Recent budget cuts force library employees to find added ways to maintain quality services with less funding. With no tangible allowance for much-deserved salary increases, library employees may not feel comfortable asking for raises. Even if they do feel comfortable, they may not really know how much they should be paid or how their positions compare to similar positions ­ such as social workers and county records clerks ­ within their same political jurisdiction. The Texas Library Association (TLA) decided to investigate the nature of non-librarian positions in order to determine how they compared to job positions in libraries.

Task Force

In May of 2003, Eva Poole, then TLA president, created the Salary Compensation Task Force (SCTF) to determine if Texas librarians were being underpaid. Poole appointed Leah Adams and Herman L. Totten to co-chair the SCTF and appointed members to represent each of the ten Texas public library systems (Table 1) and the fifteen academic districts. Because of time constraints, the study was limited to academic and public libraries only.

The Texas salary survey model was based partially on the California Library Salary Survey. Adams, who has over five years experience in the development and installation of personnel management systems, adapted the survey to allow for additional means of analysis. Adams has also participated in the development of pay structures and policies, prepared comprehensive survey instruments (including both quantitative and non-quantitative analyses of jobs), and developed performance appraisal instruments for a variety of government entities throughout the country. She and Totten worked with members of the SCTF and trained them before collecting data and evaluating job positions.

table 1

Methodology and data collection

After SCTF members were trained, a letter was sent to the directors of all 552 public libraries and over 150 academic libraries in the state requesting specific information (Table 2). The letter also indicated where and by what date the directors should send the information to the committee.

1. Current job descriptions for each library position

2. Current job descriptions for comparable positions in other agencies under the same organizational jurisdiction as the library

3. Minimum and maximum pay for each position in the library and all comparable positions in the other agencies

4. Legal service population

5. Circulation, collections size, and materials expenditure

6. Fiscal Year 2002 ­ 2003 Classification Plan and Salary Schedule (Pay Plan) for each agency

7. Salary Administration Policies and Procedures for each agency

Twenty-one percent (21%) of the 552 public libraries (Table 3) responded, and 7% of the academic libraries responded to the study. TTPLS and WTLS were not represented in the study due to lack of information. Due to the low number of responses from the academic libraries, the Texas Library Association Executive Board has extended the survey in hopes of receiving a more representative response from TTPLS, WTLS, and the academic library sector.

All of the salary information received was converted to annual salaries based on a 2080 hours per year standard work year. Job positions that did not work a full 40 hours a week were converted to an annual salary by determining an hourly rate based on total hours worked per year and multiplying the hourly rate by 2080.

Some of the libraries submitted salary scales with a minimum and a maximum. Other libraries submitted actual salaries or averages based on number of incumbents for a position. In these two instances, the midpoint or market average was used. For the purpose of this study, the midpoint represents what the market will pay to an employee that has achieved the basic skills needed to perform the job functions at a satisfactory level.

All job positions in the information from the surveys were entered into a spreadsheet, which was used to display the job positions by organization, position title, salary, evaluation, and comparable score. Each job position was reviewed and organized by essential skills and evaluations into identified job categories. Each job category was further reviewed to ensure that each position was placed in the appropriate job category based on evaluation.

Task force members evaluated each position within the areas (public or academic) that they represented using 10 compensable factors (Table 4). They then assigned a score to each position based on the requirements for the position. The compensable factors were then used to compare the positions from the libraries and the other comparable entities in their political jurisdictions.

Each compensable factor identified in a job position was assigned a compensable value. The compensable values were added to determine a compensable score. If two positions were comparable, they were given a similar compensable score.

table 4

Compensable factors

1. Scope of duties

2. Educational requirements

3. Previous related experience

4. Problem solving, creativity and freedom to act and decision making

5. Consequence of errors

6. Contracts required

7. Physical working conditions

8. Sensory/mental requirements

9. Environmental working conditions

10. Responsibility for directing and instructing others

All SCTF members reviewed the data, evaluated the information from the libraries and the comparable entities, and sent their findings to the responsible co-chair for assessment. Each SCTF member was responsible for assuring the accuracy of the information.

Results of the study

Job categories

Each job position, regardless of its actual job title, appeared to fall into specific job levels within specific job categories (Table 5). Job category titles were assigned to positions within all organizations that accomplish similar tasks and have similar compensable factor values.

table 5

Job classifications

Compensation inequities

The study indicated that library employees are paid on average 11.37% less than comparable positions within agencies in the same political jurisdiction. Some positions are paid 50% less than comparable positions.

According to the data, job positions in smaller libraries tend to be underpaid more often than job positions in larger libraries ­ 24% of the positions paid less than comparable positions serving a legal service population of fewer than 25,000. The average legal service population for the study was approximately 76,000.

The data revealed that professional librarians were paid more comparably because of the existence of pay plans and pay policies that described the position and the pay scale. This trend was not found in libraries serving a legal service population of fewer than 25,000.

The final compensation study will be available in September 2004. The full report, which will include data for both public and academic libraries, will be posted on the TLA website.

Conclusion

Performing professional pay studies may reduce the risk of pay inequities. Libraries would benefit significantly from having current, up-to-date job descriptions for every job position in the library. Job descriptions would provide the written information needed to make accurate comparisons. The up-to-date job descriptions would also reflect changes the positions may experience over time. The changes could warrant the reclassification of a position.

The job classifications identified in this study may be used to create a statewide standard job description for library positions. The identification of these classifications could also lead to generic job descriptions that may be adapted by libraries as they develop their own job descriptions. 

Leah Adams is the library director for the Sammy Brown Public Library in Carthage, Texas. 

Herman L. Totten is regents professor of library and information sciences and faculty executive assistant to the president of the University of North Texas.