In May 2001, the Task Force on Copy Cataloging Acceptance Policies (Arno Kastner, Chair, Beacher Wiggins, Judi Nadler, Katherine Farrell, Barb Henigman) distributed a survey to the members of Big Heads Discussion Group. The purpose of the survey was to collect information about our copy acceptance policies and recommend ways to remove barriers to copy acceptance. At the June ALA annual meeting, preliminary survey findings were presented followed by brief discussion. While there was interest in the survey and agreement that it could be useful, a suggestion was raised by more than one person that revisions to the survey instrument might make it more useful and that we may want to distribute the survey periodically to track processing trends. Suggestions for improvement included redesigned layout and elimination of ambiguities and redundancies. In October, a poll of the Big Heads indicated that there was not sufficient support for a redesign and redistribution of the survey, but that there was interest in a formal summary of observations and recommendations. In answer to this request, Judi and I are submitting the following report.

The survey's premise and organization was based on the longstanding practice of treating copy cataloging as a review and editing process in which records are modified to meet local and national standards. The survey's structure assumed that different types of cataloging copy required different levels of review; different levels of acceptance ranged from acceptance without any review at all to review with close scrutiny and verification; and different levels of staff did the review based on the type of copy. The survey made assumptions about workflow and organizational structures, which were not valid across libraries. Consequently, questions about where work was performed and by what level of staff were difficult to answer for technical services departments that do not rigorously sort incoming materials by type of copy or are cross-functionally team-based.

It was assumed that managers would fill out the survey and responses would be based on policy rather than exceptional practices.

Libraries depend heavily on cataloging copy. Discounting the three national libraries with their special circumstances, the percentage of print monographs processed with cataloging copy ranges from 79% to 97%. The percentage of copy cataloging that is non-LC ranges from 35% to 80%.

In some libraries, copy cataloging is being done as an add-on function to receiving. 14 of 23 respondents said at least some copy cataloging is done as part of the receiving process. For those institutions the percentage of copy cataloging handled in acquisitions ranged from 2% to 68%.

A broad range of staff is handling copy cataloging. In the broadest definition of copy cataloging, 15 of 23 respondents used students to process at least some categories of cataloging copy and between 7 and 13 had professional catalogers handling LC or full-level cataloging copy.

Matching category of copy with staff competency. The survey task force members assumed that cost-effective use of various grades of staff would result in sorting of materials by "quality" and assignment to appropriate staff: most reliable copy (LC, PCC) assigned to junior staff, full-level copy to regular staff, and vendor or less-than-full copy to senior staff and professional librarians. Survey results were inconclusive because some libraries do not do this type of sorting and do not track what level of staff works on which types of copy. On the other hand, 8 respondents had professionals handle LC and PCC copy; 9 respondents had students handle full-level member copy

Accepting copy without review. Although some respondents indicated that more reliable copy (LC, for instance) was accepted without review, in fact all copy receives some kind of eyeballing beyond the basic verification that the copy is a bibliographic match for the book.

Call number availability. The survey indicated that the presence of a call number is a make-or-break for the usability of copy. For most libraries, even very good bibliographic copy had to be bumped up to senior staff or professionals for call number assignment-another hand-off and another delay in processing.

Review of assigned call numbers. As one might expect, call numbers for traditionally more reliable copy are reviewed less than for categories of copy that receive closer scrutiny. Still, for 9 of the 27 respondents, even LC call numbers are reviewed.

Acceptance of final cutter number. Survey results here are contrary to expectations: 17 libraries check final cutters for full LC, 7 for CIP, 15 for LC PCC core, 8 for full member copy.

Headings verification as part of the cataloging process. 17 of the 25 respondents are committed to post-cataloging authority processing of headings. For those libraries that upload locally edited copy to the utilities, the implication is that records that subsequently go though batch authority clean up are not uploaded again.

Confidence in PCC full and core records. There is some evidence that libraries are distinguishing between PCC and non-PCC copy: 13 libraries check complete description for non-PCC copy, 7 for PCC full and 10 for PCC core. Of libraries that do authority work as part of cataloging, 4 check LC core headings against NAF, 2 check PCC full headings, and 4 check PCC core headings. Evidence does not indicate, however, that PCC copy is being equated with LC full level cataloging. A few libraries re-search the utilities for "better copy than PCC.

Vendor supplied records. Unfortunately, the survey did not distinguish adequately between cataloging records supplied by North American vendors like Yankee Book Peddler, where up to 90% of the copy can be LC copy, and bibliographic citation records supplied by European vendors like Harrassowitz and Casalini that require extensive upgrading and editing.

Local system vs. utilities: where cataloging is done. The only conclusion here is that each institution has established its own mix of processing workflows to match its special needs: CJK on RLIN everything else on the local system; or, original on OCLC everything else on the local system, etc.

The survey was based on the assumption that our libraries do not fully maximize the use of cataloging copy. Its primary purpose was to verify this assumption; its secondary purpose was to make recommendations on how this could be changed. The results of the survey have verified our assumption and point to several reasons why this is so. The reasons broadly fall into two categories 1) those which relate to libraries' internal policies, practices, and work flows and the way they are set up to use cataloging copy, and 2) those that relate to the quality and availability of copy in the utilities and the policy of the utilities regarding their interaction with copy contributing libraries.

1. Using the finding of the Survey, libraries should be encouraged to:
   1. take a new look at operations and workflows
   2. maximize advantages of technology towards streamlining copy cataloging
   3. reassess staffing levels assigned to copy cataloging
   4. clarify why PCC records are being edited and encourage full acceptance of PCC
   5. share and learn from each others' experience and practices
   6. continue to be open to change
   
   
2. We as a group, or someone on our behalf, should engage in a dialogue with the utilities (specifically OCLC) regarding the quality of records in the database, the growing presence of vendor records (that are being enhanced locally only), the technicalities underlying record overlay, and the credits structure and incentives offered to libraries for distributing enhanced records to the utilities.