cooperative collection development between selective u.s. depository libraries

Government Publications Review, Vol. 9, pp. 221-229, 1982

Printed in the USA. All rights reserved.

0277-9390/82/030221-09$03.00/O

Copyright c 1982 Pergamon Press Ltd

COOPERATIVE COLLECTION DEVELOPMENT BETWEEN SELECTIVE U.S. DEPOSITORY LIBRARIES

BRUCE MORTON Associate Librarian, Information Services/Documents, Carleton College, Northfield, MN 55057

J. RANDOLPH COX Reference/Documents Librarian, St. Olaf College, Northfield, MN 55057

Abstract-Active cooperative collection development by selective U.S. Government Printing Office depository libraries has been neglected as a means by which meaningful economies in staff and space can be realized while still maintaining, or even broadening, the quality of the depository collection. Based on a cooperative framework between the depository collections at Carleton and St. Olaf colleges, a model is offered to other selective depositories. The concept of cooperation is particularly timely during periods of fiscal exigency, as well as in light of the fact that over half of all depositories are within ten miles of another depository.

The sheer mass of U.S. government publication with which a depository library must contend is no small problem. Compound this with the idiosyncracies of selection within the con- text of the depository program and the difficulty of effectively and judiciously building a collection of U.S. government publications, indeed, becomes a humbling experience.

It is particularly striking, since over 50% of depositories cluster in population centers [l], that very little active cooperative collection development effort has been heretofore engaged. What few cooperative gestures that have been undertaken have been of a passive nature, with individual institutions relying on cooperative cataloging for the creation of union lists with holdings location, e.g., CODOC, RLIN, OCLC, and Trinity University’s mini-MARC project. The time has come, we think, when U.S. depository libraries can jointly address the bibliographic labyrinths of the Government Printing Office by assertively working together to provide the public with maximum access to a greater number of U.S. government publications while minimizing duplication of holdings. This can be accomplished by planned proac- tive joint-decision making, logically interfacing subject and format clusters on a non-title basis.

NEED

It is specifically the selective depository which must deal with the most difficult collection development problems- this because of its selectiveness. The non-depository library which wishes to acquire U.S. documents may merely order preferred titles through the Government Printing Office (GPO). While the Regional Depository library, which by statute [2] is obligated to acquire and retain all depository items offered, must confront not what to add,

221

222 BRUCE MORTON and J. RANDOLPH COX

but rather where to put and how to process its government tomes. The selective depository, however, does not have the luxury of being able to choose by title or subject the materials which it will receive, but rather must choose item classes. This is done by selecting “item numbers,” each of which signifies an item class [3]. Rarely does the item number/class cor- respond directly to a single title. It is possible, for instance, to receive under the class rubric, “general publications,” material ranging from pamphlets to monographs dealing with a wide range of topics yet all emanating from a single agency. The agency itself becomes the basis of classification and selection within the depository system.

The marked increase in the production and availability [4] of government documents in re- cent years has made it increasingly necessary to plan collection growth. Staff and space no longer can stand the luxury of adding “what sounds good.” In order to maximize the library’s return on its investment in depository status, Carleton College and St. Olaf College have undertaken a deliberate program of inter-institutional cooperation to develop the depository collections of both college libraries. The fact that the two colleges are located within two miles of each other certainly makes many cooperative elements easier to implement. Yet, nothing about cooperative effort is solely contingent upon proximity. It is submitted that the principle and process which are herein described are transferable or adaptable to the

depository community at large.

Realizing that there were institutional advantages to retaining depository status, con- solidation into one collection with one library forfeiting depository status was rejected as un- viable. However, the colleges wished to adopt policies and procedures which would ensure the greatest number of relevant U.S. government publications would be available to clients in the service area, yet also would reduce the pressures of volume on space and staff at both institutions. To establish a cooperative collection relationship Carleton College and St. Olaf College libraries agreed that they would independently determine collection goals and policies, then jointly work toward helping each institution successfully realize those goals and successfully to implement policies toward that end.

MECHANISMS

Three situational factors had to exist before cooperative collection development for selective depository collections could be successfully accomplished by Carleton and St. Olaf colleges. Each of the three functions is independent of the others, yet inextricably necessary for either of the others to be meaningful. The three prerequisites determined are:

1. Document Delivery (assured and fast, with 24 hrs. being the worst case). 2. Interfacing Collection Development Policies (increase titles available/reduce duplication).

3. Bibliographic Access (enhance accessibility to documents not held).

The existence or establishment of a document delivery system which may be sophisticated or unsophisticated, so long as it is efficient, is a prerequisite. This is not an unreasonable ex- pectation since 23.2% of depository libraries have another depository within a mile of them, 22.7% within 2 to 5 miles, and 11.1% within 6 to IO miles; i.e., 57% of depository libraries have another depository within 10 miles of them [5]. Whether it be a reliance on the U.S. mails, or upon direct user retrieval (where proximity permits), or the transporting of document to user via public transportation, there must be a means of sending document to user or bringing user to document. Without the existence of a delivery system the complementary relationship between the documents collections of different institutions cannot be realized. Carleton and St. Olaf, located two miles apart, are served by regular shuttle bus service, and public bus service. Documents are delivered twice a day on the shuttle service through the

Cooperative collection development between depository libraries 223

auspices of the colleges’ interlibrary services departments. Students and the public have use privileges at both libraries.

Joint collection development can be effectively carried out only after there has been a common determination of what the collection will represent. In order to successfully do this each documents librarian must seek input from non-documents colleagues in their respective libraries, as well as from non-academic documents users in the geographic service area. Deci- sions must be made in regard how best to interface documents collections with their respective strengths and weaknesses. Another concern is the effect that realignment of depository collections will have on the interface of each documents collection with respect to the rest of its home collection [6J. For U.S. government publications a collection can be perceived to reflect the structure of government itself, or merely the functioning of the government, or the topical concern(s) of a particular agency, or the response of the entire government to a single topic, or a combination of any and/or all of these, or any of a multitude of other choices and combinations. To clarify what each institution expects of its depository collection, Carleton and St. Olaf colleges developed tandem interfacing collection development policies [7]. The crux of the policy statements is a matrix which conceptually delineates subject and format on a collectible or non-collectible bases (see Figure 1).

The listing of specific subjects and formats in each particular wedge allows a visual rendition of interdependencies between the two collections. It is understood that neither collection need completely be exclusive of the other, therefore there forms a core of subject and format duplication which ultimately leads to duplication of item classes that are considered of prime importance by both collecting institutions. In each quartile of the schematic in Figure 1 (collectible subjects, non-coilectible subjects, collectible formats, and non-collectible formats) there is represented a division of collection targets which would be filled in with specific subject or formats for each institution. The line in each quartile where Carleton (white) and St. Olaf (dotted) listings meet represents the interface of the collection development responsibility of each depository. As the wedges narrow toward the center of the figure, duplicate subject and format concerns are listed thereby focusing librarians’ attention on a core of subjects and formats (eventually item classes) around which listings in the outer segments of the matrix are built.

Once areas of collection responsibility have been decided, bibliographic access to the cooperating collections becomes essential. Of course, the ideal form of access would be a union catalog-either COM or on-line. Frequent updates are desirable because currency is particularly relevant for many of the topics addressed by U.S. government documents. Those institutions which have used automated records produced by cooperative cataloging systems to construct union holdings information seldom go beyond the passive development perspective of holdings information. However, the budgetary implications of producing such a catalog via OCLC, RLIN, CODOC, or any other utility or vendor is too costly for the volume of documents material processed by most selective depositories relative to staffing levels and to book and periodical acquisitions. This is evident in that most depositories still rely on commercially produced indexes to gain access to their own collections [8]. The poten- tial for regular, as well as retrospective, integration of holdings records of cooperating selective depositories is diminished by the large number of government documents which must be processed 191 and the limited staff with which to do it. Another attractive alternative, in lieu of a fully automated catalog, is the union shelf list. Again, however, manual means of production are prohibitive. Yet, automation offers to make this alternative feasible and cost ef- fective on both a continuing and retrospective basis. The union shelf list remains a future ob- jective in the continuing pursuit of cooperative collection development and management. For the present, however, Carleton and St. Olaf have expediently solved the dilemma of


t

COLLECTIBLE 1 NON-COLLECTIBLE

Figure I. Subject/Format Collection Matrix (Conceptual Rendition) In all cases a collectible format will supercede a non-collectible subject.

joint bibliographic access with a compromise. Instead of dealing with individual bibliographic entities, it was decided to utilize the concept of item class by which the collections are built.

Item classes are offered by the Superintendent of Documents via surveys to depository libraries. Upon receipt of a survey a decision is made as to whether or not the item class will be added to the libraries’ active item union list. Those items not selected, rejected as it were, are added to an inactive item list, which also includes discontinued items (items once active but dropped by GPO) and deleted items (items once active but dropped by the library). Although originally constructed manually in card file format, both active and inactive item

lists for both libraries now have been automated [lo]. The software package utilized to automate the active items list (IACT) was originally

developed in-house [ 111. However, the original automated file has since been read over into a commercially available records management system called DATATRIEVE [ 121. DATA- TRIEVE is an inquiry language and report writing system that provides direct, easy access to data contained in its files. The system permits a user to look at data, change it, or sort it in- teractively. New records can be added to a file, old ones deleted, existing records modified to maintain accurate up-to-date information. DATATRIEVE carries out each command as it is entered. The results are seen immediately. Work may then be continued by issuing more commands, correcting an error, or stopping. If certain parts of a command are omitted DATATRIEVE prompts for the missing information. Commands range from the simple, which can be invoked to produce immediate results to more complex which combine many functions in a single operation via boolean operative [13].

The result is a union item list which can be produced in item number order or can be searched by any component field. An active record contains item class title, date added, survey number, and institutional holdings information, and rating codes (see Figures 2 and 3). The automated item files can be sorted by range of item numbers or range of call numbers, by range of date, by survey or range of surveys, by holding institutions, or by type of status (active, rejected, deleted, or discontinued), or by any combination of these. The ability to print a union item list or dissect the list in any number of ways provides the documents librarian


with an evolving graphic perspective of the status of the two documents collections, by themselves, and in relation to each other, as well as the development dynamics by which each collection is being built through the processes of addition, deletion, rejection, and discon- tinuance.

PROCESS

Having made a commitment to cooperative collection development through a document delivery system, interfaced collection policies, and development of a mode of bibliographic access via item class and truncated Sudocs class, attention was then turned to the decision- making-process through which item classes are or are not added.

Early on, the cooperating documents librarians agreed to monthly meetings, a schedule was adhered to in spite of an occassionally sparse agenda in order to regularize channels of communication and opportunities for planning. It was through these monthly sessions that the various cooperative mechanisms were implemented. It was judged that an annual review of the collections was in order. This was carried out in a series of steps. The first was to focus on those item classes that were duplicated. The computer sorted these out and each item class was examined. Each librarian independently evaluating and rating each duplicated item class using a three point scale in which “1” indicates an item was considered essential at that library, “2” denotes a committment to having the item class at one of the cooperating depositories but it did not matter which, and a “3” indicates that the item class was not desired. Ratings were then input into the IACT automated file. After independent rating had taken place the librarians met to impose an automatic forfeiture heirachy in reviewing their juxtaposed evaluations (see Table 1). Lists were generated by the computer for each set of poten- tial rating results. After reviewing the juxtaposed results of independent rating, item classes with a differential in ratings were targeted for deletion by the lower rating depository, while items which were rated “3” by both libraries were targeted for deletion by both libraries. Item classes rated “1” by both libraries were maintained, and item classes rated “2” by both depository libraries were targeted for negotiation as to which institution would maintain that class. The result has been a substantial reduction in duplicated item classes and marginal item classes-a tighter, more controlled joint collection.

Duplicate item classes having been addressed, the next step was for each library to independently review those item classes which were exclusively received by their library. Each librarian presented the other with a list of item classes to be deleted. The lists were reviewed with the reviewing librarian choosing those item classes which were to be transferred to his active item list. By mutual standing agreement, the library adding an item class deleted by the other library would have unencumbered right to all backfiles held under that item class. In order to observe both the spirit and letter of title 44 of the United States Code the deleting

ITEM: 900-C-l 4 SUDOC: S19.53: TITLE: COUNTRY PROFILES (SERIES) [FIClld AGENCY FOR INT’L DEV SURVEY: 91-74 DATADD: 29JAN92 CARLETON HOLDS: YES ST OLAF HOLDS: NO CARLETON RATING: 1 ST OLAF RATING: 2

Figure 2. Sample entry in computerized active item file (IACT).


I1 OTR)

DTR)

j OTR>

1. LITA)

~ I LITG)

LIT!!)

i OTR)

I t OTR )

i q DTRl

,r LITR)

I I, OTR)

’ 17 OTG)

11 DTR)

I IL OTR)

1 :, OTR >

!

FIND IACTWlTH ITEM = “SOO.C.,~

FIN0 IACT WITH SUDOC WITH AN” SuOGc = .-S,G.SS:”

FIND IACT WITH AN” SUDOC WITH SUDOC CONTAINING “SlG-

FIN0 ,ACT WITH DATAGO BETWEEN “Ol.,A11S2- A”0 “14FESGi?

FM0 IACT WIT” CAGt = ““Es” A”0 OLAF = ““ES-

FIN0 IACT WITH CARL = ““IV AWO OLAF = “No”

FIND IACT WITH CARL = ‘““O- AND OLAF = “YES”

PIHO IACT

FIN0 IACT WITH CARL = “YES”

FIND IACT WITW GLAF = “YE!?

FIWO IACT WITH CRATE ) ORATE

FM0 IACT WIT” CRATE ( ORATE

MO lACT WIT” CRATE = “1” A”0 GGATE = “1”

FIN0 IACT WITH CRATE = “2” AN0 ORATE = “L?

FM0 IACT WITH CRATE = ‘“LY AN0 ORATE = “Y

Figure 3. Sample commands for the active items file (IACT) using DATATRIEVE:

Explanations of IACT commands: 1. 2.

3.

4.

9. 10. II.

12.

13.

Searches on item number and will produce record in Figure 2. Searches on Superintendent of Documents classification stem for item class 900-C-14. The reason for the repetition of “SUDOC” in command sequence is that it is possible for up to four Sudoc classes to be entered for a record. Searching on a truncation of a Superintendent of Documents class. This search will call forth any record in which the sudoc number has “Sl8” embedded in it, including the record in Figure 2. This command sequence will produce all records entered between I January 1982 and 14 February 1982. This technique or a similar ranging of survey numbers is particularly useful when checking the active item file against GPO’s quarterly computer printout which has a specified cutoff date/point. This command sequence will produce a list of item classes which are duplicated by both depositories. This command sequence will produce a list of item classes held exclusively by Carleton College. This command sequence will produce a list of item classes held exclusively by St. Olaf College. The “Find IACT” command will produce the total IACT file, in effect a union item class list. As with any DATATRIEVE command, the resultant records can be printed in full or in part, using any combination of record fields. This command sequence produced a list of all item classes received by Carleton College. This command sequence produces a list of all item classes received by St. Olaf College. This command sequence produces all those item classes which Carleton has rated higher than St. Olaf (see Table 1). This command sequence produces all those item classes which St. Olaf has rated higher than Carleton (see Table 1). 14, & 15. Produce lists of item classes which Carleton and St. Olaf have rated the same in each of the respective rating categories (see Table I).

library agrees to circulate its withdrawal lists to its cooperating library a few days in advance of sending the list out to other depository libraries once it has received withdrawal permis- sion from its regional depository. This assures that the cooperating depository will always have first choice of titles being withdrawn from its sister collection [14]. It is also initally understood that for any item class deleted, its backfiles are automatically reviewed for withdrawal from the collection and may be withdrawn after the expiration of the five-year statutory obligation. The ;::-cmise being thn’ ;C an item class is not worthy of continuation it


Table 1. Realm of Possibilities with Hierarchical Ratings (When Ratings Differ, Lower Number Always Forfeits to the Higher)

Rating

Carieton St. Olaf

1 1 1 2 2 1 2 2 2 3 3 2 3 3

Rating scale: 1 = Essential. 2 = Desirable but do not duplicate. 3 = Negligible value.

Disposition

Both retain Carleton retain St. Olaf retain Negotiate Carleton retain St. Olaf retain Both withdraw

is probably not worthy of retention. Therefore both depository libraries are able to an- ticipate the other’s withdrawal of backfiles and plan accordingly.

A residual, albeit important, development in the course of cooperation between the two depository libraries is that sufficient familiarity with each collection has been gained by both documents librarians so that addition and rejection decisions about GPO surveys of new item classes are made by whichever colleague is on the job when the other is on leave or vaca- tion. This allows for an informed continuity in collection development decision making where otherwise there would be a disruption.

SUMMARY

The above plan for cooperative collection development of depository library collections is offered not as a panacea, but rather as a modest model which works. U.S. government publications have too long been an area of librarianship which has eschewed cooperative ar- rangements as an answer to the many complex and frustrating problems with which it must contend.

Because of the implementation of cooperative collection development by Carleton and St. Olaf colleges, the two institutions have substantively increased both the breadth and depth of their joint depository collections while cutting overhead in terms of stock, storage, and burgeoning demands on staff. The reality is that through cooperation the two depository collections have come to be viewed by local librarians as a single depository collection with two service points and two administrative chains to the Superintendent of Documents.

POSTSCRIPT

In the library, just as with the operations of any organization, what is done in one part ef- fects operations in other parts. Joint collection development efforts by documents librarians certainly demand that other librarians at both cooperating libraries be informed of the basic philosophies and policies intrinsic to the cooperative development of the depository collections. There needs to be a constant cognizance of the implications that interfacing collection responsibilities in the documents sphere have for collection development decisions in non- documents areas. While inter-institutional reliance on documents holdings is pursued it must be observed whether or not such a policy will skew user patterns, thereby intensifying user


demands on certain segments of the documents, book, or periodical collection. Since many government publications are now available in microfiche, there also must be consideration of each cooperating depository’s attitude toward microformat as well as its ability to store and access this kind of material. If there are significant attitudinal differences they may well serve to impugn the integrity of the subject/format committments made in Figure 1.

So, too, the reference desk librarians must be apprised of the interface of documents collections, and be kept aware of additions and deletions of item classes relating to particular subject areas. Item class listings for the sister depository should be consulted by reference desk personnel as a matter of course when dealing with problems that require the resources of the depository collection. Such referral will insure the user access to the widest possible selection of relevant documents.

Ultimately, the depository library’s chief administrative officer must regularly review depository policy, procedure, and decisions made by the depository librarian, in order to insure that the spirit of cooperation does not obscure the depository’s statutory obligations.

Having begun the cooperative effort at the most rudimentary levels, gradually crystallizing goals and objectives, the documents librarians at Carleton College and St. Olaf College were provided a valuable learning experience. The cooperative collection development project would have been far easier if each institution had entered the process with collection goals, policy, and cooperative committment. Unfortunately, this was not the case. It was only after a growing realization of the common problems and needs of the depositories that attention was turned to such concerns.

Likewise, the manual mechanism originally developed in the form of union item card files served the cause of joint recording and analysis of collections not nearly so well as its computerized successors. For those wishing to explore active cooperative collection development for selective depository libraries, the following general recommendations are offered:

Table 2. Statistical Profile (Carleton and St. Olaf Depository Collections, I January 1982)

Number Percentage

I. Total GPO Item Classes Offered 5546 _

2. Total item classes in Northfield 1556 -

3. % item classes in Northfield 28

4. Total item classes Carleton II90 _

5. % total GPO item classes Carleton - 21

6. % total Northfield item classes Carleton - 16

7. Northfield item classes exclusive to Carleton 804

8. % total GPO item classes exclusive to Carleton - I4

9. % Northfield item classes exclusive to Carleton - 51

IO. Total item classes St. Olaf 153

Il. % total GPO item classes St. Olaf - I4

12. % total Northfield item classes St. Olaf - 48

13. Northfield item classes exclusive to St. Olaf 361 _

14. % total GPO item classes exclusive to St. Olaf - 7

15. % Northfield item classes exclusive to St. Olaf - 24

16. DUPLICATE item classes Carleton/St. Olaf 385 -

17. % duplicate/total GPO items - 6

18. % duplicate/total Northfield items - 25

19. % Carleton active item list duplicates - 32

20. % St. Olaf active item list duplicates - 51

This will serve as baseline data by which changes in the depository collections will be monitored and evaluated in the

future.


1. First obtain administrative committment from the directors of participating depository libraries to the concept of cooperative collection development.

2. Examine (or establish) depository collection goals, preferrably in relation to overall library collection goals. Do so in consultation with non-documents colleagues.

3. Establish a regular forum of communication between cooperating documents librarians. 4. Juxtapose collection goals. 5. Develop joint policies in order to realize goals. 6. Develop bibliographic access mechanism that enables the accessing, assessing, and

monitoring of collection development. 7. Regular periodic review of goals, policies, procedures, and collection.

NOTES AND REFERENCES

1. This has been ascertained by a correlation of “List of Depository Libraries by State and City as of March 198 I ,” Government Depository Libraries: The Present Law Governing Designated Depository Libraries. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1981, pp. 11-84 with the current list of Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas (SMSA) as listed in the Statistical Abstract of the United States 1980. Washington, D.C.; U.S. Dept. of Commerce, 1980, pp. 946-951 [updated with added SMSAs].

2. 44. U.S.C. 1912. 3. See List of Classes of United States Government Publications Available for Selection by Depository Libraries,

published irregularly by the Office of the Assistant Public Printer (Superintendent of Documents). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.

4. Availability has been substantially enhanced by GPO’s microform program. 5. Superintendent of Documents. Summary of Biennial Report of Depository Libraries: Report Series No. IS.

Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, October 1979, 25. 6. For a full discussion of the interrelatedness of collection development concerns see Charles R. McClure, “An In-

tegrated Approach to Government Publications Collection Development,” Government Publications Review, 8A (1981), 5-15.

7. For further discussion and examples of the subject/format matrix see Bruce Morton, “Toward a Comprehen- sive Collection Development Policy for Partial U.S. Depository Libraries,” Government Publications Review, 7A (1980), 41-46.

8. Summary of Biennia/ Report of Depository Libraries, 27 indicates that 66.3% of depository libraries find it necessary to purchase commercial indexes in order to fully utilize depository materials.

9. In 1980,47,839 titles were offered through the depository distribution program via 4,632 Item Classes. Even the selective depository which selects the minimum 25% of Item Classes suggested by Guidelinesfor the Depository Library System: Adopted by the Depository Library Council to the Public Printer, October 18, 1977. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, p. 4, Section 4-5, will be receiving in excess of ten thou- sand pieces of material per year.

10. The original version of this system is discussed at length in Bruce Morton, “An Items Record Management System: First Step in the Automation of Collection Development in Selective GPO Depository Libraries,” Government Publications Review, 8A (1981). 185-96.

11. Ibid. 12. DATATRIEVE-II V2.0 Users Guide. Maynard, MA: Digital Equipment Corp., July 1980, for all information

about nature and use of DATATRIEVE. 13. Ibid., pp. l-l, l-2. 14. 44 U.S.C. 1912.