SWAN LIBRARY
PATRON SURVEY
JUNE 2007
Dr. Ruth E. Andes Ms. Carol Marriott, Director
Universal Consulting Services Institutional Research
585-813-8899 585-343-0055, Ext. 6443
ksee@2ki.net cmarriott@genesee.edu
INTRODUCTION
The
Swan Library is committed to providing the citizens of the area with services
that fully meet their needs. To better
understand the range of those needs, the library contracted with Universal Consulting Services to conduct
a survey during the spring of 2007. The
14 questions on the survey (see Appendix A) were developed in consultation with
the Library Director and members of the Board of the Swan Library. The questions covered areas such as library
usage, patron satisfaction, library location and facilities, and overall
services. The survey was included in the
The
demographic questions asked for information on annual household income, highest
education level in the household, number in the household, and the location of
the household. Nearly 90% (89.2%) of
survey respondents answered the question on household income. The most common income level reported was
$20,001 to $50,000, with 45.2 % of respondents in this category. Slightly more than a quarter of the
respondents (26.6%) were in the $50,001 to $80,000 range, with 15.4% being
above that range, and another 12.8% being under $20,000. The United States Census for 2004 shows the
median household income for
When attention is
directed to the highest level of education in the household, the results show
that 59.3% have at least an associate degree.
The United States Census for 2000 shows that 13% of
Table 1
Highest Education Level in the Household
|
Highest Education level in
your household |
Frequency |
Valid Percent |
|
Some high
school |
10 |
1.7 |
|
High
School/GED |
97 |
16.4 |
|
Some
College or Postsecondary |
133 |
22.5 |
|
College-Associate
Degree |
81 |
13.7 |
|
College-Bachelors
Degree |
114 |
19.3 |
|
College-Graduate
Degree |
59 |
10.0 |
|
Post
Graduate Degree |
96 |
16.3 |
|
Total |
590 |
100.0 |
Most respondents (60.7%)
live in a household with one or two people, while 13% reside in households with
three people, and 15% in households with four people. Hence, close to 90% of respondents live in
households of no more than four people. In
looking at the location of households, 42.7% of respondents indicated they live
in the
RESULTS
The first set of questions dealt with patron use of and satisfaction with library services. The majority of respondents (74.8%) use the library at least once a month with 35.7% of that group using the library at least once per week. This then is a knowledgeable group of respondents who are familiar with the library and its services.
Respondents were asked about their level of satisfaction with a number of aspects of the library: 1) the number of computers available; 2) the computer training; 3) access to databases; 4) selection of CDs, DVDs, and other electronic media; 5) programs at the library; and 6) customer service at the library. In the first four cases, the most frequent response was that people were largely neutral, neither satisfied nor dissatisfied (48.3%, 63.8%, 46.9%, and 35.7% respectively). This result could reflect true neutrality or could be a result of the individual not using the particular library service. When examining satisfaction levels, respondents were provided with the option of selecting one of three levels of satisfaction: slightly satisfied, mostly satisfied, and extremely satisfied. When these levels were combined into an overall percentage of respondents who were satisfied, the percentages for the first four areas were 29.0, 24.8, 41.9, and 49.2 respectively.
The most positive
responses were for the final two areas, where the level of satisfaction when
the three choices were combined was 76.7% for customer service and 63.2% for
programs at the library. When examining
all six areas, the category of highest dissatisfaction
was with the number of computers available at the library, with 22.8% of
respondents indicating some level of dissatisfaction. The overall results demonstrate low levels of
dissatisfaction, a credit to the work accomplished. The highest levels of
satisfaction were in the areas where the library has put the most emphasis: customer service and programming.
The next series of questions
asked respondents who had used the library within the past year about their
level of satisfaction with three key library features: location, physical library space, and breadth
of resources. A high percentage of respondents
are slightly satisfied, mostly satisfied, or extremely satisfied with the
breadth of library resources across all categories of library usage (68.0%). The results are more varied when the two
areas of location and physical library space are examined. Tables 2 and 3 show these results for the
questions on satisfaction with location and physical library space by the
extent of library usage, i.e., frequent versus infrequent use of the library.
In Table 2, the group of respondents most dissatisfied with the location of the library is comprised of those individuals who use the library more than once per week (43.2% when combining all categories of dissatisfaction). It should be noted however that when combining all levels of satisfaction, 48.1% of this group indicates some level of satisfaction with the location. The next highest level of dissatisfaction with location comes from the individuals who use the library once per month (41.1%). The highest level of satisfaction (60.6%) is from respondents who use the library once every couple of weeks. The levels of dissatisfaction are high in the sense that the levels of dissatisfaction range from a low of 30.7% to a high of 43.2%. On the other hand, the levels of satisfaction exceed the levels of dissatisfaction in each usage category, ranging from 48.1% to 60.6%. Several more survey questions focus upon the subject of location; therefore, this topic will be revisited throughout the report.
Table 2
Satisfaction with Library Location by
Frequency of Usage
|
How satisfied
were you with the location of the Library? |
How often do you or a member of
your household make use of the |
Total |
||||
|
Once a year |
Once a month |
Once every couple of weeks |
Once a week |
More than once a week |
||
|
Extremely
Dissatisfied |
13 |
22 |
8 |
10 |
11 |
64 |
|
Mostly
Dissatisfied |
15 |
19 |
18 |
11 |
15 |
78 |
|
Slightly
Dissatisfied |
6 |
21 |
13 |
7 |
9 |
56 |
|
Total Dissatisfied |
34 |
62 |
39 |
28 |
35 |
198 |
|
37.8% |
41.1% |
30.7% |
38.4% |
43.2% |
37.9% |
|
|
Neither
Satisfied nor Dissatisfied |
9 |
10 |
11 |
3 |
7 |
40 |
|
Total Neutral |
9 |
10 |
11 |
3 |
7 |
40 |
|
10.0% |
6.6% |
8.7% |
4.1% |
8.6% |
7.7% |
|
|
Slightly
Satisfied |
3 |
11 |
5 |
6 |
4 |
29 |
|
Mostly
Satisfied |
28 |
40 |
36 |
15 |
18 |
137 |
|
Extremely
Satisfied |
16 |
28 |
36 |
21 |
17 |
118 |
|
Total Satisfied |
47 |
79 |
77 |
42 |
39 |
284 |
|
52.2% |
52.3% |
60.6% |
57.5% |
48.1% |
54.4% |
|
|
Total |
90 |
151 |
127 |
73 |
81 |
522 |
|
100.0% |
100.0% |
100.0% |
100.0% |
100.0% |
100.0% |
|
Table 3 highlights the results for the question on satisfaction with the physical library space. These responses evidence a stronger pattern of dissatisfaction than with the location. For people who use the library more than once a week, the most frequent library users, 70.4% indicate some level of dissatisfaction with the physical space. Respondents in the lowest usage category, once a year, indicate a 50.0% level of dissatisfaction, which was the lowest level of dissatisfaction among the categories of library users. While approximately a third of the respondents (35.1%) indicate some level of satisfaction with the physical space, the strong level of dissatisfaction, especially among the most frequent library patrons, is an area of concern.
Table 3
Satisfaction with Physical Library Space by
Frequency of Usage
|
How
satisfied were you with the physical library space? |
How often do you or a member of
your household make use of the |
Total |
||||
|
Once a year |
Once a month |
Once every couple of weeks |
Once a week |
More than once a week |
||
|
Extremely
Dissatisfied |
14 |
25 |
22 |
12 |
26 |
99 |
|
Mostly
Dissatisfied |
16 |
27 |
31 |
19 |
21 |
114 |
|
Slightly
Dissatisfied |
15 |
27 |
18 |
10 |
10 |
80 |
|
Total Dissatisfied |
45 |
79 |
71 |
41 |
57 |
293 |
|
50.0% |
52.7% |
55.9% |
55.4% |
70.4% |
56.1% |
|
|
Neither
Satisfied nor Dissatisfied |
15 |
16 |
9 |
5 |
1 |
46 |
|
Total Neutral |
15 |
16 |
9 |
5 |
1 |
46 |
|
16.7% |
10.7% |
7.1% |
6.8% |
1.2% |
8.8% |
|
|
Slightly
Satisfied |
4 |
20 |
17 |
6 |
6 |
53 |
|
Mostly
Satisfied |
20 |
28 |
23 |
14 |
16 |
101 |
|
Extremely
Satisfied |
6 |
7 |
7 |
8 |
1 |
29 |
|
Total Satisfied |
30 |
55 |
47 |
28 |
23 |
183 |
|
33.3% |
36.7% |
37.0% |
37.8% |
28.4% |
35.1% |
|
|
Total |
90 |
150 |
127 |
74 |
81 |
522 |
|
100.0% |
100.0% |
100.0% |
100.0% |
100.0% |
100.0% |
|
To further understand the dynamics that influence library patron use and satisfaction, respondents were asked to indicate from a checklist the factors that prevent or limit their use of the library. Since this was a checklist, the analysis identified whether or not the respondent checked a particular box. There were five factors where respondents indicated that the factor did not strongly prevent or limit their use of the library: 1) Library hours (16%); 2) Number of computers at the library (15%); 3) Respondent preference to purchase books (7%); 4) Lack of interest in library service (4%); and, 5) Staff levels (3%). Areas where more than 20% of respondents indicated that the factor did prevent or limit use of the library are: 1) Parking at the library (68%); 2) Respondent use of a computer at home (30%); 3) Uncomfortable surroundings of the library (25%); and, 4) Location of the library (22%). Three of these four factors are issues that deal with location and physical space, providing additional information that patrons find these factors to be a concern. In particular, parking is a very significant result with a high percentage of respondents indicating that this is an element that prevents or limits their use of the library.
A follow-up question then asked respondents to describe their future usage of the library if the factors that they checked were changed to their satisfaction. More than half of the respondents (53.1%) indicated that they currently use the library and would use it more often if the factors checked were addressed, with 27.8% indicating that their usage would be about the same, and 7.7% checking that they do not use the library but would definitely begin to use it if the concerns were corrected. Therefore, usage would increase for approximately 61% of respondents regardless of present usage, a significant number when considering changes to the areas of most concern, i.e., parking and physical space issues.
Respondents had the opportunity to comment about additional factors that prevent or limit their use of the library. One hundred twenty-three respondents (20%) provided comments here. When categorized, 30.2% of the comments dealt with the interior surroundings such as space, layout, and comfort. The next four most frequently cited factors were: issues of access such as physical and structural barriers (16.4%); staff and service (13.8%); personal issues such as time and employment (12.1%); and resources of the library (11.2%). Once again, the physical surroundings are a dominant issue in the responses of the individuals completing this question on the survey. While the 13.8% for staff and service is not a high percentage, it should be noted that this dealt with comments that some staff members are “abrupt”, “rude and unapproachable”, and “crabby”. This perception is important to correct even if it is held by a minority of patrons.
To further explore features that limit library patronage, respondents were asked an open-ended question, “What one feature, if changed or added, would increase your use of the library?” Of the 612 possible respondents answering the question, 427 or 70% actually responded, citing 536 features[*]. When categorized, the majority (78%) of features mentioned fell into three general areas: parking (36.6%), interior surroundings such as space, layout, and comfort (26.7%), and access such as physical and structural barriers (14.7%). Other features mentioned, albeit less frequently, included: resources (7.8%), location (7.6%), hours (4.7%) and staff/service (1.9%). Similar to responses to other questions, parking and physical space are again dominant issues.
With
these results in mind, the five questions that dealt with changing the location
and physical space of the library take on added significance. The first question directly asked, “In your opinion, should the Swan Library
relocate to a new facility.” If only
those respondents who expressed an opinion on this issue are included, 76.2%
believe that the library should relocate (n=413), a strong result indicating
that these respondents are interested in seeing this option pursued. The next question asked where the Swan
Library should be located. Respondents
were provided with four options:
Another question focusing on
location asked, “Which of the following
library site plan
alternatives do you support MOST?” At the point of the survey, the former Dale’s Supermarket
was a named alternative so that site was specifically listed as an option. Again, only considering responses from those individuals who expressed an opinion on this issue (n=559), 69.8% of people indicated that their choice would be to move the library to Dale’s. The other three choices were insignificant in comparison (8.2% for another location, 12.2% to renovate the current location, and 9.8% to retain the library as it is). For the 45 people who indicated an alternative location, the most frequently cited were: the school (6), Town Hall area (5), downtown/Newberry’s (5), and the village (4). Two individuals specifically said, “not Dale’s” and the reasons dealt with the cost of renovation in a building constructed for another purpose.
It might be useful to analyze these results by separating the people who indicated that they felt the Swan Library should relocate to a new facility versus those who did not. Those results are presented in Table 4.
Table 4
Library Site Selection by Desire to
Relocate
|
Which site
plan alternative do you support MOST? |
Should the Swan Library relocate to
a new facility? |
|||
|
No |
Yes |
No Opinion |
Total |
|
|
New
library at the former Dale’s site |
5 |
362 |
17 |
384 |
|
4.1% |
88.5% |
35.4% |
66.2% |
|
|
New
library at some other location |
3 |
39 |
2 |
44 |
|
2.4% |
9.5% |
4.2% |
7.6% |
|
|
Keep the
current library and renovate as possible |
57 |
1 |
8 |
66 |
|
46.3% |
0.2% |
16.7% |
11.4% |
|
|
Keep the
current library as is |
52 |
0 |
3 |
55 |
|
42.3% |
0.0% |
6.3% |
9.5% |
|
|
No opinion |
6 |
7 |
18 |
31 |
|
4.9% |
1.7% |
37.5% |
5.3% |
|
|
Total |
123 |
409 |
48 |
580 |
|
100.0% |
100.0% |
100.0% |
100.0% |
|
Here the results are even clearer. Of the 413 respondents who indicated that the Swan Library should relocate (see earlier discussion), 409 responded to the question about site plan preference. Of those, 88.5% prefer the Dale’s location (n=362), with only 9.5% preferring some other location. Of the 129 respondents who indicated that the Swan Library should remain where it is, 123 responded to the question about site plan preference. Of those, 46.3% would support renovating the current library (n= 57) while 42.3% would not support renovation (n=52). A strong majority of respondents then believe that the Swan Library should relocate (76.2%), and of those people close to 90% believe that Dale’s would be the preferred location.
When thinking about the future of the Swan Library, whether it moved or stayed at the present location, respondents were asked which characteristic involved in a potential change would be most important, with four possible choices: physical interior space, exterior surroundings, breadth of resources, and cost containment. Here again, consistent with earlier findings, physical interior space (lighting, seating, access to shelves, room for meeting space, etc.) was the most frequent response with 45.6% of people selecting this as the most important consideration (n=254). The next most frequent response, again consistent with the developing picture of respondent concerns, was for the exterior surroundings (able to walk to by sidewalk, convenient parking, etc.) with 30.0% selecting this as the most important consideration (n=167). The remaining two choices, breadth of resources and cost containment were selected by 8.6% (n=48) and 15.8% (n=88) of respondents respectively. When these results were cross referenced with people who support a move to a new location versus those who do not, the results were consistent with that preference. Of the people who believe that the Swan Library should move, 55.0% see the physical interior space as the most important consideration (n=221) and 34.8% see the exterior surrounding as the most important (n=140). Of the people who believe that the Swan Library should not move, 57% believe cost containment is the most crucial issue (n=57).
The finding that only 15.8% of all respondents believe that cost containment is the most important consideration leads to the final question in this series dealing with a possible new location or renovation of the current library. Respondents were asked the following question: “Currently, property owners pay approximately $1.23 per $1,000 of assessed value to help support the Swan Library. In order to provide for a new or renovated library facility, would you be willing to have your property taxes raised slightly (an increase of approximately $0.45 per $1,000 of assessed value)?” Of the people who responded to this question (n=546), 50.7% indicated that they would be willing to have their taxes raised by the stated amount in order to improve the library. In addition, 24.4% selected ‘maybe’ as their answer, for a total of three-quarters of the respondents indicating some level of positive response to the issue of raising taxes to support the library.
Lastly, once the decision is made to relocate or remain at the present location, respondents have many ideas about what would constitute the ideal Swan Library, with 63% of individuals offering at least one suggestion (n=388). Many of the comments have already appeared in the results dealing with the interior and exterior space issues. Other ideas are to have room to show family movies, small conference space, a ‘learn and play’ area for children, a Bookmobile, café, and many other suggestions for how the Swan Library could become, as one respondent said, “An area…that Orleans County (residents) can be proud to call their own.”
CONCLUSIONS
The results of the survey provide several conclusions that can be used to guide the future direction of the Swan Library. Among the most evident are:
In
summary, the survey provides a wealth of information, including consistent
results that identify potential avenues for change. The results can now serve as the basis of
strategic planning that will ensure that the Swan Library continues to be an
outstanding resource for the people of
Appendix A
Swan Library Patron Survey – 2007
Swan
Library Survey
Spring 2007
1. How often do you or a member
of your household make use of the facilities and services offered
by the Swan Library?
More than once a week Once a month
Once a week Once a year
Once every couple of weeks Never use (If
never used please skip question #2)
2. If you or a member of your
household has used the Swan Library in the past year:
a. How satisfied were you with the location
of the Library:
Extremely Dissatisfied Extremely Satisfied Neither satisfied
Mostly Dissatisfied Mostly Satisfied nor dissatisfied
Slightly Dissatisfied Slightly Satisfied
b. How satisfied were you with the physical
library space (lighting, seating, access to shelves, room for meeting space, etc):
Extremely Dissatisfied Extremely Satisfied Neither satisfied
Mostly Dissatisfied Mostly Satisfied nor dissatisfied
Slightly Dissatisfied Slightly Satisfied
c. How satisfied were you with the breadth
of resources available at the Library (collections, programs, computers,
services, etc):
Extremely Dissatisfied Extremely Satisfied Neither satisfied
Mostly Dissatisfied Mostly Satisfied nor dissatisfied
Slightly Dissatisfied Slightly Satisfied
3a. Which of the
following factors prevent or limit your use of the Library (Check all that apply):
Library Factors Personal Factors
Location is not convenient We prefer to purchase media/books
Parking is not convenient We use the computer at home
Hours are not convenient We have no interest in library services
Staffing levels are insufficient
Number of computers is insufficient Other (please specify)
_______________________
The surroundings are uncomfortable _________________________________________
3b. Please describe your future
usage of the Library if the “Library Factors” you checked above were changed to your satisfaction (check one):
I currently use the library and I would use it
more often if changes were made
I currently use the library and my usage would
remain about the same if changes were made
I currently do not use the library but I would
definitely begin to use it if changes were made
I currently do not use the library but I might
begin to use it if changes were made
I currently do not use the library and I would
still not use it if changes were made
3c. What one feature,
if changed or added, would increase your use of the library? Please describe.
16
4. In your opinion, should the Swan Library
relocate to a new facility? Yes No No opinion 5. In your opinion, where should the Swan
Library be located? Outside the village No opinion 6. In your opinion, which of the following
characteristics is MOST important when considering plans for the Swan Library? (select only one) Physical interior space (lighting, seating,
access to shelves, room for meeting space, etc.) Exterior surroundings (able to walk to by
sidewalk, convenient parking, etc.) Breadth of resources (collections, programs,
computers, services, etc.) Cost containment (can be developed at the
lowest cost) 7. Which of the following library site plan alternatives do
you support MOST? (select only one) New library at the former Dale’s site New library at some other location (please
specify) _________________ Keep the current library and renovate as
possible Keep the current library as is No opinion 8. Currently, property owners pay approximately
$1.23 per $1,000 of assessed value to help support the Swan Library. In order to provide for a new or renovated library
facility, would you be willing to have your
property taxes raised slightly (an increase of approximately $0.45 per $1,000
of assessed value)? Yes No Maybe Not Applicable 9. My household is located: In the In the Town of In the Town of 10. How would you describe the ideal Swan Library? Please list
collections, programs, and any special features
for the library facility. (Please continue with the rest of the questions on the back) |
|
11. Please describe your level of satisfaction with the following
services currently available at the Library. a. The number of computers available
at the Library Extremely Dissatisfied Extremely Satisfied Neither satisfied Mostly Dissatisfied Mostly Satisfied nor dissatisfied Slightly Dissatisfied Slightly Satisfied b. Computer training at
the Library Extremely Dissatisfied Extremely Satisfied Neither satisfied Mostly Dissatisfied Mostly Satisfied nor dissatisfied Slightly Dissatisfied Slightly Satisfied c. Access to resource
databases at the Library Extremely Dissatisfied Extremely Satisfied Neither satisfied Mostly Dissatisfied Mostly Satisfied nor dissatisfied Slightly Dissatisfied Slightly Satisfied d. The selection of
CDs, DVDs, and other electronic media at the Library Extremely Dissatisfied Extremely Satisfied Neither satisfied Mostly Dissatisfied Mostly Satisfied nor dissatisfied Slightly Dissatisfied Slightly Satisfied e. Programs at the
Library Extremely Dissatisfied Extremely Satisfied Neither satisfied Mostly Dissatisfied Mostly Satisfied nor dissatisfied Slightly Dissatisfied Slightly Satisfied f. Customer service at
the Library Extremely Dissatisfied Extremely Satisfied Neither satisfied Mostly Dissatisfied Mostly Satisfied nor dissatisfied Slightly Dissatisfied Slightly Satisfied 12. What is the age composition of your household? Number of Children (5 years old or younger) ____________ Number of
Children (6 -10 years old) ____________ Number of Youths (11-17 years old) ____________ Number of Adults (18 - 64 years old) ____________ Number
of Seniors (65 years old or older) ____________ 13. Please indicate the highest Education level in your household. Grade school Some high school High school/GED Some College or Post-secondary College- Associates Degree College- Bachelors Degree College- Graduate Degree Post Graduate Degree/Professional 14. Which category best fits your total annual household income? Less than $20,000 $20,001 to $50,000 $50,001 to $80,000 More than $80,000 Thank you for your valuable
input. The information you provide
will guide us in planning the future of Swan Library. |
[*] Since most respondents provided multiple features, the total count of features cited exceeds the total number responding to this question.