CONTEXTO HISTÓRICO Y MARCO NORMATIVO

A review of public library history would be incomplete without examining library system development. Long (2005) examines this history of library development based on funding

sources. Childers (1988) defines three types of library systems: Cooperatives, Consolidated and Federated. Cooperatives have the greatest individual member autonomy, in contrast to

consolidated systems that have one administrative authority. Childers defines federated systems as something between the two extremes where libraries retain their autonomy but do relinquish some responsibilities to their system.

It was ALA’s 1948 National Plan for Public Library Service that resulted in the LSA Act of 1956, the funding program targeted at rural libraries. The goal of the ALA was to assist small areas that neglected library service, or did not have library service at all (Sager, 1992). This philosophy informed the advocacy for cooperative library system development in the 1960s and 1970s. The purpose of the library system was to enhance stand-alone rural libraries’

effectiveness due to the resource limitations these libraries had. Of particular concern were adequate book collections and cataloging, access to children’s services professionals, reference materials and staff. High percentages of volunteer staff had a disproportionate amount of involvement running these branch libraries that were extremely vulnerable to limited local

funding. At the time of the library cooperation initiative, 18% of people in the United States were unserved by public libraries, but by 1990, this had dropped to 3%. Sager believes this is due to the emergence of the cooperative library systems (Sager, 1992).

However, Sager (1992) had concerns about systems responding to change, and the fact that systems may or may not adapt to the needs of their members. He discussed the impact of

automation on local libraries and the evolution of interlibrary loan, encouraging systems to look at efficiencies. Donna Riegel, buildings coordinator at the Broward County Library in 1992, had her own concerns about the needs of the underserved. Riegel believed that the technology that prompted systems was making the systems redundant. She states: “The advent of powerful desktops (not to mention laptops and notebooks) …enable even rural libraries to access what only the Big Boys could do ten years ago, or even five years ago. Given this, do we really need to be part of a system at all?” (p. 331). This 1992 perspective, did not anticipate though, how much of a struggle this technology could be for the rural library.

Sager’s (1992) article interviews several additional individuals about library systems. Clarence Walters, Director of OCLC at that time, articulated other concerns, stating, “It is important that cooperative library systems continue to develop and extend their role assisting small and medium sized libraries in carrying the benefits of new information technology to those who would otherwise be without access.” (p.332). Barratt Wilkins, Florida State Librarian also emphasized support systems for rural libraries referencing the Florida Information Resource Network, a telecommunications network operated by the Florida Department of Education. The department offered to extend its service to all non-profit libraries, and this project had been very successful for public libraries in the state of Florida. Wilkins believed that without that state intervention, library cooperation in Florida would not have happened.

Childers (1988) issued a survey on libraries supported by systems. She found that system counties outperformed non-system counties on volumes added, hours open, registration,

circulation, and interlibrary loans. According to Childers, “…system development and support provided additional state-level funding to libraries that would otherwise not have qualified for it. These libraries were invariably small and not well supported at the local level. They have

received benefit from system membership that non-system libraries, have not by definition.” (p. 452). Seavey (1988) also conducted a system study in Wisconsin. These findings were similar, reporting increased service levels, with Wisconsin’s library expenditures rising above the national average in the 1970s.

However, rural libraries have been experiencing fiscal difficulties for years. Kirks (1989) states that in 1972, urban counties averaged one and one half times higher per capita local government expenditures on libraries than counties in rural areas. Kirks had concerns particularly because school library services were “inadequate or non-existent” and that rural libraries were extremely important to the isolated poor and elderly. According to Kirks: “Third- party money (state, federal and foundation grants) is needed as telecommunications expenses and integrated automation systems acquisition and operating costs are beyond the limited resources of remote, disadvantaged, rural libraries. Without this assistance, rural libraries and their library systems are effectively excluded from state and national library resources.” (p.37). Kirks

discusses the increased demands for information on self-employment, which is almost twice as common in rural America. His concerns center on the increased demands for information on computers, and high technology occupations (Kirks, 1989).

Finally, there was some discussion about library cooperatives, similar in function to the library systems present in four of the five other states studied here. A 1986 survey of Michigan Public Library Cooperatives found a disparity in those rural libraries surveyed versus the larger, urban libraries. There was some concern in the survey that one of the problems with the

cooperatives is funding benefits to small libraries, seemingly at the expense of larger libraries. This reappears in some current library system initiatives, where systems divide geographically instead of by size or population. (Library of Michigan, 1987).