Rochester's Communities and their Public Libraries

2012 and Beyond
April, 2013

Prepared for: City of Rochester Prepared By: Kirstin Pryor, M.S. Project Director

1 South Washington Street Suite 400 Rochester, NY 14614 585.325.6360

www.cgr.org ©Copyright CGR Inc. 2013 – All Rights Reserved

i

Rochester's Communities and their Libraries 2012 and Beyond
April, 2013

SUMMARY
Rochester Public Library (RPL) is embarking on a planning process for the 10 community branch libraries. To do this strategically, the Board of Trustees must have an up-to-date understanding of the communities and patrons served; the current usage and reputation of the libraries; what stakeholders anticipate and desire in the future; opportunities to partner and improve; and the changing context facing library systems in general. This report builds a shared foundation from which the Board of Trustees and RPL leadership can launch a more informed planning process. It provides the broad and external picture, and should guide the next stage of internally focused analysis and planning.

Key Findings
1. As a system, the libraries seem to be serving this community well. Measures of utilization are all trending up, and compare favorably to peer systems. The one area where RPL is not as strong is in hours of service, which places its relatively high circulation and door count in an especially positive light. 2. Circulation should no longer be the primary measure of library success, although books are still the service mainly associated with libraries. In Rochester, while door count, Internet usage and programming have skyrocketed since 1999, circulation has actually decreased slightly. And, while all measures of usage including circulation have increased in the last 5 years, only a quarter of City patrons and 38% of County patrons checked out materials in 2012. In essence, there has been a shift from libraries as a provider of materials/information toward also being a provider of a broader range of services—technology and Internet access, programming, and resources for specific populations such as immigrants and youth. 3. While RPL is a system, it should be thought of as a system of separate and unique parts—it really is “a branch thing” in the words of one interviewee. Serving demographically different

ii areas of the City, the libraries play different roles in response. Very generally, in more affluent areas (Winton, Charlotte and Monroe) circulation is higher, while program attendance, Internet use and door count is lower; the converse is true in areas with higher or increasing poverty rates (Lyell, Wheatley, Lincoln, Sully, Arnett, Maplewood and Highland). Six libraries serve more youth (Arnett, Lincoln, Lyell, Maplewood, Sully and Wheatley), some more Latinos (Lincoln and Lyell) and at least three have an increasing immigrant/refugee population (Maplewood, Wheatley, Highland). As a result, there are systemic questions that must be studied and resolved—number and type of service outlets/branches, location and hours of services, investments in collections vs. people resources, potential partnerships, standardization of some policies, evolving staff roles—but these decisions will need to be driven by the unique reality of each branch. For example, it is possible that libraries with high circulation and low Internet usage should invest in new fiction, become increasingly self-service, and not expend staff time in designing and promoting programs that are not well attended. Other libraries may decide to invest more in programming for youth, staffing to provide computer assistance, or serving a specific immigrant population. Leadership and the City will also have to decide when, if and how data will be used to make decisions about branch locations in the future. 4. In this context, staff matters a great deal. For libraries to be responsive to community needs and changes in the way society accesses information, new staff capacities are required. Stakeholder interviews and data confirmed that increasingly library staff must be community-minded, able to manage projects in strategic ways, savvy at volunteer mobilization, and skillful in planning and implementing outreach/communication/public relations. In many libraries, youth development is seen as another core competency, and the lack of diversity of the library workforce is problematic. In particular, there is a lack of Spanish speaking staff. Stability of staffing is also a concern. 5. Stakeholders in Rochester hold RPL in high regard, and strongly believe that libraries are a critical aspect of preserving and building strong communities. They see the tensions inherent in libraries serving such a wide array of residents’ needs and desires. The survey and interview respondents shared specific opportunities for improvement and ideas for the future (which have been separately conveyed to management) and a few expressed concerns that libraries stick to their core mission and not become

iii social service agencies. However, the overwhelming theme was glowing appreciation for the service libraries provide. There was recognition that the library faces a unique challenge: intended to be welcoming and responsive to all—the “equalizer” in a democratic society—but yet impossible to run effectively if “you try to be all things to all people.” In general, small, walkable neighborhood libraries as currently operated are valued, although stakeholders are open to learning more about new service delivery models. 6. Patron borrowing habits complicate the notion of “neighborhood libraries.” RPL serves a bifurcated clientele—just more than half of whom use one library (not necessarily their neighborhood library) almost exclusively, while the other half utilize a number of branches based on convenience and preference. Transactions are the only data we were able to link to patron addresses, therefore this data represents one slice of the relationship between where patrons live and conduct library “business”:
 There

is a critical mass of City residents (about 7,300 individuals) who rely exclusively on their neighborhood branch for materials: 23% of patrons with any transaction in 2012 conducted all of their transactions at the branch in the service area in which they live.  However, in every service area, patrons conduct the majority of their transactions in branches other than their home branch. It is also relevant that in 8 of the service areas, a suburban library was either the 1st or 2nd most utilized branch for residents; this was not true for Wheatley or Lyell residents.  Libraries draw patrons and their “transaction business” from all over the county. In fact, 2 branches (Charlotte and Winton) drew the majority of their 2012 patrons from the suburban areas. Suburban users also comprised a significant portion of annual patrons with transactions at both Monroe and Highland libraries.  In six of the ten branches (Arnett, Highland, Lincoln, Lyell, Maplewood and Sully) more than half of the library’s 2012 transactions were generated by residents living in its “home” service area. Furthermore, about a quarter of each branch’s transactions were to suburban residents. The more detailed transaction analysis in the body of the report does provoke interesting questions about the direct relationship between libraries and their “service areas.” 6. As RPL considers its mission and role and how to best use its resources to serve the community, there are a host of ideas worth

iv exploring from other cities. These include alternative service delivery models, new partnerships, new staff roles or new ways to adapt to technology. There are also a range of local opportunities for potential collaborations or adaptations to better serve key populations, make strategic use of City resources, or meet patron needs. Doing this effectively will likely require staff time devoted to research and planning, and some of these will be pursued most appropriately at the system level, while others will be branch specific. Part cultural institution, part educational institution, part referral agency, part civic space—libraries connect a diverse array of citizens to services, information, entertainment and each other. The branch system has remained largely the same for decades, and RPL’s leadership is to be commended for recognizing a proactive planning process will support the libraries in being responsive and therefore relevant to their communities.

v

Acknowledgements
Rochester Public Library management and staff were instrumental in providing data, perspectives and community contacts that made this study possible. Pamela Principe was especially patient in helping CGR make sense of RPL’s data. CGR also thanks the community stakeholders and City employees who gave their time and insights through interviews and surveys.

Staff Team
Katherine Bell and Michael Silva conducted the data analysis and mapping that made the patron analysis possible. Research Associate Jill Symonds, Assistant Rachel Rhodes and interns Daniel Schlant and Marty Rogachefsky provided helpful research support. Kent Gardner, Don Pryor and Erika Rosenberg each provided useful assistance on aspects of the study.

vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Summary ............................................................................................................... i
Key Findings .................................................................................................................. i

Table of Contents ............................................................................................... vi I. Purpose and Background ................................................................................ 1
Notes to the reader ....................................................................................................... 2 Methodological notes.................................................................................................... 3

II. 10 Libraries & the Communities they Serve ................................................. 3
External Benchmarks put RPL in context ..................................................................... 4 Branch Libraries: one size does not fit all..................................................................... 6 Map of service areas .............................................................................................. 7 Demographics, Citywide ........................................................................................ 8 Demographic differences in service areas ............................................................. 9

III. Library utilization.......................................................................................... 12
Usage statistics collected by RPL vary by branch ..................................................... 12 Usage metrics ...................................................................................................... 15 Calls for police service to library locations ........................................................... 16 Stakeholder views on utilization ........................................................................... 16

IV. Patrons: Where they live, which libraries they use .................................. 17
Location of patrons ..................................................................................................... 18 Relationship between where you live and use the library .......................................... 19 A. Service Area: Where do patrons conduct transactions? Do they use “their” library? ................................................................................................................. 19 B. Where do these patrons conduct most of their transactions? ......................... 22 C. Are there patrons who are “loyal” to one library? ............................................ 24 Where do the libraries draw patrons from? ................................................................ 25 Which service areas generate libraries’ transactions? ........................................ 27 Stakeholder input: How do patrons choose which libraries to use? .................... 29

V. Libraries are Evolving Everywhere ............................................................. 29
Key concepts in the future of libraries ........................................................................ 30 Trends for urban libraries ..................................................................................... 31 Alternative service delivery models ............................................................................ 31

VI. Stakeholder Input on Role and Future of Libraries .................................. 34 VII. Environmental Scan: Citywide Opportunities .......................................... 39 VII. Questions Facing RPL ................................................................................ 41 VIII. Profiles for each Library ............................................................................ 43

vii
Arnett Service Area & Library .......................................................................... 44
Demographics ............................................................................................................ 44 Library Utilization ........................................................................................................ 45 Arnett branch usage – dramatically up since 2008 .............................................. 45 Where does this library draw patrons from? ........................................................ 46 Transaction patterns by patrons living in Arnett’s area ........................................ 46 Calls for police service to library .......................................................................... 47 High-level Environmental Scan: Opportunities and Challenges................................. 47

Charlotte Service Area & Library ..................................................................... 49
Demographics ............................................................................................................ 49 Library Utilization ........................................................................................................ 50 Charlotte branch usage – up since 2008 ............................................................. 50 Where does this library draw patrons from? ........................................................ 51 Transaction patterns by patrons living in Charlotte’s service area ...................... 51 Calls for police service to library .......................................................................... 52 High-level Environmental Scan: Opportunities and Challenges................................. 52

Highland Service Area & Library...................................................................... 53
Demographics ............................................................................................................ 53 Library Utilization ........................................................................................................ 54 Highland branch usage – down since 2008 ......................................................... 54 Where does this library draw patrons from? ........................................................ 54 Transaction patterns by patrons living in Highland’s service area....................... 55 Calls for police service to library .......................................................................... 56 High-level Environmental Scan: Opportunities and Challenges................................. 56

Lincoln Service Area & Library ........................................................................ 58
Demographics ............................................................................................................ 58 Library Utilization ........................................................................................................ 59 Lincoln branch usage – up except for circulation................................................. 59 Where does this library draw patrons from? ........................................................ 59 Transaction patterns by patrons living in Lincoln’s service area ......................... 60 Calls for police service to library .......................................................................... 61 High-level Environmental Scan: Opportunities and Challenges................................. 61

Lyell Service Area & Library ............................................................................. 62
Demographics ............................................................................................................ 62 Library Utilization ........................................................................................................ 63 Lyell branch usage—up since 2008 ..................................................................... 63 Where does this library draw patrons from? ........................................................ 63

viii
Transaction patterns by patrons living in Lyell’s service area ............................. 64 Calls for police service to library .......................................................................... 65 High-level Environmental Scan: Opportunities and Challenges................................. 65

Maplewood Service Area & Library ................................................................. 67
Demographics ............................................................................................................ 67 Library Utilization ........................................................................................................ 68 Maplewood branch usage—dramatically up ........................................................ 68 Where does this library draw patrons from? ........................................................ 69 Transaction patterns by patrons living in Maplewood’s service area .................. 69 Calls for police service to libraries ....................................................................... 70 High-level Environmental Scan: Opportunities and Challenges................................. 71

Monroe Service Area & Library ........................................................................ 73
Demographics ............................................................................................................ 73 Library Utilization ........................................................................................................ 74 Monroe branch usage – down since 2008 ........................................................... 74 Where does this library draw patrons from? ........................................................ 74 Transaction patterns by patrons living in Monroe’s service area......................... 75 Calls for police service to libraries ....................................................................... 76 High-level Environmental Scan: Opportunities and Challenges................................. 76

Sully Service Area & Library ............................................................................ 78
Demographics ............................................................................................................ 78 Library Utilization ........................................................................................................ 79 Sully branch usage – up since 2008 .................................................................... 79 Where does this library draw patrons from? ........................................................ 79 Transaction patterns by patrons living in Sully’s service area ............................. 80 Calls for police service to libraries ....................................................................... 81 High-level Environmental Scan: Opportunities and Challenges................................. 81

Wheatley Service Area & Library ..................................................................... 83
Demographics ............................................................................................................ 83 Library Utilization ........................................................................................................ 84 Wheatley branch usage – up since 2008 ............................................................. 84 Where does this library draw patrons from? ........................................................ 84 Transaction patterns by patrons living in Wheatley’s service area ...................... 85 Calls for police service to library .......................................................................... 86 High-level Environmental Scan: Opportunities and Challenges................................. 86

Winton Service area & Library ......................................................................... 88
Demographics ............................................................................................................ 88

ix
Library Utilization ........................................................................................................ 89 Winton branch usage—high circulation ............................................................... 89 Where does this library draw patrons from? ........................................................ 89 Transaction patterns by patrons living in Winton’s service area.......................... 90 Calls for police service to libraries ....................................................................... 90 High-level Environmental Scan: Opportunities and Challenges................................. 91

Appendix A – Stakeholder Input ...................................................................... 92 Appendix B – Overall Demographic Table ...................................................... 94 Appendix C – Overall Library Utilization Tables............................................. 95

1

I. PURPOSE AND BACKGROUND
Part cultural institution, part educational institution, part referral agency, part civic space—libraries connect a wide array of citizens to services, information, entertainment and each other. The branch system has remained largely the same for decades….has the City it serves? Assessing demographics and felt needs, as well as future opportunities and alternatives, enables the library to plan where and how it will continue to serve residents. To remain responsive and relevant, libraries must have a solid and current understanding of changes in: 1. The communities they serve: demographics; neighborhood needs and plans; residents’ patterns of use as well as desires for service; 2. The local landscape/context: Developing community initiatives, funding streams, facilities and long-range planning all impact the demand for locations, resources and programming. Libraries are one part of City services, and the context is important both for service delivery and for stewardship of resources. 3. The evolution of libraries themselves: driven by new technologies and emerging service delivery models for libraries. As the Rochester Public Library’s Board of Trustees and Director prepare to launch a strategic planning process for the 10 community branch libraries in the City, CGR was engaged by City administration to create a shared informational foundation in each of these three areas. Our charge, therefore, was to:  Describe communities and how they use their libraries, and create profiles of each service area that synthesize demographic data, usage patterns and stakeholder input;  Conduct an environmental scan and stakeholder interviews to document the current context;  Identify a few alternative service delivery models, exploring ways in which other urban systems are deploying space, staff and resources to meet patron needs. We also assessed community member and staff reactions to some of these ideas. In 2000, CGR conducted an in-depth study of Rochester Public Library (RPL), articulating key roles of the library, creating performance metrics to compare branches and recommending a framework for branches to develop in ways that focused on their particular community service area.

2 This report was designed to build somewhat on that earlier work, and provide an updated, shared foundation for the Board and staff to plan in earnest.

Notes to the reader
From the patrons’ point of view, there is often little difference between one of RPL branch libraries, Central Library or a suburban library—all of which can be accessed with the same library card. RPL is the 10 community branch libraries, and Central Library (Rundel and 115 South Ave). The City funds the 10 branches and contributes to Central, which is also funded by the County. RPL functions in many ways as a department of City government, but is governed by an external board of trustees. RPL is a member of the Monroe County Library System. This study focuses only on RPL’s 10 community branches, although in some cases we include data for Central as it is part of the overall library service provided within the City of Rochester.1 The libraries included for study are listed below, and are referred to interchangeably as community or branch libraries in this report.
Library Name Arnett Branch Library Charlotte  Branch Library Maplewood  Community Library  Monroe  Branch Library Highland Branch Wheatley Community Library  Winton Branch Lyell  Branch Lilbrary Address 310 Arnett Blvd. 14611 3615 Lake  Ave. 14612 1111 Dewey Ave. 14613 809 Monroe  Ave. 14607 971 South Ave. 14620 33 Dr. Samuel  McCree  Way 14608 611 Winton Rd. 14609 956 Lyell  Ave. 14606

Lincoln Branch Library 851 Joseph Ave. 14621 Ryan Community Center & Library = Sully Library 530 Webster Ave. 14609

Each of these community libraries and its “service area” are shown on the map on page 7. We use these service areas as the unit of analysis for much of the report, because they reflect the current locations and way library staff think about their services. However, we note that they are a management construct based on current locations, and don’t completely align with the City’s 40 neighborhood or 4 quadrant designations. Some

Central Library is jointly funded by the City and County and therefore functions uniquely. It is also undergoing a separate and concurrent strategic space planning process.

1

3 data in the report is branch specific (e.g., circulation), while some is service area specific (e.g., demographics). This report begins by presenting the overview of RPL and the communities it serves. These chapters include aggregate data about Rochester Public Library and selected comparative data about the branches and the service areas. Community profiles, specific to each service area and branch library, are included in the last section of the report. CGR then summarizes the challenges and opportunities facing libraries in general. We also discuss the overall themes and developments that emerged from the environmental scan and stakeholder interviews.

Methodological notes
Most data analyzed in this report is from the US Census Bureau and from Rochester Public Library’s databases. CGR aligned census tracts to RPL’s service areas—which then allowed us to compile community profiles at a more local scale and understand how patrons use their libraries. We have cited sources and explained caveats and nuances to the data throughout. CGR also notes that the data provided by RPL did not include patron identities or any record of what materials patrons checked out. In addition to data analysis, CGR conducted a survey and interviewed community and staff stakeholders. The survey was a convenience sample, and resulted in 1,272 respondents. This is not a representative sample, therefore results are illustrative only, and cannot be used to draw major conclusions. The results are used throughout the report, as are themes from interviews. Details can be found in the appendix.

II. 10 LIBRARIES & THE COMMUNITIES THEY SERVE
This study focuses on the RPL’s 10 community branch libraries. Collectively, they have, on average, attracted over 1 million visits, circulated 825,000 materials, answered 120,000 reference questions and provided 235,000 Internet sessions in each of the last 5 years. As a system, all measures of usage trend up over the last 5 years, while the total number of hours the libraries are open has held steady. Over the past 5 years, previously declining trends in circulation, door count and programming have all been reversed. Internet use exploded from 19992008, and has continued to increase. Taking the longer view, service hours and circulation are the only measures that have decreased overall since 1999. CGR focused on trends since 2008, which is when the RPL shifted

4 to a quadrant management model, driven both by resource constraints and a desire to focus differently on services the libraries provided.

RPL Trends - All Branch Libraries
% change 1999-2008 Service Hours Circulation Door Count Internet Sessions Reference Questions Programs Offered Program Attendance
Source: RPL data

% change 2008-2012 0% 9% 28% 22% 73% 60% 183%

-10% -15% -5% 842% 7% -36% 130%

Historically, going back at least 25 years, RPL’s Community Libraries have received pretty steady funding from the City, approximately 1% of the overall City budget. As a general rule of thumb, each community branch costs about $400,000 to operate each year. This is not to say that RPL has been exempt from fiscal challenges facing all City departments, it has recently absorbed funding cuts in each of the last two years. To accommodate these, without dramatically reducing hours, there has been a shift to a largely part-time workforce. While seen as a pragmatic way to manage in tight times, there is a concern from both staff and management about the long-term impact on staff morale and ability to attract quality staff.

External Benchmarks put RPL in context
Comparisons to other library systems provide context that may be useful both for understanding what RPL currently has, and what the future could look like. While extensive benchmarking was beyond the scope of this study, CGR did use the Public Library Data Service database to select 10 communities that were roughly Rochester’s size, and also had City libraries (as opposed to countywide or regional).2 The PLDS conducts regular surveys of public library systems; the data is asked for in a standardized way, but it is self-reported. Note that the data presented are from 2010 and do include Central library, so they are not

2

This is administered by the Public Library Association, a division of the American Library Association.

5 consistent with rest of data in report, but do allow “applies to apples” between library systems. Generally speaking, RPL is well-supported and also well-utilized when compared to peer systems. It is toward the high end of benchmarks in number of branches and local funding. It compares favorably on circulation and visits. The only area where RPL falls to the middle of the list is in hours of service, with 4 systems being open at least 100 more hours a week. This makes RPL’s circulation and visits even more impressive. These data clearly don’t tell the whole story of each community, but Kanas City and Spokane are interesting in that they have fewer branches, funds and hours, but higher visits and circulation.

6

Branch Libraries: one size does not fit all
The community branch libraries serve City residents at 10 buildings, each with a conceptual “service area,” shown in the map on the next page3. The buildings range in age from 4 (Sully) to 80 years old (Monroe), and in size, from about 3,700 sq. feet at Highland to 11,300 sq. feet at Wheatley. Costs, hours, staffing and services vary as well, because RPL management has attempted to allocate staff and programs in flexible and responsive ways.4 The communities and therefore the “flavors” of each library also vary widely, as this section will show.

The Pulaski Library at the corner of Hudson and Norton Avenues was closed in 1994. Staffing and workflow analysis will be conducted as part of the upcoming strategic planning process.
4

3

7

Map of service areas
This map illustrates the service areas, including Central’s, and provides the 2010 population as well as the most recent count of registered cardholders (patrons) living in each area.

8

Demographics, Citywide
No surprise to RPL, the 10 service areas are demographically different from each other, important to consider in planning services. However, because they function as a citywide system (explored further in the usage section), a demographic overview of the City of Rochester is also relevant.5 The 2010 Census puts the City’s population at 210,565, a 4% decline from 2000. Since 2000, the age distribution has changed a bit; the 18 and under population has decreased from 28% to 22%. Just about half of Rochester’s population is over 30 years of age. Racially and ethnically, the City is 50% white, 37% Black, 14% Hispanic and 13% classified as Other.6 All groups except the white population have increased since 2000. Rochester also experienced a slight increase in its foreign-born population, and for 22% of the 5and-older population, English is not the only language spoken in the home; Spanish is the primary language for 9% and a variety of languages comprise the remaining 13%. Twenty-nine percent of the population lives below the poverty

All demographic data is from the US Census Bureau, 2000 and 2010 decennial Census, as well as more recent estimates from the American Community Survey. The ACS numbers are aggregated over multiple years to help ensure reliability; 2007-11 are the most recent available. 6 Categories will not sum to 100% because Hispanic is an ethnicity, not a racial category. Thus, a person could be included in the Hispanic % and also in the white or Black group.

5

9 line, a slight increase from 27% in 2000. (Poverty thresholds vary by family composition and year; in 2011, the threshold was $22,800 for a family of four with two children.) Estimates show that one quarter of residents do not have access to a vehicle. Rochester has also seen an increase in the rate of children living in poverty, which has risen by 8 percentage points to 46% since 2000. This is more than double the rates in Monroe County, New York State or the nation. In the City, 14% of the civilian labor force was unemployed in 2011, compared to about 6% in suburban Monroe County. Educational attainment rates show slight improvement from 2000, with recent estimates showing 20% of adults 25 and older with less than a high school diploma (down from 25%) while 35% hold some post-secondary degree.

Demographic differences in service areas
This section presents demographic data in a comparative way, illustrating the wide variation between the neighborhoods where libraries are currently located. A detailed profile of each service area with 2000-10 trends and stakeholder input can be found in the last section of the report. Note that Central is included here because it has a designated service area with residents living in it.
 The population within service areas ranges from Charlotte’s fewer than 8,500 residents to Lincoln’s 33,500, although most areas are home to about 20,000. All service areas have lost population since 2000, with the exception of Maplewood and Monroe, which held steady and grew by 1%, respectively.  The areas served by Sully, Lincoln, Lyell, Wheatley

10 and Maplewood have higher concentrations of youth under 20 (roughly a third of the population in each) while Monroe has the smallest (9%). Charlotte has the largest concentration of residents over 65.  Residents who live in poverty are most concentrated around Central, Lyell and Wheatley, and Lincoln: 50% in Central’s service area, 45% in Lyell’s, 43% around Wheatley and 37% in Lincoln’s area. Arnett and Maplewood communities have seen the largest increases in poverty rates since 2000. Charlotte and Winton each have poverty rates of less than 15%. The proportion of residents with no access to a vehicle follows a similar pattern.  Five service areas have higher educational attainment: Charlotte, Highland, Monroe and Winton. At the other end of the spectrum, Central, Lincoln, Lyell and Wheatley all have about a third of residents 25 and older with less than a high school diploma.  Lincoln has the largest proportion of residents (42%) for whom English is not the sole language spoken at home. This is true for about a third of residents in Central and Lyell areas, and almost a quarter in Sully and Maplewood.

11
 Rochester’s foreign-born population is increasing slightly, and in six of the service areas close to 10% of the residents are estimated to be foreignborn. CGR cautions that these estimates are less reliable at the very local level; the margins of error (1-2 percentage points) are noted in the table in the appendix.  Furthermore, Maplewood, Wheatley and Highland areas have experienced concentrated refugee resettlement efforts. There are not comprehensive and cumulative data sources on immigration at this local level, but since 2007, Catholic Family Services has settled about 4,000 refugees in the City, including 1,800 in Maplewood’s area, almost 1,000 in Wheatley’s and 450 in Highland’s. Local experts say that Winton’s area is beginning to have a critical mass as well. Since 2007, Rochester’s refugees have come primarily from five countries: 40% from Bhutan, 23% Burma, 9% Somalia, 8% Iraq and 6% Cuba. These immigrants provide both a challenge and opportunity for RPL community libraries.

12

III. LIBRARY UTILIZATION
Overall, CGR estimates that 58% of the City of Rochester’s eligible population (five years and older) has a library card. Having a card can signal an emphasis on literacy and education for the individual, and collectively, can be seen as evidence of strong community support for libraries. Moreover, if libraries offer a service and all residents are potential customers, calculating a “penetration rate” can help target outreach. CGR mapped cardholders to their addresses, allowing us to calculate the number of cardholders that live in each service area. For each area, we can then tell what share of the eligible population has a library card:
% of Population, 5 and older, % of All City in Service Area with a Library Patrons Card Cardholders/Patrons*
12,927 4,734 8,744 17,674 11,708 11,280 11,452 12,215 9,615 6,841 6,660 11% 4% 8% 15% 10% 10% 10% 11% 8% 6% 6% 62% 61% 46% 58% 57% 65% 53% 62% 68% 63% 55% 58%

Library Service Area Arnett Charlotte Highland Lincoln Lyell Maplewood Monroe Sully Wheatley Winton Central Total: City of Rochester**

114,468

*Includes all patrons with mappable addresses within the City. ** Total includes 618 patrons whose addresses were not mapped to any service area. Sources: RPL Patron file, US Census

Penetration rates in the service areas range from about half to two-thirds. Please note that these represent where patrons live, not where they were issued the card, nor where they use the library. This penetration rate is above our 52% estimate from 2000, though there is obvious room to engage more citizens. For context, we estimate a 65% card-holding rate in Monroe County as a whole, including City residents. Benchmark systems in the national data set report rates ranging from 40% - 112%.

Usage statistics collected by RPL vary by branch
Given the variation we’ve seen in the demographics, it should be expected that the ways the libraries are used vary as well. The differences are evidenced by annual trends in circulation and other measures of usage, and by our stakeholder interviews. CGR notes that none of these measures in isolation give the complete picture of library service.

13 Any discussion of how to best deliver library services in the future should start with an understanding of how City patrons currently use their libraries. RPL itself actively monitors circulation, participation data, and patron input to make staffing and programming decisions. This section provides an overview of key usage statistics at each branch, highlighting the range of roles the 10 libraries play. Some data reinforce what library staff already know; others may raise questions for management. CGR points out key observations meant to illustrate the variation and to start the Board’s conversation. Winton, Monroe and Charlotte branches consistently circulate the most materials, Maplewood has posted the highest annual door counts in the same time period.  Arnett, Lincoln, Maplewood and Wheatley experience the most Internet use, with over 25,000 annual sessions logged; all have seen an increased demand in the last 5 years. Charlotte and Highland appear to have the smallest demand for this service.
 While

14 three libraries in service areas considered to be “better off” (Monroe, Winton, and to some extent Highland) are the only branches that have not experienced an increase in Internet sessions over the past 5 years.  Lincoln and Maplewood stand out in terms of the number of programs they offer, as does Sully. The average per program attendance ranges from the low teens at Monroe and Winton to 61 at Maplewood, close to 50 at Sully, and about 40 at Arnett and Wheatley. All branches have increased their per program attendance over the last 5 years except Arnett, Monroe and Winton.  Lincoln, Maplewood, Sully, Arnett and Wheatley are all sites for RPL’s Safe to Be Smart teen programming and staff, which drives some of these usage trends.  The annual number of reference questions are up at all branches except Monroe, but varies widely from about 5,000 a year to over 20,000.
 The

15

Usage metrics
It can be helpful to use a metric like per capita or per hour in understanding the differences in library utilization. Because patrons are not bound to their service area, per capita measures do not seem to make as much sense; therefore, CGR chose to look at utilization per service hour the branch was open. We also included attendance per program. The following series of tables was calculated from RPL data for 2012. These tables, along with one on the following page, show the same range of utilization seen in the preceding charts, and many rates vary quite widely; rates are rounded to the nearest whole number. The 2012 per hour rates show that Maplewood and Wheatley are heavily utilized relative to their peers in all ways except circulation.

Internet sessions / service hour
Branch (No. of computers with Internet) Maplewood (24) Wheatley (30) Arnett (22) Lincoln (25) Lyell (14) All Branches Sully (17) Monroe (8) Winton (8) Highland (9) Charlotte (9) 2008 16 8 13 11 11 10 8 10 9 10 6 2012 20 18 17 15 14 12 11 8 7 7 6 Percent Change 30% 125% 38% 28% 29% 22% 33% -18% -18% -35% 6%

Reference questions / service hour
2008 Wheatley Maplewood Arnett Charlotte Lyell All Branches Lincoln Winton Monroe Sully Highland 4 5 4 7 3 4 5 4 5 2 3 2012 11 10 9 9 9 7 6 6 5 5 3 Percent Change 190% 94% 148% 37% 162% 73% 20% 56% -13% 106% 19%

Door count / service hour
2008 Maplewood Lincoln Sully All Branches Winton Arnett Lyell Charlotte Wheatley Monroe Highland 69 52 32 45 53 40 47 37 33 47 42 2012 122 60 60 58 58 54 52 45 43 43 38 Percent Change 76% 17% 89% 27% 8% 34% 10% 21% 30% -10% -8%

Circulation / service hour
2008 Winton Monroe Charlotte Lyell Highland Maplewood All Branches Arnett Lincoln Sully Wheatley 85 63 49 33 48 39 40 20 31 17 10 2012 76 56 56 47 44 43 43 35 30 25 19 Percent Change -11% -10% 14% 43% -8% 12% 9% 75% -4% 51% 98%

16 In very general terms, libraries in the more affluent parts of town tend to have higher circulation rates, but lower usage in terms of Internet sessions, door counts, reference questions and program attendance. This makes intuitive sense and aligns with the way library staff describe branch activity as well.

Program attendance / program
2008 Maplewood Sully Wheatley Arnett All Branches Highland Charlotte Lyell Lincoln Monroe Winton 40 10 33 46 20 8 11 17 21 16 14 2012 61 47 40 39 35 31 30 25 24 14 13 Percent Change 54% 358% 19% -15% 77% 307% 170% 46% 14% -11% -5%

Calls for police service to library locations
Overall, calls for service to the 10 branch library addresses have increased dramatically over the past 5 years, almost tripling from 129 in 2008 to just less than 348 in 2012. Please note that these include any calls attributed to the library location, even for incidents unrelated to the library or patrons. Maplewood, Arnett, Sully and Lincoln have all averaged more than 40 calls per year, while most of the other branches have fewer than 10 a year.

Stakeholder views on utilization
Interviewees identified common themes across all libraries—1) an increasingly diverse clientele that speaks more languages, and 2) an increased demand for “technical assistance” on computers. 3) Almost universally, they also cited an increase in libraries providing a safe gathering spot, particularly for youth during after-school hours. Most interviewees discussed a need for libraries to be youth-oriented, although they also cited the challenges that come, the need for staff capacity to serve youth and the need to teach youth “library etiquette.” The predominant group of regular patrons at each library does vary, typically in ways that align with the demographics of the service area. According to interviews, Charlotte, Lyell and Winton tend to serve mostly older adult patrons (as well as families), while Sully, Lincoln, Wheatley and Highland feel more youth-oriented. Maplewood is particularly known for serving the immigrant population and having a growing youth presence. Lincoln reportedly has a Latino emphasis and patron base, as well as a unique clientele for the toy library. Monroe tends to serve more adults, commuters, and also a regular group of homeless and disabled patrons. Arnett, home of the Safe to be Smart program administration, has

17 worked hard on the teen/adult balance and tends to draw lots of patrons for computer access. Our stakeholder interviews underscored that there is a segment of the population which almost exclusively uses one local, individual library. How libraries are stepping into the digital age was also discussed, and many stakeholders appreciate that MCLS has a wide selection of e-books. This is still a small share of circulation, but demand is growing as is the focus on negotiations with publishers. Anecdotally, those patrons that use them are frequent users, but the vast majority of patrons don’t use this service yet. The libraries range in demand—at Winton, staff report many customers who ask for assistance in using e-reader devices, and check out e-books, while at Maplewood, the staff see little interest. What do citizens who don’t use the library think and want? Unfortunately, it was incredibly hard to assess the perspectives of non-users in any objective way, within the scope of this project. Over 200 survey respondents described themselves as NOT being regular library users, and generally their survey responses did not differ from regular users. They tended to value the same services and gave being too busy as the main reason they don’t use the library. Other avenues we pursued to try and gain some perspective on this were informal interviews with high school classes, and with agency staff that work with youth. What we heard was that libraries aren’t really “on the radar” for many youth. They may go if they have a specific research need or in the summer, but it’s rare. We heard that many don’t see it as a place to go, and they report being able to access reading material and Internet at school, home, or friends’ houses, or via smartphone.

IV. PATRONS: WHERE THEY LIVE,
WHICH LIBRARIES THEY USE
To further understand the ways in which patrons use the library system, and to test whether there is a strong link between where you live and where you use the library, CGR asked a few questions:
 Where

do patrons live?  Do patrons use the library closest to their home to check out materials? If not, where do patrons in each service area go to the library?  Do most patrons use multiple libraries, or are most loyal to one location?  Where do libraries draw patrons from?

18 Note: After the first question, the bulk of this analysis relies on the complete RPL transaction file from 2012. Transactions include all materials checked out, renewed and returned to any RPL location during the year. They do not include electronic books accessed through selfservice. While this is a large snapshot of usage, we note that circulation is only one way in which patrons use the library. Unfortunately, it was not possible to include computer/Internet usage in this analysis, because the library does not keep records of Internet sessions by each patron. What this means is that this analysis excludes patrons who only use the library for programming, computer access, or other in-person activities. Furthermore, it is quite likely that those patrons, as a group, are different than those covered in this analysis, and may in fact be less able to travel to multiple libraries. For context, we know that only one-quarter of all City patrons checked out materials in 2012, and 38% of Monroe County patrons did so. Clearly, this analysis is only one piece of the puzzle and should be treated as such.7

Location of patrons
The 114,500 RPL patrons that we can confirm live in the City of Rochester are dispersed throughout the City, with the largest portions living in the Lincoln, Arnett and Sully communities. (The table on page 12 shows the numbers in each service area, as does the map on page 7.)

The percent of patrons with transactions in 2012 ranges from 23-39% across service areas. Thus, these are the patrons included in the usage analyses.

7

19

Relationship between where you live and use the library
If the library is to think about locations in the future—either physical or programmatic—RPL must understand whether proximity to a patron’s home is the key determinant in which library they use. Matching each patron to their address and the location of all their transactions reveals some interesting patterns. Again, CGR cautions that this analysis helps understand one aspect of library use, and does not take into account patrons who come to the library but do not check out materials. Keep in mind that the number of patrons with transactions in 2012 is one segment of patrons, and that in many libraries circulation is far less than door count and Internet sessions. There are two ways to count where patrons conduct transactions—first, we report the share of patrons living in each service area who had any visit to a library location (Analysis A); then, we also report the percent of transactions generated by those patrons at each location (Analysis B). This can be thought of as measuring frequency of contact with each branch and the intensity of the contact. Thirdly, we created a loyalty measure to see if there are patrons who exclusively use one library (Analysis C).

A. Service Area: Where do patrons conduct transactions? Do they use “their” library?
The table on page 21 presents the patron analysis, which shows all the libraries that patrons living in each service area visited to conduct a transaction in 2012. For example, the first column shows that 56% of the 3,491 patrons living in Arnett’s service area who had a transaction in 2012 conducted at least one transaction in Arnett Library, 30% did so at Central, 12 % at Wheatley and 39% in some suburban library. These numbers will not sum to 100%, because patrons are counted at each location they visit.
Top 3 Libraries where Arnett Residents Conducted Transactions 1. Arnett (56% of patrons in area) 2. Suburban (39%) 3. Central (30%)

The text boxes show the top three library locations that patrons from each service area frequent when they are making transactions. When we look at patrons with 2012 transactions, the big takeaway is that most patrons appear to conduct transactions at several locations, one of which is their home branch. Other observations include:

Top 3 Libraries where Central Residents Conducted Transactions 1. Central (66%) 2. Suburban (27%) 3. Lincoln (19%)

six of ten service areas, the majority of patrons conducted at least one transaction at their home branch; this was not true in the Lincoln, Wheatley, Sully, Highland or Monroe areas, in which 39-47% of patrons did so.

 In

20 these, Monroe, Lincoln and Highland are the only areas in which the largest share of their patrons conducted Top 3 Libraries where Charlotte transactions in a library that was not the home Residents Conducted Transactions branch—in these cases, the largest share went to suburban libraries. 1. Charlotte (75%) 2. Suburban (58%)  In each service area, 74-93% of patrons 3. Central (17%) conducted at least one transaction in some RPL library.  A smaller 20-65% of patrons in each service area had a transaction at a suburban library; residents Top 3 Libraries where Highland living in Wheatley, Central and Lyell’s areas were less Residents Conducted Transactions likely to do so.  Winton, Highland, and Monroe have the 1. Suburban (64%) 2. Highland (43%) highest share of residents (32%, 37% and 38%, 3. Central (40%) respectively) who also used “other service” locations such as online renewals.  A few areas also have a sizable share of Top 3 Libraries where Lincoln patrons with a transaction at another RPL community Residents Conducted Transactions branch library (not Central). For example, 25% of 1. Suburban (44%) Wheatley residents went to Arnett, 23% of Monroe 2. Lincoln (39%) residents and 21% of Sully residents went to Winton, 3. Central (29%) and 23% of Highland residents went to Monroe.
Top 3 Libraries where Lyell Residents Conducted Transactions 1. Lyell (52%) 2. Central (29%) 3. Suburban (27%) Top 3 Libraries where Sully Residents Conducted Transactions 1. Sully (46%) 2. Suburban (38%) 3. Central (28%)
 Of

Top 3 Libraries where Maplewood Residents Conducted Transactions: 1. Maplewood (57%) 2. Suburban (42%) 3. Central (24%)

Top 3 Libraries where Wheatley Residents Conducted Transactions 1. Wheatley (44%) 2. Central (41%) 3. Arnett (25%)

Top 3 Libraries where Monroe Residents Conducted Transactions 1. Suburban (65%) 2. Monroe (47%) 3. Other (38%)

Top 3 Libraries where Winton Residents Conducted Transactions 1. Winton (83%) 2. Suburban (55%) 3. Other (32%)

21

Where Did Patrons in Each Service Area Go to Conduct Transactions?
Service Areas Arnett Central Charlotte Highland Lincoln Number of Patrons Living in Service  Area 12,927 6,660 Patrons in Area with 2012 Transactions  Lyell Maplewood Monroe Sully Wheatley Winton

4,734 1,581 82% 1% 17% 75% 2% 2% 3% 5% 2% 1% 1% 3% 58% 23%

8,744 3,029 76% 3% 40% 2% 43% 2% 2% 2% 23% 1% 5% 9% 64% 37%

17,674 11,708 4,053 74% 3% 29% 3% 3% 39% 4% 5% 3% 8% 3% 5% 44% 13% 2,779 90% 5% 29% 3% 2% 5% 52% 18% 2% 2% 5% 2% 27% 10%

11,280 3,039 82% 4% 24% 10% 3% 5% 8% 57% 2% 2% 2% 3% 42% 15%

11,452 12,215 3,963 76% 2% 36% 2% 7% 2% 2% 2% 47% 1% 2% 23% 65% 38% 3,184 84% 3% 28% 1% 4% 9% 2% 3% 5% 46% 3% 21% 38% 15%

9,615 2,213 93% 25% 41% 1% 6% 5% 6% 4% 4% 1% 44% 3% 20% 11%

6,841 2,667 90% 2% 22% 2% 4% 2% 2% 1% 9% 4% 2% 83% 55% 32%

3,491 84% 56% 30% 1% 6% 4% 5% 3% 4% 3% 12% 3% 39% 18%

1,600 93% 4% 66% 2% 5% 19% 5% 3% 9% 5% 5% 7% 27% 18%

% of Those  Patrons who had a Transaction at Library Location Rochester Public Library      Arnett Branch Library      Central  Library Location Where Transaction Occurred      Charlotte  Branch Library      Highland Branch Library      Lincoln Branch Library      Lyell  Branch Library      Maplewood Community Library      Monroe  Branch Library      Sully Branch Library      Wheatley Community Library      Winton Branch Library Suburban Library Other Service Point

Source: RPL Patron file and 2012 Transaction file, CGR  analysis

22

B. Where do these patrons conduct most of their transactions?
Next, we assessed activity as a share of all 2012 transactions generated by these patrons—the intensity of their contact with each library. The big takeaway (shown in the table on page 23) is that in every service area, patrons are conducting the majority of their transactions at libraries other than their home library, although they do a significant amount of business at their branch. Key findings include:
 No

community branch library captured more than half of the transactions its residents generated, meaning that most patrons are conducting a majority of their transactions at a location that is not the library in their service area. (Central did capture 66%.)  In most cases, the most local branch was the “top choice” for its residents’ transactions—meaning that the local branch got the largest share of checkouts and returns, even though it didn’t get the majority of activity. However, Highland and Monroe residents conducted the bulk of their activity at the Brighton Library, and patrons living in Wheatley’s service area did slightly more business at Central library than at Wheatley. While the table shows Arnett and Lincoln residents giving the bulk of their business to suburban libraries, when you disaggregate by branch, the home branch still gets the largest share of their activity. (The tables showing which suburban branch residents went to are in the profile sections.)  Residents living in Charlotte and Winton service areas conducted almost half of their transactions at their home branch, 47% and 48% respectively. Lyell and Maplewood libraries each captured about 40% of their residents’ activity.  Five branch libraries—Lincoln, Highland, Monroe, Sully and Wheatley—captured less than one-quarter of the activity generated by residents who live in their service area.  Highland, Lincoln and Monroe residents split their activity more evenly between RPL and suburban libraries than did patrons living in other service areas. In all three, about 50% of 2012 activity was in RPL, while 40-45% was in suburban libraries.  In 8 of the service areas, a suburban library (Brighton, Greece, Gates or Irondequoit) was either the 1st or 2nd most utilized location for residents. This was not true for Wheatley or Lyell service areas, nor was it true for Central.

23

Where did Patrons in each Service Area Conduct Most of their Transactions? 
Service  Areas Arnett Number of Patrons Living in Service  Area Patrons in Area with 2012 Transactions  2012 Transactions by these Patrons  Central Charlotte Highland Lincoln Lyell Maplewood Monroe Sully Wheatley Winton

12,927 3,491

6,660 1,600

4,734 1,581

8,744 3,029

17,674 11,708 4,053 2,779

11,280 3,039 233,140

11,452 12,215 3,963 3,184

9,615 2,213

6,841 2,667

238,929 121,987 145,163 324,270 268,161 203,524

385,880 229,973 125,741 266,880

Share  of 2012 Transactions Generated by Patrons Living in Each Service Area Rochester Public Library      Arnett Branch Library      Central  Library Location Where Transaction Occurred      Charlotte  Branch Library      Highland Branch Library      Lincoln Branch Library      Lyell  Branch Library      Maplewood Community Library      Monroe  Branch Library      Sully Branch Library      Wheatley Community Library      Winton Branch Library Suburban Library Other Service Point

55% 30% 11% 0% 2% 2% 2% 1% 1% 1% 3% 1% 37% 8%

82% 1% 61% 0% 2% 7% 3% 2% 3% 1% 2% 2% 13% 5%

55% 0% 5% 47% 0% 1% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 39% 6%

49% 0% 16% 0% 23% 0% 0% 0% 7% 0% 1% 1% 40% 11%

50% 1% 17% 1% 1% 20% 1% 2% 2% 2% 1% 1% 44% 5%

77% 1% 16% 1% 1% 1% 41% 12% 1% 0% 1% 0% 21% 2%

60% 1% 9% 4% 1% 1% 3% 39% 0% 1% 0% 1% 35% 5%

47% 0% 14% 0% 2% 0% 0% 1% 23% 0% 0% 5% 43% 9%

59% 1% 16% 0% 1% 2% 1% 1% 1% 23% 1% 12% 35% 6%

80% 13% 28% 0% 4% 1% 5% 1% 2% 0% 24% 1% 15% 5%

60% 0% 6% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 2% 1% 0% 48% 31% 9%

Source: RPL Patron file and 2012 Transaction file, CGR  analysis

24

C. Are there patrons who are “loyal” to one library?
In this analysis, CGR defined loyalty as exclusively using one library to check out and return all of your materials.
 About

half of patrons who checked out materials in 2012 performed all of their transactions at one branch (city, Central or suburban); 56% of City patrons exclusively checked materials out of one branch that was not necessarily their neighborhood branch (this compares to 53% of Monroe County patrons).  About half of these “one-library City patrons” exclusively use the branch in the service area where they live. The branch libraries attract these patrons who are exclusively loyal to their neighborhood branch to differing degrees. Loyalty to the RPL branch in the service area in which a patron lives ranges from 9% in Highland to 30% in Lyell. This means that almost a third of patrons with 2012 transactions living in Lyell’s service area only used the Lyell branch, while this was true for 9% of Highland area residents.  Despite the sizable number of City patrons who do perform all transactions at their most local branch, the data clearly demonstrate that in each service area, the majority of patrons do not use their most local branch exclusively.

Loyalty to Library in Service Area
Service Areas Arnett  Central Charlotte   Highland  Lincoln  Lyell   Maplewood  Monroe   Sully  Wheatley  Winton  Patrons Living in  # of these Patons  Service  Area, with  who Exclusively  Transactions in 2012 Used Their  Branch 3,491 1,600 1,581 3,029 4,053 2,779 3,039 3,963 3,184 2,213 2,667 926 526 430 271 952 821 871 411 797 502 751 % of these  Patrons  who Exclusively  Used Their  Branch 27% 33% 27% 9% 23% 30% 29% 10% 25% 23% 28%

Note: transactions includes  checkouts, renewals  and returns.

25

Where do the libraries draw patrons from?
Here, we look at the relationships between patrons and their libraries through the home branch lens, asking where the patrons that conducted a transaction at Arnett Library in 2012 reside. The table on the following page answers this question. The big takeaway from this analysis is that service areas residents do not make up even half of any library’s annual “patron with transaction” count. Key observations:
 The

share of “local patrons” making up each branch’s patron total ranged from 20% in Charlotte to 44% in Sully. Note that Central’s local share in 5%, which makes sense as it offers unique services to a broader area.  Three libraries drew the majority of their patrons with transactions in 2012 from suburban areas: 66% of Charlotte’s patrons and 55% of both Winton’s and predictably, Central’s. Highland and Monroe each drew a significant portion of their patrons from the suburbs as well, 41% and 45%, respectively.  Generally speaking, most libraries drew the largest share of patrons from their own service area, the next largest group from suburban areas, and a small share from every service area. A few branches such as Arnett and Maplewood also drew a sizable share from their neighboring service area.  Looking at the big picture, 8% of transactions in suburban libraries are by City residents.

26

Where Libraries Drew Their Patrons From, of Patrons with 2012 Transactions
Service  Area Arnett Central Charlotte Highland Lincoln Lyell Maplewood Monroe Sully Suburban  Grand  Wheatley Winton City Total Total Total

Share  of All Patrons with a 2012 Transaction at each Library Location Total Transactions Rochester Public Library Arnett Branch Library Central  Library Charlotte  Branch Library Highland Branch Library Lincoln Branch Library Lyell  Branch Library Maplewood Community Library Monroe  Branch Library Sully Branch Library Wheatley Community Library Winton Branch Library Suburban Library Other Service Point

2% 6% 42% 5% 1% 5% 3% 5% 2% 2% 3% 13% 1% 1% 1%

1% 3% 1% 5% 1% 2% 8% 2% 1% 2% 2% 2% 1% 0% 1%

1% 3% 0% 1% 20% 1% 1% 1% 2% 1% 0% 0% 0% 1% 1%

2% 4% 2% 5% 1% 30% 2% 2% 1% 10% 1% 4% 3% 1% 2%

2% 6% 3% 5% 2% 3% 40% 4% 5% 2% 9% 4% 2% 1% 1%

2% 5% 3% 4% 1% 1% 4% 37% 11% 1% 2% 4% 1% 0% 1%

2% 5% 2% 3% 5% 2% 4% 6% 38% 1% 2% 2% 1% 1% 1%

2% 6% 2% 6% 1% 7% 2% 2% 1% 28% 2% 3% 9% 2% 3%

2% 5% 2% 4% 1% 3% 7% 1% 2% 2% 44% 3% 6% 1% 1%

1% 4% 12% 4% 0% 3% 3% 3% 2% 1% 1% 30% 1% 0% 0%

1% 5% 1% 3% 1% 3% 1% 1% 1% 4% 4% 1% 21% 1% 2%

18% 51% 72% 45% 34% 59% 73% 64% 67% 55% 70% 67% 45% 9% 13%

82% 49% 28% 55% 66% 41% 27% 36% 33% 45% 30% 33% 55% 91% 87%

100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

27

Which service areas generate libraries’ transactions?
The previous analysis assessed the amount of contact a patron had with each library, while looking at transactions allows us to look at the intensity of that contact. Accordingly, the table on the next page presents the share of each library’s 2012 transactions that was generated by patrons living in each service area. The text boxes show the top 3 residential areas that generated each library’s transactions. The key takeaway here is that while libraries may not attract the majority Top 3 Areas Generating Arnett Library’s 2012 Transactions: of patrons from their service area, many are capturing the majority of transactions generated by area patrons.
1. Arnett (56%) 2. Suburban (20%) 3. Wheatley (13%)
 In six branches—Arnett, Highland, Lincoln, Lyell, Maplewood and Sully—more than half of the library’s 2012 transactions were generated by residents living in their own service area.  Roughly a quarter of each branch’s transactions were to patrons who live in the suburbs. Winton and Charlotte had a higher share of transactions by suburban patrons; 35% and 55% respectively.

Top 3 Areas Generating Charlotte Library’s 2012 Transactions: 1. Suburban (55%) 2. Charlotte (35%) 3. Maplewood (5%)

Top 3 Areas Generating Highland Library’s 2012 Transactions: 1. Highland (55%) 2. Suburban (23%) 3. Monroe (5%)

Top 3 Areas Generating Maplewood Library’s 2012 Transactions: 1. Maplewood (55%) 2. Suburban (20%) 3. Lyell (14%)

Top 3 Areas Generating Lincoln Library’s 2012 Transactions: 1. Lincoln (51%) 2. Suburban (23%) 3. Central (8%)

Top 3 Areas Generating Monroe Library’s 2012 Transactions: 1. Monroe (47%) 2. Suburban (28%) 3. Highland (12%)

Top 3 Areas Generating Wheatley Library’s 2012 Transactions: 1. Wheatley (45%) 2. Suburban (23%) 3. Arnett (11%)

Top 3 Areas Generating Lyell Library’s 2012 Transactions: 1. Lyell (56%) 2. Suburban (24%) 3. Maplewood (5%)

Top 3 Areas Generating Sully Library’s 2012 Transactions: 1. Sully (56%) 2. Suburban (26%) 3. Lincoln (6%)

Top 3 Areas Generating Winton Library’s 2012 Transactions: 1. Winton (44%) 2. Suburban (35%) 3. Sully (10%)

28

Which Service Areas Generate Each Library's Transactions?
Service  Area Arnett Central Charlotte Highland Lincoln Lyell Maplewood Monroe Sully Wheatley Winton City  Total Suburban  Grand  Total Total

Share of 2012 Transactions at Each Library Location Total Transactions Rochester Public Library Arnett Branch Library Central  Library Charlotte  Branch Library Highland Branch Library Lincoln Branch Library Lyell  Branch Library Maplewood Community Library Monroe  Branch Library Sully Branch Library Wheatley Community Library Winton Branch Library Suburban Library Other Service  Point 2% 6% 56% 4% 0% 4% 4% 4% 1% 2% 2% 11% 1% 1% 1% 1% 5% 1% 11% 0% 2% 8% 2% 1% 2% 1% 4% 1% 0% 0% 1% 4% 0% 1% 35% 0% 1% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 2% 7% 1% 8% 0% 55% 1% 1% 0% 12% 0% 4% 1% 1% 3% 2% 6% 2% 7% 2% 3% 51% 2% 4% 2% 6% 2% 1% 1% 1% 1% 7% 2% 5% 1% 1% 3% 56% 14% 1% 1% 4% 0% 0% 0% 2% 6% 1% 3% 5% 2% 3% 5% 55% 1% 2% 2% 0% 1% 1% 3% 8% 1% 8% 0% 5% 2% 1% 2% 47% 1% 1% 7% 1% 3% 2% 6% 2% 5% 0% 2% 4% 1% 1% 2% 56% 3% 10% 1% 1% 1% 5% 13% 5% 0% 4% 1% 4% 1% 1% 1% 45% 0% 0% 0% 2% 7% 1% 3% 0% 1% 1% 0% 1% 3% 3% 1% 44% 1% 2% 17% 68% 80% 61% 45% 77% 77% 76% 80% 72% 74% 77% 65% 8% 14% 83% 32% 20% 39% 55% 23% 23% 24% 20% 28% 26% 23% 35% 92% 86% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Source: RPL Patron file and 2012 Transaction file, CGR analysis

29

Stakeholder input: How do patrons choose which libraries to use?
What we heard from stakeholders, both through interviews and the survey, was that convenience of location and hours were the critical factors in choosing which library to use. This finding poses a challenge for RPL because convenience is very much in the eye of the beholder. One patron may prefer to utilize the library close to their job or school, while another prefers walking distance to home. This is evidenced by the survey response, in which equal numbers report that good parking and being in walking distance from home are important factors in choice of library. Hours are also a factor: working families and many community groups want late evening and Sunday hours; stay-at-home parents and seniors want early morning hours. Other frequently mentioned factors include size of various collections, and helpful, conscientious staff. How well children and youth are integrated into the library is also a factor for many—again, we heard both extremes. Many patrons desire an atmosphere where children and youth are welcomed and supported, but many also raise noise/disturbance levels as an issue libraries must address. In a few cases, Sully and Maplewood, we heard that some patrons plan their visits for times when youth are less likely to be in the library, or that they choose not to utilize their local branch because they are seen as overcrowded, and in particular, more crowded with youth. Another vocally expressed theme was that the three communities generally conceived of as thriving and stable (Highland, Monroe and Winton) feel that their libraries are perennially “on the chopping block.” They want it to be known that even if the neighborhood library is not the one they use the most, they value it as a community resource.

V. LIBRARIES ARE EVOLVING EVERYWHERE
Recent surveys on libraries from Pew Internet & American Life show that just over half of Americans, age 16 and up, visited one in the past year, and 91% of visitors called libraries an important part of their community. Further, they said they value, in order of importance, books to borrow, reference librarians and free public access to computers and the Internet. Our local survey respondents valued the same priorities, and also programming.

30 The question communities everywhere are grappling with is how to balance the traditional library with digital world realities, how to look around the corner to the future of libraries.

Key concepts in the future of libraries
The American Library Association has articulated four continuums for what libraries could be and what services they could offer in the future. The continuums illustrate the extremes within which libraries will land, all of which have implications for collection development, space and location planning, programming and staff roles. In essence, they define the debate communities should be having. Continuum 1: physical library virtual library

As more content moves online and more people have mobile access through smartphones, do we need physical libraries with physical material for patrons to access information or reading materials? Do we shift collection budgets toward electronic readers and do we devote less space to collections? Continuum 2: archive portal

Libraries have traditionally owned and housed the materials and information patrons want to access. Now imagine a library staffed with librarians using computers that provide a portal to resources that are no longer located on site. Continuum 3: individual focus community focus

Should libraries be set up mainly with quiet places for individuals to read and study? Or should they provide community meeting spaces and be centers of community activity? As the world moves increasingly toward interactive, collaborative work, should our libraries accommodate groups working around computers, entrepreneurs networking and even friends socializing? Continuum 4: collection creation

Libraries are currently repositories of information and texts, but as YouTube, social media and independent publishing explode, should libraries provide space for creating content? Think recording studios and computers with digital publishing tools. Even if libraries decide not to provide space for creation, they will need to adapt to increasingly popular self-publishing authors.

31 The reality is that libraries are likely to continue to evolve along these dimensions, and that they will do that within the context of the key roles libraries are playing in their communities.

Trends for urban libraries
Two recent reports have broadly compared the use and roles of urban library systems over the past five years; many of the findings generally seem to align with what CGR finds in Rochester.8 Key trends include rising usage, both in terms of door count, computer use and circulation in most urban areas; this is true in Rochester as well. The sense is that the poor economy has played a role in drawing additional users, whether they are looking for jobs, free Internet access, or needing to borrow rather than buy materials. It has also fueled a need for free space for entrepreneurs and “free-lancers” to work collaboratively. Another key finding is that, “City residents now see libraries, particularly neighborhood branches, as multipurpose community centers, offering business services, tax assistance, safe havens for children after school, and places where immigrants can learn English.” Adapting programming, staff, space and locations to these needs is required. This absolutely echoes most of our stakeholder input from Rochester. The reports also present general observations based on national scans; the most relevant is that “the evidence from other cities suggests that weekend hours and higher-than-average usage go hand in hand; systems with Sunday hours have higher numbers of annual visits.” Overall, both the Pew and Center for an Urban Future reports make the argument that libraries should be understood not simply as cultural institutions, but that they play a critical role in fulfilling a city’s educational and human capital development needs.

Alternative service delivery models
Examples of how libraries have changed or could change their services to adapt to these changing expectations are helpful in planning for the future. They enable stakeholder dialogue, and provide locations across the country from which RPL leaders can learn. Identifying and sharing examples also allowed CGR to assess stakeholder reactions to some preliminary ideas.

8

Branches of Opportunity, Center for an Urban Future, D. Giles, January 2013, and The Library in the City: Changing Demands and a Challenging Future, The Pew Charitable Trusts Philadelphia Research Initiative, March 2012

32 Consolidating into fewer, often larger, full-service libraries that serve a wider geographic area. Typically, these regional libraries have been done in conjunction with a re-purposing of the existing branches. For example, Queens (NY) transformed two low-performing neighborhood branches into family resource centers outfitted primarily with staff and computers when it built a new full-service library in between the two branches. Library outposts, also known as satellite or storefront libraries. This model is designed to reduce libraries’ dependence on large and permanent physical buildings, allowing systems to adapt to changes in demographics and development. It does this by taking library services to patrons wherever they are, through small (no more than 1,500 square feet) outposts that have no permanent collections on site. Instead, these libraries have computers, wireless and space to access it, and reference staff. Patrons can order materials, which are then delivered to the outpost, with the help of librarians or online. These small satellites often have some flexible space that can be used for events, groups or exhibitions. This model has been articulated most recently in Brooklyn, although implementation is unknown at this point. Variations on this idea exist in other cities—Houston’s HPLExpress may be the best example. Philadelphia has also created “hot spots” that are essentially computer labs that focus on bringing technology into targeted neighborhoods. Library systems have also experimented with outposts and self-service kiosks in airports, hospitals, and even grocery stores. Devoting library space to teens. Cities face the continual challenge of offering safe, productive spaces for youth, and in many places, public libraries are stepping up to offer a vibrant solution. Chicago’s YOUMedia was the genesis and the recently awarded MacArthur-funded Learning Lab will allow RPL to build on Teen Central. The five other Safe to Be Smart teen centers are also examples of how RPL and the City have adapted to this need. Creation labs (the focus of these MacArthur grants) are a new library offering that has emerged in response to shifts in the way youth as “digital natives” engage literacy and information. Creation labs are spaces for collaborative use of production technologies—think recording studio, selfpublishing equipment, 3-D printing labs. These spaces need not be youth focused, and can certainly apply to a wider range of patrons. The Fab Lab in Fayetteville, NY’s public library provides a cutting-edge example of libraries making the shift into technologies not typically associated with literacy. Mobile library services, in the form of a Bookmobile or traveling technology. RPL had this at one point, and many cities still do. Typically, mobile services travel to daycare centers, senior centers, community events, public market, etc.

33 Not an alternative service delivery model per se, but the idea of devoting space to, or co-locating with, a coffee shop or some type of food vendor is a potential way to generate revenue and to attract clientele. The argument is that this helps libraries seem more relevant in this age of Barnes & Noble/Starbucks where patrons like to hang out, browse, and work in groups. Shared or coordinated services in which community providers deliver services at a library, or vice versa. GED and ESOL classes, tutoring, computer literacy are all ripe for these partnerships. Arnett’s Literacy Navigator pilot with Literacy Volunteers of Rochester is a local example of how libraries can identify the need, and then host an appropriate community partner to deliver services in libraries. Cincinnati Public Library made a concerted effort in recent years to link libraries to community-based providers of after-school and summer programming. The library reached out to develop incentives, regular schedules for library visits, and perhaps more importantly worked proactively to reduce barriers. For example, the requirement for a parent signature to get a library card was problematic, so it allowed programs to sign off and accept responsibility for lost item. Some programs such as the YMCA used the library as the focus of 6-week after-school modules, and conducted their after-school programming at the neighborhood library. This is reported to have welcomed more families into the libraries. CGR found one interesting example of a public library taking on service delivery from another part of City government. In the case of Hayward, California, the library took over the community grant-making function of City government, and developed a whole new approach to supporting nonprofits with information and technical assistance. While there was some interest expressed in co-location or actual sharing between school libraries and public libraries, CGR was hard-pressed to identify examples that had relevance to Rochester, beyond the local examples of Highland and Sully, and the recently submitted Local Government Efficiency Grant to assess the Edgerton site. “Limitless Libraries” in Nashville, Tennessee provide an innovative partnership between a public library system and the school district. Started in 2009, participating school libraries are linked into the public library’s collection development, procurement and search processes. The partnership uses the City’s electronic and procurement resources to help high schools in particular strengthen their collections, and improve access for students and teachers to materials. Students’ school IDs are used as library cards and requested materials are delivered to schools. The pilot is under evaluation and seems to be resulting in increased circulation and

34 improved access at participating schools, and has just expanded to over 100 elementary schools. As fiscal pressures mount and technologies develop, libraries have implemented various modes of self-service, with the idea that they free up staff time for more productive tasks. For example, self-service checkout lines can both improve the patron experience and allow staff to move out from behind the desk more often. Some libraries are moving toward being “cashless”—although many of the examples we found are not purely cashless at this point. Rather, they have implemented online payment options for a large number of patrons who prefer to pay with plastic, and/or introduced some type of “venda-card” like currently used at Central. In many cases, there are machines where patrons load their card; these machines do take cash. Being prepared to welcome and support immigrant patrons, especially non-English speakers. The Philadelphia Free Public Library has created “translation stations” which use flip charts to translate basic library phrases between English and a host of languages. Non-English speakers can point to high-use phrases for patrons like “I have a book on hold,” or “Where can I find a newspaper in ___ language?” and the flip charts have the English translation. The charts also translate helpful phrases such as “Can I help you apply for a library card?” from English into multiple languages. Many stakeholders proposed an alternative way to fund the service of holding and transferring books from one library to another. They suggested a membership with a set annual usage fee for patrons who want unlimited holds. This was suggested by many homeschooling families, who find the current fee structure prohibitive. RCSD teacher were also proposed as a group that might have fees (and potentially fines) waived.

VI. STAKEHOLDER INPUT ON ROLE AND FUTURE OF LIBRARIES
CGR interviewed over 100 people in a variety of settings, in JanuaryMarch of 2013, which was complemented by survey responses of some 1,200 residents. Here we share key themes about what people depend on community libraries for, and what they would like to see in the future. More granular input on each library is shared in the profile section at the end of this report and directly with management. The margins include verbatim comments from survey respondents. 1. Presence in neighborhoods/communities matters, both intangibly and in very concrete ways.

35
“Libraries are one of our most valuable assets moving forward. If fully equipped with capable staff and a deep immersion into every neighborhood in the city, they can help us combat some of our most pressing problems (poverty, schools, crime.”

“I value [my library] most for the extraordinary outreach and community services it provides to the neighborhood and those who are in need…during some of the hectic times, the place is nothing like what I grew up thinking a library should be, but the value added to the community is enormous and the source of real pleasure.”

heard loudly that “healthy neighborhoods just don’t close libraries,” and that public libraries are often undervalued as part of the “social fabric of the City.” Stakeholders spoke about libraries as communal places that draw the entire spectrum of community members, and that knit them to information and resources. Neighborhood libraries are valued inherently as part of vibrant neighborhoods. Community branch libraries are about relationships— between staff and patrons, between patrons in a common space, between literacy and citizens, and between the City and its neighborhoods.  There is a significant portion of our community members who depend on the neighborhood branch library to connect them—to information, to benefits and services, to the Internet, to family members in their native country, to tutoring, to reading material, to caring adults. Both staff and stakeholders reported that there is a large group of patrons that is very local to each library, and that exclusively walks to a library because it is close, small and trusted. The sense that RPL has a strong mission to provide access to the Internet and information, as well as generally promoting literacy and education in “communities of need” is widely held. 2. Libraries serve an incredible range of customers, and this can create tensions. There are adults who want quiet places to read and teens who may primarily want a safe, positive place to socialize; patrons who demand more e-books and others who need assistance getting on to the Internet. Some look to the library mainly for entertainment, while many others look to the library to get connected to basic needs—ESOL classes, applications for jobs and benefits. Some patrons worry about the library trying to be all things to all people and want it to focus on more traditional core functions, while other push it to adapt to new ways. Stakeholders know that librarians are serving the entire spectrum of society, and they are aware that it is often an ongoing series of compromises. 3. Tech, tech, tech. The digital divide that limits access to computers and uninterrupted Internet service for people living in poverty is well-documented. While there is a growing understanding that smart phone ownership is increasing among teens and people living in poverty, computer and Internet access is still a large demand, and in fact part of what our community sees as the library’s mission. There are a few needs that library staff and patrons observe:
 Staff

 We

“I think libraries should focus on being a really good library. Libraries are not meant to provide social services. Libraries are meant to provide access to ideas.” “Please don’t close smaller branches. As I get older it provides me with social interactions I might not otherwise have. The small branches are community centers for many of us.”

report a growing demand for one-on-one assistance in navigating the computer and web. In particular, middle-aged and

36 older patrons require assistance in very basic tasks such as setting up an email account, but also in digital literacy. This is a clear need that staff do not feel equipped to meet—because it is non-stop and reoccurring.  Arnett’s Literacy Navigator pilot could help.  The idea of training a cadre of youth to provide this service as volunteers was mentioned as well.  A demand for communal space to work collaboratively on the computer.  Increased quantity and placement of outlets to enable patrons to work on their own devices within the library. 4. Libraries are increasingly a place where patrons look for jobs. A few service areas in particular expressed this as a key service their library provides, and one that has become increasingly important in “What I think should be this economy. One concrete suggestion was to have a few considered, is whether computers dedicated to job searching. These computers could different neighborhoods potentially be used for 2 hours at a time instead of the usual 1, and have different needs from might be “pre-loaded” with some relevant websites or databases. the library, and whether the
plan is to shape the individual branch depending on its location. I think this is a great way forward. What I would hate to lose though is the traditional space where books are valued, space is given over to reading…you are asked to be quiet. Libraries are magical spaces, especially for children.”

5. Libraries are a trusted institution for immigrants, serving as a free, local portal to a variety of resources. In Rochester, there have been just shy of 4,000 refugees resettled since 2007, primarily concentrated in the zipcodes of 14613 (Maplewood), 14608 (Wheatley) and 14620 (Highland). Maplewood in particular has developed an array of community connections and volunteer networks to support English as a Second Language classes and other services to meet the population’s needs. The library’s New Americans grant is seen as a positive, although there is some concern about the ability to properly staff and support it. The demand for citizenship classes—and the need to better coordinate with RCSD to offer classes in libraries, or to advocate for state funding to provide in libraries—was raised as well.

“The original purpose of a public library was to provide free reading material to those who otherwise would not be able to gain access to it. The library needs to return to this model…Get children into the library, by all means, but be careful what you are getting them into the library for.”

6. Libraries and youth development. Rochester stakeholders are keenly aware that as a community, we need to do a better job of engaging our youth and they are passionate that RPL can play even more of an active role. They point to the Safe to Be Smart model as a strong starting point which shows that with youth-focused staff and space, many young people will chose the library. From young people themselves, we heard that there are “Rec kids” and “library kids” and that the library provides space to be social but productive, safe and in the presence of supportive adults. There is a desire expressed by many to do this in a way that doesn’t dilute the library’s focus on literacy.

37 CGR did hear that youth engagement and management is a skillset that RPL should continue to work to develop in staff, and we heard that there is a need to teach young people “library etiquette.” More specific ideas CGR heard include:
 Working

to develop a fine-forgiveness plan that encourages accountability but doesn’t deprive youth of the ability to access reading materials. Ideas such as working fines off by helping elders on the computer, re-shelving books or reading were suggested. Also, ensuring that fine-forgiveness opportunities are communicated more widely with library staff, especially with youth workers. The idea that perhaps DVDs and certain materials are restricted when an account is frozen was also discussed—so that we aren’t denying children books because an adult has racked up charges on their card. Another suggestion was to allow patrons to pay their fines down gradually instead of requiring them to pay the entire fee at one time.  Later evening hours (till 8, 9, or even 10:00) would better serve older teens.  Coordinating programming with the City’s Recreation and Youth Services (DRYS) staff. There was discussion of ways to establish a few key emphases, themes or books across institutions and settings, so that Rochester youth hear common language and take advantage of more opportunities that take the best of each institution. For example, if teaching youth some basic professionalism / soft skills is a priority, library programming and staff can support that and DRYS staff can incorporate literacy into their programming.  Libraries don’t have enough outlets that are strategically placed to accommodate laptops and charging devices—this should be incorporated into any new designs.  Possibly restrict the type of materials that can be checked out on juvenile cards.  Work with RGRTA and RCSD to have after-school bus routes foster access to libraries. 7. Librarian / library staff capacity. As libraries continuously evolve to remain relevant and responsive in Rochester, there are some skillsets that stakeholders feel should be consciously developed. Youth development, community outreach and partner cultivation, public relations and communication and volunteer mobilization were all mentioned as necessary. And, the utilization trends at branches where these skills have been most emphasized seem to bear this out. Research also suggests that the ability to design and manage new projects is emerging as a skillset that

38 is not part of traditional library science degrees. The lack of Spanishspeaking staff was repeatedly raised by many stakeholders, both external and staff.
“Don’t consolidate—let us continue to walk to you.”

“I fear the loss of immediacy in neighborhoods where libraries are a lifeline for the elderly and for children…The comfort of neighborhood libraries cannot be overestimated.”

8. The survey respondents and interviewees do not see any reason to change the current locations of libraries, although they are open to learning more about alternatives, such as “outposts.” The only area of the City that we heard is not particularly well-served by the existing locations, because of the geography/built environment and norms of these neighborhoods, is the JOSANA/Edgerton area. Even while people do not specifically like the idea of relocating any of the branches, the survey and interviews also support a willingness to learn more and consider various options for what libraries look and feel like, and offer. Co-location is an interesting idea, although stakeholders are quite mixed about the wisdom of sharing space with schools. Some feel it would be a wise use of facilities and staff, and other patrons are concerned that co-locating in places that primarily serve youth can quickly tip the balance toward a youth-focus, at the exclusion of many adult patrons. Safety and the ability to fully serve school and the general community needs were also concerns. CGR heard a range of ideas shared for where library services could be delivered (grocery stores, post offices, Neighborhood Service Centers, the public market, hospitals, etc.) and an openness to thinking about how libraries “look different.” Some stakeholders that are involved with various schools working on the Facilities Modernization Plan or community schools planning are adamant that we as a community should shift away from thinking of spaces as devoted only to one function. In other words, rather than designing separate library, Rec, community room, and school spaces, we should be aiming for hybrid and flexible spaces. 9. Hours matter. Many stakeholders feel that expanded weekend hours and later evening hours during the week would better meet community needs and help libraries be more relevant. Community meetings are typically held in the late evening range of 7-9, and libraries are not able to offer their community meeting room during high-demand hours. Later hours would also help working families. Sunday afternoon hours in particular were mentioned as a draw for Brighton, and a time that many would like to use the library.

“I think the branch library system works very effectively in Rochester. A branch can really cater to the needs of a neighborhood and develop valuable, long-term relationships with patrons. I love the fact that there are so many libraries in [Monroe County].”

“More hours, weekend hours. Libraries are not open nearly enough…inconvenient during the work week.”

“I get the sense that the library system is not supporting working adults…A typical working adult cannot get to the library until the evening.”

39

VII. ENVIRONMENTAL SCAN: CITYWIDE OPPORTUNITIES
As the library positions itself as relevant and responsive to Rochester, it needs to be aware of and engaged in key initiatives and developments, especially those involving literacy. 1. ROC the Future, Rochester’s fledgling collective impact framework, modeled on Strive. While the City is already represented at the Conveners table, it makes sense for RPL to become involved in one of the collaborative action networks (CANs) that are being formed to prioritize measures and action plans. As part of the stakeholder interviews, this idea was discussed and agreed upon by the Conveners. It seems likely that RPL would join the school readiness or out-of-school time CAN, as it could certainly play a role and add value to both.9 If RPL is interested, CGR will provide appropriate contact information. 2. RCSD. Coordination and communication is hard and time-consuming, and it seems as though this is an especially difficult relationship to organize and maintain in an effective way. However, there are several key ways in which it would behoove RPL to continue to become aware and look for opportunities to partner. We would also hope that RCSD is receptive to coordinating and connecting where it makes sense. Expanded Learning Time (ELT) is intended to be up and running in 8 elementary schools next fall: Schools 3, 9, 23, 34, 45, 46, 10, and possibly 19. While there is still a lot of work to do to plan and implement these plans, the idea is that community partners will be integrated into each school in ways that extend the day for students. Theoretically, RPL could be a valuable member of certain schools’ teams, although the planning would require substantial time. It is also probable that the community partners that will be expected to design enrichment linked to academics will need support in finding materials, etc. Utilizing the RPL branches as places to communicate and connect with families. Pre-K and Kindergarten registration are prime examples of a service that could be offered out in the community during peak times. Promoting attendance, summer reading, use of the underutilized electronic

In summer 2012, an asset mapping process led CGR and The Children’s Agenda to highlight family literacy as a communitywide need. This is an area that RPL could potentially play a lead role in developing, and could possibly be done in conjunction with the school readiness CAN. The companion document including this idea can be found on CGR’s website.

9

40 books that RCSD offers for free, spreading the word on fine-forgiveness if that’s an option—these are all examples of messages and resources that RCSD and RPL could help each other magnify. Librarians and staff need to become educated in the newly implemented Common Core Curriculum, particularly as it relates to the expectation of complex texts, and a shift to more non-fiction texts10. This is an area in which librarians could help advise parents, students and some schools, and it may also influence collection development. Streamlined access to collections for students and teachers, shared collection development. “Limitless Libraries” in Nashville, Tennessee linked school libraries into the public library’s collection development, procurement and search processes. The partnership uses the City’s electronic and procurement resources to help high schools in particular strengthen their collections, and improves access to materials for students and teachers. Students’ school IDs are used as library cards and requested materials are delivered to schools. The Facilities Modernization Plan may or may not include opportunities to physically co-locate libraries with schools. Either way, it will create changes in where children and families are over the next few years, which means that library staff will want to have a sense of the final decisions and timelines. The school board voted to accept the final version in late March, which lays out where the next round of work will happen. However, there are still a few locations that are still under consideration, and so the plan is not finalized. 3. Formal collaboration studies with the City and RCSD. The justlaunching City-funded inventory of all youth development offerings that are currently provided by the Department of Recreation and Youth Services, RPL and RCSD as well as the nonprofit community will provide more information for RPL’s planning. Farther in the future, the recently submitted local government efficiency grants around shared facilities and technology would provide the opportunity to assess further facilities sharing. 4. Charter schools. Rochester has a growing charter school enrollment, and most charters do not have their own libraries. Thus far, most have met their need through classroom libraries, but two factors may increase their need to think about providing access to library services. First, more charters are opening or expanding at the high school level (University Prep and Young Women’s Leadership Academy are both in Maplewood

10

See www.engageNY.org for information on NYS Common Core Curriculum.

41 area and Uncommon Schools will open its high school at a yet-to-bedetermined space in 2014), which will increase their need for research skills, more rigorous and extensive texts, and databases. Secondly, the shift to the Common Core also demands more complex and more informational texts. 5. As mentioned, the shifts toward Common Core and toward aligning community providers of after-school and summer programming with literacy outcomes, are requiring providers to strengthen the skills of their staff in these areas. The United Way runs Learning Circles for providers they fund, professional learning communities in which they support each other in learning how to infuse literacy into after-school programming. This need will increase quickly with ELT. It is possible that there is a role for RPL to play in sharing expertise on high-interest texts and modeling read-aloud strategies and literacy activities for providers. Directly partnering with other large providers of after-school programming like the YMCA could also be beneficial. 6. Learning from the Literacy Navigator pilot at Arnett and potentially pursuing a relationship with Literacy Volunteers of Rochester to take on the volunteer mobilization and coordination role is a possibility. 7. CGR is not aware of the design and planning work to date for the MacArthur and IMLS grant for teen-focused Learning Labs, but notes that there is potential to design labs that also align to workforce development / pipeline needs. If that is an opportunity worth pursuing, linking with MCC, RCSD’s OACES (Office of Adult and Career Education Services) and some industry leaders could be beneficial. 8. Supporting immigrants in becoming connected to community resources and to citizenship is a growing role for many of RPL’s branch libraries, and is likely to continue to be for the foreseeable future. The New Americans grant is a great opportunity for RPL to plug into the growing network of supportive community agencies. Our focus groups enabled some of these connections to start to happen, and CGR will provide a few contact names to management.

VII. QUESTIONS FACING RPL
The information presented thus far is a starting point for further investigation and dialogue. RPL leadership, in conjunction with the Board of Trustees and staff, will now begin to grapple with questions that emerge from this shared foundation. CGR does not make recommendations in this report, but does outline some of the questions that we see as ripe for discussion. This is not an exhaustive list, nor is it presented in order of importance.

42 Question: What is the appropriate balance between planning as a system and planning for 10 individual libraries and their communities? Question: Will the current number, location and staffing models of fullservice libraries continue to meet Rochester’s needs? Given the differences in usage statistics and patron transaction habits, are there some libraries that might be better reconfigured or focused on targeted patron services? Are there alternative service delivery ideas that merit further study and modeling? Question: Given the variation in community libraries, what are the meaningful performance measures to use in managing? What role should data have in future planning about staffing, programming and location? Question: In considering the future, what part of RPL’s mission will be prioritized? Is there a tension between responding to the evolving and expanding needs its patrons present and “being a library”? Is there a danger of stretching the system too thin by trying to be all things to all people, or is that consistent with its mission? Question: How can the system diversify and prepare staff for the ways libraries will function in the future? In the short term, what can be done to provide Spanish-speaking staff at a few libraries? How can RPL support librarians in catalyzing effective volunteer mobilization and community partnerships? How can RPL attract and retain high-quality staff vested in the community? Question: What strategic partnerships should RPL invest in pursuing and developing? Will this take an investment of time or personnel to do well? RPL is to be commended for taking stock and proactively engaging in dialogue about what the future holds for libraries in our community.

43

VIII. PROFILES FOR EACH LIBRARY
This section provides each library with a profile of its service area and library usage patterns, as well as a summary of key themes and ideas heard in interviews.

44

ARNETT SERVICE AREA & LIBRARY
Demographics
Arnett’s service area is the 19th Ward, an integrated, fairly stable area of the City. Its population of 21,613 has declined slightly (3%) since 2000, and is getting older. The under-18 population decreased by 16% from 2000. This area has not seen major shifts in the racial and ethnic make-up of residents, and is primarily Black. Arnett’s area has experienced a notable increase in the share of residents living in poverty, which rose from 19% to 27% between 2000 and 2010. This area’s history as intentionally integrated results in a service area that can be thought of as “in the middle” of others, despite its rising poverty. While not as highly educated as Winton or Monroe, it is more so than many other City areas; over half of its residents have some college, and 17% have less than a high school diploma. A relatively high owner-occupied housing rate, and active community groups make this a neighborhood that knows how to organize its advocacy. It is not a focused investment area from a City standpoint, although Jefferson Avenue, which is on the line between Arnett and Wheatley is.

45

Library Utilization
There are 12,927 registered cardholders who live in Arnett’s service area, which is 62% of the 5-and-over population that can be considered eligible for a library card. Eleven percent of all patrons who live in the City of Rochester are in this service area. To understand usage patterns, we think about this in two ways— how do cardholders in general use the Arnett branch library and how do cardholders living in the Arnett area use the library system in general?

Arnett branch usage – dramatically up since 2008
Arnett has seen a 42% increase in circulation over the past 5 years, and door count was up about a third in the same time period. Both circulation and door count had been declining over the previous 10 years. Internet sessions have also increased steadily since 2008; Arnett has the third highest session/hour rate of the branch libraries, and provided over 35,000 sessions in 2012. Reference questions, programs and attendance at programs have each more than doubled since 2008. Library systems across the country continue to think about how to best assess effectiveness or performance. Looking at utilization by hour is one way to do so, but CGR notes it is not the only way. The table below gives a sense of how Arnett branch is doing in some key areas:
Arnett Library
% 2008 2012 change Notes based on 2012 metrics Internet sessions/ hour Circulation/hour Door count/hour Reference questions/hour Program attendance/program
13 20 40 4 46 17 35 54 9 39 38% 75% 34% 148% -15%

High end of the range, which is 6/hour at Charlotte to 20/hour at Maplewood. Below average, within range of 19/hour at Wheatley to 76/hour at Winton. About average, range from 38 at Highland to 122/hour at Maplewood. Above the average, within the 3/hour at Highland - 11/hour at Wheatley range. Above the average, within the range of 13 at Winton - 61 at Maplewood.

Arnett has invested in space and programming for teens, and by most accounts has done a pretty good job balancing the needs of all ages. Stakeholders and staff seem aligned and believe that the library provides good customer service and is pretty connected in the community. The librarian is active in the community, attending neighborhood groups, trying to make connections. Staff report that they are not well-equipped to serve patrons who want to plug in their own laptops while working, and that they can’t meet the demand for one-on-one assistance with computers.

46

Where does this library draw patrons from?
Unfortunately, there is no way to tell where patrons who visit the library for computer access, programming or other in-person services live. We can only link those patrons who had a transaction (checkout, renewal or return) in 2012 to their addresses, which allows us to report that:
 42%

of all patrons who checked out or returned materials from Arnett in 2012 lived in the Arnett service area. The library also drew 28% of its patrons from the suburbs and 12% from Wheatley’s service area. (See tables for complete data.)  Transactions showed the same pattern: of all the transactions done at Arnett library, 56% were generated by patrons who lived in the neighborhood, 20% by suburban residents and 12% by Wheatley residents.  This branch does draw a critical mass of “loyal” local patrons who only use this library. 27% of all patrons with 2012 transactions who live in Arnett’s service area exclusively used the Arnett library to checkout or return materials; this is about 925 individuals.

Transaction patterns by patrons living in Arnett’s area
Of all cardholders who live in Arnett’s area, 3,491 checked out, renewed or returned materials at any Monroe County library in 2012. These patrons generated 238,929 transactions. These are the transactions included in this analysis:
 37%

of these patron’s transactions were conducted at a suburban branch, 30% at Arnett library and 11% at Central. The table shows the top 10 libraries where Arnett residents conducted their activity.

47

Top 10 Libraries for Patrons in Arnett's Service Area
Share of all 2012 transactions by the 3,491 patrons in the  area who had transactions in 2012 1 Arnett Branch Library (30%) 2 Gates Public Library (12%) 3 Brighton Memorial  Library (11%) 4 Central  Library (11%) 5 LIBRAWeb Renewals (6%) 6 Chili  Public Library (5%) 7 Wheatley Community Library (3%) 8 Henrietta Public Library (3%) 9 Lyell  Branch Library (2%) 10 Highland Branch Library (2%)

Calls for police service to library
While not exactly a measure of library usage, the number of calls for police service to a library’s address does give a sense of the library’s environment. Arnett has averaged about 45 calls in each of the last five years, and has exceeded 60 calls in two of those years. Arnett is one of four branches to average more than 45 calls a year. Please note that these include all calls attributed to the address, even if they are not directly related to the library, staff or patrons.

High-level Environmental Scan: Opportunities and Challenges
This library is regarded as being pretty “community-minded” and wellconnected to the community it serves; this is likely helped by the fact that both the quadrant manager and the Safe to Be Smart director live or have longtime ties to the 19th Ward. CGR heard:

48
 RCSD

updates that might affect Arnett: School 16 will remain out of the neighborhood for at least another academic year, but is slated to return to in the 2014-15 year. School 10, (at the old School 37) in the southern part of the service area, will likely be an Expanded Learning Time school, but is slated to move out of the service area; however, this move is still under consideration at the time of writing. School 29 is working to become a community school, working with Freedom Schools.  Uncommon Schools is growing its network of charter schools, one of which is in Arnett’s area. While its new growth has been in Lyell’s service area, it is currently looking for a high school location, which could end up being in this area. See the environmental scan section of overall report for a discussion of how this could impact the libraries. Generally speaking, given that charters do not have libraries and that high school students will demand more complex and more nonfiction texts with the Common Core, there are opportunities to build partnerships between libraries and charter schools.  University of Rochester students are part of both Arnett’s customer base and a potential pool for volunteer partners. It is currently a challenge to satisfy their computer usage demands— lack of outlets for example.  There is increased need for one-on-one assistance with computers. A sizable portion of clientele need to be walked through getting online, accessing resources, etc. This need is specifically, but not exclusively, related to employment.  Arnett has launched a collaborative pilot to address—Literacy Navigators through Literacy Volunteers of Rochester. They recruit, train and organize volunteers to come in a few hours a week to provide the one-to-one support on computers. This concept is worth exploring.  Other demands on staff time, and not having enough staff inhibits the ability to reach outward. Also, not having late evening hours precludes holding many neighborhood meetings in community room.

49

CHARLOTTE SERVICE AREA & LIBRARY
Demographics
The Charlotte service area is a fairly stable area of the city. Its 2010 population of 8,253 reflects a slight decline (6%) since 2000, and presents an aging population. Charlotte’s service area is the smallest of the 10 areas. Citywide, 10% of residents are over 65 years of age; Charlotte’s 16% is the highest of any service area. In addition, the percentage of the population 18and-under has fallen by 20%. The population is also becoming increasingly more educated. The percentage of residents 25-and-over with a high school diploma, or no diploma at all, has fallen since 2000. Conversely, the percentage of residents who hold a bachelor’s or graduate degree has risen. Charlotte’s population has also become slightly more diverse since 2000. The percentage of non-white residents has increased from 10% of the total population in 2000 to 17 % in 2010. Both the Black and Hispanic populations doubled since 2000. Charlotte and Winton service areas have the lowest poverty rates, with 13% of their populations living in poverty. This compares to 29% of residents citywide.

50

Library Utilization
There are 4,734 registered cardholders in the Charlotte service area, which is 61% of the 5-and-over population that can be considered eligible for a library card. Four percent of all patrons who live in the city of Rochester are located in this service area. To understand usage patterns, we think about this in two ways—how do cardholders in general use the Charlotte branch library and how do cardholders living in the Charlotte area use the library system in general?

Charlotte branch usage – up since 2008
Charlotte has seen modest increases in circulation and door count in the past five years, after both had experienced steady declines over the prior ten years. Circulation has increased by 14% since 2008, and its volume is currently third highest among city branches. Door count has increased by 20% in the same period. Reference queries have also seen a significant increase in the past five years, up 36% from 2008 to 2012. However, Internet access is far less utilized at this branch, as sessions have increased only by 6% since 2008, and its 6 sessions/hour rate remains the lowest of any branch in the Rochester system. Library systems across the country continue to think about how to best assess effectiveness or performance. Looking at utilization by hour is one way to do so, but CGR notes it is not the only way. The table below gives a sense of how Charlotte branch is doing in some key areas:
Charlotte Library
% 2008 2012 change Notes based on 2012 metrics 6 6 6% Internet sessions/ hour Lowest, ranges up to 20/hour at Maplewood. 49 56 14% Circulation/hour Above average, within range of 19/hour at Wheatley to 76/hour at Winton. 37 45 21% Door count/hour Below average, range from 38 at Highland to 122/hour at Maplewood. 4 9 141% Above the average, within the 3/hour at Highland - 11/hour at Wheatley range. Reference questions/hour 11 30 170% Below the average, within the range of 13 at Winton - 61 at Maplewood. Program attendance/program

Charlotte stakeholders and staff seem aligned and believe that the library provides good customer service and is pretty well connected in the community. Head librarians attend and host community meetings, the library has a neighborhood feel, and is working on a garden project. This branch reportedly has a more adult feel, and while it certainly has families that use the children’s room, it does not have a large youth presence. Staff report that the branch is not well-equipped to serve patrons who want to plug in their own laptops while working, nor to support independent quiet work by patrons. They also expressed a desire to better connect with

51 schools in the area, and concern that the branch is not accessible enough to senior citizens living in the area.

Where does this library draw patrons from?
Unfortunately, there is no way to tell where patrons who visit the library for computer access, programming or other in-person services live. We can only link those patrons who had a transaction (checkout, renewal or return) in 2012 to their addresses, which allows us to report that:
 66%

of the patrons who checked out or returned materials to the Charlotte branch in 2012 lived in the suburbs, while 20% lived in the Charlotte service area. (See tables for complete data.)  Transaction data showed that, of all of the transactions at the Charlotte branch, 55% were generated by patrons from the suburbs while 35% were generated by patrons from the neighborhood.  This branch does draw a critical mass of “loyal” local patrons who only use this library. 27% of all patrons with 2012 transactions who live in Charlotte’s service area exclusively used the Charlotte library to checkout or return materials; this is about 430 individuals.

Transaction patterns by patrons living in Charlotte’s service area
Of all cardholders who live in Charlotte’s area, 1,581 checked out, renewed or returned materials at any Monroe County library in 2012. These patrons generated 145,163 transactions. These are the patrons and transactions included in this analysis:

Top 10 Libraries for Patrons in Charlotte's Service Area
Share of all 2012 transactions by the 1,581 patrons in the  area who had transactions in 2012 1 Charlotte  Branch Library (47%) 2 Greece  Public Library (14%) 3 Greece  Public Library Barnard Crossing Branch (9%) 4 Central  Library (5%) 5 LIBRAWeb Renewals (4%) 6 Irondequoit Public Library Evans Branch West (4%) 7 Irondequoit Public Library McGraw Branch East (4%) 8 Webster Public Library (2%) 9 Penfield Public Library (2%) 10 Brighton Memorial  Library (1%)

 75% of these patrons conducted at least some transaction at Charlotte branch.  47% of these patrons’ transactions were at Charlotte library, 39% at a suburban branch, and 5% at Central. The table shows libraries where Charlotte residents conducted their activity.

52

Calls for police service to library
While not exactly a measure of library usage, the number of calls for police service to a library does give a sense of the library’s environment. In Charlotte, calls are a rare occurrence. Please note that these include all calls attributed to the address, even if they are not directly related to the library, staff or patrons.

High-level Environmental Scan: Opportunities and Challenges
Charlotte is a bit of an anomaly in that the majority of its circulation is driven by suburban residents. CGR’s stakeholder interviews did not include Greece patrons or residents, so these comments are likely to reflect more of the City perspective. CGR heard:
 There

could be an opportunity to partner with schools more in the future, in draw more youth to the library. Some relevant factors: At this point, none of the schools in the area are applying to be an Expanded Learning Time school. School 50 is currently under construction and slated to move back next fall, as is Charlotte High School. The Young Men’s Leadership Academy which will return to Charlotte could be a small school receptive to partnerships. A Catholic school has recently reopened as well.  A few stakeholders and staff mentioned the desire to serve senior citizens more proactively, and there are a few residences with a large concentration of seniors.  Obviously, the ongoing redevelopment of the Port, particularly the residential developments, will impact this library’s patron base in the future.  Charlotte has a local history flair, and collaborating with the new museum to best meet that need is a possibility.

53

HIGHLAND SERVICE AREA & LIBRARY
Demographics
The Highland service area covers the southern section of Rochester, along the East side of the Genesee, and includes the University of Rochester. Census data show that this area has held fairly steady since 2000 on most measures. Its 2010 population of 19,780 reflects a slight decline (5%) since 2000. Racially and ethnically, Highland has remained largely the same, and is predominately white (69%). Since 2007, this has been a neighborhood in which almost 500 refugees have been resettled in a concentrated area near the library. The bulk of residents (69%) are between the ages of 20 and 64; this is up from 62% in 2000, and higher than in most service areas. Since 2000, Highland experienced a 27% decrease in the share of residents who are under 18 years of age. Highland’s residents have higher levels of educational attainment than do most service areas, and levels have increased since 2000. Twentytwo percent have graduate degrees, and another 22% have Bachelors’, compared to 11% and 15% citywide, respectively. However, the level of poverty has risen. Now, 30% of

54 Highland’s residents live in poverty, as opposed to 23% in 2000. (Note: The University of Rochester campus residents are not included.) Highland also has the highest share of foreign-born residents, with 15% in 2007-11.

Library Utilization
There are 8,744 registered cardholders in the Highland service area, which is 46% of the 5-and-over population that can be considered eligible for a library card. Eight percent of all patrons who live in the city of Rochester are located in this service area. To understand usage patterns, we think about this in two ways—how do cardholders in general use the Highland branch library and how do cardholders living in the Highland area use the library system in general?

Highland branch usage – down since 2008
Highland has seen declines in several key usage indicators since 2008, and looking farther back, a steady decline since 2000. Circulation and door count are down 8% from their 2008 levels, and the number of programs offered has fallen by 25% over the same period. The declines are even greater when you use 1999 as the baseline, with circulation down by about a quarter and door count by almost a third. Internet usage at the Highland branch is among the lowest in RPL. The total number of Internet sessions during 2012 was 11,777, which was the lowest total of any branch in the city, and reflective of a 35% decline since 2008. Reference questions and attendance per program have both increased substantially in the last five years, although the branch remains well below the city average in both categories. Library systems across the country continue to think about how to best assess effectiveness or performance. Looking at utilization by hour is one way to do so, but CGR notes it is not the only way. The table below gives a sense of how Highland branch is doing in some key areas:
Highland Library
Internet sessions/ hour Circulation/hour Door count/hour Reference questions/hour Program attendance/program % 2008 2012 change Notes based on 2012 metrics 10 7 -35% Low end of the range, which is 6/hour at Charlotte to 20/hour at Maplewood. 48 44 -8% Below average, within range of 19/hour at Wheatley to 76/hour at Winton. 42 38 -8% Lowest, ranges up to 122/hour at Maplewood.
3 8 3 31 19% 307%

Lowest, ranges up to 11/hour at Wheatley range. Below the average, within the range of 13 at Winton - 61 at Maplewood.

Where does this library draw patrons from?
Unfortunately, there is no way to tell where patrons who visit the library for computer access, programming or other in-person services live. We

55 can only link those patrons who had a transaction (checkout, renewal or return) in 2012 to their addresses, which allows us to report that:
 The

library drew 41% of the patrons who used the branch in 2012 from the suburbs, 30% from the Highland service area, and 7% of its patrons from the Monroe service area.  Transaction data showed that of all of the transactions at the Highland branch, 55% were generated by patrons from the neighborhood, 23% by patrons from the suburbs, 5% by patrons from the Monroe service area, and the rest by patrons scattered throughout the City (See tables for complete data.).  Highland does not pull a large number of local patrons who are “exclusively loyal” to it, compared to the other branches. 9% of all patrons with 2012 transactions who live in Highland’s service area exclusively used the Highland library to checkout or return materials; this is about 270 patrons. This number ranged from 9% - 28% across branch libraries.

Transaction patterns by patrons living in Highland’s service area
Of all cardholders who live in Highland’s area, 3,029 checked out, renewed or returned materials at any Monroe County library in 2012. These patrons generated 324,270 transactions. These are the patrons and transactions included in this analysis.
 About

two-thirds of these patrons conducted some transactions at suburban libraries, while 43% did so at the Highland branch.  40% of these patron’s transactions were conducted at a suburban branch, 23% at Highland Library, 16% at Central, 11% online, and 7% at Monroe Library, with the remainder scattered throughout the system. The table on the following page shows the top 10 libraries where Highland residents conducted their activity. Highland, Monroe and Wheatley are the only libraries which did not capture the largest share of transactions generated by residents in their areas.

56

Calls for police service to library
While not exactly a measure of library usage, the number of calls for police service to a library does give a sense of the library’s environment. Calls at Highland are up, but are still infrequent. Highland averages about 5 calls each year, far fewer than many of the other branches. Please note that these include all calls attributed to the address, even if they are not directly related to the library, staff or patrons.

High-level Environmental Scan: Opportunities and Challenges
Highland has a unique situation—it is in a very strong family-focused neighborhood, and yet by some accounts (and by the data) this is not necessarily the demographic it primarily serves. Utilization is down, although there is certainly a core group of stakeholders who use this library regularly. CGR heard:
 Part

of the challenge is that many patrons, particularly twoincome families, use Brighton library, for the space, collection and Sunday hours. Highland is somewhat seen as serving the school and Rec Center populations, which stakeholders report it does well and collaboratively.  School 12 is slated to move out during the 2014-15 school year. The process of the new design has been ever-evolving, and seems to be primarily a co-location rather than a plan to share space or resources. Interim plans for the library will be critical.  Lack of meeting space, and late evening hours, precludes community groups from using the library as a gathering place.  There is a recent and growing population of refugees in the neighborhood, and the library staff does not necessarily feel equipped to provide robust service to these patrons. Plugging in to some of the networks mentioned in the overall environmental scan section of this report, or potentially incorporating the

57 translation station idea from the Philadelphia library system could help.  Stakeholders expressed sadness and frustration that there are amazing programs offered, and that very few people come to take advantage of them. There seems to be an opportunity to strategically publicize events better—targeted outreach, utilization of the neighborhood association, etc.  On a related note, the friends groups suggested meeting on a citywide basis at least a few times, to share ideas and problem solve together.

58

LINCOLN SERVICE AREA & LIBRARY
Demographics
Lincoln service area’s total population in 2010 was 33,537, a 7% decline since 2000. It is the largest service area in terms of population, and has a large concentration of youth; 31% of residents are under 18. Lincoln has the highest concentration of Hispanic residents at 34%, up from 27% in 2000. The area is slightly more Black and less white than it was in 2000. 58% of residents 5-and-over report English as the only language spoken in the home, compared to 78% citywide. Lincoln’s poverty rate (37%) is higher than most other areas, except Lyell, and it has increased from 32% in 2000. The City’s overall poverty rate is 29%. About a third of residents report no access to a vehicle. This area is second only to Central in terms of the share of residents 25-and-older without a diploma. However, educational attainment has increased since 2000. The percentage of the 25and-older population without a high school diploma fell from 38% to 32%, and the share of residents holding Associates and graduate degrees increased.

59

Library Utilization
There are 17,674 registered cardholders in the Lincoln service area, which is approximately 58% of the 5-and-over population that can be considered eligible for a library card. Fifteen percent of all patrons who live in the city of Rochester are located in this service area. To understand usage patterns, we think about this in two ways—how do cardholders in general use the Lincoln branch library and how do cardholders living in the Lincoln area use the library system in general?

Lincoln branch usage – up except for circulation
Almost all measures of usage are up, except circulation which declined a bit (5%), since 2008. Door count has increased by 16% since 2008. The number of programs, as well as attendance per program, has increased in the past five years, by 20% and 14% respectively. Reference questions have increased by 18% over the past five years, and the number of Internet sessions has increased by 27%. Internet usage is a strong point for the branch, as its Internet sessions and Internet sessions/hour are among the highest of RPL branches. Library systems across the country continue to think about how to best assess effectiveness or performance. Looking at utilization by hour is one way to do so, but CGR notes it is not the only way. The table below gives a sense of how Lincoln branch is doing in some key areas:
Lincoln Library
% 2008 2012 change Notes based on 2012 metrics Internet sessions/ hour 11 15 28% High end of the range, which is 6/hour at Charlotte to 20/hour at Maplewood. 31 30 -4% Circulation/hour Below average, within range of 19/hour at Wheatley to 76/hour at Winton. 52 60 17% Door count/hour Above average, range from 38 at Highland to 122/hour at Maplewood. 5 6 20% Reference questions/hour Below the average, within the 3/hour at Highland - 11/hour at Wheatley range. 21 24 14% Program attendance/program Below the average, within the range of 13 at Winton - 61 at Maplewood.

Where does this library draw patrons from?
Unfortunately, there is no way to tell where patrons who visit the library for computer access, programming or other in-person services live. We can only link those patrons who had a transaction (checkout, renewal or return) in 2012 to their addresses, which allows us to report that:
 40%

of the patrons who had a transaction at Lincoln branch in 2012, live in the Lincoln service area; Lincoln is one of three branches that drew such a significant share of its residents. The library also drew 27% of its patrons from the suburbs, and 8% of its patrons from the Central service area.

60
 Transaction

data depicts a similar pattern: of all the transactions at the Lincoln branch, 51% were generated by patrons from the neighborhood, 23% by patrons from the suburbs, and 8% by patrons from the Central service area.  This branch has a critical mass of local residents who are “loyal” to it—23% of all patrons living in Lincoln’s service area who had a 2012 transaction exclusively used the Lincoln library to checkout or return materials; this is about 1,000 individuals.

Transaction patterns by patrons living in Lincoln’s service area
Of all cardholders who live in Lincoln’s area, 4,053 checked out, renewed or returned materials at any Monroe County library in 2012. These patrons generated 268,161 transactions. These are the patrons and transactions included in this analysis:
 These

patrons were almost equally as likely to perform a transaction at the suburban libraries (44% of patrons did so) or at Lincoln (where 39% did so). 29% of them also utilized Central for transactions.  Only 20% of the transactions generated by these patrons were done at Lincoln—this is the lowest capture rate of all the branches, which range from 20%-61%.  Meanwhile, 44% of their transactions were at suburban libraries. The table shows the top 10 libraries where Lincoln residents conducted their activity.

Top 10 Libraries for Patrons in Lincoln's Service Area
Share of all 2012 transactions by the  4,053 patrons in the  area who had transactions in 2012 1 Lincoln Branch Library (20%) 2 Irondequoit Public Library McGraw Branch East (19%) 3 Central  Library (17%) 4 Irondequoit Public Library Evans Branch West (15%) 5 LIBRAWeb Renewals (3%) 6 Sully Branch Library (2%) 7 Maplewood Community Library (2%) 8 Webster Public Library (2%) 9 Greece  Public Library (2%) 10 Monroe  Branch Library (2%)

61

Calls for police service to library
While not exactly a measure of library usage, the number of calls for police service to a library does give a sense of the library’s environment. Lincoln’s number of calls has increased over the past five years, but held about steady in each of the last three. It is one of four branches that averages over 40 calls per year. Please note that these include all calls attributed to the address, even if they are not directly related to the library, staff or patrons.

High-level Environmental Scan: Opportunities and Challenges
Lincoln seems to have two defining characteristics—the toy library and being a resource to a low-income, increasingly Spanish-speaking clientele. The toy library, and its proximity to the Family Resource Center mean that it has close relationships with area pre-school classes and providers. It also has a teen center and a role as a safe, after-school place for youth. CGR heard:
 Lincoln

does not currently have any Spanish speaking staff, which is seen as a problem given the large number of Latino patrons they serve. Both staff and stakeholders mentioned the need to have at least some staff that speaks the language and also reflects the community.  RCSD changes that the library should be aware of include the use of School 6 as swing space for a variety of schools in the short term. Also, School 36 is slated to close. School 9 has become an Expanded Learning Time school; at this point, this does not include a formal partnership between the school and RPL, although there are some logical potential connections. Developing that relationship and plan would of course take an investment of time on RPL’s part.  The lack of a coffee shop or small eatery in Lincoln’s area was suggested as an opportunity for the library to seek a local entrepreneur that might want to open one in or near the library. It was pointed out that there are businesses very nearby that could potentially be part of the market.  Some stakeholders suggested that this community would benefit from an increased emphasis on employment services.

62

LYELL SERVICE AREA & LIBRARY
Demographics
With a total population of 22,364 in 2010, Lyell’s service area has experienced a slight decline (4%) in population since 2000. Almost a third (31%) of the population is under 18 years of age, compared to 22% citywide. The racial make-up of the service area has slightly altered since 2000. Blacks now make up 42% of Lyell’s residents, an increase of 25%, while the white demographic shrunk from 47% to 37%. The Hispanic population has increased slightly from 19% to 22%. Poverty has increased since 2000 in the Lyell service area, which is now the second poorest service area in the city, just behind Central. 45% of the residents in Lyell now live below the poverty line, up from 35% in 2000. However, Lyell has made some progress in the levels of educational attainment of its residents since 2000. Fewer residents are without a high school diploma (31%, down from 39%), and more residents are pursuing at least some form of higher education. 35% of Lyell residents report having no access to a vehicle.

63

Library Utilization
There are 11,708 registered cardholders in the Lyell service area, which is approximately 57% of the 5-and-over population that can be considered eligible for a library card. Ten percent of all patrons who live in the city of Rochester are located in this service area. To understand usage patterns, we think about this in two ways—how do cardholders in general use the Lyell branch library and how do cardholders living in the Lyell area use the library system in general?

Lyell branch usage—up since 2008
Lyell has seen pretty substantial increases in the utilization of several services during the past five years. Circulation has increased by 42% since 2008, door count has increased by 9%, and the number of programs has increased by 58%. Program attendance and reference questions have more than doubled during the same period, and Internet usage has increased by 28%. Lyell ranks among the highest in the city in volume of reference questions and Internet usage. Library systems across the country continue to think about how to best assess effectiveness or performance. Looking at utilization by hour is one way to do so, but CGR notes it is not the only way. The table below gives a sense of how Lyell branch is doing in some key areas, which generally is in the middle of the branches on many indicators:
Lyell Library
% 2008 2012 change Notes based on 2012 metrics 11 14 29% Internet sessions/ hour High end of the range, which is 6/hour at Charlotte to 20/hour at Maplewood. 33 47 43% Circulation/hour Below average, within range of 19/hour at Wheatley to 76/hour at Winton. 47 52 10% Door count/hour Below the average, range from 38 at Highland to 122/hour at Maplewood. 3 9 162% Above the average, within the 3/hour at Highland - 11/hour at Wheatley range. Reference questions/hour 17 25 46% Program attendance/program Below the average, within the range of 13 at Winton - 61 at Maplewood.

Where does this library draw patrons from?
Unfortunately, there is no way to tell where patrons who visit the library for computer access, programming or other in-person services live. We can only link those patrons who had a transaction (checkout, renewal or return) in 2012 to their addresses, which allows us to report that:
 Lyell

branch drew patrons almost equally from the Lyell service area and from the suburbs; 37% of patrons with a 2012 transaction at Lyell lived in the neighborhood while 36% lived in the suburbs. The library also drew 6% of its patrons from the Maplewood service area.

64
 Transaction

data depicts a similar pattern: of all the transactions at the Lyell branch, 56% were generated by patrons from the neighborhood, 24% by patrons from the suburbs, and 5% by patrons from the Maplewood service area.  This library draws a large share of “loyal” local residents who only use it for their transactions. 30% of all patrons with 2012 transactions who live in Lyell’s service area, exclusively used the Lyell library to checkout or return materials; this represents about 820 individuals. This was the highest “loyalty” measure among RPL branches, which ranged from 9-30%.

Transaction patterns by patrons living in Lyell’s service area
Of all cardholders who live in Lyell’s area, 2,779 checked out, renewed or returned materials at any Monroe County library in 2012. These patrons generated 203,524 transactions. These are the patrons and transactions included in this analysis:
 The

majority (52%) of patrons living in this service area did conduct at least one transaction at Lyell branch, as well as at Central (29% of patrons), suburban branches (27%), and Maplewood (18%).  The largest share (41%) of these patron’s transactions was conducted at the Lyell branch; Lyell is only one of three branches that captured more than 40% of its residents’ transactions. Suburban libraries, Central and Maplewood captured most of the other transactions these patrons generated. The table shows the top 10 libraries where Lyell residents conducted their activity.

Top 10 Libraries for Patrons in Lyell's Service Area
Share of all 2012 transactions by the 2,779 patrons in the  area who had transactions in 2012 1 Lyell  Branch Library (41%) 2 Central  Library (16%) 3 Maplewood Community Library (12%) 4 Gates Public Library (12%) 5 Greece  Public Library (3%) 6 LIBRAWeb Renewals (1%) 7 Lincoln Branch Library (1%) 8 Irondequoit Public Library McGraw Branch East (1%) 9 Arnett Branch Library (1%) 10 Monroe  Branch Library (1%)

65

Calls for police service to library
While not exactly a measure of library usage, the number of calls for police service to a library does give a sense of the library’s environment. The number of Lyell’s calls has increased, although they are still infrequent relative to other branches. Lyell has averaged about 10 calls a year since 2008. Please note that these include all calls attributed to the address, even if they are not directly related to the library, staff or patrons.

High-level Environmental Scan: Opportunities and Challenges
Lyell is interesting in that it draws heavily from Gates, but also has a strong local clientele. It is a branch that reports increasing numbers of Spanish speaking patrons and has offered more classes for adult learners. CGR heard:  The industrial built environment (e.g., railroad tracks, businesses, busy roads) means that a large portion of this service area isn’t walkable by residents’ standards. This results in the feeling that the southern part of the service area is not particularly wellserved by this library’s location.  Increased need for one-on-one assistance with computers. There is a sizable portion of clientele who need to be walked through getting online, accessing resources, etc. This is specifically related to employment assistance, but not exclusively.  Lyell’s area includes one of the City’s Focused Investment areas—the JOSANA neighborhood. This work to stabilize housing and shore up other aspects of the community is positive, and could help build demand for the library.  During the course of this study, it was announced that the City and RCSD have jointly applied for a NY State Local Government Efficiency (LGE) grant to study the possibility of building a shared location on the Edgerton/Jefferson site. In many ways, this site would serve a different area of Lyell’s

66 current service area. Lyell staff should be engaged in that study, both in terms of sharing their knowledge of the community and in identifying the impacts on Lyell if a new combined site were developed.  School 17’s transformation into a community school can be supported by RPL, although it is unclear whether RPL staff is currently involved in the planning process. It is hoped that School 17 will include community space that can be used flexibly to accommodate a variety of community partners and programming. This school’s families could absolutely be wellserved by RPL connections.  Uncommon Schools is growing its network of charter schools, two of which are in the southern end of Lyell’s area. In addition, it is currently looking for a high school location, which could end up being in this area. See the environmental scan section of overall report for a discussion of how this could impact the libraries. Generally speaking, given that charters do not have libraries and that high school students will demand more complex and more nonfiction texts with the Common Core, there are opportunities to build partnerships between libraries and charter schools.

67

MAPLEWOOD SERVICE AREA & LIBRARY
Demographics
The total population in the Maplewood service area in 2010 was 19,140, essentially remaining flat from 2000. Just about a third (30%) of residents are under 18, as compared to 22% citywide, meaning that the area has a relatively high concentration of youth. Conversely, it has a smaller share of population over 65, at 6%. Maplewood has seen a shift in the racial and ethnic make-up of its community. In 2010, Blacks made up 37% of the area’s population, as opposed to 22% in 2000. At the same time, the white population fell from 67% to 47%. Maplewood’s Hispanic population increased by almost 70% to make up 15% of the area’s population While Census data show that about 10% of Maplewood residents are foreign-born, local data on refugee resettlement tell a more complete story. Since 2007, Catholic Family Services has settled about 1,800 refugees in this area, primarily from Bhutan and Burma. Poverty in this area has increased substantially since 2000, a 37% increase. Most

68 recent figures show that 23% of the area’s residents live in poverty, up from 17% in 2000. However, Maplewood is still toward the lower end of the spectrum of service areas with regards to poverty rate. Educational attainment levels have increased slightly since 2000. About 16% of residents report no access to a vehicle.

Library Utilization
There are 11,280 registered cardholders in the Maplewood service area, which is approximately 65% of the 5-and-over population that can be considered eligible for a library card. This is the second highest rate of cardholding among city service areas. Ten percent of all patrons who live in the city of Rochester are located in this service area. To understand usage patterns, we think about this in two ways—how do cardholders in general use the Maplewood branch library and how do cardholders living in the Maplewood area use the library system in general?

Maplewood branch usage—dramatically up
By all measures, Maplewood has experienced substantially increased utilization since 2008; furthermore, visits and circulation have trended up since 1999. Door count increased by 75% since 2008, and Maplewood is far and away the most heavily visited RPL branch library. Over the same time period, attendance per program increased by 54%, reference questions by 93% and Internet sessions by 29%. Internet usage and programs are clearly a major service at the branch, as it has the highest volume and hourly rate for both. Library systems across the country continue to think about how to best assess effectiveness or performance. Looking at utilization by hour is one way to do so, but CGR notes it is not the only way. The table on the following page gives a sense of how Maplewood branch is doing in some key areas:

69
Maplewood Library
% 2008 2012 change Notes based on 2012 metrics 16 20 30% Internet sessions/ hour Highest, ranges from 6/hour at Charlotte. 39 43 12% Circulation/hour Below average, within range of 19/hour at Wheatley to 76/hour at Winton. 69 122 76% Door count/hour Highest, ranges from 38/hour at Highland. Reference questions/hour 5 10 94% Above the average, within the 3/hour at Highland - 11/hour at Wheatley range. 40 61 54% Program attendance/program Highest, ranges from 13/program at Winton.

Maplewood is by all accounts “bursting at the seams” on most days. There are a wide array of tutoring and English as a Second Language classes for all ages, and the library has become a place for youth to be afterschool in a neighborhood without many other options. The library itself is regarded as plugged into the community and has open lines of communication with many of the major organizations.

Where does this library draw patrons from?
Unfortunately, there is no way to tell where patrons who visit the library for computer access, programming or other in-person services live. We can only link those patrons who had a transaction (checkout, renewal or return) in 2012 to their addresses, which allows us to report that:
 38%

of the patrons who used the Maplewood branch in 2012 live in the Maplewood service area. The library also drew 33% of its patrons from the suburbs, and 11% of its patrons from the Lyell service area.  Of all the transactions at the Maplewood branch, 55% were generated by patrons from the neighborhood, and 20% by patrons from the suburbs, and 14% were generated by patrons from the Lyell service area.  29% of all patrons with 2012 transactions who live in Maplewood’s service area exclusively used the Maplewood library to checkout or return materials; this is 871 individuals. These “loyalty” rates range from 9% - 30% across the branch libraries.

Transaction patterns by patrons living in Maplewood’s service area
Of all cardholders who live in Maplewood’s area, 3,039 checked out, renewed or returned materials at any Monroe County library in 2012. These patrons generated 233,150 transactions. These are the transactions included in this analysis:

70
 39%

of these patron’s transactions were conducted at the Maplewood branch, 31% at suburban libraries and 9% at Central. The table shows the top 10 libraries where Maplewood residents conducted their activity:

Top 10 Libraries for Patrons in Maplewood's Service Area
Share of all 2012 transactions by the 3,039 patrons in the  area who had transactions in 2012 1 Maplewood Community Library (39%) 2 Greece  Public Library Barnard Crossing Branch (12%) 3 Central  Library (9%) 4 Greece  Public Library (6%) 5 Charlotte  Branch Library (4%) 6 LIBRAWeb Renewals (4%) 7 Lyell  Branch Library (3%) 8 Webster Public Library (3%) 9 Irondequoit Public Library McGraw Branch East (3%) 10 Irondequoit Public Library Evans Branch West (3%)

Calls for police service to libraries
While not exactly a measure of library usage, the number of calls for police service to a library does give a sense of the library’s environment. The number of calls at Maplewood has almost tripled since 2008, rising more or less steadily over the past four years. Maplewood averaged about 45 calls a year, and is one of four branches to exceed 40 annual calls. (Please note that these include all calls attributed to the address, even if they are not directly related to the library, staff or patrons.) While this is a community issue larger than the library, to some extent this reflects the fact that the library is crowded, serves a lot of youth and is in the front lines between the immigrant and neighborhood culture, which can sometimes be confrontational.

71

High-level Environmental Scan: Opportunities and Challenges
Both usage data and interviews confirm that Maplewood is “bursting at the seams”. This requires a continual balancing act between the “buzz” of classes, tutoring, youth and volunteers and the more traditional quiet reading space that some patrons still want. Maplewood has to work to be all things to quite a range of patrons. It is facing some challenges, but also is at the forefront of a library adapting to those it serves. CGR heard:
 There

is a sense from some that the library is so vibrantly serving youth and immigrants that it can’t serve the “regular” patrons as well—not having enough parking, new fiction, etc. The path forward is complicated, because Maplewood is simultaneously seen as over-crowded with poor parking, land-locked, and a “community anchor” on Dewey, which no one wants to lose.  The library has really become a place known for welcoming and serving immigrants. It has taken the initiative to mobilize volunteers and organize language classes, and works to be a resource to the City’s newest residents. The New Americans grant will help expand these services, but there is a concern that RPL is too reliant on volunteers to plan and deliver these services. Ensuring that staff have time to devote to coordinating with refugee providers in Rochester would help.  Because the library is a communal place, it is in the position of navigating the change (and sometimes tension) as the community culture expands to include a large number of immigrants. Staff that has interest, capacity and training to do this is critical here.  There is increased need for one-on-one assistance with computers. A sizable portion of the clientele needs to be walked through getting online, accessing resources, etc. This is specifically, but not exclusively, related to employment.  School 34, on Lexington Avenue, will likely be one of the Expanded Learning Time schools next year. This has two potential implications for Maplewood. First, it could decrease the number of students coming to the library after school, although the library draws students from all over, not just this school. Secondly, expanding the day requires schools to partner very strategically with community partners. It is possible that the library could bring useful expertise and staff time to this effort. CGR notes that even building the relationship with the school to

72 develop a partnership would require an investment of time on RPL’s side.  Calls for police service are up here and at times the concentrations of youth and also of very different cultures can create tensions. This neighborhood is consistently active in working to strengthen the community, combat crime, increase home ownership, etc. The library has a reputation for working well with community groups; this should of course continue.  Two charter high schools have recently opened, and Uncommon Schools is also looking for a secondary school location, which could be in this area. See the environmental scan section of the overall report for a discussion of how this could impact the libraries. Generally speaking, given that charters do not have libraries and that high school students will demand more complex and more nonfiction texts with the Common Core, there are opportunities to build partnerships between libraries and charter schools.

73

MONROE SERVICE AREA & LIBRARY
Demographics
The total population in the Monroe service area in 2010 was 22,437, which does not mark a significant change from 2000. Monroe’s age distribution also stayed about the same. It is one of the oldest service areas in Rochester, as just 9% of its residents are 19 years of age or younger. Monroe has the highest concentration of white residents (82%) of any service area except Charlotte; this is well above the overall 50% for the City. Monroe saw some positive increases in the education levels of its residents, and is the most highly educated service area in the city. Just 7% of residents did not have a high school diploma in 2010, down from 10% in 2007, and the lowest rate in Rochester. The percentage of the population with Bachelor’s and graduate degrees rose as well, by 10% and 14%, respectively. Monroe has the third lowest poverty rate of any service area, just behind Charlotte and Winton. However, Monroe saw a slight increase in the percentage of its residents living in poverty, from 14% of the population in 2000 to 17% in 2010. 14% of residents report not having access to a vehicle.

74

Library Utilization
There are 11,452 registered cardholders in the Monroe service area, which is approximately 53% of the 5-and-over population that can be considered eligible for a library card. Ten percent of all patrons who live in the city of Rochester are located in this service area. To understand usage patterns, we think about this in two ways—how do cardholders in general use the Monroe branch library and how do cardholders living in the Monroe area use the library system in general?

Monroe branch usage – down since 2008
The Monroe branch experienced declining usage in nearly all aspects of service over the past five years. Circulation and door count are both down by about 11% since 2008; the downward trend is more severe since 1999. Additionally, reference questions have decreased by 14% and Internet sessions have decreased by 19% since 2008. However, Monroe does consistently have the second highest annual circulation, after the Winton branch. Library systems across the country continue to think about how to best assess effectiveness or performance. Looking at utilization by hour is one way to do so, but CGR notes it is not the only way. The table below gives a sense of how Monroe branch is doing in some key areas:
Monroe Library
% 2008 2012 change Notes based on 2012 metrics 10 8 -18% Low end of the range, which is 6/hour at Charlotte to 20/hour at Maplewood. Internet sessions/ hour 63 56 -10% Above the average, within range of 19/hour at Wheatley to 76/hour at Winton. Circulation/hour 47 43 -10% Below average, range from 38 at Highland to 122/hour at Maplewood. Door count/hour 5 5 -13% Below the average, within the 3/hour at Highland - 11/hour at Wheatley range. Reference questions/hour 14 -11% Below the average, within the range of 13 at Winton - 61 at Maplewood. Program attendance/program 16

Where does this library draw patrons from?
Unfortunately, there is no way to tell where patrons who visit the library for computer access, programming or other in-person services live. We can only link those patrons who had a transaction (checkout, renewal or return) in 2012 to their addresses, which allows us to report that:
 The

bulk of patrons (45%) who used the Monroe branch for a transaction in 2012, lived in the suburbs. 28% of the patrons it drew lived in the Monroe service area, and 10% resided in the Highland service area.

75
 Of

all the transactions at the Monroe branch, 47% were generated by patrons from the neighborhood, 28% by suburban patrons, and 12% by patrons from Highland’s service area.  This branch draws a relatively small share of “loyal” local patrons—10% of all patrons who live in Monroe’s service area and had a transaction in 2012, exclusively used the Monroe library to checkout or return materials. These “loyalty” numbers range from 9% - 30% across branches.

Transaction patterns by patrons living in Monroe’s service area
Of all cardholders who live in Monroe’s area, 3,963 checked out, renewed or returned materials at any Monroe County library in 2012. These patrons generated 385,880 transactions. These are the patrons and transactions included in this analysis:
 65%

of these patrons performed at least one transaction at a suburban branch, 47% did so at Monroe and 36% at Central.  The bulk of these patron’s transactions (43%) were conducted at suburban libraries, while 23% were at Monroe and 14% at Central. The table shows the top 10 libraries where Monroe residents conducted their activity; Monroe is one of three branches that did not capture the largest share of transactions generated by patrons in its service area.
Top 10 Libraries for Patrons in Monroe's Service Area
Share  of all 2012 transactions by the 3,963 patrons in the  area who had transactions in 2012 1 Brighton Memorial  Library (26%) 2 Monroe  Branch Library (23%) 3 Central  Library (14%) 4 LIBRAWeb Renewals (6%) 5 Winton Branch Library (5%) 6 Pittsford Library (4%) 7 CatalogPlus Renewals (3%) 8 Webster Public Library (2%) 9 Penfield Public Library (2%) 10 Fairport Public Library (2%)

76

Calls for police service to libraries
While not exactly a measure of library usage, the number of calls for police service to a library does give a sense of the library’s environment. Monroe has seen a steady increase in calls, but they are infrequent, as the library averaged 10 calls a year. Please note that these include all calls attributed to the address, even if they are not directly related to the library, staff or patrons.

High-level Environmental Scan: Opportunities and Challenges
Monroe Library is situated at the crossroads between several different neighborhoods, and is also on a main thoroughfare in and out of the City. In some ways, this location is an asset and in others, perhaps poses a challenge to building a strong neighborhood connection. CGR heard:
 The

quality of children’s programming and the separate children’s room were both spoken highly of, although there is a concern that they are under-utilized. An emphasis on creative ways of marketing to various segments of the population could help. Specifically, the friends group expressed an interest in meeting with the comparable group at other branches to share ideas and problem solve. Actively reaching out to the various neighborhood groups (again!) was also suggested.  The proximity of the YMCA is seen as an asset, and there are examples of strong partnership. By all accounts, stakeholder and staff would like to continue to look for more ways to capitalize on this, drawing more youth into the library.  The lack of a community room, and of separate space to study or meet within the library’s existing space plan is a challenge.  Some stakeholders expressed a feeling that this library seems to be “on the chopping block”—partly because it is not as busy, partly because many (not all!) of its patrons have means to access other libraries, and partly because its building is one of

77 the few library buildings that could conceivably be attractive to a developer.  Staff report an increased need for one-on-one computer assistance with basic functions such as helping patrons access online resources and email.  School 23 on Barrington St. is likely to become one of the District’s Expanded Learning Time (ELT) schools next year. While the plans are currently in development, this model of ELT will require strategic relationships with community partners. It is possible that the library could forge a creative partnership with the school. CGR notes that even building the relationship would require an investment of time on RPL’s part, and should happen sooner than later if there is interest.  Partnering with summer camps could have potential for this branch, given proximity to the YMCA and Cobb’s Hill Park. The park is home to several summer camps—both the City-run programming and a chess camp.

78

SULLY SERVICE AREA & LIBRARY
Demographics
The Sully service area’s total population in 2010 was 21,895, marking a slight decline (3%) from 2000. There were no major shifts in the age of Sully’s population from 2000 to 2010. It is among the youngest service areas in Rochester, with 36% of its residents being 19 years of age or younger; this is the highest concentration of youth in the city. The largest demographic change since 2000 has been a 38% increase in the Hispanic population, which rose from 17% to 23%. This area has a more even distribution of races and ethnicities than many do many service areas. The poverty rate increased since 2000. Most recent data show 31% of Sully residents living in poverty, as opposed to 27% in 2000 (29% citywide). 31% of residents report no access to a vehicle. Educational attainment levels in this area are generally lower than the citywide rates, but are not the lowest of all service areas. The share of residents 25-and-over without a high school diploma decreased since 2000.

79

Library Utilization
There are 12,215 registered cardholders in the Sully service area, which is approximately 62% of the 5-and-over population that can be considered eligible for a library card. Eleven percent of all patrons who live in the city of Rochester are located in this service area. To understand usage patterns, we think about this in two ways—how do cardholders in general use the Sully branch library and how do cardholders living in the Sully area use the library system in general?

Sully branch usage – up since 2008
The usage of all of the services offered at the Sully library has increased substantially in the past five years, during which the library was reopened as part of the Sully-Ryan Center-School 33 community center. (A deeper look into the impact of the move and renovation was not part of this study.) Circulation has increased by 70% from 2008-2012. The door count doubled over the same period, and is now third highest among RPL branches, and Internet sessions have increased by 47%. Program attendance has risen dramatically, and is second to Maplewood. Reference questions also more than doubled in volume in the past five years. Library systems across the country continue to think about how to best assess effectiveness or performance. Looking at utilization by hour is one way to do so, but CGR notes it is not the only way. The table below gives a sense of how Sully branch is doing in some key areas:
Sully Library
% 2008 2012 change Notes based on 2012 metrics 8 11 33% Low end of the range, which is 6/hour at Charlotte to 20/hour at Maplewood. Internet sessions/ hour 17 25 51% Below average, within range of 19/hour at Wheatley to 76/hour at Winton. Circulation/hour 32 60 89% Above average, range from 38 at Highland to 122/hour at Maplewood. Door count/hour 2 5 106% Below the average, within the 3/hour at Highland - 11/hour at Wheatley range. Reference questions/hour 47 358% Above the average, within the range of 13 at Winton - 61 at Maplewood. Program attendance/program 10

Where does this library draw patrons from?
Unfortunately, there is no way to tell where patrons who visit the library for computer access, programming or other in-person services live. We can only link those patrons who had a transaction (checkout, renewal or return) in 2012 to their addresses, which allows us to report that:
 Sully

drew the bulk (44%) of its patrons who had a transaction in 2012 from the Sully service area. The library also drew 30% of its patrons from the suburbs, and 9% from the Lincoln service area.

80
 Transactions

show the same pattern: of all the transactions at the Sully branch, 56% were generated by patrons from the neighborhood, and 26% by suburban patrons.  This branch has a substantial share of local residents who are “loyal” to it—25% of all patrons who live in Sully’s service area and had a 2012 transaction, exclusively used the Sully library to checkout or return materials. This is about 800 individuals. This loyalty measure ranged from 9-30% across branches.

Transaction patterns by patrons living in Sully’s service area
Of all cardholders who live in Sully’s area, 3,184 checked out, renewed or returned materials at any Monroe County library in 2012. These patrons generated 229,973 transactions. These are the patrons and transactions included in this analysis:
 Just

under half (46%) of these patrons had a transaction at Sully library, 38% did so in a suburban library, 28% at Central and 21% at Winton.  These patrons performed a third of their transactions at suburban libraries, about a quarter at the Sully branch, and 16% at Central. The table shows the top 10 libraries where Sully residents conducted their activity:

Top 10 Libraries for Patrons in Sully's Service Area
Share of all 2012 transactions by the  3,184 patrons in the  area who had transactions in 2012 1 Sully Branch Library (23%) 2 Irondequoit Public Library McGraw Branch East (16%) 3 Central  Library (16%) 4 Winton Branch Library (12%) 5 Webster Public Library (6%) 6 Brighton Memorial  Library (4%) 7 LIBRAWeb Renewals (3%) 8 Irondequoit Public Library Evans Branch West (2%) 9 Penfield Public Library (2%) 10 Lincoln Branch Library (2%)

81

Calls for police service to libraries
While not exactly a measure of library usage, the number of calls for police service to a library does give a sense of the library’s environment. Calls to Sully have increased at the new location. Sully’s average of over 50 calls a year is the highest of all branches, and is driven in part by a spike in 2011. Please note that these include all calls attributed to the address, even if they are not directly related to the library, staff or patrons.

High-level Environmental Scan: Opportunities and Challenges
Sully is the City’s flagship for a community center—school, Rec Center and library with community meeting space. Launched in 2009, many are very pleased with the result, and many also recognize that relationships and organizational practices still need work before the true potential is realized. The place often feels “bustling”. CGR heard:
 This

bustling feel is perhaps a challenge for Sully—after school the library is very full of children and youth (often unattended) and is by some accounts too loud. The space plan is less than ideal, does not really provide for dedicated teen space, nor is it set up with enough electrical outlets, etc. to accommodate patrons’ devices.  We heard about the need to help youth learn “library etiquette” which is particularly important in a library that serves a large number of youth.  Staff willingness, capacity and training are all critical given the primary emphasis on youth.  Furthermore, we heard from some adult patrons that this library is more of a youth space, and therefore unwelcoming to many adults. If they can’t get there early in the day, while children

82 are in school, they simply choose to use another library (often Irondequoit).  We heard a desire to design creative ways of bridging the generational divide. Whether youth could provide computer assistance to adults, or whether there’s a way to train a cadre of youth to work or volunteer in the library, this idea would take time to develop and the right person to implement well, but has potential.  There is an unmet need for one-on-one assistance with computers. A sizable portion of the clientele needs to be walked through getting online, accessing resources, etc. This is specifically, but not exclusively, employment related.  Some strong partnerships have been built through staff relationships—the children’s librarian requires children to read before using the computer, the Rec Center and library share space and technology, etc.  It seems that there should be a time, place or process where the Memorandum of Understanding and staff practices/relationships between the three institutions can be revisited periodically. This would help to strengthen the unified “face” presented to residents and could help identify stronger practices and eventually more efficient operations. Scheduling, staffing and staff development are all areas where strategic partnerships between Rec, library and school staff could strengthen the overall experience for children and youth. (These learnings should also inform the City and District’s LGE project about the Edgerton site if it comes to fruition.)  The idea of centralizing resources in this space was well-received in this community. Neighborhood groups utilize the community rooms and feel connected to the library. They would love to see a Neighborhood Service Center also included, and they wondered whether the facility could also be used to provide wireless access to larger portions of the neighborhood.  School 45 on Clifford Ave. is likely to become an Expanded Learning Time (ELT) school next fall. While the plans are still being developed, it seems possible that the library could be a strategic partner for the school. The ELT model in general demands a new type of community agency-school dynamic, and will evolve over time. If RPL is interested, reaching out sooner than later would be wise, although CGR notes that developing the relationship and plan would require a real investment of time on RPL’s part.

83

WHEATLEY SERVICE AREA & LIBRARY
Demographics
The total population in 2010 for the Wheatley service area was 15,660, which reflects a 6% decline in population since 2000. The poverty rate in the service area rose by 25% throughout the last decade. In 2000, 34% of Wheatley’s population lived below the poverty line; currently, 43% of the population does. This is the third highest poverty rate among city service areas, behind only Central and Lyell. 37% of Wheatley residents do not own or have access to a vehicle, the second highest rate behind Central. There were no notable shifts in the age distribution of the population from 2000 to 2010, as Wheatley remains on the young end of the spectrum. 35% of its residents are under 19 years of age, giving it one of the highest concentrations of youth of all service areas. The area remains predominately (77%) Black, although there have been slight increases in the white, Other and Hispanic populations. Local data sources show that Wheatley also has an increasing immigrant population—since 2007, Catholic Family Charities has resettled about 1,000 refugees in the area, mostly Somali. Educational attainment levels are up since 2000, although still worse than citywide rates and many of the service areas. The percentage of the

84 25-and-over population who had not received their high school diploma fell from 36% of the population to 29%. The share of the population who had attended some college and who earned degrees both increased slightly.

Library Utilization
There are 9,615 registered cardholders in the Wheatley service area, which is approximately 68% of the 5-and-over population that can be considered eligible for a library card. This is the highest rate of card-holding of any service area in Rochester. Eight percent of all patrons who live in the city of Rochester are located in this service area. To understand usage patterns, we think about this in two ways—how do cardholders in general use the Wheatley branch library and how do cardholders living in the Wheatley area use the library system in general?

Wheatley branch usage – up since 2008
The usage trends at Wheatley show a positive change over the last five years. Circulation has increased by 96%; however, the volume of circulation, and circulation per service hour, remain the lowest of any branch in the city. Door counts for the same period tell a similar story, as the branch boasts the third lowest volume in the city, despite a 29% increase since 2008. Wheatley does stand out from other branches in terms of the volume of Internet sessions and reference questions provided annually, both of which have more than doubled. Library systems across the country continue to think about how to best assess effectiveness or performance. Looking at utilization by hour is one way to do so, but CGR notes it is not the only way. The table below gives a sense of how Wheatley branch is doing in some key areas:
Wheatley Library
% 2008 2012 change Notes based on 2012 metrics 8 18 125% High end of the range, which is 6/hour at Charlotte to 20/hour at Maplewood. Internet sessions/ hour 10 19 98% Lowest, ranges up to 76/hour at Winton. Circulation/hour 33 43 30% Below average, range from 38 at Highland to 122/hour at Maplewood. Door count/hour 4 11 190% Highest, ranges from 3/hour at Highland Reference questions/hour 40 19% Above the average, within the range of 13 at Winton - 61 at Maplewood. Program attendance/program 33

Where does this library draw patrons from?
Unfortunately, there is no way to tell where patrons who visit the library for computer access, programming or other in-person services live. We can only link those patrons who had a transaction (checkout, renewal or return) in 2012 to their addresses, which allows us to report that:

85
 The

Wheatley branch drew a third of its patrons with transactions in 2012 from the suburbs, and 30% from the Wheatley service area. The next largest concentration of patrons (13%) was from the Arnett area.  Almost half (45%) of Wheatley’s 2012 transactions were generated by patrons from the neighborhood, while 23% were generated by suburban patrons, and 11% by patrons living in Arnett’s service area.  This branch draws a number of “loyal” patrons from its service area—23% of all patrons with a 2012 transaction who live in Wheatley’s area, exclusively used the Wheatley library to checkout or return materials. This is about 500 individuals. The loyalty measure ranged from 9-30% across branches.

Transaction patterns by patrons living in Wheatley’s service area
Of all cardholders who live in Wheatley’s area, 2,213 checked out, renewed or returned materials at any Monroe County library in 2012. These patrons generated 125,741 transactions. These are the patrons and transactions included in this analysis:
 These

patrons tended to use Wheatley and Central fairly evenly, with 44% having a transaction at Wheatley and 41% doing so at Central. A quarter also got or returned materials at Arnett, and 20% did so at suburban libraries.  24% of these patron’s transactions were conducted at the Wheatley branch, 28% at Central, and 15% at suburban libraries. The table shows the top 10 libraries where Wheatley residents conducted their activity:

Top 10 Libraries for Patrons in Wheatley's Service Area
Share  of all 2012 transactions by the  2,213 patrons in the   area who had transactions in 2012 1 Central  Library (28%) 2 Wheatley Community Library (24%) 3 Arnett Branch Library (13%) 4 Lyell  Branch Library (5%) 5 Highland Branch Library (4%) 6 Gates Public Library (4%) 7 Brighton Memorial  Library (4%) 8 LIBRAWeb Renewals (3%) 9 Henrietta Public Library (2%) 10 Monroe  Branch Library (2%)

86

Calls for police service to library
While not exactly a measure of library usage, the number of calls for police service to a library does give a sense of the library’s environment. Wheatley has averaged less than 20 calls each year, since 2008. Please note that these include all calls attributed to the address, even if they are not directly related to the library, staff or patrons. Calls were up slightly last year, but Wheatley has fewer calls than many other branches with large concentrations of youth.

High-level Environmental Scan: Opportunities and Challenges
Wheatley has by all accounts been on the right track over the last several years, working to turn around declining trends and create a welcoming space for patrons. It is an interesting location, in part because it serves some very poor neighborhoods as well as Corn Hill. Both the data and interviews seem to suggest that a portion of Corn Hill residents view Central as “their” library, instead of Wheatley. Wheatley has a particularly strong contingent of youth who say they feel “comfortable” at the library and view it as a positive place to be. CGR heard:
 The

community has a growing number of immigrants, a group that in general tend to view the neutral, educational library as a trusted place to find resources and for their children to spend time. This library may want to consider investing staff time and effort in reaching out more actively to new residents (for example at Van Auker St. apartments), or connecting with local resettlement and immigrant organizations.  The library currently does not provide robust storytimes for young children. A few mothers expressed this need very compellingly.

87
 Jefferson

Avenue is one of the City’s Focused Investment areas, and Wheatley provides meeting space for various community groups to meet and plan.  The large community meeting room is a real asset, potentially under-utilized. Stakeholders remembered when that room hosted summer movies and community events. To some extent, Wheatley still hosts similar events, but perhaps these could be more widely promoted.  School 3, Nathanial Rochester Community School (NRCS) in Corn Hill, will likely be one of the Expanded Learning Time schools next year. This has two potential implications for Wheatley. First, it could decrease the number of students coming to the library after school, although the library draws students from all over, not just this school. Secondly, expanding the day requires schools to partner very strategically with community partners. It is possible that the library could bring useful expertise and staff time to this effort. CGR notes that even building the relationship with the school to develop a partnership would require an investment of time on RPL’s side, and should happen sooner than later if interested.  Proximity to the University of Rochester and its housing on Plymouth Avenue seems to present an opportunity to organize volunteer tutors. There are other libraries that have had success with this that could hopefully provide contacts; if not, the University has the Rochester Center for Community Leadership that helps to organize student service opportunities.

88

WINTON SERVICE AREA & LIBRARY
Demographics
The total population for the Winton service area in 2010 was 11,496, a moderate (6%) decrease since 2000. The bulk of Winton’s residents (69%) are between 20 and 64 years old. The percentage of the population that is 18 years or younger has dropped by 14% since 2000. Winton residents are predominately white (76%), although the area has become more diverse over the period since 2000. The white population decreased from 81%, while Blacks now account for 17% of the population (up from 13%) and Hispanics account for 7% (up from 5%). Rochester as a whole is 50% white, 37% Black, 10% Other and 3% Asian, with 23% reporting Hispanic ethnicity. The educational attainment levels in this area improved from 2000, and are better than citywide rates. The percentage of residents without a high school diploma fell. The percentage of the area’s population with a Bachelor’s degree rose from 18% to 29%, and the percentage of residents with a graduate degree rose from 13% to 16%. Winton and Charlotte have the lowest poverty rate of any service area, with 13% of the populations living in poverty. Citywide, the rate is 29%, and the service areas range from 13% to 50%.

89

Library Utilization
There are 6,841 registered cardholders in the Winton service area, which is approximately 63% of the 5-and-over population that can be considered eligible for a library card. Six percent of all patrons who live in the city of Rochester are located in this service area. To understand usage patterns, we think about this in two ways—how do cardholders in general use the Winton branch library and how do cardholders living in the Winton area use the library system in general?

Winton branch usage—high circulation
Winton consistently has the highest circulation of all branches, but other measures do not show as much usage. Both volume and hourly rate of circulation are high, but overall circulation has decreased by 12% over the last five years. The decline is even more pronounced if you include the decade prior to that. Internet sessions have fallen by 18% since 2008, and door count grew by only a modest 7% over the same period. Library systems across the country continue to think about how to best assess effectiveness or performance. Looking at utilization by hour is one way to do so, but CGR notes it is not the only way. The table below gives a sense of how the Winton branch is doing in some key areas:
Winton Library
% 2008 2012 change Notes based on 2012 metrics 9 7 -18% Low end of the range, which is 6/hour at Charlotte to 20/hour at Maplewood. Internet sessions/ hour 85 76 -11% Highest, ranges from 19/hour at Wheatley. Circulation/hour 53 58 8% Door count/hour At average, range from 38 at Highland to 122/hour at Maplewood. 4 6 56% Reference questions/hour Below the average, within the 3/hour at Highland - 11/hour at Wheatley range. 14 13 -5% Program attendance/program Lowest, ranges up to 61 at Maplewood.

Where does this library draw patrons from?
Unfortunately, there is no way to tell where patrons who visit the library for computer access, programming or other in-person services live. We can only link those patrons who had a transaction (checkout, renewal or return) in 2012 to their addresses, which allows us to report that:
 Winton

library drew the majority (55%) of its patrons who had any transactions in 2012 from the suburbs. Twenty-one percent live in the Winton service area, and 9% in Monroe’s service area.  The patrons living in Winton generate a lot of activity, because that 21% of patrons generated the bulk of Winton library’s transactions: 44%. After that, 35% of transactions were generated by suburban patrons, and 10% by patrons from the Sully service area.

90
 Winton

library draws a number of very “loyal” local residents. 28% of all patrons with 2012 transactions who live in Winton’s service area, exclusively used the Winton library to checkout or return materials. This is about 750 individuals. These loyalty measures range from 9-30% across the branches.

Transaction patterns by patrons living in Winton’s service area
Of all cardholders who live in Winton’s area, 2,667 checked out, renewed or returned materials at any Monroe County library in 2012. These patrons generated 266,880 transactions. These are the patrons and transactions included in this analysis: large majority of these patrons (83%) conducted transactions Top 10 Libraries for Patrons in Winton's Service Area at Winton library, and Winton stands out in the Share of all 2012 transactions by the 2,667 patrons in  share of local residents the area who had transactions in 2012 it attracted. 55% of area patrons also had 1 Winton Branch Library (48%) transactions at the 2 Brighton Memorial  Library (11%) suburban libraries. 3 Central  Library (6%)  48% of these 4 LIBRAWeb Renewals (6%) patron’s transactions 5 Penfield Public Library (4%) were conducted at the 6 Webster Public Library (4%) Winton branch—this is the largest share of area 7 Pittsford Library (3%) residents’ transactions 8 Irondequoit Public Library McGraw Branch East (3%) that any of the branches 9 CatalogPlus Renewals (3%) captured. Another third 10 Monroe  Branch Library (2%) of their transactions went to suburban libraries, and 9% were done online. The table shows the top 10 libraries where Winton residents conducted their activity:
 The

Calls for police service to libraries
While not exactly a measure of library usage, the number of calls for police service to a library does give a sense of the library’s environment. Winton averaged about 8 calls each year, and despite a slight increase in calls

91 last year, has fewer calls than most branches. Please note that these include all calls attributed to the address, even if they are not directly related to the library, staff or patrons.

High-level Environmental Scan: Opportunities and Challenges
Winton consistently attracts “readers” as its circulation stats demonstrate. Based on interviews, it has a strong neighborhood feel that is more adult and family focused, as opposed to a strong youth “flavor.” CGR heard:
 School

46 on Newcastle Rd. is likely to be one of RCSD’s Expanded Learning Time schools next year. This has two potential implications for Winton. First, it could decrease the number of students coming to the library after school. Secondly, expanding the day requires schools to partner very strategically with community partners. It is possible that the library could bring useful expertise and staff time to this effort. CGR notes that building the relationship with the school to develop a partnership would require an investment of time on RPL’s side, but could be beneficial to both parties.  The area is becoming more diverse, and library staff report that they are not well-equipped when it comes to serving patrons who speak other languages, particularly Spanish. Diversifying staff and collections are possible solution, and perhaps some of the translation station ideas covered in the environmental scan section of the main report may help in the short run.  Some stakeholders perceive that this library is “on the chopping block” because many of its patrons can access libraries in other areas. Neighborhood usage shows that residents do value the library as part of their urban village.  Stakeholders expressed an interest in arranging some citywide meetings for friends groups to meet across all branches. They are interested in sharing ideas and problem solving together.

92

APPENDIX A – STAKEHOLDER INPUT
Interviews
CGR extended invitations to over 115 community stakeholders who were identified based on their knowledge of and connections to the various communities in each quadrant of the City. These included communitybased organizations such as Boys and Girls Club, Baden Street, Charles Settlement House, and NEAD; City staff from the Neighborhood Service Centers, Department of Recreation and Youth Services and Administration; funders such as the United Way; faith-based institutions; the Rochester City School District and the County Youth Bureau; community association and Sector leaders; and patrons from the libraries, including the organized Friends groups at some libraries. In all, 62 people participated and shared their insights. CGR also conducted a series of very targeted interviews about potential partnerships beyond what we learned through these groups. These included organizations such as Uncommon Schools, the YMCA, the National Center on Time and Learning and a group of providers who support refugee resettlement. The Conveners of Roc the Future also had a discussion about how the library can strategically align with the fledgling collective impact framework. We also interviewed a few experts from associations and places external to Rochester. Lastly, we conducted a small number of dialogues with teens who do not attend the library regularly. In all, 44 people participated. While this report did not focus on staffing and workflow, which will come in the next phase of the internal planning process, CGR felt it important to learn from staff. Two focus groups, with 36 participants, as well as interviews with the management team allowed us to hear from a variety of staff including management, quadrant leaders, librarians, aides, clerical staff and youth services staff.

Survey
Over 1,400 residents began the online survey, and 1,272 completed it. About two-thirds of the respondents were City residents, and 82% said they are regular users of the libraries. The survey was administered as a convenience sample—with the main promotion vehicle being the library itself. Thus, we know that the respondents are not representative of Rochester’s population. Indeed, respondents were overwhelmingly white, female, between the ages of 25-64, and educated. Respondents most frequently visited suburban branches, Central, Monroe and Winton. The

93 survey is helpful in gathering input from those who already value the library, but more resources would need to be invested to assess perspectives from a broad and representative group. CGR notes that these caveats are the reason we did not use the actual survey responses as data points in our report. We do, however, include direct quotations for illustration.

Basic Demographic Data for Each Service Area and for City of Rochester
Lyell Maplewood Monroe 22,634 9% 26% 58% 7% 45% 31% 33% 69% 10% 1% 78% 9% 2% 49% 19% 7% 82% 90% 6% 1% 23% 17% 6% 9% 6% 31% 25% 41% 77% 6% 1% 31% 61% 82% 57% 24% 6% 26% 26% 56% 9% 43% 29% 42% 82% 6% 1% 37% 9% 3% 10% 9% 6% 13% 69% 12% 13% 11% 70% 84% 9% 2% 13% 19,140 22,437 21,895 15,660 11,496 Sully Wheatley Winton Rochester 210,565 7% 19% 64% 10% 29% 20% 55% 78% 9% 1% 24%

Arnett Central Charlotte Highland Lincoln 13,063 8% 22% 62% 8% 50% 36% 39% 63% 9% 1% 2% 2% 2% 6% 15% 11% 85% 80% 58% 57% 65% 35% 14% 15% 32% 13% 30% 37% 16% 11% 9% 65% 69% 56% 13% 16% 26% 6% 4% 9% 8,253 19,780 33,537

Total Population

22,613

% Pop Under 5

7%

% Pop 5-19

24%

% Pop 20-64

59%

% Pop 65+

10%

% Living in Poverty

27%

% Below HS Diploma

17%

APPENDIX B – OVERALL DEMOGRAPHIC TABLE

% At Least Some College

52%

% English Only

87%

% Foreign Born 1%

6%

% Foreign Born MOE

This table provides an at-a-glance overview of the demographic data that is presented in charts throughout the report. CGR can also provide the raw data on 2000-2010 trends in each service area if requested.

% No Vehicle 21% 46% 12% 27% 32% 35% 16% 14% Source: Population and age brackets, 2010 Census; All others, American Community Survey 2007-2011

94

95

APPENDIX C – OVERALL LIBRARY UTILIZATION TABLES
Service hours
1999 2008 2009 2,012 2,001 1,806 2,001 1,798 1,970 2,005 1,662 1,927 2,006 19,187 2010 2,019 2,000 1,802 2,012 1,792 2,014 1,888 2,479 1,998 2,012 20,016 2011 2,013 1,986 1,799 2,000 1,784 2,009 1,990 2,737 1,996 1,999 20,312 2012 2,027 2,001 1,805 2,011 1,792 2,020 1,996 2,012 2,004 2,019 19,687 Arnett N/A 2,039 Charlotte N/A 2,014 Highland N/A 1,812 Lincoln N/A 2,036 Lyell N/A 1,812 Maplewood N/A 2,028 Monroe N/A 2,013 Sully N/A 1,820 Wheatley N/A 2,016 Winton N/A 2,036 Total - All Branche21,756 19,621 % Change % Change % Change 1999-2012 1999-2008 2008-2012 N/A N/A -0.6% N/A N/A -0.6% N/A N/A -0.4% N/A N/A -1.2% N/A N/A -1.1% N/A N/A -0.4% N/A N/A -0.8% N/A N/A 10.6% N/A N/A -0.6% N/A N/A -0.8% -9.5% -9.8% 0.3%

Circulation
1999 Arnett 71,998 Charlotte 124,519 Highland 104,806 Lincoln 52,407 Lyell 54,368 Maplewood 66,175 Monroe 150,089 Sully 28,014 Wheatley 37,610 Winton 228,134 Total - All Branche918,120 2008 41,280 98,391 87,173 62,541 59,716 78,118 126,268 30,512 19,688 173,775 777,462 2009 49,981 106,605 86,178 71,183 67,546 78,688 113,769 35,502 28,620 164,537 802,609 2010 52,945 111,448 95,373 69,398 75,983 84,637 106,727 52,799 36,357 161,820 847,487 2011 60,206 109,519 84,043 62,059 82,235 89,388 112,009 52,326 40,488 158,564 850,837 2012 71,729 111,868 80,100 59,547 84,498 87,444 112,498 50,920 38,663 153,697 850,964 % Change % Change % Change 1999-2012 1999-2008 2008-2012 -0.4% -42.7% 73.8% -10.2% -21.0% 13.7% -23.6% -16.8% -8.1% 13.6% 19.3% -4.8% 55.4% 9.8% 41.5% 32.1% 18.0% 11.9% -25.0% -15.9% -10.9% 81.8% 8.9% 66.9% 2.8% -47.7% 96.4% -32.6% -23.8% -11.6% -7.3% -15.3% 9.5%

Door count
1999 Arnett 96,652 Charlotte 95,669 Highland 102,424 Lincoln 95,100 Lyell 66,312 Maplewood 120,663 Monroe 123,770 Sully 43,856 Wheatley 92,873 Winton 104,787 Total - All Branche942,106 2008 82,498 74,909 75,959 105,175 85,829 140,095 94,852 58,001 66,034 108,544 891,896 2009 92,538 87,075 72,322 116,999 84,449 156,317 85,051 63,343 72,451 98,346 928,891 2010 92,088 91,569 73,129 124,426 87,970 219,622 81,436 145,484 74,132 100,240 1,090,096 2011 2012 % Change %Change % Change 1999-2012 1999-2008 2008-2012 13.6% -14.6% 33.1% -5.9% -21.7% 20.2% -32.2% -25.8% -8.6% 27.8% 10.6% 15.6% 41.4% 29.4% 9.2% 103.5% 16.1% 75.3% -31.4% -23.4% -10.5% 175.9% 32.3% 108.6% -8.2% -28.9% 29.1% 11.0% 3.6% 7.2% 20.7% -5.3% 27.5%

92,490 109,793 85,552 90,010 73,804 69,413 117,482 121,557 93,863 93,750 239,454 245,581 84,920 84,869 158,211 120,999 77,127 85,226 112,308 116,346 1,135,211 1,137,544

96

Programs
1999 Arnett Charlotte Highland Lincoln Lyell Maplewood Monroe Sully Wheatley Winton Total - All Branche N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 3,701 2008 105 119 478 573 225 222 75 261 212 92 2,362 2009 152 172 405 575 258 451 85 244 113 94 2,549 2010 126 180 271 583 385 395 151 305 156 176 2,728 2011 240 305 345 521 522 451 196 358 134 207 3,279 2012 303 383 361 690 355 602 209 482 188 198 3,771 % Change % Change % Change 1999-2012 1999-2008 2008-2012 N/A N/A 188.6% N/A N/A 221.8% N/A N/A -24.5% N/A N/A 20.4% N/A N/A 57.8% N/A N/A 171.2% N/A N/A 178.7% N/A N/A 84.7% N/A N/A -11.3% N/A N/A 115.2% 1.9% -36.2% 59.7%

Program attendance
1999 2008 2009 8,985 3,842 3,605 17,217 3,716 17,670 1,275 7,702 6,970 1,318 72,300 2010 9,741 10,838 6,464 28,851 9,186 23,375 1,927 25,634 10,758 2,878 129,652 2011 8,566 8,412 8,471 22,519 10,254 32,814 1,842 20,802 13,107 2,730 129,517 Arnett N/A 4,829 Charlotte N/A 1,303 Highland N/A 3,671 Lincoln N/A 12,167 Lyell N/A 3,874 Maplewood N/A 8,864 Monroe N/A 1,180 Sully N/A 2,680 Wheatley N/A 7,080 Winton N/A 1,311 Total - All Branche20,400 46,959 % Change % Change % Change 1999-2012 1999-2008 2008-2012 11,861 N/A N/A 145.6% 11,326 N/A N/A 769.2% 11,291 N/A N/A 207.6% 16,736 N/A N/A 37.6% 8,924 N/A N/A 130.4% 37,012 N/A N/A 317.6% 2,915 N/A N/A 147.0% 22,674 N/A N/A 746.0% 7,445 N/A N/A 5.2% N/A N/A 103.5% 2,668 130.2% 182.9% 132,852 551.2% 2012

Program attendance per Programs
1999 Arnett Charlotte Highland Lincoln Lyell Maplewood Monroe Sully Wheatley Winton Total - All Branche N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 6 2008 46 11 8 21 17 40 16 10 33 14 20 2009 59 22 9 30 14 39 15 32 62 14 28 2010 77 60 24 49 24 59 13 84 69 16 48 2011 36 28 25 43 20 73 9 58 98 13 39 2012 39 30 31 24 25 61 14 47 40 13 35 % Change % Change % Change 1999-2012 1999-2008 2008-2012 N/A N/A -14.9% N/A N/A 170.1% N/A N/A 307.3% N/A N/A 14.2% N/A N/A 46.0% N/A N/A 54.0% N/A N/A -11.4% N/A N/A 358.1% N/A N/A 18.6% N/A N/A -5.4% 539.1% 260.7% 77.2%

97

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful

Master Your Semester with Scribd & The New York Times

Special offer: Get 4 months of Scribd and The New York Times for just $1.87 per week!

Master Your Semester with a Special Offer from Scribd & The New York Times