Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Youth Programs topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Library board approves MOU with Lipscomb to evaluate Youth in Action program
Summary
The Nashville Public Library Board unanimously approved a memorandum of understanding with Lipscomb University for a pro bono evaluation of the library’s Youth in Action initiative. The MOU allows Lipscomb doctoral students to access library data and conduct focus groups under university IRB oversight; no monetary exchange was involved.
Anna, Library staff, presented a memorandum of understanding from Lipscomb University to evaluate the library’s Youth in Action program and asked the board for approval.
The board approved the MOU unanimously. The agreement, Anna said, is pro bono: “They are not asking for any monetary investment through this partnership. It's all pro bono work,” and Lipscomb will use its institutional review board (IRB) to handle research with minors.
Why it matters: the Youth in Action initiative is entering its fifth year and staff want external evaluation to measure program impact and inform sustainability and funding efforts. Anna described Youth in Action as a youth-led leadership and service-learning model that has been run since 2019 and stressed that outside evaluation is timed to the program’s five-year mark.
Under the MOU the library will provide access to internal program data and allow Lipscomb researchers to collect additional quantitative and qualitative information, including focus groups with participating youth and parents. Anna said Metro Legal reviewed the agreement and provided feedback. Tessa of Metro Legal was identified as having reviewed the MOU.
Board members asked about intellectual property and data use. Anna and a Metro Legal representative told the board the MOU provides for shared access: the library retains rights to its data for Metro use, and the Lipscomb researchers retain intellectual property in research outputs (presentations or publications) consistent with the MOU language and IRB rules. Anna summarized: the product is “property of both” in that the library can use the data and the university can publish its research.
Board members pressed on whether the program can continue without additional funding. Anna said the library has reduced some implementation components because grant funding has ended and described a plan to keep core work going by converting one formerly grant-funded full-time youth coordinator to a part-time position funded through the library operating budget (Terry agreed to pursue adding that position). Staff emphasized that implementation with youth is still possible in a scaled form through coaching of partner program staff.
Board action: a board member moved to approve the MOU; another member seconded. The board voted “aye” and the motion carried unanimously.
What happens next: staff said Lipscomb will proceed with IRB approvals and begin evaluation work that will continue through fall 2026. Anna offered to return to the board with an update after the IRB process and when data collection begins.
Ending: The board thanked staff and said they look forward to seeing the evaluation findings.
