College and Research Libraries New Norms for Reference Desk Staffing Adequacy: A Comparative Study Deborah Rinderknecht Severe economic conditions have resulted in budget cutbacks and hiring freezes in many colleges, universities, and their libraries. With the financial crisis in higher education showing no sign of easing, libraries must use their staff efficiently. Norms for reference desk staffing were first compiled by Marjorie E. Murfin in 1983, using 1978-79 data from 73 academic libraries. In order to assess reference desk staffing adequacy ten years later and analyze compara- tively any possible fluctuation, this article presents new norms using 1988-89 statistics from more than one hundred academic libraries. These norms may help libraries assess their current and desirable staffing levels and recognize potential problems in providing public service. They establish a basis of com- parison with similar institutions and a method of appraisal for measuring the impact of change. g he adequacy of public service desk staffing is a persistent and historical concern of li- brary administrators. In the pastdecad~highereducationinstitutions have faced severe economic constraints. Budget cutbacks and hiring freezes have become common in colleges, universities, and their libraries. Have these economic conditions affected reference depart- ments' desk staffing and service? Norms for reference desk staffing were first compiled by Marjorie E. Murfin in 1983, using a method recommended by the Library Administration and Man- agement Association (LAMA) Task Force on Comparability of Reference Statistics and 1978-79 data collected from 73 academic libraries.1 Dividing academic libraries into five groups by gate count/ en- rollment, Murfin calculated norms based on the number of reference transactions and the number of individual reference desk person-hours. In order to assess ref- erence desk staffing adequacy ten years later and to analyze comparatively any possible fluctuation, the author has com- piled new norms based on 1988-89 statistics from over 100 academic librar- ies across the United States and Canada. Such norms have implications for ad- ministrative policy and budget plan- ning. They may help libraries assess their current and desirable staffing levels and recognize potential problems in providing public service by establish- ing a basis of comparison with similar institutions and a method of appraising the effects of change. METHOD In order to facilitate comparability, as in the Murfin study, data were collected only on main library central reference Deborah Ri~derknecht is Associate Universtiy Librarian and Chair, Humanities and Social Sciences Services at the University of Florida Libraries, Gainesville, Florida 32601. 429 430 College & Research Libraries desks. Survey data were requested from over 220 academic libraries at four-year institutions of all sizes. ARL member li- braries at institutions of higher educa- tion were targeted first. The remaining libraries in the study were selected ran- domly from the American Library Directory, with attention given to providing a balanced representation of libraries by their size (based on holdings) and a min- imum of two academic libraries from each state. Information requested in the survey included: 1. Gate (turnstile) count indicating the number of patrons in the library during a typical week (i.e., third to sixth week in the academic term) in the fall of 1988; 2. Number of hours the department is open for service; 3. Individual person-hours (number of individuals staffing the desk each hour it is open) for the refer- ence desk in the same week; 4. Number of reference question transactions, using Higher Educa- tion General Information Survey (HEGIS) transaction definitions, for a typical week (i.e., third to sixth week in the academic term) in the fallof1988, preferably from or com- parable to data supplied to the Higher Education General Infor- mation Survey (HEGIS). The use of gate count to explain vari- ance in the number of reference transac- tions has been supported by several studies, including one by John J. Regazzi and Rodney M. Hersberger, who found that the relationship between the num- ber of reference transactions moderately correlated to the number of users present (.74 correlation).2 Another study by Mur- fin and Fred Ruland found that .80 of the variation in the number of reference transactions could be explained by two factors: (1) thenumberoflibrarypatrons present, and (2) the number of in- dividual reference desk person-hours during that time period.3 By using both gate count and person-hours, it is possible to estimate the probable num- ber of reference transactions during a typical week. When libraries with simi- September 1992 lar gate counts were studied, the library with more person-hours usually had the larger number of reference transactions.4 While gate count is one of the best pre- dictors of public service activities since it tallies actual library users, it is not always recognized as such. Some librar- ies do not take a gate count, while others sometimes take it in an inaccurate, care- less fashion. Certain organizational fac- tors can sometimes inflate gate count. Such circumstances as the presence of academic classrooms in the library building or the library serving as a walk- way connecting other classroom build- ings were taken into account when determining which returned surveys had usable sets of data for compiling new norms. In a few cases enrollment was substi- tuted for gate count, though it is a less desirable statistic to use in compiling the new norms. Calculating reference desk staff person-hours for a sample week is accomplished by counting the number of individuals staffing the reference desk each of the hours the desk is open for service. This information can usually be obtained quite easily by referring to the weekly reference desk schedule. These numbers are then totalled to obtain the person-hours per week. The number of person-hours is also a good predictor of public service activities. Richard Stray- ner, in his study of public library effec- tiveness, found person-hours data to have the highest correlation of all the performance measures he assessed.5 Murfin's study of 1978 norms also recog- nized the significance of person-hours in assessing the adequacy of reference desk staffing. Using person-hours data, refer- ence transactions totals, and gate count it is possible to assess factors such as library demand, individual workloads, and potential workloads. Reference transaction totals are most important when studying the workload of staff, especially since workload may affect the quality of service provided. The number of reference transactions in relation to gate count may also shed light on the level of success a reference depart- ment has reaching its users. While many libraries are accustomed to recording statistics at the reference desk, it is rec- ognized that there are some dangers in attempting to use such data. Some librar- ies do not apply the HEGIS definitions for reference and directional questions strictly when recording reference desk transactions. The knowledge of the ac- tual workload of reference librarians would be enhanced if a differentiation by type of reference question and time spent answering were included in the study; however, this information is not collected in a sufficient number of libraries at the present time. Unorthodox methods of gathering statistics were also revealed in a few instances. Every attempt was made to verify the validity of any un- usual or questionable survey responses. When the factors mentioned above were present, that institution's survey data were omitted. Only a small number of libraries fell into this category. The author also rec- ognizes that some library reference de- partments and their desk staff are more conscientious than others in collecting refer- ence transaction data. How-ever, while some librarians mayunderrecord reference transactions, others may overestimate the number of their transactions, preserving the value of these data. With many different sections of a univer- sity competing for diminishing economic re- sources, library administrators must use relevant performance indicators and out- put measures to demonstrate the ability of the library to manage its resources congruent to its mission. Reference serv- ice has always been perceived as difficult to quantify and therefore assess, but many reference departments already re- cord statistics in several areas of activity. With an emphasis on accountability in the face of the present economic cli- mate, reference departments and li- brary administrators should consider the ways in which quantifiable data (often already available) can be use- ful. By using gate count and person- hours, it may be possible to explain some of the disparity between similar libraries' differing reference question transaction totals and to help identify staffing inadequacies. Reference Desk Staffing Adequacy 431 More than 60% of the surveys were returned, 103libraries providing usable sets of data. Of these, 26 libraries (25%) were included in the Murfin study of 197s-79 norms. In order to facilitate comparison with the Murfin study, re- turned library survey data were again stratified into five groups by their gate counts (occasionally substitution was made with their institution's enroll- ment). Sixty-one libraries had less than 20,000 library users, and 42libraries had more than 20,000 library users, based on their gate counts for one week. When gate counts increase and per- son hours decrease ••. the quality of reference service may suffer. In order to preserve the comparability of the two studies, the present data are defined (as in the Murfin study) in the following way: Group I Under 10,000 gate count Group II 10,000-19,999 gate count Group III 20,000-29,999 gate count Group IV 30,000-39,999 gate count Group V 40,000 plus gate count Several key areas in the assessment of reference desk staffing adequacy include demand, potential demand, and work- load. Using the data from returned sur- veys, the author compiled new norms for each of the above library groups by size. MEASUREMENT AND NORMS Norms are imperfect approximations and should not be used to provide abso- lute answers. Rather, they are only one of many tools for assessing the adequacy of staffing. Norms should not be used as standards since they represent the ex- isting situation, which may fall far short of the most desirable level. Attempts were made to identify reference departments with such dissimilar physical configura- tions as to threaten the comparability of the norms. Some libraries with subject 432 College & Research Libraries division arrangements (separate refer- ence desks), or where no central general reference desk service could be iden- tified, are two examples of dissimilar configurations that were revealed. In cases such as these, the author chose to exclude data and maintain the integrity of the norms being compiled. If a library, comparing itself to the norms of libraries of the same size, should fall outside the norms presented here, it should exercise care in its interpretation, considering any possible differences in usage, individual internal structure, or other factors which might account for it. These norms should act primarily to alert libraries to possible staffing inadequacies, and to help refer- ence departments and administrators to monitor reference desk staffing in their libraries on an ongoing basis. GATE COUNT AND DEMAND As previously stated, gate count has a high correlation to the number of refer- ence transactions a library will log. This makes gate count an important variable to consider in any study of reference desk staffing adequacy. Table 1 illustrates the average gate count of each of the five li- brary groups during 1978 and again in 1988. The average gate counts do not gener- ally show an increase, except in group V. The most dramatic increase in the num- ber of users appears to be in the largest . libraries (group V), where the 1988 aver- age gate count reflects a 6% increase. This information alone may have limited value, but if it is used to study demand and other factors relevant to staffing adequacy, then its significance may be- come more apparent. TABLEt GATE COUNT: USERS IN THE LIBRARY 1978 1988 Group! 6,029 6,051 Group IT "14,978 15,014 Grouplll 23,794 23,699 GroupN 34,574 33,827 GroupV 42,508 45,208 September 1992 Historically, librarians have focused on the number of reference transactions as the key to assessing patron demand at the reference desk. By examining refer- ence transactions over an extended pe- riod of time (i.e., an academic term), librarians can learn when the greatest volume of reference questions are asked. However, this method does not account for those patrons who walk away during busy periods without receiving as- sistance or for patrons who simply do not approach because they are dis- suaded by long queues and the prospect of a long wait at the desk. For this reason, when considering reference desk staffing adequacy it is important not to equate the number of reference transac- tions with demand. As previously stated, studies have shown that if the number of users (gate count) were equal among libraries, then the one with more person-hours staffing the desk would be most likely to have the highest total of reference transactions. Therefore, the number of reference transactions is only representative of demand demonstrated and met within the limitations of current staffing.6 Table 2 illustrates the average number of reference questions received in each of the five library groups during a typical week in 1978 and 1988. Three of the five groups show an in- crease since 1978 in the average number of reference questions received during the sample week, and the average num- ber of reference questions received over- all increased 6% between 1978 and 1988. The same library groups that showed the increase in average gate count also showed an increase in the average num- ber of reference question transactions. Group I libraries (gate counts under 10,000) had the largest average.increase in reference transactions handled, with a 12% increase, followed by group V li- braries (the largest libraries, with gate counts of 40,000 plus) with an increase of 9%, and group II libraries (gate counts 10,000-19,999) with an increase of 5%. One measure used in the Murfin study to assess the extent to which reference service is meeting demand is the ratio of library users per reference question. This TABLE2 REFERENCE QUESTION TRANSACTIONS 1978 1988 Group I 337 378 Group II 898 939 Group III 1,320 1,228 Group IV 1,158 1,054 GroupV 1,276 1,387 TABLE3 DEMANDS AS MET BY PRESENT STAFFING: REFERENCE QUESTION RECEIVED IN PROPORTION Group I Group II Group III Group IV GroupV TO USERS PRESENT 1978 1 in 17.86 1 in 16.68 1 in 18.02 1 in29.84 1 in33.30 TABLE4 GATE COUNT: 1988 1 in 16.00 1 in 15.99 1 in 19.30 1 in 32.09 1 in 32.59 USERS IN THE LIBRARY Group I Group II Group III Group IV GroupV 1978 5.6% 6.0 5.5 3.4 3.0 TABLES PERSON HOURS 1988 6.2% 6.2 5.2 3.1 3.1 AT CENTRAL REFERENCE DESK Group I Group II Group ill Group IV GroupV 1978 92 141 161 147 169 1988 86 129 164 129 170 Reference Desk Staffing Adequacy 433 is attained by dividing the HEGIS week gate count by the number of reference questions during the same week. Table 3 displays library demand as met by present staffing from the 1978 data survey and the author's study based on 1988 data. Another measure used by Murfin to determine the capacity of reference de- partments to reach their users is the per- centage of library users involved in asking reference questions. · This is an alternative way of using the same data to study demand. To obtain this percen- tage, the total number of reference ques- tions for each group was divided by the total gate count in the same group. Table 4 shows the results of this measure using 1978 and 1988 data. There may be several possible reasons why the libraries with the largest gate counts seem to be reaching the smallest percentage of their users. One likely ex- planation is that while gate counts in- crease in libraries, person-hours staffing the reference desk rarely increase pro- portionally. Another reason, cited in several studies, is that as gate count in- creases, fewer patrons in the library will ask reference questions. Waiting to con- sult a librarian, queuing at the reference desk, and competing for the assistance of reference desk personnel will dis- courage some patrons from getting the help they need.7 Eventually high gate counts may reach a point at which cur- rent staffing can no longer assist patrons at the same level of success (percentage of patrons reached) and/ or maintain the standard or level of reference service a library has traditionally offered its pa- trons. If it is desirable to improve or maintain the level of success and/ or the standard of reference service in a library, then it is appropriate to monitor library demand. PERSON-HOURS AND WORKLOAD To appreciate fully the impact of fluc- tuations in gate count and reference transactions on the adequacy of refer- ence desk staffing, it is necessary to scrutinize the individual person-hours scheduled at the reference desk during the same survey week. Table 5 reveals 434 College & Research Libraries September 1992 TABLE6 Library A (Group ll) Library B (Group llD Library C (Group V) Gate Count 1978 11,300 13,500 40,140 1988 15,189 39,301 46,041 the person-hours norms for each library group (by gate count size) in 1978 and 1988. While the total average gate count and the number of reference transactions in- creased 7% and 6% respectively, new norms for person-hours staffing the refer- ence desk indicate a total average decrease of 3%. Certain individual libraries that participated in both data studies showed such extreme increases or decreases in some areas that might warrant special attention and caution. Table 6 gives several examples of such libraries. Libraries A and Bin table 6 have sub- stantially increased their reference trans- actions and gate counts, despite a sizable decrease (21% and 40% respectively) in their person-hours at the reference desk. Library C increased its gate by 15%, but decreased its person-hours by 16% and reference transactions by 31%. Library C is possibly responding to the increased gate count and lower person-hours at the reference desk in a different manner than libraries A and B. When gate counts increase and person-hours decrease sig- nificantly outside the norms, as in these examples, the quality of reference serv- ice may suffer as staff members may try to compensate to satisfy the growing demand of users, or the number of refer- ence transactions will also decline pro- portionately as desk staff try to prevent an erosion of quality in reference service. Although individual library circum- stances might be responsible for some dis- parities, differences outside the norms, such as those in table 6, should alert ad- ministrators to the possibility of a severe problem in staffing adequacy. Among the matching 26libraries that participated in both the 1978 and 1988 studies, 16 (62%) had increases in the number of reference transactions and 14 Reference Transaction 1978 1,017 1,069 2,746 1988 2,231 1,385 1,877 Person Hours 1978 102 218 240 1988 81 131 201 (54%) had fewer person-hours staffing the desk (one library maintained the same number of person-hours). The matching library groups have shown the most fluctuation in the largest size (by gate count) libraries. The matching li- braries in group IV (gate counts 30,000- 39 ,999) show an average increase of 20% in gate count (users), while average per- son-hours and reference transactions have declined 20% and 3% respectively. Group V of the matching libraries in- creased its average gate count 44% and reference transactions 10%, while aver- age person hours decreased 14% be- tween 1978 and 1988. When analyzing a specific library's person hours, it is im- portant to evaluate in terms of reference transactions and gate count and also to consider the goals and mission of the library. Individual workload of reference desk staff is another important factor in as- sessing staffing adequacy, as well as the quality of reference service. Workload is obtained by dividing the number of ref- erence questions by the number of per- son-hours during the same typical week. Table 7 illustrates the new norms for in- dividual workload with the 1978 norms sized by their gate counts. Four of the five groups, excluding group III, in table 7 increased their aver- age individual workloads at the refer- ence desk. The overall average workload increased 8% between 1978 and 1988. While groups I and II (the smallest by gate count) have increased their average workloads the most, 26% and 14% re- spectively, these libraries may be better able to handle moderate increases be- cause of their smaller sizes. Groups IV and V, increasing their workloads by 3% and 8% respectively, may have some li- braries extending themselves beyond TABLE7 INDIVIDUAL WOKLOAD NORMS 1978 1988 Group I 3.49 4.41 Group II 6.36 7.28 Group III 8.20 7.48 Group IV 7.88 8.15 GroupV 7.55 8.16 TABLES POTENTIAL WORKLOAD NORMS BASED ON GATE COUNT 1978 1988 Group I 65.5 70.4 Group IT 106.2 116.4 Group ill 147.8 144.5 Group IV 235.2 262.2 GroupV 251.5 265.9 what is desirable for quality service be- cause of their increasing gate counts/ en- rollments and reference transactions and their declining average person-hours. Potential workload attempts to measure the adequacy of staffing based on potential patron use and to assess what impact this might have on the workload of reference desk staff. Potential workload is calcu- lated by dividing the number of users (gate count) in the library by the number of person hours staffing the desk during the same week. Gate count is preferred over enrollment data; however, studies have shown both to be good predictors of library usage. Table 8 shows the norms for potential workload based on gate count in 1978 and 1988. Potential workload norms have in- creased an average of 10% overall be- tween 1978 and 1988, as illustrated in table 8. While enrollments and gate counts have increased in recent years, many libraries have reduced person- hours in staffing due to budgetary con- straints. As has been stated previously, the number of reference questions is closely correlated to the number of per- son-hours. As gate count increases and person-hours decrease the percentage of users reached will most likely also de- Reference Desk Staffing Adequacy 435 cline. If reference librarians increase their workloads well above the norm to assist the increasing volume of patrons, quality of service may suffer. Potential workload may be helpful in examining reasons why a library is reaching a lower percentage of its users than is desired. Murfin showed that potential patron workloads of more than 300 have a strong and dire effect on the number of patrons able to receive service.8 Libraries with potential patron workloads exceed- ing 200 have shown a tendency to fall short of a "good" level of reference success in the Wisconsin-Ohio Reference Evalua- tion Program, a project of Marjorie Mur- fin (Ohio State University Libraries) and Charles Bunge (UniversityofWisconsin- Madison).9 Nineteen of the surveyed li- braries in the present study exceeded 200 Libraries with potential patron workloads exceeding 200 have shown a tendency to fall short of a 11good" level of success. in potential patron workload. Three of these libraries participated in the Wis- consin-Ohio Reference Evaluation Pro- gram measuring reference quality and success. All three fell below the rating established as "good." SUMMARY At present the fluctuation of norms for reference desk staffing is not yet alarm- ing. However, evidence suggests a decline of person-hours in reference staffing and in the ability of staff to accommodate an increased volume of users. This deteriora- tion has not yet reached a crisis stage, but does warrant continued study to prevent further decline. Certain libraries, based on their survey data, have already reached what for them may be a crisis stage in staffing. Only careful study by these individual libraries will determine if indeed this is the case. With the economic crisis in higher ed- ucation becoming more severe in recent years, it is essential for libtaries to use their staff efficiently and effectively. By 436 College & Research Libraries assessing the adequacy of desk staffing and comparing it with similar institu- tions, it may be possible to gain some insight for the future. How are reference departments ad- justing to increased service demands and queuing at the desk? Some libraries have reduced the number of reference service points or cut hours, eliminated or restricted phone reference, and/ or re- duced theprovisionoftoursand individu- alized bibliographic instruction classes. Other libraries have made changes in pub- lic service desk staffing. One of these September 1992 changes is the initiation of the informa- tion desk or cat~log assistance desk, often staffed by students or support staff. More than forty of the responding libraries in the present data study have an information desk, many initiated in the past ten years. Another staffing change reported by surveyed reference departments was the increased use of paraprofessional and student assistants at reference service points. Future stu- dies of reference staffing might examine any subsequent effect these changes may have on reference service. REFERENCES AND NOTES 1. Marjorie E. Murfin, "National Reference Measurement: What Can It Tell Us about Staffing," College & Research Libraries 44:321-32 (Sept. 1983). 2. John J. Regazzi and Rodney M. Hersberger, "Library Use and Reference Service: A Regression Analysis," (Paper presented at the ALA Annual Conference, July 18-24, 1976, Chicago, Dlinois [ED129219]). 3. Marjorie Murfin and Fred Ruland, "Measurements of Reference Transactions: An In-depth Statistical Study of Demand and Capacity in Twenty-two Libraries over a Two-year Period," in Library Effectiveness: A State of the Art, papers from a 1980 ALA Preconference (Chicago: American Library Assn., 1980), p.207. 4. Murfin, "National Reference Measurement," p.324. 5. Richard Strayner, "The Use of Empirical Standards in Assessing Public Library Effec- tiveness," in Library Effectiveness: A State of the Art, papers from a 1980 ALA Preconfer- ence (Chicago: American Library Assn., 1980), p.351. 6. Murfin, "National Reference Measurement," p.324. 7. John J. Regazzi and Rodney M. Hersberger, "Queues and Reference Service: Some Implications for Staffing," College & Research Libraries 30:293-98 (July 1978); Murfin, "National Reference Measurement," p.327. 8. Murfin, "National Reference Measurement," p.327. 9. The Wisconsin-Ohio Reference Evaluation Program measures the satisfaction level of reference patrons. The author used unpublished data from this project provided by Marjorie Murfin, The Ohio State University Libraries, Columbus, Ohio. What you naad for most alactronic rafaranca services. What~uneed lor FirstSearch. WELCOME TO FIRSTSEARCH I Use The Firs!Search catalog to find lnfonnation-<>r records- about books, articles, theses, films, computer software, and other types of material on the subject you need. - First, select a broad topic area and a database. -Then, type your search. You can usa upper or lower casa. - From the Ust of Aaoords, ae1oct a reoord to vfow. -To do another search, typeS and your search term. Other actions you can do are listed on each screen. Just type the ACTION nama or fln~t lenor. PRESS ENTER TO CONTINUE options for providing reference databases to their patrons. None are as simple and as effective as The First.Search Catalog. FirstSearch is ... • An online service with 2 5 databases. Some are your patrons' favorites. Some, like WorldCat (the OCLC Online Union Catalog) are available nowhere else. And some, like Readers' Guide, include OCLC holdings symbols. And more databases will be added regularly-at no charge to you. • A service easy enough for your patrons to use without special training. Powerful enough to find infonnation they need. And accessible in the library or from remote locations. • A service that requires little capital investment and computer knowledge. You use existing equipment. And you administer the service with existing staff. Computer specialists are not needed. With First.Search, there's no extra furniture or hardware to buy. No lines of patrons waiting to use a tenninal. No complicated networks or software to install. No databases to load. No computer storage to buy. No new employees to hire. All you do is subscribe. CampUcatad Cludca. fte Simple Sahdlon. FlntSean:b. U.S. •nd C•n•d• (800) 848-15878 Ohio (800) 848-8286 OCLC ... for toda 's libraries Power ''LTI consistently delivers first-rate database services. Many INNOPAC users have benefited from LTI's custom item field builds and impressive authority control processing. We have found that even the most complex jobs are completed on-time and in accord with library specifications. '' Michael upfold, Manager, Implementation Services, Innovative Interfaces Inc. "- We can't promise 110, but we will promise 95. That's right. LTI guarantees that its affordable, machine-only Authority Control will link 95% or more of your library's controlled headings to an LC or LTI authority record. • No exceptions! No excuses! "- When manual review is requested, only professional librarians are used as editors and link rates approach 100%. "- LTI maintains the complete LC MARC authority flies (updated weekly), supplemented with over 400,000 LTI authority records and 250,000 proprietary "cross links." •Contact LTI for more information on authority record link results. "A Commitment to Quality" • LIBRARY TECHNOLOGIES, INC. 1142E Bradfield Road Abington, PA 19001 (215) 576-6983 Fax: (215) 576-0137