2016-2017 Lawrence Public Library Community Information Needs Assessment by Heather Kearns

Community Information Needs Assessment 2016â&#x20AC;&#x201C;2017

Special Thanks. There are many people we would like to recognize, without whom this assessment wouldn’t have been possible: To Kathleen Morgan, for procuring funding from AmeriCorps VISTA to accomplish this much-needed and widely-reaching assessment. To Melissa Fisher Isaacs, for leading our team to complete this assessment. To Gwen GeigerWolfe, for tackling our community resource organization interviews. To Heather Kearns, for expanding our reach beyond our highest expectations. To Kelly Francis, for conducting our poverty data analysis. To Yilan Zhao, for translating our survey into Chinese. To Rachael Perry and Ian Stepp, for helping translate our survey into Spanish. To the Accounts team, for singlehandedly taking on the task of redeeming patrons’ late fee coupons upon completion of the survey. You helped reduce 985 patrons’ late fees between June and December 2016. To the entire Lawrence Public Library staff, for providing endless support, insight, and encouragement throughout this process. To AmeriCorps VISTA, for enabling this assessment & our fight to serve the impoverished members of our community. To the City of Lawrence, for giving us access to your ArcGIS software & enabling an even more in-depth assessment of our patrons. To each of our community partners who have helped spread the word, facilitated surveying at your events, & contributed to the growth and success of our community. We couldn’t have done it without you. Most sincerely, Logan Isaman AmeriCorps VISTA Community Assessment Coordinator

Dedications

Table of Contents

Introduction. In 1917, an extensive committee of Lawrencians issued the Lawrence Social Survey, the first ever effort to comprehensively study the living conditions and quality of life of Lawrence residents. Led by Frank Blackmar, a faculty member of the Department of Sociology at the University of Kansas and later the first dean of the KU graduate school, the social survey committee delved deeply into the housing, working, educational, economic, and health conditions of the people of Lawrence. Some of their methods and findings point out starkly the passage of years: the presence of a piano or phonograph in the home as a measure of economic prosperity, the finding that 152 cows made their home within the Lawrence city limits, the recommendation that a separate tuberculosis ward be established at the county poor farm. Some of their observations, however, continue to ring true for our community today: the University is the economic driver in the community, low wages and underemployment continue to be a significant factor, increasing societal interconnectivity (in 1917, the impending completion of an interurban rail line between Lawrence and Kansas City, the establishment of widespread telephone service, and the growing population of personal automobiles) shapes the fortunes of local merchants and is reshaping social norms. One hundred years later, information is both invaluable and staggeringly ubiquitous, and access to informationâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;and the skills to navigate and evaluate informationâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;serve as a measure of prosperity and well-being. With this in mind, Lawrence Public Library (LPL) set out to better understand the information needs of our community, and how well we and other community organizations are meeting those needs.

Introduction

Towards this end, in 2016 the library began surveying Lawrence residents with the goals of: 1. Refreshing our understanding of the population we serve; 2. Gauging community awareness of library programs and services; 3. Determining the information needs of our service population; 4. Identifying the areas in which we are meeting those needs; 5. Identifying the areas in which community partners are meeting those needs; and 6. Identifying unmet needs and/or new needs that the Library can address. Our timing was auspicious: As was the case in 1917, interest in community assessment is currently widespread. At the same time that we were conducting our assessment focusing on information needs and their relationship to the provision of library services, other organizations in the community were also conducting assessments which examined the needs of the people of Lawrence through other lenses. Drawing upon the results of those assessments—including the STAR Communities assessment undertaken by the City of Lawrence, the Lawrence-Douglas County Health Department’s Health Survey, and the City of Lawrence Parks and Recreation Master Plan—as well as national level data from the United States Census Bureau and the Pew Research Center, brings additional dimension to our examination of the information needs of Lawrence residents.

Introduction

Methods. Methods of Creation. From March through December of 2016, we worked to create a Community Information Needs Assessment (CINA) that would help to answer our questions about the hopes and needs of the community we serve. First, the CINA task force reached out to library staff to get a sense of the questions being asked internally about our patronsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; needs and the services we offer. All library staff were offered the opportunity to contribute survey questions that would identify unmet information needs in the community, and in turn shape future planning for services and programming at Lawrence Public Library. Another important step in preparing for the CINA was to determine the key issues being discussed by our community at large. One method used by the CINA task force to identify these issues was to establish a regular presence at City and County board and task force meetings, including those of the City Commission, Sustainability Advisory Board, Affordable Housing Advisory Board, Homeless Issues Advisory Committee, Douglas County Food Policy Council, Lawrence-Douglas County Bicycle Advisory Committee, Douglas County Criminal Justice Coordinating Council, Lawrence Pedestrian Coalition, Community Development Advisory Committee, and more. A library representative also regularly attended neighborhood association meetings, including those of the East Lawrence Neighborhood Association (ELNA), North Lawrence Improvement Association (NLIA), Pinckney Neighborhood Association (PNA), Brook Creek Neighborhood Association (BCNA), Sunset Hills Neighborhood

Methods

Association (SHNA), and University Place Neighborhood Association (UPNA). In crafting the survey questions and data collection methods for this assessment, the CINA task force sought to gather information that would help us to better understand the demographics of our respondents, their level of and preferences for engagement with the library, their degree of access to and comfort with technology, their awareness of both the libraryâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s programs and services and those of other service organizations within the community, and their beliefs regarding the role of the library within the community. With these areas of emphasis in mind, we turned to the community directly with our Community Information Needs Assessment survey. We used a sample size calculator1 to determine that from a population of 114,9672, we would require a minimum of 1,820 survey respondents to capture a statistically significant sample of our community. This requirement was more than satisfied, with a total of 3,178 survey responses received. The primary data collection instrument was a comprehensive 37-question survey (See Appendix 1). There was concern about respondents losing interest during a lengthy survey, so every question included was carefully vetted before being deemed necessary to include in our assessment. In order to eliminate redundancy, we created a survey question scale to ensure that each question was asked with a specific intention in mind (See Appendix 2). Thirty-one of the questions asked were primarily quantitative (e.g. checkboxes), although each allowed respondents the option to write in an unlisted answer. Nearly every question was 1 (http://www.surveysystem.com/sscalc.htm) 2 This figure comes from the U.S. Census Bureauâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s 2011-2015 American Community Survey Demographic and Housing Estimates: https://factfinder.census.gov/bkmk/table/1.0/en/ACS/15_5YR/ DP05/0500000US20045

Methods

allowed multiple answers. Two demographics questions (“What is your gender?” and “What is your ethnicity?”) were open-ended, providing respondents the option to provide their own categories. Four additional open-ended questions, focusing on community services and the role of the library, were purely qualitative, and offered respondents the opportunity to provide feedback in greater detail.

Methods of Survey Distribution. In order to reach as many people as possible, we created the survey in both a print and a digital format, and translated it into Spanish and Simplified Chinese. Two thousand print surveys were distributed over our seven-month collection period. We reached out to current library patrons inside the library, at various library events, and via our Connections e-Newsletter; our most successful method of distribution was an email to our patron database. Over 80% of respondents completed the survey online. We also distributed surveys offsite at various farmers markets, community events, and neighborhood events in the hopes of reaching non-library users. This included canvassing East Lawrence from the 700 through 1500 blocks of Connecticut, New York, and New Jersey Streets. As an incentive to participate in the survey, respondents received a coupon for 50% off of their accumulated library late fees. This did not apply to replacement costs, but did apply to any minors’ accounts linked to the respondents’. Ultimately, 985 patrons--approximately one-third of the total respondents--had their fines reduced.

GIS Maps. In addition to our survey, we also used two methods of patron mapping to gather data

Methods

for our assessment. This mapping, intended to illustrate the geographic distribution of the libraryâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s active patrons, was an effort to answer one of our primary questions: Are there areas of our community that are not served by the library? The first mapping method, a large format four-panel map provided by the City of Lawrence and posted in the libraryâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s foyer, offered patrons in the library the opportunity to mark their addresses with a pin. More than 1,800 people participated. The second method utilized City-provided ArcGIS software access to anonymously map the distribution of patrons who checked items out from the library each month.

Survey of Community Resource Organizations. To more clearly identify the unmet information needs in the Lawrence community, and to better understand the ecosystem of local service organizations and their role in meeting community needs, we created a second survey tool with the goal of gathering information from social service organizations about the services they provide and the challenges they face. This interview survey included fifteen open-ended questions and one categorizational selection question. A full list of the survey questions can be found in Appendix 3. Sixty-eight organizations, selected using a categorical approach to obtain a broad cross-section of services and service populations, were identified and contacted to participate in this survey; some organizations were included under more than one category. Table 1.1 includes the list of categories and numbers of organizations contacted for survey participation:

Methods

Table 1.1 Community Resource Category

Number of Organizations Invited

Number of Organizations Responding

Arts & Culture

Clothing

Court & Legal

Children & Families

Disability

Education

Employment

Financial

Food

Internet Access

Health Care

Housing & Shelter

Mental Health

Neighborhood Associations

Non-English Speaking Communities

Other

Parks & Recreation

Religious Communities

Seniors

Sexual & Physical Abuse

Small Business

Substance Abuse

Transportation

Methods

Each organization included in the study was initially contacted and provided with the option to complete the survey online, by phone, or face-to-face with an interviewer. Providing the survey in multiple formats increased the survey’s flexibility and usability for the participants. Of the sixty-eight organizations contacted, thirty-one provided a response to our survey.

Methods of Analysis. Community Survey The online version of the Community Information Needs Assessment survey was distributed using SurveyMonkey, an online survey platform that supports the collection and analysis of large datasets. Paper survey responses were entered by hand into the online survey, which allowed analysis of the entire dataset using the tools provided by SurveyMonkey. The Analyze Results function in SurveyMonkey displays results for each question, and allows users to filter responses by various characteristics, such as age group, and compare responses to questions across those groups. Open-ended questions, including “other” categories on all questions, were systematically categorized according to common themes, elements, and subjects. Before categorization, the responses were read through as a whole to identify these commonalities. They were then separated into their respective categories to determine percentages of respondents with similar answers. Many responses fell under multiple categories, depending upon the breadth of the individual response. All “other” categories for each question, and all open-answer question categories were made into charts (See Appendix 4). Additionally, R-Studio, a free and open-source statistical programming package, was

Methods

used to analyze the data beyond the capabilities of SurveyMonkey. Specifically, this program was used to identify respondents who meet the 2016 Kansas Poverty Guidelines, based on their responses to questions regarding annual income and household size; respondents who declined to answer either of these questions were excluded from the analysis. This process created a dataset with 2,323 respondents, 527 (22.7%) of which met the poverty guidelines. The Chi-squared test of significance was performed on each survey question to determine if responses varied significantly based on respondents’ poverty status. Community Organizations Interview Survey The organization interview survey was largely comprised of open-ended questions, creating a qualitative dataset. The data was analyzed for thematic content, a systematic process that organizes and codes the data based on themes that emerge from the participants’ responses. At the completion of the survey, collated responses were organized by relevance into four main categories: • Services each organization provides • Challenges each organization faces in providing services • Partnerships each organization works with, and • Potential opportunities for library collaboration. The question informing the service provision category was self-reported, and may or may not include the comprehensive services that each organization includes in their marketing materials, website or social media presence. The category pertaining to challenges faced in providing services was formed from survey questions six, eleven, and twelve, which specifically address problems offering services, or challenges within the community that contribute to increased difficulties in providing those services. The

Methods

remaining categories were also based on questions within the survey that specifically address the goals of the needs assessment inquiry. The responses in each category were then coded into subcategories, based on the themes of the responses. For example, the responses in the category, “Services each organization provides,” were further organized into the following subcategories: • Education and training • Information and referral services • Social services and case management • Spiritual services • Arts, culture, and recreation • Mental health • Homelessness and shelters • Emergency resources and services • Affordable housing • Health care and care services • Advocacy • Senior and disabled • Children and families • Disaster relief Organizations were not limited to a single subcategory in their response, so that they could have multiple responses with multiple relevant subcategories. Responses coded into each of the above subcategories were then tabulated to provide an overview of how many types of services were provided in the representative sample. This process was conducted for each of the four overarching categories mentioned above.

Methods

Summary of Findings. Demographic Information. Over the seven months the survey was available to the public, 3,178 people completed the Community Information Needs Assessment. The demographic data we collected in this assessment suggests that our sample is broadly consistent with U.S. Census data for Douglas County, with some notable exceptions that are discussed in greater detail below. The results of our Community Information Needs Assessment confirmed some perceptions library staff already had regarding our patrons and their uses of our services. We are a community center, a safe space, and a learning institution. The library serves Douglas County residents across the broad spectrum of socioeconomic status, including those in poverty. Our key findings and areas of interest have been extrapolated below. Age 3% of respondents are under the age of 18; 10.1% of respondents are between the ages of 18 and 24; 23.5% of respondents are between 25 and 34 years old; 24.4% are between 35 and 44 years old; 16% of respondents are between 45 and 54 years old; 20.9% of respondents are over the age of 55. The remainder of respondents declined to answer. Comparing this data to U.S. Census information for Douglas County indicates that the youth population (those ages 24 and under) are underrepresented among our respondents, while those ages 25-54 are overrepresented. The respondent population aged 55 and over aligns well with Census data.

Findings

Table 2.1

Age Range

Douglas County Census Information3

CINA Information

24 and under

43.6%* [15–19: 9.1%] [20–24: 18.6%]

13.1% [Under 18: 3%] [18–24: 10.1%]

25–34

15.1%

23.5%

35–44

11.1%

24.4%

45–54

10.3%

16%

55 and over

19.8%

20.9%

*This figure includes all Douglas County Residents ages 24 and under. Gender Overwhelmingly, survey respondents identify as female (74.6%), while only 23.5% of respondents identify as male. 0.49% of respondents identified as nonbinary, and 0.07% identified as transgender. 1.27% of respondents left this question unanswered. This survey question was provided as an open-ended question to allow respondents to choose their own terminology for their gender identification. When compared with U.S. Census data for Douglas County, which reports an even split between male and female residents, our survey results indicate that female respondents are significantly overrepresented. Census data allows for only the categories of “male” and “female” as gender designations, making a comparison between respondent and resident populations of additional gender identities impossible at this time.

3 U.S. Census Bureau. 2011-2015 American Community Survey Demographics and Housing Estimates. https://factfinder.census.gov/bkmk/table/1.0/en/ACS/15_5YR/DP05/0500000US20045

Findings

Table 2.2

Gender Identity

Douglas County Census Information4

CINA Information

Female

50%

74.6%

Male

50%

23.5%

Nonbinary

N/A

0.49%

Transgender

N/A

0.07%

Race/Ethnicity Approximately 81.3% of respondents identify as white; 4% of respondents identify as Native American; 4% identify as multiracial; 3.3% identify as Asian; 3.2% identify as Black, and 4.9% of respondents chose another identification. This survey question was provided as an open-ended question to allow respondents to choose their own terminology for their ethnicity; the U.S. Census Bureau, on the other hand, has established terminology and definitions for races and ethnicities. This difference in approach complicates our ability to make an exact 1:1 comparison between Census and CINA data; however, broad comparisons can reasonably be drawn. Table 2.3

Race/Ethnicity

Douglas County Census Information5

CINA Information

White

84.3%

81.3%

Black/African American

2.3%

Native American

2.3%

Asian

4.4%

3.3%

Multiracial

4.4%

Hispanic/Latino

5.7%

4.3%

4 U.S. Census Bureau. 2011-2015 American Community Survey Demographics and Housing Estimates. https://factfinder.census.gov/bkmk/table/1.0/en/ACS/15_5YR/DP05/0500000US20045 5 U.S. Census Bureau. 2011-2015 American Community Survey Demographics and Housing Estimates. https://factfinder.census.gov/bkmk/table/1.0/en/ACS/15_5YR/DP05/0500000US20045

Findings

Household Income, Food Security, & Employment Status Survey respondents reported significant variations in total household income: 15.2% of those reporting household income indicate earning $100,000 or more annually, while 16.5% of respondents have household incomes of less than $20,000 annually. 18.3% declined to respond. The 2017 Kansas Poverty Guidelines state that a single individual making less than $16,281 annually lives at the poverty line. Using their published guidelines regarding household size and income, we were able to approximate whether respondents live at or below the poverty line. Of the total 3,178 respondents, 2,323 answered both questions regarding annual income and household size, and 527 (22.7%) respondents currently live at or below poverty level. U.S. Census data indicates that within Douglas County, approximately 21.3% of residents live at or below the poverty level; statewide, approximately 13% of residents are living in poverty. Median household income in Douglas County is $50,939, although there is significant variation in median income from zip code to zip code. 25% of respondents report incomes in either the $35,000â&#x20AC;&#x201C;$49,999 or $50,000â&#x20AC;&#x201C;$74,999 income brackets; 29.7% of respondents have incomes lower than those categories, and 16.2% of respondents reported incomes higher than the median brackets. Another gauge of the financial well-being of a household is indicated by the frequency with which there is difficulty in accessing food. When asked if their household had experienced difficulty in obtaining food in the past year, 85.8% of respondents indicated that they had not. However, when this data is broken down by income bracket, a clearer picture emerges: Around 30% of respondents from each of the 4 lowest income brackets reported having had difficulty in obtaining food in the past year; write-in responses from these income brackets speak to the importance of public assistance programs such as

Findings

SNAP and WIC, as well as local food banks/pantries, in ensuring access to food, as well as the difficulties presented by food deserts and a limited public transit system. Table 2.4

Household Income

Douglas County Census Information

CINA Information

$9,999 or less

8.5%

7.1%

$10,000–$14,999

5.9%

5.1%

$15,000–$24,999

11.5%

8.7%

$25,000–$34,999

10.2%

8.9%

$35,000–$49,999

12.9%

10.8%

$50,000–$74,999

18.7%

14.3%

$75,000–$99,999

11.3%

11%

$100,000 or more

21%

15.2%

The majority of respondents are employed for wages (60.6%) or are self-employed (10.9%). 11.3% of survey respondents are students; 9.4% of respondents are retired; 8.9% identify as homemakers; and 7.7% of respondents are out of work and looking for employment, out of work and not looking for employment, or unable to work. Table 2.5

Employment Status

CINA Information

Employed for wages6

60.6%

Self-employed

10.9%

Out of work and looking

4.4%

Out of work but not looking

1.1%

Homemaker

8.9%

Student

11.4%

Military

0.3%

6 U.S. Census employment statistics are calculated based on the population aged 16 years and older. For Douglas County, Kansas, that population totals 95,425. Of that number, 61,881 (64.8%) are employed in the civilian workforce. 29,486 (30.9%) are considered not to be in the labor force.

Findings

Table 2.5 Contâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;d

Employment Status

CINA Information

Retired

9.4%

Unable to work

2.1%

Not in labor force

37.3%

Household Size According to U.S. Census data, the average household size for Douglas County is 2.43 persons. The average household size for our respondent pool is larger at 2.87 persons per household. Average household size is figured by dividing the number of people in households by the number of households. This figure assumes that the households reporting 5 or more members all have 5 residents. Therefore, the average household size of 2.87 is the minimum estimate; the actual average size could be larger. Table 2.6

Household Size

CINA Information

14.1%

29.8%

18.4%

20.5%

5 or more

12.3%

Education U.S. Census data confirms that Douglas County residents are typically well-educated, with 94.9% of the population ages 18 and over having graduated from high school, and 49.1% of that population holding a bachelorâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s degree or higher. 22.8% of Douglas County residents ages 25 and over hold graduate or professional degrees. CINA respondents demonstrate even higher levels of educational attainment, with 70% of respondents holding a bachelorâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s degree or higher; in addition, 32% hold a graduate or

Findings

professional degree. Despite this high level of education, most of our respondents are not currently enrolled students: Just 17.4% of respondents are currently enrolled. (The largest share of those are enrolled at the University of Kansas [46.9%], followed by 8.7% enrolled at Johnson County Community College, and 6.9% at Free State High School.) And, most respondents (58.5%) have not taken a class or workshop in the past twelve months. Table 2.7

Education Level

Douglas County Census Information

CINA Information

Some high school

3.2%

High school graduate

6.9%

Some college

19.9%

Trade/technical/vocational training

4.6%

College graduate

26.3%

Some postgraduate work Postgraduate degree Other

29.6% 8.4%

22.8%

32% 1.5%

Geographic Distribution Approximately 95% of respondents live in Douglas County, with 30.6% of respondents living in the 66044 zip code area and 28.1% living in the 66049 zip code area. 16.1% of respondents reside in the 66046 zip code area, and 14.6% reside in the 66047 zip code area. In comparison, U.S. Census data reports that 24% of Douglas County residents live in both the 66044 and 66049 zip codes, while 18% live in 66047, and 17% live in the 66046 zip code area. Comparison of CINA data with U.S. Census data indicates that respondents from the 66044 and 66049 zip codes are overrepresented among survey respondents, while other areas of Douglas County are underrepresented.

Findings

Limitations. The demographic data we collected in this assessment appears to be generally consistent with the U.S. Census information for Douglas County. However, two notable inconsistencies exist between our data and Census data. Survey respondents have disproportionately attained a higher level of education. Nearly 70% of survey respondents have earned a Bachelor’s degree or higher, while in the general Douglas County population, approximately 49% of residents have such a degree. In addition, nearly 75% of survey respondents identify as female, while the general population is only 50% female. (Table 2.8 (below) provides a more in-depth view of how the demographics of our survey respondents relate to the demographics of Douglas County.) However, while our respondent pool deviates from Census data, it aligns with the findings of the Pew Research Center’s Libraries 2016 report, which indicates that women and those with higher levels of academic attainment are both more likely to report having visited a library in the past year, and to say that a library closing would have a major impact on their community.7 An additional limitation to our data is that 98.98% of our respondents are library card holders. While we reached out to the non-library user community by canvassing a lowincome neighborhood and by surveying at community events in a variety of locations, most people were likely drawn to complete the survey due to an existing relationship with us. Of the 3,178 total survey responses, 2,581 of those were submitted digitally after we emailed our patron database asking them to participate in our survey.

7 John B. Horrigan. “Americans’ attitudes toward public libraries.” Pew Research Center: Libraries 2016. http://www.pewinternet.org/2016/09/09/americans-attitudes-toward-public-libraries/.

Findings

Table 2.8

Variables

Douglas County Census Information

CINA Information

% White/non-hispanic

84.3

81.3

% Black or African American

3.2

% Native American

2.3

% Asian

4.4

3.25

% 2 or more races

4.4

% Hispanic

5.7

% Bachelorâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s degree or higher

49.1

69.9

% in poverty

22.7

% in 66044

30.5

% in 66049

% identify as female

74.6

% identify as male

23.5

% with internet access at home

90.7

Internet Access & Smartphone/Tablet Use According to the U.S. Census Bureauâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s American Community Survey, 88% of Lawrence residents have internet access at home.8 A slightly higher percentage of CINA survey respondents (90.7%) reported having internet access in their homes. Closer parsing of the data reveals no clear relationship between age and internet access. For instance, 96.4% of respondents who are 75 or older said they have internet access at their homes. (Table 2.9 below displays home internet and smartphone access in relation to age group.) Household income is a better predictor of home internet access: Around 77% of 8 Thom File and Camille Ryan. Computer and Internet Use in the United States: 2013. American Community Survey Reports, Issued November 2014. https://www.census.gov/history/pdf/2013computeruse.pdf

Findings

those with household incomes under $9,999 have home internet access, a percentage that increases with rising income levels to nearly complete saturation among the highest income households Most survey respondents (86.8%) reported using a smartphone. Nationally, 77% of Americans report owning a smartphone; those who are younger, more educated, and with higher incomes are more likely to report owning a smartphone,9 and these findings bear out among our survey respondents, as well (See Table 2.9). In terms of iPad use, respondents are split nearly equally: 49.1% use an iPad or tablet regularly, while 48.8% do not. While there are no clear trends related to age and iPad or tablet use, the relationship between higher incomes and iPad/tablet use is clear: just 27.9% of respondents in the lowest income bracket report using an iPad or tablet regularly, compared with 69% of those in the highest income bracket who report regularly using a tablet. Internet access is clearly an important avenue by which respondents learn about both library and community events and resources; 75.7% of respondents report learning about community resources from searching the internet, and 68.8% report learning about library programs and services from the libraryâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s website. In addition, 35.3% of respondents indicate that they rely, at least some of the time, on public assistance (such as the Lifeline Kansas program, which provides a subsidy for internet service) or public internet connections, whether at the library or another community service organization (such as the Lawrence-Douglas County Housing Authority, which offers a computer resource center) for their internet access.

9 Jacob Poushter. â&#x20AC;&#x153;Smartphones are common in advanced economies, but digital divides remain.â&#x20AC;? Pew Research Center, April 21, 2017. http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/04/21/smartphones-are-common-in-advanced-economies-but-digital-divides-remain/

Findings

Table 2.9

Age Range & Household Income

% with home internet access

% with smartphone access

Under 18

86.4

82.9

18 to 24

93.2

96.6

25 to 34

93.1

35 to 44

92.8

45 to 54

88.2

55 to 64

91.75

65 to 74

91.75

75 or over

96.4

53.6

Under $9,999

77.4

84.6

$10,000–$14,999

80.4

86.1

$15,000–$19,999

80.7

88.7

$20,000–$24,999

82.7

$25,000–$29,999

86.2

88.8

$30,000–$34,999

83.9

84.6

$35,000–$49,999

92.4

87.9

$50,000–$74,999

96.9

87.3

$75,000–$99,999

99.4

92.8

$100,000 or more

98.4

Findings

Current Library Use. Respondents were asked to identify the ways in which they use the library, and could choose all options that applied to them. 88.5% of respondents reported that they use the library for entertainment; 49.2% use the library for research; 37.5% use the library to learn new skills; 15.6% use the library to identify community resources, and 11.4% of respondents use the library as a business workplace. Of the respondents who chose â&#x20AC;&#x153;Other,â&#x20AC;? nearly 40% mentioned coming to the library to read and to check out books and other library materials. Nearly 20% of those respondents cited the resources and programs provided by the Childrenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s department. Additional commonly cited uses included meeting spaces, access to educational resources (including resources for homeschooling families), and access to technology. People also use the library socially as a meeting space, a quiet space, a safe space, and a place to meet friends. Significantly more people who meet poverty guidelines use the library for general research and identifying community resources than those who do not meet poverty guidelines. Nearly all (98.8%) of our survey respondents are also library card holders. Those who do not have a Lawrence Public Library card mentioned lost cards, fines, and not having a need to check items out as reasons for not having a library card. Survey respondents tend to visit the library on a regular basis: 46.5% of respondents visit the library monthly, while 43.5% visit weekly. Nearly 6% of respondents visit the library annually; only 2% of respondents visit daily. The majority of respondents (89.7%) use their personal vehicle to visit the library; 23.7% of respondents walk or bike to the library; 8.2% use public transportation, and nearly 3% carpool. Respondents who meet the Kansas poverty guidelines tend to use the library more frequently. While only 1.2% of people who live above the poverty line use the library daily, 5.7% of respondents who

Findings

live below the poverty line use the library daily. Additionally, respondents who meet the poverty guidelines walk, bike, or use public transportation to get to the library at a significantly higher rate than those who live above the poverty level. 21.2% of respondents living below the poverty line use public transportation to get to the library, while just under 5% of respondents above the poverty line use public transportation to access the library. 34.7% of respondents living below the poverty line walk or bike to the library, while 22.7% of respondents living above the poverty line walk or bike to the library. Those who walk or bike to the library are more likely to visit daily or weekly. However, the majority of those patrons also live near the library in the 66044 zip code area. Those who drive a personal vehicle are more likely to visit on a weekly or monthly basis, but are also more likely to live farther away from the library location than pedestrians and cyclists. Accessibility & User Experience Equitable access to information and library services is a core tenet of librarianship; in fact, the first principle of the American Library Associationâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Code of Ethics is centered around equity: We provide the highest level of service to all library users through appropriate and usefully organized resources; equitable service policies; equitable access; and accurate, unbiased, and courteous responses to all requests.10

To ensure that Lawrence Public Libraryâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s facilities and services are accessible to all members of our community, and to investigate any areas that could be improved, our survey included several questions aimed at understanding what factors might be barriers to access for our respondents. 10 Code of Ethics of the American Library Association. http://www.ala.org/tools/ethics

Findings

library resources. Among those who do need help, downloading digital resources (26%), using the catalog (23.6%), and placing interlibrary loans (ILLs) and holds (23.3%) are the areas of greatest demand. Interestingly, both the youngest and oldest age groups included higher percentages of respondents—39.8% of those under 18, and 35.7% of those 75 and over—than did other age groups indicating a need for help using the library catalog. Those ages 65–74 included the highest percentage (34.5%) needing help downloading digital resources, although one-fifth to one-quarter of all age groups expressed this need. And, nearly half of respondents ages 75 and over expressed a need for assistance with placing holds and ILL requests. Fewer than 2% of all respondents indicated that they need additional non-English language or alternative formats, vision or hearing accessible resources, or Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) accessible accommodations for accessing library resources; those in the lowest income brackets were slightly more likely to express a need for these types of accommodations. Signage throughout the library is another important point addressed in this survey. Effective signage is crucial to a positive user experience, with the potential to either build confidence or trigger “library anxiety” among patrons.11 Happily, a majority of respondents (60.5%) did not think that LPL needs to change its signage. However, some respondents did identify changes to our signage that would improve their ability to navigate our collections. Clearly labeling subject categories in the Nonfiction stacks was the most common suggestion, requested by 19.8% of respondents. Using bigger text and bolder colors on signage each garnered requests from about 12% of respondents. 8.8% think the restrooms are not clearly marked, and 5.6% would like to see signage in 11 Edward Luca and Bhuva Narayan. “Signage by Design: A Design-Thinking Approach to Library User Experience.” Weave: Journal of Library User Experience, vol. 1, issue 5 (2016). http://quod.lib.umich.edu/w/weave/12535642.0001.501?view=text;rgn=main

Findings

languages other than English. In addition, several write-in responses requested that floor maps of the library’s layout and/or directional signage be displayed at various points throughout the library. Dim lighting in some areas of the library was also mentioned among the write-in responses. People living below the poverty line indicated they would like to see improvements in the library’s signage at a significantly higher rate than those living above the poverty line. We also asked our survey respondents to tell us what, if anything, prevents them from visiting the library more often. Approximately 50% of respondents indicated that they use the library as often as they like; 32.3% of respondents are too busy to visit the library more often; 13.1% of respondents cite their fines as a reason they don’t visit the library more often; 10.6% of respondents reported that the library’s hours don’t fit their schedule; 6% of respondents cannot get to the library easily; 5% of respondents get what they would need from the library elsewhere. People living below the poverty line disproportionately cite fines as an obstacle for more frequent library use: 30.5% of people who meet Kansas poverty guidelines indicated that fines prevent them from visiting the library, while 8.6% of people living above the poverty line cite fines as a barrier. Another trend among respondents also offers food for thought: our youngest respondents (particularly in the under 18 and 18–24 age groups) were least likely to say that they are able to use the library as often as they would like, and the most likely to say that they are too busy—while more than 50% of those ages 45 and over say they are able to visit the library as much as they want, only about a third of those ages 24 and under are able to. We also asked respondents to tell us what, if anything, prevents them from attending library programs. 31.7% of respondents do not attend library programs because they are

Findings

too busy, and 29.7% of respondents attend library programs as often as they would like. 26.8% of respondents indicate that library programs are not held at times they can attend; 19.9% do not know where to find information about upcoming programs; 17.6% of respondents do not find library programs relevant to their interests. Less than 4% of respondents cite fines and lack of transportation as obstacles to attending programs. However, as with library visitation in general, respondents who fall below the Kansas poverty guidelines disproportionately (9%, versus 1% of people who live above the poverty line) cite fines as prohibitive to attending library programs. And, as with library visitation, our youngest respondents are least likely to report that they attend library programs as often as they would like: Just 17% of those under 18, and 16% of those 18â&#x20AC;&#x201C;24, report attending library programs as often as they would like, compared to a quarter or more of those in older age groups. Barriers to library program attendance appear to be higher across the board for these youngest age groups: Respondents from these age groups are the most likely to report that they are too busy to attend, that programs arenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t relevant, that programs are not held at convenient times, that they donâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t know where to find information about upcoming programs, and to see their library fines as impediments to program attendance. Information Seeking & Learning Opportunities When asked what types of learning opportunities they prefer, respondents indicated that hands-on workshops (60.8%) and lectures (55.8%) were their top choices, followed by online courses or tutorials (34.2%), discussion groups (24.8%), and one-on-one assistance (23%). Some interesting trends emerge when this data is parsed by age group and by income. Interest in the lecture format tended to be lower among the youngest age groups, and to increase with age; the inverse was true for hands-on workshops.

Findings

Interest in the lecture format for learning opportunities tended to be lower among respondents from the lower income brackets and to rise with higher income levels, while interest in one-on-one learning opportunities was highest among the lowest income brackets, and tended to decrease with rising income. The library provides access to a variety of databases, offering patrons resources such as peer-reviewed academic journals, business information, online learning opportunities, and reading suggestions. When asked how (or if) they use the library’s digital databases, the largest share of respondents (48.7%) indicated that they use the databases to research personal interests. 17.1% use the databases for academic research. Smaller percentages of respondents use the databases for topics such as test preparation (3.9%), developing skills for the workforce (7%), choosing a product to buy (6.9%), language learning (5.2%), or health research (7.3%). 44.4% of respondents reported that they do not use library databases. When respondents do not use the online databases, it is most often because they use online search engines like Google instead (35.4%), or because they do not know what is available via the online databases (32.7%). Just 2.1% of respondents said that the library’s online databases are difficult to use. Writein responses tended to indicate a lack of awareness that the library offered access to databases, or even confusion about what was meant by “digital databases”.

Findings

Programs, Information, & Services. A primary goal of the assessment was to determine to what extent the Lawrence community knows about the library’s services and programs, and how they learn about upcoming events. In attempting to assess the level of community awareness of the library’s existing programs and services, we provided a menu of 19 options representing a mix of core services (internet access, e-books), digital resources (Consumer Reports, Lynda.com), signature events (Read Across Lawrence, 780s Music Storyteller Series), and recurring programs/services (Lego Club, Career Clinic), plus the option to write in responses. Survey results indicate that awareness of the core services is fairly high (83.1% of respondents knew that the library offers internet access, and 67.1% knew that e-books are available through the library), but knowledge of other programs and services is much lower. For instance, 38% of respondents had heard of Read Across Lawrence, 25.9% had heard of the Sound + Vision Studio, 21.8% were familiar with Lego Club, 16% had heard that the library offers Lynda.com, 6.7% had heard of our Career Clinics, and fewer than 3% had heard of Learning Express Library. Write-in responses mentioned storytimes and other children’s programming, book clubs and Novelist, the Seed Library, and tech services. What kinds of information, services, or programs would our community like to see us provide? Our survey results tend to confirm the findings of the Pew Research Center’s Libraries 2016 report, which quips, “When asked to think about the things that libraries could do in the future, notable numbers of Americans respond in a way that can be boiled down to one phrase: ‘Yes, please.’”12 We listed 24 possible options—a mix of programs or services we currently offer paired with possibilities for the future—plus the 12 John B. Horrigan. “Libraries 2016.” Pew Research Center. September 9, 2016. http://www.pewinternet.org/2016/09/09/libraries-2016/

Findings

opportunity to write in suggestions; nearly every option we presented garnered votes from at least 20% of respondents. The most popular existing services include: education programs or lectures (45.8%), volunteer opportunities (41.6%), meeting spaces (39.7%), technology help or classes (37.9%), and homework help or tutoring (37.1%). Some potential services that attracted attention include: a makerspace or art space (31.6%), adult literacy programs (28.7%), a musical instrument knowledge share program (27.3%), a community garden (26.9%), and English as a Second Language programs (23%). The five least popular choices are: self-publishing programs (22%), a Tool Library (21.5%), a Toy Library (15.6%), business resources (15%), and immigration services (14.7%). We also asked specifically about preferences regarding health information and programming. The HealthSpot—a partnership between LPL and Lawrence Memorial Hospital—has made public health an area of emphasis for library programming. Poor health outcomes tend to impact low income and minority populations disproportionately; the accessibility of reliable and easy-to-understand information plays an important role in improving health outcomes for vulnerable populations. To get a better sense of our community’s preferences regarding health-related information and programming, we asked our respondents what types of health-specific information, services, or programs they’d like to see at the library. 56.5% of respondents expressed an interest in general health information, followed by 37.3% who expressed an interest in general health programming. Around one-third of our respondents indicated an interest in consumer health information, referrals to local health resources, and health screenings, testing, or vaccinations. Nearly 20% of respondents indicated that the library should not offer health information, and several of the write-in responses expressed concern that the library should not duplicate services offered elsewhere, or fall prey to

Findings

mission creep. However, those who felt that the library should not provide health information also tended to report higher household incomes, with 44% of those opposing the provision of health information and programming reporting household incomes of $50,000 or more. How do library users learn about library services and programs? The majority of respondents (68.8%) report that they use the libraryâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s website to learn about library programs and services. A large portion of respondents cited word of mouth (40%) and social media (34.6%) as vehicles for learning about library services and programs, followed by the libraryâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s e-newsletter (24.8%) and the print calendar (16.9%). Among the write-in responses, the local newspaper was another commonly cited source of information about library events. Most respondents (70.8%) reported that their primary means of communicating with the library is to come in and talk to the staff. Less than a quarter of respondents use email (24.5%) or phone (22.5%) to communicate with the library, and 18.4% of respondents report that they do not communicate with the library. 11.5% use social media as an avenue for communicating with the library, and just under 5% report using the libraryâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s chat feature.

Findings

Format Preference. When asked which formats they prefer when using library materials, respondents identified print books and magazines, DVDs, and CDs as the top three types of materials they prefer to use, followed by digital materials, including books, magazines, and audio files available to download or stream from various library services. 92.9% of respondents indicated that they prefer to use print resources; 54.1% indicated that they prefer video (DVD) materials; 36.7% indicated that they prefer audio (CD) materials; 30.7% of respondents indicated that they prefer digital books and magazines.18.8% of respondents indicated that they prefer digital audio materials, such as audiobooks downloaded from our digital library online.11.6% of respondents indicated that they use video game materials. It is apparent that discomfort or difficulty with navigating digital platforms plays some role in the relative lack of popularity of digital resources. Write-in responses to this format preference question included several requests for assistance in learning to use e-books, as well as expressions of frustration with past experiences using e-books. In addition, when asked about the need for assistance in accessing library resources, nearly 26% of survey respondents indicated that they needed help downloading digital resources. However, when broken down by age group, these marked preferences remain: All age groups overwhelmingly prefer print material over digital material. While the assumption might be made that the “under 18” and “18 to 24 year-old” age groups—the so-called 'digital natives'—would be our highest digital market, in fact they show the least interest in digital content of all age groups. The desire for digital materials is slightly higher among 35 to 44 year-olds, but their preference for print materials still remains significantly higher than for digital. Table 2.10 below shows basic

Findings

format preference in relation to age group. This strong preference for print over digital library materials reflects national trends. The Pew Research Center has found not only that borrowing printed books remains the most popular activity at libraries (and indeed, when asked why they use Lawrence Public Library, survey respondentsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; most popular write-in response was: to borrow books/to read books or newspapers), but also that Americans in general prefer print books over e-books.13 In 2016, a Pew study of American reading habits found that 65% of Americans read a print book in the last year, compared with just 28% who had read an e-book (and just 14% who had listened to an audiobook). Just 6% of Americans are exclusively e-book readers; these readers tend to be college graduates with higher household incomes. These percentages have remained fairly consistent in recent years, despite the shift from dedicated e-readers to smartphones and tablets for consumption of e-books.14 One local departure from Pewâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s national findings relates to awareness of e-book availability at the library. While Pew found that just 44% of those 16 and older know that their libraries loan e-books, and 10% say their libraries donâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t offer e-books (despite a University of Maryland report finding that 90% of libraries offer e-books), our survey found that 67.1% of respondents are aware that LPL loans e-books. Awareness of specific platforms, however, is lower: 31.9% reported that they have heard of Hoopla as a library service; 13.7% are aware that Flipster is offered as a library service.

13 John B. Horrigan, Libraries 2016, September 9, 2016. http://www.pewinternet.org/2016/09/09/libraries-2016/ 14 Andrew Perrin, Book Reading 2016, September 1, 2016. http://www.pewinternet.org/2016/09/01/book-reading-2016/

Findings

Table 2.10

Age Range

% Print Material Preference

% Digital Material Preference

Under 18

95.5

18 to 24

24.6

25 to 34

93.7

31.6

35 to 44

93.8

45 to 54

32.3

55 to 64

90.8

65 to 74

91.75

27.7

75 or over

94.6

21.4

Our Role. The survey’s open-answer question asked respondents, “What role do you think the library should play in the community?” This question was intentionally placed midway through the survey to take advantage of the time that respondents had already spent critically considering their relationship with the library. Responses to this question were thoughtful, engaged, and community-driven. The trends that came up time and again in response to this question included seeing LPL as a hub of education and information (43.51%), a community center (41.43%), and a place to find community resources (22.48%). Several hundred respondents also mentioned services for kids, general programming, and outreach as particularly important parts of the library’s role in the community. Respondents described the role of the library as being a safe space, a gathering place, and a center for learning, information, and creativity.

Findings

The responses also affirmed our perception that the library plays an important role in connecting people to the larger network of community resources. With this in mind, it is important to more thoroughly examine the local ecosystem of community resources (more on this below) and to delve into the findings of other local community assessments to understand relevant information needs uncovered in those studies. Across the board, community assessments have confirmed that lack of employment opportunities, lack of affordable housing, low wages, and inequity of access to services are key factors in shaping quality of life for Lawrence and Douglas County residents. For instance, in the fall of 2016 the City of Lawrence received a 4 STAR rating (out of a possible 5 STARs) from the prestigious STAR certification system. Despite this excellent rating, by objective measure our community’s greatest weakness was found to be in the area of “Quality Jobs & Living Wages,” where the City received just 9% of the points

Findings

available for the category. The Health Issues Survey Report issued by the LawrenceDouglas County Health Department in 2017 found that all categories of survey participants identified the lack of safe and affordable housing and the difficulty of finding and keeping living wage jobs among the community’s most pressing problems.15 Too, other community assessments have indicated that lack of communication among service agencies and between agencies and citizens are a significant issue in raising awareness of services and in serving residents, particularly those with no or limited English proficiency. For instance, the Local Health System Assessment issued by the Lawrence-Douglas County Health Department in 2017 found that, in terms of linking people to necessary health care services, while local healthcare providers have made adequate provisions for the Spanish-speaking population, there is limited provision for services for the local Arabic-speaking population.16 The report also identifies information silos between service organizations as an impediment to educating community members about health issues.17 As a neutral party, the library can play a significant role as a clearinghouse for information on community resources, and in facilitating community conversations around issues that impact quality of life for local residents.

15 Lawrence-Douglas County Health Department. “Douglas County, Kansas, Health Issues Survey Report,” pg. 3. Revised February 7, 2017.http://ldchealth.org/DocumentCenter/View/1672 16 Lawrence-Douglas County Health Department. “Douglas County, Kansas, Local Health System Assessment,” pg. 14.http://ldchealth.org/DocumentCenter/View/1673 17 “Local Health System Assessment,” pg. 9. http://ldchealth.org/DocumentCenter/View/1673

Findings

Community Resources. One of the primary motivations behind undertaking this Community Information Needs Assessment was a desire to better understand the local ecosystem of community resources: who provides resources, what resources are available, which resources are in greatest demand, and where are there gaps between need and provisionâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;with a particular interest in unmet information needs in the community. The first piece of this endeavor involved asking survey respondents about their use of community resources. They selected from a list of 21 categories (paired with suggestions of organizations that provide services in those categories) to share what resources or services theyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;ve used in the past. The top five selected categories are: Arts and Culture (64.9%), Parks and Recreation (57.6%), Clothing (47.7%), Internet access (35.3%), and Transportation (24%). For respondents living at or below the poverty line, resources like Clothing, Internet Access, Health Care, Food, and Transportation are utilized far more often. Table 2.11 (below) provides a more indepth view of the differences in community resource use by respondents in poverty as compared to respondents above poverty level. They are listed in descending order of use by respondents below poverty level. The question asking which community resources or services are most important was provided as an open-answer question; responses were then coded into thematic categories. The top five categories reported by respondents are: Arts and Culture (22.1%), Parks and Recreation (19.8%), all available (12.6%), Lawrence Public Library (11.4%), and Technology/Internet Access (9%). In an effort to understand where there are gaps in local services, respondents were asked to identify what resources or services they would use if those resources were available. Responses to this write-in question varied widely. Around 40% indicated that

Findings

existing resources fulfill their needs or that they could not think of resources that they need. 24.4% of respondents indicated an interest in educational programs on a wide variety of topics, including sewing, coding, entrepreneurship, data visualization, and preparation for the citizenship test; an additional 5.8% of respondents indicated a specific interest in programming related to learning about or making art or music. 5% mentioned a need for programming for children, with some respondents specifically mentioning programming developed for autistic children. A wider network of book return bins throughout the community was a recurring suggestion among the responses. The need for childcare to support adult program attendance was also suggested. Responses to this question also indicated that there is a significant gap in awareness of programs and services that are already being offered in the community. The majority of respondents indicated that they find information about community resources online (75.8%). 54.01% learn about community resources via word of mouth, and Lawrence Public Library and the Lawrence Journal-World are nearly tied at 40.7% and 40.4% respectively. Fliers (24%) and the radio (19.46%) are the least-used methods of finding information about community resources.

Findings

Table 2.11

Community Resources Used

% Below Poverty Level % Above Poverty Level

Clothing

60.7

46.2

Arts & Culture

70.4

Internet Access

33.5

Parks & Recreation

Health Care

36.6

Food

9.4

Transportation

Mental Health Care

13.6

Employment

9.9

Utilities

5.3

Court & Legal

8.7

Children & Family

19.7

9.9

Education

Housing & Shelter

14.8

3.7

Disability

13.3

4.6

Never used

8.3

7.6

Elderly

8.2

9.6

Sexual & Physical Abuse

7.2

3.3

Small Business

5.5

6.8

Miscellaneous

4.4

2.3

Veteran's Services

Findings

Organization Interview Survey Including community organizations as part of the needs assessment processâ&#x20AC;&#x201D; alongside patron surveysâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;provides a more balanced perspective on the information, resources, and services available in the community. Evaluating community needs from an organizational standpoint has the additional benefit of capturing opportunities for improvements that might not otherwise be identified. Taking a holistic approach in the needs assessment process promotes an increased likelihood of success in addressing identified gaps and creatively developing solutions to better serve the community. The overarching themes that emerged from the data included services, challenges, partnerships, and library collaborations. Those themes describe the landscape of social service provision in Lawrence, and the organizationsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; roles in meeting community needs, as well as a way for the library to orient itself in addressing innovative approaches to partnerships with those organizations. Undoubtedly, survey results further underscore the need for an inclusive and comprehensive approach to service provision in the Lawrence community that addresses defined needs and contributes to the efficient use of available resources. Of the 68 organizations included in the sample, 31 responded, representing 19 of the 25 organizational categories identified for inclusion in this survey. It should be noted, however, that many of the responding organizations cross over into several of the unrepresented categories, thereby increasing the likely representation of those categories. For example, Healthcare Access is categorized within healthcare but serves members of non-English speaking communities and veterans. And indeed, in self-identifying the resource categories their organizations would fall under, most respondents chose multiple categories, demonstrating the complexity of the web of services provided in Lawrence and Douglas County.

Findings

Table 3.1

Resource Category

Number of Organizations Self-Identifying

Clothing

Arts & Culture

Court & Legal

Children & Family

Disability

Education

Employment

Food

Internet Access

Health Care

Mental Health Care

Housing & Shelter

Religious

Seniors

Small Business

Substance Abuse

Transportation

Utilities

Veterans' Services

Women's Resources

Other

Qualitative analysis of the categories and subcategories that emerged from the organizational interview survey characterize current services, challenges, and partnerships that exist in the Lawrence community, as well as opportunities for the library to collaborate in the future. These elements are described below.

Findings

Services In addition to requesting that the participating organizations self-identify their resource categories, the organizations were also asked to describe the services they provide, and the populations they serve. These responses were analyzed for overarching themes; subcategories were assigned based on these themes. The services of 11 organizations fell within the largest subcategory, Education & Training, and included services such as literacy training, GED assistance, early childhood education, English as a second language training, and job training. This correlates to the relatively high combined total use of these services reported in our patron survey, especially by the target demographic users of those services who are typically below the poverty level (see Table 2.11). The next most prevalent category, Emergency Resources and Services, included the services of eight organizations and addressed provision of food assistance, transportation, utility assistance, and other acute care services. The least represented subcategories were Disaster Relief, Affordable Housing, and Spiritual Services, with either one or two organizations representing those services for the Lawrence Community. Table 3.2 (below) lists the results for services. Some of the service areas with less representation in this study are likely due to low response error, specifically: Arts, Culture, and Recreation; Disaster Relief; and Spiritual Services, all of which are well represented in local directories and community websites. However, as discussed above, several recent community studies corroborate our findings that additional service gaps exist in the areas of Affordable Housing, Mental Health, Homelessness and Shelters, and Services for Seniors and people with disabilities. Community-wide, these essential services have been identified as lacking and have a direct impact on the overall service community, and cumulative impact on the vitality of the community at large.

Findings

Table 3.2

Services Subcategory

Number of Organizations

Education & Training

Information & Referral Services

Social Service & Case Management

Spiritual Services

Arts, Culture, & Recreation

Mental Health

Homelessness & Shelters

Emergency Resources & Shelters

Affordable Housing

Health Care & Care Services

Advocacy

Senior & Disabled

Children & Families

Disaster Relief

Challenges The top three most reported challenges by the 31 participating organizations were Capacity (reported by 15 of the responding organizations), Communications and Outreach (reported by 15 of the responding organizations), and Funding (reported by 11 of the responding organizations). These three categories are defined as follows: • Capacity: The organization’s inability to meet a need due to lack of staff, volunteers, time, resources, knowledge, etc. • Communications and Outreach: Communicating about services, consistent messaging, connecting with intended target populations, and successfully connecting with the community in any marketing channel. • Funding: Both current and projected lack of funding to accomplish service provision.

Findings

The complete results are in Table 3.3. Fundamentally, these three issues are intrinsically connected, multi-directional, and potentially causal in their effect on the systemic health of the community. Comments that characterize the depth and intensity of these challenges and their impact on how service organizations function include: • “Unable to assist with needs,” • “Not equipped to handle needs,” • “So much and varied need,” • “Increasing financial gap,” and • “More need than they can meet.” Additionally, Lack of Sufficient Community Resources and Transportation were reported as significant challenges to offering services, or challenges within the community that contribute to increased difficulties in providing the services that define those organizations. These two issues stood out as potentially exacerbating contributors to the top three identified challenges discussed above. Organizations repeatedly cite the lack of community resources such as affordable housing, meal programs, education, jobs with living wages, and mental health care as major barriers to success. The takeaway message is that local organizations are overwhelmed by the need in our community, overextended in their current efforts, and unable to do more without additional support (funding, staff, time, knowledge, etc.).

Findings

Table 3.3

Challenges Subcategory

Number of Organizations

Funding

Communications & Outreach

Advocacy

Capacity

Partnerships

Access to Services

Transportation

Affordable Housing

Jobs

Mental Health

Lack of Sufficient Community Resources

Partnerships As an information organization, the library has anecdotally observed that Lawrence faces unique challenges in the areas of partnerships and collaboration to build effective efforts to disseminate information within the community. It can be difficult to make sense of the numbers of organizations that operate independently and often-times duplicate services leading to resource inefficiencies and disconnection with target populations. As mentioned previously, a portion of findings in the patron survey urged the library to refrain from duplication of services and avoid mission creep. Further, it is important for the library, as an information hub, to facilitate those same ideals within the community by connecting organizations, recognizing overlap, and building collaborations that foster a streamlined approach to services, where appropriate. The organizational survey analysis highlights the need for this type of organizational partnership intervention when almost 75% percent of respondents claim to have a

Findings

medium-to-high number of partners within the community that they work with. Recognizing that—with the exception of those organizations that chose not to report their partnerships—every responding organization in the survey has partnerships within the community, it is clear that the number of partnerships is not necessarily a barrier to success. This opens the door for evaluating the partnership element through the lens of quality, implementation, or other similar issues that affect how partnerships collaborate. Table 3.4

Partnerships Subcategory

Number of Organizations

No Report

Low (1–2)

Medium (3–6)

High (>6, or generalized many partners)

The Library's Role Survey participants were asked about what resources they would need to achieve their organization’s goals within the community, as well as what the library could contribute to help them reach their goals. The combined responses represent the data that characterizes the necessary services that the library might provide to those organizations. All of the subcategories of responses directly reflect the needs and challenges that the organizations reported in the survey. The three most frequent responses include Space Provision, Information and Service Referral, and Collaboration. These subcategories are defined as follows: • Space Provision: The available space within the library for hosting meetings or events. Nearly half of the organizations reported needing space, primarily for meetings and events, which connects with their challenge of dwindling or insufficient capacity.

Findings

â&#x20AC;˘ Information and Service Referral: Referring community members to information, services and resources about local community organizations. â&#x20AC;˘ Collaboration: Building and supporting outreach partnerships with community organizations. Another significant need reported by participants was Communication, specifically including promotion, advocacy and awareness raising about local community resources and organizations. Expressed needs for information and service referrals paired with collaboration speaks to the challenges these service organizations face in funding, communications, and outreach. The complete results can be found below in Table 3.5. Table 3.5

Library's Role Subcategory

Number of Organizations

Collaboration

Communication

Education & Training

Events & Programming

Information & Service Referral

Neutrality & Safety

Space Provision

Technology

The results of this survey analysis illuminated areas in which the library is currently meeting and maintaining the needs of community organizations. The data also identified directions for the library to take to address outreach and service needs. Twenty-one of the participating organizations identified areas in which the library is currently providing services that support their work, such as resources for technology, meeting spaces, events, partnerships, and more, that can be maintained. Ten organizations reported that assistance from the library in the areas of outreach, education, and distribution of

Findings

materials about local resources would help them to reach and serve their target populations. These results reflect the original aims of the study: to identify needs and gaps in the community which the library can address. The intrinsic nature of the challenges and needs that Lawrence community organizations face not only informs the work that Lawrence Public Library can and should do moving into the future, but also the overarching call to make significant changes within the community to function more efficiently, strategically, and beneficially for its community members.

Findings

Conclusion. Receiving a response of 3,178 people far exceeded our expectations. Our community of library patrons is active, engaged, and invested in the functioning of Lawrence Public Library. The results that were found in this Community Information Needs Assessment have reinforced many things that library staff already perceived about our patrons. We act as a learning institution, a community center, and a safe space. The library is an invaluable resource to Douglas County residents across the broad spectrum of socioeconomic status for access to the internet, new learning opportunities, and information about community resource organizations. We have gained a newfound understanding of how our services are utilized, how our policies affect individual patrons differently, and what we can do moving forward to help make the library more accessible to our community. Internally, library staff will be committed to improving wayfinding, consistently collecting information from patrons about their experience at the library, and making a focused effort to reach out to the underserved populations of our community via a range of non-English language signage, and content on our webpage. Externally, we can use our recently acquired ability to sign community members up for library cards off-site. The GIS maps that have been created since March 2016 help library staff to better understand how active patrons are distributed across our community. Additionally, features like our newly installed SmartLockers, which allow patrons to pick up their library materials at their convenience at the 6th Street HyVee, offer an example of how we can meet the needs of patrons who cannot easily get to the library. Patrons can pick up and drop off library materials at this remote location, without having to make the trip across town.

Conclusion

We will continue to build and strengthen our relationships with community partners while simultaneously utilizing our respondentsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; programming and service interests. Our ability to host programs of all kinds and our wide marketing reach have enabled us to bring in partners from the community who can provide expertise on their area of work or topic of interest. Taking the communityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s feedback into account, we will be able to move forward with the confidence that weâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;re providing opportunities that are relevant, useful, and educational. We will continue to develop our knowledge of local resources, and explore ways to raise awareness of the programs and services available to community members. The library is guided by the belief that our community thrives through learning, innovation, and opportunity. All said and done, it has become overwhelmingly clear that the Lawrence and Douglas County communities trust and value us, and consider Lawrence Public Library to be a safe community space in which education, information, and resources are readily available. We are committed to being an inclusive, open place where every single member of our community feels welcome and valued.

Imagine more: a place to learn, connect, create, and grow.

You can direct any follow-up questions to our AmeriCorps VISTA Community Assessment Coordinator, Logan Isaman, at lisaman@lplks.org.

Conclusion

Appendix 1.

Appendices

60 Programs/Services

Library Use - Future

Additional Thoughts?

Demographic

Tech/Internet Access

Community Resources

What don't they know we do

Communication/Marketing How to best reach people

Resources Programs/classes/events Resources

Accessibility

SUBCATEGORY Use

Format Preference

CATEGORY Library Use - Current

# 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37

Q Why do you use the library? Do you have a library card? How often do you visit the library? How do you usually get to the library? How can we help you access library resources? How can we improve signage in the library? What, if anything, prevents you from visiting the library more often? What, if anything, prevents you from attending library programs? Which formats do you prefer when using library materials? What types of learning opportunities do you prefer? Do you use the library's digital databases to find information? If yes... Do you use the library's digital databases to find information? If no... What info/programs/services do you want Lawrence Public Library to provide for the community? What types of Health information/programs/services would you like the library to provide? How do you learn about library services/programs? How do you communicate with the library? Which library programs have you heard of before today? What role do you think the library should play in the community? What types of community resources/services have you used in the past? Which of these resources/services are most important to you? What resources/services would you use if they were available? Where do you find information about community resources? Do you have internet access at your current place of residence? Do you use a smart phone? Do you regularly use an iPad or tablet? What is your zip code? What is your age? What is your gender? What is your ethnicity? Please specify your highest completed level of education. Are you currently enrolled as a student? In the last 12 months, have you taken any classes or training workshops? What is your current employment status? What was your total household income before taxes during the past 12 months? How many people currently live in your place of residence? Has your household had difficulty accessing food at any time in the past 12 months? Additional thoughts?

Appendix 2.

Appendices

Appendix 3. Community Resource Organization Interview Questions 1. What is your name? 2. Which organization do you represent? 3. What is your job title? 4. What resources/services/programs does your organization provide? 5. Who does your organization serve? 6. What kinds of problems do you run into in terms of offering these resources/services/ programs? 7. Which community resource category would you put your organization in? • Clothing • Arts & Culture • Court & Legal • Children & Family • Disability • Education • Employment • Food • Internet Access • Health Care • Mental Health Care • Housing & Shelter • Religious • Seniors • Small Business • Substance Abuse • Transportation • Utilities • Veterans' Services • Women's Resources • Other (please specify) 8. What information would you want people who are looking for community resources/ services/programs to know about your organization?

Appendices

9. How do you share information about your organization with the community? Which of these methods do you find most successful? Which are least successful? 10.

Does your organization have partnerships with other organizations? Which? What

do those partnerships look like? 11.

What needs do you see in the community that aren't being met? How could an

organization help meet those needs? How could the library help meet those needs? How would we know those needs are now being met? 12.

What are your aspirations/hopes/desires for the community? What challenges do

you face in reaching those aspirations? What needs to change in the community to reach those aspirations? 13.

What resources does your organization need to achieve its goals? Besides money,

which are most helpful? 14.

How can the library support what your organization is doing? (e.g. providing

space, information needs, partnering, etc.) 15.

Would you recommend the library to people looking for community resources/

services? How can we encourage that exchange?

Appendices

Appendix 4.

Appendices