Question 3 of the study asked respondents, ‘‘What resources are being al- located for performance measurement in Florida public libraries?’’ Three sub-questions were designed to collect data to address the overarching question. Sub-question 3.1 asked, ‘‘What is the total amount of staff time dedicated solely to performance measurement in an average year?’’ and Question 16 in the attitudinal survey collected data to address this question.
The data analysis of Question 16 determined that 75% of all respondents allocated no more than 5% of the total annual staff time available in their LAU to conduct PM. Based on survey responses, an estimated range of 174.098–317.07 FTE of the 2,991.0 total FTE (Florida Library Directory with Statistics, 2001, p. 153) working in the 40 respondent LAU’s were reported as being allocated for some portion of their work time to imple- ment or conduct PM. A respondent estimate of 334.73–609.75 FTE in staff time was allocated to implement or conduct PM in Florida public libraries was calculated based on the survey responses (White, 2002, p. 163). From the survey data, the researcher estimated 6.0–11.0% of the statewide library workforce of 6,016 FTE (Florida Library Directory with Statistics, 2001, pp. 153–202) reported working in the 75 LAU in Florida are involved in conducting PM. This translated to 14,438.4–26,470.4 staff hours expended in 2002 on PM in Florida public libraries. ‘‘By way of comparison, if the minimum estimate of 334.73 FTE allocated statewide to conducting PM in Florida public libraries in FY 2000 were the staff of one LAU:
This LAU would have more FTE staff than all but one of the respondents in this study.
This LAU would have enough staff to operate 23 of the 40 responding LAUs at FY 2000 staffing levels’’ (White, 2002, p. 163).
Sub-question 3.2 asked, ‘‘What is the total overall percentage of the budget dedicated to conducting performance measurement last year?’’
Question 17 in the attitudinal survey collected data to address this question.
The data analysis of Question 17 determined 89.7% of all respondents allocated 5% or less of the overall LAU budget to conduct PM. An es- timated range of $4,121,858.92–$8,376,302.36 (Florida Library Directory with Statistics, 2001, pp. 153–202) of the $150, 436,534.00 (Florida Library Directory with Statistics, 2001, pp. 153–202) of total expenditure reported by respondents was allocated to conducting PM in FY 2000. A statewide estimate of $7,926,651.77–$16,108,273.77 (Florida Library Directory with Statistics, 2001, pp. 153–202) was allocated to conducting PM in Florida public libraries in FY 2000. The statewide estimate range did not appear to include the value of staff time allocated to PM in Florida libraries. Ap- proximately, 2.5–5.1% of the $318,570,893.00 (Florida Library Directory with Statistics, 2001, pp. 153–202) reported total expenditure of the 75 LAU in Florida to provide public library service was allocated to conduct PM in FY 2000. A statewide estimate of $7,926,651.77–$16,108,273.77 was calcu- lated from the study to be allocated to conducting PM in Florida public libraries in FY 2000 (White, 2002, p. 166). By way of comparison, if the LARRY NASH WHITE 108
minimum estimate of $7,926,651.77 allocated to conducting PM in Florida public libraries in FY 2000 was one funding account:
It would be ‘‘equal to approximately 24.1–49.0% of the total State Aid Funds received by Florida’s public libraries in FY 2000’’ (White, 2002, p. 166).
It would be ‘‘two to four times more than the statewide total expenditure for electronic information collection acquisition’’ (White, 2002, p. 166).
Sub-question 3.3 asked, ‘‘What is the total training time provided to staff members in the past year dealing specifically with using performance meas- urement?’’ Question 18 in the attitudinal survey collected data to address this question.
The data analysis of Question 18 determined that 95% of all respondents allocate less than 5% of all training time to training staff to conduct PM (White, 2002, p. 167). ‘‘Research in librarianship and other related profes- sions/industries has yet to determine a baseline range of staff training for PM in public libraries. Statistics were not available detailing the total amount of training time provided to library staff in Florida public libraries.
Therefore, the researcher was not able to infer a statewide total of PM staff training time and was unable to determine whether this level of staff training for PM is appropriate for public libraries in Florida’’ (White, 2002, p. 168).
In order to assess the overall responses of the attitudinal questions re- garding HLA’s perceptions of the use and effectiveness of PM in Florida public libraries, the researcher createdFig. 2, which shows the Likert Cat- egory Response Frequencies for Questions 1–15.
Fig. 2. Questions 1–15 Likert Category Response Frequencies.
Figure 2illustrates that six of fifteen questions garnered a majority pos- itive response. Three of fifteen questions garnered a majority no determi- nation made response, while six of fifteen questions garnered a majority negative response.
Five of the six majority positive response questions were Questions 6–9 and 11 which were all stated in a negative manner. The negatively stated questions evaluated respondent’s perceptions to the converse information sought by the researcher. The negatively stated questions had the lowest response rates; however, they did not yield the lowest perceived mean re- sponse value of the 15 questions. Question 14, regarding the Legislature’s role in distributing PM, yielded a mean response value 56.9% lower than any of the negatively stated questions. Overall, HLA perceptions of the use and effectiveness of PM in Florida public libraries was neutral at best, with respondents being equally distributed between the extremes of perception (i.e. effective, not effective).
When combined with the findings regarding resource expenditure and staff time commitments to conducting and implementing PM in Florida public libraries, the study findings seemed to suggest that substantial re- sources were used annually to conduct a process (PM) that was not per- ceived to be effective by at least half of those who conducted the process and utilized its results.