Reference and Collection Sub-Team
Final Report with Attachments
1/17/2012

Table of Contents

Chapter / Page
Executive Summary / 3
Problem Statements:
Nature of Reference Service / 5
Reference Statistics Tool / 8
Reference Desk Staffing / 15
Reference Service Policies / 16
Collection Development Policy / 17
Collection Relevancy / 21
Streamlining Acquisition of Materials / 24
Collection-wide Maintenance and Evaluation / 29
Organization of the Collection / 30
Prioritized Recommendations / 34
Electronic Attachments
#1 Reference Policies, 1987 / 44
#2 Reference Standards, 1987 / 49
#3 E-Reference Policies and Best Practices, 2001 / 56
#4 E-Reference Procedures, 2001 / 58
#5 Reference Policies and Procedures – preliminary draft
revision, 2012 / 60
#6 Materials Selection Policy, 1991; reviewed 1997 / 70
#7 Materials Selection – MCLS Home Page, 1996; reviewed
1997 / 74
#8 Collection Development Policy, 1988 / 75
#9 Gifts, 1987, reviewed 1997 / 81
#10 Gifts – Memorials, 1994; reviewed 1997 / 82
#11 Collection Deacquisition Policy, 2001 / 84
#12 Collection Development Policy – preliminary draft revision, 2012 / 86
#13 Benchmarking Survey / 97

Reference and Collection Sub-team Final Report

January 16th, 2012

Executive Summary

The Reference & Collections Team tackled some major questions concerning the content, management and arrangement of the collection and the Central Library’s provision of reference service. The task was divided into nine problem statements. The team relied on statistical data, literature reviews and benchmarking with other libraries in approaching each problem. Throughout the task, however, the team used as a guiding principle the existing mission of the Central Library and was reluctant to compromise the generally accepted high quality of service expected by the library’s patrons and important to staff.

While the over-all goal of the entire reorganization process is to find efficiencies of operation, because the process is divided among a number of teams and there is significant relationship between the assignments; like chess or the chicken/egg conundrum the specifics or alternatives can’t be fully developed or explored until recommendations from other teams are accepted or rejected and decisions start to be made. The decisions of the Space & Facilities Team are especially relevant both for how the library arranges the collection and provides direct reference service. For this reason this team’s recommendations are preliminary and should be revisited and tested as implementation goes forward.

A summary of the team’s report appears below; however, the complete set of detailed recommendations for each problem statement appears in the body of the report

  1. The team found that reference service has changed both in the quantity as well as the way it is provided and resources used. This can be attributed to the evolution and pervasiveness of the personal computer and the development of online information sources. Individuals simply have greater access to information and can find much of what they need without a librarian. At the same time town libraries have become stronger and have been able to step into role formerly held by the Central Library alone.

Analysis of the statistics, however, reveals that even with fewer people providing public service, direct public reference service continues to be a major function of public service staff.

  1. In order to provide a more consistent measure of public service between units, the team used Survey Monkey to develop an online statistics collection tool to collect the base data required by the Management Team in order to make service decisions. While the current tool works and has provided useful data, it is somewhat cumbersome to maintain. In addition, since it has been pared down to the basic data, divisions needing additional information will need to make adaptations or other ways to record what they need.
  1. Both the patterns of reference request, the architecture of the buildings, and the deployment of public computers affect the decisions about staffing public service desks. Staff receives both general and subject-specific reference questions (easy and hard) by both telephone and in person in random and unpredictable order. The staff feels strongly about wanting to maintain a high level of reference service and believes this is best provided through the availability of experienced subject specialists. A decision to relocate the general public computers has the potential of reducing the number of general computer related questions at the desks and the use of a new position “Reference Assistant,” paired with a subject specialist as well as incorporating the concept of “roving staff” could reduce the cost of providing reference service.
  1. Both the Reference Policy and Reference Standards which shape reference service at the Central Library were both developed in 1987. Because they follow generally accepted professional standards, for the most part they continue to be acceptable but should be revised to reflect the changes in technology and facilities since they were approved.
  1. Like the Reference Policy and Standards, the Collection Development Policy has not been revised. Revisions to the policy and additions are recommended. In addition, policies specific to the subject divisions are generally not adequate and should be revised both for content and alignment with the general policy.
  1. The expectation and reality of the Central Library’s collection is that it will be bigger, broader and deeper than any of the individual libraries it supports. What is harder to evaluate is the relevancy of the collection and a measure of the quality of the collection. Individual titles can be matched against standard or specialized bibliographies or circulation reports and several other studies and reports to test the collection are proposed.
  1. Critical to the provision of a relevant collection is ability to make available to patrons new material in a timely manor. The Central Library has lagged behind branch and community libraries in getting new books onto its shelves. The adoption of an online ordering system and changes in the preparation of materials, such as the elimination of KAPKO covers has resulted in the delivery of many materials to divisions much more quickly. Additional alterations in procedures are still necessary to further streamline the process and make the most effective use of staff time.
  1. In addition to collection development, continued maintenance and evaluation is necessary to keep a library’s collection relevant and in good repair. While a section on Weeding is included in the Collection Development Policy of 1988 it has not been revised. The team recommends that this section should be revised incorporating preservation standards and suggested timetables and procedures that might be used at the division level.
  2. Both the Rundel Building and the Bausch & Lomb Public Library Building were built to accommodate a library collection arranged by subject.

The team looked at other arrangements, contacted many libraries, evaluated the experiences of libraries with other arrangements and concluded that simply a change away from the subject concept would neither result in better service to the public nor result in significant cost savings.

The complete report, with separate sections on each problem statement follows. Attached are the current library-wide policies and preliminary drafts of revisions. Individual division policies and procedures are not included.

Problem Statement

How has the nature of reference at the Central Library shifted within the last ten years and how can staff improve and create different ways of delivering reference service (making Central an indispensable resource to MCLS member libraries?)

Data Collection, methods and results

The following statistics are from the cumulative records from the Central Library Administration Office during the last 10 years.

YearRef. quest.Ref. staffQuestions/staff

2000-200130618888.73451

2001-200230173389.43375

2002-2003243431803042

2003-200423200087.22660

2004-200521035788.32382

2005-200619531865.82968

2006-200719163764.52971

2007-200819690464.73,043

2008-200920959461.83,391

2009-201023245058.93,946

Reference QuestionsStaffing

Questions per librarian per year7300 questions answered by Divisions

Data Analysis

Throughout the history of the Central Library, its subject collections and staff expertise have been the most unique and indispensable resource to the public and other MCLS libraries. With the advent of the internet and the widespread ownership of personal computers, the demand for subject specific reference questions has diminished as more and more of our customers, turn to the Internet to answer their questions.

Having their own computers, member libraries now have on-line resources available to them to answers their customers questions and no longer are they solely dependent on Central’s print resources.

Some of the changes in the nature of reference at Central as indicated by the above statistics are:

  1. A reduction in the number of all types of reference questions to the Central Library.
  2. The routing of general information/reference questions to subject divisions, increasing the percentage of non-subject related questions answered in subject divisions.
  3. A greater demand for help with computer instruction of all types.
  4. A reduction in the number of reference librarians.
  5. A higher number of reference questions answered per librarian.

While concise statistics are not available, there is consensus among some divisions that the use of print reference sources has greatly diminished with a much greater emphasis on online resources.

Since October 2011, with the introduction of Survey Monkey, we now have a finer breakdown of the overall nature of reference questions being answered by divisions. The last graph distinguishes between subject specific questions and general reference questions in addition to the demand for computer instruction. Figures for September and October were similar.

The team formulated definitions for each category of questions. General reference questions include;

  1. Catalog searches
  2. Phone numbers
  3. Simple spellings
  4. Library hours
  5. Questions that do not require significant knowledge of a subject, that could be answered by any reference librarian

Subject specific questions include;

  1. A question requiring subject knowledge or if subject specific material is needed
  2. Reader advisory and assistance in subject searches and selecting materials
  3. If specific training or experience related to the division is needed
  4. Questions beyond the scope of a well trained general reference librarian

Unfortunately, the earlier “hash mark” statistical recording tool did not make the distinction between subject vs. general reference questions; hence we can only track this three month trend.

Yet this last graph is probably the most significant as it provides a picture of the current nature of reference questions being asked. Almost half of these questions are not subject specific and could therefore be answered by a general reference librarian.

The Central Library’s vast collections and subject specialists have served the citizens of Monroe County for over 100 years yet we must respond to the changing nature of our reference service and the changing resources needed to satisfy these demands. With the reduction in staffing and the corresponding increase in the individual librarian’s workload, we must also work more efficiently by augmenting or substituting our print collections with online resources while employing electronic information delivery methods such as scanning and faxing.

Finally, in response to the increasing demand for computer assistance, all staff should have at least basic training in Microsoft Office, downloading files and library products such as audio and e-books.

Recommendations

As this data indicates, Central’s traditional role of answering subject-specific reference questions, while increasing somewhat from in lowest point in 2006-2007, over the last ten years, the number of reference questions have declined significantly while there is a shift in the types of questions being asked and the types of resources that are needed to fulfill customer requests.

To respond to the changing demands of our public we must find new and more efficient ways to deliver reference services. The following recommendations are suggested;

  1. Take the lead in collection development to include a digital collection policy that is responsive to public demand.
  2. Survey Monkey has shown that only about 10% of our reference questions are now being answered by using paper resources and we should consider shifting to online databases whenever possible.
  3. Reduce the number of technical journals where demand is low and increase the circulation of more popular journals.
  4. Increase the opportunities for staff training in new technologies.
  5. The Central Library should establish an area that is staffed by experienced individualsable to assist patrons with computer and Internet related questions as well as provide training on computers and other electronic devices.
  6. The Central Library should continue to look for more non-traditional items for circulation including more electronic devices, museum passes, etc.
  7. To increase both efficiency and speed of our reference, expand the use of electronic delivery methods whenever possible including faxing and scanning to both member libraries and individuals.

Problem Statement

Does a uniform reference recording tool need to be developed to collect data about the true nature of the questions being asked at the reference desk?

Data Collection (methods and results)

Benchmarking with other libraries finds a wide variety of statistics recording tools from various online types, identical or similar to Survey Monkey, to just plain pen and paper.

LibraryStatistic tool

Ann Arborin-house program

Salt Lake Cityin-house program

Lawrenceville, NJpen and paper

Arlington Heightsdesk tracker compendium

Canton, OHsampling twice per year using pen and paper

Columbia, MDpen and paper

Kansas Citypen and paper

Evansville, INpen and paper

Akron, OHgimlet.us used for sampling

Dayton, OHsampling once per year using pen and paper

Buffalo, NYsampling once per year

Alexandria, VApen and paper

The current reference recording tool, Survey Monkey is being utilized to help standardize the recording of reference statistics. The current survey will record the day, time, and source of the reference questions and most importantly for the survey period, the type of question asked, whether subject specific or not.

We want a reference statistics recording tool that gathers all the detail that Administration requires for budget planning, but that does not take a lot of staff time and attention away from patron interactions.

The one advantage to the “sampling and extrapolation” method used by the Buffalo library is that it frees librarians to concentrate on serving the patrons without the distraction of having to record reference statistics, except during the sampling period. The BIG disadvantage is that accuracy is very much compromised by this method. How could one pick a “typical week” to use for sampling? The week could turn out to be anything but typical, with the result that statistics are drastically skewed.

Accuracy is also a concern with the pen and paper and hash marks method that was being used at Central until mid-September of this year. Reference questions can become very involved and at busy times, when one patron after another needs attention, staff may forget to record all of the questions answered in the past hour and do a “best guess” of how many hash marks to record. Accuracy of statistics is compromised when ALL attention is focused on serving the patron immediately present at the desk and the recording takes place only after a busy period.

The Survey Monkey recording tool we have developed, like other online statistics collectors, can help us record more detail about reference transactions than other methods.

In terms of efficiency, less time is spent by division clerks adding up hash marks for the whole month. Possibly less paper is generated.

The survey also requires more time and attention to detail than other methods. There are currently five multiple choice questions that must be answered for each transaction, plus an optional notes field to record details about the question. It takes a little longer to fill out one of these surveys than it does to make a hash mark in the appropriate spot on a sheet of paper!

In addition to the time it takes to fill out a survey for each transaction, the downloading of reports for a one-month period is cumbersome. We have found it easier to “just print” the individual reports, though compiling the division reports into one detailed report for Central is facilitated by the downloads. Since monthly public service reports by divisions contain statistics about other services to the public (such as programs inside and outside the library, tours of the library, displays, bibliographies and community contacts), spending time downloading the Survey Monkey reports does not necessarily make monthly reports easier or faster to produce.

During the survey period, staff spent a great deal of time downloading and compiling all the divisions’ reference survey reports into one comprehensive report for the Central Library. Other data (such as number of open hours) needs to be combined with reports in order to give real meaning to the numbers. (See #5 below.)

Data Analysis (methods and results)

Data collected during October and November shows:

The current version of survey monkey is useful in tracking the nature of reference service at Central that was not formerly tracked using pen and paper. The following are some of the specific elements that were able to be tracked.

  1. Approximately 80% of questions answered at all public service desks are reference questions (as opposed to directional or other non-reference type questions).