Evidence Summary
Midwest Ecological Study Outlined the
Neighbourhood Literacy Environment and the
Inequitable Access Children Have to Books in Public Library Branches
A Review of:
Crosh, C., Hutton,
J., Szumlas, G., Xu, Y., Beck, A., & Riley, C.
(2022). Inequities in public library branch access and children’s book
circulation in a Midwestern American city. The International Journal of
Information, Diversity, & Inclusion (IJIDI), 6(3), 68-81. https://doi.org/10.33137/ijidi.v6i4.38127
Reviewed by:
Nandi Prince
Assistant Professor
Ursula C. Schwerin Library
New York City College of Technology
New York, New York, United States of America
Email: NPrince@citytech.cuny.edu
Received: 9 Dec. 2022 Accepted: 2 Feb. 2023
2023 Prince.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative
Commons‐Attribution‐Noncommercial‐Share Alike License 4.0
International (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/),
which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium,
provided the original work is properly attributed, not used for commercial
purposes, and, if transformed, the resulting work is redistributed under the
same or similar license to this one.
DOI: 10.18438/eblip30290
Abstract
Objective – To explore the impact of the neighbourhood
literacy environment (NLE) by examining associations between public library
locations, book circulation rates, and neighbourhood
racial composition.
Design – An ecological study using aggregated data sources.
Setting – Forty selected neighbourhood public libraries in the state of Ohio, United States of America.
Subjects – Analysis of (1) existing circulation statistics from January 2014 to
December 2018 for the neighbourhoods of Cincinnati
and Hamilton Public Libraries; and (2) the American Community Survey (ACS) data
from 2018.
Methods – Among the key components studied for the population
was the NLE, which the authors defined as access to literacy materials in a neighbourhood. The data the authors examined for the
targeted populations were race, age, poverty level, and library location. The
two groups of variables computed were: (1) the connection between circulation
rates of children’s books and child poverty; (2) the connection between
circulation statistics and the proportion of people who self-identify as Black
in the neighbourhood. Additionally, the researchers
used the Spearman’s rank order correlation coefficient (rs)
to measure the relationships between the correlating variables within each neighbourhood library branch – number of books circulated
per child; the census data of children who self-identified as Black; and the
children who were designated as 20% below the federal poverty level (FPL). The
Chi-square test was used to calculate associations between access to a library
branch and child poverty in each neighborhood. In this study, the researchers
only looked at the associations between variables at an aggregate
level. The authors defined the terms they used in the study: (1) children
were ages 0-18 years; (2) children’s books were literature intended for an
audience from 0-18 years old; (3) the definition of poverty was taken from the
U.S. Census and classified as neighborhoods with 20% of children below the FPL.
Main Results – There were 40
library branches that served 81 neighbourhoods, of
which there was only a 38% distribution in the high-poverty areas, compared
with 58% for the low. Approximately 24 million books were circulated during the
5-year period of 2014 -2018. The median circulation rate per child at the neighbourhood level was 22 books. The results showed steep
variations in circulation rates per child across branch locations; the numbers
range from 3 to 98 books per child across neighborhoods. The authors indicated
that the increases and decreases in the circulation rates were tied to branch
location and the area’s socioeconomic status. The primary finding of the data
analyzed was a negative correlation between the population identified as
Black/African American and lower circulation rates in poorer neighbourhoods.
Limitations identified by the authors were (1) the
allocation of literacy resources per branch was unknown; (2) the in-library
book user statistics in high-poverty neighbourhoods
may not be accurately documented; (3) the precise allocations for literacy
funds and the use of in-library resources for developing literacy skills need
further study.
Conclusion – The authors noted that race, economic status, and
proximity to public libraries were pertinent factors in understanding
inequitable access to books for children in the neighbourhoods
studied. The NLE was an important dynamic beyond the home; the availability of
books and engagement with them were contributing factors to the development of
literacy skills. The associations observed between the variables indicated that
improving the NLE matters and libraries must mindfully work to alleviate the
disproportionately lower levels of access to books and their unfavorable
outcome for children in low-income areas.
Commentary
This study added to the
existing literature on associations between poverty and access to literacy
resources (e.g., Neuman & Celano, 2001; Neuman
& Molan, 2016). Based on the evidence of the
circulated books-to-child ratio and the various data components studied
(library location, poverty, and race), the NLE was a significant determinant to
the literacy development of children. Branch libraries are part of their
environment and therefore warrant the statistical analysis completed by the
authors.
After evaluating the study with the CriSTaL Checklist for Appraising a
User Study (Booth, 2010), the generalizability to age group, location, and race
applied by the researchers were assessed as appropriate for a population level
study. This checklist also highlighted the strengths of the study: the authors’ clearly stated aims, the population size selected,
the variables of the data collected, and the reproducibility of the methods.
The researchers outlined
their hypothesis and the specific variables they used to understand the
problem: (1) by making statistical comparisons of the aggregate circulation
statistics of children’s books between branches to determine; (2) what
connections exist because of the area’s economic status; and (3) what
institutional partnerships and legislative acts can be made to the current
structure to improve the studied population’s access to books. Spearman’s
correlation coefficient was a good choice because it ranked the dissimilar data
of this population study. It displays the monotonic relationship, when one
variable changes, as in high and low-poverty neighbourhoods.
An examination of the high and low-poverty neighbourhoods
reflected that the low-poverty residents had more libraries available to them.
Those statistics should be the reverse because low-poverty residents had more
options available to them, including the income to purchase books and
additional libraries from which to obtain free library books. Additionally, the
3:98 ratio of circulated books in low to high-poverty neighbourhoods
was a daunting statistic because the difference is 33-fold. The authors
suggested that populations with lower circulation figures had access to
under-resourced libraries.
There was inherent bias in
the census data that was used for the study. The historical legacy of racial
and ethnic identities in American society is complex and fraught with
problems. Implicit in the linear timeline, and the numbers from their
computation of the variables, race and poverty contributed to the decisions of
where the 40 libraries were placed in Cincinnati going as far back as the late
1800’s. While this study focused on the number of Black people who self-identified
based on information obtained from ACS, a subset of the U.S. Census, future
researchers may want to address how the Census measures race and ethnicity of
Hispanics and of other ethno-racial categorizations of population groups.
Additionally, the methods section stated that the ACS data were produced
annually, but there was no explanation given as to why only the 2018 data (Crosh et al., 2022, p. 71) was applied to the circulation
statistics of 2014 through 2018. It is worth extending this study because
population level data were only partially informative as they lacked the
accuracy of data at an individual level
References
Booth, A. (2010). CriSTaL checklist for appraising a user study. Netting the
Evidence. Retrieved from http://nettingtheevidence.pbwiki.com/f/use.doc
Crosh, C., Hutton, J., Szumlas, G., Xu, Y., Beck, A., & Riley, C.
(2022). Inequities in public library branch access and children’s book
circulation in a Midwestern American city. The International Journal of
Information, Diversity, & Inclusion (IJIDI), 6(4), 68-81. https://doi.org/10.33137/ijidi.v6i4.38127
Grimes, D. A., & Schulz, K. F. (2002). Descriptive studies: What
they can and cannot do. The Lancet (British Edition), 359(9301),
145–149. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(02)07373-7
Neuman, S. B., & Celano, D. (2001). Access to print in low-income
and middle-income communities: An ecological study of four neighborhoods. Reading
Research Quarterly, 36(1), 8-26. https://doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.36.1.1
Neuman, S. B., & Moland, N. (2016). Book deserts: The consequences
of income segregation on children's access to print. Urban Education, 54(4),
126-147. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085916654525