Search Projects
View Summaries
LSTA Contacts
View Project
G2S Project Code:
2020-GA-86255
State:
Georgia
Fiscal Year:
2020
Grantee
Georgia Public Library Service
Project Director
Director Name:
Daniel Zeiger
Director Phone:
404 235-7143
Director Email:
dzeiger@georgialibraries.org
General Information
Title:
CARES Act: Libraries Without Walls
State Project Code:
GALWW-80c
Start Date:
04/21/2020
End Date:
09/30/2021
Abstract:
GPLS used CARES Act funds to fund the Libraries Without Walls (LWW) initiative, allowing libraries to apply for four different options, including: Chromebooks, tech innovation, Wi-Fi expansion, and broadband infrastructure. Under this initiative, 63 projects were funded to 40 library systems across the state with $518,960.28 in funding spent.
The process had five phases, including grant launch, application, award, reporting, and grant closeout. 69 applications were submitted by libraries, 212 documents were created for the application and award processes, 85 reimbursements were requested by libraries, and 450 progress reports were collected on project activity.
State Goal:
Support for libraries
Budget Information
LSTA
MATCH-State
MATCH-Other
Total
$
290,049.41
$
0.00
$
0.00
$
290,049.41
Intent(s)
Improve library's physical and technology infrastructure.
Library Infrastructure & Capacity
Systems & Technologies
Activities
Activity Details
Title:
Pandemic tech response plans
Narrative:
Libraries Without Walls offered funding for pandemic response technology plans. This initiative covered five phases: grant launch, application, award, reporting, and grant closeout. Grant launch included announcements, office hours, and overview webinars. The application phase covered the application submission and review process, including application scoring through review committees. The award process was complex with the issuing of award letters and routing contracts through the Board of Regents System Office. Reporting covered project work, including procurement and implementation of projects.
Projects were conducted across the state and resulted in the purchasing of
1,728 pieces of hardware, 1,497 licenses, 885 installation/service plans, 574 materials/supplies, and 66 software packages. All of these helped libraries get through these unprecedented times.
Intent:
Improve library's physical and technology infrastructure.
Activity:
Planning & Evaluation
Mode:
Prospective
Format:
In-house
Other:
support for Chrome Boxes for public access machines in libraries
Quantity
Number of evaluations and/or plans funded:
63
Number of funded evaluation and/or plans completed:
63
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: 40
Academic Libraries: 0
SLAA: 0
Consortia: 0
Special Libraries: 0
School Libraries: 0
Other: 0
Question 1: I believe the planning and evaluation addresses library needs.
Strongly Agree: 34
Agree: 14
Neither Agree nor Disagree: 7
Disagree: 1
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: 38
Agree: 16
Neither Agree nor Disagree: 1
Disagree: 1
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: 40
Agree: 12
Neither Agree nor Disagree: 3
Disagree: 1
Strongly Disagree: 0
Non-Response: 0
Project Outcomes
Project Outcomes
List any important outcomes or findings not previously reported:
Shortages, contracts, and committees were a significant drag on the rate of the project, especially supply chain issues. We streamlined vendor usage (as did many of our libraries) in an effort to simplify and speed up the admin side - though useful for streamlining procurement and purchasing plan approval, it slowed delivery and deployment of equipment. Diversifying vendors may have increased this speed, but would have slowed the procurement or plan approval process. This rapid use of funding and rollout made it difficult for libraries to envision large projects or deploying anything they didn't already have some form of in place. We were prepared and had good options from projects already underway for libraries, including: managed hardware for lending, remote productivity software, and parking lot wifi expansion. If we did not have these options ready for expansion we may have had more issues selecting and managing deployment. The timing of the funding was especially important, some libraries had to drastically change how they provided service from in person to virtual. This was a huge change in how they did business and each system was in a different place at any given moment (in person, curbside, reduced capacity, parking lot only - wifi). This made it difficult to provide the best immediate relief in a scalable way, when the most impactful relief was different in each location (depending on transmission rates and service availability).
Please briefly describe the importance of these outcomes and findings for future program planning:
Frameworks in place for subgrant programs - funding formulas, committees, vendors, procurement model, contracts (what we subgrant vs purchase on behalf of) were all critical and will be maintained where possible through other programs. We will continue to maintain expansion plans for existing programs and keep them waiting in the wings for opportunities such as this. Plans that did not already have clearly researched ideas and opportunities were given less consideration. There is little we can do about shortages, but it is good to keep in mind software and licenses cannot experience shortages, and we may diversify our vendor relations. Maintaining strong relationships with less vendors has been helpful for many years, but when it comes to shortages we may have had better luck if we had more relationships and could cast a wider net quickly. We used information gathered from progress reports and survey results to inform programming at conferences we managed, such as Tech Boot Camp and Directors meetings (for example: Chromebook lending panel at a directors meeting, and multiple CARES project panels at Tech Boot Camp). This gave a stage to libraries exploring innovative solutions, and provided frameworks and best practices for interested systems. This helped inform the types of grants we implemented with ARPA and helped libraries determine what would have the largest impact in their system.
Explain one or two of the most significant lessons learned for others wanting to adopt any facets of this project:
Have well researched ideas and plans ready to go for new projects, expansion of current services, and adaptation of current programs. Maintain close relationships with vendors so you can get rapid, detailed information of item availability and timelines of delivery. Consider spending more on services you may not traditionally use - for instance, we opted to have a vendor enroll, check (and replace as needed), update, and drop ship all chrome devices directly to libraries. This is not an expense we would usually incur, and increased the delivery timeline for a few days, but eliminated any hands-on effort required by library staff other than cataloging and handing the loaner devices off to patrons. Requiring the libraries to manage enrollment, reporting, configuration, and returning inoperable devices would have significantly slowed the process and may have made it impossible for some systems to take on due to COVID restrictions or staffing. Finally, keep examples, records, and policies of program implementation where possible. Being able to duplicate work already performed by library systems eliminated delays new systems may have had when deploying a new-to -them program.
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:
Yes
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:
Project Staff
What data collection tools were used for any report outcomes and outputs:
Review Surveys
Did you collect any media for the data:
What types of methods were used to analyze collected data:
Statistical Methods
Other:
How were participants (or items) selected:
Census – We selected everyone (or every item).
What type of research design did you use to compare the value for any reported output or outcome:
Exemplary:
Yes
Exemplary Narrative
The IT department at GPLS was nimble in their response to COVID needs for the libraries in Georgia. At every turn, they worked hard to make the process as streamlined as possible for our libraries, and the impacts will be long-lasting.
Project Tags:
Emerging technologies; Cloud Computing; technology plans, cybersecurity
