View Project

G2S Project Code: 2020-CT-86394
State: Connecticut
Fiscal Year: 2020
Grantee
Connecticut State Library

Project Director
Director Name: Kymberlee Powe
Director Phone: 860-704-2207
Director Email: kymberlee.powe@ct.gov
General Information
Title: Summer Reading
State Project Code:
Start Date: 10/01/2019
End Date: 09/30/2021
Abstract: In 2021, the CT State Library shared login information with 102 libraries and provided a new Collaborative Summer Reading manual for public libraries in digital format only.  The manual was no longer broken up by age, but my Tails and Tales topic and instructions for modifying programs for various age groups or families. The Division of Library Development Youth Services Consultant compiled 5 levels of summer reading lists for the ninth consecutive year. CT State Library continued to provide libraries with free access to online tracking software and carried on with READSquared. Participants could report books read,pages read, days read, paragraphs read, hours read, or any combination of methods mentioned. The READsquared software also allowed libraries to track volunteer hours, and summer participation in multiple ways. Due to the pandemic, libraries continued to offer virtual and pre-recorded programming, as well as running outdoor programming,

State Goal: Libraries as Community Anchors
Budget Information
LSTA
MATCH-State
MATCH-Other
Total
$50,000.00
$0.00
$0.00
$50,000.00
Intent(s)
Improve users' formal education.
Reading Program (Not Summer Reading)
Activities
Activity Details
Title: Tracking
Narrative:

The largest change to this year’s summer program was how data was collected. In the past the state has collected output data (number of books read; number of minutes read…). This year, the state asked for impact-based data in the form of a survey. Summer reading participants of all ages rated statements such as “I felt welcomed at the library.” and “I learned something at the library this summer.”


Intent: Improve users' formal education.

Activity: Planning & Evaluation
Mode: Retrospective
Format: In-house


Quantity
Number of evaluations and/or plans funded: 1
Number of funded evaluation and/or plans completed: 1


Partner Information
Organization Type of Partner Organization(s):
Libraries: No
Historical Societies or Organizations: No
Museums: No
Archives: No
Cultural Heritage Organization Multi-type: No
Preschools: No
Schools: No
Adult Education: No
Human Service Organizations: No
Other: No


Legal Type of Partner Organization(s):
Federal Government: No
State Government: No
Local Government (excluding school districts): No
School District: No
Non-Profit: No
Private Sector: No
Tribe/Native Hawaiian Organization: No


Beneficiaries
Is the activity directed at the library workforce: Yes
For a targeted group or for the general population: General


Locale
Is the activity state-wide: Yes
Specific Locations: No
Library Types
Public Libraries: 109
Academic Libraries: 0
SLAA: 0
Consortia: 0
Special Libraries: 0
School Libraries: 0
Other: 0
Question 1: I believe the planning and evaluation addresses library needs.
Strongly Agree: 0
Agree: 0
Neither Agree nor Disagree: 0
Disagree: 0
Strongly Disagree: 0
Non-Response: 0
Question 2: I am satisfied with the extent to which the plan or evaluation addresses library needs.
Strongly Agree: 0
Agree: 0
Neither Agree nor Disagree: 0
Disagree: 0
Strongly Disagree: 0
Non-Response: 0
Question 3: I believe the information from the plan or evaluation will be applied to address library needs.
Strongly Agree: 0
Agree: 0
Neither Agree nor Disagree: 0
Disagree: 0
Strongly Disagree: 0
Non-Response: 0
Project Outcomes
Project Outcomes
List any important outcomes or findings not previously reported:
Through the state of Connecticut, libraries ran 3,277 programs and activities that 170,249 patrons participated in. The 109 participating libraries collected 4,163 surveys and based off results, 54% of patrons strongly agreed that they were made to feel welcome at the library this summer. 45% of participants strongly agreed that they learned something because of activities offered by the libraries. 50% of participants strongly agreed that they received help from library staff this summer.
Please briefly describe the importance of these outcomes and findings for future program planning:
We intend to use this patron data to evaluate the effectiveness of current summer reading programs throughout the state, provide libraries with training opportunities in identified areas where more support is needed, and begin to look at summer reading with the mindset the libraries fulfill community needs. Next year the CT State Library will move to the iRead program, which will also facilitate more impact-based summer programming.
Explain one or two of the most significant lessons learned for others wanting to adopt any facets of this project:
Regional collaboration is important. In 2021, CT partnered with Massachusetts and Rhode Island and created the Annual Tri-State Summer Summit. The summit was a day and a half and featured keynote speaker Abdul Razak Zachariah. Zachariah is the winner of the CT Book Awards in the picture book category, grew up in West Haven, CT and currently attends Harvard University. The state Youth Consultants put together a presentation on the background of Collaborative Summer Reading Program and the services it provides, the importance of outcome-based data, and collecting patron experiences to tell the story of your library. The second day we held four sessions featuring different library programs and experiences across the three states. Our sessions were: “Bend, Don’t Break: Library Flexibility in a Changing World”; “Using Podcasting to Reach the Community”; “Realizing Reading Realities: Reaching Across the Schools and Public Library Divide During the Pandemic”; and “Keeping it Fresh and Fun: Avoiding Summer Burnout.” Each session had anywhere from 82 to 223 unique viewers.
Do you anticipate continuing this project after the current reporting period ends:
Yes
Do you anticipate any change in level of effort in managing this project:
No
Explain:

Do you anticipate changing the types of activities and objectives addressed by the project:
No
Explain:

Was an evaluation conducted for this project:
Yes
Was a final written evaluation report produced:
No
Can the final written evaluation report be shared publicly on the IMLS website:
No
Was the evaluation conducted by project staff (either SLAA or local library) or by a third-party evaluator:
Third-Party
What data collection tools were used for any report outcomes and outputs:
Did you collect any media for the data:
What types of methods were used to analyze collected data:
Other:
How were participants (or items) selected:
What type of research design did you use to compare the value for any reported output or outcome:
Exemplary: No
Exemplary Narrative
Project Tags: