For over one hundred years, librarians have recognized the need for knowledge of the community to be served. Writing for Library Journal in 1896, Mary Cutler identified community study as an essential element of librarianship, exhorting the librarian to study the community "that he may catch the spirit of the civic life and relate the library to the whole...that he may select books, establish branches, open up new avenues of communication between the library and the people."1 In 1919, Charles Williamson noted that "no more important responsibility rests upon library administrators and trustees than this duty of understanding clearly all the library needs of the community."2 Beginning with the first published community study of Jewish immigrants using the Brownsville branch of the Brooklyn Public Library in 1908,3 librarians have sought to learn the history, culture, religion, politics, education, occupations, values, interests and lifestyles of immigrants and natives, juveniles and adults, city-dwellers and rural residents, the wealthy and the poor, registered borrowers and non-users, the literate and the illiterate. As one of the early researchers admitted, "many of the first results were, no doubt, superficial and impressionistic, but our stock of useful human information rapidly increased."4
In the 1930s, faculty members from the Graduate Library School of the University of Chicago led the field by practicing, developing and teaching community analysis techniques. Much of this work is summarized by Carnovsky and Martin in The Library in the Community: Papers Presented before the Library Institute at the University of Chicago August 23-28, 1943,5 and by Berelson in his distinguished work, The Library's Public,6 published in 1949 as part of the Public Library Inquiry, a project instigated by the American Library Association and conducted by the Social Science Research Council. Over time, library professionals began to incorporate a variety of techniques in their community research, using census data7, market analysis of potential users8, and information about community organizations9 to gain knowledge of their communities and design appropriate services. By 1976, the practice of community analysis was well established, evidenced by an entire issue of Library Trends devoted to the topic.10 In that issue Charles Evans provides a comprehensive "History of Community Analysis in American Librarianship" in which he concludes that community analysis "is as basic to library management as the physician's diagnosis is to the practice of medicine" and that "its use in librarianship is a mark of professionalism." He points out, however, that methods used in community analysis, up to that time, had been primarily descriptive surveys and historical studies which, while helpful in describing the status quo, did not answer the questions which library managers most need. Experimental research, he offered, should be added to the descriptive methodologies to uncover "the real needs which they [the members of the community] may not even recognize themselves."11
Heeding this advice, a structured form of community analysis was defined by Greer and Hale in 1982 which incorporates a variety of techniques used by social science researchers into "a systematic process of collecting, organizing and analyzing data about the library and its environment." The Community Analysis Research Institute (CARI) model begins with a focus on the community from four perspectives (individuals, groups, agencies and lifestyles), and incorporates both quantitative and qualitative research methods to collect a variety of data including demographic characteristics, history of the community, topographical features, transportation routes and traffic patterns, commercial activities, communication patterns, housing, education, cultural activities, health facilities, employment, recreation and entertainment, and the characteristic lifestyles of the community and its sub-cultures. Acknowledging that "one's philosophy of librarianship" as well as "intuition and professional judgment" are inevitable in any analysis, their "systematic and overlapping processes of data collection and organization...force conclusions and recommendations to emerge from data rather than opinion alone." Only when a clear understanding of the needs and interests of the community have been established, note Greer and Hale, can library professionals determine what type of library the community needs, what functions need to be emphasized, and which levels of service are appropriate. Only then, are information professionals" ready to develop goals and objectives, policies, procedures and strategies for becoming and maintaining a library customized to [their] own community."12
During the recession of the eighties, community analysis gained increased import, not only as a learning tool for library administrators but, as an imperative for the future existence of libraries. In an assessment of what community can and cannot do, Zweizig asserts that "community analysis can increase the support of the library in terms both of funding and of use."13 Likewise, Barron and Curran recognized that community research matters a great deal: "In fact, the extent to which people will be supportive of libraries and will provide money for them to continue to exist depends on the extent to which libraries address the real needs of those people."14 In 1983, Saunders notes that "in time of economic hardship the public library becomes more rather than less important to the community" and that "without the support of the whole community, the public libraries may not survive the recession."15 Similarly, Harris cautioned in 1989 that "declining circulation figures and threatened budgets are some of the issues which make it essential for libraries [of all types] to target their products to the satisfaction of customer needs." 16 In that same year, Robinson declared that the future of public libraries "lies in responsiveness to the very people our libraries were created to serve, the people who provide the funds to serve their interests."17
This imperative continues into the nineties as economics and technology create rapid change in both information needs and information agencies. In 1988, Nielsen recommended that "a more complete and comprehensive service model for librarianship is needed, which takes into account the full range of information needs in our society as well as the information technologies that may be shaped to meet those needs."18 Information needs become more complex as our society becomes more diverse. Diversity in our profession has not kept pace with the diversity in our communities. As professionals, we must endeavor to understand the needs of diverse communities, of people much different from ourselves. Guerena found community analysis particularly useful in Latino librarianship because the conclusions "proceed from broad-based quantitative as well as qualitative information,"19 and Evans points out that "community needs assessment data are essential" when considering service to culturally diverse populations.20 Continued and continual research is necessary, notes Durrance, so that libraries can "effectively meet the needs of society in the 21st century."21 Technological changes now offer libraries of all sized the opportunity to better serve the needs of their communities. The volume of information available, however, is overwhelming for both the customer and the librarian. The plethora of information sources and the cost of implementing new technologies, in terms both of finances and human resources, forces library administrators to make difficult decisions. Grover and Carabell summarize the current situation for libraries succinctly:
Our swift progression into the information age presents information professionals with the daunting task of managing an abundance of diverse resources and a clientele. As information needs become more complex and information sources become more elaborate, new approaches must be found to ensure the ongoing provision of customized information services.20
While community analysis is not new, the current authors found it to be an invaluable tool in deciphering the needs of a diverse community, eliciting specific recommendations for developing customized library facilities and services, and, along the way, discovered new approaches for sharing this information with library decision-makers and stakeholders.
1. Cutler, Mary S. "Two Fundamentals," Library Journal 21: 448, Oct. 1896.
2. Williamson, C. C. "Efficiency in Library Management," Library Journal 44: 70, Feb. 1919.
3. Solis-Cohen, Leon M. "Library Work in the Brooklyn Ghetto," Library Journal 33: 485-88, Dec. 1908.
4. Frank, Mary, and Carr, John F. "Exploring a Neighborhood," Century Magazine 98: 375-77, Jul. 1919.
5. Carnovsky, Lean and Martin, Lowell, eds. The Library in the Community. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1944.
6. Berelson, Bernard. The Library's Public. New York: Columbia University Press, 1949.
7. Kunz, Arthur H. "The Use of Data Gathering Instruments in Library Planning," Library Trends. 24(3): 459-72, Jan. 1976.
8. Massey, Morris E. "Market Analysis and Audience Research for Libraries," Library Trends 24(3): 473-82, Jan. 1976.
9. Javelin, Muriel C. "Analyzing Information Needs of Local Community Organizations: A Case Study," Library Trends 24(3): 527-40, Jan. 1976.
10. Bone, Larry Earl, (Ed.) Community Analysis and Libraries [Special Issue]. Library Trends 24(3), Jan. 1976.
11. Evans, Charles. "A History of Community Analysis in American Librarianship," Library Trends 24(3): 441-57, Jan. 1976.
12. Greer, Roger C. and Hale, Martha L. "The Community Analysis Process." In Jane Robbins-Carter, ed. Public Librarianship: A Reader. Englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited, Inc., 1982: 358-367.
13. Zweizig, Douglas. "Community Analysis." In Local Public Library Administration, 2nd rev. ed. American Library Association, 1980: 38-42.
14. Barron, Daniel and Curran, Charles. "A Look at Community Analysis: Some Myths and Some Realities" Public Libraries 20(1) Spring 1981: 29-30.
15. Saunders, Ann "Community Services: The Future of Public Libraries" SLA News 175: 11,13-14, May-Jun. 1983.
16. Harris, Denise. "Community Surveys" Cape Librarian 33(2): 4-5, Feb. 1989.
17. Robinson, Charles. "Can We Save the Public's Library?" Library Journal 114(14): 147-152, Sep. 1989.
18. Nielsen, Brian. "The Role of the Public Services Librarian: the New Revolution." In Anne J Matthews, ed. Rethinking the Library in the Information Age: A Summary of Issues in Library Research. Washington, DC: Office of Library Programs, Educational Research and Improvement, U.S. Department of Education, 1988: 179-200.
19. Guerena, Salvador. "Community Analysis and Needs Assessment." In Guerena, Salvador, ed. Latino Librarianship: A Handbook for Professionals. Jefferson, NC: McFarland, 1990: 17-23.
20. Evans, G. Edward. "Needs Analysis and Collection Development Policies for Culturally Diverse Populations" Collection Building 11(4): 16-27, 1992.
21. Durrance, Joan C. "Research Needs in Public Librarianship." In McClure, Charles R. and Peter Hernon, eds. Library and Information Science Research. Norwood, NJ: Ablex, 1991: 279-295.
22. Grover, Robert and Carabell, Janet. "Toward Better Information Service: Diagnosing Information Needs" Special Libraries 86(1): 1-10, Win. 1995.