88 · ARL Statistics 2013–2014
Question Number Footnote
FLORIDA STATE cont.
2, 4 Last year the volume count for Main included electronic serials and documents as well as
e-books and ETDs. This year only e-books and ETDs were counted that is why there is a drop.
3 For the most part, the libraries used a bibliographic count to determine this number. However,
the Florida State University Panama Branch Library used a physical count.
4 The significant drop in number is due to an issue with the number submitted in 2012–2013,
which was 907,838. It should have been 79,904.
7.c Ringling was the only library unable to submit a number this year, despite submitting one last
year.
8 Various staff within the various branch libraries did experience salary changes, this was
accounted for as best as was possible. While the total amount of money paid to staff decreased,
the individual wages increased. The drop is due to a drop in library staffing.
8.a What is considered support staff does vary between branch libraries. Also there were changes
in staffing among the branch libraries, this was accounted for as best as was possible.
9 Several branch libraries did not have their figures for their other operating costs. Also,
the libraries that were able to report their figures this year had lowered their operating
expenditures.
10 Not all of the branch libraries included under the main library umbrella know the exact amount
for the fringe benefits. For some libraries this is because it varies too much between individual
employees. This number only includes the fringe benefits for Dirac, Strozier, Engineering,
Panama City, and Music.
11 There are some slight differences among the different branch libraries. Several branch libraries
do not know their exact number, and the Music Library actually designates 30%.
13.b The branch libraries may have changed who they considered to be professional staff vs support
staff. Also, there has been a trend over the last several years for the main library, in that each
year has fewer staff than the year before.
14 Most of the branch libraries increased (Music and Ringling) the number of presentations they
had.
14.a For the most part, this number is not based on sampling, however the Florida State University
Panama Branch library did use sampling to determine their numbers.
15 It may be that the presentations themselves are more tailored to smaller subjects/disciplines,
which may result in fewer participants, or that the times of many of the presentations do not
work for many students. The trend in this decrease appears across all library branches and there
does not seem to be straightforward evidence of why this is happening.
15.a For the most part, this figure is not based on representative sampling, however one of the
branch libraries (Panama City, FL) did use representative sampling.
16 The drop is due to a new method of sampling in an effort to get a more accurate number. Under-
reporting due to lack of staff may also contribute to the drop.
17 Several branch libraries began keeping better records of their initial circulations (i.e., Ringling).
In previous years, there were issues where a significant portion of the circulations were not
being counted.
18 This number does not include EBSCO searches. The EBSCO database searches for the number of
full-text article requests (journals) could not be determined.
19 This number includes EBSCO database searches. The drop is because more people used One
Search (a discovery tool) instead of going directly to the database.
20 This number includes EBSCO database searches. The increase could be due to the numbers
being under-reported last year, because of a lack of access to reports.
Question Number Footnote
FLORIDA STATE cont.
2, 4 Last year the volume count for Main included electronic serials and documents as well as
e-books and ETDs. This year only e-books and ETDs were counted that is why there is a drop.
3 For the most part, the libraries used a bibliographic count to determine this number. However,
the Florida State University Panama Branch Library used a physical count.
4 The significant drop in number is due to an issue with the number submitted in 2012–2013,
which was 907,838. It should have been 79,904.
7.c Ringling was the only library unable to submit a number this year, despite submitting one last
year.
8 Various staff within the various branch libraries did experience salary changes, this was
accounted for as best as was possible. While the total amount of money paid to staff decreased,
the individual wages increased. The drop is due to a drop in library staffing.
8.a What is considered support staff does vary between branch libraries. Also there were changes
in staffing among the branch libraries, this was accounted for as best as was possible.
9 Several branch libraries did not have their figures for their other operating costs. Also,
the libraries that were able to report their figures this year had lowered their operating
expenditures.
10 Not all of the branch libraries included under the main library umbrella know the exact amount
for the fringe benefits. For some libraries this is because it varies too much between individual
employees. This number only includes the fringe benefits for Dirac, Strozier, Engineering,
Panama City, and Music.
11 There are some slight differences among the different branch libraries. Several branch libraries
do not know their exact number, and the Music Library actually designates 30%.
13.b The branch libraries may have changed who they considered to be professional staff vs support
staff. Also, there has been a trend over the last several years for the main library, in that each
year has fewer staff than the year before.
14 Most of the branch libraries increased (Music and Ringling) the number of presentations they
had.
14.a For the most part, this number is not based on sampling, however the Florida State University
Panama Branch library did use sampling to determine their numbers.
15 It may be that the presentations themselves are more tailored to smaller subjects/disciplines,
which may result in fewer participants, or that the times of many of the presentations do not
work for many students. The trend in this decrease appears across all library branches and there
does not seem to be straightforward evidence of why this is happening.
15.a For the most part, this figure is not based on representative sampling, however one of the
branch libraries (Panama City, FL) did use representative sampling.
16 The drop is due to a new method of sampling in an effort to get a more accurate number. Under-
reporting due to lack of staff may also contribute to the drop.
17 Several branch libraries began keeping better records of their initial circulations (i.e., Ringling).
In previous years, there were issues where a significant portion of the circulations were not
being counted.
18 This number does not include EBSCO searches. The EBSCO database searches for the number of
full-text article requests (journals) could not be determined.
19 This number includes EBSCO database searches. The drop is because more people used One
Search (a discovery tool) instead of going directly to the database.
20 This number includes EBSCO database searches. The increase could be due to the numbers
being under-reported last year, because of a lack of access to reports.
