Cheryle Cole-Bennett, Sandra McAninch, and Heath Martin
There has long been great interest in the “collaborative stewardship” of federal government information among library deans and directors and documents librarians in the southeastern United States, who seek a new vision for managing federal depository collections that focuses on local needs and interests while also supporting these collections as a regional asset. In 2006 the Association of Southeastern Research Libraries (ASERL) took steps toward realizing a collaborative model of stewardship by establishing its first program to explore options for cooperative services and collection management of tangible federal government publications.1 This initiative was fueled both by concerns about diminished public access due to the increasing cost of managing, cataloging, storing, and preserving large collections of historic documents, as well as the increasing pressure on regional depositories to provide services and support to selective depositories during a time of static library budgets and decreasing staff expertise in government information. This chapter will describe the program, which has come to be known as the ASERL Collaborative Federal Depository Program.
Working within the legal mandate and policies of the Federal Depository Library Program (FDLP), ASERL was awarded an Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS) Leadership grant in the fall of 2009 to establish the Collaborative Federal Depository Program (CFDP)—a model of agency and subject-based Centers of Excellence (COE) among regional and selective depository libraries in the Southeast. The program was intended to increase completeness of tangible FDLP holdings, improve access to these holdings, and improve services to support the use of federal government publications.
Founded in 1956, ASERL is the largest regional research library cooperative in the country, with thirty-eight members in eleven states. ASERL operates numerous projects designed to foster a high standard of library excellence through inter-institutional resource sharing and other collaborative efforts. Thirty-seven of ASERL’s thirty-eight members are FDLP libraries, including thirteen Regional Depositories in the eleven-state region.
At the time that IMLS awarded the grant to ASERL, significant program planning to establish the first COE was well underway. The University of Kentucky Libraries (UK Libraries), one of three initial IMLS grant participants, officially joined this ASERL program in 2009 as a COE for the Work Projects/Works Progress Administration (WPA). Though it officially became a COE under the auspices of the grant, it was an early adopter of the program, serving on the initial program working group since its inception in 2006. Due to its long-term participation in the program, it is uniquely positioned to demonstrate the impact of the CFDP at the local level—because it realizes not only the benefits but also experiences the challenges of local choices that affect the overall success of the program. As such, it serves as a case study within this chapter.
The FDLP was established in 1813 when legislation was authorized to deposit print copies of selected congressional publications in certain libraries and universities with the condition that “no-fee access” be provided to the general public. The FDLP operates under a framework defined by Title 44 of the US Code §§ 1901–1916. The current structure of regional and selective depository libraries was established by the Depository Library Act of 1962 and is overseen by the US Government Publishing Office (GPO).2 There are just under 1,200 libraries in the FDLP—47 regional depository libraries and 1,127 selective depository libraries, approximately 20 percent of which are in the Southeast.3
In addition to making their holdings available to the public free of charge, regional depositories are also required to provide permanent preservation for all tangible FDLP content, as well as interlibrary loan, reference services, and assistance to the selective depositories in their region [44 USC 1913]. Whereas regional depositories receive all distributed tangible FDLP content, selective depository libraries elect to receive FDLP material that meets the needs of the communities they serve. FDLP materials distributed to selective depository libraries must be retained for at least five years, and only then may be discarded in consultation with their regional depository.4
The Electronic Information Access Enhancement Act of 1993 (Public Law 103-40) represents the last major change to Title 44. Known as the GPO Access Act, it delegated to the GPO primary responsibility for permanent public access to online content, while regional depository libraries continue to receive and be responsible for all tangible publications distributed by the FDLP.5
Between 2007 and 2008, GPO conducted a study of the regional depository libraries that highlighted the issues impacting public access to federal government publications on a national level. The December 2008 report, Regional Depository Libraries in the 21st Century: A Preliminary Assessment, documented the same issues nationwide that prompted ASERL to establish its program, including decreasing or static staffing levels for depository collections; diminishing in-depth expertise; poor cataloging and holdings information, especially for pre-1976 materials; fiscal and space constraints; and preservation issues related to obsolete technology and legacy print collections.6
Collaboration is a common strategy for addressing financial, technological, preservation, and access challenges. Indeed, the December 2008 GPO report affirms that “Collaboration is needed to meet the challenges of cataloging, storing, preserving, and digitizing the tangible collection of depository materials.”7
In the summer of 2010, deans, directors, and documents librarians from FDLP libraries in the Southeast, with representatives from GPO, came together to discuss the management of FDLP collections in the Southeast. This meeting resulted in a plan that set forth a common set of collection management and disposition policies and procedures and documented best practices that form the CFDP model. In April 2011, ASERL members unanimously approved this plan, the Guidelines for Management and Disposition of Federal Depository Library Collections in the Southeast—Implementation Plan.8 The document was further updated and reaffirmed in April 2012.
The COE model galvanized support for the cooperative management of tangible federal document collections. Upon initial approval of the plan in 2011, all ASERL members that were FDLP libraries agreed to identify at least one agency, topic, or format within their collections as a COE. From its promising start with three COE libraries, as of 2014 the program has grown to thirty-six depository libraries committed to serve as COEs, with an additional four depository libraries that have pending agreements on file. COE libraries represent both regional and selective depository libraries, with five COE libraries outside ASERL membership. The program currently provides COE services for approximately 224 SuDoc classifications, with eleven classifications having a second COE identified—an important step in ensuring an appropriate level of redundancy for these collections.
ASERL members recognize that no regional depository library in the Southeast has the resources to catalog and inventory its entire FDLP collection or to acquire all relevant documents missing from its collection. In response, COE libraries agree to work collaboratively to develop well-documented, comprehensive FDLP collections, and to provide the programs and services needed to support them. Each COE commits to cataloging and inventorying its holdings within the scope of the COE, and agrees to serve as a regional expert for its chosen agency or subject matter. This role includes gathering a collection within a specific scope that is as complete as possible, creating access to that collection and providing expert support service to the collection.
Because academic libraries develop their collections to support the user needs of their parent institution, the agency or subject matter chosen by a COE most often reflects a curricular strength of the parent institution—for example, the WPA for the UK Libraries, the Department of Education for the University of South Carolina, the Civil Rights Commission for the University of Mississippi, the Civil Aeronautics Commission for Auburn University, and NASA for the Georgia Institute of Technology. In this regard, the COE collection is no different than any other valued service point in the library. COE libraries maintain staffing levels and expertise, and provide discovery tools necessary to support the collection and make it accessible. Many COEs also offer online resources such as LibGuides and program web pages to further enhance the visibility of the collection.
There is also general agreement within ASERL that the best means of providing broad public access to FDLP collections for the foreseeable future is through online access to digital copies of FDLP content. ASERL believes the management of tangible collections should support initiatives to create a comprehensive digital collection of federal documents in the public domain.
For example, as a COE, UK Libraries agreed to build a comprehensive collection of WPA materials that would be held in perpetuity on behalf of all ASERL libraries.9 Given the age and fragile condition of most of these publications, UK Libraries elected to build a dual copy collection: one copy for access and digitization and one copy for preservation. The two collections are shelved separately, though both are housed in staff areas to guard against loss. While not a requirement for a COE, in 2011 UK Libraries began digitizing their holdings of WPA materials associated with each of the southeastern states in the ASERL region.10 As part of this process, the Libraries systematically researched WPA titles that had already been digitized by other sources and made available in the public domain. When new online content was found, UK Libraries cataloged and documented these titles as part of their COE collection. These digital copies not only serve to enhance access to the COE collection but may provide primary access to materials as a surrogate where no print copy is currently available.
It is generally recognized that no FDLP collection is 100 percent complete, as libraries were designated depositories at different times, and prior to their designation they collected and retained federal publications with varying degrees of completeness based on local needs. Whether it be due to previous retention policies, disaster, wear-and-tear, or theft, some degree of loss is inevitable. Although regional depository libraries are not required by law to build retrospective collections or to replace items that are lost, stolen, or damaged, COE libraries commit to identify publications distributed by their chosen agencies that are missing from their collections and to obtain missing items whenever possible in order to establish a comprehensive tangible collection of publications for their chosen agencies.
A significant barrier to this effort is the lack of a national union catalog of FDLP materials, which makes the process of identifying and acquiring a comprehensive collection within the selected scope of each COE a potentially difficult and time-consuming obligation. To facilitate this process, ASERL’s CFDP program is supported by two complementary software tools developed and hosted by the University of Florida. The ASERL COE Database, developed under the IMLS grant, assists with collection analysis.11 The ASERL Documents Disposition Database facilitates the disposition process for federal documents.12
The ASERL COE Database is the primary gap analysis tool for the CFDP program. The database is composed of brief cataloging records that indicate holdings for COE libraries in the Southeast and helps to determine the completeness of COE collections.13 In addition, the database allows COE libraries to upload “placeholder” records for items that the COE does not own but are known to exist within the scope of its COE collection. These records advertise to other users that the titles are known gaps that the COE is actively seeking to fill (e.g., a needs list). In addition to its gap-seeking capabilities, the database displays matches in other depository collections that can serve to identify a replacement copy should the COE’s own copy be in poor condition.
While the ASERL COE Database was specifically designed to facilitate filling gaps in COE collections, the ASERL Documents Disposition Database has also proven to be highly effective in this regard. Initially serving as a means of providing offers for tangible materials targeted for disposal, a key enhancement was implemented shortly after the database was released that allows a depository library to create a list of needed documents that are automatically matched against offers as they are posted. These needs lists can be specific or general in nature, including a complete call number and title, stems of the SuDoc number, or keywords alone.14 Since 2013, over 22,300 items have been claimed through the ASERL Documents Disposition Database, with approximately 11,000 claimed by COE libraries for materials within the scope of their COE collections. Many depository libraries in the Southeast use the ASERL Documents Disposition Database to share materials well beyond their COE collections. Any depository material that is selected for disposition may be offered to other Southeast depositories via this database, using a rolling 45-day cycle. To ensure compliance with the requirements of the Superintendent of Documents, the ability to view, select, and match items in the ASERL Documents Disposition Database is tiered based on an agreed-upon level of need.15 Materials not claimed after 45 days are removed from the database, and the offering library is sent an expiration notice to indicate the material may be recycled or given away.
The tiered access to the list of items offered has prompted most of the ASERL states to adopt the ASERL Documents Disposition Database as their primary method for sharing withdrawals within their state. For example, the state of Kentucky began using the database exclusively in 2012. Offers posted by Kentucky depositories are first available for review by staff at UK Libraries (the regional depository) for five days, though the Libraries strive to review items within the first three days. After five days, any materials not claimed by UK Libraries are offered to the other depositories in Kentucky for an additional five days. At this point, all COEs, then all regionals, and then all Southeastern depositories are offered access to these discards at the 10-, 25-, and 30-day tiered intervals, respectively. These intervals are built into the ASERL Documents Disposition Database.
As a matter of policy, UK Libraries no longer retrospectively collect materials from agencies for which a COE has been established at another library. Rather than retaining a tangible copy of these materials, UK Libraries acquire them as needed via interlibrary loan or electronically. Because this policy has potential to affect access to these materials for the Kentucky selective depositories, UK Libraries received approval by Kentucky selective depositories prior to its implementation. The decision to cease retrospective collecting in other COE areas has allowed UK Libraries to routinely eliminate from 10 to 50 percent of the offered items during their review period. It should be noted that, as a regional depository, all tangible material currently held by UK Libraries continues to be retained per the Regional Depository agreement with GPO.
While the ASERL databases have streamlined the disposition and gap-filling processes, some tasks remain arduous. Manual intervention is often necessary to prepare offers lists to upload to the databases, to create needs lists, and to verify the accuracy of a match—particularly for those relying on keywords. In addition, use of the ASERL databases is currently limited to depositories in the Southeast region. As such, COE libraries often seek and acquire materials through multiple channels: finding aids such as GPO’s Catalog of US Government Publications (CGP), the online Monthly Catalog of United States Government Publications (MoCat), WorldCat, as well as various online needs and offers lists, online discussion boards, or rare book catalogs and online auction sites. As libraries become aware of the program and the particular needs of a COE, it is common for COE libraries to receive offers of materials from depository libraries outside the Southeast. UK Libraries, for example, has received COE materials from Oklahoma State, the University of Missouri, and Enoch Pratt Free Library, to name a few.
These documents collections become more visible as COE libraries are encouraged to participate in public awareness and outreach campaigns to promote federal government publications to libraries within the region. COE libraries are committed to provide training activities to promote the use of the COE collection as well as to facilitate cooperative training initiatives to share expertise within the depository community.16 For example, in September 2012 as the IMLS grant came to a close, UK Libraries hosted a daylong event featuring Archivist of the United States David S. Ferriero as the keynote speaker. The event, which included a panel discussion on the WPA and the publications and records it produced, featured professionals from the University of Kentucky, the National Archives and Records Administration, and ASERL. Exhibits were also mounted in both the Young Library and in the Special Collections Library at the University of Kentucky, further highlighting their COE collections.
The CFDP presents challenges and benefits that should be considered according to the level at which their impact may be felt—the levels of the individual institution, the regional collaborative, and the national depository system within which the ASERL program operates.
For the individual institution, challenges can take various forms but generally arise as a result of limited resources and administrative support. Depository collections compete for limited resources within each library. Staffing levels that were adequate to maintain established federal depository operations may be strained by the additional work required of a COE, including demands on staff to create metadata, generate and edit cataloging records, prepare physical materials for transfer to remote storage (when appropriate), and prepare record files for inclusion in the ASERL databases.17 Additional reference staff may be enlisted to provide reference services to other institutions and the creation and maintenance of research guides and other reference and access tools. Any digitization efforts undertaken by the COE would require the expenditure of either in-house staff and technology resources, or securing the funding necessary to outsource the digitization work to a third-party company. Once digitized, an institution must consider whether the resulting files will be hosted locally or made available through other means, such as a state, regional, or national digital repository. There are also likely to be direct or indirect costs incurred for the local creation of digital metadata and original cataloging records to describe newly created digital content.
A library considering a COE role must also consider the physical space needed to process and permanently house materials acquired through the building of a comprehensive tangible COE collection. Depending on the size of the collection being undertaken, a substantial amount of additional materials may require permanent shelf or storage space at the local institution. This could be especially true in the case of a selective depository committing to an agency or subject area for which it did not collect comprehensively in the past. In addition to the possible need for permanent shelf or storage space, the library must also plan for temporary space for newly acquired materials to be cataloged, processed, and possibly prepared for digitization.18 Processing space may also be needed as documents already in the collection are identified and pulled for cataloging record work to change location codes, add notes to designate the items as part of an archival collection, or assign SuDoc numbers to items previously classified under Library of Congress or other non-SuDoc classification system. As such, selective depositories are encouraged to consult with their regional depository prior to committing to serve as a COE.
Significant benefits accompany participation in the ASERL CFDP. These benefits may be seen from a local perspective—accruing outwardly from the federal depository unit itself—all the way to the regional and national levels. It is useful to consider how those regional and national benefits emerge as a result of fundamental accomplishments achieved at the local level. FDLP collections nationwide are strengthened as the documented inventory of previously unknown items identified by COE libraries continues to grow. In turn, a more robust inventory of FDLP content allows libraries the opportunity to evaluate and catalog their own holdings against the cataloging records contributed by COE libraries, particularly for pre-1976 materials.
Other local library collections may also be affected as a result of the impact of the CFDP on the local federal depository collection, both in terms of focused collection building in support of COE designations, and in reacting to other institutions’ CFDP-related collections decisions. For example, subject collections related to COE-designated areas may receive additional attention as a result of the enhancement and promotion of the COE materials. At UK Libraries, research guides were created to highlight the institution’s COE collections.19 In researching content for one of their guides, a number of Appalachian Regional Commission (ARC) documents were identified in the UK Libraries Special Collections that were also relevant to the ARC COE collection. UK Libraries’ strong collections in the area of Appalachian Studies were a motivation for selecting the ARC as their second COE, and opportunities to cross-promote with other resources related to the ARC are expected to continue in the future. Moreover, the process of digitizing WPA documents for that COE collection has allowed UK Libraries to include newly created files on the Kentucky Digital Library20 and ExploreUK21 platforms. These complementary activities draw further attention to the many other valuable resources hosted in those collections and increase visibility and use of these resources.
On the regional level, COE collections developed and maintained at a given institution are likely to help other libraries. Most notably, the commitment to provide reference expertise on COE subjects represents a direct benefit. Libraries can refer traditional reference requests to the COE library staff, provide links to research guides or other descriptive finding aids created and hosted by the COE library, and rely on COE collections as authoritative when helping users identify materials for their research.
Libraries throughout the Southeast region also benefit from other institutions’ COE collections by relying on their commitments to comprehensive collection development in a given area. This allows selective depositories to make important decisions on how to use their own shelf space and other resources to serve local priorities. This is a significant benefit for selective depositories that are experiencing pressure to repurpose library space, but are also committed to ensuring continued quality access across the region to those documents they are no longer able to retain locally. Knowing that an agency or subject area has been given COE status at another institution can further justify a selective depository’s decision to withdraw corresponding materials, even after the regional depository has authorized the withdrawal on the state level.
Libraries that support and participate in the ASERL CFDP contribute to the success of a regional initiative that complements the FDLP and serve as a model for other regional consortia interested in developing options for managing and strengthening federal depository collections. Further discussion among interested parties about the future of the FDLP and the roles individual libraries and regional consortia play in supporting the mission and goals of the program are likely to spur additional innovation in the management of federal publications and enhance collections and services—not only in the Southeast but nationally as well.
The CFDP is an innovative program that owes its success largely to documents librarians and library deans and directors catalyzing change rather than passively waiting for it to occur. However, the CFDP also operates within the boundaries of the FDLP and is mindful of the legacy state-based depository system in which COEs function. ASERL has worked closely with GPO, the larger FDLP community, and other interested parties to periodically review and realign goals during this time of considerable change in the areas of federal publications and federal depository collections. Due to the finite number of depository libraries in the Southeast, it has been long understood that establishing a COE for the complete corpus of FDLP content within the Southeast is a major undertaking that will take many years to accomplish. In the end, the common goals of collecting, preserving, and providing access to federal government publications should be the catalyst for productive collaboration among individual institutions, state-based depository operations, regional collaborative models, and federal programs operating within this legal framework.
The CFDP model relies on sufficient and sustained participation by eligible institutions. While many participating libraries have expanded their commitment to serve as a COE for more than a single agency, a number of SuDoc classifications have yet to be adopted. It will be important for those institutions already participating on some level to consider taking on additional agencies or subject areas, either as the first commitment for a given collection or as the second COE in an area already taken on by another library. The logic of the COE model anticipates a critical mass of participation in order to impact broadly the way federal depository collections in the region are managed and distributed. Although a number of challenges lie ahead for the CFDP in order to sustain growth, ASERL continues to identify incentives to support progress toward the CFDP’s ideal of comprehensive coverage of the full corpus of FDLP collections.
Productive communication and engagement among participating institutions ensures program goals continue to be shared and periodically reviewed, the intentions of the CFDP remain clear, and its value is acknowledged. To this end, opportunities to promote the program help to accomplish three main objectives: to attract eligible institutions to increase levels of participation in the CFDP; to encourage other regional consortia to investigate comparable, and complementary, collaborative initiatives; and to ensure that the CFDP model continues to work within the legal mandate of the FDLP to enhance access to and preservation of federal government publications. The considerable challenges that continue to face federal depository libraries that were so clearly articulated in the 2008 GPO report remain today, making these goals a significant undertaking.
Innovative technological solutions, such as the ASERL COE Database and the ASERL Documents Disposition Database, have been integral to the practical functioning of COE activities. ASERL has deemed it imperative that administrative and technological supports remain in place to guide and facilitate the work being done at the individual libraries. In 2012, when grant funding ended, and again in April 2014, ASERL’s membership unanimously approved funds to ensure ongoing administrative support and technological infrastructure for the program.
Taken together, the benefits and challenges described above represent a situation that might be expected to arise from any innovative program affecting various interests while also negotiating an established system of some complexity. The benefits, both realized and potential, argue for continued growth and management of the CFDP by ASERL and sustained support from librarians and administrators at participating institutions. As with any collaborative venture, this continued support and participation, when combined with new involvement by eligible depositories not currently taking an active role, will allow many of the benefits to increase and a number of the challenges to subside, and further ensure continued discovery of and access to these valued collections.
Notes
1. The format of materials to be retained by Centers of Excellence within their areas of responsibility is detailed in the Guidelines for Management and Disposition of Federal Depository Library Collections in the Southeast—Implementation Plan. Revised July 2012, p. 4–5, www.aserl.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/FINAL_ASERL_FDLP_GUIDELINES_Revised_07-2012.pdf.
2. The Depository Library Act of 1962, www.fdlp.gov/file-repository/4-depository-library-act-of-1962?path.
3. Federal Depository Library Directory (FDLD), http://www.fdlp.gov/about-the-fdlp/federal-depository-libraries.
4. The only exceptions are for superseded publications, and those issued later in another format (bound, microfiche, or electronic media). Regulation 52 of “Legal Requirements and Program Regulations of the Federal Depository Library Program,” June 2011, US Government Printing Office, Office of the Superintendent of Documents.
5. Regional Depository Libraries in the 21st Century: A Time for Change? A Draft Report to the Joint Committee on Printing. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, June 2008, p. 16., from www.fdlp.gov/file-repository/about-the-fdlp/regional-depositories/54-regional-depository-libraries-in-the-21st-century-a-time-for-change.
6. Regional Depository Libraries in the 21st Century: A Preliminary Assessment. Final Report to the Joint Committee on Printing. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, December 2008, pp. 4–5. from www.fdlp.gov/file-repository/about-the-fdlp/regional-depositories/564-regional-depository-libraries-in-the-21st-century-a-preliminary-assessment.
7. Ibid.
8. Guidelines for Management and Disposition of Federal Depository Library Collections in the Southeast—Implementation Plan, Revised July 2012. Approved at the ASERL Spring Membership Meeting, April 12, 2012, from www.aserl.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/FINAL_ASERL_FDLP_GUIDELINES_Revised_07-2012.pdf.
9. The scope of the WPA collection at the University of Kentucky is defined as any title that was published by the Work Projects/Works Progress Administration (WPA), with the Superintendent of Documents (SuDoc) classification numbers of FW and Y 3.W 89/2.
10. Membership in ASERL is limited to libraries of educational institutions or of governmental agencies in the southeastern region of the United States of America (i.e., Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia). The ASERL Board can, at its option, invite institutions outside the Southeast to apply for membership, as such, the state of Maryland is also represented.
11. LibGuide: ASERL COE Database, http://guides.uflib.ufl.edu/ASERL-COEDB.
12. LibGuide: ASERL Documents Disposition Database, http://guides.uflib.ufl.edu/c.php?g=147623&p=968217.
13. A current list of all Centers of Excellence collections, as well as additional supporting documentation (such as Best Practices for Becoming a COE), is maintained on the ASERL website at www.aserl.org/programs/gov-doc/.
14. By way of example, in addition to needs based on SuDoc stems and/or keywords pertinent to the WPA and the Appalachian Regional Commission, UK Libraries have uploaded a list of over 7,000 individual items known to be missing from its collections.
15. Guidelines for Management and Disposition of Federal Depository Library Collections in the Southeast—Implementation Plan.
16. A number of training webinars of interest to the Government Documents community have been presented and the recordings archived on the ASERL website at www.aserl.org/archive/.
17. The inventory and cataloging of the WPA collection at the University of Kentucky was completed in 2010, using one library technician and two part-time graduate assistants from the Cataloging Department and the Federal Depository Unit. One part-time staff person has been added to the Unit in support of the program.
18. Participation in the CFDP as a Center of Excellence has not required any additional space or facilities for UK Libraries, but has required relocation of collections in order to streamline work processes.
19. University of Kentucky Works Progress Administration Collection, http://libguides.uky.edu/content.php?pid=158153&sid=3148607, and the Appalachian Regional Commission, http://libguides.uky.edu/content.php?pid=568543.
20. Kentucky Digital Library, http://kdl.kyvl.org.
21. ExploreUK, http://exploreuk.uky.edu.