Introduction
This
article analyzes an emerging type of public library program: movement-based
programs. These are programs that encourage, enable, and foster physical
activity and physical fitness (Lenstra, 2017). The literature review below
shows that although there is both research-based evidence that approximately
20-30% of public libraries in the United States offer movement-based programs
and anecdotal evidence that these programs are offered by public libraries
elsewhere in the world, the impacts and outcomes of these programs have
received little attention. This paper addresses this gap by presenting the
results from a survey of North American public libraries that have offered
movement-based programs.
Since
little was known about the impacts of movement-based programs in public
libraries, an exploratory survey design was used to address the following
research questions: what impacts do movement-based programs in public libraries
have and what variations exist between urban and rural libraries. Results show
that these programs tend to bring new users into libraries, contribute to
community building as well as to health and wellness. Most respondents (95%)
state that they intend to continue offering movement-based programs at their
public libraries. The article concludes by discussing how these results can
productively inform our understanding of the evolving roles of public libraries
in relation to public health and wellness.
Literature
Review
The
literature on movement-based programs in public libraries consists of three
types: 1) the inclusion of questions about movement-based programs in surveys
that focus on other facets of public librarianship, 2) case studies in which
researchers were participants in the experimental cases analyzed, and 3) short,
journalistic program reports shared in channels without peer-review or
expectations of adherence to research frameworks. This literature shows that
approximately 20-30% of U.S. public libraries have offered some form of
movement-based programming. Furthermore, the case studies and journalistic
reports suggest that these programs are also offered elsewhere around the
globe. Although this literature suggests that movement-based programs tend to
resonate with the populations served, no research has yet analyzed in detail
what impacts movement-based programs have. As a result, the profession has yet
to develop the means to communicate about physical activity in public libraries
to policy makers, to broader stakeholders, or even to itself.
Survey-based
research
Surveys
conducted during the last decade find that movement-based programs have been
offered in many public libraries throughout the United States. A randomized
survey of gaming programs in public libraries (Nicholson, 2009, p. 206) found
that “physical games” that require moving the body were the fourth most common
type of gaming program offered in public libraries. A follow-up study using
convenience sampling that included school and academic libraries found that
“the most popular game activity reported in 2006 gaming programs in libraries
was the Dance Dance Revolution series, with 44% of library programs
[reported] using this game” (Nicholson, 2009, p. 209).
More
recently, two surveys conducted in 2014 attest to the presence of yoga and
other fitness classes among the regular offerings of U.S. public libraries.
Among other questions, the 2014 Digital Inclusion Survey, conducted by
the Information Policy and Access Center at the University of Maryland, asked a
random sample of public libraries a series of questions related to health
programs and services they provided. One question asked respondents to state
whether or not their libraries had during the past year offered “fitness
classes (e.g., Zumba, Yoga, Tai Chi, other).” The survey found that
approximately 22.7% of U.S. public libraries had offered some sort of fitness
class (Bertot, Real, Lee, McDermott, & Jaeger, 2015, p. 62), with these
types of programs most common in suburban libraries (33.9%) and least common in
rural libraries (12.6%).
Another
survey conducted in 2014 came to similar conclusions. The Library Journal
Programming Survey asked a convenience sample of Library Journal
subscribers working in public libraries to answer questions about yoga programs
offered by their libraries. The survey found that 33% of respondents had
offered yoga programs during the last twelve months (Library Journal, 2014). Of
those public libraries that had offered yoga, 77% said they offered it for
adults, 27% for teenagers, and 40% for children. Of these three surveys, only Library Journal’s produced evidence on
the impacts of movement-based programs: 23% of libraries with yoga programs
said they had been very popular, 43% said popular, 28% said somewhat popular,
and only 6% said not at all popular.
Case study research
The
earliest research-based case study of movement-based programs in public
libraries was conducted by two public librarians in the early 1990s. Public
librarians in Connecticut collaborated with a local aerobics instructor to
develop a series for teenaged girls that included fitness classes. Interviews
with the teenaged participants revealed that the fitness components of the
program led to increased self-esteem and increased interest in regular physical
activity (Quatrella & Blosveren, 1994). It is unclear if the program
continued after the trial study. In any case, approximately 15 years later a
group of librarians from the Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center
launched a series of programs for youth in local public libraries that included
exercise instruction (Woodson, Timm, & Jones, 2011). By tracking the
participants in these programs, the authors determined that the programs were
successful in that the children who participated had fun while learning about
health and wellness.
More
recently, three research-based case studies on movement-based programs in
public libraries were published in 2015 and 2016. Health science librarians
from Washington University in St. Louis, Missouri partnered with the local
public library system to administer a community survey on health information
needs. The survey found that “exercise” was the topic the public most wanted to
see more of at the library (Engeszer et al., 2016, p. 64). In response, the
partners developed a series of programs that included yoga, beginning exercise,
and Zumba that was subsequently offered throughout the St. Louis Public Library
system.
A
similar study took place in the small town of Farmville, North Carolina, where
the public library partnered with a nearby library and information science
professor to develop programs and services that promote healthy lifestyles
(Flaherty & Miller, 2016). The library loaned pedometers to patrons and the
researcher interviewed those who participated. Participants reported liking the
program and asked for more movement-based programs at the library. In response,
the library organized a 5K race and a mile fun walk/run in Spring 2015, which
has since become an annual library-sponsored program. Based on the success of
these initiatives, the public librarian became the wellness coordinator for the
town.
In
Lethbridge, Alberta, public librarians collaborated with local and provincial
partners to develop a "library of things" initiative that involved
checking out supplies that could be used in physical activities (Cofell,
Longair, & Weekes, 2015; Weekes & Longair, 2016). The librarians
assessed the program by monitoring circulation trends and collecting feedback
from participants. They found that the circulating materials contributed to
increasing physical literacy and physical activity among participants.
Collectively
these studies show that diverse types of movement-based programs tend to be
popular with public library patrons. Nonetheless, these case studies are based
in particular places. Without analysis of libraries outside of those locations
it is difficult to make generalizations about the impacts of these types of
programs beyond the particular cases presented.
Short reports
of programs authored by public librarians
In
addition to the peer-reviewed research literature discussed above, short
reports concerning programs in public libraries have been published outside
peer-reviewed channels. These reports illustrate other types of movement-based
programs offered in libraries. In addition to the types of programs discussed
above, this literature reports on movement-based programs for early literacy
(e.g. Music and Movement) (Dietzel-Glair, 2013; Kaplan, 2014; Prato, 2014),
library-based community gardens (Peterson, 2017), dancing (Green, 2013; St.
Louis Public Library, 2014), StoryWalks® (Maddigan & Bloos, 2013), outdoor
activities like walking and bicycling (Hill, 2017; Richmond, 2012), and fitness
challenges (Hanson, 2012).[1]
Furthermore, these reports illustrate that movement-based programs are being
offered in public libraries in Canada (Maddigan & Bloos, 2013), the United
Kingdom (Vincent, 2014), Romania (EIFL, 2016), Namibia (Hamwaalwa, Teasdale,
McGuire, & Shuumbili, 2016), China (Zhu, 2017), and Singapore (National
Library Board of Singapore, 2017).
A lack of
evidence on the impacts of innovations in public library programs
One
would perhaps expect that the growth of movement-based programs in public
libraries would naturally lead to a growth of data collection on the spread and
impacts of these programs. However, the continued lack of evidence based
research on innovations in public library programs and services complicates
matters. In a guest editorial to a special issue of EBLIP focused on
public libraries, Ryan (2012) writes that
Despite
this welcome inclusion in EBLIP,
public librarian participation is notably low. This mirrors the grim reality of
low public librarian research and publication rates, as well as the small
overall percentage of LIS research articles about public library practice. (p.
5)
In
a recent follow-up to this special issue, Cole and Ryan (2016) note that “the
current state of evidence based practice and research on, and to inform, public
library practice lags significantly behind that of other library sectors” (p.
120). As a result of this state of affairs, there continues to be a great need
for research both on how public libraries are innovating, as well as on the
impacts of these innovations.
Within
the U.S. public library profession, one means of enabling librarians to
integrate evidence into their evolving practices has been the development of
the Project Outcome toolkit. The U.S.
Public Library Association’s Project Outcome seeks to create
standardized evaluation tools that public librarians can use to assess the
impacts of their services and programs (Anthony, 2016; Oehlke, 2016).
Nonetheless, despite this laudable goal there are significant gaps in the
coverage of Project Outcome. In particular, the toolkit provides no
means of assessing how libraries contribute to health and wellness. Project Outcome focuses on assessing
what it calls “seven essential library service areas,” including:
“civic/community engagement, early childhood literacy, education/lifelong
learning, summer reading, digital learning, economic development, and job
skills” (Public Library Association, 2017, n.p.). Despite a plethora of studies
showing that public libraries impact population health and wellness (e.g.
Gillaspy, 2005; Morgan, Dupuis, Whiteman, D’Alonzo, & Cannuscio, 2017;
Rubenstein, 2016), Project Outcome does not include any tools to assess
these outcomes. As a result, more work is needed to understand how public
libraries impact health as well as to prepare public librarians to incorporate
evidence into this service area. According to public health scholars and
policy-makers, regular physical activity is one of the best things for good
health (Kohl et al., 2012). The researcher aimed to investigate the impacts of
movement-based programs in public libraries to better understand the impacts of
physical activity in public libraries.
Aims
and Methods
Study design
Since
little was known about the general impacts of movement-based programs in public
libraries an exploratory survey design was used to address the research questions:
What
impacts do movement-based programs in public libraries have? What variations
exist between urban and rural libraries?
The
focus on disentangling differences between urban and rural libraries relates to
a continued divide between these two types of public libraries in the U.S.,
with entire professional associations focused around the concerns of these two
groups (i.e. The Association for Rural
& Small Libraries and the Urban
Libraries Council).
In
any case, in creating the data collection instrument (Appendix A), the author
looked to past surveys of public libraries (e.g. Bertot et al., 2015), as well
as to past literature on movement-based programs. In addition, the survey was
piloted with three public librarians, one each from Illinois, North Carolina,
and New Brunswick. These librarians helped inform the language used in the
final survey.
Data Collection
Public
libraries throughout North American were invited to self-select for
participation in the survey. The researcher hopes that in the future this
self-selecting sample can be supplemented by a randomized sample of public
libraries. Data collection was carried out via an online questionnaire using
Qualtrics. The URL to the questionnaire was sent to public librarians in the
U.S. and Canada through state and provincial library electronic mailing lists,
as well as through announcements from state and provincial libraries to public
libraries in their regions. In addition, the survey was disseminated through
national electronic mailing lists used by public librarians (e.g. PUBLIB) and
on the project’s website. Between February 14 and March 23, 2017 a
self-selecting sample of 1,828 public librarians began the “Let’s Move in
Libraries Survey”.
Data
Analysis
Respondents
were invited to complete as much or as little of the survey as they wished.
After removing partial responses (n=570) and responses from libraries that had
never offered any movement-based programs (n=101), a sample of 1,157 libraries
remained for analysis.
The
data were integrated with data from the Institute of Museum and Library
Services FY 2014 Public Libraries Survey (IMLS, 2016) to sort the respondents
into “urban,” “suburban,” “town,” and “rural” libraries, as well as to sort the
respondents by region. According to IMLS (2016) the major distinction between
urban/suburban and town/rural libraries is that the former are libraries
located within urban metropolitan areas and the latter are libraries located
outside those metro areas. All Canadian respondents (n=62), as well as 49 U.S.
respondents could not be integrated with the IMLS dataset. These 101
respondents were sorted by hand, using the methods of the IMLS, into these 4
geospatial divisions.
To
transform the data in ways that would allow for quantitative comparisons
between urban and rural libraries, the verbal options from which respondents
selected were translated into numbers. See Table 1 below for an example of how
this process was carried out. The number in the “average across all programs”
column on the right side of the table illustrates how comparisons were made
among libraries. For instance, in the example below Library 1 reported the most
satisfaction with program participation. The fact that program participation
“fell below expectations” in one of the movement-based programs offered at
Library 3 led to its composite measure being lower. Similar techniques enabled
comparisons among libraries in terms of the extent to which movement-based
programs had brought new users into libraries, and the extent to which the
media had reported on movement-based programs in libraries.
Findings
Description
of Sample
Figure
1 shows respondents’ physical locations. Although respondents are located in
many parts of North America, this self-selecting sample does not constitute a
statistically representative sampling of all public libraries that offer
movement-based programs. Nonetheless, as Table 2 shows, the respondents do
represent many types of communities, with a nearly even split between libraries
located within urban metro areas (54%) and libraries located outside metro
areas (46%).
Overall, respondents reported that their libraries
had offered
a wide variety of movement-based programs for a wide array of age groups. Yoga
programs were the most commonly reported type of program, offered in 65% of the
responding libraries (Figure 2), followed by movement-based early literacy
programs (55%), gardening (41%), dancing (36%), and StoryWalks® (29%). Most of the more frequently offered types of
movement-based programs were reported more frequently in urban and suburban
libraries than in town and rural libraries. However, other programs, including
StoryWalks®, “Other,” Outdoor activities, Fitness challenges, and Library of
Things initiatives were slightly more likely to be reported in town and rural
than in urban and suburban libraries.
Respondents
reported offering movement-based programs for all age groups. Among
respondents, 73% had offered programs for Pre-K audiences, 52% for school-aged
youth, 39% for tweens and teenagers, 65% for adults, and 42% for senior
citizens. In addition, 38% reported movement-based programs for all ages and
37% reported programs for families (see Figure 3). Urban and suburban libraries
were more likely to have offered movement-based programs for all of the groups
asked about except for “all ages” programs, which were slightly more common in
town and rural libraries.
3. Users
The most consistently reported impact of
movement-based programs was that these programs brought new users into libraries.
For each type of movement-based program offered, respondents were asked whether
the program had (coded to “2”) or had not (“1”) brought new users to their
libraries. A significant number of respondents (n=183, or 16% of the sample)
did not know the answer to this question. Nonetheless, among those libraries
that did know, the vast majority reported new users coming to libraries because
of their participation in movement-based programs. The overall average was
1.86. There was a significant difference between urban/suburban (M=1.904,
SD=0.228) and town/rural (M=1.817, SD=0.317) libraries, conditions:
t(972)=4.942 p=0.0001. In other words, the tendency for movement-based programs
to bring new users to libraries was more accentuated in urban libraries.
4. Media
Even more respondents (n=242, or 21% of the sample)
did not know whether or not the media had reported on their libraries’
movement-based programs. Nonetheless, among those who did know the answer to
this question, the composite average was 1.55 (“2”=Yes, “1”=No). Furthermore,
there with a statistically significant difference between urban/suburban
(M=1.505, SD=0.442) and town/rural (M=1.591, SD=0.446) libraries, conditions:
t(912)=2.958, p=0.0032. In other words, movement-based programs tended to
receive slightly more media coverage in more rural libraries.
5. Outcomes
Finally, respondents were asked, based on any
feedback and evidence they may have collected, if their movement-based programs
had contributed to health or wellness, community building, outreach, literacy,
or other outcomes. Overall, only slight variation existed between
urban/suburban and town/rural respondents (see Figure 4). Interestingly, the
most commonly reported outcome was not health or wellness (76%), but rather
community building (80%). In addition, over 50% of respondents said that at
least one of their movement-based programs had contributed to outreach (52%) or
to literacy (58%), suggesting that movement-based programs contribute to
multiple outcomes in the public libraries that offer them.
The final measure of the impact of movement-based
programs in public libraries comes from the answer to the question: Will
libraries continue to provide these types of programs in the future? Nearly 95%
of respondents (n=1094) said their libraries plan to continue offering
movement-based programs.
Discussion
Similar to the Library
Journal survey (2014) that asked about yoga programs in U.S., this study
found that movement-based programs have been offered for multiple age groups.
There does not appear to be any one primary age group for these types of
programs. Nevertheless, the high percentage of respondents that reported
programs for Pre-K youth suggests that movement may be most integrated into
library programs for this age group, an assertion bolstered by the many program
development tools that discuss how to incorporate movement into programs for
Pre-K audiences in public libraries (e.g. Dietzel-Glair, 2013; Kaplan, 2014;
Prato, 2014). The extent to which movement has been integrated into library
programs for other age groups is less clear. However, in at least some
libraries it does appear that movement-based programs for diverse age groups
has become a normal part of library programming.
In any case, the results from this survey also suggest
that urban and suburban libraries may be offering slightly different types of
programs than their rural and town counterparts. In particular, the survey
found that programs that do not require the use of an indoor meeting space, or
that take place outside the library (such as StoryWalks®, Outdoor activities,
Library of things initiatives, and Fitness challenges) were offered more often
in town and rural libraries than in urban and suburban libraries. On the other
hand, the differences reported were slight. More research will be needed to
determine if the types of movement-based programs offered in public libraries
differ by the types of communities served.
The evidence on the impacts of movement-based
programs adds to our understanding of how public libraries impact health and
wellness. Past research has investigated how public libraries impact health
through consumer health information services (e.g. Rubenstein, 2016), but has
not focused directly on the question of how public libraries impact health by
fostering active lifestyles. Being physically active throughout all stages of
life is one of the most important things people can do to be healthy (Kohl et
al., 2012). Better understanding the impacts of this emerging programming area
could potentially contribute to the development of tools to assess how public
libraries impact health and wellness, which could potentially be included in
the U.S.-based Project Outcome toolkit (Public Library Association,
2017), as well as in other assessment tools being developed elsewhere (Cole
& Ryan, 2016). Although more research is needed, the findings from this
exploratory study suggest that movement-based programs contribute both to
health and wellness as well as to community building. Furthermore, the fact that
so many libraries reported new users being brought to libraries because of
these types of programs suggests that these programs also contribute to
community engagement in libraries.
Limitations
The principal limitation of this work derives from
its exploratory nature. Rather than survey a randomized sample of all public
libraries in the U.S. and Canada, the researcher instead recruited a
self-selecting sample of public libraries, relying primarily on state and
provincial mediators to disseminate this survey to public librarians in their
regions. Future work should more rigorously test and refine these exploratory
results by using a randomized study design to enhance our knowledge and
understanding of how widespread these types of programs have become and what
impacts these types of programs have.
Despite this limitation, this study shows that many
public libraries throughout North America do offer a wide variety of
movement-based programs and most plan to continue offering these programs.
Based on these facts, more research is needed to understand why this
programming area has emerged, how it works, and what impacts it is having. In
addition to more quantitative data, we also need qualitative studies that look
in depth at the evolution and impacts of movement-based programs as they have
emerged and evolved in particular public libraries.
Conclusion
Past surveys of public libraries show that
movement-based programs have been offered in 20-30% of U.S. public libraries
(Bertot et al., 2015). Furthermore, case studies and journalistic reports show
that movement-based programs also occur elsewhere. Nonetheless, despite this
evidence little was known about the impacts these programs have had beyond the
particular cases discusses in past case studies and reports. This study added
to this literature by reporting data from a self-selecting sample of 1,157 U.S.
and Canadian public libraries that have offered movement-based programs. The
most consistently reported impact of movement-based programs in libraries is
that they bring new users into public libraries. Complicating assessment of the
impacts of these programs is the fact that a majority of respondents did no
assessment of their programs beyond counting the numbers of participants. The
need for more research on this topic is great; this article has sought to
provide needed evidence on this emerging programming area in order to support
future conversations and studies.
References
Anthony, C. (2016). Project Outcome: Looking back, looking forward. Public
Libraries Online, http://publiclibrariesonline.org/2016/01/project-outcome-looking-back-looking-forward/.
Bertot, J. C., Real, B., Lee, J., McDermott, A. J., & Jaeger, P. T. (2015). 2014 Digital Inclusion Survey: Survey Findings and Results.
University of Maryland, College Park: Information Policy & Access Center
(iPAC). http://digitalinclusion.umd.edu/sites/default/files/uploads/2014DigitalInclusionSurveyFinalRelease.pdf.
Cofell, J., Longair, B., & Weekes, L. (2015). Physical literacy in
the library or, how we ended up loaning out rubber chickens. PNLA Quarterly, 80(1), 34-36. https://arc.lib.montana.edu/ojs/index.php/pnla/article/view/295/218
Cole, B., & Ryan, P. (2016). Public libraries. In D. Koufogiannakis
& A. Brettle (Eds.), Being Evidence
Based in Library and Information Practice (pp. 105-120). London: Facet.
Dietzel-Glair, J. (2013). Books in
Motion: Connecting Preschoolers with Books through Art, Games, Movement, Music,
Playacting, and Props. Chicago: American Library Association.
EIFL. (2016). Keeping Fit in Romania: Pietrari Local Public Library
Helps the Community Get Back into Shape. http://www.eifl.net/eifl-in-action/creative-use-ict-innovation-award.
Engeszer, R. J., Olmstadt, W., Daley, J., Norfolk, M., Krekeler, K., Rogers,
M., Colditz, G., Anwuri, V.V., Morris, S., Voorhees, M., & McDonald, B.
(2016). Evolution of an academic–public library partnership. Journal of the
Medical Library Association: JMLA, 104(1),
62-66. doi: 10.3163/1536-5050.104.1.010
Flaherty, M. G., & Miller, D. (2016). Rural public libraries as community change agents: Opportunities for
health promotion. Journal of
Education for Library and Information Science, 57(2), 143-150.
Gillaspy, M. L. (2005). Factors affecting the provision of consumer
health information in public libraries: The last five years. Library Trends,
53(3), 480-495. http://hdl.handle.net/2142/1738
Green, J. (2013). Thoughts on the power of arts with older adults. Creative
Aging Toolkit for Public Libraries, http://creativeagingtoolkit.org/power-of-the-arts-with-older-adults/.
Hamwaalwa, N., Teasdale, R. M., McGuire, R., & Shuumbili, T. (2016).
Promoting innovation in Namibian libraries through leadership training. Proceedings
of IFLA 2016, http://library.ifla.org/1509/1/189-hamwaalwa-en.pdf.
Hanson, T. (2012). Featured: Estherville’s Couch-to-5K. The
Association for Small and Rural Libraries Blog, http://arsl.info/esthervilles-couch-to-5k/.
Institute of Museum and Library Services. (2016). Data File
Documentation. Public Libraries Survey. Fiscal Year 2014. Washington, D.C.:
Institute of Museum and Library Services. https://www.imls.gov/sites/default/files/fy2014_pls_data_file_documentation.pdf.
Hill, J. (2017). Book-a-Bike: Increasing access to physical activity with
a library card. In M. Robison & L. Shedd (Eds.), Audio Recorders to Zucchini Seeds: Building a Library of Things (pp.
43-51). Santa Barbara: Libraries Unlimited.
Kaplan, A. (2014). Get Up and Move! Why Movement is Part of Early
Literacy Skills Development. University of Wisconsin Madison School of
Library and Information Studies. http://vanhise.lss.wisc.edu/slis/2014webinars.htm.
Kohl, H. W., Craig, C. L., Lambert, E. V., Inoue, S., Alkandari, J. R.,
Leetongin, G., Kahlmeier, S.,& Lancet Physical Activity Series Working
Group. (2012). The pandemic of physical inactivity: global action for public
health. The Lancet, 380(9838), 294-305. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(12)60898-8
Lenstra, N. (2017). Let’s Move! Fitness programming in public libraries. Public Library Quarterly, 36(4), 1-20. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01616846.2017.1316150.
Library Journal. (2014). Public
Library Maker & Non-book Related Programming Report. Unpublished
manuscript, American Library Association.
Maddigan, B. C. & Bloos, S. C. (2013). Community library programs
that work: Building Youth and Family Literacy. Santa Barbara: Libraries
Unlimited.
Morgan, A. U., Dupuis, R., Whiteman, E. D., D’Alonzo, B., &
Cannuscio, C. C. (2017). “Our doors are open to everybody”: Public libraries as
common ground for public health. Journal
of Urban Health, 94(1), 1-3. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11524-016-0118-x
National Library Board of Singapore. (2017). Exercise Programs. https://www.nlb.gov.sg/golibrary2/c/30307529/result/term/exercise.
Nicholson, S. (2009). Go back to start: Gathering baseline data about
gaming in libraries. Library Review, 58(3), 203-214. https://doi.org/10.1108/00242530910942054
Oehlke, V. (2016). PLA President’s Report, ALA 2016 Annual Conference.
Chicago: Public Library Association. http://www.ala.org/pla/sites/ala.org.pla/files/content/about/board/vailey_oehlke_presidents_report.pdf.
Peterson, J. (2017). Growing library garden programs. WebJunction.
http://www.webjunction.org/news/webjunction/growing-library-garden-programs.html.
Prato, S. (2014). Music and movement at the library. Association for
Library Service to Children Blog, http://www.alsc.ala.org/blog/2014/11/music-and-movement-at-the-library/.
Public Library Association. (2017). Project
Outcome: Measuring the True Impact of Public Libraries. https://www.projectoutcome.org/.
Ryan, P. (2012). EBLIP and public libraries. Evidence Based Library and Information Practice, 7(1), 5-6. https://journals.library.ualberta.ca/eblip/index.php/EBLIP/article/view/16557/13672
Quatrella, L., & Blosveren, B. (1994). Sweat and self-esteem: A
public library supports young women. Wilson
Library Bulletin, 68(7), 34–36
Richmond, A. (2012). Running and reading at Rye public library. Granite
State Libraries, 48(3), 12. http://fliphtml5.com/gjox/riia/basic.
Rubenstein, E. L. (2016). Breaking health barriers: How can public
libraries contribute? Public Library Quarterly, 35(4), 331-337. https://doi.org/10.1080/01616846.2016.1245006
St. Louis County Library. (2014). Bean Stalk Ballet, 5.1.14. Flickr.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/slclevents/sets/72157644064466020/.
Vincent, J. (2014). An overlooked resource? Public libraries’ work with
older people–an introduction. Working
with Older People, 18(4):
214–222.
Weekes, L. & Longair, B. (2016). Physical literacy in the
library—Lethbridge Public Library, Lethbridge, Alberta, Canada. International
Information and Library Review, 48(2),
152-154.
Woodson, D. E., Timm, D. F., & Jones, D. (2011). Teaching kids about
healthy lifestyles through stories and games: Partnering with public libraries
to reach local children. Journal of
Hospital Librarianship, 11(1),
59-69. https://doi.org/10.1080/15323269.2011.538619
Zhu, J. (2017). Perfect Combination of Reading and Sports. Proceedings of IFLA 2017, http://library.ifla.org/id/eprint/1869.
Appendix
A
Let’s
Move in Libraries Survey
Q1. These questions ask for some background
information on your library. What is the zip code, or postal code, of your
library's physical location?
Q2. If you would like to provide it, what is the
name of your library?
Q3. Survey Part 1. This survey first asks about
programs or services your library has offered in the past or currently offers
in the present. At the end of the survey you will be given the opportunity
to discuss programs or services your library is planning, but has not yet
offered to the public. Has your library ever offered any programs or
services that include (select all that apply)? [Note: Responses to Q3
were carried forward for the remainder of the survey]
Movement-based
programs for early literacy (e.g. Music and Movement)
Yoga
Tai
Chi
Zumba
Dancing
Walking,
hiking, bicycling, or running
StoryWalks
Gardening
Fitness
challenges (e.g. pedometer challenge, biggest loser programs, Couch to 5K)
Fitness
equipment that can be checked out, including passes for gyms or aquatic centers
Other
programs or services
No
programs or services involving movement
Q3.B. [If “other programs or services”
selected than this question appears.] What other movement-based
programs or services has your library offered?
Q4. Survey Part 2. You are now invited to
participate in the second part of this survey. This part of the survey consists
of 16 questions that ask about the administration of the programs and services
your library offers, or has offered in the past. It should take about 10
minutes to complete. Would you like to participate in the second part of this
survey?
[If respondents select “no” they skip to Q26.]
Q5. These questions ask about the timing of programs
and services your library offers, or has offered. [Carried forward
programs] first offered by your library:
After
Jan. 1, 2016
Before
Jan. 1, 2016
Don’t
know
Q6. Since your library started offering these
programs and services, how regularly, on average, has your library offered
them to the public? [Carried forward programs] offered:
Only
once
More
frequently than once a month
Once
a month
Less
frequently than once a month
Not
applicable
Don’t
know
Q7. On which days and times has your library offered
the following [Carried forward programs] (select all that apply)
Weekday
mornings
Weekday
afternoons
Weekday
evenings
Weekend
mornings
Weekend
afternoons
Weekend
evenings
Not
applicable
Don’t
know
Q8. These questions ask about who these
programs/services are for, and also who participates in them. For which
audiences are these [Carried forward programs] targeted? (select
all that apply)
Youth,
birth-5
School-aged
youth
Tweens
and teens
Adults
Senior
Citizens
Families
All
ages
Don’t
know
Q9. How would you characterize participation levels
in these programs? [Carried forward programs] participation:
Exceeded
expectations
Met
expectations
Fell
below expectations
Don’t
know
Q10. This question asks about the reasons your
library offers these programs. For each of the programs your library
offers, please indicate which of the following are reasons for the program. If
multiple reasons, please select multiple responses.
Lifelong
learning
Literacy
Health
and/or wellness
Community
engagement
Other
Don’t
know
Q11. Please discuss other reasons, if any, your
library offers these programs.
Q12. These questions ask about how programs and
services in your library relate to other spaces and programs in your service
area. Please answer to the best of your ability. Where are your library's
programs and services physically located?
Within
a community room or auditorium located within the library
Within
another space in the library
Outside
the library
Not
applicable
Don’t
know
Q13. If you have other information about the
location of these programs and services, please record it here.
Q14. Who leads or directs these programs and
services? (select all that apply). [Carried forward programs] led
by:
Librarians
or library paraprofessionals
Paid
contractors
Partner
institutions or groups
Individual
volunteers
Other
Don’t
know
Q15. If your library developed these programs and
services with partners (e.g. parks departments, public health departments,
YMCAs, etc.), please specify who these partners are here.
Q16. These questions ask about the management and
administration of these programs and services. Are these programs/services
under the supervision of a particular division of your library? If so, which
ones. (Select all that apply). [Carried forward programs]
supervised by:
The
library as a whole
Adult
services
Teen
services
Youth
services
Programming,
outreach, or lifelong learning staff
Other
Don’t
know
Q17. If needed, please discuss here how these
programs and services fit within your organizational hierarchy.
Q18. For the following programs and services, are
any of the following ever required? (select all that apply). [Carried
forward programs] sometimes or always require participants:
Register
in advance
Sign
a waiver of liability
Pay
a fee
Do
something else
No
requirements for participation
Don’t
know
Q19. How are these programs and services funded?
(select all that apply). [Carried forward programs] funded by:
Regular
library budget
Programming
budget
Friends
of the Library
Donations
Grants
Other
Don’t
know
Q20. How have programs been marketed? (select all
that apply). [Carried forward programs] marketed through:
Print
flyers
Newspaper
advertisements or articles
Website
Online
calendar
Social
media
Word
of mouth
Other
Don’t
know
Q21. How have the programs and services been
assessed (select all that apply)? ). [Carried forward programs]
assessed through:
Head
counts of participants
Surveys
of participants
Interviews
with participants
No
assessment
Other
Don’t
know
Q22. What other administrative issues or challenges
has your library had to address in organizing these programs and services?
Q23. These questions ask about the impacts of these
programs and services. Has the media reported on the fact that your
library is offering [Carried forward programs]?
Yes
No
Don’t
know
Q24. This question asks about how these programs and
services engage your community. Have these [Carried forward programs]
brought new users into your library?
Yes
No
Don’t
know
Q25. Based on feedback and evidence you have collected,
have these [Carried forward programs] contributed to any of the
following (select all that apply)?
Health
and/or wellness
Literacy
Community
building
Outreach
Other
Don’t
know
Q25.b. If "other impacts" selected, please
discuss them here.
Q26. In the future, does your library plan to
provide any programs or services that include (select all that apply)?
Movement-based
programs for early literacy (e.g. Music and Movement)
Yoga
Tai
Chi
Zumba
Dancing
Walking,
hiking, bicycling, or running
StoryWalks
Gardening
Fitness
challenges (e.g. pedometer challenge, biggest loser programs, Couch to 5K)
Fitness
equipment that can be checked out, including passes for gyms or aquatic centers
Other
programs or services
No
programs or services involving movement
Q26.b. [If “other programs or services”
selected than this question appears.] What other movement-based
programs or services does your library plan to offer in the future?
Q27. Thank you for taking the time to fill out this
survey. If you have additional comments about these programs or services, or
about this survey, please record them here.
Q28. If you would like to be entered into the raffle
for one of the ten (10) $50 gift certificates from Amazon.com, please record
your email address here.
2017 Lenstra. This is an Open Access article
distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons‐Attribution‐Noncommercial‐Share Alike License 4.0 International (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/),
which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium,
provided the original work is properly attributed, not used for commercial
purposes, and, if transformed, the resulting work is redistributed under the
same or similar license to this one.
