- Email: [email protected]
U.S. State Documents in Academic Libraries*
Journal of Government Information, Vol. 25, No. 3, pp. 263–276, 1998 Copyright © 1998 Elsevier Science Ltd Printed in the USA. All rights reserved 1352-0237/98 $–see front matter
PII S1352-0237(98)00007-0
U.S. STATE DOCUMENTS IN ACADEMIC LIBRARIES* ZHENG YE (LAN) YANG** Documents/Maps/Microtext, Sterling C. Evans Library, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77843-5000, USA. Internet: [email protected]
SANDRA da CONTURBIA*** Documents/Maps/Micotext, Sterling C. Evans Library, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77843-5000, USA.
Abstract — This article presents the results from a survey intended to determine how academic libraries in the United States manage and promote their state document collections. In November 1996, a six-part questionnaire (including general information; coordination of state documents; selection and acquisition of state documents; location of and access to state documents; use of state documents; and electronic access to state documents) was distributed to 350 academic libraries including one flagship institution in each state and 300 institutions randomly selected from the Higher Education Directory, 1996. Two hundred seventy-seven libraries responded to the questionnaire, for a return rate of 79.1 percent. The answers to the survey indicate that about 54 percent of the respondents participate in a state document depository program, and less than 50 percent have a designated librarian coordinating state documents. State documents are acquired either through purchases or through the depository program, are circulated and integrated with the general collections, classified in accordance with the Library of Congress classification system, and accessed through the library Online Public Access Catalog (OPAC). The librarians responding to the questionnaire perceived the use of state documents as limited. © 1998 Elsevier Science Ltd Keywords — State government information (U.S.), Libraries in higher education, Management of state government information resources
INTRODUCTION State governments produce a wealth of valuable information on a wide variety of subjects encompassing the humanities, the social sciences, and the sciences. Topics range from agriculture to the census, from demography to the environment, and from laws and regulations to recreation and parks. In the United States, all states have a state *The authors give their warm thanks to Kathy Jackson, Associate University Librarian, for editing this manuscript and for her invaluable and insightful comments and suggestions. Acknowledgment is also given to the Sterling C. Evans Library of Texas A&M University for funding this research. **Zheng Ye (Lan) Yang, a reference librarian, is the Coordinator for Texas State Documents at the Sterling C. Evans Library, Texas A&M University. She received an MLS degree from the University of Washington. ***Sandra da Conturbia is Assistant Head, Documents/Maps/Microtext at the Sterling C. Evans Library, Texas A&M University. She received an MS degree in political science from the University of Turin (Italy) and an MLIS from the University of Texas at Austin. She is the author of several journal articles dealing primarily with government documents and international librarianship. 263
264
Z. Y. YANG and S. da CONTURBIA
depository program devoted to state publications and the state library acts as a clearinghouse for the collection and distribution of state documents. In addition to the state libraries, repositories of state documents include public, academic, and special institutions. The authors believed that academic libraries, especially the flagship institution libraries,1 might have more resources for state documents, and chose to investigate how academic libraries coordinate, promote, and provide access to their state document collections. Because the researchers thought that there would be a difference in the collection and handling of state documents in large versus small institutions, it was decided to include the flagship institutions in each state.
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE Margaret Lane, a noted authority on state documents, published two major reference works on state documents in the 1980s. In 1981, she described depository programs for state documents in her State Publications and Depository Libraries [1]; she also provided detailed, state-by-state profiles of legislation, regulations, and contracts. In 1987, she published another book, Selecting and Organizing State Government Publications [2], which was highly regarded as a basic and standard reference source about state documents for documents and reference librarians. It offers an overall introduction to state documents and depository programs, describes a library’s role as a receiver of state documents, presents specific strategies for day-to-day management of state documents collections including acquisitions, collection management, bibliographic control, and reference service. A search of library literature revealed that very few studies have been reported on how academic libraries manage their state documents. In 1989, Batson surveyed 21 academic libraries in 11 states [3]. His findings were valuable in understanding the management of state publication collections; yet the data were limited to one geographic area. In 1981, Weech discussed selection and acquisition processes relating to state government publications [4]. Purcell, in 1983, studied reference services for state documents in public libraries located in 10 states [5]. He identified which state documents were most valuable to specific user groups and measured the perceived value of selected indexes and other means of access to state documents. Lewis reported awareness and accessibility of state documents in Indiana [6]. Many researchers have surveyed the use and treatment of state documents in the libraries of their own states [7]. Nevertheless, there is no indication of a national study of state documents in academic libraries.
OBJECTIVES AND METHODOLOGY The objectives of this study were: • to identify which states have state documents depository library programs; • to determine if there is a designated librarian for state documents in academic libraries; • to ascertain how the libraries surveyed promote state documents;
1 The
term “flagship institution,” as used in this article, is defined as the four-year institution of higher education in each state with the largest student enrollment.
State Documents in Academic Libraries
265
• to find out whether participating libraries in this study catalog state documents and include state documents in their online catalogs; and • to determine user accessibility of state electronic databases. In November 1996, a survey was conducted to investigate how academic libraries manage their state document collections. The survey comprised 35 questions (see Appendix A). The libraries targeted for this study included the largest institution (hereinafter referred to as the flagship institution) in each state (see Appendix B) and an additional 300 institutions randomly selected at the rate of six per state from the 14th edition of the Higher Education Directory [8]. Because five states (Alaska, Delaware, Hawaii, Nevada, and Utah) had less than six four-year institutions, additional colleges were randomly selected from the states with the largest number of institutions (New York, California, Texas, Pennsylvania, and Illinois). A total of 350 questionnaires was distributed to the directors or the heads of documents departments of academic libraries in the United States as listed in the 49th edition of the American Library Directory [9]. Two hundred and ten institutions responded after the first mailing. A second mailing elicited 67 additional responses. The final return rate was 79.1 percent, or 277 out of 350 institutions. Thirty-nine responses were from the 50 flagship institutions and 238 from the randomly selected libraries. Once collected, the survey data was tabulated and analyzed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS). Because some respondents did not answer every question, and multiple answers were applicable to certain questions, percentages were calculated based upon the number of responses to each individual question. FINDINGS General Information
The first part of the survey sought background information about the universities, namely the number of enrolled students and whether the institution was private or public. Of the 276 responding libraries, 168 (60.9 percent) were private institutions. The sample distribution between private and public institutions correlates with the general population distribution. According to Higher Education Directory [10], there are 2,208 four-year institutions, of which 1,586 (71.8 percent) are private and 622 (28.2 percent) are public. The student body size is more than 30,000 in 14 institutions (13 public and 1 private) equal to 5.1 percent of the sample libraries, between 10,000 and 29,999 in 57 universities (46 public and 11 private) equal to 20.6 percent, and fewer than 10,000 in 205 institutions (49 public and 156 private) equal to 74.3 percent. The next three questions were designed to find out whether the libraries surveyed participate in the state documents depository programs. Of the 211 respondents to these questions, 113 ( 53.6 percent) indicated their participation. The rate is much higher for the flagship institutions, 33 out of 39, or 91.7 percent. According to the sample data, participation rate in the state documents depository program is high in New Jersey: all five respondents (100 percent) are members of the state depository program. On the contrary, the state depository program does not seem so popular with academic libraries in New York state: of the seven institutions surveyed, only one (14.3 percent) participated. In Arizona, no institution surveyed indicated its participation in the state documents depository program. The selection of documents available through the state depository programs varies remarkably as illustrated in Figure 1.
266
Z. Y. YANG and S. da CONTURBIA
Figure 1. Selection of documents available through the state depository programs (n 5 11 libraries).
Of the 111 respondents, 57 institutions (51.3 percent) select more than 80 percent of the state documents available from the depository programs, and only five (4.5 percent) receive less than 50 percent. No institution from the flagship group fell into this category. However, 39 respondents (35.2 percent) noted that they could not provide information about the percentage of state documents selected. As for the 98 libraries that do not participate in the state documents depository program, only 22 (22.4 percent) regularly acquire state documents from the publishing agencies. Coordination of State Documents
The purpose of the second part of the survey was to determine if a designated librarian was responsible for state documents, and how state documents are promoted in academic libraries. In the sample group, the 150 (56.6 percent) libraries without a designated state documents librarian outnumber those with a designated state documents librarian. New Jersey stands out again: all five participants in the survey replied that they have a designated state documents librarian. It is interesting to note that even though none of the survey participants from Arizona indicated their participation in the state depository program, four (out of five respondents) had a designated state documents librarian. The result was reversed in the flagship institutions group, where 84.6 percent (33 out of 39) indicated that they had a designated state documents librarians. Of the 115 respondents (43.4 percent) who reported that they had a designated state documents librarian, 113 responded to the question concerning in-house training pro-
State Documents in Academic Libraries
267
vided by the state documents librarian to keep the staff abreast of state publications. Fifty-eight institutions (51.3 percent) responded positively to this question. For those libraries without a state documents librarian, only 29 (19.7 percent) received some training on state documents through workshops or seminars. That percentage increased to 50 for the flagship institutions. Approximately 53 percent of the respondents (134 of 252) reported that they promoted their state document collections to the library users. Bibliographic instruction was the primary means of promotion (44.8 percent), followed by handouts, pathfinders (21.4 percent), and display cases (15.5 percent). New Jersey outperformed other states once again, with 80 percent (four out of five) of its responding libraries declaring that promotion of the state documents was a common practice in their institutions. The last question in the second part of the survey concerned the job responsibility of the “state documents librarian.” From the 100 responses received, it appears that 51 percent provide reference service only, 40 percent provide both reference service and cataloging, and 8 percent catalog state publications. Some respondents indicated that their state documents librarians are also responsible for collection development. Selection and Acquisition of State Documents
The third part of the survey included questions on the selection and acquisition of state documents. It appears from the answers to the survey that the two most frequent ways of acquiring state documents are purchases or gifts as stated by 145 out of 256 respondents (56.5 percent). Acquiring documents through the state depository programs is another common practice in 45.3 percent of the responding libraries (116 of 256). About 29 percent of the libraries (76 of 256) directly contact the publishing agencies. The pattern was different in the flagship institutions, where 84.6 percent collect state documents through depository programs; 82.1 percent receive them as gifts; and 61.5 percent either request state documents from publishing agencies or purchase state publications. Two hundred and fifty-seven participants provided responses to the question “Do you have a written state document collections development policy?” Responses were as follows: 173 (67.3 percent) reported that they did not have a written state document collections development policy, 30 (11.7 percent) stated that a written state document collections development policy existed, and 54 (21 percent) replied that they did not need a written state document collections development policy because they receive everything from the depository program. When asked “In what format do you acquire your state documents?” Not surprisingly, almost all libraries receive paper copies (98.8 percent), fewer institutions collect microforms (28.6 percent). Only 15.7 percent reported receipt of CD-ROMs. Location of and Access to State Documents
It can be observed from Figure 2 that 58.5 percent of the participating libraries keep their state documents in the general library stacks, 27 percent in the documents department, 13.5 percent in the special collections department and 1 percent in other locations (archives). In the flagship institutions, 46.2 percent house their state documents in the documents department and 35.9 percent in the general stacks. A majority of responding libraries (82.8 percent) provides reference service for state documents at the general reference desk.
268
Z. Y. YANG and S. da CONTURBIA
Figure 2. Location of state documents (n 5 252 libraries).
Regardless of whether the state documents are housed with the general collection or with U.S. federal documents, most state documents are located in open stacks (85.5 percent). Still, less than 50 percent of the institutions surveyed have signs directing users to the state document collections. Two hundred and forty-nine of the respondents provided information about cataloging state documents. As illustrated in Figure 3, 71.9 percent of the respondents catalog state documents, 10.4 percent do not, and 17.7 percent catalog some state documents. Responding libraries from the following states: Alabama, California, Kansas, New Mexico, Ohio, and Texas claimed that their state documents were 100 percent cataloged. No difference was found between the flagship and non-flagship institutions. This finding is fairly consistent with the results of the next question that asked: “Are your state documents in your Online Public Access Catalog (OPAC)?” As shown in Figure 4, 69.8 percent include all state documents in their OPACs. More specifically, respondents from California, Texas, and Wisconsin all reported positively to this question. When asked, “What classification system do you use for your state documents?”, 47.8 percent reported using the Library of Congress (LC) classification, 26.3 percent re-
Figure 3. Cataloging of state documents (n 5 249 libraries).
State Documents in Academic Libraries
269
Figure 4. State documents in library OPACs (n 5 245 libraries).
ported using a specific state classification, 18.9 percent the Dewey classification, and 7 percent other systems (see Figure 5). When asked to list three to five bibliographic tools used most frequently for reference service of state documents, respondents indicated the following: Statistical Reference Index (SRI) [11] (26 responses), individual state publications index (24 responses), library’s online catalog (23 responses), individual state checklist/shipping list (17 responses), and Monthly Checklist of State Publications [12] (15 responses). This result is slightly different from Batson’s 1990 survey [13]. In his report, the checklist/shipping list was the number one bibliographic tool used by the surveyed libraries (eight responses), followed by the card catalog (six responses), online catalog (three responses), and the Statistical Reference Index (three responses). The Monthly Checklist of State Publications was only used by one library responding to his study. This reconfirms that bibliographic tools for reference service of state documents are still limited in number. Therefore, including the state documents in the online catalogs is of vital importance. Use of State Documents
The fifth section of the survey posed queries regarding the use of state documents. State documents circulate in 70.2 percent of the participating libraries. Approximately 21 percent of the institutions do not circulate their state documents, and 8.9 percent of
Figure 5. Classification systems used (n 5 228 libraries).
270
Z. Y. YANG and S. da CONTURBIA
the libraries circulate some state documents. As for the flagship institution libraries, only 8 percent do not circulate state documents. When asked to rank the use of state documents on a scale of 1 to 5, with 5 as very high and 1 as infrequently, 26.5 percent chose 1, recognizing the low use of their state documents collections. Only 2.4 percent ranked 5. About 24 percent of the respondents did not speculate about how heavily their state documents are used. Comparative details between academic libraries in general and the flagship institution libraries are presented in Figure 6. The authors tried to determine if an increased use of documents could be correlated with other variables, such as participating in the state depository program, having a designated document librarian, promotion of documents, cataloging of state documents, and making state documents accessible through the OPAC. Disappointingly, no significant correlation was found among the variables. The problem of underutilization of state documents as valuable sources of information has not improved since Haselhuhn addressed it in 1980 [14]. This finding supports the statement made by Batson [15], who remarked that “state document collections have often been handled and guarded for storage purposes.” Two other reasons for underutilization of state documents may be the following: some libraries did not select everything available from the state depository program and possibly some state agencies did not comply with state laws requiring 100 percent deposit of state publications in the state depository program. Consequently, patrons may very likely be more interested in some state documents not owned by the libraries. A change of these two factors might lead to an increase in the use of state documents. Although state documents in general were not heavily used as presented in Figure 6, certain types of information were frequently sought. Respondents indicated that state laws, regulations, statistics, and environmental information were heavily used by their library patrons. In response to the question “Do you have vertical files for your state documents?”, 74.1 percent answered no, and 21.9 percent indicated that they had uncataloged vertical files. Cataloged vertical files of state documents were available in only 4 percent of the participating libraries.
Figure 6. Use of state documents (5 5 very high, 1 5 infrequently).
State Documents in Academic Libraries
271
Electronic Access to State Documents
The last part of the survey sought information regarding electronic access to state documents. Figure 7 summarizes these findings. Electronic databases providing access to state documents are available in 136 (58.1 percent) of the responding institutions, and in 33 (84.6 percent) of the flagship institution libraries. Databases widely represented are the Statistical Reference Index (SRI), a component from the Statistical Masterfile CD-ROM [16], LEXIS [17], state library’s homepage, and Internet access to state legislative information service [18]. Of the 136 institutions reporting electronic access, 119 indicated that their databases are directly accessible to the public. Fourteen, three of which were flagship institution libraries, did not provide public access to their state electronic resources. Approximately 176 (68.5 percent) of the participating libraries have Web pages. This includes all but one of the flagship institutions. The next two survey questions were geared to verify whether the Web pages included state documents information and had links to state agency home pages. Seventy-three out of 171 respondents (42.7 percent) include the state documents information in their Web pages; 77 (45.6 percent) link state agencies’ home pages to their Web pages. Both percentages are higher when analyzing the flagship institution libraries only, (68.4 percent and 63.2 percent, respectively). To find out whether libraries are providing electronic access to other state documents, participants in the survey were asked about their awareness of the electronic list provided by the University of Illinois. Only 58 (24.4 percent) of the respondents knew about the existence of the website http://www.law.uiuc.edu/library/check.htm, which links to the checklists/shipping list of individual state publications. Over 75 percent of the respondents from the general sample (76.5 percent) were unfamiliar with this resource, while only 40 percent of the respondents from the flagship libraries were unfamiliar with this URL. The following question asked for information about the major problems perceived in maintaining the state document collections. Insufficient staff and lack of space for state documents came first, followed by difficulty in acquiring state documents from state agencies, since not all agencies comply with the state depository laws. Lack of expertise
Figure 7. Electronic access to state documents.
272
Z. Y. YANG and S. da CONTURBIA
to provide links to state documents that are available in electronic formats only and to represent them in the OPAC catalog were also of concern. • Many respondents appended comments. A wide variety of suggestions on how to improve state documents collections and usage were offered. Recommendations included: enforcing legal requirements for agencies to deposit documents with state libraries to allow timely and regular delivery of state documents to the participants of depository programs; • Uniform cataloging at state level; • Streamlining processing/distributing procedures at state level; • Making state documents available on the OPAC at each institution; • Including bibliographic instruction on state document collections and doing a “show and tell” on state publications; • Producing more and better indices; • Providing more training, especially on how to research state laws and regulations; and • Having librarians and agencies become better partners. CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE STUDY The responses to the survey indicate that all states have state depository programs for their state documents. About 54 percent of the academic libraries participate in the depository programs. Less than 50 percent of the libraries surveyed have a designated librarian coordinating state documents. Promoting state documents is carried out in 53 percent of the responding libraries. State documents are acquired through purchases or gifts in 56.5 percent of the respondents and received through the state depository programs in 45.3 percent. In general, state documents are located in open stacks and circulated, integrated with the general collections, classified in accordance with the Library of Congress classification system, and accessed through the OPACs. Yet, documents librarians perceive the use of state documents as limited. Heavily sought topics include laws, regulations, statistics, and environmental information. Electronic databases relating to state documents are available in 58.1 percent of the academic libraries participating in the survey. Overall, flagship institution libraries have more resources to meet the need of servicing and maintaining state documents collections. Possible topics for further research include: how state documents are managed, processed, cataloged, and distributed by state libraries; the management of electronic state documents; and library administrator’s perceptions on the importance of participating in the state depository programs. Another study would be a comparison of the use and handling of state documents to federal and international documents.
NOTES 1. Margaret T. Lane, State Publications and Depository Libraries: A Reference Handbook (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1981). 2. Margaret T. Lane, Selecting and Organizing State Government Publications (Chicago, IL: American Library Association, 1987). 3. Donald W. Batson, “State Government Publications: Selection, Acquisition, and Reference Service,” RQ 29 (Summer 1990): 554–59.
State Documents in Academic Libraries
273
4. Terry L. Weech, “Collection Development and State Publications,” Government Publications Review 8A (1981): 47–58. 5. Gary Purcell, “Reference Use of State Government Information in Public Libraries,” Government Publications Review 10 (March/April 1983): 173–87. 6. David Lewis, “Indiana State Documents: Awareness and Accessibility,” Indiana Libraries 11, no. 1–2 (1992): 85–90. 7. Lori Smith, “Results of the 1992 LACSDDP Survey of Louisiana State Depository Libraries,” LLA Bulletin 55 (Spring 1993):197–203; Dave Obringer, Results of a Survey of Indiana State Document Depositories (Bloomington, TN: Indiana University Library Association, 1989) (ERIC Document ED352974); Robert Walton and Dale Propp, Texas State Documents Depository Survey, 1977. Findings and Results (Austin, TX: Texas State Library, 1977) (ERIC Document ED 153623); Irma R. Tomberline, State Documents Collection in Oklahoma (Dallas, TX: AMIGOS Bibliographic Council, 1977) (ERIC Document ED 156192). 8. Higher Education Publications, Inc., Higher Education Directory, 14th ed. (Washington, DC: Higher Education Publications, 1996). 9. R. R. Bowker Company, American Library Directory, 49th ed. (New York: R. R. Bowker, 1996–1997). 10. Higher Education Publications, Inc., Higher Education Directory, 14th ed. (Washington, DC: Higher Education Publications, 1996). 11. Congressional Information Service, Inc., Statistical Reference Index (Bethesda, MD: Congressional Information Service, 1980-). 12. U.S. Library of Congress, Monthly Checklist of State Publications (Washington, DC: Library of Congress, 1910–1994). 13. Batson, “State Government Publications,” 558. 14. Ronald P. Haselhuhn, “Bibliographic Control and Distribution of State Documents,” RQ 20 (fall 1980): 19–23. 15. Batson, “State Government Publications,” 554. 16. Congressional Information Service, Inc., Statistical Masterfile [CD-ROM], Bethesda, MD: Congressional Information Service. 17. LEXIS [online information service], Dayton, OH: Mead Data Central, Inc. 18. State legislative information on the Internet is available at: http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/stateleg.htm.
APPENDIX A STATE DOCUMENTS IN U.S. ACADEMIC LIBRARIES I. General information 1. Name and location of your institution. 2. Is your institution private____ or public?____ 3. Size of your student body. ____over 30,000 ____10,000–29,999 ____under 10,000 4. Does your state have a depository library program for state documents? ____Yes ____No 5. If you responded “Yes” to question 4, is your library a participant of the state depository program? ____Yes ____No 6. What percent of your state documents are distributed through your depository program?____ 7. If you responded “No” to question 4, does your library regularly acquire documents from your state? ____Yes ____No II. Coordination of state documents 8. Do you have a designated professional librarian responsible for state documents? ____Yes ____No 9. If you responded “Yes” to question 8, does your “state documents librarian” provide in house training to keep the staff abreast of state publications? ____Yes ____No 10. If you don’t have a “state documents librarian,” do you get any training for state publications through workshops or other means? ____Yes ____No 11. Do you promote your state documents collection to the users? (check all that apply) ____Yes, through bibliographic instruction. ____Yes, through display cases in the library.
274
Z. Y. YANG and S. da CONTURBIA
____Yes, through handouts and pathfinders. ____Yes, through the library newsletter. ____Yes, other (please specify).____________________________ ____No 12. The “state documents librarian” ____provides reference service only. ____catalogs as well as provides reference service. ____catalogs only. ____other (please specify).____________________________ ____n/a III. Selection and acquisition of state documents 13. How do you acquire your state documents? (check all that apply) ____acquire through state depository program. ____call publishing agencies. ____receive documents as gifts. ____purchase. ____other (please specify).____________________________ 14. Do you have a written state document collection development policy? ____Yes ____No ____No, we get everything from the depository program. 15. In what format do you acquire your state documents? (Check all that apply) ____paper ____microform ____CD-ROM IV. Location of and access to state documents 16. Where in the library do you house your state documents? ____in the Federal Documents Department. ____in the Special Collections Department. ____integrated in the general collection. ____other (please specify).____________________________ 17. Where in the library do you provide reference service for state documents? ____in the Federal Documents Department. ____at the General Reference Desk. ____in the Special Collections Department. ____other (please specify).____________________________ 18. Are your state documents located in open or closed stacks? ____open stacks ____closed stacks 19. Does your library display signs to direct users to the state document collection? ____Yes ____No 20. Are your state documents cataloged? ____Yes ____No 21. Are your state documents in your Online Public Access Catalog? ____Yes ____No Other (please specify)____________________________ 22. What classification system do you use for your state documents? ____LC call number ____Dewey classification ____State own classification ____ Other 23. List 3–5 bibliographic tools you use quite often for reference service of state documents, e.g., SRI (State Reference Index), Monthly Checklist of State Publications, state publications index, etc. V. Use of state documents 24. Do you circulate your state documents? ____Yes ____No 25. On a scale of 1 to 5, rank the use of your state documents. 5 4 3 2 1 ____don’t know (5 as very high, 1 as infrequently) 26. What type of information is in highest demand? ____state laws and regulations. ____state parks and recreational information. ____state school districts profiles. ____no one type of information is used more than the other. ____other (please specify)____________________________
State Documents in Academic Libraries
275
27. Do you have vertical files for your state documents? ____Yes, and we catalog our vertical files. ____Yes, but we don’t catalog our vertical files. ____No VI. Electronic access to state documents 28. Are there any electronic databases that provide access to your state documents? (e.g. full text state bills, acts, etc.) ____Yes ____No If yes, please list the major ones: ____________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________ 29. If you responded “Yes” to question 28, are those databases accessible to the public? ____Yes ____No ____N/A 30. Does your library have a Web page? ____Yes ____No If yes, what is the address:____________________________ 31. If you responded “Yes” to question 30, does that Web page include state documents information? ____Yes ____No ____N/A 32. Does your Web page link users to state agencies’ Homepage? ____Yes ____No ____N/A 33. Are you aware that the following site: http://www.law.uiuc.edu/library/check.htm links to individual state publications checklists? ____Yes ____No 34. Please list what you perceive as major problems, issues, etc. to maintain your state documents collection. 35. Please make suggestions on how to improve state documents collection and usage. ____yes, I’d like to receive a copy of the prelimanary results. Please send them to: ____________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________
APPENDIX B FIFTY FLAGSHIP INSTITUTIONS SAMPLED Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana
Auburn University University of Alaska Anchorage University of Arizona University of Arkansas University of California, Berkeley University of Colorado at Boulder University of Connecticut University of Delaware University of Florida University of Georgia University of Hawaii at Manoa Boise State University University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign Indiana University Bloomington University of Iowa University of Kansas University of Kentucky at Lexington Louisiana State University & Agricultural and Mechanical College
276
Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming
Z. Y. YANG and S. da CONTURBIA
University of Maine University of Maryland Boston University Michigan State University University of Minnesota University of Southern Mississippi University of Missouri–Columbia University of Montana University of Nebraska–Lincoln University of Nevada, Las Vegas University of New Hampshire Rutgers: The State University of New Jersey University of New Mexico at Albuquerque New York University North Carolina State University University of North Dakota Ohio State University University of Oklahoma University of Oregon Pennsylvania State University University of Rhode Island University of South Carolina South Dakota State University University of Tennessee, Knoxville University of Texas at Austin Brigham Young University University of Vermont Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University University of Washington West Virginia University University of Wisconsin–Madison University of Wyoming
PII S1352-0237(98)00007-0
U.S. STATE DOCUMENTS IN ACADEMIC LIBRARIES* ZHENG YE (LAN) YANG** Documents/Maps/Microtext, Sterling C. Evans Library, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77843-5000, USA. Internet: [email protected]
SANDRA da CONTURBIA*** Documents/Maps/Micotext, Sterling C. Evans Library, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77843-5000, USA.
Abstract — This article presents the results from a survey intended to determine how academic libraries in the United States manage and promote their state document collections. In November 1996, a six-part questionnaire (including general information; coordination of state documents; selection and acquisition of state documents; location of and access to state documents; use of state documents; and electronic access to state documents) was distributed to 350 academic libraries including one flagship institution in each state and 300 institutions randomly selected from the Higher Education Directory, 1996. Two hundred seventy-seven libraries responded to the questionnaire, for a return rate of 79.1 percent. The answers to the survey indicate that about 54 percent of the respondents participate in a state document depository program, and less than 50 percent have a designated librarian coordinating state documents. State documents are acquired either through purchases or through the depository program, are circulated and integrated with the general collections, classified in accordance with the Library of Congress classification system, and accessed through the library Online Public Access Catalog (OPAC). The librarians responding to the questionnaire perceived the use of state documents as limited. © 1998 Elsevier Science Ltd Keywords — State government information (U.S.), Libraries in higher education, Management of state government information resources
INTRODUCTION State governments produce a wealth of valuable information on a wide variety of subjects encompassing the humanities, the social sciences, and the sciences. Topics range from agriculture to the census, from demography to the environment, and from laws and regulations to recreation and parks. In the United States, all states have a state *The authors give their warm thanks to Kathy Jackson, Associate University Librarian, for editing this manuscript and for her invaluable and insightful comments and suggestions. Acknowledgment is also given to the Sterling C. Evans Library of Texas A&M University for funding this research. **Zheng Ye (Lan) Yang, a reference librarian, is the Coordinator for Texas State Documents at the Sterling C. Evans Library, Texas A&M University. She received an MLS degree from the University of Washington. ***Sandra da Conturbia is Assistant Head, Documents/Maps/Microtext at the Sterling C. Evans Library, Texas A&M University. She received an MS degree in political science from the University of Turin (Italy) and an MLIS from the University of Texas at Austin. She is the author of several journal articles dealing primarily with government documents and international librarianship. 263
264
Z. Y. YANG and S. da CONTURBIA
depository program devoted to state publications and the state library acts as a clearinghouse for the collection and distribution of state documents. In addition to the state libraries, repositories of state documents include public, academic, and special institutions. The authors believed that academic libraries, especially the flagship institution libraries,1 might have more resources for state documents, and chose to investigate how academic libraries coordinate, promote, and provide access to their state document collections. Because the researchers thought that there would be a difference in the collection and handling of state documents in large versus small institutions, it was decided to include the flagship institutions in each state.
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE Margaret Lane, a noted authority on state documents, published two major reference works on state documents in the 1980s. In 1981, she described depository programs for state documents in her State Publications and Depository Libraries [1]; she also provided detailed, state-by-state profiles of legislation, regulations, and contracts. In 1987, she published another book, Selecting and Organizing State Government Publications [2], which was highly regarded as a basic and standard reference source about state documents for documents and reference librarians. It offers an overall introduction to state documents and depository programs, describes a library’s role as a receiver of state documents, presents specific strategies for day-to-day management of state documents collections including acquisitions, collection management, bibliographic control, and reference service. A search of library literature revealed that very few studies have been reported on how academic libraries manage their state documents. In 1989, Batson surveyed 21 academic libraries in 11 states [3]. His findings were valuable in understanding the management of state publication collections; yet the data were limited to one geographic area. In 1981, Weech discussed selection and acquisition processes relating to state government publications [4]. Purcell, in 1983, studied reference services for state documents in public libraries located in 10 states [5]. He identified which state documents were most valuable to specific user groups and measured the perceived value of selected indexes and other means of access to state documents. Lewis reported awareness and accessibility of state documents in Indiana [6]. Many researchers have surveyed the use and treatment of state documents in the libraries of their own states [7]. Nevertheless, there is no indication of a national study of state documents in academic libraries.
OBJECTIVES AND METHODOLOGY The objectives of this study were: • to identify which states have state documents depository library programs; • to determine if there is a designated librarian for state documents in academic libraries; • to ascertain how the libraries surveyed promote state documents;
1 The
term “flagship institution,” as used in this article, is defined as the four-year institution of higher education in each state with the largest student enrollment.
State Documents in Academic Libraries
265
• to find out whether participating libraries in this study catalog state documents and include state documents in their online catalogs; and • to determine user accessibility of state electronic databases. In November 1996, a survey was conducted to investigate how academic libraries manage their state document collections. The survey comprised 35 questions (see Appendix A). The libraries targeted for this study included the largest institution (hereinafter referred to as the flagship institution) in each state (see Appendix B) and an additional 300 institutions randomly selected at the rate of six per state from the 14th edition of the Higher Education Directory [8]. Because five states (Alaska, Delaware, Hawaii, Nevada, and Utah) had less than six four-year institutions, additional colleges were randomly selected from the states with the largest number of institutions (New York, California, Texas, Pennsylvania, and Illinois). A total of 350 questionnaires was distributed to the directors or the heads of documents departments of academic libraries in the United States as listed in the 49th edition of the American Library Directory [9]. Two hundred and ten institutions responded after the first mailing. A second mailing elicited 67 additional responses. The final return rate was 79.1 percent, or 277 out of 350 institutions. Thirty-nine responses were from the 50 flagship institutions and 238 from the randomly selected libraries. Once collected, the survey data was tabulated and analyzed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS). Because some respondents did not answer every question, and multiple answers were applicable to certain questions, percentages were calculated based upon the number of responses to each individual question. FINDINGS General Information
The first part of the survey sought background information about the universities, namely the number of enrolled students and whether the institution was private or public. Of the 276 responding libraries, 168 (60.9 percent) were private institutions. The sample distribution between private and public institutions correlates with the general population distribution. According to Higher Education Directory [10], there are 2,208 four-year institutions, of which 1,586 (71.8 percent) are private and 622 (28.2 percent) are public. The student body size is more than 30,000 in 14 institutions (13 public and 1 private) equal to 5.1 percent of the sample libraries, between 10,000 and 29,999 in 57 universities (46 public and 11 private) equal to 20.6 percent, and fewer than 10,000 in 205 institutions (49 public and 156 private) equal to 74.3 percent. The next three questions were designed to find out whether the libraries surveyed participate in the state documents depository programs. Of the 211 respondents to these questions, 113 ( 53.6 percent) indicated their participation. The rate is much higher for the flagship institutions, 33 out of 39, or 91.7 percent. According to the sample data, participation rate in the state documents depository program is high in New Jersey: all five respondents (100 percent) are members of the state depository program. On the contrary, the state depository program does not seem so popular with academic libraries in New York state: of the seven institutions surveyed, only one (14.3 percent) participated. In Arizona, no institution surveyed indicated its participation in the state documents depository program. The selection of documents available through the state depository programs varies remarkably as illustrated in Figure 1.
266
Z. Y. YANG and S. da CONTURBIA
Figure 1. Selection of documents available through the state depository programs (n 5 11 libraries).
Of the 111 respondents, 57 institutions (51.3 percent) select more than 80 percent of the state documents available from the depository programs, and only five (4.5 percent) receive less than 50 percent. No institution from the flagship group fell into this category. However, 39 respondents (35.2 percent) noted that they could not provide information about the percentage of state documents selected. As for the 98 libraries that do not participate in the state documents depository program, only 22 (22.4 percent) regularly acquire state documents from the publishing agencies. Coordination of State Documents
The purpose of the second part of the survey was to determine if a designated librarian was responsible for state documents, and how state documents are promoted in academic libraries. In the sample group, the 150 (56.6 percent) libraries without a designated state documents librarian outnumber those with a designated state documents librarian. New Jersey stands out again: all five participants in the survey replied that they have a designated state documents librarian. It is interesting to note that even though none of the survey participants from Arizona indicated their participation in the state depository program, four (out of five respondents) had a designated state documents librarian. The result was reversed in the flagship institutions group, where 84.6 percent (33 out of 39) indicated that they had a designated state documents librarians. Of the 115 respondents (43.4 percent) who reported that they had a designated state documents librarian, 113 responded to the question concerning in-house training pro-
State Documents in Academic Libraries
267
vided by the state documents librarian to keep the staff abreast of state publications. Fifty-eight institutions (51.3 percent) responded positively to this question. For those libraries without a state documents librarian, only 29 (19.7 percent) received some training on state documents through workshops or seminars. That percentage increased to 50 for the flagship institutions. Approximately 53 percent of the respondents (134 of 252) reported that they promoted their state document collections to the library users. Bibliographic instruction was the primary means of promotion (44.8 percent), followed by handouts, pathfinders (21.4 percent), and display cases (15.5 percent). New Jersey outperformed other states once again, with 80 percent (four out of five) of its responding libraries declaring that promotion of the state documents was a common practice in their institutions. The last question in the second part of the survey concerned the job responsibility of the “state documents librarian.” From the 100 responses received, it appears that 51 percent provide reference service only, 40 percent provide both reference service and cataloging, and 8 percent catalog state publications. Some respondents indicated that their state documents librarians are also responsible for collection development. Selection and Acquisition of State Documents
The third part of the survey included questions on the selection and acquisition of state documents. It appears from the answers to the survey that the two most frequent ways of acquiring state documents are purchases or gifts as stated by 145 out of 256 respondents (56.5 percent). Acquiring documents through the state depository programs is another common practice in 45.3 percent of the responding libraries (116 of 256). About 29 percent of the libraries (76 of 256) directly contact the publishing agencies. The pattern was different in the flagship institutions, where 84.6 percent collect state documents through depository programs; 82.1 percent receive them as gifts; and 61.5 percent either request state documents from publishing agencies or purchase state publications. Two hundred and fifty-seven participants provided responses to the question “Do you have a written state document collections development policy?” Responses were as follows: 173 (67.3 percent) reported that they did not have a written state document collections development policy, 30 (11.7 percent) stated that a written state document collections development policy existed, and 54 (21 percent) replied that they did not need a written state document collections development policy because they receive everything from the depository program. When asked “In what format do you acquire your state documents?” Not surprisingly, almost all libraries receive paper copies (98.8 percent), fewer institutions collect microforms (28.6 percent). Only 15.7 percent reported receipt of CD-ROMs. Location of and Access to State Documents
It can be observed from Figure 2 that 58.5 percent of the participating libraries keep their state documents in the general library stacks, 27 percent in the documents department, 13.5 percent in the special collections department and 1 percent in other locations (archives). In the flagship institutions, 46.2 percent house their state documents in the documents department and 35.9 percent in the general stacks. A majority of responding libraries (82.8 percent) provides reference service for state documents at the general reference desk.
268
Z. Y. YANG and S. da CONTURBIA
Figure 2. Location of state documents (n 5 252 libraries).
Regardless of whether the state documents are housed with the general collection or with U.S. federal documents, most state documents are located in open stacks (85.5 percent). Still, less than 50 percent of the institutions surveyed have signs directing users to the state document collections. Two hundred and forty-nine of the respondents provided information about cataloging state documents. As illustrated in Figure 3, 71.9 percent of the respondents catalog state documents, 10.4 percent do not, and 17.7 percent catalog some state documents. Responding libraries from the following states: Alabama, California, Kansas, New Mexico, Ohio, and Texas claimed that their state documents were 100 percent cataloged. No difference was found between the flagship and non-flagship institutions. This finding is fairly consistent with the results of the next question that asked: “Are your state documents in your Online Public Access Catalog (OPAC)?” As shown in Figure 4, 69.8 percent include all state documents in their OPACs. More specifically, respondents from California, Texas, and Wisconsin all reported positively to this question. When asked, “What classification system do you use for your state documents?”, 47.8 percent reported using the Library of Congress (LC) classification, 26.3 percent re-
Figure 3. Cataloging of state documents (n 5 249 libraries).
State Documents in Academic Libraries
269
Figure 4. State documents in library OPACs (n 5 245 libraries).
ported using a specific state classification, 18.9 percent the Dewey classification, and 7 percent other systems (see Figure 5). When asked to list three to five bibliographic tools used most frequently for reference service of state documents, respondents indicated the following: Statistical Reference Index (SRI) [11] (26 responses), individual state publications index (24 responses), library’s online catalog (23 responses), individual state checklist/shipping list (17 responses), and Monthly Checklist of State Publications [12] (15 responses). This result is slightly different from Batson’s 1990 survey [13]. In his report, the checklist/shipping list was the number one bibliographic tool used by the surveyed libraries (eight responses), followed by the card catalog (six responses), online catalog (three responses), and the Statistical Reference Index (three responses). The Monthly Checklist of State Publications was only used by one library responding to his study. This reconfirms that bibliographic tools for reference service of state documents are still limited in number. Therefore, including the state documents in the online catalogs is of vital importance. Use of State Documents
The fifth section of the survey posed queries regarding the use of state documents. State documents circulate in 70.2 percent of the participating libraries. Approximately 21 percent of the institutions do not circulate their state documents, and 8.9 percent of
Figure 5. Classification systems used (n 5 228 libraries).
270
Z. Y. YANG and S. da CONTURBIA
the libraries circulate some state documents. As for the flagship institution libraries, only 8 percent do not circulate state documents. When asked to rank the use of state documents on a scale of 1 to 5, with 5 as very high and 1 as infrequently, 26.5 percent chose 1, recognizing the low use of their state documents collections. Only 2.4 percent ranked 5. About 24 percent of the respondents did not speculate about how heavily their state documents are used. Comparative details between academic libraries in general and the flagship institution libraries are presented in Figure 6. The authors tried to determine if an increased use of documents could be correlated with other variables, such as participating in the state depository program, having a designated document librarian, promotion of documents, cataloging of state documents, and making state documents accessible through the OPAC. Disappointingly, no significant correlation was found among the variables. The problem of underutilization of state documents as valuable sources of information has not improved since Haselhuhn addressed it in 1980 [14]. This finding supports the statement made by Batson [15], who remarked that “state document collections have often been handled and guarded for storage purposes.” Two other reasons for underutilization of state documents may be the following: some libraries did not select everything available from the state depository program and possibly some state agencies did not comply with state laws requiring 100 percent deposit of state publications in the state depository program. Consequently, patrons may very likely be more interested in some state documents not owned by the libraries. A change of these two factors might lead to an increase in the use of state documents. Although state documents in general were not heavily used as presented in Figure 6, certain types of information were frequently sought. Respondents indicated that state laws, regulations, statistics, and environmental information were heavily used by their library patrons. In response to the question “Do you have vertical files for your state documents?”, 74.1 percent answered no, and 21.9 percent indicated that they had uncataloged vertical files. Cataloged vertical files of state documents were available in only 4 percent of the participating libraries.
Figure 6. Use of state documents (5 5 very high, 1 5 infrequently).
State Documents in Academic Libraries
271
Electronic Access to State Documents
The last part of the survey sought information regarding electronic access to state documents. Figure 7 summarizes these findings. Electronic databases providing access to state documents are available in 136 (58.1 percent) of the responding institutions, and in 33 (84.6 percent) of the flagship institution libraries. Databases widely represented are the Statistical Reference Index (SRI), a component from the Statistical Masterfile CD-ROM [16], LEXIS [17], state library’s homepage, and Internet access to state legislative information service [18]. Of the 136 institutions reporting electronic access, 119 indicated that their databases are directly accessible to the public. Fourteen, three of which were flagship institution libraries, did not provide public access to their state electronic resources. Approximately 176 (68.5 percent) of the participating libraries have Web pages. This includes all but one of the flagship institutions. The next two survey questions were geared to verify whether the Web pages included state documents information and had links to state agency home pages. Seventy-three out of 171 respondents (42.7 percent) include the state documents information in their Web pages; 77 (45.6 percent) link state agencies’ home pages to their Web pages. Both percentages are higher when analyzing the flagship institution libraries only, (68.4 percent and 63.2 percent, respectively). To find out whether libraries are providing electronic access to other state documents, participants in the survey were asked about their awareness of the electronic list provided by the University of Illinois. Only 58 (24.4 percent) of the respondents knew about the existence of the website http://www.law.uiuc.edu/library/check.htm, which links to the checklists/shipping list of individual state publications. Over 75 percent of the respondents from the general sample (76.5 percent) were unfamiliar with this resource, while only 40 percent of the respondents from the flagship libraries were unfamiliar with this URL. The following question asked for information about the major problems perceived in maintaining the state document collections. Insufficient staff and lack of space for state documents came first, followed by difficulty in acquiring state documents from state agencies, since not all agencies comply with the state depository laws. Lack of expertise
Figure 7. Electronic access to state documents.
272
Z. Y. YANG and S. da CONTURBIA
to provide links to state documents that are available in electronic formats only and to represent them in the OPAC catalog were also of concern. • Many respondents appended comments. A wide variety of suggestions on how to improve state documents collections and usage were offered. Recommendations included: enforcing legal requirements for agencies to deposit documents with state libraries to allow timely and regular delivery of state documents to the participants of depository programs; • Uniform cataloging at state level; • Streamlining processing/distributing procedures at state level; • Making state documents available on the OPAC at each institution; • Including bibliographic instruction on state document collections and doing a “show and tell” on state publications; • Producing more and better indices; • Providing more training, especially on how to research state laws and regulations; and • Having librarians and agencies become better partners. CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE STUDY The responses to the survey indicate that all states have state depository programs for their state documents. About 54 percent of the academic libraries participate in the depository programs. Less than 50 percent of the libraries surveyed have a designated librarian coordinating state documents. Promoting state documents is carried out in 53 percent of the responding libraries. State documents are acquired through purchases or gifts in 56.5 percent of the respondents and received through the state depository programs in 45.3 percent. In general, state documents are located in open stacks and circulated, integrated with the general collections, classified in accordance with the Library of Congress classification system, and accessed through the OPACs. Yet, documents librarians perceive the use of state documents as limited. Heavily sought topics include laws, regulations, statistics, and environmental information. Electronic databases relating to state documents are available in 58.1 percent of the academic libraries participating in the survey. Overall, flagship institution libraries have more resources to meet the need of servicing and maintaining state documents collections. Possible topics for further research include: how state documents are managed, processed, cataloged, and distributed by state libraries; the management of electronic state documents; and library administrator’s perceptions on the importance of participating in the state depository programs. Another study would be a comparison of the use and handling of state documents to federal and international documents.
NOTES 1. Margaret T. Lane, State Publications and Depository Libraries: A Reference Handbook (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1981). 2. Margaret T. Lane, Selecting and Organizing State Government Publications (Chicago, IL: American Library Association, 1987). 3. Donald W. Batson, “State Government Publications: Selection, Acquisition, and Reference Service,” RQ 29 (Summer 1990): 554–59.
State Documents in Academic Libraries
273
4. Terry L. Weech, “Collection Development and State Publications,” Government Publications Review 8A (1981): 47–58. 5. Gary Purcell, “Reference Use of State Government Information in Public Libraries,” Government Publications Review 10 (March/April 1983): 173–87. 6. David Lewis, “Indiana State Documents: Awareness and Accessibility,” Indiana Libraries 11, no. 1–2 (1992): 85–90. 7. Lori Smith, “Results of the 1992 LACSDDP Survey of Louisiana State Depository Libraries,” LLA Bulletin 55 (Spring 1993):197–203; Dave Obringer, Results of a Survey of Indiana State Document Depositories (Bloomington, TN: Indiana University Library Association, 1989) (ERIC Document ED352974); Robert Walton and Dale Propp, Texas State Documents Depository Survey, 1977. Findings and Results (Austin, TX: Texas State Library, 1977) (ERIC Document ED 153623); Irma R. Tomberline, State Documents Collection in Oklahoma (Dallas, TX: AMIGOS Bibliographic Council, 1977) (ERIC Document ED 156192). 8. Higher Education Publications, Inc., Higher Education Directory, 14th ed. (Washington, DC: Higher Education Publications, 1996). 9. R. R. Bowker Company, American Library Directory, 49th ed. (New York: R. R. Bowker, 1996–1997). 10. Higher Education Publications, Inc., Higher Education Directory, 14th ed. (Washington, DC: Higher Education Publications, 1996). 11. Congressional Information Service, Inc., Statistical Reference Index (Bethesda, MD: Congressional Information Service, 1980-). 12. U.S. Library of Congress, Monthly Checklist of State Publications (Washington, DC: Library of Congress, 1910–1994). 13. Batson, “State Government Publications,” 558. 14. Ronald P. Haselhuhn, “Bibliographic Control and Distribution of State Documents,” RQ 20 (fall 1980): 19–23. 15. Batson, “State Government Publications,” 554. 16. Congressional Information Service, Inc., Statistical Masterfile [CD-ROM], Bethesda, MD: Congressional Information Service. 17. LEXIS [online information service], Dayton, OH: Mead Data Central, Inc. 18. State legislative information on the Internet is available at: http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/stateleg.htm.
APPENDIX A STATE DOCUMENTS IN U.S. ACADEMIC LIBRARIES I. General information 1. Name and location of your institution. 2. Is your institution private____ or public?____ 3. Size of your student body. ____over 30,000 ____10,000–29,999 ____under 10,000 4. Does your state have a depository library program for state documents? ____Yes ____No 5. If you responded “Yes” to question 4, is your library a participant of the state depository program? ____Yes ____No 6. What percent of your state documents are distributed through your depository program?____ 7. If you responded “No” to question 4, does your library regularly acquire documents from your state? ____Yes ____No II. Coordination of state documents 8. Do you have a designated professional librarian responsible for state documents? ____Yes ____No 9. If you responded “Yes” to question 8, does your “state documents librarian” provide in house training to keep the staff abreast of state publications? ____Yes ____No 10. If you don’t have a “state documents librarian,” do you get any training for state publications through workshops or other means? ____Yes ____No 11. Do you promote your state documents collection to the users? (check all that apply) ____Yes, through bibliographic instruction. ____Yes, through display cases in the library.
274
Z. Y. YANG and S. da CONTURBIA
____Yes, through handouts and pathfinders. ____Yes, through the library newsletter. ____Yes, other (please specify).____________________________ ____No 12. The “state documents librarian” ____provides reference service only. ____catalogs as well as provides reference service. ____catalogs only. ____other (please specify).____________________________ ____n/a III. Selection and acquisition of state documents 13. How do you acquire your state documents? (check all that apply) ____acquire through state depository program. ____call publishing agencies. ____receive documents as gifts. ____purchase. ____other (please specify).____________________________ 14. Do you have a written state document collection development policy? ____Yes ____No ____No, we get everything from the depository program. 15. In what format do you acquire your state documents? (Check all that apply) ____paper ____microform ____CD-ROM IV. Location of and access to state documents 16. Where in the library do you house your state documents? ____in the Federal Documents Department. ____in the Special Collections Department. ____integrated in the general collection. ____other (please specify).____________________________ 17. Where in the library do you provide reference service for state documents? ____in the Federal Documents Department. ____at the General Reference Desk. ____in the Special Collections Department. ____other (please specify).____________________________ 18. Are your state documents located in open or closed stacks? ____open stacks ____closed stacks 19. Does your library display signs to direct users to the state document collection? ____Yes ____No 20. Are your state documents cataloged? ____Yes ____No 21. Are your state documents in your Online Public Access Catalog? ____Yes ____No Other (please specify)____________________________ 22. What classification system do you use for your state documents? ____LC call number ____Dewey classification ____State own classification ____ Other 23. List 3–5 bibliographic tools you use quite often for reference service of state documents, e.g., SRI (State Reference Index), Monthly Checklist of State Publications, state publications index, etc. V. Use of state documents 24. Do you circulate your state documents? ____Yes ____No 25. On a scale of 1 to 5, rank the use of your state documents. 5 4 3 2 1 ____don’t know (5 as very high, 1 as infrequently) 26. What type of information is in highest demand? ____state laws and regulations. ____state parks and recreational information. ____state school districts profiles. ____no one type of information is used more than the other. ____other (please specify)____________________________
State Documents in Academic Libraries
275
27. Do you have vertical files for your state documents? ____Yes, and we catalog our vertical files. ____Yes, but we don’t catalog our vertical files. ____No VI. Electronic access to state documents 28. Are there any electronic databases that provide access to your state documents? (e.g. full text state bills, acts, etc.) ____Yes ____No If yes, please list the major ones: ____________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________ 29. If you responded “Yes” to question 28, are those databases accessible to the public? ____Yes ____No ____N/A 30. Does your library have a Web page? ____Yes ____No If yes, what is the address:____________________________ 31. If you responded “Yes” to question 30, does that Web page include state documents information? ____Yes ____No ____N/A 32. Does your Web page link users to state agencies’ Homepage? ____Yes ____No ____N/A 33. Are you aware that the following site: http://www.law.uiuc.edu/library/check.htm links to individual state publications checklists? ____Yes ____No 34. Please list what you perceive as major problems, issues, etc. to maintain your state documents collection. 35. Please make suggestions on how to improve state documents collection and usage. ____yes, I’d like to receive a copy of the prelimanary results. Please send them to: ____________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________
APPENDIX B FIFTY FLAGSHIP INSTITUTIONS SAMPLED Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana
Auburn University University of Alaska Anchorage University of Arizona University of Arkansas University of California, Berkeley University of Colorado at Boulder University of Connecticut University of Delaware University of Florida University of Georgia University of Hawaii at Manoa Boise State University University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign Indiana University Bloomington University of Iowa University of Kansas University of Kentucky at Lexington Louisiana State University & Agricultural and Mechanical College
276
Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming
Z. Y. YANG and S. da CONTURBIA
University of Maine University of Maryland Boston University Michigan State University University of Minnesota University of Southern Mississippi University of Missouri–Columbia University of Montana University of Nebraska–Lincoln University of Nevada, Las Vegas University of New Hampshire Rutgers: The State University of New Jersey University of New Mexico at Albuquerque New York University North Carolina State University University of North Dakota Ohio State University University of Oklahoma University of Oregon Pennsylvania State University University of Rhode Island University of South Carolina South Dakota State University University of Tennessee, Knoxville University of Texas at Austin Brigham Young University University of Vermont Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University University of Washington West Virginia University University of Wisconsin–Madison University of Wyoming