I think the Cybils can be a great addition to libraries looking to expand their collections and use for readers’ advisory. Sure, there are lots of book awards out there, but what makes the Cybils unique is that they focus not only on literary merit but also on reader appeal. I had the chance to talk to Anne Levy, who founded the Cybils in 2006, and Jackie Parker, who is chairing the young-adult fiction category this year, about what makes the Cybils unique and why librarians should take notice.

Public Libraries: How did the Cybils start and how has it changed over the years since it began?

Anne Levy: The Cybils began as a comment on a blog post in 2006. There was some grumbling from children’s book bloggers that online awards were little more than popularity contests, while the ALA awards had grown so elitist that some librarians and teachers were out of their comfort zones recommending the winners to kids. I left what I thought was a one-off comment about starting our own awards that aimed for the middle: we could pick our favorite books that kids and grownups both loved.

I signed off, made dinner for my family, tucked the kids into bed and got back online for a last-second email check. The blogger who’d posted the original rant said, “I’m in.” I went back to her blog to find more than fifty comments from people wanting to sign up. We had a name, a blog, a Yahoo group and eighty volunteers within a few days, and we just took off from there.

In the past six years, the awards have grown from the initial eight genres to eleven—last year we added a book apps category that’s still being defined and broadened to reflect the amazing changes in how and what kids read. We now boast 110+volunteers and we’ve grown in recognition and – I hope – prestige. Otherwise, we’ve kept to our initial credo of singling out books with both popular appeal and literary merit.

PL: What is the process for the Cybils? How are books nominated, judged, and awarded?

AL: Nominations open to the public on October 1st and close two weeks later, at 11:59 pm on October 15th. Any title published in the United States or Canada during the previous contest year is eligible. We accept bilingual books too! This year, we’re also giving publishers a chance to pick a few of their titles that didn’t make the nominations list. Sometimes good books get overlooked because of limited marketing dollars, so we’re giving editors and marketers a second chance, so long as they’re not just dumping their backlist on us.

Then the awards go through two rounds of judging. The first round involves about sixty judges and they plow through the stack to find up to seven titles for the final round. The finalists are announced on January 1st, and then a second round of judges starts up. They pick a single winner, announced on February 14th as our big valentine to authors and illustrators.

The award is a fountain pen in an engraved box, but the 2011 winners haven’t gotten theirs yet. Some fundraising woes and organizational headaches have gotten in the way, but winners will get their prizes eventually.

PL: What makes the Cybils different from other book awards?

AL: We are transparent and accessible. We allow the public to nominate books so we can assure ourselves we’re really getting a good look at a broad swath of the titles. We guarantee all books get at least some consideration—our young adult and YA fantasy/science fiction judges are encouraged to read to at least the fiftieth page before dropping a nominee.

Jackie Parker: We encourage our participants to blog their personal thoughts about the titles they are reading for their Cybils obligations. The group deliberations are still completely confidential, but the public acknowledgement of judges actually reading, discussing, and contemplating the nominations is an added layer of transparency unusual in book awards. We aren’t quite so cloak and dagger.

AL: Hype doesn’t enter into the picture. Indie publishers get an equal shot at a berth on our short lists. Last year, we had our first self-published title make the finals.

JP: The only criteria to participate are to have a blog and use it to talk about subjects related to children’s and young adult literature. This creates a diversity of perspective because participants aren’t all librarians or teachers or booksellers or authors, as you usually find with most book awards. All four professions are well represented, but we also include parents and enthusiasts. Some day jobs are as far from children’s literature as you can get, but they may volunteer at their local library, or may have rediscovered their own love of children’s lit through the frame of reading to their kids. Whatever has led our volunteers to writing a blog about children’s literature, in doing so they’ve added to the general discussion and bring their own perspective to the task. Pulling from so many different experiences, the dialogue is approached from a different direction, and assumptions of “what kids like” and “what is good” can be challenged. For the Cybils the focus on appeal to the intended demographic carries just as much weight as literary criteria. That isn’t something that I’ve seen in other book awards.

PL: Why do you think it’s important to include reader appeal in the award criteria? Has it been hard to find books that combine literary merit and reader appeal?

AL: I don’t subscribe to the broccoli theory of literature: that to be any good, it must feel like forcing a kid to eat her veggies. I recently became a teacher and had to proctor a reading comprehension test to incoming seventh graders. They were told to bring a book to read if they finished early. It struck me that their choices were more engaging, better written and, yes, more literary than the boring, officious prose on the assessment test.

We can’t keep turning reading into a chore. My sixth graders are accustomed to earning points for the number of books and pages and words read. They’re proud of those numbers but couldn’t tell you three things about any particular title. They can barely name three titles. I tell them they’re going to read only four books for our class this year but they’re expected to learn literary analysis, including MLA-style, in-text citations. They freak. And then they think about it and most of them realize I’m right about the importance of reading deeply, and it’s going to be a great year.

So I don’t think it’s difficult to find titles that are both fun and smart. Neil Gaiman’s The Graveyard Book won a Cybils Award the same year he earned a Newbery Award, and we picked The Hunger Games before it became a household title. Both titles are working their way into middle school language arts classes, a sign there’s stuff worth teaching in them. We’re making it okay to talk about popular, well-written books in a way that doesn’t patronize readers or belittle their choices.

JP: I always wonder how successful a book truly is if the intended demographic doesn’t want anything to do with it. Is it really a book for youth if the only people who appreciate it are adults?

PL: How are the Cybils Awards promoted?

AL: Oh dear, you’ve hit my Achilles’ heel. I am dreadful at promotion—I can’t even convince publishers to buy our stickers. I have to plead for enough donations to buy pens and bookmarks. I know there must be some wonderful ways to promote the Cybils, but they remain a mystery to me. It’s holding the awards back from the national recognition it deserves, which pains me.

JP: We rely primarily on word of mouth. Anne’s tough on herself, but the Printz Award has been around for more than ten years and I still run into librarians who don’t know what it is. The Cybils Award is incredibly popular in the circles that pay attention to both children’s lit and the Internet. Could we up that profile? Sure, but most of the ways of reaching a new audience would require a funding source we simply don’t have.

PL: Have you found publishers and authors accepting of a new book award?

AL: Authors love us! It’s like a big smooch when they find themselves nominated. It’s often an unexpected pleasure for them, and we’ve gotten some love on their own blogs. I love to read posts from the morning after authors wake up to discover they’ve been shortlisted. We also aggregate
reviews that have appeared on our judges’ blogs, so it’s a smidgen of extra publicity for many, even if they don’t make the list of finalists.

Publishers also seem to like us, but they are wary of how many advance reader copies (ARCs) we seem to gobble up. We have a lot of volunteers, and more than a thousand books get nominated, so for the bigger publishers, those numbers add up. We’re forever working on ways to share ARCs or plead with libraries for copies so we can keep the awards running smoothly without costing the publishers a fortune.

JP: It’s a really awesome feeling to pick up the paperback copy of a Cybils Award winner and see that laurel printed right on the book itself. It’s happening more and more frequently.

PL: What has been your favorite moment working on the Cybils?

AL: I love comments from the winning authors and that remains the highlight of the awards for me.

JP: In participating as a panelist, my favorite part is discovering the book you hadn’t even heard of is amazing. I also love how it pushes me to read books I might not normally gravitate toward. Some of my most successful booktalks have come from books found via Cybils participation. As a readers’ advisor, as a leader, and organizationally, I think it’s made me a better professional.

PL: Why should librarians pay attention to the Cybils Awards and how can they use them in their library?

AL: We have so many librarians judging at Cybils and they’ve come up with so many useful suggestions for using the lists. In years when we’ve done bookmarks listing the winners, many will keep a few bookmarks by their checkout desks so parents and teens can have them as a resource.
Others have suggested books off our shortlists to their most avid readers.

I’ve heard of Cybils book groups and also library selection committees that use our shortlists when considering purchases. The Cybils gives librarians a useful list of titles that please both parents and kids.

JP: It’s a fantastic collection development and booktalking source—especially the shortlists. Librarians can have their students submit nominations and use that as an opportunity to talk about genre, age, and publication date. Librarians can create Mock Cybils Awards and stress reading for the fun of it—if students don’t like the book, they don’t have to finish it. They can come up with their own winners based on the nominations and see how close they come. Since the nominations are public, and judges blog many of their personal thoughts, it adds a whole level of accessible information and springboard for discussion.

The post The Cybils Awards first appeared on Public Libraries Online.

Because patrons expect this level of immediate access to information,an important aspect of providing outstanding library service is making new materials available to patrons in a timely manner. Even with the increased demand for e-books, there are still many library patrons who prefer print books and they expect to see the new best sellers on the library shelves the same day as in the bookstores.

This demand for immediate access has become evident to the staff at Colorado’s Arapahoe Library District over the last few years. The Library Materials Services department (responsible for processing and cataloging all new library materials) formerly received complaints from patrons and staff about the length of time for new items to become accessible on the library shelves. Patrons were asking why the latest John Grisham mystery or Janet Evanovich novel had been available at their local bookstore for months and it was still showing in the library catalog as “in processing.” The complaints from patrons and staff caused the library administration to closely examine the exact turnaround time for new materials being processed through the Library Materials Services department. The average turnaround time was discovered to be almost two months from when the items were delivered to the department until they were sent to the libraries. A library cannot remain relevant in today’s fast-paced society if materials are not made available to patrons right away. An overall efficiency evaluation was deemed necessary and conducted to examine the workflows in the Library Materials Department, improve the current processes, and deliver new items to patrons in a timely manner. The entire project lasted ten months, from March through December 2010, and the results exceeded the expectations of staff and patrons.

The efficiency evaluation team consisted of five members: the director of Library Services, the manager of Library Materials Services, the supervisor of Acquisitions and Receiving, the supervisor of Cataloging and Processing, and the administrative assistant for the department. The Library Materials department manager was the lead for the project. As a guide to the project, the team utilized the ALA publication Staffing for Results: A Guide to Working Smarter, by Goodrich and Mayo.³ The practical applications in the book were used to complete the process analysis, to identify specific goals, and to define the success of the project. Reducing the turnaround time for new materials to fourteen days or less was the primary objective for the team. The methodology for reaching the goal included three steps: (1) review the literature to see what other libraries were doing; (2) find peer libraries that had already achieved this goal and research their processes; and (3) evaluate the current workflow throughout the Library Materials Services department. The combined data was analyzed and used to design a plan for improving the overall efficiency of the department.

This article outlines the entire efficiency project, including a summary of the identified problem, the impact on staff and patrons, and a discussion of the team’s objectives. The methodology and findings from the three steps of the project are presented, including the overview of the literature, the information from peer libraries, and the department evaluation. The efficiency plan that the team developed based on the findings is presented in detail, followed by a discussion of the outcomes of the project, what the team learned, and what other libraries can learn from the project. As a conclusion, the author encourages other library administrators to undertake similar projects in order to improve services to patrons.

Background

Arapahoe Library District (ALD) is located south of Denver, Colorado, and serves a total population of more than 200,000. The library district consists of eight branch libraries of various sizes and a separate administration facility. The library district welcomes close to two million patrons and lends almost five million items per year. The Library Materials Services department at Arapahoe Library District is responsible for collection development, acquisitions, receiving, cataloging, processing, interlibrary loan, and courier deliveries for the entire district.

What Was the Problem?

In 2009, the average turnaround time for new materials at ALD was fifty-five days for non-rush items and fifteen days for rush items. A rush item was defined as any item that had one or more patron holds. Because orders were placed around six months before items were published, and patrons could immediately start placing holds on pre-release titles, more than half of all new items had at least one hold attached by the time the physical items arrived. As more and more new items had holds attached, more and more rush items had to be prioritized on a daily basis, and as a result the low priority items were left in the queue for a lengthy period. By the first quarter in 2010, the average turnaround time was eighty-seven days for new items.

This delay in getting new materials out to the libraries had serious customer service implications: New releases were not available in the libraries by street date, patrons were not getting access to new materials, and patrons were waiting for months for an item on hold. Staff were required to search through numerous carts of items when patrons called to find out the status of a specific item, and the featuring of new materials on the website was delayed because patrons became upset (understandably so) when items were featured but not actually available. The result was a stressful work environment with a constant backlog.

The Project

Once the problem was identified, a project team was formed to address the issue. The manager for the Library Materials Services department was assigned as the project lead, and she worked with the director of Library Services, the two department supervisors, and the department’s administrative assistant, throughout the project. The first priority for the team was to decide on a specific and measurable goal for the project. Based on patron feedback, the team knew they had to improve the amount of time required to get new materials out to the libraries; however, no one knew what a realistic turnaround time should be for a library of this size. Therefore the initial objective was somewhat vague: “To improve the turnaround time for new materials.” As the team started working on the project and gathering information from peer libraries, the objective became more specific and measurable. The project goal was finally defined as the following: “To achieve an average turnaround time of fourteen days or less for all new library materials, from the time they are delivered to the Library Materials department to the time they are sent to the libraries.”

Step 1: Overview of the Literature

As the first step for gathering data, the team reviewed the library literature. The review of the literature demonstrated that several public libraries had experienced similar problems and found a number of different solutions to address them.

At the Columbus (Ohio) Metropolitan Library, a library with twenty branches, staff is responsible for the majority of processing and cataloging in-house, and they have achieved a turnaround time of forty-eight hours for new materials.4 The library improved from an average turnaround time of seventeen days to forty-eight hours over the course of a year. They also reduced their staff from 55 to 32.88 FTE (full-time equivalent) during the same time frame. Some of the efficiencies that were put in place at Columbus Metropolitan Library have already been implemented at ALD over the last few years: centralized selection and ordering of materials, tracking the turnaround time for all items, and standardized genre labeling. Some of the other efficiencies mentioned in this article included using a conveyor belt to transport materials between stations and using a whiteboard to track how long materials are in the department. All processing was also moved to the front of the audiovisual (AV) materials or to the back of the books. The process used to identify efficiencies included charting the existing workflow process in detail, asking staff to brainstorm ideas for improving efficiencies, evaluating different outsourcing options, and measuring tasks according to Staffing for Results.

A significant backlog of materials to be cataloged and processed was eliminated at the St. Charles Public Library District in Illinois by implementing numerous efficiencies in the department over the course of a year.⁵ Staff time was reduc ed from 10 to 8.7 FTEs while experiencing a 49 percent increase of new materials. This library utilized a floor plan to look at the physical configuration of the department and a flowchart to evaluate the processing and cataloging. The main problems that were identified were as follows: redundant and unnecessary operations, inefficient editing of records in the catalog, lack of cataloging tools, insufficient supervision, and lack of written procedures. Some of the implemented efficiencies included editing records by screen editing instead of paper editing, creating and maintaining a cataloging decision manual, creating and utilizing cataloging cheat sheets, providing proper training, purchasing cataloging and technological tools, establishing the department’s mission statement and goals, and recognizing the hard work of the staff.

Denver Public Library (DPL) went through a major reorganization of their technical services department between 2002 and 2004.⁶ DPL moved from a six-week turnaround to a forty-eight-hour turnaround, and they reduced almost a third of their staff. During this process, DPL reviewed advancements in technology, vendor capabilities and outsourcing opportunities, as well as staffing levels and talent. They started outsourcing more processing and cataloging to Ingram and Midwest Tape and in 2005 received almost 50 percent of their materials shelf-ready.

For the team at ALD, the most useful findings from the literature included discovering the Staffing for Results, which was selected as the guiding tool for the project. The team also incorporated the idea to chart the existing workflow in the department and to involve department staff by having them brainstorm and contribute their suggestions to the project. The information in the literature also encouraged the team to explore additional outsourcing opportunities with vendors in order to receive more materials shelf ready. The literature also confirmed the importance of a unified mission statement/objective for the department.

Several of the ideas mentioned in the literature had already been implemented at ALD including centralized selection and ordering of materials, tracking the turnaround time for all items, standardized genre labeling, and moving all materials processing to the front of items. Some ideas from the literature were deemed as not applicable to the situation at ALD, including using a conveyor belt to transport materials between work stations. The team decided that this type of tool was not necessary based on the existing department layout and the volume of incoming materials.

Step 2: Gathering Information from Other Libraries

The administrators at ALD have great relationships with leadership and staff at other public libraries in Colorado. The library administrators are frequently communicating and sharing ideas with each other; therefore, many aspects of the libraries are somewhat similar, including materials ordering processes, staffing structure, and overall workflow. The ALD team decided that for this project it would be beneficial to identify libraries outside of Colorado to get some fresh ideas and perspectives. The objective was to find peer libraries that were similar to ALD in regards to the size of the collection and collection budget, annual circulation, and staffing levels. It was also important that the identified libraries had a centralized collection development department and had successfully achieved a turnaround time of two weeks or less for new materials. The team followed the following five steps to identify these libraries and gather the necessary data:

1. Identified and collected data about public libraries across the country.
2. Interviewed staff at the identified peer libraries to find out their turnaround time for new materials.
3. Narrowed down the list of libraries to the ones that appeared to have implemented the most efficient processes.
4. Conducted more in-depth interviews with staff at the selected libraries.
5. Visited libraries with the most efficient practices and studied their operation in detail.

The decision to visit three libraries was based on a research process that involved using Bibliostat Connect (this is a statistics product offered by Baker & Taylor) to identify peer libraries across the country based on the following criteria:

• collection size (more than 400,000 compared to ALD’s 583,126);
• circulation per capita (greater than fifteen compared to ALD’s 22.35);
• collection expenditures per capita (greater than $6 compared to ALD’s $9.77);
• at least four branches (compared to ALD’s eight); and
• serving legal population size 100,000 to 400,000 (compared to ALD’s 200,000).

Based on the above criteria, nineteen libraries were identified. City libraries and county libraries were excluded since their budget and staffing structure is generally very different from a library district that is funded through a property tax mill levy. Libraries that had one main branch that was significantly larger than the main library at ALD were also excluded. This narrowed the list down to seven. Two additional libraries were excluded because they did not have centralized collection development. The team then contacted the remaining five libraries––as it happened two were located in Ohio and three in Maryland. A five-question survey was emailed to the collection managers at the five libraries. The survey asked about the staffing structure of the department and the total number of FTEs, what percentage of processing and/or cataloging was outsourced, how vendors were utilized for materials selection, the average turnaround time for new materials, and a list of the various tasks the department was responsible for. Based on the information gathered from the two libraries in Ohio it was determined that they did not fit the established criteria for the project. The information from the three Maryland libraries, especially their reported turnaround time for new materials, suggested that they may have procedures in place that could help ALD.

Next, the project lead held phone interviews with the department managers for the three libraries in Maryland. The questions in the phone interviews were the same as the initial email survey except the department managers were asked to elaborate and provide more detail about the department structure and internal processes. The most significant finding from the phone interviews was the prioritization of getting new materials out to the libraries as quickly as possible. Both Harford and Howard County libraries appeared to be very comparable libraries to ALD in terms of their budget and the number of new incoming materials. The department managers at both libraries noted that they place high priority on getting materials to the libraries by street date. Their turnover numbers were very impressive; both libraries had achieved an average turnaround of less than fourteen days for new materials. Neither library outsourced their cataloging and they had fewer staff than ALD and yet managed to get the materials out more quickly. Because of these factors, the project team felt that ALD should be able to learn from their processes and adapt them fairly seamlessly while utilizing the existing staffing levels. Two ALD team members decided to visit the three Maryland libraries to explore their processes in more detail. Table 1 shows a comparison of ALD with the three Maryland libraries that the team members visited in June 2010.⁷

Findings from the Maryland Libraries

Next is a summary of the findings from the visits to the three Maryland libraries. The two team members were amazed at some of the seemingly simple solutions that were discovered. The four most significant discoveries were: (1) streamlining the unpacking/receiving/invoicing process; (2) using a single stream queue for incoming materials; (3) reducing the number of direct/special orders; and (4) limiting the time spent on database maintenance tasks.

One of the most impactful findings from observing the process at the Maryland libraries was the streamlining of the unpacking, receiving, and invoicing process. By allowing the same staff to handle the entire process, extra steps were eliminated, such as moving the same items numerous times. At the Harford County (Md.) Public Library (HCPL), all deliveries were unpacked daily onto carts and then processed according to the date received. HCPL also utilized electronic invoicing and items were received and invoices posted to the Integrated Library System (ILS) by the same staff member. The second most significant discovery was the notion of using a single-stream queue for everything, strictly according to date. One of the department managers in Maryland observed, “When the majority of new items have holds on them, you end up creating exceptions each time you reprioritize the queue. This takes extra staff time and causes low priority items to sit in the queue way too long.”

A third finding from the visits was the impact that special orders can have on the entire department workflow. The team learned that several of the Maryland libraries allowed only a very limited number of direct orders from special vendors/websites and instead maximized the benefits of electronic ordering by ordering the vast majority of items from the main vendors. This minimized a number of exceptions that would require extra work from staff, from the point of placing the order to receiving it, paying the invoice, and processing and cataloging the item.

The fourth most significant discovery the team learned in Maryland was to limit database maintenance as much as possible. Database maintenance is the process of fixing problems with existing items in the library collection and includes correcting a spine label or a call number, replacing a case, or adding a subject heading to the catalog record. The department manager at one of the libraries in Maryland pointed out that the time a staff member takes to “maintain” an existing item is time that could be used to process/catalog a new item. Library staff must be much more judicious in deciding which items are worth the time and which ones are not. Patrons prioritize getting access to new items and so should library staff. Calling back library items to “perfect them” is not a good use of time. What is important is that the information in the online catalog and the spine label allows the patron to find the item in the library; as long as that is the case, database maintenance is not necessary.

Step 3: Department Evaluation

The final step for the efficiency project consisted of a detailed analysis of the current workflow of the Library Materials department. The project team at ALD used Staffing for Results to measure all processes in the department and the time spent on various tasks. During an entire month, all department staff kept a daily log of the time they spent on different tasks and also documented the detailed steps of all essential tasks in the department. Work forms 6 and 9 from the Mayo and Goodrich book were used for this part of the project. The department administrative assistant was responsible for collecting all work forms and entering the data into one main spreadsheet. The data was later analyzed by the team members to determine what the workflow looked like in the department from beginning to end, how much time was spent on each task, and whether job responsibilities were allocated logically among job families. All staff members were also encouraged to submit their suggestions for how the workflow and efficiency in the department could be improved.

Findings

The most significant findings from the department evaluation included the following: Some staff members were spending less than 10 percent on essential tasks according to their job title and job description; forty staff hours each week were spent on invoice processing; around twenty staff hours per week were spent on processing patron requests for items that the library was already planning on ordering; around eighty staff hours per month were spent on database maintenance tasks; the Receiving staff were double-checking each shelf ready item from the vendors for processing and cataloging accuracy; and the practice of ordering new materials separately from added or replacement copies was costing the department significant time and confusion. The number one suggestion from staff for how to improve the department efficiency was to start using hub labels for all discs instead of hand writing the barcodes on each disc for music CDs, DVDs, and audiobooks.

The findings are discussed in more detail below:

1. At the time of the evaluation, ALD had three Acquisitions staff members (2.5 FTE), and each spent only 6 to 13 percent of weekly time on actual acquisitions tasks and the rest of their time was spent on various other duties. This was because several acquisitions efficiencies had been implemented over the last few years (such as placing orders electronically instead of manually), and the time that was saved had been filled with other duties. The amount of time actually saved became apparent through the department evaluation.
2. Five different staff members performed small portions of the overall interlibrary loan function for a total workload of about forty hours per week. This is another area where changes had been implemented over the years and therefore jobs and responsibilities had evolved to the point that the work was shared among too many staff members to be efficient.
3. One full-time staff member was dedicated to manually processing invoices. The team determined that if electronic invoicing was implemented, 60 percent of the current invoice process would be eliminated. Utilizing electronic invoicing for the main library vendors would allow the Receiving staff to manage the invoices as part of the receiving process instead of having a separate staff member enter all invoices manually into the ILS system.
4. Staff spent forty hours each week on patron requests. The patron request form is used as a suggestion for purchase or an interlibrary loan request. When an item is purchased based on a patron request, the requesting patron is placed on the hold list to be the first person to check out the item when it arrives. The team found that many patrons used the form for the sole purpose of being the first patron on the hold list––about one third of all submitted forms were requests for best sellers and blockbuster movies, submitted many months before these items would be published. Staff spent much time tracking these requests, especially the requests placed long before an item was published. The requests also triggered the department staff to order these items outside of the normal ordering procedures, which required additional time for several staff members involved in the ordering process.
5. Around eighty hours per month was spent on database maintenance tasks, such as changing genres, call numbers, changing cases, spine labels, and so on. This was time that could instead be utilized for processing brand new items for the collection.
6. The team found that the process for ordering replacement copies or adding additional copies of books that were already in the collection was not efficient. All new books were ordered as shelf ready (completely processed and cataloged by the vendor) and all added and replacement copies as processed only. There were several identified problems with this process. The collection librarians had to order the books using different accounts, which caused an interruption in their workflow. Also, sometimes the popular processed-only copies arrived before the shelf-ready copies, which meant that the in-house catalogers created a catalog record for the items and that record was later overlaid by the vendor record. In these instances staff was confused, time was wasted, and outsourcing was not utilized effectively.
7. The Receiving staff checked all outsourced items for accuracy for both cataloging and processing, requiring a significant amount of time for each delivery. This is another example of not maximizing the outsourcing that was already in place. The project team found that the number of vendor errors discovered by the receivers did not justify the amount of time spent checking each item for accuracy.
8. Writing barcodes by hand on all discs takes several minutes for each item. The processing time for an audiobook with twenty discs could take as long as thirty minutes. The number one suggestion from the department staff was to eliminate this practice and instead use hub labels for all discs.

The Efficiency Plan

After careful analysis of all the collected data from the literature, the library visits, and the department evaluation, the project team devised an efficiency plan consisting of eleven items. The eleven items are presented below, including the resulting benefits to the department.

1. Purchase the electronic invoicing product from the library’s ILS provider and implement with the three main vendors used by the library (Baker & Taylor, Ingram, and Midwest Tape). This saved the department forty staff hours per week.
2. Consolidate all acquisitions tasks to one staff member. The department was able to save twenty hours per week by having one staff member oversee the entire process as opposed to three different staff members sharing the tasks. This change also allowed the team to realign job duties so that staff spent more time on essential tasks related to their job title.
3. Minimize direct and special orders. Special orders require exceptional treatment from order to delivery, causing a significant amount of extra time for each step. Instead the department now utilizes the most efficient order process whenever possible, which means selecting and utilizing the vendors with the most streamlined ordering process.
4. Change patron request parameters to no longer allow patrons to submit a request for an item that is not yet published. This reduced the number of requests by about a third and allowed staff to focus on actual suggestions for purchase instead of spending time manually tracking and placing holds on popular items for patrons. It also provided an opportunity to encourage patrons to place their own holds on items in the catalog.
5. Consolidate interlibrary loan tasks under one full-time staff member. The department saved around twenty staff hours per week by having one staff member oversee the entire interlibrary loan process instead of five different staff sharing the tasks. This is another area where job duties were realigned so that staff spent more time on essential tasks according to their title and job description.
6. Purchase more carts, unpack deliveries daily, and receive all items according to date. This eliminated the need to move and rearrange boxes several times a day, which saved significant staff time.
7. Implement single-stream cataloging and processing (no more rush items). Because the majority of new items had holds, staff constantly reprioritized the queue, and items with no holds sat in the queue for months. With a single-stream process, staff is handling each item fewer times, and everyone knows exactly what the priorities are. This was the change where staff saw the most immediate results: As soon as the single-stream process was implemented, staff started seeing the backlog of items diminishing.
8. Order all books shelf ready from our primary vendors. Department outsourcing increased from around 40 percent of all cataloging to 70 percent. Most of the cataloging for AV materials is still performed in-house, but almost all cataloging for books is outsourced. This change has saved time for selection, ordering, and cataloging staff.
9. No longer double-check vendors’ work. The receivers now spend their time unpacking deliveries, receiving and sending shelf ready materials out to the libraries, and posting electronic invoices to the ILS.
10. Start using hub labels for discs instead of hand writing on each disc. Some resistance to this was initially experienced due to the fact that ALD had previously experienced problems using hub labels; the discs had reportedly become stuck in patrons’ players. The project team asked staff at libraries that were already using the labels if they were experiencing problems, and no one reported having any issues at that time. The implementation of hub labels has saved the processing staff several hours per week (and no problems have been reported from patrons).
11. Minimize database maintenance tasks and instead focus on processing and cataloging new items. The team helped the Library Materials Services staff redefine the purpose of cataloging and processing. The purpose is to make sure that patrons can find the items that they are interested in––in the library catalog and in the library. As long as that purpose is met, the item is good to go. Staff is cataloging for the patrons, not for other catalogers.

Project Outcomes

The outcomes of the project far superseded the original project objective of reducing the turnaround time for new materials to fourteen days or less. The department not only achieved an average turnaround time of less than five days but also saved one hundred hours of staff time, defined and aligned job descriptions with department positions more closely, and increased outsourcing. The department staff ordered and received 5,500 items more in 2011 than in 2009 while the operating budget for the department (which includes the cost for outsourcing and department salaries) has remained the same. However, the most important outcome is the benefit to the patrons––they now have access to new materials in a timely manner. Each of the outcomes is discussed in more detail below.

1. Decreased turnaround time for new materials: By the first quarter in 2011, the average turnaround time for new materials was less than five days (compared to eighty-seven days for the same time period in 2010). The number of new items added were essentially the same for both years (around 37,000). However, in 2010 57 percent of new items were cataloged in-house, and in 2011 only 31 percent was cataloged in-house and the rest were received shelf ready (see table 2).
2. Staff savings and realigning job duties: The project saved the department one hundred staff hours per week (2.5 FTEs), and those hours were transferred to other departments in the organization. The savings were primarily realized due to the implementation of electronic invoicing and consolidating the acquisitions and interlibrary loan tasks to fewer staff members.
3. Increased outsourcing: 95 percent of all books are now cataloged by vendors. This implementation has eliminated confusion and double work for catalogers. Now the vendors catalog almost all the books, and most AV items are cataloged in-house.
4. Improved service to patrons: Materials are now available in the libraries on street date, holds are fulfilled quickly, and new materials are available for patrons to browse in the libraries. Patron complaints about the length of time for new materials to get to the libraries have disappeared, and all new materials are featured prominently on the ALD website. Between 2010 and 2011, ALD saw a 25 percent increase in circulation of new books.

What Can Other Libraries Learn from This?

The most significant learning from this efficiency evaluation for the project team was the return on investment for the project. When an organization decides to embark on a large project like this where significant time and resources are invested, everyone expects to see significant results. By the time the project was completed, the results exceeded everyone’s expectations. The library administration and the project team were very satisfied with the overall outcome and the benefits to patrons, staff, and the organization as a whole.

Another significant learning was that prioritizing certain items before others can actually cause delays. The single-stream receiving/processing/cataloging queue was the one single most impactful change that the team implemented. In addition, the process of identifying and eliminating exceptions throughout the department had the most immediate impact as these changes were implemented. Each time a process was streamlined to eliminate exceptions, the entire department noticed immediate results.

One of the most unexpected things the team learned from the project was that a simple thing such as buying more book carts to be able to unpack deliveries each day can have a tremendous impact. Visiting actual libraries and observing their work space andprocess allowed the team this discovery.

What can other libraries take away from the efficiency project at ALD? The project team suggests other library administrators make note of the following:

1. Efficiency evaluations are worth doing. They may seem daunting, but some pretty simple targeted changes can have amazing results.
2.  You don’t have to hire a consultant to be successful. Using a guide or structured tool for the evaluation is extremely helpful for working through the process.
3. Identify exceptions in the workflow and find ways to eliminate them.
4. Explore outsourcing options. Talk to your materials vendors about getting materials that are most time-sensitive delivered by street date.
5. Reach out to libraries outside your state. At some point you may yield more meaningful ideas by reaching out to libraries in another part of the country to get even more fresh ideas.

Summary and Conclusion

In 2010, ALD identified a problem with meeting patrons’ expectations of providing timely access to new materials. An efficiency evaluation team was assigned to investigate the problem and identify possible solutions. The objective at the start of the project was to reduce the turnaround time for new materials to fourteen days. A strategy composed of three steps was used to gather data to develop and implement an efficiency plan. The team used the Goodrich and Mayo publication Staffing for Results to gather and analyze the data and finally developed and implemented an efficiency plan consisting of eleven items.

Within one year of initiating the project, the department reached and surpassed the initial goal––a turnaround time of five days was achieved by April 2011. By the time the efficiency project was completed, patrons saw best sellers on the library shelves the same time as in bookstores, new books were featured on the library website, and checkouts for new books increased by 25 percent within a year. Patrons no longer complain about not having access to new materials at the library. The timing of the project was perfect; e-books are becoming more popular, and instant access to the new and popular materials is even more important to patrons. ALD is now better able to serve patrons and remain relevant in today’s fastpaced society.

This comment from one of the department staff members provides a summary of the project: “When you first presented the efficiency plan based on what you learned at other libraries you visited, the expected improvement in turnaround time almost seemed too good to be true, but I am so pleased with how well it really does work!”

REFERENCES

1. Liane Dietrich, “The Rise of the Impatient Consumer,” Digital Marketing, accessed April 16, 2012.
2. Andrew Nagy, “Next-Generation Service in the Library,” Library Technology Reports 47, no. 7 (Oct. 2011): 8–10.
3. Diane Mayo and Jeanne Goodrich, Staffing for Results: A Guide to Working Smarter (Chicago: American Library Association, 2002).
4. Marihelen Hatcher, “On the Shelf in 48 Hours,” Library Journal 131, no 15 (Sept. 15, 2006): 30–31.
5. Myung Gi Sung, Increasing technical services efficiency to eliminate cataloging backlogs. Public Libraries 43, no. 6 (Nov./Dec. 2004): 47–52.
6. Jo Sarling, Denver Reengineers: By Relying More on Vendors and Technology, Jo Sarling Explains How the Denver Public Library Shifted Resources to the Public, Library Journal 130, no. 12 (July 2005).
7. Concetta Pisano, Materials Manager and Elaine Adkins, Technical Services Supervisor, Carroll County Public Library, meeting with author, June 21, 2010; Jennifer Ralston, Materials Management Administrator and Shelby Dolan, Technical Services Manager, Harford County Public Library, meeting with author, June 22, 2010; Cindy Jones, Materials Management, Howard County Library, meeting with author, June 22, 2010.

The post Getting New Items into the Hands of Patrons A Public Library Efficiency Evaluation first appeared on Public Libraries Online.

Who are the adult readers of graphic novels and why are they important? Very little demographic data pertaining to graphic novel readers and purchasers has been gathered. It is a great mystery and much of the “data” available is implied. Most data has come from the observations of others and not from thorough survey methods. Based on their experiences with patrons, Lee County librarians agree that graphic novel readers can be placed into five demographic groups: (1) children, (2) teen males, (3) teen females, (4) adult males, and (5) adult females.3 Adult females account for the lowest interest among the five groups, while the other four groups have comparable readership levels, each four times the amount of adult female readers. In 2003, Diamond Distributors, the company that distributes all comic books from all publishers, found that the average graphic novel reader was twenty-nine years old.4 Ryan Searles, graphic novel enthusiast, estimates that in 2012 that number is still relatively accurate, with most graphic novel readers and purchasers being between the ages of twenty-five and forty.5

On his blog, Graphic Policy, blogger Brett Schenker used the social networking website Facebook as a way to estimate the ages and genders of comic book fans. He did not disclose his exact method but he took nine fundamental elements from the comic book universe and looked at the demographic information of those who “liked” them in the United States. The total population looked at was 1,215,960 self-identifying comic book fans. Of the users who listed their gender (1,209,800), approximately 75 percent identified as male and 25 percent identified as female.6 Schenker’s findings on ages of comic book fans are in table 1.

He found that eighteen to thirty is the prominent age range for both males and females with male readership dominating each age group. While I believe that this group is the most prominent, it is also important to note that teenagers and tweens frequently lie about their ages (with the help of their parents) in order to use Facebook.7 Therefore, the eighteen to thirty number is likely inflated and the seventeen and under demographic is underrepresented due to this inflation.

Sarah Ziolkowski and Vivian Howard surveyed nine adult graphic novel readers in their study “The Value of Comic Books to Adult Readers.” Of the nine, only three were female. Five of the nine participants were either in the process of completing or already completed graduate-level studies. All participants were employed at the time of the survey. The average age that the participants started reading comics was 8.5 years, with 5 of the 9 having started reading comic books between the ages of 4 and 7 years. All three female readers stated that Manga of some kind (Japanese comics) was their preferred comic book genre. Three of the males reported superhero comics as their favorite genre while two did not provide a favorite genre and one indicated that romance comics were his preferred genre.8

Even with all of the information above, do librarians really know who comes to the library to check out their comics and graphic novels? The honest answer is no. What librarians do know is that comic and graphic novel readers are dedicated to their hobby. The demand for graphic novels in general has increased tremendously over the past twenty-five years––the last five in particular––among all age groups due to the influx of wildly successful films centered on prominent comic book characters. Recent summer blockbusters like The Avengers and its earlier lead-ins such as Iron Man, Thor, and Captain America, as well as the darker films Batman Begins and its sequel, The Dark Knight, have contributed to the increased demand for graphic novels by adults. According to The Comic Chronicles, whose in-depth numbers come directly from Diamond Distributors, Diamond Distributors sold 7.03 million copies in June of 2012. That figure is up 17 percent from June of 2011.9 Graphic novel and comic sales are rising considerably each and every month but a barrier to personal access is today’s cost. Libraries must fill that void and provide access to readers that the depth of their pockets and wallets cannot facilitate.

Today, a comic book reader cannot read just one series of books. Individual comic books such as those based on The Joker and Catwoman will tie into a bigger universe-spanning annual event. To be up to speed on one’s chosen comic book universe (for example Marvel or DC), one must not only read his favorite characters, but there will also be crossover of characters into other books with events leading up to the universe-spanning event.10 Searles indicated that at his most dedicated, he had twenty-five issues in his monthly pick list at his local comic book shop. With individual monthly books costing more than four dollars per book, it could realistically cost one reader one hundred dollars per month to keep up with his chosen universe (if he only chooses one). Add trade collections to that and it is not hard for a comic book fan to spend several thousands of dollars annually on his hobby. However, many readers forgo reading the monthly books and choose to wait for issues to be collected and published in the trade volumes.

Jeremiah Cochran, lifelong comic book fan, estimates that his annual spending on comics is around $300. That figure depends on yearly events, release of trades, and new books written by authors that he has to read. If Cochran could afford it, he could see himself easily spending more than $1,000 per annum on hardcover omnibuses, indie titles, and variant covers (a single issue comic book with the same content but different covers varying in price and rarity). If money were not a concern, he would likely spend $10,000 a year. That includes going after hard-to-find back issues that can be pricey, every title from major publishers like Marvel and DC but also a large majority of titles from Image, IDW, Dark Horse, and Zenoscope. Only titles that he has “zero interest in would remain on the shelf and that list would be surprisingly short.”11

Cochran is not the only comic book fan whose hobby is limited by his income. With cost as a barrier, it is important for libraries to provide this user group of graphic novel readers with what they are looking for. Diamond Distributors Vice President of Sales, Kuo-Yu Liang, stated in 2009 that 10 percent of comic and graphic novel sales go into the public library market.12 Including graphic novels in the library collection increases circulation and use in the library. Studies have shown that patrons who check out graphic novels will come back, not only to read more graphic novels but to read other books as well. Circulation can increase two to four times when graphic novels are added to the collection.13 If this is the case, then why such resistance to inclusion in the collection? While most librarians understand the benefits of housing graphic novels in the collection, the bigger question is where do graphic novels and comic books fit in a library collection?

In addition to a lack of materials available to some users in many library systems, another concern for this user group is the lack of library classification for graphic novels. In Library of Congress classification, all graphic novels are in the call number area PS or NC and those that use Dewey classification, place all graphic novels in the call number 741.5. Graphic novels are not sorted by author, publisher, character, or in any way that is appealing to the user or makes them easy to find. The inability to classify comics and graphic novels in a logical and visible way affects the way that users access this information. If a reader cannot find the few items that he is looking for in three out of four trips to the library, will he come back? Searles has expressed his grief over the classification system utilized by the Cleveland Public Library main branch, which stores its collection in three unique spots. Graphic novels can be found in the popular library, literature, and young adult sections. If one is looking for an entire series and a search of the catalog indicates that all are available, it is very likely that one will have to visit all three locations in order to find all the books. On top of that, they may be organized by author in one section and by character in the next section that is five feet away.

Considering the amount of foot traffic and circulation of materials that graphic novel and comic readers provide, it is still difficult for them to obtain their materials. Whether this is due to the naivety of library staff of the materials’ function and readership or the classification within the library, libraries must make it easier for these users to access their materials. Suggested methods for improvement include the development of a formal and in-depth classification system, the maintenance of an online comic database, programming for readers of comics and graphic novels, close monitoring of the titles that circulate in order to pre-order future titles, and a general interest by library staff to service this subsection of the public.

Searles has considered asking his local library if he can rearrange the graphic novel collection pro bono. Perhaps at one time it was an organized collection that has now lost its way. Nine times out of ten, he cannot find what he is looking for. Libraries have to come up with a universal and encompassing classification system. Some libraries are at odds with graphic novel classification because they don’t know how to classify it. It seems that librarians try to get into the head of the user without consulting the user himself. Will the user be looking for a book by its publisher such as Marvel or DC? Or will the user be looking for a book about a character such as The Incredible Hulk or Buffy the Vampire Slayer? Will the user be interested in a book because of the author? How about the artist? There are so many elements that play into the classification of comics and graphic novels. Searles has proposed a straightforward classification system that puts the items listed above into practice.

Items should first and foremost be classified by publisher (see figure 1). Comic book readers first have a favorite or a few favorite publishers that they enjoy. An example of a prominent publisher is Marvel Comics. Marvel Comics then has a collection of characters to choose from. Readers of Marvel Comics will find themselves enjoying a particular character or group of characters more than others, so within the classification by publisher, there should be a breakdown by character. A reader who is interested in The Fantastic Four will expect that all Fantastic Four books be together. Within that group of books pertaining to The Fantastic Four, the books need to be rearranged chronologically where they fit in the universe. A story arc from 1988 should come before a story arc from 2009. Searles says that comic books do not need to be arranged by author. “Comic book fans are the most informed group of readers. If a reader is aware of the story arc, he is aware of the author. If the books are arranged chronologically, there is no need to organize by author.”14 This model has been adopted by comic shops for decades and it works incredibly well. Carol & John’s comic shop in Cleveland, Ohio, follows this very method. Searles can walk into Carol & John’s and walk directly to the book he needs without thinking about it. While this may be huge undertaking for a library with a sizeable graphic novel collection, this layout will make access to desired library materials much easier for this user group.

In addition to a more user-friendly classification system, it is recommended that some sort of online comic database be developed for use by patrons with e-readers or via a login system from an in-library or remote computer. Readers of comic books and graphic novels can be considered to be nerds and everyone has heard the term “computer nerd.” It only seems natural to pair comics and computers or other emerging technologies. Graphic novel readers are, at this point, the only group of readers excluded from the e-book craze. Publishers are truly missing out by leaving comic readers as an untapped audience. Examination of the e-book collections of the Cleveland Public Library, Cuyahoga County Public Library, and Columbus Metropolitan Library show that comic-related e-books are limited to biographies of artists and writers, books based on film adaptations, or books targeted toward young readers. While this integration would require compliance on the part of Diamond Distributors, this could increase the library share of Diamond revenue, and open up a library’s collection to a brand new set of readers. This includes readers who cannot find physical copies of what they are looking for (popular items that are always on hold or checked out) or individuals who have denounced the concept of the book in the traditional sense (less common among comic book readers).

It is also recommended that libraries host programming for comic book readers. One of the most popular comic book events is Free Comic Book Day, “an annual give-away of multiple titles, designed to draw readers—and potential readers—into the comic book store.”15 Titles range from being geared toward children up through mature audiences and often include some hardcover issues. Free Comic Book Day is organized by retailers, publishers, suppliers, and Diamond Comic Distributors. “Each year, publishers apply to provide comic books at cost to retailers, who in turn give them away for free.”16 Readers get the chance to test out brand new titles or sample books with existing characters that they have not read before.

Larger stores may limit the number of single books a customer can have for free while some stores will offer every book (close to fifty in 2012) for free. This generates foot traffic into the store for the free comic books but sales on the shop’s stock generate additional buzz. Steve Coffman recommends that libraries be run like bookstores with coffee and chairs.17 However, the comic section needs to be run like a comic shop, keeping the interest of the users in mind as a way to maintain patronage. Another recommended promotion includes weekend events and displays to tie in with the release of comic-inspired movies. Make the materials visible and easy to find and they will circulate.

Once circulated, it is important to stay informed on which books are circulating and which are collecting dust. Some libraries, like the Cleveland Public Library main branch, keep up on new comic and graphic novel titles and add titles to the library collection as they come out.18 This method is important for libraries that are looking to grow their graphic novel collection. It is imperative that libraries see what is circulating. Are certain characters popular? Specific authors? Artists? This data needs to be collected to facilitate the automatic ordering process for materials that will undoubtedly circulate without promotion. While it is great to take a risk on an indie title, knowing what the reader wants and providing it is key. In 2009, Todd Allen took a look at a small sampling of popular books such as Maus, Civil War, and Blue Beetle: Shellshocked via WorldCat. Maus had holdings in 2,032 library systems worldwide and there were 7,497 copies averaging to 3.69 copies per library. Civil War and Blue Beetle: Shellshocked returned ratios of 3.27 and 3.12 copies respectively. Allen’s conclusion was that a popular graphic novel should have at least three copies in every library system.19 While it can be risky to make an assumption about the success of a given title in a library, there are some “safe bet” titles and authors whose work should be added to the collection without hesitation.

While uniform cataloging standards, programming for adult graphic novel readers, and close monitoring of circulation can go a long way, it is important––especially in big cities or large library systems––that there be a library staff member (preferably a librarian) who is genuinely passionate about comics and graphic novels. Comic book fans are dedicated to their hobby. Their foot traffic in the library will circulate materials of all types––not just comics––and it is imperative that these users be able to locate materials that they are interested in. Graphic novels and comic books are the lifeline of libraries in the twenty-first century. If readers can’t find comics that interest them, they won’t even bother looking at other materials.

REFERENCES

1. Francisca Goldsmith, Graphic Novels Now: Building, Managing, and Marketing a Dynamic Collection (Chicago: ALA, 2005), 1.
2. Amanda Stegall-Armour, “The Only Thing Graphic Is Your Mind: Reconstructing the Reference Librarian’s View of the Genre,” in Graphic Novels and Comics in Libraries and Archives, ed. Robert G. Weiner (Jefferson, N.C.: McFarland & Company, 2010), 181.
3. Ibid.
4. David S. Serchay, The Librarian’s Guide to Graphic Novels for Adults (New York: Neal-Schuman, 2010), 1.
5. Ryan Searles, interview with the author, conducted on July 7, 2012.
6. Brett Schenker, ”Who Are the Comic Book Fans on Facebook?” April 27, 2011, http://graphicpolicy.com/2011/04/27/who-are-the-comic-fans-on-facebook.
7. Matt Richtel and Miguel Helft, “Facebook Users Who Are under Age Raise Concerns,” New York Times (online ed.), Mar. 11, 2011, accessed Nov, 8, 2012, www.nytimes.com/2011/03/12/technology/internet/12underage.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all.
8. Sarah Ziolkowska and Vivian Howard, “Forty-One-Year-Old Female Academics Aren’t Supposed to Like Comics!: The Value of Comic Books to Adult Readers,” in Graphic Novels and Comics in Libraries and Archives, ed. Robert G. Weiner (Jefferson, N.C.: McFarland & Company, 2010).
9. John Jackson Miller, “The Comic Chronicles: A Resource for Comics Research,” www.comichron.com.
10. Searles, interview with author.
11. Jeremiah Cochran, interview with the author, conducted on July 17, 2012.
12. Todd Allen, “Funnies Business: Quantifying Library Penetration for Graphic Novels,” Publishers Weekly, July 14, 2009, www.publishersweekly.com/pw/by-topic/book-news/comics/article/17561-funnies-business-quantifying-library-penetration-for-graphic-novels.html.
13. Serchay, The Librarian’s Guide to Graphic Novels for Adults, 4.
14. Searles, interview with author.
15. Carol Pinchefsky, “Free comic book day: When free comic books mean big business,” Geek Cultured Blog, May 3, 2012,  www.forbes.com/sites/carolpinchefsky/2012/05/03/p1563.
16. Diamond Distributors, “Free Comic Book Day FAQs,” www.freecomicbookday.com/Home/1/1/27/984.
17. Steven Coffman, “What if You Ran Your Library like a Bookstore?,” American Libraries 29, no. 3 (March 1998): 40–46.
18. Searles, interview with author.
19. Allen, “Funnies Business: Quantifying Library Penetration for Graphic Novels.”

The post It’s No Joke: Comics and Collection Development first appeared on Public Libraries Online.

We saw e-book sales figures surpass overall hardcover sales,¹ and circulation figures grow by orders of magnitude.² We’ve watched Pinterest  become the fourth largest traffic source on the web,³ not to mention becoming a massive hub for user engagement and sharing. Librarians have reached beyond their traditionally insular bubbles, making a concerted showing at the massive South by Southwest Interactive technology conference,⁴ and launching LibraryLab, a branded channel on megablog Boing Boing.⁵ Online resources like Code Academy have given us better insight into software both purchased and homegrown, and we’ve created support networks like the ALA Connect Code Year group⁶ to further our development. This willingness to tinker is affecting our events, leading to unconventional learning spaces such as unconferences, Mini Maker Faires, and TEDx events. And that’s just the stuff we’ve looked at in this column.

That’s a lot of sudden change, right? Looking at these trends in the aggregate, it’s easy to get overwhelmed. Don’t worry, I’m going to let you in on a secret: None of these things (with the possible exception of Pinterest) emerged overnight. Make magazine launched seven years ago, but it’s only  now that the idea of a maker movement has really entered the popular zeitgeist. South by Southwest is a behemoth now, but it took the better part of two decades to get there. And lest we forget, commercial e-readers have been on the market for nearly fifteen years. It takes an awfully long time to build an overnight success.

I’ll share another secret with you: We can play this long game just as well as any other innovator out there. Even for an enormous, well-funded organization like TED (Technology, Entertainment, Design), it takes a serious time investment to build an audience. Libraries across the country already have hundreds, if not thousands, of users who are all too willing to give us feedback as we bring new information products and services into the community. Will all of these new ideas succeed? Of course not. It wouldn’t be library science without a little experimentation, and some of those experiments are going to fail. But occasionally, an idea is going to succeed. And when it does, it creates an opportunity to reshape the notion of what our libraries can do. One such example can be found at the Oak Park (Ill.) Public Library (OPPL), just west of Chicago.

Inside the Idea Box

The Idea Box⁷ is a nine-by-thirteen-foot space located in the opening vestibule of OPPL’s main library building. Originally designed as a coffee shop, the space is now a constantly changing interactive environment for art and conversation. Unlike a digital media lab or a makerspace, however, the Idea Box is focused on single-serving experiences. One month might have patrons rearranging small LED lights to create constellations on the walls. Another month might have a visitor posing for a green-screen photo with an oversized library card, and choosing their favorite exotic location to have superimposed in the background. These individual contributions accumulate over the run of the installation. Much of the joy, for staff and patrons alike, comes from seeing the space change over time.

The genesis of Idea Box came during the library’s last strategic planning session, fueled by a library brainstorming initiative they called Spark⁸. Monica Harris, OPPL’s customer service manager, described the process: “We had people from all over the library looking at crazy things. One of our assistant directors, Jim Madigan, said, ‘We’re very focused on art here in Oak Park. We have a lot of great art in the library. We have one art gallery, but what if we open a second art space. We could call it the Idea Box.’ The Spark Team liked that idea, and they ran with it. They said, ‘OK, we’ll call it Idea Box, we’ll put things in there, we’re not entirely sure what’s happening with it yet, but I think it sounds really good.’”⁹

As the person charged with overseeing the Idea Box, Harris saw an opportunity to build a new type of participatory space. Taking a cue from  museums such as the Denver Art Museum and the work of Nina Simon,10 Idea Box is designed to draw patrons in from the moment they enter the
building, and get them interacting with the space and one another. A magnetic poetry kit may seem like a simple idea. But two dozen kits spread out across the walls? Once people start writing, reading, and remixing the words on the walls, things can get interesting.

Visitors can even start playing with the rules of the Idea Box itself. One month had patrons writing their favorite book titles on colored Post-It Notes and sticking them to the walls. A note appeared one day that read “Put check marks next to the titles you’ve read.” By the end of the month, visitors to the Idea Box were checking off notes and posting additional “comments” to notes other people had left. What started off as a very simple experience had developed into a conversational space.

This is reminiscent of the way hashtags evolved on Twitter, where users would add a “#hashtag” to their tweets as a way of self-reflexively commenting on them. Once the practice became widespread, Twitter started hyperlinking them, and hashtags are now one of the biggest ways tweets are organized, searched for, and monetized. Small ideas can have tremendous ripple effects.

It’s here that Idea Box takes a major cue from the way communities emerge and develop online. Harris explained, “If you have something new and fresh online, all of a sudden you can meet hundreds or thousands of other people that might want to talk about the same things you want to talk about. We’re trying to do the same thing on the hyperlocal scale, where we can get that kind of participatory feeling going in a way that might be with your neighbors.”¹¹

These experiences—which can often be consumed in just a few minutes—help to introduce what Harris calls “surprise and delight” into the library visit, helping to improve the overall experience. But the experience is just the beginning. As the Idea Box develops, so does OPPL’s approach to customer service. The library created this section by splitting the circulation department into two groups: (1) those who keep materials flowing in and out of the library and (2) those devoted to front-line customer service, merchandising, and maintaining the Idea Box. The relationships built via these day-today patron interactions give this department a natural advantage when dealing with the public. As the department develops, staff may end up taking on larger outreach efforts, both in person and online.

Thanks to an enthusiastic staff, a supportive board, and slew of new ideas, OPPL is positioning itself as an experiential environment for community interaction. And they’ve managed to do it at a fraction of the cost. Harris said, “I think libraries tend to get hung up on the initial cost of developing a digital media lab or a makerspace, where they think it’s something they might like to do years in the future. We’re really interested in creating some of those things too, but this was a way for us to jump in and get our hands dirty right away.”¹²

Getting patrons involved with simpler participatory tasks projects can often do a better job of preparing your community for much larger endeavors. “I’ve worked in tiny rural libraries with no budget, and I could still make a Post-It wall,” Harris said.¹³ There’s a chance that those Post-Its are priming OPPL’s patrons for a much bigger level of interaction.

Conclusion

The end of the year is always a time to take stock of what you’ve done, and to set some goals for the road ahead. It’s easy to be tempted to take on the largest goal possible, to create complex (and expensive) projects that the public may not even associate with a library. I’ve certainly run into my share of “whoa, really?” expressions when telling community members about my library’s digital media lab.

But here’s one last secret: it may not always seem like it, but time is on our side. Our services aren’t fixed points—they’re vectors, constantly moving our organizations and patrons in a specific direction. With that in mind, I urge you to think strategically about how you can get your community ready for more participatory library services. Let’s use 2013 to build the library of 2023. All it takes is the right idea.

REFERENCES AND NOTES

1. Jason Boog, “eBook Revenues Top Hardcover,” GalleyCat, June 15, 2012, accessed Sept. 15, 2012.
2. As of September 2012, year-to-date e-book circulation has grown by 131 percent at Skokie (Ill.) Public Library.

The post Embracing the Long Game first appeared on Public Libraries Online.

MozGo employs an innovative cloud-based “mobile mediator” to provide a flexible solution that can be used with almost any integrated library system (ILS). VTLS applies the library’s branding to the MozGo app, tailoring it to each library. The deployment process is simple: the application is distributed to patrons through the iTunes Store or Android Marketplace under the library’s name. Using the Mobile Mediator, MozGo connects directly to the library catalog to provide real-time information. Once deployed, no extra work is needed to support new ILS versions, or even entirely different ILS implementations at your library. MozGo is based on a new open VTLS platform, Open Skies.

The post VTLS Releases MozGo first appeared on Public Libraries Online.

The Center for Association Resources conducted the survey and presented their research findings to the PLA board of directors at our fall meeting held in Chicago in October. The center’s project objectives were to:

• generate a snapshot of the current demographic composition of the membership;
• identify levels of member satisfaction across major areas, such as education, communication, and member service; and
• gain a sense of members’ participation in PLA.

The membership survey participant profile revealed some not so surprising information about our members:

• The majority are female over the age of 50, 20.3 percent are over age 60, none are under the age of 20.
• PLA Conference initially attracted 65.4 percent to PLA and 71.9 percent have attended a PLA Conference.
• Most have 20 years or more in public library service.

These numbers reveal several interesting points—PLA has a wealth of experience and knowledge residing in its membership, and PLA has a unique opportunity to find meaningful ways to connect newer librarians with seasoned librarians, providing value to both groups and ensuring that new generations of librarians hear the perspective and learnings of individuals who have served years in the profession.

The survey questions focused both on members’ perceptions of PLA as well as the field of public libraries. I am happy to note that 94.6 percent agree that PLA succeeds in its mission; 75.1 percent rate their membership benefits as “very good” and “good”; and the overwhelming majority indicated they would recommend PLA to a colleague. While overall our membership is satisfied with PLA, the survey also helped us identify some areas of opportunity to improve or begin new initiatives.

When looking at public libraries five years from now, the respondents emphasized the foreseeable changes in technology, staff organization, and the library’s changing role in the community. Many respondents are deeply troubled about the health and longevity of our profession. They feel they are constantly being challenged to deal with major budget cuts that require having to do more with less. Lower funding collides with public demand for new technology, which is in a perpetual and rapid state of change. All of these competing factors, our members feel, lead to a pace of change that is overwhelming and alarming. They want PLA to take leadership and proactively provide resources and support to meet these issues. From e-books and technology to staffing and marketing—there is a desire for new education, new resources, and new efforts to raise the level of public awareness about the value of public libraries by pushing libraries into the public spotlight and helping the public understand what libraries offer today.

Funding was a prevalent concern in the survey, both personally and professionally. Of the respondents, 97.7 percent pay their American Library Association (ALA) and PLA dues personally, and cost is one of the biggest barriers to renewing membership or attending PLA Conference. Conference and online event discounts are some of the most popular member features.

Respondents also want financial ideas for their libraries, requesting more information about grants that they can take advantage of. In each monthly e-newsletter, PLA lists a selection of grants or awards. We’ll continue to provide those listings and find ways to identify even more opportunities.

Respondents from small and rural libraries, while taking advantage of existing PLA resources, see the value in having additional exposure to affordable strategies, networking opportunities, and templated solutions; help in evaluating and implementing technology and digital solutions; and support navigating costs, access, and availability of electronic resources. Respondents from the small and rural libraries also want to better understand operational challenges, including new staffing models, modernization of facilities and services, and help to develop and market programs and resources.

My favorite question in the survey was “If you were the president of PLA for a day, what top three areas would you focus on?”
The areas mentioned most frequently were professional development, leadership development, the digital divide, ebooks, library advocacy, literacy, funding, relevance, public awareness, and adapting to changing trends. It’s a lot to tackle, but all of these things are on my mind, too.

On behalf of the PLA board of directors and association staff, I would like to personally thank all of you who took the time to complete our membership survey. We have identified several key goals as a result and are outlining an action plan to meet them and focus on new ways to increase the value of PLA membership.

The post The Results Are In! first appeared on Public Libraries Online.

PLA has partnered with Counting Opinions (SQUIRE) Ltd., to provide the service for administering and supporting the survey. As well, PLA-launched PLAmetrics, an online subscription service offering access to the longitudinal PLDS data sets for this and subsequent survey years going back to 2002. The advent of PLAmetrics gives public libraries timely access to meaningful and relevant public library data for comparative analysis and the assessment of their operations by offering an array of pre-configured summary reports in online published formats and in  ready-to run and/or customizable report templates. As well, PLAmetrics subscribers can create any number of custom reports based on the available data definitions and participating libraries from any one or more years of PLDS data, including data from the Institute of Museums and Library Services (IMLS).

The graphs, comments, and calculations used in this report were derived from data in PLAmetrics. This report presents a selection of metrics for PLDS which presents results for the most recent FY2011 and previous results in tables and charts with related observations.

Research Method and Context

The participation in the PLDS is voluntary and participants have the option of providing responses to all or some of the questions that comprise the survey. This year, similar to previous years, all public libraries in the United States and Canada were invited to participate in the survey. Emails (3,284) were sent to launch the survey in January 2012, postcards were handed out at the PLA 2012 Conference in Philadelphia last March, letters were sent to the libraries, and four follow-up emails were sent between the beginning of March and the end of April. State data coordinators from the U.S. and provincial and association coordinators in Canada were contacted and asked to promote the survey to their libraries. Their involvement led to increased awareness and participation. Of the libraries contacted, 1,829 responded to the request for data, a response rate of 19.7 percent (an increase of 2.4 percent from last year). However, due to the voluntary nature of this survey, there was a high dropout rate, and many libraries had to be contacted for additional data. Although only 1,579 libraries were included in the final data analysis, this number still represented an increase over 2011’s number of 1,461 and 1,105 for 2010.

Please refer to the online PLDS Survey site for copies of the survey and full wording of the questions included.

Overall Service Summary

The PLDS Survey includes several questions that effectively describe the characteristics of each of the responding libraries. In table 1, a selection of these descriptive statistics is presented and summary data is provided with respect to all libraries that provided values greater than zero (>0) for each selected measure.

The latest FY2011 results include 1,579 responding libraries, just over 8 percent more than the FY2010 response count, providing their population of legal service area. Table 1 shows that the range of the size of population served was from 90 to 3,792,621 people. The distribution by groupings of the population of legal service area is shown in figure 1. As was found last year, there was a notable increase in the number of participating libraries that serve a population of legal service area less than 50,000 people.

For those participating libraries that reported both their population of legal service area and the number of registrations:

• Overall, 1,455 libraries offer services to a total population of 175,297,816 people and serve 93,234,730 registered borrowers.
• Overall the ratio of registrations to population of the legal service area is somewhere between six and seven people registered out of every ten people, as depicted in figure 5.
• For those libraries with populations of less than 50,000 people, these 963 libraries offer service to a total population of 13,451,047 and serve 8,342,742 registered borrowers.
• For those libraries with populations of 50,000 or more people, these 492 libraries offer services to a total population of 151,500,673 and serve 84,891,988 registered borrowers.

Some libraries may have reported a higher number of registrations than the actual number of people in their population of legal service area and have noted that their 2010 census was no longer accurate due to rapid community expansion and growth.

Population

Throughout most of this discussion, population of legal service area will be used as the basis for grouping results and also as a basis of several key ratios. It is important and useful to note, especially when comparing results between each population group and when comparing year-over-year trends, that the sample of responding libraries is mostly variable from year to year and within each population group. Recognizing this variability, this discussion includes trends and comparisons for 306 libraries that have consistently participated in each survey conducted by PLDS in the last five years (FY2007 to FY2011).

Table 2 and figure 2 show population by legal service area adopted over the past five years. The trend report for all respondents shows an increasing number of PLDS public library participants from libraries serving smaller populations. In particular, this is noted by the drop of the average and median values prior to 2010 and the leveling off of these values between the last two years, where the size of sample has also increased to a lesser degree. This trend could indicate the growing importance of library metrics and the need for data across all public libraries. The second part of table 2 displays the data for the consistent participants and the values remain fairly stable.

Holdings

For FY2011, library holdings ranged from as few as 1,500 to as many as 16,140,023 items as reported by the 1,465 libraries that responded to this question, 61 more respondents than the previous year, and an increase of less than 1 percent of the total (485,641,446) reported in 2011.

Figure 3 shows the trend for the last five years for holdings per capita. The first chart shows the trend for all PLDS libraries that reported and the second chart shows only those PLDS libraries (N=306) that reported data in each of the last five years. What seems apparent for all reporting libraries is that holdings per capita overall are increasing. But this result is more a function of the increased number of responding libraries that serve smaller populations of the legal service area. The median population of legal service area in FY2007 was 93,398 and this year the median value was 20,228. Generally these smaller libraries have larger holdings per capita each. This skewed relationship is also shown in figure 6, but this data is from the FY2011 only. Overall, year over year the marginal decrease in the average and median reported population has been greater than the decrease in the average and median reported holdings, thus holdings per capita shows an increasing trend over the last five years.

The second figure 3 chart shows holdings per capita for the group of libraries that reported consecutively in each of the last five years and these libraries have relatively stable holdings and an average that has slightly increased.

Circulation

PLDS libraries circulated items 1,200,632 times on average in FY2011, slightly higher than last year’s average, although fewer libraries this year reported their total annual circulation (1,069 reporting libraries, 0.09 percent fewer than last year). Total circulation of 1,529,604,633 was 1.12 percent less than the previous year. As in the previous two years the 2012 PLDS statistical report included circulation counts for independent types of materials. Of libraries reporting these counts, print items circulated 742,466 times on average, CD/DVD items were circulated 414,068 times on average, and all other materials were circulated 91,702 times on average.

Care should be taken not to compare this information with the total circulation results in table 1 since some libraries may or may not have reported their circulation counts for both total and independent types of materials.

Table 3 takes a look at those libraries that reported both total annual circulation and the contribution of renewals to these circulation counts. For the 593 libraries that reported total and renewal circulation, total annual renewals on average accounted for 518,767 or 24.4 percent of the total annual circulation.

PLDS trend data (see figure 4) shows that the circulation per capita has on average generally increased from FY2007 through FY2010 and has retreated in FY2011 to below-2009 levels. Similarly for those libraries (N=306) that reported data in each of the past five years, circulation had increased between 2007 and 2010, the period during the world financial credit crisis, and also shows a decrease in 2011, to a level below the 2009 average.

Meanwhile, in general as table 1 shows, materials used in the library accounted for 273,192 (N=473) uses on average, 12 percent less than that the average calculated last year (average uses of 309,926, N=471). Interestingly, electronic circulation accounted for 39,216 circulation counts on average, compared to 18,804.4 in fiscal year 2010. In the previous year’s survey 1,162 libraries reported electronic circulation and this year only 658 libraries reported electronic circulation. So, although 43 percent fewer libraries reported electronic circulation, the 57 percent that did report, these libraries circulated on average twice as many e-materials compared to those in the previous year.

Similar to the findings from last year’s survey, the average values for library visits (669,666), in-library use of materials (273,192), and reference transactions (155,719) were each lower. These lower averages are again likely due to the change in population sample having a 12.4 percent increase in libraries with legal service areas of 50,000 or less. Interestingly, while the average number of programs (1,427) also decreased, the average program attendance (39,335) increased. Similarly the average number of materials sent to other libraries (16,136) and those received from other libraries (14,161) both increased compared to the previous year.

Selected Library Metrics by Population

Figures 5-9 provide a visualization of several library measures reported as a percentage of population of legal service area.

Library registrations as a percent of population, in the previous year showed a smooth curved relationship that as the population size increased the percentage of registrants decreased. This year’s results demonstrate a similar relationship but suggest there are tiered plateaus. The most significant marginal change in the average registrations occurs between the two smallest population groups. Then a similar marginal decrease of the average registration occurs and the first plateau is reached for the population groups between 10,000 to 249,999 persons. A smaller marginal decrease in average registrations occurs and another plateau is reached for the population groups between 250,000 to 1,000,000 and over.
Libraries with legal service areas with fewer than 9,999 people tended to register a larger proportion of the population.

Average holdings per capita show a very similar pattern as in previous years (figure 6). For example, as observed in last year’s report, libraries serving populations below 5,000 had average holdings per capita over five times those of the largest libraries. The overall average holdings per capita for all reporting libraries was 5.66 (N=1,467). This value is more than 2 percent lower than last year. This again is mostly due to the increased number of participating libraries serving the smaller population groups less than 100,000 people in size.

Library visits per capita continue to show the highest numbers for libraries serving smaller populations. The smallest libraries saw an average of 3.83 more visits per capita than libraries serving over 1,000,000. All libraries serving populations under 100,000 saw an average of at least 6.04 visits per capita annually.

However, overall the average library visits per capita for all reporting libraries was 6.61 (N=1,236) showing a 5.84 percent decrease from last year. Figure 7 shows that the largest decrease was reported by the smallest libraries serving populations of less than 25,000 people, and there were more libraries in this segment that contributed data this year which might account for some of the overall decrease. But, a decrease in average library visits per capita was reported by all libraries (figure 7). The general decrease may be attributed to increased use of remote or online library services including reference services, downloadable materials, and online databases.

In-library use was reported by the fewest number of libraries (N=473). The largest in-library use of materials was from libraries serving populations of 0 to 5,000 and 5,000 to 9,999. However the third largest number was for libraries serving a population of 1,000,000 and over with middle sized populations having the smallest values. The pattern for this statistic continues to change from year to year without any apparent consistency or relationship. This may be a result of the challenges libraries have in consistently tracking these numbers.

Average circulation per capita, despite showing the smallest value for the largest population group and the largest value for the smallest population group, there is no clear pattern between each population group (figure 8). The average circulation per capita for all reporting libraries was 10.32 (N=1,294). This, as shown in figure 8, is a decrease from the average of last year, and consistent with a decrease in the average for circulation per capita for all repeat responding libraries (N=306).

Collection turnover allows a library to see how often items within the collection are used by dividing the total circulation by the total holdings. When analyzing collection turnover (figure 9) larger population libraries have a larger average collection turnover than smaller population libraries, with the largest collection turnover for libraries serving a population of 500,000 to 999,999 and the smallest collection turnover for libraries serving a population of 5,000 to 9,999 (a 3.83x difference). The overall average for all reporting libraries was 2.54 items circulated per item held (N=1,234).

Table 4 shows a five-year trend for the collection turnover rate for those PLDS libraries (N=306) that have reported in each of the past five years. The turnover rate shows a softening of circulation transactions relative to the size of the holdings, relative to previous year results.

Operating Finances

Income and expenditure measures continue to provide useful operational insights for many libraries and are therefore a major section within the PLDS report and all library statistical reports. The average overall respondents’ library income was $4,892,178 per year or $46.68 per capita of the legal service area (N=1,576), a decrease of $2.74 from last year’s average per capita income of $49.42. Library expenditures, however, were $4,657,232 on average per year or $41.95 per capita of the legal service area (N=1,428). This is a decrease of $3.55 per capita from the average of $45.50 per capita expenditure in fiscal year 2010. The most notable change was a decrease seen in the under 5,000 population group, which saw a decline from the previous year’s increase in average income per capita. The 10,000 to 24,999 population group also saw a decline from the previous year while the remaining groups saw their average income per capita remain relatively stable from the previous year. This holds true with the previous year’s trend of individual libraries.

Overall the average income and expenditures for libraries decreased in FY2011. For the most part, income appears to be unchanged for most population groups, except for the first and third smallest population groups which show decreases in average income per capita of over 14 percent (figure 10) with similar decreases in expenditure (figure 11). Income and expenditures per person were largest for the libraries serving middle-sized populations from 25,000 to 49,999 followed by those serving populations of 50,000 to 99,999 and smallest for libraries serving the largest populations. Unlike the previous two years, the total average income did exceed total average expenditure for the largest population groupings (libraries serving more than 500,000), but only by a small margin. The other population groups (as shown in figure 12) have wider margins between the average income and expenditures per registrations and per capita.

Figure 12 also shows a similar pattern of income and expenditure per registrations (top line pairing) and per capita (bottom line pairing).
Table 5 shows the trend for the last five years for operating expenditures per capita. The first table shows the trend for all PLDS libraries that reported and the second table shows only those PLDS libraries (N=306) that reported data in each of the last five years. Among the consistent contributors operating expenditures have been more consistent hovering around $49 on average for the last four years. The median values for this group increased by $0.75 over FY2010 values.

The PLDS survey collected total materials expenditures and again provided the option for materials expenditure to be divided into categories by type of material. Overall, libraries spent $5.04 per capita on materials (N=1,430), with a range of $0.00 to $80.24. This change also represented a decrease of $2.84 over last year.

Figure 13 shows the five-year trend for materials expenditure per capita for those 306 libraries that have responded to the survey in each of these years. The average and median show a general decreasing trend for materials expenditure per capita. For this group of libraries the average population reported has actually decreased in the past two years, suggesting that the expenditure on materials has had to similarly decrease for this ratio also to decrease. Given indications of lower total expenditures for all population groups (figure 11), materials expenditure has also contracted with the overall decrease in spending.

Table 6 summarizes various library outputs as a function of expenditure. In FY2011 per $1,000 spent, libraries on average realized:

• 176 library visits (179, 168, 149 for the prior three years);
• 263 materials circulated (260, 254, 235 for the prior three years);
• 12.23 patrons attend programs (12.1, 10.5, 9.0 for the prior three years);
• 25.57 reference transactions fielded (25.3, 26.9, 29.0 for the prior three years);
• 48.35 uses of materials within the library (47.2, 49.1, 48.0 for the prior three years); and
• 22.97 new registered patrons (20.0, 18.5, 17 for the prior three years).

Reference transactions per $1,000 spent stabilized this year and did not continue to decrease and overall there is an emerging trend of increased circulation and new borrower registrations per $1,000 spent over the past four years. These improved observations, however, are due to a simultaneous general decrease in expenditures, and this is confirmed by the fact that reference transactions, circulation, and registrations are also generally lower this year compared to last. Library visits have also dropped from last year but overall are still higher than previous years.

Program attendance is overall increasing while use of material within the library is slightly declining over the four years. Table 7 shows a variety of output measures expressed as an average per $1,000 of expenditure by population group. For each characteristic the outputs per $1,000 expenditure are varied with respect to population grouping. This variability is due to simultaneous decreases in both the output and input measure (expenditures). If the output measure (denominator) has decreased in proportion more than the input measure (numerator) compared to the previous year, then the ratio would suggest better performance. What is unclear from the analysis is degree to which lower expenditures (figure 13) are the result of improved efficiency or simply a reflection of tightened spending (lower income), see figure 12. A decrease in output measures could suggest that decreased spending has a detrimental impact on the volume of outputs produced.

Technology

Technology questions remain an important part of the PLDS survey which reflects the importance of technology in the modern public library. This year, the PLDS survey was altered slightly to include questions regarding e-readers and tablets while removing questions regarding CD and DVD players, to remain current with activities taking place at the library. Questions on social networking were amalgamated to keep better statistical and comparative results as social networking sites individually may change and use may rise and fall with current popularity.

It is no surprise that more than 95 percent of libraries with a website include information on programs and events, as well as access to the OPAC (as shown in table 8). Not too far behind (at more than 79 percent) is the inclusion of online databases, and among the new technology questions, almost 78 percent of libraries include social networking features in their online presence (N=1,365). Rounding out the top six online resources is library staff created content (68.88 percent) and virtual reference services (61.24 percent).

Virtual reference service, however, was another question that was reformatted and combines the previous year’s separate questions into one general question. This year’s result shows a slight increase (+2.14 percent)from last year where 59.1 percent of libraries provided some form of virtual reference.

Regarding tablet circulation, 47 libraries indicated that they do circulate tablets, 3.2 percent of all 1,459 responding libraries. This will be an interesting question to follow in the 2013 survey as an indicator of technology adoption and the priority libraries are placing on it.
Other results include 13.2 percent of libraries using automated materials handling systems such as book sorters, automated check-in devices, and so forth. (N= 1,469); 85.2 percent of libraries did not circulate e-book readers (N=1,463).

Some libraries support mobile computing and devices, with 34.7 percent of libraries offering library apps that are accessible on a mobile device (N=1,353).

Special Section: Young Adult Services

Each year PLDS focuses on a specific topic outside of the standard questions. For 2012, the focus was on young adult (YA) services. Of the 1,448 libraries who answered the question “Does your library provide YA services?” 81.8 percent answered yes (see figure 14). Of those 263 libraries that do not offer YA services:

• 46.6 percent serve a population of legal service area of fewer than 5,000;
• 23.7 percent serve a population of legal service area of 5,000 to 9,999;
• 17.3 percent serve a population of legal service area of 10,000 to 24,999; andthe remaining 11.4 percent of these respondents serve a population of legal service area of 25,000 people or greater.

While a significant number of libraries within the smaller population groups do not offer YA services, more than half of the libraries in this group (57.2 percent) do offer YA services.

As expected, average expenditures on YA materials for FY2011 and FY2010 display a clear tendency for larger libraries to spend more than medium and smaller libraries. But as a portion of total materials expenditures (figure 15), the smaller libraries dedicate a larger portion of spending on YA materials than their larger counterparts. Generally, libraries that serve populations of 10,000 people and above spent between approximately 4 and 7 percent on YA materials as a portion of their materials expenditure. The smaller libraries serving populations below 10,000 people spent more than 9 percent of their total materials expenditure on YA materials.

It is not surprising that of those libraries that do offer YA services, 65.7 percent have a specific section for young adults on the library webpage. For those 384 libraries that do not have a specific section for young adults on their webpage, they do have a presence on social network sites:

• 12.6 percent indicated that they have a social web presence;
• 25 percent indicated they have a presence on Facebook for young adults;
• 5.8 percent indicated they have a presence on Twitter for young adults; and,
• 5.8 percent indicated “other” social networks (such as Flickr, Pinterest, Google+, and Tumblr) where they have a presence for young adults.

Future Directions

The 2013 PLDS survey will run from January to April 2013 and will include a special section on library facilities, which has not been covered since the 2009 survey. Any library not receiving an invitation is encouraged to contact PLA or Counting Opinions (SQUIRE) Ltd. (pla@counting opinions.com) for more information. The PLDS will continue to collect data on library trends, including technology trends within the library. PLA strives to produce a survey that captures timely, relevant data and encourage libraries to use this data to enhance their decision-making  processes. We also want to thank all of the responding libraries who took the time to participate. Contact us at pla@ala.org with comments or feedback.

Editor’s note: PLAmetrics is your portal to the Public Library Data Service (PLDS) Statistical Report digital database. Visit www.plametrics.org to subscribe.

The post The Public Library Data Service 2012 Statistical Report: Characteristics and Trends first appeared on Public Libraries Online.

Gale, part of Cengage Learning, recently announced the launch of Gale Genealogy Connect, a new online tool for genealogical research. Focusing on the “how to” of genealogical research, along with unique source materials, Gale Genealogy Connect serves as a compliment to popular fact-, date-, and people-based genealogy resources already on the market. Sourced from the publications of Genealogical. com, parent company for Genealogical Publishing Company and Clearfield Company, Gale Genealogy Connect features more than 550 reference works at release (formerly only available in print or on CD-ROM) on a standalone e-book platform, with a goal of growing the collection to nearly 1,500 works. The content covers a wide range of topics such as genealogy research basics; genealogy methods and sources; colonial genealogy; immigration; and royal and Native American ancestry. Gale Genealogy Connect serves both novice and advanced researchers—beginners will learn proper research methods and how to define and organize goals, while powerful search features help advanced researchers make connections among data to uncover a meaningful story behind their family tree. Additional features include:

• an engaging user interface with translation into thirty-eight languages;
• unlimited and simultaneous 24/7 access;
• seamless cross-searching across all Gale Genealogy Connect collections;
• ability to print, save, email, or share articles; and
• multipage PDF viewing recreating the book experience.

Content is divided into six convenient bundles, giving libraries a variety of purchase and subscription options to meet their needs.

Scholastic Expands Storia Content

Storia is Scholastic’s free downloadable children’s e-reading app and e-book system that grows with children from toddlers to teens. Available for free download on PC, iPad, iPhone, all iOS systems hardware, and Android tablets, the Storia e-reading app is designed to captivate kids while helping them become better readers. Storia offers more than two thousand titles for kids from toddlers through teens with more content being added daily. Storia was recognized with the Editor’s Choice Award for children’s e-book apps in the May 2012 edition of Children’s Technology Review. Scholastic has announced agreements with National Geographic for Kids and Albert Whitman & Company. Among the National Geographic for Kids titles to be offered on Storia are twenty titles from the bestselling series “National Geographic Readers.” Scholastic is currently working with several other publishers to provide their front- and backlist titles on Storia.

Codeacademy Offers Easy On-Ramp for Coding Clubs

Digital literacy is increasingly important for kids as more of their world goes online. In response to the lack of computer science (CS) opportunities for kids, Codeacademy has put together a startup kit. They believe that programming teaches important reasoning, logic, and communication skills, and that learning programming gives kids a voice in how software shapes their world. The kit contains everything needed to offer after-school programming clubs and other CS opportunities including a full curriculum, accounts for the students, flyers, letters to parents, and more. And because the lessons are self-paced, program facilitators and club leaders do not need to be expert programmers. Best of all, it’s completely free. Teachers and librarians can also sign up for a free after-school programming kit.

Lessons run right in the browser, with no downloads or installation required. They are self-guided, freeing facilitators to work with learners one-on-one; and self-paced with a choice of languages (Python, JavaScript, HTML, and CSS), so it’s easy to scale the class up or down. Everything is packaged for easy launch, including access to a custom forum for teachers and librarians to share best practices and swap ideas.

VTLS Releases MozGo

With library budgets strained and staff already struggling to manage, keeping pace presents a challenge. Libraries want an affordable and reliable app that will provide the features patrons want without imposing additional work for already overburdened systems staff. Recognizing this need for a consistent, full-featured app that will make lives easier for both patrons and staff, VTLS developed MozGo. The name derives from the Hungarian word for mobile (mozgó).

MozGo employs an innovative cloud-based “mobile mediator” to provide a flexible solution that can be used with almost any integrated library system (ILS). VTLS applies the library’s branding to the MozGo app, tailoring it to each library. The deployment process is simple: the application is distributed to patrons through the iTunes Store or Android Marketplace under the library’s name. Using the Mobile Mediator, MozGo connects directly to the library catalog to provide real-time information. Once deployed, no extra work is needed to support new ILS versions, or even entirely different ILS implementations at your library. MozGo is based on a new open VTLS platform, Open Skies.

The post New Product News – Nov/Dec 2012 first appeared on Public Libraries Online.