Content uploaded by Noah Lenstra
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Noah Lenstra on Mar 13, 2021
Content may be subject to copyright.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0961000619871596
Journal of Librarianship and
Information Science
2020, Vol. 52(3) 738 –748
© The Author(s) 2019
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/0961000619871596
journals.sagepub.com/home/lis
Introduction
Between 1960 and 2010, the percentage of the United
States (US) population aged 0 to 18 decreased from 36%
to 24% (Figure 1). During this same time period, the per-
centage of the population aged 65 or more increased from
10% to 13%. The US Census Bureau (2010) estimates that
by 2100 the percentage of the population aged 65 or older
will exceed the percentage of the population aged 0 to 18
(see Figure 1). As the median age of the US population
rises, the core institutions of the modern age, including
libraries, need to adapt and change to continue to remain
relevant to the communities they serve.
Although best practices for serving older adults in
libraries have been developed by organizations like the
American Library Association’s (ALA) Reference and
User Services Association (RUSA) and Office for
Diversity, Literacy and Outreach Services (see below),
the extent to which libraries implement these best prac-
tices remains unclear. Therefore, this study surveys library
professionals to analyze how libraries are currently serv-
ing the needs of older adults. Results of this survey will
provide a useful benchmark and a path forward for librar-
ies still struggling to face the challenge of re-tooling their
services and programs for an aging society.
Literature review
The needs of older patrons only began receiving national
attention during the second half of the 20th century. In 1957,
ALA’s Adult Services Division administered a survey of
public library services for older adults. This survey led to
the publication in 1961 of Service to the Aging, the first
handbook on public library services for older adults (Casey,
1975). In 1975, ALA’s Reference and Adult Services
Division (now Reference and User Services Association)
published Library Services to Older Adult Guidelines, the
Library services to an aging population:
A nation-wide study in the United States
Noah Lenstra
University of North Carolina at Greensboro, USA
Fatih Oguz
University of North Carolina at Greensboro, USA
Courtnay S. Duvall
Forsyth County Public Library, North Carolina, USA
Abstract
This study presents a large-scale study of public library services to older adults in the United States. A random sampling method was
used to identify public libraries (n=226) for the study. Results suggest that libraries serve their aging communities in multiple ways. Some
libraries provide a plethora of specialized programs focused on the specific needs of older adults. Others extend core library services
to ensure they are accessible to older adults. Others invest in infrastructure and staff development to prepare for an aging society.
Some do not provide any specialized programs or services for older adults. There is great unevenness in terms of library services for
older adults across the nation. The discussion suggests additional work needed to better understand this unevenness, and to address it.
Keywords
Aging society, library innovations, older adults, public library, survey research
Corresponding author:
Noah Lenstra, Department of Library and Information Science,
University of North Carolina, 456 School of Education Building, 1300
Spring Garden St., Greensboro, NC 27408, USA.
Email: njlenstr@uncg.edu
871596LIS0010.1177/0961000619871596Journal of Librarianship and Information ScienceLenstra et al.
research-article2019
Article
Lenstra et al. 739
first professional guidelines on this population (American
Library Association, 1987). The guidelines have been
revised three times, in 1987, 1999, and 2008 (ALA, 2008).
More recently, the language that RUSA uses has changed,
with the 2017 revisions having the new title Guidelines for
Library Services with 60+ Audience: Best Practices, and
the committee charged with these guidelines becoming the
Library Services to an Aging Population Committee (ALA,
2017). In addition to the work of RUSA, in 2018 the ALA’s
Office for Diversity, Literacy and Outreach Services
(ODLOS) released a toolkit containing Keys to Engaging
Older Adults, which focuses on information public librari-
ans need to know to successfully serve aging members of
their communities (ALA, 2018).
The work of RUSA and ODLOS both contain key mes-
sages: experiences of aging are highly diverse and are
expected to become even more diverse as more people
age; staff should be cognizant of the different dimensions
of aging; and outreach, partnerships, technology, and pro-
gramming all need to be considered from the lens of an
aging population. According to RUSA (ALA, 2017), pub-
lic library services for older adults have eight dimensions:
Table 1. A review of past studies of public library services to older adults.
Study Sampling method & sample size Data source
Turock (1987) Convenience sample of US public libraries Two surveys:
1971 Survey (n=390),
1984 Survey (n=318)
Piper et al. (2009) Convenience sampling of public library branches
adjacent to the University of Maryland at College
Park (n=3)
Case studies of three library branches written by
graduate students
Bennett-Kapusniak (2013) Convenience sample of public libraries in US
state capital cities (n=50)
Library websites
Xiao (2013) Convenience sample of public libraries in China
(n=271)
Library websites and policy documents
Perry (2014) Strategic sampling of library systems in Atlanta,
Georgia, and New York City Metros
Surveys of library staff from these systems (n=91)
and follow-up interviews with staff (n=21)
Charbonneau (2014) Convenience sample of websites of public
libraries in US state of Michigan (n=104)
Library websites
Hughes (2017) Self-selecting sample of rural librarians from the
US and Canada (n=518)
Online survey of librarians solicited through
listservs
Sabo (2017) Literature review of work related to
programming for older adults
Research and practitioner-oriented literature
Horton (2018) Literature review of work related to public
library services for older adults
Research and practitioner-oriented literature
Figure 1. US population aging, 1965–2100
Source: US Census Bureau, 2010.
740 Journal of Librarianship and Information Science 52(3)
1. staff appropriately trained to understand the multi-
dimensional aspects of aging;
2. information services and collections of use to older
adults;
3. programs based on interests and needs of older
adults;
4. appropriate technology;
5. outreach and partnerships with other older adult
serving institutions;
6. services to the homebound and differently abled
older adult population;
7. appropriate and accessible facilities; and
8. funding and budgeting decisions made with older
adults in mind.
It is important to note that both the RUSA and ODLOS
guidelines are aspirational, meaning that they reflect the
aspirations of these national organizations. They do not
reflect a comprehensive understanding of the current state
of US public library services catering for old adults, in
terms of the scope, format, and nature of services offered.
These discussions also increasingly include interna-
tional dimensions. The International Federation of Library
Associations and Institutions’ (IFLA) bibliography of
library literature on disadvantaged persons published
between 2001 and 2008 contains a large section on older
adults, illustrating that librarians from around the world
are interested in this topic (Locke et al., 2010). A persistent
theme in this literature is the need for better understanding
of how best to serve the growing populations of older
adults found throughout the world.
Nevertheless, despite the release of these guidelines,
toolkits, and literature reviews, a comprehensive under-
standing of how public libraries serve older adults remains
lacking. Table 1 shows how public library services for older
adults in the US have been studied in previous research. For
as long as public library services for older adults have been
investigated, the use of randomized survey design tech-
niques has not been attempted. This present study draws a
more comprehensive picture of this issue since it employed
random sampling and adopted a quantitative approach
including incorporating data from sources including US
Census and Institute of Museum and Library Services
(IMLS) Public Library Survey into the analysis.
The available evidence about to what extent public
libraries throughout the country are adopting the evolving
guidelines released by RUSA and others remains incom-
plete. A website analysis of all 50 American state capitals
indicated that about 8% of public libraries offered pro-
gramming for older adults (Bennett-Kapusniak, 2013),
whereas Perry’s (2014) findings suggested that about half
of the public libraries in the urban areas of New York City
and Atlanta had programming for older adults, and these
libraries had a “designated coordinator of services to older
adults” (p. 359). Perry (2014) also found a correlation
between demographics and service development, noting
that libraries in counties with low populations of older
adults “reported less of an emphasis on targeting programs
to this population” (p. 366) than libraries in communities
with a larger older adult population. In contrast, however,
rural libraries, which across the US tend to have higher
median ages than urban areas (US Census Bureau, 2010),
appear to be less likely to have specialized programs and
services for older adults than their urban and suburban
counterparts (Hughes, 2017), possibly reflecting a dispar-
ity in resources and access to continuing education oppor-
tunities. These studies relied on convenience and strategic
sampling methods, but not statistically driven data collec-
tion and analyses techniques. The results from these stud-
ies are therefore inconclusive and in some cases
contradictory, suggesting further research is necessary.
Case study research further suggests that some public
libraries have embraced new roles as “third spaces” or
“community centers” for older adults. Klinenberg (2018)
prominently highlights how the Brooklyn Public Library
has taken on this role in his book Palaces for the People.
He discusses how the library has a Library Lanes Bowling
League, in which rival teams of seniors (different branches
of the Brooklyn Public Library have their own teams) com-
plete against each other using XBox Kinect (Klinenberg,
2018). Elsewhere, public librarians from Iowa proclaim
that “libraries often are the de facto senior centers of our
growing – and aging – communities,” (Cline and Jarvis,
2019: para. 1). In many US urban and rural communities
there are few other public spaces that have no barriers to
entry in which older adults can socialize amongst them-
selves and across generations, engage in lifelong learning,
and access information (Klinenberg, 2018). Klinenberg
(2018) has argued that what makes public libraries uniquely
important is the interdependent mix of facilities, programs,
services, and social networks that maintain and improve the
quality of life in a community. It is not one particular thing
that makes public libraries unique in relation to other insti-
tutions. Public libraries are more than the sum of their parts.
They are unique in terms of bringing together these interde-
pendent pieces into a holistic whole that Klinenberg (2018)
calls social infrastructure.
In any case, despite past research, at this moment evi-
dence-based tools that we can use to compare and contrast
how public libraries in different parts of the country serve
their aging communities are limited.
Methods
The study used an online questionnaire to gather data from
public library administrators in the US. The FY 2012
Public Library Survey (IMLS, 2015) data was used as a
sampling frame for the study. At the time of the research,
the latest version of the survey was available from 2012
and included data for 9305 public libraries (9233 public
Lenstra et al. 741
libraries in the 50 states, the District of Columbia, 61 pub-
lic libraries in the outlying areas of Guam, the Northern
Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, and the US Virgin Islands,
and 11 administrative entities that closed or temporarily
closed for FY 2012). After eliminating locations that were
closed (n=8) the final dataset used to draw a random sam-
ple included 9287 (n) libraries. To achieve an accurate
sample in terms of public library characteristics (e.g. geo-
graphic location, population size, library size), a sampling
ratio of 13% was used. The RAND() and SORT() func-
tions in Microsoft Excel application were used as part of a
simple random sampling process to identify a sample of
1200 libraries. The Public Library Survey (IMLS, 2015)
data included a variety of statistics on the status of public
libraries in US but did not include any email addresses for
libraries. Therefore, the sampling ratio was intentionally
kept slightly higher than the recommended sampling ratio
of 10% (Neuman, 2007) for such a moderately large popu-
lation (N=9287) in case an email address for certain loca-
tions could not be identified.
Out of the initial sample of 1200 libraries, a contact
email address for the library director/administrator was
located for 966 locations by using various online search
methods (e.g. browsing library websites). After excluding
invalid email addresses, the final sample included 893
libraries which approximately corresponded to sampling
ratio of 9.6%. To increase the response rate, a $100
Amazon.com gift certificate was raffled off to one ran-
domly selected respondent. After four waves of solicita-
tions between June and August 2015, a response rate of
26% was achieved. A total of 226 responses were usable
out of 231 received.
Data instrument and analysis
A questionnaire was developed to explore availability of
library services to older adults and the readiness of public
libraries to meet the demands of the aging baby boomer
generation. The questionnaire included questions such as
the library’s US postal zip code information so that relevant
data from the US Census (2010) and the Public Library
Survey (IMLS, 2015) could be incorporated during analy-
sis, a library type question (e.g. central, branch), and a set of
questions about current services to older adults. A majority
of statements and questions used to capture activities for
older adults undertaken by the library were primarily devel-
oped based on issues, observations, and expectations dis-
cussed in the literature as shown in Table 2.
Data such as median age and population size over the
age of 62 from the US Census 2010, and programming and
registered user information from the Public Library Survey
(IMLS, 2015) are incorporated as appropriate to explore
and compare services offered by the libraries. Since the
data in question did not show normalcy, non-parametric
tests (e.g. Pearson Chi-Square, Kruskal-Wallis) were
applied to determine significance of relationships among
both scalar and categorical variables. The Cronbach’s
alpha (α) statistic was used to measure internal consist-
ency reliability of statements used for services offered to
older adults. The results were summarized using the prin-
cipal component factor analysis, a statistical method for
identifying groups of variables (Field, 2009).
Results
Sample description
Following examples from past national surveys of public
libraries (e.g. Bertot et al., 2014; IMLS, 2015), this article
analyzes survey results in relation to the locale types of
“city,” “suburb,” “town,” and “rural” as described in the
Public Library Survey (IMLS, 2015). Among the 226 com-
plete responses to the survey, 38% came from rural librar-
ies, 27% from town libraries, 27% from suburban libraries,
and 8% from urban libraries. This break-down of library
types roughly aligns with the Public Library Survey (IMLS,
2015) data on the number of public libraries by locale,
which found that 49% of US public libraries are rural, 24%
are town, 25% are suburb, and 5% are urban. There was a
skew in the data, however, to the Midwest and Northeast
regions: roughly 79% of those who completed the survey
came from those two regions, with smaller representation
of public libraries from the South and West in relation to the
dataset as shown in Figure 2.
Among counties represented in the sample, the average
median age was 40.04, and in those counties the percent-
age of the population over 62 was, on average, 19%. In
Table 2. Alignment of library literature on services for older adults with topics asked in the questionnaire.
Library literature Topics in questionnaire
Dempsey (2007) Health literacy, volunteer opportunities
Lewis (2013) Assistive technologies
Mates and Booth (2012) Website accessibility
Park and Lee (2013) Retirement information
Senville (2009) Computer literacy and special programs
Sloan (2009) Intergenerational programs, Reading programs, Social programs, Outreach and partnerships
Bennett-Kapusniak (2013) Nomenclature used to refer to aging adults
742 Journal of Librarianship and Information Science 52(3)
comparison, in the US as a whole the median age is
approximately 37.8, and 18.5% percent of the population
is over the age of 62 as shown in Table 3.
These comparisons illustrate that the libraries who
responded to this survey came from areas of the country
that were slightly older than the United States in general.
Possibly because they had older populations (compared to
the national average), these libraries were more interested
in completing this survey. In any case, the rural and town
libraries that responded served populations that had higher
median ages (p<0.01), and higher percentages of people
over the age of 62 (p<0.01), compared to urban and sub-
urban respondents, with statically significant differences.
Programming frequency
As one would expect, respondents in rural areas (with
smaller populations and budgets) reported the smallest
number of programs for adults, as shown in Table 4.
However, when framed as percentage of total programs,
the differences among the four locales in terms of adult
programming diminished, and the differences were not
statistically significant. City libraries reported that on
average 31.2% of programs were for adults, while town
libraries reported on average that 25.9% of programs
were for adults.
Turning to the results from the survey itself, respondents
were asked to specify how often they offer programs specifi-
cally targeted towards older adults (Figure 3). Approximately
10% said these programs are never offered at their libraries,
35% said less than once a month, 22% said once a month,
19% said two to three times a month, 7% said once a week,
7% said two to three times a week, and only one library said
they offered programs specifically targeted towards older
adults on a daily basis. These findings suggest unevenness
across the country in terms of the availability of program-
ming for aging populations. Some libraries regularly provide
programs for older adults, while others never or infrequently
serve this population through programming.
All city libraries report having programming for older
adults, whereas 5% of suburban, 8.2% of town, and 16.3%
of rural libraries reported never offering such program-
ming (Table 5). Furthermore, 73.7% of urban, 66.7% of
suburban, 47.5% of town, and 48.8% of rural libraries
reported having this sort of specialized programming once
a month or more frequently. Taken together, these results
suggest that older adults in urban and suburban areas are
more likely to find specialized programming specifically
targeted at them on a regular basis, while this program-
ming is less likely to be found in town and rural libraries.
Programming frequency by age of community
Frequency of programming was recategorized into three
groups to explore how programming frequency relates to
the age of the community served (that is, the county’s
median age and the percentage of the county’s population
over the age of 62). Results showed that younger parts of
the US are more likely to have specialized programs for
older adults than are older parts of the country (p<0.05).
In counties with median ages less than the sample average
(40.4), 63.5% of libraries stated that they provide special-
ized programs for older adults once a month or more fre-
quently, while only 46.8% of libraries in older counties
(that is counties with median ages above the sample aver-
age) reported having such programming (Table 6).
Figure 2. Geographic coverage of the dataset and sample.
Table 3. Age distribution by locale.
City Suburb Town Rural US
Median age of county (mean) 36.4 39.4 40.8 41.8 37.8
Population over 62 15.8% 17.2% 19.7% 20.4% 18.5%
Table 4. Programming frequency and registered users by locale.
City Suburb Town Rural
Total number of programs (mean) – excluding youth 1104 181 107 38
Adult programs, percentage of all 31.20% 30.50% 25.90% 27.50%
Registered users (mean) 136108 24636.7 10780 4088.02
Lenstra et al. 743
Similarly, counties with smaller percentages of the pop-
ulation over the age of 62 offered significantly more spe-
cialized programs for older adults than older parts of the
country (p<0.01). About 64.5% of respondents said that
their libraries have specialized programs for older adults
once a month or more frequently, while 44.1% of respond-
ents from counties with older populations indicated having
such programming on a regular basis (Table 7).
Types of services offered
To better understand what these services and programs
consist of, a five-point Likert scale was used in 16 state-
ments to capture how much respondents agree or disagree
that their libraries had offered specific services and
programs for older adults during the past six months. Table
8 shows that across the sample, librarians tended to agree
that their libraries provide older adults with adequate com-
puting tools, public space, outreach services, volunteer
opportunities, and book clubs. There was less agreement,
however, about providing adequate programs and technol-
ogy specifically for older adults. In other words, public
library directors report agreeing that their libraries provide
older adults with adequate core library services (technol-
ogy, book clubs, outreach, public space), but there is less
agreement about the availability of more specialized ser-
vices and programs in libraries, with some asserting that
they have these available, and others not.
Types of libraries, in terms of services for older
adults
To understand why these differences exist, a factor analy-
sis was conducted with the survey data. When it is not
known prior to analysis which relationships among vari-
ables are most relevant, it may be necessary to investigate
a large number of potential relationships in order to dis-
cern those most relevant. One of the statements, “provid-
ing adequate computer access for older adult patrons,”
was omitted from the factor analysis since the determinant
of the correlation matrix was greater than 0.00001, which
suggested no multicollinearity (Field, 2000). After omit-
ting this statement, the Cronbach’s alpha statistic (α) was
estimated as 0.88 indicating a good level of internal
consistency.
Figure 3. Frequency of programming for older adults.
Table 5. Programming frequency by library locale.
City Suburb Town Rural
Never has programs for older adults 0.0% 5.0% 8.2% 16.3%
Has programs less than once a month 26.30% 28.30% 44.30% 34.90%
Has programs once a month or more 73.70% 66.70% 47.50% 48.80%
Table 6. Programming frequency by median age.
Locales with
Median Age < 40.4
Locales with
median age >= 40.4
Never 6.1% 13.5%
Less than once a month 30.4% 39.6%
Once a month or more frequent 63.5% 46.8%
Table 7. Programming frequency by population over 62.
Less than average percentage over 62 More than average percentage over 62
Never 6.50% 13.70%
Less than once a month 29.00% 42.20%
Once a month or more frequent 64.50% 44.10%
744 Journal of Librarianship and Information Science 52(3)
Factor analysis is an appropriate method to interpret rela-
tionships and patterns in statements listed in Table 8, and
regroup them into smaller clusters based on shared variance
to identify latent constructs (Yong and Pearce, 2013). The
results of the principal component factor analysis identified
four factors with an eigenvalue higher than one. These four
factors explained 63.5% of the total variance in services and
programs offered to older adults. In this analysis, the Kaiser-
Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measure was 0.856, suggesting
enough of a satisfactory factor analysis to proceed. The
Bartlett’s test of sphericity was statistically significant
(p<0.001). These results (see Table 9) suggested that factor
analysis was an appropriate technique for summarizing the
data. In other words, the factor analysis explains 63.5% of
the variance observed in the data.
The principal component factor analysis of services and
programs offered to older adults (n=226, α = 0.88)
revealed four factors (or types) in the data:
1. Libraries that offer core services for older adults;
2. Libraries that offer extensions of core services spe-
cifically for older adults;
3. Libraries that are prepared to serve older adults;
and
4. Libraries that offer specialized programs specifi-
cally for older adults.
Libraries that offer core services for older adults. This cate-
gory consists of those libraries that, based on their
responses to the survey, offer core library services for
older adults. These libraries were likely to affirm that they
provide “adequate computer access for older adult
patrons,” “adequate free internet access for older adult
patrons’ personal use,” and “adequate public gathering
spaces for older adult patrons.” Libraries in this category
do not tend to provide specialized programs or services for
older adults, but they do provide core library services to
older adults, reflecting the mission of the library to be open
to all: These core services are also accessible to any other
demographic group in the community served.
Libraries that offer extensions of core services specifically for
older adults. These libraries responded affirmatively that
they offer “basic technology training specifically targeted
towards older adults,” “advanced technology training spe-
cifically targeted towards older adults,” “book clubs spe-
cifically targeted towards older adults,” “events that cater
specifically to older adult patrons and children combined,”
and also partner “with community organization(s) to serve
older adults.” The libraries clustered in this category tend
to make a concerted effort to ensure that core library ser-
vices – technology training, book clubs, programs, com-
munity partnerships – include older adults. Unlike those in
the first category, these libraries endeavor to include older
adults, specifically, in core library services.
Libraries that are prepared to serve older adults. These
libraries were likely to agree that their libraries provide
“adequate assistive technologies for older adult patrons,”
“adequate staff training or professional development to
prepare library staff to accommodate older adults,” and
“adequate outreach services for older adults.” Libraries in
this category tend to have prepared themselves to serve
older adults by investing in infrastructure (assistive tech-
nologies), human resources (staff training), and network-
ing (outreach). These libraries may not provide specialized
Table 8. Services and programs for older adults (n=226).
Mean
(out of 5)
Standard
Deviation
Providing adequate free Internet access for older adult patrons’ personal use 4.35 0.837 More
agreement
Providing adequate computer access for older adult patrons 4.15 0.95
Providing adequate public gathering spaces for older adult patrons 4 0.996
Partnering with community organization(s) to serve older adults 3.65 1.091
Providing adequate outreach services for older adults 3.53 1.08
Promoting volunteer opportunities in the library for older adult patrons 3.5 1.245
Offering basic technology training specifically targeted towards older adults 3.45 1.204
Offering book clubs specifically targeted towards older adults 3.36 1.155
Offering social programs specifically targeted towards older adults 3.23 1.21 Less
agreement
Promoting events that cater specifically to older adult patrons and children combined 3.22 1.16
Offering adequate assistive technologies for older adult patrons 3.2 1.064
Offering health care seminars or workshops specifically targeted towards older adults 3.08 1.254
Providing adequate staff training or professional development to prepare library staff
to accommodate older adults
2.92 1.061
Offering information about retirement specifically targeted towards older adults 2.86 1.192
Offering information about fiscal planning specifically targeted towards older adults 2.85 1.184
Offering advanced technology training specifically targeted towards older adults 2.84 1.159
Lenstra et al. 745
programs specifically for older adults, but through invest-
ments in time and money they have prepared themselves to
serve their aging communities.
Libraries that offer specialized programs specifically for older
adults. These libraries were likely to respond affirmatively
that they provide “social programs specifically targeted
towards older patrons,” “health care seminars or workshops
specifically for older adults,” “information about retirement
specifically targeted towards older adults,” “information
about fiscal planning specifically targeted towards older
adults,” and “volunteer opportunities in the library for older
adult patrons.” These libraries have gone beyond providing
core library services for older adults. They have developed
specialized programs developed specifically with older
adults in mind. These libraries provide the types of special-
ized programs and services one is likely to find in senior
centers (Beisgen and Kraitchman, 2003), where programs
are developed to be of specific interest to older adults.
Limitations
Though a simple random sampling was employed to iden-
tify public libraries for the study, libraries that responded
from the Northeast and Midwest regions of US were
slightly overrepresented whereas libraries in the South
were underrepresented and no library from outlying areas
such as Puerto Rico and Guam responded. The average
median age and percentage of population over 62 calcu-
lated for the whole county where libraries are located.
Though these figures may be reflective of the whole
county, these demographic variables for the library’s ser-
vice area may be different.
In addition to limitations that derive from this study’s
sampling approach, additional limitations emanate from
its broader theoretical approach. This study does not
inform us about the roles of public libraries in the lives of
aging members of local communities. The questions asked
focus on what public libraries provide for older adults, not
on how these specific services are targeted to older people,
nor on the particular reasons older adults do or do not uti-
lize these services. Seeking and affirming social connec-
tions within and across generations is a major driver of
older adult utilization of public libraries (Klinenberg,
2018), but this study does not add nuance to our under-
standing of this phenomenon. Further research is needed
on these topics.
Discussion
Using a randomized study design, this study used statisti-
cal techniques to advance understanding of US public
library services for an aging population. A key finding
from this study is that public libraries can be conceptual-
ized as being in four categories, with some offering basic
library services that are accessible to all (and thus acces-
sible to older adults), while others seek to extend these
core services to ensure their accessibility to older individu-
als, still others make preparations for an aging society by
investing in staff and resources, and finally some offer spe-
cialized programs specifically targeted at older adults anal-
ogous to those one would expect from a senior center.
These four categories explain 63.5% of the variance
observed in the survey data, and thus are grounded empiri-
cally and could be further elaborated and explored in
future research.
Table 9. Results of component factor analysis: Services and programs.
Component Initial eigenvalues Extraction sums of squared loadings
Total Percent of
variance
Cumulative
percent
Total Percent of
variance
Cumulative
percent
1 6.039 37.746 37.746 6.039 37.746 37.746
2 1.913 11.954 49.7 1.913 11.954 49.7
3 1.175 7.342 57.042 1.175 7.342 57.042
4 1.03 6.44 63.483 1.03 6.44 63.483
5 0.88 5.501 68.984
6 0.731 4.57 73.553
7 0.722 4.515 78.068
8 0.612 3.826 81.894
9 0.533 3.329 85.223
10 0.494 3.087 88.31
11 0.44 2.75 91.06
12 0.427 2.668 93.728
13 0.317 1.978 95.706
14 0.279 1.743 97.449
15 0.236 1.473 98.921
16 0.173 1.079 100
746 Journal of Librarianship and Information Science 52(3)
These four categories could be used to stimulate dis-
cussions within libraries and within library systems in
terms of what directions libraries should take to better
serve aging populations. Some libraries may choose to
invest in infrastructure and staff development. Others may
choose to ensure that core library services, like technol-
ogy, book clubs, events, and community partnerships, are
done specifically with older adults in mind. Still others
may decide to go the route of senior centers (e.g. Cline
and Jarvis, 2019), and develop and provide specialized
programs that cater explicitly to the needs of older adults.
This factor analysis suggests that there are multiple routes
to developing library services for older adults, and these
categories could be productively used to stimulate discus-
sion and strategic planning.
Additional research could develop a survey instrument
to comprehensively map where public libraries are among
these four categories. This knowledge could in turn led to
focused funding, continuing education, and other advo-
cacy and support to better enable libraries to develop more
advanced and specialized library services for their aging
populations.
In addition, this study affirmed prior work (e.g. Hughes,
2017; Perry, 2014) that found that more urban areas tend to
have more robust library services for older adults than more
rural areas. On the other hand, this study’s results diverge
from past research in that it found that libraries that serve
younger populations tend to, counter-intuitively, have more
robust library services for older adults. This discrepancy
suggests more research is needed to disentangle how factors
such as population age and community structure relate to
the comparative presence or absence of library services for
older adults. One possibility may be that public libraries that
serve younger populations also have more robust funding
and local support, leading to more robust services for older
adults. Those libraries could also perhaps have stronger
leadership that prioritizes the development of client focused
services across the lifecourse.
At a more general level, the data here presented could
be productively interpreted within the structure of a politi-
cal, economic, social, and technological (PEST) analysis.
As shown by Michnik (2015) in her analysis of how
Swedish public library managers describe local politi-
cians’ attitudes about public library issues, such an
approach seeks “to identify external factors affecting an
organization and/or its situation” (p. 676). In addition to
the external factor of an aging planet (a social issue), other
external factors that may shape the phenomenon studied in
this article include politics (e.g. the rise of right-wing
political forces), economics (e.g. austerity measures), and/
or technological (e.g. the so-called “grey” digital divide).
Although beyond the scope of the present study, we invite
future research on the PEST contexts shaping the develop-
ment of public library services for older adults in heteroge-
neous local communities.
Conclusion
This study showed that the development of programs and
services for older adults is uneven across the US. Some
libraries provide programs specifically targeted at older
adults on a weekly basis, while others never provide any
such programs. In between are many libraries that offer a
variety of programs and services. Through a factor analysis
this study identified four categories of public libraries, in
terms of the programs and services provided for older adults.
Although the study was unable to definitively discern the
root causes of the unevenness among libraries, the results do
suggest that more professional development and continuing
education is needed to prepare current and future public
librarians to grapple with the challenges and opportunities
associated with serving an aging population. In addition,
further research is needed to analyze the development of
these services within their PEST contexts. Such an under-
standing would enable library leaders and educators to more
effectively advocate for public libraries in aging societies.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect
to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research,
authorship, and/or publication of this article.
ORCID iD
Noah Lenstra https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7613-066X
References
American Library Association (1987) Library Services to
Older Adults Guidelines. Chicago, IL: American Library
Association, Reference and Adults Services Division.
American Library Association (2008) Guidelines for Library
and Information Services to Older Adults. Chicago, IL:
American Library Association, Reference and User Services
Association. Available at: https://journals.ala.org/index.php/
rusq/article/viewFile/3692/4026 (accessed 9 August 2019).
American Library Association (2017) Guidelines for Library
Services with 60+ Audience: Best Practices. Chicago, IL:
American Library Association, Reference and User Services
Association. Available at: http://www.ala.org/rusa/sites/ala.org.
rusa/files/content/resources/guidelines/60plusGuidelines2017.
pdf (accessed 9 August 2019).
American Library Association (2018) Keys to Engaging Older
Adults. Chicago, Il: American Library Association, Office for
Diversity, Literacy and Outreach Services. http://www.ala.
org/aboutala/sites/ala.org.aboutala/files/content/Keys%20
to%20Engaging%20Older%20Adults.pdf (accessed)
Beisgen B and Kraitchman M (2003) Senior Centers:
Opportunities for Successful Aging. New York: Springer.
Bennett-Kapusniak R (2013) Older adults and the public library:
The impact of the boomer generation. Public Library
Quarterly 32(3): 204–222.
Lenstra et al. 747
Bertot JC, Real B, Lee J, et al. (2015) 2014 Digital Inclusion
Survey: Survey Findings and Results. College Park, MD:
Information Policy & Access Center, College of Information
Studies, University of Maryland.
Casey G (1975) Libraries and the aging. In: Kent A, Lancour H
and Dailey J (eds) Encyclopedia of Library and Information
Science. New York: Marcel Dekker, pp. 295–296.
Charbonneau DH (2014) Public library websites and adherence
to senior-friendly guidelines. Public Library Quarterly
33(2): 121–130.
Cline D and Jarvis M (2019) From Movies to Meals: Senior
Services and Spaces at Your Local Library. Iowa City:
National Network of Libraries of Medicine Greater Midwest
Regional Library. Available at: https://nnlm.gov/class/
from-movies-to-meals (accessed 9 August 2019).
Dempsey B (2007) What boomers want. Library Journal
132(12): 36–39.
Field A (2000) Discovering Statistics using SPSS for Windows.
London: SAGE.
Horton J (2018) Senior citizens in the twenty-first-cen-
tury public library. Public Library Quarterly. DOI:
10.1080/01616846.2018.1554176.
Hughes C (2017) Rural libraries services for older adults: A
nationwide survey. Public Library Quarterly 36(1): 43–60.
Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS) (2015) FY 2012
Public Library Survey Data released. Available at: https://
www.imls.gov/news-events/news-releases/fy-2012-public-
library-survey-data-released (accessed 9 August 2019).
Klinenberg E (2018) Palaces for the People: How Social
Infrastructure Can Help Fight Inequality, Polarization and
the Decline of Civic Life. New York: Crown.
Lewis J (2013) Information equality for individuals with disabili-
ties: Does it exist? Library Quarterly 83(3): 229–235.
Locke J, Panella N and Girolami M (2010) International Resource
Book for Libraries Serving Disadvantaged Persons: 2001–
2008. The Hague: IFLA.
Mates BT and Booth C (2012) Information power to all patrons.
Library Technology Reports 48(7): 7–13.
Michnik K (2015) Public library managers’ descriptions of polit-
ical attention. Library Management 36(8/9): 673–684.
Neuman WL (2007) Basics of Social Research: Qualitative and
Quantitative Approaches. New York: Pearson.
Park M and Lee JY (2013) The role of information for people
planning for retirement Libri: International Journal of
Libraries & Information Services 63(1): 57–70.
Perry CA (2014) Information services to older adults: Initial find-
ings from a survey of suburban libraries. Library Quarterly
84(3): 348–386.
Piper D, Palmer S and Xie B (2009) Services to older adults:
Preliminary findings from three Maryland public libraries.
Journal of Education for Library and Information Science
50(2): 107–118.
Sabo RM (2017) Lifelong learning and library programming for
third agers. Library Review 66(1/2): 39–48.
Senville W (2009) Public libraries: The hub of our communities.
Australasian Public Libraries and Information Services
22(3): 97–103.
Sloan M (2009) Developing a good practice guide on library ser-
vices for older people. Australasian Public Libraries and
Information Services 22(2): 48–57.
Turock BJ (1987) Public library service for older adults: Update
1984. Library Quarterly 57(2): 137–170.
US Census Bureau. (2010) 2010 Census. Washington, DC:
US Census Bureau. Available at: http://www.census.
gov/2010census/data/ (accessed 9 August 2019).
Xiao X (2013) Public library services to older adults in China:
An empirical study based on content analysis.
数据与情报
科学学报
6(3): 44–58.
Yong AG and Pearce S (2013) A beginner’s guide to factor anal-
ysis: Focusing on exploratory factor analysis. Tutorials in
Quantitative Methods for Psychology 9(2): 79–94.
Author biographies
Noah Lenstra is an assistant professor in the Department of
Library and Information Science at the University of North
Carolina at Greensboro. He received his PhD at the University of
Illinois. His research focuses on community informatics and the
diffusion of innovation in public libraries, particularly around
technology, aging, and health and wellness programming.
Fatih Oguz is an associate professor in the Department of Library and
Information Science at the University of North Carolina at
Greensboro. He received his PhD at the University of North Texas.
His research addresses questions about information and access.
Dr Oguz is interested in interactions between people and technology,
and questions regarding how technology influences social life.
Courtnay S. Duvall earned his Master’s in Library and Information
Studies from the University of North Carolina at Greensboro. He
currently works at the Forsyth County Public Libraries in North
Carolina, US.
Appendix: Survey
Q1. What is the zip code for the library’s physical address?
Q2. What is your library type?
Library System
Central Library
Branch Library
Other
Q3. Questions in this section are designed to better under-
stand how public libraries are preparing for the baby
boomer generation. In the context of this study, baby boom-
ers are defined older adults who are over the age of 60.
Is the library’s website designed for accessibility?
Definitely yes
Probably yes
Maybe
Probably not
Definitely not
Q4. When targeting older populations, what terminology
does library material use? [Select all that apply]
748 Journal of Librarianship and Information Science 52(3)
Senior citizen
Seniors
Older adults
Aging adults
Baby Boomers
Grandparent
Specifies age range of eligible participants
Other
Q5. How often programs specifically targeted towards
older adults are offered?
Never
Less than Once a Month
Once a Month
2–3 Times a Month
Once a Week
2–3 Times a Week
Daily
Q6. My library has engaged in following activities in the
last six (6) months: [Select among Strongly Disagree,
Disagree, Neutral, Agree, Strongly Agree for each
statement]
promoting volunteer opportunities in the library for older
adult patrons.
offering programs specifically targeted towards older adults.
offering social programs specifically targeted towards
older adults.
offering health care seminars or workshops specifically
targeted towards older adults
offering basic technology training specifically targeted
towards older adults.
offering advanced technology training specifically tar-
geted towards older adults.
offering book clubs specifically targeted towards older
adults.
offering information about retirement specifically targeted
towards older adults.
offering information about fiscal planning specifically tar-
geted towards older adults.
providing adequate computer access for older adult
patrons.
providing adequate free internet access for older adult
patrons’ personal use.
providing adequate public gathering spaces for older adult
patrons.
providing adequate outreach services for older adults.
promoting events that cater specifically to older adult
patrons and children combined.
offering adequate assistive technologies for older adult
patrons.
providing adequate staff training or professional develop-
ment to prepare library staff to accommodate older adults.
partnering with community organization(s) to serve older
adults.
Q7. Organizations respond to change in different ways.
The statements below refer to some of the ways members
of organizations perceive their organizations to be.
Please indicate the degree to which you agree that the
statement describes your library.
My library is . . .. [Select among Strongly Disagree,
Disagree, Neutral, Agree, Strongly Agree for each
statement]
cautious about accepting new ideas.
a leader among other organizations.
suspicious of new ways of thinking.
very inventive.
often consulted by other organizations for advice and
information.
skeptical of new ideas.
creative in its method of operation.
usually one of the last of its kind to change to a new method
of operation.
considered one of the leaders of its type.
receptive to new ideas.
challenged by new ideas.
follows the belief that “the old way of doing things is the
best.”
very original in its operational procedures.
does not respond quickly enough to necessary changes.
reluctant to adopt new ways of doing things until other
organizations have used them successfully.
frequently initiates new methods of operations.
slow to change.
rarely involves employees in the decision-making process.
maintains good communication between supervisors and
employees.
influential with other organizations.
seeks out new ways to do things.
rarely trusts new ideas and ways of functioning.
never satisfactorily explains to employees the reasons for
procedural changes.
frequently tries out new ideas.
willing and ready to accept outside help when necessary.
