View Project

G2S Project Code: 2016-OR-78304
State: Oregon
Fiscal Year: 2016
Grantee
State Library of Oregon

Project Director
Director Name: Susan Westin
Director Phone: 503-378-5435
Director Email: susan.b.westin@state.or.us
General Information
Title: LSTA 2013-2017 Five-Year Plan Evaluation
State Project Code: LSTA5YR16
Start Date: 07/01/2016
End Date: 06/30/2017
Abstract: A consulting firm was hired to evaluate the State Library of Oregon's 2013-2017 LSTA Five-Year Plan. The resulting evaluation, based on Institute of Museum and Library Services requirements, focused on the following statewide programs: Oregon School Library Information System (OSLIS); Statewide Database Licensing Program (SDLP); Continuing Education projects; Answerland, a statewide virtual reference service; Youth Services; and Competitive Grants. The resulting report summarized key conclusions from the evaluation process, which included focus groups, interviews, and a survey of documents.
State Goal: 3. Develop a culture in libraries that promote evaluation and use of evaluation results
Budget Information
LSTA
MATCH-State
MATCH-Other
Total
$29,927.20
$0.00
$0.00
$29,927.20
Intent(s)
Improve the library workforce.
Other
Activities
Activity Details
Title: LSTA Five-Year Plan Evaulation
Narrative: The Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS), the federal agency responsible for implementing the Library Services and Technology Act (LSTA), requires state recipients to conduct an independent evaluation of programs funded with grant funds. The State Library of Oregon is the state agency that manages LSTA in Oregon, and they engaged The Consulting Librarians Group (CLG) to conduct the evaluation.

Intent: Improve the library workforce.

Activity: Planning & Evaluation
Mode: Retrospective
Format: Third party


Quantity
Number of evaluations and/or plans funded: 1
Number of funded evaluation and/or plans completed: 1


Partner Information
Organization Type of Partner Organization(s):
Libraries: No
Historical Societies or Organizations: No
Museums: No
Archives: No
Cultural Heritage Organization Multi-type: No
Preschools: No
Schools: No
Adult Education: No
Human Service Organizations: No
Other: No


Legal Type of Partner Organization(s):
Federal Government: No
State Government: No
Local Government (excluding school districts): No
School District: No
Non-Profit: No
Private Sector: No
Tribe/Native Hawaiian Organization: No


Beneficiaries
Is the activity directed at the library workforce: Yes
For a targeted group or for the general population: General


Locale
Is the activity state-wide: Yes
Specific Locations: No
Library Types
Public Libraries: 134
Academic Libraries: 50
SLAA: 1
Consortia: 8
Special Libraries: 18
School Libraries: 1532
Other: 14
Question 1: I believe the planning and evaluation addresses library needs.
Strongly Agree: 0
Agree: 0
Neither Agree nor Disagree: 0
Disagree: 0
Strongly Disagree: 0
Non-Response: 0
Question 2: I am satisfied with the extent to which the plan or evaluation addresses library needs.
Strongly Agree: 0
Agree: 0
Neither Agree nor Disagree: 0
Disagree: 0
Strongly Disagree: 0
Non-Response: 0
Question 3: I believe the information from the plan or evaluation will be applied to address library needs.
Strongly Agree: 0
Agree: 0
Neither Agree nor Disagree: 0
Disagree: 0
Strongly Disagree: 0
Non-Response: 0
Project Outcomes
Project Outcomes
List any important outcomes or findings not previously reported:
The evaluation reported in detail on several concrete findings and recommendations to improve the Library Services and Technology Act program in Oregon. While the State Library of Oregon has made good progress during this period in implementing outcomes-based evaluation models, areas of improvement included more consistent continuing education efforts, lowering barriers to the competitive grants program, and aligning the goals the Statewide Database Licensing Program, Answerland virtual reference program, and the Oregon School Library Information System.
Please briefly describe the importance of these outcomes and findings for future program planning:
One of the key findings was that the State Library should work on improving communications with their LSTA Advisory Council, as well as creating a more systemic approach to continuing education.
Explain one or two of the most significant lessons learned for others wanting to adopt any facets of this project:
The evaluation process for each LSTA five-year plan is extremely helpful for the State Library in identifying strengths as reported by the Oregon library community, as well as pointing out opportunities to improve programs and services statewide.
Do you anticipate continuing this project after the current reporting period ends:
No
Do you anticipate any change in level of effort in managing this project:
No
Explain:

Do you anticipate changing the types of activities and objectives addressed by the project:
No
Explain:

Was an evaluation conducted for this project:
No
Was a final written evaluation report produced:
No
Can the final written evaluation report be shared publicly on the IMLS website:
No
Was the evaluation conducted by project staff (either SLAA or local library) or by a third-party evaluator:
Third-Party
What data collection tools were used for any report outcomes and outputs:
Did you collect any media for the data:
What types of methods were used to analyze collected data:
Other:
How were participants (or items) selected:
What type of research design did you use to compare the value for any reported output or outcome:
Exemplary: No
Exemplary Narrative
Project Tags: LSTA, evaulation