘-’-’ The amendments provided that agencies could only charge for costs of search and

duplication. The court further cited a Department of the Treasury regulation that stated

that “under no circumstances will a fee be

charged for . . . deleting exempt matter . . .”56

In Yeager v. Drug Enforcement Agency,”

the D.C. Circuit Court came to a different conclusion regarding the limits of reasonableness

in segregating disclosable data under FOIA.

In this case, the requester had asked the Drug

Enforcement Agency to “collapse” or “compact” data electronically. Data compaction or

“disclosure avoidance techniques” are used to

remove sensitive information from statistical

materials and involve the expression of specific information in more general terms. Computers have facilitated these types of data

manipulations.

The Yeager court determined that agencies

were not required under FOIA to use disclosure avoidance techniques in fulfilling their

duties to release “reasonably segregable, ” nonexempt portions of records. The test used to

determine the breadth of requestable functions

was whether the search was “functionally analogous’ to a manual search. The Senate report

on the 1974 amendments, in the sole reference

to computer-stored records, maintained that,

“in computerized form, the term ‘search’ would

include services ‘functionally analogous’ to

searches for records maintained in conventional form.”58 The court held that: “although it is clear that Congress was aware of

problems that could arise in the application

of the FOIA to computerized records, the Act

itself makes no distinction between records

maintained in manual and computer storage

systems. ” The judge cited holdings in National

Labor Relations Board,59 Forsham, 60 and

Kissinger 61 on record creation, and concluded

that:

It is well settled that an agency is not required by FOIA to create a document that

does not exist in order to satisfy a request. A

requester is entitled only to records that an

agency has, in fact, chosen to create and retain. Thus, although an agency is entitled to

possess a record, it need not obtain or regain

possession of a record in order to satisfy a

FOIA request . . . Agencies are not, however,

required to commit to paper information that

does not exist in some form as an agency “record. Thus, they need not write an opinion or

add explanatory material to a document.62

The Yeager court determined that new capabilities of computers should not result in the

expansion of duties imposed on agencies: “The

FOIA does not contemplate imposing a greater

segregation duty upon agencies that choose

to store records in computer than upon agencies that employ manual retrieval systems. ”

The court concluded that Congress did not require any restructuring of the substantive content of records, feasibility and full disclosure

not withstanding:

“’596 F. 2d 362 (9th Cir. 1979).

““S. Rep. No. 1200, 93rd Cong. 2d. sess. ( 1974).

-’”31 C.F. R. sec. 1.6{a)l 1 ) ( 1977).

57678 F. 2d 315 (D.C. Cir. 1982).

‘“S. Rep. No. 854, 93rd Cong. 2d. sess. (1974).

‘

)

’421 U.S. 132, at 161-162 (1975).

‘0445 U.S. 169, at 186 (1980).

“445 U.S. 136, at 152 (1980).

‘

)

’678 F 2d at 315 (1982).
218

The interpretation suggested by (petitioner)

Yeager may be desirable in terms of full disclosure policy and it may be feasible in terms

of computer technology; these factors notwithstanding, however, we are not persuaded that

Congress intended any manipulation or restructuring of the substantive content of a record when it commanded agencies to “delete”

exempt information.63

Although Yeager rejects segregation duties

in this case, it pays lip service to the potential

of increased disclosure offered by computers:

Our treatment of the use of disclosure-avoidance techniques should not be viewed as disapproval of the use of such techniques by agencies. We hold only that the FOIA does not

mandate their use in determining whether information is “reasonably segregable.” The

FOIA does not prohibit an agency from releasing information that falls within any of the

delineated exemptions. It only provides the

agency the option of withholding the documents. . . . Agencies that store information in

computerized retrieval systems have more

flexibility in voluntarily releasing information

and should be encourage(d) . . . to process requests for computerized information even if

doing so involves performing services which

the agencies are not required to provide . . .

(emphasis added) 64

That searches for computer records should

involve activities which are “functionally analogous” to manual searches is an important concept, one which continues to serve as a cornerstone of debates about the extent of computer

searching appropriate to FOIA. The term has

been used to support as well as to deny requests for computer searches. However, defining when a computer search is “functionally

analogous” to a manual search may be a subjective enterprise; Congress may need to examine the appropriateness of using tests which

are based on analogies to paper records to define the limits of computer searches.

In a case recently settled in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, Public Citizen v. Occupational Safety and Health

Administration, 65

a public interest group

challenged the comparison of computer programming to new record creation. The case

involved an attempt by Public Citizen to conduct a survey of OSHA’s enforcement of policies of employee notification about workplace

hazards. Public Citizen first approached a regional office which claimed that a search of paper records would be unduly burdensome, and

suggested that the enforcement information

was currently available on a company-bycompany basis in OSHA’s computerized “Integrated Data Management System” in its Office of Management Data Systems. When Public Citizen offered its list of companies to that

office, OSHA maintained that, although the

companies were in its database, computer

reprogramming would be required to satisfy

the request. As new programming would constitute the creation of a new record, the request

did not fall under FOIA, and Public Citizen

therefore would not be entitled to a fee waiver.

Public Citizen’s lawsuit challenged this contention, claiming that the retrieval procedures

were analogous to searching, not record creation. According to Public Citizen, OSHA’s

assessment of the full costs of computer time

would terminate Public Citizen’s inquiry. The

public interest group also pointed out that

OSHA had supplied similar computer printouts in the past to requesters free of charge.

Once the suit was initiated, OSHA claimed

that it had increased its computer capabilities

to the extent that the appropriate technology

was available to conduct the search without

additional programming. The case was settled

when the agency agreed to produce the information and grant a FOIA fee waiver to the

public interest group.

Public Citizen illustrates a problem that

recurs in legal questions involving new technologies-a lack of technological literacy

among lawyers, judges and litigants. In the

case of FOIA, it may be difficult or impossible for non-agency personnel to know whether

technological explanations are being used

6]Ibid.

“’lS. Rep. No. 854, 93rd Cong., 2d sess. 12 (1974). “Civil Action No. 86-07-05 (705 D.C. District Court).
219

honestly or arbitrarily to circumvent information disclosure. This issue is connected to that

of determining costs for searches. If requesters

cannot know what types of operations are genuinely required to fulfill requests, they have

little way of knowing whether assessed costs

are accurate.

In a recent decision by the U.S. District

Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania,

Clarke v. Treasury,66 the plaintiff sought

compiled information from the bond records

of certain “Flower Bond” holders. The court

determined here that anew computer program

would need to be created to extract the information requested. The court drew upon

Forsham67 and Kissinger68 to hold that: “while

an agency maybe required to produce records

that do exist, it is not required to make them, ”

and cited the Department of the Treasury’s

regulation that provided that: “[t]here is no

requirement that records be created or data

processed in a format other than that required

for governmental purposes in order to comply

with a request for records."69

In a case decided by the U.S. District Court

for the District of Columbia, Kele v. U.S. Parole Commission,70 the petitioner requested

statistical information on convicted murderers

receiving early parole. The Commission maintained that the information could not be retrieved without new programming and denied

the petitioner’s request. Though the petitioner,

Kele, insisted that retrieval would involve

nothing more than the punching of a few keys

on a keyboard, the Department of Justice argued on behalf of the Commission, holding

that:

. . . to go beyond an agency’s own existing capabilities to extract data in defining computerized ‘records’ would constitute a wholesale

departure from both existing law and the pur-

“)Civil Action No. 84-1873 (P;.il. Pa. 1986).

‘T445 U.S. 186 (1980).

“’445 U.S. 136, 152 (1980).

‘)s31 C.F. R. sec. 1.5(a) (1984).

“)Civil Action No. 85-4058 {D.C. District Court, 1986).

poses of the FOIA, to say nothing of the practical ramifications for the government.71

In denying Kele’s request, the court upheld

the Justice Department’s view that:

. . . to hold otherwise by requiring agencies to

write computer programs not needed for carrying out agency functions in response to

FOIA requests would transform the government into a giant computer research firm captive to the whims of individual requesters at

a great public expense.72

A recent decision by the Department of

Energy’s Office of Hearings and Appeals

(OHA) may help change the tenor of future debate.” The Energy Department determined

that reprogramming of computers, in some

cases, should be considered appropriate and

necessary to the FOIA search process.

The case concerned a request by the National

Security Archive (NSA) for a listing of unclassified “limited access documents’ available to

authorized requesters from the DOE Office

of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI).

Library personnel at OSTI responded that the

data existed in a database, but that FOIA did

not require OSTI to compile the list, as production of a list from the database would constitute new programming.

The NSA appealed OSTI determination to

the DOE’s Office of Hearings and Appeals

(OHA). In conferring with OSTI, OHA found

that if a “profile’ of the requesting party were

entered into the computer, the list of reports

available to that party could be retrieved. OHA

granted NSA’s appeal” and directed OSTI to

contact the NSA to clarify the scope of its request and to inform the NSA of the structure

and contents of its database. According to

DOE regulations, if the agency holds that a

request does not reasonably describe the

records sought, agency personnel are required

‘

] Memorandum of Points and Authorities in support of

defendant’s motion to dismiss, p. 18.

“Ibid., p. 19.

; ‘Opinion of Record, Decision and Order, Office of Hearings

and Appeals, U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Case No. KFA-0158 (June

1988).

“Decision and Order, Office of Hearings and Appeals, U.S.

Dept. of Energy, Case No. KFA-0146 (Dec. 18, 1987).
220

to confer with the requester in an effort to restate the request in a manner that would facilitate compliance.75 In addition, OSTI was

then directed to search its database to provide

the list of documents sought by the NSA. The

OHA stated in its decision that programming

could be considered an appropriate part of a

search for FOIA records: “[T]he mere retrieval

of information already existing in a database,

even if a computer must be programmed to select specified types of data, does not constitute creation of a new record.”76

Shortly thereafter, OSTI filed a Motion for

Clarification of OHA’s decision, maintaining

that OHA’s statement was overboard and inconsistent with FOIA requirements. In its response, OHA held that, contrary to OSTI’s

contention, providing a list of documents derived from OSTI database would not constitute the creation of a new record. According

to OHA, agencies may need to manipulate

their software to perform FOIA searches, even

if those searches are dissimilar from searches

normally conducted by agencies for their own

purposes:

We believe, however, that to the extent that

OSTI maintains records in a database and already has software that is capable of searching the database, the FOIA requires OSTI to

use that software to search the database for

the requested records. This is true even if the

type of search that must be performed is different from the type normally performed by

OSTI. A search of this nature is not, in substance, significantly different from a search

of a file cabinet for paper records that are responsive to a request. If the FOIA required

anything less it would allow agencies to conceal information from public scrutiny by placing it in computerized form. This would be inconsistent with the FOIA policy of the fullest

possible disclosure.77

The OHA specified that there should be limitations upon the work that agencies must undertake under FOIA, as:

7

’10 C.F.R. 1004.4 (C)(2).

“Op. cit.

7’Decision and Order, Office of Hearings and Appeals, U.S.

Dept. of Energy, Case No. KFA-0158 (May 26, 1988).

. . . the FOIA does not require agencies to answer questions, generate explanatory material, compile statistical data, or provide any

other information that is not already contained in agency records . . . There is also no

doubt that agencies are not required to perform calculations, manipulate data, or restructure records in any way pursuant to a FOIA

request, since this would constitute the creation of a new record.78

However, short of the above exceptions, the

OHA held that many types of computerized

searches should be considered analogous to

those performed by hand:

While the process may be different, many

computer searches are in substance essentially

the same as manual searches and involve comparable methods and skills. For example, to

search paper records a methodology must be

developed and the relevant files or file drawers

manually searched for the requested information. Similar methodologies must be developed

and used when a computer is instructed to perform the search. A computer search may be

electronic in nature, but it is not necessarily

any different in essence. It merely uses different tools—the computer and its software—to

conduct the search.79

The OHA refuted the court’s holding in

Clarke v. Treasury,80 where the agency was

not required to undertake programming to provide a simple listing to the requester:

Under these circumstances, we do not believe that this single district court opinion can

be interpreted to mean that agencies can never

be required to perform any reprogramming in

order to comply with a FOIA request.81

The OHA did not attempt to define the extent to which agencies must reprogram their

computers in order to respond to FOIA requests, and maintained that it will address

this issue in the future on a case-by-case

basis: 82

The more difficult issue is the extent to

which agencies must search a database in ord7MIbid.

‘qIbid.

‘°Civil Action No. 84-1873 (E. D. Pa. 1986).

‘]U.S. Dept. of Energy, Case No. KFA-0158, op. cit. 82Ibid.
221

.

er to select those records within the database

that are requested pursuant to the FOIA. On

this issue, no precise answer can be formulated in the abstract. As noted above, this is an

unsettled area of the law and there are few judicial determinations to guide us. Furthermore,

an agency’s obligation to search its database

may depend upon the circumstances presented,

including how the database is structured, the

capabilities of the agency’s computer system

and personnel, and the specific information requested.”{ emphasis added)”

Determining the Format of

Information Delivered

Although both the case law and the FOIA

fee guidelines have established that computer

stored information is subject to FOIA, requesters are not guaranteed access to this information in formats other than paper. According to a limited body of case law, once the

determination has been made that a FOIA request for computer-stored information is reasonable, an agency is not legally bound to offer the information in any specified format. If

a requester does not specify format, the agency

will generally provide the information in the

least expensive form possible, or in the form

most compatible with the agency’s current information delivery modes. If the requester does

specify format, agencies may accommodate the

request, if costs are not unreasonable. Otherwise, the requester will be denied the format,

or offered the option of obtaining the specified

format at a higher price.

A 1984 decision by the U.S. District Court

for the District of Columbia, Dismukes v. Department of the Interior,84 addressed the issue of the equivalency of alternative formats.

The plaintiff requested a computer tape listing of participants in the Bureau of Land

Management’s California oil and gas leasing

lotteries, in “nine track, 1,600 b.p.i., DOS or

unlabeled, IBM compatible formats, with file

dumps and file layouts. ” The Department of

the Interior responded that the information

was only available on microfiche. The court

held that the agency had no obligation under

law to satisfy the request on computer tape,

and could determine the form in which it would

make its records available, providing it had a

reasonable argument for not presenting the information in the format requested:

An agency has no obligation under the FOIA

to accommodate a particular requester’s preference regarding the format of requested information and, according to FOIA, the agency

need only provide responsive, nonexempt information in a “reasonably accessible form."85

Although, in this case, computer tape offered

the least expensive means of access, the agency

system was configured to deliver this type of

information on microfiche.

The issue in Dismukes was whether the tape

and microfiche were equivalent media for

agency records, such that release of the latter

would satisfy a request for the former. To support the decision, the court used the rationale

that FOIA applied to information in the abstract rather than to tangible agency records.

While this is an argument that recurs throughout FOIA case law, it was used here to limit

the specificity of formats, rather than to argue for fuller disclosure.

The Dismukes court acknowledged the Supreme Court holding in FBI v. Abramson, 86

also citing a 1982 case, Center for National

Security Studies v. CIA,87 where the court rejected the plaintiff “literal, physical approach

to the definition of agency record. ” The court

determined that, if the plaintiff were to

strengthen his case, he would need to prove

that the decision to release the information on

microfiche would diminish his access to the information he sought. The court did allow that,

in some cases, formats would not be equivalent, as in the case of audiotapes, where written transcripts would not be able to provide

the “nuances of inflection which give words

added meaning beyond that reproducible on

paper.” In the case presented, however, the

court determined that: “neither plaintiff nor

any document in the record suggests that the

‘ ‘Ibid

‘%0,3 F. Supp. 760 (D.D.C. 1984).

‘ ‘Ibid.

“’456 U.S. at 615 (1982).

‘;577 F. Supp. 584, 589-590 (D.C. District Court, 1984).
222

quantum of information contained in the microfiche varies in any way from that recorded

on the computer tape."88

NASA has recently appealed a decision by

the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, in which information contained in audiotapes was determined to convey nuances

that made them more valuable than the written transcripts. New York Times v. NASA 89

concerns a New York Times reporter’s FOIA

request to obtain cockpit voice recordings from

the space shuttle, Challenger, along with tran-

“’603 F. Supp. 760 (D.C. District Court, 1984).

“

yCivil Action No. 86-02860 (D.C. District Court, 1986),

scripts and digital information. The trial judge

ordered disclosure of the tapes. NASA appealed on the grounds that the tapes constituted personal proprietary information (similar to personnel and medical files), and that

release of the tapes could create undue suffering for the families of the astronauts. The

reporter claimed that, unlike transcripts, the

tape recordings conveyed voice inflections and

reproduced shuttle background noises that

could serve as indicators of technical problems,

possibly enhancing future efforts to improve

safety. A three-person Circuit Court panel recently affirmed the lower court’s decision, and

the case awaits a potential appeal by NASA

to the full court.

EXPANDING THE LEGAL FRONTIERS: PUBLIC ACCESS TO

SOFTWARE AND ONLINE DATABASES

Software

The status of computer software (including

indexes, directories, and operating programs

and codes) under FOIA is uncertain, and few

agencies mention software in their regulations.

Agency practice is inconsistent, varying with

the function of the software, its commercial

potential, and general agency attitudes toward

openness. No legal cases clearly address the

issue of what classes of software should constitute agency records. Some agencies have

suggested that software is a tool used to

manipulate information rather than a record,

while others relinquish software products when

requests are perceived to be reasonable. This

issue is problematic as some sort of code may

be necessary for even the most basic functions,

such as producing a printed document from

the magnetic media on which the information

is stored. It may be difficult or impossible for

requesters to know what types of computer

operations are involved in the agency’s retrieval process, and whether their rights under FOIA are being arbitrarily denied for technical or other reasons.

The issue of whether or not codes and other

information needed to extract computerized

data are agency records under FOIA was

raised by the district court in Yeager,90 and

was not resolved on appeal. Conceivably, an

agency might deny access to computer codes

under FOIA Exemption 2, which covers internal personnel matters and has been construed

to absolve the agency from any obligation to

produce “trivial” internal information. The appeals court in Yeager concurred with the holding of the lower court on the subject of codes:

“The district court found that if Yeager had

magnetic tapes of computer records, then the

codes necessary to read and use the tapes would

become more than intra-agency records.”91

A more liberal view emerged in a 1982 decision by a Florida appellate court, where computer codes were compared to instructions accompanying a written document. In Seigle v.

Barry, 92 the court stated:

The information in a computer is analogous

to information recorded in a code. Where a

public record is maintained in such a manner

that it can only be interpreted by the use of

90 678 F.2d at 315 (D.C. Cir. 1982).

9’ Ibid. W422 So.2d 63 (Fla. 4 D.C.A. 1982).
223

a code, then the code book must be furnished

to the applicant.93

While pre-existing data can be demanded under FOIA, further analysis of data cannot.

However, the distinction between record production and data analysis may become blurred

in cases involving computer records. If a record is incomprehensible to anyone but the operator of an in-house system, some form of analysis may be required. Also, if a database

includes software combined with public information, and the two are not segregable, the

status of the software under FOIA can be argued. Conceivably, one fraction of the database could constitute nonreleasable agency information, while the rest of the unit qualified

as a “record” by FOIA standards.

While most agencies have failed to mention

software explicitly in their FOIA regulations,

the Department of Defense (DoD) is an exception. DoD made several explicit references to

software in its recent regulations pertaining

to fees and fee waivers, in compliance with the

FOIA Reform Act of 1986.94 In specifying

those materials which should not constitute

records under FOIA, the Department included

in its definition of commercially exploitable resources: “Computer software, if not created

or used as primary sources of information

about organizations, policies, functions, decisions, or procedures of a DoD component. ”

DoD did, however, add that this definition

should not include the “underlying data which

is processed and produced by such software

and which may in some instances be stored

with the software. ” (emphasis added)95

Perhaps even more significant is DoD’s reference to information stored inside machines.

According to the regulations, information

stored within a computer “for which there is

no existing computer program or printout”

(emphasis added)” would not be subject to a

FOIA request. When in-house paperwork re-

“Ibid.

“’P.I,. 99-570, 100 Stat. 3207-49.

““32 C.F. R. Part 286, 1987 (Fed. Reg. vol. 52, No. 132, July

10, 1987).

96 Ibid.

duction efforts and the efficacy of computer

communications have led to increased use of

electronic mail and other electronic systems

to relay agency information, this limited definition of “records” could be problematic. Even

when information is targeted for public consumption, the growing adoption of “printing

on demand” practices should stimulate close

examination of relevant regulations.

Online Databases

Given the trend toward cost recovery for

Federal agency information products, it seems

likely that user fees will continue to help support Federal online database delivery systems.

If FOIA requests for copies of certain databases are denied, and online access is priced

beyond the means of particular requesters, the

Federal Government can be accused of restricting public access to its electronic information.

On the other hand, if private vendors or other

members of the public are able to obtain copies of Federal databases at nominal prices under FOIA, the ability of these database services to operate in a self-sustaining fashion could

be eroded.

The leading case addressing a FOIA request

for machine-readable copies of a Federal database is SDC Development Corp. v. Mathews,

a 1976 ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for

the Ninth Circuit.97 The case concerned an attempt by a private firm to use FOIA to obtain

copies of the extensive MEDLARS bibliographic health database from the National Library of Medicine (NLM). The MEDLARS

tapes were available for sale on a subscription

basis through the National Technical Information Service (NTIS) for $50,000, with an estimated additional cost of $50,000 for annual

data updating. The firm maintained that the

database should be relinquished for the cost

of search and duplication, presumably much

less than the NTIS sales price.

The court held that the library reference materials were not public records, and need not

be relinquished under FOIA. Although this

‘

7

542 F. 2d at 1116 (9th Cir. 1976).
224

case is sometimes cited by agencies to deny

the analogy between paper records and computerized records, the fact that NLM’s reference materials were stored in a computer databank was inconsequential to the decision. The

court used the rationale that applying FOIA

here would constitute a conflict between two

statutes, in this case FOIA and the National

Library of Medicine Act.98 “When two statutes are capable of coexistence, it is the duty

of courts, absent a clearly expressed Congressional intention to the contrary, to regard each

as effective.“

99 The National Library of Medicine Act, in which Congress established the

Library in 1956, authorized the Secretary of

Health, Education, and Welfare to charge the

public for using services and materials.100 The

court also footnoted the Technical Information

Act101 which directed the Secretary of Commerce to maintain a clearinghouse for scientific and technical information in which “to the

fullest extent feasible, each of the services and

functions provided shall be self-sustaining or

self-liquidating." 102

The court distinguished here between information per se and information delivery

systems:

Congress specifically mandated the agency

to prepare this system and hold it as stock in

trade for sale to the public. As such the system constitutes a highly valuable commodity.

Requiring the agency to make its delivery system available to the appellants at nominal

charge would not enhance the information

gathering and dissemination function of the

agency, but rather would hamper it substantially. Contractual relationships with various

organizations, designed to increase the agency’s

ability to acquire and catalog medical information, would be destroyed if the tapes could

be obtained essentially for free , . . The agency

is seeking to protect not its information, but

rather its system for delivering that information. 103

The Mathews court determined that the

MEDLARS material did not constitute an

agency record, as it:

. . . does not directly reflect the structure, operation, or decision-making functions of the

agency, and where, as here, the materials are

readily disseminated to the public by the

agency, the danger of agency secrecy which

Congress sought to alleviate is not a consideration. 104

SDC v. Mathews is particularly interesting

when observed in the context of the debate over

the roles of the public or private sectors in the

delivery of public information services. In a

committee report on government information

dissemination prepared by the House Committee on Government Operations, the Mathews

court was accused of having “misunderstood

the statutory role of NLM, misread the FOIA,

and failed to consider the Copyright Act and

the significance of the policy against restrictions on dissemination of government information. 105 The decision works both in favor

of and against private vendors. On the one

hand, the decision supports NLM’s charging

of fees and its exclusive agreements with private contractors in order to further the agency’s

public information objectives. On the other

hand, to protect the agency’s information dissemination mission, the decision prevents

other private database vendors from using

FOIA as an inexpensive means to obtain marketable electronic data.

A case currently pending in the U.S. District

Court for the District of Columbia, International Computaprint Corp. v. U.S. Department

of Commerce106 raises issues addressed in

Dismukes107 as well as SDC v. Mathews.108

Computaprint, a private database vendor, requested machine-readable copies of the Patent Office’s (PTO) computerized trademark

database. PTO denied the request on two

grounds. First, because the data was available

‘s42 U.S. C. 276.

“542 F. 2d at 1116 (9th Cir. 1976).

1o042 us-c. 276 (c)(21.

“

)

’15 U.S.C. sec. 1151-1157.

‘“’542 F. 2d at 1116 (9th Cir. 1976).

‘

(

’’

{603 F.2d at 1116 (9th Cir. 1976).

‘[’’Ibid.

103Electrom”c Collection and Dissemination of Information buy

Federal Agencies: A Policy Overview. House Rep. 99-560, 99th

Cong. 2d sess. 1986, p. 35.

“

)

’Civil Action No. 87-1848 D.C. (District Court, 1987).

“’

7603 F. SUpp. 760 (D.D.C. 1984).

*uh542 F. 2d. at 1116 (9th Cir. 1976).
225

through alternate means, PTO claimed that

it had no obligation to provide machine-readable

tapes. Trademark data could be obtained online in PTO’s public reading room, as well as

on microfiche. Using the line of reasoning in

Dismukes, the agency maintained that the information content of a record is not affected

by its format. Second, PTO responded that the

economic value of the tapes excluded them

from FOIA.

Computaprint maintains that the Patent

Office’s alternative means of securing trademark information are inadequate. According

to Computaprint, the paper records in PTO’s

reference library are not as accurate as the

computerized records—in fact, the agency’s

original rationale for computerization was the

upgrading of its information. During an experimental effort to use the heavily-trafficked

computer terminals in the public reference

rooms, Computaprint personnel were asked to

leave the terminals at one-hour intervals. Computaprint has estimated in its briefs that securing the information through the public

reference rooms would take about 8 years.

According to Computaprint, the case is not

analogous to SDC v. Mathews, as there are

no provisions in PTO authorizing legislation

to make the trademark database self-sustaining.

Complicating the case, a reverse-FOIA action was filed by Thomson and Thomson, the

contractor that computerized PTO’s files.109

In a special agreement with PTO, Thomson

and Thomson currently receives a copy of the

database for commercial use. Thomson and

Thomson claims that the records in question

represent a “a computer-readable trademark

database and search system developed at substantial cost, ’’n” and that releasing some of

the information to Computaprint, even on microfiche, could reveal proprietary information

of submitters. According to Thomson and

Thomson, release of machine-readable tapes

to Computaprint at nominal costs under FOIA

would relieve Computaprint from the capital

costs of developing its own database, giving

Computaprint an unfair competitive advantage over Thomson and Thomson in the trademark search business. Computaprint has responded that allowing Thomson and Thomson

to use the database while restricting other bulk

transfers of data from PTO’s system is contrary to the mandates of FOIA.

1’~9Thomson and Thomson v. International Computaprint

Corp., Civil Action No. 88-0839 (D.C. District Court, 1988).

‘‘“Ibid.

FEE ASSESSMENT AND FEE WAIVERS: CHARGED ISSUES IN

AN AGE OF ELECTRONIC INFORMATION

The growth in computerized agency records

and the associated escalation in costs of

records have heightened public sensitivity to

the new Federal standards for fee assessment

and fee waivers that were specified in the FOIA

Reform Act of 1986.111 The act gave the Office of Management and Budget the authority to establish fee guidelines, which were

issued in 1987 as the Uniform Freedom of Information Act Fee Schedule and Guidelines.112

Fees that are assessable under FOIA fall into

three categories: 1) review costs—costs asso-

— .

‘‘‘P.L. 99-570 ( 100 Stat. 3207-44).

“’P.L. 99-570 (Fed. Reg. \’ol. 52, No. 59, 1987).

ciated with the determination of whether the

requested documents can be disclosed), 2)

search costs—costs associated with retrieving

disclosable documents, and 3) reproduction

costs.

Under the FOIA amendments of 1974, fees

were reduced or waived when the information

requested was determined to ‘benefit the general public." 113 “Benefitting the public” was

subsequently construed by agencies to mean

that public dissemination was expected. The

new standard for applying general fee waivers

has been more specifically defined, from “benefit-

‘ ‘‘P.L. 93-502,
226

ting the public” to “significantly increasing

the understanding of government activities”

(emphasis added).’”

Where there were no distinctions between

requesters in the 1974 amendments, the provisions of the FOIA Reform Act specify three

categories of requesters that are unconditionally entitled to preferential fee treatment. The

news media, educational institutions, and noncommercial scientific institutions are automatically excluded from all but duplication costs.

Commercial requesters may be assessed review, search, and duplication costs, while other

requesters who do not fall into one of the above

four categories may be assessed both search

and duplication costs. Outside this schedule,

all requesters are entitled to apply for general

fee waivers.

Since the 1986 amendments have guaranteed

reduced fees for specified groups, they are potentially more generous than the amendments

of 1974. However, the new amendments have

been highly criticized for their omission of certain groups from the favored categories, particularly libraries and public interest groups.

Also, the definition of the specified categories

eligible for favorable fee treatment has generated controversy, as the OMB guidelines

take a more restrictive view than those put forward by several congressional sponsors of the

amendments.

“’P.1.. 99-570 (Fed. Reg. VO1. 52, No. 59, 1987).

Under the new FOIA fee guidelines, in

searches for paper records, noncommercial requesters may not be charged for the first 2

hours of search time or the first 100 pages of

information delivered. OMB has determined,

however, that 2 hours of computer search time

is not analogous to 2 hours of manual search

time. Since most computer searches are accomplished in seconds and fractions of seconds,

according to OMB, an interpretation of the

statutory free search time as an entitlement

to require an agency to operate a computer for

2 hours would constitute an unreasonable disruption of an agency’s normal automated data

processing (ADP) activities. Thus, OMB has

developed a formula based on a literal analogy to a manual search, whereby the computer

searcher is equated to as a clerical worker undertaking a manual search. The requestor is,

therefore, entitled to receive an amount of computer processing unit (CPU) operating time

equivalent to the cost of 2 hours of computer

operator salary. In order to reduce administrative steps required to calculate costs on an

individual basis, agencies may establish agencywide average operator/programmer salaries

and average CPU operating costs. According

to OMB, 100 pages of free information should

not be applied directly to microfiche, but to

the “microfiche equivalent” of 100 pages. Similarly, audiotape distribution should be analogous to 100 pages of paper copies.

NEW TECHNOLOGIES AND THE NEED FOR AMENDING FOIA

As is evident in the courts, new communi- [W]e decline Yeager’s invitation to “view the

cation and information technologies are rais- availability of disclosure avoidance techniques

ing essential questions about the fundamen- as simply defining with more clarity the mantal nature of records and the parameters of ner in which microdata information might be

searches for records. In several FOIA cases, released. ” This invitation should be extended

the courts have expressed a need for Congress to Congress rather than to this court.115

to clarify the numerous gray areas left open

by the statute in its application to the new generation of computerized information. The

Yeager court is one such example: “’678 F.2d at 315 (D.C. Cir.1982).
. .

The appeals court in Yeager mirrored the views

of the district court regarding congressional

specificity y:

[A]s agencies begin keeping more of their

records in computerized form, the need to contour the provisions of FOIA to the computer

will become increasingly necessary and more

dramatic. 116

At present, decisions about fundamental

principles are left to agency discretion, with

further interpretation, when litigated, by the

courts. Consequently, these decisions may be

subject to the biases of agency personnel, or

be made by lawyers and judges whose understanding of new technologies may be limited.

Some of the problems raised by new technologies may be clarified by the facts of individual cases and can be approached on a case-bycase basis. But many of the growing ambiguities need to be addressed through statutory

amendment. As technology is continually

evolving, setting objective criteria for defining records and search efforts will be a difficult task. Nevertheless, working toward

greater specificity could bean important first

step in ensuring an adequate level of public

access to electronic information.

In developing and considering possible

amendments to FOIA, it is important to understand the nature of emerging computerrelated problems. It is also important to consider new developments in computer and database technology that could alleviate some of

these problems in the future. A typology of

the issues is presented below:

● Electronic information technologies are obscuring the boundary between record and

nonrecord material. As electronic databases become more sophisticated, they resemble information “pools” rather than

discrete records. For example, relational

database technology allows data elements

from different pathways or "fields" to be

connected to one another in nonlinear com-

] lbMemorandum order at 6; APP at 44

227

binations. The parallels to paper records

are becoming more remote.

Computers are facilitating faster and more

complex searches, encouraging a broader

definition of a “reasonable” search. Given

computer capabilities for expedited

searching, segregating, and consolidating

of data, the definition of a “reasonable”

search may need to be broadened.

Electronic FOIA requests can be incompatible with the ways agencies collect and

organize information. Although this problem also applies to FOIA requests for paper documents, computerized information

management systems are aggravating the

issue as they are relatively inflexible, with

limited capacity to respond to inquiries

in an ad hoc fashion. Evolving technologies such as relational databases and

hypertext could provide some solutions

in the future.

Computer searching raises new staffing and

budgetary problems, as well as opportunities for Federal agencies. Most agencies

have no computer programmers assigned

to FOIA implementation. Requests for

computerized records are generally given

to personnel hired to operate internal information management systems. Agency

use of electronic technologies that could

allow clerical and administrative staff to

retrieve computerized information could

ultimately enhance public access to computer records. These technologies include

preprogr ammed utility software, frontend

systems with natural query languages, expert systems, and optical disks.

Federal agencies are using information

products whose status is unclear under

FOIA. The status of computer programs

(including computerized indexes, codes,

and directories) is unclear, as is that of integrated software and database packages.

Electronic mail, quickly becoming a major mode of interdepartmental communication, presents additional questions for

FOIA.

Paper printouts of electronic information
228

may not satisfy public access needs. Although the case law has established that

computerized information is subject to

FOIA, agencies are not required to deliver

the information in machine-readable form.

The option of encouraging or requiring

agencies to provide alternative electronic

formats–such as magnetic tape, floppy

disk, optical disk, and online access–

warrants consideration.

Electronic Information Technologies

Are Obscuring the Boundary Between

Record and Nonrecord Material

At the most fundamental level, new technologies are obscuring the boundary between record and nonrecord material. As information

technology evolves, records become more difficult to conceptualize in terms of discrete, tangible documents. Information technology is,

in a sense, detaching information from its embodiment. A record stored electronically may

become a useful body of information only upon

retrieval. The concept of database is replacing the concept of “record” per se. It thus

becomes more difficult to establish genuine

parallels between paper records and records

stored in computers.

Electronic Information Often Requires

Intervening Technologies To Become

Understandable

In court cases involving computer records,

analogies from paper documents are still being applied, implying a distinct boundary between record and nonrecord material. The

courts are currently basing the delineation of

this boundary on the function of retrieval: if

information requires new programming for its

retrieval, it is not an agency record (or it is an

entirely new record, the creation of which is

not required under FOIA). This type of functional definition is clearly easier to apply than

other distinctions, but it may be inappropriate. At present, if an electronic file cannot be

printed out with one push of a button, agencies and courts may determine that it legally

need not serve as a record under FOIA.

The current records test, based on programming, is inappropriate because electronic information always needs some type of transformation to be understood. While written

information can be read instantaneously, no

one can look at the electronic bits of data in

a database and understand their meaning.

These bits of data often require specialized software for reorganization into readable form. As

intervening technologies are necessary rather

than superfluous, there is technically no such

thing as a “record in being. ”

As Electronic Databases Become More

Sophisticated, They Resemble

Information “Pools” Rather Than

Discrete Records

As electronic database systems become more

sophisticated, electronic records become more

difficult to conceptualize in terms of separable, identifiable entities. As records can be generated from data elements from different files,

the information stored in databases may resemble “pools” of information rather than discrete documents. As the database technology

continues to evolve, the parallels to paper

records become more oblique.

For example, relational database systems,

developed in the 1970s, allow discrete data

items to be linked to one another based on

specified underlying criteria. One record may

therefore constitute a synthesis of information

retrieved from several different files. In some

cases, then, several pieces of data can or must

be connected to make a record. The jargon in

the field of relational technology reflects the

pool-like aspect of the new databases. A collection of data is called a “relation” instead

of a file. A record is, in effect, a series of relations or collections of data rather than a single file.

This represents a significant jump from the

flat file technology of the 1970s where databases were designed in hierarchical or network
229

fashion. In both hierarchical and network databases, information retrieval is linear. In the

former, one piece of information is connected

to others through a series of hierarchicallyarranged channels. Access begins at the top

of the hierarchy and spreads through subsequent levels of detail. While network databases

are set up so that a single data element can

“point” to other data elements, there is still

a fixed pathway for navigating through the

database. By contrast, in a relational database,

data elements from different pathways or

“fields” can be connected to one another in nonlinear combinations.

As a result, some forms of new programming

or other intervening operations may be necessary to interpret or compile electronic records.

Making analogies between paper and electronic

records and using the function of programming

to distinguish between record and nonrecord

material could be detrimental to the intent of

FOIA. If genuine access to records is to be

preserved, a new focus may need to be placed

on the substance, or information content, of

databases, rather than the operations required

to extract or interpret them.

Computers Are Facilitating Faster and

More Complex Searches, Thereby

Encouraging a Broader Definition of a

“Reasonable” Search

As mentioned earlier, the legislative history

of the FOIA indicates that a description of a

requested record is sufficient if it enables a

professional agency employee familiar with the

subject area to locate the record with a “reasonable amount of effort."117 At present, the

definition of what constitutes a reasonable

search is left to the discretion of agencies and,

when litigated, the courts. As in defining

records, the current test of reasonableness usually includes whether new programming is required.

‘‘;H.It. Rep. No. 876, 93rd Cong., 2d sess, 6 (1974), reprinted

in 1974 U.S. Code Cong. & Ad. News 6271.

This test may no longer be appropriate due

to technological evolution. Given computer capabilities for expedited searching, segregating,

and compacting of data, the realm of what constitutes a ‘‘reasonable search could be

broadening. In cases involving paper records,

decisions in the courts as to what is reasonable have been related to the effort agencies

are required to exert on behalf of requesters.

In the computer context, some courts have concluded that any new programming or modification of an existing program should be

deemed new record creation and, therefore, unreasonable. According to DoD’s recent regulations pertaining to FOIA fees, electronic information for which there is no existing printout

need not be attainable under FOIA.118 Taken

to its extreme, this regulation could be interpreted to mean that pushing a button to print

a document would constitute new programming.

Thus, a subtle shift has occurred that has

detached decisions about reasonableness from

any considerations of effort. This is incongruous with tradition, as a significant amount of

effort has historically gone into FOIA searching for and production of paper documents, Retrieval of paper documents may involve extensive tracking, communication with numerous

bureaus, searching disparate files, and substantial hand deletion of exempted materials.

The programming/no programming distinction continues to decrease in validity as developing technologies reduce the effort needed to

modify or execute new programs. In many

cases, new programming to retrieve computer

records may be less costly and/or time consuming than searches for paper records.

Clearly, drawing lines between reasonable

degrees of effort is a difficult task. The functional approach is much more clear-cut. If Congress is to help set new criteria, it must take

into account the rapid rate of technological evolution in data processing. What is not reasonable today may be reasonable tomorrow or in

‘ ‘“32 C.F.R. Part 286, 1987 (Fed. Reg. \Fol. 52, No. 132, July

10, 1987).
230

the near future. In spite of this, new criteria

based on effort or cost could ultimately benefit agencies as well as requesters. Clearer standards could enhance public access as well as protect agencies from excessive demands by

attorneys seeking to prolong FOIA lawsuits.

Degrees of effort needed to execute computer

searches can vary dramatically. A request may

be relatively easy to specify but difficult to run,

requiring days of computer time. Another request may require hours of programming time,

but can be searched easily once the program

is created. An illustration of computer searches

requiring varying levels of effort is presented

below:

●

●

●

●

Level 1. File ABCD exists in the computer.

It can be retrieved with a “print” command. In other words, the data has already been collected and organized in the

manner desired by the requester.

Level 2. File ABCD exists in the computer.

Though it cannot be printed directly, it

can be retrieved from the database by

using existing retrieval programming and

entering keywords. The data does not need

to be modified with a new algorithm.

Level 3. Someone asks for E, which can

be derived from ABCD using a new algorithm. Put simply, the agency maintains the data, but it must be modified to

fit the request.

Level 4. The request cannot be satisfied

by information-derived from ABCD. It

may require additional information from

FGHI or other databases. A new program

must be created. This may involve a

limited amount of effort through the application of simple query language or commercially available software. On the other

hand, anew program could involve a complex query that takes days of a programmer’s time and hours or days of computer

time.

According to recent interviews with information management personnel at selected

agencies, many choose to reprogram their computers, or modify existing programs, on their

own accord. In some cases, this may benefit

the agencies as well as the requesters. Contoured searches may be easier to execute than

supplying large amounts of unedited or disaggregate data. In other cases, programming

is motivated by the awareness that the effort

undertaken would be less burdensome than

that associated with a potential lawsuit.

An important consideration to remember is

that the effort required for a FOIA search is

not solely a function of the nature of the request. Effort is also determined by the structure of the database, the sophistication of information storage and retrieval tools, and the

competence of agency staff. A poorly run retrieval system could require days to search for

a straightforward record. A sophisticated system with higher-level language might be able

to retrieve the same data in minutes. Clearly,

Congress cannot mandate the acquisition of

state-of-the-art computer systems. But if

searches are to be based on effort, and if requesters continue to be charged for computer

programming and operation time, measures

must be undertaken to encourage agency efficiency.

Electronic FOIA Requests Can Be

Incompatible With the Ways Agencies

Collect and Organize Information

One of the greatest problems encountered

in satisfying FOIA requests is that requests

are often incompatible with the ways in which

agency records are originally collected and

organized. For example, at the Occupational

Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), a

regulatory agency, most inspections are undertaken and documented by geographical region, industry, accident, or type of complaint.

The databases created by OSHA follow the

contours of the different inspection programs

within the agency. FOIA requests, on the other

hand, are usually directed to specific products

or companies at particular locations. Since the

agency does not maintain such a database,

these requests may require new programming.

While the lack of compatibility between requests and compiled information is a problem
that also affects requests for paper records,

computer retrieval in some ways exacerbates

the problem. Although computers can be fast

and consistent, they may be less flexible than

the manual systems they have replaced. While

they are proficient at processing anticipated

forms of information, they are less adept at

performing operations (such as responding to

FOIA requests) that have not been preprogrammed into their software or machine language.

Certain new developments in hardware and

software technology —such as relational databases and hypertext-promise to enhance computer flexibility and responsiveness to unanticipated forms of requests. New technologies

will also increase the speed of all forms of data

processing. These developments will ultimately reduce the effort associated with retrieval of electronic information, and therefore

could have positive consequences for FOIA,

allowing for: faster searches; searches through

unorganized data; integration of data from diverse files; and better response to ad hoc requests.

Technologies Could Facilitate Ad Hoc

Responses to FOIA Requests for

Computerized Information

Relational Databases

As relational database technology increases

in sophistication, users can more easily pull

together data from different files in an ad hoc

manner. The links between different data fields

do not necessarily need to be preprogrammed;

instead, they can be created to suit the requirements of specific requests. Programming new

links varies in difficulty, depending on the software. The increasing flexibility y offered by relational database technology could have major

significance for FOIA, allowing the computer

to provide information better tailored to the

needs of requesters.

Hypertext

Hypertext software, still in early phases of

commercial development, will also allow for enhanced ad hoc data retrieval. In theory, hyper231

text allows a user to design a database from

scratch. Links can be established between unstructured bits of information; hypertext does

not impose a linear display of data. Hypertext

incorporates images and sound as well as text.

Institutional Changes Could Increase

Comparability Between FOIA Requests

and Available Information

In addition to new technologies, certain institutional changes could help alleviate the

problem of responding to requests that are incompatible with the ways information is collected. Some options are:

Tallying frequent requests. Tallying the

most common types of requests for computerized information could be a first step

in enhancing compatibility between data

and requests. This could lead to the development of utility programs tailored to

retrieve organized data, and could influence a greater awareness of public access

needs in the data collection phase. OSHA

is currently documenting its most frequent FOIA requests every 6 months.

Public input in data collection. Pilot programs could be initiated to allow citizens

and public interest groups to inform agencies about the types of data that would

be most beneficial to them. Public input

would also help determine the delivery formats that would be best suited to requesters’ needs.

Public input in the records-searching process. Some agency regulations require their

FOIA offices to consult with requesters

to help tailor searches to requester needs.

In some cases, requesters are allowed to

“walk through” agency computer systems. If an agency is incapable of conducting a search, a requester could be shown

how to narrow the inquiry, or conversely

to broaden the request to allow files to be

copied without editing or selection.

Standardized information delivery systems.

Current, custom-built agency information

systems rarely take public access into account. Setting standards for agency hard-
232

●

ware and software could enhance compatibility with users’ equipment.

Utility programs. The creation of preprogr ammed utility software for commonlyoccurring requests could facilitate more

efficient and appropriate responses. Utility programs are discussed in the following section.

Computer Searching Raises New

Staffing and Budgetary Problems,

as Well as Opportunities for

Federal Agencies

Many agency FOIA offices are understaffed,

and to the best of OTA’s knowledge, none have

computer programmers specifically assigned

to FOIA. As a result, FOIA requests for computerized records are typically shunted to

Automated Data Processing (ADP) departments, where they are handled by personnel

hired and trained to run internal computer

operations. As FOIA fees are forwarded to the

Department of the Treasury rather than being credited to specific agencies, there are few

financial incentives for agencies to respond to

requests for electronic records. Policy could be

changed to establish an annual congressional

appropriation for the implementation of FOIA,

or to allow agencies to retain FOIA fees at least

as a partial offset against expenses. As there

are usually no computer operaters on FOIA

staffs, agencies could be required to hire at

least one full-time computer programmer to

accommodate FOIA requests involving computer work. In addition to policy initiatives,

new technologies could help alleviate staffing

problems and reduce costs of processing certain FOIA requests. Technologies that could

relieve ADP specialists from FOIA demands

could facilitate access by clerical and administrative staff, and ultimately enhance public

access to computerized information. Several

of these technologies are discussed below.

Technologies Could Help

Nonspecialists Respond to FOIA

Requests for Computerized Information

Utility Programs

The development of commercial and custommade utility programs could facilitate responses to some types of requests, especially

more common types of requests that could be

predicted in advance. Utility programs are

generic software programs that can perform

anticipated functions. They contain a set of

retrieval operations that can be invoked without programming. Thus, even if an agency had

little interest in compiling a record for its internal purposes, the record could be generated

much more easily than in the past.

The trend from mainframes to microcomputers, a hallmark of the 1980s, is allowing for

greater user autonomy. In theory, clerical

workers could be trained to handle some programming functions currently executed by

ADP professionals. Administrative staff traditionally handle FOIA requests for paper

records; therefore, from a staffing perspective,

the use of utility programs could make some

types of computer searches more similar to

searches through paper files.

According to agency information managers

interviewed, some are already beginning to

tally their most common FOIA requests and

design their own utility programs to accommodate them, eliminating the need for new programming. Searching with utility programs

can be significantly less expensive than searching on mainframe, tape-driven systems. As the

effort involved in satisfying certain requests

is decreasing, new classes of requests could fall

into the “reasonable” domain.

Networked PCs and Network Servers

As stand-alone PCs become linked through

local area networks, individuals at work sta-
233

—

tions can gain increased access to large databases through “network servers. ” These are

specialized computers with larger storage and

processing capacity than work stations. The

network server is a shared machine that allows

individuals at their own work stations to update, process, delete, and insert new records

from remote locations. Networked PCs and

network servers could give nonspecialists

greater access to more powerful computer operations, including larger and more sophisticated

databases. Therefore, like utility programs,

they could contribute to the goal of helping

administrative staff process FOIA requests for

computerized information. Network servers

equipped with optical disks could optimize access to large volumes of records.

Front End Software

Advances in front-end software are contributing to the possibilities for nonspecialists to

write new programs, by translating complicated query languages into natural language.

(A query is a command that tells a computer

which fields to search and combine. At present,

different databases and brands of computers

require different query languages.) The growing simplification and standardization of queries could significantly reduce the amount of

effort involved in some forms of new programming. In the future, better front-end technology could facilitate direct queries from home

computers or from PC in agency public reference rooms.

Expert Systems

Expert systems contain inference or decision

making programs that are combined with data

entered by users. Expert systems software contains programmed search rules that help users

decide how to maneuver through datafiles to

answer particular questions. While expert systems are limited by the logic of the experts who

create the programs, they could help agency

personnel respond more easily and quickly to

predictable FOIA requests.

Artificial Intelligence

Future artificial intelligence systems will

have more self-initiating capabilities than do

expert systems. Artificial intelligence software

helps users ask the questions appropriate to

solving problems. A master control programs

directs users to appropriate expert systems

through question-and- answer sessions undertaken in natural language. While artificial intelligence systems are still in early developmental phases, it is expected that, in the future,

they could eliminate the need for users to

remember complex codes or commands. Users

will be able to articulate their questions fully

in natural language.

Optical Disks

Optical disks and related search and retrieval

software could greatly enhance records-storage

capacity and facilitate searching through unstructured information. While manual searches

for archived paper documents can take days,

weeks, or even months, searches through an

equal number of full-text records on optical

disks could technically be accomplished in seconds or minutes.

Federal Agencies Are Using

Information Products Whose Status is

Unclear Under FOIA

In addition to software programs and online

databases, whose status under FOIA has begun to be debated in the courts, Federal agencies are embracing additional technologies that

need to be studied in the context of FOIA. Two

examples are presented below.

Integrated Software and Database Systems

When databases and their integrative software are combined into one system, the func-
234

tional distinction between “programs” and

“records” loses its validity. As the software

is necessary to make the database or record

comprehensible, the program may need to be

supplied along with the record.

Electronic Mail

Electronic mail is significant for FOIA in

that it allows data to be created, transmitted,

processed, analyzed, archived, and disposed of

electronically, without paper printouts. As

government communications are increasingly

carried out via electronic mail and other computer applications, “records” may never exist in tangible form or in a “narrow, physical

sense. ” Under current judicial interpretations,

these forms of communication could be withheld from public view. The “record in being”

concept, which continues to be used in the

courts and in agency regulations, may need to

be revisited.

The Iran-Contra case recently demonstrated

that electronic mail can provide valuable information about government activities, information which the public may have a justifiable right to know. The National Security

Council’s PROFS electronic mail system provided the public with crucial information about

the diversion of funds to the Nicaraguan Contras. This information was retrieved from a

temporary PROFS backup file that had been

created to protect users against electrical

power surges or other interruptions.

The question electronic mail poses for FOIA

is whether messages should be treated like

agency records or like confidential personal

communications such as telephone calls. If

some types of electronic mail communications

are to become accessible under FOIA, they

must be stored, backed up, archived, and/or

printed. In cases where electronic mail messages are considered analogous to telephone

conversations or personal meetings, the FOIA

need not apply. Monitoring or required archiving of telephone calls could be considered similar to wiretapping.

The questions of which electronic mail communications require archiving for FOIA purposes (as well as for records retention purposes), and how some messages differ from

others under FOIA, need to be answered in order to develop consistent policies for electronic

mail. These new policies may need to focus

upon the content of the communications rather

than the form. While most electronic mail systems have “document” as well as “message”

features, archiving should not be limited to

documents. Increasing numbers of important

agency actions and decisions are resulting from

electronic mail messages. Though assessing

the import of messages and distinguishing between deliberations and final orders may be

difficult, taking these steps may be necessary

to ensure appropriate public access.

Paper Printouts of Electronic

Information May Not Satisfy Public

Access Needs

Although both the case law and the FOIA

fee guidelines have established that computerstored information is subject to FOIA, requesters are not guaranteed access to this information in formats other than paper. Though

the case law is extremely limited in this area,

the D.C. District Court decided in Dismukes

v. Department of the Interior, that “an agency

has no obligation under FOIA to accommodate

a particular requester’s preference regarding

the format of requested information, ” and that

agencies need only provide information in “reasonably accessible form."119 If requesters ask

for tapes, disks, or direct online access, they

are not assured their choices. The decisions

generally rest with agency information custodians.

Technological change brings into question

whether paper printouts alone are a satisfactory means of satisfying requests for electronic

information. It could be argued that tapes,

disks, or even online retrieval might be necessary to effectively use or analyze large quantities of raw data.

In practice, agency decisions about format

vary widely. Some agencies provide data tapes,

I lg603 F, Supp. 760 (1).C. District Court. 1984).
235

disks, and software, either to save time, lower

costs, or enhance public access. Some State and

Federal agencies are beginning to offer remote

access to electronic records. Most Federal

agencies, however, continue to satisfy their

minimum legal requirements by producing paper printouts of electronic information. A brief

discussion of alternative delivery formats is

presented below.

Magnetic Tapes and Disks

Providing tapes or disks to requesters could

relieve agencies from computer searching and

printing efforts. For requesters, tapes and

disks eliminate the need to re-input information, and facilitate analysis and synthesis of

statistical information. As a drawback, distributing tapes or disks could result in additional

time commitments for agency personnel. Requesters generally ask for explanations of data

structures and need help designing programs

to retrieve machine-readable data. Whether accurate or not, some agency personnel feel that

releasing tapes and disks would increase possibilities of information manipulation and misrepresentation of agency statistics and opinions. Other information custodians readily

release tapes and disks, although some include

caveats to reduce the risks of false attribution.

Optical Disks

Optical disks may provide an economical

means of distributing records to satellite reading rooms and depository libraries. Optical

disks are simpler and less expensive to duplicate than large quantities of paper documents.

Automated retrieval software could facilitate

searches for FOIA records on disks.

Computer Programs

Computer programs contain the instructions

that direct machines to store, retrieve, and

manipulate data. For the purposes of FOIA,

the status of programs is in a state of flux.

Agency views about programs are disparate–

they are sometimes considered records and

sometimes tools. When deemed tools, programs

are not considered subject to FOIA.

Whether programs are considered tools or

records, some types of records may be inaccessible without them. Agencies must learn to

distinguish fairly between programs required

to interpret records and programs that further

analyze or manipulate data; the former may

need to be released and the latter subject to

agency discretion. When programs incorporate

instructions that reveal agency decisionmaking techniques or information gathering methods, they may constitute records in their own

right.

In 1980, a Florida appellate court embraced

a broad definition of agency records that could

have implications for the status of software.

In Shevin v. Byron, Harless, 120 the court held

that, “a public record is anything made or received in connection with the agency’s business that is intended to communicate knowledge. 121 In many instances, program software

serves that function and could be considered

a public record, unless deemed sensitive or proprietary.

As mentioned earlier in this chapter, another

appellate court in Florida has compared software programs to code books accompanying

written documents. In Seigle v. Barry,122 the

court determined that the information stored

in a computer was analogous to information

recorded in a written code. If a written public

record were maintained in such a manner that

it could only be interpreted with a code, then

a code book should be provided to requesters.

According to the court, it followed that computer programs should be furnished to requesters when electronic information would

otherwise be inaccessible.

Remote Access

The growing use of personal computers with

modems opens up entirely new possibilities for

remote access to computerized FOIA records.

Some agencies are making public records available online in public reference rooms and at

remote locations.

“’’379 So. 2d 633 (Fla. 1980)

‘“ Ibid.

“’422 So. 2d 63 (Fla. 4 D.C. A. 1982)
236

Remote access to Federal information could

facilitate searches for requesters as well as

agencies. Remote access would allow users to

issue queries directly, reducing search time for

agencies. Currently, FOIA requests are issued

on paper, and computer programs are written

at the discretion of agency personnel. If data

are distributed in hard copy or tapes, users are

required to re-input or download to their own

computers.

If remote access is to be considered as a delivery option for FOIA records, the following

areas would need to be addressed: security; liability for errors; cost; requirements for user

assistance; upkeep of data files; privacy protection; control of levels of use; standard setting for hardware and data presentation; and

competition with private online database

vendors. 123

Computers Are Prompting New

Discussion About the Basic Purposes

of FOIA

The original movement for enacting Federal

freedom of information laws in the United

States gained momentum in the 1940’s and

1950’s. In 1966, when FOIA was passed, the

assurance of basic access to government

records represented a significant strengthening of the open government principle. Although the United States Government is now

heralded internationally for its policies of openness, FOIA is still narrowly interpreted as a

basic “access to records” statute.

In addressing the impacts of new technologies, Congress may need to reconsider the purposes and goals of FOIA. If new procedures

‘~:) Florida State Legislature, Joint Committee on Information Technology Resources, Remote Computer Access to Public Records in Florida, January 1985.

need to be instituted for an electronic FOIA,

the policies behind the procedures should be

evaluated and clarified. Computer records bear

few similarities to the paper records of 1966.

New database technologies have begun to raise

questions about whether computer-stored information can even be conceptualized in terms

of discrete records.

For the 1990’s and beyond, Congress needs

to decide whether the FOIA should continue

to be viewed as an “access to records” statute

or whether it should be perceived more broadly,

as an “access to information” statute. This is

not to suggest that public access to computerstored government information should be unlimited; access must be balanced against economic and personnel constraints of Federal

agencies. However, due to the explosive

growth in electronic information storage, processing, and transmission by the Federal government, traditional views about records and

searches need to be modified to ensure even

basic access to public information.

As technology is continually evolving, setting objective criteria for defining records and

appropriate search efforts will be difficult.

Nevertheless, working toward greater statutory specificity could bean important first step

in ensuring an adequate level of access. If the

statutory language is not modified to address

electronic information, agencies may have new

opportunities to legally withhold certain

classes of materials from the public. The case

law in many areas is too limited, conflicting,

or vague to give comprehensive or consistent

direction to agencies and courts. Even in those

areas where the case law is clear, variation in

agency practice calls for stronger legislative

guidance. If Congress wishes to maintain the

integrity of the FOIA in an electronic environment, the goals of the statute should be reassessed, and statutory amendment pursued.
Chapter 10

The Electronic Press Release and

Government-Press Relationships

Reporter sitting at video display

Photo credit: USA TODAY, Gannett, Co., Inc., All rights reserved.

terminal
CONTENTS

Page

Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ......................239

Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...................240

Functions and Problems of Agency Press Offices . ....................241

Status of Automation in Federal Agency Press Offices . ...............242

U.S. Department of Agriculture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....242

U.S. Supreme Court . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...........243

Environmental Protection Agency . ...............................243

White House . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .................244

Bureau of Labor Statistics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........244

The Federal Election Commission . . . . . . ...........................244

Status of Automation in Press Newsrooms. . .........................245

Challenges to Government/Press Automated Dissemination. . ...........247

Need for Coordination. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ................247

Need for Improved Communication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..247

Need for Completeness and Quality Control . .......................247

Private Contracting and Price Control. . ...........................247

Potential Unavailability of Paper Copy . ...........................248

Technological and Strategic Choices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...........248

Technological Choices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..........248

Strategic Choices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..............250
Chapter 10

The Electronic Press Release and

Government-Press Relationships

SUMMARY

Although the Federal Government disseminates information through several means, the

largest cross section of the U.S. population receives its government information via the

press. Some Federal agencies have begun to

design electronic mail systems to distribute

press releases and other time-sensitive information (such as crop reports, weather bulletins, and economic and trade data) to newsletters, news magazines, and television and radio

news broadcasters. If managed properly, electronic press release services could provide costeffective and efficient alternatives or supplements to traditional messenger or mail delivery of paper releases.

The goals of this chapter are to examine current methods of delivering perishable information to the press, to explore a range of technological and strategic alternatives for electronic

delivery of Federal news and data, and to examine the implications of electronic delivery

for effective and equitable access by the press.

To the extent that electronic dissemination by

the Federal Government affects the ability of

the press to cover and report on government

activity, Congress has an oversight role to ensure that access by the press is enhanced.

At present, Federal agency use of electronic

news distribution systems is highly variable,

and the implications for equity of press access

to Federal information have not been fully considered. The primary advantage of the electronic press release is timeliness, both for regional newspapers and media outlets, as well

as for Washington, DC news organizations

that otherwise would depend on the mail or

expensive messenger services. In general, electronic press releases are more cost-effective

than courier or messenger services. Also, electronic press releases can offer greater selectivity and more efficient archiving than paper

formats.

Federal agencies currently use a variety of

contractor-provided or commercial services for

electronic dissemination of perishable information. Some of these services are provided in

response to agency initiatives; others are provided by vendors purely as a commercial offering to the news industry.

The most important issue for congress to

consider is equity of press access to agency

press releases and other time-sensitive information. While electronic press releases could

be especially helpful to smaller, out-of-town

news organizations, the potential benefits

could go unrealized if costs or technical barriers are prohibitive. The Federal Government

may need to consider paying for electronic

press releases entirely with Federal funds (at

no charge to the press); charging the press only

the marginal cost of dissemination (excluding

costs of developing and maintaining databases); or establishing sliding-scale fee schedules for smaller or less affluent news outlets.

At least for a lengthy transition period, dual

format (paper and electronic) would appear to

be necessary to ensure that those news outlets without, or lacking interest in, online capability are guaranteed access to traditional

press releases and perishable data,

At the technical level, a number of alternative electronic press release delivery systems

warrant consideration, including:

● computer-to-computer electronic mail;

● electronic wire services;

● electronic bulletin boards;

• facsimile transmissions; and

239
240

● electronic mail or wire services with abstracting, printout, and storage capabilities.

The latter alternative may provide a desirable

balance between the visible, tangible paper

copy offered by traditional wire services, and

the selectivity and archival capability offered

by computer storage.

Other issues that warrant attention include

the need for a more complete, consistent, and

better coordinated approach to Federal agency

electronic press release distribution; standards

on archiving and quality control; and guidelines for involvement of private sector contractors in disseminating electronic press releases.

Decisions about the future direction of Federal electronic press release services should

take into account the specific functions and

problems of agency press offices, as well as the

current status of automation in press

newsrooms.

INTRODUCTION

Although the Federal Government disseminates information through several means, the

largest cross section of the U.S. population receives its government information via the

press. The recent General Accounting Office

(GAO) Survey of Federal Information Users

indicated that newspapers, newsmagazines,

and newsletters are among the primary means

by which the public obtains Federal information (see ch. 5, Table 5-11, for partial survey

results). Since World War I, Washington, DC

has emerged as the principal locus of news generation in the United States, reflecting the

growing importance of the Federal Government as a major source of information to the

U.S. press.

The press serves a unique intermediary function between the government and the public.

It functions bothasa‘‘private citizen’ or user

of public information in its own right, and as

an interpreter and disseminator of this information.

This chapter explores how reporters receive

information from the Federal Government, and

examines government press offices and press

newsrooms—essential links between public information providers and private information

gatherers. As these links begin to take electronic and digital form, a change may be taking place in the timeliness and even content

of news stories.

The press obtains Federal information

through a wide variety of channels (including

direct contacts, press releases, Freedom of Information Act requests, and published data

and reports). This chapter focuses on press releases (concise, written summaries of news and

data), and explores electronic alternatives to

the traditional modes of distributing press releases and other time-sensitive information to

the news media. While some Federal agencies

already disseminate press releases electronically, participation is far from complete, and

numerous policy questions need to be considered. The following evaluation of alternative

methods takes into account the functions, problems, and status of automation in agency

press offices and press newsrooms.

The discussion is based primarily on interviews with press officers, members of trade

associations, electronic information vendors,

wire service providers, and reporters, editors,

librarians, and systems managers at small and

large papers throughout the country. The goal

is to highlight general trends and issues that

warrant congressional attention, and to point

toward areas requiring more systematic and

intensive research in the future. Press offices,

according to Don Obendorfer of the Washington Post, are “the junction point where the government and press meet. For most reporters,

it what it all about—the clips, the releases,

the briefings—and yet nobody ever studies

that stuff.” 1

‘Steven Hess, The Government/Press Connection (Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution, 1984).
241

FUNCTIONS AND PROBLEMS OF AGENCY PRESS OFFICES

When evaluating technologies or institutional arrangements involving the working

press, a very important element to consider

is time. The goal of a reporter is to maximize

his/her news gathering and reporting in minimal amounts of time and to cover breaking

news. The timeliness of press releases and their

delivery can help determine whether a news

story makes front page headlines or is buried

inside. In the aggregate, newspaper and media coverage can help shape the public perception of the importance of events, and eventually mold the constellation of issues that merit

public policy attention.

The functions of government press offices

are difficult to generalize. Federal Government

press offices are as varied in quality as are

reporters’ perceptions of their utility. The complexion of any given press office may change

with each administration in terms of personnel, budget, ratio of career civil servants to public appointees, involvement in broader public

affairs functions, and overall objectivity of the

information disseminated. Within a single

press office, certain individuals may win the

trust of reporters while others function as

agency apologists.

Aside from these significant differences,

press officers perform similar basic functions:

arranging press conferences, briefings, and interviews; and notifying reporters of events and

publications through press releases, press advisories, wire service releases, and telephone

calls. Most also serve a broader fact-finding

and verification function. Like reporters, press

officers have beats within their agencies, allowing them to become familiar with personnel, issues, and procedures in specific areas of

agency activity.

An important, but often overlooked, function of the press office is the daily collection

and circulation of news clippings to senior

agency officials. Many government executives

learn what is being written about their actions,

their agencies, and their adversaries through

these intensive doses of narrowly-focused

news. In terms of political agenda-setting, the

clippings files have served to enhance the influence of the newspapers, particularly the

New York Times and the Washington Post,

over the broadcast media and also over papers

from other regions. Some papers that merit attention have been excluded by clipping services due to their distance from Washington.

The use of online dissemination has begun to

change the mix of newspapers represented in

the files, and could perhaps affect government

perspectives on regional outlooks and issues.

The White House has subscribed to a computerized clipping service since 1982.

The growth of the Washington press corps

has heightened the need for press offices. Press

offices serve, in part, to facilitate the government information function in the form of press

conferences, briefings, and the distribution of

prepared materials. As government grows, bureaucracies become increasingly difficult for

reporters to cover; the press office performs

a coordinating and frequently centralizing

function at the press-government interface. It

also may serve as a buffer to discrimination

in reporting. While reporters often seek to bypass press offices and contact technical and

policy staff directly, access to top officials is

generally accorded largely to reporters from

the most prestigious and well known media

outlets. Press offices, on the other hand, are

mandated to respond to diverse news organizations. Although some degree of discrimination may occur even here, these offices serve

to institutionalize at least some degree of access by all members of the press. z

Most large agencies have highly decentralized press functions, with a departmentlevel office answering to the national media.

For example, all major agency components at

the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)

have their own information offices. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration

(NASA) press activities are separated both

functionally and regionally, with separate

‘ibid. -
242

.

press and public relations offices in different

programs as well as regional NASA centers.

Decentralization may complicate news-gathering tasks, but at the same time allows press

officers to maintain closer contact with their

sources within agencies.

A problem affecting some press offices that

are attempting to create online release services is the competition for funding and control

with agency Information Resources Management (IRM) offices. When the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 was enacted, the role of

the press offices as potential generators of online services does not appear to have been considered. In several cases, IRM personnel have

assumed responsibility for designing delivery

systems to serve the press. IRM staff, generally schooled in computer programming and

data processing, may have little or no understanding of journalistic perspectives and requirements.

The growing trend toward combination of

press activities with public affairs activities

presents another possible barrier to effective

press operations. In 1981, the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) instituted new job

standards that require press officers seeking

promotion beyond a GS-13 level to be trained

in the range of public affairs functions. Public

affairs activities include organizing exhibits,

producing graphic and broadcast materials,

conducting visitor and outreach activities, and

developing advertising programs. These new

job standards may serve as disincentives for

trained journalists to apply for positions in

Federal agencies. In a few years, it may become increasingly difficult to find specialized

press officers in the Federal Government.

STATUS OF AUTOMATION IN

FEDERAL AGENCY PRESS OFFICES

In recent years, several Federal agencies and

departments have initiated electronic press release services. According to the GAO survey

of 114 civilian agency components (see ch. 4,

Table 4-24), the following percentages of agencies already used or planned to use electronic

means for the release of information to the

press: electronic mail (28 percent); electronic

bulletin boards (12 percent); electronic data

transfer (13 percent); and floppy disk (7

percent).

The adoption of electronic news dissemination technologies is not uniform among agencies. Six brief examples are presented below.

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)

As a first example, USDA has undertaken

an intensive effort to deliver news releases and

other perishable information by means of electronic services. The effort was motivated, in

part, by a desire to save on postage costs and

to comply with the Paperwork Reduction Act

and OMB guidelines.

USDA Online, produced by the USDA information office, includes:

national and regional press releases;

two-page daily briefings of news stories

affecting USDA programs;

databases on food, nutrition, animal

health, and agricultural

agricultural statistics

reports;

calendars of events;

phone listings of USDA

an electronic messaging

trade;

and economic

personnel; and

service.

Due to funding constraints, USDA cannot provide this electronic service free to the press,

although free printed press releases and press

mailings are still provided. USDA Online is

available on FedNews through Dialcom, Inc.,

a commercial electronic mail service. To date,

the service is used primarily by land grant colleges and universities, trade associations, Federal and State agricultural agencies, and farm

bureaus.

USDA also maintains an independent, fulltext delivery service, EDI (Electronic Dissemination of Information), which releases only

perishable information. EDI was designed as

a wholesale information service, contracted
through Martin Marietta Data Systems to sell

USDA information to resellers or “multiplexers.” EDI contains information from several

of the USDA agencies. EDI includes crop and

livestock reports, agricultural research reports,

national and regional press releases, daily twopage news briefs, and other perishable information.

U.S. Supreme Court

The Supreme Court is planning for electronic

distribution of judicial opinions. The initial

push for automation at the Supreme Court

came from the press in 1982, by way of the

American Newspaper Publisher Association

and the American Society of Newspaper Editors. These trade associations were motivated

by the demands of out-of-State news reporters

who wanted direct and quick access to Supreme Court opinions. Supporting the request

were the looseleaf and the legal database services, such as West, Mead, and the Lawyer’s

Co-op, which currently transcribe the full text

of decisions from hard copy into their databases. Also supporting the initiative were

State court judges and lawyers who believed

that wire service synopses did not adequately

describe opinions.

Supreme Court opinions are currently transmitted to the news media via paper. Prior to

entry into online databases, such as Lexis,

Westlaw, and BNA Online, they need to be

scanned or transcribed. Reporters in the Supreme Court press gallery are the first to obtain copies of new decisions.

About 150 new decisions are issued by the

Supreme Court each year. The Court provides

175 photocopies or “bench copies” of each new

decision, and subsequently prints slip opinions

(bench copies in a slightly different form) which

are released two to three days after the opinions are handed down. More than 4,000 copies

of each new decision are printed by U.S. Government Printing Office (GPO), inch-ding 400

for the Court, 225 for the Administrative Office of the U. S. Courts, and 360 for the Department of Justice. Slip opinions are provided

free of charge to the press and public. Bound

volumes of opinions, the United States

243

Reports, are available from GPO, about 18

months after the Court recesses. Opinions are

also reprinted by commercial vendors.

The time value of electronic release would

be extremely important for State and Federal

courts whose verdicts may be hinging on Supreme Court decisions. Requests from Federal

judges are currently handled piecemeal, and

distributed by facsimile machines. Within the

next several years, computer-aided legal research will be available in the chambers of all

Federal judges; and as a consequence, the

desirability of online transmission will increase. Legal reporting services currently receive the full text of opinions by mail or messenger.

Online full-text release of Supreme Court

opinions would be of value to the press for several reasons. The instant availability of full text

at remote locations would allow reporters to

solicit informed commentary from affected parties as well as legal scholars. In addition to

reporters on the Supreme Court beat, editors,

financial reporters, and reporters on related

beats would gain access to copies of decisions.

Online full-text release would allow for broader

participation in the analysis of decisions and

their impacts.

Online release of Supreme Court opinions

could have regional significance as well. When

several opinions are handed down on the same

day, cases of regional interest are often overlooked by the national newspapers and news

broadcasters. Online delivery of decisions could

give regional news organizations greater autonomy in reporting their stories. The Court

is currently considering the possibility of working with a single, nonprofit organization to

serve as a depository or disseminator of opinions at the lowest cost to the public.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

Known by the news community to have one

of the most responsive press offices in Washington, EPA has chosen not to employ an electronic news release system. Instead, the agency

pays for regular messenger runs to about 50 publications in Washington and mails additional materials to media in other regions. EPA also mails
244

releases to any citizens requesting them, maintaining a current mailing list of 3,000. At its current level of computer sophistication, EPA has

not found a system that is priced comparably

to hard copy. After polling newspapers, EPA

found that most were not adequately equipped

to receive releases via Dialcom, Inc. electronic

mail, a system that EPA relies on for its internal communications. According to EPA, only a

small percentage of the larger papers can effectively use electronic mail releases. In addition,

the trade publications that focus on EPA activities (e.g., Inside EPA, Toxic Materials Report,

Clean Water Report) generally lack dial-up electronic capabilities. Although EPA sees flaws in

messenger services (too slow for late-breaking

stories, increased pressure to release announcements early), it still finds them to be an economical and thorough distribution mechanism. EPA

does send releases to U.S. Newswire, anew wire

service that transcribes hard copy releases and

transmits them mainly to the larger papers and

bureaus in Washington.

White House

In 1984, in an effort to reduce the voluminous paperwork involved in its media relations

activities, the White House pilot-tested an online news release program with an exclusive

feed to Dialcom, Inc. for incorporation into its

electronic mail system. Controversy ensued,

however, when other private sector vendors

demanded equal access to this online information. The White House press corps objected

to these services as a potential threat to their

own viability, voicing procedural concerns

about breaking traditional “rules of the briefing room” regarding judicious attribution of

sources. Furthermore, some members of the

public expressed propaganda concerns. Users

of the system complained that the White House

was slow to enter briefings into the daily system, making the service less valuable than

expected.

The White House has since discontinued its

electronic effort. Press releases in hard copy

format are left in the New Executive Office

Building for members of the nonresident press

corps. Transcripts of briefings now remain on

file in the White House press room, ostensibly accessible only to the White House press

corps (1,800 reporters). Nevertheless, White

House briefings are independently taped by

commercial newswire services (such as the Federal News Service and Press Text) that transmit the transcribed texts verbatim to clients.

Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS)

Although BLS makes its employment figures,

Consumer Price Index, Producer Price Index,

and collective bargaining settlements available

online, it has found that the broadest segment

of the press is neither equipped nor organized

to receive electronic mail transmissions, and

still prefers paper copies of releases. Most of

its online subscribers are libraries and research

organizations. Particularly in cases of embargoed release times (for the unemployment rate

and the Consumer Price Index, for example),

BLS has found that reporters prefer to retrieve

hard copies at the agency press office and telephone their stories, rather than wait for releases to print from computers. Wire services

also prefer this method, as they may be required to feed broadcast news programs which

may be aired within a few minutes of these

releases.

The Federal Election Commission (FEC)

FEC provides detailed campaign finance information online in a variety of formats. FEC

has made innovative use of its Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) infrastructure to satisfy

requests from the press and public for computerized and computer-generated information. It merits mention as it has managed to

keep prices relatively low for its users, including the press. FEC accomplished this by coupling its delivery services with its internal computer service contract with Digital Equipment

Corp., avoiding intermediate delivery services.

Connect charges and annual fees have been

avoided, and FEC data can be accessed at an

hourly usage charge of $25. All the major national news media in Washington receive this

service. Smaller newspapers may request pa-
245

— —

per versions of reports that are free to re- ation, which allowed them to provide the tapes

questers. FEC rationalizes its program as a outside of the FOIA process and charge user

spinoff of the FOIA process. Under FOIA, fees. Requesters can choose either to receive

FEC has provided computer tapes upon re- reports online, or download raw data into their

quest since 1980. The Commission subse- personal computers to be reworked with deskquently added a dialup capability to the oper- top software.

STATUS OF AUTOMATION --

It is difficult to make predictions about future penetration of Federal electronic information dissemination technologies into newsrooms. First, electronic offerings of the Federal

government are slowly and unevenly making

themselves known to the media they wish to

target. Second, newsroom technology is in a

state of transition. It is difficult to predict

whether newspapers will evolve in a linear fashion toward greater technological sophistication, or whether cultural and practical barriers

will stunt technological growth.

During the seventies, the newspaper industry adopted computerized word-processing,

editing, and publishing systems. With some

major exceptions, mid-sized newspapers were

the first to accept new technologies. The

Detroit News, the Providence Journal and the

Des Moines Register, for example, automated

their newsrooms long before the Washington

Post or the Wall Street Journal. Due to the

cumbersome nature of retooling, a number of

the largest papers are still in the process of

automating various production and editorial

functions. At the other end of the spectrum,

the smallest papers, although computerized,

sometimes lack the resources and personnel

needed to handle large amounts of incoming

electronic data. Automation in newsroom technology has grown out of the automation of production technology. Several large papers today

are curious hybrids of obsolete newsroom technology and avant garde production equipment.

It is not coincidental that automation and

consolidation in the newspaper industry both

occurred during the seventies. Chain ownership has decreased the risks associated with

experimentation and has been an important

catalyst for innovation. Several small, chainIN PRESS NEWSROOMS

owned papers have been selected as prototypes

for newsroom automation. These papers generally are chosen for their secure positions in

noncompetitive or physically isolated markets.

The first paper to use electronic pagination,

part of the electronic publishing technology

that is revolutionizing the nature of production, was the Pasadena Star, a small paper belonging to the Knight-Ridder chain. KnightRidder selected another of its small papers to

experiment with changes in circulation hours.

Gannett, the largest domestic newspaper

chain, has selected a small paper in Cocoa

Beach, Florida, to experiment with new technological as well as editorial concepts.

An organizational manifestation of the computer revolution among newspapers is the

growth in importance of the newspaper library,

a central locus of online database retrieval. This

centralizing trend is likely to continue as a

means of controlling database retrieval costs.

As database retrieval frequently requires specialized knowledge of different search protocols, the importance of the newspaper librarian is likely to grow.

As a group, news writers are slow to embrace

new technologies. The legendary black Royal

typewriter still maintains an elevated position

in many newsrooms alongside oversized wordprocessing screens. Editors are less inclined

to use electronic technologies than younger

reporters who have grown up with portable personal computers.

There are two classes of information that

reporters at some newspapers can retrieve

from the computers at their desks: wire services and clippings files. Relatively few newsroom PCs are equipped with modems. Desk-
246

top wire access can be highly efficient. At the

Louisville Courier Journal, reporters’ desktop

computers are programmed to segregate over

100 wire services into queues according to subject matter (sports, politics, Washington news),

as well as type of service (AP advisories, AP

domestic, AP international, AP Washington,

Supplementary Washington wires, Supplementary international, etc.). Reporters can also

receive Nexis, Vu/Text, and other commercially available news clipping files.

Computers in the newsroom have changed

the process of writing and the substance of

news. From the field, stories can now be relayed

electronically between reporters and editors,

allowing for quick turnaround time of edited

drafts, and potentially involving more individuals in the story-writing process. This opportunity did not exist 5 years ago when stories

were written on paper and dictated over telephones.

USA Today has revolutionized the newspaper business in its production and distribution technologies, as well as its format. The

USA Today emphasis on short stories has

made it dependent on wire services to a higher

degree than most large papers. The emphasis

on graphics in USA Today, facilitated by new

technologies, has placed a premium on the inclusion of statistics in its incoming wire service reports, thus affecting the way wire

reporters gather their news.

In terms of online databases, the innovators

for the newspapers have been the full-text

newspaper compendia. For example, in addition to Nexis, the Washington Post receives

Vu/Text (regional papers), Datasolve (full text

of the Economist and the Financial Times), and

Data Times (newspaper texts and gateways

to Dow Jones). The Post has recently expanded

the range of its online subscriptions to include

DIALOG, PaperChase and Grateful Med (medical), Dow Jones News/Retrieval, Legi-Slate

(congressional information), FEC campaign finance data, BLS releases, the Federal News

Service (wire), and US Newswire (U.S. government news). It is soon to receive Wilsonline

(bibliographic citations to journals) and

Compu-Serve.

Small regional and local papers without

Washington bureaus should be considered independently because their needs, interests, and

resources are distinct from larger papers. They

are particularly interesting to study in the technological context, because online technologies

could open new communication channels and

give them greater autonomy in reporting national news.

Today, Federal Government information is

a relatively small fraction of the news of regional and local papers. This results from a lack

of interest as well as resources. Small papers

have become dependent on national wire services and telephoned news stories, in part because press releases mailed from Federal agencies to small papers outside Washington are

both erratic and slow. Final copy is either

reprinted wholesale from the wire services,

moderately altered, or rewritten with local angles. The traditional wire services aim to

satisfy broad audiences, often failing to cover

stories of regional interest. Direct online access by small papers to Federal agencies could

enhance local awareness of relevant national

news.

While small papers could benefit substantially from the electronic receipt of Federal

Government information, many are currently

inhibited by a lack of data-carrying capacity

and lack of financial and personnel resources

to accommodate high-priced electronic

offerings.
247

— —

CHALLENGES TO GOVERNMENT/PRESS

AUTOMATED DISSEMINATION

Need for Coordination

There is a clear need for better communication and coordination between those agencies

choosing to disseminate press releases electronically. FedNews, offered through Dialcom,

Inc., is the most significant effort at a consolidated Federal electronic news-release service

to date. Eleven agencies currently offer news

releases and other perishable information on

FedNews, including: the USDA, Federal Communications Commission (FCC), Bureau of the

Census, NASA, Food and Drug Administration, Department of Housing and Urban Development, Department of the Interior, U.S.

Army, and Army Reserve. Releases are distributed unedited; agencies may determine the

frequency and range of materials included. The

FedNews menu allows materials to be searched

by key words or dates; it can be scanned or

read in full-text.

Decentralization in database and newsrelease distribution is a problem within and

among agencies. All major agencies within

USDA have created separate databases that

could be made available online. Some of these

are highly specialized. USDA’s EDI system,

the department only online service consisting solely of perishable information, receives

materials from roughly half of the USDA

agencies.

Need for Improved Communication

Many newsroom librarians are inadequately

informed about the availability of Federal electronic services, and there are no comprehensive indexes to Federal electronic services. A

few agencies are aware of this problem and

have made substantial efforts to stimulate

public awareness. Both FEC and NLM (Grateful Meal) have held press conferences on their

online services, outlining their range of offerings, costs, and compatible computer systems.

Another communication gap exists between

newsroom librarians and reporters. While

librarians are interested in and trained in the

retrieval of online information, many reporters

remain uninterested or uninformed. As most

reporters have not learned to use online services in daily reporting, library education and

outreach must be energetic.

Still another communication gap lies between agency press offices and the private information providers who operate their services.

Although service providers claim media subscribers, they rarely maintain adequate statistics to verify user numbers. Some providers

sell first to “multiplexers” who then resell the

services, making total client estimates increasingly difficult. Agencies could require that

service firms track their clients more thoroughly and require that sales and customer statistics be provided.

Need for Completeness and

Quality Control

Online databases may be incomplete or inconsistent in quality. Even on FedNews, participation by agencies varies. Some agencies

use FedNews as a regular release mechanism

(USDA updates its entries daily), while others

use it as a supplemental service with only sporadic entries. Reporters tapping into FedNews

might not understand these distinctions, and

might find the service unreliable.

Private Contracting and Price Control

The tendency of private contractors to sell

to other private vendors, or “multiplexer”,

can contribute to escalating prices and delays.

Several issues need to be resolved: whether private vendors should be responsible for the delivery of public information and especially

time-sensitive information like press releases;

whether licensees or contractors own the valueadded material they distribute; and whether

agencies have the power to impose pricing or

distribution requirements on licensees or contractors. Price escalation associated with the
involvement of intermediaries could create pronounced inequities for small papers.

Potential Unavailability of Paper Copy

The absence of paper copies of press releases

could present a problem for some news organizations. Several Federal press offices interviewed by OTA cited the Paperwork Reduction Act as the principal impetus for ventures

into online news release distribution. Although

most claim that online information is also available in paper format, this would seem to nullify some of the logic for initiating computerized distribution systems. Although it is clear

that there is ample room for paperwork reduction in press release activities, reducing paper

copies beyond a reasonable minimum could

have a detrimental effect on the press, and particularly small papers that do not have electronic retrieval capabilities.

TECHNOLOGICAL AND STRATEGIC CHOICES

Technological Choices

Choosing new technological means to serve

the press is not simply a decision for Federal

agencies. Interest and technological readiness

must be expressed by the media. In order to

maximize the usefulness of new services, agencies must understand their potential clients.

The news media currently display wide-ranging levels of technological sophistication, varying according to type of media (newspapers,

magazines, newsletters, wire services, radio,

television broadcasters), size of firms, and

ownership structures (group-owned versus independent). Media interest in new electronic

services varies according to such factors as

technological sophistication, proximity to

Washington, and level of income.

In this era of technological transition, the

most flexible services will be the most valuable. Some alternatives for delivery of information to the press are outlined below, along

with a discussion of advantages and disadvantages to facilitate agency and congressional

understanding.

Hard Copy Release

The most common form of transmitting

newsworthy government information to the

press involves the timed release of paper documents. When actively distributed, hard copy

release is dependent on the mail or on messenger services and can be slower than electronic alternatives. It is necessary that paper

releases remain available to serve recipients

without computers.

Alternatives for hard copy release include:

●

●

Hard copy releases sent by messenger or

mailed to the press, accompanied by telephone “call-outs” to alert press about particularly important events;

Hard copy releases deposited in agency

press rooms for the newspapers’ messengers to retrieve, or for use by in-house

reporters. Hard copy mailings for out-ofState papers.

Computer-to-Computer Electronic Release

Computer-to-computer electronic mail is by

far the most widely used electronic press release dissemination mode. The choice of electronic mail by most agencies probably results

from the fact that this technology is becoming widely used for agency internal communications. Computer-to-computer electronic mail

is not optimally suited to the press, however,

as its contents are not immediately visible. To

log onto an electronic mail system, searchers

must dial a number, enter a code, and pay connect charges and hourly fees. Computers receiving mail-type messages are usually centrally located in newsroom libraries. As noted

earlier, in order to control online costs, newspapers typically set up these systems so that

access is not available from reporters’ terminals. Electronic mail may not be practical for
249

perishable releases that arrive at very irregular intervals.

Computer-to-computer electronic release is

best suited for the provision of database services for research purposes. One advantage of

electronic mail is that it allows for selectivity

on the part of the reporter or researcher. Contents may be scanned for useful documents.

Other advantages include archival capability

and interactivity. Menu-driven systems can be

divided into subject areas that can be scanned

or reviewed in full-text form.

As mentioned earlier, electronic mail maybe

an important vehicle through which small

papers can receive unfiltered news from remote

locations. Full text databases for longer documents could place smaller papers on a par with

larger papers that have easier direct access to

the hard copy documents. While database services are impractical and often times too costly

for reporters with daily deadlines, they can be

of value for longer stories, or for newsletter,

magazine, and trade publications.

Alternatives for disseminating releases via

electronic mail include:

● direct online release into newsroom computers, through contracting agreements

with private service firms (Dialcom, Inc.,

EDS, etc.);

• direct or-dine release to multiplexer who

offer subscriptions to service firms (ED I);

. hard copy release by agencies, with private firms placing information online and

marketing services.

Wire Services

Wire service releases may be better suited

to daily news-gathering than electronic mail,

as they can eliminate the necessity of entering computer files to check for potential releases. Newswires can be received either directly through reporters’ work stations or in

hard copy form via teleprinters. Wire service

release of hard copy is a practical way to handle irregular information flows, and reporters

are accustomed to watching wire teleprinters

for printouts.

—

Three existing alternatives for wire service

transmission of government information

include:

●

●

●

Hard copy release by the agencies, picked

up by independent wire services that

transmit Federal information over telephone wires to newsroom computers or

teleprinters (US Newswire). Fee for the

agencies, free to the press.

Hard copy transcripts of press briefings

picked up by independent wire services

that transmit Federal information by satellite to newsroom computers or teleprinters

(Federal News Service); local transmission

the carried out via FM sideband radios.

Fee for the press, free for the agencies.

Online release of information to independent wire services.

The first option has been adopted by US

Newswire, founded in 1986 and currently serving almost 100 news media outlets in the Washington area. US Newswire transmits releases

and advisories over dedicated data lines leased

from the local telephone company, delivering

releases via teleprinters installed in newsrooms

or directly into newsroom computers. The teleprinter concept can eliminate the necessity of

searching directories for news releases. The

service is free to the media. Federal entities

are charged per release, so this wire service

tends to be used for announcements with significant time value.

About 80 percent of US Newswire’s clients

have chosen the teleprinter mode of final delivery. Most newspaper bureaus use teleprinters, as do television and radio stations.

USA Today has chosen to receive U S

Newswire along with other wire services such

as AP and UPI into reporters’ personal computers, while the Post has chosen to accept the

wires via teleprinters, to avoid overuse of computers. US Newswire releases are saved for 24

hours, unless stored by reporters. U S

Newswire is distinguishable from traditional

wire services in that it assumes no abstracting or editorial functions; it simply transmits

releases as issued.
250

Several congressional offices are now offering information on US Newswire, along with

the U.S. Information Agency, EPA, Department of Transportation (DOT), Department of

Commerce, Department of Justice, DOI, HUD,

and Department of Health and Human Services. The service currently costs $150 for a release to 100 media outlets (and $55 for release

to a shorter list of 45 media outlets). This cost

must be weighed against the cost of individual messenger-service runs to the media, and

against message charges for electronic mail delivery.

The Federal News Service, another new wire

service operation, uses a satellite to transmit

daily briefings from Capitol Hill, the State Department, the Pentagon, and the White House

to computers and teleprinters at media outlets. This is an expensive service for subscribers, yet Newsweek bureau personnel refer to it as “our life blood. ” Unlike the

traditional wire services, Federal News Service, US Newswire, and similar services deliver

briefings and speeches in unedited, full-text

form. Federal News Service transcripts are

placed online shortly after the time of release.

The service will soon be available alternatively

through Dialcom, Inc.

Bulletin Boards

Electronic bulletin boards have not been

used extensively to inform the press about government activities. Within agencies, bulletin

boards tend to be small, specialized, and little

publicized. Bulletin boards may grow in importance in the future, for example to serve

small newspapers wishing to be generally informed about a range of government activities, but not seeking Federal information on

a regular basis.

Facsimile Transmission

Facsimile transmission allows for high speed

relaying of individual messages to specific requesters. Facsimile is not appropriate for highvolume paper releases, but it is a necessary

component of newsroom technology as it is

widely used by those organizations that have

not embraced full-scale electronic distribution

technologies. Congressional offices, embassies,

the Supreme Court, and the Pentagon all employ facsimile distribution.

Facsimile is theoretically well suited to the

press because, like newswires, it delivers a tangible paper product that is visible upon delivery. However, the routine use of facsimile

transmission is not expected because the machines tend to become overloaded with incoming messages at press deadline times. If newspapers are using facsimile machines to send

their own documents, agencies will receive

busy telephone signals and perhaps miss their

own deadlines.

Electronic Mail or Wire Distribution with

Some Abstracting and Printout Capability

The most suitable technology for distribution of perishable information to the press

would appear to involve some combination of

wire service and computer communications. A

blending of electronic mail capabilities with the

automatic printout capabilities of a wire message would be well suited to the needs of the

press. Perhaps the best electronic option would

involve the printing of short abstracts when

news releases reach the receiving computer

system (this type of approach is currently used

by the Washington bureau of the Wall Street

Journal, when receiving US Newswire). Such

a system could combine the selectivity, interactivity, and flexibility of computer storage

with the tangible, visible hard-copy product

of a wire service. Computer-to-printer electronic mail technology is increasingly available

in the agencies, but most media outlets do not

receive releases in this manner. Ultimately,

each agency must embrace a mix of technologies to fit the varying levels of technological

sophistication of the media they hope to reach,

and to match the types of messages they wish

to relay.

Strategic Choices

If Federal agencies choose to distribute electronic press releases, they have several strategic options available to them, in addition to
the technological choices outlined above. Criteria for evaluating the alternatives should address the potential problems and benefits for

both agencies and the media.

Evaluation criteria for the media:

cost;

equity of access—services affordable to

newspapers (and other media outlets) of

different sizes;

geographical flexibility-services extending to regional newspapers;

speed—services received by papers in time

for daily deadlines;

accessibility-electronic press releases accessed in ways compatible with daily

reporting activities;

archival capability;

thoroughness, uniform frequency, and

centralization;

flexibility of news releases (full-text databases, database-oriented perishable statistics); and

maintenance of hard copy releases.

Evaluation criteria for Federal agencies:

costs for electronic press releases versus

costs of messenger-based and mail-based

paper releases;

interagency coordination in delivery of

electronic press releases;

extent of reach to media outlets—if service firms are involved, they should provide

maximum coverage;

ease of transmission; and

speed of transmission.

As mentioned earlier, electronic distribution

of government information to the press can

have benefits in terms of speed, geographical

coverage, archival capability, and selectivity.

At the present time, however, electronic dissemination efforts by Federal agencies are

limited. Among those involved in electronic

dissemination, little communication or coordination has occurred. Further coordination and

possibly centralization of these services would

benefit agencies as well as the press.

Electronic press release services currently

vary in quality, frequency, and technical and

251

institutional frameworks for delivery. Different strategies for marketing and distribution

have created disparities in pricing and limited

access for small and regional papers. The technologies selected for dissemination could have

a major impact on the types of news organizations that will benefit from these services.

Federal agencies may choose active or relatively passive roles in electronic dissemination.

Regardless of the Federal role, private vendors,

on their own initiative, are likely to continue

to collect perishable Federal information and

provide it to the press in several ways, including: online database services; wire service releases transmitted verbatim and unedited or

abstracted and edited; and clippings services.

However, if all electronic press release activities are left to the marketplace, news coverage may be incomplete. Some media organizations, particularly smaller low-budget

companies, may be unable to afford marketplace electronic offerings.

To the extent that electronic distribution of

news releases (and other time-sensitive information) is judged to be desirable, Federal agencies may choose from a spectrum of arrangements. Selected examples are outlined below:

1.

2.

3.

Exclusive agreements with single private

vendors. Vendors would charge agencies

for online services and also charge media

clients for connect time. A potential drawback is that Federal agencies could become locked into paying high fees, and

prices could become prohibitive for some

media groups. Also, sole contractors

might receive competitive advantages

perceived to be unfair by other vendors.

Online delivery of information to multiplexer offering subscriptions to clients.

Clients would include information

retailers and selected end users. Concerns

about high fees and equity of access could

surface here as well. In addition, client

tracking could be difficult for agencies,

and services might not reach intended media users.

Contracts with selected service firms or

multiplexers, supplemented by provision
252

40

5.

of on-line information to lower-cost distributors. Providing alternative access

through lower-cost vendors such as The

Source or Compu-Serve could help address concerns about high fees and equity

of access. This scenario could still create

concerns for competing vendors about unfair competition.

On-line provision of press releases to wire

services. This alternative might mitigate

concerns about accountability, equity of

access, and possibly high fees. It could

also generate concerns about unfair competition.

Direct provision of electronic information

by Federal agencies. In this scenario,

agencies would place their news releases

online and distribute them directly tomedia outlets. This could be fully or partially

government subsidized. This alternative

could help ensure accountability and equity of access. It could also raise concerns

about governmental costs, unfair competition with private vendors, and possibly

government manipulation or control of

information.

Enhancing the effectiveness and equitability of electronic press release services will require the resolution of several important questions. One question is whether Federal agencies

using sole contractors should be required to

provide alternative access through lower-cost

vendors. Another question is whether the use

of intermediaries should be limited, in order

to control costs and foster accountability. A

third question involves pricing strategies. As

noted earlier, pricing strategies vary significantly among the alternatives pursued to date.

In the case of U.S. Newswire, Federal agencies pay for the service; the wires are free for

the media. In the case of the Federal News

Service, the media pay; the service is free to

the government. Both the media and the government pay for both Fednews and ED I. A decision that needs to be resolved is whether

agencies should be required to create tiered

pricing systems, including some form of price

cuts or subsidies for small media groups, depository libraries, or public interest groups.

Still another unresolved issue is whether

greater collaboration among agencies should

be encouraged or required, in order to provide

“one-stop-shopping’ for the media. This might

require standards for quality, consistency, and

delivery formats. A final issue is the preservation of hard copy materials. Even if electronic press release services are widely

adopted, dual format (paper and electronic)

would appear to be necessary to ensure that

those news outlets without, or lacking interest in, online capability are guaranteed access

to traditional press releases and perishable

data.

It is clear that the electronic delivery of timesensitive information raises problems as well

as opportunities for Federal agencies and other

Federal entities. As the use of electronic delivery modes spreads throughout the Federal

Government, attention should be directed to

ensuring that new technologies serve their intended beneficiaries. A growing media interest in using electronic newsgathering techniques warrants further experimentation with

new systems by executive agencies, as well as

congressional offices and Federal courts. But

a diversity in levels of interest, income, and

automation in the press mandates that new

strategies be flexible, multifaceted, and accommodating.
Chapter 11

Federal Information

Dissemination Policy in

an Electronic Age

Photo credit: Documents Center, Robert W. Woodruff Library, Emory University

User accessing Federal information via an online information system
CONTENTS

Page

Summary . . . . . . . ...................255

Renewed Commitment to Public

Access . . . . . . . ..................257

Clarification of Governmentwide

Information Dissemination

Policy . ........................26 1

Cost-Effectiveness . ...............261

Electronic. Paper Formats.. .. ....264

Possible Congressional Actions . . . . . .267

Clarification of Institutional Roles

and Responsibilities . . . . . . . . . . . . .271

Improvements in Information

Dissemination Management .. ....276

Electronic Publishing/Dissemination

Technical Standards . ............276

Governmentwide Information

Index . ........................27 7

Government Information

Dissemination Innovation

Centers/Committees . ............278

Revised Information Resources and

Personnel Management . .........280

Improvements in Conventional

Printing . ......................28 3

Cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ....283

Timeliness . ......................28 8

Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ....288

Cost Estimating and Billing

Procedures . . . . . ................289

General Themes . .................289

Tables

Table Page

11-1. Illustrative Public Laws

Relevant to Information

Dissemination, 95th Through

99th Congresses . .............259

11-2. Illustrative OTA Report

Excerpts Relevant to

Information Dissemination .. ...260

11-3. Selected Legislation Introduced

in the 100th Congress Relevant

to Information Dissemination ...261

11-4. Federal Agency Policies on

Electronic Information

Dissemination . ...............265

Table Page

11-5. Federal Civilian Agency

Research or Evaluation

Studies . .....................27 8

n-6. Federal Employees in Job

Categories Relevant to

Information Dissemination,

Fiscal Year 1985 . .............281

11-7. Top 10 Federal Blue-Collar

Employers in Washington, DC

Metropolitan Statistical Area,

Fiscal Year 1985 . .............281

11-8. Top 10 Federal Agencies With

Largest Printing Workforce,

Fiscal Year 1985 . .............282

11-9. Description of 20 Sample

Printing Jobs Used for

Estimating Costs . ............284

11-10. Cost Estimates for 20 Sample

Printing Jobs, in Dollars, GPO

Regional and Main Plants .. ....284

11-11. Cost Estimates for 20 Sample

Printing Jobs, in Dollars, Agency

Plants and Private Printers. . . ..285

11-12. Estimated Total Costs for 20

Sample Printing Jobs,

in Dollars . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .285

11-13. Estimated Costs by Job and

Total for 20 Sample Printing

Jobs, in Dollars, GPO Main

Plant Procured and Private

Printer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..286

11-14. Agency Views on Cost of GPO

Work, 1983 Survey of Agency

Customers . ..................28 7

11-15. Agency Views on GPO Inhouse

v. GPO Contractors, 1983

Survey . .....................28 7

11-16. GPO Procured Printing,

Percent of Jobs Delinquent,

by Fiscal Year. . ..............288

11-17. GPO Main Plant Printing,

Percent of Jobs Delinquent,

Fiscal Year 1987 . .............289

11-18. Results of GPO Quality Audits,

Number of Defects Per 100

Items, Inplant v. Procured

Agency Printing . .............290

11-19. Agency Views on GPO Cost

Estimates, 1983 Survey . ... .. 290
Chapter 11

Federal Information Dissemination

Policy in an Electronic Age

SUMMARY

The rapid deployment of electronic information technologies by Federal agencies, as with

all major sectors of American society, is generating a number of issues with respect to

public policy on Federal information dissemination.

This chapter raises and examines several

broad information policy issues. These include:

congressional commitment to public access to Federal information;

the need for revision of governmentwide

information dissemination policy-particularly regarding cost-effectiveness, the

role of the private sector, and electronic

v. paper formats;

the need for clarification of institutional

roles and responsibilities; and

improvements in information dissemination management.

These analyses are followed by a discussion

of ways to improve conventional printing activities of the Federal Government with respect

to cost, timeliness and quality, and estimating and billing procedures.

A fundamental cross-cutting issue is public

access to Federal information. Debate over the

use of electronic formats, privatization, and

the like is obscuring the commitment of Congress to public access. Congress has expressed

through numerous public laws the importance

of Federal information and the dissemination

of that information in carrying out agency missions and the principles of democracy and open

government. A renewed commitment to public access in an electronic age maybe needed.

Congress may wish to revise governmentwide information dissemination policy. In so

doing, Congress would need to consider and

reconcile several sometimes competing considerations including:

●

●

●

●

●

enhancing public access,

minimizing unnecessary overlap and duplication in Federal information activities,

reducing unnecessary or wasteful Federal

information activities,

optimizing the use of electronic v. paper

formats,

and optimizing the role of the private

sector.

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB)

has promulgated its own view of appropriate

public policy (in the form of OMB Circulars

A-130 and A-76). The OMB view is controversial as it relates to Federal information dissemination. In the absence of clear and positive

congressional direction, conflict and confusion

are likely to continue. Congress may wish to

amend specific statutes (including the Printing Act, Depository Library Act, and Paperwork Reduction Act), promulgate its own version of the basic principles addressed in A-1 30,

and establish guidelines on the role of the private

sector (including contracting out and provision

of value-added information products). Congress could act on a governmentwide, agencyby-agency, or program-by-program basis.

Congress also may wish clarify the roles and

responsibilities of Federal institutions involved

with information dissemination, including mission agencies and governmentwide dissemination agencies such as the U.S. Government

Printing Office (GPO) and National Technical

Information Service (NTIS). The advent of numerous options for electronic dissemination

has aggravated concerns about statutory authority (e.g., Printing Act v. Paperwork Reduction Act jurisdiction over electronic for255
256

mats), separation of powers (e.g., legislative

v. executive branch control over agency printing), procurement (Printing Act v. Brooks Act

jurisdiction over electronic publishing systems),

role of the private sector (e.g., privatization v.

government incorporation of NTIS), and overall policy guidance (e.g., OMB v. Joint Committee on Printing [JCP] roles). These issues

have led to various proposals for reorganization of government information dissemination

institutions. In the absence of congressional

direction, conflict and confusion are likely to

continue.

OTA identified several alternatives for improvement of information dissemination management that could be implemented in the

short-term by executive branch action using

existing statutory authorities and with the concurrence of Congress, but with no required statutory action. Of course, one or any combination of these alternatives could be incorporated

into a legislative package, as amendments to

various statutes, should Congress determine

that a stronger mandate is needed.

● There is a clear consensus that appropriate technical standards for electronic publishing and dissemination are essential if

the government wishes to realize potential cost-effectiveness and productivity

improvements. The National Bureau of

Standards, (NBS), Defense Technical Information Center (DTIC) or another Department of Defense (DoD) component,

and GPO could be assigned lead responbility to accelerate the ongoing standardssetting process, presumably incorporating accepted or emerging industry standards to the extent possible.

● There is also general consensus in and out

of government for the establishment of a

governmentwide index to major Federal

information products—regardless of format—although there are differing views

on how to implement an index. GPO and

NTIS (or a Government Information Office, should one be established) with possible assistance from the private sector

and information science community, could

be assigned responsibility to consolidate

and upgrade existing indices, directions,

and inventories (including the results of

OMB surveys) into one integrated index.

The index could be made available in multiple formats and disseminated direct

from the government as well as via the

depository libraries and private vendors

(perhaps in enhanced form).

● Federal agency officials expressed strong

support for much improved mechanisms

to exchange learning and experience about

technological innovations. Information

dissemination innovation centers could be

designated or established in each branch

of government, for example, at DTIC (for

the defense sector), NTIS and/or NBS (for

the civilian executive branch), and GPO

(for the legislative branch), and under

grant or contract to a university or other

independent, nonprofit research center.

Agencies could be required to conduct

“agency X-2000” studies to creatively explore and develop their own visions of future information dissemination activities.

● Information dissemination is still not an

effective part of agency information resources management (IRM) programs. A

variety of IRM training, career development, budget, and management actions

could be implemented to give information

dissemination (including printing, publishing, press, public affairs, and the like) a

stronger and better understood role within

the IRM concept. Also, whether within the

IRM concept or otherwise, Federal agency

participation in electronic press release

activities could be expanded with electronic releases provided directly to the

press, to private electronic news and wire

services and perhaps to depository libraries.

Finally, OTA identified several alternatives

that could be implemented to improve the government conventional ink-on-paper printing.

Despite the rapid increase in electronic formats,

there is likely to be significant, continuing de-
257

mand for printed copies of a broad range of Federal reports and other printed materials. Thus,

for at least the next 5 years and probably longer,

there will be a need to continually improve the

Federal Government’s conventional printing.

Some Federal agencies have raised concerns

about the cost, timeliness, and quality of GPO

printing. Based on information available to

OTA, the cost of GPO’s procured printing appears to be competitive, and there appears to

be no financial basis for dismantling the GPO

printing procurement program. However, GPO

main plant inhouse work is more expensive

than procured work. There are several alternatives for reducing the cost to Federal agencies including: use of special rates, reducing

indirect costs and overhead, and use of costsaving technology. With respect to timeliness

of GPO procured work, the overall data do not

suggest a widespread delinquency problem.

However, the percentage of delinquent printing jobs at the GPO main plant is two to three

times higher than procured jobs. This warrants

further evaluation to determine the extent of

the problem and possibly to take action to

smooth the work flow, encourage realistic delivery estimates, and limit priority work. With

respect to quality of GPO printing, again, the

overall data do not suggest a widespread problem, although the defect rate for inhouse work

is somewhat higher than for procured work.

Other areas that appear to be in need of improvement are cost estimating and billing procedures. Routine itemized billing warrants consideration.

There is need for even stronger cooperative

working relationships between agency printers

and publishers and GPO staff, and between

publishers, printers, public information officers, financial and procurement officers, and

the like within the agencies. Existing intra- and

interagency advisory groups could be reviewed

and strengthened and/or new groups established.

Other potential improvements in conventional printing identified, but not examined by

OTA, include use of nonacidic paper, alternative printing inks, and expert systems software

for printing management.

RENEWED COMMITMENT TO PUBLIC ACCESS

A major crosscutting issue for this study is

public access to Federal information. In the

broadest sense, all of the technical, institutional, and policy mechanisms discussed in previous chapters are intended to facilitate public access. The debate in recent years over

cost-effectiveness, privatization, and the like

has sometimes obscured the fundamental and

enduring commitment of Congress and, indeed,

of public law to the principle of public access.

Information is the lifeblood of Federal Government programs and activities and is essential not only to the implementation of agency

missions, but to informed public debate, decision, and evaluation concerning such programs

and activities. Broad public access to such information has been established by Congress

as a primary policy objective to be accomplished through a variety of information dissemination mechanisms, including government-initiated activities such as the GPO and

NTIS document sales programs, the GPO depository library program (DLP), and citizeninitiated activities such as submitting FOIA

requests.

The policy framework establishing public access as a goal of Federal information dissemination consists of both governmentwide and

agency-specific statutes plus various legislative and executive branch directives, circulars,

and guidelines.

Many governmentwide statutory provisions

have been codified in Title 44 of the U.S. Code

(“Public Printing and Documents”). Several
258

key chapters of Title 44 include the following

illustrative provisions:

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

Chapter l–establishes the JCP “to remedy

neglect, delay, duplication, or waste in the

public printing and binding and the distribution of Government publications. ”

(44 U.S.C. 103).

Chapters 3 and 5–establish GPO to be

headed by the Public Printer; require that

all printing, binding, and blank-book work

for the Government be done at GPO, except as approved by the JCP; and authorize GPO to procure printing with approval

of the JCP. (44 U.S.C. 301, 501, 502).

Chapters 7 and 9—establish rules, procedures, and authorities for printing, binding,

and distribution of congressional documents, including the Congressional Record, and specify responsibilities of the JCP

and GPO, among others.

Chapters 11 and 13–establish rules, procedures, and authorities for printing, binding, and distribution of executive and judicial branch documents.

Chapter 15–establishes the Office of the

Federal Register (now located in the National Archives and Records Administration [NARA]) and rules and procedures for

preparation of the Register and printing

by GPO.

Chapter 17–establishes the Superintendent of Documents (SupDocs) within GPO

and the rules, procedures, and authorities

for SupDocs sale and distribution of public documents, preparation of an index to

public documents and catalog of government publications, and international exchange of government publications;

Chapter 19—establishes rules, procedures,

and authorities for the DLP to be administered by the SupDocs.

Chapters 21, 29, 31, and 33–establish

rules, procedures, and authorities for the

preservation of historical materials (e.g.,

books, documents, papers, maps) of the

government, and for management, retention, and disposal of government records;

assign responsibilities to the Administra-

●

—.

tor of General Services (GSA), Archivist

of the United States, and Federal agencies; and assign administrative responsibility to the Archivist of the United States

(and now NARA).

Chapter 35—establishes rules, procedures,

and-authorities for coordination and management of Federal information policy

relevant to the collection, maintenance,

use, and dissemination of Federal information and the acquisition and use of

automatic data processing and telecommunications technologies by the Federal

Government; establishes the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA)

in OMB; and assigns responsibilities to

OIRA and Federal agencies.

Prior analyses by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) have found that Congress

has enacted literally hundreds of specific laws

that assign information collection, clearinghouse, directory, dissemination, and related

functions to Federal agencies. ’ Some illustrative laws enacted by the 95th through 99th

Congresses are shown in Table 11-1.

A review of prior OTA reports also revealed

that information dissemination is an important

aspect of many issues facing Congress, ranging from medical technologies to hazardous

waste disposal to ocean resource management

to energy conservation. Excerpts from selected

OTA reports are capsulized in Table 11-2.

Congress frequently includes the establishment or strengthening of information dissemination (and related collection) mechanisms in

legislative actions to address current problems,

such as AIDS or international competitiveness. The CRS list of legislation introduced in

the 100th Congress provides a further indication of congressional intent, as highlighted in

Table 11-3.

‘Sandra N. Milevski and Robert L. Chartrand, “Information

Policy: Legislation of the 95-98th Congresses, With Selected

Bills of the 99th Congress, ” Congressional Research Service,

June 1985; Sandra N. Milevski, “Information-Related Legislation of the 99th Congress, CRS, August 1986; Robert L. Chartrand, “Information Policy and Technology Issues: Public Laws

of the 95th through 99th Congresses, CRS, February 1987.
259

.——. —

Table 11-1 .—illustrative Public Laws Relevant to Information Dissemination, 95th Through 99th Congresses

. — — —

Public Laws (relevant provisions in capsule form)

95th Congres s

P.L. 95-87, Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act,

to establish a surface coal mining and reclamation

information clearinghouse.

P.L. 95-166, National School Lunch Act and Child Nutrition Amendments, to disseminate nutrition

information .

P.L. 95-267, National Climate Program Act, to gather and

disseminate national and international climate data.

P.L. 95-273. Ocean Pollution Research and Monitoring

Program Act, to establish an ocean pollution

information system.

P.L. 95-307, Forest and Park Rangeland Renewable Resources Research Act, to disseminate scientific

information on all aspects of forest and rangeland

renewable resources.

96th Congress

P.L. 96-302, Small Business Administration (SBA) Authorization Act, SBA to create a small business economic

database and publish economic indices.

P.L. 96-345, Wind Energy Systems Research, Development, and Demonstration Act of 1979, Department of

Energy (DOE) to collect, evaluate, and disseminate

data on wind energy systems.

P.L. 96-374. Education Act Amendments of 1980, Dept. of

Education to establish an Information clearinghouse

for the handicapped.

P.L. 96-399, Housing and Community Development Act of

1980, Department of Housing and Urban Development

(HUD) to collect and report data on sales prices for

new homes.

P.L. 96-482, Solid Waste Disposal Act Amendments of

1979. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to

collect, maintain, and disseminate information on

energy and materials conservation and recovery from

solid waste.

SOURCE: R.L. Chartrand Congressional Research Service, 1988

There is a history of congressional actions

to institutionalize information dissemination

functions, as illustrated by the establishment

of the Library of Congress in 1800, the Federal Depository Library Program in 1813, the

Library of the Surgeon General’s office in 1836

(later to become the National Library of Medicine [NLM]), the GPO in 1860, National Agricultural Library (NAL) in 1862, and NTIS in

1970. In addition, Congress has articulated the

importance of access to and dissemination of

public information in enacting, for example,

the Printing Act of 1895 (remodified in 1968

as Part of Title 44 of the U.S. Code), Depository Library Act of 1962, Freedom of Information Act of 1966, Public Law 91-345 establishing the National Commission on Libraries

Public Laws (relevant provisions in capsule term) — .

97th Congress

P.L. 97-88, Energy and Water Development Appropriations

Act of 1982, Department of the Interior (DOI) to

prepare and disseminate information on recreational

uses of reservoir areas and archeological remains i n

such areas.

P.L. 97-98, Agriculture and Food Act, U.S. Department of

Agriculture to develop an agricultural land resources

information system and to establish relations with

foreign agricultural information systems.

P.L. 97-290, Export Trading Company Act of 1982, Dept.

of Commerce to disseminate information on export

trading.

P.L. 97-292, Missing Children Act, Attorney General to

acquire and exchange information to help identify and

locate certain deceased individuals and missing

chiIdren.

98th Congress

P.L. 98-24, Alcohol and Drug Abuse Amendments of 1983,

Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to

disseminate information regarding health hazards of

alcohol and drug abuse.

P.L. 98-362, Small Business Computer Crime Prevention

Act, SBA to establish an information resource center

on computer crime.

P.L. 98-373, Arctic Research and Policy Act of 1982, to

establish data collection and retrieval center for arctic

research and to promulgate guidelines for use and

dissemination of such information.

99th Congress

P.L. 99-412, Conservation Service Reform Act of 1985,

DOE to disseminate information annually to states

and public utilities on residential energy conservation.

P.L. 99-570, National Antidrug Reorganization and Coordination Act, HHS to establish a clearinghouse for

—.—.——alcohol and drug abuse information. — .

and Information Science in 1970, Federal Program Information Act (P.L. 95-220, creating

a database on Federal domestic assistance programs), and Paperwork Reduction Act in 1980

(codified as part of Title 44).

Thus, taken as a whole, congressional intent

with respect to Federal information is clear. In

general, unimpeded dissemination of and access

to Federal information is encouraged or frequently required and is vital to performance of

agency and programmatic missions established

by statute as well as to the principles of open

government and a democratic society.

Despite the breadth and depth of legislated

congressional commitment to Federal information dissemination and the overriding goal of
260

Table 11-2.—lllustrative OTA Report Excerpts Relevant to Information Dissemination

Starpower: The U.S. and International Quest for Fusion (October 1987)

Effective exchange of information on research in progress, technical know-how, experimental data, and the like would minimize

unnecessary duplication of effort and increase the probabilities of scientific or technical breakthroughs.

Technologies for the Preservation of Prehistoric and Historic Landscapes (July 1987)

A national computerized database of identified historic landscapes would help increase awareness, management, and conservation of historic landscapes and facilitate identification of as yet uncatalogued landscapes.

Marine Minerals: Exploring Our New Ocean Frontier (July 1987)

Better coordinated policy on archiving and disseminating oceanographic data and upgrading of oceanographic data centers

would help make such data more readily available to a wide range of potential users.

Technologies to Maintain Biological Diversity (March 1987)

The quality of data on biological diversity is uneven for different parts of the world, due in part to data being collected

for different purposes, stored in different forms, and scattered among different institutions. An information clearinghouse

with integrated databases on biological diversity would enhance access to and use of the data and reduce duplication of effort.

Transportation of Hazardous Materials (July 1986)

Lack of adequate information about transport of hazardous materials is one key factor contributing to accidents and the

resultant injuries and environmental damage. Federal, State, and local governments need improved information systems

to help set regulations, reduce high-risk accident potential, target enforcement efforts, and plan for effective emergency

response when accidents do occur.

Alternatives to Animal Use in Research, Testing, and Education (February 1986)

The sharing of information on animal-based research and testing is vital to scientific progress. A computer-based registry

of research and testing would help decrease the use of animals by reducing unintentional duplication of effort, facilitate

new kinds of data analyses, and save time and money.

SOURCE” Off Ice of Technology Assessment, 1988

public access, major policy issues have developed in several different areas. This is especially true with respect to the use of electronic

information technologies.

Based on the results of commissioned research, surveys, and various outreach activities conducted as part of this assessment, significant segments of the interested public

desire access to Federal information in electronic formats where it is appropriate, useful,

and cost-effective. The results of the GAO survey of Federal information users, as detailed

in chapter 4, confirm this desire. Overall, the

library, research, media, public interest, consumer, business, State/local government, and

physically handicapped communities, among

others, support the principle of public access

to Federal information regardless of formats.

However, many of these groups believe that

Federal information users are increasingly disadvantaged to the extent Federal information

in electronic form is not available through the

normal governmentwide dissemination channels and/or that there are significant barriers

to access to Federal electronic information.

They argue that the Federal Government has

a responsibility to assure equity of access to

Federal information in electronic formats as

well as in paper, to the degree that electronic

formats offer significant cost or usefulness advantages.

Consumer, library, and public interest groups

also have expressed concern about the decline

in availability of and increase in user charges

for Federal information products and services.

Both the number of total and the number of

free Federal publications appears to have declined over the past decade, and many agencies have adopted some form of marginal cost

recovery as the basis for pricing agency publications and other information products or

services.

Congress may wish to consider making a renewed commitment to the overriding goal of public access and perhaps even a reaffirmation of

principles established by Congress in previous

statutes but updated to reflect the increasingly

electronic nature of Federal information.
261

CLARIFICATION OF GOVERNMENTWIDE

INFORMATION DISSEMINATION POLICY

Over the last decade implementation of the

overall goal of public access to Federal information has been complicated by several sometimes competing public policy goals with respect

to cost-effectiveness of Federal information

activities. These include a desire to:

• minimize unnecessary overlap and duplication in Federal information activities;

. reduce unnecessary or wasteful Federal information activities; and

● optimize or (in the opinion of some stakeTable 11-3.—Selected Legislation Introduced in the

100th Congress Relevant to Information Dissemination

Bill Number — Title and/or description

H.R. 393/S. 1354 . . . National—Biotechnology Information

Act of 1987 to establish the National

Center for Biotechnology Information

with i n the National Library of

Medicine.

H.J. Res. 370 . . . . . . . Directs the Secretary of Transportation

to develop airline safety indicators and

provide such information to the public.

H.R. 1/S.1 . . . . . .Water Quality Act of 1987 directs EPA

H.R. 407 . . . . . . . . . .

to fund a National Clearinghouse on

Small Flows (of sewage). and to collect

and disseminate research and other information on the environmental quality of the Chesapeake Bay.

National Home Health Clearinghouse

Act of 1987 to establish a clearinghouse to collect and disseminate information on home health care for the

elderly.

H.R. 2800 . . . . . . Directs EPA to collect and disseminate

information on reduction of toxic chemical emissions.

S. 1429 . . . . . . . . . . . Directs EPA to establish a clearinghouse on waste reduction.

S. 744 . . . . . . . . . . . . . Directs EPA to develop and implement

an information clearinghouse and national database on the location and

amounts of radon.

H.R. 1407 . . . . . . . . . . Directs the Secretary of Trade (created

in this bill) to develop and maintain a

system to collect and disseminate information on international trade.

SOURCE: R.L. Chartrand and E. Baldwin, Congressional Research Service, 1988.

holders) maximize the role of the private

sector.

The goal of public access is complicated by the

lack of clear congressional guidance on the use

of electronic, v. paper formats in Federal information dissemination activities, and how

goals of public access and cost-effectiveness

are to be reconciled. OMB has promulgated

its own view of appropriate public policy, but

the OMB view is controversial and, as discussed below, not necessarily consistent with

at least what can be reasonably inferred from

a variety of congressional actions. However,

absent a clear and positive congressional clarification, probably in statutory form, conflict and

confusion are likely to continue.

Cost-Effectiveness

Both the legislative and executive branches

of government have expressed concern about

whether electronic information technologies

are being deployed by the Federal Government

in a cost-effective manner. There are several

subelements to this issue. One is simply the need

to minimize overlap and duplication in technology-based Federal information activities

through effective management and coordination. The Paperwork Reduction of Act of 1980

was directed in large part at this problem, and

required that OMB, through OIRA and the

major executive agencies, implement an integrated approach to planning for and managing information resources. This has become

known as the Information Resources Management (IRM) concept, and all major agencies

have since designated ‘senior IRM officials. ”

While the legislative history of the Paperwork

Reduction Act indicates that information dissemination was intended to be covered, the language of the act as originally enacted was ambiguous. However, 1986 amendments to the

Paperwork Reduction Act explicitly included
262

‘‘information dissemination in the statutory

language.2

One purpose of the amended Paperwork Reduction Act is, “to maximize the usefulness

of information collected, maintained, and disseminated by the Federal Government.” And

the authority and functions of the OIRA Director and of Federal agencies extend to ‘sharing and dissemination of information.”3

A second aspect of concern about cost-effectiveness involves reducing unnecessary or

wasteful Federal information activities. The

Paperwork Reduction Act is clear in its intent

that the government information collection

burden on the public be reduced, reflecting the

presumption that government information collection activities were, at least at that time,

uncoordinated and included a significant portion of unnecessary collection requests. The

Act is silent on reduction of information dissemination activities. Also, the Deficit Reduction Act of 1984 called for reductions in certain Federal publishing, public affairs, and

audio-visual activities. Some cuts were made

in response to the Act and as part of OMB’s

general initiative to reduce fraud, waste, and

abuse. OMB claimed that about 4,000 government publications were eliminated or consolidated by 1985 and that more than 100 agency

printing/duplicating plants had been eliminated or consolidated (out of about 850 agency

plants operating in the continental United

States and another 200 overseas).4 GPO had

provided OMB with recommendations for the

consolidation, downgrading, or closure of 250

of these plants, of which 70 were ultimately

closed. OMB concluded in 1985 that any further significant reductions in publishing and

related activities would compromise essential

agency missions.5

‘U.S. Congress, Continuing Appropriations Resolution for

Fiscal 1987, Title VIII, “Paperwork Reduction Reauthorization, ” Sec. 811 which amends 44 U.S.C. 3501(3), 99th Congress,

2nd sess., pp. 350, 351, 353.

‘Ibid

Wffice of Management and Budget, Management of the

United States Government, Fiscal Year 1986, January 1985,

and OMB, Managing Federal Information Resources, June 1984.

“I bid., Management.

Neither the Paperwork Reduction Act nor

the Deficit Reduction Act explicitly mention

reductions in electronic information dissemination activities. Current OMB officials concur that the Paperwork Reduction Act does

not provide guidance on electronic (or any) information dissemination. Indeed, according to

Dr. Timothy Sprehe of OMB:6

While the Paperwork Reduction Act in several places uses the term “dissemination,” neither in that act nor elsewhere has Congress

given the executive branch a single comprehensive set of statutory directions regarding

responsibilities of all Federal agencies for actively disseminating Government information.

Put another way, the Paperwork Reduction

Act provides fairly explicit statutory policy

regarding information input to Government—

controlling the collection of information and

imposition of record-keeping requirements—

but says little regarding information output

from Government.

The act and its legislative history do articulate congressional intent to maximize public

access to government information. For example, the original purpose of the act was, among

other things, “to maximize the usefulness of

information collected by the Federal Government (and extended to specifically include information maintained and disseminated, per

the 1986 amendments as noted earlier)’. The

Senate report accompanying the original act

stated that “the Committee expects the Director [of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs] to take appropriate steps to

maximize public access to the information the

Federal Government collects.”8 Also, the

Federal Information Locater System, which

the original act required OMB to establish, was

intended to help serve this purpose.9 The

1986 amendments further strengthened this

statutory requirement. However, it is correct

that the act does not provide the kind of de-

“J. Timothy Sprehe, “Developing Federal Information Resources Management Polity: Issues and Impact for Information Managers, ” Information Management Review, vol. 2, No.

3, 1987, p. 37; see generally pp. 33-41.

744 U.s.c. 3501 (3).

‘S. Rep. No. 96-930, p. 3.

’44 U.S.C. 3501 (2) B and (D).
tailed guidance on information dissemination

that was provided on information collection.

A third part of the concern about cost-effectiveness involves the role of the private sector. Pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act,

OMB has promulgated Circular A-130 on “Management of Federal Information Resources.

A-130 emphasizes the role of the private sector in information dissemination activities. The

history of A-130 is informative. The draft circular, formulated after a public input process,

strongly emphasized reliance on the private

sector and user charges. For example, the draft

circular recognized that government information dissemination could be necessary and even

essential to agency missions. But the draft

circular would have permitted such dissemination by the government only if the information product or service was not already provided by other government or private sector

organizations or could reasonably be provided

by such organizations in the absence of agency

dissemination. 10 Moreover, while the draft

circular noted that dissemination should be

conducted ‘in a manner that reasonably ensures

the information will reach . . . the public , . .,”

the draft circular required that ‘maximum feasible reliance’ be placed on the private sector

for dissemination and that the costs of dissemination be recovered through user charges,

where appropriate.11

The draft circular proved to be controversial, and numerous objections were received.

The final version of the circular, issued by

OMB in December 1985, gives more explicit

recognition to the importance of government

information. For example, the circular states

that “government information is a valuable

national resource, and ‘‘[t]he free flow of information from the government to its citizens

and vice versa is essential in a democratic so-

‘(’Office of hlanagement and Budget, “Itlanagement of Federal Information Resources, ” Federal Register, vol. 50, No. 51,

Mar. 15, 1985, Sec. H(a)~. 11 Ibid., See, ~(a~(g), For furth[~r discussion, SW? Harold ~

Relyea, Jane Bortnick, and Richard C. E]hlke. Ifanagement of

Federd information Resources:.4 (kneral Critique of the March

1985 OMB Draft Circular—,llat ters for Possible Congressional

Consideration, Congressional Research Service, I.ibrary of Congress, July 5, 1985.

263

ciety . . . "12 The circular still emphasizes the

role of the private sector. Federal agency dissemination must be either “specifically required by law’ or “[n]eccessary for the proper

performance of agency functions, ’ provided

that the information products and services disseminated “do not duplicate similar products

or services that are or would otherwise be provided by other government or private sector

organizations."13 The circular requires that

‘‘maximum feasible reliance’ be placed on the

private sector for dissemination, and that costs

be recovered through user charges, where

appropriate.14 

The statutory authority for the information

dissemination provisions of OMB circular

A-130 appears to be unclear. While much of

the circular clearly is responsive to the Paperwork Reduction Act, the act does not specifically speak to the role of the private sector or

user charges in Federal information dissemination. While the act does assert the need to

minimize the cost to the government of collecting, using, and disseminating information,

the act does not address how this need should

be met.

The cost recovery provision of OMB Circular A-130 was and is controversial, and is

widely interpreted by agencies as strongly encouraging, if not requiring, user charges for

information dissemination. However, a careful reading of A-130 indicates that:

●

●

●

●

the decisions on pricing are left up to the

discretion of agency heads;

the user charge where applied should be

set to recover the cost of information reproduction or dissemination only and not

the cost of collecting or creating the information;

user charges should take into account both

the nature of the agency mission and client groups; and

user charges can be waived or eliminated

if necessary to carry out mission objectives.

1-Office of Management and Budget, Circular No. A-130,

"Management of Federal Information Resources, ” Dec. 12, 1985,

Secs. 7(a) and (b).

‘I bid., Sees. 9(a) and (hi.

‘‘ Ibi[i,, Sees. 11 (b) and (c).
264

In effect, OMB policy on user charges permits

the individual Federal agencies considerable

latitude as to pricing of Federal information

dissemination regardless of format. In promulgating A-130, OMB applied the philosophy of

OMB circular A-25 regarding user charges for

government goods and services in general to

information dissemination in particular. (Note

that OMB has issued a draft revision to A-25.)

Similarly, OMB applied the philosophy of

OMB circular A-76 regarding contracting out

of commercially available services in general

to information dissemination in particular.15

The private sector already has a major role

in Federal information dissemination. A key

issue is how this role relates to the government

goal of access broadly defined. ’G The private

sector traditionally has a major role as contractor to the government for a wide range of

services, some of which are information related.

Both the Printing Act (P.L. 90-620) and the

Brooks Act (P.L 89-306), and their implementing guidelines, facilitate contracting out of Federal printing and computer-related activities.

Private sector printing contracts through the

GPO are averaging about $600 million annually, and private sector information technology contracts through GSA and the line agen-

‘%prehe, footnote 6, op. cit., pp. 38-39; and Office of Management and Budget, “Draft Revision of OMB Circular A-25

on User Charges, ” Federal Register, vol. 52, No. 126, July 1,

1987, pp. 24890-24892.

IGThere have been numerous prior studies on this &neral

topic. See, for example, U.S. National Commission on Libraries

and Information Science, Public Sector/Private Sector Interaction in Providing Information Services, February 1982; U.S.

Congress, House of Representatives, Committee on Government

Operations, Subcommittee on Government Information and Individual Rights, Government Provision of Information Services in Competition With the Private Sector, 97th Congress.,

1st Sess., Feb. 25, 1982; U.S. Congress, Office of Technology

Assessment, MEDLARS and Health Information Policy, OTATM-H-1 1, U.S. GPO, Washington, DC, September 1982; U.S.

Library of Congress, Network Development Office, Public/Private Sector Interactions: The Implications for Networking,

prepared by the Network Advisory Committee, 1983; U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science, Information Policy Implications of Archiving Satellite Data: To

Preserve the Sense of Earth from Space, Washington, DC, 1984;

U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Remote Sensing and the Private Sector: Issues for Discussion, OTA-TMISC-20, U.S. GPO, Washington, DC, March 1984; and Peter

Hernon and Charles R. McClure, Federal Information Policies

in the 1980‘s: Conflicts and Issues, Ablex Publishing, Norwood,

N. J., 1987.

cies are averaging, conservatively, $8 billion

annually (for hardware, software, and services).

Over the past 5 years, an estimated $3 billion in printing contracts and $40 billion in

information technology contracts have been

awarded to the private sector. Much of the information technology contracting is for the

general information infrastructure of the Federal Government. The fraction devoted directly

or indirectly to information dissemination

functions is not known, since the OMB and

agency IRM budgets and plans do not collect

or provide financial data by type of application. The 114 civilian departmental agency

components responding to the GAO survey reported collectively an average of $1.1 billion

annually for fiscal year 1983 through fiscal

year 1987 in private sector contracting for information clearinghouse operations. The extent of overlap between this figure and the

IRM figures is unknown. Recent automation

programs for information dissemination-related

activities at agencies such as the Securities and

Exchange Commission (SEC) and Patent and

Trademark Office (PTO) have included private

sector contracting in the range of tens to hundreds of millions of dollars per agency. In addition to its role as a government contractor, the

private sector is a major user and reseller of

Federal information, as will be discussed later

in this chapter.

Electronic v. Paper Formats

The second major issue cluster involves the

applicability of the existing statutory framework and implementing directives to electronic

as opposed to paper forms of information dissemination. As noted earlier, the Paperwork

Reduction Act provides little substantive guidance on electronic information dissemination.

Unfortunately, the two other critically important statutes, the Printing Act and Freedom

of Information Act, were enacted in 1895 and

1966 respectively, and both predated the era

of widespread electronic information exchange.

Neither has been updated to reflect electronic

formats; as a result, there is considerable controversy about their applicability to electronic
formats. Much of the debate turns on such narrow questions as whether terms such as “printing,” “publication, “ “record,” and “document”

are to be interpreted as limited to paper formats or to include relevant Federal information regardless of format.

Today, most Federal agencies are operating

in a partial policy vacuum when it comes to

electronic information dissemination. In addition to the confusion and controversy over

governmentwide statutory application, the results of the GAO survey indicate that the

majority of agencies do not have documented

policies or procedures on providing public access to electronic databases, on the electronic

dissemination of information by agency contractors, or on the applicability of FOIA to

public information in electronic formats. The

results are highlighted in Table 11-4 for 114

civilian departmental agency components and

48 independent civilian agencies.

The absence of explicit, governmentwide policy on electronic information dissemination is

recognized by key legislative and executive

branch officials. As early as the late 1970s, the

JCP recognized the need to review and possibly update the Printing Act with respect to

electronic printing and dissemination. In 1979,

the JCP issued a comprehensive overview of

a wide range of relevant issues.17 In the early

1980s, the JCP initiated a revision of the Government Printing and Binding Regulations to

deal in part with technological change.18 While

the revision effort did not come to fruition, the

JCP did issue a requirement in 1985 that agencies submit to the JCP comprehensive printITU.S. Congress, Joint Committee on Printing, Federal Government Printing and Publishing: Policy Issues, Report of the

Ad Hoc Advisory Committee on Revision of Title 44, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC, 1979. Also see U.S.

Congress, Joint Committee on Printing, The Printing Procurement Program of the Federal Government, Report of the Task

Force on the Printing Procurement Program, 99th Congress,

1st sess., Washington, DC, U.S. Government Printing Office,

1986.

1“Memorandum to Heads of All Federal Departments and

Agencies from Rep. Augustus F. Hawkins, Chairman, Joint

Committee on Printing, U.S. Congress, June 20, 1983; Also see

U.S. Congress, Joint Committee on Printing, “Revisions to

Printing and Binding Regulations of the Joint Committee on

Printing, ” 130 Congressional Record, P. H7075 ff., June 26,

1984.

Table 11-4.-Federal Agency Policies on

Electronic Information Dissemination

Percent of agencies having

documented policies

and procedures

Policy area Departmental a Independent b

Public access to agency

electronic databases

yes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.6 10,4

no . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90.4 89.6

Electronic dissemination by

agency contractors

yes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.9 6.3

no . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43.0 41.7

do not use contractors . . . . 49,1 52.1

Applicability of FOIA to

electronic formats

yes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18.4 25,0

no . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81.6 75.0

a — Departmental civilian agency components

b lndependent civilian agency components.

SOURCE: GAO Survey of Federal Agencies, 1987

ing program plans that included new technology.” Also during this time period, the JCP

actively explored the provision of electronic

formats to the depository libraries, and issued

two reports on this topic.20

In 1986, the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs introduced legislation to amend

the Paperwork Reduction Act to provide much

clearer guidance on information dissemination.21 A

-

few of the relevant provisions were

incorporated in the Paperwork Reduction Act

Amendments enacted by Congress at the close

of the 99th Congress. Also, in 1986, the House

Committee on Government Operations issued

a comprehensive report and policy overview

of issues pertaining to electronic collection and

dissemination of Federal information.22 The

19 Memorandum t. Heads of All Federal Departments and

Agencies from Sen. Charles McC. Mathias, Jr., Chairman, Joint

Committee on Printing, U.S. Congress, Sept. 23, 1985.

20 U.S. Congress, Joint Committee on Printing, Provision of

Federal Government Publications in Electronic Format to Depository Libraries, 98th Congress, 2d sess., U.S. GPO, Washington, D. C., 1984, and An Open Forum on the Provision of

Electronic Federal Information to Depository Libraries, 99th

Congress, 1st sess., U.S. GPO, 1985.

“U.S. Congress, Senate, S. 2230, “Federal Management Reorganization and Cost Control Act of 1986, ” Mar. 26, 1986, and

especially Title VI on Federal Information Policy.

22 U.S. Congress, House, Committee on Government Operations, Subcommittee on Government Information, Justice, and

Agriculture, Electronic Collection and Dissemination of Infor-

(continued on next page/
266

report was prepared by the Subcommittee on

Government Information, Justice, and Agriculture based in part on hearings that explored

early agency initiatives in electronic dissemination. Subsequently, the House Committees

on Government Operations, Energy and Commerce, and the Judiciary have collaborated on

statutory language to address issues raised by

SEC and PTO automation plans that affect access to and dissemination of agency information. In 1987, the JCP passed resolutions authorizing and encouraging the GPO to offer

electronic formats and services and to conduct

appropriate pilot tests. A few agencies, such

as the Department of Commerce (DOC), have

initiated internal task forces to address electronic dissemination policy issues. (The DOC

task force recently issued a draft policy on electronic dissemination.)

Also, in 1987, OMB issued Bulletin No. 87-

14 which directed all executive departments

and agencies to inventory their information

dissemination products and services, and report the results to OMB.23 This bulletin essentially revises OMB Bulletin 86-11 on government publications to include electronic

formats, such as machine-readable data files

(e.g., magnetic tapes, floppy disks, software,

online electronic databases, and electronic

bulletin boards). In addition to activity reports,

agencies are directed to establish and maintain electronic inventories of all information

dissemination products and services, and to

make these inventories available to the public. Agencies may provide these inventories

either directly, as long as there is no duplication with other agency or private sector offerings, or indirectly through other agencies or

(continued from previous page)

mation by Federal Agencies: A Policy Overview, House Report

99-560, 99th Congress, 2d sess., U.S. GPO, Washington, DC,

Apr. 29, 1986. Also see U.S. Congress, House, Committee on

Government Operations, Subcommittee on Government Information and Individual Rights, Government Provision of Information Services in Competition With the Private Sector, Hearing, 97th Congress, 2d sess., U.S. GPO, Washington, D. C., Feb.

25, 1982: and Rep. Glenn English, “Electronic Filing of Documents With the Government: New Technology Presents New

Problems, ” Congressional Record–House, Mar. 14, 1984, H

1614-1615.

‘

)Office of Management and Budget, “Report and Inventory

of Government Information Dissemination Products and Services”, OMB Bulletin No. 87-14, June 8, 1987.

private sector entities. The agency responses

to this bulletin have not yet been released by

OMB. OMB has issued:24

●

●

a draft policy on electronic information

collection or filing, which is relevant since

electronic collection and dissemination can

be part of the same system; and

a draft policy on Federal statistical activities, which states that agencies are expected to conform to A-130 with respect

to dissemination of statistical information.

Another example of ambiguity and controversy about statutory applicability concerns

the Depository Library Act of 1962. Both this

act and the related Printing Act of 1895 predate electronic dissemination and use conventional paper-based terminology. The word

‘‘electronic’ does not appear in these acts.

However, the legislative history of the Depository Library Act of 1962 can be interpreted

to suggest that congressional intent was inclusive with respect to government information (see chs. 6 and 7 for further discussion).

While the primary formats available at the

time of enactment were traditional paper-based

reports, publications, and documents, historical debate suggests that new formats could and

should be accommodated. Indeed, microfiche

is now a well established part of the depository program. Moreover the JCP, as noted

earlier, has instructed the GPO (and, by extension, the depository program run by GPO)

to include electronic formats. OMB, in circular A-130, directed agencies to provide all publications to depository libraries via GPO, but

explicitly used the definition of ‘publication

(informational matter published as an individual document) found in the 44 USC 1901 rather

than the broader term “information” (informational matter in any medium, including

computerized databases, microform, or magnetic tape, as well as paper) used elsewhere in

“Office of Management and Budget, “Notice of Policy Guidance on Electronic Collection of Information, Aug. 7, 1987,

printed in Federal Register, vol. 52, pp. 29454-29457; 0MB,

“Summary of Comments on Notice of Policy Guidance on Electronic Collection of Information, ” Nov. 17, 1987: OMB, “Notice of Draft Circular Establishing Guidelines for Federal Statistical Activities, ” Federal Register vol. 53, No. 12, Jan. 20,

1988, pp. 1542-1552.
267

A-130. Also, in Bulletin 87-14, OMB excluded

electronic formats from the agency reporting

requirements for materials provided to the depository library program.

In sum, OMB appears to have reservations

or at least be quite uncertain about whether

and to what extent electronic formats should

be included in the depository library program.

In sharp contrast, the chairman of the JCP has

stated that:25

When a Federal agency publishes Government information in electronic format for mass

or general distribution, whether as a complement to or as a substitute for conventionally

printed material, the GPO should and must

continue to provide its full range of services

and support in the production, distribution,

and sale of such publications. This, of course,

includes the distribution of such electronic Government publications to depository libraries.

One final example of ambiguity over statutory applicability to electronic formats involves

the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). Enactment of FOIA in 1966 shifted the burden of

proof from the public to Federal agencies when

questions of access to Federal information are

in dispute. The act served to establish full

agency disclosure as the operating principle,

unless information was in one of the categories (e.g., classified, proprietary) specifically

exempted. The advent of electronic information technology largely postdated the act and,

as a result, numerous issues have arisen in the

agencies and the courts. For example, what is

a‘ ‘reasonable’ search for the desired information when the information is in electronic form

and the search can be conducted in a computerassisted fashion? What is the definition of an

agency ‘‘record’ when a record could be in a

machine-readable format such as a database,

floppy disk, or optical disk? If computer software is needed to access electronic agency information effectively, does or should the software be defined as an integral part of the

agency record and of a reasonable search? Does

a legal agency record exist when the record has

25 Letter from Honorable Frank Annunzio, Chairman, Joint

Committee on Printing. to Honorable Ralph E. Kennickell, ,Jr.,

Public Pinter, Mar. 25, 1988.

never been (and may never be) in hardcopy paper format? These and other questions present

a growing challenge to the interpretation of

FOIA in an increasingly electronic environment. In many areas, the FOIA case law on

electronic formats is limited, ambiguous, or

contradictory, and the courts have suggested

the need for legislative remedies (see ch. 9).

Possible Congressional Actions

If Congress wishes to preserve and strengthen

the principle of public access to Federal information, a number of possible actions warrant

consideration. These range from amending specific statutes with respect to electronic formats, to articulating an overall statement of

congressional intent.

For example, if Congress wishes to maintain

the integrity of FOIA for electronic as well as

traditional paper formats, the option of amending the statute deserves serious consideration

and, indeed, may well be essential. Various specific electronic FOIA issues that could be addressed by amendments are discussed in some

detail in chapter 9.

Similarly, if it is, congressional intent that

the DLP should include Federal information

in all formats, then Congress may need to

amend appropriate statutes to eliminate the

current ambiguity and controversy. Various

specific depository library issues that could be

addressed are discussed in detail in chapter 7.

Another congressional action that warrants

serious consideration is the promulgation of

congressional views, perhaps in statutory

form, on the information dissemination principles addressed in OMB’s Circular A-130. The

most important contribution could be to establish a clearer sense of congressional priority

with respect to public access and cost-effectiveness goals. A central question is—which

comes first, if choices must be made. For example, one possible interpretation of congressional intent regarding Federal information

dissemination is to give highest priority to

unimpeded and open dissemination in order to

realize the overriding policy goal of public ac-
268

cess. This could be achieved as cost-effectively

as possible without compromising public access, and utilizing the private sector where

appropriate as one means to achieve these

ends. This interpretation is philosophically

somewhat different from that reflected in OMB

Circular A-130, and also from OMB Circular

A-76 which requires contracting out of commercially available services when cost-effective

to the government. Note that the applicability of A-76 to arguably inherent governmental

functions such as information dissemination,

and the cost-effectiveness of private contracting of such functions, are also in dispute. These

topics are considered below and in chapter 12

under the discussion of possible privatization

of NTIS or GPO. Given the potentially conflicting interpretations of congressional intent,

congressional clarification or reaffirmation appears warranted, possibly through amendment

of relevant statues such as the Printing Act

or Paperwork Reduction Act.

Congress may need to clarify its intent about

whether and under what conditions privatizing

Federal information dissemination functions

is appropriate given the vital governmental nature of many dissemination activities, and

whether and under what conditions privatizing is cost-effective.

OMB Circular A-76 on “Performance of Commercial Activities” (August 4, 1983) states

that the “Federal Government shall rely on

commercially available sources to provide commercial products and services . . . if the product or service can be procured more economically from a commercial source. . . [and is not]

inherently governmental in nature. ” Circular

A-76 defines a governmental function as “so

intimately related to the public interest as to

mandate performance by Government employees” such as:

●

●

●

●

●

management of government programs requiring value judgments;

selection of program priorities;

direction of Federal employees;

regulation of the use of space, oceans,

navigable rivers, and other natural resources; and

regulation of industry and commerce.

A-76 does not specifically address whether information dissemination is a governmental

function in this sense. However, A-76 does list

the following information-related activities as

being commercial not governmental in nature,

along with numerous other activities illustrated below:

Information-Related

Distribution of audiovisual materials

Library operations

Cataloging

Printing and binding

Reproduction, copying, and duplication

Management information systems

Other

Operation of cafeterias

Laundry and dry cleaning

Architect and engineer services

Operation of motor pools

Word processing/data entry/typing

Laboratory testing services

A-76 does point out that whether or not these

(or other commercial) activities serve inherently governmental functions and should be

performed by the government, there should be

analyses and decisions on a case-by-case basis.

And the library community for example, among

others, has challenged OMB’s assertion that

information-related activities such as library

operations are essentially commercial in

nature.26

OMB Circular A-130 on “Management of

Federal Information Resources, on the other

hand, asserts that policies contained in A-76

are applicable to information dissemination.

The OMB policy is, in general, reliance on the

private sector for information dissemination

when cost effective and when not an inherently

governmental function. Although not explicitly

stated, the OMB drafters of A-130 apparently

intended to draw a distinction

. . . between the issues of whether the government should offer an information product or

service and how the product or service should

be offered. The first question is whether the

26 Letter to Honorable David S. Linowes, Chairman, President’s Commission on Privatization, from James P. Riley, Executive Director, Federal Library and Information Center Committee, Jan. 29, 1988.
269

—

government should undertake an information

activity at all, or leave it to the private sector.

Answering this question appears to be an inherently governmental function. However,

once it has been determined that the government has a proper role, the second question

of how to carry out the role arises. Here it is

appropriate to inquire whether the activities

involved in carrying out the role are commercial, and hence might be accomplished through

grant or contract.27

There are two problems with current OMB

policy. First, there has not been a systematic

analysis of what information dissemination

functions are inherently governmental. An

analysis of NTIS and GPO privatization proposals (see ch. 12) suggests that many NTIS

and GPO dissemination functions are not suitable for privatization. Many other agency information dissemination functions arguably

are vital to agency performance of statutory

missions, and would thereby qualify as governmental. However, whether these functions

are inherently governmental and therefore not

amenable or suitable for contracting out, as

appears to be the case for many NTIS and GPO

functions, has not been carefully examined.

Second, there have not been credible analyses

of whether and under what conditions the contracting out of Federal information dissemination functions is cost-effective. Conducting

such analyses is not easy.

Numerous GAO audits of agency contracting out activities have identified serious problems that have the effect of overstating savings to the government.28 In many instances,

it is difficult to develop a fair initial comparison between inhouse and contracted out costs.

Secondly, contract costs frequently escalate

rapidly after the initial contract award, for a

variety of reasons. It is difficult to tell if in

fact contracting out ends up being less expensive than retaining the activity inhouse (net

savings), but it is clear that projected gross

savings often do not fully materialize. Other

concerns expressed about contracting out,

‘TSprehe, “Federal Information, ” footnote 6, p. 39.

‘“See, for example, U.S. General Accounting Office, Synopsis of GAO Reports Involving Contracting Out Under OMB

Circular A-76, GAO/PLRD-83-74, May 24, 1983.

especially in technology-intensive areas, are

the loss of governmental expertise necessary

to monitor contracts and set overall direction,

and the potential for the government to become

dependent on the incumbent contractor.

As a matter of general philosophy, some

OMB and information industry officials have

argued that while Federal agency electronic

dissemination of raw data is acceptable, government dissemination of so-called value-added

information products and services is not an

appropriate governmental function and should

be the province of private industry. In this

view, dissemination by the Bureau of the

Census of statistical data on magnetic computer tapes would be appropriate, but dissemination of value-added or enhanced information—such as a CD-ROM with the data and

search software for retrieving and manipulating this data—would not. The major problem

with using value-added as a line of demarcation between governmental and private sector

roles is that many Federal agencies have mandates (see Tables 11-1, 11-2, and 11-3) to develop and disseminate what amounts to value-

-added information and have been doing so for

years or decades. Providing value-added information is a well-established and, indeed, a mandated function of government. Restricting the

Federal Government from providing value-

-added information, or from providing such information in electronic form (even if previously

available in paper), would appear to substantially diminish the government’s role and erode

the ability of agencies to carry out numerous

statutory responsibilities.

At the same time, however, the concept of

multiple levels of value-added may be viable

with the private sector frequently providing

additional levels of value or enhancement beyond those provided by the government. Federal agencies would continue to provide information as they do today using electronic

formats where appropriate and desired by

users, and employing private sector contractors where cost-effective and/or necessary to

provide the desired quality or timeliness. The

private information industry would be able to

repackage and resell any Federal information
270

products, and would be able to add further

value to create enhanced information products

where the market exists, much as the industry does today. The only real difference is that

both the governmental and private sector offerings would be moving to a higher and more

sophisticated technological level. Congress

could address the value-added question in hearings, reports, oversight, and/or legislation.

In addition, Congress could establish guidelines for the role of private sector contractors

in Federal information dissemination. For example, based on experience with agency automation programs to date—particularly those

of the SEC and PTO and other agencies cited

in the 1986 House Committee on Government

Operations report29—with respect to agency

contracting out of information dissemination

activities, at least six basic principles have

emerged from the congressional debate. Briefly,

these are that agency contracting out of information dissemination activities should:

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

not impede or erode vital governmental

functions;

maintain or strengthen public access to

agency information;

be more cost-effective compared to governmental performance;

maintain open and competitive procurements for private vendors (e.g., contractors would have no exclusive rights to develop value-added products);

preclude monopoly control by contractors

over agency information dissemination;

and

preclude cross subsidies between contractor services and agency operations.

Also, Congress could establish guidelines on

the role of Federal agencies in information dis-

“’See, for example, U.S. Congress, House, H.R. 2600, “Securities and Exchange Commission Authorization Act of 1987,

100th Congress, 1st sess., June 4, 1987; U.S. Congress, House,

Committee on Energy and Commerce, Securities and Exchange

Commission Authorization Act, Report to accompany H.R.

2600, 100th Congress, 1st sess., Rep. No. 100-296, Sept. 9, 1987;

Also see U.S. Congress, Committee on Government Operations,

Electronic Collection and Dissemination, footnote 22.

semination and especially electronic dissemination. Again, at least six basic principles have

emerged from the congressional debate to date.

These are that agency electronic dissemination

activities should:

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

strengthen public access to agency information;

improve the cost-effectiveness of agency

information dissemination;

encourage a diversity of mechanisms for

agency information dissemination and

preclude copyright-like or monopoly controls over Federal information;

include information sources, users, and potential contractors in the planning of information dissemination systems, products, and services;

limit user fees to no more than the marginal cost of information dissemination,

and preclude fees that compromise agency

statutory missions; and

minimize competition with the private sector and encourage the private sector, so

long as public access to agency information is assured and agency statutory mission requirements are met, to provide additional value-added services and products

(beyond the value of those offered by the

agency).

These or similar principles could be enacted

into law as amendments to the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Printing Act, or other appropriate statutes. The urgency for such action

is heightened as individual agencies promulgate their own policies and initiate activities

that may not be consistent with the above 12

principles.

Also, Congress could clarify the roles and

responsibilities of the governmentwide information dissemination institutions and/or mandate a variety of specific improvements in the

management of conventional as well as electronic information dissemination. These are

discussed later in this chapter and in chapter

12.
271

-

CLARIFICATION OF INSTITUTIONAL ROLES

AND RESPONSIBILITIES

Another major issue cluster that warrants

congressional attention and action involves institutional responsibilities for Federal information dissemination. The focal points for current debate are the GPO (and related functions

of the JCP), NTIS, and the proposals for reorganization of the Federal Government information dissemination institutions and oversight. These are discussed briefly below in turn.

(The role of the DLP in electronic information

dissemination, mentioned earlier, can also be

viewed as an institutional issue. See chs. 6 and

7 of this report for discussion.)

GPO. The Printing Act of 1895 (remodified

in 1968 by P.L. 90-620) requires that all Federal printing (with the exception of the Supreme Court) be done by or through GPO, except where the JCP has approved field printing

plants or printing procurement by specific

agencies. Three specific policy issues have

arisen. One is whether the act extends to electronic dissemination or, more broadly, to information dissemination in general, regardless

of format. At present, OMB has taken the position that electronic-based information dissemination by executive agencies falls outside

of the act’s purview. As of August 1988, very

few of the electronic dissemination products

of the executive agencies are produced by or

through GPO or are provided to the GPO Superintendent of Documents for possible inclusion in the sales program. A few agencies

participate on a voluntary basis in GPO’s magnetic tape sales program, and a few are participating in pilot projects on electronic data

transfer and the like. Almost all Federal information products and services in electronic

format are produced and disseminated by the

individual agencies themselves (or through

agency contractors). The JCP has directed (by

a 1987 resolution and 1988 letter) that the GPO

include electronic formats in the Sales Program

and the DLP. However, OMB has taken the

position that while executive agencies may participate on a voluntary basis in G PO electronic

activities, GPO and JCP may not require

agency participation.

A second GPO institutional issue is whether

GPO (and JCP) procurement authority extends

to computer-based electronic printing technology, at least with respect to the executive

branch. Over the past 10 to 15 years, printing

technology has incorporated significant electronic and computer-based components, to the

point where page layout and composition are

heavily computerized. At GPO, about 70 percent of the input textual material is provided

in electronic format. Increasingly, the printing process is becoming a largely electronic

one, with material remaining in electronic form

from initial keyboarding, through layout, composition, and revision cycles, until a final version is ready for production. The production

format can be, and frequently still is, paper,

but it can also be microform, magnetic tape,

diskette, and other nonpaper formats. Thus,

the dividing line between traditional “ink on

paper” printing and electronic or computerized printing is no longer clear or, perhaps, even

a valid or a feasible distinction.

A GPO procurement for electronic printing

on behalf of the U.S. Army (the 600-S program)

was terminated in part because of alleged contracting irregularities (that are outside the

scope of this study), but, more importantly,

because of possible conflict with the Brooks

Act that governs executive agency procurement of automatic data processing, computers,

and telecommunication-related equipment.

GPO took the position that the 600-S procurement, like other GPO printing procurements,

was exempted from the requirements of the

Brooks Act as provided for in the Legislative

Branch Appropriations Act of 1977. The House

Committee on Government Operations took

the position that the 600-S procurement in-
272

eluded a substantial amount of computerrelated technology and, thus, should have been

procured under the Brooks Act and GSA contracting procedures rather than the Printing

Act and GPO contracting procedures. Congress subsequently (in 1986) amended the

Brooks Act to cover any agency procurement

that included significant ADP or related technology or services. The revised statutory definition of automatic data processing is:

. . . any equipment or interconnected system

or subsystems of equipment that is used in the

automatic acquisition, storage, manipulation,

management, movement, control, display,

switching interchange, transmission, or reception of data or information (1) by a Federal

agency or (z) under contract with a Federal

agency which (a) requires the use of such equipment or (b) requires the performance of a service or the furnishing of a product which is performed or produced making significant use of

such equipment.

The term equipment is defined to include “computers; ancillary equipment; software, firmware, and similar procedures; services, including support services; and related resources as

defined by regulations issued by the Administrator for General Services.”30

GPO acknowledges that comprehensive electronic publishing systems include significant

amounts of both printing and computer technologies, and that procurement of these socalled “mixed resource” systems requires close

cooperation between GPO and GSA. The Public Printer has called for the development of

a GPO-GSA joint procurement program for

major electronic publishing systems that would

satisfy GPO’s obligations under the printing

provisions of Title 44 of the U.S. Code and

GSA’s obligations under the Brooks Act.31

This may require involvement of the JCP, which

has approval authority over GPO procurements,

30 U.S. Congress, “Continuing Appropriations Resolution for

Fiscal 1987, ” Title VIII—’’Paperwork Reduction Reauthorization,” Part B–Amendments to the Brooks Act, Sec. 822(a)

Amending Section 11 l(a) of the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 (40 U.S.C. 759(a), p. 357.

31 Ralph E. Kennickell, Jr., Public Printer of the United

States, testimony before the Subcommittee on Legislative

Branch Appropriations, Committee on Appropriations, U.S. Senate, “GPO Appropriations Estimates for Fiscal Year 1989”,

Mar. 10, 1988.

and the House Committee on Government

Operations, which has oversight authority over

GSA and Brooks Act procurements, and possibly other committees, with respect to major

procurements on the scale of 600-S (several

hundred million dollars). The much smaller Air

Force 50-S electronic publishing procurement

($10 million over 3 years) was awarded by GPO

in January 1988 without incident or controversy

under existing GPO contracting procedures.

This issue highlights the ambiguity about

the applicability of the Printing Act, Brooks

Act, and Paperwork Reduction Act to agency

electronic information dissemination systems

and those systems in particular in which are

imbedded conventional printing functions.

Since the major thrust of agency automation

programs (including automation of information collection and dissemination functions) is

towards integrated systems, these statutory

ambiguities and conflicting interpretations are

likely to be aggravated over time, thus providing even more impetus for further congressional review and, perhaps of necessity, statutory adjustments.

The third GPO institutional issue is whether

the statutory basis for GPO (and JCP) control

over executive branch printing activities is

constitutional. The U.S. Supreme Court 1983

decision in INS v. Chadha struck down the

legislative veto as unconstitutional.32 This decision has been interpreted by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) as invalidating provisions of the Printing Act that provide for

control over and prior approval of executive

branch printing by the JCP.33 (lNS v. Chadha

was also cited as part of the basis for DOJ opposition to JCP proposals for revising the Government Printing and Binding Regulations in

1983 and 1984.34) Based on this DOJ inter32 103 S. Ct. 2764 (1983).

33 Office of Legal Counsel, U.S. Department of Justice,

Memorandum for William H. Taft, IV, Deputy Secretary of Defense, Re: “Effect of INS V. Chadha on 44 U.S.C. 501, Public

Printing and Documents, ” Mar. 2, 1984.

‘~~office of Leg~ counsel, U.S. Department of J@@

Memorandum for Michael J. Horowitz, Counsel to the OMB

Director, Re. “Constitutionality of Proposed Regulations of

Joint Committee on Printing Under Buckley V. Valeo and INS

V. Chadha,” Apr. 11, 1984, and Re. “Government Printing, Binding, and Distribution Policies and Guidances of the Joint Committee on Printing, ’ Aug. 21, 1984.
273

pretation, the Federal Acquisition Regulations

(FAR) were revised in 1987 and provided that

executive agencies need only give the JCP advance notice of agency printing plans—not

seek JCP approval. Further, agencies with

their own printing plant or printing procurement capability would not be required to obtain their printing from or through GPO.35

The DOJ interpretation and FAR revisions

were disputed by the JCP and GPO.36 The

Public Printer testified that the FAR revisions

would:

• be inconsistent with the legislative intent

of Title 44;

● substantially increase the government’s

printing costs; and

● jeopardize the GPO sales and depository

library programs.37

While the legal issues remain unresolved, Congress included a provision in the fiscal year

1988 Continuing Appropriations Resolution

that mooted the FAR revisions and was intended to maintain the status quo. This provision is also included in the Legislative Branch

Appropriation Bill for fiscal year 1989 (H.R.

4587).38

NTIS. The major institutional issue concerning NTIS is the Administration’s proposal to

“’See Federal Register, vol. 52, No. 54, Mar. 20, 1987, pp.

9036-9038.

“Letter to Terence C. Golden, Administrator, General Services Administration, Caspar W. Weinberger, Secretary of Defense, and James C. Fletcher, NASA Administrator, from Senators Wendell Ford, Ted Stevens, Dennis De Comcini. Albert

Gore, Jr., and Mark O. Hatfield and Representatives Frank Annunzio, Joseph M. Gaydos, and Leon E. Panetta, June 5, 1987.

Also see letter to Rep. Frank Annunzio, Chairman, Joint Committee on Printing, from H. Lawrence Garrett. I I 1, General

Counsel, U.S. Department of Defense, June 15, 1987. For general background, see Morton Rosenberg, American Law Division, Congressional Research Service, Memoranda to the Joint

Committee on Printing, “Effect of Legislative Veto Decision

on the Joint Committee on Printing and Possible Congressional

Responses, ” Apr. 16, 1985, and "Legal Propriety of Amendments to the Federal Acquisition Regulation Respecting the

Conduct of Field Printing Operations by Executive Agencies,

May 21, 1987.

‘TKennickell, “Appropriations Estimates, ” footnote 31.

‘“U.S. Congress, “ Continuing Appropriations Resolution for

Fiscal 1988, ” Sec. 309, 100th Congress, 1st sess., p. 324. Also

see letter to Rep. Vic Fazio, Chairman, Subcommittee on [the]

Legislative Branch, House Committee on Appropriations, from

OMB Director James C. Miller, Nov. 16, 1987. Also see U.S.

Congress, House, Committee on Appropriations, Legislative

Branch Appropriations Bill, 1989, Report No. 100-621, 100th

Congress, 2d sess., May 12, 1988.

privatize the agency. In late 1985, the Office

of Management and Budget (OMB) asked the

Department of Commerce-to develop proposals

for privatizing NTIS. While OMB did not initiate a formal contracting out procedure, the

initial impetus for NTIS privatization can be

viewed in part in the context of OMB Circular A-76, which states that the “Federal Government shall rely on commercially available

sources to provide commercial products and

services if the product or service can be procured more economically from a commercial

source. ” As noted earlier, A-76 requires detailed cost comparisons and explicit determination of inherently government-functions that

are not subject to contracting out. Based, in

part, on the results of Department of Commerce

studies conducted in 1986, OMB decided in

1987 to pursue a substitute contracting out

procedure for NTIS known as Fed Co-Op (discussed later), rather than follow the formal A76 process.

These proposals have become very controversial. The Administration has argued that

NTIS provides what is essentially a commercial service performed by the Government and

that it should be contracted out or otherwise

privatized. The Administration has asserted

that privatizing NTIS would maximize reliance

on and minimize competition with the private

sector, reduce the cost of government, and/or

increase the quality and effectiveness of NTIS

services. Several private firms have expressed

interest in operating NTIS. The academic, research, and scientific communities, however,

have argued, in general, that NTIS performs

an important and inherently governmental

function that is not suitable for privatization,

and that no cost savings or service improvements have been demonstrated to occur if

NTIS were to be privatized. The Federal scientific and technical agencies, the source of

NTIS information, have expressed concerns

about the the viability of NTIS if privatized

and whether U.S. and foreign government

agencies would continue to cooperate with a

privatized NTIS.

As an agency of the U.S. Department of

Commerce, NTIS operates under the statutory

authority of the Secretary to collect, exchange,
274

and disseminate scientific and technical information (Title 15, U.S. Code, Sections 1151-

1157). At OMB direction, the Department of

Commerce has conducted numerous studies

and public meetings over the past 2 years to

develop and evaluate proposals for NTIS privatization. A review of all available documents

indicates that the cost-effectiveness of privatizing NTIS has not been established, and that

the departmental task force studying the matter recommended against privatization on various grounds. A 1986 departmental analysis of

the entire range of options concluded that only

minor adjustments were warranted, and recommended against privatization on the grounds

that it would not be cost-effective and could

jeopardize important government functions.39

Consequently, OMB directed that privatization proceed not via the usual A-76 contracting out procedures, but through the new Federal Employee Direct Corporate Ownership

Opportunity Plan (known as Fed Co-Op) procedures issued in early 1987 by the Office of

Personnel Management. Under Fed Co-Op,

Federal employees are transferred into a private company or organization and receive

stock ownership. Opponents argue that the

Fed Co-Op approach is circumventing otherwise unattainable A-76 requirements, and is

essentially another privatization mechanism

with unproven value to the government. Nonetheless, the Department of Commerce issued

a request for information in January 1988, held

a pre-bidders meeting on January 29, 1988, and

proceeded down the Fed Co-Op path.40 A congressional hearing held February 24, 1988 by

the House Committee on Science, Technology,

and Space, Subcommittee on Science, Research,

and Technology, revealed widespread opposition to the Fed Co-Op privatization plan, including, notably, opposition from the Informa-

‘9U.S. Department of Commerce, “Privatization Proposal for

the National Technical Information Service, ” October 1986,

transmitted from Assistant Secretary of Administration Kay

Bulow to Carol T. Crawford, OMB Associate Director for Economic and Government, letter dated Nov. 13, 1986.

‘OU.S. Department of Commerce, “Request For Information:

Privatization of the National Technical Information Service, ”

Jan. 20, 1988.

tion Industry Association.41 Subsequently,

the Secretary of Commerce rejected the plan.

The controversy over NTIS has precipitated

legislative action by the relevant House and

Senate authorizing committees to block privatization. Both the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology and the Senate

Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation have enacted language prohibiting

the contracting out of NTIS, or any major

NTIS activities, without explicit statutory approval. This prohibition was included as part

of Title V (“Technology Competitiveness’ of

the comprehensive trade legislation (H.R.

4848) signed into law on August 23, 1988.

Other congressional actions included language

incorporated by the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology in the National

Bureau of Standards Authorization Act for fiscal year 1989 that would convert NTIS to a

government corporation within the Department of Commerce, to be known as the National Technical Information Corporation.42

The House Committee on Energy and Commerce, on a sequential referral, reported out

the NBS Authorization Act with amendments

that would prohibit NTIS privatization and

would authorize NTIS use of net revenues for

capital investment. However, the amendments

would retain NTIS as a line agency of the Department of Commerce, not as a government

corporation. 43

Government reorganization. The NTIS controversy has been one more factor contributing to heightened interest in proposals for reorganization of the major Federal information

“U.S. Congress, House of Representatives, Committee on

Science, Space, and Technology, Subcommittee on Science,

Space, and Technology, National Technical Information Service, Hearing, 100th Congress, 2d sess., U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC, Feb. 24, 1988.

‘zU. S. Congress, House of Representatives, Committee on

Science, Space, and Technology, National Bureau of Standards

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1989, Report 100-673, Part

1, 100th Congress, 2d sess., U.S. Government Printing Office,

Washington, DC, June 3, 1988.

‘:]U. S. Congress, House of Representatives, Committee on

Energy and Commerce, National Bureau of Standards Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1987, Report 100-673, Part 2, 100th

Congress, 2d sess., U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC, July 8, 1988.
275

institutions. Such proposals have been considered over the past 8 years. As early as 1979,

an advisory group appointed by the JCP considered the possibility of establishing a new

central office combining the functions of GPO,

NTIS, and OMB with respect to public information policy, in order to facilitate public access and eliminate duplication. A National

Publications Act of 1980 was introduced to

establish a National Publications Office along

with a Commission that would replace the JCP,

but the bill was not enacted.” In the past

two Congresses, legislation was introduced

that would combine the information dissemination functions of GPO, NTIS, and the dissemination or sales offices of major agencies

into one governmentwide Government Information Office (GIO).45 The legislation would

also establish a Joint Committee on Government Information in Congress. In 1987, the

National Academy of Public Administration

completed a study that favored an NTIS corporation.46) Subsequently, legislation was introduced to reorganize NTIS into a government corporation, and now incorporated into

the House Science Committee version of the

NBS Authorization Act, as noted above.47 In

1987 hearings on these and other related bills,

the Public Printer testified that GPO would

be pleased to provide an institutional home for

NTIS as an alternative to privatization.48

And in 1988, the Librarian of Congress suggested that the Library of Congress also could

serve as a home for NTIS.49

‘tU. S. Congress, "National Publications Act of 1980, 96th

Congress 2d sess.

‘ ‘U.S. Congress, II, R. 5412, “Government Information Act

of 1986, ” 99th Congress, 2d sess., Aug. 13, 1986: H.R. 1615,

“Government Information Act of 1987, ” 100th Congress, 1st

sess., Mar. 16, 1‘387. Also see Rep. George E. Brown, Jr., Congressional Record. Mar. 16, 1987, E952-955.

‘bNational Academ~r of Public Administration, An Assessment of Alternati\re Organizational Structures for the National

Technical Information Ser\ice, Washington, DC, Feb. 1987.

‘W.S. Congress, H.R. 2159, “National Technical Information

Act of 1987, ” 100th Congress, 1st sess., Apr. 23, 1987.

‘“See statement of Ralph E. Kennickell, .Jr., Public Printer

of the United States, before the Subcommittee on the Legislative Branch. Committee on Appropriations, U.S. Senate, Mar.

10, 1988.

‘<letter to Iionorable Doug J$’afgren, Chairman, Subcommittee on Science, Research, and Technology, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives,

from Honorable James H. Billington, Librarian of Congress,

Apr. 12, 19/+~.

The legislation introduced specified that the

Joint Committee on Government Information

would consist of 8 members, 4 from the House

and 4 from the Senate, and, would not have

legislative authority, but would have the authority to hold hearings, and conduct other

nonlegislative functions. The relationships

with existing joint and standing committees

were not specified. Depending on its jurisdiction, anew joint committee could be designed

to essentially supercede and replace the existing JCP, or it could complement the JCP. A

new joint committee would be unlikely to supercede the functions of standing legislative

committees, unless Congress were to depart

from a now well established tradition that joint

committees not be assigned legislative authority.

The current JCP consists of 10 members, 5

from the Committee on House Administration

and 5 from the Senate Committee on Rules and

Administration. A new or reorganized joint

committee could draw from a larger number

of committees. There are many possible combinations. For example, with a total membership of 10, 2 members could be selected from

each of the House Committee on Administration and Senate Committee on Rules and Administration, 2 members could be selected from

each of the House Committee on Government

Operations and Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, 1 member could be selected

from the House Committee on Science, Space,

and Technology and 1 from the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. There are several other committees with

potentially relevant jurisdictions, depending

on the scope of the new joint committee’s charter, including the House and Senate Committees on the Judiciary and the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.

Other alternatives include establishing Special or Select Committees on Government Information in the House and Senate, and/or

strengthening existing subcommittees (such

as the House Government Operations Subcommittee on Government Information, Justice,

and Agriculture) or establishing new subcommittees (such as within the Senate Committee on Government Affairs).
276

The primary rationale for a new joint committee would be that government information

issues:

are becoming (or already are) priority national issues in their own right;

cut across the jurisdictions of several

legislative committees;

reflect the merging of information technologies along one continuum (from collection and processing to storage and dissemination in a variety of printed and electronic formats); and

need a broad, cross-cutting forum and focal point in Congress.

As in any congressional reorganization, the actual jurisdiction and scope of a new joint committee (or special or select committees) would

need to be agreed upon by the various existing affected committees and, of course, by the

House and Senate leadership. Achieving such

a consensus has proven to be a formidable task

in prior congressional reorganizations but has

been accomplished.

Other alternatives include: limiting the scope

of a new joint committee to “government information dissemination, or possibly revision

of relevant provisions of Title 44. The JCP’s

statutory responsibilities could be revised to

more accurately reflect the broader concept of

government information dissemination in-contrast to the typically narrowly understood concept of printing.

IMPROVEMENTS IN INFORMATION

DISSEMINATION MANAGEMENT

OTA has identified several alternatives

which could improve the management of Federal information dissemination, irrespective of

other policy or institutional actions. These

management improvements could be implemented by executive action using existing statutory authority with the concurrence of Congress, but with no required statutory action.

One or any combination of these alternatives

could be incorporated into a legislative package, as amendments to various statutes, should

Congress determine that a stronger mandate

is necessary.

Electronic Publishing/Dissemination

Technical Standards

As discussed in chapters 2,3, and 4, the government is increasingly adopting electronic

publishing technologies and systems and a variety of electronic dissemination formats. There

is consensus in and out of government that

appropriate technical standards are essential if

the government wishes to realize potential costeffectiveness and productivity improvements.

Technical standards could facilitate electronic

connectivity between the various agency systems and those of the central information dissemination agencies (such as NTIS and GPO),

and flexibility among different formats (so that

the same electronic text or database can be outputted in a variety of formats—paper, microform, and/or electronic as appropriate). Electronic publishing can also serve to connect

office automation systems, publishing systems, database systems, records management

or document storage systems, and the like.

Since the initial keyboarding or inputting of

material can be the most expensive step in the

process, capturing this input for purposes of

later processing, revisions, composition, and

reproduction is very important.

Standards developed through the widely accepted governmental-private industry cooperative standards-setting mechanisms should be

adequate, but the process may need to be accelerated. Key standards-setting areas include:

●

●

●

optical disks,

text markup and page/document description languages, and

electronic data interchange, including the

open systems interconnection concept as

discussed in chapter 3.
277

It is important that the lead government agencies coordinate closely on standards-setting

activities. These agencies include the National

Bureau of Standards (NBS) for the civilian executive branch units, a designated DoD unit

(that can integrate and represent the activities of numerous DoD components), and a designated representative(s) of the legislative

branch. With respect to text markup and

page/document description standards, and perhaps other areas, GPO should be centrally involved.

All major text markup languages (including

Standard Generalized Markup Language and

the GPO’s Full Text Database language) and

hybrids thereof should be considered in developing an agreed upon Federal Government

standard. This standard (along with others

agreed to) could be issued concurrently by NBS

as a Federal Information Processing Standard

(FIPS), by DoD as a Milspec standard, and possibly by GPO (and the JCP) as an amendment

to Federal printing and binding regulations.

Congress may need to accelerate the standardsetting process and/or assign responsibilities,

although the standards setting itself would

presumably be delegated to the technical specialists. (See chs. 3 and 4 for related discussion. )

Governmentwide Information Index

There is also consensus in and out of government for the establishment of a government wide index to major Federal information

products—regardless of format. Scholars, researchers, and librarians have for years pointed

out the need for improved indexing of Federal

information. The results of the GAO surveys

summarized earlier indicate strong support for

an index among the depository libraries, other

libraries, scientific and technical associations,

and general associations surveyed. Also, OTA

meetings with Federal agency officials identified considerable support for an index, although

some agency officials were concerned that an

index might be used to thwart rather than enhance agency information dissemination and/

or that a governmentwide index might unnecessarily duplicate agency indices. Information

industry representatives participating in the

OTA study supported the concept of improved

indexing of government information, but some

were concerned that an index developed by the

government could discourage private sector

indexing initiatives and might result in a more

costly, lower quality product.

At present, GPO prepares an index to official Federal publications, primarily printed

reports, pamphlets, and periodicals. NTIS prepares an index to the so-called “gray” literature, that is, scientific and technical reports

and papers prepared by government staff and

contractors. These materials are primarily in

paper (or microfiche) format, and generally

have very limited demand. There is a small

amount of overlap between the GPO and NTIS

indices. Some individual agencies prepare indices to their own information products and

services, including all of the major information dissemination mission agencies (such as

the Bureau of the Census, Bureau of Labor

Statistics [BLS], DOE’s Energy Information

Administration [EIA], Bureau of Justice Statistics [BJS], and U.S. Geological Survey [USGS]).

Coverage of electronic formats is irregular and

incomplete. GAO at one time prepared an index to Federal information products and services, but this effort has been terminated. There

is no complete index. NTIS indexes some electronic products. Several private vendors have

prepared directories to Federal databases and/

or various categories of Federal information.

The agency response to OMB Bulletin 87-14

could lead to the development of improved

agency indices and provide the basis for an integrated governmentwide index.

While there is support for an index, there

are differences of opinion on how and by whom

the index should be implemented. Respondents

to the GAO surveys were not asked to specify

whether an index should be provided by the

government, commercial vendors, or not-forprofit organizations. One possible alternative

would be for either GPO or NTIS to consolidate the various agency indices into one integrated index. The index could then be pro-
278

duced in a variety of formats–ranging from

paper and microfiche to optical disk and online.

Should Congress conclude that an index is

warranted and should be provided by the government, Congress may need to assign responsibility for developing the index and require

that a detailed implementation plan be prepared. The plan would need to consider: the

different bibliographic and indexing methods

currently employed by NTIS, GPO, and other

Federal agencies; the cumulative experience

of the library and information science communities with respect to indexing; and the successes and failures of prior governmental and

private sector indexing initiatives.

Since the index information would not be

copyrightable, private sector vendors would

be able to add value to, repackage, and/or resell

the information on the commercial market. As

noted earlier, OMB Bulletin 87-14 directs agencies to establish and maintain an electronic index (or inventory) of all their information dissemination products and services, and to make

the index available to the public directly or

through another Federal agency or the private

sector. The bulletin directs agencies not to offer information services already available from

the private sector (or other agencies). It is unclear whether this restriction is intended to apply to the indices themselves. Also, the bulletin does not address whether and how the

agency indices should be consolidated into a

governmentwide index and/or maintained in

a centrally-accessible location. Congress may

need to define the government’s interest and

establish how, if at all, any pre-existing privately developed indices would need to be accommodated.

Government Information Dissemination

Innovation Centers/Committees

Federal agency officials expressed strong

support for much improved mechanisms to

exchange learning and experience about technological innovations. Federal agencies are involved in a very wide range of research, development, and operations activities with respect

to information dissemination. To this end 114

— .

civilian departmental agency components reported having conducted studies as indicated

in Table 11-5.

There appears to be a substantial knowledge

base within the civilian sector of government,

and this is paralleled by a similar or, if anything, greater level of knowledge-generating

activity in the defense sector.

Table 11-5.— Federal Civilian Agency Research

or Evaluation Studies

Percent of agencies

that conducted a

research or

Technology evaluation study — —

Electronic Collection/filing

Electronic data transfer (computer to

computer) ., ., ., .,

Floppy disk ... . . . . . ., . . : : : : :

Electronic mail . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .,

Magnetic tape/disk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Computerized telephone calls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..

Non-paper Storage

Floppy disk ... ... ... . . . . .,

Magnetic tape/disk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Micrographics (microfilm/microfiche) ., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

CD-ROM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Optical disk (WORM) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Videodisk . . .

CD/1 . . . . . . . . ... . . ...

Optical disk (erasable) . . . . . .

Printing

Laser and other nonimpact printing .

Computer graphics . . . . .

Desktop publishing systems. . . . . . . . . . .

Computer-aided page make-up . . . .

Electronic publishing systems . . . .

Electronic photocomposition . . . . . .

Photo-offset printing . . . . ... . . .

Microform printing ., . . . . . . . ... .

Electronic dissemination

Floppy disk . . . . . . . . . . . . . ., . . .

Electronic data transfer (computer to

computer) ., ... ., . .

Electronic mail . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Electronic bulletin boar d

Magnetic tape/disk ... ... ...

Teleconferencing ... . . . . . . ...

Videotape . . .

CD-ROM . . . . . : : : : : : : : :

Expert systems . . . . . . . . . .

Film ., ., . . .,

Videoconferencing . . . . . . . . . . . .

Videodisk ... . . ... . . . . .

Digital cartographic systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Selective dissemination of information

systems, . . . . . . . . . .

Broadcast television . . .

CD/1 . . . . . . . . . . . : : : : : : : : : : :

Videotext/teletext . . ., ., . . . .

One-way cable television ., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .,.

Interactive cable television . . . . .,

SOURCE: GAO Survey of Federal Agencies 1987

5 4 4

52.6

4 8 2

4 5 6

1 6 7

51.8

4 5 6

4 1 2

21.9

18.4

14.0

79

4.4

54.4

52.6

465

430

30.7

28.9

24.6

16.7

48.2

47.4

44.7

42.1

42.1

24.6

23.7

17.5

14.9

132

13.2

10.5

7.9

7.0

7.0

5.3

4.4

44

2.6
However, Federal officials at all levels, from

technical specialists to program managers to

senior policy makers, in both the civilian and

defense sectors, agree that current mechanisms

for the sharing and synthesis of this knowledge are very seriously deficient. This view is

corroborated by OTA staff and contractor research. Typically, knowledge is not shared

effectively even within a single agency component, let alone between several agency components within a single department or between

departments.

There are some noteworthy efforts to address part of this problem, such as by the Federal Publishers Committee, and the Special Interest Group on CD-ROM Applications and

Technology (SIGCAT), both of which are quasiofficial interagency groups. Other examples are

CENDI (Commerce, Energy, NASA, Defense

Information), an interagency group of Federal

science and technology agencies concerned

with scientific and technical information dissemination, and the Depository Library Council, an advisory group to the Public Printer that

has devoted attention to electronic dissemination pilot projects. Also, several agencies have

recently established laboratories for the testing, evaluation, and demonstration of new technologies. These include the CD-ROM and Electronic Publishing Laboratories at NBS, and

the Artificial Intelligence, Video Laser Disk,

High Density Information Storage, and Defense Information Gateway Laboratories operated as an activity of the Defense Technical

Information Center. GPO has established a

prototype dial-up microcomputer-based electronic publishing and training program. Also,

the Public Printer has proposed that GPO

establish a Federal Publishing Institute to provide a cohesive training program for Federal

printing and publishing officials. And there are

a variety of relevant training programs and

courses offered in support of agency IRM

activities.

As commendable as these activities are, further efforts seem necessary. Congress may

wish to consider legislating or directing the

establishment of information dissemination innovation centers in each branch of government.

279

These could be located at DTIC (for the defense

sector), NTIS and NBS (for the civilian executive branch), GPO (for the legislative branch),

and possibly, the Federal Judicial Center (for

the judicial branch). These major centers could

be complemented by agency innovation centers, perhaps operated as part of a strengthened and revised agency IRM program (see

later discussion), and possibly by an academic

research center funded to provide outside input to agency innovation. Also, Congress may

wish to consider establishing or otherwise

directing the formation of an interagency information dissemination task force or coordinating committee with a primary task of encouraging innovation and exchange of knowledge

gained from studies, pilot projects, and operational experience. (For examples of pilot projects, see chs. 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, and 8.)

Finally, Congress may wish to encourage or

require agencies to conduct planning studies,

similar to that conducted by DTIC, to creatively explore and develop their own visions

of future information dissemination activities.

In 1984, DTIC completed its DTIC 2000 study

and concluded that by the year 2000:50

DTIC will be a highly automated operation

where the vast majority of data transfers are

electronic. It will be situated in an environment where all users have access to computer

work stations; where computer storage has the

density, access speeds, and reliability to permit full-text storage of all items; . . . where

mailing of paper products has been replaced

by electronic transmissions; [and] where the

power/speed of computers and the sophistication of software eliminate the need for both

manual indexing and development of intricate

search strategies.

Today DTIC is already beginning to implement this vision. Although few Federal agencies have conducted a formal “Agency 2000”

study, many are experimenting with electronic

information dissemination. And variations on

the year 2000 scenario projected by DTIC

“(’U.S. Department of Defense, Defense Logistics Agenc~’,

Defense Techniml Information Center, DTIC 2000:.4 Corporate

Plan for the Future, DTIC/TR-84/3, JUly 1984.
280

could be helpful to many other agencies in planning their information future.

Revised Information Resources and

Personnel Management

The Information Resources Management

(IRM) concept, as originally conceived and debated in the 1970s, was intended to include all

phases of the information life cycle—collection,

processing, analysis, storage, and dissemination. The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980

essentially enacted the IRM concept, but the

original statutory language was vague as to

coverage of information dissemination. 1986

amendments to the act removed most of the

ambiguity by including ‘information dissemination” in the statutory language. However,

numerous Federal officials have observed that

information dissemination is still not an effective part of many agency IRM programs or,

if information dissemination is included, it is

not well understood by many senior IRM officials. These observations have been confirmed

by OTA staff and contractor research, and by

studies by nongovernmental groups.

For example, a 1987 National Academy of

Public Administration study titled Federal Information Resources Management: Bridging

Vision and Action found that roughly half of

agency IRM offices surveyed did not include

responsibility for library services, printing, or

reproduction. Of the 16 departmental IRM

offices surveyed, only 8 covered library services and 9 covered printing and reproduction,

while 15 of 16 covered paperwork reduction

and 14 of 16 covered computer operations and

data telecommunications. Eleven of 16 covered

voice telecommunications and record management.

Two situations appear to warrant congressional attention. The first concerns senior IRM

officials, typically with ADP, computer, and/or

management information system backgrounds,

who are viewed as frequently failing to understand or appreciate their agency’s information

dissemination functions, including library,

printing, publishing, and public information

activities, among others. These, in many cases,

appear to be the less understood or supported

members of the IRM family. Congress may

wish to encourage or direct agency actions to

remedy this problem. Possible actions include:

requiring that either the senior agency

IRM official or his/her deputy have information dissemination training and experience;

establishing or designating continuing

education programs for senior IRM staff

to learn more about information dissemination;

strengthening the role of already existing

cross-cutting groups such as the Federal

Publishers Committee, the Federal Library and Information Center Committee,

and the Interagency Advisory Council on

Printing and Publishing Services;

involving senior IRM officials directly in

agency or innovation centers and interagency task force that may be established;

and

establishing new or revised job definitions

and career tracks for information dissemination professionals working in the government.

Developing career tracks for information dissemination professionals could be particularly

important, since new technological applications are changing the nature of many printing, publishing, writing, public information,

library, and related jobs. However, there is little focused effort or agreement on how these

job definitions should be revised. There is

growing attention to the need to reclassify

computer-related positions and to develop

appropriate training and career advancement

opportunities (as evidenced by Office of Personnel Management course offerings on this

subject). However, the focus to date has been

on traditional automated data processing positions and not on information dissemination

positions.

There are no definitive estimates of the number of Federal employees involved with information dissemination. However, if the definition is applied broadly to include some portion

of writers, editors, librarians, printers, public
281

affairs personnel, computer and communication operators, and the like, the total would

appear to be in the tens of thousands of employees. The number of total Federal employees in relevant job categories is shown in Table 11-6, along with OTA’s estimate of the

percentage directly involved with information

dissemination. Based on the assumed percentages of each job category involved with information dissemination (100 percent of printing,

public affairs, and librarians; 50 percent of

audio-visual, writing, editing, and archiving;

10 percent of computer and communications),

about 30,000 Federal employees are included.

This is about 30 percent of the total employees for the job categories listed, and undoubtedly understates the actual number since significant, but unknown, numbers of engineers,

technicians, analysts, statisticians, and administrators in other job categories are involved

with information dissemination.

The Office of Personnel Management (OPM),

the General Services Administration, and GPO

could be assigned responsibility to review all

Federal job categories potentially relevant to

information dissemination, assess the need for

reclassification, redefine the jobs as needed,

and establish necessary training and career development programs. To be most effective,

these activities would be carried out with full

participation of employees and employee organizations, including relevant labor unions.

Involvement of GPO labor unions would be

particularly important for printing and related

occupations. GPO is the third largest Federal

blue-collar employer in the Washington, D.C.

area, as shown in Table 11-7. Also, GPO has

Table 11.7.—ToP 10 Federal Blue-Collar Employers

in Washington, DC Metropolitan Statistical Area,

Fiscal Year 1985

Number of

Employer employees

Department of the Navy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.647

Department of the Army. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,257

Government Printing Office. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.942

General Services Administration . . . . . . . . . . . 2,752

Department of Health & Human Services . . . . 2,178

Department of the Treasury, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,891

Architect of the Capitol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,634

Department of the Air Force . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,157

Department of the Interior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 979

Smithsonian Institution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 967

SOURCE: Office of Personnel Management 1988

Table 11-6.—Federal Employees in Job Categories Relevant to

Information Dissemination, Fiscal Year 1985

—. Employees involved with

Total information dissemination

Job category employees Percent Number

Computer operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Computer specialist. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Computer clerk & assistant . . . . . . . . . . .

Printing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Printing management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Printing clerical . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Communications management . . . . . . . . . .

General communications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Communications specialists ., . . . . . . . . . .

Communications clerical . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Public affairs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Audio-visual production . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Writing and editing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Technical writing and editing. . . . . . . . . . . .

Editorial assistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Librarian ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Library technician . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Technical information services . . . . . . . . . .

Archivist . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Archivist technician . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Totals ., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

10,256

40,122

10,291

4,617

1,490

311

1,933

3,287

2,950

636

3,286

984

2,138

1,789

2,358

3,507

3,619

1,530

403

1,024

98,531

10

10

10

100

100

100

10

10

10

10

100

50

50

50

50

100

100

100

50

50

1,026

4,012

1,029

6,617

1,490

311

193

329

295

64

3,286

492

1,069

895

1,179

3,507

3,619

1,530

202

512

31,627

SOURCE: Office of Personnel Management and Office of Technology Assessment 1988
282

the largest number of printing positions of all

Federal agencies, as indicated in Table 11-8.

These figures include printing occupations and

not supporting occupations such as carpentry,

maintenance, mechanic, and industrial equipment operator. (For further discussion of the

GPO labor force, see ch. 4.)

A second situation meriting congressional

consideration is management information,

especially budget and contracting data, about

information dissemination activities. Annual

as well as 5-year agency and governmentwide

information technology plans generally do not

break out expenditures for information dissemination. The agency responses to OMB Bulletin 87-14 may help in this regard, since OMB

asked for agency expenditure data for all dissemination products and services, including

electronic formats. However, the responses are

not yet available. If this process does not work,

Congress may wish to establish a reporting requirement. Also, the OMB bulletin may have

excluded significant DoD activities. For example, DoD officials estimate that, of the $85-

$100 billion total annual weapons systems

procurement, 5 to 10 percent is spent on technical information (i.e., the creation, maintenance, updating, and dissemination of technical documentation for design, maintenance,

and operation of weapon systems). This translates into an annual expenditure of $4-$10 billion for technical information just within the

Table 11-8.—Top 10 Federal Agencies With Largest

Printing Workforce, Fiscal Year 1985

Number of

Agency employees

Government - Printing Officea 

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,783

Department of the Army . . . . . . ... . . . . . 1,042

Department of the Navy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 920

Department of the Treasuryb . . . . . . . . . . . . . 527

Department of the Air Force . . . . . . . . . . . . . 496

Other Defense Agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 474

General Services Administration . . . . . . . . . . . 189

Department of Commerce. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164

Department of Agriculture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137

Department of the Interior . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113

a

Includes only direct printing occupations such as composing, platemaking, letterpress, offset press, and bindery, and not general support technical, and

management occupations

bPrimarily the Bureau of Printing and Engraving

SOURCE Off Ice of Personnel Management 1988

weapons procurement accounts. The problem

is that there is no separate reporting of contractual costs for technical information and information systems. Therefore, DoD officials

are at a severe disadvantage in managing technical information and information systems

procurement, monitoring contractual performance, negotiating contract modifications and

follow-ens, and evaluating actual capabilities

against planned or projected performance.

Even though DoD officials recognize the need

for improved reporting, management of the

DoD bureaucracy is so difficult that congressional action may be needed.

For changes in information resource and personnel management to be successful, a clear

understanding by senior agency officials that

the new information dissemination technologies can, and probably will, significantly

change organizational structures, job definitions, and administrative procedures is necessary. The successful senior official will likely

have a good strategic sense of where the agency

is or should be headed, and will define and implement the necessary training, career development, and managerial reporting techniques

needed to move the agency in the desired

direction.

Finally, to the extent that agency press and

public information activities are included with

the IRM umbrella, then IRM provides a possible focal point for electronic dissemination

of press releases and other perishable information. Federal agency public information officials and members of the press interviewed by

OTA generally supported the concept of electronic press releases, although not as a total

substitute for the paper format. Several agencies already provide electronic press releases

directly to the press and/or via private electronic news and wire services. The major question seems to be not whether but how the electronic press releases should be provided. Of

particular concern are the relative advantages

of various electronic formats and the equity

implications of alternative delivery and pricing mechanisms. For example, while small, outof-town newspapers could be major beneficiaries of electronic releases, since mailed press
283

releases arrive several days late, these small need for consideration of action to minimize

newspapers may be the least able to pay for economic barriers to access. (For further diselectronic services. This suggests the possible cussion, see ch. 10. )

IMPROVEMENTS IN CONVENTIONAL PRINTING

Despite the rapid increase in use of and demand for electronic formats, the results of the

GAO surveys and various other studies (see

chs. 2, 3, and 4) indicate that paper is likely

to remain the format of choice for many purposes because of convenience and portability.

There is likely to be significant demand for conventional ink-on-paper printed copies of a broad

range of Federal reports and other printed materials. Even with advances in electronic publishing (as outlined in chs. 3 and 4), many of

these will require conventional ink-on-paper

printing. As a consequence, for at least the next

5 years and probably longer, there will be a

need to continually improve the Federal Government conventional printing capabilities,

currently carried out largely by or through

GPO, except as specifically exempted by law

or by the JCP or GPO.

In obtaining printing from or through GPO,

Federal agencies seek competitive costs, quick

turnaround, and high quality; the agencies also

desire accurate and timely cost estimates and

billing information. These three aspects of

GPO’s conventional printing work are discussed below, along with identification of possible alternatives for improvement.

cos t

With respect to cost, some Federal agencies

have asserted that they could obtain printing

more cheaply by procuring directly from the

private sector rather than from or through

GPO. To evaluate this assertion, OTA asked

GPO to prepare cost estimates for 20 sample

printing jobs printed at the GPO central plant,

the GPO regional plants, and procured from

the private printing industry by the GPO printing procurement office. OTA also asked three

of the major agency printing plants (at the Departments of the Army, Commerce, and

Energy) to prepare cost estimates on the same

20 printing jobs. Finally, OTA asked several

private printing companies to prepare cost estimates on the same 20 printing jobs. The 20

sample jobs are described in Table 11-9, followed by cost estimates in Tables 11-10 and

11-11.

The results indicate that GPO-procured

printing is substantially less expensive than

either GPO inplant or agency inhouse printing for these sample jobs. GPO central plant

printing is generally more expensive than GPO

regional inplant printing; and agency inplant

printing is generally, but not always, more expensive than GPO inplant (central or regional)

printing. Several caveats are in order here.

These results hold for the sample jobs only.

Many of these jobs would not normally be done

at agency plants and the conclusion cannot be

drawn that current agency work is necessarily

more expensive than it need be. For example,

for short reports and press runs, the Army’s

printing plant is less expensive than the GPO

main plant, but still more expensive than GPOprocured costs. Also, costs vary widely depending on the match between specific jobs and specific printing facilities and on the allocation

of indirect and overhead expenses to printing

costs. Only gross generalizations are possible

based on these data.

The results also suggest that GPO-procured

printing is less expensive than or at least competitive with printing obtained by individual

agencies directly from private printers. The

cost comparison suggests that private printing is rarely less expensive than GPO procured,

typically more expensive than GPO-procured

but less expensive than main plant inhouse

printing, and occasionally even more expensive than GPO inhouse printing. Again, several caveats apply. These results hold for the
284

Table 11-9.—Description of 20 Sample Printing Jobs Used for Estimating Costsa

Job Number Number Turnaround Trim size

Number of pages of copies timec (weeks) (inches) Binding

1

2::::::::::::: :

3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

5

6::::::::::::: :

7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

8... . . . . . . . . . . .

9... . . . . . . . . . . .

10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

11.. . . . . . . . . . . . .

12. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

13 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

14. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

15. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

16 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

17.. . . . . . . . . . . . .

18. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

19. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

20 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

a lnk color black for all jobs, text stock 50 lb. white offset for all jobs except numbers 4, 8, 9 which are 60 lb. white offset and numbers 17 and 18 which are 70 lb.

white matte coated Cover stock varies but was specified

b Quality levels per GPO standards

CNO surcharges

30

44

220

142

36

8

32

16

24

40

108

454

36

46

122

52

196

20

320

304

11,200

32,018

500

3,500

65,000

30,257

10,000

1,201

2,919

2,200

1,300

1,800

102,619

2,834

400

4,905

17,985

175,019

1,139

1,000

4

4

3

3

3

4

3

4

3

3

4

3

4

4

4

4

3

3

4

4

4

4

2

2

2

3

6

4

1

2

4

2

4

1

4

2

3

3

4

4

81⁄2x11

81⁄2xll

81⁄4x103⁄4

81⁄2xll

81⁄2Xll

81⁄2xll

81⁄2Xll

81⁄2Xll

81⁄2xll

5

7

/8x41⁄4

81⁄4x103⁄4

7

7

/8x 101⁄4

4x51⁄4

81⁄2xll

6x9

7

7

/8x101⁄4

6x9

81⁄2xll

81⁄2Xll

7

7

/8X101⁄4

Drill and band

Drill and side stitch

Drill

Perfect

Saddle stitch

Drill and side stitch

Perforate and saddle stitch

Shrink wrap and saddle stitch

Drill and saddle stitch

Side stitch

Drill and saddle stitch

Drill and perfect

Saddle stitch

Saddle stitch

Perfect

Saddle stitch

Perfect

Saddle stitch

Drill and side stitch

Drill and side stitch

SOURCE U S. Government Printing Office, 1988

Table 11-10.—Cost Estimates for 20 Sample Printing Jobs, in Dollars,

GPO Regional and Main Plants

GPO main planta

In plant GPO regional plantb

Job number Procured In plant special rate Procured In plant

1 . . . . . . . . . . . $3,020 $12,046 $4,291

2

$ 2,503 $ 9,800

4,361 17,745 7,492 5,107 12,400

3:::::::::; : 872 5,785 1,732 960 3,500

4 . . . . . . . . . . . 2,239 7,515 3,152 2,698 —

5 . . . . . . . . . . . 11,375 21,005 15,854 12,114 14,500

6 . . . . . . . . . . . 759 5,880 1,736 893 2,400

7 . . . . . . . . . . . 1,017 3,192 3,026 1,179 2,520

8 . . . . . . . . . . . 241 954 351 270 645

9 569 1,971 862 633 1,260

10 : : : : : : : : : : : 448 1,816 690 472 1,515

11 . . ... , . . . . 949 3,466 1,401 1,128 2,800

12 . . . . . . . . . . . 3,868 12,046 6,550 4,630 —

13 . . . . . . . . . . . 13,597 14,299 14,299 18,271 18,500

14 . . . . . . . . . . . 744 3,128 1,152 769 2,100

15 . . . . . . . . . . . 764 3,014 1,109 741 —

16 . . . . . . . . . . . 1,336 2,976 1,879 1,406 2,885

17 . . . . . . . . . . . 24,248 27,100 27,100 19,411 —

18 . . . . . . . . . . . 25,585 53,248 45,342 24,004 —

19 . . . . . . . . . . . 2,301 9,676 4,488 2,542 2,765

20 . . . . . . . . . . . 1,724 6,419 2,375 1,838 5,800

aMain plant procured estimates based on general usage contracts using the average Price Of the lowest 5 bidders. in-Plant

estimates based on GPO price scale as of Dec. 1, 1987; in-plant special rate is equal to the 10th lowest bid plus 10% bEstimates are for Chicago regional plant, calculated on the same basis as for the main plant.

SOURCE: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1988.
285

Table 11.11. —Cost Estimates for 20 Sample Printing Jobs, in Dollars, Agency Plants and Private Printers

Agency plants Private printers direct bid

Job number Army Commerce Energy 1 2 3 4

1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 5,140 $16,403 $ – $ 7,835 $ 8,256 $ 3,757 $ 3,700

2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21,555 19,647 — 2,242 14,641 5,823 12,125

3... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,683 10,154 2,339 3,098 4,880 1,454 6,265

4...., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7,604 11,770 6,414 7,027 5,731 2,711 16,100

5... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35,802 46,133 — 20,054 17,451 13,114 3,100

6... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,703 3,532 — 7,270 4,600 1,004 2,050

7... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,896 5,794 — 2,497 2,385 1,434

8... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

—

294 1,846 681 898 833 239

9... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

—

1,072 1,898 1,743 2,148 1,471 567

10, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

—

673 1,289 1,078 2,169 1,489 530 —

11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,148 3,962 2,221 4,897 2,188 1,149

12, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

—

12,503 18,876 9,209 11,920 10,195 4,981

13 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

—

28,261 38,525 — 17,977 9,485 17,867 —

14 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,995 3,192 2,474 3,248 2,093 933 —

15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 747 2,699 1,446 1,908 2,034 585 —

16 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,902 5,443 3,571 3,890 2,674 1,515 —

17 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53,873 87,291 — 27,096 24,000 24,624 —

18 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53,556 80,545 — 44,348 33,785 37,514 —

19 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,577 10,158 4,553 10,834 — 2,938 —

20 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,651 8,264 4,120 8,412 — 2,307 —

SOURCE: Departments of the Army Commerce and Energy, private printers 1988

sample jobs only, and since independent estimates were obtained from only four private

printing firms, the results while appearing reasonable, may not be representative. Also, as

with GPO and agency inplant printing, private

printing costs vary widely depending on the

equipment, workload, specialty jobs, and the

like. The GPO special rate (discussed in ch. 4)

for main plant inhouse printing appears to approximate roughly the cost agencies might pay

if obtaining bids directly from private vendors.

The special rate inconsiderably less than the

full inhouse cost, but considerably more than

the GPO procured cost.

Thus as shown in Table ll-l2 the total estimated cost of the 20 sample jobs ranges from

a high of $213,281 for GP0 main plant inplant

printing to a low of $100,017 for GPO main

plant procured printing. The cost of GPO regional plant procured printing was almost identical, at $101,569. The costs for private printers

No. 1 and No. 3 (the only 2 that bid on all 20

jobs) along with the cost for GPO special rate

printing fall in the middle.

To further evaluate the cost of GPO procured

printing, the GPO cost—which GPO estimated

by using the average price of the lowest five

bidders for each job–was compared with both

the average and lowest price per job of the private printers submitting bids directly to OTA.

The results indicate that the total GPO main

plant procured cost of $100,107 is considerably less than the total average private printer

cost of $158,440, and is very competitive with

the lowest private printer cost of $98,658. And

the latter figure may be unrealistically low

since it is based on the low bid for every job,

Table 11-12.—Estimated Total Costs for 20

Sample Printing Jobs, in Dollars

Source of printing Cost of printinga

GPO main plant inhouse regular rate . . . $213,281

GPO main plant inhouse special rate . . . 144,881

GPO main plant procured . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100,017

GPO regional plant procured . . . . . . . . . 101,569

Private printer No. 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189,768

Private printer No. 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125,046

a

For 20 sample jobs specified in Table 11-9.

SOURCE: U.S. Government Printing Office and private printers. 1988
286

whereas the GPO estimate is based on an average of the lowest five bids, a better approximation of reality, according to GPO. The detailed comparisons are shown in Table 11-13.

In addition, the results of a recent Department of Commerce study indicated that establishing a printing procurement capability at

the Bureau of the Census would not be costeffective compared to using GPO procurement.51 GPO charges cost plus six percent for

procured printing. The Commerce study indicated that the costs of establishing and maintaining a printing procurement capability and

the likely diseconomies of scale would far exceed

the GPO six percent service charge. Britain’s

governmental printing office (Her Majesty’s

Stationery Office) found that centralized printing procurement reduced costs (by roughly 15

to 30 percent) through economies of scale and

‘i U.S. Department of Commerce, Assistant Secretary for

Administration, Printing and Disseminating Census Bureau

Publications, April 1987.

Table 11-13.—Estimated Costs by Job and Total

for 20 Sample Printing Jobs, in Dollars,

GPO Main Plant Procured and Private Printer

Job GPO Main Plant Private printer Private printer

number a

procuredb

average bidC

low bidd

1 . ....

2 . . . . . .

3 . . . . . .

4 . . . . . . . .

5 ., ...,..

6 . .

7 .., ...,.

8 .

9 . .

10 ...

11 ... .

12 ... , . . .

13 . . . . . . . .

14 . . . . . . .

15 . . . . .

16 ., .. .

17 . .

18 ., . .

19 . . . . . . .

20 . . .

Total s

$ 3,020

4,361

872

2,239

11,375

759

1,017

241

569

448

949

3,868

13,597

744

764

1,336

24,248

25,585

2,301

1,724

$100.017

$ 5,887

8,708

3,924

7,892

13,430

3,731

2,105

657

1,395

1,396

2,745

9,032

15,110

2,091

1,509

2,793

25,240

38,549

6,886

5,360

$158,440

$3,700

2,242

1,454

2,711

3,100

1,004

1,434

239

567

530

1,149

4,981

9,485

933

585

1,515

24,000

33,785

2,938

2,307

$98.659

a

For 20 sample jobs specified in Table 11-9

bBased on average price of 5 lowest bids submitted to GPO.

cBased on average price of private printers submitting bids to OTA

dBased on low bid selected from among private printers submitting bids to OTA.

SOURCE: U.S. Government Printing Office, Private printers and Office of Technology Assessment 1988

more competitive bidding.52 Also, OTA’s independent printing consultant concluded that

dispersing GPO’s printing procurement operation among numerous Federal agencies or separating the procurement function from the

GPO main plant printing function would:

• result in diseconomies of scale,

● increase overall procurement personnel

staffing and cost, and/or

● reduce familiarity of printing procurement

personnel with the state-of-the-art and

operational realities of printing.

GPO obtains competitive bids for procured

printing in part because of the large number

of potential bidders (roughly 15,000 eligible),

a smaller but still significant number of active

bidders (3,809 active contractors during the

12 months ending March 31, 1988, of which

936 were used by the main plant procurement

office), and the large percentage of smaller

firms (about 85 percent of all GPO printing

contractors). Larger, more expensive firms

tend to minimize printing for the government,

which is understandable given that the Federal Government accounts for only about one

percent of the total U.S. printing market, and

many private clients (especially corporate

clients) will pay premium prices for printing.

GPO uses a computerized system to select potential bidders, and is testing an online bid information service whereby potential contractors can check pending solicitations via an

electronic bulletin board.

In sum, based on information available to

OTA, the cost of GPO’s procured printing appears to be competitive, and there appears to

be no financial basis for dismantling the GPO

printing procurement program. However, there

is a basis for agency concern about the cost

of GPO main plant inhouse work. This work

is more expensive than procured work, based

on the cost comparisons presented above, and

at least some agencies prefer not to pay the

extra cost. For example, both the Air Force

and the Navy indicated that they were “very

52Alex Smith, “The Latest Developments in Print Procuremerit, ” Government Printers Conference 1984, Conference Report, September 1984, pp. 9-11.
dissatisfied” with the cost of GPO printing.

As excerpted from the GAO survey responses,

the Air Force said that “GPO’s inhouse costs

greatly exceed commercial contractor prices

for the same service.” The Navy said that

“GPO’s inhouse prices are much too high compared to the Navy Publications and Printing

Service inhouse and commercial contractors. ”

GPO’s Audit Group conducted a survey of

agency customers in 1983 and found that, as

shown in Table 11-14, the majority of respondents felt that GPO inhouse work was more expensive than GPO contractor work. This survey has not been updated since 1983, and it

should also be noted that, while overall agencies preferred GPO contractors on cost (and

timeliness), they preferred GPO inhouse work

over contractors with regard to quality and

responsiveness (solving problems). These survey results are highlighted in Table 11-15. The

1983 GPO survey results suggest greater concern about GPO inhouse costs than the 1987

GAO survey (with about 14 percent of respondents indicating dissatisfaction with cost) but

about the same level of concern as the 1987

Federal Publishers Committee (FPC) survey

(with about 40 percent of respondents indicating cost as a continuing problem).

As discussed in chapter 2, all of these surveys are subjective and qualitative, and the

results have not been validated. But the cost

comparisons presented earlier provide independent documentation of the higher GPO inhouse costs, and could by themselves–irrespective of survey results—be considered as

Table 1 l-14.—Agency Views on Cost of GPO Work,

1983 Survey of Agency Customers

Question: Do you feel that a job will be more expensive if

done within GPO or by a GPO procured contractor?

Percent of

Answer respondents

GPO ., . ., ... . 57.6

GPO contractor ., ... ... . . 8.8

No difference, ... ... ., . 9.6

Undecided ., ., ... 18.4

No response ., ... ... .. . 5.0

SOURCE: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1983

287

Table 1 l-15.—Agency Views on GPO Inhouse v.

GPO Contractors, 1983 Survey

Question: For the most part, who would you prefer toproduce your printing jobs? ——————

Percent of

Answers respondents

GPO . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18.4

GPO contractor . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... 49,6

No preference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28,0

No response . ... . . . . . . . 4.0

Why would you prefer one over the other? —

Prefer Prefer

GPOa

contractor b

Quality . . . . . . . . . . . ... - 56.5 32.3

Timeliness ... ... .. . 47.8 72.6

cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39.1 74.2

Easier to have problems

rectified . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69.6 22.6

Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 16

No response ... ... . . . . . . . . 4.3 3.2

aBased on 23 responses

bBased on 62 responses

SOURCE: U S Government Printing Office 1983

sufficient justification for cost-reduction initiatives.

There are several alternatives for reducing

the cost to the agencies of GPO inhouse work:

continue to use the special rate mentioned

earlier that roughly splits the difference

between full inhouse costs and contracted

costs and covers GPO marginal costs plus

some contribution to overhead;

reduce indirect costs by limiting the types

of printing work done at the main plant

in order to increase economies of scale,

similar to the approach used by many private printing companies;

reduce main plant overhead, including the

possibility of reducing overnight operations if the Congressional Record and/or

Federal Register are extensively disseminated in electronic formats rather than

in paper and microfiche;

continue to look for opportunities to incorporate cost-saving technology into the

conventional printing process, and to make

further upgrades in the efficiency of the

main plant building; and

seek congressional approval of an annual

appropriation to cover some or all GPO

overhead costs.
288

Timeliness

The timeliness and quality of GPO printing

are two other aspects included in the 1983 GPO

survey and 1987 GAO and FPC surveys. The

survey results vary and are difficult to interpret and compare, given the different survey

methodologies utilized. OTA’s review of GPO

data on the timeliness of printing jobs, measured as the percentage of jobs that are late or

delinquent, suggests the following:

●

●

●

First, the timeliness of GPO procured

printing appears to be relatively constant,

with about seven percent of all procured

printing jobs delinquent over the fiscal

year 1983 to fiscal year 1987 period.

Second, there is little difference in deliquency rates between GPO regional and

central office procurement. Over 90 percent of GPO procured printing jobs appear to be completed on time regardless

of whether printing is procured through

the central or a regional office.

Third, the data do not suggest a widespread delinquency problem, although

these delinquency data do not reflect delays due to paperwork and signoff requirements prior to the actual printing procurement.

An evaluation of how serious the seven percent delinquency rate really is requires information not available to OTA. Such an evaluation would require information on: the degree

of delinquency (how many days or weeks late);

the reason(s) for the delinquency; the impact(s)

of the delinquency on the GPO customer; and

the general performance level of the private

printing industry in performing comparable

work. GPO procured printing delinquency data

are shown in Table 11-16.

OTA also reviewed delinquency data for jobs

printed inhouse at the GPO mainplant. The

data indicate that, for fiscal year 1987, the

delinquency rate for main plant printing jobs

was about double that of procured printing

jobs. And the delinquency rate for executive

agency printing jobs was about triple that of

Table 1 I-16.—GPO Procured Printing, Percent of

Jobs Delinquent, by Fiscal Year

GPO GPO

Regional Office Central Office

Fiscal year procured jobs procured jobs

1983 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.7 7.8

1984 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.8 7.5

1985 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.4 6.4

1986 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.5 6.8

1987 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.8 8.2

1988 (January-June). . . 6.6 7.6

SOURCE U S Government Printing Off Ice, 1988

procured printing jobs. This suggests that, at

least relative to GPO procured printing, timeliness is a significant problem for GPO main

plant printing. However, several caveats are

in order. First, GPO data indicate that more

than half of the delinquencies are 5 days or less.

Second, a complete evaluation would require

the types of information noted earlier for procured printing. Third, central plant printing

is subject to unique circumstances that require

assigning high priority on short notice to certain congressional work. Priority congressional

jobs thus can delay other congressional jobs

as well as executive agency work, which contributes to a higher delinquency rate. Solving

this problem could necessitate congressional

action to smooth the work flow, encourage realistic delivery estimates, and limit priority

work. In any event, GPO routinely could provide customers with explanations of any delays over, say, five days, in order to facilitate

customer understanding and target improvement efforts when needed. The main plant

delinquency rates are shown in Table 11-17.

Quality

In addition to timeliness data, OTA examined GPO data on the quality of printing jobs.

GPO has developed a Quality Assurance

Through Attributes Program (QATAP). Under this program, five quality levels are defined, ranging from Level 5, duplicating (or

lowest) quality, to Level 1, precise (or highest)

quality. GPO has defined an acceptable defect

(or error) rate as 6.5 defects per 100 items (i.e.,

publication, pamphlet, book, etc.). The results

of GPO quality audits for fiscal year 1987 in-
289

Table 11-17.—GPO Main Plant Printing,

Percent of Jobs Delinquent, Fiscal Year 1987

Total Main Plant Jobs . . . . ....9,739

Delinquent jobs 1,492

Percent delinquent.. . . . . .

Total Congressional jobs . . . . . . . . . 7,558

Delinquent jobs . ...........1,00 6

Percent delinquent, . . . . . . .

Total Executive Agency jobs . ...........2,181

Delinquent jobs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 486

Percent delinquent . . . . . . . . . . . . .... . ..... . ... . .

Degree of delinquency, all jobs

3-5 days.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . 

6-10 days . ....... . . .

11-15 days . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

16-20 days ..,. . .

21 or more days . .

SOURCE: U.S. Government Prining Office, 1988.

15.,3%

13.3%

22.3%

58%

25%

9%

3%

5%

dicate very low defect rates for procured printing, averaging about 1.7 defects per 100 items

for the 540 jobs sampled, well within the acceptable rate. Only 9 of the 540 sample jobs were

rejected due to unacceptable quality. For GPO

central office inplant printing, the defect rate

was somewhat higher at about 4.3 defects per

100 items, but still within the acceptable rate.

However, the quality of inplant congressional

work was somewhat better than inplant executive agency work, 2.5 versus 5.6 defects per

100 items, respectively. Also, a comparison of

quality levels for inhouse versus procured

agency work for fiscal year 1988 through May

indicates that procured printing quality is

higher than inplant printing quality, and that

the inplant defect rate exceeded the acceptable

level in some reporting periods. These results

warrant further study by GPO to determine

why these quality differentials exist and whether

they present any problems to customers. The

detailed comparative data for inplant versus

procured agency work are shown in Table 11-

18 for the most common quality levels.

Cost Estimating and Billing Procedures

Cost estimating is another area that appears

to be in need of improvement, based on the

1983 GPO survey and 1987 FPC survey (GAO

did not survey agencies on this item). The GPO

survey found that about half of the respondents did not receive accurate and timely cost

estimates most or all of the time, as summarized in Table 11-19. Since this survey is 5 years

old, an update survey by the GPO Audit Group

appears to be warranted. The updated results

would provide some indication of whether and

how much agency perceptions may have changed

in this and many other areas.

With regard to details on actual cost and billing information, GPO makes such information

available on request to GPO customers. However, this places the burden on the customer

to take the initiative, One possible solution

would be for GPO to provide itemized billing

for all inhouse printing and for procured printing when the actual printing cost differs significantly (i.e., plus or minus 10 percent) from

the estimated cost. The itemized, detailed billing information might:

● eliminate most agency concerns,

• help agencies better understand the economics of printing, and

• facilitate followup when serious cost estimating or billing errors are thought to

have occured.

GPO also could encourage greater agency

use of the existing Billing Information Center

“telephone hotline” to resolve billing questions, and the online Procurement Information

and Control System (PICS), which provides

assistance in developing job estimates and

tracks the status of procured printing jobs.

According to GPO, 35 agencies have direct

electronic access to PICS, with several more

on the waiting list to be connected. Should

GPO opt for itemized billing, it is possible that

only modest modifications to existing management information systems would be needed.

General Themes

The first general theme that emerged from

OTA’s study is the need for even stronger cooperative working relationships between agency

printers and publishers and GPO staff. The

membership and mission of the Public Printer’s

Interagency Advisory Council on Printing and

Publishing could be reviewed to ensure appropriate balance. To some extent, FPC has been

- 
290

Table 11-18. —Results of GPO Quality Audits, Number of Defects Per 100 Items,

Inplant v. Procured Agency Printing

Quality level 3 Quality level 4

Time perioda

In plant Procured – Inplan t Procured

July 87-Oct 87 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.5

Aug 87-Nov 87. , ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.2

Sept 87-Dee 87 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.1

Oct 87-Jan 88. ....., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.2

Nov 87-Feb 88 ......, . . . 6.7

Dec 87-Mar 88 . . . . . . . . . 3.5

Jan 88-April 88 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.5

Feb 88-May 88 ......, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.6

3.8

6.0

5.2

3.0

1.4

1.3

1.2

1.2

2.3

3.8

3.3

1.9

3.5

4.5

4.9

6.7

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

2.3

a

Four-month Moving Average

SOURCE: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1988

Table 11 -19.—Agency Views on GPO Cost Estimates,

1983 Survey

Question: How often are the GPO cost estimates

accurate and, when received, timely?

Accurate Timely

Always/most of the time ., . . 42.4 38.4

Some of the time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34.4 30.4

Infrequently . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.2 14.4

Never . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.4 8.0

Do not receive estimates . . . . . . . 5.6 2.4

Do not know . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.4 0.0

Undecided . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.8 0.0

No response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.8 6.4

SOURCE: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1983.

attempting to compensate for the limited representation of agency publishers on the Public Printer’s Advisory Council. Also, GPO may

wish to consider establishing an advisory council for the Superintendent of Documents (SupDocs). One early objective of such a group

could be to advise SupDocs on the completion

of a marketing information system now under

development. At present, it is difficult for SupDocs to generate information on the results

of marketing efforts for specific agency products. Also, such a council could be even more

important to the extent SubDocs extends its

sales program to include a significant offering

of electronic formats.

The second general theme is the need for better coordination and cooperation between publishers, printers, public information officers, financial and procurement officers (responsible for

billing and cost control), and the like within the

agencies. While this is outside the direct purview of GPO, it is directly relevant to GPO

since coordination problems within customer

agencies can create or aggravate problems between the agencies and GPO. This topic could

be addressed by the Public Printer’s Advisory

Council, a SupDocs advisory group if created,

the Federal Publishers Committee, and agency

IRM officers.

OTA identified several other areas for potential improvement in conventional printing

operations that, while outside the scope of this

study, warrant attention. These include:

Use of nonacidic paper for printing of

books, reports, and other materials with

archival value. As discussed in OTA’s

separate May 1988 report on Book Preservation Technologies, the use of acidic

paper for printing has contributed to extensive deterioration of older books and

other documents. This is considered one

of the major problems facing the library

and archival community. One part of the

solution is to increase the use of nonacidic

paper which has greater longevity. Even

though GPO consumes a very small percentage of the nation’s annual paper production, GPO could take a leadership position in promoting the use of nonacidic

paper for Federal Government printing

and in so doing provide an element of

leadership to the private and international

printing and publishing community. Also,

GPO experience to date suggests that

nonacidic paper can be cost competitive

and meet other technical requirements.

Accordingly, GPO has prepared and sub-
291

mitted to the JCP on interim specification

on nonacidic paper.

● Use of alternative printing inks (such as

soy-based). Concern over disposal of hazardous wastes generated in part by conventional printing inks has generated increased interest in alternative inks. One

alternative is soybean-based ink. While

early GPO tests were unsuccessful, soybeanoil based inks are licensed by the American Newspaper Publishers Association,

available at competitive prices, and used

successfully by various newspapers. GPO

is conducting, at congressional request,

an economic and technical feasibility

study of printing the Congressional Record and Federal Register with soy ink.

● Use of expert systems software for printing management. Effective management

of printing activities involves the optimal

selection of equipment for a given document type, length, press run, and the like

multiplied, in the case of GPO, many times

over due to the wide variety of types of

equipment, printing and staffing requirements, and customer demand (in terms of

document type and cost, timeliness, and

quality considerations). GPO uses a complex process to make decisions on whether

to produce a job inhouse or procure it commercially, and must take into account

such factors as the requested delivery

date, security classification, availability

of paper and/or materials, and production

capacity. The latter is a function of workin progress at various stages of the printing process and the projected progress of

jobs toward completion. This type of decision framework appears ideally suited

to expert systems software. GPO could

experiment with several types of off-theshelf expert systems software available

from private vendors and develop its own

application starting with one of the commercially-available expert system shells.

Expert systems software should be able

to improve GPO decisionmaking and could

eventually be offered to customer agencies to assist their decisionmaking.
Chapter 12

Setting Future Directions for the

Superintendent of Documents

and National Technical

Information Service
CONTENTS

Page

Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ......................295

Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..................296

The Competitive Electronic Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .......296

Institutional Alternatives for SupDocs and NTIS Electronic Information

Dissemination. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .....................300

Centralizing Government Electronic Information Dissemination . ......300

Privatizing SupDocs and NTIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ., ....301

Reorganizing SupDocs as Part of a Legislative Printing Office . .......303

Consolidating NTIS with SupDocs and/or Reorganizing as a

“Government Information Office’’ or Government Corporation .. ....305

Authorizing SupDocs or the Consolidated SupDocs/NTIS to Produce

and Disseminate Electronic Formats. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .307

Broader Implications of SupDocs/NTIS Electronic Information

Dissemination. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ......................309

Government Productivity and Cost-Effectiveness. . ..................309

Agency Missions and the Role of SupDocs and NTIS . . . . . . . . . . . .. ...310

Private Sector Economy. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..312

Other Implications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....316
Setting Future

Superintendent

Chapter 12

Directions for the

of Documents and

National Technical Information Service

SUMMARY

Any electronic future for the Superintendant

of Documents (SupDocs) within the U.S. Government Printing Office (GPO) and for the National Technical Information Service (NTIS)

must take into account the increasingly decentralized, competitive environment that characterizes the electronic information marketplace. The Federal Government is moving in

the direction of electronic information systems

at the heart of most agency activities. Of particular significance for SupDocs and NTIS are

the technological advances that are changing

or blurring the traditional distinctions between

printing and dissemination, reports and databases, and the roles of individual mission agencies (and the private sector) versus governmentwide dissemination agencies. This chapter

addresses current and future opportunities for

these two agencies and the broader implications of expanded roles in electronic dissemination.

In the long-term (10 to 20 years), the myriad

of possible information dissemination alternatives facilitated by technological advances

could transcend the current institutional framework. Full understanding of long-term alternatives will require several years of pilot tests,

demonstrations, and experiments and related

evaluation studies. Consideration of various

alternatives needs to accommodate the results

and “lessons learned” or run a high risk of

failure.

In the short-term (3 to 5 years) and possibly

medium-term (5 to 10 years), the future is more

certain, and the basis for setting directions better established. Over at least this time frame,

the need for some governmentwide information dissemination mechanisms is likely to continue. In the short- to medium-term, there are

a number of institutional alternatives for SupDocs/NTIS electronic information dissemination, ranging from a highly centralized information dissemination infrastructure to fully

privatized approaches, and all with various advantages and disadvantages.

The middle-ground alternative of including

selected electronic formats in the SupDocs and

NTIS sales programs, with individual agencies disseminating electronic products as well

as private vendors reselling or further enhancing Federal electronic products, would appear

to have significant favorable impacts on: public access, government productivity and costeffectiveness, agency missions, the private sector economy, and international leadership.

However, to implement this alternative, both

SupDocs and NTIS would need to:

●

●

●

●

●

obtain the necessary additional technical

expertise,

strengthen strategic planning capability,

increase participation in governmentwide

standard-setting and innovation activities,

strengthen pilot testing and demonstration programs, and

invest in state-of-the-art electronic equipment.

The middle-ground alternative is likely to

have generally beneficial effects on business

users of Federal information, especially small

businesses. The information technology equipment and services industry and the printing

industry are not likely to be significantly affected. Nor does it appear that SupDocs/NTIS

offering electronic formats would pose any significant competitive or economic threat to the

295
296

commercial information industry as a whole. private offerings would result. And there is also

However, there could be a significant impact the option of the SupDocs or NTIS contraction a small segment of the industry—those ing with various of these firms, perhaps at volfirms that specialize in government informa- ume discount rates, where direct competition

tion. The impact could be favorable, if new op- might exist.

portunities for repackaged or further enhanced

INTRODUCTION

Previous chapters have discussed overall of electronic formats. The institutional altertrends in technology, applications, user needs, natives range from:

and public policy issues that are relevant to

the future of GPO and NTIS. The purpose here ●

is to present a broader framework for setting

directions for GPO and NTIS with respect to

electronic dissemination. ●

This chapter begins with a discussion of the

increasingly competitive environment that ●

faces GPO and NTIS with respect to electronic

dissemination, as contrasted with dissemination of paper formats. ●

The chapter then considers a number of ina fully centralized, consolidated governmentwide approach to electronic dissemination;

to separate roles for GPO and NTIS for

the legislative and executive branches, respectively;

to a consolidated SupDocs and NTIS, possibly within a new Government Information Office or the equivalent; and

to a privatized SupDocs and NTIS.

stitutional-alternatives for implementing GPO Finally, the chapter discusses some of the

and NTIS roles in electronic dissemination. implications of an electronic GPO and NTIS

The future of these two institutions needs to for government productivity, agency missions,

be considered together, if for no other reason and impacts on the private sector, among other

than the potential overlap with respect to sales areas.

THE COMPETITIVE ELECTRONIC ENVIRONMENT

A major trend relevant to designing an electronic future for GPO and NTIS is the increasingly decentralized, competitive environment

that characterizes the electronic information

marketplace. Whereas the technology and

economies-of-scale of paper formats tend to favor centralized approaches (at least for larger

press runs and/or more complex documents),

electronic formats lend themselves to decentralized approaches.

The Federal Government is moving in the

direction of employing electronic information

systems at the heart of most agency activities,

including the collection, processing, and dissemination of information. The nature of this

transition was discussed in earlier chapters

(especially chs. 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6), and is driven

by the following key technological factors:

a series of technological breakthroughs

that make electronic dissemination of Federal information a viable option for many

purposes;

development of technology and related

technical standards that offer, for the first

time, the near-term prospect for integrated

information systems utilizing the ‘ ‘information life cycle’ concept whereby the collection, processing, analysis, storage, and

dissemination (and ultimately retention or

archiving) of information in multiple formats (paper, microfiche, and electronic) are

viewed and implemented as interrelated
297

●

●

●

functions rather than separate, unrelated

activities;

a significant increase in the demand for

Federal information in electronic formats

among various user groups, and especially

the library community, private industry,

Federal agencies themselves, and various

groups or individuals with specialized

needs (such as disabled or handicapped

persons, educators, and rural citizens):

a substantial ongoing investment by the

Federal mission agencies in agency automation that, if planned and implemented

properly, can incorporate multi-format information dissemination at little additional marginal cost compared to the total cost of automation and with significant

net cost savings for agency information

functions; and

a rapidly growing base of Federal agency

experience with pilot tests and applications of new electronic technology to Federal information dissemination.

Technological advances are changing or blurring the traditional distinctions between printing and dissemination, reports and databases,

an-d the roles of individual mission agencies

(and the private sector) versus governmentwide dissemination agencies. This trend is particularly significant when considering alternative futures for GPO and NTIS.

First, technological advances are changing

or even eliminating the distinctions between

information creation, storage, printing, and

dissemination. The integrated information system using the ‘‘information life cycle concept’

is a plausible template for future Federal (and

private sector) information dissemination. This

means that information is captured in electronic form when collected or created and is

retained in electronic form through whatever

revision and processing cycles are needed. The

information can then be converted into multiple output formats from the same electronic

database. Illustrative output formats include:

● laser printing for proof copies and short

press runs of paper documents,

● phototypesetting and offset press print-

●

•

●

●

●

ing for higher quality and/or longer press

runs of paper documents,

remote printing-on-demand using telecommunications and laser printers,

optical disks (including high volume Compact Disk-Read Only Memory [CD-ROM]

production),

magnetic tape and diskettes,

microform, and

online electronic access.

Second, technological advances arc changing or even, in some cases, eliminating at least

the technical distinctions between reports,

publications, databases, records, and the like.

One template for the future is that almost all

types of Federal information will exist in electronic form as an electronic database on a computerized system. The government and/or user

will have a wide variety of output formats to

choose from. For example, a typical 200 page

OTA report could be available as:

● a high quality printed report,

Ž a microfiche,

● an online electronic file for information retrieval and selective printing-on-demand,

and

• one of several electronic files on a CD-ROM.

All of these products could be derived from the

same electronic database. The type of output

format would vary, of course, depending on the

type of information and the desired use.

Third, technological advances are blurring

the distinctions between the institutional roles

of Federal agencies involved with information

dissemination. For example, today the Federal

mission agencies generally collect and create

Federal information products that are disseminated in paper formats via the SupDocs, Depository Library Program (DLP), NTIS, and/or

Consumer Information Center (CIC), depending on the nature of and demand for each particular document. A small portion of paper or

microfiche documents are reprinted by private

publishers, and an even smaller percentage are

placed online or in other electronic formats.

In contrast, an agency electronic database

(whether a report, model, or statistical series)
298

could, from a technical feasibility standpoint,

be electronically disseminated directly from

the agency to agency clients, to information

users, and to the depository libraries, bypassing the SupDocs, NTIS, and CIC. Or the agency

database could be disseminated via one or more

governmentwide clearinghouse mechanisms,

These could be the SupDocs/GPO or NTIS or

CIC, but could also be the National Library

of Medicine (NLM), National Agricultural Library (NAL), Library of Congress (LOC), and/

or any of a variety of commercial electronic

‘‘gateways’ used by the government. Also,

since the electronic form of the agency database would not be copyrightable and assuming it is accessible under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) if not directly available,

the database could be repackaged or enhanced

by private information vendors. There are

many possible combinations.

In sum, the myriad of possible information

dissemination alternatives facilitated by technological advances could transcend the current

institutional framework. The current framework, including the roles of GPO and NTIS

and the relevant statutory provisions, was developed over decades largely to accommodate

an historical era when Federal information was

collected, stored, printed, and distributed only

in paper format.

The advent of electronic information technology has contributed to the complexity and

competitiveness of the current Federal information environment. While there is an urgent

need for setting future directions, consideration of various alternatives needs to accommodate this complexity or run a high risk of

failure. Thus, planning the future of such

institutions as the GPO and NTIS is both

blessed with many new opportunities, but

fraught with new uncertainties and complexities since their future is inextricably tied to

that of the overall Federal information dissemination enterprise.

In setting future directions for GPO and

NTIS, a two-track strategy warrants serious

consideration: long-term, and short to mediumterm. For the very long-term (10 to 20 years),

the advancing technology and the by then

almost fully automated Federal information

infrastructure are likely to facilitate Federal

electronic information dissemination in several

different ways. These possibilities include:

dissemination of Federal electronic information products directly from Federal

agencies to customers using agency or

Federal telecommunication networks for

online products, and the U.S. mail and/or

private courier services for offline products (e. g., CD-ROM, floppy disk, paper

copies);

electronic (online) dissemination as above

and/or the use of commercial or nonprofit

electronic gateway or networking services,

including those offered by telephone and

value-added carriers;

electronic (online) dissemination by Federal agencies using one or more governmentoperated electronic gateways, clearinghouses, or switching centers–operated by

GPO, NTIS, or another agency—not unlike those being developed by NLM and

the Defense Technical Information Center (DTIC);

production of offline electronic information products (e.g., tapes and disks) by

Federal agencies directly or by agency

contractors, and/or by GPO (or the equivalent central government electronic publishing office);

sale of offline information products by

Federal agencies directly or by agency

contractors, and/or by GPO or NTIS (or

the equivalent central government information sales office); and

sale of repackaged and value-added Federal information products by a wide range

of private vendors, including both online

and offline information products and both

profit and nonprofit sales outlets.

The range of technologies and technical

trends discussed in earlier chapters (see especially ch. 3) could, in the long-term, be deployed

to support a wide range of institutional roles

and responsibilities in Federal information dissemination. It is likely that most sectors of

American society will, in the long-term, make
extensive use of microcomputers in the home,

community, and office. There will also be easy

access to desktop publishing and online information retrieval capabilities interconnected via

a plethora of governmental, commercial, and

nonprofit networks, gateways, and database

services. These electronic interconnections will

be facilitated by a robust offering of satellite,

fiber optic, microwave, cable, and hybrid transmission systems. It is also likely that most sectors of American society will have (or have access to) microcomputer-based expert systems

software to assist with information search, retrieval, and management, and optical disk systems for storage and manipulation of large

volumes of information.

A full understanding of the long-term alternatives and implications for Federal information dissemination will require several years

of pilot tests, demonstrations, and experiments

and related evaluation studies. These demonstrations will provide information crucial to

setting future long-term directions, including

future directions for GPO and NTIS. Many

Federal mission agencies, GPO, and various

private sector commercial and nonprofit organizations have tests and demonstrations underway. More are planned. And NTIS is giving

attention to a demonstration program as well.

In the short-term (within 3 to 5 years) and

possibly the medium-term (5 to 10 years), the

future is more certain, and the basis for setting directions better established.

In setting short-term directions for GPO and

NTIS, the issues discussed in chapter 11 (and

ch. 7 regarding depository libraries) need to

be considered as well as the electronic alternatives discussed in chapters 4, 5, and 7. The key

directions involve the following elements:

GPO provision of electronic publishing

support to Federal agencies (recognizing

that GPO will be competing with both

agency inhouse capabilities and private

sector electronic publishing service bureau

capabilities);

SupDocs sales of electronic formats (recognizing that SupDocs will be competing

299

with some private vendors, some Federal

agencies who choose to sell their own electronic products, unless directed otherwise,

and possibly NTIS, unless close coordination with SupDocs is maintained);

NTIS sales of electronic formats (recognizing potential competition with SupDocs, vendors, and agencies, as above);

and

SupDocs distribution of electronic formats to the depository libraries (recognizing that libraries may also be receiving

Federal electronic information from commercial vendors and nonprofit organizations as well as direct from some agencies).

Possibilities for GPO electronic publishing

support have been discussed in chapter 4, and

electronic dissemination to depository libraries

in chapter 7. Technical aspects of SupDocs and

NTIS electronic document sales were discussed

in chapters 4 and 5. The remainder of this chapter considers a variety of institutional alternatives for and broader implications of implementing SupDocs and NTIS electronic sales

programs.

This discussion assumes that the basic need

for sales of government information continues,

as reflected in the statutory and other congressional policy guidance applicable to GPO and

NTIS, and that some kind of governmentwide

information dissemination mechanisms are

needed for at least the medium-term. This latter assumption reflects the reality that the information life cycle concept, multi-format output, decentralized networking, and the like will

take many years to fully implement in the Federal Government. Governmentwide dissemination approaches are needed to minimize the

burden on and hopefully the cost to the customers and also to ensure broad public access,

Also, the results of the GAO surveys of Federal agencies (ch. 2) and Federal information

users (chs. 4 and 5) suggest a significant and

continuing need for the kinds of functions performed by SupDocs and NTIS in the dissemination of Federal information. 1

‘ For further relevant discussion of GPO, DLP, and NTIS,

see, for example, Peter Hernon and Charles R. McClure, Fed-

/(’(111 [ Irlue(i on n(J.k [ J)ilgt’1
300 —

(continued from previous pagej

eral Information Policies in the 1980 ‘s: Conflicts and Issues

(Ablex: Norwood, New Jersey, 1987): Charles R. McClure, Peter

Hernon, and Gary R. Purcell, Linking the U.S. National Technical Information Service With Academic and Public Libraries

(Ablex: Norwood, New Jersey, 1986); and Peter Hernon, Charles

R. McClure, and Gary P. Purcell, GPO Depository Library

Program: A Descripti\’e Analysis (Ablex: Norwood, New Jersey, 1985). For discussion of longer-term technological and societal futures, see, for example, Alvin Toffler, The Third W’a!’e,

William Morrow (New York, NY, 1980); John Naisbitt,

Megatrends (Warner Books: New York, NY, 1980): Benjamin

M. Compaine, Information Technology and Cultural Change:

Toward A New Literacy? (Harvard University Program on Information Resources Policy: Cambridge, MA, 1984), U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Intellectual Property

Rights in an Age of Electronics and Information, OTA-CIT302, April 1986; Clement Bezold and Robert Olson, The Information Millenium: Alternative Futures, Report prepared by The

Institute for Alternative Futures for the Information Industry

Association (Washington, DC, November 1986); and U.S. Congress, Communication Systems for an Information Age, OTACIT, forthcoming Spring 1989.

INSTITUTIONAL ALTERNATIVES FOR SUPDOCS AND NTIS

ELECTRONIC INFORMATION DISSEMINATION

The following institutional alternatives for

SupDocs and/or NTIS are discussed in this

section:

centralizing all or most government dissemination functions in one office or agency,

privatizing SupDocs and NTIS,

reorganizing SupDocs as part of a legislative printing office,

consolidating NTIS with SupDocs and/or

reorganizing as a “Government Information Office’ or ‘Government Information

Corporation, ” and

authorizing SupDocs or the consolidated

SupDocs/NTIS to produce and disseminate Federal information in all formats.

Centralizing Government Electronic

Information Dissemination

Under this alternative, dissemination of Federal electronic information products, whether

for sale or for free, would be permitted only

through SupDocs or the equivalent. NTIS and

mission agencies would no longer be authorized to disseminate electronic information

directly to the public. This alternative was

strongly opposed by many Federal executive

agency officials. Agency officials believe that

Federal information activities and users are

so diverse and complex that centralizing expertise on these information activities and

users would be very difficult. They argue that

close interaction between information providers and users is essential not only for effective dissemination, but also for effective development of the information products and

services.

The major benefits of totally centralized electronic information dissemination are easier

public access and reduced overlap and duplication in government information functions.

However, attempts to centralize electronic dissemination to this high degree would likely be

heavily resisted with chaotic and possibly

detrimental net impacts on public access. Also

the central dissemination agency probably

would require increased financial and organizational resources which probably would not be

offset by cost and organizational reductions

in the mission agencies. Agencies would be

likely to retain as many functions as they could

on the grounds that most extant personnel and

capabilities are necessary to the creation of the

electronic information products, regardless of

how and by whom the products were disseminated.

The centralized alternative was also criticized as increasing the risks of excessive or improper control over or manipulation of Federal

electronic information dissemination, and as

inconsistent with the checks and balances inherent in diversity and decentralization of information control. In addition, if the central

information office were located in the legislative branch, the alternative would be likely to

exacerbate separation of powers issues. Many

Federal agency officials participating in the

OTA study expressed considerable support for

the central index and standards (discussed in
301

ch. 11), but not as part of a totally centralized

institutional alternative.

Another variation of the centralized alternative would be to combine the electronic information sales functions of the mission agencies in one central office, such as SupDocs or

a Government Information Office. Agencies

could continue to otherwise disseminate their

own information as they do today. At present,

agency electronic information product sales are

handled directly by the agency or in some cases

by the NTIS clearinghouse and/or by interagency agreement with NTIS or in a very few

cases by SupDocs. Agency sales of paper formats are handled by SupDocs for items accepted into the SupDocs sales program (including subscriptions to agency periodicals), by the

agency for other paper formats, and by NTIS

for items included in the NTIS clearinghouse.

Under a more centralized arrangement, all

sales functions (for both paper and electronic

formats) would be combined in one office (which

could be SupDocs, NTIS, a consolidated SupDocs/NTIS, or a Government Information Office). Agencies would still handle free dissemination of their own information products,

except for items handled through CIC.

This partially centralized alternative is viewed

by many Federal executive agency officials

participating in the OTA study as less threatening than a fully centralized government information dissemination function. However,

any mandatory requirement to sell electronic

formats solely through a central government

office would conflict with numerous existing

agency activities, be likely to meet considerable agency opposition, and could precipitate

legal and political challenges to the statutory

basis for such a requirement.

A third variation of the centralized alternative would be for SupDocs or NTIS or a consolidated SupDocs/NTIS to include selected

agency electronic information products in the

SupDocs or NTIS or combined sales program,

but not to the mandatory mutual exclusion of

agency sales. Under this alternative, agencies

could decide to rely entirely on a centralized

sales office, but this would be at agency discretion. While this alternative would mean

some degree of overlap and duplication in sales

activities, it would strengthen the governmentwide information dissemination mechanisms

while at the same time preserving a considerable degree of agency independence with respect to their own information dissemination

activities. (This alternative is discussed further later in this chapter. )

Privatizing SupDocs and NTIS

Privatizing NTIS has been advocated by the

Administration over the last several years,

and, from time to time, privatizing GPO has

been suggested. Some other countries have

privatized both government printing and document sales functions. Theoretically, a Federal electronic information sales program could

be contracted out to the private sector. Three

major criteria for evaluating privatization

proposals are: the inherently governmental

(versus commercial) nature of the government

activity; the cost-effectiveness of privatization

to the government; and the impact of privatization on the commercial marketplace.

Inherently Governmental v. Commercial

Functions

NTIS and SupDocs activities are generically

similar to private sector functions. Certainly

private firms can and do carry out information clearinghouse, printing, marketing, sales,

and dissemination activities. However, NTIS

and SupDocs are arguably inherently governmental because they:

operate pursuant to public law,

carry out important public responsibilities in promoting public access to Federal

information,

facilitate an informed citizenry,

assist the mission agencies in carrying out

their statutory responsibilities, and

advance scientific and technical progress

in the United States as is especially the

case with NTIS.

Second, NTIS and SupDocs receive almost

all of their source materials from other Federal agencies, on a voluntary basis in the case
302

—-

of NTIS and subject to Title 44 requirements

for SupDocs. There is no guarantee or requirement that Federal agencies would continue to

provide information to a privatized NTIS, and,

indeed, some Federal science agencies have

said that they would not. The possibility of

requiring Federal agencies to participate in a

privatized publication sales program in lieu of

the SupDocs program would appear to raise

serious legal problems (including the necessity

to amend Title 44 and possible ramifications

for numerous statutes), and some agencies

might be expected to not cooperate with a

privatized SupDocs.

Third, both NTIS and SupDocs have active

programs for the international exchange of

reports and materials with various countries.

This is an important element in the free and

open flow of information between governments

and across national boundaries. There is no

guarantee or requirement that foreign countries would continue to cooperate with a privatized NTIS and SupDocs. In the debate over

NTIS privatization, some foreign governments

indicated serious concerns about cooperating

with a privatized NTIS.

Fourth, both NTIS and SupDocs carry out

a variety of other functions, some explicitly

required by statute, others on a voluntary, reimbursable basis for various Federal agencies.

For example, NTIS is responsible for technology transfer, patent licensing, and Japanese

literature translation programs, and also for

reimbursable information processing and sales

for other agencies. Also, NTIS serves as an

outlet for FOIA requests (for materials placed

by agencies in NTIS) and as the repository for

OMB-mandated agency inventories of electronic information products. SupDocs is responsible for administering DLP and also operates the CIC on a reimbursable basis for the

General Services Administration (GSA). The

debate over NTIS privatization suggests that

many of these kinds of activities are not amenable to privatization.

In sum, both NTIS and SupDocs have developed a complex, intricate web of relationships with Federal agencies (and other governments) and carry out numerous functions that

are either required by law or that support the

ability of other agencies to fulfill their statutory obligations.

Cost-Effectiveness

The cost-effectiveness of privatizing NTIS

or SupDocs has yet to be established. With respect to NTIS, analyses conducted by the Department of Commerce concluded that privatization would cost—not save—the Government

money. A cost-effectiveness study would need

to consider not only transition costs and residual costs to the government but also the

costs to all relevant government agencies—

not just the Department of Commerce (for

NTIS) or GPO or Congress (for SupDocs). For

example, NTIS performs roughly $1 million

worth of reimbursable production services per

year for other agencies, and also performs billing and collection services through reimbursable agreements with NLM, DTIC, and NAL.

The financial impact on these and other agencies would need to be considered.

As another example, SupDocs is able to obtain copies of agency reports at marginal rather

than full cost by “riding” the agency orders

for the additional copies needed for SupDocs

sales and depository library distribution. If

SupDocs were privatized and many agencies

no longer cooperated, the SupDocs cost of obtaining copies would be likely to increase significantly, thereby increasing the cost to the

customers (of SupDocs sales) and taxpayers

(who finance DLP distribution).

In addition, a cost-effectiveness study would

need to consider NTIS and SupDocs privatization in light of the plans and activities of

other Federal agencies with respect to Federal

information dissemination. Most of these agencies are pursuing a variety of technical options,

with numerous possible implications for the

future of NTIS and SupDocs—whether privatized or not. For example, DTIC, which accounts for roughly one-quarter of NTIS source

materials, is planning to shift to an optical diskbased electronic printing-on-demand operation.

This and similar actions by other Federal agen-
303

cies could have major implications for how and

what information is transmitted to NTIS

and/or SupDocs. The opportunities to improve

cost-effectiveness (e.g., via the information life

cycle with multi-format output) could be complicated if NTIS and SupDocs were privatized.

Finally, both NTIS and SupDocs operate

with no public appropriations for their basic

sales functions. NTIS operates on a break-even

basis with annual revenues and costs of roughly

$22 million and no appropriation for the basic

NTIS collection, archiving, clearinghouse, and

dissemination functions. The SupDocs sales

program is totally self-supporting, and in recent years has actually been returning a net

annual profit of several million dollars on annual sales in the $70 million range. This makes

it especially difficult to establish the costeffectiveness of privatization.

Impact on the Private Marketplace

Most NTIS and SupDocs documents are not

copyrightable, since documents prepared by

or for the Federal Government at public expense cannot be copyrighted. This means that

any individual or organization can resell NTIS

and SupDocs reports without authorization

from or reimbursement to the government, and

that the government has no legal basis for preventing such sales. Indeed, some private vendors do resell various NTIS and SupDoCs documents based on their own evaluation of the

marketplace. Vendors need only buy one copy

of the government document and can (and do)

use it as camera-ready copy (with anew cover

and title page). In this way, the vendor eliminates the keyboarding, layout, and composition costs, which could otherwise be substantial. When documents are available in magnetic

tape format from SupDocs, some vendors buy

the tapes and convert them into online formats,

and more recently CD-ROM formats.

Thus privatizing NTIS and SupDocs would

not appear to make a difference at least with

respect to private marketplace availability of

paper formats, since these are already readily

available at very nominal cost to any vendor

who wishes to resell or enhance these materials.

With respect to NTIS privatization, views

of the information industry span a broad spectrum, including those that oppose full privatization due to concern about adverse effects on

those firms that are already in the market of

reselling or adding value to NTIS documents.

The same generic concern could apply as well

to SupDocs privatization.

Several private firms already realize several

million dollars in annual revenues from selling the NTIS bibliography in electronic online

format and reselling various NTIS products.

To the extent that NTIS (or SupDocs) privatization provided market advantages to a prospective contractor, such as the opportunity

to develop and sell value-added products and

services as long as certain core functions were

carried out, it could have adverse effects on

those firms that are or would like to resell or

enhance government materials. A potential

problem, from an industry point of view, is that

one firm (the contractor) would be granted a

preferred competitive position by the Government. From the governmental and public access perspective, a potential problem is that

significant user groups could be priced out of

the value-added market, unless there is some

kind of effective “information lifeline’ or “information safety net” protection.

There is also concern within the information

industry about the competitive impacts of governmental electronic offerings. Possible effects

of NTIS and SupDocs electronic sales on the

private information marketplace are discussed

in a later section.

Reorganizing SupDocs as Part of a

Legislative Printing Office

Another institutional possibility is to limit

SupDocs to legislative branch information

products (NTIS would remain in the executive

branch). This legislative branch SupDocs alternative would require statutory changes and

would presumably be part of a legislative

branch GPO (sometimes referred to as a Legislative Printing Office or LPO). The rationale

for an LPO is as follows.
304

At present, GPO is a statutory agency of

the legislative branch of the government, but

with its chief officer (the Public Printer) appointed by the President, and with roughly

seven/eighths of its total printing work done

for the executive branch. The split between

legislative and executive printing is about

50:50 for the GPO main plant, and almost all

procured work is done for executive agencies.

If key governmental process items (such as the

Federal Register, Budget of the United States,

passports, postal cards) are included with the

congressional work, then the legislative to executive split would be about 75:25 at the main

plant.

One possible scenario would be to transfer

the GPO procurement function to GSA in the

executive branch, gradually phase out executive branch filler work at the GPO mainplant

(or place such work on an agency discretionary basis), and limit GPO’s inplant work to congressional and specified key governmental

items. This alternative would eliminate any

separation of powers issues, especially if the

Public Printer were made a congressional

rather than presidential appointment. This also

would permit GPO to focus or refocus on legislative branch needs and avoid the frequently

conflicting requirements of the executive

branch. GPO began as almost exclusively the

legislative branch printer, with the few executive branch items produced as congressional

documents. But executive branch work has

gradually increased to the point today where

only about one-eighth of total work is purely

congressional. This alternative might also

make it somewhat easier for GPO to actively

pursue a variety of electronic options for congressional information dissemination by focusing attention and resources on just one branch

of government.

However, this so-called legislative branch

alternative has several limitations. First, separating the printing procurement function

from printing operations may, over time, reduce the competence and effectiveness of the

procurement staff. Establishing a separate executive branch printer (in addition to the existing GPO) might solve this problem, but at

a substantial additional cost. Second, the cost

of congressional printing would increase significantly, all other things being equal. Executive agency work done at the GPO main plant

helps to take up slack capacity during periods

of lower congressional work load. GPO must

staff up to handle peak congressional work

load, and thus executive branch work helps utilize some of this capacity during off-peak

periods. Without executive agency work, total GPO costs would be spread over a smaller

base, thus increasing the per unit cost of the

remaining work. The cost impact would be lessened to the extent a legislative branch GPO

was able to retain adequate executive branch

work on a voluntary basis, perhaps partly

through the use of special rates for GPO main

plant work that more closely approximate procured printing rates (see discussion in chs. 4

and 11). Third, the cost increases would probably necessitate significant GPO labor force

reductions, which in the worst case could be

as much as 40 percent of the main plant employees (see ch. 4 for further discussion. )

A fourth potential problem is the reduction

in congressional control over agency printing

and information dissemination. While the executive branch might view this as an advantage, congressional oversight committees might

find it more difficult to keep abreast of agency

activities, absent more effective reporting by

and cooperation from the executive branch.

While some executive agencies are critical of

what they perceive as inappropriate micromanagement by some oversight committees, it is

not clear whether the agencies (and OMB)

would support other, substitute oversight

mechanisms. Congress could address oversight

concerns, in part, by strengthening and restructuring committee jurisdictions (e.g., by

creating a Joint Committee on Government

Information) and by statutory amendments

providing more specific guidance to the executive agencies.

The implications for SupDocs are several.

SupDocs is dependent on the central role of

GPO vis-a-vis all government printing, to be

aware of what is being printed, assess market

potential, ride the printing order for additional
305

copies as needed, and ensure proper distribution to depository libraries. If responsibility

for executive branch printing is moved to the

executive branch, provision would need to be

made to ensure that functions now carried out

by SupDocs for the executive branch are continued. This could involve reorganizing existing executive agency public information or

printing offices into agency sales offices, or creating new offices if needed, all at what could

be significant additional costs. Having the

equivalent of multiple SupDocs offices throughout the government might complicate the indexing, cataloging, marketing, quality control,

ease of public access to, and international exchange of government documents. In addition,

to preserve the integrity of the depository library program, executive agencies would need

to advise the legislative branch SupDocs of

their publishing activities, and provision would

have to made to produce and pay for enough

copies to meet depository library needs.

Consolidating NTIS with SupDocs

and/or Reorganizing as a

“Government Information Office” or

Government Corporation

The consolidation of NTIS and SupDocs is

a key element of government information legislation introduced in the past two Congresses.

The consolidated entity could be located in either the legislative branch or executive branch.

An NTIS-GPO consolidation in the legislative

branch has received more attention recently,

in part as an alternative to NTIS privatization. As noted in chapter 11, the Public Printer

has publically stated his willingness to consider

and implement this alternative, and the Librarian of Congress has suggested consolidating

NTIS with the Library of Congress. In the debate over NTIS privatization, some agency

officials and users have stated a preference for

NTIS-GPO consolidation over NTIS privatization.

NTIS-GPO consolidation would appear to

offer several significant advantages but also

create some problems. On the plus side, a consolidation would retain NTIS as a governmental entity, and this is thought to be critically important by Federal science agencies.

These agencies are very uncomfortable, from

procedural, legal, and philosophic perspectives,

with the prospect of dealing with a privatized

NTIS. While a consolidated NTIS, presumably

located within GPO in the legislative branch,

may not be ideal, it appears to be preferable

to many when compared with privatization.

Also, a consolidation would increase the possibilities of economies of scale, and synergy

between NTIS and SupDocs marketing, sales,

and distribution programs. A consolidation

should eliminate public confusion about their

respective roles, and could lead to a more efficient and rationale approach to Federal information dissemination.

NTIS and SupDocs have a lot in common.

They are both essentially resellers of information products generated by Federal mission

agencies. They both operate on a financially

self-sustaining basis (SupDocs actually made

a significant profit in recent years), with no

public appropriation except for specially mandated activities. Both NTIS and SupDocs are

small, although the SupDocs sales program

has about three times the total revenues (about

$70 million per year versus about $22 million

for NTIS). They both develop bibliographic

products.

The major differences are that NTIS handles largely scientific and technical material

with limited demand (10 copies per item) spread

over a large inventory (about 60,000-70,000

items added yearly and a total inventory of

roughly 2 million titles), while SupDocs handles the entire range of government publications, but selects items with a larger demand

(typically, in the several hundreds to thousands

of copies per item) and maintains a much

smaller inventory (about 20,000 titles). NTIS

has a major archival responsibility, while SupDocs does not (although some of the depository libraries do).

With respect to technology, NTIS is constrained due to the absence of a revolving fund

or other mechanism to finance capital investment in new technology (although this would
306

be partially remedied in pending legislation).

Since SupDocs printing is done by GPO, SupDocs is an indirect beneficiary of any technology enhancements that GPO finances for its

own purposes out of the GPO revolving fund.

Also, SupDocs can finance its own capital investment needs out of the GPO revolving fund

with the cost recovered as a depreciation

charge against sales. It is also possible that

SupDocs (and, by extension, NTIS) would be

permitted to contribute some portion of net

revenues, if any, to the revolving fund to finance new dissemination technology and experiments. In general, the combined activity

and resource base of NTIS and SupDocs would

appear to offer potential opportunities for testing implementation of new technologies (such

as CD-ROM, printing on demand) and marketing techniques. A NTIS-GPO consolidation

would also appear to provide potentially fruitful cross-fertilization of staff expertise, and

would meet congressional concerns about retaining direct control over vital Federal information dissemination functions.

The major potential problem would appear

to be the actual transfer of NTIS from an executive branch agency (Department of Commerce) to a legislative branch agency (GPO).

The Department and OMB are likely to oppose

this alternative. It could be viewed as further

exacerbating concerns about separation of

powers and executive control. There would be

some costs associated with the transition, although they might be minimal. The cooperation of the Federal science agencies would be

essential to make this transfer work.

Rather than moving NTIS to the legislative

branch, SupDocs could be transferred to the

executive branch and combined with NTIS.

Legislation introduced in the past two Congresses would consolidate NTIS and SupDocs

(along with a few other agency information

sales units) into a Government Information Office to be established as an independent agency

of the executive branch. First of all, this legislation would transfer only SupDocs, and not

the printing procurement and inplant printing

functions of GPO. Theoretically, the entire

GPO could be transferred, although this appears unlikely so long as GPO operates as the

congressional printer (with highest priority assigned to congressional work).

Part of the rationale for moving SupDocs

to the executive branch is to minimize separation of powers problems and facilitate relationships with executive agencies. It is not clear

whether separation of powers is really a problem with respect to SupDocs functions. The

ongoing debate over the applicability of Chadha

v. INS to certain provisions of Title 44 of the

U.S. Code has focused primarily on the constitutionally of the requirement for Joint Committee on Printing advance approval of executive agency printing and related activities, not

on the constitutionality of SupDoc functions.

Transfer of SupDocs or any or all of the rest

of GPO to the executive branch would be likely

to aggravate congressional concerns about control over government information dissemination policy. These concerns might be mitigated,

to a degree, by strengthening congressional

oversight.

A change in name to ‘Government Information Office” would help demarcate the already

well advanced transition of the Federal Government from a world of paper documents and

reports to a world of information in all formats,

electronic as well as paper and microfiche. A

name change need not be limited to an NTISSupDocs consolidation. On the down side, in

the American political system, there has always been some reluctance to establish central governmental information offices, for fear

they will become or at least be perceived as

government information control or propaganda

instruments. This of course need not and presumably would not be the case for the institutional alternatives discussed above, but it is

a concern that warrants attention.

Yet another possibility would be to establish a Government Information Office as a government corporation. This alternative has been

seriously proposed and studied for NTIS. The

National Academy of Public Administration

has reviewed the history and nature of NTIS

functions and concluded that NTIS met the

commonly accepted criteria for a government
307

corporation, including the need to: be revenueproducing, be self-supporting, and conduct a

large number of transactions with the public.

The academy also concluded that, despite the

requirement to be self-supporting, NTIS is not

provided the operational flexibility (for staffing and capital investment, in particular) necessary to respond to market forces. The House

Committee on Science, Technology, and Space

largely concurred with the Academy’s findings, and has included the incorporation of

NTIS as a provision of the NBS Authorization Act for fiscal year 1989. (See ch. 11 for

discussion.)

The government corporation approach for

NTIS would appear to capture some of the benefits that had been suggested from an NTISSupDocs consolidation, especially with respect

to capital investment. Also, providing NTIS

with an explicit statutory charter presumably

would strengthen the ability of NTIS to carry

out its mission with less interference from

OMB and others who have questioned the existence of NTIS as a government entity. On

the other hand, the corporation approach as

currently proposed would not capture possible marketing, staffing, and technology synergies that might result from an NTIS-SupDocs

consolidation. Another alternative would be

to extend the current “National Technical Information Corp. ‘‘ concept to include SupDocs

(and perhaps some other related government

activities, such as those of the Consumer Information Center) to become a “National Government Information Corp.”

A full analysis of these alternatives is beyond the scope of this study but would necessitate consideration of all the factors discussed

previously, including the implications for: the

cost-effectiveness of NTIS and SupDocs functions; the intricate web of relationships between NTIS, SupDocs, and the mission agencies which are the source of NTIS and SupDocs

sales items; the implementation of relevant

statutes including various provisions of Title

44 of the U.S. Code; and the private sector

firms that currently (or might in the future)

make a market in reselling or adding value to

NTIS and SupDocs materials. It should be

noted that in 1986, the Department of Commerce not only recommended against wholesale NTIS privatization, but also recommended against consolidation with GPO or

creation of a corporation.

Authorizing SupDocs or the

Consolidated SupDocs/NTIS

to Produce and Disseminate

Electronic Formats

The convergence of several trends has opened

up a window of opportunity for SupDocs, or

a consolidated SupDocs/NTIS should that

alternative be implemented, with respect to the

production and dissemination of Federal information in electronic formats as well as paper

and microfiche. While paper is expected to be

the dominant format for years to come, the

GAO survey results (see ch. 2, 4, and 5) document the transition that is already underway.

The volume of Federal information products

in electronic formats is increasing rapidly.

Also, automation of the document creation

process in most Federal agencies is proceeding rapidly, such that electronic capture of the

original keyboarding should be possible a large

percentage of the time, given the necessary

technical standards. GPO already receives

roughly 70 percent of incoming material in electronic format, primarily magnetic tape, and

has converted entirely from hot type to electronic photocomposition (between 1976-1986).

GPO has the capability to accept input in a

wide range of floppy diskette formats, and is

experimenting with both dial-up desktop publishing input and mainframe computer-based

electronic data transfer. GPO electronic output is currently limited to several dozen magnetic tape products, including some major

products such as the Congressional Record and

Federal Register.

OTA’s independent printing consultant concluded that as much as 60 percent of the GPO’s

current publications could be produced in an

electronic database-oriented format, and that

about half of that, or 30 percent, is “releasable” in electronic format in that the material

is: (1) suited for electronic receipt; (2) not con-
308

fidential or otherwise restricted; and (3) has

an audience with or access to the technology

needed to use the material in electronic form.

While one can debate these percentages, and

the methodologies used to estimate them, the

results suggest significant levels of potential

electronic penetration. GPO has questioned the

basis for these estimates, but the difference,

if any, cannot be resolved in the absence of a

detailed review of a statistically valid sample

of GPO’s printed products. Such a review appears to be warranted, and could be conducted

by SupDocs.

With respect to NTIS, constraints on capital investment have limited its deployment of

new electronic technology. NTIS does serve

as a clearinghouse for a variety of electronic

format (machine readable) products, including

about:

. 300 computer software items;

. 800 numeric and statistical databases;

. 300 textual databases; and

● 10 bibliographic databases, all provided

by mission agencies.

These represent only a small fraction of total

agency electronic products in these categories.

NTIS could be positioned to take advantage

of relevant technology applications under development and demonstration at various civilian and military agencies.

Some technologies appear to offer large potential for both SupDocs and NTIS. One of

these is compact disk/read only memory (CDROM). The National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Bureau of the

Census, and U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)

have prototyped CD-ROMs and found that

disks with about 500-600 megabytes of data

(equivalent to about 250,000 pages of doublespaced typed text) can be recorded on a single

disk at a full cost of about $50/disk at a volume of 600. This includes $15,000 for data

preparation (converting the electronic data into

the format suitable for CD-ROM), $5,000 for

software development (preparing the software

needed for CD-ROM access), and $10,000 for

the actual mastering of the first 600 disks. At

a larger volume of, say, 2,000, the total would

increase to about $40,000 but the per disk cost

would drop to about $20. At a volume of 5,000,

the total cost would be about $50,000 and per

disk cost about $10. SupDocs and/or NTIS

could take a lead role in facilitating the preparation and dissemination of CD-ROMs for individual agency databases and for a consortia

of agencies who might wish to place a variety

of databases on a single disk.

The combination of CD-ROMs, optical disk

storage for large scale archiving, and electronic

print-on-demand systems could revolutionize

NTIS and/or SupDocs dissemination operations, especially for low volume, out-of-print,

and/or reference or bibliographic material.

While governmentwide standards for these

(and other) technological applications are critical, it is not clear to what extent centralized

production is more cost-effective. In other

words, the conventional printing procurement

model may not necessarily apply to electronic

information product procurement. In general,

however, once the content of a document, publication, or other information product is captured in a compatible electronic format, then

it is easy to manipulate the contents into a variety of outputs—paper, microfiche, and electronic. In this way, the output formats can be

cost-effectively tailored to particular types of

products and user needs and capabilities. (See

chs. 3, 4, and 5 for further discussion. )
309

BROADER IMPLICATIONS OF SUPDOCS/NTIS ELECTRONIC

INFORMATION DISSEMINATION

Some broader implications of SupDocs/NTIS

electronic dissemination, irrespective of the

particular institutional structure, are considered in this section. The impact areas discussed

include:

government productivity and cost-effectiveness,

agency missions and the role of SupDocs

and NTIS,

private sector economy, and

other areas.

Government Productivity and

Cost-Effectiveness

major continuing concern of government

officials and taxpayers is that government

functions be conducted as cost-effectively as

possible, consistent with other governmental

objectives such as public access and open government. With respect to Federal information

dissemination and related activities, there appear tO be substantial opportunities for SupDocs and NTIS to improve the productivity

and cost-effectiveness of government information activities. This could occur directly

through their own activities and indirectly by

encouraging or stimulating agency productivity improvements, and without compromising other important goals such as public access. Indeed, there is the possibility of

financing enhanced public access to Federal

information largely out of productivity improvements.

Numerous vendors and business users report

productivity improvements of ty’pically 30 to

50 percent and similar rates of return on investment. Payback periods are in the 2 to 3

year range. Various Federal agencies have projected similar returns in justifying equipment

and systems acquisitions, and these estimates

should be applicable to SupDocs and NTIS information products.

These estimates do not include other important elements of cost avoidance, such as paper and postage. Electronic publishing facilitates the use of typeset text and tables for

reports (or other documents), rather than typewritten (or word processed) text and tables.

The result is that the length of reports can be

reduced by, on the average, about 35 percent,

and thus the cost of printing (including paper)

would be corresponding} reduced. The reduced length (and weight) of the report would

also reduce the cost of postage for mailing the

report. Again, these kinds of savings should

accrue to SupDocs and NTIS information dissemination as well as to individual mission

agencies.

Another potential area of cost reductions for

SupDocs and NTIS document sales involves

the use of CD-ROMs for dissemination of scientific, statistical, and other kinds of information that are best suited for electronic formats.

For example, the full texts of patents are currently sold by the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) at a cost of $2,250 per week for paper format, and only $345 per week in magnetic

computer tape format, all priced to recover the

marginal cost of reproduction. PTO estimates

that the same information could be sold in CDROM format (one disk per week) for only $50

per week, depending on sales volume, or about

2 percent of the cost in paper format. The

NOAA, USGS, and Bureau of the Census have

estimated that scientific and statistical information totally unsuited for paper formats

could be provided on CD-ROM at about 1() percent or less of the cost of the same information in magnetic tape format ($50 for one CDROM compared to $500 to $625 for 4 or 5 magnetic tapes at $125 each). These kinds of cost

reductions should apply as well to electronic

products sold by SupDocs and NTIS.

However, the realization of these benefits by

the Federal Government is hampered by the

general lack of or confusion about common

technical standards to ensure compatibility

and interconnectivity, inadequacy of effective

mechanisms to share expertise and experience.
310

-.

and the like. As noted in chapters 2, 3, and 11,

there are some efforts ongoing in all of these

areas, but the total effort appears to be moving too slowly, especially when considering the

substantial yearly investment of the Federal

Government in these technologies and the

large number of tests, demonstrations, and,

operational applications. SupDocs and NTIS

electronic dissemination programs could help

stimulate faster progress in these areas.

In addition to beneficial productivity impacts on the creators and disseminators of Federal information, other alternatives that could

be implemented by SupDocs and NTIS (such

as the governmentwide information indexing,

see ch. 11) should help improve the productivity of Federal (as well as other) users of Federal information. At present, it is difficult and

time-consuming for many Federal employees

to determine what relevant information is

available from elsewhere within their own

agency, let alone from other agencies. While

there are no known estimates of the total time

spent searching for information, it must be substantial. Moreover, while an improved index

to major government information (in all formats) is only one part of a total solution, it

should be of significant help if done well.

Estimating the productivity improvements

from SupDocs and NTIS electronic dissemination activities (including related standards,

innovation, and index initiatives) is very difficult if not impossible. However, given the very

large government investment in relevant areas,

even a small productivity y improvement translates into large savings or cost avoidance.

There are several ways to estimate savings

for the government, although estimating an

allocation of savings to SupDocs/NTIS versus

the individual mission agencies is difficult and

beyond the scope of this analysis. One way to

calculate savings is as a percentage of total

government expenditures in relevant areas.

Assuming that the government spends at least

$6 billion annually on information dissemination-related functions (see ch. 2), even just a

10 percent productivity improvement, which

is at the very low end of private sector estimates and experience, would translate into a

potential $600 million per year productivity

improvement. Even if only partially realized,

this would provide a substantial opportunity

for cost avoidance, budget reductions, and/or

new or improved dissemination activities. For

example, a one percent productivity improvement would equate to $60 million per year,

which by comparison is an amount about triple

the depository library program appropriation.

Other methods of estimating productivity

improvement also give significant results. For

example, a conservatively estimated 30,000

Federal employees are involved with information dissemination-related activities, as discussed in chapter 11. Assuming an average salary (including benefits) of $40,000 per year, the

total cost would be $1.2 billion. Assuming further an average productivity improvement of

25 percent when using electronic publishing

(equates to a payback period of 4 years), the

potential productivity improvements or cost

avoidance would be about $300 million per year

for Federal salaries alone. As another example, an estimated 100,000 scientific and technical reports are produced by or for the Federal Government each year. Assuming that the

average report length is 125 double-spaced

typewritten pages and the average press run

is 400 copies per report, then the total printing and postage cost per report would average about $1,400 per report (at $3.50 per copy

or 1.6 cents per page plus $1.50 postage) or

$140 million total (for 100,000 reports). Using

the estimated 35 percent savings figure, the

potential savings by using electronic publishing would be about $50 million annually for

printing and postage alone.

Agency Missions and the Role of

SupDocs and NTIS

As discussed throughout the report, Congress has assigned numerous information dissemination responsibilities to Federal agencies

in the performance of their statutory missions.

In general, agency statutory missions would

be enhanced by those SupDocs/NTIS alternatives that facilitate and improve the dissemi-
311

nation of mission-specific information to

agency clientele (e.g., users, researchers, media, interest groups). To the extent this could

be done more cost-effectively, agency missions

would also be enhanced. Overall, the scenario

that seems to have broadest support among

mission agencies is the alternative that retains

agency discretion to disseminate electronic information directly to agency clients, but with

the central governmentwide dissemination

offices (SupDocs, NTIS, or a combination

thereof) having the discretion to include agency

items in governmentwide sales, archiving, and

distribution programs. This is somewhat similar to the way paper documents and publications are handled now. The agencies are able

to distribute printed copies directly to their

own clients. SupDocs ‘‘rides the printing order for additional copies for the GPO sales program and depository library distribution, if the

particular report is judged to be suitable for

inclusion. NTIS receives scientific and technical information (STI) documents from the

agencies, and places the materials in the archives for dissemination on demand.

At present, while many agency reports are

transmitted in electronic format to GPO for

printing, SupDocs does not disseminate electronic formats (with the exception of some

magnetic tapes). NTIS, on the other hand, receives and disseminates about 1,400 electronic

format products, although demand per product is generally low. Some agency officials expressed concern about having SupDocs disseminate their electronic format products. This

appears to reflect: a desire to retain control

over their own electronic products to the extent possible; concern about possible competition with SupDocs (and potential reduction

in agency revenues from electronic sales); and

a perception that SupDocs could not effectively

maintain an electronic dissemination program.

On the other hand, under a decentralized scenario, NTIS and/or SupDocs activities would

augment and supplement, not supplant, agency

activities. Also, agency sales of electronic information products are, in many cases, quite

modest; so the involvement of NTIS and/or

SupDocs might actually stimulate greater

sales and therefore greater dissemination of

agency materials. The agencies probably would

not receive any additional direct revenues

(which would presumably be retained by NTIS/

SupDocs, returned to the Treasury, or applied

to offset public appropriations elsewhere).

As for concern over the capability of SupDocs and NTIS to handle electronic formats,

both SupDocs and NTIS would need to obtain

the necessary additional expertise. GPO as a

whole is averaging about a 5 percent annual

net attrition rate (250 persons a year from a

current base of about 5,000), which provides

considerable flexibility to hire persons with

electronic information skills to the extent

needed. Beyond this, as many as 10 to 15 percent of the employees in several major GPO

work groups are at or near retirement age (see

ch. 4). There may be additional attrition

through higher retirement rates in the next few

years, which would provide GPO with additional staffing flexibility. In sum, GPO is in

a favorable position with respect to any necessary personnel adjustments within the current statutory ceiling on full time equivalent

staff levels. Changes in or removal of the ceiling would require congressional action. The

NTIS personnel situation is in a state of flux

due to the uncertainties associated with the

privatization debate. Morale has been adversely affected, and many employees apparently are prepared to retire or transfer to

another Federal agency. A complete evaluation of NTIS personnel resources would seem

prudent.

With respect to equipment (hardware, software, systems) needed for electronic dissemination activities, there would likely be the need

for significant capital investment requirements

on the part of SupDocs and NTIS for such

things as:

●

●

●

additional desktop and high-end electronic

publishing units,

graphics work stations,

magnetic tape and floppy disk conversion

and duplication equipment,
312

●

●

possibly online database support capability, and

possibly CD-ROM premastering equipment.

However, for GPO, the cost of these items is,

in many cases, comparable or less than the cost

of conventional printing and binding equipment. GPO currently spends about 1 percent

of total revenues on capital investment ($8 million out of $800 million), which is equivalent

to about 4 percent of inplant revenues. Over

time, one scenario is a gradual shift in the GPO

capital expenditure budget from conventional

to electronic printing and publishing equipment. All major expenditures, whether for new

conventional presses or CD-ROM premastering equipment and the like, would need to be

carefully scrutinized to validate need and costeffectiveness relative to other options and taking into account estimates of future demand.

NTIS has not had a significant capital investment program in the past, and would need a

capital program to support electronic dissemination activities.

Should SupDocs and NTIS seek a significant

role in electronic dissemination, several other

actions appear to be prudent. One would be

the establishment of high level and well-staffed

strategic planning offices in SupDocs (or GPO)

and NTIS that would include expertise in technology, economics, marketing, and human resources, among other considerations. These

offices would need to be permanently established. The planning offices could be tasked

with developing short, medium, and long-range

plans on a rolling basis. At GPO, the recent

establishment of an Office of Financial Policy

and Planning appears to be a step in this direction. Congress could require that periodic SupDocs and NTIS planning reports be submitted

to the appropriate oversight, authorizing, and

appropriations committees. A second action

would be to enhance the SupDocs and NTIS

research, development, and demonstration program. The few pilot and research projects

underway, while noteworthy, do not have the

critical mass necessary to place SupDocs and

NTIS on a par with various of the Federal executive agencies (such as the Navy, DTIC,

USGS). If SupDocs and NTIS aspire to—or

Congress desires SupDocs and NTIS to take–

a leadership role in such areas as technical

standards and state-of-the-art technical applications, then a more aggressive program appears to be necessary. A third action would

be to further increase the profile of SupDocs

and NTIS participation in various Federal

Government standards-setting and technology

development activities. SupDocs and NTIS

could seek formal participation in these activities, and promote or train from within or hire

from the outside the best available qualified

persons to participate in these forums. (See chs.

4, 5, and 7 for related discussion.)

Private Sector Economy

A major concern of the information industry, government, and others is how SupDocs

and NTIS electronic dissemination programs,

if implemented, would affect the economic

health of the U.S. private sector economy. The

private business sector has multiple interests

in Federal information dissemination. First,

many businesses are users of Federal information for a wide variety of purposes. Second,

the equipment manufacturers and systems integrators sell the government the hardware,

software, and related technologies and services that are needed to implement Federal information dissemination systems. Third, the

printing industry sells composition, printing,

and binding services to the government. Fourth,

the information industry repackages, resells,

and/or adds value to government information.

The interests of the business users of Federal information are presumably generically

the same as many other users—to get the information when needed and at a reasonable

price. The larger businesses with greater resources are likely to be less sensitive to price

than independent small businesses, and the

larger businesses also are better able to use

the information industry to obtain Federal information on a resale or enhanced basis. The

equipment manufacturers and related companies, while probably users of Federal information, are primarily interested in expanding and
313

developing the government market for their

technologies and services. Similarly, the printing industry largely views the Federal Government as another market segment for sales

of printing services. The information industry,

however, has a more complex view of its relationship to the Federal information infrastructure.

On the one hand, that portion of the information industry that makes a market in Federal information is dependent on obtaining the

information on a timely and relatively inexpensive basis so that it can be repackaged, resold,

and/or enhanced at a competitive price. If Federal information is available too slowly, at too

high a price, and/or in a difficult format, the

potential market value and profit potential of

repackaging and/or enhancing that information declines accordingly. Therefore there is

a clear interest in obtaining Federal information on a timely and reasonable cost basis. The

industry appears to oppose (along with others)

pricing of Federal information to recover some

or all of the cost of developing the information,

because, in many instances, that would make

it too costly to repackage, resell, and/or enhance the information at a profit. The industry (and others, including libraries, researchers, public interest groups, and the like) note

that the development of the information is paid

for with taxpayer dollars, so charging for the

information development costs would amount

to paying twice.

The conflict arises when government information is made available in electronic form.

The information industry apparently does not

see paper formats as a competitive threat, but

not so for electronic formats. This is because

it is the electronic form (and format) that permits the information industry and others to

repackage and enhance the information. Thus

users who want and can afford the advantages

of electronic information (e.g., such as timely

search and retrieval capability) provide the primary market for information industry products and services. As a result, proposals to

make Federal information available in electronic form directly from the government (e.g.,

via individual agencies and the depository library program as well as SupDocs and NTIS)

have raised serious concerns on the part of

OMB, information industry trade associations,

and some individual companies.

The primary information industry concern

is over a possible adverse impact of governmentprovided electronic information on information

market opportunities. OMB and information

industry representatives make a distinction between government dissemination of Federal

information in raw electronic form (e. g., on a

magnetic tape or floppy disk) without software

enhancements or searching aids, which OMB

and the industry representatives support, and

government dissemination of enhanced or socalled “value added” information, which at

least some in OMB and the industry oppose.

This places information industry companies

in the position of advocating dissemination of

raw electronic formats which they can use as

resellers and value adders (because the electronic formats are much cheaper to work with

and minimize costly rekey boarding), but apparently resisting sales of enhanced electronic formats by individual agencies or governmentwide dissemination agencies (such as SupDocs

or NTIS) directly to the public.

The industry position raises several issues.

First, historically the government has produced and disseminated a wide range of enhanced or value-added information products

in paper format. These include, for example,

statistical analyses and projections (e.g., from

the Bureau of Labor Statistics and Bureau of

the Census), natural resource trends and projections (e.g., from USGS), domestic and international commodity demand, supply, and

price fluctuations (e.g., from the U.S. Department of Agriculture), and domestic and international market trends and forecasts (e.g., from

the Department of Commerce). Thus the government has a long-established role in providing enhanced information products.

Second, increasingly, users are seeking these

information products in electronic formats, in

order improve the timeliness, accessibility,

and/or manipulability of the information,

and/or because the information is available
314

—

only in an electronic format. Limiting the government to electronic dissemination of only the

raw information would be akin to distributing

the words of a book without the page and chapter formats or the table of contents and index,

or to distributing statistical data without the

tables, figures, or summary presentations and

analyses. Limiting the government’s role to

raw electronic data could aggravate concerns

about equity of information access and impair

the performance of agency missions and governmental functions.

Third, although OMB circular A-130 asserts

that information dissemination is subject to

OMB circular A-76 on contracting out, and

that “maximum feasible reliance” should be

placed on the private sector, neither of these

circulars nor any other governmentwide policy guidance define under what conditions enhanced or value-added electronic information

products are inherently or appropriately governmental versus commercial in nature. (See

ch. 11 for further discussion.)

In terms of the various alternatives discussed in chapter 11, it does not appear that

the business community has any serious objections to and indeed, supports technical

standards, innovation centers, improved Information Resources Management (IRM), and

electronic FOIA (also see ch. 9) as they relate

to information dissemination. Many of these

would benefit the business community as taxpayers through improved government productivity, and as corporate citizens interested in

an open government. The governmentwide information index and electronic press release

service (also see ch. 10) likewise appear to raise

relatively minor objections, although information industry representatives have noted that

these offerings could be (and to some extent

already are) provided by private vendors independently or under contract to the government. The major industry objections seem to

arise with respect to electronic dissemination

of enhanced Federal information via SupDocs,

NTIS, and DLP (also see chs. 6 and 7), and also

by mission agencies with respect to specific

enhanced information products that are perceived as having significant market value.

Analysis of possible economic impacts suggests the following general results. The general business user community would appear

to, if anything, benefit from the availability

of enhanced electronic formats via SupDocs

and/or NTIS, especially small business. (Small

business might also benefit from depository

library dissemination.) Business users already

are the major customers of both SupDocs and

NTIS, accounting for about 75 percent of SupDocs subscription sales customers, 45 percent

of SupDocs publication sales customers, and

65 percent of NTIS customers.

Except as users of Federal information (e.g.,

for strategic planning or research and development purposes), it does not appear that the

information technology equipment and services industry or the printing industry would

be significantly affected. The information technology industry already realizes conservatively

$8 billion per year in sales to the Federal Government, and it is hard to see how this would

be affected by SupDocs/NTIS electronic dissemination. Also, even the $8 billion is but a

small fraction (about 4 percent) of the $200 billion annual U.S. market (for computer and business equipment, software, and services). Likewise, the U.S. printing industry’s current

Federal market share is about $600 million annually or roughly one percent of total annual

industry revenues of about $55 billion. Conceivably, this market share could decrease

slowly over time, should SupDocs/NTIS increase electronic products at the expense of

paper products. However, the impact on the

printing industry’s revenues would appear to

be marginal to insignificant.

The information industry is the one area

where some adverse economic impact might

be anticipated. While the information industry includes a variety of traditional paper document and microform services, the most dynamic and dominant sector of the industry is

the online database business. CD-ROM business may also become significant, but today

is just emerging as a viable electronic format.

The online database industry provides a reasonable basis for estimating the relative im-
315

pact of SupDocs/NTIS enhanced electronic

offerings.

The growth of the online database market

segment of the information industry has been

phenomenal. From less than $500 million in

annual revenues in 1978, this segment has

grown to about $3 billion total revenues in 1987

and is projected to reach about $4 billion by

the 1990-1991 time frame. This reflects, in part,

an increase in the number of databases, from

about 400 in 1979-1980, to 1,350 in 1982-1983

to about 2,900 in 1986, and about 3,500 in 1987.

As of early 1987, financial and credit information accounted for almost three-fifths of all online database revenues. Business and industrial information (including real estate and

economics) accounted for about another onefifth. Legal information accounted for about

one-tenth, and scientific and technical information for about one-twentieth. This leaves

about 5 percent for all other types of information, including library support (about 2 percent), consumer (about 1 percent), and governmental (about 1 percent) information. Thus,

government information per se appears to

directly represent a very small portion of total online database revenues. However, it

should be noted that some of the other types

of databases presumably utilize government

information, although not as a major product

offering.

Taking as a rather improbable example, if

one-fifth of the NTIS and SupDocs sales were

converted to online database sales, this would

amount to about $20 million annually, or less

than one percent of the 1987 online industry,

a very small segment of the total online market. In reality, it would take NTIS/SupDoc several years to reach $20 million annual online

revenues, if then. By that time, say 1990-1991,

the online industry likely would have grown

to $4 to 5 billion and the NTIS/SupDocs market share would be down to less than one-half

of one percent.

Thus it would not appear that SupDocs/

NTIS offering of electronic formats would pose

any significant competitive or economic threat

to the online industry as a whole. However,

the hypothetical $20 million SupDocs/NTIS

market share would be somewhat more significant (about 4 percent) when compared to the

combined market share of legal, scientific and

technical, and purely governmental online services (all grouped together as loosely governmental, about 15 percent of the total online

market), and would be very significant when

compared to the purely governmental segment

alone. SupDocs/NTIS involvement in enhanced

electronic dissemination is not a realistic

threat, or even a significant potential competitor, to the information industry as a whole, but

could have a significant impact on the small

segment of the industry and those relatively

few firms that specialize in government information.

Of course, the impact need not necessarily

be negative. The availability of enhanced electronic products may open up new opportunities for repackaged and further enhanced private offerings and could stimulate the overall

market, with a net gain for the private firms.

Moreover, there is also the option of government contracting with various of these firms.

The online Congressional Record illustrates

how commercial vendors could be involved as

government contractors. The Record is printed

by GPO, sold by SupDocs, and distributed in

paper (and some microform) to members of

Congress, congressional committees and offices, other designated government officials

and agencies, and participating depository

libraries. GPO also sells magnetic tapes of the

Record to vendors. Vendors then enhance the

database and place the Record online as a commercial offering, at typical yearly subscription

rates of $3,000. As discussed in more detail

in chapters 4, 7, and 8, depository libraries and

others have expressed strong interest in the

Record online, but many cannot afford the

commercial rates.

One alternative would be for GPO, the House

Information Systems office, the Library of

Congress, or some other congressional agency

to provide the Record online at no or reduced

charges to the libraries. However, another

alternative would be for Congress to contract
316

with one or more vendors for some or all of this

service. Vendors have indicated that they

would offer a heavily discounted bulk rate for

the depository library program. Indeed, a pilot project testing this concept is underway

with 50 depository libraries participating. For

example, for 1,100 access accounts with a maximum simultaneous sign-on of 70 libraries, the

estimated annual fee would be about $300 per

library, or only 10 percent of the full rate. If

the number of simultaneous sign-on libraries

were 280, the annual fee would be about $1,000,

which is still only one-third of the full rate. This

type of scenario could benefit both the libraries

and the industry. Nonetheless, the possibility—

however remote—of adverse effects on innovation and competition in the industry is yet

another reason for consideration of congressional policy alternatives discussed in chapter 11 (and in ch. 8 with regard to congressional

information and ch. 7 on the depository library

program).

Other Implications

Electronic dissemination of Federal information by SupDocs and NTIS has implications

for several other areas. These areas are summarized briefly below.

State/local government use. OTA’s commissioned research2 on state/local government

use of Federal information concluded that current Federal systems for disseminating information are not adequately serving state/local

needs. State/local officials were skeptical about

major government reorganization and point to

failed state efforts to establish strongly centralized information dissemination offices.

However, officials were generally supportive

of alternatives such as the electronic information index, common technical standards (as

long as they were developed with meaningful

state/local participation), and other measures

to improve access to Federal information in

all formats—including electronic.

2Mark Haselkorn, Philip L. Bereano, and Barbara Lewton,

‘‘Perspectives of State and Local Governments, OTA contractor paper, October 1987.

The dissemination of electronic formats by

SupDocs and NTIS should improve the ability of State and local governments to learn

about and obtain desired Federal information.

In order to help ensure that State/local information needs are considered, SupDocs and

NTIS could include representatives of State/local governments as participants in user forums, marketing surveys, and advisory panels

for electronic dissemination. The related activities of some Federal mission agencies, such

as the Bureau of the Census and the Agricultural Extension Service, could be used as prototypes for SupDocs and NTIS. Also, several

States have their own innovative electronic dissemination activities, which may be adaptable for use by SupDocs and NTIS as well as

Federal mission agencies.

Access by disabled persons. Another area of

particular note is the potential of electronic formats to significantly improve access to Federal information by physically disabled persons. OTA’s staff research3 found that many

impaired individuals are handicapped with respect to obtaining Federal information, for example, because paper formats cannot be read

by the blind (with the exception of the limited

amount of material in braille) or manipulated

by those with serious impairment of the upper extremities. With the advent of Federal

information in electronic form, the potential

exists to geometrically increase the amount of

information accessible to disabled persons

through the use of specially adapted microcomputers, optical disks, floppy diskettes, and related electronic technology.

The dissemination of electronic formats by

SupDocs and NTIS should improve the ability of disabled persons to obtain and use Federal information, as would electronic dissemination by Federal mission agencies. Electronic

access could significantly increase the functional mobility, capability, and productivity

of these individuals.

3Carol Nezzo, “Access to Federal Information by Physically

Handicapped Persons,” OTA staff paper, June 1987.
317

The primary technological window for disabled persons is the microcomputer. Through

use of a microcomputer, disabled persons can

access online databases, electronic mail and

bulletin boards, CD-ROMs, and the like. Microcomputers can be adapted to make them useable through special applications software,

special systems software, and hardware adaptations or devices (such as a keyguard, keylatch, optical printer, over and undersized keyboard, or smart keyboard) that permit the

disabled person to use standard software running on a standard microcomputer.

The keys to realizing this potential are: 1)

the availability y of Federal information in electronic formats; 2) the availability of relatively

low-cost microcomputers and adaptive software and devices; 3) the development of standards for microcomputer keyboards and physical design to ensure that microcomputers are

compatible with adaptive devices; and 4) the

development of standards on text markup and

page description. Items 2 and 3 above are being implemented through the joint efforts of

the disabled community, equipment manufacturers, researchers, and Federal agencies (especially the General Services Administration,

Veterans Administration, and Department of

Education). SupDocs and NTIS could play a

significant role in items 1 and 4, along with

the mission agencies and the National Bureau

of Standards. In order to help ensure that the

needs of disabled persons are met, disabled persons could be included in SupDocs and NTIS

user forums, marketing surveys, and advisory

panels.

Electronic archiving. To be complete, the disposition of information should be included as

an integral part of the information life cycle.

The National Archives and Records Administration has responsibility for archiving of Federal records that have permanent value. NARA

archives records in all standard formats—

including paper, microform, and machine readable. As the Federal agencies increase their use

of electronic formats, archival procedures will

need to be continuously reviewed and updated

to ensure that the accuracy, integrity, and completeness of the records are maintained even

when in electronic form.

NARA is in the process of issuing updated

draft regulations on the maintenance, retention, and disposition of electronic records. The

proposed regulations will cover such topics as:

●

●

●

●

●

creation and use of databases and numeric

data files, including the need for adequate

and up-to-date documentation;

creation and use of text information in office automation systems;

selection and maintenance of electronic

storage media, including consideration of

longevity, cost, portability, and the like:

retention of electronic records; and

destruction of electronic records.

The implications of SupDocs and NTIS sales

of electronic formats are two-fold. First, ideally,

technical standards should be consistent through

all stages of the information life cycle—from

creation to processing to dissemination to disposition. SupDocs and NTIS involvement in

electronic dissemination, along with mission

agencies, could provide an opportunity to help

ensure that dissemination needs are fully considered. Second, to the extent SupDocs and

NTIS offer databases, numeric data files, and

the like in a variety of electronic storage media, SupDocs and NTIS sales programs could

include a larger percentage of Federal information that currently is available primarily

only through Freedom of Information Act requests (for active databases) or searches of

NARA archives (for inactive and archived

databases).

International leadership. OTA's commissioned

research4 on foreign government information

dissemination activities concluded that the

U.S. Government currently has a leadership

position with respect to electronic dissemination, followed by the European Economic Community, Canada, other European nations, and

Japan in that order. SupDocs and NTIS involvement in electronic dissemination could

‘Thomas B. Rile~’, “A Survey of International Trends in

Government Information Dissemination,” OTA contractor paper, November 1987.
318

help further strengthen this leadership position through:

●

●

●

SupDocs/NTIS participation (along with

other Federal agencies) in international

standards-setting activities,

SupDocs/NTIS demonstrations of how legal and institutional protections for public access can be extended to an electronic

information environment, and

an enhanced SupDocs/NTIS role in stimulating the domestic economy through improved government information dissemination and the creation of new value-added

opportunities for the information industry.

On the other hand, there is some concern that

with a strengthened SupDocs/NTIS role, U.S.

Government information might become even

more accessible to adversaries. As it is, foreign nations and corporations have much easier access to U.S. information than does the

U.S. Government (and corporations) to foreign

information. Since information is an important

tool in international economic and political

competition, further increases in the information gap could adversely affect the U.S. competitive position. While this concern has been

strongly articulated by U.S. military and intelligence agencies, the factual basis has not

been well established.

The institutional, technical/management,

and policy alternatives considered in this report are focused on the dissemination of “public” information, defined as Federal information that is not classified, proprietary, or

private in nature (or subject to any other exemptions under the Freedom of Information

Act). Thus, for example, classified information

is screened out of SupDocs and NTIS sales programs at the outset, so greater involvement

of these dissemination agencies in electronic

dissemination should have no effect on foreign

access to U.S. Government classified information.

Concern has also been expressed about dissemination of Federal information that is unclassified, but that is subject to U.S. export

control laws. Here again, the governmentwide

dissemination agencies such as SupDocs and

NTIS are secondary sources of information.

The original sources are the mission agencies

themselves. Two problems have arisen. One

is the concern that foreign nations who are subject to export controls may be able to get restricted Federal information from third part y

foreign nations or companies or from U.S. domestic nongovernmental sources. A second is

that the secondary dissemination agencies may

not fully implement restrictions on source

agency information. While these may be legitimate policy problems, they exist irrespective

of the format of the information. Access via

third parties (whether foreign or domestic) is

very difficult to control at best, and electronic

dissemination could aggravate this problem.

However, limiting the roles of SupDocs/NTIS

(as well as the mission agencies) in electronic

information dissemination would run a high

risk of handicapping U.S. domestic companies

(and the U.S. public) and U.S. allies far more

than U.S. adversaries. As for SupDocs and

NTIS compliance with export control requirements, interagency policy coordination would

seem to be the appropriate avenue rather than

across-the-board limitations on electronic dissemination. Only a very small percentage of

SupDocs and NTIS materials would seemingly

be subject to export controls in the first place.

A final, and perhaps most difficult, dimension of concern involves unclassified and unrestricted, but so-called ‘‘sensitive’ Federal

information. Some Department of Defense officials have argued that certain unclassified, unrestricted Federal information, such as economic

or agricultural statistics when aggregated and

disseminated in electronic formats (especially

online databases), becomes sensitive for national security purposes. Sensitive means that

foreign adversaries would gain significant advantages from accessing the information in

electronic form, presumably on a more timely

and integrated basis than would otherwise be

possible. Defense and intelligence agency efforts to monitor foreign access to U.S. commercial and governmental unclassified online

electronic databases have met with heavy opposition from the civilian agencies, library and

research communities, and U.S. information
319

industry. The industry has responded that

such monitoring and potential control of unclassified, legally unrestricted Federal information is not only a threat to open government

and a freely competitive marketplace, but

could have a seriously adverse economic effect

on the industry. Nonetheless, a significantly

enhanced SupDocs/NTIS role in electronic dissemination could aggravate defense community concerns.

Related issues are examined in five prior

OTA reports:

● Federal Government Information Technology: Management, Security, and Congressional Oversight, OTA-CIT-297, February 1986;

The Regulatory Environment of Science,

OTA-TM-SET-34, February 1986;

Commercial Newsgathering From Space,

OTA-TM-ISC-40, May 1987

Defending Secrets, Sharing Data, OTACIT-31O, October 1987;

Science, Technology, and the First Amendment, OTA-CIT-369, January 1988.

These reports should be consulted for further

discussion.
Appendixes
Appendix A

Acknowledgments

OTA acknowledges with appreciation the contributions of numerous individuals and organizations to this report. The contributions ranged from

review of draft materials to participation in meetings and workshops to the provision of technical

information. The views expressed in the report are,

however, those of OTA and not necessarily those

of participants, reviewers, and other contributors.

The participants in several OTA project working groups are listed below, followed by listings

of reviewers and other contributors, with separate

listings for the U.S. Government Printing Office,

General Accounting Office, and other OTA staff

(in addition to those listed in the front of the report). Note that two OTA contractors, Stephen

Frantzich of Congressional Data Associates and

Jacob Ulvila of Decision Science Consortium, Inc.,

participated in most working groups.

A. Project Working Group Participants

1. Federal Agency Information Dissemination

Working Group

2, Information Industry Working Group

3. Federal Statistical Agency Working Group

4. Survey Research Working Group

5. Government Printing Office and Joint

Committee on Printing Working Group

6. Library Working Group

1. Federal Agency Information Dissemination

Working Group

(December 12, 1986)

Robin Atkiss

Chairman

Federal Publishers Committee

John Cavanaugh

Manager

Electronic Systems Division

Government Printing Office

Henry Freedman

Contractor

Electronet Information Systems Corporation

Minge Bishop

Reprographics Program Manager

Department of the Air Force

Earl Joseph

Contractor

Anticipatory Sciences Incorporated

John Karpovich

Branch Head

Plans, Policy, and Technology

Navy Publications and Printing Service

Henry Lowenstern

Associate Commissioner for

Publications

Bureau of Labor Statistics

Joseph Mihokovich

Acting Director for Bibliographic and

Document Services

National Technical information Service

R.F. Milwee, Jr.

Director of Publications

Department of the Army

Kurt Molholm

Administrator

Defense Technical information Center

Bruce Scaggs

Asst. Public Printer for

Operations and Procurement

Government Printing Office

Barry Schaeffer

Contractor

Forrest Williams

Project Coordinator, Data

Users Division

Bureau of the Census

2. Information Industry Working Group

(JuIy 31, 1987)

Margaret Grisdela

President

Charles E. Simon and Company

Karen Myers

Government Affairs Representative

Electronic Data Systems Corporation

Peyton Neal

President

PRN Associates

323
324 — . .

David Peyton

Director of Government Relations

Information Industry Association

Ron Plesser

Attorney

Nash, Railsback and Plesser

Alice Denson

Manager of Internal Affairs

Association of Data Processing Service

Organizations

Morris Schur

Program Development Manager

Eastman Kodak

Mark Vonderhaar

Product Development Manager

Congressional Information Service, inc.

3. Federal Statistical Agency Working Group

(July 27,1987)

Marie Argana

Assistant Division Chief

Bureau of the Census

Tom Bold

Director

Office of Programs, Markets, and Acquisition

National Technical Information Service

Constance Citro

Study Director, Comittee on National

Statistics

National Academy of Sciences

Henry Lowenstern

Associate Commissioner

Bureau of Labor Statistics

Stan Prochaska

Chief, Special Programs Division

Department of Agriculture

Katherine Wallman

Executive Director

Counsel of Professional Associations on

Federal Statistics

John Mounts

Chairman

Federal Publishers Committee

4. Survey Research Working Group

(July 23,1987)

Brenda Dervin

Chair, Department of communications

Ohio State University

Larry Herrmann

General Accounting

Peter Hernon

Professor

Simmons College

Stuart Kaufman

General Accounting

Charles McClure

Professor

Syracuse University

Judith Myers

Librarian

Office

Office

University of Houston Library

5. U.S. Government Printing Office and Joint

Committee on Printing Working Group

(August 4,1987)

Jim Bradley

Professional Staff Member

Joint Committee on Printing

Roy Breimon

Professional Staff Member

Joint Committee on Printing

Dean Coston

Assistant to the Staff Director

Committe on House Administration

Bernadine Hoduski

Professional Staff Member

Joint Committee on Printing

Stuart Foss

Executive Advisor to the Public Printer

Government Printing Office

Gerald Kleiman

Professional Staff Member

Joint Committee on Printing

Faye Padgett

Assistant Staff Director

Joint Committee on Printing

Mitchell Phelan

Chief, Document Technical Support Group

Government Printing Office

Andrew Sherman

Staff Assistant, Financial Policy and Planning

Government Printing Office

John Wenstrup

Auditor

Joint Committee on Printing
—-

5. Library Working Group

(July 28, 1987)

Kaye Gapen

Director

University of Wisconsin Libraries

James Nelson

State Librarian and Commissioner

Kentucky Department of Libraries and

Archives

Diane Smith

Federal Documents Librarian

Pennsylvania State University Libraries

Susan Tulis

Documents Librarian

University of Virginia Law Library

Julia Wallace

Head, Government Documents Department

Minneapolis Public Library and Information

Center

B. Reviewers and Other Contributors

1. General Reviewers/Contributors

2. GPO Reviewers/Contributors

3. GAO Reviewers/Contributors

4. Other OTA Staff Reviewers/contributors

1. General Reviewers/Contributors

Allan Adler

American Civil Liberties Union

Andrew Aines

Consultant

Marie G. Argana

Bureau of the Census

Robin Atkiss

Federal Publishers Committee

Jaia Barrett

Association of Research Libraries

Patricia Berger

National Bureau of Standards

J. E. Biesecker

U.S. Geological Survey

Ben Blankenship

Department of Agriculture

Tom Bold

National Technical Information Service

325

.——— —

Jane Bortnick

Congressional Research Service

Francis J. Buckley, Jr.

Detroit Public Library

Kay Bulow

Department of Commerce

Sally Burke

National Library of Medicine

James H. Burrows

National Bureau of Standards

Joseph Caponio

National Technical Information Service

William McCaren

U.S. Newswire

Eleanor Chase

University of Washington

Joseph Clark

National Technical Information Service

David O. Cooke

Department of Defense

Ben Cooper

Printing Industries of America

Dean Coston

Committee on House Administration

Tom Cox

National Technical Information Service

Joseph G. Coyne

Department of Energy

Mary Culnan

The American University

John Czekner

Department of the Army

Melvin S. Day

Herner Company

Adelaide Del Frate

National Aeronautics and Space

Administration

F. Anne Diamond

Library of Michigan

Richard Ehlke

Congressional Research Service

Paul Estaver

National Institute of Justice
326

John J. Elsbree

National Technical

Col. John V. Ferry

Department of the

David Farber

Information Service

Army

Department of Commerce

Susan Finsen

Congressional Research Service

Russell Forte

Department of Agriculture

Stephen Frantzich

Congressional Data Associates

Henry B. Freedman

Consultant

Robert Galpin

Department of Commerce

Kaye Gapen

University of Wisconsin Libraries

Robert Gellman

Subcommittee on Government Information,

Justice, and Agriculture,

U.S. House of Representatives

Henry J. Gioia

Department of Defense

Patricia Goldstein

Public Citizen

Harry Hammitt

Access Reports

Robert Hanson

Legi-Slate, Inc.

Mark P. Haselkorn

University of Washington

Jim Hawkins

Eastman Kodak Company

Stephen M. Hayes

University Libraries, Notre Dame

Philip Haymond

Department of the Interior

Anne Heanue

American Library Association

Peter Hernon

Simmons College

Clyde Hordusky

State Library of Ohio

Toni House

U.S. Supreme Court

Rosamond Jacob

St. Paul Public Library

Sarah T. Kadec

Consultant

Stanley Kalkus

Washington Navy Yard

John J. Karpovich

Navy Publications and Printing Service

Gail Kohlhorst

General Services Administration

Elizabeth Knauff

Department of the Treasury

Maurice St. Laurent

Eastman Kodak Company

Bernard G. Lazorchak

Joint Committee on Printing

Terrence J. Leahy

Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and

Popeo, P.C.

Armand R. Lienard

Department of the Air Force

Henry Lowenstern

Bureau of Labor Statistics

George Lord

Joint Council of Unions, U.S. Government

Printing Office

Jean Loup

University of Michigan

Marilyn Marbrook

Bureau of Justice Statistics

Katherine Mawdsley

University of California, Davis

Sandra McAninch

University of Kentucky Libraries

Marilyn McLennan

Department of Commerce

Charles McClure

Syracuse University

Adoreen McCormick

Library of Congress

Francis McDonough and staff

General Services Administration
327

E. J. McFaul

U.S. Geological Survey

Michael F. McGrath

Department of Defense

Gary L. McMullin

Department of the Army

Joseph D. Mihokovich

National Technical Information Services

David Mitchell

Department of the Army

Kurt N. Molholm

Defense Technical Information Center

Sandy I. Morton

Special Libraries Association

John E. Mounts and members

Federal Publishers Committee

Karen Myers

Electronic Data Systems Corp.

Peyton Neal

PRN Associates

Burt Newlin

Department of Defense

Richard Oleszewski and staff

Joint Committee on Printing

James H. Paul

Committee on Science, Space. and Technology

U.S. House of Representatives

Gary R. Peet e

University of California, Berkleley

David Peyton

Information lndustry Association

David Plocher

OMB Watch

William J. Poad

Lester B. Knight and Associates

Dana Pratt

Library of Congress

Shirley Radack

National Bureau of Standards

Mary Redman

New York State Library

Franklin S. Reeder

Office of Management and Budget

Karen Renninger

Veterans Administration

Henry W. Riecken

Council on Library Resources

James P. Riley

Federal Library and Information Center

Committee

John Roach

Department of the Army

Michael M. Roberts

EDUCOM

Hope Robinson

Department of the Army

Ken Rosenberg

National Technical information Service

Ernest Russell

National Labor Relations Board

Judy Russell

Russell Associates

John A. Schmehl

Department of Energy

Elliott Siegal

National Library of Medicine

Kent A. Smith

National Library of Medicine

Sandra Smith

National Center for Health Statistics

J. Timothy Sprehe

Office of Management and Budget

John P. Springett

Department of Defense

Ruth Anne Stewart

Library of Congress

Herbert Strenz

Drake University

Nell Strickland

Department of the Army

Tony Tatum

Department of the Army

Charles F. Treat

Department of Commerce

Susan Tulis

University of Virginia Law School Library
328

Philip Van De Voorde

Iowa State University Library

Mark Vonderhaar

Congressional Information Service, Inc.

Julia Wallace

Minneapolis Public Library and Information

Center

Camille Wanat

University of California, Berkeley

Claudine J. Weiher

National Archives and Records Administration

Forrest B. Williams

Bureau of the Census

Roxanne Williams

Department of Agriculture

2. U.S. Government Printing Office

Reviewers/Contributors (partial listing)

Ralph Kennickell, Jr.

Public Printer

M. Joseph Cannon

Assistant Public Printer, Financial Policy and

Planning

Robert G. Cox

Customer Service Department

William H. Cox

Operations and Procurement

Russell Duncan

Production Department

Janet Erickson

Information Technology Program

Stuart M. Foss

Executive Advisor to the Public Printer

Donald E. Fossedal

Superintendent of Documents

Paul Gianni

Quality Control

Joseph E. Jenifer

Deputy Public Printer

James Joyner

Customer Service

William F. Klugh

Special Assistant

Improvement

Department

for Productivity

Donald Ladd

Production Department

June Malina

Documents Marketing

Deanna E. Marlow

Office of the Executive Advisor

Joseph McClane

Library Inspection Team

Charles McKeown

Documents Marketing

R. A. Morrison

Controller

Grant Moy

General Counsel

Mitchell Phelan

Documents Technical Support Group

Samuel B. Scaggs

Assistant Public Printer, Operations and

Procurement

Robert Schwenk

Production Department

Mark Scully

Library Programs Service

Andrew Sherman

Financial Policy and Planning

Drew Spalding

Deputy General Counsel

Tom Sullivan

Printing Procurement Department

Bonnie Trivizas

Library Programs Service

Anthony Valentine

Operations and Procurement

David Wein

Production Department

James D. Young

Document Sales Service

3. General Accounting Office

Reviewers/Contributors

Larry Herrmann

General Government Division

Stuart Kaufman

General Government Division
329

Allen Louderback

General Government Division

Vince DeSanti

Information Management and Technology

Division

Other Office of Technology

Reviewers/Contributors

Susan Koch

Mark Nadel

Joan Winston

Assessment
Appendix B

Contributing Authors

This report is the product of several contributing authors. Fred B. Wood, OTA,

wrote chapters 1-5, 11, and 12. Prudence S. Adler, OTA, wrote chapters 6, 7, and

8. And Jamie A. Grodsky, OTA, wrote chapters 9 and 10. Chapter 3 incorporated

the results of an OTA staff paper on information formats prepared by Darlene Wong.

Chapter 4 incorporated results of an OTA staff paper on GPO operations and services prepared by Carol Nezzo. And chapter 8 drew on OTA contractor papers on

congressional information prepared by Stephen Frantzich. The results of the GAO

surveys of Federal agencies and Federal information users, OTA contractor papers

(including those listed in Appendix C), and information provided to OTA directly

by GPO and NTIS, and others listed in Appendix A, were incorporated to the extent

appropriate in drafting the various chapters.

330
Appendix C

List of Contractor Reports

Copies of the following contractor reports completed in support of this assessment will be available in late 1988 from the National Technical Information Service,

5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, VA 22161, (703) 487-4650. The views expressed

in these reports are those of the contractors and not necessarily those of the OTA,

Technology Assessment Board, or U.S. Congress.

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

Gregory Giebel, University of the District of Columbia, “Technological Changes

at the Government Printing Office and Their Impacts Upon Workers, contractor report prepared for OTA, January 1988.

Stephen Frantzich, Congressional Data Associates, “Public Access to Congressional Information in the Technological Age: Case Studies, ” contractor report prepared for OTA, September 1987.

Stephen Frantzich, Congressional Data Associates, “Public Access to Congressional Information: The Potential and Pitfalls of Technology Enhanced Access,

contractor report prepared for OTA, January 1987.

Stephen Frantzich, Congressional Data Associates, “Public Access to Congressional Support Agency Information in the Technological Age: Case Studies, contractor report prepared for OTA, November 1987.

Mark P. Haselkorn, Philip L. Bereano, and Barbara Lewton, University of Washington, “Perspectives of State and Local Governments on Federal Information

Dissemination, contractor report prepared for OTA, October 1987.

Thomas B. Riley, Riley Information Services, “A Survey of International Trends

in Government Information Dissemination, ” contractor report prepared for OTA,

November 1987.

Frank J. Romano, “Decision Analysis Framework for GPO Strategic Alternatives, ”

contractor report prepared for OTA, January 1988.

Jacob Ulvila, Decision Science Consortium, Inc. “Decision Analysis of Alternatives for Federal Information Dissemination, “ contractor report prepared for OTA,

December 1987,

331
Appendix D

Some Key Terms and Definitions

This report uses a number of terms whose definitions are important in order to facilitate understanding. Some of these key terms are introduced

here. The definitions provided are functional, not

legal.

Federal information–information collected

and/or developed by agencies of the U.S. Government as part of official agency responsibilities. Federal information includes knowledge or intelligence,

such as facts, data, or opinions, in numerical,

graphic, or narrative forms, regardless of mode or

medium by which it is maintained or communicated. Thus, Federal information can be statistical data on a floppy disk or in a hardback book,

or agency regulations on a CD-ROM or in a paper

pamphlet. This report focuses primarily on Federal information that is public (e.g., not subject to

FOIA exemptions for personal, proprietary, or

classified information).

Printing–Federal information can be printed,

published, and disseminated, although the distinctions between the latter two terms can be rather

artificial. Printing is the process of stamping, impressing, or copying information in the form of letters, numbers, graphics, and the like on some kind

of surface, such as paper or microform. In traditional ink-on-paper printing, paper is pressed

against an inked printing surface to make copies

or impressions of the original informational material. The inked printing surface or plate is typically

made by creating a picture of the original on a photosensitive surface (the plate). Printing as a term

is typically used to include all steps in the printing process, from layout and composition to binding. Layout is the planning or designing of the arrangement of material to be composed and printed.

Composition is the production and arrangement

of typographic characters or type for printing,

Binding is the tieing together or compiling in a

bound form of the printed pages of a book, pamphlet, and the like.

Publishing–is the overall process of creating,

reproducing, and releasing or issuing informational

material for sales or distribution. In the Federal

Government, the publishers are generally considered to be the agencies that originate or create the

material for sales or distribution. The publishing

agencies provide the original material (to be typeset or camera-ready), specify the format and number of copies to be printed (usually by or through

332

GPO for ink-on-paper printing, and occasionally

by agency inhouse print shops), and handle the

sales and distribution of copies from the agency.

Sales and distribution of some documents are handled by the Superintendent of Documents. For scientific and technical material, copies may be provided to NTIS for archiving and sales on demand.

Information dissemination–the process by

which information is actively distributed to the

public by government agencies or through other

mechanisms or channels (including the private and

not-for-profit sectors). Information is disseminated

in a variety of formats and media, and in such a

way that the interested public can readily become

aware of the availability of such information. Thus,

dissemination focuses on the output part of the informational process, while printing focuses on the

processing or reproduction of the information into

a form suitable for distribution, and publishing includes the creation of the information as well as

its reproduction and distribution. Examples of

Federal dissemination mechanisms include the

SupDocs and NTIS sales programs, Consumer Information Center (for distribution of consumer

pamphlets produced by agencies), Depository Library Program (for distribution of agency publications to participating libraries), and the various

agency information centers and information

clearinghouses.

Information access–the process by which individuals can obtain Federal information on their

own initiative. The most frequently cited mechanism for such access is the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). However, this report uses the

broader concept of information access to include

anything that facilitates the ability or freedom of

the public to obtain Federal information. In this

sense, facilitating public access to Federal information is accomplished in large measure by Federal printing, publishing, and dissemination activities as well as by access mechanisms such as

FOIA.

The major part of this report examines the alternatives and issues associated with extending the

concepts of printing, publishing, and dissemination from traditional ink-on-paper forms of informational material to electronic forms. In this report, electronic printing, electronic publishing, and

electronic dissemination are defined as follows.
333

Electronic printing– the process of electronically

creating or copying images of information in the

form of letters, numbers, graphics, and the like on

some kind of surface. For example, in laser printing, the digitized information is fed to a laser that

creates a dot-matrix image either directly on photosensitive paper, or indirectly on a photo-receptor

device in the printer that transfers or “prints”’ the

image onto paper. In impact printing, the digitized

information is fed to a microcomputer chip that

drives a printing head (e.g., a daisy wheel), which

in turn impresses or stamps the information on a

surface such as paper.

Since both ink-on-paper printing and electronic

printing typically use electronic photocomposition,

the major difference is that electronic printing eliminates the need for creating photo-negatives and

printing plates and using printing ink and mechanical presses to transfer images onto paper. Another

major difference is that with electronic printing,

the images can be transferred to a variety of other

surfaces besides paper. These include magnetic

tape, floppy disks, and optical disks, where the digitized information is transferred in digital form onto

a surface that is magnetically or optically sensitive and then “printed” by electromagnetic or laser devices.

Electronic publishing—is the use of electronic

forms of information throughout the entire publishing process, from creation, editing, and revision, to printing and distribution. “Electronic publishing" is frequently used synonymously with

electronic printing. Thus, so-called desktop publishing is a version of electronic printing that permits iterative electronic composition and page layout by the author or originator of the informational

material, its display on a computer screen (i. e., in

so-called “soft’ electronic form), its reproduction

on paper or in electronic form, and the distribution of the “printed” material electronically if

desired (e.g., remote locations and/or by printingon-demand). The term “desktop’ simply means

that all of this can be done with relatively low-cost

microcomputers, terminals, laser printers, telecommunication lines (if needed), and the necessary software. So-called “high-end” electronic publishing

systems perform the same generic functions, but

can handle more complex, higher volume, and/or

longer informational materials. These systems usually can handle considerably more information, and

require specialized expertise on the part of equipment operators. (See ch. 3 for further technical discussion of desktop and high-end electronic publishing and related technologies. )

Electronic dissemination—the active distribution of information to the public by government

agencies or through other mechanisms and channels (including the private and not-for-profit sectors) using electronic formats, such as magnetic

tapes, floppy disks, optical disks, online, and remote printing-on-demand. It also includes advising the public of the availability of such information. Electronic dissemination presumes electronic

printing of the tapes and disks, and the distribution of copies printed remotely. Electronic dissemination is compatible with, but does not require,

electronic publishing in the sense that the information does not have to be created in electronic

form for it to be converted later into an electronic

format suitable for distribution.

For further discussion of technical terms used

in this report, see chapter 3.