This Website and materials hereon are provided as a public service of Drug Policy Education Group, Inc.
Working in Arkansas since 1999 to reduce the harm caused by drugs and by failed drug policies.

Arkansas Libraries May Not Accept Donated Materials

Since 2002, DPEG has donated over $8000 in books, video, booklets, and article reprints to 48 libraries across the state. These are: 13 libraries in Northwest Arkansas (Bella Vista, Bentonville, Rogers, Springdale, Fayetteville, Van Buren, Ft. Smith, Clarksville, Russellville, Dardanelle, Greenwood, Harrison, and Mountain Home), five libraries in Southwest Arkansas (DeQueen, Texarkana, Magnolia, El Dorado, and Hope), eight in Northwest AR (Batesville, Paragould, Walnut Ridge, Jonesboro, Newport, Wynne, West Memphis, and Searcy), four in Southeast AR (Monticello, Stuttgart, Pine Bluff, and Helena), eight in Central AR (Morrilton, Malvern, Benton, Conway, Hot Springs, North Little Rock, Little Rock, Lonoke), and ten college/university libraries: Henderson State Univ., Arkadelphia (HSU); Lyon College, Batesville; Univ. of Central Arkansas, Conway (UCA); Univ. of AR, Fay’vl (UA-F); Univ of AR for Medical Sciences, Little Rock (UAMS); Southern AR Univ, Magnolia (SAU); Univ of AR, Pine Bluff (UAPB); AR Tech, Russellville; Harding Univ., Searcy; AR State Univ, Jonesboro (ASU).

This is our first review of those libraries to determine whether they are shelving these donated materials. Materials not shelved are commonly sold at library book sales at extremely low prices, which is not only a waste of our resources but also does not accomplish our goal of making these materials available to the general public.

For the purposes of analysis, we looked at the donation retention rate for 8 books and 3 booklets. We reviewed online catalogs for the majority of our analysis. However, 17 community libraries and one college library did not have online catalogs or the online catalogs were non-functional. For those, we sent a letter, questionnaire/checklist, and postage-paid return envelope. After a three week waiting period, only four questionnaires had been returned.

College libraries as a group had the highest retention rate. ASU retained all eleven items we inventoried. HSU and Lyon College retained ten. UA-F, UCA, and SAU retained nine. UAMS and AR Tech retained six. Harding retained five. We gained no information about UAPB.

The highest retention rates among community/regional libraries were in the Central Arkansas region. Data was obtained for six of eight libraries there. The average number of materials retained was 8, or 75%. Malvern retained 11, Hot Springs 10, Conway and Little Rock eight, Benton seven, and North Little Rock seven, with no data for Morrilton or Lonoke.

The next highest retention rates among community/regional libraries were in the Northeast Region. Data was obtained for six of eight libraries there. The average number of materials retained was six, or 56%. Newport retained 9, Paragould and Searcy retained 8, Walnut Ridge and Jonesboro retained six, and Wynne retained none.

Three libraries out of five reported in Southwest Arkansas, retaining an average of five donations, or 48%. Magnolia retained nine, Texarkana six, and El Dorado one.

In Northwest Arkansas, data was obtained for seven out of 13 libraries. The average donations retained was 4.5, or 42%. Ft Smith retained nine, Fayetteville eight, Mountain Home seven, with Rogers four, Van Buren three, Dardanelle one, and Harrison none. (Springdale and Bentonville were not part of the analysis because we did not have budget to include them in our 2002 donation round. Interestingly, Springdale holds two books from the group that we donated in that round.)

In Southeast Arkansas, data was obtained for only two of the four recipient libraries. Helena held four of the donated items, and Pine Bluff kept three, for an average of 3.5, or 32%.

A variety of analysis methods have been applied in an attempt to understand these results. In one method, we grouped libraries according to the size of the patron base they serve. There seems to be little correlation between the patronage size and retention rate. For example, Jackson County Public Library (Newport) serves only 7811 patrons and retained 9 of the 11 donated items. Arkansas River Valley Regional Library (Dardanelle) serves over 84,000 patrons and retained only one. On the other extreme, Boone County Public Library (Harrison) has a patron base of 10,616 and retained none of the materials, while Ft Smith Public Library has a patron base of 80,268 and retained nine. Clearly there is no simple correlation between the size of the patron base and the number of donated items retained in the library collection.

In another method, we considered rural versus urban patron bases in comparing the retention rates of the donated items. East Central Arkansas Regional Library (Wynne) serves primarily rural patrons and retained none of the materials. Other low retention locations that were primarily rural include Boone County Public Library (Harrison – none) and Arkansas River Valley Regional Library (Dardanelle – one). However, high retention rates were also reported in primarily rural areas. For example, Columbia County Library (Magnolia) retained nine and Northeast Arkansas Regional Library (Paragould) retained eight. As for urban libraries, low retention rates occurred in some of the most urban sites, such as Rogers Public Library which serves 38,839 (retained four) and Pine Bluff – Jefferson County Public Library which serves 55,085 (retained three). It seems that rural or urban patronage alone does not result in a library’s rejection of our materials.

Regional differences were considered another possible contributor to the retention rates of our materials in Arkansas libraries. However, libraries within one region do not exhibit similar retention rates. For example, Northwest Arkansas includes some of the highest and lowest retention rates, with Fayetteville retaining eight and Ft Smith retaining nine, but Crawford County Library System (Van Buren) retaining three and Rogers Public Library retaining four. Similarly, other regions include a wide range of rates. In Northeast Arkansas, Jackson County Library (Newport) retained nine, White County Regional Library System (Searcy) and Northeast Arkansas Regional Library (Paragould) retained eight, and Craighead County Library (Jonesboro) retained six while East Central Arkansas Regional Library (Wynne) retained none. Overall, region of the state did not seem to be relevant to a library’s decision whether to shelve our donated material.

In general, the highest retention rate occurred in the most densely populated region of the state (Central) while the lowest rate occurred in the least populated (Southeast). A primary consideration in tolerance toward reform literature may lie in numbers. Librarians for inhabitants of more highly populated areas may be more likely to feel "safe" in considering topics involving personal behavior viewed as contrary to accepted public norms. Libraries serving greater populations would be expected to provide materials on a broader array of topics.

Limited input from librarians stated that decisions on whether to retain a donation involve the decision of the collection staff, whether the donation fits collection needs, and/or whether the donation fits local criteria. One library director stated that while the decision was up to the collection staff, "drugs" were not a topic they had "put much into." He stated that space restrictions were not a problem. However, a review of this library’s online catalog revealed that while they had retained none of our donations, the library holds 175 entries under a "Subject" search of the word "drug." Out of the first one hundred titles, 67 had to do with abuse, addiction, trafficking, or other issues surrounding illegal drugs and prohibition policies. Another library which rejected all donations has 31 titles on the subject, over half of which were in the category of "drug abuse."

There were no reports (limited data) of patron complaints about the donated materials.

Conclusion:

High rejection rates of our donated materials seem to stem from staff decisions based on personal opinion. Perceptions about our mission or drug policy reform in general are likely factors in those decisions. One library director in a zero retention facility stated that the community was conservative and that drugs (meth) were a serious problem there, causing him to conclude that the public would not accept our materials. He was not willing to risk a public outcry on this matter.

Considerations:

1. All libraries receive copies of DPEG’s newsletter, Drug Policy News. This is a potential method of educating librarians to be more open minded about reform. But only if staff reads them.

2. Subsequent shipments may contain materials perceived as more acceptable.

3. Over time, as libraries receive more of our materials, there may be more acceptance.

Update August 2005:

Feedback from librarians following the release of our report shows that some librarians would be more likely to shelve materials if reviews were included in our donation package. Librarians do not have time to search for reviews to learn more about the donated publications.