HomeMy WebLinkAboutAudit Reports - Public - Library Performance Audit - 5/23/2024
This report is intended for the internal use of the City of Glendale,
and may not be provided to, used, or relied upon by any third parties.
FINAL REPORT
City of Glendale
LIBRARY PERFORMANCE AUDIT
May 23, 2024
Moss Adams LLP
999 Third Avenue, Suite 2800
Seattle, WA 98104
(206) 302-6500
Library Performance Audit Report
FOR INTERNAL USE OF CITY OF GLENDALE ONLY
Table of Contents
Executive Summary 1
Statement of Compliance with GAGAS 1
Conclusions 2
Detailed Report 5
A. Background 5
B. Objectives 5
C. Scope and Methodology 5
Findings and Recommendations 7
A. Program Design and Evaluation 7
B. Programming Operations 25
Library Performance Audit Report | 1
FOR INTERNAL USE OF CITY OF GLENDALE ONLY
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The City of Glendale (City) engaged Moss Adams to conduct a performance audit of the
Glendale Public Library system (Library) to assess the extent to which the Library’s
programs meet the diverse needs of Glendale. The Library recently experienced a
leadership transition and therefore has the opportunity to evaluate its program and service
offerings in relation to community demand and peer practices.
Our objectives for this performance audit were to evaluate:
The effectiveness of the Library in soliciting community and program participant
feedback to enhance program offerings.
The Library's program and service offerings in comparison to peer practices, taking into
account factors such as the nature of the program or service, allocated budget, staffing
levels, staffing assignments, and marketing strategies.
The Library's evaluation and reporting on program performance.
Program coordination with other departments, such as Parks and Recreation, as part of
the Library's strategic initiatives.
To complete this performance audit, Moss Adams analyzed program, staffing, and budget
data from Fiscal Year (FY) 2022-2023 and year-to-date data for FY 2023-2024 where
possible. We also interviewed representatives from each of the four Library branches in
order to understand programing, programing evaluation, staffing levels, budgeting,
marketing, and participation with other City departments. Finally, we conducted peer
benchmarking with five libraries in the region and conducted industry best practice research
to inform our recommendations.
The following definitions guided our risk rating:
Low risk: Findings with a low likelihood of causing significant impact but still warrant
attention to improve efficiency, effectiveness, and service delivery
Medium risk: Findings with a moderate likelihood of causing negative impact if left
unaddressed; these should be prioritized for corrective action to improve performance
High risk: Findings with a high likelihood of causing significant negative impact (e.g.,
post a threat to achieving organizational objectives) if not promptly addressed
We conducted this performance audit in accordance with generally accepted government
auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain
sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and
Library Performance Audit Report | 2
FOR INTERNAL USE OF CITY OF GLENDALE ONLY
conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a
reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
The following findings compare the Library’s programming, staffing, operations, and City
collaboration with peer and industry best practices. Recommendations are intended to help
the Library provide efficient, effective, and responsive programs and service offerings to the
Glendale community.
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Program Design and Evaluation
Medium Rated Finding
1. Finding The Library does not have a multi-year strategic plan which limits effective goal
setting, a review of organizational progress, and opportunities to intentionally
collaborate with other City departments.
Recommendation The Library should develop a multi-year strategic plan that identifies the long-
term goals the Library aims to achieve. The plan should inform program
offerings, intended program outcomes, and opportunities to collaborate with
other City departments for greater community impact.
Low Rated Finding
2. Finding The Library solicits feedback from patrons primarily through physical comment
cards, in-person conversations, and social media comments. When used
exclusively, this approach may overlook key components of effective feedback
collection, such as anonymity and representativeness.
Recommendation The Library should establish formal methods and procedures to solicit and
evaluate feedback. Each of these procedures should be clearly defined so that
execution at each branch maintains consistency.
Medium Rated Finding
3. Finding The approval process for programs at the Library is centralized, with all
proposals reviewed by a single individual. While this approach enables greater
consistency and oversight Library-wide, this process reportedly bottlenecks
frequently and has instilled a perception that leadership lacks trust in staff.
Recommendation The program approval process should be more clearly communicated to the
Librarians to ensure all required documentation is included with the application.
Additionally, implementing a more centralized process could help eliminate
bottlenecks. For instance, creating an online access portal where all requests
can be filed and approved could help to eliminate bottlenecks and streamline
operations.
Low Rated Finding
4. Finding The Library’s program evaluation process relies on participant attendance,
which does not incorporate program outcomes or community responsiveness
measures.
Library Performance Audit Report | 3
FOR INTERNAL USE OF CITY OF GLENDALE ONLY
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommendation The Library should develop a program evaluation process that incorporates
both a standardized review, as well as acknowledges the uniqueness of each
program and how success may be measured in different ways.
Programming Operations
Low Rated Finding
5. Finding Although the Library’s programming budget increased in FY 2023-2024,
branches have not been spending down the programming budget and using
available grant funds at anticipated levels.
Recommendation In alignment with its future strategic planning process, Library leadership
should provide enhanced guidance related to programming budgets, with
specific focus on grant-funded program opportunities. The following should also
be considered when developing a regular budget to actual monitoring system:
● Ensure alignment between resource allocations with service expectations
● Identify potential barriers to increasing programming
● Promote community responsiveness in program offerings
Low Rated Finding
6. Finding Although the Library offers some culturally diverse programming, there are
opportunities to further enhance programming to promote diversity, equity, and
inclusion among all community groups in the City.
Recommendation In alignment with its strategic plan, the Library should explore expanding
program offerings, community partnerships, bilingual materials, and employee
training to enhance DEI initiatives and better serve all segments of the
Glendale community.
Medium Rated Finding
7. Finding The external vendor approval process is reported to be cumbersome,
confusing, and a barrier for providing diverse and innovative program offerings.
Recommendation Centralize the external vendor process to ensure clear expectations,
information, and timely processing of agreements within the Library.
Additionally, coordinate with the City Attorney’s Office to consider whether
programs of a specific nature (e.g., lectures, story times) can be automatically
exempt from insurance requirements.
Low Rated Findings
8. Finding The Library’s marketing efforts are largely responsive to upcoming program
offerings, rather than as part of a larger marketing effort with specified goals
and target markets within the community. As a result, the reach of the
marketing efforts may be limited to residents who are already Library users.
Recommendation In alignment with its strategic plan, the Library should develop an annual
marketing plan that outlines target audiences, key initiatives, budgetary
requirements, and success measures.
Library Performance Audit Report | 4
FOR INTERNAL USE OF CITY OF GLENDALE ONLY
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
9. Finding Although Librarian staffing levels are approximately aligned with peers, there is
a perception that Librarians have high workloads that impact their ability to
provide community-responsive programming.
Recommendation To ensure that staffing and resources are allocated in a way that best supports
the needs of the community, the Library should conduct a comprehensive
review of staffing levels across all branches.
Although the focus of this performance audit was to identify opportunities for improvement, it
is important to note the areas of commendable operations. The Library should be
commended for the following accomplishments:
Strong Partnerships: The Library has strong ties with other City branches and within
the community such as the Water Department, colleges and teachers, and comic stores.
Long-term Employees: The Library has a lot of team members who have worked for
the Library for a long time, indicating a sense of dedicated and committed team
members who share the same values and mission as the Library.
Program Diversity: The Library offers a variety of programs targeting different
generations within the community. Such programs include comics, literacy for youth,
teens, toddlers, coding, dancing, quilting, and others.
We would like to thank Library staff and leadership for their willingness to assist with this
project.
Library Performance Audit Report | 5
FOR INTERNAL USE OF CITY OF GLENDALE ONLY
DETAILED REPORT
The City operates a public library system that serves the community with a variety of
resources and services. The Glendale Public Library system consists of four branches:
Main, Foothills, Heroes Regional Park, and Velma Teague. The Library offers a wide range
of resources and services to its patrons, including access to books, audiobooks, DVDs, and
other materials. The Library also provides access to online databases, e-books, and e-
audiobooks. In addition to its collection of resources, the Library offers a variety of programs
and events for all ages, including story times, book clubs, craft workshops, and technology
classes.
The mission of the Library is to “build community through impactful services” using its core
values of integrity, courage, excellence, respect, diversity, and compassion. Similar to other
City departments, the Library is committed to providing excellent customer service and
fostering a love of learning and literacy in the community. With its diverse collection of
resources and programs, the Library system serves as a vital resource for the residents of
Glendale, Arizona.
This performance audit evaluated the following:
The effectiveness of the Library in soliciting community and program participant
feedback to enhance program offerings.
The Library's program and service offerings in comparison to peer practices, taking into
account factors such as the nature of the program or service, allocated budget, staffing
levels, staffing assignments, and marketing strategies.
The Library's evaluation and reporting on program performance.
Program coordination with other departments, such as Parks and Recreation, as part of
the Library's strategic initiatives.
In order to obtain an understanding of the Library’s programming processes and
performance, we conducted the following procedures:
Interviews: We conducted interviews with staff from all branches including Library
Administrators, Librarians, Interim Librarians, Branch Managers, Library Assistants, and
the Volunteer Coordinator.
Document Review: We reviewed multiple documents, including but not limited to:
○ Organizational charts
Library Performance Audit Report | 6
FOR INTERNAL USE OF CITY OF GLENDALE ONLY
○ Marketing material such as programing flyers and calendars
○ Evaluation forms
○ Outside vendor forms
○ Program request forms
○ Community Service KPI Report
○ Master Plan for Glendale Public Library
Benchmark Analysis: To evaluate the Library's comparative performance, we met with
five libraries (Chandler, Scottsdale, Peoria, Mesa, and Maricopa County) within the state
of Arizona to gather information on a range of topics, including:
○ Program budgeting
○ Marketing
○ Service delivery and staffing
○ Program evaluation methods
○ External vendor approval process
○ Patron feedback mechanisms
○ Partnerships with other City departments
○ Application of Diversity, Equity & Inclusion (DEI) in outreach and program delivery
Industry Best Practice Research: We conducted industry best practice research from
entities such as the American Library Association (ALA) and Urban Libraries Council
(ULC) to help inform our recommendations.
We worked with Library personnel and leadership to obtain the most currently available
information and insights. The performance audit was conducted between February and May
2024.
Library Performance Audit Report | 7
FOR INTERNAL USE OF CITY OF GLENDALE ONLY
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Finding The Library does not have a multi-year strategic plan, which limits
effective goal setting, a review of organizational progress, and
opportunities to intentionally collaborate with other City departments.
Recommendation The Library should develop a multi-year strategic plan that identifies the
long-term goals the Library aims to achieve. The plan should inform
program offerings, intended program outcomes, and opportunities to
collaborate with other City departments for greater community impact.
Criteria
A strategic plan provides the structure for an organization to define its goals and objectives
for the next 3 to 5 years, along with the strategies and actions it will employ to achieve them.
For libraries, strategic plans are a critical tool in understanding and responding to
community needs, allocating resources, and measuring progress. By establishing well-
defined goals and objectives, libraries can efficiently utilize their budgets, staff, and
programs, while also monitoring progress against predefined metrics.
Condition
The Library currently does not have a strategic plan, which would provide indicators of
success based on multi-year goals, align the Library’s initiatives with community needs, and
provide overarching guidance to promote continuity and unity in branch operations. While
the Library does not have its own strategic plan, it is a component of the City’s all-
encompassing strategic plan, which includes goals around improved community experience,
stakeholder engagement, and workforce development.
Currently, Library branches collaborate with other City departments on a variety of
programming and events. However, these partnerships vary based on branch and location
within the City and are largely reliant on pre-existing relationships between employees.
There are no formal guidelines or directives provided by the Library or City to support
partnerships. Despite the lack of infrastructure, interviewed staff report collaborating with the
following City departments and groups:
Community Services
Economic Development (e.g., Workforce Development Program)
Fire Department
Parks and Recreation (e.g., cooking classes, music classes)
Police Department (e.g., CSI days)
Library Performance Audit Report | 8
FOR INTERNAL USE OF CITY OF GLENDALE ONLY
Recreation Center (e.g., dance classes)
Transportation Department
Water Conservation
Peer Analysis
All peer libraries except one have a strategic plan to help guide priorities and measurable
objectives.
Peers report frequent collaboration with other City departments to support strategic
operations and community impact. In regard to Parks and Recreation specifically, many
peers report having a previously strained relationship due to the sense of competition
between paid and unpaid programming, similar to Glendale. While tension may have
hindered collaboration in the past, peers have reported enhanced relationships with Parks
and Recreation following greater communication and stronger management-level
relationships. Additionally, many peers report adopting a trial-like approach to services that
both libraries and Parks and Recreation offer. This approach has the library serve as,
essentially, a free trial of paid services Parks and Recreation offers.
Cause
The Library lacks a strategic plan largely because it has not been a significant priority or
initiative from leadership. A Library-wide strategic plan has not been a focal point or
undertaking in recent years. The low emphasis on a strategic plan can be attributed to
competing priorities and unforeseen challenges and issues that have emerged in past years,
such as the 2008 recession and the COVID-19 pandemic.
Effect
In the absence of a strategic plan, goals and objectives for programming are not clear or
aligned across branch locations. This has resulted in branches working independent of one
another with limited collaboration. Interviewed staff report that branch initiatives and guiding
goals are largely reliant on the initiative of branch leadership, rather than as a component of
a larger Library effort. As a result, each branch pursues different goals and initiatives,
leading to inconsistency in the services provided by the Library as a whole. The lack of a
strategic plan to assess the efforts of each branch presents difficulties in monitoring
progress, efficiently distributing resources, and ensuring branches are accountable for their
role in advancing the Library's overarching mission.
Collaboration between the Library and Parks and Recreation is said to be ongoing and
evolving. In the past their relationship has been characterized as tense. Due to similarities in
the services offered by the Library and Parks and Recreation, but at different cost structures,
a sense of competition has historically existed between these two groups. Efforts to mitigate
this have been made and staff characterize the Library’s current relationship with Parks and
Recreation as hopeful.
Library Performance Audit Report | 9
FOR INTERNAL USE OF CITY OF GLENDALE ONLY
Recommendation
Strategic Planning
The Library should develop a multi-year strategic plan that identifies the long-term goals it
aims to achieve in alignment with the City’s strategic plan and balanced scorecard. A strong
strategic plan incorporates measurable objectives and performance measures that link
goals, strategies, and actions in the plan with programs and activities performed by
departments and branches. Each goal should have time-bound and specific objectives that
are tied to Library-wide and department-specific performance measures. Performance
measures should be regularly monitored to evaluate progress, identify additional required
resources, and promote transparency. The strategic plan should be a practical, actionable
guide for the next 3 to 5 years of Library activities.
At a minimum, an effective strategic plan should delineate the following:
Mission: A concise statement of the Library’s purpose and its role in the community.
Vision: An inspiring description of how the Library would optimally serve the community
and manifest its values and goals as an organization in the future.
Goals: Specific, desired end results that the Library will work toward in fulfilling its
mission and pursuing its vision.
Performance measures: The metrics by which Library leadership and management will
determine whether the Library is progressing toward and accomplishing its goals and
advancing toward its vision.
The Library may consider including the following in its strategic plan:
Programming Guidelines: The Library's strategic plan may also include more robust
guidelines as to how programs should be designed to advance Library goals, while also
enabling branches to continue offering programs that are relevant within their
communities.
City Partnerships: As part of the strategic plan, the Library may establish partnerships
with other City departments as a priority. The proper channels of communication,
methods, and strategies to engage partnerships should be clarified to support staff in
doing so. To promote collaboration, the Library may establish a common understanding
and joint efforts with Parks and Recreation concerning similar service offerings.
Marketing: In alignment with its strategic plan, the Library should develop an annual
marketing plan that outlines target audiences, key initiatives, budgetary requirements,
and success measures. To further detail the impact of marketing for the Library, refer to
Finding 8. Marketing.
The Library should use data to increase transparency and accountability through the use of
outcome reporting and performance measures tied to strategic goals. It is best practice to
use data to inform decision-making. In addition, providing frequent, accessible, transparent,
credible, and accurate performance reports can increase public trust.
Library Performance Audit Report | 10
FOR INTERNAL USE OF CITY OF GLENDALE ONLY
DEI should be part of the Library's strategic planning process. By prioritizing these values,
the Library can better serve the needs of the community and promote a more inclusive and
welcoming environment for all patrons. To achieve this goal, the Library should work to
identify and address any barriers that may prevent certain groups from accessing Library
services and resources. This may include developing targeted outreach efforts to
underserved communities, providing training and resources to staff on DEI topics, and
incorporating DEI considerations into all aspects of Library operations. Through these
efforts, the Library can ensure that all members of the community feel valued and supported,
and that the Library is fulfilling its mission to provide equitable access to information and
resources for all. Refer to Finding 6. DEI in Programing for detailed information on the
overall impact to the Library.
Finally, the strategic plan should serve as a high-level decision-making framework that
provides a foundation for evaluating new initiatives, project prioritization, and strategies. This
comprehensive planning framework will help the Library to evaluate and prioritize issues in
an evolving environment. Strategic plans should be revisited and updated every 3 to 5 years
and should not be significantly altered on a more frequent basis. In this way, the plan can
serve as a strong and reliable guide for the Library’s future. The Library should consider
aligning its strategic plan with the City’s strategic plan.
City Collaboration Opportunities
Some examples of potential collaborations between the Library and Parks and Recreation
specifically include:
Health and Wellness Programs: These departments often partner on health and
wellness initiatives, such as fitness classes, nutrition education, and outdoor recreation
programs.
Community Engagement: These departments may work together to organize
community events, activities, and programs that bring people together and foster social
connections. Examples include story times in parks, photo contests, and “StoryWalk”
trails that combine literacy and nature.
Addressing Food Insecurity: Libraries can become summer meal sites or partner with
Parks and Recreation departments that host summer meal programs. This allows them
to tackle food insecurity by providing free, healthy meals and enrichment activities.
Outdoor Recreation and Environmental Education: These departments can
collaborate on initiatives that promote outdoor recreation, environmental conservation,
and nature-based learning, such as lending outdoor equipment or hosting environmental
education programs.
Shared Facilities and Resources: These departments can share physical spaces,
equipment, and other resources to maximize efficiency and cost-savings, while
expanding access for the community.
Advocacy and Funding: By partnering, these departments can more effectively
advocate for increased funding and resources to support their shared goals of serving
the community.
Library Performance Audit Report | 11
FOR INTERNAL USE OF CITY OF GLENDALE ONLY
Libraries and Parks and Recreation can leverage their similarities as a strength and
acknowledge the benefits of forging strategic partnerships. By utilizing their commonalities
and collaborating to leverage each other's unique assets and resources, they can enhance
their ability to serve their communities more effectively. The National Recreation and Parks
Association’s (NRPA) 2021 Parks and Recreation: Advancing Community Health and Well-
Being1 report found that 58% of the Parks and Recreation agencies it surveyed collaborate
with libraries to support their programs and services.
As the Library continues to strengthen its relationship and partnerships with other City
departments, specifically Parks and Recreation, robust guidance and infrastructure will be
essential. Strong planning documents will help to ensure that collaborations are effectively
coordinated, goals are aligned, resources are optimally utilized, and outcomes are
maximized for the benefit of the community.
MANAGEMENT RESPONSE
Management
Agreement We concur
Owner Library Leadership Executive Team and Library Leadership Team
Target Completion
Date June 30, 2025
Action Plan We will work with Organizational Performance department to incorporate strategic
planning for the Library for the Tier III Balanced Scorecard planning.
2. Finding The Library solicits feedback from patrons primarily through physical
comment cards, in-person conversations, and social media comments.
When used exclusively, this approach may overlook key components of
effective feedback collection, such as anonymity and representativeness.
Recommendation The Library should establish formal methods and procedures to solicit
and evaluate feedback. Each of these procedures should be clearly
defined so that execution at each branch maintains consistency.
Criteria
An ideal patron feedback mechanism would empower and encourage patrons to share their
opinions and suggestions openly, without a sense of obligation or pressure to respond in a
1 “Parks and Recreation: Advancing Community Health and Well-Being”
https://www.nrpa.org/contentassets/df807077b2ee43f084810f5bb4a7bde1/2021healthwellness.pdf
Library Performance Audit Report | 12
FOR INTERNAL USE OF CITY OF GLENDALE ONLY
particular manner. Feedback would be sourced through multiple channels, enabling any and
all patrons interested in providing feedback an accessible mechanism to do so.
Condition
The Library currently solicits feedback primarily through physical comment cards, social
media comments, and surveys. Interviewed staff report that this form of patron feedback
often leads to an incomplete or inaccurate account of patron satisfaction. For example, filling
out a comment card in front of staff tends to produce more vague responses. When post-
program surveys are administered, they are typically a requirement of grant funding, such as
the STEAM grant. This reportedly feels like a time-consuming burden for patrons. Social
media comments are monitored but are not high in volume. Interviewed staff also report the
Library will receive satisfaction ratings from the City’s annual satisfaction survey. However,
these results do not tend to have significant weight or influence in guiding Library actions.
Peer Analysis
Peers report using similar methods to solicit feedback. The primary forms of patron feedback
peers report are:
Annual satisfaction surveys
Comment cards
Emailed surveys to program attendees
Evaluation forms
General surveys
Online/social media comments
Presenter self-evaluations
Suggestion boxes
Many peers also reported facing the same challenges and obstacles that the Library does in
soliciting feedback. Difficulties in engaging patrons, especially in a representative manner,
was cited as a primary barrier to effective feedback. Among peers who employ more
structured evaluation methods, targeted feedback and ongoing review cycles were noted.
This involves sending follow-up emails and surveys to program attendees, with the feedback
formally reviewed every six months.
Cause
The Library’s current methods of soliciting feedback are the standard methods a Library
would employ. These methods are considered typical for gathering feedback in libraries
because they are relatively easy for patrons to utilize. Comment cards and suggestion
boxes are straightforward and require minimal effort from users to jot down their thoughts or
suggestions. Surveys can often be accessed online or in-person, providing flexibility for
patrons to participate at their convenience. Additionally, in-person feedback opportunities
Library Performance Audit Report | 13
FOR INTERNAL USE OF CITY OF GLENDALE ONLY
offer a direct and immediate way for users to communicate with Library staff, requiring little
more than engaging in a conversation. However, it was reported that leadership has not yet
defined how to analyze, use, and employ feedback into action; therefore, these practices
lack defined purpose.
Effect
At present, the Library does not have formal procedures in place for soliciting feedback and
leveraging that feedback to make decisions, align priorities, or set goals. Without clearly
defined methods to solicit feedback, there is no systematic way to collect feedback from
patrons or stakeholders. This lack of data hampers the Library's ability to make informed
data-driven decisions. Feedback serves as a valuable tool for continuous improvement,
allowing organizations to refine their programs, services, and outreach efforts over time.
Without effective methods and modalities in place, the Library can’t continuously improve
programs, reach broader audiences, or address existing issues.
Recommendations
The Library should establish formal methods and procedures to solicit feedback. Each of
these procedures should be clearly defined so that execution at each branch maintains
consistency. Furthermore, each method should include defined metrics, along with a
process for evaluating feedback and integrating it into Library decisions and initiatives.
The following table includes advice, ideas, and instruction from various sources on how best
to solicit and use feedback from patrons.
SOURCE RESOURCE
LinkedIn2 ● Define your feedback goals: Define what your organization’s feedback aims to
achieve. Having a feedback goal will help to design feedback strategy, choose
feedback tools, and communicate feedback purpose to the community.
● Choose your feedback methods: Choose methods for feedback, such as surveys,
interviews, focus groups, comment cards, and online platforms. Depending on your
feedback goal, use one or more of these methods, or combine them in a mixed-
method approach.
● Design your feedback tools: Design feedback tools, such as questionnaires,
interview guides, focus group protocols, observation checklists, or online forms.
Feedback tools should be clear, concise, relevant, and respectful.
● Engage your community: Reach out to as many community members as possible
to ensure diverse and representative voices are engaged. Explain the purpose and
2 “How do you get feedback on library services from your community?” https://www.linkedin.com/advice/3/how-do-you-get-
feedback-library-services-
from#:~:text=Get%20feedback%20on%20library%20services%20from%20the%20community%20through%20surveys,during%
20interactions%20in%20the%20library.&text=Ask%20library%20patrons%20about%20their,resources%2C%20programs%2C
%20and%20services
Library Performance Audit Report | 14
FOR INTERNAL USE OF CITY OF GLENDALE ONLY
SOURCE RESOURCE
benefits of feedback and invite the community to share their opinions and
experiences.
● Analyze your feedback data: Organize, summarize, and interpret the data to find
patterns, insights, and recommendations. The data should also be compared with
other sources of information, such as benchmarks, best practices, or literature.
● Communicate your feedback results: Share the main findings, conclusions, and
implications of the feedback gathered with community, patrons, and stakeholders.
STAR Net3 ● Collect both quantitative and qualitative data: Beyond basic statistics, gather
direct feedback and evaluations from patrons for impactful success stories.
● Build rapport before and after events: Host community dialogue events, maintain
informal conversations, and use talkback boards to engage patrons and gather
insights.
● Utilize simple and accessible evaluation methods: Keep surveys and tools easy
to understand, available in multiple languages, and include open-ended questions for
direct feedback.
● Leverage virtual interactions: Collect feedback through email follow-ups, chat
transcripts, or recorded sessions for virtual events.
● Share success stories: Don't hesitate to share qualitative data with the community,
stakeholders, and potential funders to highlight your Library's impact and
programming success.
ALA’s Project
Outcome Toolkit4
The Project Outcome toolkit provides libraries with free access to patron surveys, a
survey management tool, custom reports, and interactive data dashboards, along with
various resources to help move libraries from implementing surveys to taking action
using the results.
Project Outcome helps libraries measure four key patron outcomes—knowledge,
confidence, application, and awareness—in eight key library service areas:
● Civic/Community Engagement
● Digital Learning
● Early Childhood Literacy
● Economic Development
● Education/Lifelong Learning
● Health
● Job Skills
● Summer Reading
There are several methods to solicit feedback, such as surveys, comment cards/suggestion
boxes, interviews, community meetings, and social media. Each method has its own set of
benefits and limitations that should be considered when designing a patron feedback loop.
Therefore, careful design and analysis is needed when selecting a method for collecting
feedback. The following table identifies some of the benefits and disadvantages of each.
3 “Gathering feedback from patrons” https://community.starnetlibraries.org/gathering-feedback-from-patrons/
4 “Project Outcome” https://www.ala.org/pla/data/performancemeasurement
Library Performance Audit Report | 15
FOR INTERNAL USE OF CITY OF GLENDALE ONLY
METHOD OF
FEEDBACK BENEFITS DISADVANTAGES
Surveys ● Reach a large audience, including
users and non-users
● Allow for quantitative analysis and data
comparison
● Can be administered online or in-
person
● Low response rates
● Limited opportunity for in-depth
responses
● May not capture nuanced feedback
Comments
Cards
● Quick and easy for patrons to provide
feedback
● Can be anonymous, encouraging
honest responses
● Provide a continuous stream of
feedback
● Lack context, making it difficult to
address issues
● Limited to written responses
● Does not capture feedback from all
Library users or potential users
Interviews ● Allow for in-depth exploration of
feedback
● Provide rich, qualitative data
● Enable clarification and follow-up
questions
● Time-consuming for both Library staff
and patrons
● Limited sample size compared to
surveys
● Potential for interviewer bias
Community
Meetings
● Facilitate direct interaction between
Library staff and patrons
● Enable discussion and brainstorming
● Foster community engagement
● Require significant planning and
organization
● Attendance may be limited,
representing only a subset of Library
users
● May be dominated by vocal
participants, skewing feedback
Social Media ● Reach a broad audience
● Facilitate real-time feedback
● Enable dialogue and interaction with
patrons
● Lack of control over the conversation
● Risk of negative feedback going viral
● Difficulty in analyzing and categorizing
feedback from diverse sources
As the Library works to enhance patron feedback options, it should use these resources to
design the purpose and method of collecting feedback. Of particular importance is
considering how to solicit and leverage feedback from regular patrons and infrequent Library
users. Infrequent users may have additional insights on what programs and services the
Library could offer to increase their engagement.
Library Performance Audit Report | 16
FOR INTERNAL USE OF CITY OF GLENDALE ONLY
MANAGEMENT RESPONSE
Management
Agreement We concur
Owner Merideth Jenson-Benjamin and Programming Core Team
Target Completion
Date 10/31/2024
Action Plan
We incorporated new patron program surveys to include better questions for
statistical analysis in April 2024. We will provide our Program Lead an account for
Survey Monkey to utilize the reporting for evaluative purposes. We will begin to
send an email or QR code post-program survey to registered patron attendees.
3. Finding The approval process for programs at the Library is centralized, with all
proposals reviewed by a single individual. While this approach enables
greater consistency and oversight Library-wide, this process reportedly
bottlenecks frequently and has instilled a perception that leadership
lacks trust in staff.
Recommendation The program approval process should be more clearly communicated to
the Librarians to ensure all required documentation is included with the
application. Additionally, implementing a more centralized process could
help eliminate bottlenecks. For instance, creating an online access portal
where all requests can be filed and approved could help to eliminate
bottlenecks and streamline operations.
Criteria
Libraries should have program approval processes that enable consistency, collaboration,
and evaluation against key goals and objectives. Typically, this process is informed by
guidelines on what function the programs serve in the community and at the Library. Any
approval process should be sufficiently clear, straightforward, and nimble to respond to
emerging ideas and community needs.
Condition
Program proposals at the Library undergo a centralized approval process, as all
submissions are reviewed by the same individual. While this method promotes uniformity
and comprehensive oversight across the Library, staff find it to be cumbersome and prone to
bottlenecks.
The Library’s program proposal and approval process consists of the following steps:
1. Programming staff fill out and submit an online form with the required programming
information (e.g., program description, branch location, general purpose).
Library Performance Audit Report | 17
FOR INTERNAL USE OF CITY OF GLENDALE ONLY
2. The program proposal goes through a series of reviews by key leadership personnel.
3. The proposal is sent back to the programming staff who submitted it, either approved or
denied, along with accompanying notes for both outcomes.
The Library’s current program approval process requires programming staff to fill out an
online form that details the proposed program and the associated pricing. In response to
feedback indicating that numbers and expenses may not adequately capture a program's
essence, Library leadership introduced a pre-programming form aimed at providing
additional insights into the program's purpose and objectives. This form asks for the
following information:
Programmer contact information
Library location
Title of program
Program date(s), time(s), and location(s)
Intended age group
Presenter
Goals of the program
Program description
Time the program will take to prepare and present
Proposed cost of the program
If the program is grant funded
Other
Peer Analysis
In comparison to peers, this centralized approach to program review and approval is typical.
The majority of peers interviewed reported similar processes for program proposals. Most
peers report using online forms located in centralized locations, such as Smartsheet,
SharePoint, or Teams to gather program proposals. These forms are easily accessed and
have a standardized set of questions to answer. While some peers require more extensive
review, the majority have a few individuals within the library designated to review program
proposals. The following are standard questions and information peers require for a program
proposal. These largely align with the library’s newly implemented pre-programming form.
Program title
Program description
Date and time
Location
Intended audience
Intended outcome
Related service pillar/library goal
Library Performance Audit Report | 18
FOR INTERNAL USE OF CITY OF GLENDALE ONLY
Supervisor approval
Many peers report using their library’s mission, vision, values, as well as other overarching
planning documents, to guide program design. This enables their programs to be designed
in a manner that reflects greater goals and objectives initially, preventing unnecessary levels
of editing and revision after submission.
Cause
All program proposals are evaluated centrally and are reviewed against the same criteria
and standards. This approach promotes consistency in decision-making, helps to maintain a
cohesive approach to program development, and ensures that all proposals align with the
Library's goals, objectives, and standards. However, a centralized review process also
means that all proposals must wait for approval, which can slow down the process,
especially if the reviewer is busy or if there is a backlog of submissions. This centralized
approach may not be able to keep up with the Library’s continuously growing volume of
proposals, leading to delays in program implementation and frustration among staff who are
waiting for their proposals to be approved.
Effect
Interviewed staff report this process has created a perception among staff that leadership
lacks confidence in their decisions. As staff are not able to freely design and implement
programs without approval, there is perception of strong scrutiny and oversight into branch
operations. Staff believe that each branch is unique and programming should be more
individualized to address specific neighborhood needs. Additionally, staff don’t perceive full
transparency from leadership regarding the program proposal process, and report that there
is a lack of clarity in these process timelines. Interviewed staff report that sometimes it is
unclear why and how decisions were made. A lack of insight into the review process,
competing schedules, and overlapping programming has led to confusion among staff.
Recommendation
The program proposal process should be conducted in a manner that ensures consistency
throughout the Library, as well as accounts for the individuality of each branch. As a
centralized approach to program approvals is standard practice for most peers, the Library
may consider focusing on improving this method of review, rather than changing it
altogether. Improvements are largely needed in regard to communication, transparency, and
speed of review.
The Library should provide documentation and instruction of the program proposal process
and leadership’s associated expectations. This documentation should be clear and located
in an accessible location for all Library employees to access. In order to mitigate a sense of
surprise in program review, leadership should be transparent about their expectations and
the reasons behind their decisions. This may include the key elements proposals should
include and what metrics they will be reviewed against. The National Impact of Library
Library Performance Audit Report | 19
FOR INTERNAL USE OF CITY OF GLENDALE ONLY
Public Programs Assessment (NILPPA), a collaborative project between the American
Library Association (ALA) and Knology, aims to document the characteristics, audiences,
outcomes, and value of US Library public programming. Through years of research,
analysis, surveys, and case studies, NILPPA has created a framework to identify the key
dimensions and subdimensions that define successful programming. The below table
depicts NILPPA’s findings.5
WHAT MAKES A LIBRARY PROGRAM?
Dimension Primary Subdimensions Other Subdimensions
Library Profile
Library Type:
Public
Academic
K-12
Special
Library Subtype
Geographic Areas
Community Demographics
Library Size and Capacity
Program
Characteristics
Primary Intended Outcome:
Participants learn new
knowledge
Participants learn new
skills
Participants change their
attitude
Participants change their
behavior
Program Topic
Program Format
Location
Deliver
Program
Audience
Audience Scope:
Appealing to library’s entire
audience
Appealing to a subset of
the library’s entire
audience
Target Audience Demographics
Actual Audience Demographics
Program
Administration
Development Model:
Developed by the library
itself
Funding
Specific Sponsors or Partners
5 “What makes a library program?” https://nilppa.org/research/library-program-dimensions/
Library Performance Audit Report | 20
FOR INTERNAL USE OF CITY OF GLENDALE ONLY
Developed by or with a
community partner
Developed by a national or
regional organization
Opportunities to streamline and improve speed of review should be considered. Currently,
program proposals are being reviewed, annotated, and approved or denied by one
individual. While this centralized approach enables greater consistency in application of
standards and review, it does create timing issues. With only one person responsible for
reviewing proposals, there's a bottleneck in the process. The workload of reviewing and
approving proposals may overwhelm the individual tasked with this responsibility, especially
during busy periods or when there's a high volume of submissions. This individual becomes
a critical point of dependency, which can slow down the overall review and approval
process. Additionally, absence of the reviewer, especially for extended periods, could disrupt
the workflow, lead to delays, and potentially result in missed opportunities for program
development and implementation.
Wherever possible, information should be stored in a centralized location that all reviewers
can easily access and edit. MultiBriefs6 recommends using a shared review tool, like a PDF
file, stored in a centralized location, like Microsoft SharePoint, to easily track progress, add
reviewers, and deliver automatic updates and reminders to proposers and reviewers. This
can help in improving:
Efficiency: By centralizing information in a shared location accessible to all reviewers,
you reduce the time spent searching for documents and coordinating feedback. This
streamlines the review process, saving time for both reviewers and proposers.
Collaboration: A shared review tool allows multiple reviewers to collaborate
simultaneously on the same document. This fosters teamwork and ensures that all
relevant reviewers are involved in the review process.
Version Control: Storing documents in a centralized location like Microsoft SharePoint
enables version control, ensuring that everyone is working from the most up-to-date
version of the document. This reduces the risk of errors caused by working on outdated
information.
Tracking Progress: With a shared review tool, it's easier to track the progress of the
review process. You can see who has reviewed the document, who still needs to provide
feedback, and how far along the review process is.
6 “4 ways to streamline your proposal review process with PDFs” https://exclusive.multibriefs.com/content/4-ways-to-
streamline-your-proposal-review-process-with-pdfs/communications
Library Performance Audit Report | 21
FOR INTERNAL USE OF CITY OF GLENDALE ONLY
Automated Updates and Reminders: Using tools like Microsoft SharePoint, you can
set up automatic notifications and reminders to keep reviewers and proposers informed
about deadlines and updates. This helps to keep the review process on track and
ensures that everyone stays accountable.
MANAGEMENT RESPONSE
Management
Agreement We concur
Owner Merideth Jenson-Benjamin, Kristin Fletcher-Spear, Branch Managers,
Programming Core Team
Target Completion
Date 10/31/2024
Action Plan
We are having the branch managers be the centralized approvers. We will build a
process so that consistency across the system is factored into the process.
Monthly communication meetings for the programming teams will ease
management’s concerns of similar programs occurring at the same time within the
system.
4. Finding The Library’s program evaluation process relies on participant
attendance, which does not incorporate program outcomes or
community responsiveness measures.
Recommendation The Library should develop a program evaluation process that
incorporates both a standardized review, as well as acknowledges the
uniqueness of each program and how success may be measured in
different ways.
Criteria
The Library should have a standardized review process that centers around long-term,
organization-wide goals, and promotes effective evaluation and relevant feedback.
Evaluation can help the Library achieve their goals, allocate scarce resources to where they
are most effective, better understand their patrons, and serve community needs.
Condition
The Library does not have formal guidelines in place to evaluate programs. Historically,
there has been reliance on limited metrics, particularly attendance, to determine
programming success and continuation. Interviewed staff report that there have been
instances in which the quality and impact of a program has not been effectively illustrated as
a result of limited metrics. Attendance, for example, is not a comprehensive metric of
programming success as numbers alone don't indicate the quality of the program or whether
Library Performance Audit Report | 22
FOR INTERNAL USE OF CITY OF GLENDALE ONLY
attendees found it valuable. A program with low attendance may still be highly impactful if it
effectively meets the needs of its target audience and achieves its objectives. However, the
Library’s past use of a 10-attendee minimum for a program to be deemed worthwhile has
failed to consider this.
In an effort to improve and enhance program evaluations, the Library implemented two new
program evaluation tools in April 2024. The first, a post-programming form, is meant to guide
reflection and provide greater metrics to judge program success. The form is completed by
program staff and reviewed by the supervisor. Some of the information collected may be
included in the programming report that is reviewed by the supervisor, Library
Administration, and the Core Programming Team. Library leadership has expressed interest
in setting up further resources that enable programmers to view these forms to see what
other programmers have done.
The second tool is a new programming survey. Beginning in April 2024, this survey should
be available at every event, in paper and online offerings. The implementation of this survey
is meant to replace any other previously used surveys to establish consistency across the
Library. The data collected from this survey will be part of the programming report that is
shared with Library Administration, supervisors, the Core Programming Team, and
Community Services Administration. This survey asks program attendees the following
questions:
Which program did you attend?
Overall, how would you rate the quality of your experience with this Glendale Public
Library program?
How well did this program respond to your interests?
How likely is it that you would recommend this program to a friend or colleague?
How did you hear about this event?
Is there anything else about your Library experience you would like to share with us?
Peer Analysis
Most peers do not have formal or extensive program evaluation processes. The majority use
indicators such as attendance, cost effectiveness, evaluation forms, or alignment with
strategic plans to review programming. The more extensive review processes are guided by
guidelines outlined in a programming manual.
However, many peers do report significant use of their library’s mission, vision, values, as
well as other overarching planning documents, to guide the design and type of services.
This enables their programs to be designed in a manner that reflects greater goals and
objectives.
Library Performance Audit Report | 23
FOR INTERNAL USE OF CITY OF GLENDALE ONLY
Peers also reported that program offerings between individual branches does tend to vary
based on that location’s understanding of their audience. While evaluations are typically
standardized, these differences are acknowledged and taken into consideration.
Cause
Evaluations frequently fail to contribute effectively to broader objectives. Since the Library
doesn't have a strategic plan guiding its operations and programming, there's a lack of
coordination in what it measures and aims to address through feedback. Consequently, this
poses challenges in determining the most effective methods to engage patrons and gather
feedback. As there is not overarching guidance, clarification in the metrics and methods of
measurement do not exist. In essence, the lack of a strategic plan not only impedes the
Library's capacity to measure its performance effectively but also undermines its ability to
engage with patrons in meaningful ways and leverage their insights to drive continuous
improvement.
Effect
The Library has an inconsistent and fluctuating approach to reviewing programs, which has
resulted in a limited ability to effectively assess program effectiveness and achieve long-
term goals. Inadequate program evaluation also poses the risk that the Library may not
allocate resources optimally. Without a clear grasp of a program's performance, resources
cannot be distributed in a manner that accurately reflects necessity.
Recommendation
The Library should develop a formal evaluation process that incorporates both a
standardized review, as well as acknowledges the uniqueness of each program and how
success may appear in different ways.
The Library should develop formal guidelines that outline a standard approach to evaluating
programs. The Library may consider including conditional evaluations that are dependent on
the program type and individual expectations of a program. For example, not all programs
may be effectively measured by their attendance as each program may have differing
perspectives on what successful participation looks like. As each program is designed for
different purposes and audiences, completely standardized evaluations may not be able to
fully convey this.
The following are some tools designed to aid libraries in effectively evaluating and improving
their services:
Library Performance Audit Report | 24
FOR INTERNAL USE OF CITY OF GLENDALE ONLY
Embedding Evaluation in Libraries: Developing Internal Evaluators7 is a team-based
training and coaching program for public library staff to build evaluation knowledge and
skills, embed evaluation in their libraries, and develop a network of like-minded peers.
Shaping Outcomes8 is a self-guided course developed by the Institute of Museum and
Library Services (IMLS). The IMLS Shaping Outcomes and Logic Model presentation
offers several useful definitions of concepts in performance measurement.
Demco Ideas & Inspiration9 provides sample prompts and questions to generate
conversations about program design, participant experience, and Library programmer
reflection.
Evaluating Library Programming: A practical guide to collecting and analyzing data to
improve or evaluate connected learning programs for youth in libraries10 is the product of
a three-year research partnership between the Capturing Connected Learning in
Libraries team and Library staff from Future Ready with the Library, YOUmedia, Los
Angeles Public Library, Anythink Libraries, and Multnomah County Library. This guide is
designed to support library staff seeking to evaluate their programs and services. The
guide can also be adapted for wider library use.
HG & Co’s Evaluation Guide for Public Libraries11 is a guide designed for library staff to
gain familiarity with the concept of evaluation, as well as how to conduct evaluations of
their library programs. This guide also provides a list of resources on specific subjects to
consult for more in-depth information.
MANAGEMENT RESPONSE
Management
Agreement We concur
Owner Merideth Jenson-Benjamin, Kristin Fletcher-Spear, Branch Managers,
Programming Core Team
Target Completion
Date 10/31/2024
Action Plan
In April 2024, we implemented new patron program survey evaluations and staff
post-program surveys. The team will evaluate on a quarterly basis to create
evaluation standards from the findings of the new process.
7 “Embedding Evaluation in Libraries: Developing Internal Evaluators” https://www.libraryeval.org/
8 “Shaping Outcomes” https://www.shapingoutcomes.org/
9 “Tips for Reflecting On and Evaluating Your Library Programs” https://ideas.demco.com/blog/library-program-evaluation-tips/
10 “Evaluating Library Programming: A practical guide to collecting and analyzing data to improve or evaluate connected
learning programs for youth in libraries” https://clalliance.org/publications/evaluating-library-programming-a-practical-guide-to-
collecting-and-analyzing-data-to-improve-or-evaluate-connected-learning-programs-for-youth-in-libraries/
11 “Evaluation Guide for Public Libraries” https://www.urbanlibraries.org/files/KHG-Evaluation-Guide.pdf
Library Performance Audit Report | 25
FOR INTERNAL USE OF CITY OF GLENDALE ONLY
5. Finding Although the Library’s programming budget increased in FY 2023-2024,
branches have not been spending down the programming budget and
using available grant funds at anticipated levels.
Recommendation In alignment with its future strategic planning process, Library
leadership should provide enhanced guidance related to programming
budgets, with specific focus on grant-funded program opportunities.
The following should also be considered when developing a regular
budget to actual monitoring system:
● Ensure alignment between resource allocations with service expectations
● Identify potential barriers to increasing programming
● Promote community responsiveness in program offerings
Criteria
A library’s programming budget reflects the ways in which it returns value to the community
and serves community priorities during the fiscal year. The programming budget should be
sufficient in its allocation and be used to provide relevant services and experiences for the
community.
According to the Government Finance Officers Association, monitoring budgets help ensure
that budgets were appropriately developed and implemented at the expected service level.
Regular, comprehensive monitoring of the budget allows an organization to review service
levels, ensure new initiatives are making timely progress toward goals, learn about trends
that impact operations, and demonstrate transparency.12
Condition
The Library's budgetary constraints have historically limited its ability to invest in
programming resources. In FY 2023-2024, the Library’s budget increased by approximately
$1.2 million (18.8%) after being stagnant for approximately five years. The intended purpose
behind this budget increase was to increase the Library’s access to allow for more
operational hours.
In addition to the increase in the Library’s operating budget, the programming budget also
increased by $26,400 between FY 2022-2023 and FY 2023-2024. However, despite these
recent increases, staff report that there is hesitancy among Librarians to use these new
12 “Best Practices: Budget Monitoring” https://www.gfoa.org/materials/budget-monitoring
Library Performance Audit Report | 26
FOR INTERNAL USE OF CITY OF GLENDALE ONLY
funds. As of May 2024, approximately 10 months into the fiscal year, only 50% of the
programming budget has been spent.
In August 2023, the Library was awarded grant funding through Full STEAM Ahead. These
funds can be used to support or enhance Science, Technology, Engineering, Art, and
Mathematics programs with programs offered between September 2023 and July 2024. In
interviews, Library staff reported that there is not a clear understanding on what programs
can be funded through this grant award.
Peer Analysis
Peer budgets ranged from approximately $20,000 to $75,000 annually. While some peers
reported having healthy program budgets, the majority reported a level of financial strain on
operations and programming. Of the peers with smaller budgets, friends of the library, grant
funding, and local support were cited as the main supplements to their budgets. Peers
reported using excess funds on new programing, new outside vendors, or existing
programs.
CITY BUDGET RESIDENTS BUDGET TO RESIDENT
RATIO
Glendale $40,000 252,136 $.16
Peer Average* $40,833 330,692 $.12
Chandler $75,000 281,711 $.27
Peoria $27,500 197,866 $.14
Mesa $20,000 512,498 $.04
*In the process of selecting peer institutions for benchmarking purposes, it was determined that two potential peers were not
matchable or comparable to the Library. As a result, these institutions were excluded from consideration.
Cause
As a City department, the Library is subject to the City's budgetary priorities, which can
impact the Library's funding levels. While the City's recent budget increase of 15%13 from
2022-23 to 2023-24 is a promising sign, Library employees have not been able to expend
additional resources in several years.
After operating for several years by repurposing existing materials, Librarians who direct
programming are not accustomed to having the option to secure new resources to fulfill
13 Glendale adopts 2023-24 budget | News | glendalestar.com
Library Performance Audit Report | 27
FOR INTERNAL USE OF CITY OF GLENDALE ONLY
program activities. Librarians have grown reliant on conducting programming using in-house
personnel and supplies to continue service delivery despite budget constraints.
The historical lack of a programming budget has become the norm at the Library. In the
absence of a strategic plan to help guide potential new program offerings, employees are
largely using existing and in-house resources to execute programs.
Additionally, the Library does not regularly provide branches with budget-to-actual reports for
programming. This can serve as a helpful guide to ensure employees are aware of what
funding is available given the shift in available resources.
Effect
The Library's programs and services are designed to meet the unique needs of the
community. However, if programs are not properly equipped or supplied due to a lack of
spending, the community may not receive the full benefit of these programs. As such, it is
essential to allocate funds to programs in a manner that reflects community needs and
priorities.
If Library staff are unaware of how grant funds can be spent, there may be missed
opportunities to leverage external funding sources to help address community priorities.
Recommendation
As its operating budget increases, Library leadership should provide greater guidance
related to the use of programming funding. Specifically, Library leadership should align their
programming goals and targets with the Library's overall strategic objectives to ensure that
the funding is used effectively. For example, if the Library’s strategic plan indicates the
desire to enhance Spanish-speaking programs, this priority should also be reflected in the
programming budget. Currently, the Library does not have fluent Spanish speakers in-house
and therefore has the opportunity to find an external vendor to help supplement
programming that is provided in-house.
To ensure that the Library's budget is aligned with its strategic objectives and community
needs, it is essential to conduct budget-to-actual reporting. This reporting should incorporate
a range of metrics, including head count, community impact, and programming costs, to
inform budgetary decisions for the following year. By conducting regular budget-to-actual
reporting, the Library can ensure that all programs have the resources they need to succeed
while also optimizing the use of available funds. This can help to prevent the allocation of
surplus funds where they are not needed, which can create issues for Librarians who may
not know how or where to spend the excess funds.
If additional program funding is provided, the Library should establish specific instructions on
how and what the new funds can be spent on. This may include recommendations on the
use of external presenters or the purchase of supplies, for example. Since grant awards
typically include restrictions on their allowable use, there should be clear definitions for how
Library Performance Audit Report | 28
FOR INTERNAL USE OF CITY OF GLENDALE ONLY
funds can be spent in conformance with requirements as well as a schedule for anticipated
programming.
MANAGEMENT RESPONSE
Management
Agreement We concur
Owner Merideth Jenson-Benjamin, Kristin Fletcher-Spear, Branch Managers
Target Completion
Date 8/30/2024
Action Plan
We believe a contributing factor to fully leveraging the programming budget has
been the external vendor approval process as noted in Finding 7. Each branch
manager is conducting a programming data analysis to formulate their
programming budgetary needs for their location for the fiscal year. Quarterly
reviews of budget-to-actual reporting will be implemented utilizing the post
program survey results and actual costs.
6. Finding Although the Library offers some culturally diverse programming, there
are opportunities to further enhance programming to promote diversity,
equity, and inclusion among all community groups in the City.
Recommendation In alignment with its strategic plan, the Library should explore expanding
program offerings, community partnerships, bilingual materials, and
employee training to enhance DEI initiatives and better serve all
segments of the Glendale community.
Criteria
Libraries serve diverse communities with varying backgrounds, cultures, languages, and
needs. DEI initiatives help libraries better understand and reflect the diverse interests and
needs of their communities. According to a recent ALA report, “26.6% of public libraries
report that they have formal, written goals related to DEI. The proportion is higher for City
libraries (46.0%) and suburban libraries (28.8%) than for town/rural libraries (17.0%). More
than 90% of libraries with formal DEI goals have goals related to fostering an inclusive
climate for Library users, Library collections, improving the workplace culture for Library
staff, and Library events and/or programming.”
Libraries have a specific role in fostering inclusivity in their communities by serving as a
welcoming space for everyone. By celebrating diverse stories and perspectives, libraries are
able to support cross-cultural understanding and appreciation as well as engage broader
segments of the community.
Library Performance Audit Report | 29
FOR INTERNAL USE OF CITY OF GLENDALE ONLY
Condition
The Library offers a wide range of programming, including writers groups, book clubs, story
times, live music, gardening techniques, 3-D printing, and arts and crafts. The Library
segments programming into Adult, Teen, and Youth offerings, but these offerings are largely
provided in English and not translated in other languages which appeal to euro-centric
community members. According to recent U.S. Census data, 40% of Glendale residents
identify as Hispanic/Latino. Last year, the Library partnered with an organization to conduct
bilingual early literacy programming. However, due to a lack of funding from the
organization, the Library was unable to continue offering this programming. Currently, the
Midwestern University Speech Pathology Program is hosting bilingual family literacy nights
at two of the four library locations. The bilingual programs run for six to nine months of the
year.
The Library also recognizes and celebrates Black History Month, Native American Heritage
Month, and Asian American Pacific Islander Month. Recently, the Library received a year-
long programming grant to serve the Indigenous People of the Southwest.
Although the Library offers some diverse programing, there remain opportunity to expand
programming to serve all members of the community. The ALA specifically indicates that
libraries should provides programming and services to people “who may experience
language or literacy barriers; racism; discrimination on the basis of appearance, ethnicity,
immigrant status, religious background, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender
expressed; or barriers to equal education, employment and housing.”
The demographics and population of the City are continually evolving, which presents
ongoing opportunities for the Library to reassess its program offerings to promote inclusion
among all community members. For example, Library staff indicated an increasing
Taiwanese population on the north end of the City, which presents another opportunity to
engage with diverse community members and develop relevant, accessible programming.
Peer Analysis
Most peers do not have formal initiatives or efforts related to DEI and largely create
programming based on community need or cultural holidays. Of the peers who reported
offering diverse programming, almost all were in Spanish-speaking youth programs. Peers
also reported having some bilingual employees on staff, but that most employees do not
speak other languages.
Cause
The Library does not have any DEI efforts or goals in place to guide overarching or
individual branch efforts. In the absence of clear DEI goals, individual employees and
branches may define what constitutes inclusive programming differently. A shared
understanding of DEI and how the Library will support inclusion is a critical foundation to
providing culturally diverse programming that resonates with the community.
Library Performance Audit Report | 30
FOR INTERNAL USE OF CITY OF GLENDALE ONLY
Effect
The lack of diversity and inclusion in the Library's programming may preclude
underrepresented groups in the community from participating in services. It also could limit
program outreach and participation by other community groups who do not see themselves
reflected in available programs, languages, and offerings. This lack of representation can
create a sense of disconnection and disengagement among community members, ultimately
hindering the Library's ability to serve as a hub for community engagement and learning.
Recommendation
The Library should integrate DEI into its strategic planning process to confirm its goals,
values, and approach to providing inclusive services to all community members. Based on
the goals developed, the City should consider the following to increase DEI awareness and
emphasis in its services:
Program offerings: The Library should aim to create programs that celebrate and
educate different cultures, identities, and backgrounds. It is best practice for the Library
to engage with someone from that community to host events such as author talks,
workshops, lectures, and other cultural events that highlight underrepresented voices.
Community partnerships: Library leadership should connect with local community
organizations that represent diverse populations, including different ethnicities, gender
identities, abilities, and sexual orientations. Through these partnerships, the Library can
continually enhance its programs to address specific community needs and interests.
Expanded Bilingual programming: Partnering with other organizations such as
colleges or non-profit organizations can be an effective way for the Library to provide
bilingual programming. These programs can help promote education and information
literacy among these groups, which can have a positive impact on their overall well-
being and success. To reach these patrons, the Library could consider using non-English
speaking news streams, local markets, and radio to promote its programs and services,
and to engage with these communities in a culturally responsive way.
Employee training: To properly equip employees with the tools to serve diverse
community members, the Library should provide employee training. This training can
encompass strategies to foster an inclusive and welcoming environment, as well as
practical tools to improve communication such as Google translate.
MANAGEMENT RESPONSE
Management
Agreement We concur
Owner Kristin Fletcher-Spear, Branch Managers, and Programming Team
Target Completion
Date 7/31/2025
Library Performance Audit Report | 31
FOR INTERNAL USE OF CITY OF GLENDALE ONLY
Action Plan
We will actively expand programming through community partners and paid
presenters to provide inclusive programming that reflects our diverse community
on an ongoing basis. We will track our efforts as KPI’s in our strategic plan. We
will provide employee training opportunities to address DEI initiatives.
7. Finding The external vendor approval process is reported to be cumbersome,
confusing, and a barrier for providing diverse and innovative program
offerings.
Recommendation Centralize the external vendor process to ensure clear expectations,
information, and timely processing of agreements within the Library.
Additionally, coordinate with the City Attorney’s Office to consider
whether programs of a specific nature (e.g., lectures, story times) can be
automatically exempt from insurance requirements.
Criteria
Libraries often use external vendors to augment staff resources in providing relevant and
accessible programming. The process for securing paid external vendors varies from library
to library, but in general it should be sufficiently streamlined to allow for greater access to
potential speakers while also ensuring the appropriate protections for the City. Many cities
adopt a risk-based approach to working with external vendors, rather than requiring all
vendors to go through the external vendor approval process, regardless of potential liability
threats.
Condition
The City has established a process that all paid presenters at the Library must be approved
and compensated for their work. This process requires the external vendor to register
themselves through an online self-service platform to receive compensation, which must be
completed within two months of the program date. In addition, the vendor must provide the
Library contact with specific information to create an Artist Activity Agreement.
The Librarian coordinating the program creates the Artist Activity Agreement, which has
reportedly had several updates in the past few years. This has resulted in several old Artist
Activity Agreement templates being used in this process, resulting in rework on the part of
the Librarian and the external vendor. Given the anticipated two-month timeline to complete
all relevant paperwork so the vendor can be approved and paid, these delays can present
challenges to Library staff and the program.
At the time that the vendor submits a complete Artist Activity Agreement, they must also
submit an invoice. This invoice must be sent to the Library’s Administrative Support
Specialist to match the vendor number the self-service platform. If information between the
Library Performance Audit Report | 32
FOR INTERNAL USE OF CITY OF GLENDALE ONLY
Artist Activity Agreement or vendor registration do not match, then the Library works with the
vendor to correct the information before the program.
The City Attorney’s Office also requires specific insurance requirements, which may not be
relevant for Library programs. The City has a low hazard program listing that includes
activities that may qualify for an insurance requirement waiver after consultation, which
include things such as presentations, instructional classes, lectures, seminars, and speaking
engagements. Most of the Library’s programs are likely to qualify for this waiver, but this
determination still must be decided by the City Attorney’s Office for each external vendor
engagement.
To help guide staff through the completion of these steps, the City developed a “Green
Sheet Checklist” that outlines key information such as relevant City staff, vendor, program
title, vendor invoice number, and approval tracking. The Green Sheet Checklist can have up
to three approvals, which can bottleneck the process. Librarians have stated that the
approval process is confusing, as they do not have a clear status of their request form due
to all the approvals involved and the paper-based nature of the process.
Peer Analysis
Peers include the outside vendor process as part of the regular programming request, which
eliminates the need for an additional step. Some peers require vendors to register through
their City to be compensated without requiring any additional forms or processes. However,
other peers reported that outside vendors only needed to go through a approval process if
the vendor poses a liability, such as bringing snakes to the library for an animal
programming.
Cause
The external vendor approval process is in place to protect the Library from any potential
legal liabilities. While the process may seem lengthy, it is necessary to ensure that all
vendors are properly evaluated and authorized to do business with the Library. The multiple
versions of the approval process that the Librarians mentioned are due to legal language
updates. These updates are necessary to ensure that the approval process is in compliance
with local regulations and standards, and to ensure that the Library is protected from
potential legal liabilities.
Effect
The presence of multiple approvals, policy confusion, and multiple versions of the Artist
Activity Agreement form have led to hesitancy in using outside presenters. This impacts
program offerings, opportunities to work with external presenters, and use of available
budgets. The time-consuming and cumbersome process can discourage Librarians from
seeking out new and innovative programming ideas, potentially limiting the Library's ability to
engage with the community and offer high-quality programs and services.
Library Performance Audit Report | 33
FOR INTERNAL USE OF CITY OF GLENDALE ONLY
Additionally, this process can be intimidating for vendors, potentially discouraging them from
participating in Library events. High-quality vendors can bring new and diverse programming
ideas to the Library, which can help to engage with the community and promote innovation.
A positive relationship with vendors can help to build trust and strengthen the Library's
reputation, while a negative relationship can have the opposite effect.
Recommendation
To improve the external vendor process, the Library should consider the following:
Centralize the workflow: Centralizing the external vendor approval and payment
workflow within the Library can help to streamline processes, reduce confusion, and
ensure that all staff are on the same page. By establishing clear guidelines and
procedures, and designating a specific person to manage the workflow, the Library can
optimize its operations and better serve its vendors. Centralizing the workflow can also
take the heavy lifting off the programmers as they can instead focus on seeking out new
and diverse programming ideas. To centralize this process, a designated person should
be responsible for managing the external vendor approval process and communicating
any updates or changes to the process. This person should be trained to review and
approve all external vendor requests and should be responsible for ensuring that the
process is consistently applied across all branches. A backup staff member should be
identified to perform the same procedures in the event the primary designee is
unavailable.
Managing the working relationship: Establishing a point of contact within the Library
to answer process questions and eliminate vendor confusion is crucial to maintaining
positive and productive relationships with outside vendors. By establishing clear
guidelines and expectations for working with external vendors, the Library can foster
positive and productive relationships with vendors. This can help to ensure that the
Library's programs and services are of the highest quality, while also promoting
collaboration and innovation. Effective management of external vendors can also help to
build trust and strengthen the Library's reputation within the community.
Evaluate the results: Regularly evaluating the relationships with all outside vendors is
crucial to ensuring that the Library's programs and services are of the highest quality. By
reviewing and analyzing the outcomes of the external vendor approval process, the
Library can identify areas for improvement and make necessary adjustments. The
Library should foster positive and productive relationships with vendors and share those
who have a positive relationship with the Library among all branches.
Additionally, the Library should work with the City Attorney’s Office to evaluate the potential
risk each vendor may bring to secure potential exemptions from insurance requirements
proactively. The Library and City Attorney’s Office may be able to develop more robust
guidance on what programs would require a legal review and insurance requirements based
on the potential risk that each vendor may bring to the Library. By doing this, the Library
could streamline its processes and only proceed with the full approval process for vendors
who truly pose a threat to the Library. This may include conducting background checks,
Library Performance Audit Report | 34
FOR INTERNAL USE OF CITY OF GLENDALE ONLY
reviewing vendor contracts, and assessing the vendor's reputation based on previous
programming with the Library.
By adopting a more targeted and risk-based approach to vendor management, the Library
can better manage its vendor relationships and ensure that it is not exposing itself to
unnecessary risk. This can help to promote a more efficient and effective vendor
management process, while also ensuring that the Library is in compliance with local
regulations and standards. By optimizing the external vendor approval process, the Library
can better serve the community and ensure that its programs and services are of the highest
quality.
MANAGEMENT RESPONSE
Management
Agreement We concur
Owner Kristin Fletcher-Spear, Dawn Ferro
Target Completion
Date 6/30/24
Action Plan
The use of the vendor/artist agreements has been discontinued effective 5/15/24.
It is unknown why these vendor/artist agreements were instituted, there have
never been any legal claims that staff is aware of that were the result of using
outside presenters, most presenters fall into the category of “casual or incident in
relation to other types of work or sources of compensation” which excludes them
from general liability insurance requirements, and there is no city policy that
establishes a requirement to use a contract for Small Dollar Purchases of this
nature or outside presenters. Additionally, the use of the agreement contradicts
city financial policies which state that procurement transactions should be
conducted in a manner that is not perceived to be restrictive such as placing
unreasonable requirements on firms to qualify them to do business and requiring
unnecessary experience or excessive bonding or other restrictive terms. In the
event we utilize outside presenters for programs where they may be an element
of physical risk such as live animals or physical demonstrations, we will ensure
the appropriate release of liability and indemnification agreements are in place.
We will communicate with programming staff a new procedure to be created by
6/15/24 outlining the process for outside presenters for Library programs.
8. Finding The Library’s marketing efforts are largely responsive to upcoming
program offerings, rather than as part of a larger marketing effort with
specified goals and target markets within the community. As a result, the
reach of the marketing efforts may be limited to residents who are
already Library users.
Recommendation In alignment with its strategic plan, the Library should develop an annual
marketing plan that outlines target audiences, key initiatives, budgetary
requirements, and success measures.
Library Performance Audit Report | 35
FOR INTERNAL USE OF CITY OF GLENDALE ONLY
Criteria
Effective marketing for libraries involves strategies and tactics tailored to promote library
services, programs, and resources to diverse audiences in a compelling and engaging
manner. Library marketing is critical to promote library services, engage users, and
communicate the Library's value in a rapidly changing landscape.
Condition
The Library's marketing efforts have historically been overseen by a single team member
who is responsible for utilizing multiple platforms to reach community members. This
employee also serves as an Administrative Librarian and therefore fulfills several other
functions outside of marketing duties. The lack of a dedicated marketing specialist hinders
the ability to develop a robust marketing strategy that targets specific community groups. As
of May 2024, the Library is currently creating a dedicated Social Media Programmer position
to oversee marketing and social media.
The marketing budget was increased slightly in FY 2023-2024 in response to the need to
educate residents about the Library’s expanded operating hours. This resulted in most of the
marketing budget spent on printing and publicity around this major initiative. In response, the
Library tried to streamline other publicity efforts by not printing flyers for other programs and
instead relying on digital displays at libraries to inform patrons of upcoming events.
To allow the Administrative Librarian ample time to develop and prioritize marketing efforts
for individual programs, staff are asked to enter all programs in the online calendar 6 weeks
in advance. This allows the Library to publish an events calendar and schedule postings a
few days before each event. However, staff are not yet consistently entering all programs
into the calendar on time to allow for proper marketing.
The Library leverages several platforms for marketing efforts, including online calendars,
newsletters, local news outlets, and social media. Every program is on digital displays at
Library branches and social media postings occur for non-recurring programs such as story
times. In addition, the Library will do some paid promotion for larger events such as summer
reading, high-profile speakers, and the annual comic book event. While it is a great idea to
focus on programs that bring in large crowds, it is important to ensure that all programs
receive adequate marketing efforts. This can help to ensure that the community is aware of
the full range of programs and services offered by the Library and can help to promote
inclusion and diversity. All marketing efforts are currently in English, which can also limit the
reach of certain posts and advertisements.
Finally, there is currently no formal evaluation process in place to assess the Library's
marketing strategy on a yearly basis. To ensure that the Library's marketing efforts are
effective and aligned with its strategic objectives, it is important to conduct regular
evaluations of the marketing strategy and mechanisms.
Library Performance Audit Report | 36
FOR INTERNAL USE OF CITY OF GLENDALE ONLY
Peer Analysis
Peers report utilizing the following methods to market their programs and services:
Website
Newsletter
Social media
Flyers
Posters
Mail
Press releases
Peers have reported that sending out weekly newsletters is an effective marketing strategy
for promoting the library's programs and services. Additionally, all peers addressed the
importance of keeping the social media platforms up to date as well as consistently updating
the website calendar with updated dates and programs.
Cause
The Library lacks robust staff and financial resources to support marketing efforts. Library
leadership has not yet defined what marketing aims to achieve, such as a focus on target
audiences that are harder to reach in the community.
Effect
The constraints of the Library’s marketing budget have resulted in limited outreach on social
media and other relevant platforms. As there is not a designated marketing position, the
roles and responsibilities of marketing have fallen on a position with a pre-existing set of
responsibilities. Marketing efforts are targeted towards individuals who already engage with
the Library, such as through the use of newsletters and digital displays in branches.
Recommendation
As part of its strategic planning process, the Library should define marketing goals and
objectives to clearly define areas of focus for the new Social Media Programmer position.
Marketing Library programs and services are key to increasing community engagement and
ensuring that community members are aware of all resources available to them. To enhance
marketing efforts, the Library should consider the following:
Marketing plan: Develop a marketing plan that supports the strategic plan’s vision and
mission through targeted outreach. This plan typically includes an outline for the year
that includes campaigns, branding, programs, budget, and ways that success will be
evaluated for different platforms and initiatives. By developing a marketing plan, the
Library can better inform the budgetary needs for outreach and publicity to attract target
audiences. By performing these measures, the Library's marketing plan should cover
target audience outlines, key initiatives, budgetary requirements, and success
measures.
Library Performance Audit Report | 37
FOR INTERNAL USE OF CITY OF GLENDALE ONLY
Marketing budget: The marketing budget should be reviewed and allocated based on
priority and need and the marketing plan objectives.
New Library patrons: To gain a better understanding of the most effective outreach
methods for reaching new patrons, the Library should consider asking new patrons how
they heard about the Library. This can be done through a brief survey or questionnaire
that is administered when new patrons sign up for a library card or attend a Library
event. By gathering data on the outreach methods that are most effective, the Library
can make informed decisions about where to allocate its marketing resources and
optimize its outreach efforts. Additionally, this data can be used to inform the Library's
overall marketing strategy and ensure that it is effectively reaching and engaging with
new patrons.
Employee training: To ensure that the Library's marketing efforts are effective and
inclusive, it is important for staff to attend regular training or seminars that focus on
marketing best practices. For example, the Library Leadership & Management
Association offers webinars on topics such as “Best Practices for Accessible and
Inclusive Marketing.”14 The objectives of attending such webinars can include improving
the Library's marketing impact, enhancing staff skills and knowledge, and ensuring that
the Library is effectively reaching and engaging with all members of the community.
MANAGEMENT RESPONSE
Management
Agreement We concur
Owner Merideth Jenson-Benjamin
Target Completion
Date 7/30/25
Action Plan
The department already has a Communication Plan initiative as part of its Tier II
Scorecard which is intended to develop a comprehensive communication plan
and is underway. As part of the newly designated role, Merideth will create an
annual marketing plan to incorporate more than programming and success
measures. She is a part of the department-level team. As part of the Tier III
Balanced Scorecard development, we explore the development of library-specific
KPI’s especially as it relates to attracting new patrons.
14 LLAMA webinar: Best practices for accessible and inclusive marketing | ALA
Library Performance Audit Report | 38
FOR INTERNAL USE OF CITY OF GLENDALE ONLY
9. Finding Although Librarian staffing levels are approximately aligned with peers,
there is a perception that Librarians have high workloads that impact
their ability to provide community-responsive programming.
Recommendation To ensure that staffing and resources are allocated in a way that best
supports the needs of the community, the Library should conduct a
comprehensive review of staffing levels across all branches.
Criteria
Libraries depend on Librarians to provide vital resources, services, and programs to their
communities. To address the strain on existing Librarians and ensure that the Library is
effectively serving the community, it may be beneficial to outline clear expectations for all
Librarians who are responsible for developing programs. This can involve setting job
outlines that clearly define roles, responsibilities, and expectations for program development
and implementation.
Additionally, ensuring that all branches are properly staffed is a key to ensuring no staff feel
overworked. The Library should have the proper levels of staff at each location in order to
eliminate staff feeling overworked.
Condition
There is a perception amongst Librarians that staffing levels are low. High workloads and
strain on Librarians were reported in interviews. However, the Library’s ratio of program staff
to total population are on trend with peer averages, as reported below. This may indicate
that staffing and resources are inconsistently being distributed across branches. Some
Librarians indicated that their branch was properly staffed while others reported being short
staffed and overworked.
One staff reported not having a Youth Degree Librarian at their branch due to leadership
reallocating the Youth Degree Librarian to a Volunteer Coordinator role at a different branch.
The staff reported the lack of replacement for the Youth Degree Librarian resulted in having
another staff take over the Youth Degree Librarian’s duties. This is an example of how staff
are not properly allocated or distributed among branches, resulting in some staff feeling
overworked.
Peer Analysis
Most peers experienced a higher resident to program staff count, indicating that most peers
have fewer employees than Glendale when community size is taken into account. Overall,
peers have a similar average of monthly program offerings and average monthly program
offerings by each Librarian.
Library Performance Audit Report | 39
FOR INTERNAL USE OF CITY OF GLENDALE ONLY
CITY
# OF
PROGRAM
LIBRARIANS
RESIDENTS
LIBRARIAN TO
RESIDENT
RATIO
AVERAGE #
OF
PROGRAMS
A MONTH
AVERAGE # OF
MONTHLY
PROGRAMS BY
LIBRARIAN
Glendale 15 252,136 1:16,809 123 8
Peer
Average 19 345,753 1:18,198 152 8
Chandler 14 281,711 1:20,122 108 8
Scottsdale 28 243,050 1:8,680 182 6
Mesa 14 512,498 1:36,607 165 12
Peer feedback and data resulted in concluding that all the peers’ branches were properly
staffed as there were no concerns of employees feeling overworked.
Cause
Staff report that staffing levels, particularly programmers and teen/youth Librarians, have
negatively impacted the Library’s ability to deliver programs and services. This may suggest
that staffing and resources are inconsistently distributed across branches, with some
branches having more resources than others.
Effect
The staffing constraints at the Library have resulted in high workloads, fear of burnout, and
reduced ability to deliver services. These constraints have also led to a lack of clarity
regarding how staffing is distributed among branches, which has caused friction and
resulted in inconsistent community service. This indicates room for improvement for the
Library to reallocate its resources around all branches and identifying where strains exist.
When some Librarians are assigned more programming responsibilities than others, it can
create an imbalance in the workload. This can lead to some Librarians feeling overworked
and stressed, which can ultimately impact the quality of programming delivered by those
Librarians who have a heavier schedule. When a Librarian is responsible for too many
programs, they may not have enough time or resources to devote to each program, which
can result in lower quality programming. They may also feel overwhelmed and unable to
effectively manage their workload, which can lead to burnout and decreased job satisfaction.
On the other hand, Librarians who have a lighter workload may have more time and
resources to devote to each program, which can result in higher quality programming. They
may also feel less stressed and more motivated to deliver the best possible programming,
which can lead to increased job satisfaction and a more positive work environment.
Library Performance Audit Report | 40
FOR INTERNAL USE OF CITY OF GLENDALE ONLY
Recommendation
To ensure that staffing and resources are allocated in a way that best supports the needs of
the community, the Library should conduct a comprehensive review of staffing levels across
all branches. This review can take into consideration several metrics, including population,
number of programs, and budget, at a branch level. By analyzing these metrics, the Library
can identify areas where additional resources may be needed and allocate resources in a
way that is responsive to community needs. Additionally, the Library may consider
conducting a workload analysis to identify areas of inefficiency and opportunities for
streamlining processes.
Establishing clear guidelines for programmers can also help to alleviate the strain and
overwork flow from Librarians. By providing clear expectations and guidelines for program
development, staff can better understand their roles and responsibilities, and work more
efficiently and effectively to develop programs that are responsive to community needs.
Additionally, clear guidelines can help to ensure that programs are developed in a
collaborative and inclusive manner, and staff are not overburdened with responsibilities
outside of their areas of expertise. By optimizing staff roles and responsibilities, the Library
can better serve the community and ensure that its programs and services are of the highest
quality.
While conducting the comprehensive review of all staff levels at each branch, here is a list of
roles and job descriptions suggested by the ALA:15
Pages are usually responsible for putting returned books and other items in their proper
places on the shelves. They are also responsible for keeping items in the right order.
Some handle requests for retrieving materials that are in secured areas, and others may
be responsible for checking items back in.
Library Assistants or Technicians generally perform clerical duties and are often
mistaken for Librarians as they are the first face people see, since most libraries'
checkout desks are near the entrance. Library Assistants often check materials out and
in, collect fines and fees, answer general phone questions, issue library cards, process
new library materials, and assist with items on reserve.
Librarians help people with homework and research questions, decide what items to
purchase and to discard, offer programs and training, help people use the internet, build
websites, and more. Specialized Librarians may run computer systems, work with
seniors and non-English speaking populations, become specialists in a specific subject
area, or maintain the records for the online catalog. Librarian jobs are often full-time,
although most libraries also rely on a core of part-time and “substitute” Librarians to help
cover all of the hours many libraries are open.
15 https://www.ala.org/educationcareers/careers/librarycareerssite/typesofjobs
Library Performance Audit Report | 41
FOR INTERNAL USE OF CITY OF GLENDALE ONLY
Library Managers such as department heads, branch managers, and
assistant/deputy/associate directors, are typically middle managers responsible for the
operation of departments or other functional areas such as “all library branches.” As
managers they may be responsible for work schedules, employee evaluations, training,
and managing budgets. Branch managers, in particular, can have additional director-like
responsibilities, such as overseeing the condition of the facility or involvement in local
neighborhood groups and projects.
Library Directors have the main leadership role in the library. Typical duties include
preparing and overseeing the budget, developing employment and service policies,
strategic planning, public and governmental relations, reporting to the governing board
or official, ensuring compliance with laws, fundraising, hiring, motivating, and firing staff,
and more. Directors' duties and compensation can vary greatly depending on the size of
the library.
Other Professionals can play major roles in libraries. These may include jobs such as
public relations, accounting and human resources, network administration, facilities
management, transportation services, and security.
MANAGEMENT RESPONSE
Management
Agreement We concur
Owner Library Executive Team
Target Completion
Date 10/31/24
Action Plan
Work began on this in February 2024 and to date, we have made 22 interim
assignments to support a comprehensive reorganization and are working with
Human Resources on the required job studies and potential reclassifications.
These changes have been made in alignment with the department’s Tier II
Succession Planning strategic initiative and are based on feedback from the
Community Needs Assessment, employee survey, and director 1-1 staff meetings.
The reorganization that is in process is addressing areas of risk where only one
person was training to perform a particular function, implemented new
supervisory roles to address career development and succession planning needs,
and realigned (and in some cases physically moved) staff to ensure more
effective operations. The changes are benefitting both paraprofessional and
professional staff. We will also be exploring options related to consolidating part-
time positions. Once completed, management will continue to evaluate positions
and the location of positions as they become vacant through attrition or
retirement.