Feb 27, 2009

Question: 

I have a library with 5 branches which meet the definition of a branch, per PLSC.  However, the library only considers that they have 4 branches, since the one they don't consider a branch is only open 3.5 hours a week, is 250 sq ft, has only one paid employee and has a minimal collection.  I don't care what they do for their own statistics however, shouldn't I report to PLSC that they have 5 branches, since it does meet the definition of a branch?  How do I explain the apparent anomaly?

IMLS Answer:

SDC has sent along a very important and timely question. Here at IMLS we have been working with a trend file that collapses 10 years of PLS data into one dataset. In the course this work we are running into some problems in reporting "births and deaths" of libraries. This, as you all know, is a very important policy issue, particularly now as many in the field are challenged to provide services under seriously constrained state and local budgets.

In order for us to accurately characterize the number of working libraries (and closures) over time, it is very important that all libraries that meet the federal definition of a public library be consistently reported in the PLS, regardless of whether or not those entities report all of their data in a given year.

We are, of course, interested in having all of the data for a given library reported accurately. But our use of GIS/spatial analysis makes even those libraries that do not report all of their data valuable records for policy research. Here is why. Even if we only have the address information for a given library, we can still locate these entities in a given community and make some basic statements about the presence or absence of these resources across the country.

So, for example, if we wanted to count the number of library outlets in high-poverty, rural counties for a new partnership initiative with another federal agency, the only data we would really need for this type of analysis is the address field on the outlet file. But if a rural outlet was not included in the PLS, because local systems did not consider it "full-fledged" outlet based on ¬current capacities, then we run the risk of systematically undercounting the community resources available in target communities - a serious problem for thoughtful, program planning.

I hope this long winded response addresses the question adequately. Please feel free to call or write if you have further questions or concerns.