Forest B. Doyle. Community Analysis Methods and Program Performance.

A Master‘s Paper for

the M.S. in L.S degree. May, 2013. 32 pages. Advisor: Dr. Ronald Bergquist

Community analysis techniques have been proposed as ways that public libraries can
assess the information needs of their communities. Despite the need for community
assessment or analysis, very little research has been done to compare the various
techniques used by public libraries for gathering information about the service
population. Using the libraries participating in the Building Common Ground initiative,
this study attempted to see if there is a correlation between techniques used and the
performance of subsequent programming. While failing to meet standards of statistical
significance, the quantitative and qualitative data gathered through the study suggests that
certain techniques, as well as the use of several techniques together, are associated with
increased program performance.

Headings:

Information needs

Libraries & Community

Public libraries – Cultural Programs

COMMUNITY ANALYSIS METHODS AND PROGRAM PERFORMANCE

by
Forest B. Doyle

A Master‘s paper submitted to the faculty

of the School of Information and Library Science
of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of Master of Science in
Library Science.

Chapel Hill, North Carolina

May 2013

Approved by

_______________________________________
Dr. Ronald Bergquist
 1

Table of Contents

Introduction ................................................................................................................... 2

Literature Review .......................................................................................................... 4

Methodology ................................................................................................................13

Results ..........................................................................................................................16

Discussion ....................................................................................................................22

Limitations ...................................................................................................................24

Conclusion....................................................................................................................26

Acknowledgements .......................................................................................................27

Works Cited..................................................................................................................28
 2

Introduction

It has long been the mission of public libraries to serve the information needs of

the public. The identification of these information needs is a critical step in providing the

appropriate resources for meeting those same needs. Community analysis techniques

have been proposed as ways that public libraries can assess the information needs of their

communities. Despite the need for community assessment or analysis, very little research

has been done to compare the various techniques used by public libraries for gathering

information about the service population. The majority of current literature on gathering

community information is limited to either anecdotal accounts of individual libraries‘

experiences or practical ―how-to‖ advice in various handbooks and planning guides.

Comparing the various techniques used for community analysis has practical applications

for public librarianship. By studying the effectiveness of the various techniques,

librarians will have a better idea about which techniques to utilize in their own

community assessment process.

In 2012, the American Library Association‘s Public Program Office, in

cooperation with the Fetzer Institute, initiated a project called Building Common Ground.

From the project website, the stated goal of the initiative was ―to engage the public in

contemplation and discussion of the importance of community… bringing adult

audiences together for programs and events that include reading,

 3

viewing, reflection, discussion and civic engagement initiatives‖ (Building Common

Ground, 2010) Thirty public libraries were selected to participate in the grant. Although

the Public Programs Office required participants to include certain elements in their

individual programs, the libraries were given the freedom to select a topic upon which all

program events would be based. ―Participating libraries will identify local issues that

might be informed and illuminated by discussions of community, compassion, civility

and use those issues as the impetus for assembling multi-format program series‖

(Building Common Ground, 2010). This program presented an opportunity to see how

libraries gather information on their communities and the effect the various community

assessment techniques have on program performance. It was the hypothesis of the

researcher that the use of community analysis techniques in the development of

programming would result in well-attended and effective programming.

 4

Literature Review

A significant portion of the early literature about community analysis attempts to

define the concept, emphasize its importance to the profession, and describe the various

techniques used to gather information. Charles Evans, in his essay ―A History of

Community Analysis in American Librarianship,‖ provides an excellent overview of

community analysis from its beginnings in the late 19th century until the early 1970‘s. He

cites William Foster and Mary Cutler as pioneers in the practice, and quotes Mary Cutler

as providing the fundamental justification for community analysis. Evans (1976) quotes

Cutler as saying that ―The librarian should be a careful student of his own town…that he

may catch the spirit of civic life and relate the library to the whole as the organs to the

body‖ (p.444).

Evans writes that the earliest attempts at community information gathering were

informal and highly subjective, gathering data through interviewing random community

members about their lives. The use of surveys was first proposed in 1919 by Charles

Williamson as a way to formalize the assessment procedure, but failed to provide a clear

outline of how such surveys would be conducted. Subsequent studies improved upon

Williamson‘s initial proposal by providing concrete examples and frameworks for

creating surveys (Wheeler, 1924; McCullough, 1924). The survey conducted by Ethel

McCullough is especially notable because it used community members as the primary

source of information and included non-users (Evans, 1976).

 5

A majority of subsequent community analysis projects have relied heavily on

demographic data. Evans cites studies from Wilmington, Delaware, and Milwaukee as

examples (Evans, 1976). In the modern day, the practice of using statistics and

demographics persists as the dominant way in which libraries conduct community

analyses. Along with this use, however, has come recognition that this purely quantitative

source of information is limited in its value for making decisions about library services.

This limitation is mentioned indirectly in articles by Charles Evans and Douglas Zweizig.

In their 1982 article ―The Community Analysis Process,‖ Roger Greer and Martha Hale

address the limitations of statistical data directly and propose a method that incorporates

multiple techniques and sources of community information. This method, known as the

Community Analysis Research Institute (CARI) model, includes four ―perspectives‖ on

community information: demographic data, social groups and related activities, existing

agencies and their offerings, and the life-styles of those in the community. The collection

of information about these four perspectives includes the techniques of analyzing

demographic data, observing people in interactions, gathering qualitative information

about local agencies, and interviewing prominent community members, respectively.

(Greer and Hale, 1982)

Recent literature focuses primarily on the practical aspects of the community

assessment process. The various techniques are presented in a ―how-to‖ format in

handbooks and guides. The Guide to Library User Needs Assessment for Integrated

Information Resource Management and Collection Development, published by the ALA

in 2001, provides a concise description of the types of information that can be gathered in

analysis and the techniques which can be used to obtain this information. It distinguishes
 6

between primary data (which is collected directly from community members by

employing the techniques of survey, focus group, and interview) and secondary data,

which give indirect information about the community through demographic data and

circulation statistics (―User Needs,‖ 2001). The manual explores each technique in depth

and comments on their relative strengths and weaknesses.

Community analysis also emerges as an element of the library planning process,

appearing in the Planning for Results series of titles from the ALA. These books locate

the assessment as part of the larger process of defining a vision for the community and

performing a Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats (SWOT) analysis to

decide on service responses. In The New Planning for Results, author Sandra Nelson

provides a work form for recording community data. Much of this information is

obtained through demographic data, though it also includes qualitative information in

describing local agencies, employers, and organizations (Nelson, 2001). This information

is ultimately combined with information about the library into a SWOT analysis. In the

newest manifestation of this work, entitled Strategic Planning for Results, Nelson still

includes the SWOT analysis, but neglects to include any techniques or methods by which

the community information should be gathered. One other relevant element to these

works is the use of key informants on the planning committees. These key informants are

selected to represent the different groups, called stakeholders, which are affected by

library decisions. These informants offer qualitative information about their represented

communities (Nelson, 2008).

 7

The manuals dealing explicitly with developing programming in a public library

also include techniques for obtaining information about communities. These guides are

meant for the practitioner and provide concrete suggestions for how to gather

information. In an ALA publication entitled Adult Programs in the Library (2002), the

influence of Sandra Nelson‘s Planning is apparent in the author‘s suggestion that

librarian‘s perform a community survey. The use of demographic data and surveying

individual community members is also included (Lear, 2002). Adult Programming: A

Manual for Libraries (1997) identifies the community analysis as the critical first step of

developing programs:

The first step is to perform a needs assessment of the community, including

understanding what you want to know and why, identifying the major groups of
the community, analyzing the needs of each group, and assessing the potential
program needs of each group. Clearly defined goals and objectives for the series
or event, derived from knowledge of the community, ensure effective
programming. (p. 1)

The manual identifies several sources of information. Demographic, geographic,

and marketing data are all included as helpful sources. The manual also states that

―behaviorist‖ data can be obtained through the use of surveys. The manual appears to

stress looking at sources of secondary data instead of asking the community members

directly, although the use of surveys does speak to this latter idea (―Adult Programming,‖

1997). The community analysis techniques described in the guides on programming

reflect the ideas espoused in other literature. Much like strategic planning, community

analysis appears to be an integral part of marketing practices in libraries. In his book

Marketing for Nonprofit Organizations, author Philip Kotler defines marketing for the

nonprofit world:
 8

Marketing is the analysis, planning, implementation, and control of carefully

formulated programs …for the purpose of achieving organizational objectives. It
relies heavily on designing the organization‘s offering in terms of the target
market‘s needs and desires, and on using effective pricing, communication, and
distribution to inform, motivate, and service the markets. (Kotler, 1975)

Marketing is a kind of action plan for implementing the goals set forward by the

library in the planning process. The justification for community analysis techniques is

found in this simple connection between the goals and the subsequent actions of the

public library. Both need to reflect the needs of the community served by the library.

In her 1999 book entitled Marketing/Planning Library Information and Services,

author Darlene E. Weingand locates community analysis in the larger process of a

marketing audit. The marketing audit not only assesses the community and its needs, but

also examines the internal environment of the organization (Weingand, 1999, p. 41).

Weingand goes on to identify several factors to be examined when looking at the external

environment. These factors include: demographic, geographic, psychographic, economic,

technological, political, societal, cultural, behavioristic, and environmental scanning

(Weingand, 1999, p. 45). These factors involve multiple types of information and require

different methods for data gathering.

Eileen Elliot de Saez, in her 2002 book Marketing Concepts for Libraries and

Information Services, makes the case that various types of assessment techniques must be

employed to provide a satisfactory picture of the external environment. ―Quantitative and

qualitative research are needed,‖ she writes, ―quantitative research seeks to measure

market behaviors while qualitative research seeks to explore those behaviors and

motivations through psychosociological and psychoanalytic techniques with both groups

and individuals‖ (de Saez, 2002, p. 169). She goes on to list several methods for
 9

gathering community information, and a few of these (surveys, focus groups, and

secondary data from other agencies) are similar to the methods outlined by the ALA

planning manuals.

The focus on the consumer is a central element of the literature in both planning

and marketing in libraries. As a result of this focus, the gathering of community

information plays a critical role in any planning or marketing process. Examining the

marketing literature allows for a greater understanding of how the community

information can be utilized to create more effective services.

The existing literature on community analysis techniques, especially those

documents addressing the program planning process, has offered up multiple techniques

for the practitioner. The research gauging the effectiveness of the various techniques is

sparse. With the exception of works by Charles Evans, Douglas Zweizig, and most

recently Mandy Whipple, the literature lacks any real critique of community information

gathering techniques. The work of these three writers suggests that public librarians could

benefit from a comparison of the different techniques. Zweizig (1981) concluded that

demographic data is a poor predictor of whether or not people will use the library. He

suggests that demographic and other types of secondary data have limited value for needs

assessment and that more personal techniques producing qualitative information may

produce better results:

Breaking free of the assumption that attribute prediction will help in planning information
services will allow us to consider how we might better understand the situations of our
users, the kinds of information needs that relate with situation types, and the varying uses
of information for varying situations. (p. 202)
 10

Another critique of techniques appears in Mandy Whipple‘s 2004 article entitled

―Community analysis needs ethnography: an example from Romania.‖ Whipple argues

that demographic and census data are limited in their value for community needs

assessment. She proposes that ethnographic techniques, such as personal interviews of

community members and observation of their everyday lives, could produce a greater

understanding of communities. (Whipple, 2004)

Whether or not one agrees with these two writers, their works do call into

question the efficacy of the multiple community analysis techniques currently described

in planning guides and programming handbooks. A comparison of the techniques and

their effect on program success would allow librarians to judge for themselves what

methods to use when developing their own programs. This is what this paper seeks to

address.
 11

The Building Common Ground Initiative and Civic Engagement Programs

The Building Common Ground initiative is the product of a collaborative effort

between the Public Programs Office of the American Library Association and the Fetzer

Institute, a non-profit organization with the mission of ―fostering awareness of the power

of love and forgiveness in the global community‖ (Fetzer, 2013). As stated on the

Building Common Ground initiative‘s website, the goal of the program is ―to engage the

public in contemplation and discussion of the importance of community, civility and

compassion in their daily lives‖ (Building Common Ground). Participating libraries

achieved this by offering programming to the public which would promote such

discussion. These events are considered to be examples of civic engagement programs, a

type of programming that has gained some popularity in recent years.

The idea that libraries can promote civic engagement through programming is

founded on the belief in the community-building nature of the library‘s basic functions.

Former ALA President Nancy Kranich is perhaps the most vocal proponent of the

library‘s role in facilitating civic engagement programs. In her 2005 article entitled

―Civic Partnerships: The Role of Libraries in Promoting Civic Engagement‖, Kranich

cites the important role that libraries play in a democratic society. Kranich writes that

―libraries make knowledge, ideas, and information available to all citizens by serving as

the public source for the pursuit of independent thought, critical attitudes, and in-depth

information‖ (Kranich, 2005, p.94). She identifies several ways in which libraries

contribute to civic engagement, including the provision of programming to facilitate

dialogue between community members regarding local issues.

 12

Also underlying the intent of the Building Common Ground initiative is the idea

that libraries create social capital. Popularized by Robert Putnam in his book Bowling

Alone, social capital is a concept that ―refers to the collective value of all ‗social

networks‘ and the inclinations that arise from these networks to do things for each other‖

(Putnam, 2000). Many authors in the LIS literature write about the ability of libraries to

contribute to social capital. An excellent review of this literature can be found in Stuart

Ferguson‘s 2012 article ―Are Public Libraries Developers of Social Capital?: A Review

of their Contribution and Attempts to Demonstrate It‖.

Ever since the decline in civic engagement was thrust into the national spotlight

by Bowling Alone, there has been a growing interest in the role of libraries as developers

of social capital and promoters of civic engagement. It is in this context that the Building

Common Ground initiative can be located.

 13

Methodology

Using a case study approach, this study examined the effect of community

assessment/analysis techniques on program performance. It used the programming

developed by thirty public libraries participating in the Building Common Ground grant

as a case study. The intent of the research was to determine if there is a correlation

between specific techniques and the success of the program events.

There were two sources of information for this study. The first was a short web-

based survey distributed to the thirty different libraries. These surveys were completed by

a library staff member with responsibility for planning and executing the Building

Common Ground grant programs. Five closed-ended questions about the planning

process provided information about the libraries‘ uses of community assessment

techniques and the effects that these techniques had on the planning process. For the

purposes of this paper, ―community assessment‖ and ―community analysis‖ are used

interchangeably. Community assessment techniques are defined as any methods by which

a library obtains information about its service community. Six possible categories of

techniques were surveyed: interviews with community members, focus groups, library

surveys, demographic data from secondary sources (i.e. Census, marketing research,

etc.), personal knowledge of library staff, and other. As described in Babbie (2010),

closed-ended questions are used on the survey to promote uniformity and reduce

ambiguity. The category of other was included in the interest of making the survey
 14

exhaustive and involved a space for the respondent to explain. Responding libraries were

asked to provide statistics detailing attendance at all adult programming events for the

year of 2012.

The survey was structured so that respondents answered either a ―yes‖ or ―no‖ to

each question. Answers were then coded so that ―no‖ answers were represented by a ―1‖

and ―yes‖ answers were represented by a ―2‖. This allowed the survey data to be

combined with the average event attendance change (derived from averaging attendance

figures for non-program related events and comparing this number to the average

attendance of program related events) into a dataset that could be analyzed using

Statistical Product and Service Solutions (SPSS) statistics program. This allowed the

researcher to look for correlations between the usages of techniques and the attendance

rates of programs.

The second source of information was the final reports submitted to the ALA‘s

Public Programming Office by the participating libraries. The elements of interest to this

study involve the libraries‘ responses to questions about outcomes. There are two

questions in particular that were especially interesting. These questions were:

What outcomes were reported by participants, including speakers?

How were their attitudes, knowledge, and/or behaviors changed or
enhanced by taking part in this project?
Describe how actual programs compared to planned programs. (Please
include information on participation by target audiences, roles of
partners, anticipated vs. actual attendance, etc.)

The answers to these questions provided qualitative information about the

performance of the individual programs. Operating on the principles of grounded theory,

 15

the responses were analyzed in order to discover major themes. These themes dealt with

the ways in which libraries reported the success or failure of their programs. Once these

themes were developed, the researcher went back and looked for the appearance of these

themes in each final report, recording whether a particular theme was or was not present.

Survey results were combined with information from the final reports to see if

there were any correlations between specific community assessment techniques and the

performance of the subsequent programs. Performance of programming was measured

quantitatively, by comparing average attendance of program events non-program events,

and qualitatively, by analyzing the outcomes reported by the libraries in the final reports.

The history of public library evaluation supports the use of attendance statistics

and outcomes in determining program performance. Durrance (2003) describes how

output measures such as attendance statistics have dominated the discourse on library

effectiveness. Durrance (2003) writes that ―Public libraries, state agencies, and the

federal government have come to rely on output measures for public libraries as

indicators of public library effectiveness…the primary values of these measures are as

indicators of efficiency and use‖ (p. 545). Although acknowledging this value in output

measures, Durrance goes on to note the limitations of this approach. Specifically, she

states that output measures ―do not reflect the value gained by the user‖ (p. 545). To

address this issue, the Public Library Association suggests that libraries use outcome

measurements. Rubin (2006) defines outcome measurement as ―a user-centered

approach to the planning and assessment of programs or services that are provided to

address particular user needs and designed to achieve change for the user‖ (p. 2).
 16

Although this type of measurement is ultimately quantified, the basic data is inherently

qualitative. It is more effective than output measures in measuring actual effects that

programs have on users (Rubin, 2006). By including both measures in the research, a

comprehensive view of program performance can be achieved.

 17

Results

The survey created by the researcher had a response rate of 57%, with seventeen

of thirty libraries responding. Of these seventeen respondents, sixteen completed all

multiple choice answers. The most common technique used by libraries is the utilization

of staff members‘ personal knowledge of the community, with all libraries reporting that

this played a role in the development of Building Common Ground programming. The

use of demographic information was the next most prevalent, with 81% of the libraries

using this method to gain information about their communities. The technique of

interviewing individual community members came in third with 59% of libraries using

this method. At 53% of libraries answering in the affirmative, the fourth most prevalent

was the technique of using information gleaned from previous community assessments or

other surveys of the community. The fifth and least used technique was the utilization of

focus groups, with only 47% of libraries responding that this technique was used when

assessing community needs. This information is summarized in Figure 1.1.

Only twelve libraries submitted answers to the short-answer question regarding

other techniques not covered by the five multiple-choice questions. These answers varied

widely, but a few common techniques emerged from the data. Seven of the libraries used

information gathered from other organizations serving the community. These

organizations included government and nonprofit agencies, some of which were partners

with the libraries in the Building Common Ground initiative. Three libraries looked at the
 18

success of past programs in order to determine community needs. Other reported

sources of information were the local newspaper and common sense.

Community Analysis Techniques Use

No Yes
18
16
14
Number of Libraries

12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Demoraphics Assessment Interview Focus Groups Staff Knowedge
Community Analysis Techniques

Figure 1.1

The next step of the analysis involved comparing average program attendance to

the average attendance at all adult programs in the year of 2012 for each library. At this

stage, a limitation of the methodology became clear when many libraries failed to provide

complete information in their final reports to the ALA. Furthermore, a few other libraries

have yet to submit final reports. Of the seventeen libraries that participated in the survey,

only eight provided complete information. While this number is much too low to even

approach statistical significance, the researcher ran t-tests to confirm this fact. None of

the five tests displayed numbers approaching statistical significance. Despite this fact, the

researcher performed a correlation on the data. Four of the five methods (demographics,
 19

previous assessments, interviews, and focus groups) were tested. Of these four, only two

methods appeared to have any correlation to greater increases in program attendance. The

use of previous assessments produced a Pearson‘s r value of .449, pointing towards a

modest correlation between that method and program attendance. The technique of

interviewing community members showed a slightly stronger correlation with attendance,

producing a Pearson‘s r value of .501. The other two methods—the use of demographics

and focus groups, produced low Pearson‘s r value of .039 and .010, respectively.

The number of methods used by each library was calculated to see if a correlation

existed between the quantity of methods and program attendance. Figure 1.2 provides a

visual display of the data as mapped onto a chart. The correlation test between the

numbers of methods produced a Pearson‘s r value of .540. Once again, these results do

not approach statistical significance because the sample size was so small.

A qualitative analysis of final report data was performed and four general themes

common to most of the documents were discovered. These themes are: positive feedback,

repeatability of programs, anticipated attendance, and the library‘s perception of the

programs. Positive feedback was represented by either the library stating that feedback

was positive overall or the inclusion of predominantly positive feedback in the final

reports. Repeatability refers to the desire on the part of a library or its program

participants to repeat some of the programs. Anticipated attendance refers to whether or

not libraries met their anticipated attendance goals. Finally, the library‘s perception of the

programs simply refers to statements made by the reporting libraries about the overall

success of failure of the programming.

 20

Figure 1.2

Unsurprisingly, all libraries reported receiving positive feedback from the

program attendees. The presence of the other three themes was not as homogenous in the

final reports. Regarding the theme of repeatability, only four of eight libraries explicitly

stated that programs will be repeated or that program attendees desire the programs to be

repeated. Six of eight libraries mentioned the theme of anticipated attendance, with five

out of those six responding that attendance at programs met or exceeded the libraries‘

expectations. The theme of libraries‘ perceptions of program appeared in seven of the

eight libraries‘ final reports. Once again, it is not surprising that all of these responses

were affirmative in stating the success of the programs.

The presence of themes was cross-tabulated with the libraries‘ survey responses.

A few findings stood out from the rest. Firstly, four out of the five libraries that had used
 21

demographic data responded that anticipated attendance levels were met. Three of the

four libraries that gathered information from previous community assessments also

reported meeting anticipated attendance levels. All three libraries that utilized interview

techniques reported that the attendance levels were met. The theme of repeatability did

not have any strong positive associations. In the cross-tabulation with the technique of

demographic data, five of seven libraries utilizing the technique failed to state a desire to

repeat the programs. For the technique of interview, three of four libraries that used the

technique did not state a desire to repeat programming. The other techniques that could

be analyzed—previous assessments and focus groups—were evenly split when cross-

tabulated with the repeatability theme. Half of libraries using the technique reported no

desire to repeat programs, while half of the libraries reporting not using the technique

reported a desire to repeat some Building Common Ground programming.

 22

Discussion

This study set out to demonstrate that the use of community analysis techniques in

the development of programming would lead to well-attended and effective programs.

The small number of responding libraries makes the generalization of the findings

impossible. Within this specific situation, however, a few basic claims can be made

regarding a relationship between community analysis techniques and program

performance. These claims are that certain techniques do appear to be associated with

higher program performance and that the use of multiple techniques is also associated

with higher attendance rates.

Although not all techniques demonstrated a strong correlation with higher

percentage increases in attendance at programs, the techniques of using previous

community assessments and interviewing community members did show strong

associations. Libraries that used previous community assessments generally reported

larger increases in attendance rates at Building Common Ground programs. A majority of

these libraries were also able to meet their anticipated attendance rates. The reason for

this success can be found in the nature of community assessments. These documents are

comprehensive snapshots of communities and are systematically assembled using several

data collection methods, including some of the other techniques in this study. Community

assessments are considered to be an integral part of the library planning process, as can

be seen by its presence in the ALA‘s Planning for Results series. The findings of this
 23

study support adoption of this tool by the ALA and hints at the utility of these

assessments in developing appropriate services for public libraries. The technique of

interviewing community members also showed a modest correlation with higher

increases in program attendance. This could be explained by the reasoning of those

theorists who encourage the use of more ethnographic methods. The interview format can

provide qualitative information, including data about how someone experiences the

world, what he/she identifies as needs, and what motivates a person to do or not do

something. This type of research can lead to programming that addresses the specific

needs of groups and individuals.

The use of multiple techniques was also found to be correlated with increases in

program attendance. Attendance grew the largest in the libraries that used more methods.

An explanation for this could be that different methods measure different types of

information. As the number of methods increased, the libraries gathered multiple types of

information. This variety of data was then used to inform the selection of the local issues

to be addressed by the Building Common Ground programming. The inclusion of

multiple types of information in the community assessment is supported by the methods

listed by the Planning for Results series.

 24

Limitations

This research is limited in a few different ways. Firstly, the sample size was too

small. Of the thirty libraries that participated in the Building Common Ground initiative,

seventeen completed the survey released by the researcher. While this provided the

researcher with data describing the techniques utilized by the libraries, it did not provide

information sufficient for the desired analysis of the effect of those techniques on

program performance. This missing data was to be found in the final reports that the

libraries submitted to the ALA‘s Public Program Office. Unfortunately, several of the

libraries failed to provide complete information in the reports, and the researcher could

only include eight of the original thirty libraries in the analysis. This undercut the

possibility of discovering anything of statistical significance. Future research of this

nature should include larger sample sizes.

A second limitation can be found in the type of information that was gathered.

The data in this study provided the researcher with information about what techniques

were used and how the programs produced by the libraries performed. The study was

meant to see if certain techniques were correlated with a certain level of performance.

While this may provide some indication of a relationship between the variables, the study

does not provide any indication of how the information gathered through these techniques

are used to develop programs. This type of information is a critical component of linking

community analysis techniques and program performance. A case study approach, which
 25

looks at individual libraries as they go through the various stages of gathering

information and planning programming around the information, might be the most

suitable form of research for discovering more about this relationship.

 26

Conclusion

In order to effectively serve its patrons, a public library needs to have knowledge

of the community in which it exists. Community assessment has long been a topic of

library science literature. Over the years, multiple techniques and processes have been

suggested as ways of gathering information about communities. Most contemporary

literature on community analysis exists as practical manuals or guides for the professional

librarian and includes techniques that have been developed over the years. Lacking from

the literature is an assessment and comparison of the techniques as they apply to

programming in public libraries. The recent Building Common Ground initiative

developed by the ALA‘s Public Program Office and the Fetzer Institute called upon

libraries to develop programming based around local issues in their communities. Using

the libraries participating in the Building Common Ground initiative, this study attempted

to see if there is a correlation between techniques used and the performance of

subsequent programming. While failing to meet standards of statistical significance, the

quantitative and qualitative data gathered through the study suggests that certain

techniques, as well as the use of several techniques together, are associated with

increased program performance.

 27

Acknowledgements

A few different people helped me in the development of this project. I would like

to thank my supervisor Dr. Ron Bergquist, who offered me guidance and support during

the writing of this paper. I would also like to thank Brian Russell at the ALA‘s Public

Program Office. He helped coordinate the release of the survey and communicated with

me throughout the data gathering process. Lastly, I would like to thank Mary Davis

Fournier, Program Director at the Public Program Office, for her willingness to assist me

with the data collection process, her advice in the development of the study, and for

coordinating the Building Common Ground initiative. This type of programming is a

valuable addition to any library, and the professional community is lucky to have her as

an advocate for such programs.

 28

Works Cited

Adult Programming: A Manual for Libraries. (1997). Chicago: American Library

Association.

Building Common Ground: Discussions of Community, Civility, and Compassion.

(2010). Retrieved from http://ppo.ala.org/commonground/

De Sáez, E. E. (2002). Marketing concepts for libraries and information services (2nd

ed.). London: Facet Publishing.

Durrance, J. C., & Fisher, K. E. (2003). Determining How Libraries and Librarians Help.

Library Trends, 51(4), 541–570.

Evans, C. (1976). A History of Community Analysis in American Librarianship. Library

Trends, 24, 441–457.

Fetzer Institute. (2013). The Fetzer Institute. Retrieved from http://www.fetzer.org/

Greer, R. C., & Hale, M. L. (1982). The Community Analysis Process. Public

Librarianship: A Reader (pp. 358–366). Littleton, CO: Libraries Unlimited.

Kotler, P. (1974). Marketing for nonprofit organizations. Prentice-Hall.

Kranich, N. (2005). Civic Partnerships: The Role of Libraries in Promoting Civic

Engagement. Resource Sharing & Information Networks, 18(1-2), 89–103.

 29

Lear, B. W. (2002). Adult Programs in the Library. Chicago: American Library

Association.

McCullough, E. F. (1924). School, Neighborhood and Circulation Surveys. Library

Occurrent, 7(7).

Nelson, S. S. (2001). The New Planning for Results: A Streamlined Approach. Chicago:

American Library Association.

Nelson, S. S. (2008). Strategic Planning For Results. Chicago: American Library

Association.

Public Libraries. Public Librarianship: A Reader (pp. 189–205). Littleton, CO: Libraries

Unlimited.

Putnam, R. D. (2001). Bowling alone : the collapse and revival of American

community (1st Touchstone ed.). New York: Touchstone.

Rubin, R. J. (2006). Demonstrating Results: Using Outcome Measurements in Your

Library. Chicago: American Library Association.

Weingand, D. E. (1999). Marketing/planning library and information services (2nd ed.).

Englewood, Colo.: Libraries Unlimited.

Wheeler, J. L. (1924). The Library and the Community. Chicago: ALA.

Whipple, M., & James, N. M. (2007). Community Analysis Needs Ethnography: an

Example from Romania. Library Review, 56(8), 694–706.

 30

Zweizig, D., & Dervin, B. (1982). Public Library Use, Users, Uses: Advances in

Knowledge of the Characteristics and Needs of the Adult Clientele of American