|
In a society as incredibly diverse and stratified as our own, librarians must be able to seamlessly accommodate and adapt
to an array of demands from library users. Although libraries must develop, maintain, and evaluate services with the “general”
and undifferentiated library user in mind, the specific and special needs of potential and actual service populations must
also be considered. Indeed, the general and specific approaches are not necessarily exclusive; many of the traditions of
practice common to general reference service can form the foundation of services to special user groups. As Bopp and Smith
(2004) write, “service to any one group is a microcosm of general reference service . . . the basics of reference service
are present, and the task is to adapt good reference skills and collections to serve each group” (pp. 9-10). Thus, on the
one hand, the method of adaptation may be just as much a matter of the style of service delivery as of the substance of the service itself. On the other hand, it may be necessary as well as desirable
for libraries to implement alternative, additional programs and policies for particular user groups.
The homeless population of the
Given the fact that the library might be one of the few freely accessible and secure spaces in an urban - or even rural -
setting, it stands to reason that homeless individuals will enter it and make use of its resources and services. Any library
that is open to the general public, whether public, academic, or otherwise, can and should expect to be utilized by homeless
library users. Certainly, if the intensity of discussion in the literature of the field is any indication of the actual use
of libraries by the homeless, then the special challenges posed by the matter deserve our attention.
Unfortunately, a major and persistent theme to be found in the relevant literature is that of the homeless library user as “problem patron,” an unhelpfully reductionistic categorization that colors the entire discussion (Simmons, 1985). The conflationary
assumption that the homeless patron is invariably a “problem” patron is flawed on many levels. First, it is generally unclear
as to how the condition of “homelessness” is to be ascertained from what are likely to be limited observations on the part
of the librarian (Hersberger, 2005). Second, it is simply a leap of logic to assert that homelessness automatically translates
into “problem” behavior, whether criminal, disruptive, or merely irritating. Third, and perhaps most importantly, the automatic
classification of the homeless user as a problem patron inevitably and unfairly focuses our concern on the patron, rather than on the matter of the problem. A failure to distinguish between an individual and his or her actions, along with a tendency to equate socio-economic status
with deviant or criminal behavior, could conceivably combine to create an environment in which homeless users may be over-policed
while the same behavior by other users may be ignored.
Indeed, a report from the Hunger, Homelessness, and Poverty Task Force of the American Library Association’s Social Responsibility
Round Table (2005) reveals that one public library has even launched a “civility campaign” specifically targeted towards homeless
users. Such initiatives raise a number of thorny legal and even moral issues. In the well-known 1992 Kreimer case, the Morristown Public Library’s code of conduct was ruled as unconstitutional after it had been employed to bar a homeless
patron. Accordingly, regulations against problem behavior should be clearly articulated, equally enforced, and visible to
users (Murphy, 1999). Anyone in a library, including staff, can exhibit problem behavior. Julie Hersberger (2005), who has
researched and written about the homeless and libraries extensively, reminds us that “inappropriate behavior is a legitimate
reason for asking a user to leave the library, but this is a separate issue from the user’s social status.”
Once the issue of the “problem patron” is transcended, however, the discussion can progress to a far more fruitful consideration
of the actual needs of the homeless library user. Again, the work of Hersberger (2005) is quite instructive in this regard
when she notes that “difficulty arises when the concept of ‘use’ is interpreted more broadly.” In order to address this more
expansive concept of use, it may be helpful to think of homeless library users as having three related but distinct levels
of need when using the library: (1) basic needs, or the need for access to shelter, space, and amenities; (2) general needs, or the array of needs typical to any given user of traditional library services and resources; and (3) special needs, or those which are best met by additional and alternative services and resources.1 At the level of basic need, the homeless user seeks out the library as a secure environment, a relatively safe space that provides some measure
of protection from both the elements and the dangers of the street. Furniture and seating areas offer a chance to sit and
rest. Moreover, the library also provides access to restrooms and limited access to water through water fountains and sinks.
Without recourse to the basic facilities of an average dwelling, the homeless quite understandably search for substitutes
in freely accessible settings. In some cases, the homeless and homeless advocates have requested that public libraries be
built or redesigned to include “hygiene centers”, but these demands have been consistently rebuffed and redirected (Grace,
2003, pp. 53-55). Any library that is open to the public and receives a high level of usage from homeless users should consider
this level of need and corresponding service in its policies and resources.
At the second level of general needs, the homeless user, in terms of his or her relationship to the library, is indistinguishable from the general user.
The homeless have the same desires for information and knowledge as anyone else. Newspapers, books, media materials, internet
and computer access, reference assistance, library instruction – these are all resources that may be requested by the homeless.
When addressing the general needs of the homeless, it is especially important to consider the behavioral approach of the librarian
or staff persons. According to Hersberger (2005), many studies of homeless library usage have shown that the homeless are
“very sensitive to a feeling of ‘unworthiness’ in the perception of the information provider” (p. 200). Many authors have
pointed to staff training and education as potential solutions to the problem of “attitude,” and they should be seriously
pursued at those libraries in which homeless users are frequent and prevalent (Murphy, 1999, p. 57).
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, library services for the homeless must take into account the special needs and challenges presented by the living conditions of their homeless users. Chief among the varied needs of homeless
users is the need for social service information. “Everyday life of homeless parents living in shelters in the
The early 1990s witnessed another form of information service to the disadvantaged, commonly called “community networks”.
Often primarily or partially hosted in public libraries, these municipal initiatives consist of electronic bulletin boards,
free email accounts, and interactive chat capabilities through which users can learn about and communicate with a multiplicity
of local service providers. The Public Electronic Network Project of Santa Monica, California, for example, successfully
“revealed that communication via an electronic networking system can partly overcome the effects of socioeconomic status differences,
physical appearance, and social network distance” (Rogers, Collins-Jarvis, & Schmitz, 1994, p. 409). In addition to these
information and communication resources, at least one large urban public library offers a “referral/counseling room” for the
homeless, and some librarians have even suggested staffing the library with on-site social workers (Miller-Huey, 1994, p.
33; Murphy, 1999).
Moreover, the transient and dislocated nature of homelessness also gives shape and form to the special needs of this user
population. For example, even if a reference librarian is able to recommend or locate a circulating resource, such as a book
or videotape, library users are normally not issued library cards and borrowing accounts without proof of a residential address.
Many of the large urban public libraries across the country have responded to this problem by collaborating with area shelters
and social service agencies (Miller-Huey, 1994, p. 33). The San Francisco Public Library’s laudable program is an innovative
and successful example of such an arrangement. Formed in response to the articulated needs of homeless users who wished to
circulate library materials, a committee composed of library administrators, social service providers, municipal officials,
homeless advocates, and homeless users proposed a pilot service in which six-month, renewable cards were issued to users whose
“residence” could be confirmed on the letterhead of participating homeless service providers. A statistical comparison of
circulation data recorded in the first and second halves of 1990 revealed that the delinquency rate dropped by 62% (circulation
increased, while the number of unreturned items decreased). In fact, a third of the 195 cards issued were never used, and
the “fiscal risk, although higher than average, was acceptable and dropping” (Landgraf, 1991).
Many researchers and practitioners have also called for outreach services to locations where the homeless congregate. Hersberger
(1999) argues that the “best outreach programs would be those focusing on a homeless subgroup [such as children, parents,
the mentally ill, veterans, etc.], examining their specific needs, and provided in a place most convenient to the user” (pp.8-12).
She goes on to discuss a range of ideas and projects to be pursued, including bookmobile service, in-house library instruction,
reference assistance, literacy training, computer literacy efforts, circulating mini-collections, book deposits, and internet
access. Although she celebrates the value of these special services, she also cautions librarians to refrain from using outreach
as a way to distance the homeless or deny them use of the library’s regular resources, stating, “A wire rack of paperbacks
in a mission is not a substitute for the full range of services offered in the library” (pp.8-12). Moreover, the planning
and evaluation of a given library’s homeless outreach services should always include as many of the “interested or invested
parties” as possible, especially the homeless themselves (Hersberger, 1999).
Ultimately, regardless of the exigencies of the library’s conditions and the extent and nature of the homeless user population,
librarians can look to their fellow practitioners and professional organizations for guidance and inspiration. The American
Library Association’s (2006) policy on “Library Services to the Poor” (Policy 61) is clear in its emphasis on service and
the social role of the library in a democracy:
“The American Library Association promotes equal access to information for all persons, and recognizes the urgent need to
respond to the increasing number of poor children, adults, and families in
While the above document sets forth a clear commitment to democratic and egalitarian principles, the Hunger, Homelessness,
and Poverty Task Force of the
A provocative but grounded set of questions similar to these could provide the framework for a critical examination of local
services and policies, as well as an opportunity to formulate creative and meaningful approaches to address the particular
challenges of serving the homeless.
A more thorough and consistent approach suggested by such a framework, however, will undoubtedly meet resistance by those
who argue for a “pure and simple” librarianship which denies the legitimacy of any service beyond the boundaries of the supposedly
“traditional.” Nonetheless, a sincere adherence to the profession’s values of public service must recognize that the “public”
is an incredibly diverse and stratified social entity. A far more useful categorization of services as general and specific,
rather than as “traditional” and “non-traditional,” helps to emphasize and clarify this broad commitment. While it is incumbent
upon libraries and librarians to constantly strive to meet the needs of all of their actual and potential user populations,
it is also equally important to develop programs and services that are sensitive to the particular, distinct needs of special
user populations such as the homeless. In the final analysis, there is no better test of the profession’s dedication to equal
and democratic public service than the extent to which the needs of the “least among us” are recognized and fulfilled.
1 These three levels of need should be conceptualized horizontally, as simultaneous and integrated, and not in any order of
importance, nor as operating within a Maslowian “hierarchy of needs” model.
Bibliography American Library Association. (2006). 61. Library services for the poor. Retrieved April 27, 2006, from http://www.ala.org/ala/ourassociation/governingdocs/policymanual/servicespoor.htm American Library Association Hunger, Homelessness, and Poverty Task Force. (2005). Are public libraries criminalizing poor
people? Public Libraries 44 (3), 175.
Bopp, R. E., & Smith, L. C. (2004). Reference and information services: An introduction, third edition.
Grace, P. (2000). No place to go (except the public library). American Libraries 31 (5), 53-5.
Hersberger, J. (1999). The homeless, public libraries, and outreach services.
Hersberger, J. (2002/2003). Are the economically poor information poor? Does the digital divide affect the homeless and
access to information? Canadian Journal of Information and Library Science 27 (3), 45-63.
Hersberger, J. (2005). The homeless and information needs and services. Reference & User Services Quarterly 44 (3), 199-202.
Landgraf, M. N. (1991). Library cards for the homeless. American Libraries 22 (10), 946-949. Miller-Huey, C. P. (1994). “Brother, can you spare a dime?”: Homeless patrons and public libraries.
Murphy, J. (1999). When the rights of the many outweigh the rights of the few: The “legitimate” versus the homeless patron
in the public library. Current Studies in Librarianship 23 (1/2), 50-60.
National Coalition for the Homeless. (September 2005). How many people experience homelessness? Retrieved April 27, 2006,
from http://www.nationalhomeless.org/publications/facts/How_Many.pdf
Simmons, R. C. (1985). The homeless in the public library: Implications for access to libraries. Reference Quarterly 25 (1), 110-120.
Return to the Post-Tracks Overview page.
|
Documents
| Finding a Home in the Library: Services for the Homeless |
This paper provides a cohesive background on library responses to homeless users and a framework for developing better library services to this population.
|
|
Contribute to this topic
Do you have an article, presentation, or other content to share on this topic?
You can post it on this topic page. Find out more about submitting documents in the Member Center.
Ratings You must be signed in to rate this item
|
Average (0 Votes)
|
Comments