MSL Home > About MSL > Evaluation > Appendix B
Montana State Library Evaluation
Appendix B
The consultants conducted many interviews as a part
of the evaluation process. Users
of the Talking Book Library, the Library and Information Services Department
(LISD), and the Natural Resource Information System (NRIS) were interviewed. A majority of MSL staff members participated
in focus groups and most staff with supervisory responsibilities were
interviewed individually. Reports
on these interviews can be found at the end of the reports on those
departments.
The consultants also interviewed most of the directors
of the libraries that hosted focus group sessions and a number of other
individuals whom the MSL staff had suggested as interview subjects. What follows here is a summary of the information
gathered from the fourteen additional persons who were interviewed. They represent public, academic, and school
library directors, former advisory council members, and a Montana resident
who is a member of the National Commission Libraries and Information
Science (NCLIS).
Library directors were asked about the impact of both
statewide initiatives and LSTA grants awarded specifically to their
institutions. Although Montana
has not been highly active in offering individual "re-grants"
in recent years, interviewees indicated that grants given in the past
had been important to their libraries. The small total amount of LSTA aid received by Montana was mentioned
by several and it was noted that there have been fewer and fewer individual
grants since the emphasis has changed to technology (under LSTA). Still, extending technology through connectivity grants to the
small, remote libraries is seen by most as being very important. The "Summer Institutes" for librarians
have also been well received. The
use of LSTA dollars to support the regional technology consultants appears
to be the most popular program of all. A majority of those interviewed seemed to think that MSL is headed
in the right direction and just needs to keep on with its current goals
of getting more technology, technology support, and high-quality training
to the libraries.
It was noted that funding for libraries in Montana
is always an issue. Several
suggested that initiatives to improve funding, both from the State of
Montana and from local governments may be the next major issue that
should be addressed by MSL. Demonstration projects, such as the LSTA-funded
"Library Improvement Project for Madison County," were seen
as one way, but perhaps not the only way to address funding concerns. The worry about funding, even to the point
of questioning whether some libraries would continue to exist, seemed
to be most acute in the eastern portion of the state. Several interviewees pointed out that their communities had experienced
a decline in both population and tax-base in recent years.
Interviews with academic library directors revealed
that the Montana State Library programs have relatively little impact
on the larger academic libraries although it was mentioned that initiatives
such as the statewide licensing program do help to save a few dollars. However, academic library directors said that
the leadership at MSL has become noticeably better in recent years. The general opinion seemed to be that MSL now
has a better sense of the big picture than before and that the agency
is considering and involving all types of libraries in its decision
making.
The academic directors thought that MSL, especially
LISD, may want to look at more ways of offering services at a distance,
e.g., reaching state employees outside Helena with electronic resources. Some felt that the State Library also had a
role to play in offering full-text databases directly to the general
public. One person who expressed
the opinion that the efforts of libraries in Montana are hampered by
a lack of local funding said, "Perhaps MSL needs to look at statewide
models like OhioNet (OH) and Galileo/Peachnet (GA) for models."
Overall, the State Library was seen as being very active
and visible. One director said,
"The Montana State Library has a good relationship with the academic
community." This person
went on to suggest that he would like to see his campus library become
an active player in a statewide multi-type library network.
Representatives of school library/media centers indicated
that there is a growing expectation on the part of school libraries
that MSL can help them in some way. The school libraries seem to feel abandoned by the Office of
Public Instruction and have responded positively to MSL's efforts to
reach out to them. They see "Wired Montana" as a valuable
source of information that they weren't getting in the past. School library staff are also appreciative
of continuing education opportunities offered by the State Library. One of the interviewees suggested that OPI
and MSL should work together to develop training resources such as web-based
tutorials, video-taped workshops, and distance learning sessions for
school library staff.
Many of the public library interviewees mentioned that
the MSL has been very visible in recent years and praised the State
Librarian for her communication skills and her willingness to listen
to and consider all points of view. Even individuals who indicated some disagreement with specific
decisions or policies characterized MSL's decision-making processes
as being fair and open. There seemed to be wide acceptance that the
State Library was diligently working to benefit library services in
communities of all sizes and in every area of the state.
The Montana State Library was seen as an important
provider of continuing education for librarians and other library staff. Both the Fall Workshops and the Summer Institute
sessions were mentioned, but it was the Summer Institute format that
was consistently singled out for praise. Several people did say that there should be more variety in the
workshops MSL provides. One
person said, "They seem to focus too much on technology when there
are also needs in service areas and people oriented things." However, most felt that the emphasis on technology was appropriate
and what was needed was the technology focus plus other offerings. One
person commented, "The State Library has tried to do a lot and
the State Librarian makes herself available; they just haven’t
gone far enough in developing the certification program and an associate
degree so that librarians can upgrade themselves."
One director indicated his agreement and bemoaned the
fact that poor library budgets make recruiting qualified staff in Montana
extremely difficult. He said
that his library sends staff to the Summer Institute and will continue
to do so in the future. However,
he continued "You're not going to train anybody in a week and none
of the libraries in our area can afford anybody who is already trained."
Most of those interviewed agreed that the MSL focus
is pretty much on small libraries. However, this focus was seen as appropriate even to the directors
of larger libraries. Those interviewed
from smaller libraries seemed a bit overwhelmed by the speed of change. "They're (MSL) pulling us along very fast."
A few directors bemoaned the dearth of competitive
grant programs using LSTA funding; however, it was also noted that Montana's
share of LSTA is rather meager. One
public library director said, "Montana gets so little LSTA money
that using it for little grants would fritter it away." He continued, "It’s not really enough to have a major
impact." "Give the
money 100% to the MSL and let them fund statewide programs from that." Another director voiced support for cooperative
licensing saying that most individual libraries in Montana aren't of
interest to most vendors but that vendors do pay attention to a contract
to provide databases to all libraries in Montana.
Several individuals indicated their strong support
for the Talking Book Library's services. The services TBL offers were seen as being one that was most
effectively handled on a statewide basis. A few people also mentioned that local libraries also have a
role to play in serving persons with disabilities and two people pointed
out that some libraries still do not fully comply with the Americans
with Disabilities Act's guidelines.
Several interviewees expressed the opinion that higher
LSTA funding was needed. They
believed that the current funding of less than $ 800,000 per year wasn't
sufficient to have much impact given Montana's vast size and widely
dispersed population. They said, "If there was more money, they
(MSL) could support competitive, innovative grants." Another person said, "We're in a global
economy… I see Montana as 900,000 people competing with the rest
of the world." This person
went on to say that his community couldn't compete alone and that aggregating
resources on a statewide basis was Montana's only hope for keeping up. The state's involvement in negotiating database
licenses and the OCLC fixed-cost contract were praised as examples of
positioning Montana to compete with the world.
The Montana State Library was praised for the decision
to deploy technology consultants around the state. One person commented, "The statewide technology program and
putting people in the field are the right things to do." Another said, "It pleased me greatly that
the Montana State Library stationed those people outside of Helena." Several people said that providing LSTA funding for the three
state technology consultants has had more impact than any other recent
development. One director commented
"We finally have somebody close to work with—somebody who’s
actually been to your library!" Another said, "Having the technology consultant available has increased the
value of the other money that we've already spent on technology."
There was some disagreement regarding the relatively
recent dissolution of the LSTA Advisory Council. Some felt that it made sense to dissolve the body since there
were few individual grants to review. However a few others disagreed and expressed an opinion that
doing away with the Council wasn’t a good idea because MSL needs
broad input. Nevertheless, virtually all the interviewees indicated that they
had a high level of trust in the State Library and particularly in the
State Librarian. One said, "The
State Librarian provides good direction; she’s focused." Another said, "The State Librarian is
absolutely the best communicator, administrator, and process implementor
I have ever known."
Some of the interviewees expressed concern over the
Montana Library Network's goal of a statewide catalog. One individual said, "We don't need a statewide catalog
to tell us that there aren't many resources in Montana." This person
indicated that using state dollars to support interlibrary loan activity
(specifically an interlibrary loan clerical position at the Billings
library) would be meaningful to many small and medium-sized libraries. Another felt that the State Library didn't fully understand the
relatively simple automation needs of small libraries. This person also worried that the cost of the
OCLC fixed-price contract would eventually increase to the point where
many libraries would find participation unaffordable.
MLN was, on the one hand, praised for being visionary, while, on the other hand, it was criticized for lacking in details. "We won’t be joining the MLN shared catalog project; we’re concerned about the loss of population and tax-base in our service area and we're afraid that we won't be able to sustain membership if we joined." One person expressed the worry that, "they haven't been able to tell us how much some of these things will cost in the long run." Nevertheless, some people declared their strong support for the shared catalog concept and urged continuing support for all aspects of the MLN program. One director commented wryly that "MSL does a beautiful job… we're really unfair to them… we whine and they respond and give it to us and then we cry uncle!"
