• We need to do a better job communicating why public access computing is so important. We assumed that the value of public-access computing would be obvious, and therefore we didn’t put enough time and effort into making the case for computers and Internet access at libraries, or into helping libraries develop the skills to make the case themselves. Now many libraries are in the position of explaining why their extremely popular computing programs deserve to be funded. One important strategy—to dispel the myth that public access is about idle Web surfing—is to emphasize the impact of computers and the Internet on community and economic development and patrons’ quality of life.
  
  
• We need to help state library agencies build administrative capability. Thus far, we’ve worked primarily with the state library agencies as intermediaries, but they have a broad arena of responsibility (and rightly are focused on more than public access computing) and we may have overburdened them. Especially since public access computing is so new, there simply aren’t enough intermediaries in the field who can help provide expertise to libraries and librarians. In our most recent round of grants, we provided some funds for administrative support in an effort to help these agencies more effectively implement new programs, and the initial results of this approach were promising.
  
  
• We need to help librarians with technology planning and securing local funding. Librarians need help with technology planning and with raising money for public access computing, since they must juggle these new programs with the rest of their library’s services. This is especially true in rural areas where budgets are extremely tight. Some librarians have been particularly effective in developing their public access computing programs, but we need to help all librarians build expertise in this area. About 65 percent of libraries are operating with technology budgets that remain flat or decline from year to year. We believe we can help libraries reverse this trend through strategic advocacy efforts.
  
  
• We need to enforce the local matching requirements of our grants. Our intent was to require financial commitments from local governments. The idea was to make sure other funders were invested in the project and would help maintain public access computing programs after the initial phase of our program was completed. However, we didn’t follow through in practice, and as a result the government funding we assumed would follow our investment didn’t always materialize, given the competition for limited local funding. By requiring matching funds in the future, we can guarantee that other funders commit themselves to public access computing.
  
  
• Shifting from an operating foundation to a grantmaking foundation has presented both challenges and opportunities. Ultimately, we decided that we could have more impact by making grants and helping build expertise and capacity in the fields where we worked, instead of developing many different kinds of expertise within our organization. This shift has posed challenges but also has provided an opportunity to create new and lasting capacity in the library community. Nevertheless, during the original phase of the Libraries Program, we created strong relationships with libraries and librarians because we worked with them directly. With the loss of daily contact, we have recognized a need for greater outreach to the library community, our grantees, and advisers to make sure our programs stay on track.

Next: Next Steps