October 1, 2014

Gates Foundation Prepares To Exit Library Ecosystem

In early May, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation took much of the world by surprise by announcing that the massive charitable organization would stop offering grants and support to libraries around the world in the next few years. Libraries have long been a pillar of the foundation’s strategy, and while the funding will be missed, librarians are already looking ahead at how to preserve the work that’s been done and find ways for other organizations to step into the space the foundation will leave behind.

“The foundation has decided to conclude our work in Global Libraries over the next three to five years,” wrote Deborah Jacobs, director of the Gates Foundation’s Global Libraries Initiative and LJ’s 1994 Librarian of the Year, in a May 7 blog post. “This transition will happen slowly with no programmatic changes to our budgets this year or next year, and we are planning a smooth transition for our staff, grantees and the field.”

What is driving the decision? Many of the goals that led the foundation to focus on libraries in the first place, such as getting computer resources into libraries around the country and making sure patrons can use them to access the Internet, have been largely accomplished. Speaking to LJ about the foundation’s decisions to decouple from libraries, Jacobs drew a comparison between the foundation’s investments and the thousands of libraries funded by grants from Andrew Carnegie in the early 20th century, saying that while new investments may end, the resources the foundation helped to build will remain useful to the industry for years to come.

“The initial connection work was very important, but that computer and technology work is largely done,” said Global Libraries deputy director Jessica Dorr, noting that the organization has largely shifted to making grants to train librarians to take up leadership and advocacy roles. “That shift is critical, because it shows that libraries saw the importance of their work in a different way, and that’s the spirit that lives on.”

Jacobs also pointed out that no Gates Foundation funding is meant to exist in perpetuity, and that the foundation itself is meant to wind down all funding after it’s founders pass away rather than continuing on indefinitely. Until then, though, the resources once designated for global libraries will, in coming years, be devoted instead to other foundation priorities like international development, education, and public health efforts.

Librarians who spoke to LJ expressed an understanding that an exit would be in the cards for the foundation sooner or later, and were glad to know that the departure would be a slow one with a focus on maintaining the resources the foundation has helped build over years of investment in libraries around the world.

“I was a little surprised and a little disappointed, but it didn’t seem totally shocking to me,” said Ann Joslin, Idaho State Librarian and president of the Chief Officers of State Library Agencies (COSLA). She compared the foundation’s departure from the library ecosystem to its work in areas like public health, predicting that once advances have been made in the fight against malaria in some years, the foundation will look to reinvest the money they’re spending to support that research.

Some librarians saw the foundation’s departure as an opportunity for librarians to step up. “In my view, the engagement that the Gates Foundation has had in the library field globally leaves us with the capacity and the confidence to go forward and do what comes next,” Chrystie Hill, community director at WebJunction and a 2007 LJ Mover & Shaker, told LJ. Indeed, much of the foundation’s work in recent years has centered around training librarians to be advocates for the industry and developing tools like the Impact Survey to help libraries quantify the ways in which they serve their community. Now, she said, it’s time for librarians to take those resources and run with them, without looking for support from the Gates Foundation or other external organizations. “The vision for the future of libraries,” Hill said, “should come from the field, not from a foundation.”

Representatives from other organizations in the field were notably quiet on the Gates Foundation departure, such as the International Federation of Library Associations, which declined to comment on the situation for this story.

“Nothing will end if we keep the vision of what libraries are and can be alive,” Jacobs told LJ, saying that even after the foundation rolls back its funding for libraries, thousands of librarians around the world who have received training and support from the organization will still be around, using the lessons they’ve learned to advocate for the industry. “Librarians have to make a decision that they’re not going to wait for someone else to do things for them. The tools are out there, we have to pick them up.”

Of course, even while looking on the bright side, this won’t be an easy pill for the field to swallow. According to its annual giving snapshot, in 2011, the Gates Foundation awarded just over $12 million in grants to libraries in the U.S. and nearly $39 million to libraries abroad around the world. While individual donations to U.S. libraries are mostly a thing of the past, Gates Foundation grants recently took a more satellite view of the industry, funding efforts like COSLA’s development of its strategic plan, the first of its kind in the organization’s 40 year history, the nearly $1 million grant the foundation awarded the Digital Public Library of America last year to support librarian training programs, and $1 million to the American Library Association for advocacy efforts. According to Hill, perhaps even more important than the direct money the foundation provided was the exposure and weight that it brought to library issues, which in turn brought more funders along for the ride.

“The Gates Foundation and Global Libraries acted as giving catalysts,” said Hill. “Now, the legacies of those programs have to be the catalyst and get other funders to lean in.”

Joslin was sanguine about the chances for finding new funders. “The public library ecosystem is certainly at a place where we’re higher visibility than we’ve been in a while,” she said. “We’re getting more recognition for our services, and more recognition that those services are important to local communities, so I’m hopeful.”

Jacobs noted that maintaining the knowledge base and training curricula the foundation has funded remain accessible for future generations of librarians and preserving advocacy tools such as the Impact Survey and EDGE Initiative will be a focus during the coming transition.

As the foundation begins its transition away from library funding, they’ll  spend the coming months examining how best to preserve the work they’ve done and exit the field gracefully. Current grantees will continue receiving the funding and support that the foundation has pledged, and some new grants will still be issued. Changes to staffing levels at the Global Libraries program won’t be considered until early to mid-2015, when the steps involved in this complicated transition have become somewhat more clear

Ian Chant About Ian Chant

Ian Chant is the Associate News Editor of LJ.

Share

Comments

  1. Eleanore Hartz says:

    In the article, the words “the industry” appear several times. I am not sure if the author refers to some part of the commercial digital information industry, or is speaking of libraries, their functions and personnel as an industry. I have also a number of times recently (though not here) seen the word “marketing” used in connection with libaries. This trend is disturbing.

    To me libraries should remain community resources, providing their patrons with a tangible central source of knowledge and skills, offering a sense of community with others, free of the distractions and manipulations of commercial enterprise.

    Clarification?

    • I personally use “the industry” when I write about the whole of the library field. Why not? We have buildings, employees, budgets, publications, conferences, associations, & a presence in every state and in DC. We have vendors of hardware, software, books, DVDs, high-tech machinery, paper goods, etc. Libraries are massive economic engines AND community members.

      And, as a library marketing consultant, I use “the M word” too. We all should. If you think the idea of “marketing” libraries is “disturbing,” then you have the wrong impression of what marketing really is. It’s not about telemarketers who call you during dinner. And it’s not about pushy salespeople.

      True marketing is about studying users & potential users, determining what they want / need from you, ensuring that you’re offering what they want / need, then publicizing the fact that you have those goods & services so people will take advantage of them. (http://www.librariesareessential.com/library-marketing-resources/cycle-of-true-marketing/)

      This does not conflict at all with libraries’ being community resources, or serving people, or teaching them vital skills. Marketing is the set of tactics you use to ENSURE that you’re serving people; to make sure they know what you have for them, and that they are welcome to use it, either in person or online. Doing market research helps librarians understand who is in their community and how best to communicate to them; to invite them to become part of the library; the heart of the community.

      Many people confuse “sales” and “marketing.” In fact, marketing is the umbrella term, under which comes promotion, publicity, advocacy, sales, outreach, and service. It does not have to include “manipulations of commercial enterprise.”

  2. Joanne Pruett says:

    This is very sad. I am a librarian, and I have used Bill Gates childhood love of libraries as an example of what a library can do for students. My students love it when I tell them about Bill Gates and Steve Jobs. These stories give my students hope that they could do great things also.

    • Karen Morgan says:

      This is the great danger of private individuals filling funding gaps in public services. The public thinks “they’re rich–why shouldn’t they provide services for us?” But the rich are under no obligation to do so. They get bored, they find other interests. They have no concept of what it means for them to say librarians now have the tools to find other sources of funding. Libraries are a public good, and the public ought to be the source of funding for them.

Comment Policy:
  1. Be respectful, and do not attack the author or other commenters. Take on the idea, not the messenger.
  2. Don't use obscene, profane, or vulgar language.
  3. Stay on point. Comments that stray from the topic at hand may be deleted.

We are not able to monitor every comment that comes through (though some comments with links to multiple URLs are held for spam-check moderation by the system). If you see something objectionable, please let us know. Once a comment has been flagged, a staff member will investigate.

We accept clean XHTML in comments, but don't overdo it and please limit the number of links submitted in your comment. For more info, see the full Terms of Use.

Speak Your Mind

*