Addition: Reservable spaces and usage

[klow-air]

Name:
LWSG

Description of Change:
Addition of reservable spaces (incl. meeting rooms) based on round 2 of testing during FY 2025. We tested two versions, first with reservable spaces, then with meeting rooms and other reservable spaces separately, after which the LSWG agreed that a single item for reservable spaces and another for usage of reservable spaces should be tested again and considered for FY 2026.

These are the version of definitions tested in round 2:

1. Number of meeting rooms: A meeting room is a separate room that can accommodate more than one person. Count meeting rooms available for both reserved and non-reserved use, as long as the meeting rooms can be reserved by members of the public. Count meeting rooms available for public use, even if they are also used for nonpublic events (e.g., library staff meetings).
2. Number of times members of the public reserved meeting rooms: Count the number of reservations, not the number of attendees. If a room was reserved for a multi-day event, count each day as a separate reservation. For example, if a group reserved the meeting room on Friday and Saturday, count this as two reservations. Count both free and paid reservations, and count reservations both during and outside regular library hours. Do not count times when members of the public used the meeting room without a reservation. Do not include reservations for library programs.
3. Number of other reservable spaces: Other reservable spaces are designated areas within the library (e.g., alcove, corner) that members of the public can reserve. Count spaces available for both reserved and non-reserved use, as long as the spaces can be reserved by members of the public. Count spaces available for public use, even if they are also used for nonpublic events (e.g., library staff meetings). Do not count meeting rooms (as defined above).
4. Number of times members of the public reserved other reservable spaces: Count the number of reservations, not the number of attendees. If a space was reserved for a multi-day event, count each day as a separate reservation. For example, if a group reserved the space on Friday and Saturday, count this as two reservations. Count both free and paid reservations, and count reservations both during and outside regular library hours. Do not count times when members of the public used the space without a reservation. Do not include reservations for library programs. Do not include reservations for meeting rooms (as defined above).

Here is the recommendation after the second round of testing:

Efforts to measure meeting rooms separately from other reservable spaces proved to be challenging for several respondents. Major challenges included determining how to categorize spaces into one of the two options (e.g., where to include study rooms), understanding the rationale for capturing these types of spaces separately, and deciding whether to count walk-up or time-of-use reservations in the count of reservations. We recommend that IMLS consider further revisions to the items relating to reservable spaces to a) clarify that reservations include those made at time of use and b) help ensure that respondents correctly count and allocate meeting rooms and other reservable spaces. Regarding clarification on how to count and allocate meeting rooms and other reservable spaces, we suggest that IMLS revert to a consolidated “reservable spaces” item similar to that which was tested in round 1, while also retaining the clarifying language added in round 2.

Justification:
Will show how libraries are additionally offering services to patrons and how some of the square footage of a library is used.

Potential methodological issues:
None

[mgolrick]

Louisiana collected #1 & 2 of this suggestion for a couple years. I had expected it to be added sooner. It was not particularly burdensome to collect -- the number of spaces is not something likely to change often (without having some other changes). I did get push-back on the number of uses. And that definition should have the "not including library programs" at the very beginning (and some libraries will still ignore that!).

Here is the biggest question that is not answered in these definitions -- study rooms are smaller than meeting rooms. They should be specifically mentioned in #3.

In general, I would support this. It helps quantify the importance of the public library as place, and demonstrates the value of the library in the community.

[enielsen-air]

I added some more context and clarification for these items to the description above, namely that the recommendation after two rounds of testing is to ask a single number of reservable spaces (including meeting rooms, study rooms, and other spaces), and a single number of uses of those spaces.

[sadie-bruce-ok]

This line is confusing to me: Count meeting rooms available for both reserved and non-reserved use, as long as the meeting rooms can be reserved by members of the public.

It says count a meeting room available for non-reserved use but then says only count it if the meeting room can be reserved. It seems contradictory.

[enielsen-air]

@sadie-bruce-ok , if a room can be reserved but is also available for walk-in use (without a reservation) then it counts. That's what the sentence is trying to convey. Maybe a simpler way to say it is that the room has to be reservable but every use doesn't have to be a reservation. That phrasing also could get confusing because, for the usage item, we are asking only to count reservations.

[JHoganHI]

In the last two fiscal years, we've started collecting meeting room usage each month using a Microsoft Form. Libraries self-report the number of uses. Only a portion of our libraries have meeting rooms. No libraries have smaller study rooms. We don't ask for number of attendees. We also added a question to count requests for meeting rooms. This works well for locations that do not have them, but get phone calls asking if they do, therefore showing community need.

[angelakfox]

I applaud this attempt to quantify this sort of reservable space and usage without being overly burdensome to the libraries! Indiana has asked about meeting room usage for years in an attempt to track/demonstrate the idea that the library provides this third space to the public, but without getting into the weeds of our questions, I think these are much more precise and likely to generate reliable numbers.

I will add my support to the suggested revision which clarified that reservations include those made at time of use. I discussed this data element proposal at an Annual Report focus group I had put together for my state just to get their feedback. Their immediate question - "What about people who walk in, see the room is empty, and ask if they can use it? - is addressed head on by this revision. And as for the element overall, they were largely positive. The appreciated that it tracked "reservation" versus "bodies in the room," as the latter can prove quite difficult to record for some busy libraries. (The lone voice of dissention did herself point out that it would be easy enough to continue counting number of people for their own, internal stats.)