An Excerpt from “Perceptions of the Public Library Social Worker: Challenges and Opportunities”

Mark A. Giesler Professor of Social Work

Mark A. Giesler, L.M.S.W., received his Ph.D. from the University of Nebraska–Lincoln, his M.S.W. from the University of Nebraska–Omaha, and his M.A. from the University of Northern Iowa. His research agenda includes qualitative studies of marginalized groups, including LGBT individuals and homeless populations, and, most recently, studies of the intersection of public libraries and social work. He was awarded the 2022 Diversity, Inclusion, and Equity Research Award at Saginaw Valley State University. He currently is an associate editor for the Journal of Ethnographic and Qualitative Research. In addition to his work in academia, he works part-time as a therapist for Butterfly Counseling in Ypsilanti, Michigan.

The following excerpt includes the abstract from Dr. Giesler’s article and a portion of the “Discussion” section. The full text of the article can be found in the October 2021 issue of The Library Quarterly: Information, Community, and Policy.

Abstract

Using a qualitative ethnographic approach, this article explores the work of library social workers. Drawing upon individual interview and focus group data from three public library sites around the country, the study assesses the self-perceptions of the social workers, as well as the views of their colleagues about their work. Findings indicate that the call to enact a culture shift in the library to better serve vulnerable populations is tempered by challenges related to effectiveness of staff trainings, clarity of protocol and procedure, supervision gaps, and use of space. Recommendations for library administrators, staff, and library social workers themselves to meet these challenges are included.

Keywords: library social work, administration, vulnerable patrons

Nearly all the study’s participants viewed the library as called and poised to be part of a social services safety net due to the enhanced psychosocial needs of patrons. Yet, they viewed the execution of that mission differently. The social workers regarded the primary focus of their job as shifting the library’s culture to embrace this mission. Their colleagues, excepting the library administrators, saw their work as more separate, as complementing their tasks as information providers. This difference in perspective invoked feelings of isolation from the former and some frustration from the latter.

Findingsfromthepresentstudyareconsistent withhowtheroleofthelibrarysocialworker has been described in the literature. Their job description as written encompasses micro, mezzo, and macro dimensions (Provence 2020; Zettervall & Nienow 2019). They characterized the multilevel focus of their work as intentional interaction with patrons, staff, and the community. They acknowledged the unique values and skills of their profession as informing and contributing to that work, as many researchers who have written conceptually about the role (Kelley et al. 2017; Luo et al. 2012; Soska & Navarro 2020) have done.

Yet, the day to day of their work painted a different picture. Interviews with the library social workers indicated an emphasis on the mezzo far more than the micro. Their primary focus appeared to be reshaping the culture of the library. All three noted decreasing staff biases toward vulnerable populations as an integral part of their role. Brokering community agencies to assume a visible presence in the library in the interest of making social service agencies welcoming was just as important as providing service referrals to patrons. In this respect, the study concurs with Provence’s (2020) finding that library social workers focused on one-on-one coaching, modeling, and staff trainings about mental health and patron interaction to destigmatize the presence of what were perceived as challenging patrons.

There is evidence from the study that library staff appreciated this focus on service and the library social worker’s contribution to it. They confirmed the democratic mission of the library, as handed down from Andrew Carnegie, as important to their work. Focus group interviewees in Site #2, for example, did not perceive the presence of the library social worker as attracting more challenging and difficult patrons to their libraries. Importantly, they viewed the presence of that staff member as a positive influence in addressing patron concerns that were already there, but perhaps hidden from view. Site #2’s Public Safety Officer Roberto’s praise of Marcy’s efforts to change the culture of his staff is indicative of this perception.

At the same time, the present study provides nuance to the literature’s assertion that the library social worker’s role is at times undefined and misunderstood by library staff (Zettervall & Nienow 2019). Resistance to being trained to “do social work” and lack of clear protocol regarding challenging patrons, as noted by some staff in this study, indicated that staff librarians viewed their work as separate and distinct from the work of the social worker. Staff were comforted in the knowledge of having a social worker on staff. Yet, their presence forced them to contend with procedural and practice issues in a manner not previously considered.

This “operating in silos” mentality contributed to a phenomenon not directly addressed in the literature: a feeling overwhelmed and potential burnout perpetuated by isolation. Library social workers noted the resource-intensive needs of patrons, the tremendous numbers of individuals to be served, and the challenge in knowing how best to assist them. While it was clear that both administrators in this case had a vested interest in their library social workers and worked tirelessly in their roles to maintain their positions, they were relatively hands-off in their supervision. Social workers called to carry out that vision of these administrators were left to their own devices to do so, often without peer or supervisory support.

The self-directed nature of the library social workers presented barriers for theirmacro role of enacting systemic change. Administrators in the study spoke of hopes to make the library social worker position sustainable. Richard pointed out the “positive things that can come out of collaborative relationships with non-profits” through grant-funding efforts. Yet, at the same time, he noted it was incumbent upon the social worker to “convince these agencies there is value in doing this kind of work.” In effect, the library social workers were expected to simultaneously initiate a program, run it, and prove its viability, a reality that exacerbated their feeling of isolation. Finally, the study added to the literature a topic rarely discussed regarding public library social workers: The perception of the use of space. Reflections about the use of library space, often perceived as a commodity, were not new to the participants. However, the presence of the library social worker enhanced these concerns, as staff members and patrons alike had to [contend] with proximity, privacy, and safety issues in a manner not previously considered.

Unlike San Jose Public Library’s [Social Workers in the Library (SWITL) program] (Luo et al. 2012), which carved out a specified space in the library for social workers to meet their patrons, the workers in the three sites in this study preferred not having an office or desk labeled as “social work services,” citing the need for patron privacy and anonymity as key to their work. This choice literally brought challenging patrons into the purview of librarian staff. They heralded the notion of a more democratic use of space, where all patrons could co-exist, embracing what Provence (2020) labeled as a “humanizing approach.” While some staff embraced this role, others were threatened by it. No longer could the presence of challenging patrons be ignored or simply dealt with by security.

At the same time, not having a designated “social work services” space presented challenges. Library social workers had difficulty marketing their services to the individuals who needed them. This fluidityof space might also have contributed to the frustration related to the lack of clear protocol involving these patrons noted in the study. Without a designated space to “send” difficult patrons, library staff were challenged to consider how they had to do so themselves, with or without the aid of social work staff.

References

Kelley, Alanna, Kara Riggleman, Ingrid Clara, and Adria Navarro. 2017. “Determining the Need for Social Work Practice in a Public Library.” Journal of Community Practice 25 (1): 112–25.

Luo, Lili, Deborah Estreicher, Peter A. Lee, Cyndy Thomas, and Glenn Thomas. 2012. “Social Workers in the Library: An Innovative Approach to Address Library Patrons’ Social Service Needs.” Qualitative and Quantitative Methods in Libraries 1 (1): 73–82.

Provence, Mary A. 2020. “Encouraging the Humanization of Patrons Experiencing Homelessness: A Case Study of the Role of the US Public Library Social Worker.” Library Quarterly 90 (4): 431–46.

Soska, Tracy M., and Adria Navarro. 2020. “Social Workers and Public Libraries: A Commentary on an Emerging Public Collaboration.” Advances in Social Work 20 (2): 409–23.

Zettervall, Sara K., and Mary C. Nienow. 2019. Whole Person Librarianship: A Social Work Approach to Patron Services. Santa Barbara, CA: Libraries Unlimited.

Reprinted by permission of the author. “Perceptions of the Public Library Social Worker: Challenges and Opportunities” was published in the October 2021 issue of The Library Quarterly: Information, Community, Policy, 91(4), 402–419.