state standards and public libraries: an overview · web viewstate standards and public libraries:...

State Standards and Public Libraries: an Overview


June Houghtaling

1


Introduction

Many, though not all, state legislatures appropriate funds for public libraries. State library

officials―in those states with such appropriations—are faced with a challenging task in

determining suitable criteria for public library funding. On the one hand, the appropriation must

be sufficient to ensure the quality and quantity of library service. On the other hand, taxpayers

must feel confident that their tax dollars are being put to good use. They need to know that

libraries are being used and that an investment in libraries is a wise choice. Many states use

standards to determine a library’s eligibility for state funding and to prove its worth.

Tying state standards to state aid may bring about some unintended consequences. Public

libraries, in states that tie standards to funding, risk the loss of that funding if standards cannot be

met. If a library must be open a certain number of hours, employ staffs with a certain level of

education, contain a certain number of materials per capita, and produce a level of circulation,

the possibility exists that some libraries cannot meet the challenge. Socioeconomic and

demographic factors such as education levels in the community, poverty, and urbanization can

affect a library’s ability to meet these criteria. In times of economic recession, library use

increases while local budgets shrink. It becomes a struggle for libraries that have experienced a

loss in local funding to meet standards for state funding.

There is a lack of homogeneity in standards from state to state. Some states have

hundreds of standards relating to libraries while others have only a few or none at all. Some

states tie standards to funding and others do not. There are no national guidelines that states can

use to craft a standards program.

2


This preliminary survey is an attempt to answer what standards exist across states in the

United States and how those standards are tied to funding. This survey could be used as a

foundation for other studies to determine both positive and negative effects of standards on

public libraries. It could also be used to open a dialogue about the need for some kind of national

minimum standards.

Literature Review

Public Library Standards: Historical Context

It is clear that state standards have been discussed by library professionals for many

decades. In the late 1890's, New York was a pioneer in state standards, stating that the public

library should be open a specific number of hours depending on population served and by 1910

any public library receiving state funds must meet a "proper standard.”1 In 1920 an American

Library Association committee was convened to discuss a national scheme for standards and in

1933 the first quantitative standards were revealed by the Council of the American Library

Association. These standards "covered staff, book collection, income and library use."2 The 1933

standards were an important landmark in public library development as they provided the

beginnings of minimum library standards in many states.3

In 1942, the National Resources Planning Board, appointed by the Executive Office of

the President to plan for the establishment of minimum standards, granted a small amount of

money to ALA to formulate standards for public library service.4 This document, Postwar

Standards for Public Libraries, was the most comprehensive document to date. The document

1 Rose Vainstein and Marian Magg, State Standards for Public Libraries, Washington, D. C.: United States Department of Health, Education and Welfare (1960) 7.2 Vainstein, State Standards, 9.3 Vainstein, State Standards, 10.4 Vainstein, State Standards, 12.

3


had specific recommendations for per capita library support. These recommendations were taken

at face value by funding authorities which had a positive or negative effect depending on the size

of the library.5

In 1948, a final phase of the study of minimum standards was published, A National Plan

for Public Library Service. This plan placed primary responsibility for library development on

the local public library but called for larger library units (county, regional, state etc.). "Its major

thesis was that a nationwide plan could succeed only through the acceptance and implementation

of nationwide standards below which no library should fall and through the coordinated effort of

all levels of government—local, state and federal.”6

The Public Library in the United States was published in 1950. It made two significant

observations: (1) Public library service could not be described in terms of per capita support but

rather in staff and materials. (2) $100,000 was the budgetary dividing line between adequate and

inadequate support for a library system regardless of size.7 This became a catalyst for state

agencies to create their own standards for performance. Libraries were encouraged to form

systems and the standards were meant for library systems rather than as individual libraries.

The year 1956 was important for public libraries. Two events transpired that changed the

face of library standards and funding. The American Library Association published Public

Library Service and the federal government passed the Library Services Act.8 This act was the

first Federal grant program for public libraries. Emphasis was placed on quality of service rather

than per capita support9.

5 Vainstein, State Standards, 13.6 Vainstein, State Standards, 14.7 Vainstein, State Standards, 15.8 Vainstein, State Standards, 18.9 Vainstein, State Standards, 19.

4


The Public Library Association's last publication of national standards for public libraries

occurred in 1966. Since then the issuing of standards has been replaced with the Public Library

Development Program. The emphasis was no longer on standards but on planning and evaluation

and the encouragement of state standards as opposed to national standards. 10

Owen explains:

The shift away from quantitative standards has created an entirely new context for the development of public library services and standards--a context that recognizes: the need for continuous local planning and evaluation of library services; the increased use of empirically derived measures rather than target numbers based on common sense or professional opinion, that standards must be interpreted and applied within the context of a library's community, resources and its chosen mission and roles; that increased resources do not automatically result in improved services; and that accountability (with all its fuzziness and pitfalls) is today's imperative in virtually all public sector agencies--not just libraries.11

Owen's study provides an overview of library standards across the country. Although

Owen found that most states do have public standards of some form, that form takes many

different shapes. Owen explains the disparity in state standards by pointing out that public library

service has developed differently in each state; that the organizational and political structure is

different from state to state and that economic conditions and state financial aid for libraries

differ from state to state.12 Lynch compares and contrasts Performance Measures for Public

Libraries, an incomplete study of which the first part was published in 1973, and Output

Measures for Public Libraries published in 1982 by the Public Library Association.

Performance Measures provided ways to measure public library services. Output Measures

10 Mikyeong Cha and Verna Pungitore, “Compliance with Public Library Standards in the State of Ohio,” Library and Information Science Research 20 (1998): 69. doi:10.1016/S0740-8188(98)90006-8.11 Amy Owen, “Current Issues and Patterns in State Standards for Public Library Service,” Public Libraries (July/ August1992): 213. http:vnwebhwwilsonweb.com/hww/jumpstart.jhtml?recid=0bc05f7a67b1790e1916ca00094d31594559825242bc984fc6d256e242b618176fcb1d71f704482e&fmt=c 12 Owen, “Current Issues and Patterns,” 214.

5


showed librarians how to "count various aspects of user activity and library response" and "stress

that there is no correct score that a library should strive to achieve.”13 Lynch pointed out that

libraries should only compare themselves with similar libraries or with themselves at different

times.

Rohlf discusses the history of state standards and traces the history of the shift from

inputs (number of square feet, number of volumes, etc) and national standards to planning on the

state, regional, and local level. "One fundamental difference in the application of standards

within states has often been that, with the advent of federal Library Services and Construction

Act monies intermingled with state aid monies, the state often has a financial carrot with which

to cajole the use or application of state standards.”14 Standards are not applied equally across the

country and often not within the same state. Rohlf points out that state standards are probably

more uniformly applied within states than are national standards but there is a wide variety of

social and economic characteristics from state to state and community to community. The

American Library Association’s A Planning Process for Public Libraries filled the void left by

the shift away from national standards, but it had its difficulties.15 Library directors and officials

still had to find ways to prove the public library’s worth to governing bodies.

Inputs, Outputs and Sociodemographic Indicators

One way is to rely on input and output measures. Kyrillidou defines inputs as “the

resources available to the system, ranging from financial, staffing, and material resources in

13 Mary Jo Lynch, “Measurement of Public Library Activity: the Search for Practical Methods,” Wilson Library Bulletin (January, 1983): 392.14 Robert H. Rohlf, “Standards for Public Libraries,” Library Trends (Summer, 1982): 72.15 John A. Moorman, “Standards for Public Libraries: A Study in Quantitative Measures of Library Performance as Found in State Public Library Documents,” Public Libraries 36, no.1 (1996): 32.

6


analog or digital forms.”16 Outputs are defined as “activities the system exports ranging from

transactions, to hours the premises are available, to the availability, and use and usability of the

material resources to name a few.” Librarians and their funding agencies have historically taken

a simplistic view of outputs. Circulation figures are often touted to show library use and

therefore, the importance of the library to the community.17 What of the libraries that don’t

measure up, and by what measurement are libraries judged to be effective in their communities?

Kim and Shin attempted to "identify the causal community characteristics and the

aggregate pattern of library use."18 Community characteristics influence library support and

library use. The more resources directed toward certain programs in a library determine to some

extent use of those resources. Library performance is also determined to an extent by

community characteristics such as age, education and racial composition of the community.

Kim and Shin found that the level of education in a community was statistically significant.19

These are serious implications for libraries that allocate funding dependent on library use. "Since

no two libraries are equal either in terms of their initial resources or in terms of the communities

they serve, libraries are not equally capable of generating usage."20 "Research advocating the

significance of any one library performance measure over others can best be characterized as self

serving if such a measure is not calibrated in terms of the consequences of environmental

factors.”21

16 Martha Kyrillidou, “From Input and Output Measures to Quality and Outcome Measures or From the User in the Life of the Library to the Library in the Life of the User,” The Journal of Academic Librarianship (Jan-Mar 2002): 43.17 Chai Kim and Eui Hang Shin, “Sociodemographic Correlates of Intercounty Variations in the Public Library Output,” Journal of the American Society for Information Science (Nov 1977): 359.18 Kim and Shin, “Sociodemographic Correlates,” 360.19 Kim and Shin, “Sociodemographic Correlates,” 361.20 Kim and Shin, “Sociodemographic Correlates,” 364.21 Kim and Shin, “Sociodemographic Correlates,” 365.

7


Seavey studied the relationship of libraries and socioeconomic conditions in the 1980’s.

He used an index number called a “Library Service Indicator.”22 The factors used to calculate

the LSI were circulations per capita, expenditures per capita, turnover rate (number of

circulations compared to the number of volumes), full time employees and population. The

variables were economic status, education level, and urbanization. Seavey found that an urban

population was the strongest variable of the three. The more populated the area, the higher

library use. Seavey’s conclusions differed from previous research that concluded that education

is the strongest variable in library use.

The debate continues. It could be said that the more educated the community, the higher

income per capita. Higher income per capita translates to better library support. In short, the

more educated the community, the more likely it is to support its library. In a study of

socioeconomic indicators in New Jersey public libraries, O’Connor and Fortenbaugh found that

the higher a community’s family median income, the higher library funding. The more people

with an education level above high school, the higher library funding. As library funding

increases, so does library use.23 Using the Pearson Product Moment correlation, Pratt set out to

determine “the correlations, if any, between age, education, and income levels of residents of a

community and various measures of library use and support.”24 His conclusions did not support

the conclusions of O’Connor and Fortenbaugh. On the contrary, Pratt found no correlation

22 Charles A. Seavey, “The Public Library in Society: the Relationship of Libraries and Socioeconomic Conditions,” Public Libraries (Jan/Feb 1989): 49.23 Daniel O’Connor and Robert Fortenbaugh, “Socioeconomic Indicators and Library Use,” Public Libraries (May/June 1999): Phase Three section, para. 9. http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.navigator-clarion.passhe.edu/hww/jumpstart.jhtml?recid=0bc05f7a67b1790e1916ca00094d315a41250fb494f7d6777820a3aa2bc9f878a3317f1c77ddd68f&fmt=H24 Alan Pratt, “Questionable Assumptions,” Public Libraries 37, no.1 (1998) 52.

8


between age, education and library use. There was a mild correlation between increased per

capita expenditures and library use.

In recent years, the trend in many libraries has been away from gathering output statistics

to measuring outcomes. This trend takes outputs one step further to gain insight into how

satisfied library users are with library services. Emphasis has moved from the number of

circulations to the people libraries serve. Several studies have been done on user satisfaction in

particular libraries or library systems. Factors affecting user satisfaction have been customized to

fit the particular situation of the library. For instance, parking may be a well known deficiency in

a library which could impact user satisfaction. Convenience of library location and safety in and

around the library are considerations in addition to staff helpfulness, availability of materials and

ease of use.25

Performance Measures and Funding

Funding agencies are more and more concerned with results and accountability.

“Strategically thinking library leaders are preparing for the time when the holders of the purse

strings ask the inevitable question: What is the return for the money I’m pumping into the

library?”26 Several states have funded studies called Return on Investments or ROIs. These

studies measure the relationship between economic investment in libraries and economic return,

assigning a dollar value to services provided by public libraries and comparing that dollar value

to the cost to the consumer if no library existed.

25 George D’Elia and Eleanor Jo Rodger, “Customer Satisfaction with Public Libraries,” Public Libraries 35, no. 5 (1996). 26 Roger Strouse, “Demonstrating Value and Return on Investment: the Ongoing Imperative,” Information Outlook 7, no. 3 (2003): 15. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=lxh&AN=9346075&site=ehost-live&scope=site

9


State library agencies have a particularly difficult task in deciding how state government

funds should be distributed to local libraries. Pennsylvania changed the level and structure of

state aid to public libraries in the year 2000. State aid increased from $30 million in 1999 to $75

million in 2000. The premise was that an increase in state funding would stimulate financial

support from local governments. This stimulation of library budgets would increase the

capacities of libraries to give better service.27 Presumably, better quality library service would

promote library use. Public libraries must maintain a certain level of inputs such as collection

size, hours of service and staff training. There are different categories of aid including equal

distribution grants. Equalization aid is paid to the most economically distressed libraries

indicating that the Commonwealth recognizes that socioeconomic conditions affect library

performance. However, funding for this program has been cut drastically in recent years and the

Commonwealth has granted waivers to some libraries that find it impossible to meet the criteria

for state aid.

McClure asserts that standards for public libraries may not be the best approach.

Standards are difficult to define. He promotes the term "levels of adequacy.” "Levels of

adequacy are measures of services and resources which equal or surpass predetermined statewide

averages. Each library, in conjunction with its community and the state library makes specific

objectives based on adequacy for them." 28

27 William F. Stine, “Does State Aid Stimulate Public Library Expenditures: Evidence from Pennsylvania’s Enhancement Aid Program,” The Library Quarterly 76 no. 1 (2006). DOI: 10.1086/504347.28 C. R. McClure, “From Public Library Standards to Development of Statewide Levels of Adequacy,” Library Research 2, no.1 (1980): 61.

10


Curran and Clark discussed tying state aid to performance measures and presented some

twenty statements on the subject.29 Some libraries will never achieve the same kind of

performance as their peers simply because the library’s community is poorly educated. The

performance of the library should be based on planning at a local level and whether or not goals

are achieved. Still, individual libraries need quantitative measurements to build a case for

increasing library funding.30

Use of Planning in State Standards

Are states requiring or encouraging planning in local public libraries as part of their

library development programs? A search of the literature revealed no recent study describing

current state standards and the role of planning. However, Smith (1994) surveyed all 50 states to

ascertain the extent, if any, that state library agencies are encouraging planning at the local level.

Thirty five responses were received. Smith concludes that planning is used widely in public

libraries but to varying degrees.31 But 30 percent of the states did not respond to the survey. Cha

surveyed library directors in three states to determine perceptions among them about the

usefulness of state public library standards. The findings suggest that library directors perceive

state standards favorably and that states should continue to employ community based public

library planning and evaluation in standards.32 The question remains: Are states tying state aid,

where state aid exists, to standards based on performance measures and planning and to what

extent?29 Charles Curran and Philip Clark, “Implications of Tying State Aid to Performance Measures,” Public Libraries 28, no. 6 (1989): 348.30 Moorman, “Standards for Public Libraries,” (1996).31 Nancy Milnor Smith, “State Agency Use of Planning and Role Setting for Public Libraries and Output Measures for Public Libraries,” Public Libraries 33 (1994): 212.32 Mikyeong Cha, “The Utility of State Public Library Standards for Planning and Evaluation: a Survey of Public Library Director’s Perceptions in Three Selected States,” (PHD dissertation, Indiana University, Indiana) Dissertations & Theses: A&I. (Publication No. AAT 9919450).

11


Methodology

The author identified the following eight major categories: planning, facilities,

governance, staffing, collection, services, technology and marketing. Within these major

categories, many subcategories emerged. (See appendix for complete list). For example, under

governance the Ohio standards include compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act,

property insurance and the bonding of employees, board member orientation, and boards must

have bylaws that are reviewed. Several policies, a long range plan with goals and objectives,

evaluations of staff, and reporting procedures are mentioned within the governance category.

Data was collected from state library web sites and through requests for information. This

data was coded and entered in an Excel spreadsheet. Some states have levels of standards (low,

medium, high) depending on population served and other factors. Where levels exist, only the

lowest level was coded.

Data was analyzed using descriptive statistics. The Countif function was used to tally the

number of yes and no responses within major categories and subcategories. Using an Excel

formula, percentages were calculated using all 50 states, and then only states with standards tied

to funding.

Findings

State Aid

Of the 49 states where information was available, 41 states, or 84 percent, provide some

sort of state aid program. Most states support their public libraries financially in some way.

However, there are nearly as many ways to distribute this funding as there are states.

12


Some states distribute funding based solely on the population served (California33 and

South Carolina34). State funding for Arkansas libraries is based on three criteria: $18,000 is given

to each public library that employs a director with a Master’s degree in Library Science, $1.65

for each person in the library’s service area, and the amount of support each library receives

from the regional library. Kentucky has a base grant with additional funding based on

population.35 In order for a library to be legally established in North Dakota, the library must

have a local tax mill. State aid is based on $1.00 per capita, but the library must be legally

established to be eligible.36 Alabama37 and Alaska38 public libraries must match state aid with

local funds. Herein lies a double-edged sword. It would only follow that when local budgets

shrink, so too will the state aid allocation for the library or system. Funding is reduced from both

sources.

Standards

The language of standards can be confusing. For the most part, states refer to standards as

standards, but occasionally they are referred to as requirements, certification, or accreditation.

Where these rules are tied to funding, the assumption is that these terms can be used

interchangeably; if no funding is involved, states have no recourse to force libraries to achieve

standards, requirements, accreditation and the like. In states where standards are not tied to

33 California State Library, “Public Library Fund,” (2007), http://www.library.ca.gov/services/libraries/plf.html34 Eliane Sandberg, e-mail message to author, March 22, 2010.35 Michael Strickland, e-mail message to author, March 18, 2010.36 Cindy Larson, e-mail message to author, March 26, 2010.37 Alabama Public Library Service, Library Development Division, “Administrative Code”, Supplement 2007, http://statelibrary.alabama.gov/Content/State_Aid/StateAidRules_revised.pdf38 “Alaska Public Library Law,” Alaska Statutes, Article 03 Library Assistance Grants (2010), http://library.state.ak.us/dev/pllaw.html

13


funding, libraries may be certified by meeting certain best practices on a voluntary basis. When

standards are tied to funding, there are certain requirements usually written in the state code, that

public libraries must meet to be eligible for state funding. Terminology, if funding is contingent

upon meeting certain requirements, is a moot point.

Almost half of states with standards tied to funding use levels of standards (low, medium,

high). Sometimes these levels are dependent on population. A library serving 5,000 people is not

expected to meet the same requirements as a library serving 500,000. Some states divide

standards into categories and three levels exist within those categories. Mississippi, for example,

uses eight different categories (governance, administration, funding, staffing, collections,

services, patrons and community, and access) for determining accreditation for library systems.39

Three levels of excellence exist within these categories: essential, enhanced and excellent.

Five states have another set of standards that are not tied to funding that could be

described as best practices but are called standards by those states. In Florida, Georgia and North

Carolina, public library associations have authored best practice “standards” and in Texas and

Virginia, state library officials have set best practice standards. These documents are essentially

planning tools and were not used in this study.

Standards were identified for 39 states. Of those 39, 25 states tie standards to funding.

While some states have hundreds of standards in many categories, others have only a few. Those

states with standards that do not tie them to funding seem to have a larger number. Is this simply

because there is less at stake if a library should fail to meet them? Five states have no state

standards. In the case of California, libraries are required to maintain a certain amount of local

funding (the only requirement, not called a standard) but the amount of state aid is dependent

39 Mississippi Library Commission, “Mississippi Public Library System Accreditation Program Manual,” (2007), http://www.mlc.lib.ms.us/pdf/accreditationprogrammanual.pdf

14


solely on population.40 Standards for six states could not be identified if they do indeed exist and

five states have been identified as having no standards. One must wonder, with no state or

national guidelines, what measure public libraries in those states use to assess and plan for

library services. There seems to be no minimum state set standard by which to gauge.

Planning

Of the states that tie standards to funding, 72 percent mention long range or strategic

planning. This result mirrors Smith’s findings that planning is widely used but to varying

degrees.41 Libraries in these states must go through the planning process with vision and mission

statements, goals and objectives, however most states do not commit their libraries to

quantifiable goals. Libraries are not penalized for failure to achieve goals, only that they must

have a plan in place. Of all the states that mention planning, only four require any kind of

evaluation. Of states that tie standards to funding, 52 percent mention collection development

plans.

As figure 1 shows, facilities, technology, and marketing planning did not fare as well. Of

states that tie standards to funding, 20 percent mention facilities planning, 12 percent mention

technology planning and 8 percent mention marketing. It is difficult to determine from the

information available the last time many of the states revised their standards. Are these relatively

new standards and will future revisions in states’ standards include them? Indiana recently

revised standards to take effect in 2011. Technology, facilities, services and operations are

required components of a long range plan in Indiana, however marketing planning is not

mentioned.42

40 California State Library, “Public Library Fund,” 2007.41 See Use of Planning in State Standards above.42 Title 590 Indiana Library and Historical Board, “Proposed Rule,” (2010), http://www.in.gov/library/files/Proposed_Rule_08-945.pdf

15


Figure 1. Percentage of states that tie standards to funding and require certain elements of planning.

Governance

It appears that state officials generally leave much to local boards. Forty eight percent of

states that tie standards to funding require libraries to have a certain number of board meetings

annually and require bylaws. Other than obeying “Sunshine Laws” and a periodic review of

bylaws, there are no required bylaw elements. Only one state limits terms for board members.

With term limits left to local boards, changes in decision making may be difficult. New board

members may add a dimension to library governance that can be lost without turnover.

Library directors must hold a certification or a master’s degree in library science in 52

percent of states that tie standards to funding, however in only three states is a master’s degree

mentioned. Two states require an evaluation of library directors. Evaluation of library directors

seems to be an inexpensive procedure that could yield great benefit. With all the myriad

standards and the price tags associated with them, it would seem that performance evaluation for

library directors would be an inexpensive way to open communication and help governing

bodies to steer toward planned goals.

16


Of the twenty five states that tie standards to funding, twelve states have some funding

and or finance requirement. A seemingly very basic standard, a requirement that libraries have a

budget is mentioned in only half of the states. Maintenance of effort, that is, local funds that are

at least equal to the preceding year, is a standard in seven states. Nine states require that the

library be locally supported with two states requiring a certain amount of income per capita and

two states generally requiring local government support. Maintenance of local financial effort

may be difficult for some libraries in stressful financial times. States do push for local

government support but to make this a standard could jeopardize one of the most important

sources of funding for public libraries. The case of Dickson City, Tennessee, is not uncommon.

In 2004, county commissioners cut $50,000 from the library’s budget which triggered a response

from the state. Dickson City was in jeopardy of losing financial support from the state of

Tennessee plus collection materials purchased with state funds.43 The situation was resolved but

the danger still exists.

Staffing

As figure 2 shows, some sort of standard for staffing occurs in sixty percent of state

standards tied to funding. Fifteen states have requirements concerning staff development and

training. Six states have a standard concerning education requirements of staff (excluding

directors).44 A sufficient number of staff is mentioned as a standard in seven states.

43 Lynn Blumenstein, "Dickson Cty., TN, Finally Meets MOE," Library Journal 129, no. 14 (September 2004): 18-20. Library, Information Science & Technology Abstracts, EBSCOhost (accessed October 3, 2010).44 See discussion under heading “Governance” above.

17


Figure 2. Percentage of states that tie standards to funding and require certain elements of staffing.

Collections

Overall, twenty one of the twenty five states that tie standards to funding, mention

collections. A percentage or certain amount of the budget must be spent on collections in thirteen

states. Twenty eight percent require the collections to be accessible and an equal number require

that libraries have a catalog. (See table 1 for complete list). These would seem to be very basic

standards but are only mentioned in seven states. Would a national framework of basic standards

help states to become more homogeneous with minimum standards?

Table 1. Collections in state standards.

Collections in standards Number of states % of states

Collection development plan 13 52Funding 13 52Percent of budget 8 32Catalog 7 28Access 7 28Volumes per capita 7 28

18


Cooperation 6 24Non-print materials 3 12Currency 3 12Circulations per capita 3 12Turnover rate 3 12Reference materials 2 8Special populations 2 8Number of items 2 8Automation 2 8Ordering 1 4

Total states 21 84Note: Total states refers to the total number and percentage of states that mention collections in state standards.

Services

The most often mentioned service standard was hours of operation with 84 percent as

seen in figure 4. Most states require that libraries have set and posted hours leaving actual

number of hours and times of day up to local boards and depending on community need. Three

states specify a certain number of hours depending on population served. Many states (68

percent) require an interlibrary loan program and require participation in statewide interlibrary

loan programs indicating that most states recognize the need for library users to have access to

collections across their states. Unfortunately this could be one more unfunded mandate.

Pennsylvania’s “library access” budget item which funded Pennsylvania’s union catalog,

provided stipends for local libraries serving patrons outside their service area, and funded

statewide online databases, was cut by 73 percent in 2009.45 Pennsylvania’s public libraries no

longer receive any compensation for the costs of interlibrary loan delivery from state resources.

45 Glenn Miller, “January Gaming Bill Officially Ends 2009-2010 Budget Mess as 2010-2011 State Budget Lurks in the Wings,” (2010) http://palibraries.org/displaycommon.cfm?an=1&subarticlenbr=283

19


Figure 3. Percentage of states that tie standards to funding and require certain elements of services. Number of hours refers to a specific number of hours a library has to be open. Total hours of operation refers to the percentage of states that mention hours generally in standards.

Technology

It was surprising that just over half of states that tie standards to funding mention

technology. One need not be an expert in the field to know that technology has become an

integral part of public library services. As mentioned earlier technology planning is weak in

standards and technology funding is almost nonexistent. It is mentioned by only two states. The

lack of planning and funding for technology suggests a reactive, haphazard approach. The most

often mentioned technology element in standards was Internet access at 32 percent, followed by

electronic resources and number of workstations (see table 2).

Table 2. Technology in state standards.

20


Technology Number of states % of statesInternet Access 8 32Number of workstations 5 20Policy 5 20Electronic Resources 5 20Web site 4 16Staff training 4 16Connectivity 3 12Planning 3 12Assistive Technology 2 8Funding 2 8Instruction to patrons 1 4

Total states 13 52 Note: Total states refers to the total number and percentage of states that mention technology in state standards.

Marketing

Although ten of the twenty five states that tie standards to funding mention marketing,

only two require a marketing plan. (See figure 4). Nine states require some sort of library

promotion but only three states have an advocacy standard. It appears that many states ignore

this important element of marketing. As many libraries have seen in recent years, advocacy is a

crucial tool for retaining funding.

21


Figure 4. Percentage of states that tie certain elements of marketing to funding.

Facilities

Of the states that tie standards to funding, 60 percent mention facilities in standards.

Some states require interior and or exterior signs, book returns, parking, and lighting. Most

however, require libraries to obey fire and safety codes and the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Seven states mention facilities planning. In Indiana’s newly revised standards, elements such as

maintenance, interior and exterior space, geographic location for new libraries and planning for

facilities are all discussed. By contrast, Pennsylvania only requires the library to have an exterior

sign.

Conclusions

The data collection and analysis process revealed that most states financially support their

public libraries to a greater or lesser degree. The standards for obtaining that support differ

widely from state to state, ranging from no standards to dozens of pages. With the breakdown of

22


national standards in the 1960’s, states were free to craft standards using their own guidelines

and particular circumstances. The amount of financial support differs from state to state as do

sociodemographic and economic conditions and this is a factor in the varying degree of standards

nationally. That said, with no nationwide framework, there is no cohesiveness in the way states

determine how taxpayer money is spent in support of the public library.

The shift nationally away from standards and toward planning created a void in how

public libraries could quantitatively prove their worth to governing bodies. In most states that tie

standards to funding, planning is required but evaluation is required in only a few. How effective

is planning as a standard without evaluation? Once the planning process is complete, it can be

filed in a drawer never to see the light of day. If libraries are not held, or cannot be held, to

specific goals or objectives, how useful is it as a standard?

Future Research

From available information, half of the states in the United States tie funding to

standards. Further study could be done to ascertain the reasons why some states tie standards to

funding while others do not and to explore any differences in the quality of library services

between them. The establishment of national minimum standards to guide states and to make

library standards more homogeneous may merit further study.

23


Bibliography

Alabama Public Library Service, Library Development Division. “Administrative Code.”

Supplement 2007,

http://statelibrary.alabama.gov/Content/State_Aid/StateAidRules_revised.pdf

“Alaska Public Library Law, Alaska Statutes, Article 03 Library Assistance Grants.” (2010),

http://library.state.ak.us/dev/pllaw.html

Blumenstein, Lynn. "Dickson Cty., TN, Finally Meets MOE." Library Journal 129, no. 14

(September 2004): 18-20. Library, Information Science & Technology Abstracts,

EBSCOhost (accessed October 3, 2010).

California State Library, “Public Library Fund” (2007),

http://www.library.ca.gov/services/libraries/plf.html

Cha, Mikyeong “The Utility of State Public Library Standards for Planning and Evaluation: A

Survey of Public Library Director's Perceptions in Three Selected States.” PhD diss.,

Indiana University, Indiana, 1998. Dissertations & Theses: A&I. (AAT 9919450).

Cha, Mikyeong and Verna Pungitore. “Compliance with Public Library Standards in the State of

Ohio.” Library & Information Science Research, 20, no.1 (1998): 69-98.

http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?

direct=true&db=lxh&AN=ISTA3303172&site=ehost-live&scope=site

Curran, Charles and Philip Clark. “Implications of Tying State Aid to Performance Measures.”

Public Libraries, 28, no. 6 (1989): 348-354.

24


D’Elia, George and Eleanor Jo Rodger. “Customer Satisfaction with Public Libraries.” Public

Libraries, 35, no. 5 (1996): 292-297.

Kim, Chai and Eui Hang Shin. “Sociodemographic Correlates of Intercounty Variations in the

Public Library Output.” Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 28, no. 6

(1977): 359-365.

Kyrillidou, Martha. “From Input and Output Measures to Quality and Outcome Measures, or,

from the User in the Life of the Library to the Library in the Life of the User.” The Journal

of Academic Librarianship, 28, no.1/2 (2002): 42-6.

Lynch, Mary Jo. “Measurement of Public Library Activity. the Search for Practical Methods.

Wilson Library Bulletin, 57, no. 5 (1983): 388-393. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?


McClure, C. R. “From public library standards to development of statewide levels of adequacy.”

Library Research, 2, no.1, (1980): 47-62. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?


Miller, Glenn. “January Gaming Bill Officially Ends 2009-2010 Budget Mess as 2010-2011

State Budget Lurks in the Wings.” (2010), http://palibraries.org/displaycommon.cfm?

an=1&subarticlenbr=283

Mississippi Library Commission, “Mississippi Public Library System Accreditation Program

Manual.” (2007), http://www.mlc.lib.ms.us/pdf/accreditationprogrammanual.pdf

25

http://www/

http://palibraries/


Moorman, John A. “Standards for Public Libraries: A Study in Quantitative Measures of Library

Performance as Found in State Public Library Documents.” Public Libraries, 36, no. 1

(1996): 32-9.

O’Connor, Daniel and Robert Fortenbaugh. “Socioeconomic Indicators and Library Use.” Public

Libraries (May/June 1999): Phase Three section, para. 9.

http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.navigator-clarion.passhe.edu/hww/jumpstart.jhtml?

recid=0bc05f7a67b1790e1916ca00094d315a41250fb494f7d6777820a3aa2bc9f878a3317

f1c77ddd68f&fmt=H

Owen, Amy. “Current Issues and Patterns in State Standards for Public Library Service.” Public

Libraries (July/ August1992): 213. http:vnwebhwwilsonweb.com/hww/jumpstart.jhtml?

recid=0bc05f7a67b1790e1916ca00094d31594559825242bc984fc6d256e242b618176fcb

1d71f704482e&fmt=c

Pratt, Alan. “Questionable assumptions.” Public Libraries, 37, no. 1 (1998): 52-6.

Rohlf, Robert. “Standards for Public Libraries.” Library Trends, 31, no. 1 (1982): 65-76.

http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?

direct=true&db=lxh&AN=ISTA1900748&site=ehost-live&scope=site.

Seavey, Charles. “The Public Library in Society: The Relationship of Libraries and

Socioeconomic Conditions.” Public Libraries, 28, no. 1 (1989): 47-54.

Smith, Nancy Milnor. “State Agency Use of Planning and Role Setting for Public Libraries and

Output Measures for Public Libraries.” Public Libraries, 33 (1994): 211-12.

26

http://search/

http://vnweb/


Stine, William F. “Does State Aid Stimulate Public Library Expenditures? Evidence from

Pennsylvania’s Enhancement Aid Program.” The Library Quarterly, 76, no.1 (2006):

107-139. Doi: 10.1086/504347.

Strouse, Roger. “Demonstrating Value and Return on Investment: The Ongoing Imperative.”

Information Outlook, 7, no. 3 (2003): 14-19. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?

direct=true&db=lxh&AN=9346075&site=ehost-live&scope=site

Title 590 Indiana Library and Historical Board, “Proposed Rule”, (2010),

http://www.in.gov/library/files/Proposed_Rule_08-945.pdf

Vainstein, R. and Magg, M. State Standards for Public Libraries. U. S. Department of Health,

Education and Welfare, 22 (1960): 1-20.

27

http://search/


Categories and Subcategories of Data Collection

1. Planning

Long range/strategic planningFacilities planningTechnology planningMarketing planningCollection development planning

2. Governance

LawsInsuranceBoardsOrientationMeetingsBylawsDirectorPoliciesStatistics UseEvaluationProcedures ReportingFunding/Finance

3. Staffing

PoliciesRecruitmentCompensationJob descriptionsTrainingStaff developmentEducationSufficient staffVolunteersDiversityPerformance EvaluationBenefits

4. Collections

CooperationFunding

28


Reference materials PeriodicalsNon print materialsSpecial populationsVolumes per capitaCurrencyCirculations per capitaTurnover rateAccessAutomationOrderingCatalogingNumber of itemsCardholders

5. Services and Programs

Hours of operationReference serviceReader’s AdvisoryInterlibrary LoanProgrammingLiteracySpecial populationsFriends GroupsMeeting roomCirculation policyAlternatives to walk-in servicePoliciesQuality customer serviceReservesOutreachNumber of visits

6. Facilities

LawCapitol improvementMaintenanceInterior spaceExterior spacePublic spaceGeographic locationPolicyLightingEvaluation

29


AV equipment7. Technology

Electronic resourcesNumber of workstationsInternet accessPolicyStaff TrainingConnectivityAssistive technologyWeb siteFundingPatron instruction

8. Marketing

PoliciesAdvocacyPromotionFundingEvaluation

30