FDLP USERS SPEAK: 

THE VALUE AND PERFORMANCE OF 

LIBRARIES PARTICIPATING IN THE 

FEDERAL DEPOSITORY LIBRARY PROGRAM 

Report prepared for: 

United States Government Printing Office 

Under contract by Outsell, Inc. 

28 July 2011 

Presented by: 

David Powell 

Sheila King 

Leigh Watson Healy 
Table of Contents 

Introduction and background .............................................................................................................. 1

Objectives ........................................................................................................................................... 2

About the survey ................................................................................................................................. 3

Summary of key findings ..................................................................................................................... 3

Recommendations .............................................................................................................................. 5

Research findings ................................................................................................................................ 6

Frequency of use ......................................................................................................................... 8

Number of FDLP libraries used .................................................................................................... 9

How respondents heard about FDLP library .............................................................................. 10

Purpose of using FDLP resources................................................................................................11

Respondents’ frequency of use of print/tangible and online resources ...................................... 12

Respondents’ frequency of use of library services...................................................................... 14

Respondents’ use of alternative sources.................................................................................... 15

Outcomes experienced by respondents .................................................................................... 16

Perceptions of value of FDLP information resources ..................................................................17

Problems, barriers, obstacles, challenges .................................................................................. 18

Respondents’ levels of satisfaction............................................................................................ 19

Overall level of response ................................................................................................................. 3

Use of libraries................................................................................................................................. 3

Purposes and resources used .......................................................................................................... 3

Outcomes and satisfaction.............................................................................................................. 4

Suggestions and preferences .......................................................................................................... 4

Segments ........................................................................................................................................ 4

Federal Depository Libraries and survey results .............................................................................. 5

Overall level of response ................................................................................................................. 6

Response demographics by State/Territory .................................................................................... 6

Respondents’ usage patterns .......................................................................................................... 8

Respondents’ outcomes and perceptions of value and performance ............................................ 16
Improvements suggested by respondents ................................................................................. 20

Preferred methods for delivery of information .......................................................................... 21

Importance of access to government documents ...................................................................... 22

Awareness ................................................................................................................................. 23

Staff ........................................................................................................................................... 23

Finance ...................................................................................................................................... 23

Satisfaction ............................................................................................................................... 24

Dissatisfaction ........................................................................................................................... 24

Improvements ........................................................................................................................... 24

Analysis of findings by segment ........................................................................................................ 25

Demographics ........................................................................................................................... 25

Usage patterns .......................................................................................................................... 25

Outcomes and satisfaction levels .............................................................................................. 28

Demographics ........................................................................................................................... 30

Usage patterns .......................................................................................................................... 30

Outcomes and satisfaction levels .............................................................................................. 34

Demographics ........................................................................................................................... 36

Usage patterns .......................................................................................................................... 36

Outcomes and satisfaction levels .............................................................................................. 40

Demographics ........................................................................................................................... 42

Demographics ........................................................................................................................... 43

Usage patterns .......................................................................................................................... 43

Outcomes and satisfaction levels .............................................................................................. 46

Final free-text comments offered by respondents ........................................................................ 22

Academic libraries......................................................................................................................... 25

Government libraries..................................................................................................................... 30

Public libraries ............................................................................................................................... 36

Selective libraries .......................................................................................................................... 42

Regional libraries........................................................................................................................... 43
Appendix A: Methodology ................................................................................................................ 48

Appendix B: Survey questionnaire ..................................................................................................... 50
1 

In troduc ti on and b ac kground 

Created by Congress, the Federal Depository Library Program (FDLP) was established to ensure that 

the American public has access to its government's information. Since 1813, depository libraries 

have safeguarded the public's right to know by collecting, organizing, maintaining, preserving, and 

assisting users with information from the Federal Government. Under the aegis of the United States 

Government Printing Office (GPO), the FDLP provides government information at no cost to 

designated depository libraries in individual states and overseas territories. Depository libraries, in 

turn, provide local, no-fee access to government information in an impartial environment with 

professional assistance. This open access is at the heart of informed participation in the democratic 

process, ensuring availability not only of valuable historical information for research and education, 

but also of current information, which both informs the general public and facilitates the visibility 

and accountability of government. Approximately 1,220 institutions participate in the FDLP, 

including academic, government (federal, state, and local), public, and special libraries. By statute 

regional depository libraries seek to provide comprehensive collections, while by statute selective 

depository libraries collect Government resources that meet the needs of the community they serve.

In recent times, technology and the internet have changed the environment within which the FDLP 

operates. In order better to serve both its public mission and the needs of depository libraries, GPO 

needs to keep under review the whole range of its activities, including dissemination, access, cost, 

management, preservation, and overall value proposition for the general public. Hence, in 2009/10, 

as part of the process of review, GPO commissioned Outsell, Inc. to carry out a needs assessment in 

order to solicit direct feedback from libraries participating in the FDLP. This exercise was completed 

within the context of the Biennial Survey, which is required by statute to enable depository libraries 

to fulfill their obligation to ‘report to the Superintendent of Documents at least every two years 

concerning their condition’ (44 USC §1909). 

Following the successful completion of the needs assessment, the next logical step in the process of 

review was to solicit feedback from the general public who in official, professional or private capacity 

make use of the information resources provided by the FDLP through participating libraries. 

Accordingly, GPO commissioned Outsell to design and conduct a web-based survey in order to 

collect information from end-users concerning their purposes in accessing FDLP information 

resources, to what extent they were able to fulfill their purposes, their overall level of satisfaction, 

the problems or barriers they may have encountered, and their suggestions for improvements. 

The user survey was designed and carried out during 2010/11. This report documents the objectives, 

methodology and results of that survey, together with recommendations for future action. 
2 

O bjec ti ves 

The principal objective of this project was to support the strategic planning of GPO and of individual 

FDLP participating libraries through research aimed at obtaining a better understanding of users’

perceptions of the value and performance of the FDLP’s diverse libraries, focusing particularly on 

outcomes. 

More specifically, within that overall objective, the GPO aimed to achieve a number of component 

objectives, as follows: 

 To understand, through the needs and perceptions of users, which FDLP elements need to be 

maintained, which need change or improvement, and which might be given lower priority or 

even discontinued; 

 To identify where elements could be extended or new elements introduced which would be 

beneficial for users of FDLP information resources; 

 To establish for a range of performance indicators benchmarks against which future 

performance can be measured; 

 To discern key differences, if any, in user needs and perceptions between separate segments 

of the FDLP, and thereby to establish whether differentiated actions may be necessary for 

some or all of the segments; 

 Where levels of response allow, to permit individual FDLP libraries to carry out similar actions 

to the above, by comparing their own results with the aggregated results for FDLP libraries as 

a whole; and 

 To indicate possible areas for action and to set standards for performance which may also be 

appropriate for libraries which did not contribute to the user survey. 

At project level, specific component objectives may be expressed as follows: 

 Working with GPO, to design a survey to elicit from users feedback based upon the outcomes 

they achieved through being able to access US government information made available by 

FDLP libraries; 

 Using the approved survey instrument, to implement the survey in such a way as to facilitate 

participation by users in all FDLP libraries which chose to participate in the survey; and 

 Analyzing the results, to create baseline metrics on participating FDLP libraries which would 

provide a foundation for service improvement and ongoing assessment. 
3 

About the survey 

This report is being provided to document results from the online survey of users in 1,220 libraries 

participating in the FDLP across the United States and its overseas territories. The survey 

questionnaire was set up on the internet and the survey was conducted between October 18, 2010 

and March 4, 2011. GPO encouraged all participating libraries to invite users of FDLP resources to 

complete the survey, providing all the libraries with promotional material in the form of post cards to 

be given to depository users. Details of research design and methodology are provided in Appendix 

A of this report.

Summary of key fin dings

Below, in summary, are the most important points drawn from the user survey. Detailed research 

findings follow further in the report. 

Overall level of response 

 Response to the survey was good, with a total of 3,305 respondents, which represents the 

overall population of users at a 95% confidence level ±1.7%. Responses were received from 

549 of the 1,220 FDLP libraries (45%), well distributed both geographically and across 

different types of libraries participating in the FDLP. 

Use of libraries 

 Over one third (38%) of all respondents used FDLP information resources at least six times 

per year, while a further one quarter (25%) used the resources at least twice per year. 

 A strong majority (58%) of respondents used only one library, but 20% used more than one. 

 Most respondents had heard about the library they used because of its proximity as a campus 

(59%) or local library (21%), but more than a quarter (28%) had become aware via the library’s 

web site. 

Purposes and resources used 

 Academic research (65%), education (40%) and personal (33%) were the most frequently 

cited purposes for using FDLP resources, except in the government libraries segment, where 

law and legal practice (42%) and legislative process (26%) were also evidently important. 
4 

 Most-used types of information were historical materials (67%), statistics (66%), and current 

information (64%). 

 Respondents used electronic-only mainly for documentation of a legal, legislative, or fiscal 

nature (15-23%); mixed electronic and electronic use was common; print-only usage was 

found to be highest for maps (22%) and for historical materials (18%). 

 Online access to documents (51%), and the library web site (50%) were the services provided 

by FDLP libraries which were reported to be used ‘frequently’.

 Alternative sources for US government information which were said to be used ‘frequently’ 

were Google (55%) and other internet-based services (49%). 

Outcomes and satisfaction 

 Respondents indicated strongly that outcomes matched their objectives, in that FDLP 

resources provided key information (79%), enabled the fulfillment of a purpose (75%), and 

added value to a piece of work (60%) 

 Respondents also concurred with a number of positive statements about their experiences 

using FDLP resources, ‘strongly agreeing’ that they would recommend use of FDLP resources 

to colleagues/friends (55%) and that they would use FDLP resources again (55%). 

 Challenges or problems which were identified related mostly to difficulty of use (57%), finding 

materials in library catalogs (53%), non-availability of preferred formats (46%), and gaps in 

library holdings (44%). 

 Overall quality of resources and services was rated at least somewhat satisfactory by close to 

85% of respondents, with 46% indicating they were extremely satisfied; dissatisfaction with 

any element of resources and services did not exceed 6%. 

Suggestions and preferences 

 Most-desired improvements included more materials online (50%), online tutorials to explain 

government activities (36%), and the retrospective extension of collections to include older 

historical materials (31%). 

 As the preferred methods of delivery of information for their use, respondents placed e-mail 

alerts first (61%), followed by web postings (60%). 

Segments 

 Analysis of responses from the government library segment, from the public library segment 

and from the regional library segment revealed some differences of emphasis, albeit not 

dramatic differences (generally fewer than five percentage points). 
5

Re c ommenda ti ons 

Overall, the actions indicated most strongly by responses to the survey were the provision of more 

materials online, the provision of better finding tools, and the provision of more training to facilitate 

the use of complex and often difficult to find government information resources. 

In greater detail, on the basis of the completed analysis of the user survey, Outsell considers that the 

following actions would be beneficial both in encouraging additional users to access government 

information and in improving services for existing users of FDLP resources. The suggestions are not 

in order of priority, as GPO and depository libraries will need to determine what is feasible in the 

light of their respective budget and operational factors. Outsell recommends GPO work in 

partnership with and with the support of Federal depository libraries to: 

 Undertake more promotional activity, not just on the web, but also through library help desks 

and other local facilities in participating libraries; 

 Increase training/tutorial activities both on the web and in participating libraries to assist 

users in finding Government documents on the web; 

 Make more materials available in library collections and online; and 

 Develop new tools to enhance access to and discoverability of Government information. 

Federal Depository Libraries and survey results 

 FDLP libraries which participated in the user survey can benefit from comparing their 

individual results against the overall survey results (which represent a benchmark of 

performance nationally), in order to assess what actions they might wish to take locally. 

 FDLP libraries that did not have users respond to the survey can benefit as well by knowing 

what the benchmarks are and how they compare to respondents as a whole. 

 All FDLP libraries can benefit by adopting the survey instrument as a template (modifiable 

according to particular circumstances or developments) for a continuing process of 

assessment of the performance and effectiveness of their individual libraries as measured 

against user outcomes and impacts. 
6 

Re searc h f in dings 

For convenience, although individual questions are repeated in the text below, a complete copy of 

the survey questionnaire, which shows its layout, is also included in this report as Appendix B. 

Overall level of response 

Users of 549 FDLP libraries in all US States, plus DC, and three overseas Territories responded to the 

survey, representing 45% of the 1,220 FDLP participating libraries. Of the 549 libraries, 76 had at 

least 10 respondents. The total number of users who responded was 3,305. Results from this survey 

can be viewed with a 95% accuracy level within a margin of ±1.7%. That is – the same survey will 

produce like results 95 out of 100 times. This accuracy level was more than sufficient to permit 

meaningful conclusions to be drawn from analyses.

Of the 3,305 respondents, 2,322 (70%) submitted the questionnaire from academic libraries, 684 

(21%) from public libraries, 103 (3%) from government libraries, and two from special libraries. A 

further 194 (6%) respondents did not indicate the type of the library from which they were 

responding. Response fell off towards the end of the questionnaire, but the smallest number of 

respondents to any particular question was 2,283, which is entirely adequate for the purpose of 

analysis. In the analysis of by segment, no separate analysis was carried out for special libraries 

given the very small number of respondents. 

Viewed from a different perspective, of the 3,305 respondents, 2,894 (87%) were from Selective 

FDLP libraries and 217 (7%) from Regional FDLP libraries, with the same 194 (6%) responses left 

uncategorized. 

Response demographics by State/Territory 

A total of 3,211 respondents provided information about the State/Territory and the individual library 

from which they were responding. Responses were received from every State and overseas 

Territory, as well as DC. 

Although the distribution of responses, shown in Figure 1, below, is uneven, with just under a third of 

all responses coming from three states, namely Michigan (11%), Florida (11%), and New York (10%), 

a total of 2,224 responses were received from the rest of the country. Moreover, the five most 

populous states (California, Texas, New York, Florida, Illinois), which account for 36% of the total 

population, contributed 31% of responses. 
7 

Figure 1: 

Question A.3 – Which FDLP library do you normally use (or, if you are an infrequent user, in 

which library did you hear about this survey)?

Base = 3,211

0.1%

0.03%

0.03%

0.1%

0.7%

4.1%

2.2%

1.5%

3.1%

2.6%

0.1%

3.9%

0.8%

1.0%

0.9%

0.5%

3.1%

1.2%

2.6%

2.7%

0.2%

0.7%

9.3%

0.7%

0.6%

0.2%

0.3%

1.0%

0.1%

2.7%

0.3%

1.2%

10.9%

0.6%

1.4%

0.5%

3.9%

0.6%

2.2%

1.4%

1.2%

4.4%

0.3%

0.03%

3.4%

10.5%

0.5%

0.1%

1.2%

0.4%

3.1%

0.6%

2.1%

0.2%

1.8%

0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12%

VI

PR

GU

AS

WY

WI

WV

WA

VA

VT

UT

TX

TN

SD

SC

RI

PA

OR

OK

OH

ND

NC

NY

NM

NJ

NH

NV

NE

MT

MO

MS

MN

MI

MA

MD

ME

LA

KY

KS

IA

IN

IL

ID

HI

GA

FL

DC

DE

CT

CO

CA

AR

AZ

AK

AL

Total responses by State/Territory
8 

Respondents’ usage patterns 

Introductory questions in the survey (Section A) sought to establish respondents’ patterns of usage. 

Respondents were then asked, in particular, to think about the purposes for which they were 

accessing resources made available by FDLP, so that subsequently they could answer questions 

concerning outcomes in the light of the objectives which they had had when using the information 

they retrieved. 

Frequency of use 

Responses to the first question, which concerned frequency of use, revealed that approaching two 

thirds (63%) of respondents used FDLP information resources at least twice per year (Figure 2). 

Furthermore, over one third (38%) used FDLP information resources at least six times per year. This 

finding suggests that a majority of respondents had at least some familiarity with the resources 

available, and may, therefore, have been both more motivated and better equipped to answer. Two 

contrasting consequences follow. On the one hand, responses from informed users are valuable, 

especially when making constructive suggestions for improvements. On the other hand, the 

responses of infrequent users, whose perceptions of barriers and problems might show how greater 

usage could be stimulated and facilitated, are likely to have been outweighed in the overall results. 

This possible bias is to some extent offset by the segmental analysis of responses from public 

libraries, where respondents were on the whole less frequent and less intensive users. 

Figure 2: 

Question A.1 – How often do you use print or online U.S. government information resources 

made available by a library which participates in the FDLP? 

Base = 3,305 

24%

14%

25%

27%

10%

Very frequently (more than 12 times a year)

Rather frequently (6-11 times a year)

Occasionally (2-5 times a year)

Infrequently (once a year or less)

Not sure if the library is a Federal depository library

Frequency of use of US government information resources via FDLP:

All respondents
9 

Number of FDLP libraries used 

Not altogether surprisingly, the majority of respondents (58%) indicated that they use only the one 

FDLP library (Figure 3). Nevertheless, 20% of respondents were users of more than one FDLP library, 

indicating perhaps a greater degree of knowledge concerning FDLP resources amongst these 

particular respondents. Within the government segment, this proportion was significantly higher 

(36%). It is also worth observing that the apparently high number of respondents who answered ‘not 

sure’ to this question (22%) must necessarily include the 10% who, in response to the preceding 

question (Figure 2), were unsure whether the library they responded from was a FDLP library. 

Accordingly, the remaining 12% were only unsure as to how many libraries they used, so are likely to 

have used more than one, since they would be unlikely to be unsure if they only used one library. 

Figure 3 

Question A.2 – How many FDLP libraries do you use in order to access U.S. government 

information resources? 

Base = 3,305

58%

13%

4%

1%

2%

22%

One

Two

Three

Four

More than four

Not sure

Number of FDLP libraries used: All respondents
10

How respondents heard about FDLP library 

Only four ways they heard about the depository library were mentioned by more than 10% of 

respondents (Figure 4). Moreover, of these responses, three appear to be related to proximity, that 

is, those which specify ‘my campus library’ and ‘my local library’, and those referring to ‘promotional 

material from the library’. 

Figure 4 

Question A.4 – How did you hear about this Federal depository library? 

Base = 3,103; Note that respondents were invited to check all that applied, and consequently 

the percentages do not total more than 100%.

Apart from the library’s web site, however, other referral mechanisms do not seem to have been

particularly effective. 

2%

2%

2%

3%

4%

7%

16%

21%

28%

59%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

From librarian/library staff

Referred from the GPO

I work there/I'm a librarian

Referred from another library

Google or other Internet search engine

Saw FDLP logo

Promotional material from the library

It's in my local library

Library's web site

It's in my campus library

How respondents heard about FDLP library: All respondents
11

Purpose of using FDLP resources 

A wide diversity of purposes for users accessing FDLP resources was revealed by responses to this 

question (Figure 5). Of the purposes acknowledged, academic research (65%), education (40%), and 

personal (33%) were most frequently cited. Given the preponderance of survey respondents from 

academic libraries (70%), this finding is not surprising. All other purposes were indicated by fewer 

than 20% of respondents. 

Figure 5 

Question A.5 – How would you characterize the purpose(s) of your use of U.S. government 

information resources made available by a library which participates in the FDLP? 

Base = 3,058; Note that respondents were invited to check all that applied, and consequently 

the percentages do not total more than 100%.

3%

4%

5%

6%

7%

12%

13%

13%

14%

14%

15%

15%

17%

18%

33%

40%

65%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

Lobbying

Transact business with the government

Land use, mining, minerals, oil

Charity work

Agriculture/fisheries

Consumer product safety

Civic participation

Business/commercial

Environment

Demography: urban, regional, rural planning

Legislative process

Scientific or Technical Information

Law and Legal practice

Health & safety

Personal

Education

Academic research

Purpose of using resources available via FDLP: All respondents
12

Respondents’ frequency of use of print/tangible and online resources 

Questions A6 and A7 of the survey questionnaire were analyzed together in order to focus 

specifically on respondents who actually used each of the information types, after factoring out 

respondents who did not use them at all (and who therefore answered ‘Never’ to both questions). 

Hence, the base for each type of information was a subset of the total number of respondents, which 

varied between 1,317 and 2,209 according to type of information. 

Question A.6 – How often do you use each of the following types of PRINT or TANGIBLE

information resources provided by a FDLP library? 

Question A.7 – How often do you use each of the following types of ONLINE information 

resources provided by a FDLP library? 

The chart below (Figure 6) suggests that, apart from ‘statistics’ and ‘agency reports’, most 

respondents used what might be termed more general information materials, such as ‘historical 

materials’, ‘current information’ ‘consumer information’, and ‘directories/handbooks/manuals’, while 

documents of a legal, legislative and fiscal nature were used by fewer respondents. 

Figure 6 

Respondents’ use of different types of government information.

Base = 3,305; Note that respondents were invited to check all that applied, and consequently 

the percentages do not total more than 100%.

40%

46%

47%

52%

53%

53%

54%

58%

58%

60%

61%

61%

64%

66%

67%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

Appropriations/Budget

Presidential addresses/orders/proclamations

Congress, Proceedings/floor action

Congressional hearings/documents/reports

Regulations

Results of government-funded research

Court decisions

Maps

Laws

Directories/handbooks/manuals

Consumer information

Agency reports on various topics

Current information

Statistics

Historical materials

Use of types of information: All respondents
13

Figure 7, below, shows to what extent respondents used print/tangible resources as opposed to 

electronic resources or a mix of both. Interestingly, in terms of the usage of electronic resources, the 

picture presented is very roughly a reversal of the picture in the previous chart (Figure 6). The 

outcome will, however, have been influenced by which materials are actually available in electronic 

form, since, for example, historical materials are more likely to be only available in print, while more 

recent documents will be available electronically. 

Figure 7: Respondents’ use of print/tangible and electronic resources for each type of 

government information.

Base = 1,317-2,209. (In the following, the figure given is the number of responses per statement: 

Historical materials 2,209; Statistics 2,182; Maps 1,915; Agency reports on various topics 2,031; 

Current information 2,113; Directories/handbooks/manuals 1,990; Laws 1,933; Consumer information 

2,022; Congressional hearings/documents/reports 1,733; Court decisions 1,794; Regulations 1,749; 

Results of government-funded research 1,764; Congress, Proceedings/floor action 1,546; Presidential 

addresses/orders/proclamations 1,523; Appropriations/Budget 1,317).

18%

14%

22%

16%

14%

17%

16%

15%

17%

17%

15%

15%

17%

17%

17%

73%

73%

65%

70%

72%

68%

69%

69%

66%

65%

67%

67%

64%

62%

60%

9%

13%

13%

14%

15%

15%

15%

16%

17%

18%

18%

19%

19%

21%

23%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Historical materials

Statistics

Maps

Agency reports on various topics

Current information

Directories/handbooks/manuals

Laws

Consumer information

Congressional hearings/documents/reports

Court decisions

Regulations

Results of government-funded research

Congress, Proceedings/floor action

Presidential addresses/orders/proclamations

Appropriations/Budget

Print only Print & online Online only

Use of print/tangible and electronic resources: All respondents
14

As is clear from Figure 7, it is mainly documents of a legal, legislative and fiscal nature where use of 

electronic-only exceeds use of print-only, with information on appropriations/budget topping the 

electronic-only list with 23%. Electronic-only use of consumer information, current information, and 

results of government-funded research also exceeded print-only use. There is, nevertheless, still a 

strong majority of respondents (60%+) who indicated that they use both electronic and print media. 

Types of information where use of print-only noticeably exceeds use of electronic-only include maps 

(22% print-only) and historical materials (18%). 

Respondents’ frequency of use of library services

Online access to documents and the library web sites were frequently used by a majority of 

respondents (51% and 50% respectively), as well as being used sometimes by a further third of 

respondents (34% and 33%). Beyond that, several other services, mostly ‘standard’ library services, 

were evidently used at least sometimes by FDLP users. Four services were never used by a majority 

of respondents, the least used being off-site workshops (never used by 72% of respondents). 

Figure 8 

Question A.8 – How often do you use each of the following services provided by FDLP libraries? 

Base = 2,695 on all lines 

6%

13%

17%

11%

18%

23%

26%

28%

36%

45%

37%

50%

51%

22%

27%

31%

36%

38%

35%

38%

41%

38%

36%

44%

33%

34%

72%

60%

53%

52%

44%

42%

37%

31%

26%

19%

19%

17%

15%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Workshops conducted at off-site locations

Virtual reference assistance (e.g., IM, web-form, Twitter, chat)

Current awareness/alerting (e-mail alerts, RSS feeds, podcasts, videocasts)

Workshops conducted at the library

Training on searching/effective use of information resources

Research consulting services (primary & secondary)

Locating subject matter experts

Document delivery/Interlibrary loan services

Printing, photocopying, scanning

Computers to access the Internet and online government information

Reference desk/help desk (physical) - quick answers, advice/guidance

Library web site (including postings, blogs, wikis)

Online access to documents

Frequently Sometimes Never

Frequency of use of services provided by FDLP libraries: All respondents
15

Respondents’ use of alternative sources

Internet-provided services (i.e. ‘Internet from a location other than a library’ and ‘Directly to federal 

agency web sites’) were the alternative sources most cited by respondents, while sources which 

required effort which was not computer-related were cited by fewer than 50% of respondents and 

frequently used by only around 10% or fewer. The only slightly surprising result was that as many as 

9% of respondents claimed never to use ‘Google or other search engine’.

Figure 9 

Question A.9 – How often do you go elsewhere (i.e. other than a FDLP library) to use U.S. 

government information resources? 

Base = 2,682 on all lines

11%

6%

32%

49%

55%

34%

40%

46%

36%

36%

55%

54%

22%

16%

9%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Library that is not a designated Federal

depository library

Contact federal agency directly (e.g.,

phone/fax/e-mail)

Directly to federal agency web sites

Internet, from a location other than a library

Google or other search engine

Frequently Sometimes Never

Frequency of use of alternative sources for US government information:

All respondents
16

Respondents’ outcomes and perceptions of value and performance 

The core, so to speak, of the survey questionnaire (Section B) sought to elicit from respondents how 

well outcomes realized through the use of FDLP resources matched their objectives, as well as how 

satisfied they were with FDLP services, what problems they may have encountered, what 

suggestions they had for improvement, and what their delivery preferences were. 

Outcomes experienced by respondents 

A strong majority of respondents (>60%) indicated that access to FDLP resources had provided key 

information, enabled the fulfillment of a purpose, or added value to a piece of work. On the other 

hand, ‘helped with generation of income’ was reported to have been experienced by only 8% of 

respondents. This finding, however, should not be surprising given the purposes which were most 

often mentioned by respondents (Figure 5, above), where the list was headed by academic research, 

education, and personal. 

Figure 10 

Question B.1 – Which of the following outcome(s) of your use of FDLP information resources and 

services have you experienced? 

Base = 2,663; Note that respondents were invited to check all that applied, and consequently 

the percentages do not total more than 100%.

8%

43%

45%

47%

60%

75%

79%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%

Helped me generate income.

Enabled me to keep up to date.

Enabled me to resolve a problem.

Saved me time.

Added value to something I worked on.

Enabled me to fulfill the purpose(s) for which I

have used them.

Provided key information I needed.

Outcomes experienced by respondents: All respondents
17

Perceptions of value of FDLP information resources 

As another measure of the degree to which respondents’ outcomes had fulfilled their purposes in 

using FDLP resources, respondents were asked to record their agreement or disagreement with five 

statements. Here (Figure 11), active agreement with positive statements (that is, respondents who 

strongly agree plus those who somewhat agree) did not fall below 74%, while in respect of two of the 

five positive statements (recommendation to a colleague/friend, and intention to reuse) over 50% of 

respondents were strongly in agreement. In no case was any level of active disagreement (that is, 

respondents who strongly disagree plus those who somewhat disagree) recorded by more than 5% 

of respondents. 

Figure 11 

Question B.2 – Bearing in mind both the purpose(s) and the outcome(s) of your use of FDLP 

resources and services, to what extent do you agree/disagree with the following statements? 

Base = 2,387-2,455. (In the following, the figure given is the number of responses per statement: 

I would recommend the use of FDLP information resources to my colleagues/friends 2,454; I will use 

FDLP information resources next time I need this type of information 2,455; Access to FDLP 

information resources pointed me to the information I required 2,435; Access to FDLP information 

resources was crucial to meeting my information needs 2,427; Access to FDLP information resources 

saved me time and/or money 2,387). 

39%

44%

44%

55%

55%

35%

37%

42%

32%

32%

21%

15%

11%

11%

10%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Access to FDLP information resources saved me time

and/or money.

Access to FDLP information resources was crucial to

meeting my information needs.

Access to FDLP information resources pointed me to

the information I required.

I will use FDLP information resources next time I need

this type of information.

I would recommend the use of FDLP information

resources to my colleagues/friends.

Strongly Agree Somewhat Agree Neither Agree nor Disagree Somewhat Disagree Strongly Disagree

Respondents' level of agreement with selected statements: All respondents
18

Problems, barriers, obstacles, challenges 

Of 13 possible problems/barriers asked about in the survey, nine were deemed not to be a problem 

by over 70% of respondents (Figure 12). Nevertheless, all were considered to constitute at least a 

minor problem by over 10% of respondents, suggesting that some attention may be appropriate 

across the board. 

The two most serious problems identified, which were considered at least a minor problem by over 

50% of respondents and, within that proportion, considered to be a major problem by over 10% of 

respondents, were mostly related to finding materials, either via the catalog or on the web. Clearly, 

at this level, the perceived problems should be given serious attention, even though the remedies 

could be expensive. 

Figure 12 

Question B.3 – To what extent do you consider the following factors to be problems, barriers, 

obstacles, or challenges which hinder your use of FDLP resources and services? 

Base = 2,283-2,103. (In the following, the figure given is the number of responses per statement: 

Content of FDLP/government information is difficult to find 2,206; Couldn't find what I needed in the 

library's catalog 2,103; Information resources are not available in the format I desire 2,228; Gaps in 

library holdings, library does not have or provide access to FDLP information resources I need 2,103; 

Insufficient number of computers 2,257; Lack of training available to library users 2,171; Insufficient 

8%

9%

12%

12%

13%

18%

7%

11%

13%

12%

15%

15%

15%

22%

20%

32%

34%

39%

39%

89%

84%

82%

84%

80%

80%

79%

70%

71%

56%

54%

48%

43%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Staff are unhelpful

Physical access to the building or parts of it

Internet filters cause a problem

Time limit for computer use is too short

Service and collection locations are not clearly marked

Printing/downloading not available or insufficient

Insufficient coverage at the reference/help desk

Lack of training available to library users

Insufficient number of computers

Gaps in library holdings, library does not have or provide access to

FDLP information resources I need

Information resources are not available in the format I desire (e.g.,

paper, online, microfiche)

Couldn't find what I needed in the library's catalog

Content of FDLP/government information is difficult to find or not

available on the web

Major Problem Minor Problem Not a Problem

Problems, barriers, obstacles, challenges: All respondents
19

coverage at the reference/help desk 2,243; Printing/downloading not available or insufficient 2,231; 

Service and collection locations are not clearly marked 2,206; Time limit for computer use is too 

short 2,163; Internet filters cause a problem 2,147; Physical access to the building or parts of it 2,274; 

Staff are unhelpful 2,283). 

Respondents’ levels of satisfaction

Notwithstanding the existence of a number of issues calling for attention, as highlighted by the 

preceding question (Figure 12), the verdict of respondents on the overall quality of FDLP resources 

and services and on important performance indicators was very positive (Figure 13). Close to 85% of 

respondents considered FDLP resources and services overall at least satisfactory, within which figure 

46% indicated extreme satisfaction, while active dissatisfaction (as opposed to absence of 

satisfaction or dissatisfaction) was recorded at only 2%. 

None of the other seven important performance indicators achieved a positive satisfaction rating of 

less than 68%. The lowest level of positive satisfaction, at 68%, was for group/collaboration 

facilities, but here active dissatisfaction was still only 6%. 

Figure 13 

Question B.4 – How satisfied are you overall with the following aspects of resources and services 

available to you through the FDLP? 

Base = 2,289-2,056. (In the following, the figure given is the number of responses per statement: 

Overall quality of resources and services 2,281; Levels of service provided by library staff 2,255; Ease 

35%

36%

32%

35%

41%

35%

56%

46%

33%

39%

45%

42%

36%

45%

28%

39%

26%

21%

20%

18%

18%

14%

13%

13%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Group or collaboration facilities available to library users

Variety of options for delivery of information

Comprehensiveness of federal depository library

collections

Timeliness/currency of library collections

Computing and printing facilities

Ease of access to information resources

Levels of service provided by library staff

Overall quality of resources and services

Extremely Satisfied Somewhat Satisfied Neither Satisfied nor Dissatisfied

Somewhat Dissatisfied Extremely Dissatisfied

Levels of satisfaction: All respondents
20

of access to information resources 2,289; Computing and printing facilities 2,198; 

Timeliness/currency of library collections 2,254; Comprehensiveness of federal depository library 

collections 2,220; Variety of options for delivery of information 2,242; Group or collaboration 

facilities available to library users 2,056). 

Improvements suggested by respondents 

Only one improvement was suggested by over half of all respondents (more materials should be 

available online) and one by more than a third (online tutorials to explain government activities). 

Three other more common suggestions (mentioned by over 25% of respondents) related to the 

availability/accessibility of content, namely, retrospective extension of collections and cataloging, 

and filling of gaps (Figure 14). 

Figure 14 

Question B.5 – In your view, what other improvements/resources/supporting services are 

needed? 

Base = 2,460; Note that respondents were invited to check all that applied, and consequently 

the percentages do not total more than 100%.

9%

10%

16%

16%

16%

20%

20%

24%

28%

30%

31%

36%

50%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

Government information should be arranged using the

Dewey Decimal classification system

Information desk arrangements need to be improved

Online help arrangements need to be improved

Government information should be arranged using the

Library of Congress classification system

More/updated printing, photocopying facilities

More/updated computers

Library catalog needs to be kept more up-to-date

More training should be available

Gaps in collections need to be filled

Library catalog needs records for older materials

Collections should be extended to include older/historical

materials

Online tutorials to help users understand government

activities (e.g., legislative process)

More materials should be available online

Desired improvements: All respondents
21

Preferred methods for delivery of information 

There was strong support (>60%) for e-mail alerts/notifications and for web site postings (Figure 15). 

Print was mentioned as a preferred delivery method by a significant minority (45%), with rather less 

support for e-mail attachments (40%). It is, however, striking that, although one of these four most 

popular preferences was for printed materials, the other three, including the top two, were for forms 

of electronic delivery. At 13%, support for mobile devices is suggestive of increasing prominence for 

this form of delivery. The bottom end of the list pretty much confirms the end of the era of fax 

delivery, which was selected by a mere 3.5% of respondents. 

Figure 15 

Question B.6 – Which methods do you prefer for delivery of information for your use? 

Base = 2,458; Note that respondents were invited to check all that applied, and consequently 

the percentages do not total more than 100%.

4%

4%

6%

6%

9%

11%

11%

13%

16%

18%

20%

20%

40%

45%

60%

61%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

Fax

Mash-ups

Social bookmarking/Tagging

Microblogs (e.g., Twitter)

Videocasting

Web conferencing

Podcasts

Mobile devices

RSS feeds

Wikis

Social networking (e.g., Facebook, LinkedIn)

Blogs (including audio and video blogs)

Attachments to e-mail

Printed books/journals or photocopies

Web site postings

E-mail alerts or notifications

Preferred methods of delivery: All respondents
22

Final free-text comments offered by respondents 

At the end of the questionnaire, respondents were asked whether they would like to make any 

further comments on their experiences in using US government information resources made 

available by FDLP libraries: 

Question C.1 – If you have any comments you would like to share regarding the FDLP or 

accessing U.S. government information/resources, please do so in the box below. Thank you. 

A total of 323 respondents (just under 10% of all respondents) offered comments in response to this 

question. Selected comments are reproduced below by way of illustration of some of the views and 

concerns of some respondents. It must be borne in mind, however, that respondents to this question 

are self-selecting, so their views are not necessarily representative of the views of respondents as a 

whole. For example, complainants are often more vociferous than others. Nevertheless, some 

respondents have recorded helpful plaudits, notably in relation to staff. Awareness appears to be an 

issue, while the commonest request for improvement is for more materials to be available online. 

Importance of access to government documents 

 Access to government documents is crucial and I appreciate all that the FDLP has done. 

Thank you. 

 As a taxpayer and consumer, I appreciate having this depository in my geographic location. 

Thank you!! 

 FDLP is an important resource for students and citizens alike. Not all information is desirable 

in electronic format, and I feel that some information through the FDLP may be more useful 

in print. As more government information goes electronic, I am concerned about the 

archiving of such information for future generations. 

 I believe that the FDLP is absolutely critical to democracy and citizen participation in 

government 

 I think free and open access to government information is absolutely essential for a 

functioning democracy. Please keep this service going, and expand it if you possibly can. Our 

corporate kleptocracy certainly isn't going to provide this information to "we the people" 

unless there's a scandalous amount of profit in it for them. 
23

Awareness 

 Although I filled out the entire survey, I have to say that I had never heard of the Federal 

Depository Library Program. I answered the questions based on the assumption that what I 

do use is in fact the FDLP. But how do you know if the library has this service? 

 I did not realize this program even existed, much less it is in many campus libraries. Is there 

any way to increase awareness and inform the public what this is and the usefulness of it? 

 If our experience is at all typical, it seems that an important step would be making the public 

aware of what these resources are and that they're available. 

 Thanks for putting the survey together, the FDLP is a valuable program and it's not 

advertised at all at our library. 

 This survey response reflects that I was unaware of the FDLP, yet have been using aspects of 

it for years. I would strongly support promotional programs to make more people aware of 

this program. 

 Use of the FDLP is not publicized in my local library, as far as I am aware. I am a reasonably 

frequent library patron. 

Staff 

 Appreciate the collection and helpful staff of my library. 

 Fortunately, the main library staff are excellent -- they care and are well informed. 

 I am extremely satisfied with the quality of our library staff to help me find whatever I need. 

However, I believe they are understaffed for a 4-year university, which results in occasional 

student, staff, and faculty needs not being met adequately. 

 I especially appreciate the very helpful government publications librarian and assistant. They 

are very patient teachers -- so important because government documents are often very hard 

to find and understand. 

Finance 

 If the president [of the university] can spend $600,000 on his own private office renovations, 

why can't appropriate funds be allocated to the library? It is a shameful sight when a 

university puts the whims of a few over the needs of the students. 

 I am quite certain libraries are receiving funding for allowing public access to their materials. 

However, I find A SINGLE computer on a non-ergonomic 28" x 18" table WITHOUT A CHAIR 

should not qualify a Depository to receive funding for providing "public" access. 

 I don’t think the government should be wasting the money printing all the gov docs. Have 

everything available on line and save so much money. 

 I think the federal depository model is obsolete and should be discontinued in favor of a 

totally online environment. Too much money is spent duplicating efforts in print/online 

resources especially in managing the resources and catalog records. 
24

Satisfaction 

 I find so much more in one trip to the library than I would in an hour of online research. 

 Thank you for sending the survey, it was the first contact that I ever personally had, and I'm 

an avid library user for the past 50 years in 5 different states. 

 It is a great resource. Don't mess with it. Leave it alone. I could never rely upon news 

organizations and corporations for information about the government. 

 Our library is thinking of dropping its depository status - I would hate to see this happen as I 

rely on their staff to help me find needed government information. 

Dissatisfaction 

 FDLP is a grossly outdated and costly system that should be scrapped. Just put every drop of 

government information online in the most user-friendly way. Get rid of all print. Cease any 

and all library relationships. 

 Government websites/databases are clunky. 

 I believe the FDLP has outlived its usefulness. GPO should stop shipping physical items and 

focus on getting and keeping documents easily available and locatable on the internet. If I 

need to find an electronic document I search Google UncleSam, the FDLP site design is not 

user-friendly. 

 I use many FDLP in the Chicago area. I use the law libraries for legal research. I need access 

all year and during all hours. I am not a lawyer. Many of the libraries refuse access if you are 

not a lawyer. 

 Plus government servers are slower than Christmas, Hannukah, and Ramadan combined in 

many cases and not always compatible with browsers beyond the Microsoft monopoly. 

Improvements 

 I think more online materials, or more materials delivered electronically via the FDLP 

program would save costs and make separating documents collections from other collections 

unnecessary. It would also allow those libraries to reassign librarians in those areas to other 

service-areas of the library. 

 Gaps in collections and outdated materials are my biggest complaint... Depts change names 

constantly and you can't find where the new publication is located. 

 I hope that you will provide more historical sources online, e.g., early editions of the U.S. 

Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, CFR, US Supreme Court cases. 

 I'm not sure I see the relevance of having so many physical libraries. I think the information 

should be available electronically, in an online repository, or a database. 

 More historical data online, please! especially congressional and supreme court documents in 

their entirety. Thanks so much for providing such an essential service! 
25

An alysi s of fi ndin gs by se gmen t 

In the sections which follow, attention is drawn to any significant variances which may be perceptible 

between different segments of the FDLP universe. Two separate types of segmentation were 

differentiated in the survey, as follows: 

 Segmentation A: Academic, Government, Public, and Special libraries; and 

 Segmentation B: Selective and Regional FDLP libraries. 

Since academic libraries accounted for 75% of respondents according to Segmentation A, and 

selective FDLP libraries accounted for 93% of respondents according to Segmentation B, these 

segments clearly had a strong influence on the overall results of the survey. Consequently analysis of 

these segments revealed few significant variances from the overall results. 

With a universe of only five libraries, from which only two responses were received in total, the 

special libraries segment is so small that no meaningful analysis could be carried out. 

Academic libraries 

Demographics 

Users of 385 academic FDLP-participant libraries in 51 US States/Territories, plus DC, responded to 

the survey, representing 47% of the 812 academic libraries which submitted responses to the 2009 

Biennial Survey. The total number of users who responded from these libraries was 2,322. 

The distribution of responses was uneven. Over a third of all responses came from five states, 

namely New York (10%), Michigan (9%), Illinois (6%), Florida (5%), and Wisconsin (5%). 

Usage patterns 

Frequency of use of US government information resources via FDLP 

Only a small variance was observable in the frequency of use reported by respondents in this 

segment. The proportion of respondents answering ‘very frequently’ or ‘rather frequently’ (i.e. at 

least six times per year) was higher by 1.5 to two percentage points in each case, whereas the 

proportion of those who were ‘Not sure’ was four percentage points lower.
26

Number of FDLP libraries used 

Here, the proportion of respondents who used only one FDLP library (presumably the one on their 

campus – see below) was five percentage points higher than in the overall results, while the 

proportion of those who were ‘Not sure’ was five percentage points lower

How respondents heard about FDLP library 

As might be expected, the proportion of respondents answering ‘It’s in my campus library’ was much 

higher (77% compared with 59%). Those answering ‘Library’s web site’ were slightly down, from 

28% to 25%, and those answering ‘It’s in my local library’ were down from 21% to 10%. All other 

means whereby respondents had heard about their FDLP library were within less than one 

percentage point of the overall results. 

Respondents ’purposes

‘Academic research’ was given as a purpose by over 75% of respondents, as compared with 65% in 

the overall results. Similarly, ‘Education’ was up from 40% to 42%. ‘Personal’ was down from 33% to 

29%. Results for other responses were close to the overall results, mostly within one percentage 

point. 

Figure A1 

Respondents’ purposes: Academic versus All respondents 

Question A.5 – How would you characterize the purpose(s) of your use of U.S. government 

information resources made available by a library which participates in the FDLP?

Bases = All 3,058; Academic 2,271

3%

4%

5%

5%

7%

10%

12%

11%

14%

14%

14%

16%

16%

16%

29%

42%

75%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

Lobbying

Transact business with the government

Land use, mining, minerals, oil

Charity work

Agriculture/fisheries

Consumer product safety

Civic participation

Business/commercial

Environment

Demography: urban, regional, rural planning

Legislative process

Scientific or Technical Information

Law and Legal practice

Health & safety

Personal

Education

Academic research

All respondents Academic

Purpose of using resources available via FDLP: Academic vs. All respondents
27

Frequency of use of print/tangible and online resources 

With minor differences only in the ranking order, determined by less than one percentage point in 

each case, respondents indicated that they used the same types of information as in the overall 

results. At the same time, however, the proportions of respondents indicating that they used 

particular types of information was in each case higher by three to seven percentage points than in 

the overall results, suggesting a wider range of information use by respondents in this segment. 

Figure A2 

Types of information used: Academic versus All respondents 

Bases = All 3,305; Academic 2,322

Similarly, use of electronic-only was comparable to the pattern perceived in the overall results, with 

only fractions of a percentage point determining the ranking order in several instances. As indicated 

elsewhere, this pattern of usage is likely to have been influenced by availability of materials in 

electronic form. Types of information most used as print-only were maps and historical materials. 

Frequency of use of services 

The ranking order of services according to frequency of use was almost exactly the same as for the 

overall results. Of the top four services, only ‘Online access to documents’ was cited as being used at 

44%

51%

52%

58%

58%

61%

60%

62%

63%

64%

64%

69%

69%

73%

73%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

Appropriations/Budget

Presidential addresses/orders/proclamations

Congress, Proceedings/floor action

Congressional hearings/documents/reports

Regulations

Results of government-funded research

Court decisions

Maps

Laws

Directories/handbooks/manuals

Consumer information

Agency reports on various topics

Current information

Statistics

Historical materials

All respondents Academic

Use of types of information: Academic vs. All respondents
28

least sometimes by a slightly higher proportion of respondents (88% as compared with 85%), while 

the other three were within fewer than two percentage points different. 

Frequency of use of alternative sources 

Results here were very similar to those reported overall, with the proportions of respondents 

mentioning the top three alternative sources being within less than one percentage point of the 

overall results. 

Outcomes and satisfaction levels 

Outcomes experienced by respondents 

Compared with the overall results, the order in which outcomes were ranked was the same. The 

proportion of respondents mentioning each of the top three, however, was higher by two to three 

percentage points, indicating that users of FDLP resources in academic libraries were getting value 

and achieving their desired outcomes slightly more than users in general. 

Figure A3 

Outcomes experienced by respondents: Academic versus All respondents 

Question B.1 – Which of the following outcome(s) of your use of FDLP information resources and 

services have you experienced?

Bases = All 2,663; Academic 2,010

7%

42%

45%

47%

63%

78%

81%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Helped me generate income.

Enabled me to keep up to date.

Enabled me to resolve a problem.

Saved me time.

Added value to something I worked on.

Enabled me to fulfill the purpose(s) for

which I have used them.

Provided key information I needed.

All respondents Academic

Outcomes experienced by respondents: Academic vs. All respondents
29

Respondents’ level of agreement with selected statements

Answers to this question, too, accorded very closely with the overall results. In fact, all of the 

percentages recorded were within one percentage point of the overall results.

Problems, barriers, obstacles, challenges 

All four problems mentioned as a major problem by over 10% of respondents overall were also cited 

by similar proportions (within one percentage point) of respondents from academic libraries – that is, 

‘Content of FDLP/government information is difficult to find or not available on the web’, ‘Couldn’t 

find what I needed in the library’s catalog’, ‘Information resources are not available in the format I 

desire’, and ‘Gaps in library holdings, library does not have or provide access to FDLP resources I 

need’. 

Levels of satisfaction 

Again, levels of satisfaction were high, and similar to the overall results (within 1.5 percentage 

points). 

Improvements 

The same five improvements, in the same order, were suggested by over 25% of respondents as in 

the overall results. 

Preferred delivery methods 

Once again, the top four preferred delivery methods were the same as in the overall results. Print 

was still mentioned by a significant minority (45%). 
30

Government libraries 

Demographics 

Users of 45 government FDLP-participant libraries in 28 US States/Territories, plus DC, responded to 

the survey, representing 38% of the 119 government libraries which submitted responses to the 2009 

Biennial Survey. The total number of users who responded from these libraries was 103. 

The distribution of responses was uneven. Over a third of all responses came from four states, 

namely Massachusetts (10%), Maryland (9%), New York (9%), and Arkansas (7%). 

Although there were only 103 respondents from government libraries, some significant variances can 

be discerned as compared with the overall results. The results suggest that respondents in this small 

group were largely professional users concerned directly or indirectly with official business, including 

the law and legal practice, and are likely to have been more intensive users. While these impressions 

emerge strongly, however, the limited demographic data collected do not permit them to be 

definitively verified. 

Usage patterns 

Frequency of use of US government information resources via FDLP 

A far higher proportion of respondents in this segment (42%) classified themselves as very frequent 

users, as compared with 24% in the overall results. The same percentage as in the overall results 

(14%) indicated that they used FDLP resources rather frequently. Infrequent users were down from 

27% overall to 16% in this segment, while those who were unsure constituted only 7% of 

respondents, as compared with 10%. 
31

Figure G1 

Frequency of use of information resources via FDLP: Government versus All respondents 

Question A.1 – How often do you use print or online U.S. government information resources 

made available by a library which participates in the FDLP?

Bases = All 3,305; Government 103

Number of FDLP libraries used 

Proportionately fewer respondents used only one library (51% compared with 58%), while those 

using more than one library were appreciably higher (36% compared with 20%). Those who were 

unsure constituted 14%, as opposed to 22%. 

How respondents heard about FDLP library 

Rather than ‘my campus library’, which topped the overall results (59%) because of the 

preponderance of respondents from academic libraries, the most frequently cited way of hearing 

about their FDLP library was simply ‘my local library’ (37%). After that, most cited were the library 

web site (36% compared with 28%) and promotional literature from the library (22% compared with 

16%). All other ways of hearing about their FDLP library were mentioned by fewer than 12% of 

respondents. 

Respondents’ purposes

As might have been expected, respondents’ purposes in this segment were noticeably different. 

‘Law and legal practice’ was the most commonly mentioned purpose (42% as compared with 17% 

overall). At the same time, too, a significant proportion of respondents indicated ‘academic 

research’ as their purpose (38%), although this was a substantially lower proportion than in the 

overall results (65%). Other purposes given by more than 20% of respondents were ‘personal’ (27%), 

‘legislative process’ (26%), and Education (24%).

7%

16%

22%

14%

42%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

Not sure if the library is a Federal...

Infrequently (once a year or less)

Occasionally (2-5 times a year)

Rather frequently (6-11 times a year)

Very frequently (more than 12 times a year)

All respondents Government

Frequency of use of information resources via FDLP: Government vs. All respondents
32

Figure G2

Respondents ’purposes: Government versus All respondents 

Question A.5 – How would you characterize the purpose(s) of your use of U.S. government 

information resources made available by a library which participates in the FDLP?

Bases = All 3,058; Government 100

Frequency of use of print/tangible and online resources 

For almost all types of information, a higher proportion of responses was registered than in the 

overall results, often by a significant margin, suggesting that respondents in this sector had a wider 

range of interests than respondents overall. Directories/handbooks/manuals were most mentioned, 

whereas in the overall analysis they had been ranked sixth. Almost 78% of respondents mentioned 

this form of information as compared with 60% in the overall results. Current information was 

mentioned by 77% of respondents (64%), historical materials also by 77% (67%), and laws by 76% 

(58%). Only maps and results of government-funded research were mentioned less than in the 

overall results. 

1%

3%

5%

9%

6%

10%

18%

17%

17%

12%

26%

17%

42%

14%

27%

24%

38%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

Lobbying

Transact business with the government

Land use, mining, minerals, oil

Charity work

Agriculture/fisheries

Consumer product safety

Civic participation

Business/commercial

Environment

Demography: urban, regional, rural planning

Legislative process

Scientific or Technical Information

Law and Legal practice

Health & safety

Personal

Education

Academic research

All respondents Government

Purpose of using resources available via FDLP: Government vs. All respondents
33

Figure G3 

Types of information used: Government versus All respondents 

Bases = All 3,305; Government 103

The pattern of electronic-only usage was rather different in this segment than in the overall results. 

Just over 19% of respondents indicated that they used electronic-only for consumer information 

(compared with 16% in the overall results). Unsurprisingly, historical materials were used least in 

electronic-only form (8%). Most used in print-only were maps (23%). 

Frequency of use of services 

The five services mentioned by over 80% of respondents in the government segment were as in the 

overall results, although in a slightly different order. As in the overall results, ‘online access to 

documents was mentioned most often. In fact 93% of respondents indicated that they used it at 

least sometimes (within which 49% used it frequently), compared with 85% overall. Users in this 

44%

61%

67%

70%

71%

50%

67%

50%

76%

78%

65%

75%

77%

70%

77%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%

Appropriations/Budget

Presidential addresses/orders/proclamations

Congress, Proceedings/floor action

Congressional hearings/documents/reports

Regulations

Results of government-funded research

Court decisions

Maps

Laws

Directories/handbooks/manuals

Consumer information

Agency reports on various topics

Current information

Statistics

Historical materials

All respondents Government

Use of types of information: Government vs. All respondents
34

segment, however, were evidently heavier users of help desk facilities, with 90% using them at least 

sometimes, compared with 81% overall. Use of computers to access information was also heavier 

(85% compared with 81%), as was use of printing, photocopying and scanning (81% compared with 

74%). The library web site was used the same amount (83%) in both sets. 

Frequency of use of alternative sources 

Here, there was no difference in the order in which alternative sources emerged, but again 

respondents in the government segment used them at least sometimes more than respondents 

overall. Unsurprisingly, Google was mentioned most (95% compared with 91%), followed by the 

internet from other locations (91% compared with 84%), and direct use of federal agency web sites 

(91% compared with 78%). 

Outcomes and satisfaction levels 

Outcomes experienced by respondents 

No difference in the order in which outcomes were ranked occurred here, but a greater proportion of 

respondents in this segment gave positive responses. ‘Provided key information’ was cited by 84% 

of respondents, as opposed to 79% in the overall results. Similarly, ‘enabled me to fulfill my purpose’ 

was mentioned by 82%, as opposed to 75%, and ‘added value’ by 63% as opposed to 60%.

Figure G4 

Outcomes experienced by respondents: Government versus All respondents 

Question B.1 – Which of the following outcome(s) of your use of FDLP information resources and 

services have you experienced?

Bases = All 2,663; Government 87

8%

48%

51%

47%

63%

82%

84%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Helped me generate income.

Enabled me to keep up to date.

Enabled me to resolve a problem.

Saved me time.

Added value to something I worked on.

Enabled me to fulfill the purpose(s) for which I

have used them.

Provided key information I needed.

All respondents Government

Outcomes experienced by respondents: Government vs. All respondents
35

Respondents’ level of agreement with selected statements

Again, levels of agreement were stronger here than amongst respondents overall. Positive 

agreement (as opposed to absence of agreement or disagreement) did not fall below 78% for any of 

the five statements (74% in the overall results). ‘Access to FDLP information resources pointed me 

to the information I required’ achieved a positive agreement level of over 96%, compared with 86% 

in the overall results. 

Problems, barriers, obstacles, challenges 

As in the overall results, only two issues were considered at least a minor problem by more than 50% 

of respondents, but rather more strongly. ‘Content of FDLP/government information is difficult to 

find or not available on the web’ was mentioned as at least a minor problem by 61% of respondents 

in this segment, as compared with 57% overall. Similarly, ‘couldn’t find what I needed in the library’s 

catalog’ was cited by 54%, as compared with 52%.

Levels of satisfaction 

Positive satisfaction (as opposed to absence of satisfaction or dissatisfaction) with the overall quality 

of resources and services was about the same in this segment (84%) as in the overall results (85%). 

Moreover, notwithstanding the problems identified above, satisfaction with specific aspects of 

service was generally higher. Computing and printing facilities obtained a 89% positive satisfaction 

rating (as compared with 77%), library staff 88% (84%), and ease of access to information resources 

84% (80%). The maximum level of active dissatisfaction recorded – for group or collaboration 

facilities – was 8% (6%). 

Improvements 

Only four suggestions were put forward by more than 30% of respondents in this segment, of which 

two were mentioned more often than in the overall results. ‘More materials should be available 

online’ was cited by 55% of respondents (as compared with 50%), while ‘Library catalog needs 

records for older materials’ was mentioned by 39% (30%).

Preferred delivery methods 

Once again, results were broadly in line with the overall results. The order of the top two 

preferences was reversed, however, with ‘Web site postings’ achieving 65 % (as compared with 60% 

in the overall results), and ‘E-mail alerts or notifications’ being mentioned by 63%(61%).
36

Public libraries 

Demographics 

Users of 117 public FDLP-participant libraries in 31 US States and one Territory, plus DC, responded 

to the survey, representing 61% of the 191 public libraries which submitted responses to the 2009 

Biennial Survey. The total number of users who responded from these libraries was 684. 

The distribution of responses was uneven. Over a half of all responses came from three states, 

namely Florida (28%), Michigan (20%), and California (8%). 

Usage patterns 

Frequency of use of US government information resources via FDLP 

In comparison with the figures obtained from all respondents, respondents from the public library 

segment indicated that they used FDLP information resources rather less often. Only 54% used 

FDLP resources at least twice per year, compared with 63% overall. Within that figure, the most 

frequent users (>12 times per year) were only 19%, as compared with 24%. There was also more 

uncertainty as to whether libraries used were FDLP libraries (17%, as compared with 10%). 

Number of FDLP libraries used 

Interestingly, appreciably fewer respondents used only one library (49%) than in the overall results 

(58%). Respondents were evidently much less committed to a particular library than those in the 

academic segment, where the convenience of the campus library appears to have been very strong, 

with over 63% of respondents only using one FDLP library. Proportions of respondents using more 

than one library corresponded closely with the overall results, but there was a very large proportion 

of respondents who were unsure (>31%). 
37

Figure P1 

Number of FDLP libraries used: Public versus All respondents 

Question A.2 – How many FDLP libraries do you use in order to access U.S. government 

information resources?

Bases = All 3,305; Public 684

How respondents heard about FDLP library 

Unsurprisingly, a large number of respondents indicated that the FDLP resources they used were in 

their local library (56%, as compared with 21% overall). The library’s web site was also mentioned by 

a considerable number of respondents (37%, as compared with 28%). Other means of hearing about 

the FDLP library were broadly similar to the overall pattern, except, of course, the campus library, 

which was mentioned by only 5% of respondents, as compared with 59% overall. 

Respondents’ purposes

Respondents from the public segment indicated a slightly wider range of purposes than respondents 

overall. Whereas only three purposes were mentioned by more than 20% of respondents overall, six 

were mentioned in this segment, including the three which had featured overall. The other three 

were Health and safety, Business/commercial, and Consumer product safety. The most commonly 

cited purpose was Personal (48%, compared with 33% overall). Academic was cited by 36% of 

respondents, but was much lower than in the overall results (65%), where the preponderance of 

academic libraries affects the figures. 

31%

2%

1%

4%

12%

49%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

Not sure

More than four

Four

Three

Two

One

All respondents

Public

Number of FDLP libraries used: Public vs. All respondents
38 

Figure P2 

Respondents ’purposes: Public versus All respondents 

Question A.5 – How would you characterize the purpose(s) of your use of U.S. government 

information resources made available by a library which participates in the FDLP?

Bases = All 3,058; Public 651

Frequency of use of print/tangible and online resources 

Only consumer information was used by a greater proportion of respondents in this segment (67%) 

than in the overall picture (61%). The generic category of historical materials was cited by 60% of 

respondents (as compared with 67% overall), the similarly general category of current information 

by 59% (64%), and directories/handbooks/manuals by 58% (60%). Lower down the ranking, 

statistics, and laws were all cited by over 50% of respondents, but tended to be used by a lower 

proportion of respondents than overall. Maps were used by the same proportion of respondents as 

in the overall results (58%). 

4%

4%

5%

10%

5%

22%

14%

21%

13%

17%

15%

12%

16%

24%

48%

36%

36%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

Lobbying

Transact business with the government

Land use, mining, minerals, oil

Charity work

Agriculture/fisheries

Consumer product safety

Civic participation

Business/commercial

Environment

Demography: urban, regional, rural planning

Legislative process

Scientific or Technical Information

Law and Legal practice

Health & safety

Personal

Education

Academic research

All respondents Public

Purpose of using resources available via FDLP: Public vs. All respondents
39

Figure P3 

Types of information used: Public versus All respondents 

Bases = All 3,305; Public 684

Electronic-only use was broadly similar to the overall pattern, although respondents in this segment 

mentioned use of Congressional hearings/documents/reports in electronic-only form more than 

respondents overall (24%, as compared with 17%). This may, however, reflect the way this type of 

material is made available in at least some public libraries. 

Frequency of use of services 

Human assistance via a help desk was the service most frequently mentioned as being used at least 

sometimes used by respondents in this segment (81%). This is the same proportion as in the overall 

results, although in the overall results other services were mentioned more often. The library web 

36%

40%

38%

44%

47%

43%

48%

58%

54%

58%

67%

51%

59%

57%

60%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

Appropriations/Budget

Presidential...

Congress, Proceedings/floor action

Congressional hearings/documents/reports

Regulations

Results of government-funded research

Court decisions

Maps

Laws

Directories/handbooks/manuals

Consumer information

Agency reports on various topics

Current information

Statistics

Historical materials

All respondents Public

Use of types of information: Public vs. All respondents
40

site was cited as having been used at least sometimes by 79% of respondents (as compared with 83% 

overall), while computers to access the internet were mentioned by 77% (81%), and online access to 

documents by 72% (85%). 

Frequency of use of alternative sources 

The ranking of alternative sources mentioned by respondents in this segment was as in the overall 

results, although Google and other internet sources were mentioned slightly less often. 

Outcomes and satisfaction levels 

Outcomes experienced by respondents 

Again, the ranking of outcomes experienced was very close to that in the overall results, although 

the frequency of mention was somewhat lower. Thus, ‘provided key information’ was cited by 71% 

of respondents (as compared with 79% in the overall results), ‘enabled me to fulfill my purpose’ was 

mentioned by 64% (75%), and ‘added value’ by 50% (60%).

These figures may reflect the different purposes, outlooks, and perhaps expectations, of 

respondents in public libraries (as contrasted, for example, with respondents in government 

libraries), rather than any shortcomings on the part of the libraries themselves. 

Figure P4 

Outcomes experienced by respondents: Public versus All respondents 

Question B.1 – Which of the following outcome(s) of your use of FDLP information resources and 

services have you experienced?

Bases = All 2,663; Public 542

11%

46%

46%

47%

50%

64%

71%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Helped me generate income.

Enabled me to keep up to date.

Enabled me to resolve a problem.

Saved me time.

Added value to something I worked on.

Enabled me to fulfill the purpose(s) for which I

have used them.

Provided key information I needed.

All respondents Public

Outcomes experienced by respondents: Public vs. All respondents
41

Respondents’ level of agreement with selected statements

Here, there was close correlation with the overall results. The statements which received the three 

highest levels of positive agreement were all within one percentage point of one other and within 1.5 

percentage points of the overall results.

Problems, barriers, obstacles, challenges 

Five issues were identified by 40% or more of respondents as at least a minor problem. The two 

most frequently cited, relating to the difficulty of finding FDLP/government information and of 

locating materials in the library catalog, closely matched the overall results, as did the point about 

gaps in library holdings. In addition to these, insufficient number of computers was mentioned by 

41% (as compared with 29% in the overall results), and lack of training available to library users by 

40% (30%). 

Levels of satisfaction 

Positive satisfaction with the overall quality of resources and services was registered by 80% of 

respondents in this segment. This is a good outcome, especially since active dissatisfaction (as 

opposed to absence of satisfaction or dissatisfaction) was below 4%. Nevertheless, the figure is 

noticeably lower than the 85% in the overall results. Levels of service provided by library staff, which 

achieved 83%, were within one percentage point of the overall results (84%). Computing and 

printing facilities were rated higher than in the overall results (82%, as compared with 77%), while

the reverse was the case in respect of ease of access to information resources (78%, as compared 

with 80%). Again, when these results are considered in conjunction with the Outcomes and 

Problems experienced by respondents (see above), it may perhaps be concluded that respondents in 

the public library segment may have had lower expectations, thereby according higher levels of 

satisfaction. 

Improvements 

Four suggestions were made by more than 30% of respondents in this segment, corresponding, 

albeit in a slightly different order, to the top four suggestions in the overall results. ‘More materials 

online’ was cited by 55% of respondents (as compared with 50% overall), while ‘Library catalog 

needs records for older materials’ was mentioned by 39% (30%). The other two suggestions were 

within one percentage point of the overall results. 

Preferred delivery methods 

The top four preferred methods of delivery in this segment corresponded exactly to the top four in 

the overall results. No other method was mentioned by more than 20% of respondents. 
42

Selective libraries 

Demographics 

Users of 515 selective FDLP-participant libraries in 50 US States/Territories, plus DC, responded to 

the survey, representing 44% of the 1,171 selective FDLP libraries. The total number of users who 

responded from these libraries was 2,894. 

The distribution of responses was uneven, and corresponded very closely with the overall results of 

the survey. Just under a third of all responses came from three states, namely Michigan (12%), 

Florida (10%), and New York (10%). 

Since respondents from selective FDLP libraries constituted 87% of all respondents, the results of 

segmental analysis are scarcely different from the overall results. In fact, all results from selective 

FDLP libraries were within one percentage point of the overall results, apart from a very few isolated 

exceptions where the variance was less than two percentage points. 
43

Regional libraries 

Demographics 

Users of 34 regional FDLP-participant libraries in 31 US States responded to the survey, representing 

69% of the 49 regional FDLP libraries. The total number of users who responded from these libraries 

was 217. While this is a small cohort, it is not possible to discern within it the sort of unifying 

characteristics which were noted within the respondents from government libraries, who gave the 

strong impression of being mainly professional users. There are, however, indications that 

respondents have a wider range of interests than is apparent overall. 

The distribution of responses was uneven. Well over a third of responses came from two states, 

namely Louisiana (25%), and Kansas (16%). 

It should also be noted that 32 of the 49 regional FDLP libraries (65%) are in academic institutions. 

Accordingly, the results have some similarity to those obtained for the academic segment. 

Usage patterns 

Frequency of use of US government information resources via FDLP 

Respondents who used FDLP resources ‘very frequently’ or ‘rather frequently’ (at least six times per 

year) constituted almost the same proportion as in the overall results. Similarly, the proportion of 

infrequent users was also close. Only 6% were not sure whether their library was a depository 

library, the same proportion as in the academic segment. 

Number of FDLP libraries used 

The proportion of respondents using only one library was a shade higher than in the overall results 

(59%, as compared with 58%). Respondents using more than one library were more or less the same 

as in the overall results. The difference was made up by a small reduction in those who were not sure 

how many FDLP libraries they used. 

How respondents heard about FDLP library 

In line with the high proportion of academic libraries in this segment, most respondents indicated 

that the library from which they responded was their campus library (62%, as compared with 59% 

overall, but 77% in the academic segment). The only other means of hearing about the FDLP library 

which was mentioned by more than 20% of respondents was the library’s web site (32%, as 

compared with 28% overall). 
44

Respondents’ purposes 

‘Academic research’, as might be expected, was mentioned more frequently than in the overall 

results (72%, as compared with 65% overall, but 75% in the academic segment). ‘Education’ and 

‘personal’ followed, but with lower percentages than in the overall analysis (34% and 31% 

respectively, as compared with 40% and 33%). 

Figure R1 

Respondents’ purposes: Regional versus All respondents 

Question A.5 – How would you characterize the purpose(s) of your use of U.S. government 

information resources made available by a library which participates in the FDLP?

Bases = All 3,058; Regional 215

Frequency of use of print/tangible and online resources 

All of the most-used types of information were mentioned by a higher percentage of respondents in 

this segment than in the overall results, although the ranking of the top four was almost the same. 

3%

4%

6%

11%

7%

14%

16%

12%

18%

14%

20%

21%

12%

16%

31%

34%

72%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

Lobbying

Transact business with the government

Land use, mining, minerals, oil

Charity work

Agriculture/fisheries

Consumer product safety

Civic participation

Business/commercial

Environment

Demography: urban, regional, rural planning

Legislative process

Scientific or Technical Information

Law and Legal practice

Health & safety

Personal

Education

Academic research

All respondents Regional

Purpose of using resources available via FDLP: Regional vs. All respondents
45

Historical materials were cited by 76% (as compared with 67%), current materials by 74% (64%), 

statistics by 73% (66%), and agency reports by 72% (62%). 

Figure R2 

Types of information used: Regional versus All respondents 

Bases = All 3,305; Regional 217

Electronic-only use appears to have been one to two percentage points ahead of the overall pattern 

for some of the political materials. Interestingly appropriations/budget information was mentioned 

as being used both as electronic-only (29%) and as print-only (24%) by the largest proportions of 

respondents, the former being appreciably higher than in the overall results (23%). However, this 

type of information was relatively little used. 

Frequency of use of services 

Ranking of the six most cited services was identical to the ranking in the overall results. The top 

three, ‘Online access to documents’, ‘library web site’, and ‘reference desk’ were, however, 

mentioned as being used at least sometimes by a slightly higher proportion of respondents than in 

the overall results (respectively 87%, 86%, and 83%, as compared with 85%, 83%, and 81%). 

49%

55%

60%

64%

60%

63%

59%

70%

65%

64%

65%

72%

74%

73%

76%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

Appropriations/Budget

Presidential...

Congress, Proceedings/floor action

Congressional hearings/documents/reports

Regulations

Results of government-funded research

Court decisions

Maps

Laws

Directories/handbooks/manuals

Consumer information

Agency reports on various topics

Current information

Statistics

Historical materials

All respondents Regional

Use of types of information: Regional vs. All respondents
46

Frequency of use of alternative sources 

Again, ranking of the top three alternative sources corresponded with the overall results. The 

proportion of respondents mentioning each, however, was higher in each case by between two and 

four percentage points. 

Outcomes and satisfaction levels 

Outcomes experienced by respondents 

Here, also, the ranking of outcomes was identical to the ranking in the overall results. Again, too, 

the proportion of respondents mentioning the most frequently cited outcomes was appreciably 

higher than in the overall results. Thus, ‘provided key information’ was mentioned by 85% of 

respondents (as compared with 79% in the overall results), ‘enabled me to fulfill my purpose’ by 77% 

(75%), and ‘added value’ by 66% (60%).

Figure R3 

Outcomes experienced by respondents: Regional versus All respondents 

Question B.1 – Which of the following outcome(s) of your use of FDLP information resources and 

services have you experienced?

Bases = All 2,663; Regional 183

4%

45%

50%

54%

66%

77%

85%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Helped me generate income.

Enabled me to keep up to date.

Enabled me to resolve a problem.

Saved me time.

Added value to something I worked on.

Enabled me to fulfill the purpose(s) for

which I have used them.

Provided key information I needed.

All respondents Regional

Outcomes experienced by respondents: Regional vs. All respondents
47

Respondents’ level of agreement with selected statements

For all five statements, the proportion of respondents indicating positive agreement was within less 

than one percentage point of the overall results. 

Problems, barriers, obstacles, challenges 

Four issues were identified as at least a minor problem by at least 40% of respondents, exactly 

corresponding to those identified by respondents overall. Of these, however, the three most cited 

problems were mentioned by a significantly higher proportion of respondents than was the case 

overall. Difficulty of finding information was mentioned by 70% of respondents (as compared with 

57% overall), inability to find materials in the catalog by 62% (52%), and information resources not in 

the desired format by 48% (46%). 

Levels of satisfaction 

Despite the apparently more critical than average responses to the preceding question, over 87% of 

respondents were at least somewhat satisfied with the overall quality of resources and services (as 

compared with 85% overall). Responses relating to staff, to comprehensiveness of the collections, 

and to computing and printing facilities were all higher than in the overall results by between one 

and five percentage points. 

Improvements 

Desired improvements were in line with the overall results. Moreover, the top five in the ranking 

were mentioned by similar proportions of respondents within one percentage point. 

Preferred delivery methods 

Preferred delivery methods mentioned by more than 30% of respondents were the same as in the 

overall results, albeit in a slightly different order. Web postings were strongly preferred (67%, as 

compared with 60% in the overall results), while e-mail alerts received rather less support (58%, as 

compared with 61%). Print and attachments to e-mail were given equal support, but much lower, at 

39% (respectively 45% and 40% in the overall results). 
48

Appen dix A: Me thodology 

Since 2008, Outsell has worked closely with the GPO to create segmentation analysis and to 

benchmark the needs and preferences of FDLP libraries as drivers of the GPO’s customer relations 

plans. Hence, in 2009/10, Outsell was commissioned by the GPO to conduct a survey of FDLP 

libraries which was carried out within the context of the GPO’s Biennial Survey, which is required by 

statute to enable depository libraries to fulfill their obligation to ‘report to the Superintendent of 

Documents at least every two years concerning their condition’ (44 USC §1909).

Subsequently, in order to support its own strategic planning and that of the individual participating 

libraries, the GPO elected to conduct a further research exercise to understand user perceptions on 

the value and performance of the FDLP’s diverse libraries. Accordingly, following discussions with 

the GPO and submission of a proposal dated 16 December 2009, GPO commissioned Outsell to 

create a survey instrument which could be used by libraries to compile outcomes-based feedback 

and perspectives on the library’s access, collections, service, and cooperative efforts. Analysis of the 

data would be used to create baseline metrics on the participating depository libraries, and build a 

foundation for on-going assessment. Thus, the resulting analysis would help the GPO measure 

program performance and drive strategic planning across FDLP, while at the same time, respondent 

libraries would benefit from the ability to identify areas of excellence, as well as areas in need of 

improvement.

Against this background, Outsell recommended that GPO and libraries participating in the FDLP 

gain an understanding of user needs and perceptions through quantitative research in the form of a 

web-based survey, as follows: 

Questionnaire development: Outsell designed a questionnaire suitable for users at all FDLP 

libraries, with input and final approval from GPO/FDLP representatives. The questionnaire 

contained 16 questions that could be answered in 15 to 20 minutes. Once the questionnaire was 

approved, Outsell programmed and hosted the survey on a secure server. The survey program was 

quality tested and GPO/FDLP representatives had an opportunity to test the program before the 

launch. 

Access to the survey and patron participation: The survey was open between October 18, 2010 and 

March 4, 2011, and was available as a link on federal depository library websites and/or as a link via 

kiosks/public computers in the libraries themselves. Outsell provided a draft invitation which 

GPO/FDLP adapted and used to encourage federal depository libraries to link to the survey site. 

Outsell collected responses into a database and monitored response, providing updates to 

GPO/FDLP on a regular basis during the survey.
49

Data processing: Once data collection was completed, Outsell processed the survey data and 

tabulated the responses into appropriate findings for the program. Outsell created a report of 

overall findings across the FDLP as well as aggregated views for each major segment (academic, 

government, and public libraries, as well as selective and regional libraries). 

Final analysis and presentation: An Outsell senior analyst analyzed and synthesized the data to 

create findings of baseline metrics for the program as a whole and for each major segment in a 

report that includes Outsell’s analytical observations and recommendations for action going 

forward. 

Analysis and deliverables: Outsell provided an analytical report that contains executive summary, 

detailed findings, and Outsell’s analysis and recommendations. The report was structured in a way 

that highlights notable patterns of excellence, sufficiency, and/or gaps and that identifies notable 

differences by library segment. Outsell also created access to individual library reports that 

summarize responses for all questions and made them available for download to each federal 

depository library (each library only being able to access its own results). These reports include 

aggregated responses from each library’s users along with appropriate comparators.
50 

Appen dix B: Surve y questi onnai re 

U.S. Government Printing Office (GPO) 

Federal Depository Library Program: user questionnaire 

6 October 2010 

Thank you for taking the time to complete this survey. Our objective is to understand user 

perceptions of the value and performance of libraries participating in the Federal Depository 

Library Program (FDLP), with particular emphasis on access, collections, and services. 

Please answer the following questions as completely and accurately as possible. There are only 18 

questions [actually, there were 16], and the survey will take approximately 10-15 minutes. The 

progress bar will show you where you are in the survey. Please do persevere all the way through, 

since after the initial questions, which serve to characterize you as a user and your pattern of use; it is 

the later questions which are of greatest importance. There is space at the end for you to add freetext comments if you so wish. Your input is greatly valued. 

Any answers/comments you provide will be treated as strictly confidential and will only be shared 

with the GPO and FDLP libraries in an anonymous and aggregated format. 

If you have any concerns or questions about this online survey, please contact: 

Sheila King, Director of Primary Research, Outsell, Inc.: sking@outsellinc.com

If you would like further information on the Federal Depository Library Program, please go to: 

http://www.gpo.gov/libraries/, or submit questions to askGPO, GPO’s online help service: 

http://gpo.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/gpo.cfg/php/enduser/ask.php. 

*************************************************************** 
51 

SURVEY 

A. RESPONDENTS’ USE OF LIBRARIES PARTICPATING IN THE FEDERAL DEPOSITARY LIBRARY 

PROGRAM (FDLP) 

A1 How often do you use print or online U.S. government information resources 

made available by a library which participates in the FDLP? Please select one of 

the following responses.

Very frequently (more than 12 times a year) 5

Rather frequently (6-11 times a year) 4

Occasionally (2-5 times a year) 3

Infrequently (once a year or less) 2

Not sure if the library is a Federal depository library 1

A2 How many FDLP libraries do you use in order to access U.S. government 

information resources? Please select one of the following responses.

One 1

Two 2

Three 3

Four 4

More than four 5

Not sure 6

A3 Which FDLP library do you normally use (or, if you are an infrequent user, in 

which library did you hear about this survey)? Please select one library from the 

drop down menus in one of the lines below.

In a US State 1

In a US territory 2

[Note: construct drop-down menus with details of libraries, similar to the results of clicking on a place 

at: http://catalog.gpo.gov/fdlpdir/FDLPdir.jsp]

Please answer all subsequent questions in relation to the library you normally use (or, if you are an 

infrequent user, the library where you heard about this survey). 

A4 How did you hear about this Federal depository library? Please select all that 

apply.

Promotional material from the library 1

It’s in my local library 2

It’s in my campus library 3

Library's web site 4

Newspaper 5

Radio public service announcement 6

Referred from another library 7

Referred from the U.S. Government Printing Office 8

Saw FDLP logo 9

Facebook or other social networking site 10

Google or other Internet search engine 11

Other (please describe): ____________________ 0
52 

A5 How would you characterize the purpose(s) of your use of U.S. government 

information resources made available by a library which participates in the 

FDLP? Please select all that apply.

Academic research 1

Agriculture/fisheries 2

Business/commercial 3

Charity work 4

Civic participation 5

Consumer product safety 6

Demography; urban, regional, rural planning 7

Education 8

Environment 9

Health & safety 10

Land use, mining, minerals, oil 11

Law and Legal practice 12

Legislative process (e.g. Senators, Representatives, Policy makers, Executive) 13

Lobbying 14

Personal 15

Scientific or Technical Information 16

Transact business with the government 17

Other (please describe): ____________________ 0

A6 How often do you use each of the following types of PRINT or TANGIBLE

information resources provided by a FDLP library? Please select one response on 

each row.

Frequently Once/

Sometimes

Never

Agency reports on various topics 3 2 1

Appropriations/Budget

Congress, Proceedings/floor action 

Congressional hearings/documents/reports 

Consumer information

Court decisions

Directories/handbooks/manuals

Laws

Maps

Presidential addresses/orders/proclamations

Regulations

Results of government-funded research

Statistics

Historical materials

Current information

Other resources (please describe): ________________
53 

A7 How often do you use each of the following types of ONLINE information 

resources provided by a FDLP library? Please select one response on each row.

Frequently Once/

Sometimes

Never

Agency reports on various topics 3 2 1

Appropriations/Budget

Congress, Proceedings/floor action 

Congressional bills

Congressional hearings/documents/reports 

Consumer information

Court decisions

Directories/handbooks/manuals

Laws

Maps

Presidential addresses/orders/proclamations

Regulations

Results of government-funded research

Statistics

Historical materials

Current information

Other resources (please describe): ________________

A8 How often do you use each of the following services provided by FDLP libraries? 

Please select one response on each row.

FrequentlySometimes Never

Computers to access the Internet and online government 

information

Current awareness/alerting (e-mail alerts, RSS feeds, 

podcasts, videocasts)

Document delivery/Interlibrary loan services

Library web site (including postings, blogs, wikis)

Locating subject matter experts

Online access to documents

Printing, photocopying, scanning

Reference desk/help desk (physical) – quick answers, 

advice/guidance

Research consulting services (primary & secondary)

Training on searching/effective use of information 

resources

Virtual reference assistance (e.g., IM, web-form, Twitter, 

chat)

Workshops conducted at off-site locations

Workshops conducted at the library

Other (please describe): __________________________
54 

A9 How often do you go elsewhere (i.e. other than a FDLP library) to use U.S. 

government information resources? Please select one response on each row.

Frequently Once/

Sometimes

Never

3 2 1

Contact federal agency directly (e.g., phone/fax/e-mail) 

Directly to federal agency web sites 

Google or other search engine

Internet, from a location other than a library

Library that is not a designated Federal depository library

Other (please describe): ____________________

B. RESPONDENTS’ OUTCOMES AND PERCEPTION OF VALUE AND PERFORMANCE OF FDLP 

LIBRARIES 

B1 Which of the following outcome(s) of your use of FDLP information resources 

and services have you experienced? Please select all that apply.

Enabled me to fulfill the purpose(s) for which I have used them. 1

Enabled me to resolve a problem. 2

Provided key information I needed. 3

Added value to something I worked on. 4

Helped me generate income. 5

Saved me time. 6

Enabled me to keep up to date. 7

Other (please explain briefly):_________________ 0

B2 Bearing in mind both the purpose(s) and the outcome(s) of your use of FDLP resources and 

services, to what extent do you agree/disagree with the following statements? Please select 

one box in each row.

Strongly

Agree

Somewha

t Agree

Neither 

Agree nor 

Disagree

Somewhat 

Disagree

Strongly 

Disagree

N/A

5 4 3 2 1 -9

Access to FDLP information resources 

was crucial to meeting my information 

needs.

Access to FDLP information resources 

saved me time and/or money.

Access to FDLP information resources 

pointed me to the information I required.

I would recommend the use of FDLP 

information resources to my 

colleagues/friends.

I will use FDLP information resources 

next time I need this type of information.

Other (please explain 

briefly):_________________
55

B3 To what extent do you consider the following factors to be problems, barriers, 

obstacles, or challenges which hinder your use of FDLP resources and services? 

Please select one response in each row.

Major 

Problem

Minor 

Problem

Not a 

Problem

Don’t

Know

Couldn’t find what I needed in the library’s catalog 3 2 1 -9

Content of FDLP/government information is 

difficult to find or not available on the web

Gaps in library holdings, library does not have or 

provide access to FDLP information resources I 

need

Information resources are not available in the 

format I desire (e.g., paper, online, microfiche)

Insufficient number of computers

Insufficient coverage at the reference/help desk

Lack of training available to library users

Physical access to the building or parts of it

Printing/downloading not available or insufficient

Service and collection locations are not clearly 

marked

Internet filters cause a problem

Staff are unhelpful

Time limit for computer use is too short

Other (please describe): ____________________

B4 How satisfied are you overall with the following aspects of resources and services available 

to you through the FDLP? Please select one box in each row.

Extremely 

Satisfied

Somewhat 

Satisfied

Neither 

Satisfied nor 

Dissatisfied

Somewhat 

Dissatisfied

Extremely 

Dissatisfied

N/A

5 4 3 2 1 -9

Comprehensiveness of federal 

depository library collections

Ease of access to information 

resources

Timeliness/currency of library 

collections

Variety of options for delivery of 

information

Levels of service provided by 

library staff

Computing and printing facilities

Group or collaboration facilities 

available to library users

Overall quality of resources and 

services

Other (please explain 

briefly):__________
56 

B5 In your view, what other improvements/resources/supporting services are 

needed? Please select all that apply.

Library catalog needs records for older materials 1

Library catalog needs to be kept more up-to-date 2

Government information should be arranged using the Dewey Decimal 

classification system

3

Government information should be arranged using the Library of Congress 

classification system

4

Collections should be extended to include older/historical materials 5

Gaps in collections need to be filled 6

Information desk arrangements need to be improved 7

More materials should be available online 8

More training should be available 9

More/updated computers 10

More/updated printing, photocopying facilities 11

Online help arrangements need to be improved 12

Online tutorials to help users understand government activities (e.g., legislative 

process)

13

Other (please describe): ____________________ 0

B6 Which methods do you prefer for delivery of information for your use? Please 

select all that apply.

Blogs (including audio and video blogs) 1

Microblogs (e.g., Twitter) 2

E-mail alerts or notifications 3

Web site postings 4

Mash-ups 5

Mobile devices 6

Podcasts 7

Printed books/journals or photocopies 8

RSS feeds 9

Social bookmarking/Tagging 10

Social networking (e.g., Facebook, LinkedIn) 11

Videocasting 12

Web conferencing 13

Wikis 14

Fax 15

Attachments to e-mail 16

Other, specify: ___________________________ 17

None of the above [MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE] -9
57 

C. FINALLY 

C1 If you have any comments you would like to share regarding the FDLP or 

accessing U.S. government information/resources, please do so in the box 

below. Thank you.

<insert long text>

THANK YOU AND EXIT to http://www.gpo.gov/libraries