An Arena of Possibility: Local Public Library and Social Work Collaboration

Background: As governmental fiscal austerity often increases social need while curtailing service provisions, there are growing calls for novel social service delivery models. Local public libraries are often the first stop for community members with unaddressed needs and unanswered questions. A growing literature on public library social service responses exists in information science, but includes few social work perspectives. This study critically examines the lived experiences of public library stakeholders and explores local public libraries as potential sites of “social working”.

Methods: This project concentrates on four urban public library systems across Canada, chosen for varying pre-existing levels of engagement with social workers. Here, we present findings from the project’s second stage, in which we distributed an online survey to frontline library staff in the chosen municipalities. Quantitative and qualitative survey questions queried current programming, types of formal and informal support provided to community members, perceived gaps in service provision and the potential for professional collaboration with social work.

Qualitative data was coded with NVivo and descriptive statistics were generated from the quantitative data using SPSS. The 161 respondents worked primarily in the cities of Ottawa (63%) and Halifax (29%). The most represented library positions amongst respondents were front desk (19%), supervisor (18%) and customer service assistant (17%). Respondents were predominantly female (80% female, 16% male, 4% other) and of European descent (64%, with small numbers of African, East Asian, South Asian, South East Asian, Indigenous, Latino and Middle Eastern descent).

Findings: Survey respondents reported targeted offerings for children, seniors and newcomers as more common than programming for people with disabilities and the underhoused. Library staff noted that vital assistance to vulnerable community members often took the form of unstructured support. This included referrals to internal (e.g. a social worker) or external (community service) supports, help with filling out forms to access services, or simply provision of a safe space. Gaps in programming identified by survey respondents included a severe lack of staff knowledge regarding how to respond to patron psychosocial needs and potential occupational trauma; a lack of structured programming for vulnerable populations; the need for more staff (including social workers) to work with clients in need; and inadequate workplace conditions. Qualitative survey responses illustrated the disconnect between institutional policies and needs identified by library workers.

Conclusions: By exploring the liminal professional spaces between librarianship and social work, we suggest avenues for inter-professional action between library science and social word education, with implications for contemporary social work practice, field education and research. Collaborative initiatives between public library staff and social workers can provide better local integration of supportive, accessible and sustainable community-responsive programming. Local public libraries offer rich environments where social work students can hone their skills during placements. Finally, continued research, including the third stage of this project, will contribute to the development of inter-professional best practices.