State Standards and Public Libraries: an Overview
State Standards and Public Libraries: an Overview
June Houghtaling
1
State Standards and Public Libraries: an Overview
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
State Standards and Public Libraries: an Overview
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
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
State Standards and Public Libraries: an Overview
Standards for Public Libraries, was the most comprehensive document to date. The document
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
5
Vainstein, State Standards, 13.
Vainstein, State Standards, 14.
7
Vainstein, State Standards, 15.
8
Vainstein, State Standards, 18.
6
4
State Standards and Public Libraries: an Overview
first Federal grant program for public libraries. Emphasis was placed on quality of service rather
than per capita support9.
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
9
Vainstein, State Standards, 19.
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/S07408188(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=0bc05f7a67b1790e1916ca00094d315
94559825242bc984fc6d256e242b618176fcb1d71f704482e&fmt=c
10
5
State Standards and Public Libraries: an Overview
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
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
Owen, “Current Issues and Patterns,” 214.
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.
12
13
6
State Standards and Public Libraries: an Overview
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
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
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.
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.
15
7
State Standards and Public Libraries: an Overview
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
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
Kim and Shin, “Sociodemographic Correlates,” 364.
Kim and Shin, “Sociodemographic Correlates,” 365.
22
Charles A. Seavey, “The Public Library in Society: the Relationship of Libraries and
Socioeconomic Conditions,” Public Libraries (Jan/Feb 1989): 49.
20
21
8
State Standards and Public Libraries: an Overview
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
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
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.navigatorclarion.passhe.edu/hww/jumpstart.jhtml?recid=0bc05f7a67b1790e1916ca00094d315a41250fb49
4f7d6777820a3aa2bc9f878a3317f1c77ddd68f&fmt=H
24
Alan Pratt, “Questionable Assumptions,” Public Libraries 37, no.1 (1998) 52.
25
George D’Elia and Eleanor Jo Rodger, “Customer Satisfaction with Public Libraries,” Public
Libraries 35, no. 5 (1996).
23
9
State Standards and Public Libraries: an Overview
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.
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.
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=ehostlive&scope=site
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.
26
10
State Standards and Public Libraries: an Overview
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
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
C. R. McClure, “From Public Library Standards to Development of Statewide Levels of
Adequacy,” Library Research 2, no.1 (1980): 61.
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.
28
11
State Standards and Public Libraries: an Overview
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?
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.
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).
32
12
State Standards and Public Libraries: an Overview
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.
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.
California State Library, “Public Library Fund,” (2007),
http://www.library.ca.gov/services/libraries/plf.html
34
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.pdf
38
“Alaska Public Library Law,” Alaska Statutes, Article 03 Library Assistance Grants (2010),
http://library.state.ak.us/dev/pllaw.html
33
13
State Standards and Public Libraries: an Overview
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
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.
Mississippi Library Commission, “Mississippi Public Library System Accreditation Program
Manual,” (2007), http://www.mlc.lib.ms.us/pdf/accreditationprogrammanual.pdf
39
14
State Standards and Public Libraries: an Overview
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
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
40
41
California State Library, “Public Library Fund,” 2007.
See Use of Planning in State Standards above.
15
State Standards and Public Libraries: an Overview
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
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.
Title 590 Indiana Library and Historical Board, “Proposed Rule,” (2010),
http://www.in.gov/library/files/Proposed_Rule_08-945.pdf
42
16
State Standards and Public Libraries: an Overview
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.
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.
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).
17
State Standards and Public Libraries: an Overview
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.
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?
44
See discussion under heading “Governance” above.
18
State Standards and Public Libraries: an Overview
Table 1. Collections in state standards.
Collections in standards
Collection development plan
Funding
Percent of budget
Catalog
Access
Volumes per capita
Cooperation
Non-print materials
Currency
Circulations per capita
Turnover rate
Reference materials
Special populations
Number of items
Automation
Ordering
Number of states
% of states
13
13
8
7
7
7
6
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
1
52
52
32
28
28
28
24
12
12
12
12
8
8
8
8
4
Total states
21
84
Note: 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
19
State Standards and Public Libraries: an Overview
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.
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
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
45
20
State Standards and Public Libraries: an Overview
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.
Technology
Number of states
% of states
Internet Access
Number of workstations
Policy
Electronic Resources
Web site
Staff training
Connectivity
Planning
Assistive Technology
Funding
Instruction to patrons
8
5
5
5
4
4
3
3
2
2
1
32
20
20
20
16
16
12
12
8
8
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
State Standards and Public Libraries: an Overview
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
State Standards and Public Libraries: an Overview
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
State Standards and Public Libraries: an Overview
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=ehos
t-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
State Standards and Public Libraries: an Overview
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?direct=true&db=lxh&AN=ISTA1902285&site=ehos
t-live&scope=site
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?direct=true&db=lxh&AN=ISTA1502788&site=ehos
t-live&scope=site
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
State Standards and Public Libraries: an Overview
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.navigatorclarion.passhe.edu/hww/jumpstart.jhtml?recid=0bc05f7a67b1790e1916ca00094d315a41
250fb494f7d6777820a3aa2bc9f878a3317f1c77ddd68f&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=0bc05f7a67b1790e1916ca000
94d31594559825242bc984fc6d256e242b618176fcb1d71f704482e&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=e
host-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
State Standards and Public Libraries: an Overview
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=ehostlive&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
State Standards and Public Libraries: an Overview
Categories and Subcategories of Data Collection
1. Planning
Long range/strategic planning
Facilities planning
Technology planning
Marketing planning
Collection development planning
2. Governance
Laws
Insurance
Boards
Orientation
Meetings
Bylaws
Director
Policies
Statistics Use
Evaluation
Procedures
Reporting
Funding/Finance
3. Staffing
Policies
Recruitment
Compensation
Job descriptions
Training
Staff development
Education
Sufficient staff
Volunteers
Diversity
Performance Evaluation
Benefits
4. Collections
Cooperation
Funding
28
State Standards and Public Libraries: an Overview
Reference materials
Periodicals
Non print materials
Special populations
Volumes per capita
Currency
Circulations per capita
Turnover rate
Access
Automation
Ordering
Cataloging
Number of items
Cardholders
5. Services and Programs
Hours of operation
Reference service
Reader’s Advisory
Interlibrary Loan
Programming
Literacy
Special populations
Friends Groups
Meeting room
Circulation policy
Alternatives to walk-in service
Policies
Quality customer service
Reserves
Outreach
Number of visits
6. Facilities
Law
Capitol improvement
Maintenance
Interior space
Exterior space
Public space
Geographic location
Policy
Lighting
Evaluation
29
State Standards and Public Libraries: an Overview
AV equipment
7. Technology
Electronic resources
Number of workstations
Internet access
Policy
Staff Training
Connectivity
Assistive technology
Web site
Funding
Patron instruction
8. Marketing
Policies
Advocacy
Promotion
Funding
Evaluation
30