Bad Manners and Brimstone

General Etiquette => The Work Day => Topic started by: ZekailleTasker on February 07, 2020, 03:41:12 pm

Title: Is One Plan Really More "Fair" Than the Other?
Post by: ZekailleTasker on February 07, 2020, 03:41:12 pm
I'm going to try and jettison all extraneous nonsense and go straight to the heart.

A library with seven branches is preparing for summer reading.  In years past, it has been traditional to offer a REALLY good prize at EACH branch to encourage teens to read.  Each time a teen reads a book, they get a chance (up to five chances) to toss their name into a raffle for Something Really Good. 

A year before budget constraints dictated that there was only ONE prize to be raffled off to teens city wide.  Kids at the smaller branches and the urban branches stopped reading because they figured there was no point in trying for the big prize.  Attendance dipped.

This year it was suggested that the programming committee consider returning to the old practice of having Really Wonderful Item as a prize at each branch.  Everyone agreed that this would be an expensive but good idea...then...

Two people insisted, that to be fair, we would offer the seven Wonderful Things as What You Might Win at Each Br7 anch.....BUT...instead of having a drawing for each branch and each branch's teens, all the tickets would be pooled at the end of summer and the winners selected from the pool to "make it more fair".

Why is this more fair?  It's the odds.  By pooling the tickets, we are making the odds fair.  So there is a potential that the 6 kids from tiny branch A in impoverished neighborhood might read and each get the allowed five chances...to win, but they will be up against the 275 kids from bigger Branch B and the 689 kids at the Main Library each of whom also has five chances.  And it is very likely therefore that none of the 6 kids at branch A have a hope in heck of winning anything but disappointment.

"This is much more fair," Coworker A said.  "The six kids from Tiny Impoverished Branch have 5 chances in 35 of winning something, but the kids from MY branch have 5 chances in 2500 of winning and that isn't fair."

Coworker A was asked if it wold be fair when, no doubt, the kids from the biggest library with the most teens and therefore the most chances in the pot all win again and the kids from the tiny branches don't.  She insisted that yes, it was fare as then they would each have just five chances against the rest of the kids.

While the odds argument makes some sense, it just seems like the kids in the crappy neighborhoods are getting ignored again.  Of course, there is a chance that one of them might win, but it's highly unlikely.  And it is very annoying when prizes for other age groups are going to be drawn locally.  Only the teens and adults are getting this kind of treatment.

Fair? Unfair?  QUIT GIVING PRIZES FOR READING YOU YUTZES?  wE ARE ITCHING TO KNOW WHAT OTHERS THINK.
Title: Re: Is One Plan Really More "Fair" Than the Other?
Post by: jpcher on February 07, 2020, 03:53:08 pm
Not quite sure I understand fully . . . one prize for all the combined branches, correct?

I think a possible solution would be for each branch to draw one (or maybe two?) winners from their own branch. Then put all the sub-winners from each branch into a drawing of it's own. That way you have equal representation from each branch for the final drawing.

True, one branch has 2500 and another only 250 but in the end all branches have a fair and equal chance of being the Big Winner.
Title: Re: Is One Plan Really More "Fair" Than the Other?
Post by: TootsNYC on February 07, 2020, 04:39:07 pm
It just depends on what the goal is.

If you pool all the kids, then yes, there is a greater chance that larger branches might have more winners; but every kid in the city has the same chance, no matter which branch they go to.

I know attendance dropped when there was only one prize, but that was based on a fallacious perception--every individual kid absolutely had the same exact chance to win that prize. It's just the branch that had lower odds. And the kids from the smaller branches MAY have thought, "my neighborhood won't win, so that means I won't."

BUT they also may have thought, "there's only one prize for the entire city--everybody's odds are low, and since mine are low, it's not worth my time."

Perhaps the incentive of winning the prize is the only thing that made the kids from those neighborhoods read a book, and the kids from the neighborhoods with high participation would have read those 5 books anyway.

I was going to say that since the goal is to get kids to read, you should go back to the prize structure that worked, and not worry whether the kids at the larger libraries had a lesser chance to win, since you're still getting them into the contest.

But, since there was only one prize, you don't know whether that would have worked.

The cool thing would be to pick the smallest library (let's say Library A=500 kids; Library B=1,000; Library C=2,300) and come up with a Decent Prize that you can do multiples of, and then you have one prize for every 500 kids in each library, rounding off (Library a = 1 prize; Library B=2 prizes; Library C=5 prizes).

Then every kid has a roughly even chance, but the kids in the smaller neighborhoods are less likely to think, "Oh, we're outnumbered by all those wealthier suburban neighborhoods, so I'll never win."

EDITED TO ADD: In order to achieve your goal--to make kids feel like they'll get something good if they read--I think you do need to have a plan that means there IS a winner at every branch. Kids at Library A aren't going to feel all that invested if the winners list doesn't include someone from their branch. But the same could be for Library C.

in the pursuit of "fair," you shouldn't lose sight of the idea that your aim is to get kids to read.
Title: Re: Is One Plan Really More "Fair" Than the Other?
Post by: Mary Sunshine Rain on February 07, 2020, 04:46:04 pm
Is the goal to be "fair" or is the goal to have the highest possible participation in reading?

Life is already unfair to the 6 kids from tiny impoverished branch's neighborhood.

Maybe more kids from that area would participate if they thought they had a better chance at REALLY GREAT PRIZE.

If there are branches that are disadvantaged, then they need MORE resources, MORE encouragement, not the SAME as areas that are relatively affluent.  Because in those areas,  "same" is actually LESS.

TLDR: I agree with Toots!  :D
Title: Re: Is One Plan Really More "Fair" Than the Other?
Post by: baritone108 on February 07, 2020, 09:17:06 pm
The participation in reading would increase greatly if the teens were competing against themselves rather than each other.  For example, the library system in my city give a pair of tickets to a professional baseball game to each child/teen who reads 20 books over the summer.
Title: Re: Is One Plan Really More "Fair" Than the Other?
Post by: Pattycake on February 07, 2020, 10:18:45 pm
There is a saying that people's perception is their reality. The kids thought they stood less of a chance when the competition was city wide, so they quit participating. If the goal is to get more kids reading, then the prizes need to be awarded in a way that the kids think they stand a chance of winning one.
Title: Re: Is One Plan Really More "Fair" Than the Other?
Post by: Winterlight on February 08, 2020, 09:13:43 am
Is the goal to be "fair" or is the goal to have the highest possible participation in reading?

Life is already unfair to the 6 kids from tiny impoverished branch's neighborhood.

Maybe more kids from that area would participate if they thought they had a better chance at REALLY GREAT PRIZE.

If there are branches that are disadvantaged, then they need MORE resources, MORE encouragement, not the SAME as areas that are relatively affluent.  Because in those areas,  "same" is actually LESS.

TLDR: I agree with Toots!  :D

THIS. Let's encourage more teens from this area to read, not squish down any chance they think they've got to win something.

In my library system, any kid/teen signing up for the summer reading program gets two tickets to the local minors baseball team, with three different games they can go to as options. Then there are more prizes that they get automatically as they advance- pass to the local kid's science museum, free books, etc. Then they get entered into a drawing at the end for a Big Prize. This is across the board, so they're basically competing against themselves to do well. It doesn't matter which branch they go to, we can check their stats online and see what prize they're entitled to.
Title: Re: Is One Plan Really More "Fair" Than the Other?
Post by: pierrotlunaire0 on February 08, 2020, 10:16:28 am
I absolutely agree with Mary Sunshine. What is the ultimate goal? To be perfectly fair? Or to get kids to read more books? Yes, the combined pool might be just as fair, if not in fact, MORE fair. But if you are trying to get kids to read, the first system was more effective.

At the smaller branches, kids might reason that the odds are skewed so that each individual teen has a better chance of winning, and if they get discouraged, I think you might need to encourage them.
Title: Re: Is One Plan Really More "Fair" Than the Other?
Post by: Contrarian on February 08, 2020, 01:04:49 pm
Life isn’t fair.  It can’t possibly be. One child is born healthy, another with bone cancer. There just isn’t anything any government organization can do to make this fair, even if they offer treatment, to be born healthy is the only thing that would make the second child have a fair chance in life.

Really, we need to stop expecting problems to be fixed by others. One of my favourite quotes is from Lily Tomlin “I used to think someone should do something, and then I realized I was someone.”

This is where community comes in. The library or the government won’t support prizes for the kids in the under privileged communities. Fine. The community itself or neighbouring communities need to be approached with, our kids would benefit, and therefore our communities would benefit and therefore our neighbouring communities would benefit from donations to this reading encouragement program.

Go out there and ask for donations, start a go fund me for that particular library. Think outside the box because fair never has and never will be.
Title: Re: Is One Plan Really More "Fair" Than the Other?
Post by: RubyCat on February 08, 2020, 04:39:12 pm
I have to agree with Toots, that the goal is to get kids in the habit of reading.  I suppose giving all the children an equal chance to win a prize might be the most "fair," but I think the kids at the local library need to be competing against each other.  Centralizing the prize makes it seem too distant and unattainable.

However, Contrarian has me thinking...  If you did solicit donations to award prizes at your local branch, #1, would that be allowed?  and  #2, would your branch be allowed to keep them and distribute them to your library's kids or would you have to share with the other branches?  Would it be possible to collect enough to have smaller prizes awarded to kids who've read a certain number of books and still allow them to participate in a city-wide drawing for the big prizes?
Title: Re: Is One Plan Really More "Fair" Than the Other?
Post by: DaDancingPsych on February 08, 2020, 04:51:53 pm
I don't know that one is more fair than the other. I also don't see the value in finding "fair" when the end goal is to encourage the most number of kids to read. I would probably go with the scenario that I thought would do that (even if it did not feel fair to some kids). It might mean some trial and error to figure out what system does the most good.
Title: Re: Is One Plan Really More "Fair" Than the Other?
Post by: Dazi on February 08, 2020, 07:21:43 pm
You can be equal or fair, but usually not both at the same time. If your organization's goal is to promote more reading by teens at that branch, then they need to allow each one its own prize.
Title: Re: Is One Plan Really More "Fair" Than the Other?
Post by: wolfie on February 09, 2020, 01:27:49 pm
I have to agree with Toots, that the goal is to get kids in the habit of reading.  I suppose giving all the children an equal chance to win a prize might be the most "fair," but I think the kids at the local library need to be competing against each other.  Centralizing the prize makes it seem too distant and unattainable.

However, Contrarian has me thinking...  If you did solicit donations to award prizes at your local branch, #1, would that be allowed?  and  #2, would your branch be allowed to keep them and distribute them to your library's kids or would you have to share with the other branches?  Would it be possible to collect enough to have smaller prizes awarded to kids who've read a certain number of books and still allow them to participate in a city-wide drawing for the big prizes?

I would start protests if library A offered prizes paid for by the library system but library B needs those same prizes to be paid for by the community. If all of the libraries are connected (which is sounds like) why is A getting more benefits then B? Shouldn't the funds be distributed to every library? Plus if B is in a more disadvantaged area then A (which is sounds like) then they probably have less money to donate then B. Which makes it even more unfair. I bet a smart politician could get very far on campaigning how the advantaged A are taking from disadvantaged B in this scenario.
Title: Re: Is One Plan Really More "Fair" Than the Other?
Post by: MiriamCatriona on February 09, 2020, 02:54:25 pm
One possible compromise:

- 1 Super Awesome Prize that every teen has an equal chance at
- 7 Moderately Big Prizes, one per branch
- a few Small But Nice Prizes at each larger branch (not needed at the tiny ones as their odds of Moderately Big Prize are so much better)

That could be done at the same budget as 7 Super Awesome Prizes, depending on what they all are.
Title: Re: Is One Plan Really More "Fair" Than the Other?
Post by: Hmmm on February 09, 2020, 03:41:54 pm
I agree that if the goal is to encourage reading then having a moderate price per branch and a city wide grand prize would be the best option.

Title: Re: Is One Plan Really More "Fair" Than the Other?
Post by: kckgirl on February 09, 2020, 05:11:11 pm
One possible compromise:

- 1 Super Awesome Prize that every teen has an equal chance at
- 7 Moderately Big Prizes, one per branch
- a few Small But Nice Prizes at each larger branch (not needed at the tiny ones as their odds of Moderately Big Prize are so much better)

That could be done at the same budget as 7 Super Awesome Prizes, depending on what they all are.


If I had a vote, this would be my choice.
Title: Re: Is One Plan Really More "Fair" Than the Other?
Post by: bopper on February 10, 2020, 10:35:59 am


The cool thing would be to pick the smallest library (let's say Library A=500 kids; Library B=1,000; Library C=2,300) and come up with a Decent Prize that you can do multiples of, and then you have one prize for every 500 kids in each library, rounding off (Library a = 1 prize; Library B=2 prizes; Library C=5 prizes).

Then every kid has a roughly even chance, but the kids in the smaller neighborhoods are less likely to think, "Oh, we're outnumbered by all those wealthier suburban neighborhoods, so I'll never win."


This is the fairest method...but can you explain it well?

Another way is let us say you have 7 branches but then have 10 prizes...each branch gets 1 prize, but then the remaining top page readers (no matter the branch) get the rest of the prizes.
Title: Re: Is One Plan Really More "Fair" Than the Other?
Post by: lowspark on February 10, 2020, 11:13:12 am
"Fair" is hugely overrated.

Go with the plan that gets the kids to read the most books. That's the goal. Stick with it.

This part really bugs me:
And it is very annoying when prizes for other age groups are going to be drawn locally.  Only the teens and adults are getting this kind of treatment.
The library system should be running all the programs similarly.

I really like the idea of smaller prizes per number of books read. This is how the library used to do it when my kids were young. Having a sure reward based on the number of books you read is a whole lot better than some pie in the sky prize you might win if you're super lucky. Why bother?

And yes, solicit local businesses for donations. They don't have to be super expensive. Then you splash the logos of the businesses who donate on the flyer or website in return for them agreeing to supply the prize to all the kids who meet the goal(s).

I'd still say that per branch is the best way to go, considering the kids in the underprivileged areas are the ones who need the most encouragement to read, and therefore, should be incentivized more aggressively.

If the librarians can tell those kids with certainty that someone from their branch, i.e., their neighborhood, is guaranteed to win a prize, that sounds a whole lot better than being up against all the kids in the city. By the time they're teenagers, these underprivileged kids already have it figured out that life isn't fair and is skewed against them. No wonder so many lost interest when there was only one big prize.
Title: Re: Is One Plan Really More "Fair" Than the Other?
Post by: jpcher on February 17, 2020, 04:29:06 pm
OP -- any updates? Curious as to what decision was made?
Title: Re: Is One Plan Really More "Fair" Than the Other?
Post by: ZekailleTasker on March 04, 2020, 10:37:24 pm
No updates really.  Things have been put off.  But the fairness thing is driving folks crazy.  I have heard that the latest bone of contention is over the hiring of performers.  Time was, three or more programs were selected (magician, story teller, artist, etc.) and each library branch would choose a time for that performer to come to their branch. 

Well, now that 2 small branches chose the same very popular magician (or clown or whatever) the plaint is "You know, we only have so much money and Really Popular Magician has never been to Bigger Branch.  I think Magician should go to bigger branch this year and you small branches hire someone else."

I suspect everyone will be happy when the Summer Reading is over for the year.
Title: Re: Is One Plan Really More "Fair" Than the Other?
Post by: Kimpossible on March 05, 2020, 07:34:38 am
I wonder if the popular entertainer would give a discount for multiple engagements?
Title: Re: Is One Plan Really More "Fair" Than the Other?
Post by: ZekailleTasker on March 09, 2020, 01:36:29 pm
That WAS mentioned.  The plaint is that all branches should have all different performers.  Suddenly breaking with the tried and true is a good thing!
Title: Re: Is One Plan Really More "Fair" Than the Other?
Post by: Chez Miriam on April 23, 2020, 08:36:42 am
It's so sad, that libraries are engaged in this sort of 'mine,mine,mine' attitude.

I think what's "fair", and what's "right" are two different things...

Is it fair that children from a more disadvantaged neighbourhood grow up in homes that may have no books at all, and no person to read to them as little'uns because PrimaryCarer is working three jobs to put food on the table and sneakers on feet?

Is it fair that children from more affluent communities probably have more books in their homes than they ever will read, and a mass of people reading to them, tutoring them, helping them...?

Talking about "fairness" in those instances is like comparing apples and oranges: both are what they are, and cannot be otherwise.

I'm guessing AffluentLibrary has more books, and a greater choice of books?  Is that fair?  Yes, and no: yes, because more children, no, because fewer resources are directed towards an area where reading might not be seen as much in daily life, or as easy to achieve.

I think what's "right" is that all children are encouraged to read, and if that means a slight skewing of resources away from areas that are wealthy enough to help themselves towards areas that cannot, well so be it.

My analogy would be: targetting children who live in an area where schools don't have endless playing fields - we all want children to run around, get fresh air, take exercise; sometimes that means resources go to hiring a basketball court/paying for swimming pool time for a school that doesn't have it's own courts/pools.  Is it fair?  Possibly not, if you count every cent.  Is it right?  You bet - all kids need mental and physical exercise/stimulation.

I hope someone higher up the food chain manages to clunk a few heads together before next Summer Reading, ZekailleTasker. :'(
Title: Re: Is One Plan Really More "Fair" Than the Other?
Post by: lakey on April 23, 2020, 10:40:40 am
ChezMiriam, I agree with all of what you said. The only difference is that in my area, the main library with the most resources is actually in a lower income area. It also seems that the big city library and also the branch in a low income neighborhood have considerably higher usage than the branches in more prosperous suburbs. I'm sure it's because of need.

That being said, if the goal is to get kids who don't normally read much to read more, rather than to give out prizes, they need to focus less on statistical fairness.
Title: Re: Is One Plan Really More "Fair" Than the Other?
Post by: Chez Miriam on April 23, 2020, 10:43:37 am
ChezMiriam, I agree with all of what you said. The only difference is that in my area, the main library with the most resources is actually in a lower income area. It also seems that the big city library and also the branch in a low income neighborhood have considerably higher usage than the branches in more prosperous suburbs. I'm sure it's because of need.

That being said, if the goal is to get kids who don't normally read much to read more, rather than to give out prizes, they need to focus less on statistical fairness.

Oh, I was misunderstanding - I'd thought the big library was in a more well-off area. :-[ :-[

I totally agree with the bolded; it all depends on what they want.  Statistical fairness is a great way of putting it.