Needs assessment for Arizona libraries : final report on research conducted by the School of Information Resources and Library Science, University of Arizona

              Needs Assessmentfor Arizona Libraries
Final Report on Research Conducted by:
The School of Infonnation Resources and Library Science
University ofArizona
Under Contract to:
Department ofLibrary, Archives, and Public Records
State ofArizona
May 1997
C.D. Hurt, Director and Principal Investigator
Sandra G. Hirsh, Assistant Professor
Charles A Seavey, Associate Professor
This project wasfunded in part with funds granted by the Department ofLibrary, Archives, and Public
Records under the Library Services and Construction Act, State Administered Program, as amended
Needs Assessment 2
Table of Contents
LIST OF TABLES 3
LIST OF APPENDICES 3
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 4
THE CuRRENT STATE OF TECHNOLOGY .........•................•..............•.•.•................................................... 4
NEEDS AsSESSMENT .................••••...•..................•....••..........•.•••......•...................................................•. 4
Top CONCERNS ...................................••................•.....................•..................................................•.... 5
RECOMMENDATIONS .......................................................•...............•......................................•.............. 5
BACKGROUND 6
METHODS 6
LITERATIJRE REVIEW AND INFORMATION GATHERING ,..............•................... 6
INITIALPLANNING 8
THEFINAL SURVEy 9
SAMPLE POPULATION 11
RESULTS 12
AVAILABLE TECHNOLOGY 13
Computing Power: Overall " 13
Communications: Overall 15
Summary ofAvailable Technology: Overall 17
Computing Power: By Type ofLibrary 18
Communications: By Type ofLibrary " 21
Summary ofAvailable Technology: By Type ofLibrary 21
Computing Power: By County " 22
Communications: By County " 24
Summary ofAvailable Technology: By County 25
NEEDS AsSESSMENT " 25
NeedsAssessment: Overall ""." 26
Needs Assessment: Academic Libraries 28
Needs Assessment: Public Libraries , 34
NeedsAssessment: School Libraries " 42
Needs Assessment: Special Libraries 48
Needs Assessment: Summary by County 50
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 51
AVAILABLE TECHNOLOGY , 51
NEEDS AsSESSMENT ".. "., .."", " ",,' ".52
REFERENCES 54
Needs Assessment 3
List of Tables
TABLE 1: RESPONSE RATES 11
TABLE2: COMPUTER CHIPS, BY PERCENTAGE, N=413 14
TABLE 3:DOSfWINOOWS OPERATING SYSTEMS, BY PERCENTAGE, N= 288 (70%) 15
TABLE 4: BAUDRATE, N= 274 (66.8%) 15
TABLE 5: COMMUNICATIONS: LEVEL OFWEB ACCESS, N= 241 (58.4%) 17
TABLE6: SUMMARY OF COMPUTERPOWER, BYT¥PEoFLmRARY, IN PERCENTAGES 18
TABLE 7: DOSfWINOOWS CHIPS, BY PERCENTAGE, N=413 20
TABLE 8: APPLE CHIPS, BY PERCENTAGE, N = 413 20
TABLE 9: CONNECTIVITY AND ACCESS LEVEL, BY TYPE OFLmRARY, N = 413 21
TABLE 10: SUMMARY OF AVAILABLE COMPUTERS, BY COUNTY, IN PERCENTAGES 23
TABLE 11: CONNECTIVITY AND ACCESS LEVELS, BY COUNTY, IN PERCENTAGES '" 24
TABLE 12: QUINTILES AND LEVEL OF CONCERN 26
TABLE 13: COLLECTION NEEDS OF ACADEMIC LmRARIEs 31
TABLE 14: FAcILmEs NEEDS OF ACADEMIC LIBRARIES 31
TABLE 15: PERSONNEL NEEDS OF ACADEMIC LmRARIEs 32
TABLE 16: TEcHNOLOGY NEEDS OF ACADEMIC LmRARIEs 32
TABLE 17: TRAINING NEEDS OF ACADEMIC LmRARIES 33
TABLE 18: SERVICES NEEDS OF ACADEMIC LmRARIEs 33
TABLE 19: COLLECTION NEEDS OF PuBLIC LmRARIES 37
TABLE 20: FACILITIES NEEDS OF PuBLIC LmRARIEs 38
TABLE 21: PERSONNEL NEEDS OF PuBLIC LmRARIEs 38
TABLE 22: TECHNOLOGY NEEDS OF PuBLIC LmRARIEs 39
TABLE 23: TRAINING NEEDS OF PuBLIC LmRARIEs 39
TABLE 24: LmRARY SERVICES NEEDS OF PuBLIC LmRARIES 40
TABLE 25: MEAN SCORE BY GENERAL AREAFOR PuBLIC LmRARIEs 41
TABLE 26: IMPORTANCE OF GENERAL AREAS BY NUMBER OF QUESTIONS OVER 10% RESPONSE RATE 41
TABLE 27: COLLECTION NEEDS OF SCHOOLLmRARIEs 45
TABLE 28: FAcILmEsNEEDSOFSCHooLLmRARIEs 45
TABLE 29: PERSONNEL NEEDS OF SCHooLLmRARIEs " 46
TABLE 30: TECHNOLOGY NEEDS OF SCHOOLLmRARIEs 46
TABLE 31: TRAINING NEEDS OF SCHOOLLmRARIEs " .. ," ' 47
TABLE 32: SERVICES NEEDS OF SCHooLLmRARIEs 47
TABLE 33: HIGHEST LEVEL CONCERNS BY COUNTY 51
List of Appendices
APPENDIX A AIuzONALmRARIEs NEEDS AsSESSMENT SURVEy , , 55
APPENDIX B NEEDS AsSESSMENT ANALYSIS COUNTY-BY-COUNTY 61
Needs Assessment 4
Executive Summary
Libraries in Arizona were surveyed to determine librarian's perceptions ofthe
needs oftheir libraries. The survey instrument was based on an earlier purposive sample
used to refine the questionnaire. Data were collected in the fall of 1996. 973 libraries
were surveyed. 413 libraries responded to the survey for a response rate of42.4%
The Cu"ent State ofTechnology
The first portion ofthe survey contained a set ofquestions aimed at ascertaining
the level ofavailable technology in Arizona public libraries. This portion ofthe survey
indicates that:
• As many as 92.7% ofArizona Libraries have computers.
• However only approximately half ofthe computers in the DOS/Windows
environment, and about one-third ofthe Apple machines are up-to-date.
• Only 55.8% ofArizona libraries are able to make full use ofthe Intemet/World
Wide Web (WWW) information resources currently available. Upgraded
connectivity, hardware, and software is badly needed.
Needs Assessment
Librarians were asked about their perceived needs in six general areas:
• Collection
• Facilities
• Personnel
• Technology
• TraininglEducation
Needs Assessment 5
• Services
There were a total of 134 possible responses within the 6 general areas.
Top Concerns
The top three concerns ofArizona libraries, regardless ofgeneral area, are:
• Space for Computers
• Internet Training for Librarians
• Internet Access for Patrons
Detailed analysis ofthe responses, both taken as a whole and by the six general areas, are
contained herein. Analysis by type oflibrary, and by county are included.
Recommendations
Based on the results, several recommendations are suggested. Regarding available
technology, recommendations include:
• Help obtain up-to-date computer equipment for libraries currently without
modem technology
• Help obtain full graphical access to the World Wide Web for libraries currently
without such access
• Help upgrade existing hardware to Pentium level technology
• Help upgrade existing DOSlWindows operating systems to at least
Windows95
Regarding the needs of Arizona libraries, recommendations include:
• Help libraries provide greater internet access for patrons
• Help provide internet training to librarians
Bacl<.ground
This document reports on a survey ofall Arizona libraries undertaken by the
School ofInformation Resources and Library Science, University ofArizona, under
contract with the Arizona Department ofLibrary, Archives, and Public Records. Under
the general guidance ofC.D. Hurt, Director ofthe School, the research team consists of
Assistant Professor Sandra G. Hirsh, and Associate Professor Charley Seavey. The
purpose ofthis study was to determine the needs of all types oflibraries (i.e., academic,
public, school and special) in the state ofArizona.
The early stages ofthe survey were reported to DLAPR in Needs Assessmentfor
Arizona Libraries: Interim Report on Research Conducted by: The School ofLibrary
Science, University ofArizona presented to DLAPR in April, 1996. An interim oral
report on the research was presented to the State Library Advisory Council on December
13, 1996. A report on public libraries, Needs Assessmentfor Arizona Public Libraries
was presented to DLAPR on February 27, 1997.
Methods
Literature Review and Information Gathering
The research team undertook a review ofthe literature to see if exemplar studies
existed which would aid in the design of an appropriate survey instrument for Arizona.
Databases searched included: Library Literature, Library andInformation Science
Abstracts, and ERIC. The search was restricted to the last ten years on the theory that
Needs Assessment 7
economic, political, and technological horizons had changed sufficiently since 1986 as to
make older studies less relevant to the present environment. One ofour operating
assumptions is that the very recent changes in the availability ofinformation via the
Internet is having a large impact on the way librarians view the needs oftheir libraries.
This proved to be the case.
Few relevant studies were found in the literature. There are large numbers
of surveys based on user perceptions oflibrary needs (for example, Rosen,
1990; Ward, 1990; Welch, 1994, Wilson, 1995). However, the team had decided that
focus was to be on assessing the needs oflibraries according to the librarian's perceptions
rather than the user's perceptions. Users are important in the needs assessment process
because they can communicate their specific information and library needs; however, users
do not have full knowledge ofall ofthe materials owned and services provided by
libraries. Professional librarians have a broader perspective ofthe general needs ofthe
library and are better equipped to understand what needs are not being met than is the
average user.
No research studies were found that directly addressed the needs ofthe library as
perceived by librarians. There were many reports by individual states that performed
needs assessments as part ofthe Library Services and Construction Act (LSCA) funding
process (for example, see documents from Minnesota, Alabama, Louisiana, South
Carolina). However, these needs assessments provided survey data (and sometimes
sample survey instruments) from library users rather than librarians. This review ofthe
literature suggests that librarians are typically not consulted about their perceptions ofthe
Needs Assessment 8
library's needs, even though they are likely to be more aware ofthe limitations ofthe
library's services and collections than general users ofthe library.
Initial Planning
After considerable discussion, the team concluded that there were no exemplar
studies upon which to base the project underway. Starting with a clean slate to design a
survey reflecting, insofar as possible, the current situation in Arizona, seemed the
preferable option.
The team decided that the survey would investigate seven general areas:
1. Collection
2. Facilities
3. Personnel
4. Technology
5. Training
6. Research
7. Library Services
Collection, Facilities, and Personnel are the basic components ofany library. We
decided on a very broad definition of Technology. While current usage tends to equate
"technology" with computer equipment, the situation in many Arizona libraries suggests
that a wider range ofpossibilities should be presented. Our assumption is that there are
vast differences in levels ofavailable technology across the state. One librarian might see
a new Pentium based machine with an ethemet card as a technological need, while another
might see reliable phone service in the same light. Training was treated in a similarly
Needs Assessment 9
broad fashion, ranging from basic philosophical issues to hands-on using the latest
available software or hardware. Our view ofResearch centered on potential needs for
problem solving or data gathering and analysis outside ofthe skill levels ofline librarians.
In asking about Library Services, we had in mind programs beyond normal levels of
service provided by most libraries. In essence we were trying to find out what librarians
perceived as needs beyond those currently provided.
A purposive sample ofArizona libraries was used to develop and pre-test a survey
instrument. The results ofthat exercise were reported in the Needs Assessmentfor
Arizona Libraries: Interim Report on Research Conducted by: The School ofLibrary
Science, University ofArizona. The sample survey was used to develop the final survey
instrument.
The Final Survey
We administered a close-ended survey to all types oflibraries in the state of
Arizona. See Appendix A for the full survey instrument. Academic, public and special
libraries were drawn from the 1996 Arizona Library Directory. The Arizona Department
ofEducation supplied a list ofschool libraries. One survey instrument was sent to each of
these libraries to be answered by the director or other librarian.
The survey instrument was divided into two sections. The first portion ofthe
survey asked libraries to report on the level ofavailable computing technology. The
information arena is changing very rapidly, and now more than ever before access to up to
date desktop computers and the Internet are crucial for libraries attempting to provide a
full range ofinformation resources to the citizens ofArizona"
Needs Assessment 10
The second portion ofthe survey asked librarians to identify the three most
pressing needs oftheir library within six general areas, for a total of 134 possible needs
identified in the survey instrument. The six need categories included:
• Collections: such as, books, serials, audio-visual materials, CDs.
• Facilities: such as, space, equipment, patron facilities.
• Personnel: such as, professional librarians, library support staff
• Technology: such as, connectivity, computers, public use.
• Training/Education: such as, basic operations, technology, public relations. By
training and education we meant any forum in which learning takes place. It
could be a formal classroom situation, a workshop at a library conference, or
in-house training lead by a member ofthe staff or an instructor hired for a
specific area ofexpertise. "Online services" in this category included online
bibliographic databases searchable through such vendors as Dialog, or BRS.
Two training categories, "Training on the WWW" and "Internet training,"
were related" However, terminology in this area is very fluid and we felt it was
necessary to separate these training options; it is possible that there was some
misunderstanding ofthe questions.
• Library Services: services that libraries would like to offer, such as outreach,
children's programming, story hours, summer reading programs.
A seventh category, Research, was included in the survey instrument but was later
dropped from the analysis since this question did not appear to be well understood by the
survey participants. The Research category was aimed at assessing library needs for data
collection and analysis.
Needs Assessment 11
These possibilities had been pre-tested with a sample group (see the Interim
Report) and represent the best thinking ofthe research team and the sample group of
working librarians as to the possible needs ofArizona's libraries. While no survey ever
truly represents a complete picture, we are confident that the data presented within are an
accurate snapshot ofthe state oftechnology, and the perceived needs ofArizona libraries.
Sample Population
Ofthe 973 libraries surveyed, 413 libraries responded for an overall response rate
of42.4%. Table 1 presents response rate data by type oflibrary.
Table 1: Response Rates
Type of Library Nof Response Percentage
ResDonses Rate in Survey
Academic 28 54% 6.8%
Public 78 41.3% 18.9%
School 293 41.7% 70.9%
Special 14 50% 3.4%
Total 413 42.4% 100%
As Table 1 shows, school libraries represent the largest percentage of overall
survey responses (70.9%) because there are more school libraries in Arizona than other
types oflibraries. Thus, it is important to keep these percentages in mind when reading the
sections below dealing with all libraries. In some cases, which we will try and identify, the
concerns ofa single type oflibrary will make a concern unique to them rank highly overall.
The survey asked for the title/position ofthe individual filling out the survey.
Unfortunately we made this an open ended question, so responses are somewhat mixed"
49% ofthose filing out the report identified themselves as "librarian." From the context it
appears that most ofthese individuals are the head (or only) librarian. 23% identified
Needs Assessment 12
themselves with some variation on the term "Media Specialist," largely in the school
library area. 11% identified themselves as "Director." The remaining 17% ofresponses
were scattered to the point where characterizations would be difficult. From titles
employed and the context in which those titles are presented we feel that the great
majority ofthe surveys were filled out by the person directing the unit being reported
upon.
Total reliability ofthe data would have improved with a higher response rate.
However analysis ofthe response patterns indicates no systemic difference between the
respondents (sample) and the population (all the libraries). We are confident, therefore,
that the data presented are drawn from a representative sample ofall Arizona libraries.
Conclusions about conditions statewide may be made with a fair degree ofcertainty. This
does not mean that all libraries will fit the pattern presented here. It does mean that taken
as a whole this is a reasonably accurate picture ofthe technological state and perceived
needs ofthe state's libraries. The data, in our opinion, are not robust enough to reach firm
conclusions about library needs at the county level, however. A summary oftop perceived
needs by county are presented in the main text, with some further county data analysis
attached as Appendix B.
Results
Results from the statewide survey are presented in two main sections. The first
section evaluates the state oftechnology in Arizona libraries overall, by type oflibrary,
and by county. The second section assesses the needs ofArizona libraries overall, by type
oflibrary, and by county.
Needs Assessment 13
Available Technology
This section deals with the level oftechnology present in Arizona's libraries. Data
and commentary are first presented for all libraries, then by type oflibrary, and then by
county. The questions deal with computer chips and Internet connectivity.
Computing Power: Overall
The first question asked respondents to identify the "fastest/biggest" computer
chip available in the library. The chip used in a computer is the best indication ofthe level
ofcomputer power available to the user. 88.2% ofthe respondents answered the chip
question. An additional 4.6% did not answer the chip question, but have an operating
system, a baud rate, or some level ofaccess to the Internet, indicating the presence ofa
computer. The total ofArizona libraries with computers could be as high as 92.7%.
42.5% ofall libraries are exclusively in the DOS/Windows operating environment, 24.9%
exclusively in the Apple environment, and 20.8% use both types ofcomputer
Since we did not ask the question, there is no way ofpositively determining which
type of computer a given library uses as the primary system. Our incorrect assumption
was that one or the other system would be present exclusively. When a PowerMac and an
8088 are present, or a Pentium and an Apple IT, one can make a good guess, but there are
enough cases ofroughly equal power that any judgment as to primary system would be
faulty.
Needs Assessment 14
Table 2: Computer Chips. by Percentage. n=413. , i i i ,
Chips- DOSlWindows Percent Chips- Apple Percent
Pentium 24.9% PowerMac 27.3%
80486 27.0% 68040 4.6%
80386 6.0% 68030 1.9%
80286 3.4% 68020 7.5%
8088 1.9% Apple IT 4.3%
Total 63.2% Total 45.6%
Table 2 shows that 63.2% ofall libraries have some form ofDOSlWindows
computer present and 45.6% have some form ofApple computer present. Because there
are joint users the total exceeds 100%.
While no computer is useless (assuming it is in working order), the older the chip,
the less useful the machine. Software capabilities change very rapidly and are dependent
on the type ofprocessor (chip) being used in the computer. Nobody designs software for
out-of-date chips. In the DOSlWindows world the most up-to-date software is designed
for the Pentium chip. While the 80486 class machines still have a useful life, they will be
rapidly outdated in the next two years, particularly with the advent ofthe Pentium IT chip
on the market. Apple chips have a little more flexibility, but generally speaking anything
less than a 68040 is becoming less and less useful. Machines at the 80286, 8088, 68020,
and Apple IT level have very limited usefulness in the graphically oriented, high speed
communications era into which libraries are rapidly moving.
Discussing operating systems is somewhat complicated by the fact that 85.3% of
the Apple users did not report on their operating system. Given the lack ofdata in the
Apple realm, the comments on operating systems below are restricted to those computers
in the DOSlWindows environment.
Needs Assessment 15
Table 3:DOS/Wi.'ldows OperatL'lg Systems. by Percentage, n = 288 (70%t
Qperatin2 System Percent
Windows 95 24.7%
Windows 3.1 63.6%
Windows 2.0 5.3%
DOS (any version) 6.4%
Total 100%
Table 3 indicates that about one-quarter ofthe libraries using DOS/Windows
computers are actually using Windows95. While Windows 3.1 works well in the current
environment, Windows95 is a far better memory manager and is more effective in terms of
connectivity. With Windows97 approaching the market the Windows 3.1 users badly
need to upgrade their operating systems. Windows 2.0 is marginal, at best, and DOS is
essentially useless in terms ofcurrent conditions.
Communications: Overall
Desktop power is only part ofthe story oftechnology. In the distributed
electronic information environment, communications power is critical. This section
reports on aspects ofInternet connectivity.
Table 4 presents data on baud rate, or speed, ofInternet connectivity.
Table 4: Baud Rate. n = 274 (66.8%).
Baud Rate N Percent
Hardwire 146 52.9%
28,800 33 11.9%
14,400 51 18.9%
9,600 16 5.9%
2,400 19 6.9%
1,200 6 2.3%
300 3 1.2%
Total 274 100%
Needs Assessment 16
Baud rate refers to the speed at which the computer's communication system can
transmit data. The slower the baud rate the slower the transmission speed. In a
graphically rich environment, or one where information is frequently downloaded, a slow
baud rate translates into a lot ofwaiting time. Hardwiring, via fiber optics or another form
ofcable, is the fastest possible method ofdata transmission. The level ofhardwiring
reflected above may be a trifle optimistic, as the following discussion suggests.
Assuming that Table 4 is a fairly accurate picture it means that 230 (the total
number oflibraries operating at least 14,400 baud), or 55.7%, of all Arizona libraries
have effective hookups to the Internet. A 14,400 baud rate is not blazing speed, but it
does provide at least adequate service as long as lengthy documents are not being
downloaded, or graphically heavy sites are being constantly visited. The libraries with
28,800 baud hookups are in far better shape, and those genuinely hardwired in the best
shape ofall. Baud rates less than 14,400 will work for text-based only access, although
downloading becomes problematic. Almost any baud rate will work for email, although
those libraries operating at less than 14,400 (16.3% ofthe libraries) are clearly in need of
modem equipment..
While there is not enough evidence to come to a :firm conclusion, it is possible that
some respondents, particularly in the school library area, did not understand the meaning
ofthe term "hardwired" in the connectivity portion ofthe survey. The actual question
looked like this:
2. Please check the fastest connection speed available in your library. Check only one (1)
o Hardwire (i.e., ethemet, T-l, other cable hookup) 0 2,400 baud
o 28,800 baud 0 1,200 baud
o 14,400 baud 0 300 baud
o 9,600 baud 0 None
Needs Assessment 17
There are some instances ofa library reporting hardwiring, but not reporting an
access level, or hardwired with a very low powered machine, and not reporting an access
level. It is possible that fewer libraries are actually hardwired than this report indicates,
although from the data given it would be foolhardy to try and come up with an error rate
estimate.
Table 5: Communications: Level ofWeb Access. n = 241 (58.4%)
Level of Access N Percent
Full Graphical 175 72.6%
Text Only 33 13.7%
Email Only 33 13.7%
Total: 241 100%
Full graphical access means that the library is using a web browser, such as
Netscape, and is able to look at both text and graphics available on the WWW. A less
powerful program, such as Lynx, will provide the user with access to the textual material
on the WWW, but not to the graphics. Email is a purely textual operation. Table 5
indicates that 175, or 42%, ofall libraries, have full graphical access. While fewer
libraries reported on level ofweb access than on the baud rate question, 72.6% ofthose
responding reported having graphical access.
Summary ofAvailable Technology: Overall
Most libraries participating in this survey have computers in their libraries, with
more libraries operating in the DOSlWindows environment than the Apple environment.
However, only approximately half ofthe libraries using DOSlWindows-based computers
are operating at a functional level (using a 80486 chip or higher) while approximately one-third
ofthe libraries using Apple computers are operating at a functional level (using a
Needs Assessment 18
68040 chip or higher). Only one-quarter ofthose libraries using DOS/Windows-based
computers are using the Windows95 operating system. Most libraries participating in this
survey (83.7%) reported have satisfactory connectivity rates (using modems at 14,400
baud rates or higher or being hardwired). However, the nearly 20% oflibraries using
modems at 14,400 baud rates are soon going to find these connectivity rates unacceptable
for meeting their information needs and meeting the demands ofproviding full graphical
access to the World Wide Web.
Computing Power: By Type ofLibrary
In addition to reporting overall technology findings, we also analyzed the
technology available by type oflibrary.
Table 6: Summary of Computer Power, by Type ofLibrary, in percentages.
Type % With a DOSWin Apple Both % Up-to- Win95
computer Date ChiD
Academic 96.61 51.7 3.4 37.9 96.5 48.3
Public 77.0 74.0 2.6 3.9 89.7 36.7
School 91.8-96.92 34.6 34.9 76.7 81.2 11.33
Special 61.5 53.8 0.0 7.7 53.8 0.0
1 This may be an error. One academic library reports no computer data other then having text level
access to the web.
2 Although 24 libraries did not report on the chip question, they did have either a baud rate, an operating
system, or some level of Internet access, suggesting the presence of a computer. Only 4.1% responded
consistently enough to indicate no computer present.
3This is also the percentage reporting using the Mac OS 7.5. As mentioned elsewhere MAC OS version
was widely non-reported, although the sample is large enough in this case to lend the data some validity.
Table 6 shows the general levels ofcomputer power by type oflibrary. The
DOSWin, and Apple columns indicate the percentage oflibraries who use one or the other
type of computer exclusively. The Both column indicates the percentage using both types
of computers. The Up-to-Date Chip column indicates the percentage oflibraries
Needs Assessment 19
operating with at least an 80486 or 68040 chip. The Win95 column indicates the
percentage oflibraries using the Windows95 operating system. While Windows 3.1 is an
adequate operating system in today's graphical environment, Windows95 is a far better
memory manager and offers superior graphical performance compared to Windows 3.1.
Windows 2.0 and DOS operating systems are no longer up-to-date. Because ofa very low
response rate no attempt was made to analyze Apple operating systems.
Table 6 shows that nearly all academic and school libraries report having at least
one computer in their libraries. Over three-quarters ofthe public libraries report having at
least one computer, with the majority ofthese DOS/Windows-based computers. Many of
these libraries are not running Windows95 as their operating system. Special libraries
reported lower levels ofcomputer power than could be expected; however, the sample
size for the special libraries group was smaller than for the other types oflibraries and thus
care must be taken in generalizing these findings.
Tables 7 and 8 give more detailed information about the type of chip available by
type oflibrary. The most powerful chips are in the left-hand column (Le.: Pentium,
PowerMac) and the least powerful chips on the far right (Le.: 8088, Apple II). Each type
of computer has five chips. While the equivalencies are not precise reading left to right, in
general the analogy holds; the Pentium and the PowerMac have roughly equivalent
capabilities, as do the 80286 and the 68020 chips.
Needs Assessment 20
Table 7: DOSlWindows Chips. by percentage. n=413.
Type (n)
i i i i i ,
Pentium 80486 80386 80286 8088
Academic (28) 69.0 17.2 0.0 3.4 0.0
Public (78) 62.1 27.6 5.2 3.4 1.7
School (293) 14.0 30.5 7.2 3.8 2.4
Special (14) 38.5 15.4 7.7 0.0 0.0
Table 8: Apple Chips. by percentage. n = 413.
Type PowerMac 68040 68030 68020 Applell
Academic (28) 34.5 6.9 0.0 3.4 0.0
Public (78) 1.3 0.0 0.0 2.6 2.6
School (293) 34.6 5.8 2.7 9.6 5.1
Special (14) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.7
Evident in Tables 7 and 8 is that school libraries are not dealing with the most up-to-
date technology, at least judged by the chips available. The PowerMac is a powerful
chip, but only about a third of school libraries are employing that chip, with no
compensating use ofa high powered chip in the DOSlWindows world. Traditionally
school libraries have been Apple oriented, and we would have expected a higher level of
powerful Apple computers in this category. Special libraries also do not appear to be
using computers with very powerful chips. Academic and public libraries both have the
most powerful chips.
Needs Assessment 21
Communications: By Type ofLibrary
Table 9 presents the connectivity levels by type oflibrary. The table shows that
both academic and public libraries have acceptable levels ofconnectivity. School and
special libraries have slower connectivity speeds.
Table 9: Connectivity and Access Level. by type ofLibrary. n = 413
Type 14,400+ Baud % w Graphical Access
Academic 85.7 65.5
Public 84.0 53.6
School 54.1 37.3
Special 30.8 30.8
While a 14,400 baud rate is not blazing speed, it does provide graphical access, given the
right software. The disparity between technical possibility and actual use is quite striking.
In particular, only about one-third ofthe school and special libraries have graphical access
capabilities while only approximately halfofthe public libraries have graphical access.
Summary ofAvailable Technology: By Type ofLibrary
In sum, these analyses give a picture ofthe current state oftechnological access in
different types oflibraries in Arizona.
Overall, academic libraries have access to the most sophisticated technology in
the state. Nearly all ofthe academic libraries participating in this study own computers;
the majority ofthese are DOSIWindows computers with up-to-date chips, high levels of
graphical access, and high speed connectivity. However, only about half ofthe academic
libraries use the Windows95 operating system.
Public libraries reported slightly lower levels ofcomputer ownership (about
three-quarters). Most ofthese computers were DOSIWindows computers with relatively
Needs Assessment 22
up-to-date chips. These libraries had mostly satisfactory levels ofconnectivity (14.4 baud
modems or higher), but only about halfofthe libraries had graphical web access and only
about one-third used Windows95.
Like academic libraries, nearly all ofthe school libraries participating in this study
reported owning computers. Unlike academic and public libraries, a high percentage
(77%) ofthe school libraries reported owning both DOSlWindows and Apple computers.
Most school libraries had up-to-date chips, but only halfhad connectivity at 14.4 baud
modems or higher, only one-third had graphical web access, and only 11% used the most
current operating system. While school libraries are generally well equipped with
satisfactory computing power, they are lacking in up-to-date software/operating systems,
modems/hardwiring, and graphical access to the World Wide Web.
Special libraries appeared to have the weakest technology available to them.
However, it must be cautioned that only 14 special libraries participated in this survey, a
very small fraction of special libraries in Arizona. Thus, these results may not be
generalizable. Only 61.5% ofthe special libraries reported owning computers, with most
ofthese DOSlWindows systems. Only halfhad up-to-date chips, one-third satisfactory
connectivity, and one-third graphical access. No special libraries reported using
Windows95.
Computing Power: By County
This section analyzes computer power by county, It should be noted that the
findings from several counties were grouped together (Le., Graham/Greenlee, and La
PazlYuma) because of small numbers oflibraries responding and geographic proximity.
Needs Assessment 23
Santa Cruz County is not included in any ofthe county analyses because ofa low response
rate (one library). Eight libraries did not report the county oftheir location-hence county
totals will not equal the state total.
Table 10: Summaty ofAvailable Computers. by County. in Percentages
County % With a DOSWin Apple Both % Up-to- Win9S
computer Date Chip
Apache 92.3 61.5 23.1 7.7 53.8 23.1
Cochise 88.9 66.7 16.7 5.5 66.7 16.7
Coconino 87.5 31.3 6.2 56.2 68.8 31.3
Gila 92.3 53.8 30.7 7.7 76.9 30.8
Graham! *87.5 75.0 0.0 12.5 66.7 25.0
Greenlee
LaPaz} *70.0 50.0 10.0 20.0 70.0 30.0
Yuma
Maricopa 93.1 40.1 27.6 23.9 80.1 9.4
Mohave 73.3 53.3 0.0 13.3 60.0 20.0
Navajo 72.7 36.4 18.2 18.2 45.5 9.1
Pima 90.0 29.0 35.0 26.0 82.0 23.0
Pinal 100.0 80.9 9.5 4.8 71.4 23.8
Yavapai 66.7 42.8 19.0 4.8 47.6 14.3
*based on very small sample size.
Table 10 shows that ownership of computers varied by county, with Pinal County
reporting having at least one computer in every library. Yavapai County libraries
appeared weakest in terms ofavailability of computers in their libraries. The results also
suggest that there is a mix of computers used in libraries in the state ofArizona; while
DOSlWindows computers are more dominant, many ofthe county libraries report using
Apple computers either exclusively or in conjunction with DOSlWindows computers. In
terms of computing power, Pima and Maricopa county libraries reported the highest rates
ofhaving up-to-date chips, 82% and 80% respectively. However, less than halfofthe
libraries in Navajo and Yavapai counties had up-to-date chips for their computers.
Needs Assessment 24
Looking at the last column in Table 10, it appears that few libraries in the state have
adopted Windows95 for their computer's operating system, with a low ofabout 9% in
Maricopa and Navajo counties and a high ofabout 30% in LaPazlYuma, Coconino, and
Gila counties.
Communications: By County
Table 11 shows the connectivity and access levels by county.
Table 11: Connectivity and Access Levels. by County. in Percentages
County 14,400+ Baud % w Graphical
Access
Apache 46.2 23.1
Cochise 33.3 44.4
Coconino 62.5 43.8
Gila 46.1 46.1
Graham/Greenlee 25.0 25.0
La PazlYuma 60.0 50.0
Maricopa 65.8 42.8
Mohave 33.3 40.0
Navaio 45.5 9.1
Pima 57.0 48.0
Pinal 57.1 52.4
Yavapai 47.6 33.3
While it is possible to have full graphical access at less than 14,400 baud, it is
extremely slow. The frustration level in the library reporting full graphical access at 300
baud can only be imagined. While Cochise and Mojave counties do have libraries having
full graphical access at less than 14,400 baud, the rest ofthe state, sensibly, is not
attempting graphical access with less than that rate. Apache and Navajo counties, in
particular, do not seem to be taking full graphical advantage ofthe baud rates available to
them.
Needs Assessment 25
Summary ofAvailable Technology: By County
In general, the counties with the greatest computer power appear to Gila and Pima
counties. Gila County also appears to be taking maximal advantage ofits connectivity
levels and graphical web access. Maricopa County has strong computer power, but is one
ofthe slowest counties to adopt Windows95 operating system. While Maricopa County
has one ofthe highest levels of 14.4 modems, it is not making as great use ofgraphical
web access as it could. Navajo and Yavapai counties appear to have the weakest
computing power, with less than three-quarters oftheir libraries reporting computer
ownership and less than halfoftheir libraries reporting having up-to-date chips. Navajo
County is also not taking advantage ofits connectivity rates in terms ofproviding
graphical access. Graham/Greenlee and Pinal counties reported using primarily
DOSIWindows computers. Over halfofthe libraries in Coconino County reported using
both DOSIWindows and Apple computers. Gila and Pima counties reported about halfof
their libraries using exclusively Apple computers.
Needs Assessment
This section reports on librarians' assessment ofthe needs oftheir libraries.
Questions were originally separated into 7 general areas. Analysis ofthe responses
indicates that one general area, research needs, was not well understood, and we have
eliminated that area from the final data analysis. This area was problematic in the test
survey and we were apparently unable to solve the problem with the final version ofthe
survey, so we simply dropped the whole section from consideration rather than compound
the apparent confusion.
Needs Assessment 26
The needs ofArizona libraries were assessed in the following way. All 134
questions were rank ordered by number ofresponses. Questions mentioned by fewer than
10% ofthe respondents were eliminated from further consideration. The remaining
questions were aggregated into quintiles in order to highlight the more important
questions. Roughly speaking quintiles may be viewed as a five-part scale oflevel of
concern, or interest, displayed on Table 12.
Table 12: Ouintiles and Level ofConcern
Hif!h Medium-Hif!h Medium Medium-Low Low
First Quintile Second Quintile Third Quintile Fourth Quintile Fifth Quintile
First quintile concerns are ofhighest interest while fifth quintile concerns are of
lowest. The first and second quintiles are the areas ofmost concern to Arizona librarians,
and will receive the most attention. Quintiles 3-5 will be analyzed for general trends, but
the more dispersed (usually) responses in these areas mean that individual questions are
less critical to the overall picture. It is within the higher quintiles that the most crucial
concerns are found.
For libraries overall, by type oflibrary, and by county, responses to questions will
be analyzed in two parts. First, responses to all the questions, regardless ofgeneral area
will be presented. Second, a section analyzing the 6 general areas ofcollection, facilities,
personnel, technology, training/education, and services will be discussed.
Needs Assessment: Overall
This analysis assesses the overall needs ofall Arizona libraries, regardless oftype
oflibrary or county affiliation. 413 usable responses were used for the following
tabulations.
Needs Assessment 27
There were three items in the first, or highest, quintile. They are:
• Space for computers (area: facilities)
• Internet training for librarians (training/education)
• Internet access for patrons (services)
Space for computers was mentioned by 64.6% ofthe respondents. Internet
training for librarians (from the training/education area), and Internet access for patrons
(from the library services area) both were mentioned by 57% ofthe respondents.
The next quintile, medium-high concerns, contains four items. They are:
• Clerical support (personnel)
• Reference CDs (collections)
• Connectivity to the Internet (technology)
• Professional librarians with the teaching credential (personnel)
Clerical support and librarians with the teaching credential are major concerns in
school libraries. The other items at this level are concerns across all types oflibraries.
There are seven items in the third, or medium interest, quintile. They are:
• PCs for public use (services)
• Internet training for patrons (services)
• Training on theWWW (training)
• PCs with CDROM capability (technology)
• Training in grant writing (training)
• Reference books (collections)
• Videos (collections)
Needs Assessment 28
Medium-low concerns were in only 5 ofthe 6 general areas. There were a total of
14 concerns in this area, broken down like this:
• Collection concerns: 2
• Facilities concerns: 4
• Technology concerns: 3
• Training concerns: 4
• Services concerns: 1
There were 33 items at the lowest level ofconcern. None were mentioned by
more than 20% ofthe respondents.
Highest level concerns have an obvious common thread: connectivity to the
Internet. Computers and space for computers are necessary components ofoffering
Internet services, as are training for both librarians and patrons. Arizona libraries are
clearly concerned with moving into the area ofelectronic delivery ofinformation.
Needs Assessment: Academic Libraries
We will now discuss the needs ratings by type oflibrary, beginning with academic
libraries.
Overall Needs
The first part ofthis analysis looks at the overall needs ofacademic libraries.
High Interest Concerns
There were five items receiving the highest level ofconcern. All five received over
a 50% response rate. In order, they are:
Needs Assessment 29
• Reference Books (collections)
• Reference CDs (collections)
• Adult non-Fiction (collections)
• Space for Computers (facilities)
• Internet training (training)
These rankings suggest that one ofthe most pressing needs for academic libraries is
collections, particularly reference materials.
Medium-High Interest Concerns
There are five concerns in the medium-high group. All received between a 41%
and 48% response rate. In order, they are:
• Space for patrons (facilities)
• Training on theWWW (training)
• Internet access for patrons (services)
• Internet training for patrons (services)
• Technical personnel with hardware expertise (personnel)
It is worth noting that the first four items all received the exact same response rate.
Most ofthe medium-high concerns appear to be related to Internet training and access,
particularly for patrons.
Medium Interest Concerns
There were seven items ofinterest at this level ofconcern, All received a response
rate between 31% and 37%. In order, they are:
• Connectivity to the Internet (technology)
• Space for shelving (facilities)
Needs Assessment 30
• Technical personnel with expertise in software (personnel)
• Public services librarians (personnel)
• Support staff in public services (personnel)
• Technical personnel with expertise in networks (personnel)
• PCs for public use. (technology)
The last four items all received exactly the same response rate. Staffing concerns
are predominant medium level concerns.
Medium-Low and Low Interest Concerns
The bottom two quintiles contained 44 items. Neither ofthese quintiles appears to
be very focused. The real concerns ofacademic libraries are expressed in the top three
groups. Grouped by general area of concern the bottom two quintiles are:
• Collections 7 items
• Facilities 6 items
• Personnel 7 items
• Technology 10 items
• Training 10 items
• Services 4 items
Analysis by Category
The second part ofthe analysis examines the needs ofacademic libraries in the six
needs categories (i.e., collections, facilities, personnel, technology, training/educational,
service needs) covered by the survey. Each area will be addressed in turn, with an overall
evaluation at the end.
Needs Assessment 31
Collection Needs
There were 30 possible responses in this section. No question drew more than a
62.1% response rate, although only 9 possibilities (30%) drew a response rate ofgreater
than 10%.
Table 13: Collection Needs ofAcademic Libraries
Highest Concerns In order: Reference books; Reference CDs;
Adult non-fiction.
Medium-High nothing in this quinti/e
Medium nothinf;! in this quintile
Medium-Low Adult non-fiction serials; Reference serials.
Lowest Concerns Talking books; Children's non-fiction;
Spanish langua~e serials; Videos
The top three concerns in Table 13 all had over a 50% response rate. After that there is a
precipitous drop to the next concerns. The highest response rate in the medium-low area
drew only a 27.6% response. The most important concerns are quite clear here.
Facilities Needs
There were 19 possible responses in this section. No question drew more than a
51.7% response rate, and only 58% ofthe questions achieved a response rate ofgreater
than 10%.
Table 14: Facilities Needs ofAcademic Libraries
Highest Concerns In order: Space for computers; Patron
space.
Medium-Hi2h nothinf;! in this quintile
Medium Space for shelvin~
Medium-Low Patron facilities (e.g., chairs, tables, etc.)
Lowest Concerns Seven items, none with more than a 17%
response rate.
Needs Assessment 32
Personnel Needs
There were 24 possible responses in this section. No question drew more than a
41% response rate, and only 50% ofthe questions had response rates higher than 10%.
Table 15: Personnel Needs ofAcademic Libraries
Highest Concerns Technical Personnel with a specialty in
hardware.
Medium-High In order: Technical personnel with a
specialty in software; Public service
librarians; Support staffin public services;
Technical personnel with network expertise.
Medium Support staff in technical services.
Medium-Low Clerical support.
Lowest Concerns Five items, none with more than a 13%
response rate.
Technology Needs
There were 22 possible responses in the technology area. The highest response
rate was 38%, and 54.5% ofthe questions had at least a 10% response rate.
Table 16: Technology Needs ofAcademic Libraries
Hi2hest Concerns Connectivity to the Internet.
Medium-High PCs for public use; PCs with COROM
capabilities.
Medium NothinK in this quintile
Medium-Low PCs for librarians use; Software for public
use; VCRs; FAX machine.
Lowest Concerns Five items, none with more than a 10%
response rate.
Training/Education Needs for Library Personnel
There were 24 possible responses in this section. The highest response was
51.7%, and 50% ofthe questions had at least a 10% response rate.
Needs Assessment 33
Table 17: Training Needs ofAcademic Libraries
Hi2hest Concerns In order: Internet training; Web trainIng.
Medium-High Nothing in this quintile
Medium NothinK in this quintile
Medium-Low Basic public services; Policy writing; email
training; Grant writing.
Lowest Concerns Six items, none with more than a 17%
response rate.
The highest level concerns were mentioned by half the respondents. The next highest
concern, in the medium-low category, drew only a 24% response rate. Training concerns
are very sharply focused.
Service Needs
There were 24 possible responses in this section. The highest response was
48.3%, and only 25% ofthe questions had at least a 10% response rate.
Table 18: Services Needs ofAcademic Libraries
Highest Concerns In order: Internet access and training for
patrons (two questions, tied).
Medium-Hi2h NothinK in this quintile
Medium Training in bibliographic instruction.
Medium-Low SDI for faculty; Services for business.
Lowest Concerns General library training.
Summary
The two areas of seeming greatest concern to academic libraries are collections
and training. A collections question had the highest response rate (62.1%) and the
collections area had the lowest number ofquestions receiving over a 10% response rate.
Training, as mentioned above, was very focussed on the internet. The top concerns were
virtually the only concerns.
Needs Assessment 34
Needs Assessment: Public Libraries
Overall Needs
The first part ofthis analysis looks at the overall needs ofpublic libraries. 78
public libraries out of 189 surveyed responded for a 41.3% response rate.
High Interest Concerns
All questions in the first quintile received over a 50% response rate. In order, they
are:
• Internet Access for Patrons (services)
• Space for Computers (facilities)
• Computers for Public Use (technology)
• Internet Training for Librarians (training)
• Public Service Support Staff (personnel)
All five questions come from different general areas. Librarians are remarkably
consistent in their answers here. The top four concerns cluster around Internet access for
patrons. Access requires computers, which require space, and Internet training for
librarians to train the public. We might further infer that the public service support staff
(non-MLS) concern might be intended for equipment maintenance, or to free up MLS
librarians for more time to be spent with the public.
Medium-High Interest Concerns
There is a sharp drop-off ofinterest after the top quintile" The second quintile
concerns are two in number and garnered just over a 40% response rate from librarians.
Needs Assessment 35
They are both facilities issues: space for shelving, and reading and sitting space for
patrons.
Medium Interest Concerns
This group contains questions with roughly 30-40% response rates. Unlike the top
two levels, the medium interest concerns are not sharply focused. While only seven
questions occupied the top two levels, the third quintile contains no fewer than 18
questions. Even when aggregated by general area there is no apparent trend:
• Collection Needs 4
• Facilities Needs 1
• Personnel Needs 3
• Technology Needs 4
• Training Needs 3
• Service Needs 3
Two ofthe training needs, and one ofthe service needs, are technologically
oriented, which lends the medium concerns a slight technological weight, but that may be
overstating the case..
Medium-Low Interest Concerns
This quintile contains 14 questions that have response rates between 20 and 30%.
This group is slightly more focused than the third:
• Collection Needs 2
• Facilities Needs 3
• Personnel Needs 1
• Technology Needs 1
Needs Assessment 36
• Training Needs 5
• Service Needs 2
Training needs are ofprimary importance in this group. One ofthe service needs
has implications for facilities (meeting space for community groups), which lends that
category a little more weight.
Low Interest Concerns
The last quintile is composed of32 questions that received between 10 and 20%
response rates.
• Collection Needs 6
• Facilities Needs 6
• Personnel Needs 5
• Technology Needs 3
• Training Needs 9
• Service Needs 3
Training needs dominate this lowest group.
Analysis by Category
The second part ofthe analysis examines the needs ofpublic libraries in the six
needs categories (i.e., collections, facilities, personnel, technology, training/educational,
service needs) covered by the survey. Each area will be addressed in turn, with an overall
evaluation at the end.
Needs Assessment 37
Collection Needs
There were 30 possible responses in this section. No question drew more than a
34.6% response rate, and only 12 possibilities (40%) drew a response rate ofgreater than
10%.
Table 19 shows the greatest perceived needs in the collections area. Only 7
questions occupy the entire first four quintiles:
Table 19: Collection Needs ofPublic Libraries
Highest Concerns In order: Reference Books, Adult Non-fiction,
Talking Books, Reference CDs
Medium-Hieh Videos
Medium Adult Fiction
Medium-Low Children's Non-fiction
The overall thrust here seems quite clear: collections need the most help in terms
ofreference materials (books and CDs) and non-fiction (adult and children's). Adult
fiction is probably always going to be a concern. Talking books and videos are special
formats that can contain a wide variety of subject matter. A follow-up study might
consider breaking these formats down by subject content to see if clear fiction/non-fiction
differences emerge.
Facilities Needs
There were 19 possible responses in this section. No question drew more than a
56.4% response rate, although 68% ofthe questions achieved a response rate ofgreater
than 10%.
Table 20 presents the greatest perceived needs in the facilities area. Responses to
eight questions occupy the first 4 quintiles.
Needs Assessment 38
Table 20: Facilities Needs ofPublic Libraries
• , I Hi2hest Concerns In order: Space for Computers
Medium Hi2h Space for Shelving, Space for Patrons
Medium Shelvin~
Medium-Low Patron facilities (e.g., chairs, tables),
Parkin~, Office Space
Space concerns, which were 19% ofthe possible answers in the facilities section
are the top three responses, and, as noted above, space for computers was the second
highest scoring concern for public libraries overall.
Personnel Needs
There were 24 possible responses in this section. No question drew more than a
50% response rate, and 58.3% ofthe questions had response rates higher than 10%.
Table 21 presents the greatest perceived needs in the personnel area. Responses to
only 5 questions occupy the first 4 quintiles. Support staff, in this question, means non-
MLS degree holders. The term "librarian" means a person holding the MLS degree.
Table 21: Personnel Needs ofPublic Libraries
Hi2hest Concerns In order: Support Staffin Public Services
Medium Hi2h Public Service Librarians, Clerical staff
Medium Support Staff in Technical Services
Medium-Low Volunteer Coordinator (support staff)
As noted above, support staff for public services was one ofthe top five concerns
overall for public libraries. In general this seems to be related to the desire for patron
Internet access, and more public space for computers. Certainly more public service
librarians fit into this pattern. The most important technology issue, seen in the next
section, indicates the same trend.
Needs Assessment 39
Technology Needs
There were 22 possible responses in the technology area. The highest response
rate was 53.8%, and 40.9% ofthe questions had at least a 10% response rate. Table 22
presents the greatest perceived needs in the area oftechnology.
Table 22: Technology Needs ofPublic Libraries
Hi2hest Concerns In order: Computers for Public Use
Medium Hi2h There is no second place
Medium Computers with CDROM capabilities,
Computers for use by librarians, Connection to
the Internet, software for public use
Medium-Low Software for librarian's use
Computers for public use is the third greatest concern overall for public libraries.
It is far and away the greatest concern in the technology area. The next highest scoring
concern, computers with CDROM capabilities, only drew a 37.2% response rate, making
it only a medium level (third quintile) concern. All ofthe third quintile concerns have
response rates in the 30-37.2% range. There is another sharp drop-off into the fourth
quintile where software for librarian's use drew a 25.6% response rate making it the sole
occupant ofthe fourth quintile,
Training/Education Needs for Library Personnel
There were 24 possible responses in this section. The highest response was
52.6%, and 62,,5% ofthe questions had at least a 10% response rate. Table 23 presents
the greatest perceived needs in the area oftrainingleducation.
Table 23: Training Needs ofPublic Libraries
Hi2hest Concerns In order: Internet traininp;
Medium Hi2h There is no second place
Medium Training on the WWW, training in online
services, traininp; in p;rant writinp;
Needs Assessment 40
Internet training was noted by 52.6% ofthe respondents. After that there is a
drop-off sharp enough that no items appear in the second quintile. Third quintile concerns
average around a 30% response rate.
The medium low group consists of 5 concerns. The first four are all "basic
operations in " in order: technical services, public services, children'slYA services,
and book preservation. The final item in this group is training in writing library policies
regarding appropriate use ofcollections and materials.
Library Services Needs
There were 15 possible responses in the library services area. The highest
response rate was 59%- the highest response rate for the public libraries part ofthe
survey. 60% ofthe questions had a response rate greater than 10%. Six questions occupy
the first four quintiles:
Table 24: Library Services Needs ofPublic Libraries
Highest Concerns In order: Internet access for patrons
Medium Hi2h There is no second quintile
Medium Internet training for patrons, library services to
businesses
Medium-Low General outreach, Literacy/ESL programming,
Meeting space for public groups.
Internet access for patrons is the single most noted concern both in the services
section and in the public libraries group overall. The next highest scoring concern in this
section has a response rate of33.3% and it goes down from there.
Importance Assigned to Each Area
A third level of analysis was performed for public libraries, given their importance
to the Arizona Department ofLibrary, Archives, and Public Records and the direct
Needs Assessment 41
connection between DLAPR, public libraries, and LSCAILSTA funding. In trying to give
some indication as to which general area ofconcern public librarians put the most weight
(in other words, what is really important), we looked at the six areas in two different ways
to see ifany coherent pattern emerged. The most common way ofcharacterizing any
group of data is to look at the average score. The average, in this situation turned out to
be the mean, or arithmetic average ofthe scores. In all 6 areas the scores are grouped
tightly enough that mean, rather than median or mode, is the appropriate measure to use.
The mean score (i.e.: number ofresponses) by question was calculated. Keep in mind that
this mean includes all the scores, not just those over a 10% response rate. In tabular form
the areas rank thusly:
Table 25: Mean Score by General Area for Public Libraries
Facilities Services Trainin2 Technolo2Y Personnel Collections
18.8 18.5 16 14.3 13.7 10.7
Average score, while useful, does not tell the entire story. It can be influenced by
one or two items that score very high, thereby raising the overall water level. To look at
each area as a group, we calculated the percentage of questions within each area that
received over a 10% response rate. The greater the percentage, the more questions within
a general area were ofconcern to public librarians in Arizona. In tabular form the results
look like this:
Table 26: Importance ofGeneral Areas by Number of Ouestions over 10% Response Rate
Facilities Trainin2 Services Personnel Technolo2Y Collections
68 62.5 60 58.3 40.1 40
By either measure facilities is the major concern ofArizona public librarians.
There is a technological slant to this, as space for computers was the biggest overall
Needs Assessment 42
concern in this area, and the second highest concern for public librarians. It is important
to remember that both ofthese sets ofdata are evaluating the relative positions ofthe six
general areas as a whole. Quite clearly there are specific areas which transcend the
relative importance ofthe group.
Needs Assessment: School Libraries
293 school libraries replied to the survey for a response rate of41.7%. School
libraries are the largest single group in the survey.
OveraU Needs
The first part ofthis analysis looks at the overall needs of school libraries.
Highest Level Concerns
There are five items of concern in the first quintile. All received over a 57%
response rate. They are, in order:
• Space for computers (facilities)
• Training on the Internet (training)
• Internet access for students (services)
• Clerical support staff (personnel)
• Librarians with the teaching credential (personnel)
The first three concerns are widely shared by other types oflibraries. The teaching
credential is unique to school libraries, and although clerical support staff are in all types
oflibraries, chronically understaffed school libraries are the only area to make it a major
concern.
Needs Assessment 43
Medium-High Interest Concerns
There are only two items in the second quintile. They are, in order:
• Reference CDs (collections)
• Connectivity to the Internet (technology)
There is a sharp drop-off after the second quintile. The two second quintile items
both received a response rate ofroughly 54%. The top item in the third quintile has a
response rate of41.6%.
Medium Interest Concerns
There are a total of eight items in the medium level area. They are:
• Training in grant writing (training)
• Internet training for patrons (students) (services area)
• PCs for public use (services)
• Children's non-fiction material (collections)
• Training on theWWW (training)
• Computers with CDROM capabilities (technology)
• Videos (collections)
• Software for public (students) use (technology)
Medium-Low Interest Concerns
There are only 13 concerns in the fourth quintile, in only 5 out ofthe 6 general
areas:
• Collection Needs
• Facilities Needs
• Personnel Needs
3 items
2 items
2 items
1 item
5 items
Needs Assessment 44
• Technology Needs
• Training Needs
Low Interest Concerns
There are 26 items in the final quintile. By general area, they are
• Collections 4 items
• Facilities 3 items
• Personnel 4 items
• Technology 7 items
• Training 5 items
• Services 3 items
Analysis by Category
The second part ofthe analysis examines the needs of school libraries in the six
needs categories (i.e., collections, facilities, personnel, technology, training/education,
service needs) covered by the survey. Each area will be addressed in turn, with an overall
evaluation at the end.
Collection Needs
There were 30 possible responses in this section. No question drew more than a
53.9% response rate, and only 11 possibilities (36.7%) drew a response rate ofgreater
than 10%. Collection concerns are very tightly focused.
Needs Assessment 45
Table 27: Collection Needs of School Libraries
Highest Concerns Reference cvs .
Medium-Hh~h Children's non-fiction.
Medium In order: Videos; Reference books;
Children's fiction.
Medium-Low Young adult non-fiction.
Lowest Concerns Spanish language non-fiction; Young adult
fiction; Spanish language fiction; Children's
serials; Reference serials.
Reference CDs received a 53.9% response rate. Children's non-fiction, the next
highest concern had a 38.8% response rate- just high enough to get it into the second
quintile. Young adult non-fiction (the third quintile) has a 29.2% response rate.
Facilities Needs
There were 19 possible responses in this section. No question drew more than a
67.7% response rate, and 52.6% ofthe questions achieved a response rate ofgreater than
10%.
Table 28: Facilities Needs of School Libraries
Hi2hest Concerns Space for computers
Medium-Hi2h NothinK in this quintile.
Medium Nothing in this quintile.
Medium-Low Space for shelving; Media storage.
Lowest Concerns Seven items, none over 21%.
Space for computers is the overwhelming concern of school librarians in the
facilities area and overall for school libraries. Mathematically this is the overriding
concern ofthe entire survey.
Personnel Needs
There were 24 possible responses in this section.. No question drew more than a
59.5 response rate, and only 33.3% ofthe questions had response rates higher than 10%.
Needs Assessment 46
Table 29: Personnel Needs of School Libraries
, Highest Concerns i ciericai support staff; Librarians with the I
teachinj!; credential.
Medium-Hi2h Nothing in this quintile.
Medium NothinK in this qUintile.
Medium-Low Janitorial support; Support staff in technical
sernces.
Lowest Concerns Technical support personnel with expertise
in (in order): AV; Computers (generally);
Hardware; Software.
Support staff, in this question, means non-MLS degree holders. The term
"librarian" means a person holding the MLS degree. Both ofthe highest level personnel
concerns (i.e., clerical support staffand librarians with teaching credentials) are in the top
five concerns for school libraries overall.
Technology Needs
There were 22 possible responses in the technology area. The highest response
rate was 53.9%, and 54.5% ofthe questions had at least a 10% response rate.
Table 30: Technology Needs of School Libraries
Hi2hest Concerns Connectivity to the Internet
Medium-High PCs for public use; PCs with CDROM
capability.
Medium Software for public (student) use.
Medium-Low PCs for librarians; VCR; FAX; Software for
librarians use.
Lowest Concerns Four areas, none over 14.7%.
There is a large drop after the first quintile. The highest response rate in the
second quintile is only 40.5%, and the top concern in the third quintile is only 33.6%.
Needs Assessment 47
Training/Education for Library Personnel
There were 24 possible responses in this section. The highest response was
60.5%, and 50.0% ofthe questions had at least a 10% response rate. Internet training was
the second highest concern for school libraries overall.
Table 31: Training Needs of School Libraries
Highest Concerns Internet training.
Medium-Hi2h Training in grant writing.
Medium Training on the WWW.
Medium-Low Basic technical services; Searching online
databases; Basic operations in
children'slYA services; Email.
Lowest Concerns Four items, none above 16%.
Library Services Needs
There were 15 possible responses in the library services area. The highest
response rate was 59.7%. 33.3% ofthe questions had a response rate greater than 10%.
Table 32: Services Needs of School Libraries
Hi2hest Concerns Internet access for patrons (students).
Medium-High Internet training for patrons (students).
Medium NothinK in this quinti/e.
Medium-Low NothinK in this quinti/e.
Lowest Concerns Literacy/ESL programming; Summer
reading programs.
Internet access for patrons was the third highest overall concern for school libraries. From
these analyses, it is clear that Internet training and access for patrons are the most
important concerns facing school libraries in Arizona"
Summary
School librarians are quite focused in the areas offacilities, personnel, and services.
The highest level concerns in facilities and personnel have no second (or third, for that
Needs Assessment 48
matter) place. Service concerns are not quite as focussed mathematically, but the two
concerns (Internet access and training for patrons) are clearly related and nothing else in
this area approaches their level ofconcern.
Needs Assessment: Special Libraries
There were only 14 respondents within the special libraries sector. In general, the
data presented here should be regarded as tentative conclusions about the possible special
library picture, statewide. A data set this small is not robust enough to lead to firm
conclusions about all special libraries in the state.
Overall Needs
The overall needs of special libraries, regardless ofgeneral area, are presented first.
High Interest Concerns
The highest level concern for special libraries is a single item:
• Space for computers. (facilities)
Space for computers had a response rate of71.4%.
Medium-High Interest Concerns
There was a sharp drop-off into the next quintile where 5 items were tied at a 50%
response rate:
• Adult Fiction (collections)
• Adult non-fiction (collections)
• Shelving (facilities)
• Space for shelving (facilities)
• Internet training for librarians (training)
Needs Assessment 49
Medium Interest Concerns
Three items are tied in the third quintile. They are:
• Connectivity to the Internet (technology)
• Reference materials (collections)
• Training on theWWW (training)
Medium-Low Interest Concerns
Five items are tied in the fourth quintile. They are:
• Videos (collection)
• PCs for librarians use (technology)
• PCs for public use (technology)
• LiteracylESL training (training)
• Software for use by librarians (technology)
There are 48 items in the final quintile. Given the size ofthe sample and the spread
ofopinion involved, no analysis ofthis final quintile will be offered.
Analysis by Category
The second part ofthe analysis examines the needs of special libraries in the six
needs categories (i.e., collections, facilities, personnel, technology, training/education,
service needs) covered by the survey. Given the sample size, only the top level concerns
are reported. They are:
• Collection Needs: Adult fiction.
• Facilities Needs: Space for computers
• Personnel Needs: Clerical support staff
Needs Assessment 50
• Technology Needs: Connectivity to the Internet
• Training Needs: Internet training
• Service Needs: LiteracylESL programming
Summary
The data do not indicate any trends or patterns, except a general interest in
Internet training and connectivity. This is likely due to the small sample size of special
libraries and the diversity of special libraries in the state ofArizona.
Needs Assessment: Summary by County
The needs oflibraries by county were also assessed. Table 33 presents the highest
level needs overall by county. For more detailed analysis ofthe needs by individual
county, see Appendix B.
Table 33 shows that Internet access, space for computers, and reference materials
are among the top concerns ofmany ofthe counties in Arizona; these findings are
consistent with the overall needs oflibraries across the state.
Needs Assessment 51
Table 33: Highest Level Concerns by County
I _a _ County Hi2hest Level (;oncerns
Apache Internet access for patrons; space for computers
Cochise Internet training for librarians; Space for computers; Internet
access for patrons
Coconino Internet access for patrons; Internet traininJ?; for librarians.
Gila Reference CDs
Graham/Greenlee Reference books, support staff in public services, support staffin
technical services, and Internet access for patrons
LaPaz/Yuma Space for computers
Maricopa Space for computers
Mohave Reference CDs; space for computers
Navajo Reference books; space for computers; Internet training for
librarians; patron access to the Internet
Pima Clerical support staff; space for computers, Internet training for
librarians.
Pinal Space for computers; Internet training for librarians; Internet
access for patrons.
Yavapai Computers with CDROM capabilities
Conclusions and Recommendations
Available Technology
There are three main areas here which seem to lend themselves to possible DLAPR
action. The first area ofconcern has to be those libraries which do not possess computers.
Secondly are those libraries without full graphical access to the Internet. Third is the issue
ofupgrading both existing hardware and software which has obvious implications for the
second main concern. Older PCs powered by anything less than an 80486 chip need to be
replaced. It is possible that some ofthe existing 80486 machines can be upgraded to
Pentium chips by simply replacing the chip rather than investing in a whole new machine.
This is not an ideal situation, but will prolong the useful life of 80486 based machines for a
while. Not all computers are built with replaceable chips, but for those that are, this step
Needs Assessment 52
is a possible option. While prolonging the life of 80486 machines is a viable short-term
option it is not a good long-term plan. With the Pentium IT coming on the market the gap
between the 80486 16 bit capable machines, and the true 32 bit machines ofthe Pentium
generation will become even greater. Older software will become rapidly obsolete and
efforts to "make do" with obsolete material are really counter-productive for libraries
trying to take full use ofthe web based resources now available.
Further upgrading the existing operating systems (for those with 80486 or better
chips) to at least Windows95, ifnot Windows97 is a desirable goal in the current graphical
environment. The limits ofWindows 3.1, and software written for that program, are
rapidly approaching and upgrading to newer operating systems will rapidly become a
necessity. It may be possible to negotiate a site licensing arrangement directly with
Microsoft, or bulk purchase rates with Microsoft or another vendor. Again, the up-to­date
versions ofWindows are far more adept at both memory management and operating
in the Internet environment than are older versions ofWindows, or DOS.
Needs Assessment
Ofthe top three overall concerns (Space for Computers, Internet Training for
Librarians, Internet Access for Patrons) there are at least two concerns over which
DLAPR might exercise a role in helping local libraries meet their perceived needs. Clearly
space ofany kind, and additional personnel are outside ofDLAPR's purview and are the
responsibility oflocal library funding agencies.. The remaining areas (patron internet
access, and Internet training for librarians) are areas in which DLAPR can exercise both an
advisory role and a statewide leadership role in helping libraries meet their needs.
Needs Assessment 53
Some ofthe highly rated needs in four general areas: Collections, Technology, Training,
and Services, seem to be in areas in which DLAPR can have an impact, both directly and
indirectly. Top concerns in the Facilities and Personnel areas do not seem as amenable to
DLAPR action or influence and are more the purview oflocal authorities.
DLAPR's normal constituency is perceived as limited to public libraries. DLAPR
is, however, well placed to act as liason/clearinghouse for all types oflibraries at the state
level. Working with the Arizona Department ofEducation on school library concerns, and
with the Arizona Board ofRegents and various community college governing bodies on
matters affecting academic libraries seems to be both a natural and desirable role for
DLAPR to:fill. The vast majority oflibraries in this state are, in the end, all publicly
funded and some statewide coordination role seems almost inevitable.
Needs Assessment 54
References
Alabama Public Library Service (1993). The Alabama Long-Range Program for Library
Development, 1994-1998. ERIC document #ED375843.
Louisiana State Library (1993). Clear purpose... Complete commitment: A Long-Range
Program to provide Louisiana with Library andInformation Services adequate to
their needs, 1994-1998. ERIC document #ED371738.
Minnesota State Library Agency (1992). "Minnesota Long Range Program for the use of
Library Services and Construction Act funds, fiscal years 1994-2006." Minnesota
Libraries, 30, 75-89.
Rosen, E.M. (1990). "Assessing library needs in rural America" Journal ofYouth
Services in Libraries, 4 (1),87-90.
South Carolina State Library (1992). The South Carolina Program for Library
Development 1993-1996 under the Library Services and Construction Act. ERIC
document #ED369397.
Ward, C. (1990).. Community needs assessmentfor public library services. A Working
paper ofthe Utah Public Library Institute for Training. Utah State
Library Division, Department ofCommunity and Economic Development. ERIC
document #ED364247.
Welch, AI. (1994)" "Awareness, use, and satisfaction with public libraries: A summary of
Connecticut Community Surveys." Public Libraries, 33 (3), 149-152.
Wilson, L.A. (1995)" "Library literacy: Building the user-centered library." RQ, 34 (3),
297-302.
Needs Assessment 55
APPENDIX A
Arizona Libraries Needs Assessment Survey
Needs Assessment 56
Arizona Libraries Needs Assessment Survey
Section A: Demographics
1. Type ofLibrary: (check one) School__, Academic-'Public-'Special__.
2. Title ofPerson Completing Form _
3. Population Served:
A. Population ofLegal Service Area _
B. Number ofFaculty/staff/students _
4. County in which your library is located _
Section B: Available Technology
1. Please check the fastest/biggest computer chip in use in your library. Please check only I from either
type ofcomputer.
DOSlWindows/IBM
D Pentium
D 80486
D80386
D80286
MacSE
D 8088
MacIntosh
DPowerMac
D 68040 Mac e.g. various Quadras, Centris
D 68030 Mac eg SE-30, vx, VI
D 68020 Mac eg Mac IT, Mac IIX, ITCX, down to 68000 MacPlus,
D Apple IT series
2. Please check the fastest connection speed available in your library. Check only one (1)
DHardwire (i.e., ethernet, T-l, other cable hookup)
D28,800 baud
D 14,400 baud
D 9,600 baud
D2,400 baud
D 1,200 baud
D 300 baud
DNone
3. Please check the highest level operating system in use in your library. Check only 1.
DOSlWindows/IBM
D Windows95
D Windows 3.1
D Windows 2.0
D DOS version _
MacIntosh
D MacIntosh OS version _
4.. Please check the highest level of internet access available in your library. Please check only one.
D Full graphical access (i.e., Netseape, Mosaic, Windows Network Explorer, using full graphics
capabilities.)
D Text only access: Gopher, Newsgroups, teInet, etc.
D Email only access: Email is all you can do.
Needs Assessment 57
Section C: Needs Assessment Survey
In each part ofthis section you will be asked to check your assessment ofyour library's needs in seven
areas. Please check only the top three (3) most pressing needs in your library.
1. Collection Needs
In this section you will be asked to indicate the three (3) most pressing needs ofyour library in terms of
collection. By collection we mean the physical information carrying media contained within your library
building which are used for informational purposes by you or your users.
DBooks
D Adult fiction
D Adult non-fiction
D Reference
D YAfiction
D YA non-fiction
D Children's fiction
D Children's non-fiction
D Spanish language
D fiction
Dnon-fiction
D Native American
D fiction
Dnon-fiction
D Serials
D Adult fiction
DAdult non-fiction
D Reference
D Young adult
D Children's
D Spanish language
D Native American
D Audio-Visual
D Talking books
D Videos
D Music CDs
D Music cassettes
D CDs
D Reference CDs
D Games on CD
Needs Assessment 58
Question 2. Facilities Needs
Facilities mean the physical structure ofyour building and the immediate environment around the
building either used, or potentially used, by your patrons.
o Space
o Shelving
o Computer equipment
o Processing
o Patron (reading, sitting)
o Office
o Parking
o Equipment
o Shelving
o Media storage (microfiche cabinets and the like)
o Office equipment, personal (desks, filing cabinets, chairs, etc.)
o Office equipment, electronic
o copying machines
o fax machine
o Patron facilities (chairs, tables, etc.)
o Americans with Disabilities Act concerns
o Bathroom access
o Doorknobs
o Building access
Question 3. Personnel
Personnel include all individuals working full or part-time within the library.
o Professional Librarian (MLS or equivalent), with specialty in:
o Public Services:
o Technical Services:
o Other Specialties:
o archives
o government documents
o management
o teaching credential (necessary to work in school libraries)
o Library Support Staff (no MLS or equivalent), with the following job functions:
o Public services
o Technical services
o clerical
o volunteer coordinator
o Technical Personnel (no MLS or equivalent), with specialty in:
o book repair and preservation
o computers
o hardware
o software
o telecommunications
o AJV equipment
o networks
o Other Support Staff
ojanitorial
o photocopier maintenance
Needs Assessment 59
o security
Question 4. Technology Needs
Technology includes both physical objects (computers, TVs) and the infrastructure and add-ons needed to
make them fully functional.
o Connectivity (we mean connection, via modem or hardwire, to the internet)
o Computer
o Entire PC
o Public use
o Librarian's use
o CD ROM capabilities
o Software
o Public use
o Librarian's use
o Computer (large)
o Stand alone mini
o Mainframe connectivity
o AVEquipment
o VCR
o CD (music) player
o Portable cassette player
o Office
o Fax machine
o Typewriters
o Public use
o TTY terminals
o OCR reader for the blind
Question 5: TraininglEducation for Library Personnel
By "training and education" we mean any forum in which learning takes place. It can be a formal class­room
situation, a workshop at a library conference, or in-house training lead by a member of the staff or
an instructor hired for a specific area ofexpertise.
o Basic operations in
o Public services
o Technical services
o Children's! YA services
o Preservationlbook repair
o Technology
o Internet
o World Wide Web operations
o gopher
OFIP
o Online database searching (Le.: Dialog)
o email
o Second Language
o Spanish
o Sign language
o Emergency Services
Needs Assessment 60
o Disaster preparedness
o CPR
o First aid
o Security issues
o Public Relations
o Grant writing
o Marketing
o Writing library policies regarding appropriate use of collections and materials
Question 6: Research
By research we mean data collection and analysis with specific questions in mind. Research, in this sense,
does not mean answering reference questions. Types of research studies needed by your library:
o Studies about users-their needs and demographics.
o Studies about Collections-their use, evaluation and condition.
o Studies about Library Programs and Services- their success in meeting user needs.
o Studies about Librarians-effectiveness in service provision.
Question 7: Library Senices
In this section we are trying to identify library services that you would like to offer beyond the basic
services already being provided.
o Outreach to:
o Housebound
o Outlying areas
o Internet access for patrons
o Children's programming
o Story hours
o Summer reading programs
o LiteracylESL programming
o Training
o Bibliographic instruction
o Internet training for patrons
o Service to business
o Service to other government agencies
o Meeting space for community groups
o SDI for faculty
Many thanks for helping us prepare a better future for Arizona Libraries!
Needs Assessment 61
APPENDIXB
Needs Assessment Analysis County-by-County
Needs Assessment 62
Needs Assessment Analysis County-by-County
Analysis oflibrary needs on an individual county basis was performed for the
highest level needs only, except when the number participating in the survey was greater
than 20 libraries for a particular county (e.g., Maricopa, Pima, Pinal). These data need to
be interpreted carefully as the type oflibrary with the highest response rate skews the
results for each county. Needs data are presented alphabetically by county.
Apache County
~Type N Percent
Academic 1 7.7
Public 4 30.8
School 7 53.8
Special 1 7.7
Total: 13 100
Overall concerns, regardless of area
The highest overall concerns were:
• Internet access for patrons (85%)
• Space for computers (77%)
Collections
Highest level concerns in Apache County in the area ofcollections (38%-46% response
rate)
• Children's non-fiction
• Reference books
• Reference CDs
Facilities on next page
Needs Assessment 63
Facilities
The highest level concern in the facilities area is:
• Space for computers
Personnel
The highest level concern with personnel is:
• Clerical support staff.
Although this is the highest single item in the personnel area, it was mentioned by only
38% ofthe respondents, and is very much the primary issue with school librarians.
Technology
The highest level concerns with technology are:
• Connectivity with the Internet
• PCs with CDROM capabilities
Both ofthese items were mentioned by 54% ofthe respondents.
TraininglEducation
The highest level concerns with training/education are:
• Internet training for library personnel
This was mentioned by almost 70% ofrespondents. The next two items, while
mathematically in the medium-high range, were mentioned by 54%, and are clearly related
to the first: training on the WWW, and training with online databases (i.e.: Dialog, etc.).
Library Services
The highest level concern with library services is:
• Internet access for patrons
Needs Assessment 64
And nothing else is even close. Internet access for patrons was mentioned by 85% ofthe
respondents. The next highest concern was mentioned by 38%.
Cochise County
Type N Percent
Academic 0 0.0
Public 8 44.4%
School 9 50.0%
Special 1 5.6%
Total: 18 100
Overall Concerns. regardless ofarea
Highest level concerns in Cochise County, regardless ofgeneral area (67-78% response
rate)
• Internet training for librarians
• Space for computers
• Internet access for patrons
Collections
Highest level concerns in Cochise County in the area of collections (39%-44% response
rate) include:
• Videos
• Reference books
• YA non-fiction
Facilities
Highest level concern in Cochise County in the area offacilities (66.7% response rate)
• Space for computers
Needs Assessment 65
All other concerns grouped in the lowest quintile. The next highest response rate was
28%.
Personnel
Highest level concerns in Cochise County in the area ofpersonnel (44-50% response rate)
• Clerical support staff
• Support staff in technical services
Technology
Highest level concerns in Cochise County in the area oftechnology (50-56% response
rate)
• Connectivity to the Internet
• PCs for public use
TraininglEducation
Highest level concerns in Cochise County in the area oftraining-education (78% response
rate)
• Internet training for librarians
Library Services
Highest level concerns in Cochise County in the area oflibrary services (56-67% response
rate)
• Internet access for patrons
• Internet training for patrons
Needs Assessment 66
Coconino County
Type N Percent
Academic 1 6.3%
Public 3 18.7%
School 12 75.0%
Special 0 0.0%
Total: 16 100
Overall Concerns. regardless ofarea
The highest level concerns in Coconino County, regardless ofgeneral area are:
• Internet access for patrons (88% response rate.)
• Internet training for librarians (75% response rate)
Collections
Highest level concerns in Coconino County in the area ofcollections (56% response rate)
• Reference CDs
Facilities
Highest level concerns in Coconino County in the area offacilities (62.5% response rate)
• Space for computers
The next highest response rate is 31%, placing it in the medium-low category.
Personnel
Highest level concerns in Coconino County in the area ofpersonnel (50-56% response
rate)
• Clerical support staff
• Librarians with the teaching credential
These concerns reflect the percentage of school libraries answering the survey in Coconino
County.
Needs Assessment 67
Technology
Highest level concerns in Coconino County in the area oftechnology (44-50% response
rate)
• Connectivity to the Internet
• PCs for public use
The next highest response rate was 25%.
TraininglEducation
Highest level concerns in Coconino County in the area oftraining-education (75%
response rate)
• Internet training for librarians
Medium-high level concern (50% response rate)
• Training in grant writing
Library Services
Highest level concerns in Coconino County in the area oflibrary services (88% response
rate!)
• Internet access for patrons
The next highest response rate (50%) was Internet training for patrons, and the next
highest after that was only 19%.
Needs Assessment 68
Gila County
IType N Percent
Academic 1 7.7%
Public 3 23.1%
School 9 69.2%
Special 0 0.0%
Total: 13 100
Overall Concern. regardless ofarea
Highest level concerns in Gila County, regardless ofgeneral area:
• Reference CDs (77%)
This may be the only instance ofa collection concern being the highest level concern in the
county.
Collections
Highest level concern in Gila County in the area ofcollections (77% response rate)
• Reference CDs
The next highest concern, at 47% response rate, was reference books.
Facilities
Highest level concern in Gila County in the area offacilities (62% response rate)
• Space for computers
Personnel
Highest level concern in Gila County in the area ofpersonnel (39% response rate)
• Clerical support staff
Technology
Highest level concerns in Gila County in the area oftechnology (46-54% response rate)
• Connectivity to the Internet
Needs Assessment 69
• PCs for public use
TraininglEducation
Highest level concern in Gila County in the area oftraining-education (69% response rate)
• Internet training for librarians
Library Services
Highest level concern in Gila County in the area oflibrary services (69% response rate)
• Internet access for patrons
Graham/Greenlee Counties
IType N Percent
Academic 2 25.0%
Public 3 37.5%
School 3 37.5%
Special 0 0.0
Total: 8 100
Overall Concem regardless ofarea
Highest level concerns in Graham/Greenlee counties, regardless ofgeneral area:
• Reference books, support staff in public services, support staff in technical
services, and Internet access for patrons all received a 62.5% response rate and
are the first quintile concerns.
• Two items, reference CDs and Internet training received a 50% response rate
and are the medium-high level concerns.
Collections
Highest level concerns in Graham/Greenlee counties in the area of collections (62.5%
response rate)
• Reference materials (books).
Needs Assessment 70
Facilities
Highest level concern in the area offacilities (37.5% response rate):
• Space for shelving.
Personnel
Highest level concerns in the area ofpersonnel (62.5% response rate):
• Support staffin both public services and technical services.
Technology
Highest level concerns in the area oftechnology (37.5% response rate):
• Connectivity to the Internet and PCs for public use.
TraininglEducation
Highest level concern in the area oftrainingleducation (50% response rate):
• Training on the Internet.
Libraty Services
Highest level concern in the area of services (62.5% response rate):
• Internet access for patrons.
La paz/Yuma counties
IType N Percent
Academic 2 20.0%
Public 2 20.0%
School 4 40.0%
Special 2 20.0%
Total: 10 100
Overall Concerns. regardless ofarea
Highest level concerns regardless ofgeneral area (60% response rate):
• Space for computers
Needs Assessment 71
Collections
Highest level concerns in the area ofcollections (50% response rate):
• Reference materials; talking books.
Facilities
Highest level concerns in the area offacilities (50-60% response rate):
• Space for computers; space for shelving.
Personnel
Highest level concern in the area ofpersonnel (40% response rate):
• Support staff in technical services.
Technology
Highest level concern in the area oftechnology (50% response rate):
• pes for public use.
TraininglEducation
Highest level concerns in the area oftraining (40% response rate):
• Internet training; Training in writing library policies regarding appropriate use
of collections and materials.
Library Services
Highest level concerns in the area oflibrary services (50% response rate):
• Internet access for patrons
Maricopa County- next page
Needs Assessment 72
Maricopa County
'Type N Percent
Academic 9 5.7
Public 16 10.1
School 128 81.0
Special 5 3.2
Total: 158 100
Overall Concerns. regardless ofarea
Highest level concern regardless ofgeneral area (69% response rate):
• Space for computers
Medium-high level concerns regardless ofgeneral area (47-57% response rate):
• Connectivity to the Internet; Internet training for librarians
• Reference CDs
• Internet access for patrons
• Clerical support staff
• Librarians with the teaching credential
Collections
Highest level concerns in the area ofcollections (55% response rate):
• Reference CDs
No other item in the collections area had more than a 41% response rate.
Facilities
Highest level concerns in the area offacilities (69% response rate):
• Space for computers
No other item in the facilities area had more than 27% response rate.
Needs Assessment 73
Personnel
Highest level concerns in the area ofpersonnel (47-53% response rate):
• Clerical support staff; librarians with the teaching credential.
No other items in the area ofpersonnel had more than a 20% response rate.
Technology
Highest level concerns in the area oftechnology (57% response rate):
• Connectivity to the Internet
Medium-high concerns in the area oftechnology, both with a 42% response rate:
• PCs for public use; PCs with CD-ROM capability.
TraininglEducation
Highest level concern in the area oftrainingleducation (57% response rate):
• Internet training for librarians
No other item in the area oftraining had more than a 38% response rate.
Library Services
Highest level concern in the area oflibrary services (54% response rate):
• Internet access for patrons
No other item in the area oftraining had more than a 42% response rate and it dropped to
a 21% rate after that item.
Needs Assessment 74
Mohave County
'Type N Percent
Academic 1 6.7
Public 8 53.3
School 6 40.0
Special 0 0.0
Total: 15 100
Overall Concerns. regardless ofarea
Highest level concerns regardless ofgeneral area (47-53% response rate):
• Reference CDs; space for computers (both at 53%)
• Space for shelving; shelving; public service librarians; PCs for librarians use;
PCs with CD-ROM capabilities; Internet access for patrons (all at 47%).
Collections
Highest level concern in the area ofcollections (53% response rate):
• Reference CDs.
Facilities
Highest level concerns in the area offacilities (47-53% response rate):
• Space for computers
• Space for shelving; shelving
Personnel
Highest level concern in the area ofpersonnel (47% response rate):
• Professional librarians for public services
Technology
Highest level concerns in the area oftechnology (40-47% response rate):
• PCs for librarians use; PCs with CD-ROM capability
Needs Assessment 75
• Connectivity to the Internet; PCs for public use; software for public use
TraininglEducation
Highest level concerns in the area oftrainingleducation (40% response rate)
• Training in basic operations in technical services; Internet training for
librarians.
Libraty Services
Highest level concerns in the area oflibrary services (47% response rate):
• Internet access for patrons
Navajo County
Type N Percent
Academic 2 18.2
Public 3 27.3
School 6 54.5
Special 0 0.0
Total: 11 100
Overall Concerns. regardless ofarea
Highest level concerns in Navajo County regardless ofgeneral area (54-64% response
rate):
• Reference books; space for computers; Internet training for librarians; patron
access to the Internet.
• PCs with CD-ROM capabilities; online (Dialog, BRS, etc) training for
librarians.
Collections
Highest level concerns in the area of collections (64% response rate):
• Reference books
Needs Assessment 76
Facilities
Highest level concern in the area offacilities (64% response rate):
• Space for computers
Personnel
Highest level concerns in the area ofpersonnel (46% response rate):
• Support staff in technical services; clerical support staff
Technology
Highest level concerns in the area oftechnology (55% response rate):
• PCs with CD-ROM capabilities
TrainingOEducation
Highest level concerns in the area oftraining/education (54-64% response rate):
• Internet training for librarians; online (Dialog, BRS, etc) training for librarians.
Library Services
Highest level concerns in the area oflibrary services (64% response rate):
• Internet access for patrons.
Pima County
Type N Percent
IAcademic 2 2.0%
Public 8 8.1%
School 86 86.9%
Special 3 3.0%
Total: 99 100
Overall Concerns. regardless ofarea
Highest level concerns in Pima County, regardless ofgeneral area (61-66% response rate):
• Clerical support staff; space for computers, Internet training for librarians.
Needs Assessment 77
The next two concerns, mathematically, are in the medium range, but since both have 53%
response rates, they are included here:
• Librarians with the teaching credential; Internet access for patrons.
Collections
Highest level concern in the area ofcollections (48% response rate):
• Reference CDs
No other item in this area had more than a 38% response rate.
Facilities
Highest level concern in the area offacilities (64% response rate):
• Space for computers
No other item in this area had more than a 33% response rate
Personnel
Highest level concerns in the area ofpersonnel (53-66% response rate):
• Clerical support staff; librarians with the teaching credential
No other item in this area had more than a 29% response rate.
Technology
Highest level concerns in the area oftechnology (40-43% response rate):
• pes for public use; connectivity to the Internet
No other item in this area had a response rate greater than 32%.
TraininglEducation
Highest level concern in the area oftraining (62% response rate):
• Internet training for librarians
No other item in this area had a response rate greater than 42%.
Needs Assessment 78
Library Services
Highest level concern in the area of services (53% response rate):
• Internet access for patrons
The next highest concern (46%) was Internet training for patrons. No other item had
more than a 28% response rate.
Pinal County
IType N Percent
Academic 4 19.1%
Public 7 33.3%
School 10 47.6%
Special 0 0.0
Total: 21 100
Overall Concerns. regardless ofarea
Highest level concerns in Pinal County regardless ofgeneral area (67-76% response
rates):
• Space for computers; Internet training for librarians; Internet access for
patrons.
Medium-High level concerns regardless ofgeneral area (52-57% response rate):
• Training in grant writing; reference books; connectivity to the Internet.
Collections
Highest level concern in the area ofcollections (52.4% response rate):
• Reference books.
The next highest item ofconcern was reference CDs with a response rate of38%.
Facilities- next page.
Needs Assessment 79
Facilities
Highest level concern in the area offacilities (76% response rate):
• Space for computers.
No other concern had more than a 48% response rate.
Personnel
Highest level concern in the area ofpersonnel (33.3% response rate):
• Librarians with the teaching credential
No other concern had more than a 29% response rate.
Technology
Highest level concern in the area oftechnology (52.4% response rate):
• Connectivity to the Internet.
No other concern had more than a 33% response rate.
TraininglEducation
Highest level concerns in the area oftraining (57-67% response rate):
• Internet training for librarians; training in grant writing.
No other item in this area received more than a 43% response rate.
Library Services
Highest level concerns in the area oflibrary services (67% response rate):
• Internet access for patrons.
No other item in this area received more than a 38% response rate.
Santa Cruz County:
Only one library in Santa Cruz County completed the survey. Data are omitted.
Needs Assessment 80
Yavapai County
IType N Percent
Academic 3 14.3%
Public 11 52.4%
School 6 28.6%
Special 1 4.8%
Total: 21 100
Overall, Yavapai County had the lowest response rates for the entire state. It is hard to
tell ifthis indicates general satisfaction with things as they are, or simple apathy.
Overall Concerns. regardless ofarea
Highest level concern in Yavapai County regardless ofgeneral area (42.9% response rate):
• Computers with CDROM capabilities.
Medium-High level concerns regardless ofgeneral area (all at 38.1% response rate):
• Reference books; space for computers; space for patrons; Internet access for
patrons.
Collections
Highest level concerns in the area ofcollections (33-38% response rate):
• Reference books; reference CDs.
No other item in this area had more than a 29% response rate.
Facilities
Highest level concerns in the area offacilities (33-38% response rates):
• Space for computers; space for patrons; space for shelving.
No other item in this area had greater than a 24% response rate..
Needs Assessment 81
Personnel
Highest level concerns in the area ofpersonnel (28.6% response rate):
• Librarians with the teaching credential; volunteer coordinators.
No other item in this area had more than a 24% response rate.
Technology
Highest level concern in the area oftechnology (43% response rate):
• PCs with CDROM capabilities.
No other item in this area had more than a 33% response rate.
Training/Education
Highest level concern in the area oftraining (29% response rate):
• Training on the WWW.
No other item in this area had more than a 19% response rate.
Libraty Services
Highest level concern in the area oflibrary services (38% response rate):
• Internet access for patrons.
No other item in this area had more than a 29% response rate.
Yuma County: See La Paz County.