Summary of Chapter 3: Elected Officials and Library Funding

The report reports on the views of a small sample (N=84) of subscribers to Governing magazine. As the authors write:

“Due to the process by which respondents were recruited, they represent a convenience sample that is quantitative but not statistically representative of all local elected officials in the United States.” (From Awareness to Funding, p. 3-1).

Implications for Local Libraries

Hence, unless you are looking for hypotheses for a new M.S. or Ph.D. research project, the rest of the chapter is worthless or even misleading. Adding a cautionary sentence as above does not somehow make the results useful. Would a representative sample yield roughly the same results or very contradictory ones? The data presented here provide no stronger evidence than theory and/or an individual’s experience. The discussion provides a little mental stimulation and fertile ground if you are looking for a research topic for an M.S. or Ph.D. thesis.

The authors include “advice from elected officials.” While lacking any evidence on how many officials ascribe to these views, the advice seems very practical, including:

1. Stress the library’s return on investment (ROI) to the community;
2. Build strategic partnerships (with other public services);
3. Be proactive (on the part of library director and library champions);
4. Engage voters in the campaign;
5. Stress the broad appeal of the library. (For details, see From Awareness to Funding, p. 3-12 & 3-13)

Here ROI is “by the public library’s value to their community” and not in monetary terms.