Considering the In-Library Use of Materials

at the Cresson Public Library:

A Case Study

Rebecca D. Richardson

Clarion University

Considering the In-Library Use of Materials at the Cresson Public Library: A Case Study

Library funding is shrinking, and libraries across the country are struggling to show their worth. Historically there have been various indicators that are universal in showing the usefulness of a public library – including topics such as circulation, patron count and reference questions answered. However, these three basic indicators are not able to accurately judge the amount of use a library receives in a single day, week, or even year.

When looking at library use based on circulation there is a traditional 20 /80 equation that has been accepted by the library community. This equation says that in the average library collection 20% of the collection is actively used while 80% lays dormant.[1] While this may be accurate for circulation, it does not take into account the in-house use of library materials. Therefore, circulation, by itself, is not a good indicator of a library’s achievements. This qualitative study seeks to show that circulation figures must be combined with those of in-library use of materials to see the true success of a public library.

This study is a case study focusing on the Cresson Public Library. The Cresson Public Library, located in Cambria County, Pennsylvania, is one of thirteen public libraries and four college / university libraries in the county. In an attempt to show the true success of the library and make it stand out (positively) for the purposes of state reports and grant funding, the researcher / librarian set out to measure the in-house use of library materials. The study conducted at this small library hoped to show that the circulation figures were only a small part of the actual use of the library collection.

The Cresson Public Library serves not only the residents of Cresson Borough, but also those who live in the adjacent communities including Cresson Township, Sankertown Borough, Gallitzin Borough, Lily Borough, Loretto, Dysert, and Lily-Washington Township. The library acts as a “home library” to approximately 1,000 patrons; however, patrons of any public library in Cambria County may use the library resources. Furthermore it competes with three other public libraries and two college / university libraries that are located within 10 miles of its location.

Cresson Borough is a small community of 1,631 residents.[2] The library has a collection of approximately 10,000 cataloged titles, and circulated 14,737 items in 2009.[3] The library is open 6 days a week for 35 hours, including 7 hours on Saturday.

The library is open year round for story hour, tutoring sessions, computer classes, the summer reading program and additional community services. Library services are utilized not only by the local community but also by students and adults from three colleges / universities, four public school districts, three private schools, various charter schools, as well as local home school students.

Literature Review

When measuring the usefulness of a public library, it is important to include all use of library materials and not just the items which are checked out or circulated. While there have been books published on measuring the output of libraries[4] there have been very few studies of in-house use of materials within public libraries, or at the very least, very few published reports of such studies. The most recent published study on the topic of in-house use of materials within a public library that was retrievable was published in 1986 and conducted by the Coalition for Public Library Research (CPLR)[5] in 1984. While, at least one study found gave a brief mention of browsing in public libraries;[6]nearly every other published account of in-house use studies were conducted withing academic libraries.[7]Many ofthe studies were aimmed more toward collection development than showing the overall use of specific collections or parts of collections.The fact that the measurement of the in-house use of materials has been studied in the academic world and not so much in the public library settings makes a current study of this issue in a public library setting important. With an academic library there is a captive audience; students utilize the library to research or to study while a public library relies mostly on those seeking entertainment or self-help reading or amusements for their children. The academic library mostly seeks collection development needs with their in-house use studies; the public library can use these same types of studies to show the use and success of their facilities when seeking funding and grants.

All previous published studies on the topic of in-house use of materials have taken place at larger libraries and library systems where the collections ranged, “from almost sixty-five thousand to nearly one million.”[8] This particular study will focus on the Cresson Public Library with a complete collection (circulating and non-circulating) of approximately 11,000 titles. The measurement of the statistics at this library are relevant nationwide as it is comparable in size to 1,729 other libraries in the country.[9]

There are four basic ways to evaluate the in-house use of library materials and the study conducted in 1984 by the CPLR was designed specifically to find the most accurate method. These methods – table counting, adult questionnaires, interviewing patrons, and mere observation have been used avidly in an attempt to evaluate the usefulness of academic libraries.[10]

In 1984, interviewing patrons was used to gather data for a study conducted in a Southwestern state. The study sought information on the usage behavior of patrons visited by libaraians in one county. This research showed that 57% of interviewees used library materials and services within the library and at least 25% of those interviewees were most interested in using materials in the library that were non-circulating.[11]

Most public libraries do not keep track of nor do they report items used within the library that are non-circulating. In looking at the public library surveys / reports completed by individual libraries for each state, 42 states did not require any report on the in-house use of library materials, 4 states (California, Indiana, Iowa and Kentucky) did require this information and 2 states / districts did not have information available (Washington, D.C. and Hawaii). Surprisingly, while the 4 states required this information, they did not give instructions on the form on how to gather the statistics for the in-house use of library materials.[12]

A collection survey at La Roche College in Pennsylvania showed not only which titles were circulating but also titles that were used and reshelved by patrons and also those which were used and left for the staff to shelf.[13]Puvogel relied on observation and table count to conduct this particular study which lasted three months. Each morning library staff checked the shelves chosen for this study to count books which were not lined up properly on the shelves (indicating use and reshelving by a patron). If they were missing from the shelf and not checked out from the library, they were considered tabled and used within the library. Puvogel remarked that she had chosen these particular methods of measurement because it had previously worked for her when evaluating the serials collection at this college.

The University of Saint Francis in Indiana was also interested in the in-library use of their serials collection.[14]The university decided to use a table count method of recording the statistics. Lafferty noted there were problems with the method as it was not always known how many individuals may have reshelved their own magazines or how many times a title may have been picked up and browsed while sitting on the table waiting to be reshelved. Lafferty indicated that she was also looking for a bit more information than most public library would want / need to know including why that particular title was picked up, how it was used and why it was used. She also noted that one of the problems with a particular project was that it relied on work study students to conduct the counts and that they are not always as motivated as a regular researcher or librarian to conduct accurate counts.

Hindle and Buckland[15]took a different approach to their research and looked at independent studies at the University of Chicago Library, the Newcastle-upon-Tyne Polytechnic Library, and the University of Lancaster, and compared their results to gain a completely new understanding of the relationship between in-library use and circulation. The University of Chicago Library used questionnaires while the Newcastle-upon-Tyne Polytechnic Library used detailed observation of disturbed slips of paper (the researchers placed slips of paper in books and kept track of when the papers were missing to indicate the book had been used). Both methods were considered to be to be “time-consuming in the labor and the elapsed time involved”[16] The University of Lancaster used more of a table counting method and applied it to a select group of books whose overall circulation was also monitored. To Hindle and Buckland, this proved to be a more efficient use of time and method; which is one of the reasons this research study will be conducted using a table method.

There is currently a particular need for the in-library use of materials due to budget cuts and library closings across the country. If a library has particularly low circulation, it can show its worthiness by how often the items in its library are actually being used. In October 2009, libraries across the state of Pennsylvania recorded statistics for the purpose of giving legislators something tangible to use when making decisions about their funding.[17]While this “Snapshot,” as it was called, came too late to save the state’s public libraries from having their state funding cut, it provided a number of performance indicators with staggering figures. The one indicator that is not present is a table count or any other type of measurement of in-house use of the library. The indicators used include the number of items checked out, how many people utilized the library, and how many reference questions were asked / answered, but the in-house use of the library materials was not measured.

The use of materials in not a matter of dispute among the library community; however, the use of these figures as library performance indicators is not common practice.One of the reasons for not using the figures depicting the in-house use of materials could be the fact that there are disadvantages to each form of evidence gathering. Rubin noted that each form of measurement has its advantages and disadvantages; therefore, by combining one or more of these devices the advantages make up for the faults.[19]

Methodology

In putting together a methodology for this study, the researcher relied heavily on the instrument provided in Output Measures for Public Libraries. The book gives step-by-step details on how to measure in-house use of materials using the table count method. This book acts as a manual to instruct those doing the research to conduct a table count for one week, then to follow a prescribed mathematical formula to estimate the count for an entire year and how to find what percentage of the collection is used within the library per capita. [20]

The researcher / librarian in this case followed the advice of Rubin who suggested that a combination of research methods would be more accurate than one or another. In his article, Rubin looked at methods of investigation examining in-library use of materials including table count, obscure observation, questionnaire and interview.[21] The researcher / librarian believe the size of the Cresson Public Library and the limited staff lent itself to combining both the table count and obscure observation methods to gather data.

In this particular case, the researcher / librarian believes that gathering data for just one set week would not be enough time to get the data needed to accurately measure the true in-library use of materials. This case study was conducted using one random day of the month for each day the library was open, with data being collected for three months (April through June) for a total of 18 days throughout the sampling period with three collection days on Mondays, Tuesdays, Wednesdays, Thursdays, Fridays and Saturdays. The researcher / librarian put the dates for each individual weekday of the month into a bag and drew the dates that would be used for gathering data. (See Table 1 in the Appendix).

On gathering days, the researcher (who was also the librarian) posted signs around the small, one-room library requesting that patrons allow the librarians to shelve library materials. This request was also mentioned this to patrons as they entered the building. In addition to counting the library materials left on the table to be shelved, the researcher / librarian observed patrons as they perused the shelves to count items taken off the shelf, glanced through and replaced. The researcher / librarian would record tick marks under the observation hour and every hour the librarian would shelve items left on the table and add that figure to the tick marks to find the number of library materials used within the library that hour.[22]

Analysis of Data

Following the collection period, the researcher averaged each individual day of the week for all three months before adding the figure into the formula provided by Zweizig and Van House. The formula calls for adding the figures for the week together and multiplying it by 52 (for the number of weeks in a year). The total will give the estimated number of items used within the library annually. (Total Items Used In-House in One Week x 52 = Estimated In-House Use Annually). Zweizig and Van House also instructed to divide the annual figure by the official service area to find the number of items used within the library per capita.[23]

Since the researcher / librarian collected data in three different months, they first averaged the in-house use of library materials for each day of the week before adding it to the formula. (See Table 2 in the Appendix). The formula for the Cresson Public Library would be: Monday + Tuesday + Wednesday + Thursday + Friday + Saturday x 52 = Estimated In-House Use Annually. (See Equation 1 in the Appendix). By using this form of data collection and equation, the Cresson Public Library will have had 19,117.28 items used within the library without being checked out in 2010. This could also be read as 11.2 items per capita are being used completely within the library. (See Equation 2 in the Appendix). When looking at the circulation figures for 2009 which equaled 14,737 items,[24] this figure would more than double the visible use of the library collection.

Figure 1. This bar graph shows, visually, the amount of estimated in-library usage of materials for 2010 and the actual library circulation for 2009. It also shows what the estimated figures for 2010 if the materials circulated from the library and the materials used in-house were combined.

Observations

The base instrument used for this qualitative study was valid; one that had been tested in the past and proven to be acceptable. However, by altering the initial instrument, the validity of the instrument actually used is yet to be proven. In conducting this study the researcher / librarian changed the pattern for gathering the data from the original instrument – the original instrument called for data to be collected for one week and input those figures into a formula to find the percentage of in-house use of materials for the entire year and the researcher collected data for three months. The researcher / librarian also had originally intended to average the figures in each of the collection categories of books, magazines, newspapers and other items. In the end the researcher realized that the combined total of all categories were what was needed in this case. However, the data collected could be used in developing the library collection (to see where the collection is being used or left relatively untouched).