Public Libraries and the Internet 2012: Key Findings, Recent Trends, and Future Challenges

This article was downloaded by: [UQ Library]On: 12 November 2014, At: 08:28Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Public Library QuarterlyPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wplq20

Public Libraries and the Internet 2012:Key Findings, Recent Trends, and FutureChallengesJohn Carlo Bertot a , Ursula Gorham a , Paul T. Jaeger a & NatalieGreene Taylor aa University of Maryland–College Park , College Park , Maryland , USAPublished online: 21 Nov 2012.

To cite this article: John Carlo Bertot , Ursula Gorham , Paul T. Jaeger & Natalie Greene Taylor (2012)Public Libraries and the Internet 2012: Key Findings, Recent Trends, and Future Challenges, PublicLibrary Quarterly, 31:4, 303-325, DOI: 10.1080/01616846.2012.732479

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01616846.2012.732479

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wplq20

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/01616846.2012.732479

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01616846.2012.732479

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Public Library Quarterly, 31:303–325, 2012Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLCISSN: 0161-6846 print/1541-1540 onlineDOI: 10.1080/01616846.2012.732479

Public Libraries and the Internet 2012: KeyFindings, Recent Trends, and Future Challenges

JOHN CARLO BERTOT, URSULA GORHAM, PAUL T. JAEGER,and NATALIE GREENE TAYLOR

University of Maryland–College Park, College Park, Maryland, USA

Since 1994, 14 reliable national studies have provided longitu-dinal data revealing and analyzing trends in the public accesscomputing, Internet access, and technology assistance and train-ing that public libraries make available to the communities theyserve. This article provides an overview of selected data from the2012 study; examines major issues that have emerged from thedata in the most recent studies; identifies key trends and changes inInternet-enabled services and resources provided by public librariesto their communities over the course of the 18 years of conduct-ing the national surveys; and discusses selected future issues andchallenges regarding public library Internet-enabled services.

KEYWORDS community needs, Internet, literacy, public libraries,technology

SURVEY BACKGROUND AND IMPORTANCE

Public libraries were early adopters of Internet-based technologies, andthe Public Library Funding and Technology Access national surveys beganin 19941 with the purpose of identifying public library Internet con-nectivity and uses as a basis for: (1) proposing and promoting publiclibrary Internet policies at the federal level; (2) maintaining selected lon-gitudinal data as to the connectivity, services, and deployment of the

Received: 08/12; Accepted: 08/12Address correspondence to Paul T. Jaeger, 4105 Hornbake Building, College of

Information Studies, University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742, USA. E-mail: [email protected]

303

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

08:

28 1

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

304 J. C. Bertot et al.

Internet in public libraries; and (3) providing national estimates regard-ing public library Internet connectivity. Through 2004, the surveys wereconducted roughly every two years and enabled longitudinal data collec-tion through ad hoc funding from various sources. Beginning in 2006,the surveys switched to an annual data collection cycle through fundingby the American Library Association (ALA) and the Bill & Melinda GatesFoundation.

Though the primary goals of the survey have remained consistent, thesurvey evolved over time, experiencing three clear shifts in data collection,methodology, and approach:

● Prior to 1998, the surveys collected data at the system level (e.g., totalnumber of workstations across all library branches, if applicable).2

● Between 1998 and 2004, the surveys collected data at the building/outletlevel (e.g., number of workstations in a particular branch, speed ofconnectivity at the branch), as well as system level data (e.g., e-rateapplications).

● Beginning in 2004, the surveys expanded to collect data at the state andnational levels, and included both building/outlet level and system leveldata.

● Beginning in 2002, the survey offered participants a fully online versionof the survey as well as a printed version of the survey to complete. Eachyear, more surveys were completed online, and in 2009, the survey becamean online-only survey.

Throughout these shifts, the survey has maintained core longitudinalquestions (e.g., numbers of public access workstations, bandwidth), butconsistently explored a range of emerging topics (e.g., jobs assistance,e-government, emergency roles). A further evolution of the study is pro-jected to occur after 2011–2012, and the content of the next study will focusmore heavily on the issues of digital literacy of certain individuals and groupsthat are becoming increasingly central to the missions of public libraries.

Due to its continued record-taking, longitudinal quality, and matchlessdata, figures from the surveys have appeared over the years in Congressionaltestimony, filings with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), fil-ings with the National Telecommunications and Information Administration(NTIA; particularly regarding the recent Broadband Technology OpportunityProgram grant program), evidence cited in the U.S. Supreme Court deci-sions on the Children’s Internet Protection Act, U.S. Senate hearings on theE-Government Act, Pew Internet and the American Life reports, and manyother critical policy venues. State librarians also have used the results in statelegislative testimony, and in a range of state policy documents and initiatives.In short, the data and findings from the surveys are used by a number ofstakeholders in a wide range of ways.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

08:

28 1

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

Public Libraries and the Internet 2012 305

The Internet access, services, training, and assistance provided by publiclibraries are vital to both serving the needs of individual patrons and theircommunities and supporting national initiatives for digital literacy and digitalinclusion, particularly in light of the extraordinary circumstances of the pro-longed economic downturn. Without the Public Libraries and the Internetand Public Library Funding and Technology Access studies (PLFTAS), theseand many other central roles of public libraries would be inadequatelydocumented.

Citizen use of libraries has dramatically increased during the prolongedeconomic downturn, with patrons seeking help to find a job, apply forsocial services, interact with government agencies, and learn new digitalskills through the technology access and assistance provided by the library(Taylor et al. 2012). This usage represents an acceleration of the reliance ofgovernment agencies on public library technology to deliver e-governmentservices that began less than a decade ago (Bertot et al. 2006a, 2006b). Withpublic libraries fielding tens of millions more in-person and online visitseach year than before the economic downturn began, most libraries haveobserved an approximate 25% increase in overall usage, but some librarieshave had to handle up to a 500% increase in usage (Sigler et al. 2012).The 2010 Opportunity for All study estimated that 30 million people hadused library computers and Internet access to search for employment, with3.7 million people actually being hired for a position they applied for throughthe library computers (Becker et al. 2010). During this time of skyrocketingpublic library usage, the study data have proven a vital tool in documentingthe contributions of libraries in using technology to meet a wide range ofcommunity needs.

Despite a series of government programs that promote digital inclusionand the widespread use of mobile technologies, many populations—basedon socioeconomic status, education, geography, language, literacy, anddisability—experience gaps in access to the Internet and training in dig-ital literacy skills (Jaeger, Bertot, Thompson, Katz, & DeCoster 2012).The Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC’s) National BroadbandPlan (2010), the Institute of Museum and Library Services’ (IMLS)ProposedFramework for Digitally Inclusive Communities (2011), and the multi-agency DigitalLiteracy.gov site—and many other government policies andstatements—all rely on public library technology and training in differentways to achieve a more digitally inclusive society, though few adequatelyacknowledge the significant cost-shifting onto libraries to fill these gaps(e.g., immigration services in many states are entirely online, and agen-cies refer individuals to the public library to access and fill out immigrationforms) (Gorham et al. in press; Jaeger & Bertot 2011). Such reliance occursbecause public libraries are uniquely equipped to support these efforts withhardware, Internet connections, trained staff, and significant resources avail-able online and in print to support lifelong learning and skills development

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

08:

28 1

2 N

ovem

ber

2014


(Jaeger & Bertot 2011; Jaeger, Bertot, Thompson, Katz, & DeCoster 2012).In fact, this role will likely grow as reductions of funding for school librariesresult in students needing another outlet for homework resources, therebyincreasing usage of the public libraries in those districts (Resmovits 2011).

Additionally, as education, employment, civic participation, socialengagement, and many other foundational elements of an economically andsocially successful community require widespread access to the Internet,digital literacy, and digital inclusion among all members of the community,particularly those without access to mobile, personal, or at-work computersand Web access, the importance of the public library as the commu-nity anchor guaranteeing Internet access, services, training, and supportcontinues to grow exponentially.

This article focuses on key findings from the 2011–2012 study, recenttrends appearing in the last several iterations of the study, and major lon-gitudinal issues and looming challenges that will heavily impact the futureof public libraries. A full list of all the Public Libraries and the Internet andPublic Library Funding and Technology Access studies and their findingsis included in the Appendix, and all of the reports are also available inelectronic format at http://ipac.umd.edu. Unless otherwise noted, all datadiscussed in the article are from these studies.

METHODOLOGY AND DATA ANALYSIS

The survey’s methodology has evolved over time to meet changing surveydata goals. As of this writing, the survey provides both national and stateestimates of the following:

● Branch-level national data regarding public library Internet connectivityand use

● State branch-level data (including the District of Columbia) regardingpublic library Internet connectivity and use

● System (administrative)-level data (including the District of Columbia)regarding e-rate use and library operating and technology funding andexpenditures

● Assessment questions for selected public libraries that recipients of certainBill & Melinda Gates Foundation grants

The latter objective is beyond the scope of this article, as selected librariesreceive particular survey questions related to Foundation grants. The2011–2012 survey resided within a larger public library study regardingpublic access technology use and funding.

The survey has additional objectives of obtaining data to conduct analy-sis using metropolitan status3 (e.g., urban, suburban, and rural) and poverty4

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

08:

28 1

2 N

ovem

ber

2014


[less than 20% (low), 20%–40% (medium), and greater than 40% (high)]variables. Over the years, the poverty variable has not demonstrated anystatistical significance in terms of the survey’s findings, and thus the povertyvariable was removed beginning with the 2009–2010 survey.

The survey uses a stratified “proportionate to size sample” to ensure aproportionate national sample. The sampling approach ensured high-qualityand generalizable data within the states analyzed, nationally, and across andwithin the various strata. The study team uses the IMLS public library dataset(formerly maintained by the U.S. National Center for Education Statistics) todraw its sample. For the 2011–2012 study, the study team used the 2009 pub-lic library dataset available from IMLS as a sample frame, which was the mostrecent public release file available in June 2011; bookmobile and booksby mail service outlets were removed from the file, leaving 16,776 libraryoutlets. Foundation grant recipient data are overlaid on the national librarydataset. The survey asks respondents to answer questions about specificlibrary branches and about the library system to which each respondentbranch belonged.

Respondents typically answer the survey between September andNovember of each survey year. Changes in technology have fueled not onlythe evolution of the Internet in libraries, but the evolution of the survey,as well. The development of Web-based surveys and more powerful dataanalysis tools have facilitated the growth of the survey in terms of reach tolibraries, ease of completion, complexity of questions, and depth of statis-tical analysis (Bertot 2009; Bertot et al. 2011; Jaeger, Thompson, and Lazar2012).

In each year of the survey, except for the 2006–2007 survey, the surveyresponse rate is between 70.0% and 86.5%, and provides between 5,500 and8,400 survey responses. The data are weighted for both national and statelevel analysis, and have a margin of error or +/– 2% or 3.5%, dependingon survey year. The high survey response rate and representativeness ofresponses demonstrate the high quality of the survey data and the ability togeneralize to the public library population.

For the 2012 study, the study team drew a sample with replacementof 8,790 outlets. This stratified sample was proportionate by state andmetropolitan status state. The survey employed by the team created a mas-ter state and national sampling frame that incorporated the grant libraries.From that sampling frame, the survey team drew a stratified “proportionateto size sample” that created an overall balanced sample within the grantlibrary states, but also ensured a proportionate national sample. This sam-pling approach ensured high quality data that could be generalized withinthe states analyzed, nationally, and across and within the metropolitan statusand poverty strata. Respondents completed the survey between September2011 and November 2011. After a number of follow-up reminders and otherstrategies, the survey received a total of 7,252 responses for a response rate

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

08:

28 1

2 N

ovem

ber

2014


of 82.5%. The survey used weighted analysis to generate national and statedata estimates. As such, the analysis uses the responses from the 7,252 libraryoutlets from which a completed survey was received to estimate to all publiclibrary outlets (minus bookmobiles and books by mail) in the aggregate aswell as by metropolitan status designations.

ISSUES AND TRENDS

Due to the economic turmoil of recent years, libraries currently operate ina complicated context, characterized by increased demand for their servicesand resources in the face of reductions in budget, staff, and hours. The2011–2012 PLFTAS presents a snapshot of that context, highlighting howlibraries are increasingly offering services that meet the critical needs ofthe communities they serve and, in so doing, are helping to build dig-itally inclusive communities. In broad terms, these critical needs are asfollows:

● Access to online content and resources● Technology training in various formats● Assistance with employment-related needs● E-government support

The extent to which any given library can effectively meet these needs isdependent largely upon its public access technology infrastructure. Publicaccess to the Internet, workstations, wireless (Wi-Fi) access, and connectionspeed are all elements of this infrastructure. As discussed in the followingsection, challenges abound that impede libraries’ efforts to enhance theirinfrastructures. It is imperative, however, that libraries work to rise abovethese challenges; in 2012, 62.1% of libraries reported that they are the onlyprovider of free public computer and Internet access in their communi-ties. Although this number continues a slight downward trend observedin recent years [64.5% (2011) and 66.6% (2010)], it remains true that, inmany communities, the public library continues to serve as a vital accesspoint for individuals who lack other means to use the Internet for pur-poses of education, employment, finance, and civic engagement (Jaeger2011).

The current year’s survey reflects a continuation of several key trendsrelated to public access infrastructure and service provision, while also offer-ing a glimpse into the growing importance of emerging technologies. Thesetrends, when examined together, demonstrate how libraries remain com-mitted to improving existing services, as well as introducing new services,

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

08:

28 1

2 N

ovem

ber

2014


in an ongoing effort to more fully address the critical needs of theircommunities.

Progress in Developing and Maintaining a Public AccessInfrastructure That Allows Libraries to Provide a Growing Rangeof Internet-Enabled Services and Resources

With 100% of public library branches now offering public Internet access,the elements of infrastructure to focus on are workstations, Wi-Fi access, andconnection speed:

● Workstations: Overall, between 2002 and 2009, the average number ofworkstations hovered between 10.0 and 12.0 before jumping to 14.2 in2010 and 16.0 in 2011 (see Figure 1). In 2012, the average numberincreased modestly to 16.4, with the smaller increase being attributed tocost, staff, and space issues.

● Wi-Fi access: In the past five years, there has been a steady increase in thepercentage of libraries offering Wi-Fi access, growing from 54.2% in 2007,to 76.4% in 2009, and to 88.5 percent in 2012 (Figure 2). At this currentrate of growth, Wi-Fi access is likely to become almost as ubiquitous asInternet connectivity in libraries, as evidenced by the fact that the figurewill exceed 91% if those libraries that indicate they are planning to providewireless access within the year ultimately do so.

● Connection speed: Libraries continue to report increases in their con-nection speeds (Figure 3). The percentage of public libraries reportingconnection speeds of greater than 1.5 Mbps increased from 25.7%to 69.7% between 2008 and 2012. During this time period, therewas a corresponding decrease in the percentage of public librariesreporting connection speeds of less than 1.5 Mbps, from 25.0% to6.9%.

It is worth noting, however, that there is a particularly acute disparitybetween urban libraries and their rural counterparts with respect to work-stations and connection speed. In the most recent survey, rural librariesreport an average of 10.7 public access computers, whereas urban librariesreport an average of 27.9 public access computers, Similarly, 31.1 percentof rural libraries report public access speeds of 1.5 Mbps or less, while83.8 percent of urban libraries report public access speeds of greater than1.5 Mbps.5 Notwithstanding this disparity, however, survey data collectedover the past several years demonstrate that libraries across the country rec-ognize the importance of making continual enhancements to their publicaccess technology infrastructure.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

08:

28 1

2 N

ovem

ber

2014


1.9

5.7

6.5

8.2

10.8

10.4

10.7

10.7

12.0

11.0

14.2

16.0

16.4

1996

1997

1998

2000

2002

2004

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

Average Number of Workstations

Ye

ar o

f S

tu

dy

Outlet

System

FIGURE 1 Average Number of Public Access Workstations 1998–2012 (color figure availableonline).

85.7%

5.9%

8.2%

82.2%

6.8%

10.6%

76.4%

9.2%

14.4%

65.9%

11.6%

6.4%

54.2%

26.4%

17.4%

Available

Not Available, Plans

Not Available, No Plans

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

FIGURE 2 Wireless Internet Connectivity Availability (color figure available online).

Provision of In-Demand Internet-Enabled Services and Resources

Public libraries continue to expand upon their traditional roles of providingreference services and printed materials by offering a wide range of Internet-based resources and services. In the five years since the 2008–2009 survey,

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

08:

28 1

2 N

ovem

ber

2014


25.0%

21.9%

14.8%

12.0%

6.9%

38.9%

25.5%

27.4%

22.7%

16.5%

25.7%

44.5%

51.8%

60.3%

69.7%

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

Speed of Connection

>1.5mbps

1.5mbps (T1)

<1.5mbps

FIGURE 3 Public Library Outlet Maximum Speed of Public Access Internet (color figureavailable online).

there have been moderate increases in the availability of the followingservices:

● Licensed databases (increase from 87.7% to 99.2%)● E-books (increase from 51.8% to 76.1%)● Audio content, such as podcasts and audiobooks (increase from 71.2% to

82.9%)

Overall, 58.2% of libraries reported an increase in the use of their electronicresources over the last year (see Figure 4), indicating substantial demand.

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

45.6%

2010

49.8%

2011

58.2%

2012

Increased use of electronic

resources

FIGURE 4 Increased Use of Electronic Resources (color figure available online).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

08:

28 1

2 N

ovem

ber

2014


This year’s survey added questions about access to mobile devices (e.g.,netbooks/laptops) (49.0%) and access to e-readers for accessing e-books(39.1%), suggesting that yet another expansion of public library’s serviceroles may already be underway.

Increased Offering of Training and Instructional Programs to Facilitatethe Ability of Users to Effectively Access Internet-Enabled Servicesand Resources

In conjunction with the ongoing development of a public access infrastruc-ture, libraries continue to expand their offerings of user-focused technologyand Internet training and classes. These training sessions and classes enablepatrons to develop their digital literacy skills so that they may obtainmaximum benefit from online resources (Information Policy & AccessCenter 2011). A large portion of public libraries (44%) now offer for-mal technology training classes, representing an overall increase from the2010–2011 survey (38.0%) and the 2009–2010 survey (37.0%). Of thoselibraries offering formal technology training classes we find the followingstatistics:

● 87.0% offer general computer skill classes.● 86.5% offer general Internet use classes.● 75.6% offer general online and Web searching classes.● 73.3% offer general software use (e.g., word processing, spreadsheets,

presentation) classes.● 49.2% offer accessing online job seeking and career-related information

classes.● 39.4% offer social media (e.g., blogging, Twitter, Facebook, YouTube)

classes.

The demand for patron technology training services remains strong: 36.3%of public libraries reported that the use of these increased since last year (upfrom 27.6% in 2010–2011 and 26.3% in 2009–2010). Geographic differencesemerge here as well: The percentage of urban libraries (63.2%) offering for-mal classes exceeds that of both suburban libraries (54.5%) and rural libraries(31.8%).

Increases were also seen with other types of training:

● 34.8% of public libraries reported providing one-on-one technologytraining sessions by appointment (up from 28.1% in 2010–2011).

● 82.7% percent of public libraries reported offering informal point-of-usetraining assistance (up from 78.8% in 2010–2011).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

08:

28 1

2 N

ovem

ber

2014


These across-the-board increases in technology training demonstrate thatlibraries are coming to embrace the notion that “digital literacy is a key-stone for civic engagement, educational success, and economic growth andinnovation” (Clark and Visser 2011).

Provision of Employment and E-Government Support Services toRespond to Community Needs

Public libraries, as providers of employment and e-government services,resources, and support, are addressing critical community needs. The grow-ing importance of digital inclusion and literacy services is apparent asgovernment agencies (at local, state, and federal levels) and employersincreasingly require online interactions. Libraries’ public access technol-ogy infrastructure, together with librarians’ expertise in helping patronslocate and use online resources and services, renders them particularly well-equipped to help patrons meet their employment and e-government needs.

As unemployment rates remain high throughout the country, job seekerscontinue to use public library computers to locate and apply for jobs, as wellas to create resumes. To meet this demand, libraries do the following:

● Provide access to jobs databases and other job opportunity resources(92.2%, up from the 90.9% reported in 2010–2011 and 88.2% in 2009–2010)

● Provide access to civil service examination materials (77.1%, unchangedfrom the 77.0% reported in 2010–2011 and up from the 74.9% in2009–2010)

● Provide software and other resources to assist patrons create resumes andemployment material (83.7%, up from the 74.5% reported in 2010–2011 andthe 68.9% in 2009–2010 of reporting libraries)

● Provide patrons with assistance in completing online job applications(77.5%, up slightly from the 76.0% reported in 2010–2011 and the 71.9%reported in 2009–2010)

Moreover, this year’s survey indicates that few libraries consider themselvesill-equipped to meet this particular need. In the past three years, the per-cent age of libraries reporting insufficient staff has decreased from 58.6%(2009–2010) to 55.9% (2010–2011) to 49.8% (2011–2012), and the percent-age of libraries reporting a lack of staff with the necessary expertise hasdecreased from 46.0% in 2009–2010 to 41.3 percent (2011–2012). Thesefindings suggest that libraries are increasingly accepting the provision ofemployment-related services as a core component of the role they playwithin their communities.

Public libraries also continue to serve as an essential link betweengovernment agencies and citizens, supporting the public’s interaction withdigital government services and resources through a range of e-government

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

08:

28 1

2 N

ovem

ber

2014


services. In connection with their role as e-government intermediaries, agrowing number of libraries do the following:

● Provide assistance to patrons applying for or accessing e-government ser-vices (96.6%, up substantially from the 80.7% reported in 2010–2011 andthe 78.7% reported in 2009–2010)

● Provide as-needed assistance to patrons for understanding how to accessand use e-government Web sites (91.8%, up from the 89.7% reported in2010–2011 and 88.8% reported in 2009–2010)

● Provide assistance to patrons for completing government forms (70.7%, upfrom the 67.8% reported in 2010–2011 and 63.3% reported in 2009–2010)

● Partner with government agencies, nonprofit organizations, and othersto provide e-government services (30.9%, up from 24.7% reported in2010–2011 and 20.5% reported in 2009–2010)

● Have at least one staff member who has significant knowledge and skillsin the provision of e-government services (31.4%, up from 29.4% reportedin 2010–2011 and similar to the 31.5% reported in 2009–2010)

Urban libraries, as compared to their rural counterparts, offer morerobust e-government services; the gap is particularly wide with respect toe-government partnerships (43.1% versus 25.7%).

As with employment-related services, this year’s survey suggests a grow-ing acceptance among libraries of their evolving role as e-governmentintermediaries. Fewer libraries are reporting insufficient staff (47.9%, downfrom 55.7% in 2010–2011 and 58.9% in 2009–2010) and lack of staff withe-government expertise (44.9%, down from 50.5% in 2010–2011 and 52.7 in2009–2010).

Movement into Web 2.0 and Mobile Technologies

Public libraries’ growing recognition of the importance of Web 2.0 tech-nologies is evidenced in several ways. Many libraries (61.9%) indicate thatthey provide access to a range of social media services and resources.In addition to providing access, however, libraries are increasingly usingWeb 2.0 technologies in their outreach efforts:

● 70.7% of public libraries report using social networking tools (e.g.,Facebook, Hi5) to connect with library users, the general public, and formarketing purposes.

● 45.6% of public libraries report using communication tools (e.g., Blogger,WordPress, Vox, Twitter) to reach the public.

● 37.3% report using photography sites (e.g., Flickr, Zoomr).● 27.5% use video sharing tools (e.g., YouTube, Vimeo, and Openfilm).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

08:

28 1

2 N

ovem

ber

2014


In addition, libraries are starting to use mobile technologies to provideenhanced services. Not surprisingly, urban libraries are leading the way inadopting and developing these new technologies:

● Optimization of library’s Web site for mobile device access (36.1% of urbanlibraries and 9.3% of rural libraries)

● Use of scanned codes (e.g., QR Codes) for access to library services andcontent (31.9% of urban libraries and 6.5% of rural libraries)

● Development of smartphone apps for access to library services and content(27.8% of urban libraries and 3.7% of rural libraries)

The full extent of the ways in which these emerging technologies will expandlibraries’ existing service roles remains to be seen. At the very least, however,libraries’ willingness to explore these technologies is an indication of theircommitment to finding innovative ways to meet the changing needs of thecommunities they serve.

RECURRING CHALLENGES AND TRENDING ISSUES

The evolution of the public library into 21st century technology and servicesis not without challenges. Libraries continue to face budget cuts, staff reduc-tions, and increasing demand for services. According to the 2012 State ofAmerica’s Libraries, and data gathered from an online survey of state libraryagencies, state funding was cut in close to half of all states over the pasttwo years (2010–2012) (American Library Association 2012). Data from the2011–2012 PLFTAS shows that while 53.2% of libraries saw an increase intheir operating budget over the last three years, one-third of public libraries’budgets were decreased. With inflation factored into the equation, nearlyhalf of public libraries saw their budgets reduced in the last three years.

As budgets are cut, however, public library use has increased. From2010–2011 to 2011–2012 across all geographic areas, 60.2% of librariesreported an increased use of public access computers, 74.1% reported anincreased use of Wi-Fi, and 58.2% reported an increased use of electronicresources. This is despite the fact that over one out of five libraries (21.5%)has seen a reduction in hours open over the last three years. This increasein usage and reduction in open hours both exacerbate problems that havedeveloped as a result of economic limitations on services. For example, ofthose reporting reduced hours, 78.5% indicated that the reductions weredue to budget cuts, and 42.7% indicated that the reductions were due toloss of staff.

At the same time budgets for services are reduced, Web 2.0 andother technological advances have led patrons to expect more training

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

08:

28 1

2 N

ovem

ber

2014


and hands-on assistance with technology-related activities. This increasein demand has made the lack of funding for proper staffing increasinglyapparent. Over the last three years, almost one-fourth of public librariesreported a reduction in staff. Of these libraries, 71.9% indicate that the staffdecreases are permanent. Urban libraries in particular reported the largestdecrease in staffing, with an average loss of nearly 16 full-time equivalents.As libraries continue to provide enhanced training opportunities for patrons(in 2011–2012, less than 10% of libraries do not offer formal or informal tech-nology training), these services are increasingly popular (36.3% of librariesreport that use of patron technology training classes has increased between2010–2011 to 2011–2012), thus straining an already limited library workforce.

The lack of staff and budget cuts also directly affect the maintenanceof technology. In terms of staffing, over the last three years, the number oflibraries reporting that it takes two or more days to get a public access com-puter back into service when it goes down has consistently remained around50%. The lack of staff with specialized IT knowledge is especially prevalentin rural libraries, with close to 60% reporting that the library director is theperson who provides IT support.

Budget cuts especially affect public access computing services. Since2008, libraries have consistently reported cost factors as contributing heav-ily to challenges in funding workstation replacements, upgrades, bandwidthenhancements, and other services related to public access computing.Another consequence of the funding crisis includes the decision of manypublic libraries to maintain, but not upgrade, technology. From 2008 to 2012,libraries consistently reported that a primary reason for not planning to addworkstations was due to cost limitations. This is particularly significant, giventhat well under 50% of libraries report that they have a sufficient number ofworkstations all of the time (see Figure 5).

Added to this need for additional workstations is a need for betterInternet access in general. Even in 2012, as libraries have increased theirbandwidth steadily over the last three years, less than 60% of libraries sur-veyed report that their connection speed is sufficient for their patrons all ofthe time (see Figure 6).

These challenges reflect the changing nature of public libraries. E-government service is now expected to be offered, and complex issuesare the purview of the public librarian (96.6% of reporting libraries offere-government assistance to patrons—an increase of almost 16% from2010–2011 and close to 20% from 2009–2010). Web 2.0 increasingly requiresfaster and more up-to-date equipment, as well as additional assistance forpatrons unused to the new technology. All of these developments lead toan increased need for restored budgets, additional staff, and more regulartechnology replacement and upkeep, and make the above challenges urgentproblems that must be addressed if public libraries are to be expected tocontinue their current levels of service.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

08:

28 1

2 N

ovem

ber

2014


19.4%

18.8%

18.2%

17.1%

13.4%

63.1%

62.4%

55.3%

59.1%

52.1%

17.3%

18.9%

26.5%

23.8%

34.6%

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

Ye

ar o

f S

tu

dy

Sufficient to meet patron

needs at all times


needs at some times

Insufficient to meet

patron needs

FIGURE 5 Public Workstation Adequacy (color figure available online).

18.1%

17.7%

14.7%

13.3%

13.0%

39.4%

41.9%

30.4%

31.6%

28.4%

42.0%

39.9%

54.4%

54.6%

58.3%

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

Ye

ar o

f S

tu

dy


needs at all times


needs at some times

Insufficient to meet patron

needs

FIGURE 6 Internet Connection Adequacy (color figure available online).

But a larger concern is that the geographic disparity in qualityof service has become increasingly evident overtime. Though dispari-ties have always existed between urban/suburban and rural libraries interms of bandwidth, average number of public access computers, andthe degree of Internet-enabled services provision, the gap is growingin some important areas. Two significant gaps include training servicesand emerging technologies and services (e.g., use of social media andmobile technologies). Only 31.8% of rural public libraries offer for-mal technology training, as compared to 63.2% of urban and 54.5%

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

08:

28 1

2 N

ovem

ber

2014


of suburban public libraries. As digital literacy is increasingly vital forsuccess in education, employment, and civic engagement, communitiesneed access to the public access technology services that public librariesoffer.

In addition, more digital content is embedded in mobile technologies,and the public increasingly, and sometimes exclusively, accesses the Internetvia mobile devices (Pew Internet Life 2010). As mentioned, rural publiclibraries lag behind their urban counterparts in terms of mobile device opti-mization, use of scanned codes for access to library services and content, anddevelopment of smartphone apps for access to library services and content.Given the limited resources (e.g., staffing, budget) that rural public librariesface, it is perhaps understandable that these libraries are unable to engagemore fully in these services and resources. The impact on rural communi-ties, however, can be large. The lack of access to adequate broadband inrural communities in general (Federal Communications Commission 2010),coupled with the fact that 70.3% of rural public libraries reported that theyare the only provider of free access to the Internet in their communities(as compared to 40.6% of urban public libraries), may prevent rural publiclibraries from being in a position to foster the digitally inclusive communi-ties that will support further technology- and Internet-dependent growth anddevelopment in this country.

CONCLUSIONS

The most recent findings from the survey demonstrate that the Internet accessand assistance provided by public libraries continues to become ever morecentral to their interactions with their patrons and their communities. As thefindings from this survey act as an instant reminder, “One can no longer sep-arate the public library from public Internet access” (Bertot et al. 2011, 16).

Given the current vantage point of nearly ubiquitous free public Internetaccess in public libraries, it is extremely important to keep in mind thatthe centrality of the Internet is both a recent phenomenon and one thatcontinues to evolve. In the last decade, the average public library hasincreased the number of public access workstations by several hundredpercent; substantially increased Internet connection speeds; expanded ser-vice to include Wi-Fi public access; offered an increasingly large range ofInternet-enabled services and resources such as databases, digital reference,and e-books/audio books; become the primary social institution that pro-vides e-government access and assistance; gained new community-supportroles in emergency response and recovery; and provided technology andInternet resource training services at unprecedented levels (Bertot et al.2011).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

08:

28 1

2 N

ovem

ber

2014


Yet, for all of the impressive successes of public libraries in continuallymeeting new patron and community Internet-related needs as they arise,libraries strain to meet these needs due to a number of important factors:

● Public libraries are the only access point for free Internet and assistancein the majority of communities in the United States (Bertot, McClure, andJaeger 2008; Jaeger and Bertot 2011).

● Many libraries began struggling with inadequate space, connectivity, andother supports to expand the number or capacity of workstations andbandwidth of connection available to meet patron needs (Bertot 2011).

● As noted above, the Internet both has augmented existing library servicesand established new social roles in an enormous range of areas, with thesenew responsibilities not being accompanied by a parallel raise in funding(Jaeger 2008; Jaeger and Bertot 2009; Jaeger, Bertot, Shuler, & McGilvray2012).

● Many other types of outlets for information that the public previously reliedon—such as government agencies, academic libraries, and law libraries—have moved their information exclusively online and/or become moreexclusive in their service populations, driving people to the public libraryto get information previously available elsewhere (Bertot and Jaeger 2012;Jaeger and Bertot 2011).

● The sustained economic downturn has exacerbated this demand on publiclibraries at a time when they are suffering significant budget cuts, as anincreasing number of people need to rely on the library computers foremployment seeking, as well as for entertainment and communication, asthey can no longer afford their own access (Bertot and Jaeger 2012; Sigleret al. 2012).

Public libraries have served as “America’s first responders to the eco-nomic crisis” (Rettig 2009), and the burden is evident in many libraries.Just as libraries found their collections reduced to tatters by the GreatDepression (Kramp 1975), this prolonged economic downturn has placedever-increasing demands on the computers, connectivity, and staff of publiclibraries to serve their patrons and communities in a time of significant and,in many cases, desperate need.

As the survey goes forward in future years, a series of key questions willdrive the explorations of the intersection of public libraries and the Internet:

● What are definable and measureable benefits of the Internet access andassistance that libraries provide to their patrons and their communities?

● How can libraries better convey these benefits to policy-makers and fund-ing organizations to raise awareness and promote better funding of thesevital services?

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

08:

28 1

2 N

ovem

ber

2014


● How can the sizeable technological divides between rural libraries andother libraries be addressed?

● What approaches are libraries using to meet the increasing need to providedigital literacy skills to individual patron and digital inclusion to entirecommunities?

● How much access (workstations, broadband) is enough to keep pacewith continual technological change and seemingly perpetual increasesin patron need for access?

● How are libraries approaching, and what are the best practices in capacityplanning, for Internet-related technologies and services?

● How can libraries meet the continual need to upgrade technology andtrain staff as the evolution of the Internet accelerates?

● What services require the most of the infrastructure, and how can they bemanaged to increase infrastructure performance?

● How do libraries navigate physical capacity limitations—e.g., size of build-ing, need for space for collections—as most libraries are not currently ableto provide sufficient workstations to meet patron needs?

● How can libraries balance the enormous need for Internet access andassistance with the demands for print collections and other services inlight of resource constraints?

● How are libraries adapting to the challenges and opportunities of the Web2.0 environment?

● How are libraries employing and measuring the use of off-site technolo-gies, such as Internet kiosks and other technology installations in schools,clubs, malls, senior centers, and other community spaces?

● Could the adoption of service quality benchmarks help libraries keep upwith increasing demands for Internet access and assistance?

The questions will require consideration and resolution if public libraries areultimately to continue to fulfill their critical roles as providers of communitypublic Internet and computing access and training.

The greatest challenge for public libraries in continuing their role asguarantor of community Internet access and education—and likely the onethat will define much of the future of public libraries in the United States—will be the ability to find ways to convince those making policy and fundingdecisions at federal, state, and local levels of the need to increase, rather thandecrease, library support. Public libraries must use data such as that collectedthrough this and other studies to craft and forcefully articulate a clear mes-sage that demonstrates the value and contributions of libraries in terms thatpoliticians can understand, as well as to meet any performance standards thatgovernments may tie to future funding (Jaeger, Bertot, and Gorham in press;Bertot, Jaeger, and Sarin 2012). Ever-growing demand for Internet access andassistance and dwindling budgets is unsustainable, and the potential resultsare disastrous for libraries, their patrons, and their communities. As the public

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

08:

28 1

2 N

ovem

ber

2014


library and public Internet access have become inextricably linked, the futureof one is truly dependent on the other.

CONTRIBUTORS

John Carlo Bertot is Professor and Co-Director of the Information Policy &Access Center in the College of Information Studies at the University ofMaryland. He is President of the Digital Government Society of NorthAmerica and serves as chair of the International Standards Organization’sLibrary Performance Indicator (ISO 11620) working group. John is editor ofGovernment Information Quarterly and co-editor of The Library Quarterly.Over the years, John has received funding for his research from the NationalScience Foundation, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the GovernmentAccountability Office, the American Library Association, and the Institute ofMuseum and Library Services.

Ursula Gorham is a doctoral student in the College of Information Studiesand a Graduate Research Associate at the Information Policy & Access Center.She holds a law degree, as well as graduate degrees in library science andpublic policy, from the University of Maryland. She is admitted to prac-tice in Maryland, and her research is focused on the accessibility of legalinformation and court documents.

Paul T. Jaeger, Ph.D., J.D., is Associate Professor and Co-Director of theInformation Policy & Access Center and in the College of Information Studiesat the University of Maryland. His research focuses on the ways in whichlaw and public policy shape information behavior. He is the author of morethan 120 journal articles and book chapters, along with seven books. Hismost recent book is Disability and the Internet: Confronting a Digital Divide(Lynne Rienner, 2011). Dr. Jaeger is co-editor of Library Quarterly and co-editor of the Information Policy Book Series from MIT Press.

Natalie Greene Taylor is a doctoral student at the University of Maryland’sCollege of Information Studies. She is a Graduate Research Associate at theInformation Policy & Access Center in Maryland’s iSchool, where she isworking on an Institute of Museum and Library Services grant studying part-nerships between public libraries and government agencies. She received herMLS at the University of Maryland–College Park, specializing in e-governmentand school library media, for which she is certified in the state of Maryland.

NOTES

1. The studies originally began as the Public Libraries and the Internet survey series until2006 through various funding sources, at which time they became part of the Public Library Fundingand Technology Access study (http://www.ala.org/plinternetfunding), funded by the American LibraryAssociation and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

08:

28 1

2 N

ovem

ber

2014


2. By “system” we mean the unifying governmental authority (as a city or county governmentdepartment, an independent special taxing district) for the library—that is, the entity that makes budgetdecisions, applies for e-rate, and makes other management decisions. The survey does not use the term”system“ to mean regional cooperatives or other forms of federated libraries.

3. Metropolitan status was determined using the official designations employed by the CensusBureau, the Office of Management and Budget, and other government agencies. These designations areused in the study because they are the official definition employed by the Institute of Museum and LibraryServices (IMLS), which sets the criteria for the mapping of public library outlets in the study.

4. In previous studies, the authors have used the less than 20 percent, 20–40 percent, and greaterthan 40 percent poverty breakdowns. The poverty of the population that a library outlet serves is cal-culated using a combination of geocoded library facilities and census data. More information on thistechnique is available through the authors, as well as by reviewing the 1998 and 2000 public libraryInternet studies (Bertot and McClure 1998, 2000).

5. Direct comparisons to the 2010–2011 survey are difficult due to the change in broadbandcategories adopted for the 2011–2012 survey.

REFERENCES

American Library Association (ALA). 2012. The 2012 state of America’s libraries:A report from the American Library Association. http://www.ala.org/news/mediapresscenter/americaslibraries/soal2012 (accessed August 18, 2012).

Becker, S., M. D. Crandall, K. E. Fisher, B. Kinney, C. Landry, and A. Rocha. 2010.Opportunity for all: How the American public benefits from Internet accessat U.S. libraries. http://tascha.washington.edu/usimpact (accessed August 18,2012).

Bertot, J. C. 2009. Web-based surveys: Not your basic survey anymore. The LibraryQuarterly 79 (1): 119–24.

Bertot, J. C. 2011. Public libraries and the Internet: A retrospective, challenges,and issues moving forward. In Public libraries and the Internet: Roles, perspec-tives, and implications, ed. J. C. Bertot, P. T. Jaeger, and C. R. McClure, 15–35.Westport, CT: Libraries Unlimited.

Bertot, J. C., and P. T. Jaeger. 2012. “Implementing and managing public librarynetworks, connectivity, and partnerships to promote e-government accessand education.” In Managing e-government projects: Concepts, issues and bestpractices, ed. S. Aikins, 183–99. Hershey, PA: IGI Global.

Bertot, J. C., P. T. Jaeger, L. A. Langa and C. R. McClure. 2006a. Public accesscomputing and Internet access in public libraries: The role of public librariesin e-government and emergency situations. First Monday 11 (9). http://www.firstmonday.org/issues/issue11_9/bertot/index.html (accessed August 20, 2012).

Bertot, J. C., P. T. Jaeger, L. A. Langa, and C. R. McClure. 2006b. Drafted: I want youto deliver e-government. Library Journal 131 (13): 34–9.

Bertot, J. C., P. T. Jaeger, and L. C. Sarin. 2012. Forbes folly: The lessons of beinglabeled the worst master’s degree. American Libraries 43 (9/10): 30–3.

Bertot, J. C., P. T. Jaeger, E. E. Wahl, and K. I. Sigler. 2011. Public libraries and theInternet: An evolutionary perspective. Library Technology Reports 47 (6): 7–18.

Bertot, J. C., C. R. McClure, and P. T. Jaeger. 2008. The impacts of free publicInternet access on public library patrons and communities. Library Quarterly78: 285–301.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

08:

28 1

2 N

ovem

ber

2014


Clark, L., and M. Visser. 2011. “Digital literacy takes center stage.” In The trans-forming public library infrastructure, 38–41. Washington, DC: American LibraryAssociation, Office for Research and Statistics.

Federal Communications Commission. 2010. The national broadband plan:Connecting America. Washington, DC: Author. http://www.broadband.gov/(accessed August 18, 2012).

Gorham, U., J. C. Bertot, P. T. Jaeger, and N. G. Taylor. In press. “E-governmentsuccess in public libraries: Library and government agency partnerships deliver-ing services to new immigrants.” In E-government success factors and measures:Concepts, theories, experiences, and practical recommendations, ed. J. RamonGil-Garcia. Hershey, PA: IGI Global.

Information Policy & Access Center. 2011. Public libraries & digital literacy. http://ipac.umd.edu/sites/default/files/publications/DigLitBrief2011_1.pdf (accessedAugust 20, 2012).

Institute of Museum and Library Services. 2011. Building digitally inclusive com-munities. http://www.imls.gov/resources/resources.shtm (accessed August 20,2012).

Jaeger, P. T. 2008. Building e-government into the Library & Information Sciencecurriculum: The future of government information and services. Journal ofEducation for Library and Information Science 49: 167–79.

Jaeger, P. T. 2011. Disability and the Internet: Confronting a digital divide. Boulder,CO: Lynne Rienner.

Jaeger, P. T., and J. C. Bertot. 2009. E-government education in public libraries:New service roles and expanding social responsibilities. Journal of Educationfor Library and Information Science 50: 40–50.

Jaeger, P. T., and J. C. Bertot. 2011. Responsibility rolls down: Public librariesand the social and policy obligations of ensuring access to e-government andgovernment information. Public Library Quarterly 30: 1–25.

Jaeger, P. T., J. C. Bertot, and U. Gorham. In press. Wake up the nation: Publiclibraries, policy-making, and political discourse. Library Quarterly.

Jaeger, P. T., J. C. Bertot, J. A. Shuler, and J. McGilvray. 2012. A new frontier for LISprograms: E-government education, library/government partnerships, and thepreparation of future information professionals. Education for Information 29:39–52.

Jaeger, P. T., J. C. Bertot, K. M. Thompson, S. M. Katz, and E. J. DeCoster. 2012. Theintersection of public policy and public access: Digital divides, digital literacy,digital inclusion, and public libraries. Public Library Quarterly 31 (1): 1–20.

Jaeger, P. T., K. M. Thompson, and J. L. Lazar. 2012. The Internet and the evolutionof library research: The perspective of one longitudinal study. Library Quarterly82: 75–86.

Kramp, R. S. 1975/2010. The Great Depression: Its impact on forty-six large Americanpublic libraries. Duluth, MN: Library Juice.

Pew Internet Life. 2010. Internet, broadband, and cell phone statis-tics. http://pewinternet.org/Reports/2010/Internet-broadband-and-cell-phone-statistics/Report.aspx (accessed August 20, 2012).

Resmovits, J. 2011. Librarian positions cut in schools across the country. HuffpostEducation, May 31. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/31/librarian-positions-cutschools_n_869458.html (accessed June 2, 2011).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

08:

28 1

2 N

ovem

ber

2014


Rettig, J. 2009. Once in a lifetime. American Libraries. http://americanlibrariesmagazine.org/junejuly-2009/once-lifetime (accessed August 20, 2012).

Sigler, K. I., P. T. Jaeger, J. C. Bertot, E. J. DeCoster, A. J. McDermott, and L. A. Langa.2012. “Public libraries, the Internet, and economic uncertainty.” In Advancesin librarianship, Vol. 34: Librarianship in times of crisis, ed. A. Woodsworth,19–35. London: Emerald.

Taylor, N. G., P. T. Jaeger, A. J. McDermott, C. M. Kodama, and J. C. Bertot. 2012.Public libraries in the new economy: 21st century skills, the Internet, andcommunity needs. Public Library Quarterly 31 (3): 191–219.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

08:

28 1

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

APPEN

DIX

TAB

LEA

1Public

Libra

ries

and

the

Inte

rnet

and

Public

Libra

ryFu

ndin

gan

dTe

chnolo

gyA

cces

sSu

rvey

s

Yea

rTitl

eA

uth

ors

Publis

hed

2012

2011–2

012

Pu

blic

Libr

ary

Fun

din

ga

nd

Tec

hn

olog

yA

cces

sSu

rvey

:Su

rvey

Fin

din

gsa

nd

Rep

ort

Ber

tot,

McD

erm

ott,Li

nco

ln,Rea

l,an

dPet

erso

nIn

form

atio

nPolic

yan

dAcc

ess

Cen

ter,

Univ

ersi

tyofM

aryl

and–C

olle

gePar

k

2011

2010–2

011

Pu

blic

Libr

ary

Fun

din

ga

nd

Tec

hn

olog

yA

cces

sSu

rvey

:Su

rvey

Fin

din

gsa

nd

Rep

ort

Ber

tot,

Sigl

er,D

eCost

er,M

cDer

mott,La

nga

,G

rim

es,an

dK

atz

Info

rmat

ion

Polic

yan

dAcc

ess

Cen

ter,

Univ

ersi

tyofM

aryl

and–C

olle

gePar

k

2010

2009–2

010

Pu

blic

Libr

ary

Fun

din

ga

nd

Tec

hn

olog

yA

cces

sSu

rvey

:Su

rvey

Fin

din

gsa

nd

Rep

ort

Ber

tot,

Langa

,G

rim

es,Si

gler

,an

dSi

mm

ons

Cen

ter

for

Libra

ryan

dIn

form

atio

nIn

nova

tion,

Univ

ersi

tyofM

aryl

and–C

olle

gePar

k

2009

2008–2

009

Pu

blic

Libr

ary

Fun

din

ga

nd

Tec

hn

olog

yA

cces

sSu

rvey

:Su

rvey

Fin

din

gsa

nd

Rep

ort

Ber

tot,

McC

lure

,W

righ

t,Je

nse

n,an

dThom

asIn

form

atio

nIn

stitu

te,Fl

orida

Stat

eU

niv

ersi

ty

2008

2007–2

008

Pu

blic

Libr

ary

Fun

din

ga

nd

Tec

hn

olog

yA

cces

sSu

rvey

:Su

rvey

Fin

din

gsa

nd

Rep

ort

Ber

tot,

McC

lure

,W

righ

t,Je

nse

n,an

dThom

asIn

form

atio

nIn

stitu

te,Fl

orida

Stat

eU

niv

ersi

ty

2007

2006–2

007

Pu

blic

Libr

ary

Fun

din

ga

nd

Tec

hn

olog

yA

cces

sSu

rvey

:Su

rvey

Fin

din

gsa

nd

Rep

ort

Ber

tot,

McC

lure

,Thom

as,B

arto

n,an

dM

cGilv

ray

Info

rmat

ion

Inst

itute

,Fl

orida

Stat

eU

niv

ersi

ty

2006

20

06

Pu

blic

Libr

ari

esa

nd

the

Inte

rnet

:Su

rvey

an

dR

esu

lts

Ber

tot,

McC

lure

,Ja

eger

,an

dRya

nIn

form

atio

nIn

stitu

te,Fl

orida

Stat

eU

niv

ersi

ty

2004

20

04

Pu

blic

Libr

ari

esa

nd

the

Inte

rnet

:Su

rvey

an

dR

esu

lts

Ber

tot,

McC

lure

,an

dJa

eger

Info

rmat

ion

Inst

itute

,Fl

orida

Stat

eU

niv

ersi

ty

2002

20

02

Pu

blic

Libr

ari

esa

nd

the

Inte

rnet

:Su

rvey

an

dR

esu

lts

Ber

tot,

McC

lure

,an

dThom

pso

nIn

form

atio

nIn

stitu

te,Fl

orida

Stat

eU

niv

ersi

ty

2000

20

00

Pu

blic

Libr

ari

esa

nd

the

Inte

rnet

:Su

rvey

an

dR

esu

lts

Ber

totan

dM

cClu

reIn

form

atio

nIn

stitu

te,Fl

orida

Stat

eU

niv

ersi

ty

1998

Mov

ing

Tow

ard

Mor

eEff

ecti

veP

ubl

icIn

tern

etA

cces

s:Th

e1998

Na

tion

alS

urv

eyof

Pu

blic

Libr

ary

Ou

tlet

Con

nec

tivi

ty

Ber

totan

dM

cClu

reU

.S.N

atio

nal

Com

mis

sion

on

Libra

ries

and

Info

rmat

ion

Scie

nce

1997

Th

e1997

Na

tion

alS

urv

eyof

U.S

.P

ubl

icLi

bra

ries

an

dth

eIn

tern

et:Fi

na

lRep

ort

Ber

totan

dM

cClu

reU

.S.N

atio

nal

Com

mis

sion

on

Libra

ries

and

Info

rmat

ion

Scie

nce

and

the

Am

eric

anLi

bra

ryAss

oci

atio

nO

ffice

for

Info

rmat

ion

Tech

nolo

gyan

dPolic

y19

96Th

e1996

Na

tion

alS

urv

eyof

Pu

blic

Libr

ari

esa

nd

the

Inte

rnet

:P

rogr

ess

an

dIs

sues

Ber

tot,

McC

lure

,an

dZw

eizi

gU

.S.N

atio

nal

Com

mis

sion

on

Libra

ries

and

Info

rmat

ion

Scie

nce

1994

Pu

blic

Libr

ari

esa

nd

the

Inte

rnet

:St

ud

yR

esu

lts,

Pol

icy

Issu

es,a

nd

Rec

omm

end

ati

ons

McC

lure

,Ber

tot,

and

Zw

eizi

gU

.S.N

atio

nal

Com

mis

sion

on

Libra

ries

and

Info

rmat

ion

Scie

nce

Not

e.A

llsu

rvey

reports

are

avai

lable

athttp:/

/ww

w.p

linte

rnet

surv

ey.o

rg.

325

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

08:

28 1

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

Public Libraries and the Internet 2012: Key Findings, Recent Trends, and Future Challenges

Documents

Transcript of Public Libraries and the Internet 2012: Key Findings, Recent Trends, and Future Challenges