Institute of Museum and Library Services 2020 Grants to States All States Conference May
13, 2020 Virtual Proceedings by: CASET Associates, Ltd. caset@caset.net
P R O C E E D I N G S (1:00 p.m.) MS. DEVOE: This is Teri from IMLS. It is my
great pleasure to introduce our speaker for today, Matt Birnbaum supervising social scientist
at IMLS and is also the first brave soul on our virtual conference to use his webcam,
so kudos to Matt for that. We want you to know that the slides, which we posted on our
website and sent out the link to the agenda where you could get slides, we did not have
Matt’s slides in the very initial notification we sent you, but they are there now. If you
would like to grab a couple of his slides, we have them on our website. Once we get Matt
back with his video – and I think we will still be able to hear his voice, but we are
going to the brave land of webcams today. With that, I will turn it over to Matt.
Agenda Item: Promising Practices from the SPR
MR. BIRNBAUM: Thank you, Teri, and I got my camera working again. It is great to talk
to everyone. I am always thankful to Teri and her team for allowing us to be part of
your community. I have been really proud to be part of this community for ten years.
Ten years ago, almost to this day, we were meeting in Baltimore and we were talking about
gee, it would be somehow better for us to be able to compare a summer reading project
in Michigan to one in Mississippi. That was the stories that we told. From that, we went
into a whole planning process of creating what today is the SPR. Today the apples and
oranges that I would like to talk about involve digital literacy and broadband projects.
A little bit about the overview for today. I want to give a little bit of snippets about
how we did the analysis of the digital literacy and broadband projects and then I am going
to present the findings. I will do it first for those projects related to digital literacy
and I will do it second afterwards for emerging impressions.
It looks like my brave new world of seeing my cam has been replaced with a photo. I hope
that is okay with everybody. A little bit about the analytical protocols.
There were about almost 1400 projects this year that were funded across all the SLAAs.
We wanted to start to figure out which of those relate to digital literacy and broadband.
We did those. We met with the first piece that we did as we tried to identify what those
projects were. From those, we did some statistical analysis to describe what they looked like.
In doing so, we started to bin some of the projects that were closer to each other together.
And then once we had them in their buckets, we then tried to assess each of them particularly
looking for successes based on either their innovativeness, their adaptability, or their
promising practices. For those that we found that seemed to be
very successful, we tried to get some illustrations of some of those projects and what they would
look like. When we did the initial looking at the 1400
projects that were funded in 2018, which of those might be related to broadband digital
literacy, we identified 84 – 70 with digital literacy, 15 were broadband. You might do
the math initially and go hey, 70 plus 15 equals 85. That is correct. We had one project
that we had identified as both digital literacy and broadband. How did we identify these projects?
Three ways. Every project, as you all know, you have a
couple of subject fields that you can tag it to. The second, you have your own choice
to add some additional tags to those and then third, the program officers were giving their
assessments as well. From those, we ended up with a list of about 84 projects.
Once we got those 84 projects, we started binning them, putting them into buckets. The
first bin was to separate the 70 that were digital literacy and the 15 that were broadband.
The next twist was to look at their focal area to see what they were principally intending
to do. And the third one was looking at the narrative data, trying to identify what their
emphasis was. This could be something about the audience, the beneficiary. It could be
something specific about the types of product or activity that they were delivering.
In looking at the narrative data, we were principally looking at seven fields and specifically
the – five fields, the title, the abstract, and them some information that people wrote
about some of the outcomes that the project was doing, its importance, and thinking about
some of the important lessons learned. In trying to look at that narrative data,
trying to think about how do we know if it is innovative, adoptable or a promising practice,
we asked the set of questions for innovative. We looked at is there something noteworthy
about the audience that is being reached. Is there something notable about the type
of project activity that the project was involved with?
For adaptability, is there any evidence that we can find the replicability? Is there any
evidence that is being scaled up? Is there any evidence at all about this influencing
the future direction of this investment? Promising practices. We asked two questions.
One, we asked what lessons would others really want to know about this project? And second,
we looked at the partnerships and trying to assess how strategic they might be.
Let us now move to the findings and the first thing will be digital literacy. Let us look
at the where. We have 23 states plus Northern Marianas, who invested in at least one digital
literacy project. The 70 projects span 175 activities, a little over $5 million total
with a median project a little over $31,000 and about 21 percent of those exemplary.
When we looked at the how much of these projects cost, as I just mentioned, overall, the 70
projects, they account for more than $5 million per year. If you look at the share of this
that was supported by LSTA funds, it is steadily increasing from over the years from 51 percent
in 2015 up to 70 percent in 2018. How. How were these projects – how were
they trying to be administered? When we looked at most of these projects, about almost two-thirds
of them were simply one or two activities. At the opposite extreme, we had 10 percent
of them were involved with five or more activities. If you look at the table on the right, if
we look at what types of activities these were involved with, overwhelming majority,
more than eight in ten were instruction and about half of them involved content.
Just a quick note if you are getting confused, if you start doing the math using the right
hand table, you start saying that if I had up 83 percent plus 54 percent, that adds over
100 percent. Why is that going on? And that is because if you look back again at the left-hand
table, a table can have more than one activity. We are just trying to look at how many of
these projects did at least one of these activities involve and instruction content, finding an
evaluation or procurement. Who were these grantees? The overwhelming
majority were public libraries. The next way to share were the state library administrative
agencies. And then we had a smaller share of academic libraries, school libraries, special
libraries, other types of libraries, and one that involved a consortium.
If you looked with whom, who were doing the implementation and who were the partners,
in looking at the implementing sites, again, the overwhelming majority are in public libraries.
A smaller share is in state libraries. And then you can see a smaller share of other
types of libraries as well. As you look at the partners, an overwhelming
share of this is it is still happening at the local level with local government, and
then you have some other actors involved. The school district and nonprofit, we assume
are also operating principally at a local level as well.
Whom? Whom were being served? We look at the beneficiaries. And this one we could see that
is a relatively even mix. Most were being targeted to a general public. About three
in ten – to the targeted public, excuse me, about three in ten to the general public,
and almost three in ten to the library workforce. If you look at the right for those that were
targeted, this was an optional question so not everybody answered it. But of those who
target it and trying to get a sense of who were they targeting it to and about a half
of them were targeted by age group. Why were they doing this digital literacy?
What were they trying to achieve? Overwhelming majority, 54 percent was for – more than
half was for lifelong learning in contrast to just 32 percent for all of the projects
in 2018. Also, when we think about the digital literacy projects, they were more likely to
involve economic development, 10 percent then for the entire portfolio, which is just 2
out of 100, 2 percent. I am going to now start looking at trying
to pull in these descriptions and try to pull a little more into the weeds in terms of when
we looked at the narrative data, what did we start seeing as we looked at these digital
literacy projects. The first thing we are going to do is we are
going to look at the focal area that involved lifelong learning. The lifelong learning involved
principally general knowledge and skills. They were about 34 of the 38 projects. Another
four of the projects involved another intent of lifelong learning. That was formal education.
Of these 38 projects, they comprised about $2.4 million, a little more than two-thirds
supported for the LSTA funds. Some of the defining characteristics. In addition
to four of these projects, focused on formal education. Six were principally had a planning
focus either to expand digital inclusion or to expand the mobility of the library’s
technology. Eighteen were focused on youth, and these were principally STEM, STEAM, and
STREAM projects. And seven were focused on employment and these were either related to
employment or related to the senior population of the country.
Let us now start looking at some of the highlights. The first project that we would like to highlight
is a project that came out of California, the Pacific Partnership Cooperative, the “Cybersecurity
Training for Teens Using Minecraft”. As an anecdote, I talked to my teenage stepson
over the weekend about this project and I said, do these teen gamers really play Minecraft.
He said well, it is kind of cringy, but yes, we do use them. Even the girl gamers use them.
My English vocabulary expanded with boy gamers and girl gamers. As we looked at this project,
it was a really cool project. They are using this popular video game of Minecraft to teach
teenagers about cybersecurity practices. In doing so, they developed toolkits and blog
posts and they started working through trying to develop some guiding practices, using surveying
of the patrons to figure out some great guiding practices.
The second project I would like to highlight comes out of Texas, the El Paso Public Library.
And before I even knew that we had a superhero theme for this year, we had already pulled
this project. This project is titled “Become A Digital Superhero”. This was a really
neat innovative project that the public library was working with the schools in which they
were taking a number of the teens and having them create their own video games and telling
them stories about citizenship. In doing so, they were using this in a very active, engaging
way, in which the students were collaborating with each other and with the instructors.
The next two projects from the lifelong learning bucket dealt with examples of adaptability.
The first one comes from Florida from the Putnam Public Library, the Levy Public Library,
which is part of the PAL Cooperative, and this was in the rural part of the state. They
gave us a project called “Bringing the 21st Century to Rural Libraries: Inspiring the
Next Generation of Makers and Inventors”. As you can see, this project involved a maker
space that was a technological overhaul of the STEAM initiative with 228 new pieces of
equipment targeting over 200 classes, serving nearly 4000 children.
One of the interesting things about it that they noticed is suddenly by doing this, they
were noticing an increase in the participation of dads. In addition to the dads, they were
noticing there was an increase niche of those families that were homeschooling. And as part
of that assessment, they are looking about ways to better serve that community and in
general, better be able to serve the families working in the homes including by expanding
access with mobile Wi-Fi hotspots. The second project we would like to highlight
today comes from Indiana. It is from the School for the Blind and Visually Impaired and the
title of this project is “Expanding ISBVI’s Makerspace”. Here is another makerspace
project and it is using the makerspace as traditionally done for helping all types of
folks, but also expanding it to those who are blind and visually impaired.
In doing so, their curriculum particularly links these expanded makerspace efforts to
their ECC, Expanded Core Curriculum. In doing so, particularly teaching skills that for
those of us who can see, these come fairly intuitive, but for those who have some disadvantages,
it is more difficult and they are using these skills, the makerspace to try to overcome
that. The last set of projects from this bucket
that I would like to talk about. The first one comes from Arizona from the Senior Tech
Academy in Glendale, Arizona. This was a very innovative partnership between the local public
library and community college, using digital literacy to target a population. We might
not always think about. This is our senior population. In doing so, they began to have
conversations and looking at ways in which they can do the interactive technology and
social services to basically expand the retiree’s ability to go online to connect socially and
gain access to unlimited lifelong learning. One of their practices that they came up with
is thinking about the ways you want to mesh the latest technology in supporting the social
needs of this population. The last project from this focal area that
we would like to highlight comes from Minnesota from the St. Cloud Public Library. It is called
“Breaking Down Barriers to Family Literacy”. This project was one of the few that we noticed
that were using the NorthStar Digital Literacy Assessment tool to assess folks’ digital
literacy. In this case, there was a conscientious effort
to target those who are more vulnerable, be they dislocated workers, multi-lingual adult
learners, new Americans and families in poverty. The work involved some very creative extensive
partnerships in the public, nonprofit and private organizations with happenings in libraries
around conversation centers, outside of the libraries, in apartment complexes, a factory,
daycare centers, and elsewhere. The work is helping them strengthen this project,
but in general, strengthening their relationship with other key partners to be able to expand
their capacity for community engagement. I am just going to stop now and see if maybe
we have one comment or two questions. MS. GONSALVES: We do not have any additional
questions right now, Matt. MR. BIRNBAUM: Okay, I will continue then.
I have everybody spellbound. That is what I like.
For the next set of the portfolio, we are going to look at for those projects where
the intentionality involves expanding information access. There are 18 projects in this portfolio.
It is about 21 percent of the portfolio or about 10 SLAAs. Cumulatively, they represent
about $2 million and about 65 percent of this was supported with LSTA funds.
When we look at these 18 projects, 14 involved activities that involve content, and 12 involve
an instructional activity. Regardless of the type of activity that may have been coded,
10 of these focus specifically on planning and a large share of these also had an audience
focus be they adult, blind and visually impaired individuals, college students, or youth.
I would like to highlight three projects at this point. The first project comes from us
from the State of North Carolina, and it is called the ”Refreshable Braille Display
Project”. And this was a really interesting and exciting project where they piloted the
concept of a library providing refreshable braille displays for blind or physically handicapped
patrons. By doing so, they are allowing the use, the access of braille in a formal digital
format in the way that would not be accessible to many people who need it.
The second project here comes right here in my backyard in Washington, DC. This was a
project called the “Digital Literacy Initiative”. And this was another project that used the
NorthStar Digital Literacy Assessment to do their needs assessments. In doing so, they
were able to identify 12 distinct areas of digital literacy and from that using design
planning, they designed and built visualizations of how to best assess the patron’s digital
literacy levels and then be able to apply that to serve their needs – particular sensitivity
to disadvantaged groups in this area. In terms of a promising practice, we would
like to highlight a project that came out of Indiana, Clinton County called “Fun in
the 50s”. This project focused on reaching out to the senior population again. They in
particular, if I remember correctly, were looking at those men who may have been scouts
early in their youth and they took their photos, digitized them and in the process, created
a memory for the community of this generation. Doing so, they were an active partnership
with the library, with community clubs and senior centers.
The next part of the portfolio were eight projects. These span six states. About $450,000
almost entirely funded with LSTA dollars. These projects were focused on institutional
capacity, principally building up the library workforce or the library’s physical and
technological infrastructure. Of these eight projects, five involved SLAAs
and three involved public libraries. All of them were involved in planning and infrastructure
support. Three had a specific training of librarians. While all of these involved digital
technologies, it was not narrowly focused on digital literacies. Sometimes you could
see the connection, sometimes you could not. And one project itself was focused on school
library professional development. One project we like to highlight from this
bundle came from the State of Washington, its “K-12 Project”. This is a multi-year
initiative by the SLAA that focuses on training support to those librarians in states that
had teachers working in the school libraries. This has been a multi-year grant and when
they got to the FY18 grant period, they decided this would be a great time to develop some
curriculum on digital citizenship. What was very interesting was to see their
attempt at diffusion working with a few, empowering them and trying to expand it out to others.
In this case, they took a group of teacher librarians for their peers. They worked together
in developing a curriculum that is linked to six hours of training that can now be adopted
by others in their state. The last part of the Digital Literacy Portfolio
that we would like to talk about are those six projects in three states that had a specific
employment focus. These six projects comprised of about $183,000 in the portfolio and about
93 percent of this was supported with the LSTA grant.
When we look at these six projects, even though the focal area was economic development, so
it could have potentially been helping small business or just regional economic development,
in this instance, it was all focused on the employment grantees. Half of them were public
libraries and half were another type of library. We generally saw a very strong evidence of
a partnership in all these projects, be it with the SLAA and its public libraries, or
with the public libraries working with their schools and institutions of higher learning.
One project that was interesting in that is focused principally on the prison population
and the expanding rehabilitation efforts. And the types of activities themselves varied
from planning, equipment acquisitions, consultations, presentations, and training.
The one project we would like to highlight in this portfolio is an example of adaptability.
It comes from the State of Vermont. It is a project of “Digital Literacy for Job Seekers”.
In this instance, the SLAA purchased Ebsco’s Learning Express Library. In doing so, the
accessibility of public libraries participating and academic libraries participating in this
went up from 12 to 541 in that year. The future right now, now that they have the
product up and going is to increase its usefulness. They are looking at ways to do better direct
outreach to library directors to understand their needs and interests, doing more extensive
and multi-faceted training on how to use the product and working to develop and distribute
publicity materials. Let us stop again and see if there are any
questions at all that might be surfacing with folks.
MS. GONSALVES: David would like to know who is this information shared with, i.e. is there
a review or analysis shared with legislators? MR. BIRNBAUM: I am trying to think about by
information shared. I am losing the context. Is the information shared was about the work
that we are presenting today? I am going to interpret that as such, and then you help
me out if you want me to re-interpret it otherwise. Right now, we are sharing it with this group.
We will be sharing it with the rest of IMLS. We will probably also share it with the Library
Statistics Working Group. We will certainly open conversations with those of our colleagues
who are on the Hill as well as any of you who work on the Hill, maybe the best thing
would be to talk to Teri and me about that and we can keep the conversations going.
MS. GONSALVES: David says you are right on target. It is the analysis of this data.
MR. BIRNBAUM: You are the first audience that we are presenting it to and this is the second
year we have done this. Last year was early literacy. And we are all open for ways to
make this most useful. MS. GONSALVES: Okay. And there are no additional
questions at this time. MR. BIRNBAUM: Okay. I am going to then move
to the broadband projects. There were 15 of these. There are 14 states, 30 activities,
about $3 million, nearly $118,000 median projects. So more expensive than the digital literacy
projects, and about 7 percent of the grantees had self-identified these projects as exemplary.
When we look at the how - how are these projects being done? The table on the left shows that
a little more than eight in 10 were simply one or two activities. On the right when we
look at what types of activities, these were principally and predominantly instruction.
When we look at the instruction, these principally involve consultations, not necessarily programs
or presentations. When we look at the how much, you can see
that these projects are steadily growing over the four years from $2.2 million up to $3.2
million, about a 46 percent increase. By contrast, these projects are less dependent on LSTA
funds with a share of LSTA funding, declining from 53 percent in 2015 to 41 percent in 2018.
We looked at who the grantees were. These were almost inevitably SLAAs. We looked at
with whom, where were the partnering going on. Even though these were principally grantees
or the SLAAs were the grantees, public libraries were disproportionately the place where these
projects were being implemented. Sixty-seven percent compared to just three in 10. Thirty
percent for SLAAs and a much smaller sprinkling of over types of libraries.
If we looked at what type of partners, again, these tend to have a dominant local focus
with 40 percent by local government, 27 percent by state government, 20 percent with a nonprofit,
and 20 percent with federal government. If we looked at who the beneficiaries were,
51 percent were the general population, 43 population was the library workforce and only
six percent had a targeted population. If we looked at why were these projects happening,
not surprisingly, almost over nine out of ten of these broadband projects involved intentionality
to improve library’s institutional capacity compared to just 32 percent for the entire
portfolio in 2018. If we look at these 15 projects that span
the 14 states, we tried to develop some defining characteristics about these. We note again
that they totaled nearly $3.2 million with 41 percent funded through LSTA grant money.
Of the 14 of these 15 projects that focused on library institutional capacity, nine specifically
involved efforts around E-Rate. Another six involved training consultation or assessments
in improving the public library’s IT infrastructure, and three of the 15 projects explicitly had
evidence of making an effort to improve digital inclusion.
An example of innovation comes from the State of Arizona and its “Digital Inclusion”
project that was targeting rural tribal libraries. They particularly had 12 of them where they
were starting or maintaining Wi-Fi hotspot lending programs. These equated to 262 hotspots
in total being used almost 2,446 times during the grant period – interesting use of the
surveying to assess what the patrons were perceiving after they returned the hotspots.
You can see that 79 percent of these patrons lived in a household that did not pay for
internet service. Seventy percent were using the hotspot for several hours a day, and almost
all of them planned to use that hotspot again. The second project that we would like to highlight
comes from the State of Oklahoma. This is its “Edge” project. There were several
grants of using Edge. In this case, we wanted to highlight that from Oklahoma. In this case,
the SLAA was providing its public libraries with access to the toolkit for being able
to assess the digital inclusion needs and based on that assessment, be able to target
grants to those libraries to offset those identified needs.
Many of these were serving rural areas where information technology is a challenge. Many
of these public libraries had little experience as grantees. So in response, the Edge consultant
was helping the libraries use the Edge toolkit, creating instruction classes and documents
to help them better meet the Edge benchmarks and coordinating the state’s Edge Technology
grant program. Many of the libraries reported that Edge helped
them create better services, but a large number of them did not use the Edge and did not use
it fully because they did not have enough time or staffing. In response, the SLAA in
Oklahoma, in thinking of its future steps, it wants to work more to provide better grant
writing resources to the public libraries and in these grant applications, to make sure
that there is more planning going on around the infrastructure needs and what it all entails.
As an example of a promising practice, comes from the State of Georgia and its “IT Broadband
Upgrade and Ongoing Support” project. Here, the SLAA has a three-person team working around
E-Rate in all of the state’s library system, 62 library systems with 35 different internet
service providers. The work involved anything from filling out the RFP, performing vendor
assessment, identifying and negotiating the local broadband vendors, and providing general
technical support. We have seen this in other SLAAs as well who
are involved with E-Rates. What we want to highlight now is that we saw strong evidence
of the SLAAs being able to provide centralized resource for network management, allowing
the local libraries to congregate together and consort together and to be able to leverage
positive outputs from the vendors and to be able to consolidate the billing data. The
SLAA is doing ongoing assessment and evolving its business models to be able to secure the
highest possible speed for its public libraries. Let me stop again and see if we have any questions.
MS. GONSALVES: Hi, Matt. There is a question from Claudia. This is a fairly targeted question.
How did the SLAA handle the licensing component for the hotspots? Would it be only good for
two years and who pays afterwards? I recognize that we may not have that answer, but perhaps
someone in the audience, Arizona maybe, could write in the Q&A and address that, Matt, if
you have any additional information. MR. BIRNBAUM: No, I do not, but I would say
that might be something – this is a great use of this type of study. This might be something
where we might want to think about expanding the conversation a little bit further to get
more of that information. MS. GONSALVES: Okay. As soon as the response
comes in through the Q&A, I will let you know. MR. BIRNBAUM: I am moving now towards the
end of this initial presentation. I want to share some of the findings and impressions.
I want to contextualize this portfolio. These 87 projects, they comprised about only six
percent of the entire portfolio. If you look at it in dollar value, it is less than two
percent for those 70 digital literacy projects, and two percent of
the – the left hand – bars – they basically tell us that the digital literacy projects
comprised a little more than one percent of all project dollars used in 2018, and the
broadband about that much. If you just look at LSTA grant money, the digital broadband
is comprising about two percent and the broadband about one percent of all LSTA grants. There
is a bottom-line message here. Essentially these are important projects, but we recognize
these comprise of relatively small share of the portfolio.
As we start thinking about further exploration with these projects and other projects using
the methodology that we presented today, there are some issues that we want to explore a
little bit further. One is just the use of this methodology. We hope, and you can tell
us if it is not true, that when we use the narrative data to supplement some of the statistics
or bringing more life to the projects and we can better describe the nuance of what
these projects entail. Second, we are noticing a lot more evidence
of a lot of the grantees in these projects doing surveying of the beneficiaries and that
is really exciting because that is helping us to see how these projects are moving and
evolving. And the third piece here on the coding. Last
year was the first time we introduced the coding. This is the second year. We are getting
pretty close, but we are continuing to fine tune it.
The second bullet I just want to highlight here, which is specific to digital literacy.
It is really hard to get a good meaning of when does a project involve digital literacy,
when does it not, and what does digital literacy mean. It is something where if we are in the
elevator and we give the 30-second pitch, we think everybody will know what each other
is talking about. But when you start really delving into details, looking at the projects
more closely, a lot more ambiguity surfaces. A lot of these digital literacy and broadband
projects did not necessarily involve directly digital literacy or broadband, but involved
ways to expand the infrastructure to make either digital literacy a broadband more versatile.
This includes the use of Wi-Fi hotspots. It includes the use of laptops and other acquisitions
of personal computing. It involves the efforts of expanding attempts at digital inclusion
across the country’s communities. The next piece that we saw is that trying
to get a better sense of what these projects were intending to do. We saw a number of projects
that were coded, that the intentionality was related to institutional capacity. But in
a lot of cases, it seemed that improving the library’s capacity was secondary to improving
some outcomes for a patron, be it their lifelong learning or the employment.
That leads to that second bullet that a lot of the projects that were related to lifelong
learning had a very strong employment content so trying to think about the share of the
grants, the state projects that are trying to support workforce efforts, it is much greater
than just those that were labeled strictly as having their intentionality of employment
support. The last bullet is to start looking at where
we are in the current five-year planning cycle and next year five-year evaluation cycle.
I know we are going to have more information about this next year, but we wanted to just
highlight a couple of points now about it. One is we will be working a little bit more
closely to try to start seeing how well all of you are mapping your state goals to the
intents and within the focal areas. We are trying to better track the life cycle of projects
as they get repeated over multiple years, trying to get a better sense of any project
that began with a planning effort. What does it look like when it is being implemented
to benefit some specific audience? And the last, similarly, is to try to get
a better sense of these projects that are spreading over time and space, trying to get
a sense of how that spread looks like. Let us stop again and see if we have any questions.
MS. GONSALVES: Hi, Matt. We do not have new questions, but I think we have a bit of an
answer to Claudia’s earlier question about specifically how did SLAA handle the licensing
component for hotspots, who pays? Jaime responded that local libraries accept the cost of the
data plans after the grant cycle. MR. BIRNBAUM: Thank you. Lisa, are you on
the phone? MS. FREHILL: I am, but I think we are out
of time, Matt. MR. BIRNBAUM: Okay. We will just let everybody
know that we have this new IMLS data product out there for folks and it will help you particularly
with your CARES grants, and your slides have more information about this. I see we have
one minute left. If there are any questions, we will take it; otherwise, thank you, everybody,
for your time and attention. MS. DEVOE: Matt, thank you. This is Teri.
We can put the chat box back open if people have questions they want to chat during the
break.