public access to electronic federal depository information in regional depository libraries

Public Access to Electronic Federal Depository Information in Regional Depository Libraries

Stephanie Ford*

This article reports on a study of regional depository libraries for a descriptive analysis of regional depository library capabilities and practice in providing public access to electronic federal government information. The study indicates that regional depository libraries are progressing in the creation of an environment that supports public access to this information. The responding regionals are equipped with public access microcom- puter workstations and a majority provide access to CD-ROM’s, the Internet, and GPO Access. Adequate staffing and resources, however, remain a problem for some.

In the 1993 Annual Report, the Government Printing Office (GPO) reports an increase in its distribution of government publications in electronic format from 95,400 copies of 180 titles in 1992 to 167,000 copies of 292 titles in 1993.’

The federal government disseminates more than 7,500 electronic databases each year and provides access to even more information and data through the Internet, gateways, and locator services.2

The introduction of electronic information into the GPO’s depository program presents opportunities as well as challenges to regional depository libraries. However, a large bur- den is being placed on regional depository libraries as they try to provide effective and ef- ficient access to these products. The capacity of depository libraries to accommodate the influx of information in electronic format depends directly upon their capacity to provide funding, equipment, technological expertise, and staff training. Several years have passed since any studies of depository libraries and their provision of public access to electronic information have been conducted. This study provides a picture of the current situation among regional libraries.

* Direct all correspondence to: Stephanie Ford, recent graduate of the School of Information and Library Sci-

ence, Universitv of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. 347 Summerwalk Circle. Chaoel Hill. North Carolina 27514.

Government Information Quarterly, Volume 14, Number 1, pages 51-63. Copyright 0 1997 by JAI Press Inc. All rights of reproduction in any form reserved. ISSN: 0740-624X

52 GOVERNMENT INFORMATION QUARTERLY Vol. 14/No. 111997

THE LITERATURE

Reviewing the published literature reveals much writing about the impact of electronic

federal information on depository libraries. Much of the writing is opinion and anecdotal,

and does not convey research results. Nevertheless, several articles and reports describe

the use of electronic information in depository libraries.

Robert E. Dugan and Joan F. Cheverie report on a General Accounting Office (GAO)

survey conducted in 1988, and a 1990 Depository Library Program (DLP) survey conclud-

ing that depository libraries were increasingly incorporating electronic into their opera-

tions.3 Dugan and Cheverie identify some problems concerning legislative, policy,

technical, and staff stress issues. They noted that it remained questionable, as of 1992,

whether depository libraries were technologically sophisticated enough to support elec-

tronic government information. Although several studies showed that depository librari-

ans were eager to provide access to electronic information, administrative and technolog-

ical constraints remained.4 Peter Hemon and Charles R. McClure, in a study using focus group interviews, ana-

lyzed the use of U.S. Census products in depository libraries, in “Electronic Census Prod-

ucts and the Depository Library Program: Future Issues and Trends.” They found vast

discrepancies between smaller and larger depository libraries, and that this gap was apt to

widen as the expectation for the use of electronic technology grew. Smaller depositories

might not have the resources to provide public access to electronic government informa-

tion other than on a limited basis. They also discovered discrepancies in technological

awareness and expertise.’ Diane H. Smith surveyed 93 academic depository libraries which were Association of

Research Library (ARL). She based her study on the data collected in an ARL Task Force

survey in 1987. Smith investigated topics such as bibliographic control of depository col-

lections, management, staffing, electronic resources, equipment, and depository librarian

and Assistant Director opinions about the cost/benefits of library provision of electronic

government information. Smith concluded that the data reviewed in her 1990 study raise

serious questions about whether depository libraries have “sufficient resources, support,

or staff trained to deal with electronic data.“6 Other studies indicate that depositories are beginning to adapt to an electronic environ-

ment. Ridley R. Kessler and Evelyn H. Daniel conducted a survey of regional depository

libraries in 1989 about their organization and operation. They concluded that regional li-

braries were adapting well to the increased use of computers and were “well prepared to

face the technological changes of the future.“7 All of the 45 responding regional deposito-

ries had computer access, and 76% reported that the documents staff had access to their

own computer. Eighty-seven percent of these regionals had access to CD-ROM drives,

and the regionals were “very strong” in the area of CD-ROM products. Seventy-one had

access to a national electronic mail network.8 In the summer of 1994, GPO’s Library Programs Service (LPS) surveyed all 1,391 de-

positories. LPS concluded that “Depository libraries have made enormous progress in po-

sitioning themselves to serve the public with electronic Government information” by

increasing their capabilities in providing computer equipment, software, and database net-

working.’

Public Access 53

In providing a description of regional depository libraries in areas that impact the provi-

sion of public access to electronic information, this study allows for comparison to earlier

studies and for tracking the progress that regionals are making in adapting to the rapid in-

flux of government information in electronic format.

SURVEY OF REGIONALS

This study provides a descriptive analysis of regional depository library capabilities and

practice in providing the public with access to electronic federal government information.

Surveys were sent to the 53 regional depository libraries in March 1995. Forty-one re-

sponded for a 77% response rate. Specifically, this study seeks to describe the regional li-

braries, organization of the documents collections, staffing of the documents departments,

and factors relevant to providing access to electronic government information. Of the 53 regionals, 33 are academic libraries, 14 are state libraries, five are public libraries, and one

is a special library. As the findings below show, the 41 respondents are representative of

the 53 regionals.

FINDINGS

Institutions and Organization

Fifteen, or approximately 37%, of the 41 responding libraries, are academic libraries

and members of Association of Research Libraries. Non-ARL academic libraries num-

bered at 12 (29% of the respondents). Thus, nearly 66% are academic libraries. Ten (24%)

are state agency libraries, three (7%) are public libraries, and one (2%) is a historical soci-

ety (special) library. lo Twenty-five of the libraries have separate budgets for materials ac-

quisition, 10 (24%) have shared budgets, and six, (15%) have no budget. Twenty-seven of

the libraries have a separate documents collection arrangement, while 14 have a separate

but partially integrated collection arrangement. The percentage of the documents collec-

tion kept separate ranges from 50-100%.

Staffing

The number of full-time professional librarians working in the documents collections of

the 41 responding libraries ranges from none to nine. One is the most frequently occurring

number of full-time professionals; 12 libraries report having one full-time professional.

The total number of full-time professional librarians working in the 41 documents collec-

tions is 106. Of special note, three regionals report that they have no full-time professional

librarians working in the documents collection. A total of 40 part-time professional librar-

ians work in the 41 libraries. Twenty-seven regionals have no part-time documents profes-

sionals. Thirty-nine libraries responded to the question on number of hours per week that profes-

sional librarians devote to the documents collection. Professional librarian hours per week

devoted to documents for these 39 libraries ranges from 20 (one occurrence) to 253 (one

occurrence). The library reporting 20 hours per week devoted to documents is an academic,

54 GOVERNMENT INFORMATION QUARTERLY Vol. 14/No. l/1997

non-ARL library with one part-time professional working in the documents collection. The library reporting 253 hours per week devoted to documents is a state agency library with five full-time and 11 part-time professional librarians working in the documents collection. Thirteen regionals report that professional librarians devote between 20 and 60 hours per week to the documents collection, 12 report between 61 and 100 hours per week, and 14 report between 105 and 253 hours per week.”

Only 30 libraries responded to the question about the number of hours per week that professional librarians devote to the machine-readable depository collection. It is evident in the nonresponse rate to this question, and written comments, such as impossible to fig- ure, that this question is difficult to answer. One librarian responded that although this time is not tracked, the increase in professional time devoted to machine-readable depository information maintenance and public service has certainly increased. The hours of professional time spent on the machine-readable depository collections of these 30 regionals range from O-85 hours per week. Twenty-four libraries report between O-20 hours per week devoted to the machine-readable depository collection, and six report between 30-85 hours per week. One regional, a state agency library, responded that 100% of its professional time per week is devoted to the machine-readable depository collection.

Public Acces To Machine-Readable Information

Public access to machine-readable government information is influenced by many factors, such as, bibliographic control, availability of equipment, staff training, bibliographic instruction, promotional and outreach activities, peer connection and librarian attitude. This section provides information on these factors.

Online Public Access Catalogs (OPAC’S)’ 2

Thirty-eight, or approximately 93%, of the 41 regionals responding have OPAC’s. However, only 27, or about 71%, of these 38 regionals include the bibliographic records of the depository machine-readable collection in the OPAC’s.

Depository Machine-Readable Information and Public Access

The collections of 41, or lOO%, of the regionals responding include items in machine- readable format. Machine-readable formats available for public access among these responding libraries are:

l Floppy disks-available at approximately 88% of the regionals. l CD-ROM’s_available at all of the regionals. l Video Disks-available at only 7% of the regionals. l Internet-available for public access at 73% of the regionals.

On a composite index of formats available, Table 1 shows the ranking for format availability by library type. This index ranks the library type by the number of the above formats available at those libraries. For instance, a library providing all four formats is ranked four9 and, as Table 1 shows, two non-ARL libraries are ranked four.

Public Access 55

Table I

Formats Available Ranking by Library Type

Library Type Index Ran king

7 2 3 4

l Academic ARL 2 2 11 o= 15

l Academic non ARL 1 1 8 2= 12

l Public 1 1 1 0=3

l State Agency 0 3 7 o= 10

l Other (historical society) 0 0 1 O=l

A total of 29 (73%) of the responding libraries keep depository CD-ROM’s and floppy

disks in documents, indicating that the documents departments control access to the depos-

itory machine-readable collection at a majority of the regionals. Eleven (28%) maintain these

formats in the public service/reference departments. Twenty-three (57%) of the libraries keep

this part of their collection open in either the documents or public service/reference depart-

ments, and 17 (46%) of the libraries keep this part of their collection locked. Thirty (73%) of the 41 responding regionals provide public access to the Internet. Table

2 refects the types of Internet applications provided. Note that Telnet and FTP are made

available to the public by 6 1% and 44% of the responding regionals, respectively.‘3 Only 12, or 29%, of the responding libraries track patron interest in or requests for ma-

chine-readable depository information (e.g., keep statistics).

Equipment

All of the responding libraries have workstations available for public use of depository

products and services. Thirty (73%) of the 4 1 responding libraries have workstations for pub-

lic access to the Internet. Twenty-six have workstations specifically designated for use by

depository patrons’ access to the Internet.

GPO Access

Thirty-one, or 78%, of the 41 responding regionals provide public access to GPO Ac-

cess. At the time of this survey, one public library responded that it would soon. Among

Table 2

Internet Applications

lnternet Application #, % (of Total)

WWW 23, or 56

Gopher 30, or 73

Telnet 25,0r 61

FTP 18,or44

WAIS 22, or 54


the 10 regionals that do not provide public access to it are, four academic ARL libraries,

three academic non-ARL libraries, two public libraries, and one state agency library. The

GPO Access support person registered with GPO is part of the documents staff of 27 of

the 3 1 regionals with GPO Access.

Gateway libraries

A gateway library provides free 24-hour remote public access to GPO Access to anyone

with the necessary equipment and communications software. Depositories acting as gate-

ways accept full responsibility for user support of on-site and off-site users, including

“connection of off-site users to the gateway server, use of communications software, and assisting users with limited technical expertise.“r4

Ten regionals provide GPO Access at the gateway level: five are academic ARL, two

are non-Academic ARL, one is a public, and two are state agency libraries. The five re-

gionals have one full-time professional librarian; three have 2, one has 3, and one has 4.

Only four have part-time professional librarians. Among these 10 regional gateways, the

hours of professional time devoted to documents each week range from 30-140, while

hours of professional time devoted to the machine-readable depository collection of these

10 regionals each week range from 2-85. Hours of support staff time devoted to docu-

ments each week range from 30-220, while hours of support staff time devoted to the ma-

chine-readable depository collection of these 10 regionals each week range from l-50. All 10 gateway regionals have OPAC’s, but only five have included the depository machine-

readable collection in the OPAC.

Staff Training

Forty regionals responded to the question of staff training. Thirty-seven (93%) of the li-

braries train depository staff in providing public service for depository machine-readable

collections. Training method choices on the survey are: workshops, training, or classes

held by staff; workshops, training, or classes held by federal government agency person-

nel; workshops, training, or classes held by outside experts, other than government experts; and other. The “other” types of staff training done include: self taught, statewide

documents associations, training with university professors. Four of the 41 libraries provide no such staff training; 14 provide staff with one method

of training, 13 use two methods of training, and nine use three methods of staff training.

The single library that provides four types of staff training does so through workshops,

training, or classes held by its own staff, by federal government agency personnel, by outside experts, other than government experts, and by other means (“self teaching”).

Promotional Activities

Twenty-nine, or 71%, of the depositories engage in some sort of promotional or outreach activities to inform the general public about the depository machine-readable collec-

tion. The most frequently used forms of promotion are brochures and handouts, with 23

(56%) using these. Sixteen (39%) of the regionals use workshops to promote the depository machine-readable collection. Three depositories report using “other” types of promo-

Public Access 57

tional activities, such as, reference contacts, information in the university gopher,

publicity to selective depositories, bibliographic instruction, or newsletters.

Bibliographic Instruction

Forty (98%) of the responding regionals do some type of bibliographic instruction for

patrons to assist them in using depository machine-readable information; only one library

reports doing no such bibliographic instruction.15 Thirty-nine (95%) of the responding re-

gionals do one-on-one bibliographic instruction in using depository machine-readable in-

formation. Seventeen regionals (42%) do classroom bibliographic instruction. Only five

(12%) do other bibliographic instruction. Other types of bibliographic instruction reported

are: occasional workshops, small classes by appointment, and group training to staff.

Peer Connection

As shown in Table 3, 37 regionals subscribe to Regional-L, a listserv for regional de-

positories. Twelve of these 37 also subscribe to a local list and six administer the list.

Twenty-seven of the 41 provide e-mail reference to selective depositories and other librar-

ies in their region. Only one academic ARL, two academic non-AI& and one state agen-

cy do not subscribe to Regional-L. Two of these four report that they plan to subscribe as

soon as they have the capability, which should be soon. Three of these four have a local

list, and two administer this local list.

Attitude Toward Machine-readable Depository Information

All regionals responded to the survey question, “Do you think depository information in

machine-readable format will improve patron access ‘7” Some of the written comments em-

phasize librarians’ concerns. For example, one librarian replied that although depository

information in machine-readable format has the potential to improve patron access, many

individuals and libraries lack the technology necessary to support it. Another librarian

commented that, “until the Internet is more easily accessed by everyone, there will be the

‘haves’ and ‘have nots’.” One librarian expressed concern about the many “unanswered

questions” about archival format, notification of changing format, and development of

software appropriate for use in libraries. Another librarian, although believing that deposi-

tory information in machine-readable format will improve patron access, wrote:

Table 3

Peer Connection by Library Type

Library Type Regional-L Local List Administer E-Mail

Local List Reference

l Academic ARL 14 6 6 9

l Academic non ARL 10 3 1 9

l Public 3 1 0 1

l State Agency 9 5 1 7

l Other (historical society) 1 0 0 1

58 GOVERNMENT INFORMATION QUARTERLY Vol. 14iNo. l/l 997

Providing access to electronic information imposes enormous new pressures on Regionals. They are expected to be familiar with all the various sources, and to provide information and training for their selectives as well as their own users. Electronic service requires new kinds of cooperation and communication within each institution, with both administration and outside the documents unit.

ACADEMIC ARL AND NON-AR1

Kessler and Daniels ask if there are any differences between those regionals that belong to the Association of Research Libraries and those that do not. This survey shows some differences and similarities between both types of libraries. As noted earlier, 27 (66%) of the responding libraries are academic. Fifteen of these academic libraries are members of ARL.

Non-ARL libraries tend to serve smaller populations. All of the ARL regionals, and 75% of the non-ARL regionals serve populations of 25,000 or more. Six (40%) ARL libraries serve populations of 200,000 or more, and three (25%) non-ARL libraries serve populations this large. Neither serves populations of less than 10,000.

A majority of both ARL and non-ARL libraries have separate budgets for materials ac- quisitions. Specifically, 13 (87%) of the ARL libraries, and eight (67%) of the non-ARL libraries, have separate budgets. Two ARL and two non-ARL libraries share budgets. All ARL libraries have some budget that the regional librarian controls, while two non-ARL libraries have no budget. Not all libraries were able to report budget size. Again, the results are mixed, but the non-ARL regionals reporting tend to have smaller budgets.

All 15 ARL libraries have OPAC’s, and 12 (80%) of them include depository machine- readable information in the OPAC. All 12 non-ARL libraries have OPAC’s and six include depository machine-readable information in the OPAC. The depository collections of all of these libraries contain items in machine-readable format. The machine-readable depository collection of CD-ROM’s and diskettes is kept in the documents department of 72% of the ARL libraries, and 83% of the non-ARL libraries, rather than in public services/reference, again indicating that documents departments have control of the machine- readable depository collection in a majority of the libraries. All ARL and academic non- ARL libraries have depository CD-ROM’s available for public access. Public workstations are available at all ARL and non-ARL regionals. There are slight differences between AR& and non-ARL libraries in the number of workstations available. Nevertheless, non-ARL’s have more workstations specifically designated for use by depository patrons.

Public access to the Internet is provided by 11 (73%) of the ARL libraries, and by 11 (92%) of the non-ARL libraries (see Table 4). A majority of the libraries provide public access to the World Wide Web (WWW), gopher, telnet, ftp, and WAIS. ARL and non-

Table 4

Public Internet Workstations by Library Type/ Specifically for Documents

Library Type I-4 Workstations 6-10 Workstations 7 1 or More

Academic ARL 615 2/l 312 = 11/8

Academic non-ARL 6/l l/2 4/l = 1 l/10

Public Access 59

ARL library regionals provide these services about equally. Eleven (73%) ARL libraries

provide GPO Access and nine (75%) of the non-ARL libraries provide GPO Access. This survey reveals that ARL libraries are more likely to serve as gateways to GPO Ac-

cess than academic non-ARL libraries. Five (39%) ARL libraries are gateways, five provide

on-site GPO Access, and one provides extended on-site access. Two (22%) of the non-ARL

libraries are gateways, and seven provide on-site GPO Access. The GPO Access support

person registered with GPO is part of the documents staff at a majority of these libraries. ARL and non-ARL library regionals are similar in providing staff training and biblio-

graphic instruction. While a majority of the regionals engage in some promotional or out-

reach activity to inform the general public about the depository machine-readable collection, there is less tendency to promote the use of depository services than to train the

staff or do bibliographic instruction. In summary, there is not much difference between ARL and non-ARL library regionals

in their provision of public access to depository machine-readable information. Although

80% of the ARL regionals with OPAC’s include depository machine-readable information in the OPAC, compared to 50% of the academic non-ARL regionals, both types are

equipped with public access workstations, and a slightly higher percentage of non-ARL li-

braries provide public Internet access. GPO Access is equally provided, but ARL libraries

are more likely to serve as gateways to GPO Access than are non-ARL libraries. A majority of both types are engaged in various methods of staff training and bibliographic

instruction, and both types fall short when it comes to promoting the depository machine-

readable collection.

STATE AGENCY, PUBLIC, AND HISTORICAL

Examination also reveals little difference in the other types: state agency, public, and his-

torical society. These regionals are apt to serve larger populations, with 80% of state agency, the historical society, and all three public libraries serving populations of 200,000 or

more. Only five of 10 state agency depositories have public access Internet workstations,

and all that do have from one to five workstations. Nine (90%) of the state agency libraries

provide access to GPO Access, however, with the majority (78%) being on-site GPO Ac-

cess providers and not gateways. State agency libraries are strongest in promotion of the machine-readable depository collection, with 80% doing some kind of promotion. Two of

the three public libraries do no promotion.

A MODEL REGIONAL

One regional ranks four on the composite index of promotion, using workshops, brochures

and handouts, newspaper articles or press releases, and other outreach or promotional ac-

tivities. This library is particularly strong in promotional activities; therefore, it is interest-

ing to examine some of the other characteristics of this library. It is a state library serving

a population of over three million. Two professional librarians are employed full-time in the documents collection, none part-time. The documents collection is arranged separately,

and it has a separate budget of over $50,000. This library does have an OPAC, with all ex-

cept 29,000 depository items included in it. Machine-readable formats available for public


access are floppy disks, CD-ROM’s, and video disks. Two workstations are specifically

designated for use by depository patrons. This regional tracks patron use of depository machine-readable information, and such use occurs 16-20 times in an average five-day period.

The staff is trained in providing public service for the depository machine-readable collec-

tion through workshops, training, or classes held by its own staff; and through workshops, training, or classes held by federal government agency personnel. Bibliographic instruction

is done for patrons with one-on-one instruction and classroom instruction. This state agency library has no public access Internet workstations, but does provide

SWAIS direct dial on-site access (ASCII character based interface requiring a modem,

PC, and communications software) to GPO Access through a librarian. Public access In-

ternet workstations are expected soon. This regional does not yet subscribe to Regional-L, but does subscribe to a local listserv. The librarian responding to the survey is very opti-

mistic about public access to depository information in a machine-readable format, and

provided the following written comment, “My vision of the future: 90% in CD-ROM or accessible file formats, 10% in paper, and I want it ASAP.”

DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS

In many ways regional depository libraries are making progress in creating environments that support the shift to electronic dissemination of depository information. All of the re-

gionals have workstations available for public use of depository products and services, and the number of regionals with Internet access is growing rapidly. Encouragingly, 30, or

73.2%, of the regionals responding to this survey provide public access to the Internet, as

compared to the 1994 LPS study that reported 25 regionals providing public access to the Intemet.16 It is also encouraging that 31 (78%) of the responding regionals provide public

public access to GPO Access and that 10 of these are gateway libraries. There appears to be no relationship between inclusion of the bibliographic records of

the depository machine-readable collection in the OPAC and electronic resources avail-

able to depository users. For example, all of the 11 regionals that do not include the bibliographic records of the depository machine-readable collection in the OPAC’s have

workstations specifically designated for public use of depository products and services. Seven have public access Internet workstations. The fact that only five of the 10 gateway

regionals have included the depository machine-readable collection in the OPAC adds

credence to this notion that the level of sophistication in providing access to depository information in electronic format has no clear relationship to the inclusion of the depository

machine-readable collection records in the OPAC. This indicates that including these

records in the institution’s OPAC may be more problematic for some depositories than providing public service for and public access to depository information in electronic for-

mat. The inclusion of bibliographic records in the OPAC is a separate problem for many

depositories, and factors such as departmental coordination, expense, and questions on

who is responsible must be resolved. Training librarians as intermediaries to access electronic depository information effec-

tively is one of the primary keys to assuring public access. Always important for effective access to depository information, staff training is especially imperative now if rapidly changing information technology is to improve access to depository information, rather

Pub/k Access 61

than create a barrier to it.17 Apparently, regionals recognize the importance of staff train-

ing; as shown above 93% train their staff in providing assistance to public users of depos-

itory machine-readable information. The results are not so positive when it comes to the promotion of depository machine-

readable information. Only 7 1% of the regionals engage in promotional or outreach activ-

ities. Kessler and Daniels found that regionals were “not too good” when it came to publi-

cizing their services.” Promotional and outreach activities are key, along with staff

training, to the enhancement of public access to electronic depository materials. Promo- tion and outreach activities make users, and potential users, more aware that the deposito-

ry collections exist and can satisfy their information needs. Increased awareness helps

increase access. As a result of the Conference on the Future of Federal Government information, the

Government Documents Round Table recommended that depository libraries “... encour-

age and support sharing and expertise to insure access to electronic information products.“t9 Thirty-seven (90.2%) of the regionals subscribe to Regional-L, indicating a high

level of peer connection and quite possibly daily contact with peers. Communication with

selectives seems to have improved since 1989, when Kessler and Daniels found “communication with selectives to be somewhat haphazard.“20 Twenty-seven, or 66%, of the re-

sponding regionals report providing e-mail reference to the selectives and other libraries

in their region. Indications are that regional e-mail to selectives would be greater if more

selectives had electronic capabilities. Finally, a large majority of regional librarians show little resistance in meeting the chal-

lenge posed by machine-readable depository information. Thirty-four (83%) believe depository information in machine-readable format will improve public access. Some of those not

certain that depository information in a machine-readable format will improve public ac-

cess express concerns about equity and the adequacy of depository resources and staffing.

FUTURE RESEARCH

Future research might compare regionals’ situation to that of the depository community as

a whole. As Barbara Hale and Susan McAninch pointed out in the 1989 article, “The

Plight of U.S. Government Regional Depository Libraries in the 1980’s,” with the passing

of the Depository Library Act of 1962 the regionals “became the government information

‘safety net’ for the nation.“21 There is a need for future research comparing selective and regional capabilities in providing public access to electronic government information. Are

regionals making better progress than selectives in this area? If so, is it in part due to re-

quirements contained in the Depository Library Act of 1962 (PL 87-579, 76 Stat. 352), which do not have the same impact on selectives as they do on regionals?

Other research might examine the inclusion of bibliographic records of the depository

machine-readable collections in the OPAC. This is apparently still a problem. Smith raised bibliographic questions in her 1990 research, and these questions remain. 22 Also, why is there not a stronger trend toward promoting the machine-readable depository collection and services?

There is a need for research on depository libraries within the context of the parent insti-

tution. How are depositories being constrained by institution budget allocation and staff-

62 GOVERNMENT INFORMATION QUARTERLY Vol. 14iNo. Ii1997

ing patterns? Are institutions providing depositories with the support necessary to meet

the challenge of providing access to government information in machine-readable format? Finally, another area for future research is patron use of electronic depository informa-

tion and the effectiveness of depository machine-readable information services. There is

no current data on these topics.

CONCLUSION

The results of this survey indicate that in many respects regional depositories are making

progress in creating an environment that supports public access to electronic federal gov-

ernment information. The regionals have machine-readable information and workstations

available for public access. All of the regionals have government CD-ROM’s and a major-

ity provide access to the Internet. Staffing, however, remains a problem, with one full-

time professional being the most frequent occurrence. This brings rise to the question of

whether or not staffing is adequate to allow for the increase in time being spent on ma-

chine-readable depository information and for the technological expertise required to

maintain and provide service to this information. Although 83% of the regional depository

librarians believe that machine-readable depository information will improve patron ac-

cess, only 71% promote this information. Promotion of the collection and depository

machine-readable information in the OPAC contribute to public awareness and access.

Are depositories willing, yet unsure of their capabilities? If depositories have the equip-

ment and services, as this study indicates, but do not have the staff to support both the

equipment and services, to what degree is public access to machine-readable information

being improved?

NOTES

1. U.S. Government Printing Office, Annual Report 1993 (Washington D.C.: U.S. Government Printing

Office, 1993).

2. Nancy Kranich, “The Public’s Right to Know and Electronic Government Information” in Citizen Rights

and Access to Electronic Information: The LITA President’s Program Presentations and Background

Papers, edited by Dennis J. Reynolds (Chicago: LITA, 1992). p. 108.

3. Robert E. Dugan & Joan F. Cheverie, “Electronic Government Information and the Depository Library Pro-

gram: Paradise Found?” Government Inf~r,rmation Quarterly, 9 (1992), pp. 269-289.

4. See Congress. Office of Technology Assessment, Informing the Nation; Federal Information Dissemination

in an Electronic Age (Washington DC: GPO) and “GODORT’s Principles on Government Information.”

Documents 10 the People, 19 (March 1991) p. 12. 5. Peter Hernon & Charles R. McClure, “Electronic Census Products and the Depository Library Program:

Future Issues and Trends,” Government Information Quarterly, 8 (1991), pp. 59-76. 6. Diane H. Smith “Depository Libraries in the 1990’s: Whither or Wither Depositories?,” Government Infor-

mation Quarterly, 17 (1990), pp. 301-324.

7. Ridley R. Kessler & Evelyn H. Daniel, “A Survey of United States Regional Government Depository

Libraries.” Unpublished study, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, (1989), p. 19.

8. Ibid., p. 12. 9. Government Printing Office. Library Programs Service, Electronic Capabilities of Federal Depository

Libraries, Summer 1994 (Washington, DC: GPO 1995) p. 41. 10. These figures correspond closely with those of the 1989 Kessler and Daniel study. See note 7.

11. These figures correspond closely with those of the 1989 Kessler and Daniel study. See note 7.

Public Access 63

12. In the 1990 study of ARL libraries noted above, Diane H. Smith reported that the libraries tended to use online public access catalogs (OPACS), and that the tendency to include high percentages of depository

items in the OPAC was not so strong, with only a small percentage of the respondents doing so. See note 6,

p. 305. 13. This is an improvement on the 34% of regionals that reported providing public access to these services in

the GPO survey in the summer of 1994. See note 9.

14. Government Printing Office, GPO Access: lnformution for Depositoq Libraries (Washington, D.C.: GPO

1995) (pamphlet). 15. Kessler and Daniel found a similarly strong committment to bibliographic instruction of the depository col-

lection. See note 7, p. 14.

16. Government Printing Office, “Electronic Capabilities,” p. 3 1.

17. Charles R. McClure & Peter Hernon, Users ofAcademic and Public GPO Depositor?/ Libraries (Washing-

ton DC: GPO 1989). p. 34.

18. Kessler & Daniel, “A Survey,” p. 15.

19. “Reinventing Access to Federal Government Information: Report of the Conference on the Future of Fed-

eral Government Information,” Government Documents Discussion List [Online] (October 1993), p. 17.

20. Kessler & Daniel, “A Survey,” p. 16.

21. Barbara Hale & Sandra McAnnich, “The Plight of U.S. Government Regional Depository Libraries in the

1980’s.” Government Publicafions Rrview, 16 (1989), p. 388.

22. Smith, “Depository Libraries,” p. 3 11.