Filtered or Unfiltered?

Now that the Web is fully in place in the majority of North American schools and libraries,

The Lay of the Land
We discovered that filtering software is widely used across the nation, but despite the flurry of news headlines generated by the issue of Internet pornography, not all communities have chosen to fence the border. In fact, 53 percent of school libraries filter Internet access. In public libraries, the figure is much smaller: 21 percent.

Schools are also much more likely to use filters on all their terminals: 49 percent of school libraries use filtering software on all library computers. That figure stays essentially the same for all grade levels. Among public library respondents, the number drops to five percent. But in public libraries that filter "some" computers, written comments indicate that the filtered terminals are located in youth areas.

Slightly more than one-third of school libraries (36 percent) have no plans to use filtering software. That number drops slightly in high schools (33 percent) and grows somewhat among middle schools: (41 percent). Thirty-nine percent of elementary schools are not planning to filter access. In public libraries, the figure is significantly higher: 69 percent do not plan to install filters.

A small group is still thinking the issue over. Eleven percent of schools and nine percent of public libraries have investigated filters, but have no immediate plans to install them.

Filter Alternative
Approximately 96 percent of both school and public libraries have an Acceptable Use Policy, whether they filter or not. Libraries disseminate these policies to users in a variety of ways--the most common being statements cited on mandatory sign-up sheets in public libraries and information in student handbooks in school libraries. Most school and public libraries (81 percent) also help with Internet searches by providing links to pre-selected Web sites and/or age-specific commercial databases (such as EBSCO's Searchasaurus), search engines (say, Yahooligans), and research tools (online encyclopedias). Staff in nonfiltering libraries often supplement these measures with a "tap on the shoulder" when they notice a user viewing an inappropriate Web site. This kind of monitoring is done in 86 percent of school libraries and 62 percent of public libraries.

Why Librarians Filter--or Don't
Most of the reasons school librarians gave for filtering involved the role of the school library, uneasiness about personal liability, frustration with the amount of time they were spending monitoring students' Web searching, and concerns about student safety. Here's a sampling of the school responses:

In public libraries that filter, librarians talked about being responsive to community demands:

School and public librarians who are against filters based their opinions on a belief in intellectual freedom and the inefficiency of filters. Those librarians who oppose filters but used them nonetheless talked about their desire to remain employed. Here are some of their remarks:

Cyberpatrol software dominated the public library segment, with 43 percent of the market. Surfwatch (8 percent) and Websense software (6 percent) were distant runners-up. Other software mentioned by public library respondents were made by Screendoor, Border Manager, Foolproof, SmartFilter, Searchopolis, Net Nanny, Winu, Guard, Airswitch, and Library Guardian.

*Caution: small base size.

The Mystery Surrounding Filters
The survey showed that a significant percentage of staff in all types of libraries understood little about how their filtering software works. Thirty-five percent of school librarians who use keyword filters said that they "didn't know" who--the vendor or the school--selected the restricted keywords. Of those whose filters blocked particular Web sites, 44 percent did not know who supplied or controlled the site-blocking list. A larger number (69 percent) did not know if their filter was based on a Web rating system, the best known of which is PICS (Platform for Internet Content Selection). Public librarians were slightly more knowledgeable: 19 percent lacked information about their keyword blocking, 27 percent about site blocking, and 60 percent about Web rating systems. In some cases, the "don't know" response could also indicate uncertainty about which type of blocking their filter employed.

Due to the degree of confusion regarding blocking configurations, the information about the following blocking procedures is informative, but cannot be considered conclusive. It appears that 55 percent of public libraries and 47 percent of schools with filters make use of vendor-supplied words or phrases for keyword blocking. Fifteen percent of public libraries and 29 percent of school libraries also add their own words and phrases to the list.

Where site-blocking filters are used, librarians in both types of libraries (56 percent public, 43 percent school) use vendor-compiled lists of Web sites. But are they likely to have a copy of the list? Not very. A majority of librarians (54 percent) who use filters don't know whether they have access to the list of blocked sites. A small percentage (19 percent) said that their vendor would give them access to the information; another 28 percent said that the information was off-limits. Nearly half (49 percent) said that they had never requested changes in the list of sites. Of those that had requested adjustments, school librarians (54 percent) were more likely to do so than public librarians (34 percent).

Twenty-one percent of both groups use systems that allow access only to a defined universe of approved sites supplied by the vendor. Approximately 25 percent of all libraries with filters have also specified particular URLs that they want blocked, and half that number limit their users to a list of sites approved by the library.

What Gets Stopped at the Border?
Internet Relay Chat (chat rooms) and e-mail are the protocols that libraries block most. Fifty-three percent of public libraries and 43 percent of school libraries have configured their filters to block chat sites, while 22 percent of public libraries and 31 percent of schools block e-mail. One school librarian remarked that "chat rooms and such are like phone calls to friends--recreation," and that school use of the Internet needed to be educational, not recreational.

Do Filters Work?
When evaluating filtering software, two aspects are key: that the product blocks the kind of sites you want blocked and that it won't screen out the rest. Most librarians surveyed are generally satisfied with their product's ability to block objectionable sites, but they are dissatisfied with the product's ability to let through the "good" sites. Overall, 16 percent of the 264 librarians with filters are "very satisfied" and 40 percent are "somewhat satisfied" with the ability of their filters to not block out good sites (such as Superbowl XXX or breast cancer information). Twenty-eight percent are "somewhat dissatisfied" and the remainder (15 percent) are "very dissatisfied." School librarians appear to be more frustrated than public librarians with this aspect of filtering: 47 percent said that they were "somewhat" or "very dissatisfied" with the ability of their filter to let good sites through, compared with only 27 percent of public librarians.

When asked if they were satisfied with their decision to install filtering software, most respondents said they were. Just over three-quarters (76 percent) are either "very satisfied" or "somewhat satisfied." Nearly one-quarter are not.