11/28/11 - This page now closed for comments.
Please post any comments regarding the below assigned data elements. In order to post comments you need to be registered. For FY2012 we will not be adding any new items. Only deletions and changes to existing data elements. When posting comments please identify the item by number and name with the recommendation to keep, change (with a new definition, rationale) or delete (reason for deleting).
If you would like to post others for proposed deletion or change please include number and title of data element and link to data element wiki page. Please give your recommendation to keep, change (with a new definition, rationale) or delete (reason for deleting).
Data elements assigned for review:
Other Administrative Entity Data Elements (150-211) and Outlet Data Element Definitions (700-714)
The following items are recommended by IMLS for proposed change/deletion:
Administrative Entity:
156 – Street Address: ZIP+4 (of street address)
This has been somewhat problematic for some addresses. No longer needed for locating the library(GIS uses mailing physical address and zip). Recommended for deletion.
160 – Mailing Address: ZIP+4 (of street address)
This has been somewhat problematic for some addresses. No longer needed for locating the library (GIS uses mailing physical address and zip). Recommended for deletion.
It is useful only in so far as it will allow us to geo-code a location more precisely when the street address is not found in the geo-coding reference table. But even though it is useful in that regard I think it is too much trouble to extract this information from people. If we leave it in it should be left as an optional data field only.
202 – Administrative Structure Code
IMLS has not used this data element in analysis. ? state use. Recommended for deletion.
Gray areas/Possible changes/deletion?:
200 – Interlibrary Relationship Code
Unclear on the cooperatives; Contraction/growth.
201 – Legal Basis Code (NP – Non-Profit Association or Agency)
Add 501Cs
Outlet Data Elements:
706 – ZIP+4
This has been somewhat problematic for some addresses. No longer needed for locating the library (GIS uses mailing physical address and zip). Recommended for deletion.
It is useful only in so far as it will allow us to geo-code a location more precisely when the street address is not found in the geo-coding reference table. But even though it is useful in that regard I think it is too much trouble to extract this information from people. If we leave it in it should be left as an optional data field only.
710 – Metropolitan Status Code
Out of date. Recommended for deletion.
The following items reviewed by Census with comments provided:
N/A
The following items are recommended by SDCs for proposed change/deletion:
Comments (7)
Michael Golrick said
at 5:20 am on Nov 16, 2011
Will there be some way to sort by Urban/Rural, or to identify rural libraries -- especially if we delete the Metropolitan Status Code (710)?
BrucePomerantz said
at 6:31 am on Nov 17, 2011
I entered this previously in the wrong spot, not realizing this was here.
We discovered last year that IMLS has been accepting as public libraries those without paid staff. If we do not want a national definition, then 203 needs to be revised to state: Public Library Definiition (Note: I dropped FSCS): Each state's statutes defines a public library.
BrucePomerantz said
at 6:39 am on Nov 17, 2011
200 – Interlibrary Relationship Code
Of what use is this at the national level or for state comparisons? I agree to delete.
If we ever survey coopeatives and federations, it would be essential to know how many members each has but those library support agencies can report this information.
Katina Jones said
at 3:46 am on Nov 22, 2011
203 - FSCS Public Library Definition:
Actually Bruce, I believe what we discovered is that data are being accepted and included in the reports from libraries that do not meet the FSCS definition of a library. I think it would be very unwise to not have a national definition of a library. We need to start on common ground.
patience.frederiksen@... said
at 4:09 am on Nov 22, 2011
156, 160, 706 All ZIP+4 Delete and good riddance! These have never been useful in my experience.
200 Interlibrary Relationship Code - Since it seems unlikely we will ever gather national data on library cooperatives, the reasons for maintaining this element are not clear. I can see it go with no problem.
202 Administrative Structure Code - Again, not useful in my experience and see no reason to keep it.
710 Metro Code - ARSL says that there are so many definitions for rural that they have a hard time defining the libraries that might be interested in their organization. I am wondering about the usefulness of letting each library state whether they are URBAN, SUBURBAN, or RURAL. The Census definition of Urban is so large that only Anchorage is urban in AK and their suburban definition does not apply to any other library in AK, though I would define at least Fairbanks and Juneau as suburban for our purposes. Just a thought.
201 Legal Basis - A 501 C 3 is a nonprofit, so NP non-profit is the perfect place to put 501 C 3. Is this really a problem? Why add 501 C 3 to the definition at all.
Katina Jones said
at 5:26 am on Nov 22, 2011
710 - Metropolitan Status Code:
I prefer Metro Code to the Locale Code. Metro Codes are based on whole counties, whereas the Locale Code requires some level of GIS use to measure the distances that distinguish Fringe, Distant and Remote for the Town and Rural categories. Metro Codes are also updated periodically throughout the decade by OMB. The Census Bureau's Urban/Rural distinctions (on which the Local Codes are based) are only updated every 10 years (the 2010 U/R update won't be released until this time next year - 2012). Or to look at it another way, I prefer 3 options to 12 options.
BrucePomerantz said
at 5:30 am on Nov 23, 2011
The SMSA code has been problematic in Minnesota because of a specific situation. Duluth is a SMSA and it is in a HUGE county that extends to the Canadian border. Duluth is in the extreme southern portion of the county. Consequently, very rural communities near the Canadian border that truly are not affected by Duluth’s presence because of distance are nonetheless given the NC designation because they are in the same county. Do other states have a similar situation or is this problem unique to Minnesota? If Minnesota is unique, then I accept that all others should not conform to Minnesota’s predicament. However, if it is a common problem, then we need further discussion on whether any designation that relies upon a county designation is appropriate.
You don't have permission to comment on this page.