Public Library Standards
A Review of Standards and Guidelines from the 50 States of the U.S.
for the Colorado, Mississippi and Hawaii State Libraries
by Christine Hamilton-Pennell
Mosaic Knowledge Works
April 2003
Introduction
This report reviews the public library standards, guidelines, and rules from the 50 United
States, and compares the content and process of standards-setting efforts in the 28 states
that have published standards from 1998 through 2003 (including Colorado’s 1997
document). There is no agreed-upon definition of standards as opposed to guidelines,
rules, or laws, so the approach taken here is to accept the terms used by each state,
without attempting to analyze or synchronize them. No two states include exactly the
same elements in their standards or guidelines, and each state’s approach is different,
although there are some common threads in the majority of the standards-setting efforts.
States identify different reasons why they undertake the development of public library
standards or guidelines. Among the reasons given are that standards:
 Assist in planning efforts (Oklahoma and Alabama).
 Provide an evaluation mechanism and tool for public accountability (Missouri).
 Provide a philosophical context for quality public library service (Alabama).
 Serve as a library development tool by stimulating growth and development
(Missouri).
 Serve as a tool to identify strengths and select areas for improvement (Maine).
 Provide a shared vision for library service (Michigan).
 Assist in determining whether resources are sufficient (Oregon).
 Set minimum guidelines for receipt of state aid (New Mexico).
Standards for 19 states (Colorado, Connecticut, Georgia, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan,
Minnesota, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, Ohio Oklahoma, Rhode Island, South
Carolina, Tennessee Utah, Vermont, Virginia, and Wisconsin) were developed under the
auspices of the state library agency. Professional library associations were the sponsoring
bodies for standards developed in Alabama, Florida, Idaho, Illinois, Louisiana, Maine,
Missouri, New Jersey, Oregon, South Dakota, Texas, and North Carolina. Standards were
developed jointly by the state library agency and professional library association in
Kansas, Kentucky, Montana, North Dakota, and West Virginia. The other states’
standards are contained in state law or administrative code (Indiana, Massachusetts, New
Mexico, New York, and Pennsylvania).
Methodology
The information for this study was gathered from five sources: telephone conversations,
correspondence by mail and e-mail, online surveys, websites, and printed documents.
Initial contact was made with each state library agency or professional association to
determine the agency and contact person responsible for the standards. Talking with the
contact person usually provided information about the title, date, and Web address of the
standards. The agency contacts (or Patricia Froehlich, Public Library Senior Consultant
for the Colorado State Library) provided paper copies of standards documents published
after 1997 that were not available on the Web. Each state’s contact person also provided
information about whether their standards were required by law or administrative code,
the legal citation, and the URL for the appropriate laws or rules. This information was
entered into a table that allowed for other information to be added as necessary.
An Access database was developed based on the information provided by the agency
contact people and an initial review of standards documents from three states. The
structure of the database was refined after discussions with Colorado State Library staff.
It was determined that information about library staff certification would be included in
the database, and that a full review of the standards and breakdown of topics covered
would be conducted for standards published from 1998 to 2003.
A survey was then developed and posted on the Web to gather information not readily
available through the standards documents. This included whether the state has some
certification or education requirements for professional library personnel, what kind of
assessment process exists, how the standards tie into state aid and LSTA funding, and
whether there is a definition of a public library in the standards. The survey was
announced through the COSLA electronic mailing list, and representatives from 23 states
responded.
The next step involved reviewing the standards documents and websites and gathering
information to insert into the database. This process was complicated by the question of
exactly what should be included under the category of “standards.” Some states have both
voluntary standards and legal requirements (e.g., for state aid). The decision was made to
always list the voluntary standards (if available) in the main standards field for the state,
while mentioning the legal requirements in the field for state aid or in the notes field. For
states whose standards were included in the law, those legal documents were listed in the
main standards field. Accurately filling in the database fields often required additional
conversations or correspondence with state contact people to clarify information or fill in
missing details. The database accurately reflects information available to the consultant at
the time of entry. Hopefully, any errors or omissions that exist will be corrected by the
states involved after they have reviewed their entries in the online database.
After the database was completed, it was converted to a MySQL database and posted on
the Central Colorado Library System website. Search scripts were added in PHP to allow
the database to be browsed or searched by specific parameters: date, state name, topics
addressed, legal mandate, and type of standards (e.g., minimum, model or tiered). A
simple text search is also available. The database may be accessed at the CCLS home
page at http://www.cclsweb.org/index.html, click on Public Library Standards Database;
or directly at http://www.cclsweb.org/plsp/view.php.
Analysis
This section highlights some of the features of the standards review, and draws some
conclusions based on that review.
2
Legal Mandate
The standards developed by 22 states (Alabama, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida,
Georgia, Idaho, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, Nebraska, Nevada,
North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Carolina,
South Dakota, Tennessee) were issued through the state library agency or professional
library association, and are voluntary, having no legal mandate for either development of
the standards or compliance with them. A few states (Minnesota, Missouri, New Jersey,
Texas, West Virginia, Wisconsin) have developed voluntary standards, but also have
statutes or administrative rules that specify standards or eligibility requirements for
public libraries to receive state aid or be part of a library system.
New York, Utah, and Virginia are required by state law or administrative regulations to
develop public library standards. For five states, the standards are actually included in
state law or rules. These states are Indiana, Massachusetts, Montana, New Hampshire,
New Mexico, and Pennsylvania. For most of these, eligibility requirements for receipt of
state aid are tied to the standards. An interesting hybrid is Illinois, whose standards are
voluntary, but whose library law states that public libraries that wish to receive per capita
state aid must “either meet or show progress towards meeting the Illinois library
standards, as most recently adopted by the Illinois Library Association.” Missouri’s
standards are voluntary, but are endorsed by the Secretary of State as a policy of best
practice. Likewise, Vermont’s standards are not required by law but are approved by the
legislature and have the force of law.
Ten states have not developed standards: Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California,
Delaware, Hawaii, Maryland, Mississippi, Washington, and Wyoming. Arizona has
chosen to use a local planning process rather than developing a set of standards.
Delaware, Mississippi and Hawaii plan to develop standards but have not yet started the
process. None of these states has a legal mandate to develop standards, although some of
them do have legislation or rules that set criteria for state aid. States that are in the
process of either developing or revising their standards are Louisiana, Oklahoma,
Michigan, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Oklahoma, and Tennessee. Drafts from three
of these states have been included in this analysis (Michigan, New Hampshire, and
Oklahoma).
Approach
The approach taken by most states was to convene a committee to review standards from
other states, look at the unique characteristics and needs of the particular state, create a
draft that was widely circulated for comments, revise the draft, and formally publish the
standards. Kentucky divided up the task among several task forces, each covering a
particular topic. Most of the standards documents have divisions on governance, staff or
personnel, collections, services, technology, and public or community relations, with very
specific recommendations. These divisions reflect a view of the public library as a legal
entity rather than a service-driven organization without finite boundaries that exists to
3
meet the needs of its users. This undoubtedly derives from the fact that most public
libraries operate under the aegis of state laws and regulations that specify how they are to
be organized and funded by a geographical entity.
The Public Library Association has long emphasized the importance of the planning
process within a local community. Even though several states emphasize using the
standards as part of the local planning process (most notably Alabama, Maine, Michigan,
North Carolina, South Carolina, Utah, and Virginia), Alabama appears to be the only
state that specifically mentions the 13 service responses listed in the Public Library
Association’s 1998 publication, Planning for Results: A Library Transformation Process
(see the PLA website, http://www.pla.org/conference/planning/responses.html).
Many states, particularly Illinois, Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, Virginia, and Wisconsin,
have included very specific quantitative or numerical formulas for staffing ratios,
collection size, budget levels, recommended technology, and other elements, in their
standards. This is presumably because librarians want that kind of specificity to use in
budget and planning discussions with their governing bodies and funding entities. Dr.
Jane Kolbe from the Arizona State Library, Archives and Public Records agency told me
that even though her state emphasizes the local planning process and has developed no
standards, librarians have requested specific quantitative or numerical formulas.
A few states have adopted standards that reflect a strong marketing approach based on a
needs assessment process (Georgia, Maine, and Texas), and one, Oklahoma, has based
their standards on a vision for the future. For the most part, however, standards reflect a
traditional view of the public library and its services, mitigated somewhat by changes in
technology and service delivery options.
Standards documents range in length from a one-page checklist (Nevada and New York),
to more than 100 pages. Most documents contain a table of contents, an introduction,
sections on various topics, and some appendices. Some documents also include
bibliographies, checklists, sample policies, and glossaries of terms. The Virginia
standards include extensive planning profiles.
Type of Standards
Of the 39 states whose standards were available for review, 20 have developed minimum
standards and 18 have developed “tiered” standards based on different levels of library
service. The exception is Utah, which has developed a checklist of elements that must be
present to achieve excellence in library service. The rationale for tiered standards is that
one size does not fit all public library situations, and while some libraries can barely meet
the most basic level of service, all libraries should be striving towards the highest levels
of service.
Minimum standards usually comprise recommendations for a base level of service that
every public library should provide to its patrons. As stated in the Rhode Island
4
standards, the standards reflect minimum standards that all independent public libraries
are expected to meet. “Libraries striving for excellence will work to exceed them.”
Tiered standards, on the other hand, include a base level and also identify one or more
higher levels of service. Almost every state with tiered standards uses a different set of
labels for the levels of service. Alabama refers to its three levels as “core, gold star, and
blue ribbon.” Florida’s and South Carolina’s are “basic, full, and comprehensive,” while
Kentucky’s are “basic, enhanced, and comprehensive,” and Georgia’s are
“comprehensive, full, and essential.” Other labels used for library service levels include
“gateway, pacesetter, and innovator” (Oklahoma), “threshold, adequate, and excellent”
(Oregon), and “essential, enhanced, and excellent” (Texas).
The Illinois standards identify four levels, “minimum, growing, established, and
advanced.” They also include core standards and supplemental standards for each level.
A similar approach is taken in Michigan’s draft standards document, which offers a
separate section for each of three levels--essential, enhanced, and excellent. Within each
level there are also two types of measures, core/mandatory and optional/elective. Maine’s
approach is to have minimum standards that all libraries should meet as well as additional
standards that represent a higher level of excellence. Wisconsin’s standards also define a
basic level of library service as well as a higher “pathway to excellence” in library
service. Quantitative standards are established at four levels of effort: basic, moderate,
enhanced, and excellent.
Missouri’s standards have a different arrangement. Standards are listed first. They are
statements of conditions necessary for effective library services. Guidelines are listed
under the standards. Achievement of the guidelines “contributes to the conditions
necessary for effective library service.” Taking yet another approach, Kansas identifies
eight library service levels, based on population: gateway, linking, service center, major
service center I, major service center II, major resource center I, major resource center II.
States such as New Hampshire and New Mexico, whose standards are tied to legislation,
refer to the status of libraries rather than levels of library service. New Hampshire
identifies three levels of library affiliation with the statewide library development system,
while New Mexico’s state aid legislation specifies full public library status or developing
library status. Virginia has minimum standards that are required by state law. The next
level is their comprehensive standards document, Planning for Library Excellence, which
includes both standards and guidelines. There are three levels of guidelines: essential
guidelines, aspiring guidelines, and excel guidelines.
Regardless of how the tiers are labeled, the common thread is that there is a basic level of
service that all libraries should meet, as well as benchmarks for higher levels of service,
spelled out in varying levels of specificity.
Rewards and Consequences
5
Public library standards are voluntary in the majority of states. This means that there are
no “teeth” to enforce them. Some states provide varying types of incentives to meet the
standards. Alabama libraries can apply to the state library for a “Certificate of Standards
Achievement.” Iowa libraries that meet all of the required measures and a certain number
of additional measures are accredited. Michigan offers a certificate of achievement to
libraries that meet any of the levels of standards. Libraries must meet standards in order
to participate in Pennsylvania’s Statewide Library Card reimbursement program.
Complying with the standards makes a library eligible for selected services from the
Vermont Department of Libraries such as connectivity, children's services and programs,
and public access computers. Nevada libraries must meet the minimum standards, or have
a plan in place of how the library will meet them, to receive federal or state funding.
Rhode Island libraries must comply with the standards or have an approved waiver to
receive state aid funding, apply for LSTA grants, and receive various services from the
state library. Likewise, South Carolina requires that libraries must comply with some of
the standards in order to receive state funding. Minnesota standards contain eligibility
requirements for public libraries applying for LSTA grants.
States with voluntary standards but some separate legal requirements often have
additional leverage in assuring that standards are met. Illinois library law states that
libraries that wish to receive per capita state aid must “either meet or show progress
toward meeting the Illinois library standards, as most recently adopted by the Illinois
Library Association.” Texas is considering using some of its voluntary standards to
replace the current minimum regulatory criteria used by the Texas State Library and
Archives Commission to accredit libraries for membership in the Texas Library System.
Accountability for meeting the standards reaches the highest level in states where the
standards are contained in or required by state law or code. In New York, communities
applying for a library charter or registration must meet all of the minimum standards at
the time of application. New Hampshire libraries must meet the standards to achieve
membership in the statewide library development system. New Mexico, Montana, Utah,
and Pennsylvania libraries must meet the minimum standards to receive state aid. In
Virginia, not meeting standards may result in reduction or loss of state aid. To receive
full funding under the New Jersey state program, libraries must meet certain minimum
requirements in state law. There are percentage deductions associated with each
requirement should a library fail that requirement. In Wisconsin, South Dakota, and
North Carolina, however, there is no relationship between the laws or regulations that
govern receipt of state aid and the voluntary standards.
Assessment of Standards
The majority of states whose standards are voluntary also have no official assessment
process to determine whether or not libraries meet the standards. Usually the standards
are designed to be used as part of the long-range planning process or as an evaluation tool
for measuring effective library service. It is assumed that libraries will use the standards
document to do a self-assessment. Many of the documents include checklists, either as
6
part of the standards themselves or in an appendix, to facilitate the planning process.
Some of the checklists have yes/no options, while others have additional options such as
“planned,” “in process,” or “not applicable.”
Among the states that have an assessment process, most require that libraries submit a
report (usually yearly) to the state library agency. Three states, Nebraska, North Dakota
and South Dakota, have voluntary standards but require that libraries submit a report to
the state library agency. The remainder of the states that require a report to the state
library agency (Indiana, Iowa, Massachusetts, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire,
Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia) have some legal mandate
that requires it, usually to qualify for state funding. Waiver procedures are usually built
into these standards or rules. Alabama’s assessment process requires that libraries submit
a report to the Alabama Library Association.
State library staff in four states (New Mexico, North Dakota, Rhode Island, and Utah)
make site visits to local libraries for assessment purposes. In New Mexico and Utah,
these visits are part of the compliance process; in North Dakota and Rhode Island, the
visits are not regulatory but to provide support. New Hampshire has area library forums
whose staff make site visits and submit reports to the New Hampshire State Library
Advisory Council, which assesses whether local libraries meet the standards and can be
members of the statewide library development system.
In summary, the main reward or consequence for meeting the standards in those states
that have an assessment process is receipt of state funding in some form, or membership
in a statewide library system (New Hampshire). The most common assessment tool is a
report submitted by the local library to the state library agency. Most states (20) have no
financial rewards or consequences for meeting the standards, and no assessment process
to determine libraries’ level of compliance.
Topics Addressed
The 28 states analyzed for this portion of the report, whose standards were published
from 1998-2003, are: Alabama, Colorado, Georgia, Illinois, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine,
Michigan, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New
York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South
Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Wisconsin. Colorado’s
standards are included, even though they were published in 1997. There is a great deal of
diversity in the topics covered in these documents. The topics selected for analysis are the
following: Governance/Administration, Staff Competency/Training, Needs Assessment,
Long-Range Plan, Funding Levels, Facilities, Collections, Staffing Levels, Hours of
Operation, Resource Sharing, Reference/Reader’s Advisory Services, Technology, Youth
Services, Services to Seniors, Services to People with Disabilities, Services to Minority
Groups, Policy Development, Intellectual Freedom, PR/Marketing/Advocacy, and Board
Training.
Online Database:
7
The online database created to disseminate information about the standards is available at
http://www.cclsweb.org/plsp/view.php. From this main view screen, you can browse the
standards by state with a drop-down menu list, or select a table with links to the record
for each state by clicking the link, “Show all states.” You can browse the database by one
or more topics (as listed above); by type of standards (e.g., minimum, tiered, or model);
by legal mandate (e.g., voluntary, standards included in laws or rules, or development
required by law). You can view just the records of states that have developed standards,
or limit by date published. You can also search by keyword using a simple text search.
The individual records in the database contain detailed information about the standards or
guidelines each state has produced. The following information is included in each record
(as applicable):

Name of State

Whether Standards Developed (yes, no, in process)

Name of Issuing Organization

Title of Standards/Guidelines

Date Published, or Date Anticipated (for standards in process)

Web Address of Standards

Whether the State has Standards, Guidelines, or Laws

Contact Person

Contact Information:
o Position
o Agency
o Address
o Phone
o Email Address

Legal Mandate for Standards (development required by law, standards
contained in laws or rules, voluntary)

Legal Citation

Web Address for State Laws or Rules

Type of Standards (minimum, model or tiered)

Description of Type

Whether Standards Contain a Definition of a Public Library

Location of Public Library Definition

Assessment Information:
o Who Assesses If Standards Met (e.g., state library agency,
professional library association, other group)
o Assessment Process
o Rewards or Consequences for Meeting the Standards
o Relationship of Standards to State Aid Funding
o Relationship of Standards to LSTA Funding

Certification Information:
o Whether the State Requires Public Library Professional Staff
Certification (yes/no)
o Description of Public Library Professional Staff Certification
o Web Address of Certification/Training Information
8



Headings Used in Standards Document
Topics Included in Standards:
o Governance/Administration Issues
o Staff Competency/Training Issues
o Needs Assessment Expected/Required
o Long-Range Plan Expected/Required
o Funding Levels
o Facilities
o Collections
o Staffing Levels
o Hours of Operation
o Resource Sharing
o Reference/Reader’s Advisory Services
o Technology
o Youth Services
o Services to Seniors
o Services to People with Disabilities
o Services to Minority Groups
o Development of Policies
o Intellectual Freedom
o PR/Marketing/Advocacy
o Board Training
o Other Topics
Notes (including further clarification of legal mandate, state aid rules, etc.)
The database contained current information at the time this report was prepared; it will be
up to the states to submit modifications to any links or other information that changes
over time.
Analysis of Topics:
All the states except Oklahoma have a section on governance and administration in
their standards documents. In most cases, this section refers to the composition and duties
of the governing board, and may address budget and funding issues as well. Topics
contained in this section include setting by-laws, holding meetings, developing policies,
and hiring the director. Sixteen documents specify that the board should adopt the ALA
Freedom to Read statement or otherwise support intellectual freedom. Michigan’s draft
standards document has a list of recommended policies that should be developed by the
board; others, for example Alabama and Illinois, contain model or sample policies in the
appendices. Twenty states encourage some kind of training or orientation for new board
members.
All the standards documents except the one from Pennsylvania contain a requirement or
section on developing a long-range plan. Most states tie their long-range plan to
conducting a needs assessment; however, eight states (Alabama, Nevada, New
Hampshire, New York, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, and South Dakota) make no
mention of surveying the community or carrying out any formal needs assessment to
9
supply information for developing their long-range plans. Texas does not specifically
mention a needs assessment process, although its standards take a client-based
management approach. Twenty-one states address the importance of public relations,
marketing or advocacy activities in their standards, but usually the focus is on
promoting or advertising current library services rather than building services based upon
community needs. As mentioned earlier, the standards from Georgia, Maine, and Texas
have a particularly strong marketing orientation.
In terms of human resources, the standards documents for all states except Illinois, New
York, and Ohio include some recommendations or requirements for certification,
education, or training of library staff members. This varies from requirements that the
director have an ALA-accredited MLS degree to holding a valid certificate from the state
(certification will be addressed further below). Most states indicate numeric staffing
levels as well. Georgia, for example, specifies that there should be a permanent, paid
director who meets the State of Georgia certification requirements, and that the library
should employ at least 0.5 full-time equivalent (FTE) staff per 1,000 population. Maine
specifies minimum levels of library certification required for population served (the two
levels are under 5,000, and 5,000 and over). Kansas has compensation guidelines for
public library directors.
South Carolina standards suggest hiring a library director with a Master’s degree from an
ALA-accredited program. Library staff should reflect the population diversity of the
geographic area served, and there should be a minimum of 2.5 professional FTE’s per
25,000 population served (basic level). Libraries achieving the comprehensive level
should have 6.5 FTE’s for the same population size. Oklahoma specifies both minimum
staffing and certification levels for six population levels and three tiers of library service
(gateway, pacesetter, and innovator). Several states do not specify staffing levels at all
(Michigan, Missouri, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, South Dakota,
Texas, and Vermont.)
Eleven states set desired funding levels for public libraries (Alabama, Michigan,
Missouri, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia,
Wisconsin). Alabama lists a minimum per capita appropriation of $5.50 for all sizes of
libraries. Many states, such as Oklahoma, break down the library budget into categories
and indicate percentages that should be spent in each category (e.g., 60-75% for staff, 510% for technology, 15-20% for operations, and 15-20% for materials). Utah requires a
50% maintenance-of-effort funding for receiving state aid. Wisconsin’s standards
include minimum materials expenditures per capita for four tiers of library service,
further broken down by seven population levels. An appendix in the Texas standards
document provides “financial targets”: average and median total expenditures per capita
for libraries that meet the essential, enhanced, and excellent standards for both FTE
counts and hours open.
One quantitative measure that is found in the standards documents for every state
minimum hours of operation, often broken down by population levels. For example,
Vermont suggests that weekly open hours for a library serving less than 1,000 population
10
should be 14-22 hours, while libraries serving a population of more than 10,000 should
be open 50-72 hours. Michigan standards indicate not only how many hours a library
serving a certain population size should be open, but also how many evening and
weekend hours should be included.
Guidelines for physical facilities are included in the standards documents for all states
except New Mexico and Vermont. These guidelines encompass everything from
maintaining good signage to how much square footage should be set aside for community
meeting space. Kentucky, for example, provides the following standards:
1. Library facilities are well-maintained.
2. Buildings are conveniently located and accessible to all.
3. The library is comfortable and efficient and provides a safe environment for users.
4. The library is inviting to users.
5. The library has external signage that identifies the facility as a library, and
internal signage to facilitate use.
Montana specifies that the director and board should regularly evaluate the library
building(s) to determine adequate space needs, and to address identified shortcomings in
a building plan. The Kansas standards document defines library space types and describes
a process for estimating space needs. Most states specify that library facilities meet
federal ADA accessibility guidelines.
Technology guidelines are included in the standards documents for all states except
Nevada, New Hampshire, and Pennsylvania. The level of specificity varies widely.
Illinois delineates what equipment a library should have, and includes a section on the
implications of technology on designing or remodeling a building. Georgia does not have
a separate section in its standards on technology, but includes guidelines on technology
services to library patrons and telecommunications equipment under its section on
collections. Oregon specifies the number of public Internet access workstations that
should be available for libraries serving two different population levels, and that every
library should have a written technology plan with a recommended cycle for upgrading or
replacing equipment. Virginia requires a written technology plan that is consistent with
the long-range plan and based on community needs. Many states recommend that
libraries provide remote access to the library’s catalog and electronic resources.
Not surprisingly, all states (except Nevada) include some requirements or guidelines for
library collections. While some are very specific (e.g., Oklahoma includes guidelines for
what proportion of library materials should be less than five years old), some use general
phrases such as, “the collection reflects the diversity/diverse viewpoints of the
community.” As an example, South Dakota specifies that the library’s Board of Trustees
adopt a collection development policy that includes the selection criteria for electronic
resources, that a budget be developed based on the collection development policy, that
materials be purchased at regular intervals throughout the year, and that each item in the
library’s collection be evaluated for retention, replacement, or withdrawal at least every
five years. Interlibrary loan is often mentioned in the context of collection development,
usually with the proviso that ILL should supplement but not supplant local collection
development.
11
Resource sharing, which encompasses interlibrary loan as well as other network and
consortium arrangements, is mentioned in 24 states’ standards documents. Most of the
standards documents mention the importance of offering interlibrary loan services and
providing remote access to the library’s catalog. Kentucky and South Carolina’s
standards specify that libraries should work cooperatively with other community agencies
to improve service. South Carolina’s standards also stipulate that libraries should
cooperate with all types of libraries to extend the availability of information to all
residents. Virginia recommends that libraries participate in shared access initiatives such
as having holdings accessible through OCLC. Rhode Island, as well as several other
states, recommends that libraries should be members of the statewide library automation
network. Rhode Island also suggests that libraries provide referrals to local agencies for
their users, and initiate cooperation with local schools, coordinating homework support
and literacy activities, as well as promoting awareness of public library services to
students and faculty.
There is a great deal of diversity in how the standards documents deal with library
services. Many contain general statements that library services should meet the needs of
their particular community, without mentioning specific groups. Twenty-three states (all
except Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New York, and Oklahoma) specify that libraries
should provide reference and reader’s advisory services to their patrons. Children’s and
youth services were mentioned in the standards of 16 states. Kansas and Oregon have a
separate set of guidelines just for youth services.
Some mention of people with disabilities was included in 18 states’ standards
documents, but this was usually in reference to complying with federal accessibility
guidelines. Kentucky’s standards recommend that libraries provide alternative access for
those unable to use traditional library resources, appropriate extension services, and
remote access to the library’s catalog and other services. Virginia’s “essential guidelines”
specify that libraries should provide programs for people with disabilities. Guidelines for
higher levels of service also mention offering services for patrons with disabilities
through the provision of assistive technology and alternative formats. Wisconsin focuses
on meeting the needs of patrons with special needs, including people with disabilities, the
non-English-speaking, and adult new readers.
Unexpectedly, services to minority groups were mentioned specifically by only 7 states
(Alabama, Michigan, North Carolina, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, and Wisconsin).
North Carolina and Virginia stipulate in their standards documents that libraries provide
appropriate access to library services for specialized populations such as the homebound,
the institutionalized, and non-English speaking populations. Likewise, services to
seniors were included in only four documents. Vermont’s standards recommend that
libraries budget funds for developing a collection that “reflects community needs and
interests, including those of babies, toddlers, preschoolers, adult learners, young adults,
English as a Second Language students, people with disabilities, the elderly, etc.” The
omission of services for people with disabilities and seniors in most of the standards
12
documents is particularly surprising given that the demographic trends in most
communities indicate large increases in both of these groups.
In addition to the services mentioned above, provision of community programming was
mentioned in the standards from Colorado, Illinois, Maine, New Hampshire, New Jersey,
South Carolina, Texas, and Wisconsin. Maine, for example, specifies that “programming
efforts should be directed to patrons of all ages—children, young adults and adults—and
take into consideration the diversity of the community.” Texas includes as a requirement
for all libraries that they present “educational, cultural, and recreational programs that
reflect community needs and interests.” Outreach and extension services are also
mentioned specifically in the standards of Kentucky, South Dakota, and Virginia.
Certification Requirements
The last area to be addressed in this report is certification of professional library staff
members. There are mandatory certification or educational training requirements in 24 of
the 50 states (Arizona, Arkansas, California, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kentucky,
Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New Jersey, New
Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Texas, Utah,
Virginia, Washington, and Wisconsin). Some of these states (e.g., Arizona, California,
and Maryland) have no public library standards. States that do have standards usually
refer to the certification requirements in their standards documents under personnel or
library staff.
The requirements vary significantly. Arizona and Texas have certification requirements
only for the head librarians of county libraries. Indiana has five levels of certification for
library directors, while Louisiana has two and New Mexico has four. In Kentucky,
certification is required for “all permanent positions (part-time or full-time) providing
library information services as determined by local library policy.” There are similar
requirements in New York. Maryland offers two types of certificates: Professional Public
Librarian and a Public Library Director Certificate. Every librarian employed by a county
public library in Maryland is required to hold a professional certificate issued by the State
Superintendent. In Massachusetts, Certificates of Librarianship based on work experience
or education level are required of all Massachusetts public library directors as a
prerequisite for municipalities to receive State Aid to Public Libraries. Michigan requires
certification of library staff for state aid purposes, but not for work in a library. There are
seven levels of certification.
New Jersey issues a Professional Librarian license that requires a master's degree in
library or information science from an approved library program. This license is required
for employment as a professional librarian in libraries supported in whole or in part by
public funds and serving populations of ten thousand and above. Virginia also specifies
certification for full-time professional positions in public libraries serving populations
over 5,000. Applicants must either have a valid certificate from another jurisdiction or an
ALA-accredited master's degree.
13
In addition to the states with mandatory certification, many states have voluntary
certification requirements. These states most often specify in their standards that all
public libraries over a certain population size have a director who has a master’s degree
from an ALA-accredited institution (e.g., Colorado, Connecticut, and Florida). Maine
Library Association offers a voluntary certification program through the MLA Board of
Certification. There are six certification levels based on education, continuing education
units (CEUs), and library experience. Mississippi does not have a mandatory certification
program, but the Library Commission through its state aid program requires an ALA
accredited masters degree for the director of a public library system. Oklahoma has a
voluntary certification program with seven certification levels. In communities over
20,000 residents, state guidelines require that a library director have an M.L.S. degree.
Rhode Island’s standards delineate how many librarians with ALA-accredited MLS
degrees are required for different population levels. South Dakota’s voluntary program
has four levels of certification, based on education and/or experience, and Tennessee
offers a three-year program for non-MLS directors, assistant directors, and branch
managers of non-metropolitan libraries. Vermont certification is designed for public
librarians with no formal training and is included as a requirement for meeting minimum
standards.
Summary
It is difficult to identify any strong trends from this analysis, except to say that every state
is unique and their standards and certification requirements reflect their unique needs.
Many states borrowed phrases or sections from the standards of other states, and there
were similarities in organization and presentation among most of the standards
documents. Most were a hybrid of general guidelines and specific numerical formulas or
ratios. This reflects all the different uses for which standards were initially developed: as
a tool for planning, evaluation, development, fund raising, and budget-setting. Sometimes
simple guidelines, such as those developed by Vermont, were as comprehensive and farreaching in their own way as more extensive standards from states such as South Carolina
and Virginia. Most standards documents reflected the fact that they were the work of a
committee—or several committees—whose members brought individual contributions
and requirements to the table that needed to be harmonized into one document.
One thing characterizes all the standards reviewed: they reflect or build on a view of the
public library as a bricks-and-mortar institution established to provide collections and
services to a geographically discrete population. There are no visions of a “virtual public
library” in the standards documents, although most reflect the need to provide remote
access to the library’s catalog and resources, and to provide access to the Internet and
electronic sources. The standards extrapolate from “what is” to “what could be,” rather
than taking the radical approach of surveying community needs and building something
new from the ground up. The most likely reason for this is that public library staff,
buildings, and services are embedded in and governed by state and local laws as well as
administrative code and rules. This fact presents an interesting challenge to those who
would create model or visionary standards for what a public library could and should be.
14