What Is Your Library Worth? Extension Uses Public Value Workshops in Communities

The digital revolution has challenged public libraries with growing demands for new services, such as digital books, Internet training and access, and remote access to library materials (Zurinski, Osborne, Anthoine-Ney, & McKenney, 2013). Yet many libraries are experiencing funding reductions or flat public funding, which creates anxiety about the future role of libraries (American Library Association, 2012d; Silka & Rumery, 2013).

In 2013, only 48% of Americans used a public library, and 28% of families contained no library patrons (Zickuhr, Rainie, Purcell, & Duggan, 2013). Given these figures, it is clear that maintaining public funding for libraries requires the support of non-patrons. This crucial non-patron support depends upon an understanding of the indirect benefits, or "public value," received from libraries. For their part, patrons must clearly understand the direct benefits, or "private value," that they receive from libraries.

Silka and Rumery (2013), after reviewing recent trends and changes in libraries, asked,

In the face of increased emphasis on return on investment, what strategies can libraries use to measure returns on something as complex and multifaceted as the impact of libraries? As communities struggle to decide how to allocate their limited resources, can community-friendly decision tools be developed to help with the process? (p. 16)

Extension has had similar problems in explaining its value to the public. In 2003, Laura Kalambokidis of Minnesota Extension created an educational workshop to identify and describe the value of Extension programs to non-participants (Kalambokidis, 2004). Minnesota Extension community development educators used the Kalambokidis approach for other public services, including one library (personal communication from the perspective of an Extension educator leading a workshop for a Minnesota public library with George Morse, November 27, 2012.; personal communication on public value workshop for Minnesota library from the perspective of a library trustee with George Morse, November 28, 2012). Since Extension community development programs build local leadership capacity, helping local leaders articulate the public value of their public services is a natural Extension community development programming effort.

The similarity in the missions of public libraries and Extension, as trusted information intermediaries, and the mutual benefits of close collaboration to both institutions, has been described (Concannon, Rafferty, & Swanson-Farmarco, 2011; Holmes, 1987; O'Neill, 2013; Pinkerton & Glazier, 1993). However, none of these articles explicitly address ways to measure the public value of libraries or other public services.

This article (1) outlines differences between private and public value, as well as why there is a need for tools that are "community-friendly"; (2) describes how we customized the Kalambokidis workshops for public libraries; (3) describes short- and long-term evaluation results; and (4) suggests recommendations for Extension educators working with libraries or with other public services.

Private Versus Public Value of Libraries

Private Value

The private value of any public service is defined as the value accruing directly to the participants of the service (Kalambokidis, 2004). For example, participants in an Extension family-finance education program "spend and borrow responsibly, save more, and gain control over their financial health" (University of Missouri Extension, no date). Each program has different benefits to participants; therefore, the private value differs. Likewise, the private value for different library services is best articulated for the specific service or program. Preschoolers who learn to love reading through library programs and books illustrate one example of a library's private value.

The private value of libraries has been documented empirically by (1) surveys of library patrons, asking about the importance of different aspects of their library (Zickuhr, Rainie, Purcell, & Duggan, 2013), and (2) estimates of the savings experienced by patrons as a result of borrowing books and digital media and participating in free programs (Elliott, Holt, Hayden, & Holt, 2006; pp. 18–20). For example, Griffiths, King, Tomer, Lynch, and Harrington (2004) found benefits to be $5.20 per dollar expended by Florida's libraries.

Public Value

Public value is defined as the value of a public service to individuals who do not use the service, but who benefit indirectly as others use the service (Kalambokidis, 2004). Extension describes the public value of improved financial literacy as "reducing predatory lending, reliance on public assistance programs and crime" (University of Missouri, no date). Preschoolers who become habitual readers as a result of library early-reader programs tend to be more successful in school (private value). They will generally require fewer remedial education resources (a public value to all taxpayers).

Two estimation approaches have been used to document the public value of libraries. These include (1) willingness-to-pay estimates using Contingent Valuation Analysis (CVA) and (2) capitalization of libraries' public value into property value. When CVA surveys include library non-patrons, they can capture the public value. Previous CVA studies for libraries have found values ranging from 1.3 to 10 times the operating costs (Missingham, 2005; Aabo, 2005). The capitalization approach assumes that amenities, including libraries, will be capitalized into home values. High-quality research on the capitalization of a library's public value is very technical (Hausman, 2012; Carson, 2012) and, hence, very rare (Thornburgh, 2010). A third method of empirically measuring public value by examining changes in the behavior of patrons is in its infancy (Huysmans & Oomes, 2013). While this research is promising, it will be many years before these results are useable.

Three aspects of these empirical approaches have discouraged their use by library advocates. First, none are community-friendly tools with which community members can make decisions. Most local leaders understand neither the conceptual framework nor the research methods that must be used. Second, most of this research is designed for large urban areas, making it difficult to use the benefit-transfer method for smaller communities (Rosenberger, Randall, & Loomis, 2003). Third, none of these approaches engages a team of community leaders in the kind of exchange of ideas that is necessary to build an effective local campaign for their library.

Identifying the Private and Public Value of Our Library Workshops

In 2013, we developed a community-friendly framework that local leaders could use to identify the nature of their library's private and public value. The resulting workshop is based on the following approaches:

• A long history of public sector economics (Pigou, 1924);
• The educational approaches used to identify the public value of Extension programs (Kalambokidis, 2004) and Minnesota public services, including one library (personal communication, November 27, 2012; personal communication, November 28, 2012); and
• Facilitated community development methodologies to enhance citizen engagement (Haskell, Cyr, & McPhail, 2007)/

The following sections summarize the goals, participants, and agenda of the workshop.

Goals

After the three-hour workshop, participants were able to:

• Explain the benefits of the library to patrons in monetary terms (i.e. "private value");
• Explain the indirect benefits of the library to non-patrons as well as to patrons (i.e. "public value");
• Draft, articulate, and critique 30-second statements explaining the public value of supporting public libraries; and
• Identify the next steps in follow-up plans for sharing these messages.

Participants

Between March 2013 and January 2014, we held four workshops for 15 libraries. The four workshops averaged 24 participants each and included library staff, foundation members, trustees, friends of the library, or others (Table 1).

Building Partnerships with State and Local Leaders

In the Extension public value workshops, Extension administrators actively encouraged team participation (Kalambokidis Blog, 2008–2014; Markell, 2009; Franz 2011). Hence, after the first pilot workshop, we met with the Maine state librarian and Maine Regional Library Service (MRLS) district consultants to explain the program and invite them to a workshop. After two MRLS district consultants attended the second workshop, they encouraged two additional communities to sponsor workshops.

Workshop Description

A sample agenda for the 3-hour workshop is outlined in Table 2.We blended short presentations (about 1 hour total) with facilitated, same-library cohort group discussions.

To set the tone, we asked small groups to discuss trends affecting public libraries (e.g., changes in services requested, changes in public funding) immediately following introductions. We then shared several national library trends, both to supplement the local discussion and to build our own credibility with the audience.

Next we introduced the concept of private value, as well as a means of estimating it by using the American Library Association's (2013) online library value calculator. The full group discussed the strength and weakness of this approach for measuring the library's value. Groups usually identified the principle weakness of these calculators: that they ignore the public value of the programs. If they did, we reinforced it. If they missed this, we pointed this out.

The public value concept and several examples were presented next. To reinforce the public value concept of enlightened self-interest, we used a case study about Martin M. Martin, who generously donates to, but does not use, the library. Small groups were asked to identify the motives they thought drove Martin's support. Typically, these fell into four motivations: altruism, community pride, an implied social contract with earlier generations to pay forward, and enlightened self-interest. We then stated that the public value discussion focuses on the enlightened self-interest motivation.

We coached the small groups to identify a specific service in their library and used a logic model to trace the impacts of the private value and then the public value (Kalambokidis Blog, November 19, 2013). Then, we instructed the small groups to develop a 30-second statement for the logic model they had developed. Each small group shared these statements twice with the full group. First, they were simply read (and timed). In the next reading, the group offered constructive suggestions on ways to strengthen or improve them.

An evaluation was administered before the final topic, in order to achieve a high response rate. To conclude, the full group discussed ways their libraries hope to share the messages.

Evaluation of Workshops

End-of-Workshop Evaluations

An 88% response rate was achieved, with 84 responses from 95 participants.

• 91% reported that they would recommend this workshop to peers in other communities.
• 75% recommended that their local group meet to develop a plan for sharing public value messages.
• 74% encouraged use of the value calculator to estimate their library's private value, in addition to the 21% already using it.
• 54% planned to make one or more new changes in the way they shared their libraries' public value messages, averaging 2.3 new ways.
• 41% planned to share their public value messages in new ways (Table 3), for a 64% increase.

We asked an open-ended question about what participants liked about the workshop.

• 48% liked the interaction with presenters and the facilitated small-group discussions, which allowed all participants to contribute and "drew out group information."
• 32% liked the opportunity to create public value statements for their own library.
• 30% wrote that it was well organized and used time efficiently.
• 12% liked the chance to exchange ideas with other libraries (at one workshop, the staff from the different libraries had never met in person).

Participants appreciated the workshop, will recommend it, and indicated that they will take steps to use the information to advocate the value of their local libraries. To test the inherent public value of these workshops, we administered an online evaluation several months later to determine whether participants used the knowledge to increase the community's awareness of the public value of their libraries.

Follow-Up Online Survey

In early March 2014, we emailed invitations to all workshop participants to learn what had happened in the interim. We received 39 responses, which was a 41% response rate based on all 95 participants. In sum, here is what they reported:

• 86% of respondents had used at least one new means of communicating the public value of their library, with 52% using three or more methods (Table 4).
• 85% are currently comfortable or very comfortable using public value messages.
• 78% have encouraged more use of the library value calculator for private value.

Qualitative Evaluation Evidence

In the follow-up survey, we also asked the question, "What is one thing you have done differently after attending the workshop?" We heard from libraries representing all four workshops (Table 5). This open-ended question provided more subtle insights on the outcomes. Several respondents mentioned that they are focusing their discussion of benefits more carefully and considering indirect benefits (public value) as well as private value. A number indicated that they spoke with more confidence than they had earlier and hence were speaking to more people.

Feedback from Library Leaders

Several library leaders suggested that Extension explore ways to work with libraries statewide. Linda Lord, the Maine State Librarian, was one of these, saying, "It is critical that every resident and organization understand the value that a public library brings to a community. Libraries must initiate finding ways to collaborate and demonstrate the library's value—especially to non-library users" (Personal communication with Jane Haskell, April 10, 2014). We are currently exploring options for an expanded effort.

Sample Private and Public Value Statements

There is no perfect or "correct" library public value statement. The statements developed during workshops (Table 6) generally meet the following criteria:

1. Addresses a specific type of patron for a specific library service.
2. Limited to one change in behavior by the patrons.
3. Limited to one or two types of indirect benefit to non-patrons.
4. Can be expressed comfortably in less than 30 seconds (typically 70 words).
5. Includes an "ask" for financial and/or political support for the library.
6. Is factually correct. (Generally, statements are hypotheses that reference librarians can help verify.)

Missouri Extension demonstrates multiple ways to state public value in several areas of work (University of Missouri Extension, no date). Similarly, library workshop participants expressed public value for the same service or program differently.

Strategies for Developing Public Value Workshops for Any Public Service

We learned from four workshops with 15 public libraries that Extension community development educators can help public libraries or other public services understand and develop public value statements using these strategies. It is important to focus on one public service (e.g., libraries, schools, or parks) rather than multiple services. This is essential to build credibility with the target audience and to implement the following essential steps.

• Adapt the well-tested Extension public value workshop curriculum (Kalambokidis, 2004) to fit the context of the target public service being addressed (in our case, libraries).
• Study trends affecting public support for the target service; integrate trends into presentation to build credibility with audience.
• Include a discussion of private value to help participants understand the difference between private and public values.
• Focus only on the indirect benefits to non-patrons rather than discussing all reasons for public support, to allow time for in-depth group discussion.
• Meet with state leaders in the target service early on: invite them to attend, provide feedback on improvements, and encourage others to participate.
• Require four- to six-person teams from each local entity or program.
• Include workshop time for teams to develop strategies for communicating public value statements to change hearts and minds.
• Deliver three or four "pilot" workshops to introduce the concept and build credibility.
• Use a two-person Extension team initially, with one person having a solid understanding of the economics of public value, and the second having strong facilitation skills and strong connections to the target audience.
• Cross-train during the pilot phase, and shift to a one-person delivery system to reduce program costs.

Conclusions

Public libraries are undergoing transitions as they adjust to the digital age, as well as to increased public-funding pressures. Many libraries are eager to identify their value to both patrons (i.e., private value) and to the taxpayers who do not use the library (i.e., public value). Library leaders have called for the development of what has been described as "community-friendly decision tools" to identify and communicate these values of libraries.

The Kalambokidis approach to identifying the public value of Extension's programs has applicability to any publicly funded service. Using a customized approach with other public services is a natural extension of community development programming. This builds community capacity by helping community leaders develop community-friendly decision tools that articulate the value of a public amenity, such as a library.

We customized the Extension public value workshop in 2013 to fit a new audience, and facilitated four interactive workshops with 15 public library teams in four regions of Maine. Evaluation of our customized approach was encouraging: over 80% of respondents in a follow-up survey reported having used new public value messages. State library leaders have encouraged us to explore ways to deliver this program more widely.

Extension community development educators can help staff in public libraries and/or other public services (such as schools, parks, etc.) to understand their unique private and public value. To do so, however, each new service will need a customized educational program that can be replicated often enough to build credibility with its local and state leaders.

Acknowledgements

The authors thank the following people who helped in the development of the workshop or provided comments on this manuscript: John Burgess, Deborah Clark, Kevin Davis, Tracey Ferwarda, Lisa Frazell, Lisa Hinz, Laura Hoelscher, Laura Kalambokidis, Molly Larson, Linda Lord, Kyle McCaskill, Barbara McDade, Mary Michaud, Valerie Osborne, Jay Scherma, Brigid Tuck, Stephanie Zurinski, and three anonymous JOE reviewers. The content and conclusions are the sole responsibility of the authors.

References

Aabo, S. (2005). Valuing the benefits of public libraries. Information Economics and Policy, 17(2), 175-98. Retrieved from: http://dx.doi.org/doi:10.1016/j.infoecopol.2004.05.003

American Library Association. (2012d). Executive summary: Public library funding & technology access study, 2011–2012. American Libraries (Digital Supplement Summer), 6-9. Retrieved from: http://viewer.zmags.com/publication/4673a369

American Library Association. (2013). Library value calculator. Retrieved from: http://www.ala.org/advocacy/advleg/advocacyuniversity/toolkit/makingthecase/library_calculator

Concannon, M., Rafferty, E., & Swanson, C. (2011). Snacks in the stacks: Teaching youth nutrition in a public library. Journal of Extension [On-line], 49(5) Article 5IAW1. Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/2011october/iw1.php

Carson, R T. (2012). Contingent valuation: A practical alternative when prices aren't available. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 26(4), 27-42.

Elliott, D. S., Holt, G. E., Hayden, S. W., & Holt, L. E. (2006). Measuring your library's value: How to do a cost-benefit analysis for your public library, ALA Editions.

Franz. N. K., (2011). Advancing the public value movement: Sustaining Extension during tough times. Journal of Extension [On-line], 49(2) Article 2COM2. Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/2011april/comm2.php

Griffiths, J., King, D. W., Tomer, C., Lynch, T., & Harrington, J. (2004).Taxpayer return on investment in Florida public libraries: Summary report. Tallahassee, FL: Florida Dept. of State, State Library and Archives. Retrieved from: http://dlis.dos.state.fl.us/bld/roi/pdfs/ROISummaryReport.pdf

Haskell, J. E., Cyr, L. F., & McPhail, G. (2007). Strengthening your facilitation skills, Level 1 curriculum. Orono, ME: University of Maine Cooperative Extension.

Hausman, J. (2012). Contingent valuation: from dubious to hopeless. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 26(4), 43-56.

Holmes, F. W. (1987). Don't overlook libraries. Journal of Extension [On-line], 25(2) Article 2IAW1. Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/1987summer/iw1.php

Huysmans, F., & Oomes, M. (2013). Measuring the public library's societal value: A methodological research program. IFLA Journal, 39(2), 168-177.

Kalambokidis, L. (2004). Identifying the public value in Extension programs. Journal of Extension [On line], 42(2) Article 2FEA1. Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/2004april/a1.php

Kalambokidis, L. (2008-present). Building Extension's public value blog. Retrieved from: http://blog.lib.umn.edu/kalam002/publicvalue/

Markell, J. (2009). External relations. In Morse, G., Markell, J., O'Brien, P., Ahmed, A., Klein, T. K., & Coyle, L. The Minnesota response: Cooperative Extension's money and mission crisis. Bloomington, iUniverse, 81-82, Retrieved from: http://www.apec.umn.edu/prod/groups/cfans/@pub/@cfans/@apec/documents/asset/cfans_asset_414727.pdf

Missingham, R. (2005). Libraries and economic value: A review of recent studies. Performance Measurement and Metrics 6(3), 142-158.

O'Neill, B., (2013) It's the latest, it's the greatest, it's [financial education] at the library. Journal of Extension [On-line], 51(2) Article 2IAW4. Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/1993summer/a3.php

Pigou, A. C. (1924). The economics of welfare. Transaction Publishers.

Pinkerton, J. R., & Glazier, J. D. (1993). Extending information resources in rural areas. Journal of Extension [On-line], 31(2) Article 2FEA3. Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/1993summer/a3.php

Rosenberger, R., Randall, S., & Loomis, J. B. (2003). Benefit transfer. In A primer on nonmarket valuation, Springer Netherlands, 445-482.

Silka, L., &Rumery, J. (2013). Are libraries necessary? Are libraries obsolete? Maine Policy Review 22(1), 10-17 Retrieved from: http://digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu/mpr/vol22/iss1/4/

Thornburgh, D. (2010). The economic value of the free library in Philadelphia. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania. Retrieved from: https://www.fels.upenn.edu/sites/www.fels.upenn.edu/files/the_economic_value_of_the_free_library_in_philadelphia-final_report.pdf

University of Missouri Extension. (No date). Vetted public value messages. Retrieved from: http://extension.missouri.edu/staff/pv_messages.aspx

Zickuhr, K., Rainie, L., Purcell, K., & Duggan, M. (2013). How Americans value public libraries in their communities. Pew Research Center. Retrieved from: http://libraries.pewinternet.org/2013/12/11/libraries-in-communities

Zurinski, S., Osborne, V., Anthoine-Ney, M., & McKenney, J. (2013). Libraries in the community: Changing opportunities. Maine Policy Review 22(1), 71-79. Retrieved from: http://digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu/mpr/vol22/iss1/16/