ACRL College & Research Libraries News

College & Research Libraries News

From Inside the DLSEF

Dh. Katharine M. Stokes

College and University Library Specialist, Library Planning and Development Branch, Division of Library Services and Educational Facilities, U.S. Office of Education, Washington, D.C. 20202.

A reading of the Senate and House subcommittee hearings on the Higher Education Act of 1965 (Title II-A, College Library Resources) shows that special purpose grants were aimed at encouraging (1) interlibrary cooperation in the acquisition of quality library resources, and (2) use of the new technology for processing, storing, and distributing information. The latter was in direct response to pressure from scientists to modernize methods of library organization, with emphasis on the efficient and speedy provision of information.

From the federal appropriation, the act specifies that 15 per cent must be used for special purpose grants. The institutions, in turn, must match one-third of the grant allotted.

The appropriation for fiscal year 1967 was $25 million, so $3,750,000 was available for special purpose awards, Types A, B, and C. Applications for all categories of grants totaling $60 million were submitted. The basic grants of up to $5,000 for each qualifying institution had to be considered first. They totaled $9,622,865 for 1,989 institutions, out of the 2,117 that applied.

Next, 15 per cent of the appropriation for special purpose grants was distributed among the three types. Of the 1,083 applications, there were 666 for Type A, 172 for Type B, and 245 for Type C. The 55 institutions rating 10 to 12 points on the criteria stated in the manual received grants as requested under Type A, except that $100,000 was established as a ceiling so that the number of grants would not be limited to a few large projects.

Only seven institutions were awarded Type B grants, which totaled $253,420. The recipients scored 24 points, the highest rating received among the Type B applicants. The 71 Type C grants awarded totaled $1,575,050, again with a ceiling of $100,000 on any one grant.

The applicants who failed to qualify for grants should not think their effort was wasted. The information assembled here gives some idea of the present need for academic library resources and will be useful in estimating future needs. For the next round of applications this experience in the process of “grantsmanship” will certainly be helpful.