The Future of Rhode Island Libraries
Town Meeting Chart
Home
Contacts
Site Index
THEMES
Importance of funding (equitable) new model
Universal catalog
Involvement of political leaders and doing better in lobbying
Statewide database licensing
Universal access (anytime-anyone-anything-any place)
State website
Shared professional development and education
Better marketing of library services
Shared database of digitized images/especially RI
Improved ILL and delivery
Coordinated Collection Development
Virtual – limited to processed catalog interface with access via it
One “catalog” for all
(patron initiated borrowing, user-driven) – VIRTUAL LIBRARY
Governance and cooperation
Seamless service to the end user
Increased communication among libraries, across types
STEPS TO TAKE
Identify our shared interests. (We all serve the people of RI)
Identify needs, interests, constraints, etc. of different library types/groups (special-private-school)
Identify any mandates that will apply
Look at how/where associations consortia can cooperate, collaborate more.
Identify the assumptions we’re making – clarify reality bs. Assumption when possible.
Target groups – assure involvement
Identify ways to broaden inclusion of diverse people, groups
Determine the size of the pie; convert “slices” (dough)
Identify ways for libraries to cooperate more
Identify and look at models in other states, regions – what can we learn from them?
Clarify potential benefits and losses with centralization.
Tie this/what we’re doing to economic development
Consider a new organization be created to serve as a central organized
effort or a foundation
- non-profit
- multitype membership
(in liew of or in addition to?)
SERVICE GOALS
Borderless
Common databases
One catalog for all (multi-type network)
Improved ILL/reciprocal borrowing and delivery
Statewide initiative for Public Relations
Virtual reference
Equal access for everybody
Increased literacy
Instruction for lifelong learning (support for…)
Special attention to underserved populations and at-risk children
Preserve our large reference/research libraries
NEXT STEPS – what – why – benefits
Education program
- legislators
- key stakeholders
Convene meeting of Presidents and educators of consortia
-identify what needs to happen for “one catalog”
Involve the RICIO
Develop our strategy
Role for commission – gather enough voices to appear before legislature
Continue these meetings
Review, discuss summary of December 6, 2004
Consider video stream to enable others to see what we’re doing; build commitment; prepare them to help with legislative advocacy
Look at what other states are doing, how they’re working with Departments of Education
Suggest that the Commission appoint study groups, e.g. vendor products
Determine how to address gorilla issues
IN MOVING FORWARD, BE SURE TO…
Include role for trustees
State should provide money for databases
- binding state referendum
Give attention to items not included in themes
Achieve consistency in policy
Think about – assess needs – of communities
Include multilingual multicultural access
Encourage cooperation among library types to meet needs of diverse groups (resources)
Look at different funding models; new resources, etc.
Means to help librarians write grants
At least – Spanish needs to be available (German, French, etc.)
Importance of strengthening school libraries – lifelong – adult – K-16 information, literature, instruction.
Outreach to those who aren’t currently served
Virtual reference
Enhanced communication among libraries
Establish culture of intentional collaboration
Community permeates all
Importance of relationships – continue to build them
Cultivate future leadership in our professional community
Need way to measure customer satisfaction
Each library and its staff has real buy-in and is willing to contribute
Trustees also buy in
Improved satisfaction
- better utilization of staff in libraries (better training)
Library is available 24/7
Library is community gathering place
POTENTIAL GAINS
Use technology to capitalize on resources we have
Going “borderless” – user doesn’t hit a stone wall; borderless delivery
Wow! – factor for the community
Dollar savings for individual libraries
Enhanced services
Patrons know more about what exists
Convenience for patrons
Standardization
Easier for people to find alternative to Google; see relevance of libraries
Greater wealth of resources for people of RI
We speak from one voice as the library community
More bang for taxpayers buck
Prove to other NE states that RI can cooperate
Better positioned for future – whatever it might bring
Levels the playing field –
-focus on common purpose
-to do well for out patrons, benefits people of RI
We promote full range of services, resources
KEY SUCCESS FACTORS
We think globally, beyond our individual interests
Collections/books continue to be valued
Public service orientation and knowledge is strengthened opportunity for us to reflect on operations, etc. Improvement focused on “added value of work”
Libraries believe this enabled them to provide better service
Public sees libraries as a good investment
Library technology helps/is a means
Increased usage, large support
Libraries are seen to be base central to education process
Librarianship continues to be a sustainable career
-recruitment and retention
-satisfying environment
Libraries are central in the community (make partnerships with others)
Libraries continue to be responsible to communities
There is actual follow-up and an effective, ongoing communication plan assessment program. (Library Study Commission entity with responsibility for this
BARRIERS
$$$ - Yankee individualism
Active multiple library associations
Consortia, too
Competing interests
-same pool of $$
-different ideas – re:what’s important
-resistance to share collections across communities
-different view of “our collections”
Multiple governance structures
Turf
Organizations have varying missions
Differences among communities served may vary greatly
Don’t know/appreciate resources held by libraries different from our own
State level – lack of real control over funding
We don’t now speak with one voice
We don’t catalog (and cataloging standards) one product
-different ILS systems
OLIS, LORI, State Library Board are advisory only – power limited
Current patron base is narrow
Public’s belief that Internet eclipses need for libraries
Libraries not a priority to some trustees, council people, legislators
Image that the library is books.
Highest visibility has been limited to public libraries
Assumption that all libraries are the same (patrons)
Declining literacy rates
Increasingly diverse populations
Increasing numbers of people born digital
Ever changing nature of technology
Schools operating under 1963 standards
OTHER COMPETING INTERESTS
Internet is both a boom and a competition – also book stores (BARRIER)
Investment in incompatible technologies (COMPETING INTEREST)
Challenge of working together to serve some patrons (BARRIER)
Community values – perceived moral values (COMPETING INTEREST)
OTHER “GORILLA” ISSUES
Element of fear, perceived risk
Lack of autonomy – each library
Perceived value and dichotomy of funding
Number of major players – their roles – how we/they see them
Federal legislation, e.g. CIPA
What could we stop doing, e.g. union list, reference, reallocate resources, reallocate resources, technology
SUPPORTS
Size (compact state); easier to meet
Statewide delivery system
-have 3 links already
-some on OSHEAN network
Union list of serials
-movement – creating common interfaces
OLIS and State Library Board and LORI
Large number of talented, experienced librarians
Library commission is willing to look at issues
History of success
COLA
Lots of loyal, supportive library users
Multiple active library associations
Limited local access for ILL
Healthy, thriving library school
LORI standards – baseline
History of well-done library studies
User demand
Support for libraries is in Constitution
Committees now working on multi-type program
Libraries relatively advanced with technology
Champlin Foundation
STRAYS
Create clearinghouse for volunteers
How will we move toward collaboration and address organization identity
question(s)?
updated:
4/26/06
contact
webmaster
