University Libraries
Strategic Plan 05/06–07/08

Goal Four Measures

• Analyze help desk reports.
• Analyze system down time logs.
• Complete redesign of backup systems for "soft fail" of key components.
• Analyze participation in and effectiveness of technology training sessions.
• Measure employee satisfaction with technology training and support.

GOAL FIVE:

• Create a welcoming climate that promotes civility and respect for everyone.
• Advance a shared and inclusive understanding of diversity within all aspects of the Libraries' operations and among all employees.
• Recruit and retain a diverse workforce at all levels.
• Contribute to the University's programs for student recruitment and retention.
• Develop services and collections that foster intercultural and international competencies.
• Create and promote leadership opportunities for all Libraries' employees.

Goal Five Measures

• Measure employee satisfaction and morale via climate surveys.
• Track acquisition of diversity materials.
• Measure use of diversity resources (e.g., call number ranges, use statistics, or transaction logs).
• Track diversity-related courses and groups reached by our instructional efforts.
• Track number of programs and exhibits offered to special audiences both within and outside the University.
• Analyze hiring and retention of underrepresented groups.
• Count number of diversity programs offered by the Libraries to employees.
• Track attendance at leadership and supervisory programs and courses.

Page Top

FISCAL PLAN, FY 05/06–FY 07/08

FINANCIAL RESOURCES

Financial resources required to support the Strategic Framework and Goals will be derived from nine major sources of income, based on annual budget plans:

• Targeted increases in base budget established by the Libraries' and the University.
• Targeted use of library increases in student information technology fee.
• Targeted reallocation within the University Libraries' budget.
• Targeted use of State Library funding to PSUL as a State Resource Center.
• Annual private fundraising (estimated at $3.5 million per year).
• Grants and contracts for specific projects [e.g., Mellon Foundation funds for the Digital Publishing System (DPubS) project].
• Financial partnerships with the administrators of the Campus Colleges.
• Financial stewardship and efficiencies of operations.
• Income generating activities.

REALLOCATION PLAN, FY 05/06–FY 07/08

[Removed from this copy.]

[This page left blank.]

Page Top

APPENDICES

APPENDIX 1

PROGRESS REPORT ON THE FY 02/03–FY 04/05 STRATEGIC PLAN

(Selected Activities)

FUNDING: Continue to seek appropriate levels of funding to meet the strategic initiatives of the Libraries.

• Reduced accounts receivable by more than $100,000 through management of overdue accounts via payroll deduction and other collection means.
• Received more than $4.8 million in grant funding from entities such as the Mellon Foundation and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
• Reallocated or re-described many faculty and staff positions to conform to changing goals and objectives.
• Reviewed efficiencies in telecommunications operations resulting in $100,000 reduction in costs.
• Instituted an annual process to review fee structure and, if necessary, to determine fee increases.
• Identified funding to establish graduate assistantships and undergraduate internships to provide expertise for the Libraries' projects and initiatives.

USER SERVICES: Provide quality services that ensure timely and effective access to local and remote information resources in all formats.

• Implemented an electronic-reference and an interactive-chat-reference service across all Penn State Libraries; both services are experiencing growth.
• Assessed the Libraries' services through two applications of LIBQUAL, a national assessment program developed by the Association of Research Libraries (see Appendix 2).
• Established open house program for new students, which attracts more than 5,000 students annually; student assessment indicates that more than 90 percent view the program positively (see Appendix 2).
• Implemented SFX, an integrated online program that facilitates access to the Libraries' 15,000 electronic journals.
• Developed service standards to enhance the quality of staff and user interactions.
• Implemented delivery of materials through scanning technologies from the Libraries' Annex and from other institutions directly to the patron's desktop.

Ongoing:

• Redesign of the Libraries' Web in response to usability studies and other feedback.
• Examine ways to improve access to the CAT, the Libraries' online catalog that provides access to more than 4.7 million resources.

INSTRUCTION AND INFORMATION LITERACY: Advance information literacy as a fundamental expectation for educated persons and provide facilities, expert instructors, and services to foster the development of lifelong-learning skills, in partnership with others, for both on-campus and distance learners.

• Enhanced our collection of digital cameras, camcorders, laptops, and other technologies to loan to students for instructional purposes.
• Upgraded our instructional facilities and integrated new technologies to improve the delivery of library instruction.
• Increased delivering of basic library instruction to service courses, such as English 15 and CAS 100.
• Increased number of Media and Technology Support Services technicians to support the University's growing number of technology classrooms.
• Developed new programs to reach out to special groups such as international students, adult learners, and student athletes.
• Developed educational programs to help staff and librarians serve and teach individuals with disabilities; developed guidelines on library instruction for individuals with disabilities.

Ongoing:

• Participate in LEAP (Leading Edge Academic Program), designed to give new students a boost on academic achievement.
• Partner with various University units on initiatives such as the Teaching and Learning Consortium and ANGEL.
• Provide the Libraries' faculty with professional development opportunities to enhance their teaching skills.

COLLECTIONS: Develop and preserve collections in all formats, provide electronic information services that support Penn State's curricular programs and the research needs of a comprehensive university, and contribute to the transformation of scholarly communications.

• Collaborated with Teaching and Learning with Technology, a unit of Information Technology Services, on the planning and delivery of programs on copyright.
• Established an Office of Digital Scholarly Publishing in collaboration with the Penn State University Press to address issues in scholarly communications.
• Upgraded delivery services from the Libraries' Annexes.
• Initiated a program to improve the description of, and control and access to, archival and manuscript collections.
• Expanded Penn State's Records Management Program to include inactive records and born-digital documents.
• Implemented the acquisition of materials that are "shelf ready," thereby reducing processing time and making the books available faster.

Ongoing:

• Stretch our collections dollars through judicious selection, consortial relationships, document delivery programs, and elimination of format duplication.
• Enhance the Libraries' collection of electronic databases, journals, and other resources; these resources now account for more than 40 percent of the Libraries' budget and usage of electronic databases has grown by a million hits since 2001.
• Increase access to the Libraries' research collections through purchasing and loading sets of bibliographic records to the online catalog.

TECHNOLOGY INFRASTRUCTURE: Maintain and enhance the hardware, software, connectivity, and systems reliability necessary to support an increasingly complex information-technology environment.

• Reorganized the staff of Digital Library Technologies and the Department of Information Technologies to create a more cohesive and effective support operations for technology.
• Expanded the use of technology applications such as Cold Fusion as a means of streamlining our operations.
• Purchased the Directors' Station, a technology that will allow improved collection and manipulation of data.

Ongoing:

• Present technology forums on a regular basis to inform employees.
• Increase the purchase of middleware, such as Content DM and Olive, to create an infrastructure for digital initiatives.
• Prepare a RFP to purchase a Content Management System.

DIGITAL LIBRARY INITIATIVES: Provide a coordinated approach to provision of intellectual access to digital materials (including born-digital, licensed, or converted material) in order to build a rich array of reference services, instructional opportunities, research collections, and technology resources.

• Instituted a collections-digitization program, complete with trained staff and a state-of-the-art Digital Resources Center. In 2004/05, the Libraries' Digital Resources Center will generate over 250,000 digital imagesÐdoubling the number produced during the entire preceding decade.
• Completed VIUS (Visual Image Users Study), a prototype image database for higher education. Penn State users now have access to nearly 1.5 million images. Participating in a second study, also funded by the Mellon Foundation, to create a peer-to-peer image sharing program.
• Created the Pennsylvania History Online Project, a digital library project that provides Web-based access to important research materials on Pennsylvania.
• Instituted an equipment-lifecycle program to ensure that all employees have the computing technologies needed to perform their jobs.
• Integrated metadata into the Libraries' digital initiatives; hired a metadata librarian.

Ongoing:

• Participate in a CIC Libraries' Repository Project for digital information.
• Enhance technological expertise of the Libraries' employees through training programs.
• Partner with Cornell University in the development of DPubS, a software program that supports digital-publishing initiatives in higher education.

THE ENGAGED UNIVERSITY: Continue to provide leadership among the community of libraries, library consortia, and library professional organizations in Pennsylvania and the nation to enhance general access to information resources for the residents of the Commonwealth.

• Established the Libraries as the home for the Pennsylvania Center for the Book, a national program sponsored by the Library of Congress.
• Increased participation of Penn State librarians in the Pennsylvania Library Association and other statewide initiatives.
• Increased outreach to the local community by the Libraries' Office for People with Disabilities.
• Agreed to serve as a service point for the Pennsylvania State Data Center.
• Partnered with the Palmer Museum of Art and WPSX on outreach initiatives.

Ongoing:

• Creation of digitization projects focused on Pennsylvania historical materials to benefit the citizens of Pennsylvania.
• Continue to serve as one of the four Resource Libraries for Pennsylvania; annually loan or provide nearly 60,000 items to Pennsylvania residents.

PEOPLE: Recruit, develop, and retain a diverse and qualified faculty and staff with expertise and skills to provide services and collections expected of a technologically advanced, nationally ranked research library.

• Completed reviews of almost all positions of the Libraries' staff to ensure that the classifications reflect the responsibilities.
• Enhanced the Libraries' internal training and professional development programs as a result of an assessment of training needs; staff expend more than 2500 hours annually in Libraries-sponsored training programs.
• Reinstituted a new-employee orientation program.
• Examined issues relating to wage employees; instituted a new and more equitable hiring process.
• Instituted a formal mentoring program for untenured Libraries' faculty.

Ongoing:

• Enhance communications within the Libraries through informational forums, online Monday Messages, a new Intranet, among other means.
• Address salary equity issues during the annual salary review process.
• Require all supervisors to attend the University's Mastering Supervision program.
• Commit Dean's discretionary gift funds to support staff attendance at conferences and other professional development activities.

FACILITIES: Build recognition that a "library" continues to be a physical place and a center of campus life as well as a "virtual" place, and that the Libraries must provide library facilities appropriate to the service, user, and collection needs of the University community.

• Conducted facilities assessments of all Libraries at all locations (see Appendix 2).
• Upgraded or replaced the security systems at nearly all locations.
• Improved way finding in Pattee and Paterno Libraries through a new signage system.
• Addressed many accessibility issues in collaboration with the University's Access Committee.
• Developed a program plan for a new, high-density Libraries Depository.
• Established an online Helpdesk to enable Libraries' employees to report facilities problems.

Ongoing:

• Partner with many Campus College administrations to address library facilities issues.
• Conduct facilities studies of all Libraries at all locations (see Appendix 2).
• Plan or construct new or renovated libraries for University Park (Architecture, Physical and Mathematical Sciences), Altoona, York, and Wilkes-Barre.

DIVERSITY: Foster and promote the broad and inclusive definition of diversity within all aspects of the Libraries' operations, including collections, services, recruitment, and retention of employees, and overall library climate.

• Increased expenditures on diversity-related collections 76 percent since 2000/2001.
• Hired librarians with expertise in Asian studies, African and African-American Studies, and Women Studies.
• Required all administrators and faculty to attend program on incorporating diversity into recruitment and hiring.
• Established a formal mentoring program for all new faculty.
• Sponsored a climate survey as a follow-up to a survey executed several years ago and developed a plan to address issues raised by the survey.
• Quadrupled the number of clients referred to the Libraries' Office for People with Disabilities.

Ongoing:

• Offer employees increased training opportunities on diversity.
• Continue to have a robust and active Diversity Committee.
• Encourage librarians and staff to participate in national diversity conferences and on University and professional committees that address diversity issues.
• Support diversity-related exhibits and programs.

APPENDIX 2

SELECTED UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES ASSESSMENT ACTIVITIES

Assessment of Libraries Service Quality: LibQUAL+TM (contributed by Laurie Probst, Head, Public Services)

The Survey

The Penn State University Libraries was one of 202 libraries participating in the 2004 LibQUAL+TM survey program. Sponsored by the Association of Research Libraries (ARL), the survey is part of the ARL New Measures Initiatives and measures user perceptions of library service quality and satisfaction. The survey was conducted in April 2004 across all Penn State campuses, excluding Hershey, Dickinson, and Penn College of Technology. Survey participants for University Park were selected from a randomly generated pool of faculty, graduate student, and undergraduate student email addresses. At the other campuses, the survey was sent to all faculty, graduate students, and undergraduate students.

Questions in the survey cover three dimensions of library service quality. The Affect of Service dimension measures the quality of interactions with library staff as well as various attributes of the staff (knowledge, courtesy, empathy, etc). The Information Control dimension covers library collections, including databases and other electronic resources, access to those resources, and the tools that the library provides to facilitate that access. In our Web-dependent environment, this dimension provides critical information about how well we are able to deliver information and resources to our users' desktops. The Library as Place dimension relates to library facilities and, in addition to measuring user satisfaction with those facilities, provides clues about the changing use and importance of library spaces, especially among students.

The Data

The analysis of the data across all campuses suggests that our user population is reasonably satisfied with the quality of services and resources in the Libraries. Comparisons with scores from other ARL libraries are favorable, with Penn State scores generally higher than the mean scores across all ARL libraries.

General Satisfaction: On a nine-point Likert scale, the average mean scores were 7.37 for University Park and 7.36 for the Campus Colleges. These numbers are comparable to the satisfaction levels reported in other surveys. In the Penn State 2002 Student Satisfaction Survey 84 percent of University Park students and 88 percent of Campus College students reported satisfaction with library services. Satisfaction levels in the Penn State 2004 Student Satisfaction Survey are slightly lower, with 79 percent of University Park students and 73 percent of students at other campuses reporting satisfaction with library services.

Information Control: Comparison of the mean scores across the three dimensions shows that Information Control is more critical than either Affect of Service or Library as Place. Access to electronic resources from home is very important across all user groups, as are the print and electronic collections that support their work. For undergraduates, especially at the campuses, computing equipment is important and is identified as an area of lower satisfaction.

Affect of Service: Scores are consistent across user groups and across locations. Our users set the highest expectations for employees who are courteous employees and who are knowledgeable. Expectations are higher among faculty and graduate students than among undergraduates. Among the Campus College respondents, scores are slightly higher than for University Park, indicating that the Campus College Libraries overall are closer to meeting their users' expectations than are the libraries at University Park.

Library as Place: Scores are consistent across user groups and across locations. Scores in this dimension are generally lower than the other dimensions, suggesting that library facilities are less critical than library services or resources. However, it is important to note that scores from undergraduates were considerably higher than from graduate students or faculty. While the data confirms that the library is an important place for quiet study, some of the survey comments indicate that group study spaces are becoming important as well.

The Libraries' Response

In general, the data contained no surprises and confirms that the Libraries continue to move in directions appropriate to meeting the needs and expectations of its primary users, the students and faculty of the University:

Areas of strength:

• Investments in building electronic collections and resources are providing broad, point-of-need access to users across campus locations.
• Investments in building expertise and a strong service ethic among our faculty and staff have a direct relationship to user satisfaction in the Affect of Service dimension.
• Investments in expanding or improving library facilities have a direct relationship to user satisfaction in the Library as Place dimension.

Areas for further improvement:

• We will never be able to fully satisfy user expectations for collections, especially in the current environment of scholarly publishing. We can, however, make improvements in the delivery of those resources and in giving our users better tools to identify, locate, and evaluate the resources they need.
• Many comments submitted with the survey indicated that our users are often not aware of the resources and services available in the Libraries. We will be launching a marketing initiative in 2005 to better inform our users about how the Libraries can support their work.
• While our users expressed satisfaction with library services, survey comments revealed that there is less satisfaction with part-time staff, including students, who work at service desks, primarily during evenings and weekends. Recent initiatives to improve levels of service quality are beginning to address these deficiencies.

Areas for further exploration:

• This data and the data collected in other assessment activities have informed the development of our strategic plan and tactical plans within individual units and libraries. As we make progress in those strategic priorities, follow up assessment methodologies, such as focus groups, process improvement, and smaller surveys, will be applied to measure both user impact and satisfaction.
• The survey data suggests that users want more and better tools to facilitate their independent use of the resources available on the Libraries' Web site. Many survey comments criticized the Web site for being confusing and difficult to use. Our expanding program of usability testing will continue to inform our efforts in increasing the effectiveness of our Web-based services and resources. The implementation of new software tools to improve access to Web-based resources (using OpenURL, federated search, and content management functionality) which began in Fall 2004, will provide additional opportunities for examining user expectations and systems usability.
• Survey comments suggested that delivery of resources across campuses must be faster or more effective. We need to know more about user behavior and failure points in the delivery process to adequately address these concerns.

Full Executive Summary document is available at: http://www.libraries.psu.edu/admin/stratplan/final_libqual_2004_exec_summary.pdf

Campus College "Postcard Survey" (contributed by Chris Avery, Head, Commonwealth College Libraries)

The Postcard Survey was conducted in the Campus College Libraries during the Fall 2000. Library users were given a small card as they entered campus libraries which asked "If there were two things you could improve about the Libraries, what would they be?" Over 800 cards were collected. Responses varied from one location to another, but four common themes emerged across all locations in terms of needed improvements:

• more and "better" computers;
• many "comfort" issues (too hot/too cold, desire for comfortable seating/places to relax, access to food and drink, etc.);
• better, more up-to-date books;
• group study space/quiet study space.

Informal Surveys at the Campus Colleges (contributed by Chris Avery, Head, Commonwealth College Libraries)

Many Campus College Libraries conduct informal surveys every other year. For example, a biennial survey of students at Penn State Delaware asks a series of questions pertaining to use (and frequency of use) of library resources and their satisfaction with services. Respondents are also asked to suggest two things the library could do to improve services. The requests are usually familiar (more computers, need for quiet space, more comfortable/attractive surroundings, etc.). The librarians at the Delaware campus developed an action plan based on survey results which attempts to meet identified needs. The approach used by the Delaware campus is fairly typical of what other campuses are doing. Additionally, many libraries are conducting informal surveys of faculty members to see if library instruction is meeting expectations, if faculty members are aware of the range of library services and databases that are available, etc. Again, these surveys are usually conducted every other year at most.

Usability Study of the CAT (Libraries' Online Catalog) (contributed by Eric Novotny, Humanities Librarian)

The first CAT study in 2002 involved 18 participants, 9 novice users from LEAP classes (new students), and 9 experienced users of the CAT (upper-level undergraduates and graduate students). The purpose of the study was to observe how participants searched the CAT. Participants were asked to "think aloud" while working through five common tasks. In the process we learned a lot about our users, and where they faced obstacles. A few findings come to mind: Users in both groups were most comfortable with keyword searching. They rarely noticed or used the Browse search option. In the subject task almost no one made use of "advanced" searching techniques (e.g., Boolean operators, synonyms, truncation, etc.). There were many difficulties interpreting serials records. Novices were especially distracted by call number links in serials records and confused by the use of abbreviations for some library locations (UP-ENGIN). Finally, most participants were positive about the CAT, in spite of any difficulties encountered. This assessment has been widely shared with the various WebCAT working groups, public service librarians, and others. I was recently appointed to be a member of the committee customizing the new catalog interface. The usability study results have proven very useful as this group makes it decisions. A second catalog study was conducted in 2004, using the same five tasks. This time we only recruited LEAP students who had already attended an instruction session with a librarian. Ellysa Cahoy, Information Literacy Librarian, and I are still analyzing the data from that study, but we have observed that this group of users employs search strategies that were not commonly found in the 2002 participants (e.g., truncation, browse). Given the small sample size it is impossible to say for certain whether the observed differences were due to instruction or some other factors. We do believe that some of the improvements in searching were related to instruction.

Usability Study of the Libraries' Web (contributed by Brian Hoffman, Lead Systems Analyst)

The purpose of the study was to determine the effectiveness of the University Libraries' Web site in enabling people to find the information they need, identifying the areas that work well and those that don't, and understanding how people use and react to the site. Participants were asked to complete a series of tasks starting from the Libraries' homepage and to think aloud throughout the process. We observed how they attempted to complete the tasks and made note of any areas that seemed to cause them problems or confusion. In addition to the investigator's observation sheets, the participant's screen activity and voice was recorded, along with videotaping of the session. The study resulted in sixteen main findings. Among them were:

• terminology can be a significant barrier;
• education can help users navigate our Web site better;
• most users scan quickly, looking for keywords;
• our inconsistent interface confuses users;
• users expect large amounts of information to be available online.

In summary, we found that while there was considerable room for improvement, most things could easily be fixed. Our findings were distributed Libraries-wide and have been implemented wherever possible. However, the biggest impact will take place when we create the new Libraries' Web site, hopefully incorporating most of the findings.

Facilities Assessment (contributed by Ron Servello, Facilities Administration Officer)

Each of the Libraries' 42 facilities is assessed every three years. The purpose of this assessment is to determine the actual condition of the facilities statewide so that the deficiencies can be prioritized by safety, importance, and urgency of need. Safety hazards are addressed immediately and receive the highest priority. Importance is based on the level of direct impact on Libraries' operations and on the preservation of collections. Urgency of need is based on how long we believe the current condition can be tolerated before failure of the building component and more serious and expensive damage to the building will occur, coupled with the threat to collections and possibly occupants.

Using an established list of building components to inspect, the Building Coordinator and the Facilities Administration Officer inspect the University Park Libraries. The Facilities Administration Officer performs the inspections at the Campus College Libraries. Each library is thoroughly inspected and a list is compiled documenting the condition of all components. A dollar value is applied to each component that needs to be addressed and a prediction is made as to when each component will have to be repaired or replaced. The components are then prioritized. Once in its final form, the facilities assessment is shared with the Libraries' Dean and Associate Deans and the Office of Physical Plant (OPP). Budget requests and OPP major maintenance requests are based on these assessments. Our facilities-assessment efforts have resulted in an established standard for Libraries' facilities, significant expenditures to remove deficiencies, an increased focus by OPP on the relationship between facilities maintenance and the preservation of Libraries' resources, and greatly improved conditions of our facilities at all locations.

Virtual Reference Service (VRS) Assessment (contributed by Chris Avery, Head, Commonwealth College Libraries)

Patrons of the Virtual Reference Service, which is a chat-based reference service, are asked to complete a short exit survey. Results for 2002/2003 and 2004/2004 are available at http://www.de2.psu.edu/faculty/saw4/vrs/stats/. Results are uniformly positive with over 90 percent of respondents indicating they were pleased with the service and would use it again.

Wisconsin-Ohio Reference Evaluation Program (WOREP) (contributed by Eric Novotny, Humanities Librarian and Amanda Maple, Head, Arts and Humanities Libraries)

In 2001 the Arts and Humanities Library participated in the Wisconsin-Ohio Reference Evaluation Program (WOREP). The WOREP is a standardized survey instrument that is used to record data about a reference encounter from the perspectives of both library patrons and library employees. The instrument has been widely used in libraries for years, allowing institutions to compare results with their peers. More than just a satisfaction survey, the WOREP seeks to isolate the causes of reference successes and failures. The results of the Penn State survey revealed that several factors contributed to unsatisfactory performance as determined by library patrons. For the Arts and Humanities Library these were:

• Although the Library's employees reported that the answer was "found" 72 percent of the time, the patrons reported that they "found" what they wanted 47 percent of the time. This difference in employee and patron perceptions of success suggested communication issues.
• Forty-five percent of patrons reported that employees spent three minutes or less on more complex questions.
• Fifteen percent of patrons reported that they didn't find "enough."
• Too many "books off shelf." Thirteen percent of patrons identified this as a problem compared to 4 percent nationally among WOREP participants.

In response to these results, we revised our training program for all service desk staff (librarians, paraprofessionals, and students). Greater emphasis was placed on interpersonal communications, interviewing skills, and identifying multiple resources. A second WOREP survey conducted in 2003 demonstrated that the training had improved both response accuracy and user satisfaction.

• Patrons reporting that they "found" what they wanted increased from 47 percent to 63 percent.
• Patrons reporting that employees spent only 0-3 minutes on a complex question dropped from 45 percent to 10 percent.
• Patrons reporting that they didn't find "enough" dropped from 15 percent to 5 percent.
• Books "off the shelf" stayed the same, but patron satisfaction went up, indicating that employees did better at identifying alternative sources.

Evaluation of the Libraries' Open House (contributed by Ellysa Cahoy, Information Literacy Librarian)

The Libraries' Open House, a friendly and fun experience designed to alleviate the very real "library anxiety" often suffered by new students, is offered twice a year. Of the 3400 students who participated in the Fall 2004 Open House, 2158 participated in an online assessment of their experiences. The results indicated that the Open House is having a positive impact.

• 93 percent Agreed: This tour helped me learn about the basic services, collection, and facilities of the University Libraries.
• 94 percent Agreed: As a result of this Open House, I will feel more comfortable asking someone for help in the library.
• 87 percent Agreed: As a result of the Open House, I will feel more confident using the library for research and other coursework.
• 95 percent Agreed: I would recommend the Open House as a useful activity for other students to attend.

A sampling of comments from the survey:

• "It is obvious that the library put a lot of time and dedication into this tour. It is great to see the staff of the University caring so much about the students and their learning."
• Congratulations to the library! This event is tremendous. It not only shatters library stereotypes, but has fun doing it! Great job!"
• "The library staff is great. I certainly enjoyed how friendly the library staff is and I now feel that whenever I come in and have a question I can ask anyone who works here."
• "I think this a wonderful thing that the library has done. Even though I've been a graduate student (and now a faculty member) for several years, I learned a lot about different areas of the library that I've never been in before."
• "This was very stimulating and rewarding for a student who is not accustomed to a large facility such as this. Because I took part in this activity, I feel more confident in coming here to the library."

APPENDIX 3

RESPONSE TO 2004 FACULTY/STAFF SURVEY

A comparison of the general outcomes of the 2004 Faculty/Staff Survey with those of the University Libraries shows marked consistency. In many cases, the University Libraries rate higher than the University as a whole.

Workplace Issues

• Agree most with statement: "I am able to take time off from work when I think it's necessary."
• Agree least with the statement: "Promotions at Penn State go to those who best deserve it."

Administrative Practices and Activities

• Agree with most: Feel free to ask my department head any reasonable question; College/administrative area administrators have a clear set of goals for the organization and trust people to do a good job without watching over their shoulder.
• Agree least with: Department/division head provides everyone with an opportunity to get special recognition; College/administrative area administrators avoid playing favorites.

Rewards at the University—Top Five Values to Reward More

• Quality of individual job performance
• Teamwork within/among departments/units
• Excellence in job-related knowledge
• Individual initiative
• Creativity and innovation

Content Analysis of University-Wide Written Comments

The content analysis of the open-ended comments for the University as a whole amplified on those areas that had concern expressed by University Libraries' employees. Combining the themes of "leadership issues" and "supervisor issues" resulted in a theme that received the most attention with more than 9 percent of the written responses. "Clearly, there is a concern from a number of employees regarding how supervisors use their authority." Also at the top of the list are concerns that the reward system and/or general management of particular units are unfair to employees. Finally, diversity appears to be a divisive issue. While many employees felt that diversity was being "jammed down their throats," an almost equal number felt that diversity-related initiatives need to be improved, not disbanded. A review of University Libraries' comments mirror these concerns.

Administrative Response to Faculty/Staff Survey

The last University Libraries' Climate Survey, conducted in 2003, identified similar themes. The climate survey indicated that progress was being made, that most employees felt comfortable in the University Libraries, and that there was strong leadership for diversity. A small minority, however, felt that diversity was being over-emphasized and that it would be preferable to stress equity and staff development for ALL employees. And there appear to be pockets of dissatisfaction with supervisory fairness (or favoritism) and recognition of staff contributions by some middle management supervisors of the Libraries.

The University Libraries' administration is working with the Libraries' Diversity Committee and the Office of Educational Equity to pursue additional ways of understanding what constitutes these pockets of dissatisfaction. In addition, all supervisors in University Park Libraries are being required to take "Mastering Supervision." Similar opportunities are being sought for supervisors at Campus College Libraries. The internal climate survey will continue to be conducted every three to five years to measure progress.

APPENDIX 4

RESULTS OF REALLOCATION PLAN, FY 02/03–FY 04/05

[Removed from this copy.]

Page Top