Library Circulation Surpasses 3 Million
Last year we announced that items circulated during the 2003-04 year passed the 2 million mark. This year, we circulated just over 3 million items. This new circulation record represents a 33% increase and the highest annual percentage of increase in the Library's history.
We are also experiencing growth in other key areas. Our buildings were visited 1.3 million times, an 8% increase. Attendance at programs increased 14%, over 51,000, and more individuals used library computers than ever before...223,000 logins represent a 37% increase over last year.
The need to expand our space and adapt to the needs and interests of the community is clear. Let us know what you need from the Library.
Comments
How do you account for an 8% increase in visits generating a 33% increase in circulation? Is everyone checking out 3 books instead of 2?
This is also interesting in its contrast with this article
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/08/23/tech/main791462.shtml
which describes how the UT undergrad library removed all of its books.
I would guess that renewing materials from home via computer probably accounts for a significant amount of the increase in circulation over the last few years.
Do we count a renewal the same way we count the original checkout? That doesn't seem right.
What's wrong with it? How is a renewal different than returning a book and checking it out again the next day? Both involve a transaction and the book being unavailable to anyone else.
I read a lot and have 16 items checked out right now in a Darwinian rotation. I renew everything online about once a week. When an item comes up as not renewable, I decide whether to move it to the top of the stack, or to return it unread. When I return an item unread, I usually put in a new request for it.
What are we trying to measure? How do other libraries count circulation? If everyone counts a renewal the same as a "new" circulation, then the numbers are roughly comparable. I say roughly because I would use a different system if I had to visit the library, or even call, to renew, and my circulation would go down dramatically.
If the purpose is to report the highest number possible, then the current system is probably optimal.
I'm curious, though, what is the trend in "new" circulation? That would be items circulated, not counting renewals. Are we setting records there too? How about new circulation per capita?
Mark
Congratulations! What a great quantitative measure to back up what we (your visitors) see every day: a phenomenal library experience.
I agree with Tmad's comment. I don't know what I would do without the AADL. Certainly, I would spend a lot more of my hard-earned on books than I do now.
I am wondering if there are better metrics than circulation to measure success, or that would reveal services the AADL would be wise to offer or enhance.
As we all know, the Internet changed everything. Focusing on the number of physical items circulated as a measure of success seems short sighted as it is unlikely to be where the action is as we move forward.
I know that Josie and Eli think about these things a lot more than I do. What metrics are *you* looking at to assess future success?
Other ways a library tries to gauge if its meeting its goals is by asking people to fill out surveys from time to time, getting them to fill out little forms after programs, and counting foot traffic. But surveys only capture a small chunk of users, and may not be representative of the whole commuity, while foot traffic can be hard to quantify.
I sometimes wonder at how lucky I was to grow up in a town with a thriving library. Libraries with grants to fund technology or programs usually have to statistically account for whether or not the grant has been put to good use. When their grants run out, so does the service.
When I visited the Les Cheneaux Islands Community Library in Cedarville I was asked to write how much time I had used the wireless internet access, so as to demonstrate that the grant money was being put to good use. I made my whole family get cards there even though I could have checked out books for them, because the more cards issued by the library, the more funding they were elligible to recieve(whether this was funding from the UP Library consortium or the government or whatever, I don't know). If they use the library but don't bother to sign in or get a card, they are invisible to the bean-counters.
Mark, you have to realize that your methodology is probably not usual, and yes, I suppose they could count renewals separately but as someone said above, a transaction that takes the books out off the shelf is a circulation transaaction, so it gets counted.
I don't think their goal is to artificially inflate numbers at all. The increase is simply the by-product of a terrific service that has greatly improved my library experience.
I certainly appreciate all of the attention our circulation figures are getting on the blog. We do count renewals as a transaction and have for years. That means that our percentage increases over the past years is based on an "apple to apple" comparison. Whether renewals should be counted as a transaction equal to the primary check out is a question that is batted around in our industry. Most libraries count renewals because the material is in use and not available for check out.
The difference between our increase in building usage and circulation is due to the success of online services, including renewal. We don't limit renewals if requests are not outstanding on items either. It doesn't make sense to us to require the return of an item simply to have it reshelved and then checked out again to the same patron, or worse, to have an item returned when multiple copies of the title and format are available.
By drawing attention to increases in circulation, building usage, program attendance, and computing usage, I had hoped to highlight some of the factors that play such a key role in our determination that space should be expanded and services developed to meet community need and demand. I'm very happy to see this conversation take place.
We are looking at other ways to measure community satisfaction and we do hold focus groups and conduct surveys for major changes. Suggestions for other types of interaction and what we should be asking are welcome.