Audio Transcript Auto-generated
- 00:01 - 00:03
Hello. My name is Oliver Mills.
- 00:03 - 00:07
I'm working towards my Masters in library and information science
- 00:07 - 00:12
at indiana University Purdue University Indianapolis and I thank you
- 00:12 - 00:14
so much for being part of this presentation today.
- 00:16 - 00:19
Let's get started today.
- 00:20 - 00:22
We'll be discussing the purpose of this evaluation proposal.
- 00:24 - 00:27
The four research questions guiding this evaluation and the methods
- 00:28 - 00:30
proposed to collect and analyze data.
- 00:32 - 00:35
I will also be displaying some sample instruments for data
- 00:35 - 00:39
collection and providing a brief outline of the evaluation procedure.
- 00:40 - 00:43
I'll close with some final considerations and leave you to
- 00:43 - 00:48
deliberate on my proposal to begin with.
- 00:49 - 00:50
What would this evaluation entail?
- 00:51 - 00:55
My proposal encompasses only the letter reference service provided by
- 00:56 - 00:58
the SAN Francisco public library as part of its jail
- 00:59 - 01:02
and re entry services or jars program.
- 01:03 - 01:06
All other services that fall under the jars umbrella are
- 01:07 - 01:12
exempt. My goal for this evaluation is to identify what
- 01:12 - 01:15
jars is already doing well along with how the patron
- 01:16 - 01:18
population believes it can be improved.
- 01:19 - 01:23
My proposal adopts a transformative lens, the idea that this
- 01:23 - 01:26
program has the potential to make a positive difference in
- 01:26 - 01:28
the lives of incarcerated people.
- 01:29 - 01:33
But this is only possible through centering incarcerated people's voices
- 01:33 - 01:34
at every step of the process.
- 01:36 - 01:40
Your patron population already has the answers to what can
- 01:40 - 01:41
be improved about the program.
- 01:42 - 01:44
All we have to do is ask them about it.
- 01:45 - 01:49
Of course, your staff also deserve to represent themselves and
- 01:49 - 01:51
highlight the amazing work they already do.
- 01:52 - 01:56
I propose to gather perspectives from your staff and patron
- 01:56 - 01:59
population About three aspects of the program.
- 02:01 - 02:06
Promptness of responses, usefulness of information and accessibility of the
- 02:06 - 02:14
program. Overall, let's take a step back and review the
- 02:14 - 02:17
current literature on library service to incarcerated people.
- 02:18 - 02:22
The main takeaways are that many public libraries are unaware
- 02:22 - 02:26
or too little resourced to modify their services to fit
- 02:26 - 02:29
the needs of the incarcerated patrons in California.
- 02:30 - 02:33
Less than half of public libraries offer support to prisons
- 02:33 - 02:37
and jails, and only half that number provide consistent service.
- 02:38 - 02:43
Where librarians are actually interfacing with incarcerated patrons san Francisco
- 02:43 - 02:47
public library is exceptional in the services it provides to
- 02:47 - 02:50
incarcerated people, but that doesn't mean we should stop there.
- 02:52 - 02:56
The literature reflects a lack of representation of incarcerated people's
- 02:56 - 02:58
voices in studies done about them.
- 02:59 - 03:02
This evaluation would be a step towards changing that.
- 03:09 - 03:13
Now, let's move on to the four research questions guiding
- 03:14 - 03:18
this evaluation jars staff and library school students who help
- 03:19 - 03:21
with the program will be asked about what systems already
- 03:22 - 03:22
exist at the library.
- 03:23 - 03:27
What work is already being done to support incarcerated people
- 03:27 - 03:30
with letter reference and what challenges they face in the
- 03:31 - 03:35
work, incarcerated patrons will be asked how satisfied they are
- 03:36 - 03:39
with the current service and why they can also suggest
- 03:39 - 03:44
improvements. Both groups will be asked specifically about promptness, usefulness
- 03:45 - 03:47
and accessibility of the service.
- 03:50 - 03:54
These two questions asked specifically about the program staffs process.
- 03:56 - 04:00
What are the strategies implemented by SAN Francisco public library
- 04:01 - 04:04
to ensure prompt and useful responses to questions posed through
- 04:05 - 04:06
its reference by mail service?
- 04:08 - 04:12
What are the strategies implemented by SAn Francisco public library
- 04:13 - 04:16
to ensure accessibility of its reference by mail service to
- 04:16 - 04:17
incarcerated people?
- 04:22 - 04:26
These two questions ask about the outcomes for incarcerated patrons.
- 04:28 - 04:32
Our jars program participants receiving prompt and useful answers to
- 04:33 - 04:37
their reference by mail questions Our jars program participants satisfied
- 04:38 - 04:41
with the accessibility of the reference by mail service in
- 04:42 - 04:45
terms of language access and accommodation of varying literacy levels
- 04:46 - 04:47
and or disability status.
- 04:49 - 04:52
All together, these four questions will get to the heart
- 04:53 - 04:55
of what is and isn't working in the jars program.
- 05:02 - 05:05
I plan to ask these four questions using four original
- 05:05 - 05:09
instruments. I've designed to surveys and two sets of questions
- 05:10 - 05:11
for semi structured interviews.
- 05:12 - 05:18
Surveys each contain five questions, three multiple choice questions and
- 05:18 - 05:18
to open ended.
- 05:19 - 05:21
These are designed for incarcerated patrons.
- 05:23 - 05:26
The interview question sets contained six or 7 questions each
- 05:27 - 05:30
and will be used for short conversations with library staff
- 05:30 - 05:31
and student workers.
- 05:32 - 05:34
Now let me show you an example of one of
- 05:34 - 05:34
the instruments.
- 05:38 - 05:40
This is an excerpt of one of the surveys intended
- 05:41 - 05:41
for incarcerated patrons.
- 05:43 - 05:46
The multiple choice questions ask patrons to rate whether or
- 05:46 - 05:49
not they agree with a given statement based on the
- 05:49 - 05:49
five point scale.
- 05:51 - 05:55
The open ended questions at the end offer patrons the
- 05:55 - 05:58
opportunity to give suggestions and tell a more complete story
- 05:59 - 06:00
of their experience with the service.
- 06:06 - 06:08
Once all the data has been collected, it will be
- 06:09 - 06:13
analyzed quantitatively and qualitatively in a manner supported by the
- 06:13 - 06:15
current literature on program evaluation for libraries.
- 06:17 - 06:20
For example, in the far right at the top, you'll
- 06:20 - 06:25
see, responses from library staff will be coded by topic
- 06:25 - 06:29
according to a grounded theory coding scheme and the frequency
- 06:29 - 06:30
of different topics will be recorded.
- 06:32 - 06:34
I'll give you a little more time to examine the
- 06:34 - 06:47
matrix. Yeah, Okay, let's move on.
- 06:51 - 06:54
Okay. I want to take a quick moment to acknowledge
- 06:54 - 06:54
my position.
- 06:55 - 06:56
Al Itty as a potential evaluator.
- 06:58 - 07:01
I'm someone who works with incarcerated people who has friends
- 07:02 - 07:04
and loved ones who are incarcerated, but I've never had
- 07:05 - 07:06
any personal experience on the inside.
- 07:07 - 07:11
I'm also someone who's studying library and information science, who
- 07:11 - 07:13
does not have work experience in a library.
- 07:15 - 07:18
My understanding of the pressures that incarcerated people and library
- 07:19 - 07:22
workers go through on a daily basis is necessarily limited
- 07:23 - 07:26
by my life experience and I bring that awareness into
- 07:26 - 07:27
my proposal.
- 07:31 - 07:35
Oh, okay, we're nearing the end of this presentation.
- 07:36 - 07:38
So it's time for a quick overview of the evaluation
- 07:39 - 07:42
procedure. First, let's go over the staff's role in the
- 07:42 - 07:46
evaluation. I'll conduct short interviews in whatever way is most
- 07:47 - 07:50
convenient for them, whether that's in person by phone or
- 07:50 - 07:51
video conference.
- 07:52 - 07:55
These interviews should take between 15 and 30 minutes each
- 07:56 - 07:57
and can be done at separate times.
- 07:59 - 08:02
Once the interviews are done, I'll perform qualitative and quantitative
- 08:02 - 08:03
analysis of the data.
- 08:05 - 08:08
That way, the library administration, friends of the SAN Francisco
- 08:09 - 08:12
public library and any potential donors can have access to
- 08:12 - 08:15
hard facts and staff narratives in the same report.
- 08:17 - 08:20
The same rules apply for incarcerated patrons, except that when
- 08:20 - 08:23
they send in a reference questioned by mail, their reply
- 08:24 - 08:27
will come with a prepaid envelope and paper copies of
- 08:27 - 08:29
both surveys to complete and send back to us.
- 08:31 - 08:34
The analysis of responses I receive will demonstrate which percentage
- 08:35 - 08:38
of incarcerated patrons who use the letter reference service are
- 08:38 - 08:40
satisfied with different parts of it.
- 08:42 - 08:45
From there, we can compare the data from staff and
- 08:45 - 08:47
patrons to see what sorts of efforts are getting lost
- 08:48 - 08:50
in translation and what patrons may want instead.
- 08:53 - 08:58
Wow. While it would be ideal to interview every single
- 08:59 - 09:02
incarcerated person who uses the letter reference surface in an
- 09:02 - 09:03
effort to center their voices.
- 09:05 - 09:09
I acknowledge that You answer 300 reference questions per month
- 09:10 - 09:13
as part of this service, so individual and interviews wouldn't
- 09:14 - 09:14
be practical.
- 09:15 - 09:19
Mhm. However, if your program serves any blind patrons who
- 09:19 - 09:22
would need to have the survey administered by phone, I'd
- 09:22 - 09:24
gladly get on their phone lists and arrange a call
- 09:25 - 09:25
with them.
- 09:30 - 09:35
So, to recap, I'm proposing an evaluation of the jars
- 09:35 - 09:39
programs, letter reference service in terms of its accessibility for
- 09:39 - 09:42
the promptness of its responses and the usefulness of the
- 09:43 - 09:43
information it provides.
- 09:44 - 09:47
I'll be using a mixture of quantitative and qualitative methods
- 09:48 - 09:51
to analyze data and will be conducting research with an
- 09:51 - 09:54
eye towards social justice for your incarcerated patrons.
- 09:55 - 09:59
This evaluation will identify gaps in service in areas where
- 09:59 - 10:02
the program can rise to meet patrons needs while providing
- 10:03 - 10:05
an actionable suggestion for where to start.
- 10:06 - 10:07
I hope you enjoyed this presentation.
- 10:08 - 10:09
Thank you so much for your time.
- 10:12 - 10:16
Okay, mm hmm.
- 10:17 - 10:17
Yeah.