It’s All in the Plan: A Document Analysis of Victorian Council and Public Library Disability Access and Inclusion Plans

ABSTRACT

The Victorian Government requires councils to create a disability action plan or discuss inclusion in their council plan. Disability action plans aim to reduce barriers in accessing goods, services or facilities and to reduce discrimination. With public libraries in Victoria being managed by councils either individually or in a corporation, these action plans have the potential to directly impact on the community via library services. Using qualitative and quantitative document analysis, a total of 31 Victorian councils or library corporation disability action plans were analysed to understand what these plans saw as the action areas for libraries working with people with a disability. It was found that definitions of disability in these action plans broadly matched with the wider disability and libraries literature, with most councils in Victoria having an online action plan but comparatively few library corporations having the same. Libraries were largely discussed in relation to six theme areas (Access; Certification; Collections; Programming; Technology; and Training). An overall summary indicates that libraries involvement in council disability action plans is less detailed than in some library corporation action plans.

KEYWORDS:

• Public libraries
• council
• disability
• access
• inclusion
• planning

Introduction

During 2016–17, over 114 million people visited a public library in Australia – more than 9.5 million people per month (National and State Libraries Australasia, 2019). As one of the last free public spaces in Australia (Sussex, Tregloan, & Long, 2013), public libraries are considered safe and trusted spaces; working towards building the civic and social engagement of their communities by providing access to information, ideas, knowledge and connection. This in turn contributes to the development of ‘safer, more literate, more skilled, and more creative communities’ (Australian Library and Information Association [ALIA], 2016, p. 13).

Table 1. Google search lines.

‘(library service name) disability’	‘(library service name) access inclusion’
‘(library council) disability’	‘(library council) access inclusion’

Table 2. Status of council AAP included in analysis.

	Total number of council AAP in analysis (n = 29)
Current AAP Date range extends to, or beyond, 2019	15 (51%)
Draft or outdated AAP Date range is pre-2019	14 (48%)

Table 3. Ways community or staff were involved in creating AAP.

	AAP detailing consultation (n = 13)
Focus groups or forums	11 (84%)
Interviews or workshops	5 (38%)
Surveys	12 (92%)

Table 4. Who was included in the creation of the AAP?

	AAP detailing community inclusion (n = 24)
Advisory committees	12 (50%)
Carers, family or friends	13 (54%)
Council staff	18 (75%)
Disability service providers	16 (66%)
Organisational or business representatives	10 (41%)
People with a disability	16 (66%)

Communities are not homogenous. Communities may include culturally and linguistically diverse groups (CALD), people across the age span or people with varied levels of education or patterns of employment. Communities may also include people with a disability. Described as the ‘all-inclusive minority’ (Riley, 2005), disability occurs across the lifespan, genders, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status. In 2018, 17.7 per cent of Australians reported having a disability (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2019)2011.

The experience of disability is diverse, personal and multidimensional (World Health Organization [WHO], 2011). How people with a disability experience or participate in their community may be influenced by disability, service availability, space inclusivity and by community attitudes (Australian Institute of Health and Welfare [AIHW], 2019). For libraries to meet the diverse experiences and needs of their community, including people with a disability, they need to be aware of ‘who’ their community is (Mackenzie, 1997) and to engage in a strategic planning process that identifies any areas of need in services or resourcing (Reed, 2016) either presently or into the future.

The concept of the ‘future library’ has a strong pull on the imaginations of librarians and library planners (Lanclos, 2016), but it is also a nebulous concept still open to discovery and interpretation (Carson, Carson, & Phillips, 1997). Gathering information to help inform the ‘future library’ requires an understanding of how libraries are currently positioned, supporting and actioning plans around the needs of their communities.

Literature Review

Public libraries have many functions in the community. They can invite community members to meet, share, engage in programs and be inspired by each other (ALIA, 2010). They facilitate access for their communities to employment, education and governmental resources (Jaeger, Bertot, Thompson, Katz, DeCoster, 2012). As global temperatures rise, public libraries can offer a refuge for their communities during periods of extreme heat (e.g. Light Regional Council Strategy Committee, 2017; City of Norwood Payneham & St Peters, 2018; Merkes, 2014).

Yet while libraries have often been described as ‘open to all’, this may not always be the case. Public libraries recognise the importance of providing access to resources for visitors in a variety of formats (Hill, 2013; Hille, 2018). However, the adoption of assistive and accessible technologies has progressed to different degrees across library types, with the provision of physical accessibility aids such as ramps greater than speech-generating devices (Burke, 2009; Small, Myhill, Herring-Harrington, 2015). Visitors to the library may experience different levels of access across varied lines, including disability or ability (e.g. Dolan & Khan, 2011; Griffis & Johnson, 2014; Muddiman et al., 2000).

Library spaces may present obstacles for patrons. Libraries that are bright or noisy may be uncomfortable or intimidating for children with autism, who may have atypical responses to sensory input or experience ‘stims’ such as rocking or a need for sameness (Kaeding, 2015, Kaeding, Velasquez, & Price, 2017). Library users may need to independently decode the rules of the space due to an absence of displayed policies (Peet, 2019), which may contribute to social policing activities such as ‘shushing’ of library users by other patrons. Overdue fines or fees may dissuade patrons from borrowing items due to the impact of financial penalties (ALIA, 2019).

Library staff or managers may also be unsure what services are required or how to provide these. Library staff may not know how to engage with patrons in crisis, such as people experiencing homelessness who have a psychiatric disorder (e.g. Torrey, Esposito, & Geller, 2009; Williams, 2016). Staff may lack the power to make accessibility changes to their spaces due to reporting structures; or they may lack the finances or knowledge to be able to hire specialist staff, apply for grants or buy adaptive technology or furniture (e.g. Equity Research Centre, 2007; Irvall & Nielsen, 2005; Torrey et al., 2009; Williams, 2016).

Yet access to information and technology is central to the attainment of human rights (Jaeger, Taylor, & Gorham, 2015; Mathiesen, 2015; Woodiwiss, 2003). Libraries can provide a means by which community members can access knowledge, engage in life-long learning, participate in civic activities and enjoy cultural development (McCook & Phenix, 2006; United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization [UNESCO], 2019). Equal access to libraries is based on an understanding that the needs, experiences and requirements of visitors vary.

The literature on disability and accessibility in the library has been noted as being predominately United States focused and largely centred around visual disabilities (Burns & Gordon, 2010; Hill, 2013). While there is a literature base on accessibility and libraries in Australia, the University of Sydney’s ‘Report of Audit of Disability Research in Australia’ (2014, 2017) notes that there are research gaps. This includes an absence of the voices and lived experiences by people with a disability, families and carers to policy critiques; a likely under-reporting on mental health policy including disability; and a limited focus on acquired brain injuries and physical disability.

In addition to being a signatory to the Convention on the Rights of People with Disabilities (2006), Australia has both federal and state/territory Acts that outline the rights of people with a disability. These include the Disability Discrimination Act ([DDA], 1992), National Disability Insurance Scheme Act (2013), and the Equal Opportunity Act (2010) (Vic). However, while these Acts provide overarching legislation that guides the public sphere, these Acts do not directly refer to libraries (Fitzgerald, Hawkins, Denison, & Kop, 2015). To help libraries to ensure an equalised minimum level of service is provided, ALIA (1998) developed the Guidelines on Library Standards for People with a Disability. However, these Guidelines are best practice; not compulsory.

Council plans can step into this gap, providing guidance on accessibility and public libraries in a more legislative way. Councils are the closest form of government to the community (The State of Victoria, 2015), providing for the everyday needs of society such as public recreational facilities, health and community services and town planning (Australian Government, n.d.). Public libraries in Australia receive funding from local councils and may receive contributions from state or territory governments (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2006; Freedom of Access to Information and Resources, n.d.). As funding bodies and providers, councils and libraries work closely together to provide library facilities and services to their communities (State Government of Victoria, 2019).

Public libraries may be owned and operated by a single council or through a regional library corporation (RLC) of at least two councils (Victorian Auditor-General’s Office [VAGO], 2019). In Victoria, an RLC operates similarly to a council, with its restrictions and requirements set out under the Local Government Act (1989) (Vic). This Act specifies that councils and RLC must prepare and approve a plan within six months after each general election or by the 30 June. These plans describe the objectives and strategies to be implemented by the council or RLC over a multi-year period.

While few Acts make direct reference to libraries, some legislation does more clearly outline expectations on public services such as councils. Under the Disability Act (2006) (Vic), councils are required to either create a disability action plan or discuss accessibility as part of their council plan. Disability action plans can be created by private enterprises, education facilities, community services or businesses. Referred to as Accessibility Action Plans (AAP) by the Australian Network on Disability (2019) and used here, AAP are an 'outward sign of an organisation's intention to eliminate discrimination (Australian Network on Disability, 2019) and identify how the organisation is working to make its products, services or workplace accessible to people with a disability. As formal documents, AAP can be lodged with the Australian Human Rights Commission (n.d.a).

Disability action plans can be created by private enterprises, education facilities, community services or businesses. Disability action plans work as an ‘outward sign of an organisation’s intention to eliminate discrimination’ (Australian Network on Disability, 2019). Referred to as Accessibility Action Plans (AAP) by the Australian Network on Disability (2019) and used here, AAP outline how an organisation is working to make its products, services or workplace accessible to people with a disability. As formal documents, AAP can be lodged with the Australian Human Rights Commission (n.d.a).

The development of AAP has benefits for organisations and for people with and without disabilities. As noted by the Human Rights Commission, developing an AAP enhances corporate image; it is a proactive way to approach disability discrimination and accessibility compliance. AAP help to conceptualise how disability access and inclusion is planned for and strategized by the organisation. As outwards facing documents, they help the community to understand the organisation’s priority areas around inclusion and accessibility and over a several-year period.

As council and RLC are the closest forms of government to their communities, their AAP have the potential to impact directly on services that the community engages with. The discoverability of these plans contributes to an understanding and awareness of how councils, or RLC, are addressing accessibility in their service provision. Yet even if an AAP is discoverable, if it defines disability too narrowly it risks missing the needs of people with different disabilities. As such, while AAP can represent a proactive and positive step towards accessibility, it is important to also look at their contents.

This study approached these AAP with three research questions: ‘Do conceptualisations of disability in council or RLC AAP match with the established United States and Australian accessibility and libraries literature?’; and ‘What do council and RLC AAP see as action areas for libraries working with people with a disability?’. A third question was established as ‘How accessible are council or RLC AAP to an online user using Google?’.

Methodology

To manage the scope of the project, the search was limited to Victorian public libraries funded by a single council or RLC. Specialist libraries such as Vision Australia, the Mechanist Association of Victoria and the State Library of Victoria were excluded from this project. Library names were determined from the Directory of Public Libraries in Victoria (Public Libraries Victoria Network, 2019), with 47 councils or RLC meeting the inclusion criteria for searching. The titles of two RLC AAP known to the primary author were manually text-mined for keywords. From this, the keywords ‘inclusion’, ‘access’ and ‘disability’ were included in the search.

The search was conducted solely online. This was as Australian government sites, such as for councils or RLC, are heavily regulated; as such the information found may be assumed to be generally reliable (State Library of Victoria, 2016). Government websites are also mandated under the DDA to provide goods and services in an equal way to all people, regardless of disability or ability (Vision Australia, 2018). As the most popular internet search engine globally is Google, with a 75 per cent share of the market (Davies, 2018), the authors used Google as the search engine for the search.

The search was undertaken in three parts. The first and second part run from 7 June to 14 June 2019. For the first part, four searches were run on Google using the established list of councils and RLC from the Directory of Public Libraries in Victoria (Table 1):

For the second part, council and RLC websites were manually searched under the categories of ‘About Us’, ‘Publications’, ‘Plans’, ‘Policies’, ‘Guidelines’ or ‘Strategies’. An additional, all of website search was also run using the keywords ‘disability’, ‘inclusion’ or ‘access’. The third part of the search was undertaken on the 1 and 2 September 2019, with councils and RLC names searched on the Register of Disability Discrimination Action Plans (Australian Human Rights Commission, n.d.b.).

Where a council provided library services as part of an RLC but had a council AAP, the council AAP was not included in analysis. This is as an RLC consists of two or more councils, so it was not clear which AAP the RLC would use. Two RLC AAP were discovered through the search strategy. In total, 31 AAP were gathered for analysis out of a potential 47, consisting of 29 (93%) council AAP and two RLC AAP (7%).

The primary author analysed these documents using qualitative and quantitative techniques outlined by Shenton (2013). AAP were treated as transcripts, with concepts and themes emerging from the AAP and quotations included in the results and discussion. Frequency counts were also noted for terms or concepts related to the research questions. Themes were identified both inductively and deductively through manual document analysis and word frequency checks using NVivo 12 Pro.

Results

There are 79 councils in Victoria, with each council providing a library service either individually or as part of an RLC. According to the Directory of Public Libraries in Victoria, most are managed by a single council (35), with a minority (12) managed by an RLC of two or more councils. Most of these single-council libraries (22 of 35, 63%) are grouped around the Melbourne or Greater Melbourne area, extending from Wyndham to Hume, through to the Mornington Peninsula. Eight out of 12 RLC (66%) are outside the Melbourne or Greater Melbourne zone. While the dataset was biased towards council AAP, the collected AAP covered rural, regional, suburban and metro areas in Victoria.

The earliest AAP was created in 2000; the most recent was created in 2019. The median duration across all AAP was three years. Two AAP had an extended duration of six years; one of these had an end date of 2024. Of the 31 AAP gathered for analysis, 15 (48%) were found to be current – that is, the stated date range had not expired, and they were not noted as being in draft form. Both RLC AAP (2 out of 2, 100%) were outdated or in draft status. No current RLC AAP were discovered for analysis (Table 2).

The average length was 27 pages, varying from three to 97 pages. Some AAP included other diversity groups (such as CALD groups, older people or youths). AAP generally included a statement establishing how the AAP reflected values around accessibility or inclusion (such as ‘commitment to and success in ensuring our community is inclusive and accessible for everyone’). These statements could be quite brief or an extensive multi-page overview featuring voices and images of people with a disability or other diversity groups in the community.

Just under half of the gathered AAP (13 out of 31, 42%) detailed how consultation had occurred. Of the AAP which specified a survey had been used, five AAP noted that they had used an online survey as part of this consultation (Table 3). It is unclear whether the other seven AAP which mentioned surveys also included an online survey, or if any of the other methods of consultation were undertaken online:

Discussion

Of the 31 collected AAP, 24 (77%) specified they were created with community consultation. These AAP may have used multiple forms of consultation or included multiple groups of community members. While not every AAP specified who this community included, of those which did, this included (Table 4):

It is unclear whether the remaining AAP had undertaken community consultation and had simply not discussed this or whether these AAP had been completed without community consultation.

Twenty-one specified that the AAP fulfilled obligations under the Disability Act (2006). An additional three AAP specified that they were created in accordance with the DDA. Of the 31 collected AAP, 21 (67%) provided an overview of their community disability demographics. Eleven AAP linked an ageing population with a potential increase in disability in the community (such as ‘the link between ageing and disability, coupled with [an] ageing population, suggests that the proportion of residents with disabilities in the future will increase’). Eleven reported a high disability rate in their community or a rate higher than the Victorian or Melbourne average (such as ‘one of the top … areas in Victoria supporting residents with a disability’). Nine AAP noted there had been an increase in support needs in their community (such as ‘within all age groups under 75 years, the percentage of residents who require assistance has increased since 2011’).

The accessibility and libraries literature is predominately United States focused and largely centred on visual disabilities (Hill, 2013). The University of Sydney’s Report (2017) notes that there is a limited focus on acquired brain injuries and physical disabilities in Australian disability research, and a likely under-reporting on mental health policy encompassing disability. In addition, research by Kaeding (2015) and Kaeding, Velasquez and Price (2017) indicates that libraries need to plan for the needs of people with autism - particularly children. This is supported by the prevalence variation of autism in Australia, with an increase of 42.1 per cent in the number of people with autism between 2012 and 2015 (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2017)2013.

The first research question was established as ‘Do conceptualisations of disability in council or RLC AAP match with the established United States and Australian accessibility and libraries literature?’. The gathered council and RLC AAP were analysed for reference to four disability categories: physical disabilities, mental health, autism (including Asperger’s) and visual or sensory disabilities.

Not every AAP defined what disability was. This could indicate an awareness amongst council and RLC AAP that disability is an individual experience, being broad and varied. Alternatively, this could indicate that while councils and RLC understood that disability was varied, they did not conceptualise the full extent of disability and assumed that this category was well understood by readers. Lastly, it could simply be that council and RLC AAP were conceptualised as being inclusive of all disabilities, without types of disability needing to be mentioned.

Of the 31 gathered AAP, 20 AAP (64%) defined disability as including hearing or visual disabilities, or had actions relating to sensory disabilities (such as ‘provide access to materials and information to support people who are deaf or hearing-impaired’). A majority of AAP (27, 87%) described disability as including physical disabilities or established goals around physical accessibility (such as ‘increase and improve physical access to Council’s services, facilities’ or ‘better physical access, such as accessible parking’). A further 24 AAP (77%) defined disability as including mental health or had actions related to mental health (such as ‘capture, promote and advocate for locally delivered and accessed mental health services’).

In comparison, autism was seldom mentioned in council or RLC AAP. Seven AAP (22%) defined disability as including autism or had actions related to providing services or facilities for people with autism (such as ‘quiet room for children with autism’). Given the prevalence of autism in Australia, it is of interest that more council or RLC AAP did not have action plans relating to people with autism in their community. Was this reflective of a low participation rate of people with autism in the creation of AAP or reflective of the community consultation process? Or were the needs of people with autism seen as being included in the other action items? The AAP are unclear on these points.

Library Action Areas

Libraries deliver a range of services to their communities, yet not all councils link their library services to the achievement of overall council objectives (VAGO, 2019). Of the gathered AAP, 22 council AAP and two RLC AAP referred to the library (24 out of 31 in total or 77%). References varied from stating the library was a collection point for surveys (such as ‘we asked residents to complete a survey, which was available … [at] libraries’), through to action plans around accessibility and the library.

The second research question was established as: ‘What do council and RLC AAP see as action areas for libraries working with people with a disability?’. Excepting mentions of the library as a survey collection point, library action items fitted into six broad categories (Access, Certification, Collections, Programming, Technology, Training). The underlying theme across these categories was the concept of customer experience or ‘Customer Service’ (Figures 1).

Figure 1. Action areas for libraries in council and RLC AAP.

Each category had a high degree of crossover. The category of Access included access to and within the physical space (adjustable height desks), access to information (quiet or sensory times, opening hours) and access to services (hearing loops or interpreters). Access to toilets was also mentioned, both as an access issue for all of council (‘progressively update toilets to meet accessible requirements’) and in connection with Certification.

Certification for libraries included Communication Access (such as ‘support Customer Service and Library Services to become “Communication Accessible” for people with communication support needs’); and Recharge Points (‘continue to expand and promote the electric scooter and wheelchair Recharge Program in Council and community sites including libraries’). Communication Access endorsement provides a visual indicator that the organisation can communicate successfully with people with communication difficulties (Scope, n.d.). The Recharge Point scheme aims to create more accessible communities by accrediting locations where people can safely recharge an electric scooter or wheelchair (Recharge Scheme Australia, 2016). While some AAP had action plans around Changing Places facilities, these weren’t always in relation to libraries but were whole of council (‘Investigate feasibility of a Changing Places sanitary facility’). Changing Places advocates for public toilets to contain a full-size change table and hoists to meet the needs of people with severe or profound disabilities in being in the community (Changing Places, n.d.). Mention of Assistance Animal Welcome signage was rare, with only one library noting this (‘utilising and displaying “Assistance Animal Welcome” Stickers at branch libraries’).

Collections included providing large print and building specialised collection areas such as Braille books, dyslexia books and easy to read adult material. While both council and RLC AAP had collection-related items, the RLC AAP were more in-depth and included items such as Braille embosser machines; accessible options for self-checkout (‘installation of new accessible selfcheckout systems including low height accessible counter’); and accessible book return options (‘accessible height book return chutes’).

Programming included the creation and output of communications around existing events and tailored programming for people with a disability. AAP noted that communication needed to include online communications through newsletters, emails and social media, and by reaching out beyond the library to community centres and other points. Tailored programming included partnering with local groups or external providers and in developing non-traditional sessions to enrich social capital; such as food swaps and book clubs or Auslan story time sessions.

Technology included assistive technologies (‘investigate acquiring library-based adaptive equipment that could include portable counter hearing loops, screen readers, magnifying equipment, adaptive technologies’); to exploring low-fi access solutions such as communication boards; to reviewing the council or library’s online presence, including website standards and communication of diversity programs (‘Disability Services webpage has links to information on the diversity of programs, activities and events provided by the [council] with a particular focus on Leisure, Libraries and Events’, ‘review website and digital accessibility of the [library service] website and intranet to ensure that this meets WCAG accessibility’).

Training explored educational opportunities for staff and for community. AAP noted goals for libraries in training communities via programs, events or sessions (‘provide annual training to library users about the adaptive equipment available to people with a disability at appropriate sites’); to providing training to library staff in the use of assistive or adaptive technologies; to providing generalised training in disability confidence without specifying how, or what, this training would involve or cover.

Conclusion

It is important to note that the impression of an organisation that emerges from document analysis may not reflect practice (Shenton, 2013). These AAP were not created for this analysis but to inform readers more generally around how the council or RLC is planning for disability accessibility into the future. This means that there is a chance that the information within these documents may become inaccurate as work practices change, without the underlying document or policy itself changing.

Further, with 29 out of the 31 gathered AAP being council AAP, the dataset is biased. It is unclear why more RLC AAP were not discovered during the search process. Did other RLC AAP use varied terminology or did the RLC discuss accessibility as part of their library plan rather than in a distinct AAP? Alternatively, were RLC AAP not available online? If the latter, it is worth considering how accessible these AAP might be. If people need to ask to receive information on accessibility and inclusion or visit a service point, is this information truly accessible and inclusive?

Lastly, while 21 out of 31 AAP mentioned the library, there was a difference in the types of action goals listed by council and RLC. Council action goals centred around having collections in a variety of formats, having an accessible building, advertising a Recharge Point or undertaking training. These are important. However, the RLC AAP furthered these goals by presenting actions relating specifically to library services. This included accessible book chutes and self-checkout units. RLC AAP furthered the goals established in the council AAP to consider, ‘what next for us?’.

It may be that other RLC AAP are not as detailed as the two RLC AAP gathered for analysis. Yet, if they are, library AAP may provide an opportunity to develop a plan that is tailored to the needs of the library as an entity, and to the community as potential or actual library users. From this, while council AAP may be seen as benchmarking a minimum level of service, there are grounds to argue that council AAP should be seen as a starting point in the accessibility conversation – not the end. Public libraries may ask, ‘are library staff involved in the creation of council AAP?’. Of the 31 AAP gathered, just over half (18, 58%) specified that they had engaged with council staff in the creation of these documents. It is unclear whether this broad category of ‘council staff’ included library staff, and if so, to what extent.

ALIA (1998, 2019) has called for library services to plan for services for people with a disability. Due to staffing, budgets or contractual agreements, it may not be possible for public libraries to develop their own comprehensive AAP. However, that need not be the end of the accessibility conversation. By sharing AAP online, libraries and councils can contribute to a wider understanding of how services can plan for accessibility needs in their communities. Could this then influence the questions asked on library community surveys? Are there other needs in the community that have not yet been addressed?This ties back to the concept of the ‘future library’. This nebulous concept is influenced, shaped, and enacted by the planning and foundations of the library of today - and yet libraries and librarians are not yet constrained over what the ‘future library’ should be. Librarianship is a profession of potential. What will the future libraries of Australia to look like, and plan for, around accessibility and inclusion?

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to thank the volunteers who provided helpful comments on previous versions of this document.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Rebecca Muir

Rebecca Muir is a current Doctoral Candidate with the School of Information Studies, Charles Sturt University, and is the campus librarian at a regional university campus. Her research focuses on diversity and inclusivity in the library, from the job advertisement through to the atmosphere and space. In her spare time she enjoys sewing historical gowns and attempting to knit (Twitter: Yeoldebook; Facebook: bec.muir.31; Instagram: morethanisfitting).

Mary Carroll

Mary Carroll is an Associate Professor and the Course Director in the Faculty of Arts and Education at Charles Sturt University. Her responsibilities include meeting the needs of students in the school and taking a lead role in the Bachelor of Information Studies and Master of Information Studies degrees. She is former vice-president of the Australian and New Zealand History of Education Society (ANZHES), co-convenor of the Australian Library History Forum and an Associate of ALIA.