Tel: 925/283-0970 · Fax: 925/283-2053 · Email: agold@ccnet.com

BACKGROUND *

METHODOLOGY *

RESPONSES *

KEY FINDINGS *

COLLECTIONS *

STAFF *

SERVICES *

TECHNOLOGY *

FACILITIES *

FUNDING *

GENERAL *

APPENDIX A – Survey *

APPENDIX B – Responding Libraries *

APPENDIX C – Collections *

APPENDIX D – Staffing *

APPENDIX E – Services *

APPENDIX E – Technology *

APPENDIX F – Facilities *

APPENDIX H – Funding *

APPENDIX I – General *

In the fall of 2000 the Council of California County Law Librarians contracted for consultant services to perform a legal information needs assessment for the County Law Libraries. The purpose of the study was to assist key legal information providers in the State of California to assess the new environment for legal information needs and develop a strategic plan to most effectively meet those rapidly changing needs, while at the same addressing issues of reducing funding. As part of the needs assessment an in depth survey of all 58 County Law Libraries was required.

An initial survey instrument was developed and the Advisory Group for the study reviewed the survey instrument and revisions were made based on input from the group. The survey was mailed to all 58 County Law Libraries based on the mailing lists supplied by the Council on February 24, 2001 with responses to be returned by March 16, 2001.

The survey consisted of seven sections:

• Collections
• Staff
• Services
• Technology
• Facilities
• Funding
• General Comments

The survey is included as Appendix A.

The data collected was a mix of specific quantitative data and narrative data based on assessments made by the respondents.

43 of the 58 County Law Libraries responded to the survey for a response rate of 74%. Comparatively, 37 libraries responded to the 1997/98 California State Library annual statistical survey and 38 libraries responded to the same survey in 1998/99.

Appendix B contains the complete list of all libraries with indications of their return status for this survey and the prior two years of CSL surveys.

Those libraries that did not respond were:

With few exceptions those libraries that had not responded to the previous two California State Library (CSL) annual statistical surveys were also the ones that did not respond to this survey. However, conversely, of the 13 libraries that did not respond to the previous two years of CSL surveys, 6 did respond to this survey. Additionally, for the 15 libraries that had responded in only one of two of the previous years for the CSL survey, 10 responded to this survey.

For libraries that had not responded to the survey a reminder postcard was sent on March 15, 2001 asking for the survey to be returned. A message was also posted to the Council listserv requesting surveys to be returned.

In addition, contacts were attempted with those 18 libraries that had not initially returned the CCCLL survey and also not returned the CSL survey in the two prior years. Copies of the survey were either mailed or faxed to 4 of those libraries that could not find the original survey. For those 18 libraries that were contacted, 6 libraries eventually returned the survey.

Even for those libraries that did not return the survey, the contacts provided some information about law library services in those counties as follows:

Of the 15 libraries that did not return the survey, 14 of them were rural libraries.

The 35 libraries that responded to the survey represent a good geographic cross section of the various counties in the state as follows:

Based on the return rate, the survey results can be considered statistically valid. However, since the preponderance of libraries not returning the survey were rural libraries, the results can not necessarily be extrapolated to include that category of library, e.g. percentage of libraries reporting professional staff on the survey may be different from percentage of non-responding rural libraries with professional staff. Although definitive assumptions about non-responding libraries cannot be made, it is safe to assume that their use and service patterns will more closely mirror other rural libraries, than a statewide mix of rural, suburban and urban libraries.

The survey results paint a fairly bleak picture of County Law Libraries today, particularly for the smaller suburban and all rural libraries. Funding levels are falling, while at the same time the cost of materials and staff is increasing. While technology has improved access for some libraries, it is not an option for others because of cost and access issues. Buildings are old and not adequate for the needs of modern law libraries.

By survey sections the key findings are as follows:

• County law libraries have traditional print format collections, with access to materials in digital formats a secondary access point.

• Print clearly remains the dominant format but various non-print formats, e.g. CD, licensed databases, Internet, have increased access to the various types of materials.
• Local materials, state and federal materials were most likely to be owned in print with Internet access the secondary format.
• Subject materials and finding tools were most likely to be owned in print with access via CD the secondary format.
• Out of state materials were the least likely type to be owned in print although non-print access via licensed databases and the Internet increased the likelihood of libraries have some access to out of state materials.
• Journals and newspapers were owned by approximately ¾ of the libraries with only a very few having access via the Internet or licensed databases.

• California, Federal and local collections are the strongest collections, mirroring patterns of usage.

• State collections were rated the highest with 100% of the responding libraries giving their state collections either a 4 or 5.
• Federal and local collections were rated at those levels by approximately ¾ of the libraries.
• The lowest rated collections were journals and newspapers, followed closely by out of state collections.

• California and Federal resources are the most heavily used.
• Online resources are the ones most frequently requested that are not available.

• Online resources –Internet, Lexis/Nexis
• Shepard’s – various
• Nolo/self help
• CFR
• CEB
• Martindale-Hubble

• Libraries would add online resources.

• Online resources/Internet access
• Shepard’s- various
• Nolo/self-help
• CEB

• There are essentially equal number of hours of professional, paraprofessional and clerical staff hours available, based on FTE, which reflects the actual number of hours of staff time available.

• 29 of the 43 responding libraries reported having professional staff.
• The range for professional staff was from 0 to 15 with a median of 1; most staff work full time in the position.
• The range for paraprofessional staff was from 0 to 16 with a median of 2; approximately half the staff work full time in the position.
• The range for clerical staff was from 0 to 30 with a median of 1.5; the percentage of time spent doing library work was evenly split.

• Smaller, more rural libraries have staff with duties other than library work.

• 8 libraries, primarily smaller suburban and rural, reported staff having duties to perform other than Law Library duties. Those duties were generally associated with other court-related activities.

• Many libraries that do not have certificated librarians do have staff with some college or graduate degree.

• Nearly half the responding libraries indicated that staff had a college degree, with a slower lower percentage indicating a high school degree.
• The opposite ends of the spectrum – J.D. and AA – both had approximately a quarter responding.

• Staffing levels have not decreased significantly over the past five years and for nearly a quarter of responding libraries, staffing levels have actually increased.

• The same percentage of libraries reported increasing and decreasing staff, while nearly double that number reported no change.
• Very few libraries noted decreasing the number of MLS degree or professional staff.

• Uniformly, the greatest need for staff would appear to be for staff with technology background and skills.

• Customers use the library early in the week during the morning and early afternoon.

• The ends of the week are the busiest days with Monday and Tuesday being the busiest.
• Friday is noted as both busy and not busy so it would appear to be a local pattern, based on local services.
• The middle of the week is definitely the lowest use point, with Wednesday and Thursday rated low for use.
• The mid-morning hours and into the afternoon are the heaviest use times.
• The early morning from 8 –10 has the lowest usage, followed closely by the 4-6 p.m. period.
• Libraries offer reasonable access to telephone and email reference.

• 56% offer email reference
• 95% offer telephone reference
• Most libraries circulate materials, but nearly 50% restrict circulation to attorneys.

• Customers use equipment and ask for computer resources and legal assistance.

• The most heavily used services include copiers, typewriters, Internet access and staff reference assistance.
• Customers ask for more Internet access, word-processing, legal databases and legal assistance
• Libraries would add legal assistance and Internet access.
• Libraries would add Saturday and evening hours

• Technology has made major impacts in libraries, but a gap remains for smaller and more rural libraries, for Internet access, and for the public.

• 35 libraries responded that they had computer terminals for staff (81% of responding libraries)
• Median of 3 computers per library for staff access
• Median of 2 computers per library for staff Internet access
• 28 responded that they had terminals for the public (65% of responding libraries).
• Median of 2 computers per library for public access
• Median of 1 computer per library for public Internet access
• For those libraries that do not offer Internet access, reasons included funding, access/security issues and lack of priority with County.
• Customers use the Internet and CD resources most often and ask for these resources, as well as subscription databases most often; libraries would add subscription databases and more Internet access.

• There has been a major lack of investment in capital projects for the libraries, resulting in significant facility related issues for almost all libraries.
• The median age of the facilities is 43 years old.
• Most renovations took place at least 10 years ago, before many technology issues could be addressed.
• The median square footage is 2,541 with 28 reader seats.
• Only 44% of libraries rated their facilities on the high end of the adequacy scale.
• Fewer than 1/3 of libraries rated their parking as adequate.

• There is opportunity for growth in applying energy efficiency measures.
• Only 2 libraries have applied for any grants for energy conservation and none were received.
• Less than half the libraries responding to the survey indicated any type of energy efficiency measures taken.
• Libraries need more space and more up to date technology access.
• Libraries liked their courthouse locations.
• ADA access is a major issues

• Over half the libraries have 95%+ of their income from filing fees, with over 90% having over 70% of their income from filing fees.
• Nearly 60% have had their filing fee income decrease in the last five years.
• 70% of libraries have had their filing fee income decrease by 10% in the last five years, with an additional 20% experiencing a 25% decrease.
• Nearly all libraries had increased their filing fees, with nearly 70% having 1 or 2 increases.

• Very few libraries offer any type of value-added, fee-based services.

The collections portion of the survey gathered quantitative data on the types of collections held by the libraries, the format of the collections (print, CD, licensed databases, Internet, other), the number of titles, and the adequacy. Narrative data was gathered on use of the collection, resources not available, and adding collection resources. 43 libraries responded to the collections portion of the survey. The complete responses to the narrative questions are included as Appendix C.

For each collection type:

• Local/municipal (codes/ordinances)
• State (codes/regs/cases)
• Out-of-state(codes/regs/cases)
• Federal (codes/regs/cases)
• Subject Materials (family law, textbooks, etc.)
• Finding Tools(digests, encyclopedias, directories, Shepard’s, indices, etc.)
• Journals
• Newspapers
• Other

respondents were asked to provide information at to whether they had collections of that type and what the formats for the collections were. The format choices were:

• Print
• CD
• Licensed Databases
• Internet
• Other

Nearly all libraries had some type of access to the following material types:

• Local/municipal (codes/ordinances)
• State (codes/regs/cases)
• Federal (codes/regs/cases)
• Subject Materials (family law, textbooks, etc.)
• Finding Tools(digests, encyclopedias, directories, Shepard’s, indices, etc.)
• Journals

By type the following access patterns emerged:

• Local materials were most likely to be owned in print with Internet access the secondary format
• State materials were most likely to be owned in print with access via CD, licensed databases and the Internet similar
• Out of state materials were the least likely type to be owned in print although non-print access via licensed databases and the Internet increased the likelihood of libraries have some access to out of state materials.
• Federal materials were most likely owned in print, with Internet access the strongest secondary format.
• Subject materials were most likely to be owned in print with access via CD the secondary format.
• Finding tools were most likely to be owned in print with access via CD and licensed databases the secondary formats.
• Journals and newspapers were owned by approximately ¾ of the libraries with only a very few having access via the Internet or licensed databases.

Print clearly remains the dominant format but various non-print formats, e.g. CD, licensed databases, Internet, have increased access to the various types of materials.

Libraries rated their state collections the highest with 100% of the responding libraries giving their state collections either a 4 or 5. Federal and local collections were rated at those levels by approximately ¾ of the libraries. The lowest rated collections were journals and newspapers, followed closely by out of state collections. The adequacy ratings correlate closely with the number of libraries indicating collections in those areas, in a variety of formats.

The collections noted as most heavily used by the libraries included:

• California codes
• California cases
• US codes
• Self Help – Nolo
• Shepard’s
• Forms
• Rutter
• CEB
• Witkin
• Pleading & Practice

The heavy use of California and US materials correlates closely with the adequacy and collections of the libraries. However, the lower adequacy ratings of subject materials and finding tools do not correlate as well with the higher use of the other materials noted as heavily used.

Those resources which libraries indicated were frequently asked for but were not available included:

• Online resources –Internet, Lexis/Nexis
• Shepard’s – various versions
• Nolo/self help
• CFR
• CEB
• Martindale-Hubble

The only resource both noted as heavily used and not available were the CEB resources, indicating that in those libraries that had them they were heavily used but in those libraries that do now own them they are frequently requested. The lower adequacy rating for subject materials correlates with the same type of resources being requested by patrons.

Libraries were asked which resources they would add and the responses correlate well with the resources noted as not available or with a lower adequacy rating.

• Online resources/Internet access
• Shepard’s- various versions
• Nolo/self-help
• CEB

The comments provided in general a bleak picture of the ability of libraries to develop and maintain collections equal to the needs of their users, particularly in the small to medium sized libraries. Comments focused on increasing reductions in materials budgets as overall budgets diminished, forcing the cancellation of subscriptions. Sample comments include:

• Very limited collection. A lot of our materials are outdated.
• We have staff access to Internet only.
• We currently have a pretty well-rounded collection, but because of our financial deficit we are having to cancel about $30,000 in subscriptions.
• In 1994 the collection was excellent for the county residents. Since then the budget for materials has decreased by 1/3 and inflation is up by 37%. It is impossible to keep more than one current title in some subject areas and we have been forced to cut duplicate copies that circulated, and the out-of-state codes. Although this info can also be found on the Web, our clients seem to prefer the paper. As filing fee income decreases, our collection will eventually be down to just basic titles.

The staff portion of the survey collected data on the type and numbers of staff that libraries have, as well as the use of volunteers and interns. Data was also gathered on other duties performed by library staff, as well as educational backgrounds and whether libraries had seen changes in staffing levels. The complete responses for the narrative questions are included as Appendix D.

Libraries were asked to categorize staff into four possible categories:

• Professional
• Paraprofessional
• Clerical
• Other

The number and FTE of staff, as well as the % of time spent on library duties was also requested.

29 of the 43 responding libraries reported having professional staff. The correlation between number of staff and FTE for the professional and paraprofessional classes is similar, but there is a wide differential for the clerical staff. Based on FTE, which better reflects the actual number of hours of staff time available, there are essentially equal number of hours of professional, paraprofessional and clerical staff hours.

The range for professional staff was from 0 to 15 with a median of 1; most staff work full time in the position. The range for paraprofessional staff was from 0 to 16 with a median of 2; approximately half the staff work full time in the position. The range for clerical staff was from 0 to 30 with a median of 1.5; the percentage of time spent doing library work was evenly split. Based on this data, it would appear that if a library has a professional staff member it is more likely that they will be a full time staff member, while paraprofessional and clerical staff frequently are less than full time.

Only 15 libraries reported staff in the Other category, with the majority listed as less than full time.

Only 8 libraries reported using any type of volunteer or intern with most indicating the volunteers were available on an occasional or as needed basis, generally less than one day per week; the hours available per week ranged from 2 – 18.

18 libraries included information on other duties assigned to library staff, or commented on the number of hours staff were available. Typical of the comments were:

• Full time jobs in Superior Court
• Law Librarian split 50% with Superior Court and is also Jury Coordinator for County
• Combined with DA office
• Maintaining Judge's libraries in their chambers, their bench, plus 5 divisions of the court
• Judicial Assistant who is also Judicial Secretary

In general, it was the smaller, more rural and suburban libraries who noted that staff shared duties with other departments.

Libraries without a staff member with an MLS degree were asked what degrees the staff did have.

Nearly half the responding libraries indicated that staff had a college degree, with a slower lower percentage indicating a high school degree. The opposite ends of the spectrum – J.D. and AA – both had approximately a quarter responding. Based on this data, it would appear that a significant percentage of libraries that do not have certificated librarians do have staff with some college or graduate degree. The libraries which noted the Other category commented that staff had para-legal training or degrees, or were law school students.

Libraries were asked if staffing levels had changed in the past five years, by type of position.

Interestingly, the same percentage of libraries reported increasing and decreasing staff, while nearly double that number reported no change. Very few libraries noted decreasing the number of MLS degree or professional staff. Based on this data it would appear that staffing levels have not decreased significantly over the past five years and for nearly a quarter of responding libraries, staffing levels have actually increased.

ADDING STAFF

Uniformly, the greatest need for staff would appear to be for staff with technology background and skills. Libraries responded strongly that this was an area in which they definitely needed assistance. However, comments were also included that more and better collections were needed instead of staff.

The general context of the comments about staffing fell into three major areas:

• Difficulty in attracting staff
• Salary levels
• Multiplicity of work being performed by staff

The general sense was that it is increasingly difficult to attract and retain qualified professional staff, particularly so in rural areas. However, in urban areas, there is competition from the private sector on the basis of salaries.

Sample comments were:

• We find the legal/paralegal background/education to be the most valuable background for an employee in the library.
• Becoming difficult to attract and retain librarians because revenue is not sufficient to keep salaries and benefits competitive with law schools and law firms.

Libraries were asked to provide information about their services, including hours, off-site services, and circulation services. The complete responses to the narrative questions are included as Appendix E.

Based on data, it would appear that the ends of the week are the busiest days with Monday and Tuesday being the busiest. However, Friday is noted as both busy and not busy so it would appear to be a local pattern, based on local services. The middle of the week is definitely the lowest use point, with Wednesday and Thursday rated low for use.

The mid-morning hours and into the afternoon appear to be heaviest use times, not surprising as it mirrors court activity. The early morning from 8 –10 has the lowest usage, followed closely by the 4-6 p.m. period.

Libraries were asked to indicate which off-site services they provide to test customer usage outside the library. Virtually all responding libraries provide telephone reference and a significant percentage provides email reference. For those libraries which noted other offsite services the most commonly noted services were:

• Fax copies
• Interlibrary loan
• Mail copies
• Website

Since libraries selected the other category based on their concept of offsite services, it is interesting to note what services were included, as some might not generally be categorized as off site services, e.g. interlibrary loan, since the customer would likely come into the building to initiate the service or receive the material.

Libraries were asked whether they circulated materials outside the library, and if so, whether it was only to attorneys.

While nearly all libraries responding to this question indicated that materials were circulated outside the library, the 28 libraries indicating that they did circulate materials represent only 65% of the total 43 libraries responding to the entire survey.

The results relating to circulation to the public versus attorneys is not clear as responding libraries may have inadvertently indicated both categories. However, based on the data, approximately half the libraries will circulate materials to the general public; an assumption can be made that the remainder limit their circulation services to attorneys only.

Libraries were asked which hours and days of service they would add if they could. Saturdays were the clear choice of libraries responding to the question, along with evening hours.

The services that libraries noted as used most heavily included:

• Copiers
• Internet/CD
• Reference assistance
• Typewriters

Interestingly, two of the services – copiers and typewriters – are ones not unique to the library but are one that make the collections of greater value to the customer. Reference assistance, in various forms, was noted, along with Internet access.

The most frequently requested services the libraries noted customers asking for that were not available included:

• Internet/computer access
• Westlaw, Lexis/Nexis
• Legal advice/forms
• Word-processing

The preponderance of technology related services – three of the four most often requested services - correlates with the collection information. The issue of legal advice is a policy issue that libraries will have to consider individually.

Libraries were asked which services they would add if possible.

• Computer/Internet
• Notary public/paralegal services/legal research/legal assistance

There is a good correlation between services to add with requested services. The concept of adding legal advice type services is one that would need to be dealt with on a policy basis.

The general comments around services focused on funding issues and access to computer resources. The differences between the lay customer and the attorney were also highlighted.

Sample comments included the following:

• Lack of funds is our primary reason for not providing additional services.
• The cost of legal representation is forcing people to become their own lawyers. This requires more services geared to the law public. This takes staff time and staff training.

Libraries were asked about the number computers for staff and public use and whether Internet access was available. Complete text of the narrative comments are included as Appendix F.

	# of libraries responding	# of computer terminals	Median	# of libraries responding	# with Internet access	Median
Staff	35	229	3	27	192	2
Public	28	130	2	17	59	1

35 libraries responded that they had computer terminals for staff (81% of responding libraries) and 28 responded that they had terminals for the public (65% of responding libraries). Median numbers were used to develop a statewide picture of computer access, in order not to skew the numbers based on the a few large or small libraries responding. The median numbers were low for computer access:

• 3 computers per library for staff access
• 2 computers per library for public access

Internet access fared even less well than general computer access.

• 2 computer per library for staff Internet access
• 1 computer per library for public Internet access

For those libraries that do not offer Internet access, various reasons were given:

• Funding
• Access/security issues
• Priority with County

Funding would appear to be the primary reason although there were ancillary reasons also mentioned. Interestingly, the issues of access and pornography were mentioned by some libraries, as well as the Law Library having a low technology priority with the County.

Libraries noted various types of technology that are heavily used. Many of the comments were actually collection related such as Westlaw and Lexis/Nexis. Some type of Internet access, and/or access to database services via the Internet were frequently mentioned.

• Internet access
• CD-Rom resources

Comments on technologies not available generally focused around types of Internet access and free or reduced cost access to expensive subscription databases. The concept of having access to subscription databases for patrons with their own passwords was also mentioned. There was little comment on types of network access, such as DSL or T-1 access.

• Internet access
• Westlaw, Lexis/Nexis (free)
• Dissomaster
• Forms

Libraries generally saw specific, technology based content resources as the top priority for addition, with a variety of access options, including user accounts and flat rate service. Internet access in general was the next most popular option, with some libraries opting for fee-based access.

• Westlaw, Lexis/Nexis
• Free for public
• Flat rate service
• User accounts
• Internet
• Free
• Fee

The comments in general focused on the need for technology updating but also the high cost of doing so. Better products from vendors were also mentioned by several respondents.

Sample comments included:

• We had online legal resources but we could not afford the upkeep.
• Revenue is insufficient to keep up with changes in technology and to have people with the skills needed to get most from technology or to administer the systems.
• The biggest help to us would be a vendor who would target the library market for an ecommerce application suited to the delivery of info rather than goods. Instead of every library developing its own software and scripting, we need a vendor who will do it for us. The software would need to allow us to charge fees to recover some or all of the extra costs the database vendors (Lexis, Westlaw, LoisLaw) would charge us for enabling these services.

Libraries were asked to provide information about their facilities. The complete text of all narrative comments on facilities is included as Appendix G.

Facility information was provided as follows:

• Location

• Age originally built

• Age when remodeled

• Square feet

• Reader seats

The data would indicate that there has a major lack of investment in capital projects for the libraries, with even most renovations taking place over 10 years ago, before technology changes were often included.

Libraries were asked to rate the adequacy of the facility and parking on a scale of 1(poor) to 5 (excellent).

Less than half the libraries rated their facility with a 4 to 5 and less than 1/3 rated the parking with a 4 or 5. Based on the qualitative data relating to age and the quantitative data relating to adequacy, the state of the library facilities is a major issue.

Libraries were asked whether they had taken any energy efficiency measures or applied for any grants to do so. Only 22 libraries responded to this question so a majority of libraries would appear not to be active in this area.

• 2 libraries have applied for grants
• 0 libraries received grants
• 11 libraries have taken some specific energy efficiency measures, such as lighting replacement
• 19 libraries have taken some general energy efficiency measures, such as adjusting heating/cooling levels

When asked what works best, the answers tended to be broadly construed but with a few key comments:

• Courthouse location
• Study carrels
• Conference rooms
• Reading room

Some libraries commented that nothing seemed to work well in their facilities.

When asked what works least well in the facility, libraries clearly responded with technology access as the key problem. Several libraries expressed concerns about ADA access, and seating in general. Since many of the libraries are in older, un-renovated facilities, issues relating to cabling and wiring, as well as general accessibility, would be expected.

• Technology access
• ADA access
• Seating

When asked what they would change in the facility, the comments focused the basic inadequacy of most of the facilities. The key issues identified were:

• More space
• Move outside courthouse to increase after hours access
• ADA compliance
• Technology

While libraries identified being part of the Courthouse as a positive, a number of them noted that it also restricted after hours and weekend access as a result.

Some libraries provided extensive comments about their facilities that provided a good sense of what the facility issues are. Comments were made on assistance provided by the County and the problems that may create.

• Court has removed most of its conference rooms, so the Law Library 'hosts' pre-trial conferences several days each week. These conferences can get very heated and noisy.
• Poor location for present times but with limited resources in a small county it is the best that is available.

Libraries were asked to describe their recent experience with funding, in particular with increases or decreases in filing fees. The complete narrative comments on funding are included as Appendix H.

• Over half the libraries have 95%+ of their income from filing fees, with over 90% having over 70% of their income from filing fees.
• Nearly 60% have had their filing fee income decrease in the last five years.
• 70% of libraries have had their filing fee income decrease by 10% in the last five years, with an additional 20% experiencing a 25% decrease.
• Nearly all libraries had increased their filing fees, with nearly 70% having 1 or 2 increases.

Libraries were asked if they provided any value-added fee based services. Only 35% of libraries noted that they have any fee based services. The services mostly frequently mentioned were:

• Fax
• Conference room rental
• Westlaw, Lexis/Nexis

For those libraries that noted that they provide fee- based services, the percentage of income generated by those services ranged in the 1% – 5% range.

The funding comments highlighted the increasing difficulty of keeping pace with the costs of staff and materials in the face of continuing decline of revenues from filing fees, even with fee increases being put in place.

Sample comments included the following:

• Even with a $3 filing fee increase in January, our filing revenue continues to decrease. The number of filings in limited jurisdiction cases has dropped 50% in the last 2 years. In addition, our copy machine revenue, which is the next largest amount of revenue we receive, has dropped from $26,000 in 1995 to $15,000 est. for 2000-01 fiscal year. As of February 2001 our filing numbers had dropped 6.5% from last year at the same time.
• We were able to increase our filing fee portion effective 1/01 by $5.00 which brings it to $25.00. We will also be requesting another increase for next year as well. Right now the Trust Fund is about $50,000 in the red due to dramatic drop in civil filings in our county, many more fees being waived, and the ever increasing cost of subscriptions

Many libraries responded with lengthy comments relating to the overall lack of funding…and attention…that county law libraries have had to endure over the past years. The complete text of all General comments is included as Appendix I.

Sample comments included:

• County government, in general, seems to lack the basic information regarding the County Law Library's role.
• We are in a permanent state of financial embarrassment.
• We have advertised and given two seminars on how to use the law library within the last four years. They were both modestly well attended (12-15 people) and well received.
• Greatest priority is establishing adequate funding sources beyond the filing fee, which is no longer sufficient to support county law libraries.
• It is of great concern that a county law library has no way to check on whether the courts in that county are collecting the law library's filing fee correctly and on whether they are distributing the collected amounts correctly.
• The funding mechanism of county law libraries worked well for 100 yrs. but may now be obsolete. It was created when ADR did not exist, citizens rarely represented themselves in court, and only lawyers used law libraries.

Please provide information about your collection. Indicate whether you have the type of material in the format indicated. If you know the number of titles for the type, please provide. Estimate the adequacy of the collection (Scale: 1= Poor to 5=Excellent).

1. List those collection resources that your library has that you believe are most heavily used by your patrons.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2. List those collection resources that your patrons regularly request that are not available in your library.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3. If you could add collection resources what would those be?

2. STAFF

1. If your library does not have any full time staff, please describe the staffing of the library, including other duties assigned to staff who work in the library.

 

 

 

 

 

 

2. For libraries without staff with an MLS (Master of Library Science) degree, what is the educational background of staff? (check all that apply)

• PhD.
• J.D.
• Masters Degree
• Batchelor’s Degree
• AA Degree
• High School Degree/GED
• Other (describe______________________)

1. Has the staffing of your library changed over the past five years? (check all that apply)?

• Added/increased MLS degree staff
• Lost/decreased MLS degree staff
• Added/increased professional staff
• Lost/decreased professional staff
• Increased total number of staff
• Decreased total number of staff

1. If your library were able to add staff, what positions would you add?

2. SERVICES

1. If you could add hours and/or days of services, which would those be?

 

 

 

 

 

 

2. List those services that your library has that you believe are most heavily used by your patrons.

 

 

 

 

 

3. List those services that your patrons regularly request that are not available in your library.

 

 

 

 

 

 

4. If you could add public services, which services would you add?

2. TECHNOLOGY

	# of computer terminals	# with Internet access
Staff
Public

1. If Internet access is not offered in the library, why is it not offered?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2. List those technology related resources/services that your library has that you believe are most heavily used by your patrons.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3. List those technology related resources/services that your patrons regularly request that are not available in your library.

 

 

 

 

 

 

4. If you could add technology related resources/services which ones would you add?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

General Technology Comments

6. FACILITY

1. Rank your facility based on it degree of adequacy (Scale: 1= Poor to 5=Excellent)

1

2

3

4

5

 

 

2. Rank the parking for your library based on it degree of adequacy (Scale: 1= Poor to 5=Excellent)

1

2

3

4

5

 

 

 

3. Has your library been involved with any energy efficiency projects in the recent years?

Applied for grants	YES	NO
Received Grants	YES	NO
Specific energy efficiency measures undertaken, e.g. lighting replacement	YES	NO
General energy efficiency measures undertaken, e.g. heating levels	YES	NO

 

4. List those facility related areas that work best for your patrons.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5. List those facility related areas that work least well for your patrons.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6. If you could change your facility, what specific aspects would you change?

2. FUNDING

1. What percentage of your overall funding comes from filing fees?

• 95% –100%
• 90% - 95%
• 80% - 90%
• 70% - 80%
• Less than 70%

1. Has your filing fee income decreased in the last five years?

• No
• Yes

• by 10%
• by 25%
• by 50%
• more than 50%

1. How many fee increases has your library received since 1990?

• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• More than 5

1. Has your library developed and implemented any new fee-based services within the past five years?

• Yes

Describe:     % of income derived from fee-based services _______

• No

2. GENERAL COMMENTS

Please include any general comments you have regarding specific issues that affect your County Law Library and/or specific areas that need improvement.

APPENDIX B – Responding Libraries