**Academic Libraries Survey**

**September 2006 -- September 2008**

**OMB Submission**

**April 2006**

A.  **Table of Contents**

[A. Justification 4](#justification)

[1. Circumstances Making Collection of Information Necessary
4](#circumstances-making-collection-of-information-necessary)

[2. Purposes and Uses of the Academic Libraries Survey
4](#purposes-and-uses-of-the-academic-libraries-survey)

[3. Appropriate Use of Information Technology
5](#appropriate-use-of-information-technology)

[4. Efforts to Identify Duplication 5](#efforts-to-identify-duplication)

[5. Methods Used to Minimize Burden on Small Entities
6](#methods-used-to-minimize-burden-on-small-entities)

[6. Frequency of Data Collection 6](#frequency-of-data-collection)

[7. Special Circumstances of Data Collection
6](#special-circumstances-of-data-collection)

[8. Consultants outside the Agency 7](#consultants-outside-the-agency)

[9. Provision of payments or Gifts to Respondents
8](#provision-of-payments-or-gifts-to-respondents)

[10. Assurance of Confidentiality 8](#assurance-of-confidentiality)

[11. Sensitive Questions 8](#sensitive-questions)

[12. Estimates of Hour Burden for Information Collection
9](#__RefHeading___Toc133136383)

[13. Estimates of Costs 9](#estimates-of-costs)

[14. Costs to the Federal Government
9](#costs-to-the-federal-government)

[15. Reasons for Changes in Response Burden and Costs
9](#reasons-for-changes-in-response-burden-and-costs)

[16. Time Schedule for Academic Libraries Survey
10](#time-schedule-for-academic-libraries-survey)

[17. Approval to not Display Expiration Date for OMB Approval
10](#approval-to-not-display-expiration-date-for-omb-approval)

[18. Exceptions to Certification for Paperwork Reduction Act Submissions
10](#exceptions-to-certification-for-paperwork-reduction-act-submissions)

[B. Collection of information employing statistical methods Error!
Bookmark not defined.](#__RefHeading___Toc133136390)

[1. Respondent Universe **Error! Bookmark not
defined.**](#__RefHeading___Toc133136391)

[2. Statistical Procedures for Collecting Information **Error! Bookmark
not defined.**](#__RefHeading___Toc133136392)

[3. Procedures for Collection of Information **Error! Bookmark not
defined.**](#__RefHeading___Toc133136393)

[4. Methods for Maximizing Response Rates **Error! Bookmark not
defined.**](#__RefHeading___Toc133136394)

[5. Tests of Procedures and Methods **Error! Bookmark not
defined.**](#__RefHeading___Toc133136395)

[6. Reviewing Statisticians **Error! Bookmark not
defined.**](#__RefHeading___Toc133136396)

[C. Justifications for Questionnaire Content Error! Bookmark not
defined.](#__RefHeading___Toc133136397)

[1. Survey Eligibility Change in Question Wording **Error! Bookmark not
defined.**](#__RefHeading___Toc133136398)

[2. Part C -- Library Expenditures, Fiscal Year 2006 **Error! Bookmark
not defined.**](#__RefHeading___Toc133136399)

[3. Part D -- Library Collections, Fiscal Year 2006 **Error! Bookmark
not defined.**](#__RefHeading___Toc133136400)

[4. Part E -- Library Services, Fiscal Year 2006 **Error! Bookmark not
defined.**](#__RefHeading___Toc133136401)

[5. Part G - Electronic Services, Fiscal year 2006 **Error! Bookmark not
defined.**](#__RefHeading___Toc133136402)

[6. Part H -- Information Literacy, Fiscal year 2006 **Error! Bookmark
not defined.**](#__RefHeading___Toc133136403)

[D. 2006 Academic library Survey (ALS) Questionnaire and Instructions
Error! Bookmark not defined.](#__RefHeading___Toc133136406)

E. Certificate of confidentiality training 32

# **Justification**

## 1. Circumstances Making Collection of Information Necessary {#circumstances-making-collection-of-information-necessary .unnumbered}

### Purpose of this Submission {#purpose-of-this-submission .unnumbered}

The National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) is seeking a
three-year clearance to conduct the Academic Libraries Survey (ALS) in
2006 and 2008. The current clearance for the Academic Libraries Survey
expired on July 30, 2005.

### Legislative Authorization {#legislative-authorization .unnumbered}

The National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) of the Institute of
Education Sciences (IES), U.S. Department of Education, is conducting
this study, as authorized under Section 153(a) of the *Education
Sciences Reform Act of 2002* (H.R. 3801) which states:

"(a) GENERAL DUTIES.---The Statistics Center shall collect, report,
analyze, and disseminate statistical data related to education in the
United States and in other nations, including---(1) collecting,
acquiring, compiling (where appropriate, on a State-by-State basis), and
disseminating full and complete statistics (disaggregated by the
population characteristics described in paragraph (3)) on the condition
and progress of education, at the...postsecondary...level\[s\] in the
United States, including data on---

\(E\) access to, and opportunity for, postsecondary education..."

Activities for the Academic Library Survey are included in Subsection
(e) of Part 1.

### Prior and Related Studies {#prior-and-related-studies .unnumbered}

The Academic Libraries Survey has been administered as part of the
Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) in the past.
Since 2000, the Academic Library Survey has been conducted independently
of IPEDS.

## 2. Purposes and Uses of the Academic Libraries Survey {#purposes-and-uses-of-the-academic-libraries-survey .unnumbered}

ALS provides NCES with the basic data needed to produce descriptive
statistics for approximately 4,300 academic libraries in the 50 states,
the District of Columbia, and the outlying areas of the United States.
The ALS collects data on the libraries in the universe of 2-year and
4-year postsecondary institutions in the United States. Collection of
these data will enable the nation to plan effectively for the
development and use of postsecondary education library resources.

Congress uses the data to assess the need for revisions of existing
legislation concerning academic libraries and academic library programs.
Federal agencies that administer library grants for collections
development, resource sharing and networking activities (i.e., the
Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS), the National Commission
on Libraries and Information Science (NCLIS), the National Library of
Medicine (NLM), and the Library of Congress) require the data to
evaluate the condition of academic libraries in order to better
administer their programs. State education agencies and college
librarians and administrators use the data for regional and national
comparisons of library resources to plan for the effective use of funds.
Finally, library associations and researchers use the survey results to
determine the status of academic library operations and the profession.

## 3. Appropriate Use of Information Technology {#appropriate-use-of-information-technology .unnumbered}

In 2000, the ALS began using a fully automated web-based data collection
of academic library data. NCES will continue to use this advanced
technology to reduce respondent burden and to improve the timeliness and
quality of the reported data. NCES has facilitated the cooperation of
academic libraries responding to ALS in a variety of ways. These actions
include:

The system will allow for direct data entry as well as file upload and
batch import. Edit checks and data verification procedures will be built
into the system, thus improving data quality and the efficiency of data
collection by resolving errors at the time of data submission.
Processing time and cost will thus be reduced. All administrative
functions will be provided through the web, including nonresponse
follow-up, distribution of passwords, and other activities and
correspondence.

Data release will be more timely. The system is designed to migrate
reported and edited data to a SQL server as soon as the administrative
functions have been performed and NCES has cleared the data. Academic
libraries that have completed the web application process and that have
their data migrated to the SQL server will have access to data for other
libraries that have also completed the process through the Peer Analysis
Tool located on the NCES web site. The NCES Peer Analysis Tool will be
available to responding libraries prior to survey closeout.

NCES will continue to encourage respondents to prepare academic library
data in a format for uploading to the web-based collection instrument by
providing detailed file specifications, instructions and recommendations
for data submission.

## 4. Efforts to Identify Duplication {#efforts-to-identify-duplication .unnumbered}

Although there is no other national survey yielding similar in-depth
data on U.S. academic libraries, there are three academic library
surveys that are conducted by library associations. Since 1961, the
Association of Research Libraries (ARL) has conducted an annual survey
of approximately 120 research libraries in the United States and Canada.
ARL has given permission to two other library associations to use ARL
survey items.

The Association for College and Research Libraries (ACRL), a division of
the American Library Association (ALA), began conducting an annual
survey of academic libraries in the United States and Canada in 1998.
The ACRL survey has two parts. The first part addresses standard library
operations and the survey questions come from the ARL survey. The second
part is concerned with current trends in academic libraries and the
survey questions change each year. The 2004 ACRL survey collected data
from 1,119 libraries out of a population of 4,300 in the United States
and Canada; the response rate was 36 percent.

The Association of Southeastern Research Libraries (ASERL) conducts the
third survey. Its annual survey is sent to member libraries that are not
included in the ARL sample. The ASERL sample includes approximately 15
libraries.

NCES maintains a dialogue with state education agencies, library
associations, including ARL and ACRL, and other data providers and data
users concerning ALS. Relevant data sources within NCES and other
federal agencies and programs are also reviewed on a continuing basis.
ALS is a national survey, conducted by NCES, and therefore, is held to
the highest statistical standards. The 2004 ALS achieved a response rate
of 87 percent.

ALS presents opportunities for historical and trend analysis because ALS
and its antecedents (IPEDS and HEGIS) have collected information on all
U.S. academic libraries for 30 years. The association with IPEDS has
also added depth to the ALS because it allows an analysis of academic
libraries in the context of the colleges and universities of which they
are a part. Therefore, NCES asserts that ALS represents a unique source
of data on academic and research libraries for library professionals,
federal and state policymakers, and the public.

## 5. Methods Used to Minimize Burden on Small Entities {#methods-used-to-minimize-burden-on-small-entities .unnumbered}

Certain academic libraries are considered small entities. To reduce the
burden on these small entities, NCES works with ALA, ACRL, and ARL to
assure the appropriateness of data being requested. The technical
working group also considers the feasibility of collecting certain
items.

Adopting the changes in data elements and definitions for the 2006 and
2008 ALS will maintain the individual burden for respondents by
clarifying the survey form and enhancing the definitions.

## 6. Frequency of Data Collection {#frequency-of-data-collection .unnumbered}

The Academic Libraries Survey is a biennial survey. The next
administration of the survey will begin in November 2006.

## 7. Special Circumstances of Data Collection {#special-circumstances-of-data-collection .unnumbered}

There are no circumstances that will require special data collection
efforts.

## 8. Consultants outside the Agency {#consultants-outside-the-agency .unnumbered}

In addition to review within NCES, the following individuals from the
U.S. Census Bureau reviewed data collection methods and content:

Adrienne Oneto

Assistant Division Chief for Special Statistics, Governments Division

Johnny Monaco

Chief, Education & Related Statistics Branch, Governments Division

Patricia Garner O'Shea

Director of Library Surveys, Governments Division

Carma Hogue

Chief, Statistical Support & Consulting Staff, ESMPD Division

Terri Craig

Math Statistician, ESMPD Division

Joanna F. Lineback McLaughlin

Math Statistician, ESMPD Division

The Academic Libraries Survey Technical Working Group provided
recommendations on survey content. The committee is composed of the
following members:

Denise Davis Director, Office for Research and Statistics, ALA

Brinley Franklin Director of Library Services, University of Connecticut
Libraries

Victoria Hanawalt Library Director, Reed College

Neal Kaske Director, Statistics and Surveys, NCLIS

Martha Kyrillidou Senior Program Officer, Statistics and Measurement,
ARL

Leslie Manning Dean of Library, University of Colorado

Carolyn Norman Specialist, Instructional Resources and Technology,
California Community Colleges

Rita Pellen Assistant University Librarian, Florida Atlantic University

Patricia Profeta Assistant Dean, Library, Indian River Community College

Hugh Thompson Director of Publications, ACRL

Notice of this proposed data collection was published in the 60 day FR
on May 2, 2006. We received no substantive public comment.

## 9. Provision of payments or Gifts to Respondents {#provision-of-payments-or-gifts-to-respondents .unnumbered}

There are no payments or gifts offered to survey respondents.

## 10. Assurance of Confidentiality {#assurance-of-confidentiality .unnumbered}

A plan for assuring the confidentiality of individual data has been
developed by NCES and the Census Bureau. Under this plan, the ALS will
conform to the three federal laws that protect the confidentiality of
all individually identifiable information collected by NCES: the
*National Education Statistics Act of 1994*, as amended, the *Privacy
Act of 1974*, and the *Computer Security Act of 1987*. These laws
prohibit producing any publication in which data furnished by any
particular individual can be identified or permitting any person not
authorized by the NCES Commissioner to examine any individual data or
reports. A violation of any of these restrictions is a felony,
punishable by imprisonment of up to five years, and a fine up to
\$250,000.

The Census Bureau will collect the data under an interagency agreement
with NCES by the authority of Section 406(b) and (c) of the *General
Education Provisions Act*, as amended (20 USC 1221e). The Census Bureau
will maintain the individually identifiable questionnaires as
confidential material. From the initial contact with the participants in
this survey through all of the follow-up efforts, careful attention will
be paid to informing potential survey respondents that NCES and the
Census Bureau will protect the confidentiality of their personal data.
On the final edited file, for all institutions where any data reported
for staff is equal to or less than two, the data for salaries and wages
and benefits will be suppressed. The data will only be reported in
statistical summaries that preclude the identification of any individual
library staff participating in the survey.

Patricia Garner O'Shea is currently the director of the Academic
Libraries Survey. Her successful completion of the Census Bureau's Title
13: Safeguarding Census Confidential Data course is indicated by the
attached certificate, dated October 25, 2005.

## 11. Sensitive Questions {#sensitive-questions .unnumbered}

The ALS questionnaire contains several items about income and benefits.
Although income and benefits data are reported for the entire library
and not specific individuals employed by the library, some academic
libraries have small staffs and it may be possible to determine an
individual's income from the data reported to ALS. It is the opinion of
NCES that federal regulations governing the administration of sensitive
questions must be applied to ALS. The federal regulations require (a)
clear documentation of the need for such information as it relates to
the primary purpose of the study, (b) provisions to respondents which
clearly inform them of the voluntary nature of participation in the
study, and (c) assurances of confidential treatment of responses.

The collection of data related to income is central to understanding key
policy issues driving this study. The recruitment of professional and
support staff and the retention of experienced librarians are related to
the salary and benefits offered by an academic library. In Part B, there
are several items that request data on salaries and wages for the
librarians and other professional staff, all other paid staff, student
assistants, and the total number of full-time FTEs. There is also a
question about the expenditures for employee fringe benefits.

The cover letter will explain that the collection of salary and benefits
data is important to the survey. Respondents will also be informed that
the survey is voluntary. The cover letter will also assure respondents
that the confidentiality of salary and benefits data will be protected
when the FTEs within a staffing category are less than or equal to two.

## 12. Estimates of Hour Burden for Information Collection {#estimates-of-hour-burden-for-information-collection .unnumbered}

The total number of burden hours is estimated to be 5,393. The total
burden for ALS information collection is estimated to be 1 hour and 40
minutes per respondent at 3,236 academic libraries, which assumes a
response rate of 87 percent.

The standard NCES procedure for estimating cost is to multiply the
estimated total survey reporting hours by the average salary and
associated computer costs of \$23.10 per hour. The respondent dollar
cost is estimated to be \$124,578. Respondents to the ALS will not incur
any costs other than of their time to respond.

## 13. Estimates of Costs {#estimates-of-costs .unnumbered}

No additional costs will be imposed on our respondents, other than those
reported in Section 12, Estimates of Hour Burden for Information
Collection.

## 14. Costs to the Federal Government {#costs-to-the-federal-government .unnumbered}

An estimate of the total cost of the ALS for the Census Bureau for the
2006 survey is \$580,000. The Census Bureau estimates were compiled from
individual estimates developed within each division involved in the
survey. Estimates were based on survey administration, data review and
imputations and include administrative overhead and personnel costs.

The cost of the web survey instrument is not included in the Census
Bureau's costs. A contractor will develop the web survey instrument, at
a cost of approximately \$50,000. The NCES personnel costs will be
approximately \$110,000 for the 2006 ALS.

## 15. Reasons for Changes in Response Burden and Costs {#reasons-for-changes-in-response-burden-and-costs .unnumbered}

This collection is showing a 5,393 program change because this is a
reinstatement of a previously approved collection for which approval has
expired. Despite the increase in burden due to this reinstatement, there
are a number of changes that have been made to this collection that
actually reflect a reduction in burden over the previous ALS 2004
collections. Those improvements and changes are highlighted in the
following paragraphs.

This collection is showing a reduction in burden of 547 hours over the
previous collection in 2004. This reduction is the result of
improvements in the survey, and a refined estimate of the size of the
universe. The changes are highlighted in the following paragraphs.

Instructions have been simplified for the 2006 ALS, and some labeling
and location changes have been made to improve clarity. Five items on
consortial services are being dropped from Part G. of the 2006 survey.
One item is being added to the 2006 ALS; it appears in Part H and
addresses the academic library's role in providing information literacy
instruction. It is increasingly important in an information economy that
students become skillful at conducting research; finding, evaluating,
and analyzing information; and developing critical thinking skills, all
aspects of information literacy. This additional item is answered yes or
no and requires little time to complete.

The reduction in questionnaire items is estimated to decrease the
response burden by 5 minutes per respondent. The burden estimate is
further reduced by using an estimate of the number of respondents, based
on the 2004 ALS, rather than the broader 2005 IPEDS database. The
combination of a shorter survey and a more accurate estimate of survey
respondents represents a total burden reduction of 557 hours per survey
administration, from 5,950 hours in 2004 to 5,393 hours for 2006.

## 16. Time Schedule for Academic Libraries Survey {#time-schedule-for-academic-libraries-survey .unnumbered}

User IDs and Passwords issued November 8, 2006

Registration and software release November 22, 2006

Data collection November 22, 2006 to March 14, 2007

Non-response follow-up December 8, 2006 to March 14, 2007

Edit review November 22, 2006 to June 15, 2007

Preliminary file August 24, 2007

Final file December 28, 2007 to January 4, 2008

Final ED Tabs run March 16, 2008

Final ED Tabs released September 25, 2008

## 17. Approval to not Display Expiration Date for OMB Approval {#approval-to-not-display-expiration-date-for-omb-approval .unnumbered}

We are not seeking approval to not display the expiration date of OMB
approval.

## 18. Exceptions to Certification for Paperwork Reduction Act Submissions {#exceptions-to-certification-for-paperwork-reduction-act-submissions .unnumbered}

There are no exceptions to the topics in Item 19 of Form OMB 83-1.