The interface is simple to use. A few clicks and you can find grant recipients and donors for your state or region. The tool can help identify potential partners as well as funders. It displays not only grant amounts, but also brief project descriptions.

There are several ways to navigate through the data. The map allows you to drill down by location. Another option, “Constellations,” shows networks between donors and recipients. You can review results over time with the “Charts” feature. “Pathways” shows relationships between grantors and recipients.

Training is being released throughout the year. Webjunction hosted a webinar in February to explore the site in depth. The archived webinar Visualizing (and Finding!) Funding for Libraries includes the presentation and handouts. The training goes into detail about how to use the navigation features and the different types of information available.[2]

The Foundation Center is the leading source of information about philanthropy worldwide. They harnessed support from the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation to develop this virtual tool. The tool is a Knight Foundation News Challenge winning project. The Foundation Center’s goal is for libraries to increase their capacity. They also hope library supporters will better understand funding trends and find additional resources.

References

[1] ” Visualizing Funding for Libraries.” Visualizing Funding for Libraries. Accessed April 16, 2017. http://libraries.foundationcenter.org/?doing_wp_cron=1492371427.0433080196380615234375.

[2] “Visualizing (and Finding!) Funding for Libraries.” WebJunction. February 28, 2017. Accessed April 16, 2017. http://www.webjunction.org/events/webjunction/visualizing-and-finding-funding-for-libraries.html.

The post Visualize the Possibilities: Turning Data Into Dollars first appeared on Public Libraries Online.

Digital Data

Retention Data: Once users sign up, how long do they continue to use your library app? For some, digital borrowing is simply a novelty, something they try a few times and discard. For many libraries, this information is vital to persuade decision makers to continue to invest in the digital side of libraries. Large retention numbers mean the library is reaching and keeping patrons engaged digitally.

Engagement: This data reveals how much a user engages with digital services and which ones. Want to prove the library should invest in digital audiobooks? This app data reveals those trends not in a general level, but specific to your library and patrons in your local area.

Frequency or Usage Interval: How often do patrons log into and use your library app? Are digital borrows overtaking physical ones, and by how much/how much does the library save in lost or stolen books and resources by checking them out digitally instead?

All  this data serves to provide a picture of digital usage of the library, but when a user logs in, they reveal more than this, and it holds more than just library interest.

Physical Data

When someone signs up for a library card, a great deal of personal information is gathered. Name, address, date of birth, and social security number are stored on library servers. Of course, this is done to protect library assets. Where will you go to find books that have not been returned? How will you file reports that will impact the individual’s credit report and keep them from doing the same to other libraries?

It’s a logical step. Add in automated or digital checkout services even in person in the library, and even the smallest city library holds a vast amount of user data, a fact that has not gone unnoticed by hackers and other identity thieves. This is illustrated by the data breach at the Arkansas Library Association in June.

Blended Data

The real interest comes from a blend of digital and physical data, and this is where the government’s interest comes in. Not long ago, a checkout of The Anarchist’s Bible would get you on a watch list. But in the age of digital checkouts and widely available information, there’s more activity that could get you noticed.

The election of Donald Trump and his call for surveillance of Muslims and other groups has libraries and other organizations even more concerned about privacy laws and exactly what information, if any, they have to share with the federal government if asked.

Think of this entirely fictional scenario: an individual becomes a person of interest for whatever reason to a national security agency. With a subpoena, they request library records and discover through app and physical data the person’s address, phone number, social security number, where they work, and even where they were when they checked out certain digital items.

In the past, libraries have carefully released only the data specifically named in court documents, but the potential exists for courts to authorize a much wider request. In the interest of retaining patrons and respect for their privacy, libraries are responding to the election by changing privacy policies and what data they store and keep. Many libraries, including the New York Public Library, have promised to retain data only as long as it is needed to continue checking out books and materials, and to destroy all other data as soon as possible. 

As useful as checkout data, frequency of use, and other data could be to libraries, it seems like if they are retained at all, they will be anonymized and used to track trends rather than personalizing library services to individuals. This is a partial loss to both libraries and patrons, as an Amazon-like experience that tailored what apps showed users according to their personal preferences and geographic location would be both convenient and informative.

But the cost to personal privacy and security, and what it might reveal if that data was subpoenaed or worse, stolen, is too great a risk. Where other businesses are gathering and using data to enhance user experience and provide better customer service, libraries will delete it.

Although this protects the public from large hacker data breaches such as those at eBay, Heartland, and Experian, the primary reason is to prevent government surveillance, something that should concern all of us, whether we fall into targeted groups or not.

The post Collecting and Destroying Data? Preventing Government Surveillance first appeared on Public Libraries Online.

CIVICTechnologies, a company that provides location-based web-software solutions to libraries, published the first big data study on library services in March 2016. “Core Customer Intelligence: Public Library Reach, Relevance and Resilience” investigates the habits of core customers across ten library systems in the United States[1]. The goal of the study is to help libraries retain core customers and reach and recruit new audiences.

Collecting Core Customer Intelligence

The report defines “core customers” as a library system’s  top 20 percent of active cardholders who have checked out the most physical items. The ten library systems in this report were selected because they currently use  CIVICTechnology’s CommunityConnect, an application that integrates library data with demographics[2].

Together, these ten library systems serve 7.8 million people. The report looked at four million cardholders who made 6.74 million book and physical media checkouts in 2014 (the privacy of the individual customers was protected). Each library’s customer and checkout data was aligned with census block data, and an outside firm performed the analysis.  The report also defines customer types, a key tactic in market segmentation, such as “Green Acres” (rural upper-middle-class married couple families) and “NeWest Residents” (urban lower-middle-class mixed families)[3].

What the Report Found

As one might expect, core customer characteristics and behaviors are complex and unique from library system to library system. And even within individual library systems, the report found diversity within that top 20 percent of active cardholders. For example, some metro areas, such as Las Vegas, had “fragmented, diverse segments” of customer behavior.

Because of this diversity across systems, the report finds that the “business of public libraries is hyperlocal.” In other words, there is no one-size-fits-all model for core customer characteristics[4].

The report recommends that libraries use core customer intelligence do the following:

• Reach—The report found that libraries have core customers in every major community market segment. Data can help libraries gauge how effective their reach is.
• Relevance—The study found that libraries have relevance across a variety of customer segments. Libraries can benchmark and measure the strength of library connections to the community.
• Resilience—Data gives libraries the tools to stay flexible and adaptable in complex community and business environments.

The next steps from this report might be the creation of a toolkit or guide to exploring big data collection and reporting for public libraries. The report provides some excellent framework for getting started, but staff whose libraries did not participate in the study might wonder how they can use these same tactics. With some direction, other library systems can be empowered to make data-informed decisions as well.

Diving Even Deeper Into Library Data

While this report only covers ten library systems, it opens up a conversation about how libraries can borrow strategies from the sales and marketing world and it apply it to their own communities. Public Libraries Online’s Kristen Whitehair writes that there is great potential for crossover between the field of data science and libraries[5].  As libraries become more customer service-oriented, this sort of research is vital for longevity.

It would be fascinating to continue this research and expand it to digital items, such as e-books or audiobooks, library online database use, or even programming. Library Journal’s Lisa Peet interviewed some of the participating libraries, who shared that they’d like to see a similar study on these various facets of library service[6]. Hopefully this initial study helps pave the way for libraries to continue learning more about the customers they serve.

References

[1] Mark Futterman and Danielle Patrick Milam, “Core Customer Intelligence: Public Library Reach, Relevance, and Resilience,” CIVICTechnologies, March 2016.

[2] Ibid.

[3] Ibid.

[4] Ibid.

[5] Kristin Whitehair, “More than Buzz Words: Big Data and Data Science,” Public Libraries Online, May 9, 2016.

[6] Lisa Peet, “Core Customer Study Analyzes Library Demographics,” Library Journal, March 29, 2016.

The post Using Big Data to Address Local Needs first appeared on Public Libraries Online.

Big data’s companion field, data science, focuses on extracting knowledge from these large data sets, and practitioners are called data scientists. Much like with big data, data science emerged when the right conditions developed—robust computing power, massive data sets, theoretical algorithms to extract knowledge, and powerful and flexible program languages. In practice, data science often focuses on predicting customer behavior and financial outcomes using large data sets that previously would have been too large to process for analytical purposes. Performing such tasks draws on a number of skillsets including machine learning, database programming, and predictive analytics According to Levi Bowles, practicing data scientist and author of DataScienceNotes.com, “The core abilities for a data scientist include higher level math statistics skills (calculus and beyond), computer programming, understanding business principles, as well as the scientific method and experimental design.”[2] Additionally, communication skills to translate highly technical findings to stakeholders throughout the business or organization are a huge plus. This combination of skills, encompassing expertise from a broad range of a number of fields, is a tall order.

As the field of data science has naturally evolved from diverse roots, including mathematics and computer programming, there hasn’t been a clear educational pathway for practitioners. Recognizing this gap, three academic units at the University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign created a Master of Computer Science in Data Science (MCS-DS) degree in collaboration with Coursera, an online service offering massive open online courses.[3] The three units joining forces in creating this area of study are Department of Computer Science, Department of Statistics, and Graduate School of Library and Information Science. Unlike traditional graduate programs, the coursework is “stackable,” offering opportunities for students to focus on specific areas and earn certificates for study without the requirement to commit to the entire master’s program course load.[4] This flexibility allows both students new to the field to pursue a robust academic program in data science and also for practicing professionals to return to the classroom to focus on their specific areas of interest.

There is rich potential for collaboration between the field of data science and library science. Given data science’s powerful text analysis abilities and sizeable digital collections of significant works created by library science, there is an opportunity for a deeper understanding of content within the collection of these works looking at the broad collection to see patterns across millions—or more—documents. Since the capacity of an individual scholar to review documents over their entire lifetime would not match the capacity of data science’s tools to analyze in a relatively short time period, a collaboration of this nature, which can produce deep analyses of digital collections would complement individual scholarly study of documents.

Similarly, collaboration between the library science and library science could reap valuable information about citation patterns, such as the most influential scholars and journals. Relatedly, this collaboration could also identify citation patterns that are likely fraudulent. Work in this vein is already in progress at Louisiana State University where the Department of Mathematics and the School of Library & Information Science partnered to produce the presentation “Bibliometric Models and Preferential Attachment.”[5]

A final example of an area ripe for collaboration is result relevancy and recommendations: The tools of data science allow us to better predict user behavior. Capitalizing on this knowledge, search results and suggestions can be better refined based on user behavior for our patrons in library catalogs and online portals.

In summary, Urbana–Champaign’s Master of Computer Science in Data Science program seeks to fill a significant gap in the educational marketplace for the new and growing field of data science. This program found natural partners in statistics, computer science, and library science. Future collaboration in this vein could produce valuable understanding of library collections and citation behavior and can enhance library services.

References

[1] Gil Press, “12 Big Data Definitions: What’s Yours?” Forbes Tech, September 3, 2014.

[2] Levi Bowles, practicing data scientist, in an interview with the author, April 7, 2016.

[3] “GSLIS partners with CS, Statistics to offer first MOOC-based master’s degree in data science,” press release courtesy of CS@Illinois, March 30, 2016.

[4] Ibid.

[5] Department of Mathematics Partners with SLIS for Research Presentation. (2016, March 18). Retrieved April 26, 2016, from http://www.lsu.edu/chse/slis/news/smolinsky-research.php.

The post More than Buzz Words: Big Data and Data Science first appeared on Public Libraries Online.

Of the children surveyed, 51% were currently reading a book for fun, and an additional 20% had recently completed one. Significantly more girls than boys identified in the former category. The other 29% of students admitted to not having read for pleasure in a long time. Surprisingly, when compared to these numbers, only 46% of children felt pleasure reading and developing skills in this area are important, compared to 71% of their parents.

Scholastic also looked at the differences between “frequent” (5-7 days a week) and “infrequent” (less than one day a week) reading. Today, 31% of the children polled identify as frequent readers, down from 37% in 2010. The two demographics responsible for this drop are boys of any age, and readers over the age of 8.

Perhaps the biggest reason behind the drop in reading frequency among older readers is the increasing prevalence of other activities, such as sports, extracurriculars, and most notably, spending time using devices such as smartphones, tablets, and computers. Unfortunately, the report notes that many children have found activities they prefer, preventing them from reading as much as they did when they were younger. One positive finding was that children are far more likely to enjoy reading—and thus take part in it more frequently—when they are given the freedom to choose their own books.

If reading frequency is dropping as kids get older, how can public libraries help combat this trend? One obvious solution is to encourage children—and their parents—to choose books they would like to read for fun. Older kids (ages 12-17) also noted they were more likely to read if they had a good understanding of their reading level. This makes reader’s advisory more important than ever; not only is it important for librarians to help young patrons find books and topics that are of interest, it is also vital to bear the appropriate reading level in mind.

The study additionally shows a positive correlation between how regularly parents read and whether their children will become frequent readers. The prevalence of books at home is also a strong indicator of a more avid reader. Because so many adults cannot afford to purchase reading material for their families, this makes borrowing from the library critical.

Although it can be somewhat disheartening to see that pleasure reading is on the decline for children, libraries are in a powerful position to help stop this slide. By promoting our youth collections and sharpening our reader’s advisory skills, we can get kids and their parents more excited about reading. How do you motivate the young readers in your library?

Sources

[1] Scholastic, Inc. “Kids & Family Reading Report.” 5th Ed (2015). Accessed May 1, 2015. http://www.scholastic.com/readingreport/.

The post Scholastic Publishes Fifth Edition of Kids & Family Reading Report first appeared on Public Libraries Online.

I wrote a few months ago about the data skills that future academic librarians can develop—but what would a data librarian look like in a public library? In this post, I’d like to review a few data concepts, outline potential differences between academic and public librarians, and suggest ways that public librarians could bring data to their patrons.

Data in the Public Sphere

You’ve heard about ”big data,” which I’ll loosely define as enormous collections of raw information. Ten thousand tweets on a given day, a million clicks on a website by 35,000 people, a hundred thousand economic indicators. How would you make sense of it all? That’s big data.

Click the animation to open the full version (via Penny Stocks Lab).

And big data matters, because it’s the method through which our personal life is swept up and analyzed by marketers, law enforcement, and researchers. This analysis of groups and individuals then impacts public policy, the economy, and our chances in life. But data isn’t just a danger—it’s also an opportunity. You and I have more access to datasets (collections of data about many separate people, institutions, or events) than ever before.

America’s Chief Data Scientist defines data science as “the ability to extract knowledge and insights from large and complex datasets” (whitehouse.gov). This resonates with one of our goals as librarians: to help people extract knowledge and insight from books.

In 2013, Obama signed executive order 13642, requiring government agencies to share their data in a way people can re-use, not just in summary reports. It’s a great move: it puts data about schools, the economy, business, and the environment into citizens’ hands. It allows ambitious high school students to do original analysis, journalists to cross-check official statements, community members to run advocacy campaigns, and business owners to evaluate the strength of their market.

And because this data is “open,” it comes at no cost to the community. As Meredith Schwartz writes in Library Journal, open governmental data is big news. Agencies now have to share—but we still need public user interfaces, local workshops, and skills tutorials to make this information truly accessible.

So how can libraries help? Academic librarians are compiling public and private data sources, teaching data analysis and visualization, and sharing how to manage and archive local data. Library schools are even hiring data specialists to train the next generation of tech-savvy librarians.

But there are strategic ways for public librarians to get involved as well. Just as e-books are available online and we help community members to use e-readers, so many types of data are online—and community members will still benefit from a guide.

Case Studies of Public Libraries in the Data Sphere

This spring, the Knight Foundation awarded a major grant to the Boston Public libraries to catalog and make regional data available to the public. Additionally, it awarded another grant to the Library Freedom Project so that public libraries could train citizens how to avoid the worst in data surveillance. Libraries like the Brooklyn Public Library are beginning to use Tableau to visualize their collections and patron needs, finding that visual displays of data capture the imagination of librarians and community members. Amidst thechallenges facing public libraries in the UK, Ben Lee argues that public libraries were created to help the working classes take ownership of their lives and communities—and that training residents to find and use public data fulfills a similar mission in the modern era.

What Would a Public Data Librarian Look Like?

As AnnaLee Saxenian says,

“A data librarian has a special set of responsibilities around stewardship and curation. . . defining standards, storing data . . . and organizing data in a way that makes it more accessible. And it may be a bit of an uphill battle.” 

While we would never want to replace the responsibility of other municipal agencies to care for their own records, data librarians could help patrons access public data, and even teach some of the skills that would allow people to make better use of these new resources. Given the cachet of “big data” in popular culture, publicizing the existence of “data librarians” could reinforce the relevance of public librarians as guides in the internet age.

Data training for librarians

While academic librarians focus on finding and managing research data, public data librarians are more likely to focus on open data: opening up the world of data to the community, helping people to access public data, or hosting workshops on data skills. Here I’m thinking of things like scraping real estate data and visualizing it using infographic tools like impact.io. People don’t need a data genius as much as a data guide—and that’s what librarians are there for.

So how could we get started? I would advise starting with School of Data to learn baseline concepts, and work through the Data Journalist’s Handbook to be able to teach how to work with public data in Excel.  Online study programs like Coursera and Edx run free classes on statistics, as well as more advanced courses on data science and data analysis.

Library schools are also likely to gear up and offer continuing education certificates in this area. As Sandy Hirsh writes from SJSU:

“We need people working in areas like big data who are coming in with the perspective that you get with an MLIS degree. . . it’s very different when you develop skillsets for big data from an LIS perspective.”

I’d suggest that this is true not only for LIS students going into software and tech development, but also for those who go into their communities and teach people how to find and use data. It fits our original mission so well: to bring knowledge to the community.

The post Data Librarians in Public Libraries first appeared on Public Libraries Online.

BPL turned to Tableau, a software company that offers a family of interactive data visualization products focused on business intelligence.  According to Manager of Strategic Initiatives Diana Plunkett, the hardest part of getting started was finding where the data would come from.  “We started with our simplest metrics, the ones that were easiest for us to capture. Our data around circulation is pretty clearly defined and pretty clearly understood, so that’s where we started,” said Plunkett.

Although much of the data BPL tracks is common (door count, program attendance, circulation, etc.), the data visualization reports help staff members make sense of the data. I took a look at some of the sample charts that BPL created through Tableau and am impressed with the results.  It’s one thing to look at door count numbers by hour, but to see those numbers in an attractive graph makes a much bigger impact:  http://public.tableausoftware.com/profile/bpl.it#!/vizhome/ShopperTrakv4/DoorCountbyHour

Not only does the visualization make the data more accessible, BPL makes the data available to everyone who works at the library.  I believe this is the single greatest benefit of Tableau’s capabilities and the way BPL is using it.  Giving all staff access to the data creates transparency across the organization since everyone can see the factors that are part of making decisions, and all staff members feel like they can lend a hand in making those decisions.  When data lives only within the IT Department and the Executive Committee, libraries miss out on the input of those on the front lines.

“A lot of the data we are displaying in these visualizations is data that was captured before, but there wasn’t an easy mechanism for everyone in the organization to see the result of that captured data all in one place,” Plunkett said.  “We find that people are more effective in their reporting because they can see the results. It’s not just being reported and it goes into a black hole somewhere. The visualizations make it so that people who aren’t used to diving in and mucking with the data can easily take a look at what’s going on, and understand what actions they can take as a result of it.”

Now that BPL has curated a set of data in Tableau and staff members are on board with the resource, the organization is looking to pull from local data sources as well as its own data warehouse for more ad-hoc analysis.  Plunkett believes the ad-hoc aspect will encourage more staff members to share their own ideas for data analysis and create more collective brain power.  BPL also plans to share some of the data with patrons as a way to increase awareness of the library’s services.  The appealing visual narratives might also be useful in proving the library’s importance to politicians and other stakeholders.

Sources:

http://diginomica.com/2015/02/18/how-the-brooklyn-public-library-data-visualization-a-better-library-with-tableau/

http://www.tableau.com/learn/stories/brooklyn-public-library-saves-time-money-and-headcount-tableau

http://www.ala.org/acrl/publications/keeping_up_with/big_data

The post Data Visualization for Public Libraries first appeared on Public Libraries Online.

Generally the opinion of some library people is that they don’t have to be especially secure because they are libraries. The idea is security through obscurity. However, all that does is cause libraries to play a waiting game. It is not a question of IF there will be a problem, but when.

Libraries have a plethora of computers with good bandwidth and servers with lots of space. By the very nature of libraries wanting to provide open access, they are a target for potential hackers. Open access is both a tenant of who we are as libraries and extremely important. It is not our intent, at all, to say there should not be open access! However, we must provide this service with our eyes open — knowing it could come back to bite us later. This mode of thinking isn’t meant to scare you, but to cause you to stop and think.

In order to continue to provide the best access possible, we pose the following questions:

When was your last security audit? Have you checked to see that all your recent computer updates installed properly? Did it fix security holes or make the existing ones bigger? Getting someone to do a security audit is similar to getting someone to do a home inspection. There are plenty of people you can call, but you want someone who really knows what he or she is doing so it saves you time and money later on. To find a good security auditor you want to check with current and previous customers of your potential contractor. Are they pleased with the service they received? Did they feel it was worth the money?

Have you kept up-to-date with your updates? Sometimes something as innocuous as not updating a browser plug-in like Flash or Acrobat can be a problem. Are all your Windows updates done? Is your anti-virus up-to-date?

How good are your back-ups? This is one of those questions that can strike fear into your heart. The idea is that back-ups are there if you have a problem, but do you know if they would even help you? Have you ever tried to restore anything from one? This is just about checking to see that the files you are backing up are ones you can actually use. How often are you rotating your back-ups? What length of time do you back up your files? A day? Two days? Do you set one of your back-ups aside every so often to make sure you are not preserving compromised data that has been backing up onto what you would use to restore all your files if necessary?

Have you checked your technological band-aids? Sometimes changes to systems are made in the heat of the moment to accommodate immediate needs. Have you gone back and made sure they were done in the best possible way? Someone placed those band-aids in the best possible way at the time, but that may not be the best long-term fix for the problem.

How are you managing all your updates? There are programs like Ninite (https://ninite.com) and Wpkg (http://wpkg.org/) that can help you manage your non-Microsoft applications updates.  Are you paying attention and checking regularly for your Windows programs updates as well?

Are you ignoring security concerns because you have Apple devices? There is the belief that if you run devices from Apple that you will not be a target for hacking. That is not wholly true. It is true that there are not as many Apple computers to target as Windows computers, but that again is security through obscurity or quantity. Recently Apple has had some security issues so staying updated on your iOS updates and Apple applications updates are important. There are programs like “Get Mac Apps” (http://www.getmacapps.com/) that function similarly to Ninite and Wpkg for Windows devices that manage updates.

My IT person says you guys are wrong! We’re okay with that. Everyone will have local concerns and parameters that make different levels or types of security better or worse for them. Security can’t impede workflow or be so lax that it’s nonexistent. In the end, if you are staying up to date with your virus protection and different program updates, you should be fine. But sticking your head in the sand and pretending security isn’t an issue won’t protect you from anything either. As long as you and your local security person have talked and made a plan that works for your library, then our work has been done.

Melanie A. Lyttle is the Head of Public Services Madison Public Library. You can watch her YouTube channel, Crabby Librarian, at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Rv5GLWsUow. Shawn D. Walsh is the Emerging Services and Technologies Librarian at Madison Public Library.

The post Protecting Your Library Against a Data Breach first appeared on Public Libraries Online.

In a recently released report by the Aspen Institute entitled “Rising to the Challenge: Re-envisioning Public Libraries,” outcome-based measurement was found to be an area of growth for public libraries. “Measuring outcomes is more important than measuring outputs. An intelligent community, not large circulation numbers, is the primary goal,” (p.11). Developing good community outcomes is one of the action areas cited in the report.

So what’s the difference between an output and an outcome? According to the Institute of Museum and Library Services, outputs are “direct products of program activities, usually measured in terms of work accomplished.” In contrast, outcomes are “benefits or changes for individuals or populations during or after participating in program activities, including new knowledge, increased skills, changed attitudes or values, modified behavior, improved condition or altered status.” An output is a measurement of activity size and scope. An outcome shows the social value added. An output is a quantitative measurement. An outcome is generally a qualitative measurement. We can use outputs to measure outcomes, but not the other way around.

Where to begin? Think about the impact are you trying to achieve. What will participants learn? How will the service make a difference in their lives? Bloom’s taxonomy is a tool for educators to develop objectives. It can also be a good starting point for library planning and evaluation. Use the taxonomy as a first step in developing your desired outcomes. Using active language will help you to create strong objectives.

Below are sample outcome measures you could adopt at your library:

From the California Summer Reading program:

• Children belong to a community of readers and library users
• Underserved community members participate in the summer reading program

Examples from IMLS:

• Adults will read to children more often
• A program increases the reading time caretakers spend with children

An example of outputs you could use to measure outcomes would be surveys results that compare participant knowledge at the beginning and end of a program. Another option would be to conduct focus groups to gather direct input from participants.

PLA is delving into this topic in a big way, with its Performance Measurement Task Force. This task force is developing new standardized measures for public libraries in selected service areas including early childhood literacy, digital access, and learning, civic engagement, reading, and economic and workforce development. Once finalized, these performance measures will be piloted in self-selected libraries.

Other tools you can use to gauge your library service outcomes include the Impact Survey and the Edge Initiative. These tools were designed to measure and improve library technology services using outcome-based measures.

Outcome-based measurement is new to many librarians. It is a powerful tool we need to learn for our libraries to deliver effective services in the 21st century. It is time to move beyond counting and toward continuous improvement.

Resources and further reading:

Aspen Institute. Rising to the Challenge: Re-Envisioning Public Libraries. Washington, D.C., 2014.

Braun, Linda W. “Outcomes-Based futures.” American Libraries Nov/Dec 2014: 58.

Hartman, Maureen L., Hughes-Hassell, Sandra, Kumasi, Kafi, Yoke, Beth. The Future of Library Services for and with Teens: A Call to Action. Young Adult Library Services Association, 2014.

Institute of Museum and Library Services. “Outcome Based Evaluation.” Accessed November 16, 2014.

Institute of Museum and Library Services. Perspectives on Outcome Based Evaluation for Libraries and Museums. Accessed November 16, 2014.

Lyons, Ray, Lance, Keith Curry. “Outputs, outcomes & other data.” Library Journal 138, no. 18 (2014):22-28.

The post Inputs, Outputs, and Outcomes – Oh My! first appeared on Public Libraries Online.

This comment was said in jest, but rang painfully true.  Those who know me are well aware that I have concerns about cloud security.  Disks fail.  This is a truism for electronics. All electronics. The reassurances of redundancy that are provided make me equally as uncomfortable.  If the outside source guarantees that my data will never be eaten by the dreaded ghost in the machine, this means that they are keeping copies of my data.  In fact, to be assured they can keep this promise, they are keeping multiple copies of my data in different locations.  When I delete my data, how do I know that all copies of it are truly gone?

Furthermore, electronics get hacked.  The bigger the system, the more likely it will be targeted at some point.  With my data kept in multiple locations, it also means that there are multiple opportunities.

And let’s not forget the obvious: accidents happen.  Here is a true story.  I am an avid online gamer.  I play text-based rpgs  (if that has no meaning to you, don’t worry). A few years ago, my preferred site announced it would be down for a few hours as our gaming data was transferred to a new, faster, and more advanced server space.   The 20,000 or so of us registered at the site are almost all geeks.  We weren’t worried about the 8 million or so posts on the site. A data transfer is easy.  Site management was excellent.  We paid greatly for a service provider, located in California.  The service provider who was updating the hardware said all the right things and provided all the right guarantees.

Our confidence failed when the few hours turned to a few days.  An “accident” had occurred when our provider went to copy the data.  Some people’s data ended up in the wrong place.  Some people’s data merged with other people’s data.  Ultimately, we learned that our gaming information was in the possession of a business in Sweden.  Our game site manager, located in Australia, had credit card information for a business in Europe.  Fortunately for us, the European business had its data merged with the Swedish company that had ours!  A deal was made.  Our geeks sorted out the business’ information, returning it all to the right parties, and we got our game posts back.

On the one hand, this was a heartwarming tale.  Lots of strangers worked together across the globe and solved a problem.  Of course, for us, it was easy.  The few weeks we were down did not “cost” us our livelihood.  We had no serious personal or financial data stored; only personally chosen usernames and email accounts.  The others had far more serious breaches.  It was lucky too that the credit card data was accidentally delivered to non-criminally minded nerds, who actively sought its rightful owners.

Still, the world of cloud security did get a boost this summer. On June 25, the Supreme Court in U.S. v. Wurie and Riley v. California held that police generally require a warrant to search information on cell phones. The ruling was unanimous.

What the court understood— that most people do not— is that the information (photos, email, etc.) accessed via the cell phones is not actually IN the cell phone.  It’s in ‘the cloud’; or in other words, it’s sitting on the cell phone service provider’s server (i.e. Verizon, ATT&T, Sprint, Virgin Mobile, etc.). In fact, it’s probably sitting on several servers.

The Supreme Court’s ruling is an evolution of Fourth Amendment rights. As this has been applied to cell phones, it is likely that this will set the precedent for the ruling to be applied to all cloud stored information.  While this is bad news for law enforcement, it is great news for the public and for libraries.

With the Patriot Act, many libraries stopped keeping particular kinds of data for fear that the government could swoop in, grab the computer, and learn a myriad of information about their patrons. Don’t get me wrong, this concern is still real and the government can still do this.  However, this new ruling can extend the protections of Fourth Amendment rights of individuals, which in the past existed only in their residences to public venues, such as libraries.

It will be interesting to see if this gets tested.  Though I for one, hope I am not the library to have the experience.

The post Every Cloud Leaks a Little first appeared on Public Libraries Online.

The American Library Association recently published the 2013 Digital Inclusion Survey that supports this. The Digital Inclusion Survey—which was conducted by the American Library Association, the Information Policy & Access Center at the University of Maryland, and the International City/County Management Association, and funded by the Institute of Museum and Library Services—aims to explain “how public libraries help build digitally inclusive communities.” In a national survey conducted between September and November 2013, public libraries reported whether or not they provide public access to computers and the Internet, digital services, instruction for digital literacy, and tools for “civic engagement, education, health and wellness, and workforce/employment.”

The website (http://digitalinclusion.umd.edu/content/2013-digital-inclusion-survey-results-published) allows you to view results on an interactive map that allows you to search by library name or geographic area. This is especially interesting when seeing how public libraries compare on a national and state level. For example, when I compared the northern half and southern part of Illinois, the responses were pretty comparable in terms of Color Printing, Laptops, Internet, Scanners, Internet Skills, Online Learning, and Computer Skills. Yet there is a significant difference in the amount of computers available. In northern Illinois, there are over 2,000 computers at public libraries compared to less than 1,000 in southern Illinois. However, you can also see geographic demographics, so if there are significantly less people living in southern Illinois this may account for fewer computers.

Another interesting feature is the “State Details” tab that lets you see how a state measures up to the national response. Illinois public libraries are on par with the national average for educational programs and exceed the national average for summer reading. However, Illinois falls short by nearly 10% of the national average of “general familiarity with new technologies” and almost 4% of “mobile apps to access library resources and services.”

Nevertheless, the report is a refreshing reminder of the valuable services libraries offer. 98% of public libraries provide “some form of technological training to patrons” and 95% of public libraries provide assistance with employment resources. As a business liaison, this is particularly encouraging to read.

The Digital Inclusion Survey is a significant way to see how public libraries are excelling and where they are falling short. In our ever-changing digital world, these types of figures are so important for us to be aware of. If we want to continue to be vital resources to our communities, we need to be cognizant of how we can improve the resources and tools that are available at our libraries.

All of the facts and information in this essay were taken from the Digital Inclusion Survey website (http://digitalinclusion.umd.edu/content/2013-digital-inclusion-survey-results-published). Check it out to see the results from your library and/or geographic area. The 2014 survey will begin collecting data this September.

The post Surveying the Digital Inclusion Survey first appeared on Public Libraries Online.

In addition, the data files for FY 2012 are also now available. The data has been loaded into the Compare Public Libraries tool, which allows you to see how data from different libraries line up with one another. The tools allow you to limit the comparison based on similar libraries or specific variables: like geographic location, organizational characteristics, or operating revenue.

The public library data survey has been collected since 1988. This year the survey report includes 13 indicators of library activity: library visits, circulation, program attendance, computers and the Internet usage, reference transactions, library revenue, operating expenditures, collection, programs offered, public access computers, staffing, number and percent of librarians with an ALA-accredited MLS degree.

Notable trends and findings

Investment and usage

The FY 2011 study demonstrates for the first time a relationship between library investment and library use. Correlations are demonstrated between library resource indicators, like e-book volume and numbers of library visits. Another correlation was found between circulation and collection and program increases. Increases in staffing and programs are also shown to impact program attendance. The study indicates that revenue is a predictor for library visits, circulation, and program attendance.

Library visits

Library visits per capita continued to trend downward for FY 2011, down from FY 2010 by 3.6 percent. One reason for this may be the move toward online services, such as e-books. This metric does not include virtual visits, although the IMLS is looking for ways to measure this in the future.

Circulation

Circulation per capita decreased nationally for the first time in 10 years by 1.6 percent between FY 2010 and FY 2011. The study found a direct correlation between expenditures on collections and circulation per capita. This is something to consider when working with tighter budgets. A decrease in the collection budget may be easier to implement than a staffing decrease, but may result in decreased overall usage.

Roughly one-third of public library circulation is children’s materials, similar to previous years. It will be interesting to see whether this trend continues as fewer new juvenile nonfiction and audio materials are available in physical formats.

Programming

The study shows a strong, continued increase in program attendance and numbers of programs offered by libraries nationally. Program attendance per capita was up 2 percent from the previous year. The statistic shows an eight-year increase in these indicators, limited only by the time the data has been collected. Growth in this library service area will impact library spaces and the need for trained staff to provide quality programs.

Public computing

Nationally, public computer user sessions per capita decreased by 7.9 percent from the prior year. However, this statistic does not necessarily show a decrease in the need for public access computing. Rather, it may be a signal of a change in how libraries deliver this service. Wireless usage of non-library devices is not included in this statistic, so keep this in mind when you are working with this data. The IMLS plans on analyzing this metric in the future.

The Public Libraries in the United States Survey report is very dense, but worth the time and effort to read and analyze. In a time that emphasizes accountability in government, library leaders will find the information useful in communicating to stakeholders how their library usage compares with national and state trends. With the demonstrated correlation between library investments and usage, leaders have a responsibility to their patrons to articulate how a library’s funding plays a key role in its success and overall value.

The data is collected each year on a voluntary basis. Currently 97 percent of U.S. public libraries are participants. If your library does not currently participate, contact your state library agency to learn how you can contribute to the FY 2014 data survey.

The post IMLS Releases Latest National Public Library Data first appeared on Public Libraries Online.

While the push for data is also not new, the demand for more access to the library’s data (authority in fact, for the library to control this data and do what they will with it) is becoming a rallying cry for librarians and administrators. Out-of-the-box reporting tools no longer seem to suffice. It also seems the lines between librarian skills are no longer clear-cut. Experience and familiarity with SQL queries (or the need to acquire such skills) seems commonplace, so you better learn it!

The bottom line is simple: the library can no longer waste time, waste money, and waste resources hoping that our communities will always love and support us. We need to be accountable and relevant to our communities. And, we need to be adaptable to our own data and look for the meaning behind the numbers. The question is how will the hard data influence our future? Does it mean fewer bestsellers are in the system? Does it mean you wait longer for your materials? Does it mean personnel and resources need to be reduced?

No one knows what will happen in any given location. We are struggling like any other private business or public organization to be responsible with our resources. We are doing our best at making decisions that are in our patrons’ best interests. I’m speaking for all library professionals (degreed or not), we are passionate about what we do. We care. We want to be successful. We want YOU to be successful. But, what happens when the objective data doesn’t support subjective evidence (let’s call this sentiment or feelings)?

I believe in deliberate data-driven decisions and it seems so do most librarians (these sessions have been packed). We do things for a reason, because this is what the data is telling us. Next year, it may tell us something else, but right now, we have to make these decisions because this is what the data tells us.

The post Data-Driven Decisions first appeared on Public Libraries Online.

PLA and Counting Opinions (SQUIRE) Ltd. continue to partner to provide the service for capturing the data and for the PLA metrics online portal subscription service—offering access to the longitudinal PLDS data sets going back to FY2002, and data from the Institute of Museums and Library Services (IMLS) going back to FY2000. PLAmetrics provides public libraries real-time access to meaningful and relevant public library data for comparing and assessing their operations using a variety of custom report formats and customizable report templates.

This report presents selected metrics for FY2012 PLDS data and previous year results in tables and figures with related observations. The results in this report were compiled using PLAmetrics.

Research Method and Context

Participation in the PLDS is voluntary and participants have the option of providing responses to any or all of the questions that comprise the survey. Similar to previous years, public libraries in the United States and Canada were invited to participate in the survey. Emails (3,430) were sent to launch the survey in January 2013, postcards were handed out at the 2013 ALA Midwinter Meeting in Seattle, follow-up letters and emails were sent throughout March and April 2013, and the deadline for submission was extended from March 15 to April 15. State data coordinators from the U.S. and provincial/association coordinators in Canada were contacted about promoting the survey to their libraries. Their involvement again led to increased awareness and participation, with 1,949 of American and Canadian public libraries partially or fully responding to the request for data, a response rate of 21 percent (a 1.3 percent increase over the previous year). However, due to the voluntary nature of this survey, several libraries had to be contacted for additional data resulting in 1,897 libraries included in the final data analysis. This is an increase over 1,579 from FY2011 and 1,461 from FY2010.

Please refer to the online PLDS Survey site for copies of the survey and definitions of questions.

Overall Service Summary

The PLDS Survey includes questions that effectively characterize the operations (input and output measures) of each responding library. Table 1 includes a selection of summary data representingall libraries that provided non-zero values for each selected measure.

The FY2012 results include 1,897 responding libraries that reported their population of legal service area, a 20 percent increase compared to the FY2011 response count. Table 1 shows that the population served ranged between 143 to 3,819,702 with a mean and median population of 101,607 and 21,256 respectively. The results are characteristic of the overall composition of the PLDS FY2012 data set and these statistics are consistent with reality, whereby more than 82 percent of the reporting libraries serve populations less than 50,000. New this year is an increase in the number of participating libraries that serve populations of 50,000 or more (a 37 percent increase). For libraries serving populations less than 50,000, the increase in response rate is 14 percent more than last year. As a result of this increase in smaller libraries reporting data in FY2012, the mean and median values listed in table 1 have decreased. However, there is an exception of mean electronic circulation, which shows an increase of 63 percent overall and interlibrary loans (ILLs) to/from other libraries with modest increases in average and mean values compared to last year.

Population

Throughout this article, the population of legal service area is used as the basis for grouping results and for per capita ratios. It is important to note that the sample of responding libraries is variable year-over-year and within each population grouping. As such, we also include analysis of continuous responder data. This discussion includes trends and comparisons for the data segmented into either:

1. nine population of legal service area groupings (shown in figure 1); and/or
2. as a group of libraries (N=352) that have consistently participated in each PLDS survey over the most recent three and/or five years (FY2008 to FY2012).

Figure 2 shows population by legal service area (Pop LSA) reported over the past five years. The trend shows an increase in participating public libraries that serve smaller populations, as evidenced by the lower mean and median values depicted in the last two years. The second part of figure 2 displays the Pop LSA data for the continuous participants, which highlights that the population for this group has not changed much over the past five years and therefore yield more consistent and comparable per capita metrics.

Registered Borrowers

For the continuously reporting libraries, table 2 shows a 2.2 percent increase in the average number of registered borrowers per capita in FY2012 for libraries serving populations fewer than 50,000 compared to a 4.1 percent average decrease in FY2011. Libraries serving populations of 50,000 or more reported an average 0.2 percent increase compared to a 1.5 percent decrease last year. Overall registered borrowers increased by just over 1 percent for this group of libraries in FY2012.

For all libraries reporting both their population of legal service area and the number of registrations, figure 3 shows a three-year trend for mean registered borrowers per capita by population group. For FY2012:

• Overall 1,897 libraries offer services to a total population of 192,748,171 including 102,759,178 registered borrowers (>71 percent of the population)
• For those libraries with populations less than 25,000, these 1,010 libraries offer service to a population of 8,008,103 including 4,976,573 registered borrowers (>82 percent of the population)
• For those libraries with populations more than 25,000, 887 libraries offer services to a population of 184,740,068 including 97,627,462 registered borrowers (>61 percent of the population)

Some libraries, particularly those serving fewer than 10,000, reported a higher number of registrations than the actual number of people in their population of legal service area. Differences in some instances are explained by:

• 2010 census figures are often no longer accurate especially in communities with rapid expansion or contraction;
• libraries may serve surrounding communities outside their LSA; or
• influx of temporary and/or semi-permanent migrant workers.

While library registrations showed a small overall contraction in mean registered borrowers per capita in FY2011, FY2012 results show an increase for libraries serving populations less than 50,000, but a decrease for libraries serving populations of 50,000 or more. The most significant marginal change occurred in population groups under 5,000, with a 36 percent increase. For continuous reporting libraries, the most significant increase is for populations between 10,000 and 49,999. Figure 4 shows the five-year trend for all libraries, those libraries serving populations of 50,000 or more (i.e., excludes those serving populations less than 50,000), and the continuous responding libraries. Filtering out the smaller libraries indicates that registrations per capita has risen and fallen ever so slightly during the last five years for the larger libraries (varies between 56 and 60 percent). Registered borrowers per capita for continuous reporting libraries shows a stable trend (varies between 57 and 62 percent).

Holdings

The three-year trend chart for mean holdings per capita, for continuous respondents, is shown in Figure 5 (note: reverse chronological order).

The three-year trend for mean expenditures on holdings and e-materials, for continuous respondents, is shown in figure 6 (note: reverse chronological order).

Despite an average 20.98 percent increase in expenditures on e-materials as a percentage of total materials expenditure, holdings per capita for the continuous respondent group increased overall by only 2.9 percent.

When viewing the results for all respondents, the average holdings per capita show a very similar pattern as in previous years (see figure 7). The average overall FY2012 holdings per capita for all reporting libraries is 10.29 (N=1,592). This value is 81 percent greater than last year. This is likely due to the increased number of respondents serving smaller populations (< 25,000). As shown in figure 7, filtering out these libraries (populations < 25,000) the mean and median holdings per capita over the past five years is very stable with slightly more than 2 percent growth, which is similar to the continuous responding libraries (2.9 percent).

Circulation

Continuous respondent libraries circulated about eleven items per capita on average in FY2012, 1.6 percent fewer than previous year’s average, as shown in table 3 by population groupings.

Although 53 libraries within the continuous respondent group did not report electronic circulation figures, the 0.41 e-circulations per capita (an 86 percent increase from previous year) were insufficient to offset the apparent lower reported circulation per capita of physical materials. This reduced level of circulation activity likely coincides with the decrease in library visits (see Library Visits).

Figure 8 shows a similar pattern of lower circulation per capita for all libraries except for those serving populations of less than 25,000. Within this group, a 2.5 percent increase in circulation per capita was reported by continuous responders.

Table 4 summarizes the circulation per capita results for continuous respondents that reported circulation by item type, including electronic circulation (N=291). Print circulation accounted for more than 58 percent, CD/DVDs accounted for more than 34 percent, and “other” accounted for more than 5.8% of circulation. These results are similar to the proportions found in the FY2011 survey.

Table 5 shows electronic circulation per capita for all libraries reporting each item type and circulation activity for their library. Table 6 shows electronic circulation for all libraries that reported this activity in FY2011 and/or FY2012. In FY2012 more than twice the number of libraries reported electronic circulation contributing to a 161 percent increase in total e-circulations (0.40 e-circulations per capita).

Table 7 includes circulation per capita results for 242 continuous reporting libraries that reported both total annual circulation and renewals (renewals represents 27.3 percent of total annual circulation).

Collection turnover rates (circulation/holdings) are depicted in figure 8 (FY2012 results for all libraries and the continuous reporting libraries).

The rates calculated for each library, summarized in figure 9, show the effect of a higher number of reporting libraries giving rise to lower mean and median collection turnover rates compared to previous years. The collection turnover rate for the continuous reporting libraries shows a continuing softening over the past three years. Collection turnover rates are likely also impacted by the current transition to new formats of holdings (e-materials) and new ways to consume information (circulation) and the ways in which these are counted.

Annual Visits

The continuous library responder group shows fewer library visits per capita (1.5 percent fewer). Table 8 shows results for continuous respondents.

Table 9 shows results for all responding libraries. Libraries serving populations of less than 25,000 recorded more visits per capita, between 4.7 and 25.5 percent, an average of 1.6 more visits per capita than libraries serving communities of 25,000 or more. Libraries serving populations below 100,000 saw an average of at least 7.03 visits per capita very similar to the previous year.

Average library visits per capita for all reporting libraries was 7.05 (N=942) (>11 percent increase over last year). Figure 9 shows that this increase can be accounted for among smaller libraries serving populations of less than 25,000 people where more libraries in this segment contributed data this year (959 libraries reported 535,057 mean annual visits in FY2012 compared to 377 having mean annual visits of 648,273 in FY2011). Libraries serving population groups of 25,000 or more reported a decrease in average library visits per capita; a trend continuing from the previous year.

Figure 10 shows the percentage change of library visits in the past two years for each population grouping and figure 11 shows the three-year trend for the mean annual visits per registered borrower for each population grouping. This pattern of declining registrations suggests a relationship between the decreasing library visits for libraries serving populations of 25,000 or more.

Changes in hours of operation (total hours open and convenient hours open) likely impacts the number of library visits and other in-library service usage, including circulation, program attendance, and reference questions asked/answered (where staff involvement is required). Table 10 shows the three-year trend for hours open per week by population grouping. Consistent with other observations, in four out of the nine population groups, the mean public service hours per week has reduced. This reduction in hours likely explains reductions in the numbers of library visits and other activity counts.

Tables 11 and 12 show the three-year mean activity counts for in-library visits and reference questions. While fewer hours of operation are not the only factor affecting visits and related service usage, the pattern is consistent for libraries in population groups showing reduced hours of operation. The mean in-library use of materials rates per capita are 6.98 percent lower (248,766 in FY2011 to 231,396 in FY2012) and mean reference transactions are 17.89 percent lower (160,261 in FY2011 to 131,587 in FY2012).

Given the availability of remote online library services (including reference services, downloadable materials, and online databases) it might be reasonable to assume that physical visits have been displaced by remote/online visits. However, as figure 12 shows, an expected increase in web visits per capita has not occurred. Instead web visits have declined an average of 13 percent. It is difficult to ascertain the cause, but the variability of systems and methods used to count website visits is likely a factor. The count methods combined with an updated definition for how to count website visits as well as difference in systems and tools used to count this activity are likely explanations for some of the differences from the previous year.

Operating Finances

Income and expenditure measures continue to provide useful insights and therefore are a major section within the PLDS survey. For the continuous respondent group, the average overall annual library income was $14,001,457 or $53.20 per capita of the legal service area (N=351), a decrease of $0.18 from last year’s average per capita income of $53.38 (N=352).

Overall annual library expenditures per capita is $49.91 (N=351). This is an increase of $0.17 per capita from the average of $49.74 (N=352) per capita in FY2011.

As shown in figures 13 and 14, the most notable patterns for the continuous responding libraries are found in the population groups serving fewer than 50,000 and those serving 50,000 and more where average income per capita and operating expenditures per capita are reported compared to the previous two years. Increases in both per capita income and expenditures were reported for the fewer than 50,000 population groups, and the 50,000 and more group reported mostly lower income and expenditures—unchanged from the previous years, although the 500,000–999,999 population group did report higher income.

Overall average income and expenditures per capita increased in FY2012. However libraries serving populations between 25,000 and 499,999 continue to experience reduced funding and thus continue to make cuts to expenditures per capita. Figures 15, 16, 17, and 18 depict the patterns of income and changes in the expenditures over the past five years for the medium-sized libraries. The graphics show a relationship between funding and expenditure per capita levels each year and the pattern of variability in the budget among competing categories of expenditures.

These patterns of income and expenditure per capita are similar for all libraries and appear to depend on the sources of funding. For FY2012, all libraries serving populations of fewer than 25,000 reported increases in income from state/provincial and other sources, including the federal government. These libraries show higher income levels per capita and correspondingly higher expenditures per capita. This is most significant in the fewer than 5,000 population group.

One thing common for all libraries serving populations of fewer than 500,000 in FY2012 is that each has experienced cuts in income from local government per capita, often the most significant funding source for such libraries. The result of these cuts in spending is depicted in figures 15, 16, 17, and 18 for the population groups from 25,000–499,999.

These figures show the impact of cuts to expenditures and specifically reduced expenditure on staff. Interestingly, for the group of continuous responding libraries, the portion of total expenditures spent on staff has tended to grow (1.67 percent from 2008 to 2011, and -0.14 percent in 2012) relative to the other areas of spending and since 2007 the percentage of librarians on staff has been increasing while the percentage of non-librarians on staff has been decreasing; a reversal of the trend between 2002 and 2007 for the composition of staff.
Table 13 (see page 38) summarizes various library outputs as a function of expenditures per capita in each population grouping for the continuous responding libraries (N=349). Icons depict the change in value relative to previous year values. In FY2012 per $1,000 spent, continuous reporting libraries realized on average per $1,000 spent:

• 1.63 percent fewer visits
• 1.41 percent fewer circulations
• 3.36 percent more program attendees
• 6.25 percent fewer reference transactions
• 22.63 percent fewer in-library uses
• 4.36 percent more registered borrowers

Table 14 on page 38 (also reported last year) represents the overall use of funds by the libraries (activity per expenditure). As compared with results published last year, most figures have increased. Each of the population groups show similar relative changes in activities and expenditures. For example, the population groups between 50,000 and 499,999 overall incurred lower expenditures per capita (-8.56 percent) between FY2011 and FY2012 and had fewer registered borrowers (-0.29 percent) and library visits (-7.47 percent) per capita and simultaneously recorded fewer activity counts. Overall the measures show more up arrows (34) than down arrows (19). This suggest that the respondent libraries in general in FY2012 were accomplishing more with fewer dollars (or more with more dollars) and the implication being
that activity levels are proportionately higher than the operational expenditures that support these activities.

Technology

Use and availability of technology in libraries is an important part of the PLDS survey. This set of questions was unchangedfrom the previous year and provides useful comparative results, listed in descending ranked order according to the percentage of libraries that confirmed they provide the technology service.

Technology equipment available in libraries showed an increase in each category except automated systems. Tablets (127 percent), Video game consoles (60 percent), e-book readers (55 percent), other equipment (e.g., wattage readers) (15 percent), and laptops (10 percent)  posted the largest increases in the percentage of libraries confirming they offer these technologies compared to last year’s results.

Among the many website offerings, library apps for mobile devices (32 percent) showed the largest increase and user-driven content (10 percent) and streaming live programs made modest increases in the percentage of libraries confirming they offer these services.

Meanwhile, in terms of responding libraries, a smaller percentage (12 percent) indicated they offer Wi-Fi inside. Statistics concerning Wi-Fi outside, tracking of subscription databases, and access to local digitized content were unchanged in proportion of libraries offering these services.

Special Section: Facilities Survey

A report summarizing results from the Facilities Survey questions included in the PLDS 2013 special section is posted online at www.plametrics.org. If you would like to be notified of additional information about these results and future surveys, please contact pla@countingopinions.com or fill out the notification form on the PLAmetrics website.

2014 PLDS Survey

Results of the 2014 PLDS survey (FY2013 results) will be available soon. For more information, please visit the PLAmetrics website or send an email inquiry to pla@countingopinions.com. The PLDS survey continues to capture timely and relevant data about public library trends. PLA encourages libraries to use this data to enhance their decision-making and advocacy efforts. We also encourage your comments and feedback. And once again, thank you to all of the responding libraries who took the time to participate.

The post The 2013 Public Library Data Service Statistical Report: Characteristics and Trends first appeared on Public Libraries Online.

What do the German cities of Dresden, Erlangen, Jena, Regensburg, and Würzburg have in common? Their public libraries all got four stars for the year 2013 [1], that is the top rating of the BIX benchmarking system. Four stars mean a gold rating (the best) in each of the four groups of indicators, or, as they say, Zieldimensionen, (target dimensions). The participant libraries are mostly German, due to the fact that German must be accepted as the project language, so the only exceptions are from Switzerland and Austria. BIX was born in 1999, but looks very up-to-date if we consider the 18 indicators for public libraries, divided into: services (6), usage (5), efficiency (4),and development (3). Services refers to the core assets of the library: collection, space, staff, computers, programs, and Internet services, whose indicator sums up the number of services provided online, such as homepage, OPAC, user account management, virtual reference, Web 2.0 tools, and electronic resources. Usage includes virtual visits per capita, including homepage and OPAC sessions. Efficiency considers the relationship between expenditures and loans or visits. Development focuses on expenditures on buildings or the training of staff (including conference visits).

Created in 2006,  perhaps more relevant indicators are now needed for the Library Journal Index, whose benchmarking scheme is based on the data of the Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS). In it, U. S. public libraries, divided into 9 groups according to the annual expenditure, are assigned from three to five stars, based on four core output indicators regarding circulation, visits, programs, and Internet sessions. The 2013 LJ Index (year 2011) did not count new services, such as Wi-Fi access, e-books and database usage, or new ways of interacting with patrons. For instance some public libraries are starting to record “inreach,” services and collaborations with community agencies, in their statistics [2]. Electronic circulation per capita will be added starting with 2013 data. Simplicity is the main objective at the expense of the measurement of efficiency or of some classic service outputs like reference transactions.

At the international level a global evaluation of public libraries has been conducted by the IFLA Metropolitan Libraries Section since 2000 [3]. The last report (year 2011), published in November on IFLANET, was compiled by Helsinki City Library. 56 libraries participated from Asia, Europe, North America, and Oceania. The survey adopts more than 20 indicators regarding inputs, collections, expenditures, staff and outputs. The 2007-11 trends present a stabilization in staff and acquisitions (after the 2008-09 drop, probably due to the U. S. economic crisis), but a decline in weekly opening hours. After a boom in 2010, e-book collections are moderately increasing. For the second year, data about “hot” topics were collected: electronic services and resources, social networking, and programming. All the libraries (except three) have a Facebook account and the page of the National Library of Singapore generated more than 785,000 activities in a year! Fans of rankings will find something to sink their teeth into. In this edition Cleveland (Ohio) Public Library collected seven top positions, particularly in input measures and financial/staff ratios. Columbus (Ohio) and Seattle (Washington) earned some high rankings in output measures, while, among the European libraries, Copenhagen (Denmark) and Helsinki (Finland) got to the podium (Helsinki for the highest number of visits per capita).tThis survey was used as a management tool by Auckland (New Zealand) Libraries staff when 7 separate library systems merged into one. “We became a library system serving 1,5 million people, – Allison Dobbie of the Auckland Council wrote – “so used the statistics as a benchmark to check our resourcing levels relative to other libraries of a similar size. This was useful as we were then able to justify our levels of resourcing to our Council” [4].

If you are confused by the big national and international data projects, go back to the local level and have a look at the aspects that a single public library’s open data can reveal, such as the rise of e-book checkouts or the renewed interest in a novel due to a movie release in the Chicago public library system. [5]

———-

[1] In the group of cities with over 100000 inhabitants. Libraries are divided into five peer groups, according of the number of inhabitants of the served community.

[2] “Inreach” services are considered those “miniprograms that arise spontaneously between staff and patrons.” The last two reports present the profiles of some top-rated libraries, or of new star libraries, with their big strategies and small recipes to earn the 5-stars.

[3] The Section is the network of libraries of cities with 400,000 or more inhabitants

[4] E-mail to author (07/31/2013). Other library managers, such as Judith Hare (Halifax Public Library, Canada) and Siobhan Reardon (Free Library of Philadelphia), reported to me about the use of the so-called MetLib Statistics to evaluate the library’s progress in comparison with other institutions of the same population size (e-mails to author, 07/17/2013 and 07/21/2013). After three consecutive years of funding by IFLA, now the survey is looking for new funds to continue.

[5] Elliott Ramos, “Perusing Chicago Public Library Data: Rogers Park ranks high among bookworms, Great Gatsby flies off shelf and eBook checkouts on the rise”, accessed November 13, 2013,
http://www.wbez.org/blogs/bez/2013-06/perusing-chicago-public-library-data-rogers-park-ranks-high-among-bookworms-great

The post A Look at Library Data first appeared on Public Libraries Online.

The inevitable follow-up question came quickly, however. “What does that mean?” Being on the list seems like a good thing, but it’s unclear whether people were trying to find our address, borrow a book, or something else entirely. Without context, the list doesn’t tell us very much.

The conversation was similar to ones I had three years ago when I began asking why so much of the BPL identity seemed tied up in one thing: the monthly circulation report. When I started at the library in 2009, the circulation report went out to a small, internal audience. The culture of the organization was to equate circulation with busy-ness and, ultimately, importance. But the more I looked at the numbers and the more I understood all that libraries provide, the more I was convinced that the monthly circulation report was entirely unhelpful. Without any context, a list tallying books, CDs, and DVDs borrowed wasn’t telling us very much. We were doing so much more than that.

And so began an internal campaign to do two things: to broaden the conversation about library busy-ness, and to share information with the entire staff and user communities.

In February 2011, the BPL began publishing to our website a set of quarterly data points already being collected, just not regularly shared. The measures were: visitor count, circulation, number of programs, program attendance, and number of public computer sessions. This step made for interesting initial conversation, but the focus remained on circulation. I discussed with colleagues how best to make the leap to a broader understanding of how the BPL was being utilized.

In March 2012, the notion of library reach was introduced internally. Library reach is a simple equation that adds together visitors, circulation, number of programs, and number of public computer sessions to create a figure that serves as an indicator of a location’s activity level or “reach” within its neighborhood. While there is variation in hours across the BPL system as well as square feet and computer count, library reach was determined to be directionally correct in quantifying a single location’s user interaction.

In August 2012, the BPL began publishing quarterly statistics with the reach calculation included. The current fiscal year is the first, full year that the BPL will use library reach to help tell the story of what’s happening in each neighborhood.

The conversations are quite different in this phase. Colleagues are seeing branches previously regarded as under-performers in circulation propelled to a higher busy-ness status once visitor and computer session count become factors. Conversely, there are high-circulating branches that are adjusting to a more average status with the new calculation. There is also healthy debate on how best to define and count programs. All of these things are good for the organization to pay attention to and discuss.

Library reach is not designed to rank locations in a top-to-bottom order. What library reach is designed to do is shine a light on the tremendous amount of activity taking place in libraries every day. We’re learning and talking about far more than we ever were when circulation was the only measure considered. We’re getting a sense of our operational context and improving our ability to tell our story.

The post Beyond Circulation: Library Reach first appeared on Public Libraries Online.