Libraries Are Resilience Hubs

Abstract

Problem, research strategy, and findings

We explored the contributions of local public libraries to community resilience in the face of economic hardships, extreme weather events, and the COVID-19 pandemic using a survey of 415 library directors distributed through state library listservs in 13 Midwestern states, community-level census and presidential elections data, and library-specific data from the Institute of Museum and Library Services annual Public Libraries Survey. We found that public libraries provide invaluable resilience-boosting community services. They help patrons find jobs and access social services, often with one-on-one support. They act as daytime shelters during extreme heat and cold events, which is particularly important for unhoused and underhoused individuals. During the COVID-19 pandemic, they innovated to provide delocalized services and information access, such as installing WiFi hotspots. The provision of these essential resilience-boosting services is largely independent from library resources and community contexts and appear grounded in librarians’ ethos. Our research was limited to Midwestern public libraries and thus results are not generalizable to other regions, private, academic, and specialized libraries. We did not explore the possible relationships between local political majorities that could affect local government funding and priorities and local libraries’ funding sources, levels, and services.

Takeaways for practice

Beyond collections and information access, public libraries provide many services relevant to community and economic development and to disaster response. In addition, local public libraries act as resilience hubs in the face of economic stressors and extreme weather events, as well as during the COVID-19 pandemic, and are ready, flexible, adaptable, and willing to support patrons in times of need. Planners seeking to enhance community resilience can work with their local public libraries to build disaster preparedness and response capacity.

Keywords:

• COVID-19
• libraries
• resilience
• weather extremes
• workforce development

The United States commits $12 billion annually to 9,000 public library systems nationwide. This major investment, paid for largely by city and county governments, reflects the general recognition that local public libraries are essential community assets. Above and beyond their collections, information access, and literacy-oriented programming, libraries assist communities in a multitude of ways: by providing free, open, and welcoming spaces for all; by supporting patrons’ job searches and applications; by acting as government document repositories, cooling and warming centers, and gathering spaces for civic organizations, seniors, youth, and teenagers; by providing food to children; and, during the COVID-19 pandemic, by creatively redesigning their services to support their patrons’ information needs and, for some, by acting as testing and vaccination centers.

Yet, research documenting and assessing the impacts of public libraries on local communities is scarce. Gilpin et al. (2021) recently documented libraries’ impacts on students’ achievement and housing values, finding some moderate positive impacts. Despite a growing, largely case study–based literature on libraries’ responses to the COVID-19 pandemic and to major disasters, the impacts public libraries may have on community resilience in times of crises, along with their motivations, capacity, innovations, successes, and shortcomings, have not been systematically assessed yet. This is a lost opportunity, especially for planners, library scholars, and practitioners interested in alleviating climate, social, economic, and political community vulnerabilities and looking to expand knowledge of best practices to enhance community resilience, by which we mean a community’s ability to recover from disruptions, adapt, and rebuild stronger.

Here we review the existing literature on libraries and their contributions to local communities. We highlight gaps in the documentation and understanding of libraries’ contributions to community resilience, such as climate resiliency, economic resiliency, and resiliency to public health crises. We then present the methodology and data used to assess those impacts and their pathways. Our study builds on a 2022 survey of 415 directors of Midwestern libraries about their libraries’ resilience-boosting practices, supplemented by community-level socioeconomic and electoral data and by data about each library provided by the annual Public Library Survey of the Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS, 2019). Descriptive and multivariate findings on library services offered in response to weather extremes, economic hardships, and the COVID-19 pandemic revealed that Midwestern libraries provide high levels of service to their patrons, regardless of community resources. This suggests that librarians’ ethos and training drive libraries’ provision of vital services and increase local resilience wherever they may work. We conclude by discussing the implications of these findings for community organizers, leaders, elected officials, and library directors and for planning professionals who may not be familiar with the rich potential and actual contributions of local libraries to community resilience.

Background: Libraries as Resources for Community Resilience

Beyond providing access to collections, librarians interact with community members daily and continuously adapt their services to their patrons’ changing needs, including the most vulnerable (Soska & Navarro, 2020; Syn et al., 2023; Wahler et al., 2020, 2022). On a daily basis, librarians meet a wide range of individual and social needs, including providing internet access and verified, curated, and trusted information; access to social services; spaces for nonprofits, businesses, and unhoused and underhoused populations; programs for toddlers, teens, adults, and the elderly; and individualized support services to patrons of all ages, incomes, and literacy levels (Goulding, 2009; Richter et al., 2019). Through these programs and their safe and inclusive community spaces, libraries contribute to the construction of local social capital, which is an essential factor of community resilience and sustainability, especially during economic downturns, social crises, natural disasters, and other unexpected events such as the COVID-19 pandemic (e.g., Chancellor, 2017; Magis, 2010; Smith, 2020; Vårheim, 2017). Libraries are thus in a position to make significant contributions to community resilience.

Libraries and Climate Resilience

Libraries play a crucial role in enhancing community resilience in the face of climate extremes and natural disasters. Showcasing libraries’ vital roles in times of emergencies, the U.S. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) designated public libraries as essential community organizations under the Stafford Act of 2011. Under this act, libraries assist federal disaster response activities (Patin, 2020). Prior to this official designation by the FEMA, the American Library Association (2006) provided disaster response resources for librarians.

During and after extreme weather events and natural disasters, public libraries are often first response sites for patrons in need. Regardless of whether they have specific disaster response plans, libraries take on multiple roles in disaster response and recovery. They are generally flexible and adaptable and find creative ways to maintain or rebuild reliable information services during disasters and to act as recovery resources centers and sites of documentation of the event after the disaster (Bishop & Veil, 2013; Mardis et al., 2020; Soehner et al., 2017). This role has been also observed in other countries, such as Iran (Khademizadeh et al., 2023; Pazooki & Saboori, 2021). Using surveys and interviews across libraries nationwide, Jaeger et al. (2006) found that after the 2004 and 2005 Gulf Coast hurricanes, libraries provided essential services not provided by other institutions. Many libraries have disaster plans in place, and most have resources that are available for deployment during disaster recovery, such as technology and information access, office and meeting space, and community information repositories. For instance, after a series of fatal tornadoes in Alabama, Veil and Bishop (2014) conducted interviews in 12 nearby libraries in four states and found that all libraries had disaster plans and had updated their plans in response to those tornadoes. They also noted the lack of efficient collaboration between libraries and government officials, even though public libraries are established and funded by local governments. Where libraries have been included in community disaster response plans, they are in better positions to provide rapid and effective community services (Featherstone et al., 2008, 2012). As a result, policymakers and librarians should adopt, deploy, and update their contingency and disaster plans in response to changes in risks, resources, amenities, and infrastructure (Ashiq et al., 2022). However, Veil and Bishop also pointed to the risk of overcommitting limited library staff and resources.

During natural disasters, libraries often provide shelter and are used as food and water distribution sites. Natural disasters and extreme weather events often result in loss of power and internet, leaving many residents uncertain about how and where to receive information and communications. Libraries mitigate those losses by communicating and disseminating information provided by government officials and trusted information sources and by providing patrons with WiFi access, hot spots, electricity, and power outlets (e.g., Hagar, 2014; Mardis et al., 2020; Veil & Bishop, 2014).

Beyond major disasters, libraries act as warming and cooling shelters during heat and cold waves (most of which are not disasters but the new normal of climate extremes). Though some are formal shelters identified and publicized by the municipality, all libraries are de facto daytime shelters for the homeless and underhoused.

Libraries and Economic, Workforce, and Social Services

Libraries also serve important, nontraditional, economic development roles: They contribute to economic development and recovery at the individual and community levels (Alajmi, 2016; Yamagishi et al., 2022).¹ Libraries promote economic and workforce development through their training, employment, and career services (Byron, 1992; Grace & Sen, 2013). Long before the internet, libraries served as a resource for job seekers through job postings bulletin boards and library staff knowledgeable about local jobs or economic resources. After the e-commerce boom and the general shift to online services, libraries transitioned to providing job seekers with internet access to give them the option of searching online as well as continuing their in-person services (Kuhn & Skuterud, 2000). Today, libraries provide even more in-depth services to job seekers. Based on interviews in King County (WA), Scott (2011) found that libraries helped communities during times of high unemployment by providing access to online job boards through their computers, and some librarians provided unemployed patrons resources on how to write resumes, navigate job sites, and complete online applications (Kosciejew, 2021; Scott, 2011). During extended economic downturns, the use of libraries’ job-seeking services increases substantially, showing that libraries are destinations for residents in need (Jaeger et al., 2014). Similarly, a survey of 262 public library directors in Pennsylvania showed that 94% provided help to patrons through employment services such as job searching, resume building, or job skills (Whiteman et al., 2018).

In addition, public libraries increasingly provide social service referrals and have begun to employ social workers and to receive specific training, such as mental health crisis management, to meet the needs of patrons in need, such as homeless patrons and patrons experiencing mental health crises (Ogden & Williams, 2022; Williams, 2022).

Library Innovations in the Face of COVID-19

In-person services drastically changed during the COVID-19 pandemic, and the ways in which public libraries adjusted to those challenges are being documented in the literature in the United States (e.g., Kohlburn et al., 2023; Wahler et al., 2022) and abroad (e.g., Wakeling et al., 2022, in Australia). Most public libraries closed temporarily. When they reopened, libraries needed to find innovative ways to meet the needs of community members while socially distancing, such as leaving their WiFi on past library opening hours, providing outdoor WiFi hot spot locations, and implementing contactless curbside services (Goddard, 2020; Kohlburn et al., 2023; Wakeling et al., 2022). Many libraries also incorporated the use of bookmobiles to not only bring books to community members but also provide WiFi hotspots for those in need (Adle et al., 2023; Stevenson-Parrish, 2021; Syn et al., 2023). High unemployment during the pandemic also increased the demand for job-seeking services, unemployment benefits applications, and other social service applications (Wahler et al., 2020). Providing in-person library services became difficult during the pandemic, but many libraries successfully implemented innovative, effective solutions to meet their patrons’ needs.

Community Characteristics, Political Climate, and Library Services

By providing lifeline services and increasing community resilience, libraries can reduce systematic inequities rooted from marginalization and discrimination by serving racial and ethnic minorities and low-income residents (Fleary et al., 2022). Combining American Community Survey Data from 2013 to 2017 on education, race, unemployed residents, and residents in poverty with responses from a random sample of librarian surveys, Fleary et al. (2022) showed that libraries that served a higher number of Hispanic and non-Hispanic Black residents offered more job preparedness programs. Libraries that served a higher number of non-Hispanic Black and non-Hispanic Native Hawaiian Pacific Islander residents also provided more housing programs (Fleary et al., 2022). Sin (2011) showed that libraries in higher-income neighborhoods received more funding from local governments and libraries in lower-income neighborhoods received more funding from state and federal governments, showcasing the equalization role of state and federal funding programs. Sin also showed that neighborhoods with higher income and higher urbanization rates provided more services and programs compared with their lower-income and rural counterparts. Though previous literature (Fleary et al., 2022; Sin, 2011) has linked race, ethnicity, income, and education with library services and funding levels, quantitative findings on the relationship between library services and a community’s political climate have yet to be explored in detail.

Decision-Making Processes

During crises, library directors and staff often make in situ decisions about providing services beyond collections and information services. Libraries are funded by, and in ongoing relations with, county and municipal government agencies and affected by federal and state policies. For instance, during the COVID-19 epidemic, Kohlburn et al. (2023) found that librarians struggled with adjusting to inconsistent messages from public health agencies and with the politicized nature of the pandemic and that most decided to provide public information to their patrons despite concerns about political backlash from conservative political leaders and residents. Soehner et al. (2017) had noted earlier the essential and unique functions of libraries as institutions that can counteract and reduce misinformation, which is essential to building social trust. This role was particularly salient during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The literature consistently documents libraries’ adaptability and collaborative approaches to decision making. For instance, Featherstone et al. (2008), Mardis et al. (2020), and Wakeling et al. (2022) highlighted libraries’ collaborative relationships with local, state, and federal government agencies, especially with regards to disaster response and recovery. They also documented libraries’ flexibility and ability to act quickly and create new and innovative services. Libraries have also collaborated with private and philanthropic organizations to secure additional resources (Yamagishi et al., 2022).

Libraries have increasingly taken on advocacy roles to better address community needs (Yamagishi et al., 2022) and to support underserved groups such as youth (e.g., Sarmiento & Duarte, 2023), and contribute to community empowerment in creative ways, such as working with local schools (e.g., Campana et al., 2022) or providing seeds to promote food systems resilience (Peekhaus, 2018). In this capacity, they have increasingly adopted the roles and ethos of social workers (Williams, 2022) while also centering their work around their core mission of supporting free access to collections and information.

Gaps in the Literature and Research Questions

Though the prior literature has provided some information on how library services relate to community characteristics, we found limited research on the various ways in which libraries respond and increase community resilience and on how community characteristics, library resources, and political climate affect library missions and services provided in response to various local stressors. In an era of deep polarization, we expected political climate to affect local libraries’ actions, especially for very politicized topics such as COVID-19 response. Our study addressed the following research questions and subquestions:

1. What specific programs do libraries implement in response to various community stressors (climate extreme, economic needs, and COVID-19)?

   1. How important are those programs to libraries’ missions?

   2. How do they implement those programs?

2. How do community characteristics, including socioeconomic and demographic traits and local political climate, affect:

   1. public libraries’ missions?

   2. specific actions in response to climate extremes, economic needs, and the COVID-19 pandemic?

Methodology and Data

To answer these research questions, we surveyed public library directors, focusing on 13 Midwestern states: Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Dakota, and Wisconsin.² (We did not include academic and private libraries in this study because they serve distinct subpopulations and missions rather than the general public.) We sent out a specially designed online survey (47 questions, 12-min average completion time) to librarians through the states’ librarian mailing lists in each state.³ Using an interdisciplinary approach, the questionnaire was developed by faculty members at the University of Iowa’s School of Planning and Public Affairs, School of Library and Information Science, and Department of Sociology and Criminology, with input from 12 to 15 local librarians collected during several research meetings. The questionnaire covered topics such as library resources, funding, mission, programs, responses to climate extremes, support to patrons facing economic hardships, response to COVID-19 (since 2020), and difficulties encountered in the delivery of those programs, as well as director and staff satisfaction and morale.

A total of 510 librarians opened the survey, 492 answered at least one question, and 415 completed at least one-third of the survey. Our analyses focused on those 415 respondents.⁴

To assess community characteristics, we merged secondary community socioeconomic characteristics from the 2015–2019 American Community Survey 5-year estimates with the survey data.⁵ American Community Survey data were collected at the census place designation level because survey respondents worked in large cities as well as small townships, villages, and unincorporated communities. Library resource data (staff, collections size, library usage, total funding and funding per capita, etc.) were retrieved from the Institute of Museum and Library Services Public Libraries Surveys for 2019 (IMLS, 2019). Last, we collected county-level political data on the percentage of Republican and Democrat voters in the 2020 elections. This allowed us to determine whether community political ideology affected libraries and their missions, actions, or practices.

Indicators Construction and Analysis

We present the core survey questions and variables used with their descriptive statistics below. We created weighted and normalized indices to synthetize libraries’ missions and practices. The indicators and weights are described below as well.

We present descriptive analyses and multivariate regression models to assess the impact of community characteristics, library resources, political climate, and libraries’ missions on their programs and practices.⁶ (We checked correlations between independent variables to ensure that variables were independent from each other.)

Findings

Libraries’ Programs in Response to Economic Stressors

We asked respondents to what extent they saw it as a library’s role to support low-income patrons or those affected by economic recessions (Table 1). Librarians generally considered that it is their library’s role to support patrons in need. The vast majority thought that libraries should assist job-seeking patrons by providing information about jobs, job search websites, or similar services (91% of respondents), and 92% thought libraries should provide information about social services, government websites, and more. Almost half thought libraries should provide classes and training for job skill development (46%), and 16% thought libraries should help individuals get jobs. In addition, 63% thought that libraries should advocate for community services and resources. In contrast, a very small fraction believed that libraries should stay completely out of economic/market processes or that they should not serve specific populations (only 3% of respondents). In other words, library directors saw their institutions as actors fully involved in their communities’ economic development and wellbeing.

Table 1. Libraries’ economic mission: Descriptive statistics.

Question: What do you consider to be a library’s role with regards to low-income patrons or those affected by economic recessions? (check all that apply)
Response choices (and weights used for the Economic Mission index)	Count (% of total), N = 372
Nothing, it’s not a library’s role to serve specific populations (0 pts)	3 (0.8)
Stay out of economic/market processes (0 pts)	5 (1.3)
Provide information about jobs, job search websites, etc. (1 pt)	339 (91.1)
Provide information about social services, government websites, etc. (1 pt)	343 (92.2)
Help individuals get jobs (4 pts)	58 (15.6)
Help individuals access social services (3 pts)	252 (67.7)
Provide classes and training for skill development (2 pts)	172 (46.2)
Advocacy for community services and resources (3 pts)	234 (62.9)
Other	33 (8.9)

Note: Percentage adds up to more than 100% because respondents could select more than one choice.

We created a weighted Economic Mission index with the weights indicated in Table 1: 0 for no mission related to helping low-income patrons and those affected by economic recessions and up to 4 for a mission to provide individualized support. The scores were normalized to obtain an index ranging from 0 to 10. The mean Economic Mission score for all libraries in the survey is 4.9 and the standard deviation is 2.9, reflecting the wide range of library directors’ responses and attitudes toward their libraries’ roles.

We then asked about specific programs libraries offered to serve those facing economic hardships (support with job search and accessing housing and social services) and about the extent to which those services are individualized, group workshops, or passive information sharing. Table 2 shows libraries’ important commitment to one-on-one (and therefore staff time–intensive) individualized support to the most disadvantaged patrons for resume writing (46%), job searches and writing job applications (57%), accessing social services (50%), finding housing (27%), filing taxes (23%), and applying for driver’s licenses (20%). Some libraries provided occasional workshops, but for the most part, those that did not offer individualized help provided no dedicated staff time to those socioeconomic services. Libraries varied widely in terms of the number of patrons they helped with job searching and accessing social services, from 1 per week in small libraries to 100 in major urban libraries. On average, Midwestern libraries helped 8.3 people per week (448 per year) with job search and applications and 6.4 people per week (347 per year) with access to housing and social services.

Table 2. Libraries’ support to patrons facing economic hardships (job search and access to social services): Descriptive statistics.

Question: Do you provide any of the following services? (check all that apply)
Response choices	Count (% of total), N = 383
	Individualized support, available anytime (4 pts)	Workshops a few times per month (3 pts)	Workshops a few times per year (2 pts)	We provide documentation/brochures but no dedicated staff time (1 pt)	No (0 pts)
Resume writing support	177 (46.2)	6 (1.6)	47 (12.3)	108 (28.2)	62 (16.2)
Job search/application support	217 (56.7)	7 (1.8)	25 (6.5)	116 (30.3)	39 (10.2)
Professional skills training	47 (12.3)	12 (3.1)	52 (13.6)	132 (34.5)	133 (34.7)
Support accessing social services	193 (50.4)	1 (0.3)	12 (3.1)	142 (37.1)	41 (10.7)
Support finding housing	102 (26.6)	3 (0.8)	7 (1.8)	149 (38.9)	111 (29.0)
Support filing taxes	86 (22.5)	5 (1.3)	35 (9.1)	171 (44.6)	85 (22.2)
Support for driver’s license	75 (19.6)	3 (0.8)	6 (1.6)	132 (34.5)	154 (40.2)
Printing/fax services	366 (95.6)	0 (0)	3 (0.8)	11 (2.9)	8 (2.1)
Other, please specify	38 (9.9)

Note: Percentage adds up to more than 100% because respondents could select more than one choice.

We created a weighted additive Economic Practices index summarizing the first three items (support for resume writing, job search/application, and professional skills training) and a Social Practices index summarizing the next four items (supporting patrons accessing social services, finding housing, filing taxes, and getting a driver’s license). For each, items received weights of 4 for individualized support, 3 for workshops a few times per month, 2 for workshops a few times per year, 1 for documentation/brochures but no dedicated staff time, and 0 for none. We normalized the indices so they range from 0 to 10. The mean Economic Practices index is 3.3 (SD = 2.1) and the mean Social Practices index is 3.1 (SD = 2.2). Those averages are relatively low because although about half provided on-demand individualized support for resume writing, job search, and applications and accessing social services, a large portion of libraries provided none of these services (or only documentation and brochures). In other words, there were very wide variations across libraries in the level of economic and social services provided.

To identify the relative impacts of social, political, and economic determinants of libraries’ economic mission, economic practices, and social practices, we ran regression models considering community population, median income, percentage White, percentage Republican voters, and library revenues per patron. The Economic Mission index was also hypothesized to be a predictor of economic and social practices. Table 3 presents multivariate regression results for library mission and practices.

Table 3. Determinants of libraries’ missions and practices: Regression models.

Factors influencing library practices	Library mission indices			Library practice indices
	Economic Mission β (SE)	Weather Mission β (SE)	COVID-19 Mission β (SE)	Economic Practice β (SE)	Social Practice β (SE)	Weather Practice β (SE)	COVID-19 Practice, 2020 β (SE)	COVID-19 Innovation, 2020 β (SE)
Median income (logged)	−1.081* (0.557)	0.279 (0.540)	0.521 (0.485)	−0.522 (0.443)	−0.945** (0.449)	−0.597 (0.408)	−0.412 (0.572)	−0.166 (0.653)
% Republican	−0.00709 (0.0121)	0.00769 (0.0116)	−0.00224 (0.0105)	0.0186** (0.00938)	0.0325*** (0.00966)	0.00330 (0.00875)	0.000927 (0.0126)	0.00344 (0.0144)
Population (logged)	0.209** (0.104)	−0.154 (0.100)	0.0736 (0.0904)	0.220*** (0.0810)	0.0820 (0.0835)	0.226*** (0.0759)	0.200* (0.104)	0.200* (0.118)
Total library revenue per patron served	0.00166 (0.00291)	−0.00220 (0.00280)	0.0000116 (0.00253)	0.00594** (0.00225)	0.00382 (0.00233)	0.000108 (0.00211)	−0.00309 (0.00283)	−0.00482 (0.00323)
% White	−0.0127 (0.0117)	0.00583 (0.0113)	−0.0143 (0.0101)	−0.00422 (0.00904)	−0.00579 (0.00934)	0.00376 (0.00847)	0.00564 (0.0116)	0.0103 (0.0133)
Economic Mission index	—	0.209*** (0.0565)	0.194*** (0.0508)	0.332*** (0.0467)	0.374*** (0.0481)	0.0614 (0.0437)	−0.0522 (0.0600)	−0.0332 (0.0684)
Weather Mission index	0.226*** (0.0609)	—	0.0660 (0.0539)	0.113** (0.0482)	0.0496 (0.0498)	0.0399 (0.0457)	0.0198 (0.0628)	0.0308 (0.0716)
COVID-19 Mission index	0.259*** (0.0676)	0.0815 (0.0666)	—	0.0309 (0.0536)	0.0363 (0.0554)	0.116** (0.0502)	−0.124* (0.0699)	−0.138* (0.0797)
Observations	285	285	285	282	284	280	258	258
R^2 (unadjusted)	0.1501	0.0721	0.1010	0.2757	0.2886	0.0885	0.0400	0.0377

Note: Total observations differ by each variable due to missing survey responses for questions that correspond to their respective index. Standard errors in parentheses.

*p < .10. **p < .05. ***p < .01.

Focusing on the determinants of libraries’ economic mission, we found that libraries serving populations with lower income and larger populations had higher Economic Mission scores. This suggests that libraries in urban, low-income areas were particularly attuned and responsive to their patrons’ needs. We also found that libraries’ Economic Mission score was higher for libraries that had higher Economic Mission index scores for climate extremes and COVID-19, showcasing consistency in library directors’ view of their libraries’ community support roles across areas of intervention. The adjusted R² of only 15% indicates that these variables only explain a small fraction of the variance in libraries’ economic mission.

Next, we explored the determinants of libraries’ economic practices (R² = 28%). We found that libraries implemented more economic practices if they had higher Economic Mission scores. This means that mission translates into practices (although the direction of the relationship between commitment and practice may be difficult to tease out in practice at the local level). In addition, libraries implemented more economic practices if they had high per-patron resource levels and if they were in communities with larger populations (i.e., more urban communities) and higher percentages of Republican voters. Greater library resources per patron significantly increased libraries’ economic practices, but community median income was not a significant determinant of practice. This suggests that median income affects economic practices indirectly by affecting libraries’ economic mission. This was not unexpected given the libraries’ strong focus on personalized support to patrons, which is staff and time consuming.

We also sought to understand the predictors of libraries’ revenues per patron using a multivariate regression model that included socio-demographic factors. We found that local median income was positively associated with total revenue per patron served (as did Sin in 2011), whereas total population and the percentage of White population were negatively associated with revenues (Table 4). Finding more funding per patron in areas with more minority residents, controlling for income, was consistent with Fleary et al. (2022).

Table 4. Socioeconomic factors’ impact on libraries’ total revenue per patron served.

Socioeconomic factors	Total revenue per patron served (2019)
	β (SE)
Median income (logged)	32.705*** (9.838)
% Republican	−0.161 (0.219)
Population (logged)	−3.982** (1.820)
% White	−0.602*** (0.210)
Observations	337
R^2 (unadjusted)	0.0746

Note: Standard errors in parentheses.

*p < .10. **p < .05. ***p < .01.

The positive and significant impact of Republican votes was surprising. The study took place in 13 Midwestern states in 2022, where the Republican/Democrat divide largely captured a contrast between urban areas and suburban/rural areas. It is possible that controlling for population size, libraries in rural and suburban areas implemented more economic services, that Republican leadership emphasizes the importance of workforce development and job search support in local libraries, and/or that libraries supplemented gaps in government services. Also surprising, unlike Fleary et al. (2022), we did not find that the percentage of racial and ethnic minorities in communities affects libraries’ economic programs, controlling for other factors. This difference could be linked to our sample focusing on Midwestern libraries in 2022, whereas Fleary used a random sample of U.S. libraries in 2017.

Third, the determinants of libraries’ social practices (R² = 29%) are slightly different. As for economic practices, in which directors considered that it is their library’s role to support patrons experiencing economic hardships, Social Practice scores were higher (i.e., support accessing social services, finding housing). Libraries in more Republican communities were also more likely to provide those services: Again, they were most likely more suburban and rural libraries. In contrast with the predictors of economic practices, social practices were not affected by the size of the population served or by library revenues per patron. Instead, it was significantly affected by the area’s median income. Controlling for library resources (which were, in turn, positively affected by local median income), libraries in lower-income areas were more likely to provide more social support to their patrons, regardless of population size or resources. This suggests that librarians provided those services out of an ethos of public service. Our finding is consistent with Williams (2022) and Ogden and Williams (2022).

Libraries’ Practices in Response to Weather Extremes

We now turn to libraries’ practices in response to heat and cold waves. Libraries are free, open, and welcoming places and are often used as daytime shelters by patrons struggling with housing and affording utilities. We asked respondents about how they saw their library’s role during extreme weather events (Table 5) and about their specific practices (Table 6).

Table 5. Libraries’ weather-related mission.

Question: What do you think is a library’s role for those who struggle with extreme heat and cold events; for example, homeless or low-income persons? (check up to 2)
Response choices (index weights)	Count (% of the total count), N = 371
It is not a library’s role to do anything about heat and cold events (0 pts)	14 (3.8)
Libraries can act as cooling centers and warm shelters (1 pt)	213 (57.4)
Libraries should act cooling centers and warm shelters (1 pt)	178 (48.0)
Other	27 (7.3)

Note: Percentage adds up to more than 100% because respondents could select more than one choice.

Table 6. Libraries’ weather-related practices.

Question: With regards to extreme weather events, what best describes your library practices? (check all that apply)
Response choices (index weights)	Count (% of the total count), N = 367
Open-door policy; anyone can come in and stay as long as they wish during operating hours (provided they don’t disturb other patrons) (0 pts)	320 (87.2)
We act as a shelter for homeless and low-income residents in winter (1 pt)	27 (7.4)
We act as a cooling center for homeless and low-income residents in summer (1 pt)	49 (13.4)
We extend opening hours in extreme cold weather (1 pt)	2 (0.5)
We extend opening hours in extreme hot weather (1 pt)	1 (0.3)
In extreme cold weather, we open a lobby or part of our building during some/all hours when the library is closed (1 pt)	8 (2.2)
In extreme heat weather, we open a lobby or part of our building during some/all hours when the library is closed (1 pt)	5 (1.4)
No specific weather-related practices (0 pts)	109 (29.7)
Other	15 (4.1)

Note: Percentage adds up to more than 100% because respondents could select more than one choice.

We found that most library directors thought libraries can act as cooling and warm shelters for those who struggle with extreme heat and cold events (57%), and 48% thought libraries should act as cooling and warming shelters (they could choose both answers). Only 4% believed it is not a library’s role to do anything about extreme heat and cold events. Library directors, overall, appeared to embrace their library’s key roles in community climate resilience (Table 5). As above, we created a normalized, weighted Weather Mission index using the weights in the Table 5 (mean = 5.3, SD = 2.2).

In practice, most libraries have general open door policies that allow anyone to come in the library during operating hours, including during extreme weather events (87%). Though this means that libraries are de facto cooling/warming shelters, we did not consider this policy a specific weather-related intervention and did not allocate points for it in the Weather Practices index (Table 6). Only 13% acted as cooling centers for homeless and low-income residents in summer, and only 7% acted as warming centers in the winter (Table 6). Given this low percentage, there appears to be a vast untapped potential for designating public libraries as cooling and warming centers. Very few kept parts of their buildings open (e.g., a lobby) while the library was closed during extreme weather events (4%), but this strategy may not be available to all libraries, depending on their building design. About a third had no weather-related practices in place (30%). It is not clear why twice as many libraries acted as cooling centers compared with warming centers. This is not something the survey was designed to explore, but it could be related to an increasing awareness of the impact of heat waves across the country and/or to local government policies that identify libraries as cooling centers, something library staff and directors may have little control over.

An additive Weather Practices index was created using the weights indicated in Table 7. Scores are generally low because libraries adopted very few practices (we used a weight of 0 for open door policies because those are not specifically designed to address weather extremes). Given the low number of practices adopted beyond open door policies, the mean index score is low (mean = 0.65, SD = 1.66).

Table 7. Libraries’ COVID-19-related mission.

Question: With regard to COVID-19 and other epidemics, what do you think is a library’s role? (select all that apply)
Response choices (index weights)	Count (% of the total count), N = 371
Nothing; it’s not a library’s role to tell people what to think or do (0 pts)	18 (4.9)
Provide accurate health information (2 pts)	313 (84.4)
Protect staff’s health and safety (1 pt)	351 (94.6)
Protect patrons’ health and safety (3 pts)	324 (87.3)
Create and disseminate new programs/information to assist patrons in making informed decisions (4 pts)	148 (39.9)
Encourage community members to take protective measures (social distancing, masks, getting vaccinated) (5 pts)	212 (57.1)
Other, please specify	28 (7.5)

Note: Percentage adds up to more than 100% because respondents could select more than one choice.

We examined the determinants of weather mission and weather practices using multivariate regressions (Table 3). We found no significant predictor of Weather Mission index (which has a low variance), other than the fact that it was positively affected by Economic Mission index. Thus, librarians who thought their libraries have a role to play in their community’s economic welfare were also more likely to think that their libraries should serve as shelters during extreme weather events, perhaps because they are most attuned to the needs of their most underprivileged patrons.

The only significant socio-demographic predictor of weather practices was the community’s population size: Libraries in larger cities were more likely to adopt more weather-related sheltering practices, perhaps because large cities have adopted climate-related plans and strategies that formally identify their libraries as cooling and—to a lesser extent—warming centers. Surprisingly, the Weather Mission index does not translate into higher weather-related practices. On the other hand, libraries’ COVID-19 mission (discussed below) was positively associated with their weather-related practices. It is possible that libraries that took on an important community role during COVID-19 now see it as their role to provide resources during extreme weather events. Because we did not explore the timing of the launch of those policies and programs, we could not verify this hypothesis. The remaining socioeconomic and library resource variables had no significant impact on libraries’ weather practices, and the model explains only 9% of the (limited) variance in weather-related practices.

COVID-19-Related Practices and Innovations

We asked respondents about their views regarding the mission of their library in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. The results were uplifting: 87% thought a library should protect patrons’ health and safety and 95% thought it should protect staff’s health and safety. As expected, given libraries’ traditional roles as providers of accurate information, 84% thought a library’s role is to provide accurate health information. Only 5% thought libraries had no role to play in response to COVID-19 and that libraries should not tell people what to think or do. In addition, 40% saw it as their library’s role to create and disseminate new programs and information to assist patrons in making informed decisions, which is in line with libraries’ traditional information curation roles and might have been their way to counteract the national partisan disinformation campaigns of 2020. As above, we created a COVID-19 Mission index using the weights indicated in Table 8 (mean = 4.7, SD = 2.1).

Table 8. Libraries’ COVID-related practices in 2020 and in 2022.

Question: In response to COVID-19, how did you change your practices, policies, and/or procedures? (please check all that apply)
Response choices (index weights)	Count (% of the total count), N = 379
	March–December, 2020	Now (at the time of the survey), 2022
No change (0 pts)	20 (5.3%)	28 (7.4)
Hand sanitizer available (1 pt)	335 (88.4%)	330 (87.1)
Ask staff to wear masks (1 pt)	309 (81.5%)	197 (52.0)
Ask patrons to wear masks (1 pt)	298 (78.6%)	156 (41.2)
Require masks (1 pt)	247 (65.2%)	85 (22.4)
Close the library entirely (0 pts)	195 (51.5%)	1 (0.3)
Close the building but provide alternative services (2 pts)	285 (75.2%)	16 (4.2)
Provide curbside pickup (2 pts)	335 (88.4%)	245 (64.6)
Provide new online services (e-books, video streaming) (3 pts)	196 (51.7%)	168 (44.3)
Increase existing online services (e-books, video streaming) (2 pts)	243 (64.1%)	214 (56.5)
Adding wireless internet access points outside the building (e.g., parking lot) (4 pts)	193 (50.9%)	164 (43.3)
Provide new delocalized services (bookmobile) (4 pts)	16 (4.2%)	22 (5.8)
Increase existing delocalized services (bookmobile) (3 pts)	20 (5.3%)	26 (6.9)
Provide more information services over the phone (2 pts)	177 (46.7%)	120 (31.7)
Provide information services by Zoom/teleconferencing (3 pts)	156 (41.2%)	123 (32.5)

Note: “Other” responses, not listed here, included serving as COVID-19 testing and vaccination sites. Percentage adds up to more than 100% because respondents could select more than one choice.

We explored the adoption of a wide range of specific COVID-19 practices, distinguishing between practices adopted in 2020 and those still in place at the time of the survey in 2022 and between standard social distancing and innovative practices (Table 8). Libraries across the Midwest adapted to new ways of delivering library services during the pandemic. In 2020, more than 75% of libraries used basic COVID-19 safety practices such as providing hand sanitizer and asking staff and patrons to wear masks. Libraries also developed new services: 88% provided curbside pickup services in 2020, and 65% continued to provide curbside pickup services to the time of survey. As the demand for online services increased nationwide, 52% developed new online services in 2020, 64% increased their existing online services, and 51% added wireless internet access points outside their building for residents to use in the parking lot. Bookmobiles and other decentralized mobile library services were less-common strategies, most likely because they are resource intensive. Only 4% provided new delocalized services and 5% increased their existing delocalized services, possibly to avoid interpersonal contacts.

We created two additive and normalized 2020 COVID-19 Practice indices using the weights specified in Table 8: one based on all 16 response choices (mean = 4.8, SD = 2.2) and another we called the 2020 COVID-19 Innovation index including only new, online, and delocalized services (mean = 3.8, SD = 2.4).

Multivariate regressions designed to identify the predictors of libraries’ COVID-19 practices and their innovation in 2020 are presented in Table 3. The models predicted only 4% of the variance in COVID-19-related practices, which is extremely low. Population size was the only sociodemographic significant predictor of COVID-19-related practices: Libraries located in larger communities had higher COVID-19 Practice scores (total and innovation scores). Surprisingly, the COVID-19 Mission index had a significant but negative impact on COVID-19-related practices. It is possible that, looking back, library directors who were not able to implement COVID-19 responses thought they should have done more, thereby reporting high expectations and low actions. It is also possible that library directors who implemented many COVID-19-related practices were very committed to a thorough COVID-19 response, were frustrated, and thus reported high actions and low roles for libraries in the context of uneven local, state, and federal policies and mandates.

The most noteworthy finding here is the low R², such as the minimal to inexistent impact of population, medium income, race, political climate, or library resources. In effect, this means that libraries were able to deliver high levels of service regardless of their community and institutional contexts. This is a major finding that points to the level of services librarians provide in all contexts they work in. It can probably be attributed to their professional training in schools of library and information sciences and to their professional and personal ethics of community support and care.

Discussion and Conclusion

We explored the practices that Midwestern libraries have put in place to help patrons facing economic hardships, during extreme heat and cold weather events, and in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Libraries adapt and provide their communities with myriad vital socioeconomic support services, from helping individuals find housing and jobs to serving as shelters and cooling centers and providing innovative delocalized services and WiFi in outdoor spaces during the COVID-19 pandemic. Together, these programs and practices contribute meaningfully to community resilience.

Our survey results present new and important information and insights about the services that libraries provide to their patrons and the responsibility they take for their communities’ wellbeing in times of need. With regards to economic services, a great majority of librarians believed that their library should help patrons access economic opportunities and social services, and about half provided individualized support to those facing economic hardships. A great majority of libraries had open door policies during extreme weather events, but very few extended their hours during extreme heat and cold events or acted as formal warming or cooling shelters. COVID-19 sparked innovation and increased safety measures. To meet the needs of their patrons, many libraries either increased existing services or started new services such as curbside pickup, new WiFi access points, or additional online services. Many had maintained those services past the peak of the pandemic, increasing their communities’ resilience to the next event that might reduce in-person contacts.

We explored the determinants of library practices and, in particular, the extent to which their missions, as understood by library directors, community socio-demographic characteristics, and library resources, affect their actions. It is most noteworthy that an overwhelming majority of library directors saw resilience-boosting services as part of their library’s mission. Where community characteristics affect the services provided, we found that libraries provided more services where needs were greatest: in large and lower-income (presumably more urban) communities. This is a tribute to librarians and library staff who understand and address their communities’ needs (Richter et al., 2019) and who provide a wide range of essential services far beyond collections and information access, all of which improve their communities’ resiliency, welfare, and quality of life. Where political context matters, we found that, controlling for other factors, libraries in more Republican areas provided more support to patrons facing economic hardships. It is possible that in areas with reduced local government services, libraries took on more social service responsibilities, but, unfortunately, our survey instrument was not designed to explore this relationship.

Unpacking these findings and relationships empirically presents important new information for planning academics and practitioners interested in boosting community resilience. Libraries are resources ready to be mobilized during times of crises. Resilience activities align well with their service mission, and they are ready to deploy those programs regardless of where they are located and, to a large extent, regardless of their resource levels. They are thus quasi-universal resilience resources and hubs.

Our study has shown that most library directors believe that their library should provide resilience-boosting services and resources and that many do offer personalized support for finding jobs and accessing social services and maintain open door policies during extreme weather events (even if few act as formal cooling and warming shelters) and that most implemented a range of COVID-19-related measures that increased community information access even after COVID-19. Libraries provide services largely independent of their resource levels and community contexts, suggesting that libraries’ support to patrons may be more strongly grounded in librarians’ ethos than in libraries’ particular characteristics.

Resiliency planners can use this information to work with and build on their community libraries. However, they must be mindful to not overwhelm library staff with additional work. We found that librarians’ job satisfaction was fairly high (survey results not presented here), but in this feminized profession, librarians have been consistently asked to perform more without additional resources and have been tasked with providing services they often are not trained for. There may be limits to what can be asked of libraries. Planners should thus meet, build relationships, and collaborate with their public library’s directors and staff.

The planning profession should also recognize, value, support, and communicate the social trust and resilience-building services that public libraries provide their community and integrate libraries in comprehensive, risk mitigation, and resilience plans. Planners should also advocate for greater library resources and staffing and fund greater library services where needed, such as extended hours in times of extreme heat and cold, more staff for individualized job-seeking services, and support for innovative and creative solutions that librarians are clearly ready to provide. Those findings on the role of public libraries for local communities are also important for residents and civic groups and for librarians themselves, who can use those results to advocate for greater resources and recognition for their profession.

RESEARCH SUPPORT

This project was made possible by a University of Iowa interdisciplinary Jumpstarting Tomorrow grant.

Acknowledgments

We thank all of our co-principal investigators at the University of Iowa who contributed to the project and to the development of the research instrument and who provided input on this article: Iulian Vamanu and Kara Logsden (School of Library and Information Science), Haifeng Qian and Phuong Nguyen (School of Planning and Public Affairs), Jennifer Glanville (Sociology), Megan Gilster (School of Social Work), and Kang Zhao (Tippie College of Business). We also thank the many librarians of eastern Iowa who contributed to the development of this project and helped refine the survey components.

Supplemental Material

Supplemental data for this article can be found at https://doi.org/10.1080/01944363.2024.2343670.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Lucie Laurian

LUCIE LAURIAN ([email protected]) is professor and chair of the Urban and Regional Planning Department at the University at Buffalo, SUNY.

Evan Doyle

EVAN DOYLE ([email protected]) is a graduate student in urban and regional planning at the University of Iowa School of Planning and Public Affairs.

Iulian Vamanu

IULIAN VAMANU ([email protected]) is on associate professor in library and information science at the University of Iowa.

Kara Logsden

KARA LOGSDEN ([email protected]) is on assistant professor of instruction in library and information science at the University of Iowa.

Notes

1 Vassilakaki (2015) and Alvim and Calixto (2013) made similar cases for this role in Greece and Portugal as well.

2 We report on results from a survey that was part of a broader research project that included spatial econometric analyses and qualitative interviews. The project was funded by a grant from the University of Iowa and is being continued with a grant from the Institute for Museum and Library Services.

3 To view the complete survey instrument, please see the Technical Appendix.

4 Missing responses are accounted for in each index that was created.

5 Census and political data could only be merged with an observation if respondents provided the name of their city/town.

6 We tested for differences in means between the states’ economic, weather, and COVID-19 index scores using analyses of variance and found no significant differences across the 13 Midwestern states in the study.