View Project

G2S Project Code: 2017-OK-79123
State: Oklahoma
Fiscal Year: 2017
Grantee
OKLAHOMA DEPARTMENT OF LIBRARIES

Project Director
Director Name: Cathy Van Hoy
Director Phone: 405-522-3321
Director Email: cathy.vanhoy@libraries.ok.gov
General Information
Title: Network Assessment & Remediation
State Project Code: 171401
Start Date: 10/01/2016
End Date: 09/30/2018
Abstract:
State Goal: Goal 2: Institutional Capacity
Budget Information
LSTA
MATCH-State
MATCH-Other
Total
$27,076.28
$0.00
$0.00
$27,076.28
Intent(s)
Improve library's physical and technology infrastructure.
Broadband adoption
Systems & Technologies
Activities

Activity Details
Title: Network Remediation
Narrative: Sixteen libraries received network grant funds based on their Category Two Internal Connection applications for 2017-2019 Erate. These 16 libraries received funding commitments from Erate in time to meet the Library Services and Technology Act (LSTA) September 30th completion date. The grants covered the non-discounted portion of their network equipment and installation upgrades ranging from $104.80 to $4274.38. Thirty-four wireless access points (waps), 7 racks, 14 switches, 10 router/firewalls, 7 UPS, 123 cable drops and 3 patch panels were funded and installed.
Intent: Improve library's physical and technology infrastructure.

Activity: Procurement
Mode:
Format:


Quantity
Number of equipment acquired: 75


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: No
For a targeted group or for the general population: Targeted
Geographic community of the targeted group: Rural
For what age groups: All Ages
For what economic types: Economic Not Applicable
For what ethnicity types: Ethnicity Not Applicable
Is the activity directed at families: No
Is the activity directed at intergenerational groups: No
Is the activity directed at immigrants/refugees: No
Is the activity directed at those with disabilities: No
Limited functional literacy or informational skills: No
Is the activity category not already captured: No


Locale
Is the activity state-wide: No
Specific Locations: Yes
Name: ANADARKO COMMUNITY LIBRARY
Address: 215 W BROADWAY
City: ANADARKO
State: OK
Zip: 73005
Name: APACHE PUBLIC LIBRARY
Address: 111 E. EVANS
City: APACHE
State: OK
Zip: 73006
Name: BLACKWELL PUBLIC LIBRARY
Address: 123 WEST PADON
City: BLACKWELL
State: OK
Zip: 74631
Name: CARNEGIE PUBLIC LIBRARY
Address: 6 E MAIN
City: CARNEGIE
State: OK
Zip: 73015
Name: DURANT-DONALD REYNOLDS COMMUNITY CT & LIBRARY
Address: 1515 WEST MAIN
City: DURANT
State: OK
Zip: 74701
Name: ELGIN COMMUNITY LIBRARY
Address: 8171 SH 17
City: Elgin
State: OK
Zip: 73538
Name: HENRYETTA PUBLIC LIBRARY
Address: 518 W. MAIN
City: HENRYETTA
State: OK
Zip: 74437
Name: MADILL CITY-COUNTY LIBRARY
Address: 500 WEST OVERTON ST
City: MADILL
State: OK
Zip: 73446
Name: NEWKIRK PUBLIC LIBRARY
Address: 116 N MAPLE AVE
City: NEWKIRK
State: OK
Zip: 74647
Name: OKEENE PUBLIC LIBRARY
Address: 215 N MAIN
City: OKEENE
State: OK
Zip: 73763
Name: OKEMAH PUBLIC LIBRARY
Address: 301 SOUTH 2ND
City: OKEMAH
State: OK
Zip: 74859
Name: PAULS VALLEY-NORA SPARKS WARREN MEM LIBRARY
Address: 210 N WILLOW ST.
City: PAULS VALLEY
State: OK
Zip: 73075
Name: PERRY CARNEGIE LIBRARY
Address: 302 N 7TH ST
City: PERRY
State: OK
Zip: 73077
Name: RINGLING - GLEASON MEMORIAL LIBRARY
Address: 101 E Main ST
City: RINGLING
State: OK
Zip: 73456
Name: SAPULPA - BARTLETT CARNEGIE PUBLIC LIBRARY
Address: 27 W DEWEY
City: SAPULPA
State: OK
Zip: 74066
Name: STROUD PUBLIC LIBRARY
Address: 301 WEST 7TH
City: STROUD
State: OK
Zip: 74079
Project Outcomes
Project Outcomes
List any important outcomes or findings not previously reported:
One hundred percent (14) of the libraries strongly agreed that the network remediation will improve their library's ability to provide services for the public. One hundred percent of the remediation grants paid the non-discounted portion of their E-rate Internal Connections, which ranged from a 60% discount to an 85% discount. One hundred percent of the libraries met the Edge requirements. The range of internet speeds for the grantees are: 5 libraries 200 MBPS, 6 libraries 100 MBPS; 3 libraries 50 MBPS; 1 library 20 MBPS and 1 library with a 12MBPS Digital Subscriber Line (DSL) connection. Carnegie wanted to increase the speed but they only received one bid through E-rate from Carnegie Telephone – they may be the only ISP in this rural area. Carnegie says “Thrilled to death to get this funding. We could not offer the resources we do without it.” Following are some stories told by the librarians. “We have heavy computer usage as well as heavy WIFI usage. There were points throughout this last year where it would take 3-4 minutes just to print a receipt after checking out books to patrons. We no longer have this issue. The speed is faster, and the new firewall doesn't have any bottleneck issues like we were having.” “We went from 6 teen computers and 7 adult computers to 10 computers each. Our network wasn't equipped to handle that load along with the wireless users. We provide technology and one-on-one assistance to patrons who otherwise could not afford to use or learn about technology. Our network as a whole was outdated and couldn't handle the load we had.” “Protection for equipment in our network is something we always need to be thinking of and yet how many times have we heard "But I thought it WAS a surge protector" The unit will provide protection to our equipment which in turn improves our ability to provide services.” “All the Epic students that use our library love the faster speed.” “The project's impact was noticed immediately. For the first time, our library is actually getting the high speed we have been paying for. Our library has been able to implement a security policy that ensures patron privacy and minimizes risk to the security of patron data through privacy screens and also with the new network security.” “For a small rural library, it is a blessing to be able to provide the services we provide.” “Patrons who come to the library often don't have internet at home. They rely on us for fun, homework, medical, jobs, government benefits and so many other things. Upgrading security and speed is awesome!” “We are now able to offer wifi speeds comparable to our wired speeds and this is a HUGE deal as we have so many who use the library's wifi for work and online schooling. Our new WAPs allow us to block torrenting and other illegal activities so that we may stay in compliance with (ISP’s) guidelines.” “We cannot hope to offer technology related services whether it is through one-to-one instruction, classes in a lab environment, access to patrons after hours, patrons accessing through wireless devices, or other if we do not have the best quality internet possible.” “This grant allowed us to improve our speed 4-5 times, offer better filters to maintain patron safety, and minimize illegal online activities. All these things contribute to a safe, quality technology environment." “The grant was a huge help. This is something we needed for a long time that the city wouldn't have the funding for, so without this grant we would of still been having daily computer problems and slow internet access.” “We have a much closer relationship with our city IT person because he was more involved and proactive in the process. We also discovered how much his services actually cost.” “We do need to get maintenance added as soon as we can." “The grant was great. Coming up with 20% on a project this expensive is really daunting for a small town. I told my City Council/Library Board there was a chance you all could help, and they were quite happy to get the funding. Thank you so much!” The librarians who became involved with this project received an unexpected benefit from increased understanding of how the library internet technology worked. Here's what a few had to say. “This has been a huge learning curve for me. I want to keep our library's technology as up-to-date as possible for our customers.” “I am trying to push a comprehensive technology plan for the library that will allow me to continuously replace computer hardware and software on a rotation basis so that we continue to move forward with our technological needs.” “The city IT has worked well with us to make this project happen and without their expertise I would have been lost.” "Lesson learned, make sure the IT guy knows that patrons watch Youtube, Netflix and enjoy gaming; which tends to slow things down if we aren't careful!” “For future steps in network improvement/ maintenance we will try to work closer with City Hall to let them know what our possible needs are sooner than we have in the past. We will also plan on working closer to our IT company and find out what our needs are directly instead of waiting to find out what we needed after we have had those needs for awhile.” “Thank you for the chance to get this equipment and wiring, etc. for our library and helping educate us on what our possible technology needs are. This grant has helped us greatly. Without this grant we would not have been able to complete the project in a timely manner or to this degree. Faster wifi, more WAPs, and a better secured internet will help out all patrons.”
Please briefly describe the importance of these outcomes and findings for future program planning:
Since 2010, 130 libraries have received network assistance through this grant with 105 locations designated as rural for a grand total of $642,150.99 spent with $606,430.79 being LSTA funds. Of these 130, 89 libraries are city/county government departments and therefore do not have fiscal control of their budget as the 41 system libraries have. The Oklahoma Department of Libraries (ODL) has reached 80% of the 112 city/county funded libraries. As the comments over the years have revealed, those who have taken advantage of these funds are most appreciative and find the project of real value. As the financial figures indicates, ODL has gone from funding a high of $264,730.92 to a low of $27,076.28 throughout the years. The project has met its goal of teaching librarians the importance and cost of technology infrastructure. ODL has now turned its efforts to addressing the technology needs indicated from Oklahoma public libraries Edge Assessment data.
Explain one or two of the most significant lessons learned for others wanting to adopt any facets of this project:
Knowledge of E-rate. Funding only network improvements that were requested as part of a Category Two E-rate application significantly dropped the amount invested. E-rate is a difficult series of applications with very precise rules and ODL’s staff-intensive investment in encouraging and assisting in the E-rate process was crucial.
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:
Yes
Explain:
Timeline shift for E-rate funding accomplished. Network assessments in 2015 applied for E-rate 2016 with E-rate funding decisions made in July - Dec 2017 so LSTA FFY2017 funds can be used
Was an evaluation conducted for this project:
Yes
Was a final written evaluation report produced:
No
Can the final written evaluation report be shared publicly on the IMLS website:
Yes
Was the evaluation conducted by project staff (either SLAA or local library) or by a third-party evaluator:
Project Staff
What data collection tools were used for any report outcomes and outputs:
Administrative Records
Review Surveys
Did you collect any media for the data:
What types of methods were used to analyze collected data:
Statistical Methods
Qualitative Methods
Other:
How were participants (or items) selected:
Targeted Sample – We selected based on a desired characteristic, e.g. age.
What type of research design did you use to compare the value for any reported output or outcome:
Comparison of a reported output or outcome to an assigned target value: Created an Edge Assessment/Action Plan and answered narrative survey questions with written details
Exemplary: No
Exemplary Narrative
Project Tags: network, technology