Riverton Rising!

Last Thursday night's Open House was a sweet night for all of us associated with PPL and the Riverton neighborhood. After the uncertainties of the last two years the budget for the Riverton Branch was solidified this spring and we can now with some level of confidence sink our teeth into creating a first rate library experience at Riverton.

We have started with renewing the physical space effecting a transformation of the previous space from cramped, dark and cluttered

to an environment that employs the lessons learned in the renovation of the Main Library.

We have lowered the stack heights, maintained the same amount of linear shelving feet through a new shelving layout, widened the aisles and created specific spaces for adults reading, children’s programming and teens. It is now a light filled space with room to move!

The next stage is to continue to analyze and refine data regarding use of the collections and having the collections reflect the needs. After the first three months in the new space we will analyze the use of the collections and attendance and ask opinions of our Riverton users to see what specific changes we might make. Our plan is to surpass the records this year for lending (64,227) and attendance (50,671) at Riverton.

The Open House last Thursday was a joyful event with new City Manager Mark Rees, City Councilors John Coyne and Dory Waxman, Superintendent of Schools Jim Morse and PPL Trustee President Nathan Smith all in attendance. We had the chance to thank each other for the hard work and support and also unanimously to thank the Riverton Community Association led by President Chip Edgar for their passion and help in keeping PPL operating in the Riverton neighborhood. We are grateful to all.

Doing Better with Less?

Libraries don’t often speak in defined ways about productivity. In any job after a time you get a glimpse (or more likely “feel”) when there is a greater workload or activity. The questions you have to ask yourself after accounting for all of the variables are “Did I actually do more or better work or did I add any value to the organization or to the life of the library patrons?”


At PPL, which is first and foremost a service organization, we have to start with some broad measures that make an effort to quantify effort and activity and cost. One way to look at the overall return on the investment of people is to look at the relationship between the number of staff and the amount of lending or visits the library system experiences in a year and which must be “serviced.” This is an important question for an organization whose staffing has declined roughly 10% since 2008 and is significantly lower than any year since 1990. It also important to state that other infrastructure costs associated with library service need to be accounted for to the point that staffing – all associated costs – account for under 68% of the budget which, depending on your point of view is either low or very efficient - for a service organization.

The graph above reveals some interesting things and points toward a bright library future in the service of our users. The years 1990 – 1996 show a flattening in terms of lending and visitation per FTE * (Full Time Equivalent). In 1996, the first full year of operation of the Burbank Branch, lending and visitation begin to rise per FTE which is a measure of more activity per staff member. It also argues for investment in service locations that have a critical mass in terms of collections and hours. The period 2008 – 2011 reinforces this notion strongly as the Main Library first underwent hours reduction due to budget constraints and then a renovation that resulted in substantial reduction of space. Our system numbers fell accordingly. Once the Main Library came back on-line (April 2010) with improved and expanded spaces and a six day a week schedule (July 2010) the productivity per FTE rose dramatically despite 25% fewer hours due to the closure of the Reiche and Munjoy locations.

In September, we will publicly release the results of our community survey conducted late last spring. One relevant finding however to share now is that respondents indicated to us (in support of critical mass/efficiency) that fewer locations open longer hours and with strong collections was preferred over more locations with short schedules and small collections.

* Total number of staff work hours available divided by 40.