Adam Webb’s Study of Public Library Behavior Policies

Although anyone is susceptible to poor hygiene, policies dealing with hygiene can be interpreted as anti-homeless measures meant to discourage the presence of homeless persons in the public library.

Adam Webb, Problem Patron Policies in Public Libraries: A Content Analysis

While searching for articles about Kreimer v Bureau of Police for Morristown (the landmark 1992 lawsuit in which a homeless patron of a New Jersey public library charged that his civil rights were being violated by the library’s anti-odor policy) I stumbled across Adam Webb’s 2005 Masters Thesis. Submitted for his Masters in Library Science at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Webb’s work begins to get at one of the several questions I posed last week: how do public libraries come up with their “problem patron” policies? Is there any measure of consistency between American public libraries in this regard? Do they follow existing professional standards? Do they respond in a localized ad-hoc fashion to their particular circumstances? Do local politics influence these policies?

 

In Problem Patron Policies in Public Libraries: A Content Analysis, Webb looked at 20 large public libraries and 20 small public libraries, comparing their patron conduct policies, looking for similarities, differences, and strategies of enforcement. He was surprised by what he found. In contrast to his assumption, prior to conducting the study, that larger urban libraries (defined as those serving more than 300,000 persons) would have more policies addressing homelessness and criminal elements, he found for example that only 11 of the 20 such libraries had poor hygiene policies. Another example of what Webb considers an anti-homeless-patron policy - prohibitions on large bedrolls and containers for carrying personal belongings - was similarly less ubiquitous at large urban public libraries than Webb had expected. Homeless people, writes Webb, who typically have nowhere to store their belongings, “can carry all of their possessions with them at all times:

Therefore, libraries that want to limit the presence of homeless people within their walls would be expected to have policies limiting the amount and size of baggage that a person can bring into the library. Yet less than half (9/20) of the large libraries had prohibitions on bringing large bedrolls and large containers filled with personal belongings (Webb, 13).

Frankly, I find such assertions somewhat alarming. Do “homeless” people really carry all of their belongings with them? I see “street-people” with large bedrolls often enough, but this doesn’t mean that they don’t have boxes of “stuff” stored in some friend or relative’s basement somewhere, or in the trunk of their car (I think there are a significant number of “homeless” people who call their car their home).

Still, I generally agree with Webb’s point that policies addressing specific behaviors can be viewed as anti-homeless policies, because they target behaviors / conditions which we find, predominantly, among a certain group of people. I think it’s fair to say that most of the really stinky patrons are, however you define the term, “homeless,” or “mentally ill” or “cracked out” or some combination of the above.

Anyway, in contrast to his findings regarding poor hygiene, Webb observed that 18 of the 20 large urban libraries examined did have anti-sleeping and improper use of restroom policies. (Again with my personal hangup - the anti-sleeping policy… Last Wednesday I staked out a very nice cubicle in the stacks at the library of the university where I’m working on my MLIS, and had a nice 3-hour nap. (My school has instituted a draconian 8am starting time for morning classes, and this plus my 1.5 hour commute plus my night owl tendencies mean that on the two days per week when I have classes, I only get about 3 hours of sleep the night beforehand). Anyway … I digress … Back to Webb: Only 7 of the 20 small libraries (serving less than 80,000) had such policies (Webb, 14). Similarly, 15 of the 20 large libraries had policies governing improper use of the restrooms, compared with only 5 of the 20 small libraries (Webb, 14).

Further, in answer to my question about the consistency of policies at different policies, Webb’s answer is clearly no. “The most surprising thing about problem patron policies,” he writes, “is the sheer amount of policy types.” Suggesting that interviews with library officials to discover the particular rationales for certain policies would be a logical extension of his study, Webb reports that he found 56 different policy types in his study and states that it’s pretty safe to assume that there are many many more, given the number of libraries he didn’t include in the study (Webb, 15). So which libraries were included?

Large Public Libraries: Charleston, South Carolina (312,007); Omaha, Nebraska (425,386); Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania (458,597); Albuquerque, New Mexico (556,678); Cleveland, Ohio (556,806); Seattle, Washington (570,800); Boston, Massachusetts (589,141); Milwaukee, Wisconsin (596,671); Austin, Texas (656,562); Portland, Oregon (666,350); Charlotte, North Carolina (713,780); Tucson, Arizona (816,400); Detroit, Michigan (951,270); Las Vegas, Nevada (1,150,279); Honolulu, Hawaii (1,227,024); San Diego, California (1,255,700); Miami, Florida (1,939,755); Chicago, Illinois (2,896,016); New York City, New York (3,313,573); Los Angeles, California (3,807,400).

Small Public Libraries:

Dover, Delaware (41,693); Chapel Hill, North Carolina (52,440); Chicopee, Massachusetts (54,653); DeKalb, Alabama (55,436); Niagara Falls, New York (55,593); Ames, Iowa (56,115); Abington, Pennsylvania (58,680); Des Plaines, Illinois (58,720); Nacogdoches, Texas (59,203); Williamsburg, Virginia (60,100); Palo Alto, California (60,500); Tigard, Oregon (60,676); Chippewa River, Michigan (60,979); Nassau, Florida (61,094); Texarkana, Arkansas (61,230); Roswell, New Mexico (61,382); Carmel Clay, Illinois (64,709); North Olympic, Washington (64,900); Sheboygan, Wisconsin (70,132); Iowa City, Iowa (79,863).

Webb, Adam. (2005). Problem Patron Policies in Public Libraries: A Content Analysis . Unpublished masters thesis, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Retrieved January 19, 2008 from http://etd.ils.unc.edu/dspace/bitstream/1901/188/1/apwebb.pdf

What is this blog about?Impagination explores points of intersection between librarianship, democracy and the public sphere. I’m also using this site to compile a working bibliography of writings and research which deal specifically with issues related to public libraries and homeless patrons.I welcome your comments, suggestions, and especially references to relevant writings, research etc.