Evaluating Public Library Programs Addressing Substance Use
All public library programs and partnerships focused on addressing substance use—whether involving drug or alcohol prevention, harm reduction, recovery support, or community education—should include a structured evaluation process. This evaluation should occur at a predetermined interval, as outlined in the initial planning documentation if working alone, or memorandum of understanding (MoU), if working with a partner.
The purpose of this evaluation is to assess both the effectiveness and impact of the program as a whole. Key questions include:
- What aspects of the program worked well?
- What did not work as intended, and why?
- Is the program effectively reaching the intended audience?
- Are the outcomes aligned with the original goals and objectives?
Evaluation serves as a tool for decision-making. It enables library and community leaders to determine whether a partnership should be renewed, revised, or concluded. If the program continues, the evaluation identifies what needs to be adjusted or improved for greater success.
Ongoing evaluation is also an essential component of accountability and resource management. Public funds, staff time, and community goodwill are finite. It is irresponsible to continue investing in an ineffective initiative without addressing its shortcomings. Instead, evaluations should guide whether to fix, refine, or reallocate resources to ensure that library programs remain impactful and aligned with community needs.
A thorough evaluation also examines:
- whether everyone is fulfilling their commitments as agreed
- changes in personnel, leadership, or priorities
- the broader community or policy environment. Has it shifted in ways that affect the program’s relevance or delivery?
Importantly, a good evaluation does not simply confirm what we hope to find—it provides honest, evidence-based insight into whether progress is being made and goals are being met. This transparency helps ensure that libraries act as responsible stewards of public trust and resources.
Ultimately, evaluation provides the information necessary to decide whether a program or partnership should advance to the next phase or whether it has fulfilled its purpose and should be concluded. To illustrate the value of this process, real-world examples of successful evaluations will be included, highlighting how data-driven reflection can strengthen library-led responses to substance use and improve community outcomes.
Example 1: Evaluating a Public Library–Health Department Partnership on Opioid Response
Imagine a public library partnered with the county health department to host regular naloxone (Narcan) training sessions and distribute harm-reduction information. The partnership began two years ago, guided by an MoU that outlined each partner’s roles and responsibilities:
- The library would provide a neutral, accessible community space and promote the sessions through its communication channels.
- The health department would supply certified trainers, naloxone kits, and data on overdose prevention outcomes.
At the end of the second year, the partners conducted a formal evaluation to determine whether the program should continue.
1. Were partners fulfilling their commitments?
The evaluation found that while the library continued to provide space and marketing support, staff turnover at the health department had led to inconsistent trainer availability. Several scheduled sessions had been canceled due to shortages of certified trainers. As a result, the program’s frequency dropped from monthly to quarterly, reducing community reach.
2. Have personnel, leadership, or priorities changed?
During the review, evaluators noted that the health department’s new leadership had shifted focus toward mobile outreach clinics instead of site-based programs. Meanwhile, the library had recently hired a new community engagement coordinator who was eager to expand public health partnerships. This change in personnel and priorities created an opportunity to redefine responsibilities—perhaps with the library taking a more active role in volunteer coordination or outreach.
3. Has the broader community or policy environment changed?
The evaluation also examined external factors. In the two years since the program launched, several local pharmacies had begun offering free naloxone and overdose response training, reducing the library’s role as the primary access point. However, new data revealed a rise in teen overdoses in the area, suggesting a need to pivot toward youth-focused education and prevention rather than adult-only sessions.
Outcome
Based on these findings, the evaluation team recommended renewing the partnership with modifications:
- Adjust the program focus to include youth and family education.
- Redefine partner roles in light of staffing and leadership changes.
- Coordinate with pharmacies and schools to expand reach and avoid duplication of effort.
This example demonstrates how evaluating commitments, personnel, and external conditions can reveal not just whether a program is effective, but how it can evolve to remain relevant, efficient, and impactful.
Example 2: Evaluating a Library–Nonprofit Partnership for Recovery Support Groups
A mid-sized public library established a partnership with a local nonprofit recovery organization to host weekly support group meetings for individuals in recovery from substance use disorders. The library provided private meeting space, promotion through its community calendar, and staff assistance with logistics. The nonprofit provided trained peer facilitators and resources for participants, such as referral materials for counseling, housing, and employment services.
After one year, the library conducted an evaluation to assess the program’s impact, alignment, and sustainability.
1. Were partners fulfilling their commitments?
The evaluation found that the library had consistently provided space and logistical support, but the nonprofit partner had begun struggling to supply trained facilitators for all sessions. Some meetings were led by volunteers without adequate preparation, which affected the quality of support and led to uneven attendance. In addition, the nonprofit had not submitted quarterly participation summaries as promised in the MoU, limiting the library’s ability to report outcomes to funders.
2. Have personnel, leadership, or priorities changed?
During the evaluation period, the nonprofit experienced a change in executive leadership, and its new director shifted priorities toward expanding housing support for clients. This change led to a reduction in funding and attention for peer-led support groups. Meanwhile, the library had hired a new social work intern through a local university partnership—creating a potential opportunity to fill gaps in facilitation and participant follow-up.
3. Has the broader community or policy environment changed?
The evaluation also considered external factors. Over the past year, a new county recovery center had opened just a few blocks from the library, offering daily meetings and access to licensed counselors. While this reduced attendance at the library’s group, participants reported that the library’s neutral, stigma-free space remained uniquely welcoming for those hesitant to attend formal treatment settings.
Outcome
Based on these findings, evaluators recommended continuing the partnership with a revised structure:
- The library would maintain the meeting space but host biweekly sessions instead of weekly ones.
- The new social work intern would assist with facilitation and collect participant feedback.
- The nonprofit would focus on specialized workshops rather than ongoing peer meetings, aligning with its new mission.
- The partners would establish clearer data-sharing practices and set up quarterly coordination check-ins.
This evaluation highlighted the importance of flexibility and communication in sustaining recovery-focused programs. Even as partners’ circumstances evolved and community needs shifted, the library’s commitment to offering a safe, inclusive environment for recovery remained central to the program’s success.
Read More:
Coleman, M., Connaway, L. S., & Morgan, K. (2020). Public libraries respond to the opioid crisis with their communities: Research findings. Collaborative Librarianship, 12(1), 6.
Feuerstein-Simon, R., Lowenstein, M., Dupuis, R., Dolan, A., Marti, X. L., Harvey, A., … & Cannuscio, C. C. (2022). Substance use and overdose in public libraries: Results from a five-state survey in the US. Journal of community health, 47(2), 344-350.
Schnell, P. M., Zhao, R., Schoenbeck, S., Niles, K., MacEwan, S. R., Fried, M., & Childerhose, J. E. (2024). How Ohio public library systems respond to opioid-related substance use: a descriptive analysis of survey results. BMC public health, 24(1), 1336.