Evolving with the FDLP: A Case Study in Managing the Shift to Digital Government Documents

Emily Croft

Introduction

The Federal Depository Library Program (FDLP) has long been the backbone of public access to government information, with physical documents flowing steadily into libraries nationwide. The FDLP has, however, recently completed its three-decade-long shift to an all-online distribution model, halting most distribution of physical print materials to its participating libraries.¹

For institutions that have, for decades, served as custodians of physical government documents, this decision raises existential questions: What does it mean to be a government depository library when there are no more tangible documents being deposited? What is the point of a government depository program that no longer sends deposits? Finally, how can libraries shift to providing digital documents in a way that fulfills their mission? The implications are profound, as libraries must now reconcile with a reality in which they are expected to maintain their status and function without the physical materials that once defined them.

The transition to an online model represents more than just a change in how information is disseminated; it marks a fundamental shift in the relationship between depository libraries and the government. Since the establishment of the modern FDLP in 1962, depository libraries have taken pride in their role as custodians of physical government documents, with their identity closely tied to the stewardship of these tangible materials. The Government Publishing Office (GPO)’s recent decision to adopt a digital-only format, however, now forces depository libraries to reassess their mission and purpose in this evolving landscape. As the emphasis shifts away from physical collections, these libraries must redefine what it means to fulfill their role without the tangible artifacts that once formed the core of their work. Although the transition has been gradual, the abrupt end of physical shipments has fundamentally changed the nature of our work in ways that are both profound and career changing.

Concerns

The transition to digital government documents introduces a range of concerns that, while paralleling issues inherent in electronic documents and archives, also present unique challenges.² Despite the FDLP’s commitment to its mandate, the program is not immune to potential failures in online preservation. Some of the challenges unique to preserving digital government documents are examined below.

”The Man” vs the Machine

A significant and concerning risk associated with born-digital government documents is the potential for government entities to remove or otherwise cause the disappearance of information deemed “inconvenient” or politically sensitive. This risk highlights the importance of stringent measures to safeguard the integrity and availability of government records.³ The ease with which digital records can be modified or deleted exacerbates this risk, making it crucial to implement protections against such actions.

Furthermore, ongoing government funding plays a crucial role in preserving born-digital documents. Consistent and adequate funding is necessary to support the technological infrastructure and human resources required for effective digital preservation. Without sustained financial support, efforts to maintain and preserve digital records may falter, jeopardizing the longevity and accessibility of these important documents.

Strategic partnerships with organizations committed to digital preservation play a significant role in the overall preservation ecosystem. The GPO has established several such partnerships to enhance the preservation and accessibility of government publications.⁴ These partnerships involve organizations that commit to preserving government documents in their libraries permanently, ensuring they are accessible to the public for free. In addition, some organizations contribute digital content to the GPO for inclusion in GovInfo, the government’s official digital repository.⁵ These collaborations broaden the scope and redundancy of digital preservation initiatives, promoting a cooperative effort to protect public information.

Print Backups vs Digital Backups

One of the key advantages of the print distribution model was the inherent redundancy it provided: multiple copies of government documents were distributed across the country, ensuring that these materials were preserved and accessible, even if one or more copies were lost or damaged. This decentralized approach created a natural safeguard against the loss of information.

As the FDLP transitions to a digital program, the need for a strong digital preservation strategy becomes increasingly important. This includes ensuring digital backups, redundancy, and protection against technological failures or cyber threats. While the FDLP should develop comprehensive strategies to replicate or back up digital government documents across multiple locations, participating libraries can also take on this role independently.

Another consideration is the physical space being exchanged for digital space. Libraries could be asked to contribute server space or other resources to host digital backups, thereby distributing both the responsibility and the cost of preserving these essential government documents across the network of depository libraries.

Unreported Publications

The issue of unreported publications poses a significant challenge for born-digital government documents. These are documents not captured or made accessible through official channels like the FDLP, often due to agencies publishing outside traditional pathways. This can happen due to a lack of awareness or adherence to dissemination requirements, the use of agency-specific websites that are not systematically archived, or the publication of documents in formats that are not easily captured by archiving systems. The transient nature of websites and the frequent restructuring of government web content exacerbate this problem, leading to the potential loss of valuable information.⁶

To address these challenges, the FDLP and its libraries must adopt a multifaceted approach that includes proactively identifying and archiving unreported documents, using persistent identifiers like PURLs to maintain stable access, and fostering collaborations with government agencies and other libraries to ensure a more comprehensive capture of government publications. Additionally, advocating for better archiving practices and standardized dissemination formats within government agencies is essential to reduce the likelihood of documents becoming unreported. By integrating these strategies, libraries can help preserve the integrity and accessibility of government information in a digital environment.

Moving Forward

While the impact of this shift to digital content is significant, it also presents a clear need for practical action. One of the most pressing concerns for libraries is the need for comprehensive guidance or detailed protocols from the FDLP on effectively managing this transition. Without clear instructions, libraries are left to navigate this new landscape independently, developing their own strategies to ensure that they continue to fulfill their mission of providing public access to government information. In January 2022, the FDLP published guidelines for transitioning to digital selections, which are helpful.⁷ But they were created to opt into a digital framework, and now, with the recent changes, there is no way to opt out and return to receiving print publications.

At the Armacost Library, our past processes heavily relied on the regular influx of physical documents, which were cataloged, shelved, and made accessible to the public in our government documents section. Since government documents have been available online for decades, and our university community generally prefers online access to resources, we have completed some weeding projects to replace print serials with online. This paper will outline our latest efforts, describe how our approach has shifted, and explain our future needs and plans.

Background and Rationale

Academic libraries, traditionally repositories of vast physical collections, make regular adjustments in response to changing user demands and institutional priorities. We face unique pressures to change space and shift collections due to evolving educational needs, technological advancements, and institutional demands.⁸ As our patrons increasingly prioritize digital resources and remote access, libraries have adapted by reallocating physical space previously dedicated to print collections to accommodate collaborative learning environments, technology labs, and study areas that support modern pedagogical methods and student preferences.⁹ Furthermore, these changes are often driven by the university’s need to maximize the utility of available space in response to fluctuating student enrollment, interdisciplinary research requirements, and strategic goals.¹⁰ Consequently, academic libraries must balance the preservation of traditional resources with the integration of innovative services, all while responding to administrative directives and the diverse needs of their patrons.

The increasing availability of government documents online has significantly influenced this shift. Since the GPO Electronic Information Access Enhancement Act came into effect in 1993, there has been a trend toward digitizing government publications, making them more accessible to a broader audience. This trend has accelerated in recent years, driven by advancements in digital technology, the growing demand for remote access to information, and the cost savings associated with online publishing. As early as 2013, the National Academy of Public Administration reported that approximately 97 percent of all federal documents were born digital.¹¹

Since January 2022, when the GPO Task Force began to study the feasibility of a digital FDLP, the FDLP has been transitioning towards a predominantly digital model, with fewer physical copies distributed nationwide.¹² These changes are motivated primarily by cost considerations and the goal of enhancing public access to government information. As the FDLP moves almost all publications online, selective FDLP libraries must reassess their collections and adapt to this new paradigm.

The literature on library collection management and document withdrawal has extensively covered general strategies for deaccessioning physical materials and transitioning to digital resources. Excellent work has been done on moving print collections to offsite repositories, high-density shelving, and collaborative print-sharing networks. There is a notable gap, however, regarding specific strategies for the systematic withdrawal of government documents in academic libraries. This is particularly true in the context of recent changes in federal publication practices that have significantly reduced the number of printed government books, shifting towards digitally created formats. This gap is critical, as academic libraries must navigate the complexities of ensuring long-term access, authenticity, and preservation of digital government documents while also managing physical space effectively. Our project addresses this gap by proposing a clear, replicable process for strategically withdrawing physical copies. In addition, it examines the broader implications of the federal changes relating to library space utilization and collection management, providing a much-needed framework for other academic libraries facing similar challenges.

The Armacost Library

The Armacost Library (hereafter Armacost) at the University of Redlands, a private, non-profit liberal arts institution in Southern California, has been a selective federal depository library since 1933. As of 2012, the library’s FDLP selections and holdings covered basic legislative, administrative, and judicial documents, as well as volumes from the full range of federal subject areas. In addition to print materials, the library has holdings in maps, CD-ROMs, microfiche, and audiovisual formats. We also inherited several extended historical periodical runs from the California College Library in the first few decades of the twentieth century, even before joining the FDLP. Government documents are shelved separately by SuDocs classification, while the general collection is shelved by the Library of Congress (LC) Classification. The government documents collection is located at the “end” of the library, on the fourth floor, and as of 2012, the rest of the collection was housed on the second, third, and fourth floors. The collection currently occupies approximately 4,620 linear feet of shelving, and we do not receive any physical deliveries from FDLP.

Objectives

Our primary objective at Armacost was to optimize library space by withdrawing government documents that had become available online. This process involved carefully evaluating the government documents collection to identify documents that could be replaced with digital versions. This process freed up valuable space within the library which has been repurposed to meet other institutional needs.

While the library had been planning to undertake a significant shift of the collection since 2015, it was waiting for the completion of several weeding projects and sufficient staffing. The government documents department planned to participate by removing many long runs of serials and most of our census documents. The space gained from withdrawing physical government documents helped us expand the general collection, reclassify and relocate reference materials, and create a more aesthetically pleasing environment for studying. The reorganization effort was designed to align with modern pedagogical methods and support our patrons’ evolving educational and research needs.

One of the underlying reasons for the weeding process in our library is to maintain an orderly and aesthetically pleasing appearance on the shelves. Cluttered shelves filled with outdated or rarely used documents can create frustration and hinder efficient research. Moreover, a collection overflowing with seemingly obsolete materials can give the impression that the library is a repository for old and irrelevant resources. By systematically withdrawing government documents that are available online and no longer in high demand, we ensure that the physical collection is relevant and accessible.

Methodology

Criteria for Withdrawal

The criteria used to determine which government documents to withdraw centered on ensuring that the public retains access to necessary information. Since the items do not circulate, there are no usage statistics to consult; however, we reviewed reference transactions to ensure we were not inadvertently withdrawing items that had recently been used in a reference interview. By applying the following criteria, we aimed to balance the immediate spatial needs of the library with the long-term accessibility and integrity of government information, ensuring a smooth transition to a more digitally oriented collection.

We prioritized the withdrawal of long runs of serials to increase efficiency in the process. Next, we evaluated the availability of these documents online through the official Catalog of US Government Publications (CGP). We did not consider databases such as Hathi Trust, HeinOnline, or Internet Archive. If no online version was available, the librarian considered withdrawing the periodical regardless. The factors considered in this decision were usage, relevance to the curriculum and research activity, and physical condition.

Finally, the rules for withdrawal in California’s selective repositories stipulate that an item must be at least five years old before it can be considered for withdrawal. Permission to withdraw the item is still required after five years, even if an online version is available. Therefore, as we identified items and serials for withdrawal, they were included in an official spreadsheet for submission to the California State Library. Although the current guidelines do not provide any exceptions for census documents, previous editions allowed us to remove many census series without permission.¹³

By contrast, a different weeding strategy can lead to very different outcomes. In a presentation describing the San Diego Public Library’s government documents project, staff undertook a sequential, shelf-by-shelf review with the goal of removing as much print material as possible.⁸ This approach surfaced a significant number of unique and locally important publications that were neither cataloged nor digitized. While these discoveries were intellectually and historically valuable, they also generated additional, unplanned projects, as the materials required further evaluation, temporary segregation, or future processing. Because staffing and time constraints limited how much could be addressed immediately, many items could only be set aside rather than fully resolved.

This example illustrates a key tradeoff in large-scale government documents weeding: comprehensive, linear review can reveal hidden or unique materials, but it can also expand the scope of a project beyond its original objectives. In contrast, our decision to prioritize long serial runs and defer item-level discovery work allowed us to remain focused on efficiently reducing the physical footprint of the collection and completing a coordinated transition to digital access.

Withdrawal Process

The deselection work described here focused primarily on long-running serials and large legacy series that received little or no documented use and had stable digital surrogates available through FDLP or agency websites. Using local circulation data, historical reference patterns, and the availability of reliable digital versions, we targeted series such as Census publications, National Institute of Standards and Technology reports, Climatological Data, Agricultural Outlook, Social Security Bulletin, and various US Geological Survey and National Labor Relations Board reports. These series occupied significant shelf space, were rarely consulted in print, and had comprehensive digital coverage, making them strong candidates for withdrawal.

Instead of removing items to a staging area, the government documents librarian used a mobile device to photograph government documents that she identified for possible withdrawal, along with digital notes for holdings. The research to determine their eligibility for withdrawal was conducted later by referring to these photos. Once confirmed, the items were added to the withdrawal list.

The decision was made to keep the items on the shelf in their normal location, as the withdrawal process typically takes approximately two months to complete, and there is insufficient temporary shelving to accommodate all items during this period. Additionally, keeping items on the shelves until the final stage prevents large gaps of empty space, which can be visually unappealing and may attract unwanted attention from other departments. We have kept “withdrawn” government documents remaining on the shelves for years after being approved for withdrawal. This approach helps minimize disruption and guarantees that the library maintains a polished and organized look during transition periods.

One of the library’s long-term objectives is to remove some shelving units and replace them with seating and study areas. Achieving this goal requires assistance from the university facilities maintenance department, which is also experiencing resource constraints. Despite these challenges, creating more seating and study areas remains a priority to enhance the library’s role as a conducive environment for student learning and engagement.

Transitioning Online

As part of our broader strategy to modernize and optimize our collection management, we previously began transitioning our depository collection to a more digital-focused model. We recognized that many print volumes, particularly reference materials, were better suited to an online format due to their frequent updates and the ease of access digital versions provide. Accordingly, we started to disable print deliveries in the Depository Selection Information Management System (DSIMS) and replace them with online options whenever possible. This gradual shift aligned with the official guidelines provided by the FDLP.¹⁴

Regarding the discoverability of digital government documents, we selected the following collections in our discovery service, Primo: “Freely Accessible Government documents,” “US Government documents,” and FRASER publications. “US Government documents” was later disabled, however, because it contains over 250,000 titles and introduced a high volume of non-relevant materials into search results.

Reorganization Plan

The space freed up by withdrawing and digitizing government documents was repurposed to shift and, in some cases, reclassify our general collection, reference materials, and periodicals. Our colleagues in Public Services developed a detailed plan to shift these sections. We started from the end ranges where the government documents were located and worked backward, systematically providing additional space for the general collection. This minimized disruption and allowed for a smooth transition of materials.

The general collection was expanded by reclassifying some reference materials and integrating them into the general collection, ensuring that frequently used resources are more readily available to patrons. The remaining reference materials were relocated to a lower-traffic area with ample seating, natural light, and quiet study space. Periodicals were similarly weeded and relocated to lower-traffic areas, acknowledging that there will be very few additions to that section in the future.

Results

In total, we withdrew 220 titles. This number does not include census documents and prior editions of the US Code, which did not require formal permission for withdrawal. The space reclaimed through these withdrawals has enabled us to shift a portion of the general collection, specifically the QH-SB sections, to the 4th floor, reallocating approximately 288 linear meters of shelving. Once the remaining volumes are removed from the shelf, we anticipate freeing up an additional 244 linear meters. This reallocation of space not only optimizes our physical resources but also enhances the accessibility and organization of the general collection, ultimately improving the overall user experience.

It is important to note that the project described in this case study took place before the FDLP’s recent shift to an all-digital distribution model. At that time, our library was already proactively transitioning some of our government document collections to digital formats. We understood the practical advantages of digital formats and were committed to ensuring our collections remained relevant and accessible to our patrons. Despite our willingness to embrace this digital evolution, the recent shift to a completely digital model has raised new concerns. While we acknowledge the efficiencies gained, we grapple with the loss of tangible government documents and the implications this has for our identity as a depository library. In keeping with these shifts, our library has chosen to forgo the limited print distribution options and operates as a fully digital depository. But the transition has forced us to reconsider our role and the balance between embracing digital progress and preserving the historical and symbolic value of physical collections.

Staffing Challenges and Their Impact on Library Services and Collections

Changes and understaffing in all areas of the Armacost Library—professional, paraprofessional, and student employment—have frequently halted the project over the years. Modern staffing challenges in libraries, such as budget constraints, hiring freezes, and the increasing need for specialized skills, significantly impact the ability to maintain consistent and high-quality services.¹⁵ The turnover rates in both professional and paraprofessional positions often result in gaps in institutional knowledge and disruptions in ongoing projects.¹⁶ Student employment, which many libraries rely on for support, is also subject to fluctuations based on budgets, academic schedules, and availability.

As mentioned above, the items scheduled for withdrawal were left in their designated places on the shelf until final approval to remove them was obtained. This approach proved to be advantageous in terms of time management, as it minimized the time spent rearranging books. It also proved to be essential due to unpredictable staffing levels, allowing for greater flexibility in executing the project. This method ensured that despite staffing challenges, progress could be made gradually, without compromising the quality of work or the organization of the collection.

Future Plans

We have identified several areas within our government documents collection that require further attention to optimize their utility and organization. First, it is imperative to review the FDLP lists, Core and Core1 (formerly called Academic Core) to ensure that all essential materials are properly cataloged and accessible. These will be activated in our discovery service, Primo, and we will consider creating Primo Collections or LibGuides for them as well.¹⁷

In addition, we need to review our electronic government documents resources in Primo. We initially selected a wide array of government titles, but it would be beneficial to curate this collection more effectively. Without proper curation, the excess government documents selections can lead to larger result sets, increasing confusion, reducing search accuracy, and leading to information overload.¹⁸

The Maps Room has been identified as an ideal location to convert into study rooms, and the majority of our maps are government documents. While maps are withdrawn in the same manner as regular items, they are more time-consuming to process. Therefore, careful consideration and planning are required to repurpose this space effectively.

Microfiche is not a priority for removal, as these materials take up little physical space. They can be discarded unless they are part of a long run or have specific relevance to California, in which case they must follow standard withdrawal procedures. Each microfiche must be reviewed individually to determine its relevance. Fortunately, those that do not meet state preservation criteria can skip the standard withdrawal process.

Lastly, integrating government documents digital finding aids with online legal and business resources in our LibGuides will enhance accessibility and usability, providing a more cohesive and comprehensive resource for our patrons.¹⁹ Moreover, the university has approved a new Data Science minor, and the library can promote official government data sources in our outreach to these students and faculty.

By addressing these areas, we can improve the organization and functionality of our government documents collection, ensuring it meets the evolving needs of our users.

Practical Lessons Learned

Our local experience revealed several practical lessons. Perhaps the most important insight was the value of beginning with long, legacy serial runs. These long-established sets often occupy entire ranges, see virtually no use in print, and have stable digital counterparts. Focusing on these first allowed us to gain early momentum and reclaim space quickly in ways that were both structurally and psychologically helpful.

We also learned that the most efficient way to identify candidates for withdrawal was to adopt a mobile workflow. Because our bibliographic and holdings records for government documents are incomplete, neither end of the traditional process provided enough information on its own: when standing in the stacks, we often lacked the details needed to confirm digital availability, and when sitting at our desks, we lacked the ability to visualize what was physically on the shelf. Using a mobile device allowed us to conduct the eligibility research when we had the CGP and FDLP guidance in front of us.

Another lesson concerned the importance of keeping volumes in their normal locations while withdrawal permissions were pending. The withdrawal process in California takes several weeks, and removing items prematurely created logistical problems. Leaving everything in place until the final approval preserved the integrity of the stacks, prevented misunderstandings from other departments, and—critically—allowed us to complete a single, coordinated summer shift rather than repeatedly disrupting the collection with incremental moves.

We also found it helpful to maintain a single, cumulative withdrawal list for each phase of the project. This centralized approach made it easier to track what had been reviewed, what had been submitted for permission, and what still required additional inquiry. It also created a defensible record of decisions, which proved essential during periods of staffing turnover.

Together, these lessons formed a practical, repeatable framework that balanced the realities of limited staffing, incomplete metadata, and evolving user expectations.

Future Studies

Future studies should explore strategies for academic libraries to strengthen partnerships with the FDLP to enhance the preservation and accessibility of digital government documents. Collaborative efforts could focus on developing shared best practices for digital archiving, metadata management, and ensuring the long-term integrity of born-digital materials. Outreach initiatives should be investigated to improve user engagement with digital government documents such as creating targeted information literacy programs and integrating digital documents more effectively into the library’s discovery tools and research guides. Finally, there should be an examination of the potential implications and outcomes for libraries considering a departure from the FDLP program. This research needs to assess the risks and benefits of this approach, such as its impact on access to government information and the resources required to maintain a robust independent digital collection. Understanding these factors will be crucial for libraries as they navigate their roles in a digital-first information landscape.

Conclusion

Our experience illustrates that while the transition away from physical documents has been challenging, it has also driven a necessary evolution. The shift to an all-digital FDLP requires us to reassess our role as depository libraries in the absence of the tangible materials that once defined our purpose. This change is not merely logistical; it reflects a broader transformation in the values and practices shaping our responsibilities as public information stewards.

Armacost’s strategic initiative to withdraw and transition government documents to digital formats reflects broader trends within academic libraries toward modernization and optimized space utilization. By carefully evaluating digital availability and aligning our withdrawals with institutional needs, we have maintained a relevant and accessible collection while also repurposing valuable space to enhance the overall learning environment.

As we continue to refine our digital collection and improve discoverability and access, the library is well-positioned to meet the future demands of our patrons. The transition to an all-online depository reflects not only a necessary adaptation to technological changes but also a forward-looking approach that will sustain our relevance and utility for years to come.

Emily Croft (emily_croft@redlands.edu), FDLP Coordinator, Systems and Technology Librarian, University of Redlands

Notes

1. Scott Matheson, “Letter from Superintendent of Documents: Reducing Titles & Copies for Tangible Distribution,” August 17, 2023, https://www.fdlp.gov/sites/default/files/file_repo/superintendent-of-documents-letter-to-directors-coordinators-08172023.pdf.
2. Caroline Brazier, Born.Digital@british.Library: The
   Opportunities and Challenges of Implementing a Digital Collection Development Strategy (Paper presented at the IFLA WLIC 2013 Conference, Singapore, 2013), https://repository.ifla.org/handle/20.500.14598/5181; Jessika
   Drmacich et al., “Legal and Ethical Considerations for Born-Digital Access,” June 23, 2022, https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/KETR7; Robert Slater, “Challenges and Changes: A Review of Issues Surrounding the Digital Migration of Government Information,” Science & Technology Libraries 21, no. 1–2 (September 2001): 153–62, https://doi.org/10.1300/J122v21n01_13; Claudene Sproles and Angel Clemons, “Permanent Electronic Access to Government Information: A Study of Federal, State, and Local Documents,” E-JASL: The Electronic Journal of
   Academic and Special Librarianship, 10, no. 2 (Summer 2009), https://ir.library.louisville.edu/faculty/810.
3. Scott Althaus and Kalev Leetaru, “Airbrushing History, American Style: Cline Center for Democracy at the University of Illinois” (Cline Center for Democracy,
   December 16, 2008), https://web.archive.org/web/20081216124727/http://www.clinecenter.uiuc.edu/airbrushing_history/; Susan Nevelow Mart, “Let the People Know the Facts: Can Government Information Removed from the Internet Be Reclaimed?,” Law Libraries Journal 98, no. 7 (2006): 7–31, https://scholar.law.colorado.edu/faculty-articles/372/.
4. “Partnerships,” FDLP, November 2, 2021, https://www.fdlp.gov/about/partnerships; “Partnerships,” FDLP, July 11, 2024, https://fdlp.gov/collaborations-with-gpo/partnerships.
5. GovInfo, US Government Publishing Office, https://www.govinfo.gov/.
6. Gil Baldwin, “Fugitive Documents—On the Loose or On the Run,” Newsletter of the Federal Depository Library
   Program 24, no. 10 (July 15, 2003): 4–8, https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/GOVPUB-GP3-849c445ba7debf10b1c116284b6aa82b; James R. Jacobs, “‘Issued for Gratuitous Distribution’—The History of Fugitive Documents and the FDLP,” Against the Grain 29, no. 6 (December 1, 2017): 12–16, https://doi.org/10.7771/2380-176X.7869.
7. “Transitioning depository collection to an all online depository,” FDLP, January 31, 2022, https://fdlp.gov/guidance/transitioning-depository-collection-all-online-depository.
8. William H. Walters, “The Death and Migration of Book Collections in Academic Libraries,” Portal: Libraries
   and the Academy 18, no. 3 (2018): 415–22, https://doi.org/10.1353/pla.2018.0025; Doug Way, “The Shifting
   Nature of Academic Library Collections,” ScholarWorks@GVSU, 2012, https://scholarworks.gvsu.edu/library_presentations/25.
9. Mary Anne Kennan, Sheila Corrall, and Waseem Afzal, “‘Making Space’ in Practice and Education: Research Support Services in Academic Libraries,” Library Management 35, no. 8/9 (November 10, 2014): 666–83, https://doi.org/10.1108/LM-03-2014-0037; Caroline Ilako, “The Influence of Spatial Attributes on Users’ Information Behaviour in Academic Libraries: A Case Study,” Information Research 25, no. 4 (2020), https://doi.org/10.47989/irisic2029; Sushanta Panigrahi and Prabhat Kumar Sangal, “Re-Purposing the Physical Space of an Academic Library in the Digital Era: A Case Study of Jawaharlal Nehru
   University and Delhi University, New Delhi (India),”
   Evidence Based Library and Information Practice 18, no. 2
   (June 15, 2023): 17–43, https://doi.org/10.18438/eblip29976;
   Marion Williams, Ian Saunderson, and Alexander Dhoest, “Library as Place: Evaluating Physical and Virtual Spaces. A Case Study of Two Academic Libraries: A Case Study of Two Academic Libraries,” Mousaion: South African Journal of Information Studies 39, no. 3 (February 1, 2022), https://doi.org/10.25159/2663-659X/8419.
10. Christopher Mfum Owusu-Ansah and Lydia Nyankom Takyi, “Performance Management in Academic Libraries: A Balanced Scorecard Approach for Digital Services,” Journal of Balkan Libraries Union 5, no. 1 (2017): 1–10, https://izlik.org/JA89KS78ZG.
11. Marilu Goodyear et al., Rebooting the Government Printing Office: Keeping America Informed in the Digital Age,
    (Washington D.C., National Academy of Public Administration (NAPA), January 2013), https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc141805/.
12. “Evolution of a Digital Federal Depository Library Program: A Transition Timeline,” FDLP, August 10, 2023, https://www.fdlp.gov/evolution-of-digital-fdlp-timeline.
13. “Disposal List Instructions for California Selective FDLP Libraries,” California State Library, December 1, 2018, https://web.archive.org/web/20181201083043/https://www.library.ca.gov/government-publications/federal-depository/disposal-instructions/.
14. Marie Concannon, Elisabeth Garner, and Sarah Hendy-Jackson, “2024 Spring DLC: Digital Depository: FDL Operation Insights Panel/Digital FDLP Stewardship.” FDLP, May 2, 2024. https://www.fdlp.gov/training/2024-spring-dlc-digital-depository-fdl-operation-insights-paneldigital-fdlp-stewardship.
15. Christina Heady et al., “Contributory Factors to Academic Librarian Turnover: A Mixed-Methods Study,” Journal
    of Library Administration 60, no. 6 (August 17, 2020): 579–99, https://doi.org/10.1080/01930826.2020.1748425.
16. Russell Michalak and Monica D. T. Rysavy, “Fostering Change to Bolster Student Success: Renovating the
    Library and Reducing Stacks to Create Communal
    Collaborative Space,” Journal of Library Administration 63, no. 3 (April 2023): 371–85, https://doi.org/10.1080/01930826.2023.2177927.
17. Lauren Hall, “Analysis and Redesign of the California State University, Stanislaus Library’s Government Resources LibGuide,” DttP: Documents to the People 52, no. 2 (Summer 2024): 8–13, https://doi.org/10.5860/dttp.v52i2.8267; Faye Mazzia and Robin Chan, “Alma Collections as a Promotional Tool for Government documents,” Journal of Electronic Resources Librarianship 34, no. 4
    (October 2022): 341–344, https://doi.org/10.1080/1941126X.2022.2133926.
18. Paul Riermaier et al., “Weeding Digital Government Information Resources: Considerations and Strategies,” DttP: Documents to the People 49, no. 2 (Summer 2021): 11–17, https://doi.org/10.5860/dttp.v49i2.7602; Leila Shahrzadi et al., “Causes, Consequences, and Strategies to Deal with Information Overload: A Scoping Review,” International Journal of Information Management Data Insights 4, no. 2 (November 1, 2024): 100261, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jjimei.2024.100261.
19. Debora Cheney, “Government Information Collections and Services in the Social Sciences: The Subject Specialist
    Integration Model,” The Journal of Academic Librarianship
    32, no. 3 (May 1, 2006): 303–312, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2006.02.011.