Over the past ten years, library maker programs have evolved from a novelty to an integral part of how many libraries serve their communities.
Across public, academic, and school settings, these maker initiatives have yielded lessons about inclusion, sustainability, evaluation, technology, partnerships, and community impact.
In this article, we explore what we’ve learned—supported by data, facts, case studies, and trends—to guide future library maker programming.
A library makerspace (or maker program) is a service model in which libraries provide access to tools, materials, and support so patrons can create, invent, tinker, and learn.
These spaces often include fabrication tools (3D printers, laser cutters), electronics (Arduino kits, robotics), media (audio/video recording, editing), craft supplies, and collaborative workspace.
Maker programs are not only physical spaces; they also include workshops, drop-in sessions, outreach, and mobile maker activities. They align well with a library’s mission of providing access, learning, and community engagement.
- In an audit of U.S. public colleges and universities, researchers found 284 active makerspaces and 35 planned ones across 214 institutions, of which 110 were affiliated with a library.
- Since the first library makerspaces began to appear around 2011 in U.S. libraries, many have now become core services rather than experimental programs.
- A systematic review of literature from 2000 to 2021 in libraries identified 43 empirical studies (from among 838 initial records), indicating a growing but still limited empirical footprint of research in the domain.
- According to a survey by School Library Journal, 55% of elementary school libraries and 61% of middle school libraries provide maker activities. However, high school libraries offering maker programs declined to 49%.
- In school settings, coding and 3D printing have grown in popularity, while video production and editing have declined.
- Budget is a challenge: middle schools reported average maker supplies/equipment expenditure of $1,076, compared to $743 at the elementary level and $700 at the high school level.
- Early maker programs emphasized STEM, digital fabrication, and robotics.
- Over time, libraries have diversified to include arts, handicrafts, textiles, textiles + electronics (e-textiles), and low-tech making.
- Another trend is democratizing making by engaging under-resourced communities using e-waste repurposing in maker workshops.
- Programs introducing novices to AI via maker kits (e.g. TJBot) demonstrate how maker programs can include advanced technologies in accessible ways.
See also Why Maker Programs Are Essential for Future-Ready Learners
Below is a summary table capturing major lessons from a decade of practice:
| Lesson / Theme | Details / Evidence | Implication for Practice |
|---|---|---|
| Sustainability Requires Embedded Integration | Many maker programs began as pilots, but successful ones become part of library core services. | Build maker services into budgets, workflows, staffing, and strategic planning. |
| Evaluation & Impact Must Go Beyond Individual Learning | A study of Illinois public libraries found makerspaces changed perceptions of libraries, attracted new users, and aligned with library missions. | Use organizational-level evaluation (e.g. surveys, focus groups) in addition to learning assessments. |
| Diverse Methodologies Still Lacking | Systematic review found most research was qualitative, descriptive, and lacking strong theoretical frameworks. | Use mixed methods, iterative assessment, comparative studies, and theoretical grounding. |
| Technology Must Evolve With Patron Needs | Maker programs that stagnated lost relevance. | Continuously scan for emerging tools, pivot offerings based on demand. |
| Partnerships Amplify Impact | Libraries often partner with community organizations, schools, makers, businesses. | Formalize partnerships for funding, programming, mentoring, outreach. |
| Inclusion Is Not Automatic | Many maker programs disproportionately attract those already interested in STEM. | Intentionally design outreach to underrepresented communities; address barriers (cost, access, confidence). |
| Flexibility and Modular Design Are Crucial | Spaces evolve; flexible layouts and modular infrastructure (movable furniture, mobile maker carts) are preferred. | Start small; use modular, scalable design to adapt as needs evolve. |
| Staff Expertise & Training Is Vital | Librarians must shift from information provision to facilitator roles. | Invest in staff development, peer learning, co-design with users. |
| Maker Culture Extends Beyond the Space | Successful programs foster a culture of making across library services and community (& mobile outreach). | Encourage staff to embed maker thinking in programs; use mobile maker units. |
| Maker Programs Can Support Equity & Innovation | Initiatives using e-waste or low-cost materials show how under-resourced communities can participate. | Design programs with cost sensitivity and contextual relevance for local communities. |
One of the recurring lessons is that pilot-style maker initiatives often struggle to survive unless they are institutionalized.
The most resilient programs are those that are integrated into library planning, staffing, budgeting, and mission statements.
See also The Role Of Libraries In Supporting STEAM Learning For Young Kids
Libraries that treat the maker program as “extra” often face cuts when budgets tighten.
Early evaluations focused on learning outcomes: “did the patron learn to solder or 3D print?”
More recent work argues for evaluation at the organizational level. For example, focus groups in Illinois revealed that maker programs:
- Changed how people saw the library (as more creative and dynamic)
- Increased community pride and usage
- Attracted new user demographics
- Reinforced core library values like access and learning
Thus, effective evaluation should include qualitative and quantitative metrics: attendance trends, demographic reach, community perceptions, repeat users, and alignment with the library’s mission.
A systematic review found that most maker studies were qualitative and descriptive, often lacking theoretical underpinning and robust comparative design.
Few studies focused on school or rural settings, or examined long-term outcomes. To mature the field, researchers should:
- Use mixed methods (surveys, observations, usage logs)
- Deploy longitudinal studies
- Apply theories from education, information science, sociology
- Compare across settings (public vs school vs academic)
- Investigate diverse making practices (not only STEM or digital fabrication)
Maker programs cannot remain static. Libraries must monitor trends and shift offerings accordingly.
In academic libraries, making is increasingly interdisciplinary: humanities students explore 3D modeling, VR, media labs, or collaborative fabrication.
Programs that fail to refresh tools (or maintain them) risk obsolescence.
One promising direction is democratization of making: using low-cost, repurposed, or recycled materials so more people can participate.
For instance, workshops that use e-waste to build electronics prototypes allow participants from under-resourced backgrounds to engage meaningfully.
Similarly, maker kits designed for novices (e.g. AI or robotics kits with user-friendly interfaces) help lower barriers.
Maker programs flourish when libraries partner with:
- Local schools
- Universities
- Makerspaces or maker networks
- Nonprofits and community organizations
- Businesses or industry mentors
These partnerships can yield co-programming, funding, mentorship, outreach, and sustaining momentum. Engaging local makers provides authenticity and helps anchor the program in the community.
A persistent challenge is that maker programs can unintentionally favor already tech-savvy or self-confident users. To promote equity:
- Offer introductory, scaffolded programming
- Provide free access to materials/tools
- Partner with community groups to promote inclusion
- Co-design with marginalized users to lower barriers
- Use low- or no-cost materials to avoid economic barriers
See also Engaging Parents in Library-Based Maker Programs
Because user needs change, successful maker spaces are designed to be modular and flexible.
Furniture moves, maker carts, mobile maker kits, and multipurpose layouts allow adaptation over time. Starting small and scaling as demand grows is a prudent strategy.
Library staff must evolve from “curators of content” to facilitators, mentors, co-learners, and technologists. Librarians may need training in design thinking, digital fabrication, electronics, and pedagogy.
Peer sharing, professional development, maker trainings, and a culture of experimentation support staff growth.
Maker culture should not be confined to the dedicated space. Successful programs spread maker thinking into programming, outreach, events, mobile maker labs, pop-up maker sessions, and community maker challenges.
This fosters a sustained creative ecosystem rather than a siloed activity.
Pasco County Libraries illustrate how a mature maker program looks in practice:
- They operate seven makerspaces across branches as well as a mobile makerspace.
- Their flagship makerspace, “The Foundry”, opened in December 2015.
- The Foundry includes two 3D printers, CAD equipment, an Oculus Rift VR system, and an audio recording studio.
This multi-branch, multimedia configuration shows how library makerspaces can scale and diversify.
While much progress has been made, some challenges remain:
- Sustainability under funding pressures — At times makerspaces are among the first services cut when budgets shrink.
- Liability, safety, and policy — Use of tools introduces safety, legal, and insurance considerations.
- Keeping pace with technology — Tools (e.g. 3D printers) break, become obsolete, or are expensive to maintain.
- Reaching underrepresented users — Overcoming intimidation, technological gaps, and perceptions of exclusivity.
- Demonstrating long-term outcomes — How to show that maker programs lead to lasting learning, career impact, or community innovation.
From the decade of experience, here are actionable recommendations:
- Embed maker services in library strategy: allocate recurring budget, space, staffing, and governance.
- Adopt layered evaluation models: combine user-level learning metrics, organizational outcomes, and community impact.
- Use modular infrastructure: flexible furniture, mobile kits, multi-use zones.
- Prioritize training and peer networks: invest in staff development and professional exchange.
- Design intentionally for inclusion: scaffold pathways, reduce barriers, co-design with underserved groups.
- Build partnerships: with community organizations, local makers, educational institutions, funders.
- Refresh tools and offerings periodically: stay responsive to changing user interests and technology.
- Promote maker culture beyond the space: integrate making into events, outreach, collections, and cross-department programming.
A decade of library maker programs shows us that making in libraries is here to stay, provided the initiatives evolve, root themselves within library infrastructure, and commit to equity, evaluation, and flexibility.
The lessons learned—from embedding maker culture to sustaining staff expertise, designing for inclusion, and measuring impact—form a roadmap for future innovation.
Libraries that approach maker programs as long-term, evolving services rather than one-off experiments will be best positioned to foster community creativity, digital literacy, and meaningful engagement in the years ahead.
Maker programs have been successful in public, academic, and school libraries alike. However, public and academic libraries have seen the most adoption in literature. Even smaller libraries can succeed if they adapt scale and technology to available resources.
Evaluation should include multiple levels:
User learning metrics (skills gained, satisfaction)
Usage statistics (attendance, repeat users, demographics)
Organizational outcomes (mission alignment, new users, perception shifts)
Community impact (partnerships, outreach, local innovation)
Use surveys, focus groups, usage logs, and case studies.
Continuously scan emerging tools and patron interest. Use modular and scalable design so you can pivot. Encourage staff experimentation and iterative adoption of new ideas. Also consider low-cost, repurposed, or open-source tools that democratize access.
