ED 082 762

TITLE

INSTITUTIONPUB DATENOTEAVAILABLE FROM

DOCUMENT RESUME

LI 004 483

Review of Federal Library Operations in MetropolitanWashingtonComptroller General of the U.S., Washington, D.C.24 Jul 7347p.; (14 references) ; Report to the CongressU.S. General Accounting Office, Rm. 6417, 441 G St.,N.W., Washington, D.C. 20548 (B-174013; $1.00)

EDRS PRICE MF-$0.65, HC-$3.29DESCRIPTORS Centralization; Copyrights; Federal Government;

*Government Libraries; Library Acquisition; LibraryCollections; Library Cooperation; Library Programs;Management; Microforms; Special Libraries

IDENTIFIERS *District of Columbia

ABSTRACTThe General Accounting Office reviewed Federal

libraries, i.e., executive agency libraries, in MetropolitanWashington to identify problems common to the libraries and todetermine how they are being handled. The review revealed that: acentral de ository could provide numerous benefits; microforms arenot used substantially; central direction is required for researchprojects; cooperative arrangements for acquiring materials have notbeen entered into by Federal libraries; and, Federal libraries havenot integrated their services which has resulted in duplication,conflicts and reduced efficiency. It is recommended that the Officeof Management and Budget (OMB) should be more active in encouragingimproved management and coordination of Federal library activities.Specifically, OMB should initiate a cost-benefit study to determinethe feasibility of establishing a central depository for Federallibraries and should develop policies and plans to: encourage the useof microform publications or other methods of compacting librarymaterials; coordinate library research; encourage cooperation amonglibraries to minimize multiple acquisitions of materials; and,encourage the integration of Federal agency information systems.(Author/SJ)

I) ST1%4\ -

FILMED FROM BEST AVAILABLE COPY

REPORT TO THE CONGRESS.

IS DIPAPIMUNT OF HI, ALTN,101.1cAtiON A WELVAI4ENATIONAL INSTITUT OF

F,OL.'7.ATIONrI., (1(11 1 N IA P

Dt1( Ti I I. P. SI r f

Ti( (),..ra,4i/,'. N (,(.1N

!A 1 1)1) ..01S I N ' C't ,C IAt .15,

Review Of Federal LibraryOperations InMetropolitan Washington B-174013

BY THE COMPTROLLER GENERALOF THE UNITED STATES

JULY 24, 197'3

COMPTROLLER GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATESWASHINGTON. D.C. 20848

B-174013

To the President of the Senate and theSpeaker of the House of Representatives

We have reviewed Federal library operations in MetropolitanWashington.

We made our review pursuant to the Budget and AccountingAct, 1921 (31 U.S.C. 53), and the Accounting and Auditing Act of1950 (31 U.S.C. 67).

Copies of this report are being sent to the Director, Officeof. Management and Budget.

Comptroller Generalof the United States

ContentsPage

DIGEST 1

CHAPTER

1 INTRODUCTION

2 NEED FOR IMPROVED MANAGEMENT OF FEDERALLIBRARIES 7

The historic need for improved manage-ment of libraries 7

Advisory groups not effective in provid-ing library management leadership 9

Conclusion 10

Recommendation to the Director, OMB 10

Agency comments 11

3 NEED TO CONSIDER CENTRAL STORAGE FORLITTLE-USED MATERIALS 12

Need for a central depository 12

Non-Federal central depositories 13Age and use of Federal librarymaterials 15

Benefits of a central depository 16

Conclusions 18

Agency comments 18

Recommendation to the Director, OMB 18

4 OPPORTUNITIES FOR OTHER IMPROVEMENTS INFEDERAL LIBRARY OPERATIONS 19Microform publications 19

. Coordination of research on libraryoperations 22

Cooperation in acquiring materials 25Integration of Federal agency infor-mation systems 28

' Conclusions 31

Recommendations to the Director, OMB 31Agency comments 32

5 THE COPYRIGHT ISSUE IN MAKING LIBRARYSERVICES AVAILABLE 33

CHAPTER Page

6 SCOPE OF REVIEW 35

APPENDIX

I GAO library questionnaire returns 37

II Letter dated February 13, 1973, from theAssistant Director, Office of Managementand Budget, to the 'General AccountingOffice

III Letter dated January 12, 1973, from theExecutiVe Secretary of the FederalLibrary Committee to the General Account-ing Office

IV Principal officials of the Office ofManagement and Budget responsiblefor the. administration of activitiesdiscussed in this report

ABBREVIATIONS

FLC Federal Library Committee

GAO General Accounting Office

GSA General Services Administration

OMB Office of Management and Budget

38

42

44

COMPTROLLER GENERAL'S REVIEW OF FEDERAL LIBRARY OPERATIONSREPORT TO THE CONGRESS

DIGEST

WHY THE REVIEW WAS MADE

Increasing population, risingeducational levels, and theexplosive growth of recordedknowledge have greatly increaseddemands on Federal librariesfor information services. Fiscalyear 1970 expenditures for Federalagency library operations have beenestimated to exceed $128 million.

GAO reviewed Federal libraries inMetropolitan Washington to iden-tify problems common to thelibraries and to determine howthey were being dealt with."Federal libraries," as usedthroughout this report, refersonly to executive agency libraries.

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

Federal libraries have commonproblems, such as housing theirexpanding collections and obtain-ing equipment. Federal librariesalso engage in common activities,such as cataloging, storing, andretrieving books and other mate-rials. These commonalities affordvarious opportunities for improvedmanagement and coordination ofFederal library activities.

Vie need for improved managemento4:_ Federal libraries has long beenwidely recognized; it was ex-Pressed in 1898 by the Librarianof Congress, in 1937 by the Ameri-can Library Association, and in1963 by the Brookings Institution.

Tear Sheet. Upon removal, the reportcover date should be noted hereon.

IN METROPOLITAN WASHINGTON B-174013

Library advisory groups, such asthe Federal Library Committee,meet some needs of the Federallibraries, such as developing pro-posals for research projects. TheCommittee, however, has not maderecommendations to OMB because ithas encountered difficulty in reach-ing decisions on proposed recommen-dations which certain members didnot consider to be in the interestof their agency libraries.

The libraries are managed primarilythrough the direction of their re-spective agency heads and the cen-tral direction of the Office ofManagement and Budget (0MB). Im-

provement in administering Federallibrary operations requires a moreactive role by 0MB in the manage-ment of libraries. (See pp. 7to 11.)

In the metropolitan area:

--A central depository for little-used materials could result insubstantially reducing spacecosts, eliminating duplicatecopies of materials, and post-poning or eliminating the needfor additional library facili-ties and could provide otherbenefits. (See pp. 12 to 18.)

--Federal libraries were not sub-stantially using microform publi-cations although they generallycost less than hardcopy and arecheaper to reproduce and ship.Lack of funds to obtain equip-ment, lack of equipment standards,

and resistance by library usersappear to hinder wider use of suchpublications. (See, pp. 19 to 22.)

--Central direction is needed tocoordinate the selection of re-search projects, to provide a cen-tral collection point for informa-tion on ongoing and completedresearch, and to determine theextent to which Federal librariesshould implement research recom-mendations. (See pp. 22 to 24.)

- -Federal libraries have onlyinfrequently entered intocooperative agreements foracquiring library materials.In contrast, non-Federal librarieshave entered into such agreementsto reduce overall costs. GAObelieves that opportunities forsimilar agreements exist forFederal libraries. (See pp. 24to 27.)

-Federal libraries and their otherinformation systems are not in-tegrated. This results induplication of effort, conflicts,and diminished efficiency of thetotal information system. (See

pp. 28 to 31.)

RECOMMENDATIONS

OMB should be more active inencouraging improved managementand coordination of Fi,ederallibrary activities. Specifically,OMB should initiate a cost-benefit study to determine thefeasibility of establishing acentral depository for Federallibraries and should developpolicies and plans to:

- -Encourage the use of microform

2

publications or other methods ofcompacting lihrary materials.

--Coordinate library research.

--Encourage cooperation amonglibraries to minimize multipleacquisitions of materials.

--Encourage the integration of Fed-eral agency information systems.(See pp. 19, 18, and 31.)

AGENCY ACTIONS AND UNRESOLVED ISSUES

According to OMB, the report does animportant service by highlightingseveral library management problems.OMB commented that the FederalLibrary Committee is handling or canhandle most of the recommendationsand that OMB would work closelywith the Committee. OMR, however,expressed some apprehension aboutintruding into the routine manage-ment of the individual agencylibraries with respect to some ofGAO's recommendations. (See

app. III.)

G40 believes that the Committee has ,

limited capability--no statutorystatus, no authority, and no per-sonnel other than an ExecutiveSecretariat--to effect anymeaningful action without OIR'sactive support. G40 believesfurther that the matters in thisreport relate to broad managementpolicies and procedures whichtranscend routine management ofindividual agency libraries.

The Committee said that it wouldwelcome the opportunity to reviewthe need for a central depositoryand that its current work programincluded projects directed toward

the other GAO recommendations.(See app. IV.)

MATTERS FOR. CONSIDERATIONBY THE CONGRESS

The report presents opportunitiesfor more economically and ef-ficiently managing Federallibraries;

IraLame3

It also invites congressionalattention to the copyright issueas it pertains to libraries.Pending copyright litigation couldsignificantly affect the presentunrestricted reproduction ofinformation by libraries. Recentcongressional efforts to revisecopyright legislation have notbeen successful. (See pp. 33and 34.)

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

Federal libraries, with their reservoirs of referenceinformation, are vital to Government agencies in developingpolicieS, planning programs, and improving operations."Federal libraries," as used throughout this report, refersonly to executive agency libraries.

Increasing population, rising educational levels, andthe explosive growth of recorded knowledge, over the pastfew decades, have greatly increased demands on Federal li-braries for information services.

Generally Federal libraries have been created throughformal-authorization within the agencies, such as adminis-trative orders citing the need to collect and disseminateinformation: Only the National Library of Medicine in theDepartment of Health, Education, and Welfare was created byspecific legislation.

Library literature states that the Federal librarystructure is the outgrowth of many independently formedlibraries. Special research efforts have provided an over-all view of Federal libraries from time to time. Recentbroad-scale library reviews have included:

--A survey, begun in 1959, by the Brookings Institutionunder a grant from the Council on Library Resources.The institution's report was published in 1963.

--A study, begun in 1966, by the National Advisory-Commission on Libraries.. The Commission's reportwas published in 1963.

A report on a study by Markuson and othersl estimatedthat there were about 2,500 Federal libraries in 1971 andthat their fiscal year 1970 operating expenditures exceeded$128 million.; The report was based on data from 964 replies

1

Barbara Evans Markuson and others, "Automation and theFederal Library Community." Falls Church, Virginia, SystemDevelopment Corporation, July 1971.

5

to a survey questionnaire sent to the more than 2,000libraries listed in the "Roster of Federal Libraries."1It showed that of the 964 libraries:

--52 percent were technical or special libraries whoseinterests included such subjects as law, physics,chemistry, and electronics.

--34 percent were similar to public'libraries and pro-vided general and recreational materials to militarypersonnel, their dependents, and hospitalizedveterans.

--17 percent were school libraries, primarily overseas,for kindergarten, grade school, and high school.

--60 percent of the libraries were in the continentalUnited States and about 14 percent were in Washing-ton, D.C.; Virginia; and Maryland.

Budgeted operating costs for fiscal year 1972 totaled$49.4 million for 136 Federal libraries in MetropolitanWashington which furnished budgetary data in response toour questionnaire. (See app. I.). Of this amount, $26 mil-lion was budgeted by the Department of Agriculture for theNational Agricultural Library and the Department of Health,Education, and Welfare for the National Library of Medicine.

Officials of the Office of Management and Budget respon-sible for the administration of activities discussed in thisreport are listed in appendix II. Mr. L. Quincy Mumford hasserved as Chairman of the Federal Library Committee since itsinception in 1965.

Mildred Benton and Signe Ottersen, "Roster of Federal Li-.

braries." Washington, D.C., The George Washington UniVer-sity, October 1970.

CHAPTER 2

NEED FOR IMPROVED MANAGEMENT OF FEDERAL LIBRARIES

Federal libraries are managed primarily through thedirection of agency heads and OMB's central direction. Thischapter deals with the need for OMB to strengthen its rolein the management of libraries.

OMB functions include (1) assisting in developing effi-cient coordinating mechanisms to implement Government activ-ities and to expand, interagency cooperation and (2) promot-ing the development of improved administrative managementplans and advising executive agencies on improved adminis-trative organization and practice. OMB exercises its centralmanagement authority over activities s -fr as library serv-ices principally by reviewing agencies'.b6 dgets and issuingmanagement instructions which are bind4g on the agencies.

THE HISTORIC NEED FORIMPROVED MANAGEMENT OF LIBRARIES

The need for improved management of Federal librarieshas been recognized for many years. In 1898 the Librarianof Congress expressed such a need.

In 1937 an American Library Association report recom-mended the establishment of a Federal library council whichwould have a close relationship with the agency now desig-nated as OMB. The report foresaw numerous areas of libraryoperations which could benefit from a council's studies andrecommendations. It stated that:

"The Council's functions would include advice onsuch matters as the determination of the fieldsof subject interest in the book collections ofthe various libraries, the formulation of bookselection policies, the finding of satisfactorysolutions to administrative and technical prob-lems connected with library buildings andequipment, cataloging and classification, staffrecruitment, establishment of new libraries orthe consolidation of existing libraries."

7

The report concluded that a council could help eliminateunnecessary duplicate services, create library developmentpolicies, and increase administrative efficiency.

In November 1963 the Brookings Institution published areport on a survey and conference on Federal departmentallibraries.1 The report observed that:

"The present organization and management ofdepartmental libraries is, to a considerableextent, an outgrowth of their adventitious de-velopment. Libraries were established withoutany clear specification of their functions,materials to be collected, cataloging controlsto be employed, and the principles which shouldgovern their services. These matters were workedout on an ad hoc basis mainly by the librariansin response to their changing situations."

The report included a number of recommendations to agencyheads and librarians, such 'as:

-Formulate a clear statement of a library's scope andmission.

-Inform agency staff regularly of library resources,services, and nev material of special. interest.

-Establish a Federal library journal to improve com-munication among librarians.

Further, the report recommended that 0MB

"establish a Federal Library Council * * * toconduct and foster studies, and to advise onpolicies and action needed for more effectivelibrary service."

In 1965 the Library of Congress and several Federal agencieswith 0MB cooperation formed the council, known as the .FederalLibrary Committee (FLC). FLC has no statutory status, no au-thority, and no personnel other than an Executive Secretariat.

'Harold Orlans, ed., "Federal Departmental Libraries." By

Luther Evans and others. Washington, Brookings Institution,1963.

In an article on FLC, published in 1970,1 theAdministrative Assistant to the Librarian of Congress statedthat there was a general understanding when PLC was formedthat OMB would use PLC recommendations as a basis for issuinginstructions to Federal agencies for improving their libraryoperations. At FLC's first meeting its Chairman stressedthe advisory'role of FLC, noted that FLC recommendationscould 'not bind a particular department, and indicated anintention to seek 0M3 advice on :the most appropriate waysof submitting recommendations to OMB. The FLC ExecutiveSecretary informed us that PLC-has not sought this adviceand that FLC had submitted,, ,wily one recommendation to OMB.

OMB, however, is not restricted to FLC as a source ofrecommendations for library management. The National Com-mission on Libraries and Information Science is anothersource.

ADVISORY GROUPS NOT EFFECTIVE IN PROVIDINGLIBRARY MANAGEMENT LEADERSHIP

FLC and the National Commission on Libraries and Infor-mation Science may meet certain Federal library needs. Forexample, FLC arranges monthly meetings to enable Federallibrarians to exchange information and discuss problems.It also has informed librarians of research projects theymight undertake and has developed proposals for such projects,which include the locations of sponsors to finance the re-search.

FLC members also manage agency libraries. FLC has notmade recommendations to OMB, because it has encountered dif-ficulty reaching decisions on proposed recommendations whichcertain members did not consider to be in the interests oftheir agency libraries. For example, FLC has not been ableto agree on the need for or desirability of a central deposi-tory.

'Marlene Morrisey, "Historical Development and Organizationof the Federal Library Committee." Drexel library Quarterly,Vol. 6, July-October 1970.

9

I

In a letter to us dated May 12, 1972, Alan M. Rees,Professor of Library Science, Case Western Reserve Univer-sity, stated that:

"The present 'illness' affecting Federal librar-ies is not paucity of problem solving abilitybut rather the lack of a mechanism to launch aconcerted attack on the problems."

Bernard M. Fry, Dean of the Graduate Library School,Indiana University, in a letter to us, dated June 8, 1972,noted that:

"For at least the past decade it has becomecommonplace to consider that each library shouldbe able to access and utilize the resources ofother libraries. Careful attention needs to begiven to factors essential to orderly developmentand operation of library resource programs whichwould take into account the avoidance of needlessduplication of expensive materials."

Professor Rees and Dean Fry volunteered almost identicalviews on FLC and its relationship to OMB. They said FLC hadachieved consensus on programs with broad-appeal, but thatFLC would have been more effective in providing coordinationand overall planning for Federal libraries if it were withinOMB and therefore had decisionmaking authority.

According to an OMB official Federal libraries are oneof the few functional areas which have not yet come underintensive OMB management review. He stated that OMB desiresto explore methods of providing central management policy forthe Federal libraries.

CONCLUSION

The foregoing considerations and the matters relating tolibrary operations, as discussed in the next two chapters,show that improved management of Federal libraries would pro-mote their' economical and effective administration.

RECOMMENDATION TO THE DIRECTOR, OMB

We recommend that the OMB be more active in encouragingimproved management and coordination of Federal library

10

activities and that it consider, among its initial actions,implementing the recommendations in the next two chapters onspecific matters relating to libraries.

AGENCY COMMENTS

OMB, by letter dated February 13, 1973 (see app. III),stated that encouraging improved management and coordinationof executive branch activities is an important part of, itsrole and that it plans to help FLC deal with more meaningfulproblems.

According to OMB, FLC could handle, or was alreadyhandling, our general recommendation above and most of thespecific recommendations on page 31. We believe that FLCcannot effect any meaningful action without OMB's support.

OMB also referred to its institutional role, notingthat it would be undesirable to interpose itself routinelyin any management function undertaken in the many agencies.We believe that the matters discussed in chapters 3 and 4relate to broad management policies and procedures whichtranscend the routine management of individual librariesand, in our opinion, are OMB's responsibility.

11

CHAPTER 3

NEED TO CONSIDER CENTRAL STORAGEf.

FOR LITTLE-USED MATERIALS

Federal libraries, partly becausr of their need tcstore valuable but infrequently used materials, sooner orlater outgrow their available storage.space. The Federallibrary storage problem in Metropolitan Washington couldbe solved by establishing a central depository for storinglittle-used materials. Such a depository could result insubstantially reducing annual space costs and in providingother benefits, such as eliminating duplicate copies ofmaterial and postponing or eliminating the need for additionalfacilities,

NEED FOR A CENTRAL DEPOSITORY

In addition to reducing space costs, a central depositorycould improve libraries' technical operations. For example:

--Without a central depository, little-used but valuablematerials may be weeded out of collections, discarded,and permanently lost.

--Members of a depository can purchase and share expen-sive or specialized reference materials.

The Brookings Institution report proposed central storagefor Federal libraries.' Since then at least one Federallibrarian has, from time to time, raised the central storageissue with FLC. No plan, however, has been adopted to estab-lish such a depository.

Our discussions with 44 Federal librarians in themetropolitan area revealed that 16 libraries had no space toaccommodate growth, 18 had space-to accommodate growth of5 years or less, and 10 had no space problems.

Federal librarians have proposed significant expendituresfor additional facilities. Two have each proposed $15 millionexpansions and another-has proposed rehabilitating an adjacentbuilding for $4.7 million. :Other Federal librarians are alsoconsiderinwexpansions.

lOrlans, op. cit.

12

Prominent librarians and information specialists havenoted the efforts of librarians to build large and uniquecollections of materials. The director of a national librarywhich grants funds to other libraries for improving theirservices commented in March 1971 on building collections, asfollows:

"Between 1965 and 1970, we awarded $44,500,000 ingrants to more than 300 libraries throughout thecountry. I have recently analyzed the utiliza-tion of these funds by these libraries. You haveto appreciate that a grant, once awarded, isreally no longer tightly controlled by the grant-ing agency, and the monies can be used in accord-ance with local needs. * * * more than 50 percentof these funds were used by libraries for build-ing collections. That, I think, is real evidencefor the concern expressed here that everybodywants to have a bigger collection."

NON-FEDERAL CENTRAL DEPOSITORIES

Since the late 1930s, when central depositories origi-nated, there has been greater pressure for, and progresstoward, formal arrangements for sharing library resources.Of the 23 central depositories for libraries operated byacademic groups, 20 were established after 1960. Thesedepositories offer centralized storage and related servicesto members.

We visited the Center.for Research Libraries in Chicago,interviewed its director, toured the center, and discussedits services with the librarians of four members.

The center, a nonprofit central depository, was estab-lished in 1949 to provide its eight original members withaccess to low-use materials. Its director informed us thatin December 1971 the center had 66 members and was consider-ing additional membership applications. The center's membersare located in the United States and Canada and represent adiverse group of public and private organizations.

The center's collection has grown from about 500,000volumes to more than 3,000,000 volumes. Members contributetheir old, low-use materials to the center, and the center

13

has purchased additional materials, such as newspaper backfiles and German monographs published before 1601. Thematerials are stored in a six-story warehouse-type structurewith temperature and humidity controls on each level; Thedirector explained that the center can store different typesof material under different conditions. For example, micro-form publications require cooler than normal temperatures.

Center materials may be borrowed by a member and gener-ally kept as long as needed. Libraries request materials

, from the center by telephone or other communication methods.The center usually fills requests on the day that they arereceived. The requesting library, which may be located aconsiderable distance from the center, usually receives thematerials within 3 to 4 days, depending on the mode of de-livery.

The center's director informed us that the time.requiredto physically transfer' requested materials was-one of thecenter's major problems. He said, however, that the centerwas meeting members' needs and showed us commendatory lettersfrom members in California and Western Canada. We visiteda librarian in Indiana and three in Illinois who were employedby center members. All were satisfied with the center'sservice.

14

AGE AND USE OF FEDERAL LIBRARY MATERIALS

We sent questionnaires to 230 Federal librarians inMetropolitan Washington to obtain information on their li-braries. Appendix I summarizes the responses. Some of thedata were based on librarians' estimates.

Wo analyzed data supplied by 114 libraries on the age anduse of books and comparable data supplied by 108 libraries onperiodicals. Our analysis showed a'relatively high degree ofuse for newer materials, those up to 10 years old, and amarked decline in use for older material's. The followingtable demonstrates the decline in use of materials. as theygrow older; it compares the age and-use of books and periodi-cals in one of the responding libraries, which in our opinionfairly typifies the libraries responding.

PercentagesAge in years Books Periodicals(inclusive) Holdings Use Holdings Use

0 to 4 10 40 5 405 to 9 10 25 5 25

10 to 24 25 15 30 1525 and over 55 20 60 20

The table shows that those books in the zero-to-4 agegroup accounted for only 10 percent of the library's totalbook holdings but for 40 percent of book use; in contrast,the books in the 25-year and over age group accounted for55 percent of the holdings but for only 20 percent of bookuse. The table shows a more pronounced disparity between ageand use for periodicals.

A study by Orr and others of the characteristics ofsources cited in medical research papers showed similar re-sults.' Articles published 10 or more years before thestudy accounted for 27 percent of the citations; articles

'Richard H. Orr and others, "Development of Methodologic Toolsfor Planning and Managing Library Service: II. Measuringa Library's Capability for Providing Documents." Bulletinof Medical Library Association, Vol. 56,:July 1968.

15

published 31 or more years before the study accounted foronly 5 percent of :the citations.

In 1961 Fussier and Simon reported findings on age-and-uSe patterns for certain classes of monographs in a major re-search library.1 The study, involving 1,642 monographs,showed that if 50 percent of the monographs were transferredfrom the library to lower cost storage, only about 15 percentwould be recalled one or more times over a 5-year period.The study showed that, if a library kept use records, thenumber of recalls could be reduced about 50 percent becausethe more frequently used materials, despite their age, wouldbe retained at the library rather than transferred to lowercost storage.

BENEFITS OF A CENTRAL DEPOSITORY

We estimate that creating such a depository inMetropolitan Washington could reduce annual space costs byabout $920,000. Our estimate was based on (1) the transferof about 4 million books and periodicals 10 or more yearsold to a central depository, (2) a system of storing 45 volumesa square foot of space in the depository, and (3) reducingcosts by 23 cents a volume. ("Volume" as used in this reportcovers information sources such as books, periodicals, andreports.)

The use data supplied by the libraries responding toour questionnaires indicated that the most economical timefor transferring materials to a central depository is whenthe materials are between 5 and 10 years old. The age-of-holdings data supplied by the libraries indicated that theyhad about 2.8 million books and 1.2 million periodicals thatwere 10 or more years old and could be transferred.

The conventional open-stack library provides tables,chairs, study areas, and wide aisles and contains otherspace arrangements which result in low-density storage- -about 15 volumes for each square foot of space available.A central depository, however, generally provides almost no

1Herman H. Fussier and Julian L. Simon, "Patterns in the Useof Books in Large Research Libraries." Chicago, Universityof Chicago Press, 1969.

16

amenities for walk-in patrons and therefore uses space morecompactly--essentially as a warehousing operation.

Ellsworth studied library storage problems and in 1969published data on 12 systems for storing library materials.'The systems ranged from a conventional library storing 15 vol-umes a square foot to a high-density computer-directed stor-age system with potent-;_al for storing 147 volumes a squarefoot. The midrange systems stored 45, 46, and 50 volumes asquare foot.

Federal libraries are generally in office buildings.The General Services Administration.estimated that this typeof floorspace costs from $5 a square foot in nearby Marylandand Virginia to $5.50 a square foot in Washington and thatwarehouse space costs an average of $1.78 a square foot insuburban areas. On the,basis of these estimates, we calcu-lated the libraries' annual cost of storing a volume at37 cents for space only.

The Center for Research Libraries' storage system ismore compact than that of an open-stack library. Accordingto the director, it costs 14 cents annually to store a singlevolume, including space, personnel, and operating costs.Thus, for the 4 million volumes which could be transferredto a central depository, we estimate that annual space costscould be reduced by 23 cents a volume, or about $920,000.

Such a depository would also provide additional benefitswhich are difficult to measure. The other benefits include:

--Transferring additional books and periodicals insubsequent years.

-Eliminating unneeded duplicate copies of materialcontributed by members.

-Encouraging the introduction'of modern processingsystems appropriate to large-scale library operations.

'Ralph E. Ellsworth, "The Economics of Book Storage inCollege and University Libraries." Metuchen, N.J., Associ-ation of Research Libraries and Scarecrow Press, 1969.

17

--Facilitating the work of researchers by concentratingthe reference materials of many libraries at one-location.

--Postponing or eliminating the need for additionallibrary facilities.

CONCLUSIONS

Little-used materials should be transferred to a centraldepository for storage in lower priced space. Such a deposi-tory for Federal libraries in Metropolitan Washington wouldenable agencies to upgrade the use of space presently usedto store these materials.

The director of the Center for Research Libraries inChicago noted that 3 or 4 days sometimes elapsed before mem-ber libraries in the United States and Canada received re-quested materials. Delays should not he a problem in a cen-tral depository system operating in the metropolitan area.

AGENCY COMMENTS.

Our.draft report sent to 0MB for comment proposed thatOMB initiate action to establish a central depository forFederal libraries. In its comments, OMB stated that the re-port did not contain sufficient information to judge whethera central depository would be cost effective, that additionalanalysis would be required to determine a precise payoff onsuch an investment, and that this matter would be reviewedat the highest level within OMB.

By letter dated January 12, 1973 (see app. IV), FLCstated that it would welcome the opportunity to review theneed for central depository.

RECOMMENDATION TO THE DIRECTOR, 0MB

We recommend that OMB initiate a cost-benefit study todetermine the feasibility of establishing a central deposi-tory for Federal libraries and establish.such.a depositoryif the study indicates that it would be beneficial.

18

CHAPTER 4

OPPORTUNITIES FOR OTHER IMPROVEMENTS

IN FEDERAL LIBRARY OPERATIONS

This chapter discusses additional aspects of Federallibrary operations which indicate that OMB should be direct-ing more attention to ascertaining Federal library needs, tomaking decisions in response to those needs,'and to launch-ing and maintaining momentum for programs ministering tothose needs.

MICROFORM PUBLICATIONS

Our interviews with Federal librarians in the metropoli-tan area indicated that most libraries are not realizing thefull benefits of microform publications.

Microform publications--which include rolls (microfilm)and cards (microfiche)--contain miniaturized images whichmay be restored to large size through special readingequipment. Microform enables libraries to reduce spacerequirements and reproduction and shipping costs.

Up to 3,000 pages of material can be stored on 100 feetof microfilm. A 4-by-6-inch microfiche, using an image re-duction ratio of 24 to 1, can store up to 98 frames, orpages, of material. Ultramicrofiche, using higher reductionratios, provides even greater compaction. For example, amanufacturer is reported to have replaced a 17,000-pagecatalog with 12 ultramicrofiche.

The term "microform" as used in this report refers tominiaturized materials which librarians may purchase asopposed to materials purchased in conventional hardcopy andlater converted to microform.

Microform has gained widespread acceptance in thescientific and technical fields. Some scientific and techni-cal publications are available in both hardcopy and micro-form. Hardcopy versions of other publications in thesefields have been discontinued. For example, one Federalagency involved in technical research furnishes reports toits contractors in microform only.

19

Microform is also. available for periodicals, such asTime, Newsweek, and Fortune, intended for the generalreader. The National Register of Microform Masters, pub-lished annually by the Library. of Congress, provides a com-prehensive list of microform masters from which microformpublications may be produced and the organizations from whichthey may be acquired.

Of 41 librarians we questioned about the extent oftheir microform holdings, 15 told us they had substantialholdings and 26 said they did not. Of 38 librarians wequestioned, 36 told us that some of their hardcopy holdingscould be replaced by microform. Of 30 librarians wequeried on user response, 17 said it was adverse, 4 said itwas mixed, 3 said it was favorable, and 6 gave no easilyclassifiable answers.

Microform generally costs less to purchase or reproducethan hardcopy. For example, the National Technical Informa-tion Service in the Department of Commerce sells publica-tions of 300 pages or less for $3 in hardcopy and 95 centsin microfiche. It is relatively inexpensive to duplicatematerials whose images have been highly reduced. A micro-fiche containing 98 pages of information may be reproducedfor about 16 cents, or about 6 pages for a cent.

Microform is generally cheaper to ship than hardcopy.About 10 pounds of material can be reduced to ultramicro-fiche weighing an ounce or less.

The use of microform in Federal libraries appears tobe hindered by problems with funding, equipment standards,and user resistance.

Funding. To use microform Federal libraries need sup-porting equipment, such as readers and reader-printers.Small readers cost about $100; reader-printers cost more.Some Federal librarians told us that the use of microformin their libraries is hampered by a lack of funds to obtainreading equipment.

Federal librarians in some agencies are asked or re-quired to submit information for preparing the library

-budget; others are not. Regardless of the participation oflibrarians in the budget process, their needs are subject tothe judgments of top officials in the organization.

20

OMB intrest in a microform program, expressed duringits reviews of agency budgets and its issuance of manage-ment circulars on the subject, could encourage such a pro-gram.

Equipment standards. Librarians must determine whattypes and complements of microform equipment are needed,what degrees of equipment sophistication are needed, andwhat reduction ratios should be provided for. In our .

opinion, OMB should provide librarians ,with technicaladvice on microform equipment and guidelines on purchaseversus leasing under the conditions of a rapidly changing

°technology.

User resistance. Librarians encounter some user resist-ance to microform. The viewing screen of the reading equip-ment is less mobile than a publication held manually andsomewhat restricts the movement of the user while reading.Some users prefer hardcopy (obtained through use of areader-printer or printer) enabling them to underscore passagesor make marginal notes. Some users need assistance tooperate the reading equipment.

Students, as a special class of users, do not appearhighly resistant to microform. Nelson referred to a study].which showed no evident aversion by students to microform.He corroborated this finding, stating that he had:

"visited locations presently using microficheand discussed their use of it, their attitudes,and their evaluation. It came as a distinctsurprise, and a favorable one, that in all ofthe installations visited, there was littlecriticism, though constructive suggestionswere given. At one university at which therewas a large [microform' collection, threestudents had written doctoral dissertationscompletely frominformation found on microfilm,by using computer search and a microfiche in-formation bank."

1 Carl E. Nelson, "Microform Technology." Annual Reviewof Information, Science and Technology, Vol. 6, 1971.

21

Fry, in a study of an educational information system,1stated that a consistent theme by users and operators ofinformation services was the need for more, better, andless expensive microform readers. His study produced wide-spread evidence that potential users were not taking advan-tage of microform.

Some users find microform inconvenient and some arereluctant to change their reading habits. Additional ef-forts, therefore, are needed to create a climate morereceptive to microform.

COORDINATION OFRESEARCH ON LIBRARY OPERATIONS

From 1965 through 1971 five Federal agenci sponsoredresearch, individually, at a total cost of about $26 million,which dealt in large part with the Federal library system .

or the Nation's library system. The agencies were the Na-tional Science Foundation; the National Agricultural.Library,Department of Agriculture; the National Library of Medicineand the Office of Education, Department of Health, Education;and Welfare; and the Department of the Army. Other Federalagencies sometimes sponsored library research intended pri-marily for application within their own libraries.

In broadest terms library research attempts to gatherinformation about a chosen segment of library activities toachieve such objectives as lowering administrative costs orincreasing the scope or quality of services. Most aspectsof library operations have been researched to some extent.Research projects, for example, have included studies ofthe duties and training needs of personnel, methods to im-prove space use, and cooperative arrangements among librar-ies to improve user access to services.

The five agencies have not established a formal systemfor coordinating proposed and ongoing research. Also, wefound no substantial informal interchange of informationamong the agencies which would make a formal system unneces-sary. Coordination is needed when several agencies sponsor

1 Bernard M. Fry, "Evaluation Study of ERIC Products andServices." Washington, U.S. Department of Health, Educa-tion, and Welfare, March 1972.

22

research conducted about the same time in the same subjectarea. Under these circumstances coordination may help pro-vide an overall rationale for research and may sometimes de-termine the sequence in which individual projects are to beundertaken. Coordination also may result in modifying thescope or objectives of individual projects and in determiningwhether competing projects should be considered forconsolidation or other management action.

Our discussion of the management of library researchwith officials of four of the agencies indicated that eachof the agencies generally monitors its research programswithout specific knowledge of the other agencies' researchprojects. The agencies had, at about the same time, sepa-rately sponsored research on automation of bibliographicrecords. We did not review research designs, objectives,or findings to consider how coordination among the agenciesmight have affected these projects.

According to an official at one of the agencies, re-ports on the results of the research sponsored by hisagency were not generally made available to the Federallibrary community or to the public. Many of the 44 librari-ans we interviewed were not aware of the studies for improv-ing library operations. Of the 44, two indicated that theyplanned to use the research results in their operations.

Libbey and Fry commented on the difficulties in locat-ing and identifying Federal technical library and informa-tion science research projects.1 They sought informationfrom organizations financing research, from those conductingresearch, and from literature on libraries and informationscience. They used 37 sources in identifying research proj-ects, including data from the Science Information Exchangeof the Smithsonian Institution and the microfiche editionof the "Inventory of Information Science and Technology"published by the Committee on Scientific and Technical In-formation, which is affiliated with the Federal Council for

1Miles A. Libbey and Bernard M. Fry, "A Data Base ofResearch Affecting Military Technical InformationServices." Washington, Department of the Army, Officeof the Chief of Engineers, December 1971.

23

Science and Technology. At December 1971 they had identi-fied about 1,000 projects which were in progress or werecompleted at the end of fiscal year 1969.. The authorscommented:

"*** there is not now, nor has there been, anyeffort involving across-the-board cooperationbetween Federal agencies to establish a programof research and development leading to'betterunderstanding of and improvements in Federaltechnical information services. *** There hasbeen no single agency responsible for institutingor even catalyzing such a national program."

24

COOPERATION IN ACQUIRING MATERIALS

Federal libraries have only infrequently entered intocooperative agreements, similar to those established amongnon-Federal libraries, for acquiring materials, such asbooks and periodicals.

In 1964, five major universities in the metropolitanarea formed a library consortium whose objectives in-cluded cooperative acquisition of materials, collectivedevelopment of resources, and better use of operating funds.The five libraries, among other things:

--Notify one another of purchases or an intent topurchase.

-Have agreed to transfer responsibility for specialholdings, such as maps and Government publications,to designated libraries.

--Maintain consolidated directories.

-Have a unified service for delivering materials amongthe libraries.

Subject to approval by the universities' governingbodies and faculties, the consortium intends to consolidatematerials for about 20 areas of graduate study.

The consortium coordinator told us that the consortium'spotential savings were not calculable, but that the membersare certain that coordination and cooperation will reduceoverall costs.

Opportunities for similar cooperative agreements existin the Federal library system. For example, libraries inthe several agencies concerned with human resources mightacquire better collections of materials at the same orlower cost if they had an overall plan for acquiring humanresources materials.

The Ohio College Library Center (Ohio center) and theCenter for Research Libraries (Chicago center) share theirresources with their members.

25

The Ohio center is a not-for-profit corporationchartered "to make the resources of all Ohio librariesavailable to each." It provides centralized, ,onlinecomputer-based services for approximately 50 academiclibraries. The center's cataloging system became opera-tional in August 1971. In October 1972 several regionallibrary groups were observing the center's operations toevaluate whether such a cataloging system could meet theirneeds.

The Ohio center has entered into other activitiescommon to libraries. For example, it is developing atechnical processing system to aid in purchasing books anda system to control the purchase and use of periodicals.

The Federal Library Cooperative Center Study Group,an ad hoc group composed primarily of Federal librarians,in June 1972 arranged for the Ohio center's director todevelop an organizational plan for increasing cooperativeefforts in the Federal library system.

The Chicago center has begun to procure and holdspecialized, little-used serial publications, such asmagazines, trade journals, and Government documents, forits member libraries in the United States and Canada. Thecenter's director managed a study of the costs of owningversus borrowing serials.' The study report stated that,unless a serial is used about six-times a year, it is lesscostly for a Library to borrow it than to buy it. The re-port estimated that more than half the serials in.,largeresearch libraries may be used too little to justify pur-chasing them. The report suggests that the center's pro-gram for specialized, little-used serials should reducecosts for members with little adverse effect on services.

Corroborating this conclusion, the Orr study of sourcescited in biomedical research papers published in fiscalyears 1963-65 showed that 90 percent of the sources wereserials.2 Further, 20 serials accounted for a third of thesources. The remaining two-thirds of the sources werescattered over 223 other serials and 50 nonserials.

'Gordon Williams and others, "Library Cost Models: OwningVersus Borrowing Serial Publications." Washington, NationalScience Foundation, November 1968._

2Orr, loc. cit.

26

Several studies indicate that publications owned bylibraries are on the shelf only slightly more than halfthe time that they are requested. Member libraries in acooperative serials-buying arrangement, such as the Chicagocenter's, can improve services by concentrating on purchas-ing multiple copies of the commonly used serials.

The Chicago center's study of owning versus borroWingserials and corroborative studies suggest that economiescould be realized if Federal libraries entered into co-operative agreements for procuring little-used publicationsin such subject areas as human resources, environmental

.preservation, and law enforcement. Each of these subjectsfalls within the jurisdictions of several Federal agencies.

During our visits to Federal libraries in the met7opolitan area, we learned of one informal cooperative mate-rials sharing agreement between two libraries. This agree-ment involved the purchase and use of the Chemical Abstractsand the Engineering Index. Although other informal cooper-ative agreements may exist among the Federal libraries inthe metropolitan area, in our opinion, they are unlikely,on an informal basis, to exploit the full potential forsharing publications or to include the broadest practicalpafticipation of libraries.

INTEGRATION OF FEDERAL AGENCYINFORMATION SYSTEMS

Rees, in a 1971 report ,1 stated that there is an urgentneed to integrate a Federal agency's library and its otherinformation groups which store, analyze, and retrieve infor-mation. Several investigators he cited found that the lackof such integration resulted in duplication of effort, ,con-flicts, and diminished efficiency of the total informationsystem.

According to Rees, the period 1958-63 was crucial toFederal management of scientific and technical information;Federal librarians, however, did not respond to the concernof high-level Government officials for the need to sift,,evaluate, compile, and consolidate the growing store of suchinformation. Rees referred to a statement by the Directorof Technical Information of the Department of Defense thattechnical librarians operate essentially as archivists forpublished literature. According to Rees, this prevented theeffective integration of libraries into larger scientificinformation systems.

In tracing the Government's changing information needs,the Rees report concluded that the traditional functions ofFederal libraries were conceived of too narrowly to servethe broad information missions which later emerged in Fed-eral agencies. Rees quoted G. S. Simpson, Jr., who suggestedthat

"conventional libraries were sufficient up to the20th Century. Specialized libraries then devel-oped...Scientific information centers are but anextension of that trend...(and) are necessary toreduce, analyze and shrink to manageable propor-tions all such data and information."

Other information groups with some int,:rEace withFederal libraries have recently been established. Thesegroups, which emphasize the evaluative function in organiz-ing information, have been formed mainly in mission-oriented

1

Alan M. Rees, "Interface of Technical Libraries with OtherInformation Systems: A Synthesis." Washington, Departmentof the Army, Office of the Chief of Engineers, March 1971.

28

agencies to collect, process, and distribute special data.They include document centers, information analysis centers,referral centers, clearinghouses, and technical informationcenters. Technical information centers also organize sourcesof information, such as unpublished research reports,journal articles, and pamphlets.

Conaway's report on an inquiry into other informationgroups in Federal agencies cited four substantial problemareas resulting from the dual information networks withinthe agencies.'

Duplication of functions. The other information groupsevaluate data and create information--which distinguishesthem from the libraries. However, both the informationgroups and the libraries acquire, collect, record, organize,store, retrieve, and disseminate informational materials.The Conaway report concluded that the agencies which createdother information groups_did not fully use existing libraryresources.

Administrative placement. The other information groupshave a stronger administrative placement than libraries whenconsidered in terms of organizational position, financialresources, relative staff size, and salaries. The Conawayreport concluded that differences in administrative statushave caused morale, effectiveness, and recruitment problemsfor libraries. Some libraries, however, were strengthened,by mergers with the information groups.

Domination of information handling by nonlibrarians.The Jiewcomers to the information field have generally beennonlibrarians and include chemists, physicists, statisti-cians, physicians, psychiatrists, and specialists in elec-tronic data processing. According to the Conaway report,the newcomers have tended to dominate the information ac-tivities in agencies- having dual information networks andhave higher status and salaries and increased promotion op-portunities; in some cases librarians have transferred tononlibrari,an jobs to gain status.

1

O. B. Conaway, "Extra-Library Information Programs inSelected Federal Agencies." Washington, Department ofthe Army, Office of the Chief of Engineers, September1970.

29

Disparities in hierarchial position of personnel.Directors of four nonlibrary information groups studied byConaway had higher job classifications than the librarydirectors, as shown below:

Director's gradeNonlibraryinformation

Agency group Library

A GS-16 GS-13B GS-14 GS-13C GS-17 GS-14D GS-15 GS-11

Also, the grade levels of professional employees in theother information groups were higher than those of profes-sional library employees. The Conaway report concluded thatthe disparity of salaries affected morale and performance oflibrarians and made recruitment more difficult. It concludedalso that this disparity was a Major factor underlying allthe controversies over establishing other information groups.

Some Federal agencies with highly technical orienta-tions have set up dual information systems without centrallymanaging them.

Painter, in a 1968 report, concluded that librariescould not be consigned to act'as storehouses, that thelines of demarcation between libraries and informationcenters were disappearing, and that no one was certain ofthe character of the system which would evolve.'

The Rees report stated that Federal agencies haveobtained funding-for, and have created, new informationorganizations without, apparently, fully using their

1

Ann F. Painter, "The Role of the Library in Relation toOther Information Activities." Washington, Department ofthe Army, Office of the Chief of Engineers, August 1968.

30

libraries.' The report concluded that the dual informationsystems were essentially complementary rather than competi-tive and that accompanying problems--duplicate efforts andoverlapping functions. with consequent conflicts anddiminished efficiency--were not self-correcting.

CONCLUSIONS

-Federal libraries would benefit from microformpublications or from other methods of compactinglibrary materials.

-Federal library research should be coordinated.Information on ongoing and completed researchshould be collected at a central point and theextent to which research recommendations shouldbe put into practice should be. determined.

--Federal libraries should enter into cooperativeagreements for acquiring library materials tominimize multiple acquisitions and should integratetheir libraries and other information systems.

RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE DIRECTOR, OMB

We recommend that, to improve Federal library opera-tions, OMB develop policies and plans to:

-Encourage the use of. microform publications or-othermethods.of compacting library materials, includingnecessary technical and financial assistance.

-Coordinate library research, collect at a central .

point information about ongoing and completed re-search, and determine the extent to which Federalagencies should act on research recommendations.

-Encourage cooperation among libraries to minimizemultiple acquisitions of library materials and inother activities, such as cataloging and controllingperiodicals,

Rees, op. cit.

--Encourage the integration of Federal agency informa-tion systems.

AGENCY COMMENTS

OMB stated that it, in collaboration with FLC, wouldundertake to develop the policies and plans for the accept-ance and use, as appropriate, of microform or similar typesof publications.

0MB stated further that the sharing of research resultsis done through FLC and that routine coordination of libraryresearch and followup on agency actions on research recom-mendations are most properly agency management'sresponsibility.

We believe, however, that library research, unlikescientific and other research, focuses on a single area ofactivity whose boundaries'are definable and is thus sus-ceptible to some central control in procurement, dissemina-tion of research results, and followup. Library researchshould not be the exclusive concern of the agency that ini-tiates or funds the research, and research benefits shouldbe available to all agency libraries. Such benefits havenot been available to all libraries either through the agen-cies sponsoring the research or through FLC. Therefore, forthe most effective use of research funds, OMB. should developpolicies and plans to coordinate and follow up on libraryresearch and to disseminate research results. The recordof FLC's activities proVides no reason to believe that itcan be effective in these functions without 0MB support.

0MB commented that FLC was already working to minimizemultiple acquisitions and to integrate Federal agency infor-mation systems and that its efforts held promise of benefit.

0MB noted that our report highlighted several librarymanagement problems, that most of our recommendations couldbe best advanced through the mechanism of FLC, and that itintended to work closely with FLC in advancing its effortsto realize the benefits of the recommendations. tt,

FLC commented that our recommendations were especiallywell received because its current work program includes proj-ects directed toward those specific points.

32

CHAPTER 5

THE COPYRIGHT ISSUE IN MAKING

LIBRARY SERVICES AVAILABLE

Transferring knowledge depends not only on visualaccess to information but also on being able to reproduceit. In earlier decades copyright problems dealing with theavailability of library materials focused on reproducing inkprints. As technology advanced the copyright controversyextended to reproducing-microform and data in magnetic files.

Before the Copyright Act of 1909 (17 U.S.C. 1), infringe-ment of copyright in books and other works reproduced fromtype was specified as unauthorized printing, importing, oroffering for sale copies of the work. Copying, by itself,did not constitute infringement. Some have interpreted theact as broadening the definition of infringement to includeany unauthorized copying. The act, however, does not con-tain guidelines governing reproduction by libraries.

In ensuing litigation the courts developed a doctrineof fair use. The Register of Copyrights has broadly inter-preted "fair use" to mean

"that a reasonable portion of a copyrighted workmay be reproduced without permission when nec-essary for a legitimate purpose which is notcompetitive with the copyright owner's marketfor his work."

Librarians generally contend they are not competing withthe copyright owners when they reproduce materials for'library users. Authors and publishers contend that such re-production extends beyond fair use and substantially reducesthe market for copyrighted work. Both interest groups ex-press the need for new copyright legislation.

A coordinated effort to develop a general revision ofthe act was begun in 1955, when the Congress provided fundsfor comprehensive research programs and studies, includinginquiry into the history and provisions of the act, theproblems' raised, the past proposals for revision, and compa-rable provisions in foreign laws and international conventions.

33

Several draft bills emerged and congressional committeesheld extended hearings. However, practical solutions whichwould satisfy the various private and public interests werenot found.

Senate bill 644, 92d Congress, proposed a general re-vision of the act. It limited the exclusive rights of copy-right owners, recognized the fair use doctrine, helpedclarify the extent of permissible library copying, and dealtwith computers and other mechanical and electrical informa-tion systems. However, the 92d Congress adjourned withoutenacting the bill.

The Williams and Wilkins Company, a publisher, hasfiled a petition in the United States Court of Claims charg-ing a Government library with infringement of its copyrights.Federal officials have informed us that, if a revised copy-right law is not enacted, the Court's decision couldsignificantly affect libraries' present unrestricted repro-duction practices.

CHAPTER 6

SCOPE OF REVIEW

During our review we:

-Reviewed literature on library operations and infor-mation science.

--Interviewed 44 Federal librarians in the metropolitanarea and toured some of their libraries.

-Discussed Federal library problems with other librar-ians, library consultants, and information scienceexperts, including members and officials of PLC, theCommittee on Scientific and Technical .Information,and the National Commission on Libraries and Informa-tion Science.

-Visited a private library center providing centralstorage and other services to member libraries anddiscussed operations with the center's managing direc-tor and four members' librarians.

--Visited a ni.tional microform and information systemsexhibition and Federal sites using microform.

-Sent questionnaires to 230 addressees in the metropoli-tan area selected from lists of Federal libraries.

35

APPENDIX I

GAO LIBRARY QUESTIONNAIRE RETURNS

We sent questionnaires to 230 addressees in themetropolitan area selected from the "Roster of FederalLibraries" and the FLC mailing list. Our questionnaire re-quested data on budgets, personnel, shelf space, nature ofhardcopy holdings, and the age and use of those holdings.We received 193 responses which were classifiable as follows:

Questionnaires fully or partially executedand considered in our analyses 139

Questionnaires which were nonresponsive orwere received too late 12

Questionnaires from respondents who statedthat their libraries were outside ourinterests because they were no longeroperating or were non-Federal libraries 42

Total 193

37

APPENDIX II

EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENTOFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503

February 13, 1973

Mr. George H. StaplesAssociate DirectorUnited States GeneralAccounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548

Dear Mr. Staples:

Thank you for the draft report on Federal Library operationssent through John Lordan of my staff on December 15, 1972.The draft report represents very ambitious efforts to analyzethe diverse set of Federal libraries from a management pointof view. As such, it merits praise for highlighting many ofthe issues which have challenged Federal managers for sometime.

The report draft contains introductory language on page 4which outlines the author's view of institutional relation-ships in the Federal library world:

"Federal agency libraries are primarily subjectto the management direction of their respectiveagency heads and to the central direction of OMB.This report deals with the need for strengtheningOMB's role in the central management of libraries.The functions of OMB include (1) assisting in develop-ing efficient coordinating mechanisms to implementgovernment activities and to expand interagencycooperation and (2) promoting the development ofimproved plans of administrative management andadvising the executive departments and agencies ofthe government with respect to improved administra-tive organization and practice.

"OMB exercises its central management authorityover activities such as library services princi-pally through its review of agencies' budgets andits issuance of management instructions which arebinding upon the executive agencies."

38

APPENDIX II

I agree that libraries are primarily subject to the manage-ment of their respective agency heads. Moreover, with theexception of a small number of National libraries, they existalmost exclusively to support the realization of agencygoals. Thus the heads of the respective agencies are inthe best position to evaluate library performance in thelight of the unique goals of their agency.

Again excepting the National libraries, the estimated$23.4 million spent on 136 Federal libraries in Metropoli-tan Washington is not broken out in the Federal budgetdocument. Thus, this expenditure is not a practical manage-ment lever for OMB to use in exercising what-the reportauthor views as its central management role.

Let me now turn to comments on the report draft's specificrecommendations.

o11

. . . OMB assume a more active role inthe central direction of Federal libraries.. . (emphasis supplied) (draft report, page8)."

O OMB COMMENT: While it is not entirely clearwhat is meant by "central direction", I believeit is inappropriate for the Office of Managementand Budget to attempt to interpose itselfroutinely in the central direction of any manage-ment function undertaken in the many departmentsand agencies of the government. This woulddraw OMB into an operational role which isnot desirable. it is, however, an importantpart of the OMB role to encourage improvedmanagement and coordination of Executive Branchactivities. We believe that the FLC could dealwith more meaningful problems and we plan tohelp them move in that direction.

O. . . (OMB) initiate action to establish a

central depository for Federal libraries . . ."

(draft report, page 18.)

OMB COMMENT: Your report does not contain suf-ficient information to judge whether a centralrepository for Federal libraries is in fact costeffective. Such factors as operating cost of anew facility and cost of movement of materialsto multiple service points must be considered.

39

APPENDIX II

It is also true that the impact on service tolibrary customers would weigh heavily in decidingwhether a central repository is really an improve-ment.

Additional analysis is required before we candetermine the precise payoff on any such invest-ment. I will review this situation with Mr. Ashwhen he officially assumes his role as Directorof OMB.

. . (OMB) encourage the acceptance and useof microform publications and equipment . . ."

(draft report, page 34.)

OMB COMMENT: OMB will undertake this, as appropri-ate, in collaboration with the Federal LibraryCommittee. OMB has long maintained a position ofurging the use of better and more cost effectivemanagement systems. In many instances, microformsystems may be the answer, but we are skeptical ofany blanket conclusions about the superiority ofany one approach under all circumstances.

0 (OMB) coordinate procurement of Libraryresearch, . . . collect at a central pointinformation about on-going and completed research,and . . . determine the extent to which Federalagencies act on research recommendations."(draft report, page 34.)

OMB COMMENT: The sharing of research resultsis accomplished through the Federal Library Com-mittee. Routine coordination of library researchprocurement as well as routine follow-up onagency actions with respect to research recommenda-tions are most properly the responsibility of agencymanagement and not of OMB.

0. . . (OMB) encourage cooperation among the

libraries to.minimize the multiple acquisitionsof library materials. (and) . . . encouragethe integration of Federal agency informationsystems." (draft report, page 34.)

OMB COMMENT: The Federal Library Committee hasalready been at work in this area and theirefforts hold promise of benefit.

40

APPENDIX II

0. . . OMB follow-up on research being conducted

by the Ohio College Library Center . . ." (draftreport, page 34). .

OMB COMMENT: This can be accomplished readilythrough OMB's membership on the Federal LibraryCommittee.

By way-of summary, the draft report does an important serviceby highlighting several library management problems. In ourjudgment, the implementable recommendations of the draft reportare best advanced through the mechanism of the Federal LibraryCommittee.

OMB intends to work closely with FLC in advancing its effortsto realize the benefits of the implementable recommendationscontained in this report.

We would be pleased to meet with you to discuss the implica-tions of this report, as well as the institutional role ofOMB in these kinds of situations.

Sincerely,

J-1Dwight InkAssist- r Director

41

APPENDIX III

O'.e.. FEDERAL LIBRARY COMMITTEE

7:

4.5LIBRARY OF CONGRESS

J. WASHINGTON, D. C. 20510N

January 12, 1973

Lear Mr. Messinger:

The Federal Library Committee appreciates the oppor-tunity to examine and comment upon the General Accounting Office"Review of Federal Library Operations in the Washington, D. C.Metropolitan Area." We have studied the recommendations withinterest and look forward to continuing collaboration with theOffice of Management and Budget in strengthening and furtheringFederal library programs and services'.

As we have indicated before the Federal Library Com-mittee, since its establishment in 1965, developed a comprehensivedata base and has concentrated on the construction of an activework program that involves the group in a wide variety of Federallibrary problems. These have included the development of standardguidelines for Federal library automation, a survey of Federallibrary-collections to provide basic knowledge on which acquisitionsdevelopment and systems planning can be based, strengthening of therecruiting system for Federal librarians (by upgrading standards,broadening curriculum planning, maintaining a national register,utilizing library interns, compiling and distributing a roster ofvacancies), and extending communications among Federal librariansthrough the FLC Newsletter and through workshops on particularlibrary matters. TO date Federal Library Committee work has beensupported by foundation grants and Federal agency funds.

Thus, the Federal Library Committee has a background ofexperience upon which to continue its work and to cooperate in im-plementing further appropriate action. We would welcome the oppor-tunity to review the need for a central depository and to documentrecommendations. We will continue to work toward the identificationand development of technologies applicable to library requirementsand to commend their acceptance.

Recommendations that the Office of Management and Budgetdevelop plans: "...to collect at a central point information abouton-going and completed research; to encourage cooperation among thelibraries to minimize the multiple acquisitions of library mate-rials; to encourage the integration of Federal agency information

PERMANENT MEMBERSHIPLibrary of Congress (Librarian of Congress, Chairman), National Agricultural Library,National Library' of Medicine, Department of State, Department of the Treasury, Department of Defense, Departmentof Justice, Department of the Interior, Department of Commerce, Department of Labor, Department of Health, Educa-tion, and Welfare, Department of Housing and Urban Development, Department of Transportation.ROTATING MEMBERSHIP, 1971-73Federal Communications Commission, General Services Administration, Na-tional Aeronautics and Space Administration, National Science Foundation, Supreme Court of the United States,Veterans Administration.OBSERVERSOffice of Management and Budget and Office of Science and Technology of the Executive Office of thePresident, Library of Congress, Bureau of Libraries and Educational Technology of the Office of Education of theDepartment of Health, Education, and Welfare.

42

APPENDIX III

systems; and to follow up on research, being conducted by the OhioCollege Library Center..." were especially well received as the cur-rent Federal Library Committee work program includes projects direc-ted toward these specific points. Indeed, it has been noted thatthe General Accounting Office's report was based in large part uponFederal Library Committee research reports and other assistance.For example, seven of the eight footnoted references to Federallibrary related activity are Federal Library Committee studies.

The General Accounting Office's interest in Federallibrary services is appreciated. We welcome the concern of thosewho share a realization of the importance of focusing attentionon the continuing development of Federal libraries, of refiningmanagement techniques, and of increasing the support essential fortheir full utilization.

Sincerely yours,

\4

--I I.1. ';. (-L.1 .

Frank -KUrt Cylke I

Executive Secretary

Mr. Edward C. MessingerAssistant DirectorGeneral Government DivisionUnited States General Accounting OfficeWashington, D. C. 20548

43

APPENDIX IV

PRINCIPAL OFFICIALS OF THE OFFICE

OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET

RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ADMINISTRATION OF

ACTIVITIES DISCUSSED IN THIS REPORT

Tenure of officeFrom To

DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF MANAGEMENTAND BUDGET:

Roy L. Ash. Feb. 1973 PresentCaspar W. Weinberger June 1972 Feb. 1973George P. Shultz July 1970 June 1972Robert P. Mayo Jan. 1969 July 1970Charles J. Zwick Jan. 1968 Jan. 1969

44

FILMED FROM BEST AVAILABLE COPY

Copies of this report are available at a cost of $1from the U.S. General Accounting Office, Room 6417,441 G Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20548. Ordersshould be accompanied by a check or money order.Please do not send cash.

When ordering a GAO report please use the B-Number,Date and Title, if available, to expedite filling yourorder.

Copies of GAO reports are provided without charge toMembers of Congress, congressional committee staffmembers, Government officials, news media, collegelibraries, faculty members and students.