Reimagining Safety at the Central Library through Interdisciplinary Partnership and Community Engagement: Findings from a Mixed-Methods Needs Assessment

Background and Purpose: Public libraries strive to be democratic spaces committed to equitable access, inclusion, and service to all community members. These commitments are increasingly challenged by structural conditions—including poverty, housing instability, and unmet behavioral health needs—and rising public safety concerns reported by library staff (Knox, 2024; Comito & Zabriskie, 2022; CUPE, 2023). Together, these dynamics create a central tension: how to maintain libraries as open, inclusive institutions while responding to safety concerns affecting staff and patrons.

In 2023, a Central Library in a major urban area documented 19 serious incidents involving violence or threats. In response, the Public Library System piloted on-site police presence for up to nine hours per week over six months. Reactions were mixed: many staff reported increased safety, while others and community members raised concerns about reliance on enforcement, particularly for populations already disproportionately criminalized. In this context, the Public Library System partnered with researchers from the local university to conduct a comprehensive safety needs assessment.

Methods: This study employed a two-phase, community-engaged sequential mixed-methods design (QUAN → QUAL) grounded in a transformative paradigm (Mertens, 2009). Qualitative inquiry extended quantitative findings by adding context, surfacing diverse definitions of safety, and informing solution development. Phase 1 (4 months) analyzed administrative incident data, staff surveys, police and library records, and public comments, followed by engagement with staff and community members to co-interpret findings. Phase 2 (9 months) included purposive interviews with staff (n=33), patrons (n=22), and law enforcement (n=3), engagement with 9 community organizations through 5 focus groups, surveys of 7 peer library systems, and ongoing consultation with an 11-member Participatory Action Research Group. Phase 1 used descriptive statistics; Phase 2 employed rapid qualitative analysis (Gale et al., 2019; Hamilton & Finley, 2019) using structured matrices. Findings across phases were integrated using joint displays.

Results: Safety emerged not as a fixed condition but as a set of organizational choices shaped by lived experiences, relationships, organizational culture, and community context. Administrative data showed a reduction in reported assaults during the pilot (16 to 5) alongside increased recorded offenses, likely reflecting increased observation. Staff surveys indicated increased perceived safety, though support for continuing the pilot declined over time. Initial analysis indicated polarization around police presence; however, participatory engagement revealed a continuum of perspectives. Most participants supported hybrid approaches emphasizing prevention, staff capacity, in-house security, and community partnerships, with police as a last-resort response. Importantly, the community-engaged, interdisciplinary process itself emerged as a key finding: participants reported strengthened relationships, trust, and investment in collaborative problem-solving. The process modeled safety as a relational practice—through shared learning, constructive engagement with tension, and cross-sector collaboration—with one participant noting it clarified “why and how” to translate the library’s mission into practice.

Conclusions and Implications: Community-engaged research moved beyond polarized positions, generating a more nuanced understanding of safety and actionable pathways for implementing innovative safety approaches in library settings. Findings demonstrate how rigorous, participatory social work research can serve democracy by building trust, strengthening relationships, and informing equitable, community-centered solutions.