|
Citation |
- Permanent Link:
- http://ufdc.ufl.edu/AA00055632/00001
Material Information
- Title:
- Federal government provision of public information: issues related to public access, technology, and laws/regulations: for Government Information Technology Project, Communications and Information Technology Program, Federal government provision of public information: issues related to public access, technology, and laws/regulations: for Government Information Technology Project, Communications and Information Technology Program, Office of Technology Assessment, U.S. Congress, in response to RPF-10/14
- Creator:
- McClure, Charles R.
- Publisher:
- McClure, Charles R.
- Publication Date:
- 1984-12-28
- Language:
- English
- Physical Description:
- 398 pages.
Subjects
- Subjects / Keywords:
- Freedom of information -- United States ( LCSH )
Government information -- United States ( LCSH ) Copyright -- Official information -- United States ( LCSH ) Government publications -- United States ( LCSH )
- Genre:
- federal government publication ( marcgt )
Notes
- General Note:
- This report discusses government (public) information, both published and unpublished, which Federal Government either does or does not make public."Public information", is collected and/or developed at Government expenses or as required by public law, and not considered to be classified, personal, or otherwise subject to exemption from the Freedom of Information Act or the Privacy Act.
Record Information
- Source Institution:
- University of North Texas
- Holding Location:
- University of North Texas
- Rights Management:
- This item is a work of the U.S. federal government and not subject to copyright pursuant to 17 U.S.C. §105.
- Classification:
- ia-ufl_20170428_file1.xml ( sudocs )
Aggregation Information
- IUF:
- University of Florida
- OTA:
- Office of Technology Assessment
|
Downloads |
This item is only available as the following downloads:
|
Full Text |
PAGE 1
y ) rn/r ) ,I I I, t FED~RAL GOVERNMENT PROVISION OF PUBLIC INFORMATION: ISSUES RELATED TO PUBLIC ACCESS, TECHNOLOGY, AND LAWS/REGULATIONS For Governaent Inforaation Technology ProJect Coaaunicationa and Inforaation Technology Prograa Office of Technology Assessaent U.S. C~ngress In Response to RFP-10/14 1'repared By: Charles R. McClure and Peter Hernon Deceaber 28, 1984 INFORMATION MANAGEMENT CONSULTANT SERVICES, INC. 1710 Oakcreat Ave., Noraan, OK 73071 405-364-3926 This contractor document was prepared by an outside contractor as an input to an ongoing OTA assessment. It does not neces~arily reflect the analytical findings of OTA, the Advisory Panel, or the Technology Assessment Board.
PAGE 2
Table of Contents List of Tables Liat of Figures Acknowled~eaenta Executive Suaaary Introduction Chapter 1: Public Inforaation Definitions TABLE OF CONTENTS Governaent Publications, Docuaenta, and Inforaation Public Access Other Definitions Typology of Producers and Diaaeainators of Public Inforaation 1-11 Producers Disseainatora Bureau of the Census Governaent Printing Office National Technical lnforaation Service Departaent 0 Agriculture Suaaary Functions of Public Inforaation Types of Public Inforaation Foraata of Public Inforaation Current and Proopective Means for Diaseainating Public Inforaation Uaera of Public Inforaation The Need to Develop the Research Base on Public Inforaation Uaera and Uaea Typologies 0 Public Inforaation Purpose of Publication Pricing Policies Inforaation Needa and Gathering Patterns Need to Expand the Research Baae on Uses of P~blic Inforaation Barriers to Uae of Public Inforaation 11 ii vii v!ii X xi xvii 1-1 1-2 1-2 1-10-11 1-13 -14 1-15 -16 1-15 1-17 -19 1-22 -25 1-23 -26 1-27 -30 1-28 -31 1-29 -32 1-31-34 1-32 -35 1-34 -37 1-41 -47 1-43 -56 1-44 -57 1-44 1-45 -58 1-46-59 1-46 1-49 -62 1-50 -63
PAGE 3
TABLE OF CONTENTS Criteria by Which People Select Public Inforaation Ensuring the Reliability and Validity of Public Inforaation Unobtrusive .Testing The User Perspective Suaaary of Significant Polley Issues Addressed in the Chapter Chapter 2: Review, Synthesis, and Analysis: The Effects of Inforaation Technol~gy on the Federal Governaent'a Provision of Public Inforaation Synthesis and Analysis Contradictory Terainology Provision Versus Access to Public Inforaation Bibliographic Control over Governaent Produced Public Inforaation Politicising and Enforcing Inforaation Technology Policy Coat and Tec~nology Driven Federal Planning Differences in Technological Inforaation Life Cycles Lack of Involveaent by Governaent Officials .. Coapeti ti ve" Versus "Public Uti 11 ty" Model a of Inforaation Technology Policy Paradoxical Role of Libraries Regarding Access to Public Inforaation Inforaation Technology and Inforaation Gaps Responsibilities for Providing Access to Inforaation Technology Effects of Inforaation Technology on Access to Public Inforaation The Politics of Inforaation Technology and Public Inforaation Suaaary of Significant Policy Issues Addressed in this Chapter Chapter 3: Review of Federal Legislation and Regulations on the Federal Governaent's Provision of Public Inforaation The JCP Printing and Binding Regulations/Guidelines Netional Coaaission on Libraries and Inforaation Science Federal Prograa lnforaation Act National Audiovisual Center 111 1-51 1-52 -65 1-53 -66 1-53 1-55-68 2-1 2-2 -72 2-4 -75 2-5 -76 2-7 -79 2-8-80 2-11-83 2-13-85 2-15-87 2-16-88 2-19-93 2-22-96 2-25-100 2-26-101 2-30-109 2-32-112 3-1 -118 3-5 -122 3-13~ 135 3-17-143 3-20-146
PAGE 4
TABLE OF CONTENTS Paperwork Reduction Act Office of Manageaent and Budget Regulation~ National Technical Inforaation Service Title 44, United States Code, Governaent Printing Office Other Legislation and Regulations Conclusions Recoaaendationa United States ~QQ! Inforaation Policies--Their Coordination and Intent Disseaination Econoaic versus Social Good Suaaary of Significant Policy Issues Addressed in This Chepter Chapter 4: Review, Analysis, and Recoaaendations of Policy Issues Significant Issues Federal Organization for Inforaation Policies Should the Federal governaent have Centralized or Decentralized Developaent of Inforaation Policies? Should Fcraal Mechanisas be Established that Encourage Continuing Dialogue about Federal Inioraation Policy aaong the Various Stakeholders in the Inforaation Sector? What is the Role of the Office of Manageaent and Budget in the Dsvelopaent and Manageaent of Inforaation Policies? Relationship Between the Federal Governaent and Other Stakeholders in the Inforaation Sector What Responsibilities Does the Federal Governaent Have for Legislating and Regulating access to Public Inforaation? How can Adequate Bibliographic Control be Maintained Over Gcvernaent Provided Public Inforaation? Should Federal Inforaation Activities be \dainistered as a 118usiness" or as a Public Service? Inforaation Technology Should the Federal Governaent Eaphasize the Use of Various Inforaation Technologies as a Means of Collecting, Organizing, and Disseainating Public Inforaation? iv 3-22 -148 3-29-155 3-47-173 3-54-180 3-68-194 3-70-196 3-73-200 3-73 3-75-202 3-75 3-76-203 3-77-204 4 -1 -206 4-6 -213 4-7 -214 4-7 4-10-218 4-13-221 4-15-223 4-15 4-1a-226 4-21-229 4-24-234 4-24
PAGE 5
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued> What Criteria Should be Followed by the Governaent When Selecting Inforaation Technologies for Use in the Provision of Public Inforaation? To What Degree is the Federal Govcrnaent Responsible for Providing Training or In~reasing the Coapetency of Ueer Segaents and Public Inforaation Interaediariea? The Econoaica of Public Inforaation To What extent should Federally Provided Public Inforaation be Considered as a Coaaodity or as a Societal Good? How Should the Federal Governaent Price Public lnforaation? P~blic Access and Availability to Public Inforaation What Federal Inforaation Does the Governaent Have a Responsibility to Make Accessible and Available to the Public? Should Congress Reconsider a Revision of iitle 44, yg, or proceed on a "Pieceaeal" Basis with the Developaent of Federal Policy Governing Publication and Dissemination of Public Inforaation? What is the Role of the Various Depository Library Prograas in the Governaent Provision of Public Inforaation? Ranking and Synthesis of Issues Analysis of Options Policy Strategy 1: Developaental Decentralization Policy Strategy 2: Coordinated Disseainator Policy Strategy 3: Inforaation Contractor Coaparison of Policy Strategies Increasing Access to Public Inforaation Overview of Access to Public Inforaation A Research Agenda for Inforaation Policy Appendices 1-1 Types of Public Inforaation Resources 1-2 Typology of Inforaation Gathering Situations 2-1 Review of Significant Studies 2-2 Annotated Bibliography of ~tudies Exaained 2-3 Online Bibliographic Data Bases Searched V 4-26 4 4-32 4-32 4-35 4-38 4-38 4-41 4-44 4-47 4-50 4-51 4-53 4-55 5-57 4-62 4-62 4-65
PAGE 6
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE 7
Nuaber 1-1 3-1 3-2 4-1 4-2 4-3 4-4 4-5 LIST OF TABLES Naae Nuaber of Publications Distributed to Depository Libraries by Fiscal Year Suaaary of Legislation or Reg~lations Suaaary of Iapacts of the Legislation or Regulations Ranking the Relative Significance of Issues Suaaary Analysis of Policy Strategy 1: Oevelopaentel Decentralized Suaaary Analysis of Policy Strategy 2: Coordinated Oiaseainator Suaaary Analysis of Policy Strategy 3: Inforation Contractor Potential Iapacts of Policy Strategies on Selected Stakeholders Tables appear on the page following that listed. vu Page 1-35 3-6 3-13 4-47 4-58 4-58 4-58 4-58
PAGE 8
Nuaber 1-1 1-2 1-3 1-4 1-5 1-6 1-7 2-1 2-2 2-3 2-4 2-5 2-6 2-7 2-8 2-9 2A-l 3-1 LIST OF FIGURES Naae Depiction of Federal Governaent Inforaation Producers of Public Inforaation Diaaeainators of Public Inforaation Branch of thPFederal Governaent Issuing Each Type of Public Inforaation Source Foraats in Which Types of Public Inforaation Are Distributed Current Methods for Diaaeainating Public Inforaation Exaaples of Decision Factors Affecting Use of Public Inforaation Two Approaches to Defining Participants in the Inforaation Sector Coapetitive Versus Public Utility Models for Developaent of Inforaation Technology Policy Iapact of Coapetitive Versus Public Utility Kodela on Social Probleas Effects of Inforaation Technology on Societal Inforaation Gaps Selected Effects of Inforaation Technology on Producers An Inforaation Policy Fraaework Effect of Inforaation Technology on Public Inforaation Expanded Model for Studying Effects of Inforaation Technology on Provision of Public Inforaation Federal Inforaation Technology Acquisitions 1984-1989 viii Page 1-7 1-15 1-18 1-34 1-40 1-41 1-42 2-5 2-16 2-17 2-24 2-27 2-27 2-28 2-30 Suaaary of Studies Reviewed in Appendix 2-1 Appendix 2-1, page 1 Exaaples of Priaary Players in the Developaent of Federal Inf oraation Pol ic_y 3-70 Figures appear on the page following that listed.
PAGE 9
4-1 4-2 4-3 4-4 4A-l 4A-2 LIST OF FIGURES Overview of National Inforaation Policy Issues Related to the Governaent Provis1on of Public Inforaation As Identified in Recent Studies Suaaary of Significant Issues Discussed Federal Organization for Inforaation Policies Access to Public Inforation lX 4-3 4-5 4-8 4-58 Suaaary of Research Topics Discussed Effectiveness of GPO Depositories and the Depository Library Prograa Appendix 4-10, page l Appendix 4-10, page 4
PAGE 10
X ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This report could not have been coapleted without the assistance of a nuaber of individuals. We would like to express our sincere gratitude to Hiroshi NakaJiaa for his invaluable contribution to the coapletion of this study. Hia online bibliographic data base searching and research asaiatance with the writing of Chapter 3 were essential coaponenta for t~e study. Liaa Kaaaerlocher and John Phillipa also provided research assistance in the identification, location, and obtaining of critical docuaenta and studies which, otherwise, aay have gone unnoticed. Additional thanks is given. also, to Jean Saith of the Office of Technology Aaaeasaent for assistance in obtaining especially hard-to-identify aateriala, organizing interviews in Washington, D.C. with selected individuals knowledgeable about the Governaent provision of public inforaation, proJect. and overall guidance and direction for the
PAGE 11
xi EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .overnent inforaation" is a broad tera that encoapassea both published and unpubliahed inforaation which the Federal governaent either doea or does not aake public. "Public inf oraation", is collected and/or developed at Governaent expense or as required by public law, and not considered to be claaaifiad, personal, or otherwise subJact to exeaption froa the Freedoa of Inforaation Act or the Privacy Act. Uaers and Public Access Although it is possible to hypotheRize about users and uses of public inforaation, there is liaited research upon which to base decisions and ensure that public inforaati~n resolves user inforaation needs. Such research ia necessary to relate the inforaation gathering behavior of users to foraats and purposes of the public inforaation. An appropriate aodel on which to pattern such research was developed in the late 1970a, for the Departaent of Agriculture, to identify the inforaation needs of faraers and ranchers. Once gathered, this inforaation can be useful in policy decision aaking and in refining Governaental inforaation diaaeaination aechaniaas. However, it cannot necessarily be aasuaed that the public will aake greater use of public inforaation aiaply because a technological delivery aystea has been auperiaposed over the inforaation. Key policy iaaues are related to deteraining the level of responsibility the Federal governaent has for the provision of public inforaation, specifying ~b!gb inforaation is to be disseainated to the public and how it can be disseainated aoat effectively, clarifying the interrelationships stakeholders in the inforaation sector, relating the creation aaong and disaeaination of public inforaation to specific user inforaation needs, and
PAGE 12
xii resolving the degree to which public inforaation is a societal good, a coaaodity to be bought or sold, or a capital investaent for the overall increased productivity of society at large. Inforaation Technology "Inforaation technology" is the application of aechanical or electronic tool which direct, shape, and control, the production, delivary, and acquisition of inforaation. "Effects" of inforaation technology on Governaent provision of public inforaation are considered as any results or iapacts which affect an individual's ability to: stay adequately inforaed of the activities and inforaation service& or products which the Federal governaent offers ~r in which it participates, or identify and gain physical access to public inforaation for the resolution of specific inforaation needs. A review of the literature related to the effects of technology on accgss to public inforaation eaphasizes that politics will continue to doainate discussions of appropriate stakeholder roles within the inforaation sector. At the Federal level, inforaation technology ia priaarily regarded aa a aeana to increase the effective collection, storage, organization, and internal retrieval of public inforaation. Niniaal concern ia given during the deeign and iapleaentation of Federal inforaation ayateas to enhancing user's access to public inforaation. Traditional dichotoaiee between "public" and "private" inforaation providers hinders the understanding of the effects of inforaation technology on the Governaent's provision of public inforaation. Stakeholders in the inforaation sector can use, produce, disseainate, and attach nuaerous value added enhanceaents at any given point in the life cycle of the inforaation service or product. A decentralized approach to Federal inforaation se:vicea and products encourages the developaent of contradictory, and at tiaes dST COPY AVAILAiLL
PAGE 13
xiii coapeting, inforaation technologies. Further, inforaation gaps in the Aaerican society appear to be widening as a reault of the increased eaphasis placed on econoay in Governaent and inequitable access to inforaation technologies by various user segaenta. Key issues to be resolved in this area relate to deteraining the degree to which public inforaation aade available through inforaation technologies enhance or detract froa user groups' access to that inforaation, clarifying the purpose of the application of inforaation technology in a apecific agency P.[!2[ to iapleaentation of that technology, deteraining the degree to which the Governaent should provide value added enhanceaents to existing inforaation systeas, and resolving the Governaent'a responsibilities for training and assisting users to exploit inforaation technologies that carry inforaation. public Federal Legislation and Regulations Chapter 3 auaaarizea and analyses eight pieces of Federal legislation and regulations: Guidelines of the Joint Coaaittee on Printing; the statutory base of the National Coaiaaion on Libraries and Inforaation Science: the Federal Prograa Inforaation Act; the Paperwork Reduction Act; Title 44, yg CGovernaent Printing Office>; Title 15, Y~ ; the adainistrative law basis for the National Audiovisual Center; and the policies of the Office of Nanageaent and Budget. highlights other related legislation and regulations. The chapter also There ia no single corpus of law to coordinate inforaation policies of the various Federal agencies, to eliainate aabiguities in Federal inforaation policies, or to clarify the confusing and contradictory array of services that agencies provide. Gaps, aabiguitiea, liaitations, and contradictions aaong these laws and regulations are identified.
PAGE 14
xiv The Paperwork Reduction Act, coabined with the desire of the Reagan adainiatration and Congress to reduce Federal spending and to take into account the needs and interests of other stakeholders in the inforaation aector to aake Governaent aore efficient, have served as the central focus for the develcpaent of current inforaation policies. Using the Paperwork Reduction Act and specific directives, 0MB is the priaary player in the developaent, aaintenance, and enforceaent of Federal inforaation policies. However, 0MB operates in a vacuua and encounters no aaJor rival to its view that econoay in Governaent and the role of for-profit stakeholders in the inforaation sector are the two critical coaponenta for the current developaent of Federal inforaation policy. Key isaues to be resolved in this area relate to the degree to which inforaation policy developaent and enforceaent is to be centralized or decentralized; the need to clarify the relationships and legal bases for various public inforaation clearinghouses such as the GPO, NTIS, and ERIC: resolving the ayriad aethods by which various Federal agencies price public inforaation: deteraining if the Governaent should atteapt to aake a profit fro the aale of public inforaation: providing safeguards which insure that privatized public inforaation will, in fact, be aade accessible and available to users--regardleas of the foraat of that inforaation; and providing e2th horizontal coordination as well as vertical integration of inforaation policy. Review of Isauea A review of recent publications identified soae 269 issues related broadly to Governaent provision of public inforaation. The final chapter of the report reviews these policy issues, presents a typology of the issues, and identifies options for their resol~tion. Those issues, which the authors see
PAGE 15
xv as aost significant, are analyzed in ters of the possible effects of each of the options suggested. A coMpatibility analysis of the various options resulted in the synthesis of three basic policy strategies which were then analyzed in ters of their potentiel ipacts regarding Governaent provision of public inforaation. The report concludes with a call for conducting research on specific topics and the need for accessing access to public inforaation fro the perspective of the user. The user aay encounter a nuber of barriers to access public inforaation, aay or aay not rely on interaediaries to assist 1n accessing public inforaation, and, as a result, aay or aay not access public inforaation. The notion that the Federal governaent provides a "safety net" for equal opportunity to public inforaation is challenged. If adequate access to public inforaation ts to be accoaplished, greater consideration for the social good and disseination of that inforaation, rather than econoay in Governaent and using technology priaarily to better collect and organize F~deral inforaation is necessary. Issues to be Addressed The report identifies five broad categories of policy issues which require attention: -Federal organi7ation for inforaation policies -relationship between the Federal governaent and other stakeholders in the inforaation sector -inforaation technology -the econoaics of public inforaetion -public access and availability to public inforaation Within these various categories, the report shows that there is a lack of clear definition of "public inforaation:" aany Federal officials are naive in
PAGE 16
xvi their asaeaaaent of the user's ability to access public inf oraation effectively: there is confusion between aanaging inforaation ~ctivi.ties in an efficient aanner as opposed to aanaging the for-profit: existing i~~islation and regulations related to inforaation policy is frequently contradictory, aabiguous, and confusing: the design of Fed~~~l autoaated inforaation systeaa rarely includes factors that enhance public' access; increasing authority of 0MB for the formulation and adainistration of Federal inforaetion policy has an iapact on agency aanageaent of public access to that inforaation: and users wanting access to public inforaation encounter nuaerous barriers. These barriers are significant and have the effect of decreasing the aaount of public inforaation accessible and available to the public. ~~Sl COPY AVA!LAiilt
PAGE 17
xvii INTRODUCTION Thia report is the result of a response to a request for a proposal fro the U.S. Office of Technology Assessaent entitled Governaent Provision Qf fy~!!~ Inforaation. The RFP eaphasized that the topic was nQt to address issues related to the Freedoa of Inforaation Act, the Privacy Act, the Sunshine Actp or other legislation/regulations related to civil libertiea. Specifically, the tasks to be accoaplished for the proJect were: 1. Categorize the significant types of public in!oraation, identify current and potential users and providers of Governaent inforaation (both public and private), and describe current and prospective aeans for disseainating such inforaation . 2. Review and synthesize prior studies on the effects of infora6tion technology on Governaent provision of infcraation. Provide a bibliography and a list of sources relevant to the subJect. 3. Suaaarize and analyze the legislative history and current status of relevant public laws and regulations and deteraine whether there are any conflicts and/or gaps. 4. Identify and analyze the principal policy issues involved in the Governaent provision of public inforaation, including an analysis of the iaplications of the issue for provision of Governaent inforaation and policy alternatives for resolving the issue. Because of the broad scope of the proJect, part of the aaterial produced is contained in the various appendices. However, the report is organized so that each chapter corresponds to these tasks. The report was written under difficult tiae constraints. There were available only seven weeks between the approval of the detailed outline for the proJect and the subaission of the first draft; then, there were another three weeks for revision of that draft. However, every effort was aade to identify, review, and analyze the iaportant literature related to the above four tasks. Further, the authors were able to conduct personal interviews, as part of the data collection process, with spokespersons froa a nuaber of Executive and Legislative branch agencies and offices and solicit reviewer
PAGE 18
xviii coaaents on each task. The nature of the proJect tasks encourages a broad overview of topics related to public access to Governaent provi~ed public inforaation, the effescts of inforaaticn technology on Governaent provision of public inforaation, analysis of selected legislation and regulations related to Federal inforaation, and analysis of policy issues related to each topic. Thus, each chapter atteapts to provide a synthesisana discussion of significant topics and issues rather than an itea hy itea detailed analysis. Throughout the report, the authors have stressed the need for coordinated, eapirical research on aany of the topics. Currently, the aaJority of the literature related to these topics are liaited in that the writings represent opinion or review essays and often-tiaes aake critical assuaptions related to political, econoaic, or social philosophies which are not clearly set forth. It i~ the hope of the authors that the results fro the various studies funded under this proJect by the Offic~ of Technology Assessaent will, when coabined and reviewed, provide a basis for establishing and iapleaenting a research agenda related to the Governaent provision of public inforaation. Thia study of Governaent provision of public inforaation and the effects of technology on that provision concludes that the Federal governaent has Cl> inadequately developed specific strategies to insure the effective provision of public inforaation, <2> allowed contradictory end aabiguoua legislation and regulations related to public inforaation to eaerge <3> relied, priaarily, on policies of "econoay in Governaent" as a basis to establish procedures related to public inforaation disaeaination and the application of inforaation technologies, and (4) has failed to study, exploit and fund the nation's depository libraries effectively as interaediaries in providing adequate access and availability to public inforaation in all aediuas and foraats.
PAGE 19
xix Public inforaation is a coaaon denoainator whose access aust cut across all user segaenta, geographic regions, and organi2atiooal/profesaional activities. Its health and well-being is vital to th~ long range success of Aaerican deaocracy. The specific iaaues end policy options suaaari2ed in Chapter 4 aust be addressed and resolved to further stiaulate national growth and productivity, protect individual freedoas and rights, and insure the social health of the nation. Charles R. !cClure and Peter Hernon Deceaber, 1984
PAGE 20
CHAPTER l PUBLIC INFORMATION Chapter 1-1 The Federal government produces information 0 value for almost anyone in the country and on almost any subJect. This information can be of value to people in a variety of situations, e.g ., work, research, publication, recreation, or their daily life. This information pertains to all age groups and provides a communication link between the Government and the people which it serves. In addition to published books, pamphlets, etc., the Government disseminates information which is not Such information may be conveyed orally, formally by letter, published. in machine-readable form, and so orth. to: Against this background, the purposes of this chapter are -define key terms relating to public information., its d1saemination and use -develop a typology of types of public information -identify the formats in which public information appears -identify producers and disseminators of Governmentally produced public inormation -relate types and formats 0 public information to the producers and disseminators -identify users 0 public information and patterns of information gathering -identify areas and information technology information issues related in resolving -identify areas and topics which would research and developm9nt studies to needs the use of for public beneit from The discussion of these topics will serve as background to the
PAGE 21
Chepter 1-2 other chapters on information technology, legislation and regulations related to the Federal government's provision of public information and access to this informetion, and information policy issues. Definitions Government Publications, Documents, and Inormation Typically international organizations dier~ntiate between documents and QUblications, although the distinction may be imprecise and subJect to change. Documents are the official records of meetings and other material issued for internal use; however, they may be 0 interest to outside users and reach a larger audience. Publications, on the other hand, are more widely distributed, fulill a goal of the organization, and inform the public. Complicating the distinction is the act that documents may later become publications. When dealing with the United States Federal government, distinctions between whet constitutes a publication and document become even less precise. It is common for writers and others to use interchangeably the terms '"government publications," government documents," '"public documents,"' and 11public information ... One study d1ferentiates between publication and document; a publication comprises: any portion of government information produced by a Government entity which is made available to the public through printing, electronic tranaier, or any other arm o:f reproduction at Government expense and which is offered for public sale/rental or for free distribution
PAGE 22
Chapter 1-3 a specific identifiable segment of information produced by a Government entity which may be made available to the public upon request under law or by administrative discretion, but which is not usually considered of such broad public interest as to warrant general publication or distribution
PAGE 23
Chapter 1-4 contained 1n Title 44. Any comprehensive new definition must take into account a myriad number of exceptions and special cases; Chapter 3 highlights proposed definitions and notes these exceptions and special cases. It is exceedingly difficult to develop a general, all-inclusive definition, which will be generally accepted. Librarians and other groups commonly accept the the Title 44 definition aa adequate for developing a frame of refernece still operates under this general definition, it is restricted in the publication formats which can be made available through i~s sales and depository library programs. Information policies of the 198Os and beyond must define key terms and strive for general acceptance of these definitions. Prior to presentiug an analysis of public information types, formats, and users, it is necessary that certain terms be defined. First, information is the content of a message or communication which is conveyed and assimilated by the person receiving that message. .. Knowledge derives from the process people use to understand and analyze information. Information is a "main ingredient of knowledge"
PAGE 24
Chapt.er 1-5 Government information is a broad term that encompasses both published and unpublished information which the Federal government either does or does not intend to make public. The information may be compiled, generated, and/or maintained by the Government. f~Q!!~ information, as defined by the Office of Technology Assessment in the RFP for this contracted study, is that which is collected and/or developed at Government expense or as required by public law, and not considered to be classified, personal, or otherwise subJect to exemption from the Freedom of Information Act or the Privacy Act. Except :for the references to the two acts, this definition is similar to that contained in Title 44, United States Code. Another definition of public information is that: which is collected, produced, or created by, or for the Federal government, with Federal funds, primarily for the purpose 0 communicating with, educating, or informing one or more segments of the public. The diati~guishing characteristic of public information is that he agency actively seeks, in some fashion, to disseminate such 1normation or otherwise make it available to the public
PAGE 25
Chapter 1-6 the public should receive. A definition of public informetion advanced in the lete 1970s for Title 44, United States gQg~, revision underscores the complexity and illustrates e bewildering maze 0 terms and exemptions; 11 public in:f ormation comprises: a document, publication, arm, machine-readable data :file, nicroform, audiovisual presentation, or similar matter, reproduced for public use, wholly or partially at Government expense, by printing or other means but sue~ transfer does not include any such matter which, as determined by the issuing entity (A) is required for off1c1al administrative or operational purposes only end is without public interest or educational value or is classi:fied or designated under statute or executive order as requiring a specific degree o:f protection against unauthorized disclosure or reasons of national defense or foreign policy . For a similar reason, public information can be regarded as that which is .. distributable." The information has been brought together for Governmental purposes from inormat1on 1n the public doma1n or within the scope of 'fair use,' or owned by the Govenment itself, or that the Government has obtained rights to distribute, or that is distributable under the Freedom of Information Act, subJect only to the statutory limitat1ona 00The phrase 'brought together' is interpreted as including generating, compiling, processing, collecting, and analyzing" public information
PAGE 26
Chepter 1-7 release. The information is potentially available through a formal process such as a lawsuit or the Freedom of Information Act . The matter of potential availability is complicated by factors such as who can make a request -an individual, a corporate person, a lawyer~ a non-citizen, an aggrieved par~y, etc. By contrast, erivate information is intended solely for internal use within Government and not for public consumption. It held in confidence out of respect for a privacy right or a statutory obligation. It thereore will not be released under the FOIA, the Privacy Act, or other statutory and administrative law , confidential letters of evaluation, and other information 0 a similar kind. personal information relating to persons not employees of the Government 1ncludes information collected by the Government about persons. Some of this information (e.g., that of the Internal Revenue
PAGE 27
FIGu:;E 1-1 Feoeral GovernLlent Information Public Information Private Information Internal Personal Classif1ec -<{ BESI COPY AVAILAUlL
PAGE 28
Chapter 1-8 Service and the Social Security Administration) may be statutorily protected, while other personal information may not be so protected. national security information Ce.g., that which is military classified> is quite different from the previously listed categories, although there may be some overlap. This category includes data related to security clearanaces :for persons. The range of persons to whom this kind 0 information may be made available is determined by a '"need to know." private information, in the colloquial sense, is information in the possession of priv~te individuals. private information also refers to ownership. To illustrate, there is nothing "private" about gh~!!!!S~! Abstracts data, in any of the prior senses, although it is privately owned -copyrighted. For the purposes of this report, Er!Y~~~ information refers specifically to the last two categories. The other four categories, for the sake of convenience, can be placed in the gray area between public and private information. Prior to discussing this gray area, the terms '"internal in:formation, .. '"personal information," and military security in:formation .. need clarification. '"Internal information is intended for internal use within the Government and not for public consumption. Such information includes both administrative information and personal information about employees o:f the Government related to their appointment and positiono Internal information may be released under the Freedom of Information Act, provided distribution is not limited by the Privacy Act, national security, or other statutory and administrative law. '"Personal in:formation" is gathered by the Government about persons, both outside and within the Government, for legitimate purposes of Government. However, distribution is controlled by
PAGE 29
Chapter 1-9 either specific legislation or general provisions of the Privacy Act. Access to "military security information" is controlled by military classification schedules and a "need to know." The availability 0 information in the gray area between released (public> and protected inor~ation would be determined through mechanisms such as the Freedom of Information Act CFOIA>, the Privacy Act, or Judicial review. There are numerous examples of information falling into the gray area. Federal agencies such as the Internal Revenue Service and the Securities and Exchange Commission collect som~ information which is personal or proprietary. information The Government collects the presumably to further legitimate public purposes. However, such collection may sharply conflict with what individuals and organizations believe to be their rights of privacy, and thereby creates an obligation on the Government to protect the information and use it only in carefully prescribed ways (Congress, 1981a, p. 50). In some instances, the Federal government collects information intended or internal use; the information may later become public. One example is the initially p~ivate date collected for the decennial Census 0 Population and Housing; some 73 years later individual household records become public. For more recent years, primarily only summary data are available. Another example might occur when a member of the general public is denied access to specific information under the Freedom of Information Act. A Congressional committee requesting similar information might obtain it --and then make it public in an appendix o~ a ~jE(-cav Ji H l L ", : ... )1 \] .. ,..,,I ur-. 1.1:11 ./i.-U.
PAGE 30
Chapter 1-.:.0 committee hearing or committee print. In yet another case, the Federal government may release declassified information, then later reclassify and withdrawn it from public scrutiny. In some instances, both Congress and the Executive Branch have developed guidelines for the types of information which can be withheld and have set schedules by which private information can ~ecome public. For example, Title 44, United States Code, sect.ion 2114, places responsibility for develo~ing access policies to Congressional records stored at the National Archives and Records Service with the house of Congress which generated the records. The Senate has established procedures for identifying and transferring Senate records to the National Archives. These guidelines, '"Senate Committee Records: A Guide to Dis~os1~1on and Public Access"
PAGE 31
Chapter 1-11 obtained in a convenient format. in understandable language, and in a time frame whereby the information is current and has utility. Accessibilit~ is meaningless if people cannot obtain a copy of a pertinent government publication, if the information is contained in a format (e.g machine-readable, electronic. or microform> which requires the use of technology or special viewing or reproduction equipment not _in hand. if the information can be located but not obtained within a time frame acceptable to the user, if the information is priced higher than an individual can afford to pay. or if a Federal department or agency loses. misplaces. or otherwise does not make the information obtainable. Public access encompasses both accessibility and availability. Access and availability to government publications or documents are not always the same as access and availability to public information. Access and availability to publications or documents are a prerequisite for access and availability to public information. The term .. publication .. or .. document" implies the packaging of public information. end that packaging includes a variety of publication (or availability) types and formats. In this context, critical questions become "What is !9~9~!!:~ public access" and "How is adequacy defined, achieved, and measured?" The answer to these questions must take into account the various methods by which public information is obtained. and the efectivenesa and efficiency of these methods in meeting the information needs of the public. depository program administered by the GPO, /2-, ,' In the case of the member libraries are BEST CDPY AVAILAiti.
PAGE 32
Chat:,ter 1-12 expected to '"make depository publications available for the free use of the general public .. and to answer reference questions or make referral to a source which will answer the questions (Guidelines, 1977, sections 9-1 and 9-2)Cfor an explanation of the depository program see Hernon and McClure, 1984; Hern~:m, McClure, and Purcell, forthcoming). The questi.on is '"Do they really they really do these, to what extent, and how accurate are their responses?"' McClure and Hernon (1983) discovered that some libraries refused the general public access to the depository collection, that documents department staff members cou.ld only answer a small percentage of test questions accu~ately, and that the maJority of unanswered questions were not referred to another source --either internal or external to the library. Any assumptions underlying public access must be identified and the effectiveness and efficiency of that access measured. Adequate public access must be clearly defined and take into account the receipt of: understandable, information complete, accurate, and current inormation at an aordable cost (balancing the economic good against the aocial good, 1 this is deemed desirable, inormation in a convenient and readily usable format the cost 0 the inormation inormation which can be obtained with e minimal amount 0 physical eort Public information should be openly available, which means "'available without prior restrictions (except those explicity identified in the Freedom of Information Act [the Privacy Act end ~i ,~ _/
PAGE 33
Chapter 1-13 some of the other statutes identified in Task 3) and without procedural complications However, availability and accessibility are meaningless if the information need is not recongized and public information is perceived as a logical option for the resolution of an information need. Access to public information end the conceP.t of adequacy must also be viewed in relation to the following factors: ~olitical and organizational: the views, value assumptions, and obJectives of a bureaucracy or politir.ian on the role of the Government in the provision of public information. Another factor is the degree to which the management of public informaticn can enhance ~he accomplishment of political obJectives information to be made available: identification of the content or specific data elements which the Federal government might provide to the public bibliograehic Q~~fQJ: the degree to which the information is identified, accurately described, indexed, and listed in appropriate reference sources dissemination ~~~hQg~: the processes (depository library programs, clearinghouses, bookstores, onl1ne data base services, etc.) whereby information is made available to the public eublication formats: the decision about whether to use paper copy publications, microforma, a magnetic tape, etc. Effective public ~ccess presupposes that the Federal government encourages both accessibility of, and availability to, public information. The Government must also fully recognize its responsibility to communicate (inform, with tho~e whom 1t governs. Other Definitions educate, and care for>
PAGE 34
Chapter 1-14 Certain other terms must also be defined in order to set the following discussion of information policy. First, dissemination of public information encompasses the processes by which a Government agency .. providing information actively distributes it to users, without the necessity or the users to seek access for each such distribution .. . By contrast, Governm2nt e[QY!~!Qn of information refers to the creation, information. generation, compilation, and production of The Government makes the information available but users must seek access to it, No active distribution policy or obligation is assumed or operational. Information n~~Q occur in those situations where people require information for decision making, while information g~~n~r!ng involves people seeking actively to identify a message a message or communication to satisfy a perceived need. And information is available from a variety of information ~tQY!Q~r~ -oneself , and institutional providers Ce.g., associations, businesses and organizations, churches, Government agencies, learned societies, and libraries> -end in a variety of formats. People usually do not rely exclusively on one provider but ~se several in combinetion . This report will focus only one provider, the Federal government, although relationships will be noted es appropriate. on other Stakeholders in the information sector are individuals, --/~
PAGE 35
Chapter 1-15 organizations, and agencies whose mission is directly related to the production, collection, organiz.ation, enhancement!' or dissemination of information. Typically these stakeholders attempt to influence those decisions in which they might have a vested interest. Stakeholders can be categorized as: for-profit or not-for-profit, Federal or non-Federal, having an interest in a type of inormation (public or other.>, etc. This report i.G concerned primarily with those stakeholders include eYQ!!~ information-related activities. whose missions Produce re Typology of Producers and Disseminators of Public Information Almost all Federal agencies generate public information (see Figure 1-2>. In addition, the GPO alone contracts out about 73 percent of its work to more than 8,000 private sector firms , Federal agencies receiving permission from the JCP may contract publishing to regional printing plants, contractors, and others,
PAGE 36
1:.xecutive Branen F!GUR~ 1-2 Feaeral Government Information Puoi1c Information Private Information =-----Legislative Acvisory Sc1ent1 flc Incepencent Branen Judiciar) C01111111ss1ons Contractors Organizations Institute5 Agencies Private Sector Otner ___ __ .. .._ ____ ------___ __... .._ ___ _, .,_ ______ .,_ ___ -----,_ ___ ..., __,
PAGE 37
Chapter 1-16 or they may have their own printing plants. Indeed, the in:foI'mation environment is highly decentralized, lacks coordination, and does not eliminate duplication o:f efforts. The increased availability of microcomputers and the use of software for word processing results in the production of additional information, much of which could be regarded as public. While the Paperwork Reduction Act (see C~apter 3 for a detailed discussion> may be reducing some record keeping and the amount of paper generated, the volume of public information produced annually is still quite sizable. This information is availaible, but it has limited accessibility because it is not actively disseminated. In order to gain access, the public must first be aware that the information exists, which agency produces or disseminates it, and then know what steps must be followed to gain physical access to the 1nformat1Qn. Consider, for example, that some 3,000 Government machine1984): In directly from Government agencies on magnetic tape or disk -for sale or lease (e.g., from the National Technical Information Service, the Department of Agriculture, end the Bureau of the Census> -directly through :free online access (e.g., patent searches performed at patent depository libraries) directly National through :fee-based online access Library 0 Medicine) addition, the Government might sell electronic <( ( /
PAGE 38
Chapter 1-17 photocomposition tapes, e.g., the Government Printing Office offers tapes ~o the f~g~r~1 B~9!t~r
PAGE 39
Chapter 1-18 1normat.ion sect.or?" A depiction of the structure of the Federal government as a public information disseminator is also complex , while more Executive Branch agen~ies are distributing fewer publications gratis. The Department of Agriculture and other parts o:f the Executive Branch have reevaluated the extent of their involvement with the Consumer
PAGE 40
FIGUR:'. 1-3 DISS~,.:~ATORS OF PuBLIC INFOR~ATIO~ Feaeral Government Inforsat ion -\ Public Infor~ati~n -J I I I I I I I I Clear1ngnouses Age:,:y Infonaation Consumer ;e:era: Feoeral Deoos1tory ;r1vate Profit anc Sovern-
PAGE 41
Chapter 1-19 Information Center. Located in Pueblo, Colorado, the Center comprises one means by which the General Services Administration, in cooperation with the GPO, has distributed fre~ and inexpensive pamphlets to increase public awareness of consumer information issued by Federal Government, 1984c). agencies operates a series of Federal Information Centers CFICs>, which place the public in contact with the appropriate Federal agency, and answer general information queries. In 1983, the GSA reviewed the program seeking to make it more efficient and to reduce operating costs. As a result, FIC services were consolidated into twenty centers serving systems. extended geographic areas via toll-free telephone In a few locations (e.g., Tucson, Arizona) where "the cost-customer-use ratio is unsupportebly high," toll-free service was discontinued. The GSA claims that 11in no case where a toll-free line has been discontinued, does the cost for a three-minute
PAGE 42
Chapter 1-20 commercial phone call exceed one dollar'" requests for records in automated form (Schuman, 1984, p. 57). As another example, the Securities and Exchange Commission hes issued a Request for Proposal CRFP> or a pilot test of an electronic !ling, processing, and dissemination system for the multiple disclosure forms publicly held companies are required by law to file. These forms are some o:f the Government's most highly sought ater public documents, heavily used by investment houses. The SE~ says that the company chosen to run the system will be required to make some "basic in:formation" available to individuals at low cost; but etill unresolved is whether the contractor will be allowed to oer :far more lucrative, specialized services to brokerage houses and large companies (Ibid.).
PAGE 43
Chapter 1-21 Such decisions undoubtedly will intensify the efforts of public action groups and others to reverse the trend and to sound the alarm about the implications 0 such decisions. Both the Executive and Legislative branches have been concerned about the control of transnational data transmission and open scientific communication. As shown by Relyea, .. during the past few years, eforts have been underw~y to increase national security controls on scientific communication" These controls .. severely curtail U.S. scientific a~hievement and progress, economic, with consequential harm to the intellectual and as well as military security of the nation .. (1984, p. 177). At the same time, the Department of Defense has pl~~~d restrictions on non-classified research reports which it considers sensitive. The Reagan administration tends to support industry concerns about the release of "trade secrets" inormation used in the regulation of public access to environmental, health, and safety information generated and held within the private sector. As a consequence, less information on the content and health effects of pesticides, workplace chemicals, and haz~rdous waates is reaching the public. The f~g~r~l Statistical Q1~~~QrY was published by the Office 0 Federal Statistical Policy and Standards, Department of Commerce, until that Office was transferred to the 0ice of Management and Budget and the title was labeled unnecessary and discontinued. With the 1984 edition, the directory is published commercially but at three times the previous pIice! Numerous
PAGE 44
Ch~pter 1-22 examples of publications and services which have been consolidated or discontinued can be found in a series of pamphlets issued by the Public Citizen's Open Government ProJect (1984a, b, and c>. Before concluding this section, it might be helpful to highlight briefly selected dissemination activities of four other Federal departments and agencies: the Bureau of the Census, the Government Printing Office , and the Department of Agriculture. The Bureau of the Census became an active disseminator of its products with the 1970 Census of Population and Housing. Users of 1980 censu~ data may prefer the machine-readable form for certain reasons: -the need to work with large amounts of data. Extensive calculations, sorting, and reformating can be done more efficiently by computer -the desire to use computerized statistical packages or graphic display systems to which the data must be input in machine-readable form -timing ew weeks reports machine-readable data are usually available a or even months before the related printed -the need for data not available in reports or microfiche, but derivable ram machine-readable data ilea produced by the Bureau. Because of the high cost of publications, the Bureau can afford to print only a raction of the data which are made available on tape -computer tapes have expanded detail, with more subJect data than the equivalent printed reports (Dukakis and Cohen, 1984, p. 126>. The Bureau has released a generalized file processing and tabulating package, CENSPAC, for usars who do not -)~ f, _) want
PAGE 45
Chapter 1-23 responsibility for computer programming . Government Printing Qt!!S! The GPO can grant a 25 percent discount from the list price 0 sales publications to individuals and libraries which purchase at least 100 copies of a single publication sent to one address. Book dealers can receive the same discount regardless of the quantity ordered, but they would require at least a 40 percent discount, similar to that provided by commercial publishers. GPO officials have explored the option of changing section 1708,
PAGE 46
Chapter 1-24 Title 44, United States gQg~, to make the discount more competitive. Still, the GPO persuaded 8. Dalton and Walden Books to carry government publications on a selective basis, even with the 25 percent discount. In some cases, bookstores are permitted to add a small handling charge onto the sales price. The GPO has also '"signed up about 200 book dealers to sell publications door-to-door or a commission" As Public Printer, Danford L. Sawyer, Jr., believed that the GPO was inefficient and should be operated as a private publishing irrA. He created a marketing department, launched a high profile marketing program, issued a catalog of sales publications, substantially raised the prices of sales publications, and sold off 7,000 back titles as waste paper. The criterion for inclusion of a title in the sales program became its sales potential -'"cut out the losers a:id accentuate the w1nners.11 In 1982, Sawyer directed the Documents Pricing Task Force, comprised on GPO officials, to investigate a new pricing formula and to make recommendations '"which would make government publications available to the public by the most efficient and least costly means possbile under existing law.'" He also directed the.Superintendent of Documents to reduce the number of titles in the sales program and to sell only which would generate at least Sl,000 annually. those titles Since Sawyer's departure as Public Printer in 1983, the policy that a title must have a sales potential of at least Sl,000 has been relaxed. The GPO works with Federal agencies to obtain copies of those publications which the agencies believe
PAGE 47
Chapter 1-25 should be in the sales program but will not have signiicant sales potential. Since 1978 , and publications or which an agency acts as a consigned agent comprise the exceptions to the self-sustaining mandate. The pricing 0 a title by the GPO is based on cost plus 50~ (see chapter 3>. This requirement assumes that editorial and manufacturing costs as well as the sales potential can be precisely determined. It hes been shown that: although the mission of the General Sales program is to make available those Government publications for which there is a demand, GPO does not currently conduct marketing studies to determine that demand. Marketing studies are often used by other publishers to determine which publications will have a demand and for establishing prices and quantities to be printed. Without such studies, publishing decisions are "guess estimates" at best (General Accounting Office, 1983a, p. 19 > The task force on the pricing of sales publications, which the Public Printer established in 1982, completed its investigation and offered specific recommendations which were adopted in the fall of 1983. The section in Appendix 3-1, or 1983, highlights these recommendations. Further, en excellent analysis of the pricing ormula can be found in the General Accounting Office's analysis of the GPO sales program (1983a). The GPO has been modernizing its business and management practices, as well as printing capabilities. Some critics
PAGE 48
Chapter 1-26 that the placing of the GPO on 11a sounder financial footing .. has forced the agency "to raise prices for some information to levels that many people can't afford11 c;::,vernment Some Federal agencies have questioned the effectiveness and efficiency of GPO printing and would prefer to establish their own printing plants or to contract their printing to the private sector. For example, NASA is now attempting to bypass the JCP and GPO and contract its Technical ~Qt~~, arguing that this title is intended as a means of communication within Government, rather than outside ("Print Deal Seen Making GPO A Paperless Tiger," 1984>. If NASA is successful, the process of publication and and dissemination of public information will become further decentralized. Further, the Superintendent of Documents will be unable to monitor the Federal printing environment, select titles for inclusion in the sales program, and make titles aveileble for depository distribution. Depository libraries, as of Fall 1984 number 1,391, provide a mechanism for the distribution of GPO publications in paper copy or microfiche. At present, the GPO does not distribute publications in other formats. However, most depository libraries are highly selective in the number and types of public information which they select end retain. Although more then 5,500 items are available for depository distribution, the 200th most frequently selected item is taken only by 60 percent of the depository libraries. This means that the vast array of items go unselected or are selected by few of the 1,391 depositories . It would seem, therefore, es more material becomes available or distribution, depository libraries
PAGE 49
Chapter 1-27 will become even more selective in their acquisitions because they leek the space, facilities, end staff to absorb end service ell the titles distributed annually. Both the GPO end NTIS operate bookstore programs. The GPO bookstores are located throughout the nation, while the NTIS bookstore is located in the District of Columbia. Under Dan:ford L. Sawyer, Jr., as Public Printer, an attempt was made to eliminate the GPO bookstore program es duplicative of the Washington based sales program, not cost-effective, receiving limited use, and largely a political program. The Public Printer's recommendation was overruled by the Joint Committee on Printing, and the General Accounting Office was asked to examine the sales program. A subsequent GAO report found the bookstores financially viable and indicated that they ""offer personal attention, opportunity :for inspection of documents for sale, and immediate delivery of purcheses11
PAGE 50
Chapter 1-28 Both libraries can place orders directly with NTIS 011 behalf of their users and encourage the use of NTIS products and services. The effectiveness of the program has not yet been evaluated. To what extent does the public use libraries and their collections of Government distributed information to resoive their information needs? NTIS has been criticized for acquiring and disseminating only a partial number of the technical reports produced by Federal agencies
PAGE 51
Chapter 1-29 which will store it, provide the necessary sotware for data use, and update the "menu11 as necessary. relate to: Three central questions et what point in a system may different users with different needs gain access to desired information? how can equality 0 dissemination between users in both the public and private provided? different sectors be how will the information be priced? ("In:formation Needs for Modern Agriculture," 1983, p. 8> The Department will have .. to determine to what extent and by what guidelines governmentally collected data" can "be accessed by private vendors" . The Department of Agriculture supports a County Extension Service, which provides educational programs to the public, assists them in meeting specific information needs, and encourages people to help themselves. A case study of the effectiveness of the Service can be found in Chen end Hernon C 1982 > The examples discussed abouve illustrate that the environment of Government dissemination of public in:formetion is equally as decentralized as the Government's role as a producer of public in:formation. Policy directives emanating from 0MB on information policy and information resource management (see Chapter 3) as well as the diverse mission of agencies such as the National Telecommunications end Information Administration and the Joint Committee of Printing underscore the complexity 0 developing national information policies end BESl COP1 A~A\L~LL
PAGE 52
Chapter 1-30 challenge the view of one all-encompassing national information policy. There are obviously various information policies for which coordination is necessary, and dissemination policies comprise a part of national information policies. The Government should devote even more attention to the role of information handling technologies and ensuring that all segments o: society have access to the types of public inormation which aid in their problem solving. A central question relates "To what extent should the development and enorcement of general information policies be entrusted solely or largely to agencies charged with overseeing specific pieces of information legislation/regulations or concerned largely or exclusively with issues specifically related to the economics of information?'" Some crucial dissemination issues which should be given prompt attention are: -the pricing o: information -the purposes and uses of information -the completeness and accuracy of information -amount of duplication in information content -the packaging and marketing 0 information -the maintenance of active dissemination means so that the Government accepts a much broader role than merely making its information available -the types and formats of public information, implications o: these decisions to use and the -the accuracy and quality 0 service provided by information disseminators -the amount information information. of time it takes users to explore the env1ronment to discover needed 3(~ r COPY Av AILASLL
PAGE 53
Chapter 1-31 These eight issues can be regrouped into three broad categories: ( l ) what public information to disseminate, C 2 > how to disseminate it, and C3> at what price? Information technologies may assure wider access to types of public information and the receipt of this information in. a timely manner. However, the type of policy issues identified in Chapter 4 must be addressed. For example, Figure 4-4 discusses access to public information and the concept of a safety net, which guarantees "equal opportunity .. to access public 1n:formation. Functions of Public Information Merritt (1943>, who examined public inormat1on in the context of a printed publication, identified the maJor functions, purposes, or uses 0 public information as follows: Legislative publications of Congress advance the legislative process Administrative publications assist in public administration Re~ortorial publications (e.g, annual reports of Government agencies, decisions rendered by the courts, and briefs and opinions of the Attorney General> report a completed task or activity, or progress on the completion 0 an ongoing action 2!r~!~! publi~ations ere concerned with the lives, activities, and welfare of the citi2enry. In this category can be placed much of the data collection by the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the Bureau of the Census publications convey research supported by a Government agency conducted or
PAGE 54
Chapter 1-32 Informational publications (e.g., pamphlets on welfare, social security,and health care> inform the public about the nature and activities of Government agencies. They are intended to educate the public and provide people with information useful for decision making Merritt analyzed the publications reported in the Monthll Catalog on the basis of the purpose for which they were issued. While his findings are too dated to report here, Richardson <1982> has extended the original analysis to more recent years. Using the he combined reportorial, information, and service functions into one category. By doing this, he discovered that this combined category accounted for the largest percentage of publications (82.2) identified and indexed by the GPO. In addition, by making comparisons to the Merritt study, he was able to demonstrate that the research function, as rep:::,rted in this one index, hes "grown significantly in the lest 40 years .. (p. 227). Merritt's six broad groupings suggest various types of public information sources. However, some types result in substantially more publication than others. For example, the research function which Merritt identified has become increasingly more important. The Government is now a large, if not the largest, producer of research publications and the amount of publication has grown dramatically since World War II. Types of Public Information The Federal government touches all aspects of our daily lives. It issues publications and other source material to convey information, or to inform the public. This source material ..... ..... '1
PAGE 55
Chapter 1-33 comprises a means of communication between the Government and its citizenry. The three branches of Government also generate unpublished records which complement published sources and document the administrative, leadership, political, personal, and other activities of the Government. These records
PAGE 56
Figure Chapter 1-34 Rules, regulat1one, directives, and circulars Maps, Charts, and Photographs Audiovisual resources Bills and resolutions Hearings Journals and proceedings Laws and statutes Treaty sources Technical report literature Patents Technical docum~nt~tion
PAGE 57
8,;t=);~CH CJF" THt=:: FEDt:.;;H .... GOV,=.K\'',~:'-l-:-.: ss~ l NG EACtTY~~ C~ P~B-1C INFO~~~~iO~ SGw~CE EXECL.JTivE Aomi r,i s,:;ra-c 1 ve Reo1:,rt s Cc,rnrn 1 t 'tee ano Commission Reports Researcn Reoorts anc Develoomen-c S-cuoies Statistical Data Ger,eral I rif c, r rn a "t 1 ,:, r, Pamonlets ar,o Fact Snee-cs i=ress ~e,;,. eases ar,a Eonernera D 1 rec't i:,r 1 es ar,o D1ges-cs B l O i l Cc gr a Oh l e S, L l St S Gu1oes, ano Ca-calogs Dec 1 s i 1:,r,s ar,d Oo 1 r, 1 or,s Ru le s, Reg u l at i C r, s., Ci rcu 1 ars, ar,d Directives Maps, Charts, and Pnc,t c,graons Ai_tc 1 c:,v 1 sua :i. Resc,urces LEGiSi...ATIVE Adm i r, l st: rat 1 v e Rep:rts Cc,rnm1ttee ar,o Commission Reoorts Researcn Reoorts anc Deveioomen't Stuc1es Statistical Data GeY,era i I rrf orrna t 1 ,:,r, Parnonle'ts ar,d Fact Sneets .::Jer 1 oo 1 ca 1 s Press F
PAGE 58
EXE:CuTIVC:: Hearings Jc,1xrr,a is ar,o Pr,:,ceeo 1 r,gs Laws anc Statutes rrea-cy Sources Tecnn1cal Reports Pater,ts Tecnr: 1 cal Docurner,t at i ,:,n FIG:.JRE 1-4 Heari Y-,gs Jr.: .l rr,a i. s and Pr,:,ceeo 1 r,gs Laws and Statutes Treaty Sc,urces Tecnn1cal Reoorts .JuDIC!A:_ ClS T coPt AVAlL~LL
PAGE 59
Chapter 1-35 The twenty-two types of public information sources appear in a diversity of formats, technological applications. include: many of which take advantage of Examples of different formats paper microform audiovisual (slides, flimstrips, sound recordings, action pictures, videotape, etc.) machine-readable (bibliographic, statistical and numeric, textual, properties, and full-text data files> optical disks electronic , end subsequent directives issued by the Office of Management and Budget (e.g., Bulletin No. 81-16 and Memorandum 81-14) remains to be determined. The number of papei titles distributed to depository
PAGE 60
iABL.E 1-1 Nu~BER OF ?uB~ICATIO~S DISTRIBuTED TO DEPOSITORY LIBRARIES BY FISCAL VEARt Paper Copy 1'11croficne TotalH Year titles cooies titles titles copies 1978 32,142 12,928,901 4,045 1,544,755 36,187 14,473,656 1979 69,878 19,580,302 16,553 7,473,049 86,431 27,053,351 1980 34,234 9,395,2&3 24,438 10,651,385 58,672 20,046,568 1981 37,385 11,923,321 27,993 12,820,265 65,378 24,743,586 1982 15,84'3 7,023,392 27,974 13,66ti,010 43,823 20, 709, 40-2 1S83 18,292 8,553,839 43,850 21,748,730 62,142 30,302,569 ------TOTAL: 2.07, 780 69,405,038 144,853 67,924,194 352,633 ~37,329,232 ---Tne follONing data are aer1veo from A0ministrat1v! (~sn1ngton, D.C.: GPO), 4, nwaber 16 (October 1963): 3. H!n some instances, tne same work may oe availaole in a aual format. Therefore, tne totais recresent an inflatea estlraat ion of the numoer of unioue titles proouceo and distributed. L). I
PAGE 61
Chapter 1-36 libraries may remain substantial and well exceed that produced by the entire American book publishing trade . However, paper copy distribution will give way to other formats --ones more economical to produce and distribute. A number 0 specific options are available for each of the formats. For example, microfiche is available at different reduction ratios, including 19x, 22x, 48x, and 98x, and microfilm is generally issued at 16 and 32mm. Given the diversity of options, there is a clear need or the adoption 0, and adherence to, standards such as the ANSI Standard or Iuformation on Microfiche Headers <239.33). to the creation, production, product.a.. These standards should apply and dissemination of microform Audiovisual resources can be classified as both a type and format. For a society which meets a large number of its information needs through interpersonal communication and which is ~o closely tied to visual communication, audiovisual resources comprise a format for informing, educating, and entertaining the public. However, of the formats discussed here, the fewest number of types of public information are available in this format. The Congressional Research Service does prepare audio cassettes of its Beginning in February 1982 the floor proceedings of the House of Representatives are telecast on a cable system .. Machine-readable files" is an umbrella term, encompassing a diversity 0 options. These files provide factual information or bibliographic citations and perhaps abstracts of the sources
PAGE 62
Chapter 1-37 listed. They may also permit searching of patent files or the gathering and manipulation of statistical data. The Bureau of the Census, through its decennial Census of Population and Housing offers summary statistics (data from individual units of observation aggregated to a particular level; these are usually comparable to equivalent summary data on tables in published reports), microdata , and geographical reference files (these files provide a link between census geographical areas and area names, street addresses, etc.). Other files are .. textual-numeric," which signifies that the records contain fields of both numeric and textual data, or only one of the two types. Additional options might be "properties" data bases, which convey dictionary or handbook type of data, or 11full-text11 data bases, which offer both bibliographic references and the complete text of the source. Some data files merely duplicate paper sources. The advantage of these files is that the data they display can be manipulated and compared. Other files contain more data than are available in published reports, or have no paper equivalent. Numerous examples of individual data files and the Federal agencies which produce or distribute them can be found in Chen and Hernon <1984). For example, the Geological Survey offers statistical data bases or information systems for geographic, geologic, hydrologic, and cartographic data. These are available in a variety of formats: tapes, computer output microfilm, or
PAGE 63
Chapter 1-38 special computer queries of a data base. Program offers digital cartographic The National Mapping and geographic data. A number of Government data bases can be accessed from the agency itself, agency contractors or clearinghouses, commercial vendors, or libraries. It is possible for individuals home computers linked to telephone lines to use Federal bases related to alternative fuels, the climate, crude oil, w.ith data and time
PAGE 64
Chapter 1-3'9 Service, the Department of Agriculture, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (among others> have been, or are, involved in teletext and/or videotext proJects Information technology in the future will have the capacity to meet a greater diversity of information needs. However, the information provided or used may not be supplied directly by the Government. Instead, it may be furnished by other members of the information sector, perhaps with a Federal subsidy. The availability of information via information handlin~ technologies, such as microfiche and machine-readable data files, may comprise a barrier to use and, therefore, information access. For example, academic faculty members may not want to take the time to read an entire document in a library or other institutional provider. Instead, they may prefer to check out the document or to xerox sections 0 it. Availaiblity in a microormat complicates convenience of use unless high reproduction equipment is available or the library quality circulates high quality portable readers. At present, few academic
PAGE 65
Chapter 1-40 departments or individual faculty members have their own portable readers. The issue of social scientist receptivity, or lack thereof, to a microformat has been discussed elsewhere Suffice to say, a microformet inhibits browsing, end the quality of the film product depends on that of the original. Further, a microformat may not always be legible. "Although machine-readable data files are important and valuable for researchers, policy-makers and administrators, they are vastly under-utilized .. officials, planners, social scientists, persons in /
PAGE 66
Formats Pacer ,.ic:roform Auc10 anc Visual l",ac~ine-Reacaoie Electronic: Co11rn1 ttee ano Aa11nistrat1ve Coll~1ss1on Re00rts Reoorts X X X X X X Researcn FIGURE 1-5 FOR~A~S IN w~rc~ TY~S OF p~~:c INFOR~Ai!O~ AitE DIST~IBuTED Tyoes Reoort s; Press Deveiop-General Releases ment Information and Otner Studies Statistics Pamohlets Perioa1cais Eoner,era i1cln0!)00i.
PAGE 67
Biol iogra::>n1es, Lists, 6u1oes, Format ana Catalogs Pa~r X M1crofor111 X Auu1p ano visual l'lacn1neReaaacle X Electrom:: X ----Dec1s1ons ano Ooinions X Rules, ~egulations, D 1 rect 1 ves, and Circulars X X X X (Corttl1'lUeCJ Types "41cs, Cnarts, and Auaiov1sual Pnotograo.,s Resources X X X ,. X Bills. ana Resolutions X X X X Hearings X X ------Journals and Laws.and ?roceea1ngs Statu-;es X X X -------------------------------------------------------------
PAGE 68
Pacer fl!1croform Auc10 and Visual Macn1ne-Reacao~e Electronic Treaty Scurces X Figure 1-5 ( Cort 1 nuec;) Types Technical Reoort Tect1n1cal Literature ~atents Documentation X X X X X X -------------------------------
PAGE 69
Chapter 1-41 business ana industry, etc. The general public may be satisfied with the coverage given in Statistical Abstract of ~nit~g and other basic reference aids produced by the Bureau; however, this is untested conJecture. Further, there is a need to determine the context in which people seek o~e type and format of public information source over another. Current and Prospective Means for Disseminating Public Information Figure 1-6 highlights selected methods by which public information is disseminated in either an electronic or non-electronice format. Given present trends, in the foreseeable future, attention will be focused on electronic means. As more information is produced in electronic and machine-readable form, it is logical to assume that dissemination efforts will build from this foundation. Production and dissemination of public information and dissemination will undoubtedly bibliographic and full-text emphasize machine-readable data bases for references and textual-numeric, handbook-type, data. The Federal government is also becoming more the use of videotext and teletext (Schweizer, 1983). active in At present, users of public information can purchase data disks from NTIS and the Bureau of the Census. The Library of Congress is exploring optical disk storage for preservation and catalog card distribution
PAGE 70
FIGuRE 1-6 E l ec tr i:11,,., i c iO informa~ion itself electrc,i r,c mail vi Cle,:,t ext teletext cata files (macninereadable) rn i crc,f i che bibliograQnic Clescriotion oioliograpnic Clata files electror,ic mail 5/ Nor,-e l ect rc,r, i c Qr i r,t sc,1.rrces mail, teleonone, and in-person requests frc,rn Gc,vernrner,t
PAGE 71
Chapter 1-42 Exchange Commission, the Department of Agriculture, the Bureau of the Census, and the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Seekers of public information can also engage in online ordering of source material from the GPO, NTIS, and other clearinghouses. The question of whether public information in an electronic format increases or decreases public access raises an important issue. This information may not be regarded as a publication, as stipulated by Title 44, section 1901, 0 the United States Code, and as within the public domain. Further, licensing agreements bJtween Executive agencies and private contractors may remove electronic information from public scrutiny and use. Current Government emphasis is apparently on the creation of information systems, with the implicit assumption that there is a safety net to protect or guarantee public access
PAGE 72
FIGURE 1-7 EXA~P~~s OF DECi510N FACTO~S ~F~CTI~G OF ~uBLlC INFOR~A~IG~ 1. Does tne oerson Know tna~ ne/sne neecs puolic 1nforma~1on to resolve an informationneec? YES NO Question Assumotions: tne person soecif1cally Knows aoout pucl1c 1nforma~1on ana can cist1n9uisn tni~ one form from otners puol1c information is unicue and the same information cannot oe founa elsewhere ~-Wn1cn information orov1oer will the oerson consult? Feceral government 1~self Deoository or o-cher liorary Business c~ organ1zat1on Professional association Frienc, colleague, or ne1g~cor ~;ass meo 1 a e-c c. Question Assumo-cions: 1.t s er s are me s 't i i k.e l y t = cc,r, s u i t II c ff 1 c i a l 1 pre, v i a er s users wan-c tne most authoritative information users require detailed information users oo not care if tney receive or1ntec information, oral information, etc.
PAGE 73
3. Format 1n wn1cn ouolic 1nformat1on ao~ears 1s an 1ns:~n1f1ca~t fac~or affec~1ng use. Insignificant Significant Ques~ion Assumotions: users are likely to use any format ~ne 1nformat1on 1s easy to ciscover ano use regarcle~s ,:, f f ,:,rr,1at users nave access to tne necessary equipment to reao microfiche, eiectron1c, or macnine-reada~le i l"'if ,:,rrnat i Cl"'1 the cost in ~ime ana money 1s not a s1gn1ficant factor affect ir,g use 4. Does tne oerson have money to ascertain puoiic 1nforma~1on? 5. YES Question Assum~t1ons: for some information, pay t~e public snoulo be exoectea to 'C n e i r, f c,rma,; i ,:,r, i s "re a sor,a o 1 y '' or 1 c ea t~ose unacle to oay can fine s1m1lar 1nformat1on elsew~ere or can ~a1t for alterna~1ve information to aooear tne oerson have aaequate time cetermir,e the proceoures for gaining access to puolic information? YES NO Question Assump~ions: -tne orocec~res are clearly articulateo ar,a ~:~,in ano across a;encies -,:; !7 e i -:-. f ol"''rna't i c,r1 is ass1.1mec t :, we 1 rnoi:,rt arYC and wi:,rt ;-, y ,:,F i: rte wa.1 t -~he information 1s not ouic~ly neeaed
PAGE 74
=rGu~c:: 1-7 s -c; :-; e ; e :> '-~ u i. 1 c 1 r, f i:, r rn a 't l ,:, n a r y ,,.J 7 ere e l s e w n 1 c n ras~ive -che 1nformat:on neea? Question Assumotions: ou~lic informa~ion exis-c;s, ores e r,-c 1 r, a ,.. s 2. b i e form t~e information 1s trea~eo w 1 o e l y o 1 = e Ii", : r, at e d NO car, be as 01.,0 l ic _,.-c,: ' ~'. is ar-,o
PAGE 75
Chapter 1-43 figure have a number of underlying assumptions, all of which merit investigation. The figure itself makes one assumption: type of public information is not an important factor. People do not distinguish among types; rather format is a more critical -issue. This figure underscores the importance of the next two sections of this chapter and the view that a better understanding of users and uses of public information is needed. Indeed, the research base on these two interrelated topics is limited. Additional issues relate to whether information technology will lead to the demise of other formats of information and whether electronic dissemination will replace current methods of dissnmination. If the Government provides public inormation only in an electronic format, and if other stakeholders in the information sector determine that there is a need or information Cand that it is profitable), then these printed other stakeholders may fill the void. The public will have to decide how much it is willing or able to pay for which is potentially useful for decision making. Users of Public Inormation information Users of public information created, produced, and disseminated by the Feder~l government cut across all segments of American society and most age groups and nationalities. This information may also be useful to people in other countries. The identification of types of public information importance than knowing: is of less the context in which public information is needed Cthe information need)
PAGE 76
Chapter 1-44 -which providers are consulted and for what reasons Er~f~rr~g ormats of public information -the degree of sophistication in the reading level of public inormat1on and the public Public inormation should riot be "viewed as an amorphous entity" and the public "'as a single group with one set of needs .. . There are many types of public information., formats in which this information is packaged, and possible user groups of this inormation. Current and potential users of public information should be viewed as .. market segments with varying needs or an array 0 information products and services" the use 0 public information, and the providers which they consult to resolve these needs. Appendix 1-2 ofers e typology 0 general information gathering situations in which the public has found a need for information. Such a typology has been employed to investigate information gathering situations 8nd to observe which providers are consulted., why, and to what extent information needs have been resolved. Issues Related to Public Inor~ation Users and Users Meriting Investigation Typologiea of Public Informetion Since typologies of public information depict the breadth of publication emanating from the Federal government, they should be s --j I
PAGE 77
Chapter 1-45 developed and refined. Advancing technology may either expand or reduce the nu mail, at some inf'ormation. T . to particular -n.,. types and f'Ol'mats available. Electronic ~ight be considered as a type of' public ould be available to anyone with access ,ter hardware or sof'tware systems. As this means of' communications becomes interactive, it can meet a greater diversity of inf'ormation needs and replace some types of' public information, e.g., general information pamphlets. Purpose of Publication Given the ef'f'orts of' the Reagan administration to control and reduce publication of' certain types of public information (periodicals, pamphlets, and audiovisual products), information types and formats should be matched to the needs of specific inf'ormation users. Then, publications can be compared to specific goals and obJectives of' the Federal agency, and issues of cost control can be compared to the social good. In 1984, two articles have raised an important theme the 11privatization" of' public inf'ormation (Schnapper, 1984; Smith, 1984 > Under the Reagan administration, inf'ormation is regarded ".as a commodity to be owned, bought, sold, and traded or political gain"'
PAGE 78
Chapter 1-46 to their publicly funded products as an incentive to make them available under non-government auspices" CSchnapper, 211 > Such trends merit careful monitoring and Government action, where necessary. Pricing Polici As noted in the GAO report on the GPO .sales program, "information about the current public demand or Government publicatione is not adequately developed and used to inluence selections" , in the late 1970s, contracted with the National Opinion Research Center
PAGE 79
Chapt.er 1-47 and their views of stat.istical and economic information, and their opinion of USDA surveys. The ESS has also studied the economic information needs of farmers and those needs which be resolved from access to information technology. Apparently, farmers and ranchers need inormation related to: -news and community service -what's happening weather forecasts and related emergencies or disasters -crop and livestock production -marketing information, including current and future prices -the selling of farm products through teleauction or computer auct1on -the purchasing of farm and home supplies, teleshopping -banking services including farm and public policy (e.g., Government regulations) personal eaucation and entertainment Nore than forty information technology systems relate to the inormation needs of armers and are currently functioning, in either full operation or an experimental mode. These systems include "time-sharing information delivery, electronic trading, videotext programming, and electronic message switching11 ("Inormat1on Needs :or Modern Agriculture," 1983, p. 4>. In 1984, the Department of Agriculture initiated planning for the creation of 11a central repository for consumer electronic retrieval of current information (Chartrand and Seidner, 1984, p. 25). Farmers and ranchers can receive press releases electronically and have access to electronic mail, videotext systems,, electronic trading, and time-sharing information BEST COPY AV Ml/J4 8ES1 COPY AVAILA8LL
PAGE 80
Chapter 1-48 delivery. Excellent examples of these uses can be found in Chartrand and Seidner <1984, pp. 28-34). Some of the information needs of farmers and ranchers are met by the U.S. Oepartm~nt of Agriculture and the National Weather Service . Similar studies should be conducted for other segments of the population in order to place the use of public inform~tion and Federal agencies in the context of the full range of information resources and providers. As the studies for the Department of Agriculture have demonstrated, the insights gained can be used to improve d~ta collection techniques and documentation, and to meet the Government's dissemination responsibilities to the American public (Ibid.). Such studies might serve as a background to conferences and workshops in which a research agenda is developed and refined, and part~cipants explore: -the services of different stakeholders in the information sector government information services --their marketing and management the goals and obJectives of information services -user group information needs -the application of computer hardware and software to address information needs A committee print, Information Technolog~ or Agricultural
PAGE 81
Chapter 1-49 and obtain realistic recommendations for possible congressional initiatives -to increase public awareness of the potential benefits of information resources and s~rvices (derived from information handling technologies] for those involved in agriculture -to provide an opportunity for Members of Congress, their stas, and activists in thP. public and private sectors to exchange ideas and become aware 0 "pilot'" proJects and operational programs affecting the farming and ranching communities <"Information Needs for Modern Agriculture," 1983, p. 2 > According to Chartrand and Seidner, emerging from the symposium came ~n assessment of the current situations concerning information needs or agriculture, and an outline of what is needed to ensure th~t aodern agriculturalists have access to the types of inormation that will result in more optimal decisionmaking < 1984., p. 44) The replication of this symposium by other Federel agencies might also address additional obJectives. Some might be to: -ensure that the Federal agency maintains a dialogue with its constituent groups and other interested parties -demonstrate that the Government is responsive information needs of the public to the -develop information systems which meet user requirements -identify topics requiring further investigation and to set a research agenda for the future. The agenda would address priorities of the Federal agency and be in conformity with appropriate statutory and administrative law. Agendas for the various Federal agencies could be coordinated and publicized so that the research does not become isolated but has the widest potential impact -conduct "long-range studies which would delineate responsive information delivery systems
PAGE 82
Chapter 1-50 monographs. Depending on the particular discipline, one will be accorded higher importance than the other. Among the social scientists, economists are the most likely to consult public inormat:.ion; in act, and research specialty, than monographs. depending on the particular teaching public information may be more important Like other academic social scientists, econo~ists do not use all types of government publications. Their use tends to concentrate on a few types, primarily statistical data and periodicals,. ie$ued by s@lected Government agencies
PAGE 83
Chapter 1-51 information. These barriers may include: -public unawareness of the types of public information and their utility to specific information gathering situations -the complexity of the process of obtaining in:formation the cost in time and money in obtaining in:formation dissatisaction with an information type or format public public -amount of duplication with other information resources -the reading level and/or datedness of the inform~tion -lack of familiarity with the Government and the complex inormetion environment lack of an effective marketing techniques for 1normat1on public lack of duplicative ef:fective screening mechanism and obsolete information to eliminate -complex file structures and lack of adequate documentation for machine-readable aata -inconsistencies in the content of available information -online searching of bibliographic data bases may many titles not relevant to specific information Therefore, users may have to examine the sources and select those most relevant produce needs. listed People o:ften prefer "information which is :familiar and which tends to be consistent with existing attitudes and beliefs" (Crecine and Brunner, 1972, p. 159). Figure 4-4 which summarizes the barriers to information gathering, suggests that the concept of a sa:fety net :for access to public information may be exceedingly difficult to achieve, without greater Federal intervention to simplify and expedite the process of inormation gathering. Criteria by Which People Select Public Information BEST COPY AVAILAill
PAGE 84
Chapter 1-52 In addition to exploring berriers to information access, research should examine the criteria by which people select information. Given a particular information need, which is most important: accuracy, timeliness, understandability, or cost.of the information? Perhaps none of these criteria are important or others might be more important. Information technology may enable the public to be more effective and eficient consumers 0 inormation. One problem with conducting online bibliographic data base searches is that even with the development of the most exact search profile, many irrelevant, superficial, and redundant items may be identified. Thereore, research should explore methods or eectively and efficiently attacking the various barriers and determining the most appropriate criteria under different circumstances. There is a definite need for experimental studies having an evaluation or comparison component. In this way, dissemination mechanisms can be linked to actual information needs, and evaluation methodologies can ensure that people receive the information which they need and went. Ensuring the Reliability end Validity of Public Information Morehead has written th8t "this is not to soy that public all information found between the covers of a government document is fatally flawed. It is to say that we are never sure that information we may use achieves a comfortable degree the 0 reliability." He suggests that librarians, and presumably other information professionals, should identify problems of data interpretation, point out pitfalls, and/or warn about the --
PAGE 85
Chapter 1-53 unreliability of statistical and other data (1982, pp. 70-71 > The establishment of the reliability and internal validity of data is important for public information. Studies which address these spec1ic issues are needed. Unobtrusive Testing In the social and behavioral sciences, there is a body of research called unobtrusive testing. Using this methodology, researchers have developed a set 0 pretested questions, similar to those which the public might ask, and have administered them to the staff 0 academic, public, and special libraries. It hes been Qhown that library staff members are far less successful in answering factual end bibliographic questions than they had supposed. One study discovered that documents librarians from 17 institutions holding depository status in the Northeast and Southwest could only answer 37 percent of the test qu~stions correctly. Further, they infrequently engaged in referral service . Such studies merit replication but not exclusively in a library context. It would be useful to ascertain the performance rate 0 different producers and disseminators of public information. Studies might also make comparisons across providers and document the extent to which the public prefers to rely on interpersonal communication,. informal networks, and an invisible college. The Uar Perspective It is imp~~tant to know the users and uses 0 public information~ as well C3 the role of information technology in ~:t\! Guf'Y AVAILAiLL -
PAGE 86
Chapter 1-54 improving the bibliographic control and physical access to this information. However, the most sophisticated information retrieval system could be in place but fail to meet its obJectives .. if' it is poorly marketed and the personnel dispensing public information provide inaccurate, service. incomplete, and rude As noted in one study, Tailoring inormation to target audiences requires detailed knowledge of their institutional environment and the way in which they typically use information. New 8dvances in inormetion technology may in principle improve the ability to communicate Government unded research, but in fact institutional barriers and human behavior considerations still predominate. Changing behavior must be a long-term goal, and Federal policies have often lacked the direction, support, end leadership necessary to maintain continuity. Improving the utility of collected information through better technology Cetc.l is possible. However, the success of future efforts is likely to depend on the extent to which users themselves are involved in policy and system development instead of remaining the passive targets (B1kson, Cuint, and Johnson, 1984, p. 75). Clearly, there is a need to better understand the public information needs of user segments, their information preferences and gathering patterns, and the barriers ~hich they encounter in gaining effective access to Government provided public information. There may be a direct relationship between the policy decisions of the Administratio1. and access to public information. The Government hes not been sufficiently concerned with dissemination and the public access !m2~~~! resulting from the decisions made. Research can cell attention to the problem and encourage the Government to redirect priorities. However, the Gc~ernment must be willing to accept a wider responsibility, that
PAGE 87
Chapter 1-55 0 information dissemination. To meet this responsibility, the the Department of Agriculture has formulated an appropriate model --one which identifies actual information needs, and the information gathering patterns of its public, as well as attempts to ensure that Departmental programs, services, ~nd types and formats of public information are relevant to these needs. By engaging in these activities the Government communicates with the public and attempts to be responsive to the public's information needs. Summary of Significant Policy Issues Addressed in the Chapter Information J2Q!!SY is "a set of interrelAted laws and policies concerned with the creation, production, collection, management, distribution and retrieval of information. These polcies "profoundly affect the manner in which an individual in a society, indeed a society itself, makes political., economic and social choices .. the freedom of the individual versus the good of the society as a whole and <2) private sector interests versus public sector responsibilities" Much of this chapter has focused on the first issue and the relationship be.tween the economic and social good. However, addressing the issue of the increased privatization of public information draws attention to the second policy area. The development ~nd administration of Federal information policy is hampered by the lack of a clear definition of public information. The oefinition guiding the JCP ana G?O is contained
PAGE 88
Chapter 1-56 in Title 44, but this definition applies only to that title and does not clarify the meaning of "informational matter" or ''as a document." Executive agencies regard the existing definition as pertaining only to "traditional printing, while the JC? and GPO prefer a more expansive interpretation of printing. The public has a right to gain access to information produced by the Government. Hc,wever, the current emphasis on economy in Government is restricting the type and amount of public information produced and disseminated. What is produced may not be in an easily accesible format. Complicating matters even more is that decisions supposedly based on economy may, in fact, be political. Public access exists when all potential user segments of the public have an equal opportunity to obtain information. Other policy issues addressed in this chapter relata to: (1) the effectiveness of the Federal government as a provider of timely and accurate information, <2> the lack of coherent, coordinated national information policies based on more than economy in Government, and (3) the role and responsibilities of various stakeholders in the information sector. Since information policy issues are interrelated, they by become even more difficult to resolve. For example, encouraing a more limited definition of public information, various stakeholders in the information sector can more -eas.i~y circumvent the provisions of Title 44. The issue of increased economy in Government provides an ideal opportunity for the Federal government to reduce the size and scope of its publishing
PAGE 89
Chapter 1-57 programs and to offer increased production and dissemination opportun1t1es to other stakeholders. Figure 4-1, which provides an overview of national information policy issues related to Governmen~ provision of public information, identifies nine principle themes. This chapter has covered seven of these: interaction between Government and other stakeholders in the information sector Government collection, transfer, and dissemination of public information structure and organization of the Government pricing of Government provided public information standards and compatability of government information services and products role of the GPO and the depository library program public information needs and information gathering behavior The maJor theme related to .. public information needs and information gathering behavior ... were addressed from the seven themes: Twelve actual policy issues competition between Government and other stakeholders types of information to be collected, organized, and disseminated Executive versus Legislative controls value of information as a commodity definitions of "cost recovery11 bibliographic control iesuee revision of Title 44, Ynit~Q States Code role of GPO as a printer and publisher types of information and formats to be included
PAGE 90
value 0 information as a "social good" availability versus access Chapter 1-58 dete~mining specific user segments information needs for specific types of public information Chapter 4 will examine both the principle themes and actual policy issues in some detail.
PAGE 91
CHAPTER 2 REVIEW, SYNTHESIS, AND ANALYSIS: EFFECTS OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ON THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT'S PROVISION OF PUBLIC INFORMATION Thia chapter provides a review, synthesis, and analysis of significant atudies related to the effects of technology on Governaent provision of public inforaation. After providing definitions of key teras, synthesis and analysis of significant studies will be presented. Chapter 4 appendices describe topics requiring research related to the effects of inforaation technology on access to public inforaation while the appendices to this chapter provide a auaaary review of the aost significant studies exaained and an annotated bibliography of those studies (see Appendix 2-2>. For purposes of this chapter, the ter "inforaation technology" is considered as the application of aechanical or electronic tools which direct, ahape, and control the production, delivery, and acquisition of inforaation . Chapter 1 defined both inforaation and public infonation. Public inforaation, which is collected and/or developed at Governaent expense or as required by public law, not considered to be classified, personal, or otherwise aubJect to exeaptions of the Freedoa of Inforaation Act or Privacy Act. lt is produced, pri~rily for the purposes of coaaunicating with, educating, or inforaing one or aore segaents of the public
PAGE 92
2-2 "the agency actively seeks, in soae fashion, to disseainate such inforaation or otherwise aake it available to the public" (Office of Kanageaent and Budget, 1980, p. 38461). "Governaent inforaation," however, aight !!Qt be intended for use by the general public; in fact, the Governaent aight be its priaary user for purposes of adainistering various internal prograas and activities . "Effects" of inforaation technology on Governaent provision of public inforaation are considered as any results or iapacts which affect an indi;idual's ability to (1) stay adequately inforaed of the activities and inforaation services/products which the Federal governaent offers or in which it participates, or <2> identify and gain physical access to public inforaation for the resolution of specific inforaation needs (see Chapter 1>. Since there i& a paucity of "studies" conveying .. eapirical evidence or theoretical/conceptual aodels," about the effects of inforaation technology on the provision of public inforaation, "studies" has been expanded to include "significant assessaents and essays" related to the topic. The fallowing discussions are based on literature identified via various online bibliographic data bases and aanual searching of additional indexes, catalogs, and reference sources. The studies identified focused on aaterials published since 1980 although soae significant earlier studies are also reviewed. This approach keeps the eaphasis on current literature and the analysis within the fraaework of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980. Synthesis and Analysis Overall, auch of the literature on the topic of the effects of inforaation technology on Governaent provision of public inforaation can be characterized as: repetitive, non-eapirical, politicized, and, at tiaes, soaewhat siaplistic. Perhaps due to the highly political and coaplex nature
PAGE 93
2-3 of the topic and the significant econoaic and social issues at stake, aany writers ergue fro a specific viewpoint which often ignores the broader perspectives. A nuaber of theaes have been identified for analysis in this section: contradictory terainology provision versus access to public inforaation bibliographic control over Governaent produced public inforaation politicising and enforcing inforaation technology policy cost and technology driven Federal planning differences in technological inforaation life cycles lack of involveaent by Governaent officials in inforaation policy developaent "Coapetitive" versus "Public Policy" aodels of inforaation technology paradoxical role of libraries regarding access to public inforaaticn inforaation technology and inforaation gaps responsibilities for providing access to inforaation technologies effects of inforaation technology on access to public inforaation Taken together, these theaes suggest that there has not been, as yet, adequate interest on either the part of the public or Governaent officials to address and resolve issues related to the effects of inforaation technology on access to public inforaation. Concerns and issues related to inforaation technologies that have been identified since the 1970s reaain to be resolved
PAGE 94
2-4 and our individual lives CGovernaentJ should accept responsibility for facilitating the introduction of inforaation technology and syateas into our society in ways which confora to our deaocratic principles and respect our national ideals. Overall, the review of relevant studies (see Appendix 2-1> suggests that the consequences of inforaation technology are still poorly understood and that the Federal governaent has not accepted responsibility for facilitating the introduction of that technology into the Aaerican society~ Contradictory Terainology Few definitions of key teras are coaaonly accepted in the literature. As an exaaple, "governaent inforaation" is used synonyaously with "public inforaation" and the National Coaaission on Libraries and Inforaation Science <198?.>, auggest that the teras are not synonyaous: "the distinguishing characteristic of public inforaation is that the agency actively seeks, in aoae fashion, to disseainate such inforaation or otherwise aake it available to the public
PAGE 95
2-5 the teras be dropped in favor of the tera "1nforaation sector" . Figure 2-1 ia a representation of two conceptual approaches in describing the differences between these two teras. One organization aay provide nuaerous inforaation aervices or products--soae of which aight be seen as belonging traditionally in the public sector, and aoae in the private sector. B!9A[~l!! 2f tb! "ey~l!s" or "er!!!t!" nature of the organization, public versus private differentiations aay not hold true in the inforaation sector of the econoay. The third area where aoae definitional confusion exiats has to do with "inforaation technology." The review in this chapter has taken a broad view of the tera. However, aoae studies never define it nor include a list specific technologies. For purposes of policy developaent, inforaation technology should be thought of as any aechanical or electronic application to obtain, store, retrieve, deliver, or disseainate inforaation, and n2t in teras of specific technologies (since they will change and develop over tiae>. Proviaion veraue Acee to Public Inforaation The studies reviewed frequently assuaa that "provision" of public inforaation is the saae as "access" to that inforaation. Studiea such aa Inforaation B!!~! Qi BY!! 6!![!S!l Ib! Role of Libraries 1ng Inforaation !!sbn2!29l clearly indicate that the provision oi public inforaation through nuaerous bibliographic and nuaeric data bases currently occurs, but this inforaation ia not accessible bibliographically or physically in aost rural areas of Aaerica at this tiae. Siailiar exaaples can be shown for other "diaenfranchized" aeabers of our aociety.
PAGE 96
FIGURE 2-1 TWO APPROACHES TO DEFINING PARTICIPANTS IN THE INFORMATION SECTOR 1. Traditional Approach Naae of Organization or Ina ti tution a. Universities b. Abstracting Firas c. Federal Governaent d. State Clearinghouses and so forth .2. Inforaation Services Approach NAME OF SERVICE OR PRODUCT a. NTIS SCRIM Service b. Consuaer Inforaation aervicea c. 6!![!!!! Statistics !!!9!! CASI> Service is 'Free..
PAGE 97
2-6 Stateaents suggesting that the technological advances in coputers, telecoaaunications, televiaion, and aicrographica are working to aake public inforaation acre accessible to the public at far leas coat individuals know where to go, how to obtain, and how to use the necessary technology if they do not have it in their own hoae or office In short, technological provision of public inforaation is not the saae as access to !!! this inforaation and the literature often fails to recognize this difficulty. /jy I cJ
PAGE 98
2-7 Bibliographic Control over Governunt Produced hblic Inforaation Technological applications for inforaation storage and retrieval ayateaa have aaaisted in iaprov1ng the degree to which bibliographic control ia aaintained over Governaent produced public inforaation. The tera "bibliographic control" suggests the recording of descriptive, subJect, and analytical inforaation concerning a body of docuaentation and the organization of that inforaation, including : the identification of inforaation output organization and description of inforaatiun output physical availability Inclusion~ governaent publications in OCLC a-ce 1976, which are distributed through the GPO depository library prograa, and the nuaerous applications librarians have aade froa that inclusion are a significant step toward the obJective of iaproved bibliographic control over governaent publications. But, aa Myers (1985) has shown, there are nuaerous probleaa with the quality of the data in the GPO cataloging tapes. Further, publications and public inforaation distributed through the depository library prograa coapriae only a aaall portion of public inforaation provided by the Governaent and the progra atressee only two inforaation foraata, i.e., aicrofiche and paper copy. Although Title 44, gQg!, gives the responsibility for the bibliographic control of governaent publications to the Governaent Printing Office, bibliographic control over aachine-readable data files and other non-hardcopy foraats produced by the Federal governaent ia liaited. Sprehe (1981) notes that rarely do agencies have budget lines for aaking MRDFa accessible and that there is confusing and contradictory policy about how such data are to be indexed and bibliographically controlled.
PAGE 99
2-8 Heia <1983> has ahown that in recent years there are few indexea or upto-dcte liatinga of Federal MRDFa, and that there ia no clear aenee that auch ia a Federal responsibility. In a later article, ahe refera to thia situation aa a .. diaaal currant atate of affairs via a via coordinated acceaa to governaent produced aachine-readable data" . One iaportant effect of technology on Governaent proviaion of public inforaation ia the degree to which that inforaation technology can be uaed to eatabliah bibliographic control over public inforaation. The 11 terature review auggesta that the Federal governaent, while deeply involved in the design and developaent of inforaation ayat for the collection and storage of inforaation has paid leas attention to bibliographic control and provision of public acceaa to inforaation contained in those ayateaa--ragardleaa of the foraat of that inforaation. Applications of Federal inforaation technology appear to be intended first and foreaost, to aeet the apecific internal needs of the producing agency rather than a broader aandata or purpose related to provision of public inforaation. Existing directives, priaarily fro 0MB, tend to encourage the uae of criteria such as cost and duplication rather than degree to which the inforaation is accessible as the priaary factor to deteraine its value" or Justification for its continued exiatence. Politiciaing and Enforcing Inforaation Technology Policy An interesting conclusion offer~i in a National Bureau of Standards report ia that the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 aay underaine continuity and developaent of inforaation technology policy. Since aany of the individuala aaaigned responsibility for Inforaation Resources Manageaent , and aetting/enforcing of policy in the various agencies are aanior ..... ;
PAGE 100
2-9 ataff, there is a high turnover rate in these positions. Therefore, it ia difficult to develop, iapleaent, and aaintain a consistent policy <1983, p. 230). Each adainiatration tends to have different political asauaptions about the appropriateness and content of inforaation technology policy related to public inforaation. For instance, nuaerous writera have coaaented on the Reagan adainiatration'a tightening of restrictions over acceaa to public inforaation. The activities of "Refora 88," the prograa 0 the President's Task Force on Nanageaent Refora has led to significant cutbacks on the production of governaent publications . And in one study of the iapact of the Reagan adainistration's inforaation policies in the area of the health science inforaation, the author concluded that "Presidential policy can have direct and indirect consequences for inforaation disseaination," which in thie instance, resulted in <1> reduced availability to health sciences inforaatiu~ through the GPO depository library prograa, and <2> a decrease of 13~ of research and other Health and Huaan Services reports between 1980 and 1983 . Indeed, the Governaent Printing Office is a case in point regarding ita inability to enforce the provisions of Title 44, Y~~ ggg!. Although required by law to provide bibliographic control, print, and deliver a wide range of publications, other Governaent agencies aay ignore such legislation on a regular basis. Recently, Executive branch agencies have taken to the courts n2t to be forced to coordinate their printing a1~d distribution through the GPO . Nore recently, NASA has atteapted to contract for publishing and distribution outside the GPO structure <"Print Deals Seen !aking GPO a Paperless Tiger," 1984). An apparent loophole in the 1978 Copyright law <17 yg 105> allows privatizing governaent-funded inforaation of ;5,1 I
PAGE 101
2-10 which "only a negligible portion of thia knowledge 1a shared with taxpayers" CSchnapper, 1984, p. 209>. The literature appears to ignore the consideration that access to Governaent provided public inforaation, regardless of which inforaation technologies are uaed, ia not likely to be effective without adequate indeeendent oversight and enforceaent of existing agency publishing lawa and regulations . Further, "wh~n Congress does decide to enact new laws concerning the collection and access of inforaation through new aysteas the inforaation infrastructure aay have grown to such a coaplex atate that enforceaent could be all but iapossible" (Salvaggio, 1983, p. 233). The literature tacitly acknowledges the increased role of the Office of Nanageaent and Budget in the developaent and enforceaent of Federal policy related to inforaation technology. Iaplications of this subtle yet evolving Governaent reorganization of responsibilities related to inforaation have not been adequately analyzed. But because of "national security" issues, one writer has likened the Executive Branch's increased prerogative of deteraining the availability of inforaation as "putCingl the fox in charge of the henhouae" . Thus, the Federal governaent auat consider the developaent of organizational structures that de-~oliticise inforaation policy issues. Use of various bi-partisan techniques that cut across Legislative, Executive, and Judicial, branches are essential. Other stakeholders in the inforaation sector aay be hesitant to initiate long-range inforaation product developaent when there is a likelihood of significant changes in inforaation policy with the coaing and departing of new adainistrationa. 5 2
PAGE 102
2-:!.1 Coat end Technology Driven Federal Planning In rec=nt yeara, the developaent of Federal inforaation technology policies haa been baaed largely on considerations of cost and availability of inforaation technology. When the design and iapleaentation of inforaation ayateas l& driven by these two factors rather than considerations auch as access, availability, and appropriat~ness of content for user inforaation needs, dysfunctions in teras of Governaent provision of public inforaation are likely to occur : iaproved service delivery, iaproved technology, reduced public reporting burd~n, reduced spending, reduced wast~, fraud and abuse and
PAGE 103
2-12 reduced Federal coapetition of interference with other sectors. A discussion of benefits related to increased access to public inforaation, iaproved bibliographic control over public inforaation, or better inforaation diaaeaination ayateas to the public are noticably absent. The nuaber of planned Federal inforaation ayateaa and their coat CS3-S5 Billion> 1983 and 1988 is iaaense. Yet, ainiaal descriptive inforaation about the inforaation ayateaa'a role/relationship to its pubi1c access and availability exists not planning for bibliographic control of the inforaation, <2> not identifying which inforaation should be aade available to the public, <3> not considering how that inforaation can be delivered to the public, <4> not deteraining which aarket aegaents of the public have potential interest in the inforaation ayatea, and CS> not assessing how auch (if any> coat should be attached to
PAGE 104
2-13 aaking that inforaation avatlable to the public, t th! t!!! Qf tb! 2r!g!n~l Q!!!9n and ~lanning of that inforaation siste. Further, the coat-driven aodel for the design and iapleaentation of inforaation ayateas aasuaea that an equitable costing of the inforaation services and products can be rationalized against the inforaation needs of varioua aarket aegaenta. Stateaenta by groups such as the Intellectual Property Owners, Inc., when testifying in opposition to rules proposed by the U.S. Patent and Tradeaark Office regarding the pricing of data base access and searching, suggest that the Governaent aay be inadequately considering factors such aa access to inforaation systeas and encourageaent of innovation. Difference. in Technological Inforaation Life Cycl The vast aaJority of existing legislation and regulations related to inforaation technology is based on interpretations of inforaation in the context of paper copy or "print." One perspective holds that siaply by extending concepts related to access and diaaeaination of paper copy publications to electronic inforaation systeas, existing inforaation policies can be extended without aaJor revision of existing legislation and regulations. Such views are soaawhat naive because they fail to consider the following factors. First, inforaation in electronic foraat can be up-dated, aodified, revised, and deleted rapidly. At any point in tiae there can be a "new docuaent." Second, aany of the inforaation technologies are coapatible with each other, e.g., aachine-readable data files can be easily reforaatted to aicrofiche. aulti-foraata. Or, the inforaation within the ayatea can be aade available in ~!:Sf U'JPY AVAU.AiU.
PAGE 105
2-14 The decision to place inforaation in an electronic systea, bl definition, affecta <1> the degree to which that inforaation can be aade accessible and available, <2> how and when a "docuaent" within the systea will be identified as a discreet bibliographic itea, and (3) the support iteas, e.g., coaputera, aicrofiche readers, etc., that will be necessary to access the inforaation . Policy related to Federally a~ndated retention of archival records aust take into conaideration ~b!Sb version of the inforaation it ia to consider the For instance, an official "publication" aay go through nuaerous drafta and changea, all of which are available in electronic foraat. Many researchers and scholars believe that these "drafts" should be aade available to the public aa well aa any final publication. Regardless of this issue, there ia still the need for the availability of one official and static docuaent that cannot be changed or altered. Special controls will have to be instituted to insure that such "officid" docuaenta can be deterained as a result of inforaation technology. Inforaation within an electronic foraat has a different life cycle than inforaation in paper foraat. The current developaent of Federal inforaation policy does not appear to take such differences into consideration regarding the provision of public inforaation. Indeed, confusion over these difference in life cycles can be put forward as a rationale for avoiding or circuaventing existing printing procedures as outlined in Title 44 Qg <"Print Deals Seen Making GPO a Paperless Tiger," 1984>.
PAGE 106
2-15 Lack of InvolYeaent by Governaent Official The tar "disinterest" aay be too harsh an assessaent of the degree to which upper level policy aakers in the Legislative and Executive branches are concerned with resolving issues related to inf~ration policy in general, and the effects of inforaation technology on public inforaation in specific. However, a consistent theae throughout the literature is that "aid-level bureaucrats" tend to be the designers of what inforaation policy exists. Thia approach tends to enhance a decentralized, splintered, and often contradictory developaent of inforaation technology policy and concern for access to public inforaation . Thia leek of direct involveaent aay result fro Cl) a Federal approach where inforaation policy developaent ia literally scattered throughout nuaeroua agencies, <2> liaited political "pay-offs" for involveaent in the developaent of inforaation policy, <3> a lack of Governaent officials who are knowledgeable about the various issues and their iapacta, C4> successful lobbying efforta by for-profit aeabera of the inforaation sector, and C5> liaited perceived iaportance of inforaation technology policy issues vis a via other national issues and concerns. Recent efforts to re-structure the Governaent to better encourage technology transfer have not been successful. For exaaple, the establishaent of the Center for the Utilization of Federal Technology CCUFT> as a result of the Technology Innovation Act of 1980 waa, in effect, eliainated with the change of adainiatrations and the lack of funding for the Center. A de-centralized approach to inforaation technology policy and ainiaal interest on by top level Governaent officials regarding the iapact of inforaation technology on access to public inforaation, appears to characterize the existing situation. By design or default, the Office of Manageaent and Budget has aoved to fill the vacuua related to inforaation policy developaent. BEST CDPV AVAILAiLL
PAGE 107
2-16 "Coapetitive Veraua "Public Utility lodl of Illforaation Technology Policy Thia lack of involveaent by top Governaent officials is explained by Salvaggio (1983> aa a natural result of the "Coapetitive Model" (see Figure 2-2> where "the aarketplace in the USA in essence asauaea the role noraally taken by public policy aaking organizations." He points out that: a national inforaation infrastructure can be defined as the people and institutions concerned with the creation, distribution, and use of inforaation aervi~ea and systeas. Ih! Y ia one of the onlz countries !n tb! world today where the inforaation infrastructure ia ~[!!~[!!! ;r!!!t! in the Coapetitive aodel nuaeroua inforaation policy aaking bodies have the power to influence or suggest policy, but no agency has the singular authority to create inforaation policy historically, there has been a decade or aore between the introduction of a new for of inforaation technology and new regulations for its use distrust of Aaerican big Governaent ia inherent in the U.S. aystea Just as distrust of big buaineaa ia inherent in the European systea Salvaggio believes that because of the reliance on the coapetitive aodel in the U.S., security of personal data will becoae increasingly difficult. Further, increased inforaation inequality will likely have the greatest iapact in areas of videotext and teletext services. In the alternative "Public Utility" aodel, outlined by Salvaggio , the processing of inforaation is seen as the key to econoaic productivity for the nation as a whole and is characterized by a high degree of centralization. "Inforaation technology ia developed by private industry with the guidance of the governaent" . Thia aodel ia -:. <;; c ..
PAGE 108
FIGURE 2-2 COMPETITIVE VERSUS PUBLIC UTILITY MODELS FOR DEVELOPMENT OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY POLICY* A. Competitive Model (USA> Technology + Ideology-------> Market Place-------> Infrastructure B. Public Ut i 1 i ty Model (JAPAN> Policy Making Ideology-----> Organization + Policy Making Body Policy !----) -----> Policy ----> ----) Infrastructure Marketplace Technology SOURCE: Jerry L. Salvaggio, "Social Probems of Information Societies," Telecommunications Polic~, 7 (September 1983): 228-242.
PAGE 109
2-17 possible in countries such as Japan because there is not the aaae apprehension of the Japanese toward inforaation privacy issues and aistrust of big Governaent as there is in the U.S. Further, the "Public Utility" Model ia likely to offer greater equality of access to inforaation at a reasonable coat. Salvaggio' asseaaaent is especiallt interesting when coaparing the effects of the two aodela on controlling social problaaa : Governaent should not develop and disseainate new inforaation products or services that coapete with those already available froa or planned by, or which could be provided by, private sector sources all inforaation products or services provided by Governaent should be reviewed periodically in the light of expanding private sector
PAGE 110
FIGURE 2-3 IMPACT OF COMPETITIVE VERSUS PUBLIC UTILTIY MODELS ON SOCIAL PROBLEMS* A. Competitive Model Ideology-----> Market Place-----> I I I --------------> B. Public Utility Model Technology + Infrastructure -Policy Making Body '41 Pol icy <---, I I I ,_ -InfraStructure Social Problems Invasion of Privacy Misuses of Information Information Inequality Information Control Social Problems Invasion of Privacy Misuse of Information Policy Making Ideology----> Organization----> Policy 1---> ---> Marketplace -, SOURCE: t ---> Information Technology Inequality Information Control Jerry L. Salvaggio, "Social Problems of Information Societies," Telecommunications Polic~, 7 (September 1983): 228-242.
PAGE 111
2-18 capabilities with a view toward, wherever possible, encouraging the private sector to aeet inforaation needa by becoaing involved in the production and distribution of such products and services Thus, the decentralized "Coapetitive" aodel that has evolved in the U.S. versus the centralized "Public Utility" aodel in Japan offer Aaerican policy aakers a clear difference between possible approaches for the developaent of auch policy. Further, the existing "Coapetitive" aodel in the U.S. aay be aodified with eelected "Public Utility" coaponenta which aay allow aoae degree of control over inforaation technology policy while still preserving the iaportance of the aarketplace. But Japan's reliance on the "Public Utility" aodel aay be changing. Japanese coapanies, "worried that they are falling behind the U.S. in telecoaaunications have convinced senior governaent officials to end the governaent's telephone aonopoly" <"IBK and Others Maneuver ," 1984>. The privatization of Nippon Telegraph & Telephone aay be a significant break froa the governaent's traditional inforaation policies. Soae aight argue that the Federal governaent aay be currently establishing ainiature inforaation public utility coapanies siaply through the contracting of the design and developaent of inforaation syateaa to private coapaniea <"The SEC's Plan to Put a Mountain of Paper Into a Coaputer," 1984). Coapaniea which design such aysteas autoaatically gain a coapetitive advantage over other coapanies because of their iaaediate access to the inforaation eyateas and their ability to enhance the systeas with value added inforaation services or products . Yet, the successful contractor for EDGAR [the SEC'a inforaation syateal aay escape Federal regulation of its activities, especially those associated with providing "adequate access" to that public inforaation.
PAGE 112
2-19 Paradoxical Role of Librari Regarding Ace to Public Inforaation A factor inadequately considered in Salvaggio'& "Coapetitive" versus "Public Utility'" aodels is the role of libraries in the Governaent provision of public inforaation. Unlike aany countries, the United States has a strong systea of acadeaic, public, and special libraries that have great potential for increasing access to public inforaation. Indeed, despite the various weaknesses related to the GPO depository library prograa are coaaon. Nuaerous pronounceaents about the iaportance of libraries and the depository library prograa as a aeans of providing access to public inforaation can be identified . However, little evidence can be found of foraal efforts by the Federal governent to better utilize libraries for increased
PAGE 113
2-20 access to Governaent inforaation. Instead, Federal officials appear to see the GPO depository library prograa as a cheap alternative to having to develop aore or better inforaation disaeaination aechaniaas -failure to appoint key positions in the Governaent Printing Office during 1983-1984 Executive agencies' efforts to circuavent various GPO regulations and guidelines for depositing publications in the aystea and aaking thea available to the public. These and other difficulties have led one knowledgeable observer to coaaent, "unfortunately, the Library Prograa Service is a stepchild within the GPO, and its woefully behind the state of the art in applying technology to its own internal processes and to facilitating the delivery of and access to the inforaation it processes""
PAGE 114
2-21 developaent of inforaation disseaination prograas despite the existence of a foraal structure for the disseaination of public inforaation, i.e., the depository library prograa, significant Federal resources are spent on designing and developing coapeting inforaation prograas 2~t~!g~ this structure despite stateaents froa spokespersons such as Robert S. Willard for the for-profit sector , "funding for libraries seeas to aake a lot aore sense during a tiae of budgetary constraints than funding for Governaent inforaation services," libraries are not funded by either the for-profit sector or the Governaent to assist in the provision of public inforaation , only recently has the GPO been able to design an integrated coaputerized inforaation syste to increase, soaewhat, access to public inforaation
PAGE 115
2-22 1982; Hernon and McClure, 1984>. Nonetheless, the depository library prograa and the national structure for library networking, for whatever reasons, have not been exploited as a aeans to increase access to public inforaati~n. Inforaation Technology and Inforaation Gepa Much of the literature reviewed coaaented on inforaation technologies to either reduce or increase inforaation gaps in the United States. While it can be argued that inforaation technology has the e2t~nt!!! to reduce inforaation gaps in teras of access to public inforaation, existing evidence suggests that the opposite is occurring. Rural Aaerica has becoae disenfranchized fro access to public inforaation , over 60~ of all personal coaputers being bought are by individuals with annual salaries over S35,000 ("Who Are You?," 1984), and studies have shown that the "typical" uaer of a depository library can be best described as white, aiddle class, and above average education and incoae
PAGE 116
2-23 technology on Governaent provision of public information in teras of !e!!!! t!e!! of inforaation gaps. Studies technologies describing future scenarios for new inforaation handling prefer to stress futuristic iaages of fact retrieval and speculate about .. pocket-portable flat screen CRT terainals, hoaed in on a satellite and capable of searching and reading virtually any inforaation systea CHaapel, 1981, pp. 6-33>. But, there are few spokespersons for the concerns of those individuals who are not likely to !!!r possess such inforaation technology equipaent and are inforaation dieenfranchized--regardless of the reason for such disenfranchiseaent. The inforaation have-nots are typically described in econoaic teras. Despite Governaent pronounceaents that "inforaation is not a free good; [and] no aeaber of the Public should be denied access to public inforaation held by the Federal Governaent solely because of econoaic status" little t!n9!~!! evidence can be identified showing the Governaent'a desire to aake public inf oraation available to the econoaically disenfranchized aegaents of the public. Few governaent-wide Federal proJects can be identified fro the literature whose priaary purpose is to develop applications of inforaation technology seecificall! for the eureose of increasing the eublic's access tQ governaent inforaation. The Canadian governaent, for exaaple, has designed and iapleaented a videotext systea, TELIDON, which aakes a wide range of governaent inforaation both available and accessible to a broad range of aarket segaents in Canada . Siailiar atteapts in the United States are done on an agencf bf !9!D! ~!!!! as opposed to a central coordinating office. For exaaple, CENDATA, fro the Bureau of the Census, provides online inforaation about selected Bureau
PAGE 117
2-24 prograas, news releases, ordering inforaation, and selected statistical data aeen to be of "high interest" < .. CEMDATA: The Census Bureau's Online Inforaation Service, .. 1984). As a result, soae agencies have exploited inforaation technology for iaproved public access while others, auch as the Departaent of Energy and the Environaental Protection Agency, have ignored auch techniques and severely liaited the publication and availability to a broad range of inforaation . The National Coaaission on Libraries and Inforaation Science has launched studies "to exaaine the iapact of new technology--priaarily inforaation technology--on the providers and users of library and inforaation services" and to address the needs of one of inforaation have-nots of society, rural Aaerica, through the National Rural Inforaation Services Developaent Prograa (1984, pp. 28-33). But such studies are not Governaent-wide ia~leaentation prograns for delivery systeas intended to equalize accesa to public inforaation. McHale <1972, pp. 202-203) the effects of inforaation technology on the "inforaation haves" and the "inforaation have-note," and their possible responses , a traditional strength (i.e., an inforaed public) of Aaerican society ia underained.
PAGE 118
FIGURE 2-4 EFFECTS OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ON SOCIETAL INFORMATION GAPS A. Implications for "Haves" and "Have-nots" of Information-Rich Society B. Categories of Response The proportions of the popalation that can be categorized ih these ways are moot. They will depend on specific developments and events in society, including some involving information technology, and on the rate and scale of impact of these developments and events. It seems safe to conjecture, however, that categories 111 and IV will comprise, as they do now, the vast majority of the population. Over time, hopefully. there will be some movement t award categories I and 11. (Michael) ~INFORMATION "HAVES"-----INFORMATION "HAVE NOTS"~ Become basis for elites in a restratified Training in applications of technology society how to use rather than what to use for More socially mobile, with diverse career paths and life style opportunities Their acquisition of more and new knowledge becomes progressively easier Added capacity to create their own knowledge bases More able to organize and associate at a distance via access to new technics May possibly have more enlightened self-in1erest ACCEPTANCE (I) Those who accept, become skilled in. and make extensive use of the new information environment to pursue their individual and collective goals: Will tend to be more locked-in to particular Jobs less able to change occupations May tend to resign themselves to helplessness and alienation -will seek and use less and less 1nformat1on Less able to cope with perplexing changes Will become suspicious and hostile to the "knowledge people" Limited social mobility INDIFFERENCE (Ill) J Those "f1,mct1onally" affluent through I their own entrepreneurial or other skills and/or through subsidy able to remain in-I different to the demands of the new information environment may tend to be unmotivated by commitment or ideol ogy towards closer participation; I will tend to be future oriented, open to a I undereducated in ,ts potentials so as to wide variety of intellectual inputs; be unresponsive to it or seek ,ts use only their sources of reward and punishment where compatible with their specific de-may depend on traditional styles or deI sires and satisfactions; rive from new role definitions of man. as consumption/play oriented, will meas-I ure public action only in terms of more immediate impacts on, or threats to.their ----------x-==-------Those unable to use the new informa-I Those who reiect the larger implications tion en\'ironment because they are socially ( of the new information environment -inor culturally inadequate, i.e. as a result of eluding some who are occupationally skilled inadequate tducation and/or discriminaI 1n the area. tion, will tend towards: may be actively or passively alienated values and life styles oriented towards I from the commitments of the larger those now considered conventional as to society and tend to be idealogically sep-right/wrong, worthy/unworthy, etc; I arated from it; insulating themselves from information I will live by different values and life disturbing to such value systems; styles and either be reclusive in their being ineffective m using the changing personal orientation or activity-engaged environment_ and knowing ,t. I in"outward"soc,al movements. I INADEQUACY (IV) REJECTION (II) inadequate education is here meant to include the education provided most people who will populate the next twenty years -an education that leaves them incompetent in analytic and synthetic cognitive skills, in interpersonal relationships, ar,d in self-understanding. (Michael) Source: John McHale, "The Changing Information Environment: A Selective Topography," in Information Technology: Some Critical Implications for Decision Makers. New York: The Conference Board, 1972, pp. 202-203. BEST C0PY AVAILAil.L
PAGE 119
2-25 Reaponaibilitiea for Providing Accea.a to Inforaation Technology The degree to which th~ Federal governaent has, in fact, accepted responsibility for providing access to public inforaation and narrowing existing societal inforaation gaps is ainiaal, at beat. The degree to which for-profit organizations indicate concern about "equal" access, "adequate" availability, or narrowing the inforaation gaps in Aaerican society is also ainiaal. By and large, activities of both the Federal governaent and the for-profit segaenta of the inforaation sector "seea aore reflective of philosophical perspectives than obJective analyais11
PAGE 120
2-26 iaplicationa of public inforaation ownership when it ia Maintained by non Federal atakeholdera aust be carefully considered. Responsibility for providing public access to Governaent inforaation is largely the doaain of the Federal governaent. Once Governaent inforaation, as the ~esult of its inclusion in an inforaation storage and retrieval &yatea, is obtained by th~ forprofit sector, the responsibility for public access takes on auch less significance. Indeed, policy stateaenta by the Inforaation Industry hJ&ociation (1983) and their spokespersons . Proposals to the Governaent Printing Office to develop educational prograas to iaprove the technological literacy of depository libraries also have received little support the effects on specific
PAGE 121
2-27 aegaants of producers, disseainators, and users, <2> tiae lines when certain types of inforaation technologies will be developed, and <3> how Federal legislation and regulations will develop in the foreseeable future , <2> resultant policy iaauea, addressing the issues. and <3> locus of Federal responsibility for His analysis considers these effects in teraa of "An Inforaation Policy Fraaawork .. as shown in Figure 2-6. Thia aodel deaonatratea the inability of a "vertically .. organized Federal structure (i.e., within an agency or departaent> to deal with .. horizontal .. iapacta and iaauea related to inforaation technology policy. But aoat discussions of the effects of inforaation technology on producers, conceptually. disseainators, and ueera of public inforaation are liaited It is possible to develop aodels along the lines of that suggested in Figure 2-5, and the tables listed in Porat <1977, vol. 1, pp 208239>. For exaaples, the aodels and table aay identify poaaible effects of 11 .. / _.,, (___.--
PAGE 122
Types of Producers 1. Generators (a) < Researchers, scientists, other individuals) 2. Primary Producers (b) (books, Journals, research reports> 3. Secondary Prooducers. < b)
PAGE 123
"-,:_' ( ., :;. :., '!. ... .. r:. .... .... '~ (A) "Vertical" Decisions The Infrastructure Telecommunications technology Computer technology Actors: (FCC, OTP, OT/Commerce) Private sector interests FIGURE 2-6 AN INFORMATION POLICY FRAMEWORK .... (B) New Applic'ns of Info Tech Information Industries Publishing Postal service Finance Non-Information Industries Energy Food & agriculture Transportation Governance ---~r The office 'rhe home (C) "Horizontal" Impacts, issues Generally, economic or social conflict engendered by the introduction of new 1----~; information technology applications. e.g., EFTS and turf issues, electronic mail and the USPS, food and energy information systems, privacy infringement vs. ----~~management efficiency. ,. ... i SOURCE: I I I ___ !~~-~~:~~:_::~~!~:~-~~~-~~~=~~~~~~----------------- (E) Information Policy Decisions u Unresolved economic issues or value questions rise to the level of political mediation and are brought ._ ___ -<_G~>--------c to the Federal govt. Some solutions involve rearrangements of the infrastructure. Others are resolved without attention to the vertical issues. ,, j\ (F) ', The Foru.~: An interagency coordinating body in the Executive Office of the President Marc Porat, The Information Economy, vol. 1 (Washington, D.C.: GPO, 1977), P 208.
PAGE 124
2-28 specific types of inforaation technologies on types of producers, diaaeainatora, and users. But the underlying assuaptions of the approac~ encourage a aiaplistic and often erroneous view because: clear distinctions aaong producers, disseinators, and users of public inforaation cannot be identified the organization or institution aay be a producer one day, a diaaeainator the next, and later a user gf tb! !!! inforaation effects of inforaation technology on stakeholders in the inforaation sector are not linear: they are interactive and aultivariate The usefulness of a conceptual approach that fail to consider the overlaps aaong producers, diaaeainators, and users: that eatablishea artificial deaarcations between "public" sector and "private" sector; and does not consider inforaation life cycles ia liaited. Alternative conceptual tools are needed to consider the effects of inforaation technology on access to public inforaation. A first consideration ia to develop an approach that recognizes the overlap aaong producers, disaeainators, and users such as that shown in part A of Figure 2-7. This figure suggests seven possible contingencies of stakeholders in inforaation sector: producers only disseainatora only usera only producers/users diaseainators/uaera producers/disseainators producera/diaseainatora/uaers the These seven categories offer a aore realistic representation of the coaplexity
PAGE 125
FIGURE 2-7 EFFECTS OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ON PUBLIC INFORMATION A. Overlaps Among Producers, Disseminators, and Us~rs B. Economic Motive of Information Stakeholder FREE Cost Plus Self-Sufficient FOR PROFIT I /1.~ L~--Ht:ST COPY AVAILAill
PAGE 126
C. Value Added Life Cycles / I I Value Added \ ' FIGURE 2-7 (Continued) ,,,, --Value Cost Plus Self-Sufficient .......... ---Va 1 ue Added ---/67 I I Value Added / )FOR PROFIT -;:'I rlEST COPY AVAILABLL
PAGE 127
2-29 of players in the inforaat1on sector. Another consideration is to view stakeholders in the inforaation aector on a continuua between providing inforaation services and products as: free, i.e., aubaidized by Federal governaent taxpayers but generally seen as "free" by the public coat plus fee self-sufficient profit seeking Aa suggested earlier in this section, exaaplea of stakeholder fro the public and private sectors of the econoay which provide inforaation services and products in two or aore of these three categories can be identified. Thus, Figure 2-7, Part A can now be aodified, as shown in Part B, to include this additional factor. A third consideration, when assessing the effects of inforaation technology on access to public inforaation, is the degree to which a specific inforaation service or product ia enhanced as it progresses through its life cycle . Thia activity, known as the value-added process to inforaation services and products, auat be considered aince an inforaation service or product can be taken by one stakeholder and enhanced with an additional value and, thus, a "new" inforaation service or product baa been created. Exaaples of how this value added process to inforaation services or products enhances the has been described in detail by Taylor <1983). Finally, the t!2! of inforaation technology aust also be considered because <1> different inforaation technologies are likely to have different effects on different stakeholders, <2> applications of value added
PAGE 128
2-30 enhanceaents aay differ for the various technologies, and <3> inforaation services or products have varying levels of profitebility. This final consideration is shown in Figure 2-8, which offers an alternative conceptual basis for discussing the effects of inforaation technology on Governaent provision of public inforaation. Increased developaent of inforaation handling technologies adds to the likelihood that !Ql inforaation service or product can be enhanced by adding value to it. Figure 2-8 suggests that any of the stakeholders in the inforaation sector has the potential for providing value added enhanceaents to an inforaation service or product. Therefore, the priaary effects of inforaation technology on access to public inforaation relate to the degree to which <1> the various stakeholders can use that technology to enhance existing inforaation products and services, <2> such enhanceaents provide for the inforaation services and products to be profitable, and (3) those technological applications enhance or detract fro specific types of users to access that inforaation service or product. The Politics of Inforaation Technology and Public Inforaation The review, synthesis, and analysis of significant studies related to the effect of inforaation technology on Governaent provision of public inforaation have suggested greater concern for political, ideological, and philosophical issues than for pragatic questions of: what inforaation technologies can be beat utilized by the inforaation sector in the provision of public inforaation? how can inforaation technologies be utilized best by the inforaation disenfranchized segaents of society to increase access to public inforaation?
PAGE 129
FIGURE 2-8 EXPANDED MODEL FOR STUDYING EFFECTS OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ON PROVISION OF PUBLIC INFORMATION Types of Information Technology -computer processors -storage devices -telecommunications -input/output devices mass media corrmunication -software -other Types of Federal Government Controls -Legislation -Regulations -Political Philosophy I / I ,, ;, Value Added \ \. ..... Value Added .... -Producers --' \ Value Added I F~E~<-,---c_o_st_P_l_u_s ____ s_e_l_f_-_s_u_f_f_i_c_i_e_n_t ___ ~~or .. 7f / /) / / l. .I -Value Added ... Profit
PAGE 130
2-31 what steps can be taken to insure that the design of Federal inforaation systeaa, services, and products includes aechanisas for bibliographic control, public delivery systeas, public's awareness that such systeas exist? and increasing the can a unifora pricing structure be developed by the Federal governaent for each "value added" process attached to an inforaation systea? what !e!S!i!S types of governaent inforaation are "owned" by the public and to what degree does the Federal governaent have a responsibility to add enhanceaents, or value added processes, to those inforaation ayateas? A conclusion that one reaches after reviewing the studies discussed in this chapter is, for the foreseeable future, politics will continue to doainate discussions of relative roles in the inforaation sector and responsibility for provision of public inforaation : I J J tEST COPY AVAILA8LL
PAGE 131
2-32 future advances in technology will not prove to be the controlling influence in deteraining the evolution of scientific and technological coaaunication over the next twenty years The factors doainating the directions of change will be non technological. Inforaation technology has served priaarily as a cataylst to increase toe deaand for the Federal governaent to deal with issues related to privacy, ownership, pricing, security, control, and access to Governaent inforaation. All of these require policy attention er!2[ to the appearance of aany of the new inforaation technologies. Finally, the literature suggests that the developaent of Federal policies related to inforaation technologies and Governaent proviaion of public inforaation will be difficult since so aany different practices and procedures already are in place. Clearly, policies are supposed t~ be developed as a guide for apecific actions and procedures. However, !!!!t!ng practices and procedures are likely to direct future Federal policies related to inforaation technology. Suaaary Of Significant Policy Issues Addreaaed in this Chapter The Federal governaent has aade a sizable coaaitaent to the purchase and developaent of !nforaation technology. Aa shown in Figure 2-9, Federal expenditures for inforaation technology acquisitions
PAGE 132
NS&IA E&G HR, V&L NR, E&S en z 0 ::i -' e fJ) a: :5 -' 0 C FIGURE 2-9 FEDERAL INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACQUISITIONS 1984-1989 6 -54 -3 2 1984 fi.\\\\\\'1 NS&IA 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 FISCAL YEARS CJ E&G HR,V&L j:::::::j NR,E&S National Security and International Affairs Economics and Government Human Resources, Veterans and Labor Natural Resources, Energy and Science Office of Management and Budget, A Five-Year Plan for Meeting the Automatic Data Processing and Telecommunications Needs of the Federal Government. vo. 2 (Washington, D.C.: GPO, 1984), p. 5.
PAGE 133
2-33 inforaation ia unclear, contradictory, and oftantiaea, non-existent. Little horizontal integration and coordination of inforaation technology ia accoaplished in the current decentralized adainistrative structure of the Governaent. And although the Office of Manageaent and Budget ia aoving to fill an apparent void in inforaation policy developaent, there ia increased Congressional and Executive conflict over the "proper" role and authority for Federal inforaation collection, organization and disaeaination. Congrese appears to have the role aa "protector of access to public inforaation" while the Executive branch baa asauaed the role of "efficient aanager of Federal inforaation resources." But under the direction of 0MB, adainiatering inforaation-related technologies and activities with "efficiency" and "econoay" ia confused with aaking a profit froa inforaation services and products. Thia issue, when considered in the context of issues related to Executive versus Congressional authority for control over inforation policies and vertical versus horizontal coordination of inforaation policies increases the barriers affecting user access to public inforaation. Another iaaua is the consideration that aid-level Federal officials appear to have priaary responsibility for policy developaent within agencies and there is little direct top-level adainiatrative involveent in iaauea related to the effects of inforaation technology for the Governaent provision of public inforaation. Indeed, there ia a sense of naievete -on the part of aoae Federal officials that <1> existing structures such as the GPO depository library prograa, the Freedoa of Inforaation Act, or the Privacy Act, for axaaple, provide equal opportunity for all user aegaenta to adequately access and obtain public inforaation, and <2> aiaply because public inforaation is placed in an electronic foraat it will be autoaaticalll aore accessible to the
PAGE 134
2-34 public than if it reaained only in print foraat. aore detail in Chapter 4, Figure 4-4. Thia iaaue ia diacuaaed in Usera of public inforaation have not been adequately considered in the design of Federal inforaation ayateaa. Iasues that aust be addreaaed to increase uaer acceaa to Federal inforaation ayateas include: Theae -Federal officials typically fail to consider how the inforaation in electronic inforaation ayateas will be bibliographically controled Federal official frequently fail to assess. the iapact of an inforaation ayatea on other ayateaa intended to disseainate public inforaation or the degree to which the inforaation is to be diaaeainatad to the public iasuea coapound the barriers to public inforaation in that clearinghouses for public inforaation access and disaeaination, such aa the GPO depository library prograa, <1> have not been funded adequately to insure access and availability to public inforaation, <2> do not apply recent inforaation handling technologies to public inforaation systeaa, (3) are unable to diaaeainate public inforaation in electronic inforaation foraats, and <4> provide ainiaal training and support for asaisting users access technologiclaly-based public inforaation. With aoae exceptions, such as the Bureau of the Census, there ere few Federal ~Q9!!! that provide user training or public inforaation access support aervicea for technologically-baaed public inforaation. Rather, the role of the Federal governaent in the provision of technologically-baaed public inforaation tends to be passive. Federal efforts to price public inforaation on a coat-recovery or profit aaking basis will <1> increase the aaount of public inforaation in electronic foraat, <2> encourage contracts to non-Federal inforaation providers, which will have, one aaauaea. the responsibility for aaintaining public inforaation, <3> discourage support to Federal clearinghouses of public inforaation, and
PAGE 135
2-35 <4> allow individual agencies to aaka deciaiona related to hardware and aoftware configurations. Thaae factor are likely to increase barriers to the acceas and availability to public inforaation. The iaaues identified and discussed in thia chapter have eaphaaized the effects of technology on the Governaent provision of public inforaation in teras of the broad theaes suaaarized in Figure 4-1. the issues diacuaaed in Chapter 2 include: The aoat significant of deteraining prior to the creation of an Federal inforaation syatea, the degree to which it is intended to disseainate public inforaation developing atandards and coapatibility aaong Federal technologies inforaation resolving the paradoxical roles of libraries and the depository library prograas in the provision of public inforaation insuring adequate levels of access and availability to public inforaation in inforaation aysteas which are "contracted out" to forprofit stakeholders in the inforaation sector decreasing the likelihood for inforaation gapa as a result of greater uae of electronic inforaation syateas for public inforaation clarifying who or what is a collector, versus disaeainator of public inforaation producer, versua ainiaizing coat-driven varaue user-driven design of public inforaation ayateaa increasing the use of inforaation technologies for iaprovttd bibliographic control and user access to public inforaation deteraining the degree to which the Governaent is responsible for value added enhanceaenta to public inforaation aysteaa
PAGE 136
2-36 These iaauea coabine to fora a significant policy issue for the Federal governaent: What ia the Governaent's role in legislating and/or regulating Y!!t!: rights to acceaa public inforaation, establishing foraal aechaniaa that insure adequate access to public inforaation, and placing responsibility for aaintaining adequate access to public inforaation on the t!9!t! governaent rather than the individual? BEST ~OPY ,WAILAilL I 7 7
PAGE 137
Chapter 3-1 CHAPTER 3 REVIEW OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION AND REGULATIONS ON THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT'S PROVISION OF PUBLIC INFORMATION The Constitution of the United States identifies broad responsibilities for both the President and Congress
PAGE 138
Chapter 3-2 the provision of public information, and so forth. The range of concerns which these issues address is clearly indicated by the large number of bills related to development of information policy which have been introduced in recent sessions of Congress. A recently published report, Inf0rmation I~ghD9!Q9Y
PAGE 139
Chapter 3-3 policies having horizontal impacts (impacts among agencies> are emphasized. Those policies having vertical impacts (impacts within agencies) can therefore be reviewea and placed in the context set by this report. The obJectives of this c~apter are to: identify recent significant pieces of Federal legislation and regulations related to the provision of public information. -assess the potential applications, limitations , contradictions (provisions conflict with other statutory or administrative law>, g~Q~ . -report Oh a literature review of studies which have examined these pieces of legislation and regulations. -analyze the legislation and regulations based on their eecte on Federal government producers and disseminatora, and ueere 0 public inormation. develop recommendations for further existing legislation and r~gulations. revisions to For the purpose of this chapter, the term "legislation"' includes significant public laws being considered for enactment as well as those already enacted; and the term "regulations" includes administrative law adopted and proposed by the Executive and Legislative branches. The specific legislation and regulations discussed 1n this section are: -Joint Committee on Printing's proposed regulations and gu1delines of June 1984 PL91-345, PL93-29Csection 802], National Commission on Libraries and Inormation Science BEST COPY AVAILAil.L
PAGE 140
Chapter 3-4 PL95-220, Federal Program Inormation Act Title 41, United States Code, National Audiovisual Center PL96-511, Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 Office of Management and Budget~s Regulations -Title 15 of the ~n!~~g g99~ (NTIS) -Title 44 of the Yn!t~Q t~t~~ g99~ This chapter contains four elements: Cl) a summary of each public law or regulation, <2> significant studies which have examined that law or regulation, <3> a comparison of policy issues among these examples, and C4) recommendations for revisions of the laws and regulations so that the potential conflicts, gaps, and ambiguities can be addressed and resolved. The Literature review is based on an online search of the data bases identified in Appendix 2-3 and a supplementary manual search of appropriate bibliographies and indexes. For a study to be reviewed in this chapter, it must meet three criteria: -analyze one of the eight laws or regulations in terms of its eecte on the provision of public information. -state a specific thesis or offer recommendations. -be published since 1978. The literature review section of for each regulation or piece of legislation will provide the name of the author(s), the title of the study, the method of analysis, intended audience, thesis, and recommendations (the complete citations of all works are listed in the bibliography>. These are the same points addressed in in studies reported in Chapter 2. I Z-/
PAGE 141
Chepter 3-5 The JCP Printing end Binding Regulations/Guidelines The Joint Committee on Printing has set policy formally through regulations but hes also developed information policies and procedu.res informally through letters and other means. For example, in March 1977, Senator Howard W. Cannon, chairman of the JCP, wro~e a letter to the Public Printer granting authorization or the Government Printing Office's micropubliahing program and for conversion to microfiche. However, the inclusion of microfiche in the sales program was expressly prohibited
PAGE 142
Chapt..er 3-6 Based on the comments received, the JCP revised the 1983 document and reissued it on June 26, 1984
PAGE 143
\in: c~ ... e;:s.c.t:~-r. or Re;1.i .. at1or1s TAB ... : 3-: ~RV OF Li6ISLATI~ OR REGuLATIONS -~e:era. ";E~cies io:::~cs affectea coverec -----------------------------:C.:i Orir,t1i; ar,c B;~c:r; ~e;alat:o~s al'lc 5,.nce: in2s (1%4} Cl'1 :..!:::l""a~:es arr.: :~;Jrra-:1on S:ie~ce A:: l:57(,l aJ::~2s tc all 3 ~ra~:~es cf G.::ve ... :-.r.er.t ar.c: c~ar;es a se~:o~ off1c1a: 1~ eac~ cepar~r.er.t to carry out t~e rnf Jrriati on 11ia",a~e,1ey: role ar,: res:c-rs:::n::nes of eac~ cecartr.ent for eff 1 c 1 e~:y arie ccori:l: r;a-; 1 ~,:-, of oririta\~ anc o 1 sse:r.: !'.a-: 1 c':"I ::n:1110;'."'a:n!c CO"l:-r:.~ o-.er pnnt:r.;. s~ar::arc:2at1ori c-f p!"1r,t1r.; fcrmats ar~c ~c:a. ro~e of SJcocs as role of ce~os::oty :~~rar~es ~~vern~er.t ou~l1cat10~5 ouol1cat1cn as u1nfor~at1on to ~:11 c:, ;:l"1 "l: i l'l; oroCE~U"'es nave oeen a:l':i~ :ec! crea-=e~ oy er~lcyees or cff:ce~s ~f tne Uni~eG Sta:es ;over~~er~ 1n t~e course of tne1r offc1al outies1 or created by COT'ltrac-;ors of -:ne i,Jr;1 tee States goverr.mer: ~~ere tne &:,verrirne!"-: ~as re-:a1 r,ee control or r1g~ts to tne ir1forwation, for Cl s-:~i b~-; icm to ce:3artrr.er,ts or t~ tt",E ouolic.w a ~a~~c,r1al C.ornri1sslor1 on ~1ora!"1es ar,c !r:f0"'>r.a: 1c,r: Science 'J / I_, "'ey Issues o: ar:rn r:: ar,c ~-c.rc:: !',a-; :c:r: vf orir.t1r; ari: c1sssii~r.at:cr: of oucl1c 1nfor:,a:lon-lts 1rn:a:~ on ava1ia:::1ty of its 1w:~ac-: c,n ai;cessio1::ty of ir,for;at; er, ef:ec:s o~ sta~:a~:::a::cy c~ ~r1r::r; =or~~:s ar: ~ecia or; -:,e a::ess1:~ :-:y Oi :nfon:a-:: :.-er,. r~:2 0-~e::s:::~y ::J~a~~2; as c1sser;:l".a:or--lts effec::ver:es; ;~:~:s.:~ := ::Jra"'y a~: :i-~r~i::~~ servlces
PAGE 144
=e:ers. ~;erc:es ae-:-;ec 7cc:cs ---------------------------------------------------------------------------or: ~::ra~:es ar.c Fece:--a: ~-rc;~a.'!1 Irifor:r.a: :or. Ac-; (1977) a~enc1es w~1::~ orov1oe Fecera: ass:stance assess:.,erit of 1r:feiri;:at :c:na: 11eecs of vancus se~rer.ts of tne soc~e;;y H,format 1ora: r:eec aSSESS!rEY"; a::ira1sal of c~rrer,; :ira::-:1ce eva::..atior-o& efect1ver~ss in ilcrary anc. irifor:r.at1or, of c;,,;rrent l1orary services ooeratio~s 1n:iuc1~g its aGv1ce tc to Pres:cer,t ar:: Cor.gress r.er.Jersnio of tne C:.m~!t~ee fa 1 r re;""eser tat i or, cf va~10Js se;~ents cf 10e":~1f1cat!or: c!f al: eii~s:lr,; e..=.::c1e"': ari: ?"e:~:a"' Feceral ::,ro~ra1:1s ar,o crea~ior, c~str:C1.ot:c,:--. o curre"'t of a Feder-ai Ass:sta"'l::e JuJ!1c 1r:forr11a:1:,,, !n~or~at1or Data Base anc its S""'-1-i 1nformat1or. t~rou~~ 01fferent aecia, 1. ~-, cat a base aric ::r:r:::ec ::ataio;. ro:e of ar.c. res::"s ::~ l :es of C>-"B fc"' con::i::a~1:::~. ar;c 1 nforma~ 1 on sales of ou::il1c infor~.a:1on to tne ou~l1c at a reas~~le ccst. cont~acts w1tn orivate organ1zat1ons for disse
PAGE 145
Cer.ter (lS:iSl =e:e--a~ ~;er.::es af ~e:-;ec aJ::1es to a.~ ~ecera: a;er,cies orocuc1ng au:1c1v1s..1al ::,rcicu:-:s (Cor.-::1riuecJ ccvere-: roa~a;e~e~: a~c c1sse~:~a:10~ of auoicv:sJal resources mar,a;e--2~: a":C :1sse: r,a: :c"1 of tnese re:crcs co~::~at1on anc ~uJ.:ca::cn of catalogs aeve::,:rre:-,: of cr1;;er1a, terr.:r.c.o;y. ar.::: :;ra::lces fer tie ca:aio;:~; anc 1~ce~1~; of Feceral auc:ov1s~o~ resou~ces ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ar: H1Ce~~,.,cer1t re;~:a~ory a;e,.~:es es:;:~:s:rer-: cf a!" :-=.:::: of lr:-for:~at.ot ar.: Re;;.;:a:i:ry Affa1rs a:-1Ci a receral Information ~ocator Syster.: l':"l t,e ~Jc"'::r-: o:J~cer. c ... 1 or, tr.e ou~! :c ;eneral 1nfor~a::or. :>0~1cy, 1r.format1on co::e:::~r. re:ues:s, rr.a".a;2~~-= a~c corr:ro: c; ~erera: lnf~rma::on clearar.ce, ar.:: c:~er fu~::~:::r!s r,ee.:s ar-: :--1:r:-::es c ::,::ec-;lc.-: estaol1sn~ent of a ,overnre~i-c~a:1:y co~:rc: cf Fecera: 11nce auc1ts of a:l l'll.a~C1l" !:'\~o~:ra~!O": Feceral 1nfor1r.a-.: ~on syster,,s elim1na4;!0n of cu:il::a-;e e~f::e"!: cc1 . e:~1::., ... c~ information C'Ollect1on r-ecuests Feoeral inforfllct!on 1ntegratior, of i,.,;crma:!o"l mar,a~e11ent pra:t ices anc ioentificat1on of initiatives oeveioorr.er:-.: cf a oro;rar. :c enforce ;e:era: 1nfor~a:~c~ orocessir:g s-:a"'t:a:--cs orccess1r.~ a:t~v!tles ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------/) /,( ,(_......-,_,....
PAGE 146
~aie ct ~e;!s:at:o~ or Regula:1ons Office cf ~anagement anc Buc;et Di rec,; 1 ves (see teMt cf Cila:Jter for list of clrecnvesi Fecera~ Ager.::.es affectea ~xeeut1ve Branc:, anc: 1 riceJe:-:oe":t a;er,e1es iClB_ 3-1 (C-:r.:~:' .. EC; coverea sar.a;eii.ent of or1r:-; mg aria puol1sn1ng oro~rais anc e!1minat1cn of un~e:essa~y ouo~ lea-: :or1 ~ey Issues cr1 teria 1.;se:: Ht mai<1 r1; aehs1c1ns va;ue~ess in oefirlt:cns of ies of rnforrnat 1or, co~ lec-:ec anc d1sserr.:r.atec (ar~ t~e for~a~ soec1f1ec) relatlO!'IS~io to ct~e?" off~clal a 1 s ser:n riat ors oeclass1 heat ior, aric re.ease of inforrna:ior. useful to
PAGE 147
Nare of ~e;~s:a:l:~ ;ecera: A;e~::es or !1e;~~a: ~cr.s affectec Tit le J;4 aria ~oJosec a~ i Fecera! a;e!'1c1es anc Arl\er'.q:-e!'::s b. K. ~5i2J 1ne;e~er1Cemt es:a:~ 4s~r.:ents (!976) TAB;..E 3-1 (Com rnuec) coverec (maJor topics coverea in ~.R. 45721 lllOCe""!'llZat 1or of G;Q ar;c crea-: 1cm of NPO l{ey Issues central1zat1on of t~e Fecera~ ~over~rent's or1nt1ng anc ou:illsirn; orograr.1s--re:i2 of GPO Cl"ea-;10-:-, of a ce,~~ss1::.": access!:n:rty of Oi.l:illc to sriaoe na~1onal 1riformat!cn 1nforma-:!or, policy Sovernment-lifice coort: r!a-: 1 ,::l'l for effec:ive ant eff:c1~~t creat icn cf a cer,-;ra~ Hee 1ncex1n; syste~ for ou~!1: information ~r:.~:.~:..or i:~ i:;o:e '.:ir-::vls::1", o.; ~t::l~lC infc.r'.~a::or: -;iro,..:;~ tne oeoos1tory llorary prograi.: exulanat ion of cor,~ress1orial overs1 g,t ar,c cc.r.:rc~ ove"' Feceral informat,on policy ~icing of QOvemnen-: ouolicatlons role and rel a-: ior:s:;i:, oetweer: p~~:1c anc ~1ssei~ia;ors lrf::ac: of ne ... t::~r,olo;y ori Fec2~3: Jr:~t1~; a~c c:ssem:!'\at1,:,r: Eys-:err.s aN: er, o~ga~1za;1ora: ~~~L:t~res fl sea: suo:crt for ce;>JSl t:iry ll:lraries ir.ce,,1tives anc e111c,rcerer.: -;c:,.s ~C-"' ~~-::e 44 ro:e of tne a1ar~.e:::a:e 11'1 t~e provision of oublic 1nfor:,iat:cr, is it ar, ec~nom!c ;ooc ov. a scc~a: 5~? ----------------------------------
PAGE 148
Aaaeaement of the Proposed JCP Guidelines Potential A~~lications: Chapte:r 3-7 -to increase the standardization of Government printing and bibliographic information. to embrace new developments in information technology not covered by the April 1977 regulations. -to promote cost-efficiency through coordination of publishing programs or various departments and agencies. -to provide a framework by which the JCP could oversee and review departmental printing and publishing activities. -to encourage departments and other Federal bodies to increase their cooperation with the Superintendent of Documents' bibliographic control effort. -to extend the definition of publication to embrace new technologies. -to promote public use of, and access to, government publications through the depository library, e.g., to post signs indicating that depository publications can be used at no charge. -to encourage cooperation between depository and nondepository libraries in the same area 1n such a way that the latter may house certain publications or depository libraries, and provide service and access comparable to that provided by the depository 1tsel. Limitations: -the JCP is a "staff-run Committee; the staff "has virtually total control over what happens
PAGE 149
Chapter 3-8 the JCP cannot require an agency to produce a title which that agency does not want to publish. Any agency can decide to discontinue a title for political or any other motives. -the JCP is an oversight committee, while most other Joint committees are study bodies --they explore issues and report on their ind~ngs. -information created with appropriated unds 11shall not be off"ered for initial idstribution to private parties. "However, Chadha has forced the elim1nation of waivers and any mechanism or JCP to enf"orce this policy providing the depository library with all government publications,<2> posting a sign in the depositoty library stating that government publications can be used at no cost, and (3) allowing the depository library to share its government publications with other libraries. -the JCP abandoned regulations for guidelines., but did not significantly alter their substance. Except for those instances where the directives conform to the provisions of Title 44. the Executive branch may not feel obligated to adhere to administrative law which the JCP attempts to formulate.
PAGE 150
Chapt.er 3-9 clearly, the Federal departments and agencies which produce public information are the intended targets of the guidelines. In short, the JCP introduced guidelines supporting t.he "supply side" of government publications. Thus, Title V.6, notice of public access and service for depository libraries, and Title V.7, sharing collections of a regional depository library, are not well-balanced with the rest of the text, since these two clauses deal w1t.h the 11access side11 of government publications. -from the point of view of producers, it is assumed that the role of the depository program as a disseminator of government publications is effective ~nd efficient. In reality, however, there are a number of issues yet. to be solved regarding the role of the depository program as an effective and efficient disseminator of government. publications. -the guidelines .. do not mention the National Technical Information Service CNTIS> which was given statutory authority over Government publishing and information activities in the area of scientific and technical information when an outdated Printing Act of 1895 could not accommodate requirements in that area
PAGE 151
Chapter 3-10 -the definition appears to eliminate audiovisual materials and. a significant amount of contract and gran't. materials" (Schwarzkopf, 1984, p. 440). the guidelines "still retain t.he imperat.ive 'shall" in all sections. Some provisions are based on specific wording in Ttitle 44, and 'shall' is properly used. However, many other provisions are based on JCP interpretations which are subJect to chall~nge, and these have not been changed to 'should'" (Ibid.). "~hat complicates the matter is that many of the 'shall' provisions are based on the outdated 1895 Printing Act, or other outdated amendments which have been disregarded for years by agencies with JCP complaisance. For example, section 501. T1tle 44 that all Executive, Legislative, and Judicial printing shall be performed by GPO (with some exceptions>; section 1701 that all distribution shall be perormed by GPO; section 1710 regarding the 'comprehensive index' of government publications; and section 1121 that agencies in the District of Columbia should procure their paper and envelopes through GPO . -the JCP can set administrative law informally: however, the informal method letters) does not invite public comment. -:) ..... } (. ....formally and (e.g., through
PAGE 152
Chapt.er 3-1:.. Literature Review Title McClure (1984b> Proposed Regulations from the Joint Committee on Printing: Patchwork Remedies for Complex Problems Method: Opinion Essay. Audience: Themes: Federal Government, Community Private Sector, and Library -the article analyzes the November 1983 regulations and reprints both the original and June revision. -the author questions the extent to which the JCP has the legal basis for .. regulating .. Executive agencies. -the proposed regulations demonstrate the intent on the part of the JCP to meet its statutory responsibility and expand its mandate. The regulations would increase the JCP1e control over the Government1e printing, and establish clear lines of reporting and data gat.hering or the mon1t.or1ng of government puolicat.ion programe. -the procedures for enforcing these regulations are not outlined. The regulations exemplify a simplistic stance for dealing with the complicated issue of public access to public information. -improved access to public information will not result, by itself, from simply creating an additional set of patch work regulations. Recommendations: -develop coherent national information policies for all 1nterested participants in Federal printing and information dissemination. -coordinate, plan, and evaluate new information handling technologies for the production, bibliographic control and d1ssem1nation of Government printing end informatlon.
PAGE 153
Chapter 3-12 -establish formal goals and obJectives for the depository library program so that program effectiveness can be measured. -develop procedures for the enforcement of the regulations. Title: Method: New Title 44 Reguletions under Fire (1984) New Title 44 Regulations under Fire Report Article Audience: Library Community Themes: -the basic issue regarding the new regulations proposed by the JCP appears to be the conflict between the position taken by the Congressional oversight committee to ~xpand its role and the Reagan administration's determination to 'dismantle bureaucratic machinery and reduce Government spending for non-military purposes. the JCP's proposals to bring about greater public access to government inormation is seen by its opponents as doing Just the opposite, by freezing out the private sector and wielding new and more stringent control over the publishing output of every Government entity. -on the other hand, the proponents of the regulations point out that closing down Government printing plants around the nation would provide new business opportunities to other stakeholders in the information secto~. Recommendations: -include nonprint materials among those provided to depository libraries. r~quire JCP approval before publication bye private firm. -require materials produced by other stakeholders to be disseminated to depository libraries. -adhere to ANSI standards or publication format. --I I I / ; -~.-'
PAGE 154
Chapter 3-13 -provide full bibliographic identification for all source material. -provide archival copy of all publications to the Library of Congress and the National Archives. Selected Impacts 0 the Guidelines Table 3-2 includes a proposed JCP regulations on of public information. summary of the impacts the Federal government's from the provision National Commission on Lihraries and Information Science Established in 1970, the National Commission on Libraries and Information Science provides 11advice, expertise, and assistance to the Executive and Legislative branches of the Federal government, as well as to organizations and agencies in both the public and private sectors nationwide'" Commission on Libraries end Information Science, 1984,
PAGE 155
~a~e of ~e;1s:a:10n or Regulations JCJ ~l"ll":t 1 r1~ ar,a B1nc:~; ~e;u~at;or,s ar,c 6:.11 ce i mes (1%'+) TAE~ 3-2 ~RY OF IMPACTS OF TI LE6ISLATION OR RESlJLATIOtcS Economic efflcler,:y of pu:l~ lSillTIC :1ro;rarns sa:es of :i--ir:tlr,~ plates, hr.al proofs, ca~aJases 1acroforrns, anc: onllne access. (return on 11wes1:me:-:t? > Imoa:ts Technological stancarc:izaqeiri of ouolicat:or. formats extencec cef1n1~1on of goverr.mer.t p1..:ll 1 sn 1ng to tecnnolog 1 cal aoollcations tnbl 1o~rao.,1c contra~ of puclic information Political cemra! 1 zat 1or, of Fecera~ J~~llsn1ng orogr-arr.s t 1 ;,ter comrol over prov~s:cr: of pu~lic 1nformat1on effectiveness of policy guioel1ries as c~:rnose:: reg .1la:1ons-role of JCu anc 6~ to ot~er tlrar.cnes of 3c,verr:Bent (issue of seoaration cf cower) Social access to p~cl1c :nfor~at:on (~ffects on ava1~aJil1:y anc access:~:l1ty cf ~uJ: 1c l:'ifor:r.a: 1c,n) resource snarrn; ue-:.veer, the ce~s1tory ar~ ot:ier liora"'1es -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------Na~1onal Cor:m1ss1on on L1:rar1es anc lnforma-:lon Sc:ence Act (1970) efflcier,t use of l 1orary ar,c rnfor'ila<; 10n serv1ces COitlrc:ss1or1' s autnor1ty to acceo; contricutiMs to carry out its functions role of liorar1es FeCierai gover!";:~er;t' s 1mo':"ovec ::irovlsic.r, :,-:and 1nforuiat1on coo:leration w1tn 11::irary cr:c info!":cat:oY, centers as l1nKs 1n sta:2 an: iocal se~v~ces t~ tie ~u~~1c nat1or.~l communica-a;enc1es nons r.e-:ijor,
PAGE 156
~a-e .. -~;:s.a:::"; or RE~ij~atlor,s ~at1o~al Com~:ss:on or, :..1 ::iraries ar,c lr1for:r.at 10n Sc1er1ce ( CO"":: 1 nuea l Feceral Pro;ram iAk.E 3-2 Ccrr; 1 rau~~ : :rr:oa:ts ----------------------------mer..oers of ~C..JS wl:l :e aJJoir.tec oy tne ~res1cer,t a::,:,rc:,Y-later:ess cf tie :o~~:t:ee as an 1noeoer:eer;t ager.cy to acceot co~tr~out1o~s ------------------------------------------------efficiency of c1sset!~at:n~ ccmcu:er te:,~o~o;y ouol1c 1nformatlO~ for orov1s1on cf tnrou"1 e:ectror,lc put::l 1c 1nforrtat :or, lleC.:i.a sales of o.i:: 1c to tr.e ger,eral :iu:>l1c ori vate se:tors to octa1n ccm~~ter time-snaring services role o~ :Jr1vate aata oase, e.;, teleccrnr1:unic:at ior,s, cot;uier software, resJ01'1Sl :n l 1 r.y of ea~~ a;e~cy ln reaornr.; :iuJilc informat 1c,r, -;:i C'f:B effectiveress :vs as ::J:::er ~t sa-;utory cr.ar:res r-ecessary tc, fortie"" ceve:oJ cisser,1lr,at1on Stet iocs us rng roe err; t e ec: C"t~ ._.,._:cat~: ?'rS user fees to access :~::: c i nfc-:--ma-; l c1ri rc:e of oeJ~s:tort llt:ra."'y for Clsserr.H.at1or, e: 2c ,,.._:. ... ::a~ y :: e., d : : = --------------------------------~ationa: Auo1ovisual Ce~ter (196'3) ef flc:lency of auoiov1sual services central1zat1on of Oti::l~lc access oi ol 1ograJn1c C("'ltrol tc, ~eoeral anG disssem1nat1on of auc1ov1sal Feae""al auc1ov1s~al resoJrces resources ---------------------------------------------------------
PAGE 157
\a~e ~ _e;:s~i:~:~ '="" ~e;;.i:a~1:rs ------------------------------------Soc:a~ -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------PaJerwor-< ile:uc-::ori kt (1980) cost of co:lectiorr es~aJl1s~me~t of a reJorting process Fecera1 Information Loca:eir Syste:n oegree of "ourcer:" re::ic,rting c~ ffer ci."l:C,r,; :rJ:J~1c reGu1rments for ar.c ~usiness -tie ,~o:ic 0 St l r:c,; C?": ::e~weel'l ou::>l ic aeveloomen; of a ~o~s ar,c orivcite crogra;r. to er,force no~ to c:s-:r1~Yt2 an aroitrary 2~ % cu:_ ;oc.:s -wier-e to Fece"'al 1)lor~,1atD,,.. cecis.or, of ~-.c cra11t t:ie l 1r.e orocessin; star,carcs reports .;i:a: anc by .riat :ne:,~cs cost of reoorting to tne goverT111er.t Dy t~e O~O~lC ,~0v1s1cn o' :JUJ!:c 1nfor~a:1~n to incus:ry, 1~:eres: ;rc~Js, a~: Orlva:e c:t:zer.s -its --------------------------------------------------------------------C re:t l ves l 1c to cay ~7:S fees to access rnfo:--mat 10n inclusion of 111acn1ne-readaole or:cuc:s an~ creat 1or1 of a sof~ware ,ro;ra~ role as comoet1tior ava1la~:l1ty of scient1f1c, to ot:1er official tec:in1cal, ar,~ ot:-ier ne;o:: at i or, of national security envirormient to ;e~ 1nforr.ot 10n ceclass1f1eo for use oy ousiness ano 1r.custry s:a~e m~~ita~y anc ar,c otier 1nfor~a:~or, w.t~ tre ao~ro~riate a;e:-;cy cc! !ect 1ol'l ano Clsser.:nat 1or: of reJ~"'t literature fro.~ ot~er cour.tr1es la~~ cf ur.!for~ cJa:1:y cor.:rol fer a:l source na~eria: ava1la~le fo~ c:sse~:r.a~ :cn ,,. / / \/ _:.., 0
PAGE 158
\a~e of ~e;:s:a~l~~ or ~e;oJ:at ~cl"ls 7AB~E 3-2 (Cor:t 1 r.uea J li::oacts ---------------------------------------------------------------------National Tecnn1cal Informat10~ se~v1ce Cor,t rnuecl 1sel f-sustarn1ng ooerat1ons create access oroblems for some segmer,ts of t~e ooc:.ilat ion --------------Title 44 a~: ~o~osec Amer:cmer~s (n.R. 4572i (1979) priclr.; of governu1er1t ou::il1cat1o~s --fall/partial cost recovery or free? effects of new tec~nolo;y on tne orov1slon of puci1c 1nformat1on anc organ1za~ional structure and laoor centra~1zat1on of Fecera! 1nformatlon 00! icy incentives anc:1 enforcement tools fc.r i1t:e 44 access1::i1l1ty of p~c1c 1nformat1on re 1 at 1 ons"l 1 p beheer, puol1c ano orivate dissera1nators cos~ of new tecnnolo~y effects of new role of t~e ce~os1tory tecnnology on relations.110 of ti~le library orogram Feceral fiscal traGit1onal cef1n1t1ons 44 to other laws anc suooor~ for tne sucn as 1c:1uol1cat1n;, re~ulat1ons oe~cs1 tory ar10 uorint 1ngl, l.D:--ary ~:"o;ra.-., ces~;r:a:10:--: of a rev1ew1n; agency oucget reciuests tyoe of govern;3uo: cat 1 on to oe suos1c:1izeo i~oa::s of au:o~itl~~ ,overn~e~t 0:-1 t~e form, ty~e ano ::iu:i11cat ions rr.ar,a;er mec1um of public in eac~ FeGeral 1nformat1on--issues of agency comoatioll1ty anc role of Con;ress for overs~;~: am: cor,trc~ over tne procuction and a1ssemination of of j)U~~ ic iriformatlon a s.J:::a: p:c C"' ar. eccnc~:: cot~c:l:y? ---------------------------------------------
PAGE 159
Chapter 3-14 Both the second and third obJectives are pertinent to all four chapters of this report. Table 3-1 summarizes the maJor provisions of the Act which established NCLIS. The following discussion focuses solely on the legislation itself. An examination of the feasibility of NCLIS' goals and obJectives is beyond the scope of this report. Nonetheless, it can be suggested that research must go beyond an analysis of the current and potential use of libraries. It must cast libraries in the context of the information environment. The position of NCLIS is that "citizens must have the necessary knowledge, skills, and access to information to function effectively in the workplace as well as in all other aspects of their lives" turn to a library for the satisfaction of an information need? how effective are libraries as a resolver of information needs? Aaaeaament 0 the Act Potential AEElications: -to establish a National Commission on Libraries and Information Science.
PAGE 160
Chapter 3-15 -to assess the information needs of the public. including those of "rural areas., economically, socially., or culturally deprived persons." -to devise the means by which those information be met through various types of libraries and centers. needs may information -to evaluate the effectiveness of 11current library and inf'ormation science programs ... -to develop overall plens for meeting library and information needs of the public and to make. recommendations to the President and Congress. -to promote research which will improve library and information services. -to submit an annual report on the Commission's activities to the President and Congress. Limitations: -since Commission members re~:::e.sant. .. j._:.41~-e,.Ten"t. constituent groups, they conceivably might the~e groups and not the general social good. The influence of the private sector on the Commission may be noteworthy. "NCLIS has neither the carrot of funding nor the stick of regulatory authority needed to make recommendations st.1ck11
PAGE 161
Chapter 3-16 -NCLS is responsible for "planning and policy making, a Job that it can accomplish only through negotiation and consensus building" . "'Even if NCLIS were funded at an adequate level, the concept of centralized planning probably needs to be reexamined. Few of the recommendations made by NCLIS have been implemented on a broaa scale" . -the lack of references to NCLIS throughout this report, specifically with regard to the information needs and gathering strategies of the general public indicates that NCLIS has considerable work to do before its obJectives can be fulfilled. Contradictions: -NCLIS was established the Executive Branch."' Commission shall have .. grants, gifts, or raise is "Why does accept contributions?" as "an independent agency within However, Section 4 states that the authority to accept contributions, bequests of money."' A question to this independent agency needs to our discussions w~th various officials in the Executive and Legislative branches indicated that NCLIS is a strong supporter of 0MB and its directives on economy in Government and not an obJective supporter of the interests of libraries and enhanced access to public information. -while the Act originally stated that NCLIS would assess the information needs of rural areas and economically, socially or culturally deprived persons, it was not clear whether this would include the information needs of the elderly. However, upon the enactment of the Older American Comprehensive Services Amendments of 1973, the insertion o:f "Cin:formational needs> o:f elderly persons" was made into the original Act CPL93-29, Section 802, a). -the Act was also amended to provide membership on the Commission to at least one other person who would be knowledgeable of library and information services and science, and the needs of the elderly"'
PAGE 162
Chapter 3-17 Amb1gu1t.1ea: -section 2 states that '"the Congress hereby affirms that library and informa~ion services adequate to meet the needs of the people of the United States are essential to achieve national goals .. The term "national goals" was left undefined. -in the same section it is stated that the Congress affirms that "the Federal Government will cooperate with (appropriate agencies] in assuring optimum provision of library and information services." While one might assume the term 11optimum provision" is similar to the term 11optimum allocation" in the field of modern economics, such is unclear. -section 5 states that NCLIS will promote research activities to improve the "information handling capability as essential links in the national communications networks." One might wonder what the term "national communications networks" refers to. Would it be a national network of libraries and information centers or something else? Literature Review: No studies met the previously stated criteria. Selected Impact of the Act: These are summarized in Table 3-2. Federal Program Information Act The Federal Program Information Act was enacted on December 28, 1977, to provide for the efficient and regular distribution of current information on Federal domestic assistance programs. Prior to 1977, similar bills had been introduced and reported favorably in the Senate during four consecutive Congresses (91st to 94th) However, in each case, the legislation was not fully considered in the House and was never enacted. .... B~ ~OPY AVAIi .Alllt
PAGE 163
Chapt.er 3-18 The enact.ment of the Federal Program Information Act was faciliated by two factors. First, while there has been a rapid_ proliferation of Federal assistance programs available to t.he general public since 1960, relatively little legislative effort had been made to announce these programs to intended beneficiaries. Second, in the absence of legislative measures to provide regular distribution of current information on these assistance programs, there was a growing trend for states and cities to open their Washington offices in an effort to obtain up-to-date information on the programs. The Congress, particularly the Senate, became concerned with this trend mainly because not all states and cities could afford to employ fulltime professionals to seek information in the District of Columbia. On May 17, 1977, Senator Robert C. Byrd introduced a bill requiring the Director of the Office of Management and Budget to establish a data base containing comprehensive information on all Federal domestic assistance programs retrievable through computer terminals and to publish a printed catalog of these programe, based on information from the data base. The purpose of the bill was to increase the availability of information about Federal domestic assistance programs to the public. On December 17, 1977, the legislation was enacted . I I I lj_ I ,I I,_;, ,, I
PAGE 164
Chapter 3-19 Assessment of the Act Potential A22lications: -to identify all existing Federal domestic programs. -to create a Federal Assistance Information Data Base that "there are authorized to be distributed, without cost, catalogs to Federal depository libraries and, and other local repositories designated by the Director." -thus, the same piece of information identified by the Act could be chargeable depending on where it is stored.
PAGE 165
-the data base would be upde,ted "on a regular basis," while the catalog would be published each year with supplements. Although one is not sure about the frequency 0 updating the data base, it is reasonable to assume that the information in it is more current than that ound 1n the printed catalog. the catalog contains '"all substantive information that is in the data base." This indicates that not all the information in the catalog would be identical to that in the data base. Ambiguities: -the information available under this Act may be made available to the public at a "reasonable pric::e.11 The question is, of course, what is reasonable and how it would be decided. '"the Director shall provide :for the widespread availability 0 information contained in the data base, by computer terminals wherever available ... One might wonder if the Government would have direct access to the data base through a computer terminal via private telecommunications faciliti~s and commercial data base vendors. -Under the information" .. this does information information11 unclear, and Literature Review Act, one can expect. to obtain .. expert concerning Federal Assistance Programs, but not include provision of conventional public:: services.'" The distinction between 11expert and .. conventional IJUblic in:formation'" is neither term is defined in the Act. No studies meeting the criteria already specified were discovered. Selected Impacts of th Act Table 3-2 identifies the impacts resulting :from the Act. National Audiovisual Center Established in July 1969 as part 0 the National Archives and Records Service, the National Audiovisual Center assists Federal agencies with bibliographic control and dissemination of /L/ 0
PAGE 166
Chapter 3-21 their audiovisual products Calide sets, audiotapes, filmstrips, multi media kits, videocassettes, etc.) The clearinghouse is responsible for maintaining a master data file of audiovisual materials produced by the Government, and it produces reference tools to alert tha public of its products and services. The clearinghouse "serves as a central distribution point for the sale, rental, and, under limited conditions, free loan of these products to the public and Federal agencies" (41 g[B 101.1304). Potential Applications: -management and dissemination of audiovisual records. the obJective of the management of these records is to ensure "the effective creation, maintenance, use, and disposition of audiovisual and related records'" (41 g[B 101-11.1302). -serve "as a central information source to the general public and Federal agencies concerning the availability of Federally produced or sponsored audiovisual products" <41 CFR 101-11.1304). -compile and publish catalogs on the products in its collection. -develop criteria, terminology, and practices for the cataloging and indexing of audiovisual resources. Liaitet.iona: -the Center lacks an enforcement mechanism to ensure that it is aware of and receives all Federally produced audiovisual products, and that other agencies accept its cataloging and indexing practices. -the Center receives whatever is sent a~d does not exert quality control. -turnover in the position of liaison affects the ability of Federal agencies to comply with the Center's requirements (each agency is supposed to assign one of its offices to overaee the management of ite audiovisual activities.
PAGE 167
Chapter 3-22 C0nt.red1ct.10na: Geps: -the Center distributes public information by format, while other Federal disseminator is by information content or user demand. -the Center cannot determine ell products issued and ensure receipt of them. It must rely on agency compliance with 0MB Circular A-114 and the Standard forms 202 and 203
PAGE 168
Chapter 3-23 primary obJect1vee 0 the bill were to: reduce the information processing burden on the public and private sectors expand and strengthen Federal information management activities decrease the paperwork burden on individuals, businesses, state and local governments, and others outside the Federal government. To accomplish these obJectives the bill created a new Office of Federal Information Policy within 0MB which would be responsible for Government-wide information policy and oversight. In addition, the bill created a Federal Information Locator System, which would contain descriptions of all information requests made by Federal agencies to the public. The system would be used to identify duplication in existing or new reporting requirements, and to locate exieting information that might meet the needs of any agency that wants to collect new data
PAGE 169
Chapt.er 3-24 In:formation and Regulatory Affairs with neither the authority nor resource authorization for performing reviews of regulations. except :for assessing compliance with the Act's obJectives or reducing paperwork. To strengthen the Act, a set of amendments were introduced into the Senate on March 15, 1984 cs. 2433 > The maJor obJectives of the amendments were to: clarify and strengthen the statutory power of OIRA, enhance congressional oversight powers establish In:formation Technology Federal telecommunications and processing funds Fund combining automatic data mandate a 25 reduction in paperwork, at the rate of 5% a year for the next 5 years . The amendments were approved by Senate Committee on Government Afairs on July 26, 1984, but the final passage of the amendments is still pending
PAGE 170
Chapter 3-25 Information Locator System to serve as the authoritative register of all government information requests. -to have 0MB develop and implement Federal information policies and standards covering the reduction of Government paperwork burdens on the public, records management activites, the privacy of records on individuals, and the review of information collection requests. -to charge the Director of 0MB with: general information policy functions; information collection requests, clearance, and other functions related to paperwork control; statistical policy and coordination functions; re~ords management; privacy of information functions; and automatic data processing and telecommunications functions, except those related to intelligence, and cryptologic or military activities. -to have 0MB establish, within one audits of all maJor information Information Locator System. year, Government-wide systems and the Federal -to have 0MB develop a schedule for the elimination of duplicate information collection requests within the Federal government, establish a system for integrating information management practices, identify initiatives to improve productivity in Federal operations using information processing technology, develop a program to enforce Federal information processing standards, end revitalize the standards development program Limitations: independent regulatory agencies end the Internal Revenue Service are exempt from the provisions of the Act. -0MB will determine whether the collection of information is necessary. However, the independent regulatory agencies "may override OMB's disapproval .. by maJority vote of its members or commissioners" (5 gEB 1320.19). -the role of the OIRA as .. the authoritative register o'f all government information requests" is ill-defined. -responsibilities or information dissemination functions are inadequately addressed. -0MB is not adequately funded or staffed to carry out all of its assigned responsibilities. -0MB asserts that all information gathering regulations are subJect to three year reviews. The question is whether each agency, in fact, is reviewed on schedule and whether !S/ BEST COPY AYAILAILL
PAGE 171
Chapter 3-26 0MB has sufficient staff to carry out a detailed assessment. -0MB must grant approval for the collection of information. Approval is based on the extent to which the information has "practical utility" (5 g[B 1320.4>. The term "practical utility" means: the actual, not merely the theoretical or potential, usefulness of information to an agency, taking into account its accuracy, adequacy, and reliability, and the agency's ability to process the information in a useiul and timely ashion. In determining whether information will have "practical utility,"' 0MB will take into account whether the agency demonstrates actual timely use for the information either to carry out its functions or to make it available to the public, either directly or by means of a public disclosure or labeling requirement, for the use of persons who have an interest in entities or transactions over which the agency has Jurisdiction. In the case of general purpose statistics or r~cordkeeping requirements, 11practical utility" means that actual uses can be demonstrated (5 g[B 1320.7q). This lengthy explanation does not rule out the need to collect duplicate information. It also uses the terms "actual timely use" and "actual uses11 but defines neither. It can be assumed that, to be collected, information must have some immediate use. Contradi.ctions: -0MB prohibits the collection of duplicative information. However, 0MB recognizes that agencies need accurate, timely, and reliabile information. It is conceivable that an agency might have to collect duplicate information because the original information may not be reliable, valid, etc. The term "duplicate" merits clarification and should recognize the need for certain exceptions. -senior officials within agencies are assigned to carry out specific responsibilites. Frequent changes in these positions as well as other factors may affect the ability of an agency to fulfill the requirements. -except for independent regulatory agencies and the IRS, 0MB can determine if information will or will not be collected. An Executive agency could ask 0MB to reconsider its decision or could offer new reasons for why the 1normation must be collected. There does not appear to be an effective appeals procedure which represents .)
PAGE 172
other stckeholders, information policy. e.g., the public, Chapter 3-27 in Federal 0MB operates within an information policy vacuum. Other Federal agencies are not effectively challenging the general course which 0MB is setting. The JCP does not appear to be an effective force in the information environment. Two central issues are: .. Will 0MB fill the vacuum on a temporary or permanent basis11 and "What are the implications of the 0MB directives for the social good?" Ambiguities: -the primary emphasis of the Act is on information resource management; however, in:ormation resource management has been interpreted to include public access, bibliographic control, standardization, etc. -0MB will make its decision about which information is necessary to collect based on certain general criteria. Thia one agency has tremendous actual and potential authority over the types of information gathered by the Government and the uses of this information. Where decision making rests upon the collection, production, and dissemination of public information, 0MB exerts a significant influence or is a determining factor. Therefore, specific criteria, beyond those relating to economy in Government, must be developed. information, as used in the context of the Act and corresponding regulations, "means any statement of fact or opinion, whether in numerical, graphic, or narrative form, and whether oral or maintained on paper, magnetic tapes, or other media" (5 gEB 1320.7k). It can be assumed that statistical data comprise information. However, inclusion 0 the word .. oral" greatly expands the concept of information and is exceedingly difficult to regulate effectively. Literature Review: Title: Method: General Accounti~g Office <1983b> Implementing the Paperwork Reduction Progress, but Many Problems Remain Evaluation Report Audience: Congress and 0MB Themes: Act: Some
PAGE 173
Chapter 3-28 0MB has reported substantial reduction in the burdens
PAGE 174
Chapter 3-29 DoD Method: Evaluation Report Audience: Department of Defense, OBM, Administration and General Services Theme8: -the Federal government is taking steps to confront and resolve its inormation resources management problems, as seen by the passage of the Paperwork Reduction Act. information resources management is a new concept or some officials within the Department of Defense, and it is neither uniformly defined nor well understood. -the Act crosses organizational boundaries within the Department of Defense, and there is no clear-cut single agent assigned responsible for administration of the Act. -the maJor areas of concern within the Department of Defense or implementing the Act focus on questions of authority, scope, and bureaucratic ineiciencies. Recommendations: the Office of the Secretery 0 Defense should: -establish clo3er coordination among its offices directly involved with the implementation of the Act. -plan to work closely with 0MB, shaping the implementation of resources management program. GSA, the GAO, and Congress in Federal information take the lead in defining a uniform department-wide interpretation of the provisions of the Act. -prepare an information in-depth study on the resources management in implementation the Department. 0ice of Management and Budget Regulations of The Ofce 0 Management and Budget COMB) was established in the Executive Office 0 the President in 1970. assigned responsibilities: 0MB has as its -to assist the President in the preparation of the budget and the development of a fiscal program for the Executive Branch of Government tiEST ~OPY .\VAtLA~Lt
PAGE 175
Chapt.er-3-30 to supervise the administration of the budget -to assist the President in the effective and efficient management of the Executive Branch -to advise the President on legislation -to oversee the administration of the Reduction Act Paperwork -to assist the President in the preparation of proposed executive orders and proclamations , with special emphasis on: -Bulletin No. 81-16, "Elimination 0 Wasteful Spending on Government Periodicals, Pamphlets, end A~dioviaual Products" -Circular A-25, "User Charges" (September 23, 1959) -Circular A-3, "Government Periodicals," which covers the Executive Branch1s effort to implement 44 ~g 1108 and to
PAGE 176
Chapter 3-31 0MB approve the publication of certain periodicals Activities" -Review of Federal Publications --Reform 88
PAGE 177
-accounts management loan proc:esaing architectual and engineering services Federal library services -warehousing food services laundry services mailroom and filing services -motor pool services Chapter 3-32 Staff members of the libraries comprise one of the few professional groups scrutinized for improved productivity. Previously 0MB and the Office of Personnel Management had attempted to reclassify and downgrade Federal librarians. Clearly these measures represent a lack of understanding of librarianship and raise issues about the efficiency of the private sector in maintaining ongoing library operations. Library collec:tions, services, and management require sound planning and an ability to meet more obJectivea than those related to finAncial savings to Government.. The selection 0 the 14 c:ategor1es may well be arbitrary, 1 not discriminatory. -the Federal information environment is too large or 0MB to manage alone. However, no other agency is willing to challenge the 0MB. Apparently-the attitude is one of "wait and see;" "let's see if 0MB makes some serious mistakes, and learn from these mistakes." Such an attitude demonstrates the political strength of 0MB in the formulation and management of Federal information policies. Contradictions -the focus of the directives has been on periodicals, pamphlets, and audiovisual products. However, the application 0 the directives has extended to the entire publishing program of an agency. -bibliographic control as practiced by 0MB contradicts the JCP's interpretation of Title 44 and the proposed JCP guidelines. -0MB and the JCP disagree on Federal information policy; 0MB encourages the privatization 0 public: information while the JCP seeks compliance with Title 44.
PAGE 178
Chapter 3-33 the economic . In fact, 0MB is ignoring it when Executive agencies circumvent Title ~4 end contract services to the private sector. In some cases, it seems that 0MB is "encouraging" agencies to circumvent the letter, if not the spirit, of the Title. a vacuum exists in the formulation end management of information policy, in part because Congress does not want to challenge the Executive Branch end to see possible further erosion of its authority. Some officials from the Legislative Branch who were interviewed maintained that this may not be the appropriate time to 11:f ight information policy battles." -according to former Senator Abraham Ribicoff, "'individual agencies which cannot describe in detail their publications policies end programs --their size, their cost, their Justification for existing -are similarly incapable of deciding which publications are useful, which are propagandistic, and which serve no oficial purpose other then to seek to glori:fy their Federal agency"
PAGE 179
Chapter 3-34 -the wording of Circul~r A-3 is "coxnplex and indefinite" mairJtains "that Cicrular A-76 does not address the i~~sue of the Government providing commercial products and serviceti in the market place." With the availability o:f inormation in electronic format, the IIA is "concerned that Government J/ ~i (
PAGE 180
Chapter 3-35 agencies have attempted or will attempt to repackage information themselves in new forms or formats to provide information services to the public in direct competition with commercial vendors and developers .. , might suggest that the Government is changing some of the methods by which it communicates to the p~blic. Another implication is that the Government communicates more with the information-rich, those able to pay or information and be both articulate and forceful in their information requests to Executive Branc~ officials and Members of Congress
PAGE 181
Chapter 3-36 public. The distinguishing characteristic 0 public inormation is that the agency actively seeks, in aome aahion, to disseminate such information or otherwise make it available to the public .. <45 Federal Register 38461). This definition is exceedingly general and contains undefined words and phrases Ce.g.,"'produced, .. ""primarily," 11t:ommunicating with,.. '"educating or inf arming,'" "ts-..-:tively," and "disseminate"'). Federal agencies can interpret these anyway they choose, thereby blurring the distinction between stakeholders in the information sector. the establishment of a '"reasonable"" charge, for the use of a Government service from which "a special beneit" is received , and the balancing of this charge against other criteria (e.g., actual costs, perceived use of the information, and the social good), is difficult to accomplish. the Government shall not start or carry on any activity to provide a commercial product or service if the product or service can be procured more economically from a commercial source." (Circular A-76 revised). Clearly, the emphasis is on economic and not other factors. -a central issue relates to the extent to which 1normat1on policy should be ~he domain of the Executive Branch and to the role of the Legislative Branch. Literature Review A number of authors have examined the impact of the regulation$, memoranda, and circulars issued by 0MB on the collection, production, and dissemination of public information. Given the extensive amount of repetition among these writings, this section will only review significant studies that are representative of the literature. Title: Method: DeMuth (1984> Memorandum or Senior Officials for Information Resources Management Summary of Comments Which CMB Received N~tice 0 September 12, 1983, Soli~iting Comment on the Development of an 0MB Circular on Federal Information Mana~ement t.o Ite Public Policy
PAGE 182
Chapter 3-37 Audience: 0MB (for use in preparing a draft circular on information resources management) Themes: three issues listed for public comment generated the most comment and "controversy:" general principles of information resources management, competition with the private sector, and user charges or information products and services. -the following issues received comment primarily from Government agencies: information processing standards, interagency sharing of data processing facilities: access to alternative facilities, cost accounting procedures for data processing, least overall systems life cost, software management, long-range planning process, microcomputer technology, end-user computing and office automation, information technology for data collection, security of automated information systems, maintenance of records about individuals, maintenance of Federal records, roles of suppliers, consumers, and managers of information technology, and avoiding development of redundant administrative and management systems. Recommendations: 0MB plans to take comments on these topics when it develops the draft circular on resources management. into account in'ormation Title: Method: Audience: Themes: Florance (1984) Presidential Policy and Information Dissemination: An Analysis 0 the Reagan Moratorium on Government Publishing Survey and Case Study
PAGE 183
Chapter 3-38 examines the consequences of the moratorium on the library community and the users of these publications in depository libraries. the policy initiatives have had an unexplained impact in other areas; they have resulted in a cutback in depository distribution of scientific and professional publications. Further, publications aimed at special segments 0 the population (e.g., educators end physicians> have been curtailed. Recommendations: -the reduced availability 0 public information impedes the extent to which knowledge is advanced and restricts certain information to ":financial and political elites. It is incumbent upon the communities which use government information to express their interest and concern in a continuing dielogue with those who control Federal information policy" (p. 282). Title: Method: Gell (1981) The Ministry o:f Truth Report Essoy Audience: Library Community Themes: -most would agree with the principles of PL96-511, the Paperwork Reduction Act 0 1980. -however, 0MB should not have unprecedented statutory authority to control the low 0 Federal information. The 1mpoundment of information should not be the way to achieve the goals of the Act. -the control of information by a single entity, either public or privet is always dangerous. -the future of libraries depends largely continuation o:f :free :flow of information. Recommendations: on the develop specifications for new legislation in the library and in:formation science areas. General Accounting Ofice (1982> I I /;_. c__,.'. I --./ I
PAGE 184
Title: Method: Chapter 3-39 Federal Information Systems Remain Highly Vulnerble to Fraudulent, Wastful, Abusive, and Illegal Practice Evaluative Report Audience: Congress and Federal Agencies Themes: -this report was requested by the Subcommittee on Government Information and Individual Rights. 0MB Circular A-71, Transmittal MemorandumNo. sufficiently comprehensive to provide needed guidance to Executive agencies. 1, is not policy and central agencies have not been effective in fulfilling their information security program responsibilities. Recommendations: -revise 0MB Circular A-71, Transmittal Memorandum No. 1 to: -ensure a personal, information. reasonable level of protection over proprietary, and other sensitive -clarify the interrelationship between the Memorandum and policy and guidance on safeguarding information classified for purpose of national security. clarify the instances in which Executive agencies must afford the same level of protection against unauthorized disclosure of personal, proprietary, and other sensitive information as they do to information classified or purposes of national security. -establish policy and specific guidance for achieving a reasonable level 0 protection over those items, using telecommunications networks. -require Executive agencies to submit to 0MB new plans for establishing and maintaining a reasonable level of protection over their automated information systems. -develop procedures implementation of program plans. for ensuring their automated Executive information agencies' security fully implement other 0MB responsibilities as specified in the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980. -to coordinate the policies and guidelines, between 0MB and respective Federal agencies, for the protection of .-~ /(o ,/
PAGE 185
Title: Method: Chapt.ei--3-40 information which should not be made publicly available. He~non and McClure (1984) Impact of Federal Information Policies on Public Access to Government Publications/Information Audience: Congress, 0MB, other Federal agencies, and the Educa~ional Community.
PAGE 186
Chapter 3-41 Themes: -the article was written with respect to the Educational Amendments of 1978. -every administration has used paperwork as a political "whipping boy," and a "remedy-by-reorganization11 has invariably exacerbated the problem. -paperwork political problems are not simply technical; they and social as well. For the advocates of are the Amendments, reorganization and centralization are articles of :faith. information is organization, laden, and not value-free; the aggregation, selection, and interpretation of data are all value are related to the mission of the agency. It requires "excessive information sound knowledge and Judgments to eliminate detail and unnecessary and redundant requests." -the implication of the Amendments is that the U.S. beneite from greater efficiency in the operation of Government but at the same time the public receives greeter Governmental inter:ference in their daily lives. Recommendations: -some duplication of information is necessary, because: it provides safety actors, permits flexible responses to anomalous situations and provides a creative potential for those who are able to see it. I there is no duplication, if there is no overlap, and if there is no ambiguity, an organization will neither be able to suppress error nor generate alternate routes of action Cp. 8>. -It would be far more constructive, even under the conditions o:f scarcity, to lay aside slogans and turn attention to a principle which lessens risks without foreclosing opportunity. Title: Method: Kirachten (1983> In the Budget Trenches, 0MB Takes Aim at Government Printing Costs Report Essay Audience: Federal Agencies and the General Public 1~-~7
PAGE 187
Themes: Chapter 3-42 the information which 0MB obtained from Federal about excess press capacity and operational exceeded the expenses incurred by the GPO. agencies costs far -0MB found that <1> in many of possible closing printing sites, commercially available printing services could be obtained at significantly lower costs, <2> the maJority-of non-GPO agency presses operated at significantly higher costs than the GPO operation, and (3) costs per unit vary widely among agency print shops. privatizing Government printing needs is one of the maJor initiatives of the President's Reform 88. -the amount 0MB actually could save remains undetermined due to uncertainties. Recommendations: None Title: Method: Kuziak (1980> Bothered by Too Much Paperwork? 0MB Thinks It Hes the Answer Report Essay Audience: Fedeal Agencies, Business Community, and the Public General Themes: -some segments of the public, particularly business, which bears much of the Federal paperwork burden, reacted favorably to the 0MB regulations proposed in January 1980. However, the reactions from Federal agencies have varied significantly. the issue to be resolved is which agencies would have to operate under annual paperwork budgets. The rules proposed by 0MB would exclude the independent regularoty agencies and the Internal Revenue Service. OMB's proposed regulations would establish a Federal information locater system designed to eliminate duplicative information requests by different agencies. -the basic issue is whether 0MB can enforce its paperwork reduction effort effectively and flexibly. Recommendations: None , I '."-! '\~ I
PAGE 188
Title: Method: Chapter 3-43 Levin (1983) Access and Dissemination Issues concerning Federal Government Information Opinion Essay Audience: Federal Government and Library Community Themes: a national in:formation policy. one which is "unplanned. with little democractic participation, and less unanimity," is emerging. This policy is being developed by the private sector and supported by the Reagan administration. -new technologies "are making the current dissemination system obsolete" (p. 128>. patchwork 11 Federal policies and initiatives concerning information dissemination and access depicts a scenario rife with special interests and/or executive benign neglect11 Cp. 135). -government information is being treated more as an economic than a social good. Recommendations: -in:formation professionals must attempt Federal policies and legislation which profession and the social good. The goal and improved access to the nation's information resources" Cp. 136). to influence affect their is "continued vast Federal Office of Management end Budget (1982) Title: Method: Improving Government Inormation Resources Management Evaluative Report Audience: Congress and Federal Agencies Themes: the report highlights Federal agency efforts to improve Federal information resources management under the Paperwork Reduc~ion Act of 1980. I I ,,.,,-. '1 I
PAGE 189
Chapter 3-44 -information resources management should entai~ the management of the total information life cyrle, from collectlon to disaemination. information is an economic resource and should be managed the same as other economic resources. public information resources should be allocated in the most efficient way possible. -Federal information activities must be managed effectively and economically. The Government should impose minimal reporting requirements on the private sector. -improved information mangement will result in tangible improvements. Recommendations: -monitor the inormation resources management systems which Federal agencies set up, and take appropriate steps as suggested from reviews of these systems. -establish an incentive structure based on the application of economic theory to the improved management and allocation of Federal information resources. -evaluate the effectiveness of agency information resources management. -encourage public and congressional discussion agencies on ~heir information management activities. Roaenau (1982> Wlth Title: 0MB War on Unnecessary Government Publications Aims to Increase Efficiency. Method: Report Essay Audience: Education Community Themes: -the essay considers possible impacts of 0MB regulations on the education community. throughout Government, there seems to be a push to involve the private sector and professional associations in the publication of t1tles which they believe will receive wide distribution. -the move to cut back publishing programs is healthy and //) I I -
PAGE 190
Chapter 3-45 will lead ~o a good overall publication plan. -titles which Congress believes should be published to be exempt ram the cutbacks. ought Recommendations: None. Title: Method: Smith <1984> Inormation: Public or Private Opinion Essay Audience: Federal Government, Community Private Sector, and Library Themes: the controversy between the public and private sectors, in the dissemination a public inormation, has become .. decidedly heated11 under the Reagan administration. -librarians are concerned about the implications of Federal policies which have reduced the number end types of public inormation available. -the Reagan administration is redefining the role of the Federal government in information policy matters. -policies pursued by the Office of Management and Budget are at the center of this redefinition. Circular A-76 encouraged a 11competetive ente .. prise system" and recognizes that the Government will "rely on commercial sources to supply the products and services the Government needs ... 0MB supports the takeover of Federal information systems, products, and distribution by the private sector. '"the role of libraries in an information society is becoming less clearly defined" . The Government must recognize its responsibilities and better balance the social with the
PAGE 191
Chapter 3-46 economic good of public in-formation. Stokes <1984> Title: Federal Publications Cutbacks: Implications for Libraries Method: Audience: Opinion Essay Federal Government, Community Private Sector, and Library Themes: -President Reagan's moratorium on new government pamphlets, periodicals, and audiovisual products has generated considerable controversy in Congress, the media, and the library community. a pattern collection government. 0 and neglect is apparent in dissemination activities the in-formation of the Federal -the impact of 0MB directives on the collection and dissemination of public information is documented. -cutting data collection activities means a reduction in the number and types of government publications issued. Cutting publishing programs indiscriminately, as 0MB has done, means that gaps in knowledge 0 part of the: .s is lost and that some decision making will be based on outdated and incomplete inormation. Recommendations: -"given the social, political, and economic priorities 0 the Reagan administration, no "central directive" is needed in order to reduce the availability of government information. The effects 0 so-called "isolated events" under the present leadership have significantly restricted the flow. On the contrary, a central directive will be needed 1 the Federal government is to restore a commitment to an informed citizenry" 0MB Relaxing Efforts to Contract Out Agency Services Report Essay Readers of the Newspaper
PAGE 192
Chapter 3-47 0MB Circular A-76, for contracting out of activities or encouraging other agencies to the work, has been very controversial. Government compete for -the Reagan administration is now concentrating its efforts of 14 specific areas: automated data processing, data handling, audiovisual services, library services, and so forth. It is also having 0MB establish a clearinghouse to assist agencies in sharing information. -efforts of the Reagan administrationto expand the involvement of the private sector in information policies remains controversial. Recommendations: None National Technical Information Service The National Technical Information Service, an agency of the Department of Commerce, serves as a .. central permanent source for scientific and technical information (sponsored research, development and engineering reports, etc.> as well as source material for behavioral and some of the social sciences (e.g., business, sociology, and urban affairs). Selected doMestic and foreign reports are collected, placed under bibliographic control, and disseminated to a diverse clientele: individuals, businesses and industries, professional organizations, libraries, etc. The products and services 0 NTIS are lntended: to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of U.S. research and development, to support U.S. oreign policy goals by stimulating the social and ecoRomic growth 0 developing nations, and to increase the evailability of oreign technical information in the United States . NTIS disseminates its products in paper copy, microforms, and machine-readable form. It also manages the Federal Sotwere Center or intragovernmental distribution. Since Congress has 1-~:S .~
PAGE 193
Chapt.er 3-48 required the agency to be self-supporting or May 5, 1976. Thia eec:tion 0 the chapter will ocue on the legal mandate 0 the agency aa specified in Title 15, Chapter 23 (sections ,---;i .___ l / ,,. ,.
PAGE 194
1151-1157. Aaaesament of the Coverage in Title 15 Potential AeElications: Chapter 3-49 -serve as a clearinghouse for the collection and dissemination of selected types of information. -provide bibliographic control or such information, both foreign and domestic. -provide information to specific ~arget groups business, Government, and the gen~ral public).
PAGE 195
\ Chapter 3-50 many individuals and segments of the population are willing to pay. NTIS does not exercise quality control over publications which it collects and disseminates. publications in its date base vary significantly in quality. the The their -by legislative mandate, NTIS is charged to serve primarily business end industry. However, this constituency 1s broad end contains many segments. -any expansion of services and products related to machinereadable files must be pursued with caution. The cost of producing codebooks and training staff for sales and service could make the inclusion of some numeric and other date files prohibitive, if subsidies were not forthcoming from other Federal agencies. -no be other maJor Federal information agency is mandated as self-sustaining as NTIS. Contradictions: to -NTIS is required to protect national security while at the same time it seeks to reduce restrictions on access to classified information for business and indust~y. It can be questioned if the agency can fulfill both functions effectively. -the purposes of the GPO and NTIS ere contradictory, ambiguous, and at times self-defeating. The legislation for both seems to operate ln a vacuum 0 the other. self-sustaining pricing policies inhibit general access to NTIS products and services. -the central gap relates to the Jurisdiction NTIS in comparison to that or the GPO and other clearinghouses. Such a gap affects the extent to which a decentralized information environment can be monitored, coordinated, and strengthened. as noted.by one of the Government officials interviewed, there is approximately a 30~ overlap in the collectiqns of the GPO and NTIS. Each sets its own policies, with minimal coordination with the other. Ambiguities: -the Secretary of Commerce is authorized to call upon other departments and agencies 0 the Government to provide such available services or cooperation as he deems necessary in I
PAGE 196
carrying out However, this interpretation. Chapter 3-51 the provisions of sections 1151-1157. expectation is vaguely worded and open to -the Secretary can determine the particular method of dissemination which can be used for specific products and services. Still, the sections only specify microfilm, which is but one type of microorm. In act, NTIS has used microfiche as its means of distribution. Now it is a active disseminator of machine-readable data files. -both the GPO and NTIS share similarities in purpose and functions -the collection and dissemination of public information, and the provision of bibliographic control over this source material. -Title 44, Ynit~g t~t~~ gg~~; defines government publication but Title 15, in the sections reviewed, does not define scientific and technical information or reports. Literature Review Excluding the writings which highlight a new product or service of NTIS or provide an descriptive synopsis of its history and services, the literature analyzing the agency is exceeding small. The inclusion of another qualifier --publication since 1978 --further reduces the pool of relevant writings. Nonetheless, two writings exist and merit discussion. Title: Method: McClure (1979> Where Geest Thou NTIS and GPO? Opinion Essay Audience: Federal Government, Private Sector, and the Library Community Themes: there is a confusion of the roles and function between the GPO and NTIS. They share a similar mandate. Both collect, organize, and disseminate information produced by the Federal government. NTIS focuses on a more specialized source material and also collects on a worldwide basis. /77
PAGE 197
Chapt.er 3-52 NTIS is more aggressive than the GPO in expanding its sphere of influence. -the legal basis or NTIS consumes less than 3 pages (now i~ is less than 2 pages) 1n the United States Code as compared to the extensive legislative basis provided for the GPO. -"The legal basis for NTIS is totally .inadequate for the depth and complexity of the services which it currently prov ides < p. 88 > "While the GPO is neatly constrained within specific definitions and limitations, the NTIS has the legal basis to grow and expand without fear of overstepping its mandate --which at best i$ vague and at worst all encompassing" < p. 88 > Recommendations: eliminate the ambiguous wording in Title 15, g2g~ covering NTIS. -develop coherent and coordinated information policies or NTIS, the GPO, and other clearinghouses. -examine the duplication of services and products among clearinghouses and eliminate the duplication where necessary. -ensure that NTIS publications enter the GPO depository library program -bibliographic control efforts of the GPO and NTIS be unified. should consolidate the information dissemination services offered by the Federal government among fewer Government agencies. -in brief, Federal agencies should "develop a long range plan and timetable for the centralized organization, collection, bibliographic control, publication, and dissemination 0 Federal information. At a minimum, such a plan should address the following: Cl) identification 0 the agencies involved in information publications/dissemination and their specific responsibilities and purposes (2) recognition of an agency with the centralize and oversee all government dissemination activity authority to publication/ (3) coordination 0 bibliographic control and indexes among the various agencies I 7 > \ \, -
PAGE 198
Chapter 3-53 <4> development 0 standardized bibliographic elements for the description and accession of Government material among all agencies <5> establishment of inter-agency computerized information systems which can be accessed by the general public (6) better utilization of microform technology in the form 0 Computer Output Microfilm, etc., to reduce publication costs and increase publication availability <7> better utilization of the depository library system by non-GPO agencies as a means to disseminate government information <8> recognition that the Government does not publish/ disseminate information es an end unto itself but to inform the citizenry end provide or an informed electorate. An inter-agency plan that addresses these issues is long overdue. Given the complexity of the issues, the number of agencies involved, and the importance of the problem, DQ~ is the time to start work on such a plan'" Cp. 92). Title: Method: Purcell (1981> The NTIS Micropublishing Program Opinion Essay Audience: Federal Government and Library Community Themes: the micropublishing program of NTIS was examined in both a historical and current C1981J context. -key enabling legi9lation is highlighted. the range of current services offered is identifed. -the impact 0 the micropubliahing program on client groups is identified. library collection development for NTIS microfiche is discussed. Recommendations:
PAGE 199
Chapter 3-54 -libraries need to develop sound policies or microform technical report collections. Title 44, United States Code Government Printing Office The current chapters_. 0 Title 44 that deal with the production and dissemination of public inormation are based largely on the 1895 Printing Act. Over the years a variety of amendments and administrative actions have been made to the Title in an effort to update some of the principles and to address advancements in information technology. Despite the good intention of the past legislative and administrative remedies, they have been piecemeal and lacking coordination. The result "has been a mismatched conglomeration 0 statute and administrative fiat which is often confusing to insiders and which is virtualy incomprehensive to those unfamilier with the process." The problem stems from uncontrolled growth of Federal printing, publication, binding, distribution, storage and disposition of government publications. It is dificult for one general title to encompass all these aspects. Publications 2f !~Q, 1980, p. 18). On May 23, 1979, an ad hoc advisory committee appointed by then JCP chairman Senator Claiborne Pell contacted Federal agencies, private organizations, and individuals with interest in the provisions of Title 44, and issued a comprehensive report outlining the broad scope and complexity of Title 44 ~9Y!Q~~ Committee on Revision of Title 44, 1979). The issue areas identified by the committee include: -administration and 0 Federal information policy
PAGE 200
Chapter 3-55 -Federal printing production and procurement systems -impact of new information technology -access to and distribution of government information -depository library program pricing of government information. In early 1979, a bill was drafted in the form of H.R. and ultimately died in the 96th Congress. According to Morehead, wholesale revision of this title of the Yni~~Q gQg~ was the wrong strategy at the wrong time. Piecemeal change must indeed be effected, either by amending specific provisions of Title 44 in Congress, or administratively by revising the JCP's Government Printing and Binding Regulations. The pity of the Title 44 revision fiasco is that so many talented librarians spent so much time and eort for naught <1983, p. 43). The problem with piecemeal revision is the determination 0 which aspects to address and in what order. A further complication is that interrelationships among aspects may go unrecognized and unaddressed. Aaaaaament o! the Title and Its Proposed Revision: Potential AEElications: The maJor topics covered by the H.R. 4572 were:
PAGE 201
Chapter 3-56 -modernization of the Government Printing Office and its incorporation into the National Publications 0ice CNPO). -creation of a commission consisting of a full-time presidentially appointed chairman and six part-time members, who will act as NPO's board of directors to shape national policy related to the production and dissamination of public information. tHe abolition of the Joint Committee on Printing Government-wide coordination is necessary for the effective and efficient provision of public 1norrnation. The provisions of Title 44 should be related to other laws and regulations, e.g., the Administrative Procedures Act, the Freedom of Information Act, the Federal Privacy Act, and 0MB directives and circulars
PAGE 202
Chapter 3-57 egencies with little incentive to comply with the Title. Contradictions: -0MB stipulates that '"the Federal government shall rely upon the depository library system to provide free citizen access to public inormation11 states that .. each component of the Government shall furnish the Superintendent of Documents a list of such publications it issued during the previous month .. .. many agencies fail to do so. The result is that the maJority of Federal agencies know little about what information they create and publish. -the notion of access to public information is an important consideration throughout Title 44. However, the lack of bibliographic control over the information each Federal agency creates signifies that the public must rely heavily on commercially produced information retrieval services and that a large amount of public information will go unident1f1ed. Further, public information may not be distributed through the depository library program. -the NTIS GPO is self-sustaining at the document level is self-sustaining at the program level. while the GPO and JCP permit waivers to GPO publishing
PAGE 203
Chapter 3-58 the development and maintenance of electronic data files and non-traditional printing. The Executive Branch is clearly taking advantage of loopholes and inconsistencies in Title 44 which define a government publication and printing. the Executive Branch views Title 44 certain types and formats of public maps and machine-readable data files>. as not covering information (e.g., -the provision of bibliographic control over Qublicetions is not the same as providing bibliographic control over the information in the publication. -other information disseminators may engage in independent agreements and bypass the GPO and JCP. The Bureau of the Census, for example, may enter into Joint statistical agreements if all parties participate equally. -because Federal which Title 44 responsibility diffuses over various govenment entities, there is no single source would be accountable for the implementation of the Title's revisions. -"failure of the 1980 National Publications Act to consider the ramifications of the changes in labor-management relations es provided for by the Act, the leek of strict distribution guidelines, and the inability to put e price tag on the bill. Ambiguities: -the definition of government publication currently in Title 44 is general and does not reflect adequately the impact of technology upon Government publishing, the various ormats in which public inormat1on is produced and the methods that agencies use to distribute their publications. Title 44 revision attempted to clarify the term but used an expansive definition which also is ambiguous: The term Government eublicetion means any publication, document, form, machine-readable data file, microform, audio or visual material, or other similar matter, reproduced by printing or other means fore Government entity and or official use of e Government entity. The definition also states that: Any materiel which is developed, created, or produced either by, or under the direct aegis of the Federal Government, end which is reproduced in multiple copies by the government, shall be a Government eublicetion subJected to the distribution requirements of this title.
PAGE 204
Chapter 3-59 As this definition illustrates, it is difficult, if not impossible, to develop a def"nition which is all inclusive and predict every type of publication. Further, some groups favor a narrow definition, which others prefer an expansive one. This fact illustrates the political nature of attempting to legislate a definition based on consensus. -Section 1902, Title 44, United States Code, states: government publications except those determined by their issuing components to be required for official use only or for strictly administrative.or operational purposes which have no public interest or education value and publications classified for reasons of national security, shall be made available to depository libraries. However, this stipulation leaves discretion to the issuing agency and does not define key terms such as "educational value." -in March 1977, Senator Howard W. Cannon, chairperson of the JCP, wrote a letter to the Public Printer granting authorization for the GPO micropublishing program and for conversion to microfiche. However, the concept of a microform sales program was expressly prohibited. However, microfiche titles appear in the GPO sales program. -the definition of government publication in 44 Yg 1901 is "informational matter published as an individual document at Government expense or as required by law." However, what is meant by "an individual document" is open to interpretation. It might be noted that the Health Care Financing Administration has decided that the publication Medicare ParticiQating Phisician/SUQQlies Directory is not a Government funded publication and, therefore, does not meet the Title 44 definition of a government publication. The publication will not be distributed to depository libraries. As is evident, loopholes to the Title 44 definition prevent depository distribution of ell "government publications." -the GPO wants to interpret the present definition of government publication in Title 44 as broadly as possible. On the other hand, the Executive Branch wants to assign e narrow definition to the term and to exploit loopholes and contradictions currently existing in the Title. for pricing of GPO sales publications are The GPO cannot strictly adhere to the -cost factors amibiguous. stipulation determined that the price "be based on the cost as by the Public Printer plus 50 percent" <44yg /ex--S l ./
PAGE 205
Chepter 3-60 1708). Costs related to warehousing, etc. are difficult to ascerte1n, end the sales potential of e title cannot be prec1sely determined. "The purpose of the 50 percent factor C.1n pricing GPO sales publications) was unclear because of the imprecise definition of cost" . "A catch-22 for Government agencies is their powerlessness over the sales 0 their own publiceitons. GPO, not the agencies, sets the prices of publications and collects the money for their sale. Agencies see no tangible return for their publications efforts and little incentive to promote sales" < DeMuth, 1983, p. 4 > -GPO sales publications ere priced to recover costs but at what cost to the public? -cost data on which to base the price of GPO sales publicetions are not fully reliable end do not benefit from marketing studies to determine demand . since 0MB does not regard legislative revision of Title 44 as eminent, it believes that it should .. develop policy guidance on user fees for information products and services that might not be covered by Title 44 . In particular, 0MB has in mind those computer based information resources which are available to the public
PAGE 206
Chapter 3-61 ell tt'lle 1.nforma-:.ion?11 0MB has stated that "'the Federal government shall rely upon the depository library system to provide free citizen access to public information . However, many publications do not enter the system and the system receives only selected formats of public inormation. Further, there is significant variation among Federal agencies concerning their participation in the depository program. For a detailed assessment of the program see Hernon and McClure < 1984 > Ad Hoc Advisory Committee on Revision of Title 44 (1979) Title: Method: Federal Government Printing and Publishing: Policy Issues Evaluative Report Audience: Congress, Federal Agencies, Community GPO,. and the Library Themes: -the problem with Title 44 stems from the uncontrolled growth 0 its contents; revision of the Title is long overdue. -the purpose of this advisory committee is to identify the maJor issues and policy questions involved in revising the Title by soliciting comments from Federal agencies, pr1vate industry, trade associations, labor unions, the library community, and other interested groups. the six topics analyzed by the committee were: -possibility or desirability of centralizing the Federal government's printing and publishing program -accessibility of public roles and relationships private disseminators information, and between public the and -impacts of new technology on the printing and dissemination systems Government's role of the depository library program in providing public access to public information !&7
PAGE 207
Chapter 3-62 establishment of a single entity in the Federal government that would responsible for implementation and administration of national information policy -cost of public information and role of the marketplace. Recommendations: with regard to the administration of information policy: -Congress should establish a workable, enforceable 7 information policy that encompasses the entire Government. -administrative decisions should be "reviewable.11 -administrative framework accommodate technological, should be flexible in order to political, or social changes. the role 0 Congress and Executive agencies in formulating and administering information policies should be clarified. -the role 0 the private sector in disseminating Government generated information should be made clear. -the right of the public to have access to information should be insured. public ~ith regard to the Federal printing production and procurement system: -the role of the public and private sectors in producing Government printing and the system of producing and procuring Government printing, including the issue of centralized and decentralized control, should be ully considered. with regard to the impact of new technology: -the responsibility of Government to plan or the use of technology, including the need or standards and the compatibility 0 components; the effects 0 automation on the private and public sectors, including the labor market; the cost of technology; and the effects of technology on traditional definitions, e.g., "duplicating" and "printing" should be identified in the revision of Title 44. with regard to access to and distribution of government information: -the role of Govenment in providing access to its
PAGE 208
Chapter 3-63 information and the specific types of information to be dissemenated: the diversity and op~rat1on of the dissemination systems which provide direct anu indirect access to government information: the public's rign~ to free access to Government information and the need for protection from Government propaganda; the specific types of bibliographic systems which serve as access tools; the role of the private sector in providing access: the usefulness of the marketplace in determining user needs: and the interrelationship between the public and private sectors, including the responsibilities of Government to the private sector should be addressed. with regard to the depository library program: -the role of the depository library program in providing public access to government information; the types of information to be distributed; the administration of the depository library program; Federal fiscal support for the depository library program; and the responsibilities of Federal agencies to participate in the depository library program should be considered. with regard to the pricing of government information: -overall role of the Federal government in pricing its information, including pricing alternatives; the role of the private sector in disseminating and marketing government informati~n, including specifically the role of the marketplace: the competing methods and systems of pricing government information inside and outside Government, between different units of the Government, and between the Government and private sector; and the relationship between the public and private sectors in disseminating government information should be considered in any revision of Title 44. Title: Met.hod: Phillipe (1980) Recodifying Title 44, Y~!~~g geg~: the National Publications Act of 1980 Opinion Eae.ay Audience: Congress, GPO, and Federal Agencies Themes: -protected by vested interests and an entrenched bureaucracy, the GPO, for a number of years, has eluded attempts to install modern management techniques for printing, binding, and distribution of the many thousands /S c; /
PAGE 209
Chapter 3-64 of Federal government publications provided annually. -the chapters of Title 44 governing printing policies are virtualy unchanged ram the Printing Act of 1985, and thus have little relevance to the contemporary world of new information technology. specific statutory definitional criteria -without applicable governmental relic that to modern printing technology or to current structures, the JCP has become an anomalistic has no place in any realistic approach to Governmental printing reform. under current provisions of Title 44,. there is no administrative appeal from arbitrary or capricious actions by GPO officials, no opportunity to provide comments or propose new regulations, and little chance for concerned citizens to help bring about needed reorms. -the National Publications Act of 1980 The Review of Title 44, gQg~ Opinion Essay ."~'lt;\j 4-l.;t} I
PAGE 210
l Audience: Library Community Themes: Chapter 3-65 -revision of Title 44 is not merely concerned with the quality and extent 0 current GPO activities; an attempt is being made to delineate the philosophy which is to be the basis or the future inormation generation and dissemination activities of the Federal government. key issues in revision 0 the Title are: -the extent of the Federal involvement in the generation and of public information. government"s dissemination -the role of the Federal government, and of the GPO in light 0 the development of activities engaged in by the information industry. -the extent of Federal financial support depository library program to provide access to public inormation. Recommendations: to the improved -the creation of a national depository agency to serve as the central coordina~ing unit for the depository library 9rogram. -the eetebliahment, under that agency, 0 a national depository library, maintaining a permanent collection of all Government-generated publications and having both reproduction and interlibrary loan capabilities. -improved bibliographic control over the reports literature and the elimination of multiple bibliographic catalogs. -the creation of a central sales agency for all government publications. strengthening the service capabilities of libraries and providing Federal funding for activities. depository depository -increased coverage for the GPO"s ~2nth!l g~t~!Q9 -continuation and expansion of the GPO micropublishing program. /9/
PAGE 211
Chapter 3-66 Schwerzkop <1982) Title: Method: Audience: Depository Libraries and Public Access Historical Research and Opinion Essay Federal Government and the Library Community Themes: "the depository library program is a library program. MaJor changes in the program have been by the library community to meet its requirements for the benefit of its clientele 37 >. initiated ini tiate.d particular (p. -the bills introduced into the 96th Congress proposed maJor changes in the depository program expanding the formats of materials available on and the definition of government publication>. (1978) (e.g., deposit -the bills went beyond the scope of Title 44 and attemp~ed to formulate an overall Federal information policy. -the Federal government does not regard the program as a maJor program for the provision public access to government information. depository of free Recommendations: -none offered; however, the article analyzes the legislative intent of key bills and public laws. Title: Method: Schwarzkopf (1984> The Proposed National Depository Agency and Transfer of the Public Documents Library to the National Archives Historical Research and Opinion Essay Audience: Federal Government and Library Community Themes: -the ultimate cause 0 the failure of H.R. 5424 was the "use of Title 44 as a vehicle or developing a Federal information policy... Information policy is the ~esponsibility of Congressional committess such as the Ceimmittee on Government Operations, and "printed publications are Just one, although an important facet of overall information policy.. Cp. 39). ( /,-_, 7 --I t_.,---. {
PAGE 212
Chapter 3-67 -the Committee on Government Operations has not adequately involved in the consideration of this The Committee, along with 0MB, at that time, concentrating on passage of the Paperwork Reduction < 1980 > been bill. were Act Recommendations: further attempts t6 revise Title 44 must be based on a realization that in:formation pol icy "goes. beyond printing and impinges on the turf of more powerful Congressional committees, as well as a number of Federal executive agencies" . if depository librarians attempt to revise the Title and include theee other formats, they must be aware that the interests o:f these other Congressional committees will be affected. -experiences gained :from attempting to pass the National Publications Act should provide an invaluable lesson for future attempts to revise Title 44. Title 44 Revision due for House Review (1980> Title: Title 44 Revision due :for House Review Method: Report Article Audience: Library Community Themes: -the term "government document" has been changed to 11government publication", which includes printed matter, microforms, audio or visual presentations, and machinereadable data files. This definition exempts matter that "is required for internal administration or operational purposes only," and thus, it raises the possibility that administrative publications having potential public interest and made available through the depository program may no longer be distributed. -the provision that audio or visual materials be made available to depositories only on a loan basis has been amended to provide that long-term loans may be made to libraries that have programs that Justfy maintenance of selective collections of audiovisual materials, -one provision recommended by librarians, which was not
PAGE 213
Chapter 3-68 acted upon, was the suggestion to incorporate a system of regional depositories to provide an incermediate levei of service to selective depositories. Recommendations: None Other Legislation and Regulations In a letter dated February 16, 1982, Robert S. Willard of the IIA identified key legislation and court cases to support his conviction that the National Library of Medicine was violating the law in its marketing of information products and services below their real cost. Central to his argument was section 483a, (a)ny work, service, publication, report, document, benefit, privilege, authority, use, franchise, license .. or similar thing of value or utility, performed, furnished, provided, granted, prepared, or issued by any Federal agency .. shall be sel-suecain1ng to ~he uli extent possible, and the head of each Federal agency is authorized by regulation to prescribe therefore such fee, charge~, or price to be air and equitable taking into consideration direct and indirect cost to the Government, value to the recipient, public policy or interest served, and other pertinent facts. Therefore, when the Government confers an economic benefit on a commercial entity, it must recover a fee based on the cost and 11value to the recipient'" '"in order that the activity be selfsustaining to the full extent possible"
PAGE 214
Chapter 3-6g which he derives a special benef'it"
PAGE 215
Chapter 3-70 Conclusions This chapter has provided an analysis of significant Federal legislation and regulations related to the provision of public information. It has shown that Title 44, United States gQ9, attempts to serve as a foundation for information policy but that it is outdated and in need of revision. However, the Federal strategy for accomplishing this revision is unresolved. Recent experience has underscored the problems in attempting either a complete or piecemeal revision. The Chadha decision and interpretations of the Justice Department have complicated the ability of Congress to mandate policy for another branch of Government. Figure 3-1 identifies the primary stakeholders in the development of Federal information policy. diverse array of stakeholders at this time, Although there is a three have perhaps the greatest significance. First, the Office of Management and Budget represents the interests of the Office of the President in information resource management and economy in Government. 0MB is the key player and appears to have the support of the second stakeholder --the for-profit information sector. This sector is using 31 United States Code 483a as a foundation from which to emphasize its mandate for taking over Federal ventures which are or have the potential to be selfsustaining. Such a statute signifies that the Executive Branch and the private sector will continue to exploit loopholes and contradictions in Title 44 for their own ends. The Committee on Printing is the third maJor stakeholder. I Joint As this
PAGE 216
rISu~.: 3-l EXA~:i .. t:s OF P~lf!'IA~Y S;Ai\E~'-.!)E1S :.\ Tr,C: DEvE_GJ:r.c:, "." o; ;::}: iA ... l.\-:=-:i~r-1L C;\ ;o:..::v Feceral ~on-Fee era~ ------------Exec~t~ve Srancn --------Off 1ce cf !l':ar,a;et:iert ano &uc:e-.; ~at1or.a. :ec;.~:ca! I r,for!l'.at ion Serv1:e ~at1onai Cor.~:ss1on on Lioraries ano ~a-.:icnal Bur-eau of Star:caros ~a-.:iono: ~iorary of i':ec:c1 ~E Department of Agr1cu:ture Office of Telecoornun1catior:s ~a:1ona: Te: eco,:rr. ;,mca 1; 1 O!'!S ana Information Acm1 ni st rat 1 or, etc. -----------------------------Le;islative Branc, Inoeoencer.t Agencies Joint Comrr::ttee c,r, Prinnn; Feceral C.Jr,1r.1...m:cat1ons Ceiim1ss1c1r1 Sovernll'.ent Printing Office Coor.~1-,;tee on Government Goe""a-:1c:r.s Office cf iecnno~o;y Assessrnerit etc. etc. Information lnc\.!~try Assoc1at1on S~ii<~, C~ITiO~ De~1tory 1.1orar1es etc. Prof ess!or;al Assoc1a't ic.ris -L10rary arc Inforra: :er: 5-c1en::e (Amer1car1 .. EJary Assoc., S:,ec1al Ll~ranes e~:.; -A.n:e~~ca~1 f,...,,. !ia(:a~~!",~ P.sso-:1at1on e-,;c,
PAGE 217
Chapter 3-71 chapter has emphasized, the JCP is perceived by a number of individuals in both the Executive and Legislative branches as a weak player, the past,, one linked to printing policies and practices of rather than information policies for the future. Both Title 44 and T.itle 15 illustrate that there is .no single corpus of law to coordinate agency activities, eliminate ambiguities in Federal information policies, or clarify the oftentimes confusing and contradictory array of services that agencies provide. The Paperwork Reduction Act, combined with the desire of the Reagan administration and Congress to reduce Federal spending and to take into account the needs and interests of other stakeholders in the information sector to make Government more efficient, have served as the central focus for the development of current information policies. The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 has set the tone for current Federal information policy. The Act focuses on information management and assigns specific responsibilities to 0MB. Using this Act and specific directives, 0MB has placed economy in Government and the role of the private sector as central issues in Federal information policy Many members of Congress also concerned about economy in Government support greater efforts to reduce Federal spenciing and the size 0 publishing programs. The DeConcini amendment to the Deficit Reduction Act of 1984 authorized 0MB to seek further reductions in Federal publishing and other areas. It would seem that concern about the size of the Federal deficit, coupled with the reelection of Ronald Reagan as President, will spark attempts in 1985 to further cut Federal /) f Ci V ( I !)
PAGE 218
Chapter 3-72 spending. Federal information policy will undoubtedly continue to shaped by information resource management and economy 1n Government. Review of the eight laws and regulations analyzed in this chapter indicates some similarities when their gaps, limitations, and contradictions ere explored. Clearly, t~ey reflect a need for bibliograhic cont~ol over Government publishi~g and a concern for increased economy in Government. It would seem that economy is stressed over issues such as the social good of public information, in part because costs are easier to identify and address 1n a budget driven environment. Issues are raised about limiting the availability of public information and access to this information. As the GPO and the clearinghouses become more selective in the information which they distribute, physical access to public information becomes more complex; those able to invest time and money in obtaining information and those familiar with the structure and functions of each agency can negotiate the information maze more effectively that others. The Federal government is also placing greater emphasis on the availabi~ity of information in formats other than paper. This trend has significant implications for public access and use of public information. Pricing policies of the clearinghouses (including the GPO) and the initiation of, or increase in, user fees effect public access. The message is clear: the Government emphasizes information management and economy in operation of Federal agencies. Nonetheless, the volume of annual publication
PAGE 219
Chapter 3-73 is still staggering and public access to the wealth of information is inhibited. Recommendations From the detailed examination of specific legislation and regulations, five general areas for policy recommendations are suggested: policies, Cl) a review of the United States Code, <2> pricing (3) information policies --their coordinations and intent, (4) information dissemination policies, and <5> economic versus social good. Each of these areas is discussed in more detail issues in Chapter 4, related to which identifies and discusses the Government's provision of information and the role of information technology to policy public enhance public access. The policy recommendations offered here are based on the discussion of contradictions, gaps, and ambiguities in the previously analyzed Federal legislation and regulations. Appendices 4-1 through 4-9 list selected information policy issues associated with the Government's provision of public information and use of information technologies. United Stet Code An examination of the principles guiding the GPO suggests that Title 44.does not adequately reflect the present and future of public information production and dissemination. It is linked to the past, in particular the 1895 Printing Act. The definition of printing, government publication, and the type of public information resources distribution are limited and available outdated. The for depository definition of printing also does not cover copying and duplicating technology.
PAGE 220
Chepter 3-74 Studies might be commissioned to probe GPO's legal foundation and that of various clearinghouses. The research could identify options and models, and offer a foundation from which hearings and new legislation could be advanced. One weakness to Title 44 revision was its apparent intent only to provide a geneial f'ramework, which wes subJe7t to change and represented a sharp break with the past; no adequate rationale for_the change was advanced. Perhaps the intent was to fill in the gaps through administrative law. At any rate, research and development studies are needed to avoid these pitfalls and to set criteria by which the most viable political, economic, and technological dissemination mechanisms can be implemented. Pricing Public information is becoming nn expensive resource --too expensive for meeting inormation needs of some user segments. It may be counterproductive to enhance bibliographic and physical access to information, when the cost of the information is beyond whet the public is willing or able to pay. Pricing policies of Federal agencies and clearinghouses should be reviewed and brought better into line with the role of Government as a communicator to those governed. Some stakeholders in the information sector such as the IIA and the SPIRIT Coalition suggest that the Government must consider all costs incurred in the development, production, and dissemination of public information. If this, in fact, occured, pricing for public information would drastically change. How information is priced is crucial to its access and availability.
PAGE 221
Chapter 3-75 Information Policies--Their Coordination and Intent Since the Federal government maintains a decentralized information environment, the concept of a national information policy may be simplistic and unrealistic. There are numerous pieces ,:, legislation and regulations related to informat~on policies, as reflected in Appendix 3-1. These policies merit review and coordination, beyond the emphasis placed by the Paperwork Reduction Act and 0MB. The information policies of the GPO, NTIS, and other clearinghouses must be reviewed to examine areas of similarity and to bring together the various goals of these clearinghouses. For example, section 501 of Title 44, United States Code, specifies that the GPO will do all printing for the Government, with certain exceptions; provision is not strictly followed. Gaps and loopholes in the the public laws should be assessed and their implications to public access and economy in Government identified. Ct:::!".ge would ultimately require extensive negotiation of vested interests and historical tradition. Disseminetion Dissemination mechanisms for public information are quite diverse. The central issues relate to how much public information is disseminated and the efectiveness and efficiency of the means of dissemination. I fewer titles are entering the sales program 0 the GPO and if the Government is reviewing dissemination mechanisms to enhance the economy of information flow, the implications for public access must be evaluated. There is clear need for investisation and legislation which
PAGE 222
Chapter 3-76 cuts across the dissemination activities of individual agencies in a branch of Government. At the same time, the role of 0MB in this process merits review. Information management must balance economy in Government with criteria such as the social good. These criteria must be identified and not subJect to_ a myriad of interpretation. Cost-benefit analysis is complex, but the benefits of information policies, sources, and services must be determined and given proper attention. Economic versus Social Good Current information policies and practices will have "longterm effects on how and at what cost the knowledge base of the United States is built"
PAGE 223
Chapter 3-77 Information Technology> comprise a very effective lobby. They maintain that the private sector should distribute public information and that the Government should be the publisher of .. last resort ... Since the public~s interest is not represented by a similar lobbying group; it becomes even more difficult to balance social goals against private interests or partial cost The issues of economy in Government have afforded 0MB an
PAGE 224
Chapter 3-78 excellent opportunity to move effectively into the formulation and administration of Federal information policy, to challenge policy interpretations which the JCP has rendered, and to characterize the JCP as linked to past printing practices. By unde~scoring the political aspect of Federal information poli~y, 0MB has dramatically disclosed the current policy vacuum which exists. Apparently 0MB is the only Federal agency, a'i:. present, eble to fill the void. An extensive list of limitations, contradictions, gaps, and amibiguities for the eight pieces of Federal legislation and regulations was identified. Taken collectively the list virtually encompasses all the principle themes and policy issues identified in Figure 4-1. Only the theme "privacy, security, and copyright of Government provided public information" and its six policy issues were not covered; however~ their analysis was beyond the scope of this report. The section of this chapter entitled 11recommendat1ons11 identified five general areas for policy recommendations: ( 1) a review of the ~~!~9 States Code, in particular Title 44, (2) pricing policies, (3) the coordination and intent of information policies, (4) information dissemination policies, and (5) the economic versus social good. Each of these areas requires additional research, investigation, and legislative action. The next chapter will ofer specific recommendations for addressing policy issues.
PAGE 225
CHAPTER 4 REVIEW, ANALYSIS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF POLICY ISSUES Thia chapter reviews significant policy iaauea related to Federal provision of public inforaation and effects of technology on the provision of thia inforaation. The first section presents an overview of the literature related to both policy areas and a suggested typology for conceptualizing and addressing the issues which they raiaep The second aection identifies significant policy iaaues, provides a brief description of each issue, offers strategy nptiona for resolving that issue, and analyses the iaplications of the options. The third section exaaines options presented in the second aection, auggeata three policy strategies, and analyses those strategies. The concluding section assesses Governaent provision of public inforaation fro the perspective of the user. Definitions of key teras such as "public inforaation", "Governaent provision of public inforaation", "public access", .. legislation and regulations", "stakeholders in the inforaation sector", and "effects of technology" have been presented in previous chapters. Throughout this report, the tera "policy issue" is defined as a topic whose resolution is in dispute aaong various stakeholders in the inforaation sector. An issue exists because aoaewhere there ia a threatened shift in the relative distribution of the existing power structure or other potential changes in the present distribution of resources"
PAGE 226
4-2 "Policy'' is aeant to describe a particular set of views, based on a set of assuaptions or values which direct specific types of procedures and activities. The literature exaained for the previous chapters identified various policy issues related to effects of technology on Federal provision of public inforaation. Soae of the aore useful sources that specifically listed policy issues have been included as Appendices appendices list a total of 269 policy issues. 4-1 through 4-9. These nine Although aany of the relate to !!!!!!!r topics, there are surprisingly few that are g!r!St duplications of each other. Rather, the various policy issues tend to extract or eaphasize unique aspects of basic theaes. For exaaple, the policy issues fro the National Coaaission on Libraries and Inforaation Science's National Inforaation Polici (1976> lists 15 broad areas of recoaaendations (see Appendix 4-1>. The Ad Hoc Advisory Coaaittee on Revision of Title 44 (1979) lists over 100 issues related, apecifically, to the revision of Title 44 of the Y~~ ~Qg! (see Appendix 4-2>. Kany of these serve to detail and specify the broader issues included in Appendix 4-1. A different vantage point ia represented in the policy issues which Lacey listed in Inforaation Science and Technologi Act of 1981 . Although these issues relate to Governaent provision of public inforaation, they eaphaaize the concerns of the for-profit inforaation sector for exploiting inforaation technology as a coaaodity in the aarketplace. A aiailiar eaphaais can be found in the issues listed in the report fy~!! Sector/Private Sector Interaction in Providing Inforaation !rY!g!~ and included as Appendix 4-4. Thie report lists seven principles and 27 recoaaendatione, which, if slightly re-worded, can be construed as policy issues.
PAGE 227
4-3 The issues which Chartrand and Carr identified in ~Q!eYt!r ~~!!g Inforaation Slsteas and !r!!!! for Rural Aaerica . A siailiar perspective is shared in a proposed policy stateaent fro the Office of Manageaent and Budget <1983a> regarding "topics" related to Federal inforaation aanageaent (see Appendix 4-9>. Representative Glenn English, Chairperson of the Subcoaaittee on Governaent Inforaation, Justice, and Agriculture identified 31 very specific issues related to the establishaent of electronic fili~g systeas with special attention given to the Federal contracting of the design and iapleaentation of such aysteas by private contractors . These 31 issues offer an excellent perspective on policy issues related to Federal inforaation aysteas and public access, responsibilities of the Federal governaent versus contractors, aonopoly of Federal inforaation, and other concerns. The Ad Hoc Coaaittee on Depository Library Access to Federal Autoaated Data Bases identified ten itisues related to the transfer of electronic data to depository libraries . Finally, the authors of this report, as part of their "Detailed Outline" identified 16 broad areas of policy issues for the Office of Technology Assessaent (see Appendix 4-8>. An itea-by-itea analysis of the 269 policy iasues listed in Appendices 4-1 through 4-9 was done to assess the scope, topics, and duplication aaong these various policy issues. Figure 4-1, which offers an overview of these issues, suggests nine principal theaes identified throughout the sources reviewed. The figure lists representative CBQt coaprehensive> and significant sub-topics for each of the ~ine. An analysis of the issuus included in Appendices 4-1 through 4-9 as well as additional sources reviewed for this report, suggests the following:
PAGE 228
INTERACTION BET~'EEN GOVER~ENT AND TECHNOLOGY FIGi.iRE 4-1 OVERVIEW OF NATIONAL INFORMATION PC'~ICY ISSUES RELATED TO THE 60VERNi"F...NT PROVISION OF PUBLIC INFORMATION AS IDENTIFIED IN RECENT STUDIES (SEE APPENDICES 4-1 THROUGH 4~} t INTERACTION BETWEEN GOVERNMENT AND OTHER STAKEHOLDERS INT~ I~FORf!IATION SECTOR NATIONAL INFORMATION POLICY 60VERNfl!ENT COLLECTION, TRANSFER, AND DISSEMINATION OF PUBLIC INFORMATION STRUCTURE AND ORGANIZATION QF THE SOVERNMENT PRICING OF GOV, PROVIDED PUBLIC INFORJIIATION prOIIOtior. of research coaioetition between rel~ted to information government and other intra-gov2rnmental transfer of public information locus of authority -value of inf. for coordinating/ as a CODIOdity technologies stakeholders regulating inf, definitions of ownershio of new advancements in inf. technology if funded by the Goverriment resoonsibility for providing value added enhanceaents ty9E?S of inf. to be collected, organized and disseminated oolicies coordination with state and local 11cost recovery -use of 6ovmt. subsidies and res00nsibility for contractor/submitor governaer,t s i ncent i ves selection of inf. technologies to be used by the Sovmt, collecting, organizing, resoonsibilities centralized versus imoact of fees disseminating Nhat electronic data files decentrlaized inf. on access tyoes of public inf. to which user segments STANDARDS AND CONPATABILITY OF GOVERNMENT INFORMATION SERVICES AND PRODUCTS what speci fie areas are to be included for staridards responsibility for standards developaent -bibliographic control issues ..... tlnternat1onal issues are not included. ROLE OF THE 6PO AND Tl DEPOSITORY LIBRARY PROORAM -revision of Title 44, us~ role of GPO as printer or puttlisher enforcement responsibilities relationships Mith other 6ovnt. depository progra.115 -types of information and formats to be included oolicy develocment Executive versus Legislative controls PUBLIC INFORMATION AND INFORMATION GATHERING BEHAVIORS -value of information as a social good Gom. resoonsibility to increase awareness and do aarketing availabilty versus access role of libraries determining specific user segment inf. needs for specific types of public information resDOnsibility for public information orovi~;ion to user segments that are di senfranchi zeci 11 PRIVACY, SECURITY, AND COPVRISHT OF GOVERNMENT PROVIDED PUBLIC INFORfllATI~ responsibility for disclosure systems criteria for anonyminity of data and users ownership of types of public information at various stages of service or product enhancement procedijralizing First r.iendment protect ion 11aintenance of accurate and reliable data -control of Nho gets access to what types of oublic information under what situations ;)--.{) 7
PAGE 229
4-4 the sources identify siailiar QtQ!9 tb!!!! of policy issues (see Figure 4-1> surprisingly little duplication exists aaong specific policy issues; each issue tends to eaphasize detailed, unique !eggt! of the broader theaea the sources give relatively little attention to issues related to: a. the role of the nation's libraries in the Governaent'a provision of public inforaation b. user segaent inforaation needs and gathering behaviors for public inforaation the issues tend to becoae aore "technologically" driven as opposed to "user" or "huaanistic" driven with the passing of tiae the degree to which one policy issue can be isolated in teras of its iapact on other policy issues is ainiaal In general, there has been little progress since the study by Porat (1977, vol. 1, pp. 214-239) in developing detailed typologies of the issues, using sophisticated aethods to organize and relate policy issues, or producing better aethods of clarifying the iaaues. One is left with the sense that every policy issue is <1> part of both a larger and aaaller issue, and <2> before resolution of any one policy issue can be accoapliahed, resolution of another ia necessary. In short, there is no lack of aourcea and publications that list specific iaauea related to Governaent provision of public inforaation. Indeed, the 269 issues listed in the appendices of this chapter provide an excellent overview of the nature, coaplexity, and relatedness of these issues. Fui'ther, the publications froa which these issues were culled have spent literally .ti hundreda of pages atteapting to describe thea, and in aost cases, urge the J_ '() L' I
PAGE 230
4-5 Congresa to take action for their resolution. In a suaaary chapter auch as this, no atteapt can be aade to review and offer options for all the issues that have appeared in the literature. However, baaed on the review of.the sources used in previous chapters, a selection of the aoat significant issues can be presented. The authors used the following criteria to assess which of the initial 269 issues were aost "sigrtificant:" frequency with which the issue has been raised in the various sources exaained breadth of tiae over which the issue has retained attention potential for producing significant changes aaong existing responsibilities of Federal agencies for the collection, organization, storage, retrieval, and disseaination of public inforaation The authors reviewed this initial liat of significant issues and added to it stgnificant issues identified in Chapters 1-3 of this report. The resulting pool of issues were then assessed in teras of the following criteria: potenti~l for producing significant changes in Federal power relationships potential for producing significant changes in power relationships aaong non-Federal stakeholders in the inforaation sector potential for increasing access to public inforaation potential for exploiting inforaation technologies potential iapact on existing legislation and regulations Thia asaessaent identified fourteen significant issues which are suaaarized in Figure 4-2. These criteria have been developed by the authors aa a aeans of assessing iapacts fro the policies and have been adapted fro a discussion by House <1982, pp. 230-231). Further, the criteria are intended to eaphasize <1> the :J__ I/ BEST COP't AVAll.ABI.L
PAGE 231
FIGURE 4-2 SUMMARY OF SISNIFICANT ISSUES DISCUSSED Federal Oroanization for Information Policies 1. Should the Federal 6overn11ent have centralized or decentralized development of information policies? 2. Should formal mechanisms be established that encourage continuing dialogue about Federal information policy a110ng the various stakeholders in the information sector? 3. What is the role of the Office of Management and Budget in the develo0111ent and 1anagement of informahor, policies? Relationship between the Federal Government and other Stakeholders in the Infor111ation Sector 4. What responsibilities does the Federal goverrvnent have for legislating and regulating c::=cess to oublic information? S. How can adequate bibliographic control be maintained over government orovided public information? 6. Should Federal information activities be administered~~ a 1businessu or as a public service? Information Technology 7. Should the Federal government emohasize the use of various information technologies as a means of collecting, organizing, and dis~m1nating public information? 8. What criteria should be followed by the 6overM1ent Nhen selecting information technologies for use in the provision of public infoniation? 9. To what degree is the Federal government responsible for providing training or increasing the c01petency of user segments and oublic information intermediaries (such as information brokers and libraries) to access adeauately public information available through various information technologies? The Economics of Pugl i Informatior, 10. To Nhat extent should Federally provided public information be considered as a commodity or as a societal good? 11. Hotiil should the Federal goverraent orice public information? Public Access and Availability to Public Infoi,ation 12. What Federal information does the 6overnment have a resoonsibility to aake accessible and available to the public? 13. Should Congress reconsider a revision of Title 44, Y!;, or proceed on a 'piecemeal basis with the develooment of Federal policy governing publication and dissemination of public inforaation? 1;. What is the role of the various deoository library programs in the 6overnnent provision of public information? _,, I z_ -
PAGE 232
4-6 possible relationship between the issue and various power structures, and <2> the three theaes of this report, i.e., public access, inforaation technology, and laws/regulations. The fourteen issues listed in Figure 4-2 represent the authors' asseaaaent of those which are aost aignificent and are likely to have the greatest 1apact on the effectiveness with which the Governaent provides public inforaation. Significant Issues The literature was reviewed to identify typologies that aight be used to organize the issues into soae fora of a structure. following categories have been identified: Based on this review the t!9!!! Organization !2 Inforation f2!!!!!: the structure of the Federal governent regarding provision of public inforaation Relationshie between the Federal Governaent and Other Stakeholders !n tb! Inforaation Sector: responsibilities and roles of agencies and organizations engaged in the production, distribution, and disseaination of public inforaation Inforaation I!bn2!2gy: applications of inforaation technology and their effect on Governaent provision of public inforaation The Econoaics of Public Inforaation: costs and benefits of Governaent provision of public inforaation eYQ!! 6!!! !ng Availability to Public Inforaation: the rights of the public and the reeponsibilities of the Federal governaent to aake public inforaation accessible and available Clearly, these categories are not autually exclusive, but they are suggested as a vehicle for organizing the various policy issues and considering options for their possible resolution. BEST COPY AVAILAiLL
PAGE 233
4-7 Within each of these categories, significant policy issues are identified and briefly desc1ibed. Options are offered for the possible resolution of the issue, and iaplications of the issue and the options are presented in teras of the five criteria presented in the preceding section. Although all of the iasuea have been assessed as "significant" by the authors, it is clear that soae have greater iapact than others, options for resolving one issue aay not be feasible unless other issues have been resolved first, and soae issues affect the possible resolution of other issues. Additional discussion of the relative significance of the various issues and coaparisons of the relationships aaong options are presented in succeding sections of this chapter. Federal Organization for Inforaation Polici NAME OF ISSUE: Should the Federal governaent have centralized or decentralized developaent of inforaation policies? BRIEF DESCRIPTION: With centralized developaent of inforaation policy, one agency has priaary responsibility for the design, iapleaentation, and enforceaent of Federal inforaation policy. Inforaation policy developaent has been scattered throughout various agencies in the Executive and Legislative branch of Governaent, and little enforceaent of the policies that have been developed has occurred. A decision to centralize Federal inforaation policy developaent would call for a clear understanding of the philosophy of the Federal governaent regarding the creation, organization, disaeaination, and access to Governaent inforaation. "Vertically oriented agencies by definition cannot take broad horizontal views" of the effects of inforaation technology on national
PAGE 234
4-3 inforaation policies . Because of the lack of such horizontal integration each agency has established 11fiefdoa" of inforaation policies which are often tiaes disJointed and contradictory. Overlapping centralization or.decentralization concerns raises the issue of whether the Executive or Legislative Branch is to doainant the developaent of inforaation policies. Figure 4-3 suggests that between the two branches, three structural arrangeaents are possible: Executive d~ainant, coordinated Executive and Legislative, and Legislative doainent. In each of these arrangeaents, policy developaent can be centralized or decentralized. Thus, there could be six possible adainistrative fraaeworks by which inforaation policy developaent could be organized. Re-organization of Governaent structure for better inforaation policy design and developaent calla for better coordination between the Legislative and Executive branches of Governaent. The current situation whereby Congress has oversight for the Governaent Printing Office ~xeaplifies the liaited power of this Congressional agency to enforce or execute printing regulations that affect independent regulatory agencies and Executive offices that are not clearly identified in Title 44, YQ. OPTIONS: Foraalize authority for Federal inf oraation policy design, iapleaentation, and enforceaent in an existing agency. Candidate locations include: Office of Inforaation and Regulatory Affairs in the Office of Manageaent and Budget, National Telecoaaunications and Inforaation Adainistration, National Coaaiasion on Librari~s and Inforaation Science, or others [centralized option in Executive Branch]. ,iS 'T COPY AVAILABLL
PAGE 235
FIGURE 4-3 FEDERAL ORGANIZATION FOR INFORMATION POLICIES A. Degree of Coordination Between Executive and Legislative Branches LEGISLATIVE 3 C ntralized Decentralized B. Options for Federal Organization of Information Policies** ** Option 1 2 3 Name Executive Dominant Coordinated/Combined Executive and Legislative Legislative Dominant Centralized Decentralized A B C D E F The Judicial is not considered in this model as a principal player in the development of information policies; however, such could easily be done. The result would then be seven options which could be considered in terms of centralized or decentralized administrative structures. Cells A-F suggest six possible frameworks by which information policy development could be administratively organized.
PAGE 236
4-9 Establish an '"independent regulatory agency" charged with the responsibility for the design, iapleaentation, and enforceaent of Federal inforaation policy [centralized option]. Expand upon the Paperwork .Reduction Act of 1980 to better coordinate inforaation resources aanageaent within each of the various agencies by detailing responsibilities for inforaation policy developaent [decentralized option]. Establish an agency or redefine the responsibilities of an existing agency to codify and enforce !!!t!ng laws and regulations related to inforaation policy. The establishaent of such an agency either necessitates a S2!~!Il!Q governance structure fro the Executive and Legislative branches or foraalizes a governance structure that eabodies traditional "checks and balances" between the two branches Ccoabination centralized and decentralized optionJ. IMPLICATIONS: This policy issue has been debated for years. However, both the Joint Coaaittee on Printing and the Office of Kanageaent and Budget represent two exaaplea of advocates for soae degree of centralization. A basis for soae degree of Federal coordination within a etnsb of Governaent is given in Title 44, YQ, the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, ftnd those 0MB directives discussed in Chapter 3. Title 44, YQ, is the only exaaple which transcends one Branch and ia technically binding on others. A difficulty with inter-Branch coordination is that the JCP is perceived as incapable of aanaging the provision of public inforaation and as having exceeded its statutory basis. The issue aay be less the degree of ce~tralization and aore the coapetitive roles of different stakeholders in the inforaation sector as new inforaation technologies are developed and iaprove the collection, organization, and disseaination of public inforaation. But the degree to BlSl COPt MAslAtU.
PAGE 237
4-10 which the traditional printing activities, identified with the JCP and the GPO, can be applied to new inforaation technology and resolving coapeting deaands in the inforaation sector reaains to be seen. With the invalidation of the legislative veto opponents to the privatization of public inforaation, <2> supporters for increased placeaent of public inforaation into the GPO depository library prograa, and <3> overseeing the interests of the public regarding access to Federal inforaation. Without a strong JCP or GPO it is likely that additional Federal inforaation will escape bibliographic control and aethods for public diaeeaination. NAME OF ISSUE: BRIEF DESCRIPTION: Should foraal aechanieas be established that encourage continuing dialogue about Federal inforaation policy aaong the various stakeholders in the inforaation sector? A concern raised by a nuaber of studies is the lack 1Y
PAGE 238
4-11 of foraal aethods by which the various stakeholders in the inforaation sector can aaintain an ongoing dialogue about policy issues and procedures related to Governaent provision of public inforaation and the effects of technology on such provision. Currently, such coaaunication is scattered and uncoordinated end open discussion of these issues takes place priaarily with aiddle or lower adainistrative levels of the Federal governaent. Inforaation policy developaent hes evolved as priaary concerns for the Executive and Legislative branches while the role of the Judicial branch in inforaation policy developaent has been ainiaal. Clearly, there is Judicial inforaation that should be considered as public inforaation, and aechanisas are necessary to include the Judicial branch in such policy developaent. Because Federal inforaation policies are decentralized throughout Governaent, nuaerous agencies aay have to address the saae or siiliar issues, concerns, and probleas relating to the production and disseain~tion of public inforaation aany tiaes. Such a situation encourages a sense of despondency on the part of stakeholders in the inforaation sector and does not encourage confrontation, discussion, and sppedy resolution of inforaation policy issues. OPTIONS: Establish a Federal oabudsaan agency which can represent all three branches of Governaent, or as a source to clarify procedures related to Federal provision of public inforaation. Expand the role of the inforaation resources aanagera Cas established in the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980) to include liaison activities with other individuals and organizations in the inforaation sector
PAGE 239
4-12 Establish coordinating structures aaong Federal agencies whose aission includes the collection, organization, end diaaeaination of public inf oraation IMPLICATIONS: Ideally, it can be argued that various stakeholders within and outside the Governaent should participate in an active dialogue. The GPO, Bureau of the Census, National Library of Medicine, and other Feder~l agencies have established advisory coaaittees to solicit input. However, the suggestions are not binding and are effective only to the extent to which individual agencies aake aeaningful atteapta to respond to thea. Existing aethods for establishing ongoing dialogue tend to exclude for-profit stakeholders in the inforaation sector. For instance, the GPO Depository Council is coaposed priaarily of librarians and for-profit stakeholders rarely participate in Council discussions end recoaaendations. Yet, in the area of developing inforaetion technologies, disseaination of electronic files to depository libraries, etc., such involveaent fro forprofit stakeholders aight be useful. Exaaples of the JCP atteapting to revise the 1977 Printing 4nd Binding Regulations and 0KB to develop revised regulations for inforaation resources aenegeaent by soliciting public review end opinion deaonstrate the iaportance of an open review process. Such techniques occur by agency choice but they are an excellent aeans to allow public scrutiny of developing inforaation policies. Lastly, the issue of encouraging dialogue aaong the various Federal stakeholders in the inforaetion sector should be exained. As noted throughout this report, little atteapt has been aade to encourage horizontal coordination and integration aaong Federal agencies regarding inforaetion policy developaent. Foraalized advisory councils, which include users, or
PAGE 240
4-13 other strategies should be considered to insure greater coordination related to the use of inforaation technologies and provision of public inforaation aaong the Federal agencies. NAME OF ISSUE: BRIEF DESCRIPTION: What is the role of the Office of Manageaent and Budget in the developaent and aanageaent of inforaation policies? This issue is part of the larger issue related to the decentralization and centralization of Federal inforaation policy developaent and enforceaent. However, as shown in Chapters 2 and 3, the role of 0KB has substantially increased in recent years. Soae analysts perceive the agency as reaoved froa direct interaction with the public and as doainated by aatters of econoay in Governent and the political concerns of the Office of the President. Thia perspective provides philosophical coaaonalities with soae forprofit organizations in the inforaation sector. But based priaarily on the passage of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, 0MB is aoving toward centralization of inforaation policy within the Executive branch and broadening its authority outside that branch
PAGE 241
4-14 Coordinate inforaation aanageaent and policy developaent aaong a selected nuaber of agencies. IMPLICA 1'I0NS: Spokespersons for 0MB believ~_that the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 is 11a reaarkable tool for the developaent of a consistent Federal policy on inforaation because it coabines in one place, naaely, the Office of Manageaent and Budget, the functiona of input of inforaation. to the Governaent, processing of the inforaation within the Governent, and disclosure of the inforaation by the Governaent" (Sprehe, 1984, p. 355>. Guiding the agency is the belief that "inforaation is not a free good but rather a resource of substantial econoaic value and should be treated as such"
PAGE 242
4-15 it can only set policy for the Executive branch of Governaent it aust confora to the provisions of Title 44, Y, and other existing laws and regulations
PAGE 243
4-16 arguaent can be aade that the Harketplace," when allowed to operate, would provide adequate regulation over the collection, creation, and organization of public inforaation. Little evidence exists to s~pport either of these two arguaents to the exclusion of the other. First, Federal legislation and regulation, in soae instances, have been shown to stifle creativity and innovation syateaatically, establish artificial pricing of services/products, and.provide coaplicated and, at tiaes, contradictory regulations. However, "aarketplace" solutions ignore access to services and products by those who are d!senfranchized, liait the production of aervices and products to those which are perceived as "profitable," and aay result in disruptions of services due to delivery or production probleaa. OPTIONS: Identify specific value added services and products for Federally collected or created inforaation and deteraine the!!~!! of Federal responsibility for each value added process. Establish a "public utility aodel" for the regulation of public inforaation as discussed in Salvaggio <1983> (see Figure 2-3>. When public inforaation collection or creatitn services are established, clarify the degree to which they are ~o be aade available for public disaeaination. Establish gy!~ Q[Q gyg regulations with value added processors of public inforaation in the inforaation sector. For instance, if for-profit organizations contract for the operation and proYision of value added enhanceaents to the inforaation, they still aust provide soae !!n!!!! access to the basic syste as developed by the Federal governaent at an affordable cost to the user. ----
PAGE 244
4-17 IMPLICATIONS: Federal inforaation practices, services, and products related to public inforaation aust confora to enacted statutory and adainistrative law. The Governaent should ensure that the provisions of Title 44, yg, and other laws are strictly enforced and that loopholes in legislation are identified and resolved in the best interests of the public. For exaaple, the waiver provisions of Title 44, Y~ as opposed to those that disseainate inforaation as a end unto itself . Congress can rely upon oversight responsibilities to deteraine the degree to which individual agencies are, in fact, aeeting their stated ai~sions related to public inforaation provision. Guidelines for contracting inforaation systeas to non-Federal vendors are not well-stated and allow for nuaerous probleas to occur, virtually all of which inJure the degree to which the user can effectively access public inforaation fro those contractors
PAGE 245
4-18 inforaation, draaatically illustrates this point. The assuaption is that whatever is done, the public is protected; aechanisas exist whereby the public has an equal opportunity to gain access to public inforaation. Such is not the case; the existing "safety net" is narrowly conceived. ISSUE NAME: BRIEF DESCRIPTION: How can adequate bibliographic control be aaintained over Governaent provided public inforaation? The degree of bibliographic control over Gove~naent provided public inforaation, for all foraats, is probleaatical. Since there is little agreeaent about what specific types of inforaation constitute "public inforaation," an assessaent of the degree to ~hich there is bibliographic control over that inforaation is also likely to produce little agreeaent. Yet, a basic assuaption underlying any discussion of Governaent provision of public inforaation aust address issues related to the bibliographic control of that inforaation. Recently, for exaaple, the General Accounting Office found that 1128 of the 36 R&D funding agencies, do not report [their research] to FEDRIP [Federal Research In Progress Systeal" ("Outlook for Expanding the Federal Research in Progress Systea," 1984). In addition, two aaJor R&D .agencies which spend about 68 percent of the Federal R&D budget, the National Science Foundation and the Departaent of Defense, are included in the 28 agencies which do not report. As it has evolved, bibliographic control of public inforaation has been a shared responsibility between a nuaber of stakeholders in the inforaation sector. The Governaent aay provide certain toola, e.g., the KonthlJ Catalog and Governaent B!QQI~! Announceaent Index, but nuaerous other tools are
PAGE 246
4-19 provided by for-profit organizations such as the Congressional Inforaation Service. In aany instances, bibliographic control devices were developed only after an initial capital investaent by the Governaent. However, for-profit organizations in the inforaation sector have provided soae value added enhanceaents that iaproves bibliographic control over public inforaation. Nonetheless, there are nuaerous bibliographic "gaps" over public inforaatiou e.g., agency reports, research studies, and aachine-readable data files. OPTIONS: Identify "levels" of acceptable bibliographic control for specific types of public inforaation rather than atteapting "coaplete" control over all types of public inforaation. Encourage non-Federal governaent stakeholders in the inforaation sector to establish bibliographic control and other types of finding tools over specific types of public inforaation (including those in an electronic foraat> through the use of subsidies and "start-up" capitalization. Enforce existing regulations that require Federal agencies to aaintain a list of inforaation sources (with appropriate bibliographic inforaation> which are identified as containing "public inforaation." Better coordinate the activities of the priaary Federal agencies regarding the establishaent and aaintenance of bibliographic control over Governaent inforaation (e.g., the GPO, NTIS, Library of Congress, National Library of Medicine, and the Departaent of Energy>. IMPLICATIONS: The probleas which the GPO has experienced in atteapting to aaintain bibliographic control over paper copy and aicrofiche public inforaation 2,.,, 2-7 &t.Si COPY AVAllliilLL
PAGE 247
4-20 underscores the difficulty in creating widely accepted bibliographic control atandards and in generating coaplience with these standards. Further, this issue end its optic.,& aasuae that <1> the various stakeholders in the inforaation aector can reach agreeaent about what constitutes "adequate bibliographic control," and <2> stakeholders engage in a regular and active dialogue on Federal inforaation policies and practices. There is a discrepancy between the usa of technology for establishing iaproved bibliographic control over public inforaation versus use of technology to create aore Federal inforaation systeas. Designers of Federal inforaation aysteas have not atteapted to provide adequate bibliographic control because (1) existing laws and regulations, such as Title 44, yg, are not enforced, (2) inadequate coapetencies related to providing such bibliographic control techniques aay exist, and (3) bibliographic control over electronically foraatted inforaation is aore difficult than over printed copy foraats. An iaportant iaplication froa increased reliance on technologically-based inforaation systeas for Governaent provision of public inforaation is the creation of "diseabodied" parts of public inforaation. Machine-readable data files can be partitioned and up-loaded/down-loaded easily, creating new "units" of inforaation. Establishing bibliographic control over these units will require careful planning, extra funding, and sophisticated bibliographic control techniques in the actual inforaation aya~ea. The issues surrounding bibliographic control cannot be resolved by legislation/regulation alone, since, already, there are nuaerous existing laws establishing inforaation. procedures to "insure" bibliographic control over public The user coaaunity aust persuasively argue that Cl> enhanced bibliographic control is necessary and that there is a deaand (and potential profits> for such services, (2) aechanisaa for enhanced bibliographic control r 7 '/ ,, /./
PAGE 248
4-21 should be established at the tiae of the 9!!19~ of the inforaation ayatea and <3> although the Federal governaent has reaponaibility to aake certain that adequate bibliographic control exists over public inforaation it aay not have the responsibility to provide such control itself. NAME OF ISSUE: Should Federal inforaation activities be adainiatered as a "business" or as a public service? BRIEF DESCRIPTION: Currently, there are two opposing views about how Federal inforaation activities should be organized. One view holds that Federal inforaation activities should be organized aa a buaineas, i.e., should seek at a ainiaua to recover coats associatAd with providing the inforaation service or product Caa in the case of NTIS>, provide user training , and develop aggressive aarketing strategies
PAGE 249
4-22 1984, p. 359). Others would contend that while adainistering activit1ea efficiently, is, in fact, a priaary and appropriate role for the Governaent, aaking a profit on inforaation disse~ination ia not. OPTIONS: Encourage Governaent inforaation activities to be adainistered in a buainea~-like fashion, i.e., for-profit. If they can, in fact, be adainiatered in such 6 aanner, then turn the over to interested stakeholders in the inforaation sector with the proviso that they have certain responsibilities to insure a ainiaua level of access to that inforaation for the public. Accept the philosophy that Governaent is ggt a business. that it has certain responsibilities that do not fit the business aode of operation, and proceed on a "public service" (subsidized) basis regarding inforaation pr~ducts and services intended for the public. Develop cooperative arrangeaenta between the Governaent and other stakeholders in the inforaation sector whereby inforaation services are contracted outside the Governaent and then "sold" back on a "no-cost" clause. The services are provided to other inforaation stakeholders and the public on an "anti-coapetition" and "nonaonopoly" clause . IMPLICATIONS: The reports of the Grace Coaaission argue for iaproved business practices in Governaent. Further. the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 and the concept of inforaation resources aanageaent also support issues of efficiency in Governaent. However, 6ttention has not be focused on criteria of effectiveness and Yt!!!t! of Federal inforaation services and products, i.e the degree to which inforaation services aeet stated obJectives and the degree
PAGE 250
4-23 to which they resolve the inforaation needs of specific user segaents. The position that the Governaent should adainister its inforaation activities in aore of a "business-like fashion" results in a dileaaa because: the Governaent inforaation activity then has increased the likelihood of coapeting directly with other stakeholders in the inforaation sector if the activity can, in fact, be run successfully within the Governaent, in a "business-like fashion," i.e., aake a profit, then, other stakeholders in the inforaation sector will deaand that the activity be reaoved froa the Governaent and be provided by non-Federal stakeholders In short, the Govt!rnaent aay be placing itself in a "no win" situation by encouraging the developaent of inforaation activities that are to be adainistered in a "business-like fashion ... Public access is not well-served by a failure to consider these other factors. Siaply iproving efficiency without considering effectiveness and utility is naive and siaplistic, and ignores the well-known trade-off relationships between efficiency and effectiveness. Further, the Federal governaont was not established by the Founding Fathers to aake a profit despite the wishes of soae special interest groups today. The developaent of sophisticated technologically-based inf oraation aysteas that collect, organize, and disseinate public inforaation call for large capital investaents. Such investaents are aade by the public at large and not for the benefit for a specific user segment or stakeholder in the inforaation sector. OMB's position that inforaation services should be profit-generating, if possible, forces such services to (1) be in conflict with provisions of A-76, <2> coapete directly with for-profit stakeholders in Ll/ I
PAGE 251
4-24 the inforaation sector, <3> be contracted or given to other stakeholders in the inforation sector that ay or ay not have to pay the original capital investent in the ayatea, and/or (4) be paid for twice by users. Inforaation Technology NAME OF ISSUE: Should the Federal governaent eaphasize the use of various inforaaticn technologies aa a aeana of collecting, organizing, and disseinating public inforaation? BRIEF DESCRIPTION: The position of the Federal governaent has been, by default, to answer this question in the affirative. However, there has been little foraal atteapt to assess the !e!S!!! !!e!t! of increased Federal dependence on inforaation technologies for the provision of public inforaation on specific aarkets. The assuaption that inforaation in electronic foraat autoaaticallt provides iaprove access aust be re-considered in teras of specific user aegaents of the public. Evidence suggests that applications of inforation technology for the provision of public inforaation effect different segaenta of the public differently aust be considered in teras of trade-off relationships with public access. ) L -_$ L-
PAGE 252
OPTIONS: 4-25 Make public inforation accessible and available in traditional paper copy as well as through technological foraats such as aachine-readable data files. Provide the resources necessary for the purchase of technological support equipaent, e.g., telecoaaunications, central processors, personal coaputers, and aicrofiche reader-printers to a network of public inforaation disseainator agencies such as the GPO depository libraries. Establish standards for the use of inforaation handling technologies related to public inforaation so that users of this inforaation have to purchase or have access to only one type of equipent to access all types of Federal inforaation available in that foraat. Deteraine the public inforaation needs of specific user segaents and disseainate inforaation in foraats !Qt easily accessible for that user aegaent. IMPLICATIONS: It ia increasingly evident that electronic collection, organization, and dieseaination of public inforaation ia becoaing the preferred aeans for inforaation aanageaent in aany agencies has issued a request for proposals for a departaent-wide electronic disseaination of inforaation contract. There will be a single contractual vehicle for disseaination of all USDA inforaation that is electron,ically disseainated. It is likely to be a large vehicle, and it is certainly an experience that is being closely watched by other Federal agencies because of its aagnitude and the fact that USDA has had to address a lot of fundaaental policy questions which so any other agencies will face. But questions aay be posed: Is the USDA then setting inforaation policy on its own without guidance fro appropriate Federal agencies and the Congress? How will such activities enhance or detract fro public access? These and
PAGE 253
4-26 siailiar questions will not be answered until tft!r the systeas are iapleaented--at which tiae it aay be too late to redesign thea. Iaplications fro such activities relate to the extent to which Federal electronic inforaation systeas confer to the Privacy Act and the Freedoa of Inforaation Act, and provide for adequate bibliographic control over public inforaation and access by the public. Legislation is needed to insure safeguards over such inforaation for public access and availability, and to deteraine the degree of public ownership over such inforaation tft!r it hes left the direct control of the Federal governaent. The degree to which electronically baaed public inforaation will, in fact, be aade available and accessible to the public is a aatter of debate. Currently, the GPO depository library systea does not distribute aachinereadable data files and the vast aaJority of depository libraries would be unable to do auch aore with such files than archive the for the public. Storing aachine-readable data files in depository libraries will not aake the inforaation they contain inforaation. accessible and available to users of public NAME OF ISSUE: BRIEF DESCRIPTION: What criteria should be followed by the Governaent when selecting inforaation technologies for use in the provision of public inforaation? Criteria currently used for selecting a specific inforaation technology for use in the provision of public inforaation appear to be doainated by cost factors. Individual agencies apparently are free to develop inforaation services and products as long as they can Justify the expenses for auch services in light of their agency aission. Because the agencies also aake
PAGE 254
4-27 individual decisions both about contracting inforaation services to nonFederal vendors, and the type of inforaation technology to be used as the carrier of public inforaation, these can becoae non-coaparable and noninterchangeable across agencies. As an exaaple, in Fall 1984, the Bureau of the Census began distribution of the Citl-Countl Data 122~ in diskette foraat for personal coaputers: NTIS also began distribution of the 1,000 "best sellers" av~ilable in a floppy diskette foraat. However the standards for these diskettes in teras of operating aysteas, density, and size is not clear. Siailiar probleas of standardization can be identified with the Library of Congress' involveaent in the use of optical disc storage devices and Federal Inforaation Processing Standards can assist in the selection of inforaation technologies, their foraat, and content, only if considered in light of user inforaation needs and available hardware/software. OPTIONS: Develop adainistrative procedures whereby any agency or office wishing to use specific types of inforaation technology aust obtain prior approval that the inforaation is intended for public disseaination Allow a decentralized, "aarket-driven" approach to the selection of inforaation technologies and assuae that those technologies selected will either aeet user needs (and flourish> or not aeet user needs (and be terainated)
PAGE 255
4-28 Identify specific criteria by which inforaetion technology will be selected as a aeana to diaaeainate public inforation; possible criteria include: e. cost of the technology b. response to user deaends for specific foras of technology c. degree of public availability to the technology d. degree of coapetibility with existing governent inforaation technologies e. flexibility of the technology to adept to rapidly changing technological advances IMPLICATIONS: Identifying criteria for the selection of inforaation technologies to collect, organize, and disseainete public inforaation requires consideration of user needs and the degree to w~ich such syateaa establish barriers to gaining eccess to public inforaation. Systea coaponents which assist a user to leern how to use the systea, provide suaaery inforaation on how well the aystea was used, and offer self-diagnostics for user training end support are feasible but are infrequently provided. The erguaent to allow the aarket to deteraine which inforaation ayates should survive and which will flourish is oftentiaes an excuse for not aaking difficult policy decisions about which type of inforaation systeas aeet the needs of specific user groups. Given the current vacuua of authority and enforceaent for such decisions, non-standardized, incoapatible systes are likely to develop. In such en environaent, only those individuals or organizations with both the resources and expertise to design interfaces between and aaong systeas will be eble to gain access to increasing aaounts of public inforation in electronic foraat.
PAGE 256
4-29 The iaplications of establishing standardized criteria are considerable. A uaer of public inforaation aay require access to and knowledge of aultiple inforaation technology devices to gain access to related inforaation. There are nuaerous foraata and operating systeas which are inc~apatible with each other in the area of personal coaputer diskettes and operating systeaa. The existing decentralized, aarket and cost driven approac~ to selecting inforaation technologies for disseainating public inforaation without regard for standardized criteria is likely to have unequal effects on users' access to public inforaation. Congress aust carefully aonitor developaents related to the deployaent of inforaation technologies in the Federal governaent. Siaply listing the naae of the ayatea and ita coat (as done in a nuaber of GAO ~nd 0MB reports> does not assess the proposed systea iapacts on access to public inforaation. Hearings aay be necessary to sensitize both Federal officials and the public to the iapact of infor-ation systeas on public access. HA1!E OF ISSUE: BRIEF DESCRIPTION: To what degree is the Federal governaent responsible for providing training or increasing the coapetency of user aegaenta and public inforaation interaediaries to access adequately public inforaation available through various inforaation technologies? Responsibility for providing tools to gain access to public inforaation, e.g., technological literacy, is a critical factor in the degree to which inforaation technology does or does not increase access to public inforaation.
PAGE 257
4-30 Despite the growing eaphasis of the Federal governaent to place inforaation in various technological delivery systeaa, little overall effort has been aade to explain how the end user can effectively exploit the inforaation or learn to aanipulate data within that inforaation syatca. Once again, the decentralized developaent of inforaation policy has resulted in inconsistencies across agencies. For exaapla, the Bureau of the Census has a very successful Data User Services Division that provides a large nuaber of seainars and other training services that are provided "free," i.e., Federally subsidized, to the public. Other agencies, with significant responsibilities for the disaeaination of public inforaation, such aa the GPO and the Departaent of Energy, have devoted significantly leas resources to support such activities. A nuaber of for-profit organizations in the inforaation sector, such as DIALOG, provide excellent on-going training seainars to insure that users or interaediaries of their syste can increase their skills for extracting the required inforaation froa the systea. Siailiar exaaples where the Federal governaent provides such training can be seen fro the Bureau of the Census. Increasing awareness and developing specific skills related to using Federal inforaation services and products aay aake the difference between aaking public inforaation available versus aerely "accessible." OPTIONS: Include strategies to increase public awareness and training of specific Federal inforaation systeas and products at the tiae of 1 ___ the design of the inforaation service, and consider thea as noraal "costs" for aystea developaent. Contract aarketing and user/interaediary training of Federal public inforaation services and products to other stakeholders in the inforaation sector.
PAGE 258
4-31 Let user deaand dictate the need for awareness and training about apecific Federal inforaation services and encourage stakeholders to respond to these deaands. IMPLICATIONS: To assess thia issue and its options effectively two separate areas should be considered: <1> the role and responsibility of~!! Federal agencies which collect and disaeainate public inforaation, and <2> the role and responsib~lities of clearinghouses and the GPO which are specifically charged with specific public inforaation disseaination activities. There aust be a distinction between "public inforaation a6tivities" of departaents and agencies versus legislatively-aandated "public lnforaation disseaination" of clearinghouses. Training activities for each will vary in light of the agency's aission. Since the decision has, Q! f~gtg, been aade to increase the aaount of public inforaation issues in electronic foraats, there aust be a corresponding effort to train and assist users in how to access such data. Federal officials who state that public inforaation has greater electronic foraats probably have not had the opportunity aachine-readable data file and attept to obtain specific accessibility in to be handed a population data froa, for exaaple, a Bureau of the Census Suaaary Tape File . Such retrieval g~nn2t be done without an inforaed and skilled interaediary, appropriate hardware and software, and significant aaounta of tiae. Thus, iaplications froa these options aust be considered in the context of the specific aission of the agency. Congress aay wish to review the inforaation disseaination requireaents and obJectives of specific agencies and coapare the to resources budgeted. Further, direct funding, or contracting, for interaediaries to assist users should be considered as a noraal resource
PAGE 259
4-32 allocation for those agencies specifically charged to disseainate public inforaation. Merely providing public inforaation to interaediaries does ~Qt insure their access and availability to users . Tb Econoaica of Public Inforaation NAME OF ISSUE: To what extent should Federally provided public inforaation be considered as a coaaodity or as a societal good? BRIEF DESCRIPTION: The key philosophical issue to be resolved regarding public inforaation and its access is the degree to which it is to be considered as a coaaodity or as a societal resource. For-profit organi2ations in the inforaation sector see public inforaation as a coaaodity which should be bought and sold in the aarket place. As a coaaodity, the aarketplace should aake the final deteraination on public inforaation's value and, thus, cost. The view that public inforaation is a societal good holds that all user aegaenta of the public contributed equally to costs related to the collection and organi2ation of the inforaation. Therefore, the entire public should be able to gain access to and use the inforaation. The view of public inforaation as a societal good assuaes that any restriction on the public's ability to identify, access, and use this inforaation aay reduce overall societal "progress" and productivity. Each position aakea assuaptions about: -the iaportance of public inforaation for national "progress" -the potential for selling the inforaation -the profitability of the inforaation
PAGE 260
4-33 -the rights of the public regarding public inforaation -the responsibility of the Governaent to encourage the aaintenance of an inforaed electorate Clearly, inforaation production, organization, and delivery practices that result froa each position are different. However, the notion that inforaation is a "capital resource," i.e., an investaent, can provide soae coaon ground between the two positions. This view suggests that public inforaation can be seen as a capital resource providing for the future investaent of QQ~h the aarket !DQ the societal good. Resolution of this issue is necessary before attention can be given to a nuaber of other policy issues. OPTIONS: Establish cooperatie inforaation services/products arrangeaents between the Federal governaent and aeabers of the inforaation sector where the Governaent guarantees a "basic" provision of inforaation services. Additional anhanceaents on that service aay be established and priced accordingly by a contracting organization fro the inforaation sector. Create an advisory body that can review the various public inforaation services and products of the Governaent and assess the degree to which those services and products represent coaaodities rather than resources . Reconsider QH~ Q!rY!~r A-76 on contracting of services to other stakeholders in the inforaation sector in light of inforaation considered as a coaaodity or as a public good. iiS1' COPY AVAiLASLt
PAGE 261
4-34 IMPLICATIONS: The dileaaa can be succinctly stated as: "How can the Governaent enhance access to public inforaation and its use while at the saae tiae, recovering as auch of the econoaic value of that inforaation as possible?" As suggest~d earlier in this section, the trade-off is one between efficiency of Governaent and effectiveness of user access. Yet, it should be reaeabered that only recently hes the Federal governaent prescribed that inforaation services and products be "cost-effective." Iaplications froa choosing one position over the other entail severe risks for policy aakera and the public in areas of privacy of inforaation, balance of powers within the Federal governaent, and ovgrall national productivity. Thus, new aodels which incorporate both econoay effectiveness are required. A key iaplicetion of a revised aodel would be to select the inforaation carefully that is intended as public and then enhance the effectiveness with which it can be accessed and aade available. But, the deteraination of what constitutes "public inforaation" should not be left entirely to the Governaent. Currently, there is the sense to define public inforaation broadly, but then provide little bibliographic control, user assistance, and delivery for that inforaation. Future developaents in inforaation technology and existing laws and regulations aitigate against iaproved access and availability to public inforaation. For Congress n2i to exaaine and revise existing laws and regulations related to public inforaation and the effects of technology on that provision is a carte blanche for further increased Executive authority and doainance in the design and iapleentation of ecvnoy-driven inforaation policies. ( ( "'-,, -, T .~;--,_
PAGE 262
4-35 NAME OF ISSUE: How should the Federal governaent price public infonetion? BRIEF DESCRIPTION: The Office of Manegeent and Budget end other Federal agencies haye developed policy stateaents governing their pricing fotaula for inforaetion services and products. However, throughout the Federal governaent there is soae confusion about tle~! 2r cetegorien of inforaation services and products end whether the inforaetion service or product is intended for public disaeaination. Further, there is confusion about pricing and differentiating between the inforation erggygt as opposed to the ggr~!g~ related to the support and developaent of that product. Given these factors, pricing policies ~ust be established~ prior to the developaent of the various inforaation services and products created by the Federal governaent, rather than vice versa. Terainologies used by different Federal agencies include "cost-recovery," "~elf-sufficiency," "free," related to and others. pricing Cost structures vary widely within the Governent: a publication that is for sale froa the Governaent Printing Office aay be obtained free directly froa the issuing agency or et a different price; icrofiche purchases eong the GPO, ERIC, and NTIS ere calculated differently; and aethods for coaputing the cost for the duplication and sale of a aachine-readable data file vary widely. Further, there is general agreeent that the Federal governaent should avoid pricing structures that encourage unfair coapetition with other stakeholders in the inforaation sector. However, '*unfair coapetition'* is rarely defined or considered in the context of a specific aerket segaent of the public. In short, "unfair coapetition" for Federal pricing of a aachinereadable data file for the business coaaunity ey be appropriate pricing for scholars and researchers. Thus, a coaplicating issue becoaes: "How can BEST COPY A~ AILASLL
PAGE 263
4-36 pricing policy be based on different user inforaation needs without the Governaent privatizing the inforaation or developing artificial price structures?" OPTIONS: Establish policies on the type and level of value added enhanceaents that the Federal governaent can attach to inforaati~n and inforaation systeas intended for provision of public inforaation on a case by case basis. Additional enhanceaents of velue added features on that inforaation would be priced on a standardized guideline. Deteraine the aaxiaua level of value edded enhanceaents that the Federal governaent will provide for !n! inforaation service and product, given the aission of the agency. Additional enhanceaents of the inforaation service or product would depend on the deaend for such enhanceaents and the desire of other stakeholders in the inforaation sector to aeet that deaand. Identify levels of public inforaation in teras of pricing rather than treating all types of public inforaation (regardless of foraat, collection cost, etc.> as equal. Establish a "voucher systea" whereby users of public inforaation .are given the opportunity to use vouchers to obtain a pre-deterained aaount of iteas froa the Governaent containing public inforaation, regardless of issuing agency.
PAGE 264
4-37 IMPLICATIONS: A nuaber of aspects of this issue should be considered, the pricing set by Cl> statutory law , <2> user charges COMB Circular A-25), and <3> individual agency deterainations of pricing that are possible because of aabiguous statuatory or regulatory stateaents . The pricing policy of the GPO is based on the "cost as deterained by the Public Printer plus SO percent" (44 YQ 1708). However, the GPO cannot strictly adhere to the requirement. Costs related to warehousing, etc. are difficult to ascertain and the sales potential of a title can~ot be precisely deterained. Thus, different pricing structures are interpreted differently by different agencies. A key iaplication is the confusion between eublications versus et29[~!! that aust be either self-sufficient or cost-recovery. NTIS, aust be self-sufficient at a progra level but it can recover losses fro one product by the success of another. Since cost recovery pricing for aachine readable data files aay be exorbitant for an individual user, selfsufficiency at an agency level aakes aore sense than at a product or publication level. Federal officials aay see price structures based on a voucher aystea or on the degree to which the Governaent provides value added enhanceaents as too cuabersoae. Trade-offs between the costs for edainistering such pricing structures and the degree to which user access and ewareness are increased would have to be exaained. Two critical questions arise: <1> which costs should be included and which excluded in the pricing of Governaent inforaation, and (2) should the charge be inflated to a "coaparable" aarket value? Answering the second question in the effiraative increases the likelihood that inforaation gaps will continue or expand and abrogates the responsibility of the Governaent to
PAGE 265
4-38 insure equal access to public inforaation. stateaent aight be considered: Indeed, an equal opportunity the Federal governaent shall not deny access to public inforaation to any individual on the basis of race, age, financial condition, coat of that inforaation, technological literacy, or accees to appropriate inforaation interaediaries. Paradoxically, siailiar stateents are considered proper and appropriate for areas such as hiring practices but have not been considered as appropriate in the area of inforaation policy developaent. Circulars A-25 and A-76 as well as Title 44, ~~, should be reconsidered as a basis for pricing Federal inforaation services. Further, the pricing structure cannot be excluded fro the context of the degree to which public inforaation ia a societal good or a coaaodity to be bcrtered in the open aarket. Both Federal officials and for-profit stakeholders in the inforaation sector should consider the degree to which public inforaation is a ~~eit~l investaent that encourages its use as e2tb a societal good ~nd as a coaaodity to be bartered. Public Acceaa and Availability to Public Inforaation NAME OF ISSUE: BRIEF DESCRIPTION: What Federal inforaation does the Governaent have a reaponaibility to aake accessible and available to the public? Instances where certain types of inforaation are not aade available by one Federal agency but are nade available fro another Federal agency, and perhaps at a different cost, occur on a regular basis. The phrases "governaent inforaation" and "public inforaation" are oftentiaes used interchangeably. Even the phrase "public inforaation" aay be too broad tr,
PAGE 266
4-39 allow a aeaningful discussion to occur about the Governaent's responsibility to aake th~t inforaation available and accessible to the public. Philosophically, one can say that!! public inforaation should be aade available to the public through stakeholders in the inforaation sector, but, realistically, all .Federal public inforaation aay not be needed by the public and there aight be inadequate resources available to aake such inforaation available and accessible. Further, other stakeholders in the inforation sector aay not disaeainate certain types of public inforaation that are perceived as having ainiaal profit potential. Again, a critical issue relates to preventing the Governaent fro aaking sole deteraination about what ia public inforaation, how that inforaat1n will be aade available, and who will have access to it. The aore that the Governent controls these issues, the acre inforaation becoes private and only selectively available, and the acre the Governaent car, "reward11 its supporters and "punish" its adversaries by controling access to such inforaation. OPTIONS: Identify specific categories of Federal public inforaation, and develop policy covering: Ca> the degree to which the Federal governaent has responsibility to aake that inforaation available and accessible to the public, Cb) the level of Federal resources that can be coaaitted to aaking that inforaation available and accessible, and Cc> the appropriateness of other stakeholders in the inforaation sector providing value added enhanceaents to the inforaation for increased access and availability. Require the agencies creating or collecting inforaation to produce a scaled-down "environeental iapact stateaent" that specifies what
PAGE 267
4-40 inforaation is to be collected, the purpose for the collection and organization of the inforaation, the types of inforaation that can be considered as "public inforaation", and the aechanisas that the agency will provide to insure access and delivery of the public inforaati9n, et!Qt tQ tb~ establishaent of th~ inforaation !~t!!~ Qt erggygt. create or strengthen existing legislation that safeguards the individual's right to public inforation, e.g., Freedo of Inforation Act, the Privacy, Act, etc. Encourage a decentralized approach whereby the individual agency (operating under soae overall Governaent guidelines> deteraines what inforaation is to be aade available, given Ca> the aission of the agency, the deaand for the inforaation, and Cc> the costs associated with provision of the inforaation. IMPLICATIONS: The e~pectation fro the public is that the vast aaJority of Governaent inforaation is public, when in fact auch is not. Further, auch of the public inforaation is inaccessible and unavailable to the public because it lacks bibliographic control and effective delivery systeaa. Existing policies based largely on the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 and 0MB Circular A-76 encourage the privatization of public inforaation, but no evidenee exists to support the arguaent that privatization of public inforation will increase public access. Indeed, privatization of public inforaation is coat-driven and not public access-driven. A deteraination of what public inforaation is to be ade accessible and available should be considered in light of user inforaation needs. Such is rarely the case when agencies aake decisions of what to publish . As long as user inforaation needs are inadequately considered in the deterination of the public inforatiou to be produced, the citizenry is
PAGE 268
4-41 likely to have continued low awareness of public inforaation and the value of this inforaation to resolving their inforaation needs. Title 44, Qg, does not adequately direct publishing activities related to inforaation technologies such as aachine-readable data files. Section 105 of the revised Copyright Law (1978> also contains a gap which peraits the public to be "deprived of access to iaaense aaounts of infor~ation generated in the national interest"
PAGE 269
4-42 proposed revision in the late 1970s illustrated the probleas in trying to revise this legislation without a fir conceptualization of overall Federal philosophy regarding inforaation policy. In addition, reactions to the atteapted revision deaonstrated the diverse interests of various stakeholders in the inforaation sector related to Federal inforaation policy. Pieceaeel consideration of Federal inforaation policy suggests greater eaphasis on vertical policy developaent and ainiaal horizontal coordination. An exaaple of this process is the recent atteapt of the Joint Coaaittee on Printing to establish new regulations
PAGE 270
4-43 revision of Title 44 in the late 1970s. As a result, current issues and new challenges aay be based on existing perceptions of its failed revision. Factors affecting the likelihood of revising the Title include: the outcoae of the JCP'a 1983 proposed Regulations/Guidelines the content of the "soon-to-be-released" 0KB policy stateaents related to Federal inforaation aanageaent the severity of the Federal deficit and the perceived iaportance of inforaation-related policy vis a vis other policy issues Revision of the Title as a whole would force a healthy and open debate about the iaplications resulting froa such a revision. Pieceaeal revision will encourage increased vertical rather than horizontal coordination of inforaatior. policies. Strengthening Title 44 could aake the JCP and the GPO aore powerful players Such an in the developaent and adainistration of Federal inforaation approach is likely to be opposed by for-profit stakeholders policy. in the inforaation sector as they recognize that the priaary concern of the JCP and GPO is insuring access to public inforaation as opposed to aaking a profit froa inforaation services and products. Indeed, loosers in the battle to strengthen and revise Title 44 would be the Executive branch and a nuaber of for-profit stakeholders in the inforaation sector. Both have powerful spokespersons for their positions whereas powerful spokespersons for the public are fewer and poorly organized. Apparently, a priaary hesitancy on the part of aoae Congressional officials to revise Title 44 is the perception that the JCP: <1> was unable to adainister inforaation policy in the past end is unlikely to do any better in the future, and <2> lacks adequate coapetencies to aanage the new inforaation technologies, witness the espoused inefficiencies at the GPO. BEST COPY AVAILABLL
PAGE 271
4-44 Thus, if revision of Title 44 is linked to strengthening the role of the JCP in inforaation policy developaent, there aay be liaited Congressional support for auch a revision. NAME OF ISSUE: What ia the role of the various depository library BRIEF DESCRIPTION: prograaa in inforaation? the Governaent provis~on of public The Federal governaent currently operates a nuaber of "depository" prograas including: the GPO depository library prograa <1,391 libraries>, the Patent Office depository library prograa (53 libraries>, Bureau of the Census depository libraries (125 libraries>, Geological Survey and National Oceanic and Ataospheric Adainiatration depository prograas related to aaps and charts, and Departaent of Energy prograas. There is ainiaal coordination, in teras of geographic location, types of public inforaation distributed, and the specific aiasions regarding provision of public inforaation aaong these prograas. Although the GPO depository library progra was expanded as a result of the Depository Library Act of 1962, the prograa relies priaarily on the Printing Act of 1895 for auch of its statutory baaia. In abort, the prograa has not been kept up-to-date with the growth of the Federal governaent, with the advanceaenta in inforaation technology, or with aeeting the inforaation needs of the public : the Library Prograa Service is a stepchild within GPO, and its woefuly behind the state of the art in applying technology to its own internal processes and to faciitating the delivery of and access to the inforaation it processes. As Figure 4A-2 suggests (contained in Appendix 4-10), recent studies regarding the effectiveness of the GPO depository progra in~icate its liaited Lt$1 f~t>V'i ~\ f,\l~~LL !J t ..
PAGE 272
4-45 effectiveness. The breadth of its stated purposes and the lack of clear goals and aeasurable obJectives encourages the depository library prograa to be all things to all people. Chronic underfunding, reduced GPO and library staffing, end large coaaitaents for coordinating the printing and distribution of a broad range of Federal agencies ainiaizes the depository pro~raas' potential effectiveness. Further, despite its statutory responsibility, .. Governaent publicationa shall be aade available to depository libraries through the facilities of the Superintendent of Docuaents for public inforaation~ .. <44 yg 1902) aany agencies successfully ignore the progre as a aeans of ~king available public inforaation. Such atteapts ere Justified on various waiver provisions in sections 501 end 504 0 Title 44. In addition, recent interpretations ~nd how well disseaination is being done (efficiency). Until Federal officials exaaine depository library prograas in teras of aeeting inforaation needs they are not likely to be effective disaeainators of public inforaation. OPTIONS: Establish an enforceaent agency or procedure to encourage Federal agencies in all three branches of Governaent to comply with existing BEST COPY Av AitA~LL
PAGE 273
4-46 legislation and regulations related to participation in the depository library progra. Deteraine if depository library prograas are, in fact, to be the priaary distributor of public inforaation froa the Federal governaent; if ao, provide adequate funding and support for such to occur. Coordinate the establishaent of "depository library prograas" in other Federal agencies whereby the agency is required to distribute public inforaation directly to the depository libraries. Eliainate or restructure the depository library progra and substitute a National Library or clearinghouse with selected satellite libraries in each of the various states--funded directly by the Federel governaent to provide governaent inforaation to the public . of Federal neglect as any other factor. But such evidence is as auch the result Pieceaeal revision of Title 44, yg, regarding the depository library prograa aay be supported if it is linked .... /_/ :) 5 7 (.. .'
PAGE 274
4-47 directly to enhancing the degree to which the prograa can !St!!!!! enhance the Governaent provision 0 public inforaation. Iaproveaent of this prograa would benefit oat stakeholders in the inforaation sector and can be proaoted as a coaproai ,A approach that Cl) iaproves econoay of Governaent, and <2> increases user effectiveness for accessing public inforaation. Federal officials have been concerned only with providing publications for depository disaeaination encourages this view both within the Governaent and within the library profession. Because of the reduced institutional funding at aany depository libraries and the failure of the Governaent to assist in the servicing of these collections, soae depository libraries are re-considering the appropriateness of their status as a depository. If the various depository library prograas are seen by Federal officials as a priaary aeans by which public inforaation is aade accessible and available then steps auat be taken to enhance and support that role. If, on the other hand, the depository prograas are continued to be ignored and Judged only on aeasures related to econoay of Governaent, a potentially significant aechanisa to enhance access and availability to public inforaation will be lost. Ranking and Syntheaia of Iuu This review and analysis of significant issues suggests that soae of the issued have greater iaportance and iapact than others. As a aeans to rank the [!!!t!!! iaportance of the issues, the five criteria used for selecting the REST COPY AVAllASlL
PAGE 275
TABLE 4-1 ~!Ml THE RELATIVE SISNIFI~ OF ISSUES Potential for Potential for Producing SigProducing Significant Changes nigicant Changes Potential for Pot enti a 1 for Potential Iapact in Federal PoNer in PotEr RelationIner-easing Exploiting on Existing Brief Stateaent Relationships ships Allong NonAccess to PubInforaation Legishtion and of Issue Fed. Stakeholders lk Inforaation Technologies Regulations Score+ 1. Centralized or DeHigh High High Moderate High 14 centralized Information Policies? 2. Foraal lllechanisas to Low Low Moderate LON Moderate 7 Encourage Dialogue atx>ut Information Policies? 3. Role of the Office of High Moderate Moderate Mooerate Moderate 11 Management and Budget in the Development of Inforaation Policies? 4. Federal Responsibili-High High High High High 15 ies for Legislating and Regulating Access to Public Infol"llation? 5. Bibliographic Control Moderate Low High Moderate LON 9 over Public Inforaation? 6. Adainistet Federal High High Moderate High LON 12 Information Activities as a 1Business1? 7. Federal Ellphasis on Moderate High Moderate High Low 11 the use of Inforaation Technologies Related to Public Inforaation? 8. Criteria for Selecting Moderate Moderate High Low 9 Inforaation Technologies in the Provision of Public Inforaation? 9. Federal Responsibility LON LON Moderate Moderate LON 7 for Providing Training to User Segments and Interaecharies? 1' ~r 0 BtST COPY A~ AlLAilt
PAGE 276
TABLE 4-1 (Continued) Poter.tial for Potential for Producing Sig-Producing Sig-nificant Changes nigicant Changes Potential for Potential for Potential l1paci in Federal Power in PoNer RelationIncreasing Exploiting on Existing Brief Stateaent Relationships ships Allong Non-Access to PubInfor11ation Legislation and of Issue Fed. Stikeholders lie Inforution Technc)logi~ Regulations Scoref 10. Extent that Public High High High Modl!rate High 14 Information Should be Considered as a Resource or Comodity? 11, Federal Pricing of Moderate High Moderate LON Moderate 10 Public Information? 12. Determining What "
PAGE 277
4-48 J~sues originally were used to score the relative iaportance of each. The assessaent provided in Table 4-1 is a subJective one based on: the evaluation of the literature as reported in Chapters 1-3 interviews conducted with various Federal officials the political, econoaic, and technological cliaates as of Fall, 1984 Further, the aaseasaent assuaes that the criteria have equal iaportance and that the issues are relatively independent froa each other. Deapite these assuaptions, the assessaent offered in Table 4-1 is intended to <1> be a vahicle to better coapare and analyze the iasues, <2> &uaaarize the analysis provided in this section of the chapter, and <3> provide a fraaework for additional analysis of the issues. The assessaent suggests four categories of issues in teras of their relet!~e iaportance : Categor~ #1: 14-15 Points Federal responsibility for legislating and regulating access to public inforaation centr~lized or decentralized inforaation policies extent that public inforaation should be considered as a resource or coaaodity revision of Titl~ 44, Y, or pieceaeal revision Categort #2: 11-12 Points adainistering Federal inforaation activities as a .. business" role of the Office of Manageaent and Budget in the developaent of inforaation policies Federal eaphaaia on the use of inforaation technologies related to public inforaation deteraining what public inforaation is to be aade accessible and available to the public role of depository library prograas in the provision of public inforution Categori #3: 9-10 fQ!ll~! Federal pricing of public inforaation bibliographic control over public inforaation criteria for selecting inforaation technologies in the provision of public inforaation Asaignaent of points ~a arbitrary and explained on Table 4-1.
PAGE 278
4-49 Categor~ #4: 7 Points foraal aechanisas to encourage dialogue about inforaation policies Federal responsibility for providing training to user eegaents and interaediaries Another aethod to consider the results of Table 4-1 is to identify only those issues assessed as having "high" potential for increasing access to public inforaation, these would include: centralized or de-centralized inforaation policies F~deral responsibilities for legislating and regulating access to public inforaation bibliographic control over public inforaation extent that public inforaation should be considered as a resource or coaaodity deteraining what public inforaation is to be ade accessible and available to the public Revision of Title 44, y~g, or pieceaeal revision Given the thrust of this report, these six issues take on increased iaportance. If those issues included in the category of highest iaportance (scores of 14-15> and those assessed as having highest potential for increasing access to public inforaation are considered as a group, two priaary issues are identified: what Federal structure balances trade-offs between efficiency and effectivenss for Governaent provision of public inforaation best? what legal bases and responsibilities of the Federal governaent will insure adequate acce2s and a~~1lability to public inforaation? These two issues provide a suaaary and synthesis 0 the ao&1. significant issues discussed in this section and suggest possible policy strategies. BES1 COPY MLMU.L
PAGE 279
4-50 Analysis of Options The preceding section identified fourteen key issues, described possible policy options for each issue, and reviewed iaplications of these option~ in teraa of public access, inforaation technology, and legislation and regulations. This section will synthesize those options into three overall policy strategies for Governaent provision of public inforaation and assess the iapact of these policy strategies. A review of the various options presented in the preceding section suggests that the options have varying levels of coapatibility with other options. For instance, the option of foraalizing and expanding the policy aaking role of the Office of Manageaent and Budget enhances the viability of the option to develop centralized coordination of bibliographic control of various governaent inforaation resources. However, it also ainiaizes the likelihood that Federal agencies will be able to construct unique pricing schedules. The foraulation of the following three policy strategies is based on a coapatibility/incoapatibility analysis of the options listed in the previous aections. The following categories of options were identified: de~endent OQtions: in order for the option to be incorporated as part of an overall policy strategy, a predicator option aust first be selected -neutral o~tions: the option is coapatible with other options including different predicator options Qredicator 2et!Qn!: the option aakes basic assuaptions which, by definition, selects the types of dependent options that can be included in the policy strategy The authors exained various coabinations of the options in light of (1) the
PAGE 280
4-51 coap3tibil1ty/incoapatibility of the options, <2> the likelihood for increased political pressures during the second Reagan adainistration to reduce Federal spending, and <3> increasing effectiveness and decreasing costs of electronic inforaation systeas. This approach .. produced a clustering of options into three e!!g policy strategies. Options provided for each policy strategy are representative and not coaprehensive. Portions of the three policy strategies aay be interchanged with other strategies, strategies are differentiated as follows. Policy Strategy 1: Developaental Decentralization however, the ~!! policy Purpose: The intent of this policy is to increase the efficiency with which Federal inforaation is collected, organized, disseainated, and aanaged, based on the tenets of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980. This policy strategy is aarked not so auch by its policy initiatives as it is by policy avoidance. In this scenario, developaent of inforaation policies is politicized aaong co~peting Federal agencies with one or two agencies eventually claiaing priaary responsibility for policy developaent. Although the scenario ostensibly appears to provide for the developaent of a aore centralized control over inforaation policy developaent, aaJor decisions regarding the iapleaentation of inforaation policy ere likely to reaain at the individual agency level. Further, this policy strategy recognizes a perceived low priority of issues related to Governaent provision of public inforaation end the effects of technology on that provision in light of competing issues related to national security, econoay, and social prograas. Inforaation policy is developed by aiddle level Federal officials priaarily in reseonse to deaands ~_,(
PAGE 281
4-52 placed upon the Governaent by coapeting stakeholders in the inforaation sector. Policy options which can be incorporated into this policy strategy include: -continued developaent of 0MB as a central player in the design and developaent 0 inforaation policy with soae possible erosion of Congressional authority over Federal inforaation policy -enforceaent of existing regulations that require Federal agencies to aaintain adequate bibliographic control over inforaation resources produced -encourageaent of governaent inforaation activities to be adainistered in a business-like fashion, i.e., efficiently -strengthening guidelines and standards for the purchase and use of inforaation technologies priaarily on the basis of initial cost and increasing coapatibility aaong Governaent systeas allowing individual Federal agencies to design and iapleaent user support services based on the aisaion of the agency, user deaands, resources available to support such services, and costs for such support -regulating, aa opposed to legislating, <1> relationships aaong the Federal agencies and between the Federal governaent with other stakeholders in the inforaation sector, and <2> responsibilities and procedures for public inforaation collection, disseaination in response to societal deaands organization, and pricing public inforaation to be self sufficient, i.e., to cover costs for its collection, production; disseaination, and servicing assuaing that the various depository library prograas (as currently organized and adainistered>, the Freedoa of Inforaation Act, and the
PAGE 282
4-53 Privacy Act provide a "safety net" of equal opportunity to adequately access public inforaation This policy strategy is passive and aabi valent in that it allows for "'benign neglect" of basic issues but all_ows, by default, continued developaent of inforaation policy that is driven priaarily by Governaent econoay and inforaation processing for iaproved Governaent efficiency. Policy Strategy 2: Coordinated Diaaeainator Purpose: The intent of this policy is for the Federal governaent to assuae responaibili ty for adequate provision of public inforaation and insure that all user segaents have equal opportunity to public inforaation. This policy strategy is an activist stance in which the Federal governaent assuaes pri~ary responsibility for providing access to public inforaation. An atteapt is aade to de-politicize the Federal collection, organization, and disseaination of public inforaation and a bi-partisan strategy is taken by Federal officials to insure wide access to public inforaation by the various user segaents. This scenario aay require the Governaent to reduce the quantity of inforaation intended for public disseination but significantly iaproves the access and availability to inforaation which is intended for disseaination. Public inforaation is seen as a social good, owned by the public at large, and for which the Federal governaent is held responsible for providing Q~~!S levels of access to user segaents ~gy~!!i incorporated in this policy strategy include: Policy options that can be
PAGE 283
4-54 estabfishing an "independent agency" under the Executive branch with safeguards that insure Congressional oversight; the agency would be responsible for the design, iapleaentation, and enforceent of inforation policies and procedures -clarifying at the tine of establishing services, products, or systeas, for public inforation collection or creation the degree to which they are to be aade available for public inforation -accepting the notion that the effective collection, organization, and disseaination of public inforation can be accoaplished efficiently but that effective provision of that inforaation aay require direct Federal support and in aoae cases, subsidies to interaediaries or stakeholders fro the inforaation sector -coordinating and re-organizing the depository library progras and funding the directly, to exploit available inforaation technologies, <2> increase local bibliographic control over public inforaation, <3> increase the Public's awareness of the types and content of public inforaation, and (4> assist users to better exploit available public inforaation aaking public inforaation accessible and available in traditional paper copy as well as through technological foraats to ainiaize the ipact of technology on inforaation gaps in Aerican society -deteraining public inforaation needs of specific user segaents and disseainate inforaation in foraats !Qt easily accessible for that user segaent proaoting and financing user training and support services for public inforaation services and products
PAGE 284
4-55 -varying the pricing of public inforaation, e.g., subsidized, selfsufficient, or cost-plus, depending on user segaent inforaation needs and type of public inforaation This policy strategy charges the Federal govern~ent with ~t!Y! disseaination responsibility to insure the public's access to public inforaation. It recognizes the need to de-politicize inforaation policy and to have Federal inforaation services be y~~ driven. However, it is possible that !~!! inforaation aight be aade aore effectively accessible to !Qr~ user segaents. Policy Strategy 3: Inforaation Contractor Purpose: The intent of this policy is to reaove priaary responsibility froa the Federal governaent for the provision of public inforaation and to encourage other stakeholders in the information sector to assuae such responsibility. In this policy strategy the Federal governaent is liaited in its re~ronsibility to provide public inforaation to a basic !!n!!Y! level. NonFederal stakeholders in the inforaation sector are encouraged to provide a broad range of value added enhanceaents to public inforaation and price those enhanceents in teras of open aarket factors. Public inforaation is considered to be aore of a coaaodity rather than a societal good, although soae provision is aade to insure a !in!!Y! level of access to those !~~~!ns public inforaation. Governaent inforaation services and products are designed not to coapete with existing stakeholders in or potential services/products the inforation sector; aany of produced by the existing inforaation services and products would be contracted to non-Federal Governaent non-Federal stakeholders : and the Governaent's role in disseaination of public inforation would be significantly reduced.
PAGE 285
4-56 Components that could be incorporated in this option include: -establishing a regulatory agency charged with the responsibility of Managing and coordinating non-Federal stakeholders' collection, organization, and disseaination of public inforaation identifying ~iniaua level value added enhanceaents to be aake by Federal agencies on inforaation services and products: enhanceaents beyond such a ainiaua level would be contracted to non-Federal stakeholders proaoting technology developaent of Federal infor~ation systeas and products through low-interest loans, or other subsidies -accepting the assuaption that public inforaation should be aanaged in a businesslike fashion, i.e., profit-aaking whenever possible -expanding 0MB directives A-76 and A-25 to allow cooperative arrangeaents between the Governaent and other stakeholders in the inforaation sector; inforaation services could be contracted outside the Governaent and then "sold back" on a "no cost" clause and provided to other inforaation stakeholders and the Public on an .. anti-coapetition .. or "non-aonopoly" clause -eliainating Title 44, yg, or significantly changing it such that the GPO is aodeled and operated siailarly to the NTIS -allowing a decentralized "aarket driven" approach to the selection of inforaation technologies and assuae that those technologies selected by the agencies or the contractors will either aeet user needs or not aeet user needs -establishing a voucher system for the depository library prograas whereby the participating libraries can .. purchase" the inforaation services and product.a needed fro the perceived aost
PAGE 286
4-57 effective/efficient source proaoting awareness of public inforaation, stakeholders in the inforaation sector but relying on non-Federal to design and iapleaent interaediary inforaation services, user support systes, and direct user training This policy strategy encourages open aarket coapetition to assist in the developaent of inforaation technologies but atteapts to provide for a ainiaua level of direct support for provision of public inforaation. In soae instances, existing Federal inforaation services and products would have to be scaled down, contracted to non-Federal stakeholders, or eliainated. Coaparison of Policy Strategies Each of the three policy strategies has strengths and weaknesses which can be identified by coaparing the against a set of iapact criteria. Such criteria include: -effectiveness: how well will the policy purposes and activities be achieved? Is this a short-tera or long-ter solution to basic issues in dispute? efficiency: What are the likely costs, risks, and benefits of the policy strategy? !9Y!ti: How are the costs, risks, and benefits distributed aaong various etakeholders? How well can alternatives be applied to local circuastances and to what extent can they be reversed? imQlementabiliti: How well ~an the options be iapleaented? Are they feasible? To what degree and fro which stakeholders will opposition coae?
PAGE 287
4-58 These criteria have been used successfully in other policy analyses as a aeans to (1) categorize and coapare trade-offs, and <2> aake explicit differing values at stake in the policy decision . Tables 4-2 through 4-4 provide an ~a~~aaaent of each policy strategy with regard to these criteria. They have been applied to the three policy strategies to provide an overview assessaent, are based priaarily on the authors' review of the literature and subJective assessaent, and are not intended to be .. full-scale" analyses. The suaaary assessaents provided in each table suggest that nuaerous trade-offs are evident aaong the criteria. Further, the trade-offs differ not only aaong the criteria but also in teras of their iapact on specific stakeholders. To illustrate this point four stakeholders, i.e., Federal agencies, not-for-profit interaediaries, for-profit stakeholders, and user segaents were coapared in teras of potential iapacts resulting fro each of the three policy strategies . The iapact analysis presented in Table 4-5 ~rovides a sense of how the selection of one policy will have differing ipacts on a broad category of stakeholders. However, each of the categories could be broken into subgroups. For exaaple, the user segaents could be further described in teras of inforation gathering behaviors as suggested in Appendix 1-2. Federal agencies could be further described by additional criteria such as their affiliation with one of the three branches of Governaent or by agency aission, and so forth. While Table 4-5 is suggestive of potential iapacts, one aust recognize that the iapacte listed aay vary within subgroups of the listed stakeholders. The analysis of the issues, options, and policy strategies in the preceding sections of this chapter reveals a priaary factor that also should be considered. While ,decision aaking can be defined as the conversion of /) (" ( ex_ pt
PAGE 288
TABLE 4-2 SUMMARY ANALYSIS OF POLICY STRATEGY 1: DEVELOPMENTAL DECENTRALIZATION Criterion Effectiveness l:ff iciency Equity Flexibility Assessaent Tends to encourage issue or proble avoidance and increase overt confrontations aaong Federal agencies and between branches; a short tera proble solving policy which aay exaccerbate resolution of additional issues at a later date. Kuch of the legislative basis for this policy can be drawn fro the Paperwork Reducation Act of 1980. Policy enforceaent aay be difficult due to agency turf skiraishes and aiddle level Federal official turnover. The priaary strength of this policy strategy is its ability to reduce overall Governaent expenses for inforaation related activities. Econoaies in governaent costs will have to be assuaed by users or other stakeholders to aaintain or increase access to public inforaation. There is little political risk for the Governaent and the resultant econoaies have current political benefits. Non-Federal stakeholders in the inforaation sector aay obtain increased opportunities but will likely have to deal with a confusing and contradictory array of decentralized inforaation policies and procedures. If user segaents obtain iaproved provision of public inforaation it will be as an unanticipated consequence of the policy and aay require additional user costs to coapensate for the governaent econoaies. Greater responsibilities for inforaation aanageaent will be placed on aiddle level Federal officials. Federal agencies aay have wide latitude in the degree to which they address provision of public inforaation since greater concern will be placed on costs and uses of technology. Agreaaive non-Federal inforaation atakeholders aay be able to exploit the policy at an Agency level if there ia a sizable difference between the coapetencies of the stakeholder and the agency. Policies and procedures cannot be changed quickly. Iapleaentability The policy can be iapleaented under existing legislation and regulations with soae expansion and detail. 0MB ia "geared up" for additional responsibilities in thia area and opposition to the policy aay be forgotten or ignored in light of existing critical policy issues in areas of national security, budget deficits, and the role of social prograas.
PAGE 289
TABLE 4-3 SUMMARY ANALYSIS OF POLICY STRATEGY 2: COORDINATED DISSEMINATOR Criterion Ef f ecti veneaa Efficiency Equity Flexibility Assesaaent Thia policy stance confronts, directly, the iaaue of provision of public inforaation and sets in aotion a strategy that deals with both short-tera and long-tera issues. Because of its coordinated approach it aay have a potential for adainistrative sabotage by dissatisfied agencies without enabling legislation that gives the coordinating body authority to enforce its decisions. Coats for this approach aay be higher than for policy strategy #1. Further, there are political risks for spending significant resources to re-structure inforaation policy ~!tb2Yt significant coat aavings. Non-Federal inforaation stakeholders aay aee this policy as continued interference in their right to provide public inforaation. Uaera will gain the aoat by not being held responsible for additional feea or resources to ~ccess public inforaation. Perceived equity of this policy will vary significantly aaong stakeholders and users. The priaary benefits fro the policy will go to users, but benefits in teraa of increased societal productivity and creativity aoy also result (long tera>. Depository Libraries will be benefited by this policy and non-Federal designers and producers of inforaation aysteas will receive less direct benefits than !n policy strategy #3. The central coordination of this policy will decrease the flexibility and adainistrative options at an Agency level but will increase user flexibility and options in accessing public inforaation. Non-Fed~ral inforaation atakeholders aay have greater guidelines and regulations to aeet in order to work directly with the agency given responsibility for coordinating public inforaatin disseaination. Policies can be changed aore quickly than in options #1 and #3. Iapleaentability This policy would require additions and changes to existing legialetion and regulations. Constitutional issues related to separation of powers would have to be resolved in the organization of this coordinated "independent agency.11 Federal agencies with aoae independence in their inforaation-related activities are likely to aitigata against the feasibility of this policy.
PAGE 290
TABLE 4-4 SUMMARY ANALYSIS OF POLICY STRATEGY 3: INFORMATION CONTRACTOR Criterion Effectiveness Efficiency Equity Flexibility Thia policy strategy confronts inforaation policy issues directly. Short-tera consequences of the policy aay be to hinder public inforaation provision for selected agencies and user groups; long-tera effects of this approach could clarify the role of t~e Federal governaen~ in the provision of public inforaation and provide en iapetus for private developaent and expansion of inforaation technologies. A benefit of thia policy strategy is the likely reduced Federal coata for provision of public inforaation. But there ere great risks in that once certain inforaation services and products are "turned over" to non-Federal stakeholders they cannot be returned or could be returned in auch an altered atate that an entirely new inforation service or product aight have to be developed. Efficiencies for the uaer of public inforaation aay or aay not be enhanced depending on the individual contractors. Two groups to benefit froa this policy would be Federal agencies which could reduce the nuaber of inforaation services and syateas to be operated directly and nonFederal inforaation stakeholders (contractors> who could provide appropriate inforaation servies and products. If agreeaents were aade with contractors to insure !!9!!Y! levels of equal access, the Public aay be satisfied with the arrangeaent, but there is increased likelihood for creating or expanding inforaation gaps. The policy provides a coaproaise position between policy atrategiea #1 and #2 in teraa of Federal agency flexibility in the provision of public inforaation. If !!n!!Y! levels of access cannot be guaranteed by the Federal governaent there would likely be opposition to the policy by apokeaperaona for various uaer interests. Non-Federal stakeholders will ind thia policy to have the greatest flexibility. Coapatibility aaong contractual systeas aay not be high. Iapleaentability Soae changes in the existing legislation and regulations related to inforaation policy would be necessary. However, politically, there aay be aore support for this policy than atteapting wholesale revision of Title 44, QQ, or exaaple. Its adaptability ia liaited since the Federal governaent would reduce ita control over iapleaentation and enforceaent of public inforaation aervicea. C2./ I
PAGE 291
TABL. 4-5 POTENTIAL I~TS CF PO..ICY STRATEGIES SELECTED ST~RS Policy 11 Policy 12 Policy 13 Stakeholders Developaental Decentralized ~rd1Nted D1sse1inator lt,foraat ion Contractor Federal -ircreased conflict uong agencies -increased centralized authority -increased centralized authorAgencies and betNeen Branches over infol"llition policy ity over infcnation pol1C1es -Paper.,rk Reduction Act of 1980 -reauires additional changes in 1inor additional changes in can be used to Justify activities in existing legislation and regs. existing legislation and regs. -increased Sovernaent econoaies -saae or decreased Sovernaent -1 ncreased Sovernaent ecoran es -increased eo11patibility among econoaies -reduced direct control over Sovernaent infor11c1tion systettS -requires authorization of upper disseainat ion of public inf. -increased eaohasis on agency adainistrative authority -dificulty of 'guaranteeing inforaat1on aanageaent activities -significant political risks and contractor perforaance over -li1ited political risks a!'li high low political reNards tiae political reMards -.oderate political risks and unknown political rwards -.ust expand 00 A-76 and ~25 directives Non-Profit -saae ability to assist users -increased responsibilities for -increased assignment of costs Interlled-and provide user support services training users to users for providing public iaries (e.g. -no iaproveaent over bibliographic -iaproved bibliographic control inforution libraries) control of public inforaation and over public inforaat1on and -reduced or no iaoroveaent information systeas inf oraation systeas of bibliographic control over -possible i1prove11ent for net1>rking -increased direct Sovernaent fund-public intonation ard inforand downloading of Soverrwent ing and/or subsidies to provide aation systeas inforaation S)'5teas public information -reduced nuaber of public in-increased costs in identifying and -increased cooperative ventures foraation services and products obtaining technology based public Nith 6overn111ent that 1c1y reolace that can be disseainated unless information such as aachine-soae not-for-profit stakeholders a voucher system is used readable data files -ircreased incoapati bi 1 t:; and and access to contractor inf. systHS and products -.akening of Title 44, USC For-Profit -increased opportunities for -decreased opportunities to -technology start-up costs can Stakeaggressive stakeholders develop information systeas for be passed along to users holders -increased encouragement to public infol"lliltion -increased e01pet i tion aaong provide value added services -decreased direct negotiation stakeholders for contracts -increased COllplexity in dealing Nith individual agencies -i no-eased likelihood for con-Nith different agencies and -long range increase in techflict of interests bet..een aeeting their information needs nology productivity and inno-those contracting for infor--technology start-up costs can vation due to open access to aation servies and those be passed along to users public infOM1ation stakeholders providing the -reallocation of technology devservices resources to non-public inforaa--increased innovation in the tion ams and problNS design of inforaation systeas for public inforaation .-,-) ----
PAGE 292
Stakeholders User Segments Polley 11 Develo011ental Decentralized TABLE 4-5 ( Cont 1 nued) Policy 12 Coordinated D1ssem1nator -acc:ess to oublic inforaation reeains -reduced auantity of public inforthe saae but reduced availability aation intended for dissemination -same or increased confusion over hOlil -public 1nformat1on services and to access Gverraent information products targeted at specific user -no central recourse or focus 00int se;ments Policy 13 lnformat1on Contractor -procedures to access the Sc111e tyoe of information 111c1y change over t 111e because of a if ferent contractors -increased costs and oersonal for users to obtain assistance in -increased overall access and availresources to access public acc:ess1ng public inforaation ability to oublic inforaat1on information -same or increased costs to obtain -increased use of interllediaries -dissatisfaction 111ith Nhat oublic inforaation -encouragement of individual creaconstitutes mini!um level -same or increased levels of incoativity and learning of access to public information patibility (in terms of user access> -ercouragement of small businesses -increased reliance on FOIA, to Governaent information systems and capitalisa Privacy Act, or other safety -saae or decreased awareness of -reduction in existing information nets formats and types of public gaos -increases likelihood of creatinformation ing or expanding information gaps
PAGE 293
4-59 inforaation into action, the types of decision aaking, or the philosophy that drives decision aaking regarding Federal inforaation policy deserves careful attention. Three types of approaches to decision aaking can be identified currently with regard to inforaation policy developaent: decisions are baaed priaarily on power relationships aaong stakeholders concerning the issue; individual aotivea for self-advanceaent often take precedence over resolving the actual issues !r~~t based decision !~ing: decisions are based on econoaic factors in which efficiency of Governaent operations doainates the resolution of the issues decisions are based on a o~erations prescribed foraula or algoritha in which specific factors are identified, defined, and applied uniforaly for a nuaber of decision situations These approaches are not autually exclusive, and can be aade aore useful if specific obJectives to be accoaplished and choices aaong coapeting sets of alternatives are identified ~r!QI to the analysis of issues, or options, and iapleaentation of a policy. These three different approaches to Federal decision aaking aay be considered as aeens to develop each of the three policy strategies. For instance, the Departaent of Agriculture appears to be using a coabination of policy strategy #3, Inforaation Contractor, and aarket-based decision aaking. NTIS appears to stress political decision aaking end policy strategy #1, developaental decentralization. The Bureau of the Census aight be characterized as using political-based decision aaking and policy strategy #2, coordinated disseMination as an inforaation policy strategy. -L I -, r I I'-/-, . : > .. I' I .. '\; I ,w !.\) J I'.~ H
PAGE 294
4-60 Thus, it aay be appropriate to develop legislation and/or regulations that allow individual agencies and departents to design their own inforaation policy strategies froa a aenu of possible strategies previously approved by the Joint Coaaittee on Printing, the Office of Manageaent and Budget, or another such office, and in conforaity with existing legilsation and regulations. Such an approach would provide for soae central control and guidance over agency aethods for the provision of public inforaation disseaination, while at the saae tiae providing agencies an opportunity to create policy strategies and eaploy decision aaking techniques best-suited for their particular situation and aission. For purposes of analysis, the three policy strategies have been tightly differentiated. But as suggested earlier, soae options aay be interchanged aaong the strategies if they are neutral, i.e., do not require a predicator option. Exaaples of neutral options that aight be interchanged aaong the strategies include: establishing aechanisaa that encourage continuing dialogue aaong various stakeholders in the inforaation sector clarifying at the tiae of establishing services, products, or systeas for public inforaation collection or creation the degree to which they are to be aade available for public dia&eaination enforcing existing laws and regulations regarding control of public inforaation bibliographic establishing and enforcing crit~ria for the selection of inforaation technology used to disseainate public inforaation enforcing the use of FIPS standards related to inforaation processing
PAGE 295
4-61 establishing advisory boards to review various public inforaation services and products of the Governaent strengthening the affectivenes& of the various depository library prograaa Developing policy strategies that rely priaarily on neutral options will ir.crease the likelihood that the strategy can be iapleaented successfully. Clearly lacking froa auch of existing analyses of issues, options, and policy strategies regarding Governaent provision of public inforaation is the perspective of the user of that inforaation. The assuaption that users are as sophisticated about accessing Governaent inforaation sources as the collectors and providers of that inforaation siaply ia not valid. Regardless of the policy strategy taken, greater eaphasis on the user's perspective in teras of accessing public inforaation is needed or public inforaation will not effectively assist in individual or organizational decision aaking.
PAGE 296
4-62 Increasing Access to Public I~foraation The Departent of Agriculture and the Ccngressional Research Service's studies which have exaained the inforaation needs of agricultural Aaerica provide a useful appro~ch for aatching departaental inforaation services and prod~cts to the needs of specific user segaents . Siailiar studies aerit the attention and support of the Governent, and with such studies there aight be a better understanding of the public'& needs ~nd ability to gain access to Governaent distributed public inforaation. Generally, one finds only pockets of interest aaong the various Federal agencies regarding issues related to access to public inforation. This aay not be as auch an intentional slighting of inforaation policy issues as it is the perception of the iaportance of inforaation policy issues vis a vis other issues requiring the attention of the Governaent. A better understanding of the iaportance and iapact of access to public inforation by Governaent officials is necessary and they aay have to be 11educated11 in this regard. Overview of Acee to Public Inforaation This report clearly indicates the coaplexity of the issues and probleas related to the developent of national inforaation policies. However, through auch of the literature, the perspective of the public inforaetion user is frequently forgotten or ignored. It is essential that future studies and research related to Governaent provision of public infcraation include such a perspective. Figure 4-4 is an overview, in general teras, of access to public inforaation from the perspective of the user: Cl> the user has an inforaation need and initiates soae inforation gathering behavior: <2> the user aay or aay not consult an interaediary for assistance: (3) the user encounters a 7
PAGE 297
9 FIGURE 4-4 ACCESS TO PUBLIC INFORMATION FEDERALLY PROVIDED PUBLIC INFORMATION PUBLIC INFORMATION 8 ______ 1 2 Information 3 Barriers: -cost -time constraints Non-Public Information Source Gathering Be-.,__......,_Intermediary?r-----... havior of 1 1 -technological iiteracy -bibliographic control User Segments -type of format --------physical location of information -other 5 --' 4 I 1 INABILITY TO _______ IIntermediary? _______ ,_ACCESS PUBLIC I INFORMATION -.. 7 ,.__ -I , "intermediary? I PERCEIVED "EQUAL OPPORTUNITY" SAFETY NET TO "GUARANTEE" ACCESS TO PUBLIC INFORMATION, E.G., FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT, PRIVACY ACT, AND OTHER LAWS AND REGULATIONS I I --I
PAGE 298
4-63 nuaber of barriers to access the inforaation, and depending on the user's skills and/or ability to consult with interaediaries, the user aay C4> consult another interaediary, CS> be unable to access public infor~ation, CS> access soae other type of inforaation that aeets his/her needs, or C9) access Governaent provided public inforaation--through either a Federal ~r nonFederal agency/organization. If users are unable to negotiate access barriers (3), they aay decide to rely on "safety net" that guarantees "equal opportunity" to access public inforaation C6). Depending on their knowledge of such "safety net" procedures, use of interaediaries that know such procedures <7>. and the barriers related to using the safety net procedures (3), users aay access the needed public inforaation <9>, access soae other type of inforaation that aeeta their needs (8), be denied access to public infora~tion CS>, or perhaps, reaain within a loop of barriers and interaediaries. Although the aodel suggested in Figure 4-4 is only an overview, it does suggest ft nuaber of significant factors: the role of interaediaries is critical for effective provision of public inforaation: the average citizen aust rely on libraries, inforaation services brokers, Federal agency user support services, etc., if access to public inforaation is likely to be successful nuaeroua types of barriers can liait the effectiveness with which the user can access public inforaation: different types of barriers aay affect different user groups differently in teras of their ability to access public inforaation the degree to which the Governaent provides "safety nets" that insure or guarantee soae ainiaal level of access to public inforaation requires additional attention: FOIA, the Privacy Act, perhaps the GPO depository library prograa, fall into this catego~y, but how effective 277
PAGE 299
4-64 are each in guaranteeing "equal opportunity" to public inforaation? users can encounter nuaerous pitfalls and difficulties in any atteapt to access public inforaation: in addition, uaera can be caught in a "closed loop" of activities that aiaply bounce thea along a set 6 procedures without providing access to the needed public inforaation Froa the user perspective, "adequate" access to public inforaation aay, indeed, be difficult to provide without greater g!r!~~ intervention by the Governaent to siaplify and expedite the process. If the Governaent is to take its responsibilities seriously as a provider of public inforaation, an !~t!?! stance is needed. Except for user services such as those provided by the Bureau of the Census, for exaaple, the Governaent's role is priaarily a passive one, i.e., the user should coae to the Governaent and seek inforaation rather than the Governaent initiating such direct assistance. Equal opportunity for all user segaents to public inforaation does not occur aiaply because the Governaent allows individuals to seek it. The notion of a "safety net .. that insures a ainiaua level of .. equal opportunity" to public inforaation raises a nuaber of questions regarding the Governaent's responsibilities for provision of public inforaation. As described, such "safety net" and "equal opportunity" perspectives proaote a 9~!!!?! rather than active role of the Governaent regarding its responsibility in the provision of public inforaation. In the discussions with various Federal officials that were conducted as part of this report, the authors encountered a perception that an adequate "safety net .. exists, that all "print" public inforaation is placed into the GPO depository library prograa
PAGE 300
4-65 r!9Y!!~ public inforaation, and that all user seg~ents have equal access to public inf~raation. Such views are naive and siaplistic at best. In suaaary, inforation gaps exist in Aaerican society and specific user segaents experience difficulties in obtaiing needed public inforaation. There ia a confusing, contradictory, and incoherent body of Federal legislation and regulations related to Governaent provision of public inforaation. Further, the developaent of inforaation systeas at the Federal level i~ cost-driven and little consideration is given to public access to that inforaation. Although the nation's libraries are given lip-service as an iaportant player in insuring adequate access to public inforaation they are not funded to accoaplish such an obJective. And finally, political philosophy coabined for a zeal for econoay in Governaent, rather than eapirical evidence tends to dictate the developaent of inforaation policies and procedures. A Reaearch Agenda for Inforaation Policy The analysis of policy issues identified a nuaber of key research areas related to Governaent provision of public inforaation. A suaaary of these research topics with specific research obJectives is given in Appendix 4-10. A research agenda is essential as a basis for the obJective developaent of national inforaation policies. This agenda should be broadly conceived, incorporating research and developaent studies so that conceptual aodels as well as policy guidelines can be developed and tested. The agenda should be shaped by people in all segaents of society and the inforaation sector and identify long-tera goals and specific obJectives related to the resolution of national inforaation policies. The Governaent, as non-Federal stakeholders in the inforaation sector have charged, does not coordinate planning regarding inforaation polcies. The
PAGE 301
4-E,E, Governaent tends to Jup into decisions which aay contradict existing or future decisions. For exaaple, the for-profit sector was assured that the GPO would not extend its aicropublishing prograa to Congressional hearings without taking into account the needs and interests of all stakeholders in the inforaation sector. However, in the late 1970s the GPO included aicrofiche hearings in its depository progra after it queried depository libraries if they wanted to receive that type of public inforaation in that foraat. The views of other stakeholder were not solicited. The tiae is ripe for an open and extensive discussion 0 the role, use, and access to Governaent provided public inforaation and the effects of technology on access to that inforaation. The developaent of a national agenda ~egarding these topics could be aodeled after the successful White House Conference on Library and Inforaation Services which was pre:eded by state and local aeetings. Direct participation and planning for the conference and its agenda fro both state and Federal library and inforaation-related professional associations, publishers, data base brokers, lay-people, scholars, Governaent officials, and other stakeholders fro the inforaation sector could provide the basis for establishing such an agenda. At present, there is no agreeaent on which issues are aost iQortant or require iaaediate attention; there are few aechanisaa for encouraging open coaaunication and discussion aaong the various stakeholders in the inforaation sector; and the coaplexity of the issues will increase rather than decrease without soae agreeaent both within and without the Federal governaent regarding national inforaation policies. The agenda could be translated into specific research and developaent studies and serve, then, as a basis for a series of workshops and seainars to disseainate findings and recoaaendations widely and to open the to public review. Research in these areas aust have eolict value. And despite the
PAGE 302
4-67 costs for the developaent and iapleaentation of a national agenda for inforaution policies, the coats for n2t taking this or aoae other type of action are likely to be far greater. With a research baaia of inforaation related to the iaauea, careful planning, a structured approach to identifying and discussing the various policy iasuea, and the establiahaent of a cooperative partnership aaong the stakeholders in the inforaation sector, the existing quagaire of overlapping, contradictory, and differently interpreted Federal inforaation policies can be aade coherent. Indeed, such clarification and coherency is essential for the continued strength and productivity of both the Governaent and the citizenry of the United States. ~f.Sl C~PY AVAILAiLt
PAGE 303
APPENDICES I /-~4 StSf COPY AVAILAilt
PAGE 304
Appendix 1-1, page 1 APPENDIX 1-1 TYPES OF PUBLIC INFORMATION RESOLlRCES Administrative Reports Many Government agencies issue an annual or other periodic report identifying their accomplishments during the past year and their proposed budget and activities for the upcoming year. These reports frequently contain organization ch~rts and the services provided~ Committee and Commission Reports list Both Congress and the President e~tablish special committees and commissions to examine a social, political, or economic concern, a condition, or a foreign policy issue. These committees and commissions issue reports, many of which are available for public scrutiny. Research Reports and Development Studies The Federal government is a significant funder and conductor of research on a wide range of topics. The importance of this type of public information is evident from the existence of the National Technical Information Service
PAGE 305
Appendix 1-1, page 2 data in the world. Active in this area are agencies such as the Bureau of the Census, the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the National Center for Education Statistics, the N~tional Center for Health Statistics, the Economics and Statistics Service, and the Statistical Reporting Service . General Information Pamphlets and Fact Sheets Many people often associate public information with this type of source. These publications offer suggestions, ideas, and techniques for people to lead a better, or at leas~ more efficient, life. The all-time best sellers of the Government Printin~ Office (GPO) are Infant Care and Prenatal g~r~, while the Gover~ment is the best selling non-pamphlet Periodical a The Federal government is a maJor producer of periodicals. Varying 11, content, appearance, value, and purpose, they range from those aimed at a narrow audience to titles having a broad appeal. A wide gamut of periodical types is published; these
PAGE 306
Appendix 1-1, page 3 include research Journals, newsletters from individual agencies, popular periodicals on specific topics, scenic or travel perioc1cals, etc. Press Releases and Other Ephemera These publications provide current information and identifies agency activities, source material, publicly held meetings, proposed rules and regulations, and speeches delivered by important officials within the agency. releases in the form of a newsletter. Some agencies issue press Directories These publications list Government agencies and their key officials, agency resources and services, etc. Examples of directories include the Congressional Directory, aqency telephone directories, and the U.S. Government Such publications are essential for the provision of fast, accurate, and current answers to "quick act" reference questions and for referrals. Handbook, Manual, and Digeata This type of' public information provides synopses and analyses of significant developments and issues; they may describe something and offer instructions for its repair. Some handbooks represent a compilation of factual information. The Department of Defense, for example, issues technical manuals identifying component parts of equipment and procedures or the replacement of these parts. The.Department also makes available the Area Handbook series written through the Foreign Area Studies program of The American University. ?x1
PAGE 307
Appendix 1-1, page 4 Bibliographies, Lists, Guides, and Catalogs Bo~h execu~ive agencies and congressional committees issue lists of their publications. Sometimes, these lists are incorporated into press releases and newsletters. The GPO is a maJor producer of this publication type; it issues, for example, the Monthly Catalog of United States Government Publications, the Publications Reference Ei!~, subJect bibliographies, and catalogs of sales publications. NTIS offers Government Announcements and Ing~~ and abstract newsletters, which highlight new publications by eubJect. Numerous other examples of this type of public information can be found in Morehead <1983) and Decisions and Opinions Official decisions and opiuions are rendered by the courts, regulatory agencies , the military, the Comptroller General (General Accounting Office>, and the Attorney-General. Decisions and opinions provide the legal precedence for interpreting public laws and regulations, and provide a forum in which these laws and regulations to be challenged. Rules, Reguletions, Directives, end Circulers Commonly referred to as administrative law, this type of information represents the efforts of an agency within the Executive or Legislative Branch of Government to establish the procedures by which statutory law is administered. For example, the President and Congress enacted the Food Stamp Program and
PAGE 308
placed Agriculture. under the Jurisdiction of the The Depertment then developed the Appendix 1-1, page 5 Department of administrative rulings to implement the statutory law and to guide daily operetions and decision making. Article I, Section 5, of the Constitution authorizes each House of Congress to determine the rules which will govern its proceedings. Stending rules continue from one Congress to another bu~ are subJect to change. Precedents encompass a broader concept; the 9recedents of the Senate comprise procedural law under which that House conducts its business. This type of law consists of standing rules, ~Q n2~ orders, unanimous consent agreements of the Senate, and relevant. statutory and constitutional provisions. The Executive Branch issues circulars which policies, procedures, and practices. In addition, prescribe agencies formulate and announce policies and procedures by telephone and letter. Later these decisions may be cumulated and issued as a regulation. For example, in 1983 and 1984, the Joint Committee on Printing developed regulations and guidelines, partly based on existing policy, Regulations . Mapa, Chart, and Photographs The maJor mapping agencies in the Federal government 11annually produce over 53,000 new maps and charts and distribute over 160,000,000 copies" Examples Social Conservation Service and Forest Service of
PAGE 309
Appendix 1-1, page 6 National Ocean Service and Bureau of the Census Defense Mapping Agency and Corps of Engineers (Department 0 Defense) Federal InsJrance Administration Tennessee Valley Authority Federal maps and charts include weather maps, soil maps, nautical charts, aerial photographic maps, geological maps, countries and their maJor cities, topographic maps, etc. maps of Special maps also display serial and space imagery and map data in digital form. Tne National Aeronautics and Space Administration is an important producer of photographs taken from probes of outer space. its various Audiovisual Resources The Federal government spends approximately SlOO million per year on 11the production, duplication, distribution, and off-the-shelf purchases of motion pictures, videotapes, slides and audio recordings'' (President's Private Sector Survey on Cost ggntrgl, 1983, p. 67). Due to the April 1981 directive of President Reagan end the subsequent directives from the Office of Management and Budget, .. government spending on audiovisual activity decreased 13 percent from FY1981 to FY1982~ the greatest decrease in five years. Furthermore, in-house production of motion pictures reached an all-time low in FY1982"
PAGE 310
Appendix 1-1, page 7 69) The National Audiovisual Center, General Services Admin1strat..1on, was created in 1969 to serve as a clearinghouse for Federal government audiovisual material and to make these resources available for public use (see Chapter 3). Holdings are far from comprehensive but include slides, audio tapes, 16mm and 35mm educational movies, etc. Bills and Resolutions Bills and resolutions are the form in which legislation is proposed in Congress. As such, they are primary source material, critical for original research and investigation. Hearings Hearings, which may be publicly held or in closed session, enable Members of Congress to determine whether a particular action is necessary, to see whether legislation is or is not warranted, or to draw public attention to an issue. They afford an opportunity to sources, to display draw together information a variety of viewpoints, rc)m informed to educate the public about an issue, or to call attention to the consequences of an action. Congressional hearings are either for an QY~~!ght (review existing laws on the basis of policy priorities, program effectiveness, or administrative discretion> or a legislative (focus on bills before Congress or a subJect on which legislation is contemplated> purpose . Executive agencies can also hold hearings. For example, the Bureau of Indian Affairs communicates with people from the
PAGE 311
Appendix 1-1, page 8 various Indian reservationse However, these hearings are infrequently published and may remain in transcript form 1n the offices of the agency or the National Archives, where they may be available for public inspection contain the debates and speeches delivered on the floor as well as assorted other material. The House but not the Senate is videorecording its floor discussions, and frequently these can be seen on public television. The public can view House proceedings on the Cable Satellite Public Network (C-SPAN>. Garay <1984) provides an excellent analysis of the relationship between braodcasting and the Government. As he points out, the printed Congressional Record is subJect to Congressional revision, while videorecordings are retained or only two months before being erased and used again. On the other hand, audiorecordings "would be retained indeinitely in the Library of Congress"
PAGE 312
Appendix 1-1, page 9 special conference, seminar, or workshop. The purpose 0 these proceedings is to inform members of the Government or special target groups, or to report on the exchange 0 ideas. Laws end Statutes Thjs type of public information source repr.esents the oicial text of legislation which has become public law. Statutory law can be found in both the Statut~s at Large and the United States Code. Treaty Sources Treaties represent the result of foreign policy negotiation between the Executive Branch of the Federal government and another country. Congress enters into the process to convey it~ concerns and points of view to the administration and when the Senate must consider ratification of a treaty by a two-thirds vote. Teehnic~l Report Technical reports frequently result from Government sponsored research and development activities but are not confined to these. They are usually directed toward the specifications of a contract but also may be written to meet the information needs of a broader audience. As shown by Purcell, "the term 'technical report literature' has a broad scope and describes various types 0 publications .. <1984, p. 173). The final report on a technical contract is probably the most valuable of the types. The responsibility or the announcement and distribution of
PAGE 313
Appendix 1-1, page 10 technical report literature is fragmented among various clearinghouses, institutes, and the originating or publishing agency. Examples of Federal agencies which have the announcement and distribution of technical reports as a primary function are the National Technical Information Service, Educational Resour~es Information Center , National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Department of Energy, and the Defense Information Center. Technical Patents A patent for an invention is a grant by the Federal government to an inventor. Awarded by the Patent and Trademark Office, the patent right extends to the entire United States and its territories and possessions, for a period of seventeen years. Patents cover "new and useful processes, machines, manufacturers, or compositions of matter, new and distinct varieties of plants or organisms or new designs or articles of manufacture ... may be grouped into four categories: "utility patents, They the largest category; plant patents; design patents: and reissue patents, which show corrections or patents previously issued" (Aluri and Robinson, 1983~ p. 89>. Technical Documentation The proliferation of machine-readable data files and the creation of computer software to facilitate their use has lead to a special type of public inormation --technical documentation. The availability of numerous software programs emphasizes the need for layout, codebooks and other documentation explaining the the specifications, reliability of data, etc.
PAGE 314
Appendix 1-2, page l TYPOLOGY OF INFORMATION GATHERING SITUATIONS Neighborhood -Neighbors --nosiy, trashy, drunk, gossipy, etc. Clf drugs a~d theft, code under Q~!~~) -Neighborhood Kids --hoodlums, noisy, trashy, vandalism, etc. -Dogs in Neighborhood --loose, barking, messy, into trash, dog control laws not implemented, etc. -Rats in Neighborhood --in house, controlled by city, etc. in neighborhood, not trash -City Services in Neighborhood maintenance, sewage, abandoned appliances, control and rat removal above> removal, street etc.
PAGE 315
Appena1x 1-2, page 2 -Consumer Protection --protection against rip-offs, dishonest merchants, free oifers, mail order companies, obnoxious salesman, harassment from creidtors, etc. -Gt.her Consumer tlQ~~OS ~09 Household Maintenance -Loans and Mortgages --concerns on getting loans and mortgages, financing home improvements, etc. -Getting Another/Better Place to Live -dissatisf~ction with present housing (rent, landlord, location, etc,) and want better place. -Landlords -dissatisfaction with rent, maintenance, etc. but not mention wenting to find new place. Public Housing --getting, changing, repairing . -Barriers to Getting New Housing --high cost, age, children, pets. -Housing Insurance --need information, etc. -Selling House, Sub-Leasing --finding buyer, renter, getting dollar return, etc. -Getting Emergency Housing --have no place to stay, etc. -Regulations --rules on home improvements, house inspection, zoning, installation of house trailers, etc. -Utillties Service --complaints or need for information on phone, gas, electric, water, etc. -Property or House Repairs and Improvement, Maintenance Operation --need to do, get done, know how to do, etc. -HouseKeeping/Do-It-Yourself ProJects --housebreaking pets, garaening, getting rid insects, household hints, learning to sew, etc. -Car repair, Operart1on, and Maintenance --maintaining and caring for personal, family car
PAGE 316
EmQlo~ment --Organizational Relations -Job Definition -Relations with Supervisors -Relations with Co-Workers -Other -Issues Related to Execution of Specific Job -Setting up Business Em2loyment --Other -Mechanical Problems Education and Schooling Appendix 1-2, page 3 -Adult Education --poor quality, unavailability, need for, etc. -F1nanc1al Aid or Education --how to get it, need for, etc. -High Cost 0 Education --complaints about, etc. -Educational Information programs should take, credits, opportunities, best schools, how to get education, etc. -Education System --poor quality, ear for children, dissatisfaction, schools going downhill, lack of programs, lack of resources, lack of backing (levy failure>, etc. -Parent/Student/Teacher Conflicts --grade failures, report cards, discipline problems, etc. -Busing --complaints about school busing, etc. -Part-Time Jobs to Support Education getting Jobs specifically to support education, etc. -Education Certification --need to get certification, getting certification cleared, etc. -Other Education and School~ng Health ------Mental Health --problems with, alcholism, depressions, drug addiction, etc. -Physical Health --problems with, etc. -Health Insurance --complaints and questions about, coverage, high cost, etc. -Cost of Health Care --too high, doctor's fee, prescription drugs, hospital bills, not enough money to pay or care, etc. -Availabl1ty and Adequacy 0 Health Carte --too few doctors, clinics, care inadequate, etc. -Health Information --need information or advice on a specific health problem or disease, etc. -Getting Medical Care --need information on getting medical, dental, other health care, etc. -Other Health
PAGE 317
Appendix 1-2, page~ Transoortat1on -Inadequate Bus Service --slow not enough routes, not :frequent enough, eva1lable at wrong times, not enough taxi service, barriers to using bus , etc. -Crime on Public Transportation --fear of using, muggings, etc. -Getting from One Place to Another need rides to keep appointments, get services, etc. -Auto Insurnace --need information or have complaints about coverage, claim settlements Ci legal disput@ over ciaims, code under b~1> -Financing a Car --need loan or money to buy or repair a car, replace car parts, etc. -High Cost of Public Transportation --buses, cabs, etc. -Road Maintenance or Markings --not clear, n6t enough, etc. Cif in neighborhood, code under Neighborhood). -Inadequate Emergency Services --call boxies, highway patrol, etc. -Information on Public Transportation --need information on bus schedules, routes, etc. -Other Transportation Recreation and Culture -Too Few Recreation Opportunities for Children/Teens not enough playgrounds, not enough for kids to do, etc. -Too Few Recreet1on Opportunities or Adults and families not enough available, etc. -Poor Oual1ty of Recreation Areas, Deetruction oi, etc. -High Cost of Recreation/Entertainment --restaurants, nightclubs, movies, etc. -Need for Information on Recreation, etc. -Leck of Supervision at Playgrounds bullying, :fear for children, etc. -Other Recreation and Culture -Too High Taxes --property taxes and taxes in generel, etc. -Getting Loans or Credit, Interest Rates--need to get, etc. -Filling in Personal Income Taxes --need help, inormation, etc. -Retirement --worried about, need information on, etc. -Handling Money -need information, help, handling money, consumer creidt, etc. -Life Insurance --problems with, need information on, etc. -Other F1nencial Metters and Assistance BEST CDPY AVAJLABLt.
PAGE 318
Appendix 1-2, page 5 Public Assistance and Social ~~~~!tY -Unemployment Compensation, Insurance --need, need information on, complaints on, filing for, etc. -Social Security --need, need information on, complaints, etc. -Food Stamps --how to get, don~t get enough, problems with, etc. -Medical Assistance, Medicare, Medicaid --problems with, n~ed ~ information on, etc. -Welfare --not enough welfare, soci~l worker conflect, receiving check, questions on, etc. -Public Disability Insurance --iiling, getting, etc. -Emergency Financial Help for Housing --to pay ~ent, mortgage, etc. -Emergency Financial Help for Food --to get groceries, f'ood stamps., etc. -Other Need for Emergency Financial Help clothing, money in general, etc. -Other Public Assistance and Social Security -Day Care/Pre-School Programs/Babysitting --need, how to get, etc:. -High Cost of Day Care, etc. -Child Care, Well-Being, -and Behavior --concerns about, difficulties, need for information ,etc. -Care, well-Being, and Behavior of Other Family Members concerns about d1iculties, need for iniormetion, etc. -Care, Well-Being, and Behavior of Self --concerns about, d1fic::ulties, need for information, etc. -Need or Information to Help Children with Homework, etc. -Other Child Care Other Fami'ly Relationshl.EB -Separations, Divorces need for, want to, information on, etc. -Desertion --difficulty with, etc. -Situations with Parents, Other Relatives -Family Planning -Other Family Relationships Personal Relations -Need for Someone to Talk to about Personal Problems, etcu -Friendships -Other Personal Concerns
PAGE 319
Appendix 1-2, page 6 -Divorce, Separation, Desertion Laws --legal aspects, -Legal Contracts --damage suits, lease disputes, insurance claims, etc. etc. disputed -Legal Documents --need to get, need to understano wills, passports, birth certiicates, etc. -Information on Specific Laws --how to make appeals, do-1t-youreelf law, etc. -Getting a Lawyer --need one, how io ge~, etc. -Getting Cheap or Free Legal Advice, etc. -Criminal Records --difficulties with, clearing name, parole, probation requirements, etc. -Legal Service --need for other legal service n~t coded above -Other Legal -Lax Lew Enorcement --not enough police, police don't do anything, criminals get off, laws lax, etc. -Street Lights --need more, etc. -Crime against Non-Family --crime too high, general statement of fear about crime, crime not self-associated, etc. -Crime against Self, Family -speciic instances
PAGE 320
Appendix 1-2, page 7 -Foreign or International Trade --international monetary exchange rates, rules and regulations for cross-nation travel . -Religious Issues and Theology --questions about life after death, the meaning of life, etc. -Mass Media --concerns about, violence in, bias in, effects of, inadequacies of, etc. -Veterans and Military Disscrimination, Migration and Mobility -Other Miscellaneous 30/
PAGE 321
APPENDIX 2-1 REVIEW OF SIGNIFICANT STUDIES Studies included in this review were examined in teras of the following criteria: -discussion of both "effects of inforaation te~~~ology_" and "Governaent provision of public infor11ation11 coaparisons between the public and private sectors in applications of inforaation technology vis a vis public access -discussions of the "effects of inforaation technology" in general, whlch have e~g!f!g applications or could be extrapolated to have ~pplications regarding "Govern11ent provision of public infor11ation11 -development of specific theaes and/or the offering recommendations for the issues raised Each study will be listed by author and brief inforaation will be provided concerning the naae of the study, <2> the aethod on which the study is based <3> intended audience, <4> theaes, and <5> recomaendations. The themes and recoaaendations included in this review are those which the authors of this contracted study perceive as aost significant or iaportant. Only those portions of the publications that relate g!t!gtlt to the topic at hand are noted. Figure 2A-1 is a suaaary of the studies reviewed in this section. ....... BEST COPY AV MU\iLL
PAGE 322
MHJR(S) Bi kson, Quint, and Johnson Braunstein Culnan Sanz, ed. Glaser Heim Hernon Hernon and McClure Levin Levitan Lowi McClure McClure Myers Peyton Porat Robertson Saluan and Hettinger Salvaggio SchNarzkoof SchNeizer DATE 19M 1981 19M 1981 1972 1983 1982 1984 1983 1981 1972 1981 1982 1985 1981 19n 1981 1984 1983 1981 1983 FIGURE 2A-l SUMNARY OF STUDIES REVIEWED IN APPENDIX 2-1 TITLE Scientific and Technical Information Transfer: Issues and Ootions The Functional of Inforaation Markets The Impact of Technology on Public ~s to Public Inforaation Report of the Working Group on Private Sector/Sovernaent Relatioships for Scientific and Technical Inforaation Information Technology: Poliler Without Design, Thrust Without Direction 6overnment-Produced Machine-Readable Statistical Data as a Colponent of the Social Science Inforaation System: An Exaaination of Federal Policy and Strategies for Access Use of Microformatted Government Publications Public Access to Govern11ent Inforaation Access and Disse1ination Issues Concerning Federal Government Information The Colla1JSe of Traditional Distinctions, and The New Information Hybrid 6overnaent and Politics: Blurring of Sector Lines, Rise of New Elites Online 6overMent DocU11ents Data Base Searching and the Use of Microfiche Docuaents Online by Academic and Public Depository Librarians Technology in 6over1'11Dent Document Collections The 6overrwent Printing Office Cataloging Records: Opportunities and Problems The Creation of Inforaation: Property Rights and Subsidies The Infonaation Econ01Y Access to Inforaation Policy Iplications of Information Technology Social Problems of Information Societies Depository Libraries and Public Access Online Retrieval of 6overn111ent Documents Using Teletext and Videotext Services 3u3
PAGE 323
Sprehe 1981 U.S. Congress, Joint 1984 Coaittee ori Printing U.S. Congress, Office of 1981 Technology Assessment U.S. Congress, Office of 1982 Technology Assessment U. S. Department of 1984 A9riculture U. S. Department of 1983 Coaerce U.S. General Accounting 1984 Office U.S. National Commission on 1976 Libraries and Inf. Sci. U.S. National Coaaission on 1982 Libraries and Inf. Sci. U.S. National Coaission on 1980 Libraries and Inf. Sci. FIGURE 2A-1
PAGE 324
Appendix 2-1, page 2 Bikaon, Quint, and Johnson, (1984) STUDY NAME: Scientific and Technical Inforaation Transfer: Iaauea and Options METHOD: Review Essay AUDIENCE: National Science Foundation THEMES: The very low level of [Federal] aupport for knowledge tranafer in coapariaon to knowledge production auggeata that disseaination effort are not viewed aa an iaportant coaponent of the R&D process. There are aounting reports froa users about difficulties in getting appropriate inforaation in foraa useful for problea solving and decision aaking. While soae probleaa reaain in aaauring the availability of [Federally produced, public] inforaation, Federal efforts in this regard have been largely auccesaful; however, two probleas reaain: a. aechanisaa are inadequate to help the uaer assess the quality of available inforaation b. the characteristics of actual usage behavior are not sufficiently taken into acco~nt ao that retrieval of relevant inforaation in foras useful for application is iapaired RECOMMENDATIONS: Three options for iaproving inforaation transfer eaphasizing increased selectivity and user-responsiveness of Pxisting oraal diaaeaination aysteaa and on coupling the aore closely to inforaal aysteaa: a. Technology Intensive Options b. c. -experiaental prograaa using electronic interactive networks experiaental prograaa to support the design and developaent 0 aore flexible and powerful user-guided aethoda for retrieving and exaaining highly structured textual and nuaerical data bases Supply Side Options iaproveaents in the organization of inforaation iaproveaents in the quality of data through standards -greater uae of inforaation interaediaries User Focused Options
PAGE 325
Appendix 2-1, page 3 -building user skills to seek out and find relevant inforaation progras to encourage the direct participation of users in the inforaation transfer process -collaborative research prograas industry, and universities involving Four areas for additional research are detailed: (a) systeaatic evaluation based on technological, econoaic, and institutional considerations and an analysis of the roles to be played by the public and private sectors, Cb> assessaent of how new interactive inforaation technologies can aeet the needs of users of public ~nforaation, evaluation of the regulatory and legal environaent, and Cd> assessaent of the effects of international inforation flow. STUDY NAME: Braunstein <1981>, in U.S. Dept. of Coerce, NTIA The Functioning of Inforation Markets Opinion-essay METHOD: AUDIENCE: "Public policy aakera" THEMES: Technological change can have any one of the following effects on production and disseaination of public inforaation: a. reinforce the arket position of the doainant firas b. lower entry barriers for iaproved public access c. increase potential copetition aaong inforaation providers d. redefine aarket boundaries and copetition aong firas thought to be in traditionally disparate industries e. produce new "inforaation-related" products that do not clearly fall into any one existing aarket Vertical integration and control of inforaation services/products is often used to replace contractual or open-aarket supplier-custoaer relationships in the inforaation industries because it: a. internalizes costs, i.e., less expensive than trading in the aarket b. reduces risk by not relying on the aarket c. provides opportunities to engage in price discriainations d. allows substitution of internalized resour~e.s for others having to .3f)~
PAGE 326
App~ndix 2-1, page 4 be purchased on the open aarket RECOMMENDATIONS: -Reaediea and new approaches to inforaation disseaination probleaa aust be conducted with full cognizance of the coaplexity of creating econoaic policy concerning the distribution of inforaation. Culnan <1984> STUDY NAME: The Iapact of Technology on Public Access to Public Inf oraation METHOD: Opinion Essay INTENDED AUDIENCE: Congress, Office of Technology Assesaaent Staff THEMES: If paper-baaed inforaation ia substantially phased out, result will be a failure of the Governaent to fulfill the not the letter of the law in the near tera. the likely spirit if Not all libraries, individuals, or organizations have the Ca> necessary equipaent, Cb) the technological knowledge and skills, and the awareness of what Governaent inforaation ia publicly available. Soae aegaenta of the public are not likely to, in the short tera, have the resources to purchase or use inforaation handling tachnologiea to access public inforaation froa the Governaent if available only in electronic foraat. RECOMMENDATIONS: Conduct national reaearch related to the need for public inforaation, the public' prafarences for acquiring such inforaation, and the library coaaunity'a readiness to use electronic baaed inforaation. Develop a national inforaation policy that "strikes an equitable balance between public and private aector inter~sta." Develop product categories of public inforaation and potential aarketa for each of these products rather than public inforaation as an aaorphoua whole and the public as a hoaogeneoua aarket. : ', i identify viewing single
PAGE 327
Appendix 2-1, page 5 Ganz, ed. < 1980 > STUDY NAME: Report of the Working Group on Private Sector/Governaent Relationships for Scientific and Technical Inforaation JtETHOD: Survey Questionnaire and Literature Review AUDIENCE: Governaent Officials and Leaders in the Private Sector THEMES: There ia no control over the arbitrary power of agencies regarding the production and disseaination of STI. There is great diversity aaong the Federal agencies investigated regarding their STI inforaation services and there is little indication of aysteaatic differences aaong the various approaches. The aost iaportant issue identified is the different philosophical perspective that the private sector views inforaation as a coaaodity to be bought while governaent inforaation aanagers recognize its social value and iapact. Heither the Federal governaent nor private industry respond as single entities in the provision of STI. There appears to be no coapelling econoaic or technical Justification or Governaent producing and providing STI services to users. There is Justification for Governaent subsidy of these activities and control over the STI aervicea. RECOMMENDATIONS: Changes in the present systea of STI inforaation services should be assessed in teraa of: a. the nature of the Governaent agencies supplying inforaation and the characteristics of the private sector firas b. the effects of technological advances in inforaation processing c. the dependency relations between Federal suppliers and other eleaents of the U.S. and international inforaation enterprise d. the aeaning of efficiency in inforaetion disseaination, and how efficiency can be aeaaured Congress aust resolve the fundaaental question: Who is to produce the various STI services? Issues related to pricing and subsidies are independent fro this central question. BEST COPY A~AilABLt
PAGE 328
Appendix 2-1, page 6 Glaser (1972>, in Inforaation Technologies STUDY NAME: Inforaation Technology: Power Without Design, Thrust Without Direction METHOD: Opinion Essay AUDIENCE: Corporate Executives THEMES: There are no present aeana for developing policies inforaation technology as a whole. Today [1972], application, and regulation are aegaented and disparate. relating to developaent, Failure to establish sound policies related to inforaation technology can lead to reduced benefits froa these technologies and increased likelihood of authoritarian structures posing threats to society. RECOMMENDATIONS: Centers should be established to atudy and perfora research on inforaation ayateaa and technology, and, in particular, to consider iaplications of alternative courses of actions and policies. Heia <1983> STUDY NAME: Governaent-Produced Machine-Readable Statistical Data as a Coaponent of the Social Science Inforaation Systea: An Exaaination of Federal Policy and Strategies for Access METHOD: Analytical Review AUDIENCE: Librarians THEMES: There is a growing nuaber of Federally-produced, aachine-readable atatiatical data in the area of the social sciences. Libraries have not integrated aachine-readable statistical data files into their library holdings, they lack adequate facilities to load and prograa the tapes to acceaa thea, and librarians generally lack adequate training to aake auch files available to the public. Currently, there ia inadequate Federal policy on the topic of aachinereadable statistical data files; sources describing such ilea are out-of-date, been eliainated Ce.g.,Statiatical Re~orterl, or nonexistent; and public access to these data files is Miniaal.
PAGE 329
Appendix 2-1, page 7 Access to such files cannot occur until there is provision of software and other aids, unifora pricing for the files is established, and offloading of data can be accoaplished effectively and inexpensively. RECOMMENDATIONS: Kore research is needed to detail who the users of aachine-readable atatistical files are; what type of peckaging they prefer for their data; what aort of support aervices they require to aake optiaal use of their data; and how their needs for these priaary data can be aet by established systeas of inforaation delivery. Librarians aust take a aore assertive atanee responsibility for the purchase, organization, and accessibility for aachinereadable statistical files. on aasuaing provision of The Federal governaent aust provide a coaprehensive listing of and aaintain bibliographic control over aachine-readable statistical files. Hernon (1982) STUDY NAME: Uae of Kicroforaatted Governaent Publications Survey Research METHOD AUDIENCE: Librarians and Inforaation Professionals THEMES: Soae 70~ of the political scientists and econoaists surveyed indicated that their uae of governaent inforaation in a aicroforaat would decrease because it is difficult to browse and scan, there is liaited availability to readers and printers, Cc> statistical data and figures are poorly reproduced in official reports, and other factors. Providing governaent inforaation, but in a icroforaat, is not, in itself, increasing public access to that inforation. RECOMMENDATIONS: Expanded collections of aicroforaatted governaent publications aust be aade aore accessible by Ca> increased availability of viewers and printers, (b) developaent of current awareness services, (c) iaproved docuaent delivery services, and training librarians to devise aeans to better aatch inforaation gathering behaviors with inforaation sources. Librarians aust be able to provide guidance on how to effectively locate and obtain aicroforaatted governaent inforaation. 371) _,,,, WSJ tnPY AVAILAYLL
PAGE 330
Appendix 2-1, page 8 Federal agencies auat increase public access to inforaation provided in a aicroforaat through Ca) increased aarketing and awareness caapaigns of what inforaation is accessible and Cb>, increasing the "ease" of access to aicroforaatted inforaation, i.e., aakin~ inforaation available in a aicroforaat is not the aaae aa providing public accaaa to that inforaation. Hernon and McClure <1984> STUDY NAME: Public Access to Governaent Inforaation Literature Review and Conceptual Essay Librarians anci Governaent Officials METHOD: AUDIENCE: THEMES: The GPO depository library prograa provides ainiaal access to only selected publications froa the U.S. governaent. The depository library prograa is plagued by unclear goals and obJectives, underfunding, an inadequate organizational structure, and ineffective options to enforce provisions of Title 44, Y~~ ~29!, to iaprove the operations of the prograa. The 1,391 depository libraries have neither the facilities nor the staff to take advantage of new inforaation handling technologies as a aeans to iaprove access to public inforaation provided by the Federal governaent. The lack of clear national inforaation policies has hindered the iaproveaent of the depository library prograa and has left depository librarians to deal with the Govarnaent Printing Office as a agent of Federal policy when, in fact, there are nuaerous agencies developing inforaation policy and regulations--either foraally or Q! f~St2 RECONKENDATIONS: There aust be significant changes in the structure of the establishaent of clear goals and aeaaureable obJectivea, provision of adequate g!~!St resources to the depository libraries is necessary before be effective providers of public inforaation. prograa, and the handling they can Careful celection of ~b!sb inforaation is to be teraed "public inforaation" for entry into the depository library prograa is necessary instead of the apparent trend to add inforaation that aay, in fact, not serve a wide range of uaera. Such ia especially necessary since aany of the iteas eligible for depository distribution go unselected by aeaber libraries. 311
PAGE 331
AppendiA 2-1, page 9 Levin (1983) STUDY NAME: Acceaa and Diaseaination Issues Concerning Federal Governaent Inforaation METHOD: Opinion Essay AUDIENCE: Librarians and Inforaation Professionals THEMES: A national inf oraation policy is being developed "through the back door" by the private sector and thia runa counter to the tradition of open availability of Federal inforaation. There is a growing eaphasia within the Federal governaent to produce aachine-readable data filea CKRDFs> because of cost considerations: however, these files pose serious drawbacks in teras of unequal access to public data. An inforaation "gap" would result if Federal data bases available to people via the private sector, at a discouraged equal access on econoaic grounds. were price only that RECOMMENDATIONS: It is essential that the Federal governaent iaprove the aore traditional aethoda of data transaission in order to assure equal access to inforaation while continuing its efforta to aeet the deaands of new techn~logy in the area of d~ta trensaission. The Governaent aust assuae that technological ~lternatives to paper copy provide equal public access to that inforaation. Levi tan Cl 981 > STUDY NAMES: "The Collapse of Traditional Distinctions" and "The New Inforaation Hybrid" AUDIENCE: Inforaation Scientiata METHOD: THEMES: Opinion Esaay Inforaation agents have aultiple roles as inforaation producers, users, disseainators, packagers, storers, or retrievers depending on different situations. Public access to certain inforaation services and products, therefore, ia dependent on ~b!9h role the inforaation agent is taking at a specific point in tiaa. 3/~-
PAGE 332
Appendix 2-1, page 10 New aodels of institutions which are neither public or private are being foraed as a result of the Technology Innovation Act private groups, and this can have a highly rigidifying effect on the society RECOMMENDATIONS: ione STUDY NAME: METHOD: AUDIENCE: McClure <1981> Online Governaent Docuaents Data Base Searching and the Uae of Microfiche Docuaents Online by Acadeic and Public Depoaitory Librarians Survey Research Librarians and Inforaation Professionals 3;.5
PAGE 333
THEMES: Appendix 2-1, page 11 Acadeaic and public depository librarians aake little or no use of governaent docuaents-related online bibliographic data base searching, because liaited access to telecoaaunications and coaputer terainala, (b) no aoney to support such searching, and ainiaal training of docuenta librarians in online searching techniques. There is governaent DIALOG. also little to no use aade of ordering docuaents online through bibliographic aicroforaatted vendors, e .. g. RECOMMENDATIONS: Acadeaic and public depository librarians auat be trained in the use of online bibliographic data base searching and becoae knowledgeable about the potential benefits of such technologies to iaprove access to governaent inforaation. Acadeaic and public depository libraries auat receive funding for the purchase of appropriate telecoaaunications and coaputer equipaent if they are to provide access to governaent inforaation through governaent docuaents-related online data bases. McClure (1982> STUDY NAME: Technology in Governaent Docuaent Collections Survey Research J!ETHOD: AUDIENCE: Librarians and Inforaation Professionals THEMES: Use and applications of OCLC Can online bibliographic utility], online bibliographic data base searching, aicroforas, in-house autoaated inforaation ayateas, aicrocoaputers, online nuaeric data bases or other aachine-readable data files, and video technology is liaited in the GPO depository library prograa. Despite the fact that the depository library prograa started to receive aicrofiche in 1977, depository libraries have yet to adequately organize and aake available inforaation in this foraat. RECOMMENDATIONS: If depository libraries are to be charged with the responsibility of providing public access to governaent inforaation distributed through the GPO depository library prograa they aust be funded to support the purchase of appropriate inforaation technologies, e.g. telecoaaunicationa, coaputera, aicrocoaputers, aicrofiche to aicrofiche printers, aicrofora reader-printers, etc. BEST COPY AVAllABLL
PAGE 334
Appendix 2-1, page 12 Depository librarians auat be funded and required to obtain adequate training and new skills related to the inforaation handling technologies if they are to assist clientele to effectively access governaent inforaation distributed through the depository library prograa. Two broad areas of research aust be addressed: developaent of conceptual aodela relating technology applications to public access to governaent inforaation, and (b) asaessent of the iapact of technology on governaent depository collections where such applicationa have either occurred or are being planned. Myers <1985) STUDY NAME: The Governaent Printing Office Cataloging :~~ortunities and Probleaa Records: l!ETHOD: AUDIENCE: Eaaay and Analysis of GPO Cataloging Tapes GPO Officials and Docuaents Librarians THEMES: There ere nuaerous probleaa with the quality and accuracy of the GPO cataloging tapes that are aade available to the public and used priaerily by libraries as a aeans of establishing aachine-readable bibliographic records for governaent publications distributed through the depository library prograa. These probleas relate to: ainiaal docuaentation of tape content and foraat, Cb> aisaing records, duplicate records, non-cataloging of aicrofiche versions of the docuaent, and no error correction procedures to update tapes. Public access to governaent inforaation is severely iapaired because of inadequate aachine-readable bibliographic data contained on the GPO cataloging tapes. RECOMMENDATIONS: The GPO cataloging tapes aust be "cleaned up," records aade reliable, data accurate, and tapes corrected. The author offers specific suggestions for accoaplishing these tasks. Peyton (1981> in U.S. Dept. of Coaaerce, NTIA STUDY NAltE: The Creation of Inforaation: Property Rights and Subsidies Opinion Essay METHOD: AUDIENCE: "Public Policy Makers" 3;_5
PAGE 335
THEMES: Appendix 2-1, page 13 The principal iapact of new inforaation processing and telecoaaunicationa technologies on inforaation creation [and public access to governaent inforaationl has been to aake the policy choice between the proaotion of property right or aubaidiea aore difficult for the Federal governaent. The difficulties of enforcing exclusive righta and protection boundariea have, in turn, tended to blunt the effectiveness of copyright and to create a aaJor new source of policy controveray around the production of inforaation gooda and aervicea. The net effect of technological innovations on the choice between property rights and subsidies, and on the atteapt to coordinate the to facilitate inforaation creation and distribution, reaains unclear. RECOMMENDATIONS: Private producers aay be expected to respond to the legal confusion by placing greater reliance on trade secrecy than would be the case if intellectual property rights were aore clearly specified and enforceable. There aust be clarification of the property rights which proapt the creation and publication of valuable inforaation, since the reliance on greater secrecy contradicts the broad goal of open access to inforaation. Porat (1977) STUDY NAME: The Inforaation Econoay METHOD: AUDIENCE: Survey and Conceptual Research and Review Governaent Officials and Keabera of the Inforaation THEMES: Econoay The United States now has an inforaation-based eco~oay with the total inforaation activity, including both aarket and nonaarket transactions, estiaated to be 46~ of the GMP in 1967. A nuaber of inforaation policy issues are aore closely akin to social rather than econoaic concerns and constitute deep-seated values and philosophies.
PAGE 336
Appendix 2-1, page 14 There exists no iaaediate locus of Executive responsibility for inforaation policy and the vertical policy developaent by individual agencies does not resolve the horizontal iapacts and effects of that policy on society and the aarketplace [see Figure 2-6]. RECOMMENDATIONS: In response to eaerging horizontal inforaation policy issues, the Executive Branch should establish an appropriate organization Public Policy Makers METHOD: AUDIENCE:
PAGE 337
THEMES: Appendix 2-1, page 15 Review of recent Congressional activities related to inforaation technology policy suggests, in priority listing, Ca> eaphasis on how technology can assist in iaproving U.S. econoaic conditions, Cb) maintaining leadership in international trade, and Cc> reassessing the policies and laws regarding rights and freedoas associated with inforaation. Governaent inforaation aervicea are available that are coapetitive with eaerging private business offerings. W\despread allegations of inforaation piracy are technology is turning those Aaerican laws and custoas, intellectual property, into anachronisas. a aign that which protect The aanner in which the U.S. defines property rights for inforaation will, to a large degree, dictates the public's access to such inforaation and the very nature of Aaerican society. There is a tension between protecting the property rights of the creator of inforaation and public policy th~encourages the use and application of that inforastion for the,,9peater benefit of society. RECOMMENDATIONS: The Governaent aust evaluate its role as it becoaes a coapetitor with the private sector and as new technology changes the character of inforaation products and deaands a aaJor rebuilding of governaent inforaation systeas. Congrasa aust clarify issues related to intellectual property of inioraation in teras of: a. conflict between First Aaendaent and intellectual property rights b. the lack of a aoral aandate of who "owns" inforaation c. public indifference toward "inforaation theft" d. establishing property rights related to intellectual aatters Exclusivity features noraally associated with private property aay not be appropriate with respect to inforaation; public policy should put aore effort into finding those incentives for the creation and disseaination of inforaationwhich are not counterproductive--as are property rights for created inforaation.
PAGE 338
Appendix 2-1, page 16 Salvaggio (1983> STUDY NAME: Social Probleas of Inforaation Societies Review Essay METHOD: AUDIENCE: Acadeaicians and Public Policy Makers THEMES: Social probleas aaaociated with inforaation societies are n2t a result of inforaation technology but rather an outgrowth of a coaplex process involving a nuaber of variables: national ideology, existing aocial noras, the nature of the inforaation infrastructure, policy aaking bodies, and the aarketplace. Two opposing aodela are presented to describe the effects of inforaation technology on society: the coapetitive approach , where technology reaulta fro the coapetitive spirit and the aarketplace rather than policy, versus the public utility aodel where technology ia developed by private industry with the "guidance" of the Governaent. There are greater opportunities for inforaation inequalities, invasion of privacy, and aisuse of inforaation as a result of the coapetitive aodel; however, there ia greater potential for expanding and developing inforaation technologies than in the public utility aodel. Inforaation policy will not occur in the U.S. until the aarketplace finds a need for such regulation, or until issues, such as privacy, security, or inforaation inequalities force the Governaent to take action. Centralized developaent of inforaation policy in the United States will be difficult because the current authority for such policy is spread over nuaerous agencies and offices. RECOMMENDATIONS: When Congress decides to enact new laws concerning the collection of and access to, inforaation through new systeas, the inforaation infrastructure aay have grown to such a coaplex state that enforceaent could be all but iapoasible. If the U.S. continues to develop inforaation technology at the present pace without a public policy and strong regulatory agency, probleas in the aarketplace and the public deaend!ng greeter control over technology are likely to result.
PAGE 339
Appendix 2-1, page 17 Schwarzkopf (1981> STUDY NAKE: Depository Libraries and Public Access Legislative Tracing and Review Librarians and Governent Officials METHOD: AUDIENCE: THEMES: Changes in the legislative aandate for the depository library prograa have been initiated by the library coaaunity and not by the Federal governaent, or aore specifically, the Governaent P~inting Office and the Joint Coittee on Printing. The specific purposes aLd goals for the depository library prograa are unclear. However, in recent years the prograa has been given responsibility for distributing an increasingly large nuaber of governaent publications to a growing nuaber of audiences. As originally conceived, the depository library prograa was intended to be a coo~erative arrangeaent between the Federal governaent and the library coaaunity with each aide expecting equal or greater benefits in coaparison to the obligations or expenses it bears. Currently, the burden is aore than aany libraries can bear. RECOMMENDATIONS: None Schweizer <1983> STUDY NAME: Online Retrieval of Governaent Docuaents Using Teletext and Videotext Services METHOD: Review Essay AUDIENCE: Librarians and Inforaation Specialists THEMES: There is no coordinated Federal effort to disseainate governaentgenerated data via any of the teletext or videotext systeas but several .departaenta or agencies have independently begun to offer data free of charge to viewdata systeas. Teletext and videotext technologies could enable Federal agencies to provide better inforaation service to a wider group at a potentially lower cost: benefits include ease of use, rapid updating of inforaation, dynaaic coverage, and reaote delivery of inforaation. RECOMMENDATIONS: None
PAGE 340
Appendix 2-1, page 18 Sprehe Cl 981 > STUDY NAME: A Federal Policy for Iaproving Data Access and User Services METHOD: Policy Review AUDIENCE: Federal Agencies Producing Machine-Readable Data Files THEMES: Users of Federal data files express confusion and note delays and poor bibliograhpic control in existing Federal statistics. exasperation, and trying to locate An "Activist Policy," i.e., the idea of proaoting, aarketing, or pushing the product ia one that ia soaewhat alien and repugnant to aany Federal statistical agencies. However, such a policy approach ia both appropriate and necessary. RECOMMENDATIONS: Budget lines need to be established for agencies to develop prograas of data file !SS!!! in addition to data file design and developaent. Unless there are coapelling confidentiality restrictions, Federal statistical prograa public use data files. reasons to the contrary, such the end point in the operations of ahould be defined aa the issuance as a of Nuaerous specific policy recoaaendationa are offered under the headings of "Recoaaended Good Practice" throughout the article on how Federal policy in the area of MRDFs can be iaproved for increased access to public inforaation. STUDY NAME: U.S. Congrass. House. Coaaittee on Agriculture (1983> Inforaation Technology for Agricultural Aaerica Hearings and Literature review METHOD: AUDIENCE: Congress THEMES: The U.S. governaent haa an iaportant role to play in fostering the developaent of inforaation technologies for use by agricultural Aaerica. However, the specific nature and responsibilities associated with that role are not well-defined. BEST CftPY AVAILABLL
PAGE 341
Appendix 2-1, pege 19 RECOMMENDATIONS: Develop aulti-feceted coaputer literacy curriculua prograas for agricultural Americas Increase awareness of the voluainous inforaation offerings available froa Government and private sector inforaation providers. Conduct long-range studies which explore alternatives for providing reaote populations with a range of inforaation delivery aechaniaas. Proaote access to public inforaation for both inforaation providers and end users. U.S. Congress. Joint Coaaittee on Printing <1984> STUDY NAME: Provision of Federal Governaent Publications in Electronic Foraat to Depository Libraries METHOD: Survey Research, Interviews AUDIENCE: Federal Governaent THEMES: The nuaber of Federal deta bases is iaaense and will increase as agencies find it less expensive to produce 1nforaat1on in electronic foraat. With the reduction in costs of evolving technology, aost depository libraries will have the capability to access electronic data bases by the late 1980s although aany of these libraries are suffering fro declining budgets for personnel and resources. RECOMMENDATIONS: The Federal governaent should provide, as defined in 44 yg access to Federal inforaation in electronic fora through depository libraries prograa. 1901, the It aeeas appropriate to add data bases gradually to the depository library prograa: this will allow expertise in aanipulating electronic data to develop. Based on the assuaption that it is technologically feasible to provide such access to electronic inforaation, the Ad Hoc Coaaittee recoaaends thet the econoaic feasibility [of distributing Federal inforaation in electronic foraat through the depository library prograal be investigated through pilot proJecta.
PAGE 342
Appendix 2-1, page 20 STUDY MAME: U.S. Congress. Office of Technology Assessaent <1981> Coaputer-Based National Inforaation Systeas Review Essay METHOD: AUDIENCE: Congress THEMES: Nuaerous laws and regulations that directly and indirectly affect the operators and users of inoraation aysteas, the consuaers of inforaation services, and the aubJects of personal ~nforaation data banks, overlap each other and are potentially or actually conflicting. There appears to be [in 1981] neither a atrong trend nor aentiaent aaong policyaakers to develop a unifora Federal inforaation policy that would encoapass all the probleas that could arise froa the aany possible uses of data systeas. There is a lack of focus on inforaation policy as auch, and consequently the eaerging issues are not directly addressed. Continuation of the present situation could inhibit desirable applications of inforaation syateas or could aore intractable policy problea in the future. aany socially create even RECOMMENDATIONS: None STUDY NAME: U.S. Congress. Office of Technology Assessaent <1982) KEDLARS and Health Inforaation Policy AUDIENCE: Federal Governaent Officials METHOD: THEMES: Review Essay The poasibility that the private sector would be inclined KEDLINE if NLK were to cease doing the activity ia a speculation. to create aatter of The creation of MEDLINE by the Library aeeas to be warranted by NLM's extensive collection of bioaedical aaterials, by its legislative aandate, and on econoaic grounds. Many of the arguaents presented by issues pertaining to the creation, products and services aeea aore perspectives than obJective analysis, to support thea. proponents or opponents on the provision, and pricing of NLK reflexive of philosophical and there are few eapirical data
PAGE 343
Appendix 2-1, p~ge 21 RECOMMENDATIONS: Any changes in the range of NLM's coaputerized products or services or in its pricing structure require caution. Decisions inforaed aade today in reaction to current probleaa should be by the ways that technological advances aight change those very issues. U.S. Departaent of Agriculture (1984) STUDY NAME: Joint Congressional Hearing on the Changing Inforaation Needs of Rural Aaerica: The Role of Libraries and Inforaation Technology AUDIENCE: Congress METHOD: THEMES: Hearing Rural Aaerica has received poor access to various inforaation services and products in coaparison to urban areas; the quality of rural life has decreased because of such disparities: and public/private cooperation will be necessary to redress these disparities. A library has an iaportant role to play in the provision of inforaation (including public inforaation> to rural Aaerica; however, that role aay be different than ita current role. RECOMMENDATIONS: Congress has an obligation to keep the inforaation needs of rural Aaerica in ind as coaaunications policy is established [Senator Larry Pressler-Utah]. U.S. Departaent of Coaaerce, NBS <1983) STUDY NAME: Future Inforaation Processing Technology 1983 Group Opinion Essay METHOD: AUDIENCE: Inforaation Industry and Federal Inforaation Agencies THEMES: Governaent tends to lag behind private industry in addressing inforaation technology issues because private industry can institute "g! f!~tg" aanageaent techniques, eaploy "bottoa line" thinking as a basis for decision aaking, and does not have constant changing of I
PAGE 344
Appendix 2-1, page 22 senior adainistrative officials and adainistrationa, with a resulting inability to aaintain a long-tera planning coaaitaent to a particular aanageaent strategy or policy. The Paperwork Reduction Act aay, in fact, underaine policy continuity since it requires that the individual responsible for Inforaation Resources Manageaent within an agency be a senior official. Since those positions are alaoat always political appointaenta, the reault is that IRK leadership is virtually guaranteed to turn over every 18-24 aonths. RECOMMENDATIONS: Central [Governaentl aanageaent agencies need to define responsibilities and provide leadership and guidance for Executive Branch agencies regarding the developaent of inforaation technologies. U.S. Gener61 Accounting Office (1984) STUDY NAME: Depository Librarians' Views on GPO's Adainistration of the Depository Library Prograa METHOD: Survey Research AUDIENCE: Federal Officials THEMES: Soae 61~ of responding depository librariana experienced "great" or "aoderate" probleas when newly received serials are in aicrofiche but previous editions are in paper foraat. The quality of the aicrofiche shipped to depository libraries was generally seen to be of good quality. Soae 60~ cataloging of respondents thought the GPO should not develop its own syatea but stay with OCLC. RECOMMENDATIONS: None U.S. National Coaaiaaion on Libraries and Inforaation Science <1976) STUDY NAME: National Inforaation Policy Review Essay JIETHOD: AUDIENCE: Office of the President and other Governaent Officials
PAGE 345
THEMES: Appendix 2-1, page 23 The Federal governent can iapact on technological developaent as: Ca) a regulator of the inforaation exchange process, Cb) a consuaer or user of inforaation, Cc> a funder of inforaation technology research and develcpaent, and Cd> a policyaaker in the broad sense of exercising responsibilities for long range social and econoaic planning. RECOMMENDATIONS: Establish an Office of Inforaation Policy within the Executive Office of the Presidency. Establish an inter-agency council, chaired by the Director of the Office of !nforaation Policy, consisting of designated high level officialR in each office. Establish a coapetition structure. rational policy fraaework for balancing issues of and aonopoly in shaping the National inforaation infraDeterine appropriate policies and procedures for Federal governaent procureaent and research and developaent activities because of their iapact on inforation systeas. U.S. National Coaaiseion on Libraries and Inforaation Science <1982> STUDY NAME: Public Sector/Private Sector Interaction in Providing Inforaation Services AUDIENCE: Public Policy Makers METHOD: THEMES: Group Discussion and Suaaary At the present tiae [1982] there are nuaerous areas where Federal policies aake distinctions regarding inforaation technologies that aay iapede the private sector in their introduction and services baaed on thea. The aain thrust of the recoaaendationa in thia report is, therefore, toward identifying thoae policies that would foster interaction with the Federal governaent. This interaction sees the Federal governaent providing leadership rather than aanageaent, and in partnership rather than in control of the private sectors.
PAGE 346
Appendix 2-1, page 24 RECOMMENDATIONS: A aaJor effort unt be aade to aake policies leas sensitive to the underlying technical aeans of perforaing inforaation functions. Existing aechaniaas, such as libraries, should be actively used as priaary channels for aaking governaentally distributable inforaation available to the public rather than creating new governaental units or expanding existing ones. The Federal governaent should provide incentives to those libraries to encourage the to expand their activities in disseaination of governaentally distributable inforaation Crecoaaendetions #15, #12, and #27]. U.S. National Coaaission on Libraries and Inforaation Science (1980) STUDY NAME: The White House Conference on Library and Inforaat1on Services -1979: Final Report METHOD: AUDIENCE: Local, State, and National Group Discussion and Review Librarians/Inforaation Professionals and Federal Officials THEMES: The developaent of a national inforaation policy is essential for the continued strength and well-being of the United States. RECOMMENDATIONS: Federal prograaa for developaent and utilization of technology for inforaation storage and retrieval should be coordinated. The public ahould have access to Federal data bases except when personal privacy or national security are in Jeopardy [recoaaendation C-7]. The increased application of technological advances should be balanced with an increased awareness of the necessity to huaanize such efforts. All plane for future services should review those services both fro the technological and huaan effect point of view. Inforaation in existing national centers or national data bases, not subJect to restricted access, should be aade available to all libraries on an equal end autually beneficial basis [recoaaendetion C-7]. The Federal governaent should address itself to transferring and applying those technologies [in the public doaeinl to the storage and disseaination of inforaation by libraries and inforaation centers of all varieties with the goal of guaranteed ainiu basic technological access for every individual, organization, or profession [recoaaendation C-6].
PAGE 347
Appendix 2-1, page 25 The Federal governaent should initiate continuing &tudies directed at evaluating econoaic, social, and political consequences of inforaation and data processing technology so that public and private efforts aay be aade to direct these technologies to the benefit of all [recoaaendation C-41. Private and public sectors .should Join in furthering research directed toward the developaent of technological standards [recoaaendation C-8]. Funds should be sought which would assure every library of at least one coaputer terainal connected to an appropriate nuaber of data bases Crecoaaendation C-8].
PAGE 348
APPENDIX 2-2 ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY OF STUDIES EXAMINED Bikson, Tora A., Barbara E. Quint, and Leland L.Johnson. Scientific ~ng Technical Inforaation Transfer: Isaues and Qet!Qn! Santa Monica CA: Rand Corporation, March, 1984 [Prepared for the National Science Foundation, N-2131-NSFl. 111 pages, includes bibliography. Thia study includes an overview and evaluation of current Federal policies and practices, and an asaeasaent of alternative policy options, especially as they relate to the NSF. Ita intent ia to provide a fraaework for longer tar research and analysis needed in the field to iaprove Federal Scientific and technical inforaation transfer: the analysis of Federal policy is narrowly focused on STI and specific policy options, per se, are not stressed. Culnan, Mary J. "The Iapact of Inforaation." Berkeley: School University of California, July, bibliography. Technology on Public Access of Library and Inforaation 1984 Caanuscript>. 27 pages, to Public Studies, includes Thia paper was developed as a background position paper for an OTA study on Federal Governaent Inforaation Technology: Adainistrative Process and Civil Liberties. It addresses selected policy iaplications of three issues: (1) the iapact of technology on the provision of Governaent inforaation, <2> the roles that the new technologies open for the private sector in providing public inforaation, and <3> the likely iapact on access to public inforaation if electronic-based systeas becoae predoainant. Ganz, Carole, ed. Reeort of the Working Groue on Private Sector/Governaent Relationshies for Scientific and Technical Inforaation. Washington, D.C.: National Science Foundation, June, 1980. 247 pages, includes bibliography. Available froa NTIS as PB80-203102. An eapirical study that provides data on Federal scientific technical inforaation centers, exaaines interactions between Federal and nonFederal STI auppliera, and reviews conteaporary econoaic theory regarding Federal/ non Federal participation in the disseaination of scientific and technical inforaation. This study is a classic and is required background reading related to the topic of the Governaent provision of STI. Heia, Kathleen M., "Governaent-Produced Machine-Readable Statistical Data as a Coaponent of the Social Science Inforaation Systea: An Exaaination of Federal Policy and Strategies for Access," in Coaaunicating Public Access to Governaent Inforaation, edited by Peter Hernon. Westport, CT: Meckler Publishing, 1983, pp. 33-74. Thia review article is an excellent overview and analysis of the probleas facing librarians in the provision of Federal aachine-readable data files. Liaited access to this inforaation occurs because: Cl) the
PAGE 349
Appendix 2-2, page 2 libraries lack of facilities and coapetencies, and <2> the agencies' lack of bibliograhpic control, policy, and support public to gain access to this inforaation. Hernon, Peter. "Use of Microforaatted Governent Publications," B~Y!!~, 11 <1982>: 237-252. Federal to the Microfor Thia article reports the results of a survey of political scientists end econoaists in an acadeaic environaent regarding their use of aicroforaatted governaent docuaents distributed through the depository library prograa. Findings suggest that these social scientists regard the increased distribution of governaent inforaation in aicroforaat as reducing their access to that inforaation. Indeed, a significant nuaber of the respondents indicated that they would not attept to access the inforaation siaply because it was in a aicroforaat. Hernon, Peter Inforaation. and Charles R. McClure, Public Access to Govern~ent Norwood, NJ: ABLEX Publishing Corporation, 1984. 444 pages. This aonograph provides a state-of-the-art review of isauea related to the Governaent proviaion of public inforaation through the GPO depository library prograa. Areas considered include the structure of the depository library prograa the use of inforaation handling technologies, and the developaent of national inforaation policies. A thee throughout the book is that the depository library prograa does not provide adequate access to public inforaation. Inforaation Technolog~: ~Q!! ~[!ti~! Iaelications for Decision Makers. New York: The Conference Board, 1972. 240 pages, ainiaal references. Although the nine papers in this voluae aay at first glance appear to be dated, they reaain, together, dS one of the clasic publications on the topic of the iapact of inforaation technology on public access. The issues, concerns, and forecasts offered in 1972 are surprisingly up-todate and show that overall, little progress has been aade in dealing with the critical issues related to inforaation technology and public inforaation. Although only two of the papers were reviewed specifically for this topic, the entire volue provides excellent background inforaation and discussion on the role of inforaation technology in society. Valuable charts and conceptual aodels are included in the concluding paper of the voluae. Levin, Marc A., .. Access and Oisseination Issues Concerning Federal Governaent Inforaation," e!S!!! Libraries, 74 : 127-137. This essay argues against the laissez faire developaent of national inforation policy, which the author sees as currently being doainated by the private sector. The author believes that unless a national inforation policy ia developed to insure adequate access to governaent inforaation private sector developaent of inforaation technologies will create inforaation gaps within the society. J~)
PAGE 350
Appendix 2-2, page 3 Levitan, Karen B. "The Collapse of Traditional Distinctions," and "The New Inforaation Hybrid," Bulletin of the Aaerican Societi for Inforaation S!!nS!, 8 ; 12-13 and 16, and 25-26. These two abort articles nicely auaaarize the confusing roles that players in the inforaation econoay play. Clear distinctions between public and private sectors aay no longer be possible. McClure, Charles R. "Online Governaent Docuaents Data Base Searching and the Use of Microfiche Docuaents Online by Acadeaic and Public Depository Librarians," Microfora B!!!!~, 10 <1981>: 245-259. Thia article reports on a survey of acadeaic and p~blic depository librarians' use of governaent docuaent online bibliographic data bases and ordering/purchase of aicro!oraatted governaent docuaents online. Findings indicated that these librarians aake ainiaal use of such data bases and rarely order aicroforaatted governaent publications online. Little use of governaent docuaents online biblioqraphic data bases appears to occur in support of library reference and referral services. McClure, Charles R. "Technology in Governaent Docuaent Collections: Current Status, Iapacts, and Prospects," Governaent Publications Review, 9 (1982): 255-276 .. Survey data on the use of technology in depository libraries suggest that few inforaation handling technologies are currently available in these libraries. What technology is used, is applied only sparingly to assist in providing increased access to governaent inforaation through the depository library prograa. Direct support to depository libraries is necessary for thea to exploit such technologies. Myers, Judy E., "The Governaent Printing Office Cataloging Records," Governaent Inforaation Quarterll, 2 (1985>: 27-57. This article ia a suaaary of the author's experiences with atteapting to use the GPO-produced aachine-readable cataloging tapes. As currently produced, the tapes have nuaerous difficulties and iapede the likelihood of depository libraries fro using the tapes to enhance bibliographic access to governaent publications distributed through the GPO. Suggestions are offered for how the quality of the tapes can be iaproved. Porat, Marc. The Inforaation &SQnQ!f, 7 vols. Washington, D.C.: GPO: 1977. Includes references, [vol. 1-2 are suaaary voluaesl. Thia is the classic aeasureaent and description of the inforaation econoay in the U.S., baaed on 1967 data. The report was done for the Office of Telecoaaunications, Departaent of Coaaerce. The goals of the proJect were to define and aeasure an "inforaation activity" in the U.S. econoay and to exaaine the structure of the inforaation activity with respect to the rest of the econo~y. Of special interest to this topic is Chapter 11, in vol. 1 which describes eleaents of inforaation technology policy and detailed tables of the effects of inforaation technology on specific areas of the econoay. 33/
PAGE 351
Appendix 2-2, page 4 Salaman, R.K., and Hettinger, E. C. Policy ImQlications of Information I~~hn2!Q9Y [U.S. Department of Commerce, National Telecoamunications and Information Ad~inistration Report 84-144]. Washington, D. C.: Govern~ent Printing Office, 1984. 45 pages, includes bibliography. This report provides background inforaation about 1nforat1on policy and the inforaation industries. It stresses the OQQOrtunities presented by advanced inforMation technologies as considerations for the development of public policy. The authors provide a useful discussion of the ipacts of "intellectual property" issues as they relate to public policy. They also stress the importance of providing policy guidance that encourages open and wide availability of inforaation while still protecting the rights of the creator of such inforaation. Salvaggio, Jerry L. "Social Probleas of Inforaation Societies: The US and Japanese Experiences, .. Telecoaunications Policy, 7 : 228-242. This article presents conceptual aodels detailing the differences between a coapetitor versus public utility development of infor~ation technologies and their corresponding iapacts on society. It provides a number of insights and analyses that help to explain why inforaation technology and policy have developed thusly in the U.S., and it suggests possible results from this development in teras of privacy, security, information inequalities, and public access. Schwarzkopf, LeRoy C. "Depository Libraries and Public Access," in Collection DeveloQent and Public Access of Government Documents, edited by Peter Hernon. Westport, CT: Keckler Publishing, 1981, pp. 7-34. This article is an historical review of the legislation related to Title 44, gQg~, as it relates to public access to Governaent information. It is detailed and thorough and suggests that the purposes and procedures related to the depository library progra are unclear and have not been carefully defined. Schweizer, Susanna. "Online Retrieval of Governaent Docuents Using Teletext and Videotext Services," in New Technology and Docuaents LibrarianshiQ, edited by Peter Hernon. Westport CT: Meckler Publisher, 1983, pp. 61-76. The author reviews the developent and applications of teletext and videotext services, discusses their advantages and disadvantages as a aeans of providing access to inforationp and briefly reviews recent Federal government applications of this technology. She suggests that there is great potential for the application of this technology in the Government provision of public inforaation. Sprehe, J. Timothy. "A Federal Policy for Iaproving Data Access and User Services," Statistical ReQorter < March 1981>: 323-344. This article discusses the lack of a coherent Federal policy related to the public access of aachine-readable data files and aakes specific | |