The Death of Content?

Aaron Schmidt has posted "libraries might not provide content in the future & it’s okay on Walking Paper. It's a provocative piece occasioned by some recent technology developments including:

• iPhone's Kindle ap, allowing any iPhone owner the ability to buy Kindle content (the same content Amazon will not license for library circulation, no matter how many Kindles we buy)
• Netflix offering streaming-only subscription plans, and new collaborations with the New York Times and Rotten Tomatoes, hastening the demise of the DVD as a physical artifact the same way that
• iTunes has become the world's biggest record store -- which is probably why Amazon is emailing me MP3 sales promos
• the demise of many newspapers, including the Rocky Mountain News and the Seattle Post-Intelligencer on the brink
• more online content subject to restrictive DRM that will tend to squeeze out libraries
  

I agree that this is a serious concern, but disagree with where Aaron Schmidt seems to take it:

It really doesn’t matter if we stop providing content in the same way. It might be the best thing to happen to public libraries. Yes, there will be some access equality issues that need sorting, but if we don’t have to concern ourselves with making sure people have access to content we’ll have more time to create excellent programs and experiences based around content and conversation.

In response, I wrote:

Yes, we are increasingly a community center. But let’s not kid ourselves: it’s access to materials and the Internet that are bringing people to our doors. Kathleen de la Pena McCook has famously noted that information equity is the core value of our profession. It may be that in our provision of popular media we have veered too far toward Charlie Robinson’s “give ‘em what they want” and that the loss of ability to provide content will create more opportunities to “give ‘em what they need.”

But we should not let the baby slide out with the bathwater. I agree with Jonathon Rochkind’s comment above:

“we also ought not to sanguinely accept publisher’s attempts to illegalize libraries traditional content provision business in the “1s and 0s” market, like they would have liked to even in the print market. We should fight it with tooth and nail.”

In the interest of preserving equity of access to information, we need to utilize — and seek to improve agreements with — online content providers that see potential in our markets.

You note that “the real emphasis has been on providing shared experiences by gathering people together at hosted events. Connecting people in this way has more of a positive impact than sinmply sending someone home with a disc”. True as far as it goes, but the “shared experience” part of our service is still only a small fraction of the “circulating materials” part of our service. We need to intentionally prepare for changes, but I’m not ready to shrug off materials provision in the future just yet.

I think we need to be serious about content provision in new ways. It doesn't bother me that users will get new content in new ways -- I enjoy streaming Netflix too -- but we have an interest in assuring that diverse content is broadly accessible. Although equity of access and quality shared experiences are both critical for public library, the importance of access will continue to be primary for the foreseeable future. I suggest we need to do several things:

• continue collective action on DRM legislative issues. ALA has terrific resources on this, and we may currently have a more receptive audience in Washington than we've seen for awhile;
• our market muscle may not be huge, but it exists: we can encourage vendors to broaden offerings and make them easier to use and license, e.g. Overdrive's adoption of MP3;
• continue to develop other digital resources via
• digital and digitized collections
• robust vital websites
  
• chat reference
• mobile web
• continue to help our patrons know that however content and information channels change, however the digital divide evolves, librarians have a commitment to helping them get access to the resources they need;
• continue to do our best to work with currently available media -- seems like a no-brainer, but people are borrowing more books than ever.

Libraries' role as content providers cannot be a warehouse function only, but needs to look forward as well as backward. Libraries' role as an agency of transformation needs both sacred communal space and connection to unlimited possibilities. Digital excitements notwithstanding, the novel and the picture book seem stronger than ever and not likely to go away soon. I'm glad teens can play Guitar Hero here, but that doesn't supplant the importance of a parent with a toddler in their lap reading Goodnight Moon. Some parts of libraries' transformative power are more intimate than they are collective.

But as caleb notes in a thoughtful response on Bibliographic Wilderness: "we are going to work harder than ever". That much we all seem to agree on.

Squeeze play

As the economy gets worse, there's one place where business just keeps getting better: the public library.

...the Post Crescent noted in an article last week. Amen -- and just about every library staffer I know can corroborate this. The work keeps growing, even if the staff or the materials budget doesn't. We keep trying to get more efficient, and our strategies have included automation, training, volunteers and alternative revenue streams (grants, printing revenue, donations, etc.). But as the impact of a worsening economy continues to ripple through our community, concerns for the library will grow as well.

Then in a Dec. 30 editorial, the Post Crescent opined:

During this time of economic uncertainty and a projected $5.4 billion state budget shortfall, we should expect across-the-board cuts to state and county programs, to salaries and to jobs — deep cuts in some places. As Gov. Jim Doyle said during the dark days preparing for the next legislative session, "Everything should be on the table." We agree.

So, take a deep breath, folks. It may not matter how busy we get, how much difference we can make, or how much more we're needed -- if the money isn't there. This means lower wage increases for staff, decreases in insurance benefits, and obviously some people are considering other benefit reductions as well. Although our budget for the year is approved, our City Council is looking at imposing a hiring freeze -- and those of us who are ever busier would feel it more.

So what can we do?

1. Don't panic. Douglas Adams' advice is always good -- we need to stay level-headed to provide the best service we can and deal with challenges.
   
2. Keep perspective. We're not in this alone -- there's a global economic problem with particular implications for the public sector here in Wisconsin. We need to own our share. Just because libraries have to tighten belts doesn't mean we're a target. And if we're staying open and not doing big layoffs, we're ahead of many places.
   
3. Trust in our value. "Everything is on the table" is hardly the same as"all is lost." We need to continuously re-examine our assumptions and goals, as well as our activities, but our importance as an institution is undiminished. Libraries have been socially vital for millenia; the Internet has, at least so far, increased the value of public libraries.
   
4. Stay the course. Our strategies of automation, training, volunteers and alternative revenue streams have been effective, and we can find more ways to apply them. Although the economy has affected many people's ability to give, it has not stopped people from being generous to our Friends and Foundation. There's more work we can do.
   
5. Work with the system. Our City Council, Mayor and our City Human Resources and Finance Departments may not have identical interests to library priorities, but our common interests are significantly larger than our differences. We're part of a federated library system and automation network with other significant common interests. We have a great Board and supporters. Together we can do our best for the community.
   
6. Seek new efficiencies. 2009 will be a good year to go lean and green. Sustainable green practices can be more affordable in the short run while good for the library and the planet in the long run. And we can make a mindful effort to re-examine activities and processes for more efficiency. Our Technical Services staff is doing significantly more work -- through more efficient work flow and automation -- without significant staff growth. Our Business Manager came up with a plan to use different light bulbs that saves tens of thousands of dollars in utility bills. Our Circulation staff recently worked with our network to change the format of a routing slip in a way that saves a dozen hours a month in staff time. There's more that can be done.
   

Dang! Did I just do New Year's resolutions for the library director? If not, then here are some for me:

1. Provide good community value -- ensure that our services are responsive, professional, friendly and efficient
2. Speak up -- Communicate the library's value to help people make the best use of services, and to help funders understand needs and opportunities
   
3. Advocate for our staff -- while helping the staff deal with the real impact of economic problems
4. Keep planning -- we have a good long range library plan, technology plan and Foundation Plan. City staff is working to revise the City's strategic plan, and we need to do more planning with our Friends group. All our plans should be used, but re-examined to be useful living documents, not stone tablets.

</soapbox>

Turn and face the strain

Some people just can't see the justification to spend money on the library. It's legitimate to discuss priorities for public funds, but some folks just think that we ought to be a 1950s library. Some think we are a 1950s library, only with pretensions.

Sorry. The world has changed and so have we. And things will keep changing, and the library will help people adjust to those changes.

Among assertions I disagree with:

• it's wrong for the library to provide Internet
• it's wrong for the library to circulate anything but books
• it's wrong that there are lots of children in the library -- too noisy!
• it's wrong that anyone can use a cell phone anywhere in the library
• it's wrong that I can't use my cellphone everywhere in the library
  
• it's wrong that some parts of the library are noisy
  
• it's wrong that some parts of the library are quiet

We're not your grandma's library, but we still have the same values, and some new ways to fulfill them. It was way back in 1969 that the Wilson Library Bulletin published the famous "No Silence" sign, indicating a sea change from traditional roles to more dynamic libraries.

Since then, not purely on our own initiative, but in responses to changes, we've changed further. We've responded to changes in technology, and even more, to changes in community needs. Yes, we circulate media, including a lot of DVDs you won't find in video stores. Yes, we provide public Internet, along with instruction and expert assistance in how to use it as well as free wi-fi and value-added databases. Yes, we provide books in many formats, including print, large print, download, audio, audio download -- and we believe books will be important for a long time. Yes, we provide meeting rooms for community groups, study rooms for small groups, and educational and cultural programs for all ages. We educate, inform, digitize,collect and gather. We help children and families learn to love reading. We provide everyone with opportunities to learn whatever they want, and a variety of viewpoints on any issue you care to name.

Despite changes, we're doing what libraries have always done: collect, organize, preserve, and make available the cultural record. And we're doing what American public libraries have always done: providing opportunities for everyone to change their life and improve their choices on their own terms.

They used to call this "the people's university" and now they call it "libraries transforming lives." It's what we do, and the need for it is not getting less, nor is the need for people to come together in community.

Communities that support such efforts are better places to live, work and raise a family.

Cell phones: the Egelhoff Escalation

On her excellent Fox Politics site, local political activist Jo Egelhoff published a posting "From Lon Ponschock: Nix cell phone use at the library." Lon is spearheading a movement to have cell phones excluded from the Appleton Public Library. Because Jo's blog is influential and widely read, I had several contacts from Library Board members, and I posted an extensive response. Jo asked me to revise my posting in 600-700 words, and I submitted the following:

700 words

At the next meeting of the Appleton Public Library Board of Trustees, at 4:30 PM May 13, the Board will discuss cell phone use in the Library. The fact that this topic is generating so much heat is indicative of problems both with the current facility and social change lagging behind technological change.

The Library’s Rules of Conduct Policy states: “Patrons of the Appleton Public Library have the right to use Library materials and services without being unduly disturbed or impeded by others.” In a world that sometimes seems to have too many rules, this is a good policy: we don’t want people to get in each other’s way.

But social ambiguities are exacerbated by new technology; cell phone use is poorly socialized, and sometimes may seem trivial. But I got my cell phone when my parents became ill and needed to stay in touch. I get urgent calls from work. Some library users contact employers or others to share information found at the library, and children need to remain in contact with parents. Pay phones are disappearing. Cell phones are part of life and we need to deal with them.

Movie theaters remind audiences several times to silence phones. Our phones seductively remove us from our physical environment and into virtual space. This leads to car accidents and conversations in the middle of movies. Particularly in places where physical neighbors represent no real relationship or emotional investment, we may not notice ourselves being anti-social. This is inconsiderate, but happens too often – especially in airports.

We should keep up dialog and education. Most people are not intentional jerks, but can easily be heedless. Social problems suggest social solutions: “Excuse me, you’re being rather loud; could you please hold it down?” If rudeness does not respond to courtesy, it’s time to call in the authorities.

Courteous folks turn off ringers in shared space and are sensitive to others, not taking phone calls in the theater or in church. Public libraries are different. They aren't spaces where everyone is presumed to sit quietly and pay attention to the same thing, but where everyone is doing their own thing. People talk at the Appleton Library all the time, especially on the first floor, designed as a louder, more social area. In any case, people on phones would be courteous to step away from others, creating some physical space, and keep their voices low.

Library staff sometimes ask people to hold conversations down, control their kids, or take their phone call downstairs. We remind people not to sing along with their iPods. In the scheme of things, we get more complaints about several other behavioral problems than about people using cell phones on the first floor. But we deal with these case by case. We appreciate it if people stick up for themselves: a concern often means more coming from peers than from authority. It’s about community, not rules.

We ask people to silence ringers when they enter the library, keep phone conversations low volume and prohibit cell phone use on the second floor – about half the library and a majority of adult public service space. We think this a reasonable compromise between the many people who want to use cell phones and those who don’t want to have to hear other people’s conversations – even quiet ones.

As our library has become more crowded and has less seating, the problem has gotten worse. In the long run, I would like to see a library better designed to allow separate places – difficult in a big “open concept” building. I love libraries with study rooms, big reading rooms and quiet nooks that feel like living rooms.

Lacking better designed space, what should the Appleton Public Library do about cell phones? To me, a total ban is an over-reaction to a small problem, but that’s the question for the Library Board. As the citizen group charged with representing the interests of the community, they have the governing authority to set policy. This is a tough call, balancing diverse interests and opinions. While Appleton’s current practice is actually pretty typical for Fox Cities libraries and comparable communities around the state, the Board will decide.
--
Post Script:

Reviewing this, I thought of a few more points, beyond what I squeezed into 700 words. Concise is not my bag, alas.

• I'm really proud of the job the library staff does working to keep the place nice and enforcing policies where needed. The fact they are able to keep up as well as they do, despite increasing workloads, speaks well of them -- and of most of our users
• One of the responses on Fox Politics was by a Dave Allen, who wrote that the library is like a church:

  No one would think of using a cell phone in church where reflection and worship is the purpose and no one should think of using a cell phone in a library where worship of thought and research and knowledge is the purpose.

  I like this a lot, even though I have to partly disagree. The library is most like a church in some ways, and I think we do provide places of quiet reflection. Like a church, the library offers spiritual values and transforming power. But the library is also a happening place with live music performances offered at times on the main floor, lots of families with kids, and lots of lively discussions. The research area is where cell phones are banned, but I don't want to go back to "Grandma's library" where everybody gets shushed. I think there's room for the library to meet a more diverse set of needs.
• It was almost forty years ago that the Wilson Library Bulletin published its famous and highly debated pull-out centerfold, the "NO SILENCE" sign. The controversy is still with us. Art Plotnick, the visionary who masterminded the idea, wrote in 1972:

  ...don't you know, sisters and brothers, it is as a storage place that the library is going to die. For in a world grown - that's right - increasingly raucous and cacophonous, the critical, instant information, communication, and education that the non-elite among us will need to survive will not come from the soft rustle of pages and the quiet stir of thoughts. Save all that for those who have already made it, working in the university libraries, the law and medical libraries, the scholars' archives. But try to sell a people's library on the appeal of slanting falls of light - and, honey, that light got to fall on empty chairs. And then you'll have your silence.

• So let's make space for some more quiet reading rooms -- by all means. But let's not try to turn back the clock. Whether or not they allow cell phones -- and I believe most do -- public libraries should be places where we can enjoy some quiet, but also be part of an active community. NO SILENCE.
  

Web 3.0? Not so fast, there!

Some of my favorite bloggers are sounding cautionary notes. Amid recent concerns about Library 2.0 from folks like John Blyberg, Jeff Scott and Rochelle Hartman, there are new concerns from Tasha Saecker and growing affirmations of slow reading and slow library.

Blyberg notes that Library 2.0 "represents technology that is inherently disruptive on many levels" and that it can "undermine notions of authority and control." These concerns were discussed here recently. Hey, in a 2.0 world. we can read lots of reviews on Amazon -- let's cancel that Booklist subscription. And Tasha's concern about the personalized web 3.0 is right on:

...perhaps our strength is that instead of having a faceless computer ... making suggestions, we have REAL LIVE PEOPLE who can do it. And do it well.

Honestly, let's use our technology knowledge to blog, tweet, post, comment, shout that we already do this. Let's offer the service online to make it shiny and new, but let's not forget that LIBRARIANS RULE in this arena already. And let's keep on making sure that we are the human face of information, of recommendations. "

I dearly love InfoSoup, our consortial catalog, as a great library tool. I want to continue developing our online resources in an interactive 2.0 way. But I'm concerned if patrons identify more strongly with online resources than with the physical library. Call me old-fashioned (maybe just old), but I think we need to mindfully maintain high touch as well as high tech. That means library as place and librarians as face-to-face. It means marketing the value of our staff expertise and our reference services as well as library programs.

I remember my colleague Barbara Kelly, twenty years ago having an argument in correspondence with Alfred Glossbrenner, author of How to Look It Up Online. At that time Barbara and I were the apostles of online service at our library, but in the emerging Internet, we were already concerned with the downside of disintermediation which Glossbrenner was touting. Yes, you can look it up for yourself, but the information you find will be presented without authority -- or with anonymous authority. Is it surprising that not long ago, I found myself in a meeting where a community was debating building a library and a high school teacher publicly declared that the Internet had made libraries obsolete? We hear that misperception too often, but we need to be careful how we feed it. As Tasha notes, our role as mediators has value.

In a self-check, instant message world where people google for information, we need to think about how we build connections and community, how we turn information into education, and why people should pay taxes to ensure we keep doing it. If the library is a growing organism, we need to promote growth for our users and communities -- in a balanced way, online and in person. We need to connect. Or we could turn into Amazon and Netflix.

Management, innovation & budget

David Lee King's blog is generally worth reading; I check it at least weekly. But I'm concerned about the tenor of a recent discussion. Writing about barriers to new tech and 2.0 in Four Things to Consider When Changing the Unchangeable, David asked about:

• Steps to take to convince administrators that the library world is different than it was in the 1970’s?
• How to convince administrators that constant change and innovation is good, and that it’s also a necessity in our new millenial world?
• How can we become change agents in a field that’s apparently not used to changing?

and posed the following response:

Looks like there are approximately four things to consider when hoping to implement new technology (at least, these four things came out of your comments). They are:

1. Management problems
2. Finding champions
3. Creating a Vision
4. training Administrators

1. Management Problems: You guys mentioned some interesting problems, including budget constraints, no follow-through on an already-created strategic plan, the organization being slow to adapt to anything, and the “too much work too little time” mantra.

I see these problems as poor management. The “too much work too little time” thing can be dealt with by changing job descriptions, responsibilities, etc. But this needs to be done in conjunction with a new direction (see Creating a Vision below).

Same with budget constraints - most emerging technology doesn’t cost any actual money (just time and staff resources), so budget isn’t really an issue.

At least one respondent said these all boil down to management problems. Where there's a lack of management will, interest and follow through, you might justly call it poor management. But it's altogether too simplistic to characterize all budget problems as poor management. To say that it take "just time and staff resources" ignores the fact that time and staff resources comprise more than 75% of the budget and they're all devoted to providing services.

Many Massachusetts libraries are closing or curtailing service like Internet access and children's story hours. You can say this is poor management if you include statewide political processes as part of management. Here in Wisconsin, TABORlike law has meant that municipalities cannot raise budgets even at inflationary rates, though utility and health insurance costs grow rapidly. Thus our library has cuts in staff despite double digit increases in circ & other output.

In this environment, the staff is hard-pressed to shelve the books, answer reference questions, maintain computers and keep the same library hours. So when administrators encourage them to go to conferences, play with 2.0 resources online, and develop innovative proposals, staff is understandably skeptical. You can't arbitrarily change job descriptions, you have to change service priorities, and management skills can only go so far in the political arena, where boards and elected officials can be recalcitrant.

And while some staff may chafe at lack of management support, there’s also some management that may chafe at lack of staff interest in seeking new solutions. Either way, managers should provide leadership & opportunity, but need to respect staff professionalism and participation in decisions. So I take issue with the statement "constant change and innovation is good" as overly broad. Management needs to recognize that the environment is constantly changing, but that doesn't mean pursuing change for its own sake. There are limits to staff capacity to absorb changes. It's tempting to say "it's just time -- try it, and if it doesn't work, we'll do something else", but you can really only say that about your own time.

We need to keep pursuing the mix of public and private funding to stay afloat, while pressing governing authorities like library boards and mayors to make the tough choices. We need to innovate, but it's an uphill fight. Yes, management is responsible, but management authority is limited -- for better or worse --by real-world constraints.

Mene Mene Tekel Upharsin

The BostonNOW website reports on the dilemma faced by Massachusetts libraries. Following cuts in state revenue, local municipalities need to pass a referendum to override fiscal restrictions in order to maintain library service. These referenda have failed in 60% of communities, causing many libraries to severely cut back services and others to close. In the article "Losing our borrowing privileges", BostonNOW reports:

Municipal libraries fall victim to municipal budget woes across the state because flat revenues and rising health care and energy costs force cities and towns to choose between asking voters to raise taxes or cutting services like public libraries.

In this respect, Massachusetts is not so different from Wisconsin nor (your state's name here). The Stoneham Sun reports:

...in Northbridge the public library has lost hours of operation, members of its staff, and its affiliation with the state public library system: no children’s story time, no summer reading program, no internet access, and no way to borrow books from other public libraries. The Saugus Public Library will close its doors this week. The building will be shuttered by the end of June. Medway’s library will suffer the same fate as Northbridge...

Ah, well, too bad for them. But as that great philosopher, Frank Zappa, taught us:

It can't happen here
It can't happen here
I'm telling you, my dear
That it can't happen here...

Who could imagine...

It can't happen here
It can't happen here
Everybody's safe and it can't happen here

Except, of course, it can happen here. All your well-earned politesse and good management can't stop it, but maybe we can soften the blow. How? I'm still trying to learn, but can think of a few ways:

1. Make sure our services are well-aligned to the needs of the community we serve and that the community knows it. That means we keep dancing on the "give em what they want" vs. "give what they need" boundary line. Listen. Talk. Be valuable and seen as valuable.
   
2. Local communities should be invested in the library that they will ultimately need to support. Being overly reliant on state funds or other outside funding -- that could dry up due to forces beyond control -- leave locals holding a big bag.
3. Nevertheless we need to cultivate multiple revenue streams -- diversify our funding & support. We need local support, but we also need endowment funds, friends groups, volunteers, equitable reimbursements for service provided outside our funding area, and as many available grants as reasonably relevant.
4. And we can't forget to keep working with our professional associations at the regional & state level, to make sure states don't clobber municipalities in general and local libraries in particular, and to sustain library collaborations. We need to energizie trustees & friends to be involved as well.
   

It makes one ask: would this community pass a referendum for a major increase in support, or would it let the library close? If communities get the libraries they deserve, what does my town deserve? What determines a town deserving a library? a good library? an excellent library?

Two kinds of library problems

In an article on AlterNet, "America Gone Wrong: A Slashed Safety Net Turns Libraries into Homeless Shelters", Chip Ward -- former assistant director of the Salt Lake City Public Library System -- writes about the problems urban libraries face with some "problem patrons." While Appleton is less extreme than Salt Lake City or any big metropolitan library, we wrestle with the same problems on a smaller scale. Homeless people, street people, the chronic mentally ill, emotionally ill and chemically dependent are daily fixtures and frequent challenges. Local social workers tell their clients: "if you have nowhere else to go, go to the library." While many of the homeless and street people present no problems, some entail substantial behavioral and service concerns. The resultant issues divide our staff and other library users. Although libraries are for everyone, it's easier to serve the people without problem behaviors and with good social skills. We can insist on proper behavior and treat people according to behavior, but its an ongoing challenge, while some other users just think the police should make these problematic people leave town.

We face a tension between legitimate concerns of keeping the library a nice place to work and visit and keeping it a place of opportunity and dialog for all citizens. We don't have social worker training.

By contrast, four days ago I was in Deva, Romania. While walking down the street, I spotted a public library reading room. Curious about Romanian libraries, I stepped in for a look around, hoping I might be able see collections, classification, and talk with staff. It was a small facility: a front room with card catalog and a service desk, a back room with wall stacks and reading tables. As I entered, a library worker stood up and quickly stepped in front of me.

This is a good place to note that I cannot speak Romanian and was wearing dirty work clothes. The staff person asked me a question I did not understand, but the inflection was a lot like "Yes, can we help you?" I responded with my stock "Do you speak English?" No. "Sprechen sie Deutsch?" No. "Parlez-vous Francais?" No.

Not yet quite defeated, I tried to lean in to peer into the reading room. She leaned as well, resolutely blocking my path. I said thanks and left. Final note: I did not see anyone else using the library. Good thing it was so well defended.

A Romanian friend later told me that if I had been well dressed and presented proper papers, they would no doubt have let me in. Another friend, a fairly responsible official in the school district, thought that there was a fairly new central public library, but did not know where it was. She thought she might be able to find out in a day or so. So, are there any happy problems here? Which library is better off?

Poverty, exclusion & library behavior

Connect these dots -- what picture emerges?

• Hunger Homelessness & Poverty Task Force - a website for a task force of ALA's Social Responsibilities Round Table, says: "U.S. libraries have been slow to adopt the social-exclusion framework for public service ... Librarians who are seeking community-building models can benefit tremendously from projects launched in Great Britain and Canada ... Through national campaigns, these countries promote relationships between library staff and traditionally excluded groups. The resulting collaborations create more useful programs and services and more cohesive communities." A Canadian model is detailed in the document Breaking Barriers: Libraries and Socially Excluded Communities.
• There was a 2006 lawsuit against Worcester, Mass library for restricting circulation to homeless people. The suit was settled out of court, but the library had to remove its restrictions.
• Project Promise is our collaborative effort with other organizations to address problems of poverty in the Fox Cities. So far, we're talking the talk -- and its a worthwhile conversation, with our community read of Barbara Ehrenreich's Nickel & Dimed at the core of it. But after we talk, how do we walk the walk? Obviously, this is bigger than the library, but what's our piece of it? Do we just talk about books, or do we need to think about how we provide library service?
• We just held a poverty simulation exercise at the library with 45 community participants and 15 volunteers. During the course of the two-hour simulation, participants get a small taste of the frustration of people who, for a variety of reasons, can't quite make ends meet. Just simulating these situations can leave you angry and questioning your own ethics. It gives me some sympathy for how those in real poverty must deal with repeated frustration and authority which can seem arbitrary. This makes me reflect on our own library and how we provide service.
  
• Homeless and poverty are rising faster in our community than nationally and our downtown feels increasingly urban. . Some people in the community feel the library or the library neighborhood is unsafe. We need to gain more insight into this perception. We see increasing public dissatisfaction with safety in the library neighborhood and to some extent in the library, as expressed in a October, 2006 survey. A major root of this is widely held to be loiterers at the edge of our parking lot. This situation was exacerbated by the City's smoking ordinance, which pretty much requires all bus passengers to leave the bus depot area and stand near the library if they want to smoke while waiting for a bus. This in turn has created a mini community center for street people, with a lot of litter, profanity, harassment of women, destruction of plantings. Library staff and Police have not been able to address the situation so as to eliminate the problem. In a free country, people are allowed to stand on the sidewalk and even to cuss publicly. But it creates an unfriendly feeling.
• A librarian reported a family that had apparently been using the library with their children and experiencing no problems, abruptly leaving. The father, observing another patron who was minding his own business, loudly announced that they were never coming back to the library again, because he had seen at least two or three former inmates or felons here. The family left before staff could engage him -- he didn't want to discuss his concern, he just wanted to announce his unhappiness publicly.

Here's the picture I see:

• Our public library needs to be, and to be perceived as, "a safe place for everyone" -- and the operative words here are:
• safe: people need to feel comfortable, for themselves and their children, that this is an OK place to be
• everyone: we cannot abandon the promise of public libraries as a provider of universal educational opportunity and community gathering place. We need to moderate inclusiveness for all legitimate users. Nobody gets to drive other types of people out. It's not about who you are, it's not about how you look, it's about how you behave – and everyone is responsible for their own actions. Being poor, mentally ill or having a criminal record is neither an excuse for bad behavior nor a reason to be disrespected or excluded.
• Everyone involved in the library needs to be invested and empowered to make this real
• Library staff needs tools to deal with these concerns -- how we collectively do this has room for lots of discussion! Tools include:
• policies & procedures
• well-designed spaces
• sufficient staff
• training
• backup & support
• technology for communication & documentation as needed
  

There are a lot of forces in our society which mitigate against the growth or funding of library services. They can point fingers and trivialize what we do. But a thoughtful look at public libraries reveals the value of information, self-determination and education that we provide. It's good that we bridge the digital divide and its good that we provide bestsellers in many media. But the good thing is not to increase library use of popular services, the good thing is to bring people closer to the rich variety of opportunities we offer -- for everyone.

Taken for Granted

In a Albuquerque Tribune commentary "Just like libraries", writer Stevie Olson compares public transit as a public good, like libraries, which should be funded because it's a public good. OK so far, but then she says:

Public libraries never bring in revenue, but we do not scream to have them boarded up, shut down and the contents auctioned off. Instead, voters continue to support libraries as essential resources and important institutions, even if the majority of us rarely set foot in one.

I replied, in a comment to the newspaper website:

Transit is certainly deserving of support, but let us not take public libraries for granted.

To say: "voters continue to support libraries as essential resources and important institutions, even if the majority of us rarely set foot in one" is fallacious in two respects.

First, voters see libraries as essential resources, yet many libraries are seeing year after year of budget cuts despite continuous increases in library use. Second, most people, at least in my town, use libraries. That does not stop politicians from cutting library funding nor the many cries of the ignorant that libraries are obsolete and irrelevant in the Internet age.

Maybe it's just Friday, but it's a bit discouraging to assume that we're getting the support that we need, when we know we're not, and even more so when people assume we're going unused. I must be ready for the weekend.

Innovators suffer under HAPLR

In this article in the Montgomery Advertiser, Montgomery Library Director Jaunita Owes observes that Hennen's American Public Library Ratings provide a biased measure. She is correct; the HAPLR needs to be taken with a large dose of salt. Far from measuring the "best" public libraries, it measures the libraries which best meet the criteria Tom Hennen is able to -- and chooses to -- measure.

Owes specifically notes that the HAPLR neglects to include electronic services, increasingly a significant and cost-effective service delivery method. Hennen acknowledges this omission and, in his defense, correctly notes that there are inadequate standards for objective measurement in this area.

Another entire area missing in HAPLR is programming. With libraries increasingly adopting the roles of community centers, use of meeting spaces and attendance at library programs is a significant part of many libraries' efforts. My workplace, the Appleton Public Library is one of these.

As Owes rightly states, "Only through a complete picture of a library, its services, and how the needs of a community are met may the public library be viewed." While the HAPLR can be valuable for many libraries in gaining well-deserved credit, it can wrongly be cited as evidence that a library heavily invested in electronic services & community programs is worse than one heavily invested in high circulation and traditional reference.

Because measurements lag behind services, standards lag behind measurements, and comparative analysis lags further, it is nigh unto impossible for any system such as the HAPLR to be up to date. Problems arise when library critics point fingers due to a low "score", without keeping in perspective both this lag and the somewhat arbitrary nature of choosing and weighting some criteria and excluding others.

The Montgomery City-County Public Library has a 2006 HAPLR score of 21%; the Appleton Public Library's 2006 score is 90%. I still think it's unfair. The true measure of any library is the community it serves. Arbitrary measurements like HAPLR have their use, but they cannot determine how any library is doing relative to the vlaues and needs of the community it serves. You can measure by standard criteria, but not judge by them. If we don't understand the difference, we're just hapless.

Budget Politics: big & small favors

Okay, we got our staff cut -- second year in a row...

We have said for years that one of our public library’s great strengths is the support we receive from the community. This support is expressed in many ways: library use, donations, volunteer hours and -- most directly -- via our budget. The establishment of any public budget is a fairly intense political process, and rightly so. It’s the mechanism which expresses the will of the people for what will be done by public servants with public moneys. This is certainly true for annual municipal budgets; in Appleton, our City budget is the source of nearly all library spending. All the donations and other support, though critical, are a very small percentage of what gets approved in the budget our Mayor develops and is then debated and voted on by the Common Council.

This is neither easy nor taken lightly by any of the parties. [more...]