May 5, 2014

 

Question

 

Joyce Chapman (NC)

 

I just got this (below) from a library director. These are volunteers, not library staff, performing the work. I have another question from a director similarly asking how to track reference questions answered by trained volunteers (they have a set of volunteers who specifically help with technology). Thoughts?

 

“A couple of our libraries partner with AARP to offer tax assistance.  They recruit and train volunteers to help people file their taxes (it’s not just for seniors, but they do have to be NC residents).  We provide the facility (at Macon, they use our meeting room two full days per week) and our IT Dept. works with them to provide the secure access they need for filing.  We also schedule the appointments for people and give them the information they need for their appointment (what to bring, who to bring, who is eligible, etc.). 

 

We’ve been uncertain how to count this service for the statistical report. Is it a program (a series of programs)?  Does one day count as one program?  In any given day, there might be 30 different tax sessions, so should we count that as 30?  How should we count program attendance?  Should we just count the people getting their taxes done?  Or should we include the people who are receiving service (who may not be present at the time of the tax appointment)?  Do we count the volunteers providing the tax assistance?  What about the people who made inquiries and we were unable to help (they didn’t have the right documents, their tax filing was out of scope for the volunteers, or they just didn’t show up)?

 

Or is patron assistance? The definition for that specifically says “one-on-one staff interactions with patrons….”  But the AARP volunteers are really the ones doing the one-on-one, not staff (though staff also interact with these patrons as part of making the appointment to have their taxes done).

 

Or is it meeting room use?  I guess we could count this as meeting room use (non-library), but that doesn’t seem right.  The library is a partner, not just a host.  We help promote this service through all of our media and social media outlets.  We even did a feature on our tax assistance service this year:  http://fontanalib.libguides.com/taxes.”

 

SDC Comments

 

Michael Golrick (LA)

 

I am guessing that there are many libraries which do this. I have told my libraries that it does count as meeting room use, but does not count for the statistics which I gather. In most places, it is pretty clear that the program is AARP sponsored and that they are taking any liability for the volunteer advice.

 

That’s my quick take in my first post-lunch look at it.

 

Scott Dermont (IA)

 

I agree with Michael. I don’t think this is a program, and it is not a reference transaction.

 

Joyce Chapman (NC)

 

Thanks guys. What about the volunteers the library has trained to answer technology reference questions (they come in and provide one-on-one assistance during particular times), do those count in the reference stats if it isn’t paid staff?

 

Michael Golrick (LA)

 

Ah….this is a horse of a different color. If the volunteers weren’t/aren’t available then this is something that the paid staff would do, and would be counted as a Reference Transaction. So, I would say to count it. The Library has invested in the training of the staff (volunteer and paid), and they are providing a service where there is no reason to count what the paid staff do separately from what the volunteers do.

 

Cathy Van Hoy (OK)

 

Yep I agree with Michael - volunteer tech help is reference transaction.

 

Scott Dermont (IA)

 

Ah, but if this is important enough to be called a reference transaction, then why aren’t the paid staff doing it? As a long time reference librarian, it is disheartening for me to see other librarians abdicating professional (ie. reference) work to volunteers. Especially when the numbers show a constant decline of reference transactions. I have a volunteer question on my survey, and I think I would have them report it there rather than as reference. Even with that in mind, I don’t see this as a reference transaction. It is more like a one on one workshop opportunity. The scheduled hours, for me, separate it from that of a reference transaction.

 

Darla Gunning (CA)

 

It is my understanding that the intent of this question (and many others on the survey) is to track the activity that the library is handling and not who (classification level) is addressing it. Do we also then ask if programming, cataloging, etc is only conducted by paid/professional staff? And to be perfectly honest some volunteers may be much more qualified than some librarians I know to handle technology related questions. I am sure not a popular thing to say, but true none the less. Just my two cents!

 

Scott Dermont (IA)

 

From our new definition:

“Reference Transactions are information consultations in which library staff recommend, interpret, evaluate, and/or use information resources to help others to meet particular information needs.”

The term “library staff” means “paid staff” to me. Our definition is loose enough to say that any library staff can be counted when providing reference service. So we aren’t saying it has to be provided by reference librarians to count. So I don’t feel like I am putting a staff classification on the work. But why specify library staff in the definition if we are to count reference transactions provided by any source? Maybe we need to change our wording again. Or we need to make it clear that volunteers are to be considered staff for survey purposes. I admit that this isn’t clear to me.

 

Once again, even with that said, I don’t see this as a reference transaction. Joyce said “they come in and provide one-on-one assistance during particular times.” My understanding is that does not fit the definition of reference transaction whether taught by paid staff or volunteers. From the new definition: “A reference transaction includes information and referral service as well as unscheduled individual instruction and assistance in using information sources (including web sites and computer-assisted instruction).”

 

So, the fact that they are scheduled, one on one sessions, means that they shouldn’t be counted as reference. At least, I thought that was the intent of the clause. So in my mind, that even takes precedence over the “library staff” issue.

 

Michael Golrick (LA)

 

I understand what Scott is saying. I read the question differently in that my mental image was that there were volunteers scheduled to come in at heavy use times to help with tech issues. While it is true, that I prefer to think of “library staff” as “paid staff,” I know that in many smaller libraries, that will simply not happen. So I read this as “unscheduled” from the start. That may be the critical question for Joyce to be sure she understands while giving guidance. I agree that if they are scheduled, they are not reference transactions, no matter who is doing them.

 

Good luck Joyce!

 

Scott Dermont (IA)

 

But I think you make a good point Michael, and so does Darla. What is the intent of this element? What if the question from a library is: “We have reassigned our reference librarians and now staff the reference desk completely with unpaid volunteers. Do I count those transactions as reference?” My interpretation of the current definition tells me that I should say no in this case. That is why I think it is important that we clarify that volunteers are staff or not. Clearly the IMLS definition of public libraries excludes libraries that are completely staffed by volunteers. So, in my mind, “library staff” = “paid staff” for the purposes of the survey. Making “library staff” = “paid staff” + “volunteers” may bring up some other questions that will need to be addressed.

 

Maybe this is something that IMLS needs to weigh in on. What do they need? If volunteers are able to do the work of reference librarians, why can’t we consider volunteer run public libraries as an official public library? In my mind there is a question of quality of service. But the survey is about quantitative analysis and not qualitative.

 

As I think I’ve said before, I am a librarian not a statistician. I hate to see the cheapening of my profession by replacing trained “library staff” with volunteers. By counting everything regardless of classification, I think it hastens the demise of librarianship as a profession and encourages the view that libraries can be run by cashiers and volunteers. We are actually in a position to keep that from happening with something as simple as an annual survey data element definition. OK, I’m stepping down from my soapbox now.

 

---

 

Laura Stone (AZ)

 

I’ll jump on that soapbox now.

 

I think your question hints at something bigger than the intent of this element: the intent of the survey.

 

I see a tension between states collecting information from libraries to ensure that they are meeting certain standards AND states that collect information from libraries to understand what’s going on in libraryland. My hunch is that those states that have significant state aid and certification programs tend to the former. And those with little aid and no certification lean toward the latter. And probably many of us have some version of mixed motives!

 

I have great admiration (okay, and envy) for those states that offer robust state aid, and have put in place certification programs that set benchmarks for libraries. Scott, as a dues-paying ALA and PLA member with an ALA-certified master’s, I appreciate what you’re saying: By counting everything regardless of classification, I think it hastens the demise of librarianship as a profession and encourages the view that libraries can be run by cashiers and volunteers. We are actually in a position to keep that from happening with something as simple as an annual survey data element definition, you’ve lost me.

 

However, I don’t think our role as State Data Coordinators is to advocate for maintaining librarianship as a profession. The IMLS website says “Purpose: Public Libraries Survey (PLS) provides statistics on the status of public libraries in the United States.” The website then says the “data are used for planning, research, evaluation, and policymaking decisions by federal, state and local officials, professional associations, researchers, educators, local practitioners, and other interested users.”

 

To that end, don’t we want to understand the big picture of what’s going on? I agree that it’s a challenge for us to do this because of the nature of the survey -- we can’t easily decide to ask how many reference questions are being answered by volunteers (unpaid) vs. interns (paid or unpaid) vs. paras (paid) vs. professional staff (paid). But to decide that it’s not a reference question because it’s answered by unpaid “staff” seems to provide a limited view of what is going on in libraries these days. (As an aside, I’d like to know if the outcomes for the users change based on who is answering the question – which is not a question we can answer with our survey as is.)

 

This plays out in lots more ways than just reference. This ties into our discussions about whether we should be counting outlet-lites, and how to deal with entities that are almost, but not quite. What’s the difference to policy makers between a planned-by-library-staff speaker program, and the library agreeing to waive the room rental fee so that the local genealogy group can host a speaker open to the public at no charge?

 

Perhaps we need to talk more about why we’re doing this survey on a national basis, and talk about how that plays out given all the different realities we face in our states, as well as national data needs. I think the definitions are very important, and once adopted, we all need to do our best to adhere to them. I’d just like them to be big tent definitions.

 

Okay, enough on this soap box!

 

Happy Tuesday All,

 

 

 

 

Beth Bisbano (PA)

 

I totally agree with Darla and Laura on this. It’s about the “what” not the “who”.

 

Scott Dermont (IA)

 

Hi Laura,

 

I do get your point, and I do try to look at this as neutrally as possible. But it is hard for me sometimes to stand idly by as the institution and profession that we are antiseptically categorizing withers away. Especially when we are in a position to help that institution. My role at the State Library of Iowa is one of education and advocacy. So it is hard for me to shut that down when I put on my SDC hat.

 

Going back to the original post, I still think that Joyce’s situation would not be considered a reference transaction (that is what started this after all). I believe the intent of our definition was to exclude scheduled, one on one sessions, which is what it sounds like Joyce’s library is doing. So whether done by volunteers, or paid, professional reference librarians, I would not count this as reference.