- Email: [email protected]
Acquisition of state documents
Library Acquisitions: Practice and Theory, VoL 4, pp. 117-127 (1980) 0364*6408/80/020117-11 $02.00/0 Printed in the U.S.A. All fights reserved. Copyright © 1980 Pergamon Press Ltd
ACQUISITION OF STATE DOCUMENTS JOHN ERLANDSON and YVONNE BOYER The University of North Carolina Wilson Library 024A Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27514
State documents can be an excellent resource for most libraries, but needs must be carefully defined and selection procedures rigidly adhered to if those materials are to be cost-effective. Practical suggestions are offered which should help libraries select state documents in the most efficient manner.
State documents are a difficult but valuable resource of which many fibraries neglect to take advantage. Three causes of tiffs undemtilization are limited bibliographic access, lack of centralized publishing and distribution facilities, and confusion relating to the structure of state government. While materials published by state governments are generally acknowledged to be very useful, 1 the problems noted above serve to restrict the use of these materials. In order to take full advantage of state documents, librarians must learn to cope with the problems of acquiring them and making them accessible. In some cases, this is not difficult; learning more about state government organization, publishing and distribution patterns should alleviate many of the acquisitions problems, for example. Other solutions, such as the formation of a national distribution center for state documents, will require the concerted effort of a number of libraries. Occasionally, it is possible for an individual library, through examination of its own policies, to determine a pattern of acquisition which may be useful to other libraries. The State Documents Librarian at Duke University noticed a pattern in the acquisition of state documents that seemed to revolve around those sources which list state documents and were scanned as selection tools by the librarian. There was a general feeling that some sources were "better" than others. Quality is measured by the likelihood of actually acquiring a document once it is listed in a particular source. Other measures of quality are the percentage of documents listed which cost money (the lower the better), the currency o f the source, and the extent of geographic coverage. Although there was a pattern in the acquisition of materials, it was difficult to develop conclusions without specific data. To accumulate this data, the State Documents Librarian maintained detailed records on the acquisition of state materials. This article is the result of the study of those records. 117
118
JOHN ERLANDSON and YVONNE BOYER METHODOLOGY
In order to assess the various measures of quality mentioned above, orders placed by the State Documents Librarian at Duke University between January 1977 and June 1978 were studied. Approximately 2,000 items were ordered and a modified SPSS computer program was used to analyze a sample of approximately 600 items (30%). The SPSS computer program prints out the result of the comparison of two sets of data such as cost of publication and source. This is called "cross-tabulation" and is one of the major benefits in using the computer. Documents selected were ordered using a form letter (see Appendix I) sent to the issuing agency. Information regarding the state, agency, title, source, cost, type (serial or monograph), source of citation and date of source, date ordered, and date received were recorded (see Appendix 2) and kept in a check-in file. Because this is an empirical study, many readers may question the validity of the results. For example, there is a preponderance of orders from southeastern states; there are numerous incomplete citations; and, there is no objective criterion with which to accurately compare the various indexes. However, the authors believe that the study is valid in spite of these limitations because it reflects how well individual selection sources met the actual selection of one academic library. This article is not designed to answer all questions about all selection sources for all state documents, but rather it is intended to provide additional information about selected sources for state documents.
RESULTS The results of the cross-tabulation can be divided into general characteristics of state documents and specific characteristics of individual selection sources.
General Characteristicso f State Documents The policy of Duke Unive~ty was to select documents from all 50 states, with an emphasis on the southeastern region and selected subject areas. Documents were identified by reviewing numerous selection sources (see below) and then ordered using form letters (Appendix 1). Of the 2,000 individual orders placed between January 1977 and June 1978, a total of 591 orders were studied. The first fact to come to the authors' attention was the high response rate: over 95% (558 orders) were responded to (though not necessarily received). Tiffs may be considered a high response rate because identifying a document's issuing agency is often the most difficult step in acquiring that document.2 The second major point deduced from the data was that the longer a request was outstanding, the less chance there was of getting a response. Figure 1 demonstrates that, on the average, 85% of all requests were responded to within the first five weeks, and that after five weeks the response rate declined dramatically. In addition, of those responses received after five weeks, a high percentage listed the requested document as being "out of print." This ~'esponse pattern indicates two things. First, responses not received within five weeks should be followed up with a second request. Second, the requesting library must be prepared to accept a large number of "out of print" responses for the second requests noted above.
Acquisitions of State Documents
% Responses Received
119
1oo .~
mm air
95
90 8o
8
70 60' 50 jP 42.8
4o 30
I
/ 20
/
lO / i
o
I
-~
. 3
.
4
.
.
S
.
6
~
tl
' 78
Weeks Outstanding
Figure l. Pm,ceatage of documents reemved by number of weeks request was ~ ! ! .
Figure 2 is a related chart which demonstrates that the average response time (in weeks) was reduced at a rate of about one week for every nine months of requests. This is due, in part, to the greater efficiency of the staff in ordering materials (a good example of a learning effect; i.e., the workers' productivity rate improving with practice). 5 The reduction in response rate may also be attributed to greater efficiency on the part of the states and their distribution networks. The authors believe that because of the learning effect on either the staff or the state distributors, or both, the average response time wili eventually be reduced to two or three weeks. About 75% of the documents requested were serial publications and about 25% were monographs. The average response time of 4.3 weeks was about the same for both serials and monographs. Figure 3 demonstrates that a slightly greater percentage of responses were received for monographs during the one- to five-week period; after five weeks, the response rate was about the same. The authors believe that the higher percentage of serials ordered was not completely caused by the acquisition policy, but also reflected the higher percentage of serials offered for distribution by state governments. This is a factor which the authors believe will continue in the future. Most librarians are becoming increasingly aware of and concerned about the cost of publicat/ous. 4 While this study did not consider the actual purchase price of state documents, information was compiled on the percentage of total responses which asked for payment. During the time period of this study, an overwhehning majority of responses (88.7%) did not require payment of any kind.
120
JOHN ERLANDSON and YVONNE BOYER
Weeks 5 Outstanding
5.0 4.78
4
• 3.5 3
~ _'_ 3.0
~
3.46
.
~
.
3:2
*
3.08
2.76
2.79
2.~5 2.13
4/77 5/77 6/77 7/77 8/77 9•77
10t77 11/77 12/77 1/78 2/78 3/78 4/78 5/78
Date of Source
Figure 2. Average number of weeks a request was outstanding by date of source (i.e., publication
date of aequiiti~ source). Naturally, the continued inexpensiveness of state documents would make them attractive to cost.conscious librarians. However, state documents are not totally immune from the forces of the marketplace. The percentage of responses requiring payment have been rising. Figure 4 demonstrates that between April 1977 and April 1978 the average number of responses requiring payment rose from about 5% to about 12%. While the overall figure remains small, the rate of increase is staggering. Th~ data used to support Figure 4 and the time period studied is very limited; but, given the inflationary cycle all publishers must face, s it is reasonable to expect the percentage of state documents costing money to continue to rise.
Specific Characteristics o f Individual Selection Sources for State Documents The State Documents Librarian at Duke University used a variety of sources to identify and order state publications. Bibliographies and lhts used were: Monthly Checklist of State Publications (Library o f Congress); various checklists; various departmental checklists; andPAIS. In addition, advertisements and Library of Congress catalog cards (containing a state main entry) were treated as ordering sources as were orders placed through the (separate) Acquisitions Department. Another category includes patron requests, occasional bibliographies and checklists, and orders from library staff. Figure 5 is a graphical representation of the sources used to order state documents. This graph clearly indicates that three sources were used to order most (89.3%) state documents: the state
Acquisition of State Documents % Documents Ordered
121
100 f~
90 80 70 6O 50 Serial 40 . .. 30
,°/
Monograph
I
I
20
.
/
in
0
|
2
3
15,2
42
19.0
45.3 72.3
66,7
4
5
77.2 80.3
85..T- 87.7 83.9 84.6
6
I
Weeks Outstanding
7
8
9
10
90.3 86.8
91.5 86.8
92.7 93.3
Serhd Monograph
Fipre 3. ig~mmm time in wmkJ by type of docnmm~t. % Rempomes 100 I
eeqmr~
Payment
~, 40"
33.3 30
20 •
~'_
188
10
0 •
0
4177 5 / 7 7 6/77
0 7 / 7 7 8 / 7 7 9177 10177 11/77 '12177
Date of Source 1178 2178 3/78
Figure 4. Percentage o f responses requiring p a y m e n t b y date o f source.
4178 5178
122
JOHN ERLANDSON and YVONNE BOYER
%of Orders
45 41.5 40~' 35, 30J 25.5
25
"t "t __.3 i i
20 15,
!
10.
I i
5.2
5 0
Source
LC Check.
State Check.
Other
LC Cards
PAlS
Acq.
Adver.
Dept. Check.
Figuge 5. Orders by source.
checklists, L.C. 'sMonthly Checklist and "other" sources. The obvious dependence on these indexes meant that other indexes were relatively unused. Departmental checklists, advertisements, and orders sent from the Acquisitions Department at Duke Univemty were underrepresented and were therefore not included in the study. PAIS and L.C. catalog cards, while underused by comparison to the more heavily'used sources, were statistically significant and were included in the survey. The data in Figure 5 confirm the dominance of the Monthly C~ecklist as a bibliography for state documents, but the fact that the Monthly Checklist lists more documents does not necessarily mean the documents from this index are more accessible. For example, Figure 6 shows that at the end of three weeks, 71% of the orders from the Monthly Checklist had been responded to whereas PAlS had a 77% response rate. Overall, there is very little difference in the response rate of orders placed by source. The only source that had a significantly lower response time was LC catalog cards. This is to be expected because LC catalog cards do not necessarily represent current documents, and state documents go out of print very quickly. The authors assume that when a document is out of print there is lower probability of receiving any response. The data in Table 1 demonstrate that the state checklists, PAlS and the Monthly Checklist have about the same response rate in terms of time. Sources which do not list currently available documents have a much lower response rate. Figure 7 graphically represents the average amount of time responses were outstanding by source of order. This graph does not lead to any absolute conclusion, but it does verify the similarity of the three current checklists (state checklists, Monthly Checklist, and PAIS). In one sense, these are deceptive figures because they list average times for which responses, rather than all requests, were outstanding. Consequently, a source such as the LC catalog cards can demonstrate a very fast response rate (2.42 w.eeks) for the very few items returned (37% of all items requested). Other sources, such as the Monthly Checklist present a longer average time
Acquisition of State Documents
123
% Responses 100 Received 9O
..
•" ~
. • • • •.
•
~t%9.%~-/.~
•. ~
.-:-...-~...-:-........."
t~
~
~
~
80 70
../÷~++÷: -,
60
..2::/
50 4O 3O 20 10 Weeks
0 l
2
3
4
5
6
xxxxxxxxxx~ SlateChecklist PAIS . . . . . . . . . . . 1.~ Checkl~ Other -I.CCatalogCards
Fitme 6. R e q m m e rate by individualselection source.
TABLE 1 SELECTED DATA ON THE RESPONSE RATE BY INDIVIDUAL SELECTION SOURCE i
i
i
i
ii
% Responses Received Weeks Out
Source LC catalog cards Other State checklists
Checklist PAlS
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
23.1 17.7 17.4 13.7 7.7
29.1 43.5 43.8 41.1 38.7
35.5 63.7 66.0 71.0 77.0
37.3 69.3 78.5 82.5 84.7
37.3 75.8 86.1 90.6 92.4
37.3 79.0 88.9 91.9 92.4
37.3 82.5 91.9 94.0 92.4
124
JOHN ERLANDSON and YVONNE BOYER Average 6 Weeks Outstanding 5
5.44
4.0
4
3.73 3.45 2.42
Other
PAlS
State Check.
LC Check.
LC Card
Figure 7. Average weeks a response was outstanding by source of request.
100, 92.2
96.8
90, 88.7
89.4
80, 73.3
70, 60. 50. 40, 30. 20.
,O. o 11.3
State Checklist
3.2 LC Checklist
LC Cards
PAlS
COST
Figure 8. Percentage of materials by cost and source.
Other
NOCOST
AcquisRion of State Documents
125
outstanding. However, this is a more accurate and reliable figure than the figure for LC catalog cards because of the higher response rate (see Table l). The average response time is important because it gives the librarian some idea as to how much time the average request should be outstanding. This is particularly useful in determining if and when to send a second request. Because most libraries have to deal with a fixed budget, one of the more interesting differences between the selection sources is the number of documents listed which cost money. Figure 8 compares the cost and no-cost responses by each selection source. While an average of 88.7% of materials were issued free of charge, there was some variability in this number. If cost is the selection criteria, LC catalog cards and LC Checklists are useful sources to review because of the low percentage of material listed which cost money. PAIS, on the other hand, is much more likely to list documents which cost money.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS State documents can be an excellent resource for most libraries, but needs must be carefully defined and selection procedures rigidly adhered to if these materials are to be cost-effective. The following practical suggestions should help libraries to select materials in the most efficient manner"
1. State governments are generally responsive to requests and the materials are inexpensive; however, materials go out of print very quickly. Therefore, it is necessary to order the material as soon as possible. 2. The average response time for requests should level out at between two and three weeks. This is partially a result of using established ordering procedures which increase the learning effect. 3. An established selection and acquisition policy allows a rapid review of selection sources and speeds up the selection process considerably. 4. Each of the selection sources used has good and bad points, but it is clear that some sources are consistently superior to others. The Monthly Checklist is excellent because of the sheer number of items listed. State checklists are useful because of their currency and specific geographical coverage. PAIS is a good selective guide to reference publications. 5. State documents are going to cost more in the future, but for now they are relatively inexpensive. State documents librarians should be given some access to the acquisitions budget so that they can order those few documents which cost money as quickly as possible. This article continues with Appendices and References on pp. 126-127.
126
JOHN ERLANDSONand YVONNEBOYER APPENDIX 1
Form Letter Used to Order State Documents
~ u k e ~tti~ermit~ ~
~
zTzo6
Gentlemen: We would a p p r e c i a t e your assistance in a c q u i r i n g your p u b l i c a t i o n n o t e d below. I f it is not available for f r e e distribution, w i l l you p l e a s e supply information c o n c e r n i n g the cost and the agency from which it should be o r d e r e d . Thank you. Very t r u l y y o u r s ,
John A. E r l a n d s o n P u b l i c Documents Department
APPENDIX 2
Order Card for State Documents AGENCY:
ADDRESS:
TITLE:
SERIAL
[]
MONOGRAPH [] DATE ORDERED: DATE REC'D:
SOU RCE:
OTHER:
COST:
Acquisition of State Documents
127
REFERENCES 1. Kessler, Ridley, R. "State Documents, An Expanding Resource," Southeastern Librarian, 21 (Fall 1971), p. 172. 2. Nelson, William NeaL "Government Documents of Florida: Acquisition, Organization and Use," Southeastern Librarian, 27 (Fall 1977), p. 157. 3. Start, Martin K. Operations Management. Engiewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1978. 4. Burton, Robert E. "Book Selection and Budget Cuts in Academic L~raries,'Michigan Librarian 41 (Spring 1975), p. 7. 5. "Book Spending to Inch Up; But $$ Buy Fewer Books," Library Journal 102 (February 1977), p. 437.
BIBLIOGRAPHY "Book Spending to Inch Up; But $$ Buy Fewer Books." Library Jour~! 102 (February 1977): 437. Burton, Robert E. "Book Selection and Budget Cuts in Academic L~raries."Michifan L i ~ 41 (Spring 1975): 7-9. Hernon, Peter. "State 'Documents to the People'." Government Periodicals Review 3 (1976): 255-266. Kessler, Ridiey R. "State Documents, An Expanding Resource." Southeastern Librarian 21 (Fall 1971): 172-175. Lane, Margaret T. "Acquisition of State Documents," Law Library Journal 63 (February 1970): 92-99. Nelson, William Neal. "Government Documents of Florida: Acquisiton, Organization and Use." Southcastern Librarian 27 (Fall 1977): 157o162. Rosenkoetter, Paul "Treatment of State Documents in I.a'breries."Government Periodicals Review 3 (1973): 117-134. Start, Martin IL Operations Management. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentic~4tall, 1978. White, Marilyn Donuts. "Drawing Analogies Between State and Federal Documents: A Method for IncreaJing Access to State Publications," Government Periodicals Review 2 (1975): 111-125.
ACQUISITION OF STATE DOCUMENTS JOHN ERLANDSON and YVONNE BOYER The University of North Carolina Wilson Library 024A Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27514
State documents can be an excellent resource for most libraries, but needs must be carefully defined and selection procedures rigidly adhered to if those materials are to be cost-effective. Practical suggestions are offered which should help libraries select state documents in the most efficient manner.
State documents are a difficult but valuable resource of which many fibraries neglect to take advantage. Three causes of tiffs undemtilization are limited bibliographic access, lack of centralized publishing and distribution facilities, and confusion relating to the structure of state government. While materials published by state governments are generally acknowledged to be very useful, 1 the problems noted above serve to restrict the use of these materials. In order to take full advantage of state documents, librarians must learn to cope with the problems of acquiring them and making them accessible. In some cases, this is not difficult; learning more about state government organization, publishing and distribution patterns should alleviate many of the acquisitions problems, for example. Other solutions, such as the formation of a national distribution center for state documents, will require the concerted effort of a number of libraries. Occasionally, it is possible for an individual library, through examination of its own policies, to determine a pattern of acquisition which may be useful to other libraries. The State Documents Librarian at Duke University noticed a pattern in the acquisition of state documents that seemed to revolve around those sources which list state documents and were scanned as selection tools by the librarian. There was a general feeling that some sources were "better" than others. Quality is measured by the likelihood of actually acquiring a document once it is listed in a particular source. Other measures of quality are the percentage of documents listed which cost money (the lower the better), the currency o f the source, and the extent of geographic coverage. Although there was a pattern in the acquisition of materials, it was difficult to develop conclusions without specific data. To accumulate this data, the State Documents Librarian maintained detailed records on the acquisition of state materials. This article is the result of the study of those records. 117
118
JOHN ERLANDSON and YVONNE BOYER METHODOLOGY
In order to assess the various measures of quality mentioned above, orders placed by the State Documents Librarian at Duke University between January 1977 and June 1978 were studied. Approximately 2,000 items were ordered and a modified SPSS computer program was used to analyze a sample of approximately 600 items (30%). The SPSS computer program prints out the result of the comparison of two sets of data such as cost of publication and source. This is called "cross-tabulation" and is one of the major benefits in using the computer. Documents selected were ordered using a form letter (see Appendix I) sent to the issuing agency. Information regarding the state, agency, title, source, cost, type (serial or monograph), source of citation and date of source, date ordered, and date received were recorded (see Appendix 2) and kept in a check-in file. Because this is an empirical study, many readers may question the validity of the results. For example, there is a preponderance of orders from southeastern states; there are numerous incomplete citations; and, there is no objective criterion with which to accurately compare the various indexes. However, the authors believe that the study is valid in spite of these limitations because it reflects how well individual selection sources met the actual selection of one academic library. This article is not designed to answer all questions about all selection sources for all state documents, but rather it is intended to provide additional information about selected sources for state documents.
RESULTS The results of the cross-tabulation can be divided into general characteristics of state documents and specific characteristics of individual selection sources.
General Characteristicso f State Documents The policy of Duke Unive~ty was to select documents from all 50 states, with an emphasis on the southeastern region and selected subject areas. Documents were identified by reviewing numerous selection sources (see below) and then ordered using form letters (Appendix 1). Of the 2,000 individual orders placed between January 1977 and June 1978, a total of 591 orders were studied. The first fact to come to the authors' attention was the high response rate: over 95% (558 orders) were responded to (though not necessarily received). Tiffs may be considered a high response rate because identifying a document's issuing agency is often the most difficult step in acquiring that document.2 The second major point deduced from the data was that the longer a request was outstanding, the less chance there was of getting a response. Figure 1 demonstrates that, on the average, 85% of all requests were responded to within the first five weeks, and that after five weeks the response rate declined dramatically. In addition, of those responses received after five weeks, a high percentage listed the requested document as being "out of print." This ~'esponse pattern indicates two things. First, responses not received within five weeks should be followed up with a second request. Second, the requesting library must be prepared to accept a large number of "out of print" responses for the second requests noted above.
Acquisitions of State Documents
% Responses Received
119
1oo .~
mm air
95
90 8o
8
70 60' 50 jP 42.8
4o 30
I
/ 20
/
lO / i
o
I
-~
. 3
.
4
.
.
S
.
6
~
tl
' 78
Weeks Outstanding
Figure l. Pm,ceatage of documents reemved by number of weeks request was ~ ! ! .
Figure 2 is a related chart which demonstrates that the average response time (in weeks) was reduced at a rate of about one week for every nine months of requests. This is due, in part, to the greater efficiency of the staff in ordering materials (a good example of a learning effect; i.e., the workers' productivity rate improving with practice). 5 The reduction in response rate may also be attributed to greater efficiency on the part of the states and their distribution networks. The authors believe that because of the learning effect on either the staff or the state distributors, or both, the average response time wili eventually be reduced to two or three weeks. About 75% of the documents requested were serial publications and about 25% were monographs. The average response time of 4.3 weeks was about the same for both serials and monographs. Figure 3 demonstrates that a slightly greater percentage of responses were received for monographs during the one- to five-week period; after five weeks, the response rate was about the same. The authors believe that the higher percentage of serials ordered was not completely caused by the acquisition policy, but also reflected the higher percentage of serials offered for distribution by state governments. This is a factor which the authors believe will continue in the future. Most librarians are becoming increasingly aware of and concerned about the cost of publicat/ous. 4 While this study did not consider the actual purchase price of state documents, information was compiled on the percentage of total responses which asked for payment. During the time period of this study, an overwhehning majority of responses (88.7%) did not require payment of any kind.
120
JOHN ERLANDSON and YVONNE BOYER
Weeks 5 Outstanding
5.0 4.78
4
• 3.5 3
~ _'_ 3.0
~
3.46
.
~
.
3:2
*
3.08
2.76
2.79
2.~5 2.13
4/77 5/77 6/77 7/77 8/77 9•77
10t77 11/77 12/77 1/78 2/78 3/78 4/78 5/78
Date of Source
Figure 2. Average number of weeks a request was outstanding by date of source (i.e., publication
date of aequiiti~ source). Naturally, the continued inexpensiveness of state documents would make them attractive to cost.conscious librarians. However, state documents are not totally immune from the forces of the marketplace. The percentage of responses requiring payment have been rising. Figure 4 demonstrates that between April 1977 and April 1978 the average number of responses requiring payment rose from about 5% to about 12%. While the overall figure remains small, the rate of increase is staggering. Th~ data used to support Figure 4 and the time period studied is very limited; but, given the inflationary cycle all publishers must face, s it is reasonable to expect the percentage of state documents costing money to continue to rise.
Specific Characteristics o f Individual Selection Sources for State Documents The State Documents Librarian at Duke University used a variety of sources to identify and order state publications. Bibliographies and lhts used were: Monthly Checklist of State Publications (Library o f Congress); various checklists; various departmental checklists; andPAIS. In addition, advertisements and Library of Congress catalog cards (containing a state main entry) were treated as ordering sources as were orders placed through the (separate) Acquisitions Department. Another category includes patron requests, occasional bibliographies and checklists, and orders from library staff. Figure 5 is a graphical representation of the sources used to order state documents. This graph clearly indicates that three sources were used to order most (89.3%) state documents: the state
Acquisition of State Documents % Documents Ordered
121
100 f~
90 80 70 6O 50 Serial 40 . .. 30
,°/
Monograph
I
I
20
.
/
in
0
|
2
3
15,2
42
19.0
45.3 72.3
66,7
4
5
77.2 80.3
85..T- 87.7 83.9 84.6
6
I
Weeks Outstanding
7
8
9
10
90.3 86.8
91.5 86.8
92.7 93.3
Serhd Monograph
Fipre 3. ig~mmm time in wmkJ by type of docnmm~t. % Rempomes 100 I
eeqmr~
Payment
~, 40"
33.3 30
20 •
~'_
188
10
0 •
0
4177 5 / 7 7 6/77
0 7 / 7 7 8 / 7 7 9177 10177 11/77 '12177
Date of Source 1178 2178 3/78
Figure 4. Percentage o f responses requiring p a y m e n t b y date o f source.
4178 5178
122
JOHN ERLANDSON and YVONNE BOYER
%of Orders
45 41.5 40~' 35, 30J 25.5
25
"t "t __.3 i i
20 15,
!
10.
I i
5.2
5 0
Source
LC Check.
State Check.
Other
LC Cards
PAlS
Acq.
Adver.
Dept. Check.
Figuge 5. Orders by source.
checklists, L.C. 'sMonthly Checklist and "other" sources. The obvious dependence on these indexes meant that other indexes were relatively unused. Departmental checklists, advertisements, and orders sent from the Acquisitions Department at Duke Univemty were underrepresented and were therefore not included in the study. PAIS and L.C. catalog cards, while underused by comparison to the more heavily'used sources, were statistically significant and were included in the survey. The data in Figure 5 confirm the dominance of the Monthly C~ecklist as a bibliography for state documents, but the fact that the Monthly Checklist lists more documents does not necessarily mean the documents from this index are more accessible. For example, Figure 6 shows that at the end of three weeks, 71% of the orders from the Monthly Checklist had been responded to whereas PAlS had a 77% response rate. Overall, there is very little difference in the response rate of orders placed by source. The only source that had a significantly lower response time was LC catalog cards. This is to be expected because LC catalog cards do not necessarily represent current documents, and state documents go out of print very quickly. The authors assume that when a document is out of print there is lower probability of receiving any response. The data in Table 1 demonstrate that the state checklists, PAlS and the Monthly Checklist have about the same response rate in terms of time. Sources which do not list currently available documents have a much lower response rate. Figure 7 graphically represents the average amount of time responses were outstanding by source of order. This graph does not lead to any absolute conclusion, but it does verify the similarity of the three current checklists (state checklists, Monthly Checklist, and PAIS). In one sense, these are deceptive figures because they list average times for which responses, rather than all requests, were outstanding. Consequently, a source such as the LC catalog cards can demonstrate a very fast response rate (2.42 w.eeks) for the very few items returned (37% of all items requested). Other sources, such as the Monthly Checklist present a longer average time
Acquisition of State Documents
123
% Responses 100 Received 9O
..
•" ~
. • • • •.
•
~t%9.%~-/.~
•. ~
.-:-...-~...-:-........."
t~
~
~
~
80 70
../÷~++÷: -,
60
..2::/
50 4O 3O 20 10 Weeks
0 l
2
3
4
5
6
xxxxxxxxxx~ SlateChecklist PAIS . . . . . . . . . . . 1.~ Checkl~ Other -I.CCatalogCards
Fitme 6. R e q m m e rate by individualselection source.
TABLE 1 SELECTED DATA ON THE RESPONSE RATE BY INDIVIDUAL SELECTION SOURCE i
i
i
i
ii
% Responses Received Weeks Out
Source LC catalog cards Other State checklists
Checklist PAlS
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
23.1 17.7 17.4 13.7 7.7
29.1 43.5 43.8 41.1 38.7
35.5 63.7 66.0 71.0 77.0
37.3 69.3 78.5 82.5 84.7
37.3 75.8 86.1 90.6 92.4
37.3 79.0 88.9 91.9 92.4
37.3 82.5 91.9 94.0 92.4
124
JOHN ERLANDSON and YVONNE BOYER Average 6 Weeks Outstanding 5
5.44
4.0
4
3.73 3.45 2.42
Other
PAlS
State Check.
LC Check.
LC Card
Figure 7. Average weeks a response was outstanding by source of request.
100, 92.2
96.8
90, 88.7
89.4
80, 73.3
70, 60. 50. 40, 30. 20.
,O. o 11.3
State Checklist
3.2 LC Checklist
LC Cards
PAlS
COST
Figure 8. Percentage of materials by cost and source.
Other
NOCOST
AcquisRion of State Documents
125
outstanding. However, this is a more accurate and reliable figure than the figure for LC catalog cards because of the higher response rate (see Table l). The average response time is important because it gives the librarian some idea as to how much time the average request should be outstanding. This is particularly useful in determining if and when to send a second request. Because most libraries have to deal with a fixed budget, one of the more interesting differences between the selection sources is the number of documents listed which cost money. Figure 8 compares the cost and no-cost responses by each selection source. While an average of 88.7% of materials were issued free of charge, there was some variability in this number. If cost is the selection criteria, LC catalog cards and LC Checklists are useful sources to review because of the low percentage of material listed which cost money. PAIS, on the other hand, is much more likely to list documents which cost money.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS State documents can be an excellent resource for most libraries, but needs must be carefully defined and selection procedures rigidly adhered to if these materials are to be cost-effective. The following practical suggestions should help libraries to select materials in the most efficient manner"
1. State governments are generally responsive to requests and the materials are inexpensive; however, materials go out of print very quickly. Therefore, it is necessary to order the material as soon as possible. 2. The average response time for requests should level out at between two and three weeks. This is partially a result of using established ordering procedures which increase the learning effect. 3. An established selection and acquisition policy allows a rapid review of selection sources and speeds up the selection process considerably. 4. Each of the selection sources used has good and bad points, but it is clear that some sources are consistently superior to others. The Monthly Checklist is excellent because of the sheer number of items listed. State checklists are useful because of their currency and specific geographical coverage. PAIS is a good selective guide to reference publications. 5. State documents are going to cost more in the future, but for now they are relatively inexpensive. State documents librarians should be given some access to the acquisitions budget so that they can order those few documents which cost money as quickly as possible. This article continues with Appendices and References on pp. 126-127.
126
JOHN ERLANDSONand YVONNEBOYER APPENDIX 1
Form Letter Used to Order State Documents
~ u k e ~tti~ermit~ ~
~
zTzo6
Gentlemen: We would a p p r e c i a t e your assistance in a c q u i r i n g your p u b l i c a t i o n n o t e d below. I f it is not available for f r e e distribution, w i l l you p l e a s e supply information c o n c e r n i n g the cost and the agency from which it should be o r d e r e d . Thank you. Very t r u l y y o u r s ,
John A. E r l a n d s o n P u b l i c Documents Department
APPENDIX 2
Order Card for State Documents AGENCY:
ADDRESS:
TITLE:
SERIAL
[]
MONOGRAPH [] DATE ORDERED: DATE REC'D:
SOU RCE:
OTHER:
COST:
Acquisition of State Documents
127
REFERENCES 1. Kessler, Ridley, R. "State Documents, An Expanding Resource," Southeastern Librarian, 21 (Fall 1971), p. 172. 2. Nelson, William NeaL "Government Documents of Florida: Acquisition, Organization and Use," Southeastern Librarian, 27 (Fall 1977), p. 157. 3. Start, Martin K. Operations Management. Engiewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1978. 4. Burton, Robert E. "Book Selection and Budget Cuts in Academic L~raries,'Michigan Librarian 41 (Spring 1975), p. 7. 5. "Book Spending to Inch Up; But $$ Buy Fewer Books," Library Journal 102 (February 1977), p. 437.
BIBLIOGRAPHY "Book Spending to Inch Up; But $$ Buy Fewer Books." Library Jour~! 102 (February 1977): 437. Burton, Robert E. "Book Selection and Budget Cuts in Academic L~raries."Michifan L i ~ 41 (Spring 1975): 7-9. Hernon, Peter. "State 'Documents to the People'." Government Periodicals Review 3 (1976): 255-266. Kessler, Ridiey R. "State Documents, An Expanding Resource." Southeastern Librarian 21 (Fall 1971): 172-175. Lane, Margaret T. "Acquisition of State Documents," Law Library Journal 63 (February 1970): 92-99. Nelson, William Neal. "Government Documents of Florida: Acquisiton, Organization and Use." Southcastern Librarian 27 (Fall 1977): 157o162. Rosenkoetter, Paul "Treatment of State Documents in I.a'breries."Government Periodicals Review 3 (1973): 117-134. Start, Martin IL Operations Management. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentic~4tall, 1978. White, Marilyn Donuts. "Drawing Analogies Between State and Federal Documents: A Method for IncreaJing Access to State Publications," Government Periodicals Review 2 (1975): 111-125.