[Report on the Assessment of Electronic Government Information Products]
[Report ]
[Executive Summary only]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]

REPORT ON THE
ASSESSMENT OF ELECTRONIC GOVERNMENT INFORMATION PRODUCTS

Prepared under contract (#RN 97007001)
by
Westat
Rockville, Maryland

for the

UNITED STATES NATIONAL COMMISSION ON LIBRARIES AND INFORMATION SCIENCE

commissioned by the

UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
SUPERINTENDENT OF DOCUMENTS

March 30, 1999







































Executive Summary


The Federal Depository Library Program (FDLP) has served and continues to serve
the American public by ensuring localized access to Federal Government
information.  The mission continues to be as important today to the fundamental
success of our democracy as it was when the FDLP was created.  The FDLP's
original mandate, to assist Americans regardless of economic, education, or
geographic considerations, is one that must not be lost as we strategically and
thoughtfully use the tools of the electronic age to enhance that mandate.

Letter to Michael F. DiMario, the Public Printer, from Senators John Warner and
Wendell Ford of the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration, May 24, 1996.



Background


Congress established the antecedents to the Federal Depository Library Program
(FDLP) in the Act of 1813 to ensure that the American public has access to its
Government's information.  The mission of the FDLP, part of the Superintendent
of Documents (SuDocs) in the Government Printing Office (GPO), is to assure
current and permanent public access to the universe of information published by
the U.S. Government.  Depository libraries safeguard the public's right to know
by collecting, organizing, maintaining, preserving, and assisting users with
information from the Federal Government.  GPO provides that information at no
cost to designated depository libraries throughout the country.  These
depository libraries, in turn, provide local, no-fee access to Government
information in all formats in an impartial environment with professional
assistance.  Any member of the public can visit these depository libraries and
use the Federal depository collections.

In order to administer the FDLP, as required by the enabling legislation for the
program, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 19, the SuDocs is responsible for the acquisition,
classification, format conversion, dissemination, and bibliographic control of
tangible and electronic Government information products; the inspection of
depository libraries; and the continuing education and training initiatives that
strengthen the ability of depository library personnel to serve the public.  An
emerging new responsibility is to ensure that electronic Government information
products disseminated through the FDLP, or incorporated in the FDLP Electronic
Collection, remain permanently accessible to the public.  Under 44 U.S.C., 
Sections 1901-1903, and Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-130, 
Management of Federal Information Resources, Federal agencies should make all
their publications in all formats available to SuDocs for distribution to
depository libraries.











This study to assess electronic medium and format standards for the creation and
dissemination of electronic information products is an essential step toward
ensuring a successful and cost-effective transition to a more electronic FDLP.
The three goals of this assessment were to:

   > Identify medium and format standards that are the most appropriate for
     permanent public access;

   > Assess the cost-effectiveness and usefulness of various alternative medium
     and format standards; and

   > Identify public and private medium and format standards that are, or could
     be used for products throughout their entire information life cycle, not
     just at the dissemination or permanent public access stage.

The Superintendent of Documents will use the results of this work effort to
continue to plan and implement the transition to a more electronic FDLP.  The
five major specific objectives are:

   > First, with respect to electronic publishing practices and plans for
     Federal agencies (including ways in which the FDLP can best accommodate
     them), the objective is to provide an analysis of current practices as well
     as future plans for creating, disseminating, and providing permanent public
     accessibility to electronic information products, and to identify the
     standards for software and electronic mediums and formats that are used
     throughout the product's information life cycle, from creation to archiving
     but especially at the stage of dissemination for permanent public access.

   > Second, with respect to cost-effectiveness of various dissemination mediums
     and formats that are, or could be utilized, the objective is to gather
     information on standards (whether mandated or consensual) that will assist
     the FDLP in making near-term decisions regarding the cost-effectiveness of
     alternative mediums and formats for all FDLP participants.  This
     information should also assist participants in long-term planning for
     permanent public accessibility, and the collection and analysis of overall
     information life cycle costs.

   > Third, with respect to the practical utility of various electronic mediums
     and formats to depository libraries and the public, the objective is to
     identify preferred standards used in various mediums and formats that
     depository libraries will need to support.

   > Fourth, with respect to utilizing standards employed in mediums and formats
     that can be used throughout all stages of the information life cycle
     (including creation, composition, computer terminal display, encryption, 
     secure digital signature with non-repudiation, and secure transmission
     capabilities), for electronic dissemination, but especially permanent
     public accessibility, the objective is to assess standards for basic
     security services in order to provide for secure and reliable transmission
     and document interchange.

   > Fifth, with respect to standards that are being developed and used in the
     private sector, the objective is to identify existing and planned standards
     for the purpose of determining what the FDLP must do to accommodate their
     adoption in terms of hardware/software requirements, staff and user
     education and training, and budgetary impacts.

Methodology


The study utilized both quantitative and qualitative data collection activities: 
a survey of a cross-section of 314 Government information products from 24
agencies and interviews with experts.  The response rate for the survey was 74
percent.  This cross-section of products was not a randomly selected sample due
to cost and time constraints.  Instead, NCLIS and GPO-assisted by various
groups, including the library associations represented by the Inter-Association
Working Group on Government Information Policy (IAWG), the Federal Library and
Information Center Committee (FLICC), the Depository Library Council (DLC), and
the Interagency Council on Printing and Publication Services (ICPPS)- developed
and refined the criteria for product selection.  NCLIS, GPO, and the other
organizations asked knowledgeable members of these groups to identify products
that met one or more of six criteria.

NCLIS distributed the list of preliminary products to agency Chief Information
Officers (CIOs) who were asked to validate and coordinate the final selections
with their appropriate agency personnel.  In addition, NCLIS asked CIOs to
select an agency coordinator.  The coordinator's role was to oversee the
distribution of product questionnaires to the appropriate respondents and to
encourage respondents to complete the questionnaire and return it to Westat.

Product selection was based on six criteria:

   > Increased emphasis on electronic dissemination, rather than continuation of
     paper and microform dissemination;
   > Replacement of older electronic mediums and formats with state-of-the-art
     technologies;
   > Adoption of mandated (Government or private sector) and consensual (common
     agency practice) medium and format standards;
   > Adoption and use of preferred mediums or formats that have widespread
     support from agency, depository library, and user communities;
   > Exemplified cost-effective mediums and standards, especially those that can
     be used throughout the entire information life cycle, rather than the use
     of expensive customized or shelf packages; and
   > Exemplified awareness of the important impact of medium and format
     decisions on permanent accessibility, authentication, and/or security
     encryption protection.

The survey requested information on four main topics:

   > General information about the product and agency that produced it.
   > The product's current profile including the kinds of data the product
     contains, mediums in which it is produced, formats and online approaches
     used (if applicable); and searchability and retrievability of the product.
   > Future plans for the product including changes in its data, mediums, and
     formats.
   > Other issues including metadata, permanent public access, permanent
     retention, authenticity, updating/upgrading plans, user fees, licensing, 
     and public domain. 

The qualitative data collection included site visits to three depository
libraries, meetings with representatives of five Government agencies, and
telephone interviews with six experts. The qualitative data collection included
site visits, agency meetings, and expert interviews. Westat conducted site
visits to three Federal depository libraries:

   > McKeldin Library, University of Maryland College Park, College Park,
     Maryland
   > Washington College of Law Library, American University, Washington, D.C.
   > Montgomery County Rockville Regional Public Library, Rockville, Maryland

The purpose of the visits was to discuss the effects of the transition to a more
electronic Federal Depository Library Program on the end user and on the
services and resources of each library.

Meetings with agency representatives had a twofold purpose:

   > To collect qualitative data about electronic Government information
     products, such as cost-effectiveness of standards, use of locator tools,
     results of user surveys, etc., that were not covered in the survey; and
   > To discuss the procedures for distribution of the questionnaire.

In addition to inviting agency coordinators and respondents, the statement of
work specified that Westat invite representatives of the following offices to
attend the meetings:

   > Public affairs or communications offices
   > Agency printing and publishing units
   > Information technology or electronic information systems offices
   > Agency libraries, and
   > Relevant program offices.

The following six agencies agreed to schedule a meeting: Department of Health
and Human Services, Department of Education, U.S. Supreme Court, Department of
Commerce, Environmental Protection Agency, and the National Archives and Records
Administration.  Only four of the six agencies chose to discuss the qualitative
questions at the meeting.  The other two agencies discussed the questionnaire
only and agreed to respond to the discussion questions in writing, although only
one actually submitted their written questions.

Finally, Westat held four telephone interviews with six content experts.  The
experts included two webmasters (Linda Wallace from the Internal Revenue
Service, and Jerry Malitz from the National Center for Education Statistics);
two preservation specialists (Evelyn Frangakis from the National Agricultural
Library, and Abby Smith from the Council on Library and Information Resources);
and two professors in information resources management (John Bertot and Charles
McClure).  The purpose of expert interviews was to:

   > Solicit opinions of experts on topics not adequately covered on the survey
     or in the agency meetings,
   > Ask questions to provide a broader context in which to view the issues, and
   > Explore current initiatives and future directions.










Key Findings


These findings reflect the major results of the survey and qualitative data
collection:

Policy and Planning Issues

1. There is an overall lack of Government information policy guiding electronic
publishing, dissemination, permanent public access, or information life cycle
management, especially as information policy relates to agency missions.
Also, there is a lack of overall coordination of these initiatives at the
Governmental, branch, or even agency level (pp. 68-69).
2. Responsibility for electronic publishing within agencies is decentralized,
diffuse, and unclear.  Some agencies either could not identify or had
difficulty identifying the proper respondent within their own agency, or even
the person who was responsible for the product (pp. 11 and 14).
3. Some Government agencies are monitoring the information needs of their users
to enhance current access to electronic Government information products
(p. 65).
4. There is a lack of specific planning for product development and
technological migration (pp. 34-36; table 23 on p. 42).
5. There is a lack of planning for or consideration of web design approaches that comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) (table 6a, p. 29)

Permanent Public Access 

6. The concept of permanent public access (PPA) is not well understood.
Respondents also had difficulty distinguishing between PPA for electronic
products and archiving electronic Federal records with the National Archives
and Records Administration (tables 18-20, pp. 39-40).
7. Metadata and their importance to public access are not well understood,
particularly as they may affect PPA.  Only 27 percent of respondents reported
having a metadata record for the products surveyed (table 19, p. 39).
8. For some products, PPA results from the agencies' use of a host disseminator, 
such as GPO Access (p. 11).

Authenticity

9. There is a lack of understanding of what ensuring authenticity entails, and a
lack of planning for or consideration of ensuring authenticity of electronic
Government information products (table 21, p. 41).

Product Characteristics

10. Fifteen percent of the products surveyed are not in the public domain, for
all or part of the product (table 27, p. 45).  In addition, user fees are
charged for 30 percent of the products (table 24, p. 43).
11. The most prevalent types of mediums are the web, paper, CD-ROM, and
bulletin board systems (table 3a, p. 22); the most prevalent formats are
HTML, PDF, GIF, JPEG, TIFF, and ASCII (table 4a, p. 25).
12. The most prevalent types of data contained in the products surveyed are
textual, numerical, bibliographic, and graphical (tables 2a and 2b, p. 20).




Standards

13. There is a lack of standardization for producing Government information
products on CD-ROM (e.g., installation instructions, user documentation) 
(p. 55).
14. The most prevalent medium and format standards identified in the survey
are common agency practice rather than agency-mandated  (tables 3b, 4b, 6b,
pp. 23, 26, and 30).
15. Some Government agencies have established guidelines or best practices for
presenting and organizing Government information products on the web,
although full compliance with the guidelines is a goal that has not yet been
achieved (p. 64).
16. Some Government agencies are exploring a range of innovative formats and
web design approaches for electronic Government information products (p. 57).



Next Steps


As a followup effort, NCLIS indicated that they will use these findings as a
point of departure and analyze them in greater depth.  It is expected that this
followup effort will result in broad conclusions and recommendations to the
President and Congress about how the problems and challenges revealed in this
study can be constructively addressed to improve current and future public
access to electronic Government information.