PART II: SURVEY REPORT

APPENDIX D: TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE NEGOTIATED GRANT (TANG) - URBAN, SUBURBAN, RURAL AREAS OF PRIMARY SERVICE ANALYSIS

The majority of libraries (84 to 90 percent), regardless of area of service, received technology-related training from their respective Library Systems since 1998-99.

Table D.1

Staff Received Technology-related Training, Consulting or Assistance from Respective Library System Since 1998-99

Urban

Suburban

Rural

# (38)

%

#


(76)

%

#


(297)

%

Yes

32

84.2%

67

88.2%

267

89.9%

No

6

15.8%

9

11.8%

30

10.1%

On average, libraries serving primarily rural areas found the technology-related training, assistance or consulting provided to them by their respective Library System to be more helpful than libraries serving primarily urban or suburban areas. Eighty-seven percent of libraries serving primarily rural areas, 85 percent of libraries serving urban areas, and 82 percent of libraries serving primarily suburban areas found the technology-related training to be either "very helpful" or "helpful."

Table D.2

Helpfulness of Technology-related Training, Consulting or Assistance Staff Received from Respective Library System Since 1998-99*

Urban

Suburban

Rural

# (33)

%

#


(67)

%

#


(265)

%

Very helpful

18

54.5%

28

41.8%

167

63.0%

Helpful

10

30.3%

27

40.3%

63

23.8%

Moderately helpful

3

9.1%

12

17.9%

29

10.9%

Of little help

1

3.0%

--

--

3

1.1%

Not at all helpful

1

3.0%

--

--

1

0.4%

Unsure

--

--

--

--

2

0.8%

Mean**

1.70

 

1.76

 

1.51

 

* Includes 365 libraries because not all libraries provided data on technology training helpfulness.


** Means were calculated on a 5-point scale where "1" refers to "very helpful" and "5" refers to "not at all helpful."

Figure D.1

Graph of Helpfulness of Library System in Meeting Libraries' Needs vs. Operating Expenditures. See long description.

The libraries' primary area of service did not differentiate among the three groups of libraries in regard to what they liked about the technology-related training, consulting or assistance that their respective Library System provided. However, a smaller percent of libraries serving primarily suburban areas than the other two categories of libraries reported in the affirmative on each of these categories.

Table D.3

Library Staff Liked Best About Technology-related Training, Consulting or Assistance Library System Provided

Urban

Suburban

Rural

# (38)

%

#


(76)

%

#


(297)

%

Technician's experience and knowledge

25

80.6%

44

66.7%

216

81.5%

Technician has experience in working with libraries

21

67.7%

37

56.1%

178

67.2%

Training was tailored to the level of knowledge/skills of staff

22

71.0%

30

45.5%

186

70.2%

Training was hands-on

22

71.0%

52

78.8%

220

83.0%

Technician provided training on-site

12

38.7%

9

13.6%

116

43.8%

Technician provided follow-up training where needed

10

32.3%

5

7.6%

77

29.1%

Materials were user friendly

19

61.3%

34

51.5%

169

63.8%

Technician has a 1-800 line for technical assistance

7

22.6%

10

15.2%

112

42.3%

Technician established a relationship of trust with the library staff

11

35.5%

11

36.7%

118

44.5%

Training was tailored to library needs

22

71.0%

24

36.4%

172

64.9%

Technician's communication abilities

19

61.2%

24

36.4%

153

57.7%

The following series of tables compares the technological self-sufficiency of libraries before and after they received technology-related training, consulting, or assistance from their respective Library System. As seen in these tables, the technological self-sufficiency of libraries, regardless of primary area of service, improved significantly as a result of the training. The difference was especially dramatic among libraries serving primarily rural areas. Only three percent of these libraries considered themselves technologically self-sufficient prior to receiving technology-related assistance from their respective Library Systems. Furthermore, nearly one-half of the libraries serving rural areas considered themselves to be self-sufficient "to a minor extent" or "not at all." Subsequent to the technology-related training, consulting and assistance provided to them by their respective Library Systems, 43 percent (up from three percent) of the libraries serving rural areas considered themselves technologically self-sufficient "to a great extent" and only two percent considered themselves not self-sufficient (down from 48 percent).

Libraries serving primarily urban areas and those serving suburban areas also witnessed a significant shift in self-sufficiency. Prior to the technology-related assistance that the Library Systems provided, 29 percent of the libraries serving urban areas considered themselves technologically self-sufficient; as a result of the training this group grew to 42 percent. Similarly, prior to the technology-related training, 19 percent of the libraries serving suburban areas considered themselves technologically self-sufficient; this status was claimed subsequent to the assistance by 31 percent of these libraries. Lack of technological self-sufficiency among libraries serving suburban areas declined from 25 percent to four percent as a result of the training and assistance that Library Systems provided. However, lack of technological self-sufficiency among libraries serving primarily urban areas decreased only from 20 percent to 18 percent.

Table D.4

Extent to Which Libraries Were Technologically Self Sufficient

Before Library System Provided Training

As a Result of Training Library System Provided

Urban

Suburban

Rural

Urban

Suburban

Rural

To a great extent

29.4%

19.4%

3.3%

42.4%

31.3%

43.2%

To a moderate extent

23.5%

20.9%

12.2%

27.3%

49.3%

43.9%

To some extent

26.5%

34.3%

36.9%

12.1%

14.9%

10.6%

To a minor extent

17.6%

22.4%

31.4%

18.2%

3.0%

1.9%

Not at all

2.9%

3.0%

16.2%

--

1.5%

0.4%

Means*

2.41

2.69

3.45

2.06

1.94

1.72

* Means were calculated on a 5-point scale where "1" refers to "to a great extent" and "5" refers to "not at all."

Figure D.2

Graph of the information in the table above.

Table D.5

Extent to Which Library Was Technologically Self-sufficient Before Library System Provided Training*

Urban

Suburban

Rural

# (34)

%

#


(67)

%

#


(271)

%

To a great extent

10

29.4%

13

19.4%

9

3.3%

To a moderate extent

8

23.5%

14

20.9%

33

12.2%

To some extent

9

26.5%

23

34.3%

100

36.9%

To a minor extent

6

17.6%

15

22.4%

85

31.4%

Not at all

1

2.9%

2

3.0%

44

16.2%

Mean*

2.41

 

2.69

 

3.45

 

* Chi-square=53.95, 8 d.f., p<.00000.

Table D.6

Extent to Which Library Is Technologically Self-sufficient As a Result of Training Library System Provided*

Urban

Suburban

Rural

# (33)

%

#


(67)

%

#


(264)

%

To a great extent

14

42.4%

21

31.3%

114

43.2%

To a moderate extent

9

27.3%

33

49.3%

116

43.9%

To some extent

4

12.1%

10

14.9%

28

10.6%

To a minor extent

6

18.2%

2

3.0%

5

1.9%

Not at all

--

--

1

1.5%

1

0.4%

Mean**

2.06

 

1.94

 

1.72

 

* Chi-square=28.52, 8 d.f., p<.00038.

The technology-related training, consulting, and assistance that Library Systems provided to their respective members created a substantial cluster of libraries that were able to use and maintain their information resource technology. Forty-three percent of the libraries serving primarily rural areas, 41 percent of libraries serving primarily urban areas, and 34 percent of the libraries serving primarily suburban areas were in this cluster. At the same time, 20 percent of the libraries serving urban areas, nine percent of those serving suburban areas, and four percent of those serving rural areas were still greatly lacking in this regard.

Table D.7

As a Result of Training Library System Provided, Library is Able to Use and Maintain Information Resource Technology

Urban

Suburban

Rural

# (34)

%

#


(68)

%

#


(276)

%

To a great extent

14

41.2%

23

33.8%

120

43.5%

To a moderate extent

10

29.4%

31

45.6%

110

39.9%

To some extent

3

8.8%

8

11.8%

35

12.7%

To a minor extent

6

17.6%

6

8.8%

10

3.6%

Not at all

1

2.9%

--

--

1

0.4%

Mean**

2.12

 

1.96

 

1.77

 

* Chi-square=18.85, 8 d.f., p<.01567.

Part Two, Appendix C | Part Two, Appendix E

Page last modified: March 2, 2011