As a follow-up to the discussion in Neal Kaske’s presentation (Data and Planning: Who Thinks About or Uses These Numbers Anyway!?) on 14 December 2005 you need to add your 2 cents worth. The group listed some of the barriers to collecting accurate data (in black) and workable methods to remove or mitigate these barriers (in red). Please read these over and add to the listing via the FSCS Blog using the subject of barriers to collecting accurate data.
1. Lack of technology to do gate counts
· State libraries should identify the tools needed
· State libraries should purchase several gate counters and loan them out libraries that need them for the sampling periods
· Local merchants could be asked to contribute a grate counter which cost under $50.00
· State library provide funds for tools needed to conduct the counts such as gate counters
2. Lack of standards for reporting different counts
· Vendors’ lack of compliance with standard reporting methods and definitions
· Education librarian about standards
· Include specifications for the counts needed in request for proposals (RFPs) for new online systems and make sure the requirement is not negotiation away
3. One person libraries do not have time for counts of any kind
· Automated tools are needed to free time for the librarian to work with customers
· Sampling should be strongly encouraged as opposed to counting the whole population
· Lack of continuity of contact with staff of these small libraries from the state libraries
4. Local librarians question usefulness of data collected just for the federal government
· Feedback from feds on usefulness of data is needed
· Feedback to state and municipal governments is needed too
· More timely data!
5. Staff turnover of new person each year and training and education
6. Lack of alignment between numbers collected and purposes used (see 2 & 4)
7. Lack of tracking system to record data during the year with standardization or models
8. Lack of funds to buy tools for counting
9. Making the numbers say what you want (don’t want to show decreases)
10. Fear of not being perfect – risk refusal
11. Lack of knowledge of how to take calculated risk
As a follow-up to the discussion in Neal Kaske’s presentation (Data and Planning: Who Thinks About or Uses These Numbers Anyway!?) on 14 December 2005 you need to add your 2 cents worth. The group listed some of the barriers to collecting accurate data (in black) and workable methods to remove or mitigate these barriers (in red). Please read these over and add to the listing via the FSCS Blog using the subject of barriers to collecting accurate data.
1. Lack of technology to do gate counts
· State libraries should identify the tools needed
· State libraries should purchase several gate counters and loan them out libraries that need them for the sampling periods
· Local merchants could be asked to contribute a grate counter which cost under $50.00
· State library provide funds for tools needed to conduct the counts such as gate counters
2. Lack of standards for reporting different counts
· Vendors’ lack of compliance with standard reporting methods and definitions
· Education librarian about standards
· Include specifications for the counts needed in request for proposals (RFPs) for new online systems and make sure the requirement is not negotiation away
3. One person libraries do not have time for counts of any kind
· Automated tools are needed to free time for the librarian to work with customers
· Sampling should be strongly encouraged as opposed to counting the whole population
· Lack of continuity of contact with staff of these small libraries from the state libraries
4. Local librarians question usefulness of data collected just for the federal government
· Feedback from feds on usefulness of data is needed
· Feedback to state and municipal governments is needed too
· More timely data!
5. Staff turnover of new person each year and training and education
6. Lack of alignment between numbers collected and purposes used (see 2 & 4)
7. Lack of tracking system to record data during the year with standardization or models
8. Lack of funds to buy tools for counting
9. Making the numbers say what you want (don’t want to show decreases)
10. Fear of not being perfect – risk refusal
11. Lack of knowledge of how to take calculated risk
12. No connection between work load, paycheck and reporting
13. Lack of motivation for collection of data – no connection to paycheck – all the way to state
14. Not enough training of planning and time management and not planning
15. Local practices that are in conflict to FSCS definition
16. No collection of data to reflect the actual usage of the library resources
17. No connection between work load, paycheck and reporting
18. Lack of motivation for collection of data – no connection to paycheck – all the way to state
19. Not enough training of planning and time management and not planning
20. Local practices that are in conflict to FSCS definition
21. No collection of data to reflect the actual usage of the library resources
posted by Neal Kaske @ 12/22/2005 10:34:00 AM
___________________________
Patience Frederikesen's follow-up to Neal Kaske's talk
From Patience Frederikesen given to Neal Kaske at the end of the conference
We must make FSCS data the premiere major ‘go-to’ set of data on public libraries in the U.S.
Barrier/Problem
1: Timeless-
- Continued to work with states to meet established group (1, 2, and 3) deadlines - do not allow states to slip!
- Use moral high-ground created by states adherence to deadlines to keep friendly “heat” on NCES to speed up release of data.
Question-if NCES is having trouble recruiting statisticians to live and work in District, why can’t they telecommute? Is the Federal bureaucracy so hidebound that this cannot be done for lower level reviews of data?
2. Recognition of our data:
- It is well past time to publicize this data, per Keith’s plans for Data Use Committee in 2006.
- I think we need an awards subcommittee, perhaps an Ad-Hoc temporary committee, to manage Eckerd/Keppel/& Lynch to free Data Use subcommittee to work on a full-blown publicity plan for FSCS data. Publicity plan should start with garnering national recognition, but should, in a year or two, develop tools to hand off to SDC’S to use to publicize data within their states.
3. Electronic Measures-
- We are simply foundering on this rock. It is one thing for the Bertots, McClures, and Ryans to propose electronic measures from their ivory towers and another for them to ask us to develop ways for public libraries to collect this data. I wonder if we could do a test state for one year via IMLS funding to collect electronic data elements from all the public libraries in that state - a total emetic immersion grant, that might include funding for an electronic measures only SDC plus funding for software tools to gather the data, plus some sort of payment to each public library to collect the data for one year.
- A pilot project of this sort would have national implications for libraries, FSCS, and all levels of government.
Comments (0)
You don't have permission to comment on this page.