Exploring Milwaukee Public Library Partnership Opportunities

1. Exploring Milwaukee Public Library Partnership Opportunities Prepared for the Milwaukee Public Library By: Peter Dermody Sarah Hurley Emily Reynolds Ted Schuster SoumaryVongrassamy Monica Wedgewood

2. Introduction • Background • Problem Statement • Potential Partners • Methodology • Partnership Options • Evaluation • Recommendation

3. Current Library Trends

4. Current Library Trends

5. Problem Statement • MPL goals: • Broaden reach in the Milwaukee community • Attract the general mix of the City's population • Respond to evolving constituent needs • Our report analyzes if and how academic library partnership can help MPL meet these goals.

6. Potential Partner Libraries • University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee (UWM) • Marquette University • Milwaukee Area Technical College (MATC)

7. Methodology • Partnership Options: • Library card access • Meeting space • Courier service • Searchable catalog • Programming • Satellite collections • Joint-use library facility • Criteria: • Realizing efficiency • Enhancing services • Expanding capacity • Willingness and feasibility of potential partners

8. Programming Options • Community Reads • Events based on one book hosted across the community by each partner • Cultural • Partners coordinate community learning opportunities • Utilizing partner expertise and resources

9. Programming Options • Service-Learning Programming • Students volunteer in coordination with courses • Public Health Literacy Programming • Regularly scheduled drop-in sessions for community members to access health information • Librarian Training Programming • UWM School of Information Studies • Children’s services, outreach, and branch services

10. Satellite Collection Option • Small number of MPL's popular materials loaned to academic partners • Academic partners house and maintain the loaned materials • Provides MPL with an initial physical presence on the campuses • Potential opportunity cost related to availability of materials

11. Evaluation • Most Efficient for MPL (cost) • Service-Learning • Health Literacy • Satellite Collection • Best Enhances MPL Services • Community Reads • Cultural Programming • Best Expands MPL Capacity • Service-Learning • Health Literacy • Most MPL/Partner Interest • Cultural Programming • Service-Learning • Health Literacy • Most Feasible for MPL/Partner • Cultural Programming  • Service-Learning • Health Literacy

12. Recommendations • Implementservice-learning programming • Most feasible, increases services, limited budgetary cost • Implement community reads, public health literacy, librarian training, and cultural programming as well • Moderate costs, would improve quality and quantity of services MPL provides to community  • Pursue satellite collection option after initial partnership relationships are established • Feasibility for partners is low

13. Special Thanks Paula Kiely and Joan Johnson, Milwaukee Public Library  Eric Pearson, City of Milwaukee Division of Budget and Management Melissa Berger, Erika Cheng, Paco Fuchs, Emily Ley, and Lara Rosen Professor Andrew Reschovsky Karen Faster, La Follette School of Public Affairs

14. For further information Contact the La Follette School’s publications office at 608-263-7657 or publications@lafollette.wisc.edu Or see www.lafollette.wisc.edu/publications/workshops.html Thank you

15. San Jose King Library (Joint-use facility) • Partnership between San Jose State University and the city of San Jose • $177 million facility that opened in 2003 • Funding split 66.5% (SJSU) and 33.5% (City of San Jose) • A marriage between each partner library • Separate staffs, material purchases, and budgets • Share access to space, material circulation, and personnel resources • Potential Challenges • Political environment, personnel and management alignment