Lucknow 💋 Russian Call Girls Lucknow ₹7.5k Pick Up & Drop With Cash Payment 8...
Fn libraries and their peers (2)
1. First Nations Public Libraries: A Peer Study, 2012-2014
This analysis of Ontario’s First Nations public libraries compares the data from
46 libraries for 2014 along with nine major Ontario public libraries. We also do a
few summary comparisons of these libraries with a set of smaller Ontario
libraries for reasons discussed below. Data from a smaller set of libraries are
compared from 2012-2014 to examine trends.
The data were drawn from the raw data on Ontario’s public libraries compiled
and published by the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport from 1999-2014.
This collection comprises a large and rich dataset.
Historically, public library data have been used largely for comparisons of peers
and usually those peer comparisons are based on peers based on size of the
library but other means of organizing peer groups have been used. In this report,
the comparisons are based on the Ministry’s “Library Service Type” of “First
Nations Libraries.”
Given that libraries vary so much in budgets, collections, staff, and resident
population--the distributions are commonly highly skewed--the common
practice is to use ratios of variables for analysis and comparison. For instance, in
the 2014 data, Toronto Public Library reported that its resident population of 2.8
million circulated 32 million items. That year Chippewas of Georgina Island First
Nation Public Library’s 198 population reported 5,549 circulations.
How can we compare those two figures in a useful way? The practice in this case
is to calculate the per capitas: how many items, on average, did each member of
the library’s resident population take out in a year? For Toronto Public Library
the circulations per capita were 11.4 while Georgina Island library’s figure was
13.3. Generally, for circulations per capita, higher seen as better so we have a bit
of evidence that Georgina Island library’s residents are more active users of their
library than those in Toronto. This particular ratio has been calculated for some
time and has value in comparing disparate libraries. There is no question that the
Toronto Public Library is bigger and circulates more but the users of the
Georgina library, on average, check out more items per person.
2. First Nations Public Libraries, 2012-2014
Page 2
What we have done in this report is to use both traditional and newer ratios to
delve beyond basic ratios to assess how a set library is doing compared to a set of
peer libraries.
A longer discussion of the method we are using here is found in the Appendix at
the end of this report. This method was developed after analysis of similar
ranking schemes and updated to include the data reported about the newer
means of making information available through libraries.
Briefly, there are 16 ratios in five “dimensions” or major aspects of libraries. The
libraries are ranked by these ratios and the by Dimension. Library ranking
schemes generally use similar types of analysis; that is, ranking by explicit
criteria and then combining the various ranks by some method. The idea behind
such a broad-based method is to provide a balanced, systematic view of the
comparative performance of a set of libraries. This kind of analysis compresses a
large amount of data and allows the staff at a library to assess their library
against peers. Given the compression of data, one will be drawn to various
numbers and led to greater detail. Those data details must be assessed against
what is known, against occasional difficult-to-believe numbers, and including
qualitative aspects of libraries that are difficult to count. We weigh such evidence
to come up with a more comprehensive assessment of a library’s strengths and
weaknesses. Data are a form of evidence and rarely in our field do such data give
us a definitive answer but they do give indications upon which to base decisions.
Libraries have different tasks and we group these tasks in the Dimensions.
However, these variables do not always work in parallel because running a
library is a complex process involving judgments about choosing to set priorities
among competing programs and initiatives.
This study of the First Nations’ libraries looks at three groups of libraries. We
first have this general discussion of the results. Table 1, which follows this
3. First Nations Public Libraries, 2012-2014
Page 3
introduction has summary data. The results in Table 1 lead to a short discussion
of how the data from these libraries compare to other Ontario public libraries
and these preliminary results are summarized in Tables 2 and 3. Table 4 has data
from 2012-2014 for the seven First Nations libraries for which all necessary data
are available. We discuss this matter in more detail there.
This kind of analysis in the end leads to focusing questions about where a
library’s strengths and weaknesses are but in comparison with its peers not in
theoretical mathematical isolation. The result, then, is to see what your library
does and compare it with other similar libraries. In this case, similarities are by
size and locality and should spark conversations with local librarians about
differences shown by the data.
Table 1 follows with 2014 data from the 46 First Nations Libraries and data from
those libraries mixed with data from 9 large Ontario public library “Influencers.”
4. First Nations Public Libraries and their peers, 2012-2014
Detailed tables
Table 1: First Nations Libraries - Peer Comparisons-Detailed Summary of Ranks, 2014, 6
pages: Pages 1a and 1b, 2a and 2b, 3a and 3b.
Table 2: Select Rank Data from Nine Ontario "Influencers"
Table 3: Ontario Libraries by Library Service Type, with Select Data, 2014
Table 4: First Nations Libraries - Peer Comparisons-Detailed Summary of Ranks, 2012-
2014. Also on 6 pages
The Peer Comparison Notes—an explanation of the methodology used—is the
Appendix after the tables.
5. First Nations Public Libraries, 2012-2014
Table 1
Page 1
Table 1: Peer Comparisons, Detailed Summary of Ranks, 2014
Table 1 is a bit complex because it comes from a spreadsheet too large to print
legibly and it is hoped we have a reasonable compromise here.
Table 1 is comprised of six pages in three Parts. Part 1 is pages 1a and 1b which
have the four variables in the Service Dimension and related ranks. Page 1a has
this Dimension for the 46 First Nations libraries while Page 1b has this
Dimension for these libraries plus the 9 large Ontario libraries regarded as
“Influencers.” Parts 2 and 3 follow a similar pattern with their pages. Part 2 has
the Service and Usage Dimension and Part 3 has the Efficiency and Development
Dimensions.
In the original spreadsheet, what prints out here as the top sheet (Pages 1a, 2a,
and 3a) is one logical spreadsheet. Similarly, Pages 1b, 2b, and 3b are one logical
spreadsheet.
We start with a tour beginning with Part 1 (1a and 1b) from the left. The Library
Number is the Ministry’s key number. It is designed to remain the same even
with changes in a library‘s name. The Resident Population is the number that is
commonly used in grouping libraries by size.
The blue section has the summary rank of all ranks for all 16 variables. It is made
by the sum of the ranks of all 16 variables with lower numbers (rank 1 is better
than 46) being better. For the spreadsheet for the 46 libraries (1a, 2a, and 3a) the
sums are calculated from the ranks of each variable in the five Dimensions for
those libraries. Pages 1b, 2b, and 3b are the printed version of the larger
spreadsheet with the 55 libraries and organized similarly.
The sums are based on unweighted ranks. The sum of all ranks is sorted and the
rank of all ranks assigned. There are ties and the libraries with the same scores
get the same rank and the library with the next highest score gets the rank it
would have if there were no ties. The sum of all ranks only appears in Part 1 but
the Rank of Ranks is repeated in Parts 2 and 3.
6. First Nations Public Libraries, 2012-2014
Table 1
Page 2
Note that the sums of ranks in 1a and 1b for the same library may be different.
Remember the first table has 46 libraries while the second has 55 so the sums of their
ranks will tend to be higher in the larger table.
This blue section is critical because it presents the results of this analysis but we
move on to the right to two columns in green which give us the best and worst
ranks for each library across the 16 variables. While the total rank is informative, the
differences between the high and low scores suggest the areas where a library might
improve its overall rank or look where it does particularly well or poorly when
compared to its peers. Note also that there is a great deal of variation: there are
libraries which have variables where they rank high and others where they rank
low.
Now to the data! Moving right, we have the first of our Dimensions, the Service
Dimension. The rank of ranks for this Dimension is highlighted in gold. This pattern
is followed with the four other dimensions: summary ranks for that Dimension,
with details of the variables and each library’s rank for that variable.
As mentioned, the Appendix has a more detailed explanation of the method used
here. It is an adaption of similar analytical tools for comparing libraries. Shorn of the
complexity, what we have is a means to assess how a library is doing by comparing
its data with similar libraries. As a tool, its value will vary with the quality of data.
Data are a form of evidence and, sadly, rarely give us precise answers to our
questions; we must weigh the evidence and use our experience to make sense of
what the data tell us.
Given the structure of this method, the Dimensions give us a means of grouping
functions and the 16 variables give us a good bit of precision in narrowing down a
library’s strength and weaknesses, compared to its peers. Another little-discussed
aspect of these kinds of assessments is the fact that they allow librarians to focus on
libraries like theirs in other ways and that information likely will improve library
services. In effect, this kind of analysis forms an index to libraries with similar
situations and which invite informal discussions.
7. First Nations Public Libraries, 2012-2014
Table 1
Page 3
Table 1 provides a good bit of data and information about the First Nations
libraries and a few interesting items in the table with the 55 libraries is worthy of
a more detailed look.
The six pages of Table 1 follow. After Table 1, we turn to Tables 2 and 3 for a
brief look at First Nations libraries and how their data compare with other
Ontario libraries.
14. First Nations Public Libraries, 2012-2014
Tables 2 and 3
Page 1
Tables 2 and 3: Peer Comparisons with Other Ontario Libraries
The pages in Table 1 (1a, 2a, and 3a) with the 46 First Nations libraries provide a
means for staff at those libraries to examine how they compare with others.
Looking at the parts of Table 1 with the 9 “Influencers,” the reader will note that
these larger libraries summary ranks are generally in the lower half with the best
rank being Hamilton Public Library’s 27th Rank of Ranks. This fact suggests that
in aggregate, the First Nations libraries are doing well in comparison with these
very large libraries.
However, since we have a variety of data to look at, we can look a bit deeper.
Table 2 focusses on the ranks of all ranks of these Influencers by including just
these libraries, their ranks in the larger table, along with three sets of ranks from
other variables that we discuss shortly.
These data lead us to examine the broader tapestry of Ontario’s Public Libraries.
This examination is a bit out of scope for this project but it might prove useful to
probe a deeper context to the First Nations’ libraries environment.
The next three ranks in Table 2 are for the rank of these 9 libraries in the larger
table for circulations per capita, stock turnover, and collection units per capita.
The Dimensions they come from are in parentheses. This question arose in
looking at the circulations per capita figures in the First Nations libraries some of
which are quite low. This table is where this question led.
What might we conclude from these data? The rank of circulations per capita for
these libraries are all in the upper half of the 55 libraries but note the stock
turnover. Stock turnover is another very old measure that attempts to gauge how
active the collection is: how many times will any item in the collection circulate?
The 9 libraries are the top 9 of the 55. How could this astonishing finding be true
given the circulations per capita ranks?
15. First Nations Public Libraries, 2012-2014
Tables 2 and 3
Page 2
Look at the last column: collection units per capita—how many items are there in
the collection for each member of the resident population? These large libraries,
relative to the First Nations libraries, have small collections but the collections
are quite active. Therefore, it seems that the First Nations libraries have relatively
larger but less used collections than the 9 large libraries. Without further
analysis, we can only speculate about what the differences are. Are the First
Nations libraries’ collections older? In which case, we might look at the collection
budgets. What about staff? Are library users less likely to get help at the First
Nations libraries? No, one of the variables in the Service Dimension ranks
employees per capita and the larger libraries and the best ratio is Hamilton’s and
it is 35th. The rest are in the 40s and 50s so help is probably more easily obtained
at the First Nations libraries.
Of course, libraries are different in many other ways. Suppose we wanted to
examine libraries by another way? Look at Table 3 for a design of a spreadsheet
that would probe different ways to group libraries. Here we have divided the
libraries in Ontario two ways. First is the four Library Service Types and we
include some summary data for a preliminary look.
As we have noted, size of the library is often used for grouping libraries. We
include 163 Ontario libraries that are not First Nations libraries but which are of
the same size range to see what we can see. The First Nations Libraries range in
size from a resident population of 47 to 12,436. This approach seems at first blush
to be of more use than the Library Service Types to examine comparative
circulation data but one never knows what surprises lurk in data. However, note
the differences in circulations and circulations per capita between the First
Nations libraries and the Ontario libraries of the same size. The total annual
circulation figures for the First Nations Libraries have a high of 9,200 and a low
of 45, with an average while the same-sized library group has a maximum of
16. First Nations Public Libraries, 2012-2014
Tables 2 and 3
Page 3
almost 148,000, a low of 400, and an average of nearly 30,000. Those data suggest
another approach than size might be more useful but time will tell.
This topic is certainly worth exploring but it is off topic for this report.
Tables 2 and 3 follow and Table 4 comes after them. Table 4 is where we attempt
to analyze trends in these rank data but fall short because of missing data.
17. Table 2: Select Rank Data from Nine Ontario "Influencers"
(Usage) (Usage) (Service)
Rank of Ranks Rank for Rank for
ALL Circulations Rank for Collection
Library Population MEASURES per Stock units
YEAR Number Library Name (Resident) (lower is better) capita turnover per capita
2014 L0470 Greater Sudbury 161,900 41 24 9 48
2014 L0474 Hamilton 545,850 27 6 1 53
2014 L0213 Kingston-Frontenac County 152,777 31 11 6 49
2014 L0245 London 373,730 24 10 3 52
2014 L0206 Mississauga 759,000 46 11 2 54
2014 L0481 Ottawa 951,727 32 7 4 51
2014 L0349 Thunder Bay 108,359 38 21 8 47
2014 L0353 Toronto 2,808,503 30 8 5 45
2014 L0378 Windsor 210,891 43 18 7 50
Libraries added to the First Nations' peers
18. Table 3: Ontario Libraries by Library Service Type, with Select Data, 2014
Number of Population (Resident)
Libraries Library Service Type Total High Low Average High Low Average High Low Average
13 County, County co-operative or Regional Municipality Library 919,888 177,720 737 70,761 969,722 10,994 454,282 14.9 3.4 7.1
46 First Nations Library 49,427 12,436 47 1,075 9,200 45 1,769 28.0 0.1 4.5
5 LSB Library 4,015 1,500 300 803 18,846 400 5,513 20.0 0.8 6.8
247 Public or Union Library 12,362,961 2,808,503 204 50,052 32,034,795 710 494,561 25.7 0.7 8.1
163 Non-FN Libraries, in FN size range (by population) 664,132 12,385 204 4,074 147,841 400 29,689 25.7 0.7 7.8
Total Annual Circulation Circulations per capita
19. First Nations Public Libraries, 2012-2014
Table 4
Page 1
Table 4: Peer Comparisons, 2012-2014
The data for 2014 yield a great deal to report and a good bit to speculate about.
But trend data give us a look at how libraries are doing over time.
To examine trends in these rankings for the three years we sought, we need data
for those years. Unfortunately, of the 46 libraries reporting in 2014 and reported
on above, only seven have enough data to construct a complete series for the 16
variables over those years.
There are many causes for missing data about which we could speculate and we
will indulge in a bit of speculation now before returning to the data in Table 4.
In order to include a library in this analysis, it must provide data for all variables
used in the calculation. These variables are ratios, so at least two variables must
be reported for each. However, several of them are per capitas—a ratio divided
by the resident population served by the library—so population appears several
times. On the other hand, calculating the staff working at the library requires
fourteen variables. If one is missing, the calculations involved will yield
uncertain results. Also, the number of First Nations libraries varies each year.
They may well exist but do not report data but, in any case, the number
reporting varies.
Another speculation. Even though the ratio of staff to user at these libraries is
relatively high as we mentioned, the staffs are small. Reporting data is complex
enough that libraries have had a persistent problem for years in reporting data
because few librarians are comfortable working with data. This aspect of data
data compilation seems to be universal in the library world. In addition, the
Ontario public library data collection effort is apparently the largest such
ongoing collection which would exacerbate the problem of a small staff having
the expertise and time to fill out such complex forms. The term of art to describe
this kind of situation is “responder burden.” Faced with large and complex
20. First Nations Public Libraries, 2012-2014
Table 4
Page 2
surveys, and a shortage of time, the person filling out the form often will answer
data questions that can be answered easily.
The problems with all data—including library data—are daunting enough
without tempting fate by ignoring missing data or making data up. We have
seven First Nations libraries so we press on. This year we have 46 maybe we do
as well next year.
Table 4, like Table 1, has three parts and each is in two pages as before. The
reader will note that the formatting is a bit different. The top half has the seven
libraries for three years. You can see the ranks there as before. However, the
ranks are only for those seven libraries and they take up only part of the first
page and the ranks for the second group—the seven plus the “Influencers” take
up about a page and a half so this part of the table is split.
The stories would be more telling if we had more libraries but the reader will
note several patterns. Some libraries are consistent over the years—either
ranking high or low—and others change. In the seven in the First Nations
libraries, Aundeck-Omni-Kaning FN and Nipissing FN trade first and second
spot. Six Nations FN falls from 5th in 2012 and 2013 to 7th in 2014. At the same
time, Mohawks of Akwesasne FN moves from 7th to 5th. The larger table with the
Influencers shows similar patterns. To see how and why these changes took
place, one would examine the detailed data to see the effect of different variables
rising or falling. This kind of analysis is more useful with more libraries to
compare so we will hope for more data in the future.
The Appendix: “The Peer Comparison Notes—an explanation of the methodology
used” follows Table 4. We hope those looking for more information about the
construction of this analysis will find this discussion useful.
21. Table 4: First Nations Libraries - Peer Comparisons-Detailed Summary of Ranks, 2012-2014, Service Dimension Summary, 2012-2014, page 1a
First Nations Public Libraries
Rank of Ranks Sum of Rank for Population Rank for Population Population
ALL All Ranks Collection Collection Employees Rank for (Resident) Population per per
Library Population MEASURES All Dimensions Rank of Ranks Sum of units units per capita Employees per per service service
YEAR Number Library Name (Resident) (lower is better)(lower is better) (lower is better) Ranks per capita per capita X1000 per capita workstation workstation point point
2014 L1035 Aundeck-Omni-Kaning FN 360 2 50 2 9 10.5 6 152.8 1 90 1 360 1
2013 L1035 Aundeck-Omni-Kaning FN 355 1 44 2 9 10.7 5 154.9 2 89 1 355 1
2012 L1035 Aundeck-Omni-Kaning FN 356 1 46 1 6 10.6 3 154.5 1 89 1 356 1
2014 L0462 Bkejwanong FN 2,310 3 56 3 13 29.1 2 38.5 4 210 3 2,310 4
2013 L0462 Bkejwanong FN 2,304 3 62 3 14 27.0 2 39.5 5 209 3 2,304 4
2012 L0462 Bkejwanong FN 2,284 4 61 3 13 26.0 1 24.1 5 176 3 2,284 4
2014 L0408 Mohawks of Akwesasne FN 9,493 5 77 6 22 18.4 4 17.8 6 678 6 9,493 6
2013 L0408 Mohawks of Akwesasne FN 9,400 7 80 6 23 15.6 4 17.4 7 723 6 9,400 6
2012 L0408 Mohawks of Akwesasne FN 9,233 7 85 6 24 9.4 5 18.3 7 710 6 9,233 6
2014 L0412 Nipissing FN 947 1 45 1 7 59.8 1 63.4 2 95 2 947 2
2013 L0412 Nipissing FN 935 2 49 1 6 59.9 1 171.1 1 94 2 935 2
2012 L0412 Nipissing FN 932 2 55 2 12 7.2 6 59.0 2 93 2 932 2
2014 L0432 Sagamok Anishnawbek FN 1,556 5 77 5 19 3.7 7 22.5 5 389 4 1,556 3
2013 L0432 Sagamok Anishnawbek FN 1,531 4 67 4 17 3.7 7 45.7 3 383 4 1,531 3
2012 L0432 Sagamok Anishnawbek FN 1,543 3 58 5 18 3.8 7 45.4 3 386 5 1,543 3
2014 L0420 Six Nations FN 12,436 7 78 7 26 12.6 5 14.6 7 2,487 7 12,436 7
2013 L0420 Six Nations FN 11,297 5 71 7 26 7.1 6 21.9 6 1,027 7 11,297 7
2012 L0420 Six Nations FN 11,297 5 68 6 24 10.6 4 23.2 6 941 7 11,297 7
2014 L0426 Wikwemikong FN 3,115 4 65 4 16 20.8 3 51.4 3 623 5 3,115 5
2013 L0426 Wikwemikong FN 3,091 6 75 4 17 18.5 3 39.6 4 515 5 3,091 5
2012 L0426 Wikwemikong FN 3,065 6 75 4 15 18.0 2 27.7 4 255 4 3,065 5
Table 4: First Nations Libraries - Peer Comparisons-Detailed Summary of Ranks, 2012-2014, Service Dimension
First Nations Public Libraries plus Influencers
Rank of Ranks Sum of Rank for Population Rank for Population Population
ALL All Ranks Collection Collection Employees Rank for (Resident) Population per per
Library Population MEASURES All Dimensions Rank of Ranks Sum of units units per capita Employees per per service service
YEAR Number Library Name (Resident) (lower is better) (lower is better) (lower is better) Ranks per capita per capita X1000 per capita workstation workstation point point
2014 L1035 Aundeck-Omni-Kaning FN 360 5 113 2 9 10.5 6 152.8 1 90 1 360 1
2013 L1035 Aundeck-Omni-Kaning FN 355 2 102 2 9 10.7 5 154.9 2 89 1 355 1
2012 L1035 Aundeck-Omni-Kaning FN 356 2 108 1 6 10.6 3 154.5 1 89 1 356 1
2014 L0462 Bkejwanong FN 2,310 8 126 3 14 29.1 2 38.5 5 210 3 2,310 4
2013 L0462 Bkejwanong FN 2,304 7 133 3 14 27.0 2 39.5 5 209 3 2,304 4
2012 L0462 Bkejwanong FN 2,284 5 123 3 14 26.0 1 24.1 6 176 3 2,284 4
2014 L0470 Greater Sudbury 161,900 11 150 11 42 3.4 10 16.3 13 1,109 8 12,454 11
2013 L0470 Greater Sudbury 161,900 10 141 13 47 3.1 11 16.3 14 1,109 11 12,454 11
2012 L0470 Greater Sudbury 161,900 10 148 13 45 2.7 12 18.3 11 1,132 11 12,454 11
2014 L0474 Hamilton 545,850 2 110 7 35 1.9 15 44.3 4 1,144 9 8,804 7
2013 L0474 Hamilton 540,000 5 122 8 41 2.0 16 29.6 6 1,164 12 8,710 7
2012 L0474 Hamilton 535,234 2 108 8 38 2.4 15 50.5 3 1,236 13 8,496 7
Service
Service
27. Appendix:
Peer Comparison Notes
The peer comparisons presented here are based on data from the Ontario
Ministry of Culture, Tourism and Sport’s published 2014 Ontario library data.
The comparisons take these data and sort them into 16 separate variables and
organizes them in five “dimensions:” Service, Usage, Community Engagement,
Efficiency, and Development. This design is discussed in some detail elsewhere
but, simply, it is based on a study of four well-known public library assessment
efforts: the BIX, HAPLR, the IMLS US state ranking tables, and the LJ Index.
These all use ratios of different reported variables—rather than the raw data—
and then assign ranks to the calculated ratios. Those ranks are in order by which
numbers are “better.” Lower number ranks are better because 1 is the top rank.
The Ministry’s data series are very rich and offer more opportunities for
exploring variables within this design. We have largely followed the example of
the current literature for now.
The most common use of these data is to use them to analyze “peer” libraries.
What is a “peer” library? It is a library you wish to compare to yours. The
comparisons will be based on data.
Data do many things well but not everything. They give you a measure and it is
up to you to weigh the evidence from the data in order to learn how your library
compares with others. They do not measure everything, however, and are weak
in analyzing qualitative aspects of a library.
Which libraries to pick for your peers depends on your interests and library’s
objectives. You may wish to compare to libraries in your area, or to libraries with
similar users, or to libraries you wish to emulate. These data will not give you
one big number but 16 and those must be considered and weighed in light of
your library and its peers. Efficiency is something we all want but it can work at
28. Peer Comparison Notes
Page 2
cross purposes to Service. Weigh the evidence and it will often be one step in a
process of arriving at a balanced understanding of what these data will tell you.
As mentioned, the data are calculated and then ranked. The comparisons are
simple unweighted ranks. Ranks like these are often weighted but these first
presentations are unweighted. Weighting recognizes that some variables are
more important than others and handles that reality. There are ties in the ranks
when libraries have the same raw scores. In those cases, the ties get the same
rank while the next library is ranked where it would be if there were no tie. That
is, if two libraries had the best rank, they would be 1 and 1 and the third library
would have a rank of 3.
The data presented here are in several forms and with varying levels of detail
depending on the detail needed for different views.
Now we will outline the variables and dimensions. This discussion of variables is
brief and the reader is cautioned to realize that in each case where the variable is
described as a higher ratio or lower ratio is ranked better that what is left unsaid
is: “all other things being equal.” They are not and that is why we have more
than one variable to give you the context to understand your library and its peers
as the data describe them.
The first dimension is SERVICE and it has four variables:
Collection units per capita. “Units” is defined broadly. This is a measure of how
big the collections are for the size of the libraries’ resident populations. Higher is
better.
Employees per capita times 1,000. This measure tells us how big the staff is to
service the population. Higher is better. The calculation gives a small number
and to make it easier to understand, we multiplied by 1,000. It can be thought of
as so many people for each 1,000 in the resident population.
Population per workstation. This measure tells us how many workstations the
library has. By dividing the population by the count of workstations, we have a
29. Peer Comparison Notes
Page 3
number which indicates, how likely a library user is to find an empty
workstation. Here, a lower ratio is better. Consider: is it better to have 10,000
people per workstation or 100?
Population per service point. Service points are broadly defined to include
places where people will have physical access to the library. They can include
bookmobiles, branches, and deposit stations. Again, a lower is better. Is it better
to have 10,000 users per service point or 100?
USAGE
This dimension has three variables related to the actual use of the library.
Stock turnover is a traditional measure: how many times is each item (on
average) checked out? Here total annual circulations are divided by a count of
circulating items held. Higher is generally better.
Circulations per capita is another well-known calculation. Annual circulations
divided by resident population. Higher is better.
Program attendance per registered borrower. How many of the libraries’
cardholders attend the libraries’ programs. The reported number in the detailed
tables is 100 times the raw calculation. Total annual program attendance divided
by the reported number of library cardholders. Higher is better.
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT
This dimension is new to the world of library assessment and it was created to
get a handle on an important set of changes occurring in the library world: the
modern library is not a passive organization waiting patiently for people to
appear but one increasingly looking for opportunities to meet its public
wherever they are and wherever they have information needs. The four
measures in this dimension are an attempt to measure how libraries are
adapting.
30. Peer Comparison Notes
Page 4
Programs offered per capita. The higher ratio is better.
Registered borrowers per capita. What percentage of the libraries’ resident
populations have library cards? Higher is better but we have documented how
this percentage has been declining in Ontario’s libraries.
Hours open per capita times 100. Hours open includes not just buildings but
bookmobile and deposit station hours. More hours open per person although as
we know, a library’s electronic presence is open for business at all hours. Higher
is better.
Estimated Annual Visits per capita. This ratio is the result of a complex
calculation. Visits are tracked as “Typical Week” data so the data presumably re
for one week. The population is an annual figure so the visits were summed and
then multiplied by 52 and that product divided by the resident population. Visits
are of three types: In person, electronic (to the libraries’ Websites,) and electronic
(to the libraries’ social media sites.)
EFFICIENCY
This dimension occasionally works against the others. Service is better with more
staff, money, and service points but more economical if these are balanced by
care in allocating resources. It is always a matter of balance and by looking at
your peer libraries, you can see how they made the same kinds of balancing
decisions your library must.
Collection expenditures per circulation. Lower is better. That is, more
circulations per dollar spent is better than spending many dollars per circulation.
Estimated Visits per open hour. Visits, again, come from “Typical Week” data
and given that these figures and the open hour figure are both weekly figures,
there is no need to do more than sum the number of visits and divide by the
number of open hours. Higher is better: more people visiting is better than fewer
31. Peer Comparison Notes
Page 5
people. Note that electronic visits are included and that these can occur when the
library’s buildings are not open.
Total Expenditures per estimated annual visit. Total operating expenditures of
the libraries divided by the annualized visit figure to give an imputed cost per
visit. Lower is better. It is better to have more visits per dollar spent.
DEVELOPMENT
The attempt here is future oriented.
Staff Training as a % of Total Operating Expenditures. This number is times
100 so these are the percentage figures. Staff training in this day and time is
important but with library budgets being stretched, helping staff keep up with
new developments by training or conference attendance is a difficult thing. But:
higher is better.
Total Operating Expenditures per capita. This is an important number and one
that affects the whole operation of the library including what it does and can do
to prepare for the future. Higher is better.