Arkansas Act 600 of 1997 authorized and funded "an independent, comprehensive study of all public libraries in Arkansas and the Arkansas State Library." The Act required that the study be concluded by June 30, 1999.

The Arkansas State Library issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) in Autumn of 1998 to solicit the professional services of a qualified consultant or consulting firm to conduct the study. The RFP generated seven responses that were evaluated by a five-member agency committee. This process resulted in the selection of Himmel & Wilson, Library Consultants to conduct the study. A contract was awarded in January of 1999 and work on the study began immediately.

Thirty-five years earlier (1964), a similar study was carried out by Gretchen Knief Schenk. Many of the recommendations of the Schenk study, entitled Survey of the Arkansas Library Commission and the Public Libraries of Arkansas, were implemented. The Schenk study resulted in actions ranging from a change in the name of the state library agency from the Arkansas Library Commission to the Arkansas State Library (ASL) to a significant expansion of the role of the state agency in providing direct library service to state government employees. The study also resulted in changes to the statutes governing the establishment and operation of local libraries.

Like the Schenk report, this document contains a number of recommendations intended to improve the access to and the quality of the library services available to the citizens of Arkansas. For the most part, the recommendations in this report do not attempt to be detailed road maps leading to the improved state of library service mentioned above. Rather, the recommendations are intended to act more as a compass pointing in the directions that the consultants believe will move library service in Arkansas to a higher level.

While specific suggestions are offered in regard to certain recommendations, they should be treated as one path to accomplishing the goals embodied in the recommendations rather than as the only path to attaining the goals. A thorough discussion of the ideas contained in the report and the development of the details to carry them out must involve all elements in the Arkansas library community. Local trustees and librarians as well as the Arkansas State Library Board and staff must actively consider which recommendations should be implemented and how best to implement them. It is only through such an interactive process that real progress can be made.

The consultants attempted to be inclusive in the gathering of information about the current status of library service in the State of Arkansas. The process of collecting data began with a review of background materials provided by ASL staff. Included were text materials ranging from the State Statutes related to libraries to narrative reports on specific programs and services, as well as statistical data covering the activities of both ASL and local libraries. The consultants reviewed national data to determine how libraries in Arkansas were performing in relation to libraries in other states.

This background review was followed by a series of focus groups for librarians and trustees. The focus groups, held in virtually every area of the state, were structured to identify issues and areas of concern that could be explored in greater detail through surveys, interviews, and additional background research. A total of thirty-five focus groups were scheduled in twenty-one different communities.

In the course of the study, the consultants visited sixty libraries in Arkansas and were in all but two of the "administrative units" in the state. The consultants did look at the exteriors of the two administrative units that were closed at the times they were visiting those areas of the state. As part of their visit, the consultants shot over 400 digital photographs of the exteriors and interiors of the library facilities. These photos are available on the consultants' web-site at:

http://www.execpc.com/himmel/arlibs.html

Two separate mail surveys of Arkansas libraries were conducted. (Copies of all survey instruments are included in APPENDIX A [the Appendices are not included in this online version] and statistical summaries of the surveys are provided in APPENDIX B) The first survey went to all public libraries including both administrative units and branch facilities. The second survey was sent to administrative units. This survey had three components. They were:

1. Descriptive Data
2. Facilities Survey
3. Financial Survey

The directors of administrative units were asked to complete a separate "Facilities Survey" for each of their buildings. They were also asked to complete a separate "Financial Survey" for each governmental unit that provides tax support for their libraries.

The consultants posted two basic surveys on their web-site and offered libraries an opportunity to complete these surveys online. Seventeen libraries chose to use this method to submit their responses.

In all, 102 of the 221 libraries in the state (46.2%) submitted responses to the basic "all-library" survey. Twenty-five of the 44 administrative units (56.8%) responded to the basic administrative unit survey. Administrative units submitted facilities surveys covering 121 of the 221 library facilities in the state (54.8%) and for 77 taxing units that support public library service.

Focus group sessions were also held with ASL staff to gain their perspectives both on ASL services and local library services. Personal interviews were conducted with the State Librarian and with administrative and management staff. Telephone interviews were conducted with ASL Board members.

Additional interviews were conducted either in person or over the telephone with about a dozen additional individuals ranging from representatives of other state agencies to librarians and trustees with unique or historical perspectives regarding library services.

 

Arkansas finds itself in the unenviable position of being at or near the bottom on most standard measures of performance and support applied to library services when compared to other states. This is not to say that there aren't some fine libraries in Arkansas; clearly there are. However, taken as a whole, public library service in Arkansas is sub-standard as compared to neighboring states and falls well below national norms.

The comparisons that follow are drawn from statistics compiled by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) through a program known as the Federal-State Cooperative System for Public Library Data (FSCS). The Arkansas State Library, along with the state library agencies in all other states and in the District of Columbia, collect and submit data representing all public libraries in their respective states. NCES then compiles this data into a national report. Because this is a process that involves many steps, the information always lags by several years. The most recent national report, released in Spring 1999, covers the 1996 fiscal year.

While some change in rankings do occur from year to year, shifts are typically gradual rather than dramatic. The consultants have no compelling reason to believe that Arkansas' position on these measures has changed significantly. In fact, a review of the most recent statistics compiled by ASL tends to affirm this belief. Following, then, is a snapshot of the position of Arkansas' libraries presented largely in graphical form. We have chosen to show Arkansas, the national average, the high and low states, and each of the states bordering Arkansas on most of the graphs.

Finally, because the District of Columbia is included in the national data, 51 rather than 50 entities are routinely compared. This explains why some rankings are stated in terms of "49^th of 51" for example. In a few instances, the District of Columbia ranks first in the comparisons. When this occurs, we have reported the top state on the list as the "high" figure since the top state is probably more comparable to the State of Arkansas than is a single public library serving one municipality. It should also be noted that the structure of library service in the State of Hawaii is also unlike Arkansas or any other state in that public library service is provided under a single state-funded library system. Because public libraries in Hawaii are almost completely state-funded, financial comparisons including this state are somewhat misleading. Service measures are, however, somewhat more valid.

Arkansas rank 48^th of 51 in total per capita income support for public libraries (see Chart I). Ohio tops the list with funding of $ 43.39 per person. In sharp contrast, Arkansas residents provide only $ 12.29 per person in support of public library service. (By 1997 this figure had grown to $ 14.14 per capita.) This is only slightly over one-quarter (28.3%) of Ohio's support amount. Only Tennessee, West Virginia, and Mississippi provide less support.

The Arkansas support total is approximately one-half of the national average (52.6%). Arkansas does somewhat better in comparison to adjoining states. None of the six surrounding states exceed the national average in support for libraries, and four of the bottom ten states lie in the south central region.

of the country that includes Arkansas. When a slightly larger region is considered, eight of the bottom eleven states are accounted for (Oklahoma - 40^th, Kentucky - 42^nd, Georgia - 44^th, Alabama - 45^th, Texas - 47^th, Arkansas, - 48^th, Tennessee - 49^th, and Mississippi, 51^st).

The "Total Library Income per Capita" received by libraries consists of income from several sources. In the vast majority of states, the single largest percentage of funding is derived from local governments such as municipalities and counties. Nationally, over 78 percent of libraries' total operating income is derived from these sources. State aid accounts for about 12 percent of funding on a national level and "Other" sources, which includes categories like gifts, fees, and fines, supplies another 9 percent. Finally, federal sources contribute about 1 percent of the total each year. Arkansas matches this funding profile very closely. Below is a comparison of Arkansas and national statistics in this regard.

Source of Funding	Arkansas Percentage	National Percentage
Local	78.2 %	78.1 %
State	12.0 %	12.2 %
Federal	1.5 %	1.0 %
Other	8.3 %	8.7 %
Total	100.0 %	100.0 %

In other words, the proportion of library funding coming from each source is in line with the national norms; however, the dollar amounts from most of the sources fall well below the national average.

Chart II captures the local income picture. At $ 9.61 per capita (46^th of 51), Arkansas' local funding for libraries is only slightly over one-half (52.6%) of the national mean of $ 18.26 per capita. Arkansas fares only slightly better in the region. The Arkansas total exceeds that of Mississippi and Tennessee but lags substantially behind Missouri, Louisiana and Oklahoma.

The picture is somewhat similar in regard to state funding (see Chart III). While Arkansas' rank among states is considerably higher (18^th of the 46 states that provide any state funding for libraries) on state aid, its amount of $ 1.48 per capita is still just 52.1 percent of the national average of $ 2.84 per person.

An explanation of Ohio's exceptionally high level of state funding ($ 30.85 per capita) is in order. Over 71 % of the funding for Ohio's public libraries comes from the State of Ohio. Libraries receive a dedicated percentage of the state's income tax each year. In spite of this exceptional level of state support, local support for Ohio's libraries is only slightly less than local support in Arkansas ($ 9.07 for Ohio compared to $ 9.61 for Arkansas).

"Other" income for Arkansas libraries ($ 1.02 per capita) is only 50.2% of the national average of $ 2.03 per person. Even the amount of federal aid ($ .18 per capita) is only 75% of the national average ($ .24 per capita).

Given the overall funding picture in Arkansas, it is not surprising to find that expenditures for the major categories of library budgets fall well below national norms. Chart IV compares expenditures for what has traditionally been the "stock-in-trade" of libraries; books and other library resources such as periodicals and audiovisual materials. Arkansas ranks 45^th of 51 in collection expenditures per capita. The amount of $ 2.01 per person available for the purchase of new books translates into less than one new trade volume for every ten residents of Arkansas each year. (By 1997 the amount had grown to $ 2.27 per capita.) This compares to about one new book for every three residents of Ohio.

Arkansas ranks even lower (50^th of 51) in staff expenditures per capita (see Chart V). Only Mississippi at $ 6.15 per capita expends less than Arkansas at $ 6.37 per capita. While prevailing wage rates in various areas do have an impact on this factor, Arkansas fares poorly on this measure even when costs are adjusted to account for regional differences.

Fringe benefits for Arkansas library employees are also less generous than those provided in other states. In Arkansas, approximately $ 1.10 per capita is spent on staff expenditures other than salaries and wages. The national average for this measure is $ 2.65 per capita.

Arkansas ranks 50^th of 51 in the number of paid library staff per 25,000 population (see Chart VI). The state also performs poorly when measured by the number of librarians holding an American Library Association accredited master's degree in library science (MLS) (see Chart VII). Only Montana and Kentucky fare worse in this category.

Compared to a national average of 2.71 degreed librarians per 25,000 population, Arkansas provides only one MLS for the same population base.

Arkansas' placement in the Volumes per capita measurement (39^th of 51) might be considered a bright spot until one carefully considers what the combination of very low collection expenditures per capita and considerably better volumes per capita ranking really means (see Chart VIII). Unfortunately, this combination means that the shelves of Arkansas libraries contain many outdated books.

Very few shelves in Arkansas libraries contain substantial collections of audiovisual materials (see Charts IX and Chart X). Arkansas ranks at the bottom of all states in audio materials per 1,000 population (51^st of 51) and in videos per 1,000 population (50^th of 50). Given the amount of money available for purchasing materials, it is apparent that many Arkansas librarians have chosen to concentrate on what many consider to be basic materials (books) rather than diluting their book purchasing power by buying materials that some consider to be less essential.

The state's libraries fare only slightly better (48^th of 51) measured in terms of serial subscriptions per 1,000 of population (see Chart XI). At 3.61 periodical subscriptions per 1,000 people, the typical Arkansas library has half as many periodical subscriptions as the average public library in the United States (7.35 subscriptions per 1,000).

Given the information presented on the previous pages regarding what goes into providing public library service in Arkansas (inputs such as low expenditures on collections and on staff), it is quite predictable that measures of service will be low as well. This is, in fact, the case.

Arkansas libraries rank 44^th of the 45 states reporting data on the number of library visits per capita (see Chart XII). The very limited number of dollars available for purchasing new materials clearly converts into a low number of library visits. Most people go to libraries to get reading, listening, and viewing materials. Low expenditures for collection development also converts into a poor showing in circulation per capita (47^th of 51). On average, Arkansas residents check out 4.17 items per person per year compared to a national average of 6.50 (see Chart XIII). Twelve states report circulation per capita figures of more than double Arkansas' level.

It is no coincidence that the state that spends the most per capita on new materials (Ohio) is also the state that has the highest circulation per capita. Missouri's strong showing on circulation per capita is in no small part related to its 5^th ranked expenditure per capita on materials. A comparison of Chart IV and Chart XIII clearly demonstrates the close correlation between expenditures on collections and the use of materials.

The lack of dollars for both collections and staff contributes to Arkansas' low performance on reference transactions per capita (see Chart XIV). The state's ranking of 44^th among the 45 states maintaining records on this measure is also quite predictable.

While the national and regional comparisons are quite disturbing, a number of hopeful signs do exist. The recent increase in state aid will propel Arkansas upward in the state income per capita rankings. Successful votes on millage and sales tax ballot issues in several different areas of the state are resulting in substantially improved facilities and collections on the local level.

It is a relatively simple matter to find outstanding examples of real improvement in library service across the state. Unfortunately, this progress is very uneven. While support is improving in some areas, it is eroding in others. Statewide efforts to improve library services are more important now than they have been at any other time in recent history. The gulf between the information "haves" and "have nots" in the state is increasing.

Another bright spot on the horizon relates to the Gates Library Initiative. This project is providing some of the equipment and training necessary to help bridge the gulf between the information rich and the information poor. The Arkansas State Library's initiative to provide full-text online databases fits very well with the Gates effort. The combination of the two programs suddenly expands the world of information available in some of the smallest and poorest communities in the state.

The overall picture of library service has been bleak for a long period of time. Long-term success will largely depend on the ability of the library community to make the public aware of the positive impact that quality library service can have on the quality of life in their city, county, or region. Progress will not come easy, but the consultants believe that it is possible.

 

Focus Group Summary

Focus groups with librarians, trustees, and friends were held in twenty-one locations across Arkansas to gather the ideas and perceptions the public library community holds about the current status of public library service in Arkansas and about the Arkansas State Library. Public libraries, like the communities of Arkansas, represent a wide spectrum of circumstances and contrasts. No one area of the state holds all the ‘good’ libraries or the ‘most devoted’ library workers or supporters. While participants in the sessions had different responses to the questions and sometimes different priorities, there were some consistent patterns in their answers to the consultants’ questions.

• The Arkansas public library community is especially proud of its service to children.

• Adequate physical space is a problem for many Arkansas public libraries.

• Technology is increasing the stress on physical space, budgets, and library staffs.

• Funding is an ongoing issue.

• The most used services provided by the Arkansas State Library are interlibrary loan and the children’s services workshop.

• Many are unaware of other State Library services.

• The public library community would like for the Arkansas State Library to place priority emphasis on the roles of advocate, educator, and advisor.

• Participants are concerned about the lack of professional library training in the state.

• Participants want some basic standards against which to measure library services in the state.

Focus Groups Background:

Thirty-five focus group sessions were scheduled in twenty-one locations throughout the State of Arkansas. If more than one session was scheduled in a community, the participants at one were librarians and library staff and at the other library trustees and friends. Total attendance at all the sessions was 202, which included a few directors and trustees who attended more than one session. Of the thirty-five scheduled sessions, three for trustees had no attendees. In a few other instances only one individual attended. In these cases the consultants treated the session as an interview and proceeded to gather information from that person.

The consultants made an attempt to hold sessions in every area of the state. At least four sessions were offered in each of the five library development districts. Following is a list of focus group session locations:

District 1:

Fort Smith

Harrison

Russellville

Springdale

Wynne

District 2

Batesville

Forrest City

Jonesboro

Paragould

District 3:

Benton

Conway

North Little Rock

Searcy

District 4

El Dorado

Magnolia

Nashville

Texarkana

District 5:

Helena

Monticello

Pine Bluff

Stuttgart

The basic questions asked at all the sessions were the same; however, the responses to these questions often triggered different follow-up or probe questions intended to clarify points and issues.

After introductions, participants were asked to talk about what their own library did exceptionally well or what they were particularly proud of. Next, they were asked what areas were in need of improvement in their library. The third question probed the participants' opinions regarding which services offered by the Arkansas State Library (ASL) were most helpful to their library. Next, they were asked how they communicated their wants and needs to the ASL.

The consultants also probed two additional areas. The first explored participants' opinions regarding the likely impact that passage of the property tax initiative that almost appeared on last November's ballot would have had on libraries. The second and final area explored was the appropriate role or roles of the state library agency. In considering this question, focus group attendees were asked to react to a list of potential roles for state library agencies that the consultants had originally developed for the Mississippi Library Commission. (A copy of this handout is included in the report as APPENDIX C.)

The responses:

What the libraries do really well:

Participants in focus groups were always able to identify successful areas or services being provided by their library. Librarians and trustees from individual libraries sometimes had answers that were specific to their community, such as how well the voters had responded to a millage vote or how proud they were of a new branch or facility.

Overall statewide, libraries in small communities most often emphasized the personalized service they were able to provide to their users and the rapport they were able to develop in their communities. Across the state people talked about the importance of being responsive in their communities, of extending or changing hours to match user needs and of focusing on customer services. People from larger libraries also talked about having helpful, friendly staff, but they were more likely to talk about parts of their collections, such as fiction or reference, being exceptionally strong. Many participants mentioned having active and supportive Friends groups.

Services to children were cited most often as being particularly good by representatives of libraries of all sizes. Reference service was the second most often mentioned "really good" service. Many said they were pleased to be able to offer computers and Internet access to their users. Many others were in the process of having computers provided through the Gates Library Initiative installed and expressed excitement about what this would mean in terms of services they could offer.

Local history and genealogy often came up as a topic in the focus group discussions. For some libraries local history and genealogy service represents a strength or a success story. Many librarians said the collections and resources devoted to local historical and genealogical research were heavily used. For other libraries these areas present a formidable challenge because the demand is larger than the library is able to meet, either in terms of space, resources, or staff to assist the researchers.

Perceptions of the areas that need improvement:

Across the state many libraries lack the physical space to offer the services and programs their communities need. Many librarians talked about specific areas of their collections that were in need of weeding and updating. Some felt they are behind in the use of computers in their libraries. A considerable number of libraries do not have automated circulation systems or online catalogs. Others are using automation systems that utilize non-standard bibliographic records and are limited in capability.

Focus group participants portrayed technology as both a blessing and a curse. One librarian said the only place that technology was helping extend their collection was in reference. Otherwise, paying for technology was actually decreasing the amount she could spend on books and staff.

Several librarians named specific areas where they needed additional staff; usually this was in reference, genealogy, or children’s services areas.

Many of the other specific areas cited as being in need of improvement fit into two categories: priorities and funding. In several sessions librarians expressed their frustration with trying to keep up with all the changes occurring within libraries while at the same time trying to maintain the level of basic library service they wish to provide. Many seemed to feel that there was so much to do that they weren’t sure where to start or what to do first.

The Gates Initiative computers are a welcome addition to libraries, but they also eat up scarce space and stretch already insufficient staff to the breaking point. Participants in the focus groups were often unsure of where to turn for direction and help in solving their local problems. Library directors new to the state or to their positions often spoke of being unsure and unclear about the respective responsibilities of regional libraries and the Arkansas State Library. Many were unclear as to how their libraries fit into the bigger picture of statewide library services. One library director characterized the situation as, "If you have your head down (nose to the grindstone), it’s hard to see the big picture. It’s real easy to get very narrowly focused on day to day crisis management."

The consultants met a number of exceptionally dedicated trustees and it is apparent that in some areas of the state trustee participation is high. However, in other areas, the trustees seem only minimally involved with setting direction for library services. Some participants thought there needed to be more trustee training, but in other areas it was clear that training was a lesser issue than was gaining more enthusiastic participation from the local trustees.

Not surprisingly, funding is also a critical issue for most libraries. While a good number of libraries have recently received local funds for new or expanded building projects, their directors worry about the ongoing support for operations once those facilities are opened. Several directors talked about low salaries and the difficulty in filling professional and technical positions. Low salaries for professional positions was a particular concern of the trustees who were trying to fill director positions which require an MLS degree. They believed the lack of an accredited library school in Arkansas (more on this below) meant that applicants had to be recruited from outside the state and that the salaries of director positions in Arkansas were not competitive with those in other states.

Services offered by the ASL that are most helpful:

The ASL services most frequently cited by focus group participants as being helpful to local libraries were interlibrary loan and the children’s services workshop. AMIGOS workshops offered under ASL auspices were also specifically cited as being very helpful. In some areas participants mentioned assistance their library had received from ASL in advertising for and/or hiring new directors. Participants also mentioned occasional visits or telephone conversations with ASL consultants on particular issues or topics. Most, however, felt that visits from ASL personnel were too few and far between.

The assistance that ASL provides in locating and applying for grants was also singled out for praise. People in several sessions credited the ASL with "getting the Gates computers." Others saw the Gates Initiative as something that Arkansas qualified for based on its demographics and, while they recognized and understood the work the state library agency was doing in implementing the project, they saw the ASL involvement as pro forma.

Some focus group participants had used the back up reference service and thought highly of it; however, very few seemed to be aware of the special collections available at the ASL or of how these resources might be valuable to their libraries.

Most participants believe that the online databases, available through the State Library, are an important program and a step in the right direction by ASL. However, mention of the databases generally also brought comments about the difficulty of getting advice on the technical process of establishing access to the databases from their local libraries.

Trustees generally professed little knowledge of what services the ASL provides. This was also true of many of the branch managers who participated. Both trustees and branch managers expected their regional library director to have the information on what the State Library provides.

Communication with the Arkansas State Library:

Communication between the State Library and individual library directors was perceived as "pretty comfortable" by most of the focus group participants. Some indicated that certain State Library personnel seemed to be more difficult to reach than others are. Other librarians expressed uncertainty as to which staff members they should contact at ALS for assistance with particular questions or problems.

Directors of independent libraries felt it was sometimes hard for them to get the attention of the appropriate people at the ASL because the State Library focused more on regional directors than on individual libraries. Branch managers in some regionals didn’t seem to expect to communicate directly with the State Library at all. Rather, they expected to receive all their state information through their regional director.

Opinions regarding the property tax initiative:

This question was prompted by the property tax initiative that nearly appeared on the ballot in November 1998. The discussion of this issue was intended to explore what participants thought would happen if a campaign to eliminate the property tax was successful. The question was also used to pursue alternatives that participants perceived as possible solutions to the overall funding problems that libraries face.

With a few notable exceptions, participants thought that the initiative would have succeeded if it had made it onto the ballot. However, in at least one area of the state, where the initiative did appear on the ballot because of a printing error, the measure was defeated.

A few people in almost every group thought that a rational populace would have eventually seen the folly of abolishing the property tax; however, they were clearly in the minority. Some indicated that, "People have no idea how libraries are paid for."

Some worried aloud that if all services funded by property taxes were left to seek other sources of funding that libraries would be left behind. They felt that other "more crucial services" like police and fire protection would get the lion’s share of other tax sources. Yet others thought the impact would be that some libraries would go out of business, at least for a while. The majority thought that most libraries would manage to keep their doors open and would eventually come back, albeit in a much reduced form.

Most focus group participants seemed to think the state legislature recognized the chaos that such a measure would create and felt that legislators would work to solve the problems of tax inequity in order to prevent catastrophe. (Most believed that the situation wasn’t something they could do much about.) Many also believed that the ASL hadn’t taken an active enough role in combating the issue. Overall, ASL was seen as helpful but not aggressive enough in making the case for libraries.

State Library priorities:

The consultants used a list of nine roles played by state library agencies, which had been developed in 1996 for the Mississippi Library Commission, to structure a discussion among the participants concerning the most important ways the Arkansas State Library could help Arkansas libraries. As was mentioned previously, brief descriptions of these roles are provided in APPENDIX C.

The nine roles are:

• advocate,
• advisor,
• provider,
• data collector,
• enforcer,
• leader,
• connector,
• educator, and,
• innovator.

Participants were asked to identify the three roles that they thought should be the top priority for ASL. Of the nine roles, only data collector and enforcer received less than 19 votes overall. They each received only 2 votes. (Note that the earliest focus group discussions did not include this prioritization exercise and that in some groups the actual voting was pretty informal.) The numbers should be used only as a loose indication of priorities.

As is always the case with generalized roles such as these, participants often make combinations of roles and redefine what the roles should mean when applied to their state.

At the top of the list for most participants were advocate, which received forty-three votes; educator, which received thirty-nine votes; advisor, which received thirty-four votes, and leader, which received twenty-four votes. Connector and innovator each received nineteen votes.

People who said the ASL should emphasize the advocacy role recognized that the ASL currently focuses in this area by monitoring legislative activities and keeping the state’s library community aware of changes. At the same time they wanted the ASL to take a more aggressive approach in terms of "keeping an eye on the big picture" both inside Arkansas and beyond. They felt that ASL should be lobbying the legislature and advocating for libraries with other individuals and entities. Many believed that promoting the importance of libraries statewide would provide a platform that local libraries could build upon. Participants clearly felt that the ASL needs to raise the visibility of libraries and library service in the state.

In giving the role of educator the second highest number of votes, thirty-nine, the participants offered several examples. They cited workshops held in various places around the state on legal issues for librarians and trustees, trustee responsibilities, and educational programs on "things librarians ought to know," but often are unaware of as concerns.

Related to the role of educator was a discussion of the ASL’s responsibility in helping raise the level of education and training for librarians and library workers in the state. Some participants wanted the ASL to take an active approach to getting an American Library Association accredited library school in the state or establishing some mechanism for obtaining formal library science coursework. This was seen as especially appropriate since the ASL is the agency that enforces the regulation requiring a professional library degree.

The role of advisor received the third highest number of votes, thirty-four. Participants said they wanted the ASL to be a "higher up resource." The ASL should be able to provide some of the technical (professional library management, legal, and technology related) advice that libraries need. "We shouldn’t all have to rediscover the wheel."

Librarians expressed a need for advice from those who have hands-on experience and for knowledge that could be gained through providing lists of experts, consultants, and specialty vendors. This discussion often included comments about wanting more contact with ASL consultants.

Most believed that the ASL library development staff was well qualified both in terms of education and experience; however, they also believed that there needed to be more consultants and that consultants needed to be out in the state in libraries on a regular basis.

Thirty people voted for the role of provider as their first, second, or third choice. This was especially true for libraries serving smaller communities. The two areas most frequently mentioned in relation to this role were interlibrary loan service and the Library for the Blind and Physically Handicapped service. In a few cases participants mentioned the cataloging service as a helpful back up to smaller libraries.

The role of leader was a priority for twenty-four participants. They expressed a desire for leadership by consensus rather than by directive. Often this discussion centered on wanting the ASL to bring the library community together to clarify a common direction and purpose for libraries in Arkansas that could serve as the basis for individual library planning.

Those who voted for the role of connector, nineteen participants, seemed to focus on connecting the various types of libraries in cooperative ways that benefited all libraries. The role of innovator also received nineteen votes. Participants wanted the ASL to be willing to try new approaches and ideas as demonstrations for the state library community to see how things "might work."

Participants who wanted to stress the roles of data collector and enforcer talked about the need for basic information about Arkansas libraries and for recipients of state aid to be held accountable for how they spent those funds.

Other issues:

In each focus group session, participants were given the opportunity to raise issues not specifically covered in the consultants' questions. Two other issues were raised multiple times by those attending focus groups. One issue that concerns many in the library community is the lack of an accredited MLS degree program within the state to supply libraries with trained professional personnel. A number of library staff members indicated an interest in pursuing the graduate degree. Some are traveling to Texarkana to take the courses offered jointly by Texas Woman’s University and the University of North Texas. However, the effort, especially the time commitment, required to travel long distances to participate in the courses presents a real hardship, especially when the financial reward for completing the degree is not great.

Trustees also experience frustration in trying to fill director’s positions, which require the MLS degree if the library is to receive state aid. While the ASL is seen as very helpful in advising trustees on the process of advertising the positions and of interviewing prospective directors, the trustees feel caught in the process.

A second issue that was raised by participants was termed the lack of library standards in Arkansas. This discussion had two separate, but related, parts. One group of people used the term standards in the sense of basic expectations about what regional and independent libraries must do and what services they must provide in order to receive state aid. For many this is a question of accountability and the wide variation in what regional libraries in Arkansas do was the basis for questioning what could be expected.

The other discussion of standards related to the qualitative and quantitative measures that libraries use to compare their services and programs to those of other libraries. This aspect was often raised by participants who wanted to be able to gather and use standardized data about library services as they developed service plans and sought additional support from their communities. Those who raised this issue felt the current data gathering method did not give them the information they needed to identify comparable libraries and communities in Arkansas.

 

Arkansas State Library Interviews and Focus Groups

Five focus group discussions were held at the ASL, one with extension services unit, one with other ASL professional staff, two with support staff, and one with administrative staff. In addition, the State Librarian, other ASL administrators, and departmental supervisors were interviewed individually.

Participants thought the ASL provides good reference and interlibrary loan services, in part because the collections are specialized and strong in specific areas. The strong collections include federal and state documents, the only patent and trademark library in the state, and the collections of the Library for the Blind and Physically Handicapped (LBPH).

Extensive cataloging of government documents means access to their contents is good. Participants were proud of their service to state government. Primary users of the ASL collections are people with disabilities, state agency personnel, legislative staff, and businesses (especially in relation to the patent and trademark collection).

In personal interviews, individuals offered some very specific lists of ASL accomplishments and specific achievements of particular units within the agency ranging from supporting the introduction of OCLC in the libraries of the state to acquiring and implementing the state library's integrated automation system. The success of the Patent & Trademark service and the value of data collection and reporting activities such as the Salary survey and the Capital Improvements survey were also mentioned.

Areas identified in focus groups as most in need of improvement included visibility of the ASL itself, more staffing and better access for the LBPH, and better internal and external communication. One other area that frequently came up in the discussions was the lack of financial assistance for continuing education for support staff at the ASL.

Many employees expressed the opinion that the ASL has, for many years, "kept a low profile." In part, it is believed, this comes from the ban on the use of state tax dollars to "advertise" a government agency or its services. The fact that the ASL did not serve the public directly (with the exception of LBPH) until recently was also seen as contributing to this low profile. Finally, some offered the opinion that low visibility was somehow an agency policy.

Whatever the reason, many staff feel that "the public doesn’t know we’re here." Others expressed thoughts such as, "With the exception of a few parking related signs, there isn't anything on the outside of the building saying we’re in here." "Parking is a problem for those who do find us." "Not being able to publicize means we’re not being used as much as we should." "If we can’t spend tax dollars on being more visible, why don’t we have a foundation or some other source of money for that?"

The library function of ASL was seen as being largely invisible to the library community as well. One staff member expressed a concern that, "…we don’t make contact unless people call us. We do workshops only if they ask." Some suggested that part of the problem is that, "…travel funds for the ASL have been flat for ten years" and pointed out that unfilled positions have been lost at the ASL because they weren’t funded by the legislature.

Staff of the Library for the Blind and Physically Handicapped report that clients are often unable to "get through to" the LBPH and that the service needs both an 800 number and more staff to meet client needs. LBPH staff indicated that the closing of several subregional libraries in recent years has been a problem both in terms of space and staffing.

Development staff in the agency saw the annual children's services workshop and work done developing the summer reading program as important successes. However, they expressed disappointment that semiannual trustee workshops always seem to be poorly attended.

Participants in the sessions talked about the need to communicate more with libraries and the public about the resources available at and through the state library. They also talked about needing improved communication within the state library. They characterized the physical space at the ASL as "very spread out" and the structure of the agency as being "very departmentalized." "we all feel that we do our own jobs well but staff of the library itself aren't well acquainted with what the development staff is doing and vice-versa. Staff indicated that there are very few agency wide meetings where people see and talk with staff who work in other areas.

Continuing education support within the agency is also an issue. Staff is aware that continuing education, including scholarships and workshops is an important emphasis of what ASL does statewide. However, many feel support for their own continuing education is not as high a priority. A specific example that was offered was the fact that ASL provides financial support for the support staff group of the Arkansas Library Association, but staff members at the ASL are not permitted to receive direct support to attend those sessions.

 

Mail Survey Summaries

As was indicated earlier in the "Process" section of this report, the consultants conducted several mail surveys as part of their data collection efforts. (See APPENDIX A for the survey instruments used and APPENDIX B for a statistical summary of survey results.) The first survey was sent to all 221 public library facilities in Arkansas. We will refer to this survey as the "All-Library Survey." The All-Library Survey distribution was based on mailing labels obtained from ASL.

This survey asked the recipients to respond to the questions based on the services provided at that location only. Responses were received from 102 of the 221 libraries, for a response rate of 46.2 percent of the libraries. Of those responding 74.5 percent were branch libraries and 25.5 percent represented the headquarters or independent libraries in Arkansas.

The statistical summary contained in APPENDIX B presents data in several ways. The responses to some questions are reported in terms of the number of responses and the percentage of those responses that match each category. For example, this is the case with the question of the level of education attained by the manager or director of the facility being surveyed. The charts indicate how many managers responded in each of the education categories and reports the percentage of the total represented by the responses in each category.

The reporting for other questions offers a "sum total" figure that is based on adding the total numbers reported by all the respondents together. For example, circulation figures are reported in this manner. When circulation figures reported by all libraries responding to the survey are added together, we find that a total of 6,008,555 items were checked out from the responding libraries last year.

The charts also report a mean (what is commonly referred to as the average). The mean is calculated simply by adding together circulation and dividing by the number of libraries responding. Because very high or very low figure often have a significant impact on the mean average, we have also reported the median, or mid-point. The median represents the point at which half of the responses are higher and half are lower.

As an example, the reader should interpret the information for circulation as: the average circulation for all the libraries was 71,171 items; however, half of the reporting libraries had a total circulation of less than 35,326 and half of the libraries had a total circulation above 35,326. Because the average is almost double the median, this indicates that some of the libraries circulating more than the median did, in fact, circulate many more than the 35,326 mean. A wide disparity between the mean and the median generally means a wide disparity in the figures reported by the libraries. Some of the reporting libraries have much higher usage and much larger collections than others.

Sixty-five percent of the circulation reported by the libraries overall was of adult materials. The number of hours that responding libraries were open ranged from 3 hours to 68 hours per week. Both the mean and median number of hours was 40 per week. Service hours were pretty consistent year round. A few libraries reduce their hours during the summer months; however, this reduced the mean by only 1 hour per week to 39 hours and the median remained at 40 hours per week.

A reporting of collection size by format of materials reveals that library collections are largely comprised of books rather than audiovisual materials. Over 97 percent (97.3%) of the items reported were print-on paper resources. Video, music and books on tape, and especially compact disc, collections are very small.

Periodical collections are also quite small. Over half of the libraries reporting purchased 35 subscriptions or fewer. Approximately 16 percent of the subscriptions in reporting libraries are gifts or donations from users.

If all 102 responding libraries were "average," they would have handled 9,201 reference transactions last year. However, the median number of reference transactions was 2,307. Thirty-seven libraries reported no reference activity and another 16 reported levels that average less than one transaction per day. Less than ten percent of the libraries (10) accounted for 65.8% of the reference load among reporting libraries.

Approximately half of the libraries had 2 or fewer full time equivalent paid staff members; however, the mean average number of staff was 5.77. Over 22 percent (22.6%) of the responding libraries are headed by a manager with a high school education or less. Given that nearly 75 percent (74.5%) of the responses to the survey came from branch libraries where an advanced degree is not required, it is surprising that nearly a third (32.5 %) of the libraries are headed in their daily operations by a person with a master’s degree or more. Some of these advanced degrees are in areas other than library science, media education technology, for example.

The library managers and directors were asked how many hours of library-related training or continuing education (CE) they had participated in during the last year. Nearly 60 percent (58.6%) reported participating in 15 or more hours, which is an impressive total. However, these may be unusual times. Of the 99 respondents who said they had participated in continuing education training, 90 reported taking an average of 12.03 hours of training that was directly related to participation in the Gates Library Initiative. It would appear that the Gates project might have doubled the normal number of hours of continuing education experienced by the typical library manager in Arkansas over the course of the last year.

When asked to rate the importance of various continuing education or training providers in Arkansas, the participants gave the highest rating to the Arkansas State Library, a rating of 3.5 out of 5.0. The Arkansas Library Association received the second highest rating at 3.2. Of the providers rated, community colleges and colleges and universities received the lowest ratings, 1.7 and 1.9 respectively. The ratings for AMIGOS tended to be either very high or very low. Seventeen libraries gave AMIGOS training either a 4 or a 5; however, many more gave it a one.

Libraries were asked to indicate how far they would be willing to travel to attend a typical three-hour continuing education session. Thirty-seven and a half percent (37.5%) said they were willing to travel between 30 minutes and an hour. Another twenty percent (19.8%) said they would travel one to one and one-half hour for the typical continuing education session. If the roughly four percent (4.2%) of respondents who said they'd travel less than 30 minutes are included, sixty-one and one-half percent (61.5%) of Arkansas' library managers wish to travel less than an hour and one-half to access CE events

At the other end of the scale, a surprising eleven and one-half percent (11.5%) said they’d travel two and one-half to three hours for a three hour session!

The participants were also asked to indicate the importance of specific continuing education topics. On a scale of 1-5 with five being very important and one being very unimportant, all of the topics listed received a rating of 3.7 or higher. General computer/technology was ranked the most important with a rating of 4.9, followed by Internet training at 4.3. Interestingly, sessions dealing with basic library skills and management ranked the lowest although both were well above the mid-point meaning that they were still considered important.

Ninety-four percent (94.1%) of the respondents have Internet access at their library. Only slightly fewer, eighty-nine percent (89.2%) also provide public access to the Internet at their library. However, Internet access is still quite new in Arkansas libraries. Half of the libraries reporting (50%) indicated that their library had access to the Internet for six months or less. Only four libraries reported having Internet access for three years or longer.

Eight-five percent (85.3%) of the library managers and directors said they used the Internet personally. Seventy-nine of the respondents gave estimates of the percent of their use of the Internet in a number of categories. The highest use reported was for reference using common search engines (41 %). Twenty-six percent (26.3%) of managers and directors use of the Internet was related to e-mail.

Very little use of either free or fee-based Internet sites other than those located using common search engines was reported. This is likely a reflection of the fact that the Internet is very new to most libraries. More experienced web users typically "bookmark" quality information sites that cover particular subject areas or establish links to "meta-sites" that, in turn, link to topical information.

Seventy-six libraries reported that the staff at their library also used the Internet. Another eleven libraries reported that they had no other staff. Again the highest staff use was for reference using common search engines (46.2%) followed by e-mail at approximately twenty percent (20.1%).

Fifty-nine percent (58.8%) of the libraries reported having both the circulation function and their library's catalog automated. Thirty percent (30.4) said none of their basic library functions (circulation or catalog) were automated. Eleven libraries did not respond to this question.

Of the sixty-seven who said their library was automated, thirty percent (29.9%) have an Innovative Interfaces system. This reflects a good number of branch locations that participate in shared automation systems. However, a total of thirteen different vendors were listed. Many of the systems listed use non MARC-standard bibliographic records. Several may or may not be Year 2000 compliant depending on the version of the software being used.

The survey asked libraries to identify how many of each of eight types of computers were in use. Forty-four percent (43.8%) of the computers in the reporting libraries are Pentium II or III equipment. Another quarter (24.6 %) of the computers are 586 or Pentium I computers. This supports the thought that it is not just the Internet that is new to some libraries. Computerization of any kind is new as well.

Over three-quarters of the computers in place are capable of using the latest common operating systems that are available. Very few of the computers are badly outdated. Very few Mackintosh computers are in use in Arkansas libraries.

Libraries reported that 87 "dumb" terminals are in use. In libraries, these terminals are typically associated with text-based library automation systems. Library automation systems have now moved on to graphical user interfaces. These dumb terminals will need to be replaced relatively quickly if library users are going to benefit from the new generation of online public access catalogs (OPACS).

Over fifty-eight percent (58.2%) of the computers used in Arkansas libraries are available for public use. Over half of the newest classes of computers are as well indicating that library staff are not "hoarding the good stuff" for themselves.

The final question on the "All-Library Survey" asked which services are best offered on a regional basis rather than locally or statewide. None of the five services listed received a majority of yes ‘votes.’ Forty-four percent (44.1%) thought that resource sharing was best offered on a regional basis and forty-three percent (43.1%) thought continuing education was best offered on a regional basis. Little support (only 21.6%) was indicated for a regional administrative structure.

The "Administrative Unit Survey" was distributed to all entities considered to be administrative units by the Arkansas State Library. This includes regional libraries, city, county, and city/county libraries, and independent libraries without direct tax support. In all, 44 Administrative Unit Surveys were distributed. A total of 25 of these agencies completed and returned their surveys for a response rate of 56.8 percent.

Included with each of the administrative surveys were two separate "sub-surveys." The first covered library facilities and the second covered library finances. Administrative units were asked to complete one facilities survey for each building they served and one financial survey for each governmental entity that provides tax support for public library service. Completed surveys were returned covering 121 of the 221 library facilities and representing 77 different taxing entities.

The surveys submitted covered libraries serving just under half of the Arkansas population (49.1%). The administrative survey reported 66 different taxing entities although the financial surveys that were received cover 77 jurisdictions that provide some support for libraries. The mean population served by the administrative units reporting was 61,396 people and the median population was 50,000. Both some of the smallest and the largest libraries did report. The smallest library responding serves a population of 1,000 people while the largest serves over 295,000 people.

Administrative units were asked to indicate which of a list of services they provide for the libraries they serve. The Administrative Survey Summary in APPENDIX B reveals a considerable variation in what administrative units do.

The financial survey explored a variety of tax mechanisms and the dollars generated by each. A summary for this survey also appears in APPENDIX B. A few specific items are worthy of note.

Almost seventy percent (68.83%) of the taxing units included in the returned surveys provide a millage for library service. The mil rates ranged from a low of .3 to a high of 5 mils reported by one small community. Income derived from millage is clearly the most significant source of income for Arkansas libraries. However, libraries also receive a substantial amount from general tax revenues provided by local and county governments and some income from sales tax revenues.

Nearly fifteen percent (14.29%) of the jurisdictions included in the responses are providing some sales tax support at the current time. Over forty-four percent (44.16%) of the taxing entities provide some general fund support.

Also of interest is the track record of libraries in seeking additional tax dollars directly from the voters. Libraries responding reported a total of 32 mil rate ballot initiatives during the past five years. Of these, thirteen, or 40.6% of the attempts were successful.

Administrative units were also asked to report on the condition of the library facilities in their respective areas. The mean (average) size of buildings covered in the responses is 6,634 sq. ft.; however, the median size building was only 3,000 sq. ft. This variance reflects the fact that reports were received covering many of the largest libraries in the state.

The "average" building in the survey was built in the early to mid 1970s. About one-third of the libraries have undergone a major renovation or have been added to since they were built.

Twenty-six of the libraries included in the survey results indicate that their building needs to be replaced. A total of 391,410 sq. ft. of needed replacement space was reported in the survey. At a conservative estimate of $ 100 per sq. ft. of replacement space, this represents a need of over $ 39 million.

Libraries also indicated the need for 123,370 sq. ft. in expanded facilities. While a few libraries overlap (responding that their library either needed to be replaced or expanded), unduplicated requests still represent a need of over $ 10 million.

The Facilities Survey Summary in APPENDIX B also provides information regarding repairs, refurbishment and furniture needs.

 

The Truth Hurts

While the history of the public library movement in the United States is full of references to the "free" public library, we all recognize that libraries are not free in terms of the dollars needed to run them. Unfortunately, it is often true that the worst library service is provided to the people who could benefit from the service the most.

Arkansas' consistently low rankings in the national and regional comparisons presented early in this report are not the result of incompetent library workers, disinterested trustees or misguided policies. They are largely based on simple economic facts.

There is real poverty in Arkansas. Federal statistics reveal that 17.2% of Arkansas' residents were below the poverty level in 1996. Mississippi is worse and Missouri is much better. Regional comparisons frequently demonstrated that library performance in Mississippi was lower than Arkansas and that Missouri was considerably higher.

In 1997, Arkansas' personal income per capita was just under $ 20,000. This ranked 48^th (up from 49^th in 1990) among all states. Mississippi, a state that frequently shows up below Arkansas in the national library statistics, ranked 50^th of 50 states in personal income per capita. Another state that performs poorly on the FSCS comparisons is West Virginia, which is 49^th in personal income.

Some of the states that consistently rank high on FSCS library measures are Connecticut (1^st in personal income), New York (4^th in personal income), Maryland (6^th in personal income), and Illinois (7^th in personal income). However, this is not to say that you can't "beat the odds." Ohio, which frequently takes first place honors in the state library rankings, is only 21^st in personal income. Indiana, which also performs very well on library measures, is 29^th in personal income.

It is undeniable that part of what makes the difference in measures of service such as circulation per capita, reference transactions per capita, and library visits per capita is the money the people of a state are willing to invest in quality library service. The following chart demonstrates the relationship between library expenditures and library output measures.

State	Rank on Library Expenditures	Rank on Circulation per Capita	Rank on Reference per Capita	Rank on Library Visits Per Capita
Ohio	2	1	5	12
Indiana	3	2	4	2
Arkansas	49	47	44	44
Mississippi	51	50	45	45

The library workers of Arkansas are as dedicated as any in the country. Most of them work very hard for relatively low wages and sub-standard fringe benefits. They are doing an admirable job with what they have been given. However, the dedication of employees cannot compensate for the lack of resources that exist in many libraries in the state. Books, audiovisual materials, and access to online databases cost money.

Marginal improvements in library service are possible by improving access to continuing education, developing innovative programs, refining state library policies, and refocusing existing resources. However, dramatic improvement will only come if improved funding for library service is provided.

Two principles infuse the balance of this report. The first is improve funding for library service. The second is maximize the impact of current resources.

 

Issues

The consultants have identified the following issues important to the quality of library service in Arkansas.

ISSUE # 1

Many Arkansas residents have never experienced quality library service and are unaware of the benefits of having such service.

Many communities in Arkansas have never been able to offer high quality library service. Library service, if it has been available at all, has been very meager. This leaves people with no standard for what good library service is and can be. Comparisons with other libraries, if they have been made at all, have been against other substandard libraries in the state or in the region.

This condition creates within the general public, and sometimes within library trustees and library workers, an acceptance of poor quality resources and services as the norm. People are thankful for what they have and are not motivated to pursue excellence because they are unaware of what it would be.

Arkansas has experienced some change in this regard in recent decades. The in-migration of people from other parts of the country that have longer traditions of providing a higher level of library service has brought with it higher expectations. In more than a few cases, these higher expectations have resulted in improved funding for library service and with it, enhanced buildings, collections, and staffing levels.

 

ISSUE # 2

Poverty in Arkansas is concentrated in specific regions of the state. Some areas lack the tax base necessary to support quality library service even if there was a high awareness of the benefits it could provide.

Overall, local effort in support of public library service is among the lowest in the nation. While some areas do provide reasonable support for their libraries; others do not. The level of support for library service is often, although not always, tied to the capability of an area to raise and maintain the revenue needed to support libraries and other public services.

While revisions to the formula for the distribution of state aid to libraries do recognize "local effort" and the "ability to pay," the amount of state aid is insufficient to compensate for the lack of local funding in many cases.

 

ISSUE # 3

Arkansas residents exhibit a strong aversion to taxes. Property taxes are particularly abhorrent to Arkansans.

The anti-tax mood is strong throughout the country; however, it is particularly strong in Arkansas. Both long-term residents to the state and newcomers frequently oppose any increase in taxes as a matter of principle. Many of the northerners who have migrated to Arkansas and who have brought higher expectations for public services with them, are unwilling to pay for these services.

Attempts to eliminate or to severely limit property taxes on a statewide basis threaten library service along with many other basic public services. The public is relatively naïve about how public services are funded and are largely unaware of the consequences that would result from the elimination of property taxes.

 

ISSUE # 4

It is difficult for libraries in Arkansas to attract and retain well-qualified librarians.

Arkansas residents find it difficult to obtain graduate-level education in library science; specifically, there is no American Library Association (ALA) accredited library science program in the state. This severely limits the pool of professional applicants available to fill library directorships and other managerial posts in Arkansas' libraries.

In spite of several attempts to launch an ALA accredited master's program in the state, Arkansans in pursuit of an ALA accredited master's degree in library science (M.L.S.) are forced to travel out of state or to participate in a single distance education program offered jointly by North Texas State University and Texas Woman's University at Texarkana.

The situation is exacerbated by the fact that low salaries and fringe benefits offered to library workers make it difficult to attract qualified applicants from outside the state.

 

ISSUE # 5

The current structure of "regional" libraries is, in most cases, impeding rather than encouraging the development of quality library service.

While the concept of larger units of service and the regionalization of certain services is a sound one, the regional library structure in Arkansas has produced very mixed results. The old adage that says, "if you give a man a fish he eats today, but if you teach a man to fish he eats for the rest of his life" may apply. Regional libraries in Arkansas have, for the most part, been about "giving fish" rather than "teaching to fish."

In their defense, library regions haven't been provided much in the way of teaching tools or other resources; however, the emphasis of regions has been to provide services such as cataloging and processing rather than to work to strengthen local services or to encourage local initiative.

The regional framework has created a dependency relationship for some libraries and has fostered bitterness between regionals and individual libraries that have dared to exercise their independence.

Furthermore, the concept that regional libraries are "administrative units" has damaged the Arkansas State Library's connection to many communities. In an effort to strengthen regionals, ASL has funneled most communication and programs through the regional entities. This has resulted in an unawareness of what ASL does or can do on the part of many local librarians and branch managers.

 

ISSUE # 6

The Arkansas State Library has maintained a low profile and is largely invisible to the public and is often misunderstood by the library community.

From our review of background information, input from focus groups and interviews with Arkansas State Library (ASL) management and staff, interviews with employees of other state agencies, and the observation of daily operations, ASL appears to be a well managed organization staffed by qualified and dedicated people. Nevertheless, there is a broad belief, both among ASL staff and librarians in the state, that the agency is less effective than it could be because it lacks visibility.

ASL's low profile results in relatively low use of its library collections and services, in a misunderstanding among public librarians in the state of the agency's role in serving state government, and in mixed success in obtaining the funding it needs and that libraries in the state need from the state legislature.

 

The Arkansas State Library should design and implement a program that exposes librarians and library trustees to the finest library services available in the United States.

The first step in raising the public's awareness of the benefits of library service must be acquainting librarians and trustees with the possibilities. This effort should include several components. They are:

1. Exposure to exemplary library service through presentations in Arkansas by librarians involved in exemplary service. (Arkansas libraries with exemplary programs/services should be included as well as those from outside the state.)
2. Exposure to exemplary library service through attendance at regional and national library conferences.
3. Exposure to exemplary library service through site visits to libraries in other parts of the country.

To the extent possible, ASL should use new technologies and innovative delivery mechanisms to carry out this recommendation. For example, video conferencing and organized "virtual visits" through the exploration of library web-sites can be used as well as physically bringing speakers to Arkansas or visiting other states. However, actual visits to exemplary libraries are also advisable.

"Scholarships" to subsidize the costs of attending the American Library Association Annual Conference, the Public Library Association Conference, and other regional and state conferences should be considered for librarians and trustees from throughout the state.

At least one "field trip" per year should be scheduled that gives librarians and trustees the opportunity to visit an exemplary library.

 

The Arkansas State Library in cooperation with the Arkansas Library Association and the public libraries of the state should undertake a major public awareness campaign to raise the public's awareness of the benefits of quality library service.

A multi-year project undertaken by the New York Library Association in cooperation with the New York State Library is a good model for Arkansas to follow. This project, funded with a combination of funds secured from a private foundation and from the Library Services and Construction Act (LSCA), included several components.

One component was "media training" for the librarians of the state. Public relations professionals were hired to provide training sessions for librarians and trustees in working with local media. Sessions included topics such as writing press releases and designing events to attract media coverage.

Other components of the New York program included training librarians and trustees to be more effective in contacts with state and local elected officials and the production of a number of professionally produced public service announcements (both audio and video).

The Arkansas State Library should explore the possibility of corporate or foundation sponsorship of such an effort in Arkansas. ASL should build on the success of the Gates Library Initiative to encourage other private participation in support of libraries.

The Arkansas State Library should seek corporate or foundation funding to create and support several "model libraries" in small to medium-sized communities in the state.

The intent of this effort is to create success stories that voters and public officials can see and emulate. Candidates for this program should be on a competitive basis and should require a commitment of the local community to support library service at a relatively high level after the three-year demonstration ends. Evaluation criteria should reward local effort based on recognition that taxing capacity differs significantly. Other criteria such as support from local businesses or industry and collaboration with other community agencies should also be considered.

While the number of these demonstration libraries will depend on ASL's ability to secure private funding and on its success in locating communities willing to commit to ongoing support, an attempt should be made to develop at least two of these sites. These libraries would be used to encourage other communities to improve their library service. Having multiple sites in different parts of the state would make it easier to get officials from other areas to travel to the demonstration libraries to see them on a firsthand basis.

 

The Arkansas State Library should revisit the recent work that was done to restructure the distribution of state aid to simplify it and to place a greater emphasis on ability to pay and local effort.

ASL should take the opportunity provided by the recent increase in state aid funding to adjust the state aid formula. To as great a degree as possible, state aid should be used to leverage local effort.

The consultants believe that the "population density" factor in the most recent formula is less important than factors that consider taxing capacity and local effort. We also believe that the current version of the formula is too difficult for local librarians to explain to Quorum Court members and other officials who are in a position to affect local funding decisions. Simplification is a must.

State aid funding needs to increase to approximately $ 6.00 per capita to allow for an equalization formula that compensates for regional pockets of poverty.

While the current level of state aid to public libraries compares favorably with other states, Arkansas must do more if it wishes to achieve significant change in the quality of library service. For an equalization formula such as the one outlined above to be successful, sufficient dollars must be supplied to create attractive incentives to local governments and to the voters.

The ASL and libraries throughout the state need to make a connection between quality library service and economic development in the minds of the voters and public officials. The public library's roles in support of developing a technologically capable workforce and supporting new and emerging businesses should be stressed whenever possible and demonstration programs should be developed to illustrate the impact that libraries can have in local communities.

Increased state aid or support for the Arkansas State Library will also be required to carry out some of the other programs recommended in this report. Specifically, the "personnel grant" program described in Recommendation 4.2.

Arkansas libraries need to design their programs of service to emphasize the positive results or outcomes that occur because a community has a library.

The new Public Library Association (PLA) planning process is entitled Planning for Results. It is based on the idea that taxpayers are willing to support those programs that generate results and that they are unwilling to pay taxes for programs that do not.

As libraries in Arkansas plan for the future, they must create plans and programs of service that answer the question, "how is this community better because it has a library?" ASL's recent awarding of seven planning grants to libraries willing to carry out the PLA planning process is a good step. More libraries need to be encouraged to plan with an eye toward communicating results to taxpayers and local officials.

 

Arkansas libraries need to diversify their revenue sources.

While the consultants believe that it is likely that some property tax support for libraries will continue in Arkansas, the "near miss" on the property tax initiative makes seeking a more diverse income base a high priority for libraries. The area that seems to be the easiest to pursue is the sales tax.

A good number of Arkansas libraries have managed to acquire some sales tax support. Some of this support is for specific purposes such as building facilities, and such support almost always comes with a sunset clause. However, we believe that it is important for libraries to position themselves as routine recipients of sales tax revenues.

While we do not recommend attempts to fully replace millage with sales tax, we do believe that libraries should pursue a mixed funding strategy. The Arkansas State Library should examine changes in its rules for the distribution of state aid to allow state aid to flow to libraries without millage support if they have a dedicated sales-tax for library operations (not facilities) in place.

Arkansas libraries need to be more aggressive in pursuing millage and sales tax campaigns.

Arkansas libraries are fortunate to have the ability to take funding issues directly to the voters. This opportunity is not available in all states. While repeated failed millage campaigns do have a long-term negative impact; the consultants believe that libraries should take their case to the voters more frequently than they have.

The success rate on millage campaigns reported on the financial survey was slightly better than forty percent. The consultants believe that with appropriate encouragement, support and training, libraries can be successful at least seventy-five percent of the time.

The Arkansas State library should take several steps to encourage libraries to seek increased millages and sales tax support. They are:

1. Work to remove obstacles that stand in the way of getting on the ballot.
2. Offer training in mounting a successful campaign.
3. Provide technical assistance in calculating the likely revenue generated by a successful campaign.

ASL should explore the possibility of a statutory change that would allow libraries to go directly to the voters.

The Arkansas State Library should pursue formal relationships with one or more ALA (American Library Association) accredited library schools to enable Arkansans to pursue a master's degree in library science (M.L.S.).

The consultants believe that it is very unlikely that Arkansas will offer an ALA accredited program in library science in the foreseeable future. The national trend has been the closing of library schools rather than the opening of new programs in recent years. Professional programs must demonstrate their economic viability as well as documenting the need for the program in their area. We do not believe that an Arkansas-based ALA M.L.S. is economically viable.

Fortunately, there are other ways of attaining an M.L.S. Most existing ALA accredited M.L.S. programs have developed some sort of distance education component. The current University of North Texas/Texas Woman's University program offered at Texarkana is a good option for people in some parts of the state. Expanding this program to other sites, with the state underwriting part of the cost, is one option that should be pursued.

Another exciting option is a program offered by Florida State University (F.S.U.). Students can work on their M.L.S. via the Internet from any computer with web access. Florida State also offers a bachelor's program in information studies that could be used to improve the level of local technological expertise in Arkansas libraries.

The consultants have spoken with officials at the F.S.U. library school and believe that this institution would be willing to pursue a formal arrangement with the Arkansas State Library.

The University of South Carolina has a satellite-based distance education M.L.S. program. West Virginia has a special arrangement with this institution for students in that state.

 

The Arkansas State Library should pursue a "Personnel Grant" program to increase the number of professional librarians in Arkansas libraries.

Arkansas should pursue a program aimed at doubling the number of professional librarians in Arkansas by the year 2010. The goal should be to have one professional public librarian for every 12,500 residents of the state.

To accomplish the goal of raising both the number and the quality of applicants for positions in Arkansas libraries, the program must ensure a competitive salary. A number of state library associations establish guidelines for minimum salaries for starting professionals. (Most are currently in the high $20,000s to low $30,000s range.) The Arkansas Library Association should be urged to establish such a minimum and should work with the Arkansas State Library to determine an acceptable baseline that would be adjusted for inflation and market influences each year. The state program would then guarantee the payment of a percentage (perhaps 75%) of this salary. Libraries would be eligible to receive support at this level for one professional for every 12,500 people in the library's service population as long as they are willing to absorb the 25% balance and a minimum specified package of fringe benefits.

The program should begin by compensating libraries for M.L.S. librarians already in place. The program could then expand as other libraries agreed to hire personnel under the program.

The Mississippi Library Commission has had a popular personnel grant program for a number of years. It has been moderately successful; however it is not without flaws. Arkansas should explore the Mississippi program in detail to determine how it could be modified to ensure that the program would achieve its goals.

 

The Arkansas State Library, in cooperation with the Arkansas library community, should undertake a complete restructuring of the regional library concept.

The concept of regional libraries is a good one; however, it is not working at the present time in most areas of the State of Arkansas. A number of factors account for this. First, the regionals have never received the level of financial support that they would need to be effective service agencies in the "federated or cooperative library system" mold. Federated or cooperative library systems are not administrative units that run libraries. They are instead, service agencies with independent member libraries.

Second, the regionals in Arkansas have not had the tools necessary to entice libraries to adopt the "consolidated library system" model. Consolidated library systems are, in the truest sense, administrative units. A single director is responsible for administrative decisions and reports to a single policy making board under this structure. Third, regionals have lacked adequate direction from the state in regard to what services they must offer.

Most Arkansas regionals operate in a world somewhere in between the federated and consolidated models. They are "administrative units" in name only and many regional directors have little or no authority over what happens in their so called "branches."

It must be said that a few regional libraries are doing a commendable job. It is for this reason that the consultants are not recommending a complete scraping of the regional concept with a fresh start. Rather, we are suggesting that requirements for regionals be revised to allow for two types of entities: consolidated systems and federated systems.

Strong incentives should be built into the consolidated framework to encourage local units of government to participate in this type of entity. Participation should be tied to local effort at a specified level.

The Arkansas State Library should reestablish a close working relationship with all 221 libraries in the state.

The Arkansas State Library has sought to deal with regional libraries and "administrative units" for a good reason. In concept, dealing with 44 units rather than with 221 is far more efficient. However, in practice, employing this method has isolated ASL from libraries and has isolated libraries from ASL.

In order to effectively deal with the larger number of libraries, ASL will need a larger field presence. The recommendations under Issue # 6 include the description of an enlarged and improved "library development" unit within the State Library.

 

The Arkansas State Library needs to refocus its "state library" efforts toward access to information rather than ownership of information.

The Schenk report recommended "A State Library building …should be built as soon and as close to the State Capitol complex …as possible." The visibility of the then Arkansas Library Commission was seen as important and a structure with a much-expanded collection was envisioned as accomplishing that purpose.

In today's increasingly technological world, the old marketing saw of "location, location, location" has been replaced by "access, access, access." Location and the parking congestion associated with the current location of the State Library impede rather than enhance the use of the valuable collection it contains.

In order for the State Library to be fully effective in fulfilling its responsibilities as a provider of information to state government, it needs to become a leader in providing access to digital information. While the library's collection is very valuable, and is likely to be useful for a number of years to come, increasing emphasis should be placed on four functions related to the electronic access to information. They are:

1. The organization and customization of access to free information and data relevant to state agencies.
2. The licensing of access to fee-based databases for state employees, libraries in the state, and ultimately, the citizens of the state.
3. The digitization of current print-on-paper resources to enable broader access to content.
4. The "creation" of new information sources.

The State Library has started in this direction; however, it is still firmly entrenched in the "ownership" model and is only experimenting with the "access" model.

Identifying and organizing access to information for state agencies could greatly expand the State Library's visibility and could provide an exceptional service to the state. Customized information pages for individual agencies would undoubtedly be warmly received. The consultants believe that the visibility of the State Library through these web-resources would also increase the use of ASL's print collections.

There are several other wonderful opportunities that hold the potential of enabling ASL to offer new and valuable services to state government, to the libraries of the state, and to the citizens of Arkansas. One relates to government documents. While the ASL has done some exploration of digitization of state documents, it should become the leader in moving the entire state to this model. Access to the information contained in the documents could be greatly enhanced for all.

A second area of opportunity lies nearby in the same building that contains the State Library. The Arkansas History Commission possesses a wealth of information that is very difficult for any but the most dedicated historians to access. The History Commission has been slow to move toward technology. A partnership between the State Library and the History Commission to digitize and provide access to this important collection benefits all. Furthermore, the rebirth of the former Library Services and Construction Act (LSCA), which was under the U.S. Department of Education, as the Library Services and Technology Act (LSTA), which is under the Institute Museum and Library Services, makes this kind of project a natural for federal funding.

Finally, ASL needs to continue to pursue the licensing of full-text online databases on behalf of libraries across the state. The dearth of periodical subscriptions in Arkansas' public libraries can in part be addressed by providing electronic access to these resources. ASL should seek permanent state funding for these online services. Several states, including Idaho, have done so.

 

The Arkansas State Library should expand and reorganize its "library development (extension services)" unit.

The consultants recognize that this unit has had positions that were authorized but not funded in the past. However, if ASL is to reestablish the kind of close working relationship it needs to have with all libraries in the state (not just the so-called administrative units), it needs a larger and more visible library development staff.

Most librarians of the state respect and appreciate the work of the current consultants. This is not the case in all states. The major complaint about consultant service in Arkansas is that there aren't enough to go around and that they are seen too infrequently. Two solutions are apparent. The first is the need for more consultants. We recommend at least one per library development district in addition to the head of the unit.

Second, consultants need to travel to libraries more than they do at the present time. While state-imposed travel restrictions have negatively impacted this type of travel in the past, it is an important service that depends on direct contact between the consultants and the librarians in the state.

The consultants also recommend exploration of attaching the network services unit to the current extension unit. While we understand that network services serves different types of libraries, the change in the focus of LSTA to become more "multitype" in nature means that extension services should also be moving toward a broader focus.

We envision network services as a part of extension rather than the other way around. This reorganization would also forge a closer working relationship between the "library" functions of the state library and the library development aspects of ASL's work.

 

The Arkansas State Library should establish a State Library Foundation.

The Arkansas State Library is limited in its ability to promote itself to the public and to the libraries of the state. In addition, it is difficult for a governmental agency such as the State Library to solicit or receive private or foundation funding for special projects such as the "demonstration libraries" mentioned earlier.

A State Library Foundation could provide a solution to this problem. The consultants are aware that there has been some exploration of this concept in the past. The time has come to pursue this idea vigorously. The Library of Michigan has established such an entity and could serve as a model for ASL.

 

The Arkansas State Library should consider moving the Regional Library for the Blind and Physically Handicapped (RLBPH) operation to another, more accessible location.

The Regional Library for the Blind and Physically Handicapped is very difficult for its primary clients to access. The consultants do not believe that the current State Library facility is the best place for it. Sighted individuals have enough difficulty getting to the ASL facility. Few individuals who are vision-impaired or have physical handicaps dare to venture to the RLBPH.

Separate quarters would encourage more walk-in business, would save staff time and effort moving materials about, and would enable the RLBPH to have the space it needs.