library assessment report 2009 · ii. 2009 libqual+ survey the full time librarians met throughout...

Library Assessment Report 2009

Table of Contents

Introduction...............................................................................................................................3

I. Mission Statement..................................................................................................................4

II. 2009 LibQual+ Survey .........................................................................................................4 • Respondent Characteristics ..............................................................................................5 • Survey Scales/Rating for Service Adequacy Scores .........................................................7 • Service Adequacy Score Results 2009 .............................................................................7

A. Customer Service (Affect of Service) ...................................................................8 B. Facilities (Library as Place) .................................................................................8 C. Resources (Information Control ...........................................................................9 D. Information Literacy (Bibliographic/Library Instruction) ...................................10 E. Overall General Library Satisfaction ..................................................................10

III. Comparison of the LibQual+ 2003 and 2009 Results ......................................................11 • Service Adequacy Scores Comparison Chart .................................................................11 • Information Literacy Mean Scores Comparison Chart....................................................11 • General Satisfaction Mean Scores Comparison Chart ....................................................11 • Observations/Analysis of the Comparison Data .............................................................12

A. Customer Service ...............................................................................................12 B. Facilities ............................................................................................................12 C. Resources...........................................................................................................13 D. Information Literacy ..........................................................................................13 E. Overall General Library Satisfaction ..................................................................13 F. Observations on the 2003 and 2009 Surveys ......................................................13

IV. National Center of Educational Statistics Data ...............................................................14 • Staffing..........................................................................................................................15 • Salaries/Wages ..............................................................................................................15 • Materials Expenditures ..................................................................................................15 • Total Library Expenditure and Total Expenditures per FTE ...........................................16 • Circulation.....................................................................................................................16 • Interlibrary Loan............................................................................................................16 • Gate Count ....................................................................................................................16 • Hours of Operation per Week ........................................................................................17

V. Summary of Recommendations for Service Improvement ...............................................18

VI. Appendix List....................................................................................................................19

Introduction:

The Charles J. Meder Library’s 2009 library service assessment relied heavily on the Lib Qual+ Library Assessment Survey instrument. The library administered this survey first in 2003 as part of a New York State Regional Library Council grant.

LibQual+ was initiated in 2000 as an experimental project for benchmarking user perceptions of library service by ACRL (the Association of College and Research Libraries) led by Texas A&M University Libraries. The assessment survey has matured into a standard assessment tool that has been applied at more than 1000 libraries of all types, collecting information on more than half million library users.

In this assessment model, only customers judge quality; all other judgments are irrelevant. Perceptional analysis addresses the issue of library quality because “today a library quality based solely on collections has become obsolete.”

Libraries are a data rich environment so to augment this perceptional analysis, this report will also use data from the National Center for Educational Statistics, which is a biennial, voluntary review of all libraries serving degreegranting colleges and universities in the 50 states and the District of Columbia. This section of the report will rank and analyze FLCC data in selected areas with the other 29 SUNY community colleges from 20002008.

This service assessment will use both a benchmarked perceptional analysis assessment and comparative statistical data to assess the Charles J. Meder Library’s success in meeting its mission statement and to recommend program improvements where necessary.

I. Mission Statements of the Charles J. Meder Library and the College

The mission of the Charles J. Meder Library is to provide innovative, accurate and timely information services and resources that support Finger Lakes Community College’s learningcentered environment, provide enriching life experiences and enhance the quality of life throughout the community.

The mission of the college is: “Finger Lakes Community College is a supportive, learningcentered environment that empowers students, provides enriching life experiences, and enhances the quality of life throughout our community.”

II. 2009 LibQual+ Survey

The full time librarians met throughout the fall of 2008 to set the parameters for the 20082009 Library Assessment. It was decided to use the LibQual+ Survey again as our primary assessment tool. The department identified particular library services and facilities to assess.

These areas fell into five themes: customer service (affects of service), facilities (library as place), resources (information control), information literacy (bibliographic or library instruction), and finally, overall general satisfaction with the Charles J. Meder Library and its services. These categories reflect the mission statements of both the library and the college.

Our prediction was that the survey would indicate positive scores in all categories.

The webbased LibQual+ Survey was posted on the library website and a link was emailed to all FLCC students, faculty and staff. The survey ran from March 23 – April 18 2009. The survey was heavily promoted with prizes for participation (IPod touch and gift certificates to the Campus Book Store).

• 412 total participants with 394 valid responses • 329 were students • 38 faculty (21 fulltime and 17 parttime) • 27 other college staff (6 were administrators or managers) • 18 library staff (100% participation)

Of the valid participants, about 80% were students, about 10% faculty, about 4% were library staff, and 6% were other college staff and administrators. Library staff participation was 100%.

Respondent Characteristics (by category)

STUDENTS

Students by Age Respondents % Under 18 1.52% 18 – 22 62.31% 23 – 30 16.11% 31 – 45 11.55% 46 65 8.51% Over 65 0.00%

Total 100.00%

Students by Sex Respondents % Male 34.65% Female 65.35%

Total 100.00%

Students by Discipline Respondents % Agriculture & Environmental Studies 7.29% Applied Technology & Trades 0.61% Architecture 0.59% Business 11.25% Communications & Journalism 1.52% Education 10.64% Engineering & Computer Science 4.56% General Studies 1.22% Health Sciences 13.37% Humanities 6.38% Law 4.26% Other 7.29% Performing & Fine Arts 6.99% Science & Math 7.29% Social Sciences & Psychology 8.51% Undecided 8.51%

Total 100.00%

FACULTY

Faculty by Age Respondents % Under 18 0.00% 18 – 22 2.62% 23 – 30 5.26% 31 – 45 36.84% 46 – 65 52.63% Over 65 2.63%

Total 100.00%

Faculty by Sex Respondents % Male 36.84% Female 63.16%

Total 100.00%

Faculty by Discipline Respondents % Agriculture & Environmental Studies 10.53% Architecture 0.00% Business 7.89% Communications & Journalism 2.63% Education 7.89% Engineering & Computer Science 0.00% General Studies 5.26% Health Sciences 2.63% Humanities 10.53% Law 2.63% Other 7.89% Performing & Fine Arts 23.68% Science & Math 15.79% Social Sciences & Psychology 2.63%

Total 100.00%

LIBRARY STAFF

Library Staff Respondents % Under 18 0.00% 18 – 22 0.00% 23 – 30 0.00% 31 – 45 22.22% 46 – 65 77.78% Over 65 0.00%

Total 100.00%

Library Staff by Sex Respondents % Male 27.78% Female 72.22%

Total 100.00%

COLLEGE STAFF (including Administration)

College Staff (including Administration) by Age Respondents % Under 18 0.00% 18 – 22 0.00% 23 – 30 14.81% 31 – 45 25.93% 46 – 65 59.26% Over 65 0.00%

Total 100.00%

College Staff (including Administration) by Sex Respondents % Male 22.22% Female 77.78%

Total 100.00%

Survey Scales/Rating for Service Adequacy Scores

The LibQual+ survey uses a 1 9 scale, with 1 being the lowest rating and 9 the highest. The survey questions are set up so that the respondent gives 3 ratings to each concept; his or her minimum acceptable level, their desired level, and their perception of the library’s current level of service.

ACRL (the Association of College and Research Libraries) has established a mean of zero as an acceptable level of service. This means that the minimum rating and the perceived rating would be the same. Thus, if a minimum service score is 7 and the perceived score is also 7, the service adequacy score is 0. If the minimum score is 7 and the perceived score is 8, the service adequacy score is a +1. Conversely, if a minimum score is 7 and a perceived score is 6, the service adequacy score is 1. So, positive scores indicate better than adequate service.

Service Adequacy Score Results 2009

Students Faculty Library Staff College Staff Overall Customer Service (Affect of Service) 1.05 0.85 0.86 1.10 1.02 Library as Place (facilities) 0.96 0.65 0.42 0.54 0.90 Information Control (Resources) 0.90 0.17 0.81 0.73 0.81 Overall 0.96 0.54 0.74 0.83 0.91

A. Customer Service (Affect of Service)

The 2009 survey contained nine questions which address the area of customer service: employees who instill confidence in users, employees who give individual attention, employees who are consistently courteous, employees readiness to respond to users’ questions, employees who have the knowledge to answer user questions, employees who deal with users in a caring fashion, employees who understand the needs of their users, employee willingness to help users, and employee dependability in handling users’ service problems. This section contained the most positive comments (see Appendix C. LibQual+ 2009 Comments) and scores from all groups. Faculty rated staff very high for all questions. They ranked employees in the superior range in the following areas: employees who are consistently courteous, employees who deal with users in a caring fashion, and employees’ willingness to help others. Ratings by students and other college staff were also high in these areas. The survey indicates that the library staff also believes that customer service is our strength.

Despite a sometimes hectic, noisy environment (which will be addressed below), the survey demonstrated a very personal relationship between library staff, faculty, students, and other college staff who were surveyed. The comments of the respondents could not have been more positive (see Appendix C. LibQual+ 2009 Comments). The survey service adequacy scores reaffirmed our expected outcome, that library staff supports student learning. It is gratifying to know that the library staff continues to operate on a high level in the area of customer service.

Recommendations for program improvement:

1. Adequately staff civil service positions to ensure a high level of service 2. Continue our strong emphasis on customer service, particularly to support student learning 3. Continue to develop this emphasis on customer service in adjunct librarians and student staff 4. Develop strategies to maintain our customer service strength with our growing population of

online users

B. Facilities (Library as Place)

Five questions on the 2009 survey form the core inquiry of the library’s facilities: library space that inspires study and learning, quiet space for individual activities, a comfortable and inviting location, a getaway for study, learning or research, and community space for group learning and group study. Library facilities were rated highest by students and lowest by library staff. Two specific questions raised areas of concern: quiet space for individual activities and community space for group learning and group study. Adequacy scores by user category for the quiet space question were as follows: library staff (0.27), faculty (0.22), college staff (0.27), students (0.67), and an overall score of (0.67). Adequacy scores by user category for the community space for group learning and group study question were as follows: college staff (0.30), library staff (0.44), faculty (0.53), students (1.05), and overall (0.96).

Numerous comments on the survey addressed lack of group study space, lack of seating and noise levels (see Appendix C. LibQual+ 2009 Comments). Other comments were very positive about library quiet study space, especially on the 1 st and 3 rd floors.

The increased use of the library since the 2003 survey (see NES gate count data) has meant the facility’s space and study places are areas that need to be addressed. While the library is still providing a facility that meets the outcome “providing a learningcentered environment”, the trend is not positive.


1. Find ways to provide more group and quiet study space 2. Reconfigure library bibliographic instruction/open computer lab (A327) to provide more

computing/printing stations (while providing more seating beyond the 2 nd floor) 3. Increase open computer lab hours

C. Resources (Information Control)

Eight questions on the 2009 survey form the core inquiry of the library’s resources: making electronic resources accessible from my home or office, a library website enabling me to locate the information on my own, the printed library materials I need for my work, the electronic information resources I need, modern equipment that lets me easily access needed information, easytouse access tools that allow me to find things on my own, making information easily accessible for independent use, and print and/or electronic journal collections I require for my work. The area of resources (information control) had the lowest service adequacy mean of the 3 areas surveyed (customer service, facilities, and resources). The overall adequacy mean was (0.81). Students, library staff and college staff gave this area high rating with adequacy mean rating of (0.90), (0.81), and (0.73) respectively. Faculty, on the other hand, rated this area the lowest. Faculty gave it score of (0.17). To the question regarding easytouse access tools that allow me to find things on my own, the faculty gave a rating of (0.03). To the question print/electronic journal collections I require for my work, faculty gave a rating of (0.09).

These scores are certainly different from the scores given by library staff to the same questions, (0.83) vs. (0.03) and (1.06) vs. (0.09). This suggests a disconnect between what resources faculty feel the library has as opposed to what the library staff feels. The faculty members from other institutions participating in the 2009 LibQual+ survey consistently rated their libraries lower than the FLCC faculty rated our library.

Despite having relatively good scores in this area (compared with a majority of other libraries’ scores), the FLCC library staff needs to address these resource issues, especially concerning easytouse access tools that allow me to find things on my own, and print/electronic journal collections I require for my work. The survey results do, however, reaffirm our expected outcome, that our library provides innovative accurate and timely resources to enhance student learning.


1. Have liaison librarians meet with the faculty in their respective areas to determine what resources they feel are lacking in our collection

2. Library should make appropriate funding requests to augment the library’s resources budgets for both print and electronic materials

3. Library staff should hold workshops and training sessions aimed at the departmental/subject level to keep faculty informed of the resources available

4. Work with the Center for Teaching Excellence to present programs highlighting resources 5. Investigate commercial products (such as library guides and federated search engines) which

can make searching for resources easier

D. Information Literacy (Bibliographic or library instruction)

Five questions on the 2009 survey form the core inquiry related to information literacy (both formal and informal bibliographic/library instruction). They are as follows: the library helps me stay abreast of developments in my field(s) of interest, the library aids my advancement in my academic discipline or work, the library enables me to be more efficient in my academic pursuits of work, the library helps me distinguish between trustworthy and untrustworthy information, and the library provides me with the information skills I need in my work or study. All that was captured in this area on the 2009 survey were mean scores and these scores suggest that the library is meeting our expected outcome in this category. A perceptual analysis does not address specific student outcomes in the area of information literacy.

In addition, during the 2008–2009 academic year, fulltime librarians started to examine our current bibliographic/library instruction program. As a starting point, we began by discussing our learning objectives for basic instruction sessions from a qualitative point of view (See Appendix V. FLCC Charles J. Meder Learning Objectives). Librarians developed model pre and post tests.

Additionally, one of the librarians, at faculty request, experimented with courseintegrated library instruction. The librarian became a regular part of the writingintensive course THE 210 Introduction to Dramatic Literature. The librarian and faculty member’s goal was to improve the quality of the sources students used when writing their major research paper. A pre and posttest were administered at the beginning and the end of the course. Bibliographic/library instruction was given at several appropriate points during the semester. The initial feeling is that this approach was very successful. The faculty member and the librarian are beginning to look at how approaches can be improved when the course is taught again in the spring of 2010.

The success of this approach, our departmental discussions, as well as the measured information literacy mean scores lead to the following recommendation for program improvement.

Recommendation for program improvement:

1. The library should partner with an academic department to access the library’s impact on students in relation to Outcome 2 (Understand and use basic research techniques) and Outcome 3 (Locate, evaluate and synthesize information from a variety of sources) of SUNY’s GE Information Management Learning Outcomes (please refer to Appendix E. FLCC Charles J. Meder Library Learning Objectives 2009 – 2010)

2. The library should partner with academic departments to increase course integrated bibliographic/library instruction

E. Overall General Library Satisfaction

Three questions on the 2009 survey form the core of inquiry in the area of general satisfaction with the library. They are as follows: in general, I am satisfied with the way I am treated in the library; in general, I am satisfied with library support for my learning, research and/or teaching needs; and how would you rate the overall quality of the service provided by the library? This area was also measured by mean scores, not service adequacy scores. The 2009 mean scores were higher in this category than the mean scores in 2003. Our assessment technique for this category, found in the next section of the report, will compare the 2009 results with the 2003 results.

III. Comparison of the LibQual+ 2003 and 2009 Results

Service Adequacy Scores Comparison Chart

Students Faculty Library Staff

Other College Staff

Overall

2003 2009 2003 2009 2003 2009 2003 2009 2003 2009 Customer Service 1.33 1.03 1.18 0.85 1.00 0.86 1.63 1.10 1.35 1.02 Facilities 1.56 0.96 1.18 0.65 0.88 0.42 2.06 0.54 1.50 0.90 Resources 0.88 0.90 0.73 0.17 1.13 0.81 1.56 0.73 0.88 0.81

Information Literacy Mean Scores Comparison Chart

Questions: 1. The library helps me stay abreast of developments in my field(s) of interest. 2. The library aids my advancement in my academic discipline or work. 3. The library enables me to be more efficient in my academic pursuits or work. 4. The library helps me distinguish between trustworthy and untrustworthy information. 5. The library provides me with the information skills I need in my work or study.


Other College Staff

Overall

Question # 2003 2009 2003 2009 2003 2009 2003 2009 2003 2009 1 5.95 7.00 6.23 6.32 7.50 7.61 5.50 6.48 5.94 6.90 2 6.72 7.43 6.86 6.79 7.88 7.89 6.06 6.37 6.63 7.30 3 7.09 7.52 6.91 7.13 8.00 8.17 6.13 6.63 6.85 7.42 4 6.47 7.10 6.23 6.45 7.88 7.72 5.75 6.48 6.21 6.99 5 6.65 7.4 6.14 6.79 7.50 7.72 6.06 6.63 6.40 7.28

General Satisfaction Mean Scores Comparison Chart

Questions: 1. In general, I am satisfied with the way I am treated in the library. 2. In general, I am satisfied with library support for my learning, research, and/or teaching needs. 3. How would you rate the overall quality of service provided by the library?


Other College Staff

Overall

Question # 2003 2009 2003 2009 2003 2009 2003 2009 2003 2009 1 7.53 8.05 8.23 8.37 8.65 8.17 8.56 8.37 7.93 8.11 2 7.05 7.76 7.82 7.58 8.50 8.11 7.75 7.56 7.40 7.73 3 7.56 7.80 7.84 7.82 8.63 8.28 8.25 8.26 7.77 7.83

Observations/Analysis of the Comparison Data

Participation Comparison 2003 2009

89 total participant with 89 valid responses 412 participants with 394 valid responses 43 students 329 students 22 faculty (19 fulltime and 3 parttime) 38 faculty (21 fulltime and 17 parttime) 8 library staff 18 library staff (100% participation) 16 other college staff (5 administrators) 27 other college staff (6 administrators)

Since there were almost five times more respondents in 2009, there was a much smaller standard deviation for the 2009 numbers. The 2003 survey results trail the 2009 results in the area of general library satisfaction in terms of mean scores with a smaller standard deviation. So even though the library staff rated library facilities poorer and faculty had issues with resources, the mean scores for the general library satisfaction questions were at a higher level in 2009 than in 2003. Our assumption was that since the 2003 survey scores had been so high for general library satisfaction, 2009 would be lower. This however, was not the case.

A. Customer Service

While the survey customer service results for 2003 were marginally higher than in 2009, customer service is clearly one of the strengths of our library. The comments contained in the 2009 survey were very positive (see Appendix C. LibQual+ 2009 Comments).

B. Facilities

In the 2003 survey, this area received the highest service adequacy score (1.50). In the 2009 survey, it fell to second place with a score of (0.90). The group that rated facilities highest in 2009 was the students (1.56). In 2003 other college staff gave the highest rating (2.06). The lowest rating in both surveys came from the library staff with (0.88) in 2003 and (0.42) in 2009.

All groups rated the library’s facilities lower in 2009 than in 2003. The most significant drop was in the rating by other college staff, who rated it (2.06) in 2003 and (0.54) in 2009.

Two particular questions in this area show significantly different results from 2003 to 2009. The rating for quiet space for individual activities had an adequacy mean score of (1.51) in 2003 and this fell to (0.61) in 2009. The rating for community space for group learning and group study went from an adequacy mean score of (1.51) in 2003 down to (0.96) in 2009.

Numerous comments on the survey addressed lack of group study space, lack of seating, and noise level (see Appendix C. LibQual+ 2009 Comments). Many other comments were positive about library quiet space especially on the 1 st and 3 rd floors.

C. Resources

It is interesting to note that the students rated resources higher on the 2009 survey than on the 2003 survey. This was the only place where the adequacy mean scores were higher on the 2009 survey than in the 2003 survey. The overall service adequacy mean for resources was the lowest of the three area (0.81). Students, library staff, and other college staff rated this highest with an adequacy mean of (0.90), (0.81), and (0.73) respectively. Faculty rated this area the lowest at (0.17), specifically in answer to the questions: easytouse access tools that allow me to find things I need on my own (0.03); and print/electronic journal collections I require for my work (0.09). There is definitely a disconnect, with library staff rating these questions (0.83) and (1.06) respectively.

D. Information Literacy

For the area of information literacy, the mean scores are higher in 2009 than in 2003. But, while it is gratifying to see these mean scores increase, this assessment is perceptual. It does not have specific student leaning outcomes that would be part of the library’s support of SUNY’s GE Information Management Outcomes.

E. Overall General Library Satisfaction

Interestingly the overall general satisfaction mean scores were higher in the 2009 survey than the 2003 survey. The perceived mean scores of the respondents in the 2009 survey were overall higher than in 2003 for all three of the survey’s general satisfaction questions. There was not a huge difference in the mean scores but they were higher and consistently on the high end of the 1 – 9 ratings. For both 2003 and 2009 surveys, respondents were clearly satisfied with the library’s services, staff, and facilities.

F. Observations on the 2003 and 2009 Surveys

The data is definitely trending downward when compared to our 2003 LibQual+ survey, in terms of an adequacy mean. The perceived mean scores of the faculty on resources are actually higher on the 2009 survey. For the first question the scores were (7.45) in 2009 and (7.36) in 2003. For the second question, the 2009 score was (7.46), while in 2003 it was (6.86). The desired mean for the first question was (8.16) in 2009 and (6.86) in 2003. For the second question the desired mean was (8.09) in 2009 and (7.86) in 2003. So despite increasing the perceived mean score in these areas from 2003 to 2009, the library has not met rising faculty expectations, or understood them well enough. As was stated earlier in this report, faculty tend to universally rate these area low in all libraries surveyed by LibQual+. Clearly there is a rising expectation on the part of faculty to provide them with easier access to more resources.

IV. National Center of Educational Statistics Data

The library field is a data rich environment. Librarians collect and report data on a biennial basis to the National Center of Educational Statistics. At the Charles J. Meder Library we have always used selected data elements which we think are significant and compare Finer Lakes Community College to the other 29 community colleges in the State University of New York. We expect our outcomes and rankings to be consistent over time. There are 62 data elements which are included in the report from all 30 community colleges over 8 reporting years.

Following is a chart showing how the Charles J. Meder Library ranks in relation to the other 29 SUNY community college libraries (1 being the highest and 30 the lowest):

2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 FTE (12 month) n/a 15 16 16 18 Librarians 24 9 20 11 10 Other Paid Staff 18 20 17 21 21 Student Assistants 10 9 9 10 8 Total Staff 16 17 13 15 14 Staff/FTE per 1000 n/a n/a n/a 15 14 Salaries (professional) 14 19 20 23 18 Total Salaries n/a 25 21 26 24 Book Expenditures 11 13 15 16 22 Audiovisual Expenditures 17 9 11 8 7 Current Periodicals Expenditures 5 6 4 7 9 Electronic Serials Expenditures 5 3 4 7 11 Preservation Expenditures 5 3 7 5 7 Other Expenditures 19 18 18 20 23 Total Expenditures 12 16 16 18 15 Electronic Reference Sources & Aggregation Held n/a n/a 11 23 16 Returnable ILLs Provided to Other Libraries n/a 18 9 8 11 Nonreturnable Ills Provided to Other Libraries 8 7 5 5 8 Total Interlibrary Loans Provided 9 11 5 7 10 Total Interlibrary Loans Received 3 4 5 7 11 Circulation 8 7 9 5 5 Circulation (including reserves) Per student FTE n/a n/a 10 3 5 Total Attendance at all Presentations 15 23 20 18 13 Hours Open in Typical week 6 3 3 4 2 Gate Count in Typical Week 8 10 12 15 13

Finger Lakes Community College consistently ranks in the middle of the pack of the 30 SUNY community colleges in terms of size. Below are some comparisons of our library with other community college libraries in certain key areas.

Staffing

Finger Lakes professional staffing has remained relatively constant through the 2000’s, having 6.4 MLS professionals in 2000 and 6.5 in 2008. The variation has been the hours worked by parttime librarians at campus centers and the main library. While our numbers have remained fairly constant, our rank among the reporting community colleges has declined from 10 th in 2000 to 16 th in 2008.

Civil service staff has declined from 5.5 to 4.5 since 2000. This ranks Finger Lakes 21 st of the reporting colleges, down from 18 th in 2002.

The library makes extensive use of student assistants; both work/study and regular minimum wage hourly employees. The FTE of student assistants has risen from 3.25 in 2000 to 4 in 2008. The library ranks 8th among community colleges in student assistants in 2008, up from 10 th in 2000.

It wasn’t until 2004 that NES began to collect library and other professional staff/1000 FTE data. Finger Lakes ranks 11 th out of the 20 reporting libraries.

In total staff, the library rank has moved from 16 th in 2000, to 14 th in 2008. This is with only 29 libraries reporting in 2008. The total staff number, include librarians, civil service, and student assistants and is consistently around the 15 FTE number.

Salaries/Wages

Librarian and professional salaries have risen from $244,898 in 2000 to $324, 122 in 2008. Unfortunately 2002 was the only year that all libraries reported this figure and that year FLCC ranked 19 th out of 30. In 2008, FLCC ranked 18 th out of 27 reporting libraries. So while actual dollars have risen, our rank has fallen from 14 out of 26 in 2000 to 18 th out of 27 in 2008 (See Appendix IV. NES Statistics).

Comparisons of total salaries are inconclusive because of spotty reporting. Some libraries never report total salaries. In 2008 FLCC ranked 8 th out of 14 reporting libraries. In 2002 FLCC ranked 10 th out of 14 reporting libraries.

Materials Expenditures

The expenditures for books have remained static throughout the 2000’s. The number has dropped from $75,848 in 2000 to $52,071 in 2008. The difference has been the acquisition of serial back files and microforms. During this time the library has reduced the number of titles we receive on microform. For example, we no longer purchase back files for the New York Times, the Democrat and Chronicle, and other publications. Many of these items are now available in online databases we subscribe to.

The library’s audiovisual expenditures have remained fairly static. The amount has gone from $18,543 in 2000 to $19,663 in 2008, but our rank has risen from 17th to 7 th .

Our current serials subscriptions expenditure has risen from $77,870 in 2000 to $101,689 in 2008. At the same time, our rank has gone from 5th down to 9 th of reporting libraries. Our electronic serials rank has gone from 5 th in 2000 to 11 th in 2008.

Although our interlibrary loan expenditures have essentially remained constant from 2000 to 2008, our library has gone down in rank from 1 st to 10 th . Bibliographic utilities costs have remained fairly constant from 2000 to 2008, from $38,416 to $39,317. Here Finger Lakes consistently ranks 5 th in expenditures of the 30 community colleges.

Again, Finger Lakes ranks 4 th consistently in the areas of expenditures for preservation and this amount has not changed significantly from 2000 to 2008.

Total Library Expenditure and Total Expenditures per FTE

Library expenditures for materials, salaries, benefits, supplies, etc. have risen from $664,890 in 2000 to $736,206 in 2008. Over the reporting period the FLCC library has gone from 12 th to 15 th of the reporting community colleges. In 2008 the libraries that did not report (Rockland, Mohawk Valley, and Hudson Valley) all reported higher numbers than FLCC in 2000, 2002, 2004, and 2006. If those libraries had reported in 2008, our rank would have been 18 th .

The library’s total expenditures per FTE have risen from $206.93 in 2004 to $214.14 per FTE in 2008. Our library’s rank has decreased from 13 th to 19 th of reporting libraries.

Collection Size (Books, serial back files, audiovisual and other materials)

The library’s collection size has gone from 80,544 in 2000 to 76,950 in 2008. We rank 19 th in 2008, down from 13 th in 2000. The FLCC librarians have conducted two major weeding projects between 2000 and 2008. This has kept our print collection size fairly constant. The print collection size has gone from 21.6 volumes per FTE in 2004 to 22.38 per FTE in 2008. Our rank has dropped from 16 to 17.

Circulation

Circulation activity is particularly brisk at the FLCC library. The circulation in 2008 was 28,458, up from 24,511 in 2002. Our ranking has risen from 7 th to 5 th of reporting community college libraries. The library also ranked 5 th in circulation transactions per FTE up from 10 th in 2004.

Interlibrary Loan

The Charles J. Meder Library ranked 11 th in total interlibrary loans, with 607 items received and 1,006 items lent in 2008. Our library has gone from being a net borrower in 2004, to a net lender in 2008, although the number of items processed has remained fairly constant.

Gate Count per Typical Week

We have seen a steady increase in our gate count numbers from 4744 in 2000 to 6271 in 2008. We currently rank 13 th out of 28 reporting community college libraries.

Hours of Operation per Week

Library hours have increased from 76 hours per week in 2000 to 78 in 2008. Currently only Suffolk Community College is open more hours per week. FLCC ties for second with Nassau Community College. Both of these libraries serve much larger populations than ours.

Conclusions

NES data can be misleading when you look at comparisons over time because not all SUNY libraries (for unexplained reasons) report all data elements or they report data inconsistently. FLCC has been consistent over the years with the data reported for each element or area. That being said, we believe there are certain trends that are evident even with the spotty overall reporting. First, Finger Lakes Community College and the Charles J. Meder Library are in the middle of the pack in terms of FTE, collection size, overall staffing, and overall library expenditures.

Secondly, despite these facts, our library ranks very well in the service areas. For a library that ranks 19 th in collection size, we rank 5 th in total circulation and 5 th in circulation per FTE. The Meder Library, again, despite its smaller budget and collection size, is a net lender of materials to other libraries. Despite our lower FTE size, we rank above the middle of all the reporting libraries in gate count.

The library also uses many adjunct librarians and student workers, which have significantly lower wages. So, while our number of staff per FTE ranks in the top 15, our wages do not.

Finally, the library is open more than all but two other SUNY community college libraries, who serve much larger populations. Our high number of service hours is consistent with our service philosophy and stated mission.

Again, library services are ranked extremely high, expenditures are low, while our library usage continues to grow. In conclusion, the NES quantitative data and the 2009 LibQual+ survey results support our findings.

V. Summary of Recommendations for Service Improvement

In this section we are gathering all of the recommendations made by category.

Customer Service

• Adequately staff civil service positions to ensure a high level of service • Continue our strong emphasis on customer service, particularly to support student learning • Continue to develop this emphasis on customer service in adjunct librarians and student staff • Develop strategies to maintain our customer service strength with our growing population of

online users

Facilities

• Find ways to provide more quiet study space • Reconfigure library bibliographic instruction/open computer lab (A327) to provide more

computing/printing stations (while providing more seating beyond the 2 nd floor) • Increase open computer lab hours

Resources

• Have liaison librarians meet with the faculty in their respective areas to determine what resources faculty feel are lacking in our collection

• Library should make appropriate funding requests to augment the library’s resource budgets for print and electronic materials

• Library staff should hold workshops and training sessions aimed at the departmental/subject level to keep faculty informed of the resources available

• Work with the Center for Teaching Excellence to present programs highlighting resources • Investigate commercial products (i.e. Library Guides and federated search engines) which can

make searching for resources easier

Information Literacy

• Librarians should partner with an academic department to access the library’s impact on students in relation to Outcomes 2 & 3 of SUNY’s GE Information Management Learning Outcomes

• Partner with academic departments to increase course integrated library instruction

Other Recommendation

• We recommend that the library continue to participate in periodic LibQual+ Surveys so we may continue to monitor customer perceptions

VI. Appendix List

Appendix I. LibQual+ 2009 Survey Results

Appendix II. LibQual+ 2003 Survey Results

Appendix III. LibQual+ 2009 Comments

Appendix IV. NES Statistics

Appendix V. FLCC Charles J. Meder Learning Objectives

library assessment report 2009 · ii. 2009 libqual+ survey the full time librarians met throughout...

Documents