| New York State Library |
| Go to Table of Contents | This document in .PDF format (960K) |
This report presents the findings of the evaluation of The New York State Library Services and Technology Act (LSTA) Program by CDA Corp.. The evaluation was carried out between November 2000 and December 2001. The LSTA Program includes both Grants and Statewide Services components and the evaluation of both of these component types are covered in this report. An overview of the evaluation design, presented in the introduction, identifies the six key informant groups which were targeted in the acquisition of data. They are; Reference and Research Library Resource System Directors, Public Library System Directors, School Library System Directors, Central and Co-Central Library Directors, LSTA Grant Project Directors and members of the staff of the New York State Library.
Section One of this report presents an overview of the use of LSTA funds and the positive impacts that have been felt as a result of that funding. Survey results and focus forum participant responses indicated that LSTA funds facilitated and supported the objectives of the New York State Library Services and Technology Act Five Year Plan – October 1, 1997 – September 30, 2002. A majority of grant project directors agreed that their system had learned a great deal through the LSTA supported opportunity to innovate. Both the LSTA Grants Program and the development of the state virtual library network in the EmpireLink, and more recently, NOVEL strategies, were easily recognized by most key informants as important to the future quality of the library services in New York State. Reporting on the impact of Statewide Services, focus forum participants reported that the impact is on the ability of their system (Reference and Research Library Resource System, Public Library System or School Library System) to help their system member libraries to accommodate the dynamic needs for library services. They also noted that it is their use of Statewide Services that helps the system directors to support strategies which will stimulate change and transform services in their regions.
Section Two of this report presents information regarding the achievement of the two objectives stated in the New York State LSTA Five Year Plan October 1, 1997 – September 30, 2002. The first objective, developing electronic doorway library services was explored with regard to both Electronic Content and Training for Technology. Library system directors reported that LSTA grants have been used to partially fund electronic conversion of bibliographic records. Linkage of these bibliographic records through system and regional catalogs to create a statewide virtual library was also examined, both in terms of its present status and future needs. When asked which areas of library development will need the most support during the next five years, ‘access to commercial databases’ was chosen most frequently by the directors of each of the three library system types in New York. In regard to the use of LSTA Grants for Training in Technology, it was reported that there is a predicted need for professional development in all areas, with high levels of increase in future need compared to past use of professional development support from LSTA Grants. Resolution of telecommunications issues was also reported to be extremely important to the future technology development of the library systems by the system directors.
Study of the second objective in The New York State LSTA Five Year Plan, Encouraging Information Empowerment Through Special Services to Increase Access, is also reported in Section Two. The LSTA Information Empowerment Through Special Services Grants Program in New York emphasizes the role that public libraries and public library systems play in promoting Adult and Family Literacy and Economic Opportunity to help all New Yorkers achieve more independent lives. A majority of the LSTA Grant Project Directors and Public Library System Directors indicated that their system had used LSTA funds to enhance or expand services for individuals. Open-ended responses on the Statewide Survey indicated that some of the library system directors believe that outreach to new populations can be enhanced through networking and collaboration with other community agencies.
A discussion of specific issue areas within the changing context of library services and of advocacy and policy information dissemination as a form of change management and support is presented as part of this section of the report and focuses specifically on the role of Statewide Services in supporting responsive programming in libraries. Three issues related to the changing context of library services; collaboration within the library community, collaboration outside the library community and changes in professional practices among librarians in the State is also included. The report indicates that there is a great deal of collaboration in New York State both within library system types and across library system types. All three types of system directors also agree that collaboration is a powerful tool in bringing libraries ‘to the table’ at all levels of policymaking. Library system directors and the directors of member libraries indicated that there had been a significant change in services for users over the five-year period covered by the present LSTA Five Year Plan. The professional practice of librarians has changed considerably as well. A high magnitude of need for professional development designed to address issues of changes in library practice was noted, as well as the need for the development of an infrastructure which will support the changes which are now taking place in professional practices and the role of libraries.
The evaluation found that the New York State Library is seen as the source of policy level information for the library service delivery system in the State. A majority of the directors from all library system types indicated that they contact the New York State Library for information for planning and advocacy and that it aids in their system level planning.
Findings regarding operations and management of the LSTA Grants Program are presented in Section Three of this report. System directors and project directors were asked about possible barriers to grant participation and questions about funding and institutionalization of LSTA grant funded projects. They expressed the opinion that the way the five year plan is put in place to manage the Library Services and Technology Act program in New York causes some problems. They noted that in a rapidly changing environment such as they find themselves in at present, the five year plan should be revisited at least every two years, in order to provide more flexibility which would allow for proactive programming by libraries and library systems.
Regarding the identification of best practices, the focus forums revealed some themes. They expressed the belief that if the State is to move forward in the innovative environment, the program developers at library system and member library level have to receive clearer information regarding what innovations have been tried and tested and with what result.
Focus forum participants discussed the quality of the communication of grant requirements and funded program information from the New York State Library to them, and the within system communication networks that do and do not exist in our State. Actual management logistics of the grant program are considered to be clear and easy to follow by a majority of the Grant Project Directors. Issues which arose around the communication of the nature of the type of proposals which would be funded, and of changes to State level priorities from year to year were described. It was noted from the focus forum that the use of a ListServ to disseminate information to them is not efficient. Those participants expressed the belief that the State Library wants to communicate with them but that using more cutting edge technology to reformulate communication strategies would be helpful.
With regard to Change Management, focus forum participants noted that the next phase of change in the State will have to be more focused, more closely managed and therefore implemented with more open, clear and regular communication among the concerned parties.
The evaluation found that the time restrictions on the grant projects is seen by many participants as having a negative impact on the quality of the programs that are delivered. The other restriction which is seen by many of the system directors as a barrier to institutionalization of LSTA funded innovations is the inability to use the grant funds to pay existing staff to work on grant funded activities.
The nature of innovative funding and continuation of support is also discussed in Section Three of this report. Library system directors indicated a strong belief in the uses of innovative funding to support only innovation and expressed their commitment to encourage a restriction of the use of funding such as that provided by LSTA to support ongoing programming. It was reported that LSTA funds are often a small part of the overall funding for one of these projects with additional support being provided by local budgets. This means funds are leveraged prior to the implementation of the program being funded, thus insuring marked rates of institutionalization of innovative practices.
Findings from this evaluation indicate that the use of LSTA funds has made a positive contribution to the development of the system for library service delivery at the local, regional and State levels in New York State. For a complete report of the conclusions and recommendations of this evaluation, please see Section Four of this report.
Section One: Library Services and Technology Act Funds in New York: Use and Effect
Section Two: Achieving the Objectives in the New York State LSTA Five Year Plan
Section Three: Findings Regarding Management and Operations
Section 4: Conclusions and Recommendations
Appendices
List of Tables
New York is a large, populous and geographically diverse state, with a land area of 47,225 square miles and a population of 19.0 million. The state has both large urban areas with highly concentrated populations and vast geographic areas with low populations per square mile, all needing diverse library services. In any given year, three in five New Yorkers use a public library. Yet, there are still over one million residents of the State who do not reside in any public library district.
For administrative and library service delivery purposes, New York State is divided into three types of library systems. Seven hundred and fifty public libraries in the State are members of the Public Library Systems, of which there are 23. The public library systems also include twenty-six central and co-central libraries, which are public libraries that provide targeted services throughout their respective public library system areas. Nine Reference and Research Library Resources Systems have academic and special libraries, as well as public library systems and school library systems as members. A total of 4,100 public school libraries and 450 nonpublic school libraries participate in the forty-two School Library Systems in the State.
The transition from Library Services and Construction Act (LSCA) activities to the Library Services and Technology Act (LSTA) activities in 1997 provided the New York State Library and the statewide library community with the opportunity to redefine the federal role in support of library services in the Empire State. In the area of increased access to information and library services for all citizens of the State, the New York State Library has concentrated its attention on developing new ways of providing services in a period in which all public services are being re-examined while addressing the public policy issues around the recognition of the role of libraries in a learning society.
The evaluation reported here measured the LSTA progress to date in helping New York to achieve this increased access. The findings of the study can also be applied to next steps to be considered by the library community and its leaders in New York. This report is divided into four sections. Section One presents a summary of the areas of use of Library Services and Technology Act Funds in New York and a summary of the positive effects of these areas of use is presented. The second section of this report presents a detailed analysis of the state’s progress in achieving the two objectives of their LSTA Five Year Plan 1987-2002. Because New York uses a significant amount of the LSTA funds to support local grant programs, the evaluation addresses findings regarding management of the LSTA Grant Funded Program in the third section of this report. Finally, Section Four details conclusions and recommendations based on the data collected during the one year of this evaluation study.
The evaluation study described in detail in this report is an evaluability[1] study of the New York State Library Services and Technology Act (LSTA) Program in New York State. The study was designed to meet the requirements of the Library Services and Technology Act (P.L. 104-208) and the funding agency, the Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS). The LSTA Program includes both Grants and Statewide Services components and the evaluation of both these component types are covered in this report. See Appendix I of this report for a copy of the Evaluation Plan which was developed with the staff from the New York State Library and approved by the LSTA Advisory Council’s Evaluation Committee.
[1Evaluability is a type of evaluation which is done to determine if more evaluation is necessary by determining if the program is at a stage where a more extensive evaluation would contribute to the program's effectiveness.]
The evaluators undertook six evaluation activities during the one year evaluation reported here. First, the New York State Library staff and the evaluator met and developed a Program Logic Model for the LSTA program in New York. As part of this process, the evaluators presented the model to the Evaluation Committee of the New York State LSTA Advisory Council. The evaluators then used this logic model in combination with group and one-on-one interviews to develop a set of surveys for ascertaining information from key informants in the State. The two Statewide Surveys which were developed were reviewed and commented on by staff at the New York State Library and by members of the LSTA Advisory Council’s Evaluation Committee. The final surveys were sent to five stakeholder groups in the State. A Survey of Library System Directors was sent to all directors of the three library system types in the State and to all directors of central and co-central libraries. A separate survey was developed for LSTA Grant Project Directors, with some questions in common with the System Directors’ survey, and other questions specifically about their experience directing an LSTA Grant funded program. Response rates for these surveys are presented below.
| Stakeholder Type | Number Sent | Number Returned | Percent Returned |
| Reference and Research Library Resource System |
9 |
9 |
100% |
| Public Library System |
23 |
16 |
69.6% |
| School Library System |
43 |
19 |
44.2% |
| Central and Co-Central Library Directors |
22 |
14 |
63.6% |
| LSTA Grant Project Directors |
101 |
61 |
60.4% |
In addition, the evaluators interviewed key informants at the New York State Library as well as designing a web-based log for State Library staff to record their work related activities on identified random days during the month of May 2001. Following the analysis of the survey data and a discussion with the LSTA Advisory Council’s Evaluation Committee regarding the initial results of the surveys, the evaluators held a series of six focus forums with a total of seventy-six library system directors and the directors of system member libraries at four locations around the State. In addition a representative number of LSTA Grant Project Directors attended and participated in the discussion at each forum. See Appendix II of this report for examples of all evaluation instruments.
The New York State Library has used Library Services and Technology Act support in combination with other State, federal and private funding to move the State towards the goal of ensuring that all New Yorkers have access to library resources and services that advance and enhance their lives as workers, citizens, family members and lifelong learners. The ‘electronic doorway library’’ is a metaphor adopted in 1988[2] to represent the fundamental changes in the delivery of library services which where then taking place in library service delivery in New York. In this concept, all library service delivery entities in the state have the potential to simultaneously operate both as portals into the automated system and as resource components of the network. The network thus constructed offers a state such as New York the ability to maximize the use of existing resources while doing so with all the value-added of seamless interoperability.
[2 See Appendix III of this report for a brief overview of statewide automation and the electronic doorway library in New York.]
The effects of the changes in the delivery of library services have been noted throughout this evaluation. When asked to reflect on the changes in library services in the period from 1997 to the present, participants in the focus forums held as part of this evaluation indicated that the changes to their practice and the services provided by their system and system member libraries in the State have been both far reaching and rapid. In general, participants identified the following four things as the largest changes in library service delivery in the past five years:
Library Services and Technology Act (LSTA) funds are used to facilitate and support innovation and change in three ways in New York State. First, part of the funds are used to support two types of local grants programs: Information Access through Technology Grants and Information Empowerment Through Special Services Grants. Second, part of the funds are used to support the development of what began as the Electronic Doorway Library, evolved into EmpireLink, and has now developed into the New York Online Virtual Library (NOVEL) in the State. And finally, funds are used to support other Statewide Services provided by the New York State Library. All three uses of the funds have facilitated and supported the two objectives of the New York State Library Services and Technology Act Five Year Plan – October 1, 1997 – September 30, 2002. These two objectives are:
It is important to note that a majority of those responding to the surveys sent out as part of this evaluation, and all of the participants in the focus forums held as part of this evaluation, were from systems that had received LSTA grant support during the period between 1997 and the dates of this evaluation. Most of the system directors responding to the statewide Library System Director’s Survey reported that their system had applied for and received an LSTA Grant. That is, all of the nine reference and research library resource system directors (100%), ninety-four percent (15 of the 16 directors responding to the survey) of the public library system directors, and seventy-nine percent (15 of the 19 directors responding to the survey) of the school library system directors reported having received at least one LSTA grant.
Grant project directors were asked if their system had learned a great deal through the LSTA supported opportunity to innovate. Seventy-five percent agreed that they had.
The statewide System Director’s Survey then asked the system directors that reported having received LSTA Grant support to consider the support that these grant monies had given to the ongoing development of high quality library services to their member libraries and thereby to the clients of those member libraries. Respondents were offered three choices and asked to choose all that applied to their experience with LSTA Grant support in their service delivery area.
Focus Forum participants told the evaluators that the two most important things that they had done with LSTA Grant funds had been to provide technology training to member libraries and to expand services using outreach projects and new initiatives which involve member libraries and foster collaborations. These same participants indicated that among the most important things done by the State Library using LSTA funds has been the development of EmpireLink.
Focus forum participants were strongly positive about the impacts of the development of EmpireLink/NOVEL on their systems. As one participant said, "EmpireLink is one of the best things to come out of LSTA". Participants reported their opinion that the equal access afforded to any library of a free full-text database such as EmpireLink actually functions as a quality equalizer which helps all libraries meet a minimum standard of service. Participants were clear that the availability of the database is positive for large systems for different reasons than for small, rural or special libraries, however. In the case of large systems and libraries, focus forum participants noted, the money saved by using a state supported database allows them to allocate their limited resources to support other services and programs. Small special libraries and rural libraries represented at the focus forums indicated that without the state supported database they would not be able to afford any database at all.
Both the LSTA Grants Program and the development of the state virtual library network in the EmpireLink and more recently NOVEL strategies, were recognized by most key informants to this evaluation as important to the future quality of the library services in New York State.
Less obvious, but considered by the New York State Library as no less important for their value and contribution to the development of the library systems in the State, are the other statewide services supported by LSTA. Measurement of the effect of these services presented a challenge to the evaluation.
Systemic change is complex for many reasons. One of the chief elements of this complexity is the difficulty experienced in communicating about change within the changing system. This should not be surprising. Systems operate, by definition, at a number of levels so that the same system is viewed by people working within it from any of a number of vantage points. These differing vantage points offer unique and often very different perspectives on the system and the progress of its change process. In this evaluation, the differing perspectives operating within LSTA funded activities were apparent in all sets of data collected. The evaluators noted a difference in the way in which key informants conceptualized the role which some of the services and initiatives implemented by the State Library were viewed. This was obviated by the pattern of response on a number of questions in the statewide System Director Survey. In order to clarify these response patterns, clarifying questions were subsequently addressed in the Focus Forums.
On the statewide surveys, library system directors and central and co-central library directors were asked two sets of questions related to the Statewide Services provided by the New York State Library. First, they were asked to indicate which of a set of Statewide Services their system or library had used. Reponses to these questions are presented on Table 2, with percent of all survey respondents choosing each option reported.
As can be seen from the information on Table 2, it is clear that library systems as reported by their directors and central and co-central library directors do use the Statewide Services provided by the New York State Library. What was unclear from the second set of questions on the survey was how these directors saw these Statewide Services fitting into the ‘big picture’ of library service development in their region or service delivery area.
In the second set of questions on the statewide surveys, system directors were asked to indicate whether Statewide Services had contributed to the libraries in their systems in any of the following ways with the indicated results presented here as Table 3. What the two tables seem to indicate is a high level of use of Statewide Services but with no perceived impact of that use on the ability of libraries in these systems to develop and implement change sensitive library services.
These two sets of responses on the Statewide Director’s Survey caused the evaluators to include questions about the use and value of Statewide Services in the focus forums. The answer was quite simple. The first set of questions on the survey regarding the use of Statewide Services asked the directors about their use of these services, as directors of library systems. The second set of questions asked about the impact of Statewide Services on their member libraries. Focus forum participants reported that from the perspective of the library system directors the impact of these Statewide Services is on the ability of their respective systems (Reference and Research Library Resource Systems, Public Library Systems or School Library Systems) to help their system member libraries to accommodate the dynamic needs for library services. And, focus forum participants noted, it is their use of Statewide Services that helps the system directors to support strategies which will stimulate change and transform services in their regions. The Statewide Services were seen as mediating the ability of the systems to support their member libraries and not as directly affecting member libraries as the survey question asked.
This interpretation of the data is supported by the Activity Logs completed by members of the New York State Library staff during May 2001, and by the information collected by the evaluators during interviews of the New York State Library staff in April 2001. 67% of the log entries reported interaction with a system director or library system staff person. The effect of the Statewide Services is to support the work of the library systems in New York as they work closely with their member libraries to meet the needs of the residents of the state.
This section of the report combines information gathered through individual interviews, statewide surveys, logs of staff activity and focus forums of key informants to present evaluation findings regarding the achievement of the two objectives stated in the New York State LSTA Five Year Plan October 1, 1997 – September 30, 2002. These two objectives are:
There is no question that the introduction of technology into the library service delivery system has meant immense changes in the demands of the citizens on libraries and that these changes have required changes in the professional work of librarians. As is the case in all other states, New York has had to work hard to meet the challenges which a rapidly changing environment for service delivery presents. These challenges include maintaining high quality service delivery while attending to the technology and human resource infrastructure development which are required. Of primary concern has been the efficient combination and use of multiple resources to support simultaneously ongoing service delivery and the management of change, such that the clients of the system do not notice any lapses in service magnitude or quality, while experiencing the timely introduction and delivery of emerging services. The New York State Library Services and Technology Act Five Year Plan October 1, 1997 – September 30, 2002 described the state’s intended use of the LSTA funds to support a Technology Grants program in New York State and some Statewide Services provided by the staff of the New York State Library, both of which have provided important support to these efforts.
The intent of the LSTA Technology Grants Program is to allow all library systems to help all of their member libraries or branches to become contributing member electronic doorway libraries. To do so, the plan divides the grants awarded under this section of the Plan into two categories: Electronic Content and Training for Technology. This section of the report will discuss the findings of the evaluation relevant to these two grant categories.
The purpose of this category is to enable libraries to provide library resources in electronic format for local, regional, statewide and global access, and to create value added information products which package information available in libraries, or link the user to other electronic sources. This grant category targets its support towards the achievement of a statewide automation of libraries in New York with seamless interoperability that utilizes both collections resident in libraries across the State and resources external to the present New York State system.
The concept of a statewide library network, which is realized through the development of an infrastructure using the mechanism of the electronic doorway library, has not changed over the period from 1987 through 2001. However, the nature of the technology which will make that system a reality in New York has changed considerably. See Appendix III of this report for a summary of the development of this New York State Library initiative.
Debates which were seen as important in the early stages of this development have ceased to be so, largely due to developments in the capabilities of technology to address the issues. The evaluators did hear echoes of these earlier issues throughout the data collection activities associated with this study from all stakeholder groups. This information was not ignored; however, it is not reported in the main body of the evaluation and is addressed in the Conclusions and Recommendations section of this report.
The rapid development of cross application interfaces and the most recent advent of widely available web-based system management and data sharing applications and software platforms have rendered some of the earlier debate moot. The New York State Library and library system directors in the State have remained current in this changing landscape so that the most recent planned development of NOVEL, the New York Online Virtual Electronic Library, which will connect libraries to databases, shared catalogs and other electronic information, subsumes previous work into the final development of statewide library technology activities which will achieve the goal of seamless interoperability among libraries across the state.
Library Services and Technology Act funds have been used by New York State to further both the digitization of bibliographic and of unique and historical records and to encourage broad access to information. The number of New Yorkers with electronic access to information resources has grown at a strong pace over the past five years. On the survey distributed as part of this evaluation, library system directors reported the following average percent of libraries in their respective systems as having as much of their bibliographic records as necessary converted.
| Reference and research library resource Systems | 73.5% |
| Public Library Systems | 78.1% |
| Central and Co-Central Libraries | 98.2% |
| School Library Systems | 62.1% |
Library system directors reported that LSTA grants have been used to partially fund electronic conversion of bibliographic records. Discussion of the conversion of bibliographic records during focus forums indicated that these conversions are considered important and will continue until completed.
The second stage in this development of a statewide library technology is to link these digitized bibliographic records through system and regional catalogs to create a statewide virtual library.
Respondents to the LSTA Library System Director Survey in June 2001 indicated that the converted records in their system are linked to regional catalogs or system catalogs. These converted records in both reference and research library resource systems and school library systems are more often linked to regional catalogs. In public library systems, the converted records are more often linked to system catalogs.
One method for gauging the progress towards this type of outcome is to elicit information from respondents on future need. The Statewide Survey asked system directors to indicate their expected need for support during the next five years in a number of key areas. Shared electronic catalog development, an element of the New York Online Virtual Electronic Library, was chosen by fifty-eight percent of the school library system directors as one of four most critical areas for future support. However, only twenty-five percent of the public library system directors and none of the reference and research library resource system directors indicated a future need for support in this area. In combination with other information from this evaluation, it would seem that shared electronic catalog development has been completed in many areas of the State and within two of the three library system types.
Throughout the period of this evaluation, the evaluators found evidence of the rapid nature of the changes taking place in the area of library service delivery. One example of the manner in which the change in technology during the five year period of the present LSTA Five Year Plan has impacted the use of LSTA grant funds by the library community in New York is in the need to expand the use of commercial databases. Focus forum participants explained to the evaluators that as the development of the shared electronic catalog progressed, they noted an increased demand for information which is contained in commercially available databases. As information use increased, so too the need for better, more easily searchable and continuously updated sources of that information increased.
In response to a question on the Statewide Surveys which asked if the restriction on use of LSTA funds to purchase commercially available databases is a barrier to the use of LSTA grant funds by their system, the following percent of responding system directors indicated that it is a barrier.
| Reference and Research Library Resource Systems | 100% |
| Public Library Systems | 50% |
| School Library Systems | 42% |
When asked which areas of library development will need the most support during the next five years, ‘access to commercial databases’ was chosen most frequently by each of the three system type directors. Sixty-seven percent of the reference and research library resource system directors, sixty-nine percent of the public library system directors and ninety-five percent of the school library system directors indicated that this area will need the greatest amount of support during the next five years.
Library systems that have completed conversion are now turning their attention to other tasks related to the electronic medium, for example, the purchase of electronic full-text journals and reference materials, the digitization of historical documents and exploring the issues surrounding e-books. Indeed, four of the reference and research library resource system directors and six of the public library system directors reported already using LSTA grant funds to digitize local history collections for inclusion in the statewide system. Four (forty-four percent) of the reference and research library resource system directors chose ‘digitizing of full text resources’ when asked for areas in which they will need support over the next five years, making this the second most frequently indicated option. The school library system directors chose ‘digitizing of full text resources’ as their third choice of area in need of support during that timeframe. In addition, thirty-three percent of the reference and research library resource system directors, fifty percent of the public library system directors, and fourteen percent of the school library system directors reported using LSTA grant funds in their efforts to develop new technologies for distance learning.
The evaluation was also interested in ascertaining from system directors their judgment of the importance of including the collections resident in each of the three types of library system in the state into the State electronic information network that will be the State virtual library. The survey presented library system directors with two types of materials, bibliographic and unique and historic documents. They were asked to consider a set of six statements which described the material in each of the three types of library in which they might be held. The statements read as follows: Unique and historic documents in academic, research and special libraries, Unique and historic documents in public libraries, Unique and historic documents in school libraries; Academic, research and special libraries’ bibliographic records, Bibliographic records from public libraries, and, Bibliographic records from school libraries.
Directors were then asked to rate how important the inclusion of each of these six alternatives would be in continuing to develop a system to deliver high quality information access to all New Yorkers using a four point Likert-type scale ranging from Strongly Agree to Strongly Disagree. As can be seen from the information presented on Table 5, system directors indicated a slightly higher rate of importance to the unique and historic documents and the bibliographic records in the reference and research library resource systems and the public library systems than they did for the collections in school library systems.
When asked about this at the focus forums participants pointed out that the ‘it depends’ caveat applies here. Some libraries have valuable collections of unique documents which will have to be preserved, while others do not, and in the opinion of the focus forum participants the importance of the collection is not necessarily connected to the type of library in which the collection is housed. There was a general consensus that school library systems may not have as much to offer that is unique because of the nature of their collections and their mission, which is to support curriculum delivery in schools and school districts. To the focus forum participants the question is more who will decide what is worth including, rather than where the sources of the bibliographic records or the unique and historic documents are found.
It is not enough to build a new technology infrastructure in the state in order to deliver high quality electronic information access to all New Yorkers. The professional staff of both the library systems and the library systems’ members have to receive targeted professional development in the use and application of technology to their professional practice. For libraries to provide excellent library services to their users in a rapidly changing technological environment, the library staff must have access to an ongoing training program in all aspects of technology.
All of the reference and research library resource directors and seventy-five percent of the public library system directors reported using LSTA Technology Grants program funds to support strategies that stimulate change in professional practice among librarians in their systems. The rate among school library system directors is smaller, thirty-seven percent. This is probably due to the fact that school library systems have only recently been allowed to apply for LSTA funds and have been using this source of support for extensive retrospective conversion of their bibliographic records.
Library Services and Technology Act Technology Grants have contributed to the training of system library staff and system member library staff in order to support and facilitate changes in professional practice among librarians across the state. On the statewide surveys, library system directors were asked to report on areas of professional development that they have used LSTA Grant funds to support over the years between October 1997 and the present. In addition, they were asked in which of those same professional development areas they believe their system still has a need for professional development. Shaded fields on Table 6 indicate a higher future need than past use.
Future Trends and Perceived Needs: Professional Development
As can be seen from Table 6, there is a predicted need for professional development in all areas, with high levels of increase in future need compared to past use of professional development support from LSTA Grants. Interviewees prior to the development of the surveys, and questions to focus forum participants following initial analysis of the survey data both indicated that there are two reasons for this increase in the need for technology related professional development. The first is that the change in library services due to the growing technological infrastructure has increased the need for system member librarians to be able to use technology applications and to help the public to use them. The second reason for this need is the high rate of turnover in library personnel, requiring basic instruction in these critical areas to be repeated regularly. These roles for professional development parallel two of the three areas which the research literature on professional development identifies as part of a good professional development plan. Those three areas are:
Of note here is the fact that during focus forum discussions at three of the sites the provision of more support for the work of change and improvement as a future need included the need for professional development in how to participate in systemic change processes.
One of the questions regarding the future development of library services in the State which arose during the pre-survey interviews was that of tracking public use of electronic library resources. In the opinion of many of the interviewees, this has become an issue for libraries because the traditional methods of measuring the magnitude of library services to their constituencies, i.e., tracking circulation of resident collections, logging of inter-library loan requests, counting of reference searches, and similar measures, no longer capture the true magnitude and extent of modern library services. Quality and magnitude of services delivered by any level of the library services system in the State have to be measured in ways which are considered fair, rigorous and representative.
Failure to attend to the issues surrounding the measurement of the new and emerging profile of library service delivery in each of the three library system types and in the member libraries of each of these systems would result in a serious undermining of the system as a whole. This is so for two reasons. First, key informants to this evaluation regularly pointed out the local basis of support, both fiscal and ideological, for library services. Failure to report on quality and magnitude of services in ways which make sense to local constituencies and their policy structures, they reported, would have serious consequences. Second, the operation of services within a complex and intertwined system of systems, as is the case in New York, makes services difficult to report on in ways which make sense to the state constituencies and their policy structures. The first step in the development of an acceptable accountability system for use in this new and emerging context was reported to the evaluators to be the development of methods for tracking public use of electronic library resources. The Statewide Library System Directors’ Survey, therefore, included a question about present progress and perceived future need for technical support in this area. Results of that question are presented with the rate of response reported in the columns of Table 7 below. What can be seen in this table is that the majority of the system directors believe that this is an important area for future attention and that they need help in the development of these tracking methods.
The resolution of telecommunications issues was the subject of a separate question on the Statewide Survey, as well as being included in the list of possible library development areas for attention in the next five years. This question had arisen during the survey development interviews conducted by the evaluators so that the decision was made to elicit specific information regarding telecommunications issues for each of the three library system types in New York on the Statewide Surveys. Respondents were asked to indicate if the resolution of telecommunications issues is very, somewhat or not at all important to the future development of technology in their context. Of those responding to this question, eight of the nine reference and research library system directors (89%); fifteen of the fifteen public library system directors (100%); and, seventeen of the eighteen school library system directors (94%) indicated that they consider the resolution of telecommunications issues important to the future technology development in their systems. Focus forum participants noted two things here. First, that it is this area in which they need the most technical assistance, and it is this area in which expert help is unlikely to be resident at the New York State Library, and where consultant experts are extremely expensive. Second, that the details of the ‘telecommunications issues’ differ according to the stage in technology development of the library system in question, and so an approach to this concern will have to be flexible.
The increasing use of web-based applications by libraries was noted by focus forum participants as the reason why ‘telecommunication’ has become an issue. Indeed, one central library director interviewed during the pre-survey development stage of this evaluation reported that the cost of connectivity in his system was ‘immense’, thus creating a real barrier to service delivery to his client population.
The evaluation treated the issue of telecommunications development as different from issues of telecommunications access. This is so because it was made clear to the evaluators during the pre-survey interviews that questions of access are not as important in most library systems as are the more complex issues of telecommunications technology now facing the interviewees. The Statewide Survey did, however, include a question about improving telecommunications access. When responding to the question regarding the library development areas which will require the greatest attention during the next five years, eleven school library system directors (58%) chose ‘improvement of telecommunications access’ of the nineteen directors completing the survey. This was not an option chosen by any of the reference and research resource library system or public library system directors.
The New York State Library has three primary functions in their support of the development of the technology and human resources infrastructure needed to provide high quality electronic information access to all New Yorkers. First, the New York State Library provides leadership and guidance for the planning and coordinated development of library services using a networked electronic environment for the people of the State. Second, the New York State Library has supported the ongoing creation of NOVEL (New York Online Virtual Electronic Library) to make electronic information freely available to all library systems and libraries in the state. And third, the New York State Library manages the LSTA Grants Program for the state. This third function is described in Management of the LSTA Grants Program in New York beginning on page 48 of this report.
The use of results-based planning in order to effect systemic change has been the topic of much discussion in New York. In the area of library system development, the use of planning at the library, library system and state system levels has received much attention. Indeed, system directors were asked on the Statewide Survey through which means the State Library contributes to planning in their system. Thirty-three percent of the Reference and research library resource directors; sixty-three percent of the Public Library system directors; seventy-nine percent of the school library system directors; and, fifty percent of the central library directors indicated it was done by coordinating strategic planning at a statewide level, e.g., Regent’s Commission on Library Services, NOVEL Planning Team, Third Statewide Automation Plan. When reporting which Statewide Services they access on behalf of their systems, "Information for planning and advocacy" was indicated by:
66% of Reference and Research Library Resource System Directors
63% of the Public Library System Directors
95% of the School Library System Directors
36% of the Central Library Directors
The development of EmpireLink and the plans to expand it into NOVEL met with a general positive response by both survey respondents and participants at the focus forums held as part of this evaluation. In addition, when asked on the statewide survey of library system directors to indicate the areas in which they contact the New York State Library for help, ‘Obtaining cost-free access to full-text electronic databases’ was cited by:
78% of Reference and Research Library Resource System Directors
88% of Public Library System Directors
90% of School Library System Directors
21% of Central Library Directors
The reported use of electronic interlibrary loan on the same survey was reported at 78% for reference and resource library system directors, 13% for public library system directors, 79% for school library system directors, and 43% for central library directors. Information from the New York State Library based on sample data from the State Library Inter-Library Loan Unit indicates that all 23 of the public library systems used the State Library for Inter-Library Loan in 2001.
The following data looks at the response pattern from the central and co-central library directors only. Central and co-central libraries are one type of public library and reflect public library use of interlibrary loan from the New York State Library.
| 98% of own bibliographic records digitized | 36 % of the records of these central libraries are linked to the regional catalog. | 79% of these records are linked to the system catalog. | 43% of these directors say they use State electronic interlibrary loan. |
The low percent of interlibrary loan contact for public library systems reported on the Statewide Directors’ Survey was addressed at the focus forums at which time the evaluators were told that this is due to the successful implementation of the use of full-text online electronic databases and links with system and regional catalogs. In addition, it should be noted that the New York State Library has encouraged the development of point-to-point interlibrary loan among all library system types in the State.
The focus forum participants also noted that the use of the State Library electronic interlibrary loan system entailed heavy fines for non-returned materials, a concern of public libraries especially since their customers may not return the materials for a number of reasons, thus causing the local library to entail the expense. Materials borrowed through the regional or system catalog, for example, would not entail this level of potential expense. In addition, it may be that public library system directors do not use the State’s electronic interlibrary loan, but that their member libraries do. The 43% of reported use by central library directors is lower than that of any of the other type of system directors, 78% for reference and research resource systems and 79% for school library systems, but is higher than the 13% reported by the public library system directors.
Libraries empower people so that library services must be dynamic and responsive to the changing needs of people of all ages and all abilities. A diverse state such as New York, which has both large numbers of people to be served in densely populated urban areas, as well as large geographic areas with smaller numbers of people, requires a complex network of library services to assist all citizens of the State to locate and use information and services that will help to advance their lives in many ways. Some focus forum participants voiced the opinion that "too much money has been spent on technology’, meaning that other special services and programs supported by LSTA are also important.
This part of the report presents information gathered through the evaluation on the achievement of the second objective of the New York State LSTA Five Year Plan. As with the first objective, the activities here are divided between those supported through a local grant program and Statewide Services provided by the New York State Library.
Grants in this area emphasize the role that public libraries and public library systems play in promoting adult and family literacy and economic opportunity to help all New Yorkers achieve more independent lives. Programs providing adult and family literacy services, and economic opportunity services are included in the grant program supporting this objective. For that reason, the purpose of this program is to enable public libraries and public library systems to provide programs and services that promote the improvement of literacy skills for people of all ages; to assist individuals to develop job-readiness skills; and, to help small businesses to find the business information resources they need to prosper.
LSTA Grant Project Directors were asked if their system had used LSTA funds to enhance or expand services for
individuals. Forty-two of the sixty-one respondents (69%) indicated that their system had used LSTA funds to enhance
or expand these services. The grant project directors were then asked to indicate specific program areas where
LSTA grant support had been used. Respondents were asked to indicate all of the areas in which their system had
used LSTA funds in services for individuals, with the result reported here as Table 9.
Public Library System directors were asked the same question on their statewide survey. Fourteen of the sixteen survey respondents, or 88%, indicated that they had used LSTA funds to enhance or expand services for individuals in these categories.
As can be seen from the data reported in Tables 12 and 13, the use of LSTA grant funds to support special services is widespread among those that answered the surveys sent out as part of this evaluation, as reported by both grant project directors and public library system directors.
Choices of library development areas which will need support over the next five years differed for each type of library system. Three of the reference and research library resource system directors indicated ‘adult literacy services’, as well as ‘services to new populations’, making both of those areas the third most chosen by this group of directors. Eleven of the public library system directors indicated ‘family literacy services’ as among those that will be the most important library development areas over the next five years. These directors also chose ‘services to new populations’ as their third most frequently indicated area which will need support.
The seventy-six focus forum participants were clear in their reporting that their library systems and system member libraries provide extensive services to ‘new populations’. Public library system members and central libraries, especially those in large cities (New York, Buffalo, Rochester, Syracuse and Yonkers) and small cities (e.g., Utica, Binghamton, Troy, Schenectady), typically provide both adult literacy and family literacy programs. Adult Basic Educators have long considered libraries as the ideal place to meet with adult learners who will not be embarrassed if seen entering a public place that provides voluntary services to adults. This legacy has meant that libraries are increasingly perceived by other community agencies as a neutral environment in which information for job seekers, and training in work-readiness skills can be delivered without undue stress to the information seekers.
Some of the ‘new populations’ referred to by the reference and research library resource system directors and the public library system directors on the Statewide Survey were the same: new Americans and non-Native English speakers were noted in general, along with ‘underserved areas’ and US Army personnel. Specific reference was also made to ‘Hispanic’ and ‘Chinese’ ESL populations.
All data collection activities carried out under this evaluation yielded information regarding the expansion of library services to include more ‘new populations’ of library service users. In general, each library system type defined ‘new populations’ somewhat differently. Reference and research library resource systems define new populations as new types of special libraries to whom they can offer services, and as existing systems of the other two types in their region to whom they can offer regional services. Public library system directors define new populations as groups of the public who have not traditionally used library services. These new groups can be delineated by geographic location (thus requiring the expansion of existing services to under-served locations) or by population characteristic (thus requiring the expansion of services to include programs and services targeted to specific client needs, such as English as a Second Language instruction, job finding and/or career changing resource development, etc.). School library system directors identified new populations as special needs clients, meaning students who are mainstreamed from Special Education programs.
Open-ended responses on the Statewide Survey indicated that some of the library system directors believe that outreach to new populations can be enhanced through networking and collaboration with other community agencies.
The New York State Library has a key role in the planning and provision of library programming that is responsive to the needs of all New Yorkers. This role has developed in the period covered by the present LSTA Five Year Plan, and has been clarified through the activities of the evaluation reported here. The State Library has three functions in this area of the development of a system which is easily accessed by all New Yorkers. First, the New York State Library provides leadership and support to address the changing context of library services in the State. Supporting this is a second role whereby the Division of Library Development provides information to library advocates and ensures that the library community is aware of legislation pertinent to library services in the state. Third, specific services to enhance access by special populations, for example for the visually impaired, are provided by the New York State Library through State funds. The New York State Library uses LSTA funds to support the first two of these three functions.
The following discussion is divided into a discussion of specific issue areas within the changing context of library services in New York and a discussion of advocacy and policy information dissemination as a form of change management and support. The broader of the two topic areas, the changing context of library services in New York, contains three related issue areas: collaboration within the library community; collaboration outside the library community; and, changes in professional practice among librarians in the State.
The New York State Library managers of the LSTA program in the State have been concerned with external outcomes for the program. These impacts are such things as changes in the structure of information resources in the State, including changes in the nature and characteristics of library services. However, the innovation and change provided in part by LSTA support has also produced internal outcomes, some of which could be considered as more important than the external impacts. These internal impacts operate on the personnel within library services to change professional practice and the organizations through which those services are delivered to change organizational culture, climate and context. They are important to include when reporting on the progress of and planning for the future of library system development in the State.
When asked to discuss this topic, focus forum participants referred to libraries being responsive to the needs of their community. Because of the differences in the roles which the three different system types operating in New York State see for themselves in the context of service, each defines their community differently. School library system directors and members at the forums noted that their role is in the support of curriculum delivery. They see their community as the school community and not the general population. The public library system members represented at the forums seemed to see their community as the community in which each library is situated. The public library systems considered their member libraries as their community. The reference and research resource libraries have a more expansive definition of their community. They see their member academic and special libraries as one community to which they provide services for a specific purpose. In addition, the reference and research library resource system requirements mean that these systems also work together with other system types in their region. Therefore, a second community through which this type of library system functions is the general library service delivery community in their region. Finally, both the public library system directors and the reference and research library resource directors who attended the focus forums indicated that they see themselves as a community of system directors, thus forming a secondary structure below the State Library focused on the management and improvement of library services in the state.
Focus forum participants saw collaboration within and across their service delivery communities as important to their role and mission. In addition, they indicated that they see collaboration as a powerful tool in bringing libraries ‘to the table’ at all levels of policymaking because it functions as a mechanism for situating libraries in the human service delivery system. According to the statewide surveys, all three types of system directors also see collaboration as a way to deliver better quality services at cost efficient rates to their member libraries.
Library systems have been encouraged to enter into coalitions within the library community using LSTA Grant support. Respondents to the Statewide Survey indicated their system’s levels of participation in collaborations within the library community. As can be seen by the following table, library systems report high levels of collaboration both in and outside of their region. Collaboration reported as ‘both’ indicates collaboration with the indicated system type both in and outside of their region. The table is read from the left column across. Same library system types have been shaded for ease of reading.
Table 11 indicates that there is a great deal of collaboration in New York State both within library system types and across library system types. In addition, collaboration is not confined to geographic regions. All of the respondents indicated that they collaborate with same type library systems both in their own region and outside of their region, that is, nine of the nine reference and research library resource system directors, sixteen of the sixteen public Library system directors and nineteen of the nineteen school library system directors. In addition, all of the reference and research resource library system directors report working with public library systems and school library systems both in and outside of their regions. Fourteen of the sixteen (88%) of the public library system directors report collaborating with school library systems, seven in their region only and seven both in and outside of their region. Only two of the school library system directors did not indicate that they collaborate with reference and research resource library systems, and only one indicated that they do not collaborate with any public library systems.
Findings from this evaluation indicate that libraries have become members of community coalitions in order to play an important role in the provision of ‘seamless service delivery’ at the community level in New York State. Increasingly, library system directors told the evaluators, this participation in the development and provision of integrated human services in their communities has meant that libraries and library systems have modified their own role in the community. Libraries have discovered that they are effective partners in this system-level integration of services for a number of reasons, not least of which because their role is not colored by an agenda which includes traditional agency level territorial issues. Because of the differences in the roles which the three different system types see for themselves in the context of services, the defining characteristics of collaboration differs from system type to system type.
Directors of all three types of library system directors do agree that collaboration is a powerful tool in bringing libraries ‘to the table’ at all levels of policymaking. Some of the directors of each system type reported that they participate in collaborations outside of the library community. Five of the nine reference and research library resource system directors (56%), twelve of the sixteen public library system directors (75%) and seven of the nineteen school library system directors (37%) completing the Statewide Survey indicated that they participate in collaborations with community agencies outside of the library community. The majority of these respondents said that they participate in these collaborations because networking is important and that it offers an opportunity to further the library’s mission.
In addition, system directors were asked if they believed that it was important to link libraries in their system to educational, social or information services outside of the library community. Their responses also indicated the extent to which these links have already been constructed. As can be seen from the following table, a majority of both the reference and research library resource system directors and the public library system directors indicated that this is an important thing to do. A lower proportion of school library system directors answered that this is important for them to attend to. Those school library system directors that did indicate that it is important to link their system to other service delivery agency systems noted the career planning and job search area and higher education information systems as of primary concern.
Libraries have the potential to be influential change agents in our society. There are a number of reasons for this. First, libraries already exist in most American communities and contexts so they have a presence. Second, although experienced in the management of information storage and retrieval, librarians have a history of value neutral association with the collections that form the core of their professional practice. Finally, libraries are institutions to which entrance and entitlement are not controlled by measures of ability or achievement. Public libraries are open to the public, and the work on a statewide network exemplifies this fundamental belief in the free distribution of information regardless of its geographic or temporal situation.
There are also a number of attributes that might prevent libraries from functioning as influential change agents. One is that many graduate schools of library and information science focus heavily today on technology and information management, and do not include the management of public services and community outreach in the pre-service curriculum. A second is that becoming proactively involved with services that have a change in participants’ values and beliefs (as in Family Literacy programs) as part of their purpose presents a crisis of conscience among many librarians due to the long history of value neutrality inherent in their professional practice. And finally, libraries traditionally serve individuals rather than targeted populations or groups within the community. Focus forum participants addressed these concerns when they noted that they understand that change has to happen, but that they need help in finding a ‘comfort zone’ around these changes so that they can continue to deliver high quality service through their professional practice.
Both in the pre-survey interviews and the focus forums carried out as part of this evaluation, library system directors and the directors of member libraries indicated that there had been a significant change in services for users over the five year period covered by the present LSTA Five Year Plan. These services are delivered more efficiently in many instances, as one librarian in a university told the evaluators during a pre-survey interview: "My clients can do a lot of their own searching now, which frees me up to spend more time doing the more complex tasks of my work. The outcome is that my clients have shorter waiting periods for the work that I have to do for them."
The professional practice of librarians has changed considerably over the past decade. Participants in the focus forums carried out as part of this evaluation indicated that these changes in practice are not always comfortable, and that they "… need to gain a comfort level with the new changes". Some work has already been done in the area of providing the support in the development of this ‘comfort level’ with the new changes. This has been done using professional development targeted specifically at the issues of changes in library practice and what that means to professional librarians.
The Library Services and Technology Act grants program in New York has been used extensively in the area of professional development during the last five years. Reports on the use of professional development to increase technology based skills among librarians in the state were provided elsewhere in this report. One question on the Statewide Survey addressed the use of professional development specifically to address issues of changes in library practice. The answers to that question established a high magnitude of need for this type of professional development (reported below as % some need) and whether directors felt that the call for this type of professional development is ‘high’, ‘moderate’ or ‘low’.
The Statewide Survey also collected some open-ended information which indicated an increased awareness among library system directors regarding the need for the development of an infrastructure which will support the changes which are now taking place in professional practices and the role of libraries. As part of that infrastructure, public library system directors indicated a need for professional development in ‘change management and organizational development’. School library system directors listed ‘developing the infrastructure’ for library change. These open-ended comments led to the inclusion of questions regarding these issues at the focus forums. Participants there noted that, while the field would like to be part of the policy level discussions and debate that they know are important "… we (library systems in the State) don’t have the infrastructure to add a diverse voice to policy." The infrastructure they referred to is the structure for systematically eliciting information across stakeholder groups in the state and the process for synthesizing that input. Development of that infrastructure was cited by some focus forum participants as a role for the New York State Library.
Focus forum participants discussed the issues surrounding the general support of library services offered at the local and State levels within the discussion of the LSTA funding. As one participant noted, "How can we translate what we do into a way for people to understand it – that’s important." It is important because, as participants at all of the forums noted, "…we (libraries) need to make a case for library funding".
Respondents to the Statewide Survey indicated support by the New York State Library in a number of areas. The following percent of respondents reported that they contact the New York State Library Division for Library Development for information for planning and advocacy.
| Research and reference resource library system directors | 67% |
| Public library system directors | 63% |
| School library system directors | 95% |
In addition, the same system directors indicated that they believe the following services by the New York State Library aids in their system level planning processes.
The New York State Library is seen as the source of policy level information for the library service delivery system in the State. In addition, the need for information regarding public policy issues and proposed legislation both to managers at the three types of library system in the State and to advocates of the library services system was indicated as growing both through survey responses and in focus forum discussions. Open-ended responses on the survey by both public library system directors and school library system directors indicated a future need for support in the areas of library advocacy, and the development of sources of financial support for library services.
The LSTA Grants Program in New York State is managed by staff in the Division of Library Development at the New York State Library. The grant funding process begins with a Request for Proposals distributed to the field in the Spring of each calendar year. The form of the Request for Proposals has been modified over the past five years to make the application process more efficient. Grants are distributed most often on an annual basis, although the option to apply for multiple years of funding for any grant project is available. In the case of multi-year applications the funding is approved annually, and at reduced rates for each year subsequent to the first.
Grant project directors were asked if they believe that the LSTA grant support is worth the effort which has to be expended to apply for and report on the funding. Ninety-eight percent (fifty-six of the fifty-seven completing the survey) of them agreed that the grant support is worth the effort.
The New York State Library and the LSTA Advisory Council requested that the evaluators ask for some specific information about grant management in the following areas:
Based on a series of one-on-one and group interviews carried out during the survey development phase of the evaluation, a checklist of possible barriers to grant participation, questions about funding and institutionalization of LSTA grant funded projects were developed by the evaluators and included on the statewide surveys. In addition, questions for clarification of the survey data were included in each of the six focus forums held in September and October 2001.
In 1997 the New York State Library in consultation with the LSTA Advisory Council made the decision to limit the number of grant categories fundable under LSTA local grants. This decision was made in order to maximize the funding for fewer categories so that the available funding could be more effectively targeted. Findings from this evaluation would indicate that ‘early implementers’ have found the restrictions on the grants categories to have somewha