Every few years, a research team does the unglamorous work of pulling the whole field together. This is one of those moments.
Grounded in: methodology
Script
Every few years, a research team does the unglamorous work of pulling a whole field together. This is one of those moments.
Mathematica screened 336 manuscripts published between 2013 and 2024—a decade of work compressed into a readable map.
Each study was scored on a 37-point scale; 98 made the first cut, 14 were removed after deeper review, and 84 became the foundation of what we know now.
They also examined 50 IMLS-funded grants across 24 states—18 discretionary awards chosen from 9,000 applications, plus 32 Grants-to-States projects.
Three IMLS staff members sat for interviews, naming the patterns they're seeing as the field shifts beneath familiar categories.
The entire study is anchored to the Foundations for Evidence-Based Policymaking Act of 2018—this isn't advocacy dressed as research, it's structured rigor.
The authors are clear about what this isn't: it's a secondary review, not an independent evaluation, and they name that limitation in plain language.
This is what taking research seriously looks like—transparent methods, honest scope, no overselling.
Source: Mathematica for IMLS, February 2026.
Read the full Mathematica study (link)
Approach
Methodology walkthrough — 84 manuscripts from 336 scanned, 50 grants, 24 states, 3 data sources. Celebrate the unglamorous work.
Read the full Mathematica study (link).
Source: "Child Reading Literacy and the Role of Public Libraries: A Review of Secondary Sources" by Mathematica for the Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS), 2026-03-23.
Download the full report (PDF) · IMLS publication page
Download the full report (PDF) · IMLS publication page
This publication is authored by Mathematica. The views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the Institute of Museum and Library Services or the U.S. Government.