Government Information Quarterly 26 (2009) 551–558

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Government Information Quarterly

j ourna l homepage: www.e lsev ie r.com/ locate /gov inf

Aggregating broadband demand: Surveying the benefits and challenges forpublic libraries☆

Mary Alice BallIndiana University School of Library and Information Science, Indianapolis, USA

☆ The author wishes to express her appreciation toWeLibrary, Carol O. Rogers of the Indiana University KelleyApplegate of the Indiana University School of LibrIndianapolis for their assistance with this research.

E-mail address: maryaliceball@yahoo.com.

0740-624X/$ – see front matter © 2009 Elsevier Inc. Aldoi:10.1016/j.giq.2009.05.004

a b s t r a c t

a r t i c l e i n f o

Available online 7 August 2009

Keywords:ARRAAmerican Recovery and Reinvestment Act2009Broadband deploymentPublic LibrariesIndiana

Public libraries in the United States play an important role in their communities by providing free internetaccess to all residents. Research exists that discusses public library connectivity by investigating funding,technical aspects, and library mission, and that also promotes membership in regional or state consortia as ameans of making broadband internet connections more affordable. The research discussed here builds uponthese works by asking the question: Do the benefits of aggregation, or pooling demand, justify theinvestment of state library resources in establishing and maintaining a library cooperative to support internetaccess? It reports on a survey of Indiana public library directors on questions related to connectivity, E-ratefunding, and participation in the Public Library Internet Consortium, a statewide cooperative established bythe Indiana State Library. The survey was conducted by Dr. Mary Alice Ball, who was affiliated with IndianaUniversity School of Library and Information Science, Indianapolis while conducting the relevant research. Dr.Ball chairs the Telecommunications Subcommittee of the American Library Association's Office forInformation Technology Policy.

© 2009 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Until recently, broadband connectivity was a topic unfamiliar tothe general public, many policymakers, andmost librarians. In spite ofthe fact that a telecommunications infrastructure underpins all accessto the internet, and therefore plays an integral role in economicgrowth and technological innovation, broadband has been largelyunderappreciated. Nevertheless, even if public librarians in the UnitedStates do not know about broadband standards, bandwidth, or speed,they understand what happens to their computer systems duringpeak usage times — things slow to a crawl. Now that more and moregovernment services and job applications require internet access,Americans are beginning to understand the impact broadband has ontheir daily lives. Increasingly, internet access is being recognized as anessential tool for individuals whowish to be fully functional in society.The public library, a community anchor institution and often theonly place within an area where access is available at no cost, isexperiencing a growing demand for it.

Public libraries have limited resources to dedicate to the infra-structure necessary to establish and maintain internet connections andthey look to the state library or to regional library cooperatives for

ndy Knapp of the Indiana StateSchool of Business, and Rachelary and Information Science

l rights reserved.

critical support and expertise. One approach advocated as a way tomake internet access more affordable is for libraries to combine oraggregate their demand by joining consortiums where they canpurchase connectivity at more competitive prices.

The research discussed here builds upon existing literature aboutpublic library connectivity by asking the question: Do the benefits ofaggregation justify the investment of state library resources inestablishing and maintaining a library cooperative to support internetaccess? It reports on a connectivity-focused survey of Indiana publiclibrary directors; E-rate funding; and participation in the PublicLibrary Internet Consortium (PLIC), a statewide cooperative estab-lished by the Indiana State Library.

One goal of the research was to ascertain if PLIC membershipresults in noticeable advantages for participating libraries and theircommunities. Another was to lend support to state librarians andpolicy makers as they consider the allocation of limited public fundsduring the economic downturn. The research also may be valuable tostate library personnel and public library directors in their attempts tomore effectively assess the advantages or disadvantages that comewith membership in a library consortium or regional librarycooperative, and to consortium staff who hope to make the casemore persuasively for their continued operations.

A great deal of the knowledge on public library connectivityderives from national surveys conducted by John Bertot, CharlesMcClure, and their associates since 1997 (Bertot & McClure, 1997,1998, 2000; Bertot, McClure, & Thompson, 2002; Bertot, McClure, &Jaeger, 2005; Bertot, McClure, Jaeger, & Ryan, 2006; Bertot, McClure,Thomas, Barton, &McGilvray, 2007; Bertot, McClure, Wright, Jensen, &

552 M.A. Ball / Government Information Quarterly 26 (2009) 551–558

Thomas, 2008). Other pertinent writing discusses the E-rate program(Hudson, 2004; Jaeger, McClure, & Bertot, 2005) that wasmandated aspart of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, thereby extending theUniversal Service Fund in order to provide schools and libraries withdiscounted internet and telephone services. No analysis of publiclibrary connectivity can occur without including the critical pieceplayed by E-rate discounts and funding.

A side effect of offering free internet access is that the public'sexpectations of libraries are changing and, in response to changingexpectations, library missions are evolving to encompass new servicesand programs. In their 2006 report, Bertot, McClure, Jaeger, and Ryan(2006) articulated the concept of the Successfully Networked PublicLibrary (SNPL), one that not only presents traditional library servicesbut also offers networked services and electronic resources that aredelivered over an infrastructure of advanced technology. The goal ofbecoming an SNPL may be daunting to public libraries that are all tooaware of their limited budgets, yet it may be an important one forlibraries to consider as they strive to serve their communities duringthe current economic crisis and to justify their budgetary require-ments to taxpayers who insist on greater accountability.

ALA's Office for Information Technology Policy examined modelsfor public library connectivity through focus groups and site visitsaround the nation. Its 2007 report (Weingarten, Bolt, Bard, &Windhausen, 2007) concluded that no single model exists forpromoting broadband deployment to libraries and called for a state-by-state analysis in order to better understand local conditionsaffecting public libraries and their ability to provide reliable androbust internet connectivity to their communities. A second publica-tion that came out of the OITP study, Regional Library Cooperativesand the Future of Broadband (2008), pointed to the aggregation ofdemand as an important strategy for delivering high-speed con-nectivity, particularly to small and medium-sized libraries. It alsopointed out that library cooperatives serve members by advising,helping manage their networks, and providing technical support andtraining (Regional Library Cooperatives). This study developed out ofthe knowledge created by this earlier research.

2. Background

The issue of public library connectivity is a complex one that canonly be fully understood when viewed within the broader politicaland economic environments of nation and state. It is interwovenwithinformation policy surrounding broadband development and internetaccess because those policies, or lack of policies, influence the currentconditions for libraries. The previous administration in Washingtongave short shrift to broadband and, rather than articulate a clear policyfor it, left its development to market forces (Mark, 2008). A contentanalysis of President GeorgeW. Bush's eight State of the Union addresssupports this viewpoint because it reveals that the words, “broad-band,” “internet,” and “digital” were never mentioned.

According to multiple measures from a number of impartialorganizations that evaluate broadband deployment around theworld, the United States' rankings declined during the BushAdministration. As part of its overall ICT (information and commu-nication technology) development index, the International Telecom-munication Union (ITU), a United Nations agency, ranked the U.S. at11 in 2002 and only 17 in 2007 (ITU, 2009). During the same timeperiod, the U.S. also slipped in its rankings on the ITU's three separateICT development sub-indexes: 1) access, from 16 to 22; 2) use, from10 to 16; and 3) skills, from 5 to 11. In its 2008 ITIF BroadbandRankings the Information Technology & Innovation Foundation(2008) ranked the U.S. fifteenth when using the criteria of householdpenetration, speed, and price. In April 2007 the Organization forEconomic and Cooperative Development ranked the U.S. fifteenth inbroadband use, down from twelfth six months previously, and fourthin 2001 (Benton Foundation, 2007).

The lack of attention to broadband in the United Stateswas so greatin recent years that the Federal Communications Commission, theagency charged with regulating internet communications, did noteven have an accurate definition of broadband. In spite of the rapidlychanging telecommunications environment, the FCC continued todefine broadband as a speed of 200 kbps at a time when themarketplace touted significantly higher speeds (FCC Under Fire,2007). Finally, in late 2008, the FCC updated its definition to768 kbps, still fairly slow in the opinion of many experts (Dixon,2009), and articulated five tiers of broadband service:

• First Generation data: 200 k up to 768 k• Basic Broadband: 768 k to 1.5 Mbps• 1.5 Mbps to 3.0 Mbps• 3.0 Mbps to 6.0 Mbps• 6.0 Mbps and above (Albanesius, 2008)

The change in presidential administration launched a new strategyfor broadband, firmly placing it within overarching government plansto revitalize the U.S. economy. On February 17, the United StatesCongress passed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of2009 (ARRA) (P.L. 111–5, 2009), an economic stimulus bill crafted bythe newly inaugurated Obama Administration. The ARRA includesfunding for broadband deployment through two agencies, theNational Telecommunications and Information Administration(NTIA) within the Department of Commerce and the Rural UtilitiesService (RUS) of the Department of Agriculture, $4.7 billion and $2.5billion respectively. Some of this money will be available to publiclibraries so the findings of this survey may be particularly timely forstates that hope to capture a portion of this federal funding.

By passing the ARRA legislation so quickly, Congress put deadlinesand funding in place before the nation has a formally agreed uponbroadband agenda. The ARRA mandates the completion of a nationalbroadband policy by February 2010, but at the time of this writing inApril 2009 the FCC has barely begun the process of formulating it(Federal Communications Commission, 2009). With broadbandfunding going through NTIA and RUS, a strategic plan being developedby a third agency, and the economic and societal implications affectingawide range of stakeholders, the lobbying and jockeying at the federallevel is intense (Dixon, 2009; Kang, 2009).

What then is the situation in the State of Indiana? During the lastdecade, circumstances influencing broadband deployment changeddramatically, and lawmakers required libraries to switch from publicto private internet service providers. These conditions, describedbelow, make it an interesting candidate for investigating the role of alibrary cooperative in promoting internet connectivity and insupporting efforts within a state to increase the number of SNPLs.The Public Library Internet Consortium evolved differently thanconsortia that were formed around a shared automated librarysystem. The Indiana General Assembly chartered the IntelenetCommission in 1986 to oversee a single telecommunications networksupporting public sector agencies and organizations throughoutIndiana, including public libraries. Intelenet then contracted withthe Indiana Higher Education Telecommunication System (IHETS) tooperate and manage the Indiana Telecommunication Network (ITN),in effect making IHETS the state-supported internet service provider.

In 2004, administrative irregularities were noticed and traced to anIHETS employee who subsequently was found guilty of wire fraudrelated to equipment purchases tied to the federally funded E-rateprogram. After this was discovered, the Indiana state governmentdisbanded Intelenet and reimbursed the federal government 8.3million dollars. At the same time, IHETS reverted to its primarymission of serving higher education institutions. Effective July 1, 2006,all public libraries were required to shift their service providers fromthe publicly-funded ITN to commercial vendors. Technical andadministrative support, including assistance with internet billingand the E-rate application process, previously managed by ITN had to

2

553M.A. Ball / Government Information Quarterly 26 (2009) 551–558

be handled locally. At the time 87% or 208 libraries used ITN for theirinternet connections.

The Indiana State Library established the PLIC in 2006 in part toaggregate demand for internet services thereby achieving economiesof scale and reducing required costs for individual libraries. After filinga Request for Proposal of E-rate Services (Statewide form 470), ISLcontracted with Education Networks of America (ENA) to provideinternet connectivity (at minimum T1 speeds of 1.5 Mbps), to assistmember libraries with filing their E-rate forms, and to manage theINPubLibraries network for customer support services.

ENA provides connectivity to over 170 library systems, PLIC andnon-PLIC, in Indianawith 346 library circuits installed. Each ENA pointof presence (POP) connects to its SuperPOP in Indianapolis, as well asother ENA SuperPOPs to ensure redundancy and resiliency in theevent of a circuit failure. These locations aggregate traffic from endsites via a number of last-mile technologies such as T1, T3, OC3 andOC12. These circuits use ATM, SONET and point-to-point servicesprovided by multiple last-mile carriers including AT&T, Verizon,Insight, KDL and other local communications companies. At each of itsSuperPOPs, ENA peers with the global internet using full OC-3(155Mb) and Gigabit Ethernet (1000Mbps) connections from diverseTier I providers (Gruesser, 2009).

By the time of this writing in early 2009, 63% or 151 out of the 2381

public library systems in the state are PLIC members. This represents a24% decrease in state-sponsored Internet Service Provider (ISP)participation than before the demise of ITN. There will always bepublic libraries that choose not to participate in a library cooperativefor a variety of reasons. Although this study did not seek a definitiveanswer on why numbers declined, factors may include: 1) some localcable providers offer free internet access to public libraries; 2)postalized or flat rates charged by a cooperative may be moreexpensive than the market rates for densely populated communities;3) PLIC members are required to develop a technology plan, arequirement of the Schools and Libraries Division of the UniversalServices Administrative Company (USAC) that administers the federalE-rate program, a task some libraries may judge as too formidable; 4)commercial Internet Service Providers may be perceived as morestable given the recent history of the ITN; 5) commercial ISPs may bemore effectively pricing and marketing their services; and 6) USACrequires E-rate applicants to reserve the non-discounted portions ofthe cost of their internet connections, $9000 in the case of PLIC, intheir annual budgets. There was an interpretation in Indiana thatbecause of the Anti-Deficiency Act, libraries had to budget this fullamount. In late 2008 the Department of Local Government Financeand the State Board of Accounts agreed to lift the requirement for theforeseeable future (Ainslie, 2008). In spite of this sum being fullycovered through the combination of federal E-rate discounts and nonE-rate state support and therefore never actually having to beexpended, Indiana public library boards may have been reluctant totake the action of allocating it.

Regardless of the reason, a decrease of 24% in libraries that obtaininternet access from a statewide network is significant. It prompts thequestion of whether there is an opportunity for PLIC membership toexpand by adding public libraries that now get their access fromcommercial providers. ISL is dedicated to bringing high-speed broad-band connections into all of the state's public libraries. Its commit-ment of $627,000 in 2006/07 and $712,000 in 2007/08 for ConsortiumInternet Access is the most obvious indicator of how seriously it viewsthis connectivity.

The Indiana State Library is a public agency with the mission ofserving not only the state government and public libraries butultimately all state residents. Administrators at ISL fear that a declinein internet connectivity at public libraries could have negative

1 In 2008, two libraries consolidated so the state now has 238 public librariesinstead of the 239 surveyed.

implications for the state as a whole because information increasinglyis essential for individual economic well-being. Federal E-ratediscounts and funding are available to all public libraries with certainconditions. If public libraries are not taking full advantage of theprogram, for whatever reason, it represents lost funding forconnectivity for Indiana residents. ISL surveys all public libraries inthe state on an annual basis and publishes the results on its PublicLibrary Statistics web page (Indiana State Library, 2009). Unfortu-nately, ISL's survey only collects the most basic information aboutinternet connectivity. Given the aforementioned research by Bertot,McClure, and associates, and by OITP, ISL seeks to create a morecomplete profile of public library connectivity and networked servicesas well as to gain a better understanding of the effectiveness of PLIC.The survey discussed here examines the characteristics of PLICmembers as distinct from non-members in order to identify benefitsto the state of having ISL establish and maintain the PLIC.

3. Methodology

The primary research question is: Do the benefits of aggregationjustify the investment of state library resources in establishing andmaintaining a library cooperative to support internet access? Thisquestion has three separate aspects that are part of the definition of aSuccessfully Networked Public Library: 1) Connectivity and PLICMembership, 2) Support, and 3) Services (to the Public) andPartnerships.

A preliminary version of the survey consisted of questions relatingto community and professional activities of library directors andtrustees. That version was pre-tested by six individuals from the ALAOffice of Research and Statistics, Indiana public library directors, andthe Indiana University School of Library and Information Science —

Indianapolis faculty. Those questions were eliminated in order tominimize the time required for completion and to increase theresponse rate. In the end, the survey was comprised of twenty-threequestions, which included basic information questions regardinglibrary name and location, as well as more detailed survey questionsthat took the following forms: yes/no/don't know, fill-in (e.g. budget,E-rate discounts), and multiple choice. Each of the three aspects wascovered in turn, so respondents considered each of them as theyprogressed through the survey.

The survey was designed using SurveyMonkey; in early May 2008it was sent to the directors of each of Indiana's 2392 public libraries3.A cover letter introduced the study and the researchers, explainedthe goals of the research, contained a hyperlink to the surveyinstrument, and supplied contact information. Directors at 231libraries received the letter and survey link via email. Eight directorswithout email addresses received the letter and a paper copy of thesurvey by U.S. mail. Sixty-five completed surveys were returned(27%) and a second electronic mailing was sent approximately twoweeks later, resulting in 23 more responses; a paper copy of thesurvey was sent to each of the 151 non-respondents in a third andfinal electronic mailing, resulting in 66 more responses. All printedresponses received were manually keyed in to SurveyMonkey tofacilitate data analysis.

Ultimately 154 libraries out of 239 completed the survey for aresponse rate of 65% across all libraries. There are 151 members of thePLIC; among the survey respondents 100 said that they are PLICmembers, 50 said they are not, and 4 did not know or left the questionblank (see Table 1). After checking an external data source thefindings were adjusted to reflect that the final four respondents wereevenly split between members and non-members, so that there was a

In 2008, two libraries consolidated so the state now has 238 public librariesinstead of the 239 surveyed.

3 A copy of the survey is available upon request from Wendy Knapp, wknapp@library.IN.gov.

Table 1PLIC membership of survey respondents and total Indiana public libraries.

Survey respondents Total Indianapublic libraries

PLIC members 66% (n=102) 63% (n=151)Non-PLIC members 34% (n=52) 37% (n=88)

Fig. 1. PLIC member and non-member bandwidths.

554 M.A. Ball / Government Information Quarterly 26 (2009) 551–558

68% response rate for PLIC members and a 59% rate for non-members.The proportional distribution of the key variable in the study, PLICmembership, is statistically identical within survey respondents andwithin Indiana libraries as a whole (chi-square test of proportion).

Public libraries responding to the survey represented all geo-graphic regions of the state and a range of populations served. Theresearch presents the perceptions of the majority of public librarydirectors in Indiana, in a census approach to this population.

Reports were downloaded into a database and cross-tabulatedextracts imported to Microsoft Excel for further analysis. A basicstatistical analysis of the cross-tabulated survey responses wasperformed. Distribution tables were created for each of the surveyquestions to ascertain the frequency of responses. Chi-square testswere run on certain tables to check the significance of correlations.

The frame for this survey was limited to Indiana and so will be ofgreatest interest to those public libraries considering joining PLIC.While not statistically generalizable to all American public libraries,the findings may also be relevant to libraries in states with similarstatewide networks or regional consortiums. Given the recentpromotion of library cooperatives as a means of achieving greaterefficiencies and cost savings, the findings may be informative for statelibrarians and policy makers considering changes to their presentstructure and policies regarding broadband deployment.

4. Findings

4.1. Connectivity and PLIC Membership

Using the first category, Connectivity and PLIC Membership, theresearch team investigated the differences that can be attributed toPLIC membership, location or population size. Table 2 details the typeof internet access offered by PLIC members and non-members. Somerespondents checked more than one type of access; for example,municipal was paired with either DSL, cable, or leased by multiplelibraries. Answers indicated that non-members have slower, oldertypes of connections such as dial-up, DSL, and cable rather than thefaster T-1 or higher connections of PLIC members.

The benefits of PLIC membership are confirmed by the nextmeasure of connectivity: bandwidth or speed. The findings, asillustrated in Fig. 1, showed an advantage held by PLIC members,with 81% having bandwidth of 1.5 Megabits per second (Mbps) orgreater compared to 36% of non-members. Fully 20% of respondentsdid not know what their bandwidth was, perhaps attributable topublic library directors' focus being on operations and functionalityrather than technical aspects such as bandwidth.

The survey also showed that there is no indication that geographiclocation or population size as measured by metropolitan versus non-metropolitan county has any significant bearing on a library's joiningthe consortium. PLIC members and non-members each were roughlydivided between 35% metropolitan and 65% non-metropolitan.

Table 2PLIC members and non-members by type of internet access.

Type of internet access Dial up DSL Cable Leased

Members 102 0 16 7 46Non-members 52 4 21 13 5Total (n) 154 4 37 20 51

4.2. Support

The survey examined patterns surrounding the support offered bya consortium to public libraries for E-rate applications and funding,technical expertise, and network management. E-rate fundingpatterns are challenging to investigate because there are multiplereasons that may influence a library's decision not to apply. Manypeople consider the application process overly burdensome and time-consuming. Others have concerns about intellectual freedom and thefiltering mandated by the Children's Internet Protection Act. Librariesthat reject E-rate funding because of the requirement to filter internetaccess may not realize they can still apply to the program under threeother categories of eligible service: telecommunications services,internal connections, or basic maintenance of internal connections(USAC, Step 6, 2009).

The findings illustrated in Fig. 2 showed a marked, but notstatistically significant, difference in a library's filing for E-ratediscounts based on PLICmembership. Libraries that were not affiliatedwith PLIC were more than twice as likely not to apply for E-ratefunding as they were to apply. PLIC's handling of E-rate applicationsfor member libraries is a service offering that respondents clearlywant to utilize.

The impact of E-rate applications to the state and its residents isespecially apparent when seen in terms of dollars committed anddispersed (see Fig. 3) available using the Schools and LibrariesDivision data retrieval tool (USAC, 2008). Prior to the establishment ofPLIC, the total amount dispersed for all Indiana libraries was $65,441in 2004 and $31,461 in 2005. After the implementation of PLIC, thesenumbers skyrocketed. In 2006 PLIC member libraries received almostfive times as much as non-consortium members did, $981,873compared to $205,233, and in 2007 almost eighteen times as much,$1,087,439 versus $60,791. The value of PLIC and its ability to capturefederal E-rate funding reinforces the benefits for member libraries in avery tangible way.

In addition to the requisite filters as mandated by the Children'sInternet Protection Act, the federal E-rate program requires libraries toemploy a technology protection measure and to develop technologyplans covering five specific areas: 1) Goals and realistic strategy forusing telecommunications and information technology; 2) A profes-sional development strategy; 3) An assessment of telecommunicationservices, hardware, software, and other services needed; 4) Budget

Municipal Satellite Fiber Other Don't know

4 2 9 15 112 1 6 4 16 3 15 19 12

Fig. 2. E-rate applications by PLIC membership status. Fig. 4. Network traffic statistics monitoring.

555M.A. Ball / Government Information Quarterly 26 (2009) 551–558

resources; and 5) Ongoing evaluation process (USAC, Step 2, 2009).USAC does not obligate libraries to have a capacity planning process inplace or to monitor network traffic. The survey found that significantpercentages of libraries have not yet acknowledged the necessity ofdedicating resources to capacity planning or network administration,with more than half of responding non-PLIC libraries stating that theydid not collect any statistics monitoring network traffic. NeverthelessPLIC members were somewhat more likely to support capacityplanning, 41 to 33%, and much more likely to perform networkmanagement, 72 to 43% (see Fig. 4 for details), than their counterpartsin non-member libraries. Multiple answers were accepted fromrespondents who reported gathering network statistics from a varietyof sources, e.g. in-house, PLIC, or commercial ISP.

Federal programs such as E-rate lump schools and librariestogether and yet their missions are not identical. A small number ofrespondents indicated that they get their internet connectionsthrough their local school districts, a relationship that is statisticallysignificant at 0.0107. A detailed assessment of the relationshipbetween public library and school district on internet connectivity isbeyond the scope of the research presented here given the relativelysmall number of libraries involved.

The survey also asked respondents if their libraries requiredexternal technology and/or connectivity support in the form of eithera volunteer or a part-time consultant. Libraries that answeredaffirmatively were asked for open-ended responses detailing thetype of external assistance. Respondents from 90% of the PLICmemberlibraries reported using paid consultants and only 10% relied onvolunteer help. For non-member libraries, the figures were 93% and 7%respectively. In many cases, even those libraries that belong to PLIC orNICCL (Northern Indiana Computer Consortium of Libraries) – the twoconsortia open to Indiana public libraries – have in-house technicalstaff and still report needing additional assistance.

Fig. 3. SLD funding of internet access for Indiana public libraries.

4.3. Services and partnerships

The final category used to assess the benefits of aggregation wasServices (to the public) and Partnerships. The establishment ofbranch libraries and the use of bookmobiles are two traditional waysthat public libraries have used to extend their reach and theirservices to local communities. The implementation of wirelessnetworks is a more recent method of accomplishing the same goal.The research examined if libraries applying for E-rate discounts forinternet access have more robust and pervasive networks than thosenot applying. The measures used to evaluate the pervasiveness ofthese networks were internet connectivity on bookmobiles and atbranch locations, and the presence of wireless networks in libraryfacilities. Only fourteen libraries responded to the question aboutinternet access in their bookmobiles with no more than foursaying that their bookmobiles offer connectivity; the findings areinconclusive.

PLIC member libraries were more likely to offer wireless access totheir communities than non-member libraries, 80 to 62%, and non-member respondents were more likely to not offer wireless accessthan PLIC members, 37 to 19%. A chi-square test showed that thecorrelation between these factors was significant at 0.0132.

The findings indicate a highly significant relationship (0.0012) atthe 0.05 level between a library's application for the E-rate programand its offering of wireless access to library patrons. Of the 114libraries with wireless networks, 80% or ninety-two institutions haveapplied for E-rate discounts for internet access.

The survey examined whether or not there was a correlationbetween bandwidth or network speed and a public library's decisionto offer: 1) computer training classes to the public, either internallyor through external partnerships, or 2) career or employmentcounseling, or small business counseling to the local community.Successfully Networked Public Libraries build upon their telecom-munications networks to strengthen external relationships and buildpartnerships. The research team used computer classes as a proxy forpartnerships with outside entities such as Ivy Tech CommunityCollege, Indiana's statewide community college, and Indiana'sDepartment of Workforce Development. Although public librariescan easily partner with historical societies on genealogical classes,the connection between technology and workforce developmentmade computer classes a more compelling subject to examine in thesame way as it might be a higher priority for libraries during aneconomic downturn.

The results are disappointing because they indicate that the vastnumber of respondents does not partner with external agencies todeliver computer training in their communities. Only six respondentsreported developing partnerships with Ivy Tech or WorkforceDevelopment. Membership status in PLIC had little bearing onwhether or not a library was more likely to create a partnership.

556 M.A. Ball / Government Information Quarterly 26 (2009) 551–558

Two questions asked about computer training and the answerswere inconsistent. The first time was within a question on generalprogram offerings and 78% of member libraries and 54% of non-member libraries replied affirmatively that they offer computertraining. But when the same question was posed as it related topartnerships, 61% of member libraries and 44% of non-memberlibraries indicated that they offered only library-supported computertraining to their communities.

The survey also explored the relationship between formalcomputer training and bandwidth. Perhaps it is not surprising publiclibraries that allocate more monies to the purchase of higherbandwidth also make the delivery of formal computer classes one oftheir service offerings. The findings show a clear relationship betweenthese two factors with 85% of the classes offered taking place inlibraries having bandwidth of 1.5 Mbps or greater.

In spite of the numbers being small, there was a correlationbetween a library's bandwidth and its willingness to partner. Onlypublic libraries with speeds of 1.5 Mbps or greater collaborated withother groups, twowith the community college, five (one of which alsopartnered with Ivy Tech) with the Department of WorkforceDevelopment, and sixteenwith a variety of organizations, from seniorcitizen clubs to literacy councils to Girl Scouts and lifelong learningcenters.

The last measure used to assess Services to the Public was alibrary's effort to offer counseling related to college, career, or smallbusinesses. Respondents from PLIC member libraries were more likelyto state that their institutions offer such counseling than their non-consortium counterparts but not markedly so: 26 to 22%.

The Successfully Networked Public Library uses its connectivity toengage its community with expanded services and program offerings.Respondents, regardless of their membership in the consortium,offered a variety of programs albeit primarily traditional ones. PLICmembers were more likely to provide computer training to the publicthan non-members. Public libraries in Indiana can improve theirrecord in serving the economic and career needs of their communitiesby expanding specialized training for jobseekers and small businesses,as well as for individuals interested in career development or collegecounseling. More than 90% of PLIC member and non-member librariesresponding to the survey offer children's storytime, clearly the mostpopular program offering, but only 10% of each conduct small businesscounseling, and only 13% of PLIC members and 6% of non-membersprovide any career or employment counseling. Given the economicdownturn and rising unemployment these numbers may havechanged since the survey was conducted.

Fig. 5 shows selected program offerings and responding libraries'bandwidth. Although the number of counseling programs is small incomparison to more traditional ones like storytime, the preponder-ance of those sessions are delivered consistently by libraries withinternet connections of 1.5 Mbps or higher.

Fig. 5. Program offerings by bandwidth.

5. Discussion

State librarians and policy makers need to better understand thebenefits of aggregation if they are to justify and advocate for theinvestment of limited library resources to support internet accessthrough the establishment and maintenance of a library cooperative.This research study built upon the concept of a SuccessfullyNetworked Public Library and identified three categories relevant tothe research question: Connectivity and PLIC Membership, Support,and Services and Partnerships. The SNPL fits neatly into a politicaleconomy framework that situates public investment in librarieswithin a political and economic context. Given the recent inaugura-tion of a new United States President and the commitment ofhundreds of millions of stimulus dollars for broadband deploymentin legislation that specifically names libraries, this research isparticularly timely.

What then is the importance of the findings? Connectivity wasassessed using two measures: type of internet access and bandwidth.By both measures, PLIC members offer their communities substan-tially more robust internet connections using newer technology andgreater bandwidth than libraries that have not joined the PLIC.Location (urban or rural) of the public library appeared to make nosignificant difference in whether or not it joined the consortium,although further research is necessary before this question can be fullyanswered.

The research also appraised support in terms of assistancewith theE-rate program, technology, and network administration. The surveyfound that public libraries were much more likely to apply for E-ratefunding if they were members of PLIC than non-members becausePLIC handled their applications. Only three PLIC members respondedthat they did not apply to the E-rate program while 99 others eitherapplied directly (11) or had PLIC apply on their behalf (88). Incontrast, more than twice as many non-members did not apply for E-rate as applied directly. The Indiana State Library spent $712,000 forConsortium Internet Access in 2007/8 and in that same year all publiclibraries received roughly $1,150,000 in federal E-rate funding with95% going to PLIC member libraries. The contrast between E-ratefunding before and after the establishment of the PLIC is dramaticwith only $65,442 dispersed in 2004 and almost twenty times asmuch in 2007. With only 63% of Indiana's public library systemscurrently PLIC members there is real potential for continued growth infederal E-rate funding.

Overall libraries, regardless of their consortium status, need togrow in terms of capacity planning and network managementalthough PLIC members seem to be more aware of their importance.Responses about external technology support indicate that themajority of Indiana's libraries, both PLIC and non-PLIC, needsupplementary help to maintain existing systems and networks.

Wireless access within the main library facility and any branches itmay have provide a great service by eliminating the reliance on a fixednumber of wired workstations. This is especially important in olderfacilities that may not have fully upgraded their electrical andnetworking infrastructure to keep up with the growing demand forinternet access. PLIC members are much more likely to providewireless access, including in branch locations, than non-members.Also noted was the strong correlation between the availability ofwireless connectivity and E-rate applications.

The area where there is the greatest need for improvement iflibraries are to become SNPLs is in program offerings. Computer andinformation literacy are fundamental skills in today's informationsociety. Recent newspaper reports abound of the newly laid-offcoming in to the libraries needing to use the internet to file forunemployment benefits and all too often these people have neverworked with computers. Titles such as: “Business brisk at arealibraries; In bad times, free resources are a hot commodity” (Gowen,2009), “Economic woes boost library use for job resources” (2009),

557M.A. Ball / Government Information Quarterly 26 (2009) 551–558

and “Looking for employment: Libraries are bustling with job hunters”(Turner, 2009) indicate the important role libraries play during aneconomic crisis.

Survey findings show a clear relationship between high bandwidthand computer classes. PLIC member libraries with minimum speeds of1.5 Mbps offer 86% of all formal computer training taught byresponding libraries. More than 95% of responding libraries (‘don'tknow’ or ‘no answer’ responses ignored) provide children's program-ming, but less than 10% offer career or employment counseling withthe same lack of attention paid to small businesses. Just 22respondents offer this support and almost all of them have T-1connections to the internet. A similar connection between bandwidthand external partnerships was evident in survey responses, with onlylibraries having high-speed connections collaborating with outsideorganizations to offer computer classes. One reason libraries favortraditional programs such as storytime over job-oriented adultprogramming may be that the latter requires use of the internet.Another may be that library staff members are less confident of theirknowledge regarding employment or small business counseling,although this concern is all the more incentive to create partnershipswith other agencies.

6. Recommendations

ARRA stimulus funding presents a unique opening for libraries tore-envision themselves. By capturing even a small portion of availablegrants and using it to establish broadband connection or improveexisting connections libraries will be able to significantly improvetheir resources and services. No one can predict when or if thisopportunity will be repeated, so libraries should act now and,wherever possible, purchase fiber, the most robust connectivitychoice that offers the greatest room for future growth. Today'sexponential growth of content will only continue as Web 2.0technologies are more broadly adopted so opting for an incrementalapproach with a less expensive alternative is short-sighted.

The government clearly states its preference for cooperativearrangements that will maximize the benefits of its investment;libraries that are members of statewide networks or regional librarycooperatives applying for stimulus grants have a higher probability ofenhancing their internet connections. Cooperative arrangements donot have to be with other libraries; enterprising directors may findwilling partners in local schools and colleges, hospitals, public serviceagencies, or businesses. Public–private partnerships can expect to beviewed favorably by grant reviewers.

If librarians view themselves objectively, even the most modestmust recognize that they have far more expertise about informationpolicy and broadband issues than the general public and often morethan local policy makers. Just as they accept their professionalresponsibilities to make information equally available to everyone intheir communities, librarians need to acknowledge their obligation toeducate and influence the public, elected officials, and governmentbureaucrats regarding broadband. Without strong networks informa-tion will not be equally available in all areas of the country.

The establishment of a national broadband plan is critical andshould be one of the federal government's highest priorities if it hopesto promote innovation and spur economic development. The currentsituation of federal oversight by the FCC, funding from both NTIA andRUS, and the responsibilities of state governments are as yet not fullydefined. Thismakes it almost impossible for individual public libraries,library consortia, and state libraries to know what can be requestedand how those requests for funds can bemost persuasively articulated.

As stated earlier, something as fundamental as the definition ofbroadband is still in flux. Sharon Gillett, William Lehr, and CarlosOsorio (2003, p. 41) suggest a functional definition, writing, “access is‘broadband’ if it represents a noticeable improvement over standarddial-up access and, once in place, is no longer perceived as the limiting

constraint on what can be done over the Internet.” By adopting afunctional definition, the FCC could help avoid the wide variation ofdefinitions evident today. The Indiana State Library is currentlyrevising the Public Library Standards of the Indiana AdministrativeCode and is proposing to set the minimum speed of an internetconnection at 1.5 Megabits per second (Mbps), while recognizing thatthis may be insufficient for library use in the near future. However incomments filed with the NTIA, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation(Comments of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. In the matter ofimplementation of the Broadband Technology Opportunities Program,2009, p. 2) recommends using ARRA broadband funding to connectpublic libraries, elementary and secondary schools, and communitycolleges at 100 Mbps. In light of the exponential growth of internetapplications and its accompanying increase in demand for bandwidth,this is a reasonable suggestion, especially when considering that the100 Mbps bandwidth could be shared across multiple public andprivate facilities in small towns. The federal government shouldmodifythe current definition of broadband to a functional one. It also needs torecognize, as the Gates Foundation did, that public libraries areessential community anchor institutionsworthy of significant support.

7. Further research

The Successfully Networked Public Library is a powerful modelthat can inspire library directors to work harder in developingpartnerships within the community to better serve local residents.Given the drop in tax revenues and calls for greater accountability, it isin libraries' interests to increase their networking and advocacy efforts(McClure, Feldman, & Ryan, 2006). The research team plans toinvestigate in more detail how the SNPL model works in Indiana,across multiple libraries and communities, specifically examining theleadership of the library director.

Indiana public libraries plan to apply for federal economic stimulusfunding to enhance their broadband connectivity. Using the currentsurvey results as a benchmark, it should be possible to assess theeffectiveness of these funds. How do they fit with SNPLs and withassisting unserved, underserved, rural, and inner city communities?Additional research could evaluate the impact of cooperative effortssuch as PLIC versus individual library applications for federal fundingsuch as economic stimulus dollars or E-rate discounts.

8. Conclusion

In analyzing whether the benefits of aggregation justify theinvestment of state library resources in establishing and maintaininga library cooperative to support internet access this study drew uponthe concept of a Successfully Networked Public Library. For manylibraries the idea of becoming an SNPL may seem like a fairly distantaspiration and yet much of the necessary foundation is already inplace. State libraries have an important role to play in educatinglibrary leaders so they can more effectively build coalitions, marketlibrary services to the public, and advocate for information literacy onthe local level. Connectivity is just one part of that effort.

Perhaps the biggest challenge facing public library directors ischanging their mindsets and taking a more active role as educators andadvocates within their communities. Libraries need to be aware of andtake advantage of resources already at their disposal in order todistribute library holdings and information more widely. Communitiesare in crisis because of the current dire economic conditions. Theincreased demand on library services by the unemployed createspressure and the opportunity for ARRA funding acts as incentive, bothfactors thatmay reinforce the need to change. Residents and businessescan only benefit from a shift in library program offerings to bettersupport job seekers, career changers, and small business owners.

Public libraries understand the needs and concerns of their localcommunities but even if they want to transform their programs they

558 M.A. Ball / Government Information Quarterly 26 (2009) 551–558

may not understand the technical aspects of hardware, software, andnetworking. These are especially intimidating for small and medium-sized libraries. That is precisely why membership in a statewidenetwork or a regional library cooperative is so invaluable. Beyond thebenefits of aggregation offered by these consortia, staff at thesecentralized offices provide technical support, network management,training, strategic planning and consultative services. The costsassociated with connecting to these networks can be daunting forinstitutions that typically rely on the largesse of their taxpayingresidents. In Indiana the State Library assumed a leadership role inestablishing PLIC and it has paid off for member libraries. With only151 out of the total 238 public libraries in the state enrolled as currentPLIC members the potential of the state consortium has yet to be fullyrealized.

The State Library can only do so much to promote connectivitywithin the state. Policy planning and coalition building to improvebroadband deployment for Indiana ultimately falls to the Governor'soffice. Unfortunately, given high unemployment and a budget short-fall, state government has a limited ability to bring about change. ForIndiana public libraries to realize the dream of robust internetconnectivity delivering a full range of library services and resourcesto all corners of the state, whether rural, urban, suburban, or innercity, they need to take advantage of federal funding to help with thebuild out.

Indiana's Public Library Internet Consortium is just one example ofaggregation; other states may benefit from a similar type ofcooperative arrangement or some variation thereof. The primarylesson of this research is that the benefits of a consortium do justifythe investment of state resources. During the current economic crisislibraries are being asked to justify their existence to a degree seldomexperienced before. Successfully Networked Public Libraries areembedded in their communities offering programs, services, andfree internet access, any of which can contribute to individualeducation and enrichment and to societal economic development.Advanced telecommunications infrastructure underlies these SNPLsenabling them to expand their missions far beyond those of theirforerunners. Investments in broadband deployment for publiclibraries today will garner a tremendous return on investment inthe future for society as a whole. Consortia and regional librarycooperatives are one of the most cost-effective ways that libraries canprovide access to broadband technologies and the advantages ofmembership are profound.

References

Ainslie, K. 2008, October 1. “Internet Connectivity.” E-mail to Wendy Knapp.Albanesius, C. (2008, June 13). FCC orders revamped broadband data. PCMAG.com. Retrieved

April 10, 2009, from http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2320115,00.aspAmerican Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, P.L. 111-5, 123 Stat. 115 (2009).

Retrieved April 12, 2009, from http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ005.111.pdf

Benton Foundation. (2007). United States now ranks 15th out of the 30 OECD membernations in per capita broadband use. Retrieved April 2, 2009, from http://benton.org/node/5618

Bertot, J. C., &McClure, C. R. (1997). The 1997 national survey of U.S. public libraries and theinternet: Final report. ALAOffice for Information Technology Policy:Washington, DC.

Bertot, J. C., & McClure, C. R. (1998). The 1998 national survey of U.S. public libraries andthe internet: Final report. National Commission on Libraries and InformationScience: Washington, DC.

Bertot, J. C., & McClure, C. R. (2000). Public libraries and the Internet 2000: Summaryfindings and data tables.National Commission on Libraries and Information Science:Washington, DC.

Bertot, J. C., McClure, C. R., & Thompson, K. M. (2002). Public libraries and the Internet2002: Internet connectivity and networked services. Tallahassee, FL: School ofInformation Studies, Florida State University Information Institute.

Bertot, J. C., McClure, C. R., & Jaeger, P. T. (2005). Public libraries and the Internet 2004survey results and findings. Tallahassee, FL: Information Use Management and PolicyInstitute, College of Information, Florida State University.

Bertot, J. C., McClure, C. R., Jaeger, P. T., & Ryan, J. (2006). Public libraries and the Internet2006 survey results and findings. Tallahassee, FL: Information Use Management andPolicy Institute, College of Information, Florida State University.

Bertot, J. C., McClure, C. R., Thomas, S., Barton, K. M., & McGilvray, J. (2007). Publiclibraries and the Internet 2007: Study results and findings. Tallahassee, FL:Information Use Management and Policy Institute, College of Information, FloridaState University.

Bertot, J. C., McClure, C. R., Wright, C. B., Jensen, E., & Thomas, S. (2008). Public librariesand the Internet 2008: Study results and findings. Tallahassee, FL: Information UseManagement and Policy Institute, College of Information, Florida State University.

Comments of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. In the matter of implementation ofthe Broadband Technology Opportunities Program. (2009). Retrieved April 12,2009, from http://www.ntia.doc.gov/broadbandgrants/comments/7358.pdf

Dixon,K. (2009,April 8).USFCCopenseffort toboost broadband tonation. Reuters. RetrievedApril 10, 2009, from http://www.reuters.com/article/idAFN0852282920090408

Economic woes boost library use for job resources. (2009, January 30). The AssociatedPress, Domestic News.

Federal Communications Commission. (2009, April 8). FCC launches development ofNational Broadband Plan (Press release) Washington, DC: Federal CommunicationsCommission.

FCC under fire for outdated broadband definition, data; 200 kbps one way no longeradequate, Dingell says. (2007, February 12). RCR Wireless News, 26, 16.

Gillett, S. E., Lehr, W. H. & Osorio, C. (2003, September 18). Local government broadbandinitiatives. (Massachusetts Institute of Technology Program on Internet andTelecoms Convergence). Retrieved April 25, 2009, from http://www.broadband-city.gr/content/modules/downloads/Local_Government_Broadband_Initiatives_(Gillett).pdf

Gowen, A. (2009, February 2). Business brisk at area libraries: In bad times, freeresources are a hot commodity. The Washington Post. Retrieved February 2, 2009from Newspaper Source database.

Gruesser, M. (2009, April 23). “ENA Network Overview.” E-mail to Mary Alice Ball.Hudson, H. E. (2004). Universal access: What have we learned from the E-rate? Tele-

communications Policy, 28, 309−322.Indiana State Library. (2009). Public Library Statistics, Available: http://www.in.gov/

library/plstats.htmInformation Technology & Innovation Foundation. (2008). 2008 ITIF broadband rankings.

Retrieved April 2, 2009, from http://www.itif.org/files/2008BBRankings.pdfInternational Telecommunication Union [ITU]. (2009). Measuring the information

society — The ICT Development Index 2009, Geneva: International Telecommunica-tion Union. Retrieved April 2, 2009, from http://www.itu.int/ITU-D/ict/publications/idi/2009/material/IDI2009_w5.pdf

Jaeger, P. T., McClure, C. R., & Bertot, J. C. (2005). The E-rate program and libraries andlibrary consortia, 2000–2004: Trends and issues. Information Technology & Libraries,24, 57−67.

Kang, C. (2009, April 8). FCC broadband proposal may miss out on stimulus: Networksmay be built ahead of policies. The Washington Post. Retrieved April 8, 2009,from http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/07/AR2009040703996.html

Mark, R. (2008). President lacks tech awareness. eWeek, 25(4), 21−22.McClure, C. R., Feldman, S., & Ryan, J. (2006). Politics and advocacy: The role of

networking in selling the library to your community. Public Library Quarterly, 25(1/2), 137−154.

Regional Library Cooperatives and the Future of Broadband. (2008). Washington:American Library Association, Office for Information Technology Policy. RetrievedDecember 27, 2008, from http://www.ala.org/ala/aboutala/offices/oitp/2008_OITP%20RLCs%20Repor.pdf

Turner, A. (2009, January 25). Looking for employment: Libraries are bustling with jobhunters. Houston Chronicle (TX). Retrieved January 28, 2009, from NewspaperSource database.

Universal Service Administrative Company. Data Retrieval Tool. Retrieved December 18,2008, from http://www.usac.org/sl/tools/search-tools/data-retrieval-tool.aspx

Universal Service Administrative Company. Retrieved April 12, 2009, Step 2: Develop atechnology plan. from http://www.universalservice.org/sl/applicants/step02/

Universal Service Administrative Company, Retrieved April 12, 2009, Step 6: Determinethe eligible services. from http://www.universalservice.org/sl/applicants/step06/

Weingarten, R., Bolt, N., Bard, M., & Windhausen, J. (2007). Public library connectivityproject: Findings and recommendations. Washington: American Library Association,Office for Information Technology Policy Retrieved December 27, 2008 from http://www.ala.org/ala/aboutala/offices/oitp/publications/booksreportsstudies/Public_%20Library_Conn.pdf

Mary Alice Ball was an assistant professor at the Indiana University School of Libraryand Information Science Indianapolis while conducting this research. She serves asVice-chair of the Telecommunications Subcommittee for the American LibraryAssociation's Office for Information Technology Policy.