Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
06.07.17 LC Packet
City of Boulder 2017 Library Commission Agenda Meeting date: Wednesday, June 7, 2017 Location: Carnegie Branch Library, 1125 Pine Street Meeting start time: 6 p.m. 1.Approval of agenda 2.Public comment 3.Consent agenda a.Approval of May 3, 2017 minutes (p. 2-5) 4.Discuss options with Human Services for addressing needs of library patrons experiencing homelessness – Wendy Schwartz, Human Services planning and program development manager 5.Discuss proposal from Boulder Bridge House for summer case management services at the Main Library (p. 6-12) 6.Discuss the Commission’s interest in the future North Boulder Branch Library project being included in the Capital Tax Renewal ballot item (p. 13-14) 7.Library Commission update (p. 15-19) a.Items from commission i.Update on letter to City Council about the Capital Tax Renewal b.Boulder Library Foundation update c.City project representative update i.Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan ii.Boulder’s Civic Area iii.Canyon Complete Streets iv.EcoDistricts v.Central Broadway Corridor Design Framework d.Responses to patron emails from the Library Commission 8.Library and Arts Director’s Report (p. 20-72) a.Jaipur Literature Festival Update b.Boulder Historical Society Contract c.2017 Summer Reading Program d.Environs: Landscapes of Imagination @ Main Canyon Gallery e.Community Partnership Manager f.Initial Analysis Summary: Library Master Plan Community Survey | DRAFT g.Review service enhancement: add hold pick-up permissions for family members h.Timing of Main Library North Building reuse study i.Draft Agenda for July 15, 2017 Library Commission Retreat 9.Adjournment 2017 Library Commissioners Alicia Gibb, Chair Joni Teter Tim O’Shea Juana Gomez Joel Koenig 1 Library Commission Minutes May 3, 2017 Page 1 of 4 CITY OF BOULDER BOULDER, COLORADO BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS MEETING MINUTES Name of Board/ Commission: Library Commission Date of Meeting: May 3, 2017 at the Main Boulder Public Library, 1001 Arapahoe Ave. Contact information preparing summary: Maureen Malone, 303-441-3106 Commission members present: Joni Teter, Juana Gomez, Joel Koenig, Tim O’Shea Commission members absent: Alicia Gibb Library staff present: David Farnan, Director of Library & Arts Jennifer Phares, Deputy Library Director Maureen Malone, Administrative Specialist II Anna Lull, Programs, Events and Outreach Specialist Kathy Lane, Programs, Events and Outreach Coordinator Others Present: Aaron Schonhoff, Joining Vision and Action (JVA) Sylvia Solis, Joining Vision and Action (JVA) Members of the public present: None Type of Meeting: Regular Agenda Item 1: Call to order and approval of agenda [6:01 p.m., 0:00:00 Audio min.] The meeting was called to order at 6:01 p.m. Teter announced the addition of a new agenda item to discuss homeless services following Agenda Item 7, as well as a discussion about the letter to commission from Boulder Center for the Performing Arts (BCPA) under the Director’s Report. Agenda Item 2: Public comment [6:02 p.m., 0:01:09 Audio min.] None Agenda Item 3: Consent agenda [6:03 p.m., 0:02:14 Audio min.] Item 3A, Approval of March 21, 2017 Community Thought Leaders Dialogue notes O’Shea moved to approve the notes, and Koenig seconded. Vote 4-0, unanimous. Item 3B, Approval of April 5, 2017 Meeting Minutes O’Shea moved to approve the minutes, and Koenig seconded. Vote 4-0, unanimous. Agenda Item 4: Overview of Summer Reading Program – Kathy Lane and Anna Lull, program, events and outreach [6:04 p.m., 0:03:07 Audio min.] Commission discussion, questions, and comments included: • Koenig asked about outreach efforts to the Hispanic and other communities that might not normally participate. Lane explained that through the partnership with BVSD’s summer school session, staff will reach at-risk students who don’t have opportunities for cultural enrichment during the summer; staff is doing outreach with Boulder Housing Partners, BVSD and Head Start, there will be Summer Reading posters in English and Spanish on all the HOP buses, and the program will have a print and online presence through Daily Camera and Colorado Parent. Lull added that the Summer Reading information on social media will be posted in both English and Spanish. • Farnan shared that this is the 25th anniversary of the Summer Reading program, with the Foundation as a sponsor, and added that all of the design was done in-house this year by the staff graphic designer. Agenda Item 5: 2018 Library budget requests [6:19 p.m., 0:18:12 Audio min.] 2 Library Commission Minutes May 3, 2017 Page 2 of 4 Commission discussion, questions, and comments included: • Farnan explained that the library is making a bigger ask than in the past, much of it associated with the one -time ask for gender neutral restrooms. • Teter asked whether the staffing requests were replacements or new positions. Phares explained that staff is requesting to expand the existing volunteer services and technology support positions and create a new program and outreach specialist position. Farnan clarified that the library is asking for money for additional positions, not to repurpose existing positions; staff plans to increase the capacity of volunteer services in order to execute on elements of the Master Plan once it’s approved by City Council, which will hopefully be in December 2018. • Koenig asked why the gender neutral restrooms is coming out of the library’s budget as opposed to being a citywide expense. Farnan explained that staff is taking multiple routes to secure financing, between the proposal for the capital improvement tax and the budget request. Teter added that it’s a bookkeeping procedure, and putting the money for the restroom renovation in the library’s budget allows library staff to manage the contractors . • O’Shea asked if staff is prepared to defend the request for BLDG 61 materials. Farnan replied that the executive budget team did not even send the request to City Council last year, reasoning that the city does not fund special programs; they wanted staff to be able to show cost recovery. Farnan stated that BLDG 61 is not a special program, but an essential service, and the library receives funding from the Foundation so long as the programs are free; as soon as the library begins to implement charges for consumables, the Foundation will withdraw their support. • Koenig asked about the program and outreach specialist position. Farnan explained that outreach and community engagement was an unfulfilled goal from the 2007 Master Plan, and he anticipates that will resurface in the current Master Plan. Teter commented that both the commission and foundation have been asking for a marketing position for years. Farnan replied that marketing is currently housed in the programs, events and outreach department; the library received marketing funding this year and has been working with outside marketing firms as opposed to bringing on a full-time marketing person on staff. Agenda Item 6: Library Master Plan update [6:33 p.m., 0:32:39 Audio min.] a. Commission input on draft focus group script from Joining Vision and Action – Aaron Schonhoff and Sylvia Solis, research and evaluation associates o Teter read aloud Gibb’s comments (see handouts). o Solis asked whether there are any specific topics commission would like to get feedback on from the Spanish-speaking community focus group. Gomez replied that she is curious to know why people from that community do not use the library, and Phares added finding out what staff can do to help. Teter commented that it would be helpful to find out how that group prefers to be approached. o Farnan stated that staff and commission will have to decide how to frame the homelessness conversation in the course of the Master Plan. o Gomez commented that the Latino population in the city and county of Boulder overlaps with the lower income range, and wondered whether the survey also showed low usage among non-Latino communities. Farnan confirmed that economic barriers are a huge barrier to using the library. o Schonhoff stated that around 670 survey participants indicated an interest in participating in a focus group, and Teter wondered how to get people who aren’t selected for a focus group involved in the Master Plan process in some other way. Farnan replied that staff is considering hosting community open houses. o Gomez asked how people will be divided into focus groups. Schonhoff explained that the only homogenous group will be the one with Spanish-speakers. Farnan added that staff is looking for the greatest diversity of people – age, library usage and wealth – for each group to facilitate a better conversation. Once the focus groups are full, Teter suggested having a response to interested people informing them of other opportunities to stay involved. Phares stated that there are no other specific events planned at this time. o Phares shared that a different consultant will be conducting additional focus groups: two for teens, one at the NoBo Corner Library and one in Gunbarrel; staff will be going out to various community events with questionnaires for people to fill out regarding library usage and their dreams for the library. Farnan stated that these events are projected to have a high percentage of people from the Latino community in attendance. Phares added that staff is planning a week in September after the Jaipur Literature Festival to have a traditional open house event and another fun event; staff hopes to draft some goals at the July retreat to test with the community during these events. Agenda Item 7: Update on the Capital Improvement Tax renewal and capital improvement proposal for the Main Library North building [7:05 p.m., 1:04:35 Audio min.] 3 Library Commission Minutes May 3, 2017 Page 3 of 4 Commission discussion, questions, and comments included: • Farnan shared that he did a presentation to the citizen committee group, where the NoBo branch presentation scored highly and the bathroom renovation received a lukewarm response. The committee will review community proposals this week, City Council will weigh in next week and the ballot is scheduled to be finalized on July 25. • Teter commented that while it’s wonderful that the committee is excited to put the NoBo branch on the ballot, it would not be great for the library to be on a losing measure. Koenig wondered what alternative funding the library would seek if the concept emerges as a high priority in the Master Plan, but staff decided not to include a NoBo branch on the ballot. Farnan explained that one option would be the capital improvement program, and another would be to propose to City Council the formation of a library district to execute the project more quickly. Discussion of letter to commission from Boulder Center for the Performing Arts (BCPA) (see handouts): • Teter explained that the idea of having a large performing arts center in Boulder has been around for 30 years; BCPA has received feedback that their Capital Improvement Tax proposal underestimates the cost to build a facility and that they have not fully thought through the business plan aspects. Additionally, it’s not clear that the size of the theater is supported by the arts community and the proposal is asking for an enormous public subsidy, between the $3.5M they’re requesting from the tax and the donation of a prime piece of real estate . • Teter stated that commission already sent a letter to the Capital Improvements Tax Renewal Team last month, asking them not to put any projects implicating the Main Library north building on the ballot until the library’s Master Plan process is complete, and wondered whether commission wanted to do anything further in direct response to the BCPA proposal. • Gomez commented that BCPA is proposing to use public property where a building already exists, and wondered whether City Council will take this proposal seriously. • Gomez wondered whether by not responding to the BCPA proposal, commission would be implying to the public at large that they are in favor of it. Teter responded that she is unsure how much play the proposal will get in the public; if the committee sends the BCPA proposal through to council, then commission may want to draft a letter at the June meeting. O’Shea indicated that he would like to gauge interest for the proposal from various other constituencies in town and also connect the dots between the library’s Master Plan and due diligence around flood and historic register before proceeding. • Teter commented that the most troubling aspect of the BCPA proposal is that it does not mention the library programs and services that are housed in the north building. • Farnan explained that various proposals are requesting the donation of land and not factoring that into the cost of their program; FAM is working to estimate the real cost associated with these projects. The BCPA proposal is one of several projects that propose using current cit y facilities, but does not include the cost of relocating staff. O’Shea asked who has say over the future of the Main Library north building. Farnan responded that the Library Commission charter states that commission has some say in the disposition of library property and that any sale or disposal of library property goes into the library fund, but ultimately City Council has the final say. • Teter commented that the recent effort around the Civic Area has been focused on activation and wondered how the theater space would be activated outside of scheduled performances. O’Shea wondered if a proposal that was more closely aligned with the library and activation around programming would be more motivating or interesting and have more potential for collaboration. Farnan explained that the BCPA proposal fits into the Civic Area master plan and the need for additional performance space that surfaced in the Cultural Plan; however, they reach an impasse with the proposal in terms of the number of seats and the configuration of fixed vs. flexible seating. A theater with fixed seating is less flexible for programming and more expensive to operate. • Teter read aloud Gibb’s comments (see handouts). Agenda Item 8: Discussion of Homeless Services [7:40 p.m., 1:39:10 Audio min.] Farnan explained that the Daily Camera inaccurately reported that the library would become a case management center. Staff has met again with Human Services and the city manager has called a meeting with various departments about homelessness this coming Friday. Commission discussion, questions, and comments included: • O’Shea asked whether the closing of various homeless services came as a surprise. Farnan explained that Boulder Outreach for Homeless Overflow (BOHO) has been in flux for quite some time , so staff anticipated some recommendations around that. Staff sent out an email to commission about how various services are shifting (see handouts); the faith community is no longer housing Bridge House’s resource center, so they are looking for new locations. 4 Library Commission Minutes May 3, 2017 Page 4 of 4 • O’Shea wondered whether the Daily Camera article has caused any complications or confusion. Farnan responded that the library has not been impacted by the article thus far; council has received many emails from the public wondering where homeless people will go now. • Teter explained that library staff has been approached by Bridge House about partnering to provide services, and if this dialogue continues, staff will bring the item back to commission for further discussion. Farnan stated that staff is looking for a solution which helps resolve the library’s issues, as well as those the homeless population is experiencing. Staff needs more information on the proposal and its goals to determine the impact on library staff – if the proposal is to have a case manager here 4 hours a week, then what will the level of expectation be for the rest of the library’s business hours? • Farnan explained that as a component of a priority from the mayor’s office, Denver Public Library has hired 2 full time social workers as well as 4 additional “navigators” to help with homeless issues in the library; there are opportunities to explore this route, but there is significant cost associated, and staff does not want this to supersede the operational goals of the library. • Gomez wondered about Human Services’ plans for a new day shelter. Teter recalled from the discussion with Human Services that the department is working towards having a clear intake point, and commented that there are more logical options downtown besides the library that could function as such a service. Teter suggested that commission have a broader discussion about homelessness at the July retreat. • Farnan stated that council will be getting results from the Community Safety Survey in the coming weeks, and the library was the only public building called out where people feel unsafe; from a perception point of view, it is clearly an issue in the community. Agenda Item 9: Library Commission Update [7:55 p.m., 1:53:57 Audio min.] a. Matters from the Commission b. Boulder Library Foundation update O’Shea shared that the foundation has retained an hourly social media manager and continues to grow their messaging and outreach. In terms of fundraising, there is a plan in the works for corporate Library League engagement and large donor gifts. Social Venture Partners has offered consulting services to help the foundation with its goals around developing a better structure for fundraising initiatives. c. City project representative update i. Central Broadway Corridor Design Framework ii. Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan iii. Boulder’s Civic Area iv. Canyon Complete Streets v. EcoDistricts d. Responses to patron emails from the Library Commission Agenda Item 10: Library and Arts Director’s Report [8:02 p.m., 2:01:24 Audio min.] a. Boulder Historic Society agreement with Carnegie Library b. Know Your Rights Class at BPL c. Update on 2016 Annual Report d. Q1 2017 Statistics Agenda Item 11: Adjournment [8:12 p.m., 2:12:00 Audio min.] There being no further business to come before the commission at this time, the meeting was adjourned at 8:12 p.m. Date, time, and location of next meeting: The next Library Commission meeting will be at 6 p.m. on Wednesday, June 7, 2017, at the Carnegie Branch Library, 1125 Pine St., Boulder, CO 80302. 5 To: Boulder Public Library Commission From: David Farnan, Library and Arts Director Jennifer Phares, Deputy Library Director Date: June 1, 2017 Subject: Proposal from Boulder Bridge House for summer case management services at the Main Library Background: David Farnan, library and arts director, received a proposal from Isabel McDevitt, executive director of Boulder Bridge House, to provide case management services at the Main Library during this upcoming summer. Farnan will share information from the library leadership team’s discussion of the proposal at the June 7, 2017 Library Commission meeting and seeks the commissioner’s input and whether they support the proposal. The following attachments are included for the commission’s review. Attachment A. Email Boulder Bridge House proposal Attachment B. Overview of all summer services provided by Boulder Bridge House. Details about the proposed case management services are on page 2 under the outreach section. Attachment C. Bridge House Case Management Schedule Week of May 15 Attachment D. Bridge House Services Brochure May 15 Questions for the Library Commission: 1. What questions does the commission have about expanding services that will be specifically offered to persons experiencing homelessness who visit the library? 2. Is there any additional information the commission would like to consider for this or future proposals on this topic? 3. Does the commission support the current proposal from Boulder Bridge House to provide part time case management services at the Main Library this summer? 6 From: Isabel McDevitt [mailto:isabel@boulderbridgehouse.org] Sent: Monday, May 22, 2017 6:34 AM To: Farnan, David <FarnanD@boulderlibrary.org> Subject: Follow up Hi David – It was a pleasure speaking with you last week. As discussed, Bridge House is morphing our case management services from a fixed Resource Center location to outreach. Our most experienced case manager, Heather Pauze, will be locating a few key sites over the summer to provide navigation and basic needs services. These services will include intake, assessment and referrals to housing and services for people new to homelessness and not yet engaged. It will also include engagement with people who are well-known to the community that need support or have a new interest in services. We use best practices for assessment and vulnerability screening that are used throughout the region. Bridge House also has a few pockets of funds for financial assistance for IDs, prescriptions and transportation (including family reunification). Through our case management process we can screen and administer funds remotely. We also make referrals to local housing programs including the Boulder Shelter’s summer bed program and out Ready to Work employment and housing program. Please see the attached schedule of where we are in the community and brochure for some of the resources we provide. If we were to pursue a presence at the Library we would envision a two to three hour time block on Fridays where we would be available to meet with people who are already using the Library. This can be casual by walking around or library staff could direct people to Heather in an office. This will likely be a mix of “regulars” who are in Boulder be aren’t coming to Community Table dinners or other services. As well as new people who have gravitated to the Library that have yet to be oriented to services. I have attached our new service outline presented to Human Services. We are very open to figuring out what works best for you. Please let me know your thoughts. Best, Isabel Isabel McDevitt Executive Director Bridge House 917 709 9478 www.boulderbridgehouse.org Attachment A. 7 Attachment B. SUMMER PLAN- May 1 to Sept 30 Bridge House proposes three programs for summer 2017 that will provide continued day services, meals, and outreach for homeless adults in Boulder. These programs include a Community Table evening meal, outreach case management, and an expansion of the Ready to Work internship program. The current service delivery for emergency services for homeless adults is not working for the community. As of April 30, 2017 current programs of day shelter and the Resource Center will expire. Given Bridge House’s deep commitment to homeless adults in Boulder and the broader community, Bridge House seeks to maintain a baseline for basic needs while experimenting with expanded employment-based day services and outreach case management. Each program is a first step toward the future goals of the homeless service plan as outlined by the Homeless Workgroup. While not perfect, these programs move our community response closer to a more systemic approach toward homeless services by furthering principles of integrating services. For example, we seek to combine outreach with meals and expand more engagement opportunities as part of the Ready to Work continuum. These programs also will allow service providers to pilot more intentional coordinated entry and diversion services. In advance of the Workgroup’s full plan as well as the implementation of its governance and infrastructure, these three programs are proposed within the existing context of service provision. The Bridge House Board position for a long-term approach toward emergency services outlined in the memo shared with City and County staff remains the same. The implementation of each proposed program is contingent on funding and space. Community Table Goal – • Ensure access to a nutritious, hearty meal for regular CT clientele and hungry individuals • Maintain volunteer involvement • Continue to fulfill Community Table Kitchen mission to feed hungry populations • Provide entry point for basic case management outreach and access to direct financial assistance, navigation and coordinated entry • Demonstrate Bridge House’s commitment to the homeless community Concept – • Continue nightly meal prepared by CTK and served by volunteers • Hours and locations – same as current (TBD based on conversations with hosts) • Check in, Code of Conduct and Welcome Meeting still required • On site case management for navigation, pilot diversion assessment and VI SPDAT efforts 8 Attachment B. Outreach Goal – • Provide entry point for basic case management outreach and access to direct financial assistance, diversion, navigation and coordinated entry • Maintain BH basic needs case management and financial assistance for transportation, identification, prescription medication. BH is the only provider of such financial assistance to homeless adults Concept – • Mobile case manager with presence at CT meal also co-locates with providers such as Harvest of Hope, Clinica and BSH? and at public locations such as the library • Case manager works virtually using existing current BH Salesforce system, pilots new diversion assessment tools, client portal and other systems developed by Homeless Workgroup • BH partners with Policy HOT team and Muni Court navigator • Case manager – same person as CT case manager, maintain peer navigator position funded by MDHI • Maintain direct financial assistance for transportation, IDs and prescriptions, rental assistance. Add additional funds for family reunification. Ready to Work Internship expansion Goal – • Create more capacity for day programming for homeless adults after the closure of day shelter • Grow impact and presence of Ready to Work services in public spaces such as parks and open space to assist City of Boulder with creek clean-up and fire mitigation goals (brush removal, camp clean out, education on safe use of parks) • Demonstrate BH as a nimble and creative collaborator committed to both providing opportunities for homeless adults while improving the community as a whole • Increase pool for Ready to Work trainee recruitment Concept – • Add capacity for up to 20 more Ready to Work interns • Interns will participate in a comprehensive, work-based day program for up to 2 months • All interns will: o Have access to meals, storage and amenities at 4747 Table Mesa Drive (RTW House and Employment Center) 5 days a week from 7:00AM to 4:00PM 9 Attachment B. o Work 4 hours a day on an RTW crew providing community clean up (similar to current RTW crew work provided to Parks and Rec) or in house maintenance o Be breathalyzed and drug tested before work and access into RTW House and Employment Center o Create a treatment plan with a RTW case manager o Attend class room training, addiction recovery groups, and individual case management appointments o Will receive bus fare, 2 meals a day and a $10 gift card weekly (after 2 weeks, some interns may be placed on payroll based on stellar performance) o Have access to a guaranteed bed at the Boulder Shelter for the Homeless?? • Upon successful completion of the internship, RTW interns may be offered access to the full RTW program – housing, employment and supportive services for one year • If RTW Intern is not appropriate for full RTW program, case management will work to find alternative option for employment or other program intervention • Referrals to RTW will come from BH outreach case management, HOT team, Muni court. • City of Boulder Parks and Rec will contract for a 10 person crew for expanded RTW services such as creek clean up, park beautification and clean out What we are eliminating – Day Shelter Lunch Resource Center services – groups, outreach from providers – No physical place for this so we can no longer host. Homeless Workgroup works with MHP and others to determine if this is possible. 10 Attachment C. Mobile Case Management locations Week of 5/15/17 to 5/19/17 Monday 15th Tuesday 16th Wednesday 17th Thursday 18th Friday 19th Women’s Day shelter 9:00am-12:00pm 1237 Pine St. Harvest of Hope 1:00pm-3:00pm 2960 Valmont Community Table 4:30pm-6:00pm 1421 Spruce St. Municipal Court 9:00am – 12:00pm 6th and Canyon Harvest of Hope 1:00pm-3:00pm 2960 Valmont Community Table 4:30pm-6:00pm 1421 Spruce St. Lambs Breakfast 8:30-9:30am 1820 15th St. Community Table 4:30-6:00pm 1421 Spruce St. Community Table St. John’s church 4:30-6:00pm 1419 Pine St. 11 Attachment D. Case Management Services Available at Community Table Dinners Overview: • One-on-one meetings with dedicated case manager • Assistance with finding resources. • Providing support • Help with reaching your goals through referrals to outside agencies if necessary Access to Benefits: • Guidance on applications for Food Assistance, Aid to Needy and Disabled, Social Security and more Prescription Help: • Assistance with most co-pay to people in need • Be aware that we cannot assist with pain medications ID Cards: • Help obtaining state identification card House Assistance and Referrals: • Help with housing paperwork and assess eligibility for housing resources • In some cases, assistance with a portion of a deposit or rent is available RTD Bus Passes: • Case Management distributes bus tickets for verifiable appointments only. • Examples of appointments include: o Medical/ mental health appointments o Job interviews o AA/NA, probation or parole meetings o Transportation to work (if first paycheck not yet received) Community Table Meal Program and Case Management Services Everyday 4:30pm -6:00pm Monday: First United Methodist - 1421 Spruce St. Tuesday: Mountain View Methodist - 355 Ponca Pl. Wednesday: First United Methodist - 1421 Spruce St. Thursday: First United Methodist - 1421 Spruce St. Friday: St. John’s Episcopal - 1419 Pine St. Daytime Food Assistance is available from 1-3pm at Harvest of Hope Food Pantry - 2960 Valmont Rd., Boulder • Paid, transitional work as a stepping stone to mainstream employment • Up to 29 hours a week • Transitional housing available • Build resume experiences and references • Earn and save money • Commitment to a 9-12month program • Transportation provided • Support services including savings and financial management, career counseling, sobriety support, job readiness, and more • Interested candidates may come to RTW House (4747 Table Mesa Drive) and Employment Center on Tuesday or Friday mornings at 9:00AM for a drop in interview • Bus tickets available from Bridge House Case Management at Community Table Boulder Shelter for the Homeless 2017 Summer Programs Information 4869 N. Broadway Beginning May 1st Boulder Shelter closed for Emergency Overnight Shelter Overnight shelter is available for residents in the Transition, First Step & Summer Bed Programs all summer. Intake appointments are available on a limited basis. Transition/First Step: Call Monday-Friday by 9:00am 303-442-4646 Morning Services will continue through the summer for breakfast, shower and mail 6:00am-8:00am every day (Check in by 7:30am) Activity Days & Times may vary 12 To: Boulder Public Library Commission From: David Farnan, Library and Arts Director Jennifer Phares, Deputy Library Director Date: June 1, 2017 Subject: Possible future North Boulder Branch Library project being included in the Capital Tax Renewal ballot item Background: Library Commissioner Teter requested that the possible future North Boulder Branch Library project that is being considered in the city’s 2017 capital tax renewal ballot item and in the library’s master plan update be discussed at the June 7, 2017 Library Commission meeting. Further discussion of this topic as it relates to the Boulder Public Library Master Plan will take place during the July 15, 2017 Library Commission annual retreat. Commissioner Teter submitted the following questions for the commission’s discussion. Staff will provide information addressing these questions and any others raised during the June 7, 2017 Library Commission meeting for the commission’s consideration at the retreat. Questions and information from Commissioner Teter: I. Is constructing the North Boulder Branch Library the commission's #1 priority? A. Things I'd like to discuss as a framework for setting priorities include: 1. Bricks and mortar vs. programs and services: Facility maintenance and staffing are fixed costs and typically comprise 75-80% of an organization’s budget, leaving 20-25% of budget for programs and services. Because facility and staffing costs are fixed, programs and services get further squeezed in lean times. I’d like to understand: a) What are the operational budgetary implications of adding brick-and-mortar spaces? b) Which programs and services must occur in a brick-and-mortar space? c) What kinds of partnership and space-sharing opportunities might be available to house library programs and services in north Boulder as an alternative to library owned and operated spaces? 2. When I think of priorities, my mind goes first to the library’s programs and services - and my experience with building design has taught me that “program” should drive good design. What programs and services would occur in a North Boulder Branch Library, and how does that “program” drive factors like building size? 3. Personally, based on what I know today, my notion of the library’s highest priorities would include the following programs and services (in no particular order). How do we balance budgetary needs for priority programs against brick-and-mortar costs? a) Early and childhood literacy b) Literacy for disadvantaged populations c) 21st century literacies and life-long learning d) Making (which is a principal tool for (c)) e) Core collections 13 II. Why is $6 million the estimate to construct the North Boulder Branch Library? (At $500 per sf., that’s a 12,000 sf. building) A. What is the size comparison to the other Boulder Public Library branches? B. What are the underlying assumptions for space needs? 1. How much space is devoted to library program needs? 2. Are there community spaces planned? What is the library’s responsibility to supply community space? a) Are there community spaces planned for the Alpine -Balsam hospital site at 1100 Balsam Ave.? 3. What patron spaces are planned? 4. What partner spaces are planned? III. Is the site in North Boulder on Violet Avenue the best location for the North Boulder Branch Library? A. What is the service area served by this location? B. What access is provided to this location? C. What are the demographics served by this location? D. Would a site further east (such as Diagonal Plaza at 3303 30th St.) better serve more of north Boulder? E. Would library services be more effectively provided by maintaining the smaller NoBo Corner Library and spreading $6 million among smaller “storefront” facilities located more closely to specific populations centers (i.e. Palo Park neighborhood, Valmont Rd. and 30th St. residences)? IV. Funding strategies A. The library has $2 million in accumulated Development Excise Tax to spend on capital projects. 1. How much library space can $2 million buy? 2. Will all this funding be used for a North Boulder Branch Library? Or would some be saved for future capital projects? B. Can the library ask to do a ballot issue solely on library needs in 2-3 years instead of being part of the city’s 2017 proposed sales tax extension ballot item? C. If the library is part of the 2017 proposed sales tax extension ballot item, could the library project be phrased broadly to address “library needs in north Boulder,” with specific programs and capital solutions to be developed over 12-18 months following the ballot measure? V. How do services to the Gunbarrel area fit into priorities? A. People in Gunbarrel are expressing equally strong interest in a branch library. Anything we do in north Boulder will likely set a precedent for Gunbarrel. B. “Who pays” is a threshold question for Gunbarrel, because of the mix of city of Boulder and Boulder County residents. C. There is a Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan issue around providing “urban services” for Gunbarrel. Should branch libraries be considered urban services or subcommunity services? (“Walkability” and easy access for families with kids are key considerations.) 14 Library Commission Memo Meeting Date: June 7, 2017 – Carnegie Library for Local History Upcoming Special meetings: No Regular July Commission Meeting Library Commission Retreat July 15, 2017 Interesting Upcoming Dates ( ALA Website): GLBT Book Month™ - June Starting in 2015, the American Library Association marked GLBT Book Month™, a nationwide celebration of the authors and writings that reflect the lives and experiences of the gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender community. Originally established in the early 1990s by The Publishing Triangle as National Lesbian and Gay Book Month, June 2015 marked the first commemoration of GLBT Book Month™ to be held under ALA’s auspices. GLBT Book Month™ is an initiative of the American Library Association, and is coordinated through its Office for Diversity, Literacy and Outreach Services and the Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgender Round Table. To help libraries mark the occasion, ALA has launched the GLBT Book Month online resource center, featuring tipsheets and downloadable materials. Contact ALA's Office for Diversity, Literacy and Outreach Services with questions. Created to increase the recognition of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender writing. Begun in 1992 by The Publishing Triangle, June was selected in honor of the anniversary of the 1969 Stonewall Riot in New York City. It was this brave resistance to police harassment that kickstarted the gay pride movement in the US. [Description provided by Chase's Calendar of Events.] To be celebrated by libraries, bookstores, publishers and bibliophiles everywhere. Read about the event's creation yet bittersweet success from quotes by Lawrence Schimel (labeling it National LGBT Book Month) in this May 30, 2014 HuffPost Gay Voices article by Julie R. Enszer. 1. Items from Commission Update on letter to City Council about the Capital Tax Renewal. 2. Boulder Library Foundation (BLF) Update BLF is looking into having corporate memberships for the Library League. The perks are attached as well as guidelines for corporate sponsorships (Attachment A and B). Does the commission have any concerns or questions for the Foundation about corporate sponsorships in the library? 3. Updates from Commissioners Representing the Commission in other Venues (verbal) A. Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan 15 B. Boulder’s Civic Area C. Canyon Complete Streets D. EcoDistricts E. Central Broadway Corridor Design Framework. 4. Update on Emails and Phone Calls to Library Commission None. 16 Attachment A. Preliminary Draft – Boulder Library Foundation The most recent version of the Sponsor benefits is listed in the attached document we still need to finalize for the Organizational LL flyer: All Library League Supporters will receive the following: 1) Recognition on the Boulder Library Foundation’s website 2) Recognition in the Library’s annual report? (CONFIRM WITH DAVID) Library League of Boulder Supporters Levels of Commitment - $100 Annually Company recognition in Library League’s Social Media (NUMBER OF POSTS PER YEAR) Invite to the annual Library League Director’s Perspective event Chautauqua- $500 Annually Company logo to be displayed on the Library League supporter wall (SIZE format) Company recognition in Library League’s Social Media (NUMBER OF POSTS PER YEAR) Invite to the annual Library League Director’s Perspective event Flatirons - $1,000 Annually Company logo to be displayed on the Library League supporter wall (SIZE format) Company recognition in Library League’s Social Media (NUMBER OF POSTS PER YEAR) Invite to the annual Library League Director’s Perspective event Greene Mountains - $2,500 Annually Company logo to be displayed on the Library League supporter wall (SIZE format) Company recognition in Library League’s Social Media (NUMBER OF POSTS PER YEAR) Invite to the annual Library League Director’s Perspective event $5,000 Annually All the above plus program and building sponsorship opportunities. 17 Attachment B. *Rough Draft* BLF Corporate Member Guidelines These are the guidelines set forth by the Boulder Library Foundation (BLF) for corporate members of the Library League. Consistency with Boulder Library Foundation’s Mission Boulder Library Foundation (BLF) will not partner with businesses for corporate sponsorships if the business or products sold are inconsistent with BLF’s mission and Boulder Public Library’s mission. The mission of the Boulder Public Library is to enhance the personal and professional growth of Boulder residents and contribute to the development and sustainability of an engaged community through free access to ideas, information, cultural experiences and educational opportunities. Benefits and Acknowledgment Specific Benefits and Acknowledgment can for each monetary tier can be found here: [link] Consistent with federal tax laws, BLF may acknowledge the corporate sponsor’s support for BLF through a corporate sponsorship payment in program materials and activities and may include acknowledgments of the corporation’s financial and other support. Such acknowledgments may identify and describe the corporation’s products or product lines in neutral terms and may include the sponsor’s name, logo, slogan, locations, telephone numbers, or website addresses as long as such acknowledgments do not include (a) comparative or qualitative descriptions of the company’s products, services, or facilities; (b) price information or other indications of savings or value associated with the company’s products or services; (c) a call to action; (d) an endorsement; or (e) an inducement to buy, sell, or use the sponsor’s product or service. Any acknowledgments of corporate sponsorships will be created by, or subject to prior review and approval, by BLF. Review and Approval Any proposed corporate sponsorship will be vetted by BLF and may be approved by the BLF Board to ensure that the arrangements are consistent with BLF’s mission and goals, and that any potential conflicts of interest are disclosed and addressed. In addition, the Library Director or the Library Commission may review and make a recommendation to the BLF Board. Each corporate sponsor must agree that BLF will review and approve all marketing materials prepared by the corporate sponsor bearing BLF’s name, logo, and/or other identifying information prior to publication or dissemination. BLF reserves the right to reject any sponsorship offer. Because the Boulder Public Library is a City of Boulder entity, BLF must also follow Boulder Public Library’s sponsor guides as well as guidelines or rules put forth by the City of Boulder, including but not limited to: 18 Attachment B. *Rough Draft* 1. We will not allow logo placement from marijuana dispensaries or businesses. Any contribution from this sector would need to be in the individual’s name. 2. The City Manager and City Attorney have the power to reject and withdraw any sponsorship in the form of ‘naming’ of a facility, room, or event. No Endorsement or Product Promotion BLF does not endorse its corporate sponsors, their policies, products, or services, nor imply that BLF will exert any influence to advance the corporation’s interests outside the particulars of the arrangements made for the sponsored event or activity. BLF’s name, logo and/or identifying information may not be used in a manner by the corporate sponsor that would express or imply BLF’s endorsement of the corporation or its products, services or policies. Sponsors are not permitted to advertise, market, or otherwise promote specific products and services in connection with their sponsorship of BLF‐related programs and activities, but products or services may be listed or displayed at BLF’s events as long as no endorsement by BLF is implied. No Free Advertising or Return Benefit Sponsors are making a contribution to support BLF’s mission and are not entitled to receive free advertising (as that term is defined by the Internal Revenue Code (ʺIRCʺ) or Internal Revenue Service (ʺIRSʺ) rules and regulations) or other substantial return benefits from BLF. Special Events The Boulder Public Library will have complete control of the content and speakers at any sponsored activity or event. Corporate sponsors will not control the planning, content, or execution of the activity or attempt to direct or influence the content of the Boulder Public Library’s programs, except that BLF may ask the sponsor for suggestions to enhance the experience for the sponsor. No Contingent Payments BLF will not enter into any arrangements with corporate sponsors where the amount of payment by the corporation is contingent upon attendance at an event or any other measures of public exposure. 19 DIRECTOR’S REPORT JUNE 2017 Jaipur Literature Festival Update JLF@Boulder is scheduled September 15-17 at the Main Library. This will be our third year of the festival. This year the City of Boulder has entered a contract with the event producers from India, Teamwork Arts. The contract stipulates some minor changes in the operations of the venue. Library staff will be managing volunteers. City funds will be used directly in partnership with Teamwork Arts to hire contractors for infrastructure [chairs, tables, signage, etc.], technology set-up, local transportation to and from the airport, permitting for the event, and hotel accommodations for authors in Boulder. The City of Boulder’s Events Manager, Mike Eubank and I are the principal leads for the City of Boulder. Kathy Lane, Library Program and Events Coordinator and Kate Kelsch, Library Volunteer Coordinator will be coordinating some festival logistics. Teamwork Arts will continue to program the festival: authors and musicians selected. They are also responsible for PR and marketing, travel to and from Boulder and all online pre-registration. We look forward to another successful year of the festival. Our goal is for roughly 20% growth in attendance over the 3-day festival. Boulder Historical Society Contract The City of Boulder and the library have decided to temporarily pause in our contract negotiations with the Boulder Historical Society (BHS). The ongoing dispute over rights to the digital collection created from physical items on permanent loan to the Carnegie Library for Local History has been through several twists over the past few months. We have decided to do the legal research required to determine what our rights are regarding the collection in question and all other digitized images. Once we have determined legal opinion, I will come back to the Library Commission to inform them and then proceed with negotiations with BHS. Summer Reading Boulder Public Library’s annual youth summer reading program begins Tuesday, May 31, and runs through July 31. The theme for this year’s program is “Build a Better World,” and includes activities to improve self, home, community and world. More information can be found here: https://boulderlibrary.org/summer-reading/. Please mark your calendars now for the Summer Reading Finale Celebration. This event will be held in conjunction with Boulder SummerFest in Central Park next to the Boulder County Farmers’ Market, from 1 to 4 p.m. on Saturday, July 29. There will be magic, some awesome family friendly music, and a bunch of crazy fun. This is also the 25th year anniversary of the Boulder Library Foundation’s support of the Boulder Public Library Summer Reading program. Several businesses are also sponsors of the program by their donation of the prizes, including Coldstone Creamery, Colorado Rapids, Lakeside Amusement Park, Bloomin’ Seed Paper, and Rio Grande Mexican Restaurant. 20 Environs: Landscapes of Imagination @ Main Canyon Gallery In conjunction with the Summer Reading program May 26 – June 25, the Canyon Gallery will be transformed into playscapes of the built environment for visitors of all ages. Imagine, tinker, and explore the ways in which changes in density impact our world; from the rural to the urban, and in between. Created by seniors in the CU Environmental Design program participating in an independent study under the guidance of senior instructor, Marcel de Lange. Community Partnership Manager Jane Sykes Wilson has resigned as community partnership manager. Her last day will be July 2nd. As you may remember this position was added last June and is funded by the Boulder Library Foundation to work as a liaison between the library, the foundation and community partners. In the short year that Jane worked in this position, she vastly increased the community and staff’s knowledge of the role the foundation plays in having a positive impact on our community through its funding of more than 85% of all library programs. Jane has also managed to increase community funding to the foundation through innovative programs like the Library League and cultivating donors. Prior to serving as community partnership manager, Jane was a member of the Boulder Library Foundation board for 3 years. From her time on the board through her time working directly for the City, Jane has demonstrated a deep commitment to the library and the value of providing high quality programs for all. I believe her desire to increase the Boulder Library Foundation’s public profile will continue to pay dividends in years to come and was a major endeavor for the foundation. Jane is a huge library fan. I am confident we will continue to see her around the library. Please join me in thanking Jane for all her hard work and dedication over the past few years – first as a volunteer and then as an employee. We wish her all the best. Her presence will be sorely missed. Initial Analysis Summary: Library Master Plan Community Survey | DRAFT The initial analysis summary of the Library Master Plan community survey conducted earlier this spring by the consultant firm Joining Vision and Action is Attachment A. We would like to know what questions the Library Commission has and staff will compile the questions and answers for discussion at the July 15, 2017 Library Commission retreat. Service enhancement: Add hold pick-up permissions for family members In June, the Library will begin offering a minor enhancement to patrons who use the holds service. With prior permission of the borrowing patron, their family members will be given the option to pick-up their holds for them. This permission will be noted in the cardholder’s library account and can be changed or removed anytime by a staff member at the patron’s request. The person picking up the hold will be asked to show their own valid library card or photo ID. The hold will be checked out to the account of the person who placed it. Public Services staff members proposed this service enhancement to ensure customer service and practices are consistent at all locations. The proposal was accepted by the Library’s Leadership Team. As 21 you might imagine, the team had several questions about how the library can offer this enhancement and still protect patron privacy. See the Attachment B for an explanation presented as an FAQ. Timing of Main Library North Building Reuse Study We’re concerned that we might have shared some inaccurate information with one or more of you related to the timeline for the Main Library North Building. As we discussed at the April 5, 2017 meeting, the priority of a potential north building reuse study and subsequent renovation will be evaluated during the Library’s Master Plan process. Funding for the study was not requested as part of the 2018 budget request. Homelessness Working Group Webpage Wendy Schwartz, Human Services planning and program development manager, asked that we share the link to Homelessness Working Group Webpage with you. The working group’s report and memo to City Council on this topic are available on the webpage. https://bouldercolorado.gov/homelessness/homeless-working-group DRAFT July 15, 2017 Library Commission Retreat Agenda See Attachment C for the DRAFT Library Commission retreat agenda. Please let us know if there are any other topics the Library Commission would like to discuss. Does the extended schedule work for everyone? October 2017 Study Session Staff would like to know if the Library Commissioners are open to scheduling a study session to review progress on the Master Plan in October in preparation for a possible study session with City Council in late November. The meeting would be held from 6-8 p.m. in the Canyon Meeting Room at the Main Library. Possible dates are as follows: • Monday, October 16 • Tuesday, October 17 • Monday, October 23 • Tuesday, October 24 • Wednesday, October 25 22 Community Report to Boulder Public Library Written by Joining Vision and Action June 2017 Community Engagement and Feedback Survey Attachment A. 23 © 2017 Joining Vision and Action, LLC. All rights reserved. joiningvisionandaction.com 2 BOULDER PUBLIC LIBRARY: COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT AND FEEDBACK Table of Contents List of Figures ..................................................................................................... 3 List of Tables ....................................................................................................... 4 Executive Summary ............................................................................................ 5 Introduction and Background ............................................................................ 6 Methodology........................................................................................................ 6 Evaluation Tools .............................................................................................. 6 Demographics of Research Participants .......................................................... 7 Overall ............................................................................................................ 7 Race and Ethnicity of Respondents ............................................................... 7 Ages of Respondents ..................................................................................... 8 Respondents by Gender ................................................................................ 9 Respondents by Income ............................................................................... 10 Respondents by Educational Attainment ...................................................... 10 Respondents by Location of Residence ....................................................... 12 Respondents by Length of Boulder Residency............................................. 14 Respondents’ Household Occupants ........................................................... 15 Respondent Interaction with Library and Library Staff ................................. 16 Library Usage ................................................................................................. 16 Staff Interaction ............................................................................................. 19 Library Strengths ........................................................................................... 21 Library Strengths Group Comparisons ......................................................... 22 Allocating Library Funds .............................................................................. 26 Allocating Capital Funds ............................................................................... 26 Group Comparisons – Operating Funds ....................................................... 28 Allocation of Operating Funds ...................................................................... 31 Group Comparisons for Allocation of ........................................................... 31 Individuals, their Households and the Library ............................................... 34 Library Meeting the Needs of Individuals and their Households .............. 34 Group Comparisons ..................................................................................... 34 Individual and Household Priorities............................................................. 35 Group Comparisons ..................................................................................... 37 The Library and the Boulder Community ....................................................... 39 Library meeting the needs of the Household .............................................. 40 Group Comparisons ..................................................................................... 40 Community Priorities .................................................................................... 42 Library Support ................................................................................................. 43 Methods of Support ....................................................................................... 43 Support for a Tax Increase for Library Funding ......................................... 44 Group Comparisons ..................................................................................... 45 Strengths and Recommendations for Improvement [Preliminary] ............... 47 Attachment A. 24 © 2017 Joining Vision and Action, LLC. All rights reserved. joiningvisionandaction.com 3 BOULDER PUBLIC LIBRARY: COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT AND FEEDBACK Strengths ........................................................................................................ 47 Room For Improvement/Gaps ...................................................................... 47 Conclusion ........................................................................................................ 47 List of Figures Figure 1. Respondents by device or method of survey delivery (n = 1,752) ......... 7 Figure 2. Respondents by race/ethnicity ............................................................... 8 Figure 3. Respondents by age .............................................................................. 9 Figure 4. Respondents by gender (n = 1702) ....................................................... 9 Figure 5. Respondents by annual household income ......................................... 10 Figure 6. Educational attainment of survey respondents (n = 1711) ................... 11 Figure 7. Respondents by education category (n = 1676) .................................. 12 Figure 8. Respondents by location of residence (n = 1707) ................................ 12 Figure 9. Respondents by neighborhood (n = 1557) ........................................... 13 Figure 10. Respondents by region of Boulder in which they live (n = 1363) ....... 14 Figure 11. Number of respondents by length of having lived in Boulder (n = 1560) ............................................................................................................................ 14 Figure 12. Respondents’ household makeup ...................................................... 15 Figure 13. Respondents who have children in their household (n = 1752) ......... 15 Figure 14. Library visited most often (n = 1746) .................................................. 16 Figure 15. Respondents by most common library visited with branch libraries combined (n = 1662) ........................................................................................... 17 Figure 16. Frequency of library visits (n = 1718) ................................................. 17 Figure 17. How often do you use the library website or library app? (n = 1743) . 18 Table 1. Classification of Library User Types ...................................................... 18 Figure 18. How often respondents ask a librarian for help with finding materials and with research (Finding materials, n = 1720; Research, n = 1721) ................ 19 Figure 19. Average rating for interaction with library staff by frequency of seeking help from librarians. ............................................................................................ 20 Figure 20. Average rating for staff interaction by frequency of library visit (fill pattern and italics used to indicate statistical significance) ................................. 20 Figure 21. Responses about library strengths .................................................... 22 Figure 22. Library strengths by whether respondents frequent main library or branch libraries ................................................................................................... 23 Figure 23. Responses to "I think the library is a good place for..." by age group (fill pattern and italics used to indicate statistical significance) ............................ 25 Figure 24. Mean scores for the library being a good place for children and youth by those who have children in the household and those who do not .................. 26 Figure 25. Average allocation of capital funds .................................................... 27 Figure 26. Total sum of allocated funds where each participant allocated $100 . 28 Table 2. Ranking total allocation of capital funds by where Boulder respondents live. Rows represent descending order of priority (most money to least) ............ 29 Figure 27. Average percentage of funds allocated towards building a new library by where respondents live in Boulder and by where they primarily use a library 30 Figure 28. Average allocation percentage of operating funds ............................. 31 Figure 29. Sum of allocation of operating funds .................................................. 31 Attachment A. 25 © 2017 Joining Vision and Action, LLC. All rights reserved. joiningvisionandaction.com 4 BOULDER PUBLIC LIBRARY: COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT AND FEEDBACK Figure 30. Allocation of operating funds by frequency of usage (fill pattern and italics used to indicate statistical significance) .................................................... 32 Figure 31. Average allocation of operating funds towards more books, DVDs, CDs, etc. by age group ....................................................................................... 33 Figure 32. Library meeting needs of respondents ............................................... 34 Figure 33. How well the library meets individual and household needs by frequency of visiting a library .............................................................................. 35 Figure 34. How well the library meets individual and household needs by location ............................................................................................................................ 35 Figure 35. Mean scores for importance of items for self and, if applicable, household ........................................................................................................... 36 Figure 36. Individual and household priorities by frequency of library visit (fill pattern used to indicate statistical significance) .................................................. 37 Figure 37. Individual and household priorities by age group (fill pattern used to indicate statistical significance) ........................................................................... 39 Figure 38. Library meeting the needs of the community ..................................... 40 Figure 39. How well the library meets community needs by frequency of vising library .................................................................................................................. 41 Figure 40. Mean scores for how well Boulder Public Library meets the needs of the community by where in Boulder respondents live (bar fill and italics used to indicate statistical significance) ........................................................................... 42 Figure 41. Community priorities .......................................................................... 43 Figure 42. Number of respondents by library support category .......................... 44 Figure 43. Number of responses per option regarding an increase in tax for library funding ..................................................................................................... 45 Figure 44. Mean likeliness to support tax increase by age group (fill pattern indicates statistical significance) ......................................................................... 46 Figure 45. Likeliness to support a tax increase by library user type .................... 46 List of Tables Table 1. Classification of Library User Types ...................................................... 18 Table 2. Ranking total allocation of capital funds by where Boulder respondents live ...................................................................................................................... 29 Attachment A. 26 © 2017 Joining Vision and Action, LLC. All rights reserved. joiningvisionandaction.com 5 BOULDER PUBLIC LIBRARY: COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT AND FEEDBACK Executive Summary [Will be written after feedback and any further tests] Attachment A. 27 © 2017 Joining Vision and Action, LLC. All rights reserved. joiningvisionandaction.com 6 BOULDER PUBLIC LIBRARY: COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT AND FEEDBACK Introduction and Background . Methodology Evaluation Tools Online Survey An online survey was identified as the primary method to reach as many respondents in Boulder as possible. The survey was designed using Survey Gizmo. Where it made sense to do so, item ordering was randomized to reduce response bias. Paper Survey In an effort to increase outreach to underserved populations, Boulder Housing Partners administered a paper version of the survey. A total of 10 paper surveys were collected. As the survey was designed for online completion a few questions from the paper surveys had to be omitted. Specifically, questions where participations were given the option to use a sliding scale to rate their interaction with library staff, how well the library met their needs and how well the library met the needs of their community. Additionally, when completing the questions related to the allocation of funds, some respondents’ answers did not add up to 100%. These responses were not included. Recruitment and Outreach The primary driver of outreach and survey participant recruitment came from the library’s efforts to reach participants through their newsletter, email list and social media efforts. Additionally, various organizations were contacted to assist specifically in getting word to Boulder’s Latino community about the survey. Tests Performed In an effort to better understand the nuances of the data set a few different inferential tests were performed.1 Independent samples t-tests were used when comparing mean scores for two groups. A statistically significant result here indicates that the mean scores for the two groups included in the test are not likely to be a random result, but a pattern that we can infer would continue should more respondents complete the survey. One-way ANOVA tests are similar to t-tests in that they compare mean scores with the primary difference being that this test examines mean scores across multiple groups (e.g., where respondents live in Boulder). A 1To help aid the reader, statistical significance in reported results in indicated by apply a fill pattern or italics to the data label. Attachment A. 28 © 2017 Joining Vision and Action, LLC. All rights reserved. joiningvisionandaction.com 7 BOULDER PUBLIC LIBRARY: COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT AND FEEDBACK statistically significant result here indicates mean scores between at least two groups is most likely not a random result, but again a pattern we can infer would continue. Two-way ANOVA tests are similar to ANOVA tests, but they add in another categorical independent variable to determine if the combinat ion of two different independent variables (e.g., age and where in Boulder respondents live) has a significant effect on mean scores. A statistically significant result means the combination of the two independent variables do affect mean scores in a manner that is not a random result. Demographics of Research Participants Overall A total of 2,396 respondents clicked into the survey. Of those, 1,752 were included in this analysis.2 Of those included in the analyses, the majority of respondents completed the survey on personal computers (see Figure 1).3 Figure 1. Respondents by device or method of survey delivery (n = 1,752) Race and Ethnicity of Respondents The majority of respondents indicated they were white or Caucasian. While Boulder is a predominantly white community, this segment is slightly overrepresented in the sample (see Figure 2). Respondents were given the 2 There were 666 responses deemed “partials” by Survey Gizmo, meaning the respondent did not make it to the final “thank you” page. Upon closer inspection 36 of these were determined to have stopped the survey in the final demographic section of the survey. These responses were included in the final analysis as none of the demographic questions were required. 3 Those classified as Other/Unknown were a mixture of Linux or Chrome OS devices where it was unclear if they were using a mobile or desktop device. 1072, 61% 625, 36% 46, 3%9, 0% Personal Computer Mobile Device/Tablet Other/Unknown Paper Surveys Attachment A. 29 © 2017 Joining Vision and Action, LLC. All rights reserved. joiningvisionandaction.com 8 BOULDER PUBLIC LIBRARY: COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT AND FEEDBACK option of selecting all racial/ethnic background options so as to account for multi- racial/multi-ethnic persons. As a result these are not exclusive groups. Figure 2. Respondents by race/ethnicity Ages of Respondents A variety of different age groups were heard from through the surveying efforts. Underrepresented in this survey are those age 24 and younger, particularly those ages 1824, as that age group makes up a substantial proportion of the Boulder population. However, this is likely a result of the university and its library catering to the needs of the sizable population of college students in Boulder. For purposes of analysis, respondents who indicated being under 18 or between the ages of 18-24 were combined with respondents who indicated being ages 25 - 34.4 The result is a “millennial” age group that encompasses respondents younger than 35 (see Figure 3). 4 There were 51 respondents ages 18-24 and 9 respondents under 18. 5 11 15 21 22 64 67 99 1472 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 Hawaiian or Pacific Islander Black or African American Middle Eastern or North African Not listed Native American, American Indian or Alaska Native Asian Hispanic or Latino Prefer not to answer White or Caucasian Attachment A. 30 © 2017 Joining Vision and Action, LLC. All rights reserved. joiningvisionandaction.com 9 BOULDER PUBLIC LIBRARY: COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT AND FEEDBACK Figure 3. Respondents by age Respondents by Gender Respondents to the survey were overwhelmingl y female with approximately 74% of respondents identifying as such (see Figure 4 below). Figure 4. Respondents by gender (n = 1702) 334 386 306 323 339 24 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 Under 35 35-44 45-54 55-64 65 or Older Prefer not to answer 23% 74% 1%2% Male Female Trans/Gender variant/nonconforming Prefer not to answer Attachment A. 31 © 2017 Joining Vision and Action, LLC. All rights reserved. joiningvisionandaction.com 10 BOULDER PUBLIC LIBRARY: COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT AND FEEDBACK Respondents by Income Respondents were asked about their household annual income. A sizable number of respondents preferred not to answer the question. Those who did tended to have an annual household income of $50,000 or higher (73%). The most frequent response for annual household income was $80,000 to $125,000 (see Figure 5). Figure 5. Respondents by annual household income Respondents by Educational Attainment With 89% of respondents having attained a college degree or higher, the responses used for this report represent a very well educated population. The most commonly selected level of educational attainment was a postgraduate degree (49% of respondents). Respondents who attained less than a bachelor’s degree represented very small portions of the overall sample. Those with some college, a vocational or technical degree, high school graduate or equivalent and some high school made up 6%, 1%, 1% and 1% of the sample, respectively (see Figure 6). 281 100 283 256 325 285 104 43 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 Prefer not to answer Under $20,000 $20,001 to $50,000 $50,000 to $80,000 $80,000 to $125,000 $125,001 to $200,000 $200,001 to $300,000 $300,000 or more Attachment A. 32 © 2017 Joining Vision and Action, LLC. All rights reserved. joiningvisionandaction.com 11 BOULDER PUBLIC LIBRARY: COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT AND FEEDBACK Figure 6. Educational attainment of survey respondents (n = 1711) Given the high level of educational attainment for this survey and the small slices represented by lower levels of educational attainment, these responses were combined into three groups (see Figure 7): “Postgraduates” are those who have completed a postgraduate degree “Bachelors” are those who have completed at least a bachelor’s degree, but excludes those who have completed a postgraduate degree “ Less than Bachelors” are those who have attained less than a bachelor’s degree5 5 Even with the combining of groups, the discrepancy b etween groups will make analyses by educational attainment more prone to Type 1 error in tests of group comparisons whereby a “false positive” of inferences of group differences may occur. 49% 10% 30% 1%6% 1%1%2% Postgraduate degree Some postgraduate school College degree Trade or vocational certification Some college High school graduate or equivalent Some high school Prefer not to answer Attachment A. 33 © 2017 Joining Vision and Action, LLC. All rights reserved. joiningvisionandaction.com 12 BOULDER PUBLIC LIBRARY: COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT AND FEEDBACK Figure 7. Respondents by education category (n = 1676) Respondents by Location of Residence The majority of respondents live in the city of Boulder (78% of respondents). Respondents living in Boulder came from all across the city with North Boulder, South Boulder and Central Boulder being the most commonly selected options. When examining the population density of Boulder, the University/Hill neighborhood appears underrepresented in this survey; again, this is likely a result of the University of Colorado student body accessing the university library for their needs (see Figures 8 and 9). Figure 8. Respondents by location of residence (n = 1707) 835, 50% 686, 41% 155, 9% Postgraduate degree Bachelor's degree Less than Bachelor's degree 78% 14% 8% City of Boulder Unincorporated area of Boulder Other area outside of Boulder County Attachment A. 34 © 2017 Joining Vision and Action, LLC. All rights reserved. joiningvisionandaction.com 13 BOULDER PUBLIC LIBRARY: COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT AND FEEDBACK Figure 9. Respondents by neighborhood (n = 1557) Due to the small number of selections of response options, a few categories were combined after running a series of t-tests to determine responses where enough similarities existed for combining groups (see Figure 10): Respondents who selected Palo Parkway were combined with North Boulder.6 Respondents who selected Southeast Boulder were combined with respondents from South Boulder.7 Respondents who selected The Hill/University were found to be different on enough items to not be combined with either those from South Boulder or those from Central Boulder.8 6 The low number of respondents who selected Palo Parkway made t-tests unreliable. This combination was based on geography. 7 When comparing Southeast Boulder to South Boulder the only items to be flagged as statistically significant were the items related to: the library being a good place for food or beverages (p<.01), the importance of free concerts and cinema for the community (p<.01), and the importance of civic engagement for the community (p<.05). 8 The inclusion of the low number of respondents in the Hill/University in group comparisons would make them susceptible to “false positive” Type 1 errors. For this reason they were excluded as a group in these comparison tests. Due to the age group that largely lives in this area, their views are likely reflected in the age group comparisons. 19% 9% 10% 25% 2% 20% 3% 4% 7%1%1% Central Boulder East Boulder Gunbarrel North Boulder Palo Parkway South Boulder Southeast Boulder The Hill/University Attachment A. 35 © 2017 Joining Vision and Action, LLC. All rights reserved. joiningvisionandaction.com 14 BOULDER PUBLIC LIBRARY: COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT AND FEEDBACK Figure 10. Respondents by region of Boulder in which they live (n = 1363) Respondents by Length of Boulder Residency Respondents were also asked about their length of residence in Boulder. Respondents were given a range of options ranging from “less th an a year” to “30 or more years.” For analysis purposes, responses were combined into three groups (see Figure 11): “Recent Boulder residents” were those who have lived in Boulder for four or fewer years. “Established Boulder residents” were those who have lived in Boulder 5– 19 years. “Long-time Boulder residents” were those who have lived in Boulder 20 or more years. Figure 11. Number of respondents by length of having lived in Boulder (n = 1560) 22% 10% 12% 30% 26% Central Boulder East Boulder Gunbarrel North Boulder South Boulder 400, 26% 577, 37% 583, 37% Recent Boulder residents Established Boulder residents Long-time Boulder residents Attachment A. 36 © 2017 Joining Vision and Action, LLC. All rights reserved. joiningvisionandaction.com 15 BOULDER PUBLIC LIBRARY: COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT AND FEEDBACK Respondents’ Household Occupants Survey respondents were asked about their household makeup (results in Figure 12). Specifically respondents were asked if any of the following lived in their household: Children under the age of 5 Children ages 6 to 12 Teenagers ages 13 to 18 Seniors ages 65 or older Persons with disabilities Figure 12. Respondents’ household makeup Using respondents’ selections from these items a binary variable representing respondents who had children in their households and who did not have children was created for comparison purposes. Respondents who had children in the household represented 35% of respondents (see Figure 13). Figure 13. Respondents who have children in their household (n = 1752) 264 303 201 371 82 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 Children age 5 or younger Children ages 6-12 Teenagers ages 13-18 Seniors ages 65 or older Persons with longterm disabilities 65% 35% No children in the household Children in the household Attachment A. 37 © 2017 Joining Vision and Action, LLC. All rights reserved. joiningvisionandaction.com 16 BOULDER PUBLIC LIBRARY: COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT AND FEEDBACK Respondent Interaction with Library and Library Staff The beginning of the survey was designed to gauge the level of engagement respondents had with libraries and the library staff at Boulder Public Library. Data gathered regarding respondents’ level of engagement with libraries was used as a comparative variable for group analysis for later questions. Library Usage Respondents were asked which library they use most frequently. The Main Library was by far the most commonly selected library, followed by the George Reynolds and Meadows branch libraries. Only 26 respondents selected the option “I do not visit any library” (see Figure 14). For analysis purposes respondents who primarily visited a branch library were combined to be compared against respondents who primarily visit the Main Library (see Figure 15). Figure 14. Library visited most often (n = 1746) 67% 12% 11% 5% 1%1%2%1% Main Library George Reynolds Branch Library Meadows Branch Library NoBo Corner Library Carnegie Branch Library I do not visit a library more often than others I visit a library/libraries that are not Boulder Public Libraries Attachment A. 38 © 2017 Joining Vision and Action, LLC. All rights reserved. joiningvisionandaction.com 17 BOULDER PUBLIC LIBRARY: COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT AND FEEDBACK Figure 15. Respondents by most common library visited with branch libraries combined (n = 1662) Respondents were also given the chance to indicate how frequently they visited a library in person and how often they utilized the library website or a library app. Most respondents indicated they visit a library and use the website or app on a fairly regular basis. The most commonly selected option for visiting a library was “once or twice a month” while the option “every now and then but not within the past year” was selected by just 2% of the sample (see Figure 16). Figure 16. Frequency of library visits (n = 1718) 70% 30% Main Library Branch Library 35% 37% 26% 2% On a weekly basis Once or twice a month Every now and then throughout the year Every now and then but not within the past year Attachment A. 39 © 2017 Joining Vision and Action, LLC. All rights reserved. joiningvisionandaction.com 18 BOULDER PUBLIC LIBRARY: COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT AND FEEDBACK Figure 17. How often do you use the library website or library app? (n = 1743) Responses to the questions of frequency of interaction with the library, both in- person and through a website or app, were used to create a new variable related to how a respondent utilized the library. The majority of respondents were classified as “Power Users” indicating they frequently visited a library and frequently utilized either a browser or app to interact with the library online (see Table 1 for details on how the groups were created). Table 1. Classification of Library User Types How often do you visit a library? Every now and then throughout the year Every now and then but not within the past year On a weekly basis Once or twice a month How often do you use the library website or app? On a weekly basis Once or twice a month Online User (n = 137, 8%) Power User (n = 978, 57%) Every now and then throughout the year Every now and then but not within the past year Never Infrequent User (n = 346, 20%) In-person User (n = 250, 15%) 38% 26% 23% 6% 7% On a weekly basis Once or twice a month Every now and then throughout the year Every now and then but not within the past year Never Attachment A. 40 © 2017 Joining Vision and Action, LLC. All rights reserved. joiningvisionandaction.com 19 BOULDER PUBLIC LIBRARY: COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT AND FEEDBACK Staff Interaction Survey participants were also asked how often they requested assistance from a librarian. Participants rarely asked a librarian for help with research, but asking for assistance finding materials was fairly common (see Figure 18). Figure 18. How often respondents ask a librarian for help with finding materials and with research (Finding materials, n = 1720; Research, n = 1721) Respondents were asked to rate their interaction with library staff. Overall, staff interactions were rated positively across the board. When examined by frequency of library usage and how often respondents ask librarians for help finding materials we see that mean ratings of interaction with staff do not drop below a mean score of 8.5 out of 10. As shown below in Figures 19 and 20, respondents who both visited the library more often and utilized librarians for assistance more often rated their interactions with staff higher than who visited less frequently and asked for assistance from librarians less frequently. The exception to this was that those who sought help with research “frequently” rated their interactions with staff a bit lower than those who did so less frequently.9 The difference in how librarians were rated among those who frequently requested help finding materials from a library and those who never requested help finding materials is statistically significant.10 This tells us that those who 9 It is worth pointing out that only 40 respondents indicated seeking help with research “frequently.” Of those, 27 rated their interaction with staff either a 9 or 10. One respondent rated their interaction a zero, thus appears to be an outlier that is pulling that rating down. 10 F(3,1617) = 2.892, p < .05. 105 755 701 159 644 732 305 40 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 Never Rarely Sometimes Frequently How often do you ask a librarian for help finding materials? How often do you ask a librarian for help with research? Attachment A. 41 © 2017 Joining Vision and Action, LLC. All rights reserved. joiningvisionandaction.com 20 BOULDER PUBLIC LIBRARY: COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT AND FEEDBACK interacted with staff by requesting help finding materials most frequently had a much more positive experience than those who never requested help with finding materials. Furthermore, the difference in how those who visited a library “on a weekly basis” and “once or twice a month” compared to those who visited a library “every now and then throughout the year” was found to be statistically significant.11 Figure 19. Average rating for interaction with library staff by frequency of seeking help from librarians. Figure 20. Average rating for staff interaction by frequency of library visit (fill pattern and italics used to indicate statistical significance) 11 F(3, 1615) = 7.738, p<.001. 9.25 8.78 8.97 9.08 8.92 8.97 8.65 8.89 6 7 8 9 10 Frequency of seeking help finding materials from librarian Frequency of seeking help with research from librarian Never Rarely Sometimes Frequently 8.57 8.67 9.05 9.1 6 7 8 9 10 Every now and then but not within the past year Every now and then throughout the year Once or twice a month On a weekly basis Attachment A. 42 © 2017 Joining Vision and Action, LLC. All rights reserved. joiningvisionandaction.com 21 BOULDER PUBLIC LIBRARY: COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT AND FEEDBACK Library Strengths Respondents were asked a series of questions to determine what they believed the libraries’ strengths were. A five-point Likert scale (Strongly Disagree to Strongly Agree) was given for respondents to use to rate the following items:12 Youth and children Conducting business Seeking help with research Relaxing Hands-on learning Attending programs Meeting with friends Eating lunch or getting a beverage Attending and participating in community hosted events Seeking help with book recommendations Reading or studying Respondents tended to rate the library as being a good place for “youth and children,” “attending and participating in community events,” “attending programs,” and “reading or studying.” Items that respondents tended to rate the library lowest for were “meeting with friends,” “eating lunch or getting a beverage,” and “conducting business.” 12 The scale was scored as follows: Strongly disagree = 1, Disagree = 2, Neither agree nor disagree = 3, Agree = 4, Strongly Agree = 5. Attachment A. 43 © 2017 Joining Vision and Action, LLC. All rights reserved. joiningvisionandaction.com 22 BOULDER PUBLIC LIBRARY: COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT AND FEEDBACK Figure 31. Responses about library strengths Library Strengths Group Comparisons A series of tests to compare how respondents rated the library on the aforementioned list of items across different categories (demographics, type of library user, where respondents live in Boulder, length of residency in Boulder, and whether or not the respondent primarily used the Main Library or a branch library) reveal numerous statistically significant differences. By Primary Library Visited Some of the largest differences in mean scores found to be statistically significant came when using an independent samples t-test to compare the responses of those who primarily visit the Main Library against those who primarily visit a branch library. Specifically, those who primarily visit the Main Library rate the library as a place for “eating lunch or getting a bevera ge” much higher than those who primarily visit a branch library where there is not a café selling food and beverages (see Figure 22).13 While this helps explain the low score for the item, it is worth noting that those who visit the Main Library still rated this low in comparison to other items. 13 t(1622)=11.653, p< .001 2.9 3.02 3.32 3.66 3.75 3.93 3.97 4.16 4.16 4.18 4.4 1 2 3 4 5 Conducting business Eating lunch or getting a beverage Meeting with friends Relaxing Hands-on learning Seeking help with book recommendations Seeking help with research Reading or studying Attending programs Attending and participating in community events Youth and children The library is a good place for… Attachment A. 44 © 2017 Joining Vision and Action, LLC. All rights reserved. joiningvisionandaction.com 23 BOULDER PUBLIC LIBRARY: COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT AND FEEDBACK Furthermore, the independent samples t-test shows a statistically significant difference in how respondents view the library as a place to meet with friends. Those who primarily visit the Main Library view the library as a better place to meet with friends than those who do not.14 Perhaps this can be seen as a reflection of the Main Library’s large open space and more plentiful meeting rooms. Figure 24. Library strengths by whether respondents frequent main library or branch libraries By Age Group An examination of mean scores for library strengths across age groups yields the greatest number of statistically significant differences. Comparing mean scores across age groups using a one-way ANOVA test reveals the most numerous statistically significant differences. Overall, the primary takeaway appears to be that the age groups most likely to take advantage of various library offerings rate those offerings the highest. For example the youngest age group, and those most likely to be in school or shared living situations, rate the library highest on being a good place for reading or studying and the difference is statistically significant when comparing against the 45–54, 55–64 and 65+ age groups.15 14 t(1632)=6.085, p<.001. 15 Library is a good place for “reading and studying,” F(4,1662)=7.794, p<.001. 3.23 3.43 2.59 3.12 1 2 3 4 5 Library a good place for…eating lunch or getting a beverage Library a good place for…meeting with friends Branch Library Main Library Attachment A. 45 © 2017 Joining Vision and Action, LLC. All rights reserved. joiningvisionandaction.com 24 BOULDER PUBLIC LIBRARY: COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT AND FEEDBACK Similarly, respondents in the 35–44 years old age group, the age group most likely to currently be parents and thus have children involved in various library programs, rated the library highest for being a good place for “children and youth” and “hands-on learning;” the difference for the library being a good place for “youth and children” is statistically significant when compared to all other groups and for “hands-on learning” when compared to the 65+ age group .16 The 55–64 age group responded most positively to the library being a good place for “attending and participating in community hosted events.” When compared to the 65+ age group, this difference is statistically significant.17 One pattern worth noting is that the 65+ age group consistently rates the library the lowest on nearly every item. This could be interpreted numerous ways: perhaps they are unaware of library resources, perhaps it is a technology issue they do not feel able to overcome to access library resources, or perhaps library resource offerings do not fit their needs. 16 Library is a good place for “youth and children,” F(4,1651)=8.692, p< .001; library is a good place for “hands-on learning,” F(4,1628) = 2.681, p< .05; library is a good place for “reading or studying,” F(4,1662) = 7.794, p< .01. 17 Library is a good place for “attending and participating in community events,” F(4,1658) = 7.131, p< .001) Attachment A. 46 © 2017 Joining Vision and Action, LLC. All rights reserved. joiningvisionandaction.com 25 BOULDER PUBLIC LIBRARY: COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT AND FEEDBACK Figure 23. Responses to "I think the library is a good place for..." by age group (fill pattern and italics used to indicate statistical significance) By Those with Children in their Households Using an independent samples t-test to compare mean scores of respondents who had children in their households to those who did not have children in their households revealed a few statistically significant differences worth mentioning. Those who have children in the household rated the library higher than those who did not have children in their household. This difference is statistically significant meaning that it is not due to randomness but a pattern (see Figure 24).18 Given that both scores are above a 4 (indicating they agree that the library is a good place for children) not only is there a perception of the library being a good place for children and youth by those who do not have children in their households, there is a reality that the library is good place for children and youth from those who have children in their households. 18 t(1714) = 58.952, p<.01. 4.38 4.45 3.79 4.09 4.21 4.63 3.85 4.26 4.08 4.4 3.73 4.18 4.17 4.32 3.74 4.32 3.97 4.21 3.64 4.05 1 2 3 4 5 Reading or studying Children and youth Hands-on learning Attending and participating in community hosted events I think the library is good place for ... 65+ 55-54 45-54 35-44 Under 35 Attachment A. 47 © 2017 Joining Vision and Action, LLC. All rights reserved. joiningvisionandaction.com 26 BOULDER PUBLIC LIBRARY: COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT AND FEEDBACK Figure 24. Mean scores for the library being a good place for children and youth by those who have children in the household and those who do not Allocating Library Funds In order to assess how respondents view the physical state of the various library buildings, or lack of buildings, and to gauge where respondents might like to see more services, participants of the survey were asked two questions to indicate how they would allocate available capital funds towards building projects and how they would allocate operating funds towards library services. These questions are compared using an average allocation figure in addition to a sum total allocation figure. For the sum total allocation, each respondent’s answers were multiplied by 100 in order to theoretically give each respondent $100 dollars to allocate.19 Allocating Capital Funds Respondents were given the options to allocate capital funds towards: Building a new library in my neighborhood Interior remodel of the library nearest my neighborhood Hold onto the funds for a future project Improve the Canyon Theatre space Expand the Makerspace Expand venues for community meetings Expand venues for performing arts programs Use it to maintain current facilities at a high level Other (with an option to write in) When examining the allocation of funds by the average amount, three options emerge as having a much higher average allocation: building a new library in my neighborhood, use it to maintain current facilitates at a high level, and other (see Figure 25). 19 In designing the survey, this question was presented as a perc entage in order to avoid respondents’ answers being influenced by the amount they were allowed to allocate. 4.62 4.29 1 2 3 4 5 Children in the household Without children in the household Library is good for children and youth Attachment A. 48 © 2017 Joining Vision and Action, LLC. All rights reserved. joiningvisionandaction.com 27 BOULDER PUBLIC LIBRARY: COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT AND FEEDBACK Figure 25. Average allocation of capital funds While this certainly allows us to see which items some respondents feel very strongly about, if we translate the percentage into dollar amounts—say $100 per respondent—we are able to get a better idea of the volume of funds allocated per option. Due to the large number of folks who chose to allocate funds towards maintaining the current facilities at a high level and the average allocation percentage being at 36.6%, that option is much higher than the rest of the options. The option with the lowest total amount was the “interior remodel of the library nearest my neighborhood.” Despite being the item with the highest average allocation, the option to build a new library in my neighborhood ended up with the fourth lowest total allocation (see Figure 26). While this indicates a level of desire to keep current facilities as is, perhaps further tests are needed before drawing too many conclusions. 16.5% 17.4% 17.7% 18.9% 20.6% 20.8% 35.1% 36.6% 39.0% 0.0%10.0%20.0%30.0%40.0%50.0% Expand venues for community meetings (n = 861) Improve the Canyon Theatre (n = 708) Expand venues for performing arts programs (n = 895) Interior remodel of the library nearest my neighborhood (n = 465) Hold onto the funds for a future project (n = 795) Expand the Makerspace (n = 795) Other (n = 487) Use it to maintain current facilities at a high level (n = 1372) Building new library in my neighborhood (n = 369) Attachment A. 49 © 2017 Joining Vision and Action, LLC. All rights reserved. joiningvisionandaction.com 28 BOULDER PUBLIC LIBRARY: COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT AND FEEDBACK Figure 26. Total sum of allocated funds where each participant allocated $100 Interestingly enough the “other” option appears toward the top of both lists. A further investigation into this shows that many respondents took the opportunity to make requests outside the concept of “capital funds.” The most common request was more access to books and media, both physical and digital. Other respondents took the opportunity to inform where they would like a new library built; these respondents overwhelmingly indicated North Boulder was the location in need and a few respondents called out Gunbarrel. By and large most of the responses had suggestions that appear more pertinent to a similar question regarding operating funds. They will be discussed in that section below. Group Comparisons – Operating Funds By Where Respondents Live When comparing mean capital fund allocation by where respondents live , a few interesting data points emerge. In looking at how different areas of Boulder rank in their total allocation of funds it is clear that respondents from across Boulder place a high priority on maintaining current facilities. Gunbarrel respondents were the only region to rank a new library highest. Holding onto the funds, expanding performing arts space and expanding the Makerspace consistently ranked in the top half regardless of region, whereas interior remodel, community meeting space and the Canyon Theatre consistently ranked in the bottom half. Perhaps one of the more surprising results of the survey data is North Boulder allocating a greater total sum of funds to expanding the Makerspace than to a new library. With 104 North Boulder respondents allocating an average of 40% of their allocation towards a new library (compared to a 22% allocation of available funds towards expanding the Makerspace) it would seem the desire for a new library is strong in North Boulder, but only among a segment of the $8,769 $12,301 $14,185 $14,395 $15,816 $16,362 $16,575 $17,090 $50,261 $0 $20,000 $40,000 $60,000 Interior remodel of the library nearest my neighborhood Improve the Canyon Theater and Gallery Expand venues for community meetings Building a new library in my neighborhood Expand venues for performing arts programs Hold onto the funds for a future project Expand the Makerspace Other Use it to maintain current facilities at a high level Attachment A. 50 © 2017 Joining Vision and Action, LLC. All rights reserved. joiningvisionandaction.com 29 BOULDER PUBLIC LIBRARY: COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT AND FEEDBACK region’s library users whereas the desire to expand the Makerspace is more widespread among respondents from that region of Boulder. Table 2. Ranking total allocation of capital funds by where Boulder respondents live. Rows represent descending order of priority (most money to least) Central Boulder East Boulder Gunbarrel North Boulder South Boulder Maintain current facilities ($8,585) Maintain current facilities ($4,357) New library ($5,260) Maintain current facilities ($11,206) Maintain current facilities ($11,433) Hold onto funds ($3,142) Hold onto funds ($1,573) Maintain current facilities ($3,435) Makerspace ($4,224) Hold onto funds ($3,671) Makerspace ($3,051) Performing arts space ($1,317) Performing arts space ($1,058) New library ($4,198) Makerspace ($3,541) Performing arts space ($2,803) Community meeting space ($1,260) Interior remodel ($1,050) Hold onto funds ($3,851) Performing arts space ($3,368) Canyon Theatre ($2,749) Makerspace ($1,110) Community meeting space ($1,035) Performing arts space ($3,485) Community meeting space ($3,150) Community meeting space ($2,424) Canyon Theatre ($879) Makerspace ($904) Canyon Theatre ($3,287) Interior remodel ($2,740) Interior remodel ($1,096) New library ($632) Hold onto funds ($886) Community meeting space ($3,133) Canyon Theatre ($2,094) New library ($836) Interior remodel ($612) Canyon Theatre ($672) Interior remodel ($1,521) New library ($600) In order to better understand some of the differences in how respondents allocated funds, a two-way ANOVA test was conducted to determine if there were significant interactions between where respondents live and whether or not they primarily used a branch library or the main library with regard to how they allocated funds towards the building of a new library.20 In other words, the test 20 A two-way ANOVA was conducted to examine the effects of where respondents live in Boulder and whether or not they primarily utilized the main library or a branch library on responses to the allocation of capital funds toward a new library. Residual analysis was performed to test for the assumptions of the two-way ANOVA. Outliers were assessed by inspection of a boxplot, normality was assessed using Shapiro-Wilk’s normality test for each cell of the design and (footnote continued) Attachment A. 51 © 2017 Joining Vision and Action, LLC. All rights reserved. joiningvisionandaction.com 30 BOULDER PUBLIC LIBRARY: COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT AND FEEDBACK was used to determine if the combined effects of where respondents lived and whether or not they primarily used the main library or a branch library affected how they allocated capital funds towards a new library in their neighborhood. While the test concluded that the data violated assumptions necessary to make statistically significant inferences, an interesting trend emerged. Regardless of whether or not respondents in Gunbarrel primarily visited the main library or a branch library, a good deal of their allocation of funds went toward a new library. Respondents from North Boulder varied greatly on how much they allocated towards a new library depending on whether or not they primarily visited the main library or a branch library. A similar effect can be seen in East Boulder respondents, but it must be noted that far fewer respondents from East Boulder allocated funds towards a new library in comparison. In other words, Gunbarrel residents appear consistent in their desire for a new library, while residents from North Boulder and East Boulder vary in their desire for a new librar y depending on whether or not they primarily use the main library or a branch library. Figure 27. Average percentage of funds allocated towards building a new library by where respondents live in Boulder and by where they primarily use a library homogeneity of variances was assessed by Levene’s test. Unfortunately, the residual analysis led to the conclusion that this data set violated multiple basic assumptions. The data presented in Figure 27 is not statistically significant, but instead descriptive statistics. 33.4% 58.5% 40.6% 38.9% 17.1% 57.9% 31.2% 36.4% 33.4% 60% 58.8% 44% 0.0%10.0%20.0%30.0%40.0%50.0%60.0%70.0% East Boulder Gunbarrel North Boulder Overall Branch Library Main Library Total Attachment A. 52 © 2017 Joining Vision and Action, LLC. All rights reserved. joiningvisionandaction.com 31 BOULDER PUBLIC LIBRARY: COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT AND FEEDBACK Allocation of Operating Funds With a question similar to how survey participants were asked how they would allocate capital funds, participants were also asked how they would allocate operating funds. The four options were: More books, DVDs, CDs, etc. More e-books, audiobooks, streaming movies, etc. More community meeting space More library staff The highest average allocation and total allocation went towards more physical media (see Figure 28 and 29 respectively).21 Figure 28. Average allocation percentage of operating funds Figure 29. Sum of allocation of operating funds Group Comparisons for Allocation of Operating Funds By Frequency of Library Visit Examining the average amount respondents would allocate to operating funds by how frequently they visit a library, using a series of ANOVA tests, reveals statistically significant differences based on frequency of library usage. 21 Here again, for the sum allocation each respondent was given $100 towards allocation. 28.4% 28.4% 35.6% 40.1% 0.0%10.0%20.0%30.0%40.0%50.0% More community space More library staff More e-books, audiobooks, streaming movies, etc. More books DVDs, CDs, etc. $26,657 $31,807 $45,812 $55,485 $- $20,000 $40,000 $60,000 More community space More library staff More e-books, audiobooks, streaming music, etc. More books DVDs, CDs, etc. Attachment A. 53 © 2017 Joining Vision and Action, LLC. All rights reserved. joiningvisionandaction.com 32 BOULDER PUBLIC LIBRARY: COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT AND FEEDBACK Respondents who visit a library “once or twice a week” on average allocated more operating funds towards acquiring more digital media than those who visited on a weekly basis. This difference was found to be statistically significant. This means that the difference in fund allocation between the two groups is most likely not random but a pattern.22 The reason for this pattern is not exactly clear from this test, but perhaps many of those who are the most frequent library visitors are uninterested or do not know how to utilize digital media. On the flipside, those who visit the library “on a weekly basis” on average allocated more operating funds towards acquiring physical media than respondents who visit a library less frequently. When comparing the difference in mean scores between those who visit “on a weekly basis” to those who visit “once or twice a month” and “every now and then throughout the year,” the difference is statistically significant. Likewise, when comparing those who visit a library “once or twice a month” to those who visit “every now and then throughout the year,” the difference is statistically significant.23 In summary, the more frequent users of the library chose to allocate more operating funds towards physical books, movies and music than other groups, but less towards digital media. Figure 30. Allocation of operating funds by frequency of usage (fill pattern and italics used to indicate statistical significance) 22 F(3,1263) = 3.359, p< .05. 23 F(3,1360) = 16.032, p<.01. 41 39.82 34.96 36.1 39.21 36.74 45.06 33.15 0 20 40 60 More books, DVDs, CDs, etc. More ebooks, audiobooks, streaming movies, etc. On a weekly basis Once or twice a month Every now and then throughout the year Every now and then but not within the past year Attachment A. 54 © 2017 Joining Vision and Action, LLC. All rights reserved. joiningvisionandaction.com 33 BOULDER PUBLIC LIBRARY: COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT AND FEEDBACK By Age Group Comparing the allocation of operating funds by age group using a one -way ANOVA test reveals statistically significant difference in how the oldest age groups allocate funds towards books compared to the youngest age groups.24 As shown below in Figure 31, each age group allocated, on average, more towards books than did the age group and groups younger than them. The difference between the 65+ age group and the rest of the age groups is statistically significant. Similarly, the difference between the 55–64 age group and both the under 35 and the 35–44 age group is statistically significant. This means these differences are likely a pattern and not random, indicating older age groups prioritize access to physical books more than younger age groups. Figure 31. Average allocation of operating funds towards more books, DVDs, CDs, etc. by age group Addressing the “Other” Allocation Comments from Capital Funds Allocation Question As previously mentioned, a good number of participants used the “Other” space in the question regarding allocation of capital funds to request items more appropriate for a question on operating funds. The most common request using this space was to utilize the funds to increase the libraries’ collections, both physical and digital. Outside of those requests, some of the more common requests were: Allocating funds to address the perceived issues created by the homeless population in the library (i.e., occupied seating and issues of safety). More activities and programming for children. Using the funds to reach out into various parts of the community through drop off areas or mobile libraries. More events such as author readings. Using the funds to keep the library open later. 24 F(4,1341) = 14.950, p< .01 33.8 38.4 38.5 43.4 46.3 0 10 20 30 40 50 Under 35 35-44 45-54 55-64 65+ Attachment A. 55 © 2017 Joining Vision and Action, LLC. All rights reserved. joiningvisionandaction.com 34 BOULDER PUBLIC LIBRARY: COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT AND FEEDBACK Individuals, their Households and the Library Respondents were asked how well the library met their needs, or if applicable the needs of their household. Respondents were then asked a series of questions regarding the importance of various items for themselves and their households. Library Meeting the Needs of Individuals and their Households Respondents were asked to rate on a scale of 1–10, where 1 is the lowest and 10 is the highest, how well the library met their needs and the needs of their household. The most frequent selection was a 10 indicating that a good number of individuals felt the library meets their needs and the needs of their household (see Figure 32). Figure 32. Library meeting needs of respondents Group Comparisons By Frequency of Visit Comparing mean scores for how well the Boulder Public Library meets the needs of respondents and their households using a one -way ANOVA test reveals differences that are statistically significant between those who visit the library weekly and those who visit less frequently. The more frequently respondents visit the library, the more they feel it meets their own needs and the needs of their households (See Figure 33).25 25 F(3,1580) = 33.588, p< .001. 11 12 17 19 93 70 201 329 354 498 How well does the Boulder Public Library meet the needs of you and, if applicable, the members of your household? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Attachment A. 56 © 2017 Joining Vision and Action, LLC. All rights reserved. joiningvisionandaction.com 35 BOULDER PUBLIC LIBRARY: COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT AND FEEDBACK Figure 33. How well the library meets individual and household needs by frequency of visiting a library By Where Respondents Live in Boulder A one-way ANOVA test between where respondents live in Boulder and how well they feel the library meets their needs reveals a statistically significant difference in how Gunbarrel residents rated the library meeting their needs when compared to all other areas included in the analysis.26 The average score of Gunbarrel residents was lower than all other areas and is likely a result of their strong desire for library to be built in that community (see Figure 34). Figure 34. How well the library meets individual and household needs by location Individual and Household Priorities Respondents were asked to respond to a series of 10 items to gauge what items they deemed to be important. A five-point Likert scale (not at all important, of little 26 F(4,1241) = 15.304, p< .001. 6.32 7.89 8.31 8.7 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Every now and then but not within the past year Every now and then throughout the year Once or twice a month On a weekly basis 8.41 8.38 7.24 8.3 8.56 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Central Boulder East Boulder Gunbarrel North Boulder South Boulder Central Boulder East Boulder Gunbarrel North Boulder South Boulder Attachment A. 57 © 2017 Joining Vision and Action, LLC. All rights reserved. joiningvisionandaction.com 36 BOULDER PUBLIC LIBRARY: COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT AND FEEDBACK importance, of average importance, very importan t, and absolutely essential) was used to rate a series of 10 items. Respondents tended to rate “good books, movies and music,” “that the library is a trusted source of information” and “safe places for children to learn, play and explore” the highest, whereas respondents tended to rate “job, computer and technology skills,” “learning to read,” and “hands-on learning or maker experiences” the lowest (See Figure 35). The high score for the library being a trusted source of information is probably best explained by the current political and media environment where the internet has made discerning legitimate news and facts from illegitimate news and facts difficult. Explanations for the lower scored items are perhaps not as readily apparent. Perhaps, the high level of education in the survey sample explains the low scores for computer and technology skills and the importance for learning to read, as many respondents perhaps feel these skills are already acquired. Figure 35. Mean scores for importance of items for self and, if applicable, household 3.2 3.3 3.3 3.4 3.4 3.5 3.6 4 4.3 4.6 1 2 3 4 5 Job, computer and technology skills Learning to read Hands-on learning or maker experiences Free concerts and cinema Opportunities to be creative Accessible meeting and/or study space Opportunitites to feel a part of the community Safe places for children to learn, play and explore That the library is a trusted source of information Good books, movies, and music Attachment A. 58 © 2017 Joining Vision and Action, LLC. All rights reserved. joiningvisionandaction.com 37 BOULDER PUBLIC LIBRARY: COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT AND FEEDBACK Group Comparisons By Frequency of Library Visit When examining responses regarding the importance of these various items for respondents’ households by how often respondents visit a library using a one- way ANOVA test, a few statistically significant differences emerge. The ANOVA test found a statistically significant difference where those who visit the library more frequently rated the importance of “good books, movies and music” higher than those who visited the library less frequently.27 Additionally the ANOVA test revealed a statistically significant difference in how respondents rated the importance of job, computer and technology skills. Those who visited a library “every now and then throughout the year” rated this item higher than those who visit a library on a weekly basis.28 While the effect here is not as pronounced as the finding regarding the importance of good books and movies, it perhaps helps to shed light on why this item was rated lowest in importance (see Figure 36). Libraries are primarily seen as institutions for lending books, and in this framework are perhaps seen by their most frequent users to be a bastion of bound books and the antithesis of technology and related lear ning and skills. Figure 36. Individual and household priorities by frequency of library visit (fill pattern used to indicate statistical significance) By Age When examining how respondents rated the importance of various items for themselves and their household by age group, numerous statistically significant 27 F(3,1693 = 12.23, p< .01. 28 F(3, 1680) = 2.98, p< .05 4.31 3.2 4.41 3.34 4.61 3.2 4.63 3.12 0 2 4 6 Importance of good books, movies and music for self and household Importance of job, computer and technology skills for self and household On a weekly basis Once or twice a month Every now and then throughout the year Every now and then but not within the past year Attachment A. 59 © 2017 Joining Vision and Action, LLC. All rights reserved. joiningvisionandaction.com 38 BOULDER PUBLIC LIBRARY: COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT AND FEEDBACK differences in mean scores emerge.29 The only item where no significant differences between age groups was found was in responding to the importance of good books, movies and music. On this, every age group had a mean rating of 4.5 or greater; making it the highest rated item for each age group. Generally, the mean differences that were found to be statisti cally significant were between those with the greatest age difference. In other words, the youngest (35 and younger) group compared to the oldest group (65 and older) tended to have more differences on ratings of importance. 29 Learning to read: F(4,1644)=15.648, p< .01; free concerts and cinema: F(4,1657) = 3.727, p< .05; hands-on learning or maker experiences: F(4,1646) = 29.397, p< .01; opportunities to be creative: F(4, 1643) = 24.187, p< .01; that the library is a trusted source for information: F(4,1661) = 4.316, p<.01; opportunities to feel a part of the community: F(4,1658) = 7.131, p < .01. Attachment A. 60 © 2017 Joining Vision and Action, LLC. All rights reserved. joiningvisionandaction.com 39 BOULDER PUBLIC LIBRARY: COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT AND FEEDBACK Figure 37. Individual and household priorities by age group (fill pattern used to indicate statistical significance) The Library and the Boulder Community Library respondents were asked similar questions as to how well the library met their needs and the needs of their household regarding how they view the importance their communities place on various items. 2.8 3.48 2.83 3 2.97 4.42 3.33 3.78 3.33 3.12 3.53 3.18 3.29 3.34 4.37 3.63 3.81 3.54 3.38 3.37 3.46 3.5 3.21 4.39 3.71 4.01 3.51 3.62 3.39 3.6 3.64 3.15 4.25 3.83 4.44 3.56 3.43 3.25 3.54 3.7 3.39 4.2 3.75 3.98 3.72 0 1 2 3 4 5 Learning to read Free concerts and cinema Hands-on learning or maker experiences Opportunities to be creative Job, computer and technology skills That the library is trusted source of information Opportunities to feel a part of the community Safe places for children to learn, play and explore Accessible meeting and/or study spaces Under 35 35-44 45-54 55-65 65+ Attachment A. 61 © 2017 Joining Vision and Action, LLC. All rights reserved. joiningvisionandaction.com 40 BOULDER PUBLIC LIBRARY: COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT AND FEEDBACK Library meeting the needs of the Household When respondents were asked how well the library meets the needs of their community, the results were slightly less positive than when responding to how well the library met their needs and the needs of their households. Overall , responses were positive for the Boulder Public Library meeting the needs of the community (see Figure 38). Figure 38. Library meeting the needs of the community Group Comparisons By Frequency of Library Visit When examining how respondents rated how well the Boulder Public Library met the needs of the community, there is a relationship between frequency of visit and rating, with more frequent visitors of libraries rating the Boulder Public Library as doing a better job of meeting the needs of the community. The mean difference in how those who visit a library “on a weekly basis” is higher than those who visited the library less frequency. When compared to those who visit every now and then throughout the year, the difference is statistically significant.30 30 F(3, 1541) = 9.333, p<.01. 4 5 14 18 81 93 212 400 377 364 How well does the Boulder Public Library meet the needs of the community? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Attachment A. 62 © 2017 Joining Vision and Action, LLC. All rights reserved. joiningvisionandaction.com 41 BOULDER PUBLIC LIBRARY: COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT AND FEEDBACK Figure 39. How well the library meets community needs by frequency of vising library By Where Respondents Live in Boulder When comparing mean scores by where in Boulder respondents live a trend similar to what was observed for the related question on how well the library met the needs of the household emerges, but perhaps the effect is a bit less pronounced. Gunbarrel residents rated the library lower on this item than all other groups; when compared to respondents from Central Boulder and South Boulder , these differences were statistically significant. North Boulder residents rated the library lower than all other groups outside of those from Gunb arrel. When compared to respondents from South Boulder, these differences were found to be statistically significant.31 Again, we see residents from Gunbarrel and North Boulder feeling underserved by the library. 31 F(4,1213) = 5.748, p<.01. 7.14 8.03 8.2 8.38 5 6 7 8 9 10 Every now and then but not within the past year Every now and then throughout the year Once or twice a month On a weekly basis Attachment A. 63 © 2017 Joining Vision and Action, LLC. All rights reserved. joiningvisionandaction.com 42 BOULDER PUBLIC LIBRARY: COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT AND FEEDBACK Figure 40. Mean scores for how well Boulder Public Library meets the needs of the community by where in Boulder respondents live (bar fill and italics used to indicate statistical significance) Community Priorities Respondents were asked a series of 13 questions to gauge what they perceived as their community’s priorities—similar to those asked about their own priorities and the priorities of their household. Again, items related to “good books, movies and music,” “safe spaces for children to learn, play an d explore” and “that the library is a trusted source of information” rated very high. “Support for entrepreneurs and small businesses,” “free concerts and cinema,” “hands -on learning or maker experiences” and “opportunities to be creative” tended to be rated the lowest (see Figure 41). Interestingly enough, “job, computer and technology skills” improved when rated for the community as compared to when rated for the individual and their household. 8.28 8.21 7.77 7.97 8.43 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Central Boulder East boulder Gunbarrel North Boulder South Boulder Attachment A. 64 © 2017 Joining Vision and Action, LLC. All rights reserved. joiningvisionandaction.com 43 BOULDER PUBLIC LIBRARY: COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT AND FEEDBACK Figure 41. Community priorities Library Support In order to gauge how survey participants actively support the Boulder Public Library, respondents were asked to respond to two questions. Methods of Support The first question prompted participants to select all that applied and listed the following ways in which they could support the library: Using the library Encouraging others to use the library Voting in favor of library ballot items during elections Donating books Advocating for the library Making monetary donations to the library 3.4 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.9 3.9 4 4 4.2 4.3 4.5 4.5 4.6 0 1 2 3 4 5 Support for entreprenuers and small businesses Free concerts and cinema Hands-on learning or maker experiences Opportunities to be creative Job, computer and technology skills Community issues and problems are discussed in a public forum Meeting or study space Opportunities for civic engagement are available to everyone Learning to read The community is culturally inclusive That the library is a trusted source of information Safe spaces for children to learn, play and explore Good books, movies and music Attachment A. 65 © 2017 Joining Vision and Action, LLC. All rights reserved. joiningvisionandaction.com 44 BOULDER PUBLIC LIBRARY: COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT AND FEEDBACK Volunteering time Other None of the above The most commonly selected ways in which respondents supported the library was by “using the library,” followed by “encouraging others to use the library” and “voting in favor of library ballot items during elections.” The items with the least amount of selections, other than the “none of the above” and “other” options, were “volunteering my time” and “making monetary donations to the library.” Figure 42. Number of respondents by library support category Support for a Tax Increase for Library Funding The second question related to the likelihood respondents would support a tax increase for library funding. Respondents were given a five-point Likert scale to indicate how likely they were to support such a measure (from Not very likely to Very Likely). Survey participants were largely in favor of a tax increase for library funding with the most common response option selected being “likely,” followed by “very likely.” 361 respondents, or 21%, indicated they were unsure if they would support a tax increase such as this (See Figure 43). 22 77 121 188 597 706 1186 1267 1674 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 None of the above Other Volunteering my time Making monetary donations to the library Advocating for the library Donating books Voting in favor of library ballot items during elections Encouraging others to use the library Using the library I support the library by... Attachment A. 66 © 2017 Joining Vision and Action, LLC. All rights reserved. joiningvisionandaction.com 45 BOULDER PUBLIC LIBRARY: COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT AND FEEDBACK Figure 43. Number of responses per option regarding an increase in tax for library funding Group Comparisons A series of group comparisons were run to determine which users are more likely to support a tax increase than others. A one-way ANOVA revealed no significant differences based on where in Boulder respondents live. Additionally, a one-way ANOVA revealed no statistically significant differences in how respondents of different income groups would support a tax increase.32 By Age Group An examination of mean scores of how likely respondents would be to support a tax increase by age shows a general trend of younger age groups being a bit more willing to support a tax increase. A one-way ANOVA test shows the difference between the 35–44 age group and the 65+ age group to be statistically significant where the younger age group is more likely to support a tax increase (see Figure 44).33 While this difference is slight, it is perhaps related to the consistently lower scores for what the library is good for by the 65+ age group (as discussed earlier). Another potential explanation is this age group is most likely to be on a fixed income and thus somewhat less willing to support a tax increase. 32 It should be noted that the high amount of respondents unwilling to disclose their income group by selecting “prefer not to answer” were found to be lower than any other income group at a level which is statistically significant, F(7,1663) = 11.148, p< .001. Unfortunately, as there is no income information for this group it is difficult to draw conclusions when comparing them to other groups. 33 F(4,1676) = 2.485, p< .05. 69 62 361 673 577 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 Not very likely Unlikely Unsure Likely Very likely How likely would you be to support a tax increase for library funding? Attachment A. 67 © 2017 Joining Vision and Action, LLC. All rights reserved. joiningvisionandaction.com 46 BOULDER PUBLIC LIBRARY: COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT AND FEEDBACK Figure 44. Mean likeliness to support tax increase by age group (fill pattern indicates statistical significance) By Library User Type When examining how likely respondents were to support a tax increase by the type of user, we see those who more often interact with the library in-person and online are more likely to support a tax increase. The difference between “power users” and “infrequent” users was found to be statistically significant.34 Figure 45. Likeliness to support a tax increase by library user type 34 F(3,1701) = 5.264, p< .01. 3.96 4.05 3.98 3.91 3.83 1 2 3 4 5 Under 35 35-44 45-54 55-54 65+ 4.01 3.9 3.85 3.77 1 2 3 4 5 Power User In-person user Online user Infrequent User Attachment A. 68 © 2017 Joining Vision and Action, LLC. All rights reserved. joiningvisionandaction.com 47 BOULDER PUBLIC LIBRARY: COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT AND FEEDBACK Strengths and Recommendations for Improvement [Preliminary] From the survey data a number of strengths and areas for improvement emerge. Strengths Overall, respondents to the survey feel very positive about the library. This can be seen in the positively skewed ratings for how well the library meets the needs of both individuals and the community, the positively skewed results for how likely respondents are to support an increase in taxes for the purpose of increasing library funding, and the overwhelming amount of funds respondents would allocate to make sure current facilities are maintained. The library was rated highest for being a good place for youth and children. This can be seen in the very high ratings from families to the question related to the library being a good place for youth and children. This speaks to the success of programs specifically targeted to children. Room for Improvement/Gaps Responses towards the library were so positive that identifying “room for improvement” areas feels a bit like cherry-picking. However, here are a few items where the Boulder Library could find some room for improvement: Make the branch libraries more than just a transactional place for library patrons. Branch libraries were rated lower for items such as being a good place for meeting up with friends and getting food or drink. Find ways to engage older adults. The oldest age groups consistently rated the library lower than younger age groups. This age group was also, on average, least likely to support a tax increase for library funds. Perh aps this age group is coming up against barriers to accessing library resources; technology literacy support may be needed to learn about programs and navigate available digital or physical resources. Potentially there are some transportation limitations for this group as well. Engage the North Boulder and Gunbarrel communities regarding the best solution for serving them. These communities, and Gunbarrel in particular, showed a greater desire for a new library in their community and rated the library lower on meeting their own needs and the needs of their community. Conclusion [will be written in for the final draft] Attachment A. 69 Attachment B. Family Holds Pick-Up FAQ -Why is BPL introducing this service enhancement? The Public Service staff believe this will allow staff to provide improved customer service to families who often experience frustration in remembering which holds are attached to the various library cards in their family. The service is also available at the other five Flatirons Library Consortium libraries and some patrons have asked us to consider adding it at BPL. -How do patrons opt-in to this service? New library patrons will be asked whether they want to opt-in when they complete their registration for an account. Otherwise, patrons can opt-in to this service at any time by visiting a service desk at any BPL location with their library card or photo ID. -What if a patron wants to change who can pick up their holds? Patrons can update their accounts at any point to opt-in or out of the service or change the names with permission to pick-up holds with their library card number by calling the library or visiting a service desk. -How many person can have permission to pick-up holds on one account? There is not a limit on the number of persons one can add to their account with permission to pick-up holds. -Does a patron need ID to pick-up holds for someone else if they are listed on the account? Yes, staff will verify that the person picking-up the holds matches the name listed on the patron’s account with a photo ID (including Driver’s License, State ID Card, Passport, Eco Pass, Rec Center Pass, School ID, etc.). Without a photo ID, the person cannot pick-up the hold, even if their name is listed on the account. -What if a child does not have a photo ID and wants to pick-up holds for a parent/family member? Children under 17 without a photo ID may be asked verification questions (i.e. birthdate, address, phone number) to access their personal library account to verify the name matches the permissions for holds pick-up. -Can a patron use a computer or check-out other items if they have permission to pick-up holds? 70 Attachment B. No, the permission to use the account is only for checking-out holds and does not apply to other library materials or computer use. The patron would have to use their personal card for those services. -Does this service change how BPL protects patron privacy? No. The only persons with access to some one else’s holds are those whom have been given permission by the cardholder to do so. Patrons who opt-in to the service are informed that this option allows the persons listed in their account to view and checkout all holds. -Can someone listed on an account with permission to pick-up holds ask for a print-out of all materials currently checked out to the account? No, access is limited to checking out titles on hold only. To have full-access to an account, the person would have to present the library card for the account or enter the library card number into one of the self checkout stations. -How will staff handle issues when families separate, divorce, or have some other mitigating circumstances? Staff will handle these situations on a case-by-case basis, understanding that the library may not be updated immediately when a separation occurs. 71 Attachment C. City of Boulder 2017 Library Commission Agenda Meeting date: Saturday, July 15, 2017 Location: Open Space and Mountain Parks Conference Room, 66 S. Cherryvale Rd. Meeting start time: 8 a.m. to 3 p.m. 1. Approval of agenda 2. Review project schedule and discuss October study session, project updates during monthly meetings , and need for additional meetings – Phares Note: Updated schedule and staff recommendations will be provided in the packet. 3. Review staff input and refine library mission statement and Master Plan guiding principles for decision making – Phares Note: Current mission and guiding principles and staff’s input will be provided in the packet. 4. Review and discuss community survey data/report and focus groups data/reports – Farnan and Phares a. Provide input on this related to the Master Plan document structure and draft themes, outcomes, goals, and measures. Note: Reports and draft Master Plan documents will be provided in the packet. 5. Discuss options and priority for expanding library services to other areas in the community – Farnan and Gibb a. North Boulder Branch Library b. Services to Gunbarrel c. Services to other areas Note: Information about how these areas are defined as well as service options and high-level estimates will be provided in the packet. 6. Discuss options and timeline for alternative forms of governance – Farnan Note: Overview of governance options will be provided in the packet. 7. Discuss library’s overall partnership plan – Farnan and Gibb a. Partnering with for profit agencies b. Expanding non-profit partners including but not limited to partnering with agencies that provi de service to persons experiencing homelessness Note: information about partnership options will be provided in the packet. 8. Discuss options for addressing the community and staff perception that the libraries are not safe spaces – Farnan and Gibb 2017 Library Commissioners Alicia Gibb, Chair Joni Teter Tim O’Shea Juana Gomez Joel Koenig 72