1. ACRL Academic Library Trends and Statistics Editorial Board June 27, 2015

2.  Update on IPEDS Academic Library component ◦ Bob Dugan, University of West Florida  2015 ACRL survey and instrument ◦ Terri Fishel, Macalester College  Conversation with the audience about data collecting ◦ Mark McCallon, Abilene Christian University We are all members of the ACRL Academic Library Trends and Statistics Editorial Board

3.  first data collection completed in April 2015  summary of challenges academic libraries encountered with the IPEDS survey: ◦ IPEDS AL component definitions ◦ HR component

4.  e-books and e-media: counted simultaneous use; excluded e-content from databases  e-government documents: excluded in counts  microforms, maps, and non-print: excluded in counts  circulation: restrictive definition to essentially transactions over the circulation desk; inclusion of non-returnable ILL; included renewals and reserves

5.  circulation: no identification for means to count/report e-resources such as e-books  expenditures for salary and wages: included staff salaries from any identified institutional source but excluded student assistants if not expended from the library’s budget

6.  libraries accustomed to reporting FTE counts by library staff classification  IPEDS counts headcounts in the Human Resources component; used BLS SOC staff classification which does not align with past library surveys; collects gender and ethnicity  Institutional HR departments often did not consult with library to align data reported for staffing types; headcount hinders staff benchmarking based upon FTE and typical staff classifications

7.  an ACRL, ALA and ARL Joint Task Force convened in May 2015 to address issues ◦ ARL and ACRL had five members each; ALA Office of Research & Statistics and IPEDS AL component survey director ◦ Conference calls and a face-to-face in DC on June 19  The TF developed several recommendations for review here at ALA (http://tinyurl.com/o6hjyed)

8. Library Collections  count titles rather than simultaneous use  count titles accessible via library catalog or discovery system for: ◦ e-books ◦ open access resources ◦ government documents ◦ maps, microforms and media

9. Library Services  count only initial circulation ◦ exclude renewals and reserves  count e-book and e-media usage ◦ downloads and views  use COUNTER metrics if you have them ◦ optional; not required Library Expenses  salaries and wages from all institutional sources (may not be acceptable because of the other IPEDS components which capture expenses)

10.  change for the next data collection cycle for IC Header (starts on August 5, 2015) ◦ no longer have to state how much the library expended as a screening question  we should know by August 2015 which recommendations IPEDS has accepted from the Joint Task Force, if any  IPEDS spring data collection to start December 9, 2015

11.  Why the ACRL Survey? ◦ Comparison data ◦ Benchmarking ◦ Identifying trends ◦ If you are not an ARL library, this is your only source  IPEDS vs ACRL Survey ◦ Why both?

12.  IPEDS ◦ institutional survey, not library focused ◦ certain data elements are no longer collected ◦ staffing data is collected from HR not library ◦ any changes require approval by OMB; minimum of two years  ACRL ◦ Flexibility, responsive and adaptive to changing needs in 21 st century ◦ Utilize NISO standards for many of our definitions; also ALS ◦ Able to release results in less time ◦ We collect the IPEDS data elements and can generate a report for you to share with your IPEDS data keyholder – so you just fill out ONE survey

13.  Staffing – distinguish from IPEDS in order to collect more specific staffing data  Salary data – IPEDS limit salary data to just library budget ◦ IPEDS is institutional, ACRLMetrics is library specific  New as well as traditional services – services are also big piece missing from IPEDS ◦ Institutional Repositories ◦ Reference consultations  Utilize new tools made available by new systems ◦ Discovery tools ◦ ERMS

14.  Accountability  Assessment  Best practices  Peer comparison  Informed decision-making  Demonstrating value  Analyze trends – local and national

15. http://www.arl.org/storage/documents/service-trends.pdfhttp://www.arl.org/storage/documents/service-trends.pdf visited 6/2/2015

16. From ACRLMetrics, Counting Opinions (report run 6/6/2015)

18. http://libguides.sjfc.edu/dashboard http://libguides.sjfc.edu/dashboard Permission to use granted by Christina Hillman; Lavery Library 6/5/2015

19.  http://libguides.sjfc.edu/dashboard (previous slide) http://libguides.sjfc.edu/dashboard  http://www.library.gatech.edu/dashboard/ http://www.library.gatech.edu/dashboard/  http://www.ulib.iupui.edu/dashboard http://www.ulib.iupui.edu/dashboard  http://library.uncg.edu/info/dashboard/ http://library.uncg.edu/info/dashboard/  http://library.uncw.edu/facts_planning/dashboard http://library.uncw.edu/facts_planning/dashboard  http://library.richmond.edu/about/assessment/ http://library.richmond.edu/about/assessment/

20.  Contribute for the "common good”  Low cost for access to entire data available in ACRLMetrics  Collecting data on 21st century libraries that will help us track trends  We need your feedback on what questions should be added, when definitions need improvement, and what trends we should be investigating Image Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/12/We_Can_Do_It!.jpghttp://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/12/We_Can_Do_It!.jpg

21.  What do you find difficult and challenging when collecting statistics?  Is there anything that we could do from our end to help make this less burdensome?