Tel: 925/283-0970 · Fax: 925/283-2053 · Email: agold@ccnet.com

STUDY BACKGROUND *

COUNTY LAW LIBRARY BACKGROUND *

RECOMMENDATIONS *

KEY FINDINGS – REFERRAL AGENCY SURVEY *

KEY FINDINGS – LAW LIBRARY SURVEY *

KEY FINDINGS – FOCUS GROUPS *

In the fall of 2000 the Council of California County Law Librarians contracted for consultant services to perform a legal information needs assessment for the County Law Libraries. The purpose of the study was to assist key legal information providers in the State of California to assess the new environment for legal information needs and develop a strategic plan to most effectively meet those rapidly changing needs, while at the same addressing issues of reducing funding. The needs assessment included three data collection elements:

• A survey of agencies that refer clients and customers to County Law Libraries
• An in depth survey of all 58 County Law Libraries
• Focus groups with law library users and non-users

as well as a review of background information about the operations and use of county law libraries. The specific findings for the Referral Agency Survey, the County Law Library Survey and the Focus Groups are included below.

There are fifty-eight county law libraries serving the people of California. These law libraries operate under California Business & Professions Code sections 6300-6365 and are mandated to provide the people of California access to legal materials. Ninety percent of income for county law libraries comes from civil court filing fees. These fees vary from county to county. In recent years income from filing fees has decreased making it difficult for some counties to be served adequately. Total income for the libraries is the same in actual dollars in FY 1999-2000 as in FY 1991-1992, while the Consumer Price Index rose 21 percent and the Law Library Book Price Index rose 59% in the same period.

During the past decade use patterns of the law libraries have also seen significant change as the number of self-help litigants has risen in comparison to the use by members of the legal profession. As an example, according to the Public Services Statistics collected by the Council of California County Law Librarians, a definite pattern of use by non-attorneys emerges for staff mediated use the library.

In the 2000 User Survey Analysis completed by the Council of California County Law Librarians, a slightly different pattern of use appears. However, this pattern includes both staff and customer-mediated use of the library.

This data would indicate that while attorneys continue to make significant use of the libraries, their use is more self-mediated, while the use by non-attorneys tends to be staff-mediated.

Additional data from the User Survey indicates that respondents:

• Use the library while working on a case
• Use the library because information is not available at the office
• Slightly over 1/3 use the library as their primary source of legal information
• The most commonly used resources/services are:

• Law books
• Photocopier
• Reference assistance

• Use the library weekly

At this time the County Law Libraries are at critical juncture in their history. Issues of:

• Compatible use by legal professionals and lay users
• Declining funding sources
• Increasing cost for collection resources
• Inadequate and antiquated facilities
• Access to technology
• Recruitment and retention of qualified staff
• Availability of alternative legal information sources

are the common threads that run throughout the data collected in the study. The role of county law libraries in providing open and equitable access to legal information to the residents of California is in deep jeopardy because of the above issues. On one hand there is the emerging tension between compatible uses by legal professionals and lay users and alternative resource routes particularly for the legal professional contrasted with declining revenues, increasing costs and concerns about staffing.

However, these issues are not the same for all types of law libraries. There are a small number of larger, urban county law libraries that are perceived by their users as critical sources of legal information and in large part, are better funded and used. The next largest group of county law libraries is the primarily suburban county libraries that vary in their use and funding levels. The last group can be characterized as primarily rural county law libraries, many of which have precarious funding levels, stagnant collections, inadequate technology and limited staffing.

In order to successfully address these issues, the county law libraries must clearly identify who their primary customers are, form partnerships with that customer base and demonstrate and deliver high value services for those customers. The issue is the emerging split in the customer base between the legal professional and the lay user. Whatever solutions are sought must take into consideration the needs of both types of customers.

In considering these issues, the following recommendations are made.

1. DEFINE THE CURRENT MISSION AND CUSTOMER BASE FOR COUNTY LAW LIBRARIES.

Because of the historic nature of county law libraries, the original mission and assumed customer base must be re-examined in light of changing user trends and legal information access options. By nature of their public sources of funding, county law libraries must – and should - serve all users. However, these differing types of uses and customers may not be fully compatible. Different types of law libraries, as categorized above, may have differing missions and customer bases. It is not reasonable or necessary to assume that the services and collections of the larger urban county law libraries should or could be replicated in suburban and rural counties. A tiered approach, coupled with enhanced technological access to resources for all libraries and customers, may be one solution.

2. DETERMINE COMPATIBILITY WITH OTHER LEGAL INFORMATION RESOURCES IN CALIFORNIA.

The survey clearly demonstrated that all types of users, and in particular legal professionals, have multiple sources of legal information that they currently use. The overlap in the services and collections of the county law libraries with other resources needs to be determined so that the unique values of county law libraries can be identified. The unique values may differ by type of user so that integrating these findings with the definition of key customer bases is important. Understanding where the law library complements other information resources versus duplicates such sources will be critical to re-defining the role of county law libraries. Duplication should be avoided as much as possible to reserve scarce resources for services and collections truly needed.

3. EXAMINE TECHNOLOGY RELATED OPTIONS FOR EXPANSION OF SERVICES AND COLLECTIONS

Both customers and libraries expressed strong preferences for better access to digital resources, including offsite access to such resources. By examining the impact of enhancing access to digital resources and services on the customer base, the libraries may find that their overall value to that customer base increases. It may not be an easy choice to enhance technological access at the expense of hours, print collections or staff, but for certain types of libraries it may provide an alternative route to broader customer use.

4. DETERMINE LONG TERM FACILITY NEEDS.

County law library buildings are in general old and inadequate in terms of space, maintenance and technological access. Current law puts the responsibility on county governments for the housing of county law libraries but potential new plans may impact this based on the report from the Statewide Task Force on Court Facilities. Based on the decisions regarding types of services and collections that should be provided in differing types of counties and for customer bases, minimum expectations for the housing of county law libraries should be considered. Such expectations should take into consideration the impact of digital resources, telecommunications needs and access to physical collections.

5. ESTABLISH CUSTOMER PARTNERSHIPS BASED ON SPECIFIC SERVICE NEEDS.

Partnerships should become the best form of marketing for county law libraries to expand and educate their diverse customer base. Differing customers provide the opportunity to establish multiple partnerships that should enhance the overall services of the library.

For the legal profession customer base, partnerships focused on the unique services for this clientele will be important. As an example, the unique resources of the larger law libraries with their extensive backfile collections should be marketed to this type of customer. For smaller law libraries, extending access to digital resources should be considered.

For the lay user, partnerships with community-based legal assistance organizations should be established as well as the local public libraries. As an example, public libraries indicated a high rate of referral but a low rate of familiarity so forming better partnerships would result in better-focused referrals.

Partnerships for operations purposes can also be explored, particularly for those counties with small and under funded county law libraries. Partnering with other agencies for operational purposes could result in a better use of limited resources.

Statewide, the partnerships that can be established with the assistance of the California State Library and the Library of California should be examined.

6. ASSESS FUTURE FUNDING STRATEGIES BASED ON THE RESULTS OF THE ABOVE RECOMMENDATIONS.

Future funding strategies can only be addressed successfully after the above recommendations are completed. Defining the mission and customer base, reviewing compatibility and overlap with other legal information resources, looking at technology impacts and facility needs and forming strategic partnerships will enable the libraries statewide to clearly identify potential future sources of funding. Decisions about whom the libraries will be serving and how they will serve them will impact both potential funding sources and allocation of overall resources. As an example, if a decision is made to enhance access to digital resources for all county law libraries statewide, a statewide funding source related specifically to library funding might be considered, versus the current county-specific funding sources. It is likely that multiple potential funding sources may be identified, rather than the current single primary funding source. The multiple sources may be focused on the impact to the specific customer type, e.g. services or collections of interest to the lay user could be funded with statewide or local funding sources linked to that type of use.

In order to implement the above recommendations, the Council of California County Law Librarians should leverage its current partnerships to create a working group that will study these issues jointly and create an overall strategic plan for county law libraries statewide. By inviting interested parties such as representatives of other statewide associations such as the State Bar of California, California Judges Association, California Association of Counties combined with representatives of libraries such as the Conference of California County Law Library Trustees and Librarians, the California Library Association, the California State Library, along with representatives of the legislature, the beginnings of a statewide stakeholders group will be formed, all of whom will not only provide valuable input but will also begin to form a stake in the results. An example of a similar working group was the Restructuring California Public Libraries Joint Task Force, formed in 1994 – 1995 that created a series of recommendations on strategic issues for public libraries throughout California in the wake of the severe fiscal downturn of the early 1990’s. Such a task force could be formed under the auspices of the Council, with the support of the State Library, and its work completed within a 12-month timeframe. The charge to the task force would be to implement the above recommendations and develop an overall strategic operating and funding plan for county law libraries.

The survey was released on March 17, 2001 with a requested return date by March 30, 2001. Surveys were sent to the following referral agencies: District Attorney, Bar Association, Public Defenders, Legal Aid Societies, Referral agencies, Law School Libraries, Law Libraries, Public Libraries, Miscellaneous. 534 surveys were mailed out and 234 surveys were returned by mid-April, representing a 43% return rate. Of those completing the survey 23% completed it online. Complete data on the survey is contained in the separate Referral Agency Survey Report.

The survey provided indications of several important trends for County Law Libraries. It appears that there is not high familiarity with or use of law library services. However, that does not diminish potential client referrals. However, few agencies refer clients on an other than occasional basis. When clients are referred, they are referred for research and materials. Agencies that don’t refer clients consider themselves sufficient within their own resources. There is no interest in fee-based services.

• A personal connection with the library is obviously the best referral source.
• Nearly half the respondents indicated personal use and over 60% indicated personal referral.
• It doesn’t matter how they heard about it, they still don’t use it.
• Other than those respondents that noted they use the library personally, it didn’t matter how they heard about it, as use levels remain low.
• Over half of the respondents don’t use the library.
• 30% of all respondents say they have never used the library
• 25% of respondents use it infrequently (more than a year ago)
• District Attorneys and Public Defenders are the most frequent users but even they don’t use it frequently.
• 33% of Public Defenders used the library within the past week/month.
• 25% of District Attorneys used the library within the past month
• They don’t know what the library does.
• Over ¾ of the respondents indicated that they were only somewhat familiar or not familiar with the library.
• Only those respondents who indicated they used the library frequently considered themselves very familiar with the services.
• Use and knowledge don’t impact referral rates.
• 87% of respondents say they refer clients.
• There is actually an inverse correlation between use and referral, e.g. 91% of agencies that never use the library refer clients compared to only 80% of weekly users.
• Public libraries and Court Clerks have the highest referral percentages.
• Personal usage as a source of information about the library appears to actually decrease referral potential.
• Clients are referred for services relating to legal research and legal materials.
• There is not a significant differential by type of library for types of services for which clients are referred.
• Agencies refer clients for all types of services regardless of how familiar they are with the library.
• Agencies don’t refer clients frequently.
• Referrals are not very frequent with about half the agencies indicating that they refer only 1-2 clients per week.
• Public libraries and law libraries indicated that they are most likely to refer clients.
• Those agencies that do not refer clients do not do so because either they own sufficient resources or they know the library will not have the materials needed.
• More staff and more open hours are the only services that have a potential to impact use.
• 27% of the respondents indicated some preference for additional days and/or hours of service.
• 23% of respondents noted a need for more staff assistance.
• Agencies are not interested in paying for services
• 80% of respondents said they were not interested in fee-based services, with no differences noted by type of library, familiarity, source of information, likelihood of referral, or use.

The survey was mailed to all 58 County Law Libraries based on the mailing lists supplied by the Council on February 24, 2001 with responses to be returned by March 16, 2001.

The survey consisted of seven sections:

• Collections
• Staff
• Services
• Technology
• Facilities
• Funding
• General Comments

43 of the 58 County Law Libraries responded to the survey for a response rate of 74%. Comparatively, 37 libraries responded to the 1997/98 California State Library annual statistical survey and 38 libraries responded to the same survey in 1998/99. Complete data on the survey is contained in the separate Law Libraries Survey Report.

The survey results paint a fairly bleak picture of County Law Libraries today, particularly for the smaller suburban and all rural libraries. Funding levels are falling, while at the same time the cost of materials and staff is increasing. While technology has improved access for some libraries, it is not an option for others because of cost and access issues. Buildings are old and not adequate for the needs of modern law libraries.

By survey sections the key findings are as follows:

• County law libraries have traditional print format collections, with access to materials in digital formats a secondary access point.

• Print clearly remains the dominant format but various non-print formats, e.g. CD, licensed databases, Internet, have increased access to the various types of materials.
• Local materials, state and federal materials were most likely to be owned in print with Internet access the secondary format.
• Subject materials and finding tools were most likely to be owned in print with access via CD the secondary format.
• Out of state materials were the least likely type to be owned in print although non-print access via licensed databases and the Internet increased the likelihood of libraries have some access to out of state materials.
• Journals and newspapers were owned by approximately ¾ of the libraries with only a very few having access via the Internet or licensed databases.

• California, Federal and local collections are the strongest collections, mirroring patterns of usage.

• State collections were rated the highest with 100% of the responding libraries giving their state collections either a 4 or 5.
• Federal and local collections were rated at those levels by approximately ¾ of the libraries.
• The lowest rated collections were journals and newspapers, followed closely by out of state collections.

• California and Federal resources are the most heavily used.
• Online resources are the ones most frequently requested that are not available.

• Online resources –Internet, Lexis/Nexis
• Shepard’s – various
• Nolo/self help
• CFR
• CEB
• Martindale-Hubble

• Libraries would add online resources.

• Online resources/Internet access
• Shepard’s- various
• Nolo/self-help
• CEB

• There are essentially equal number of hours of professional, paraprofessional and clerical staff hours available, based on FTE, which reflects the actual number of hours of staff time available.

• 29 of the 43 responding libraries reported having professional staff.
• The range for professional staff was from 0 to 15 with a median of 1; most staff work full time in the position.
• The range for paraprofessional staff was from 0 to 16 with a median of 2; approximately half the staff work full time in the position.
• The range for clerical staff was from 0 to 30 with a median of 1.5; the percentage of time spent doing library work was evenly split.

• Smaller, more rural libraries have staff with duties other than library work.

• 8 libraries, primarily smaller suburban and rural, reported staff having duties to perform other than Law Library duties. Those duties were generally associated with other court-related activities.

• Many libraries that do not have certificated librarians do have staff with some college or graduate degree.

• Nearly half the responding libraries indicated that staff had a college degree, with a slower lower percentage indicating a high school degree.
• The opposite ends of the spectrum – J.D. and AA – both had approximately a quarter responding.

• Staffing levels have not decreased significantly over the past five years and for nearly a quarter of responding libraries, staffing levels have actually increased.

• The same percentage of libraries reported increasing and decreasing staff, while nearly double that number reported no change.
• Very few libraries noted decreasing the number of MLS degree or professional staff.

• Uniformly, the greatest need for staff would appear to be for staff with technology background and skills.

• Customers use the library early in the week during the morning and early afternoon.

• The ends of the week are the busiest days with Monday and Tuesday being the busiest.
• Friday is noted as both busy and not busy so it would appear to be a local pattern, based on local services.
• The middle of the week is definitely the lowest use point, with Wednesday and Thursday rated low for use.
• The mid-morning hours and into the afternoon are the heaviest use times.
• The early morning from 8 –10 has the lowest usage, followed closely by the 4-6 p.m. period.
• Libraries offer reasonable access to telephone and email reference.

• 56% offer email reference
• 95% offer telephone reference
• Most libraries circulate materials, but nearly 50% restrict circulation to attorneys.

• Customers use equipment and ask for computer resources and legal assistance.

• The most heavily used services include copiers, typewriters, Internet access and staff reference assistance.
• Customers ask for more Internet access, word-processing, legal databases and legal assistance
• Libraries would add legal assistance and Internet access.
• Libraries would add Saturday and evening hours

• Technology has made major impacts in libraries, but a gap remains for smaller and more rural libraries, for Internet access, and for the public.

• 35 libraries responded that they had computer terminals for staff (81% of responding libraries)
• Median of 3 computers per library for staff access
• Median of 2 computers per library for staff Internet access
• 28 responded that they had terminals for the public (65% of responding libraries).
• Median of 2 computers per library for public access
• Median of 1 computer per library for public Internet access
• For those libraries that do not offer Internet access, reasons included funding, access/security issues and lack of priority with County.
• Customers use the Internet and CD resources most often and ask for these resources, as well as subscription databases most often; libraries would add subscription databases and more Internet access.

• There has been a major lack of investment in capital projects for the libraries, resulting in significant facility related issues for almost all libraries.
• The median age of the facilities is 43 years old.
• Most renovations took place at least 10 years ago, before many technology issues could be addressed.
• The median square footage is 2,541 with 28 reader seats.
• Only 44% of libraries rated their facilities on the high end of the adequacy scale.
• Fewer than 1/3 of libraries rated their parking as adequate.

• There is opportunity for growth in applying energy efficiency measures.
• Only 2 libraries have applied for any grants for energy conservation and none were received.
• Less than half the libraries responding to the survey indicated any type of energy efficiency measures taken.
• Libraries need more space and more up to date technology access.
• Libraries liked their courthouse locations.
• ADA access is a major issues

• Over half the libraries have 95%+ of their income from filing fees, with over 90% having over 70% of their income from filing fees.
• Nearly 60% have had their filing fee income decrease in the last five years.
• 70% of libraries have had their filing fee income decrease by 10% in the last five years, with an additional 20% experiencing a 25% decrease.
• Nearly all libraries had increased their filing fees, with nearly 70% having 1 or 2 increases.

• Very few libraries offer any type of value-added, fee-based services.

Seventeen focus groups were held throughout the state from May through July 2001. The focus groups were attended by 131 participants, with the number of participants ranging from 2 to 14, with an average of 8 per group. The participants were from 27 different counties; 10 of the focus groups were single county groups and the remaining 7 groups had from 2 to 4 counties represented. . The participants included a broad cross section of users with the variety of affiliations ranging from:

• Law library staff
• Attorneys in private practice
• Attorneys in law firms
• District Attorney
• Public Defender
• Bar Association
• Users/public
• Pro pers
• Paralegals
• Legal Aid
• Court staff
• Law Library trustees
• Public Library staff

Complete information on the focus groups is contained in a separate report Focus Groups Report.

The focus groups presented a mixed picture of use and interest in the services of the law libraries. The themes that dominated the discussions were:

• Use by legal profession versus pro pers
• Increasing use of legal digital resources by attorneys in their own offices versus the law library
• Lack of access due to hours or location

The key findings based on the responses are:

• There is an increasing divide between the usage of the law library by members of the legal profession and lay users or pro pers that is not necessarily seen as compatible by both parties.
• Participants noted an increase in the use of the law library by pro pers and lay users in general but expressed concern about their ability to effectively use the materials therein.
• The need for enhanced collections of self-help materials was noted, but constraints on the materials budget were also noted.
• Use of and familiarity with the resources and service of the law library were high for participants but perceived to be not as high for the general legal and/or lay user populations.
• Participants tended to be users and advocates for the law library; however members of the legal profession commented that their colleagues might not use the library as much.
• Library staff were highly rated, as were staff-mediated services such as telephone reference and fax back service.
• Non-users do not use the law library because of better access to the same or similar resources elsewhere.
• Access to digital resources in personal, firm or corporate libraries affected use.
• The perception was that pro pers and new attorneys used the library more heavily than experienced attorneys or attorneys in law firms.
• Referrals to the law library were generally for self-help types of materials for lay users.
• Attorneys generally referred individuals only for common types of self-help materials.
• Concerns were expressed about language and literacy barriers for referrals, as well as inability to effectively use legal resources by lay users.
• There is a difference between what additional resources and services members of the legal profession and pro pers want.
• More open hours, staff and digital resources are what members of the legal profession want.
• Pro pers want more self-help materials and staff assistance.
• The law library is not necessarily seen as the best source for digital materials and services.
• Participants identified a strong need for better online resources and training classes in how to use online materials.
• Participants noted that they had better access to digital materials in their personal offices and used the library for print materials.
• Funding is seen as a major barrier to better collections and services.
• Those participants who were aware of the primary funding source for law perceived it as a barrier to enhancements.
• Reductions in services and collections have results in reductions in use of the law libraries.
• Users are advocates.
• Participants came to the focus groups to learn and help build better law libraries.
• As advocates, participants were interested in knowing how they could positively influence the future of law libraries.