You are on page 1of 107

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

” 6. this was not true for Wheatley or Lyell residents. 6. about a quarter of each branch’s transactions were to suburban residents. Maplewood and Sully) more than half of the library’s 2012 transactions were generated by residents living in its “home” service area.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.iii social service agencies. there are a host of ideas worth . 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. 2 branches (Charlotte and Winton) drew the majority of their 2012 patrons from the suburban areas. in every service area. However. 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. As RPL considers its mission and role and how to best use its resources to serve the community. Lincoln. 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.” In general. walkable neighborhood libraries as currently operated are valued. Transactions are the only data we were able to link to patron addresses. Highland. 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. Furthermore. Lyell. 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 fact.  Libraries draw patrons and their “transaction business” from all over the county. small.” RPL serves a bifurcated clientele—just more than half of whom use one library (not necessarily their neighborhood library) almost exclusively. although stakeholders are open to learning more about new service delivery models. the overwhelming theme was glowing appreciation for the service libraries provide. while the other half utilize a number of branches based on convenience and preference.  However. Patron borrowing habits complicate the notion of “neighborhood libraries.

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

perspectives and community contacts that made this study possible. Kent Gardner. . Pamela Principe was especially patient in helping CGR make sense of RPL’s data. Assistant Rachel Rhodes and interns Daniel Schlant and Marty Rogachefsky provided helpful research support. Research Associate Jill Symonds.v Acknowledgements Rochester Public Library management and staff were instrumental in providing data. Staff Team Katherine Bell and Michael Silva conducted the data analysis and mapping that made the patron analysis possible. Don Pryor and Erika Rosenberg each provided useful assistance on aspects of the study. CGR also thanks the community stakeholders and City employees who gave their time and insights through interviews and surveys.

..................... Patrons: Where they live.. 3 External Benchmarks put RPL in context ....................................................................................................................................................... vi I............................ Service Area: Where do patrons conduct transactions? Do they use “their” library? .............................................................. 9 III................................................. Libraries are Evolving Everywhere ........................ 16 Stakeholder views on utilization ...... 29 V................................................................... 19 A................................................... 22 C......................................................................................................................................... which libraries they use .... 27 Stakeholder input: How do patrons choose which libraries to use? ............................................ 10 Libraries & the Communities they Serve ................................................................................................................. 1 Notes to the reader ............... 6 Map of service areas ......................................... 24 Where do the libraries draw patrons from? ......................................... 16 IV................................ i Table of Contents ......................................................... Profiles for each Library .................................... 19 B................. Stakeholder Input on Role and Future of Libraries ................................................... 12 Usage metrics ....................... 4 Branch Libraries: one size does not fit all.............................................................................................. Environmental Scan: Citywide Opportunities ............................................ 8 Demographic differences in service areas ................... 17 Location of patrons ............ Purpose and Background ............................................................... 15 Calls for police service to library locations ................................................................................. i Key Findings .................... 31 VI.......................................................................................... Library utilization................................... 7 Demographics...................... 25 Which service areas generate libraries’ transactions? ................................... Where do these patrons conduct most of their transactions? ... 12 Usage statistics collected by RPL vary by branch ....................................................................................................... 3 II....... Citywide ............... 41 VIII............................................................................... Are there patrons who are “loyal” to one library? ....................... Questions Facing RPL . 43 ............... 18 Relationship between where you live and use the library .............................. 29 Key concepts in the future of libraries ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 34 VII...................... 30 Trends for urban libraries ...................................................vi TABLE OF CONTENTS Summary ..... 31 Alternative service delivery models ................................................................................................ 39 VII...... 2 Methodological notes........................................................................................................

........................................................................................................................... 61 Lyell Service Area & Library ....................................... 51 Transaction patterns by patrons living in Charlotte’s service area .................................................................................................................................................................................................... 55 Calls for police service to library ...................... 44 Library Utilization ................................ 53 Demographics .......................... 58 Demographics ........................................................................................................................vii Arnett Service Area & Library ............. 58 Library Utilization ............................. 63 Where does this library draw patrons from? ..... 50 Charlotte branch usage – up since 2008 ..................................... 60 Calls for police service to library ......................................... 61 High-level Environmental Scan: Opportunities and Challenges................... 56 High-level Environmental Scan: Opportunities and Challenges.................... 46 Calls for police service to library ...................................................... 59 Transaction patterns by patrons living in Lincoln’s service area ................................ 63 Lyell branch usage—up since 2008 ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 47 Charlotte Service Area & Library .......... 62 Library Utilization ..................................... 52 Highland Service Area & Library... 54 Transaction patterns by patrons living in Highland’s service area............................................... 47 High-level Environmental Scan: Opportunities and Challenges................................................................................................................................. 63 ....................................... 52 High-level Environmental Scan: Opportunities and Challenges.................................................................................................................... 49 Demographics ............................................................................................................................................................... 50 Where does this library draw patrons from? ........... 62 Demographics ........................................................................... 51 Calls for police service to library .............................. 56 Lincoln Service Area & Library .... 54 Where does this library draw patrons from? ... 49 Library Utilization ........................................................................... 59 Where does this library draw patrons from? ............. 54 Highland branch usage – down since 2008 .................................................................................................................................................... 59 Lincoln branch usage – up except for circulation................. 45 Arnett branch usage – dramatically up since 2008 ........................................... 45 Where does this library draw patrons from? ..................................................................................... 53 Library Utilization ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 44 Demographics .............................................................. 46 Transaction patterns by patrons living in Arnett’s area .........

................................ 71 Monroe Service Area & Library ......... 78 Demographics ........................... 67 Demographics ............................ 65 High-level Environmental Scan: Opportunities and Challenges............................................................................................................... 69 Calls for police service to libraries ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 75 Calls for police service to libraries .................. 83 Library Utilization ....................................... 86 Winton Service area & Library .............. 84 Wheatley branch usage – up since 2008 .............................................................. 78 Library Utilization ............................................................................................................................................................................. 70 High-level Environmental Scan: Opportunities and Challenges........................................................................... 88 ......................... 81 Wheatley Service Area & Library ............. 79 Transaction patterns by patrons living in Sully’s service area ............. 73 Library Utilization ................................................................................................. 69 Transaction patterns by patrons living in Maplewood’s service area ................................................................................................................................ 73 Demographics ............................................. 81 High-level Environmental Scan: Opportunities and Challenges.......... 83 Demographics ...................................................................................................................................................................... 84 Where does this library draw patrons from? .......................viii Transaction patterns by patrons living in Lyell’s service area ......... 76 Sully Service Area & Library ................................... 80 Calls for police service to libraries ............................... 85 Calls for police service to library ................................... 64 Calls for police service to library .......................... 65 Maplewood Service Area & Library ............. 67 Library Utilization ....................................................................... 74 Transaction patterns by patrons living in Monroe’s service area.......................................... 68 Maplewood branch usage—dramatically up .................................................................................................................................... 74 Where does this library draw patrons from? ................................................................... 86 High-level Environmental Scan: Opportunities and Challenges............................................................................................................................................................................ 79 Sully branch usage – up since 2008 ............................................................................................................................. 68 Where does this library draw patrons from? ................................................................................................................ 79 Where does this library draw patrons from? .. 74 Monroe branch usage – down since 2008 .......................................................................................................................... 76 High-level Environmental Scan: Opportunities and Challenges............................. 84 Transaction patterns by patrons living in Wheatley’s service area ................ 88 Demographics ..............................................

........ 90 Calls for police service to libraries ........................ 95 .................................. 92 Appendix B – Overall Demographic Table ............................................ 90 High-level Environmental Scan: Opportunities and Challenges...................... 89 Transaction patterns by patrons living in Winton’s service area................................................................. 89 Where does this library draw patrons from? ........................................................................... 89 Winton branch usage—high circulation ...............................................................................................................ix Library Utilization .............................................................................................................................. 94 Appendix C – Overall Library Utilization Tables.... 91 Appendix A – Stakeholder Input ..........

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

Some Central Library is jointly funded by the City and County and therefore functions uniquely. We use these service areas as the unit of analysis for much of the report. there is often little difference between one of RPL branch libraries. 14609 Each of these community libraries and its “service area” are shown on the map on page 7. 14621 Ryan Community Center & Library = Sully Library 530 Webster Ave. RPL functions in many ways as a department of City government. and provide an updated. RPL is the 10 community branch libraries. 1 . we note that they are a management construct based on current locations. and are referred to interchangeably as community or branch libraries in this report. Notes to the reader From the patrons’ point of view. 14611 3615 Lake  Ave. and Central Library (Rundel and 115 South Ave). It is also undergoing a separate and concurrent strategic space planning process. and don’t completely align with the City’s 40 neighborhood or 4 quadrant designations. Central Library or a suburban library—all of which can be accessed with the same library card. This study focuses only on RPL’s 10 community branches. 14612 1111 Dewey Ave. because they reflect the current locations and way library staff think about their services. 14607 971 South Ave. However. 14609 956 Lyell  Ave. Samuel  McCree  Way 14608 611 Winton Rd. 14620 33 Dr.2 This report was designed to build somewhat on that earlier work. although in some cases we include data for Central as it is part of the overall library service provided within the City of Rochester. 14606 Lincoln Branch Library 851 Joseph Ave.1 The libraries included for study are listed below. which is also funded by the County. 14613 809 Monroe  Ave. shared foundation for the Board and staff to plan in earnest. but is governed by an external board of trustees. 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. The City funds the 10 branches and contributes to Central. RPL is a member of the Monroe County Library System.

3 data in the report is branch specific (e. which is when the RPL shifted . Taking the longer view. CGR conducted a survey and interviewed community and staff stakeholders. while some is service area specific (e. attracted over 1 million visits. As a system. 10 LIBRARIES & THE COMMUNITIES THEY SERVE This study focuses on the RPL’s 10 community branch libraries.000 materials.. Collectively. CGR then summarizes the challenges and opportunities facing libraries in general. specific to each service area and branch library. door count and programming have all been reversed.. This report begins by presenting the overview of RPL and the communities it serves. and resulted in 1. as are themes from interviews. Internet use exploded from 19992008. Details can be found in the appendix. circulation). The results are used throughout the report. These chapters include aggregate data about Rochester Public Library and selected comparative data about the branches and the service areas. service hours and circulation are the only measures that have decreased overall since 1999. they have. all measures of usage trend up over the last 5 years. answered 120. Community profiles. II. previously declining trends in circulation. We also discuss the overall themes and developments that emerged from the environmental scan and stakeholder interviews. on average. This is not a representative sample. CGR also notes that the data provided by RPL did not include patron identities or any record of what materials patrons checked out. and has continued to increase.000 reference questions and provided 235. Over the past 5 years. therefore results are illustrative only.272 respondents.000 Internet sessions in each of the last 5 years.g. In addition to data analysis. are included in the last section of the report. while the total number of hours the libraries are open has held steady. demographics). The survey was a convenience sample. and cannot be used to draw major conclusions. circulated 825. 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 focused on trends since 2008. Methodological notes Most data analyzed in this report is from the US Census Bureau and from Rochester Public Library’s databases.g.

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. but it is self-reported. 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. This is not to say that RPL has been exempt from fiscal challenges facing all City departments. going back at least 25 years.2 The PLDS conducts regular surveys of public library systems. approximately 1% of the overall City budget. the data is asked for in a standardized way. and also had City libraries (as opposed to countywide or regional).4 to a quadrant management model. without dramatically reducing hours. 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. each community branch costs about $400. driven both by resource constraints and a desire to focus differently on services the libraries provided. a division of the American Library Association. and what the future could look like.000 to operate each year. RPL’s Community Libraries have received pretty steady funding from the City. As a general rule of thumb. External Benchmarks put RPL in context Comparisons to other library systems provide context that may be useful both for understanding what RPL currently has. it has recently absorbed funding cuts in each of the last two years. . so they are not 2 This is administered by the Public Library Association. Note that the data presented are from 2010 and do include Central library. To accommodate these.

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

each with a conceptual “service area. and in size. The Pulaski Library at the corner of Hudson and Norton Avenues was closed in 1994. feet at Wheatley. hours. Costs.” shown in the map on the next page3.4 The communities and therefore the “flavors” of each library also vary widely. as this section will show. because RPL management has attempted to allocate staff and programs in flexible and responsive ways. The buildings range in age from 4 (Sully) to 80 years old (Monroe). from about 3.700 sq.6 Branch Libraries: one size does not fit all The community branch libraries serve City residents at 10 buildings.300 sq. staffing and services vary as well. 4 3 . Staffing and workflow analysis will be conducted as part of the upcoming strategic planning process. feet at Highland to 11.

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. .

565. 2000 and 2010 decennial Census. and for 22% of the 5and-older population.5 The 2010 Census puts the City’s population at 210. Thus. Just about half of Rochester’s population is over 30 years of age. Rochester also experienced a slight increase in its foreign-born population. not a racial category. However. a 4% decline from 2000. 2007-11 are the most recent available. because they function as a citywide system (explored further in the usage section). the 10 service areas are demographically different from each other. important to consider in planning services. 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. the 18 and under population has decreased from 28% to 22%. Citywide No surprise to RPL. the City is 50% white.8 Demographics. 5 . 37% Black.6 All groups except the white population have increased since 2000. 14% Hispanic and 13% classified as Other. 6 Categories will not sum to 100% because Hispanic is an ethnicity. The ACS numbers are aggregated over multiple years to help ensure reliability. the age distribution has changed a bit. a demographic overview of the City of Rochester is also relevant. Since 2000. Racially and ethnically. a person could be included in the Hispanic % and also in the white or Black group. as well as more recent estimates from the American Community Survey. English is not the only language spoken in the home.

Demographic differences in service areas This section presents demographic data in a comparative way.  The population within service areas ranges from Charlotte’s fewer than 8. which has risen by 8 percentage points to 46% since 2000.9 line. respectively. Rochester has also seen an increase in the rate of children living in poverty.500.) Estimates show that one quarter of residents do not have access to a vehicle. 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. 14% of the civilian labor force was unemployed in 2011. compared to about 6% in suburban Monroe County. In the City. the threshold was $22. All service areas have lost population since 2000.800 for a family of four with two children. New York State or the nation. Lincoln. (Poverty thresholds vary by family composition and year. A detailed profile of each service area with 2000-10 trends and stakeholder input can be found in the last section of the report. with the exception of Maplewood and Monroe. in 2011.500 residents to Lincoln’s 33. This is more than double the rates in Monroe County.  The areas served by Sully. although most areas are home to about 20. Lyell. a slight increase from 27% in 2000. Educational attainment rates show slight improvement from 2000. Note that Central is included here because it has a designated service area with residents living in it. illustrating the wide variation between the neighborhoods where libraries are currently located.000. Wheatley . which held steady and grew by 1%.

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

almost 1. Since 2007. the margins of error (1-2 percentage points) are noted in the table in the appendix.800 in Maplewood’s area.000 refugees in the City. 23% Burma. These immigrants provide both a challenge and opportunity for RPL community libraries. 9% Somalia.  Furthermore. CGR cautions that these estimates are less reliable at the very local level. . Local experts say that Winton’s area is beginning to have a critical mass as well.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. There are not comprehensive and cumulative data sources on immigration at this local level. Maplewood. 8% Iraq and 6% Cuba. but since 2007.000 in Wheatley’s and 450 in Highland’s. Rochester’s refugees have come primarily from five countries: 40% from Bhutan. Wheatley and Highland areas have experienced concentrated refugee resettlement efforts. including 1. Catholic Family Services has settled about 4.

Having a card can signal an emphasis on literacy and education for the individual. 5 and older.112%.215 9. and collectively. The differences are evidenced by annual trends in circulation and other measures of usage. not where they were issued the card. US Census Penetration rates in the service areas range from about half to two-thirds. we can then tell what share of the eligible population has a library card: % of Population. Please note that these represent where patrons live.708 11.280 11. we estimate a 65% card-holding rate in Monroe County as a whole.12 III. allowing us to calculate the number of cardholders that live in each service area.841 6.468 *Includes all patrons with mappable addresses within the City. CGR mapped cardholders to their addresses.452 12. For context. it should be expected that the ways the libraries are used vary as well. can be seen as evidence of strong community support for libraries. Sources: RPL Patron file. This penetration rate is above our 52% estimate from 2000. CGR notes that none of these measures in isolation give the complete picture of library service. ** Total includes 618 patrons whose addresses were not mapped to any service area. CGR estimates that 58% of the City of Rochester’s eligible population (five years and older) has a library card.744 17. including City residents.615 6. though there is obvious room to engage more citizens. and by our stakeholder interviews. calculating a “penetration rate” can help target outreach. Moreover. nor where they use the library. . Usage statistics collected by RPL vary by branch Given the variation we’ve seen in the demographics. LIBRARY UTILIZATION Overall. if libraries offer a service and all residents are potential customers. Benchmark systems in the national data set report rates ranging from 40% .674 11.660 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** 114.734 8.927 4. % of All City in Service Area with a Library Patrons Card Cardholders/Patrons* 12. For each area.

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

 Lincoln. The average per program attendance ranges from the low teens at Monroe and Winton to 61 at Maplewood.14 three libraries in service areas considered to be “better off” (Monroe. Sully. Winton.000 a year to over 20.000. but varies widely from about 5. All branches have increased their per program attendance over the last 5 years except Arnett. close to 50 at Sully.  The annual number of reference questions are up at all branches except Monroe.  The . Maplewood. as does Sully. Monroe and Winton. Arnett and Wheatley are all sites for RPL’s Safe to Be Smart teen programming and staff.  Lincoln and Maplewood stand out in terms of the number of programs they offer. and about 40 at Arnett and Wheatley. and to some extent Highland) are the only branches that have not experienced an increase in Internet sessions over the past 5 years. which drives some of these usage trends.

Internet sessions / service hour Branch (No. and many rates vary quite widely. 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% . show the same range of utilization seen in the preceding charts. per capita measures do not seem to make as much sense. The 2012 per hour rates show that Maplewood and Wheatley are heavily utilized relative to their peers in all ways except circulation. along with one on the following page. These tables. Because patrons are not bound to their service area. rates are rounded to the nearest whole number. We also included attendance per program. therefore. CGR chose to look at utilization per service hour the branch was open. The following series of tables was calculated from RPL data for 2012.15 Usage metrics It can be helpful to use a metric like per capita or per hour in understanding the differences in library utilization.

but lower usage in terms of Internet sessions. Arnett. although they also cited the challenges that come. home of the Safe to be Smart program administration. Stakeholder views on utilization Interviewees identified common themes across all libraries—1) an increasingly diverse clientele that speaks more languages. and also a regular group of homeless and disabled patrons. Monroe tends to serve more adults. Maplewood. while most of the other branches have fewer than 10 a year. Sully and Lincoln have all averaged more than 40 calls per year. 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. and 2) an increased demand for “technical assistance” on computers. Charlotte. Arnett. This makes intuitive sense and aligns with the way library staff describe branch activity as well. they also cited an increase in libraries providing a safe gathering spot. while Sully.” The predominant group of regular patrons at each library does vary. even for incidents unrelated to the library or patrons. Please note that these include any calls attributed to the library location. 3) Almost universally. door counts. Maplewood is particularly known for serving the immigrant population and having a growing youth presence. almost tripling from 129 in 2008 to just less than 348 in 2012. commuters. Wheatley and Highland feel more youth-oriented. Lincoln reportedly has a Latino emphasis and patron base. typically in ways that align with the demographics of the service area. calls for service to the 10 branch library addresses have increased dramatically over the past 5 years.16 In very general terms. particularly for youth during after-school hours. the need for staff capacity to serve youth and the need to teach youth “library etiquette. as well as a unique clientele for the toy library. According to interviews. libraries in the more affluent parts of town tend to have higher circulation rates. Lyell and Winton tend to serve mostly older adult patrons (as well as families). reference questions and program attendance. Lincoln. Most interviewees discussed a need for libraries to be youth-oriented. has .

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

as a group. or other in-person activities. Clearly. it was not possible to include computer/Internet usage in this analysis.18 Note: After the first question. with the largest portions living in the Lincoln. Transactions include all materials checked out. (The table on page 12 shows the numbers in each service area. Arnett and Sully communities. and 38% of Monroe County patrons did so. Thus. because the library does not keep records of Internet sessions by each patron. 7 . we know that only one-quarter of all City patrons checked out materials in 2012.) The percent of patrons with transactions in 2012 ranges from 23-39% across service areas. What this means is that this analysis excludes patrons who only use the library for programming. computer access. renewed and returned to any RPL location during the year. For context. Unfortunately. the bulk of this analysis relies on the complete RPL transaction file from 2012. this analysis is only one piece of the puzzle and should be treated as such. While this is a large snapshot of usage. as does the map on page 7. these are the patrons included in the usage analyses. and may in fact be less able to travel to multiple libraries.500 RPL patrons that we can confirm live in the City of Rochester are dispersed throughout the City. are different than those covered in this analysis. it is quite likely that those patrons. Furthermore.7 Location of patrons The 114. They do not include electronic books accessed through selfservice. we note that circulation is only one way in which patrons use the library.

Wheatley. we created a loyalty measure to see if there are patrons who exclusively use one library (Analysis C). and does not take into account patrons who come to the library but do not check out materials. this was not true in the Lincoln. we also report the percent of transactions generated by those patrons at each location (Analysis B). Service Area: Where do patrons conduct transactions? Do they use “their” library? The table on page 21 presents the patron analysis. because patrons are counted at each location they visit.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. in which 39-47% of patrons did so. we report the share of patrons living in each service area who had any visit to a library location (Analysis A). Other observations include: Top 3 Libraries where Central Residents Conducted Transactions 1. Top 3 Libraries where Arnett Residents Conducted Transactions 1. 30% did so at Central. There are two ways to count where patrons conduct transactions—first. and that in many libraries circulation is far less than door count and Internet sessions. Keep in mind that the number of patrons with transactions in 2012 is one segment of patrons. When we look at patrons with 2012 transactions. A.  In . Lincoln (19%) six of ten service areas. Central (30%) The text boxes show the top three library locations that patrons from each service area frequent when they are making transactions. which shows all the libraries that patrons living in each service area visited to conduct a transaction in 2012. These numbers will not sum to 100%. the big takeaway is that most patrons appear to conduct transactions at several locations. Central (66%) 2. Arnett (56% of patrons in area) 2. the majority of patrons conducted at least one transaction at their home branch. This can be thought of as measuring frequency of contact with each branch and the intensity of the contact. CGR cautions that this analysis helps understand one aspect of library use. the first column shows that 56% of the 3. Suburban (27%) 3. Suburban (39%) 3. then. For example. one of which is their home branch. Thirdly. 12 % at Wheatley and 39% in some suburban library. Matching each patron to their address and the location of all their transactions reveals some interesting patterns.491 patrons living in Arnett’s service area who had a transaction in 2012 conducted at least one transaction in Arnett Library. Highland or Monroe areas. Again. Sully.

Central (40%) respectively) who also used “other service” locations such as online renewals. Central (29%) and 23% of Highland residents went to Monroe. Charlotte (75%) 2. Other (32%) . residents Top 3 Libraries where Highland living in Wheatley. Sully (46%) 2.20 these. Monroe (47%) 3. Suburban (55%) 3. Other (38%) Top 3 Libraries where Winton Residents Conducted Transactions 1. Suburban (65%) 2. the largest share went to suburban libraries. Suburban (38%) 3. Highland (43%) highest share of residents (32%.  Winton.  A smaller 20-65% of patrons in each service area had a transaction at a suburban library. Central (24%) Top 3 Libraries where Wheatley Residents Conducted Transactions 1. Suburban (64%) 2. Suburban (44%) Wheatley residents went to Arnett. 3. Central (41%) 3. 37% and 38%. Central (17%) conducted at least one transaction in some RPL library. For example. Winton (83%) 2. Lincoln (39%) residents and 21% of Sully residents went to Winton. Monroe. Suburban (27%) Top 3 Libraries where Sully Residents Conducted Transactions 1. 1. Wheatley (44%) 2. Highland. 25% of 1. Central and Lyell’s areas were less Residents Conducted Transactions likely to do so. Lyell (52%) 2. 74-93% of patrons 3. Arnett (25%) Top 3 Libraries where Monroe Residents Conducted Transactions 1. 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. Suburban (42%) 3. Suburban (58%)  In each service area. and Monroe have the 1. Top 3 Libraries where Lyell Residents Conducted Transactions 1. Maplewood (57%) 2. 23% of Monroe 2.  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). 3. Central (28%)  Of Top 3 Libraries where Maplewood Residents Conducted Transactions: 1. Central (29%) 3.

184 84% 3% 28% 1% 4% 9% 2% 3% 5% 46% 3% 21% 38% 15% 9.660 Patrons in Area with 2012 Transactions  Lyell Maplewood Monroe Sully Wheatley Winton 4.213 93% 25% 41% 1% 6% 5% 6% 4% 4% 1% 44% 3% 20% 11% 6. CGR  analysis .491 84% 56% 30% 1% 6% 4% 5% 3% 4% 3% 12% 3% 39% 18% 1.029 76% 3% 40% 2% 43% 2% 2% 2% 23% 1% 5% 9% 64% 37% 17.215 3.452 12.963 76% 2% 36% 2% 7% 2% 2% 2% 47% 1% 2% 23% 65% 38% 3.927 6.581 82% 1% 17% 75% 2% 2% 3% 5% 2% 1% 1% 3% 58% 23% 8.841 2.615 2.600 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.053 74% 3% 29% 3% 3% 39% 4% 5% 3% 8% 3% 5% 44% 13% 2.744 3.734 1.039 82% 4% 24% 10% 3% 5% 8% 57% 2% 2% 2% 3% 42% 15% 11.667 90% 2% 22% 2% 4% 2% 2% 1% 9% 4% 2% 83% 55% 32% 3.280 3.21 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 12.708 4.674 11.779 90% 5% 29% 3% 2% 5% 52% 18% 2% 2% 5% 2% 27% 10% 11.

about 50% of 2012 activity was in RPL. although they do a significant amount of business at their branch. While the table shows Arnett and Lincoln residents giving the bulk of their business to suburban libraries. (Central did capture 66%. Highland. nor was it true for Central. 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. Sully and Wheatley—captured less than one-quarter of the activity generated by residents who live in their service area. This was not true for Wheatley or Lyell service areas. Key findings include:  No community branch library captured more than half of the transactions its residents generated. when you disaggregate by branch. while 40-45% was in suburban libraries. a suburban library (Brighton. we assessed activity as a share of all 2012 transactions generated by these patrons—the intensity of their contact with each library.)  Residents living in Charlotte and Winton service areas conducted almost half of their transactions at their home branch. the home branch still gets the largest share of their activity.)  In most cases. In all three.  Five branch libraries—Lincoln. meaning that most patrons are conducting a majority of their transactions at a location that is not the library in their service area. patrons are conducting the majority of their transactions at libraries other than their home library.  In 8 of the service areas. (The tables showing which suburban branch residents went to are in the profile sections. Highland and Monroe residents conducted the bulk of their activity at the Brighton Library. The big takeaway (shown in the table on page 23) is that in every service area. Gates or Irondequoit) was either the 1st or 2nd most utilized location for residents. Greece.  Highland. However. even though it didn’t get the majority of activity. Lyell and Maplewood libraries each captured about 40% of their residents’ activity. and patrons living in Wheatley’s service area did slightly more business at Central library than at Wheatley. Monroe. Lincoln and Monroe residents split their activity more evenly between RPL and suburban libraries than did patrons living in other service areas. Where do these patrons conduct most of their transactions? Next.22 B. 47% and 48% respectively. .

963 3.039 233.741 266.744 3.660 1.929 121. CGR  analysis .734 1.452 12.973 125.880 229.213 6.779 11.524 385.491 6.880 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.140 11.161 203.184 9.600 4.927 3.708 4.667 238.615 2.053 2.841 2.280 3.23 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 12.029 17.163 324.674 11.270 268.581 8.215 3.987 145.

the majority of patrons do not use their most local branch exclusively. 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).963 3.581 3.  About half of these “one-library City patrons” exclusively use the branch in the service area where they live. 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.24 C.184 2. renewals  and returns. Central or suburban). Are there patrons who are “loyal” to one library? In this analysis. Loyalty to the RPL branch in the service area in which a patron lives ranges from 9% in Highland to 30% in Lyell.600 1. The branch libraries attract these patrons who are exclusively loyal to their neighborhood branch to differing degrees. while this was true for 9% of Highland area residents.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. This means that almost a third of patrons with 2012 transactions living in Lyell’s service area only used the Lyell branch.213 2.779 3.  About half of patrons who checked out materials in 2012 performed all of their transactions at one branch (city. .029 4.491 1.039 3. with  who Exclusively  Transactions in 2012 Used Their  Branch 3. CGR defined loyalty as exclusively using one library to check out and return all of your materials. the data clearly demonstrate that in each service area.  Despite the sizable number of City patrons who do perform all transactions at their most local branch.053 2.

 Generally speaking. and a small share from every service area. respectively. which makes sense as it offers unique services to a broader area. A few branches such as Arnett and Maplewood also drew a sizable share from their neighboring service area. .  Looking at the big picture. Key observations:  The share of “local patrons” making up each branch’s patron total ranged from 20% in Charlotte to 44% in Sully. asking where the patrons that conducted a transaction at Arnett Library in 2012 reside. Central’s. most libraries drew the largest share of patrons from their own service area. The table on the following page answers this question. 41% and 45%. 8% of transactions in suburban libraries are by City residents. Note that Central’s local share in 5%. we look at the relationships between patrons and their libraries through the home branch lens. 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.  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.25 Where do the libraries draw patrons from? Here. Highland and Monroe each drew a significant portion of their patrons from the suburbs as well. the next largest group from suburban areas.

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% .

Lyell (56%) 2. Maplewood and Sully—more than half of the library’s 2012 transactions were generated by residents living in their own service area. Suburban (20%) 3. Wheatley (13%)  In six branches—Arnett. 35% and 55% respectively. Highland (12%) Top 3 Areas Generating Wheatley Library’s 2012 Transactions: 1. Maplewood (5%) Top 3 Areas Generating Highland Library’s 2012 Transactions: 1. Monroe (47%) 2. many are capturing the majority of transactions generated by area patrons.  Roughly a quarter of each branch’s transactions were to patrons who live in the suburbs. Lyell. Suburban (23%) 3. Suburban (23%) 3. while looking at transactions allows us to look at the intensity of that contact. Wheatley (45%) 2. Arnett (11%) Top 3 Areas Generating Lyell Library’s 2012 Transactions: 1. Suburban (20%) 3. Maplewood (5%) Top 3 Areas Generating Sully Library’s 2012 Transactions: 1.27 Which service areas generate libraries’ transactions? The previous analysis assessed the amount of contact a patron had with each library. Highland. Suburban (26%) 3. Suburban (55%) 2. Suburban (23%) 3. Suburban (35%) 3. 1. Monroe (5%) Top 3 Areas Generating Maplewood Library’s 2012 Transactions: 1. Winton and Charlotte had a higher share of transactions by suburban patrons. Highland (55%) 2. Lincoln (51%) 2. Charlotte (35%) 3. 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. Lincoln (6%) Top 3 Areas Generating Winton Library’s 2012 Transactions: 1. Accordingly. Central (8%) Top 3 Areas Generating Monroe Library’s 2012 Transactions: 1. Sully (10%) . The text boxes show the top 3 residential areas that generated each library’s transactions. Arnett (56%) 2. Lincoln. Maplewood (55%) 2. Winton (44%) 2. Suburban (24%) 3. Top 3 Areas Generating Charlotte Library’s 2012 Transactions: 1. Lyell (14%) Top 3 Areas Generating Lincoln Library’s 2012 Transactions: 1. Sully (56%) 2. 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. Suburban (28%) 3.

 CGR analysis .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.

but many also raise noise/disturbance levels as an issue libraries must address. books to borrow. Further. they value it as a community resource. . LIBRARIES ARE EVOLVING EVERYWHERE Recent surveys on libraries from Pew Internet & American Life show that just over half of Americans. Another vocally expressed theme was that the three communities generally conceived of as thriving and stable (Highland.29 Stakeholder input: How do patrons choose which libraries to use? What we heard from stakeholders. in order of importance. and also programming. and in particular. and 91% of visitors called libraries an important part of their community. they said they value. This finding poses a challenge for RPL because convenience is very much in the eye of the beholder.” They want it to be known that even if the neighborhood library is not the one they use the most. Many patrons desire an atmosphere where children and youth are welcomed and supported. age 16 and up. V. This is evidenced by the survey response. reference librarians and free public access to computers and the Internet. How well children and youth are integrated into the library is also a factor for many—again. conscientious staff. in which equal numbers report that good parking and being in walking distance from home are important factors in choice of library. visited one in the past year. or that they choose not to utilize their local branch because they are seen as overcrowded. Other frequently mentioned factors include size of various collections. and helpful. was that convenience of location and hours were the critical factors in choosing which library to use. Hours are also a factor: working families and many community groups want late evening and Sunday hours. In a few cases. One patron may prefer to utilize the library close to their job or school. stay-at-home parents and seniors want early morning hours. while another prefers walking distance to home. both through interviews and the survey. Our local survey respondents valued the same priorities. Sully and Maplewood. we heard both extremes. Monroe and Winton) feel that their libraries are perennially “on the chopping block. we heard that some patrons plan their visits for times when youth are less likely to be in the library. more crowded with youth.

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. but as YouTube. 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. should libraries provide space for creating content? Think recording studios and computers with digital publishing tools. Now imagine a library staffed with librarians using computers that provide a portal to resources that are no longer located on site. they will need to adapt to increasingly popular self-publishing authors. space and location planning. collaborative work. how to look around the corner to the future of libraries. In essence. . programming and staff roles. all of which have implications for collection development. entrepreneurs networking and even friends socializing? Continuum 4: collection creation Libraries are currently repositories of information and texts. Even if libraries decide not to provide space for creation.30 The question communities everywhere are grappling with is how to balance the traditional library with digital world realities. they define the debate communities should be having. should our libraries accommodate groups working around computers. social media and independent publishing explode. The continuums illustrate the extremes within which libraries will land. 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. Continuum 1: physical library virtual library As more content moves online and more people have mobile access through smartphones.

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. The Pew Charitable Trusts Philadelphia Research Initiative. but that they play a critical role in fulfilling a city’s educational and human capital development needs.” Adapting programming. space and locations to these needs is required. Another key finding is that. It has also fueled a need for free space for entrepreneurs and “free-lancers” to work collaboratively. March 2012 . The sense is that the poor economy has played a role in drawing additional users.8 Key trends include rising usage. and The Library in the City: Changing Demands and a Challenging Future. 8 Branches of Opportunity. computer use and circulation in most urban areas. safe havens for children after school. many of the findings generally seem to align with what CGR finds in Rochester. Center for an Urban Future. whether they are looking for jobs. “City residents now see libraries. particularly neighborhood branches. and provide locations across the country from which RPL leaders can learn. both the Pew and Center for an Urban Future reports make the argument that libraries should be understood not simply as cultural institutions. offering business services. or needing to borrow rather than buy materials. Identifying and sharing examples also allowed CGR to assess stakeholder reactions to some preliminary ideas. the most relevant is that “the evidence from other cities suggests that weekend hours and higher-than-average usage go hand in hand. This absolutely echoes most of our stakeholder input from Rochester.31 The reality is that libraries are likely to continue to evolve along these dimensions. The reports also present general observations based on national scans. and that they will do that within the context of the key roles libraries are playing in their communities. They enable stakeholder dialogue. Giles. Trends for urban libraries Two recent reports have broadly compared the use and roles of urban library systems over the past five years. staff. free Internet access. this is true in Rochester as well. January 2013. as multipurpose community centers.” Overall. tax assistance. D. both in terms of door count. systems with Sunday hours have higher numbers of annual visits. and places where immigrants can learn English.

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

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

these machines do take cash. especially non-English speakers. . RCSD teacher were also proposed as a group that might have fees (and potentially fines) waived. Some libraries are moving toward being “cashless”—although many of the examples we found are not purely cashless at this point. Rather. Presence in neighborhoods/communities matters.” or “Where can I find a newspaper in ___ language?” and the flip charts have the English translation. This was suggested by many homeschooling families. STAKEHOLDER INPUT ON ROLE AND FUTURE OF LIBRARIES CGR interviewed over 100 people in a variety of settings. VI. self-service checkout lines can both improve the patron experience and allow staff to move out from behind the desk more often. 1. More granular input on each library is shared in the profile section at the end of this report and directly with management. both intangibly and in very concrete ways. libraries have implemented various modes of self-service. The charts also translate helpful phrases such as “Can I help you apply for a library card?” from English into multiple languages. and what they would like to see in the future. Being prepared to welcome and support immigrant patrons. 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.200 residents. and has just expanded to over 100 elementary schools. They suggested a membership with a set annual usage fee for patrons who want unlimited holds. Non-English speakers can point to high-use phrases for patrons like “I have a book on hold. and/or introduced some type of “venda-card” like currently used at Central. The margins include verbatim comments from survey respondents. there are machines where patrons load their card. which was complemented by survey responses of some 1. in JanuaryMarch of 2013. who find the current fee structure prohibitive. As fiscal pressures mount and technologies develop. Many stakeholders proposed an alternative way to fund the service of holding and transferring books from one library to another. For example. they have implemented online payment options for a large number of patrons who prefer to pay with plastic. In many cases.34 improved access at participating schools. with the idea that they free up staff time for more productive tasks. Here we share key themes about what people depend on community libraries for.

The digital divide that limits access to computers and uninterrupted Internet service for people living in poverty is well-documented. patrons who demand more e-books and others who need assistance getting on to the Internet. If fully equipped with capable staff and a deep immersion into every neighborhood in the city. The small branches are community centers for many of us. 2. to caring adults. 3. and they are aware that it is often an ongoing series of compromises.” and that public libraries are often undervalued as part of the “social fabric of the City. schools. to the Internet. and this can create tensions. and that knit them to information and resources. Tech. but the value added to the community is enormous and the source of real pleasure. The sense that RPL has a strong mission to provide access to the Internet and information. to reading material. to benefits and services. Some look to the library mainly for entertainment. Both staff and stakeholders reported that there is a large group of patrons that is very local to each library. and in fact part of what our community sees as the library’s mission. There are adults who want quiet places to read and teens who may primarily want a safe. to tutoring.” heard loudly that “healthy neighborhoods just don’t close libraries. while other push it to adapt to new ways. As I get older it provides me with social interactions I might not otherwise have.” report a growing demand for one-on-one assistance in navigating the computer and web.  There is a significant portion of our community members who depend on the neighborhood branch library to connect them—to information. computer and Internet access is still a large demand. Libraries serve an incredible range of customers. between patrons in a common space. Libraries are meant to provide access to ideas. Neighborhood libraries are valued inherently as part of vibrant neighborhoods. Community branch libraries are about relationships— between staff and patrons. tech. tech. 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 there is a growing understanding that smart phone ownership is increasing among teens and people living in poverty. positive place to socialize. as well as generally promoting literacy and education in “communities of need” is widely held. to family members in their native country. they can help us combat some of our most pressing problems (poverty. In particular. while many others look to the library to get connected to basic needs—ESOL classes. and that exclusively walks to a library because it is close.” “Please don’t close smaller branches.35 “Libraries are one of our most valuable assets moving forward. small and trusted.” Stakeholders spoke about libraries as communal places that draw the entire spectrum of community members. between literacy and citizens.” “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. crime. There are a few needs that library staff and patrons observe:  Staff  We “I think libraries should focus on being a really good library. middle-aged and . Libraries are not meant to provide social services. and between the City and its neighborhoods. Stakeholders know that librarians are serving the entire spectrum of society. applications for jobs and benefits.

the library. but be careful what you are getting them into the library for. They point to the Safe to Be Smart model as a strong starting point which shows that with youth-focused staff and space. These computers could different neighborhoods potentially be used for 2 hours at a time instead of the usual 1. In Rochester. there have been just shy of 4. although there is some concern about the ability to properly staff and support it. is whether computers dedicated to job searching. we heard that there are “Rec kids” and “library kids” and that the library provides space to be social but productive. 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. especially for children.” 5. I think this is a great way forward. local portal to a variety of resources. but also in digital literacy. and one that has become increasingly important in “What I think should be this economy. Libraries and youth development. This is a clear need that staff do not feel equipped to meet—because it is non-stop and reoccurring.  The idea of training a cadre of youth to provide this service as volunteers was mentioned as well. primarily concentrated in the zipcodes of 14613 (Maplewood). The library’s New Americans grant is seen as a positive. and whether the plan is to shape the individual branch depending on its location. Libraries are increasingly a place where patrons look for jobs. 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. or to advocate for state funding to provide in libraries—was raised as well. 4. 14608 (Wheatley) and 14620 (Highland).  Increased quantity and placement of outlets to enable patrons to work on their own devices within the library. There is a desire expressed by many to do this in a way that doesn’t dilute the library’s focus on literacy. The demand for citizenship classes—and the need to better coordinate with RCSD to offer classes in libraries. Libraries are a trusted institution for immigrants.  A demand for communal space to work collaboratively on the computer. serving as a free. From young people themselves.” 6. One concrete suggestion was to have a few considered. safe and in the presence of supportive adults. and have different needs from might be “pre-loaded” with some relevant websites or databases. What I would hate to lose though is the traditional space where books are valued. Rochester stakeholders are keenly aware that as a community. The library needs to return to this model…Get children into the library.  Arnett’s Literacy Navigator pilot could help. by all means. “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. Libraries are magical spaces. .36 older patrons require assistance in very basic tasks such as setting up an email account. many young people will chose the library.000 refugees resettled since 2007. space is given over to reading…you are asked to be quiet. A few service areas in particular expressed this as a key service their library provides.

For example.  Later evening hours (till 8. themes or books across institutions and settings. public relations and communication and volunteer mobilization were all mentioned as necessary. re-shelving books or reading were suggested. 7.” 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. so that Rochester youth hear common language and take advantage of more opportunities that take the best of each institution.  Coordinating programming with the City’s Recreation and Youth Services (DRYS) staff. if teaching youth some basic professionalism / soft skills is a priority. and we heard that there is a need to teach young people “library etiquette. As libraries continuously evolve to remain relevant and responsive in Rochester. Youth development.  Work with RGRTA and RCSD to have after-school bus routes foster access to libraries.  Possibly restrict the type of materials that can be checked out on juvenile cards. community outreach and partner cultivation. library programming and staff can support that and DRYS staff can incorporate literacy into their programming. Research also suggests that the ability to design and manage new projects is emerging as a skillset that . And. Another suggestion was to allow patrons to pay their fines down gradually instead of requiring them to pay the entire fee at one time. the utilization trends at branches where these skills have been most emphasized seem to bear this out. 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.  Libraries don’t have enough outlets that are strategically placed to accommodate laptops and charging devices—this should be incorporated into any new designs. ensuring that fine-forgiveness opportunities are communicated more widely with library staff. 9. There was discussion of ways to establish a few key emphases. especially with youth workers. or even 10:00) would better serve older teens.37 CGR did hear that youth engagement and management is a skillset that RPL should continue to work to develop in staff. Ideas such as working fines off by helping elders on the computer. Also. Librarian / library staff capacity. there are some skillsets that stakeholders feel should be consciously developed.

” 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.” The only area of the City that we heard is not particularly well-served by the existing locations.” “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. and a time that many would like to use the library. The lack of Spanishspeaking staff was repeatedly raised by many stakeholders.” . Even while people do not specifically like the idea of relocating any of the branches. “Don’t consolidate—let us continue to walk to you. weekend hours. the survey and interviews also support a willingness to learn more and consider various options for what libraries look and feel like. Later hours would also help working families. Hours matter. Some feel it would be a wise use of facilities and staff. although stakeholders are quite mixed about the wisdom of sharing space with schools.38 is not part of traditional library science degrees. and other patrons are concerned that co-locating in places that primarily serve youth can quickly tip the balance toward a youth-focus.” 8. 9. we should be aiming for hybrid and flexible spaces. “I think the branch library system works very effectively in Rochester. such as “outposts.) and an openness to thinking about how libraries “look different. Libraries are not open nearly enough…inconvenient during the work week. is the JOSANA/Edgerton area. and school spaces. CGR heard a range of ideas shared for where library services could be delivered (grocery stores. Co-location is an interesting idea. Safety and the ability to fully serve school and the general community needs were also concerns.” “More hours. long-term relationships with patrons. I love the fact that there are so many libraries in [Monroe County]. hospitals. post offices. Sunday afternoon hours in particular were mentioned as a draw for Brighton. and offer. In other words. 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. etc. community room.” “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. at the exclusion of many adult patrons. Neighborhood Service Centers. The survey respondents and interviewees do not see any reason to change the current locations of libraries. 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. because of the geography/built environment and norms of these neighborhoods. rather than designing separate library. although they are open to learning more about alternatives. A branch can really cater to the needs of a neighborhood and develop valuable. Rec. the public market. both external and staff.

use of the underutilized electronic In summer 2012. While there is still a lot of work to do to plan and implement these plans. 1. summer reading. it needs to be aware of and engaged in key initiatives and developments. The companion document including this idea can be found on CGR’s website. as it could certainly play a role and add value to both. Expanded Learning Time (ELT) is intended to be up and running in 8 elementary schools next fall: Schools 3. Theoretically. especially those involving literacy. While the City is already represented at the Conveners table. ROC the Future. 9 . and could possibly be done in conjunction with the school readiness CAN. 10. RPL could be a valuable member of certain schools’ teams. 46. Utilizing the RPL branches as places to communicate and connect with families. 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. this idea was discussed and agreed upon by the Conveners. This is an area that RPL could potentially play a lead role in developing. Promoting attendance. 45. We would also hope that RCSD is receptive to coordinating and connecting where it makes sense. modeled on Strive. Pre-K and Kindergarten registration are prime examples of a service that could be offered out in the community during peak times. It is also probable that the community partners that will be expected to design enrichment linked to academics will need support in finding materials. the idea is that community partners will be integrated into each school in ways that extend the day for students. CGR will provide appropriate contact information. 34. etc. 23. Coordination and communication is hard and time-consuming.9 If RPL is interested. although the planning would require substantial time. RCSD. ENVIRONMENTAL SCAN: CITYWIDE OPPORTUNITIES As the library positions itself as relevant and responsive to Rochester. and possibly 19. It seems likely that RPL would join the school readiness or out-of-school time CAN. 9. 2.39 VII. However. an asset mapping process led CGR and The Children’s Agenda to highlight family literacy as a communitywide need. As part of the stakeholder interviews. there are several key ways in which it would behoove RPL to continue to become aware and look for opportunities to partner. Rochester’s fledgling collective impact framework. and it seems as though this is an especially difficult relationship to organize and maintain in an effective way.

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

. 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. will now begin to grapple with questions that emerge from this shared foundation. CGR is not aware of the design and planning work to date for the MacArthur and IMLS grant for teen-focused Learning Labs. If that is an opportunity worth pursuing. Directly partnering with other large providers of after-school programming like the YMCA could also be beneficial. in conjunction with the Board of Trustees and staff. This need will increase quickly with ELT. more rigorous and extensive texts. QUESTIONS FACING RPL The information presented thus far is a starting point for further investigation and dialogue. nor is it presented in order of importance. linking with MCC. professional learning communities in which they support each other in learning how to infuse literacy into after-school programming. and is likely to continue to be for the foreseeable future. 5. 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. As mentioned. The New Americans grant is a great opportunity for RPL to plug into the growing network of supportive community agencies. which will increase their need for research skills. but does outline some of the questions that we see as ripe for discussion. and CGR will provide a few contact names to management.41 area and Uncommon Schools will open its high school at a yet-to-bedetermined space in 2014). The United Way runs Learning Circles for providers they fund. VII. RCSD’s OACES (Office of Adult and Career Education Services) and some industry leaders could be beneficial. but notes that there is potential to design labs that also align to workforce development / pipeline needs. 8. 6. This is not an exhaustive list. the shift to the Common Core also demands more complex and more informational texts. Our focus groups enabled some of these connections to start to happen. 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 does not make recommendations in this report. Secondly. Supporting immigrants in becoming connected to community resources and to citizenship is a growing role for many of RPL’s branch libraries. and databases. RPL leadership.

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.

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. Staff report that they are not well-equipped to serve patrons who want to plug in their own laptops while working. which is 6/hour at Charlotte to 20/hour at Maplewood. and by most accounts has done a pretty good job balancing the needs of all ages. Library systems across the country continue to think about how to best assess effectiveness or performance. The librarian is active in the community. 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. Arnett has invested in space and programming for teens.11/hour at Wheatley range. Above the average. Internet sessions have also increased steadily since 2008. within the 3/hour at Highland . Stakeholders and staff seem aligned and believe that the library provides good customer service and is pretty connected in the community. Above the average. . To understand usage patterns. which is 62% of the 5-and-over population that can be considered eligible for a library card. Below average. and provided over 35.61 at Maplewood. programs and attendance at programs have each more than doubled since 2008. and door count was up about a third in the same time period. Arnett has the third highest session/hour rate of the branch libraries. Both circulation and door count had been declining over the previous 10 years.927 registered cardholders who live in Arnett’s service area. within range of 19/hour at Wheatley to 76/hour at Winton. attending neighborhood groups.45 Library Utilization There are 12. within the range of 13 at Winton . Looking at utilization by hour is one way to do so. and that they can’t meet the demand for one-on-one assistance with computers.000 sessions in 2012. trying to make connections. Eleven percent of all patrons who live in the City of Rochester are in this service area. About average. range from 38 at Highland to 122/hour at Maplewood. Reference questions. but CGR notes it is not the only way.

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. These patrons generated 238. renewed or returned materials at any Monroe County library in 2012. 20% by suburban residents and 12% by Wheatley residents. We can only link those patrons who had a transaction (checkout. 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. 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 branch does draw a critical mass of “loyal” local patrons who only use this library. 56% were generated by patrons who lived in the neighborhood. Transaction patterns by patrons living in Arnett’s area Of all cardholders who live in Arnett’s area.46 Where does this library draw patrons from? Unfortunately. (See tables for complete data. programming or other in-person services live. this is about 925 individuals. there is no way to tell where patrons who visit the library for computer access. .491 checked out. The table shows the top 10 libraries where Arnett residents conducted their activity. 3.929 transactions.)  Transactions showed the same pattern: of all the transactions done at Arnett library. renewal or return) in 2012 to their addresses. The library also drew 28% of its patrons from the suburbs and 12% from Wheatley’s service area.

even if they are not directly related to the library. Arnett has averaged about 45 calls in each of the last five years. Please note that these include all calls attributed to the address. 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: . High-level Environmental Scan: Opportunities and Challenges This library is regarded as being pretty “community-minded” and wellconnected to the community it serves. the number of calls for police service to a library’s address does give a sense of the library’s environment.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. and has exceeded 60 calls in two of those years.47 Top 10 Libraries for Patrons in Arnett's Service Area Share of all 2012 transactions by the 3. Arnett is one of four branches to average more than 45 calls a year. staff or patrons.

one of which is in Arnett’s area. this move is still under consideration at the time of writing. etc. but is slated to move out of the service area. train and organize volunteers to come in a few hours a week to provide the one-to-one support on computers. which could end up being in this area. While its new growth has been in Lyell’s service area. there are opportunities to build partnerships between libraries and charter schools. . related to employment. working with Freedom Schools. School 10. accessing resources. not having late evening hours precludes holding many neighborhood meetings in community room.  University of Rochester students are part of both Arnett’s customer base and a potential pool for volunteer partners. They recruit. See the environmental scan section of overall report for a discussion of how this could impact the libraries. A sizable portion of clientele need to be walked through getting online.48  RCSD updates that might affect Arnett: School 16 will remain out of the neighborhood for at least another academic year. (at the old School 37) in the southern part of the service area. it is currently looking for a high school location. will likely be an Expanded Learning Time school.  Other demands on staff time. This need is specifically.  Arnett has launched a collaborative pilot to address—Literacy Navigators through Literacy Volunteers of Rochester. Also. Generally speaking.  There is increased need for one-on-one assistance with computers. but is slated to return to in the 2014-15 year. given that charters do not have libraries and that high school students will demand more complex and more nonfiction texts with the Common Core. School 29 is working to become a community school.  Uncommon Schools is growing its network of charter schools. It is currently a challenge to satisfy their computer usage demands— lack of outlets for example. and not having enough staff inhibits the ability to reach outward. however. but not exclusively. This concept is worth exploring.

Its 2010 population of 8. . In addition. This compares to 29% of residents citywide. Charlotte’s 16% is the highest of any service area. 10% of residents are over 65 years of age. the percentage of the population 18and-under has fallen by 20%.49 CHARLOTTE SERVICE AREA & LIBRARY Demographics The Charlotte service area is a fairly stable area of the city. has fallen since 2000. The percentage of residents 25-and-over with a high school diploma. Charlotte and Winton service areas have the lowest poverty rates.253 reflects a slight decline (6%) since 2000. with 13% of their populations living in poverty. The population is also becoming increasingly more educated. or no diploma at all. Charlotte’s service area is the smallest of the 10 areas. Charlotte’s population has also become slightly more diverse since 2000. Conversely. Both the Black and Hispanic populations doubled since 2000. The percentage of non-white residents has increased from 10% of the total population in 2000 to 17 % in 2010. and presents an aging population. Citywide. the percentage of residents who hold a bachelor’s or graduate degree has risen.

and its volume is currently third highest among city branches. and its 6 sessions/hour rate remains the lowest of any branch in the Rochester system. Four percent of all patrons who live in the city of Rochester are located in this service area. 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. as sessions have increased only by 6% since 2008.11/hour at Wheatley range. Reference questions/hour 11 30 170% Below the average. after both had experienced steady declines over the prior ten years. 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. range from 38 at Highland to 122/hour at Maplewood. Looking at utilization by hour is one way to do so.50 Library Utilization There are 4. ranges up to 20/hour at Maplewood. Head librarians attend and host community meetings. it does not have a large youth presence. which is 61% of the 5-and-over population that can be considered eligible for a library card. However. 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. and while it certainly has families that use the children’s room. Reference queries have also seen a significant increase in the past five years. within the range of 13 at Winton . 4 9 141% Above the average.61 at Maplewood. but CGR notes it is not the only way. 37 45 21% Door count/hour Below average. within range of 19/hour at Wheatley to 76/hour at Winton. and is working on a garden project. Internet access is far less utilized at this branch. Door count has increased by 20% in the same period. Circulation has increased by 14% since 2008. This branch reportedly has a more adult feel. Library systems across the country continue to think about how to best assess effectiveness or performance. nor to support independent quiet work by patrons. They also expressed a desire to better connect with . Staff report that the branch is not well-equipped to serve patrons who want to plug in their own laptops while working. within the 3/hour at Highland . the library has a neighborhood feel.734 registered cardholders in the Charlotte service area. up 36% from 2008 to 2012. 49 56 14% Circulation/hour Above average.

there is no way to tell where patrons who visit the library for computer access.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. . of all of the transactions at the Charlotte branch. 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.)  Transaction data showed that. this is about 430 individuals. Transaction patterns by patrons living in Charlotte’s service area Of all cardholders who live in Charlotte’s area. The table shows libraries where Charlotte residents conducted their activity. These patrons generated 145.581 checked out. Where does this library draw patrons from? Unfortunately. renewed or returned materials at any Monroe County library in 2012. programming or other in-person services live.163 transactions. 1. and 5% at Central. and concern that the branch is not accessible enough to senior citizens living in the area. renewal or return) in 2012 to their addresses.  This branch does draw a critical mass of “loyal” local patrons who only use this library.  47% of these patrons’ transactions were at Charlotte library. (See tables for complete data. 55% were generated by patrons from the suburbs while 35% were generated by patrons from the neighborhood. while 20% lived in the Charlotte service area. 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. We can only link those patrons who had a transaction (checkout. 27% of all patrons with 2012 transactions who live in Charlotte’s service area exclusively used the Charlotte library to checkout or return materials.51 schools in the area. 39% at a suburban branch.

. CGR’s stakeholder interviews did not include Greece patrons or residents. even if they are not directly related to the library. so these comments are likely to reflect more of the City perspective. will impact this library’s patron base in the future.  Charlotte has a local history flair. particularly the residential developments.  A few stakeholders and staff mentioned the desire to serve senior citizens more proactively. staff or patrons. In Charlotte. 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. in draw more youth to the library. and there are a few residences with a large concentration of seniors. A Catholic school has recently reopened as well. as is Charlotte High School. calls are a rare occurrence. the number of calls for police service to a library does give a sense of the library’s environment. CGR heard:  There could be an opportunity to partner with schools more in the future. The Young Men’s Leadership Academy which will return to Charlotte could be a small school receptive to partnerships. none of the schools in the area are applying to be an Expanded Learning Time school. Please note that these include all calls attributed to the address. the ongoing redevelopment of the Port.52 Calls for police service to library While not exactly a measure of library usage.  Obviously. School 50 is currently under construction and slated to move back next fall. Some relevant factors: At this point. and collaborating with the new museum to best meet that need is a possibility.

Racially and ethnically. and levels have increased since 2000. this is up from 62% in 2000. Highland’s residents have higher levels of educational attainment than do most service areas. respectively. Highland has remained largely the same. and higher than in most service areas. and another 22% have Bachelors’. along the East side of the Genesee. and includes the University of Rochester.780 reflects a slight decline (5%) since 2000. Twentytwo percent have graduate degrees. However.53 HIGHLAND SERVICE AREA & LIBRARY Demographics The Highland service area covers the southern section of Rochester. Since 2007. Now. The bulk of residents (69%) are between the ages of 20 and 64. Since 2000. and is predominately white (69%). Highland experienced a 27% decrease in the share of residents who are under 18 years of age. 30% of . compared to 11% and 15% citywide. this has been a neighborhood in which almost 500 refugees have been resettled in a concentrated area near the library. Its 2010 population of 19. the level of poverty has risen. Census data show that this area has held fairly steady since 2000 on most measures.

We . Below the average. with circulation down by about a quarter and door count by almost a third. To understand usage patterns. 48 44 -8% Below average. as opposed to 23% in 2000. which is 46% of the 5-and-over population that can be considered eligible for a library card. within the range of 13 at Winton . 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. and looking farther back.744 registered cardholders in the Highland service area. Reference questions and attendance per program have both increased substantially in the last five years. but CGR notes it is not the only way. a steady decline since 2000.) Highland also has the highest share of foreign-born residents. which was the lowest total of any branch in the city.61 at Maplewood. with 15% in 2007-11. and reflective of a 35% decline since 2008. (Note: The University of Rochester campus residents are not included. ranges up to 11/hour at Wheatley range. Where does this library draw patrons from? Unfortunately. Eight percent of all patrons who live in the city of Rochester are located in this service area. 3 8 3 31 19% 307% Lowest. The declines are even greater when you use 1999 as the baseline. Looking at utilization by hour is one way to do so. 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. ranges up to 122/hour at Maplewood. 42 38 -8% Lowest. Circulation and door count are down 8% from their 2008 levels. within range of 19/hour at Wheatley to 76/hour at Winton. Library systems across the country continue to think about how to best assess effectiveness or performance. Internet usage at the Highland branch is among the lowest in RPL. which is 6/hour at Charlotte to 20/hour at Maplewood.777. The total number of Internet sessions during 2012 was 11. although the branch remains well below the city average in both categories. Library Utilization There are 8. there is no way to tell where patrons who visit the library for computer access. programming or other in-person services live. and the number of programs offered has fallen by 25% over the same period.54 Highland’s residents live in poverty.

9% of all patrons with 2012 transactions who live in Highland’s service area exclusively used the Highland library to checkout or return materials.55 can only link those patrons who had a transaction (checkout. 55% were generated by patrons from the neighborhood.  About two-thirds of these patrons conducted some transactions at suburban libraries. renewed or returned materials at any Monroe County library in 2012. which allows us to report that:  The library drew 41% of the patrons who used the branch in 2012 from the suburbs. These are the patrons and transactions included in this analysis. 16% at Central. compared to the other branches.029 checked out. this is about 270 patrons. renewal or return) in 2012 to their addresses. and 7% of its patrons from the Monroe service area. 23% at Highland Library.270 transactions.28% across branch libraries.  40% of these patron’s transactions were conducted at a suburban branch. 30% from the Highland service area.). with the remainder scattered throughout the system.  Transaction data showed that of all of the transactions at the Highland branch. The table on the following page shows the top 10 libraries where Highland residents conducted their activity. and the rest by patrons scattered throughout the City (See tables for complete data. These patrons generated 324. 23% by patrons from the suburbs. Highland. Transaction patterns by patrons living in Highland’s service area Of all cardholders who live in Highland’s area. 3. 5% by patrons from the Monroe service area.  Highland does not pull a large number of local patrons who are “exclusively loyal” to it. while 43% did so at the Highland branch. and 7% at Monroe Library. Monroe and Wheatley are the only libraries which did not capture the largest share of transactions generated by residents in their areas. This number ranged from 9% . 11% online. .

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.

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. 52 60 17% Door count/hour Above average. since 2008. range from 38 at Highland to 122/hour at Maplewood. Where does this library draw patrons from? Unfortunately. 5 6 20% Reference questions/hour Below the average. and the number of Internet sessions has increased by 27%. Internet usage is a strong point for the branch. within the 3/hour at Highland . as well as attendance per program.674 registered cardholders in the Lincoln service area. within the range of 13 at Winton . within range of 19/hour at Wheatley to 76/hour at Winton. except circulation which declined a bit (5%). there is no way to tell where patrons who visit the library for computer access. The library also drew 27% of its patrons from the suburbs. as its Internet sessions and Internet sessions/hour are among the highest of RPL branches. programming or other in-person services live. which is 6/hour at Charlotte to 20/hour at Maplewood. Lincoln is one of three branches that drew such a significant share of its residents. To understand usage patterns. which is approximately 58% of the 5-and-over population that can be considered eligible for a library card. by 20% and 14% respectively. Library systems across the country continue to think about how to best assess effectiveness or performance. We can only link those patrons who had a transaction (checkout.59 Library Utilization There are 17. which allows us to report that:  40% of the patrons who had a transaction at Lincoln branch in 2012. but CGR notes it is not the only way.61 at Maplewood. Looking at utilization by hour is one way to do so. . The number of programs. live in the Lincoln service area. 31 30 -4% Circulation/hour Below average. Fifteen percent of all patrons who live in the city of Rochester are located in this service area.11/hour at Wheatley range. has increased in the past five years. Door count has increased by 16% since 2008. renewal or return) in 2012 to their addresses. 21 24 14% Program attendance/program Below the average. Reference questions have increased by 18% over the past five years. and 8% of its patrons from the Central service area. 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.

053 checked out. These patrons generated 268. 29% of them also utilized Central for transactions. 23% by patrons from the suburbs. renewed or returned materials at any Monroe County library in 2012.000 individuals.  Meanwhile.  Only 20% of the transactions generated by these patrons were done at Lincoln—this is the lowest capture rate of all the branches. 44% of their transactions were at suburban libraries. which range from 20%-61%. Transaction patterns by patrons living in Lincoln’s service area Of all cardholders who live in Lincoln’s area. 4. 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). and 8% by patrons from the Central service area. Top 10 Libraries for Patrons in Lincoln's Service Area Share of all 2012 transactions by the  4.161 transactions. this is about 1. 51% were generated by patrons from the neighborhood.60  Transaction data depicts a similar pattern: of all the transactions at the Lincoln branch.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%) .  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. The table shows the top 10 libraries where Lincoln residents conducted their activity.

CGR heard:  Lincoln does not currently have any Spanish speaking staff.  Some stakeholders suggested that this community would benefit from an increased emphasis on employment services. Also. . Both staff and stakeholders mentioned the need to have at least some staff that speaks the language and also reflects the community.61 Calls for police service to library While not exactly a measure of library usage.  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. even if they are not directly related to the library. the number of calls for police service to a library does give a sense of the library’s environment. this does not include a formal partnership between the school and RPL. after-school place for youth. Lincoln’s number of calls has increased over the past five years. but held about steady in each of the last three. although there are some logical potential connections. School 9 has become an Expanded Learning Time school. Please note that these include all calls attributed to the address. It also has a teen center and a role as a safe. staff or patrons. and its proximity to the Family Resource Center mean that it has close relationships with area pre-school classes and providers. School 36 is slated to close. which is seen as a problem given the large number of Latino patrons they serve. It was pointed out that there are businesses very nearby that could potentially be part of the market. increasingly Spanish-speaking clientele.  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. 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. The toy library. at this point. Developing that relationship and plan would of course take an investment of time on RPL’s part. It is one of four branches that averages over 40 calls per year.

just behind Central. Almost a third (31%) of the population is under 18 years of age.364 in 2010. However. down from 39%). The racial make-up of the service area has slightly altered since 2000. up from 35% in 2000. and more residents are pursuing at least some form of higher education. Fewer residents are without a high school diploma (31%. Lyell has made some progress in the levels of educational attainment of its residents since 2000. Poverty has increased since 2000 in the Lyell service area.62 LYELL SERVICE AREA & LIBRARY Demographics With a total population of 22. while the white demographic shrunk from 47% to 37%. an increase of 25%. compared to 22% citywide. Lyell’s service area has experienced a slight decline (4%) in population since 2000. Blacks now make up 42% of Lyell’s residents. 35% of Lyell residents report having no access to a vehicle. which is now the second poorest service area in the city. 45% of the residents in Lyell now live below the poverty line. The Hispanic population has increased slightly from 19% to 22%. .

To understand usage patterns.61 at Maplewood. and Internet usage has increased by 28%. . but CGR notes it is not the only way. and the number of programs has increased by 58%. The table below gives a sense of how Lyell branch is doing in some key areas. which allows us to report that:  Lyell branch drew patrons almost equally from the Lyell service area and from the suburbs. Lyell ranks among the highest in the city in volume of reference questions and Internet usage. which is approximately 57% of the 5-and-over population that can be considered eligible for a library card. renewal or return) in 2012 to their addresses. Library systems across the country continue to think about how to best assess effectiveness or performance.708 registered cardholders in the Lyell service area. 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. 47 52 10% Door count/hour Below the average. 3 9 162% Above the average. Program attendance and reference questions have more than doubled during the same period. within the 3/hour at Highland . within range of 19/hour at Wheatley to 76/hour at Winton. 37% of patrons with a 2012 transaction at Lyell lived in the neighborhood while 36% lived in the suburbs. programming or other in-person services live.11/hour at Wheatley range. within the range of 13 at Winton . We can only link those patrons who had a transaction (checkout.63 Library Utilization There are 11. Ten percent of all patrons who live in the city of Rochester are located in this service area. 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. there is no way to tell where patrons who visit the library for computer access. Reference questions/hour 17 25 46% Program attendance/program Below the average. Where does this library draw patrons from? Unfortunately. The library also drew 6% of its patrons from the Maplewood service area. Circulation has increased by 42% since 2008. which is 6/hour at Charlotte to 20/hour at Maplewood. 33 47 43% Circulation/hour Below average. range from 38 at Highland to 122/hour at Maplewood. Looking at utilization by hour is one way to do so. door count has increased by 9%.

56% were generated by patrons from the neighborhood. The table shows the top 10 libraries where Lyell residents conducted their activity.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%) . Suburban libraries. This was the highest “loyalty” measure among RPL branches. and Maplewood (18%). Central and Maplewood captured most of the other transactions these patrons generated. 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). exclusively used the Lyell library to checkout or return materials.524 transactions. Transaction patterns by patrons living in Lyell’s service area Of all cardholders who live in Lyell’s area.779 checked out. Top 10 Libraries for Patrons in Lyell's Service Area Share of all 2012 transactions by the 2. 24% by patrons from the suburbs. this represents about 820 individuals. suburban branches (27%). renewed or returned materials at any Monroe County library in 2012. 2. These patrons generated 203. and 5% by patrons from the Maplewood service area. which ranged from 9-30%.  The largest share (41%) of these patron’s transactions was conducted at the Lyell branch.  This library draws a large share of “loyal” local residents who only use it for their transactions.64  Transaction data depicts a similar pattern: of all the transactions at the Lyell branch. Lyell is only one of three branches that captured more than 40% of its residents’ transactions. 30% of all patrons with 2012 transactions who live in Lyell’s service area.

There is a sizable portion of clientele who need to be walked through getting online. accessing resources.. Lyell has averaged about 10 calls a year since 2008.g. CGR heard:  The industrial built environment (e. Please note that these include all calls attributed to the address. businesses. although they are still infrequent relative to other branches. This work to stabilize housing and shore up other aspects of the community is positive. 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. railroad tracks.  During the course of this study.  Increased need for one-on-one assistance with computers. In many ways. even if they are not directly related to the library.  Lyell’s area includes one of the City’s Focused Investment areas—the JOSANA neighborhood. staff or patrons. The number of Lyell’s calls has increased. this site would serve a different area of Lyell’s . High-level Environmental Scan: Opportunities and Challenges Lyell is interesting in that it draws heavily from Gates. the number of calls for police service to a library does give a sense of the library’s environment. etc. but also has a strong local clientele. and could help build demand for the library. but not exclusively. busy roads) means that a large portion of this service area isn’t walkable by residents’ standards.65 Calls for police service to library While not exactly a measure of library usage. This is specifically related to employment assistance. It is a branch that reports increasing numbers of Spanish speaking patrons and has offered more classes for adult learners. This results in the feeling that the southern part of the service area is not particularly wellserved by this library’s location.

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

primarily from Bhutan and Burma. Poverty in this area has increased substantially since 2000.67 MAPLEWOOD SERVICE AREA & LIBRARY Demographics The total population in the Maplewood service area in 2010 was 19. local data on refugee resettlement tell a more complete story. Blacks made up 37% of the area’s population.140. essentially remaining flat from 2000. as compared to 22% citywide. Conversely. Most . In 2010. the white population fell from 67% to 47%. Since 2007. Just about a third (30%) of residents are under 18.800 refugees in this area. at 6%. 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. a 37% increase. it has a smaller share of population over 65. Catholic Family Services has settled about 1. meaning that the area has a relatively high concentration of youth. Maplewood has seen a shift in the racial and ethnic make-up of its community. At the same time. as opposed to 22% in 2000.

Educational attainment levels have increased slightly since 2000. This is the second highest rate of cardholding among city service areas. 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. Door count increased by 75% since 2008. reference questions by 93% and Internet sessions by 29%. Over the same time period. but CGR notes it is not the only way. which is approximately 65% of the 5-and-over population that can be considered eligible for a library card. attendance per program increased by 54%. Maplewood is still toward the lower end of the spectrum of service areas with regards to poverty rate. To understand usage patterns.280 registered cardholders in the Maplewood service area. Library systems across the country continue to think about how to best assess effectiveness or performance. Library Utilization There are 11. and Maplewood is far and away the most heavily visited RPL branch library.68 recent figures show that 23% of the area’s residents live in poverty. Ten percent of all patrons who live in the city of Rochester are located in this service area. The table on the following page gives a sense of how Maplewood branch is doing in some key areas: . Internet usage and programs are clearly a major service at the branch. However. as it has the highest volume and hourly rate for both. furthermore. Looking at utilization by hour is one way to do so. Maplewood has experienced substantially increased utilization since 2008. About 16% of residents report no access to a vehicle. visits and circulation have trended up since 1999. up from 17% in 2000.

150 transactions. 40 61 54% Program attendance/program Highest. Where does this library draw patrons from? Unfortunately. We can only link those patrons who had a transaction (checkout.  29% of all patrons with 2012 transactions who live in Maplewood’s service area exclusively used the Maplewood library to checkout or return materials. These “loyalty” rates range from 9% . The library itself is regarded as plugged into the community and has open lines of communication with many of the major organizations. there is no way to tell where patrons who visit the library for computer access. this is 871 individuals. These patrons generated 233. Maplewood is by all accounts “bursting at the seams” on most days. renewed or returned materials at any Monroe County library in 2012. renewal or return) in 2012 to their addresses. programming or other in-person services live. These are the transactions included in this analysis: . 39 43 12% Circulation/hour Below average. and the library has become a place for youth to be afterschool in a neighborhood without many other options. Reference questions/hour 5 10 94% Above the average. 69 122 76% Door count/hour Highest.  Of all the transactions at the Maplewood branch. ranges from 6/hour at Charlotte. 3. within the 3/hour at Highland .039 checked out.30% across the branch libraries. The library also drew 33% of its patrons from the suburbs. ranges from 38/hour at Highland. within range of 19/hour at Wheatley to 76/hour at Winton.11/hour at Wheatley range. There are a wide array of tutoring and English as a Second Language classes for all ages. 55% were generated by patrons from the neighborhood. and 14% were generated by patrons from the Lyell service area. and 11% of its patrons from the Lyell service area. Transaction patterns by patrons living in Maplewood’s service area Of all cardholders who live in Maplewood’s area.69 Maplewood Library % 2008 2012 change Notes based on 2012 metrics 16 20 30% Internet sessions/ hour Highest. and 20% by patrons from the suburbs. which allows us to report that:  38% of the patrons who used the Maplewood branch in 2012 live in the Maplewood service area. ranges from 13/program at Winton.

) While this is a community issue larger than the library. (Please note that these include all calls attributed to the address.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. which can sometimes be confrontational.70  39% of these patron’s transactions were conducted at the Maplewood branch. rising more or less steadily over the past four years. 31% at suburban libraries and 9% at Central. even if they are not directly related to the library. Maplewood averaged about 45 calls a year. to some extent this reflects the fact that the library is crowded. 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. The number of calls at Maplewood has almost tripled since 2008. serves a lot of youth and is in the front lines between the immigrant and neighborhood culture. . staff or patrons. and is one of four branches to exceed 40 annual calls. the number of calls for police service to a library does give a sense of the library’s environment.

 There is increased need for one-on-one assistance with computers. and a “community anchor” on Dewey. Maplewood has to work to be all things to quite a range of patrons. It is possible that the library could bring useful expertise and staff time to this effort. land-locked. related to employment. etc. CGR notes that even building the relationship with the school to .  Because the library is a communal place. tutoring. This requires a continual balancing act between the “buzz” of classes. which no one wants to lose. because Maplewood is simultaneously seen as over-crowded with poor parking. Staff that has interest. it could decrease the number of students coming to the library after school. It is facing some challenges. The New Americans grant will help expand these services. will likely be one of the Expanded Learning Time schools next year. The path forward is complicated. but there is a concern that RPL is too reliant on volunteers to plan and deliver these services. It has taken the initiative to mobilize volunteers and organize language classes. Secondly. 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. etc. accessing resources.  The library has really become a place known for welcoming and serving immigrants. it is in the position of navigating the change (and sometimes tension) as the community culture expands to include a large number of immigrants. but also is at the forefront of a library adapting to those it serves. First.71 High-level Environmental Scan: Opportunities and Challenges Both usage data and interviews confirm that Maplewood is “bursting at the seams”. not just this school. and works to be a resource to the City’s newest residents. This has two potential implications for Maplewood. expanding the day requires schools to partner very strategically with community partners. but not exclusively. although the library draws students from all over. This is specifically.  School 34. capacity and training to do this is critical here. new fiction. A sizable portion of the clientele needs to be walked through getting online. youth and volunteers and the more traditional quiet reading space that some patrons still want. on Lexington Avenue. Ensuring that staff have time to devote to coordinating with refugee providers in Rochester would help.

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

down from 10% in 2007. respectively.73 MONROE SERVICE AREA & LIBRARY Demographics The total population in the Monroe service area in 2010 was 22. 14% of residents report not having access to a vehicle. Monroe saw a slight increase in the percentage of its residents living in poverty.437. by 10% and 14%. Monroe’s age distribution also stayed about the same. Monroe has the highest concentration of white residents (82%) of any service area except Charlotte. Monroe saw some positive increases in the education levels of its residents. which does not mark a significant change from 2000. and is the most highly educated service area in the city. as just 9% of its residents are 19 years of age or younger. and the lowest rate in Rochester. However. just behind Charlotte and Winton. The percentage of the population with Bachelor’s and graduate degrees rose as well. this is well above the overall 50% for the City. Monroe has the third lowest poverty rate of any service area. It is one of the oldest service areas in Rochester. from 14% of the population in 2000 to 17% in 2010. Just 7% of residents did not have a high school diploma in 2010. .

within range of 19/hour at Wheatley to 76/hour at Winton. within the range of 13 at Winton . Monroe does consistently have the second highest annual circulation. 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.452 registered cardholders in the Monroe service area. the downward trend is more severe since 1999. Program attendance/program 16 Where does this library draw patrons from? Unfortunately. which is approximately 53% of the 5-and-over population that can be considered eligible for a library card. renewal or return) in 2012 to their addresses. . but CGR notes it is not the only way. However. 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. programming or other in-person services live.11/hour at Wheatley range. there is no way to tell where patrons who visit the library for computer access. Looking at utilization by hour is one way to do so. Door count/hour 5 5 -13% Below the average. 28% of the patrons it drew lived in the Monroe service area. lived in the suburbs. To understand usage patterns. Internet sessions/ hour 63 56 -10% Above the average. Circulation and door count are both down by about 11% since 2008. after the Winton branch. within the 3/hour at Highland . We can only link those patrons who had a transaction (checkout.61 at Maplewood.74 Library Utilization There are 11. Reference questions/hour 14 -11% Below the average. and 10% resided in the Highland service area. reference questions have decreased by 14% and Internet sessions have decreased by 19% since 2008. which allows us to report that:  The bulk of patrons (45%) who used the Monroe branch for a transaction in 2012. Library systems across the country continue to think about how to best assess effectiveness or performance. which is 6/hour at Charlotte to 20/hour at Maplewood. Circulation/hour 47 43 -10% Below average. Ten percent of all patrons who live in the city of Rochester are located in this service area. Additionally. range from 38 at Highland to 122/hour at Maplewood.

renewed or returned materials at any Monroe County library in 2012.  The bulk of these patron’s transactions (43%) were conducted at suburban libraries. Monroe is one of three branches that did not capture the largest share of transactions generated by patrons in its service area. 28% by suburban patrons. Top 10 Libraries for Patrons in Monroe's Service Area Share  of all 2012 transactions by the 3. exclusively used the Monroe library to checkout or return materials. while 23% were at Monroe and 14% at Central. 47% did so at Monroe and 36% at Central.  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. These patrons generated 385.30% across branches.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%) . These “loyalty” numbers range from 9% . Transaction patterns by patrons living in Monroe’s service area Of all cardholders who live in Monroe’s area.963 checked out. These are the patrons and transactions included in this analysis:  65% of these patrons performed at least one transaction at a suburban branch. and 12% by patrons from Highland’s service area.880 transactions. 47% were generated by patrons from the neighborhood.75  Of all the transactions at the Monroe branch. The table shows the top 10 libraries where Monroe residents conducted their activity. 3.

but they are infrequent. In some ways. An emphasis on creative ways of marketing to various segments of the population could help. staff or patrons. High-level Environmental Scan: Opportunities and Challenges Monroe Library is situated at the crossroads between several different neighborhoods. partly because many (not all!) of its patrons have means to access other libraries. and partly because its building is one of . and there are examples of strong partnership.  The lack of a community room. the friends group expressed an interest in meeting with the comparable group at other branches to share ideas and problem solve. although there is a concern that they are under-utilized. Monroe has seen a steady increase in calls. stakeholder and staff would like to continue to look for more ways to capitalize on this. CGR heard:  The quality of children’s programming and the separate children’s room were both spoken highly of. By all accounts. Please note that these include all calls attributed to the address.76 Calls for police service to libraries While not exactly a measure of library usage. perhaps poses a challenge to building a strong neighborhood connection. drawing more youth into the library. as the library averaged 10 calls a year. the number of calls for police service to a library does give a sense of the library’s environment. Specifically.  The proximity of the YMCA is seen as an asset. even if they are not directly related to the library. and of separate space to study or meet within the library’s existing space plan is a challenge. this location is an asset and in others.  Some stakeholders expressed a feeling that this library seems to be “on the chopping block”—partly because it is not as busy. and is also on a main thoroughfare in and out of the City. Actively reaching out to the various neighborhood groups (again!) was also suggested.

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

but are not the lowest of all service areas. It is among the youngest service areas in Rochester. Educational attainment levels in this area are generally lower than the citywide rates. 31% of residents report no access to a vehicle. with 36% of its residents being 19 years of age or younger. this is the highest concentration of youth in the city. The poverty rate increased since 2000. which rose from 17% to 23%. marking a slight decline (3%) from 2000. as opposed to 27% in 2000 (29% citywide). Most recent data show 31% of Sully residents living in poverty. This area has a more even distribution of races and ethnicities than many do many service areas. The largest demographic change since 2000 has been a 38% increase in the Hispanic population. . The share of residents 25-and-over without a high school diploma decreased since 2000.78 SULLY SERVICE AREA & LIBRARY Demographics The Sully service area’s total population in 2010 was 21. There were no major shifts in the age of Sully’s population from 2000 to 2010.895.

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. Door count/hour 2 5 106% Below the average. The door count doubled over the same period. within range of 19/hour at Wheatley to 76/hour at Winton. programming or other in-person services live. 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. which is 6/hour at Charlotte to 20/hour at Maplewood.61 at Maplewood. . Looking at utilization by hour is one way to do so. Eleven percent of all patrons who live in the city of Rochester are located in this service area. but CGR notes it is not the only way. Circulation/hour 32 60 89% Above average. Reference questions/hour 47 358% Above the average. To understand usage patterns. Reference questions also more than doubled in volume in the past five years. there is no way to tell where patrons who visit the library for computer access. Internet sessions/ hour 17 25 51% Below average. Program attendance/program 10 Where does this library draw patrons from? Unfortunately. 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. range from 38 at Highland to 122/hour at Maplewood.215 registered cardholders in the Sully service area. and is now third highest among RPL branches. and is second to Maplewood.79 Library Utilization There are 12. which is approximately 62% of the 5-and-over population that can be considered eligible for a library card. The library also drew 30% of its patrons from the suburbs. within the 3/hour at Highland . Library systems across the country continue to think about how to best assess effectiveness or performance. and Internet sessions have increased by 47%.) Circulation has increased by 70% from 2008-2012. and 9% from the Lincoln service area. within the range of 13 at Winton . during which the library was reopened as part of the Sully-Ryan Center-School 33 community center.11/hour at Wheatley range. renewal or return) in 2012 to their addresses. We can only link those patrons who had a transaction (checkout. Program attendance has risen dramatically. (A deeper look into the impact of the move and renovation was not part of this study.

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  3.80  Transactions show the same pattern: of all the transactions at the Sully branch. and 16% at Central.  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. renewed or returned materials at any Monroe County library in 2012.  These patrons performed a third of their transactions at suburban libraries.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%) . Transaction patterns by patrons living in Sully’s service area Of all cardholders who live in Sully’s area. 3. about a quarter at the Sully branch. These are the patrons and transactions included in this analysis:  Just under half (46%) of these patrons had a transaction at Sully library. and 26% by suburban patrons. These patrons generated 229.973 transactions.184 checked out. 56% were generated by patrons from the neighborhood. 38% did so in a suburban library. This loyalty measure ranged from 9-30% across branches. exclusively used the Sully library to checkout or return materials. 28% at Central and 21% at Winton. This is about 800 individuals.

even if they are not directly related to the library. nor is it set up with enough electrical outlets.  Staff willingness. and many also recognize that relationships and organizational practices still need work before the true potential is realized. Please note that these include all calls attributed to the address. Launched in 2009.  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. The place often feels “bustling”. we heard from some adult patrons that this library is more of a youth space. High-level Environmental Scan: Opportunities and Challenges Sully is the City’s flagship for a community center—school. The space plan is less than ideal. etc. capacity and training are all critical given the primary emphasis on youth. while children . does not really provide for dedicated teen space.81 Calls for police service to libraries While not exactly a measure of library usage. 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. 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. to accommodate patrons’ devices. If they can’t get there early in the day. Calls to Sully have increased at the new location. the number of calls for police service to a library does give a sense of the library’s environment. Rec Center and library with community meeting space. staff or patrons. and therefore unwelcoming to many adults. many are very pleased with the result.  Furthermore.

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

37% of Wheatley residents do not own or have access to a vehicle.660. although still worse than citywide rates and many of the service areas.83 WHEATLEY SERVICE AREA & LIBRARY Demographics The total population in 2010 for the Wheatley service area was 15. which reflects a 6% decline in population since 2000. The percentage of the . currently. 34% of Wheatley’s population lived below the poverty line. as Wheatley remains on the young end of the spectrum. Other and Hispanic populations. Local data sources show that Wheatley also has an increasing immigrant population—since 2007. behind only Central and Lyell. 35% of its residents are under 19 years of age. The poverty rate in the service area rose by 25% throughout the last decade. There were no notable shifts in the age distribution of the population from 2000 to 2010. Catholic Family Charities has resettled about 1.000 refugees in the area. the second highest rate behind Central. 43% of the population does. In 2000. mostly Somali. giving it one of the highest concentrations of youth of all service areas. although there have been slight increases in the white. The area remains predominately (77%) Black. Educational attainment levels are up since 2000. This is the third highest poverty rate among city service areas.

Library Utilization There are 9.61 at Maplewood. within the range of 13 at Winton . there is no way to tell where patrons who visit the library for computer access. Eight percent of all patrons who live in the city of Rochester are located in this service area. Looking at utilization by hour is one way to do so. which allows us to report that: . To understand usage patterns. Circulation has increased by 96%. range from 38 at Highland to 122/hour at Maplewood. however.615 registered cardholders in the Wheatley service area. but CGR notes it is not the only way. ranges up to 76/hour at Winton. programming or other in-person services live. Library systems across the country continue to think about how to best assess effectiveness or performance. which is approximately 68% of the 5-and-over population that can be considered eligible for a library card. Circulation/hour 33 43 30% Below average. The share of the population who had attended some college and who earned degrees both increased slightly.84 25-and-over population who had not received their high school diploma fell from 36% of the population to 29%. Door count/hour 4 11 190% Highest. the volume of circulation. renewal or return) in 2012 to their addresses. despite a 29% increase since 2008. ranges from 3/hour at Highland Reference questions/hour 40 19% Above the average. Door counts for the same period tell a similar story. 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. both of which have more than doubled. and circulation per service hour. We can only link those patrons who had a transaction (checkout. as the branch boasts the third lowest volume in the city. Program attendance/program 33 Where does this library draw patrons from? Unfortunately. which is 6/hour at Charlotte to 20/hour at Maplewood. This is the highest rate of card-holding of any service area in Rochester. Wheatley does stand out from other branches in terms of the volume of Internet sessions and reference questions provided annually. Internet sessions/ hour 10 19 98% Lowest. remain the lowest of any branch in the city. 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.

 24% of these patron’s transactions were conducted at the Wheatley branch. Transaction patterns by patrons living in Wheatley’s service area Of all cardholders who live in Wheatley’s area. exclusively used the Wheatley library to checkout or return materials. and 11% by patrons living in Arnett’s service area. and 20% did so at suburban libraries. These are the patrons and transactions included in this analysis:  These patrons tended to use Wheatley and Central fairly evenly. A quarter also got or returned materials at Arnett. while 23% were generated by suburban patrons.213 checked out.85  The Wheatley branch drew a third of its patrons with transactions in 2012 from the suburbs. 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. 2.741 transactions.  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. 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. with 44% having a transaction at Wheatley and 41% doing so at Central. The loyalty measure ranged from 9-30% across branches. 28% at Central. These patrons generated 125.213 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%) . This is about 500 individuals. and 30% from the Wheatley service area. renewed or returned materials at any Monroe County library in 2012. and 15% at suburban libraries.

educational library as a trusted place to find resources and for their children to spend time. Both the data and interviews seem to suggest that a portion of Corn Hill residents view Central as “their” library. . but Wheatley has fewer calls than many other branches with large concentrations of youth. apartments). 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. It is an interesting location. in part because it serves some very poor neighborhoods as well as Corn Hill. A few mothers expressed this need very compellingly. Wheatley has averaged less than 20 calls each year. Please note that these include all calls attributed to the address. a group that in general tend to view the neutral. working to turn around declining trends and create a welcoming space for patrons. Calls were up slightly last year. the number of calls for police service to a library does give a sense of the library’s environment. since 2008. instead of Wheatley.86 Calls for police service to library While not exactly a measure of library usage. staff or patrons. 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.  The library currently does not provide robust storytimes for young children. even if they are not directly related to the library. High-level Environmental Scan: Opportunities and Challenges Wheatley has by all accounts been on the right track over the last several years. or connecting with local resettlement and immigrant organizations.

 Proximity to the University of Rochester and its housing on Plymouth Avenue seems to present an opportunity to organize volunteer tutors. will likely be one of the Expanded Learning Time schools next year. if not. Wheatley still hosts similar events. This has two potential implications for Wheatley. but perhaps these could be more widely promoted.  The large community meeting room is a real asset. the University has the Rochester Center for Community Leadership that helps to organize student service opportunities. it could decrease the number of students coming to the library after school. expanding the day requires schools to partner very strategically with community partners. and should happen sooner than later if interested. not just this school. First. although the library draws students from all over. To some extent.87  Jefferson Avenue is one of the City’s Focused Investment areas. Nathanial Rochester Community School (NRCS) in Corn Hill. Secondly. Stakeholders remembered when that room hosted summer movies and community events. .  School 3. potentially under-utilized. and Wheatley provides meeting space for various community groups to meet and plan. CGR notes that even building the relationship with the school to develop a partnership would require an investment of time on RPL’s side. There are other libraries that have had success with this that could hopefully provide contacts. It is possible that the library could bring useful expertise and staff time to this effort.

10% Other and 3% Asian. The percentage of the area’s population with a Bachelor’s degree rose from 18% to 29%. The percentage of residents without a high school diploma fell. Winton residents are predominately white (76%). Citywide. with 13% of the populations living in poverty. and the percentage of residents with a graduate degree rose from 13% to 16%. Rochester as a whole is 50% white. The white population decreased from 81%. the rate is 29%. The bulk of Winton’s residents (69%) are between 20 and 64 years old.496. although the area has become more diverse over the period since 2000. and are better than citywide rates. The percentage of the population that is 18 years or younger has dropped by 14% since 2000. with 23% reporting Hispanic ethnicity. . 37% Black. while Blacks now account for 17% of the population (up from 13%) and Hispanics account for 7% (up from 5%). The educational attainment levels in this area improved from 2000.88 WINTON SERVICE AREA & LIBRARY Demographics The total population for the Winton service area in 2010 was 11. a moderate (6%) decrease since 2000. and the service areas range from 13% to 50%. Winton and Charlotte have the lowest poverty rate of any service area.

ranges from 19/hour at Wheatley. The decline is even more pronounced if you include the decade prior to that. renewal or return) in 2012 to their addresses. To understand usage patterns. and 10% by patrons from the Sully service area. Six percent of all patrons who live in the city of Rochester are located in this service area. range from 38 at Highland to 122/hour at Maplewood. which is approximately 63% of the 5-and-over population that can be considered eligible for a library card. which allows us to report that:  Winton library drew the majority (55%) of its patrons who had any transactions in 2012 from the suburbs. 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. Where does this library draw patrons from? Unfortunately. but other measures do not show as much usage. and door count grew by only a modest 7% over the same period. ranges up to 61 at Maplewood.841 registered cardholders in the Winton service area. because that 21% of patrons generated the bulk of Winton library’s transactions: 44%. We can only link those patrons who had a transaction (checkout. Internet sessions have fallen by 18% since 2008. but overall circulation has decreased by 12% over the last five years. Library systems across the country continue to think about how to best assess effectiveness or performance. 35% of transactions were generated by suburban patrons. 14 13 -5% Program attendance/program Lowest. programming or other in-person services live. Both volume and hourly rate of circulation are high. After that. Circulation/hour 53 58 8% Door count/hour At average. Looking at utilization by hour is one way to do so.89 Library Utilization There are 6. there is no way to tell where patrons who visit the library for computer access. 4 6 56% Reference questions/hour Below the average.  The patrons living in Winton generate a lot of activity. .11/hour at Wheatley range. within the 3/hour at Highland . 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. but CGR notes it is not the only way. and 9% in Monroe’s service area. Twenty-one percent live in the Winton service area.

the number of calls for police service to a library does give a sense of the library’s environment. These loyalty measures range from 9-30% across the branches. These patrons generated 266. exclusively used the Winton library to checkout or return materials.880 transactions. renewed or returned materials at any Monroe County library in 2012.90  Winton library draws a number of very “loyal” local residents. 55% of area patrons also had 1 Winton Branch Library (48%) transactions at the 2 Brighton Memorial  Library (11%) suburban libraries. Transaction patterns by patrons living in Winton’s service area Of all cardholders who live in Winton’s area. 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. This is about 750 individuals. and despite a slight increase in calls . 2. Winton averaged about 8 calls each year. 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.667 checked out. 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. Another third 10 Monroe  Branch Library (2%) of their transactions went to suburban libraries.667 patrons in  share of local residents the area who had transactions in 2012 it attracted. 28% of all patrons with 2012 transactions who live in Winton’s service area. and Winton stands out in the Share of all 2012 transactions by the 2.

” CGR heard:  School 46 on Newcastle Rd. staff or patrons. is likely to be one of RCSD’s Expanded Learning Time schools next year. .  Some stakeholders perceive that this library is “on the chopping block” because many of its patrons can access libraries in other areas. This has two potential implications for Winton.91 last year.  Stakeholders expressed an interest in arranging some citywide meetings for friends groups to meet across all branches. Secondly. and library staff report that they are not well-equipped when it comes to serving patrons who speak other languages. It is possible that the library could bring useful expertise and staff time to this effort. but could be beneficial to both parties. They are interested in sharing ideas and problem solving together. even if they are not directly related to the library. it could decrease the number of students coming to the library after school. Neighborhood usage shows that residents do value the library as part of their urban village. has fewer calls than most branches. Diversifying staff and collections are possible solution. it has a strong neighborhood feel that is more adult and family focused. particularly Spanish. Please note that these include all calls attributed to the address. CGR notes that building the relationship with the school to develop a partnership would require an investment of time on RPL’s side. as opposed to a strong youth “flavor.  The area is becoming more diverse. expanding the day requires schools to partner very strategically with community partners. High-level Environmental Scan: Opportunities and Challenges Winton consistently attracts “readers” as its circulation stats demonstrate. First. Based on interviews. and perhaps some of the translation station ideas covered in the environmental scan section of the main report may help in the short run.

which will come in the next phase of the internal planning process. as well as interviews with the management team allowed us to hear from a variety of staff including management. funders such as the United Way. with 36 participants. Respondents most frequently visited suburban branches. librarians. Central. The survey was administered as a convenience sample—with the main promotion vehicle being the library itself. we know that the respondents are not representative of Rochester’s population.272 completed it. In all. 62 people participated and shared their insights. Department of Recreation and Youth Services and Administration. clerical staff and youth services staff. Charles Settlement House. These included organizations such as Uncommon Schools. and 1. between the ages of 25-64. faith-based institutions. We also interviewed a few experts from associations and places external to Rochester. female. Indeed. and 82% said they are regular users of the libraries. Two focus groups. the YMCA. City staff from the Neighborhood Service Centers. quadrant leaders. While this report did not focus on staffing and workflow. Lastly.400 residents began the online survey. Survey Over 1. These included communitybased organizations such as Boys and Girls Club. and educated. community association and Sector leaders. About two-thirds of the respondents were City residents. and patrons from the libraries. the National Center on Time and Learning and a group of providers who support refugee resettlement. Monroe and Winton. The . CGR felt it important to learn from staff. the Rochester City School District and the County Youth Bureau. respondents were overwhelmingly white.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. aides. The Conveners of Roc the Future also had a discussion about how the library can strategically align with the fledgling collective impact framework. 44 people participated. In all. and NEAD. Baden Street. Thus. CGR also conducted a series of very targeted interviews about potential partnerships beyond what we learned through these groups. we conducted a small number of dialogues with teens who do not attend the library regularly. including the organized Friends groups at some libraries.

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

All others. American Community Survey 2007-2011 94 .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.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.Basic Demographic Data for Each Service Area and for City of Rochester Lyell Maplewood Monroe 22.660 11.780 33. CGR can also provide the raw data on 2000-2010 trends in each service area if requested. 2010 Census.537 Total Population 22.895 15.496 Sully Wheatley Winton Rochester 210.253 19.437 21.565 7% 19% 64% 10% 29% 20% 55% 78% 9% 1% 24% Arnett Central Charlotte Highland Lincoln 13. % No Vehicle 21% 46% 12% 27% 32% 35% 16% 14% Source: Population and age brackets.140 22.063 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.

610 Winton 228.100 59.519 Highland 104.981 106.001 1.770 Sully 43.034 108.863 93.4% -10.9% 29.096 2011 2012 % Change %Change % Change 1999-2012 1999-2008 2008-2012 13.8% -8.512 19.4% 9.2% -28.6% N/A N/A -0.014 Wheatley 37.920 84.1% 11.036 Total .1% -5.793 85.346 928.4% -32.798 1.005 1.799 36.637 106.581 84.983 84.368 Maplewood 66.322 116.484 74.729 111.2% -21.1% N/A N/A -0.178 71.1% 75.820 847.127 85.996 1.6% -14.487 2011 60.012 2.211 120.688 173.357 161.268 30.8% -47.799 2.173 62.697 850.398 75.5% -9.552 90.996 2.7% -23.920 38.8% -9.620 164.001 66.4% 29.012 1.9% 2.557 93.407 Lyell 54.5% 32.436 145.605 86.756 19.9% -21.013 1.663 Monroe 123.3% 9.998 2.927 2.312 2012 2.802 2.187 2010 2.964 % Change % Change % Change 1999-2012 1999-2008 2008-2012 -0.3% Circulation 1999 Arnett 71.6% -23.2% N/A N/A -1.3% -31.016 Winton N/A 2.6% 7.537 802.784 2.95 APPENDIX C – OVERALL LIBRARY UTILIZATION TABLES Service hours 1999 2008 2009 2.391 87.852 58.970 219.454 245.9% 81.6% -8.2% -32.1% 18.039 Charlotte N/A 2.3% 27.013 Sully N/A 1.075 72.812 Lincoln N/A 2.804 69.2% 20.829 140.001 1.687 Arnett N/A 2.750 239.7% 96.986 1.837 2012 71.016 2011 2.9% -25.120 2008 41.280 98.8% 0.6% 15.999 20.095 94.970 2.688 113.990 2.792 2.498 87.137.028 Monroe N/A 2.609 2010 52.326 40.945 111.564 850.388 112.010 73.3% 108.999 84.413 117.812 Maplewood N/A 2.051 63.6% 33.498 74.1% 13.490 109.426 87.5% 175.769 35.541 59.134 Total .8% 55.662 1.896 2009 92.448 95.004 2.020 1.3% -15.226 112.011 1.4% -42.6% -16.8% 41.502 28.5% 92.3% -4.0% 13.014 Highland N/A 1.059 82.909 75.498 50.891 2010 92.118 126.7% 20.6% N/A N/A -0.027 2.7% -5.308 116.544 .All Branche918.820 Wheatley N/A 2.999 77.787 Total .5% Door count 1999 Arnett 96.014 1.451 98.9% 66.8% 10.043 62.868 80.346 1.0% 3.569 73.8% N/A N/A 10.211 1.106 2008 82.090.009 1.547 84.8% -11.All Branche942.5% 16.519 84.6% N/A N/A -0.546 78.6% 19.240 1.All Branche21.6% 27.775 777.100 Lyell 66.175 85.424 Lincoln 95.449 156.462 2009 49.6% 41.373 69.2% -25.792 2.019 19.727 52.479 1.019 2.959 105.4% -23.206 109.4% 9.317 85.235 89.012 20.806 2.6% -7.343 72.663 153.998 Charlotte 124.135.805 2.806 Lincoln 52.873 Winton 104.856 Wheatley 92.622 81.8% -8.538 87.888 2.669 Highland 102.175 Monroe 150.000 1.129 124.6% N/A N/A -0.544 891.7% 73.4% N/A N/A -0.000 1.036 Lyell N/A 1.4% N/A N/A -1.001 1.9% 32.869 158.8% 8.0% -15.183 67.444 112.9% -10.621 % Change % Change % Change 1999-2012 1999-2008 2008-2012 N/A N/A -0.652 Charlotte 95.009 52.012 2.088 91.2% 103.0% 11.8% -10.132 100.737 1.482 121.716 78.488 158.006 19.312 Maplewood 120.089 Sully 28.

7% N/A N/A 84.6% 11.0% 7.All Branche N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 3.217 3.3% N/A N/A 14.851 9.080 Winton N/A 1.All Branche20.878 129.517 Arnett N/A 4.2% 182.728 2011 240 305 345 521 522 451 196 358 134 207 3.671 Lincoln N/A 12.652 2011 8.874 Maplewood N/A 8.180 Sully N/A 2.2% N/A N/A 178.6% 2.566 8.1% N/A N/A 18.107 2.8% N/A N/A 171.842 3.668 130.291 N/A N/A 207.9% N/A N/A 170.471 22.702 6.326 N/A N/A 769.736 N/A N/A 37.838 6.7% Program attendance 1999 2008 2009 8.303 Highland N/A 3.842 20.802 13.674 N/A N/A 746.970 1.701 2008 105 119 478 573 225 222 75 261 212 92 2.3% N/A N/A 115.7% 77.362 2009 152 172 405 575 258 451 85 244 113 94 2.758 2.2% 2012 Program attendance per Programs 1999 Arnett Charlotte Highland Lincoln Lyell Maplewood Monroe Sully Wheatley Winton Total .716 17.5% N/A N/A 20.1% N/A N/A 307.730 129.861 N/A N/A 145.0% 22.634 10.549 2010 126 180 271 583 385 395 151 305 156 176 2.864 Monroe N/A 1.959 % Change % Change % Change 1999-2012 1999-2008 2008-2012 11.8% N/A N/A -24.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 -14.915 N/A N/A 147.9% -36.6% N/A N/A 221.96 Programs 1999 Arnett Charlotte Highland Lincoln Lyell Maplewood Monroe Sully Wheatley Winton Total .6% N/A N/A -5.311 Total .741 10.445 N/A N/A 5.0% N/A N/A -11.2% 59.670 1.924 N/A N/A 130.4% N/A N/A 358.275 7.771 % Change % Change % Change 1999-2012 1999-2008 2008-2012 N/A N/A 188.985 3.605 17.519 10.0% N/A N/A 54.4% 539.2% N/A N/A 103.279 2012 303 383 361 690 355 602 209 482 188 198 3.412 8.6% 16.2% 11.4% N/A N/A 57.829 Charlotte N/A 1.400 46.1% 260.012 N/A N/A 317.2% 1.9% 132.852 551.167 Lyell N/A 3.318 72.814 1.254 32.4% 37.927 25.6% 8.464 28.680 Wheatley N/A 7.2% N/A N/A 46.2% .5% 2.186 23.375 1.7% N/A N/A -11.300 2010 9.

97 .