Dissemination, according to OMB, is "the function of distributing government information to the public, whether through printed documents or electronic or other media." (OMB 1985 p.52735 ). More broadly defined, "Dissemination is a proactive concept providing for more than the availability and distribution of government information. Dissemination recognizes the role of the government, for example, to announce, circulate, communicate, diffuse, publicize, publish abroad and carry publications" (McClure & Hernon, p. 67)A critical, constitutional right of the U.S. public is the right to government information.

"At the most basic level, the issue is citizen access to information produced by the government in the course of carrying out its statutory responsibilities. Democracy, self-government, is predicated upon a right-to- know. citizens who are denied access to information about the basic workings of their government are denied the ability to exercise fully their right to self-government." (Allen p.4)

In the present day, the "right to know", the right to be informed and to have access to government information has evolved into citizens' expectations that the government takes on a much more pro-active role in putting the information in their hands, without having to ask for it. Even more radically, in the last decade, alarming amounts of government information now consist of electronic information. How will the government intergrate the mechanisms for the dissemination of electronic information with that of print information? How will the citizenry access electronic information?

The government's role vis-a-vis disseminating information, the roles and expectation of major stakeholders in this arena, and the related issues that have emerged are the subjects of this paper.

II. FOUR SEMINAL POLICIES

1977 Commission on Federal Paperwork

The 1977 Commission on Federal Paperwork was the pre-cursor for the Paperwork Reduction Acts. The Commission identified several issues facing federal documents at that time. It identified problems of overlapping governmental information programs. Often due to lack of an organized program of information management retrieval there was confusion and overlap among agencies with responsibilities for gathering and disseminating information. The Commission also identified the problem of the proliferation and fragmentation of data, the fact that agencies often had vague information goals and objectives, the rising costs of data and information, and the under-use of technology.(Federal Commission on Paperwork )

The Commission recommended consolidating information policy oversight functions into a central management unit, and the development of information planning, budgeting and accounting guidelines to assist agencies. This was later enacted as a result of the Paper Work Reduction Act. The Commission emphasized the need to reduce the paperwork burden on the public, and the costs and inefficiencies of all of the various information inputs to government. The Commission gave little emphasis to information outputs, and no real discussion of government agencies responsibility or mechanism for disseminating relevant information.

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (PL 96-511)

Following on the recommendations of the 1977 Commission on Federal Paperwork, the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) recommended centralizing information policy in the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) within the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). The Act did not provide a single set of directives regarding federal agencies responsibility for disseminating information. There was nothing about government's output, or the need for responsible government to reach out and place information into people's hands. The Act actually mentioned the word dissemination only twice. However, the preceding reports and Act had given the responsibility for government agencies' information to a single office, OMB.

The Paperwork Reduction Act was re-authorized in 1986 (PL 99-591, Title VIII, Part A). The re- authorization did place some additional emphasis on public access and dissemination of information. The Act expired in 1989, but the Senate and House could not agree upon a successor. The next move on the government's part would come from OMB.

Office of Management and Budget Circular A-130 (1985)

The sands had shifted somewhat since the PRA initiatives, and the discussion leading up to the release of OMB A-130 was no longer a controversy over the burden of paperwork on the public , in fact now there was some fear that too little information was being collected at the federal level. Now the major issue was of public access to information and agency output. Since OMB had to address the issue of dissemination of information, really for the first time, there was a need to bring up debate over some fundamental questions which had not come up before. What is "basic information" and how far must government agencies go in the business of actively placing information in the hands of the citizenry?

OMB Circular A-130 does begin to address the issue of dissemination of federal agency information. The Circular is still very concerned with the issue of a paperwork burden on the public, both in terms of collecting unnecessary information, and of distributing information that the public will not find necessary or helpful. The circular is mindful of the costs of distributing information, another reason to be careful about what is distributed. The Circular defines "dissemination of information" as "the function of distributing government information to the public, whether through printed documents or electronic or other media. (OMB 1985, p52735). Later in the appendicies dissemination is more clearly articulated: "Dissemination, in the Circular's usage, refers to the function of distributing government information; dissemination connotes an active outreach by a government agency. Dissemination refers to those situations in which the government provides the public with information without the public having to come and ask for it."(OMB 1985 p52745)

Though the definition for "dissemination" includes reference to electronic media, it is interesting to note that the term "government publication" is defined as an individual document. This later becomes an issue surrounding the interpretation of a document as a static, printed source vs. an electronic entity.

The Circular makes a clear distinction between dissemination and access. Access involves a situation in which the public goes to an agency and requests information that the agency has, but which it may or may not have disseminated. The access activity involves evoking the statutory policy set forth in the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). Unfortunately, the circular seems to believe that there is adequate bibliographic control over government publications, and that agencies do indeed publish information which will help users locate informational sources - in other words that FOIA is working well in providing reliable and timely information at public request. (Hernon p285)

The Circular reminds agencies of three scenarios in which they need to actively disseminate information: 1) "Every Federal agency has obligations to disseminate basic information to the public concerning what the agency does, how its programs operate, what the public must do to comply with laws or regulations, how to receive benefits and how the public can use agency resources." 2) Legal guidelines require some agencies to disseminate information as part of their statutory mission or mandate specific information products; or 3) "agencies have positive obligations to disseminate information as a necessary part of performing their functions."(OMB 1985 p52747)

Along with maintaining that government information is a national resource, the Circular emphasizes the economic and management importance of government information. At the same time the circular is still caught in the mind-set of discouraging unnecessary publications. The Circular implores agencies to utilize information technology to efficiently disseminate information. Again in the Appendices the Circular makes clear that economical dissemination should not imply limiting or diminishing the flow of information to the public. In fact, librarians had been concerned that A-130 would inhibit agency output, but at least one recent study shows that based on the overall count of publications agency output was only temporarily slowed. (Smith, p400)

In a seemingly schizophrenic set of guidelines, OMB A-130 instructs agencies to "act in the most cost effective manner, which includes maximum feasible reliance on the private sector", while a few paragraphs later agencies are urged to remember to comply with 44 USC 1902 which invokes the Depository Library Program (i.e. using GPO). The Depository Library Program was viewed as a safety net and was an existing mechanism that provided at least a minimum level of availability of government information. Unfortunately, though, no guidelines exist that "assist agencies in determining which publications should be submitted for distribution to depository libraries" (GAO 1984 p1) and therefore there is no guarantee that the depository items are a complete collection of federal documents which should be made available to the public. The GPO, as the agency which administers the DLP, was urged to create definitive written criteria for agencies to use in deciding which publications should be included in the depository program. (GAO 1984 p2).

Revised OMB Circular A-130 (1993/4)

Circular OMB A-130 was a source of controversy, especially within the library community. As technology developed, it was further criticized for not adequately covering the issue of electronic information. After seven plus years and several public hearings, the Circular was revised in 1993. The 1993 revision left some parts of the original Circular untouched, but did significantly change others.

A major shift in tone was achieved with the deletion of some wording that emphasized reliance on the private sector for dissemination. New wording in the revised circular also provides clearer guidance on the issue of user fees, stating that cost recovery should be limited to the cost of the dissemination, and actually permits lower charges if the agency considers dissemination costs a barrier.

In response to the pressure of technology, and realizing the cost benefit in electronic distribution, the revised circular clearly commands agencies to "use electronic media and format, including public networks, as appropriate and within budgetary constraints, in order to make government information more easily accessible and useful to the public" (sec 8a(8)OMB A-130)

The revised circular also gives clearer direction to agencies to use the DLP, and links electronic products with the DLP. In sections 8(6)g& h the circular requires that agencies make their publications, and specifically their electronic publications, available to the GPO for distribution to the DLP. In these sections the OMB is clearly relinquishing electronic documents to the same path that print publications have followed. This is the closest the depository statutes have come to including executive agency information.

To see the ground that has been covered between the initial issuance of A-130 and its revision, an interesting case in point is the dissemination of the published OMB circulars A-130 themselves. The first circular was issued in 1985. It was not a part of the Depository Library Program, and was not made routinely available to depository libraries. Libraries could request the item directly from OMB, but the library needed to initiate the request. In a circuitous way, the information contained in the circular was published in the Federal Register, which is a depository item. The interested citizen, though, would need to know that the Federal Register would have that information, and would than have to identify the exact publication date. In comparison, the 1993 revision of circular A-130 was distributed through the DLP. It was also published in the Federal Register, which is now also available full-text in electronic format. The circular itself is also available in full-text from a federal ftp site.

Even as revised, however, the OMB circular is not an aggressive plan of action to greatly enhance government information dissemination. There is the tradition of federal agencies to be reticent, or to be discouraged by their executive, to engage in active information dissemination. Very few agencies have the resources to create a user-friendly interface. It will be by looking ahead to other government technology and network initiatives that we might see consolidated efforts made at electronic publication and dissemination.

III. RECENT INITIATIVES

National High Performance Computing Act of 1991 (NREN) (P.L. 102-194)

The NREN legislation created a national network of "information superhighways" designed to transmit data. It allows educators, researches, businesses and students around the country (and the world) to communicate with each other and to access a wide range of tools and informational sources. Through the NREN, the government has a much wider range of options and costs for the dissemination of government information. The NREN also includes wording to promote the development of a number of electronic information resources and services, which at least indirectly helped increase the visibility/fundability of government information. On the other hand, an argument is that internet publications are not proactive, and that a more passive web site is taking the place of actively distributing a CD-ROM product through the DLP.

Part of NREN established the High Performance Computing and Communications (HPCC) Program, which promotes the development of technological developments to support the national information infrastructure. Another outcome of NREN has been the NII initiative, which has dealt specifically with the issue of federal information dissemination.

Solomons Conferences (1991-1993)

Three federal interagency conferences were held between May, 1991 and September, 1993. These conferences were held to share ideas on the agencies' experiences and plans for their information dissemination programs. The meetings took place in Solomon, Maryland and became known as the Solomons Conferences.

The first Solomons conference was sponsored by the EPA. The EPA, beginning with the 1986 legislation "Community Right To Know" has been mandated to provide electronic information to the public on toxic materials. The agency has faced strong public sentiment that it should provide more data to the public, in a more timely manner and with value-added. The EPA, unlike some other agencies, has taken a very proactive stance on providing information to the public. The first conference gave agencies a chance to see what each other was doing about electronic information dissemination. The feedback that some agencies had received from the public was that as the public becomes more sophisticated in their data use they provide agencies with good ideas on improving the data interface and quality. Experience has also shown them that the more services they provide to the public, the more services are in demand. Agency experience also was showing that information products are not going to be a revenue source for them.

The second Solomons Conference focused on the issue "under what conditions would the public have online access to federal computers?" Some agencies were very interested in allowing the public into their own files. For instance both the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), and the National Center for Educational Statistics (NCES) were designing special interfaces to ease public access of their systems. Other agencies that had sensitive data, or data on individuals, were very resistant to the idea of open access. There was, however, a prevailing feeling among the agencies in attendance that public access to their computers was a foregone conclusion, and a natural extension of the current dissemination trends.

As a result of the Second Solomons Conference a report "Working Draft: Public Access to Government Electronic Information: A Policy Framework was written and distributed (Sphere, Appendix). A meeting was held to provide a forum for agencies to have a dialog with public sector representatives and businesses based on the working draft. Representatives urged agencies to consult early and often with public users, to discuss issues and to understand the diversity of problems and fashion diverse solutions (Sphere p255). There was recognition that agencies serve not only the general public, who might have more general and diffuse information needs, to more specialized interest groups who have highly specific information needs. The third Solomons Conference focused more around the issue of pricing.

The Solomons Conferences are important on a number of levels. They demonstrate the amount of activity and work that many different agencies were going through with regards to public access to electronic information. They also demonstrated the eagerness with which some agencies welcome the coming challenge to provide more and better information to the public, including opening up their own computer systems to public access. It was also clear that many agencies would be making their own decisions and plans on their own dissemination policies, based on their experiences and public demands. The shift was away from the notion that OMB would be dictating specific policies, but that certainly high profile agencies will be developing their own methods to disseminate agency information to the public.

Government Printing Office Electronic Information Enhancement Act of 1993 (GPO Access)

This law requires GPO to establish and maintain a system of online access for some federal information, including the Federal Register and the Congressional Record. It provides this access free of charge to libraries in the DLP and at incremental costs to others. The bills leading up to the eventual passage of the GPO Access were largely an effort by public interest groups stakeholders to focus the government's attention away from the entrenchment focus of the Paperwork Reduction Act legislation and toward a proactive strategy of expanded access. (Love, p5). With this legislation GPO has a clear mandate to provide electronic access to federal information. Unfortunately GPO must now technologically execute this mission, and encourage other agencies to provide additional databases to add to the program.

National Information Infrastructure Task Forces (1993-1995)

The NII, from its first breaths, was envisioned to involve information dissemination. The first paragraph of The Agenda for Action articulates that the coming information highway "will put vast amounts of information at users' fingertips" (Agenda p3) It further explicitly stated that the NII will "provide access to government information ... The Administration will seek to endure that Federal agencies, in concert with state and local governments, use the NII to expand the information available to the public, ensuring that the immense reservoir of government information is available to the public easily and equitably" (Agenda p3).

The NII literature also echo the tune of earlier eras by calling for private sector cooperative efforts. The fresh idea here is that private/government is not tied directly to the issue of the dissemination of government information, but rather hinges more on the level of infrastructure and technological advances.

Three action initiatives are outlined in Agenda which tie clearly and directly to the dissemination of information: 1) "Improve the accessibility of government information; 2) Upgrade the infrastructure for the delivery of government information." and 3) "Enhance citizen access to government information." ( Agenda p12)

By the publication of Common Ground: Fundamental Principles for the National Information Infrastructure, the NII could boast the creation of the White House Home Page, and Congress had Thomas, an online Internet accessible system providing legislative information on bills and the Congressional Record. Common Ground urges catering to users, and extols ease of use in online systems and convenient access, as well as urging interactive systems. The NII Advisory Council, in their progress report letter, give the Administration high marks for Leadership for the innovative ways that the federal government has been able to make use of information technology to promote and distribute government information.

IV. Pending Legislation

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 ?

Separate paperwork reduction acts have passed House (HR 830) and Senate (S. 244) in the spring of 1995. Aside from reducing the burden of federal paperwork on the public, and keeping the government responsible for paperwork reduction, the bills involved some new issues. Much controversy surrounded the bills in earlier days when wording in one of the sections seemed to give West Publishing, a firm that adds value-added information to the JURIS database, ownership of the information. This special interest language could have had a devastating effect on FOIA requests, since it would exclude all contractor generated records from the scope of FOIA. Requests for information from massive databases built in- whole or in-part by private sector contractors, such as ERIC or EDGAR would be denied. This would have had an important negative impact on future private sector involvement with government information products. After concerted lobbying by Tax Analysts Project, Electronic Frontier Foundation and various library groups, this wording did not make the final version of the House (or the Senate) Bill.

The Senate Bill (S. 244) directs the OMB to establish a agency based electronic Government Information Locator Service (GILS). (section 3511 of S 244). The GILS will identify the many information systems, holdings and dissemination products of each agency. OMB is to establish an inter-agency committee which will deal with issues of technological standards to ensure GILS compatibility, promote information sharing, and encourage uniform access by the public. Each agency is required to hold up its end by establishing their own component of GILS.

The Senate Bill emphases electronic dissemination of information, agency responsibility for ensuring that the public has timely and equitable access to the agencies public information. Electronic dissemination of government information is treated much more directly than the 1980 PRA. Congress is still grappling with the issue of costs, and the House Bill's earlier version had provisions that would authorize OMB to waive limits on user fees for public information.

GILS

A Government Information Locator Service (GILS) project has been underway since 1989 at Syracuse University under the direction of Charles McClure. GILS He identified the need users had to be able to identify, locate and acquire publicly available electronic government information resources. He, William Moen and others developed a system using client server architecture and Z39.50 standards to support the diverse agency-based networks. The Locator is designed to tell the user what information is available on a topic, where the information is located and how the user can access the information. The system is designed to support decentralized, agency-based locators. One focus of the project was on standardization, both through the acceptance of the Z39.50 interface over the Internet and the standardization of records for each information resource. OMB Bulletin 95-01 implements the GILS. The acceptance, support and understanding of GILS by agencies will be key factors in the success of this initiative.

Recent Legislation

Other recent legislative news has involved a wide range of steps and counter-steps:

Discussion in congress has been supportive of an electronic version of the Congressional Record, with a delayed print version to save costs.
The Senate and House clashed over THOMAS, because of its potential conflict with the GPO Access System and because the House mounted the whole program without Senate involvement, and only invited the Senate to participate after the press announcement (EPIN v.5 n2 1995).
Various moves have been made or proposed to cut the GPO , the Joint Committee on Printing, and the Joint Committee on the Library, and to move the superintendent of documents function from GPO to the Library of Congress.
The National Archives and Records Administration has announced a fax-on-demand service. The system allows user to select and receive a wide variety of NARA information. The system now contains about 120 documents. many of the documents are also available on the NARA's gopher.
Early reports of information highway kiosks had them situated in Post Offices, raising the ire of many library groups. More recent news includes libraries as sites for these interactive information providers.
In April, 1995 GAO joined the GPO Access project by providing access to the GAO reports database through GPO Access services' WAIS. GAO publishes an average of five reports a day. The GAO reports database will make these reports available in ASCII text the day after publication. The database will not include restricted or classified documents

V. Stakeholders and Perspectives

Government

Executive Branch

Office of Management and Budget (OMB)

The Office of Management and Budget evaluates, formulates, and coordinates management procedures and program objectives within and among Federal departments and agencies. With the implementation of the PRA, the OMB has been serving as a central catalyst and manager of executive branch information policy planning and development. With the issuance of the revised OMB circular A- 130 the Office has re-affirmed its role and intent to continue to play an active role in the information life cycle and IRM. Circular A-130 also gave the Director of OMB responsibility for "Providing overall leadership and coordination of Federal information resources management within the executive branch" (Government Manual)

National Technical Information Service (NTIS)

NTIS is under the Department of Commerce. NTIS acquires and sells information from source agencies. It also provides bibliographic control, document distribution and patent licensing. NTIS receives no tax dollars, all costs associated with collecting, abstracting, indexing, archiving, reproducing, and disseminating information are paid for strictly from sales. Under the Reagan Administration NTIS was a talked-about candidate for privatization. Since then NTIS has moved to generate additional revenues, especially through joint ventures, including that of supporting the CD-ROM production of other agencies and exploring some joint projects with private companies. Its Fedworld Bulletin Board service and now Internet site provide access and dissemination to a wide array of federal information.

Legislative Branch

The Government Printing Office (GPO)

The Government Printing Office prints, binds, and distributes the publications of the Congress as well as the executive departments and establishments of the Federal Government. Title 44 of the U.S. Code codified traditional printed information production and dissemination for the federal government. It establishes the GPO as the agency with central responsibility for procuring and printing for the legislative, executive and judicial branches of government. The Code also establishes the Superintendent of Documents, who is responsible for publication sales and distribution of documents through the Depository Library Program (DLP). The Printing Act, which mandates much of GPO's activities, was passed in 1895. The congressional Joint Committee on Printing serves in an oversight capacity for the Government Printing Office. The DLP is a network of 1,391 private, state and Federal libraries located throughout the United States. The depository libraries ensure equitable access to government information which has been made available through the program.

Other Legislative Branch agencies with potential interest in the issues of government information dissemination include the General Accounting Office (GAO), the Office of Technology Assessment (OTA), and the Library of Congress.

Independent establishments

Independent establishments include the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) and the National Commission on Libraries and Information Science.

U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science:

NCLIS is a permanent, independent agency of the federal government charged with advising the president and Congress on matters relating to national library and information policies and plans. In 1990 the NCLIS came out with it's "Principles of Public Information" which it hopes will serve as a guideline for federal agencies. The Principles are based on the concept that "public information is information owned by the people and held in trust by the government" (news release). The Principles which deal with the issue of dissemination affirm that the government should guarantee the "dissemination, reproduction and re- distribution of public information"; state that cost should not "obstruct" the people's access to public information; recommend that government information be easily available and findable; and re-affirm the DLP as a national network for dissemination documents. (news release)

Libraries

Libraries have been major proponents of dissemination of government information. Libraries have actively sought to strengthen the DLP. Libraries openly criticized the 1985 OMB Circular A-130 for its emphasis on private companies involvement with government information dissemination. Library pressure was instrumental in the inclusion of wording supporting the DLP in the 1985 document, and library pressure induced OMB to withdraw a planned revision of A-130 in 1989. (Smith p401) Library groups also were instrumental, along with TAP, in promoting, drafting and supporting the GPO Access legislation (Love).

The Government Documents Round Table (GODORT) division of ALA has been extremely interested in the issues surrounding access and dissemination of government information, and are vociferous supporters of the DLP as an avenue for the continued dissemination of both print and electronic information. (Hearing, p.134).

The Association of College and Research Libraries (ACRL) has been an active participant in many Congressional forums. In testimony on the review of title 44 Kaye Gapen, ACRL president, outlined ACRL's principles on government information in electronic format:

" The open exchange of public information should be protected.
Federal policy should support the integrity and preservation of government electronic databases.
Copyright should not be applied to U.S. Government Information.
Diversity of sources of access to U.S. Government information is in the public interest and entrepreneurship should be encouraged.
Government information should be available at low cost.
A system to provide equitable, no-fee access to basic public information is a requirement of a democratic society." (Hearing, p113)

Industry

The Information Industry Association (IIA) is a trade association of numerous companies that create and sell information products and services. IIA wants to ensure that agency publications are disseminated through private companies who will add value-added enhancements to the raw government publications. IIA argues that it takes skilled manpower and data processing resource to convert most raw government data to a format with a retrieval system that is easy to use and nearly transparent to the user. Often agency information is produced for internal use by agency personnel alone, and its dissemination to the general public in electronic format necessitates careful editing and mark-up. The IIA feels that future dissemination of electronic information should be characterized by a complementary relations between government and non-government information sources, with contractual agreements which will help agencies share the cost of dissemination.

Public Interest Groups

There are many public interest groups involved in working toward better public access to government information: OMB Watch, the American Civil Liberties Union, the National Security Archives, the American Society of Access Professionals, Taxpayer Assets Project (TAP), the Coalition for Networked Information (CNI) to name a few. Public interest groups are generally concerned with the same issues as libraries and IIA, and also very concerned with the process for public participation in policy making. These groups are generally not wedded to the DLP, nor as worried about a competitive marketplace.

The Brauman Foundation encourages public involvement and participation in information policy discussion. The Foundation supports programs which assure open government, broad information dissemination and equitable access to information. The Brauman Foundation came into being when the 1986 Federal law required that the EPA set up a publicly available database of toxic emissions - the Toxic Release Inventory (TRI). The law required the EPA to affirmatively disseminate this information to the public. The TRI can be viewed as a microcosm of the larger issue of general right-to-know needs of the public with regards to government information. The Foundation has been active with TRI and other dissemination of information issues. They hope that the continued success of the TRI is creating an atmosphere where this kind of information is more available to the public.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) was founded in July of 1990 to ensure that the principles embodied in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are protected as new communications technologies emerge. EFF has worked with other interest groups and library groups to help support issues of open access and dissemination. EFF's stated goals have included working to shape the nation's communications infrastructure "and the policies that govern it in order to maintain and enhance First Amendment, privacy and other democratic values."

The Press

The press has found that rather than using technology to enhance access and dissemination of information, the government has used technology to set up barriers to discourage disclosure of government information. Since no overall policy exists, case-by-case decisions being made on information disclosure issues. Often the press does not have the luxury of waiting for case law to open the doors to government information. For the press, issues such as cost of dissemination, search and copying gees , agency lack of cooperation in manipulating data to suit requester needs all play a part in de facto limiting information access. Many agencies are not using technology to help them search their own files, maintain or preserve their own documents, or comply with FOIA requests.

State & local government

State and local governments are benefactors of the federal paperwork reduction processes, since the burden of reporting voluminous information to the federal government has been a problem for local governments. Some state and local governments have also been very active, especially in the area of supporting and enhancing the information infrastructure initiatives, though their efforts have not always been recognized at federal levels.

VI. Issues

Definition of government publications

Central to the discussion is the definition of government publications. The current law, as codified in Title 44, specifies printed sources only, and therefore mandates GPO functions for printed material only. With the creation of federal documents in electronic format, many information sources are now outside of the GPO's jurisdiction. Without clear statutory guidance, agencies have interpreted policies and guidelines for handling electronic information products in different ways. Some agencies have used GPO services for electronic product dissemination, other agencies do not.

Executive requirements to disseminate publications

Statutory guidance is not clear on the issue of which information products, reports, data, etc. agencies should be publishing for an informed citizenry. Only a few agencies actively disseminate their information. Some agencies might provide some distribution for a specialized clientele. Some might rely upon the National Technical Information Service (NTIS), as well as the GPO. But agencies and congressional committees might not engage in dissemination activities. Often, in order to acquire government information, a citizen must request an item directly from an agency or office. In other words, some agencies have specific, mandated requirements for making their informational output available, other agencies do not.

Problems of electronic publishing distribution

Information dissemination continues to be fragmented, and depository collections complain that they receive a smaller proportion of government information products. Often, sophistication with regards to understanding and using information technology has had an impact on the types of electronic information and the publication formats that agencies use to produce information products. CD-ROMS are in use by some, with some agencies having created simple retrieval software. Others regularly issue floppy discs. Bulletin boards seemed to be the vogue a few years ago, now many agencies have (fortunately) moved into the realm of the Internet with HTML documents, WAIS and SWAIS servers, and accessible ftp sites.

Problems of distribution mechanisms

The Depository Library Program & the GPO have never been a centralized dissemination point. As a matter of fact, numerous public laws require individual agencies to disseminate information directly to the public. Agencies continually circumvent the GPO and re-invent information dissemination programs.

Problems of locating information

The burden of identifying and locating federal information resources falls on users. If there is to be an opening up and greater distribution and proliferation of government information is achieved, keeping up with this deluge will be a challenge. Ass ociated with the need for a government locator service is the need for agency cooperation in publishing their data in a standard form and in utilizing the same equipment standards.

Providing adequate user support

How can we as a society assure equality of public access to federal information to avoid the creation of Information Haves and Have Nots? Can we guarantee universal service? What programs can provide equipment and training to locations that are under-supported?

Meeting the public's needs

Little work has been done to identify user requirements and information needs. Paperwork reduction efforts have centered around the burden of paperwork reporting on local governments and individuals, but little has been done to systematically ascertain a nd analyze the public's information needs and preferences. Greater attention could go to designing dissemination mechanisms that meet user needs rather than satisfying agency missions.

Problem of competing stakeholders

How can the issue of low cost access to government information be reconciled with the issue of value-added product? How can the various stakeholders in the government information dissemination area be brought together?

Funding implications

What are the funding implications for more energetic government dissemination programs? How much will this cost the public? How much of their budgets will agencies need to allocate to improve (or create?) their information dissemination mechanisms?

VII. Discussion

VIII. Acronyms

American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)
American Society of Access Professionals (ASAP)
Association of College and Research Libraries (ACRL)
Centers for Disease Control (CDC)
Coalition for Networked Information (CNI)
Depository Library Program (DLP)
Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF)
Electronic Information Enhancement Act of 1993 (GPO Access)
Freedom of Information Act (FOIA
General Accounting Office (GAO)
Government Documents Round Table (GODORT)
Government Printing Office (GPO)
Information Industry Association (IIA)
National Archives and Records Administration (NARA)
National Center for Educational Statistics (NCES)
National Commission on Libraries and Information Science (NCLIS)
National High Performance Computing Act of 1991 (NREN)
National Security Archives (NSA)
National Technical Information Service (NTIS)
National Information Infrastructure (NII)
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA)
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA)
Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
Office of Technology Assessment (OTA)
Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
Taxpayer Assets Project (TAP)
Toxic Release Inventory (TRI
Wide Area Information Systems (WAIS)

IX. Timeline

IX. ENDNOTES

Commission on Federal Paperwork. A Report of the Commission on Federal Paperwork. Final Summary Report. Washington, D.C: Government Printing Office. Y3.P19:1/977

Hernon, Peter & McClure,-Charles-R. "Dissemination of U.S. Government Information in CD-ROM and Other Forms " CD-ROM-Professional; v5 n2 p67-71 Mar 1992.

Hernon, Peter. "Management of United States Government Information Resources: An Assessment of OMB Circular A-130." Government Information Quarterly; v3 n3 p279-290 August 1986.

Love, James P. "A Window on the Politics of the Government Printing Office Electronic Information Access Enhancement Act of 1993." Journal of Government Information; v21 n1 p3-13 Jan-Feb 1994.

Smith, Ted D. "Measuring the effect of U.S. Office of Management and Budget Circular A-130: A Case Study". Journal of Government Information ; v21, n5 Sept-Oct 1994, p391-402.

Sprehe, J. Timothy. "Issues in Public Access: The solomons conferences"Government Publications Review; v20, pp251-272, 1993

U. S. Committee on House Administration. House Hearing. "Title 44 U.S.C.: Review." May 23,24, June 28,29, 1989. Y4.H81/3:T53.

U.S. General Accounting Office. 1984. "The Government Printing Office's Depository Library Program" Report No GAO/AFMD-85-19, December 17, 1984. GA 1.13: AFMD-85-19.

U. S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science. 1990. "Information Age 'Bill of Rights' Approved". News Release. July 12, 1990.

Office of Managment and Budget. 1985. Management of Federal Information Resources. Federal Register. 1985 December 24; 50 (247):52730-52751. (OMB Circular A-130). AE2.106:50/247.

U.S. Office of Management and Budget. 1994. Management of Federal Information Resources. Federal Register. 1994, July 25; 59 (141):37906-37928. (OMB Circular A-130). AE2.106:59/141.

This paper created and tagged by Fern Brody April 21, 1995 You are free to view and share this document, but remember it is covered under U.S. copyright laws.