 Hello, I'm Leanne George, coordinator of the spec survey program at the Association of Research Libraries and I'd like to thank you for joining us for this spec survey webcast. Today we'll hear about the results of the survey on outreach and engagement. The results of that survey have been published in spec kit 361 and that is freely available at publications.arl.org. Before we begin, I have a few announcements. First, everyone but our presenters has been muted to cut down background noise so if you are a part of a group today feel free to speak among yourselves, you won't disturb anyone. And we do want you to join the conversation by typing questions in the chat box in the lower left corner of your screen and you can type your questions for the presenters at any point during their presentation and at the end I'll read the questions aloud and the presenters will answer them. The webcast is being recorded and we'll send all registrants the slides and a link to the recording in about a week. Now let me introduce today's speakers. Farrell Lamere is the first year programs coordinator at Texas A&M University. Stephanie Graves is director of learning and outreach at Texas A&M. Kristin Mastell is outreach and instruction librarian at the University of Minnesota and Shannon Farrell is the natural resources librarian at the University of Minnesota twin city. And you can use this hashtag in the lower right corner ARL spec kit 361 to continue the conversation with us on Twitter. And now let me turn the presentation over to Stephanie. Thank you, Leanne. Howdy everybody as we say at Texas A&M. So I thought we'd start with how we got here to this place where the four of us came together to create this spec kit. So we found each other through our professional practice and our research and discovered that we were all struggling with similar issues. And some of the issues we talk about you may struggle with too. So we were all working on outreach activities and programs at our respective libraries. We struggled with issues of oversight and staffing and assessment of outreach. And we knew that we needed better models to demonstrate the value of outreach work. Not only to our libraries but also to our campuses and to our profession. So finally we discovered that we were all searching for program level models for outreach in libraries. And we had difficulties finding examples of strategic outreach programs in our own profession. What did we do? The spec kit that we developed was released to all 125 ARL member libraries in the summer of 2018. So 50 institutions replied which is about a 46% response rate. We want to acknowledge that there are some limitations to the study that we need to acknowledge before we get rolling here. First, as we all know, not all library institutions are similar. There's a wide variance amongst ARL member institutions from traditional academic libraries on college campuses to things like the Library of Congress. So this variance in library type can greatly color the data. In addition, only one representative from each institution was tasked with filling out the survey on behalf of their organization. And as you'll see as we go through the slides, outreach was often distributed throughout the library organization which made this kind of central reporting on outreach activities difficult for those who were filling out the survey. But regardless, we feel as though the data gathered in the spec kit is a good sort of first step in understanding library outreach as a professional activity that crosses across multiple library types. Now I'm going to turn it over to Kristen. Thank you so much, Stephanie. So the first part we wanted to know about is what is outreach? So in order to understand the staffing, the budget, and other components for a successful outreach program, we needed to know how the profession and institutions define outreach. In this first section, we asked respondents for the definitions around outreach at their institutions. So on this slide here, you can see just a quick little word cloud from all the text-based responses that you see displayed here. So you can see the themes around staff and campus, faculty and students are all kind of bubbling up to the top in this section here. So looking at, okay, what is the definition of outreach? Well, not probably too surprising as Stephanie hinted. Since there's so many different types of AERL institutions, there is no one agreed upon definition of outreach or activities at AERL institutions. Most respondents indicated that outreach at their institution was multifaceted involving working across campus or the broader organization. For example, one institution defined outreach as creating moments of discovery, learning, and exchange within the university community. I thought that was very well put. Other respondents did not seem to have a predefined outreach definition, but instead created a response specifically for our spec hit survey on what activities they were considering outreach and using that to kind of frame the rest of their responses. So now that we have kind of a very high level understanding of outreach, we also wanted to know outreach to the various populations. So when reviewing where libraries were spending their time and energy towards outreach efforts, it followed up that undergraduates, graduate students, and faculty were the audience the majority of the time. And that kind of relates with the majority of AERL institutions are kind of higher education based, but not all. Then we asked respondents about their outreach and engagement strategies with underserved groups or specific populations. So the survey respondents have worked with a variety of different groups, including the ones with the majority of the responses were international students at 83% of the time, first generation students at 61% of the time, LGBTQIA plus patrons, 54% of the time, and then people of color, people with disabilities and veterans a little bit less. And then we had 17 respondents that indicated other populations that they work with frequently, and that included groups such as K-12 organizations. And then also distance or online students were mentioned several times. So looking at activities throughout the previous year, outreach typically again is those multi-pronged efforts kind of throughout the year to reach the desired audiences. So not surprisingly, the majority of the respondents selected things like tours, orientations, open houses, and resource tables as activities they've participated in over the past year. And these could be viewed as the first point of contact for many of our users to learn about library services and programs. Kind of the next group were groups like author talks, film screenings, and friends of the library events were also noted as frequently used engagement activities. However, things like scavenger hunts, gaming events, and virtual or self-guided tours were mentioned less often. And writing responses mentioned things like finals or de-stress and wellness activities, things like crafting and therapy animals as other things that they participate in throughout the year. And that's maybe one of my regrets is not including kind of finals, de-stress, wellness activities as one of the selection. While there may be no agreed upon definition of outreach across the ARL institutions, libraries are serving their populations through a variety of methods and engagement strategies. So now I'm going to turn it over to Stephanie to talk about the institutional support to do such activities throughout the year. Thank you, Kristen. So the level at which responding institutions provided sort of structural support for outreach, we thought is an indicator of how closely outreach then might align with library priorities. So in other words, if you want to know what an organization values, look to see what they put in strategic missions and then what they fund through budget. We asked about what mission envisions were at libraries. And unsurprised, we found that approximately 18 percent of institutions did not include outreach in their mission or vision statements. The remainder believed that they had included outreach in the mission statements, but to a wide variety of degrees. The majority or 48 percent did not address outreach explicitly, but they thought they were covering it in other ways. And there were lots of words in the comments to describe what this might look like, the words like liaison or instruction, collaboration, partnership, marketing, communication, these were just some of the common phrases. And so what we thought this tells us is that there is a systematic issue in our profession. We don't have a clear idea of what outreach is in a way that spans institutions, and so therefore we can't assess it holistically in our field. However, on the flip side, it's also clear that libraries really value outreach and they really believe that they're addressing it through strategic visioning. So next, the issue of budgets. And this was really complex. 72 percent of respondents did not have a defined outreach budget. But 83 percent reported using central library budgeting for the funding of outreach. This means that while libraries aren't, they are funding outreach, they aren't dedicating a line item in their budget for outreach activities. So additional comments show that libraries are using alternate forces for funding such as departmental budget, special funds budget, grants, donations, and then who managed outreach funds very greatly. It was most common amongst administrators, managers, or committees. And then finally, the survey asked respondents to report on their annual outreach expenditures. So the graph that you're seeing shows the wide variety of funding across institutions with kind of a bottom floor under $5,000, which was about 24 percent of respondents spending more than $50,000 per year, so the wide variance. And then 14 percent were coded as unknown in this graph because the respondents said they had difficulty reporting annual expenditures for outreach because they had no central management or defined budget of outreach at their library. So this was a prevalent theme in the open comments in this area. And as you can imagine, the inconsistencies in which libraries will define outreach leads to issues in funding outreach, which makes it more difficult to get a baseline what's happening in our profession. Now over to Sarah. Thanks, Stephanie. So another area of interest for us was goals and outcomes. Our perception was that outreach, unlike other public services programs like Instruction, was often treated in an ad hoc manner. We wanted to better understand how ARL institutions were approaching their outreach programs and whether they were establishing intentional and strategic goals and outcomes for those programs. The good news is that the vast majority of respondents indicated that their libraries had goals or outcomes for their outreach programs. However, we also learned that these goals and outcomes are not typically set at the library level. Only about a third of our respondents indicated that their library established library-wide goals and outcomes for outreach. This dovetailed with the comments we received. Quite a few respondents commented that the survey was difficult for them to answer because outreach was not centrally organized at their library. Respondents most commonly indicated that outreach goals and outcomes were established by individual librarians or by library units. And indeed, this is how it works at my institution, where our Learning and Outreach Unit and our librarians who work in that unit are responsible for establishing goals and outcomes related to outreach. Similarly, the most common individual responsible for setting outcomes was an individual librarian or department head. However, it does appear that library administrators are more involved in setting outcomes than expected based on those previous responses. Although only about a third of respondents indicated that their libraries established library-wide outcomes, about half indicated that their library dean was responsible for setting those outcomes, and over 60% indicated that another administrator was responsible. This may indicate that although individual librarians and department heads are most commonly responsible for this activity, administrators are taking an interest in establishing goals and outcomes for outreach at their libraries. In addition to asking about who was responsible for setting goals and outcomes, we also wanted to know what those outcomes were. Respondents shared a wide variety of goals and outcomes with us. The most common response categories are listed here. Outreach goals and outcomes are most commonly centered around promoting library services, developing collaborations and partnerships, and engagement. We also found that many goals and outcomes are internally focused, meaning that they describe how the library will devote its resources and plan its activities. Few goals and outcomes were externally focused, meaning that they describe what patrons will experience, know, or be able to do as a result of outreach activity. Now over to Shannon. Thank you, Sarah. So now we're going to discuss how institutions plan their outreach activities. We asked respondents to describe what kind of timeline they have to determine their outreach activities. If it was on an annual basis, on a semester by semester basis, monthly, or if it happened one event at a time. 20 respondents stated they planned outreach activities on an annual basis. There were fewer responses for one semester at a time and one event at a time. However, we found that 22 respondents chose other timelines, illustrating again the complexity of the planning process. Many of these writing responses stated that these institutions try to plan their activities on an annual basis, but they're also trying to react to unanticipated outreach opportunities. We also asked what kind of events require approval from library managers or library administration. Most institutions needed approval for outreach activities from managers or administrators. Only five respondents did not require this kind of approval. The types of activities that required approval were those that either required funding, advertising, or significant staff time, were high impact or high profile activities, were new or innovative activities, or those that were aligned with strategic goals. Events that involved external audiences or donors also required approval. We noted that the requirement for approval could impact library's ability to respond and act quickly to new opportunities. Finally, we also asked about common constraints that can impact outreach events and how often institutions were impacted by these constraints. There were a wide variety of responses here. Fundance-experienced impacts related to timing and scheduling issues, facility constraints, and funding constraints. Funding constraints may be tied to the need for administrative approval and or the lack of dedicated outreach funds. Those who selected other constraints mentioned issues such as the lack of space, security, and receiving approval for events. And now I'm going to turn it over to Stephanie again. Thanks Shannon. So librarians that do quite a bit of outreach to understand that it can be an enormous output of effort. And so we wanted to understand how that responsibility was being distributed across library organizations. Who is actually doing the work of outreach? By the way, this picture that you're seeing here is an image of the Texas A&M Dean of the Libraries and Associate Dean handing out t-shirts at our annual open house. So we managed to make some of the administrators do some of the work. We're pretty proud of that. Alright, so this chart shows who in the library is performing various leadership tasks related to outreach such as planning, overseeing events, soliciting volunteers, and identifying and purchasing promotional items. So it's clear from this chart that librarians and staff are carrying the lion's share of the load. Staff and department heads and library administrators are following closely behind. One of the more enlightening themes in the open comments was that there was little consistency to the allocation of who did what because it kept changing from event to event in most libraries. The degree to which outreach staffing is operationalized by being explicitly mentioned in job duties is an important indicator of its value in libraries. We found that the majority, or about 95% of libraries, had personnel with outreach responsibilities outlined in their position description and almost as many were evaluating personnel based on outreach activities. When asked who was staffing outreach events, public service librarians and staff tended to most frequently do the staffing. Library liaisons made up the majority of the list at 89% with the remainder being evenly divided amongst dedicated outreach librarian staff and marketing positions. Even with positions dedicated to outreach, many libraries still must engage staff from across departments to provide sufficient staff funding staffing for these outreach events. And there were consistent themes in many of their responses. The majority of libraries reported that the staffing of outreach events is done on a voluntary basis by library staff. In addition, staff volunteers often had to seek approval from their supervisor to use their time to staff outreach events. While in some other cases, the event organizer would have to seek the supervisory approval. Email seemed to be the most frequently used method for soliciting staff for outreach events with a few libraries mentioning library newsletters or staff meetings as other venues to solicit participation. This chart shows how frequently libraries face certain challenges in staffing their outreach activities. Thankfully, the majority of libraries reported that many of these challenges had never happened to them. However, the write-in comments indicated that many respondents had difficulty actually answering the question because outreach was not centrally organized in their library, so they had no way to sort of quantify staffing difficulty. The three issues that occurred most often were difficulty staffing evening and weekend events, soliciting staff to work outreach events, and staff time to participate. The data indicated that while staffing outreach may not be an issue for some libraries, it is a significant barrier to others. In fact, seven libraries, about 13%, indicated that insufficient staff time was a problem for them more than six times a year. Now over to Kristen. Thank you, Stephanie. As we all know, outreach cannot be done in a vacuum. The very definition of outreach implies that we are interacting with our communities. We asked several questions related to the strengths and challenges of collaborative partnerships and who are common collaborators to gain a picture of outreach if outreach was responsive to requests or proactively seeking those partnerships. So in reviewing the responses, it was clear that libraries are tuned into campus activities and are seeking opportunities to partner across the institution. Libraries are always looking for potential new partners and collaborators, as 89% of respondents indicated working with a new partner over the past three years. Campus orientation departments and development offices were the most frequent collaborators. But libraries collaborate with a wide variety of units and organizations to help them accomplish their goals. As one can expect with any large project or event, there are many benefits to collaboration, such as access to new audiences, created additional marketing efforts, and being able to leverage resources, both financial and staffing. However, collaborations are not without their challenges, which include different expectations, communication issues, varying timelines between partners, and a lack of follow-through and limited ability to hold partners accountable. So on this slide, we can see that over half of respondents indicated outreach was in response to internal or external requests. And so now I'm going to turn it over to Shannon. Thank you, Kristen. So I'm going to talk about library outreach assessment and reporting. So we asked respondents to indicate what assessment methods they're using to assess their outreach activities. And you'll see here this is a graph illustrating the different kinds that we asked about. So a variety of methods were employed, but the most commonly used were headcounts, observations, feedback from volunteers or partners, and collecting comments. Some methods were uncommon, such as minute papers, interviews, and focus groups. So we interpret these results to indicate that libraries relied on quick, unobtrusive, and those less resource-intensive techniques to assess their outreach. We also asked respondents to indicate who was responsible for designing and testing assessment tools at their library. Very few libraries had designated staff to design and test assessment tools. It was more often that people or groups who were doing the planning of the events or communications and marketing staff who were doing this kind of work. Most libraries were not using event planners, staff external to the library, or hired consultants. Similarly, there was not one person who was responsible for assessing the library's overall outreach programs. So once again, this illustrates to us the ad hoc approach to assessing outreach programs. So similarly, we also asked who was responsible for assessing each institution's overall outreach program. The majority of institutions stated that there was not one person who was responsible for assessing the overall outreach program. However, of those who did have a primary person responsible, they were often administrators, outreach librarians, or assessment librarians. And again, as I just said, this illustrates the ad hoc approach that institutions are taking to assessing outreach programs. Finally, we asked respondents how they were using assessment data and reporting impact. The majority of respondents indicated that they have canceled or discontinued events or made changes to events based on assessment data. The kinds of data that has been used to cancel events were mostly poor attendance or low usage statistics. The kinds of data used to change events were more varied. So this included using feedback, observations, surveys, and focused groups. Most respondents said outreach activities are reported in employees' performance evaluations, and that assessment data was compiled to respond to requests from administration. Reports were typically provided to administrators on either an annual or a regular basis. Only nine respondents said that no reporting on outreach is required in their libraries. Finally, respondents were asked to identify how much time libraries give to establish impact and to demonstrate success of their outreach activities. The majority responded that there is no defined time frame. A few responses said incrementally, so that happened in 25% of cases, or after two or three iterations, and only 7% said that. Only one said impact had to be demonstrated immediately. And now I'm going to turn it over to Sarah. Thank you, Shannon. The last section of our survey was the case study section, and this section respondents shared the details of a single outreach event at their library. Respondents submitted a wide variety of outreach activities in the case study section of the survey, clearly illustrating immediate potential approaches to outreach. Common events mentioned were resource fairs or tabling events, open houses, human library events, and final stress buster events like therapy dog visits, which I'm sure many of us have had in the library at this time of year. Respondents connolly mentioned collaborating with campus entities such as academic departments or with student support units like writing centers. Perhaps the biggest range was in budget, as some institutions mentioned events with no associated costs at all, while others mentioned annual events with a price tag of $50,000. We encourage you all to review the case study section of the spec kit to get a sense of the wide range of outreach they're using to engage patrons. Now I'm going to turn it over to Kristen to talk about our recommendations. We may have lost Kristen. Oh, sorry. Can you hear me now? Yes. Thank you. Okay, sorry. I was talking and coughing and muted myself. I apologize about that. All right. Thanks, Sarah. By understanding the various practices across ARL institutions, we are able to provide some guidance to the libraries at the local and national levels. We hope that these findings provide a jumping off point for further research in developing best practices and professional development around programmatic outreach. So with that, we do have a few recommendations and things to keep in mind going forward. So institutions could be more effective by first defining what outreach means for their library. This includes a programmatic approach that includes a clear definition, meaningful and measurable outreach outcomes and goals, a defined budget, and utilization of various assessment methods. Instituting a high level of planning would allow for a distributed model of staffing that works towards institutional objectives. In addition, a dedicated outreach budget would allow staff to plan for outreach programming throughout the year, yet remain nimble enough to respond to opportunities and outside requests for participation. There also seem to be issues with the oversight of outreach programs. For example, many individuals participated in disparate outreach events, but no one group or individual was responsible for overseeing institution-wide outreach programs. Instead, it appeared that the labor of love of outreach included event planning and staffing, which mostly fell to public service librarians and library staff, who were tasked with creating outreach activities without programmatic oversight or alignment. Further, the discipline would benefit from more training around goal writing and assessment strategies, as the data suggests that most professional development and training were self-initiated. With a programmatic approach to outreach and additional library staff training, library outreach activities will more likely be intentional, strategic, and impactful. If outreach is to grow and evolve like other library services, it needs to be more than just un-nice to have, instead seen as essential to the student, faculty, and staff's success well-being. We would really like to thank all the time and energy that Leigh Ann George has put throughout the development of this spec kit. Spec kits have a long tradition of being a valuable resource for libraries across many issues, and we hope that ours furthers the conversation around outreach and engagement. Thank you, Kristen and Sarah and Stephanie and Shannon. And now, we welcome questions from our audience. Please join this conversation by typing your questions in the chat box in the lower left corner of your screen, and I'll read them aloud so that all the participants will know what the question is, and then our presenters will answer them. And while we give our participants a minute to compose their questions, presenters, what was the most surprising thing you've found in the survey responses? I'll go ahead and tackle that one. No one else seems to want to tackle that one. I don't think we were surprised by sort of the lack of coordination because it was certainly sort of reflective of our own sort of institutional organizations and how we were working. I was most surprised, frankly, by the wide variance in budget. So there's a wide variety of library types, but the budgeting issue sort of shocked me that we weren't doing a really good job of sort of operationalizing and institutionalizing the funding sources because as someone who sort of works in library middle management, I know that money actually runs the show, right? And people want to know how their money was spent and whether it had an impact and whether it was money well spent. So the fact that we couldn't really track that sort of shocked me. Ann has a question about assessment. Were there any respondents who really had a good assessment plan that you could share that maybe we could point people to in the survey responses? I don't recall that. This is Shannon. I don't recall that we received an overall assessment plan as a document. Sarah, you can correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't actually recall seeing that. No, I agree. I don't think anyone submitted a formal assessment plan for outreach as one of the documents, although I think we would all love to see that. Yes. If anyone in the chat box, if you have one at your institution, we would love to see it. Yeah, University of Washington is doing some interesting work in this area, and we've been in touch with them. We saw more or less... Sorry, this is Kristen. We saw more or less examples of assessment tied to each case study, and some of those were good examples that would have maybe two or three assessments for a single activity or event or effort, but not necessarily a holistic assessment plan. Thank you. Lori wants to know if you included instruction as an outreach activity, or did you exclude it? In the directions we did, I encouraged them to kind of exclude it. There's been other spec kits kind of around instruction, whether it's course-integrated or workshop-type instruction, though we realized in the writing we acknowledged that outreach and engagement, again, there's a lot of ties potentially with that, but for the purpose of this study, we kind of were focusing on the non-course-integrated instruction. But again, depending on your institution's definition, that may or may not be included in your outreach realm. Did you ask how many institutions have an outreach librarian? And if so, can you point us to that number? So this is Stephanie. So we did ask about job descriptions, and I'm trying to remember which slide that is on getting there, I promise, or not. And what we saw most commonly is there were some folks that did have an outreach-dedicated position, but it was more common that outreach was sort of included as a line item in people's position descriptions. So on my slide deck, it's slide 22. On this slide deck, I'm not sure what it was, but we found that 95% of the personnel had outreach, thank you very much, you never just change that slide, had outreach responsibilities in their position descriptions in some way or form. But it was uncommon to see just a straight outreach position. So commonly it was like tied in with liaison librarians or instruction and outreach librarians. I want to add to that in the spec survey, we did get a number, we had 29 institutions, which was about 54% responded saying that they have a dedicated outreach librarian position, and that same number, that 29% or 54% said that they have a dedicated outreach staff, so a non-library position dedicated to outreach. And there was a common title, add to what Sarah said, there was a common tie to marketing departments within libraries or marketing and communications. Yes. A couple of the participants are asking about how many events did the libraries host each year or an average number. What's kind of typical? That's not a question, this is Shannon again, that we asked because we figured it was going to be too hard to quantify across the entire system, and everyone wouldn't be aware of every single event, which is why we asked about, go ahead. I was going to say we did ask by population the frequency, but not the overall total number. We were curious how frequently different libraries do K-12 school events, but to echo Shannon, we didn't have how many events are you holding question. Kirsten asked if you've got any information about non-event outreach. You talked a lot about event related things, but what about having a suggestion box or whiteboard polls or other kinds of non-events? I guess we were seeing that mostly when I think of whiteboard polls brought out in the assessment section. Some of those are ways that people kind of engage engagement and outreach, sometimes tied to an event, sometimes just stand-alone, but I don't remember a great key study or other things. We didn't ask how prevalent they used those as a stand-alone outreach avenue to my knowledge. We did ask about social media, and we found like 95% of our respondents engaged in outreach via social media. We actually spent a lot of time talking about what kinds of activities to ask about because we know that so many different organizations define outreach differently, and what we might consider outreach might be different than what another library considers outreach. And so we came up with kind of a brief list of what we consider fairly common activities and then kind of relied on respondents to flesh out that list. I don't think we had a lot of those passive outreach opportunities. It seemed like our respondents went more for those kind of active events and things like that. Gail offers a resource, which is a series of booklets that were created by the National Network of Libraries of Medicine about health information outreach, and she gives us a link that we can share with all of you later when we give you the link to the slides and things. Thank you, Gail. Gail, I believe either you or someone at your institution also provided that link in response to the survey so that I remember explicitly looking at that, and that's one of the like selected resources or recommended resources at the end. So it is in the report as well. So thank you. Anne has a question. So how did the responding libraries encourage those staff who aren't primarily responsible for outreach to participate in events? Did they give you any examples of language they use and why it's important for participation? So we didn't ask that question. This is Stephanie. We didn't ask that question specifically, but looking at the open comments, as you can imagine, is sometimes really illustrative of what's going on in libraries, and that question about whether events were staffed and whether people needed supervisory approval and how folks solicited was really interesting. So we saw a lot of folks who suggested at their library there was sort of administrative support for people to participate, and so people felt that administrative support and felt like it was worth their time to participate. And then we had the opposite end of the spectrum, where folks felt like they had to sort of beg for volunteers and sort of sell outreach as something that was worth people's time, and sometimes supervisors would not allow them to participate if they didn't think their participation had value. But we didn't actually gauge the comfort level of folks in doing this work. Ann has a question about how was attendance counted? Did you get any responses about how they did that? Was it just head counts, or did people swipe IDs when they came into the event, or do you have any other data on that? The only data... This is Shannon again. The only data that we took about attendance would be in the assessment section of the survey, and we only asked what kinds of data they were taking, not in relation to attendance. So I can only guess that when they selected head counts, that was what they were talking about. I, however, personally would consider a swipe to still be a head count, because it's just taking a number of how many people showed up. I didn't see much else in terms of how to count attendance besides that. We have time for just another question or two. There are a couple of folks. William and Laurie asked if you've got any information about outreach from special collections or archives, or from events around opening a new collection or a particular collection? So I think that's a really interesting question and something that we can certainly do in the future, because through the second, the invitation goes out and then each library gets to determine who's going to answer the survey for their institution, and we asked about institutionalized data, and they were answering for their whole library. We didn't see sort of that breakdown by library or by collection unless it showed up as one individual event in the case studies. And so I think something about outreach to specific libraries like special collections or archives would be really an interesting study. There were several in the case studies, several institutions that talked about a collaboration, particularly with special collections or in support of a collection as the outreach event or activity that they chose to share in that case study. So that is actually a fairly rich pool of information about what libraries are doing in that area. Two last questions. Virginia asked if you gathered data on how many staff, and I'm going to answer that. We didn't ask specifically. We had to do some comparison of the survey respondents with our other statistics data to see on the size of staff and how that compared to some of the other answers. The last question is, someone's really curious about what was that $50,000 event? That one I believe was a... Oh, go ahead, Sarah. A common reader event, I believe, was the one in the case study that at least one of the ones that had a fairly high dollar amount. So, Jenna, you can check the spec kit case studies to find out more about that event. Well, I want to thank all of our participants and our presenters for joining us today to discuss the results of the Outreach and Engagement Spec Survey. And just a reminder, you will receive slides and a link to the recording in about a week. Thank you all. Thanks a lot.