The 20% that makes your Library Plan real
In 2021 I wrote four library plans or strategies. Another is in final draft and we start development of the next one in February. That will make 13 in the last four years. Which is great for business but causes me some concern because with every new project I have to ensure that the plan is not a rehash of something I’ve written before. So when I take off one hat and put on the next one (and this can be happening at the same time, even on the same day) I strive to make every plan the right plan for that library service.
But (to misquote Gertrude Stein) a library is a library is a library. When all is said and done 70-80% of what is written in a Library Plan should be pretty much the same because a contemporary public library offers similar services and delivers similar community outcomes to the library in the neighbouring LGA. The exact mix of services and outcomes will differ but the ingredients are more or less the same. Which raises the question of what makes a library different and how do you ensure that each plan or strategy has the right fit.
For the most part the answer is in the community not the library. For while communities are pretty similar – they have kids and youth and families and old people and rich and poor and people who speak English and people who don’t, etc. – every community is also unique. We all know that from personal experience in the places we grew up, the places we went to school, the places we studied and worked, the places where we live and raise our family, the places we visit on holiday and the places we drive through on the way there.
So when we’re working on a library plan or talking to libraries about them developing their own plan we do the following things to try to really understand each community and each library.
Check the latest ABS data on population demographics and growth forecasts.
Drive around the LGA and get a feel for the place – look at the houses and gardens, the schools, shops, parks, transport options and traffic flows.
Sit in the library and observe who is there, what they do and how they interact with other library users and library staff.
Wander around the library and observe the collection, the layout and front of house library staff at work.
Chat and listen to library users, staff and managers
Run surveys of library users and community members
Analyse library usage data and benchmark this against state and national standards.
We’re looking for three things.
First, we look for differences. What makes this community different to others (i.e. state and national averages)? Do they have a high or low proportion of children under 5 years or people over 70 years? What proportion of people live alone … have no home internet access … speak a language other than English … have high/low levels of education … have multiple cars in the household ... have high/low incomes? What proportion of children start school with poor language and cognitive skills?
We also look for differences from the library perspective. Where does service provision and library use differ from the norm, or from libraries of similar size in similar locations? Consider size and composition of collection … per capita measures of membership, visitation, borrowing, technology use and program participation ... funding, staffing and physical size of the library spaces.
Second, we look for alignment. Does what we learned from the demographic analysis and our observation of the community fit with what we see in the library and the library data? How large is the children’s area? Are there work spaces for secondary and tertiary students or people working from the library? Does the LOTE collection match the list of common community languages? Does the schedule of programs reflect community needs? Do the opening hours match the rhythm of this community? Are we looking at a ‘reading’ community or one that places greater emphasis on the library for activities or spaces?
Finally, we look for the character of the community and whether the aspirations of the people who live and work there are reflected in the look and feel of the library and its service profile? How much store does this community put in literacy and learning? Does this community actively champion equity and inclusion? To what extent is this community’s sense of identity influenced by its history and cultural background? And, especially in areas undergoing significant demographic change or population growth, what are the issues that are of real importance to this community – today and in the next five years?
Experience suggests that in every place we’ve worked there are four or five essential elements that emerge through this process. Identifying, understanding and capturing this unique character is what turns a boilerplate library plan into something that resonates with the community and demonstrates to Council and community partners the value of their local library. They can see themselves in the plan – not in every strategic priority or goal, but in these words and in that action. [Which, as an aside, is why it can be more difficult to develop a really good plan for a library service that serves multiple LGAs and very diverse community cohorts, let alone a plan for a state- or territory-wide audience. The more you try to encompass the weaker the individual connections.]
In the end, a good library plan is one that:
reflects and responds to the needs, interests and ambitions of the community it serves
persuasively puts the case for investment in public library services
directs library resources to priority community needs
when implemented, makes its community better, stronger, smarter, more cohesive and more resilient.