Government Pub~i~~t~ons~eview, Vol. 11, pp. 195-202, 1984 0277-9390/84 $3.00 + .OO

Printed in the USA. All rights reserved. Copyright * 1984 Pergamon Press Ltd

RANDOM THOUGHTS ON NUMBERS: THE NEED FOR MINIMUM UNIFORM STATISTICAL

REPORTING STANDARDS FOR U.S. DEPOSITORY LIBRARIES

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

Abstraet-This essay suggests that librarians at federal depository libraries have neglected to adequately report statistics representing their depository collections. The consequence of this situation is that they in turn find themselves too often being neglected by administrators and colleagues planning and budgeting library resources. The U.S. Government Printing Office has abrogated leadership respon- sibility in the area of depositories’ statistical reportijlg-tllis to the detrilneIit of GPO itself, as well as to the detriment of the depository library community. Reliable and compatible statistical data is the lynchpin missing in GPO planning and the various state planning efforts currently underway. A modest proposal is offered to correct the present statistical disarray.

It is ironical that the segment of the Iibrary profession which deals primarily with the publications of government-that very government which legislates and promulgates so much of the standardization with which we live-should itself eschew standardization. It has long been apparent that documents librarians generally have given low priority to the keep- ing and use of statistics. One need look no further than the standard volume devoted to the administration of documents collections, which devotes no more than one full page of text to the subject of statistics collection [I]. Not only is the coverage inadequate in scope, but the authors unwisely advise that the documents librarian not count material superceded by bound volumes. Thus, librarians will not accurately reflect the thousands of slip treaties and slip laws, for instance, which they must process in spite of the fact that they will be super- ceded and withdrawn at a later date. Statistics should, indeed, be kept for such transient documents because they indicate document traffic through processing, thereby directly reflecting staffing needs. This inattention to the counting of documents is not surprising. As Yuri Nakata, author of one of the more competent overviews of government documents librarianship, has observed: “Statistics should be maintained only if they serve a useful func- tion. (The GPO does not require depository libraries to maintain statistics.)” [2] The issue then becomes how to recognize and how to agree on what constitutes a useful function.

The government does not help libraries in the area of statistics. The most apparent exam- ple of the variety of statistical creativity with which libraries count their government documents holdings is the annual HEGIS (Higher Education General Information Survey and Library Information Survey) reports f3]. The 1982 irlstructions for completing the HEGIS survey directed libraries (see lines 2-4) “that a printed government document is any publication in book or serial form bearing a government imprint.” So far, fine. Libraries were next instructed to include (on lines 2 and 3) “printed documents NOT included in separate coilections, but cataloged in the same manner as books,” and (on line 4) to “report

195

196 BRUCE MORTON

printed government documents housed in separate collections.” The HEGIS survey allows no provision for microform government documents. All government microforms are to be counted on the basis of format rather than generic source (see lines 5-7, HEGIS survey). Such arbitrary disregard of document origin in depository libraries that select large amounts of documents in microfiche will cause those libraries to appear to have few documents ac- quisitions, when in fact, their microform documents holdings are large. The error lies not with a high microform count, for this truly reflects a library’s microform holdings. The problem is that the true number of government documents received and held by the library is misrepresented, thereby rendering the government documents statistics presented by the HEGIS survey suspect. The unreliability of the HEGIS numbers makes them worthless for documents planning purposes.

DEPOSITORIES

The Government Documents Round Table (GODORT) of the American Library Associa- tion has recognized the need for better statistical representation of government documents. GODORT’s Statistical Interest Group and its successor, the Statistics Task Force, have worked to bring the needs of documents librarianship to the attention of the American Na- tional Standards Institute (ANSI) [4]. GODORT’s interest in the American Library Associa- tion’s Standards Committee on Library Work, Documentation and Related Publishing Prac- tices’ efforts to revise the standards for library statistics (ANSI 239) is laudable. This effort assured that ALA planners gave attention to the concerns of documents librarians. The resultant proposals for revision of ANSI 239.7 may be thorough and relevant but are not practical, for they do not represent the statistical means and needs of the average documents librarian. Why would depository librarians who heretofore have not seen the utility in keep- ing statistics accede to maintaining the comprehensive detailed records that ANSI requires?

ANSI standard 239.7 is a goal for which the documents community should strive. There is also no doubt that statistics, while having no intrinsic worth, are valuable resources in their application. Documents librarians can learn much about their collection, their library, and their own judgment by analyzing and applying statistical data to a problem. Likewise, much can be learned about documents librarianship through the aggregate and comparative analysis of various libraries. To do this, however, the numerical data must be com- patible- the same things have to be counted, and they must be counted in the same manner. For instance, the Association of Research Libraries, in reporting its documents statistics, counts only those documents that are catalogued. The principle of standardization offered by ANSI 239.7 should serve as a model for coordinating the statistic gathering and reporting activities of all GPO depositories.

For depositories themselves, the statistical information could serve various purposes. It can be safely assumed that all depositories should want to know many of the same things about themselves. Some will want to know more than others. Those that desire more data can accomplish this within local guidelines or within a national standard such as ANSI of- fers. But at the present time it is imperative that attention be turned to those statistics that are vital for al1 depositories-statistics that GPO should also need for its own decision mak- ing for the depository system, and data that depository libraries should find useful for com- parative purposes. For a single depository to plan for its own immediate and long-term needs, or for groups of depositories to plan cooperatively in areas of collection development, document delivery, or within the context of a regional or state documents plan, there must be at least minimal compatible statistical data to serve as a baseline from which to proceed.

The concept of cooperative planning within individual states by agencies and institutions

Minimum uniform statistical reporting standards 197

that provide access to government information has been endorsed by the GPO [5]. Conse- quently, there has been a recent proliferation of GPO-sanctioned state plans. Few, if any, state plans propose the need or method for data collection or use of statistical data in the planning process. It is incomprehensible that either the GPO or cooperating libraries could expect to make any meaningful progress through a state plan without having a quantitative sense of the present state of affairs. Without statistical standards, state plans become nothing more than an exercise in communication, description of the status quo, or statement of goals-each of which is laudable. However, without statistical data indicating the status quo, there can be no empirical measure of accomplishment of stated goals or the suc- cess of implemented programs. Nor can there be adequate information to monitor continu- ing efforts or programs without a mechanism by which statistics are regularly collected and reported. There must be data to measure success or failure. Few administrators (local, state, or GPO) are likely to commit support, financial, political, or otherwise, to programs which offer no more than enthusiasm or applause on their own behalf. One wonders if the chronic lament of the documents librarian about the documents collection being a second class con- cern, too often shunted to the deepest bowels of the library, receiving little staff and budget support, is not due in part to the paucity of statistical evidence available to argue convinc- ingly that other treatment is warranted.

THE U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

It is hoped that the GPO will recognize its vested interest in establishing, and requiring, that depository libraries keep uniformly reliable statistics reflecting their depository obliga- tions. Not only will such statistical data be useful to the GPO in assessing the performance of the various depositories, it will also serve to help GPO in its own planning of internal opera- tions for the depository community.

It is obvious that GPO has not put a high priority on the collection of statistics that will in- dicate how a depository is performing or can be used to postulate the depository’s future needs. Present data collected by GPO has been gathered biannually through a survey that it is required by law [6]. However, Title 44 of the U.S. Code does not stipulate specific data elements to be included in the survey. The instructions for GPO’s most recent biannual survey [7] accutely suggest that GPO is not administratively cognizant of what statistics it is able to collect via its own inhouse monitoring or what statistics it needs for planning in regard to the nearly 1400 depositories in its system. The methodology chosen by GPO for depositories to sample use levels on progressively succeeding weekdays during five successive weeks during the summer of 1983 clearly indicates that the survey designers did not realize that depositories at many academic institutions (over half of the depositories are at colleges or universities) would show dramatically reduced use over this period. When depository librarians brought this to the attention of GPO, it relented. GPO then requested that the sampling be taken during September, even though many academic institutions do not begin classes until mid-September. Likewise, at most academic institutions much document use is reflected by class assignment patterns. Therefore, in September, use levels will be low in comparison to use of depository materials later in the term. Also ignored by GPO was the fact that many depository libraries are open on weekends, and may, indeed, experience heavier use than on weekdays. Public library patrons stop at the library after doing weekend shopping or merely because they are freed from the constraints of the eight-hour workday, while at academic libraries students use the two-day respite from classes to do research assigned during the week.

Also potentially skewing the data collected is GPO’s use of one of the months of August,

198 BRUCEMORTON

September, or October (by virtue of a survey return deadline of 15 November and an August annou~cemcnt) for its processing sample. The flow of material to depositories is detcrmincd by what is received at GPO at any given time. It is therefore possible that depositories not selecting item classes corresponding to material incoming during the sample month (e.g., a depository not selecting items 624-H, U.S.G.S. Open File Reports and/or JPRS or FBIS series which arrive in large batches) would appear to process fewer titles than a depository that selected these series and received them during the sampling month. Over the period of a year, however, the total material processed may well be almost the same for both depositories.

GPO will have data to analyze as a result of this survey, but it will be badly skewed due to poor sampling. It is this data that GPO will supposedly be using for its planning purposes. The data, in fact, will be useless. The only way to avoid the sampling problems imposed by a system comprised of such a diverse group of libraries is to require an annual statistical report, thereby circumventing idiosyncracies of calendar.

Historically, it has been the GPO’s introspectiveness, focusing primarily on its inhouse planning needs and failing to adequately consider the need of depository libraries, that has led to less than desirable results in many undertakings involving coordination between the Library Programs Service division and depository libraries. A testimony to the inadequacy of the survey and its sampling method is that two months after the deadline for return of the survey to GPO, 250 depositories out of the approximately 1400 depositories had not yet responded [8].

A MODEST PROPOSAL

1. The GPO should require its depository libraries to collect certain prescribed statistics. A uniform reporting format supplied by GPO should be returned to the Head, Library Pro- grams Service on an annual basis. An annual reporting cycle for statistics will serve to ensure that random samples are not skewed by schedules or calendars idiosyncratic to particular libraries or institutions.

2. Depositories should record all statistics daily. Monthly totals will allow libraries to ac- curately report for various calendars. For instance, HEGIS wants totals for the reporting institution’s fiscal year for any 1Zmonth period between 1 June 1981 and 30 September 1982, while GPO may require a count corresponding to the federal government’s fiscal year (1 October through 30 September), or a library may be required to report based on either a traditional municipal or academic fiscal year (1 July through 30 June), or for some reason on the basis of the traditional 1 January to 31 December calendar. In any case, monthly tallies will allow easy adjustment to whatever the reporting demands hap- pen to be.

3. A standard reporting mechanism should be developed that allows for expansion by GPO in the future without disrupting the integrity or utility of statistics computed in the past. The reporting mechanism should also allow for insertion of statistics needed for local purposes without disrupting the computation of standard statistical categories.

The sample format suggested below is offered for its concept, not content. The design allows for expansion, e.g., a 300 series to be developed by a library wishing to count govern- ment audio or visual materials; or for expansion as a subheading of an existing data element, e.g., 570 might be inserted as “total items offered by GPO,” 575 might be “total items taken by library,” and 578 “total percentage of items offered taken by library.” To the degree possi- ble, parameters should adhere to ANSI 239.7.

Minimum uniform statistical reporting standards

Figure 1. Selected Depository Statistics

199

11. Microfiche documents profile: 210. Non-deoository rackets of fiche added to collection for year. .

215.

220.

225.

230.

235.

240.

245.

250.

255.

260.

265.

(count each packet as one regardless of how many fiche it contains; include fiche received as gifts or pur- chased) Non-depository pieces of fiche added to collection for year. (count each single piece of microfiche as one) Depository packets of fiche added to collection for year. (count each packet as one regardless of how many fiche it contains; include only fiche received as result of GPO item class subscription; count all added regardless as to whether they will be replaced by succession or not, e.g., PRF fiche) Depository pieces of fiche added to collection for year. (count each single piece of microfiche as one; count all added regardless of whether it will be withdrawn because superceded by updated material, e.g., PRF fiche) Total microfiche packets added to collection for year. I210 + 220) Total microfiche added to collection for year. [215 + 2251 Total microfiche packets withdrawn from collection for year. (count each envelope of fiche regardless of how many fiche contained in it) Total microfiche withdrawn from collection for year. (count each single piece of fiche as one) Net microfiche packet growth of collection for year. [230 - 2401 Net microfiche growth of collection for year. [235 - 2451 Total microfiche packets in collection. [250 + 260 from last year’s report] Total microfiche in collection. [255 + 265 from last year’s report]

I. Paper documents profile: 110. Non-depository paper documents added for year.

(count all paper non-depository documents whether special order or gift-count each physical piece as one) 120. Depository paper documents added for year.

(count all paper documents added via depository item class subscription- count each physical piece as one; count even material, e.g., slips, that will later be succeeded by bound volumes or updated editions)

130. Total paper documents added to collection for year. [llO + 1201

140. Paper documents withdrawn from collection during year. (count each physical piece as one)

150. Net annual paper document growth. [130 - 1401

160. Total paper documents in collection. [150 + last year’s 1601

IV. Total collection profile: 430. Total documents received for year.

[I30 + 2301 440. Total documents withdrawn for year.

[I40 + 2401 450. Net collection growth for year.

[150 + 2501 460. Total documents in collection.

[450 + 460 from last year’s report] V. GPO item class orofile:

510. Item classes added for year.

520.

530.

(count each single item class number added to active item list as one; items offering breakdown by states, e.g.; 156-B-1 to 53, should be counted as 53 separate items) Item classes rejected for year. (count each single item class number rejected on a survey as one. Items offering breakdown by states, e.g., 156-B-1 to 53, should be counted as 53 separate items) Item classes deleted for year. (count each item class number removed from the active item list because it was no longer desired by the library)

200 BRUCE MORTON

540.

560.

580.

Item classes discontinued for year. (count each item class number removed from the active item list because the GPO has discontinued it) Net active item list growth for year. [510 - (530 + 540)] Percentage of items added/items offered for year. [510 - (510 + SZO)] ^..

VI. Document use protlle: 610. Circulation for year.

(if the library has an institutional affiliation, count here only users affiliated with that institution; if the

library is a public library, record all circulation here) 620. Other circulation for year.

(if the library is an institutionally affiliated library, count circulation to borrowers not affiliated with that institution; if no such distinction is made, leave blank and merely report 610)

630. Total circulation for year. [610 + 6201

640. Microfiche use for year. (count each packet/fiche refiled as one use; presumes that microfiche do not circulate)

660. Total documents use for year. [630 + 6401

VIII. Staff support profile: (count in decimals, 40 hrs support = 1, 4 hrs support = .l, I hr support = ,025)

810. Professional staff per week. 820. Non-professional staff per week.

(do not count student assistants) 830. Student assistants per week. 860. Total staff per week.

[810 + 820 + 8301 IX. Materiel suouort orofile.

910. Shelvin’g’avaiiable for documents.

920.

930. 940. 950.

(give linear feet count of all shelving available for documents, not just shelving occupied) Microfiche cabinets available for documents. (count each drawer as ,125, therefore one 8-drawer cabinet = I) Microfiche readers available for documents use. Microfiche to paper printers available for documents use. Microfiche to microfiche copiers available for documents use.

SUMMARY

Let us not deceive ourselves. The current statistical landscape in the world of government documents is absolutely abysmal. This unfortunate situation is the result of years of neglect. Documents librarians have neglected to develop the management skills that would make ap- parent the value of statistical data for planning and reporting. One cannot but surmise that the jeremiad to the effect that documents librarians and collections receive administrative short shrift which consistently echoes forth at meetings of documents librarians is not in some way related to the inability of the documents librarian and documents community to forcefully and empirically describe their needs, goals, objectives, and aspirations. With regard to statistics, the case is usually-“them that has, gets!” However, the documents librarian cannot offer a contrite mea culpa and be done with roots of the problem. The U.S. Government Printing Office, too, must bear part of the blame. GPO is in a leadership posi- tion by virtue of its functional relationship to the depository library. In the matter of statistical representation of the enterprise in which it and some 1400 libraries are engaged, it has failed to exercise itself in a leadership role.

Documents librarianship, as a consequence, finds itself a victim of a conspiracy of cir- cumstance, the net effect of which has been to drastically reduce the effectiveness of the documents librarian as a manager and planner, and to stymie the capability of GPO to con- tinually develop the depository library system to its greatest potential. To deny that the prob- lem exists is to add a debilitating fourth lie in place of those already mentioned in the adage: “There are three kinds of lies. Lies, damned lies, and statistics.” If someone will insist that

Minimum uniform statistical reporting standards 201

there is no problem in the statistical terrain of documents librarianship, fine I say. Prove it. Show me the numbers. What are the microfiche acquisition to microfiche use ratios at depositories located at academic institutions of 2500 students or less? What types and sizes of depositories are taking 25%, 75% of their depository documents in microfiche? Is there any correlation between reliance on microfiche and percentage of classes selected? What amounts of paper and microfiche documents are withdrawn by depositories annually by type of library, by geographic region and/or state, by size of academic institution, etc.? One could go on and on. The question remains: Shall we go on and on and on to countless more instances?

PROGRESS NOTE

At the meeting of ALA/GODORT’s Statistics Task Force at the 1984 mid-winter ALA meeting in Washington, D.C., the gist of the argument herein presented was put before task force members in attendance. The task force has decided to proceed toward producing a minimum uniform reporting standard. The Superintendent of Documents has endorsed, in principle, the concept and has appointed a GPO staff member as a liaison for the project. It was the hope of the Statistics Task Force that such a standard reporting mechanism could be developed that would be easily integrated into future GPO statistical surveys of depository libraries, yet, at the same time, allow depositories that must keep more sophisticated statistics to do so within the same framework. One is encouraged by the willingness of GODORT members and the Superintendent of Documents to pursue, finally, the goal of statistical uniformity, compatibility, and utility.

All documents librarians should invest their time and effort to assure that the efforts of GODORT’s Statistics Task Force and the Superintendent of Documents are successful in this enterprise. The result may mean more demands on staff in tabulating the required statistics, but the return on the time and effort invested could be high for the individual documents department, the depository library community, and for the U.S. Government Printing Office.

NOTES AND REFERENCES

1. See Harleston, Rebekah M., and Stoffle, Carla J. Administration of Government Documents Collections. Lit- tleton, CO: Libraries Unlimited, 1974, pp. 90-92. The predecessor to Harleston and Stoffle’s text, Atme Ethelyn Markley’s Library Records for Governmen! Pubkztions (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1951) makes no tnention whatsoever of the keeping of statistics.

2. Nakata, Yuri. Press to People: Collecting and Using U.S. Government Publications. Chicago: American Library Association, 1979, p. 144. Only one short paragraph is devoted to some passing remarks on statistics in what is otherwise a generally thorough and thought provoking study.

3. U.S. Department of Education, “Higher Education General Information Survey: College and University Libraries, Fall 1982.” ED (NCES) Form 2300-5, 4/82.

4. See GODORT Statistics Interest Group, “Statistics Guidelitles for Goverlllnetit Documents Librarians.” Revised draft 20 July 1981. Documents to the People, 9 (November 1981): 279-84.

5. See letter from C.A. LaBarre, Superintendent of Documents, to Mrs. Patricia E. Klinck, Chairperson-Chief Of- ficers of State Library Agencies, dated 1 October 1981: “. . it [GPO] is encouraging the development of State plans for federal depository libraries in the various states. . State plans are encouraged by GPO as a modern, and potentially cost-saving, means of improving public access to Government documents, irt accordance with the intent of Title 44 [of the U.S. Code]. I will appreeiate COSLA’s cooperation in enabling state plans to be generated. I would also encourage states that already have comprehensive plans for statewide library service to include access to Government publications as part of these plans.” A copy of this letter was sent to all depository libraries as an attachment to Administrative Notes 2 (October 1981). On the first page of the Adminisfrutive Nofes the Public Printer is quoted, “We wish to go on record as encouraging depositories in states that have need of such plans to undertake them.”

6. See Titfe 44, Un~fed~tufes Code, chapter 19, section 1909. “The designated depository libraries shall report to the Superinteildent of Documents at least every two years concerning their condition.”

202 BRUCE MORTON

7. See Administrative Notes 4 (August 1983): 4-8. Preceded by Administrative Notes 4 (June 1983): 2, 4-6. 8. One page note attached to a shipping list, requesting depositories that have not responded to the biennial survey

questionnaire to do so by 25 December 1983 or they “will not be included in computer generated statistical evaluations.” A list of 250 non-responding depositories is included.