Apply for Digital Equity Funding Now; ALA and ACRL Provide Support

Editor’s Note: The following post was written with Kara Malenfant, a faculty member at Dominican University’s School of Information Studies.

Long-awaited funding is now available at the state and national level to advance digital equity, literacy, and inclusion through the Digital Equity Act (DEA). Libraries – including those at community colleges, colleges, and universities – should act now to access funds to better serve populations and communities disproportionally impacted by digital inequity, such as those with low income, disabilities, English language learners, racial or ethnic minorities, and rural residents to name just a few. ALA’s digital equity resources helps libraries leverage funding through two streams:

State Digital Equity Capacity Grant Program ($1.44 billion). States are beginning to receive funds to start implementing their Digital Equity Plans. Libraries should engage with their state broadband office, state library (if applicable), consortia, and other departments within their institutions to identify how to leverage these funds to support the needs of their covered populations. Two ALA guides can help libraries prepare:

• What Your Library Needs to Know: Developing Your State Digital Equity Capacity Grant Funding Program
• What Your Library Needs to Know: Technical Requirements for Seeking State Digital Equity Capacity Grant Funding

Digital Equity Competitive Grant Program ($1.25 billion). Community colleges, colleges, and universities can work together or with other community partners regionally and nationally to receive federal funds. This competitive grant program opened in July, and applications are due September 23. (Read the overview primer and learn more with tips, application resources, FAQ and complete Notice of Funding Opportunity.)

Making the Case

Once you know your state’s plan and federal funding priorities, academic libraries and institutions can support their proposals using evidence such as:

• Institution characteristics and demographics of the student population that demonstrate service of covered populations.
• Information about current library services that advance digital equity, such as device lending programs, digital literacy training, workforce development or public access computing centers. This can be used to demonstrate the effectiveness of existing programs and show the additional benefit that would arise from expanded services for which the library/institution seeks funding.
• Qualitative feedback from library users (such as from Project Outcome, annual user surveys, or other evaluations) that speaks to how the library’s services support their digital literacy and access needs, and what more they would like from the library.

Additionally, using evidence from published research can support your argument. Findings in a recently published ACRL book chapter help minority-serving institutions (MSI) and rural institutions – which serve covered populations under DEA – in seeking funding. The chapter analyzed national data on library spending, staffing, and material usage, instruction programs, and reported student learning outcomes from academic library instruction. It revealed important differences between broad Carnegie classification with those at MSI and rural institutions. Chiefly, MSI and rural institutions are under-resourced compared to all institutions nationwide, with lower spending per student, staffing levels, and use of library materials and a higher workload in offering library instruction.

Libraries are encouraged to use and adapt the chapter, licensed CC-BY, in their funding requests. For example, the literature review supports the value of library instruction (which often includes digital literacy skill training) and provides rationale for hiring more student workers. This following excerpt articulates key findings for MSI and rural institutions by the authors, © Kara Malenfant and Sara Goek.

---

Discussion

The results in this chapter compare characteristics, outputs, and outcomes for academic libraries in institutions of different types. The findings make it clear that academic libraries at MSI and rural institutions are under-resourced compared to the national average for all institutions. Library spending per student at MSIs is only 67 percent of the spending per student for all institutions, and for rural institutions it’s only 46 percent. These institution types also spend a lower proportion of their academic support budgets on libraries compared to U.S. institutions as a whole. As noted earlier in the chapter, minority-serving and rural institutions are also more likely to be public than U.S. institutions as a whole, which perhaps accounts for their spending patterns. Public institutions have seen repeated budget cuts in recent years, and academic libraries have often suffered as a result.¹

In terms of personnel, MSI and rural institutions have a lower than average number of library staff per student, with MSIs relying less on student workers than other institution types. Providing high quality programs and services that improve digital skills requires sufficient number and quality of personnel. Moreover, engaging students in meaningful work can be an extension of the library’s educational role, a high-quality developmental experience, and a very effective form of peer support. Additionally, it is a good investment—students represent 21.6 percent of the labor force in academic libraries and just 5.7 percent of the staffing costs. Because of severe cuts to the federal work-study program,² academic libraries are no longer able to hire as many student workers. Digital equity grants could help offset this loss. Increased funding and staff capacity would allow MSI and rural institutions to hire, train, and supervise more student workers as peer coaches focusing on digital skills building.

MSI and rural institutions have lower use of library materials than the U.S. average. With the IPEDS Academic Libraries component showing that 98.7 percent of circulation is electronic as of 2021, it is not enough simply to provide access. As acknowledged in the Digital Equity Act, digital literacy skills are necessary to expand the use of the internet so everyone can experience the benefits. Academic libraries are uniquely positioned to ensure students have strong information and digital literacy skills, and library instruction is one effective way to support this skill-building.

In terms of offering presentations, librarians and other professionals at MSI and rural institutions had a heavier workload than U.S. institutions overall. At the same time, attendance per student was higher at these institutions, which could indicate greater need for such training among these students. Nationally, those participating in library instruction reported overwhelmingly positive outcomes in terms of increased knowledge, confidence, application, and awareness. Additionally, there is a relationship between positive reported outcomes and higher circulation/use of library materials. Institutions where participants reported stronger outcomes have higher use of library materials. Since 98.7 percent of collection use is electronic, this means greater usage of curated, reputable, online resources—often in subscription databases. . .

Conclusion

. . . Finally, an important aim of this chapter was to assist librarians at MSI and rural institutions in seeking digital equity funds to support covered populations in their communities. Because there is unlikely to be another funding opportunity like this in our lifetime, libraries should seek to leverage federal funds to further the good work they are already doing for their communities. The results in this chapter can help MSI and rural institutions make their case in applying for state and federal funds for digital equity. While we specifically focused on skill-building through library instruction and workforce development via student workers, there are other activities academic libraries could propose as they seek digital equity funding. For example, libraries could propose residencies in digital scholarship, supporting workforce development in the broader community, or vocational training. They could seek federal and state funds to distribute free or low-cost equipment (e.g., Wi-Fi or laptop lending) and to construct, upgrade, or expand public access computing centers.

In 2024, states will begin spending $1.44 billion in DEA capacity grants over a five-year period to implement digital equity plans. Interested librarians should find and read their state plan carefully, proposing activities that meet the goals and objectives as articulated by their state. DEA funds are also being expended at the federal level through a $1.25 billion competitive grant program, offered each year for four years and administered by the United States Department of Commerce National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA).³ These grants will focus on multi-state, regional, or national efforts that align with federal-level goals and objectives. In addition to DEA, NTIA has another state formula grant, the Broadband Equity and Deployment (BEAD) Program, with $42.5 billion to expand high-speed broadband access via infrastructure, deployment, and adoption—including a goal of ensuring the community has the skills to and understands the benefits of using the internet. The states’ BEAD implementation period also starts in 2024.⁴

Notes

1. Michael Mitchell, Michael Leachman, Kathleen Masterson, and Samantha Waxman, “Unkept Promises: State Cuts to Higher Education Threaten Access and Equity,” Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, October 4, 2018, https://www.cbpp.org/research/state-budget-and-tax/unkept-promises-state-cuts-to-higher-education-threaten-access-and.

2. [See full chapter notes.] There were approximately 372,000 recipients in 2020-21 with $703.3 million in federal funding. This is 52 percent of the approximately 704,000 recipients in 2011-2012, when federal appropriations were $974.7 million. National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators, 2023 National Student Aid Profile, October 2023.

3. National Telecommunications and Information Administration. “Digital Equity Act Programs,” accessed March 5, 2024, https://broadbandusa.ntia.doc.gov/funding-programs/digital-equity-act-programs.

4. Learn more in Michelle Frisque and Kara Malenfant, “Keeping Up With… Digital Equity Funding” (Chicago: Association of College and Research Libraries, April 2023), https://www.ala.org/acrl/publications/keeping_up_with/digital_equity_funding; Kara Malenfant, Laurie Blandino, and Anne Craig, “Digital Equity in Higher Education” in Advocacy and Policy Work for Academic and Research Library Workers: Perspectives and Strengths, eds. Ray Pun, Sonya Durney, and Tarida Anantachai (Chicago: Association of College and Research Libraries, forthcoming 2025).