The future for California libraries' statewide chat reference

Here in California, we're in limbo.  We don't really know what the fate of our statewide chat (QuestionPoint) reference service is.  Being on the State Advisory Board for the service, one would think I know (and people have assumed that), but I don't.  So, back to the limbo.  All funding for coordinators for our QuestionPoint statewide chat service has been slowly taken away since the first year of the project.  From 1 1/2, to 1/2, to no staff at all. 

As a result of the lack of a coordinator, there is no coordinated PR for the project.  Most libraries do something like a bookmark and leave it at that due to a lack of enthusiasm.  There is also no staff training and there is no staff support.  There is no question-follow up coordination (well, not by us--QuestionPoint has taken it on in a gesture of goodwill).

The project has never really been adequately funded, in my opinion.  There seems to be copious amounts of money for the stuff (the software) but no money being dedicated to staff to run, support, and publicize the stuff.  Until now, though.  Now we're not even sure about the software.

For this year, which we're already two weeks into, we don't really know if we'll even have state funding for the software.  If not, and CA libraries are forced for the first time to pay for their QuestionPoint subscriptions, I predict that at least 70% will cancel their subscriptions.  There's no way I could recommend forking out that amount of money for a service that has no coordinator or PR.  And unfortunately, so many of us have seen such low usage as a result of the lack of funds dedicated to the project over the years, that we're now convinced that it won't be used -- no matter what.  And other states have proven that that is not the case.  Get a coordinator in place and all of a sudden usage increases.  Surprise?  No. 

We also have to look at this in the light of the recent state library's report about the future of statewide reference, which recommends folding all reference services in to QuestionPoint's software (including an IM module that doesn't even exist).  So--we were told funding would probably be taken away, but now a report came out that says all of our reference should stick with QuestionPoint, so, uh, now what?  And this is the question that California library staff keep asking me.  I don't have the answer, unfortunately. 

I think we can all intellectually agree that a lack of staff dedicated to a project equals a floundering project--not an efficient project.  In fact, if you're not going to fund staff to deal with a project--just don't fund the project at all, because for almost every project I can think of, if you don't have staff, you fail.  And I'd rather have nothing than something junky.  We all know this, and yet, these things happen repeatedly in libraries.  Is it because we'd rather have two sorta-okay projects than one good one?  Trying to give staff all the new projects they want, so we halfway do some of them to meet that goal?  Gotta look good to the funding body?  What is it?

John Blyberg wrote a while ago about the atrophy of some Web 2.0 projects in libraries--that blogs, Flickr accounts, and podcast feeds have been set up--but are floundering, empty, abandoned.  How does that look to the public?  I think it looks even worse than not having these projects in place.  As John says:

These technical elements of L2 must be aligned along our institutions’ field of influence and expertise so that the seams don’t show. Seams send the wrong message, they say we’re being disingenuous and sloppy. In effect, poorly implemented technology amounts to spamming our users and staff with "new features."

Why implement something if you're going to let it die?  Why throw money at something if you're only going to throw half the amount the project requires to succeed?

This approach has always puzzled me--and yet, I see it in libraries all the time.  I simply don't understand the logic.  Perhaps someday, when I'm in the retirement home sipping my peach smoothie through a straw and watching Law & Order reruns on the wireless television implant in my brain, a revelation will  suddenly come to me about why we do this to ourselves and our users.  But until then, I will remain in this state of puzzlement, I suppose.

I've heard from a large number of California librarians on this issue, and a discussion at my consortium's meeting this morning actually drove this post.  I am very interested to hear from other California library staff about what they feel about this project, the lack of funding, and the overall pending reference changes in the state.  What have you heard?  What do you know?  What do you want?  What will work?  What won't?  And please say these things to your supervisor or to the state library too (they did put out a call for feedback, you know).

Update: I have just received word that the California State Library has chosen to fund the AskNow program one more year.  Just like last year, though, there is only funding for the software.  There is no coordinator for another year.  The project continues its slow death with a lack of organization, training, and PR.