Public Libraries In Massachusetts
Public Librariesin MassachusettsAN EVOLVING ECOSYSTEMSasaki
Public Librariesin MassachusettsAN EVOLVING ECOSYSTEMSasaki
Introduction08About this Study10Methodologyontent0117Findings34What’s Next?
IntroductionLibraries arecentral to everycommunity.They are places where children go tolearn about their world, where youth andadults go to read, study, and spend time,and where communities come together.Increasingly, libraries are taking on newroles in their communities and adaptingto changes from myriad forces, includingdemographic changes, economicshifts, and the rise of the internet.This study explores both existing andpotential models for public libraries inMassachusetts.The Massachusetts Board ofLibrary Commissioners (MaryAnn Cluggish, Chair / JamesLonergan, Director) commissionedSasaki, an interdisciplinary designfirm based in Watertown, MA, toconduct this study to explore thecurrent state and future potentialof public libraries throughoutMassachusetts. This report wasproduced by the MBLC's LibraryBuilding Specialists, Lauren Staraand Rosemary Waltos, andSasaki’s Lan Ying Ip, PrincipalArchitect and Brad Barnett,Planner. Additional support camefrom Sasaki’s Corinne Jachelski,Space and Data Analyst and AlizaLeventhal, Corporate Librarian/Archivist.This report,completed in Spring2018, is based on2016 data providedby the MBLC’s AnnualReport InformationSurvey (ARIS) andtwo surveys writtenand administeredby Sasaki during thesummer and earlyautumn of 2017.To ask questions orshare commentsabout this report,please contact theMBLC via email:ecosystem@mblc.state.ma.us, or visitwww.mblc.state.ma.us/ecosytem01
PUBLIC LIBRARY ECOSYSTEM OF MASSACHUSETTSIntroductionPublic Libraries ofMassachusettsMassachusetts has a long and rich history of public libraries.It was the first state to establish a dedicated agency to guidethe development of library services, the Massachusetts Boardof Library Commissioners (MBLC), in 1890. The MBLC’s chiefresponsibilities are to organize, develop, coordinate, and improvelibrary services throughout the Commonwealth. A principalgoal for the MBLC is to ensure everyone in Massachusettshas full and equal access to library and information resourcesacross the Commonwealth, regardless of geographic location,background, or ability.0203
PUBLIC LIBRARY ECOSYSTEM OF MASSACHUSETTSIntroductionHow are Massachusetts’public libraries organizedtoday?36MVLCMerrimack Valley,Northeastern MA17141C/W MARSCentral/Western MANOBLENorth of Boston337MINUTEMANMetro-west BostonMBLNMetropolitan Boston26OCLNSouth Shore of Bostontowards the CapeLIBRARY NETWORK COVERAGEMASSCAT/NON NETWORK LIBRARIESMost public libraries are members of one ofeight automated resource sharing networks(hereafter referred to as networks) organizedgeographically across the state.These networks support the work of individual public librariesproviding central library services and resources for both patronsand staff. Networks provide the infrastructure for the onlinecatalog, circulation, patron information, request management,telecommunications, internet and wifi, and expanded accessto electronic resources, eBooks, audiobooks, and other digitalcollections. Although these network designations are ofteninvisible to patrons, the services they enable are fundamental tothe patron experience.0438SAILSSoutheastern MA34CLAMSCape Cod, Martha’sVineyard, Nantucket05
PUBLIC LIBRARY ECOSYSTEM OF MASSACHUSETTSIntroductionAbout theNetworksMassachusetts works to ensure equal access to public libraries and libraryservices for everyone in the state. Networks form the foundation of thiscommitment, providing the mechanism for reciprocity between librariesand broad availability of both physical and electronic services. Within thisstatewide approach, each network has its own unique character, composition,and service offerings. Of the 9 networks, 8 have public library members. Inaddition to the networks, MassCat supports small and unique libraries that arenot part of another network.8 NETWORKSMEMBER332 LIBRARIESIN TOTALNETWORKFULL NAMENUMBEROF REPORTEDLIBRARIESTOTALNUMBER OFLOCATIONSPOPULATIONCLAMSCAPE LIBRARIES AUTOMATED MATERIALS SHARING3437231,152C/W MARSCENTRAL/WESTERN MASSACHUSETTS AUTOMATEDRESOURCE SHARING1411671,728,967MBLNMETRO BOSTON LIBRARY NETWORK327744,145MINUTEMAN LIBRARY NETWORK37551,123,548MVLCMERRIMACK VALLEY LIBRARY CONSORTIUM3639804,818NOBLENORTH OF BOSTON LIBRARY EXCHANGE1722544,225OCLNOLD COLONY LIBRARY LN)Due to the significant difference in size and data available for MassCat and MBLN in comparison with the othernetworks listed above, MassCat and MBLN were excluded from the findings of this report.0607
PUBLIC LIBRARY ECOSYSTEM OF MASSACHUSETTSAbout this studyAbout this StudyThe role of public libraries is evolving.Many public libraries in Massachusetts are looking for innovativeways to ensure they remain essential to their community, providinga place where residents and visitors of all ages explore, learn, andgather. This study was designed to understand how libraries areused today, and to identify opportunities for public libraries to moreeffectively provide services, work collaboratively, and evolve to meetemerging needs.This study consists of three main elements:1. Survey responses from patronsand library staff2. Data on library facilities,services, and operations3. Analysis of contextual dataabout the environmentalconditions of individual librariesThe findings from these three sources led to both system-wideas well as network-specific recommendations for how to optimizeresources and operations to meet the needs of communities todayand into the future.0809
PUBLIC LIBRARY ECOSYSTEM OF MASSACHUSETTSMethodologySurveyMethodologyTwo surveys were conducted in 2017 toexamine patron uses and expectationsof public library services and spacesthroughout the state.The first survey was focused on soliciting insightsfrom patrons; the second engaged library staff incontextualizing the patron experience and needs asexpressed in the first survey. These surveys asked aseries of similar questions to compare patron responsesto staff perceptions of patron needs.FRAMEWORKThe framework of the surveys was designed to uncoverhow patrons currently engage with public libraries andservices and their future expectations and desires forpublic libraries. The patron survey was geared towardidentifying spatial patterns of library use. Surveys weredeveloped with the expertise of Sasaki’s Librarian/Archivist in collaboration with MBLC.7,800PATRONS COMPLETED THE SURVEYPLATFORMSThe statewide surveys were deployed via an onlineplatform, as well as several in-person events facilitatedby MBLC. Individual libraries were encouraged to postthe online survey link to their websites. Additionally, printcopies of the survey were distributed at many librarylocations. Surveys were available in English, Spanish, andChinese.1011
PUBLIC LIBRARY ECOSYSTEM OF MASSACHUSETTSMethodologyRESPONSEMore than 7,800 patrons from across the state completedthe survey. Nearly 700 library staff from across the state andrepresenting various levels of leadership within their libraries,completed the survey.700LIBRARY STAFF COMPLETED THE SURVEY12ANALYSISResponses were analyzed by Network and age group of patronsto look for similarities or variances. The data sets were mappedwhere applicable to reveal spatial patterns. Generally, the datawas analyzed in terms of top responses by either raw countor percentage. By reshaping the data, interesting conclusionsarose that were not explicitly sought, such as the top librariespatrons indicated going to in order to take advantage of specificaspects of library spaces and services. In addition to thequantitative data, which could be analyzed through charts andpercentages, many questions allowed for additional comments,providing a rich amount of qualitative data.13
PUBLIC LIBRARY ECOSYSTEM OF TY DATAOne key task for this study was to understandhow libraries compare to each other, both inservices offered and communities served. Population Distribution( 2012-2016 ACS 5-year sample) Age( 2012-2016 ACS 5-year sample)To better understand the strengths and challenges of libraries,each library was examined across three categories: communitydata, library data, and borrowing patterns. Race & Ethnicity( 2012-2016 ACS 5-year sample) Income( 2012-2016 ACS 5-year sample)COMMUNITY DATA Massachusetts Municipal GrowthProjections(UMASS Donahue Institute 2035Projections)Community data includes information about the communitieslibraries serve. Examples include demographics such as averageage and income levels or physical characteristics such asnumber of people within close proximity of a library. Access to Transit Stops(General Transit FeedSpecification) Road Connectivity(OpenStreetMap/US TIGERCensus)LIBRARY DATALIBRARY DATA Gross Square Footage Programs Library Location Seating CapacityDatasets such as fiscal year 2016 Annual Report InformationSurvey (ARIS) provide detailed information about librariesthemselves, such as circulating collection, programs andservices, and staffing. Parking Holdings Staff Size Year Last Renovation Hours of Operation Visitors(All data taken from 2016ARIS Datasheet)BORROWING DATAThere are two primary datasets about patron borrowing. The firstlooks at Inter Library Loans (ILL), and the second involves DirectCirculation from non-resident borrowers (i.e., “over the desk”checkouts). In both cases, the data is available at the library level,not the patron level.14BORROWING DATA Direct Circulation ILL Non-Resident Circulation(All data taken from 2016ARIS Datasheet)15
PUBLIC LIBRARY ECOSYSTEM OF MASSACHUSETTSLIBRARY SCORING APPROACHTHE TOP 13 TYPES OF DATA FROM ARIS ANDCONTEXTUAL DATA WERE:Data sources: ARIS, Census, GIS, Transportation1. POPULATION SERVEDBY LIBRARY2. GROSS SQUAREFOOTAGE3. PARKINGPOPULGR ATIOONSEPA SSRVRK SQUIN AR EDILGBYLEPRFOLIOBRONVITAODNGE AR-R EDYHO ESLD IDTO IN ENGTTA SCIRCTO L ATA NNULAULANTITOLUOHMNTAOBULPR ER RSVIOSIOFTO GRPRSE RAMOAT SGRATIAMBU NGTESNSS CADANPR TO PACEO P C CITXIYOMUMNNIUAITM TYNBE TOLIBRRDOIRTHOARFECECOYRRE TLIBFE CIR MPRUTE ARGR RE CURS IEO NC LATSWEISC TH QU ONRA ESHOTITO OL TEONTA PRSOLXTO HTA OU IMIRTYSTO L HTA OU THERSLLHILTH IBROLURERS E L ARFU CETH IBR Y WLL IVAAEELI RY S ON TIM DBRAUPM EAR ND ENBE EMYANRPW NYUO LOMASFBBEJO YEO RAMPENLS R O BS ESCHNFU F HESOLLTI USEMHEOEM LDPLOYEESTo understand the distribution and differencesacross the state, libraries were ranked by quartile(lowest 25%, lower 25%, upper 25%, top 25%) for eachfactor. For instance, libraries were sorted by parkingspaces provided, and then assigned a quartile scoreof 1 (lowest) to 4 (highest) based on which quartilethey fit into. Once this was completed for all factors,the scores for each library were averaged to createan overall average 1-4 score for the library. Thisoverall score also considered a weighting criteriadeveloped by MBLC staff and best HUEN4. ILL PROVIDED5. NON-RESIDENTCIRCULATION7. TOTAL ANNUAL HOURS8. TOTAL # PROGRAMS10. VISITORS11. SEATING CAPACITY MAINLIBRARYBURLINGTON6. HOLDINGSHAVERHILLLOWELLNORTH TWESTFORDGROTONHAMILTONMIDDLETONLITTLETON9. TOTAL PROGRAMATTENDANCEIPSWICHNORTH NGSBOROUGHMERRIMACNEWBURYROCKPORTBOXFORDWEST NEWBURYMANCHESTERSALISBURYGROVELAND12. NUMBER OF BUS STOPSWITHIN A ¼ MILE OF THELIBRARYDUNSTABLEESSEXTop 25%Upper 25%Lower 25%Lowest 25%Visit www.mblc.state.ma.gov/ecosystem to explore the full results.1613. PROXIMITY TO OTHERLIBRARIES17
inding
PUBLIC LIBRARY ECOSYSTEM OF MASSACHUSETTSFindingsVariation inNetwork UsageOVERALL NETWORK PERFORMANCEMINUTEMAN (MLN)3.39NORTH OF BOSTON LIBR ARY E XCHANGE (NOBLE)3.06There are many factors that determine the success ofa public library within the community.MERRIMACK VALLEY LIBR ARY CONSORTIUM (MVLC)2.94OLD COLONY LIBR ARY NET WORK (OCLN)2.92Local factors like financial support as well as individual collectionsand services are important drivers of public library performance.Additionally, there are many players involved in supporting the servicesprovided by public libraries across the state; of those, the data collectedin this study revealed that networks are a critical factor, and became thefocus of this study's findings. Across Massachusetts, there is significantdiversity in the level of support and performance of libraries within agiven network. As the Commonwealth looks to the future, closing thegap in service quality among networks will be an important task.2.72METRO BOSTON LIBR ARY NET WORK (MBLN)2.66SAILS2.55CENTR AL/WESTERN MASSACHUSET TS AUTOMATED RESOURCE SHARING (C/W MARS)2.18MASSCAT/NO NET WORK1.14NETWORK PERFORMANCE (ABOVE)CLIL SAMSAS100,000 C/W MARSCROSS-NETWORK RESOURCE SHARINGCAPE LIBR ARIES AUTOMATED MATERIALS SHARING (CL AMS)Each library was assessed based on the criteriaoutlined in the methodology section of this reportand rated 1 (lowest) to 4 (highest). Taking the averageof these library scores shows the significantdifferences between networks like Minuteman andC/W MARS.OF STAT EMVMBLNOWETNOANAT/NThe MBLN system, which includes Boston, is uniquedue to the incredibly high volume of service anddensity of library branches within the network’srelatively small footprint.MSCBOOKS CHECKED OUT FROM THE BOSTON PUBLICLIBRARY BY VISITORS.TEAS4,782,943NURKMIMNThis chart demonstrates the highest volume ofinter-network loans occurring throughout thestate. The Minuteman and C/W MARS networks,respectively, are the largest lenders and recipientsof Inter-Library Loan (ILL) materials in the state;however, unlike CLAMS which is the recipient ofILL materials from every network in the state aswell as out-of-state libraries, the Minuteman andC/W MARS receive most of their ILL materials fromwithin their own network. These sharing patternsdemonstrate the strengths and challenges of thesethree networks, and weighed into the findings ofthis report. Between these three networks, all withvery different geographic and population factors,almost 6 million items were shared throughout thestate in 2016.0-20,000OCLNOBLE20LC20-40,000OU T40-100,000NETWORK SHARING (LEF T)21
PUBLIC LIBRARY ECOSYSTEM OF MASSACHUSETTSFindingsNetworkTypesResourceBased on these differences among networks,strategies for the future must be nuanced andresist a one size fits all approach. This studyfound that library networks can be characterizedby three distinct typologies: Resource, Peerto-Peer, and Seasonal systems. Each of thesetypologies shows specific characteristics inborrowing patterns, library characteristics, andcommunity characteristics.Bringing together larger Magnetlibraries and smaller Core locations.For each typology, this study identifies the main characteristicsthat define it as well as the library networks that match thisprofile. Each typology is also given a set of key recommendationsand strategies for optimizing how individual libraries worktogether within that type of network. C/W MARS MVLC SAILS Mass Cat/NoNetworkPeer-to-PeerNetworks of similarly performinglibraries in Metro Boston. OCLN Minuteman NOBLE MBLNSeasonalResourceBalancing fluctuating demand forservices over the year.Peer-to-Peer CLAMSSeasonal2223
PUBLIC LIBRARY ECOSYSTEM OF MASSACHUSETTSFindingsResource NetworkLines represent non-residentdirect circulation in which apatron checked out an item inperson from a library other thantheir home library.Visit www.mblc.state.ma.gov/ecosystem to explore the fullresults.This type of network is made up of larger regional-serving“Magnet” libraries and smaller local-serving “Core” librariesin the same general geographic area. The relationship ofthe Magnet library to the local Core library is symbiotic,engrained over time through usage by the network’spatrons.Magnet libraries tend to be located in centralized, more populated cities andtowns. These libraries often play an important role in the lives of residentsof other towns who supplement local Core library offerings with the morerobust services, programs, and collections these regional-serving librariesoffer. However, these Magnet libraries can often be several miles away forpatrons. This reinforces the importance of smaller, local Core libraries that areoften closer to patrons and can provide more frequently needed services liketailored collections, local programming, and broadband services. Together,these two types of libraries reinforce each other’s strengths, creating acomplementary continuity of service.2425
PUBLIC LIBRARY ECOSYSTEM OF MASSACHUSETTSFindingsResource NetworkRecommendationsTo leverage the advantages of each library type,the member libraries of a Resource Networkshould focus investments in services, collections,and operations towards their relevant libraryprofile (Resource-serving or Local-serving).1.Define the library types.Identify which libraries are best characterized as Magnet librariesand Core libraries. Where there are geographic gaps in Magnet librarycoverage, identify existing Core libraries which can be transitioned overtime into Magnet locations.2. Tailor Investments to Magnet and local Core libraries.Magnet libraries should focus their investment on collection development,technological resources, and offering a variety of programs that willsupport the local-serving Core libraries in addition to their own residents.Local Core libraries should provide services targeted to the specific needsof their immediate communities, such as expanded hours of operation,children’s services, or senior services. Local Core libraries should alsopromote the extensive resources of their Magnet library counterparts.3. Treating the entire network as a single entity.Resource Networks function best when member libraries, both Magnetand Core libraries, serve as complementary library types that strategicallysupport each other. Member libraries should look for creative ways toleverage each other’s strengths through active cross-listing of events,streamlined ILL, and potentially joint programs and services.2627
PUBLIC LIBRARY ECOSYSTEM OF MASSACHUSETTSFindingsPeer-to-PeerNetworkLines represent non-residentdirect circulation in which apatron checked out an item inperson from a library other thantheir home library.Visit www.mblc.state.ma.gov/ecosystem to explore the fullresults.Peer-to-Peer Networks feature libraries withsimilar levels of service, typically situated in moreurban environments with denser concentrationsof people, jobs, and amenities.The most striking feature of these networks is the high rate ofborrowing among libraries, in part due to the close proximity ofthese libraries to each other. As the chart to the right depicts,Peer-to-Peer type networks provide a similar range of servicesand programs, and are almost equally sharing their collectionsbetween their libraries.2829
PUBLIC LIBRARY ECOSYSTEM OF MASSACHUSETTSFindingsPeer-to-Peer NetworkRecommendationsThe strength of Peer-to-Peer libraries is theirdistributed model of service. Because of this,Peer-to-Peer libraries should focus on providingsimilar levels of service across their network,recognizing that patrons use these librariesinterchangeably.1.Establish network-wide goals for levels of service.Conduct a network-wide analysis of the existing resources, programming,and services to inform decision-making about future investments.2. Invest strategically to balance service levels acrossthe network.Identify libraries in need of investments to match the level of serviceacross the network as a whole, and focus investments on initiatives toimprove those libraries. This can include both new specialty hardware andequipment, as well as special programming spaces to ensure parity ofexperience for all members of the network.3031
PUBLIC LIBRARY ECOSYSTEM OF MASSACHUSETTSFindingsSeasonal NetworkLines represent non-residentdirect circulation in which apatron checked out an item inperson from a library other thantheir home library.Visit www.mblc.state.ma.gov/ecosystem to explore the fullresults.Seasonal Networks are places where tourism orother factors create strong seasonal variation inservice needs.The primary example of this is CLAMS, located on Cape Cod.During the summer, Cape Cod’s population more than doubles,from roughly 200,000 people to over 500,000. This swell inpopulation, driven by tourism and seasonal work, translatesto significantly greater usage of libraries within the CLAMSNetwork. Individual libraries elsewhere in the state, such as theBerkshires, also exhibit seasonal dynamics and may benefit fromthe recommendations for this network type. The primary task forthese types of libraries is to balance the needs of seasonal userswith the essential needs of year-round residents.3233
PUBLIC LIBRARY ECOSYSTEM OF MASSACHUSETTSFindingsSeasonal NetworkRecommendationsThe range of services varies widely betweenlibraries within a Seasonal Network; and isimpacted by the significant shift in servicepopulation throughout the year. Developingthe appropriate collection size and physicalspace for communities that vary seasonally inservice demand will require creative, innovativestrategies.1.Optimize hours of operation for seasonal demand.Libraries within a Seasonal Network should balance expanded hours inthe summer with sufficient hours of operation for year-round residents.2. Strengthen cross-Network resource sharing.As noted on page 19, CLAMS is the top receiver from several othernetworks of cross-network interlibrary loan borrowing. Seasonal Networkswill be able to improve their service levels by strengthening relationshipswith other networks or specific libraries with larger collections to supportpeak season borrowing needs.3. Creative uses for flexible spaces.One of the main challenges for Seasonal Network libraries is the differentspace needs during different periods of the year. Seasonal Networklibraries should look for opportunities to meet these varying spacerequirements through flexible spaces that can support community usesduring the winter months. During the busier summer months, thesespaces can accommodate additional collections and programs. Byengaging the year round community, individual libraries can ensure theyremain active throughout the year. Similarly, Seasonal Networks shouldwork with MBLC to factor these seasonal dynamics into programming andplanning decisions.3435
PUBLIC LIBRARY ECOSYSTEM OF MASSACHUSETTSFindingsStatewideRecommendationsMany of the recommendations in this report aretargeted to specific types of networks. Theserecommendations will create stronger publiclibraries and more seamless patron experiences.There are also a number of opportunities forthe MBLC to strengthen its role in supportinglibraries.Match funding streams to network types forprograms, services and construction.Pursue strategic partnerships.Public libraries exist as part of a civic context, and that contextcan be a significant contributor to the success of a library. TheMBLC and libraries themselves should look for civic partnershipsthat amplify the level of service of the library while accomplishingother goals. Particularly where public funds are involved,municipal and statewide agencies have a shared interestin identifying projects or initiatives that would benefit fromintegrated services—potential partners include the departmentsof transportation, parks and recreation, and education;or integrating playgrounds, gardens, or other communityopen space into libraries. These civic partnerships reinforcethe central role public libraries play within the community.Opportunities for targeted, clearly defined commercialpartnerships such as with cafés or other retail, may also beconsidered.This study’s findings show there is a wide spectrum of needsand library sizes, all of which require equal access to funding forfacility improvements, as well as for innovative programs andservices.Investments will increasingly need to consider not only individuallibrary needs, but the needs and performance of the networksas a whole. The MBLC should consider funding criteria andguidelines to reflect a proposed investment's contribution tonetwork-level performance.Similarly, there is an opportunity to more intentionally provideresources for smaller libraries. Providing tiered levels of fundingbased on the library size or service population could make moreof the local Core libraries eligible for state-funded projects,including construction.36Invest in resource sharing andtraining for libraries.The MBLC should offer training and establish resources forpublic library employees to raise awareness of the opportunitiesfor complementary services among libraries. Improvingunderstanding of how each library fits into its own network andthe state’s broader library ecosystem will create better patronexperiences and stronger library networks overall.37
hat'sNext
PUBLIC LIBRARY ECOSYSTEM OF MASSACHUSETTSWhat's NextWhat's Next?The purpose of this study was tounderstand how public librariesare used today, and identifyopportunities for the future oflibraries in Massachusetts. Thefindings and recommendationsof this report will be utilizedto help prioritize investments,guide agency-level activities,and support broader discussionabout how to optimize libraryservices going forward.Get Involved!Continued dialogue and input from local libraries, theMBLC, and other stakeholders will be a critical next stepin this process. To that end, we invite you to participate inthe following ways: The MBLC will be conductingcommunity outreach meetings tosolicit feedback from library staff andpatrons about this report’s findingsand recommendations.https://mblc.state.ma.us/ecosystem Readers are encouraged to explorethe data used in creating thisreport via https://mblc.state.ma.us/ecosystem and to share theirfeedback about this report and thedata used to the MBLC on the site orvia email at ecosystem@mblc.state.ma.us.Feedback from this process as well as the findings ofthis report will guide development and implementationof the MBLC Strategic Plan.4041
metro boston lib rary network minuteman lib rary network merrimack valley lib rary consor tium north of boston library exchange old colony lib rary network sails. 34 141 3 37 36 17 26 38. 8 332. networks member libraries . in total. 37 167 27 55 39 22 35 47. 231,152 1,
Academic libraries loaned some 10.5 million documents to other libraries in fiscal year 2012 (table 1). Academic libraries also borrowed approximately 9.8 million documents from other libraries and commercial services. The majority of academic libraries, 2,417, were open between 60-99 hours during a
8 Grand Valley State University (USA) G.V.S.U. Libraries 9 Harvard University (USA) Harvard University Libraries Office of Scholarly Communication 10 Massachusetts Institute of Technology (USA) MIT Libraries 11 Memorial University of Newfoundland (Canada) Memorial University Libraries 12 Simon Fraser University (Canada)
Act of 2018, administers the Public Libraries Survey (PLS) to collect data annually about how libraries serve the public. Since 1988, the PLS data provide insights on long-term trends in the changing role of public libraries in response to increasingly diverse information needs. These data help practitioners and policymakers identify
Tip 1: How to use Agilent 82357B USB/GPIB converter in NI’s MAX or LabVIEW? Figure 2. Typical setup for Agilent IO Libraries Suite. 1 Agilent I/O Libraries Each Agilent IO product is bundled with the Agilent I/O libraries. There are four I/O libraries included in Agilent IO libraries Suite: Agilent
ii Massachusetts State Health Assessment Massachusetts State Health Assessment . October 2017 . Suggested Citation . Massachusetts Department of Public Health. Massachusetts State Health Assessment.
Selected Massachusetts Organizations, Life Sciences Economic Development Initiatives Massachusetts Technology Collaborative Mass Biomedical Initiatives Mass Development Massachusetts Alliance for Economic Development Life Sciences Industry Associations Massachusetts Biotechnology Council Massachusetts Medical Device Industry Council
Massachusetts tax law differs in important ways from the Federal tax code. The purpose of this Guide for Massachusetts Tax-Aide Volunteers (Mass Manual) is to provide training and reference material relative to Massachusetts tax law and use of the TaxSlayer software in preparing Massachusetts tax returns for our clients.
Massachusetts Dept. of Revenue Letter Ruling 11-4, (April 12, 2011) Massachusetts Dept. of Revenue Letter Ruling 12-5 (May 7, 2012) Massachusetts Dept. of Revenue Letter Ruling 12-10 (Sept. 12, 2012) Massachusetts Dept. of Revenue Letter Ruling 12-13 (Nov. 9, 2012) Massachusetts Dept. of Revenue Letter Ruling 13-2 (March 11, 2013)
