One of the most common questions I hear from library professionals is: “We are offering so many programs, but how do we know if they are the right programs?”
I used to ask those same questions, too. Then, in the early 2010s, I had the opportunity to work alongside some brilliant and forward-thinking colleagues at Charlotte Mecklenburg Library. Together, we reimagined library programming from the ground up—not by adding more tools or trying to do more, but by changing how we planned.
The shift we made was deceptively simple, but incredibly powerful:
We started treating program planning as a strategic process, not just a creative one.
Here’s how that looked—and why it worked. This draws on my memories, as well as a ULC Innovation Award write-up from that time period.
1. We anchored every program in the library’s mission
The first step was asking: Why are we offering this program? If the answer didn’t clearly support the library’s mission—around literacy, educational success, or workforce development—it raised the question of why. That filter helped us to prioritize mission-aligned programs, and go back to the drawing board for programs that didn’t fit the mission.
2. We shifted from individual ideas to collective priorities
Before this shift, program planning was mostly ad hoc—driven by the passions and creativity of individual staff members. That energy was wonderful, but sometimes it was missing strategic alignment. So we flipped the model. Instead of starting with “What do I want to offer?” we started asking:
- What does our community need?
- How does this align with our strategic goals?
- Can this program be replicated or scaled for broader impact?
This mindset helped reduce duplication, increased collaboration, and made programs easier to evaluate and improve.
3. We built in time for thoughtful planning—not just delivery
One of the biggest barriers to impactful programming? No one has time to step back and plan. So we carved out that space. We treated planning as a core responsibility, not an extra task. This gave staff the breathing room to develop stronger concepts, think about outcomes, and set clear goals before jumping into logistics.
4. We learned to account for the full cost of programs
This was a game-changer. We encouraged staff to consider not just supplies or guest speaker fees, but staff time, prep, promotion, and follow-up. That helped us see the true cost of each program—and make smarter decisions about where to invest our limited capacity.
It also gave us language to use with funders and stakeholders who wanted to know: What are we really getting for this investment?
5. We focused on outcomes, not just attendance
We stopped asking, “How many people showed up?” and started asking, “What changed as a result?” That led us to track:
- Increases in reading time or library visits
- Skills gained through workshops or training
- Confidence or behavior changes, especially in youth and jobseekers
And the impact wasn’t just numbers—it was stories. Stories of teens mentoring younger kids, of families discovering new ways to learn together, of jobseekers landing their first interviews in years. That’s what we could proudly take back to funders, partners, and our own teams.
6. We used shared language
Before this shift, we didn’t have a consistent way to name or describe programs—even those that were essentially the same. A toddler storytime might be called “Wiggles and Giggles” at one branch and “Fiddlesticks” at another. While fun and creative, this created real confusion for parents and caregivers who had to guess what those titles meant. Worse, it failed to signal to funders and stakeholders that these were part of a coordinated early literacy effort designed to build critical pre-reading skills.
By standardizing program titles across the system, we made our offerings clearer, more discoverable, and easier to market—while also telling a stronger story about our impact.
So, what does this mean for your library?
Getting a handle on programming doesn’t mean doing more. It means doing the right things, in the right ways, for the right reasons.
It means giving your team a shared framework for:
- Choosing what to offer
- Planning intentionally
- Measuring what matters
It’s not about being rigid or bureaucratic—it’s about being strategic. And when that shift happens, programming becomes more impactful, more manageable, and—yes—even easier to market.
Cordelia Anderson Consulting 