From Bake-Alongs to Tech Talks: How One Public Library System Pivoted to Virtual Programming

Facing The Pandemic

In mid-March 2020, TCCL made the decision to shut down all 24 public locations and send staff home to help prevent the spread of COVID-19 in the community. At that time, the confirmed case count was low in Tulsa, but numbers were rising and hospital capacity became an issue. After an initial two-week paid leave period (excepting essential staff, who maintained physical and digital infrastructure), staff were directed to resume work from home and began the process of figuring out what library services would look like in the coming months. This produced innovative virtual programming experiences, including a Summer Reading Program that was reimagined for the health and safety of the community.

By mid-May, locations added on-site curbside services. As case numbers rose across the state, plans to add in-person services were delayed indefinitely. To proactively address potential budget shortfalls, as well as the uncertain, shifting nature of job duties and staffing needs, a hiring freeze was implemented. Staff vacancies increased, necessitating a systemwide, coordinated approach to programming and content creation to efficiently utilize staff time while still providing a robust schedule of programs and services to the community.

The pivot to online programming was a time of experimentation and ongoing iteration, taking the best practices from each week forward and eventually developing a strategic approach to virtual programming coordinated on a systemwide level. Prior to initiating a systemwide team for coordinated virtual programming, branches created and led virtual programming via their individual social media platforms and some systemwide platforms. While this approach allowed branch staff to connect with their communities and the audience that already followed their online activities, it also created a cluttered digital calendar and did not highlight the best content. Additionally, as staff time became more limited, this approach was recognized as an inefficient use of resources.

Other constraints on programming staff included differences in equipment access and internet connectivity. While staff were working from home in April and May, the library was able to distribute some equipment, but not every staff member had the ability to lead programming. Even as buildings opened for curbside service, the number of staff allowed in each building was limited to maintain social distancing, with staff always required to wear masks in the building. For accessibility and other considerations, it was decided that library staff would not lead programs with masks on, so programming was conducted during at-home work time.