icegov2012 proceedings

(n=3,078)
In summary, the various criticisms of G2C services, centered
mainly on the access issues described above have prompted
librarians to function as intermediaries in the G2C information
space.
Notwithstanding public librarians’ acceptance of greater
responsibility along this information continuum, there are obvious
problems with this developing intermediary role. While
government agencies indicate that relying on libraries for G2C egovernment
access and assistance allows the agencies to focus on
other issues [7],[8], [17], the provision of G2C access assistance
by public libraries creates a range of service, funding, technology,
and political challenges for the libraries [12], [28].
One problem is the fact that librarians are largely unrecognized in
any official capacity by the government agencies that encourage
their participation. Underlying this lack of recognition is the way
in which public libraries in the United States are funded.
Historically, 90% of public libraries are independent departments
within their local governments [36]. Accordingly, although
libraries receive state funding, as well as federal money through
the Library Services and Technology Act and the
Telecommunications Act of 1996, the majority of their funding
comes from local government agencies. This trend has become
more pronounced in recent years due to the ongoing economic
downturn, as local governments have struggled to fill the gap
between shrinking state budgets and increased demand for library
services [3] The end result is that funding for public libraries
comes principally from sources other than those federal and/or
state agencies that are shifting much of their service role to
libraries, raising the question of whether libraries have been
burdened with an unfunded mandate [7]
In addition, the expectation that librarians will understand the egovernment
systems and services is often unfounded. While
librarians are certainly capable of figuring out complicated
information, time restraints, concerns over legal liability, and the
constantly changing nature of government information makes the
intermediary role difficult. The lack of advance notice for many
new government information initiatives is one of several reasons
why librarians often feel as though they are left out of the
information loop. For example, a historical instance of this is the
closure of a Virginia unemployment office. In this particular
instance, a mere sign was placed on the door overnight informing
users of the office’s closure. Employees were notified at the same
time, leaving users with no information about the closure. Local
librarians, who were equally surprised by this sudden
development, had no choice but to manage an influx of
unemployed individuals, confused about this loss in services.
Librarians were forced into an unenviable position, in which they
had to provide assistance, despite having no prior knowledge of
the event that precipitated this influx. This is but one example of
an agency decision having unintended consequences on other
stakeholders in the information continuum.
These problems have only grown in importance with the increase
in the number of services being shifted from agency to librarian.
While the E-government Act of 2002 included language on the
need for federal government assessment of the impacts of the law
on public libraries and other social institutions, such studies were
never funded or conducted. Thus, the need for a reassessment of
90
the pathways of e-government information is particularly
important as further policy and funding decisions are made.
3. METHODOLOGY
The findings presented in this paper are based upon three
interrelated data collection efforts that informed the creation of an
e-government Web resource (LibEGov), initially focused on the
areas of immigration and taxation. The 2011-2012 Public Library
Funding & Technology Access Survey, funded by the American
Library Association and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, is
the 14 th in a series of public library Internet access surveys
conducted since 1994. The Web-based survey was conducted
between September 2011 and November 2011, yielding 7,260
responses, a response rate of 83.1%. The survey drew a
proportionate-to-size stratified random sample that considered the
metropolitan status of the library (i.e., urban, suburban, and rural).
More specific methodology issues regarding the survey are
available at http://www.plinternetusrvey.org.
Data were also collected through site visits to seven public
libraries in five states (Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Maryland,
and Texas). The site visits included informal interviews with state
library staff, government officials, and community organization
leaders, all of which occurred between April 2011 and October
2011. For this component of the study, the authors sought to
include geographically dispersed public libraries that serve a
diverse set of communities (e.g., rural, suburban, and urban; high
immigrant concentrations; underserved populations; high
poverty). Library characteristics, such as size, number of staff,
and known e-government partnerships, also factored into the
selection process. In advance of the site visits, research was
undertaken to identify existing e-government collaborative
approaches, leading to a preliminary assessment of “best
practices” that guided the development of LibEGov.
The aggregate and generalizable data regarding public library egovernment
service provision and challenges generated from the
survey, together with the on-the-ground assessments of library
and government collaborative efforts offered by the site visits and
interviews, provide rich insight into the context in which libraries
are currently providing e-government services. Through this
multi-method data collection strategy, the authors were able to
explore the pathways of e-government information. By
determining what e-government service roles public libraries
provide to their communities, what partnerships libraries have
formed with government agencies in the provision of egovernment
services, what the success factors and/or barriers are
to forming these partnerships, and what challenges libraries face
by serving as e-government providers, we explore the
implications these information pathways have on e-government
services and systems.
In addressing each of these questions, the authors identified key
elements to be included in LibEGov, including: 1) detailed
guidance on how to conduct a community needs assessment; 2) a
tool to help librarians better understand complex immigration
processes; 3) strategies for identifying and reaching out to
potential partners; and 4) a community forum that encourages
users to share their e-government experiences with one another.
After conclusion of the data collection efforts in October 2011,
attention shifted to the development of the Web resource’s site
design and content. Usability testing began in April 2012 and, at