MAY.2018 , ^
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR
CHICAGO PUBLIC LIBRARY STAFFING AUDIT
JOSEPH M. FERGUSON INSPECTOR GENERAL
CITY OF CHICAGO OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 740 NORTH SEDGWICK STREET, SUITE 200 CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60654 TELEPHONE: (773) 478-7799 FAX (773) 478-3949
MAY 2, 2018
TO THE MAYOR, MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL, THE CITY CLERK, THE CITY TREASURER, AND THE RESIDENTS OF THE CITY OF CHICAGO:
The City of Chicago Office of Inspector General (OIG) has completed an audit evaluating the design and implementation of the Chicago Public Library's (CPL) staffing plan, which allocates positions among CPL's 80 library locations. The objectives of the audit were to determine whether CPL's staffing plan followed industry guidance and was an effective and efficient tool for allocating human resources among CPL libraries.
While CPL's staffing plan improves upon its previous uniform staffing approach, OIG determined that due to deficiencies in its design and implementation, the plan is not sufficient to align library branch staffing with community needs.
Referring to staffing industry guidance from the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) and the American Library Association (ALA), OIG identified several flaws in the design of CPL's staffing plan. We also found deficiencies in how CPL implemented the plan, such as not collecting and using all relevant data, and not consistently assigning staff to libraries at the prescribed levels.
These flaws in the design and implementation of CPL's staffing plan may contribute to inefficient use of CPL's human resources. Some staff reported performing tasks that fell outside their job descriptions and for which they were overqualified. For example, Clerks and Librarians reported regularly engaging in sorting and shelving, tasks normally done by Library Pages. In another instance, a Clerk at a library serving a largely Hispanic community told OIG that her status as the only bilingual staff member made it a practical necessity for her to perform tasks outside her job description on a regular basis. One branch manager told us that "many positions perform many roles," which in some cases results in personnel spending time on activities that could be done more cost-effectively by employees holding other titles.
CPL's commendable intention to take a more strategic approach to meeting community needs through a tailored staffing plan still leaves considerable room for improvement. In this report, we make a number of recommendations to enhance the
WWWCHICACOINSPF.CTORG[fNfcRAI. ORG | OIG MPLINb (366) 448 4/54 | TTY (773) 478 2066
design and implementation of the staffing plan, including involving stakeholders
such as library employees, as well as board and community members, in redesigning the plan to utilize measurable factors and ensure that libraries are appropriately staffed to meet local needs.
CPL agreed with some OIG recommendations, stating that it will revise its staffing plan to better align the factors considered with available data, and will develop a policy that codifies application of the plan. Management noted that the staffing plan is not fully implemented, but that CPL seeks to implement it incrementally as vacancies and reassignments permit. CPL disagreed with OIG's recommendation to disseminate the plan to all library employees, and declined to involve the library board and community members in redesigning the plan, stating that senior staff regularly "reports up and down the organizational structure" regarding staffing needs and strategies. As CPL works to improve its staffing plan, we encourage periodic consideration of how changes in community composition and demand for services may affect the staffing needs of each library.
We thank CPL management and staff for their full cooperation during this audit.
Joseph M. Ferguson Inspector General City of Chicago
WWW CHICACOINSPBC rORGENERAI. ORG | OIG UPLINE (866) 448-47'i4 | TTY ('773) 478-7066
Respectfully,
OIG FILE #16-0363
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY|910|BACKGROUND|910|
CPL STAFFING AND COSTS|910|CPL LIBRARY STAFFING PLAN|910|STAFFING INDUSTRY GUIDANCE 9
OBJECTIVES, SCOPE, AND METHODOLOGY 11
SCOPE 11
METHODOLOGY 11
STANDARDS 12
AUTHORITY AND ROLE '. 12
FINDING AND RECOMMENDATIONS 13
Finding: CPL's staffing plan does not optimally align library staffing with
community needs 13
STAFFING PLAN DESIGN DEFICIENCIES 13
STAFFING PLAN IMPLEMENTATION DEFICIENCIES 14
APPENDIX A: CPL BRANCH STAFFING CATEGORIES 19
APPENDIX B: MAP OF BRANCH LIBRARIES BY2016 FTES 20
APPENDIX CCPL2016 LIBRARY CLASSIFICATIONS 21
APPENDIX D: CPL ORGANIZATIONAL CHARTS SHOWING 2016
BUDGETED POSITIONS BY LIBRARY LOCATION 24
APPENDIX E: LIBRARY LOCATIONS AND ZIP CODES 33
ACRONYMS
ALA American Library Association
CPL Chicago Public Library
DHR Department of Human Resources
FTE Full-Time Equivalent
GAO Government Accountability Office
OBM Office of Budget and Management
OIG Office of Inspector General
PAGE 2
OIG FILE #16-0363 CPL STAFFING AUDIT
I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Office of Inspector General (OIG) conducted an audit evaluating the design and implementation of the Chicago Public Library's (CPL) staffing plan, which allocates positions among CPL's 80 library locations. Providing appropriate library staff to meet community needs is critical to CPL's mission of providing "equal access to information, ideas, and knowledge through books, programs and other resources."1
The objectives of the audit were to determine whether CPL's staffing plan followed industry guidance and was an effective and efficient tool for allocating human resources to CPL libraries. OIG determined that due to deficiencies in its design and implementation, the plan is not sufficient to align library branch staffing with community needs. By way of background, according to CPL management, prior to 2012 each CPL branch library was staffed with six full-time positions—three Librarians and three Clerks—regardless of branch size, location, or usage volume. In 2012, new management determined that this uniform approach was not sustainable, and developed a plan meant to allocate staff on the basis of factors such as square footage of the facility, number of points of service (e.g., circulation and reference desks), number of visitors, circulation volume, and computer usage level. Also in 2012, City budget cuts led to a 26.3% reduction in CPL staffing from 2011 levels, including the elimination of 146 Library Page positions (the equivalent of 109 full-time equivalent (FTE) positions). Pages are part-time employees responsible for sorting and shelving books and other materials, as well as performing other routine clerical tasks. CPL has since restored some Page positions, although total staffing still remains below the 2011 level. CPL management stated that the loss of Page positions has significantly impacted operations over the last several years, and continues to constitute a major challenge.
Referring to guidance from the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) and the American Library Association (ALA), OIG identified several deficiencies in the design of CPL's staffing plan. First, CPL has not conducted a staff workload analysis, which would provide information necessary for determining how many and what type of staff are required to serve community needs. Second, branch managers and frontline staff were not consulted in the creation of the plan. Third, many of the plan's library classification factors use only qualitative descriptors, such as "large," "heavy," and "moderate," to characterize readily quantifiable information such as population, number of schools, and computer usage. This introduces unnecessary subjectivity and imprecision to the classification process.
1 City of Chicago, Chicago Public Library, "Mission," accessed January 23, 2018, https//www chipubhb orq/about-us/
PACE 3
OIG FILE #16-0363 CPL STAFFING AUDIT
OIG also found deficiencies in CPL's implementation of its staffing plan. First, CPL did not collect all the necessary data. Although the plan lists 15 factors to consider when classifying libraries, CPL classified libraries using data on only 5 factors-—number of visitors, circulation volume, computer usage level, area population by zip code, and number of area schools. CPL did not use data on the other 10 factors, such as the number of people in the community who communicate in languages other than English.
Second, CPL classified some libraries incorrectly based on the data for the five factors it did utilize. Third, CPL did not staff all libraries at the levels prescribed by the plan. OIG compared the FTE positions assigned to each library to the FTE range prescribed for its assigned category based on CPL's five-factor approach. We found that 18.8% of library locations were not staffed as required given their categories. The variances from the requirements were small, ranging from 0.5 to 1.5 FTE more or less than the prescribed range. Nonetheless, these deviations show that CPL did not consistently apply the staffing-plan FTE ranges.
Finally, CPL did not use population data accurately tailored to determine the number of residents served by each library location. CPL measured population by zip code, yet many libraries are located at the edges of zip code boundaries, making this a less-than-ideal method of measuring the size of the population served. Furthermore, relying on zip code boundaries does not provide a unique population measurement for each library, because 21 libraries share a zip code with at least 1 other library. The area covered by zip code 60609, for example, contains 5 libraries. Using U.S. census tracts or blocks would provide more specific service area population data for the area served by each library location.
The deficiencies in CPL's staffing plan may contribute to inefficient use of CPL's human resources. Some staff reported performing tasks that fell outside their job descriptions and for which they were overqualified. For example, Clerks and Librarians reported regularly engaging in sorting and shelving, tasks normally done by Library Pages. In another instance, a Clerk at a library serving a largely Hispanic community told OIG that her status as the only bilingual staff member made it a practical necessity for her to perform tasks outside her job description on a regular basis. One branch manager told us that "many positions perform many roles," which in some cases results in personnel spending time on activities that could be done more cost-effectively by employees holding other titles.
OIG recommends that CPL conduct a system-wide workload analysis to determine the time spent on all activities by staff in each job classification and to incorporate the findings into its staffing plan. CPL should also involve stakeholders, such as library employees, as well as board and community members, in redesigning the plan to
PAGE 4
OIG FILE #16-0363 CPL STAFFING AUDIT
utilize measurable factors and ensure that libraries are appropriately staffed to meet community needs. After CPL has redesigned its staffing plan, it should consistently and completely apply the plan's factors to all library locations. CPL should disseminate the plan to its employees so that everyone is aware of the rationale for CPL's staff allocations and has an opportunity to provide input for future plan revisions. Finally, CPL should develop a process to evaluate the effectiveness of the staffing plan on a periodic basis, and should modify it as needed to adjust to changes in library services and community needs.
In response to our audit findings and recommendations, CPL stated that it will revise its staffing plan to better align the factors considered with available data, and will develop a policy that formalizes application of the plan. Management noted that the staffing plan is not fully implemented, but that CPL seeks to implement it incrementally as vacancies and reassignments permit. CPL disagreed with OIG's recommendation to disseminate the plan to all library employees, and declined to involve the library board and community members in redesigning the plan, stating that senior staff regularly "reports up and down the organizational structure" regarding staffing needs and strategies.
The specific recommendations related to each finding, and CPL's response, are described in the "Audit Findings and Recommendations" section of this report.
PAGE 5
OIG FILE #16-0363 CPL STAFFING AUDIT
II. BACKGROUND
CPL's mission states:
We welcome and support all people in their enjoyment of reading and pursuit of lifelong learning. Working together, we strive to provide equal access to information, ideas and knowledge through books, programs and other resources. We believe in the freedom to read, to learn, to discover.2
In support of this mission, CPL locations provide patrons free access to books, magazines, newspapers, movies, music, research databases, and Internet resources. In 2017, CPL reported serving approximately 8.5 million patrons3 at 80 library locations.4 The 80 locations consist of 1 central library (Harold Washington), 2 regional libraries (Sulzer and Woodson), and 77 branch libraries organized into 3 districts (Central, North, and South).5
A. CPL STAFFING AND COSTS
Personnel services are CPL's single largest cost, accounting for 75.7% of the Department's $74.0 million total budget appropriation for 2017.6 Figure 1 shows CPL's appropriation for FTE positions from 2011 through 2017.
7 City of Chicago, Chicago Public Library, "Mission," accessed January 23, 2018, publib orq/about-us/.
3 City of Chicago, Chicago Data Portal, "Libraries-2017 Visitors by Location," accessed January 31, 2018, https/Zdata citvofchicago org/dataset/Libraries-2017-Visitors-bv-Location/bkGi-nu5x/data The City's Data Portal notes that this patron count does not include people using Community Rooms or attending programs in libraries
'' City of Chicago, Chicago Public Library, "Mission," accessed January 23, 2018,
h 11. ps//wwwchipublib orq/about-usi According to CPL management, even though there are 80 library locations, the Data Portal shows visitor data for 79 locations This is because the Water Works branch is administratively considered part of the Harold Washington Library so its data is rolled into that of the Harold Washington Library
=J See Appendix D for branch libraries in each district
E City of Chicago, Office of Budget and Management, 2018 Budget Overview, 133, accessed January 23, 2018,
https//wwwcitvofchicago orq/content/d3nVcitv/dept^obm/supp_info/7018Budqet/2018Bud9Ot Overvi ew pdf
PAGE 6
OIG FILE #16-0363
CPL STAFFING AUDIT MAY 2, 2018
FIGURE 1 - CPL FTE POSITIONS AND APPROPRIATIONS
$51,581,032
$53;953,749
$55,416,389
. :.$57;679.;727 ,
$55,777,465
|2Q17s$g^k-j:;: ^946
Source: City of Chicago 2012-2018 Budget Overviews
In 2012, budget cuts led to a 26.3% reduction in CPL staffing, including the elimination of 146 part-time Library Page positions (the equivalent of 109 FTEs). Pages are part-time employees responsible for sorting and shelving books and other materials, as well as performing other routine clerical tasks. CPL has since restored some Page positions, though total staffing still remains below the 2011 level.
CPL management stated that the loss of Library Page positions has significantly impacted operations over the last several years, and continues to constitute one of the major challenges in staffing libraries. CPL relies on overtime to cover vacancies and meet operational needs; management stated that it typically exhausts the annual overtime budget of $400,000.
Library branches are staffed by personnel holding nine job titles—Librarian IV, Librarian III, Librarian II, Librarian I, Library Associate, Head Library Clerk, Senior Library Clerk, Library Clerk, and Library Page. CPL may designate librarians as serving adults, teenagers, or children, depending on specialty and training.
B. CPL LIBRARY STAFFING PLAN
According to CPL management, prior to 2012 each CPL branch library was staffed with six full-time positions—three Librarians and three Clerks—regardless of branch size, location, or usage volume. In 2012, new management determined that this uniform approach was not sustainable, and developed a plan to allocate staff on the basis of factors such as square footage of the facility, number of points of service (e.g., circulation and reference desks), number of visitors, circulation volume, and computer usage level. The staffing plan identifies six categories of library locations and recommends an FTE range for each category. The plan, which we provide in Appendix A, is summarized in Figure 2.
PAGE 7
OIG FILE #16-0363 CPL STAFFING AUDIT
FIGURE 2 - CPL STAFFING PLAN SUMMARY
Very large .faci I ltiy;:: ' 45-50::;
Qp^o :7 days-y:64 hours p
Extensive ep'lleetib'ns'l ¦ ' ¦ ; ;
'hi ea vy afterschoof and wee kehcVyse>:. -.
8-10
Large Circulates 10,000-17,000 items pet-
branch month
Over 10,000 visits per month
Two or more reference service
points '
^-Medium to J ^:-:branch::k; :e ~
7-10
Medium to Circulates 1,500-5,000 items per large month
branch 7,000-12,000 visits per month
Challenging security issues
Partial or special service location
Source- OIG summary of CPL staffing plan7
As shown in Figure 3, the largest category was category C, with 26 libraries, or 32.5% of the total. Although hybrid categories are not defined in the staffing plan, CPL classified some branches as B/D or C/E.8 CPL did not assign any libraries to category F, and did not classify three libraries.
7 CPL's full staffing plan, titled "Branch Staffing Categories" is provided in Appendix A
5 Libraries with hybrid classifications were excluded from OIG analysis, as discussed in the Methodology
section of this report
PAGE 8
OIG FILE #16-0363
CPL STAFFING AUDIT MAY 2, 2018
FIGURE 3 - NUMBER OF LIBRARIES CPL ASSIGNED TO EACH CATEGORY
A;: 2 2.5%
B 16 20.0%
m. 2.5%:
C 26 32.5%
C/E ': M, . ¦ . 3.8%
D 18 22.5%
0 0.0%
:Npt'Classifieei-j^V: ¦ ; .';3,V;/ . :.;:'?*r%; . 3.8%M"
Total 80 100%
Source. OIG analysis of data provided by CPL Sum exceeds 100% due to rounding
The map in Appendix B illustrates the number of FTE positions assigned to CPL's branch libraries in 2016. According to CPL management, branch libraries require a minimum of two on-duty staff members to operate, but three or four are usually needed to perform most regular responsibilities. Library branches are open eight hours a day, six days a week. The exact hours of operation vary by branch, but usually alternate between a 10 a.m. to 6 p.m. shift and a 12 p.m. to 8 p.m. shift.
C. STAFFING INDUSTRY GUIDANCE
As part of this audit, OIG reviewed guidance related to workforce planning and staffing. Our primary resources were the GAO's 2003 report Human Capital: Key Principles for Effective Strategic Workforce Planning™ and the book Staffing for Results: A Guide to Working Smarted published by the ALA. For reference, we summarize below the central guidance provided by these two resources.
GAO's Key Principles for Effective Strategic Workforce Planning details five key principles an organization should follow in developing a strategy to deploy, develop, and retain staff to achieve current and future program goals. These five principles are:
• involve top management, employees, and other stakeholders in developing, communicating, and implementing the strategic workforce plan;
- See Appendix C for CPL's Library Classifications
10 U S Government Accountability Office. "Human Capital Key Principles for Effective Strategic Workforce Planning/'pecember 2003 accessed December 18, 2017, http//wwwqao qov/assets/250/240816 pdf '! Diane Mayo and Jeanne Goodrich for the Public Library Association, Staffing for Results A Guide to Working Smarter (Chicago American Library Association. 2002)
RAGE 9
OIG FILE ttl 6-0363 CPL STAFFING AUDIT
determine the critical skills and competencies that will be needed to achieve current and future programmatic results;
develop strategies that are tailored to address gaps in number, deployment, and alignment of human capital approaches for enabling and sustaining the contributions of all critical skills and competencies;
build the capability needed to address administrative, educational, and other requirements important to support workforce planning strategies; and
monitor and evaluate the agency's progress toward its human capital goals and the contribution that human capital results have made toward achieving programmatic results.12
While the GAO report addresses staffing and workforce development broadly, the ALA's Staffing for Results applies specifically to libraries, providing information that "can be used by library managers and staff to identify and collect the information they need to make informed staffing decisions and to monitor the results of those decisions."'3 The authors state that due to the changing role of public libraries, as well as the constant evolution of technology and services, there can be a disconnect between "[traditional library measures, such as number of items circulated or reference questions answered" and the actual workload experienced by staff.14 Staffing for Results stresses the importance of staff workload analysis and provides guidance on how library managers can measure workload to determine optimal staffing levels. The authors explain that an employee's workload may be analyzed by numeric comparison of inputs to outputs—e.g., items shelved per staff hour—or by analyzing steps in processes to identify backlogs or bottlenecks.15 Optimizing the use of library staff time is crucial to meeting community needs because,
[sjtaff are the most important of the four key resources available to accomplish a library's goals. (The other three are collections, facilities, and technology.) If you are planning to change the library's services to meet new or evolving customer needs, then staff will need to do different things with their days. Gathering data on workloads is one way to identify tasks that can be eliminated or streamlined to free up time.16
12 U S Government Accountability Office, "Human Capital. Key Principles for Effective Strategic Workforce Planning," December 2003, 2-3,'accessed December 18, 2017, hup //www qao qov/asset.s/250/240816 pdf '¦; Diane Mayo and Jeanne Goodrich for the Public Library Association, Staffing for Results: A Guide to Working Smarter, (Chicago American Library Association, 2002), xu
!" Diane Mayo and Jeanne Goodr ich for the Public Library Association, Staffing for Results A Guide to Working Smarter, (Chicago American Library Association, 2002). 3
i,J Diane Mayo and Jeanne Goodrich for the Public Library Association, Staffing for Results A Guide to Working Smarter, (Chicago American Library Association, 2002), 7-11
16 Diane Mayo and Jeanne Goodrich for the Public Library Association, Staffing for Results A Guide to Working Smarter, (Chicago American Library Association, 2002), 17
PAGE 10
OIG FILE #16-0363 CPL STAFFING AUDIT
III. OBJECTIVES, SCOPE, AND METHODOLOGY
The objectives of the audit were to determine whether CPL's staffing plan followed industry guidance and was an effective and efficient tool for allocating human resources to CPL libraries.
SCOPE
This audit assessed the design and implementation of CPL's staffing plan in 2016. We could not review years prior to 2016 because CPL had overwritten the documents when updating its records and had not retained a copy of the older data.
The scope of this audit did not include the roles of the City's Department of Human Resources (DHR) or the Office of Budget and Management (OBM), who are responsible for Citywide aspects of hiring and budgeting, respectively. OBM explained that it does not determine or evaluate appropriate staffing on a branch level, as that is solely CPL's responsibility.
Our analysis also excluded custodial and security staff who work at CPL sites because they are employed by third-party vendors and were not included in CPL's staffing plan.
METHODOLOGY
OIG interviewed CPL senior management to learn about the design and implementation of CPL's staffing plan. To understand whether staffing levels aligned with facility needs, we interviewed staff from a judgmental sample of five libraries across the City. Specifically, we visited a library from each classification (i.e., A, B, C, D, and E) and each library district (i.e., Central, North, and South).17
To identify common practices and guidance for public library human capital management, we interviewed public library personnel from systems operated by peer cities, including San Francisco, Seattle, Queens, Toronto, Dallas, and Houston. We evaluated the design of CPL's staffing plan with reference to guidance from the GAO and the ALA.
To assess how CPL implemented its staffing plan, we reviewed CPL's application of criteria to classify libraries per the plan, the data collected to apply the criteria, and the assignment of FTE positions consistent with the classification. As described in the Finding section below, we could not undertake this review for 13 of the 80 library locations because CPL did not have sufficient data or had assigned the library a
17 CPL had not classified any libraries as F category, so we did not include one in our sample
PAGE 11
OIG FILE #16-0363 CPL STAFFING AUDIT
hybrid classification (e.g., B/D). To assess factors defined by CPL in qualitative terms— for example, "medium" and "large"—we divided the available data into percentiles and classified libraries accordingly. To determine the number of FTE positions assigned to each library, we counted the positions shown on the 2016 organizational charts CPL provided.iy Consistent with CPL's practice, we counted part-time positions, including Library Pages, as 0.5 FTE.
STANDARDS
We conducted this audit in accordance with generally accepted Government Auditing Standards issued by the Comptroller General of the United States. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
AUTHORITY AND ROLE
The authority to perform this audit is established in the City of Chicago Municipal Code § 2-56-030 which states that OIG has the power and duty to review the programs of City government in order to identify any inefficiencies, waste, and potential for misconduct, and to promote economy, efficiency, effectiveness, and integrity in the administration of City programs and operations.
The role of OIG is to review City operations and make recommendations for improvement.
City management is responsible for establishing and maintaining processes to ensure that City programs operate economically, efficiently, effectively, and with integrity.
See Appendix D for the 2016 organizational charts
PAGE 12
OIG FILE #16-0363 CPL STAFFING AUDIT
IV. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
While CPL's staffing plan is an improvement over its previous uniform staffing approach, OIG determined that due to deficiencies in the plan's design and implementation,-the plan is not sufficient to align library branch staffing with community needs.
1. STAFFING PLAN DESIGN DEFICIENCIES
By reference to the guidance from GAO and ALA described in the Background section of this report, OIG identified several deficiencies in the design of CPL's staffing plan. First, the plan is not informed by a staff workload analysis. Instead, classifications are based on measures of library-level activity, such as patron visits and items in circulation. ALA's Staffing for Results: A Guide to Working Smarter suggests that, to best meet community needs, a library system must first know the amount and types of work done by its staff.19 The authors recommend analyzing workload data to determine what employees are doing which tasks, and how much time they spend doing them, as a means of improving organization and resource allocation.20
Second, CPL management did not consult with branch managers and frontline staff for purposes of creating the staffing plan, as recommended by GAO. Four of the five CPL branch managers interviewed for this audit were unaware of the plan, and none were consulted in its development.
Third, many classification factors in the CPL staffing plan use only qualitative descriptors, such as "large," "heavy," and "moderate," to characterize quantifiable information such as population, number of schools, and computer usage.21 This introduces unnecessary subjectivity and imprecision to the classification process.
n Diane Mayo and Jeanne Goodrich for the Public Libr ary Association, Staffing for Results A Cuide to Working Smarter, (Chicago American Library Association, 2002), 2-4
20 Diane Mayo and Jeanne Goodrich for the Public Library Association, Staffing for Results A Guide to Working Smarter, (Chicago American Library Association, 2002), 7-12 ' See Appendix A for CPL's Staffing Plan
PAGE 13
OIG FILE /M6-0363 CPL STAFFING AUDIT
2. STAFFING PLAN IMPLEMENTATION DEFICIENCIES
OIG also found deficiencies in CPL's implementation of the staffing plan First, CPL did not collect all of the necessary data. Although the plan lists 15 factors to consider when classifying libraries, CPL used data on only 5 factors—number of visitors, circulation volume, computer usage level, area population by zip code, and number of area schools.22 CPL did not use data on the other 10 factors, such as the number of people in the community who communicate in languages other than English.
Second, CPL did not classify libraries correctly based on the data for the five factors it used. As a result, many libraries were not classified according to the plan. OIG analyzed the library-specific data CPL used to assign libraries to staffing categories, and found that only 4 of the 80 libraries, or 5.0%, were correctly classified according to the staffing plan (meaning that the data for all 5 factors matched the plan criteria). Figure 4 shows the number of factors where the libraries' data matched the plan criteria. For 7 of the 80 libraries, or 8.8%, data for only 1 factor matched the criteria for the assigned category. For one library, none of the data matched the criteria for its assigned category.OIG also identified 13 libraries where the classification could not be assessed because CPL did not have complete data or had assigned the library to a hybrid category, such as B/D.
FIGURE 4 - LIBRARY DATA COMPARED WITH ASSIGNED CATEGORY
./A§s1grfed';^i^ v "YY ,Y^:^ibraries-;, :'. >
1 of 5
i26;0W
3 of 5
!4:offe
5 of 5
il63%s
$|*y bnjd a sjs\f i c atiq;rnu
Total
80
100%
Source OIG analysis of data provided by CPL. Sum exceeds 100% due to rounding
The third deficiency OIG found in CPL's implementation of its staffing plan was that it did not staff all libraries at the prescribed levels. Figure 5 summarizes our comparison
n See Appendix C for CPL's Library Classifications
73 According to CPL's staffing plan, computer usage is not a factor used to classify a library into category B For purposes of this analysis, in order to preserve a common denominator of five factors for all libraries, we counted category B library data as matching on this factor
PAGE 14
OIG FILE #16-036.3
CPL STAFFING AUDIT MAY 2, 2018
of the FTEs assigned to each library and the FTE range prescribed for its assigned category. We found that nearly one-fifth of the library locations were not staffed in accordance with their categories. Specifically, 3 libraries were overstaffed and 12 libraries were understaffed. The variances were small, ranging from 0.5 to 1.5 FTE over or under the prescribed range. Nonetheless, these deviations show that CPL did not consistently apply the FTE ranges in the staffing plan. We could not evaluate 10 libraries, because CPL had incomplete data or had assigned them to hybrid categories, such as B/D.
FIGURE 5 - BUDGETED STAFFING COMPARED WITH PRESCRIBED FTE RANGE
;^M.rii^E>Ra:ng^
Over FTE Range
Under :FTE Range
12.5%
10
[Foi
30
Incomplete Data or Hybrid Classification
1.
Source: OIG analysis of data provided by CPL Sum exceeds 100% due to rounding
Finally, CPL did not use population data accurately tailored to determine the number of residents served by each library location. CPL measured population by zip code, yet many libraries are located at the edges of zip code boundaries (as illustrated in Appendix E), making this an imprecise method of measuring the size of the population served. Furthermore, relying on zip code boundaries does not provide a unique population measurement for each library, because 21 libraries share a zip code with at least one other library. The area covered by zip code 60609, for example, contains 5 libraries. Using U.S. census tracts or blocks—a population measurement commonly used in library science research24—would provide more useful service area population data for each library location.25 OIG found that the San Francisco Public Library creates a community profile for each library location and updates it every
2'- Francis P Donnelly, "Regional variations in average distance to public libraries in the Unites States" Library & Information Science Research, 37, no 4 (October 2015): 281-282, http//dxdoiora/101016/j hsr 20151) 008
-"" Census block-level data is available only for decennial census years (e g , 7000 and 2010) During interim years, the U S. Census bureau provides annual estimates for block groups, which include several census blocks typically including 600 to 3,000 people See htt.ps //factfinder census gov/heIp/en/index htm#qlossarv htm and
https//factfinder census aov/faces/tabloservices/jsf/paqes/productviewxhtml7src=bkmk. accessed January 31, 2018
PACE 15
OIG FILE #16-0363
CPL STAFFING AUDIT MAY 2, 2018
three years. The profile includes U.S. census data about the localpopulation, such as the residents' ages, languages spoken in the homes, and levels of educational attainment, which helps each library serve its unique community.
The deficiencies in CPL's staffing plan may contribute to inefficient use of CPL's human resources. Some staff reported performing tasks that fell outside their job descriptions and for which they were overqualified. For example, Clerks and Librarians reported regularly engaging in sorting and shelving, tasks normally done by Library Pages. In another instance, a Clerk at a library serving a largely Hispanic community told OIG that her status as the only bilingual staff member made it a practical necessity for her to perform tasks outside her job description on a regular basis. One branch manager told us that "many positions perform many roles," which in some cases results in personnel spending time on activities that could be done more cost-effectively by employees holding other titles.
In conclusion, OIG determined that CPL's staffing plan lacked sufficient detail to identify specific needs at individual branches, that the data used to inform the plan is incomplete, and that the plan was not implemented correctly. While the staffing plan is an improvement over CPL's previous uniform staffing approach, it still does not optimally align library staffing with specific community needs.
RECOMMENDATIONS
To better align its resources with the needs of the communities it serves, CPL should first redesign its staffing plan, and then improve plan implementation. Specifically,
CPL should conduct a staff workload analysis to determine the amount of time spent on all activities by staff in each job classification.The results of the analysis should be incorporated into CPL's staffing plan.26
CPL should involve stakeholders such as library employees, as well as board and community members, in redesigning its staffing plan around factors that will ensure libraries are appropriately staffed to meet community needs. The redesigned plan should include only factors for which complete and accurate data is available for all library locations. The plan should be designed to assign each library location to a single category, eliminating the confounding use of
2" Staffing for Results notes that workload analysis "can be very disruptive in an organization," and that library employees "will be concerned about how management will use the information it gathers" For this reason, the authors, like the GAO, recommend clear communication between management and staff throughout the process Diane Mayo and Jeanne Goodrich for the Public Library Association, Staffing for Results A Guide to Working Smarter, (Chicago American Library Association. 2007), 12
PAGE 16
OIG FILE #16-0363
CPL STAFFING AUDIT MAY 2, 2018
hybrid classifications. CPL should also quantify any qualitative factors such as "large" or "moderate" in order to promote consistent application of the factors.
3. After CPL has redesigned the staffing plan, it should consistently and completely apply the factors to all library locations in order to allocate the appropriate staff to each library location. CPL should disseminate the plan to library staff so that everyone is aware of the rationale for CPL's staff allocations and has an opportunity to provide input for future plan revisions.
4. CPL should develop a process to evaluate the effectiveness of the staffing plan on a periodic basis, and should modify it as needed to adjust to changes in library services and community needs. To promote consistent and transparent use of the plan, CPL should implement a policy detailing how the plan is to be applied, evaluated, and updated going forward.
MANAGEMENT RESPONSE
7. "On a regular and consistent basis Chicago Public Library (CPL) works with the Department of Human Resources to review positions and responsibilities needed to provide library programs and services. Changes are made, as needed, to address unique program responsibilities and community needs.
"As workload reviews are completed for vacated positions, the analysis serves as the basis for the CPL staffing plan.
2. "Administrative staff regularly meets and reports up and down the
organizational structure. Executive staff responsible for maintaining and managing the workforce will continue to regularly meet and strategize about staffing needs and strategies at bi-weekly Administrative Team meetings as well as at the monthly Senior Staff meeting, where staffing is put through a Performance Metrics analysis at least two times per year.
"CPL recognizes that the staffing plan is not fully implemented; however, the department keeps moving in the direction of its preferred staffing patterns based on vacancies and the reassignment of positions.
"CPL currently hires staff to fulfill the service needs of our communities. Needs such as language or area specialty are addressed through the hiring process.
"The staffing criteria will be reviewed for 'qualitative vs. quantitative' measures and will be revised to represent more quantitative factors. Factors will therefore be aligned with available data.
PAGE 17
OIG FILE #16-0363
CPL STAFFING AUDIT MAY 2, 2018
"Additionally CPL agrees that the staffing plan should be designed to assign each library location to a single staffing category.
"It should also be noted that CPL participates in an annual budget review and any positions that are added, removed, or changed must be approved by the Office of Budget and Management. And that we follow the guidelines for hiring as established by the Department of Human Resources.
"As noted previously, staffing criteria will be reviewed for 'qualitative vs. quantitative' measures and will be revised to represent more quantitative factors. Factors will therefore be aligned with available data.
"As CPL revises its staffing plan, information is shared with executive staff, senior staff, district chiefs, and branch managers. Senior staff and other decision-makers like staff managers are made aware of branch criteria and that we are staffing for service rather than following a fixed staff for every location. The staffing plan isn't disseminated to all front line staff.
"CPL conducts regular on-going reviews of positions at every location to assess staffing needs for providing high quality library services and programs. This review serves as basis for updating the staffing plan.
"CPL will create a policy to codify how and when the staffing plan is applied, evaluated, and updated."
PAGE 18
OIG FILE #16-0363 CPL STAFFING AUDIT
V. APPENDIX A - CPL BRANCH STAFFING CATEGORIES
This document is the CPL staffing plan. It lists the factors used to classify libraries into categories with recommended FTE ranges.
Branch Staffing Categories
Branch activity levels: traffic, circulation, Holds, information requests, program attendance, collection size, computer use
Number of service points and service floors in the library Unique characteristics of local community
o Area population
o # of schools in service area
o it of persons under 17 in service area
o S of persons with a language other than English User education needs Safety and security challenges
Category A (45-50 FTE): Regional libraries
Very large facility with expansive service areas (60,000 sq. ft+)
Open 7 days/64 hours per week
Multiple reference service points on muftiple floors
Extensive fiction and non-fiction collections
Specialized and archival collections
Computer Commons with 80+ public PCs
Heavy afterschool and weekend use
Large auditoriums w/heavy community room use
Category B (8-10 FTE):
Large branch (14,000+ sq. ft.)
Circulates 10,000-17,000 items per month
Sees over 10,000 patron visitors per month
Two or more reference service points
Heavy afterschool use
Heavy community room use
High number of schools in service area
Large population in service area
Category C (6-8 FTE): • Medium/large branch (11.000-14.000 sq. ft.) Circulates 5,000-10,000 items per month Sees 6,000-12,000 patron visits per month Two reference service points Manv schools in service area Heavy afterschool use Heavy computer usage Heavy community room use Large population in service area
Category D (7-10 FTE):
Medium to large branch {11,000-14,000 sq. ft.)
One or two reference service points
lower socioeconomic, literacy and school achievement rates
Sees 7,000-12,000 patron visits per month
Circulates 1,500-5,000 items per month
High number of schools in service area
Heavy afterschool use
Heavy computer use
Heavy community room use
Large population in service area
Challenging security issues
Category E (5-6 FTE):
Small to medium sized branch (5,000-11,000 sq. ft.)
Circulates 1,500-5,000 items per month
Sees 4,000-8,000 patron visits per month
One or two reference service points
Moderate number of schools in service area
Moderate afterschool use
Moderate computer usage
Moderate community room use
Medium population in service area
Category F: Partial or special service locations
Staffing TBD based on need
Source <_P|_
OIG FILE #16-0363 CPL STAFFING AUDIT
VI. APPENDIX B - MAP OF BRANCH LIBRARIES BY 2016 FTES
The map below illustrates the number of FTEs assigned to CPL libraries in 2016. It does not show FTEs at Harold Washington, Sulzer, Water Works, and Woodson libraries because CPL did not provide data for those libraries.
Branch Libraries by 2016 Full-Time Equivalent Positions
COMMUNITY AREAS
ROGERS PARK WEST RiOGE UPTOWN
LINCOLN SOUARE NORTH CENTER LAKE VIEW LINCOLN PARK NEAR NORTH SIDE EDISON PARK
NORWOO0 PARK
JEFFERSON PARK
FOREST GLEN
NORTH PARK
ALBANY PARK
PORTAGE PARK
IRVING PARK
DUNNING
MONTCLARE
BELMONT CRAGIN
HERMOSA
AVON DALE
LOGAN SQUARE
HUMBOLDT PARK
WEST TOWN
AUSTIN
WEST GARFIELD PARK EAST GARFIELD PARK NEAR WEST SIDE NORTH LAWN DALE SOUTH LAWN0ALE LOWER WEST SIDE LOOP
NEAR SOUTH SIDE ARMOUR SQUARE DOUGLAS OAKLAND FULLER PAR< GRAND BOULEVARD KENWOOD WASHINGTON PARK HYDE PARK WOODLAWN SOUTH SHORE CHATHAM AVALON PARK SOUTH CHICAGO BURNS1DE CALUMET HEIGHTS ROSELAND PULLMAN SOUTH PEERING EAST SIDE WEST PULLMAN RIVEROALE HEGEWISCH GARFIELD RIDGE ARCHER HEIGHTS BRIGHTON PARK MCKINLEY PARK BRIDGEPORT NEiV CITY WEST ELSOGN GAGE PAR< CLEARING WEST LAWN CHICAGO LAWN
WEST EriCKEwoon
CKGCEWO00
GREATER GRAND CRO! ASHSORN
AUBUR'S GKESMAM
IGHTS 300
BEVERLY WASHINGTON MOUNT GREE! MORGAN PAS' CHARE ECGEWA7ER
._.l \ ,__/ 13
I
10
11 / 7«
© ,--]|1010|4 5
15 >
\ 16 ®
6 >n
© ©VA
18
>\ 22 © "\7® -g—©-") ?
25 © ®
[-1—L
29 0®
-"11
| 32 S n_J I Miles \ X i 0 0.5 1 2
® I—Ho
31 , -38 ©
l37
\ i 36;
56 ©
39 A
©
W© j 68° f"
f
-©-
^®y- 48 l'47\ 48 N©
L J8l
69 ®^ « ®^
©
_©_.
Legend j70"
®\ „x
49 .' SO ©/ /
| | Community Areas Chicago Public Libraries
- 74 ©' -U o
r
X No FTE Data Available o 1 to 6 FTEs ® 6.5 to 9 FTEs (1) 9.5 to 12 FTEs
©
o
FTE dala for Harold Vvashington, Sulzer, Water Works and Woodson libraries v/as not available
Source OIG based on CPL data
OIG FILE #16-0363 CPL STAFFING AUDIT
VII. APPENDIX C - CPL 2016 LIBRARY CLASSIFICATIONS
This table, provided by CPL, shows the staffing categories to which CPL assigned libraries for 2016, as well as the associated data used to make the assignment.
SrancJVRegional Staffing Category Local popular* r». by Zip Code Average month fy circ. Average monthly traffic Average monthly PC use @ computer # schools in service area
.Albany Pari B 78.965 12.565 11.530 tbd tbd
Altgeld E 28.547 709 5.1C6 82|99|
Archer Heights B 90.845 7,101 8.929 100 11
Austin D 47.831 1.950 6.879 tbd 14
Austin-Irving B 72.718 10.721 9.528 93 9
Avalon D 83.435 4,735 10.155 116 18
Back of the Yards C 62.773 4.481 5.396 29 11
Beverly C 51.836 5.647 8,222 82 12
Bezazian B 64.365 11.0S9 12.148 198|99|
Blackstone B 40.745 9.418 10.380 112 28
Brainerd E 73.235 1,281 4,764 87 13
Brighton Park C 90.845 5.899 6.534 107 15
Bucktown-Wicker Park B 87.146 10.477 10.969 32 15
Budlong Woods B 39,657 11.2QD 12.859 77 12
Canaryville E 62.773 2.389 3.838 77|99|
Chicago Bee E 62.773 1.656 5.088 67 11
Chicago Lav>n C 113.833 4,550 6,963 114 14
China invm BID 48.491 8.639 19.006 99 10
Clearing C 56.033 4.171 6.816 54|99|
Coleman. Bessie D 48,270 3,350 8.781 160 15
Daley. Richard J. C 7e.794 7,022 7,843 97|99|
Daley. Richard M. D 36.052 4,327 11.760 31 14
Douglass D 85.158 1.&35 9.946 153 27
Dunnicg B 72.7t8 6.172 11,137 84 15
L5a!ewcod 1,085 1.5ES
Dun nir
PACE 21
OIG FILE r/16-0363
CPL STAFFING AUDIT MAY 2, 2018
BrancWRegional Staffing Category Local popular* n. by Zip Code Average monthly circ. Average monthly traffic Average monthly PC use @ computer # schools in service area
Edgebrook C 29.314 3.955 8.499 33 9
Edgewater BID 42.060 16.201 18.325 49 14
Gage Pa* e 60.845 2.039 4.237 78|99|
Garfield Ridge C 56.033 5.815 7.373 TBD 10
Greater Grand Crossing c 64.022 2.762 6.119 93 11
Hall C 40.745 2,081 6.720 77 14
Kegewisch E 13.474 2.982 5.289 32|99|
Humboldt Park C 87.149 6.345 7.593 39 13
Independence C 57.868 7.697 5.514 91 19
Jefferson Park C 57.888 8.303 8.554 73 10
Jeffery Manor E 83.435 1,202 5.772 90|99|
Kelly E 33.608 1,180 5.764 94 13
King C 40.401 3,080 6.718 112|99|
Legler D 39.283 1,533 8.077 150 12
Lincoln Park B 68,363 9.448 10.892 82 14
Lincoln-Belmont B 8S.088 13,716 12,982 91 14
Little Village D 85.158 7.460 11,055 114 15
Logan Square B 87.146 11.057 12,780 102 14
Lozano D 78,794 5.674 14.304 73 16
Mabel Manning D 36.052 2.819 8.622 115 12
Mayfair C 57.8S8 5.878 6.213 70|99|
McKinley Park C 62.773 6.755 9.251 97|99|
Merlo C 68.083 S.254 9.168 86|99|
tAxir.t Greenwood c 29.173 6.464 6.811 35 13
N'ej r N'orth B 33,740 9.912 12.146 104 18
Noah Austin D 91.934 2.0D4 6 754 90 10
OIG FILE #16-0363 CPL STAFFING AUDIT
Branch/Regional Staffing Category Local populat'n. by Zip Code Average monthly circ. Average monthly traffic Average monthly PC use @ computer # schools in service area
Nonh Pulaski & 1.634 3.Q1C 5.758 72 14
Nonhtowm B 49.613 9.899 11.950 157 17
Oriole Park C 27.468 7,772 8,264 38 11
Po.tage-Cragin C 70.730 7.53S 7.454 75 25
Pliliman E 71.710 1.814 6.536 88 19
Rod en C/E 28.889 5.743 5.438 31 14
Rogers Park B 51.061 11,349 14,435 173 14
Roosevelt C 25.134 5.976 8.293 80 18
Scotisdale C/E 42.517 3.892 6,014 53 10
Sherman Park E 62.773 1,096 5,896 127 21
South Chicago D 83.435 3.362 8.280 134 15
South Shore D 45.444 3.952 9,912 112 11
Thurgood Marshall D 73.253 2.998 10.989 65 24
Toma/i C 85.158 7.217 6.232 97 20
Uptown D 49.538 6.810 12.205 124 13
VodaWEast Side C 83.435 4.051 7.401 92 11
Walker C/E 51.838 2,358 5.084 35 16
West Belmont B 72.718 7,284 9,817 68 10
West Chicago Avenue D 61,150 1,608 8.058 146 12
West Englewood D 39.918 1,707 10,247 139 e
West Lawn C 113,833 5.571 8.103 56 9
West Pullman D 51.838 2,335 7.234 80 14
West Town B 54.272 7.158 11.368 65 16
Whitney Young D 38,740 2.472 9.646 137 14
Wnghtwocd C 42.517 2.731 6.812 65 9
Sutzer Regional A 78.96S 40,859 40,495 fed tba
Branch/Regional Staffing Category Local populaf n. by Zip Code Average monthly circ. Average monthly traffic Average monthly PC use @ computer # schools in service area
Woodson Regional A 71.710 S.1S1 27.3S5 tbd tbd
Source CPL
OIG Fli E #16-0363 CPL STAFFING AUDIT
VIII. APPENDIX D - CPL ORGANIZATIONAL CHARTS SHOWING 2016 BUDGETED POSITIONS BY LIBRARY LOCATION
These CPL organizational charts show the 2016 budgeted positions for each library location as of July 2016.
CHICAGO
PUBLIC
LIBRARY
ORGANIZATIONAL CHART
Neighborhood Services, Central District (page 1)
•"¦C^trietaiiier:', ¦r.'.Ce'nir'61'Dlslric'i:-
Administrative ¦— I.Assista'ntrili'j
tr
[ Archer Hdghli"'
uv;2 lh; la.pt ; HLC/i.c,;t:c-"PT.i
|2Libf8ry'Pao*$|
Awlin ;LIV. II; lA, LA-,1 FPT.HLC:SLC'.J LC/LlbroryPigo
— ! —
Stick dtMn^riS !lWLli.U;LA,'3
LA^RT.'SIC:?!
LC-PT,'Library:]
'Cinaryvilte/. U1I.2'U.'SLC.*-LC. 2.Lforniy'.
f/Chkago'Bee. ) Llllltl.'lAJSLC,] L~C;Ubra'rV.P?gV
f.- ChinBtown; UV;LIII:3U.LA.! HLC/SLC.LC.-2! LOPJ.'4 Ubriry'
<.P«g«
RicKerdJ/D&ley, LIV.LI.UVHLCl 2 LC, 3 Lib Pbges
PAGE 24
OIG FILE #16-0363 CPL STAFFING AUDIT
CHICAGO ORGANIZATIONAL CHART
PUBLIC
library Neighborhood Services, Central District (page 2)
>\*JD&trict Chief,. . Central Dislnd l'.-i
'Adrninistiathfcj" I Assistant III,'!
I
Richard M. Daley. LIV.LIll. 2 LI. LA-; PT. SLC. 2 LC. 2 j libr'ajy Pagesij
T
• Douglass.' . j
LIV. 1 LIII. LI:2 LA1 PT; HLC! 2 IC-PT.I
^•.Library Pages .1
I : Gage Park Llll. LI. LAPT.SLC LC. 2Libra/y'Page«
T
"1
I . Garfield Ridje [LIV, 2 LI. 2 lA-PT, S'HLC, 2 LC-PT. 2 r-ililXitVPaffM:
; ¦: ' :Hall ¦ ; 'UV.'Ljl; LI. UVPT," jHLC. SLC. L(>PT;( i*. -Ubfery.P^ge'; |
f.King . ; j LIV. 2 LI. HLC, SLC, 1 • SLC-PT. Cc;.2 L. Library Pages
j : ¦". Legler .' ! jUV.2:Ui. 2LI.LA.! HLC. SIC, LC-PT. 2 i-.-LlbiBry Pages!':
^ .;Lhue Village • i
LIV. Llll, LI, LA-PT; ='; HLC! 2 LC, >,3 Library.Pages J
PAGE 25
OIG FILE #16-0363 CPL STAFFING AUDIT
CHICAGO
PUBLIC
LIBRARY
ORGANIZATIONAL CHART
Neighborhood Services, Central District (page 3)
'.'¦¦ District Griief'.'| .. .Centra' District ¦.'"'!
!Admint*,trative] -^'Assistant III ^
..Lozano" 4
•irj, uii.Li;la,-i
UVPT. HLC. SLC. fL&PT; 2 Library: . P«S« J
!
[ •. Manning ,i LIV,:LII, LI; SLC. 2 iLC-PT. 2 Library! , 7 Panes.'.V.v i
[•McKlniiy'PerkJ UV.-LlULjHLC.1 I s SLC.LC.2 i iLlbrory PBgesv
j Near Nc«th, IIV.LIII.UI.'LW lPT; HLC. SLC; ; LC LC-PT, 3 j Library Paget
T
I Roosevelt ¦. V LIV. UII: LI. I i'HLC,SLC.LC-| j .PT. 2 Library \ • iPagei .1
jstierman Park! LIV, UII. LI. LA1 ('2lC. Lib'reiry : ; : Page.
--Til
_ 1
• '-Toman'' '• LIV. LI] I. LA, LArRT; HLC, SLtPT.LC;
LC-PT. 3 Library Pages
I
West Chicago LIV"2 LI, SLC) :2LC: Ubraryi ¦';Peg'e:'.''
\:'rJ::'-. ¦ ¦¦'
[West Tom) LIV.llll. Ll.'j LAPT.'HLC.I 2 LC. LtP.T; ^Library Page
PAGE 26
OIG FILE f/16-0363
CPL STAFFING AUDIT MAY 2, 2018
CHICAGO ORGANIZATIONAL CHART
PUBLIC
library Neighborhood Services, North District (page 1)
. ' Dslnct Chief •: North District'v -j
iAdminlsiniuvej ^Assistant III <
I
WbanyParK ? LIV.Llil.LII. Li;
LAP.T. HLC.' SLC;'2 LC-PT.'
Library Popaa
—r-
¦Aijstln^rving ' LIV.Lll.'LI.LA-: iPT. HLC. SLCi
! ¦¦'¦ lc. ; •. i
4 Library Pages'
i—Baraxlan "] ; LIV. Llll, Lil, ; | LWT.'HLC. I .SL'C/2 LC-PT.I 4 Ubmry.pflgjes
I
¦;— Bucktown-"]
Wic*erPer«' (LIV. 2'LIII, la; PTHLC. SLC-| ,PT. LC.'J j tLlbrafy'Pagev
Bucflohg Woods LIV. Llll. Lil. |
jLAHLCSlC. IHLC.SLC-P LC-PT. 2 . LC.-LC-PT. ILForary Pages! lLtoraryPag<
_ I
i. Edgeweier. j ;LIV.LIil.'lll,2i U;LI-PT. HLC' ;2LC.LC-PT. 4j ,' .;UbPages'.- I
. GalcwoocK C .trfontCtare. :i LA-PT, i;lC-PT
Humboldt Pa*
; LIV.LIIl/t.1. 2i ,LArPT;HlC.2'-\ LC. 2 Library j j- . -Pages"'rij
PAGE 27
OIG FILE /M6-0363 CPL STAFFING AUDIT
CHICAGO
PUBLIC
LIBRARY
ORGANIZATIONAL CHART
Neighborhood Services, North District (page 2)
y .:'Dist"rict'Chief-: .yj North bisiricl J<
[ A^'niitrolrve,i ! ¦ Assistant III ]'
t-
j Inc^eftdwice I 7 LtV. II1I.LI ' HLC. 2 LC-RT. 3] |' Library Pages'
!.'Jefferson Parte \ LIV, Llll. Lil: HLC. . LC, 2 LC-PT, | j Library Page .1
[Lincoln Belmont :L1V, UII. Ul. L& J:PT.HLC.SLC, |; LC. 3 Library £ v Pages '
| Lincctn Porte" \ LIV, Llll. Lit. HLC: [ 2 LC. 3 Library { ! -Pages .
i Logan Souare'.l i LIV, Llll, LI.1 LA! HLC. SLC, 2 LC? 1- PT. 3.Libmry] I. : .Pagesv-vj
-. Maytair LIV, LI1.1A 2 SLC. LC-PT. 2 Library Pages
I . Merlo" ,- - i I LtV. Lit, Ll, LA-
PT.HLc; lc':_lc-;
'(¦Pi. 3 Library'{ f. ¦ Pages.;.!' 'A
>-INcrtriAustin :., -. LIV. LII. LI. LA-PT.HLC. SLC. 2; Library Pages i
h NcrtliPuiaski : LIV, Lil. LI.2LC: j2 Library Pag^s:
PAGE 28
OIG FILE #16-0363
CPL STAFFING AUDIT MAY 2, 2018
CHICAGO ORGANIZATIONAL CHART
PUBLIC
library Neighborhood Services, North District (page 3)
\ .V^pistnctphief,;v'::i :r:-^>North'District
¦ 'AbmlniitraUve,
LIV. Lit LIL'LL LA-j PT. SLC, 2 LC. 4 ;
r PortagtvCrm^n J LIV. UH-LL'IAPT.' j HLC, 2 LC-PT. 3 'Lib(m/]f.P»o
J . "Rbdcn v' I LIV. 2 LL HLC. hlC. LC-PT, 2
I Rogtrt PWk'-t [UV.-IHL- LL LA-! PT. HLC. SLC. J LC-PT; 4 Ltonryi
[¦ Uptown :! liYLJIVLl HLC; f SLC. LC-PT. 2 : I Li£>i»ry PagM ;
>-Wetf DvVnont j
Uv.livil-'ia-';
tPT. HLC. 3LC-.I f.-PT/L&PT/Vj j (Jbiiry Pagts.;
j Aftepf:P"«iiT."l LrV.Lia/HLA'l PT. HLC. SLC. 2 LC-PT/4 Vbnry
PAGE 29
OIG FILE 7fl6-0363 CPL STAFFING AUDIT
CHICAGO
PUBLIC
LIBRARY
ORGANIZATIONAL CHART
Neighborhood Services, South District (page 1)
;v . District .Chief ,\ ¦'V- South District
: Administrative! Assistant lllV]"
•i
I :. \- /AltgeldV
tin: ur'tX'SLC.
i LC, LC-PT. '-. r vLibrary Pago.
'^.¦Avalori ' .'¦ "LIV.LIliiliA;,' ' HLC. 2 LC.'-2.
Library Pages;
I-,1 :.Beveriy ':-: : ILIV. LIli. Lli; LA PT; HLC. 2.LC. 2 ^'Library Pages J
t
[' Brainc
Brainerd 2 LIII.'U:?SCC; 2 LC-PT.Library . Page ',
Chicago Lawn UV.LIII'LA','-' HLC. 2 LC. 2 Library Pages
L
¦.Coleman '1 LIV, Llll, LA | LA-PT.SLC. 2 ?LCLC:PT. 2' jLibVary, Pages.1
Greater Grand L Crosang i'.!
| uv, lii.ua;3
LA-Pt; SLC. 2 jLC, 2Library'l [ J'oges J
PACE 30
OIG FILE #16-0363 CPL STAFFING AUDIT
CHICAGO
PUBLIC
LIBRARY
ORGANIZATIONAL CHART
Neighborhood Services, South District (page 2)
;.';;'District:Chiel; ¦p/SbultyDistricl-'
i Adminisvauve: i'Assistant III-
I
Hr^eWsch;'. : LIV; LI. LA,'SLC;! >LC|:2 Library .! ¦: Pages; ;¦
'Jeflery.Manor-Uil.iLA.'SLC. i_C, Library Page;
|99|
f. .Kelly : '. LIV. Lil; LI, 2 LA-j PT; HLC,' LC^PTi' t: Library Page ;
I
i;l
'' : Mount ^.' -Greenwood LIV. UII, Lil,'. j SLC. 2 LC. 2 | ^Library Pages;
—i—;—
Pullrnariv . \ LiV, 2Li, LA-PT; ' HLC. 2 LC. 2 ' Lib'rary.Pages ;
UV; 2 LI.HLC.i ;"'SLC.'L|910|r?: :-;-r:i
| South Chicago; U'V.'LIII. u;-la-;
|PT,-HLC;.2-L'CJ 2 Library Pages
PACE 31
OIG FILE 416-0363 CPL STAFFING AUDIT
CHICAGO
PUBLIC
LIBRARY
ORGANIZATIONAL CHART
Neighborhood Services, South District (page 3)
. District Chief. So'uth'Dfetrict ¦
'Administrative j i. Assistant IN: j
Smith Shore LIV.VUIl. 1A HLC SLC.LC/2 Library ' Pages'.1: .j
'<¦'¦'. ' • " ¦
"1
Voctak-fcastSidc LIV. 2LI. SLC, SLC-PTLC.2 ¦Library Pages;
Walker JVi Llll, LI. SLC, J LC. 2 Library.' };y.: Pages- >,.
r
rr^:..
West EnglBMXX Llll; 2 U>2 LA-PT, HLC, LC, 2' 'Library Pagos,"
West Lawn ¦ LIV, Lil. LI; LA-PT; HLC, SLC. 2 Library Pages1
T
P'PJ.-L'il I -Pat
West Pullman j .LIV,LI:2LA.:1 HLC. 2 LC.'LC-
Library J Page i
Wrighhwod; :j '•Ashbum ¦¦! LIV. LIII.2 LI; |HLC. 2LC. 2j tiibrary Page;'
i- VA'rtteyM. ' r-'Young.'Jr. .1
[¦:UV.liii;'li;;I hlc, slc; lc.i
{.Library Pige;:
Source CPL
OIG FILE #16-0363 CPL. STAFFING AUDIT
IX. APPENDIX E - LIBRARY LOCATIONS AND ZIP CODES
This map illustrates the locations of libraries in zip codes. As described in the Finding, zip code is not an ideal measure of the population served by a specific library because many libraries are located on zip code boundaries and some zip codes contain multiple libraries. The table on the following page lists libraries by zip code.
Chicago Public Libraries and Zip Codes
;60526Y 60659 60660* I
60625 |
»L
J I
\ 60634 .
60651
-•-!
i 60624 60644 1 *
60614 t
30661
I I \_ 60642
J --&-60601 —;y.j'=~ 60602
D607 i
solos'-;
60623 •
• | 60609
U-r
60636
e
1 •
-l 60629
60616 -•-A
60853 V
60615 ]
60637 V
60621
!^ , , 60649 „\ ^
0 1 2
Legend
• Chicago Public Libraries | _J Zip Codes
Source OIG using City data
OIG FILE #16-0363 CPL STAFFING AUDIT
McKinley Park
Sherman Park
West Belmont
West Eriglewopd
Daley, Richard M.-W Humboldt
Manning
Garfield Ridge
North Austin
North Pulaski
Bezazian
Portage-Cragin
Beverly ,-
Walker;
West Pullman'::
South Chicago
Vodak-East Side
Independence
Greater Grand Crossing
Whitney M. Young, Jr.
Logan Square
Thurgood Marshall
West Chicago Avenue
West Town
Wrightwood-Ashburn
Mount Greenwood
Oriole Park
Legler
|99|_r
Albany Park Sulzer Regional
jRogers Park
'Pullman
;Woodson Regional iChicago Lawn ;West Lawn
using City data
60657
60659 j60660 60707 60827
Lincoln Belmont
Merlo
Budlong Woods Edgewater
(Galewood-Mont Clare iAItgeld
PAGE 34
Mission
The City of Chicago Office of Inspector General (OIG) is an independent, nonpartisan oversight agency whose mission is to promote economy, efficiency, effectiveness, and integrity in the administration of programs and operations of City government. OIG achieves this mission through,
• administrative and criminal investigations by its Investigations Section;
performance audits of City programs and operations by its Audit and Program Review Section;
inspections, evaluations and reviews of City police and police accountability programs, operations, and policies by its Public Safety Section; and
compliance audit and monitoring of City hiring and employment activities by its Hiring Oversight Unit.
From these activities, OIG issues reports of findings and disciplinary and other recommendations to assure that City officials, employees, and vendors are held accountable for violations of laws and policies; to improve the efficiency, cost-effectiveness government operations and further to prevent, detect, identify, expose and eliminate waste, inefficiency, misconduct, fraud, corruption, and abuse of public authority and resources.
Authority
OIG's authority to produce reports of its findings and recommendations is established in the City of Chicago Municipal Code §§ 2-56-030(d), -035(c), -110, -230, and 240.
Cover image courtesy of City of Chicago Department of Fleet and Facility Management
; . V , ' •> ';' v PUBLIC INQUIRIES:: .'. VV.' :.V.;--:- '; ¦
\j V '¦: .' ;? DAN IELLE PERRY: (773) 478-0534'S>k^k ¦: '!;-.:>C': - ¦ r.:- dperry(c3)IGchicag6.org ¦-" i^'l/-^'n:v-S'
. • ' . - . JO SUGG EST WAYS TO IMPROVE C ITy G OV E R N MENT, <;v._ / ; : .: i - , v -;i: i WW WCCHiCAGOlNSPECTORGENERALORG/GET-IN VOLVED/HEl.P-lMPROVE^: . .:¦' ':
¦ y - ¦ >-¦-.".¦>? -• •^?:'.':^:-- ''.iS;,;.-»occl'*/.'i< o": /.nc/. I -rr\/.-i'-in-2\ sy.no ¦nci£cv-%*'n.*».>V-.''£i:-,'L^>-:c*w. :;>;•••'•* ' ¦: ".v-.