Public Libraries as Centers for PlayA Survey and Case Examples•
Peter Gray, Autumn Erdahl Solomon,and Leah Tatgenhorst

The authors surveyed public libraries to learn about the opportunities forplay they offered and children’s freedom to engage in such play without adultsupervision. The authors conclude that, in recent years, public libraries in the
United States have increasingly created spaces and programs enabling freeplay for children and teens. These include “maker spaces” (for constructiveplay), playrooms with toys and games for young children, and rooms where
teens can socialize and play games. The authors describe the survey results
and three especially successful library play programs in detail. These results,
they conclude, illustrate how librarians have welcomed children and enabled
free play in the library through policies of nonintervention and by emphasizing nonintervention by care givers who might otherwise intervene in suchplay. Key words: free play; maker spaces; play and libraries; public libraries

Over the past several decades, opportunities for children to play

freely with one another, without adult control, have declined greatly (Chudacoff
2007; Frost 2012; Gray 2011, 2013; Digennaro 2021). The daily neighborhood
play that many adults of middle age and older enjoyed when they were children
does not exist today for most children. A decline in neighborhood cohesiveness, increased fears of potential dangers to unsupervised children, increased
academic pressures on children, and legal constraints that prevent or dissuadeparents from allowing their children to roam freely have all combined to keep
children housebound or under adult surveillance far more extensively than in
the past. When children do come together outside of school, they most often doso for sports or other activities controlled and directed by adults.
This decline in free play has been accompanied by well-documented
increases in anxiety, depression, and even suicide among school-aged children,
all of which have reached record levels in the past two decades (Centers for
Disease Control 2016; Plemmons et al. 2018; Twenge et al. 2010). There are131

American Journal of Play, Volume 14, number 2 © 2022 by The Strong
Contact Peter Gray at grayp@bc.edu

132

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF

P L AY

good reasons to believe that play deprivation is a major cause of such increased
psychopathology (Gray 2011, 2013; Belknap and Hazler 2014; Digennaro 2021).
As illustrated by one recent study, children’s own conceptions of happiness are
intrinsically connected with their conceptions of play (Moore and Lynch 2018).
Take away play, and you take away happiness. Through play children also learn
to create their own activities, negotiate with peers, solve their own problems,and generally take charge of their own lives (Frost et al. 2012; Gray 2013). Playdeprivation has been described as a form of educational poverty (Digennaro2021), and it may be the primary form of educational poverty in the UnitedStates today.
Studies indicate that the primary stimulus for joyful play by children isother children to play with and that the primary inhibitor is adult monitors whointervene and interfere with children’s sense of freedom and self-control (Floyd
et al. 2011; Gray 2020). To bring play back to children’s lives, we must create
places where children can congregate and play freely but which are sufficiently
safe to allay societal and parental fears. Generally, this means places with adults
who keep an eye out for real dangers but who otherwise refrain from interfering with children’s activities. This is the approach of Adventure Playgrounds(Almon and Keeler 2018) and a growing number of before- and after-school
free-play opportunities at schools recently promoted by the nonprofit Let Grow
organization (Parrott and Cohen 2020, 2021). Our purpose in this article is to
examine the possibility that public libraries could become places where children
regularly congregate for play.
Public libraries can be thought of as publicly supported educational complements to public schools. Just as we have schools in every community, we havelibraries in every community. While schools are centers for teacher-directededucation, libraries are centers for self-directed education. Traditionally—andto a considerable degree still today—the primary functions of libraries are to
make books and other media available to patrons generally and to help them findwhatever information they seek. Unlike teachers, librarians do not tell patrons
what to read but, instead, help them find what they want to read.
In recent years, as books and other reading materials have become increasingly available online or easily and cheaply purchased and as information has
become easy to find through Internet searches, the perceived value of libraries’
traditional functions has declined. Partly as a result, many libraries are expanding their functions to meet other needs of the communities in which they arelocated. Libraries regularly host speakers, films, book clubs, and other com-

Public Libraries as Centers for Playmunity events free for anyone who wants to come. And, of most interest here,some are becoming places for children to play.
Our search of published articles about play opportunities in libraries indicates that the most common such opportunities are oriented toward toddlers
and preschool-aged children who come with a parent or other care giver. Libraryplay areas most often include toys for young children along with books that caregivers can read to their charges. However, an increasing number of libraries havedeveloped play areas to appeal to children of elementary school age. For example,
Brenna Hassinger-Das and colleagues (2020) describe an observational study of
new play spaces in three branch libraries in Philadelphia where children playing
typically range from one to ten years in age. The spaces include such features asclimbing walls, stages, and toys chosen to appeal to elementary school children
as well as younger ones. Although many libraries present their play areas asplaces for children and care givers to play and interact together, at least someencourage care givers to hold back and allow their children to play freely, withminimal intervention (Swadley 2021).
Another type of play that has increased rapidly in libraries during the past
decade comes from the introduction of “maker spaces.” Making things for fun—referred to by play scholars as constructive play—constitutes a common formof play for people of all ages throughout the world. It is free play to the degree
that those engaged choose what and how to create and are concerned more withthe creative process than with the finished product. Modern maker spaces are
generally understood to be places that have tools—including high-tech tools
such as 3-D printers—for creating a wide variety of things, places where people(makers) congregate to share ideas and help one another in their creative activities. Tinkering—experimenting playfully with various techniques—is regarded
as a central aspect of maker culture (Willett 2018). Reportedly, the first modern
maker space in a U.S. public library was opened at the Fayetteville Free Library
in Fayetteville, New York, in 2011 (Wang et al. 2016). In the decade since, makerspaces have opened in hundreds of libraries across the country.
Some libraries have gone to great effort to provide remarkable facilities for creative activities by young people. The Benjamin L. Hooks Central
Library in Memphis, Tennessee, recently featured in Smithsonian Magazine,
has a facility designed specifically for teens that includes not just a fully
equipped maker space but also a state-of-the-art recording studio, a video
lab, a robotics lab, an art studio, and a teen-hangout area (Grant 2021). It hasbrought hundreds of young people into the library who would normally not be

133

134

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF

P L AYlibrary patrons, some of whom have gone on to win awards for their creations.
Research about how librarians view and present their maker spaces andhow patrons use them reveals some tension between a tendency to see themas places in which STEM (science, technology, engineering, and math) skills
are taught in school-like, didactic settings and as places in which library staff
members maintain a more hands-off approach and allow patrons to experiment,
discover, and learn from one another (Lui 2016; Willett 2018). Observations ofschoolchildren using a library maker space as part of a field trip from school
indicate that such questions as “What do you plan to make?”—which direct
attention to a product and hint at possible evaluation—tend to inhibit development of a playful attitude (Skaland et al. 2020). The playful, maker attitude seems
to require a period of just “messing around” with the equipment to discover its
properties and then sharing these discoveries (along with ideas about what it
might be fun to make) with other participants.
To learn more about public libraries as places for young people to play,
we surveyed library program managers at U.S. public libraries of diverse sizes
and locations. We were interested in the opportunities libraries offered for play,including constructive play, and in the degree to which children of various ages
were welcome to use these facilities without the presence of a parent or caregiver. In what follows, we describe the survey methods and findings and thendescribe three examples of libraries that, in quite different ways, have provided
especially successful play opportunities.

Survey Methods
Research Design and Modification
Our original plan for gathering data was to survey one hundred public libraries,
all listed by the Institute of Museum and Library Sciences, selected to include
roughly equal numbers of libraries from large cities, suburbs, and small towns,
roughly evenly distributed across the United States. However, we had to abandon
this plan, because shortly after we initiated contact with the selected libraries inearly March of 2020, they began to shut down due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
Of the one hundred selected libraries, just twenty-five returned completed surveys. To supplement these responses, we adopted a new recruitment
approach. On March 30, 2020, we posted a notice on the online message boardsof the American Library Association (ALA) and the Public Library Association

Public Libraries as Centers for Play

(PLA, a division of the ALA) inviting program librarians at public libraries toparticipate in “a survey on ways that public libraries are offering opportunities
for creative, self-directed activities available to children and teens.” The noticeincluded a link to the online survey form. This new approach resulted in an
additional twenty-seven completed surveys by April 14, 2020, at which date we
ended the recruitment phase.
The COVID-induced change to data collection has altered the way our data
may be interpreted. Instead of our selection of a collection of diverse libraries,
our sample became largely self-selected, comprised of the twenty-five libraries that chose to respond quickly to our initial request and the twenty-seventhat found and responded to the ALA and PLA message board requests. This
self-selection process makes it likely that our sample is biased toward libraries
offering the kinds of programs focused on in this study. Therefore, this report
should not be used to estimate the percentage of all public libraries in the UnitedStates that have such programs. Instead, it should be used to learn how libraries
that have enabled play have done so.
Survey Questionnaire
The questionnaire was presented online using Google Forms. It included
the following sets of questions.
Minimum Age Questions• Has your library established a minimum age for entering and using
the library without a parent or other adult guardian? If so, what isthat age?
• Does your library have a minimum age for specific library opportunities, such as reserving a room or using a maker space or otherspecific library equipment without an adult? If so, please list the age
requirements for each such opportunity.
• Has the presence of children or teens in your library caused any
problems for your library or led to complaints by adult patrons? If
so, please explain and describe how you have dealt with such problems of complaints.
Maker Space Questions• Does your library include a maker space (broadly defined as an area

135

136

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF

P L AY

where patrons can create things)? If “Yes”:• What are the main items of equipment available in this space?
Which item or items have proven to be the most used and valued
by children and teens?
• During what hours each week is the space open for use?
• Roughly how many different people use the space in an average
week? How many of these are under the age of nineteen? What is
the age range of the children and teens using this space?
• What is the minimum age (if any) for use of the space? … for use of
the space without the presence of a parent or other care giver who
is not part of the library staff?
• Please describe briefly the ways that children and teens tend to use
your maker space.
• What do you see as the major benefits of this space for the libraryand for the community you serve? Has the investment been worthwhile? Please explain.
• What do you see as the major difficulties associated with creating
and maintaining this space? How has the library surmounted thosedifficulties?
• If you answered “No” to having a maker space and you think yourlibrary would like to have this, please describe the barriers that prevent you from including a maker space.
Free-Play Questions• Does your library have any free-play opportunities? (Free play isdefined as opportunities for children or teens to choose how theyplay. Some libraries provide spaces for artistic activities, such as
creative writing or acting, open to young people as well as adults.
Other libraries have programs like LEGO clubs, where kids havecontrol of building whatever they would like with little parent or
librarian involvement. Some libraries offer space for teens to “hangout” and talk or play games after school.) If “Yes”:• What types of free-play opportunities does your library have?
Please describe briefly what the program or opportunity looks like.
• How many children or teens does the program serve in an averageweek?
• What is the age range of those who take part in the free-play program?

Public Libraries as Centers for Play• If you answered “No” to having free-play opportunities and you
think your library would like to have this, please describe the barriers that prevent you from creating free-play opportunities.

Survey Results
Participating Libraries
The fifty-two libraries that responded to the survey included at least one fromeach of twenty-five states, distributed rather evenly across the United States.
Twenty-eight of the libraries had just one location; the others were library systems with more than one location. Eight of the libraries served a population ofless than 10,000; fifteen served between 10,000 and 40,000; fourteen between
40,000 and 100,000; fourteen between 100,000 and 900,00; and one served a
population of a bit over 2,500,000.
Children’s Freedom to Use the Library Independently
To our question about the minimum age at which children can use the librarywithout a parent or guardian, eleven libraries stated that they had no minimum
age, one omitted the question, and the remaining forty stated minimum ages
ranging from five to thirteen, with a median of nine and mode of eight.
To our question about problems or complaints that may have arisen fromyoung people’s use of the library, nineteen libraries responded, essentially, “no”
or “very little.” Most of the remaining libraries indicated that children and teens
rarely caused real problems, but that adult patrons did sometimes complain
about their presence. The most common complaint, mentioned by twenty-one
libraries, concerned noise, and librarians most commonly responded by asking
young people to keep the noise down or by helping adults find a quieter area inthe library. The second most common complaint, mentioned by six libraries,
involved young people’s uses of computers for games rather than for study or
research, and librarians typically responded by explaining to the adults that thecomputers were there for recreation as well as for study or research.
All in all, the responding librarians expressed considerable appreciationof children and tolerance for their exuberance. Descriptions of complaints
tended to be framed more as misunderstandings on the part of the complainers than as problems with the children. The respondent for one large
library system, for example, wrote: “There are a lot of complaints about them

137

138

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF

P L AY

being loud or using the computers to play games (instead of being ‘productive,’ supposedly). We deal with the complaints by explaining the library use
policy—that we value every member of our community, and every memberof the community has the right to use our resources. We don’t privilege one
type of use over another. If teens are, in fact, being loud, we’ll talk with themand ask them to tone it down.”
Library Maker Spaces and Their Availability to Young People
Twenty-one libraries (40 percent of the total) responded that they had a makerspace, defined as a dedicated, separate area in the library with equipment allowing patrons to create things. Perhaps unsurprisingly, libraries reporting makerspaces tended to be larger, in terms of population served, than those reportingno maker space. The median population served was 129,071 for libraries reporting maker spaces compared to 36,847 for other libraries. However, the range in
population sizes served by the libraries reporting maker spaces was considerable
and included the two smallest in the sample, with population sizes of 1,728 and
2,200 respectively.
The single most common item of equipment listed for these spaces
was one or more 3-D printers, noted by fourteen libraries. Also commonly
mentioned were machines for cutting planned shapes from various kinds ofmaterial, including vinyl cutters, laser cutters, and die cutters. Other items
mentioned for several libraries included programmable robots of various types,
glue guns, sewing machines, button makers, snap circuits, and green screens
along with other equipment for creating videos. Some librarians mentionedthat the low-tech, low-cost equipment received at least as much use as thehigh-tech equipment.
To our question about the minimum age for use of the maker space without
a care giver present in the space, eight libraries indicated no minimum age. (Butone of these noted that a parent or guardian had to be somewhere in the library,
and another noted that all patrons, regardless of age, had to undergo training
in using the equipment before being allowed to use it freely.) For the remaining
libraries, the minimum stated age for use of the maker space without a parent
or guardian ranged from eight to fourteen, with a median of eleven.
To our request for an estimate of how many different people under nineteen
years of age use the space in an average week, only twelve libraries provided
numerical estimates. These ranged from two (for one very small library) up to
370 (for a large library system with maker spaces in five branches), with a medianPublic Libraries as Centers for Playof fifty. Others commented that the space was very popular or much used but
did not provide numbers.
Most of the libraries without maker spaces indicated that a lack of physicalspace was the main reason. Eleven libraries indicated that they had a cart withmaker equipment or provided temporary maker opportunities on a table in
the library, and seven others indicated that they were in the process of creatinga maker space or had plans to do so. Taking all these data into account, then,thirty-nine of the fifty-two libraries (75 percent) had equipment for making
things in the library or had plans to provide such equipment.
Other Free-Play Opportunities
To our questions about free play more generally, forty-nine libraries (94 percent of the total) indicated that they had materials and opportunities for playfor children from toddlerhood on through at least early elementary school age.
The most common play items noted were LEGO blocks (by thirty-four libraries), other types of building blocks (sixteen libraries), craft supplies (twenty-six
libraries), art supplies (eighteen libraries), board games (twenty-three libraries),
puzzles (sixteen libraries), puppets (eleven libraries), a play kitchen (eight libraries), and dolls (five libraries). Generally, such materials could be used whenever
the library was open, and ten libraries noted that they scheduled special play
opportunities for toddlers and preschool children before and after story time,enabling groups of children to play together.
Forty-one libraries (79 percent of the total) mentioned that they had playmaterials and opportunities for teens. Of these, ten said they had a dedicatedhangout area for teens, where they could play games (including video games
and board games) and socialize as they pleased, and three others mentioned thatthey had special teen nights or afternoons when groups of teens would gather for
shared, self-directed activities. Art and craft supplies and board games available
for younger children were also available to teens. Several libraries mentioned
special programs or clubs for teens and preteens. These included a role-playing
club, anime club, manga club, Dungeons & Dragons club, Destination Imagination, Pokémon parties, and teen paint night.
All in all, the libraries in our survey appear to place value on attracting
young patrons and on providing diverse opportunities for play and creativity
with minimal adult control or intervention.

139

140

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF

P L AY

Case Examples
To supplement our survey in conveying what libraries can do to promote freeplay, we describe three instructive examples from three different libraries. The
first two are from libraries with which we were familiar before the survey andwhich were therefore not included in the survey. The third is a particularlyinteresting example that emerged from the survey.
Free Play at Westbank Libraries, Austin, Texas
This is the program we know best, because two of the authors of this article,
Autumn Erdahl Solomon and Leah Tatgenhorst, are library managers at Westbank and developed the play program there. This case is presented in the first
person plural by these two authors.
As educational institutions, public libraries step in to fill voids and gapsthat exist in the community. In the community served by Westbank Libraries, children and teens are generally overscheduled and overmeasured. Thereexists a self-propelling energy around achievement, which is contagious andcan rob families of the joys of reading, learning, and playing just for fun. To
counterbalance that, our library staff worked with a local proponent of selfdirected education, Antonio Buehler, to develop Free Play. Our goal was tocreate a stimulus-rich, measurement-free environment that allows free choice,experimentation, spontaneous discovery, and natural collaboration among kidsof all ages. In our planning, we were cognizant of the socio-emotional benefitsof mixed-age play as well as the value of increased agency in navigating variable environments and new relationships, experiences that help people learn toadapt to change.
Our Free Play program occupies the large meeting room at one of our two
library locations (the Laura Bush Community Library), which we set up witha variety of toys, games, books, and odd bits—cardboard tubes, boxes, clothes
pins, pool noodles, sheets, tunnels, cushions, and art supplies. The space flows
outward to an outdoor forecourt with a fountain and low, climbable features, andto our backyard with its garden chessboard, climbing structure, old tires, hulahoops, chalk, and kiddie pools. We typically see kids from age one up to about
twelve. Parents appreciate that they can bring all their kids to the same program.
Free Play is typically held weekly on Mondays from 4:00 to 7:00 p.m. andsometimes all day on a school holiday. This extended time gives the program arelaxed, come-and-go feel. Some families will stay just a short time while oth-

Public Libraries as Centers for Players stay the full three hours. Occasionally, we arrange for a food truck to stopby so kids can eat their dinner while they play. Otherwise, we provide snacks,
including coffee and tea for care givers.
We interfere as little as possible and enjoy sitting back to watch. The kids
build things, invent games, have dance parties, and devise their own competitions. Creations come to life and then are cheerfully destroyed. By the end of
the evening, the room looks like an explosion of toys, snacks, boxes, scarves,forts, messy art, and game pieces everywhere. Those who stay late help clean up.
When we first started Free Play, kids went through a bit of a learning curveas they became comfortable with what was allowed, which is almost anything.
Our rules are simply to stay safe, respect others, respect the space, and have fun.
Noise is joyful, shoes are optional, messiness is okay, and things can be used in
any imaginable way.
The learning curve for parents took longer. Initially, we created bookmarks
to hand out to parents that briefly explained the concept of Free Play. Staff
engaged with parents and encouraged them to let their children explore on theirown, sometimes creating games with other parents and moving out of sight of
their kids. Over time, new parents took their cues from the experienced ones
and would read, work, chat, or play a game with other parents while their kids
played. Some parents require a few visits before they learn to trust their kids andthe environment, and we do not push them. Parents with very young children,quite appropriately, generally stay close to them.
After a year of offering Free Play, we introduced teen volunteers into themix with wonderful results. Following a brief training, teens are available to playat the request of the kids, and the kids love it. They can ask a teen to read directions to them for a board game, lift them higher so they can add another brickto a growing tower, be a referee, or play a role in make-believe. We find nothing
sweeter than a fourteen-year-old boy sitting down for tea with a four-year-old
dressed like a princess in her imaginary castle.
The teens also help with setup and cleanup. They provide an extra pair ofeyes in case a child attempts something dangerous, and they quickly chase after
the occasional spry preschooler who runs toward the parking lot. But we foundmost exciting how much the teens we brought in enjoyed playing, remembering childhood board games, making parachute tents for the little ones, andconstantly laughing.
With the help of volunteers, Free Play is managed by just two or threestaff members and can draw 100 to 150 visitors on a typical Monday evening,

141

142

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF

P L AYwith more for an all-day program. The program offers an opportunity to build
relationships with families, to hear more from parents about their concerns, toprovide reading and reference services when asked, and to model relaxation andfun. We learn a lot from the kids about their interests by watching them, whichhelps us plan other programs. Free Play is inherently messy and a bit chaotic,
so staffing it will not appeal to everyone.
Budgeting for this program varies. At the outset, we invested in larger outdoor games and toys along with new board games, building materials, and art
supplies. Some need to be refreshed over time, so an annual allowance proved
necessary. We also budget for coffee and snacks. And occasionally we surprise
the Free Play group with a special treat such as a popsicle day, a hot cocoa bar, aface painting exercise, Batman showing up to play, or local fire fighters stoppingby with a big red fire truck.
A quieter, scaled-down version of Free Play called Sensory Sunday caters
specifically to families with children on the autistic spectrum or those struggling
with sensory overload. Families are required to sign up for the Sunday program,which prevents overcrowding, and we include fewer interactive elements andplace them in stations around the room to help kids orient to the space when
they arrive. We also offer Arcade Night with a variety of video gaming systems,
new and old, and Art Exploration with an assortment of art materials for kids
to make whatever they want. Another, smaller version of the Free Play program
has been offered at our other location (Westbank Community Library), which
has more limited space. Although the COVID-19 pandemic caused a hiatus inprogramming, we are further developing our outside spaces at both locations
to provide more opportunities for discovery-based play.
Anji Play at Madison Public Libraries in Madison, Wisconsin
While Madison Public Library (MPL) has long offered playful programming,learning about Anji Play inspired Youth Services Librarian Carissa Christner tothink further concerning the role of play in the library. The Anji Play approachand philosophy, developed in Anji County, China, by Cheng Xueqin, promotes achild’s right to “extensive, uninterrupted, and unguided true play” in safe spacesthat allow risk taking and exploration and create opportunities for joyful discovery and engaged reflection (Jones 2019).
Since play was already encouraged in library programming as one practicefor building early literacy skills, Christner wondered, “Would families show up
at the park for a library program that was just play?” She reached out to the AnjiPublic Libraries as Centers for Play

Play team to collaborate on the creation of an Anji Play program at her library.
Staff from the Madison Parks Division enthusiastically shared sponsorship of
this program by providing outdoor space at local parks, extra staffing, materials
transportation, and help with promotions.
A Wild Rumpus (named by Christner after Maurice Sendak’s popular book
Where the Wild Things Are) began as a weekly program in summer 2016, and bysummer 2019, it had grown into a roving, weekly event at three Madison parks.
The program is anchored by an evolving set of materials, including Anji Playmaterials for use in children’s play. The additional materials Christner selects
are minimally structured, abundant, and do not have obvious, specific uses.
These materials allow a wider variety of play, and because there is no right way
to use them, adults can more easily resist giving children instructions or getting
involved in their play. Families return to A Wild Rumpus each week, not withthe expectation of finding new materials but, instead, to see how their children
will engage with what is available. They have found that their children explore
the materials with even more depth and find increasingly innovative ways toplay when they return to the same materials every week.
Key to the success of A Wild Rumpus is the staff ’s ability to encourage
care givers who are present to step back and observe—but not direct—thechildren’s play. For many care givers, this is a radical (and sometimes uncomfortable) departure from the way they usually interact with their children
during play. But as they observe, they often discover that their children are
more capable than they had assumed, and they gain a deeper admiration for
their children’s abilities.
Reflection plays a central role in the Anji Play approach and philosophy.
During every Anji Play program offered by MPL, children have opportunities todraw pictures and stories of their play and describe their play experiences to staff
and care givers. The staff also takes photos and videos of play that it shares withchildren and care givers and use for its own reflection, which informs decision
making about the program and guides the professional growth of staff members.
In addition to Anji Play programming, the Pinney Neighborhood Library,a branch of MPL, includes a PlayLab, an all-ages space designed for free play,care giver support, and community building, with a rotating collection of openended play materials and access to a patio for outdoor play. MPL also has a muchcelebrated, researched (Lakind et al. 2019; Willett, 2018), and playful, hands-on
making-and-learning program—collectively called The Bubbler—spread acrossnine of its neighborhood branches and other shared community spaces.

143

144

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF

P L AYAn Exemplary Maker Space at Indian Prairie
Public Library in Darien, Illinois
In our survey, the response we received from Indian Prairie Public Library stoodout for its description of a highly successful maker space serving a moderatesized community in Darien, Illinois (population about 42,000). At the time ofthe survey, the space served an average of about 150 makers per week, most ofwhom were in the age range of eight to eighteen. The description that follows
comes from a follow-up interview with Technology and Maker Services Senior
Librarian Jack Schultz. We learned that, following the survey, the library completed a new and larger maker space, called the Maker Studio, which opened in
2021, roughly a year after the survey.
The Maker Studio presents a place for dreamers, builders, and innovators
to explore and create as they wish. The equipment includes 3-D printers, cutting machines, embroidery machine, sewing machine, 3-D carving machine,laser cutter, button maker, green screen, laptops with design software, video
projector and screen, and a wide variety of tools. Members can work standingor sitting, and there is a sink for cleaning up. Equipment can be reserved up to
three days in advance, and some equipment requires safety training before use.
The space is staffed during regular library hours and is available to patrons of
all ages, though anyone under eight-years-old must be accompanied by a caregiver or older sibling. According to Schultz, the response to the Maker Studiohas been overwhelmingly positive.
Staff members are encouraged to remain hands-off, allowing patrons of
all ages to guide their own activities, but the staff is happy to help if asked. They
also model the hands-off policy for care givers whose children are engaged increative activities. According to Schultz, the key to this is redirection. If a parent appears to be taking over a child’s project, a staff member might offer theparent a tour of the space or explain another piece of the equipment to them.
Shuster also noted that often the kids and teens take charge, figure things out,
and teach the adults.
The Maker Studio at IPPL receives funds through grants, local partnerships, and individual donors in the community. Schultz urges all libraries tocreate maker opportunities in their facilities. With only two shelves to spare, alibrary can start with materials for simple projects that kids of all ages can use
to play, such as toothpicks, popsicle sticks, glue, and other leftover craft bits. If
you do not have two shelves to spare, Schultz says, “just put it on a book cart,”Public Libraries as Centers for Playand let your community start creating. Even with a small budget, a library canoffer projects like candle making, knitting, or coding and robotics. IPPL supplements its Maker Studio with smaller tools available for check-out, such as 3-D
pens, LEGO Boost kits, and knitting materials. The library also offers occasionalclasses in the Maker Studio for those who want formal training.

Conclusions and Limitation
Our goal in this research was to assess the potential for public libraries to help
fill a recent gap in children’s educational opportunities in the United States, thatgap being a dearth of places where children can play freely, socially, and safely
without adult intervention. Our review of literature on play in libraries, oursurvey of a sample of libraries, and our closer look at three exemplary libraryplay programs lead us to five general conclusions.
Our first conclusion is that many libraries have taken remarkable strides inbecoming child friendly. Most of the libraries in our survey reported that they
welcome children over the age of eight years old even without a care giver andwelcome all children with a care giver. Many libraries are developing play opportunities and other programs specially oriented toward children and teens, andthey tolerate or even welcome the sometimes noisy, sometimes messy exuberance of young people. The old concept of libraries as places for quiet study andresearch only is giving way to a new concept of libraries as community centers
aimed at meeting a wide variety of needs of people across the whole range ofages. Sometimes librarians need to explain these new library functions to older
patrons who complain and help these patrons find quiet places for their work.
Our second conclusion is that there has been an explosive growth overthe past decade in maker spaces in public libraries, spaces available to children
and teens as well as adults. In our survey, 40 percent of the responding libraries
reported that they had a dedicated maker space and most of the rest reported
that they had at least some equipment for making things or were in the processof developing a maker space. Moreover, most of the libraries with maker spaces
indicated that the primary users were children and teens, and all indicated thatchildren beyond a certain age (ranging from no minimum age up to fourteen)
could use the space without a care giver present.
Our third conclusion is that many libraries have opportunities for play
beyond maker spaces. Initially, most of these were oriented toward children of

145

146

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF

P L AYpreschool age, but increasingly libraries have expanded and equipped their playspaces to accommodate children of elementary school age as well, and many
have added dedicated places for teens to hang out, talk, and play games. In our
survey, all but three libraries indicated that they had play opportunities for young
children, and all but eleven indicated that they had play opportunities for teens.
Our fourth conclusion is that at least some librarians, in their maker spaces
and other play spaces, have adopted a deliberate policy, to the degree possible,of nonintervention and have developed friendly ways to encourage care givers
to refrain from intervening in their children’s play. Truly free play requires sucha hands-off policy on the part of adults, and it is in such play that children learn
how to take initiative, make their own discoveries, solve their own problems,
negotiate with peers, and acquire an internal locus of control. Such self-directed
play is an extension of the larger generalization that libraries are places for selfdirected education, in contrast to and complementary to the teacher-directededucation occurring in schools.
Our fifth conclusion is that the primary barrier to play opportunities inlibraries appears to be space, not money, staffing, or will. Libraries with makerspaces and other play opportunities commonly reported that the supplies neednot be expensive and that self-directed patrons can use the spaces and equipment without much staff help or supervision. A second requirement, however, istolerance by the staff of a certain amount of messiness and noise. Libraries thatwelcome “joyful noise” must also have one or more quiet rooms where patrons
who wish to read can do so in peace. We found that some libraries, in the processof rebuilding or expanding, are doing so with the goal of providing places forplay and other social interaction while preserving quiet areas.
A limitation of our survey is that the COVID-19 pandemic interfered with
our ability to obtain a high rate of responses from our own selection of libraries,
so we relied instead on responses from the self-selected set that responded either
to our initial request or our postings on the ALA and PLA message boards. These
libraries quite likely provide, on average, more play opportunities than would
be found in a random sampling of libraries, so the data gathered should not betaken as a metric for determining the prevalence of such play-based programsaround the country. At minimum, however, the survey provides useful information about the various ways that some libraries are striving to meet the play andcreativity needs of young people in their communities.
We hope that this research stimulates further research and thought about
how public libraries everywhere might become centers for play. We also hope thePublic Libraries as Centers for Play

Public Library Association will play a role in attaining a more complete pictureof this trend by conducting regular surveys about libraries’ play opportunities.
We look forward to the day when a course on the nature and value of play andhow to facilitate it will be part of the training of all new librarians.
The research for this article was supported by a grant from the Woodshouse Foundation to the Alliance for Self-Directed Education. The authors thank Danielle
Meininger, Kelsey Flynn, and Maureen Turner Carey for helping collect and compile the survey data involved.

References
Almon, Joan, and Rusty Keeler. 2018. “The Rise of Adventure Play Provision in North
America.” Children, Youth, and Environments 28:67–77.
Belknap, Elise, and Richard Hazler. 2014. “Empty Playgrounds and Anxious Children.”
Journal of Creativity in Mental Health 9:210–31.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2016. “Quickstats: Death Rates for Motor
Vehicle Traffic Injury, Suicide, and Homicide among Children and Adolescents
Aged 10–14 Years—United States, 1999–2014.” Morbidity and Mortal Weekly
Report 65:1203. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.mm6543a8.
Chudacoff, Howard P. 2007. Children at Play: An American History.
Digennaro, Simone. 2021. “Decline of Free Play as a Form of Educational Poverty.”
Journal of Physical Education and Sport 21:657–60.
Floyd, Myron F., Jason N. Bocarro, William R. Smith, Perver K. Baran, Robin C. Moore,
Nilda G. Cosco, Michael B. Edwards, Luis J. Suau, and Kunsheng Fang. 2011. “ParkBased Physical Activity among Children and Adolescents.” American Journal ofPreventive Medicine 41:258–65.
Frost, Joe L. 2012. “The Changing Culture of Play.” International Journal of Play 1:117–30.
Frost, Joe L., Sue C. Wortham, and Stuart Reifel. 2012. Play and Child Development.
4th ed.
Grant, Richard. 2021. “New Chapter: The Benjamin L. Hooks Central Library: How
Memphis Created the Nation’s Most Innovative Public Library.” Smithsonian Magazine, November, 42–53.
Gray, Peter. 2011. “The Decline of Play and the Rise of Psychopathology in Childhoodand Adolescents.” American Journal of Play 3:443–63.
———. 2013. Free to Learn: Why Unleashing the Instinct to Play Will Make Our Children
Happier, More Self-Reliant, and Better Students for Life.
——— . 2020. “Risky Play: Why Children Love and Need It.” In The Routledge Handbook of Designing Public Spaces for Young People: Processes, Practices, and Policies

147

148

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF

P L AY

for Youth Inclusion, edited by Janet Loebach, Sarah Little, Adina Cox, and Patsy
Eubanks Owens, 39–51.
Hassinger-Das, Brenna, Jennifer M. Zosh, Nicole Hansen, Meghan Talarowski, Kate
Zmich, Roberta Michnick Golinkoff, and Kathy Hirsh-Pasek. 2020. “Play-andLearn Spaces: Leveraging Library Spaces to Promote Caregiver and Child Interaction.” Library and Information Science Research 42:1–10.
Jones, Denisha (2019). “The Five Principles of Anji Play.” Defending the Early Years, June
3. https://dey.org/the-five-principles-of-anji-play/
Lakind, Alexandra, Rebekah Willett, and Erica Rosenfeld Halverson. 2019. “Democratizing the Maker Movement: A Case Study of One Public Library System’s
Makerspace Program.” Reference & User Services Quarterly 58:235–45.
Lui, Debora. Situating the “Maker Movement”: Tracing the Implementation of an Educational Trend within Public Libraries. PhD diss., University of Pennsylvania, 2016.
Moore, Alice, and Helen Lynch. 2018. “Understanding a Child’s Conceptualization of
Well-Being through an Exploration of Happiness: The Centrality of Play, People,
and Place.” Journal of Occupational Science 25:124–41.
Parrott, Heather Macpherson, and Lynn E. Cohen. 2020. “Advocating for Play: The Benefits of Unstructured Play in Public Schools.” School Community Journal 30:229–54.
———. 2021. “Advantages of Mixed-Age Free Play in Elementary School: Perceptions ofStudents, Teachers, and Parents.” International Journal of Play 10:1–18.
Plemmons, Gregory, Matthew Hall, Stephanie Doupnik, James Gay, Charlotte Brown,
Whitney Browning, Robert Casey, Katherine Freundlich, David P. Johnson, Carrie Lind, Kris Rehm, Susan Thomas, and Derek Williams. 2018. “Hospitalization for Suicide Ideation or Attempt: 2008–2015.” Pediatrics 141:e20172426.
doi: https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2017-2426.
Skåland, Gro, Hans Christian Arnseth, and Palmyre Pierroux. 2020. “Doing Inventing
in the Library: Analyzing the Narrative Framing of Making in a Public LibraryContext.” Education Sciences 10:158. doi: https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci10060158.
Swadley, Gretchen. 2021. “Any Which Way… Loose Parts Play in the Library.” Children
and Libraries, Spring, 21–23.
Twenge, Jean M., Brittany Gentile, C. Nathan DeWall, Debbie Ma, Katherine Lacefield
and David R. Schurtz. (2010). “Birth Cohort Increase in Psychopathology among
Young Americans, 1938–2007: A Cross-Temporal Meta-Analysis of the MMPI.”
Clinical Psychology Review, 30, 145–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2009.10.005.
Wang, Fengmin, Weina Wang, Sally Wilson, and Namir Ahmed. 2016. “The State of
Library Makerspaces.” International Journal of Librarianship 1:2–16.
Willett, Rebekah. 2018. “Learning through Making in Public Libraries: Theories, Practices, and Tensions.” Learning, Media, and Technology 43:250–62.