ED 363 358

AUTHORTITLE

INSTITUTION

SPONS AGENCY

PUB DATECONTRACTNOTEAVAILABLE FROM

PUB TYPE

EDRS PRICEDESCRIPTORS

DOCUMENT RESUME

IR 054 814

D'Elia, GeorgeThe Roles cf the Public Library in Society; Tb?Results of a National Survey. Final Report (and)Appendix.Gallup Organization, Inc., Princeton, N.J.; MinnesotaUniv., Minneapolis. Carlson School of Management.;Minnesota Univ., Minneapolis. Center for SurveyResearch.Office of Educational Research and Improvement (ED),Washington, DC.93

R039A10030488p.Urban Libraries Council, 1800 Ridge Avenue, Suite208, Evanston, IL 60201.Statistical Data (110) ReportsResearch/Technical (143) Tests/EvaluationInstruments (160)

MF02/PC20 Plus Postage.Adults; Attitudes; Blacks; Children; *CommunityLeaders; Comparative Analysis; Demography;Educational Objectives; Elementary SecondaryEducation; Higher Education; Hispanic Americans;*Library Role; Library Services; National Surveys;*Public Libraries; *Public Opinion; Questionnaires;Tables (Data); *User Needs (Information) ; Use

Studies; WhitesIDENTIFIERS African Americans

ABSTRACTNational samples of the general public (n=1,001) and

community opinion leaders (n=300) were asked to evaluate theimportance to their communities of 10 different roles of the publiclibrary. Respondents evaluated each role in terms of its importanceto their communities. Survey results indicate that the publiclibrary's roles to support the educational aspirations of thecommunity in general and the learning/discovery needs ofpreschoolers, students, and adult independent learners in perticularwere evaluated most highly by the general public and communityopinion leaders. Subsequent national surveys of African Americans(n=401) and Hispanic Americans (n=399) enabled comparison with asubsample of Caucasian Americans (n=846) and demonstrated the highestpercentages of "very important" responses for all three groups forthe three educational roles of the public library. All groupssuggested levels of support for libraries that were well above theactual national median in 1990. Detailed comparisons of the roleevaluations by the various demographic groups within each of thesamples are presented to enable libraries or branches to generate atentative set of roles based on its community demographics. Thesefindings are presented in 123 tables. A separately bound appendixdescribes survey methodology, presents the questionnaire, andcontains the frequency distributions for the responses from each

survey. (SLD)

U S DEPARTMENT OP EDUCATIONMoe or Education& Research and improvement

EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATIONCENTER (ERIC;

0 This document has been reproduced asreceived from the person or organization

GO

originating it.

140 Minor changes have been made to improve

enreproduction quality

en,

Points of view or Opinions stated in this clocu

Ng

men( do not necessarily represent official

fel)

OERI position or policy

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

This project (R039A10030) was supported by a grant from LibraryPrograms, Office of Educational Research and Improvement, U.S.Department of Education, under the Library Research andDemonstration Program of the Higher Education Act, Title II-B.The contents of this report do not reflect the policy nor do theycarry the endorsement of the U.S. Department of Education.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Many agencies and people were involved in the successful completion of this project. Theauthor is indebted to ...

the U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement,Library Programs for funding this project under the Library Research and DemonstrationProgram of the Higher Education Act, Title II-B. The author is particularly indebted toYvonne Carter who, as the Program Officer in charge of this project, provided guidanceand support that were essential to the completion of the project;

his collaborators at the University of Minnesota Center for Survey Research, mostespecially to Rosanna Armson, Director, and Lisa Peterson, Data Manager, and at TheGallup Organization, most especially to Max Larsen, Director of Government andEducation Research, and Elaine Christiansen, Project Director;

the members of the Advisory Committee for the project who provided the guidance andcritical assessments necessary to keep the project on track. The Committee includedKathleen Balcom, Director of the Arlington Heights [IL] Public Library; Susan Goldberg,Director of the Minneapolis [MN] Public Library and Information Center, Martin Gomez,Director of the Oakland [CA] Public Library; Sheldon Kaye, Director of the Portland[ME] Public Library; Samuel Morrison, Director of the Broward County [FL] PublicLibrary; Amy Owen, Director of the Utah State Library Division; and Carole Williams,Public Services Manager, Saint Paul [MN] Public Library;

Eleanor Jo Rodger, President of the Urban Libraries Council, who, as consultant to theproject, provided a unique blend of advice grounded in research methodology and goodmanagement practice; and

my assistants, Susan Brown and Russell Littlefield, doctoral students in the Informationand Decision Sciences Department of the Carlson School of Management, and JohnPipkin, Word Processing Specialist in the Information and Decision Sciences Department.

While many people contributed to the successful completion of the project, the author acceptssole responsibility for this report and any limitations or deficiencies therein. All interpretationsof the data and opinions either expressed or imp:ied are the responsibility of the aw Jon

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

A national sample of the genera public and a national sample of community opinionleaders were asked to evaluate the importance to their communities of ten different roles of thepublic library. These roles included the public library serving as

a community activities center,

a center for information about the community,

an educational support center for students of all ages,

a learning center for adult independent learners,

a recreational reading center of popular materials and best sellers,

a discovery and learning center for preschool children,

an information center for community businesses,

a general information center for community residents,

a research center for scholars and researchers, and

a comfortable, quiet place where residents could go to read, to think or to work.

The respondents evaluated each role in terms of its importance to their community using theresponse categories "not important," "slightly important," "moderately important," or "veryimportant."

The percentages of the general public sample (N = 1,001) responding "very important"to each role were (in ranked order): an educational support center for students of all ages (88%),a learning center for adult independent learners (85%), a discovery and learning center forpreschool children (83%), a research center for scholars and researchers (68%), a center forcommunity information (66%), an information cenw: for community businesses (55%), acomfortable place for people to read, think or work (52%), a recreational reading center (51%),a general information center for community residents (48%), and a community activities center(41%).

The percentages of the opinion leaders sample (N = 300) responding "very important" toeach role were (in ranked order): an educational support center for students of all ages (88%),a discovery and learning center for preschool children (81%), a learning center for adultindependent learners (78%), a center for information about the community ' 5%), a research

center for scholars and researchers (56%), a recreational reading center (53%), an informationcenter for community businesses (47%), a community activities center (46%), a generalinformation center for community residents (38%), and a comfortable, quiet place to read, thinkor work (38%).

The results of these surveys indicate that the public library's roles to support theeducational aspirations of the community - for preschoolers, students, and adult independentlearners -were evaluated most highly by both the general public and the community opinionleaders.

Subsequent national surveys of African Americans and Hispanic Americans, whencombined with the general public poll described above, enabled comparative analyses of theopinions of Caucasian American (N = 846), African American (N = 401) and Hispanic American(N = 399) respondents. The results of these comparisons indicated that among all three groupsthe highest percentages of "very irnpnrtant" responses occurred for the three educational roles ofthe public library (vis, the library as an educational support center for students of all ages, alearning center for adult independent learners, and a discovery and learning center for preschoolchildren). Further analyses indicated that there were only minor differences among the threegroups in terms of each group's rank orderilg of the ten roles from those roles receiving thehighest percentages of "very important" to those receiving the lowest percentages of "veryimportant." However, the anaiyses also indicated that African Americans and HispanicAmericans systematically evaluated each role of the public library more highly than didCaucasian Americans. In evaluating the roles of the library, the Caucasian Americans on averageselected the response category "very important" 64% of the time. while the African Americanson average selected the response category "very important" 81% of the time, and the HispanicAmericans on average selected the response category "very important" 78% of the time. In effect,the African American and Hispanic American respondents systematically evaluated theimportance of each of the roles of the public library to the community more highly than did theCaucasian American respondents, but all three groups tended to agree about which roles (theeducational roles) were most important relative to the other roles.

The respondents in all surveys were also asked their opinion about how much money theircommunities should spend on library services. The respondents were informed that communitiesin this country spend from as little as $4.00 per capita to as much as $100 per capita with thenational median at $16.00 per capita. Respondents were given a possible range of values from$0 per capita to more than $100 per capita in increments of $20. The average per capitaexpenditure that respondents thought the community should spend annually on the public librarywas $39.86 for African Americans, $33.73 for Caucasian Americans, $39.22 for HispanicAmericans, and $41.00 for the community opinion leaders. All of these suggested levels oflibrary support are well above the national median (for 1990) of $16.00 per capita.

Detailed comparisons of the role evaluations by various demographic groups within eachof the samples (the national sample, the African American sample, the Caucasian Americansample, and the Hispanic American sample) are presented. These demographic comparisons of

vi

the data can used to generate a tentative set of roles for a library or even for branches within alibrary system. For example, a library could begin by identifying the significant servicepopulations of its community based on race, gender, age, education level, size of household, orany of the other demographic characteristics reported in these surveys. For each of thesesignificant service populations (for example, African American households with preschoolers),the library could then identify the roles that are reported in these surveys to be most importantto the respondents who represent the service population (for example, the roles that wereidentified as most important by African American respondents living in households withpreschool children). The library could then draw the reasonable inference that the servicepopulations in its community would most likely share the same opinions about the importanceof the roles as the respondents in the surveys who represented those service populations. Alibrary could then develop a tentative set of roles for its community that could be tested by asmall community survey, or by interviews with representatives of its various service populations,or by town meetings, or by any other method appropriate to local conditions or resources.

vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION 1

PURPOSE OF THE PROJECT 1

OBJECTIVES OF THE PROJECT 1

TPE ROLES OF THE PUBLIC LIBRARY 1

PERSONNEL FOR THE PROJECT 2

INSTRUMENT DEVELOPMENT 3

The Roles Questions 3

The Financial Support Question 6Characteristics of the Respondents 7

SURVEY SAMPLES 8

DATA COLLECTION 9

PRESENTATIONS OF THE RESULTS OF THE SURVEYS 9

USES OF THE DATA 9

MARGINS OF ERROR IN THE DATA 10

PART I. THE NATIONAL SURVEY 13

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE NATIONAL SAMPLE 13

LIBRARY USE AMONG THE NATIONAL SAMPLE 17

EVALUATIONS OF THE IMPORTANCE OF THE ROLES BY NATIONALSAMPLE 17

DIFFERENCES IN THE EVALUATIONS OF THE IMPORTANCE OF THEROLES BY DIFFERENT SEGMENTS OF THE NATIONAL SAMPLE . 19

Region of the country 20Size of community 21

Gender 21

Age 21

RacelEthnicity 21

ix

Highest grade level completed 22Whether, tf the respondent had completed the 12th grade or less, the

respondent had a high school diploma or equivalent 22Whether, if the respondent had an associate degree, the respondent

graduated from an academic program or an occupationalprogram 22

Marital status 22Whether a marriea respondent was currently living with a spouse 23The number of people living in the home 23The number of preschool children living in the home 23The number of students living in the home 23Whether the respondent was currently a student 24Nature of the program of study 24Primary language spoken in the household. 24Employment statv- 24Total annual household income 25Whether anyone in the household was disabled 25Whether the respondent was disabled 25The nature of the disability 25Whether the respondent voted in the last (1988) presidential election 25The respondent's opinion about hislher current financial condition 25The respondents's opinion about hislher financial condition next year . . . 25

DIFFERENCES IN THE EVALUATIONS OF THE IMPORTANCE OF THEROLES BY LIBRARY USERS AND NONUSERS IN THE NATIONALS AMPLE 26Whether the respondent had gone to a public library in the past year . . . 26Whether someone else went to a public library for the respondent 26Whether the respondent called a public library in the last year 26Whether the respondent had made any use of a public library in the past

year 27

THE NATIONAL SAMPLE'S OPINION ABOUT AMOUNT OF PER CAPITASPENDING FOR PUBLIC LIBRARIES 27

DIPI-ERENCES OF OPINION AMONG SEGMENTS OF THE NATIONALSAMPLE ABOUT THE AMOUNT OF PER CAPITA SPENDING FORPUBLIC LIBRARIES 27Region of country 27RacelEthnicity 27Highest grade level completed 27The number of preschoolers living in the home 27Whether the respondent was a student 28Whether the respondent voted in last (1988) presidential election 28

The respondent's opinion about hislher financial condition next year 28

DIH,ERENCES OF OPINION ABOUT THE AMOUNT OF PER CAPITASPENDING FOR PUBLIC LIBRARIES BY LIBRARY USERS ANDNONUSERS IN THE NATIONAL SAMPLE 28

RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN THE EVALUATIONS OF THE ROLES ANDTHE OPINIONS ABOUT THE AMOUNT OF PER CAPITA SPENDINGFOR PUBLIC LIBRARIES IN THE NATIONAL SAMPLE 29

PART U. THE SURVEY OF AFRICAN AMERICANS 63

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE AFRICAN AMERICAN SAMPLE 63

LIBRARY USE AMONG THE AFRICAN AMERICAN SAMPLE 67

EVALUATIONS OF THE IMPORTANCE OF THE ROLES BY THE AFRICANAMERICAN SAMPLE 67

DII-1-1-RENCES IN THE EVALUATIONS OF THE IMPORTANCE OF THEROLES BY DII-1-bRENT SEGMENTS OF THE AFRICAN AMERICANSAMPLE 68Region of the country 69% of community which is African American 69Gender 70Age 70Highest grade level completed. 70Whether, if the respondent had completed the 12th grade or less, the

respondent had a high school diploma or equivalent 71

Whether, if the respondent had an associate degree, the respondentgraduated from an academic program or an occupationalprogram 71

Marital status 71

Whether a married respondent was currently living with a spouse 71

The number of people living in the home 71

The number of preschool children living in the home 71

The number of students living in the home 72Whether the respondent was currently a student 72Nature of the program of study 72Employment status 72Total annual household income 72Whether anyone in the household was disabled 73Whether the respondent was disabled 73The nature of the disability 73Whether the respondent voted in the last (1988) presidential election 73The respondent's opinion about hislher current financial condition 73The respondents's opinion about hislher financial condition next year . . 73

DIFEERENCES IN THE EVALUATIONS OF THE IMPORTANCE OF rimROLES BY LIBRARY USERS AND NONUSERS IN THE AFRICANAMERICAN SAMPLE 73

THE AFRICAN AMERICAN SAMPLE'S OPINION ABOUT AMOUNT OFPER CAPITA SPENDING FOR PUBLIC LIBRARIES 74

DIFFERENCES OF OPTNION AMONG SEGMENTS OF THE AFRICANAMERICAN SAMPLE ABOUT THE AMOUNT OF PER CAPITASPENDING FOR PUBLIC LIBRARIES 74Region of country 75% of community which is African American 75

Gender 75Marital sway 75

Nwnber of peopi ... living in the home 75Whether the respondent voted in the last (1988) presidential election . . 75The respondent's opinion about histher financial condition next year . . . 75

DIFFERENCES OF OPINION ABOUT THE AMOUNT OF PER CAPITASPENDING FOR PUBLIC LIBRARIES BY LIBRARY USERS ANDNONUSERS IN THE AFRICAN AMERICAN SAMPLE 75

RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN THE EVALUATIONS OF THE ROLES ANDTHE OPINIONS ABOUT THE AMOUNT OF PER CAPITA SPENDINGFOR PUBLIC LIBRARIES IN THE AFRICAN AMERICAN SAMPLE . . 76

PART III. THE SURVEY OF CAUCASIAN AMERICANS 107

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE CAUCASIAN AMERICAN SAMPLE 107

LIBRARY USE AMONG THE CAUCASIAN AMERICAN SAN1PLE 110

EVALUATIONS OF THE IMPORTANCE OF THE ROLES BY THECAUCASIAN AMERICAN SAMPLE 110

DIEEERENCES IN THE EVALUATIONS OF THE IMPORTANCE OF THEROLES BY DIFFERENT SEGMENTS OF THE CAUCASIANAMERICAN SAMPLE 111

Region of the country 113

Size of community 113

Gender 113

Age of the respondent 113

Highest grade level completed. 113

Whether, if the respondent had completed the 12th grade or less, therespondent had a high school diploma or equivalent 114

xii

Whether, if the respondent had an associate degree, the respondentgraduated from an academic program or an occupati-malprogram 114

Marital status 114Whether a married respondent was currently living with a spouse 114The number of people living in the home 114The number of preschool children living in the home 115

The number of students living in the home 115

Whether the respondent was currently a student 115Nature of the program of study 115Employment status 115Total annual household income 116Whether anyone in the household was disabled 116Whether the respondent was disabled 116The nature of the disability 117

Whether the respondent voted in the last (1988) presidential election . . . . 117The respondent's opinion about hislher current financial condition 117The respondents's opinion about hislher financial condition next year . . . . 117

DIFFERENCES IN THE EVALUATIONS OF THE IMPORTANCE OF THEROLES BY LD3RARY USERS AND NONUSERS IN THE CAUCASIANAMERICAN SAMPLE 117Whether the respondent had gone to a public library in the past year . . . 118Whether someone else went to a public library for the respondent 118Whether the respondent called a public library in the last year . . . . . . 118Whether the respondent had made any use of a public library in the past

year 118

THE CAUCASIAN AMERICAN SAMPLE'S OPINION ABOUT AMOUNT OFPER CAPITA SPENDING FOR PUBLIC LIBRARIES 118

DIH-ERENCES OF OPINION AMONG SEGMENTS OF THE CAUCASIANSAMPLE ABOUT THE AMOUNT OF PER CAPITA SPENDING FORPUBLIC LIBRARIES 119

Region of country 119Size of community 119Whether, if the respondent had completed 12th grade or less, the

respondent had a high school diploma. 119

Whether the respondent was a student. 119

DIFFERENCES OF OPINION ABOUT THE AMOUNT OF PER CAPITASPENDING FOR PUBLIC LIBRARIES BY LIBRARY USERS ANDNONUSERS IN THE CAUCASIAN AMERICAN SAMPLE 120

RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN THE EVALUATIONS OF THE ROLES ANDTHE OPINIONS ABOUT THE AMOUNT OF PER CAPITA SPENDINGFOR PUBLIC LIBRARIES IN THE CAUCASIAN AMERICANSAMPLE 120

PART IV. THE SURVEY OF HISPANIC AMERICANS 151

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE HISPANIC AMERICAN SAMPLE 151

LIBRARY USE AMONG THE HISPANIC AMERICAN SAMPLE 154

EVALUATIONS OF THE IMPORTANCE OF THE ROLES BY THE HISPANICAMERICAN SAMPLE 154

DIFFERENCES IN THE EVALUATIONS OF THE IMPORTANCE OF THEROLES BY DIFPERENT SE MENTS OF THE HISPANIC AMERICANS AMPLE 155Region of the country 157% of community which is Hispanic American 157Gender 157Age 157National ancestry 158Highest grade level completed 158Whether, if the respondent had completed the 12th grade or less, the

respondent had a high school diploma or equivalent 158Whether, if the respondent had an associate degree, the respondent

graduated from an academic program or an occupationalprogram 159

Marital status 159Whether a married respondent was currently living with a spouse 159The number of people living in the home 159The nwnber of preschool children living in the home 160The number of students living in the home 160Whether the respondent was currently a student 160Nature of the program of study 160The language spoken at home 160Employment status 161

Total annual household income 161

Whether anyone in the household was disabled 162

Whether the respondent was disabled 162The nature of the disability 162Whether the respondent voted in the last (1988) presidential election . . . . 162The respondent's opinion about hislher current financial condition 162The respondents's opinion about hislher financial condition next year . . . . 162

xiv

DIFFERENCES IN THE EVALUATIONS OF THE IMPORTANCE OF THEROLES BY LIBRARY USERS AND NONUSERS IN THE HISPANICAMERICAN SAMPLE 163Whether the respondent had gone to a public library in the past year . . . 163Whether someone else went to a public library for the respondent 163Whether the respondent called a public library in the last year 163Whether the respondent had made any use of a public library in the past

year 163

THE HISPANIC AMERICAN SAMPLE'S OPINION ABOUT AMOUNT OFPER CAPITA SPENDING FOR PUBLIC LIBRARIES 164

DIFFERENCES OF OPINION AMONG SEGMENTS OF THE HISPANICAMERICAN SAMPLE ABOUT THE AMOUNT OF PER CAPITASPENDING FOR PUBLIC LIBRARIES 164Region of country 164% of community which is Hispanic American 164Gender 164Age 165

National ancestry 165

Highest grade level completed 165

Whether, if the respondent had completed the 12th grade or less, therespondent had a high school diploma 165

Marital status 165

The number of people living in the home 165

The number of preschool children living in the home 166Principal language spoken at home 166Total annual household income 166Whether the respondent voted in last (1988) presidential election 166The respondent's opinion about hislher current financial condition 166The respondent's opinion about fliFther financial condition next year 166

DIFI-ERENCES OF OPINION ABOUT THE AMOUNT OF PER CAPITASPENDING FOR PUBLIC LIBRARIES BY LIBRARY USERS ANDNONUSERS IN THE HISPANIC AMERICAN SAMPLE 167

RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN THE EVALUATIONS OF THE ROLES ANDTHE OPINIONS ABOUT THE AMOUNT OF PER CAPITA SPENDINGFOR PUBLIC LIBRARIES IN THE HISPANIC AMERICAN SAMPLE . . 167

PART V. THE OPINION LEADERS SURVEY 199

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE OPINION LEADERS SAMPLE 199

LIBRARY USE AMONG THE OPINION LEADERS SAMPLE 201

XV

EVALUATIONS OF THE IMPORTANCE OF THE ROLES BY THE OPINIONLEADERS SAMPLE 201

DIFFERENCES IN THE ROLE EVALUATIONS BY THE FOUR OPINIONLEADER GROUPS 202

DIFFERENCES IN THE ROLE EVALUATIONS OF OPINION LEADERSFROM DIFFERENT REGIONS OF THE COUNTRY 203

DIFFERENCES IN THE EVALUATIONS OF THE IMPORTANCE OF THEROLES BY LIBRARY USERS AND NONUSERS IN THE OPINIONLEADERS SAMPLE 203

THE OPINION LEADERS SAMPLE'S OPINION ABOUT AMOUNT OF PERCAPITA SPENDING FOR PUBLIC LIBRARIES 204

DIFFERENCES OF OPINION AMONG THE OPINION LEADERS SAMPLEABOUT THE AMOUNT OF PER CAPITA .SPENDING FOR PUBLICLIBRARIES 205

DIFFERENCES OF OPINION ABOUT THE AMOUNT OF PER CAPITASPENDING FOR PUBLIC LIBRARIES BY LIBRARY USERS ANDNONUSERS IN THE OPINION LEADERS SAMPLE 205

RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN THE EVALUATIONS OF THE ROLES ANDTHE OPINIONS ABOUT THE AMOUNT OF PER CAPITA SPENDINGFOR PUBLIC LIBRARIES IN THE OPINION LEADERS SAMPLE . . . . 205

COMPARISONS BETWEEN THE ROLE EVALUATIONS OF THE OPINIONLEADERS SAMPLE AND THE NATIONAL SAMPLE 206

COMPARISONS BETWEEN THE ROLE EVALUATIONS OF THE OPINIONLEADERS SAMPLE AND THE AFRICAN AMERICAN SAMPLE . . . . 206

COMPARISONS BETWEEN THE ROLE EVALUATIONS OF THE OPP JONLEADERS SAMPLE AND THE CAUCASIAN AMERICAN SAMPLE . . 207

COMPARISONS BETWEEN THE ROLE EVALUATIONS OF THE OPINIONLEADERS SAMPLE AND THE HISPANIC AMERICAN SAMPLE . . 207

COMPARISONS OF OPINION ABOUT THE AMOUNT OF PER CAPITASPENDING FOR PUBLIC LIBRARIES BETWEEN THE OPINIONLEADERS SAMPLE AND THE NATIONAL SAMPLE, THE AFRICANAMERICAN SAMPLE, THE CAUCASIAN AMERICAN SAMPLE, ANDTHE HISPANIC AMERICAN SAMPLE 207

THE QUESTIONNAIRE 225

xvi

INTRODUCTION

PURPOSE OF THE PROJECT

The purpose of this project was to describe for librarians what the public considers to bethe important roles of the public library in society. It was anticipated that this information,provided both for the general population and for various groups within the population, wouldassist public librarians throughout the nation in understanding the service requirements of thevarious service populations in their communities and in selecting roles to emphasize appropriateto the needs of their communities.

OBJECTIVES OF THE PROJECT

The objectives of the project were twofold: I) to design and execute a national telephonesurvey of households in the United States in order to assess the public's opinions concerning theimportance of various roles of the public library in their communities and the public's opinionsabout appropriate amounts of public financing for library services; and 2) to design and executea national telephone survey of community opinion leaders in order to assess their opinionsconcerning the importance of various roles of the public library in their communities and theiropinions about appropriate amounts of public financing for library services.

THE ROLES OF THE PUBLIC LIBRARY

Planning and Role Setting for Public Libraries' describes eight roles that a library couldplay in its community. These roles include the library performing as a community activitiescenter, a community information center, a formal education support center, an independentlearning center, a popular materials library, a preschoolers' door to learning, a reference libraryand a research center. The roles represent library service emphases that describe both what thelibrary is trying to do and who the library is trying to serve. As such, the roles provide a veryuseful context for planning purposes. By selecting which roles to emphasize a library is betterable to focus its mission in the community, to communicate this mission to the community, todetermine what resources are needed to perform the selected roles, and to allocate resources toreflect the relative emphases of the selected roles. The role setting process is a particularlyuseful addition to the planning process for libraries and is being adopted by public librariesacross the country.2

McClure, Charles R.; Owen, Amy; Zweizig, Douglas L.; Lynch, Mary Jo; and Van House, Nancy A.Planning and Role Setting for Public Libraries. Chicago: American Library Associatk.,,, 1987.

2 Pungitore, Verna L.; Wilkerson, Jay Ed; and Yoon, Lanju. A Study of the Development and Diff usion of thePublic Library Association' s Planning and Evaluation Manuals: Final Report. Bloomington: School of Library andInformation Science, Indiana University, 1990.

Recent planning projects at the Saint Paul Public Library, the Free Library ofPhiladelphia, the Minneapolis Public Library and Information Center, and the Atlanta-FultonPublic Library have successfully pioneered the use of the role statements in user surveys toidentify the reasons why users are visiting the library and to assess the importance of each roleto the users.' The information obtained from these surveys enabled each library to identifywhich roles were most and least important to its users and for which roles the highest and lowestproportions of its users visited the library. In addition, each library was able to break down theusers' assessments of the roles according to the type of library the users were visiting (e.g.,central or regional or community branch) and the demographic c-aracteristics of the users (e.g.,race, age, employment status, etc.). These data enabled each library to develop profiles of howvarious segments of its user population evaluate, or make use of, the roles of the library and tofine tune its plan down to a level of specificity appropriate for its needs.

While the planning processes discussed above were informed by the evaluations of theroles by library users, in each case the community's (i.e., the general public which would includeboth users and non-users) evaluations of the importance of the roles were unknown. Knowingwhat the community and its various constituent segments consider to be important roles for thelibrary is essential for the planning of library services. Knowing what the community is willingto support financially is crucial to the success of the resource acquisition and allocation processes.The purpose of these national surveys is to provide such information for the nation at large, forvarious segments of rae population, and for community opinion leaders.

PERSONNEL FOR THE PROJECT

The Principal Investigator for the study was George D'Elia, Associate Professor in theDepartment of Information and Decision Sciences in the Carlson School of Management at theUniversity of Minnesota. Eleanor Jo Rodger, currently the President of the Urban LibrariesCouncil and at the initiation of the project the Executive Director of the Public LibraryAssociation, served as a consultant to the project.

The University of Minnesota Centcf for Survey Research managed the pilot surveys inwhich various forms of the questionnaire were pre-tested, and, after the execution of the surveys,created the data bases and executed the analyses of the data under the direction of the PrincipalInvestigator. The Gallup Organization was sub-contracted to executed the surveys.

The project was assisted throughout by an advisory committee composed of the followingindividuals: Kathleen Balcom, Director of the Arlington Heights [IL] Public Library; Susan

See, D'Elia, George; Rodger, Eleanor Jo; and Bryson, John. Saint Paul Public Library Strategic PlanningProject. Phase I: Survey and Evaluation, 1988, 448 p. D'Elia, George (with E.J. Rodger). Free Library ofPhiladelphia Patron Survey: Final Report, 1990, 126 p. D'Elia, George. The Minneapolis Public Library andInformation Center Patron Survey: Final Report, 1991, 186 p. D'Elia, George. The Atlanta-Fulton Public LibraryUser Survey: Final Report, 1993, 252 p. See also D'Elia, George; Rodger, Eleanor Jo; and Williams, Carole."Involving Patrons in the Role Setting Process." Public Libraries (November/December 1991): 338 - 345.

- 2 -

Goldberg, Director of the Minneapolis Public Library and Information Center; Martin Gomez,Director of the Oakland [CA] Public Library; Sheldon Kaye, Director of the Portland [ME]Public Library; Samuel Morrison, Director of the Broward County [FL] Public Library; AmyOwen, Director of the Utah State Library Division; and Carole Williams, Public ServicesManager, Saint Paul [MN] Public Library.

INSTRUMENT DEVELOPMENT

The development of the questionnaire' that was used in the surveys was affected by thefollowing considerations:

1) the various roles of the library needed to be described in language that the averageperson could understand;

2) the introduction to the role evaluation question and the scale to measure therespondent's opinion of the importance of each role had to be constructed so asto minimize the occurrence of importance bias5 the tendency for a respondentto infer that the object or issue of interest must have value since someone (in thiscase, the Gallup Organization) is conducting a survey about it;

3) the question asking for an opinion about the amount of money that a communityshould spend on library services had to grounded in reality; and

4) the interview needed to be short, no longer than 10 minutes on average.

The Roles Questions

Planning and Role Setting for Public Libraries describes the roles of the library as thoseof a community activities center, a community information center, a formal education supportcenter, an independent learning center, a popular materials library, a preschoolers' door tolearning, a reference library, and a research center. The experiences with the role-based surveysof users of urban library systems previously noted have demonstrated that it is useful also 1) tospecify two reference roles - reference services to businesses in the community and referenceservices to individuals in the community, and 2) to recognize that for many people the libraryserves as a destination for social interaction or a workplace away from home. Consequently, forthese national surveys, the eight roles described in Planning and Role Setting for Public Librarieswere augmented to include descriptions of the library serving as a reference library for businessesand as a workplace away from home.

4 A copy of the questionnaire appears at the end of this report.

5 See, Mitchell, Robert Cameron and Carson, Richard T. Using Surveys to Value Public Goods. Washington,D.C.: Resources for the Future, 1989.

3

In developing descriptions of the roles it was decided that

1) the descriptions of the roles in Planning and Role Setting for Public Libraries,while understandable to an audience of professional librarians, were too vague foruse in a telephone survey of the public;

2) the roles should not be described as roles or missions, but rather the roles shouldbe described as different kinds of services that libraries provide;

3) the descriptions of the roles needed to include concrete examples of the kinds ofservices or materials appropriate to the role so as to provide some meaningfulframe of reference to people both familiar and unfamiliar with library services;6and

4) each role should be evaluated by the respondent in terms of its importance to thecommunity.

Three different pilot surveys were executed in February, March, and April of 1992 by theUniversity of Minnesota Center for Survey Research in which different versions of roledescriptions were evaluated for length, the time required to read, and understandability based onrespondents' hesitations in answering the questions, requests for additional information orexplanation, and refusals to answer. The final descriptions of the roles that were read to therespondents in the surveys were as follows (note that the corresponding names of the roles, whichappear in parentheses, were not read to the respondents):

"the library provides students, both children and adults, with the books, magazines andother services they need to do their school work" (Formal Education Support Center);

"the library provides preschool children with picture books, story hours, and educationalprograms so that these children can have fun and learn to appreciate reading"(Preschoolers' Door to Learning);

"the library provides people with the information they need to answer personal andhousehold questions. This could include, for example, information about how to fixthings around the house, hobbies, health issues, or the quality and prices of homeappliances"(Reference Library for personal information);

"the library provides businesses in your community with the information they need tosurvive and prosper. This could include, for example, information about sales or

While it was recognized that a respondent's evaluation of a role might be influenced by the particular setof examples included in the description of the role, all parties involved (i.e., the Project Advisory Committee, theUniversity of Minnesota Center for Survey Research, and the Gallup Organization) agreed that concrete exampleswere essential to the description of the roles.

- 4 -

ij

marketing, worker safety, environmental protection, or setting up a new business"(Reference Library for community businesses);

"the librarj serves as a neighborhood or community activity center - a place whereorganizations or clubs could hold meetings or present concerts and lectures" (CommunityActivities Center );

"the library provides scientists and scholars with the specialized research collections ofbooks, magazines and computerized informawn they need in order to do research or writebooks" (Research Center);

"the library provides people with information about their community. This could include,for example, information about local government, issues or laws, or about localcommunity services such as health clinics or daycare" (Community Information Center);

"the library provides adults who are not students with the materials and services they needin order to better themselves or to learn a new skill such as how to read and write"(Independent Learning Center);

"the library provides people with a comfortable place to go when they need someplaceoutside of their house or apartment to read or think or work" (Public Work Place ); and

"the library provides people with a collection of current best selling books and popularalagazines, videos and musical recordings for borrowing" (Popular Materials Library).

The respondents were asked to evaluate each of these roles in terms of how importantthey thought the role was to their community. Given the constraints of a telephone interview,the number of response categories was limited to four. The response categories were designedto cover the full range of the continuum of the concept of "importance" from no importance toa great deal of importance. Three different versions of response categories were tested duringthe pilot surveys. The response categories were evaluated in terms of how well the respondentswere able to use the categories (i.e. how well they were able to internalize and remember thecategories in responding to the role questions) and in terms of the range of opinions elicited fromthe respondents. The final set of response categories used in the surveys were "not important,""slightly important," moderately important," and "very important."

As a guard against the importance bias mentioned above, the introduction to therespondent for the assessment of the importance of the roles tried to convey to the respondent

, the message that it was acceptable to consider a role to be unimportant. The role assessmentquestion with the description of the first role was as follows:

"I'm going to describe to you some of the kinds of services that public libraries providefor their communities. Some people think these services are important while others donot. After each description, I'd like you to tell me how important you think that kindof service is to your community. [READ LIST.]

... the library provides students, both children and adults,with the books, magazines andother services they need to do their school work.

How important would you say that this service is to your COMMUNITY?"

Not important 1

Slig..tly important 2Moderately important ..... 3

Very important 4

DK 5

(Refused) 9.

The Financial Support Question

In developing the question soliciting the respondent's opinion about the amount offinancial support that the community should provide to the library, it was decided that therespondent should be given sufficient information to provide a realistic basis for assessment.Accordingly, the respondent was provided a current range of actual community per capita support(from a low $4.00 a year to a high of $100 a year) which served as an implicit scale withanchors.' In the pilot surveys two different versions of the question were tested. In Version A,the respondent was told the range and then asked an open-ended question about how muchsupport he thought his community should provide its public library. In Version B, the respondentwas told the range and was then provided with a scale of $20 intervals (e.g., $1 to $20, $21$40, etc.) from which he was asked to select an interval. An analysis of the results indicated thatthe two versions produced results that were not statistically different (the mean for Version Awas $37.25 while the Mean for Version B was $40.00). However, the percentage of respondentswho refused to answer the open-ended Version A was much higher (47%) than the scaledVersion B (27%). Consequently, the decision was made to use the scaled version of the question.

Many of the non-respondents indicated that they would be in a better position to offer anopinion if they knew how much their communities were currently spending. While we could notprovide this community specific information to the respondent, we could provide the nationalaverage per capita support. Consequently, we tested a third version of the question (Version C)in which, in addition to the range and scale provided in Version B, the respondent was told thatthe national average per capita support for public libraries was $16.8 The results of this testindicated that the non-response rate was reduced to 15%. The mean score for Version C was$34.70 which was lower than the mean score that had been obtained with Version B. It appeared

7 These figures were obtained from Public Library Data Service Statistical Report '91. Chicago: PublicLibrary Association/ American Library Association, Chicago, 1991.

This figure was obtained from Public Libraries: 1990, Adrienne Chute, Electronic ED. TABS, March 1992,U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Statistics, NCES 92-028.

- 6 -

that the knowledge of the national per capita average both reduced the number of non-respondents and tempered the respondents' opinions about financial support. Given that Version

C both produced the highest response rate and provided the most information so that therespondents could render informed opinions, Version C was the version of the question used in

the surveys. The full text of the question follows:

"Some communities in this country spend as little as $4 per person a year to provide a limitedselection of the kinds of services that we just described while other communities spend as much

as $100 per person a year to provide a much wider selection of these services. On average,

communities in this country spend about $16 per person a year on their public libraries. How

much money do you think your community should spend annually on its public library? Would

you say (READ LIST)..."

$0 per person 0$1 - $20 / person 1

$21 - $40 / person 2

$41 - $60 / person 3

$61 $80 / person 4

$81 $100 / person 5

More than $100 / person 6

No opinion / DK 7

DK 8

RA 9.

Characteristics of the Respondents

The following characteristics of the respondents, designed in part to match thedemographics obtained and reported by the 1990 Census, were obtained in the survey: the region

of the country where the respondent lived; the size of the community in which the respondent

lived; the age of the respondent; whether the respondent was of Hispanic ancestry and, if so, his

or her national origin; the respondent's race; the highest grade level of education completed by

the respondent and, if the 12th grade or less, whether the respondent had a high school diploma

or equivalent; whether, if the respondent had an associate degree, the respondent graduated from

an academic program or an occupational program; the respondent's current marital status and,

if married, whether the respondent was currently living with a spouse; the number of peopleliving in the respondent's home; the number of preschool children living in the home; the number

of students living in the home; whether the respondent was currently a student and, if so, the

nature of the program of study; the primary language spoken at home; the respondent's current

employment status; total annual household income; whether anyone in the household wasdisabled; whether the respondent was disabled and, if so, the nature of the disability; therespondent's gender; whether the respondent voted in the last (at the time of the survey the 1988)

presidential election; whether the respondent personally went to a public library in the past year

and, if so, how many times; whether anyone else went to the library for the respondent; whether

- 7 -

the respondent called the library for information in the past year; the respondent's opinion abouthis or her carrent financial situation; and the respondent's opinion about his or her financialsituation next year.

SURVEY SAMPLES

The survey population was limited to adults aged 18 years or older who could be reachedby telephone. The samples for the surveys included the following:

1) a national probability sample (N = 1,001) representing a cross-section of the nationalpopulation;9

2) a national probability sample (N = 846) of Caucasian Americans who were the samerespondents as those Caucasian Americans who were obtained in the national probabilitysample;

3) a national probability sample of African Americans (N = 401) which included 79African Americans who were obtained in the national probability sample plus anadditional 322 African Americans who were obtained from a supplemental nationalprobability sample of African Americans;

4) a national probability sample of Hispanic Americans (N = 399) which included 41Hispanic Americans who were obtained in the national probability sample plus anadditional 358 Hispanic Americans who were obtained from a supplemental nationalprobability sample of Hispanic Americans; and

5) a sample of community opinion leaders (N = 300) who were defined as individualswho, because of the positions they hold in the community, have an influence on theshaping of public opinion. For this survey, opinion leaders were defined as media leaders(e.g., newspaper editors and editorial writers, TV and radio news directors), politicalleaders (e.g., elected or appointed public officials), business and civic leaders (e.g.,executives and administrators from for-profit and non-profit organizations andassociations), and educational leaders (e.g., administrators and officers from primary andsecondary schools and institutions of higher learning).

9 Since the number of African Americans and Hispanic Americans that would be surveyed by means of anational probability sample would be too few for cross group comparisons and too few for generalizations to theAfrican American and Hispanic American populations, the U.S. Department of Education provided funding to obtainsupplemental samples of African Americans and Hispanic Americans. Cost estimates from The Gallup Organizationfor supplemental samples of Asian Americans and Native Americans were, unfortunately, prohibitively expensiveand consequently supplemental samples for these racial groups could not be obtained.

- 8 -

DATA COLLECTION

All surveys were conducted by the Gallup Organization. The national survey and thesurvey of opinion leaders were conducted in May and June of 1992. The surveys of AfricanAmericans and Hispaeie Americans were conducted in July and August of 1992. Descriptionsof the survey proceciafees tesed by the Gallup Organization are provided in the Appendix whichis a separately bound, corapamon publication. .

PRESENTATIONS OF THE RESULTS OF THE SURVEYS

The remainder jf the report is divided into five parts.

PART I reports 'the results of the national survey. First, the public's evaluations of theimportance of the roles are reported and then these data are broken down and reported for thevarious demographic segments of the sample. Second, the public's opinion about levels of publicfinancing for library services is reported and then these data a.re broken down and reported forthe various demographic segments of the sample. Third, the relationships between roleevaluations and levels of financial support are reported.

PART II reports the results of the survey of African Americans. The presentation of theresults follows the same pattern as that described above for the national survey.

PART III reports the results of the survey of Caucasian Americans. The presentation ofthe results follows the same pattern as that described above for the national survey.

PART IV reports the results of the survey of Hispanic Americans. The presentation ofthe results follows the same pattern as that described above for the national survey.

PART V reports the results of the opinion leaders survey. First reported are the opinionleaders' evaluations of the importance of the roles, the opinion leaders' opinion about levels ofpublic financing for library services, and the relationships between role evaluations and levelsof financial support. Then, the opinion leaders' evaluations of the roles and the their opinionabout levels of public financing for library services are compared to those of the national sampleand the African American, Caucasian American, and Hispanic American samples.

USES OF THE DATA

These data can used by a library' (or by individual branches within a system) togenerate a tentative set of service roles for its community. For example, a library could begin

"Library" is a term used here to rcfer to the collective leadership of the library and any other parties thatmight be involved in the planning activities of the library.

by identifying the significant service populations of its community based on race, gender, ag:education level, size of household, or any of the other demographic characteristics reported inthese surveys. For each of these significant service populations (for example, African Americanhouseholds with preschoolers), the library could identify the roles that are reported in thesesurveys to be most important to the respondents who represent the service population (forexample, the roles that received the highest ratings of importance by African Americanrespondents living in households with preschool children). The library could draw the reasonableinference that the service populations in its community would most likely share the sameopinions about the importance of the roles as the respondents in the surveys who representedthose service populations. A library could then develop a tentative set of roles for its communitythat could be tested by a small community survey, or by interviews with representatives of itsvarious service populations, or by town meetings, or by any other method appropriate to localconditions or resources.

MARGINS OF ERROR IN THE DATA

All surveys of samples are subject to sampling error. Sampling error is defined as thedifference between the results obtained from the sample and the results that would have beenobtained from the population had that population been surveyed. In drawing the inference thatthe results reported from this survey for a particular sample are representative of servicepopulation that the sample represents, the reader should be aware of the size of the samplingerror involved in such an inference and the degree of confidence that accompanies the inference.

The results of the evaluations of the importance of the roles are reported both as meanscores for the four-point importance scales and as the percentage of the sample which rated therole "very important." Since the percentage data will likely be more easily interpreted and used,a chart is provided on page 12 which provides approximate estimates of the size of the samplingerror associated with the percentage of a sample which rated a role as "very important." Theseestimates of sampling error have been calculated at the 95% level of confidence, which meansthat we are 95% confident that the sampling error (for a particular percentage for a particular sizesample) is not larger than the figure shown." The format of the chart is as follows; thepercentages in the column headings (50%, 60%, etc.) represent the percentage of a sample thatrated a role as being "very important;" the row labels represent samples of different sizes; andthe figures listed in the chart at the intersects of the columns and rows represent the samplingerrors expressed as ± percentage points.

The following example demonstrates how to use the chart of sampling errors. It isreported for the national survey (see Table 1) that 51.4% of the respondents rated the PopularMaterials Library role as "very important." Referring to the chart of Estimated Sampling Errors,

" For a detailed discussion of the construction and interpretation of confidence intervals see McClave, JamesT. and Benson, George P. Statistics for Business and Economics. San Francisco: Dellen Publishing Company, 1991.For a good library oriented discussion see Kantor, Paul. Objective Peiformance Measures for Academic and ResearchLibraries. Washington D.C.: Association of Research Libraries, 1984.

- 10 -

read down the column for percentages near 50% until the row for samples of size 1000. At thispoint the listed sampling error is ± 3.1%. Therefore, we can say, with about a 95% level ofconfidence, that the true percentage of the population who would rate the Popular MaterialsLibrary role as "very important" lies somewhere in the approximate interval of 51.4% ± 3.1%,or somewhere in the interval bounded by 48.3% and 54.5%.

The chart can also be used to construct confidence intervals for the data that have beenreported for the various demographic groups of respondents. For example, it is reported for thenational survey (see Table 4) that males and females differed in their ratings of the importanceof the Popular Materials Library role - 43.0% of the males and 60.1% of the females rated therole "very important." Consequently, a library might want to use separate estimates withconfidence intervals for males and females. To construct the confidence interval for males, referto the chart of Estimated Sampling Errors and read down the column for percentages near 40%unl the row for samples of size 500. At this point the listed sampling error is ± 4.3%.Therefore, we can say, with about a 95% level of confidence, that the true percentage of the malepopulation vho would rate the Popular Materials Litsrary role as ''very important" lies somewherein the approximate interval of 43.0% ± 4.3%, or somewhere in the interval bounded by 38.7%and 47.3%. To construct the confidence interval for females, refer to the chart of EstimatedSampling Errors and read down the column for percentages near 60% until the row for samplesof size 500. At this point the listed sampling error is ± 4.3%. Therefore, we can say, with abouta 95% level of confidence, that the true percentage of the female population who would rate thePopular Materials Library role as "very important" lies somewhere in the approximate intervalof 60.1% ± 4.3%, or somewhere in the interval bounded by 55.8% and 64.4%.

The reader should note that the construction of confidence intervals for demographicgroups is appropriate when the responses of those groups are reported to be statistically different.If the responses of the groups are nor statistically different, then the confidence interval for theentire sample can be used. For example, the comparisons of the male and female responses(Table 4) indicated that the two groups did not differ in their ratings of the importance of theReference Library for personal information role. Consequently, since the two groups agree onthis role, it would not be necessary to construct separate confidence intervals for each group.The confidence interval that could be constructed for this role from the % reported for the entiresample (Table 1) would be sufficient.

The calcu'ation of the confidence interval for quantitative data, such as the meansuggested per ,:apita spending for library services which is reported for this survey, is somewhatmore complicated and cannot be estimated by means of a chart. The confidence intervals for themean suggested per capita spending reported for the various samples have been calculated andare presented in the appropriate tables. The interpretation of these intervals is the same as theinterpretation of the intervals for the percentage data discussed above.

ESTIMATED SAMPLING ERRORS(ESTIMATED 95% CONFIDENCE LIMITS FOR % OF SAMPLE

RATING A ROLE AS "VERY IMPORTANT")

Percentages of Sample Rating a Role as "Very Important"

50% 60% 70% 80% 90%(40%) (30%) (20%) (10%)

Sample Sizes

100 10.0 9.6 9.0 7.8 5.9

200 6.9 6.8 6.4 5.5 4.2

300 5.7 5.5 5.2 4.5 3.4

400 4.9 4.8 4.5 3.9 2.9

500 4.4 4.3 4.0 3.5 2.6

600 4.0 3.9 3.7 3.2 2.4

700 3.7 3.6 3.4 3.0 2.2

800 3.5 3.4 3.2 2.8 2.1

900 3.3 3.2 3.0 2.6 2.0

1000 3.1 3.0 2.8 2.5 1.9

Note: The column labeled 50% is for use with % ratings that are near 50%, the column labeled 60% (40%)is for use with % ratings that are near 60% or near 40%, the column labeled 70% (30%) is for use with % ratingsthat are near 70% or near 30%, the column labeled 80% (20%) is for use with % ratings that are near 80% or near20%, and the column labeled 90% (10%) is for use with % ratings that are near 90% or near 10%.

- 12 -

PART I. THE NATIONAL SURVEY

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE NATIONAL SAMPLE

The national probability sample included 1,001 respondents. The data from this samplewere weighted to ensure that the demographic characteristics of the weighted sample conformedto the latest available Census Bureau estimates of the characteristics of the national populationfor age, gender, race, formal education attainment, and region of country. The demographiccharacteristics of the sample are as follows':

Region of country2

Size of community'

Gender

Age

Hispanic ancestry

21.1% northeast states33.9% south central states24.9% north central states20.2% western states

6.7% over 1,000,00011.6% 250,000 - 1,000,00081.7% under 250,000

47.3% male52.7% female

38.5% 18 - 35 years26.0% 36 - 50 years17.3% 51 - 65 years17.3% 66 years and older1.0% missing

4.1% Hispanic95.5% Non-Hispanic

.4% missing

The frequency distributions for the responses to all the questions in the interview are presented in theAppendix for this report. The Appendix is a separately bound publication.

2 These regional areas are defined by The Gallup Organization as follows: northeast states = Connecticut,Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Vermont; southcentral states = Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, Washington D.C., Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland,Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, and West Virginia; north centralstates = Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, SouthDakota, Wisconsin; western states = Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, NewMexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming.

3 The Gallup Organization defined size of community as follows: incorporated cities with populations over1,000,000; incorporated cities with populations of 250,000 to 1,000,000; and incorporated cities or unincorporatedcommunities with populations under 250,000.

- 13 -

Race 86.2% Caucasian7.9% African American2.0% Hispanic/Mexican1.1% Native American1.3% Asian Pacific Islanders.9% Other1.0% missing

Grade level 7.4% 8th grade or lesscompleted 10.6% 9th llth grade

38.3% 12th grade17.4% some college

3.8% associate degree14.4% bachelor's degree4.5% master's degree3.4% professional/doctoral.4% missing

High school diplomaor equivalent'

Marital status

Living with spouse

39.9% yes16.3% no43.8% missing

58.9% married9.9% widowed10.4% divorced20.3% never married

.5% missing

56.8% yes2.1% no

41.2% missing

4 The categories of race provided to the respondents were the same categories used in the 1990 Census;namely, White, Black, American Indian, Eskimo or Aleut, and Asian or Pacific Islander. Following the practice ofthe 1990 Census, Hispanic ancestry was treated as a question separate from the racial question. The responsecategory for Hispanic/Mexican, which appears here, was not an option provided to the respondent. However, 2% ofthe respondents insisted that their race was Hispanic or Mexican and their response was recorded as such.

5 This question was asked only of those respondents who answered that they had a completed 12 grades ofschool or less.

- 14 -

# of peopleliving at home

# of preschoolchildren at home

# of school childrenat home

Respondentswho were students

Primary languagespoken at home

Employment status

17.3% one33.3% two18.0% three18.2% four8.2% five3.9% six or more1.2% missing

63.2% zero10.6% one6.0% two.6% three.6% four

18.9% missing

44.4% zero19.3% one12.7% two3.3% three1.6% four or more

18.7% missing

0.9% high school1.1% non-academic program5.2% college students2.0% graduate students

90.8% missing

97.3% English1.0% Spanish1.7% missing

51.8% employed full-time12.6% employed part-time6.6% unemployed

20.0% retired8.3% not in work force.7% missing

- 15 -

Household income

(Median interval) .

Disabled personin household

1.8% less than $5,0004.7% $ 5,000 $ 9,9997.5% $10,000 - $14,9997.6% $15,000 - $19,9998.2% $20,000 - $24,99911.2% $25,000 - $29,9997.9% $30,000 - $34,9999.2% $35,000 $39,9995.2% $40,000 $44,9994.6% $45,000 $49,9993.7% $50,000 - $54,9992.0% $55,000 $59,9992.4% $60,000 $64,9991.1% $65,000 - $69,9991.2% $70,000 $74,9996.9% $75,000 or more14.7% missing

14.4% yes83.5% no2.1% missing

Respondent disabled 7.8% yes5.5% no86.7% missing

Nature of disability 1.0% sight4.9% mobility

94.1% missing

Voted in '88 election 62.8% yes36.5% no

.7% missing

Current financial 25.1% better off than last yearsituation 23.3% worse off than last year

50.6% about the same1.0% missing

Future financial 45.6% better off next yearsituation 7.7% worse off next year

42.6% about the same4.1% missing.

- 16 -

3.

LIBRARY USE AMONG THE NATIONAL SAMPLE

The data indicated that in the past year 57.1% of the respondents had personally gone toa public library, 21.4% of the respondents reported that someone else had obtained materials forthem, and 23.1% of the respondents had called a library for information. Controlling for overlapamong these activities, it was determined that 63.3% of the respondents had in some way useda public library in the last year while 36.7% of the respondents reported no use of a library.

EVALUATIONS OF THE IMPORTANCE OF THE ROLES BY THE NATIONAL SAMPLE

The responses to the role evaluation questions were analyzed in two ways: first, meanscores for the role importance scales were calculated; and second, the percentages of respondentswho for each role selected the category "very important" were tabulated. While the meanimportance scale score yields a more precise estimate of the respondents' evaluations of theimportance of a role, the percentage of respondents who selected the category "very important"is the more easily understood and communicated estimate of the importance of a role. All of thetables reporting results of role evaluations present both the mean scale scores and the percentage"scores."

The results of the role evaluations are reported in Table 1 in ranked order from the rolereceiving the highest mean importance scale score to the role receiving the lowest meanimportance scale score. These results can be interpreted in two ways: first, the scores for anygiven role can be interpreted in terms of their position or standing on the four-point importancescale (an absolute assessment); and second, the scores for any given role can be interpreted interms of their ranking relative to the scores received by the other roles (a relative assessment).For example, more than half of the sample (51.4%) rated the Popular Materials Library role as"very important" with a mean score of 3.35, but this rating places the role in ninth position ofimportance compared to the mean scores received by the other roles. The reader should note thatthe ranking by mean score is not the same as the ranking by the percentage "score." The readershould also note that the distance between the mean scores for some of the roles is quite smallindicating that, while one role is ranked higher or lower than another role, for all practicalpurposes the roles are about equal in importance. The same observation could also be made forthe percentage "scores."

The results in Table 1 indicate that a majority of the general public cc nsidered eight outof the ten roles to be "very important." Of these, however, the Formal Educa on Support Centerrole, the Independent Learning Center role, the Preschoolers' Door to Learning role, and theResearch Center role received the highest ratings of importance strongly suggesting that thepublic considers the public library's role of supporting the educational aspirations of thecommunity to be its most important role.

In evaluating these results we need to keep in mind some of the anomalies in the rolestatements and the public's interpretations of the role statements that could have affected theresults. For example, it is difficult to imagine how a library could serve the educational demandsof the community without providing excellent reference service and yet the reference serviceroles were not evaluated that highly. The answer probably lies in the wording of the roles. For

- 17 -

example, the Formal Education Support CeL ..11' role and the Independent Learning Center roledescribed services supporting the educational needs of the user. It is possible that therespondents subsumed the importance of reference service for educational support under theseroles. The Reference Library role for personal information described a service to meet thepersonal information needs of people and was not in any way associated with educational needs.In addition, there is evidence to indicate that the public interprets the Research Center role, whichis intended to describe libraries that serve the specialized needs of scholars and researchersconducting original research, as an educational support role.6 This difference of interpretationis reflected in the higher scores obtained for the Research Center role than for the two ReferenceLibrary roles in Table 1.

In interpreting these results, it should also be noted that, in comparison to the results ofthe previously mentioned roles-based user surveys, there appears be a difference between whypeople value the library and why people use the library. The most obvious difference is with thePopular Materials Library role. For example, the data from this survey indicate that therespondents considered the Popular Materials Library role to be relatively low in importancecompared to the other roles, while the data from surveys of users of the Free Library ofPhiladelphia, the Minneapolis Public Library and Information Center, and the Atlanta-FultonPublic Library revealed that in each system more users selected the Popular Materials Libraryrole as a reason for coming to the library than any other single role-based reason fe coming tothe library. However, it should also be noted that among the role descriptions there are clustersof roles that describe both a set of educational support roles of the library and a set ofinformation provision roles of the library. When the responses of the users to the role descriptionswere aggregated into these clusters representing the educational support roles of the library andthe information provision roles of the library, the numbers of users who selected either the clusterof educational support roles or the cluster of information provision roles tended to equal orsurpass the number of users who selected the popular materials role.' Consequently, the datafrom this survey and from the aforementioned user surveys tend to be in agreement. Whilepeople tend to value the library for its role as a popular materials library,' they tend not to valuethe library for this role as much as for its roles as an educational support center and as aninformation provider. Likewise, while many users tend to use the library for popular materials,

In a user survey conducted for the Free Library of Philadelphia in which users were asked to identify whichrole statements best described their reasons for visiting the library, users in community branch libraries, which clearlywere not considered by the Free Library of Philadelphia to be research libraries, selected the Research Center roledescription as a reason why they were visiting the library. In addition, students, in disproportionately higher numbersthan non-students, selected the Research Center role as a reason for coming to the library. These results indicatethat the public, especially students, do not interpret the Research Center Role as the profession interprets the role.It appears that., in the mind of the public, research is analogous to reference.

7 For a detailed presentation of these results see George D'Elia and Eleanor Jo Rodger, "Why Patrons Usethe Library: Patron Use and Public Library Roles." Manuscript is currently under review by Public Libraries.

Subsequent analysis of the data indicated that both users and nonusers of the library agree on this point (seeTable 21).

- 18 -

many more tend to use it for educational support and for access to information.' Librarymanagers need to be sensitive to these differences as they interpret the results of this survey andas they position the library for resource acquisition. They should also be sensitive to thesedifferences when allocating acquired resources.

DIFFERENCES IN THE EVALUATIONS OF THE IMPORTANCE OF THE ROLES BYDIFFERENT SEGMENTS OF THE NATIONAL SAMPLE

The respondents' opinions about the importance of each role were tested for differencesbetween or among groups of respondents using analysis of variance.'0 The different groups ofrespondents were identified by, or created from, the following characteristics: the region of thecountry where the respondent lived; the size of the community in which the respondent lived; thegender tif the respondent; the age of the respondent; the race of the respondent; the highest gradelevel of education completed by the respondent and, if the 12th grade or less, whether therespondent had a high school diploma or equivalent; whether the respondent was a high schoolgraduate; whether, if the respondent had an associate degree, the respondent graduated from anacademic program or an occupational program; the respondent's current marital status and, ifmarried, whether the respondent was currently living with a spouse; the number of people livingin the respondent's home; the number of preschool children living in the home; the number ofstudents living in the home; whether the respondent was currently a student and, if so, the natureof the program of study; the primary language spoken at home; the respondent's current

9 As a final caveat, it should also be noted that there are dramatic differences between Caucasian users oflibraries and African American, Asian American, Hispanic American, and Native American users of libraries in termsof the reasons why these groups use the library. Users of color tend to use the library for educational support andaccess to information in substantially greater proportions than Caucasian users. There does not appear to be adifference among these groups in terms of their use of the library for popular materials. Please see the paper byD'Elia and Rodger cited above for an extended discussion of these differences among racial groups of library users.

Analysis of variance is a statistical procedure for testing whether the observed differences among groupmeans for each role evaluation occurred by chance or because the groups differed in their evaluations of theimportance of the role. A statistically significant differencc among the group means is defined as one whoseprobability of occurring by chance (the a level reported in the tables) is so low that we choose to conclude that thedifference did not occur by chance but that it occurred because the groups differed in their evaluation of the role.All differences with an a level of .05 or less (that is, the probability that the difference occurred by chance is 5 outof a hundred or less) are considered to be statistically significant. The a levels for all statistically significantdifferences are reported in the tables. All differences with an a level greater than .05 (that is, the probability thatthe difference occurred by chance is greater than 5 out of a hundred) are considered to be non-significant and aredesignated as such in the table with the initials n.s.

A non-trivial difference is defined as a statistically significant difference whose magnitude of difference issufficiently large that it warrants attention for possible usefulness in managerial decision making. By contrast, atrivial difference is defmed as a statistically significant difference whose magnitude of difference is so small or trivialas to be of questionable value in managerial decision making. Deciding whether a statistically significant differenceis trivial or non-trivial is a judgement call. We have adopted the rule that if le, the coefficient of determination,is equal to or greater than .02 the difference is considered to be non-trivial. The coefficient of determinationmeasures the amount of variation in the role evaluation scores that is explained by the group differences - the largerthe coefficient of determination, the more meaningful the difference. The coefficients of determination for allstatistically significant differences are reported in the tables so assessments about triviality can be made.

employment status; total annual household income; whether anyone in the household wasdisabled; whether the respondent was disabled and, if so, the nature of the disability; whether therespondent voted in the last (i.e., 1988) presidential ele-tion; the respondent's opinion about hisor her current financial situation; the respondent's opinion about his or her financial situation nextyear whether the respondent personally went to a public library in the past year and, if so, howmany times; whether anyone else went to the library for the respondent; whether the respondentcalled the library for information in the past year, and whether the respondent made any use ofthe library in the past year.

In the preceding analyses, the quantitative characteristics of the respondents (age, highestgrade level of education completed, the number of people living in the home, the number ofpreschool children living in the home, the number of students living in the home, and totalhousehold income) were grouped into intervals (e.g., respondents 18 to 35 years old, respondents36 to 50 years old, etc.) and the mean role importance scale scores for these groups werecompared for differences using analysis of variance. This was done in order to facilitatecomparisons to local data which oftentimes are available only in this grouped format. Anotherway of analyzing whether any of these characteristics of the respondents is related to therespondents' evaluations of the importance of the roles is by means of correlation analysis"which tests for the presence of a trend between the characteristic and the role importance score.For example, as the education level of the respondents increases does their evaluation of theimportance of a role tend to increase or decrease? In order to determine if trends such as thisexist, each of these quantitative characteristics of the respondents was also entered into acorrelation analysis with each of the role importance scales.

While the results of the analyses of variance with the grouped data and the results of thecorrelation analyses with the ungrouped data are complementary, it should be noted that thecorrelation analyses are not always sensitive to a difference between two or more groups whichmight exist. Consequently, the results of the two tests sometimes do not agree. The results ofboth sets of analyses are reported below.

Region of the country. There were no statistically significant differences in the role evaluationsby respondents living in the four regions of the country (see Table 2).

n A correlation coefficient is an index of the strength of the relationship between two quantitative variables.The coefficient can take a value from -1.00 (indicating a perfect inverse relationship) to 0.00 (indicating the absenceof any relationship) to +1.00 (indicating a perfect positive relationship). Typically, correlation coefficients appeareither as a negative decimal value (indicating that high scores for one variable are associated with low scores forthe other variable) or as a positive decimal value (indicating that high scores for one variable are associated withhigh scores for the other variable). The higher the decimal value, the stronger the relationship.

A statistically significant relationship is defined as one whose probability of occurrence by chance is so lowthat we choose to conclude that it did not occur by chance but that it occurred because the two variables are related.A non-trivial relationship is defined as a statistically significant relationship of sufficient strength that it warrantsattention for possible usefulness in managerial decision making. In this report, correlation coefficients equal to orgreater than ±.15 are considered to be non-trivial.

- 20 -35

Size of community. There were no statistically significant differences in the role evaluations byrespondents living in communities of different size populations (see Table 3).

Gender. There were three statistically significant and non-trivial differences and six statisticallysignificant but trivial differences in the role evaluations by male and female respondents. Ofparticular note, however, was the pattern of these differences between males and females. Thefemale respondents rated all roles (with the exception of the Reference Library for personalinformation role) higher than did the male respondents (see Table 4). Interestingly, there waslittle difference between males and females in the relative rank orders of the role scores (thecorrelation coefficient between the two sets of mean scores was .97). In effect, femalesconsidered each of the roles of the library to be more important than did the males, but bothgroups tended to agree about which roles were more important relative to other roles.

Age. There were no statistically significant and non-trivial correlation coefficients between theage of the respondents and their evaluations of the roles.

The respondents were also divided into four age groups: 18 35 years old; 36 50 yearsold; 51 - 65 years old; and over 65 years old. Comparisons of the mean importance scale soresfor these four groups indicated that there were four statistically significant, but trivial, differencesamong the groups (see Table 5). Respondents who were 18 to 35 years old rated the ReferenceLibrary for business higher than respondents who were older than 65. Respondents who were36 to 50 years old rated the Community Activities Center role lower than respondents who wereolder than 65 years. Respondents who were 18 to 35 years old rated the Independent LearningCenter role higher than respondents who were 51 - 65 years old and respondents who were olderthan 65. Respondents who were 51 - 65 years old and respondents who were over 65 years oldrated the Public Work Place role higher than respondents who were 18 - 35 years old andrespondents who were 36 - 50 years old.

RacelEthnicity. The national sample was subdivided into three groups; Caucasian Americans,African Americans , and Hispanic Americans. The African American segment and the HispanicAmerican segment were augmented by additional quota samples to bring their respective samplesizes to N = 401 and N = 399. These two groups were then compared to the remainingCaucasian' American segment from the national sample (N = 846). Comparisons of the meanimportance scale scores for these three groups indicated that there were 10 statistically significantdifferences, of which seven were non-trivial, between the Caucasian American respondents andthe African American and Hispanic American respondents (see Table 6). For each role, theCaucasian American respondents rendered a significantly lower evaluation of its importance tothe community than did either the African American or Hispanic American respondents. Inevaluating the roles of the library, the Caucasian American group on average selected theresponse category "very important" 64% of the time, while the African American group onaverage selected the response category "very important" 81% of the time, and the HispanicAmerican group on average selected the response category "very important" 78% of the time.

'2 The Caucasian respondents were Caucasians who did not report having Hispanic ancestry. Hispanics whowere also of African ancestry were classified by the Gallup Organization either as Hispanic Americans if they wereliving in an Hispanic neighborhood or as African Americans if they were living in an African Americanneighborhood.

- 21 - 36

The results of these comparisons indicated that among all three groups the highestpercentages of "very important" responses occurred for the three educational roles of the publiclibrary ( the Formal Educational Support Center, the Independent Learning Center, and thePreschoolers' Door to Learning). Further analyses indicated that there were only minordifferences among the three groups in terms of each group's rank ordering of the ten roles fromthose roles receiving the highest percentages of "very important" to those receiving the lowestpercentages of "very important." In effect, the African American and Hispanic Americanrespondents systematically evaluated the importance of each of the roles of the public library tothe community more highly than did the Caucasian respondents, but all three groups tended toagree about which roles were most important relative to the other roles. Given the systematicdifferences among the three groups, the results of the surveys of each of the groups are presentedseparately in this report.

Highest grade level completed. There was one statistically significant and non -trivial correlationcoefficient. The highest grade level completed by the respondents was inversely correlated withthe respondents' rating of the importance of the Public Work Place role. The lower the gradelevel completed, the higher the rating of the importance of the Public Work Place role; the higherthe grade level completed, the lower the rating of the importance of the Public Work Place role.

The respondents were divided into five groups based on the number of grades completed:8th grade or less, 9th llth grade, 12th grade, some college, and college graduates. Comparisonsof the mean importance scale scores for these five groups indicated that there were fivestatistically significant differences among the groups (see Table 7). Respondents who hadcompleted 9th - 1 lth grade rated the Formal Education Support role lower than all other groups.Respondents who had completed the 8th grade or less rated the Reference Library for personalinformation role higher than all other groups. Respondents who had completed the 8th grade orless rated the Research center role higher than all other groups. Respondents who had graduatedfrom college rated the Community Information Center role lower than respondents who hadcompleted the 12th grade, 9th - 1 lth grade, and the 8th grade or less. Respondents who hadgraduated from college and respondents who had completed some college rated the Public WorkPlace role lower than all other groups. The differences for the Formal Education Support roleand the Public Work Place role were non-trivial. The other three differences were trivial.

Whether, if the respondent had completed the 12th grade or less, the respondent had a highschool diploma or equivalent. There were three statistically significant differences between thesetwo groups. Respondents who had a high school diploma rated the Formal Education SupportCenter role higher than respondents who did not. Respondents who had a high school diplomarated the Reference Library for personal information role and the Public Work Place role lowerthan respondents who did not (see Table 8). The differences for the Formal Education SupportCenter role and the Reference Library for personal information were trivial.

Whether, if the respondent had an associate degree, the respondent graduated from an academicprogram or an occupational program. There were too few responses to this question to permitgroup comparisons.

Marital status. There were five statistically significant, but trivial, differences in the roleevaluations by different marital status groups (see Table 9). While all the differences are trivial,

- 22 -

37

there is a pattern of differences between respondents who were widowed and the other groups.Respondents who were widowed and respondents who were divorced rated the Formal EducationSupport Center role higher than respondents who were never married. Respondents who werewidowed rated the Community Activities Center role higher than. respondents who were nevermarried, the Community Information Center role higher than respondents who were married andrespondents who were never married, the Public Work Place role higher than respondents whowere married and respondents who were never married, and the Popular Materials Library rolehigher than respondents who were never married.

Whether a married respondent was currently living with a spouse. The number of marriedrespondents currently not living with a spouse was too small to permit meaningful comparisons.

The number of people living in the home. There were no statistically significant and non-trivialcorrelation coefficients between the number of people living in the home and the respondents'evaluations of the roles.

Based on the number of people living in the home, the respondents were divided into fivegroups: respondents living in homes with one person, two people, three people, four people, andfive or more people. Comparisons of the mean importance scale scores for these five groupsindicated that there were three statistically significant differences among the groups (see Table10). Respondents living in homes with two people rated the Preschoolers' Door to Learning rolelower than respondents living in homes with one, three, or five or more people. Respondentsliving in homes with two people rated the Community Information Center role lower thanrespondents living in homes with one, four, or five or more people. Respondents living in homeswith one person and respondents living in homes with five or more people rated the Public WorkPlace role higher than respondents living in homes with two, three, or four people. Thedifferences for the Preschoolers' Door to Learning role and the Community Information Centerrole were trivial.

The number of preschool children living in the home. There were no statistically significant andnon-trivial correlation coefficients between the number of preschool children living in the homeand the respondent's evaluations of the roles.

Because of the low number of multiple preschool children in the home, the respondentswere divided into two groups: respondents living in homes without any preschoolers andrespondents in homes with one or more preschoolers. Comparisons between the groups indicatedthat there were five statistically significant, but trivial, differences (see Table 11). While thedifferences are trivial, there is a pattern. Respondents who were living in homes withpreschoolers rated the Preschoolers' Door to Learning role, the Reference Library for personalinformation role, the Community Information Center role, the Independent Learning Center role,and the Public Work Place role higher than respondents who were living in homes without anypreschoolers.

The number of students living in the home. There were no statistically significant and non-trivialcorrelation coefficients between the number of children living in the home and the respondent'sevaluations of the roles.

- 23 -.4 J

Because of the low number of muldple students living in the home, therespondents were divided into two groups: respondents living in homes without any students andrespondents in homes with one or more students. Comparisons between the groups indicated thatthere were two statistically significant, but trivial, differences (see Table 12). Respondents livingin homes with one or more students rated the Formal Education Support Center role and theIndependent Learning Center role higher than respondents living in homes without any students.

Whether the respondent was currently a student. There were no statistically significant differencesin the evaluations of the importance of the roles by respondents who were students in school orin a training program and respondents who were not. (see Table 13).

Nature of the program of study. Dividing the respondents into groups based on the nature of theirprogram of study produced groups too small for comparisons.

Primary language spoken in the household. The only non-English language spoken by therespondents with a frequency of occurrence sufficient for group comparison was Spanish.Comparisons of the Hispanic American sample to the African American sample and theCaucasian American sample have already been reported. Comparisons of Spanish speaking andEnglish speaking Hispanic American households are reported later in Hispanic American sectionof this report.

Employment status. There were five statistically significant differences among the groups ofrespondents with different employment status (see Table 14). Respondents who were employedpart time rated the Preschoolers' Door to Learning role higher than respondents who wereunemployed. Respondents who were unemployed rated the Reference Library for business rolelower than respondents who were employed full time, employed part time, and not in the workforce; while respondents who were not in the work force rated this role higher than respondentswho were retired. Respondents who were unemployed rated the Community Activities Center rolelower than people who were not in the work force. Respondents who were not in the work forcerated the Research Center role higher than respondents who were employed full time.Respondents who were not in the work force rated the Public Work Place role higher thanrespondents who were employed full time. The difference among the groups for the ReferenceLibrary for business role was non-trivial. The other four differences in the role evaluations weretrivial.

Total annual household income. There was one statistically significant and non-trivial correlationcoefficient. Total annual household income VAS inversely correlated (r = -.19) with theevaluation of the importance of the library's role as a Public Work Place. The lower thehousehold income the higher the evaluation of the importance of the Public Work Place role; thehigher the household income the lower the evaluation of the importance of the Public Work Placerole.

Based on the amount of total annual household income, the respondents were divided intofive groups: households with incomes of less than $15,000, $15,000 to $29,999, $30,000 to$44,999, $45,000 to $59,999, and $60,000 or more. Comparisons of the mean role importancescale scores for respondents based on their household income level indicated that there were fourstatistically significant differences among the groups (see Table 15). Respondents who lived in

- 24 -

3-J

households with incomes of less than $15,000 rated the Research Center role, the CommunityInformation Center role, and the Public Work Place role higher than all the other groups andthese respondents also rated the Independent Learning Center role higher than all other groupswith the exception of the those respondents living in households with incomes between $15,000and $29,999. In addition, respondents who lived in households with incomes of more than$60,000 rated the Community Information Center role lower than respondents living inhouseholds with incomes of $15,000 to $29,999 and $30,000 to $44,999, rated the IndependentLearning Center role lower than respondents living in households with incomes of $15,000 to$29,999, and rated the Public Work Place role lower than respondents living in households withincomes of $15,U00 to $29,999. The differences among the groups for the Research Center roleand the Independent Learning Center role were trivial.

Whether anyone in the household was disabled. Comparisons of the mean importance scale scoresfor respondents living in households with a disabled person and respondents living in householdswithout a disabled person indicated that there was one statistically significant, but trivial,difference between the groups (see Table 16). Respondents living in households with a disableperson rated the Public Work Place role higher than respondents living in households without adisabled person.

Whether the respondent was disabled. Comparisons of the mean importance scale scores forrespondents who were disabled and respondents living in households with someone else disabledindicated that there were two statistically significant and non-trivial differences between thegroups (see Table 17). Respondents who were disabled rated the Public Work Place role and thePopular Materials Library role higher than the respondents who were not disabled.

The nature of the disability. Dividing the disabled respondents into groups based on the natureof their disability produced groups too small for comparisons.

Whether the respondent voted in the last (1988) presidential election. Comparisons of the meanrole importance scale scores of respondents who voted and respondents who did not vote in the1988 election indicated that there were four statistically significant, but trivial, differencesbetween the groups (see Table 18). Respondents who voted rated the Format Education SupportCenter role and the Popular Materials Library role higher than respondents who did not vote.Respondents who did not vote rated the Reference Library for business role and the IndependentLearning Center role higher than respondents who did vote.

The respondent' s opinion about hislher current financial condition. Comparisons of the mean roleimportance scale scores for respondents based on their opinions about their current financialcondition indicated that there were two statistically significant, but trivial, differences among thegroups (see Table 19). Respondents who felt that their current financial condition was worse thanlast year rated the Research Center role and the Community Information Center role higher thanrespondents who felt that their current financial condition was better than last year.

The respondents's opinion about hislher financial condition next year. Comparisons of the meanrole importance scale scores for respondents based on their opinions about their financialcondition next year indicated that there was one statistically significant, but trivial, differenceamong the groups (see Table 20). Respondents who felt that their financial condition next year

- 25 - 4 0

will be better than this year rated the Community Activities Center role lower than respondentswho felt that their financial condition next year will be about the same as this year.

DIFFERENCES IN THE EVALUATIONS OF THE IMPORTANCE OF THE ROLES BYLIBRARY USERS AND NONUSERS IN THE NATIONAL SAMPLE

Each of the role importance scales was tested for differences among respondents (usinganalysis of variance) based on the following library use behaviors: whether or not the respondenthad gone to a public library in the past year, whether or not someone else had gone to a libraryto obtain materials for the respondent, whether or not the respondent had called a library forinformation in the past year, and a constructed measure of any kind of use of a public library -whether or not a respondent answered "yes" to any one of the three "use"questions. The resultsof these analyses are reported below.

Whether the respondent had gone to a public library in the past year. There were threestatistically significant, but trivial, differences between respondents who had gone andrespondents who had not gone to a public library in the past year (see Table 21). Respondentswho had gone to a library rated the Formal Education Support Center role, the Reference Libraryfor personal information role, and the Popular Materials Library role higher than respondents whohad not gone to a library.

Respondents who indicated that they had gone to a library in the past year were alsoasked how many times they had gone to a library and were provided six numerical responsecategories which were converted into a six-point scale. This frequency of visit scale was alsoentered into correlation analyses with each of the role importance scales. The results of theseanalyses indicated that there were no statistically significant and non-trivial correlationcoefficients. The respondents' frequency of visiting a library was not related to their evaluationsof the importance of the roles.

Whether someone else went to a public library for the respondent. There was one statisticallysignificant, but trivial, difference between respondents who had someone else go to a library forthem and respondents who did not (see Table 22). Respondents who had someone else go to alibrary for them rated the Formal Education Support Center role higher than respondents who didnot.

Whether the respondent called a public library in the last year. There were two statisticallysignificant, but trivial, differences between respondents who called a library for information andthose that did not (see Table 23). Respondents who had called a library rated the FormalEducation Support Center role and the Reference Library for personal information role higherthan respondents who did not c21l a library for information.

Whether the respondent had made any use of a public library in the past year. There were threestatistically significant, but trivial, differences between respondents who had made any use of alibrary and respondents who had not (see Table 24). Respondents who had made any use of alibrary rated the Formal Education Support Center role, the Reference Library for personal

- 26 -

41

information role, and the Popular Materials Library role higher than respondents who had notmade any use of a library.

THE NATIONAL SAMPLE'S OPINION ABOUT AMOUNT OF PER CAPITA SPENDINGFOR PUBLIC LIBRARIES

The responses to the question about the amount of money that the community shouldspend on library services were tabulated and are reported in Table 25. These results indicatedthat 34.8% answered that the community should spend between $1 to $20 per capita on publiclibraries (this interval contains the national [1990] median of $16 per capita), while 52.4% of therespondents answered that the community should spend more than $20 per capita. Twelve andone-half per cent of the respondents were not sure and did not respond. The average per capitaexpenditure" that the respondents thought the community should spend annually on the publiclibrary was $34.16 - an amount twice as high as the national per capita expenditure.

DIFFERENCES OF OPINION AMONG SEGMENTS OF THE NATIONAL SAMPLE ABOUTTHE AMOUNT OF PER CAPITA SPENDING FOR PUBLIC LIBRARIES

The respondents' opinions about the amount of money that the community should spendfor library services were tested for differences among respondents (using analysis of variance)based on the same characteristics of the respondents as were identified on pages 19 and 20. Theresults of these analyses, reported in Table 26, indicated that there were seven statisticallysignificant differences. These differences are reported below.

Region of country. Respondents living in the northeastern states were of the opinion that thecommunity should spend about $42.33 per capita which was higher than the amounts selectedby respondents living in the north central states ($29.33) and the south central states ($32.01).

RacelEthnicity. Caucasian Americans were of the opinion that the community should spend about$33.65 per capita which was lower than the amounts selected by the Hispanic American group($39.26) and the African American Group ($39.90). This difference was trivial.

Highest grade level completed. Respondents who had completed some college and respondentswho had graduated from college were of the opinion that the community should spend,respectively, about $37.90 and $38.26 per capita which was higher than the amounts selected byrespondents who had an 8th grade education or less ($27.42), completed 9th - 1 lth grades($33.66), or completed the 12th grade ($30.61). This difference was trivial.

The number of preschoolers living in the home. Respondents living in homes with one or morepreschool children were of the opinion that the community should spend about $37.77 per capita

'3 The average or mean of the scores was calculated using the mid-point of each interval; namely, $0, $10, $30,$50, $70, $90, and $110.

- 27 -

42

which was higher than the amount selected by respondents living in homes without any preschoolchildren ($32.92). This difference was trivial.

Whether the respondent was a student. Respondents who were students were c the opinion thatthe community should spend about $41.61 per capita which was higher than the amount selectedby respondents who were not students ($33.20). This difference was trivial.

Whether the respondent voted in last (1988) presidential election. Respondents who voted in thelast presidential election were of the opinion that the community should spend about $36.06 percapita which was higher than the amount selected by respondents who did not vote ($31.11). Thisdifference was trivial.

The respondent' s opinion about hislher financial condition next year. Respondents who felt thatthey will be better off next year were of the opinion that the community should spend about$36.53 per capita which was higher than the amount selected by respondents who felt that theywill be about the same next year ($31.54) Respondents who felt that they will be worse off nextyear selected $34.05 which was not statistically different than the other two groups.

There were no statistically significant differences among the respondents based on sizeof community, gender, age, whether the respondent had a high school diploma, marital status, thenumber of people living in the home, whether there were any students in the home, employmentstatus, total annual household income, whether there were any disabled persons in the household,whether the respondent was disabled, and opinions about financial conditions next year.

DIFFERENCES OF OPINION ABOUT THE AMOUNT OF PER CAPITA SPENDING FORPUBLIC LIBRARIES BY LIBRARY USERS AND NONUSERS IN THE NATIONAL SAMPLE

The respondents' selection of the amount of public spending for library services wastested for differences among respondents (using analysis of variance) based on the followinglibrary use behaviors: whether or not the respondent had gone to a public library in the past year,whether or not someone else had gone to a library to obtain materials for the respondent, whetheror not the respondent had called a library for information in the past year, and a constructedmeasure of any kind of use of a public library - whether or not a respondent answered "yes" toany one of the three "use"questions. The results of these analyses, reported in Table 27,indicated that there were three statistically significant, but trivial, differences.

Respondents who had gone to a public library last year were of the opinion that thecommunity should spend about $36.33 per capita which was higher than the amount selected byrespondents who had not gone to a public library ($31.14).

The number of times that the respondents reported going to a library in the last year wasentered into correlation analysis with the amount of public spending scale. The result of thisanalysis indicated that there was a statistically significant and non-trivial correlation coefficient(r = .18) indicating that, among library users, the more frequently users visited a library thehigher the per capita support they thought the community should give to a library.

- 28 -

Respondents who called a library for information were of the opinion that the communityshould spend about $39.38 per capita which was higher than the amount selected by respondentswho had not called a library ($32.48).

Respondents who had engaged in any use of a library in the past year were of the opinionthat the community should spend about $35.76 per capita which was higher than the amountselected by respondents who had not engaged in any use of a library ($31.17).

The trivial nature of these differences indicates that while users of libraries felt thatcommunities should spend more to support the library than nonusers did, the differences werenot that great. The managerial significance of these data is that even nonusers of libraries feelthat communities should spend about twice the amount of the current national median level offinancial support for public libraries.

RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN THE EVALUATIONS OF THE ROLES AND THE OPINIONSABOUT THE AMOUNT OF PER CAPITA SPENDING FOR PUBLIC LIBRARIES IN THENATIONAL SAMPLE

In order to identify which of the roles of the public library the public appeared mostwilling to support financially, each of the role importance scales was entered into a correlationanalysis with the suggested amount of public spending scale. None of these analyses resultedin a correlation coefficient that was statistically significant and non-trivial. These results suggestthat the amount of public spending for library services the public appears willing to support isnot related to any one role or group of roles. It appears that the public considers all roles to beequally worthy of financial support.

.29- 4 4

Nat

iona

l Sam

ple

TA

BL

E 1

TH

E P

UB

LIC

'S E

VA

LU

AT

ION

S O

F T

HE

IM

POR

TA

NC

EO

F T

HE

VA

RIO

US

RO

LE

S O

F T

HE

PU

BL

IC L

IBR

AR

Y

(N =

100

1)

i%

Form

al E

duca

tion

Supp

ort C

ente

r3.

8588

.1

Inde

pend

ent L

earn

ing

Cen

ter

3.81

84.6

Pres

choo

lers

' Doo

r to

Lea

rnin

g3.

8183

.2

Res

earc

h C

ente

r3.

5968

.2

Com

mun

ity I

nfor

mat

ion

Cen

ter

3.58

65.6

Ref

eren

ce L

ibra

ryB

usin

ess

3.42

55.1

Publ

ic W

ork

Plac

e3.

3852

.4

Popu

lar

Mat

eria

ls L

ibra

ry3.

3551

.4

Ref

eren

ce L

ibra

ryPe

rson

al3.

3948

.4

Com

mun

ity A

ctiv

ities

Cen

ter

3.13

41.3

Not

e: N

is th

e sa

mpl

e si

ze a

nd r

epre

sent

s, in

gen

eral

, the

num

ber

of r

espo

nden

ts w

ho r

ated

eac

h ro

le.

irep

rese

nts

the

mea

n ra

ting

for

each

rol

e on

the

four

-poi

nt im

port

ance

sca

le. %

repr

esen

ts th

e pe

rcen

tage

of

the

sam

ple

that

rat

ed th

e ro

le "

very

impo

rtan

t." F

or s

ome

role

s th

ere

wer

e a

few

non

-res

pond

ents

, but

thes

e sl

ight

dif

fere

nces

insa

mpl

e si

zes

are

inco

nseq

uent

ial

for

the

purp

ose

of e

stim

atin

g th

e sa

mpl

ing

erro

r as

soci

ated

with

the

% o

f re

spon

dent

s w

ho r

ated

the

role

"ve

ry im

port

ant."

4 5

- 31

-

Nat

iona

l Sam

ple

TA

BL

E 2

CO

MPA

RIS

ON

S A

MO

NG

RE

SPO

ND

EN

TS

FRO

M D

II-F

ER

EN

T R

EG

ION

S O

F T

HE

CO

UN

TR

Y*

Sout

hN

orth

Nor

thea

stC

entr

alC

entr

alW

est

(N =

211

)(N

= 3

39)

(N =

249

)(N

= 2

02)

1

Form

al E

duca

tion

Supp

ort C

ente

r3.

78

Pres

choo

lers

' Doo

r to

Lea

rnin

g3.

81

Ref

eren

ce L

ibra

ryPe

rson

al3.

37

Ref

eren

ce L

ibra

ryB

usin

ess

3.37

Com

mun

ity A

ctiv

ities

Cen

ter

3.05

Res

earc

h C

ente

r3.

61

Com

mun

ity I

nfor

mat

ion

Cen

ter

3.62

Inde

pend

ent L

earn

ing

Cen

ter

3.84

Publ

ic W

ork

Plac

e3.

34

Popu

lar

Mat

eria

ls L

ibra

ry3.

36

%i

%i

%

85.7

3.87

90.7

3.87

90.1

84.7

3.79

83.5

3.87

87.4

49.8

3.38

48.8

3.38

46.5

56.0

3.47

60.3

3.39

53.0

40.4

3.15

41.6

3.15

44.5

71.6

3.63

72.2

3.51

62.5

72.5

3.63

70.9

3.50

59.2

85.8

3.83

87.4

3.75

80.8

51.9

\3.

3552

.23.

3751

.1

51.6

3.34

50.9

3.36

54.9

I%

aR

2

3.85

87.1

n.s.

3.76

80.5

n.s.

3.43

49.9

n.s.

3.43

56.4

n.s.

3.16

42.2

n.s.

3.59

71.3

n.s.

3.55

62.1

n.s.

3.83

86.5

n.s.

3.47

57.8

n.s.

3.36

50.9

n.s.

Thi

s ta

ble

repo

rts

the

sum

mar

y an

alys

es o

f var

ianc

e fo

r th

e co

mpa

rison

s am

ong

the

mea

n ro

le im

port

ance

sca

le s

core

s fo

r th

e gr

oups

of r

espo

nden

ts id

entif

ied

byth

e co

lum

n he

adin

gs.

Not

e: N

is th

e sa

mpl

e si

ze fo

r ea

ch g

roup

and

rep

rese

nts,

in g

ener

al, t

he n

umbe

r of

res

pond

ents

who

rat

ed e

ach

role

. I r

epre

sent

s th

e m

ean

ratin

g fo

r ea

ch r

ole

on th

e fo

ur-p

oint

impo

rtan

cesc

ale.

Exp

lana

tions

of a

(th

e al

pha

leve

l) an

d le

(th

e co

effic

ient

of d

eter

min

atio

n) a

re p

rovi

ded

on p

age

19. T

he in

itial

s n.

s. in

dica

te th

at th

e ob

serv

eddi

ffere

ncs

amon

g th

e gr

oup

mea

ns a

reno

tst

atis

tical

ly s

igni

fican

t. %

rep

rese

nts

the

perc

enta

ge o

f eac

h gr

oup

that

rat

ed th

e ro

le "

very

impo

rtan

t." T

hese

% a

re p

rese

nted

for

desc

riptiv

e pu

ipos

es. F

or s

ome

role

sthe

re w

ere

a fe

wno

n-re

spon

dent

s, b

ut th

ese

slig

ht d

iffer

ence

s in

sam

ple

size

s ar

e in

cons

eque

ntia

l for

the

purp

ose

of e

stim

atin

g th

e sa

mpl

ing

erro

r as

soci

ated

with

the

perc

enta

ge o

f res

pond

ents

who

rate

d th

ero

les

"ver

y im

port

ant."

- 32

-

Nat

iona

l Sam

ple

TA

BL

E 3

CO

MPA

RIS

ON

S A

MO

NG

RE

SPO

ND

EN

TS

FRO

M C

OM

MU

NIT

IES

WIT

hD

II-P

ER

EN

T S

IZE

PO

PUL

AT

ION

S'

Ove

r 1,

000,

000

250,

000

1,00

0,00

0U

nder

250

,000

aR

2

(N =

67)

(N =

116

)(N

= 8

17)

I%

i%

I%

Form

al E

duca

tion

Supp

ort C

ente

r3.

8689

.13.

9495

.43.

8387

.8n.

s.

Pres

choo

lers

' Doo

r to

Lea

rnin

g3.

7378

.13.

8284

.03.

8184

.6n.

s.

Ref

eren

ce L

ibra

ryPe

rson

al3.

3853

.93.

4250

.73.

3848

.0n.

s.

Ref

eren

ce L

ibra

ryB

usin

ess

3.49

64.5

3.52

59.4

3.40

55.8

n.s.

Com

mun

ity A

ctiv

ities

Cen

ter

3.11

38.3

3.19

43.3

3.12

42.3

n.s.

Res

earc

h C

ente

r3.

7077

.43.

6373

.13.

5768

.4n.

s.

Com

mun

ity I

nfor

mat

ion

Cen

ter

3.70

78.0

3.61

69.9

3.57

65.2

n.s.

Inde

pend

ent L

earn

ing

Cen

ter

3.86

89.5

3.87

91.9

3.80

84.0

n.s.

Publ

ic W

ork

Plac

e3.

3649

.23.

4554

.83.

3753

.1n.

s.

Popu

lar

Mat

eria

ls L

ibra

ry3.

3149

.93.

3449

.83.

3652

.5n.

s.

Thi

s ta

ble

repo

rts

the

sum

mar

y an

alys

es o

f var

ianc

e fo

r th

e co

mpa

rison

s am

ong

the

mea

nro

le im

port

ance

sca

le s

core

s fo

r th

e gr

oups

of r

espo

nden

ts id

entif

ied

by th

e co

lum

nhe

adin

gs.

Not

e: N

is th

e sa

mpl

e si

ze fo

r ea

ch g

roup

and

rep

rese

nts,

in g

ener

al, t

he n

umbe

rof

res

pond

ents

who

rat

ed e

ach

role

.re

pres

ents

the

mea

n ra

ting

for

each

rol

e on

the

four

-poi

nt im

port

ance

scal

e. E

xpla

natio

ns o

f a (

the

alph

a le

vel)

and

13.2

(th

e co

effic

ient

of d

eter

min

atio

n) a

re p

rovi

ded

on p

age

19. T

he in

itial

s n.

s. in

dica

te th

at th

e ob

serv

ed d

iffer

ence

s am

ong

the

grou

p m

eans

are

not s

tatis

tical

ly s

igni

fican

t. %

rep

rese

nts

the

perc

enta

ge o

f eac

h gr

oup

that

rat

ed th

e ro

le 'v

ery

impo

rtan

t." T

hese

% a

re p

rese

nted

for

desc

riptiv

e pu

rpos

es.

For

som

e ro

les

ther

e w

ere

a fe

w

non-

resp

onde

nts,

but

thes

e sl

ight

diff

eren

ces

in s

ampl

e si

zes

are

inco

nseq

uent

ial f

or th

e pu

rpos

e of

estim

atin

g th

e sa

mpl

ing

erro

r as

soci

ated

with

the

perc

enta

ge o

f res

pond

ents

who

rate

d th

e

role

s "v

ery

impo

rtan

t."

4)-

33 -

Nat

iona

l Sam

ple

TA

BL

E 4

CO

MPA

RIS

ON

S B

ET

WE

EN

MA

LE

AN

D F

EM

AL

E R

ESP

ON

DE

NT

S$

Mal

e(N

= 4

74)

Fem

ale

(N =

527

)

oc

R2

Form

al E

duca

tion

Supp

ort C

ente

r3.

7883

.93.

9193

.1.0

00.0

17

Pres

choo

lers

' Doo

r to

Lea

rnin

g3.

7478

.33.

8789

.3.0

00.0

17

Ref

eren

ce L

ibra

ryPe

rson

al3.

3146

.73.

4250

.4n.

s.

Ref

eren

ce L

ibra

ryB

usin

ess

3.34

53.5

3.49

59.8

.002

.010

Com

mun

ity A

ctiv

ities

Cen

ter

3.03

38.7

3.22

45.3

.001

.011

Res

earc

h C

ente

r3.

4862

.63.

6975

.8.0

00.0

22

Com

mun

ity I

nfor

mat

ion

Cen

ter

3.51

61.3

3.65

71.4

.001

.011

Inde

pend

ent L

earn

ing

Cen

ter

3.77

82.0

3.85

88.1

.007

.007

Publ

ic W

ork

Plac

e3.

2346

.23.

5059

.1.0

00.0

29

Popu

lar

Mat

eria

ls L

ibra

ry3.

2143

.03.

4860

.1.0

00.0

27

Thi

s ta

ble

repo

rts

the

sum

mar

y an

alys

es o

f var

ianc

e fo

r th

e co

mpa

rison

s am

ong

the

mea

n ro

le im

port

ance

sca

le s

core

s fo

r th

e gr

oups

of r

espo

nden

ts id

entif

ied

byth

e co

lum

n he

adin

gs.

Not

e: N

is th

e sa

mpl

e si

ze fo

r et

tch

grou

p an

d re

pres

ents

, in

gene

ral,

the

num

ber

of r

espo

nden

ts w

ho r

ated

eac

h ro

le.

I rep

rese

nts

the

mea

n ra

ting

for

each

rol

e on

the

four

-poi

nt im

port

ance

scul

e. E

xpla

natio

ns o

f a (

the

alph

a !e

vel)

and

R.'

(the

coe

ffici

ent o

f det

erm

inat

ion)

are

pro

vide

d on

pag

e 19

. The

initi

als

n.s.

indi

cate

that

the

obse

rved

diffe

renc

es a

mon

g th

e gr

oup

mea

ns9

not s

tatis

tical

ly s

igni

fican

t. %

rep

rese

nts

the

perc

enta

ge o

f eac

h gr

oup

that

rat

ed th

e ro

le "

very

impo

rtan

t." T

hese

% a

re p

rese

nted

for

desc

riptiv

e pt

upos

es. F

or s

ome

role

s th

ere

wer

e a

fevi

ono

n-re

spon

dent

s, b

ut th

ese

slig

ht d

iffer

mce

s in

sam

ple

size

s ar

e in

cons

eque

ntia

l for

the

purp

ose

of e

stim

atin

g th

e sa

mpl

ing

erro

r as

soci

ated

with

the

perc

enta

ge o

fre

spon

dent

s w

ho r

ated

thc

role

s "v

ery

impo

rtan

t."

34

Nat

iona

l Sam

ple

TA

BL

E 5

CO

MPA

RIS

ON

S A

MO

NG

RE

SPO

ND

EN

TS

FRO

M D

IFFE

RE

NT

AG

E G

RO

UPS

'

18-3

536

-50

51-6

566

and

up

(N =

385

)(N

= 2

60)

(N =

73)

(N =

173

)

)7%

i%

i%

i%

ale

Form

al E

duca

tion

Supp

ort C

ente

r3.

8387

.8

Pres

choo

lers

' Doo

r to

Lea

rnin

g3.

8485

.3

Ref

eren

ce L

ibra

ry -

Per

sona

l3.

3946

.6

Ref

eren

ce L

ibra

ryB

usin

ess

3.50

59.6

Com

mun

ity A

ctiv

ities

Cen

ter

3.12

39.9

Res

earc

h C

ente

r3.

5869

.5

Com

mun

ity I

nfor

mat

ion

Cen

ter

3.63

69.3

Inde

pend

ent L

earn

ing

Cen

ter

3.87

88.8

Publ

ic W

ork

Plac

e3.

3450

.2

Popu

lar

Mat

eria

ls L

ibra

ry3.

2945

.9

3.88

90.4

3.89

90.6

3.80

83.1

3.78

84.4

3.40

49.4

3.40

49.4

3.38

52.7

3.40

56.4

3.01

35.3

3.29

50.8

3.55

65.1

3.59

69.7

3.54

63.5

3.54

63.0

3.81

85.4

3.74

78.5

3.28

45.5

3.48

60.2

3.33

49.9

3.46

58.4

3.80

85.6

n.s.

3.77

82.0

n.s.

3.33

51.4

n.s.

3.31

56.3

.042

.009

3.20

49.4

.014

.011

3.68

76.8

n.s.

3.57

69.4

n.s.

3.77

84.1

.014

.011

3.50

63.9

.009

.012

3.42

62.5

n.s.

Thi

s ta

ble

repo

rts

the

sum

mar

y an

alys

es o

f va

rian

ce f

or th

e co

mpa

riso

ns a

mon

g th

e m

ean

role

impo

rtan

ce s

cale

sco

res

for

the

grou

ps o

f re

spon

dent

s id

entif

ied

byth

e co

lum

n he

adin

gs.

Not

e: N

is th

e sa

mpl

e si

ze f

or e

ach

grou

p an

d re

pres

ents

, in

gene

ral,

the

num

ber

of r

espo

nden

ts w

ho r

ated

eac

h ro

le. i

rep

rese

nts

the

mea

nra

ting

for

each

rol

e on

the

four

-poi

nt im

port

ance

scal

e. E

xpla

natio

ns o

f a

(the

alp

ha le

vel)

and

122

(th

e co

effi

cien

t of

dete

rmin

atio

n) a

re p

rovi

ded

on p

age

19. T

he in

itial

s n.

s. in

dica

te th

at th

e ob

serv

eddi

ffer

ence

s am

ong

the

grou

p m

eans

are

not s

tatis

tical

ly s

igtif

ican

t. %

rep

rese

nts

the

perc

enta

ge o

f ea

ch g

roup

that

rat

ed th

e ro

le "

very

impo

rtan

t.'' T

hese

% a

re p

rese

nted

for

des

crip

tive

purp

oses

. For

som

ero

les

ther

e w

ere

a fe

wno

n-re

spon

dent

s, b

ut th

ese

slig

ht d

iffe

renc

es in

sam

ple

size

s ar

c in

cons

eque

ntia

l for

the

purp

ose

of e

stim

atin

g th

e sa

mpl

ing

erro

r as

soci

ated

with

the

perc

enta

ge o

f re

spon

dent

s w

hora

ted

the

role

s "v

ery

impo

nant

."

- 35

-54

Nat

iona

l Sam

ple

TA

BL

E 6

CO

MPA

RIS

ON

S A

MO

NG

AFR

ICA

N A

ME

RIC

AN

, CA

UC

ASI

AN

AM

ER

ICA

N, A

ND

HIS

PAN

IC A

ME

RIC

AN

RE

SPO

ND

EN

TS'

Afr

ican

Cau

casi

anH

ispa

nic

Am

eric

ans

Am

eric

ans

Am

eric

ans

aR

2

(N =

401

)(N

= 8

46)

(N =

399

)

.ii%

i%

I%

Form

al E

duca

tion

Supp

ort C

ente

r3.

9496

.53.

8588

.63.

9293

.8.0

00.0

10

Pres

choo

lers

' Doo

r to

Lea

rnin

g3.

9495

.73.

8083

.43.

9193

.0.0

00.0

22

Ref

eren

ce L

ibra

ry -

Per

sona

l3.

7074

.83.

3847

.83.

5261

.1.0

00.0

37

Ref

eren

ce L

ibra

ry -

Bus

ines

s3.

7378

.93.

3954

.83.

6272

.7.0

00.0

43

Com

mun

ity A

ctiv

ities

Cen

ter

3.50

63.8

3.11

41.0

3.46

61.5

.000

.045

Res

earc

h C

ente

r3.

7984

.63.

5667

.53.

7984

.2.0

00.0

30

Com

mun

ity I

nfor

mat

ion

Cen

ter

3.82

85.6

3.56

65.1

3.81

85.3

.000

.045

Inde

pend

ent L

earn

ing

Cen

ter

3.89

93.1

3.81

84.7

3.95

95.4

.000

.018

Publ

ic W

ork

Plac

e3.

6570

.73.

3651

.73.

6474

.9.0

00.0

36

Popu

lar

Mat

eria

ls L

ibra

ry3.

5261

.53.

3752

.33.

4657

.4.0

03.0

07

Thi

s ta

ble

repo

rts

the

sum

mar

y an

alys

es o

f var

ianc

e fo

r th

e co

mpa

rison

s am

ong

the

mea

n ro

le im

port

ance

sca

le s

core

s fo

r th

e gr

oups

of r

espo

nden

ts id

entif

ied

byth

e co

lum

n he

adin

gs.

Not

e: N

is th

c sa

mpl

e si

ze fo

r ea

ch g

roup

and

rep

rese

nts,

in g

ener

al, t

he n

umbe

r of

res

pond

ents

who

rat

ed e

ach

role

. I r

epre

sent

s th

e m

ean

ratin

g fo

r ea

ch r

ole

on th

e fo

ur-p

oint

impo

rtan

cesc

ale.

Exp

lana

tions

of a

(th

e al

pha

leve

l) an

d le

(th

e co

effic

ient

of d

eter

min

atio

n) a

re p

rovi

ded

on p

age

19. T

he in

itial

s n.

s. in

dica

te th

at th

e ob

serv

eddi

ffere

nces

am

ong

the

grou

p m

eans

are

not s

tatis

tical

ly s

igni

fican

t. %

rep

rese

nts

the

perc

enta

ge o

f cac

h gr

oup

that

rat

ed th

e ro

le "

very

impo

rtan

t." T

hese

% a

re p

rese

nted

for

desc

riptiv

e pu

rpos

es. F

or s

ome

role

s th

ere

wer

e a

few

non-

resp

onde

nts,

but

thes

e sl

ight

diff

eren

ces

in s

ampl

e si

zes

are

inco

nseq

uent

ial f

or th

e pu

rpos

e of

est

imat

ing

the

sam

plin

g er

ror

asso

ciat

ed w

ith th

e pe

rcen

tage

of r

espo

nden

ts w

hora

ted

the

0 U

role

s "v

ery

impo

rtan

t."

Nat

iona

l Sam

ple

TA

BL

E 7

CO

MPA

RIS

ON

S A

MO

NG

RE

SPO

ND

EN

TS

BA

SED

ON

HIG

HE

ST G

RA

DE

LE

VE

L C

OM

PLE

TE

D*

8th

grad

eor

less

(N =

74)

i%

9th-

llth

grad

e(N

= 1

06)

X%

Form

al E

duca

tion

Supp

ort C

ente

r3.

8689

.83.

6574

.2

Pres

choo

lers

' Doo

r to

Lea

rnin

g3.

8691

.73.

7983

.4

Ref

eren

ce L

ibra

ry -

Per

sona

l16

775

.83.

4457

.3

Ref

eren

ce L

ibra

ry -

Bus

ines

s3.

6076

.23.

3754

.3

Com

mun

ity A

ctiv

ities

Cen

ter

3.42

62.2

3.09

42.3

Res

earc

h C

ente

r3.

8082

.83.

6068

.8

Com

mun

ity I

nfor

mat

ion

Cen

ter

3.71

77.0

3.67

73.5

Inde

pend

ent L

earn

ing

Cen

ter

3.88

92.3

3.87

88.2

Publ

ic W

ork

Plac

e3.

6370

.93.

6471

.7

Popu

lar

Mat

eria

ls L

ibra

ry3.

2355

.23.

4458

.8

Com

plet

ed12

th g

rade

Som

e co

llege

colle

ge(N

= 3

83)

(N =

212

)(N

= 2

22)

I 3.84

3.81

3.36

3.44

3.10

3.62

3.62

3.84

3.43

3.35

%X

%

89.4

3.94

94.5

84.6

3.84

86.6

46.0

3.38

44.0

57.3

3.44

57.4

41.8

3.11

39.0

70.8

3.59

69.6

70.3

3.56

64.1

86.8

3.79

83.5

54.3

3.29

47.2

53.4

3.35

49.2

I%

aR

.'

3.86

88.2

.000

.025

3.76

78.8

n.s.

3.33

44.9

.006

.014

3.32

49.8

n.s.

3.11

39.2

n.s.

3.47

64.0

.011

.013

3.45

56.5

.006

.015

3.75

80.3

n.s.

3.17

42.0

.000

.039

3.36

48.2

n.s.

Thi

s ta

ble

repo

rts

the

sum

mar

y an

alys

es o

f va

rian

ce f

or th

e co

mpa

riso

ns a

mon

g th

e m

ean

role

impo

rtan

ce s

cale

sco

res

for

the

grou

ps o

f re

spon

dent

s id

entif

ied

byth

e co

lum

n he

adin

gs.

Not

e: N

is th

e sa

mpl

e si

ze f

or e

ach

grou

p an

d re

pres

ents

, in

gene

ral,

the

num

ber

of r

espo

nden

ts w

ho r

ated

eac

h ro

le.

i rep

rese

nts

the

mea

n ra

ting

for

each

rol

e on

the

four

-poi

nt im

port

ance

scal

e. E

xpla

natio

ns o

f a

(the

alp

ha le

vel)

and

Fe

(the

coe

ffic

ient

of

dete

rmin

atio

n) a

re p

rovi

ded

on p

age

19. T

he in

itial

s n.

s. in

dica

te th

at th

e ob

serv

eddi

ffer

ence

s am

ong

the

grou

p m

eans

are

not s

tatis

tical

ly s

igni

fica

nt. %

rep

rese

nts

the

perc

enta

ge o

f ea

ch g

roup

that

rat

ed th

e ro

le "

very

impo

rtan

t." T

hese

% a

:e p

rese

nted

for

des

crip

tive

purp

oses

. For

som

ero

les

ther

e w

ere

a fe

wno

n-re

spon

dent

s, b

ut th

ese

slig

ht d

iffe

renc

es in

sam

ple

size

s ar

e in

cons

eque

ntia

l for

the

purp

ose

of e

stim

atin

g th

e sa

mpl

ing

erro

r as

soci

ated

with

the

perc

enta

ge o

f re

spon

dent

s w

hora

ted

the

role

s "v

ery

impo

rtan

t."

- 37

-r, 0

Nat

iona

l Sam

ple

TA

BL

E 8

CO

MPA

RIS

ON

S A

MO

NG

RE

SPO

ND

EN

TS

BA

SED

ON

AW

AR

D O

F H

IGH

SC

HO

OL

DIP

LO

MA

*

Hig

h sc

hool

dipl

oma

(N =

400

)

i%

Form

al E

duca

tion

Supp

ort C

ente

r3.

8489

.2

Pres

choo

lers

' Doo

r to

Lea

rnin

g3.

8185

.0

Ref

eren

ce L

ibra

ry -

Per

sona

l3.

3646

.9

Ref

eren

ce L

ibra

ry -

Bus

ines

s3.

4358

.2

Com

mun

ity A

ctiv

ities

Cen

ter

3.14

42.3

Res

earc

h C

ente

r3.

6371

.9

Com

mun

ity I

nfor

mat

ion

Cen

ter

3.62

70.3

Inde

pend

ent L

earn

ing

Cen

ter

3.84

87.2

Publ

ic W

ork

Plac

e3.

4354

.4

Popu

lar

Mat

eria

ls L

ibra

ry3.

3854

.8

No

high

sch

ool

dipl

oma

(N =

163

)

I%

aR

2

3.72

80.3

.025

.009

3.83

86.2

n.s.

3.55

64.9

.004

.015

3.49

61.9

n.s.

3.15

50.4

n.s.

3.66

72.1

n.s.

3.69

75.4

n.s.

3.86

89.2

n.s.

3.66

73.2

.001

.022

3.29

54.5

n.s.

Thi

s ta

ble

repo

rts

the

sum

mar

y an

alys

es o

f var

ianc

e fo

r th

e co

mpa

rison

s am

ong

the

mea

n ro

le im

port

ance

sca

le s

core

sfo

r th

e gr

oups

of r

espo

nden

ts id

entif

ied

by th

e co

lum

n he

adin

gs.

Not

e: N

is th

e sa

mpl

e si

ze fo

r ea

ch g

roup

and

rep

rese

nts,

in g

ener

al, t

he n

umbe

r of

res

pond

ents

Who

rat

ed e

ach

role

.ic

rep

rese

nts

the

mea

n ra

ting

for

each

rol

e on

the

four

-poi

nt im

port

ance

scal

e. E

xpla

natio

ns o

f a (

the

alph

a le

vel)

and

le (

the

coef

ficie

nt o

f det

erm

inat

ion)

are

pro

vide

d on

pag

e 19

.T

he in

itial

s n.

s. in

dica

te th

at th

e ob

serv

ed d

iffer

ence

s am

ong

the

grou

p m

eans

are

not s

tatis

tical

ly s

igni

fican

t. %

rep

rese

nts

the

perc

enta

ge o

f eac

h gr

oup

that

rat

ed th

ero

le "

very

impo

rtan

t." T

hese

% a

re p

rese

nted

for

desc

riptiv

e pu

rpos

es. F

or s

ome

role

s th

ere

wer

e a

few

I55

non-

resp

onde

nts,

but

thes

e sl

ight

diff

eren

ces

in s

ampl

e si

zes

are

inco

nseq

uent

ial

for

the

purp

ose

of e

stim

atin

g th

e sa

mpl

ing

erro

r as

soci

ated

with

the

perc

enta

ge o

f res

pond

ents

who

rat

ed th

e

I

role

s "v

ery

impo

rtan

t."

- 38

-

Nat

iona

l Sam

ple

TA

BL

E 9

CO

MPA

RIS

ON

S A

MO

NG

RE

SPO

ND

EN

TS

BA

SED

ON

MA

RIT

AL

ST

AT

US* Nev

erM

arri

edW

idow

edD

ivor

ced

man

ied

(N =

590

)(N

= 9

9)(N

= 1

04)

(N =

203

)

IFo

rmal

Edu

catio

n Su

ppor

t Cen

ter

3.85

Pres

choo

lers

' Doo

r to

Lea

rnin

g3.

78

Ref

eren

ce L

ibra

ryPe

rson

al3.

38

Ref

eren

ce L

ibra

ryB

usin

ess

3.42

Com

mun

ity A

ctiv

ities

Cen

ter

3.11

Res

earc

h C

ente

r3.

59

Com

mun

ity I

nfor

mat

ion

Cen

ter

3.53

Inde

pend

ent L

earn

ing

Cen

ter

3.78

Publ

ic W

ork

Plac

e3.

36

Popu

lar

Mat

eria

ls L

ibra

ry3.

36

%i

%i

%

88.0

3.92

94.0

3.91

94.9

82.5

3.85

90.6

3.89

90.3

47.7

3.48

61.0

3.36

49.6

55.8

3.48

65.7

3.32

54.5

41.5

3.36

55.5

3.19

41.5

68.8

3.74

79.6

3.53

67.1

63.5

3.80

82.9

3.68

74.1

83.0

3.88

90.2

3.88

90.7

51.1

3.65

69.7

3.42

55.6

53.2

3.56

66.7

3.32

48.7

I%

ale

3.78

85.3

.050

.008

3.81

82.7

n.s.

3.36

45.1

n.s.

3.44

56.3

n.s.

3.05

38.1

.050

.008

3.54

68.6

n.s.

3.56

64.0

.001

.016

3.85

87.0

n.s.

3.31

50.1

.004

.014

3.25

44.0

.018

.010

Thi

s ta

ble

repo

rts

the

sum

mar

y an

alys

es o

f var

ianc

e fo

r th

e co

mpa

rison

s am

ong

the

mea

n ro

le im

port

ance

sca

le s

core

s fo

r th

e gr

oups

of r

espo

nden

ts id

entif

ied

byth

e co

lum

n he

adin

gs.

Not

e: N

is th

e sa

mpl

e si

ze fo

r ea

ch g

roup

and

rep

rese

nts,

in g

ener

al, t

he n

umbe

r of

res

pond

ents

who

rat

ed e

ach

role

. i r

epre

sent

s th

e m

ean

ratin

g fo

r ea

ch r

ole

on th

e fo

ur-p

oint

impo

rtan

cesc

ale.

Exp

lana

tions

of a

(th

e al

pha

leve

l) an

d R

2 (t

he c

oeffi

cien

t of d

eter

min

atio

n) a

re p

rovi

ded

on p

age

19. T

he in

itial

s n.

s. in

dica

te th

at th

e ob

serv

eddi

ffere

nces

am

ong

the

grou

p m

eans

are

not s

tatis

tical

ly s

igni

fican

t. %

rep

rese

nts

the

perc

enta

ge o

f eac

h gr

oup

that

rat

ed th

e ro

le "

very

impo

rtan

t." T

hese

% a

re p

rese

nted

for

desc

riptiv

e pu

rpos

es. F

or s

omer

oles

ther

e w

ere

a fe

wno

n-re

spon

dent

s, b

ut th

ese

slig

ht d

iffer

ence

s in

sam

ple

size

s ar

e in

cons

eque

ntia

l for

the

purp

ose

of e

stim

atin

g th

e sa

mpl

ing

erro

r as

soci

ated

with

the

perc

enta

ge o

f res

pond

ents

who

rate

d th

ero

les

"ver

y im

port

ant."

- 39

-

6 3

Nat

iona

l Sam

ple

TA

BL

E 1

0C

OM

PAR

ISO

NS

AM

ON

G R

ESP

ON

DE

NT

S B

ASE

D O

N N

UM

BE

R O

F PE

OPL

E I

N T

HE

HO

ME

'

12

34

5 or

mor

e(N

= 1

73)

(N =

333

)(N

= 1

81)

(N =

182

)(N

= 1

21)

i%

Form

al E

duca

tion

Supp

ort C

ente

r3.

9395

.0

Pres

choo

lers

Doo

r to

Lea

rnin

g3.

8587

.3

Ref

eren

ce L

ibra

ry -

Per

sona

l3.

3851

.4

Ref

eren

ce L

ibra

ry -

Bus

ines

s3.

3957

.1

Com

mun

ity A

ctiv

ities

Cen

ter

3.23

45.8

Res

earc

h C

ente

r3.

6475

.9

Com

mun

ity I

nfor

mat

ion

Cen

ter

3.69

72.9

Inde

pend

ent L

earn

ing

Cen

ter

3.84

86.9

Publ

ic W

ork

Plac

e3.

5263

.8

Popu

lar

Mat

eria

ls L

ibra

ry3.

4055

.2

I%

;I%

I%

I%

aR

2

3.77

81.9

3.85

88.7

3.88

91.0

3.91

94.7

n.s.

3.74

79.6

3.86

86.8

3.81

83.9

3.86

88.4

.018

.012

3.34

45.5

3.38

43.8

3.46

55.1

3.42

50.5

n.s.

3.41

57.1

3.34

50.2

3.44

56.0

3.56

65.3

n.s.

3.10

40.2

3.04

39.6

3.12

40.8

3.19

45.8

n.s.

3.57

68.5

3.57

67.1

3.58

67.4

3.61

70.7

n.s.

3.48

60.6

3.55

62.1

3.66

73.6

3.66

70.4

.002

.017

3.77

83.0

3.80

83.7

3.82

84.4

3.92

92.3

n.s.

3.32

49.1

3.23

43.5

3.35

50.8

3.61

66.0

.000

.026

3.35

53.4

3.24

41.4

3.34

51.7

3.47

58.3

n.s.

'Thi

s ta

ble

repo

rts

the

sum

mar

y an

alys

es o

f va

rian

ce f

or th

e co

mpa

riso

ns a

mon

g th

e m

ean

role

impo

rtan

ce s

cale

sco

res

for

the

grou

ps o

f re

spon

dent

s id

entif

ied

byth

e co

lum

n he

adin

gs.

Not

e: N

is th

e sa

mpl

e si

ze f

or e

ach

grou

p an

d re

pres

ents

, in

gene

ral,

the

num

ber

of r

espo

nden

ts w

ho r

ated

eac

h ro

le.

j rep

rese

nts

the

mea

n ra

ting

for

each

rol

e on

the

four

-poi

nt im

port

ance

scal

e. E

xpla

natio

ns o

f a

(the

alp

ha le

vel)

and

122

(th

e co

effi

cien

t of

dete

rmin

atio

n) a

re p

rovi

ded

on p

age

19. T

he in

itial

s n.

s.in

dica

te th

at th

e ob

serv

ed d

iffe

renc

es a

mon

g th

e gr

oup

mea

ns a

reno

t sta

tistic

ally

sig

nifi

cant

. % r

epre

sent

s th

e pe

rcen

tage

of

each

gro

up th

at r

ated

the

role

"ve

ry im

port

ant."

The

se %

are

pre

sent

ed f

or d

escr

iptiv

e pt

upos

es. F

or s

ome

role

s th

ere

wer

e a

few

non-

resp

onde

nts,

but

thes

e sl

ight

dif

fere

nces

in s

ampl

e si

zes

are

inco

nseq

uent

ial f

or th

e pu

rpos

eof

est

imat

ing

the

sam

plin

g er

ror

asso

ciat

ed w

ith th

e pe

rcen

tage

of

resp

onde

nts

who

rat

ed th

e

role

s "v

ery

impo

rtan

t."6

4

Nat

iona

l Sam

ple

TA

BL

E 1

1C

OM

PAR

ISO

NS

AM

ON

G R

ESP

ON

DE

NT

S B

ASE

D O

N N

UM

BE

R O

F PR

ESC

HO

OL

ER

S IN

TH

E H

OM

E*

No

pres

choo

lers

1 or

mor

e pr

esch

oole

rsin

the

hom

ein

the

hom

e(N

= 6

33)

(N =

178

)

)7

Form

al E

duca

tion

Supp

ort C

ente

r3.

81

Pres

choo

lers

' Doo

r to

Lea

rnin

g3.

77

Ref

eren

ce L

ibra

ry -

Per

sona

l3.

36

Ref

eren

ce L

ibra

ryB

usin

ess

3.41

Com

mun

ity A

ctiv

ities

Cen

ter

3.08

Res

earc

h C

ente

r3.

57

Com

mun

ity I

nfor

mat

ion

Cen

ter

3.51

Inde

pend

ent L

earn

ing

Cen

ter

3.78

Publ

ic W

ork

Plac

e3.

32

Popu

lar

Mat

eria

ls L

ibra

ry3.

32

%i

%a

R2

85.5

3.88

93.5

n.s.

82.0

3.88

88.2

.014

.007

46.0

3.49

55.0

.024

.006

55.5

3.49

60.6

n.s.

40.1

3.19

43.4

n.s.

68.3

3.61

68.9

n.s.

62.0

3.73

75.9

.000

.018

83.5

3.89

89.1

.012

.008

48.8

3.45

57.3

.046

.005

50.5

3.40

53.0

n.s.

Thi

s ta

ble

repo

rts

the

sum

mar

y an

alys

es o

f var

ianc

e fo

r th

e co

mpa

rison

s am

ong

the

mea

n ro

le im

port

ance

sca

le s

core

s fo

r th

e gr

oups

of r

espo

nden

ts id

entif

ied

byth

e co

lum

n he

adin

gs.

Not

e: N

is th

e sa

mpl

e si

ze fo

r ea

ch g

roup

and

rep

rese

nts,

in g

ener

al, t

he n

umbe

r of

res

pond

ents

who

rat

ed e

ach

role

. I r

epre

sent

s th

e m

ean

ratin

g fo

r ea

ch r

ole

on th

e fo

ur-ix

:lint

impo

rtan

cesc

ale.

Exp

lana

tions

of a

(th

e al

pha

leve

l) an

d 12

2 (t

he c

oeffi

cien

t of d

eter

min

atio

n) a

re p

rovi

ded

on p

age

19. T

he in

itial

s n.

s. in

dica

te th

at th

e ob

serv

eddi

ffere

nces

am

ong

the

grou

p m

eans

are

not s

tatis

tical

ly s

igni

fican

t. %

rep

rese

nts

the

perc

enta

ge o

f eac

h gr

oup

that

rat

ed th

e ro

le "

very

impo

rtan

t." T

hese

% a

re p

rese

nted

for

desc

riptiv

e pu

rpos

es. F

or s

ome

role

s th

ere

wer

e a

few

non-

resp

onde

nts,

but

thes

e sl

ight

diff

eren

ces

in s

ampl

e si

zes

are

inco

nseq

uent

ial f

or th

e pu

rpos

e of

est

imat

ing

the

sam

plin

g er

ror

asso

ciat

ed w

ithth

epe

rcen

tage

of r

espo

nden

ts w

ho r

ated

the

role

s "v

ery

impo

rtan

t."

Cob

tib-

41 -

6 7

Nat

iona

l Sam

ple

TA

BL

E 1

2C

OM

PAR

ISO

NS

AM

ON

G R

ESP

ON

DE

NT

S B

ASE

D O

N N

UM

BE

R O

F ST

UD

EN

TS

IN T

HE

HO

ME

*

No

stud

ents

in th

e ho

me

(N =

444

)_ X

%

1 or

mor

e st

uden

tsin

the

hom

e(N

= 3

71)

i%

a11

.2

Form

al E

duca

tion

Supp

ort C

ente

r3.

7783

.33.

9092

.1.0

01.0

14

Pres

choo

lers

' Doo

r to

Lea

rnin

g3.

7781

.73.

8385

.4n.

s.

Ref

eren

ce L

ibra

ryPe

rson

al3.

3545

.73.

4350

.6n.

s.

Ref

eren

ce L

ibra

ryB

usin

ess

3.41

56.6

3.44

56.5

n.s.

Com

mun

ity A

ctiv

ities

Cai

ter

3.11

40.5

3.09

41.4

n.s.

Res

earc

h C

ente

r3.

5868

.63.

5868

.2n.

s.

Com

mun

ity I

nfor

mat

ion

Cen

ter

3.53

64.2

3.59

66.4

n.s.

Inde

pend

ent L

earn

ing

Cen

ter

3.77

82.3

3.85

87.7

.043

..0

05

Publ

ic W

ork

Plac

e3.

3149

.03.

4052

.6n.

s.

Popu

lar

Mat

eria

ls L

ibra

ry3.

3451

.73.

3450

.3n.

s.

Thi

s ta

ble

repo

rts

the

sum

mar

y an

alys

es o

f var

ianc

e fo

r th

e co

mpa

rison

s am

ong

the

mea

n ro

le im

port

ance

sca

le s

core

s fo

r th

e gr

oups

of r

espo

nden

ts id

entif

ied

byth

e co

lum

n he

adin

gs.

Not

e: N

i. th

c sa

mpl

e si

zc fo

r ea

ch g

roup

and

rep

rese

nts,

in g

ener

al, t

he n

umbe

r of

res

pond

ents

who

rat

ed e

ach

role

. j r

epre

sent

s th

e m

ean

ratin

g fo

r ea

ch r

ole

on th

e fo

ur-p

oint

impo

rtan

cesc

ale.

Exp

lana

tions

of a

(th

e al

pha

leve

l) an

d IV

(th

e co

effic

ient

of d

eter

min

atio

n) a

re p

rovi

ded

on p

age

19. T

he in

itial

s n.

s. in

dica

te th

at th

e ob

serv

eddi

ffere

nces

am

ong

the

grou

p m

eans

are

not s

tatis

tical

ly s

igni

fican

t. %

rep

rese

nts

the

perc

enta

ge o

f eac

h gj

oup

that

rat

ed th

e ro

le "

very

impo

rtan

t." T

hese

% a

re p

rese

nted

for

desc

riptiv

e pu

rpos

es. F

or s

omer

oles

ther

e w

ere

a fe

wno

n-re

spon

dent

s, b

ut th

ese

slig

ht d

iffer

ence

s in

sam

ple

size

s ar

e in

cons

eque

ntia

l for

the

purp

ose

of e

stim

atin

g th

e sa

mpl

ing

enor

ass

ocia

ted

with

the

perc

enta

ge o

f res

pond

ents

who

rate

d th

ero

les

"ver

y im

port

ant"

6

Nat

iona

l Sam

ple

TA

BL

E 1

3C

OM

PAR

ISO

NS

BE

TW

EE

N R

ESP

ON

DE

NT

S W

HO

AR

E S

TU

DE

NT

SA

ND

RE

SPO

ND

EN

TS

WH

O A

RE

NO

T*

Stud

ents

(N =

103

)N

on-s

tude

nts

(N =

894

)

i:%

i%

aR

2

.For

mal

Edu

catio

n Su

ppor

t Cen

ter

3.88

88.3

3.84

88.7

n.s.

Pres

choo

lers

' Doo

r to

Lea

rnin

g3.

8888

.33.

8083

.6n.

s.

Ref

eren

ce L

ibra

ry -

Per

sona

l3.

3139

.03.

3949

.7n.

s.

Ref

eren

ce L

ibra

ry -

Bus

ines

s3.

5062

.63.

4156

.0n.

s.

Com

mun

ity A

ctiv

ities

Cen

ter

3.04

36.7

3.14

42.8

n.s.

Res

earc

h C

eate

r3.

5164

.13.

6070

.2n.

s.

Com

mun

ity I

nfor

mat

ion

Cen

ter

3.63

67.5

3.58

66.4

n.s.

Inde

pend

ent L

earn

ing

Cen

ter

3.89

89.3

3.80

84.7

n.s.

Publ

ic W

ork

Plac

e3.

3950

.63.

3853

.2n.

s.

Popu

lar

Mat

eria

ls L

ibra

ry3.

2544

.13.

3652

.8n.

s.

Thi

s ta

ble

repo

rts

the

sum

mar

y an

alys

es o

f va

rian

ce f

or th

c co

mpa

riso

ns a

mon

g th

e m

ean

role

impo

rtan

ce s

cale

sco

res

for

the

grou

ps o

f re

spon

dent

s id

entif

ied

hyth

e co

lum

n he

adin

gs.

Not

e: N

is th

e sa

mpl

e si

ze f

or e

ach

grou

p an

d re

pres

ents

, in

gene

ral,

the

num

ber

of r

pond

ents

who

rat

ed e

ach

role

.ii

repr

esen

ts th

e m

ean

ratin

g fo

r ea

ch r

ole

on th

e fo

ur-p

oint

impo

rtan

cesc

ale.

Exp

lana

tions

of

LI

(the

alp

ha le

vel)

and

Et2

(th

e co

effi

cien

t of

dete

rmin

atio

n) a

re p

rovi

ded

on p

age

19. T

he in

itial

s n.

s. in

dica

te th

at th

e ob

serv

eddi

ffer

ence

s am

ong

the

grou

p m

eans

are

not s

tatis

tical

ly s

igni

fica

nt. %

rep

rese

nts

the

perc

enta

ge o

f ea

ch g

roup

that

rat

ed th

e ro

le "

very

impo

rtan

i" T

hese

% a

re p

rese

nted

for

des

crip

tive

purp

oses

. For

som

ero

les

ther

e w

ere

a fe

wno

n-re

spon

dent

s, b

ut th

ese

slig

ht d

iffe

renc

es in

sam

ple

size

s ar

e in

cons

eque

ntia

l for

the

purp

ose

of e

stim

atin

g th

e sa

mpl

ing

erro

r as

soci

ated

with

the

perc

enta

ge o

f re

spon

dent

s w

hora

ted

the

role

s "v

ery

impo

rtan

t."

Ci

- 43

-

Nat

iona

l Sam

ple

TA

BL

E 1

4C

OM

PAR

ISO

NS

AM

ON

G R

ESP

ON

DE

NT

S W

ITH

DIF

FER

EN

T E

MPL

OY

ME

NT

ST

AT

US*

Em

ploy

edfu

ll tim

e(N

= 5

18)

i%

Em

ploy

edpa

rt ti

me

(N =

126

)

i%

Form

al E

duca

tion

Supp

ort C

ente

r3.

8589

.13.

8889

.5

Pres

choo

lers

' Doo

r to

Lea

rnin

g3.

7982

.03.

9191

.2

Ref

eren

ce L

ibra

ryPe

rson

al3.

3747

.63.

4649

.4

Ref

eren

ce L

ibra

ry -

Bus

ines

s3.

4556

.33.

5058

.2

Com

mun

ity A

ctiv

ities

Cen

ter

3.08

37.6

3.18

48.6

Res

earc

h C

ente

r3.

5465

.93.

5971

.6

Com

mun

ity I

nfor

mat

ion

Cen

ter

3.56

65.1

3.59

67.8

Inde

pend

ent L

earn

ing

Cen

ter

3.82

85.0

3.82

85.5

Publ

ic W

ork

Plac

e3.

2947

.93.

4857

.3

Popu

lar

Mat

eria

ls L

ibra

ry3.

3047

.83.

4557

.3

Not

inU

nem

ploy

edR

etir

edw

ork

forc

e(N

= 6

6)(N

= 2

00)

(N =

83)

I%

I3.

7083

.93.

84

3.74

83.6

3.78

3.28

41.9

3.36

3.05

39.0

3.29

2.95

40.8

3.22

3.56

68.8

3.69

3.51

60.3

3.57

3.75

82.8

3.78

3.38

51.3

3.45

3.24

44.7

3.44

%X

%a

le

87.6

3.90

91.1

n.s.

82.2

3.89

91.0

.022

.012

49.7

3.52

55.5

n.s.

54.1

3.71

77.6

.000

.035

48.0

3.32

49.1

.050

.010

76.4

3.72

74.3

.050

.010

65.9

3.76

80.4

n.s.

83.7

3.89

90.7

n.s.

58.9

3.59

65.2

.002

.017

60.1

3.43

55.6

n.s.

Thi

s ta

ble

repo

rts

the

sum

mar

y an

alys

es o

f va

rian

ce f

or th

e co

mpa

riso

ns a

mon

g th

e m

ean

role

impo

rtan

ce s

cale

sco

res

for

the

grou

ps o

f re

spon

dent

s id

entif

ied

by th

e co

lum

nhe

adin

gs.

Not

e: N

isth

e sa

mpl

e si

ze fo

r ea

ch g

roup

and

rep

rese

nts,

in g

ener

al, t

he n

umbe

r of

res

pond

ents

who

rat

ed e

ach

role

. i r

epre

sent

s th

e m

ean

ratin

g fo

r ea

chro

le o

n th

e fo

ur-p

oint

impo

rtan

cesc

ale.

Exp

lana

tions

of a

(th

e al

pha

leve

l) an

d I2

2 (t

he. c

oeffi

cien

t of d

eter

min

atio

n) a

re p

rovi

ded

on p

age

19. T

he in

itial

s n.

s. in

dica

te th

at th

e ob

serv

eddi

ffere

nces

am

ong

the

grou

p m

eans

are

not s

tatis

tical

ly s

igni

fican

t. %

rep

rese

nts

the

perc

enta

ge o

f eac

h gr

oup

that

rat

ed th

e ro

le "

very

impo

rtan

t." T

hese

% a

re p

rese

nted

for

desc

riptiv

e pu

rpos

es. F

or s

ome

role

s th

ere

wer

e a

few

non-

resp

onde

nts,

but

thes

e sl

ight

diff

eren

ces

in s

ampl

e si

zes

are

inco

nseq

uent

ial f

or th

e pu

rpos

e of

est

imat

ing

the

sam

plin

g er

ror

asso

ciat

ed w

ith th

e pe

rcen

tage

of r

espo

nden

ts w

hora

ted

the

role

s "v

ery

impo

rtan

t."

7'7

2

- 44

-

Nat

iona

l Sam

ple

TA

BL

E 1

5C

OM

PAR

ISO

NS

AM

ON

G R

ESP

ON

DE

NT

S W

ITH

D1I

-FE

RE

NT

AN

NU

AL

HO

USE

HO

LD

IN

CO

ME

'

Les

s th

an$6

0,00

0$1

5,00

0$1

5,00

0-$2

9,99

9$3

0,00

0-$4

4,99

9$4

5,00

0-$5

9,99

9or

mor

e(N

= 1

40)

(N =

270

)(N

= 2

23)

(N =

103

)(N

= 1

16)

i%

i%

Form

al E

duca

tion

Supp

ort C

ente

r3.

8088

.33.

8490

.2

Pres

choo

lers

' Doo

r to

Lea

rnin

g3.

8990

.43.

8285

.5

Ref

eren

ce L

ibra

ry -

Per

sona

l3.

5161

.33.

3748

.7

Ref

eren

ce L

ibra

ry -

Bus

ines

s3.

5166

.33.

4254

.8

Com

mun

ity A

ctiv

ities

Cen

ter

3.29

53.5

3.13

46.0

Res

earc

h C

ente

r3.

7679

.83.

5969

.7

Com

mun

ity I

nfor

mat

ion

Cen

ter

3.76

78.8

3.57

66.1

Inde

pend

ent L

earn

ing

Cen

ter

3.92

93.3

3.84

87.1

Publ

ic W

ork

Plac

e3.

7275

.13.

3954

.9

Popu

lar

Mat

eria

ls L

ibra

ry3.

4658

.83.

2748

.9

1of /0

i%

i%

a11

2

n.s.

n.s.

n.s.

n.s.

n.s.

.020

.014

.002

.020

.015

.015

.000

.045

n.s.

3.90

92.7

3.94

94.1

3.80

82.8

3.81

84.5

3.77

82.9

3.73

76.4

3.42

50.3

3.35

43.9

3.36

46.8

3.47

59.7

3.27

46.2

3.37

55.9

3.12

39.1

3.10

38.2

3.04

34.6

3.57

68.3

3.59

67.1

3.46

63.9

3.59

67.7

3.51

59.8

3.42

57.1

3.81

84.2

3.77

82.5

3.71

79.2

3.34

50.5

3.22

43.8

3.18

38.5

3.33

51.1

3.41

56.1

3.38

50.6

Thi

s ta

ble

repo

rts

the

sum

mar

y an

alys

es o

f va

rian

ce f

or th

e co

mpa

riso

ns a

mon

g th

e m

ean

role

impo

rtan

ce s

cale

sco

res

for

the

grou

ps o

f re

spon

dent

s id

entif

ied

byth

e co

lum

n he

adin

gs.

Not

e: N

is th

e sa

mpl

e si

ze f

or e

ach

grou

p an

d re

pres

ents

, in

gene

ral,

the

num

ber

of r

espo

nden

ts w

ho r

ated

eac

h ro

le. i

rep

rese

nts

the

mea

nra

ting

for

each

rol

e on

the

four

-poi

nt im

port

ance

scal

e. E

xpla

natio

ns o

f a

(the

alp

ha le

vel)

and

le (

the

coef

fici

ent o

f de

term

inat

ion)

are

pro

vide

d on

pag

e 19

. The

initi

als

n.s.

indi

cate

that

the

obse

rved

diff

eren

ces

amon

g th

e gr

oup

mea

ns a

rcno

t sta

tistic

ally

sig

nifi

cant

. % r

epre

sent

s th

e pe

rcen

tage

of

each

gro

up th

at r

ated

the

role

"ve

ry im

port

ant."

The

se %

are

pre

sent

edfo

r de

scri

ptiv

e pu

rpos

es. F

or s

ome

role

s th

ere

wer

e a

few

non-

resp

onde

nts,

but

thes

e sl

ight

dif

fere

nces

in s

ampl

e si

zes

are

inco

nseq

uent

ial f

or th

e pu

rpos

e of

est

imat

ing

the

sam

plin

g er

ror

asso

ciat

ed w

ith th

e pe

rcen

tage

of

resp

onde

nts

who

rat

ed th

e

role

s "v

ery

impo

rtan

t."

- 45

-

Nat

iona

l Sam

ple

TA

BL

E 1

6C

OM

PAR

ISO

NS

BE

TW

EE

N R

ESP

ON

DE

NT

S W

HO

LIV

E I

N H

OU

SEH

OL

DS

WIT

HIN

DIV

IDU

AL

S W

HO

HA

VE

DIS

AB

ILIT

IES

AN

D R

ESP

ON

DE

NT

S W

HO

DO

NO

T*

Dis

abili

ties

No

disa

bilit

ies

(N =

144

)(N

= 8

36)

I%

I%

aR

2

Form

al E

duca

tion

Supp

ort C

ente

r3.

8889

.63.

8488

.6n.

s.

Pres

choo

lers

' Doo

r to

Lea

rnin

g3.

8284

.23.

8083

.9n.

s.

Ref

eren

ce L

ibra

ry -

Per

sona

l3.

4455

.13.

3747

.4n.

s.

Ref

eren

ce L

ibra

ryB

usin

ess

3.42

58.9

3.42

56.2

n.s.

Com

mun

ity A

ctiv

ities

Cen

ter

3.19

49.1

3.12

40.6

n.s.

Res

earc

h C

ente

r3.

6975

.53.

5768

.7n.

s.

Com

mun

ity I

nfor

mat

ion

Cen

ter

3.62

72.5

3.57

65.4

n.s.

Inde

pend

ent L

earn

ing

Cen

ter

3.83

88.5

3.81

84.6

n.s.

Publ

ic W

ork

Plac

e3.

5261

.63.

3450

.9.0

16.0

06

Popu

lar

Mat

eria

ls L

ibra

ry3.

4357

.03.

3350

.7n.

s.

Thi

s ta

ble

repo

rts

the

sum

mar

y an

alys

es o

f va

rian

ce f

or th

e co

mpa

riso

ns a

mon

g th

e m

ean

role

impo

rtan

ce s

cale

sco

res

for

the

grou

ps o

f re

spon

dent

s id

entif

ied

byth

e co

lum

n he

adin

gs.

Not

e: N

is th

e sa

mpl

e si

ze f

or e

ach

grou

p an

d re

pres

ents

, in

gene

ral,

the

num

ber

of r

espo

nden

ts w

ho r

ated

eac

h ro

le. I

rep

rese

nts

the

mea

nra

ting

for

each

rol

e on

the

four

-poi

nt im

port

ance

scal

e. E

xpla

natio

ns o

f a

(the

alp

ha le

vel)

and

R2

(the

coe

ffic

ient

of

dete

rmin

atio

n) a

re p

rovi

ded

on p

age

19. T

he in

itial

s n.

s. in

dica

te th

at th

e ob

serv

eddi

ffer

enze

s am

ong

the

grou

p m

eans

are

not s

tatis

tical

ly s

igni

fica

nt. %

rep

rese

nts

the

perc

enta

ge o

f ea

ch g

roup

that

rat

ed th

e ro

le "

very

impo

7tan

t." T

hese

% a

re p

rese

nted

for

des

crip

tive

purp

oses

. For

som

ero

les

ther

e w

ere

a fe

wno

n-re

spon

dent

s, b

ut th

ese

slig

ht d

iffe

renc

es in

sam

ple

size

s ar

e in

cons

eque

ntia

l for

the

purp

ose

of e

stim

atin

g th

e sa

mpl

ing

erro

r as

soci

ated

with

the

perc

enta

ge o

f re

spon

dent

s w

hora

ted

the

role

s "v

ery

impo

rtan

t."

- 46

-

Nad

onal

Sam

ple

TA

BL

E 1

7C

OM

PAR

ISO

NS

BE

TW

EE

N R

ESP

ON

DE

NT

S W

HO

AR

E D

ISA

BL

ED

AN

D R

ESP

ON

DE

NT

S L

IVIN

G I

N A

HO

USE

HO

LD

WH

ER

E S

OM

EO

NE

EL

SE I

S D

ISA

BL

ED

'

Res

pond

ent

Som

eone

els

e(N

= 7

8)(N

= 5

5)

IFo

rmal

Edu

catio

n Su

ppor

t Cen

ter

3.85

Pres

choo

lers

' Doo

r to

Lea

rnin

g3.

82

Ref

eren

ce L

ibra

ry -

Per

sona

l3.

48

Ref

eren

ce L

ibra

ryB

usin

ess

3.48

Com

mun

ity A

ctiv

ities

Cen

ter

3.21

Res

earc

h C

ente

r3.

77

Com

mun

ity I

nfor

mat

ion

Cen

ter

3.67

Inde

pend

ent L

earn

ing

Cen

ter

3.84

Publ

ic W

ork

Plac

e3.

66

Popu

lar

Mat

eria

ls L

ibra

ry3.

55

%i

%a

R2

86.5

3.90

91.9

n.s.

86.9

3.79

78.7

n.s.

59.0

3.33

46.5

n.s.

65.6

3.23

43.1

n.s.

51.5

3.09

40.5

n.s.

82.0

3.55

64.5

n.s.

74.5

3.52

68.1

n.s.

86.9

3.79

88.3

n.s.

70.7

3.32

48.0

.007

.056

63.5

3.22

42.1

.014

.047

Thi

s ta

ble

repo

rts

the

sum

mar

y an

alys

es o

f var

ianc

e fo

r th

e co

mpa

rison

s am

ong

the

mea

n ro

le im

port

ance

sca

le s

core

s fo

r th

e gr

oups

of r

espo

nden

ts id

entif

ied

byth

e co

lum

n he

adin

gs.

Not

e: N

is th

e sa

mpl

e si

ze fo

r ea

ch g

roup

and

rep

rese

nts,

in g

ener

al, t

he n

umbe

r of

res

pond

ents

who

rat

ed e

ach

role

.)(

rep

rese

nts

the

mea

n ra

ting

for

each

rol

e on

the

four

-poi

nt im

port

ance

scal

e. E

xpla

natio

ns o

f a (

the

alph

a le

vel)

and

R2

(the

coe

ffici

ent o

f det

erm

inat

ion)

are

pro

vide

d on

pag

e 19

. The

initi

als

n.s.

indi

cate

that

the

obse

rved

diffe

renc

es a

mon

g th

e gr

oup

mea

ns a

reno

t sta

tistic

ally

sig

nific

ant.

% r

epre

sent

s th

e pe

rcen

tage

of e

ach

grou

p th

at r

ated

the

role

"ve

ry im

port

ant."

The

se %

are

pre

sent

ed fo

r de

scrip

tive

purp

oses

. For

som

erol

es th

ere

wer

e a

few

non-

resp

onde

nts,

but

thes

e sl

ight

diff

eren

ces

in s

ampl

e si

zes

are

inco

nseq

uent

ial f

or th

e pu

rpos

e of

est

imat

ing

the

sam

plin

g er

ror

asso

ciat

ed w

ith th

e pe

rcen

tage

of r

espo

nden

ts w

hora

ted

the

role

s "v

ery

impo

rtan

t."

1 '1

.

.4C

.,

- 47

-

Nat

iona

l Sam

ple

TA

BL

E 1

8C

OM

PAR

ISO

NS

BE

TW

EE

N R

ESP

ON

DE

NT

S W

HO

VO

TE

D A

ND

RE

SPO

ND

EN

TS

WH

O D

ID N

OT

VO

TE

IN T

HE

198

8 E

LE

CFI

ON

*

Vot

ed(N

= 6

28)

i%

Form

al E

duca

tion

Supp

ort C

ente

r3.

8889

.8

Pres

choo

lers

' Doo

r to

Lea

rnin

g3.

7983

.7

Ref

eren

ce L

ibra

ry -

Per

sona

l3.

3847

.4

Ref

eren

ce L

ibra

ryB

usin

ess

3.38

54.3

Com

mun

ity A

ctiv

ities

Cen

ter

3.15

43.2

Res

earc

h C

ente

r3.

5768

.0

Com

mun

ity I

nfor

mat

ion

Cen

ter

3.56

65.3

Inde

pend

ent L

earn

ing

Cen

ter

3.77

82.6

Publ

ic W

ork

Plac

e3.

3651

.1

Popu

lar

Mat

eria

ls L

ibra

ry3.

4254

.5

Did

not

vot

e(N

= 3

66)

I%

aR

2

3.79

86.8

.004

.008

3.83

86.5

n.S.

3.39

50.3

n.s.

3.49

61.0

.039

.004

3.10

40.4

n.s.

3.62

71.9

n.s.

3.62

68.9

n.s.

3.88

90.0

.002

.010

3.40

55.9

n.s.

3.25

48.0

.001

.011

Thi

s ta

ble

repo

rts

the

sum

mar

y an

alys

es o

f va

rian

ce f

or th

e co

mpa

riso

ns a

mon

g th

e m

ean

tole

impo

rtan

ce s

cale

sco

res

for

the

grou

ps o

f re

spon

dent

side

ntif

ied

by th

e co

luni

n he

adin

gs.

Not

e: N

is th

e sa

mpl

e si

ze f

or e

ach

grou

p an

d re

pres

ents

, in

gene

ral,

the

num

ber

of r

espo

nden

ts w

ho r

ated

eac

h ro

le. I

rep

rese

nts

the

mea

nra

ting

for

each

rol

e on

the

four

-poi

nt im

port

ance

scal

e. E

xpla

natio

ns o

f a

(the

alp

ha le

vel)

and

R2

(the

coe

ffic

ient

of

dete

rmin

atio

n) a

re p

rovi

ded

on p

age

19. T

he in

itial

s n.

s. in

dica

te th

atth

e ob

serv

ed d

iffe

renc

es a

mon

g th

e gr

oup

mea

ns a

reno

t sta

tistic

ally

sig

nift

cant

. % r

epre

sent

s th

e pe

rcen

tage

of

each

gro

up th

at r

ated

the

role

"ve

ryim

port

ant."

The

se%

are

pre

sent

ed f

or d

escr

iptiv

e pu

rpos

es. F

or s

ome

role

s th

ere

wer

e a

few

non-

resp

onde

nts,

but

thes

e sl

ight

dif

fere

nces

in s

ampl

e si

zes

are

inco

nseq

uent

ial f

or th

e pu

rpos

e of

est

imat

ing

the

sam

plin

g er

ror

asso

ciat

ed w

ith th

e pe

rcen

tage

of

resp

onde

nts

who

rat

ed th

e

role

s "v

ery

impo

rtan

t."

- 48

-

Nat

iona

l Sam

ple

TA

BL

E 1

9C

OM

PAR

ISO

NS

AM

ON

G R

ESP

ON

DE

NT

S B

ASE

D O

N P

ER

SON

AL

FIN

AN

CIA

L S

ITU

AT

ION

CO

MPA

RE

D T

O L

AST

YE

AR

'

Bet

ter

off

(N =

252

)W

orse

off

(N =

233

)A

bout

the

sam

e(N

= 5

07)

aR

2

Form

al E

duca

tion

Supp

ort C

ente

r3.

8387

.93.

8587

.73.

8689

.5n.

s.

Pres

choo

lers

' Doo

r to

Lea

rnin

g3.

7881

.03.

7984

.13.

8386

.1n.

s.

Ref

eren

ce L

ibra

ry -

Per

sona

l3.

4451

.53.

4051

.23.

3646

.2n.

s.

Ref

eren

ce L

ibra

ryB

usin

ess

3.46

59.0

3.36

52.2

3.43

57.8

n.s.

Com

mun

ity A

ctiv

ities

Cen

ter

3.11

41.7

3.15

42.9

3.13

42.2

n.s.

Res

earc

h C

ente

r3.

4865

.43.

6775

.13.

6169

.0.0

12.0

09

Com

mun

ity I

nfor

mat

ion

0..n

ter

3.54

65.5

3.68

71.9

3.57

65.2

.040

.007

Inde

pend

ent L

earn

ing

Cen

ter

3.81

85.4

3.86

87.3

3.79

84.2

n.S.

Publ

ic W

ork

Plac

e3.

3149

.13.

4153

.53.

4054

.9n.

s.

Popu

lar

Mat

eria

ls L

ibra

ry3.

2646

.13.

4156

.23.

3853

.1n.

S.

Thi

s ta

ble

repo

rts

the

sum

mar

y an

alys

es o

f va

rian

ce f

or th

e co

mpa

riso

ns a

mon

g th

e m

ean

role

impo

rtan

ce s

cale

sco

res

for

the

grou

ps o

f re

spon

dent

s id

entif

ied

byth

e co

lum

n he

adin

gs.

Not

e: N

is th

e sa

mpl

e si

ze f

or e

ach

grou

p an

d re

pres

ents

, in

gene

ral,

the

num

ber

of r

espo

nden

ts w

ho r

ated

eac

h ro

le. j

rep

rese

nts

the

mea

nra

ting

for

each

rol

e on

the

four

-poi

nt im

port

ance

scal

e. E

xpla

natio

ns o

f a

(the

alp

ha le

vel)

and

R2

(the

coe

ffic

ient

of

dete

rmin

atio

n) a

re p

rovi

ded

on p

age

19. T

he in

itial

s n.

s. in

dica

te th

at th

e ob

serv

eddi

ffer

ence

s am

ong

the

grou

p m

eans

are

not s

tatis

tical

ly s

igni

fica

nt. %

rep

rese

nts

the

perc

enta

ge o

f ea

ch g

roup

that

rat

ed th

e ro

le "

very

impo

rtan

t." T

hese

% a

re p

rese

nted

far

des

crip

tive

purp

oses

. For

som

ero

les

ther

e w

ere

a fe

wno

n-re

spon

dent

s, b

ut th

ese

slig

ht d

iffe

renc

es in

sam

ple

size

s ar

e in

cons

eque

ntia

l for

the

purp

ose

of e

stim

atin

g th

e sa

mpl

ing

erro

r as

soci

ated

with

the

perc

enta

ge o

f re

spon

dent

s w

hora

ted

the

role

s "v

ery

impo

rtan

t."

- 49

-64

Nat

iona

l Sam

ple

TA

BL

E 2

0C

OM

PAR

ISO

NS

AM

ON

G R

ESP

ON

DE

NT

S B

ASE

D O

N P

ER

SON

AL

FIN

AN

CIA

L S

ITU

AT

ION

EX

PEC

IED

FO

R N

EX

T Y

EA

R*

Bet

ter

off

(N =

456

)

i%

Form

al E

duca

tion

Supp

ort C

ente

r3.

8589

.1

Pres

choo

lers

' Doo

r to

Lea

rnin

g3.

8182

.0

Ref

eren

ce L

ibra

ryPe

rson

al3.

3845

.6

Ref

eren

ce L

ibra

ry -

Bus

ines

s3.

4457

.4

Com

mun

ity A

ctiv

ities

Cen

ter

3.05

36.4

Res

earc

h C

ente

r3.

5769

.6

Com

mun

ity I

nfor

mat

ion

Cen

ter

3.59

68.4

Inde

pend

ent L

eam

ing

Cen

ter

3.82

86.1

Publ

ic W

ork

Plac

e3.

3650

.3

Popu

lar

Mat

eria

ls L

ibra

ry3.

3148

.6

Wor

se o

ffA

bout

the

sam

e(N

= 7

7)(N

= 4

26)

ii%

ic%

aR

2

3.76

79.8

3.85

89.5

n.s.

3.70

81.3

3.82

85.5

n.s.

3.25

42.7

3.42

53.3

n.s.

3.32

54.6

3.42

56.0

n.s.

3.14

48.4

3.21

46.5

.037

.007

3.48

65.7

3.63

70.3

n.s.

3.60

64.3

3.57

65.1

n.s.

3.81

84.4

3.81

84.5

n.s.

3.32

53.8

3.42

56.1

n.s.

3.30

-2.2

3.41

56.0

n.s.

Thi

s ta

ble

rcpo

rts

the

surn

mar

y an

alys

es o

f var

ianc

e fo

r th

e co

mpa

rison

s am

ong

the

mea

n ro

le im

port

ance

sca

le s

core

s fo

r th

e gr

oups

of r

espo

nden

ts id

entif

ied

byth

c co

lum

n he

adin

gs.

Not

e: N

is th

e sa

mpl

e si

ze fo

r ea

ch g

roup

and

rep

rese

nts,

in g

ener

al, t

he n

umbe

r of

res

pond

ents

who

rat

ed e

ach

role

. j r

epre

sent

s th

e m

ean

ratin

g fo

r ea

ch r

ole

on th

e fo

ur-p

oint

impo

rtan

cesc

ale.

Exp

lana

rons

of a

(th

e al

pha

leve

l) an

d R

2 (t

he c

oeffi

cien

t of d

eter

min

atio

n) a

re p

rovi

ded

on p

age

19. T

he in

itial

s n.

s. in

dica

te th

at th

e ob

serv

eddi

ffere

nces

am

ong

the

grou

p m

eans

are

not s

tatis

tical

ly s

igni

fican

t. %

rep

rese

nts

the

perc

enta

ge o

f eac

h gr

oup

that

rat

ed th

e ro

le "

very

impo

rtan

t." T

hese

% a

re p

rese

nted

for

desc

riptiv

e pu

rpos

es. F

or s

ome

role

s th

ere

wer

e a

few

non-

resp

onde

nts,

hut

thes

e sl

ight

diff

eren

ces

in s

ampl

e si

zes

are

inco

nseq

uent

ial f

or th

e im

pose

of e

stim

atin

g th

e sa

mpl

ing

MO

T a

ssoc

iate

d w

ith th

e pe

rcen

tage

of r

espo

nden

tsw

ho r

ated

role

s "v

ery

impo

rtan

t."

- 50

-

Nat

iona

l Sam

ple

TA

BL

E 2

1C

OM

PAR

ISO

NS

BE

TW

EE

N R

ESP

ON

DE

NT

S W

HO

VIS

ITE

D A

ND

RE

SPO

ND

EN

TS

WH

O D

ID N

OT

VIS

ITT

HE

PU

BL

IC L

IBR

AR

Y I

N T

HE

LA

ST Y

EA

R*

Vis

ited

libra

ry(N

= 5

72)

Did

not

vis

it lib

rary

(N =

423

)

i%

aR

2

Form

al E

duca

tion

Supp

ort C

ente

r3.

9091

.83.

7884

.4.0

00.0

14

Pres

choo

lers

' Doo

r to

Lea

rnin

g3.

8385

.33.

7882

.4n.

s.

Ref

eren

ce L

ibra

ryPe

rson

al3.

4350

.63.

3246

.4.0

12.0

06

Ref

eren

ce L

ibra

ryB

usin

ess

3.44

56.5

3.39

57.2

n.s.

Com

mun

ity A

ctiv

ities

Cen

ter

3.15

43.4

3.10

40.4

n.s.

Res

earc

h C

ente

r3.

5668

.63.

6371

.3n.

s.

Com

mun

ity I

nfor

mat

ion

Cen

ter

3.57

65.0

3.60

69.1

n.s.

Inde

pend

ent L

earn

ing

Cen

ter

3.82

85.4

3.80

85.1

n.s.

Publ

ic W

ork

Plac

e3.

3450

.03.

4256

.7n.

s.

Popu

lar

Mat

eria

ls L

ibra

ry3.

4153

.53.

2850

.2.0

15.0

06

Thi

s ta

ble

repo

rts

the

sum

mar

y an

alys

es o

f va

rian

ce f

or th

e co

mpa

riso

ns a

mon

g th

e m

ean

role

impo

rtan

ce s

cale

sco

res

for

the

grou

ps o

f re

spon

dent

s id

entif

ied

byth

e oo

lum

n he

adin

gs.

Not

e: N

is th

e sa

mpl

e si

ze f

or e

ach

grou

p an

d re

pres

ents

, in

gene

ral,

the

num

ber

of r

espo

nden

ts w

ho r

ated

eac

h ro

le. i

rep

rese

nts

the

mea

nra

ting

for

each

rol

e on

the

four

-poi

nt im

port

ance

scal

e. E

xpla

natio

ns o

f a

(the

alp

ha le

vel)

and

R2

(the

coe

ffic

ient

of

dete

rmin

atio

n) a

re p

rovi

ded

on p

age

19. T

he in

itial

s n.

s. in

dica

te th

at th

e ob

serv

eddi

ffer

ence

s am

ong

the

grou

p m

eans

are

not s

tatis

tical

ly s

igni

fica

nt. %

rep

rese

nts

the

perc

enta

ge o

f ea

ch g

roup

that

rat

ed th

e ro

le "

very

impo

rtan

t." T

hese

% a

rc p

rese

nted

for

des

crip

tive

purp

oses

. For

som

ero

les

ther

e w

ere

a fe

wno

n-re

spon

dent

s, b

ut th

ese

slig

ht d

iffe

renc

es in

sam

ple

size

s ar

c in

cons

eque

ntia

l for

the

pirp

ose

of e

stim

atin

g th

e sa

mpl

ing

erro

r as

soci

ated

with

the

perc

enta

ge o

f re

spon

dent

s w

hora

ted

the

role

s "v

ery

impo

rtan

t."

- 51

-

Nat

iona

l Sam

ple

TA

BL

E 2

2C

OM

PAR

ISO

NS

BE

TW

EE

N R

ESP

ON

DE

NT

S B

ASE

D O

N W

HE

TH

ER

SO

ME

ON

E E

LSE

WE

NT

TO

TH

E P

UB

LIC

LIB

RA

RY

FO

R T

HE

M I

N T

HE

LA

ST Y

EA

R*

Form

al E

duca

tion

Supp

ort C

ente

r

Pres

choo

lers

' Doo

r to

Lea

rnin

g

Ref

eren

ce L

ibra

ryPe

rson

al

Ref

eren

ce L

ibra

ry -

Bus

ines

s

Com

mun

ity A

ctiv

ities

Cen

ter

Res

earc

h C

ente

r

Com

mun

ity I

nfor

mat

ion

Cen

ter

Inde

pend

ent L

earn

ing

Cen

ter

Publ

ic W

ork

Piac

e

Popu

lar

Mat

eria

ls L

ibra

ry

Yes

(N =

214

)

3.93

93.5

3.81

83.1

3.41

45.7

3.36

53.4

3.05

38.9

3.59

66.9

3.58

66.5

3.82

87.8

3.30

47.4

3.32

48.9

No

(N =

785

)

3.82

87.4

3.81

84.4

3.38

49.6

3.44

57.8

3.15

43.1

3.59

70.3

3.58

66.8

3.81

84.5

3.40

54.5

3.36

52.9

.006

n.s.

n.s.

il.s.

n.s.

n.s.

n.s.

n.s.

n.s.

n.s.

R2

.008

Thi

s ta

ble

repo

rts

the

sum

mar

y an

alys

es o

f va

rian

ce f

or th

e co

mpa

riso

ns a

mon

g th

e m

ean

role

impo

rtan

ce s

cale

sco

res

for

the

grou

ps o

f re

spon

dent

s id

entif

ied

byth

e co

lum

n he

adin

gs.

Not

e: N

is th

e sa

mpl

e si

ze f

or c

ach

grou

p an

d re

pres

ents

, in

gene

ral,

the

num

ber

ofsc

ale.

Exp

lana

tions

of

ct (

the

alph

a le

vel)

and

It

(the

coe

ffic

ient

of

dete

rmin

atio

n) I

not s

tatis

tical

ly s

igni

fica

nt. %

rep

rese

nts

the

perc

enta

ge o

f ea

ch g

roup

that

rat

ed th

ano

n-re

spon

dent

s, b

ut th

ese

slig

ht d

iffe

renc

es in

sam

ple

size

s ar

e in

cons

eque

ntia

l for

ta,..

role

s "v

ery

impo

rtan

t."

dent

s w

ho r

ated

eac

h ro

le.

ii re

pres

ents

the

mea

n ra

ting

for

each

rol

e on

the

four

-poi

nt im

port

ance

,ided

on

page

19.

The

initi

als

n.s.

indi

cate

that

the

obse

rved

dif

fere

nces

am

ong

the

grou

p m

eans

are

very

impo

rtan

t." T

hese

% a

re p

rese

nted

for

des

crip

tive

purp

oses

. For

som

e ro

les

ther

e w

ere

a fe

w,J

urpo

se o

f es

timat

ing

the

sam

plin

g er

ror

asso

ciat

ed w

ith th

e pe

rcen

tage

of

resp

onde

nts

who

rat

ed th

e

- 52

-

Nat

iona

l San

tp le

TA

BL

E 2

3C

OM

PAR

ISO

NS

BE

TW

EE

N R

ESP

ON

DE

NT

S W

HO

CA

LL

ED

TH

E P

UB

LIC

LIB

RA

RY

FO

R I

NFO

RM

AT

ION

IN T

HE

LA

ST Y

EA

R A

ND

RE

SPO

ND

EN

TS

WH

O D

M N

OT

`

Cal

led

libra

ry(N

= 2

32)

X%

Did

not

cal

l lib

rary

(N =

768

)

X%

otle

Form

al E

duca

tion

Supp

ort C

ente

r3.

9394

.23.

8287

.1.0

02.0

09

Pres

choo

lers

' Doo

r to

Lea

rnin

g3.

8486

.53.

8083

.5n.

s.

Ref

eren

ce L

ibra

ryPe

rson

al3.

4752

.73.

3647

.5.0

32.0

05

Ref

eren

ce L

ibra

ry -

Bus

ines

s3.

4758

.43.

4156

.4n.

s.

Com

mun

ity A

ctiv

ities

Cen

ter

3.17

42.9

3.12

42.0

n.s.

Res

earc

h C

ente

r3.

5463

.73.

6071

.4n.

s.

Com

mun

ity I

nfom

iatio

n C

ente

r3.

6470

.43.

5665

.4n.

s.

Inde

pend

ent L

earn

ing

Cen

ter

3.81

84.7

3.81

85.4

n.s.

Publ

ic W

ork

Plac

e3.

4052

.63.

3753

.1n.

s.

Popu

lar

Mat

eria

ls L

ibra

ry3.

4052

.83.

3451

.8n.

s.

Thi

s ta

ble

repo

rts

the

sum

mar

y an

alys

es o

f va

rian

ce f

or th

e co

mpa

riso

ns a

mon

g th

e m

ean

role

impo

rtan

ce s

cale

sco

res

for

the

grou

ps o

f re

spon

dent

s id

entif

ied

byth

e co

lum

n he

adin

gs.

Not

e: N

is th

e sa

mpl

e si

ze f

or e

ach

grou

p an

d re

pres

ents

, in

gene

ral,

the

num

ber

of r

espo

nden

ts w

ho r

ated

eac

h ro

le.

ii re

pres

ents

the

mea

n ra

ting

for

each

rol

e on

the

four

-poi

nt im

port

ance

scal

e. E

xpla

natio

ns o

f a

(the

alp

ita le

vel)

and

le (

the

coef

fici

ent o

f de

term

inat

ion)

are

pro

vide

d on

pag

e 19

. The

initi

als

indi

cate

that

the

obse

rved

dif

fere

nces

am

ong

the

grou

p m

eans

arc

not s

tatis

tical

ly s

igni

fica

nt. %

rep

rese

nts

the

perc

enta

,w o

f ea

ch g

roup

that

rat

ed th

e ro

le "

very

impo

rtan

t." T

hese

% a

re p

rese

nted

for

des

crip

tive

v.:p

oses

. For

som

ero

les

ther

e w

ere

a fe

wno

n-re

spon

dent

s, b

ut th

ese

slig

ht d

iffe

renc

es in

sam

ple

size

s ar

e in

cons

eque

ntia

l for

the

purp

ose

of e

stim

atin

g th

e sa

mpl

ing

erro

r as

soci

ated

with

the

perc

enta

ge o

f re

spon

dent

s w

hora

ted

the

role

s "v

ery

impo

rtan

t."

- 53

-t..

)

Nat

iona

l Sam

ple

TA

BL

E 2

4C

OM

PAR

ISO

NS

BE

TW

EE

N R

ESP

ON

DE

NT

S W

HO

IN

AN

Y W

AY

USE

D T

HE

PU

BL

IC L

IBR

AR

YIN

TH

E L

AST

YE

AR

AN

D R

ESP

ON

DE

NT

S W

HO

DID

Nor

Use

rsN

on-u

sers

(N =

634

)(N

= 3

67)

I%

Form

al E

duca

tion

Supp

ort C

ente

r3.

8990

.7

Pres

choo

lers

' Doo

r to

Lea

rnin

g3.

8284

.6

Ref

eren

ce L

ibra

ryPe

rson

al3.

4350

.2

Ref

eren

ce L

ibra

ryB

usin

ess

3.43

56.3

Com

mun

ity A

ctiv

ities

Cen

ter

3.16

43.4

Res

earc

h C

ente

r3.

5768

.3

Com

mun

ity I

nfor

mat

ion

Cen

ter

3.57

65.6

Inde

pend

ent L

earn

ing

Cen

ter

3.81

85.1

Publ

ic W

ork

Plac

e3.

3550

.6

Popu

lar

Mat

eria

ls L

ibra

ry3.

3953

.8

i%

aR

2

3.78

85.3

.001

.011

3.79

83.3

n.s.

3.31

46.1

.006

.008

3.40

57.7

n.s.

3.09

39.9

ns.

3.62

71.8

n.s.

3.60

68.4

n.s.

3.82

85.5

n.s.

3.43

57.2

n.s.

3.28

48.8

.029

.005

Thi

s ta

ble

repo

rts

the

sum

mar

y an

alys

es o

f va

rian

ce f

or th

e co

mpa

riso

ns a

mon

g th

e m

ean

role

impo

rtan

ce s

cale

sco

res

for

the

grou

ps o

f re

spon

dent

s id

entif

ied

by th

e co

lum

n he

adin

gs.

Not

e: N

is th

e sa

mpl

e si

ze f

or e

ach

grou

p an

d re

pres

ents

, in

gene

ral,

the

num

ber

of r

espo

nden

ts w

ho r

ated

eac

h ro

le.

repr

esen

ts th

e m

ean

ratin

g fo

r ea

ch r

ole

on th

e fo

ur-p

oint

impo

rtan

cesc

ale.

Exp

lana

tions

of

a (t

he a

lpha

leve

l) a

nd f

e (t

he c

oeff

icie

nt o

f de

term

inat

ion)

arc

pro

vide

d on

pag

e 19

. The

initi

als

n.s.

indi

cate

that

the

obse

rved

diff

eren

ces

amon

g th

e gr

oup

mea

ns a

reno

t sta

tistic

ally

sip

ific

ant.

% r

epre

sent

s th

e pe

rcen

tage

of

cach

gro

up th

at r

ated

the

role

"ve

ry im

port

ant."

The

se %

are

pres

ente

d fo

r de

scri

ptiv

e pu

rpos

es. F

or s

ome

role

s th

ere

wer

e a

few

non-

resp

onde

nts,

hut

thes

e sl

ight

dif

fere

nces

in s

ampl

e si

zes

are

inco

nseq

uent

ial f

or th

e pu

rpos

e of

est

imat

ing

the

sam

plin

g er

ror

asso

ciat

ed w

ith th

e pe

rcen

tage

of r

espo

nden

ts w

ho r

ated

the

role

s "v

ery

impo

iit.

"<

) °

54

Nat

iona

l Sam

ple

TA

BL

E 2

5T

HE

PU

BL

IC'S

OPI

NIO

NS

AB

OU

T L

EV

EL

S O

F PE

R C

API

TA

SPE

ND

ING

FO

R L

IBR

AR

Y S

ER

VIC

ES

Am

ount

Freq

uenc

yPe

rcen

tA

djus

ted

Perc

ent

$ 0

3.3

.4

$ 1

- $2

034

834

.839

.8

$21

- $4

025

725

.729

.3

$41

- $6

012

712

.714

.5

$61

- $8

054

5.4

6.2

$81

- $1

0042

4.2

4.8

$101

-44

4.4

5.0

Don

't K

now

125

12.5

Mis

sing

Tot

al10

01

Not

e: P

erce

ntag

es r

ecal

cula

ted

with

mis

sing

res

pond

ents

exc

lude

d.

- 55

-

Nat

iora

l Sam

ple

TA

BL

E 2

6C

OM

PAR

ISO

NS

OF

TH

E M

EA

N S

UG

GE

STE

D P

ER

CA

PIT

A S

PEN

DIN

G F

OR

LIB

RA

RIE

SA

MO

NG

TH

E V

AR

IOU

S G

RO

UPS

OF

RE

SPO

ND

EN

TS'

Ent

ire

Sam

ple

876

$34.

17$3

2.30

- $

36.0

5

R2

C.I

.

Reg

ion

of c

ount

ry.0

00.0

27N

orth

east

185

$42.

33$3

7.69

- $

46.9

7So

uth

Cen

tral

294

$32.

01$2

8.85

- $

35.1

8N

orth

Cen

tral

214

$29.

33$2

5.99

- $

32.6

8W

est

Size

of

com

mun

ity

180

$35.

05

n.s.

$31.

02 -

$39

.07

Ove

r 1,

000,

000

60$3

9.61

$31.

51 -

$47

.71

250,

000

- 1,

000,

000

104

$34.

47$2

8.44

- $

40.3

1U

nder

250

,000

Gen

der

710

$33.

67

n.s.

$31.

64 -

$35

.71

Mal

es41

4$3

5.88

$33.

08 -

$38

.67

Fem

ales

Age

461

$32.

64

n.s.

$30.

12 -

$35

.16

18 -

35

356

$36.

37$3

3.28

- $

39.4

736

- 5

023

6$3

4.21

$30.

87 -

$37

.55

51 -

65

149

$32.

27$2

7.91

- $

36.6

366

and

up

126

$29.

76$2

4.73

- $

34.8

1

Not

e: T

his

tabl

e re

port

s I A

e su

mm

ary

anal

yses

of v

aria

nce

for

the

com

paris

ons

amon

g th

e m

ean

amou

nts

of s

ugge

sted

per

cap

ita s

pend

ing

byva

rious

gro

ups

of r

espo

nden

ts.

Not

e: N

is th

e sa

mpl

e si

ze fo

r ea

ch g

roup

. i r

epre

sent

s th

e m

ean

amou

nt o

f sug

gest

ed p

er c

apita

spe

ndin

g. D

etai

led

expl

anat

ions

of th

e al

pha

leve

l (a)

and

le a

re p

rovi

ded

on p

age

19. T

he

initi

als

n.s.

indi

cate

that

the

obse

rved

diff

eren

ces

amon

g th

e gr

oups

are

not

sta

tistic

ally

sig

nific

ant.

C.I.

rep

orts

the

low

er a

nd u

pper

bou

nds

of th

e 95

% c

onfid

ence

inte

rval

for

estim

atin

g th

e

mea

n am

oant

of s

ugge

sted

spe

ndin

g fo

r ea

ch g

roup

rep

orte

d. T

hese

inte

rval

s ar

e ap

prop

riate

for

use

with

thos

e gr

oups

that

arc

sta

tistic

ally

diff

eren

t.F

or a

n ex

plan

atio

n of

con

fiden

ce in

terv

als

see

page

s 10

and

11.

56

Nat

iona

l Sam

ple

TA

BL

E 2

6 (c

ontin

ued)

CO

MPA

RIS

ON

S O

F T

HE

ME

AN

SU

GG

EST

ED

PE

R C

API

TA

SPE

ND

ING

FO

R L

IBR

AR

IES

AM

ON

G T

HE

VA

RIO

US

GR

OU

PS O

F R

ESP

ON

DE

NT

S*

Rac

e/E

thni

city

.002

R2

.009

C.I

.

Afr

ican

Am

eric

ans

357

$39.

90$3

6.13

- $

43.6

7C

auca

sian

Am

eric

ans

737

$33.

65$3

1.68

- $

35.6

1H

ispa

nic

Am

eric

ans

321

$39.

26$3

5.21

- $

43.3

0

Hig

hest

gra

de le

vel c

ompl

eted

.003

.018

8th

grad

e or

less

49$2

7.42

$20.

25 -

$34

.59

9th

- 11

th g

rade

84$3

3.66

$26.

30 -

$41

.02

12th

gra

de34

1$3

0.61

$27.

72 -

$33

.50

Som

e co

llege

197

$37.

90$3

4.00

- $

41.8

0C

ompl

eted

col

lege

200

$38.

26$3

4.40

- $

42.1

3

Hig

h sc

hool

dip

lom

a or

equ

ival

ent

n.s.

Yes

356

$29.

61$2

6.86

- $

32.3

6N

o11

8$3

4.42

$28.

42 -

$40

.43

Mar

ital s

tatu

sn.

s.M

ai r

ied

523

$33.

03$3

0.69

- $

35.3

7W

idow

ed65

$31.

08$2

4.25

- $

37.9

1D

ivor

ced

97$3

3.40

$28.

100

- $3

8.80

Nev

er m

arri

ed18

6$3

8.60

$34.

06 -

$43

.16

Not

e: T

his

tabl

e re

port

s th

e su

mm

ary

.tnal

yses

of v

aria

nce

for

the

com

paris

ons

amon

g th

e m

ean

amou

nts

of s

ugge

sted

per

cap

ita s

pend

ing

by v

ario

us g

roup

s of

resp

onde

nts.

Not

e: N

is th

e sa

mpl

e si

ze fo

r ea

ch g

roup

. X r

epre

sent

s th

e m

ean

amou

nt o

f sug

gest

ed p

er c

apita

spe

ndin

g. D

etai

led

expl

anat

ions

of t

he a

lpha

leve

l(a

) an

d le

are

pro

vide

d on

pag

e 19

. The

initi

als

n.s.

indi

cate

that

the

obse

rved

diff

eren

ces

amon

g th

e gr

oups

are

nix

sta

tistic

ally

sig

nific

ant.

C.I.

rep

orts

the

low

er a

nd u

pper

bou

nds

of th

e 95

% c

onfid

ence

inte

rval

for

estim

atirg

the

mea

n am

ount

of s

ugge

sted

spe

ndin

g fo

r ea

ch g

roup

rep

orte

d. T

hese

inte

rval

s ar

e ap

prop

riate

for

use

with

thos

e gr

oups

that

are

sta

tistic

ally

diff

eren

t. F

or a

n ex

plan

atio

n of

con

fiden

ce in

terv

als

see

page

s 10

and

11.

- 57

-

Nag

iona

l Sam

ple

TA

BL

E 2

6 (c

ontin

ued)

CO

MPA

RIS

ON

S O

F T

HE

ME

AN

SU

GG

EST

ED

PE

R C

API

TA

SPE

ND

ING

FO

R L

IBR

AR

IES

AM

ON

G T

HE

VA

RIO

US

GR

OU

PS O

F R

ESP

ON

DE

NT

S'

# of

peo

ple

livin

g in

the

hom

e

a n.s.

R2

C.I

.

one

132

$35.

21$3

0.16

$40.

26tw

o29

0$3

1.33

$28.

12$3

4.54

thre

e16

8$3

3.80

$29.

58$3

8.03

four

165

$38.

93$3

4.44

$43.

43fi

ve o

r m

ore

113

$32.

93$2

8.03

$37.

84

# of

pre

scho

ol c

hild

ren

in th

e ho

me

.050

.005

No

pres

choo

lers

571

$32.

92$3

0.66

$35.

18O

ne o

r m

ore

pres

choo

lers

161

$37.

77$3

3.19

$42.

35

# of

stu

dent

s in

the

hom

en.

s.N

o st

uden

ts39

3$3

3.69

$30.

74$3

6.63

One

or

mor

e st

uden

ts34

0$3

4.02

$31.

25$3

6.79

Whe

ther

the

resp

onde

nts

wer

e st

uden

ts.0

06.0

09st

uden

ts95

$41.

61$3

5.73

- $

47.4

8no

n-st

uden

ts77

9;3

3.20

$31.

23 -

$35

.17

Not

e: T

his

tabl

e re

port

s th

e su

mm

ary

anal

yses

of

vari

ance

for

the

com

pari

sons

am

ong

the

mea

n am

ount

s of

sug

gest

ed p

er c

apita

spe

ndin

g by

var

ious

gro

ups

ofre

spon

dent

s.

Not

c: N

is th

e sa

mpl

e si

ze f

or e

ach

grou

p. ir

epre

sent

s th

e m

ean

amou

nt o

f su

gges

ted

per

capi

ta s

pend

ing.

Det

aile

d ex

plan

atio

ns o

f th

e al

pha

leve

l (ot

)and

ie a

re p

rovi

ded

on p

age

19. T

hein

itial

s n.

s. in

dica

te th

at th

e ob

serv

ed d

iffe

renc

es a

mon

g th

e gr

oups

are

noi

sta

tistic

ally

sig

nifi

cant

. C.1

. rep

orts

the

low

er a

nd u

pper

bou

nds

of th

e 95

% c

onfi

denc

ein

terv

al f

or e

stim

atin

g th

em

ean

amou

nt o

f su

gges

ted

spen

ding

for

eac

h gr

oup

repo

rted

. The

se in

terv

als

are

appr

opri

ate

for

use

with

thos

e gr

oups

that

are

sta

tistic

ally

dif

fere

nt. F

or a

n ex

plan

atio

nof

con

fide

nce

inte

rval

sse

e pa

ges

10 a

nd 1

1.

Nat

iona

l Sam

ple

TA

BL

E 2

6 (c

ontin

ued)

CO

MPA

RIS

ON

S O

F T

HE

ME

AN

SU

GG

EST

ED

PE

R C

API

TA

SPE

ND

ING

FO

R L

IBR

AR

IES

AM

ON

G T

HE

VA

RIO

US

GR

OU

PS O

F R

ESP

ON

DE

NT

S.

Em

ploy

men

t Sta

tus

n.s.

R2

C.I

.

Em

ploy

ed f

ull t

ime

478

$34.

56$3

2.12

$37.

00E

mpl

oyed

par

t tim

e11

6$3

6.27

$30.

93$4

1.62

Une

mpl

oyed

56$3

3.91

$26.

26 -

$41

.56

Ret

ired

152

$31.

37$2

6.58

- $

36.1

6N

ot in

wor

k fo

rce

Ann

ual h

ouse

hold

inco

me

68$3

3.05

n.s.

$26.

00 -

$40

.11

Les

s th

an $

15,0

0011

0$3

2.08

$26.

06$3

8.10

$15,

000

- $2

9,99

924

6$3

2.37

$28.

72 -

$36

.02

$30,

000

$44,

999

210

$36.

81$3

3.13

- $

40.5

0$4

5,00

0$5

9,99

994

$35.

80$3

0.07

- $

41.5

3$6

0,00

0 or

mor

e

Dis

able

d pe

rson

in h

ouse

hold

107

$36.

31

n.s.

$31.

80 -

$40

.82

Yes

123

$36.

04$3

0.24

$41.

83N

o

Res

pond

ent d

isab

led

740

$33.

94

n.s.

$31.

95 -

$35

.93

Yes

65$3

7.94

$29.

37$4

6.50

No

48$3

1.39

$23.

90$3

8.88

'Not

e: T

his

tabl

e re

port

s th

e su

mm

ary

anal

yses

of

vari

ance

for

the

com

pari

sons

am

ong

the

mea

n am

ount

s of

sug

gest

ed p

er c

apita

spe

ndin

g by

var

ious

gro

ups

ofre

spon

dent

s.

Not

e: N

is th

e sa

mpl

e si

ze f

or e

ach

grou

p. /*

repr

esen

ts th

e m

ean

amou

nt o

f su

gges

ted

per

capi

ta s

pend

ing.

Det

aile

d ex

plan

atio

ns o

f th

e al

pha

leve

l (a)

and

le a

re p

rovi

ded

on p

age

19. T

hein

itial

s n.

s. in

dica

te th

at th

e ob

serv

ed d

iffe

renc

es a

mon

g th

e gr

oups

are

not

sta

tistic

ally

sig

nifi

cant

. C.I

. rep

orts

the

low

er a

nd u

pper

bou

nds

of th

e 95

% c

onfi

denc

ein

terv

al f

or e

stim

atin

g th

em

ean

amou

nt o

f su

gges

ted

spen

ding

for

eac

h gr

oup

repo

rted

. The

se in

terv

als

are

appr

opri

ate

for

use

with

thos

e gr

oups

that

are

stat

istic

ally

dif

fere

nt. F

or a

n ex

plan

atio

n of

con

fide

nce

inte

rval

s.:

see

page

s W

and

11.

I 1J

- 59

-

Nat

iona

l Sam

ple

TA

BL

E 2

6 (c

ontin

ued)

CO

MPA

RIS

ON

S O

F T

HE

ME

AN

SU

GG

EST

ED

PE

R C

API

TA

SPE

ND

ING

FO

R L

IBR

AR

IES

AM

ON

G T

HE

VA

RIO

US

GR

OU

PS O

F R

ESP

ON

DE

NT

S'

Vot

ed in

'88

elec

tion

es54

7$3

6.06

a .012

R2

.007

C.I

.

$33.

65 -

$38

.47

lo32

6$3

1.11

$28.

12 -

$34

.09

Cur

rent

fin

anci

al s

ituat

ion

n.s.

Bet

ter

off

than

last

yea

r22

7$3

4.29

$30.

61 -

$37

.96

Wor

se o

ff th

an la

st y

ear

203

$32.

39$2

8.42

- $

36.3

7A

bout

the

sam

e43

8$3

5.05

$32.

40 -

$37

.71

Futu

re f

inan

cial

situ

atio

n.0

47.0

07B

ette

r of

f ne

xt y

ear

424

$36.

53$3

3.69

- $

39.3

8W

orse

off

nex

t yea

r62

$34.

05$2

7.21

- $

40.8

9A

bout

the

sam

e36

5$3

1.54

$28.

79 -

$34

.27

*Not

e: T

his

tabl

e re

port

s th

e su

mm

ary

anal

yses

of v

aria

nce

for

the

com

paris

ons

amon

g th

e m

ean

amou

nts

of s

ugge

sted

per

cap

ita s

pend

ing

by v

ario

us g

roup

sof

res

pond

ents

.

Not

e: N

is th

e sa

mpl

e si

ze fo

r ea

ch g

roup

. Xre

pres

ents

the

mea

n am

ount

of s

ugge

sted

per

cap

ita s

pend

ing.

Det

aile

d ex

plan

atio

nsof

the

alph

a le

vel (

a) a

nd le

are

pro

vide

d on

pag

e 19

. The

initi

als

n.s.

indi

cate

that

the

obse

rved

diff

eren

ces

amon

g th

e gr

oups

are

na

stat

istic

ally

sig

nific

ant.

C.I.

rep

orts

the

low

er a

nd u

pper

bou

nds

of th

e 95

% c

onfid

ence

inte

rval

for

estim

atin

g

tt,14

,

mea

n am

ount

of s

ugge

sted

spe

ndin

g fo

r ea

ch g

roup

rep

orte

d. T

hese

inte

rval

s ar

e ap

prop

riate

use

with

thos

e gr

oups

that

are

sta

tistic

ally

diff

eren

t. F

or a

n ex

plan

atio

n of

con

fiden

ce in

.ails

$

o' s

ee p

ages

10

and

II.

60

Naa

onal

Sam

ple

TA

BL

E 2

7C

OM

PAR

ISO

NS

OF

TH

E M

EA

N S

UG

GE

STE

D P

ER

CA

PIT

A S

PEN

DIN

G F

OR

LIB

RA

RIE

SB

ET

WE

EN

LIB

RA

RY

USE

RS

AN

DN

ON

-USE

RS*

Ent

ire

Sam

ple

876

$34.

17

C.I

.

$32.

30 -

$36

.05

Res

pond

ent w

ent t

o pu

blic

libr

ary

last

yea

r

Ni

a .008

R2

.008

C.I

.

Yes

521

$36.

33$3

3.90

$38.

75

No

347

$31.

14$2

8.16

$34.

12

Som

eone

els

e w

ent t

o lib

rary

for

res

pond

ent

n.s.

Yes

191

$36.

31$3

2.55

$40.

07

No

683

$33.

56$3

1.39

- $

35.7

2

Res

pond

ent c

alle

d lib

rary

for

info

rmat

ion

.002

.011

Yes

217

$39.

38$3

5.45

- $

43.3

2

No

657

$32.

78$3

0.36

$34.

60

Res

pond

ent u

sed

libra

ry in

any

way

last

yea

r.0

22.0

06

Yes

572

$35.

76$3

3.47

- $

38.0

5

No

303

$31.

17$2

7.92

- $

34.4

2

Not

e: T

his

tabl

e re

port

s th

e su

mm

ary

anal

yses

of

vari

ance

for

the

com

pari

sons

am

ong

the

mea

n am

ount

s of

sug

gest

ed p

er c

apita

spen

ding

by

grou

ps o

f re

spon

dent

s by

libr

ary

use.

Not

e: N

is th

e sa

mpl

e si

ze f

or e

ach

grou

p./r

epre

sent

s th

e m

ean

amou

nt o

f su

gges

ted

per

capi

ta s

pend

ing.

Det

aile

d ex

plan

atio

nsof

the

alph

a le

vel

(a)

and

IV a

re p

rovi

ded

on p

age

19. T

he

initi

als

n.s.

indi

cate

that

the

obse

rved

dif

fere

nces

am

ong

the

grou

ps a

rc n

ot s

tatis

tical

ly s

igni

fica

nt. C

.I. r

epor

ts th

elo

wer

and

upp

er b

ound

s of

the

95%

con

fide

nce

inte

rval

for

estim

atin

g th

e

mea

n am

ount

of

sugg

este

d sp

endi

ngfo

r ea

ch g

roup

rep

orte

d. T

hese

inte

rval

s ar

e ap

prop

riat

e fo

r us

ew

ith th

ose

grou

ps th

at a

re s

tatis

tical

ly d

iffe

rent

. For

an

expl

anat

ion

of c

onfi

denc

e in

terv

als

see

page

s 10

and

11.

t1,1

0.-

61 -

1L)

PART II, THE SURVEY OF AFRICAN AMERICANS

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE AFRICAN AMERICAN SAMPLE

The African American sample included 401 respondents. The data from this sample wereweighted to ensure that the demographic characteristics of the weighted sample conformed to thelatest available Census Bureau estimates of the characteristics of the national African Americanpopulation for age, gender, race, formal education attainment, and region of country. Thedemographic characteristics of the sample are as follows:t

Region of country2

% of community whichis African American'

Gender

20.4% northeast51.5% south central19.3% north central8.8% west

53.9% high (over 25% African American)29.7% moderate (5% 25% African American)16.5% low (less than 5% African American)

44.1% male55.9% female

The frequency distributions for the responses to all the questions in the interview are presented in theAppendix for this report. The Appendix is a separately bound publication.

2 These regional areas are defined by The Gallup Organization as follows: northeast states = Connecticut,Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Vermont; southcentral states = Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, Washington D.C., Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland,Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, and West Virginia; north centralstates = Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, SouthDakota, Wisconsin; western states = Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, NewMexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming.

As part of the sampling procedure for the African American sample, the Gallup Organization identifiedtelephone area codes for areas that contained certain estimated proportions of African Americans in the population.These strata were classified as heavy (.26 - 1.00), moderate (.05 - .25), and light (0 - .04). These strata were notbased on the size of the community but rather on the estimated proportion of the community, regardless of its size,which is African American. Using this rule, an inner city neighborhood which is predominately African Americancould be included in the same strata as a rural community which is predominantly African American.

- 631 U

Age 44.1% 18 - 35 years26.4% 36 - 50 years11.8% 51 - 65 years16.8% 66 years and older

.9% missing

Grade level 18.0% 8th grade or lesscompleted 14.7% 9th - llth grade

37.7% 12th grade14.6% some college3.1% associate degree8.0% bachelor's degree2.6% master's degree.9% professional/doctoral.6% missing

High school diplomaor equivalent'

Marital status

38.1% yes32.2% no29.8% missing

40.9% married12.8% widowed17.4% divorced28.4% never married

.5% missing

Living with 35.3% yesspouse 5.6% no

59.1% missing

# of peopleliving at home

16.5% one27.8 two22.0% three16.8% flur10.4% rive5.8% six or more.7% missing

4 This question was asked only of those respondents who answered that they had completed 12 grades ofschool or less.

- 64 - luS

# of preschoolchildren at home

# of school childrenat home

Respondentswho were students

Primary languagespoken at home

Employment status

57.8% zero19.2% one2.8% two.8% three.8% four

18.7% missing

38.3% zero27.5% one10.0% two4.2% three2.4% four or more

17.6% missing

0.7% high school1.5% non-academic program5.7% college students1.0% graduate students

91.1% missing

98.9% English.3% Spanish.8% missing

47.1% employed full-time11.8% employed part-time15.7% unemployed15.7% retired9.2% not in work force

.6% missing

- 65 -

Household income 14.7% less than $5,00011.9% $ 5,000 $ 9,99911.3% $10,000 - $14,999

(Median interval) 10.1% $15,000 $19,9997.8% $20,000 - $24,9997.9% $25,000 - $29,9993.6% $30,000 - $34,9998.9% $35,000 - $39,9991.9% $40,000 - $44,9992.2% $45,000 - $49,9992.1% $50,000 - $54,9992.2% $55,000 $59,9991.7% $60,000 - $64,999.7% $65,000 - $69,9991.0% $70,000 - $74,9992.7% $75,000 or more9.3% missing

Disabled personin household

21.6% yes76.7% no1.7% missing

Respondent 5.7% yesdisabled 15.0% someone else

79.4% missing

Nature of disability 1.0% sight4.3% mobility

94.7% missing

Voted in '88 election 52.4% yes47.6% no

.1% missing

Current financial 21.5% better off than last yearsituation 34.3% worse off than last year

43.8% about the same.4% missing

Future financial 63.2% better off next yearsituation 4.9% worse off next year

26.4% about the same5.5% missing.

66

1., u

LIBRARY USE AMONG THE AFRICAN AMERICAN SAMPLE

The data indicated that 51.1% of the sample had personally gone to a public library in thepast year, 13.4% of the sample reported that someone else had obtained materials for them, and15.8% of the sample had called a library for information. Controlling for overlap among theseactivities, it was determined that 54.1% of the sample had in some way used a public library inthe last year while 45.9% of the sample reported no use of a library.

EVALUATIONS OF THE IMPORTANCE OF THE ROLES BY THE AFRICAN AMERICANSAMPLE

The responses to the role evaluation questions were analyzed in two ways: first, meanscores for the role importance scales were calculated; and second, the percentages of respondentswho for each role selected the category "very important" were tabulated. While the meanimportance scale score yields a more precise estimate of the respondents' evaluations of theimportance of a role, the percentage of respondents who selected the category "very important"is the more easily understood and communicated estimate of the importance of a role. All of thetables presenting results of role evaluations present both the mean scale scores and the percentage"scores."

The results of the role evaluations are reported in Table 28 in ranked order from the rolereceiving the highest mean importance scale score to the role receiving the lowest meanimportance scale score. These results can be interpreted in two ways: first, the scores for anygiven role can be interpreted in terms of their position or standing on the four-point importancescale (an absolute assessment); and second, the scores for any given role can be interpreted interms of their ranking relative to the scores received by the other roles (a relative assessment).For example, more than half of the sample (65.1%) rated the Popular Materials Library role as"very important" with a mean score of 3.52, but this rating places the role in ninth position ofimportance compared to the mean scores received by the other roles. The reader should note thatthe ranking by mean score is not the same as the ranking by the percentage "score." The readershould also note that the distance between the mean scores for some of the roles is quite smallindicating that, while one role is ranked higher or lower than another role, for all practicalpurposes the roles are about equal in importance. The same observation could also be made forthe percentage "scores."

The results in Table 28 indicate that a majority of the African American sampleconsidered each of the ten roles to be "very important." Of these, however, the Formal EducationSupport Center role, the Preschoolers' Door to Learning role, Independent Learning Center role,the Community Information Center role, and the Research Center role received the highest ratingsof importance. These most important roles were closely followed by the Reference Library rolesfor Business and Personal information. These results indicate that the African Americanrespondents considered the public library's missions to support the educational aspirations andinformation needs of the community to be the most important missions of the library in theircommunity.

- 67 -

In evaluating these results the reader should also keep in mind some of the anomalies inthe role statements and the public's interpretations of the role statements that were discussed onpages 17-19.

DIFFERENCES IN THE EVALUATIONS OF THE IMPORTANCE OF THE ROLES BYDIFFERENT SEGMENTS OF THE AFRICAN AMERICAN SAMPLE

The respondents' opinions about the importance of each role were tested for differencesbetween or among groups of respondents using analysis of variance.5 The different groups ofrespondents were identified by, or created from, the following characteristics: the region of thecountry where the respondent lived; the relative size (in %) of the African American populationin the community in which the respondent lived; the gender of the respondent; the age of therespondent; the highest grade level of education completed by the respondent and, if the 12thgrade or less, whether the respondent has a high school diploma or equivalent; whether therespondent was a high school graduate; whether, if the respondent had an associate degree, therespondent graduated from an academic program or an occupational program; the respondent'scurrent marital status and, if married, whether the respondent was currently living with a spouse;the number of people living in the respondent's home; the number of preschool children livingin the home; the number of students living in the home; whether the respondent was currentlya student and, if so, the nature of the program of study; the primary language spoken at home;the respondent's current employment status; total annual household income; whether anyone inthe household was disabled; whether the respondent was disab!ed and, if so, the nature of thedisability; whether the respondent voted in the last (i.e., 1988) presidential election; therespondent's opinion about his or her current financial situation; the respondent's opinion abouthis or her financial situation next year; whether the respondent personally went to a public libraryin the past year and, if so, how many times; whether anyone else went to a library for the

5 Analysis of variance is a statistical procedure for testing whether the observed differences among groupmeans for each role evaluation occurred by chance or because the groups differed in their evaluations of theimportance of the role. A statistically significant difference among the group means is defined as one whoseprobability of occurring by chance (the a level reported in the tables) is so low that we choose to conclude that thedifference did not occur by chance but that it occurred because the groups differed in their evaluation of the role.All differences with an cc level of .05 or less (that is, the probability that the difference occurred by chance is 5 outof a hundred or less) are considered to be statistically significant. The a levels for all statistically significantdifferences are reported in the tables. All differences with an a level greater than .05 (that is, the probability thatthe difference occurred by chance is greater than 5 out of a hundred) are considered to be non-sign Leant and aredesignated as such in the table with the initials n.s.

A non-trivial difference is defined as a statistically significant difference whose magnitude of difference issufficiently large that it warrants attention for possible usefulness in managerial decision making. By contrast, atrivial difference is defined as a statistically significant difference whose magnitude of difference is so small or trivialas to be of questionable value in managerial decision making. Deciding whether a statistically significant differenceis trivial or non-trivial is a judgement call. We have adopted the rule that if R2, the coefficient of determination,is equal to or greater than .02 the difference is considered to be non-trivial. The coefficient of determinationmeasures the amount of variation in the role evaluation scores that is explained by the group differences - the largerthe coefficient of determination, the more meaningful the difference. The coefficients of determinetion for allstatistically significant differences are reported in the tables so assessments about triviality can be made.

- 68 -

112

respondent; whether the respondent called a library for information in the past year; and whetherthe respondent made any use of a library in the past year.

In the preceding analyses, the quantitative characteristics of the respondents (age, highestgrade level of education completed, the number of people living in the home, the number ofpreschool children living in the home, the number of students living in the home, and totalhousehold income) were grouped into intervals (e.g., respondents 18 to 35 years old, respondents36 to 50 years old, etc.) and the mean role importance scale scores for these groups werecompared for differences using analysis of variance. This was done in order to facilitatecomparisons to local data which oftentimes are available only in this grouped format. Anotherway of analyzing whether any of these characteristics of the respondents is related to therespondents' evaluations of the importance of the roles is by means of correlation analysis6which tests for the presence of a trend between the characteristic and the role importance score.For example, as the total annual income of the respondents increases does the evaluation of theimportance of a role tend to increase or decrease? In order to determine if trends such as thisexist, each of these quantitative characteristics of the respondents was also entered into acorrelation analysis with each of the role importance scales.

While the results of the analyses of variance with the grouped data and the results of thecorrelation analyses with the ungrouped data are complementary, it should be noted that thecorrelation analyses are not alway.; sensitive to a difference between two or more groups whichmight exist. Consequently, the results of the two tests someurnes do not agree. The results ofboth sets of analyses are reported below.

Region of the country. There were no statistically significant differences in the role evaluationsby respondents living in the four regions of the country (see Table 29).

% of community which is African American. There were five statistically significant differencesamong the evaluations of the roles by respondents living in areas with different percentages ofAfrican Americans in the community (see Table 30). These results indicate that respondentsliving in the communities with moderate percentages (5% - 25%) evaluated the Reference Libraryroles both for business information and for personal information higher in importance thanrespondents living in communities with high percentages (over 25%) and low percentages (lessthan 5%). Respondents living in communities with high and moderate percentages evaluated theCommunity Information Center role higher than respondents living in communities with low

6 A correlation coefficient is an index of the strength of the relationship between two quantitative variables.The coefficient can take a value from -1.00 (indicating a perfect inverse relationship) to 0.00 (indicating the absenceof any relationship) to +1.00 (indicating a perfect positive relationship). Typically, correlation coefficients appeareither as a negative decimal value (indicating that high scores for one variable are associated with low scores forthe other variable) or as a positive decimal value (indicating that high scores for one variable are associated withhigh scores for the other variable). The higher the decimal value, the stronger the relationship.

A statistically significant relationship is defined as one whose probability of occurrence by chance is so lowthat we choose to conclude that it did not occur by chance but that it occurred because the two variables are related.A non-trivial relationship is defined as a statistically significant relationship of sufficient strength that it warrantsattention for possible usefulness in managerial decision making. In this report, correlation coefficients equal to orgreater than ±.15 are considered to be non-trivial.

- 69 -11_3

percentages. The differences among the evaluations of the Public Work Place role werestatistically trivial, however it appears that respondents living in communities with moderatepercentages rated this role higher than the respondents living in communities with low and highpercentages. Respondents living in communities with moderate percentages rated the PopularMaterials Library role higher than respondents living in communities with low percentages.

Gender. There were no statistically significant differences among the evaluations of the roles bymale and female respondents (see Table 31).

Age. There were two statistically significant and non-crivial correlation coefficients between theage of the respondents and their evaluations of the importance of the roles. The age of therespondents was positively related to the respondents' evaluations of the importance of theReference Library for personal information role (r = .17) and the Public Work Place role (r =.15).

The respondents were also divided into four age groups: 18 - 35 years old; 36 - 50 yearsold; 51 - 65 years old; and over 65 years old. Comparisons of the mean importance scale soresfor these four groups indicated that there were two statistically significant and non-trivialdifferences among the groups (see Table 32). Respondents who were 18 - 35 years old gave theReference Library for personal information role a lower rating than did the other age groups.Respondents who were 51 years or older gave the Public Work Place role a higher rating thandid respondents who were younger than 51 years.

Highest grade level completed. There was one statistically significant and non-trivial correlationcoefficient. The highest grade level completed by the respondents was inversely related to therespondents' evaluations of the importance of the Reference Library for personal information role(r = -.16). The lower the grade level completed, the higher the rating of the importance of theReference Library for personal information role; the higher the grade level completed the lowerthe rating of the importance of the Reference Library for personal information role

The respondents were also divided into five groups based on the number of gradescompleted: 8th grade or less; 9th - 11 th grade, 12th grade, some college, and college graduates.Comparisons of the mean importance scale scores for these five groups indicated that there werefour statistically significant and non-trivial differences (see Table 33). Respondents who hadsome college and respondents who had graduated college gave the Reference Library for personalinformation lower ratings than did the respondents who had a 12th grade education or less.Respondents who had completed the 9th - 11 th grades gave the Reference Library for businessrole a lower rating than did respondents who had an 8th grade education or less and respondentswho had completed the 12th grade. Respondents who had completed the 8th grade or less,respondents who had completed the 9th - 11 th grades, and respondents who had completed the12th grade of high school gave the Independent Learning Center role a higher rating thanrespondents who had completed some college; respondents who had completed the 9th - 1 lthgrades gave the role a higher rating than did respondents who had graduated from college.Respondents who had completed the 8th grade or less g..ve the Public Work Place role a higherrating than did respondents who had completed the 9th - I I th grades, respondents who hadcompleted some college, and respondents who had graduated from college.

- 70 -

Whether, if the respondent had completed the 12th grade or less, the respondent had a highschool diploma or equivalent. There were two statistically significant differences among theevaluations of the roles by respondents who had a high school diploma and respondents who didnot (see Table 34). There was a trivial difference between the two groups on their evaluationof the Formal Education Support Center role; respondents who had a high school diploma gavethe role a slightly higher evaluation. The two groups also differed on their evaluation of thePublic Work Place role; respondents who did not have a high school diploma gave the role ahigher evaluation.

Whether, if the respondent had an associate degree, the respondent graduated from an academicprogram or an occupational program. The number of responses to this question was too smallto permit group comparisons.

Marital status. There were four statistically significant differences in the role evaluations bydifferent marital status groups (see Table 35). Respondents who never married rated the FormalEducation Support Center role, the Community Activities Center role, the CommunityInformation Center role, and the Public Work Place role lower than respondents who weremarried, widowed, or divorced.

Whether a married respondent was currently living with a spouse. There were no statisticallysignificant differences among the evaluations of the roles by married respondents who were livingwith their spouses and respondents who were not living with their spouses (see Table 36).

The nwnber of people living in the home. There were no statistically significant and non-trivialcorrelation coefficients between the number of people living at home and the respondents'evaluations of the roles.

Based on the number of people living in the home, the respondents were also divided intofive groups: respondents living in homes with one person, two people, three people, four people,and five or more people. Comparisons among these groups indicated that there were twostatistically significant differences (see Table 37). Respondents who lived in homes with twopeople rated the Formal Education Support Center role lower than the other groups. Respondentswho lived alone rated the Community Activities Center role lower than the other groups.

The number of preschool children living in the home. There were no statistically significant andnon-trivial correlation coefficients between the number of preschool children living at home andthe respondents' evaluations of the roles.

Because of the low number of multiple preschoolers in the home, the respondents weredivided into two groups: respondents living in homes without any preschoolers and respondentsliving in homes with one or more preschoolers. Comparisons between the groups indicated thatthere were two statistically significant, but trivial differences (see Table 38). Respondents livingin homes with one or more preschoolers rated the Formal Education Support Center role and thePopular Materials Library role higher than respondents who lived in homes without anypreschoolers.

- 71 - u

The number of students living in the home. There were no statistically significant and non-trivialcorrelation coefficients between the number of children living at home and the respondents'evaluations of the roles.

Because of the low number of multiple students in the home, the respondents weredivided into two groups: respondents living in homes without any students and respondents livingin homes with one or more students. Comparisons between the groups indicated that there weretwo statistically significant, but trivial differences (see Table 39). Respondents living in homeswith one or more students rated the Independent Learning Center role and the Popular MaterialsLibrary role higher than respondents who lived in homes without any students.

Whether the respondent was currently a student. There were no statistically significant differencesamong the evaluations of the roles by respondents who were currently students or enrolled in atraining program and respondents who were not. (See Table 40).

Ncture of the program of study. The number of responses to this question was too small to permitgroup comparisons.

Employment status. There were four statistically significant and non-trivial differences among theevaluations of the roles by respondents with different employment status (see Table 41).Respondents who were employed part time rated the Formal Education Support Center role lowerthan the other groups. Retired respondents rated the Reference Library role for personalinformation higher than respondents who were employed full time. Respondents who wereemployed full time rated the Community Activities Center role lower than the other groups.Retired respondents rated the Public Work Place role higher than the other groups.

Total annual household income. There were two statistically significant and non-trivial correlationcoefficients. The total annual household income of the respondents was inversely related to therespondents' evaluations of the importance of the Reference Library for personal information role(r = -.19) and the Public Work Place role (r = -.17). The lower the respondents' householdincome the higher the ratings of the importance of the Reference Library for personal informationrole and the importance of the Public Work Place role; the higher the respondents' householdincome the lower the ratings of the importance of the Reference Library for personal informationrole and the importance of the Public Work Place role.

Based on the amount of total household income, the respondents were divided into fivegroups: respondents living in households with incomes of less than $10,000, $10,000 to $19,999,$20,000 to $29,999, $30,000 to $39,999, and above $40,000. Comparisons among these groupsindicated that there were three statistically significant differences among the groups (see Table42). Respondents who lived in households with incomes of less than $10,000 rated the ReferenceLibrary role for personal information higher than respondents living households with incomes of$20,000 or more, and respondents in households with incomes of $10,000 - $19,999 rated thisrole higher than respondents in households with incomes of $30,000 - $39,999. Respondentsliving in households with incomes of less than $10,000 rated the Communities Activities Centerrole higher than any other income group. Respondents living in households with incomes of lessthan $10,000 rated the Research Center role higher than respondents in households with incomesof $20,000 - $29,999.

- 72 -

Whether anyone in the household was disabled. There were three statistically significantdifferences between the evaluations of the roles by respondents living in households with adisabled person and respondents living in households without a disabled person (see Table 43).Respondents living in household, with a disabled person rated the Reference Library role forpersonal information, the Community Activities Center role, and the Research Center role higherthan respondents living in households without a disabled person. The differences between the twogroups on the Reference Library role and the Resc rch Center role were statistically trivial.

Whether the respondent was disabled. There were no statistically significant differences betweenthe evaluations of the roles by respondents who were disabled and respondents who were notdisabled (see Table 44).

The nature of the disability. The number of responses to this question was too small to permitgroup comparisons.

Whether the respondent voted in the last (1988) presidential election. There were two statisticallysignificant difference among the evaluations of the roles by respondents who voted andrespondents who did not vote in the last presidential election (see Table 45). Respondents whovoted rated the Formal Education Support Center role and the Community Information Centerrole higher than respondents who did not vote. Both of these differences were statistically trivial.

The respondent' s opinion about hislher current financial condition. Comparisons of the meanimportance scale scores for respondents based on their opinions about their current financialcondition indicated that there were four statistically significant differences among the groups (seeTable 46). Respondents who felt that their current financial condition was worse than last yearrated the Community Activities Center role, the Research Center role, the CommunityInformation Center role, and the Popular Materials Library role higher than respondents who feltthat their current financial condition was about the same as last year. The differences betweenthese groups on the Research Center role and the Popular Materials Library role were statisticallytrivial.

The respondents' s opinion about hislher financial condition next year. Comparisons of the meanimportance scale scores for respondents based on their opinions about their financial conditionnext year indicated that there was one statistically significant difference among the groups (seeTable 47). Respondents who felt that their financial condition next year will be better than thisyear rated the Reference Library role for business information higher than respondents who feltthat their financial condition next year will be about the same as this year.

DIFFERENCES IN THE EVALUATIONS OF THE IMPORTANCE OF THE ROLES BYLIBRARY USERS AND NONUSERS IN THE AFRICAN AMERICAN SAMPLE

Each of the role importance scales was tested for differences among respondents (usinganalysis of variance) based on the following library use behaviors: whether or not the respondenthad gone to a public library in the past year, whether or not someone else had gone to a libraryto obtain materials for the respondent, whether or not the respondent had called a library forinformation in the past year, and a constructed measure of any kind of use of a public library -

- 73

whether or not a respondent answered "yes" to any one of the three "use"questions. The resultsof these analyses indicated that there was only one statistically significant difference (See Tables48 - 51). Respondents who did not go to a library in the last year rated the Independent LearningCenter role higher than respondents who went to a library in the last year. This difference,however, was statistically trivial.

Respondents who indicated that they had gone to a library in the past year were alsoasked how many times they had gone to a library and were provided six numerical responsecategories which were converted into a six-point scale. This frequency of visit scale was alsoentered into correlation analyses with each of the role importance scales. The results of theseanalyses indicated that there was one statistically significant and non-trivial correlation coefficientwith the Community Activities Center role (r = -.17). The less frequently the users went to alibrary, the higher their evaluations of the importance of the Community Activities Center role;the more frequently the users went to a library, the lower their evaluations of the importance ofthe Community Activities Centcr role.

These results indicate that, in general, users and nonusers of the public library tend toshare the same evaluations of the importance of the various roles of the public library.

THE AFRICAN AMERICAN SAMPLE'S OPINION ABOUT AMOUNT OF PER CAPITASPENDING FOR PUBLIC LIBRARIES

The responses to the question about the amount of money that the community shouldspend on library services were tabulated and are reported in Table 52. These results indicate that2.1% of the respondents answered that the community should spend nothing for library services,35.4% answered that the community should spend between $1 to $20 or per capita on publiclibraries (this interval contains the national median of $16 per capita), while 51.6% of therespondents answered that the community should spend more than $20 per capita. Ten pointeight per cent of the respondents were not sure and did not respond. The average per capitaexpenditure' that the respondents thought the community should spend annually on the publiclibrary was $39.86 - an amount twice as high as the national per capita expenditure.

DIFFERENCES OF OPINION AMONG SEGMENTS OF THE AFRICAN AMERICANSAMPLE ABOUT THE AMOUNT OF PER CAPITA SPENDING FOR PUBLIC LIBRARIES

The respondents' opinions about the amount of public spending for library services weretested for differences among groups of respondents based on the same characteristics of therespondents that were identified on page 68. The results of these analyses, reported in Table 53,indicated that there were seven statistically significant and non-trivial differences. Thesedifferences were as follows:

7 The average or mean of the scores was calculated using the mid-point of each interval; namely, $0, $10, $30,$50, $70, $90, and $110.

- 74 -

Region of country. Respondents living in the western states were of the opinion that thecommunity should spend about $28.82 per capita which was lower than the amounts selected byrespondents from the northeast states ($46.59) and -he north central states ($47.64) and about thesame as the amount selected by respondents from the south central states ($35.87).

% of community which is African American. Respondents living in communities with highpercentages were of the opinion tha the community should spend about $27.23 per capita whichwas lower than the amounts selected by respondents living in communities with low percentages($42.74) and in communities with moderate percentages ($42.29).

Gender. Males were of the opinion that the community should spend about $45.96 per capitawhich was higher than the amount selected by female respondents ($35.05).

Marital status. Respondents who were widowed were of the opinion that the commnnity shouldspend about $20.32 per capita which was lower than the amounts selected by respondents whowere divorced ($55.27) or never married ($40.91), and respondents who were married were ofthe opinion that the community should spend about $36.42 per capita which was less than theamounts selected by respondents who were divorced ($55.27).

Number of people living in the home. Respondents living in homes with two people were of theopinion that the community should spend about $48.46 per capita which was higher than theamounts selected by respondents living in homes with one, four, and five or more people.

Whether the respondent voted in the last (1988) presidential election. Respondents who voted inthe last presidential election were of the opinion that the community should spend about $43.39per capita which was higher than the amounts selected by the non-voters ($34.03).

The respondent's opinion about hislher financial condition next year. Respondents who felt thatthey will be about as well off next as they were this year were of the opinion that the communityshould spend about $30.24 per capita which was lower than the amounts selected by respondentswho felt that they will be better off next year ($43.91) and by respondents who felt that they willbe worse off next year ($46.85).

The respondents' opinions about the amount of per capita public spending for libraryservices were also entered into correlation analyses with the following quantitative characteristicsof the respondents: age, highest grade level of education completed, the number of people livingin the home, the number of preschool children living in the home, the number of students livingin the home, and total household income. The results of these analyses indicated that there wereno statistically significant relationships.

D1H-hRENCES OF OPINION ABOUT THE AMOUNT OF PER CAPITA SPENDING FORPUBLIC LIBRARIES BY LIBRARY USERS AND NONUSERS IN THE AFRICANAMERICAN SAMPLE

The respondents' selection of the amount of public spending for library services wastested for differences among respondents (using analysis of variance) based on the following

- 75 -

119

library use behaviors: whether or not the respondent had gone to a public library in the past year,whether or not someone else had gone to a library to obtain materials for the respondent, whetheror not the respondent had called a library for information in the past year, and a constructedmeasure of any kind of use of a public library - whether or not a respondent answered "yes" toany one of the three "use"questions.

The results of these analyses, reported in Table 54, indicated that there were nostatistically significant diffeitnces between users and nonusers of a library. The managerialsignificance of these results is that even nonusers of libraries feel that community should spendabout twice the amount of the current national median level of financial support for publiclibraries.

Respondents who indicated that they had gone to a library in the past year were alsoasked how many times they had gone to a library and were provided six numerical responsecategories which were converted into a six-point scale, This frequency of visit scale was alsoei.tered into correlation analyses with each of the role importance scales. The result of thisanalysis indicated that there was a statistically significant and non-trivial correlation coefficient(r = .19) indicating that, among library users, the more frequently the users visited a library thehigher the per capita support they thought the community should give to the library.

RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN THE EVALUATIONS OF THE ROLES AND THE OPINIONSABOUT THE AMOUNT OF PER CAPITA SPENDING FOR PUBLIC LIBRARIES IN THEAFRICAN AMERICAN SAMPLE

In order to identify which of the roles of the public library the public appeared mostwilling to support financially, each of the role importance scales was entered into a correlationanalysis with the suggested amount of public spending scale. These analyses resulted in onestatistically significant and non-trivial correlation coefficient. The respondents' evaluation of theimportance of the Popular Materials Library role was positively related to the amount of moneythe respondents thought the community should provide (r = .18). The higher the respondents'ratings of the Popular Materials Library role, the greater the amount they thought the communityshould spend on the library; the lower the respondents' ratings of the Popular Materials Libraryrole, the smaller the amount they thought the community should spend on the library. It appearsthat, for the African American community, all the other roles of the library, regardless ofimportance, were considered equally worthy of public financial support. However, the PopularMaterials Library role, which was rated next to least important, appears not to be consideredequally worthy of support.

- 76 - Lu

Afr

ican

Am

eric

an S

ampl

e

TA

BL

E 2

8T

HE

EV

AL

UA

TIO

NS

OF

TH

E I

MPO

RT

AN

CE

OF

TH

E V

AR

IOU

S R

OL

ES

OF

TH

E P

UB

LIC

LIB

RA

RY

BY

TH

E A

FRIC

AN

AM

ER

ICA

N S

AM

PLE

(N =

401

)

i%

Form

al E

duca

tion

Supp

ort C

ente

r3.

9496

.5

Pres

choo

lers

' Doo

r to

Lea

rnin

g3.

9495

.7

Inde

pend

ent L

earn

ing

Cen

ter

3.89

93.1

Com

mun

ity I

nfor

mat

ion

Cen

ter

3.82

85.6

Res

earc

h C

ente

r3.

7984

.6

Ref

eren

ce L

ibra

ry -

Bus

ines

s3.

7378

.9

Ref

eren

ce L

ibra

ry -

Per

sona

l3.

7074

.8

Publ

ic W

ork

Plac

e3.

6570

.7

Popu

lar

Mat

eria

ls L

ibra

ry3.

5261

.5

Com

mun

ity A

ctiv

ities

Cen

ter

3.50

63.8

Not

e: N

is th

e sa

mpl

e si

ze a

nd r

epre

sent

s, in

gen

eral

, the

num

ber

of r

espo

nden

ts w

ho r

atcd

eac

h ro

le. X

rep

rese

nts

the

mea

n ra

ting

for

each

role

on

the

four

-poi

nt im

port

ance

sca

le. %

repr

esen

ts th

e pe

rcen

tage

of t

he s

ampl

e th

at r

ated

the

role

"ve

ry im

port

ant."

For

som

e ro

les

ther

e w

ere

a fe

w n

on-r

espo

nden

ts, b

ut th

ese

slig

ht d

iffer

ence

s in

sam

ple

size

s ar

e in

cons

eque

ntia

lfo

r th

e pu

rpos

e of

est

imat

ing

the

sam

plin

g er

ror

asso

ciat

ed w

ith th

e %

of r

espo

nden

ts w

ho r

ated

the

role

"ve

ry im

port

ant."

L.1

- 77

-

1

Afr

ican

Am

eric

an S

ampl

e

TA

BL

E 2

9C

OM

PAR

ISO

NS

AM

ON

G R

ESP

ON

DE

NT

S FR

OM

DIF

F.E

RE

NT

RE

GIO

NS

OF

TH

E C

OU

NT

RY

*

Form

al E

duca

tion

Supp

ort C

ente

r

Pres

choo

lers

' Doo

r to

Lea

rnin

g

Ref

eren

ce L

ibra

ry -

Per

sona

l

Ref

eren

ce L

ibra

ry -

Bus

ines

s

Com

mun

ity A

ctiv

ities

Cen

ter

Res

earc

h C

ente

r

Com

mun

ity I

nfor

mat

ion

Cen

ter

Inde

pend

ent L

earn

ing

Cen

ter

Publ

ic W

ork

Plac

e

Popu

lar

Mat

eria

ls L

ibra

ry

Sout

hN

orth

Nor

thea

stC

entr

alC

entr

alW

est

(N =

82)

(N =

206

)(N

= 7

7)(N

= 3

5)

I 3.96

3.97

3.70

3.80

3.66

3.88

3.92

3.98

3.75

3.59

%i

%i

%

97.3

3.92

95.2

3.97

97.4

97.4

3.93

95.1

3.96

96.8

74.6

3.66

71.8

3.77

80.9

83.8

3.66

73.3

3.82

86.3

76.3

3.43

59.5

3.41

58.8

91.0

3.77

85.4

3.70

72.6

95.4

3.81

85.2

3.74

75.3

99.0

3.88

92.0

3.84

91.5

78.8

3.62

70.6

3.58

63.0

60.5

3.45

61.0

3.59

62.3

1%

aR

2

4.00

100.

0n.

s.

3.93

93.2

n.s.

3.72

79.4

n.s.

3.84

83.8

n.s.

3.65

70.0

n.s.

3.88

91.6

n.s.

3.84

87.1

n.s.

3.86

89.2

n.s.

3.68

69.7

n.s.

3.59

64.9

n.s.

Thi

s ta

ble

repo

rts

the

sum

mar

y an

alys

es o

f var

ianc

e fo

r th

e co

mpa

riL a

ns a

mon

g th

e m

ean

role

impo

rtan

ce s

cale

sco

res

for

the

grou

ps o

f res

pond

ents

iden

tifie

d by

the

colu

mn

head

ings

.

Not

e: N

is th

e sa

mpl

e si

ze f

or e

ach

grou

p an

d re

pres

ents

, in

gene

ral,

the

num

ber

of r

espo

nden

ts w

ho r

ated

eac

h ro

le.

Ft r

epre

sent

s th

e m

ean

ratin

g fo

r ea

ch r

ole

on th

e fo

ur-p

oint

impo

rtan

cesc

ale.

Exp

lana

tions

of

a (t

he a

lpha

leve

l) a

nd I

V (

the

coef

fici

ent o

f de

term

inat

ion)

arc

pro

vide

d on

pag

e 68

. The

initi

als

n.s.

indi

cate

that

the

obse

rved

diff

eren

ces

amon

g th

e gr

oup

mea

ns s

reno

t sta

tistic

ally

sig

nifi

cant

. % r

epre

sent

s th

e pe

rcen

tage

of

each

gro

up th

at r

ated

the

role

"ve

ry im

port

ant."

The

se %

are

pre

sent

ed f

or d

escr

iptiv

e pu

rpos

es. F

or s

omer

oles

ther

e w

ere

a fe

wno

n-re

spon

dent

s, b

ut th

ese

slig

ht d

iffe

renc

es in

sam

ple

size

s ar

e in

cons

eque

ntia

l for

the

purp

ose

of e

stim

atin

g th

e sa

mpl

ing

erro

r as

soci

ated

with

the

perc

enta

ge o

f re

spon

dent

s w

hora

ted

the

role

s "v

ery

impo

rtan

t."

- 78

-

Afr

ican

Am

eric

an S

ampl

e

TA

BL

E 3

0C

OM

PAR

ISO

NS

AM

ON

G R

ESP

ON

DE

NT

S FR

OM

CO

MM

UN

ITIE

SW

ITH

DI1

+E

RE

NT

PE

RC

EN

TA

GE

S O

F A

FRIC

AN

AM

ER

ICA

N R

ESI

DE

NT

S*

26%

- 1

00%

5% -

25%

0%-

4%(N

= 2

16)

(N =

118

)(N

= 6

6)

I%

I%

i.-%

aR

2

96.0

3.98

98.9

3.87

93.5

n.s.

94.5

3.98

99.1

3.89

93.7

n.s.

70.6

3.84

84.4

3.63

71.1

.007

.026

73.9

3.92

92.1

3.61

71.2

.000

.050

63.6

3.50

64.2

3.46

63.7

n.s.

83.8

3.82

84.1

3.87

91.5

n.s.

89.7

3.82

83.3

3.68

76.0

.023

.020

94.5

3.86

90.7

3.87

92.8

n.s.

67.5

3.76

78.4

3.58

67.4

.042

.016

61.4

3.64

70.8

3.33

45.2

.014

.022

Form

al E

duca

tion

Supp

ort C

ente

r3.

95

.

Pres

choo

lers

' Doo

r to

Lea

rnin

g3.

94

Ref

eren

ce L

ibra

ry -

Per

sona

l3.

64

Ref

eren

ce L

ibra

ry -

Bus

ines

s3.

67

Com

mun

ity A

ctiv

ities

Cen

ter

3.50

Res

earc

h C

ente

r3.

75

Com

mun

ity I

nfor

mat

ion

Cen

ter

3.87

Inde

pend

ent L

earn

ing

Cen

ter

3.92

Publ

ic W

ork

Plac

e3.

60

Popu

lar

Mat

eria

ls L

ibra

ry3.

51

Thi

s ta

ble

repo

rts

the

sum

mar

y an

alys

es o

f var

ianc

e fo

r th

e co

mpa

rison

s am

ong

the

mea

n ro

le im

port

ance

sca

le s

core

s fo

r th

e gr

oups

of r

espo

nden

ts id

entif

ied

byth

e co

lum

n he

adin

gs.

Not

e: N

is th

e sa

mpl

e si

ze fo

r ea

ch g

roup

And

rep

rese

nts,

in g

ener

al, t

he n

umbe

r of

res

pond

ents

who

rat

ed e

ach

role

. j r

epre

sent

s th

e m

ean

ratin

g fo

r ea

ch r

ole

on th

e fo

ur-p

oint

impo

rtan

cesc

ak. E

xpla

natio

ns o

f a (

the

alph

a le

vel)

and

IV (

the

coef

ficie

nt o

f det

erm

inat

ion)

are

pro

vide

d on

pag

e 68

. The

initi

als

n.s.

indi

cate

that

the

obse

rved

diffe

renc

es a

mon

g th

e gr

oup

mea

ns a

re

not s

tatis

tical

ly s

igni

fican

t. %

rep

rese

nts

the

perc

enta

ge o

f eac

h gr

oup

that

rat

ed th

e ro

le "

very

impo

rtan

t." T

hese

% a

rc p

rese

nted

for

desc

ripfiv

e pu

rpos

es.

For

som

e ro

les

ther

e w

ere

a fe

w

non-

resp

onde

nts,

but

thes

e sl

ight

diff

eren

ces

in s

ampl

e si

zes

are

inco

nseq

uent

ial f

or th

e pu

rpos

e of

est

imat

ing

the

sam

plin

g er

ror

asso

ciat

edw

ith th

e pe

rcen

tage

of r

espo

nden

ts w

ho r

ated

the

role

s "v

ery

impo

rtan

t."

- 79

-i./

Afr

ican

Am

eric

an S

ampl

e

TA

BL

E 3

1C

OM

PAR

ISO

NS

BE

TW

EE

N M

AL

E A

ND

FE

MA

LE

RE

SPO

ND

EN

TS.

Mal

eFe

mal

e(N

= 1

77)

(N =

224

)

I%

I%

a

Form

al E

duca

tion

Supp

ort C

ente

r3.

9395

.73.

9597

.1n.

s.

Pres

choo

lers

' Doo

r to

Lea

rnin

g3.

9495

.03.

9596

.3n.

s.

Ref

eren

ce L

ibra

ry -

Per

sona

l3.

6571

.93.

7377

.1n.

s.

Ref

eren

ce L

ibra

ry -

Bus

ines

s3.

7378

.33.

7479

.3n.

s.

Com

mun

ity A

ctiv

ities

Cen

ter

3.55

66.1

3.46

61.9

n.s.

Res

earc

h C

ente

r3.

7582

.83.

8286

.1n.

s.

Com

mun

ity I

nfor

mat

ion

Cen

ter

3.82

86.0

3.82

85.2

n.s.

Inde

pend

ent L

earn

ing

Cen

ter

3.85

90.8

3.93

94.9

n.s.

Publ

ic W

ork

Plac

e3.

6773

.23.

6368

.8n.

s.

Popu

lar

Mat

eria

ls L

ibra

ry3.

4757

.83.

5664

.5n.

s.

R2

Thi

s ta

ble

repo

rts

the

sum

mar

y an

alys

es o

f var

ianc

e fo

r th

e co

mpa

rison

s am

ong

the

mea

n ro

le im

port

ance

sca

le s

core

s fo

r th

e gr

oups

of r

espo

nden

ts id

entif

ied

byth

e co

lum

n he

adin

gs.

Not

e: N

is th

e sa

mpl

e si

ze fo

r ea

ch g

roup

and

rep

rese

nts,

in g

ener

al, t

he n

umbe

r of

res

pond

ents

who

rat

ed e

ach

role

. i r

epre

sent

s th

e m

ean

ratin

g fo

r ea

ch r

ok o

n th

e fo

ur-p

oint

impo

rtan

cesc

ale.

Exp

lana

tions

of a

(th

e al

pha

leve

l) an

d 1,

22 (

the

coef

ficie

nt o

f det

erm

inat

ion)

arc

pro

vide

d on

pag

e 68

. The

initi

als

n.s.

indi

cate

that

the

obse

rved

diffe

renc

es a

mon

g th

e gr

oup

mea

ns a

reno

t sta

tistic

ally

sig

nific

ant.

% r

epre

sent

s th

e pe

rcen

tage

of e

ach

grou

p th

at r

ated

the

role

"ve

ry im

port

ant."

The

se %

axe

pre

sent

ed fo

r de

scrip

tive

purp

oses

. For

som

ero

les

ther

e w

ere

a fe

wno

n-re

spon

dent

s, b

ut th

ese

slig

ht d

iffer

ence

s in

sam

ple

size

s ar

e in

cons

eque

ntia

l for

the

purp

ose

of e

stim

atin

g th

e sa

mpl

ing

erro

r as

soci

ated

with

the

perc

enta

ge o

f res

pond

ents

who

rate

d th

ero

les

"ver

y im

port

ant."

1 ;"

?# 6

Afr

ican

Am

eric

an S

ampl

e

TA

BL

E 3

2C

OM

PAR

ISO

NS

AM

ON

G R

ESP

ON

DE

NT

S FR

OM

111

M4R

EN

T A

GE

GR

OU

PS.

18-3

536

-50

51-6

566

and

up

(N =

177

)(N

= 1

06)

(N =

47)

(N =

67)

i%

i%

Form

al E

duca

tion

Supp

ort C

ente

r3.

9294

.83.

9897

.8

Pres

choo

lers

' Doo

r to

Lea

rnin

g3.

9495

.23.

9494

.8

Ref

eren

ce L

ibra

ryPe

rson

al3.

5965

.03.

7678

.1

Ref

eren

ce L

ibra

ryB

usin

ess

3.68

75.6

3.71

75.0

Com

mun

ity A

ctiv

ities

Cen

ter

3.43

56.7

3.50

67.4

Res

earc

h C

ente

r3.

7983

.73.

7581

.0

Com

mun

ity I

nfor

mat

ion

Cen

ter

3.77

81.6

3.83

84.2

Inde

pend

ent L

earn

ing

Cen

ter

3.86

90.7

3.91

93.7

Publ

ic W

ork

Plac

e3.

5764

.93.

5764

.6

Popu

lar

Mat

eria

ls L

ibra

ry3.

5061

.03.

5560

.2

I4.

00

3.97

3.71

3.84

3.42

3.79

3.88

3.93

3.82

3.61

%i

%a

R2

100.

03.

9296

.4n.

s.

97.1

3.93

97.5

n.s.

78.5

3.88

92.3

.003

.035

83.9

3.84

89.2

n.s.

63.5

3.70

76.1

n.s.

85.7

3.86

92.4

n.s.

90.3

3.88

94.2

n.s.

95.6

3.92

96.3

.i.s.

82.6

3.84

87.4

.002

.038

68.9

3.45

59.7

n.s.

Thi

s ta

ble

repo

rts

the

sum

mar

y an

alys

es o

f va

lianc

e fo

r th

e co

mpa

riso

ns a

mon

g th

e m

ean

tole

impo

rtan

ce s

cale

sco

res

for

the

grou

ps o

f re

spon

dent

s id

entif

ied

byth

e co

lum

n he

adin

gs.

Not

e: N

is th

e sa

mpl

e si

ze f

or e

ach

grou

p an

d re

pres

ents

, in

gene

ral,

the

num

ber

of r

espo

nden

ts w

ho r

ated

eac

h ro

le. I

rep

rese

nts

the

mea

nra

ting

for

each

rol

e on

the

four

-poi

nt im

port

ance

scal

e. E

xpla

natio

ns o

f a

(the

alp

ha le

vel)

and

R2

(the

coe

ffic

ient

of

dete

rmin

atio

n) a

re p

rovi

ded

on p

age

68. T

he in

itial

s n.

s. in

dica

te th

at th

e ob

serv

eddi

ffer

ence

s am

ong

the

grou

p m

eans

are

not s

tatis

tical

ly s

igni

fica

nt. %

rep

rese

nts

the

perc

enta

ge o

f ea

ch g

roup

that

rat

ed th

e ro

le "

very

impo

rtan

t." T

hese

% a

re p

rese

nted

for

des

crip

tive

purp

oses

. For

som

ero

les

ther

e w

ere

a fe

wno

n-re

spon

dent

s, b

ut th

ese

slig

ht d

iffe

renc

es in

sam

ple

size

s ar

e in

cons

eque

ntia

l for

the

purp

ose

of e

stim

atin

g th

e sa

mpl

ing

erro

r as

soci

ated

with

the

perc

enta

ge o

f re

spon

dent

s w

hora

ted

the

role

s "v

ery

impo

rtan

t."

- 81

-1

Afr

ican

Am

eric

an S

ampl

e

TA

BL

E 3

3C

OM

PAR

ISO

NS

AM

ON

G R

ESP

ON

DE

NT

S B

ASE

D O

N H

IGH

EST

GR

AD

E L

EV

EL

CO

MPL

ET

ED

.

8th

grad

eor

less

(N =

71)

i%

Form

al E

duca

tion

Supp

ort C

ente

r3.

9497

.1

Pres

choo

lers

' Doo

r to

Lea

rnin

g3.

9598

.4

Ref

eren

ce L

ibra

ry -

Per

sona

l3.

8387

.4

Ref

eren

ce L

ibra

ryB

usin

ess

3.83

88.0

Com

mun

ity A

ctiv

ities

Cen

ter

3.59

69.2

Res

earc

h C

ente

r3.

8792

.3

Com

mun

ity I

nfor

mat

ion

Cen

ter

3.85

91.0

Inde

pend

ent L

earn

ing

Cen

ter

3.91

96.3

Publ

ic W

ork

Plac

e3.

8386

.1

Popu

lar

Mat

eria

ls L

ibra

ry3.

5063

.0

9th-

llth

Com

plet

edgr

ade

12th

gra

deSo

me

colle

geco

llege

(N =

59)

(N =

151

)(N

= 7

1)(N

= 4

6)

I3.

86

3.98

3.73

3.57

3.53

3.85

3.84

4.00

3.55

3.55

%i

%

93.1

3.99

98.7

98.2

3.94

94.9

76.4

3.79

81.9

71.0

3.78

81.0

68.7

3.50

66.8

90.9

3.80

83.7

89.6

3.86

87.6

100.

03.

9596

.7

67.2

3.68

71.7

70.0

3.60

67.0

I%

I%

aR

2

3.97

97.1

3.89

92.0

n.s.

3.92

94.5

3.93

93.3

n.s.

3.53

59.3

3.43

53.3

.000

.057

3.75

77.7

3.63

69.1

.041

.025

3.36

50.7

3.48

58.8

n.s.

3.67

73.1

3.73

86.0

n.s.

3.80

81.0

3.66

72.3

n.s.

3.73

83.2

3.82

83.2

.001

.033

3.57

63.0

3.48

59.2

.011

.033

3.34

43.7

3.51

57.1

its.

Thi

s ta

ble

repo

rts

the

sum

mar

y an

alys

es o

f var

ianc

e fo

r th

e co

mpa

rison

s am

ong

the

mea

n ro

le im

port

ance

sca

le s

core

s fo

r th

e gr

oups

of r

espo

nden

ts id

entif

ied

by th

e co

lum

n he

adin

gs.

Not

e: N

is th

e sa

mpl

e si

ze fo

r ea

ch g

roup

and

rep

rese

nts,

in g

ener

al, t

he n

umbe

r of

res

pond

ents

who

rat

ed e

ach

role

.i r

epre

sent

s th

e m

ean

ratin

g fo

r ea

ch r

ole

on th

e fo

ur-p

oint

impo

rtan

ce

scal

e. E

xpla

natio

ns o

f a (

the

alph

a le

vel)

and

R2

(the

coe

ffici

ent o

f det

erm

inat

ion)

arc

pro

vide

d on

pag

e 68

. The

initi

als

n.s.

indi

cate

that

the

obse

rved

diff

eren

ces

amon

g th

e gr

oup

mea

ns a

re

noi s

tatis

tical

ly s

igni

fican

t. %

rep

rese

nts

the

perc

enta

ge o

f eac

h gr

oup

that

rat

ed th

e ro

le "

very

impo

rtan

t." T

hese

% a

re p

rese

nted

for

desc

riptiv

e pu

rpos

es. F

or s

ome

role

s th

ere

wer

e a

few

non-

resp

onde

nts,

but

thes

e sl

ight

diff

eren

ces

in s

ampl

e si

zes

are

inco

nseq

uent

ial f

or th

e pu

rpos

e of

est

imat

ing

the

sam

plin

g er

ror

asso

ciat

edw

ith th

e pe

rcen

tage

of r

espo

nden

ts w

ho r

ated

the

131

role

s "v

ery

impo

rtan

t."

Afr

ican

Am

eric

an S

ampl

e

TA

BL

E 3

4C

OM

PAR

ISO

NS

AM

ON

G R

ESP

ON

DE

NT

S B

ASE

D O

N A

WA

RD

OF

HIG

H S

CH

OO

L D

IPL

OM

A'

Hig

h sc

hool

No

high

sch

ool

dipl

oma

dipl

oma

(N =

153

)(N

= 1

29)

IFo

rmal

Edu

catio

n Su

ppor

t Cen

ter

3.99

Pres

choo

lers

' Doo

r to

Lea

rnin

g3.

94

Ref

eren

ce L

ibra

ryPe

rson

a'.

3.74

Ref

eren

ce L

ibra

ry, B

usin

ess

3.75

Com

mun

ity A

ctiv

ities

Cen

ter

3.51

Res

earc

h C

ente

r3.

79

Com

mun

ity I

nfor

mat

ion

Cen

ter

3.86

Inde

pend

ent L

earn

ing

Cen

ter

3.95

Publ

ic W

ork

Plac

e3.

61

Popu

lar

Mat

eria

ls L

ibra

ry3.

62

%i

%a

R2

98.7

3.90

95.3

.033

.016

94.9

3.97

98.3

n.s.

77.0

3.84

88.3

n.s.

80.2

3.74

81.3

n.s.

65.8

3.55

70.1

n.S.

83.3

3.87

92.2

n.s.

87.6

3.85

90.5

n.s.

96.7

3.95

97.9

n.s.

65.1

3.79

85.5

.012

.022

69.5

3.50

63.1

n.s.

Thi

s ta

ble

repo

rts

the

sum

mar

y an

alys

es o

f va

rian

ce f

or th

e co

mpa

riso

ns a

mon

g th

e m

ean

role

impo

rtan

ce s

cale

sco

res

for

the

grou

ps o

f re

spon

dent

s id

entif

ied

byth

e co

lum

n he

adin

gs.

Not

e: N

is th

e sa

mpl

e si

ze f

or e

ach

grou

p an

d re

pres

ents

, in

gene

ral,

the

num

ber

of r

pond

ents

who

rat

ed e

ach

role

.)7

rep

rese

nts

the

mea

n ra

ting

for

each

rol

e on

the

four

-poi

nt im

port

ance

scal

e. E

xpla

natio

ns o

f a

(the

alp

ha le

vel)

and

11'

(th

e co

effi

cien

t of

dete

rmin

atio

n) a

re p

rovi

ded

on p

age

68. T

he in

itial

s n.

s. in

dica

te th

at th

e ob

serv

eddi

ffer

ence

s am

ong

the

grou

p m

eans

are

not s

tatis

tical

ly s

igni

fica

nt. %

rep

rese

nts

the

perc

enta

ge o

f ea

ch g

roup

that

rat

ed th

e ro

le "

very

impo

rtan

t." T

hese

% a

re p

rese

nted

for

des

crip

tive

purp

oses

. For

som

ero

les

ther

e w

ere

a fe

wno

n-re

spon

dent

s, b

ut th

ese

slig

ht d

iffe

renc

es in

sam

ple

size

s ar

e in

cons

eque

ntia

l for

the

purp

ose

of e

stim

atin

g th

e sa

mpl

ing

erro

r as

soci

ated

with

the

perc

enta

ge o

f re

spon

dent

s w

hora

ted

the

role

s "v

ery

impo

rtan

t."

1-

83 -

3

13z)

Afr

ican

Am

eric

an S

ampl

e

TA

BL

E 3

5C

OM

PAR

ISO

NS

AM

ON

G R

ESP

ON

DE

NT

S B

ASE

D O

N M

AR

ITA

L S

TA

TU

S'

Nev

erM

arri

edW

idow

edD

ivor

ced

mar

ried

(N =

164

)(N

= 5

1)(N

= 7

0)(N

= 1

14)

)7%

ii%

)7%

1%

aR

2

Form

al E

duca

tion

Supp

ort C

ente

r3.

9697

.64.

00 1

00.0

3.98

98.8

3.87

91.8

.041

.021

Pres

choo

lers

' Doo

r to

Lea

rnin

g3.

9496

.34.

00 1

00.0

3.95

96.0

3.91

92.7

n.s.

Ref

eren

ce L

ibra

ry -

Per

sona

l3.

6772

.63.

9090

.43.

7176

.03.

6470

.3n.

s.

Ref

eren

ce L

ibra

ry -

Bus

ines

s3.

6875

.13.

8687

.53.

8484

.73.

6976

.6n.

s.

Com

mun

ity A

ctiv

ities

Cen

ter

3.55

68.5

3.66

69.0

3.63

72.0

3.25

49.5

.001

.043

Res

earc

h C

ente

r3.

7584

.73.

9193

.43.

8385

.73.

7680

.0n.

s.

Com

mun

ity I

nfor

mat

ion

Cen

ter

3.82

87.9

3.97

97.3

3.87

87.8

3.72

75.9

.013

.028

Inde

pend

ent L

earn

ing

Cen

ter

3.90

93.1

3.97

96.9

3.84

91.8

3.88

92.1

n.s.

Publ

ic W

ork

Plac

e3.

6469

.93.

8787

.33.

8587

.63.

4453

.9.0

00.0

78

Popu

lar

Mat

eria

ls L

ibra

ry3.

5467

.73.

5658

.83.

6164

.03.

4052

.4n.

s.

Thi

s ta

ble

repo

rts

the

sum

mar

y an

alys

es o

f var

ianc

e fo

r th

e co

mpa

rison

sam

ong

the

mea

n ro

le im

port

ance

sca

le s

core

s fo

r th

e gr

oups

of r

espo

nden

ts id

entif

ied

by th

e co

lum

n he

adin

gs.

Not

e:N

E is

the

sam

ple

size

for

each

grou

p an

d re

pres

ents

, in

gene

ra!,

the

num

ber

of r

espo

nden

ts w

ho r

ated

eac

h ro

te. I

rep

rese

nts

the

mea

n ra

ting

for

each

rol

e on

the

four

-poi

nt im

port

ance

scal

e. E

xpla

natio

ns o

f a (

the

alph

a le

vel)

and

IV (

the

coef

ficie

nt o

f det

erm

inat

ion)

are

pro

vide

d on

page

68.

The

initi

als

n.s.

indi

cate

that

the

obse

rved

diff

eren

ces

amon

g th

e gr

oup

mea

ns a

reno

t sta

tistic

ally

sip

ifica

nt. %

rep

rese

nts

the

perc

enta

ge o

f eac

h gr

oup

that

rat

ed th

e ro

le "

very

impo

rtan

t." T

hese

% a

re p

rese

nted

for

desc

riptiv

epu

rpos

es. F

or s

ome

role

s th

ere

wer

e a

few

non-

resp

onde

nts,

but

thes

e sl

ight

diff

eren

ces

in s

ampl

e si

zes

are

inco

nseq

uent

ial f

or th

e pu

rpos

e of

est

imat

ing

the

sam

plin

g er

ror

asso

ciat

ed w

ith th

epe

rcen

tage

of r

espo

nden

ts w

ho r

ated

the

role

s "v

ery

impo

rtan

t"I

3' 0-8

4-

Afr

ican

Am

eric

an S

ampl

e

TA

BL

E 3

6C

OM

PAR

ISO

N B

ET

WE

EN

RE

SPO

ND

EN

TS

LIV

ING

OR

NO

T L

IVIN

G W

ITH

SPO

USE

.

Liv

ing

Not

livi

ngw

ith s

pous

ew

ith s

pous

e(N

= 1

41)

(N =

23)

I%

)7%

aR

2

Form

al E

duca

tion

Supp

ort C

ente

r3.

9697

.63.

9597

.6n.

s.

Pres

choo

lers

' Doo

r to

Lea

rnin

g3.

9396

.03.

9598

.4n.

s.

Ref

eren

ce L

ibra

ry -

Per

sona

l3.

6772

.63.

6872

.3n.

s.

Ref

eren

ce L

ibra

ryB

usin

ess

3.68

74.9

3.71

76.2

n.s.

Com

mun

ity A

ctiv

ities

Cen

ter

3.54

67.3

3.63

75.8

n.s.

Res

earc

h C

ente

r3.

7483

.93.

8290

.0n.

s.

Com

mun

ity I

nfor

mat

ion

Cen

ter

3.82

86.9

3.86

94.0

n.s.

Inde

pend

ent L

earn

ing

Cen

ter

3.90

92.3

3.94

97.9

n.s.

Publ

ic W

ork

Plac

e3.

6369

.73.

6771

.4n.

s.

Popu

lar

Mat

eria

ls L

ibra

ry3.

5466

.63.

5575

.0n.

s.

Thi

s ta

ble

repo

rts

the

sum

mar

y an

alys

es o

f var

ianc

e fo

r th

e co

mpa

rison

s am

ong

the

mea

n ro

le im

port

ance

sca

le s

core

s fo

r th

e gr

oups

of r

espo

nden

ts id

entif

ied

by th

e co

lum

n he

adin

gs.

Not

e: N

is th

e sa

mpl

e si

ze fo

r ea

ch g

roup

and

rep

rese

nts,

in g

ener

al, t

he n

umbe

r of

res

pond

ents

who

rat

ed e

ach

role

. j r

epre

sent

s th

e m

ean

ratin

g fo

r ea

ch r

ole

on th

e fo

ur-p

oint

impo

rtan

ce

scal

e. E

xpla

natio

ns o

f a (

the

alph

a le

vel)

and

le (

the

coef

ficie

nt o

f det

erm

inat

ion)

arc

pro

vide

d on

pag

e 68

. The

initi

als

n.s.

indi

cate

that

the

obse

rved

diff

eren

ces

amon

g th

e gr

oup

mea

ns a

re

not s

tatis

tical

ly s

igni

fican

t. %

rem

rsen

ts th

e pe

rcen

tage

of e

ach

grou

p th

at r

ated

the

role

"ve

ry im

port

ant."

The

se %

are

pre

sent

ed fo

r de

scrip

tive

purp

oses

. For

som

c ro

les

ther

e w

ere

a fe

wno

n-re

spon

dent

s, b

ut th

ese

slig

ht d

iffer

ence

s in

sam

ple

size

s ar

e in

cons

eque

ntia

l for

the

purp

ose

of e

stim

atin

g th

e sa

mpl

ing

erro

r as

soci

ated

with

the

perc

enta

ge o

f res

pond

ents

who

rat

ed th

e

role

s "v

ery

impo

rtan

t."

13-

85 -

i30A

fric

an A

mer

ican

Sam

ple

TA

BL

E 3

7C

OM

PAR

ISO

NS

AM

ON

G R

ESP

ON

DE

NT

S B

ASE

D O

N N

UM

BE

R O

F PE

OPL

E I

N T

HE

HO

ME

4

12

34

5 or

mot

e(N

= 6

6)(N

= 1

11)

(N =

88)

(N =

67)

(N =

66)

i%

Form

al E

duca

tion

Supp

ort C

ente

r3.

9697

.6

Pres

choo

lers

' Doo

r to

Lea

rnin

g3.

9697

.6

Ref

eren

ce L

ibra

ry -

Per

sona

l3.

7478

.6

Ref

eren

ce L

ibra

ry -

Bus

ines

s3.

7980

.8

Com

mun

ity A

ctiv

ities

Cen

ter

3.15

39.5

Res

earc

h C

ente

r3.

6469

.5

Com

mun

ity I

nfor

mat

ion

Cen

ter

3.76

76.8

Inde

pend

ent L

earn

ing

Cen

ter

3.87

93.1

Publ

ic W

ork

Plac

e3.

6368

.6

Popu

lar

Mat

eria

ls L

ibra

ry3.

4552

.9

I3.

85

3.93

3.72

3.75

3.57

3.76

3.79

3.83

3.69

3.39

%i

%

92.6

3.97

97.3

95.7

3.97

97.0

77.6

3.69

74.0

83.1

3.65

73.9

71.1

3.60

69.5

84.1

3.86

91.5

86.4

3.86

89.0

91.7

3.93

93.8

78.0

3.56

62.7

55.0

3.60

64.2

1%

I%

ale

3.97

97.1

4.00

100.

0.0

18.0

30

3.90

91.7

3.94

96.0

n.s.

3.64

68.9

3.68

72.6

n.s.

3.70

72.5

3.79

82.6

n.s.

3.58

68.6

3.47

61.9

.002

.042

3.81

84.7

3.86

90.8

n.s.

3.85

87.5

3.88

87.5

n.s.

3.89

89.4

3.97

98.0

n.s.

3.59

62.6

3.76

79.1

n.s.

3.55

64.0

3.65

74.0

n.s.

Thi

s ta

ble

repo

rts

the

sum

mar

y an

alys

es o

f var

ianc

e fo

r th

e co

mpa

rison

s am

ong

the

mea

n ro

le im

port

ance

sca

le s

core

s fo

rth

e gr

oups

of r

espo

nden

ts id

entif

ied

by th

e co

lum

n he

adin

gs.

Not

e: N

is th

e sa

mpl

e si

ze fo

r ea

ch g

roup

and

rep

rese

nts,

in g

ener

al, t

he n

umbe

r of

res

pond

ents

who

rat

ed e

ach

role

.I r

epre

sent

s th

e m

ean

ratin

g fo

r ea

ch r

ole

on th

e fo

ur-p

oint

impo

rtan

ce

scal

e. E

xpla

natio

ns o

f a (

the

alph

a le

vel)

and

IV (

the

coef

ficie

nt o

f det

erm

inat

ion)

arc

pro

vide

d on

pag

e 68

. The

initi

als

n.s.

indi

cate

that

the

obse

rved

diff

eren

ces

amon

g th

e gr

oup

mea

ns S

IC

MX

sta

tistic

ally

siim

ifica

nt. %

rep

rese

nts

the

perc

enta

ge o

f eac

h gr

oup

that

rat

ed th

e ro

le "

very

impo

rtan

t." T

hese

% a

rc p

rese

nted

for

desc

riptiv

e pu

rpos

es. F

or s

ome

role

s th

ere

wer

e a

few

non-

resp

onde

nts,

but

thes

e sl

ight

diff

eren

ces

in s

ampl

e si

zes

are

inco

nseq

uent

ial f

or th

e pu

rpos

e of

est

imat

ing

the

sam

plin

g er

ror

asso

ciat

edw

ith th

e pe

rcen

tage

of r

espo

nden

ts w

ho r

ated

the

role

s "v

ery

impo

rtan

t."

86

Afr

ican

Am

eric

an S

ampl

e

TA

BL

E 3

8C

OM

PAR

ISO

NS

AM

ON

G R

ESP

ON

DE

NT

S B

ASE

D O

N N

UM

BE

R O

F PR

ESC

HO

OL

ER

S IN

TH

E H

OM

E'

No

pres

choo

lers

in th

e ho

me

(N =

231

)

1 or

mor

e pr

esch

oole

rsin

the

hom

e(N

= 9

4)

I%

I%

aR

2

Form

al E

duca

tion

Supp

ort C

ente

r3.

9194

.74.

0099

.7.0

43.0

13

Pres

choo

lers

' Doo

r to

Lea

rnin

g3.

9294

.13.

9898

.0n.

s.

Ref

eren

ce L

ibra

ry -

Per

sona

l3.

6571

.63.

7678

.9n.

s.

Ref

eren

ce L

ibra

ry -

Bus

ines

s3.

7378

.53.

7177

.8n.

s.

Com

mun

i.y A

ctiv

ities

Cen

ter

3.54

66.1

3.59

71.9

n.s.

Res

earc

h C

ente

r3.

7986

.03.

8991

.5n.

s.

Com

mun

ity I

nfor

mat

ion

Cen

ter

3.82

87.0

3.87

87.9

n.s.

Inde

pend

ent L

earn

ing

Cen

ter

3.90

93.8

3.89

90.9

n.s.

Publ

ic W

ork

Plac

e3.

6168

.63.

7375

.0n.

s.

Popu

lar

Mat

eria

ls L

ibra

ry3.

4759

.43.

6570

.7.0

45.0

12

Thi

s ta

ble

repo

rts

the

sum

mar

y an

alys

es o

f va

rian

ce f

or th

e co

mpa

riso

ns a

mon

g th

e m

ean

role

impo

rtan

ce s

cale

sco

res

for

the

grou

ps o

f re

spon

dent

s id

entif

ied

byth

e co

lum

n he

adin

gs.

Not

e: N

is th

e sa

mpl

e si

ze f

or e

ach

grou

p an

d re

pres

ents

, in

gene

ral,

the

num

ber

of r

espo

nden

ts w

ho r

ated

eac

h ro

le. I

rep

rese

nts

the

mea

nra

ting

for

each

rol

e on

the

four

-poi

nt im

port

ance

scal

e. E

xpla

natio

ns o

f a

(the

alp

ha le

vel)

alz

; IV

(th

e co

effi

cien

t of

dete

rmin

atio

n) a

re p

rovi

ded

on p

age

68. T

he in

itial

s n.

s. in

dica

te th

at th

e ob

serv

eddi

ffer

ence

s am

ong

the

grou

p m

eans

are

not s

tatis

tical

ly s

igni

fica

nt. %

rep

rese

nts

the

perc

enta

ge o

f ea

ch g

roup

that

rat

ed th

e ro

le v

ery

impo

rtan

t." T

hese

% a

re p

rese

nted

for

des

crip

tive

purp

oses

. For

som

ero

les

ther

e w

ere

a fe

wno

n-re

spon

dent

s, b

ut th

ese

slig

ht d

iffe

renc

es in

sam

ple

size

s ar

e in

cons

eque

ntia

l for

the

purp

ose

of e

stim

atin

g th

e sa

mpl

ing

erro

r as

soci

ated

with

the

perc

enta

ge o

f re

spon

dent

s w

hora

ted

the

role

s "v

ery

impo

rtan

t."

1

14,A

fric

an A

mer

ican

Sam

ple

TA

BL

E 3

9C

OM

PAR

ISO

NS

AM

ON

G R

ESP

ON

DE

NT

S B

ASE

D O

N N

UM

BE

R O

F ST

UD

EN

TS

IN T

HE

HO

ME

.

No

stud

ents

in th

e ho

me

(N =

153

)...

.

X%

1 or

mor

e st

uden

tsin

the

hom

e(N

= 1

77)

i%

ale

Form

al E

duca

tion

Supp

ort C

ente

r3.

9094

.73.

9797

.5n.

s.

Pres

choo

lers

' Doo

r to

Lea

rnin

g3.

9395

.53.

9495

.1n.

s.

Ref

eren

ce L

ibra

ry -

Per

sona

l3.

7074

.93.

6873

.4n.

s.

Ref

eren

ce L

ibra

ryB

usin

ess

3.71

79.9

3.74

77.5

n.s.

Com

mun

ity A

ctiv

ities

Cen

ter

3.57

70.1

3.55

66.6

n.s.

Res

earc

h C

ente

r3.

7685

.23.

8790

.1n.

s.

Com

mun

ity I

nfor

mat

ion

Cen

ter

3.82

88.6

3.85

86.5

n.s.

Inde

pend

ent L

earn

ing

Cen

ter

3.85

91.3

3.94

94.5

.030

.014

Publ

ic W

ork

Plac

e3.

6269

.43.

6772

.2n.

s.

Popu

lar

Mat

eria

ls L

ibra

ry3.

4356

.03.

6169

.3.0

18.0

17

Thi

s ta

ble

repo

rts

the

sum

mar

y an

alys

es o

f var

ianc

e fo

r th

e co

mpa

rison

s am

ong

the

mea

n to

le im

port

ance

scal

e sc

ores

for

the

grou

ps o

f res

pond

ents

iden

tifie

d by

the

colu

mn

head

ings

.

Not

e: N

is th

e sa

mpl

e si

ze fo

r ea

ch g

roup

and

rep

rese

nts,

in g

ener

al, t

he n

umbe

r of

res

pond

ents

who

rat

ed e

ach

role

. i r

epre

sent

s th

e m

ean

ratin

g fo

r ea

ch r

ole

on th

e fo

ur-p

oint

impo

rtan

ce

scal

e. E

xpla

natio

ns o

f a (

the

alph

a le

vel)

and

10 (

the

coef

ficie

nt o

f det

erm

inat

ion)

are

pro

vide

d on

pag

e 68

. The

initi

als

n.s.

indi

cate

that

the

obse

rved

diff

eren

ces

amon

g th

e gr

oup

mea

ns a

re

noi s

tatis

tical

ly s

igni

fican

t. %

rep

rese

nts

the

perc

enta

ge o

f eac

h gr

oup

that

rat

ed th

ero

le "

very

impo

rtan

t." T

hese

% a

rc p

rese

nted

for

desc

riptiv

e pu

rpos

es. F

or s

ome

role

s th

ere

wer

e a

few

non-

resp

onde

nts,

but

thes

e sl

ight

diff

eren

ces

in s

ampl

e si

zes

arc

inco

nseq

uent

ial f

or th

e pu

rpos

e of

est

imat

ing

the

sam

plin

g er

ror

asso

ciat

ed w

ith th

e pe

rcen

tage

of r

espo

nden

ts w

ho r

ated

the

role

s "v

ery

impo

rtan

t."

88

Afr

ican

Am

eric

an S

ampl

e

TA

BL

E 4

0C

OM

PAR

ISO

NS

BE

TW

EE

N R

ESP

ON

DE

NT

S W

HO

AR

E S

TU

DE

NT

SA

ND

RE

SPO

ND

EN

TS

WH

O A

RE

NO

T'

Stud

ents

Non

-stu

dent

s(N

= 4

7)(N

= 3

52)

IFo

rmal

Edu

catio

n Su

ppor

t Cen

ter

3.98

Pres

choo

lers

' Doo

r to

Lea

rnin

g3.

95

Ref

eren

ce L

ibra

ry -

Per

sona

l3.

64

Ref

eren

ce L

ibra

ry -

Bus

ines

s3.

75

Com

mun

ity A

ctiv

ities

Cen

ter

3.53

Res

earc

h C

ente

r3.

83

Com

mun

ity I

nfor

mat

ion

Cen

ter

3.81

Inde

pend

ent L

earn

ing

Cen

ter

3.85

Publ

ic W

ork

Plac

e3.

73

Popu

lar

Mat

eria

ls L

ibra

ry3.

56

%i

%a

R2

98.0

3.94

96.3

n.s.

94.9

3.94

95.8

n.s.

68.8

3.70

75.5

n.s.

80.7

3.73

78.6

n.s.

58.6

3.49

64.4

n.s.

87.6

3.78

84.2

n.s.

81.3

3.82

86.1

n.s.

85.5

3.90

94.1

n.s.

74.2

3.64

70.2

n.s.

64.2

3.51

61.0

n.s.

*Thi

s ta

ble

repo

rts

the

sum

mar

y an

alys

es o

f var

ianc

e fo

r th

e co

mpa

rison

s am

ong

the

mea

n ro

le im

port

ance

sca

le s

core

s fo

r th

e gr

oups

of r

espo

nden

ts id

entif

ied

byth

e co

lum

n he

adin

gs.

Not

e: N

is th

e sa

mpl

e si

ze fo

r ea

ch g

roup

and

rep

rese

nts,

in g

ener

al, t

he n

umbe

r of

res

pond

ents

who

rat

ed e

ach

role

. j r

epre

sent

s th

e m

ean

ratin

g fo

r ea

ch r

ole

on th

e fo

ur-p

oint

impo

rtan

cesc

ale.

Exp

lana

tions

of a

(th

e al

pha

leve

l) an

d le

(th

e co

effic

ient

of d

eter

min

atio

n) a

re p

rovi

ded

on p

age

68. T

he in

itial

s n.

s. in

dica

te th

at th

e ob

serv

eddi

ffere

nces

am

ong

the

grou

p m

eans

we

not s

tatis

tical

ly s

igni

fican

t. %

rep

rese

nts

the

perc

enta

ge o

f eac

h gr

oup

that

rat

ed th

e ro

le "

very

impo

rtan

t." T

hese

% a

re p

rese

nted

for

desc

riptiv

e pu

rpos

es. F

or s

omcr

oles

ther

e w

ere

a fe

wno

n-re

spon

dent

s, b

ut th

ese

slig

ht d

iffer

ence

s in

sam

ple

size

s ar

e in

cons

eque

ntia

l for

the

purp

ose

of e

stim

atin

g th

e sa

mpl

ing

erro

r as

soci

ated

with

the

perc

enta

ge o

f res

pond

ents

who

rate

d th

ero

les

"ver

y im

port

ant."

sfg,

- 89

-1

Afr

ican

Am

erka

n Sa

mpl

e

TA

BL

E 4

1C

OM

PAR

ISO

NS

AM

ON

G R

ESP

ON

DE

NT

S W

ITH

D11

-4,E

RE

NT

EM

PLO

YM

EN

T S

TA

TU

S'

Em

ploy

edE

mpl

oyed

Not

infu

ll tim

epa

rt ti

me

Une

mpl

oyed

Ret

ired

wor

k fo

rce

(N =

189

)(N

= 4

7)(N

= 6

3)(N

= 6

3)(N

= 3

7)

li%

I%

i%

I%

x,,

a11

2

.033

.042

.035

.037

Form

al E

duca

tion

Supp

ort C

ente

r3.

9797

.83.

8088

.93.

9194

.93.

9798

.23.

9999

.5.0

15

Pres

choo

lers

' Doo

r to

Lea

rnin

g3.

9394

.83.

9494

.43.

9094

.23.

9899

.13.

9799

.0n.

s.

Ref

eren

ce L

ibra

ry -

Per

sona

l3.

6065

.53.

7378

.43.

6875

.13.

9092

.93.

8686

.4.0

03

Ref

eren

ce L

ibra

ry -

Bus

ines

s3.

7377

.03.

6571

.93.

7078

.73.

8589

.63.

7078

.7n.

s.

Com

mun

ity A

ctiv

ities

Cen

ter

3.35

53.2

3.62

66.2

3.59

78.3

3.62

71.9

3,71

76.8

.009

Res

earc

h C

ente

r3.

7680

.53.

7380

.03.

8892

.13.

7789

.23.

8991

.5n.

s.

Com

mun

ity I

nfor

mat

ion

Cen

ter

3.77

79.8

3.81

85.8

3.83

86.2

3.92

95.5

3.92

96.3

ri.s

.

Inde

pend

ent L

earn

ing

Cen

ter

3.87

91.8

3.98

98.1

3.81

86.3

3.93

96.1

3.99

99.5

n.s.

Publ

ic W

ork

Plac

e3.

5562

.33.

6473

.93.

6471

.33.

8688

.53.

7972

.8.0

06

Popu

lar

Mat

eria

ls L

ibra

ry3.

4756

.73.

5463

.13.

6272

.73.

4456

.33.

6372

.4n.

s.

Thi

s ta

ble

repo

rts

the

sum

mar

y an

alys

es o

f var

ianc

e fo

r th

e co

mpa

rison

s am

ong

the

mea

n ro

le im

port

ance

sca

le s

core

s fo

r th

e gr

oups

of r

espo

nden

ts id

entif

ied

byth

e co

lum

n he

adin

gs.

Not

e: N

is th

e sa

mpl

e si

ze fo

r ea

ch g

roup

and

rep

rese

nts.

in g

ener

al, t

he n

umbe

r of

res

pond

ents

who

rst

ed e

ach

role

. I r

epre

sent

s th

e m

ean

ratin

g fo

r ea

ch r

ole

on th

e fo

ur-p

oint

impo

rtan

cesc

ale.

Exp

lana

tions

of a

(th

e al

pha

leve

l) an

d R

3 (t

he c

oeffi

cien

t of d

eter

min

atio

n) a

re p

rovi

ded

on p

age

68. T

hc in

itial

s n.

s. in

dica

te th

at th

e ob

serv

eddi

ffere

ncos

am

ong

the

grou

p m

eans

are

not s

tatis

tical

ly s

igni

fican

t. %

rep

rese

nts

the

perc

enta

ge o

f eac

h gr

oup

that

rat

ed th

e ro

le "

very

impo

rtan

t." T

hese

% a

re p

rese

nted

for

desc

riptiv

e pu

rpos

es.

For

som

e ro

les

ther

e w

ere

a fe

wno

n-re

spon

dent

s, b

ut th

ese

slig

ht d

iffer

ence

s in

sam

ple

siw

s ar

c in

cons

eque

ntia

l for

the

purp

ose

of e

stim

atin

g th

e sa

mpl

ing

erro

r as

soci

ated

with

the

perc

enta

ge o

f res

pond

ents

who

rate

d th

e

role

s "v

ery

impo

rtan

t."1

4

Afr

ican

Am

eric

an S

ampl

e

TA

BL

E 4

2C

OM

PAR

ISO

NS

AM

ON

G R

ESP

ON

DE

NT

S W

ITH

DIt

ift.R

EN

T A

NN

UA

L H

OU

SEH

OL

D I

NC

OM

E'

Les

s th

an $

10,0

00 $

10,0

00-$

19,9

99$2

0,00

0429

,999

$30,

000-

$39,

999

$40,

000

or m

ore

(N =

107

)(N

= 8

6)(N

= 6

2)(N

= 5

0)(N

= 5

9)

%5-

e%

X%

X%

X%

aR

2

Form

al E

duca

tion

Supp

ort C

ente

r3.

9496

.33.

9396

.63.

9494

.33.

8893

.44.

0010

0.0

n.s.

Pres

choo

lers

' Doo

r to

Lea

rnin

g3.

9797

.13.

9598

.13.

9695

.73.

8991

.03.

9494

.8n.

s.

Ref

eren

ce L

ibra

ry -

Per

sona

l3.

8787

.53.

7691

.63.

6672

.53.

4958

.93.

6363

.9.0

01.0

51

Ref

eren

ce L

ibra

ry -

Bus

ines

s3.

7881

.13.

6776

.13.

6878

.23.

7680

.93.

7375

.7n.

s.

Com

mun

ity A

ctiv

ities

Cen

ter

3.75

82.0

3.34

55.4

3.49

63.5

3.29

48.1

3.49

58.2

.001

.050

Res

earc

h C

ente

r3.

9093

.13.

7981

.93.

6474

.53.

7582

.83.

7280

.0.0

53.0

25

Com

mun

ity I

nfor

mat

ion

Cen

ter

3.91

93.5

3.79

81.8

3.78

83.1

3.71

76.9

3.81

82.9

n.s.

Inde

pend

ent L

earn

ing

Cen

ter

3.96

97.3

3.88

92.8

3.79

88.1

3.86

90.2

3.90

91.3

n.s.

Publ

ic W

ork

Plac

e3.

7882

.13.

6469

.03.

6471

.93.

6066

.63.

5256

.7n.

s.

Popu

Lr

Mat

eria

ls L

ibra

ry3.

5562

.83.

5563

.03.

5359

.23.

4057

.43.

5158

.6n.

s.

Thi

s ta

ble

repo

rts

the

sum

mar

y an

alys

es o

f va

rian

ce f

or th

e co

mpa

riso

ns a

mon

g th

e m

ean

role

impo

rtan

ce s

cale

sco

res

for

the

grou

ps o

f re

spon

dent

s id

entif

ied

byth

e co

lum

n he

adin

gs.

Not

e: N

is th

e sa

mpl

e si

ze f

or e

ach

grou

p an

d re

pres

ents

, in

gene

ral,

the

num

ber

of r

espo

nden

ts w

ho r

ated

eac

h ro

le. i

rep

rese

nts

the

mea

nra

ting

for

each

rol

e on

the

four

-poi

nt im

port

ance

scal

e. E

xpla

natio

ns o

f ot

(th

e al

pha

leve

l) a

nd I

t2 (

the

coef

fici

ent o

f de

term

inat

ion)

arc

pro

vide

d on

pag

e 68

. The

initi

als

n.s.

indi

cate

that

the

obse

rved

diff

eren

ces

amon

g th

e gr

oup

mea

ns a

reno

t sta

tistic

ally

sig

nifi

cant

. % r

epre

sent

s th

e pe

rcen

tage

of

each

gro

up th

at r

ated

the

role

"ve

ry im

port

ant."

The

se %

are

pre

sent

ed f

or d

escr

iptiv

e pu

rpos

es. F

or s

omer

oles

ther

e w

ere

a fe

wno

n-re

spon

dent

s, b

ut th

ese

slig

ht d

iffe

renc

es in

sam

ple

size

s ar

e in

cons

eque

ntia

l for

the

purp

ose

of e

stim

atin

g th

e sa

mpl

ing

erro

r as

soci

ated

with

the

perc

enta

ge o

f re

spon

dent

s w

hora

ted

the

role

s "v

ery

impo

rtan

t."

14-

91 -

Afr

ican

Am

eric

an S

ampl

e

TA

BL

E 4

3C

OM

PAR

ISO

NS

BE

TW

EE

N R

ESP

ON

DE

NT

S W

HO

LIV

E I

N H

OU

SEH

OL

DS

WIT

HIN

DIV

IDU

AL

S W

HO

HA

VE

DIS

AB

ILIT

IES

AN

D R

ESP

ON

DE

NT

S W

HO

DO

NO

T'

Dis

abili

ties

No

disa

bilit

ies

(N =

87)

(N =

307

)

IFo

rmal

Edu

catio

n Su

ppor

t Cen

ter

3.94

Pres

choo

lers

' Doo

r to

Lea

rnin

g3.

99

Ref

eren

ce L

ibra

ry -

Per

sona

l3.

84

Ref

eren

ce L

ibra

ry -

Bus

ines

s3.

76

Com

mun

ity A

ctiv

ities

Cen

ter

3.70

Res

earc

h C

ente

r3.

91

Com

mun

ity I

nfor

mat

ion

Cen

ter

3.85

Inde

pend

ent L

earn

ing

Cen

ter

3.97

Publ

ic W

ork

Plac

e3.

73

Popu

lar

Mat

eria

ls L

ibra

ry3.

55

%i

%a

R2

96.6

3.95

96.5

n.s.

99.6

3.93

94.7

n.s.

85.7

3.65

71.4

.008

.018

81.2

3.73

78.2

n.s.

78.6

3.44

59.6

.004

.021

93.9

3.76

82.1

.022

.013

89.1

3.82

84.6

n.s.

98.5

3.88

91.6

n.s.

76.2

3.62

68.8

n.s.

60.6

3.51

61.4

n.s.

*Thi

s ta

ble

repo

rts

the

sum

mar

y an

alys

es o

f val

ianc

e fo

r th

e co

mpa

rison

s am

ong

the

mea

n ro

le im

port

ance

sca

le s

core

s fo

r th

e gr

oups

of r

espo

nden

ts id

entif

ied

byth

e co

lum

n he

adin

gs.

Not

e: N

is th

e sa

mpl

e si

ze fo

r ea

ch g

roup

and

rep

rese

nts,

in g

ener

al, t

he n

umbe

r of

res

pond

ents

who

rat

ed e

ach

role

.I r

epre

sent

s th

e m

ean

ratin

g fo

r ea

ch r

ole

on th

e fo

ur-p

oint

impo

rtan

cesc

ale.

Exp

lana

tions

of a

(th

e al

pha

leve

l) an

d le

(th

e co

effic

ient

of d

eter

min

atio

n) a

rc p

rovi

ded

on p

age

68. T

he in

itial

s n.

s. in

dica

te th

at th

e ob

serv

eddi

ffere

nces

am

ong

the

grou

p m

eans

are

nor

stat

istic

ally

sig

nific

ant.

% r

epre

sent

s th

e pe

rcen

tage

of e

ach

grou

p th

at r

ated

the

role

"ve

ry im

port

ant."

The

se %

are

pre

sent

ed fo

r de

scrip

tive

purp

oses

. For

som

ero

les

ther

e w

ere

a fe

wno

n-re

spon

dent

s, h

ut th

ese

slig

ht d

iffer

ence

s in

sam

ple

size

s ar

e in

cons

eque

ntia

l for

the

purp

ose

of e

stim

atin

g th

e sa

mpl

ing

erro

r as

soci

ated

with

the

perc

enta

ge o

f res

pond

ents

who

rate

d

,1

rro

les

"ver

y im

port

ant."

ki

- 92

-

Afr

ican

Am

eric

an S

ampl

e

TA

BL

E 4

4C

OM

PAR

ISO

NS

BE

TW

EE

N R

ESP

ON

DE

NT

S W

HO

AR

E D

ISA

BL

ED

AN

D R

ESP

ON

DE

NT

S L

IVIN

G I

N A

HO

USE

HO

LD

WH

ER

E S

OM

EO

NE

EL

SE I

S D

ISA

BL

ED

*

Res

pond

ent

Som

eone

Els

e(N

= 2

3)(N

= 6

0)

IFo

rmal

Edu

catio

n Su

ppor

t Cen

ter

3.96

Pres

choo

lers

' Doo

r to

Lea

rnin

g3.

95

Ref

eren

ce L

ibra

ry -

Per

sona

l3.

71

Ref

eren

ce L

ibra

ry -

Bus

ines

s3.

68

Com

mun

ity A

ctiv

ities

Cen

ter

3.63

Res

earc

h C

ente

r3.

81

Com

mun

ity I

nfor

mat

ion

Cen

ter

3.78

Inde

pend

ent L

earn

ing

Cen

ter

3.89

Publ

ic W

ork

Plac

e3.

64

Popu

lar

Mat

eria

ls L

ibra

ry3.

70

%i

%a

R2

96.7

3.93

96.4

n.s.

98.4

4.00

100.

0n.

s.

73.2

3.89

89.7

n.s.

67.7

3.77

85.1

n.s.

69.3

3.72

81.1

n.s.

84.7

3.95

97.1

n.s.

85.8

3.86

89.6

n.s.

94.4

4.00

100.

0n.

s.

68.5

3.78

81.4

n.s.

73.4

3.46

53.2

n.s.

Thi

s ta

ble

repo

rts

the

sum

mar

y an

alys

es o

f var

ianc

e fo

r th

e co

mpa

rison

s am

ong

the

mea

n ro

le im

port

ance

sca

le s

core

s fo

r th

e gr

oups

of r

espo

nden

ts id

entif

ied

byth

e co

lum

n he

adin

gs.

Not

e: N

is th

e sa

mpl

e si

ze fo

r ea

ch g

roup

and

rep

rese

nts,

in g

ener

al, t

he n

umbe

r of

res

pond

ents

who

rat

ed e

ach

role

. I r

epre

sent

s th

e m

ean

ratin

g fo

r ea

ch r

ole

on th

e fo

ur-p

oint

impo

rtan

cesc

ak. E

xpla

natio

ns o

f a (

the

alph

a le

vel)

and

ft2 (

the

coef

ficie

nt o

f det

erm

inat

ion)

are

pro

vide

d on

pag

e 68

. The

initi

als

n.s.

indi

cate

that

the

obse

rved

diffe

renc

es a

mon

g th

e gr

oup

mea

ns a

reno

t sta

tistic

ally

sig

nific

ant.

% r

epre

sent

s th

e pe

rcen

tage

of e

ach

grou

p th

at r

ated

the

role

"ve

ry im

port

ant."

The

se %

sre

pre

sent

ed fo

r de

scrip

tive

purp

oses

. For

som

ero

les

ther

e w

ere

a fe

wno

n-re

spon

dent

s, b

ut th

ese

slig

ht d

iffer

ence

s in

sam

ple

size

s ar

e in

cons

eque

ntia

l for

the

purp

ose

of e

stim

atin

g th

e sa

mpl

ing

erro

r as

soci

ated

with

the

perc

enta

ge o

f res

pond

ents

who

rate

d th

e

role

s "v

ery

impo

rtan

t."

- 93

-t

10

Afr

ican

Am

eric

an S

ampl

e

TA

BL

E 4

5C

OM

PAR

ISO

NS

BE

TW

EE

N R

ESP

ON

DE

NT

S W

HO

VO

TE

D A

ND

RE

SPO

ND

EN

TS

WH

O D

ID N

OT

VO

TE

IN T

HE

198

8 E

LE

CT

ION

'

Vot

ed(N

= 2

10)

i%

Did

not

vot

e(N

= 1

91)

i%

aR

2

Form

al E

duca

tion

Supp

ort C

ente

r3.

9898

.03.

9094

.8.0

24.0

13

Pres

choo

lers

' Doo

r to

Lea

rnin

g3.

9696

.53.

9294

.8n.

s.

Ref

eren

ce L

ibra

ry -

Per

sona

l3.

6771

.13.

7278

.9n.

s.

Ref

eren

ce L

ibra

ry -

Bus

ines

s3.

7578

.93.

7278

.9n.

s.

Com

mun

ity A

ctiv

ities

Cen

ter

3.54

64.9

3.44

62.5

n.s.

Res

earc

h C

ente

r3.

8187

.73.

7781

.4n.

s.

Com

mun

ity I

nfor

mat

ion

Cen

ter

3.88

89.6

3.76

81.2

.015

.015

Inde

pend

ent L

earn

ing

Cen

ter

3.92

94.3

3.86

91.7

n.s.

Publ

ic W

ork

Plac

e3.

6470

.33.

6571

.3n.

s.

Popu

lar

Mat

eria

ls L

ibra

ry3.

5365

.33.

5057

.5n.

s.

Thi

s ta

ble

repo

rts

the

sum

mar

y an

alys

es o

f var

ianc

e fo

r th

e co

mpa

rison

s am

ong

the

mea

n ro

le im

port

ance

sca

le s

core

s fo

r th

e gr

oups

of r

espo

nden

tsid

entif

ied

by th

e co

lum

n he

adin

gs.

Not

e: N

is th

e sa

mpl

e si

ze fo

r ea

ch g

roup

and

rep

rese

nts,

in g

ener

al, t

he n

umbe

r of

res

pond

ents

who

rat

ed e

ach

role

.i r

epre

sent

s th

e m

ean

ratin

g fo

r ea

ch r

ole

on th

e fo

ur-p

oint

impo

rtan

cesc

ale.

Exp

lana

tions

of a

(th

e al

pha

leve

l) an

d R

2 (t

he c

oeffi

cien

t of d

eter

min

atio

n) a

re p

rovi

ded

on p

age

68. T

he in

itial

s n.

s, in

dica

te th

at th

eob

serv

ed d

iffer

ence

s am

ong

the

grou

p m

eans

are

not s

tatis

tical

ly s

igni

fican

t. %

rep

rese

nts

the

perc

enta

ge o

f eac

h gr

oup

that

rat

ed th

e ro

le "

very

impo

rtan

t."T

hese

% a

rc p

rese

nted

for

desc

riptiv

e pu

rpos

es. F

or s

ome

role

s th

ere

wer

e a

few

non-

resp

onde

nm h

ut th

ese

slig

ht d

iffer

ence

s in

sam

ple

size

s ar

e in

cons

eque

ntia

l for

the

purp

ose

of e

stim

atin

g th

e sa

mpl

ing

erro

r m

ocia

ted

with

the

perc

enta

ge o

f res

pond

ents

who

rat

ed th

e

role

s "v

ery

impo

rtan

t."_1

_

- 94

-

Afr

ican

Am

eric

an S

ampl

e

TA

BL

E 4

6C

OM

PAR

ISO

NS

AM

ON

G R

ESP

ON

DE

NT

S B

ASE

D O

N P

ER

SON

AL

FIN

AN

CIA

L S

ITU

AT

ION

CO

MPA

RE

D T

O L

AST

YE

AR

'

Bet

ter

off

(N =

86)

i%

Wor

se o

ff(N

= 1

37)

i%

Form

al E

duca

tion

Supp

ort C

ente

r3.

9697

.43.

9394

.9

Pres

choo

lers

' Doo

r to

Lea

rnin

g3.

9293

.73.

9594

.8

Ref

eren

ce L

ibra

ry -

Per

sona

l3.

6569

.83.

7578

.6

Ref

eren

ce L

ibra

ry -

Bus

ines

s3.

7981

.13.

7379

.8

Com

mun

ity A

ctiv

ities

Cen

ter

3.52

59.9

3.64

74.9

Res

earc

h C

ente

r3.

7984

.93.

8891

.0

Com

mun

ity I

nfor

mat

ion

Cen

ter

3.82

84.8

3.94

93.6

Inde

pend

ent L

earn

ing

Cen

ter

3.92

93.4

3.93

95.6

Publ

ic W

ork

Plac

e3.

5664

.53.

6773

.1

Popu

lar

Mat

eria

ls L

ibra

ry3.

5764

.93.

6270

.7

Abo

ut th

e sa

me

a.R

2

(N =

176

)

I%

3.94

97.3

n.s.

3.95

97.4

n.s.

3.68

74.2

n.s.

3.71

77.0

n.s.

3.37

56.8

.008

.025

3.71

79.4

.032

.018

3.74

79.6

.001

.035

3.85

91.0

n.s.

3.67

71.9

n.s.

3.41

52.5

.024

.019

Thi

s ta

ble

repo

rts

the

sum

mar

y an

alys

es o

f var

ianc

e fo

r th

e co

mpa

rison

sam

ong

the

mea

n ro

le im

port

ance

sca

le s

core

s fo

r th

e gr

oups

of r

espo

nden

ts id

entif

ied

by th

e co

lum

n he

adin

gs.

Not

e: N

is th

e sa

mpl

e si

ze fo

r ea

ch g

roup

and

rep

rese

nts,

in g

ener

al, t

he n

umbe

r of

res

pond

ents

who

rat

ed e

ach

role

. ire

pres

ents

the

mea

n ra

ting

for

each

rol

e on

the

four

-poi

nt im

port

ance

scal

e. E

xpla

natio

ns o

f a (

the

alph

a le

vel)

and

R2

(the

coe

ffici

ent o

f det

erm

inat

ion)

are

pro

vide

d on

page

68.

The

initi

als

n.s.

indi

cate

that

the

obse

rved

diff

eren

ces

amon

g th

e gr

oup

mea

ns a

reno

t sta

tistic

ally

sig

nific

ant.

% r

epre

sent

s th

e pe

rcen

tage

of e

ach

grou

p th

at r

ated

the

role

"ve

ry im

port

ant."

The

se %

are

pre

sent

ed fo

r de

scrip

tive

purp

oses

. For

som

e ro

les

ther

e w

ere

a fe

wno

n-re

spon

dent

s, b

ut th

ese

slig

ht d

iffer

ence

s in

sam

ple

size

s ar

c in

cons

eque

ntia

l for

the

purp

ose

of e

stim

atin

g th

e sa

mpl

ing

erro

r as

soci

ated

with

the

perc

enta

ge o

f res

pond

ents

who

rate

d th

ero

les

"ver

y im

port

ant."

- 95

-

J

Afr

ican

Am

eric

an S

ampl

e

TA

BL

E 4

7C

OM

PAR

ISO

NS

AM

ON

G R

ESP

ON

DE

NT

S B

ASE

D O

N P

ER

SON

AL

FIN

AN

CIA

L S

ITU

AT

ION

EX

PEC

I-E

D F

OR

NE

XT

YE

AR

*

Form

al E

duca

tion

Supp

ort C

ente

r

Pres

choo

lers

' Doo

r to

Lea

rnin

g

Ref

eren

ce L

ibra

ry -

Per

sona

l

Ref

eren

ce L

ibra

ry -

Bus

ines

s

Com

mun

ity A

ctiv

ities

Cen

ter

Res

earc

h C

ente

r

Com

mun

ity I

nfor

mat

ion

Cen

ter

Inde

pend

ent L

earn

ing

Cen

ter

Publ

ic W

ork

Piac

e

Popu

lar

Mat

eria

ls L

ibra

ry

Bet

ter

off

(N =

253

)

3.96

97.3

3.94

95.1

3.70

74.7

3.80

83.7

3.47

63.2

3.78

83.0

3.80

82.9

3.90

93.4

3.67

71.5

3.56

64.4

Wor

se o

ff(N

= 2

0)

i%

3.93

94.5

4.00

100.

0

3.83

82.6

3.71

75.5

3.77

80.7

3.87

91.0

3.96

95.7

3.92

92.5

3.57

72.8

3.54

66.9

Abo

ut th

e sa

me

(N =

106

)

i%

3.89

94.4

3.93

95.9

3.64

70.7

3.55

65.5

3.45

57.7

3.80

86.9

3.81

87.2

3.87

91.3

3.57

65.1

3.41

51.5

a n.s.

n.s.

n.s.

.001 n.s.

n.s.

n.s.

n.s.

n.s.

n.s.

R2

.042

Thi

s ta

ble

repo

rts

the

sum

mar

y an

alys

es o

f var

ianc

e fo

r th

e co

mpa

rison

s am

ong

the

mea

n ro

le im

port

ance

sca

le s

core

s fo

r th

e gr

oups

of r

espo

nden

ts id

entif

ied

by th

e co

lum

n he

adin

gs.

Not

c: N

is th

e sa

mpl

e si

ze fo

r ea

ch g

roup

and

rep

rese

nts,

in g

ener

al, t

he n

umbe

r of

res

pond

ents

who

rat

ed e

ach

role

.I r

epre

sent

s th

e m

ean

ratin

g fo

r ea

ch r

ole

on th

e fo

ur-p

oint

impo

rtan

ce

scal

e. E

xpla

natio

ns o

f a (

the

alph

a le

vel)

and

R2

(the

coe

ffici

ent o

f det

erm

inat

ion)

arc

pro

vide

d on

pag

e 68

. The

initi

als

n.s.

indi

cate

that

the

obse

rved

diff

eren

ces

amon

g th

e gr

oup

mea

ns a

re

not s

tatis

tical

ly s

igni

fican

t. %

rep

rese

nts

the

perc

enta

ge o

f eac

h gr

oup

that

rat

ed th

e ro

le "

very

impo

rtan

t."T

hese

% a

rc p

rese

nted

for

desc

riptiv

e pu

rpos

es. F

or s

ome

role

s th

ere

wer

e a

fei

non-

resp

onde

nts,

but

thes

e sl

ight

diff

eren

ces

in s

ampl

e si

zes

arc

inco

nseq

uent

ial f

or th

e pu

rpos

eof

est

imat

ing

the

sam

plin

g er

ror

asso

ciat

ed w

ith th

e pe

rcen

tage

of r

espo

nden

ts w

ho r

ated

the

role

s "v

ery

impo

rtan

t."

Afr

ican

Am

eric

an S

ampl

e

TA

BL

E 4

8C

OM

PAR

ISO

NS

BE

TW

EE

N R

ESP

ON

DE

NT

S W

HO

VIS

ITE

D A

ND

RE

SPO

ND

EN

TS

WH

O D

ID N

OT

VIS

ITT

HE

PU

BL

IC L

IBR

AR

Y I

N T

HE

LA

ST Y

EA

R'

Vis

ited

libra

ryD

id n

ot v

isit

libra

ry(N

= 2

05)

(N =

196

)

I%

ale

3.95

97.2

n.s.

3.96

97.1

n.s.

3.74

79.5

n.s.

3.73

77.7

n.s.

3.47

62.5

n.s.

3.83

88.4

n.s.

3.87

90.9

n.s.

3.94

96.5

.034

.010

3.70

74.9

n.s.

3.46

58.6

n.s.

i%

Form

al E

duca

tion

Supp

ort C

ente

r3.

9495

.8

Pres

choo

lers

' Doo

r to

Lea

rnin

g3.

9394

.4

Ref

eren

ce L

ibra

ryPe

rson

al3.

6670

.4

Ref

eren

ce L

ibra

ryB

usin

ess

3.74

79.9

Com

mun

ity A

ctiv

ities

Cen

ter

3.52

65.0

Res

earc

h C

ente

r3.

7581

.1

Com

mun

ity I

nfor

mat

ion

Cen

ter

3.78

80.5

Inde

pend

ent L

earn

ing

Cen

ter

3.85

89.8

Publ

ic W

ork

Plac

e3.

6066

.8

Popu

lar

Mat

eria

ls L

ibra

ry3.

5764

.2

Thi

s ta

ble

repo

rts

the

sum

mar

y an

alys

es o

f var

ianc

e fo

r th

e co

mpa

rison

s am

ong

the

mea

n ro

le im

port

ance

sca

le s

core

s fo

r th

e gr

oups

of r

espo

nden

ts id

entif

ied

byth

e co

lum

n he

adin

gs.

Not

e: N

is th

e sa

mpl

e si

ze fo

r ea

ch g

roup

and

rep

rese

nts,

in g

ener

al, t

he n

umbe

r of

res

pond

ents

who

rat

ed e

ach

role

.ir

repr

esen

ts th

e m

ean

ratin

g fo

r ea

ch r

ole

on th

e fo

ur-p

oint

impo

rtan

cesc

ale.

Exp

lana

tions

of a

(th

e al

pha

leve

l) an

d ft2

(th

e co

effic

ient

of d

eter

min

atio

n) a

re p

rovi

ded

on p

age

68. T

he in

itial

s n.

s. in

dica

te th

at th

e ob

serv

eddi

ffere

nces

am

ong

the

grou

p m

eans

are

not s

tatis

tical

ly s

igni

fican

t. %

rep

rese

nts

the

perc

enta

ge o

f eac

h gr

oup

that

rat

ed th

e ro

le "

very

impo

rtan

t." T

hese

% a

rc p

rese

nted

for

desc

riptiv

e pu

ipos

es. F

or s

ome

role

s th

ere

wer

e a

few

non-

resp

onde

nts,

but

thes

e sl

ight

diff

eren

ces

in s

ampl

e si

zes

are

inco

nseq

uent

ial f

or th

e pu

rpos

e of

est

imat

ing

the

sam

plin

g er

ror

asso

ciat

ed w

ith th

e pe

irent

age

of r

espo

nden

ts w

hora

ted

the

role

s "v

ery

impo

rtan

t."

97 -

J...

1.4

1

Afr

kan

Am

erka

n Sa

mpl

e

TA

BL

E 4

9C

OM

PAR

ISO

NS

BE

TW

EE

N R

ESP

ON

DE

NT

S B

ASE

D O

N W

HE

TH

ER

SO

ME

ON

E E

LSE

WE

NT

TO

TH

E P

UB

LIC

LIB

RA

RY

FO

R T

HE

M I

N T

HE

LA

ST Y

EA

R'

Yes

(N =

54)

No

(N =

344

)

Xa

R2

Form

al E

duca

tion

Supp

ort C

ente

r3.

9393

.43.

9496

.9n.

s.

Pres

choo

lers

' Doo

r to

Lea

rnin

g3.

8890

.53.

9596

.5n.

s.

Ref

eren

ce L

ibra

ryPe

rson

al3.

7882

.33.

6873

.6n.

s.

Ref

eren

ce L

ibra

ryB

usin

ess

3.72

78.6

3.74

78.9

n.s.

Com

mun

ity A

ctiv

ities

Cen

ter

3.53

66.7

3.50

63.6

n.s.

Res

earc

h C

ente

r3.

8993

.83.

7783

.1n.

s.

Com

mun

ity I

nfor

mat

ion

Cen

ter

3.88

91.6

3.81

84.5

n.s.

Inde

pend

ent L

earn

ing

Cen

ter

3.95

96.6

3.89

92.6

n.s.

Publ

ic W

ork

Plac

e3.

6972

.13.

6470

.5n.

s.

Popu

lar

Mat

eria

ls L

ibra

ry3.

5864

.73.

5060

.8n.

s.

t./

Thi

s ta

ble

repo

rts

the

sum

mar

y an

alys

es o

f var

ianc

e fo

r th

e co

mpa

rison

s am

ong

the

mea

n ro

le im

port

ance

sca

le s

core

s fo

r th

e gr

oups

of r

espo

nden

ts id

entif

ied

byth

e co

lum

n he

adin

gs.

Not

e: N

is th

e sa

mpl

e si

ze fo

r ea

ch g

roup

and

rep

rese

nts,

in g

ener

al, t

he n

umbe

r of

res

pond

ents

who

rat

ed e

ach

role

. I r

epre

sent

s th

e m

ean

ratin

g fo

r ea

ch r

ole

on th

e fo

ur-p

oint

impo

rtan

cesc

ale.

Exp

lana

tions

of a

(th

e al

pha

leve

l) an

d 82

(th

e co

effic

ient

of d

eter

min

atio

n) a

re p

rovi

ded

on p

age

68. T

he in

itial

s n.

s. in

dica

te th

at th

e ob

serv

eddi

ffere

nces

am

ong

the

grou

p m

eans

are

not s

tatis

tical

ly s

igni

fican

t. %

rep

rese

nts

the

perc

enta

ge o

f eac

h gr

oup

that

rat

ed th

e ro

le "

very

impo

rtan

t." T

hese

% a

rc p

rese

nted

for

desc

riptiv

e pu

rpos

es. F

or s

ome

role

s th

ere

wer

e a

few

non-

resp

onde

nts,

but

thes

e sl

ight

diff

eren

ces

in s

ampl

e si

zes

arc

inco

nseq

uent

ial f

or th

e pu

rpos

e of

est

imat

ing

thc

sam

plin

g er

ror

asso

ciat

ed w

ith th

e pe

rcen

tage

of r

espo

nden

ts w

hora

ted

the

role

s "v

erj i

mpo

rtan

t."

- 98

-

Afr

ican

Am

eric

an S

ampl

e

TA

BL

E 5

0C

OM

PAR

ISO

NS

BE

TW

EE

N R

ESP

ON

DE

NT

S W

HO

CA

LL

ED

TH

EPU

BL

IC L

IBR

AR

Y P

OR

IN

FOR

MA

TIO

NIN

TH

E L

AST

YE

AR

AN

D R

ESP

ON

DE

NT

S W

HO

DID

NO

T`

Cal

led

libra

ryD

id n

ot c

all l

ibra

ry(N

= 6

3)(N

= 3

37)

I%

Form

al E

duca

tion

Supp

ort C

ente

r3.

9294

.6

Pres

choo

lers

' Doo

r to

Lea

rnin

g3.

9394

.3

Ref

eren

ce L

ibra

ry -

Per

sona

l3.

6061

.9

Ref

eren

ce L

ibra

ry -

Bus

ines

s3.

6972

.0

Com

mun

ity A

ctiv

ities

Cen

ter

3.47

55.0

Res

earc

h C

ente

r3.

8286

.7

Com

mun

ity I

nfor

mat

ion

Cen

ter

3.77

77.7

Inde

pend

ent L

earn

ing

Cen

ter

3.90

90.1

Publ

ic W

ork

Plac

e3.

5659

.8

Popu

lar

Mat

eria

ls L

ibra

ry3.

5257

.6

i%

R2

3.95

96.8

n.s.

3.94

96.0

n.s.

3.72

77.2

n.s.

3.74

80.2

n.s.

3.50

65.5

n.s.

3.78

84.3

n.s.

3.83

87.0

n.s.

3.89

93.7

n.s.

3.66

72.8

n.s.

3.52

62.3

n.s.

Thi

s ta

ble

repo

rts

the

sum

mar

y an

alys

es o

f var

ianc

e fo

r th

e co

mpa

rison

s am

ong

the

mea

n ro

le im

port

ance

sca

le s

core

s fo

r th

e gr

oups

of r

espo

nden

tsid

entif

ied

by th

e co

lum

n he

adin

gs.

Not

e:14

is th

e sa

mpl

e si

ze fo

r ea

ch g

roup

and

rep

rese

nts,

in g

ener

al, t

henu

mbe

r of

res

pond

ents

who

rat

ed e

ach

role

.it

repr

esen

ts th

e m

ean

ratin

g fo

r ea

ch r

ole

on th

e to

w-p

oint

impo

rtan

ce

scal

e. E

xpla

natio

ns o

f a (

the

alph

a le

vel)

and

112

(the

coe

ffici

ent o

f det

erm

inat

ion)

are

prov

ided

on

page

68.

The

initi

als

n.s.

indi

cate

that

the

obse

rved

diff

eren

ces

amon

gth

e gr

oup

mea

ns a

re

not s

tatis

tical

ly s

igni

fican

t. %

rep

rese

nts

thc

perc

enta

geof

eac

h gr

oup

that

rat

ed th

c ro

le "

very

.impo

rtan

t." T

hese

% a

re p

rese

nted

for

desc

riptiv

e pu

rpos

es. F

or s

ome

role

s th

ere

wer

e a

few

non-

resp

onde

nts,

but

thes

e sl

ight

diff

eren

ces

in s

ampl

e si

zes

arc

inco

nseq

uent

ial

for

the

purp

ose

of e

stim

atin

g th

c sa

mpl

ing

erro

r as

soci

ated

with

the

perc

enta

ge o

fres

pond

ents

who

rat

ed th

e

role

s "v

ery

impo

rtan

t."

199

-

Afr

ican

Am

erka

n Sa

mpl

e

TA

BL

E 5

1C

OM

PAR

ISO

NS

BE

TW

EE

N R

ESP

ON

DE

NT

S W

HO

IN

AN

Y W

AY

USE

D T

HE

PU

BL

ICL

IBR

AR

YIN

ME

LA

ST Y

EA

R A

ND

RE

SPO

ND

EN

TS

WH

O D

ID N

OT

*

Use

rsN

on-u

sers

(N =

217

)(N

= 1

83)

I%

li%

aR

2

n.s.

n.s.

n.s.

n.s.

n.s.

n.s.

n.s.

n.s.

n.s.

n.s.

Form

al E

duca

tion

Supp

ort C

ente

r3.

9496

.03.

9497

.1

Pres

choo

lers

' Doo

r to

Lea

rnin

g3.

9294

.23.

9697

.5

Ref

eren

ce L

ibra

ry -

Per

sona

l3.

6771

.63.

7378

.7

Ref

eren

ce L

ibra

ry -

Bus

ines

s3.

7580

.23.

7277

.3

Com

mun

ity A

ctiv

ities

Cen

ter

3.52

64.8

3.47

62.5

Res

earc

h C

ente

r3.

7682

.13.

8287

.8

Com

mun

ity I

nfor

mat

ion

Cen

ter

3.79

81.4

3.86

90.5

Inde

pend

ent L

earn

ing

Cen

ter

3.86

90.1

3.94

96.7

Publ

ic W

ork

Plac

e3.

6167

.43.

7074

.8

Popu

lar

Mat

eria

ls L

ibra

ry3.

5763

.93.

4658

.7

Thi

s ta

ble

repo

rts

the

sum

mar

y an

alys

es o

f var

ianc

e fo

r th

e co

mpa

rison

s am

ong

the

mea

n to

le im

port

ance

scal

e sc

ores

for

the

grou

ps o

f res

pond

ents

iden

tifie

d by

the

colu

mn

head

ings

.

Not

e: N

is th

e sa

mpl

e si

ze fo

r ea

ch g

roup

and

rep

rese

nts,

in g

ener

al, t

he n

umbe

r of

res

pond

ents

who

rate

d ea

ch r

ole.

I re

pres

ents

the

mea

n ra

ting

for

each

rol

e on

the

four

-poi

nt im

port

ance

scal

e. E

xpla

natio

ns o

f a (

the

alph

a le

vel)

and

R2

(the

coe

ffici

ent o

f det

erm

inat

ion)

are

pro

vide

d on

pag

e68

. The

initi

als

n.s.

indi

cate

that

the

obse

rved

diff

eren

ces

amon

g th

e gr

oup

mca

ns a

re

not s

tatis

tical

ly s

igni

fican

t. %

rep

rese

nts

the

perc

enta

ge o

f eac

h gr

oup

that

rate

d th

e ro

le "

very

impo

rtan

t." T

hese

% a

re p

rese

nted

for

desc

riptiv

e pu

rpos

es. F

or s

ome

role

s th

ere

wer

e a

few

non-

resp

onde

nts,

but

thes

e sl

ight

diff

eren

ces

in s

ampl

e si

zes

are

inco

nseq

uent

ial f

or th

e pu

rpos

e of

est

imat

ing

the

sam

plin

g er

ror

asso

ciat

ed w

ith th

e pe

rcen

tage

of r

espo

nden

ts w

ho r

ated

the

rule

"ver

y im

port

ant."

itiE

;

- 10

0 -

Afr

ican

Am

eric

an S

ampl

e

TA

BL

E 5

2A

FRIC

AN

AM

ER

ICA

NS'

OPI

NIO

NS

AB

OU

T L

EV

EL

S O

F PE

R C

API

TA

SPE

ND

ING

FO

R L

IBR

AR

Y S

ER

VIC

ES

Am

ount

Freq

uenc

yPe

rcen

tA

djus

ted

Perc

ent*

$ 0

92.

12.

4

$ 1

- $2

014

235

.439

.7

$21

- $4

092

23.0

25.8

$41

- $6

021

5.3

5.9

$61

- $8

012

2.9

3.3

$81

- $1

0041

10.1

11.4

$101

-41

10.3

11.6

Don

't K

now

4310

.8M

issi

ng

Tot

al40

1

Not

c.ce

rcen

tage

s re

caku

late

d w

ith m

issi

ng r

espo

nden

ts e

xclu

ded.

- 10

1 -

1 ti

1

Afr

ican

Am

eric

an S

ampl

e

TA

BL

E 5

3C

OM

PAR

ISO

NS

OF

TH

E M

EA

N S

UG

GE

STE

D P

ER

CA

PIT

A S

PEN

DIN

G F

OR

LIB

RA

RIE

SA

MO

NG

TH

E V

AR

IOU

S G

RO

UPS

OF

PESP

ON

DE

NT

S

Ent

ire

Sam

ple

357

$39.

90

C.I

.

$36.

13 -

$43

.67

aR

2C

.I.

Reg

ion

of c

ount

ry.0

09.0

33N

orth

east

80$4

6.59

$38.

66 -

$54

.53

Sout

h C

entr

al17

1$3

5.87

$30.

34 -

$41

.39

Nor

th C

entr

al70

$47.

64$3

7.82

- $

57.4

5W

est

35$2

8.82

$25.

14 -

$32

.50

% o

f co

mm

unity

whi

ch is

Afr

ican

Am

eric

an.0

09.0

27O

ver

25%

193

$42.

74$3

7.42

- $

48.0

75%

- 2

5%10

1$4

2.29

$35.

29 -

$49

.29

Les

s th

an 5

%62

$27.

23$1

9.57

- $

34.9

0

Gen

der

.004

.023

Mal

es15

9$4

5.96

$40.

02 -

$51

.90

Fem

ales

198

$35.

05$3

0.34

- $

39.7

6

Age

n.s.

18 -

35

172

$39.

65$3

4.36

- $

44.9

436

- 5

093

$39.

52$3

2.07

- $

46.9

851

- 6

536

$41.

74$2

9.25

- $

54.2

466

and

up

51$3

8.68

$27.

71 -

$49

.64

'Not

e: T

his

tabl

e re

port

s th

e su

mm

ary

anal

yses

of v

aria

nce

for

the

com

paris

ons

amon

g th

e m

ean

amou

nts

of s

ugge

sted

per

cap

ita s

pend

ing

by v

ario

us g

roup

sof

res

pond

ents

.

Not

e: N

is th

e sa

mpl

e si

ze fo

r ea

ch g

roup

. i r

epre

sent

s th

e m

ean

amou

nt o

f sug

gest

cd p

er c

apita

spe

ndin

g. D

etai

led

expl

anat

ions

of th

e al

pha

leve

l (a)

and

IV a

re p

rovi

ded

on p

age

68. T

he

initi

als

n.s.

indi

cate

that

the

obse

rved

diff

eren

ces

amon

g th

e gr

oups

are

not

sta

tistic

ally

sig

nific

ant.

C.I.

rep

orts

the

low

er a

nd u

pper

boun

ds o

f the

95%

con

fiden

ce in

terv

al fo

r es

timat

ing

the

mea

n am

ount

of s

ugge

sted

spe

ndin

g fo

r ea

ch g

roup

rep

orte

d. T

hese

inte

rval

s ar

c ap

prop

riate

for

use

with

thos

e gr

oups

that

are

sta

tistic

ally

diff

eren

t. F

or a

n ex

plan

atio

n of

con

fiden

ce in

terv

als

see

page

s 10

and

11.

t f 4.

- 10

2 -

Afr

ican

Am

eric

an S

ampl

e

TA

BL

E 5

3 (c

ontin

ued)

CO

MPA

RIS

ON

S O

F T

HE

ME

AN

SU

GG

EST

ED

PE

R C

API

TA

SPE

ND

ING

FO

R L

IBR

AR

IES

AM

ON

G T

HE

VA

RIO

US

GR

OU

PS O

F R

ESP

ON

DE

NT

S'

Hig

hest

gra

de le

vel c

ompl

eted

a n.s.

R2

C.I

.

8th

grad

e or

less

55$4

0.04

$29.

39$5

0.70

9th

- 11

th g

rade

51$3

8.02

$28.

05$4

7.98

12th

gra

de13

4$3

5.48

$29.

68$4

1.27

Som

e co

llege

68$4

4.34

$34.

95$5

3.72

Com

plet

ed c

olle

ge

Hig

h sc

hool

dip

lom

a or

equ

ival

ent

43$4

6.63

n.s.

$36.

83$5

6.43

Yes

143

$38.

80$3

3.01

- $

44.5

9N

o99

$34.

58$2

7.47

- $

41.6

9

Mar

ital s

tatu

s.0

00.0

72M

arri

ed14

4$3

6.42

$31.

00 -

$41

.85

Wid

owed

34$2

0.32

$12.

46 -

$28

.17

Div

orce

d66

$55.

27$4

5.67

$64.

87N

ever

mar

ried

110

$40.

91$3

3.75

$48.

06

# of

peo

ple

livin

g in

the

hom

e.0

14.0

35on

e51

$31.

36$2

1.35

- $

41.3

6tW

O98

$48.

46$4

0.44

- $

56.4

8th

ree

77$4

3.56

$35.

46$5

1.66

four

66$3

6.10

$28.

44$4

3.76

five

or

mor

e61

$32.

56$2

4.31

- $

40.8

1

*Not

e: T

his

tabl

e re

port

s th

e su

mm

ary

anal

yses

of

vari

ance

for

the

com

pari

sons

am

ong

the

mea

n am

ount

s of

sug

gest

ed p

er c

apita

spe

ndin

g by

var

ious

gro

ups

ofre

spon

dent

s.

Not

e: N

is th

e sa

mpl

e si

ze f

or e

ach

grou

p. ir

epre

sent

s th

e m

ean

amou

nt o

f su

gges

ted

per

capi

ta s

pend

ing.

Det

aile

d ex

plan

atio

ns o

f th

e al

pha

kvel

(a)

and

Fe a

re p

rovi

ded

on :

- 68

. The

initi

als

n.s.

indi

cate

that

the

obse

rved

dif

fere

nces

am

ong

the

grou

ps a

rc n

oi s

tatis

tical

ly s

igni

fica

nt. C

.I. r

epor

ts th

e lo

wer

and

upp

er b

ound

s of

the

95%

con

fide

nce

inte

rval

for

est

imat

ing

the

mea

n am

ount

of

sugg

este

d sp

endi

ng f

or e

ach

grou

p re

port

ed. T

hese

inte

rval

s ar

e ap

prop

riat

e fo

r us

e w

ith th

ose

grou

ps th

at a

rc s

tatis

tical

lydi

ffer

ent.

For

an e

xpla

natio

n of

con

fide

nce

inte

rval

sse

e pa

ges

10 a

nd 1

1.

- 10

3 -

Afr

ican

Am

eric

an S

ampl

e

TA

BL

E 5

3 (c

ontin

ued)

CO

MPA

RIS

ON

S O

F T

HE

ME

AN

SU

GG

EST

ED

PE

R C

API

TA

SPE

ND

ING

FO

R L

IBR

AR

IES

AM

ON

G T

HE

VA

RIO

US

GR

OU

PS O

F R

ESP

ON

DE

NT

S'

# of

pre

scho

ol c

hild

ren

in th

e ho

me

a n.s.

R2

C.I

.

No

pres

choo

lers

205

$43.

09$3

8.06

- $

48.1

3O

ne o

r m

ore

pres

choo

lers

# of

stu

dent

s in

the

hom

e

91$3

9.58

n.s.

$32.

42 -

$46

.73

No

stud

ents

140

$45.

27$3

8.77

- $

51.7

7O

ne o

r m

ore

stud

ents

Res

pond

ents

who

are

stu

dent

s

162

$37.

93

n.s.

$32.

78$4

3.08

Stud

ents

46$3

8.54

$29.

88$4

7.20

Non

-stu

dent

s

Em

ploy

men

t sta

tus

310

$39.

93

n.s.

$35.

82$4

4.04

Em

ploy

ed f

ull t

ime

173

$40.

90$3

5.74

$46.

06E

mpl

oyed

par

t tim

e44

$50.

31$3

8.69

$61.

93U

nem

ploy

ed61

$35.

93$2

7.70

$44.

15R

etir

ed42

$28.

71$1

7.45

$39.

96N

ot in

wor

k fo

rce

Ann

ual h

ouse

hold

inco

me

33$4

0.26

n.s.

$24.

73$5

5.79

Les

s th

an $

9,99

987

$36.

42$2

8.02

- $

44.8

1$1

0,00

0$1

9,99

976

$35.

37$2

7.52

- $

43.2

2$2

0,00

0 -

$29,

999

61$3

9.70

$30.

41 -

$48

.99

$30,

000

- $3

9,99

946

$42.

11$3

3.09

$51.

13$4

0,00

0 or

mor

e54

$47.

39$3

7.67

- $

57.1

0

'Not

e: T

his

tabl

e re

port

s th

e su

mm

ary

anal

yses

of v

aria

nce

for

the

com

paris

ons

amon

g th

e m

ean

Not

e: N

is th

e sa

mpl

e si

ze fo

r ea

ch g

roup

. )(r

epre

sent

s th

e m

ean

amou

nt o

f sug

gest

ed p

er c

apita

initi

als

n.s.

indi

cate

that

the

obse

rved

diff

eren

ces

amon

g th

e gr

oups

arc

na

stat

istic

ally

sig

nific

ant

mea

n am

ount

of s

ugge

sted

spe

ndin

g fo

r ea

ch g

roup

rep

orte

d. T

hese

inte

rval

s :r

e ap

prop

riate

for

sec

page

s 10

and

11.

amou

nts

of s

ugge

sted

per

cap

ita s

pend

ing

by v

ario

us g

roup

s of

res

pond

ents

.

spen

ding

. Det

aile

d ex

plan

atio

ns o

f the

alp

ha le

vel (

a) a

nd R

2 ar

e pr

ovid

ed o

n pa

ge 6

8. T

he.

C.I.

rep

orts

thc

low

er a

nd u

pper

bou

nds

of th

e 95

% c

onfid

ence

inte

rval

for

estim

atin

g th

eus

e w

ith th

ose

grou

ps th

at a

re s

tatis

6cal

ly d

iffer

ent.

For

an

expl

anat

ion

of c

onfid

ence

inte

rval

s

Afr

ican

Am

eric

an S

ampl

e

TA

BL

E 5

3 (c

ontin

ued)

CO

MPA

RIS

ON

S O

F T

HE

ME

AN

SU

GG

EST

ED

PE

R C

API

TA

SPE

ND

ING

FO

RL

IBR

AR

IES

AM

ON

G T

HE

VA

RIO

US

GR

OU

PS O

F R

ESP

ON

DE

NT

S'

Dis

able

d pe

rson

in h

ouse

hold

n.s.

R2

C.I

.

Yes

72$4

3.23

$34.

44 -

$52

.02

No

Res

pond

ent d

isab

led

280

$38.

20

n.s.

$34.

07 -

$42

.33

Yes

20$4

0.95

$22.

58 -

$59

.31

No

48$4

5.92

$35.

03 -

$56

.80

Vot

ed in

'88

elec

tion

.003

.025

Yes

185

$45.

39$4

0.19

- $

50.5

9N

o

Cur

rent

fin

anci

al s

ituat

ion

172

$34.

03

n.s.

$28.

73 -

$39

.33

Bet

ter

off

than

last

yea

r83

$40.

51$3

3.30

- $

47.7

1W

orse

off

than

last

yea

r12

1$4

1.33

$35.

07 -

$47

.60

Abo

ut th

e sa

me

150

$38.

04$3

1.82

- $

44.2

6

Futu

re f

inan

cial

situ

atio

n.0

10.0

28

Bet

ter

off

next

yea

r23

6$4

3.91

$39.

18 -

$48

.64

Wor

se o

ff n

ext y

ear

17$4

6.85

$27.

47 -

$66

.23

Abo

ut th

e sa

me

84$3

0.24

$22.

94 -

$37

.54

Not

e: T

his

tabl

e re

port

s th

e su

mm

ary

anal

yses

of v

aria

nce

for

the

com

paris

ons

amon

g th

e m

ean

amou

nts

of s

ugge

sted

per

cap

ita s

pend

ing

by v

ario

us g

roup

s of

res

pond

ents

.

Not

e: N

is th

e sa

mpl

e 51

7.e

for

each

gro

up. i

repr

esen

ts th

e m

ean

amou

nt o

f sug

gest

ed p

er c

apita

spe

ndin

g.D

etai

led

expl

anat

ions

of t

he a

lpha

leve

l (a)

and

le a

re p

rovi

ded

on p

age

68. T

be

initi

als

n.s.

indi

cate

that

the

obse

rved

diff

eren

ces

amon

g th

c gr

oups

are

not

sta

tistic

ally

sig

nific

ant.

C.I.

rep

orts

the

low

er a

nd u

pper

bou

nds

of th

e 95

% c

oufid

ence

inte

rval

for

estim

atin

g th

e

mew

am

ount

of s

ugge

sted

spe

ndin

g fo

r ea

ch g

roup

rep

orte

d.T

hese

inte

rval

s ar

e ap

prop

riate

for.

use

with

thos

e gr

oups

that

arc

sta

tistic

ally

diff

eren

iF

or a

n ex

plan

atio

n of

con

fiden

ce in

terv

als

see

page

s 10

and

11.

I-1

.,

- 10

5

Afr

ican

Am

eric

an S

ampl

e

TA

BL

E 5

4C

OM

PAR

ISO

NS

OF

TH

E M

EA

N S

UG

GE

STE

D P

ER

CA

PIT

A S

PEN

DIN

G F

OR

LIB

RA

RIE

SB

ET

WE

EN

LIB

RA

RY

USE

RS

AN

D N

ON

-USE

RF:

Ent

ire

Sam

ple

357

$39.

90

C.I

.

$36.

13 -

$43

.67

Res

pond

ent w

ent t

o pu

blic

libr

ary

last

yea

r

Xa n.s.

R2

C.I

.

Yes

199

$41.

29$3

6.35

- $

46.2

3N

o

Som

eone

els

e w

ent t

o lib

rary

for

res

pond

ent

158

$38.

16

n.s.

$32.

40 -

$43

.92

Yes

52$3

9.94

$30.

64 -

$49

.24

No

2esp

onde

nt c

alle

d lib

rary

for

info

rmat

ion

304

$39.

71

n.s.

$31.

65 -

$47

.78

Yes

62$4

4.19

$35.

92 -

$52

.46

No

Res

pond

ent u

sed

libra

ry in

any

way

last

yea

r

296

$39.

01

n.s.

$34.

82 -

$43

.20

Yes

211

$40.

27$3

5.51

- $

45.0

3N

o14

7$3

9.36

$33.

28 -

$45

.44

'Not

e: T

his

tabl

e re

port

s th

e su

mm

ary

anal

yses

of v

aria

nce

for

the

com

paris

ons

amon

g th

e m

ean

amou

nts

of s

ugge

sted

per

cap

ita s

pend

ing

by v

ario

us g

roup

s of

resp

onde

nts

by li

brar

y us

e.

Not

e: N

is th

e sa

mpl

e si

ze fo

r ea

ch g

roup

. ire

pres

ents

the

mea

n am

ount

of s

ugge

sted

per

cap

ita s

pend

ing.

Det

aile

d ex

plan

atio

ns o

f the

alp

ha le

vel (

et)

and

112

are

prov

ided

on

page

68.

The

initi

als

n.s.

indi

cate

that

the

obse

rved

diff

eren

ces

amon

g th

e gr

oups

arc

no;

sta

tistic

ally

sig

nific

ani C

.1. r

epor

ts th

e lo

wer

and

upp

er h

ound

s of

the

95%

con

fiden

cein

terv

al fo

r es

timat

ing

the

mea

n am

ount

of s

ugge

sted

spe

ndin

g fo

r ea

ch g

roup

rcp

ortc

d. T

hese

inte

rval

s ar

c ap

prop

riate

for

use

with

thos

e gr

oups

that

arc

sta

tistic

ally

diff

eren

t.F

or a

n ex

plan

atio

n of

con

fiden

ce in

terv

als

1i'!

see

page

s 10

and

11.

f0 _

- 10

6 -

PART HI. THE SURVEY OF CAUCASIAN AMERICANS

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE CAUCASIAN AMERICAN SAMPLE

The Caucasian American sample included 846 respondents. The data from this samplewere weighted to ensure that the demographic characteristics of the weighted sample conformedto the latest available Census Bureau estimates of the characteristics of the national CaucasianAmerican population for age, gender, race, formal education attainment, and region of country.The demographic characteristics of the sample are as follows:'

Region of country2

Size of community'

Gender

22.5% northeast31.2% south central26.0% north central20.3% wk:st

5.3% over 1,000,00010.4% 250,000 1,000,00084.2% under 250,000

47.3% male52.7% female

The frequency distributions for the responses to all the questions in the interview are presented in theAppendix for this report. The Appendix is a separately bound publication.

2 These regional areas am: ciefined by The Gallup Organization as follows: northeastern states = Connecticut,Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Vermont; southcentral states = Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, Washington D.C., Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland,Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennesset, Texas, Virginia, and West Virginia; north centralstates = Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, SouthDakota, Wisconsin; western states = Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, NewMexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming.

The Gallup Organization defined size of community as follows: incorporated cities with populations of1,000,000 or more; incorporated cities with 'populations of 250,000 to 1,000,000; and incorporatad cities orunincorporated communities with populations less than 250,000.

- 107 -

A e 35.6% 18 35 years26.5% 36 - 50 years18.8% 51 - 65 years18.4% 66 years and older

.9% missing

Grade level 6.9% 8th grade or lesscompleted 10.7% h - llth grade

38.8% 12th grade17.2% some college3.9% associate degree15.1% bachelor's degree4.2% master's degree3.1% professional/doctoral.1% missing

High school diplomaor equivalent

Marital status

40.9% yes15.4% no43.7% missing

61.2% married11.0% widowed10.2% divorced17.4% never married

.2% missing

Living with 59.4% yesspouse 1.7% no

38.9% missing

# of peopleliving at home

# of preschoolchildren in home

17.5% one34.7% two17.5% three17.9% four8.2% five3.3% six or more1.0% missing

63.4% zero10.2% one6.6% two.6% three.5% four

18.7% missing

- 108 -

# of school childrenin home

Respondentswho were students

Primary languagespoken at home

Employment status

Household income

(Median)

Disabled personin household

45.4% zero18.7% one12.4% two3.1% three1.7% four or more

18.7% missing

1.0% high school1.2% non-academic program5.2% college students1.8% graduate students

90.9% missing

99.2% English.8% missing

50.9% employed full-time12.1% employed part-time6.5% unemployed

21.9% retired8.0% not in work force.6% missing

1.6% less than $5,0004.6% $ 5,000 - $ 9,9996.9% $10,000 $14,9997.1% $15,000 - $19,9998.1% $20,000 - $24,99910.9% $25,000 - $29,9998.5% $30,000 - $34,9998.7% $35,000 - $39,9995.8% $40,000 - $44,9995.1% $45,000 - $49,9994.0% $50,000 - $54,9992.3% $55,000 - $59,9992.3% $60,000 - $64,9991.1% $65,000 $69,9991.4% $70,000 - $74,9997.4% $75,000 or more14.2% missing

14.1% yes84.2% no1.7% missing

- 109 -

Respondent 7.6% yesdisabled 5.4% someone else

86.9% missing

Nature of disability

Voted in '88 election

1.0% sight5.0% mobility

91.0% missing

65.3% yes33.9% no

.7% missing

Current financial 24.6% better off than last yearsituation 22.9% worse off than last year

58.1% about the same.7% missing

Future financial 42.6% better off next yearsituation 7.7% worse off next year

45.5% about the same4.3% missing.

LIBRARY USE AMONG THE CAUCASIAN AMERICAN SAMPLE

The data indicated that 57.7% of the Caucasian sample had personally gone to a publiclibrary in the past year, 23.3% of the sample reported that someone else had obtained materialsfor them, and 23.6% of the sample had called a iibrary for information. Controlling for overlapamong these activities, it was determined that 64.7% of the sample had in some way used apublic library in the last year while 35.3% of the sample reported no use of a library.

EVALUATIONS OF THE IMPORTANCE OF THE ROLES BY TIM CAUCASIANAMERICAN SAMPLE

The responses to the re' evaluation questions were analyzed in two ways: first, meanscores foi- the role importance scales were calculated; and second, the peicentages of respondentswho for each role selected the category "very important" were tabulated. While the meanimportance scale score yields a more precise estimate of the respondents' evaluations of theimportance of a role, the percentage of respondents who selected the category "very important"is the more easily understood and communicated estimate of the importance of a role. All of thetables presenting results of role evaluations present both the mean scale scores and the percentage"scores."

The results of the role evaluations are reported in Table 55 in ranked order from the rolereceiving the highest mean importance scale score to the role receiving the lowest meanimportance scale score. These results can be interpreted in two ways: first, the scores for any

- 110 -

1 ti

given role can be interpreted in terms of their position or standing on the four-point importancescale (an absolute assessment); and second, the scores for any given role can be interpreted interms of their ranking relative to the scores received by the other roles (a relative assessment).For example, more than half of the sample (52.3%) rated the Popular Materials Library role as"very important" with a mean score of 3.37, but this rating places the role in eighth position ofimportance compared to the mean scores received by the other roles. The reader should note thatthe ranking by mean score is not the same as the ranking by the percentage "score." The readershould also note that the distance between the mean scores for some of the roles is quite smallindicating that, while one role is ranked higher or lower than another role, for all practicalpurposes the roles are about equal in importance. The same observation could also be made forthe percentage "scores."

The results in Table 55 indicate that a majority of the Caucasian American sampleconsidered eight out of the ten roles to be "very important." Of these, however, the FormalEducation Support Center role, the Independent Learning Center role, and the Preschoolers' Doorto Learning role were rated as the most important roles of the public library in the community.These results indicate that the Caucasian American respondents considered the public library'sroles to support the educational aspirations of the community its most important roles.

In evaluating these results the reader should also keep in mind some of the anomalies inthe role statements and the public's interpretations of the role statements that were discussed onpages 17-19.

D1H-thRENCES IN THE EVALUATIONS OF THE IMPORTANCE OF THE ROLES BYDIH-ERENT SEGMENTS OF THE CAUCASIAN AMERICAN SAMPLE

The respondents' opinions about the importance of each role were tested for differencesbetween or among groups of respondents using analysis of variance.' The different groups of

Analysis of variance is a statistical procedure for testing whether the observed differences among groupmeans for each role evaluation occurred by chance or because the groups differed in their evaluations of theimportance of the role. A statistically significant difference among the group means is defined as one whoseprobability of occurring by chance (the a level reported in the tables) is so low that we choose to conclude that thedifference did not occur by chance but that it occurred because the groups differed in their evaluation of the role.All differences with an a level of .05 er less (that is, the probability that the difference occurred by chance is 5 outof a hundred or less) are considered to be statistically significant. The a levels for all statistically significantdifferences are reported in the tables. All differences with an a level greater than .05 (that is, the probability thatthe difference occurred by chance is greater than 5 out of a hundred) are considered to be non-significant and aredesignated as such in tne table with the initials n.s.

A non-trivial difference is defined as a statistically significant difference whose magnitude of difference issufficiently large that it warrants attention for possible usefulness in managerial decision making. By contrast, atrivial difference is defined as a statistically significant difference whose magnitude of difference is so small or trivial

as to be of questionable value in managerial decision making. Deciding whether a statistically significant differenceis trivial or non-trivial is a juk;ement call, We have adopted the rule that if R2, the coefficient of determination,is equal to or greater than .02 the difference is considered to be non-trivial. The coefficient of determinationmeasures the amount of variation in the role evaluation scores that is explained by the group differences - the largerthe coefficient of determination, the more meaningful the difference. The coefficients of determination for all

respondents were identified by, or created from, the following characteristics: the region of thecountry where the respondent lived; the size of the community in which the respondent lived; thegender of the respondent; the age of the respondent; the highest grade level of educationcompleted by the respondent and, if the 12th grade or less, whether the respondent had a highschool diploma; whether, if the respondent had an associate degree, the respondent graduatedfrom an academic program or an occupational program; the respondent's current marital statusand, if married, whether the respondent was currently living with a spouse; the number of peopleliving in the respondent's home; the number of preschool children living in the home; the numberof students living in the home; whether the respondent was currently a student and, if so, thenature of the program of study; the primary language spoken at home; the respondent's currentemployment status; total annual household income; whether anyone in the household wasdisabled; whether the respondent was disabled and, if so, the nature of the disability; whether therespondent voted in the last (i.e., 1988) presidential election; the respondent's opinion about hisor her current financial situation; the respondent's opinion about his or her financial situation nextyear; whether the respondent personally went to a public library in the past year and, if so, howmany times; whether anyone else went to a library for the respondent; whether the respondentcalled a library for information in the past year; and whether the respondent made any use of alibrary in the past year.

In the preceding analyses, the quantitative characteristics of the respondents (age, highestgrade level of education completed, the number of people living in the home, the number ofpreschool children living in the home, the number of students living in the home, and total annualhousehold income) were grouped into intervals (e.g., respondents 18 to 35 years old, respondents36 to 50 years old, etc.) and the mean role importance scale scores for these groups werecompared for differences using analysis of variance. This was done in order to facilitatecomparisons to local data which oftentimes are available only in this gr.( aped format. Anotherway of analyzing whether any of these characteristics of the respondents is related to therespondents' evaluations of the importance of the roles is by means of correlation analysis'which tests for the presence of a trend between the characteristic and the role importance score.For example, as the age of the respondents increases does their evaluation of the importance ofa role tend to increase or decrease? In order to determine if trends such as this exist, each of

statistically significant differences are reported in the tables so assessments about triviality can be made.

5 A correlation coefficient is an index of the strength of the relationship between two quantitative variables.The coefficient can take a value from -1.00 (indicating a perfect inverse relationship) to 0.00 (indicating the absenceof any relationship) to +1.00 (indicating a perfect positive relationship). Typically, correlation coefficients appeareither as a negative decimal value (indicating that high scores for one variable are associated with low scores forthe other variable) or as a positive decimal value (indicating that high scores for one variable are associated withhigh scores for the other variable). The higher the decimal value, the stronger the relationship.

A statistically significant relationship is defined as one whose probability of occurrence by chance is so lowthat we choose to conclude that it did not occur by chance but that it occurred because the two variables are related.A non-trivial relationship is defined as a statistically significant relationship of sufficient strength that it warrantsattention for possible usefulness in managerial decisicn making. In this report, correlation coefficients equal to orgreater than ±.15 are considered to be non-trivial.

- 112 -

u

these quantitative characteristics of the respondents was also entered into a correlation analysiswith each of the role importance scales.

While the results of the analyses of variance with the grouped data and the results of thecorrelation analyses with the ungrouped data are complementary, it should be noted that thecorrelation analyses are not always sensitive to a difference between two or more groups whichmight exist. Consequently, the results of the two tests sometimes do not agree. The results ofboth sets of analyses are reported below.

Region of the country. There were no statistically significant differences in the role evaluationsby respondents living in the four regions of the country (see Table 56).

Size of community. There were no statistically significant differences in the role evaluations byrespondents living in communities of different size populations (see Table 57).

Gender. Comparisons of the mean importance scale scores for male and female respondentsindicated that there were five statistically significant and non-trivial differences and fourstatistically significant but trivial differences. Of particular note, however, was the pattern ofthese differences between males and females. The female respondents rated all roles (with theexception of the Reference Library for personal information role) higher than did the malerespondents (see Table 58). Interestingly, there was lit& difference between males and femalesin the relative rank orders of the role scores (the correla,ion coefficient between the two sets ofmean scores was .97). In effect, females considered each of the roles of the library to be moreimportant than did the males, but both groups tended to agree about which roles were moreimportant relative to other roles.

Age of the respondent. There were no statistically significant and non-trivial correlationcoefficients between the age of the respondents and their evaluations of the importance of theroles.

The respondents were also divided into four age groups: 18 35 years old; 36 50 yearsold; 51 - 65 years old; and over 65 years old. Comparisons of the mean importance scale soresfor these four groups indicated that there were three statistically significant, but trivial,differences among the groups (see Table 59). Respondents who were 18 to 35 years old ratedthe Independent Learning Center higher than respondents who were 51 - 65 years old.Respondents who were 51 65 years old and respondents who were over 65 years old rated thePublic Work Place role higher than respondents who were 18 - 35 years old and respondents whowere 36 - 50 years old. Respondents who were 51 65 years old and respondents who were over65 years old rated the Popular Materials Library role higher than respondents who were 18 - 35years old.

Highest grade level completed. There was one statistically significant and non-trivial correlationcoefficient. The highest grade level completed by the respondents was inversely correlated (r =-.15) with the respondents' rating of the importance of the Public Work Place role. The lowerthe grade level completed, the higher the rating of the importance of the Public Work Place role;the higher the grade level completed, the lower the rating of the importance of the Public WorkPlace role.

- 113 -i

L.

4

The respondents were divided into five groups based on the number of grades completed:8th grade or less, 9th - 11th grades, 12th grade, some college, and college graduates.Comparisons of the mean importance scale scores for these five groups indicated that there wereseven statistically significant differences among the groups (see Table 60). Respondents who hadcompleted 9th - 11th grades rated the Formal Education Support role lower than all other groups.Respondents who had completed the 8th grade or less rated the Reference Library for personalinformation role higher than all other groups. Respondents who had completed the 8th grade orless rated the Research Center role higher than all other groups. Respondents who had graduatedfrom college rated the Community Information Center role lower than respondents who hadcompleted the 12th grade, 9th - 11 th grades, or the 8th grade or less. Respondents who hadgraduated from college and respondents who had completed some college rated the Public WorkPlace role lower than all other groups. The differences for the Formal Education Support role,the Reference Library for personal information role, the Community Information Center Role,and the Public Work Place role were non-trivial. The differences for the Reference Library forbusiness role, the Research Center role, and the Independent Learning Center role were trivial.

Whether, if the respondent had completed the 12th grade or less, the respondent had a highschool diploma or equivalent. There were two statistically significant, but trivial, differencesbetween these two groups. Respondents who had a high school diploma rated the ReferenceLibrary for personal information role and the Public Work Place role lower than respondents whodid not (see Table 61).

Whether, if the respondent had an associate degree, the respondent graduated from an academicprogram or an occupational program. There were too few responses to this question to permitgroup comparisons.

Marital status. There were five statistically significant, but trivial, differences in the roleevaluations by different marital status groups (see Table 62). Respondents who were nevermarried rated the Formal Education Support Center role lower than all other groups. There thenappears to be a pattern of differences between respondents who were widowed and the othergroups. Respondents who were widowed rated the Community Activities Center role higher thanrespondents who were never married and respondents who were married, the CommunityInformation Center role higher than respondents who were never married and respondents whowere married; the Public Work Place role higher than all other respondents; and the PopularMaterials Library role higher than all other respondents.

Whether a married respondent was currently living with a spouse. The number of marriedrespondents currently not living with a spouse was too small to permit meaningful comparisons.

The number of people living in the home. There were no statistically significant and non-trivialcorrelation coefficients between the number of people living at home and the respondents'evaluations of the importance of the roles.

Based on the number of people living in the home, the respondents were divided into fivegr( ,ps: respondents living in homes with one person, two people, three people, four people, andfive or more people. Comparisons of the mean importance scale scores for these five groupsindicated that there were three statistically significant differences among the groups (see Table

- 114 -

i

63). Respondents living in homes with two people rated the Preschoolers' Door to Learning rolelower than respondents living in homes with one or four people. Respondents living in homeswith two people rated the Community Information Center role lower than respondents living inhomes with one, four, or five or more people; and respondents living in homes with three peoplerated this role lower than respondents living in homes with one person. Respondents living inhomes with one person and respondents living in homes with five or more people rated thePublic Work Place role higher than respondents living in homes with two, three, or four people.The difference for the Public Place role was non-trivial. The differences for the FormalEducation Support Center role and the Community Information Center role were trivial.

The number of preschool chileren living in the home. There were no statistically significant andnon-trivial correlation coefficients between the number of preschool children living at home andthe respondents' evaluations of the importance of the roles.

Because of the low number of multiple preschool children in the home, the respondentswere divided into two groups: respondents living in homes without any preschoolers andrespondents in homes with one or more preschoolers. Comparisons between the groups indicatedthat there were two statistically significant differences (see Table 64). Respond,- :,ts who hadpreschoolers in the home rated the Community Information Center role and the independentLearning Center role higher than respondents who did not have preschoolers in the home. Thedifference with the Independent Learning Center role was trivial.

The number of students living in the home. There were no statistically significant and non-trivialcorrelation coefficients between the number of children living at home and the respondents'evaluations of the roles.

Because of the low number of multiple students living in the home, the respondents weredivided into two groups: respondents living in homes without any students and respondents inhomes with one or more students. Comparisons between the groups indicated that there were twostatistically significant, but trivial, differences (see Table 65). Respondents living in homes withone or more students rated the Formal Education Support Center role and the Public Work Placerole higher than respondents living in homes without any students.

Whether the respondent was currently a student. There were no statistically significant differencesin the evaluations of the importance of the roles by respondents who were in school or in atraining program and respondents who were not.(see Table 66).

Nature of the program of study. Dividing the respondents into groups based on the nature of their

progrern of study produced groups too small for comparisons.

Employment status. There were two statistically significant differences among the groups ofrespondents with different employment status (see Table 67). Respondents who were not in thework force rated the Reference Library for business role higher than all other groups; respondentswho were unemployed rated this role lower than respondents who were employed full time andrespondents who were employed part time; and respondents who were retired rated this rolelower than respondents who were employed part time. Respondents who were employed fulltime rated the Public Work Place role lower than respondents who were employed part time,

- 115

respondents who were retired, and respondents who were not in the work force. The differenceamong the groups for the Reference Library for business role was non-trivial. The difference inthe Public Work Place roles was trivial.

Total annual household income. There was one statistically significant and non-trivial correlationcoefficient. Total household income was inversely correlated (r = -.19) with the evaluation ofthe importance of the library's role as a Public Work Place. The lower the household incomethe higher the evaluation of the importance of the Public Work Place role; the higher thehousehold income the lower the evaluation of the importance of the Public Work Place role.

Based on the amount of total household income, the respondents were divided into fivegroups: households with incomes of less than $15,000, $15,000 to $29,999, $30,000 to $44,999,$45,000 to $59,999, and $60,000 or more. Comparisons of the mean role importance scale scoresfor respondents based on their total household income level indicated that there were sixstatistically significant differences among the groups (see Table 68). Respondents who lived inhouseholds with incomes less than $15,000 and respondents who lived in households withincomes of $60,000 or more rated the Formal Education Support Center role lower thanrespondents who lived in households with incomes of $30,000 to $44,999, and with incomes of$45,000 to $59,999. Respondents who lived in households with incomes of $60,000 or morerated the Preschoolers' Door to Learning Role lower than respondents who lived in householdswith incomes of $15,000 or less, $15,000 to $29,999, and $30,000 to $44,999. Respondents wholived in households with incomes of less than $15,000 rated the Research Center role, theCommunity Information Center role, and the Public Work Place role nigher than all the othergroups and these respondents also rated the Independent Learning Center role higher than allother groups with the exception of the those respondents living in households with incomesbetween $15,000 and $29,999. In addition, respondents who lived in households with incomesof more than $60,000 rated the Community Information Center role lower than respondents livingin households with incomes of $30,000 to $44,999, rated the Independent Learning Center rolelower than respondents living in households with incomes of $15,000 to $29,999, and $30,000to $44,999, and rated the Public Work Place role lower than respondents living in householdswith incomes of $15,000 to $29,999.

The differences among the groups for the Formal Education Support Center role, thePreschoolers' Door to Learning Role, and the Research Center role were trivial. The differencesamong the groups for the Community Information Center role, the Independent Learning Centerrole, and the Public Work Place role were non-trivial.

Whether anyone in the household was disabled. Comparisons of the mean importance scale scoresfor respondents living in households with a disabled person and respondents living in householdswithout a disabled person indicated that there was one statistically significant, but trivial,difference between the groups (see Table 69). Respondents living in a household with a disableperson rated the Public Work Place role higher than respondents living in a household withouta disabled person.

Whether the respondent was disabled. Comparisons of the mean importance scale scores forrespondents who were disabled and respondents living in households with someone else disabledindicated that there were four statistically significant and non-trivial differences between the

- 116 -

1 u

groups (see Table 70). Respondents who were disabled rated the Reference Library for businessrole, the Research Center role, the Public Work Place role, and the Popular Materials Library rolehigher than the respondents who were not disabled.

The nature of the disability. Dividing the disabled respondents into groups based on the natureof their disability produced groups too small for comparisons.

Whether the respondent voted in the last (1988) presidential election. Comparisons of the meanrole importance scale scores of respondents who voted and respondents who did not vote in the1988 election indicated that there were four statistically significant, but trivial, differencesbetween the groups (see Table 71). Respondents who voted rated the Formal Education SupportCenter role and the Popular Materials Library role higher than respondents who did not vote.Respondents who did not vote rated the Preschoolers' Door to Learning role and the IndependentLearning Center role higher than respondents who did vote.

The respondent's opinion about hislher current financial condition. Comparisons of the mean roleimportance scale scores for respondents based on their opinions about their current financialcondition indicated that there was one statistically significant, but trivial, difference among thegroups (see Table 72). Respondents who felt that their current financial condition was better thanlast year rated the Research Center role lower than the other respondents who felt that theircurrent financial condition was either worse than last year or about the same as last year.

The respondents' s opinion about histher financial condition next year. Comparisons of the meanrole importance scale scores for respondents based on their opinions about their financialcondition next year indicated that there were four statistically significant, but trivial, differencesamong the groups (see Table 73). Respondents who felt that their financial condition next yearwill be worse than this year rated the Preschoolers' Door to Learning role lower than respondentswho felt that their financial condition next year will be either better off or about the same as thisyear. Respondents who felt that their financial condition next year will be better than this yearrated the Community Activities Center role lower than respondents who felt that their financialcondition next year will be about the same as this year. Respondents who felt that their financialcondition next year will be worse than this year rated the Research Center role lower thanrespondents who felt that their financial condition next year will be about the same. Respondentswho felt that their financial condition next year will be better than this year rated the PopularMaterials Library role lower than respondents who felt that their financial condition next yearwill be about the same as this year.

DIFFERENCES IN THE EVALUATIONS OF THE IMPORTANCE OF THE ROLES BYLIBRARY USERS AND NONUSERS IN THE CAUCASIAN AMERICAN SAMPLE

Each of the role importance scales was tested for differences among respondents (usinganalysis of variance) based on the following library use behaviors: whether or not the respondenthad gone to a public library in the past year, whether or not someone else had gone to a libraryto obtain materials for the respondent, whether or not the respondent had called a library forinformation in the past year, and a constructed measure of any kind of use of a public library

- H7 -

whether or not a respondent answered "yes" to any one of the three "use" questions. The resultsof these analyses are reported below.

Whether the respondent had gone to a public library in the past year. There were threestatistically significant, but trivial, differences between respondents who had gone andrespondents who had not gone to a public library in the past year (see Table 74). Respondentswho had gone to a library rated the Formal Education Support Center role, the Reference Libraryfor personal information role, and the Popular Materials Library role higher than respondents whohad not gone to a library.

Respondents who indicated that they had gone to a library in the past year were alsoasked how many times they had gone to a library and were provided six numerical responsecategories which were converted into a six-point scale. This frequency of visit scale was alsoentered into correlation analyses with each of the role importance scales. The results of theseanalyses indicated that there was one statistically significant and non-trivial correlationcoefficient. The users' frequency of visiting a library was correlated (r = .19) with theirevaluation of the importance of the Popular Materials Library role. The more frequently theusers went to a library the higher their evaluation of the importance of the Popular MaterialsLibrary role.

Whether someone else went to a public library for the respondent. There was one statisticallysignificant, but trivial, difference between respondents who had someone else go to a library forthem and respondents who did not (see Table 75). Respondents who had someone else go to alibrary for them rated the Formal Education Support Center role higher than respondents who didnot.

Whether the respondent called a public library in the last year. There were two statisticallysignificant, but trivial, differences between respondents who called a library for information andthose that did not (see Table 76). Respondents who had called a library rated the FormalEducation Support Center role and the Reference Library for personal information role higherthan respondents who had not called a library for information.

Whether the respondent had made any use of a public library in the past year. There were twostatistically significant, but trivial, differences between respondents who had made any use of alibrary and respondents who had not (see Table 77). Respondents who had made any use of alibrary rated the Formal Education Support Center role and the Reference Library for personalinformation role higher than respondents who had not made any use of a library.

THE CAUCASIAN AMERICAN SAMPLE'S OPINION ABOUT AMOUNT OF PER CAPITASPENDING FOR PUBLIC LIBRARIES

The responses to the question about the amount of money that the community shouldspend on library services were tabulated and are reported in Table 78. These results indicate thatabout 34.5% of the respondents answered that the community should spend between $1 to $20per capita on public libraries (this interval contains the national [1990] median of $16.00 percapita) while 52.6% of the respondents answered that the community should spend more than $20

- 118 -

per capita. Twelve point nine per cent of the respondents were not sure and did not respond.The average per capita expenditure6 that the respondents thought the community should spendannually on the public library was $33.73 an amount twice as high as the national per capitaexpenditure.

D1H-ERENCES OF OPINION AMONG SEGMENTS OF THE CAUCASIAN SAMPLE ABOUTME AMOUNT OF PER CAPITA SPENDING FOR PUBLIC LIBRARMS

The respondents' opinions about the amount of public financial support for libraryservices was tested for differences among respondents based on the same characteristics of therespondents as were identified on pages 111 and 112. The results of these analyses, reported inTable 79, indicated that there were only four statistically significant differences of which onlyone was non-trivial. These differences are reported below.

Region of country. Respondents living in the northeastern states were of the opinion that thecommunity should spend about $41.61 per capita which was higher than the amounts selectedby respondents living in the north central states ($30.57), the south central states ($30.51), andthe western states ($33.33). This difference was non-trivial.

Size of community. Respondents living in communities with populations over 1,000,000 were ofthe opinion that the community should spend about $44.35 per capita which was higher than theamounts selected by respondents living in communities with populations between 250,000 and1,000,000 ($33.80) and communities with populations under 250,000 ($32.95). This differencewas trivial.

Whether, if the respondent had completed 12th grade or less, the respondent had a high schooldiploma. Respondents who did not have a high school diploma were of the opinion that thecommunity should spend about $37.25 per capita which was higher than the amount selected byrespondents with a high school diploma ($29.31). This difference was trivial.

Whether the respondent was a student. Respondents who were students were of the opinion thatthe community should spend about $39.75 per capita which was higher than the amount selectedby respondents who were not students ($32.91). This difference was trivial.

There were no statistically significant differences among the respondents based on gender,age, highest grade level completed, marital status, the number of people living in the home,whether there were any preschoolers in the home, whether there were any students in the home,employment status, total annual household income, whether there were any disabled persons inthe household, whether the respondent was disabled, whether the respondent voted in the 1988election, the respondent's financial condition this year, and the respondent's financial conditionnext year.

6 The average or mean of the scores was calculated using the mid-point of each interval; namely, $0, $10, $30,$50, $70, $90, and $110.

- 119 -

'Th

c..

DIFFERENCES OF OPINION ABOUT TIM AMOUNT OF PER CAPITA SPENDING FORPUBLIC LIBRARIES BY LIBRARY USERS AND NONUSERS IN THE CAUCASIANAMERICAN SAMPLE

The respondents' selection of the amount of money the community should spend forlibrary services was tested for differences among respondents (using analysis of variance) basedon the following library use behaviors: whether or not the respondent had gone to a public libraryin the past year, whether or not someone else had gone to a library to obtain materials for therespondent, whether or not the respondent had called a library for information in the past year,and a constructed measure of any kind of use of a public library - whether or not a respondentanswered "yes" to any one of the three "use"questions. The results of these analyses, reportedin Table 80, indicated that there were two statistically significant, but trivial, differences.

Respondents who had gone to a public library last year were of the opinion that thecommunity should spend about $35.35 per capita which was higher than the amount selected byrespondents who had not gone to a public library ($31.23).

Those respondents who indicated that they had gone to a library in the past year were alsoasked how frequently they had gone to a library. This frequency of visit scale was also enteredinto correlation analysis with the suggested amount of community spending scale. The result ofthis analysis indicated that there was a statistically significant and non-trivial correlationcoefficient (r = .19) indicating that, among library users, the more frequently they visited alibrary, the more money they thought the community should spend for library services.

Respondents who called a library for information were of the opinion that the communityshould spend about $38.07 per capita which was higher than the amount selected by respondentswho had not called a library ($32.18).

The trivial nature of these differences indicates that while users of libraries feel thatlibraries should get a higher amount of per capita support than nonusers, the differences are notthat great. The managerial significance of these data is that even nonusers of libraries feel thatlibraries should get about twice the amount of the current national median level of financialsupport.

RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN THE EVALUATIONS OF THE ROLES AND THE OPINIONSABOUT THE AMOUNT OF PER CAPITA SPENDING FOR PUBLIC LIBRARIES IN THECAUCASIAN AMERICAN SAMPLE

In order to identify which of the roles of the public library the Caucasian Americansample appeared most willing to support financially, each of the role importance scales wasentered into a correlation analysis with the suggested amount of community spending scale. Noneof these analyses resulted in a correlation coefficient that was statistically significant and non-trivial. These results suggest that the amount of community spending for library services theCaucasian Americans are willing to support is not related to any one role or group of roles. Itappears that the Caucasian American sample considered all roles to be equally worthy offinancial support.

- 120 -

Cau

casi

an A

mer

ican

Sam

ple

TA

BL

E 5

5T

HE

EV

AL

UA

TIO

NS

OF

TH

E I

MPO

RT

AN

CE

OF

'ME

VA

RIO

US

RO

LE

S O

F T

HE

PU

BL

IC L

IBR

AR

YB

Y T

'HE

CA

UC

ASI

AN

AM

ER

ICA

N S

AM

PLE

(N =

846

)

i%

Form

al E

duca

tion

Supp

ort C

ente

r3.

8588

.6

Inde

penc

ent L

earn

ing

Cen

ter

3.81

84.7

Pres

choo

lers

' Doo

r to

Lea

rnin

g3.

8083

.4

Res

earc

h C

ente

r3.

5667

.5

Com

mun

ity I

nfor

mat

ion

Cen

ter

3.56

65.1

Ref

eren

ce L

ibra

ry -

Bus

ines

s3.

3954

.8

Ref

eren

ce L

ibra

ry -

Per

sona

l3.

3847

.8

Popu

lar

Mat

eria

ls L

ibra

ry3.

3752

.3

Publ

ic W

ork

Plac

e3.

3651

.7

Com

mun

ity A

ctiv

ities

Cen

ter

3.11

41.0

Not

e: N

is th

e sa

mpl

e si

ze a

nd r

epre

sent

s, in

gen

eral

, the

num

ber

of r

espo

nden

ts w

ho r

ated

eac

h ro

le.

)7 r

epre

sent

s th

e m

can

ratin

g fo

r ea

ch r

ole

on th

e fo

ur-p

oint

impo

rtan

ce s

cale

. %re

pres

ents

the

perc

enta

ge o

f th

e sa

mpl

e th

at r

ated

the

role

"ve

ry im

port

ant."

For

som

e ro

les

ther

e w

ere

a fe

w n

on-r

espo

nden

ts, b

ut th

ese

slig

ht d

iffe

renc

es in

sam

ple

size

s ar

e in

cons

eque

ntia

lfo

r th

e pu

rpos

e of

est

imat

ing

the

sam

plin

g er

ror

asso

ciat

ed w

ith th

e %

of

resp

onde

nts

who

rat

ed th

e ro

le "

very

impo

rtan

t."

- 12

1 -

Cau

casi

an A

mer

ican

Sam

ple

TA

BL

E 5

6C

OM

PAR

ISO

NS

AM

ON

G R

ESP

ON

DE

NT

S FR

OM

DIH

-ER

EN

T R

EG

ION

S O

F T

HE

CO

UN

TR

Y'

Nor

thea

st(N

.= 1

90)

i%

Form

al E

duca

tion

Supp

ort C

ente

r3.

7684

.5

Pres

choo

lers

' Doo

r to

Lea

rnin

g3.

7983

.5

Ref

eren

ce L

ibra

ry -

Per

sona

l3.

3749

.6

Ref

eren

ce L

ibra

ry -

Bus

ines

s3.

3454

.4

Com

mun

ity A

ctiv

ities

Cen

ter

3.02

39.2

Res

earc

h C

ente

r3.

5870

.3

Com

mun

ity I

nfor

mat

ion

Cen

ter

3.59

70.2

Inde

pend

ent L

earn

ing

Cen

ter

3.83

84.7

Publ

ic W

ork

Plac

e3.

3150

.0

Popu

lar

Mat

eria

ls L

ibra

ry3.

3451

.0

Sout

hN

orth

Cen

tral

Cen

tral

Wes

t(N

= 2

64)

(N =

220

)(N

= 1

72)

3.88

3.78

3.36

3.45

3.13

3.59

3.63

3.82

3.33

3.37

%i

%

90.4

3.87

90.5

81.4

3.86

86.7

47.9

3.34

44.0

60.5

3.33

48.7

39.6

3.10

41.7

69.1

3.47

59.3

70.0

3.47

57.4

86.0

3.75

80.8

51.2

3.33

48.0

52.3

3.33

52.6

I%

ale

3.86

88.1

n.s.

3.79

82.1

n.s.

3.47

50.7

n.s.

3.42

54.3

n.s.

3.17

44.1

n.s.

3.60

72.1

n.s.

3.54

61.4

n.s.

3.84

87.4

n.s.

3.50

58.8

n.s.

3.44

53.4

.n.

s.

Thi

s ta

ble

repo

rts

the

sum

mar

y an

alys

es o

f va

lianc

e fo

r th

c co

mpa

riso

ns a

mon

g th

e m

ean

role

impo

rtan

cesc

ale

scor

es f

or th

e gr

oups

of

resp

onde

nts

iden

tifie

d by

the

colu

mn

head

ings

.

Not

e: N

is th

e sa

mpl

e si

ze f

or e

ach

grou

p an

d re

pres

ents

, in

gene

ral,

the

num

ber

of r

pond

ents

who

rat

edea

ch r

ole.

j re

pres

ents

the

mea

n ra

ting

for

each

rol

e on

the

four

-poi

nt im

port

ance

scal

e. E

xpla

natio

ns o

f a

(the

alp

ha le

vel)

and

R2

(the

coe

ffic

ient

of

dete

rmin

atio

n) a

re p

rovi

ded

on p

age

111.

The

initi

als

n.s.

indi

cate

that

the

obse

rved

dif

fere

nces

am

ong

the

grou

p m

eans

are

not s

tatis

tical

ly s

igni

fica

nt. %

rep

rese

nts

the

perc

enta

ge o

f ea

ch g

roup

that

rat

edth

e ro

le "

very

impo

rtan

t." T

hese

% a

re p

rese

nted

for

des

crip

tive

purp

oses

. For

som

e ro

les

ther

e w

ere

afe

w

non-

resp

onde

nts,

but

thes

e sl

ight

dif

fere

nces

in s

ampl

e si

zes

ate

inco

nseq

uent

ial

for

the

purp

ose

of e

stim

atin

g th

e sa

mpl

ing

erro

r as

soci

ated

with

the

perc

enta

ge o

f re

spon

dent

sw

ho r

ated

the

role

s "v

ery

impo

rtan

t."

- 12

2 -

Cau

casi

an A

mer

kar,

Sam

ple

TA

BL

E 5

7C

OM

PAR

ISO

NS

AM

ON

G R

ESP

ON

DE

NT

S FR

OM

CO

MM

UN

ITIE

S W

ITH

D1H

-ER

EN

T S

IZE

PO

PUL

AT

ION

S'

Ove

r 1,

000,

000

(N =

45)

X

250,

000 (N

1,00

0,00

088

)U

nder

250

,000

(N =

713

)

XR

2

Form

al E

duca

tion

Supp

ort C

ente

r3.

8689

.23.

9495

.63.

8487

.8n.

s.

Pres

choo

lers

Doo

r to

Lea

rnin

g3.

6573

.13.

8282

.43.

8184

.2n.

s.

Ref

eren

ce L

ibra

ryPe

rson

al3.

4155

.93.

4250

.93.

3747

.0n.

s.

Ref

eren

ce L

ibra

ry -

Bus

ines

s3.

3455

.43.

4454

.13.

3954

.8n.

s.

Com

mun

ity A

ctiv

ities

Cen

ter

3.05

38.9

3.20

45.9

3.10

40.5

n.s.

Res

earc

h C

ente

r3.

6776

.23.

6171

.83.

5566

.4n.

s.

Com

mun

ity I

nfor

mat

ion

Cen

ter

3.63

75.0

3.57

67.8

3.56

64.1

n.s.

Inde

pend

ent L

earn

ing

Cen

ter

3.89

92.3

3.85

90.6

3.80

83.5

n.s.

Publ

ic W

ork

Plac

e3.

2940

.53.

4352

.23.

3652

.3n.

s.

Popu

lar

Mat

eria

ls L

ibra

ry3.

1942

.83.

4554

.13.

3752

.7n.

s.

Thi

s ta

ble

repo

rts

the

sum

mar

y an

alys

es o

f var

ianc

e fo

r th

e co

mpa

rison

s am

ong

the

mea

n ro

le im

port

ance

Fca

le s

core

s fo

r th

e gr

oups

of r

espo

nden

ts id

entif

ied

byth

e co

lum

n he

adin

gs.

Not

e: N

is th

e sa

mpl

e si

ze fo

r ea

ch g

roup

and

rep

rese

nts,

in g

ener

al, t

he n

umbe

r of

res

pond

ents

who

rat

ed e

ach

role

. i r

epre

sent

s th

e m

ean

ratin

g fo

r ea

ch r

ole

on th

e fo

ur-p

oint

impo

rtan

cesc

ale.

Exp

lana

tions

of a

(th

e al

pha

leve

l) an

d R

2 (t

he c

oeffi

cien

t of d

eter

min

atio

n) a

re p

rovi

ded

on p

age

I I I.

The

initi

als

n.s.

indi

cate

that

the

obse

rved

diff

eren

ces

amon

g th

e gr

oup

mea

ns a

reno

t sta

tistic

ally

sig

nific

ant.

% r

epre

sent

s th

e pe

rcen

tage

of e

ach

grou

p th

at r

ated

the

role

"ve

ry im

port

ant."

The

se %

axe

pre

sent

ed fo

r de

scrip

tive

purp

oses

. For

som

erol

es th

ere

wer

e a

few

non-

resp

onde

nts,

but

thes

e sl

ight

diff

eren

ces

in s

ampl

e si

zes

are

inco

nseq

uani

al fo

r th

e pu

rpos

e of

est

imat

ing

the

sam

plin

g er

ror

asso

ciat

ed w

ith th

e pe

rcen

tage

of r

espo

nden

ts w

hora

ted

the

role

s "v

ery

impo

rtan

t."

2J

- 12

3 -

Cau

casi

an A

mer

ican

Sam

ple

TA

BL

E 5

8C

OM

PAR

ISO

NS

BE

TW

EE

N M

AL

E A

ND

FE

MA

LE

RE

SPO

ND

EN

TS'

Form

al E

duca

tion

Supp

ort C

ente

r

Pres

choo

lers

' Doo

r to

Lea

rnin

g

Ref

eren

ce L

ibra

ry -

Per

sona

l

Ref

eren

ce L

ibra

ry -

Bus

ines

s

Com

mun

ity A

ctiv

ities

Cen

ter

Res

earc

h C

ente

r

Com

mun

ity I

nfor

mat

ion

Cen

ter

Inde

pend

ent L

earn

ing

Cen

ter

Publ

ic W

ork

Plac

e

Popu

lar

Mat

eria

ls L

ibra

ry

Mal

eFe

mal

e(N

= 4

00)

(N =

446

)

51

3.77

3.72

3.35

3.30

2.99

3.44

3.49

3.76

3.22

3.23

%i

%a

le

83.7

3.92

93.1

.000

.023

76.6

3.88

89.4

.000

.027

45.8

3.41

49.7

n.S.

51.3

3.47

57.9

.002

.012

37.3

3.21

44.2

.001

.014

59.7

3.67

74.5

.000

.026

59.7

3.63

69.9

.003

.011

81.5

3.85

87.5

.006

.009

45.4

3.49

57.3

.000

.029

43.8

3.49

59.9

.000

.027

Thi

s ta

ble

repo

rts

the

sum

mar

y an

alys

es o

f var

ianc

e fo

r th

e co

mpa

rison

s am

ong

the

mea

n ro

le im

port

ance

sca

le s

core

s fo

r th

e gr

oups

of r

espo

nden

ts id

entif

ied

by th

e co

lum

n he

adin

gs.

Not

e: N

is th

e sa

mpl

e si

ze fo

r ea

ch g

roup

and

rep

rese

nts,

in g

ener

al, t

he n

umbe

rof

res

pond

ents

who

rat

ed e

ach

role

.ii

repr

esen

ts th

e m

ean

ratin

g fo

r ea

ch m

le o

n th

e fo

ur-p

oint

impo

rtan

ce

scal

e. E

xpla

natio

ns o

f a (

the

alph

a le

vel)

and

112

(the

coe

ffici

ent o

fde

term

inat

ion)

are

pro

vide

d on

pag

e II

I. T

he in

itial

s n.

s. in

dica

te th

at th

e ob

serv

eddi

ffere

nces

am

ong

the

grou

p m

eans

are

not s

tatis

tical

ly s

igni

fican

t. %

rep

rese

nts

the

perc

enta

ge o

f eac

h gr

oup

that

rat

ed th

e ro

le "

very

impo

rtan

t." T

hese

% a

re p

rese

nted

for

desc

riptiv

e pu

rpos

es.

For

som

e ro

les

ther

e w

ere

a fe

w

non-

resp

onde

nts,

but

thes

e sl

ight

diff

eren

ces

in s

ampl

e si

zes

are

inco

nseq

uent

ial f

or th

e pu

rpos

eof

est

imat

ing

the

sam

plin

g er

ror

asso

ciat

ed w

ith th

e pe

rcen

tage

of r

espo

nden

tsw

ho r

ated

the

role

s "v

ery

impo

rtan

t."2

(1

- 12

4 -

Cau

casi

an A

mer

icas

. Sam

ple

TA

BLE

59

CO

MP

AR

ISO

NS

AM

ON

G R

ES

PO

ND

EN

TS

FR

OM

DIF

FE

RE

NT

AG

E G

RO

UP

S'

18-3

536

-50

51-6

566

and

up

(N =

301

)(N

= 2

24)

(N =

159

)(N

= 1

56)

)7

For

mal

Edu

catio

n S

uppo

rt C

ente

r3.

81

Pre

scho

oler

s' D

oor

to L

earn

ing

3.84

Ref

eren

ce L

ibra

ry -

Per

sona

l3.

38

Ref

eren

ce L

ibra

ry -

Bus

ines

s3.

44

Com

mun

ity A

ctiv

ities

Cen

ter

3.07

Res

earc

h C

ente

r3.

53

Com

mun

ity In

form

atio

n C

ente

r3.

61

Inde

pend

ent L

earn

ing

Cen

ter

3.88

Pub

lic W

ork

Pla

ce3.

31

Pop

ular

Mat

eria

ls L

ibra

ry3.

25

%i

%i

%i

%a,

R2

87.0

3.88

90.2

3.88

89.6

3.84

88.1

n.s

85.1

3.79

81.9

3.76

83.2

3.78

81.5

n.s.

45.2

3.41

49.4

3.38

47.3

3.33

51.3

n.s.

55.7

3.39

52.9

3.37

54.4

3.30

56.0

n.s.

18.3

3.00

35.0

3.25

48.6

3.18

47.5

n.s.

66.0

3.52

63.0

3.58

69.5

3.66

75.2

n.s.

67.5

3.52

61.7

3.52

62.2

3.57

68.3

n.s.

88.8

3.79

84.3

3.72

77.3

3.79

84.8

.011

.013

47.7

3.28

44.1

3.45

58.5

3.49

63.3

.015

.013

43.0

3.37

51.2

3.44

57.7

3.51

66.2

.005

.015

*Thi

s ta

ble

repo

rts

the

sum

mar

y an

alys

es o

f va

rian

ce f

or th

e co

mpa

riso

ns a

mon

g th

e m

ean

role

impo

rtan

ce s

cale

sco

res

for

the

grou

ps o

f re

spon

dent

s id

entif

ied

byth

e co

lum

n he

adin

gs.

Not

e: N

is th

e sa

mpl

e si

ze f

or e

ach

grou

p an

d r,

Tre

sent

s, in

gen

eral

, the

num

ber

of r

espo

nden

ts w

ho r

ated

eac

h ro

le.

if r

epre

sent

s th

e m

ean

ratin

g fo

r ea

ch r

ole

on th

e fo

ur-p

oint

impo

rtan

cesc

ale.

Exp

lana

tions

of

a (t

he a

lpha

leve

l) a

nd R

(th

e co

effi

cien

t of

dete

rmin

atio

n) a

rc p

rovi

ded

on p

age

111.

The

initi

als

n.s.

indi

cate

that

the

&ne

rved

diff

eren

ces

amon

g th

e gr

oup

mea

ns a

reno

t sta

tistic

ally

sig

nifi

cant

. % r

epre

sent

s th

e pe

rcen

tage

of

each

gro

up th

at r

ated

the

role

"ve

ry im

port

ant"

The

se %

are

pre

sent

ed f

or d

escr

iptiv

e pu

rpos

es. F

or s

ome

role

s th

ere

wer

e a

few

non-

resp

onde

nts,

but

thes

e sl

ight

dif

fere

nces

in s

ampl

e si

zes

are

inco

nseq

uent

ial f

or th

e pu

rpos

e of

est

imat

ing

the

sIm

plin

g er

ror

asso

ciat

ed w

ith th

e pe

rcen

tage

of

resp

onde

nts

who

rate

d th

ero

les

"ver

y im

port

ant."

- 12

5 -

2

Cau

casi

an A

mer

ican

Sam

ple

TA

BL

E 6

0C

OM

PAR

ISO

NS

AM

ON

G R

ESP

ON

DE

NT

S B

ASE

D O

N H

IGH

EST

GR

AD

E L

EV

EL

CO

MPL

ET

ED

'

8th

grad

e9t

h-llt

hC

ompl

eted

or le

ssgr

ade

12th

gra

deSo

me

colle

geco

llege

(N =

59)

(N =

90)

(N =

328

)(N

= 1

79)

(N =

190

)

I%

I%

)7

Form

al E

duca

tion

Supp

ort C

ente

r3.

9796

.73.

6473

.03.

83

Pres

choo

lers

' Doo

r to

Lea

rnin

g3.

9092

.13.

7580

.53.

82

Ref

eren

ce L

ibra

ry -

Per

sona

l3.

7581

.73.

4055

.13.

36

Ref

eren

ce L

ibra

ry -

Bus

ines

s3.

6579

.63.

3048

.83.

43

Com

mun

ity A

ctiv

ities

Cen

ter

3.41

60.4

3.00

37.9

3.09

Res

earc

h C

ente

r3.

7780

.73.

5364

.43.

59

Com

mun

ity I

nfor

mat

ion

Cen

ter

3.73

75.3

3.66

71.4

3.61

Inde

pend

ent L

earn

ing

Cen

ter

3.97

96.9

3.84

86.1

3.84

Publ

ic W

ork

Plac

e3.

5967

.63.

6269

.53.

43

Popu

lar

Mat

eria

ls L

ibra

ry3.

3760

.73.

4459

.63.

35

%i

er ,o

88.6

3.93

93.8

85.1

3.83

85.1

45.2

3.35

40.9

55.9

3.40

54.8

42.0

3.11

38.4

68.8

3.57

68.8

69.8

3.54

62.5

86.8

3.77

82.2

54.0

3.26

44.8

53.5

3.37

49.0

I3.

87

3.74

3.33

3.29

3.09

3.45

3.40

3.73

3.15

3.36

%a.

112

88.6

.000

.031

77.6

n.s.

45.9

.001

.021

48.5

.023

.014

37.7

n.s.

62.1

.041

.012

53.7

.002

.021

79.0

.009

.016

41.4

.000

.039

47.8

n.s.

Thi

s ta

ble

repo

rts

the

sum

mar

y an

alys

es o

f var

ianc

e fo

r th

e co

mpa

rison

s am

ong

the

mea

n ro

le im

port

ance

sca

le s

core

s fo

r th

e gr

oups

of r

espo

nden

ts id

entif

ied

byth

e co

lum

n he

adin

gs.

Not

e: N

is th

e sa

mpl

e si

ze fo

r ea

ch g

roup

and

rep

rese

nts,

in g

ener

al, t

he n

umbe

r of

res

pond

ents

who

rat

ed e

ach

role

. I r

epre

sent

s th

e m

ean

ratin

g fo

r ea

ch r

ole

on th

e fo

ur-p

oint

impo

rtan

cesc

ale.

Exp

lana

tions

of a

(th

e al

pha

leve

l) an

d R

2 (t

he c

oeffi

cien

t of d

eter

min

atio

n) a

rc p

mvi

ded

on p

age

111.

The

initi

als

n.s.

indi

cate

that

the

obse

rved

diffe

renc

es a

mon

g th

e gr

oup

mea

ns a

reno

t sta

tistic

ally

sig

nific

ant.

% r

epre

sent

s th

e pe

rcen

tage

of e

ach

grou

p th

at r

ated

the

role

"ve

ry im

port

ant."

The

se %

are

pre

sent

ed fo

r de

scrip

tive

purp

oses

. For

som

e rol

es th

ere

wer

e a

few

inno

n-re

spon

dent

s, b

ut th

ese

slig

ht d

iffer

ence

s in

sam

ple

size

s ar

e in

cons

eque

ntia

l for

thc

purp

ose

of e

stim

atin

g th

c sa

mpl

ing

erro

r as

soci

ated

with

the

perc

enta

ge o

f res

pond

ents

who

rate

d th

e 0

Ij r

oles

"ve

ry im

port

ant."

- 12

6 -

Cau

casi

an A

mer

ican

Sam

ple

TA

BL

E 6

1C

OM

PAR

ISO

NS

AM

ON

G R

ESP

ON

DE

NT

S B

ASE

D O

N A

WA

RD

OF

HIG

H S

CH

OO

L D

IPL

OM

A'

Hig

h sc

hool

dipl

oma

(N =

346

)

i%

No

high

sch

ool

dipl

oma

(N =

130

)

i%

aR

2

Form

al E

duca

tion

Supp

ort C

ente

r3.

8388

.43.

7581

.8n.

s.

Pres

choo

lers

' Doo

r to

Lea

rnin

g38

.285

.33.

8384

.5n.

s.

Ref

eren

ce L

ibra

ry -

Per

sona

l3.

3646

.53.

5564

.8.0

10.0

14

Ref

eren

ce L

ibra

ry -

Bus

ines

s3.

4256

.53.

4759

.8n.

s.

Com

mun

ity A

ctiv

ities

Cen

ter

3.13

42.4

3.07

46.1

n.s.

Res

earc

h C

ente

r3.

6170

.13.

6067

.5n.

s.

Com

mun

ity I

nfor

mat

ion

Cen

ter

3.61

69.8

3.69

73.3

n.s.

Inde

pend

ent L

earn

ing

Cen

ter

3.84

87.1

3.89

90.1

n.s.

Publ

ic W

ork

Plac

e3.

4354

.33.

6470

.1.0

05.0

17

Popu

lar

Mat

eria

ls L

ibra

ry3.

3854

.83.

3357

.3n.

s.

Thi

s ta

ble

repo

rts

the

sum

mar

y an

alys

es o

f var

ianc

e fo

r th

e co

mpa

rison

s am

ong

the

mea

n ro

le im

port

ance

sca

le s

core

s fo

r th

e gr

oups

of r

espo

nden

ts id

entif

ied

byth

e co

lum

n he

adin

gs.

Not

e: N

is th

e sa

mpl

e si

ze fo

r ea

ch g

roup

and

rep

rese

nts,

in g

ener

al, t

he n

umbe

r of

res

pond

ents

who

rat

ed e

ach

role

. j r

epre

sent

s th

e m

ean

ratin

g fo

r ea

ch r

ole

on th

e fo

ur-p

oint

impo

rtan

cesc

ale.

Exp

lana

tions

of a

(th

e al

pha

leve

l) an

d le

(th

e co

effic

ient

of d

eter

min

atio

n) a

re p

rovi

ded

on p

age

I I I.

The

initi

als

n.s.

indi

cate

that

the

obse

rved

diff

eren

ces

amon

g th

e gr

oup

mea

ns a

reno

r st

atis

tical

ly s

igni

fican

t. %

rep

rese

nts

the

perc

enta

ge o

f eac

h gr

oup

that

rat

ed th

e ro

le "

very

impo

rtan

t." T

hese

% a

rc p

rese

nted

for

desc

riptiv

e pu

rpos

es. F

or s

omer

oles

ther

e w

ere

a fe

wno

n.re

spon

dent

s, b

ut th

ese

slig

ht d

iffer

ence

s in

sam

ple

size

s ar

e in

cons

eque

ntia

l for

the

purp

osc

of e

stim

atin

g th

e sa

mpl

ing

erro

r as

soci

ated

with

the

perc

enta

ge o

f res

pond

ents

who

rate

d th

ero

les

"ver

y im

port

ant."

- 12

7 -

2 u

Cau

casi

an A

mer

ican

Sam

ple

TA

BL

E 6

2C

OM

PAR

ISO

NS

AM

ON

G R

ESP

ON

DE

NT

S B

ASE

D O

N M

AR

ITA

L S

TA

TU

S* Nev

erM

arri

edW

idow

edD

ivor

ced

mar

ried

(N =

518

)(N

= 9

3)(N

= 8

6)(N

= 1

47)

k%

i%

I%

I%

ale

.018

.012

n.s.

n.s.

n.s.

.028

.011

n.s.

.001

.019

n.s.

.002

.018

.029

.011

Form

al E

duca

tion

Supp

ort C

ente

r3.

8588

.23.

9293

.63.

9395

.83.

7583

.3

Pres

choo

lers

' Do.

or to

Lea

rnin

g3.

7881

.83.

8489

.93.

9090

.23.

8080

.8

Ref

eren

ce L

ibra

ry -

Per

sona

l3.

3746

.63.

4962

.83.

3849

.03.

3442

.5

Ref

eren

ce L

ibra

ry -

Bus

ines

s3.

4054

.63.

4867

.63.

3152

.23.

3549

.6

Com

mun

ity A

ctiv

ities

Cen

ter

3.08

39.3

3.35

56.4

3.19

41.9

3.00

37.1

Res

earc

h C

ente

r3.

5767

.03.

7378

.83.

4965

.23.

4764

.4

Com

mun

ity I

nfor

mat

ion

Cen

ter

3.52

61.7

3.80

83.2

3.66

72.6

3.51

60.6

Inde

pend

ent L

earn

ing

Cen

ter

3.78

82.5

3.87

90.2

3.85

88.7

3.86

87.0

Publ

ic W

ork

Plac

e3.

3450

.03.

6570

.63.

3953

.63.

2645

.7

Popu

lar

Mat

eria

ls L

ibra

ry3.

3752

.93.

5768

.23.

3348

.33.

2643

.2

Thi

s ta

ble

repo

rts

the

sum

mar

y an

alys

es o

f var

ianc

e fo

r th

e co

mpa

rison

s am

ong

the

mea

n ro

le im

port

ance

sca

le s

core

s fo

rth

e gr

oups

of r

espo

nden

ts id

entif

ied

by th

e co

lum

n he

adin

gs.

Not

e: N

is th

e sa

mpl

e si

ze fo

r ea

ch g

roup

and

rep

rese

nts,

in g

ener

al, t

he n

umbe

r of

res

pond

ents

who

rat

ed e

ach

role

.i r

epre

sent

s th

e m

ean

ratin

g fo

r ea

ch r

ole

on th

e fo

ux-p

oint

impo

rtan

ce

scal

e. E

xpla

natio

ns o

f a (

the

alph

a le

vel)

and

122

(the

coe

ffici

ent o

f det

erm

inat

ion)

are

pro

vide

d on

pag

e I l

l. T

he in

itial

s n.

s.in

dica

te th

at th

e ob

serv

ed d

iffer

ence

s am

ong

the

grou

p m

eans

are

i inc

./ st

atis

tical

ly s

igni

fican

t. %

rep

rese

nts

the

perc

enta

ge o

f eac

h gr

oup

that

rat

ed th

ero

le "

very

impo

rtan

t." T

hese

% a

re p

rese

nted

for

desc

riptiv

e pu

rpos

es. F

or s

ome

role

s th

ere

wer

e a

few

non-

resp

onde

nts.

hut

thes

e sl

ight

diff

eren

ces

in s

ampl

e si

zes

are

inco

nseq

uent

ial f

or th

e pu

rr.)

se o

f est

imat

ing

the

sam

plin

g er

ror

asso

ciat

ed w

ith th

e pe

rcen

tage

of r

espo

nden

ts w

ho r

ated

the

role

s "v

ery

impo

rtan

t"4

Cau

casi

an A

mer

kan

Sam

ple

TA

BL

E 6

3O

OM

PAR

ISO

NS

AM

ON

G R

ESP

ON

DE

NT

S B

ASE

D O

N N

UM

BE

R O

F PE

OPL

E I

N T

HE

HO

ME

.

1

(N =

148

)2

(N =

294

)3

(N =

148

)

%1

%X

%

Form

al E

duca

tion

Supp

ort C

ente

r3.

9294

.93.

7982

.83.

8186

.2

Pres

choo

lers

' Doo

r to

Lea

rnin

g3.

8486

.43.

7479

.63.

8484

.6

Ref

eren

ce L

ibra

ry -

Per

sona

l3.

3953

.33.

3244

.53.

3540

.5

Ref

eren

ce L

ibra

ry -

Bus

ines

s3.

3658

.03.

4156

.33.

2645

.8

Com

mun

ity A

ctiv

ities

Cen

ter

3.24

47.1

3.09

38.9

2.96

36.1

Res

earc

h C

ente

r3.

6476

.53.

5466

.63.

5061

.7

Com

mun

ity I

nfor

mat

ion

Cen

ter

3.69

73.9

3.47

59.6

3.49

57.6

Inde

pend

ent L

earn

ing

Cen

ter

3.87

88.7

3.77

82.8

3.76

80.6

Publ

ic W

ork

Plac

e3.

5464

.13.

3047

.43.

2043

.0

Popu

lar

Mat

eria

ls L

ibra

ry3.

4557

.83.

3753

.83.

2040

.4

45

or m

ore

(N =

151

)(N

= 9

7)

I%

3.90

92.6

3.82

83.4

3.47

54.8

3.44

53.5

3.09

39.6

3.56

66.4

3.63

71.4

3.81

83.6

3.33

48.4

3.36

51.6

I%

a

3.89

93.4

.038

.012

3.86

87.6

n.s.

3.42

48.7

n.s.

3.49

60.3

n.s.

3.19

45.7

n.s.

3.56

66.7

n.s.

3.63

68.9

.006

.017

3.91

91.5

n.s.

3.59

63.9

.000

.029

3.45

56.9

n.s.

Thi

s ta

ble

repo

rts

the

sum

mar

y an

alys

es o

f var

ianc

e fo

r th

e co

mpa

rison

s am

ong

the

mea

n ro

le im

port

ance

sca

le s

core

s fo

r th

e gr

oups

of r

espo

nden

ts id

entif

ied

byth

e co

lum

n he

adin

gs.

Not

e: N

is th

e sa

mpl

e si

ze fo

r ea

ch g

roup

and

rep

rese

nts,

in g

ener

al, t

he n

umbe

r of

res

pond

ents

who

rat

ed e

ach

role

. I r

epre

sent

s th

e m

ean

ratin

g fo

r ea

ch r

ole

on th

e fo

ur-p

oint

impo

rtan

cesc

ak. E

xpla

natio

ns o

f a (

the

alph

a le

vel)

and

It2 (

the

coef

ficie

nt o

f det

erm

inat

ion)

are

pro

vide

d on

pag

e 11

1. T

he in

itial

s n.

s. in

dica

te th

at th

e ob

serv

eddi

ffere

nces

am

ong

the

grou

p m

eans

are

not s

tatis

tical

ly s

igni

fican

t. %

rep

rese

nts

the

perc

enta

ge o

f eac

h gr

oup

that

rat

ed th

e ro

le "

very

impo

rtan

t." T

hese

% a

re p

rese

nted

for

desc

riptiv

e pu

rpos

es. F

or s

ome

role

s th

ere

wer

e a

few

non-

resp

onde

nts,

but

thes

e sf

ight

diff

eren

ces

in s

ampl

e si

zes

are

inco

nseq

uent

ial f

or th

e pu

rpos

e of

est

imat

ing

the

sam

plin

g er

ror

asso

ciat

ed w

ith th

e pe

rcen

tage

of r

espo

nden

ts w

hora

ted

the

role

s "v

ery

impo

rtan

t."

129

-

22

2

Cau

casi

an A

mer

ican

Sam

ple

TA

BL

E 6

4C

OM

PAR

ISO

NS

AM

ON

G R

ESP

ON

DE

NT

S B

ASE

D O

N N

UM

BE

R O

F PR

ESC

HO

OL

ER

S IN

TH

EH

OM

E*

No

pres

choo

lers

in th

e ho

me

(N =

536

)

i%

Form

al E

duca

tion

Supp

ort C

ente

r3.

8285

.6

Pres

choo

lers

' Doo

r to

Lea

rnin

g3.

7881

.6

Ref

eren

ce L

ibra

ry -

Per

sona

l3.

3545

.0

Ref

eren

ce L

ibra

ryB

usin

ess

3.38

53.2

Com

mun

ity A

ctiv

ities

Cen

ter

3.05

39.2

Res

earc

h C

ente

r3.

5465

.9

Com

mun

ity I

nfor

mat

ion

Cen

ter

3.48

59.4

Inde

pend

ent L

earn

ing

Cen

ter

3.77

82.5

Publ

ic W

ork

Plac

e3.

2947

.2

Popu

lar

Mat

eria

ls L

ibra

ry3.

3450

.8

1 or

mor

e pr

r,sc

hool

ers

Zhe

hom

e(N

= 1

51)

1%

aR

2

3.86

92.8

n.s.

3.86

86.1

n.s.

3.45

51.9

n.s.

3.44

57.3

n.s.

3.15

40.3

n.s.

3.56

65.2

n.s.

3.73

75.8

.000

.022

3.88

87.7

.029

.007

3.44

55.7

n.s.

3.36

50.9

n.s.

Thi

s ta

ble

repo

rts

the

sum

mar

y an

alys

es o

f var

ianc

e fo

r th

e co

mpa

rison

s am

ong

the

mea

n ro

le im

port

ance

sca

le s

core

s fo

rth

e gr

oups

of r

espo

nden

ts id

entif

ied

by th

e co

lum

n he

adin

gs.

Not

e: N

is th

e sa

mpl

e si

ze fo

r ea

ch g

roup

and

rep

rese

nts,

in g

ener

al, t

he n

umbe

r of

res

pond

ents

who

rat

ed e

ach

role

.i r

epre

sent

s th

e m

ean

ratin

g fo

r ea

ch r

ole

on th

e fo

ur-p

oint

impo

rtan

ce

scal

e. E

xpla

natio

ns o

f a (

the

alph

a le

vel)

and

IV (

the

coef

ficie

nt o

f det

erm

inat

ion)

are

pro

vide

d on

pag

e 11

1. T

he in

itial

s n.

s.in

dica

te th

at th

e ob

serv

ed d

iffer

ence

s am

ong

the

grou

p m

eans

are

nor

stat

istic

ally

sig

nific

ant.

% r

epre

sent

s th

e pe

rcen

tage

of e

ach

grou

p th

at r

ated

the

role

"ve

ryim

port

ant."

The

se %

are

pre

sent

ed fo

r de

scrip

tive

purp

oses

. For

som

e ro

les

ther

e w

en: a

few

0no

n-re

spon

dent

s. b

ut th

ese

slig

ht d

iffer

ence

s in

sam

ple

size

s ar

e in

cons

eque

ntia

l for

the

purp

ose

of e

stim

atin

g th

e sa

mpl

ing

erro

ras

soci

ated

with

the

perc

enta

ge o

f res

pond

ents

who

rat

ed th

e

role

s "v

ery

impo

rtan

t."

- 13

0 -

2

Cau

casi

an A

mer

ican

Sam

ple

TA

BL

E 6

5C

OM

PAR

ISO

NS

AM

ON

G R

ESP

ON

DE

NT

S B

ASE

D O

N N

UM

BE

R O

F ST

UD

EN

TS

IN T

HE

HO

ME

°

No

stud

ents

in th

e ho

me

(N =

384

)

IFo

rmal

Edu

catio

n Su

ppor

t Cen

ter

3.78

Pres

choo

lers

' Doo

r to

Lea

rnin

g3.

77

Ref

eren

ce L

ibra

ry -

Per

sona

l3.

34

Ref

eren

ce L

ibra

ry -

Bus

ines

s3.

38

Com

mun

ity A

ctiv

ities

Cen

ter

3.08

Res

earc

h C

ente

r3.

55

Com

mun

ity I

nfor

mat

ion

Cen

ter

3.51

Inde

pend

ent L

earn

ing

Cen

ter

3.77

Publ

ic W

ork

Plac

e3.

27

Popu

lar

Mat

eria

ls L

ibra

ry3.

34

1 or

mor

e st

uden

tsin

the

hom

e(N

= 3

05)

%i

%a

R2

83.3

3.90

92.1

.002

.014

80.9

3.83

84.6

n.s.

44.7

3.42

48.4

n.s.

53.9

3.41

54.0

n.s.

38.5

3.06

40.4

n.s.

66.4

3.53

64.7

n.s.

62,2

3.56

64.1

n.s.

81.2

3.83

86.8

n.s.

46.4

3.39

52.1

.949

.006

51.4

3.35

50.0

n.s.

Thi

s ta

ble

repo

rts

the

sum

mar

y an

alys

es o

f var

ianc

e fo

r th

e co

mpa

rison

s am

ong

the

mea

n ro

le im

port

ance

sca

le s

core

s fo

r th

e gr

oups

of r

espo

nden

ts id

entif

ied

byth

e co

lum

n he

adin

gs.

Not

e: N

is th

e sa

mpl

e si

ze fo

r ea

ch g

roup

and

rep

rese

nts,

in g

ener

al, t

he n

umbe

r of

res

pond

ents

who

rat

ed e

ach

role

. I r

epre

sent

s th

e m

ean

ratin

g fo

r ea

ch r

ole

on th

e fo

ur-p

oint

impo

rtan

cesc

ale.

Exp

lana

tions

of a

(th

e al

pha

leve

l) an

d 11

2 (t

he c

oeffi

cien

t of d

eter

min

atio

n) a

re p

rovi

ded

on p

age

Ill. T

hc in

itial

s n.

s. in

dica

te th

at th

e ob

serv

eddi

ffere

nces

am

ong

the

grou

p m

eans

are

not s

tatis

tical

ly s

igni

fican

t. %

rep

rese

nts

the

perc

enta

ge o

f eac

h gr

oup

that

rat

ed th

e ro

le "

very

impo

rtan

t." T

hese

% a

rc p

rese

nted

for

desc

riptiv

e pu

rpos

es. F

or s

omer

oles

ther

e w

ere

a fe

w

non-

resp

onde

nts.

but

thes

e sl

ight

diff

eren

cs in

sam

ple

size

s ar

c in

cons

eque

ntia

l for

the

purp

ose

of e

stim

atin

g th

z sa

mpl

ing

erro

r as

soci

ated

with

the

perc

enta

geof

res

pond

ents

who

rat

ed th

e

role

s "v

ery

impo

rtan

t." 2t

- 13

1 -

2.2

..

2

Cau

casi

an A

mer

kan

Sam

ple

TA

BL

E 6

6C

OM

PAR

ISO

NS

BE

TW

EE

N R

ESP

ON

DE

NT

S W

HO

AR

E S

TU

DE

NT

SA

ND

RE

SPO

ND

EN

TS

WH

O A

RE

NO

Ti

,

3tud

ents

(N =

84)

_ X%

Form

al E

duca

tion

Supp

ort C

ente

r3.

8989

.7

Pres

choo

lers

' Doo

r to

Lea

rnin

g3.

8888

.0

Ref

eren

ce L

ibra

ry -

Per

sona

l3.

3340

.7

Ref

eren

ce L

ibra

ry -

Bus

ines

s3.

4762

.3

Com

mun

ity A

ctiv

ities

Cen

ter

3.06

40.8

Res

earc

h C

ente

r3.

5463

.8

Com

mun

ity I

nfor

mat

ion

Cen

ter

3.65

69.5

Inde

pend

ent L

earn

ing

Cen

ter

3.89

89.4

Publ

ic W

ork

Plac

e3.

4353

.3

Popu

lar

Mat

eria

ls L

ibra

ry3.

3349

.2

Non

-stu

dent

s(N

= 7

59)

I%

a

3.84

88.5

n.s.

3.80

82.9

n.s.

3.38

48.6

n.s.

3.38

53.8

n.s.

3.12

41.1

n.s.

3.56

68.0

n.s.

3.55

64.5

n.s.

3.80

84.1

n.s.

3.35

51.5

n.s.

3.37

52.6

n.s.

R2

Thi

s ta

ble

repo

rts

the

sum

mar

y an

alys

es o

f var

ianc

e fo

r th

e co

mpa

rison

s am

ong

the

mea

n m

le im

port

ance

sca

le s

core

s fo

r th

e gr

oups

of r

espo

nden

ts id

entif

ied

byth

e co

lum

n he

adin

gs.

Not

e: N

is th

e sa

mpl

e si

ze fo

r ea

ch g

roup

and

rep

rese

nts,

in g

ener

al, t

he n

umbe

r of

res

pond

ents

who

rat

ed e

ach

role

. i r

epre

sent

s th

e m

ean

ratin

g fo

r ea

ch r

ole

on th

e fo

ur-p

oint

impo

rtan

cesc

ale.

Exp

lana

tions

of a

(th

e al

pha

leve

l) an

d IV

(th

e co

effic

ient

of d

eter

min

atio

n) a

re p

rovi

ded

on p

age

I II.

The

initi

als

n.s.

indi

cate

that

the

obse

rved

diff

eren

ces

amon

g th

e gr

oup

mea

ns a

reno

t sta

tistic

ally

sig

nific

ant.

% r

epre

sent

s th

e pe

rcen

tage

of c

ach

poop

that

rat

ed th

e ro

le "

very

impo

rtan

t." T

hese

% a

rc p

rese

nted

for

desc

riptiv

e pu

rpos

es. F

or s

ome

role

s th

ere

wer

e a

few

non-

resp

onde

nts.

but

thes

e sl

ight

diff

eren

cs in

sam

ple

size

s ar

c in

cons

eque

ntia

l for

the

purp

ose

of e

stim

atin

g th

e sa

mpl

ing

erro

r as

soci

ated

with

the

perc

enta

ge o

f rm

spon

dent

s w

hora

tedr

the.

,ro

les

"ver

y im

port

ant."

Iki

Cau

casi

an A

mer

ican

Sam

ple

TA

BL

E 6

7C

OM

PAR

ISO

NS

AM

ON

G R

ESP

ON

DE

NT

S W

ITH

DIP

PER

EN

T E

MPL

OY

ME

NT

ST

AT

US.

Em

ploy

edE

mpl

oyed

Not

infu

ll tim

epa

rt ti

me

Une

mpl

oyed

Ret

ired

wor

k fo

rce

(N =

431

)(N

= 1

02)

(N =

55)

(N =

185

)(N

= 6

8)

%X

%X

%X

cif

%a

R2

90.4

n.s.

90.2

n.s.

51.3

n.s.

78.6

.000

.032

46.8

n.s.

72.3

n.s.

79.6

n.s.

89.9

n.s.

63.3

.011

.016

56.2

n.s.

Form

al E

duca

tion

Supp

ort C

ente

r3.

8588

.53.

8989

.83.

7283

.53.

8589

.13.

88

Pres

choo

lers

' Doo

r to

Lea

rnin

g3.

7881

.03.

9291

.53.

7783

.13.

7791

.73.

88

Ref

eren

ce L

ibra

ry -

Per

sona

l3.

3646

.43.

4951

.33.

3445

.23.

3448

.53.

47

Ref

eren

ce L

ibra

ryB

usin

ess

3.40

52.8

3.48

57.7

3.09

42.4

3.27

52.7

3.74

Com

mun

ity A

ctiv

ities

Cen

ter

3.07

37.1

3.11

47.6

2.96

38.4

3.19

45.7

3.30

Res

earc

h C

ente

r3.

5062

.93.

5770

.83.

5369

.43.

6674

.73.

69

Com

mun

ity I

nfor

mat

ion

Cen

ter

3.54

63.4

3.55

64.7

3.57

62.6

3.54

64.4

3.74

Inde

pend

ent L

earn

ing

Cen

ter

3.81

84.5

3.79

83.0

3.80

83.7

3.78

83.8

3.89

Publ

ic W

ork

Plac

e3.

2746

.33.

4453

.73.

4152

.43.

4458

.63.

56

Popu

lar

Mat

eria

ls L

ibra

ry3.

3147

.63.

4657

.83.

2745

.33.

4560

.73.

48

Thi

s ta

ble

repo

rts

the

sum

mar

y an

alys

es o

f var

ianc

e fo

r th

e co

mpa

rison

s am

ong

the

mea

n ro

le im

port

ance

sca

le s

core

s fo

r th

e gr

oups

of r

espo

nden

ts id

entif

ied

byth

e co

lum

n he

adin

gs.

Not

e: N

is th

e sa

mpl

e si

ze fo

r ea

ch g

roup

and

rep

rese

nts,

in g

ener

al, t

he n

umbe

r of

res

pond

ents

who

rat

ed e

ach

role

. I r

epre

sent

s th

e m

ean

ratin

g fo

r ea

ch r

ole

on th

e fo

ur-p

oint

impo

rtan

cesc

ale.

Exp

lana

tions

of c

x (t

he a

lpha

leve

l) an

d R

2 (t

he c

oeffi

cien

t of d

eter

min

atio

n) a

re p

rovi

ded

on p

age

111.

The

initi

als

n.s.

indi

cate

that

the

obse

rved

diffe

renc

es a

mon

g th

e gr

oup

mea

ns a

reno

t sta

tistic

ally

sig

nific

ant.

% r

epre

sent

s th

e pe

rcen

tage

of e

ach

goup

that

rat

ed th

e ro

le "

very

impo

rtan

t." T

hese

% a

re p

rese

nted

for

desc

riptiv

e pu

rpos

es. F

or s

ome

role

s th

ere

wer

e a

few

non-

resp

onde

nts,

but

thes

e sl

ight

diff

eren

ces

in s

ampl

e si

zes

are

inco

nseq

uent

ial f

or th

e pu

rpos

e of

est

imat

ing

the

sam

plin

g er

ror

asso

ciat

ed w

ith th

e pe

rcen

tage

of r

espo

nden

ts w

hora

ted

the

role

s "v

ery

impo

rtan

t."

- 13

3 -

2A

.,'L

)

Cau

casi

an A

mer

ican

Sam

ple

TA

BL

E 6

8C

OM

PAR

ISO

NS

AM

ON

G R

ESP

ON

DE

NT

S W

ITH

D11

F.E

RE

NT

AN

NU

AL

HO

USE

HO

LD

IN

CO

ME

'

Les

s th

an$1

5,00

0(N

= 1

11)

$15,

0004

29,9

99(N

= 2

21)

$30,

0004

44,9

99(N

= 1

95)

$45,

000-

$59,

999

(N =

96)

$60,

000

or m

ore

(N =

103

)

%%

X%

X%

%R

2

Form

al E

duca

tion

Supp

ort C

ente

r3.

7888

.53.

8590

.53.

9293

.33.

9594

.63.

7881

.3.0

15.0

17

Pres

choo

lers

' Doo

r to

Lea

rnin

g3.

8889

.83.

8284

.53.

8385

.33.

7782

.73.

6973

.2.0

41.0

14

Ref

eren

ce L

ibra

ry -

Per

sona

l3.

5163

.03.

3446

.23.

4349

.63.

3443

.83.

3748

.3n.

s.

Ref

eren

ce L

ibra

ry -

Bus

ines

s3.

4967

.03.

4052

.83.

4658

.33.

2745

.53.

3354

.5n.

s.

Com

mun

ity A

ctiv

ities

Cen

ter

3.22

50.4

3.11

45.8

3.10

38.0

3.10

37.5

3.01

34.2

n.s.

Res

earc

h C

ente

r3.

7580

.63.

5667

.13.

5667

.43.

5966

.83.

4161

.2.0

18.0

17

Com

mun

ity I

nfor

mat

ion

Cen

ter

3.78

81.3

3.54

63.3

3.58

66.6

3.50

58.8

3.40

55.9

.001

.026

Inde

pend

ent L

earn

ing

Cen

ter

3.94

95.7

3.85

86.4

3.81

84.3

3.77

82.3

3.68

78.0

.004

.022

Publ

ic W

ork

Plac

e3.

7578

.53.

3752

.63.

3349

.43.

2143

.63.

1638

.7.0

00.0

52

Popu

lar

Mat

eria

ls L

ibra

ry3.

4760

.53.

2849

.33.

3550

.43.

4156

.93.

3850

.5n.

s.

Thi

s ta

ble

repo

rts

the

sum

mar

y an

alys

es o

f var

ianc

e fo

r th

e co

mpa

rison

s am

ong

the

mea

n ro

le im

port

ance

sca

le s

core

s fo

r th

e gr

oups

of r

espo

nden

ts id

entif

ied

byth

e co

lum

n he

adin

gs.

Not

e: N

is th

e sa

mpl

e si

ze fo

r ea

ch g

roup

and

rep

rese

nts,

in g

ener

al, t

he n

umbe

r of

res

pond

ents

who

rat

ed e

ach

role

.re

pres

ents

the

mea

n ra

ting

for

each

rol

e on

the

four

-poi

nt im

port

ance

scal

e. E

xpla

natio

ns o

f a (

the

alph

a le

vel)

and

It2 (

the

coef

ficie

nt o

f det

erm

inat

ion)

are

pro

vide

d on

pag

e 11

1. T

he in

itial

s n.

s. in

dica

te th

at th

e ob

serv

eddi

ffere

nces

am

ong

the

grou

p m

eans

are

not s

tatis

tical

ly s

igni

fican

t. %

rep

rese

nts

the

perc

enta

ge o

f eac

h gr

oup

that

rat

ed th

e ro

le "

very

impo

rtan

t." T

hese

% a

re p

rese

nted

for

desc

riptiv

e pu

rpos

es. F

or s

ome

role

s th

ere

wer

e a

few

non-

resp

onde

nts,

but

thes

e sl

ight

diff

eren

ces

in s

ampl

e si

zes

arc

inco

nseq

uent

ial f

or th

e pu

rpos

e of

est

imat

ing

the

sam

plin

g er

ror

asso

ciat

ed w

ith th

e pe

rcen

tage

of r

espo

nden

ts w

hora

ted

the

role

s "v

ery

impo

rtan

t."

- 13

4 -

Cau

casi

an A

mer

ican

Sam

ple

TA

BL

E 6

9C

OM

PAR

ISO

NS

BE

TW

EE

N R

ESP

ON

DE

NT

S W

HO

LIV

E I

N H

OU

SEH

OL

DS

WIT

HIN

DIV

IDU

AL

S W

HO

HA

VE

DIS

AB

ILIT

MS

AN

D R

ESP

ON

DE

NT

S W

HO

DO

NO

T*

Form

al E

duca

tion

Supp

ort C

ente

r

Pres

choo

lers

' Doo

r to

Lea

rnin

g

Ref

eren

ce L

ibra

ry -

Per

sona

l

Ref

eren

ce L

ibra

ry -

Bus

ines

s

Com

mun

ity A

ctiv

ities

Cen

ter

Res

earc

h C

ente

r

Com

mun

ity I

nfor

mat

ion

Cen

ter

Inde

pend

ent L

earn

ing

Cen

ter

Publ

ic W

ork

Plac

e

Popu

lar

Mat

eria

ls L

ibra

ry

Dis

abili

ties

(N =

119

)

i%

3.89

90.0

3.79

81.6

3.40

52.6

3.44

62.3

3.15

46.7

3.67

74.7

3.63

74.9

3.84

89.2

3.51

61.9

3.43

58.4

No

disa

bilit

ies

(N =

712

)

i%

3.84

88.5

3.80

83.4

3.38

47.1

3.38

53.5

3.10

40.1

3.54

66.6

3.55

63.4

3.80

84.0

3.33

49.5

3.35

51.2

a n.S.

n.s.

n.s.

n.s.

n.s.

n.s.

n.s.

n.s.

.023

n.s.

le .006

Thi

s ta

ble

repo

rts

the

sum

mar

y an

alys

es o

f va

rian

ce f

or th

e co

mpa

riso

ns a

mon

g th

e m

ean

role

impo

rtan

ce s

cale

sco

res

for

the

grou

ps o

f re

spon

dent

s id

entif

ied

by th

e co

lum

n he

adin

gs.

Not

e: N

is th

e sa

mpl

e si

Zt f

or e

ach

grou

p an

d re

pres

ents

, in

gene

ral,

the

num

ber

of r

espo

nden

ts w

ho r

ated

eac

h ro

k.i r

epre

sent

s th

e m

ean

ratin

g fo

r ea

ch r

ok o

n th

e fo

ur-p

oint

impo

rtan

cesc

ale.

Exp

lana

tions

of

a (t

he a

lpha

leve

l) a

nd le

(th

e co

effi

cien

t of

dete

rmin

atio

n) a

re p

rovi

ded

on p

age

111.

The

initi

als

n.s.

indi

cate

that

the

obse

rved

dif

fere

nces

am

ong

the

grou

p m

eans

are

not s

tatis

tical

ly s

igni

fica

nt. %

rep

rese

nts

the

perc

enta

ge o

f ea

ch g

roup

that

rat

ed th

e ro

le "

very

impo

rtan

t."T

hese

% a

re p

rese

nted

for

des

crip

tive

purp

oses

. For

som

e ro

les

ther

e w

ere

a fe

w

non-

resp

onde

nts,

but

thes

e sl

ight

dif

fere

nces

in s

ampl

e si

xes

are

inco

nseq

uent

ial f

or th

e pu

rpos

eof

est

imat

ing

the

sam

plin

g er

ror

asso

ciat

ed w

ith th

e pe

rcen

tage

of

resp

onde

nts

who

rat

ed th

e

role

s "v

ery

impo

rtan

t."

)-

135

-

2 'I.

',' 1

:

Cau

casi

an A

mer

ican

Sam

ple

TA

JLE

70

CO

MPA

RIS

ON

S B

ET

WE

EN

RE

SPO

ND

EN

TS

WH

O H

AV

E A

DIS

AB

ILIT

YA

ND

RE

SPO

ND

EN

TS

LIV

ING

IN

A H

OU

SEH

OL

D W

HE

RE

SO

ME

ON

E E

LSE

IS

DIS

AB

LE

D'

Res

pond

ent

Som

eone

els

e(N

= 6

4)(N

= 4

6)

I%

I%

aR

2

Form

al E

duca

tion

Supp

ort C

ente

r3.

8587

.03.

9292

.1n.

s.

Pres

choo

lers

' Doo

r to

Lea

rnin

g3.

8085

.53.

7474

.5n.

s.

Ref

eren

ce L

ibra

ryPe

rson

al3.

4961

.33.

2238

.5n.

s.

Ref

eren

ce L

ibra

ryB

usin

ess

3.54

73.4

3.22

41.7

.050

.035

Com

mun

ity A

ctiv

ities

Ceu

ter

3.19

51.9

3.02

35.0

n.s.

Res

earc

h C

ente

r3.

7783

.33.

5061

.3p4

1.0

41

Com

mun

ity I

nfor

mat

ion

Cen

ter

3.69

77.9

3.53

70.4

n.s.

Inde

pend

ent L

earn

ing

Cen

ter

3.88

90.0

3.75

86.0

n.s.

Publ

ic W

ork

Plac

e3.

6873

.03.

2644

.1.0

03.0

79

Popu

lar

Mat

eria

ls L

ibra

ry3.

5867

.13.

2141

.7.0

15.0

56

Thi

s ta

ble

repo

rts

the

sum

mar

y an

alys

es o

f var

ianc

e fo

r th

e co

mpa

rison

s am

ong

the

mea

n ro

le im

port

ance

sca

le s

core

s fo

r th

e gr

oups

of r

espo

nden

ts id

entif

ied

byth

e co

lum

n he

adin

gs.

Not

e: N

is th

e sa

mpl

e si

ze fo

r ea

ch g

roup

and

rep

rese

nts,

in g

ener

al, t

he n

umbe

r of

res

pond

ents

who

rat

ed e

ach

role

. I r

epre

sent

s th

e m

ean

ratin

g fo

r ea

ch r

ole

on th

e fo

ur-p

oint

impo

rtan

cesc

ale.

Exp

lana

tions

of a

(th

e al

pha

leve

l) an

d le

(th

e co

effic

ient

of d

eter

min

atio

n) a

re p

rovi

ded

on p

age

111.

The

initi

als

n.s.

indi

cate

that

the

obse

rved

diffe

renc

es a

mon

g th

e gr

oup

mea

ns a

reno

t sta

tistic

ally

sig

nific

ant.

% r

epre

sent

s th

e pe

rcen

tage

of e

ach

grou

p th

at r

ated

the

role

"ve

ry im

port

ant."

The

se %

are

pre

sent

ed fo

r de

scrip

tive

purp

oses

. For

som

ero

les

ther

e w

ere

a fe

wno

n-re

spon

dent

s, b

ut th

ese

slig

ht d

iffer

ence

s in

sam

ple

size

s ar

c in

cons

eque

ntia

l for

the

purp

ose

of e

stim

atin

g th

e sa

mpl

ing

erro

r as

soci

ated

with

the

perc

enta

ge o

f res

pond

ents

who

rate

d th

eU

role

s "v

ery

impo

rtan

t."L.

) 4/1)

3

- 13

6 -

Cau

casi

an A

mer

ican

Sam

ple

TA

BL

E 7

1C

OM

PAR

ISO

NS

BE

TW

EE

N R

ESP

ON

DE

NT

S W

HO

VO

TE

D A

ND

RE

SPO

ND

EN

TS

WH

O D

ID N

OT

VO

TE

IN T

HE

198

8 E

LE

CT

ION

'

Vot

ed(N

= 5

52)

Did

not

vot

e(N

= 2

87)

Form

al E

duca

tion

Supp

ort C

ente

r3.

8889

.63.

7986

.9.0

19.0

07

Pres

choo

lers

' Doo

r to

Lea

rnin

g3.

7881

.33.

8687

.3.0

20.0

07

Ref

eren

ce L

ibra

ry -

Per

sona

l3.

3747

.13.

3948

.4n.

s.

Ref

eren

ce L

ibra

ry -

Bus

ines

s3.

3553

.33.

4657

.6n.

s.

Com

mun

ity A

ctiv

ities

Cen

ter

3.13

41.6

3.05

39.5

n.s.

Res

earc

h C

ente

r3.

5466

.13.

5969

.7n.

s.

Com

mun

ity I

nfor

mat

ion

Cen

ter

3.54

64.0

3.60

67.3

n.s.

Inde

pend

ent L

earn

ing

Cen

ter

3.76

81.7

3.89

90.0

.000

.016

Publ

ic W

ork

Plac

e3.

3450

.23.

3954

.0n.

s.

Popu

lar

Mat

eria

ls L

ibra

ry3.

4355

.03.

2447

.3.0

01.0

14

*Thi

s ta

ble

repo

rts

the

sum

mar

y an

alys

es o

f var

ianc

e fo

r th

e co

mpa

rison

s am

ong

the

mea

n ro

le im

port

ance

sca

le s

core

s fo

r th

e gr

oups

of r

espo

nden

ts id

entif

ied

byth

e co

lum

n he

adin

gs.

Not

e: N

is th

e sa

mpl

e si

ze fo

r ea

ch g

roup

and

rep

rese

nts,

in g

ener

al, t

he n

umbe

r of

res

pond

ents

who

rat

ed e

ach

role

. I r

epre

sent

s th

e m

ean

ratin

g fo

r ea

ch r

ole

on th

e fo

ur-p

oint

impo

rtan

cesc

ale.

Exp

lana

tions

of a

(th

e al

pha

leve

l) an

d R

2 (t

he c

oeffi

cien

t of d

eter

min

atio

n) a

re p

rovi

ded

on p

age

111.

The

initi

als

n.s.

indi

cate

that

the

obse

rved

diffe

renc

es a

mon

g th

e gr

oup

mea

ns a

reno

t sta

tistic

ally

sig

nific

ant.

% r

epre

sent

s th

e pe

rcen

tage

of e

ach

grou

p th

at r

ated

the

role

"ve

ry im

port

ant."

The

se %

are

pre

sent

ed fo

r de

scrip

tive

purp

oses

. For

som

erol

es th

ere

wer

e a

few

non-

resp

onde

nts,

but

thes

e sl

ight

diff

eren

ces

in s

ampl

e si

zes

arc

inco

nseq

uent

ial f

or th

e pu

rpos

e of

est

imat

ing

the

sam

plin

g er

ror

asso

ciat

ed w

ith th

e pe

rcen

tage

of r

espo

nden

ts w

hora

ted

the

role

s "v

ery

impo

rtan

t."

`4,

- 13

7 -

Cau

casi

an A

mer

ican

Sam

ple

TA

BLE

72

CO

MP

AR

ISO

NS

AM

ON

G R

ES

PO

ND

EN

TS

BA

SE

D O

N P

ER

SO

NA

L F

INA

NC

IAL

SIT

UA

TIO

NC

OM

PA

RE

D T

O L

AS

T Y

EA

R'

For

mal

Edu

catio

n S

uppo

rt C

ente

r

Pre

scho

oler

s' D

oor

to L

earn

ing

Ref

eren

ce L

ibra

ry -

Per

sona

l

Ref

eren

ce L

ibra

ry -

Bus

ines

s

Com

mun

ity A

ctiv

ities

Cen

ter

Res

earc

h C

ente

r

Com

mun

ity In

form

atio

n C

ente

r

Inde

pend

ent L

earn

ing

Cen

ter

Pub

lic W

ork

Pla

ce

Pop

ular

Mat

eria

ls L

ibra

ry

Bet

ter

off

(N =

208

)

i%

3.81

86.5

3.78

79.9

3.43

51.8

3.40

56.0

3.10

43.4

3.42

61.0

3.50

63.5

3.80

84.9

3.28

47.3

3.26

46.5

Wor

se o

ff(N

= 1

94)

i%

3.85

87.7

3.76

82.1

3.36

48.6

3.35

50.9

3.09

37.6

3.64

73.1

3.66

70.2

3.85

86.1

3.39

51.0

3.42

55.6

Abo

ut th

e sa

me

(N =

492

)

i%

3.87

90.1

3.84

85.9

3.37

45.8

3.41

56.2

3.12

41.6

3.59

68.1

3.55

64.0

3.80

83.7

3.39

54.2

3.40

53.6

a n.s.

n.s.

n.s.

n.s.

n.s.

.005

n.s.

n.s.

n.s.

n.s.

R2

.013

*Thi

s ta

ble

repo

rts

the

sum

mar

y an

alys

es o

f var

ianc

e fo

r th

e co

mpa

rison

s am

ong

the

mea

n ro

le im

port

ance

sca

le s

core

s fo

r th

e gr

oups

of r

espo

nden

ts id

entif

ied

byth

e co

lum

n he

adin

gs.

Not

e: N

is th

e sa

mpl

e si

ze fo

r ea

ch g

roup

and

rep

rese

nts,

in g

ener

al, t

he n

umbe

r of

res

pond

ents

who

rat

ed e

ach

role

. i r

epre

sent

s th

e m

ean

ratin

g fo

r ea

ch r

ole

on th

e fo

ur-p

oint

impo

rtan

cesc

ale.

Exp

lana

tions

of a

(th

e al

pha

leve

l) an

d IV

(th

e co

effic

ient

of d

eter

min

atio

n) a

re p

rovi

ded

on p

age

111.

The

initi

als

n.s.

indi

cate

that

the

obse

rved

diffe

renc

es a

mon

g th

e gr

oup

mea

ns a

reno

t sta

tistic

ally

sip

ifica

nt. %

rep

rese

nts

the

perc

enta

ge o

f eac

h go

up th

at r

ated

the

role

"ve

ry im

port

ant."

The

se %

are

pre

sent

ed fo

r de

scrip

tive

purp

oses

. For

som

ero

les

ther

e w

ere

a fe

wno

n-re

spon

dent

s. b

ut th

ese

slig

ht d

iffer

ence

s in

sam

ple

size

s ar

e in

cons

eque

ntia

l for

the

purp

ose

of e

stim

atin

g th

e sa

mpl

ing

erro

r as

soci

ated

with

the

perc

enta

ge o

f res

pond

ents

who

rate

d th

ero

les

"ver

y im

port

ant."

rJ

- 13

8 -

Cau

casi

an A

mer

ican

Sam

ple

TA

BL

E 7

3C

OM

PAR

ISO

NS

AM

ON

G R

ESP

ON

DE

NT

S B

ASE

D O

N P

ER

SON

AL

FIN

AN

CIA

L S

ITU

AT

ION

EX

PEC

TE

D F

OR

NE

XT

YE

AR

*

Bet

ter

off

Wor

se o

ffA

bout

the

sam

e(N

= 3

60)

(N =

65)

(N =

385

)

I%

ii%

I.%

aR

2

For

mal

Edu

catio

n S

uppo

rt C

ente

r.3

.83

88.0

Pres

choo

lers

' Doo

r to

Lea

rnin

g3.

7980

.9

Ref

eren

ce L

ibra

ry-

Pers

onal

3.38

44.6

Ref

eren

ce L

ibra

ry -

Bus

ines

s3.

3853

.4

Com

mun

ity A

ctiv

ities

Cen

ter

2.99

33.5

Res

earc

h C

ente

r3.

5366

.8

Com

mun

ity I

nfor

mat

ion

Cen

ter

3.56

66.2

Inde

pend

ent L

earn

ing

Cen

ter

3.80

84.5

Publ

ic W

ork

Plac

e3.

3146

.4

Popu

lar

Mat

eria

ls L

ibra

ry3.

3046

.7

3.78

83.1

3,87

3.65

78.9

3.84

3.20

41.5

3.42

3.30

52.9

3.43

3.09

45.8

3.22

3.40

60.3

3.62

3.57

61.7

3.56

3.82

85.8

3.82

3.31

51.7

3.44

3.36

55.3

3.44

89.9

n.s.

86.0

.011

.011

52.6

n.s.

56.3

n.s.

46.6

.003

.014

69.6

.037

.008

64.5

n.s.

84.5

n.s.

57 0

n.s.

57.3

.047

.008

Thi

s ta

ble

repo

rts

the

sum

mar

y an

alys

es o

f var

ianc

e fo

r th

e co

mpa

rison

s am

ong

the

mea

n ro

le im

port

ance

sca

le s

core

s fo

r th

egr

oups

of r

espo

nden

ts id

entif

ied

by th

e co

lum

n he

adin

gs.

Not

e: N

is th

e sa

mpl

e si

ze fo

r ea

ch g

roup

and

rep

rese

nts,

in g

ener

al, t

he n

umbe

r of

res

pond

ents

who

rat

ed e

ach

role

. I r

epre

sent

s th

e m

ean

ratin

g fo

r ea

ch r

ole

on th

e fo

ur-p

oint

impo

rtan

cesc

ale.

Exp

lana

tions

of a

(th

e al

pha

leve

l) an

d R

2 (t

he c

oeffi

cien

t of d

eter

min

atio

n) a

re p

rovi

ded

on p

age

I I I.

The

initi

als

n.s.

indi

cate

that

the

obse

rved

diff

eren

ces

amon

g th

e gr

oup

mea

ns a

reno

r st

atis

tical

ly s

igni

fican

t. %

rep

rese

nts

the

perc

enta

ge o

f eac

h gj

oup

that

rat

ed th

e ro

le "

very

impo

rtan

t." T

hese

% a

re p

rese

nted

for

desc

riptiv

e pu

rpos

es. F

or s

ome

role

s th

ere

wer

e a

few

non-

resp

onde

nts,

but

thes

e sl

ight

diff

eren

ces

in s

ampl

e si

zes

are

inco

nseq

uent

ial f

or th

e pu

rpos

e of

est

imat

ing

the

sam

plin

ger

ror

asso

ciat

ed w

ith th

e pe

rcen

tage

of r

espo

nden

ts w

ho r

ated

the

role

s "v

ery

impo

rtan

t."

- 13

9 -

2

2 3

:)

Cau

casi

an A

mer

ican

Sam

ple

TA

BL

E 7

4C

OM

PAR

ISO

NS

BE

TW

EE

N R

ESP

ON

DE

NT

S W

HO

VIS

ITE

D A

ND

RE

SPO

ND

EN

TS

WH

O D

ID N

OT

VIS

ITT

HE

PU

BL

IC L

IBR

AR

Y I

N T

HE

LA

ST Y

EA

R'

Vis

ited

libra

ryD

id n

ot v

isit

libra

ry(N

= 4

88)

(N =

351

)

1%

aR

2

3.77

83.6

.000

.017

3. /7

81.3

n.s.

3.32

45.5

.038

.005

3.36

55.4

n.s.

3.07

39.5

n.s.

3.60

69.0

n.s.

3.59

68.6

n.s.

3.81

84.8

n.s.

3.41

55.8

n.s.

3.30

50.7

.042

.005

i%

Form

al E

duca

tion

Supp

ort C

ente

r3.

9092

.1

Pres

choo

lers

' Doo

r to

Lea

rnin

g3.

8384

.8

Ref

eren

ct L

ibra

ry -

Per

sona

l3.

4249

.8

Ref

eren

ce L

ibra

ryB

usin

ess

3.41

54.2

Com

mun

ity A

ctiv

ities

Cen

ter

3.13

42.0

Res

earc

h C

ente

r3.

5366

.8

Com

mun

ity I

nfor

mat

ion

Cen

ter

3.54

62.9

Inde

pend

ent L

earn

ing

Cen

ter

3.81

84.6

Publ

ic W

ork

Plac

e3.

3248

.4

Popu

lar

Mat

eria

ls L

ibra

ry3.

4153

.7

Thi

s ta

ble

repo

rts

the

sum

mar

y an

alys

es o

f var

ianc

e fo

r th

e co

mpa

rison

s am

ong

the

mea

n ro

le im

port

ance

sca

le s

core

s fo

r th

e gr

oups

of r

espo

nden

tsid

entif

ied

by th

e co

lum

n he

adin

gs.

Not

e: N

is th

e sa

mpl

e si

ze fo

r ea

ch g

roup

and

rep

rese

nts,

in g

ener

al, t

he n

umbe

r of

res

pond

ents

who

rat

ed e

ach

role

.re

pres

ents

the

mea

n ra

ting

for

each

rol

e on

the

four

-poi

nt im

port

ance

scal

e. E

xpla

natio

ns o

f a (

the

alph

a le

vel)

and

122

(the

coe

ffici

ent o

f det

erm

inat

ion)

are

pro

vide

d on

pag

e 11

1. T

he in

itial

s n.

s. in

dica

teth

at th

e ob

serv

ed d

iffer

ence

s am

ong

the

grou

p m

eans

are

not s

tatis

tical

ly s

igni

fican

t. %

rep

rese

nts

the

perc

enta

ge o

f eac

h gr

oup

that

rat

ed th

e ro

le "

very

impo

rtan

t."T

hese

% a

re p

rese

nted

for

desc

riptiv

e pu

rpos

es. F

or s

ome

role

s th

ere

wer

e a

few

non-

resp

onde

nts,

but

thes

e sl

ight

diff

eren

ces

in s

ampl

e si

zes

arc

inco

nseq

uent

ial f

or th

e pu

rpos

e of

est

imat

ing

the

sam

plin

g er

ror

asso

ciat

ed w

ith th

e pe

rcen

tage

of r

espo

nden

ts w

ho r

ated

the

role

s "v

ery

impo

rtan

t."

- 14

0 -

Cau

casi

an A

mer

ican

Sam

ple

TA

BL

E 7

5C

OM

PAR

ISO

NS

BE

TW

EE

N R

ESP

ON

DE

NT

S B

ASE

DO

N W

HE

TH

ER

SO

ME

ON

E E

LSE

WE

NT

TO

TH

E P

UB

LIC

LIB

RA

RY

FO

R T

HE

MIN

TH

E L

AST

YE

AR

*

Yes

(N =

197

)N

o(N

= 6

47)

I%

ale

86.7

.002

.012

83.4

n.s.

49.1

n.s.

55.5

n.s.

41.7

n.s.

68.3

n.s.

65.4

n.s.

83.8

n.s.

53.3

n.s.

52.9

n.s.

Form

al E

duca

tion

Supp

ort C

ente

r3.

9494

.93.

82

Pres

choo

lers

' Doo

r to

Lea

rnin

g3.

8283

.23.

80

Ref

eren

ce L

ibra

ry -

Per

sona

l3.

4044

.23.

38

Ref

eren

ce L

ibra

ry -

Bus

ines

s3.

3552

.73.

40

Com

mun

ity A

ctiv

ities

Cen

ter

3.06

38.8

3.12

Res

earc

h C

ente

r3.

5765

.03.

55

Com

mun

ity I

nfor

mat

ion

Cen

ter

3.56

64.7

3.56

Inde

pend

ent L

earn

ing

Cen

ter

3.81

87.3

3.81

Publ

ic W

ork

Plac

e3.

2846

.43.

38

Popu

lar

Mat

eria

ls L

ibra

ry3.

3350

.33.

38

Thi

s ta

ble

repo

rts

the

sum

mar

y an

alys

es o

f var

ianc

e fo

r th

e co

mpa

rison

s am

ong

the

mea

n ro

le im

port

ance

sca

le S

CO

TE

S fo

r th

e gr

oups

of r

espo

nden

tsid

entif

ied

by th

e co

lum

n he

adin

gs.

Not

e: N

is th

e sa

mpl

e si

ze fo

r ea

ch g

roup

and

rep

rese

nts,

in g

ener

al,

the

num

ber

of r

espo

nden

ts w

ho r

ated

eac

h ro

le. I

rep

rese

nts

the

mea

n ra

ting

for

each

rol

e on

the

four

-poi

nt im

port

ance

scal

e. E

xpla

natio

ns o

f a (

the

alph

a le

vel)

and

112

(the

coe

ffici

ento

f det

erm

inat

ion)

are

pro

vide

d on

pag

e 11

1. T

he in

itial

s n.

s.in

dica

te .h

at th

e ob

serv

ed d

iffer

ence

s am

ong

the

grou

p m

eans

arc

nin

stat

istic

ally

sig

nific

ant.

% r

epre

sent

s th

e pe

rcen

tage

of e

ach

grou

p th

at r

ated

the

role

"ve

ry im

pona

nt."

The

se%

arc

pre

sent

ed fo

r de

scrip

tive

purp

oses

. For

som

e ro

les

ther

e w

ere

afe

w

non-

resp

onde

nts,

hut

thes

e sl

ight

diff

eren

ces

in s

ampl

e si

zes

are

inco

nseq

uent

ialf

or th

e pu

rpos

e of

est

imat

ing

the

sam

plin

g er

ror

asso

ciat

ed w

ithth

e pe

rcen

tage

of r

espo

nden

ts w

ho r

ated

the

role

s "v

ery

impo

rtan

t." 2 .3

- 14

1 -

Cau

casi

an A

mer

ican

Sam

ple

TA

BL

E 7

6C

OM

PAR

ISO

NS

BE

TW

EE

N R

ESP

ON

DE

NT

S W

HO

CA

LL

ED

ME

PU

BL

IC L

IBR

AR

Y F

OR

IN

FOR

MA

TIO

NIN

TH

E L

AST

YE

AR

AN

D R

ESP

ON

DE

NT

S W

HO

DID

NO

T*

Cal

led

libra

ryD

id n

ot c

all l

ibra

ry(N

= 1

99)

(N =

646

)

1%

i%

ale

Form

al E

duca

tion

Supp

ort C

ente

r3.

9494

.9

Pres

choo

lers

' Doo

r to

Lea

rnin

g3.

8385

.4

Ref

eren

ce L

ibra

ryPe

rson

al3.

4652

.3

Ref

eren

ce L

ibra

ry -

Bus

ines

s3.

4759

.5

Com

mun

ity A

ctiv

ities

Cen

ter

3.17

42.1

Res

earc

h C

ente

r3.

5160

.7

Com

mun

ity I

nfor

mat

ion

Cen

ter

3.62

68.6

Inde

pend

ent L

earn

ing

Cen

ter

3.79

83.2

Publ

ic W

ork

Plac

e3.

3952

.3

Popu

lar

Mat

eria

ls L

ibra

ry3.

4153

.6

3.82

86.7

.002

.012

3.80

82.9

n.s.

3.35

46.5

.050

.005

3.37

53.4

n.s.

3.09

40.7

n.s.

3.57

69.7

n.s.

3.54

63.9

n.s.

3.82

85.1

n.s.

3.35

51.4

n.s.

3.36

52.0

n.s.

Thi

s ta

ble

repo

rts

the

sum

mar

y an

alys

es o

f var

ianc

e fo

r th

e co

mpa

rison

s am

ong

the

mea

n ro

le im

port

ance

scal

e sc

ores

for

the

grou

ps o

f res

pond

ents

iden

tifie

d by

the

colu

mn

head

ings

.

Not

e: N

is th

e sa

mpl

e flu

for

each

gro

up a

nd r

epre

sent

s, in

gen

eral

, the

num

ber

of r

espo

nden

ts w

ho r

ated

each

rol

e. I

repr

esen

ts th

e m

ean

ratin

g fo

r ea

ch r

ole

on th

e fo

ur-p

oint

impo

rtan

ce

12S

i.no

n-re

spon

dent

s, b

ut th

ese

slig

ht d

iffer

ence

s in

sam

ple

sixe

s ar

e in

cons

eque

ntia

l for

the

purp

ose

of e

stim

atin

g th

esa

mpl

ing

erro

r as

soci

ated

with

the

perc

enta

ge o

f res

pond

ents

who

rat

ed th

e

role

s "v

ery

impo

rtan

t."c

';

scal

e. E

xpla

natio

ns o

f a (

the

alph

a le

vel)

and

R2

(the

coe

ffici

ent o

f det

erm

inat

ion)

arc

pro

vide

d on

pag

e11

1. T

he in

itial

s n.

s. in

dica

te th

at th

e ob

serv

ed d

iffer

ence

s am

ong

the

grou

p m

eans

are

not s

tatis

tical

ly s

igni

fican

t. %

rep

rese

nts

the

perc

enta

ge o

f eac

h gr

oup

that

rat

edth

e ro

le "

very

impo

rtan

t." T

hese

% a

rc p

rese

nted

for

desc

riptiv

e pu

rpos

es. F

or s

ome

role

s th

ere

wer

e

- 14

2 -

Cau

casi

an A

mer

ican

Sam

ple

TA

BL

E 7

7C

OM

PAR

ISO

NS

BE

TW

EE

N R

ESP

ON

DE

NT

S W

HO

IN

AN

Y W

AY

USE

D T

HE

PU

BL

IC L

IBR

AR

YIN

TH

E L

AST

YE

AR

AN

D R

ESP

ON

DE

NT

S W

HO

DID

NO

T'

Use

rsN

on-u

sers

(N =

547

)(N

= 2

99)

IFo

rmal

Edu

catio

n Su

ppor

t Cen

ter

3.89

Pres

choo

lers

' Doo

r to

Lea

rnin

g3.

82

Ref

eren

ce L

ibra

ry -

Per

sona

l3.

42

Ref

eren

ce L

ibra

ry -

Bus

ines

s3.

40

Com

mun

ity A

ctiv

ities

Cen

ter

3.14

Res

earc

h C

ente

r3.

54

Com

mun

ity I

nfor

mat

ion

Cen

ter

3.55

Inde

pend

ent L

earn

ing

Cen

ter

3.80

Publ

ic W

ork

Plac

e3.

33

Popu

lar

Mat

eria

ls L

ibra

ry3.

40

%i

%a

R2

90.8

3.78

84.7

.002

.012

84.2

3.78

82.0

n.s.

49.4

3.30

44.9

.019

.017

54.1

3.38

56.0

n.s.

42.2

3.04

38.7

n.s.

66.4

3.59

69.5

n.s.

63.6

3.59

67.9

n.s.

84.4

3.82

85.1

n.s.

49.0

3.43

56.6

n.s.

54.3

3.31

48.7

n.s.

Thi

s ta

ble

repo

rts

the

sum

mar

y an

alys

es o

f var

ianc

e fo

r th

e co

mpa

rison

s am

ong

the

mea

n ro

le im

port

ance

sca

le s

core

s fo

r th

e gr

oups

of r

espo

nden

ts id

entif

ied

byth

e co

lum

n he

adin

gs.

Not

e: N

is th

e sa

mpl

e si

ze fo

r ea

ch g

roup

and

rep

rese

nts,

in g

ener

al, t

hc n

umbe

r of

res

pond

ents

who

rat

ed e

ach

role

. i r

epre

sent

s th

e m

ean

ratin

g fo

r ea

ch r

ole

on th

e fo

ur-p

oint

impo

rtan

cesc

ale.

Exp

lana

tions

of a

(th

e al

pha

leve

l) an

d 11

2 (t

he c

oeffi

cien

t of d

eter

min

atio

n) a

re p

rovi

ded

on p

age

111.

The

initi

als

n.s.

indi

cate

that

the

obse

rved

diffe

renc

es a

mon

g th

e gr

oup

mea

ns a

reno

t sta

tistic

ally

sig

nific

ant.

% r

epre

sent

s th

e pe

rcen

tage

of e

ach

grou

p th

at r

ated

the

rolc

"ve

ry im

port

ant."

The

se %

arc

pre

sent

ed fo

r de

scrip

tive

purp

oses

. For

som

ero

les

ther

e w

ere

a fe

wno

n-re

spon

dent

s, b

ut th

ese

slig

ht d

iffer

ence

s in

sam

ple

sire

s ar

c in

cons

eque

ntia

l for

the

purp

ose

of e

stim

atin

g th

e sa

mpl

ing

erro

r as

soci

ated

with

the

perc

enta

ge o

f res

pond

ents

who

rate

d th

e

role

s "v

ery

impo

rtan

t."

C.;

- 14

3 -

Cau

casi

an A

mer

ican

Sam

ple

TA

BL

E 7

8C

AU

CA

SIA

N A

ME

RIC

AN

S' O

PIN

ION

S A

BO

UT

LE

VE

LS

OF

PER

CA

PIT

ASP

EN

DIN

G F

OR

LIB

RA

RY

SE

RV

ICE

S

Am

ount

Freq

uenc

yPe

rcen

tA

djus

ted

Perc

ent

$ 0

00.

00.

0

$ 1

- $2

029

234

.539

.6

$21

- $4

022

426

.530

.4

$41

- $6

011

313

.315

.3

$61

- $8

043

5.0

5.8

$81

- $1

0035

4.2

4.8

$101

-31

3.6

4.2

Don

't K

now

109

12.9

Mis

sing

Tot

al84

6

'Not

e: P

erce

ntag

es r

ecal

cula

ted

with

mis

sing

res

pond

ents

exc

lude

d.

- 14

4 -

Cau

casi

an A

mer

ican

Sam

ple

TA

BL

E 7

9C

OM

PAR

ISO

NS

OF

TH

E M

EA

N S

UG

GE

STE

D P

ER

CA

PIT

A S

PEN

DIN

G F

OR

LIB

RA

RIE

SA

MO

NG

TH

E V

AR

IOU

S G

RO

UPS

OF

RE

SPO

ND

EN

TS.

Ent

ire

Sam

ple

737

$33.

65

C.I

.

$31.

68 -

$35

.61

aR

2C

.I.

Reg

ion

of c

ount

ry.0

01.0

27N

orth

east

167

$41.

61$3

6.75

- $

46.4

7So

uth

Cen

tral

225

$30.

51$2

7.24

- $

33.7

8N

orth

Cen

tral

186

$30.

57$2

6.88

- $

34.2

5W

est

157

$33.

33$2

9.37

- $

37.2

9

Size

of

com

mun

ity.0

39.0

09O

ver

1,00

0,00

038

$44.

35$3

3.78

- $

54.9

325

0,00

0 -

1,00

0,00

080

$33.

80$2

7.29

- $

40.3

1U

nder

250

,000

Gen

der

617

$32.

95

n.s.

$30.

87 -

$35

.04

Mal

es35

2$3

5.25

$32.

31 -

$38

.14

Fem

ales

Age

385

$32.

18

n.s.

$29.

55 -

$34

.82

18 -

35

280

$35.

3036

- 5

020

6$3

3.97

$30.

02 -

$38

.58

51 -

65

135

$31.

69$3

0.46

- $

37.4

866

and

up

110

$31.

20$2

5.80

- $

36.6

0

Not

e: T

his

tabl

e re

port

s th

e su

mm

ary

anal

yses

of

vari

ance

for

the

com

pari

sons

amon

g th

e m

ean

amou

nts

of s

ugge

sted

per

cap

ita s

pend

ing

by v

ario

us g

roup

s of

res

pond

ents

.

Not

e: N

is th

e sa

mpl

e si

ze f

or e

ach

grou

p. )

(rep

rese

nts

the

mea

n am

ount

of

sugg

este

d pe

r ca

pita

spe

ndin

g. D

etai

led

expl

anat

ions

of

the

alph

a le

vel (

a)an

d le

are

pro

vide

d on

pag

e II

I. T

hein

itial

s n.

s. in

dica

te th

at th

e ob

serv

ed d

iffe

renc

es a

mon

g th

e gr

oups

are

nast

atis

tical

ly s

igni

fica

nt. C

.I. r

epor

ts th

e lo

wer

and

upp

er b

ound

s of

the

95%

con

fide

nce

inte

rval

for

est

imat

ing

the

mea

n am

ount

of

sugg

este

d sp

endi

ng f

or e

ach

grou

p re

port

ed. T

hese

inte

rval

s ar

e ap

prop

riat

e fo

r us

e w

ith th

ose

grou

ps th

at a

re s

tatis

tical

ly d

iffe

rent

For

an

expl

anat

ion

of c

onfi

denc

e in

terv

als

see

page

s 10

and

11.

- 14

5 -

Cau

casi

an A

mer

ican

Sam

ple

TA

BL

E 7

9 (c

ontin

ued)

CO

MPA

RIS

ON

S O

F T

HE

ME

AN

SU

GG

EST

ED

PE

R C

API

TA

SPE

ND

ING

FO

R L

IBR

AR

IES

AM

ON

G T

HE

VA

RIO

US

GR

OU

PS O

F R

ESP

ON

DE

NT

S'

Hig

hest

gra

de le

vel c

ompl

eted

Xa n.s.

R2

C.I

.

8th

grad

e or

less

36$3

0.40

$22.

50 -

$38

.29

9th

- llt

h gr

ade

69$3

4.48

$26.

34 -

$42

.61

12th

gra

de29

0$3

0.39

$27.

30 -

$33

.48

Som

e co

llege

166

$36.

53$3

2.50

- $

40.5

6C

ompl

eted

col

lege

172

$36.

79$3

2.92

- $

40.6

6

Hig

h sc

hool

dip

lom

a or

equ

ival

ent

.017

.014

Yes

307

$29.

31$2

6.38

- $

32.2

4N

o

Mar

ital s

tatu

s

89$3

7.25

n.s.

$30.

39 -

$44

.11

Mar

ried

459

$32.

48$3

0.07

- $

34.8

9W

idow

ed59

$31.

27$2

3.95

- $

38.5

9D

ivor

ced

80$3

4.36

$28.

43 -

$40

.29

Nev

er m

arri

ed

# of

peo

ple

livin

g in

the

hom

e

137

$38.

09

n.s.

$33.

10 -

$43

.08

one

109

$35.

78$3

0.25

- $

41.3

1tw

o25

6$3

1.12

$27.

82 -

$34

.42

thre

e13

8$3

3.61

$28.

97 -

$38

.26

four

137

$36.

32$3

1.64

- $

41.0

0fi

ve o

r m

ore

91$3

3.49

$28.

67 -

$38

.31

'Not

e: T

his

tabl

e re

port

s th

e su

mm

ary

anal

yses

of v

aria

nce

for

the

com

paris

ons

amon

g th

e m

ean

amou

nts

of s

ugge

sted

per

cap

ita s

pend

ing

by v

ario

us g

roup

s of

resp

onde

nts.

Not

e: N

is th

e sa

mpl

e si

ze fo

r ea

ch g

roup

. I r

epre

sent

s th

e m

ean

amou

nt o

f sug

gest

ed p

er c

apita

spe

ndin

g. D

etai

led

expl

anat

ions

of t

he a

lpha

leve

l(a

) an

d F

e ar

e pr

ovid

ed o

n pa

ge 1

11. T

hein

itial

s n.

s. in

dica

te th

at th

e ob

serv

ed d

iffer

ence

s am

ong

the

grou

ps a

rc n

ot s

tatis

tical

ly s

ipifi

cant

. C.I.

rep

orts

the

low

er a

nd u

pper

bou

nds

of th

e 95

% c

onfid

ence

inte

rval

for

estim

atin

g th

em

ean

amou

nt o

f sug

gest

ed s

pend

ing

for

each

gro

up r

epor

ted.

The

se in

terv

als

arc

appr

opria

te fo

r us

e w

ith th

ose

grou

ps th

at a

rc s

tatis

tical

ly d

iffer

ent

For

an

expl

anat

ion

of c

onfid

ence

inte

rval

sse

e pa

ges

10 a

nd 1

1.4/

U

- 14

6 -

Cau

casi

an A

mer

kan

Sam

ple

TA

BL

E 7

9 (c

ontin

ued)

CO

MPA

RIS

ON

S O

F T

HE

ME

AN

SU

GG

EST

ED

PE

R C

API

TA

SPE

ND

ING

FO

R L

IBR

AR

IES

AM

ON

G T

HE

VA

RIO

US

GR

OU

PS O

F R

ESP

ON

DE

NT

S'

# of

pre

scho

ol c

hild

ren

in th

e ho

me

n.s.

R2

C.I

.

No

pres

choo

lers

487

$32.

33$2

9.99

- $

34.6

7O

ne o

r m

ore

pres

choo

lers

# of

stu

dent

s in

the

hom

e

135

$36.

39

n.s.

$31.

59 -

$41

.19

No

stud

ents

341

$33.

32$3

0.28

- $

36.3

6O

ne o

r m

ore

stud

ents

280

$32.

95$3

0.09

- $

35.8

1

Res

pond

ents

who

are

stu

dent

s.0

34.0

06St

uden

ts79

$39.

75$3

3.84

- $

45.6

6N

on-s

tude

nts

Em

ploy

men

t sta

tus

657

$32.

91

n.s.

$30.

83 -

$34

.99

Em

ploy

ed f

ull t

ime

398

$33.

48$3

0.98

- $

35.9

8E

mpl

oyed

par

t tim

e95

$35.

57$2

9.74

- $

41.4

0U

nem

ploy

ed45

$36.

07$2

6.98

- $

45.1

5R

etir

ed13

8$3

1.88

$26.

89 -

$36

.87

Not

in w

ork

forc

e

Ann

ual h

ouse

hold

inco

me

56$3

3.15

n.s.

$25.

93 -

$40

.36

Les

s th

an $

15,0

0082

$33.

14$2

6.24

- $

40.0

4$1

5,00

0 -

$29,

999

200

$32.

73$2

8.74

- $

36.7

1$3

0,00

0$4

4,99

918

4$3

4.81

$31.

04 -

$38

.57

$45,

000

$59,

999

88$3

5.41

$29.

64 -

$41

.17

$60,

000

or m

ore

96$3

4.96

$30.

52 -

$39

.39

Not

e: T

his

tabl

e re

port

s th

e su

mm

ary

anal

yses

of v

aria

nce

for

the

com

paris

ons

amon

g th

e m

ean

amou

nts

of s

ugge

sted

per

cap

ita s

pend

ing

by v

ario

us g

roup

s of

resp

onde

nts.

Not

e: N

is th

e sa

mpl

e si

ze fo

r ea

ch g

roup

. )(r

epre

sent

s th

e m

ean

amou

nt o

f sug

gest

ed p

er c

apita

spe

ndin

g. D

etai

led

expl

anat

ions

of t

he a

lpha

leve

l (a)

and

IV r

at p

rovi

ded

on p

age

111.

The

initi

als

n.s.

indi

cate

that

the

obse

rved

diff

eren

cec

orno

ng th

e gr

oups

are

not

sta

tistic

ally

sig

nific

ant.

C.1

. rep

orts

thc

low

er a

nd u

pper

bou

nds

of th

e 95

% c

onfid

ence

inte

rval

for

estim

atin

g th

em

ean

amou

nt o

f sug

gest

ed s

pend

ing

for

each

gro

up r

epor

ted.

The

se in

terv

als

arc

appr

opria

te fo

r us

e w

ith th

ose

grou

ps th

at a

rc s

tatis

tical

ly d

iffer

ent.

For

an

expl

anat

ion

of c

onfid

ence

inte

rval

sse

c pa

ges

10 a

nd 1

1.

- 14

7 -

24 6

Cau

casi

an A

mer

ican

Sam

ple

TA

BL

E 7

9 (c

ontin

ued)

CO

MPA

RIS

ON

S O

F T

HE

ME

AN

SUG

GE

STE

D P

ER

CA

PIT

A S

PEN

DIN

GFO

R L

IBR

AR

IES

AM

ON

G T

HE

VA

RIO

US

GR

OU

PS O

FR

ESP

ON

DE

NT

S*

Dis

able

d pe

rson

in h

ouse

hold

n.s.

R2

C.I

.

Yes

99$3

6.39

$29.

96 -

$42

.83

No

Res

pond

ent d

isab

led

629

$33.

31

n.s.

$31.

24 -

$35

.37

Yes

- 51

$38.

82$2

9.06

- $

48.5

7

No

Vot

ed in

'88

elec

tion

39$3

1.03

n.s.

$22.

95 -

$39

.12

Yes

479

$34.

88$3

2.44

- $

37.3

2

No

Cur

rent

fin

anci

al s

ituat

ion

256

$31.

42

n.s.

$28.

09 -

$34

.75

Bet

ter

off

than

last

yea

r18

5$3

4.08

$30.

16 -

$38

.00

Wor

se o

ff th

an la

st y

ear

168

$33.

27$2

8.89

- $

37.6

5

Abo

ut th

e sa

me

Futu

re f

inan

cial

situ

atio

n

379

$33.

70

n.s.

$31.

02 -

$35

.39

Bet

ter

off

next

yea

r33

3$3

5.23

$32.

23 -

$38

.23

Wor

se o

ff n

ext y

ear

53$3

6.62

$29.

14 -

$44

.11

Abo

ut th

e sa

me

333

$31.

54$2

8.69

- $

34.3

9

'Not

e: T

his

tabl

e re

port

s th

e su

mm

ary

anal

yses

of v

aria

nce

for

the

com

paris

ons

amon

g th

e m

ean

amou

nts

of s

ugge

sted

per

cap

ita s

pend

ing

byva

rious

gro

ups

of ie

spon

dent

s.

Not

e: N

is th

e sa

mpl

e si

ze fo

r ea

ch g

roup

. X r

epre

sent

sth

e m

ean

amou

nt o

f sug

gest

ed p

er c

apita

spe

ndin

g.D

etai

led

expl

anat

ions

of t

he a

lpha

leve

l (a)

and

le a

re p

rovi

ded

on p

age

111.

The

initi

als

n.s.

indi

cate

that

the

obse

tved

diffe

renc

es a

mon

g th

e gr

oups

are

ria

sta

tistic

ally

sig

nific

ant.

C.1

. rep

orts

the

low

er a

nd u

pper

bou

nds

ofth

e 95

% c

onfid

ence

inte

rval

for

estim

atin

gth

e

-m

ean

amou

nt o

f sug

gest

ed s

pend

ing

for

each

gro

up r

epor

ted.

The

se in

terv

als

are

appr

opria

tefo

r us

e w

ith th

ose

grou

ps th

at a

rc s

tatis

tical

lydi

ffere

nt. F

or a

n ex

plan

atio

n of

con

fiden

cein

terv

als

see

page

s 10

and

11.

- 14

8 -

4.,0

(- -

0

Cau

casi

an A

mer

ican

Sam

ple

TA

BL

E 8

0C

OM

PAR

ISO

NS

OF

TH

E M

EA

N S

UG

GE

STE

D P

ER

CA

PIT

A S

PEN

DIN

G F

OR

LIB

RA

RIE

SB

ET

WE

EN

LIB

RA

RY

USE

RS

AN

D N

ON

-USE

RS'

Ent

ire

Sam

ple

737

$33.

65

C.I

.

$31.

68 -

$35

.61

Res

pond

ent w

ent t

o pu

blic

libr

ary

last

yea

r

Xa

.046

R2

.005

C.I

.

Yes

445

$35.

35$3

2.87

- $

37.8

3N

o28

5$3

1.23

$27.

97 -

$34

.50

Som

eone

els

e w

ent t

o lib

rary

for

res

pond

ent

n.s.

Yes

176

$36.

44$3

2.75

- $

40.1

4N

o55

9$3

2.74

$30.

44 -

$35

.05

Res

pond

ent c

alle

d lib

rary

for

info

rmat

ion

.010

.009

Yes

186

$38.

07$3

4.10

- $

42.0

3N

o54

9$3

2.18

$29.

92 -

$34

.44

Res

pond

ent u

sed

libra

ry in

any

way

last

yea

rn.

s.Y

es49

2$3

4.71

$32.

39 -

$37

.04

No

244

$31.

50$2

7.86

- $

35.1

3

-Not

e: T

his

tabl

e re

port

s th

e su

mm

ary

imal

yses

of m

ianc

e fo

r th

e co

mpa

rison

s am

ong

the

mea

n am

ount

s of

sug

gest

ed p

er c

apita

spe

ndin

g by

var

ious

gro

ups

ofre

spon

dent

s.

Not

e: N

is th

e sa

mpl

e si

ze fo

r ea

ch g

roup

. ire

pres

ents

the

mea

n am

ount

of s

ugge

sted

per

cap

ita s

pend

ing.

Det

aile

d ex

plan

atio

ns o

f the

alp

ha le

vel (

a)an

d R

2 ar

e pr

ovid

ed o

n pa

ge 1

11. T

he

initi

als

n.s.

indi

cate

that

the

obse

rved

diff

eren

ces

amon

g th

e gr

oups

Ire

na s

tatis

tical

ly s

igni

fican

t. C

.I. r

epor

ts th

e lo

wer

and

upp

er b

ound

s of

the

95%

con

fiden

cein

terv

al fo

r es

timat

ing

the

mea

n am

ount

of s

ugge

sted

spe

ndin

g fo

r ea

ch g

roup

rep

orte

d. T

hese

inte

rval

s ar

e ap

prop

riate

for

use

with

thos

e gr

oups

that

arc

sta

tistic

ally

diff

eren

t. F

or a

n ex

plan

atio

n of

con

fiden

ce in

terv

als

see

pagc

s 10

and

11.

- 14

9 -

PART IV. THE SURVEY OF HISPANIC AMERICANS

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE HISPANIC AMERICAN SAMPLE

The Hispanic American sample included 399 respondents. The data from this sample wereweighted to ensure that the demographic characteristics of the weighted sample conformed to thelatest available Census Bureau estimates of the characteristics of the national Hispanic Americanpopuladon for age, gender, race, formal education attainment, and region of country. Thedemographic characteristics of the sample are as follows:'

Region of country2

% of population whichis Hispanic American'

Gender

13.1% northeast32.7% south central9.0% north central

45.3% west

23.6% high (over 40% Hispanic American)30.4% moderate (11% 40% Hispanic American)46.0% low (less than 11% Hispanic American)

48.1% male51.9% female

The frequency distributions for the responses to all the questions in the interview are presented in theAppendix for this report. The Appendix is a separately bound publication.

2 These regional areas are defined by The Gallup Organization as follows: northeastern states = Connecticut,Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Vermont; southcentral states = Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, Washington D.C., Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland,Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, and West Virginia; north centralstates = Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, SouthDakota, Wisconsin; western states = Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, NewMexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming.

3 As part of the sampling procedure for the Hispanic American sample, the Gallup Organization identifiedtelephone area codes for areas that contained certain estimated proportions of Hispanic Americans in the population.These strata were classified as heavy (.41 - 1.00), moderate (.11 - .40), and light (0 - .10). These stmta were notbased on the size of the community but rather on the estimated proportion of the community, regardless of its size,which is Hispanic American. Using this rule, an inner city neighborhood which is predominately Hispanic Americancould be included in the same stratum as a rural community which is predominantly Hispanic American.

- 151

r

Age

National ancestry

48.6% 18 - 35 years24.1% 36 50 years15.5% 51 - 65 years10.3% 66 years and older1.9% missing

32.3% Mexican35.2% Mexican American11.8% Puerto Rican2.7% Cuban17.3% Other

.6% missing

Giade level 25.5% 8th grade or lesscompleted 18.5% 9th - 11 th grade

30.7% 12th grade13.4% some college1.7% associate degree7.0% bachelor's degree.6% master's degree1.5% professional/doctoral1.4% missing

Marital status 56.2% married3.5% widowed8.9% divorced

26.7% never married4.6% missing

Living with 53.6% yesspouse 2.6% no

43.8% missing

# of peopleliving in home

# of preschoolchildren in home

6.3% one23.1% two19.9% three20.2% four10.7% five15.8% six or more4.1% missing

64.9% zero18.2% one5.0% two.9% three.7% four

10.4% missing

- 152 -

# of school childrenin home

Respondentswho were students

Primary languagespoken at home

Employment status

Household income

(Median interval)

Disabled personin household

45.9% zero20.3% one14.0% two6.6% three2.8% four or more10.4% missing

7.4% high school2.3% non-academic program7.4% college students1.2% graduate students

81.8% missing

50.7% English45.3% Spanish4.0% missing

49.9% employed full-time11.4% employed part-time7.6% unemployed10.4% retired16.9% not in work force3.8% missing

5.1% less than $5,00010.6% $ 5,000 - $ 9,99910.3% $10,000 - $14,99911.1% $15,000 - $19,9998.2% $20,000 - $24,9998.3% $25,000 $29,9997.2% $30,000 - $34,9995.8% $35,000 $39,9995.3% $40,000 $44,9991.5% $45,000 $49,9994.7% $50,000 - $54,999.1% $55,000 - $59,999.9% $60,000 $64,999.3% $65,000 - $69,9991.9% $70,000 $74,9992.9% $75,000 or mom15.8% missing

13.2% yes82.2% no4.7% missing

- 153 -dm

d_.)

Respondent 2.8% yesdisabled 9.8% someone else

87.4% missing

Nature of disability 0.1% sight1.4% mobility

98.5% missing

Voted in '88 election 36.0% yes61.0% no3.0% missing

Current financial 25.6% better off than last yearsituation 24.1% worse off than last year

47.2% about the same3.2% missing

Future financial 50.1% better off next yearsituation 7.0% worse off next year

28.5% about the same14.4% missing.

LIBRARY USE AMONG THE HISPANIC AMERICAN SAMPLE

The data indicated that 51.7% of the sample had personally gone to a public library in thepast year, 22.2% of the sample reported that someone else had obtained materials for them, and20.1% of the sample had called a library for information. Controlling for overlap among theseactivities, it was determined that 60.8% of the sample had in some way used a public library inthe last year while 32.9% of the sample reported no use of a library.

EVALUATIONS OF THE IMPORTANCE OF THE ROLES BY TI-IE HISPANIC AMERICANSAMPLE

The responses to the role evaluation questions were analyzed in two ways: first, meanscores for the role importance scales were calculated; and second, the percentages of respondentswho for each role selected the category "very important" were tabulated. While the meanimportance scale score yields a more precise estimate of the respondents' evaluations of theimportance of a role, the percentage of respondents who selected the category "very important"is the more easily understood and communicated estimate of the importance of a role. All of thetables presenting results of role evaluations present both the mean scale scores and the percentage"scores."

The results of the role evaluations are reported in Table 81 in ranked order from the rolereceiving the highest mean importance scale score to the role receiving the lowest meanimportance scale score. These results can be interpreted in two ways: first, the scores for any

- 154 -

given role can be interpreted in terms of their position or standing on the four-point importancescale (an absolute assessment); and second, the scores for any given role can be interpreted interms of their ranking relative to the scores received by the other roles (a relative assessment).For example, more than half of the sample (57.4%) wed the Popular Materials Library role as"very important" with a mean score of 3.46, but this rating places the role in the last position ofimportance compared to the mean scores received by the other roles. The reader should note thatthe ranking by mean score is not the same as the ranking by the percentage "score." The readershould also note that the distance between the mean scores for some of the roles is quite smallindicating that, while one role is ranked higher or lower than another role, for all practicalpurposes the roles are about equal in importance. The same observation could also be made forthe percentage "scores."

The results in Table 81 indicate that a majority of the Hispanic American considered allof the ten roles to be "very important." Of these, however, the Independent Learning Center role,the Formal Education Support Center role, the Preschoolers' Door to Learning role, theCommunity Information Center role, and the Research Center role received the highest ratingsof importance. These results strongly suggest that the Hispanic American respondents consideredthe public library's role of supporting the educational aspirations of the community and providingcommunity information to be its most important roles.

In evaluating these results the reader should also keep in mind some of the anomalies inthe role statements and the public's interpretations of the role statements that were discussed onpages 17-19.

DIFFERENCES IN THE EVALUATIONS OF THE IMPORTANCE OF THE ROLES BYDIFFERENT SEGMENTS OF THE HISPANIC AMERICAN SAMPLE

The respondents' opinions about the importance of each role were tested for differencesbetween or among groups of respondents using analysis of variance.' The different groups of

4 Analysis of variance is a statistical procedure for testing whether the observed differences among groupmeans for each role evaluation occurred by chance or because the groups differed in their evaluations of theimportance of the role. A statistically significant difference among the group means is defined as one whoseprobability of occurring by chance (the a level reported in the tables) is so low that we choose to conclude that thedifference did not occur by chance but that it occurred because the groups differed in their evaluation of the role.All differences with an a level of .05 or less (that is, the probability that the difference occurred by chance is 5 outof a hundred or less) are considered to be statistically significant. The a levels for all statistically significantdifferences are reported in the tables. All differences with an a level greater than .05 (that is, the probability thatthe difference occurred by chance is greater than 5 out of a hundred) are considered to be non-significant and aredesignated as such in the table with the initials n.s.

A non-trivial difference is defined as a statistically significant difference whose magnitude of difference issufficiently large that it warrants attention for possible usefulness in managerial decision making. By contrast, atrivial difference is defined as a statistically significant difference whose magnitude of difference is so small or trivialas to be of questionable value in managerial decision making. Deciding whether a statistically significant differenceis trivial or non-trivial is a judgement call. We have adopted the rule that if R2, the coefficient of determination,is equal to or geater than .02 the difference is considered to be non-trivial. The coefficient of determinationmeasures the amount of variation in the role evaluation scores that is explained by the group differences - the larger

- 155 -

respondents were identified by, or created from, the following characteristics: the region of thecountry where the respondent lived; the relative size (in %) of the Hispanic proportion of thecommunity in which the respondent lived; the gender of the respondent; the age of therespondent; the national ancestry of the respondent; the highest grade level of educationcompleted by the respondent and, if the respondent completed 12 grades or less, whether therespondent had a high school diploma; whether, if the respondent had an associate degree, therespondent graduated from an academic program or an occupational program; the respondent'scurrent marital status and, if married, whether the respondent was currently living with a spouse;the number of people living in the respondent's home; the number of preschool children livingin the home; the number of students living in the home; whether the respondent was currentlya student and, if so, the nature of the program of study; the primary language spoken at home;the respondent's current employment status; total annual household income; whether anyone inthe household was disabled; whether the respondent was disabled and, if so, the nature of thedisability; whether the respondent voted in the last (i.e., 1988) presidential election; therespondent's opinion about his or her current financial situation; the respondent's opinion abouthis or her financial situation next year; whether the respondent personally went to a public libraryin the past year and, if so, how many times; whether anyone else went to a library for therespondent; whether the respondent called a library for information in the past year; and whetherthe respondent made any use of a library in the past year.

In the preceding analyses, the quantitative characteristics of the respondents (age, highestgrade level of education completed, the number of people living in the home, the number ofpreschool children living in the home, the number of students living in the home, and total annualhousehold income) were grouped into intervals (e.g., respondents 18 to 35 years old, respondents36 to 50 years old, etc.) and the mean role importance scale scores for these groups werecompared for differences using analysis of variance. This was done in order to facilitatecomparisons to local data which oftentimes are available only in this grouped format. Anotherway of analyzing whether any of these characteristics of the respondents is related to therespondents' evaluations of the importance of the roles is by means of correlation analysis'which tests for the presence of a trend between the characteristic and the role importance score.For example, as the age of the respondents increases does their evaluation of the importance of

the coefficient of determination, the more meaningful the difference. The coefficients of determination for allstatistically significant differences are reported in the tables so assessments about triviality can be made.

A correlation coefficient is an index of the strength of the relationship between two quantitative variables.The coefficient can take a value from -1.00 (indicating a perfect inverse relationship) to 0.00 (indicating the absenceof any relationship) to +1.00 (indicating a perfect positive relationship). Typically, correlation coefficients appeareither as a negative decimal value (indicating that high scores for one variable are associated with low scores forthe other variable) or as a positive decimal value (iru;icating that high scores for one variable are associated withhigh scores for the other variable). The higher the decimal value, the stronger the relationship.

A statistically significant Iclationship is defined as one whose probability of occurrence by chance is so lowthat we choose to conclude that ii did not occur by chance but that it occurred because the two variables are related.A non-trivial relationship is defined Is a statistically significant relationship of sufficient strength that it warrantsauention for possible usefulness in managerial decision making. In this report, correlation coefficients equal to orgreater than t.15 are considered to be non-trivial.

- 156 -

a role tend to increase or decrease? In order to determine if trends such as this exist, each ofthese quantitative characteristics of the respondents was also entered into a correlation analysiswith each of the role importance scales.

While the results of the analyses of variance with the grouped data and the results of thecorrelation analyses with the ungrouped data are complementary, it should be noted that thecorrelation analyses are not alwrys sensitive to a difference between two or more groups whichmight exist. Consequently, the ,esults of the two tests sometimes do not agree. The results ofboth sets of analyses are reported below.

Region of the country. There were eight statistically significant differences among respondentsliving in the four regions of the country (see Table 82). In general, respondents from the westernstates exhibited a pattern of differences. These respondents rated the Formal Education Supportrole lower than all other respondents, the Preschoolers' Door to Learning role lower thanrespondents from the northeast states, the Reference Library for personal information role lowerthan respondents from the northeast and north central states, the Research Center role lower thanall other respondents, the Community Information Center role lower than respondents from thenortheast and south central states, and the Popular Materials Library role lower than respondentsfrom the north central states. In addition, respondents from the south central states rated theReference Library for personal information role lower than respondents from the northeast states,respondents from the northeast states rated the Reference Library for businesses role higher thanall other respondents, respondents from the north central states rated the Public Work Place rolehigher than all other respondents, and respondents from the south central states rated the PopularMaterials Library role lower than respondents from the northeast states and the north centralstates. All of these differences were non-trivial.

% of community which is Hispanic American. There were three statistically significantdifferences among the evaluations of the roles by respondents living in areas with differentpercentages of Hispanic Americans in the community (see Table 83). Respondents living incommunities with moderate percentages (11% - 40%) rated the Formal Education Support Centerrole lower than respondents living in communities with low percentages (less than 11%) and highpercentages (more than 40%), the Reference Library for business role higher than respondentsliving in communities with low percentages and the Popular Materials Library role lower thanrespondents living in communities with low or high percentages. The latter two differences,however, were trivial.

Gender. There was one statistically significant difference between males and females (see Table84). Male respondents rated the Popular Materials Library role lower than female respondents.

Age. There were two statistically significant and non-trivial correlation coefficients between theage of the respondents and their evaluations of the importance of the roles. The age of therespondents was inversely related to their evaluations of the importance of the CommunityActivities Center role (r = -.17); the younger the respondents, the higher their evaluations ofimportance (or, the older the respondents, the lower their evaluations of importance). The age ofthe respondents was positively related to their evaluations of the importance of the ResearchCenter role (r = .15); the older the respondents, the higher their evaluations of importance.

- 157 -o1:":1J

The respondents were also divided into four age groups: 18 - 35 years old; 36 - 50 yearsold; 51 - 65 years old; and over 65 years old. Comparisons of the mean importance scale soresfor these four groups indicated that there were seven statistically significant and non-trivialdifferences among the groups (see Table 85). Respondents who were 66 years or older rated theReference Library for 'personal information role lower rating than all other age groups, theReference Library for business role higher than the 18 - 35 year old and 36 50 year old groups,the Community Activities Center role lower than all other age groups, the Research Center rolehigher than the 18 - 35 year old group, and the Public Work Place role lower than all other agegroups. In addition, respondents who were 18 '35 years old rated the Formal Education SupportCenter role lower than respondents who were 36 - 50 years old, the Reference Library forpersonal information role lower than respondents who were 36 50 years old, and the PopularMaterials Library role lower than respondents who were 36 50 years old. Respondents whowere 51 - 65 rated the Public Work Place role lower than respondents who were 18 - 35 and 36 -50 years old.

National ancestry. There were three statistically significant and non-trivial differences among therole evaluations by respondents with different national ancestries (see Table 86). Respondentsof Puerto Rican ancestry rated the Formal Education Support Center role lower than all of theother ancestry groups, the Reference Library for personal information role higher than all of theother ancestry groups, and the Research Center role lower than all of the other ancestry groups.

Highest grade level completed. There was one statistically significant and non-trivial correlationcoefficient between highest grade level completed and the evaluations of the importance of theroles. Highest grade level completed was positively correlated with the respondents' rating of theimportance of the Formal Education Support role (r = .19); the higher the grade level completed,the higher the evaluations of the importance of the role.

The respondents were divided into five groups based on the number of grades completed:8th grade or less, 9th - 1 1 th grades, 12th grade, some college; and college graduates.Comparisons of the mean importance scale scores for these five groups indicated that there weresix statistically significant and non-trivial differences (see Table 87). Respondents who hadcompleted the 8th grade or less rated the Formal Education Support Center role lower than allother groups; respondents who had graduated from college rated the Reference Library forpersonal information role lower than all other groups; respondents who had completed 9th 1 lthgrades rated the Community Activities Center role higher than all other groups; respondents whohad completed the 8th grade or less rated the Community Activities Center role lower thanrespondents who had some college; respondents who had completed college rated the IndependentLearning Center lower than respondents who had completed the 8th grade or less, andrespondents who had completed 9th 1 1 th grades; respondents who had completed 9th - 1 lthgrades rated the Public Work Place role higher than respondents who had completed the 8thgrade or less, respondents who had gradun.te.d high school, and respondents who had completedcollege; and respondents who had completed the 8th grade or less rated the Popular MaterialsLibrary role lower than respondents who had completed 9th 11 th grades and respondents whohad completed 12th grade.

Whether, if the respondent had completed the 12th grade or less, the respondent had a highschool diploma or equivalent. There were two statistically significant, but trivial, differences in

- 158 -

u

the role evaluations of respondents who had and respondents who did not have a high schooldiploma (see Table 88). Respondents who had a high school diploma rated the CommunityInformation Center role lower and the Popular Materials Library role higher than respondentswho did not have a high school diploma.

Whether, if the respondent had an associate degree, the respondent graduated from an academicprogram or an occupational program. There were too few responses to this question to permitgroup comparisons.

Marital status. There were three statistically significant and non-trivial differences among the roleevaluations of respondents with different marital status6 (see Table 89). Respondents who hadnever married rated the Reference Library for personal information lower than all other groups,the Reference Library for business role lower than all other groups, the Community ActivitiesCenter role higher than respondents who had married, and the Popular Materials Library lowerthan all other groups.

Whether a married respondent was currently living with a spouse. The number of marriedrespondents currently not living with a spouse was too small to permit meaningful comparisons.

The number of people living in the home. There were three statistically significant and non-trivialcorrelation coefficients between the numb& of people living in the home and the evaluations ofthe importance of the roles. The higher the number of people living in the home, the higher theevaluations of the importance of the Reference Library for business role (r = .19), the CommunityActivities Center role (r = .20), and the Public Work Place role (r = .20).

Based on the number of people living in the home, the respondents were divided into sixgroups: respondents living in homes with one person, two people, three people, four people, fivepeople, and six or more people. Comparisons of the mean importance scale scores for these sixgroups indicated that there were eight statistically significant and non-trivial differences (seeTable 90). Respondents living in homes with six or more people rated the Reference Library forpersonal information higher than all other groups. Respondents living in homes with six or morepeople rated the Reference Library for business higher than all other groups and respondentsliving in homes with three people and with five people rated this role higher than respondentsliving in homes with one, two, or four people. Respondents living in homes with two peoplerated the Community Activities Center role lower than all other groups. Respondents living inhomes with six or more people rated the Research Center role higher than all other groups, andrespondents living in homes with five people rated this role higher than people living in homeswith two people. Respondents living in homes with two people rated the Community Informationrole lower than respondents living in homes with three or more people. Respondents living alonerated the Independent Learning Center role lower than all other respondents. Respondents livingin homes with one or two people rated the Public Work Place role lower than all otherrespondents. Respondents living in homes with six or more people rated the Popular MaterialsLibrary role higher than all other respondents.

6 Respondents who were widowed numbered only 14 individuals and consequently were not included in thecomparisons.

- 159 -

L.1

The number of preschool children living in the home. There was one statistically significant andnon-trivial correlation coefficient between the number of preschoolers living in the home and therespondents' evaluations of the importance of the roles. The higher the number of preschoolersliving in the home, the higher the evaluation of the importance of the Reference Library forbusiness role (r = .17).

Because of the low number of multiple preschoolers in the home, the respondents weredivided into two groups: respondents living in homes without any preschoolers and respondentsin homes with one or more preschoolers. Comparisons of the mean importance scale scores forthese two groups indicated that there were five statistically significant differences (see Table 91).Respondents living in homes with one or more preschoolers rated the Reference Library forbusiness role, the Community Activities Center role, the Research Center role, the Public WorkPlace role, and the Popular Materials Library role higher than respondents living in homes withno preschoolers. The differences for the Community Activities Center role and the ResearchCenter role were trivial. The differences for the Reference Library for business role, the PublicWork Place role, and the Popular Materials Library role were non-trivial.

The number of students living in the home. There were four statistically significant and non-trivialcorrelation coefficients between the number of students living in the home and the evaluadonsof the importance of the roles. The higher :-e; number of students living in the home, the higherthe evaluations of the importance of the Reference Library for personal information role (r = .27),the Reference Library for business role (r = .15), the Community Activities Center role (r = .16),and the Public Work Place role (r = .17).

Because of the low number of multiple students in the home, the respondents weredivided into two groups: respondents living in homes without any students and respondents inhomes with one or more students. Comparisons of the mean importance scale scores for thesetwo groups indicated that there were three statistically significant differences (see Table 92).Respondents living in homes with one or more students rated the Reference Library for personalinformation role, the Community Activities Center role, and the Public Work Place role higherthan respondents living in homes with no students. The latter two differences were trivial.

Whether the respondent was currently a student. Comparisons of the mean importance scalescores for respondents who were students enrolled in school or a training program andrespondents who were not indicated that there were three statistically significant differences (seeTable 93). Respondents who were enrolled in school or a training program rated the ReferenceLibrary for business role lower, the Community Activities Center role higher, and the PopularMaterials Library role lower than respondents who were not students. The differences for theReference Library for business role and the Popular Materials Library role were trivial.

Nature of the program of study. The number of responses to this question was too small topermit group comparisons.

The language spoken at home. The only two languages identified by the respondents wereEnglish and Spanish. Comparisons of the mean importance scale scores of these two groups ofrespondents indicated that there were six statistically significant differences (see Table 94).Respondents from English speaking homes rated the Formal Education Support Center role higher

-160-

26.

than respondents from Spanish speaking homes. Respondents from Spanish speaking homes ratedthe Reference Library for personal information role, the Reference Library for business role, theCommunity Activities Center role, the Public Work Place role, and the Popular Materials rolehigher than respondents from English speaking homes. The differences for both the ReferenceLibrary roles were trivial.

Employment stow. There were seven statistically significant and non-trivial differences amonggroups of respondents with different employment status (see Table 95). Respondents who wereemployed part time rated the Formal Education Support Center role lower than all of the othergroups. Respondents who were retired rated the Reference Library for personal information rolelower than respondents who were employed full time, who were employed part time, and whowere not in the work force. Respondents who were retired rated the Community Activities Centerrole lower than all other groups. Respondents who were employed part time rated the Researchcenter role lower than respondents who were employed full time, who were retired, and who werenot in the work force. Respondents who were employed part time rated the CommunityInformation Center role lower than respondents who were not in the work force. Respondentswho were unemployed rated the Independent Learning Center role lower than respondents whowere employed part time, and who were not in the work force. Respondents who were retiredand respondents who were unemployed rated the Public Work Place role lower than respondentswho were employed part time.

Total annual household income. There were three statistically significant and non-trivialcorrelation coefficients between total annual household income and the evaluations of theimportance of the roles. The lower the household income, the higher the evaluations of thePreschoolers' Door to Learning role (r = -.20), the Reference Library for personal informationrole (r = -.22), and the Reference Library for business role (r = -.21); or, the higher the householdincome, the lower the evaluations of the Preschoolers' Door to Learning role, the ReferenceLibrary for personal information role, and the Reference Library for business role.

Based on the amount of total annual household income, the respondents were divided intofive groups: respondents living in households with incomes of less than $10,000, $10,000 to$19,999, $20,000 to $29,999, $30,000 to $39,999, and $40,000 or more. Comparisons of themean importance scale scores for these five groups indicated that there were six statisticallysignificant and non-trivial differences (see Table 96). Respondents living in households withincomes less than $10,000 rated the Formal Education Support role lower than all other groups.Respondents living in households with incomes of $40,000 or more rated the Reference Libraryfor personal information lower than all other income groups, while respondents living inhouseholds with incomes less than $10,000 rated this role higher than all other groups.Respondents living in households with incomes of $40,000 or more rated the Reference Libraryfor business role lower than all other income groups, while respondents living in households withincomes less than $10,000 and with incomes between $20,000 and $29,999 rated this role lowerthan respondents living in households with incomes of $10,000 $19,999 and with incomes of$30,000 $39,999. Respondents living in households with incomes less than $10,000 and withincomes of $40,000 or more rated the Research Center role lower than the other income groups.Respondents who lived in households with incomes between $10,000 - $19,999 and with incomesof $40,000 or more rated the Public Work Place role lower that respondents living in householdswith incomes of less than $10,000. Respondents living in households with incomes of $10,000

- 161 -

$19,999 and with incomes of $40,000 or moll rated the Popular Materials Library lower than theother income groups.

Whether anyone in the household was disabled. There were five statistically significantdifferences between respondents living in households with a disabled person and respondentsliving in households without a disabled person (see Table 97). Respondents with a disabledperson in the household rated the Reference Library for personal information role higher, theCommunity Activities Center role lower, the Research Center role higher, the Public Work Placerole lower, and the Popular Materials Library role higher than respondents in households withouta disabled person. All of these difference, with the exception of the difference for theCommun4 Activities Center role, were trivial.

Whether the respondent was disabled. The number of disabled respondents was too small topermit comparisons.

The nature of the disability. The number of disabled respondents was too small to permitcomparisons.

Whether the respondent voted in the last (1988) presidential election. There were five statisticallysignificant differences between respondents who voted and respondents who did not vote in thelast election (see Table 98). Respondents who voted rated the Reference Library for personalinformation role, the Reference Library for business role, the Community Activities Center role,the Public Work Place role, and the Popular Materials Library role lower than respondents whodid not vote. The differences for the Reference Library for business role and the PopularMaterials Library role were trivial.

The respondent' s opinion about hislher current financial condition. There were three statisticallysignificant and non-trivial differences among respondents (see Table 99). Respondents who feltthat their current financial condition was worse than last year rated the Formal Education SupportCenter lower than respondents who felt that they were about the same as last year or better offthan last year. Respondents who felt that their current financial condition was worse than lastyear rated the Community Information Center role lower than respondents who felt that they wereabout the same as last year. Respondents who felt that they were better off than last year ratedthe Popular Materials Library lower than respondents who felt that they were about the same aslast year.

The respondents' s opinion about hislher financial condition next year. There were threestatistically significant and non-trivial differences among the respondents (see Table 100).Respondents who felt who felt that their financial condition would be about the same next yearrated the Preschoolers' Door to Learning role lower than respondents who felt that they wouldbe better off and respondents who felt that they would be worse off next year. Respondents whofelt that they would be better off next year rated the Reference Library for business role higherthan respondents who felt that they would te worse off and respondents who felt that they wouldbe about the same next year. Respondents who felt that they would be better off next year ratedthe Public Work Place role higher than respondents who felt that they would be worse off nextyear.

- 162 -

DIFFERENCES IN THE EVALUATIONS OF THE IMPORTANCE OF THE ROLES BYLIBRARY USERS AND NONUSERS IN THE HISPANIC AMERICAN SAMPLE

Each of the role importance scales was tested for differences among respondents (usinganalysis of variance) based on the following library use behaviors: whether or not the respondenthad gone to a public library in the past year, whether or not someone else had gone to a libraryto obtain materials for the respondent, whether or not the respondent had called a library forinformation in the past year, and a constructed measure of any kind of use of a public library -whether or not a respondent answered "yes" to any one of the three "use"questions. The resultsof these analyses are reported below.

Whether the respondent had gone to a public library in the past year. There were two statisticallysignificant and non-trivial differences between respondents who had gone and respondents whohad not gone to a public library in the past year (see Table 101). Respondents who had gone toa library rated the Formal Education Support Center role and the Preschoolers' Door to Learningrole higher than respondents who had not gone to a library.

Respondents who indicated that they had gone to a library in the past year were alsoasked how many times they had gone to a library and were provided six numerical responsecategories which were converted into a six-point scale. This frequency of visit scale was alsoentered into correlation analyses with each of the role importance scales. The results of theseanalyses indicated that there were three statistically significant and non-trivial correlationcoefficients. The frequency of visit scale was inversely related to the ratings of the importanceof both the Reference Library for business role (r = -.21) and the Research Center role (r = -.16),and positively related to the ratings of the importance of the Public Work Place role (r = .26).The less frequently users went to a library, the higher their ratings of the importance of theReference Library for business role and the Research Center role, or the more frequently userswert to a library, the lower their ratings of the importance of the Reference Library for businessre!.e and the Research Center role. The more frequently people went to a library, the higher theirrating of the importance of the Public Work Place role.

Whether someone else went to a public library for the respondent. There were five statisticallysignificant differences between respondents who had someone else go to a library for them andrespondents who did not (see Table 102). Respondents who had someone else go to a libraryfor them rated the Reference Library for personal information role, the Reference Library forbusiness role, the Community Activities Center role, the Research Center role, and the PublicWork Place role higher than respondents who did not. The differences for the Reference Library:or business role and the Public Work Place role were trivial.

Whether the respondent called a public library in the last year. There was one statisticallysignificant and non-trivial difference between respondents who called a library for informationand those that did not (see Table 103). Respondents who had called a library rated the ReferenceLibrary for business lower than respondents who had not called a library for information.

Whether the respondent had made any use of a public library in the past year. There were fourstatistically significant differences between respondents who had made any use of a library andrespondents who had not (see Table 104). Respondents who h: d made any use of a library rated

- 163 -

2 to

the Formal Education Support Center role, the Preschoolers' Door to Learning role, theCommunity Activities Center role, and the Research Center role higher than respondents who hadnot made use of a library. The differences for the Community Activities Center role and theResearch Center role were trivial.

THE HISPANIC AMERICAN SAMPLE'S OPINION ABOUT AMOUNT OF PER CAPITASPENDING FOR PUBLIC LIBRARIES

The responses to the question about the amount of money that the community shouldspend on library services were tabulated and are reported in Table 105. These results indicatethat 36.5% of the respondents answered that the community should spend between $1 to $20 orper capita on public libraries (this interval contains the national [1990] median of $16.00 percapita), while 44.0% of the respondents answered that the community should spend more than$20 per capita. Nineteen point four per cent of the respondents were not sure and did notrespond. The average per capita expenditure' that the respondents thought the community shouldspend annually on the public library was $39.22 - an amount twice as high as the national percapita expenditure.

DIFFERENCES OF OPINION AMONG SEGMENTS OF THE HISPANIC AMERICANSAMPLE ABOUT T'HE AMOUNT OF PER CAPITA SPENDING FOR PUBLIC LIBRARIES

The respondents' opinions about the amount of money that the community should spendfor library services was tested for differences among respondents based on the samecharacteristics of the respondents as were identified on pages 155 and 156. The results of theseanalyses, reported in Table 106, indicated that there were fifteen statistically significant and non-trivial differences. These differences are reported below.

Region of country Respondents living in the northeastern states and the western states were ofthe opinion that the community should spend about $51.82 and $43.54 respectively per capitawhich were higher than the amounts selected by respondents living in the north central states($14.42) and the south central states ($34.29).

% of community which is Hispanic American. Respondents living in communities with lowpercentages (less than 11%) were of the opinion that the community should spend about $48.57per capita which was higher than the amount ($31.76) selected by respondents living in areaswith high percentages (over 40%) and higher than the amount ($31.76) selected by respondentsin areas with moderate percentages (11% - 40%).

Gender. Males were of the opinion that the community should spend about $47.39 per capitawhich was higher than the amount selected by females ($31.35).

The average or mean of the scores was calculated using the mid-point of each interval; namely, $0, $10, $30,$50, $70, $90, and $110.

- 164 -

Age. The correlation coefficient between the age of the respondents and their opinions about howmuch money the community should spend was not significant.

Respondents who were 36 to 50 years of age were of the opinion that the communityshould spend about $47.39 per capita which was higher than the amounts selected by respondentsaged 51 to 65 years ($29.00) and over 66 years old ($20.35). Respondents who were 18 to 35years of age selected $39.15 which was not statistically different than either the high or lowamounts selected.

National ancestry. Respondents of Puerto Rican ancestry were of the opinion that the communityshould spend about $50.88 per capita which was higher than the amounts selected by respondentswho considered themselves to Mexican ($33.70) or "Other" Hispanic ancestry ($32.64).Respondents who considered themselves to be Mexican American selected $42.53 per capitawhich was not statistically different than either the high or low per capita amounts.

'Highest grade level completed. The correlation coefficient between the highest grade levelcompleted by the respondents and their opinions about the amount of money the communityshould spend was not significant.

Respondents who had completed some high school grades were of the opinion that thecommunity should spend about $57.54 per capita which was higher than the amounts selectedby respondents who had completed 8th grade or less ($28.18), completed the 12th grade ($37.01),or who had completed some college ($34.59). Respondents who had completed college selected$42.43 per capita which was not statistically different than either the high or low per capitaamounts.

Whether, if the respondent had completed the 12th grade or less, the respondent had a highschool diploma. Respondents who had a high school diploma were of the opinion that thecommunity should spend about $34.67 per capita which was less than respondents who did nothave a high school diploma ($45.49).

Marital status. Respondents who were never married were of the opinion that the communityshould spend about $47.90 per capita which was higher than the amounts selected by respondentswho were married ($35.97) and respondents who were divorced ($32.96).

The number of people living in the home. The correlation coefficient between the number ofpeople living in the home of the respondents and their opinions about the amount of money thecommunity should spend was statistically significant and non-trivial (r = .26). The higher thenumber of people living in the home, the greater the amount of money the respondents thoughtthe community should provide for library services.

Respondents living in homes with six or more people were of the opinion that thecommunity should spend about $61.03 per capita which was higher than the amounts selectedby all other groups; namely, one person ($28.29), two people ($22.79), three people ($40.27),four people ($40.76), and five people ($33.24).

- 165 -

The number of preschool children living in the home. The correlation coefficient between thenumber of preschool children living in the home of the respondents and their opinions about theamount of money the community should spend was not significant.

Respondents living in homes with one or more preschool children were of the opinion thatthe community should spend about $53.24 per capita which was higher than the amount selectedby respondents living in homes without any preschool children ($35.17).

Principal language spoken at home. Respondents living in homes where English is the principallanguage were of the opinion that the community should spend about $47.45 per capita whichwas higher than the amount selected by respondents living in homes where Spanish was theprincipal language ($28.74).

Total annual household income. The correlation coefficient between the total annual householdincome of the respondents and their opinions about the amount of money the community shouldspend was statistically significant and non-trivial (r = .27). The higher the total annual householdincome, the higher the amount that the respondents thought the community should spend.

Respondents living in households with incomes of $30,000 to $39,999 and in householdswith incomes of over $40,000 were of the opinions that the public library should receive about$50.06 and $62.41 respectively in per capita support which were higher than the amounts selectedby respondents living in households with incomes of less than $10,000 ($32.87), $10,000 to$19,999 ($26.01), and $20,000 $29,999 ($25.98).

Whether the respondent voted in last (1988) presidential election. Respondents who voted in thelast presidential election were of the opinion that the community should spend about $33.61 percapita which was lower than the amount selected by respondents who did not vote ($42.42).

The respondent' s opinion about hislher current financial condition. Respondents who felt thatthey were better off this year than last year were of the opinion that the community should spendabout $51.52 per capita which was higher than the amounts selected by respondents who felt thatthey were worse off this year ($28.94) and by respondents who felt that they were about the same($35.31).

The respondent' s opinion about hislher financial condition next year. Respondents who felt thatthey will be better off next year were of the opinion that the community should spend about$45.33 per capita which was higher than the amount selected by respondents who felt that theywill be worse off next year ($27.00). Respondents who felt that they will be about the same nextyear selected $32.93 which was not statistically different than the other two groups.

There were no statistically significant differences among the respondents based on whetherthere were any students in the home, whether the respondent was a student, their employmentstatus, and whether there was a disabled person in the household.

- 166 -

DIFFERENCES OF OPINION ABOUT THE AMOUNT OF PER CAPITA SPENDING FORPUBLIC LIBRARIES BY LIBRARY USERS AND NONUSERS IN THE HISPANICAMERICAN SAMPLE

The respondents' selection of the amount of money that the community should spend forlibrary services was tested for differences among respondents (using analysis of variance) basedon the following library use behaviors: whether or not the respondent had gone to a public libraryin the past year, whether or not someone else had gone to a library to obtain materials for therespondent, whether or not the respondent had called a library for information in the past year,and a constructed measure of any kind of use of a public library whether or not a respondentanswered "yes" to any one of the three "use"questions. The results of these analyses, alsoreported in Table 107, indicated that there were no statistically significant differences.

The frequency with which library users visited a library was also entered into correlationanalysis with the amount of community spending scale. The result of this analysis indicated thatthere was a statistically significant and non-trivial correlation coefficient (r = .29) indicating thatthe more frequently the library users visited a library the higher the amount of money theythought the community should spend for library services.

RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN THE EVALUATIONS OF THE ROLES AND THE OPINIONSABOUT THE AMOUNT OF PER CAPITA SPENDING FOR PUBLIC LIBRARIES IN THEHISPANIC AMERICAN SAMPLE

In order to identify which of the roles of the public library the Hispanic American sampleappeared most willing to support financially, each of the role importance scales was entered intoa correlation analysis with the amount of community spending scale. Two of these analysesresulted in correlation coefficients that were statistically significant and non-trivial. The ratingsof the importance of the Community Information Center role were positively correlated (r = .17)with amount of community spending and the ratings of the Public Work Place were alsopositively correlated (r = .20) with amount of community spending. The higher the respondents'ratings of the importance of the Community Information Center role and the ratings of the PublicWork Place role, the higher the amount of money the respondents thought the community shouldspend for library services.

- 167 -

His

pani

c A

mer

ican

Sam

ple

TA

BL

E 8

1T

HE

EV

AL

UA

TIO

NS

OF

TH

E I

MPO

RT

AN

CE

OF

TH

E V

AR

IOU

S R

OL

ES

OF

TH

E P

UB

LIC

LIB

RA

RY

BY

TH

E H

ISPA

NIC

AM

ER

ICA

N S

AM

PLE

(N =

399

)

ie%

Inde

pend

ent L

earn

ing

Cen

ter

3.95

95.4

Form

al E

duca

tion

Supp

ort C

ente

r3.

9293

.8

Pres

choo

lers

' Doo

r to

Lea

rnin

g3.

9193

.0

Com

mun

ity I

nfor

mat

ion

Cen

ter

3.81

85.3

Res

earc

h C

ente

r3.

7984

.2

Publ

ic W

ork

Plac

e3.

6474

.9

Ref

eren

ce L

ibra

ry -

Bus

ines

s7.

6272

.7

Ref

eren

ce L

ibra

ry -

Per

sona

l3.

5261

.1

Com

mun

ity A

ctiv

ities

Cen

ter

3.46

61.5

Popu

lar

Mat

eria

ls L

ibra

ry3.

4657

.4

C 4, I

.1_

Not

e: N

is th

e sa

mpl

e si

ze a

nd r

epre

sent

s, in

gen

eral

, the

num

ber

of r

espo

nden

ts w

ho r

ated

eac

h ro

le. X

rep

rese

nts

the

mea

n ra

ting

for

each

role

on

the

four

-poi

nt im

port

ance

sca

le. %

repr

esen

ts th

e pe

rcen

tage

of t

he s

ampl

e th

at r

ated

the

role

"ve

ry im

port

ant."

For

som

e ro

les

ther

e w

ere

afe

w n

on-r

espo

nden

ts, b

ut th

ese

slig

ht d

iffer

ence

s in

sam

ple

size

s ar

e in

cons

eque

ntia

lfo

r th

e pu

rpos

e of

est

imat

ing

the

sam

plin

g er

ror

asso

ciat

ed w

ith th

e %

of r

espo

nden

ts w

ho r

ated

the

role

"ve

ry im

port

ant."

- 16

8 -

His

pani

c A

mer

ican

Sam

ple

TA

BL

E 8

2C

OM

PAR

ISO

NS

AM

ON

G R

ESP

ON

DE

NT

S FR

OM

DIF

FER

EN

T R

EG

ION

S O

F T

HE

CO

UN

TR

Y*

Sout

hN

orth

Nor

thea

stC

entr

alC

entr

alW

est

(N =

52)

(N =

130

)(N

= 3

6)(N

= 1

81)

i%

I%

I%

I95

.9

94.6

58.1

69.2

64.3

87.4

90.2

95.5

73.0

49.0

Form

al. E

duca

tion

Supp

ort C

ente

r4.

00 1

00.0

3.96

Pres

choo

lers

' Doo

r to

Lea

rnin

g4.

00 1

00.0

3.93

Ref

eren

ce L

ibra

ryPe

rson

al3.

7780

.43.

53

Ref

eren

ce L

ibra

ryB

usin

ess

3.95

94.5

3.65

Com

mun

ity A

ctiv

ities

Cen

ter

3.51

50.6

3.51

Res

earc

h C

ente

r3.

9594

.83.

84

Com

mun

ity I

nfor

mat

ion

Cen

ter

3.97

97.0

3.87

Inde

pend

ent L

earn

ing

Cen

ter

3.97

97.0

3.95

Publ

ic W

ork

Plac

e3.

5763

.03.

68

Popu

lar

Mat

eria

ls L

ibra

ry3.

6166

.43.

30

4.00

100.

03.

85

3.96

96.4

3.86

3.73

73.4

3.40

3.62

66.7

3.51

3.63

79.2

3.38

3.87

86.8

3.69

3.80

86.0

3.73

3.94

94.2

3.94

3.95

95.5

3.56

3.73

77.1

3.47

%a

R2

89.3

.003

.036

89.2

.046

.020

55.1

.001

.040

69.9

.001

.044

59.2

n.S.

78.3

.007

.030

78.3

.004

.033

95.1

n.s.

75.7

.018

.025

56.3

.005

.033

Thi

s ta

ble

repo

rts

the

sum

mar

y an

alys

es o

f va

rian

ce f

or th

e co

mpa

riso

ns a

mon

g th

e m

ean

role

impo

rtan

ce s

cale

sco

res

for

the

grou

ps o

f re

spon

dent

side

ntif

ied

by th

e co

lum

n he

adin

gs.

Not

e: N

is th

e sa

rnpl

e si

ze f

or e

ach

grou

p an

d re

pres

ents

, in

gene

ral,

the

num

ber

of r

espo

nden

ts w

ho r

ated

eac

h ro

le.

ii re

pres

ents

the

mea

n ra

ting

for

each

rol

e on

the

four

-poi

nt im

port

ance

scal

e. E

xpla

natio

ns o

f a

(the

alp

ha le

vel)

and

R2

(the

coe

ffic

ient

of

dete

rmin

atio

n) a

re p

rovi

ded

on p

age

155.

The

initi

als

n.s.

indi

cate

that

the

obse

rved

diff

eren

ces

amon

g th

e gr

oup

mea

ns a

reno

t sta

tistic

ally

sig

nifi

cant

. % r

epre

sent

s th

e pe

rcen

tage

of

each

gro

up th

at r

ated

the

role

"ve

ry im

port

ant."

The

se%

are

pre

sent

ed f

or d

escr

iptiv

e pu

rpos

es. F

or s

ome

role

s th

ere

wer

e a

few

non-

resp

onde

nts,

but

thes

e sl

ight

dif

fere

nces

in s

ampl

e si

zes

are

inco

nseq

umfi

al f

or th

e pu

rpos

e of

est

imat

ing

the

sam

plin

g er

ror

asso

ciat

ed w

ith th

e pe

rcen

tage

of r

espo

nden

ts w

ho r

ated

the

role

s "v

ery

impo

rtan

t."

2-

169

His

pank

Am

eric

an S

amp!

e

TA

BL

E 8

3C

OM

PAR

ISO

NS

AM

ON

G R

ESP

ON

DE

NT

S FR

OM

CO

MM

UN

ITIE

S W

ITH

DIF

FER

EN

TPE

RC

EN

TA

GE

S O

F H

ISPA

NIC

AM

ER

ICA

N R

ESI

DE

NT

S'

41%

100%

(N =

94)

i%

11%

40%

(N =

121

)

i%

0% -

10%

(N =

184

)

i%

aR

2

Form

al E

duca

tion

Supp

ort C

ente

r3.

9596

.23.

7885

.73.

9797

.4.0

00.0

58

Pres

choo

lers

' Doo

r to

Lea

rnin

g3.

8992

.83.

9091

.13.

9294

.4n.

s.

Ref

eren

ce L

ibra

ryPe

rson

al3.

5967

.83.

5061

.03.

5057

.8n.

s.

Ref

eren

ce L

ibra

ryB

usin

ess

3.69

77.6

3.71

83.5

3.53

63.7

.038

.017

Cor

ranu

nity

Act

iviti

es C

ente

r3.

4260

.63.

4658

.83.

4963

.5n.

s.

Res

earc

h C

ente

r3.

8186

.23.

7486

.73.

8181

.5n.

s.

Com

mun

ity I

nfor

mat

ion

Cen

ter

3.77

83.9

3.76

82.1

3.87

88.3

n.s.

Inde

pend

ent L

earn

ing

Cen

ter

3.95

95.9

3.96

95.9

3.94

94.8

n.s.

Publ

ic W

ork

Plac

e3.

6778

.73.

6771

.13.

6075

.5n.

s.

Popl

ar M

ater

ials

Lib

rary

3.55

63.9

3.32

50.3

3.50

58.3

.048

.016

Thi

s ta

ble

repo

rts

the

sum

mar

y an

alys

es o

f var

ianc

e fo

r th

e co

mpa

rison

s am

ong

the

mea

n ro

le im

port

ance

sca

le s

core

s fo

r th

c gr

oups

of r

espo

nden

ts id

entif

ied

byth

e co

lum

n he

adin

gs.

Not

e: N

is th

e sa

mpl

e si

n fo

r ea

ch g

roup

and

rep

rese

nts,

in g

ener

al, t

he n

umbe

r of

res

pond

ents

who

rat

ed e

ach

role

. i r

epre

sent

s th

e m

ean

ratin

g fo

r ea

ch r

ole

on th

e fo

ur-p

oint

impo

rtan

cesc

ale.

Exp

lana

tions

of a

(th

e al

pha

leve

l) an

d R

2 (t

hc c

oeffi

cien

t of d

eter

min

atio

n) a

re p

rovi

ded

on p

age

155.

Thc

initi

als

n.s.

indi

cate

that

the

obse

rved

diffe

renc

es a

mon

g th

e gr

oup

mea

ns a

renu

t sta

tistic

ally

sig

nific

ant.

% r

epre

sent

s th

e pe

rcen

tage

of e

ach

grou

p th

at r

ated

the

role

"ve

ry im

port

ant."

The

se %

are

pre

sent

ed fo

r de

scrip

tive

purp

oses

. For

som

ero

les

ther

e w

ere

a fe

wno

n-re

spon

dent

s, b

ut th

ese

slig

ht d

iffer

ence

s in

sam

ple

size

s ar

e in

cons

eque

ntia

l for

the

purp

ose

of e

stim

atin

g th

e sa

mpl

ing

crro

r as

soci

ated

with

the

perc

enta

ge o

f res

pond

ents

who

rate

d th

ec

-ro

les

"ver

y im

port

.1an

t."L.

)

- 17

0 -

His

pani

c A

mer

ican

Sam

ple

TA

BL

E 8

4C

OM

PAR

ISO

NS

BE

TW

EE

N M

AL

E A

ND

FE

MA

LE

RE

SPO

ND

EN

TS*

Mal

e(N

= 1

92)

Fem

ale

(N =

207

)

i%

i%

aR

2

Form

al E

duca

tion

Supp

ort C

ente

r19

292

.83.

9194

.7n.

s.

Pres

choo

lers

' Doo

r to

Lea

rnin

g3.

9091

.23.

9294

.7n.

s.

Ref

eren

ce L

ibra

ry -

Per

sona

l3.

5561

.53.

4960

.8n.

s.

Ref

eren

ce L

ibra

ryB

usin

ess

3.65

78.5

3.59

67.0

n.s.

Com

mun

ity A

ctiv

ities

Cen

ter

3.39

58.0

3.53

64.8

n.s.

Res

earc

h C

ente

r3.

7981

.23.

7986

.9n.

s.

Com

mun

ity I

nfor

mat

ion

Cen

ter

3.79

80.2

3.84

90.1

n.s.

Inde

pend

ent L

earn

ing

Cen

ter

3.93

94.7

3.96

96.0

n.s.

Publ

ic W

ork

Plac

e3.

5874

.03.

6975

.8n.

s.

Popu

lar

Mat

eria

ls L

ibra

ry3.

3552

.53.

5762

.1.0

03.0

22

Thi

s ta

ble

repo

rts

the

sum

mar

y an

alys

es o

f va

rian

ce f

or th

e co

mpa

riso

ns a

mon

g th

e m

ean

role

impo

rtan

ce s

cale

sco

res

for

thc

grou

ps o

f re

spon

dent

s id

entif

ied

byth

e co

lum

n he

adin

gs.

Not

e: N

is th

e sa

mpl

e si

ze f

or e

ach

grou

p an

d re

pres

ents

, in

gene

ral,

the

num

ber

of r

espo

ndcn

ts w

ho r

ated

eac

h ro

le.

ii re

pres

ents

the

mea

n ra

ting

for

each

rol

e on

the

four

-poi

nt im

port

ance

scal

e. E

xpla

natio

ns o

f a

(the

alp

ha le

vel)

and

le (

the

coef

fici

ent o

f de

term

inat

ion)

are

pro

vide

d on

pag

e 15

5. T

he in

itial

s n.

s. in

dica

te th

at th

e ob

serv

eddi

ffer

ence

s am

ong

the

grou

p m

eans

are

not s

tatis

tical

ly s

igni

fica

nt. %

rep

rese

nts

the

perc

enta

ge o

f ea

ch g

roup

that

rat

ed th

e ro

le "

very

impo

rtan

t." T

hese

% a

re p

rese

nted

for

des

crip

tive

purp

oses

. For

som

ero

les

ther

e w

ere

a fe

wno

n-re

spon

dent

s, b

ut th

ese

slig

ht d

iffe

renc

es in

sam

ple

cize

s ar

e in

cons

eque

ntia

l for

the

purp

ose

of e

stim

atin

g th

e sa

mpl

ing

erro

r as

soci

ated

with

the

perc

enta

ge o

f re

spon

dent

s w

hora

ted

the

role

s "v

ery

impo

rtan

t."

IjI.

tr...

.,-

171

-I'

llisp

ank

Am

eric

an S

ampl

e

TA

BL

E 8

5C

OM

PAR

ISO

NS

AM

ON

G R

ESP

ON

DE

NT

S Fk

OM

DIF

FER

EN

T A

GE

GR

OU

PS'

18-3

536

-50

51-6

566

and

up

(N =

194

)(N

= 9

6)(N

= 6

2)(N

= 4

1)

X%

Form

al E

duca

tion

Supp

ort C

ente

r3.

8690

.9

Pres

choo

lers

' Doo

r to

Lea

rnin

g3.

9192

.6

Ref

eren

ce L

ibra

ry -

Per

sona

l3.

4958

.7

Ref

eren

ce L

ibra

ry -

Bus

ines

s3.

5568

.2

Com

mun

ity A

ctiv

ities

Cen

ter

3.55

67.1

Res

earc

h C

ente

r3.

7180

.3

Com

mun

ity I

nfor

mat

ion

Cen

ter

3.79

84.7

Inde

pend

ent L

earn

ing

Cen

ter

3.96

96.1

Publ

ic W

ork

Plac

e3.

7077

.2

Popu

lar

Mat

eria

ls L

ibra

ry3.

3452

.8

i%

I%

i%

aR

2

3.99

99.2

3.93

93.2

3.96

96.1

.027

.024

3.90

94.9

3.89

89.7

3.95

95.3

n.s.

3.69

73.8

3.57

61.6

2.97

27.3

.000

.064

3.73

80.7

3.55

64.2

3.85

91.1

.040

.022

3.49

59.9

3.44

56.8

2.75

35.1

.000

.066

3.83

84.9

3.84

85.7

3.99

98.7

.019

.025

3.84

86.9

3.91

91.4

3.76

75.8

n.s.

3.94

94.5

3.89

92.8

4.00

100.

0n.

s.

3.73

78.7

3.51

63.7

3.26

66.9

.001

.040

3.65

69.3

3.52

52.7

3.39

50.0

.005

.033

Thi

s ta

ble

repo

rts

the

sum

mar

y an

alys

es o

f va

rian

ce f

or th

e co

mpa

riso

ns a

mon

g th

e m

ean

role

impo

rtan

ce s

cale

sco

res

for

the

grou

ps o

f re

spon

dent

s id

entif

ied

byth

e co

lurr

m h

eadi

ngs.

Not

e: N

is th

e sa

mpl

e si

ze f

or e

ach

grou

p an

d re

pres

ents

, in

gene

ral,

um n

umbe

r of

res

pond

ents

who

rat

ed e

ach

role

. i r

epre

sent

s th

e m

ean

ratin

g fo

r ea

ch r

ole

on th

e fo

ur-p

oint

impo

rtan

cesc

ale.

Exp

lana

tions

of

a (t

he a

lpha

leve

l) a

nd k

2 (t

he c

oeff

icie

nt o

f de

term

inat

ion)

are

pro

vide

d on

pag

e 15

5. T

he in

itial

s n.

s. in

dica

te th

at th

e ob

serv

eddi

ffer

ence

s am

ong

the

grou

p m

eans

are

nol s

tatis

tical

ly s

igni

fica

nt. %

rep

rese

nts

the

perc

enta

ge o

f ea

ch g

roup

that

rat

vi th

e ro

le "

very

impo

rtan

t." T

hese

% a

re p

rese

nted

for

des

crip

tive

purp

oses

. For

som

ero

les

ther

e w

ere

a fe

wno

n-re

spon

dent

s, b

ut th

ese

slig

ht d

iffe

renc

es in

sam

ple

size

s ar

c in

cons

eque

ntia

l for

thc

purp

ose

of e

stim

atin

g th

e sa

mpl

ing

crro

r as

soci

ated

with

the

perc

enta

ge o

f re

spon

dent

s w

hora

ted

the

role

s "v

ery

impo

rtan

t.":

- 17

2 -

His

pani

c A

mer

ican

Sam

ple

TA

BL

E 8

6C

OM

PAR

ISO

NS

AM

ON

G H

ISPA

NIC

AM

ER

ICA

NS

BA

SED

ON

OR

IGIN

*

Mex

ican

-M

exic

anA

mer

ican

(N =

129

)(N

= 1

40)

1%

I%

Form

al E

duca

tion

Supp

ort C

ente

r3.

9595

.33.

9394

.1

Pres

choo

lers

' Doo

r to

Lea

rnin

g3.

9293

.33.

9393

.6

Ref

eren

ce L

ibra

ryPe

rson

al3.

4555

.33.

5761

.9

Ref

eren

ce L

ibra

ry -

Bus

ines

s3.

6669

.33.

5974

.5

Com

mun

ity A

ctiv

ities

Cen

ter

3.45

64.2

3.53

68.9

Res

earc

h C

ente

r3.

8587

.33.

8081

.8

Com

mun

ity I

nfor

mat

ion

Cen

ter

3.80

83.1

3.82

85.3

Inde

pend

ent L

earn

ing

Cen

ter

3.97

97.3

3.91

92.7

Publ

ic W

ork

Plac

e3.

5874

.23.

7479

.3

Popu

lar

Mat

eria

ls L

ibra

ry3.

4558

.23.

4558

.0

Puer

toR

ican

(N =

47)

Oth

er(N

= 8

0)

i%

i%

aR

2

3.71

85.4

3.97

96.8

.000

.051

4.00

100.

03.

8489

.9n.

s.

3.77

77.3

3.41

61.1

.016

.027

3.60

74.9

3.65

74.0

n.s.

3.28

42.6

3.51

57.5

n.s.

3.56

85.4

3.80

82.8

.023

.024

3.71

85.4

3.88

89.6

n.s.

4.00

100.

03.

9394

.1n.

s.

3.71

74.7

3.53

69.3

n.s.

3.58

57.7

3.45

55.2

n.s.

Thi

s ta

ble

repo

rts

the

sum

mar

y an

alys

es o

f var

ianc

e fo

r th

e co

mpa

rison

s am

ong

the

mea

n ro

le im

port

ance

sca

le s

core

sfo

r th

e gr

oups

of r

espo

nden

ts id

entif

ied

by th

e co

lum

n he

adin

gs.

Not

e: N

is th

e sa

mpl

e si

ze fo

r ca

ch g

roup

and

rep

rese

nts,

in g

ener

al, t

he n

umbe

r of

res

pond

ents

who

rat

ed e

ach

role

.X

rep

rese

nts

the

mea

n ra

ting

for

each

rol

e on

thc

four

-poi

nt im

port

ance

scal

e. E

xpla

natio

ns o

f a (

thc

alpr

ia le

vel)

and

R2

(the

coe

ffici

ent o

f det

erm

inat

ion)

are

pro

vide

d on

pag

e15

5. T

he in

itial

s n.

s. in

dica

te th

at th

e ob

serv

ed d

iffer

ence

s am

ong

the

grou

p m

eans

are

not s

tatis

tical

ly s

igni

fican

t. %

rep

rese

nts

the

perc

enta

ge o

f eac

h gr

oup

that

rat

ed th

c ro

le"v

ery

impo

rtan

t." T

hese

% a

re p

rese

nted

for

desc

riptiv

e pu

-pos

es. F

or s

ome

role

s th

ere

wer

e a

few

non-

resp

onde

nts,

but

thes

e sl

ight

diff

eren

ces

in s

ampl

e si

zes

are

inco

nseq

uent

ial f

or th

e pt

n-po

se o

f est

imat

ing

thc

sam

plin

g er

ror

asso

ciat

ed w

ith th

e pe

rcen

tage

of r

pond

ents

who

rat

ed th

e

roks

"ve

ry im

port

ant."

- 17

3 -

His

pani

c A

mer

ican

Sam

ple

TA

BL

E 8

7C

OM

PAR

ISO

NS

AM

ON

G R

ESP

ON

DE

NT

S B

ASE

D O

N H

IGH

EST

GR

AD

E L

EV

EL

CO

MPL

ET

ED

'

8th

grad

eor

less

(N =

99)

i%

9th

11th

grad

e(N

= 7

4)

i%

Form

al E

duca

tion

Supp

ort C

ente

r3.

7885

.53.

9796

.8

Pres

choo

lers

' Doo

r to

Lea

rnin

g3.

9393

.24.

0010

0.0

Ref

eren

ce L

ibra

ry -

Per

sona

l3.

5766

.53.

5152

.5

Ref

eren

ce L

ibra

ry -

Bus

ines

s3.

5868

.33.

6682

.3

Com

mun

ity A

ctiv

ities

Cen

ter

3.20

51.0

03.

8689

.6

Res

earc

h C

ente

r3.

7288

.03.

7676

.6

Com

mun

ity I

nfor

mat

ion

Cen

ter

3.72

79.3

3.91

93.0

Inde

pend

ent L

earn

ing

Cen

ter

3.98

97.9

4.00

100.

0

Publ

ic W

ork

Plac

e3.

5572

.83.

8386

.1

Popu

lar

Mat

eria

ls L

ibra

ry3.

2448

.13.

5662

.4

Com

plet

ed12

th g

rade

Som

e co

llege

colle

ge(N

= 1

22)

(N =

60)

(N =

36)

I%

i%

1%

aR

2

3.95

96.3

3.84

89.7

3.56

67.0

3.67

79.1

3.35

52.6

3.86

88.3

3.78

83.5

3.93

93.6

3.58

71.1

3.54

62.5

3.97

96.8

3.93

3.91

91.8

3.88

3.59

61.9

3.08

3.57

60.6

3.47

3.56

63.6

3.42

3.83

84.7

3.69

3.88

88.6

3.84

3.91

91.3

3.84

3.71

815

3.49

3.47

54.8

3.41

93.2

.001

.046

90.7

n.s.

39.4

.002

.044

57.5

n.s.

49.2

.000

.081

71.6

n.s.

84.4

n.s.

90.8

.022

.029

57.4

.050

.024

48.9

.033

.027

Thi

s ta

ble

repo

rts

the

sum

mar

y an

alys

es o

f var

ianc

e fo

r th

e co

mpa

rison

s am

ong

the

mea

n ro

le im

port

ance

sca

le s

core

s fo

r th

e gr

oups

of r

espo

nden

ts id

entif

ied

byth

e co

lum

n he

adin

gs.

Not

e: N

is th

e sa

mpl

e si

ze fo

r ea

ch g

roup

and

rep

rese

nts,

in g

ener

al, t

he n

umbe

r of

res

pond

ents

who

rat

ed e

ach

role

. 2 r

epre

sent

s th

e m

ean

ratin

g fo

r ea

ch r

ole

on th

e fo

ur-p

oint

impo

rtan

cesc

ale.

Exp

lana

tions

of a

(th

e al

pha

leve

l) an

d R

2 (t

he c

oeffi

cien

t of d

eter

min

atio

n) a

re p

rovi

ded

on p

age

155.

The

initi

als

n.s.

indi

cate

that

the

obse

rved

diffe

renc

es a

mon

g th

e gr

oup

mea

ns a

re(-

)'n

ot s

tatis

tical

ly s

igni

fican

t. %

rep

resm

ts th

e pe

rcen

tag:

of e

ach

grou

p th

at r

ated

the

role

"ve

ry im

port

ant."

The

se %

arc

pre

sent

ed fc

c de

scrip

tive

purp

oses

. For

som

ero

les

ther

e w

ere

a fe

w"n

on-r

espo

nden

ts, b

ut th

ese

slig

ht d

iffer

ence

s in

sam

ple

size

s ar

e in

cons

eque

ntia

l for

the

purp

ose

of e

stim

atin

g th

e sa

mpl

ing

erro

r as

soci

ated

with

the

perc

enta

ge o

f res

pond

ents

who

rate

d th

e

role

s "v

ery

impo

rtan

t."3

- 17

4 -

His

pani

c A

mer

ican

Sam

ple

TA

BL

E 8

8C

OM

PAR

ISO

NS

AM

ON

G R

ESP

ON

DE

NT

S B

ASE

D O

N A

WA

RD

OF

HIG

H S

CH

OO

L D

IPL

OM

A*

Hig

h sc

hool

dipl

oma

(N =

137

)

i%

No

high

sch

ool

dipl

oma

(N =

160

)_ X

%a.

R2

Form

al E

duca

tion

Supp

ort C

ente

r3.

8893

.13.

9293

.1n.

s.

Pres

choo

lers

' Doo

r to

Lea

rnin

g3.

8892

.33.

9494

.5n.

s.

Ref

eren

ce L

ibra

ry -

Per

sona

l3.

6168

.63.

5158

.2n.

s.

Ref

eren

ce L

ibra

ryB

usin

ess

3.65

78.9

3.64

74.9

n.s.

Com

mun

ity A

ctiv

ities

Cen

ter

3.34

53.5

3.52

69.6

n.s.

Res

earc

h C

ente

r3.

7384

.23.

8486

.3n.

s.

Com

mun

ity I

nfor

mat

ion

Cen

ter

3.73

81.4

3.86

87.4

.032

.015

Inde

pend

ent L

earn

ing

Cen

ter

3.94

95.0

3.98

98.2

n.s.

Publ

ic W

ork

Plac

e3.

6273

.43.

6677

.6n.

s.

Popu

lar

Mat

eria

ls L

ibra

ry3.

5562

.03.

3754

.7.0

41.0

15

Thi

s ta

ble

repo

rts

the

sum

mar

y an

alys

es o

f var

ianc

e fo

r th

e co

mpa

rison

s am

ong

the

mea

n ro

le im

port

ance

sca

le s

core

s fo

r th

e gr

oups

of r

espo

nden

ts id

entif

ied

byth

e co

lum

n he

adin

gs.

Not

e: N

is th

e sa

mpl

e si

ze fo

r ea

ch g

roup

and

rep

rese

nts,

in g

ener

al, t

he n

umbe

r of

res

pond

ents

who

rat

ed e

ach

role

. I r

epre

sent

s th

e m

ean

ratin

g fo

r ea

ch r

ok o

n th

e fo

ur-p

oint

impo

rtan

cesc

ale.

Exp

lana

tions

of a

(th

e al

pha

leve

l) an

d 11

2 (t

he c

oeffi

cion

of d

eter

min

atio

n) a

re p

rovi

ded

on p

age

155.

The

initi

als

n.s.

indi

cate

that

the

obse

rved

diffe

renc

es a

mon

g th

e gr

oup

mea

ns a

reno

t sta

tistic

ally

sig

nific

ant.

% r

epre

sent

s th

e pe

rcen

tage

of e

ach

grou

p th

at r

ated

the

role

"ve

ry im

port

ant."

The

se %

ate

pre

sent

ed fo

r de

scrip

tive

purp

oses

. For

som

ero

les

ther

e w

ere

a fe

wno

n-re

spon

dent

s. b

ut th

ese

slig

ht d

iffer

ence

s in

sam

ple

size

s ar

e in

cons

eque

ntia

l for

the

purp

ose

of e

stim

atin

g th

e sa

mpl

ing

erro

r as

soci

ated

with

the

perc

enta

ge o

f res

pond

ents

who

rate

d th

ero

les

"ver

y im

port

ant."

- 17

5 -

His

pani

c A

mer

ican

Sam

ple

TA

BL

E 8

9C

OM

PAR

ISO

NS

AM

ON

G R

ESP

ON

DE

NT

S B

ASE

D O

N M

AR

ITA

L S

TA

TU

S*

Mar

ried

(N =

224

)D

ivor

ced

(N =

36)

Nev

erm

arri

ed(N

= 1

07)

ccR

2

Form

al E

duca

tion

Supp

ort C

ente

r3.

9092

.94.

001.

003.

9091

.8n.

s.

Pres

choo

lers

' Doo

r to

Lea

rnin

g3.

90A

l .,

.....-

73.

9394

.53.

9091

.1n.

s.

Ref

eren

ce L

ibra

ryPe

rson

al3.

6166

.73.

7373

.43.

3045

.3.0

00.0

56

Ref

eren

ce L

ibra

ryB

usin

ess

3.66

74.8

3.69

75.8

3.44

60.6

.021

.022

Com

mun

ity A

ctiv

ities

Cen

ter

3.35

57.0

3.42

54.2

3.60

66.7

.030

.020

Res

earc

h C

ente

r3.

7886

.03.

8182

.33.

7476

.2n.

s.

Com

mun

ity I

nfor

mat

ion

Cen

ter

3.77

83.2

3.75

78.9

3.86

87.8

n.s.

Inde

pend

ent L

earn

ing

Cen

ter

3.94

95.5

3.88

89.3

3.95

95.9

n.s.

Publ

ic W

ork

Plac

e3.

6678

.73.

5160

.63.

6068

.8n.

s.

Popu

lar

Mat

eria

ls L

ibra

ry3.

4857

.03.

5963

.83.

2243

.2.0

05.0

30

'Thi

s ta

ble

rcpo

rts

the

sum

mar

y an

alys

es o

f var

ianc

e fo

r th

e co

mpa

rison

s am

ong

the

mea

n ro

le im

port

ance

sca

le s

core

s fo

r th

e gr

oups

of r

espo

nden

ts id

entif

ied

byth

e co

lum

n he

adin

gs.

Not

e: N

is th

e sa

mpl

e si

ze fo

r ea

ch g

roup

and

rcp

r sc

nts,

in r

nera

l, th

e nu

mbe

r of

res

pond

ents

who

rat

ed e

ach

role

. i r

epre

sent

s th

em

ean

ratin

g fo

r ea

ch r

ole

on th

e fo

ur-p

oint

impo

rtan

cesc

ale.

Exp

lana

tions

of a

(th

e al

pha

leve

l) an

d le

(th

c co

effic

ient

of d

eter

min

atio

n) a

re p

rovi

ded

on p

age

155.

The

initi

als

n.s.

indi

cate

that

the

obse

rved

diffe

renc

es a

mon

g th

e gr

oup

mea

ns a

re,p

ot s

tatis

tical

ly s

igni

fican

t. %

rep

rese

nts

the

perc

enta

ge o

f eac

h gr

oup

that

rat

ed th

e ro

le "

very

impo

rtan

t." T

hese

% a

re p

rese

nted

for

desc

riptiv

e pu

rpos

es.

For

som

e ro

les

ther

e w

ere

a fe

wno

n-re

spon

dent

s, b

ut th

ese

slig

ht d

iffer

ence

s in

sam

ple

size

s ar

e in

cons

eque

ntia

l for

the

purp

ose

of e

stim

atin

g th

e sa

mpl

ing

erro

r as

soci

ated

with

the

perc

enta

ge o

f res

pond

ents

who

rate

d th

e

role

s "v

ery

impo

rtan

t."4;

3

- 17

6 -

His

pani

c A

mer

ican

Sam

ple

TA

BL

E 9

0C

OM

PAR

ISO

NS

AM

ON

G R

ESP

ON

DE

NT

S B

ASE

D O

N N

UM

BE

R O

F PE

OPL

E I

N T

HE

HO

ME

.

12

34

56

or m

are

(N =

25)

(N =

92)

(N =

79)

(N =

81)

(N =

43)

(N =

64)

Form

al E

duca

tion

Supp

ort C

ente

r3.

9291

.63.

8189

.23.

9595

.83.

9696

.43.

9191

.53.

9494

.9

Pres

choo

lers

' Doo

r to

Lea

rnin

g3.

9190

.73.

8489

.73.

8888

.93.

9898

.43.

9093

.93.

9495

.2

Ref

eren

ce L

ibra

ryPe

rson

al3.

6264

.23.

3756

.13.

4955

.83.

5052

.63.

3842

.33.

7387

.1

Ref

eren

ce L

ibra

ryB

usin

ess

3.43

53.9

3.46

66.7

3.70

75.9

3.40

58.1

3.69

74.6

3.94

94.3

Com

mun

ity A

ctiv

ities

Cen

ter

3.47

54.2

2.99

42.0

3.62

67.4

3.44

58.5

3.62

73.5

3.67

69.7

Res

earc

h C

ente

r3.

7680

.83.

6681

.73.

7780

.83.

7576

.93.

8686

.73.

9697

.1

Com

mun

ity I

nfor

mat

ion

Cen

ter

3.79

79.0

3.65

73.2

3.86

90.5

3.85

88.8

3.86

87.9

3.89

90.1

Inde

pend

ent L

earn

ing

Cen

ter

3.72

80.8

3.95

95.3

3.94

95.2

3.94

94.3

3.99

99.7

3.99

99.0

Publ

ic W

ork

Plac

e3.

4864

.43.

2959

.63.

7581

.33.

7174

.63.

7475

.33.

8387

.9

Popu

lar

Mat

eria

ls L

ibra

ry3.

4761

.43.

3844

.63.

2649

.33.

4549

.03.

4455

.93.

7285

.3

a n.s.

n.s.

R2

.033

.033

.000

.079

.000

.098

.034

.031

.017

.036

.001

.052

.000

.082

.016

.037

Thi

s ta

ble

repo

rts

the

sum

mar

y an

alys

es o

f var

ianc

e fo

r th

e co

mpa

rison

s am

ong

the

mea

nro

le im

port

ance

sca

le s

core

s fo

r th

e gr

oups

of r

espo

nden

ts id

entif

ied

by th

e co

lum

n he

adin

gs.

Not

e: N

is th

e sa

mpl

e si

ze fo

r ea

ch g

roup

and

rep

rese

nts,

in g

ener

al, t

he n

umbe

r of

res

pond

ents

who

rat

ed e

ach

role

. X r

epre

sent

s th

e m

ean

ratin

g fo

r ea

ch r

ole

on th

e fo

ur-p

oint

impo

rtan

ce

scal

e. E

xpla

natio

ns o

f a. (

the

alph

a le

vel)

and

112

(the

coe

ffici

ent o

f det

erm

inat

ion)

are

prov

ided

on

page

155

. The

initi

als

n.s.

indi

cate

that

the

obse

rved

diff

eren

ces

amon

g th

e gr

oup

mea

ns a

re

not s

tatis

tical

ly s

igni

fican

t. %

rep

rese

nts

the

perc

enta

ge o

f eac

h gr

oup

that

rat

ed th

ero

le "

very

impo

rtan

t." T

hese

% a

re p

rese

nted

for

desc

riptiv

e pu

rpos

es. F

or s

ome

role

sth

ere

wer

e a

few

non-

resp

onde

nts,

but

thes

e sl

ight

diff

eren

ces

in s

ampl

e si

zes

are

inco

nseq

uent

ial f

or th

e pu

rpos

eof

est

imat

ing

the

sam

plin

g er

ror

asso

ciat

ed w

ith th

e pe

rcen

tage

of r

espo

nden

ts w

ho r

ated

the

role

s "v

ery

impo

rtan

t."

- 17

7 -

His

pani

c A

mer

ican

Sam

ple

TA

BL

E 9

1C

OM

PAR

ISO

NS

AM

ON

G R

ESP

ON

DE

NT

S B

ASE

D O

N N

UM

BE

RO

F PR

ESC

HO

OL

ER

S IN

TH

E H

OM

E'

No

pres

choo

lers

in th

e ho

me

(N =

259

)

1 or

mor

e pr

esch

oole

rsin

the

hom

e(N

= 1

00)

I%

I%

ccR

2

Forr

nal E

duca

tion

Supp

ort C

ente

r3.

8992

.33.

9797

.3n.

s.

Pres

choo

lers

' Doo

r to

Lea

rnin

g3.

8991

.53.

9496

.5n.

s.

Ref

eren

ce L

ibra

ry -

Per

sona

l3.

4857

.83.

5462

.8n.

s.

Ref

eren

ce L

ibra

ry -

Bus

ines

s3.

5469

.03.

8082

.5.0

02.0

29

Com

mun

ity A

ctiv

ities

Cen

ter

3.37

57.4

3.61

68.3

.015

.017

Res

earc

h C

ente

r3.

7380

.43.

9092

.4.0

11.0

18

Com

mun

ity I

nfor

mat

ion

Cen

ter

3.78

83.8

3.87

89.3

n.s.

Inde

pend

ent L

earn

ing

Cen

ter

3.96

96.3

3.95

95.9

n.s.

Publ

ic W

ork

Plac

e3.

5769

.63.

8087

.7.0

07.0

20

Popu

lar

Mat

eria

ls L

ibra

ry3.

3547

.23.

6576

.4.0

01.0

33

Thi

s ta

ble

repo

rts

the

sum

mar

y an

alys

es o

f var

ianc

e fo

r th

e co

mpa

rison

s am

ong

the

mea

nro

le im

port

ance

sca

le s

core

s fo

r th

c gr

oups

of r

espo

nden

ts id

entif

ied

by th

e co

lum

n he

adin

gs.

Not

e: N

is th

e sa

mpl

e si

zc fo

r ea

ch g

roup

and

rep

rese

nts,

in g

ener

al, t

he n

umbe

rof

res

pond

ents

who

rat

ed e

ach

role

.re

pres

ents

the

mca

n ra

ting

for

each

rol

e on

the

four

-poi

ntim

port

ance

scal

e. E

xpla

natio

ns o

f a (

the

alph

a le

vel)

and

le (

the

coef

ficie

nt o

f det

erm

inat

ion)

arc

prov

ided

on

page

155

. The

initi

als

n.s.

indi

cate

that

the

obse

rved

diff

eren

ces

amon

gth

c gr

oup

mea

ns a

re

not s

tatis

tical

ly s

igni

fican

t. %

rep

rese

nts

the

perc

enta

geof

cac

h gr

oup

that

rat

ed th

e ro

le "

very

impo

rtan

t." T

hese

% a

re p

rese

nted

for

desc

riptiv

e pu

rpos

es. F

or s

ome

role

s th

ere

wer

e a

few

non-

resp

onde

nts,

but

thes

e sl

ight

diff

eren

ces

in s

ampl

e si

zes

are

inco

nseq

uent

ial f

orth

e pu

rpos

e of

est

imat

ing

the

sam

plin

g er

ror

asso

ciat

ed w

ith th

e pe

rcen

tage

of r

espo

nden

ts w

ho r

ated

the

role

s "v

ery

impo

rtan

t."

- 17

8 -

,

His

pani

c A

mer

ican

Sam

ple

TA

BL

E 9

2C

OM

PAR

ISO

NS

AM

ON

G R

ESP

ON

DE

NT

S B

ASE

D O

N N

UM

BE

R O

F ST

UD

EN

TS

IN T

I-IE

HO

ME

'

No

stud

ents

in th

e ho

me

(N =

183

)

1 or

mor

e st

uden

tsin

the

hom

e(N

= 1

74)

I%

I%

aR

2

n.s.

n.s.

.000

.059

n.s.

.024

.015

n.s.

n.s.

n.s.

.026

.014

n.s.

Form

al E

duca

tion

Supp

ort C

ente

r3.

9595

.23.

8892

.2

Pres

choo

lers

' Doo

r to

Lea

rnin

g3.

8790

.23.

9495

.8

Ref

eren

ce L

ibra

ry -

Per

sona

l3.

3246

.73.

6671

.4

Ref

eren

ce L

ibra

ryB

usin

ess

3.56

71.1

3.67

74.5

Com

mun

ity A

ctiv

ities

Cen

ter

3.34

55.9

3.54

65.1

Res

earc

h C

ente

r3.

7880

.33.

7887

.3

Com

mun

ity I

nfor

mat

ion

Cen

ter

3.81

84.1

3.81

86.6

Inde

pend

ent L

earn

ing

Cen

ter

3.96

96.2

3.96

96.3

Publ

ic W

ork

Plac

e3.

5571

.43.

7278

.0

Popu

lar

Mat

eria

ls L

ibra

ry3.

4252

.33.

4658

.6

Thi

s ta

ble

repo

rts

the

sum

mar

y an

alys

es o

f var

ianc

e fo

r th

e co

mpa

rison

s am

ong

the

mea

n ro

le im

port

ance

sca

le s

core

s fo

r th

e gr

oups

of r

espo

nden

tsid

entif

ied

by th

e co

lum

n he

adin

gs.

Not

e: N

is th

e sa

mpl

e si

ze fa

r ea

ch g

roup

and

rep

rese

nts,

in g

ener

al, t

he n

umbe

r of

res

pond

ents

who

rat

ed e

ach

role

.i r

epre

sent

s th

e m

ean

ratin

g fo

r ea

ch r

ole

on th

e fo

ur-p

oint

impo

rtan

ce

scal

e. E

xpla

natio

ns o

f a (

the

alph

a le

vel)

and

le (

the

coef

ficie

nt o

f det

erm

inat

ion)

are

pro

vide

d on

pag

e 15

5. T

he in

itial

s n.

s. in

dica

te th

at th

e ob

serv

eddi

ffere

nces

am

ong

the

grou

p m

eans

are

not s

tatis

tical

ly s

igni

ficen

t. %

rep

rese

nts

the

perc

enta

ge o

f eac

h gr

oup

that

rat

ed th

e ro

le "

very

impo

rtan

t."T

hese

% a

re p

rese

nted

for

desc

riptiv

e pu

rpos

es. F

or s

ome

role

s th

ere

wer

e a

few

non-

resp

onde

nts,

but

thes

e sl

ight

diff

eren

ces

in s

ampl

e si

zes

are

inco

nseq

uent

ial f

or th

e pu

rpos

e of

est

imat

ing

the

sam

plin

g er

ror

asso

ciat

edw

ith th

e pe

rcen

tage

of r

espo

nden

ts w

ho r

ated

the

role

s "v

ery

impo

rtan

t."

- 17

9 -

His

pani

c A

mer

ican

Sam

pie

TA

BL

E 9

3C

OM

PAR

ISO

NS

BE

TW

EE

N R

ESP

ON

DE

NT

S W

HO

AR

E S

TU

DE

NT

SA

ND

RE

SPO

ND

EN

TS

WH

O A

RE

NO

T*

Stud

ents

(N =

74)

i%

Non

-stu

dent

s(N

= 3

09)

X%

aR

2

Form

al E

duca

tion

Supp

ort C

ente

r3.

9292

.93.

9193

.7n.

S.

Pres

choo

lers

' Doo

r to

Lea

rnin

g3.

9194

.53.

9092

.3n.

s.

Ref

eren

ce L

ibra

ryPe

rson

al3.

5157

.33.

5060

.1n.

s.

Ref

eren

ce L

ibra

ryB

usin

ess

3.42

59.0

3.65

74.7

.009

.018

Com

mun

ity A

ctiv

ities

Cen

ter

3.74

75.7

3.37

55.9

.000

.034

Res

earc

h C

ente

r3.

7172

.13.

8086

.3n.

s.

Com

mun

ity I

nfor

mat

ion

Cen

ter

3.88

89.9

3.79

83.5

n.s.

Inde

pend

ent L

earn

ing

Cen

ter

3.98

98.1

3.94

94.5

n.s.

Publ

ic W

ork

Plai

x3.

6977

.83.

6173

.0n.

s.

Popu

lar

Mat

eria

ls L

ibra

ry3.

2547

.13.

4857

.8.0

17.0

15

Thi

s ta

ble

repo

rts

the

surr

unar

y an

alys

es o

f va

rian

ce f

or th

e co

mpa

riso

ns a

mon

g th

e m

ean

role

impo

rtan

cesc

ale

scor

es f

or th

e gr

oups

of

resp

onde

nts

iden

tifie

d by

the

colu

mn

head

ings

.

Not

c N

is th

e sa

mpl

e si

ze f

or e

ach

grou

p an

d re

pres

ents

, in

gene

ral,

the

num

ber

of r

espo

nden

ts w

hora

ted

each

rol

e. I

rep

rese

nts

the

mea

n ra

ting

for

each

rol

e on

the

four

-poi

nt im

port

ance

scal

e. i.

.xpl

anat

ions

of

at (

the

alph

a le

vel)

and

R2

(the

coe

ffic

ient

of

dete

rmin

atio

n) a

re p

rovi

ded

on p

age

155.

The

initi

als

n.s.

indi

cate

that

the

obse

rved

dif

fere

nces

am

ong

the

grou

p m

eans

are

not s

tatis

tical

ly s

igni

fica

nt. %

rep

rese

nts

the

perc

enta

ge o

f ea

ch g

roup

that

rat

ed th

ero

le "

very

impo

rtan

t." T

hese

% a

re p

rese

nted

for

des

crip

tive

purp

oses

. For

som

c ro

les

ther

e w

ere

afe

w

non-

resp

onde

nts,

but

thes

e sl

ight

dif

fere

nces

in s

ampl

e si

zes

are

inco

nseq

uent

ial f

or th

e pu

rpos

e of

est

imat

ingt

he s

ampl

ing

erro

r as

soci

ated

with

the

perc

enta

ge o

f re

spon

dent

s w

ho r

ated

the

role

s "v

ery

impo

rtan

t."

- 18

0 -

His

pani

c A

mer

ican

Sam

ple

TA

BL

E 9

4C

OM

PAR

ISO

NS

AM

ON

G R

ESP

ON

DE

NT

S B

ASE

D O

N P

RIM

AR

Y L

AN

GU

AG

E S

POK

EN

AT

HO

ME

*

Eng

lish

(N =

203

)

i%

Span

ish

(N =

181

)

i%

ak2

Form

al E

duca

tion

Supp

ort C

ente

r3.

9696

.23.

8690

.3.0

08.0

20

Pres

choo

lers

' Doo

r to

Lea

rnin

g3.

9092

.53.

9193

.0n.

s.

Ref

eren

ce, L

ibra

ry -

Per

sona

l3.

4353

.83.

5966

.6.0

32.0

13

Ref

eren

ce L

ibra

ryB

usin

ess

3.53

68.2

3.70

75.9

.020

.015

Com

mun

ity A

ctiv

ities

Cen

ter

3.33

53.3

3.57

67.9

.003

.024

Res

earc

h C

ente

r3.

7980

.43.

7787

.0n.

s.

Com

mun

ity I

nfor

mat

ion

Cen

ter

3.81

83.7

3.80

85.9

n.s.

Inde

pend

ent L

earn

ing

Cen

ter

3.94

94.7

3.95

95.7

n.s.

Publ

ic W

ork

Plac

e3.

5269

.73.

7578

.9.0

02.0

26

Popu

lar

Mat

eria

ls L

ibra

ry3.

3548

.33.

5665

.8.0

07.0

20

Thi

s ta

ble

repo

rts

the

sum

mar

y an

alys

es o

f va

rian

ce f

or th

e co

mpa

riso

ns a

mon

g th

e m

ean

role

impo

rtan

ce s

cale

sco

res

for

the

grou

ps o

f re

spon

dent

s id

entif

ied

byth

e co

lum

n he

adin

gs.

Not

e: N

is th

e sa

mpl

e si

ze f

or e

ach

grou

p an

d re

pres

ents

, in

gene

ral,

the

num

ber

of r

espo

nden

ts w

ho r

ated

eac

h ro

le. i

rep

rese

nts

the

mea

nra

ting

for

each

rol

e on

the

four

-poi

nt im

port

ance

scal

e. E

xpla

natio

ns o

f a

(the

alp

ha le

vel)

and

R2

(the

coe

ffic

ient

of

dete

rmin

atio

n) a

rc p

rovi

ded

on p

age

155.

The

initi

als

n.s.

indi

cate

that

the

obse

rved

diff

eren

ces

amon

g th

e gr

oup

mea

ns a

reno

t sta

tistic

ally

sig

nifi

cant

. % r

epre

sent

s th

e pe

rcen

tage

of

each

gro

up th

at r

ated

the

role

"ve

ry im

port

ant."

The

se %

are

pre

sent

ed f

cr d

escr

iptiv

e pu

rpos

es.

For

som

e ro

les

ther

e w

ere

a fe

wno

n-re

spon

dent

s, b

ut th

ese

slig

ht d

iffe

renc

es in

sam

ple

size

s ar

e in

cons

eque

ntia

l for

the

purp

ose

of e

stim

atin

g th

e sa

mpl

ing

erro

r as

soci

ated

with

the

perc

enta

ge o

f re

spon

dent

s w

hora

ted

the

role

s "v

ery

impo

rtan

t"S

. r

- 18

1 -

His

pani

c A

mer

ican

Sam

ple

TA

BL

E 9

5C

OM

PAR

ISO

NS

AM

ON

G R

ESP

ON

DE

NT

S W

ITH

DIF

FER

EN

T E

MPL

OY

ME

NT

ST

AT

US'

Em

ploy

edfu

n tim

e(N

= 1

99)

ia. ,o

Em

ploy

edpa

rt ti

me

(N =

45)

i%

Une

mpl

oyed

(N =

30)

i%

Ret

ired

(N =

42)

i%

Not

inw

ork

forc

e(N

= 6

8)

i%

aR

2

Form

al E

duca

tion

Supp

ort C

ente

r3.

9797

.13.

6178

.93.

8790

.03.

8988

.63.

9796

.8.0

00.1

16

Pres

choo

lers

' Doo

r to

Lea

rnin

g19

093

.13.

9797

.03.

7785

.83.

8586

.43.

9696

.1n.

s.

Ref

eren

ce. L

ibra

ry -

Per

sona

l3.

5361

.13.

6167

.63.

3150

.03.

0028

.53.

6768

.1.0

00.0

68

Ref

eren

ce L

ibra

ry -

Bus

ines

s3.

6071

.13.

4364

.03.

5270

.13.

8289

.13.

6771

.1n.

s.

Com

mun

ity A

ctiv

ities

Cen

ter

3.49

59.4

3.46

65.6

3.52

65.0

2.73

30.8

3.57

68.7

.000

.076

Res

earc

h C

ente

r3.

8182

.53.

4374

.33.

6772

.03.

9396

.63.

9090

.3.0

00.0

70

Com

mun

ity I

nfor

mat

ion

Cen

ter

3.85

86.7

3.64

79.1

3.73

78.5

3.69

72.9

3.91

93.1

.013

.034

Inde

pend

ent L

earn

ing

Cen

ter

3.94

94.1

4.00

99.6

3.82

89.6

3.92

92.1

4.00

1.00

.017

.032

Publ

ic W

ork

Plac

e3.

6371

.93.

8084

.83.

4267

.53.

3977

.53.

7373

.4.0

22.0

31

Popu

lar

Mat

eria

ls L

ibra

ry3.

3852

.63.

5157

.83.

4661

.63.

4656

.73.

5560

.6n.

s.

Thi

s ta

ble

repo

rts

the

stun

rnar

y an

alys

es o

f var

ianc

e fo

r th

e co

mpa

rison

s an

iorg

the

mea

n ro

le im

port

ance

sca

le s

core

s fb

r th

e gr

oups

of r

espo

nden

ts id

entif

ied

byth

e co

lum

n he

adin

gs.

Not

e: N

is th

e sa

mpl

e si

ze fo

r ea

ch g

roup

and

rep

rez.

ents

, in

gene

ral,

the

num

ber

of r

espo

nden

ts w

ho r

ated

eac

h ro

le.

AT

rep

rese

nts

the

mea

n ra

ting

for

each

rol

e on

the

four

-poi

nt im

port

ance

scal

e. E

xpla

natio

ns o

f a (

the

alph

a le

vel)

and

1I2

(the

coe

ffici

ent o

f det

erm

inat

ion)

are

pro

vide

d on

pag

e 15

5. T

he in

itial

s n.

s. in

dica

te th

at th

e ob

serv

eddi

ffere

nces

am

ong

the

grou

p m

eans

are

not s

tatis

tical

ly s

igni

fican

t. %

rep

rese

nts

the

perc

enta

ge o

f eac

h gr

oup

that

rat

ed th

e ro

le "

very

impo

rtan

t." T

hese

%pr

esen

ted

for

desc

riptiv

e pu

rpos

es. F

or s

ome

role

s th

ere

wer

e a

few

non-

resp

onde

nts,

but

thes

e sl

ight

diff

eren

ces

in s

ampl

e si

zes

are

inco

nseq

uent

ial f

or th

e pu

rpos

e of

est

imat

ing

the

sam

plin

g er

ror

asso

ciat

ed w

ith th

e pe

rcen

tage

of r

espo

nden

ts w

hora

ted

the

role

s "v

ery

impo

rtan

t."

- 18

2 -

His

pani

c A

mer

ican

Sam

ple

TA

BL

E 9

6C

OM

PAR

ISO

NS

AM

ON

G R

ESP

ON

DE

NT

S W

ITH

DIF

.FE

RE

NT

AN

NU

AL

HO

USE

HO

LD

IN

CO

ME

*

Les

s th

an$1

0,00

0(N

= 6

2)$1

0,00

0-$1

9,99

9(N

= 8

5)$2

0,00

0-$2

9,99

9(N

= 6

6)$3

0,00

0-$3

9,99

9(N

= 5

2)

$40,

000

or m

ore

(N =

69)

%x

%X

%x

%x

%a

R2

Form

al E

duca

tion

Supp

ort C

ente

r3.

7386

.63.

9796

.63.

9695

.73.

9697

.13.

9392

.8.0

02.0

53

Pres

choo

lers

' Doo

r to

Lea

rnin

g3.

9798

.03.

9293

.13.

9294

.13.

9294

.63.

7883

.9n.

s.

Ref

eren

ce L

ibra

ryPe

rson

al3.

7983

.83.

5457

.43.

5256

.73.

5572

.83.

2745

.8.0

02.0

53

Ref

eren

ce L

ibra

ryB

usin

ess

3.53

75.3

3.85

86.3

3.57

62.9

3.88

89.1

3.25

54.5

.000

.117

Com

mun

ity A

ctiv

ities

Cen

ter

3.36

65.8

3.54

75.8

3.60

69.4

3.36

47.6

3.40

49.0

n.s.

Res

earc

h C

ente

r3.

5881

.43.

8889

.83.

8485

.93.

9190

.73.

6062

.4.0

01.0

59

Com

mun

ity I

nfor

mat

ion

Cen

ter

3.72

84.1

3.79

80.9

3.89

90.5

3.77

83.6

3.84

84.1

n.s.

Inde

pend

ent L

earn

ing

Cen

ter

4.00

1.00

3.94

93.8

3.95

95.5

3.89

89.1

3.91

95.1

n.s.

Publ

ic W

ork

Plac

e3.

8691

.83.

5175

.23.

6468

.03.

7478

.03.

5667

.0.0

28.0

32

Popu

lar

Mat

eria

ls L

ibra

ry3.

5661

.73.

3457

.73.

6465

.93.

6470

.93.

2336

.2.0

02.0

52

Thi

s ta

ble

repo

rts

the

sum

mar

y an

alys

es o

f var

ianc

e fo

r th

e co

mpa

rison

s am

ong

the

mea

nro

le im

port

ance

sca

le s

core

s fo

r th

e gr

oups

of r

espo

nden

ts id

entif

ied

by th

e co

lum

nhe

adin

gs.

Not

e. N

is th

e sa

mpl

e si

ze fo

r ea

ch g

roup

and

rep

rese

nts,

in g

ener

al, t

he n

umbe

rof r

espo

nden

ts w

ho r

ated

eac

h ro

le. i

rep

rese

nts

the

mea

n ra

ting

for

each

rol

e on

the

four

-poi

nt im

port

ance

scal

e. E

xpla

natio

ns o

f a (

the

alph

a le

vel)

and

IZ2

(the

coe

ffici

ent o

f det

erm

inat

ion)

are

prov

ided

on

page

155

. The

initi

als

n.s.

indi

cate

that

the

obse

rved

diff

eren

ces

amon

gth

e gr

oup

mea

ns a

re

not s

tatis

tical

ly s

igni

fican

t. %

rep

rese

nts

the

perc

enta

ge o

f eac

h gr

oup

that

rat

ed th

e ro

le "

very

impo

rtan

t." T

hese

% a

re p

rese

nted

for

desc

riptiv

e pu

rpos

es.

For

som

e ro

les

ther

e w

ere

a fe

w

non-

resp

onde

nts,

but

thes

e sl

ight

diff

eren

ces

in s

ampl

e si

zes

are

inco

nseq

uent

ial f

or th

e pu

rpos

eof

est

imat

ing

the

sam

plin

g en

or a

ssoc

iate

d w

ith th

e pe

rcen

tage

of r

espo

nden

tsw

ho r

ated

the

Uj

role

s "v

ery

impo

rtan

t."sj

- 18

3 -

His

pani

c A

mer

ican

Sam

ple

TA

BL

E 9

7C

OM

PAR

ISO

NS

BE

TW

EE

N R

ESP

ON

DE

NT

S W

HO

LIV

E I

N H

OU

SEH

OL

DS

WIT

HIN

DIV

IDU

AL

S W

HO

HA

VE

DIS

AB

ILIT

IES

AN

D R

ESP

ON

DE

NT

S W

HO

DO

NO

T*

Dis

abili

ties

(N =

53)

X%

No

disa

bilit

ies

(N =

328

)

i%

aR

2

Form

al E

duca

tion

Supp

ort C

ente

r4.

001.

003.

9092

.4n.

s.

Pres

choo

lers

' Doo

r to

Lea

rnin

g4.

001.

003.

8991

.5n.

s.

Ref

eren

ce L

ibra

ryPe

rson

al3.

7275

.33.

4757

.2.0

14.0

16

Ref

eren

ce L

ibra

ry -

Bus

ines

s3.

7685

.93.

5869

.6n.

s.

Com

mun

ity A

ctiv

ities

Cen

ter

3.04

45.9

3.51

62.2

.000

.043

Res

earc

h C

ente

r3.

9394

.93.

7682

.2.0

43.0

11

Com

mun

ity I

nfor

mat

ion

Cen

ter

3.81

81.1

3.81

85.6

n.s.

Inde

pend

ent L

earn

ing

Cen

ter

4.00

1.00

3.94

94.7

n.s.

Publ

ic W

ork

Plac

e3.

4478

.53.

6573

.0.0

50.0

10

Popu

lar

Mat

eria

ls L

ibra

ry3.

6770

.43.

4052

.9.0

14.0

16

Thi

s ta

ble

repo

rts

thc

sum

mar

y an

alys

es o

f var

ianc

e fo

r th

e co

mpa

rison

s am

ong

the

mea

n ro

le im

port

ance

sca

le s

core

sfo

r th

e gr

oups

of r

espo

nden

ts id

entif

ied

by th

e co

lum

n he

adin

gs.

Not

e: N

is th

e sa

mpl

e si

ze fo

r ea

ch g

roup

and

rep

rese

nts,

in g

ener

al, t

he n

umbe

r of

res

pond

ents

who

rat

edea

ch r

olc.

X r

epre

sent

s th

e m

ean

ratin

g fo

r ea

ch r

ole

on th

e fo

ur-p

oint

impo

rtan

ce

scal

e. E

xpla

natio

ns o

f a (

the

alph

a le

vel)

and

le (

the

coef

ficie

nt o

f det

erm

inat

ion)

are

pro

vide

d on

pag

e15

5. T

he in

itial

s n.

s. in

dica

te th

at th

e ob

serv

ed d

iffer

ence

s am

ong

the

grou

p m

eans

are

no t

stat

istic

ally

sig

nific

ant.

% r

epre

sent

s th

e pe

rcen

tage

of e

ach

grou

p th

at r

ated

the

role

"ve

ry im

port

ant."

The

se %

are

pre

sent

ed fo

r de

scrip

tive

purp

oses

. For

som

ero

les

ther

e w

ere

a fe

w

non-

resp

onde

nts,

but

thes

e sl

ight

diff

eren

ces

in s

ampl

e si

zes

are

inco

nseq

uent

ial f

or th

e pu

rpos

e of

est

imat

ing

the

sam

plin

g er

ror

asso

ciat

ed w

ith th

e pe

rcen

tage

of r

cspo

nden

ts w

ho r

ated

the

role

s "v

ery

impo

rtan

t."

6-

184

-

His

pani

c A

mer

ican

Sam

ple

TA

BL

E 9

8C

OM

PAR

ISO

NS

BE

TW

EE

N R

ESP

ON

DE

NT

S W

HO

VO

TE

D A

ND

RE

SPO

ND

EN

TS

WH

O ..

)TD

NO

T V

OT

EIN

ME

198

8 E

LE

CT

ION

'

Vot

edD

id n

ot v

ote

(N =

144

)(N

= 2

44)

IFo

rmal

Edu

catio

n Su

ppor

t Cen

ter

3.96

Pres

choo

lers

' Doo

r to

Lea

rnin

g3.

88

Ref

eren

ce L

ibra

ryPe

rson

al3.

34

Ref

eren

ce L

ibra

ryB

usin

ess

3.52

Com

mun

ity A

ctiv

ities

Cen

ter

3.22

Res

earc

h C

ente

r3.

80

Com

mun

ity I

nfor

mat

ion

Cen

ter

3.78

Inde

pend

ent L

earn

ing

Cen

ter

3.92

Publ

ic W

ork

Plac

e3.

39

Popu

lar

Mat

eria

ls L

ibra

ry3.

37

%i

%a

k

96.3

3.89

92.3

n.s.

91.2

3.93

94.1

n.s.

48.3

3.64

69.0

.000

.044

63.5

3.69

78.3

.017

.015

46.5

3.61

70.5

.000

.058

82.6

3.78

84.6

n.s.

81.0

3.83

87.5

n.s.

93.4

3.96

96.3

n.s.

61.3

3.77

82.0

.000

.067

47.2

3.52

63.6

.047

.010

Thi

s ta

ble

repo

rts

the

sum

mar

y an

alys

es o

f var

ianc

e fo

r th

e co

mpa

rison

s am

ong

the

mea

n ro

le im

port

ance

sca

le s

core

s fo

r th

e gr

oups

of r

espo

nden

ts id

entif

ied

byth

e co

lum

n he

adin

gs.

Not

e: N

is th

e sa

mpl

e si

ze fo

r ea

ch g

roup

and

rep

rese

nts,

in g

ener

al, t

he n

umbe

r of

res

pond

ents

who

rat

ed e

ach

role

.re

pres

ents

the

mea

n ra

ting

for

each

rol

e on

the

four

-poi

nt im

port

ance

scal

e. E

xpla

natio

ns o

f a (

the

alph

a le

vel)

and

le (

the

coef

ficie

nt o

f det

erm

inat

ion)

are

pro

vide

d on

pag

e 15

5. T

he in

itial

s n.

s. in

dica

te th

at th

e ob

serv

eddi

ffere

nces

am

ong

the

grou

p m

eans

are

not s

tatis

tical

ly s

igni

fican

t. %

rep

rese

nts

the

perc

enta

ge o

f eac

h gr

oup

that

rat

ed th

e ro

le "

very

impo

rtan

t." T

hese

% a

re p

rese

nted

for

desc

riptiv

e pu

rpos

es. F

or s

omer

oles

ther

e w

ere

a fe

wno

n-re

spon

dent

s, b

ut th

ese

slig

ht d

iffer

ence

s in

sam

ple

size

s ar

c in

cons

eque

ntia

l for

the

purp

ose

of e

stim

atin

g th

e sa

mpl

ing

erro

r as

soci

ated

with

the

perc

enta

ge o

f res

pond

ents

who

rate

d th

e,ro

les

"ver

y im

port

ant."

,.1

- 18

5 -

His

pani

c A

mer

ican

Sam

ple

TA

BL

E 9

9C

OM

PAR

ISO

NS

AM

ON

G R

ESP

ON

DE

NT

S B

ASE

D O

N P

ER

SON

AL

FIN

AN

CIA

L S

ITU

AT

ION

CO

MPA

RE

D T

O L

A.S

T Y

EA

R'

Bet

ter

off

Wor

se o

ffA

bout

the

sam

e(N

= 1

02)

(N =

96)

(N =

188

)

I%

)7%

I%

aR

2

Form

al E

duca

tion

Supp

ort C

ente

r3.

9797

.43.

7382

.43.

9796

.6.0

00.0

82

Pres

choo

lers

' Doo

r to

Lea

rnin

g3.

9495

.43.

8888

.83.

9093

.5n.

s.

Ref

eren

ce L

ibra

ry -

Per

sona

l3.

5662

.33.

5763

.93.

4557

.0n.

s.

Ref

eren

ce L

ibra

ry -

Bus

ines

s3.

6074

.83.

5368

.93.

6571

.7n.

s.

Com

mun

ity A

ctiv

ities

Cen

ter

3.57

69.1

3.29

53.1

3.45

58.5

n.s.

Res

earc

h C

ente

r3.

7779

.23.

6983

.83.

8486

.1n.

s.

Com

mun

ity I

nfor

mat

ion

Cen

ter

3.82

84.6

3.68

78.7

3.87

88.4

.009

.025

Inde

pend

ent L

earn

ing

Cen

ter

3.92

93.0

3.93

95.0

3.96

96.6

n.s.

Publ

ic W

ork

Plac

e3.

6976

.13.

7179

.03.

5570

.8n.

s.

Popu

lar

Mat

eria

ls L

ibra

ry3.

2749

.23.

4155

.93.

5559

.8.0

07.0

27

Thi

s ta

ble

repo

rts

the

sum

mar

y an

alys

es o

f var

ianc

e fo

r th

e co

mpa

rison

s am

ong

the

mea

n ro

le im

port

ance

sca

le s

core

s fo

r th

e gr

oups

of r

espo

nden

ts id

entif

ied

byth

e co

lum

n he

adin

gs.

Not

e: N

is th

e sa

mpl

e si

ze fo

r ea

ch g

roup

and

rep

rese

nts,

in g

ener

al, t

he n

umbe

r of

res

pond

ents

who

rat

ed e

ach

role

.i r

epre

sent

s th

e m

ean

ratin

g fo

r ea

ch r

ole

on th

e fo

ur-p

oint

impo

rtan

cesc

ale.

Exp

lana

tions

of c

t (th

e al

pha

leve

l) an

d le

(th

e co

effic

ient

of d

eter

min

atio

n) a

rc p

rovi

ded

on p

age

155.

The

initi

als

n.s.

indi

cate

that

the

obse

rved

diffe

renc

es a

mon

g th

e gr

oup

mea

ns a

reno

t sta

tistic

ally

sig

nific

ant.

% r

epre

sent

s th

e pe

rcen

tage

of e

ach

grou

p th

at r

ated

the

role

"ve

ry im

port

ant."

The

se %

arc

pre

sent

ed fo

r de

scrip

tive

purp

oses

. For

som

ero

les

ther

e w

ere

a fe

w

non-

resp

onde

nts,

but

thcs

e sl

ight

diff

eren

ces

in s

ampl

e si

zes

are

inco

nseq

uent

ial f

or th

e pu

rpos

e of

est

imat

ing

the

sam

plin

g er

ror

asso

ciat

ed w

ith th

c pe

rcen

tage

of r

apon

dent

s w

ho r

ated

the

role

s "v

ery

impo

rtan

t."

- 18

6 -

3'I'

His

pani

c A

mer

ican

Sam

ple

TA

BL

E 1

00C

OM

PAR

ISO

NS

AM

ON

G R

ESP

ON

DE

NT

S B

ASE

D O

N P

ER

SON

AL

FIN

AN

CIA

L S

ITU

AT

ION

EX

PEC

TE

D F

OR

NE

XT

YE

AR

`

Bet

ter

off

Wor

se o

ffA

bout

the

sam

e(N

= 2

00)

(N =

28)

(N =

114

)

I%

IFo

rmal

Edu

catio

n Su

ppor

t Cen

ter

3.88

92.3

3.96

Pres

choo

lers

' Doo

r to

Lea

rnin

g3.

9595

.33.

95

Ref

eren

ce L

ibra

ry -

Per

sona

l3.

5765

.03.

41

Ref

eren

ce L

ibra

ryB

usin

ess

3.70

77.7

3.35

Com

mun

ity A

ctiv

ities

Cen

ter

3.48

62.0

3.25

Res

earc

h C

ente

r3.

7684

.53.

87

Com

mun

ity I

nfor

mat

ion

Cen

ter

3.78

83.6

3.88

Inde

pend

ent L

earn

ing

Cen

ter

3.96

96.1

3.98

Publ

ic W

ork

Plac

e3.

7480

.13.

33

Popu

lar

Mat

eria

ls L

ibra

ry3.

4258

.53.

15

I

Thi

s ta

ble

repo

rts

the

sunu

nary

ana

lyse

s of

var

ianc

e fo

r th

e co

mpa

rison

s am

ong

the

mea

n ro

le im

port

ance

sca

le s

core

s fo

r th

e gr

oups

of r

espo

nden

tsid

entif

ied

by th

e co

lum

n he

adin

gs.

Not

e: N

is th

e sa

mpl

e si

ze fo

r ea

ch g

roup

and

rep

rese

nts,

in g

ener

al, t

he n

umbe

r of

res

pond

ents

who

rat

ed e

ach

role

.ii

repr

esen

ts th

e m

ean

ratin

g fo

r ea

ch r

ole

on th

e fo

ur-p

oint

impo

rtan

cesc

ale.

Exp

lana

tions

of a

(th

e al

pha

leve

l) an

d IV

(th

e co

effic

ient

of d

eter

min

atio

n) a

re p

rovi

ded

on p

age

155.

The

initi

als

n.s.

indi

cate

that

the

obse

rved

diff

eren

ces

amon

g th

e gr

oup

mea

nsar

e

not s

tatis

tical

ly s

igni

fica

nt. %

rep

rese

nts

the

perc

enta

ge o

f ea

ch g

roup

that

raz

ed th

e ro

le "

very

impo

rtan

t." T

hese

% a

re p

rese

nted

for

des

crip

tive

purp

oses

. For

som

e ro

les

ther

e w

ere

a fe

wno

n-re

spon

dent

s, b

ut th

ese

slig

ht d

iffe

renc

es in

sam

ple

size

s ar

c in

cons

eque

ntia

l for

the

purp

ose

of e

stim

atin

g th

e sa

mpl

ing

erro

r as

soci

ated

with

the

perc

enta

geof

res

pond

ents

who

rat

ed th

e

3 0

orol

es "

very

impo

rtan

t."3

0 j

%i

%a

R2

95.9

3.94

94.7

n.s.

95.5

3.81

86.8

.009

.029

43.2

3.50

55.8

n.s.

46.6

3.45

64.3

.002

.038

37.3

3.56

67.1

n.s.

92.3

3.74

76.0

n.s.

87.5

3.85

89.7

n.s.

98.8

3.89

91.1

n.s.

45.5

3.60

69.9

.003

.034

33.7

3.51

55.8

n.s.

- 18

7 -

His

pani

c A

mer

ican

Sam

ple

TA

BL

E 1

01C

OM

PAR

ISO

NS

BE

TW

EE

N R

ESP

ON

DE

NT

S W

HO

VIS

ITE

D A

ND

RE

SPO

ND

EN

TS

WH

O D

IDN

OT

VIS

ITT

HE

PU

BL

IC L

IBR

AR

Y I

N T

HE

LA

ST Y

EA

R'

Vis

ited

libra

ryD

id n

ot v

isit

libra

ry(N

= 2

07)

(N =

192

)

IFo

rmal

Edu

catio

n Su

ppor

t Cen

ter

3.97

Pres

choo

lers

' Doo

r to

Lea

rnin

g3.

97

Ref

eren

ce L

ibra

ry -

Per

sona

l3.

49

Ref

eren

ce L

ibra

ry -

Bus

ines

s3.

57

Com

mun

ity A

ctiv

ities

Cen

ter

3.52

Res

earc

h C

ente

r3.

83

Com

mun

ity I

nfor

mat

ion

Cen

ter

3.84

Inde

pend

ent L

earn

ing

Cen

ter

3.97

Publ

ic W

ork

Plac

e3.

60

Popu

lar

Mat

eria

ls L

ibra

ry3.

43

%i

%a

R2

97.5

3.85

89.5

.001

.027

97.6

3.85

88.1

.001

.027

58.4

3.56

64.1

n.s.

66.6

3.68

79.6

n.s.

66.7

3.40

55.6

n.s.

84.2

3.75

84.1

n.s.

86.9

3.79

83.6

n.s.

97.2

3.92

93.4

n.s.

73.6

3.68

76.3

n.s.

52.4

3.50

62.9

n.s.

Thi

s ta

ble

repo

rts

the

sum

mar

y an

alys

es o

f va

rian

ce f

or th

e co

mpa

riso

ns a

mon

g th

e m

ean

role

impo

rtan

ce s

cale

sco

res

fort

he g

roup

s of

res

pond

ents

iden

tifie

d by

the

colu

mn

head

ings

.

Not

e: N

is th

e sa

mpl

e si

ze f

or e

ach

grou

p an

d re

pres

ents

, in

gene

ral,

the

num

ber

of r

espo

nden

ts w

ho r

ated

eac

h ro

le.

I re

pres

ents

the

mea

n ra

ting

for

each

rol

e on

the

four

-poi

nt im

port

ance

scal

e. E

xpla

natio

ns o

f a

(the

alp

ha le

vel)

and

le (

the

coef

fici

ent o

f de

term

inat

ion)

are

pro

vide

d on

pag

e 15

5. T

hein

itial

s n.

s. in

dica

te th

at th

e ob

serv

ed d

iffe

renc

es a

mon

g th

e gr

oup

mea

ns a

re

not s

tatis

tical

ly s

igni

fica

nt. %

rep

rese

nts

the

perc

enta

ge o

f ea

ch g

roup

that

rat

ed th

ero

le "

very

impo

rtan

t." T

hese

% a

re p

rese

nted

for

des

crip

tive

purp

oses

. For

som

e ro

les

ther

e w

ere

a fe

wno

n-re

spon

dent

s, b

ut th

ese

slig

ht d

iffe

renc

es in

sam

ple

size

s ar

e in

cons

eque

ntia

l for

the

purp

ose

of e

stim

atin

g th

e sa

mpl

ing

erro

r as

soci

ated

with

the

perc

enta

ge o

f re

spon

dent

s w

ho r

ated

the

role

s "v

ery

impo

rtan

t."

- 18

8 -

His

pani

c A

mer

ican

Sam

ple

TA

BL

E 1

02C

OM

PAR

ISO

NS

BE

TW

EE

N R

ESP

ON

DE

NT

S B

ASE

D O

N W

HE

TH

ER

SO

ME

ON

E E

LSE

WE

NT

TO

TH

E P

UB

LIC

LIB

RA

RY

FO

R T

HE

M I

N T

HE

LA

ST Y

EA

R.

Yes

(N =

89)

I%

Forn

ial E

duca

tion

Supp

ort C

ente

r3.

9897

.8

Pres

choo

lers

' Doo

r to

Lea

rnin

g3.

9696

.8

Ref

eren

ce L

ibra

ry -

Per

sona

l3.

7581

.8

Ref

eren

ce L

ibra

ry -

Bus

ines

s3.

7781

.5

Com

mun

ity A

ctiv

ities

Cen

ter

3.71

80.2

Res

earc

h C

ente

r3.

9595

.2

Com

mun

ity I

nfor

mat

ion

Cen

ter

3.87

88.5

Inde

pend

ent L

earn

ing

Cen

ter

3.98

99.0

Publ

ic W

ork

Plac

e3.

7786

.5

Popu

lar

Mat

eria

ls L

ibra

ry3.

5167

.8

No

(N =

309

)

i%

aR

2

3.90

92.6

n.s.

3.89

91.9

n.s.

3.45

54.9

.000

.033

3.57

70.0

.016

.015

3.39

56.2

.001

.030

3.75

81.1

.003

.023

3.80

834.

4n.

s.

3.94

94.4

n.s.

3.61

72.0

.050

.009

3.45

54.6

n.s.

Thi

s ta

ble

repo

rts

the

sum

mar

y an

alys

es o

f var

ianc

e fo

r th

e co

mpa

rison

s am

ong

the

mea

n ro

le im

port

ance

scal

e sc

ores

for

the

grou

ps o

f res

pond

ents

iden

tifie

d by

the

colu

mn

head

ings

.

Not

e: N

is th

e sa

mpl

e si

ze fo

r ea

ch g

roup

and

rep

rese

nts,

in g

ener

al, t

he n

umbe

r of

res

pond

ents

who

rat

edea

ch r

ole.

I re

pres

ents

the

mea

n ra

ting

for

each

rol

e on

the

four

-poi

nt im

port

ance

scal

e. E

xpla

natio

ns o

f a (

the

alph

a !e

ve!)

and

122

(th

e co

effic

ient

of d

eter

min

atio

n) a

re p

rovi

ded

on p

age

155.

The

initi

als

n.s.

indi

cate

that

the

obse

rved

diff

eren

ces

amon

g th

e gr

oup

mea

ns a

re

not s

tatis

tical

ly s

igni

fican

t. %

rep

rese

nts

the

perc

enta

ge o

f eac

h gr

oup

that

rat

ed th

ero

le "

very

impo

rtan

t." T

hese

% a

rc p

rese

nted

for

desc

riptiv

e pu

rpos

es. F

or s

ome

role

s th

ere

wer

e a

few

non-

resp

onde

nts,

but

thes

e sl

ight

diff

eren

ces

in s

ampl

e si

zes

are

inco

nseq

uent

ial

for

the

purp

ose

of e

stim

atin

g th

e sa

mpl

ing

enor

ass

ocia

ted

with

the

perc

enta

ge o

f res

pond

ents

who

rate

d dr

ip

role

s "v

ery

impo

rtan

t."3

- 18

9 -

His

pani

c A

mer

ican

Sam

ple

TA

BL

E 1

03C

OM

PAR

ISO

NS

BE

TW

EE

N R

ESP

ON

DE

NT

S W

HO

CA

LL

ED

TH

E P

UB

LIC

LIB

RA

RY

FO

R I

NFO

RM

AT

ION

IN T

HE

LA

ST Y

EA

R A

ND

RE

SPO

ND

EN

TS

WH

O D

ID N

OT

*

Cal

led

libra

ryD

id n

ot c

all l

ibra

ry(N

= 8

0)(N

= 3

18)

I%

I%

ale

Form

al E

duca

tion

Supp

ort C

ente

r3.

9796

.73.

9093

.0n.

s.

Pres

choo

lers

' Doo

r to

Lea

rnin

g3.

9495

.03.

9092

.5n.

s.

Ref

eren

ce L

ibra

ryPe

rson

al3.

5457

.33.

5162

.0n.

s.

Ref

eren

ce L

ibra

ryB

usin

ess

3.25

46.7

3.72

79.9

.000

.077

Com

mun

ity A

ctiv

ities

Cen

ter

3.56

67.1

3.44

60.3

n.s.

Res

earc

h C

ente

r3.

7778

.43.

7985

.6n.

s.

Com

mun

ity I

nfor

mat

ion

Cen

ter

3.83

88.8

3.81

84.9

n.s.

Inde

pend

ent L

earn

ing

Cen

ter

3.90

92.4

3.96

96.1

n.s.

Publ

ic W

ork

Plac

e3.

6876

.63.

6374

.4n.

s.

Popu

lar

Mat

eria

ls L

ibra

ry3.

5151

.03.

4559

.3n.

s.

Thi

s ta

ble

repo

rts

the

sum

mar

y an

alys

es o

f va

rian

ce f

or th

e co

mpa

riso

ns a

mon

g th

e m

ean

role

impo

rtan

ce s

cale

sco

res

for

the

grou

ps o

f re

spon

dent

s id

entif

ied

byth

e co

lum

n he

adin

gs.

Not

e: N

is th

e sa

mpl

e si

ze f

or e

ach

grou

p an

d re

pres

ents

, in

gene

ral,

the

num

ber

of r

espo

nden

ts w

ho r

ated

eac

h ro

le. j

rep

rese

nts

the

mea

nra

ting

for

each

rol

e on

the

four

-poi

nt im

port

ance

scal

e. E

xpla

natio

ns o

f ct

(th

e al

pha

leve

l) a

nd 1

22 (

the

coef

fici

ent o

f de

term

inat

ion)

are

pro

vide

d on

pag

e 15

5. T

he in

itial

s n.

s. in

dica

te th

at th

e ob

serv

eddi

ffer

ence

s am

ong

the

grou

p m

ears

are

not s

tatis

tical

ly s

igni

fica

nt. %

rep

rese

nts

the

perc

enta

ge o

f ea

ch g

roup

that

rat

ed th

e ro

le "

very

impo

rtan

t." T

hese

% a

re p

rese

nted

for

des

crip

tive

purp

oses

. For

som

ero

les

ther

e w

ere

a fe

wno

n-re

spon

dent

s, b

ut th

ese

slig

ht d

iffe

renc

es in

sam

ple

size

s ar

e in

cons

eque

ntia

l for

the

purp

ose

of e

stim

atin

g th

e sa

mpl

ing

erro

r as

soci

ated

with

the

perc

enta

ge o

f re

spon

dent

s w

hora

ted

the

role

s "v

ery

impo

rtan

t.".S

- 19

0 -

'41 0.1_

k)

His

pani

c A

mer

ican

Sam

ple

TA

BL

E 1

04C

OM

PAR

ISO

NS

BE

TW

EE

N R

ESP

ON

DE

NT

S W

HO

IN

AN

Y W

AY

USE

D T

HE

PU

BL

IC L

IBR

AR

YIN

TH

E L

AST

YE

AR

AN

D R

ESP

ON

DE

NT

S W

HO

DID

NO

T*

Use

rs(N

= 2

46)

i%

Form

al E

duca

tion

Supp

ort C

ente

r3.

9696

.4

Pres

choo

lers

' Doo

r to

Lea

rnin

g3.

9696

.4

Ref

eren

ce L

ibra

ry -

Per

sona

l3.

5261

.2

Ref

eren

ce L

ibra

ry -

Bus

ines

s3.

6170

.1

Com

mun

ity A

ctiv

ities

Cen

ter

3.53

68.1

Res

earc

h C

ente

r3.

8485

.5

Com

mun

ity I

nfor

mat

ion

Cen

ter

3.85

87.5

Inde

pend

ent L

earn

ing

Cen

ter

3.95

96.5

Publ

ic W

ork

Plac

e3.

6375

.4

Popu

lar

Mat

eria

ls L

ibra

ry3.

4856

.1

Non

-use

rs(N

= 1

54)

I%

aR

2

3.84

89.4

.001

.027

3.84

87.8

.001

.026

3.52

61.1

n.s.

3.64

77.1

n.s.

3.35

50.3

.025

.013

3.71

82.1

.020

.013

3.76

82.1

n.s.

3.93

93.6

n.s.

3.65

74.2

n.s.

3.43

59.5

n.s.

Thi

s ta

ble

repo

rts

the

sum

mar

y an

alys

es o

f va

rian

ce f

or th

e co

mpa

riso

ns a

mon

g th

e m

ean

role

impo

rtan

ce s

cale

sco

res

for

the

grou

ps o

f re

spon

dent

s id

entif

ied

byth

e co

lum

n he

adin

gs.

Not

e: N

is th

e sa

mpl

e si

ze f

or e

ach

grou

p an

d re

pres

ents

, in

gene

ral,

the

num

ber

of r

espo

nden

ts w

ho r

ated

eac

h ro

le. I

rep

rese

nts

the

mea

nra

ting

for

each

rol

e on

the

four

-poi

nt im

port

ance

scal

e. E

xpla

natio

ns o

f a

(the

alp

ha le

vel)

and

/0 (

the

coef

fici

ent o

f de

term

inat

ion)

are

pro

vide

d on

pag

e 15

5. T

he in

itial

s n.

s. in

dica

te th

at th

e ob

serv

eddi

ffer

ence

s am

ong

the

grou

p m

eans

are

no(

stat

istic

ally

sig

nifi

cant

. % r

epre

sent

s th

e pe

rcen

tage

of

each

gro

up th

at r

ated

the

role

"ve

ry im

port

ant."

The

se %

are

pre

sent

ed f

or d

escr

iptiv

e pu

rpos

es. F

or s

omer

oles

ther

e w

ere

a fe

w,

non-

resp

onde

nts,

but

thes

e sl

ight

dif

fere

nces

in s

ampl

e si

zes

are

inco

nseq

uent

ial f

or th

e pu

rpos

e of

est

imat

ing

the

sam

plin

g er

ror

asso

ciat

ed w

ith th

e pe

rcen

tage

of

resp

onde

nts

who

rate

d th

e

3ijo

les

"ver

y im

port

ant."

- 19

1 -

His

pani

c A

mer

ican

Sam

ple

TA

BL

E 1

05H

ISPA

NIC

AM

ER

ICA

NS'

OPI

NIO

NS

AB

OU

T L

EV

EL

S O

F PE

R C

API

TA

SPE

ND

ING

FO

R L

IBR

AR

Y S

ER

VIC

ES

Am

ount

Freq

uenc

yPe

rcen

tA

djus

ted

Perc

ent'

$ 0

00.

00.

0

$ 1

- $2

014

636

.545

.3

$21

- $4

074

18.6

23.1

$41

- $6

021

5.3

6.6

$61

- $8

022

5.6

7.0

$81

- $1

003

.81.

0

$101

-55

13.7

17.0

Don

't K

now

7819

.4M

issi

ng

Tot

al39

9

Not

e: P

erce

ntag

es r

ecal

cula

ted

with

mis

sing

res

pond

ents

exc

lude

d.

-..,

- 19

2 -

,..,

His

pani

c A

mer

ican

Sam

ple

TA

BL

E 1

06C

OM

PAR

ISO

NS

OF

TH

E M

EA

N S

UG

GE

STE

D P

ER

CA

PIT

A S

PEN

DIN

G F

OR

LIB

RA

RIE

SA

MO

NG

TH

E V

AR

IOU

S G

RO

UPS

OF

RE

SPO

ND

EN

TS.

Ent

ire

Sam

ple

321

$39.

26

C.I

.

$35.

21$4

3.30

aR

2C

.I.

Reg

ion

of c

ount

ry.0

00.0

71N

orth

east

50$5

1.82

$40.

30$6

3.35

Sout

h C

entr

al10

3$3

4.29

$28.

42$4

0.16

Nor

th C

entr

al29

$14.

42$1

0.37

$18.

46W

est

138

$43.

54$3

6.72

$50.

35

% o

f co

mm

unity

whi

ch is

His

pani

c.0

00.0

54O

ver

40%

84$3

1.76

$24.

92$3

8.60

11%

- 4

0%L

ess

than

11%

93 143

1.76

$38.

57$2

5.36

$38.

17$4

1 79

- $

55.3

5

Gen

der

.000

.051

Mal

es15

3$4

7.96

$41.

61 -

$54

.31

Fem

ales

169

$31.

35$2

6.53

- $

36.1

5

Age

.016

.032

1835

180

$39.

15$3

3.83

$44.

4736

5085

$47.

39$3

8.26

$56.

5251

6541

$29.

00$2

1.03

$36.

9966

and

up

11$2

0.35

$ 6.

77$3

3.93

Not

e: T

his

tabl

e re

port

s th

e su

mm

ary

anal

yses

of

vari

ance

for

the

com

pari

sons

am

ong

the

mea

n am

ount

s of

sug

gest

ed p

er c

apita

spe

ndin

g by

var

ious

gro

ups

ofre

spon

dent

s.

Not

e: N

is th

e sa

mpl

e si

ze f

or e

ach

grou

p. X

rep

rese

nts

the

mea

n am

ount

of

sugg

este

d pe

r ca

pita

spe

ndin

g. D

etai

led

expl

anat

ions

of

the

alph

a le

vel

(a)

and

R2

are

prov

ided

on

page

155

.T

he in

itial

s n.

s. in

dica

te th

at th

e ob

serv

ed d

iffe

renc

es a

mon

g th

e gr

oups

are

not

sta

tistic

ally

sig

nifi

cant

. C.1

. rep

orts

the

low

er a

nd u

pper

bou

nds

of th

e 95

%co

nfid

ence

inte

rval

for

est

imat

ing

the

mea

n am

ount

of

sugg

este

d sp

endi

ng f

or e

ach

grou

p re

port

ed. T

hese

inte

rval

s ar

e ap

prop

riat

e fo

r us

e w

ith th

ose

grou

ps th

at a

re s

tatis

tical

ly d

iffe

rent

. For

an

expl

anat

ion

of c

onfi

denc

er-

" in

terv

als

see

page

s 10

and

11.

_L

- 19

3 -

His

pani

c A

mer

ican

Sam

ple

TA

BL

E 1

06 (

cont

inue

d)C

OM

PAR

ISO

NS

OF

TH

E M

EA

N S

UG

GE

STE

D P

ER

CA

PIT

A S

PEN

DIN

G F

OR

LIB

RA

RIE

SA

MO

NG

TH

E V

AR

IOU

S G

RO

UPS

OF

RE

SPO

ND

EN

TS*

Rac

e/E

thni

city

Xa

.021

R2

.030

C.I

.

Mex

ican

87$3

3.70

$26.

69$4

0.71

Mex

ican

Am

eric

an11

9$4

2.53

$35.

42 -

$49

.63

Puer

to R

ican

47$5

0.88

$38.

37 -

$63

.39

Oth

er66

$32.

64$2

4.96

- $

40.3

4

Hig

hest

gra

de le

vel c

ompl

eted

.000

.068

8th

grad

e or

less

59$2

8.18

$21.

62 -

$34

.73

9th

- 11

th g

rade

60$5

7.54

$45.

47$6

9.60

12th

gra

de11

1$3

7.01

$29.

98 -

$44

.04

Som

e co

llege

56$3

4.59

$26.

89$4

2.30

Com

plet

ed c

olle

ge31

$42.

43$3

0.22

- $

54.6

5

Hig

h sc

hool

dip

lom

a or

equ

ival

ent

.034

.020

Yes

118

$34.

67$2

8.19

$41.

15N

o11

5$4

5.49

$37.

91$5

3.07

Mar

ital s

tatu

s.0

20.0

25M

arri

ed18

2$3

5.97

$30.

93 -

$41

.01

Div

orce

d29

$32.

96$2

2.04

- $

43.8

8N

ever

mar

ried

99$4

7.90

$38.

64$5

6.16

'Not

e: T

his

tabl

e re

port

s th

e su

mm

ary

anal

yses

of

vari

ance

for

the

com

pari

sons

am

ong

the

mea

n am

ount

s of

sug

gest

ed p

er c

apita

spe

ndin

g by

var

ious

gro

ups

ofre

spon

dent

s.

Not

e: N

is th

e sa

mpl

e si

ze f

or e

ach

grou

p. X

rep

rese

nts

the

mea

n am

ount

of

sugg

este

d pe

r ca

pita

spe

ndin

g. D

etai

led

expl

anat

ions

of

the

alph

a le

vel(

a) a

nd 1

12 a

re p

rovi

ded

on p

age

155.

The

initi

als

n.s.

indi

cate

that

the

obse

rved

dif

fere

nces

am

ong

the

grou

ps a

re n

oi s

tatis

tical

ly s

igni

fica

nt. C

.1. r

epor

ts th

e lo

wer

and

upp

er b

ound

s of

the

95%

conf

iden

ce in

terv

al f

or e

stim

athi

gth

e m

ean

amou

nt o

f su

gges

ted

spen

ding

for

eac

h gr

oup

repo

rted

. The

se in

terv

als

are

appr

opri

ate

for

use

with

thos

e gr

oups

that

are

sta

tistic

ally

dif

fere

nt. F

or a

nexp

lana

tion

of c

onfi

denc

ein

terv

als

see

page

s 10

and

11.

- 19

4 -

hisp

anic

Am

eric

an S

ampl

e

TA

BL

E 1

06 (

cont

inue

d)C

OM

PAR

ISO

NS

OF

TH

E M

EA

N S

UG

GE

STE

D P

ER

CA

PIT

A S

PEN

DIN

G F

OR

LIB

RA

RIE

SA

MO

NG

TH

E V

AR

IOU

S G

RO

UPS

OF

RE

SPO

ND

EN

TS'

# of

peo

ple

livin

g in

hou

seho

ld

a

.000

R2

.115

C.I

.

one

19$2

8.29

$13.

08$4

3.49

two

65$2

2.79

$16.

65$2

8.92

thre

e77

$40.

27$3

3.32

$47.

21fo

ur66

$40.

76$3

1.78

$49.

74fi

ve31

$33.

24$2

0.11

$46.

38si

x or

mor

e59

$61.

03$4

9.03

- $

73.0

2

# of

pre

scho

ol c

hild

ren

in th

e ho

me

.000

.047

No

pres

choo

lers

220

$35.

17$3

0.51

$39.

83O

ne o

r m

ore

pres

choo

lers

79$5

3.24

$44.

49 -

$62

.00

# of

stu

dent

s in

the

hom

en.

s.N

o st

uden

ts14

3$4

2.93

$36.

35 -

$49

.50

One

or

mor

e st

uden

ts15

6$3

7.18

$31.

78 -

$42

.58

Res

pond

ents

who

are

stu

dent

sn.

s.St

uden

ts69

$44.

33$3

5.03

$53.

63N

on-s

tude

nts

251

$37.

69$3

3.23

$42.

15

Not

e: T

his

tabl

e re

port

s th

e su

mm

ary

anal

yses

of v

aria

nce

for

the

com

paris

ons

amon

g th

e m

ean

amou

nts

of s

ugge

sted

per

cap

ita s

pend

ing

by v

ario

us g

roup

s of

resp

onde

nts.

Not

e: N

is th

e sa

mpl

e si

ze fo

r ea

ch g

roup

. X r

epre

sent

s th

e m

ean

amou

nt o

f sug

gest

ed p

er c

apita

spe

ndin

g. D

etai

led

expl

anat

ions

of t

he a

lpha

leve

l(a

) an

d 11

2 ar

e pr

ovid

ed o

n pa

ge 1

55.

The

initi

als

n.s.

indi

cate

that

the

obse

rved

diff

eren

ces

amon

g th

e gr

oups

are

not

sta

tistic

ally

sig

nific

ant.

C.I.

rep

orts

the

low

er a

nd u

pper

bou

nds

of th

e 95

% c

onfid

ence

inte

rval

for

estim

atin

g4h

e m

ean

amou

nt o

f sug

gest

ed s

pend

ing

for

each

gro

up r

epor

ted.

The

se in

terv

als

are

appm

pria

te fo

r us

e w

ith th

ose

grou

ps th

at a

re s

tatis

tical

ly d

iffer

ent.

For

an

expl

anat

ion

of c

onfid

ence

inte

rval

s se

e pa

ges

10 a

nd 1

1.)

- 19

5 -

His

pani

c A

mer

ican

Sam

ple

TA

BL

E 1

06 (

cont

inue

d)C

OM

PAR

ISO

NS

OF

TH

E M

EA

N S

UG

GE

STE

D P

ER

CA

PIT

A S

PEN

DIN

G F

OR

LIB

RA

RIE

SA

MO

NG

TH

E V

AR

IOU

S G

RO

UPS

OF

RE

SPO

ND

EN

TS'

aC

.L

Em

ploy

men

t sta

tus

n.s.

Em

ploy

ed f

ull t

ime

180

$41.

12$3

5.64

- $

46.6

0

Em

ploy

ed p

art t

ime

40$3

6.36

$25.

00 -

$47

.71

Une

mpl

oyed

25$3

9.70

$25.

24 -

$54

.16

Ret

ired

12$2

3.26

$11.

38 -

$35

.13

Not

in w

ork

forc

e61

$38.

58$2

8.46

- $

48.6

9

Ann

ual h

ouse

hold

inco

me

.000

.163

Les

s th

an $

10,0

0050

$32.

87$2

2.64

- $

43.0

9$1

0,00

0 -

$19,

999

60$2

6.01

$18.

23 -

$33

.79

$20,

000

- $2

9,99

960

$25.

98$2

0.26

- $

31.7

4$3

0,00

0 -

$39,

999

40$5

0.06

$38.

14 -

$62

.00

$40,

000

or m

ore

68$6

2.41

$52.

00 -

$72

.81

Dis

able

d pe

rson

in h

ouse

hold

Yes

45$4

8.37

$35.

11 -

$61

.63

No

275

$37.

67$3

3.52

- $

41.8

2

Vot

ed in

'88

elec

tion

.040

.013

Yes

116

$33.

61$2

7.92

- $

39.3

0N

o20

6$4

2.42

$37.

03 -

$74

.81

Not

e: T

his

tabl

e re

port

s th

e su

mm

ary

anal

yses

of

vari

ance

for

the

com

pari

sons

am

ong

the

mea

n am

ount

s of

sug

gest

ed p

er c

apita

spe

ndin

g by

vari

ous

grou

ps o

f re

spon

dent

s.

Not

e: N

is th

e sa

mpl

e si

ze f

or e

ach

grou

p. I

rep

rese

nts

the

mea

n am

ount

of

sugg

este

d pe

r ca

pita

spe

ndin

g.D

etai

led

expl

anat

ions

of

the

alph

a le

vel (

a) a

nd R

2 ar

e pr

ovid

ed o

n pa

ge 1

55.

The

initi

als

n.s.

indi

cate

that

the

obse

rved

dif

fere

nces

am

ong

the

grou

ps a

re n

ot s

tatis

tical

ly s

igni

fica

nt. C

.I. r

epor

tsth

e lo

wer

and

upp

er b

ound

s of

the

95%

con

fide

nce

inte

rval

for

est

imat

ing

the

mca

n am

ount

of

sugg

este

d sp

endi

ng f

or e

ach

grou

p re

port

ed. T

hese

inte

rval

s ar

e ap

prop

riat

e fo

r us

ew

ith th

ose

grou

ps th

at a

re s

tatis

tical

ly d

iffe

rent

. For

an

expl

anat

ion

of c

onfi

denc

ein

terv

als

see

page

s 10

and

11.

- 19

6 -

His

pani

c A

mer

ican

Sam

ple

TA

BL

E 1

06 (

cont

inue

d)C

OM

PAR

ISO

NS

OF

TH

E M

EA

N S

UG

GE

STE

D P

ER

CA

PIT

A S

PEN

DIN

G F

OR

LIB

RA

RIE

SA

MO

NG

TH

E V

AR

IOU

S G

RO

UPS

OF

RE

SPO

ND

EN

TS*

Xa

R2

C.I

.

Cur

rent

fin

anci

al s

ituat

ion

.000

.057

Bet

ter

off

than

last

yea

r92

$51.

52$4

2.82

$60.

22W

orse

off

than

last

yea

r66

$28.

94$2

1.93

- $

35.9

5A

bout

the

sam

e15

4$3

5.31

$29.

71$4

0.90

Futu

re f

inan

cial

situ

atio

n.0

05.0

36B

ette

r of

f ne

xt y

ear

177

$45.

33$2

9.32

- $

51.3

3W

orse

off

nex

t yea

r26

$27.

01$2

0.67

$33.

36A

bout

the

sam

e10

2$3

2.93

$26.

45$3

9.41

Prim

ary

lang

uage

spo

ken

in h

ouse

hold

.000

.066

Eng

lish

178

$47.

45$4

1.40

- $

53.5

0Sp

anis

h13

6$2

8.74

$23.

94$3

3.55

Not

e: T

his

tabl

e re

port

s th

e su

mm

ary

anal

yses

of

vari

ance

for

the

com

pari

sons

am

ong

the

mea

n am

ount

s of

sug

gest

ed p

er c

apita

spe

ndin

g by

var

ious

gro

ups

ofre

spon

dent

s.

Not

e: N

is th

e sa

mpl

e si

ze f

or e

ach

grou

p. X

rep

rese

nts

the

mea

n am

ount

of

sugg

este

d pe

r ca

pita

spe

ndin

g. D

etai

led

expl

anat

ions

of

the

alph

a le

vel(

a) a

nd I

t2 a

re p

rovi

ded

on p

age

155.

The

initi

als

n.s.

indi

cate

that

the

obse

rved

dif

fere

nces

am

ong

the

grou

ps a

re n

oi s

tatis

tical

ly s

igni

fica

nt. C

.I. r

epor

ts th

e lo

wer

and

upp

er b

ound

s of

the

95%

conf

iden

ce in

terv

al f

or e

stim

atin

g C

-4(4

) th

e m

ean

amou

nt o

f su

gges

ted

spen

ding

for

eac

h gr

oup

repo

rted

. The

se in

terv

als

are

appr

opri

ate

for

use

with

thos

e gr

oups

that

are

sta

tistic

ally

dif

fere

nt. F

oran

exp

lana

tion

of c

onfi

denc

ets

'in

kerv

als

see

page

s 10

and

11.

- 19

7 -

His

pani

c A

mer

ican

Sam

ple

TA

BL

E 1

07C

OM

PAR

ISO

NS

OF

TH

E M

EA

N S

UG

GE

STE

D P

ER

CA

PIT

A S

PEN

DIN

G F

OR

LIB

RA

RIE

SB

ET

WE

EN

LIB

RA

RY

USE

RS

AN

D N

ON

-USE

RS'

Ent

ire

Sam

ple

321

$39.

26

C.I

.

$35.

21 -

$43

.30

Res

pond

ent w

ent t

o pu

blic

libr

ary

last

yea

rn.

s.

R2

C.I

.

Yes

180

$38.

94$3

3.82

- $

44.0

6N

o

Som

eone

els

e w

ent t

o lib

rary

for

res

pond

ent

141

$39.

75

n.s.

$33.

27 -

$46

.23

Yes

78$3

9.43

$30.

96 -

$49

.90

No

Res

pond

ent c

alle

d lib

rary

for

info

rmat

ion

243

$39.

33

n.s.

$34.

72$4

3.94

Yes

73$4

4.22

$35.

18 -

$53

.26

No

Res

pond

ent u

sed

libra

ry in

any

way

last

yea

r

248

$37.

79

n.s.

$33.

31 -

$42

.27

Yes

214

$40.

26$3

5.35

- $

45.1

7N

o10

8$3

7.27

$30.

20$4

4.34

'Not

e: T

his

tabl

e re

port

s th

e su

mm

ary

anal

yses

of v

aria

nce

for

the

com

paris

ons

amon

g th

e m

ean

amou

nts

of s

ugge

sted

per

cap

ita s

pend

ing

by v

ario

us g

roup

s of

resp

onde

nts.

Not

e: N

is th

e sa

mpl

e si

ze fo

r ea

ch g

roup

. X r

epre

sent

s th

e m

ean

amou

nt o

f sug

gest

ed p

er c

apita

spe

ndin

g. D

etai

led

expl

anat

ions

of t

he a

lpha

leve

l(a

) an

d F

e ar

e pr

ovid

ed o

n pa

ge 1

55.

The

initi

als

n.s.

indi

cate

that

the

obse

rved

diff

eren

ces

amon

g th

e gr

oups

are

not

sta

tistic

ally

sig

nific

ant.

C.1

. rep

orts

the

low

er a

nd u

pper

bou

nds

of th

e 95

%co

nfid

ence

inte

rval

for

estim

atin

gth

e m

ean

amou

nt o

f sug

gest

ed s

pend

ing

for

each

gro

up r

epor

ted.

The

se in

terv

als

are

appr

opria

te fo

r us

e w

ith th

ose

grou

ps th

at a

re s

tatis

tical

ly d

iffer

ent.

For

an

expl

anat

ion

of c

onfid

ence

inte

rval

s se

e pa

ges

10 a

nd 1

1.

4.4

cj-

198

PART V. THE OPINION LEADERS SURVEY

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE OPINION LEADERS SAMPLE

Opinion leaders are defined as those individuals who, having attained positions ofauthority, responsibility, and leadership in society, are believed to be in a position to reflect theprevailing opinions of leaders in society and to affect public opinion about key issues. Theopinion leaders sample included 300 respondents - 75 local political leaders, 75 leaders of mediaorganizations, 75 educational leaders, and 75 leaders of businesses, professional associations andother kinds of organizations. Each quota sample of opinion leaders was selected by the GallupOrganization from organizations representative of the four groups of opinion leaders. It shouldbe noted that this sample of opinion leaders is not purported to be representative of the nationalpopulation of opinion leaders nor are the sub-samples purported to be representative of theirrespective referent groups. Consequently, the comparative data presented in this report can onlybe viewed as illustrative.

All of the demographic characteristics of the opinion leaders sample1 are presented in theAppendix. Five key demographic characteristics, which are considerably different from those ofthe national sample, are presented below. In analyzing the opinion leaders' evaluations of theroles and in comparing their evaluations to those of the other samples, the reader should keepthese differences in mind.

Region of country' 12.0% northeast34.7% south central27.0% north central26.0% west

.3% missing

The frequency distributions for the responses to all the questions in the interview are presented in theAppendix for this report. The Appendix is a separately bound publication.

When the analysis of the opinion leaders file was begun, it was discovered that data identifying the size ofthe community in which the respondent lived, and the gender of the respondents had not been obtained. The projectdirector at the Gallup Organization suspects that these data were not gathered by the manager of the survey eitherbecause of the small size of the sample or because the sample was not a probability sample.

2 These regional areas are defined by The Gallup Organization as follows: northeast states = Connecticut,Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Vermont; southcentral states = Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, Washington D.C., Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland,Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, and West Virginia; north centralstates = Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, SouthDakota, Wisconsin; western states = Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, NewMexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming.

- 199 -

Age

Hispanic origin

Race

Highest grade levelcompleted

Household income

(Median interval)

16.1% 18 - 35 years52.0% 36 50 years27.3% 51 - 65 years4.0% 66 years and older.7% missing

1.7% Hispanic98.0% Non-Hispanic

.3% missing

92.3% Caucasian4.3% African American.7% Native American.7% Asian Pacific Islanders1.0% Other1.0% missing

.3% 8th grade or less

.7% 9th - 11 th grade7.3% 12th grade11.3% some college1.0% associate degree

33.3% bachelor's degree26.7% master's degree7.7% professional degree10.0% doctoral degree1.6% missing

.3% less than $5,0001.0% $ 5,000 - $ 9,9991.3% $10,000 - $14,9992.3% $15,000 - $19,9991.7% $20,000 - $24,9994.7% $25,000 $29,9993.0% $30,000 $34,9994.7% $35,000 - $39,9998.3% $40,000 - $44,9996.0% $45,000 - $49,9997.3% $50,000 - $54,9994.0% $55,000 $59,9996.0% $60,000 $64,9993.0% $65,000 - $69,9995.7% $70,000 - $74,999

31.7% $75,000 or more9.0% missing

- 200 -

As these data demonstrate, the opinion leaders in the sample were

older (79.3% of the opinion leaders were in the prime work years of 36-65 compared toonly 43.3% of the national sample),

much better educated (77.7% of the opinion leaders were college graduates compared toonly 22.2% of the national sample),

much more affluent (the median household income interval for the opinion leaders was$60,000 $64,999 compared to only $35,000 - $39,999 for the national sample), and

less diverse (6.8% of the opinion leaders were non-Caucasian compared to 13.2% of thenational sample).

LIBRARY USE AMONG THE OPINION LEADERS SAMPLE

The opinion leaders were much heavier users of the public library than the nationalprobability sample. The data indicated that 83.3% of the opinion leaders reported that they hadpersonally gone to a public library in the last year (compared to 57.1% of the national sample),52.0% of the opinion leaders reported that someone else had obtained materials for them(compared to 21.4% of the national sample), and 58.3% of the opinion leaders reported that theyhad called a library for information (compared to 23.1% of the national sample). Controlling foroverlap among these activities, it was determined that 91.0% of the opinion leaders had in someway used a public library in the last year (compared to 63.3% of the national sample).

EVALUATIONS OF THE IMPORTANCE OF THE ROLES BY THE OPINION LEADERSSAMPLE

The responses to the role evaluation questions were analyzed in two ways: first, meanscores for the role importance scales were calculated; and second, the percentages of respondentswho for each role selected the category "very important" were tabulated. While the meanimportance scale score yields a more precise estimate of the respondents' evaluations of theimportance of a role, the percentage of respondents who selected the category "very important"is the more easily understood and communicated estimate of the importance of a role. All of thetables presenting results of role evaluations present both the mean scale scores and the percentage"scores."

The results of the role evaluations are reported in Table 108 in ranked order from the rolereceiving the highest mean importance scale score to the role receiving the lowest meanimportance scale score. These results can be interpreted in two ways: first, the scores for anygiven role can be interpreted in terms of their position or standing on the four-point importancescale (an absolute assessment); and second, the scores for any given role can be interpreted interms of their ranking relative to the scores received by the other roles (a relative assessment).For example, more than half of the sample (52.7%) rated the Popular Materials Library role as"very important" with a mean score of 3.41, but this rating places the role in fifth position of

- 201 -

importance compared to the other roles. The reader should note that the ranking by mean scoreis not the same as the ranking by the percentage "score." The reader should also note that thedistance between the mean scores for some of the roles is quite small indicating that, while onerole is ranked higher or lower than another role, for all practical purposes the roles are aboutequal in importance. The same observation could also be made for the percentage "scores."

The results in Table 108 indicate that a majority of the opinion leaders sample consideredsix out of the ten roles to be "very important." Of these, however, the Formal Education SupportCenter role, the Preschoolers' Door to Learning role, and the Independent Learning Center rolereceived the highest ratings of importance strongly suggesting that the opinion leaders sampleconsidered the public library's role of supporting the educational aspirations of the communityto be its most important role.

In evaluating these results the reader should also keep in mind some of the anomalies inthe role statements and the public's interpretations of the role statements that were discussed onpages 17-19.

DIFFERENCES IN THE ROLE EVALUATIONS BY THE FOUR OPINION LEADERGROUPS

Each of the role importance scales was tested for differences among the four opinionleaders groups using analysis of variance.3 The results of these analyses, reported in Table 109,indicate that there were statistically significant and non-trivial differences among the groupevaluations of the Formal Education Support Center role, the Reference Library for business role,the Research Center role, the Community Information Center role, the Independent LearningCenter role, and the Public Work Place role. Comparisons among groups indicated that theEducational Leaders group rated the importance of the Formal Education Support Center role,

3 Analysis of variance is a statistical procedure for testing whether the observed differences among groupmeans for each role evaluation occurred by chance or because the groups differed in their evaluations of theimportance of the role. A statistically significant difference among the group means is defined as one whoseprobability of occurring by chance (the a level reported in the tables) is so low that we choose to conclude that thedifference did not occur by chance but that it occurred because the groups differed in their evaluation of the role.All differences with an a level of .05 or less (that is, the probability that the difference occurred by chance is 5 outof a hundred or less) are considered to be statistically significant. The a levels for all statistically significantdifferences are reported in the tables. All differences with an a level greater than .05 (that is, the probability thatthe difference occurred by chance is greater than 5 out of a hundred) are considered to be non-significant and aredesignated as such in the table with the initials n.s.

A non-trivial difference is defined as a statistically significant difference whose magnitude of difference issufficiently large that it warrants attention for possible usefulness in managerial decision making. By contsast, atrivial difference is defined as a statistically significant difference whose magnitude of difference is so small or trivialas to be of questionable value in managerial decision making. Deciding whether a statistically significant differenceis trivial or non-trivial is a judgement call. We have adopted the rule that if R1, the coefficient of determination,is equal to or greater than .02 the difference is considered to be non-trivial. The coefficient of determinationmeasures the amount of variation in the role evaluation scores that is explained by the group differences - the largerthe coefficient of determination, the more meaningful the difference. The coefficients of determination for allstatistically significant differences ; a reported in the tables so assessments about triviality can be made.

- 202 -

the Reference Library for Business role, the Research Center role, and the CommunityInformation Center role lower than the other opinion leaders groups. The Media Leaders grouprated the Public Work Place role lower than did the Political Leaders group.

These results indicate that the Education Leaders group systematically rated the libraryroles in the community lower in importance than the other opinion leader groups on five of therole scales; most notably, for the educational support roles of the Formal Education SupportCenter, the Research Center, and the Independent Learning Center.

DIFFERENCES IN THE ROLE EVALUATIONS OF OPINION LEADERS FROM DIFFERENTREGIONS OF THE COUNTRY

Each of the role importance scales was tested for differences among the groups of opinionleaders from the four regions of the country (using analysis of variance). The results of theseanalyses, reported in Table 110, indicate that there were two statistically significant and non-trivial differences among the group evaluations of the Community Information Center Role andIndependent Learning Center role. Comparisons among groups indicated that the opinion leadersfrom the north central states rated the importance of both the Community Information Center roleand the Independent Learning Center role lower than opinion leaders from the south central andnortheast states.

DIFFERENCES IN THE EVALUATIONS OF THE IMPORTANCE OF THE ROLES BYLIBRARY USERS AND NONUSERS IN THE OPINION LEADERS SAMPLE

Each of the role importance scales was tested for differences among the opinion leaders(using analysis of variance) based on the following library use behaviors: whether or not theopinion leader had gone to a public library in the past year, whether or not someone else hadgone to a library to obtain materials for the opinion leader, whether or not the opinion leader hadcalled a library for information in the past year, and a constructed measure of any kind of useof a public library - whether or not an opinion leader answered "yes" to any one of the three"use" questions. The results of these analyses, reported in Tables 111 - 114, indicated that therewere four statistically significant differences.

Opinion leaders who did not go to a library in the last year rated the Research Center roleand the Popular Materials Library role higher than did opinion leaders who had gone to a libraryin the last year (see Table 111). Both of these differences, however, were trivial.

Respondents who indicated that they had gone to a library in the past year were alsoasked how many times they had gone to a library and were provided six numerical responsecategories which were converted into a six-point scale. This frequency of visit scale was also

203 -

entered into correlation analyses' with each of the role importance scales. The results of theseanalyses indicated no statistically significant and non-trivial correlation coefficients.

There were no differences between opinion leaders who had someone else go to a libraryfor them and opinion leaders who did not (see Table 112).

Opinion leaders who did not call a library for information rated the Public Work Placerole higher than opinion leaders who did call a library for information (see Table 113). Thisdifference was trivial.

Opinion leaders who had not made any use of a library in the past year rated the PublicWork Place role higher than opinion leaders who had made use of a library (see Table 114).

These results indicate that opinion leaders who used a public library and opinion leaderswho did not use a public library in the past year tended to share the same assessments of theimportance of the various roles of the public library in the community.

THE OPINION LEADERS SAMPLE'S OPINION ABOUT AMOUNT OF PER CAPITASPENDING FOR PUBLIC LIBRARIES

The responses to the question about the amount of money that the community shouldspenu on library services were tabulated and are reported in Table 115. These results indicatethat 19.3% of the opinion leaders answered that the community should spend between $1 to $20per capita on public libraries (this interval contains the national [1990] median of $16.00 percapita) and that 71.4% of the opinion leaders answered that the community should spend morethan $20 per capita. Nine per cent of the opinion leaders were not sure and did not respond and.3% of the opinion leaders thought that the public library should not receive any public financialsupport. The average per capita expenditure' that the opinion leaders thought the communityshould spend annually on the public library was $40.95 - an amount two and a half times as highas the national per capita expenditure.

4 A correlation coefficient is an index of the strength of the relationship between two quantitative variables.The coefficient can take a value from -1.00 (indicating a perfect inverse relationship) to 0.00 (indicating the absenceof any relationship) to +1.00 (indicating a perfect positive relationship). Typically, correlation coefficients appeareither as a negative decimal value (indicating that high scores for one variable are associated with low scores forthc other variable) or as a positive decimal value (indicating that high scores for one variable are associated withhigh scores for the other variable). The higher the decimal value, the stronger the relationship.

A statistically significant relationship is defined as one whose probability of occurrence by chance is so lowthat we choose to conclude that it did not occur by chance but that it occurred because the two variables are related.A non-trivial relationship is defined as a statistically significant relationship of sufficient strength that it warrantsattention for possible usefulness in managerial decision making. In this report, correlation coefficients equal to orgreater than ±.15 are considered to be non-trivial.

5 The average or mean of the scores was calculated using the mid-point of each interval; namely, $0, $10, $30,$50, $70, $90, and $110.

- 204 -

DIFFERENCES OF OPINION AMONG THE OPINION LEADERS SAMPLE ABOUT THEAMOUNT OF PER CAPITA SPENDING FOR PUBLIC LIBRARIES

Opinions about the amount of community per capita spending for library services weretested for differences among the opinion leaders grouped by leadership group and region ofcountry. The result of these analyses, reported in Table 116, indicated that there were nostatistically significant differences among the groups.

DIFFERENCES OF OPINION ABOUT THE AMOUNT OF PER CAPITA SPENDING FORPUBLIC LIBRARIES BY LIBRARY USERS AND NONUSERS IN THE OPINION LEADERSSAMPLE

Opinions about the amount of community per capita spending for library services weretested for differences among the opinion leaders grouped by whether or not they used a publiclibrary. The result of these analyses, reported in Table 117, indicated that there was only onestatistically significant difference. Opinion Leaders who called a library for information thoughtthat the community should spend significantly more per capita ($44.26) than opinion leaders whodid not call a library ($34.63).

Those opinion leaders who indicated that they had gone to a library in the past year werealso asked how frequently they had gone to a library and were provided a six-point numeric scalewith which to estimate their frequency of visits. The frequency of visit scale was entered intoa correlation analysis with the amount of community per capita spending scale. The result of thisanalris indicated that there was a statistically significant and non-trivial correlation coefficient(r = .18) suggesting that, among opinion leaders who visited a library in the past year, the morefrequently the opinion leader visited a library the higher the per capita amount they thought thecommunity should spend for library services.

RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN THE EVALUATIONS OF THE ROLES AND THE OPINIONSABOUT THE AMOUNT OF PER CAPITA SPENDING FOR PUBLIC LIBRARIES IN THEOPINION LEADERS SAMPLE

In order to identify which roles of the public library were most highly related to theamount of financial support the opinion leaders thought the community should provide, each ofthe role importance scales was entered into a correlation analysis with the amount of publicspending scale. These analyses resulted in five correlation coefficients that were statisticallysignificant and non-trivial. These results, reported in the first column of Table 118, indicate thatthe higher the rating of the importance of the Community Activities Center role (r = .22), theFormal Education Support Center role (r = .20), the Community Information Center role (r =.17), the Public Work Place role (r = .17), and the Research Center role (r = .16) the higher theamount of money that the opinion leaders thought the community should spend on public libraryservices.

- 205 -

These correlation analyses were also conducted for each of the four opinion leader groups.The results of these analyses, also reported in Table 118, indicate the following:

among political opinion leaders the higher the *ratings of the importance of theCommunity Activities Center role, the Public Work Place role, and the Research Centerrole, the higher the amount of money that the opinion leaders thought the communityshould spend for public library services;

among opinion leaders from the media the higher the ratings of the importance of theReference Library for Business role and the Independent Learning Center role, the higherthe amount of money that the opinion leaders thought the community should spend forpublic library services;

among educational opinion leaders the higher the ratings of the importance of the FormalEducation Support Center role, the Community Information Center role, and the BusinessReference Library role, the higher the amount of money that the opinion leaders thoughtthe community should spend for public library services;

among business opinion leaders the higher the ratings of the importance of the ResearchCenter role and the Community Activities Center role, the higher the amount of moneythat the opinion leaders thought the community should spend for public library services.

COMPARISONS BETWEEN THE ROLE EVALUATIONS OF THE OPINION LEADERSSAMPLE AND THE NATIONAL SAMPLE

Each of the role importance scales was tested for differences between the opinion leaderssample and the national sample using analysis of variance. The results of these analyses,reported in Table 119, indicated that there were four statistically significant but trivial differencesbetween the two groups on their evaluations of the Reference Library role for personalinformation, the Research Center role, the Independent Learning Center role, and the Public WorkPlace role. For each of these roles, the opinions leaders rated the importance of the role lowerthan did the members of the national sample. However, these differences are trivial.

COMPARISONS BETWEEN THE ROLE EVALUATIONS OF THE OPINION LEADERSSAMPLE AND THE AFRICAN AMERICAN SAMPLE

Each of the role importance scales was tested for differences between the opinion leaderssample and the African American sample using analysis of variance. The results of theseanalyses, reported in Table 120, indicated that there were nine statistically significant differences.The opinion leaders systematically rated each of the roles significantly lower in importance thandid the African Americans. Eight of these differences were non-trivial. The difference in therating of the Formal Education Support Center role was trivial. The only role for which thedifference was not significant was the Popular Materials Library role. Given the demographiccharacteristics of the opinion leaders sample, this pattern of differences is not surprising.

- 206 -

However, it does accent the difference in opinion between the African Ame;ican community andthe influential group of community opinion leaders.

COMPARISONS BETWEEN THE ROLE EVALUATIONS OF THE OPINION LEADERSSAMPLE AND THE CAUCASIAN AMERICAN SAMPLE

Each of the role importance scales was tested for differences between the opinion leaderssample and the Caucasian American sample using analysis of variance. The results of theseanalyses, reported in Table 121, indicated that there were four statistically significant but trivialdifferences between the two groups on their evaluations of the Reference Library role forpersonal information, the Research Center role, the Independent Learning Center role, and thePublic Work Place role. For each of these roles, the opinions leaders rated the importance of therole lower than did the members of the Caucasian American sample. These results are similarto those obtained with the comparison of the opinion leaders sample to the national sample whichwas primarily composed of Caucasian Americans.

COMPARISONS BETWEEN THE ROLE EVALUATIONS OF THE OPINION LEADERSSAMPLE AND THE HISPANIC AMERICAN SAMPLE

Each of the role importance scales was tested for differences between the opinion leaderssample and the Hispanic American sample using analysis of variance. The results of theseanalyses, reported in Table 122, indicated that there were nine statistically significant differences.The opinion leaders systematically rated each of the roles significantly lower in importance thandid the Hispanic Americans. Eight of these differences were non-trivial. The difference in therating of the Formal Education Support Center role was trivial. The only role for which thedifference was not significant was the Popular Materials Library role. These results are similarto those obtained with the comparison of the opinion leaders sample to the African Americansample and also serves to accent the difference in opinion between the Hispanic Americancommunity and the community opinion leaders.

COMPARISONS OF OPINION ABOUT THE AMOUNT OF PER CAPITA SPENDING FORPUBLIC LIBRARIES BETWEEN THE OPINION LEADERS SAMPLE AND THE NATIONALSAMPLE, THE AFRICAN AMERICAN SAMPLE, THE CAUCASIAN AMERICAN SAMPLE,AND THE HISPANIC AMERICAN SAMPLE

The respondents' opinions about the amount of community spending for library serviceswas tested for differences (using analysis of variance) between the opinion leaders sample andeach of the other samples. The result of these analyses, reported in Table 123, indicated thatthere were two statistically significant but trivial differences. The opinion leaders thought thatthe community should spend more ($40.95 per capita) than did the national sample ($34.17) andthe Caucasian sample ($33.65). Interestingly, there was no difference between the opinion leaderssample and either the African American sample or the Hispanic American sample. It appearstherefore that, while the opinion leaders did not rate the importance of the roles of the library tothe community as highly as did the African Americans and Hispanic Americans, the opinion

- 207 -

leaders shared with the African Americans and Hispanic Americans a similar opinion about theamount of money the community should spend on library services.

- 208 -

Opi

nion

Lea

ders

Sam

ple

TA

BL

E 1

08T

HE

OPI

NIO

N L

EA

DE

RS'

EV

AL

UA

TIO

NS

OF

TH

EIM

POR

TA

NC

EO

F T

HE

VA

RIO

US

RO

LE

S O

F T

HE

PU

BL

IC L

IBR

AR

Y

(N =

300

)

Form

al E

duca

tion

Supp

ort C

ente

r3.

8688

.0%

*

Pres

choo

lers

' Doo

r to

Lea

rnin

g3.

7881

.3%

Inde

pend

ent L

earn

ing

Cen

ter

3.71

78.0

%

Com

mun

ity I

nfor

mat

ion

Cen

ter

3.55

65.0

%

Popu

lar

Mat

eria

ls L

ibra

ry3.

4152

.7%

Res

earc

h C

ente

r3.

3355

.7%

Ref

eren

ce L

ibra

ry -

Bus

ines

s3.

3247

.0%

Ref

eren

ce L

ibra

ry -

Per

sona

l3.

2938

.0%

Com

mun

ity A

ctiv

ities

Cen

ter

3.19

46.0

%

Publ

ic W

ork

Plac

e3.

1638

.3%

Not

e: N

is th

e sa

mpl

e si

ze a

nd r

epre

sent

s, in

gen

eral

, the

num

ber

of r

espo

nden

tsw

ho r

ated

eac

h ro

le.

it re

pres

ents

the

mea

n ra

ting

for

each

rol

e on

the

fcur

-poi

nt im

port

ance

sca

le. %

repr

esen

ts th

e pe

rcen

tage

of t

he s

ampl

eth

at r

ated

the

role

"ve

ry im

port

ant."

For

som

e ro

les

ther

e w

ere

a fe

w n

on-r

espo

nden

ts,

but t

hese

slig

ht d

iffer

ence

s in

sam

ple

size

s ar

e in

cons

eque

ntia

l

for

the

purp

ose

of e

stim

atin

g th

e sa

mpl

ing

erro

r as

soci

ated

with

the

%of

res

pond

ents

who

rat

ed th

e ro

le "

very

impo

rtan

t."

- 20

9 -

3 T

o

Opi

nion

Lea

den

Sam

ple

TA

BL

E 1

09C

OM

PAR

ISO

NS

AM

ON

G T

HE

OPI

NIO

N L

EA

DE

RS'

GR

OU

PS'

Polit

ical

Med

iaE

duca

tion

Bus

ines

sG

roup

Gro

upG

roup

Gro

up(N

= 7

5)(N

= 7

5)(N

= 7

5)(N

= 7

5)

I%

Form

al E

duca

tion

Supp

ort C

ente

r3.

9394

.7

Pres

choo

lers

' Doo

r to

Lea

rnin

g3.

8184

.0

Ref

eren

ce L

ibra

ry -

Per

sona

l3.

1625

.3

Ref

eren

ce L

ibra

ryB

usin

ess

3.41

54.1

Com

mun

ity A

ctiv

ities

Cen

ter

3.35

56.0

Res

earc

h C

ente

r3.

5767

.6

Com

mun

ity I

nfor

mat

ion

Cen

ter

3.72

80.0

Inde

pend

ent L

earn

ing

Cen

ter

3.83

85.3

Publ

ic W

ork

Plac

e3.

3345

.3

Popu

lar

Mat

eria

ls L

ibra

ry3.

3953

.3

i%

3.96

96.0

3.76

77.3

3.32

41.3

3.29

41.3

3.13

37.3

3.26

50.0

3.47

59.5

3.75

77.3

2.95

22.7

3.31

47.3

I%

I%

aR

2

3.63

70.7

3.91

90.7

.000

.106

3.77

84.0

3.77

80.0

n.s.

3.35

40.5

3.32

45.3

n.s.

3.04

32.0

3.53

61.3

.000

.059

3.04

42.7

3.23

48.0

n.s.

3.05

42.7

3.44

64.0

.002

.049

3.35

52.0

3.65

69.3

.004

.044

3.56

70.7

3.72

78.7

.049

.026

3.19

42.7

3.19

42.7

.028

.030

3.55

61.3

3.41

49.3

n.s.

Thi

s ta

ble

repo

rts

the

:,,um

rnai

y an

alys

es o

f va

rian

ce f

or th

e co

mpa

riso

ns a

mon

g th

e m

ean

role

impo

rtan

ce s

cale

sco

res

for

the

grou

ps o

f re

spon

dent

s id

entif

ied

by th

e co

lum

n he

adin

gs.

Not

e: N

is th

e sa

mpl

e si

ze f

or e

ach

grou

p an

d re

pres

ents

, in

gene

ral,

the

num

ber

of r

espo

nden

ts w

ho r

ated

eac

h ro

le.

j rep

rese

nts

the

mea

n ra

ting

for

each

rol

e on

the

four

-poi

nt im

port

ance

scal

e. E

xpla

nutio

n-, o

f a

(the

alp

ha le

vel)

and

le (

the

coef

fici

ent o

f de

term

inat

ion)

are

pro

vide

d on

pag

e 20

2. T

hein

itial

s n.

s. in

dica

te th

at th

e ob

serv

ed d

iffe

renc

es a

mon

g th

e gr

oup

mea

ns a

reno

t sta

tistic

ally

sig

nifi

cant

. % r

epre

sent

s th

e pe

rcen

tage

of

each

gro

up th

at r

ated

the

role

"ve

ryim

port

ant."

The

se %

are

pre

sent

ed f

or d

escr

iptiv

e pu

rpos

es. F

or s

ome

role

s th

ere

wer

e a

few

non-

resp

onde

nts,

but

thes

e sl

ight

dif

fere

nces

in s

ampl

e si

zes

are

inco

nseq

uent

ial f

or th

e pu

rpos

e of

est

imat

ing

the

sam

plin

g er

ror

asso

ciat

ed w

ith th

e pe

rcen

tage

of

resp

onde

nts

who

rat

ed th

e

role

s "v

ery

impo

rtan

t."(-

4cL

.);

- 21

0 -

Opi

nion

Lea

ders

Sam

ple

TA

BL

E 1

10C

OM

PAR

ISO

NS

AM

ON

G R

ESP

ON

DE

NT

S FR

OM

DIF

FER

EN

T R

EG

ION

S O

F T

HE

CO

UN

TR

Y'

Nor

thea

st(N

= 3

6)

i%

Sout

hC

entr

al(N

= 1

04)

i%

Form

al E

duca

tion

Supp

ort C

ente

r3.

8686

.13.

9091

.4

Pres

choo

lers

' Doo

r to

Lea

rnin

g3.

8386

.13.

8181

.7

Ref

eren

ce L

ibra

ryPe

rson

al3.

2836

.13.

3241

.4

Ref

eren

ce L

ibra

ryB

usin

ess

3.23

34.3

3.41

51.0

Com

mun

ity A

ctiv

ities

Cen

ter

3.42

61.1

3.19

45.2

Res

earc

h C

ente

r3.

2951

.43.

4263

.1

Com

mun

ity I

nfor

mat

ion

Cen

ter

3.72

80.6

3.66

71.8

Inde

pend

ent L

earn

ing

Cen

ter

3.83

83.3

3.81

83.7

Publ

ic W

ork

Plac

e3.

1744

.43.

1437

.5

Popu

lar

Mat

eria

ls L

ibra

ry33

952

.83.

3650

.5

Nor

thC

entr

alW

est

(N =

81)

(N =

78)

Iof /0

I%

aR

2

85.9

n.s.

87.2

n.s.

37.2

n.s.

55.1

n.s.

50.0

n.s.

59.0

n.s.

64.1

.012

.037

75.6

.044

.027

42.3

n.s.

52.6

n.s.

3.85

87.7

3.82

3.72

74.1

3.81

3.25

36.3

3.29

3.15

39.5

3.41

3.00

37.0

3.28

3.20

46.9

3.37

3.36

50.6

3.51

3.59

70.4

3.65

3.15

33.3

3.21

3.47

56.8

3.46

Thi

s ta

ble

repo

rts

the

sum

mar

y an

alys

es o

f var

ianc

e fo

r th

e co

mpa

rison

s am

ong

the

mca

n ro

le im

port

ance

sca

le s

core

s fo

r th

e gr

oups

of r

espo

nden

ts id

entif

ied

by th

e co

lum

n he

adin

gs.

Not

e: N

is th

e sa

mpl

e si

ze fo

r ea

ch g

roup

and

rep

rese

nts,

in g

ener

al, t

he n

umbe

r of

res

pond

ents

who

rat

ed e

ach

role

.re

pres

ents

the

mea

n ra

ting

for

each

rol

e on

the

four

-poi

nt im

port

ance

scal

e. E

xpla

natio

ns o

f a (

the

alph

a le

vel)

and

122

(the

coe

ffici

ent o

f det

erm

inat

ion)

are

pm

vide

d on

pag

e 20

2. T

he in

itial

s n.

s.in

dica

te th

at th

e ob

serv

ed d

iffer

ence

s am

ong

the

grou

p m

eans

are

not s

tatis

tical

ly s

igni

fican

t. %

rep

rese

nts

the

perc

enta

ge o

f eac

h gr

oup

that

rat

ed th

e ro

le "

very

impo

rtan

t"T

hese

% a

re p

rese

nted

for

desc

riptiv

e pu

rpos

es. F

or s

ome

role

s th

ere

wer

e a

few

non-

resp

onde

nts,

but

thes

e sl

ight

diff

eren

ces

in s

ampl

e si

zes

are

inco

nseq

uent

ial f

or th

e pu

rpos

e of

est

imat

ing

the

sam

plin

g er

ror

asso

ciat

ed w

ith th

e pe

rcen

tage

of r

espo

nden

ts w

ho r

ated

the

role

s "v

ery

impo

rtan

t."

LI

)

- 21

1 -

(4,

,,I

1

Opi

nion

Lea

ders

Sam

ple

TA

BL

E 1

11C

OM

PAR

ISO

NS

BE

TW

EE

N R

ESP

ON

DE

NT

S W

HO

VIS

ITE

D A

ND

RE

SPO

ND

EN

TS

WH

O D

ID N

OT

VIS

ITT

HE

PU

BL

IC L

IBR

AR

Y I

N T

HE

LA

ST Y

EA

R*

Vis

ited

libra

ryD

id n

ot v

isit

libra

ry(N

= 2

50)

(N =

50)

I%

I%

ale

Form

al E

duca

tion

Supp

ort C

ente

r3.

8487

.23.

9292

.0n.

s.

Pres

choo

lers

' Doo

r to

Lea

rnin

g3.

7881

.63.

7680

.0n.

s.

Ref

eren

ce L

ibra

ryPe

rson

al3.

3139

.03.

1834

.0n.

s.

Ref

eren

ce L

ibra

ryB

usin

ess

3.34

46.2

3.24

52.0

n.s.

Com

mun

ity A

ctiv

ities

Cen

ter

3.17

45.2

3.28

50.0

n.s.

Res

earc

h C

ente

r3.

2752

.83.

6072

.0.0

16.0

19

Com

mun

ity I

nfor

mat

ion

Cen

ter

3.52

64.3

3.68

70.0

n.s.

Inde

pend

ent L

earn

ing

Cen

ter

3.70

76.8

3.78

84.0

n.s.

Publ

ic W

ork

Plac

e3.

1436

.43.

2648

.0n.

s.

Popu

lar

Mat

eria

ls L

ibra

ry3.

3749

.83.

6268

.0.0

24.0

17

Thi

s ta

ble

repo

rts

the

sum

mar

y an

alys

es o

f var

ianc

e fo

r th

e co

mpa

rison

s am

ong

the

mea

n ro

le im

port

ance

sca

le s

core

s fo

r th

e gr

oups

of r

espo

nden

ts id

entif

ied

byth

e co

lum

n he

adin

gs.

Not

e:N

is th

e sa

mpl

e si

ze fo

r ea

ch g

roup

and

rep

rese

nts,

in g

ener

al, t

he n

umbe

r of

res

pond

ents

who

rat

ed e

ach

role

. i r

epre

sent

s th

e m

ean

ratin

g fo

rea

ch r

ole

on th

e fo

ur-p

oint

impo

rtan

cesc

ale.

Exp

lana

tions

of a

(th

e al

pha

leve

l) an

d 12

2 (t

he c

oeffi

cien

t of d

eter

min

atio

n) a

re p

rovi

ded

on p

age

202.

The

initi

als

n.s.

indi

cate

that

the

obse

rved

diffe

renc

es a

mon

g th

e gr

oup

mea

ns a

reno

t sta

tistic

ally

sig

nific

ant.

% r

epre

sent

s th

e pe

rcen

tage

of e

ach

grou

p th

at r

ated

the

role

'ver

y im

port

ant."

The

se %

are

pre

sent

ed fo

rdes

crip

tive

purp

oses

. For

som

e ro

les

ther

e w

ere

a fe

wno

n-re

spon

dent

s, b

ut th

ese

slig

ht d

iffer

ence

s in

sam

ple

size

s ar

e in

cons

eque

ntia

l for

the

purp

ose

of e

stim

atin

g th

e sa

mpl

ing

erro

r as

soci

ated

with

the

perc

enta

ge o

f res

pond

ents

who

rate

d th

e

role

s "v

ery

impo

rtan

t."3

4

- 21

2 -

Opi

nion

Lea

ders

Sam

ple

TA

BL

E 1

12C

OM

PAR

ISO

NS

BE

TW

EE

N R

ESP

ON

DE

NT

S B

ASE

D O

N W

HE

TH

ER

SO

ME

ON

E E

LSE

WE

NT

TO

TH

E P

UB

LIC

LIB

RA

RY

FO

R T

HE

M I

N T

HE

LA

ST Y

EA

R°

Yes

(N =

156

)

i%

Form

al E

duca

tion

Supp

ort C

ente

r3.

8788

.5

Pres

choo

lers

' Doo

r to

Lea

rnin

g3.

7479

.5

Ref

eren

ce L

ibra

ry -

Per

sona

l3.

2435

.5

Ref

eren

ce L

ibra

ry -

Bus

ines

s3.

3046

.5

Com

mun

ity A

ctiv

ities

Cen

ter

3.27

51.3

Res

earc

h C

ente

r3.

3758

.7

Com

mun

ity I

nfor

mat

ion

Cen

ter

3.55

64.1

Inde

pend

ent L

earn

ing

Cen

ter

3.72

78.2

Publ

ic W

ork

Plac

e3.

1235

.3

Popu

lar

Mat

eria

ls L

ibra

ry3.

3748

.7

No

(N =

143

)

I%

a

3.84

87.4

n.s.

3.82

83.2

n.s.

3.34

40.6

n.s.

3.35

48.3

n.s.

3.09

39.9

n.s.

3.28

53.5

n.s.

3.54

66.2

n.s.

3.71

77.6

n.s.

3.21

42.0

n.s.

3.47

57.8

n.s.

R2

Thi

s ta

ble

repo

rts

the

sum

mar

y an

alys

es o

f var

ianc

e fo

r th

e co

mpa

rison

s am

ong

the

mea

n ro

le im

port

ance

sca

le s

core

sfo

r th

e gr

oups

of r

espo

nden

ts id

entif

ied

by th

e co

lum

n he

adin

gs.

Not

e: N

is th

e sa

mpl

e si

ze fo

r ea

ch g

roup

and

rep

rese

nts,

in g

ener

al, t

he n

umbe

r of

res

pond

ents

who

rat

ed e

ach

role

.£

repr

esen

ts th

e m

ean

ratin

g fo

r ea

ch r

ole

on th

e fo

ur-p

oint

impo

rtan

cesc

ale.

Exp

lana

tions

of a

(th

e al

pha

leve

l) an

d le

(th

e co

effic

ient

of d

eter

min

atio

n) a

re p

rovi

ded

on p

age

202.

The

initi

als

n.s.

indi

cate

that

the

obse

rved

diff

eren

ces

amon

g th

e gr

oup

mea

ns a

reno

t sta

tistic

ally

sig

nific

ant.

% r

epre

sent

s th

e pe

rcen

tage

of e

ach

grou

p th

at r

ated

the

role

"ve

ry im

port

ant"

The

se %

are

pre

sent

ed fo

r de

scrip

tive

purp

oses

. For

som

e ro

les

ther

e w

ere

afe

w

non-

resp

onde

nts,

but

thes

e sl

ight

diff

eren

ces

in s

ampl

e si

zes

are

inco

nseq

uent

ial f

or th

e pu

rpos

eof

est

imat

ing

the

sam

plin

g er

ror

asso

ciat

ed w

ith th

e pe

rcen

tage

of r

espo

nden

ts w

ho r

ated

the

role

s "v

ery

impo

rtan

t."

- 21

3 -

3 L

.)

Opi

nion

Lea

ders

Sam

ple

TA

BL

E 1

13C

OM

PAR

ISO

NS

BE

TW

EE

N R

ESP

ON

DE

NT

S W

HO

CA

LL

ED

TH

E P

UB

LIC

LIB

RA

RY

FO

R I

NFO

RM

AT

ION

IN T

HE

LA

ST Y

EA

R A

ND

RE

SPO

ND

EN

TS

WH

O D

ID N

OT

'

Cal

led

libra

ryD

id n

ot c

all l

ibra

ry(N

= 1

75)

(N =

121

)

I%

I%

.a

R2

Form

al E

duca

tion

Supp

ort C

ente

r18

689

.13.

8486

.0n.

s.

Pres

choo

lers

' Doo

r to

Lea

rnin

g3.

8082

.93.

7579

.3n.

s.

Ref

eren

ce L

ibra

ry -

Per

sona

l3.

3339

.73.

2335

.5n.

s.

Ref

eren

ce L

ibra

ryB

usin

ess

3.34

47.4

3.29

46.7

n.s.

Com

mun

ity A

ctiv

ities

Cen

ter

3.25

47.4

3.08

43.8

n.s.

Res

earc

h C

ente

r3.

3254

.33.

3257

.1n.

s.

Com

mun

ity I

nfor

mat

ion

Cen

ter

3.53

64.0

3.58

67.5

n.s.

Inde

pend

ent L

earn

ing

Cen

ter

3.68

76.6

3.76

80.2

n.s.

Publ

ic W

ork

Plac

e3.

0933

.73.

2846

.3.0

45.0

14

Popu

lar

Mat

eria

ls L

ibra

ry3.

3952

.03.

4353

.3n.

s.

Thi

s ta

ble

repo

rts

the

sunu

nary

ana

lyse

s of

var

ianc

e fo

r th

e co

mpa

riso

ns a

mon

g th

e m

ean

role

impo

rtan

ce s

cale

sco

res

for

the

grou

ps o

f re

spon

dent

sid

entif

ied

by th

e co

lum

n he

adin

gs.

Not

e: N

is th

e sa

mpl

e si

ze f

orea

ch g

roup

and

rep

rese

nts,

in g

ener

al, t

he n

umbe

r of

res

pond

ents

who

rat

ed e

ach

role

. i r

epre

sent

s th

e m

ean

ratin

g fo

r ea

ch r

ole

on th

efo

ur-p

oint

impo

rtan

ce

scal

e. E

xpla

natio

ns o

f a (

the

alph

a le

vel)

and

Fe(t

he c

oeffi

cien

t of d

eter

min

atio

n) a

re p

rovi

ded

on p

age

202.

The

initi

als

n.s.

indi

cate

that

the

obse

rved

diff

eren

ces

amon

g th

e gr

oup

mea

nsar

e

not

stat

istic

ally

sig

nific

ant.

% r

epre

sent

s th

e pe

rcen

tage

of e

ach

grou

p th

at r

ated

the

role

"ve

ry im

port

ant."

The

se %

are

pres

ente

d fo

r de

scri

ptiv

e pu

rpos

es. F

or s

ome

role

s th

ere

wer

e a

few

non-

resp

onde

nts,

but

thes

e sl

ight

diff

eren

ces

in s

ampl

e si

zes

are

inco

nseq

uent

ial f

or th

e pu

rpos

e of

est

imat

ing

the

sam

plin

g er

ror

asso

ciat

ed w

ith th

e pe

rcen

tage

of

resp

onde

nts

who

rat

ed th

ero

les

"ver

yirn

pona

nt."

- 21

4 -

Opi

nion

Lea

ders

Sam

ple

TA

BL

E 1

14C

OM

PAR

ISO

NS

BE

TW

EE

N R

ESP

ON

DE

NT

S W

HO

IN

AN

Y W

AY

USE

D T

HE

PU

BL

IC L

IBR

AR

YIN

TH

E L

AST

YE

AR

AN

D R

ESP

ON

DE

NT

S W

HO

DID

NO

T*

Use

rs(N

= 2

77)

Non

-use

rs(N

= 2

3)

i%

i%

a12

2

Form

al E

duca

tion

Supp

ort C

ente

r3.

8587

.73.

9191

.3n.

s.

Pres

choo

lers

' Doo

r to

Lea

rnin

g3.

7881

.63.

7478

.3n.

s.

Ref

eren

ce L

ibra

ryPe

rson

al3.

2837

.73.

3543

.5n.

s.

Ref

eren

ce L

ibra

ry -

Bus

ines

s3.

3246

.43.

3956

.5n.

s.

Com

mun

ity A

ctiv

ities

Cen

ter

3.17

45.5

3.35

52.2

n.s.

Res

earc

h C

ente

r3.

3154

.93.

5769

.6n.

s.

Com

mun

ity I

nfor

mat

ion

Cen

ter

3.54

65.2

3.61

65.2

n.s.

Inde

pend

ent L

earn

ing

Cen

ter

3.71

78.0

3.74

78.3

n.s.

Publ

ic W

ork

Plac

e3,

1336

.13.

5765

.2.0

12.0

21

Popu

lar

Mat

eria

ls L

ibra

ry3.

4051

.83.

6165

.2n.

s.

Thi

s ta

ble

repo

rts

the

sum

mar

y an

alys

es o

f var

ianc

e fo

r th

e co

mpa

rison

s am

ong

the

mea

n ro

le im

port

ance

sca

le s

core

s fo

r th

e gr

oups

of r

espo

nden

ts id

entif

ied

byth

e co

lum

n he

adin

gs.

Not

e: N

is th

e sa

mpl

e si

ze fo

r ea

ch g

roup

and

rep

rese

nts,

in g

ener

al, t

he n

umbe

r of

rpo

nden

ts w

ho r

ated

eac

h ro

le.

ii re

pres

ents

the

mea

n ra

ting

for

each

rol

e on

the

four

-poi

nt im

port

ance

scal

e. E

xpla

natio

ns o

f a (

the

alph

a le

vel)

and

112

(the

coe

ffici

ent o

f det

erm

inat

ion)

are

pro

vide

d on

pag

e 20

2. T

he in

itial

s n.

s. in

dica

te th

at th

e ob

serv

eddi

ffere

nces

am

ong

the

grou

p m

eans

are

noi s

tatis

tical

ly s

igni

fican

t. %

rep

rese

nts

the

perc

enta

ge o

f eac

h gr

oup

thai

rat

ed th

e ro

le "

very

impo

rtan

t." T

hese

% a

re p

rese

nted

for

desc

riptiv

e pu

rpos

es. F

or s

ome

role

s th

ere

wer

e a

few

non-

resp

onde

nts,

but

thes

e sl

ight

diff

eren

ces

in s

ampl

e si

zes

are

inco

nseq

uent

ial f

or th

e pu

rpos

e of

est

imat

ing

the

sam

plin

g er

ror

asso

ciat

ed w

ith th

e pe

rcen

tage

of r

espo

nden

ts w

hora

ted

the

role

s "v

ery

impo

rtan

t."

- 21

5 -

Opi

nion

Lea

ders

Sam

ple

TA

BL

E 1

15T

HE

OPI

NIO

N L

EA

DE

RS'

OPI

NIO

NS

AB

OU

T L

EV

EL

S O

F PE

R C

API

TA

SPE

ND

ING

FO

R L

IBR

AR

Y S

ER

VIC

ES

Am

ount

Freq

uenc

yPe

rcen

tA

djus

ted

Perc

ent*

$ 0

1.3

0.0

$ 1

- $2

058

19.3

21.2

$21

- $4

010

133

.737

.0

$41

- $6

065

21.7

23.8

$61

- $8

017

5.7

6.2

$81

- $1

0014

4.7

5.1

$101

-17

5.7

6.2

Don

't K

now

279.

0M

issi

ng

Tot

al30

0

Not

e: P

erce

ntag

es r

ecal

cula

ted

with

mis

sing

res

pond

ents

exc

lude

d.

41-

U *

3

Opi

nion

Lea

ders

Sam

ple

TA

BL

E 1

16C

OM

PAR

ISO

NS

OF

TH

E M

EA

N S

UG

GE

STE

D P

ER

CA

PIT

A S

PEN

DIN

G F

OR

LIB

RA

RIE

SA

MO

NG

TH

E V

AR

IOU

S G

RO

UPS

OF

RE

SPO

ND

EN

TS.

Ent

ire

Sam

ple

273

$40.

95

C.I

.

$37.

69$4

4.21

Opi

nion

lead

ers'

gro

ups

a n.s.

R2

C.I

.

Polit

ical

69$4

4.06

$36.

97$5

1.15

Med

ia64

$40.

00$3

3.46

- $

46.5

4E

duca

tion

70$3

8.00

$31.

59$4

4.41

Bus

ines

s

Reg

ion

of c

ount

ry

70$4

1.72

n.s.

$35.

30$4

8.13

Nor

thea

st28

$45.

00$3

5.18

$54.

82So

uth

Cen

tral

98$3

8.98

$33.

33 -

$44

.62

Nor

th C

entr

al75

$41.

47$3

5.08

- $

47.8

5W

est

71$4

1.69

$35.

26$4

8.12

'Not

e: T

his

tabl

e re

port

s th

e su

mm

ary

anal

yses

of v

aria

nce

for

the

com

paris

ons

amon

g th

e m

ean

amou

nts

of s

ugge

sted

per

cap

ita s

pend

ing

by v

ario

us g

roup

s of

resp

onde

nts.

Not

e: N

is th

e sa

mpl

e si

ze fo

r ea

ch g

roup

. X r

epre

sent

s th

e m

ean

amou

nt o

f sug

gest

ed p

er c

apita

spe

ndin

g. D

etai

led

expl

anat

ions

of t

he a

lpha

leve

l(a

) an

d le

arc

pro

vide

d on

pag

e 20

2.T

he in

itial

s n.

s. in

dica

te th

at th

e ob

serv

ed d

iffer

ence

s am

ong

the

grou

ps a

rc n

a st

atis

tical

ly s

igni

fican

t. C

.I. r

epor

ts th

e l)w

er a

nd u

pper

bou

nds

of th

e 95

%co

nfid

ence

inte

rval

for

estim

atin

gth

e m

ean

amou

nt o

f sug

gest

ed s

pend

ing

for

each

gro

up r

epor

ted.

The

se in

terv

als

are

appr

opria

te fo

r us

e w

ith th

ose

grou

ps th

at a

rc s

tatis

tical

ly d

iffer

ent.

For

an

expl

anat

ion

of c

onfid

ence

inte

rval

s se

e pa

ges

10 a

nd 1

1.

(4 6 ti

- 21

7 -

Opi

nion

Lea

ders

Sam

pk

TA

BL

E 1

17C

OM

PAR

ISO

NS

OF

TH

E M

EA

N S

UG

GE

STE

D P

ER

CA

PIT

A S

PEN

DIN

G F

OR

LIB

RA

RIE

SB

ET

WE

EN

LIB

RA

RY

USE

RS

AN

D N

ON

-USE

RS'

Ent

ire

Sam

ple

273

$40.

95

C.I

.

$37.

69$4

4.21

Res

pond

ent w

ent t

o pu

blic

libr

ary

last

yea

rn.

s.

R2

C.I

.

Yes

225

$40.

93$3

7.40

$44.

47N

o

Som

eone

els

e w

ent t

o lib

rary

for

res

pond

ent

48$4

1.04

n.s.

$32.

42$4

9.66

Yes

143

$43.

92$3

9.44

$48.

39N

o12

9$3

7.91

$33.

13$4

2.69

Res

pond

ent c

alle

d lib

rary

for

info

rmat

ion

.004

.031

Yes

162

$44.

26$3

9.84

- $

48.6

8N

o

Res

pond

ent u

sed

libra

ry in

any

way

last

yea

r

108

$34.

63

n.s.

$30.

22$3

9.04

Yes

248

$40.

52$3

7.16

$43.

88N

o25

$45.

20$3

1.87

$58.

53

'Not

e: T

his

tabl

e re

port

s th

e su

mm

ary

anal

yses

of v

aria

nce

for

the

com

paris

ons

amon

g th

e m

ean

amou

nts

of s

ugge

stei

per

cap

ita s

pend

ing

by v

ario

u.s

grou

ps o

fresp

onde

nts.

Not

e: N

is th

e sa

mpl

e si

ze fo

r ea

ch g

roup

. X r

epre

sent

s th

e m

ean

amou

nt o

f sug

gest

ed p

er c

apita

spe

ndin

g. D

etai

led

expl

anat

ions

of t

he a

lpha

leve

l(a

) an

d le

are

pro

vide

d on

pag

e 20

2.T

he in

itial

s n.

s. in

dica

te th

at th

e ob

serv

ed d

iffer

ence

s am

ong

thc

grou

ps a

re n

ot s

tatis

tical

ly s

igni

fican

t. C

.I. r

epor

ts th

e lo

wer

and

upp

er b

ound

s of

the

95%

conf

iden

ce in

terv

al fo

r es

timat

ing

the

mca

n am

ount

of s

ugge

sted

spe

ndin

g fo

t eac

h gr

oup

repo

rted

. The

se in

terv

als

are

appr

opria

te fo

r us

e w

ith th

ose

grou

ps th

at a

re s

tatis

tical

ly d

iffer

ent.

For

an

expl

anat

ion

of c

onfid

ence

6t..

) J

inte

rval

s se

e pa

ges

10 a

nd 1

1.t:,

"0

- 21

8 -

Opi

nion

Lea

ders

Sam

ple

TA

BL

E 1

18SI

GN

IFIC

AN

T A

ND

NO

N-T

RIV

IAL

CO

RR

EL

AT

ION

CO

EFF

ICIE

NT

SB

ET

WE

EN

TH

E R

OL

E E

VA

LU

AT

ION

SC

AL

E S

CO

RE

S A

ND

SU

GG

EST

ED

PE

R C

API

TA

SPE

ND

ING

FOR

LIB

RA

RIE

SFO

R T

HE

OPI

NIO

N L

EA

DE

RS

GR

OU

PS

Form

al E

duca

tion

Supp

ort C

ente

r

Pres

choo

lers

' Doo

r to

Lea

rnin

g

Ref

eren

ce L

ibra

ry -

Per

sona

l

All

Gro

ups

(N =

300

)

.20

Polit

ical

Gro

up(N

= 7

5)

Med

iaG

roup

(N =

75)

Edu

catio

nG

roup

(N =

75)

.30

Bus

ines

sG

roup

(N =

75)

Ref

eren

ce L

ibra

ry -

Bus

ines

s.2

5.3

0

Com

mun

ity A

ctiv

ities

Cen

ter

.22

.36

.25

Res

earc

h C

ente

r.1

6.2

4.2

6

Com

mun

ity I

nfor

mat

ion

Cen

ter

.17

.33

Inde

pend

ent L

earn

ing

Cen

ter

.24

Publ

ic W

ork

Plac

e.1

7.3

2

Popu

lar

Mat

eria

ls L

ibra

ry

)-

219

-3

6 3

4,

tr,

Opi

nion

Lea

ders

Sam

ple

TA

BL

E 1

19C

OM

PAR

ISO

NS

BE

TW

EE

N T

HE

OPI

NIO

N L

EA

DE

RS

SAM

PLE

AN

D T

HE

NA

TIO

NA

L S

AM

PLE

*

Opi

nion

Lea

der

Nat

iona

lSa

mpl

eSa

mpl

e(N

= 3

00)

(N =

100

1)

Form

al E

duca

tion

Supp

ort C

ente

r3.

8688

.0

Pres

choo

lers

' Doo

r to

Lea

rnin

g3.

7881

.3

Ref

eren

ce L

ibra

ry -

Per

sona

l3.

2938

.1

Ref

eren

ce L

ibra

ry -

Bus

ines

s3.

3247

.2

Com

mun

ity A

ctiv

ities

Cen

ter

3.19

46.0

Res

earc

h C

ente

r3.

3356

.0

Com

mun

ity I

nfor

mat

ion

Cen

ter

3.55

65.2

Inde

pend

ent L

earn

ing

Cen

ter

3.71

78.0

Publ

ic W

ork

Plac

e3.

1638

.3

Popu

lar

Mat

eria

ls L

ibra

ry3.

4152

.8

i%

aR

2

3.85

88.1

n.s.

3.81

83.2

n.s.

3.39

48.4

.024

.004

3.42

55.1

n.s.

3.13

41.3

n.s.

3.59

68.2

.000

.017

3.58

65.6

n.s.

3.81

84.6

.002

.007

3.38

52.4

.000

.013

3.35

51.4

n.s.

Thi

s ta

ble

repo

rts

the

sum

mar

y an

alys

es o

f va

rian

ce f

or th

e co

mpa

riso

ns a

mon

g th

e m

ean

role

impo

rtan

ce s

cale

sco

res

for

the

grou

psof

res

pond

ents

iden

tifie

d by

the

colu

mn

head

ings

.

Not

e: N

is th

e sa

mpl

e si

ze f

or e

ach

grou

p an

d re

pres

ents

, in

gene

ral,

the

num

ber

of r

espo

nden

ts w

ho r

ated

eac

h ro

le.

i rep

rese

nts

the

mea

n ra

ting

for

each

rol

e on

the

four

-poi

nt im

port

ance

scal

e. E

xpla

natio

ns o

f a

(the

alp

ha le

vel)

and

le (

the

coef

fici

ent o

f de

term

inat

ion)

are

pro

vide

d on

pag

e 20

2. T

he in

itial

s n.

s.in

dica

te th

at th

e ob

serv

ed d

iffe

renc

es a

mon

g th

e gr

oup

mea

ns a

reno

t sta

tistic

ally

sig

nifi

cant

. % r

epre

sent

s th

e pe

rcen

tage

of

each

gro

up th

at r

ated

the

role

"ve

ry im

port

ant."

The

se %

are

pre

sent

ed f

or d

escr

iptiv

e pu

rpos

es. F

or s

olill

rol

es th

ere

wer

e a

few

non-

resp

onde

nts,

but

thes

e sl

ight

dif

fere

nces

in s

ampl

e si

zes

are

inco

nseq

uent

ial f

or th

e pu

rpos

e of

est

imat

ing

the

sam

plin

g er

ror

asso

ciat

ed w

ith th

e pe

rcen

tage

of

resp

onde

nts

who

rat

ed th

e

role

s "v

ery

impo

rtan

t."

220

-

Opi

nion

Lea

ders

Sam

ple

TA

BL

E 1

20C

OM

PAR

ISO

NS

BE

TW

EE

N T

HE

OPI

NIO

N L

EA

DE

RS

SAM

PLE

AN

D T

HE

AFR

ICA

N A

ME

RIC

AN

SA

MPL

E'

Opi

nion

Lea

der

Sam

ple

(N =

300

)

i%

Afr

ican

Am

eric

anSa

mpl

e(N

= 4

01)

i%

aR

2

Form

al E

duca

tion

Supp

ort C

ente

r3.

8688

.03.

9496

.5.0

02.0

14

Pres

choo

lers

' Doo

r to

Lea

rnin

g3.

7881

.33.

9495

.7.0

00.0

38

Ref

eren

ce L

ibra

ry -

Per

sona

l3.

2938

.13.

7074

.8.0

00.0

99

Ref

eren

ce L

ibra

ry -

Bus

ines

s3.

3247

.23.

7378

.9.0

00.0

90

Com

mun

ity A

ctiv

ities

Cen

ter

3.19

46.0

3.50

63.8

.000

.033

Res

earc

h C

ente

r3.

3356

.03.

7984

.7.0

00.0

92

Com

mun

ity I

nfor

mat

ion

Cen

ter

3.55

65.2

3.82

85.6

.000

.051

Inde

pend

ent L

earn

ing

Cen

ter

3.71

78.0

3.89

93.1

.000

.030

Publ

ic W

ork

Plac

e3.

1638

.33.

6570

.7.0

00.1

06

Popu

lar

Mat

eria

ls L

ibra

ry3.

4152

.83.

5261

.5n.

s.

Thi

s ta

ble

repo

rts

the

sum

mar

y an

alys

es o

f var

ianc

e fo

r th

e co

mpa

rison

s am

ong

the

mea

n ro

le im

port

ance

sca

le s

core

sfo

r th

e gr

oups

of r

espo

nden

ts id

entif

ied

by th

e co

lum

n he

adin

gs.

Not

e: N

is th

e sa

mpl

e si

ze fo

r ea

ch g

roup

and

rep

rese

nts,

in g

ener

al, t

he n

umbe

r of

res

pond

ents

who

rat

ed e

ach

role

.i r

epre

sent

s th

e m

ean

ratin

g fo

r ea

ch r

ole

on th

e fo

ur-p

oint

impo

rtan

ce

scal

e. E

xpla

natio

ns o

f a (

the

alph

a le

vel)

and

R2

(the

coe

ffici

ent o

f det

erm

inat

ion)

are

pro

vide

d on

pag

e 20

2.T

he in

itial

s n.

s. in

dica

te th

at th

e ob

serv

ed d

iffer

ence

s am

ong

the

grou

p m

eans

are

not s

tatis

tical

ly s

igni

fican

t. %

rep

rese

nts

the

perc

enta

ge o

f eac

h gr

oup

that

rat

ed th

e ro

le"v

ery

impo

rtan

t." T

hese

% a

re p

rese

nted

for

desc

riptiv

e pu

rpos

es. F

or s

ome

role

s th

ere

wer

e a

few

non-

resp

onde

nts.

but

thes

e sl

ight

diff

eren

ces

in s

ampl

e si

zes

are

inco

nseq

uent

ial f

or th

e pu

rpos

e of

est

imat

ing

the

sam

plin

g er

ror

asso

ciat

ed w

ith th

e pe

rcen

tage

of r

espo

nden

ts w

ho r

ated

the

role

s "v

ery

impo

rtan

t."

3-

221

-

Opi

nion

Lea

ders

Sam

ple

TA

BL

E 1

21C

OM

PAR

ISO

NS

BE

TW

EE

N T

HE

OPI

NIO

N L

EA

DE

RS

SAM

PLE

AN

D T

HE

CA

UC

ASI

AN

AM

ER

1CA

N S

AM

PLE

*

Opi

nion

Lea

der

Cau

casi

an A

mer

ican

Sam

ple

Sam

ple

(N =

300

)(N

= 8

46)

1%

1%

aR

2

Form

al E

duca

tion

Supp

ort C

ente

r3.

8688

.03.

8588

.7n.

s.

Pres

choo

lers

' Doo

r to

Lea

rnin

g3.

7881

.33.

8083

.4n.

s.

Ref

eren

ce L

ibra

ry -

Per

sona

l3.

2938

.13.

3847

.8.0

43.0

64

Ref

eren

ce L

ibra

ry -

Bus

ines

s3.

3247

.23.

3954

.8n.

s.

Com

mun

ity A

ctiv

ities

Cen

ter

3.19

46.0

3.11

41.0

n.s.

Res

earc

h C

ente

r3.

3356

.03.

5667

.5.0

00.0

17

Com

mun

ity I

nfor

mat

ion

Cen

ter

3.55

65.2

3.56

65.1

ri.s

.

Inde

pend

ent L

earn

ing

Cen

ter

3.71

78.0

3.81

84.7

.006

.007

Publ

ic W

ork

Plac

e3.

1638

.33.

3651

.7.0

00.0

12

Popu

lar

Mat

eria

ls L

ibra

ry3.

4252

.83.

3752

.3n.

s.

*Thi

s ta

ble

repo

rts

the

sum

mar

y an

alys

es o

f va

rian

ce f

or th

e co

mpa

riso

ns a

mon

g th

e m

ean

role

impo

rtan

ce s

cale

sco

res

for

the

grou

ps o

f re

spon

dent

s id

entif

ied

byth

e co

lum

n he

adin

gs.

Not

e: N

is th

e sa

mpl

e si

ze f

or e

ach

grou

p an

d re

pres

ents

, in

gene

ral,

the

num

ber

of r

espo

nden

ts w

ho r

ated

eac

h ro

le.

if r

epre

sent

s th

e m

ean

ratin

g fo

r ea

ch r

ole

on th

e fo

ur-p

oint

impo

rtan

cesc

ale.

Exp

lana

tions

of

a (t

he a

lpha

leve

l) a

nd R

2 (t

he c

oeff

icie

nt o

f de

term

inat

ion)

are

pro

vide

d on

pag

e 20

2. T

he in

itial

s n.

s. in

dica

te th

at th

e ob

serv

eddi

ffer

ence

s am

ong

the

grou

p m

eans

are

nor

stat

istic

ally

sig

nifi

cant

. % r

epre

sent

s th

e pe

rcen

tage

of

each

gro

up th

at r

ated

the

role

"ve

ry im

port

ant."

The

se %

are

pre

sent

edfo

r de

scri

ptiv

e pu

rpos

es. F

or s

ome

role

s th

ere

wer

e a

few

rno

n-re

spon

dent

s, b

ut th

ese

slig

ht d

iffe

rmce

s in

sam

ple

size

s ar

e in

cons

eque

ntia

l for

the

purp

ose

of e

stim

atin

g th

e sa

mpl

ing

erro

ras

soci

ated

with

the

perc

enta

ge o

f re

spon

dent

s w

ho r

ated

the

jola

s "v

ery

impo

rtan

t."r-

,

- 22

2 -

Opi

nion

Lea

ders

Sam

ple

TA

BL

E 1

22C

OM

PAR

ISO

NS

BE

TW

EE

N T

HE

OPI

NIO

N L

EA

DE

RS

SAM

PLE

AN

D T

HE

HIS

PAN

IC A

ME

RIC

AN

SA

MPL

E'

Opi

nion

Lea

der

Sam

ple

(N =

300

)

i%

His

pani

c A

mer

ican

Sam

ple

(N =

399

)

i%

ale

Form

al E

duca

tion

Supp

ort C

ente

r3.

8688

.03.

9293

.8.0

45.0

06

Pres

choo

lers

' Doo

r to

Lea

rnin

g3.

7881

.33.

9193

.0.0

00.0

22

Ref

eren

ce L

ibra

ryPe

rson

al3.

2938

.13.

5261

.1.0

00.0

29

Ref

eren

ce L

ibra

ry -

Bus

ines

s3.

3241

.23.

6272

.7.0

00.0

41

Com

mun

ity A

ctiv

ities

Cen

ter

3.19

46.0

3.46

61.5

.000

.025

Res

earc

h C

ente

r3.

3356

.03.

7984

.2.0

00.0

93

Com

mun

ity I

nfor

mat

ion

Cen

ter

3.55

65.2

3.81

85.3

.000

.047

Inde

pend

ent L

earn

ing

Cen

ter

3.71

78.0

3.95

95.4

.000

.064

Publ

ic W

ork

Plac

e3.

1638

.33.

6474

.9.0

00.0

89

Popu

lar

Mat

eria

ls L

;bra

ry3.

4152

.83.

4657

.4n.

s.

Thi

s ta

ble

repo

rts

the

sum

mar

y an

alys

es o

f va

rian

ce f

or th

e co

mpa

riso

ns a

n-m

ng th

e m

ean

role

impo

rtan

ce s

cale

sco

res

for

the

grou

ps o

f re

spon

dent

s id

entif

ied

byth

e co

lum

n he

adin

gs.

Not

e: N

is th

e sa

mpl

e si

ze f

or e

ach

grou

p an

d re

pres

ents

, in

gene

ral,

the

num

ber

of r

espo

nden

ts w

ho r

ated

eac

h ro

le. i

rep

rese

nts

the

mea

nra

ting

for

each

rol

e on

the

four

-poi

nt im

port

ance

scal

e. E

xpla

natio

ns o

f a

(the

alp

hi le

vel)

and

le (

the

coef

fici

ent o

f de

term

inat

ion)

are

pro

vide

d on

pag

e 20

2. T

hc in

itial

s n.

s. in

dica

te th

at th

e ob

serv

eddi

ffer

ence

s am

ong

the

grou

p m

eans

are

not s

tatis

tical

ly s

igni

fica

nt. %

rep

rese

nts

the

perc

enta

ge o

f ea

ch g

roup

that

rat

ed th

e ro

le "

very

impo

rtan

t." T

hese

% a

re p

rese

nted

for

des

crip

tive

purp

oses

. For

som

ero

les

ther

e w

ere

a fe

wno

n-re

spon

dent

s, b

ut th

ese

slig

ht d

iffe

renc

es in

sam

ple

size

s ar

e in

cons

eque

ntia

l for

the

purp

ose

of e

stim

atin

g th

e sa

mpl

ing

erro

r as

soci

ated

with

the

perc

enta

ge o

f re

spon

dent

s w

hora

ted

the

role

s "v

ery

impo

rtan

t."

- 22

3 -

Opi

nion

Lea

ders

Sam

ple

TA

BL

E 1

23C

OM

PAR

ISO

NS

OF

TH

E M

EA

N S

UG

GE

STE

D P

ER

CA

PIT

A S

PEN

DIN

G F

OR

LIB

RA

RIE

S B

ET

WE

EN

TH

E O

PIN

ION

LE

AD

ER

S SA

MPL

E A

ND

TH

E N

AT

ION

AL

SA

MPL

E, T

HE

CA

UC

ASI

AN

AM

ER

ICA

N S

AM

PLE

,T

HE

AFR

ICA

N A

ME

RIC

AN

SA

MPL

E, A

ND

TH

E H

ISPA

NIC

AM

ER

ICA

N S

AM

PLE

aR

2C

.I.

Opi

nion

lead

ers

sam

ple

(com

pare

d to

...)

273

$40.

95$3

7.69

$44.

21

...N

atio

nal s

ampl

e87

6$3

4.17

.001

.009

$32.

30$3

6.05

...A

fric

an A

mer

ican

sam

ple

357

$39.

90n.

s.$3

6.13

- $

43.6

7

...C

auca

sian

Am

eric

an s

ampl

e73

7$3

3.65

.000

.014

$31.

68$3

5.61

...H

ispa

nic

Am

eric

an s

ampl

e32

1$3

9.26

n.s.

$35.

21 -

$43

.30

'Not

e: T

his

tabl

e re

port

s th

c su

mm

ary

anal

yses

of

vari

ance

for

the

com

pari

sons

am

ong

the

mea

n am

ount

s of

sug

gest

ed p

er c

apita

spe

ndin

g by

var

ious

gou

ps o

fres

pond

ents

.

Not

e: N

is th

e sa

mpl

e 5i

7e f

or c

ach

grou

p. i

repr

esen

ts th

e m

can

amou

nt o

f su

gges

ted

per

capi

ta s

pend

ing.

Det

aile

d ex

plan

atio

ns o

f th

e al

pha

leve

l(a

) an

d Fe

are

pro

vide

d on

pag

e 20

2.T

he in

itial

s n.

s. in

dica

te th

at th

e ob

serv

ed d

iffe

renc

es a

mon

g th

c gr

oups

arc

not

sta

tistic

ally

sig

nifi

cant

. C.I

. rep

orts

thc

low

er a

nd u

pper

bou

nds

of th

e 95

%co

nfid

ence

inte

rval

for

est

imat

ing

the

mea

n am

ount

of

sugg

este

d sp

endi

ng f

or e

ach

grou

p re

port

ed. T

hese

inte

rval

s ar

e ap

prop

riat

e fo

r us

c w

ith th

ose

grou

ps th

at a

re s

tatis

tical

ly d

iffe

rent

. For

an

expl

anat

ion

of c

onfi

denc

e0

inte

rval

s se

e pa

ges

10 a

nd 1

1.

- 22

4 -

THE QUESTIONNAIRE

The questionnaire used in all of the surveys is presented on the following pages. Pleasenote that the Gallup Organization formatted the response categories to the role evaluationquestions as follows: 1 = very important; 2 = moderately important; 3 = slightly important; and4 = not important. For analysis of the data, these response categories were recoded so that thehigher the code the higher the evaluation of the importance of the role. The mean scores for roleimportance that appear in this report were calculated with these recoded response categories.

- 225 -

FIELD FINAL - MAY 7, 1992

AC513Project Registration #11903701UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA

FINANCE,MIN11741F741

X APPROVED BY CLIENT

DATENational SamplePerception of Public LibrariesThe Gallup Organization, Inc. INTERVIEWED BYMax Larsen/Elaine Christiansen/Susan Sluyter, SpecwriterMay, 1992 n=1,000

I.D.#:

**REGION: (Coded from tape)

**STRATUM: (Coded from tape)

**STATE: (Coded from tape)

**AREA CODE AND TELEPHONE NUMBER: ( )

**INTERVIEW TIME:

Now I am going to ask you several questions about yourbackground.

Dl. AGE: In what year were you born? (Open ended and codeactual year)

9998 (DK)9999 (Refused)

0 (1-6)

(28)

(42) (43)

18

(430) 71777 7777 (433)

D2. Are you, yourself, of Hispanic or Latino origin ordescent? (If necessary, read:) Such as Mexican,Puerto Rican, Cuban, or other Spanish background?

1 2 3 4

Yes No (DK) (RF)(Continue) (Skip to D4)

D3. (If code "1" in D2, ask:) Which of the following?(Read 1-4)

1 Mexican2 Mexican-American or Chicano3 Puerto Rican4 Cuban5 Other (i.e. Salvadoran, Columbian) (Do NOT list)

6 (DK)7 (Refused)

(DEMOGRAPHICS CONTINUED)

;

19 (434)

20 (435)

D4. RACE: What is your race? il_f_nacespEzi_lsjla Areyou white, black, American In Ian,Asian/Pacific Islander, Eskimo or Aleutian orsome other race?

01 Some other (list)02 (DK)03 (Refused)04 HOLD05 HOLD

06 White07 Black08 American Indian09 Asian/Pacific Islander10 Eskimo or Aleutian

D5. EDUCATION: What is the highest level ofeducation you have completed?(Open ended and code) (Writedegree if unsure)

01 Other (list)02 (DK)03 (Refused)04 Kindergarten or less05 HOLD

06 1st grade07 2nd grade08 3rd grade09 4th grade10 5th grade11 6th grade12 7th grade13 8th grade14 9th grade15 10th grade16 llth grade17 12th grade18 Some college/No degree19 Associate degree20 Bachelor's degree21 Master's degree22 Professional school degree23 Doctoral degree

(If code "04-17" in 05, Continue;If code "19" in D5( Skip to D7;

All others, Skip to D8)

(DEMOGRAPHICS CONTINUED)

21.10

2

(436) (437)

22.10

(438) (439)

D6. (If code "04-17" in D5, ask:) Do you have a highschool diploma or equivalent?

1Yes

2 3 4No (DK) (RF)

(All in D6, Skip to D8)

D7. (If code "19" in D51 ask:) Was it an occupationalprogram or an academic program?

1 Occupational program2 Academic program3 (DK)4 (Refused)

D8 Which of the following categories best describes yourcurrent marital status, married, widowed, divorced, ornever married?

1 Married (Continue)

2 Widowed3 Divorced4 Never married

(Skip to D10)5 (DK)6 (Refused)

D9. (If code "1" in D8, ask:) Are you currently livingwith your .spouse?

1

Yes2 3 4

No (DK) (RF)

D10. How many people including yourself are living in yourhome? (Open ended and code actual number)

01 One (Skip to D13)

97 97+

98 (DK)99 (Refused) (Skip to D13)

D11. (If code "02-97" in D10, ask:) How many of these arepre-school aged children? (Open ended and code actualnumber)

00 None97 97+98 (DK)99 (Refused)

(DEMOGRAPHICS CONTINUED)

,

23 (440)

24 (441)

25 (442)

26 (443)

27

(444) 77447T

28

(446) (447)

D12. How many are in grade school, junior high, high school,or college? (Open ended and code actual number)

00 None97 97+98 (DK)99 (Refused)

D13. Are you currently a student or enrolled in a trainingprogram?

1 2 3 4

Yes No (DK) (RF)(Continue) (Skip to D15)

D14. (If code "1" in D131 ask:) What are you currentlyenrolled in? (Read 1-5)

1 High school or equivalency2 Training program3 College4 Graduate or professional school5 Other (Do NOT list)

6 (DK)7 (Refused)

D15. What language is primarily spoken in your household?(Open ended and code)

01 Other (list)02 (DK)03 (Refused)04 HOLD05 HOLD

06 English07 Spanish08 English/Spanish spoken equally09 Southeast Asian (Korean, Vietnamese, Thai, etc.)10 Russian

D16. Which one of the following categories best describesyour current employment status? (Read 1-5)

1 Employed full-time2 Employed part-time3 Unemployed4 Retired5 Not in work force

6 (DK)7 (Refused)

(DEMOGRAPHICS CONTINUED)

.0./3

29

4

(448) (449)

30 (450)

31 (451)

32.10

(452) (453)

33 (454)

D17. Is your total annual household income before taxes,over or under $35,000?

If "Under" ask:

If "Over", ask:If "Over", ask:If '(Over", ask:If "Over", ask:If "Over", ask:If "Over", ask:If "Over", ask:If "Over"; ask:

Is it over or under $30,000?Is it over or under $25,000?Is it over or under $20,000?Is it over or under $15,000?Is it over or under $10,000?Is it over or under $5,000?

Is it over or under $40,000?Is it over or under $45,000?Is it over or under $50,000?is it over or under $55,000?Is it over or under $60,000?Is it over or under $65,000?Is it over or under $70,000?Is it over or under $75,000?

01 Under $5,00002 $5,000 to $9,99903 $10,000 to $14,99904 $15,000 to $19,99905 $20,000 to $24,99906 $25,000 to $29,99907 $30,000 to $34,99908 $35,000 to $39,99909 $40,000 to $44,99910 $45,000 to $49,99911 $50,"10 to $54,99912 $55,L0 to $59,99913 $60,000 to $64,99914 $65,000 to $69,99915 $70,000 to $74,99916 $75,000 or more17 (DK)18 (Refused)

D18. COUNTY: What is the name of the county in which yourcommunity is located? (Open ended)

001 Other (list)002 (DK)003 (Refused)004 HOLD005 HOLD

D19. COMMUNITY:

001002003004005

Other (st)(DK)(Refused)HOLDHOLD

5

34

T5-7-7 T5-4-7

35.10

(455) (456) (457)

What is the name of the communityin which you live? (Open ended)

36.10

7-4-577 (459) (460)

(DEMOGRAPHICS CONTINUED)

D20. ZIP CODE: What is your zip code? (Open ended and codeall five digits)

99998 (DK)99999 (Refused) 37

(21) (22) (23) -(7-4-7 (25)

The next questions are about disabilities. A disability isa physical or mental condition which substantially limits amajor life activity such as walking, seeing, hearing, orreading.

D21. Using the definition I just gave you, does anyone inyour household have a physical or mental disabilityright now?

1 2 3 4

Yes No (DK) (RF)(Continue) (Thank and Validate)

D22. (If code "1" in D21, ask:) Is this person you, orsomeone else in your household?

1 Respondent (Continue)

2 Someone else (Thank and Validate)

3 (Both) (Continue)

38 (461)

4 (DK)5 (Refused) (Thank and Validate) 39 (462)

D23. (If code "1" or "3" in D22, ask:) Does YOUR disabilitymost affect (reSa 1-.a?

1 Seeing2 Hearing3 Walking4 Speaking5 Mental functioning, OR6 Something else (Do NOT list)

7 (DK)8 (Refused)

(VALIDATE PHONE NUMBER AND THANK RESPONDENT)

-.50L)

40 (463)

6

Hello, this is with The GallupOrganization. We are ci5/7317Fing a survey tonight aboutperceptions of public libraries. First I have a fewgeneral questions. May I please speak with theYoungest male, 18 years of age or older, who is now athome? (If "No male% askil May I please speak withthe oldest female, 18 years of age or older, who is nowat 1175Eig7-- When alifled res ondent is reachedcontinue:)

1 Yes, male2 Yes, female (Continue) (44)

1. Did you vote in the last presidential election?

1 2 3 4

Yes No (DK) (RF)

2. Did you, yourself, go to a public library in the pastyear?

1 2 3 4

Yes No (DK) (RF)(Continue) (Skip to #3)

2a. _g_t_gp_s_1(1':_c: How many times did you go toa public library in the past year? Would you say about(read 1-6)?

1 1 to 5 times2 6 to 10 times3 11 to 15 times4 16 to 20 times5 21 to 25 times6 26 times or more

7 (DK)8 (Refused)

2.50(412)

2.60(413)

2.70(414)

3. In the past year, has anyone else 7one to a publiclibrary to borrow books or other kinds of materials foryou or to get information for you?

1 2 3 4

Yes No (DK) (RF) (415)

4. Have you called a public library for information in thepast year?

1

Yes2 3 4

No (DK) (RF)

33..k

4 (416)

Now I'm going to describe to you some of the kinds ofservices that public libraries provide for theircommunities. Some people think these services are importantwhile others do not. After each description, I'd like youto tell me how important you think that kind of service isto your community. Is it very important, moderatelyimportant, slightly important, or not important.

5. The library provides students, both children andadults, with the books, magazines and other servicesthey need to do their school work. How important wouldyou say that this service is to your community? .(If

1 Very important2 Moderately important3 Slightly important4 Not important5 (DK)6 (Refused)

6. The library provides preschool children with picturebooks, story hours, and educationETFr-7grams so thatthese children can have fun and learn to appreciatereading. How important would you say that this serviceis to your community? (If necessary, reread scale)

Very important2 Moderately important3 Slightly important4 Not important5 (DK)6 (Refused)

7. The library provides people with the information theyneed to answer personal and household questions. Thiscould include, for example, information about how tofix things around the house, hobbies, health issues, orthe quality and prices of home appliances. Howimportant would you say that this service is to yourcommunity? (If necessary, reread scale)

Very important2 Moderately important3 Slightly important4 Not important5 (DK)6 (Refused)

8. The library provides businesses in your community withthe information they need to survive and prosper. Thiscould include, for example, information about sales ormarketing, worker safety, environmental protection, orsetting up a new business. How important would you saythat this service is to your community? (If necessarx,reread scale)

Very important2 Moderately important3 Slightly important4 Not important5 (DK)6 (Refused)

5 (417)

6 (418)

7 (419)

8 (420)

8

9. The library serves as a neighborhood or communityactivity center, a place where organizations or clubscould hold meetings or present concerts and lectures.How important would you say that this service is toyour community? (If necessary, reread scale)

1 Very important2 Moderately important3 Slightly important4 Not important5 (DK)6 (Refused)

10. The library provides scientists and scholars with thespecialized research collections of books, magazinesand computerized information they need in order to doresearch or write books. How important would you saythat this service is to your community? (If necessary,reread scale)

Very important2 Moderately important3 Slightly important4 Not important5 (DK)6 (Ref,Ised)

11. The library provides people with information abouttheir community. This could include, for example,information about local government, issues or laws orabout local community services such as health clinicsor daycare. How important would you say that thisservice is to your community? (If necessary, rereadscale)

1 Very important2 Moderately important3 Slightly important4 Not important5 (DK)6 (Refused)

12. The library provides adults who are NOT students withthe materials and services they need in order to betterthemselves or to learn a new skill such as how to readand write. How important would you say that thisservice is to your community? (If necessary, rereadscale)

1 Very important2 Moderately important3 Slightly important4 Not important5 (DK)6 (Refused)

9 (421)

10 (422)

11 (423)

12 (424)

10

13. The library provides people with a comfortable place to2.2 when they need someplace outside of t eir house orapartment to read or think or work. How importantwould you say that this service is to your community?(If necessary, reread scale)

1 Very important2 Moderately important3 Slightly important4 Not important5 (DK)6 (Refused)

14. The library provides people with a collection ofcurrent best selling books and popular magazines,videos and musical recordings for borrowing. Howimportant would you say that this service is to yourcommunity? (If necessary, reread scale)

1 Very important2 Moderately important3 Slightly important4 Not important5 (DK)6 (Refused)

15. Some communities in this country spend as little as $4per person a year to provide a limited selection of thekinds of services that we just described while othercommunities spend as much as $100 per person a year toprovide a much wider selection of these services. Onaverage, communities in this country spend about $16per person a year on their public libraries. How muchmoney do you think your community should spend annuallyon its public library? Would you say (read 1-6)?

1 $1 to $20 per person2 $21 to $40 per person3 $41 to $60 per person4 $61 to $80 per person5 $81 to $100 per person6 More than $100 per person7 ($0 per person/Nothing)8 (DK)9 (Refused)

16 We are interested in how people feel about theircurrent financial situation. Would you say that youare financially better off now than you were a yearago, or are you financially worse off now or are youabout the same?

1 Better off2 Worse off3 About the same4 (DK)5 (Refused)

13 (425)

14 (426)

15 (427)

16 (428)

11

17. Now looking ahead, do you expect that at this time nextyear you will be financially better off than now, orworse off than now or about the same?

1 Better off2 Worse off3 About the same4 (DK)5 (Refused) 17 (429)

(GO TO DEMOGRAPHICS)

INTERVIEWER I.D.#(241) (242) (243) 72-4-71T

THE ROLES OF THE PUBLIC LIBRARY 11\1 SOCIETY

THE RESULTS OF A NATIONAL SURVEY

FINAL REPORT: APPENDIX

GEORGE D'ELIAINFORMATION & DECISION SCIENCES DEPARTMENT

CARLSON SCHOOL OF MANAGEMENTUNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA

IN COLLABORATION WITH

THE UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA CENTER FOR SURVEYRESEARCH

AND

THE GALLUP ORGANIZATION

DISTRIBUTED BY

TILE URBAN LIBRARIES COUNCIL1800 RIDGE AVEN1JE, SUITE 208

EVANSTON, ILLLNOIS 60201

1993

mri PAM' Poi! iP,17';

This project (R039A10030) was supported by a grant fromLibrary Programs, Office of Educational Research andImprovement, U.S. Department of Education, under the LibraryResearch and Demonstration Program of the Higher EducationAct, Title II-B. The contents of this report do not reflect thePolicy nor do they carry the endorsement of the U.S.Department of Education.

j

FOREWORD

This Appendix contains three parts. Part I reports the methodology used by theGallup Organization for drawing the national probability sample, the supplemental minoritysamples (the African American and Hispanic American samples), and the opinion leaderssample and for executing the surveys. Part II contains a copy of the questionnaire that wasused in all the surveys. Part III contains the frequency distributions for the responses obtainfrom the respondents in each of the surveys.

3

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PART I: METHODOLOGY 1

PART II: QUESTIONNAIRE 8

PART III: FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTIONS 20

The National Sample 21

The African American Sample 37

The Caucasian American Sample 53

The Hispanic Sample 69

The Opinion Leaders Sample 85

33J

PART I. METHODOLOGY1

HOUSEHOLD SAMPLING

National Survey

For sampling telephone households, Gallup uses a stratified, list-assisted random-digitdesign. The sample is purchased from Survey Sampling, Incorporated, of Fairfield,Connecticut and updated quarterly.

In order to avoid listing bias, a random digit procedure designed to providerepresentation of both listed and unlisted (including not-yet-listed) numbers is used. Thedesign of the sample ensures this representation by random regeneration of the last twodigits of "seed" telephone numbers selected from a sampling frame of listed telephonenumbers stratified by area code, telephone exchange ("telephone exchange" is here usedbroadly to denote the three digits of a 10-digit telephone number that follow the area code),and bank number (the seventh and eight digits).

The first eight digits of the sample telephone numbers (area code, telephoneexchange, and ban number) are selected after geographic pre-stratification of a database oflisted telephone numbers and adjustment of sampling fractions at the exchange level, so thatstate, county, and telephone exchange within county are .111 represented in their appropriateproportions. That is, the number of telephone numbers randomly sampled from within agiven exchange is proportional to that exchange's share of estimated telephone householdsin the set of exchanges from which the sample is drawn.

Only "working banks" of numbers are used for seed number selection. A workingbank is defined as 100 contiguous telephone numbers containing three or more residentialtelephone listings. By eliminating nonworking banks of numbers from the sample, thelikelihood that any sampled telephone number will be associated with a residence increasesfrom only 20% (where all banks of numbers are sampled) to approximately 70%. Sincemost banks of telephone numbers are either substantially filled (i.e., assigned) or empty, thispractical efficiency is purchased at a negligible cost in terms of possible noncoverage bias.

The sample of telephone numbers produced by this method is thus designed toproduce an unbiased random sampling of telephone households in the continental UnitedStates. The total sample of generated numbers is divided into random subsamples or"replicates," and the telephone management system releases them sequentially, as needed,in order to ensure that the highest possible response rate can be achieved.

1 The following information about methodology was provided to the University of Minnesota by TheGallup Organization.

ijj

African American and Hispanic American Survey

In orde: to efficiently complete additional interviews among blacks and nonblackHispanics, a supplemental sample was purchased from Survey Sampling, Incorporated. Thedesign of these disproportionate samples involves the analysis of a database of 15 millionlisted telephone numbers that is itself a random sample of a master database of over 60million listed numbers. The 15 million record database includes census tract geo-coding for90% of the file, allowing each geo-coded record to be associated with a specific geographicunit. The availability of 1990 Census estimates of racial and ethnic density for these unitsprovides the crucial link that makes the disproportionate sampling design possible. Twovariables are merged into the database for each geo-coded record: the Black density andthe Hispanic density of the associated tract. Having accomplished this step, it is possible,by simply aggregating the data, to compute (separate) central tendency estimates of Blackand Hispanic density for combinations of area code and telephone exchange and to arraythese area code exchange combinations from high to low estimated density. It is furtherpossible to divide the array into several discrete estimated density strata, and by employingdifferent sampling fractions in the various strata, to draw a sample of seed numbers thatover-represents geographic areas of high density for the racial or ethnic target group.

Random regeneration of the last two digits of the seed numbers was used to createthe final sample of telephone numbers. The telephone numbers generated in this step fellinto the same area code exchange combination as the seed numbers from which they weregenerated, and the procedure therefore maintained the integrity of the density strata. Thesampling fractions that control the disproportionality in combination with information onthe qualification rate within each of the sampling strata were used as the basis for thecalculation and assignment of sampling weights. The goal of these procedures was toprovide samples which yielded a higher percentage of Hispanic and non-Hispanic blackrespondents, while at the same time providing the ability to correct the disproportionalitywith precision prior to the use of the data for estimation.

The sample of telephone numbers generated for each of the density strata wasdivided into an equal number of random subsamples or "replicates." The relativeproportions of telephone numbers used by telephone interviewers released from the variousstrata was controlled by the computerized sample management system via the mechanismof releasing replicates "in parallel" across the sampling strata, in order to ensure theapplication of sampling weights described above appropriately equalized the selectionprobabilities across strata.

WITHIN HOUSEHOLD SAMPLING

National Survey, African American and Hispanic American Survey

Respondents, aged 18 years or older, were selected using the "youngest male/oldestfemale" method of selection. This technique requires the interviewer to attempt to completean interview with the youngest available male in the household or, if no male is available,with the oldest available female. It is a systematic, empirically-based procedure developed

- 2 -3

at Gallup several decades ago, that has been shown to provide a close approximation to theappropriate distribution of gender by age, according to data available from the Censusbureau. It is a systematic method designed to compensate for nonresponse biases by ageand sex. It was designed to provide a means to avoid under-representing age by gender-defined demographic strata (e.g., young males) that are particularly difficult to represent intheir appropriate proportions in surveys either because they are relatively unlikely to be athome, or because they are relatively likely to refuse to be interviewed. Thus, the youngestmale/oldest female method tends to produce a sample of completed interviews that moreclosely mirrors the true distribution of age within gender than the results of more randomselection methods.

WEIGHTING ALGORITHMS

Separate weighting were required for the national sample and the minorityoversamples in order to convert sample responses to national estimates. Weighting was usedboth to correct disproportionality imposed at the design stage, and minimize a variety ofpossible types of survey error that would effect survey-based estimates, including bothrandom error and systematic biases.

National Random Sample

The national random sample data was submitted to a ratio estimation routine thatensured the demographic characteristics of the weighted sample conform to the bestavailable Census estimates of the characteristics of the target population. The weightingprocedure fits the observed proportions of a demographic cross-classification table to theestimates of the population parameters for the same table, using age, gender, race, formaleducational attainment and region of the country as variables.

Supplemental Samples of African Americans and Hispanic Americans

The weighting of this phase was more complex than the weighting of the nationaldata because there was considerably more disproportionality built into the design.

The first ,Neighting task was to correct the disproportionality in the supplementarysamples of Hispanic and non-Hispanic black respondents implicit in the use of differentsampling fractions for selecting telephone numbers from the various density strata. Thisweighting was based on information about the sampling fraction employed in selecting thetelephone numbers in the various density strata described above, in conjunction with theinformation on the rate of (racial or ethnic) qualification within each of these same densitystrata. This information was gathered during the data collection stage.

When the supplemental sample of Hispanic respondents was combined with thesample of Hispanic respondents obtained during the 1,000 national random interviews, anappropriate correction for the disproportionality designed into the oversarnpling of high

- 3 -

w]

density Hispanic areas was made. A similar procedure was used for the combination of theparallel samples of non-Hispanic black respondents and the correction of the paralleldisproportionalities for non-Hispanic black respondents.

RESPONSE RATES

National Survey, African American and Hispanic American Survey

The response rate for the national survey was 45%. The response rate for theminority survey was 53%. These response rates were calculated from the following datausing the formula in Figure A.

DispositionNationalRandom

MinorityOversampie

Completes 1,001 679Terminate (screener complete) 2 9

Quota Filled 195 82Scheduled callbacks (screener complete) 0 0Refusals 713 930Disconnected 786 1,129Failed screener 0 2,570Nonresidential 241 563Deaf/language 23 85

Busy 12 35Answering machine 162 269No answer 391 1,229Terminate (screener incomplete) 55 130Terminate (screener unknown) 0 0Scheduled callbacks (screener incomplete) 150 364

4

Response Rate

FIGURE A.

number completesnumber eligiblenumber eligible + [ X number status unlawwn]

eligible + not eligible

Eligible = Completes ± Breakoff (screener complete) + Quota Fill +callbacks (screener complete) + refusals

Not Eligible = Nonworking/disconnected + failed screenei + nonresidential+ language/deafness

Unknown = Busy + answering machine + no answer + breakoff (screenerincomplete) + breakoff (screener unknown) + callbacks(screener incomplete).

5

OPINION LEADERS SURVEY

Opinion Leaders Sample

The sample for the opinion leaders' survey was derived from a variety of sources ineach of four general areas: political, educational, media and business/associations/organizations. The following lists the sources used to derive the sample for each of the fourgroups:

Political Leaders

Yellow Pages, under the headings of political organizations, labor unions, andlobbying groups

Carroll Directories for state, county and municipal executives

Educational Leaders

CIC's School Directory for superintendent and/or principal of school systems

Patterson's Elementary Education (1991 and 1992)

Media Leaders

Newspapers -- IMS Directory of Publications for local news/lifestyle editors

Radio -- Arbitron Directory

Television -- Television and Cable Factbook

Business/Associations/Organization

Yellow Pages under headings of business and trade organizations and human serviceorganizations.

Each piece of randomly selected sample was subjected to a minimum of five callattempts in order to ensure greater representativeness of the final data. Quotas were setat 75 per group. All interviews were conducted by Gallup's Executive Intertiewing Teamlocated at Gallup Operation Headquarters in Lincoln, Nebraska.

Gallup interviewers are trained to screen to the type of person targeted (in this case,a business or organizational "leader"). Since the sample was pulled from a variety ofsources, there was no one selection "script" which applied to every piece of sample.

- 6 -

3 ,9

When a randomly selected organization was contacted, the organization's ChiefExecutive Officer (or equivalent title) was requested. In some cases, the name of the CEO(or equivalent) was available from the sample source. In other cases, only the title of theCEO was available. For example, when targeting a public school system, the Office of theSuperintendent was contacted and the current Superintendent interviewed.

Response Rate for the Opinion Leaders Survey

If the organization's CEO referred our interviewer to someone else in theorganization, that individual was contacted. Callbacks were made when necessary to contactan identified potential respondent.

The response rate for this project was calculated by the product of the contact rate(% of working sample contacted), the cooperation rate (the percentage of those contactedwho agreed to do the survey) and the completion rate (the percentage of those cooperatingwho actually completed the survey). The calculation for this project was:

Contact X Cooperation X Completion = Response rate

.88 x .65 x 1.00 = 58%

- 7 -

1

PART II. THE QUESTIONNAIRE

The questionnaire used in all the surveys is presented on the following pages.

- 8 - t

FIELD FINAL - MAY 7, 1992

AC513Project Registration #11903701UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA

FINANCE,MIN11741F741

X APPROVED BY CLIENT

DATENational SamplePerception of Public LibrariesThe Gallup Organization, Inc. INTERVIEWED BYMax Larsen/Elaine Christiansen/Susan Sluyter, SpecwriterMay, 1992 n=1,000

0 (1-6)

**REGION: (Coded from tape) (28)

**STRATUM: (Coded from tape) (29)

**STATE: (Coded from tape)

**AREA CODE AND TELEPHONE NUMBER: ( )

**INTERVIEW TIME:

Now I am going to ask you several questions about yourbackground.

Dl. AGE: In what year were you born? (Open ended and codeactual year)

9998 (DK)9999 (Refused)

(32 41)

(42) (43)

18

(430) TeTTIT (432) (433)

D2. Are you, yourself, of Hispanic or Latinodescent? (If necessary, read:) Such as

origin orMexican,-

4(RF) 19 (434)

Puerto Rican, Cuban, or other Spanish background?

1 2 3Yes No (DK)

(Continue) (Skip to D4)

D3. lIf code "1" in D2 ask: Which of the following?(Read 1-4)

1 Mexican2 Mexican-American or Chicano3 Puerto Rican4 Cuban5 Other (i.e. Salvadoran, Columbian) (Do NOT list)

6 (DK)7 (Refused) 20 (435)

()EMOGRAPHICS CONTINUED)

D4. RACE: What is your race? ..(If necessary, ask:) Areyou white, black, American Indian,Asian/Pacific Islander, Eskimo or Aleutian orsome other race?

01 Some other (list)02 (DK)03 (Refused)04 HOLD05 HOLD

06 White07 Black08 American Indian09 Asian/Pacific Islander10 Eskimo or Aleutian

D5. EDUCATION: What is the highest level ofeducation you have completed?(Open ended and code) (Writedegree if unsure)

01 Other (list)02 (DK)03 (Refused)04 Kindergarten or less05 HOLD

06 1st grade07 2nd grade08 3rd grade09 4th grade10 5th grade11 6th grade12 7th grade13 8th grade14 9th grade15 10th grade16 llth grade17 12th grade18 Some college/No degree19 Associate degree20 Bachelor's degree21 Master's degree22 Professional school degree23 Doctoral degree

If code "04-17" in D5 Continue.I co e ' in D ( S ip to D

All others, Skip to D8)

(DEMOGRAPHICS CONTINUED)

- 10

21.10

(436) (437)

22.10

(438) (439)

D6. (If code "04-17" in D5, ask:) Do you have a highschool diploma or equivalent?

1

Yes2 3 4

No (DK) (RF)

(All in D6, Skip to D8)

D7. (If code "19" in 45L_ask:) Was it an occupational .

program or an academdc program?

1 Occupational program2 Academic program3 (DK)4 (Refused)

D8. Which of the following categories best describes yourcurrent marital status, married, widowed, divorced, ornever married?

1 Married (Continue)

2 Widowed3 Divorced4 Never married

5 (DK)6 (Refused)

(Skip to D10)

D9. (If code "1" in D8, ask:) Are you currently livingwith your spouse?

1

Yes2 3 4

No (DK) (RF)

D10. How many people including yourself are living in yourhome? (Open ended and code actual number)

01 One (Skip to D13)

97 97+

98 (DK)99 (Refused) (Skip to D13)

D11. fTf code "02-97" in D10, ask:) How many of these arepre-school aged children? (Open ended and code actualnumber

00979899

None97+(DK)(Refused)

(DEMOGRAPHICS CONTINUED)

23 (440)

24 (441)

25 (442)

26 (443)

27

M-4-4-4T (445)

28

(446) (447)

D12. How many are in grade school, junior high, high school,or college? (Open ended and code actual number)

00 None97 97+98 (DK)99 (Refused)

D13. Are you currently a student or enrolled in a trainingprogram?

1 2 3 4

Yes No (DK) (RF)(Continue) (Skip to D15)

D14. (If code "1" in D13, ask:) What are you currentlyenrolled in? (Read 1-5)

1 High school or equivalency2 Training program3 College4 Graduate or professional school5 Other (Do NOT list)

6 (DK)7 (Refused)

D15. What language is primarily spoken in your household?(Open ended and code)

01 Other (list)02 (DK)03 (Refused)04 HOLD05 HOLD

06 English07 Spanish08 English/Spanish spoken equally09 Southeast Asian (Korean, Vietnamese, Thai, etc.)10 Russian

D16. Which one of the following categories best describesyour current employment status? (laend 1-5)

1 Employed full-time2 Employed part-time3 Unemployed4 Retired5 Not in work force

6 (DK)7 (Refused)

(DEMOGRAPHICS CONTINUED)

- 12 -

29

(448) 77717

30 (450)

31 (451)

32.10

(452) (453)

33 (454)

D17. Is your total annual household income before taxes,over or under $35,000?

If "Under" ask:Un er , as :)

f "Under", ask:)Under" ask:

f "Over" ask:

Is it over or under $30,000?Is it over or undel. $25,000?Is it over or under $20,000?Is it over or under $15,000?Is it over or under $10,000?Is it over or under $5,000?

Is it over or under $40,000?Is it over or under $45,000?Is it over or under $50,000?Is it over or under $55,000?Is it over or under $60,000?Is it over or under $65,000?Is it over or under $70,000?Is it over or under $75,000?

01 Under $5,00002 $5,000 to $9,99903 $10,000 to $14,99904 $15,000 to $19,99905 $20,000 to $24,99906 $25,000 to $29,99907 $30,000 to $34,99908 $35,000 to $39,99909 $40,000 to $44,99910 $45,000 to $49,99911 $50,000 to $54,99912 $55,000 to $59,99913 $60,000 to $64,99914 $65,000 to $69,99915 $70,000 to $74,99916 $75,000 or more17 (DK)18 (Refused)

D18. COUNTY: What is the name of the county in which yourcommunity is located? (Open ended)

001 Other (list)002 (DK)003 (Refused)004 HOLD005 HOLD

34

(53) 117T-

35.10

(455) (456) (457)

D19. COMMUNITY: What is the name of the communityin which you live? (Open ended)

001 Other (list)002 (DK)003 (Refused)004 HOLD005 HOLD

(DEMOGRAPHICS CONTINUED)

- 13 -43 2

36.10

(458) (459) (460)

D20. ZIP CODE: What is your zip code? (Open ended and codeall five digits)

99998 (DK)99999 (Refused) 37

771T- (22) (23) 7-277 (25)

The next questions are about disabilities. A disability isa physical or mental condition which substantially limits amajor life activity such as walking, seeing, hearing, orreading.

D21. Using the definition I just gave you, does anyone inyour household have a physical or mental d.sabilityright now?

1 2 3 4

Yes No (DK) (RF)(Continue) (Thank and Validate)

38 (461)

D22. (If code "1" in D21, ask:) Is this person you, orsomeone else in your household?

1 Respondent (Continue)

2 Someone else (Thank and Validate)

3 (Both) - (Continue)

4 (DK)5 (Refused) (Thank and Validate) 39 (462)

D23. (If code "1" or in D22, ask:) Does YOUR disabilitymost affect-Tiea -6)?

1 Seeing2 Hearing3 Walking4 Speaking5 Mental functioning, OR6 Something else (Do NOT list)

7 (DK)8 (Refused) 40 (463)

(VALIDATE PHONE NUMBER AND THANK RESPONDENT)

- 14 -

Hello, this is with The GallupOrganization. We are conducting a survey tonight aboutperceptions of public libraries. First I have a fewgeneral questions. May I please speak with theyoungest male, 18 years of age or older, who is now atlicit0 (If "No male", ask:) May I please speak withthe oldest female, 18 years of age or older, who is nowat IfairiFF-1.Wed respondent is reached,continue:)

1 Yes, male2 Yes, female (Continue) (44)

1. Did you vote in the last presidential election?

1

Yes2 3 4

No (DK) (RF)

2. Did you, yourself, go to a public library in the pastyear?

1 2 3 4

Yes No (DK) (RF)(Continue) (Skip to #3)

2a. ilf_cosiel".1": How many times did you go toa public library in the past year? Would you say about(read 1-6)?

1 1 to 5 times2 6 to 10 times3 11 to 15 times4 16 to 20 times5 21 to 25 times6 26 times or more

7 (DK)8 (Refused)

3. In the past year, has anyone else gone to a publiclibrary to borrow books or other kinds of materials foryou or to get information for you?

1

Yes2 3 4

No (DK) (RF)

4. Have you called a public library for information in thepast year?

1

Yes2 3 4

No (DK) (RF)

- 15 -

2.50(412)

2.60(413)

2.70(414)

3 (415)

4 (416)

Now I'm going to describe to you some of the kinds ofservices that public libraries provide for theircommunities. Some people think these services are importantwhile others do not. After each description, I'd like youto tell me how im ortant you think that kind of service isto your communit . Is it very important, moderatelyimportant, s ig tly important, or not important.

5. The library provides students, both children andadults, with the books, magazines and other servicesthey need to do their school work. How important wouldyou say that this service is to your community? (Ifnecessary, reread scale)

1 Very important2 Moderately important3 Slightly important4 Not important5 (DK)6 (Refused)

6. The library provides preschool children with picturebooks, story hours, and educational programs so thatthese children can have fun and learn to appreciatereading. How important would you say that this serviceis to your community? (If necessary, reread scale)

1 Very important2 Moderately important3 Slightly important4 Not important5 (DK)6 (Refused)

7. The library provides people with the information theyneed to answer personal and household questions. Thiscould include, for example, information about how tofix things around the house, hobbies, health issues, orthe quality and prices of home appliances. Howimportant would you say that this service is to yourcommunity? If necessary, reread scale

1 Very important2 Moderately important3 Slightly important4 Not important5 (DK)6 (Refused)

8. The library provides businesses in your community withthe information they need to survive and prosper. Thiscould include, for example, information about 5..ales ormarketing, worker safety, environmental protection, orsetting up a new business. How important would you saythat this service is to your community? (If necessary,reread scale)

1 Very important2 Moderately important3 Slightly important4 Not important5 (DK)6 (Refused)

16

..1

5 (417)

6 (418)

7 (419)

8 (420)

9. The library serves as a neighborhood or communityactivity center, a place where organizations or clubscould hold meetinas or present concerts and lectures.How important would you say that this service is toyour community? (If necessary, reread scale)

1 Very important2 Moderately important3 Slightly important4 Not important5 (DK)6 (Refused)

10. The library provides scientists and scholars with thespecialized research collections of books, magazinesand computerized information they need in order to dcresearch or write books. How important would you saythat this service is to your community? (If necessary,reread scale)

1 Very important2 Moderately important3 Slightly important4 Not important5 (DK)6 (Refused)

11. The library provides people with information abouttheir community. This could include, for example,information about local government, issues or laws orabout local community services such as health clinicsor daycare. How important would you say that thisservice is to your community? (TI_E12111.1m_rereadscale)

1 Very important2 Moderately important3 Slightly important4 Not important5 (DK)6 (Refused)

12. The library provides adults who are NOT students withthe materials and services they need in order to betterthemselves or to learn a new skill such as how to readand write. How important would you say that thisservice is to your community? (If necessary, rereadscale)

1 Very important2 Moderately important3 Slightly important4 Not important5 (DK)6 (Refused)

- 17 -

9 (421)

10 (422)

11 (423)

12 (424)

13. The library provides people with a comfortable place togo, when they need someplace outside of their house orapartment to read or think or work. How importantwould you say that this service is to your community?ILLL.I.ELDILEEL.Y.J.-.S.91-1-11aerrez

1 Very important2 Moderately important3 Slightly important4 Not important5 (DK)6 (Refused)

14. The library provides people with a collection ofcurrent best selling books and popular magazines,videos and musical recordings for borrowing. Howimportant would you say that this service is to yourcommunity? (If necessary, reread scale)

1 Very important2 Moderately important3 Slightly ).mportant4 Not important5 (DK)6 (Refused)

15. Some communities in this country spend as little as $4per person a year to provide a limited selection of thekinds of services that we just described while othercommunities spend as much as $100 per person a year toprovide a much wider selection of these services. Onaverage, communities in this country spend about $16per person a year on their public libraries. How muchmoney do you think your community should spend annuallyon its public library? Would you say (read 1-6)?

1 $1 to $20 per person2 $21 to $40 per person3 $41 to $60 per person4 $61 to $80 per person5 $81 to $100 per person6 More than $100 per person7 ($0 per person/Nothing)8 (DK)9 (Refused)

16. We are interested in how people feel about theircurrent financial situation. Would you say that youare financially better off now than you were a yearago, or are you financially worse off now or are youabout the same?

1 Better off2 Worse off3 About the same4 (DK)5 (Refused)

18 -

13 (425)

14 (426)

15 (427)

16 (428)

17. Now looking ahead, do you expect that at this time nextyear you will be financially better off than now, orworse off than now or about the same?

1

2345

Better offWorse offAbout the same(DK)(Refused) 17 (429)

(GO TO DEMOGRAPHICS)

INTERVIEWER I.D.#

19

774IT (242) (243) (244)

q; 3

PART III. FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTIONS

The frequency distributions of the responses for the national survey, the AfricanAmerican survey, the Caucasian American survey, the Hispanic American survey, and theopinion leaders survey are presented on the following pages. Please note that the GallupOrganization formatted the response categories to the role evaluation questions as follows:1 = very important; 2 = moderately important; 3 = slightly important; and 4 = notimportant. We recoded these response categories so that the higher the code the higher theevaluation of the importance of the role. The mean scores for the role evaluations thatappear in the final report were calculated with these recoded response categories.

- 20 - el Li 3.

NATIONAL SAMPLE

ARE REGION OF COUNTRY

Valid CumValue Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent

NORTHEAST 1 211 21.1 21.1 21.1SOUTH CENTRAL 2 339 33.9 33.9 54.9NORTH CENTRAL 3 249 24.9 24.9 79.8WEST 4 202 20.2 20.2 100.0

Total 1001 100.0 100.0

Valid cases 1001 Missing cases 0

ASEX GENDER OF RESPONDENT

Valid CumValue Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent

MALE 1 474 47.3 47.3 47.3FEMALE 2 527 52.7 52.7 100.0

Total 1001 100.0 100.0

Valid cases 1001 Missing cases 0

ASTR SIZE OF COMMUNITY

Value Label Value Frequency PercentValid

PercentCum

Percent

OVER 1,000,000 1 67 6.7 6.7 6.7250,000-1,000,000 2 116 11.6 11.6 18.3UNDER 250,000 3 817 81.7 81.7 100.0

Total 1001 100.0 100.0

Valid cases 1001 Missing cases 0

NATIONAL SAMPLE

AGE AGE OF RESPONDENT

Value Label Value Frequency PercentValidPercent

CumPercent

18 10 1.0 1.0 1.019 23 2.2 2.3 3.320 11 1.1 1.1 4.521 25 2.5 2.5 7.022 21 2.1 2.1 9.123 20 2.0 2.0 11.124 11 1.1 1.1 12.125 20 2.0 2.0 14.226 21 2.1 2.1 16.327 9 .9 .9 17.228 22 2.2 2.2 19.429 27 2.7 2.7 22.130 26 2.6 2.6 24.731 25 2.5 2.5 27.232 24 2.4 2.5 29.733 25 2.5 2.5 32.234 31 3.1 3.2 35.435 34 3.4 3.4 38.836 18 1.8 1.9 40.737 23 2.3 2.3 42.938 20 2.0 2.0 44.939 11 1.1 1.1 46.140 28 2.8 2.9 48.941 18 1.8 1.8 50.742 22 2.2 2.2 53.043 15 1.5 1.5 54.544 14 1.4 1.5 55.945 22 2.2 2.2 58.146 20 2.0 2.1 60.247 12 1.2 1.2 61.548 10 1.0 1.0 62.549 16 1.6 1.6 64.150 11 1.1 1.1 65.351 17 1.7 1.7 66.952 10 1.0 1.1 68.053 17 1.7 1.7 69.754 7 .7 .7 70.455 12 1.2 1.2 71.656 11 1.1 1.1 72.757 10 1.0 1.0 73.758 6 .6 .6 74.359 11 1.1 1.2 75.460 14 1.4 1.4 76.961 9 .9 .9 77.762 13 1.3 1.3 79.063 10 1.0 1.0 80.164 11 1.1 1.1 81.265 15 1.5 1.6 82.766 3 .3 .3 83.067 12 1.2 1.2 84.368 10 1.0 1.0 85.369 13 1.3 1.3 86.670 12 1.2 1.2 87.971 14 1.4 1.5 89.372 10 1.0 1.0 90.373 11 1.1 1.1 91.4

- 22 -

NATIONAL SAMPLE

AGE AGE OF RESPONDENT - continued

74 8 .8 .8 92.275 12 1.2 1.2 93.376 6 .6 .6 93.977 11 1.1 1.1 95.178 9 .9 .9 96.079 3 .3 .3 96.380 5 .5 .5 96.881 7 .7 .7 97.582 11 1.1 1.1 98.683 2 .2 .2 98.884 4 .4 .4 99.285 1 .1 .1 99.286 3 .3 .3 99.587 3 .3 .3 99.889 1 .1 .1 99.990 1 .1 .1 99.991 1 .1 .1 100.0

10 1.0 Missing

Total 1001 100.0 100.0

Valid cases 991 Missing cases 10

D2 HISPANIC OR LATINO DESCENT

Valid CumValue Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent

YES 1 41 4.1 4.1 4.1

NO 2 955 95.5 95.9 100.0DONT KNOW/REFUSED 4 4 .4 Missing

Total 1001 100.0 100.0

Valid cases 997 Missing cases 4

D3 SPECIFIC HISPANIC DESCENT

Value Label Value Frequency PercentValidPercent

CumPercent

MEXICAN 1 10 1.0 23.6 23.6MEXICAN AMERICAN 2 17 1.7 41.0 64.6PUERTO RICAN 3 4 .4 11.0 75.6OTHER 5 10 1.0 24.4 100.0

960 95.9 MissingDONT KNOW/REFUSED 7 1 .1 Missing

Total 1001 100.0 100.0

Valid cases 41 Missing cases 960

- 23 -

4.1:

D4 RACE OF RESPONDENT

Value Label Value Frequency PercentValidPercent

NATIONAL SAMPLE

CumPercent

WHITE 6 863 86.2 86.7 86.7BLACK 7 79 7.9 7.9 94.6AMERICAN INDIAN 8 11 1.1 1.1 95.7ASIAN/PACIFIC ISL 9 13 1.3 1.3 97.0HISPANIC/MEXICAN 12 20 2.0 2.0 99.1OTHER 13 9 .9 .9 100.0DONT KNOW/REFUSED 3 6 .6 Missing

Total 1001 100.0 100.0

Valid cases 995 Missing cases 6

D5 EDUCATION LEVEL COMPLETED

Valid CumValue Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent

KINDERGARTEN OR LESS 4 1 .1 .1 .1

1ST GRADE 6 3 .3 .3 .4

2ND GRADE 7 1 .1 .1 .5

3RD GRADE 8 13 1.3 1.3 1.84TH GRADE 9 5 .5 .5 2.35TH GRADE 10 2 .2 .2 2.56TH GRADE 11 5 .5 .5 3.07TH GRADE 12 15 1.5 1.5 4.48TH GRADE 13 30 3.0 3.0 7.49TH GRADE 14 28 2.8 2.8 10.210TH GRADE 15 43 4.3 4.3 14.511TH GRADE 16 35 3.5 3.5 18.012TH GRADE 17 383 38.3 38.4 56.4SOME COLLEGE 18 174 17.4 17.5 73.9ASSOCIATE DEGREE 19 38 3.8 3.8 77.7BACHELORS DEGREE 20 144 14.4 14.4 92.1MASTERS DEGREE 21 45 4.5 4.5 96.7PROFESSIONAL DEGREE 22 23 2.3 2.3 98.9DOCTORAL DEGREE 23 11 1.1 1.1 100.0DONT KNOW/REFUSED 99 4 .4 Missing

Total 1001 100.0 100.0

Valid cases 997 Missing cases 4

- 24 -L j,_

NATIONAL SAMPLE

D6 HIGH SCHOOL DIPLOMA

Valid CumValue Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent

YES 1 400 39.9 71.1 71.1NO 2 163 16.3 28.9 100.0

438 43.8 Missing

Total 1001 100.0 100.0

Valid cases 563 Missing cases 438

D7 IF ASSOCIATE DEGREE, TYPE OF PROGRAM

Valid CumValue Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent

OCCUPATIONAL PROGRAMACADEMIC PROGRAM

DONT KNOW/REFUSED

Valid cases

1 14 1.4 36.4 36.42 24 2.4 63.6 100.0. 963 96.2 Missing4 1 .1 Missing

Total 1001 100.0 100.0

37 Missing cases 964

D8 MARITAL STATUS

Valid CumValue Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent

MARRIED 1 590 58.9 59.2 59.2WIDOWED 2 99 9.9 10.0 69.2DIVORCED 3 104 10.4 10.4 79.6NEVER MARRIED 4 203 20.3 20.4 100.0DONT KNOW/REFUSED 6 5 .5 Missing

Total 1001 100.0 100.0

Valid cases 996 Missing cases 5

- 25 -

D9 IF MARRIED, LIVING WITH SPOUSE

Valid

NATIONAL SAMPLE

CumValue Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent

YES 1 568 56.8 96.5 96.5

NO 2 21 2.1 3.5 100.0411 41.1 Missing

DONT KNOW/REFUSED 4 1 .1 Missing

Total 1001 100.0 100.0

Valid cases $89 Missing cases 412

D10 NUMBER OF PEOPLE LIVING IN YOUR HOME

Valid CumValue Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent

1 173 17.3 17.5 17.52 333 33.3 33.7 51.13 181 18.0 18.3 69.44 182 18.2 18.4 87.85 82 8.2 8.3 96.16 30 3.0 3.0 99.17 4 .4 .4 99.68 1 .1 .1 99.69 3 .3 .3 99.9

12 1 .1 .1 100.0DONT KNOW/REFUSED 99 12 1.2 Missing

Total 1001 100.0 100.0

Valid cases 989 Missing cases 12

Dll NUMBER OF PRE-SCHOOL CHILDREN IN HOME

Valid CumValue Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent

NONE 0 633 63.2 78.0 78.01 106 10.6 13.1 91.12 60 6.0 7.4 98.53 6 .6 .8 99.34 6 .6 .7 100.0

18$ 18.4 MissingDONT KNOW/REFUSED 9; 5 .5 Missing

Total 1001 100.0 100.0

Valid cases 812 Missing cases 189

- 26 -

NATIONAL SAMPLE

D12 NUMBER OF STUDENTS IN HOME

Value Label Value Frequency PercentValidPercent

CumPercent

NONE 0 444 44.4 54.6 54.61 194 19.3 23.8 78.42 128 12.7 15.7 94.13 33 3.3 4.1 98.24 9 .9 1.1 99.35 4 .4 .4 99.76 2 .2 .2 99.9

12 1 .1 .1 100.0. 185 18.4 Missing

DONT KNOW/REFUSED 99 3 .3 Missing

Total 1001 100.0 100.0

Valid cases 813 Missing cases 188

D13 WHETHER RESPONDENT IS A STUDENT

Valid CumValue Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent

YES 1 103 10.3 10.3 10.3NO 2 894 89.3 89.7 100.0DONT KNOW/REFUSED 4 4 .4 Missing

Total 1001 100.0 100.0

Valid cases 997 Missing cases 4

D14 IF STUDENT, TYPE OF PROGRAM

Valid CumValue Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent

HS OR EQUIVALENT 1 9 .9 9.1 9.1TRAINING PROGRAM 2 11 1.1 11.0 20.0COLLEGE 3 52 5.2 50.9 71.0GRADUATE/PROF SCHOOL 4 20 2.0 19.5 90.4OTHER 5 10 1.0 9.6 100.0

898 89.7 Missing

Total 1001 100.0 100.0

Valid cases 103 Missing cases 898

- 27 -

s t.)

D15 PRIMARY LANGUAGE SPOKEN IN HOUSEHOLD

Valid

NATIONAL SAMPLE

CumValue Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent

ENGLISH 6 974 97.3 97.7 97.7SPANISH 7 6 .6 .6 98.2ENGLISH/SPANISH 8 4 .4 .4 98.7SOUTHEAST ASIAN 9 4 .4 .4 99.1OTHER 11 9 .9 .9 100.0DONT KNOW/REFUSED 3 4 .4 Miesing

Total 1001 100.0 100.0

Valid cases 997 Missing cases 4

D16 CURRENT EMPLOYMENT STATUS

Valid CumValue Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent

EMPLOYED FULL-TIME 1 518 51.8 52.1 52.1EMPLOYED PART-TIME 2 126 12.6 12.7 64.8UNEMPLOYED 3 66 6.6 6.7 71.5RETIRED 4 200 20.0 20.1 91.6NOT IN WORK FORCE 5 83 8.3 8.4 100.0DONT KNOW/REFUSED 7 7 .7 Missing

Total 1001 100.0 100.0

Valid cases 994 Missing cases 7

- 28 -

NATIONAL SAMPLE

D17 ANNUAL HOUSEHOLD INCOME BEFORE TAXES

Value Label Value Frequency PercentValidPercent

CumPercent

UNDER $5,000 1 18 1.8 2.1 2.1

$5,000 TO $9,999 2 47 4.7 5.5 7.6

$10,000 TO $14,999 3 75 7.5 8.8 16.4$15,000 TO $19,999 4 77 7.6 9.0 25.3$20,000 TO $24,999 5 83 8.2 9.7 35.0$25,000 TO $29,999 6 113 11.2 13.2 48.2

$30,000 TO $34,999 7 79 7.9 9.2 57.4$35,000 TO $39,999 a 92 9.2 10.8 68.2$40,000 TO $44,999 9 52 5.2 6.1 74.3

$45,000 TO $49,999 10 46 4.6 5.3 79.7$50,000 TO $54,999 11 37 3.7 4.3 84.0$55,000 TO $59,999 12 20 2.0 2.3 86.4$60,000 TO $64,999 13 24 2.4 2.8 89.1$65,000 TO $69,999 14 11 1.1 1.3 90.5$70,000 TO $74,999 15 12 1.2 1.4 91.9$75,000 OR MORE 16 69 6.9 8.1 100.0

DONT KNOW/REFUSED 18 147 14.7 Missing

Total 1001 100.0 100.0

Valid cases 853 Missing cases 147

D21 DISABLED PERSON IN HOUSEHOLD

Valid CumValue Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent

YES 1 144 14.4 14.7 14.7NO 2 836 83.5 85.3 100.0DONT KNOW/REFUSED 4 21 2.1 Missing

Total 1001 100.0 100.0

Valid cases 980 Missing cases 21

D22 WHO IN HOUSEHOLD HAS DISABILITY

Valid CumValue Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent

RESPONDENT 1 78 7.8 54.3 54.3

SOMEONE ELSE 2 55 5.5 38.5 92.8

BOTH 3 10 1.0 7.2 100.0. 857 85.6 Missing

DONT KNOW/REFUSED 5 1 .1 Missing

Total 1001 100.0 100.0

Valid cases 143 Missing cases 857

- 29 -

LI .,..... o

D23 FUNCTION AFFECTED BY DISABILITY

Value Label Value Frequency PercentValid

Percent

NATIONAL SAMPLE

CumPercent

SEEING 1 10 1.0 11.6 11.6HEARING 2 6 .6 6.4 18.0WALKING 3 49 4.9 56.1 74.0MENTAL FUNCTIONING 5 4 .4 4.2 78.2SOMETHING ELSE 6 19 1.9 21.8 100.0

913 91.2 MissingDONT KNOW/REFUSED 8 1 .1 Missing

Total 1001 100.0 100.0

Valid cases 88 Missing cases 913

Ql VOTED IN 1988 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

Valid CumValue Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent

YES 1 628 62.8 63.2 63.2NO 2 366 36.5 36.8 100.0DONT KNOW/REFUSED 4 7 .7 Missing

Total 1001 100.0 100.0

Valid cases 994 Missing cases 7

Q2 GONE TO PUBLIC LIBRARY IN LAST YEAR

Valid CumValue Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent

YES 1 572 57.1 57.5 57.5NO 2 423 42.3 42.5 100.0DONT KNOW/REFusED 4 6 .6 Missing

Total 1001 100.0 100.0

Valid cases 994 Missing cases 6

- 30 -

,1 I

NATIONAL SAMPLE

Q2A FREQUENCY OF LIBRARY VISITS IN LAST YEAR

Value Label Value Frequency PercentValid

PercentCum

Percent

1 TO 5 TIMES 1 246 24.5 43.3 43.3

6 TO 10 TIMES 2 109 10.9 19.3 62.611 TO 15 TIMES 3 60 6.0 10.5 73.116 TO 20 TIMES 4 31 3.1 5.4 78.621 TO 25 TIMES 5 22 2.2 3.9 82.526 TIMES OR MORE 6 99 9.9 17.5 100.0

. 429 42.9 MissingDONT KNOW/REFUSED 8 5 .5 Missing

Total 1001 100.0 100.0

Valid cases 567 Missing cases 434

43 HAS ANYONE GONE TO LIBRARY FOR YOU

Valid CumValue Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent

YES 1 214 21.4 21.5 21.5NO 2 785 78.4 78.5 100.0DONT KNOW/REFUSED 4 2 .2 Missing

Total 1001 100.0 100.0

Valid cases 999 Missing cases 2

Q4 HAVE YOU CALLED LIBRARY FOR INFORMATION

Valid CumValue Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent

YES 1 232 23.1 23.2 23.2NO 2 768 76.8 76.8 100.0

DONT KNOW/REFUSED 4 1 .1 Missing

Total 1001 100.0 100.0

Valid cases 1000 Missing cases 1

NATIONAL SAMPLE

USE ANY USE OF PUBLIC LIBRARY IN LAST YEAR

Valid CumValue Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent

NO 0 367 36.7 36.7 36.7YES 1 634 63.3 63.3 100.0

Total 1001 100.0 100.0

Valid cases 1001 Missing cases 0

Q5 FORMAL EDUCATION SUPPORT CENTER

Valid CumValue Label Value Frequency Percent Perc, nt Percent

NOT IMPORTANT 1 14 1.4 1.4 1.4SLIGHTLY IMPORTANT 2 12 1.2 1.2 2.6MODERATELY IMPORTANT 3 86 8.6 8.7 11.3VERY IMPORTANT 4 881 88.1 88.7 100.0DONT KNOW/REFUSED 6 8 .8 Missing

Total 1001 100.0 100.0

Valid cases 993 Missing cases 8

Q6 PRESCHOOLERS DOOR TO LEARNING

Valid CumValue Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent

NOT IMPORTANT 1 7 .7 .7 .7

SLIGHTLY IMPORTANT 2 20 2.0 2.0 2.7MODERATELY IMPORTANT 3 131 13.1 13.2 15.9VERY IMPORTANT 4 833 83.2 84.1 100.0DONT KNOW/REFUSED 6 10 1.0 Missing

Total 1001 100.0 100.0

Valid cases 990 Missing cases 10

- 32 -

t.2/

gJ.. 4

NATIONAL SAMPLE

127 REFERENCE LIBRARY/PERSONAL INFORMATION

Value LabelValid Cum

Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent

NOT IMPORTANT 1 22 2.2 2.2 2.2SLIGHTLY IMPORTANT 2 56 5.6 5.7 7.8MODERATELY IMPORTANT 3 432 43.2 43.5 51.3VERY IMPORTANT 4 484 48.4 48.7 100.0DONT KNOW/REFUSED 6 6 .6 Missing

Total 1001 100.0 100.0

Valid cases 995 Missing cases 6

48 REFERENCE LIBRARY FOR BUSINESSES

Valid CumValue Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent

NOT IMPORTANT 1 26 2.6 2.7 2 7

SLIGHTLY IMPORTANT 2 92 9.2 9.5 12.1MODERATELY IMPORTANT 3 302 30.1 31.1 43.2VERY IMPORTANT 4 552 55.1 56.8 100.0DONT KNOW/REFUSED 6 30 3.0 Missing

Total 1001 100.0 100.0

Valid cases 971 Missing cases 30

49 COMMUNITY ACTIVITY CENTER

Valid CumValue Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent

NOT IMPORTANT 1 79 7.9 8.0 8.0SLIGHTLY IMPORTANT 2 128 12.7 13.0 21.0MODERATELY IMPORTANT 3 361 36.1 36.8 57.8VERY IMPORTANT 4 414 41.3 42.2 100.0DONT KNOW/REFUSED 6 20 2.0 Missing

Total 1001 100.0 100.0

Valid cases 981 Missing cases 20

- 33 -

Li '.),.

Q10 RESEARCH CENTER

Valid

NATIONAL SAMPLE

numValue Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent

NOT IMPORTANT 1 20 2.0 2.1 2.1SLIGHTLY IMPORTANT 2 64 6.4 6.5 8.6MODERATELY IMPORTANT 3 214 21.4 21.8 30.4VERY IMPORTANT 4 682 58.2 69.6 100.0DONT KNOW/REFUSED 6 20 2.0 Missing

Total 1001 100.0 100.0

Valid cases 981 Missing cases 20

Q11 COMMUNITY INFORMATION CENTER

Valid CumValue Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent

NOT IMPORTANT 1 17 1.7 1.8 1.8SLIGHTLY IMPORTANT 2 49 4.9 4.9 6.7MODERATELY IMPORTANT 3 263 26.3 26.7 33.4VERY IMPORTANT 4 657 65.6 66.6 100.0DONT KNOW/REFUSED 6 14 1.4 Missing

Total 1001 100.0 100.0

Valid cases 987 Missing cases 14

Q12 INDEPENDENT LEARNING CENTER

Valid CumValue Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent

NOT IMPORTANT 1 9 .9 .9 .9

SLIGHTLY IMPORTANT 2 21 2.1 2.1 3.0MODERATELY IMPORTANT 3 117 11.7 11.7 14.8VERY IMPORTANT 4 847 84.6 85.2 100.0DONT KNOW/REFUSED 6 7 .7 Missing

Total 1001 100.0 100.0

Valid cases 993 Missing cases 7

- 34 -

NATIONAL SAMPLE

Q13 PUBLIC WORK PLACE

Value Label

NOT IMPORTANTSLIGHTLY IMPORTANTMODERATELY IMPORTANTVERY IMPORTANTDONT KNOW/REFUSED

Valid cases 990

Valid CumValue Frequency Percent Percent Percent

1 33 3.3 3.3 3.32 85 8.5 8.6 11.93 348 34.7 35.1 47.04 525 52.4 53.0 100.06 11 1.1 Missing

Total 1001 100.0 100.0

Missing cases 11

Q14 POPULAR MATERIALS LIBRARY

Value Label

NOT IMPORTANTSLIGHTLY IMPORTANTMODERATELY IMPORTANTVERY IMPORTANTDONT KNOW/REFUSED

Valid cases 989

Valid CumValue Frequency Percent Percent Percent

1 35 3.5 3.5 3.52 96 9.5 9.7 13.23 344 34.4 34.8 48.04 515 51.4 52.0 100.06 12 1.2 Missing

Total 1001 100.0 100.0

Missing cases 12

Q15 SUGGESTED ANNUAL SPENDING PER PERSON

Value LabelValid Cum

Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent

$0 0 3 .3 .4 .4

$1 TO $20 10 348 34.8 39.8 40.1$21 TO $40 30 257 25.7 29.3 69.5$41 TO $60 50 127 12.7 14.5 84.0$61 TO $80 70 54 5.4 6.2 90.2$81 TO $100 90 42 4.2 4.8 95.0MORE THAN $100 110 44 4.4 5.0 100.0DONT KNOW/REFUSED 9 125 12.5 Missing

Total 1001 100.0 100.0

Valid cases 876 Missing cases 125

- 35 -

NATIONAL SAMPLE

Q16 FINANCIAL SITUATION COMPARED TO LAST YR

Valid CumValue Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent

BETTER OFF 1 252 25.1 25.4 25.4WORSE OFF 2 233 23.3 23.5 48.9ABOUT THE SAME 3 507 50.6 51.1 100.0DONT KNOW/REFUSED 5 10 1.0 Missing

Total 1001 100.0 100.0

Valid cases 991 Missing cases 10

Q17 FINANCIAL SITUATION COMPARED TO NEXT YR

Valid CumValue Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent

BETTER OFF 1 456 45.6 47.6 47.6WORSE OFF 2 77 7.7 8.0 55.6ABOUT THE SAME 3 426 42.6 44.4 100.0RA 5 41 4.1 Missing

Total 1001 100.0 100.0

Valid cases 959 Missing cases 41

- 36 -

ARE REGION OF COUNTRY

AFRICAN AMERICAN SAMPLE

Valid CumValue Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent

NORTHEAST 1 82 20.4 20.4 20.4SOUTH CENTRAL 2 206 51.5 51.5 71.9NORTH CENTRAL 3 77 19.3 19.3 91.2WEST 4 35 8.8 8.8 100.0

Total 401 100.0 100.0

Valid cases 401 Missing cases 0

ASEX GENDER OF RESPONDENT

Value Label Value Frequency PercentValidPercent

CumPercent

MALE 1 177 44.1 44.1 44.1FEMALE 2 224 55.9 55.9 100.0

Total 401 100.0 100.0

Valid cases 401 Missing cases 0

ASTR % OF COMMUNITY WHICH IS BLACK

Valid CumValue Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent

HIGH 26%-100% 1 216 54.0 54.0 54.0MODERATE 5%-25% 2 118 29.6 29.6 83.5LOW 0%-4% 3 66 16.5 16.5 100.0

Total 401 100.0 100.0

Valid cases 401 Missing cases 0

- 37 -

AFRICAN AMERICAN SAMPLE

AGE AGE OF RESPONDENT

Value Label Value Frequency PercentValid

PercentCum

Percent

18 2 .4 .4 .4

19 6 1.6 1.6 2.020 6 1.5 1.5 3.521 12 2.9 2.9 6.422 13 3.2 3.3 9.723 15 3.8 3.8 13.524 13 3.3 3.3 16.825 15 3.6 3.7 20.526 5 1.2 1.2 21.727 4 .9 .9 22.528 20 5.0 5.0 27.629 7 1.9 1.9 29.430 13 3.2 3.3 32.731 6 1.5 1.5 34.232 12 3.1 3.1 37.333 6 1.5 1.5 38.834 13 3.3 3.3 42.135 9 2.3 2.3 44.436 10 2.6 2.6 47.137 11 2.7 2.8 49.838 14 3.5 3.5 53.439 2 .5 .5 53.940 13 3.3 3.4 57.341 2 .5 .5 57.842 6 1.5 1.5 59.343 3 .7 .7 60.044 5 1.3 1.3 61.345 15 3.7 3.7 65.046 3 .6 .6 65.747 11 2.7 2.7 68.448 4 .9 .9 69.349 4 1.1 1.1 70.450 4 .9 .9 71.351 2 .4 .4 71.752 6 1.4 1.5 73.253 2 .5 .5 73.754 4 1.1 1.1 74.855 3 .7 .8 75.656 6 1.4 1.4 77.057 2 .5 .5 77.558 4 1.0 1.0 78.559 1 .3 .3 78.860 2 .5 .5 79.361 3 .9 .9 80.262 3 .7 .7 80.963 2 .4 .4 81.364 3 .7 .7 82.065 2 .4 .4 82.566 1 .3 .3 82.767 19 4.8 4.8 87.568 1 .2 .2 87.769 1 .1 .1 87.870 5 1.2 1.2 89.071 1 .3 .3 89.472 0 .1 .1 89.573 1 .2 .2 89.7

- 38 -

. I

AGE AGE OF RESPONDENT - continued

AFRICAN AMERICAN SAMPLE

74 4 .9 .9 90.675 3 .8 .8 91.476 3 .7 .7 92.177 1 .2 .2 92.378 1 .3 .3 92.680 1 .3 .3 92.981 2 .4 .4 93.382 24 6.0 6.0 99.383 0 .1 .1 99.484 1 .1 .1 99.585 0 .1 .1 99.692 1 .4 .4 100.0

. 4 .9 Missing

Total 401 100.0 100.0

Valid cases 397 Missing cases 4

D2 HISPANIC OR LATINO DESCENT

Valid Cum

Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent

YES 1 2 .4 .4 .4

NO 2 398 99.4 99.6 100.0DONT KNOW/REFUSED 4 1 .2 Missing

Total 401 100.0 100.0

Valid cases 400 Missing cases 1

D3 SPECIFIC HISPANIC DESCENT

Valid CumValue Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent

MEXICAN AMERICAN 2 0 .1 24.6 24.6

PUERTO RICAN 3 1 .2 45.3 69.8

OTHER 5 1 .1 30.2 100.0. 399 99.6 Missing

Total 401 100.0 100.0

Valid cases 2 Missing cases 399

AFRICAN AMERICAN SAMPLE

D4 RACE OF RESPONDENT

Valid CumValue Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent

BLACK 7 401 100.0 100.0 100.0

Total 401 100.0 100.0

Valid cases 401 Missing cases 0

D5 EDUCATION LEVEL COMPLETED

Valid CumValue Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent

KINDERGARTEN OR LESS 4 1 .1 .1 .1

1ST GRADE 6 4 .9 1.0 1.12ND GRADE 7 1 .3 .3 1.43RD GRADE 8 19 4.6 4.6 6.14TH GRADE 9 2 .4 .4 6.55TH GRADE 10 2 .5 .5 7.06TH GRADE 11 6 1.4 1.4 8.47TH GRADE 12 30 7.4 7.4 15.88TH GRADE 13 9 2.2 2.2 18.09TH GRADE 14 6 1.5 1.5 19.510TH GRADE 15 28 6.9 6.9 26.411TH GRADE 16 25 6.3 6.3 32.712TH GRADE 17 151 37.7 37.9 70.6SOME COLLEGE 18 59 14.6 14.7 85.3ASSOCIATE DEGREE 19 12 3.1 3.1 88.3BACHELORS DEGREE 20 32 8.0 8.0 96.3MASTERS DEGREE 21 10 2.6 2.6 99.0PROFESSIONAL DEGREE 22 3 .8 .8 99.8DOCTORAL DEGREE 23 0 .1 .1 99.8OTHER 24 1 .2 .2 100.0DONT KNOW/REFUSED 99 2 .4 Missing

Total 401 100.0 100.0

Valid cases 399 Missing cases 2

D6 HIGH SCHOOL DIPLOMA

Valid CumValue Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent

YES 1 153 38.1 54.2 54.2NO 2 129 32.2 45.8 100.0

119 29.8 Missing

Total 401 100.0 100.0

Valid cases 281 Missing cases 119

- 40 -

L

D7 IF ASSOCIATE DEGREE, TYPE OF PROGRAM

AFRICAN AMERICAN SAMPLE

Valid CumValue Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent

OCCUPATIONAL PROGRAM 1 7 1.9 60.7 60.7

ACADEMIC PROGRAM 2 5 1.2 39.3 100.0. 388 96.9 Missing

Total 401 100.0 100.0

Valid cases 12 Missing cases 388

1)8 MARITAL STATUS

Valid CumValue Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent

MARRIED 1 164 40.9 41.1 41.1

WIDOWED 2 51 12.8 12.8 54.0DIVORCED 3 70 17.4 17.5 71.5

NEVER MARRIED 4 114 28.4 28.5 100.0DONT KNOW/REFUSED 6 2 .5 Missing

Total 401 100.0 100.0

Valid cases 398 Missing cases 2

D9 IF MARRIED, LIVING WITH SPOUSE

Valid CumValue Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent

YES 1 141 35.3 86.3 86.3NO 2 23 5.6 13.7 100.0

. 237 59.1 Missing

Total 401 100.0 100.0

Valid cases 164 Missing cases 237

AFRICAN AMERICAN SAMPLE

D10 NUMBER OF PEOPLE LIVING IN YOUR HOME

Valid CumValue Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent

DONT KNOW/REFUSED

1 66 16.5 16.6 16.62 111 27.8 28.0 44.53 88 22.0 22.2 66.74 67 16.8 17.0 83.75 41 10.4 10.4 94.16 13 3.2 3.3 97.37 4 1.0 1.0 98.38 1 .1 .1 98.59 4 .9 .9 99.4

10 2 .4 .4 99.816 1 .2 .2 100.099 3 .7 Missing

Total 401 100.0 100.0

Valid cases 398 Missing cases 3

Dll NUMBER OF PRE-SCHOOL CHILDREN IN HOME

Valid CumValue Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent

NONE

DONT KNOW/REFUSED

0 231 57.8 71.0 71.01 77 19.2 23.6 94.62 11 2.8 3.4 98.03 3 .8 1.0 99.04 3 .8 1.0 100.0. 69 17.2 Missing

99 6 1.5 Missing

Total 401 100.0 100.0

Valid cases 326 Missing cases 75

- 42 -

D12 NUMBER OF STUDENTS IN HOME

AFRICAN AMERICAN SAMPLE

Valid CumValue Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent

NONE 0 153 38.3 46.4 46.41 110 27.5 33.4 79.82 40 10.0 12.1 91.83 17 4.2 5.1 97.04 4 1.1 1.4 98.35 3 .7 .9 99.26 2 .4 .5 99.79 1 .2 .3 100.0

69 17.2 MissingDONT KNOW/REFUSED 9; 1 .4 Missing

Total 401 100.0 100.0

Valid cases 330 Missing cases 70

D13 WHETHER RESPONDENT IS A STUDENT

Valid CumValue Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent

YES 1 47 11.7 11.8 11.8NO 2 352 87.8 88.2 100.0DONT KNow/REFUSED 4 2 .5 Missing

Total 401 100.0 100.0

Valid cases 399 Missing cases 2

D14 IF STUDENT, TYPE OF PROGRAM

Value Label Value Frequency PercentValidPercent

CumPercent

HS OR EQUIVALENT 1 3 .7 6.1 6.1TRAINING PROGRAM 2 6 1.5 12.5 18.6COLLEGE 3 23 5.7 49.2 67.8GRADUATE/PROF SCHOOL 4 4 1.0 8.2 75.9OTHER 5 11 2.8 24.1 100.0

354 88.3 MissingDONT KNOW/REFUSED 7 0 .1 Missing

Total 401 100.0 100.0

Valid cases 47 Missing cases 354

- 43 -

AFRICAN AMERICAN SAMPLE

D15 PRIMARY LANGUAGE SPOKEN IN HOUSEHOLD

Valid CumValue Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent

ENGLISH 6 396 98.9 99.3 99.3SPANISH 7 0 .1 .1 99.4ENGLISH/SPANISH 8 1 .2 .2 99.6OTHER 11 1 .4 .4 100.0DONT KNOW/REFUSED 3 2 .4 Missing

Total 401 100.0 100.0

Valid cases 399 Missing cases 2

D16 CURRENT EMPLOYMENT STATUS

Valid CumValue Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent

EMPLOYED FULL-TIME 1 189 47.1 47.4 47.4EMPLOYED PART-TIME 2 47 11.8 11.9 59.3UNEMPLOYED 3 63 15.7 15.8 75.0RETIRED 4 63 15.7 15.8 90.8NOT IN WORK FORCE 5 37 9.2 9.2 100.0DONT KNOW/REFUSED 7 2 .6 Missing

Total 401 100.0 100.0

Valid cases 398 Missing cases 2

- 44 -

AFRICAN AMERICAN SAMPLE

D17 ANNUAL HOUSEHOLD INCOME BEFORE TAXES

Value Label Value Frequency PercentValid

PercentCum

Percent

UNDER $5,000 1 59 14.7 16.2 16.2

$5,000 TO $9,999 2 48 11.9 13.1 29.3$10,000 TO $14,999 3 45 11.3 12.5 41.9$15,000 TO $19,999 4 41 10.1 11.2 53.0$20,000 TO $24,999 5 31 7.8 8.6 61.7$25,000 TO $29,999 6 31 7.9 e.7 70.3$30,000 TO $34,999 7 14 3.6 4.0 74.3$35,000 TO $39,999 8 36 8.9 9.8 84.1$40,000 TO $44,999 9 8 1.9 2.1 86.2

$45,000 TO $49,999 10 9 2.2 2.4 88.6$50,000 TO $54,999 11 8 2.1 2.3 90.9$55,000 TO $59,999 12 9 2.2 2.4 93.3$60,000 TO $64,999 13 7 1.7 1.9 95.2$65,000 TO $69,999 14 3 .7 .8 96.0$70,000 TO $74,999 15 4 1.0 1.1 97.0$75,000 OR MORE 16 11 2.7 3.0 100.0DONT KNOW/REFUSED 18 37 9.3 Missing

Total 401 100.0 100.0

Valid cases 363 Missing cases 37

D21 DISABLED PERSON IN HOUSEHOLD

Valid CumValue Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent

YES 1 87 21.6 22.0 22.0NO 2 307 76.7 78.0 100.0DONT KNOW/REFUSED 4 7 1.7 Missing

Total 401 100.0 100.0

Valid cases 394 Missing cases 7

D22 WHO IN HOUSEHOLD HAS DISABILITY

Value LabelValid Cum

Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent

RESPONDENT 1 23 5.7 26.2 26.2

SOMEONE ELSE 2 60 15.0 69.3 95.5

BOTH 3 4 1.0 4.5 100.0. 314 78.4 Missing

Valid cases

Total 401 100.0 100.0

87 Missing cases 314

- 45 -

AFRICAN AMERICAN SAMPLE

D23 FUNCTION AFFECTED BY DISABILITY

Value Label Value Frequency PercentValidPercent

CumPercent

SEEING 1 4 1.0 15.6 15.6

HEARING 2 1 .2 2.5 18.1

WALKING 3 17 4.3 66.5 84.6MENTAL FUNCTIONING 5 1 .1 2.1 86.8

SOMETHING ELSE 6 3 .8 13.2 100.0374 93.4 Missing

DONT KNOW/REFUSED 8 1 .2 Missing

Total 401 100.0 100.0

Valid cases 26 Missing cases 375

Ql VOTED IN 1988 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

Valid CumValue Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent

YES 1 210 52.4 52.4 52.4

NO 2 191 47.6 47.6 100.0DONT KNOW/REFUSED 4 0 .1 Missing

Total 401 100.0 100.0

Valid cases 400 Missing cases 0

Q2 GONE TO PUBLIC LIBRARY IN LAST YEAR

Valid CumValue Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent

YES 1 205 51.1 51.1 51.1

NO 2 196 48.9 48.9 100.0

Total 401 100.0 100.0

Valid cases 401 Missing cases 0

AFRICAN AMERICAN SAMPLE

Q2A FREQUENCY OF LIBRARY VISITS IN LAST YEAR

Value Label Value Frequency PercentValidPercent

CumPercent

1 TO 5 TIMES 1 95 23.8 46.6 46.66 TO 10 TIMES 2 38 9.4 18.4 65.011 TO 15 TIMES 3 15 3.8 7.4 72.416 TO 20 TIMES 4 9 2.1 4.2 76.621 TO 25 TIMES 5 9 2.3 4.4 81.026 TIMES OR MORE 6 39 9.7 19.0 100.0

. 196 48.9 Missing

Total 401 100.0 100.0

Valid cases 205 Missing cases 196

Q3 HAS ANYONE GONE TO LIBRARY FOR YOU

Value Label Value Frequency PercentValidPercent

CumPercent

YES 1 54 13.4 13.5 13.5NO 2 344 86.0 86.5 100.0DONT KNOW/REFUSED 4 3 .7 Missing

Total 401 100.0 100.0

Valid cases 398 Missing cases 3

Q4 HAVE YOU CALLED LIBRARY FOR INFORMATION

Valid CumValue Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent

YES 1 63 15.8 15.8 15.8NO 2 337 84.2 84.2 100.0

Total 401 100.0 100.0

Valid cases 401 Missing cases 0

- 47 -

J

AFRICAN AMERICAN SAMPLE

USE ANY USE OF PUBLIC LIBRARY IN LAST YEAR

Value Label Value Frequency PercentValidPercent

CumPercent

NO 0 183 45.7 45.7 45.7YES 1 217 54.3 54.3 100.0

Total 401 100.0 100.0

Valid cases 401 Missing cases 0

45 FORMAL EDUCATION SUPPORT CENTER

Valid CumValue Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent

NOT IMPORTANT 1 1 .3 .4 .4

SLIGHTLY IMPORTANT 2 6 1.5 1.5 1.8MODERATELY IMPORTANT 3 7 1.7 1.7 3.5VERY IMPORTANT 4 385 96.1 96.5 100.0DONT KNOW/REFUSED 6 2 .4 Missing

Total 401 100.0 100.0

Valid cases 399 Missing cases 2

Q6 PRESCHOOLERS DOOR TO LEARNING

Valid CumValue Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent

NOT IMPORTANT 1 2 .4 .4 .4

SLIGHTLY IMPORTANT 2 3 .7 .7 1.1MODERATELY IMPORTANT 3 13 3.2 3.2 4.3VERY IMPORTANT 4 382 95.3 95.7 100.0DONT KNOW/REFUSED 6 2 .4 Missing

Total 401 100.0 100.0

Valid cases 399 Missing cases 2

- 48 -

AFRICAN AMERICAN SAMPLE

Q7 REFERENCE LIBRARY/PERSONAL INFORMATION

Valid CumValue Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent

NOT IMPORTANT 1 6 1.6 1.6 1.6SLIGHTLY IMPORTANT 2 7 1.8 1.8 3.5MODERATELY IMPORTANT 3 86 21.5 21.7 25.2VERY IMPORTANT 4 296 74.0 74.8 100.0DONT KNOW/REFUSED 6 4 1.0 Missing

Total 401 100.0 100.0

Valid cases 396 Missing cases 4

48 REFERENCE LIBRARY FOR BUSINESSES

Valid CumValue Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent

NOT IMPORTANT 1 3 .7 .7 .7

SLIGHTLY IMPORTANT 2 16 3.9 3.9 4.7MODERATELY IMPORTANT 3 66 16.4 16.5 21.1VERY IMPORTANT 4 315 78.5 78.9 100.0DONT KNOW/REFUSED 6 2 .4 Missing

Total 401 100.0 100.0

Valid cases 399 Missing cases 2

49 COMMUNITY ACTIVITY CENTER

Valid CumValue Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent

NOT IMPORTANT 1 10 2.5 2.6 2.6SLIGHTLY IMPORTANT 2 36 9.0 9.1 11.7MODERATELY IMPORTANT 3 97 24.3 24.5 36.2VERY IMPORTANT 4 253 63.1 63.8 100.0DONT KNOW/REFUSED 6 4 1.1 Missing

Total 401 100.0 100.0

Valid cases 396 Missing cases 4

- 49 -

AFRICAN AMERICAN SAMPLE

Q10 RESEARCH CENTER

Valid CumValue Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent

NOT IMPORTANT 1 6 1.5 1.5 1.5SLIGHTLY IMPORTANT 2 11 2.7 2.8 4.3MODERATELY IMPORTANT 3 44 10.9 11.0 15.4VERY IMPORTANT 4 336 83.8 84.6 100.0DONT KNOW/REFUSED 6 4 1.0 Missing

Total 401 100.0 100.0

Valid cases 397 Missing cases 4

Q11 COMMUNITY INFORMATION CENTER

Valid CumValue Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent

NOT IMPORTANT 1 3 .7 .7 .7

SLIGHTLY IMPORTANT 2 a 1.9 1.9 2.6MODERATELY IMPORTANT 3 47 11.8 11.8 14.4VERY IMPORTANT 4 341 85.2 85.6 100.0DONT KNOW/REFUSED 6 2 .4 Missing

Total 401 100.0 100.0

Valid cases 399 Missing cases 2

012 INDEPENDENT LEARNING CENTER

Valid CumValue Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent

NOT IMPORTANT 1 3 .8 .8 .8SLIGHTLY IMPORTANT 2 8 2.0 2.0 2.9MODERATELY IMPORTANT 3 16 4.0 4.1 6.9VERY IMPORTANT 4 371 92.6 93.1 100.0DONT KNOW/REFUSED 6 2 .5 Missing

Total 401 100.0 100.0

Valid cases 398 Missing cases 2

- 50 -

L!.7)

Q13 PUBLIC WORK PLACE

AFRICAN AMERICAN SAMPLE

Valid CumValue Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent

NOT IMPORTANT 1 4 .9 .9 .9

SLIGHTLY IMPORTANT 2 17 4.2 4.2 5.1

MODERATELY IMPORTANT 3 96 24.0 24.1 29.3

VERY IMPORTANT 4 282 70.5 70.7 100.0

DONT KNOW/REFUSED 6 2 .4 Missing

Total 401 100.0 100.0

Valid cases 399 Missing cases 2

Q14 POPULAR MATERIALS LIBRARY

Value LabelValid Cum

Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent

NOT IMPORTANT 1 8 1.9 2.0 2.0

SLIGHTLY IMPORTANT 2 23 5.8 5.9 7.8

MODERATELY IMPORTANT 3 122 30.4 30.7 38.5

VERY IMPORTANT 4 244 61.0 61.5 100.0

DONT KNOW/REFUSED 6 3 .8 Missing

Total 401 100.0 100.0

Valid cases 397 Missing cases 3

Q15 SUGGESTED ANNUAL SPENDING PER PERSON

Valid CumValue Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent

$0 0 9 2.1 2.4 2.4

$1 TO $20 10 142 35.4 39.7 42.1

$21 TO $40 30 92 23.0 25.8 67.9

$41 TO $60 50 21 5.3 5.9 73.8

$61 TO $80 70 12 2.9 3.3 77.1

$81 TO $100 90 41 10.1 11.4 88.4

MORE THAN $100 110 41 10.3 11.6 100.0

DONT KNOW/REFUSED 9 43 10.8 Missing

Total 401 100.0 100.0

Valid cases 357 Missing cases 43

AFRICAN AMERICAN SAMPLE

Q16 FINANCIAL SITUATION COMPARED TO LAST YR

Value Label

BETTER OFFWORSE OFFABOUT THE SAMEDONT KNOW/REFUSED

Valid cases 399

Valid CumValue Frequency Percent Percent Percent

1

2

3

5

Total

86 21.5137 34.3176 43.8

2 .4

Missing cases

21.634.444.0

Missing

401 100.0 100.0

2

21.656.0100.0

Q17 FINANCIAL SITUATION COMPARED TO NEXT YR

Value Label

BETTER OFFWORSE OFFABOUT THE SAMERA

Valid CumValue Frequency Percent Percent Percent

1 253 63.2 66.8 66.82 20 4.9 5.2 72.13 106 26.4 27.9 100.0E 22 5.5 Missing

Total 401 100.0 100.0

Valid cases 379 Missing cases 22

- 52 -

4

ARE REGION OF COUNTRY

CAUCASIAN AMERICAN SAMPLE

Valid Cum

Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent

NORTHEAST 1 190 22.5 22.5 22.5

SOUTH CENTRAL 2 264 31.2 31.2 53.7

NORTH CENTRAL 3 220 26.0 26.0 79.7

WEST 4 172 20.3 20.3 100.0

Total 846 100.0 100.0

Valid cases 846 Missing cases 0

ASEX GENDER OF RESPONDENT

Valid Cum

Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent

MALE 1 401 47.3 47.3 47.3

FEMALE 2 445 52.7 52.7 100.0

Total 846 100.0 100.0

Valid cases 846 Missing cases 0

ASTR SIZE OF COMMUNITY

Value Label Value Frequency PercentValidPercent

CumPercent

OVER 1,000,000 1 45 5.3 5.3 5.3

250,000-1,000,000 2 88 10.4 10.4 15.8

UNDER 250,000 3 713 84.2 84.2 100.0

Total 846 100.0 100.0

Valid cases 846 Missing cases 0

CAUCASIAN AMERICAN SAMPLE

AGE AGE OF RESPONDENT

Value Label Value Frequency PercentValidPercent

CumPercent

18 8 1.0 1.0 1.019 18 2.2 2.2 3.220 7 .8 . a 4.021 20 2.4 2.4 6.422 15 1.8 1.8 8.223 11 1.3 1.3 9.524 7 .8 .8 10.325 16 1.9 1.9 12.226 16 1.9 1.9 14.127 7 .9 .9 14.928 15 1.7 1.7 16.729 23 2.7 2.7 19.430 23 2.7 2.7 22.131 22 2.6 2.6 24.732 19 2.3 2.3 27.033 23 2.7 2.7 29.834 24 2.8 2.8 32.635 28 3.4 3.4 36.036 18 2.1 2.1 38.137 16 1.9 1.9 40.038 19 2.2 2.3 42.339 9 1.1 1.1 43.340 23 2.7 2.8 46.141 17 2.0 2.1 48.142 18 2.2 2.2 50.343 12 1.5 1.5 51.844 12 1.4 1.4 53.245 21 2.5 2.5 55.746 17 2.0 2.1 57.747 12 1.4 1.4 59.148 9 1.0 1.1 60.249 12 1.5 1.5 61.750 10 1.1 1.1 62.851 13 1.5 1.6 64.452 10 1.2 1.2 65.553 14 1.7 1.7 67.254 7 .8 .8 68.055 11 1.3 1.3 69.356 9 1.0 1.0 70.357 10 1.2 1.2 71.558 6 .7 .7 72.359 11 1.3 1.3 73.560 12 1.4 1.4 75.061 9 1.0 1.0 76.062 13 1.5 1.5 77.563 10 1.2 1.2 78.764 10 1.2 1.2 79.965 14 1.6 1.6 81.666 3 .4 .4 81.967 12 1.5 1.5 83.468 10 1.2 1.2 84.669 13 1.6 1.6 86.270 10 1.2 1.2 87.471 12 1.5 1.5 88.872 9 1.1 1.1 89.973 9 1.1 1.1 91.0

- 54 -

'1 '1/47,

AGE AGE OF RESPONDENT - continued

CAUCASIAN AMERICAN SAMPLE

74 6 .7 .7 91.775 10 1.2 1.2 92.976 4 .4 .4 93.377 11 1.3 1.4 94.778 9 1.1 1.1 95.879 3 .4 .4 96.280 5 .6 .6 96.881 5 .5 .5 97.382 9 1.0 1.0 98.383 2 .2 .2 98.684 4 .4 .5 99.085 1 .1 .1 99.186 3 .3 .3 99.487 3 .4 .4 99.889 3. .1 .3. 99.890 1 .1 .1 99.991 1 . .1 100.0

. 8 .9 Missing

Total 846 100.0 100.0

Valid cases 838 Missing cases 8

D2 HISPANIC OR LATINO DESCENT

Valid CumValue Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent

NO 2 844 99.8 99.8 99.8DONT KNOW/REFUSED 4 2 .2 .2 100.0

Total 846 100.0 100.0

Valid cases 846 Missing cases 0

D3 SPECIFIC HISPANIC DESCENT

Valid CumValue Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent

846 100.0 Missing

Total 846 100.0 100.0

Valid cases 0 Missing cases 846

- 55 -

Lik

CAUCASIAN AMERICAN SAMPLE

D4 RACE OF RESPONDENT

VaUd CumValue Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent

WHITE 6 846 100.0 100.0 100.0

Total 846 100.0 100.0

Valid cases 846 Missing cases 0

D5 EDUCATION LEVEL COMPLETED

Valid CumValue Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent

1ST GRADE 6 2

GRADE 7 1

.2

.1

.22ND .1

.2

.3

3RD GRADE 8 10 1.2 1.2 1.54TH GRADE 9 3 .3 .3 1.85TH GRADE 10 2 .3 .3 2.16TH GRADE 11 3 .3 .3 2.47TH GRADE 12 15 1.7 1.7 4.28TH GRADE 13 23 2.7 2.7 6.99TH GRADE 14 26 3.1 3.1 10.010TH GRADE 15 36 4.3 4.3 14.311TH GRADE 16 28 3.3 3.3 17.612TH GRADE 17 328 38.8 38.8 56.4SOME COLLEGE 18 145 17.2 17.2 73.6ASSOCIATE DEGREE 19 33 3.9 3.9 77.5BACHELORS DEGREE 20 128 15.1 15.1 92.6MASTERS DEGREE 21 36 4.2 4.3 96.8PROFESSIONAL DEGREE 22 19 2.3 2.3 99.1DOCTORAL DEGREE 23 7 .9 .9 100.0DONT KNOW/REFUSED 99 1 .1 Missing

Total 846 100.0 100.0

Valid cases 845 Missing cases 1

D6 HIGH SCHOOL DIPLOMA

Valid CumValue Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent

YES 1 346 40.9 72.7 72.7NO 2 130 15.4 27.3 100.0

. 369 43.7 Missing

Total 846 100.0 100.0

Valid cases 477 Missing cases 369

- 56 -

D7 IF ASSOCIATE DEGREE, TYPE OF PROGRAM

Value Label

OCCUPATIONAL PROGRAMACADEMIC PROGRAM

DONT KNOW/REFUSED

Valid cases

CAUCASIAN AMERICAN SAMPLE

Valid CumValue Frequency Percent Percent Percent

1 11 1.3 34.0 34.02 21 2.5 66.0 100.0. 813 96.1 Missing4 1 .1 Missing

Total 846 100.0 100.0

32 Missing cases 814

D8 MARITAL STATUS

Valid CumValue Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent

MARRIED 1 518 61.2 61.3 61.3WIDOWED 2 93 11.0 11.0 72.3DIVORCED 3 86 10.2 10.2 82.6NEVER MARRIED 4 147 17.4 17.4 100.0DONT KNOW/REFUSED 6 2 .2 Missing

Total 846 100.0 100.0

Valid cases 844 Missing cases 2

D9 IF MARRIED, LIVING WITH SPOUSE

Value Label

YESNO

DONT KNOW/REFUSED

Valid cases

Valid CumValue Frequency Percent Percent Percent

1

2

4

Total

503 59.4 97.2 97.214 1.7 2.8 100.0

328 38.8 Missing1 .1 Missing

846 100.0 100.0

517 Missing cases 329

- 57 -:I,

CAUCASIAN AMERICAN SAMPLE

D10 NUMBER OF PEOPLE LIVING IN YOUR HOME

Value Label Value Frequency PercentValid

PercentCum

Percent

1 148 17.5 17.6 17.62 294 34.7 35.0 52.73 148 17.5 17.6 70.34 151 17.9 18.0 88.35 70 8.2 8.3 96.76 20 2.4 2.4 99.17 4 .5 .5 99.68 1 .1 .1 99.79 2 .2 .2 99.9

12 1 .1 .1 100.0DONT KNOW/REFUSED 99 9 1.0 Missing

Total 846 100.0 100.0

Valid cases 837 Missing cases 9

Dll NUMBER OF PRE-SCHOOL CHILDREN IN HOME

Valid CumValue Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent

NONE 0 537 63.4 78.0 78.01 87 10.2 12.6 90.62 56 6.6 8.1 98.73 5 .6 .7 99.44 4 .5 .6 100.0. 156 18.5 Missing

DONT KNow/REFusED 99 2 .2 Missing

Total 846 100.0 100.0

Valid cases 688 Missing cases 158

- 58 -

D12 NUMBER OF STUDENTS IN HOME

Value Label Value Frequency Percent

CAUCASIAN AMERICAN SAMPLE

Valid CumPsrcent Percent

NONE 0 384 45.4 55.9 55.91 158 18.7 23.0 78.92 105 12.4 15.3 94.23 26 3.1 3.8 98.04 9 1.1 1.3 99.35 3 .3 .4 99.76 2 .2 .2 99.9

12 1 .1 .1 100.0156 18.5 Missing

DONT KNOW/REFUSED 99 2 .2 Missing

Total 846 100.0 100.0

Valid cases 688 Missing cases 158

D13 WHETHER RESPONDENT IS A STUDENT

Valid CumValue Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent

YES 1 84 9.9 10.0 10.0NO 2 759 89.7 90.0 100.0DONT KNOW/REFUSED 4 3 .4 Missing

Total 846 100.0 100.0

Valid cases 843 Missing cases 3

D14 IF STUDENT, TYPE OF PROGRAM

Valid CumValue Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent

HS OR EQUIVALENT 1 8 1.0 9.7 9.7

TRAINING PROGRAM 2 10 1.2 11.8 21.5COLLEGE 3 44 5.2 52.3 73.8GRADUATE/PROF SCHOOL 4 15 1.8 17.7 91.5

OTHER 5 7 .8 8.5 100.0762 90.1 Missing

Total 846 100.0 100.0

Valid cases 84 Missing cases 762

41AUCASIAN AMERICAN SAMPLE

D15 PRIMARY LANGUAGE SPOKEN IN HOUSEHOLD

Value LabelValid Cum

Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent

ENGLISH 6 839 99.2 99.4 99.4OTHER 11 5 .6 .6 100.0DONT KNOW/REFUSED 3 2 .2 Missing

Total 846 100.0 100.0

Valid cases 844 Missing cases 2

D16 CURRENT EMPLOYMENT STATUS

Valid CumValue Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent

EMPLOYED FULL-TIME 1 431 50.9 51.2 51.2EMPLOYED PART-TIME 2 102 12.1 12.2 63.4UNEMPLOYED 3 55 6.5 6.6 70.0RETIRED 4 185 21.9 22.0 92.0NOT IN WORK FORCE 5 68 8.0 8.0 100.0DONT KNOW/REFUSED 7 5 .6 Missing

Total 846 100.0 100.0

Valid cases 841 Missing cases 5

- 60-

CAUCASIAN AMERICAN SAMPLE

D17 ANNUAL HOUSEHOLD INCOME BEFORE TAXES

Value Label Value Frequency PercentValidPercent

CumPercent

UNDER $5,000 1 14 1.6 1.9 1.9$5,000 TO $9,999 2 39 4.6 5.4 7.3$10,000 TO $14,q99 3 58 6.9 8.0 15.3$15,000 TO $19, 99 4 60 7.1 8.3 23.6$20,000 TO $24,999 5 68 8.1 9.4 33.0$25,000 TO $29,999 6 92 10.9 12.7 45.7$30,000 TO $34,999 7 72 8.5 9.9 55.6$35,000 TO $39,999 8 74 8.7 10.2 65.8$40,000 TO $44,999 9 49 5.8 6.8 72.6$45,000 TO $49,999 10 43 5.1 5.9 78.5$50,000 TO $54,999 11 34 4.0 4.7 83.1$55,000 TO $59,999 12 19 2.3 2.7 85.8$60,000 TO $64,999 13 19 2,-3 2.7 88.5$65,000 TO $69,999 14 9 1.1 1.3 89.7$70,000 TO $74,999 15 11 1.4 1.6 91.3$75,000 OR MORE 16 63 7.4 8.7 100.0DONT KNOW/REFUSED 18 120 14.2 Missing

Total 846 100.0 100.0

Valid cases 726 Missing cases 120

D21 DISABLED PERSON IN HOUSEHOLD

Valid CumValue Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent

YES 1 119 14.1 14.3 14.3NO 2 713 84.2 85.7 100.0DONT KNOW/REFUSED 4 14 1.7 Missing

Total 846 100.0 100.0

Valid cases 832 Missing cases 14

D22 WHO IN HOUSEHOLD HAS DISABILITY

Valid CumValue Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent

RESPONDENT 1 64 7.6 54.0 54.0SOMEONE ELSE 2 46 5.4 38.6 92.6BOTH 3 9 1.0 7.4 100.0

. 727 85.9 Missing

Total 846 100.0 100.0

Valid cases 119 Missing cases 727

- 61 -

CAUCASIAN AMERICAN SAMPLE

D23 FUNCTION AFFECTED BY DISABILITY

Value Label Value Frequency PercentValid

PercentCum

Percent

SEEING 1 8 1.0 11.5 11.5HEARING 2 2 .3 3.3 14.9WALKING 3 42 5.0 57.8 72.7MENTAL FUNCTIONING 5 4 .4 5.0 77.7SOMETHING ELSE 6 16 1.9 22.3 100.0

. 773 91.3 MissingDONT KNOW/REFUSED 8 1 .1 Missing

Total 846 100.0 100.0

Valid cases 73 Missing cases 773

Q1 VOTED IN 1988 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

Valid CumValue Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent

YES 1 553 65.3 65.8 65.8NO 2 287 33.9 34.2 100.0DONT KNOW/REFUSED 4 6 .7 Missing

Total 846 100.0 100.0

Valid cases 840 Missing cases 6

Q2 GONE TO PUBLIC LIBRARY IN LAST YEAR

Valid CumValue Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent

YES 1 488 57.7 58.2 58.2NO 2 351 41.5 41.8 100.0DONT KNOW/REFUSED 4 6 .E Missing

Total 846 100.0 100.1,

Valid cases 840 Missing cases 6

- 62 -L

Q2A FREQUENCY OF LIBRARY VISITS IN LAST YEAR

Value Label Value Frequency Percent

CAUCASIAN AMERICAN SAMPLE

Valid CumPercent Percent

1 TO 5 TIMES 1 210 24.9 43.5 43.56 TO 10 TIMES 2 95 11.2 19.6 63.111 TO 15 TIMES 3 50 5.9 10.4 73.416 TO 20 TIMES 4 28 3.3 5.8 79.321 TO 25 TIMES 5 18 2.2 3.8 83.126 TIMES OR MORE 6 82 9.7 16.9 100.0

. 358 42.3 MissingDONT KNOW/REFUSED 8 5 .6 Missing

Total 846 100.0 100.0

Valid cases 484 Missing cases 362

43 HAS ANYONE GONE TO LIBRARY FOR YOU

Valid CumValue Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent

YES 1 197 23.3 23.4 23.4NO 2 647 76.5 76.6 100.0DONT KNOW/REFUSED 4 2 .2 Missing

Total 846 100.0 100.0

Valid cases 844 Missing cases 2

Q4 HAVE YOU CALLED LIBRARY FOR INFORMATION

Valid CumValue Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent

YES 1 199 23.6 23.6 23.6NO 2 646 76.3 76.4 100.0DONT KNOW/REFUSED 4 1 .1 Missing

Total 846 100.0 100.0

Valid cases 845 Missing cases

CAUCASIAN AMERICAN SAMPLE

USE ANY USE OF PUBLIC LIBRARY IN LAST YEAR

Valid CumValue Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent

NO 0 299 35.3 35.3 35.3YES 1 547 64.7 64.7 100.0

Total 846 100.0 100.0

Valid cases 846 Missing cases 0

45 FORMAL EDUCATION SUPPORT CENTER

Valid CumValue Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent

NOT IMPORTANT 1 12 1.5 1.5 1.5SLIGHTLY IMPORTANT 2 7 .9 .9 2.4MODERATELY IMPORTANT 3 75 8.9 9.0 11.4VERY IMPORTANT 4 743 87.9 88.6 100.0DONT KNOW/REFUSED 6 8 .9 Missing

Total 846 100.0 100.0

Valid cases 838 Missing cases 8

46 PRESCHOOLERS DOOR TO LEARNING

Valid CumValue Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent

NOT IMPORTANT 1 5 .6 .6 .6

SLIGHTLY IMPORTANT 2 14 1.7 1.7 2.3MODERATELY IMPORTANT 3 119 14.1 14.3 16.6VERY IMPORTANT 4 697 82.4 83.4 100.0DONT KNOW/REFUSED 6 10 1.2 Missing

Total 846 100.0 100.0

Valid cases 836 Missing cases 10

- 64 -

CAUCASIAN AMERICAN SAMPLE

47 REFERENCE LIBRARY/PERSONAL INFORMATION

Valid CumValue Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent

NOT IMPORTANT 1 17 2.1 2.1 2.1SLIGHTLY IMPORTANT 2 48 5.7 5.7 7.8MODERATELY IMPORTANT 3 373 44.1 44.4 52.2VERY IMPORTANT 4 402 47.5 47.8 100.0DONT KNOW/REFUSED 6 6 .7 Missing

Total 846 100.0 100.0

Valid cases 840 Missing cases 6

Q8 REFERENCE LIBRARY FOR BUSINESSES

Valid CumValue Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent

NOT IMPORTANT 1 24 2.8 2.9 2.9SLIGHTLY IMPORTANT 2 82 9.6 10.0 12.9MODERATELY IMPORTANT 3 265 31.3 32.4 45.2VERY IMPORTANT 4 448 53.0 54.8 100.0DONT KNOW/REFUSED 6 28 3.3 Missing

Total 846 100.0 100.0

Valid cases 818 Missing cases 28

49 COMMUNITY ACTIVITY CENTER

Valid CumValue Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent

NOT IMPORTANT 1 70 8.2 8.4 8.4SLIGHTLY IMPORTANT 2 112 13.2 13.5 21.9MODERATELY IMPORTANT 3 306 36.2 37.1 59.0VERY IMPORTANT 4 338 40.0 41.0 100.0DONT KNOW/REFUSED 6 20 2.4 Missing

Total 846 100.0 100.0

Valid cases 826 Missing cases 20

CAUCASIAN AMERICAN SAMPLE

Q10 RESEARCH CENTER

Valid CumValue Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent

NOT IMPORTANT 1 19 2.3 2.3 2.3SLIGHTLY IMPORTANT 2 58 6.8 7.0 9.3MODERATELY IMPORTANT 3 192 22.7 23.2 32.5VERY IMPORTANT 4 557 65.9 67.5 100.0DONT KNOW/REFUSED 6 20 2.4 Missing

Total 846 100.0 100.0

Valid cases 826 Missing cases 20

Q11 COMMUNITY INFORMATION CENTER

Value LabelValid Cum

Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent

NOT IMPORTANT 1 15 1.8 1.8 1.8SLIGHTLY IMPORTANT 2 44 5.2 5.3 7.1MODERATELY IMPORTANT 3 232 27.4 27.9 34.9VERY IMPORTANT 4 541 64.0 65.1 100.0DONT KrOW/REFUSED 6 14 1.7 Missing

Total 846 100.0 100.0

Valid cases 832 Missing cases 14

Q12 INDEPENDENT LEARNING CENTER

Valid CumValue Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent

NOT IMPORTANT 1 6 .8 .8 .8SLIGHTLY IMPORTANT 2 18 2.1 2.2 2.9MODERATELY IMPORTANT 3 104 12.3 12.4 15.3VERY IMPORTANT 4 710 83.9 84.7 100.0DONT KNOW/REFUSED 6 7 .9 Missing

Total 846 100.0 100.0

Valid cases 839 Missing cases 7

- 66-

1 C..

Q13 PUBLIC WORK PLACE

CAUCASIAN AMERICAN SAMPLE

Valid Cum

Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent

NOT IMPORTANT 1 31 3.7 3.7 3.7

SLIGHTLY IMPORTANT 2 68 8.0 8.1 11.8

MODERATELY IMPORTANT 3 305 36.0 36.5 48.3

VERY IMPORTANT 4 432 51.0 51.7 100.0

DONT KNOW/REFUSED 6 11 1.3 Missing

Total 846 100.0 100.0

Valid cases 835 Missing cases 11

Q14 POPULAR MATERIALS LIBRARY

Valid Cum

Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent

NOT IMPORTANT 1 26 3.1 3.1 3.1

SLIGHTLY IMPORTANT 2 78 9.2 9.3 12.4

MODERATELY IMPORTANT 3 294 34.8 35.3 47.7

VERY IMPORTANT 4 436 51.6 52.3 100.0

DONT KNOW/REFUSED 6 12 1.4 Missing

Total 846 100.0 100.0

Valid cases 834 Missing cases 12

Q15 SUGGESTED ANNUAL SPENDING PER PERSON

Valid CumValue Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent

$1 TO $20 10 292 34.5 39.6 39.6

$21 TO $40 30 224 26.5 30.4 70.0

$41 TO $60 50 113 13.3 15.3 85.3

$61 TO $80 70 43 5.0 5.8 91.1

$81 TO $100 90 35 4.2 4.8 95.8

MORE THAN $100 110 31 3.6 4.2 100.0

DONT KNOW/REFUSED 9 109 12.9 Missing

Total 846 100.0 100.0

Valid cases 737 Missing cases 109

- 67 -

CAUCASIAN AMERICAN SAMPLE

Q16 FINANCIAL SITUATION COMPARED TO LAST YR

Valid CumValue Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent

BETTER OFF 1 208 24.6 24.8 24.8WORSE OFF 2 193 22.9 23.0 47.8ABOUT THE SAME 3 438 51.8 52.2 100.0DONT KNOW/REFUSED 5 6 .7 Missing

Total 846 100.0 100.0

Valid cases 840 Missing cases 6

Q17 FINANCIAL SITUATION COMPARED TO NEXT YR

Valid CumValue Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent

BETTER OFF 1 360 42.6 44.5 44.5WORSE OFF 2 65 7.7 8.1 52.5ABOUT THE SAME 3 385 45.5 47.5 100.0RA 5 36 4.3 Missing

Total 846 100.0 100.0

Valid cases 810 Missing cases 36

- 68 -

9

ARE REGION OF COUNTRY

HISPANIC AMERICAN SAMPLE

Valid Cum

Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent

NORTHEAST 1 52 13.1 13.1 13.1

SOUTH CENTRAL 2 130 32.7 32.7 45.8

NORTH CENTRAL 3 36 9.0 9.0 54.7

WEST 4 181 45.3 45.3 100.0

Total 399 100.0 100.0

Valid cases 399 Missing cases 0

ASEX GENDER OF RESPONDENT

Valid Cum

Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent

MALE 1 192 48.1 48.1 48.1

FEMALE 2 207 51.9 51.9 100.0

Total 399 100.0 100.0

Valid cases 399 Missing cases 0

ASTR % OF COMMUNITY WHICH IS HISPANIC

Value Label Value Frequency PercentValid

PercentCum

Percent

HIGH 41%-100% 1 94 23.6 23.6 23.6

MODERATE 11%-40% 2 121 30.4 30.4 54.0

LOW 0%-10% 3 184 46.0 46.0 100.0

Total 399 100.0 100.0

Valid cases 399 Missing cases 0

- 69 -

`-.1 :1) L.)

HISPANIC AMERICAN SAMPLE

AGE AGE OF RESPONDENT

Value Label Value Frequency PercentValid

PercentCum

Percent

18 8 2.1 2.2 2.219 4 1.0 1.0 3.220 5 1.4 1.4 4.621 6 1.6 1.6 6.222 13 3.1 3.2 9.423 20 5.0 5.1 14.524 14 3.5 3.5 18.125 10 2.6 2.6 20.726 6 1.5 1.5 22.227 21 5.3 5.4 27.628 8 1.9 2.0 29.629 7 1.8 1.8 31.430 16 4.0 4.1 35.531 7 1.8 1.9 37.432 9 2.3 2.3 39.733 9 2.2 2.2 41.934 22 5.4 5.5 47.435 9 2.3 2.3 49.736 32 8.1 8.3 58.037 17 4.3 4.4 62.438 3 .8 .9 63.339 5 1.3 1.3 64.540 2 .5 .5 65.041 5 1.3 1.3 66.342 1 .3 .3 66.743 1 .3 .3 67.044 5 1.2 1.2 68.245 3 .7 .7 68.946 6 1.4 1.4 70.347 6 1.5 1.5 71.948 1 .3 .3 72.149 2 .6 .6 72.750 7 1.7 1.7 74.451 4 1.1 1.1 75.552 3 .6 .6 76.253 5 1.3 1.3 77.554 17 4.2 4.2 81.755 2 .4 .4 82.156 3 .8 .8 83.057 4 .9 .9 83.958 5 1.2 1.2 85.159 3 .7 .7 85.860 3 .8 .8 86.661 10 2.5 2.5 89.162 0 .1 .1 89.264 1 .4 .4 89.665 2 .4 .4 90.066 1 .1 .1 90.168 1 .2 .2 90.369 3 .6 .7 90.970 8 2.0 2.0 92.971 12 3.1 3.2 96.172 0 .1 .1 96.273 3 .7 .7 96.974 2 .5 .5 97.475 1 .2 .2 97.6

- 70 -

AGE AGE OF RESPONDENT - continued

7778808486

1

4041

8

.2

1.0.1.9

.21.9

HISPANIC AMERICAN SAMPLE

.2 97.81.0 98.8.1 98.9.9 99.8.2 100.0

Missing

Total 399 100.0 100.0

Valid cases 392 Missing cases 8

D2 HISPANIC OR LATINO DESCENT

Valid CumValue Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent

YES 1 399 100.0 100.0 100.0

Total 399 100.0 100.0

Valid cases 399 Missing cases 0

D3 SPECIFIC HISPANIC DESCENT

Valid CumValue Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent

MEXICAN 1 129 32.3 32.5 32.5

MEXICAN AMERICAN 2 141 35.2 35.5 68.0

PUERTO RICAN 3 47 11.8 11.9 79.9

CUBAN 4 11 2.7 2.8 82.6OTHER 5 69 17.3 17.4 100.0

DONT KNOW/REFUSED 7 3 .7 Missing

Total 399 100.0 100.0

Valid cases 397 Missing cases 3

HISPANIC AMERICAN SAMPLE

D4 RACE OF RESPONDENT

Value Label Value Frequency PercentValidPercent

CumPercent

WHITE 6 75 18.9 19.0 19.0

BLACK 7 8 2.0 2.0 21.0

AMERICAN INDIAN 8 0 .1 .1 21.1

ASIAN/PACIFIC ISL 9 0 .0 .0 21.1

HISPANIC/MEXICAN 12 257 64.3 64.6 85.7

OTHER 13 57 14.2 14.3 100.0

DONT KNOW/REFUSED 3 2 .5 Missing

Total 399 100.0 100.0

Valid cases 398 Missing cases 2

D5 EDUCATION LEVEL COMPLETED

Valid Cum

Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent

KINDERGARTEN OR LESS 4 2 .4 .4 .4

1ST GRADE 6 14 3.6 3.7 4.1

2ND GRADE 7 3 .7 .7 4.7

3RD GRADE 8 20 5.0 5.0 9.8

4TH GRADE 9 3 .8 .8 10.6

5TH GRADE 10 19 4.8 4.9 15.5

6TH GRADE 11 25 6.4 6.4 21.9

7TH GRADE 12 4 .9 .9 22.9

8TH GRADE 13 11 2.6 2.7 25.5

9TH GRADE 14 17 4.3 4.3 29.9

10TH GRADE 15 16 4.0 4.0 33.9

11TH GRADE 16 41 10.2 10.3 44.3

12TH GRADE 17 123 30.7 31.1 75.4

SOME COLLEGE 18 54 13.4 13.6 89.0

ASSOCIATE DEGREE 19 7 1.7 1.8 90.7

BACHELORS DEGREE 20 28 7.0 7.1 97.9

MASTERS DEGREE 21 2 .6 .6 98.5

PROFESSIONAL DEGREE 22 5 1.2 1.2 99.7

DOCTORAL DEGREE 23 1 .3 .3 100.0

DONT KNOW/REFUSED 99 5 1.4 Missing

Total 399 100.0 100.0

Valid cases 394 Missing cases 5

HISPANIC AMERICAN SAMPLE

D6 HIGH SCHOOL DIPLOMA

Valid CumValue Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent

YES 1 137 34.2 46.0 46.0NO 2 160 40.0 53.8 99.9RA 4 0 .1 .1 100.0

. 102 25.7 Missing

Total 399 100.0 100.0

Valid cases 297 Missing cases 102

D7 IF ASSOCIATE DEGREE, TYPE OF PROGRAM

Valid CumValue Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent

OCCUPATIONAL PROGRAMACADEMIC PROGRAM

DONT KNOW/REFUSED

1 5 1.2 68.2 68.22 2 .6 31.8 100.0. 392 98.3 Missing4 0 .0 Missing

Total 399 100.0 100.0

Valid cases 7 Missing cases 392

D8 MARITAL STATUS

Valid CumValue Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent

MARRIED 1 , 224 56.2 58.9 58.9WIDOWED 2 14 3.5 3.7 62.7DIVORCED 3 36 8.9 9.4 72.0NEVER MARRIED 4 107 26.7 28.0 100.0DONT KNOW/REFUSED 6 19 4.6 Missing

Total 399 100.0 100.0

Valid cases 381 Missing cases 19

- 73 -

HISPANIC AMERICAN SAMPLE

D9 IF MARRIED, LIVING WITH SPOUSE

Value LabelValid Cum

Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent

YES 1 214 53.6 95.4 95.4NO 2 10 2.6 4.6 300.0

175 43.8 Missing

Total 399 100.0 100.0

Valid cases 224 Missing cases 175

D10 NUMBER OF PEOPLE LIVING IN YOUR HOME

Value LabelValid Cum

Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent

1 25 6.3 6.6 6.62 92 23.1 24.1 30.63 79 19.9 20.7 51.34 81 20.2 21.0 72.35 43 10.7 11.1 83.56 55 13.7 14.3 97.77 5 1.2 1.3 99.08 2 .6 .6 99.6

10 1 .2 .2 99.811 1 .1 .2 100.012 0 .0 .0 100.0

DONT KNOW/REFUSED 99 16 4.1 Missing

Total 399 100.0 100.0

Valid cases 383 Missing cases 16

Dll NUMBER OF PRE-SCHOOL CHILDREN IN HOME

Valid CumValue Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent

NONE 0 259 64.9 72.4 72.41 73 18.2 20.3 92.62 20 5.0 5.5 98.23 4 .9 1.0 99.24 3 .7 .8 100.0

41 10.4 Missing

Total 399 100.0 100.0

Valid cases 358 Missing cases 41

- 74 -

L.4

D12 NUMBER OF STUDENTS

Value Label

IN HOME

Value Frequency Percent

HISPANIC AMERICAN SAMPLE

Valid CumPercent Percent

NONE 0 183 45.9 51.2 51.21 81 20.3 22.6 73.82 56 14.0 15.7 89.53 26 6.6 7.4 96.84 11 2.8 3.1 99.95 0 .0 .1 100.0

10 0 .0 .0 100.0. 41 10.4 Missing

Total 399 100.0 100.0

Valid cases 358 Missing cases 41

D13 WHETHER RESPONDENT IS A STUDENT

Valid CumValue Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent

YES 1 74 18.6 19.4 19.4NO 2 309 77.5 80.6 100.0DONT KNOW/REFUSED 4 16 3.9 Missing

Total 399 100.0 100.0

Valid cases 384 Missing cases 16

D14 IF STUDENT, TYPE OF PROGRAM

Valid CumValue Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent

HS OR EQUIVALENT 1 30 7.4 39.7 39.7TRAINING PROGRAM 2 9 2.3 12.2 52.0COLLEGE 3 29 7.4 39.5 91.4GRADUATE/PROF SCHOOL 4 5 1.2 6.3 97.8OTHER 5 2 .4 2.2 100.0

325 81.4 Missing

Total 399 100.0 100.0

Valid cases

1MMINI

74 Missing cases 325

- 75 -

.2;

BISPANIC AMERICAN SAMPLE

D15 PRIMARY LANGUAGE SPOKEN IN HOUSEHOLD

Valid CumValue Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent

ENGLISH 6 203 50.7 52.2 52.2SPANISH 7 108 27.1 27.9 80.1ENGLISH/SPANISH 8 73 18.2 18.7 98.8SOUTHEAST ASIAN 9 0 .0 .0 98.9OTHER 11 4 1.1 1.1 100.0DONT KNOW/REFUSED 3 11 2.8 Missing

Total 399 100.0 100.0

Valid cases 388 Missing cases 11

D16 CURRENT EMPLOYMENT STATUS

Valid CumValue Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent

EMPLOYED FULL-TIME 1 199 49.9 51.9 51.9EMPLOYED PART-TIME 2 45 11.4 11.8 63.7UNEMPLOYED 3 30 7.6 7.9 71.6RETIRED 4 42 10.4 10.8 82.4NOT IN WORK FORCE 5 68 16.9 17.6 100.0DONT KNOW/REFUSED 7 15 3.8 Missing

Total 399 100.0 100.0

Valid cases 384 Missing cases 15

- 76 -

D17 ANNUAL HOUSEHOLD INCOME BEFORE TAXES

Value Label Value Frequency Percent

HISPANIC AMERICAN SAMPLE

Valid CumPercent Percent

UNDER $5,000 1 20 5.1 6.0 6.0$5,000 TO $9,999 2 42 10.6 12.6 18.6$10,000 TO $14,999 3 41 10.3 12.2 30.9$15,000 TO $19,999 4 44 11.1 13.2 44.1$20,000 TO $24,999 5 33 8.2 9.7 53.8$25,000 TO $29,999 6 33 8.3 9.8 63.7$30,000 TO $34,999 7 29 7.2 8.6 72.2$35,000 TO $39,999 8 23 5.8 6.9 79.1$40,000 TO $44,999 9 21 5.3 6.3 85.4$45,000 TO $49,999 10 6 1.5 1.8 87.3$50,000 TO $54,999 11 19 4.7 5.6 92.9$55,000 TO $59,999 12 0 .1 .1 93.0$60,000 TO $64,999 13 3 .9 1.0 94.0$65,000 TO $69,999 14 1 .3 .4 94.3$70,000 TO $74,999 15 7 1.9 2.2 96.6$75,000 OR MORE 16 12 2.9 3.4 100.0DONT KNOW/REFUSED 18 63 15.8 Missing

Total 399 100.0 100.0

Valid cases 336 Missing cases 63

D21 DISABLED PERSON IN HOUSEHOLD

Value LabelValid Cum

Value Frequency Percent Percent Perce -

YES 1 53 13.2 13.8 13.8NO 2 328 82.2 86.2 100.0DONT KNOW/REFUSED 4 19 4.7 Missing

Valid cases 381

Total 399 100.0 100.0

Missing cases 19

D22 WHO IN HOUSEHOLD HAS DISABILITY

Valid CumValue Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent

RESPONDENT 1 11 2.8 20.9 20.9SOMEONE ELSE 2 39 9.8 74.7 95.5BOTH 3 2 .6 4.5 100.0

347 86.8 Missing

Total 399 100.0 100.0

Valid cases 53 Missing cases 347

- 77 -

HISPANIC AMERICAN SAMPLE

D23 FUNCTION AFFECTED BY DISABILITY

Valid CumValue Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent

SEEING 1 1 .1 4.4 4.4HEARING 2 2 .6 17.6 22.0WALKING 3 6 1.4 42.2 64.2SOMETHING ELSE 6 5 1.2 35.8 100.0

. 386 96.7 Missing

Valid cases

Total 399 100.0 100.0

13 Missing cases 386

41 VOTED IN 1988 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

Valid CumValue Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent

YES 1 144 36.0 37.1 37.1NO 2 244 61.0 62.9 100.0DONT KNOW/REFUSED 4 12 3.0 Missing

Total 399 100.0 100.0

Valid cases 388 Missing cases 12

Q2 GONE TO PUBLIC LIBRARY IN LAST YEAR

Valid CumValue Label Value F equency Percent Percent Percent

YES 1 207 51.7 51.8 51.8NO 2 192 48.1 48.2 100.0DONT KNOW/REFUSED 4 0 .1 Missing

Total 399 100.0 100.0

Valid cases 399 Missing cases 0

- 78 - !.)

Q2A FREQUENCY OF LIBRARY VISITS IN LAST YEAR

Value Label Value Frequency Percent

HISPANIC AMERICAN SAMPLE

Valid CumPercent Percent

1 TO 5 TIMES 1 87 21.9 42.8 62.86 TO 10 TIMES 2 51 12.8 25.1 67.911 TO 15 TIMES 3 15 3.7 7.3 75.216 TO 20 TIMES 4 13 3.2 6.3 81.521 TO 25 TIMES 5 2 .5 1.0 82.526 TIMES OR MORE 6 36 9.0 17.5 100.0

193 48.3 MissingDONT KNOW/REFUSED 8 3 .7 Missing

Total 399 100.0 100.0

Valid cases 204 Missing cases 196

43 HAS ANYONE GONE TO LIBRARY FOR YOU

Valid CumValue Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent

YES 1 89 22.2 22.3 22.3NO 2 309 77.4 77.7 100.0DONT KNOW/REFUSED 4 2 .4 Missing

Total 399 100.0 100.0

Valid cases 398 Missing cases 2

Q4 HAVE YOU CALLED LIBRARY FOR INFORMATION

Valid CumValue Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent

YES 1 80 20.1 20.2 20.2NO 2 318 79.5 79.8 100.0DONT KNOW/REFUSED 4 1 .4 Missing

Total 399 100.0 100.0

Valid cases 398 Missing cases 1

- 79 -

HISPANIC AMERICAN SAMPLE

USE ANY USE OF PUBLIC LIBRARY IN LAST YEAR

Valid CumValue Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent

NO 0 154 38.5 38.5 38.5YES 1 246 61.5 61.5 100.0

Total 399 100.0 100.0

Valid cases 399 Missing cases 0

45 FORMAL EDUCATION SUPPORT CENTER

Valid CumValue Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent

NOT IMPORTANT 1 0 .1 .1 .1

SLIGHTLY IMPORTANT 2 8 2.0 2.0 2.2MODERATELY IMPORTANT 3 16 3.9 4.1 6.2VERY IMPORTANT 4 363 91.0 93.8 100.0DONT KNOW/REFUSED 6 12 3.0 Missing

Total 399 100.0 100.0

Valid cases 387 Missing cases 12

Q6 PRESCHOOLERS DOOR TO LEARNING

Valid CumValue Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent

NOT IMPORTANT 1 1 .2 .2 .2

SLIGHTLY IMPORTANT 2 7 1.7 1.7 1.9MODERATELY IMPORTANT 3 20 5.1 5.1 7.0VERY IMPORTANT 4 371 93.0 93.0 100.0DONT KNOW/REFUSED 6 0 .1 Missing

Total 399 100.0 100.0

Valid cases 399 Missing cases 0

- 80 -

47 REFERENCE LIBRARY/PERSONAL INFORMATION

HISPANIC AMERICAN SAMPLE

Valid CumValue Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent

NOT IMPORTANT 1 8 2.0 2.0 2.0SLIGHTLY IMPORTANT 2 19 4.7 4.8 6.9MODERATELY IMPORTANT 3 124 31.0 32.0 38.9VERY IMPORTANT 4 237 59.4 61.1 100.0DONT KNOW/REFUSED 6 11 2.9 Missing

Total 399 100.0 100.0

Valid cases 388 Missing cases 11

Q8 REFERENCE LIBRARY FOR BUSINESSES

Valid CumValue Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent

NOT IMPORTANT 1 4 1.1 1.1 1.1SLIGHTLY IMPORTANT 2 33 8.3 8.5 9.6MODERATELY IMPORTANT 3 68 17.1 17.7 27.3VERY IMPORTANT 4 282 70.5 72.7 100.0DONT KNOW/REFUSED 6 12 3.0 Missing

Total 399 100.0 100.0

Valid cases 387 Missing cases 12

09 COMMUNITY ACTIVITY CENTER

Valid CumValue Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent

NOT IMPORTANT 1 15 3.8 3.9 3.9SLIGHTLY IMPORTANT 2 29 7.2 7.5 11.3

MODERATELY IMPORTANT 3 106 26.4 27.2 38.5

VERY IMPORTANT 4 238 59.7 61.5 100.0

DONT KNOW/REFUSED 6 12 2.9 Missing

Total 399 100.0 100.0

Valid cases 388 Missing cases 12

- 81 -

iRJ

HISPANIC AMERICAN SAMPLE

Q10 RESEARCH CENTER

Valid CumValue Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent

NOT IMPORTANT 1 7 1.8 1.8 1.8SLIGHTLY IMPORTANT 2 7 1.8 1.8 3.5

MODERATELY IMPORTANT 3 49 12.3 12.3 15.8VERY IMPORTANT 4 336 84.1 84.2 100.0DONT KNOW/REFUSED 6 1 .1 Missing

Total 399 100.0 100.0

Valid cases 399 Missing cases 1

Q11 COMMUNITY INFORMATION CENTER

Valid CumValue Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent

NOT IMPORTANT 1 1 .3 .3 .3

SLIGHTLY IMPORTANT 2 14 3.4 3.4 3.7

MODERATELY IMPORTANT 3 44 10.9 10.9 14.7VERY IMPORTANT 4 341 85.3 85.3 100.0DONT KNOW/REFUSED 6 0 .1 Missing

T)tal 399 100.0 100.0

Valid cases 399 Missing cases 0

Q12 INDEPENDENT LEARNING CENTER

Valid CumValue Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent

NOT IMPORTANT 1 0 .1 .1 .1

SLIGHTLY IMPORTANT 2 3 .7 .7 .8

MODERATELY IMPORTANT 3 15 3.9 3.9 4.6VERY IMPORTANT 4 381 95.3 95.4 100.0DONT KNow/RF USED 6 0 .1 Missing

Total 399 100.0 100.0

Valid cases 399 Missing cases 0

- 82 -)

Q13 PUBLIC WORK PLACE

HISPANIC AMERICAN SAMPLE

Valid CumValue Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent

NOT IMPORTANT 1 11 2.6 2.6 2.6

SLIGHTLY IMPORTANT 2 23 5.8 5.8 8.5MODERATELY IMPORTANT 3 66 16.6 16.6 25.1VERY IMPORTANT 4 298 74.7 74.9 100.0DONT KNOW/REFUSED 6 1 .3 Missing

Total 399 100.0 100.0

Valid cases 398 Missing cases 1

Q14 POPULAR MATERIALS LIBRARY

Valid CumValue Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent

NOT IMPORTANT 1 12 3.1 3.2 3.2SLIGHTLY IMPORTANT 2 19 4.9 5.0 8.2

MODERATELY IMPORTANT 3 134 33.4 34.4 42.6VERY IMPORTANT 4 223 55.7 57.4 100.0DONT KNOW/REFUSED 6 11 2.9 Missing

Total 399 100.0 100.0

Valid cases 388 Missing cases 11

Q15 SUGGESTED ANNUAL SPENDING PER PERSON

Valid CumValue Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent

$1 TO $20 10 146 36.5 45.3 45.3$21 TO $40 30 74 18.6 23.1 68.4$41 TO $60 50 21 5.3 6.6 75.0$61 TO $80 70 22 5.6 7.0 82.0$81 TO $100 90 3 .8 1.0 83.0MORE THAN $100 110 55 13.7 17.0 100.0DONT KNOW/REFUSED 9 78 19.4 Missing

Total 399 100.0 100.0

Valid cases 322 Missing cases 78

HISPANIC AMERICAN SAMPLE

Q16 FINA,NCIAL SITUATION COMPARED TO LAST YR

Valid CumValue Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent

BETTER OFF 1 102 25.6 26.4 26.4WORSE OFF 2 96 24.1 24.9 51.3ABOUT THE SAME 3 188 47.2 48.7 100.0DONT KNOW/REFUSED 5 13 3.2 Missing

Total 399 100.0 100.0

Valid cases 387 Missing cases 13

Q17 FINANCIAL SITUATION COMPARED TO NEXT YR

Valid CumValue Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent

BETTER OFF 1 200 50.1 58.5 58.5WORSE OFF 2 28 7.0 8.2 66.8ABOUT THE SAME 3 114 28.5 33.2 100.0RA 5 58 14.4 Missing

Total 399 100.0 100.0

Valid cases 342 Missing cases 58

- 84 --4. t,

ARE REGION OF COUNTRY

OPINION LEADERS SAMPLE

Valid CumValue Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent

NORTHEAST 1 36 12.0 12.0 12.0SOUTH CENTRAL 2 104 34.7 34.8 46.8NORTH CENTRAL 3 81 27.0 27.1 73.9WEST 4 78 26.0 26.1 100.0

9 1 .3 Missing

Total 300 100.0 100.0

Valid cases 299 Missing cases 1

- 85 -

OPINION LEADERS SAMPLE

AGE AGE OF RESPONDENT

Value Label Value Frequency PercentValidPercent

CumPercent

20 2 .7 .7 .7

23 2 .7 .7 1.325 6 2.0 2.0 3.426 3 1.0 1.0 4.427 2 .7 .7 5.028 4 1.3 1.3 6.429 5 1.7 1.7 8.130 4 1.3 1.3 9.431 4 1.3 1.3 10.732 2 .7 .7 11.433 2 .7 .7 12.134 6 2.0 2.0 14.135 6 2.0 2.0 16.136 4 1.3 1.3 17.437 7 2.3 2.3 19.838 6 2.0 2.0 21.839 17 5.7 5.7 27.540 4 1.3 1.3 28.941 10 3.3 3.4 32.242 18 6.0 6.0 38.343 13 4.3 4.4 42.644 11 3.7 3.7 46.345 13 4.3 4.4 50.746 9 3.0 3.0 53.747 12 4.0 4.0 57.748 12 4.0 4.0 61.749 13 4.3 4.4 66.150 7 2.3 2.3 68.551 14 4.7 4.7 73.252 4 1.3 1.3 74.553 6 2.0 2.0 76.554 3 1.0 1.0 77.555 8 2.7 2.7 80.256 6 2.0 2.0 82.257 13 4.3 4.4 86.658 6 2.0 2.0 88.659 5 1.7 1.7 90.360 6 2.0 2.0 92.361 4 1.3 1.3 93.663 5 1.7 1.7 95.364 1 .3 .3 95.665 1 .3 .3 96.066 2 .7 .7 96.667 1 .3 .3 97.068 3 1.0 1.0 98.070 2 .7 .7 98.772 1 .3 .3 99.077 1 .3 .3 99.382 1 .3 .3 99.783 1 .3 .3 100.0

. 2 .7 Missing

Total 300 100.0 100.0

Valid cases 298 Missing cases 2

- 86 -o f,)

OPINION LEADERS SAMPLE

D2 HISPANIC OR LATINO DESCENT

Valid CumValue Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent

YES 1 5 1.7 1.7 1.7

NO 2 294 98.0 98.3 100.0

DONT KNOW/REFUSED 4 1 .3 Missing

Total 300 100.0 100.0

Valid cases 299 Missing cases 1

D3 SPECIFIC HISPANIC DESCENT

Value Label Value Frequency PercentValid

PercentCum

Percent

MEXICAN 1 1 .3 20.0 20.0

MEXICAN AMERICAN 2 2 .7 40.0 60.0PUERTO RICAN 3 1 .3 20.0 80.0OTHER 5 1 .3 20.0 100.0

295 98.3 Missing

Total 300 100.0 100.0

Valid cases 5 Missing cases 295

D4 RACE OF RESPONDENT

Value Label Value Frequency PercentValid

PercentCum

Percent

WHITE 6 277 92.3 92.6 92.6

BLACK 7 13 4.3 4.3 97.0

AMERICAN INDIAN 8 2 .7 .7 97.7ASIAN/PACIFIC ISL 9 2 .7 .7 98.3

HISPANIC/MEXICAN 12 2 .7 .7 99.0

OTHER 13 3 1.0 1.0 100.0

DONT KNOW/REFUSED 3 1 .3 Missing

Total 300 100.0 100.0

Valid cases 299 Missing cases 1

OPINION LEADERS SAMPLE

D5 EDUCATION LEVEL COMPLETED

Value Label Value Frequency PercentValidPercent

CumPercent

OTHER 1 4 1.3 1.3 1.37TH GRADE 12 1 .3 .3 1.711TH GRADE 16 2 .7 .7 2.312TH GRADE 17 22 7.3 7.4 9.7SOME COLLEGE 18 34 11.3 11.4 21.1ASSOCIATE DEGREE 19 3 1.0 1.0 22.1BACHELORS DEGREE 20 100 33.3 33.4 55.5MASTERS DEGREE 21 80 26.7 26.8 82.3PROFESSIONAL DEGREE 22 23 7.7 7.7 90.0DOCTORAL DEGREE 23 30 10.0 10.0 100.0DONT KNOW/REFUSED 99 1 .3 Missing

Total 300 100.0 100.0

Valid cases 299 Missing cases 1

D6 HIGH SCHOOL DIPLOMA

Valid CumValue Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent

YES

Valid cases

1 25 8.3 100.0 100.0275 91.7 Missing

Total 300 100.0 100.0

25 Missing cases 275

D7 IF ASSOCIATE DEGREE, TYPE OF PROGRAM

Valid CumValue Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent

ACADEMIC PROGRAM

Valid cases

2 3 1.0 100.0 100.0297 99.0 Missing

Total 300 100.0 100.0

3 Missing cases 297

- 88 -

D8 MARITAL STATUS

OPINION LEADERS SAMPLE

Valid CumValue Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent

MARRIED 1 213 71.0 71.2 71.2

WIDOWED 2 6 2.0 2.0 73.2

DIVORCED 3 37 12.3 12.4 85.6

NEVER MARRIED 4 43 14.3 14.4 100.0DONT KNOW/REFUSED 6 1 .3 Missing

Total 300 100.0 100.0

Valid cases 299 Missing cases 1

09 IF MARRIED, LIVING WITH SPOUSE

Valid CumValue Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent

YES 1 213 71.0 100.0 100.087 29.0 Missing

Total 300 100.0 100.0

Valid cases 213 Missing cases 87

D10 NUMBER OF PEOPLE LIVING IN YOUR HOME

Valid CumValue Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent

1 53 17.7 17.8 17.82 98 32.7 33.0 50.83 59 19.7 19.9 70.74 52 17.3 17.5 88.25 25 8.3 R.4 96.66 8 2.7 2.7 99.37 2 .7 .7 100.0

DONT KNOW/REFUSED 99 3 1.0 Missing

Total 300 100.0 100.0

Valid cases 297 Missing cases 3

OPINION LEADERS SAMPLE

Dll NUMBER OF PRE-SCHOOL CHILDREN IN HOME

Value Label Value Frequency PercentValidPercent

CumPercent

NONE 0 210 70.0 86.1 86.11 24 8.0 9.8 95.92 9 3.0 3.7 99.63 1 .3 .4 100.0. 56 18.7 Missing

Total 300 100.0 100.(s

Valid cases 244 Missing cases 56

D12 NUMBER OF STUDENTS IN HOME

Valid CumValue Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent

NONE 0 118 39.3 48.4 48.41 53 17.7 21.7 70.12 46 15.3 18.9 88.93 21 7.0 8.6 97.54 3 1.0 1.2 98.85 3 1.0 1.2 100.0

56 18.7 Missing

Total 300 100.0 100.0

Valid cases 244 Missing cases 56

D13 WHETHER RESPONDENT IS A STUDENT

Valid CumValue Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent

YES 1 18 6.0 6.0 6.0NO 2 282 94.0 94.0 100.0

Total 300 100.0 100.0

Valid cases 300 Missing cases 0

- 90 -

D14 IF STUDENT, TYPE OF PROGRAM

Value Label

OPINION LEADERS SAMPLE

Valid CumValue Frequency Percent Percent Percent

TRAINING PROGRAM 2 1 .3 5,6 5.6COLLEGE 3 3 1.0 16.7 22.2GRADUATE/PROF SCHOOL 4 9 3.0 50.0 72.2OTHER 5 5 1.7 27.8 100.0

. 282 94.0 Missing

Valid cases

Total 300 100.0 100.0

18 Missing cases 282

D15 PRIMARY LANGUAGE SPOKEN IN HOUSEHOLD

Value LabelValid Cum

Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent

ENGLISH 6 295 98.3 98.7 98.7ENGLISH/SPANISH 8 1 .3 .3 99.0SOUTHEAST ASIAN 9 1 .3 .3 99.3OTHER 11 2 .7 .7 100.0DONT KNOW/REFUSED 3 1 .3 Missing

Total 300 100.0 100.0

Valid cases 299 Missing cases 1

D16 CURRENT EMPLOYMENT STATUS

Value Label Value Frequency PercentValidPercent

CumPercent

EMPLOYED FULL-TIME 1 278 92.7 93.0 93.0EMPLOYED PART-TIME 2 12 4.0 4.0 97.0RETIRED 4 3 1.0 1.0 98.0NOT IN WORK FORCE 5 6 2.0 2.0 100.0DONT KNOW/REFUSED 7 1 .3 Missing

Total 300 100.0 100.0

Valid cases 299 Missing cases 1

- 91 -

OPINION LEADERS SAMPLE

D17 ANNUAL HOUSEHOLD INCOME BEFORE TAXES

Value Label Value Frequency PercentValidPercent

CumPercent

UNDER $5,000 1 1 .3 .4 .4

$5,000 TO $9,999 2 3 1.0 1.1 1.5$10,000 TO $14,999 3 4 1.3 1.5 2.9$15,000 TO $19,999 4 7 2.3 2.6 5.5$20,000 TO $24,999 5 5 1.7 1.8 7.3$25,000 TO $29,999 6 14 4.7 5.1 12.5$30,000 TO $34,999 7 9 3.0 3.3 15.8$35,000 TO $39,999 8 14 4.7 5.1 20.9$40,000 TO $44,999 9 25 8.3 9.2 30.0$45,000 TO $49,999 10 18 6.0 6.6 36.6$50,000 TO $54,999 11 22 7.3 8.1 44.7$55,000 TO $59,999 12 12 4.0 4.4 49.1$60,000 TO $64,999 13 18 6.0 6.6 55.7$65,000 TO $69,999 14 9 3.0 3.3 59.0$70,000 TO $74,999 15 17 5.7 6.2 65.2$75,000 OR MORE 16 95 31.7 34.8 100.0DONT KNOW/REFUSED 18 27 9.0 Missing

Total 300 100.0 100.0

Valid cases 273 Missing cases 27

D21 DISABLED PERSON IN HOUSEHOLD

Valid CumValue Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent

YES 1 14 4.7 4.7 4.7NO 2 284 94.7 95.3 100.0DONT KNOW/REFUSED 4 2 .7 Missing

Total 300 100.0 100.0

Valid cases 298 Missing cases 2

D22 WHO IN HOUSEHOLD HAS DISABILITY

Value Label

RESPONDENTSOMEONE ELSE

DONT KNOW/REFUSED

Valid CumValue Frequency Percent Percent Percent

1 3 1.0 23.1 23.12 10 3.3 76.9 100.0. 286 95.3 Missing5 1 .3 Missing

Total 300 100.0 100.0

Valid cases 13 Missing cases 287

- 92 -

OPINION LEADERS SAMPLE

D23 FUNCTION AFFECTED BY DISABILITY

Valid CumValue Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent

SEEING 1 1 .3 33.3 33.3

HEARING 2 1 .3 33.3 66.7

WALKING 3 1 .3 33.3 100.0297 99.0 Missing

Valid cases

Total 300 100.0 100.0

3 Missing cases 297

Ql VOTED IN 1988 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

Valid CumValue Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent

YRS 1 285 95.0 95.3 95.3NO 2 14 4.7 4.7 100.0DONT KNOW/REFUSED 4 1 .3 Missing

Total 300 100.0 100.0

Valid cases 299 Missing cases 1

Q2 GONE TO PUBLIC LIBRARY IN LAST YEAR

Valid CumValue Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent

YES 1 250 83.3 83.3 83.3

NO 2 50 16.7 16.7 100.0

Total 300 100.0 100.0

Valid cases 300 Missing cases 0

OPINION LEADERS SAMPLE

Q2A FREQUENCY OF LIBRARY VISITS IN LAST YEAR

Value Label Value Frequency PercentValidPercert

CumPercent

1 TO 5 TIMES 1 99 33.0 39.6 39.66 TO 10 TIMES 2 66 22.0 26.4 66.011 TO 15 TIMES 3 40 13.3 16.0 82.016 TO 20 TIMES 4 12 4.0 4.8 86.821 TO 25 TIMES 5 8 2.7 3.2 90.026 TIMES OR MORE 6 25 8.3 10.0 100.0

. 50 16.7 Missing

Total 300 100.0 100.0

Valid cases 250 Missing cases 50

43 HAS ANYONE GONE TO LIBRARY FOR YOU

Valid CumValue Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent

YES 1 156 52.0 52.2 52.2NO 2 143 47.7 47.8 100.0DONT KNOW/REFUSED 4 1 .3 Missing

Total 300 100.0 100.0

Valid cases 299 Missing cases 1

04 HAVE YOU CALLED LIBRARY FOR INFORMATION

Valid CumValue Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent

YES 1 175 58.3 59.1 59.1NO 2 121 40.3 40.9 100.0DONT KNOW/REFUSED 4 4 1.3 Missing

Total 300 100.0 100.0

Valid cases 296 Missing cases 4

- 94 -

Lido

USE ANY USE OF PUBLIC LIBRARY IN LAST YEAR

Value Label

NOYES

Valid cases 300

OPINION LEADERS SAMPLE

Valid CumValue Frequency Percent Percent Percent

0 23 7.7 7.7 7.71 277 92.3 92.3 100.0

Total 300 100.0 100.0

Missing cases 0

Q5 FORMAL EDUCATION SUPPORT CENTER

Valid CumValue Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent

SLIGHTLY IMPORTANT 2 7 2.3 2.3 2.3

MODERATELY IMPORTANT 3 29 9.7 9.7 12.0

VERY IMPORTANT 4 264 88.0 88.0 100.0

Total 300 100.0 100.0

Valid cases 300 Missing cases 0

Q6 PRESCHOOLERS DOOR TO LEARNING

Valid CumValue Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent

NOT IMPORTANT 1 2 .7 .7 .7

SLIGHTLY IMPORTANT 2 6 2.0 2.0 2.7

MODERATELY IMPORTANT 3 48 16.0 16.0 18.7VERY IMPORTANT 4 244 81.3 81.3 100.0

Total 300 100.0 100.0

Valid cases 300 Missing cases

OPINION LEADERS SAMPLE

47 REFERENCE LIBRARY/PERSONAL INFORMATION

Valid CumValue Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent

NOT IMPORTANT 1 3 1.0 1.0 1.0SLIGHTLY IMPORTANT 2 22 7.3 7.4 8.4MODERATELY IMPORTANT 3 160 53.3 53.5 61.9VERY IMPORTANT 4 114 38.0 38.1 100.0DONT KNOW/REFUSED 6 1 .3 Missing

Total 300 100.0 100.0

Valid cases 299 Missing cases 1

48 REFERENCE LIBRARY FOR BUSINESSES

Valid CumValue Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent

NOT IMPORTANT 1 8 2.7 2.7 2.7SLIGHTLY IMPORTANT 2 29 9.7 9.7 12.4MODERATELY IMPORTANT 3 121 40.3 40.5 52.8VERY IMPORTANT 4 141 47.0 47.2 100.0DONT KNOW/REFUSED 6 1 .3 Missing

Total 300 100.0 100.0

Valid cases 299 Missing cases 1

49 COMMUNITY ACTIVITY CENTER

Valid CumValue Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent

NOT IMPORTANT 1 19 6.3 6.3 6.3SLIGHTLY IMPORTANT 2 44 14.7 14.7 21.0MODERATELY IMPORTANT 3 99 33.0 33.0 54.0VERY IMPORTANT 4 138 46.0 46.0 100.0

Total 300 100.0 100.0

Valid cases 300 Missing cases 0

- 96 -

L.) j

Q10 RESEARCH CENTER

OPINION LEADERS SAMPLE

Valid CumValue Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent

NOT IMPORTANT 1 12 4.0 4.0 4.0SLIGHTLY IMPORTANT 2 45 15.0 15.1 19.1MODERATELY IMPORTANT 3 74 24.7 24.8 44.0VERY IMPORTANT 4 167 55.7 56.0 100.0DONT KNOW/REFUSED 6 2 .7 Missing

Total 300 100.0 100.0

Valid cases 298 Missing cases 2

Q11 COMMUNITY INFORMATION CENTER

Valid CumValue Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent

NOT IMPORTANT 1 6 2.0 2.0 2.0SLIGHTLY IMPORTANT 2 19 6.3 6.4 8.4MODERATELY IMPORTANT 3 79 26.3 26.4 34.8VERY IMPORTANI 4 195 65.0 65.2 100.0DONT KNOW/REFUSED 6 1 .3 Missing

Total 300 100.0 100.0

Valid cases 299 Missing cases 1

Q12 INDEPENDENT LEARNING CENTER

Valid CumValue Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent

NOT IMPORTANT 1 3 1.0 1.0 1.0SLIGHTLY IMPORTANT 2 14 4.7 4.7 5.7MODERATELY IMPORTANT 3 49 16.3 16.3 22.0VERY IMPORTANT 4 234 78.0 78.0 100.0

Total 300 100.0 100.0

Valid cases 300 Missing cases 0

-97 -

4

OPINION LEADERS SAMPLE

Q13 PUBLIC WORK PLACE

Valid CumValue Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent

NOT IMPORTANT 1 9 3.0 3.0 3.0SLIGHTLY IMPORTANT 2 48 16.0 16.0 19.0MODERATELY IMPORTANT 3 128 42.7 42.7 61.7VERY IMPORTANT 4 115 38.3 38.3 100.0

Total 300 100.0 100.0

Valid cases 300 Missing cases 0

Q14 POPULAR MATERIALS LIBRARY

Valid CumValue Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent

NOT IMPORTANT 1 4 1.3 1.3 1.3SLIGHTLY IMPORTANT 2 26 8.7 8.7 10.0MODERATELY IMPORTAhT 3 111 37.0 37.1 47.2VERY IMPORTANT 4 158 52.7 52.8 100.0DONT KNOW/REFUSED 6 1 .3 Missing

Total 300 100.0 100.0

Valid cases 299 Missing cases 1

Q15 SUGGESTED ANNUAL SPENDING PER PERSON

Valid CumValue Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent

$0 0 1 .3 .4 .4

$1 TO $20 10 58 19.3 21.2 21.6$21 TO $40 30 101 33.7 37.0 58.6$41 TO $60 50 65 21.7 23.8 82.4$61 TO $80 70 17 5.7 6.2 88.6$81 TO $100 90 14 4.7 5.1 93.8MORE THAN $100 110 17 5.7 6.2 100.0DONT KNOW/REFUSED 9 27 9.0 Missing

Total 300 100.0 100.0

Valid cases 273 Missing cases 27

- 98 -

OPINION LEADERS SAMPLE

Q16 FINANCIAL SITUATION COMPARED TO LAST YR

Valid CumValue Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent

BETTER OFF 1 96 32.0 32.2 32.2WORSE OFF 2 56 18.7 18.8 51.0ABOUT THE SAME 3 146 48.7 49.0 100.JDONT KNOW/REFUSED 5 2 .7 Missing

Total 300 100.0 100.0

Valid cases 298 Missing cases 2

Q17 FINANCIAL SITUATION COMPARED TO NEXT YR

Valid CumValue Label Value Frequency Percent Pprcent Percent

BETTER OFF 1 110 36.7 37.0 37.0WORSE OFF 2 35 11.7 11.8 48.8ABOUT THE SAME 3 152 50.7 51.2 100.0RA 5 3 1.0 Missing

Total 300 100.0 100.0

Valid cases 297 Missing cases 3

- 99 -

'.3